Comments (40)

Peter Principle wrote on April 3, 2007 3:23 PM:

Turley: "It's a very clever question, because if she does not invoke the Fifth [for the internal Justice Department investigation], then she obviously has a fundamental contradiction in her legal position."

Well, Goodling could always argue that because the fix is already in with the internal probe, talking to them wouldn't REALLY be self-incriminating.

It would at least be an honest answer.

Hmmmmmm wrote on April 3, 2007 3:30 PM:

Offer her immunity, this little fish knows too much. Once granted immunity there is no FIFTH.

Rebel wrote on April 3, 2007 3:32 PM:

Why not just say it?

You can not claim the 5th Amendment for crimes you have not yet committed. To do so would in itself could be a possible crime - Obstruction of Justice.

Security Code: black - As in "Frederick Black."

Greg Diamond wrote on April 3, 2007 3:33 PM:

If Goodling is in fact cooperating with the DOJ's internal investigation and answering questions, has she waived her invocation of the Fifth Amendment with regard to Congress? I think as a matter of law, she can't have it both ways. Worth asking Turley this question.

xoxo wrote on April 3, 2007 3:38 PM:

Note that in Garrity v. New Jersey and later cases, the US Supreme Court held the Fifth Amendment applicable to statements coerced from government employees under a threat of dismissal for failure to cooperate. As a recent FBI publication explains,

"The Supreme Court has ... held that a police officer can be threatened with job loss for failure to answer questions or otherwise cooperate with investigators. However, any answers given under such circumstances cannot be used against the officer in a criminal trial. This ruling has led to the creation of the so-called “Garrity warning” used in internal investigations. This warning, in various forms, advises law enforcement employees that they must answer questions posed by investigators or face the possibility of administrative sanction, including job loss. The warning also advises that answers provided by the employees cannot be used against them in a criminal proceeding. In cases where criminal prosecution against law enforcement employees is contemplated, the employees are advised that they do not have to answer questions but that any answers can be used against the employee in a criminal proceeding."

http://tinyurl.com/26mvvo

TheraP wrote on April 3, 2007 4:11 PM:

Once again the security code has the answer: Fire! As in fire her.

johnsonjohnson wrote on April 3, 2007 4:15 PM:

Yeah, to be clear: as I understand it, the government isn't allowed to fire someone for invoking their fifth amendment privilege. And, loyal progressive that I am, I really don't think we ought to be encouraging them to do so. (The constitution has to count for something, even when it's the bad guys who are invoking it.) But note that, if she's granted immunity, as xoxo suggests (quoting from Garrity v. New Jersey), there's no fifth amendment privilege -- and hence she can be fired if she still refuses to answer questions. That strikes me as a perfectly good option -- I don't think we're really after her criminally. We want the big fish.

Scott L wrote on April 3, 2007 4:15 PM:

Why not let DOJ question her then make the people who questioned her talk.

bordersmuggler wrote on April 3, 2007 4:23 PM:

Scott L,

Who in this DOJ can be trusted?

Greg Diamond wrote on April 3, 2007 4:24 PM:

One wonders then whether she's received a Garrity warning of any kind. If not, it would appear any of her internal statements to DOJ investigators would not be admissible in a criminal trial (that is apparently why the Queens DA would not speak with the officers after the Sean Bell shooting). But, what investigator at the DOJ ostensibly charged with looking for bad acts, would fail to give a person who has invoked the Fifth a Garrity warning? I can't believe career investigators at the DOJ would stick their necks out to protect Gonzales or Goodling by not giving her a Garrity warning if her statements are, as even Gonzales has admitted, relevant. I suppose the investigators could decide not to quesiton Goodling but then what type of investigation is that? So, my hunch is she has been warned. If so, what the heck is she still doing at the DOJ?

Dennis wrote on April 3, 2007 4:24 PM:

Too many people in the Bush administration have already been offered immunity or a hearing behind closed doors.

Haul Gooding in for contempt of Congress and let her set in jail as long as she chooses.

I'm sick and tired of the Democrats playing the game of "chicken". They need to either get on the stick and make some big cases stick or shut the hell up. The longer they fool around the less chance they have of winning in the next elections.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

Anonymous wrote on April 3, 2007 4:30 PM:

Ms. Goodling may BE a Big Fish. She is not a secretary or assistant. SHE screened US Attorney candidates, she made decisions, she acted. She was put in a role demonstrably above her legal abilities precisely because she was an opposition party researcher and loyalist who appears to know no bounds to her zeal and, therefore, her conduct. She isn't the king or queen, but she is not a pawn. She's a piece worth taking, and it will require a strategy.

Congress should pursue her testimony, but NOT offer immunity now. Granting immunity removes her ability to refuse to testify. But there's a big difference between voluntary full cooperation and defensively answering questions as a hostile witness.

Like Libby, even real jeopardy may not turn her, but it's the only way to get even the correct time of day from someone who regards Democrats, perhaps even the Constitution, as Fallen Angels.

Dan wrote on April 3, 2007 4:45 PM:

Greg - Can you please explain for us what a "Garrity Warning" is and how it applies here?

I'm sure you're correct, but my ignorance is complete.

dogfacegeorge wrote on April 3, 2007 4:49 PM:

"And yet Goodling, though on indefinite (and voluntary) leave, remains on the Justice Department's payroll."

Are you saying that she's on paid leave? If so, what are we taxpayers paying her to do?

dogfacegeorge wrote on April 3, 2007 4:51 PM:

Maybe somebody should ask who approved her leave and why?

Greg Diamond wrote on April 3, 2007 4:53 PM:

Dan, see the comment from xoxo above (posted 3:38). He/she brought Garrity to my attention. Interesting issue.

