Comments (65)

mbbsdphil wrote on March 26, 2007 6:22 PM:

Like Ms. Toensing, Mr. Dowd misstates his law. The Constitution protects every person's right not to incriminate themselves - guilty or innocent.

Ms. Goodling, of course, is innocent until proven guilty. But as Mr. Leahy noted, it is extraordinarily rare for someone to assert their Fifth Amendment rights before they've been accused of wrongdoing, or even asked about it.

Martin Morgan wrote on March 26, 2007 6:24 PM:

The same day Novak publishes "No Pardon for Libby," a staffer takes the 5th.

Shouldn't have dispelled the illusion so soon.

tmhout wrote on March 26, 2007 6:25 PM:

i hope they call her anyway, ask many pointed questions, and at least make her sweat in front of the american people

PTF wrote on March 26, 2007 6:26 PM:

Mr. Dowd:

You might want to try out that line and see it plays down in Gitmo. Or in the various Navy brigs around this country.

Or if you can't get in to either, I'm sure I can find Maher Arar's phone number somewhere... He's up in Canada, don't you know.

sholom wrote on March 26, 2007 6:26 PM:

Dowd himself said: "The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real,"

To me, that sounds awfully close to: "if my client answers truthfully, she'll be charged with a crime."

The logical question is Leahy's: “The American people are left to wonder what conduct is at the base of Ms. Goodling’s concern...."

As my daughter would say, "duh"

Ad Absurdum wrote on March 26, 2007 6:37 PM:

Does Ms Gooding get to return to her Justice Department functions after this stunt, just like that? If so, she'll be the first among many, if not all called witnesses.

CT Voter wrote on March 26, 2007 6:38 PM:

To me, that sounds awfully close to: "if my client answers truthfully, she'll be charged with a crime."

Or, like he's trying to set up the meme (to be echoed mindlessly) that his client has to do this because the big bad Democrats are just totally out of control, and the Virgin Mary herself would probably get tripped up by that jerk, Leahy. I think that's what he's trying to do.

But in the minds of the public, I think it's just going to backfire. When I hear that someone has taken the Fifth, I think "Guilty!"

Susan MacDougal wrote on March 26, 2007 6:41 PM:

There's a fishbowl cell in the L.A. County Jail that Ms. Gooding should try out.

this guy wrote on March 26, 2007 6:46 PM:

am i alone in reading all of this as a feeler for immunity in exchange for full testimony? (and leahy coming back with a big big ol' cuppa "nice try.")

TinaVT wrote on March 26, 2007 6:48 PM:

Are there any rules about misuse of the fifth amendment? Say, for protecting someone else instead of yourself?

Mark wrote on March 26, 2007 6:50 PM:

Bud Cummins is on CNN right now and he is mad as hell. He was willing to give the administration the benefit of the doubt for the longest time. In my opinion, he is the most dangerous guy to the White House since nothing bad about him has emerged.

These bureaucrats should never have picked experienced prosecutors to try slandering.

He called out the justice department for not having any documentation of a performance review prior to the firings.

An absolute A performance as far as I am concerned.

Just a little disappointed that the reporter never asked about the aide taking the 5th.

cars wrote on March 26, 2007 6:58 PM:

Bud Cummins-

The DOJ document dump reveals many emails where Monica was trying to help Griffin (Rove's pal) take Cummins job. She was pretty much making sure Griffin got the job and was coaching him about it.

Ad Absurdum wrote on March 26, 2007 7:00 PM:

I do like the sound of Monicagate.

Tom Betz wrote on March 26, 2007 7:01 PM:

this guy: No, you are not alone. "Fishing for immunity" was the first thing that came to my mind when I heard about this. She's right in line for a of a conspiracy or "accessory to" charge, and she knows it.

Goodling is exactly the sort of person who should be offered use immunity. Unlike Poindexter and North, who rode use immunity to overturning their convictions on appeal, Goodling is a minor functionary with no authority who simply followed the orders of her criminal superiors. Use immunity would force her to tell all, and future prosecutions of her superiors would lose nothing by it.

hank wrote on March 26, 2007 7:07 PM:

Mr. Dowd, it's amazing that you even passed the Bar exam and are a practicing attorney.

Now, sit down and shut the fuck up.

Robin Michael wrote on March 26, 2007 7:10 PM:

Quote--Or, like he's trying to set up the meme (to be echoed mindlessly) that his client has to do this because the big bad Democrats are just totally out of control, and the Virgin Mary herself would probably get tripped up by that jerk, Leahy. I think that's what he's trying to do.

But in the minds of the public, I think it's just going to backfire. When I hear that someone has taken the Fifth, I think "Guilty!"

Posted by: CT Voter
Date: March 26, 2007 06:38 PM--Unquote

Yep. And as Stephanie Miller might say, that explanation is extra bullshitty with bullshitberries. And insulting the committee like this going in is soooo not gonna make this easier for our Ms. Monica. Can the committee argue that this blanket "I got nuthin' to say to you witch-hunters" tactic is Obstruction? Just wonderin'...

corinne wrote on March 26, 2007 7:11 PM:

TinaVT: The Fifth Amendment is a personal one so I can't see how it could be used on behalf of someone else.

The only way the Fifth Amendment can be asserted as to testimony is on a question-by-question basis so she's going to have to show up and plead the fifth to each and every question Leahy asks her.

And, as someone alluded to above, this sounds very much like a fishing expedition for immunity: It's the only way to compel her to answer incriminating questions.

Pat Leahy was a prosecutor once upon a time so he knows exactly what he's doing.

Buck wrote on March 26, 2007 7:14 PM:

I wonder if they might try to play the sympathy card with this woman. Put her in front of the bright lights and have her cry.

A young attractive looking blond "girl from the heartland" look. Wouldn't be hard to do.

Dems need to figure out a way to nip it in the bud if it happens.

Ben Cronin wrote on March 26, 2007 7:14 PM:

Now, it's probably naive and, as far as these things go, a little sentimental and obtuse to suppose that Ms. Goodling is one of that small proportion of witnesses who invoke the Fifth who do happen to be innocent ... but Leahy's comments did strike me as unusually aggressive for a prosecutor.

Can any legal types out there fill us in on where Leahy's response fits on the prosecutorially-pissed-off spectrum? I know Leahy used to be a DA, I believe in Chittenden County, home of Burlington, so I'm guessing he knows what he's doing.

Robin Michael wrote on March 26, 2007 7:15 PM:

Quote--this guy: No, you are not alone. "Fishing for immunity" was the first thing that came to my mind when I heard about this. She's right in line for a of a conspiracy or "accessory to" charge, and she knows it.

Posted by: Tom Betz
Date: March 26, 2007 07:01 PM--Unquote

I somehow doubt that insulting the committee like this is an angle for immunity. Dowd's effectively telling Leahy to go Cheney himself.

Lee Crawford wrote on March 26, 2007 7:17 PM:

Dowd agressively distorts the law on Fifth Amendment privilege. Surprise. It doesn't bar testimony unless the threat of criminal prosecution -- based on the potential response to each question -- is real, and not merely speculative. A judge, not the witness, is to decide if such a threat is real. Dowd's letter suggests that if Goodling testifies, she could face perjury charges based on the testimony she would give. That's a prospective criminal offense, virtually never protected by the Fifth. The only other implication is that she already looks guilty of some other criminal offense. My guess is that Congress doesn't usually push back on these bogus claims of the Fifth (e.g., by getting a judge to evaluate whether Goodling faces a real risk; if she doesn't and won't testify, Congress should hold her in contempt), but it would be nice if they did here.

Buck wrote on March 26, 2007 7:18 PM:

Can any legal types out there fill us in on where Leahy's response fits on the prosecutorially-pissed-off spectrum? I know Leahy used to be a DA, I believe in Chittenden County, home of Burlington, so I'm guessing he knows what he's doing.
Posted by: Ben Cronin
Date: March 26, 2007 07:14 PM

Leahy is sitting on information more than we know about. A lot more. That's what I think

mbbsdphil wrote on March 26, 2007 7:23 PM:

Running scared and blowing smoke. Dowd submits a press release, a nearly identical letter, and a short affidavit from Goodling.

Dowd is trying to impeach the credibility of Congress merely for exercising its constitutional oversight authority. His citation for support? A FAUX NEWS commentary as evidence that Sen. Leahy's inquiries are not legitimate. Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!

Dowd describes Libby's peril as having stemmed from his testifying - not from his lying. He conflates all testimony from the DOJ, from many sources, and the admission by some of them that their testimony "may not have been accurate". He uses the possible lies of others as justifying Goodling's decision not to testify herself.

Dowd is flying a storyline up the flag pole to see whether the press will salute it. His circularity is astounding, his brazenness purposeful. This is an opening act. But it indicates how much the WH thinks is at stake.

From her resume, Goodling is modestly equipped, religiously conservative, a soldier for the Faithful. She appears to have a job over her level of experience and talent, one that requires a familiarity with the law, but little experience of it. She is a pawn and a distraction. But she may have knowledge of communications that could imperil the liberty of her colleagues. Like Stalin's chauffeur, Goodling's problem may be that she knows where too many of the bodies are buried to let her testify.

Robin Michael wrote on March 26, 2007 7:26 PM:

Quote--She appears to have a job over her level of experience and talent...

Posted by: mbbsdphil
Date: March 26, 2007 07:23 PM--Unquote

In THIS administration? Heavens, no!!!

PeeJay wrote on March 26, 2007 7:32 PM:

Buck sed:
Leahy is sitting on information more than we know about. A lot more. That's what I think
<<

Aye, me Bucko! You got that right. And Dowd knows it too, but he probably does NOT know JUST WHAT info Leahy has up his sleeve.

Leahy has the nuts and he's slow playing the hand. Looks like a huge pot building up.

captcha: sheep...being led to slaughter BWAHAHA

John wrote on March 26, 2007 7:38 PM:

A top lawyer in the DOJ takes the fifth. Think about it. It's unbelievable.

s wrote on March 26, 2007 7:42 PM:

At this point, her 5th amendment privilege claim is more likely to go to the question of whether or not she obstructed justice by destroying relevant documents rather than testimony that hasn't yet been given. She probably knows where the bodies are buried and maybe even helped dig the hole. If I was Leahy, I'd have her sweat for awhile and then offer limited immunity deal - use the small fry to catch the real fish.

mbbsdphil wrote on March 26, 2007 7:54 PM:

Ethics rules limit the uses to which Dowd can put the information he acquires from Goodling. But, Washington is a town built on secrets, both keeping and disclosing them. (See, Hoover, J. Edgar's abuses, or rent a copy of "Advice and Consent" for more entertaining examples.) Imagine the chips Dowd is accumulating!

ND wrote on March 26, 2007 8:02 PM:

I am not a criminal lawyer, but taking the 5th in civil actions creates the presumption that the answer reveals criminal conduct. My memory is that the 5th cannot be invoked in the manner Dowd implies (I'm just being careful that some wild-eyed Democrat does not associate my clients behavior with someone else's potentially criminal behavior). It must be a more solid concern that the testimony would reveal criminal conduct.

That being said, the question leahy asks is the right one. I think there are three possible answers: 1) possible obstruction related to document handling/destruction; 2) conspiracy to mislead Congress; and/or 3) obstruction in one of the criminal prosecutions involving one or more of these dismissed USAs. I am betting it is the last one - the benefit of slowing down or derailing a prosecution was discussed in the meetings/documents/emails. It is probably related to Lam's Foggo case, and it will get out.

tekel wrote on March 26, 2007 8:37 PM:

Buck says:

I wonder if they might try to play the sympathy card with this woman. Put her in front of the bright lights and have her cry. Dems need to figure out a way to nip it in the bud if it happens.

-------

In terms of pre-emptive measures, might I suggest a little torture? It would make for great TV. The Geneva conventions are quaint, right? And it's not cruel or unusual- we're torturing LOTS of people all over the world, so one more or less really won't make any difference.

If we torture her before her scheduled tesimony, she'll be too shell-shocked to cry in front of the TV cameras.

Ryan wrote on March 26, 2007 9:43 PM:

Aren't we supposed to be liberals? The 5th Amendment right is absolute. The statement by Goodling's lawyer was absolutely correct in principle (at least in the part about the 5th Amendment).

In practice, however, it's generally understood that very few people "take the 5th" unless there is clear underlying crimnal conduct. We can circumstantially infer some sort of wrongdoing from any invocation of the Fifth Amendment, but we cannot and should not do so explicitly, like Leahy has done here.

It was cheap. And for me, the best thing the Dems have going is that I believe that they are the party of the Constitution. Don't throw it away for short-term point-scoring.

Jen wrote on March 26, 2007 10:06 PM:

Uh, Ryan? Leahy didn't say she was guilty of anything. In fact, in the statement above he asserted that she is certainly within her rights to take the 5th. He just added that this choice has the American people wondering what's up.

That's certainly true, eh? It's a perfectly true, very lawyerly statement that in no way impinges on her rights. Or ours, to wonder.

Buck wrote on March 26, 2007 10:06 PM:

Ryan, read his comment again.

He said "The American people are left wondering...".
Absolutely true and a fair statement of the facts.

Mark wrote on March 26, 2007 10:14 PM:

Ryan,

At first I had the same concern about Leahy's statement.

Reading it over again, all he really says is he wonders what conduct Goodling considers could be prosecuted. It is a statement on her thought process instead of an assertion of actual guilt.

That Leahy is one smart cookie.

visitor wrote on March 26, 2007 10:14 PM:

First of all, why is she off on a personal leave of absence with return date unknown?
Secondly, invoking the 5th is so synonymous with watching crime programs on TV where you have someone testifying in a trial and the defence attorney shows his client is innocent and the supposed real criminal takes the fifth under questionning. I know that is the first thing that comes to my mind when I hear someone is invoking the 5th.
Doesn't look good for the integrity of the United States Justice System.

1Watt wrote on March 26, 2007 10:14 PM:

Aren't we supposed to be liberals?

I a progressive, not a friggin wussie.

Ben Cronin wrote on March 26, 2007 10:39 PM:

I think what Ryan is saying is that our larger point about the necessarily non-partisan nature of much jurisprudence -- even political operatives taking the Fifth -- is what we're supposed to be all about as the party of the Constitution (sounds like a good slogan, btw).

And for the record, I think 'liberal'is a far better term than 'progressive.' The latter is too wrapped up in a kind of constant, Freshman-in-college indignant chic, whereas the former is tolerant, nuanced, but ultimately brave, like the British "Old Whigs" of the early 18th C.

daCascadian wrote on March 26, 2007 10:41 PM:

Buck >"...Leahy is sitting on information more than we know about. A lot more..."

I suspect so.

The Democrats seem to hold all the face cards. Gonna be an interesting hand to watch be played out. Certainly is going to take too long though. Meanwhile people`s lives bleed away.

(code = crush)

"As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities." - Voltaire

RepubAnon wrote on March 26, 2007 11:02 PM:

I recall some commentary that Congress needs strong evidence of criminal conduct in order to pierce "executive privilege" claims for top White House officials.

We've just had a DOJ attorney claim there is a strong probability of criminal conduct. (I don't think you can plead the 5th just because you plan on lying under oath when questioned.)

Now you can't use the fact that someone took the 5th as evidence at trial that they were guilty - but I wonder whether you can use it to establish cause to pierce executive privilege claims by that person's bosses based on reasonable suspicions of criminal wrongdoing?

Then, too, this isn't just any person - this is a Justice Department attorney. Shouldn't taking the 5th be at least as good a reason to fire a Justice Department attorney as investigating Duke Cunningham?

michael_stevens wrote on March 26, 2007 11:07 PM:

I can't imagine Dowd (or any quality attorney) would have recommended Goodling plead the 5th if she didn't have direct knowledge of conduct that was potentially criminal. She's an underling's underling, Dowd has to know the congress isn't going to try to pin all of AttorneyGate on a low level spokes-model. And if she actually pleads the 5th in congress, on national TV (as she would definitely be forced to do), she would become the poster child for corruption within the Bush administration and probably be cited for contempt, become disbarred, etc... This isn't the game a smart attorney plays if his client has no knowledge of wrongdoing.

My take: She definitely knows something incriminating. This is a clear play for immunity.

Oddities: If he wants a deal, why is Dowd playing hardball with Leahy? Why is Dowd suggesting his client has no knowledge of improper actions, let alone criminal misconduct? He has to know she will have to trade incriminating evidence for immunity.

Very unlikely, but remotely possible: Contrary to the letter, this isn't Doyd's idea at all. His client is one of the Kool-Aid drinking faithful who is willing to take a bullet for her bosses. (I don't buy it for a minute, Maybe for W, not for Gonzo.)

parrot wrote on March 26, 2007 11:07 PM:

You cannot take the 5th to protect someone other than yourself. I am thinking that you cannot take the 5th to make statements that will implicate others because those others might implicate you. That is why we have conspiracy laws. My guess is that they'll let Sampson testify before Congress (either or both Houses) and then call Goodling. If they ask her specific questions about Sampson's testimony the only way she could concievably take the 5th is if there is a criminal conspiracy to obstruct...and, she will have to answer any questions that do not tend to incriminate herself. So, she will testify and will have to take the 5th on specific questions with the advice of counsel.

If I were the House I would immediately ask the Attorney General what the DOJ's policy is for career or political appointed employee's of the United States to take the 5th in non-criminal proceedings before Congress...and would that mean that an investigation would have to be started as to why they would take the 5th.

Yes, it will be a long, hot summer...and I'm doubting that Libby's legal defense treasure will be enough to staunch the many legal wounds that are about to be inflicted.

Michael Stevens wrote on March 26, 2007 11:19 PM:

parrot:

I can't imagine her attorney would want her to plead the 5th to *any* questions. Once she starts down that road, the Senators could ask her any number of straw-man questions designed to make her look guilty.

Say she refuses to answer questions about e-mails, they could ask her how many e-mails she had personally destroyed. They could ask her if she was aware of any e-mails implicating the president in this matter. When testifying in front of congress, there is no judge to throw out irrelevant questions. The moment she pleads the 5th, she's cooked.

That's why I think this is just a play for immunity.

AlanDownunder wrote on March 26, 2007 11:56 PM:

By submitting in writing that the house and senate committees are kangaroo courts, is Mr Dowd guilty of contempt of congress?

Slippery Slope wrote on March 27, 2007 12:04 AM:

I’m not an attorney so some of what I reason out of the above may not be correct, but here goes…

Above post, partial quote:

“It must be a more solid concern that the testimony would reveal criminal conduct.
That being said, the question leahy asks is the right one. I think there are three possible answers: 1) possible obstruction related to document handling/destruction; 2) conspiracy to mislead Congress; and/or 3) obstruction in one of the criminal prosecutions involving one or more of these dismissed USAs. …
Posted by: ND
Date: March 26, 2007 08:02 PM"

If Goodling were to be asked what her name is could she plead the 5th without an obstruction charge? Hmmm… Of course not. Why? Because, accurately stating her name does not incriminate her in a crime she may have committed. Yes /no? Okay, so, the committee calls her up and asks her a battery of questions related to each of the three above broad issues. What happens if she pleads the 5th on something that a factual answer could in no way incriminate her in a criminal act, but rather simply points to others? What kind of process would be needed to ferret out such obstructionist pleads?

Does Dowd need to know every nuance of her involvement to accurately counsel her on which (each and every) questions she could legally plead the 5th vs those that she would legally be obligated to answer?

Set aside the political jeopardy to the DoJ and WH, could Goodling plead the 5th to every question without legal jeopardy?

Slippery Slope wrote on March 27, 2007 12:16 AM:

That's why I think this is just a play for immunity.

Posted by: Michael Stevens
Date: March 26, 2007 11:19 PM
_____________________________________

If I were a tough prosecutor would I first want someone to go on record with his/her plead of the 5th, then start the immunity bargaining?

Giant Teapot wrote on March 27, 2007 12:44 AM:

Dowd and Goodling have certainly handed Leahy another good reason for insisting that Rove and Miers testify under oath.

RobinMichael wrote on March 27, 2007 12:51 AM:

Quote--If I were a tough prosecutor would I first want someone to go on record with his/her plead of the 5th, then start the immunity bargaining?

Posted by: Slippery Slope
Date: March 27, 2007 12:16 AM--Unquote

Exactly. And, as I believe I mention above, why go on record antagonizing the Committee by veritably defaming their ability to be impartial jurors if you want a deal of any sort from them?

The only answer I can come up with so far is the same answer I see behind every other way the DOJ and administration have handled this to-date: They don't have a freakin' clue what to do and are going willy-nilly with any harebrained scheme that sounds good at the moment.

Olbermann tonight mentions there are 666 days left for this administration; I somehow doubt they can last that long.

Hmmmmmm wrote on March 27, 2007 1:09 AM:

Make her take the 5th over and over.... See what questions she will not answer. Even non-answers give a hint at where the crime lies. If she doesn't come to the hearing, they can have her tossed in jail for contempt of Congress. That is what a subpoena is for.

Slippery Slope wrote on March 27, 2007 1:56 AM:

I'm curious about possible follow-on steps.

If Goodling testifies and pleads the 5th, once or more, then immunity could be offered and/or invoked. Could she then be compelled to testify under immunity? If the same questions are asked and if she refuses to answer, I would anticipate that she would go to jail?

Likewise, if she is compelled to answer, while under immunity, the same questions for which she previously pleaded the 5th and those answers demonstrate that she did not incriminate herself, would this also likely lead to jail time?

Steve Talbert wrote on March 27, 2007 3:38 AM:

After all that's gone on the past 6 years. These people in the administration really do think they can create their own reality. I think it has a lot to do with their religious ferver.. they just are praying for God's Will to manefest it self and really have no other plan or purpose. It seems delusional to rational people and we can't believe that is really what is happening but I think it really is.

DG wrote on March 27, 2007 5:58 AM:

Ryan,

Whether we're liberals or progressives (or moderates or conservatives, for that matter), we can't lose sight of the fact that Ms. Goodling and all her colleagues at the Department of Justice are very clearly in a position to know whether or not this administration attempted to politicize our justice system to an extent never before known.

So first of all, no one disputes Ms. Goodling's right to "take the 5th" in regards to any testimony that might reveal her own wrongdoing. Most of us are simply suggesting that she can't use the 5th amendment to avoid perjury or obstruction of justice charges that might come about if she lied in response to the questions she had to answer. Nor do we feel she can cite the partisanship of the committee as a reason to invoke the 5th.

But more than that, we have to remember that if she has engaged in wrongdoing, or if she has kept silent about others' wrongdoing, she would have done so while she was supposed to be serving the people of the United States. She is in a position of authority, and she may have abused that authority in order to work against the people's interest.

It's a perversion of justice to suggest that a public servant, and especially one with all the resources of the executive branch arrayed in her defense, should enjoy any greater protection from prosecution than a common defendant. Indeed, while I'm not suggesting she enjoy any less protection, she certainly should be subject to certain punishments (loss of her job, disbarment, possibly impeachment) merely on suspicion of her having done these things.

One of the great ironies of recent years has been the extent to which the well-connected and powerful have availed themselves of protections meant to serve the oppressed and powerless. From Oliver North getting off on a technicality, to Judith Miller claiming that she needed to protect a source disseminating lies from the very White House -- and then maundering about being sent to jail in order to protect that source -- we're seeing what can only be called a liberal's worst nightmare: the Bill of Rights being used to protect the government.

I have no qualms about bringing the full weight of the law down on these people.

sy wrote on March 27, 2007 8:07 AM:

I wonder whether any committees of the bar associations to which Dowd is a member have taken any interest in his letters to Congress and the representations therein with respect to the breadth of the 5th Amendment privilege.

Anonymous wrote on March 27, 2007 8:42 AM:

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/27/the-right-to-remain-silent-or-not/#more-8077

SOME PEOPLE SAY....that the exact opposite is happening--that Dowd and Leahy are at this very moment negotiating for more information....

rumpole wrote on March 27, 2007 9:16 AM:

It's posturing. You can only take the fifth with regard to specific questions asked by the Committee. "What's your name?", for example, ain't one of them. And you can't take 5 just because the atmosphere is politically charged. Akin Gump has been through this before. It's all posturing.

Bullsmith wrote on March 27, 2007 10:41 AM:

Has this ever happened before? Has a serving employee of the Justice Department taken the 5th before Congress? A lawyer no less.

I assume they're trying to make Leahy look like McCarthy (of course that makes Goodling look like a Communist) but even McCarthy wasn't calling DOJ legal staff was he? And if he was, did they really refuse to answer any and all questions as Goodling is claiming she will?

This may be all very legal (or not), but it reeks to high heaven.

ND wrote on March 27, 2007 11:49 AM:

She can "take the 5th" in response to any question that could lead to or be used as evidence in a criminal prosecution (against her). I do not know if the right is lost in a Congressional hearing if any questions are answered without invoking the right (as with grand juries). For some reason, I thought that was what all the mobsters did (take the 5th to all questions), but I may only be remembering parts of their testimony. If granted immunity she may not take the 5th.

During Dowd's braindump with her, she probably admitted to one of the following: 1) withholding/altering/destroying documentary evidence being requested by Congress (or forseeably related); 2) failing to provide witnesses going to Congress to testify full information (or worse, giving them misinformation) or agreeing that certain information would not be given to Congress; and/or 3) during discussions over the USAs firings, she and/or others discussed how helpful it would be to "shut/slow down" onging investigations/prosecutions and/or discussing how the replacement USA would shut/slow down such investigations/prosecutions. All of the above are crimes.

If Dowd even asked her if anyone mentioned or engaged in the above and she did not know for sure, he may want to play it safe and stall for time long enough to see if there will be evidence that would contradict his client's memory. I doubt it is the latter, but it is possible.

ND wrote on March 27, 2007 11:54 AM:

Well well, at least number 2 above appears to be the case: from TPM just now:

TPM Reader BK on Monica G.

Monica Goodling does have a good faith basis for pleading the Fifth Amendment - just not the ones in her lawyer's letter that are getting all the attention.
Under the federal False Statements statute, 18 USC 1001, it is a felony to cause another person to make a false statement to Congress. Since McNulty has allegedly told Senator Schumer that he made a false statement to Congress based on information provided to him by Monica Goodling, Goodling could very well be prosecuted for a Section 1001 violation.

All the rest of the crap in her lawyer's letter is intended to sooth as much as possible WH anger at her for invoking the Fifth.

PrahaPartizan wrote on March 27, 2007 12:23 PM:

Call her and make her testify and turn her into the poster girl for the administration. Having a witness repeat their assertion to a purported 5th amendment right on public television does wonder for burning the corruption by the claimant into the public psyche.

If she doesn't have anything to hide, then she's got nothing to fear in testifying. That's the Publican's mantra, isn't it? What does she have to fear? Justice from her country or retribution from her party? I have interest in protecting her against the latter if she's willing to jettison the former.

Mooser wrote on March 27, 2007 1:33 PM:

If we take Mrs. Panstreppon's research in its full implications Ms. Goodling could need 5th Amendment protections against stating her name.

Things will not redound to Minica's "credit".

Riley wrote on March 28, 2007 9:54 PM:

If the Bush administration didn't fear the truth, wouldn't it be eager to tell it? Assuming that the administration's minions did nothing wrong, would a simple telling of the truth would make the Democrats look like fools.

Instead, the Bush administration plays word games, provides a succession of ex post facto revisions to its earlier stories, and erects flimsy procedural obstructions. In doing so it not only looks guilty, it looks foolish.

Bashful wrote on March 29, 2007 12:43 AM:

"I do like the sound of Monicagate.

Posted by: Ad Absurdum
Date: March 26, 2007 07:00 PM"

I agree - it's like Monicagate II - The Rematch

gorge@hotmail.com wrote on April 26, 2007 6:27 PM:

sex tips for small penis

kate@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 1:50 AM:

Generic Cialis. Buy Generic Cialis

suse@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 4:14 PM:

hello

dennis@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 4:52 AM:

hello