Dan wrote on April 3, 2007 4:55 PM:

Ah, very good. If I could read, I'd be dangerous.

Thanks much

otob wrote on April 3, 2007 4:57 PM:

Come one guys and gals. Congress has asked that she interview. Her lawyer will make her go and interview. He'll advise her to take the 5th on issues that might put her legal jeopardy. But even when she does that, it can't be construed as an affirmative criminal act.

Part of the problem I have with all the zeal in threads like these is - if we take away rights from the party we don't like, it doesn't matter if it is the 5th amendment or the right of habeas corpus. The very act of taking away the rights is the problem - regardless of who is suggesting it.

And as long as we (liberal / progressives / not-republicans) engage in that kind of hyperbole, it really reduces the "moral high ground" effect of the following: we want the truth. I know they are playing dirty pool - but we have to learn how to beat them without resorting to the same tactics.

Also, it is time for subpoena's. Just because we can't play dirty doesn't mean we have to play gentile. A little more aggressiveness would go a long way - as long as it is by the books.

Anonymous wrote on April 3, 2007 5:03 PM:

"I'm sick and tired of the Democrats playing the game of 'chicken'. They need to either get on the stick and make some big cases stick or shut the hell up."

Let's see, Democrats have been in the majority in Congress for what, three months now? And they still haven't been able to make some big cases stick? What's wrong with those slackers?

Uncle Don wrote on April 3, 2007 5:42 PM:

Note to johnsonjohnson:

Monica Goodling IS "big fish." She is (at least for now) a senior counsel to the Attorney General of the United States and the liaison between the Department of Justice and the White House. What's more, she has (at least for now) the authority to hire and fire Executive branch employees. Using that authority, she placed scores of rightwing zealots in key positions in the federal government.

Make no mistake, Monica Goodling is "big fish" in her own right and is the key to others of equal interest.

The code is "seem" as in "Things are not what they seem."

Alex wrote on April 3, 2007 5:42 PM:

I know, it's amazing, isn't it? In three months they haven't been able to do more than the Republican Congress and Senate did in 6 years under a Republican president. Please can the pious outrage, 'Dennis'. We've gotten a lot done and we're about to do a lot more.

Shertaugh wrote on April 3, 2007 5:43 PM:

Re: "If Goodling answers questions in the DOJ internal investigation, does she waive her 5th A privilege before Congress?"

The answer is "no". The Fifth Amendment privilege is proceeding specific. For example, assume the CEO of a large defense contractor is sued by the company's shareholders for securities fraud for materially misrepresenting his company's profits. Assume also that the CEO answers questions in a civil deposition about the alleged securities fraud. Under the 5th A, the CEO cannot later assert the 5th A privilege in a civil trial.

BUT . . . but . . . if the DOJ (unlikely) opens a criminal securities fraud investigation into the same activity covered by the civil lawsuit, the CEO retains his right to invoke his 5th A privilege and refuse to answer questions before a grand jury or by the FBI, for example. Of course, any answers given in his civil deposition can be used against him in a criminal trial. But his answers in the civil lawsuit do not constitute a waiver of his rights in the criminal case.

So, looking at Goodling, she can answer questions in the DOJ internal probe without waiving her right to remain silent before Congress, I think. As a matter of political theater, that would be risky. But as a matter of 5th A law, it's no problem.

enough wrote on April 3, 2007 6:28 PM:

What is Down talking about in his response re: the 6th Amendment?

MAPstr wrote on April 3, 2007 6:36 PM:

There is no thing as indefinite leave at the DOJ. They can't hold her job open indefinitly. This is a government job.

Greg Diamond wrote on April 3, 2007 6:42 PM:

Shertaugh, thanks for the helpful insights on the Fifth.

code word: wind

noshrub wrote on April 3, 2007 6:47 PM:

who's payin for her lawyer...just askin

Anonymous wrote on April 3, 2007 7:40 PM:

"So, looking at Goodling, she can answer questions in the DOJ internal probe without waiving her right to remain silent before Congress, I think."

Couldn't Congress then just subpoena the DOJ internal probe and find out what Goodling told them?

Kimberly wrote on April 3, 2007 7:43 PM:

In answer to the above question, "What is Down talking about in his response re: the 6th Amendment?"

Posted by: enough
Date: April 3, 2007 06:28 PM

6th Amendment to the US Constitution reads:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."

Maybe Goodling wants to waive her right to a speedy trial? Let's see... who would prosecute any trial against her?

Would it be the US Attorney in DC? Isn't he one of the USAs appointed under the patriot act provision?

More gumming it to death, and running out the clock, all in "good faith" of course!

otob wrote on April 3, 2007 9:36 PM:

i suppose if her paid leave were already accrued, then technically the tax payers already paid for it. but who is going to "fire" her considering everyone above her seems to be trying hard not to land in the pot of hot water?

DG wrote on April 3, 2007 9:56 PM:

Re: firing for the fifth.

I think what Turley means is that any normal AG would have said by now, "what, you're afraid that you'll get caught having done something illegal if you testify? Good God, woman -- we're the Justice Department. If you're afraid of prosecution, we certainly don't want you overseeing prosecutors. Get out." After all, isn't Goodling a political appointee?

Of course, having a criminal in this administration seems commonplace now, so she's unlikely to get fired for something as minor as the appearance of impropriety.

steambomb wrote on April 3, 2007 10:24 PM:

Book her Dan-O! Hah anyone remember that one?

tiny ... wrote on April 3, 2007 11:05 PM:

How can she plead the 5th before any questions are asked?
Doesn't she have to show up and plead to each specific question?

steambomb wrote on April 3, 2007 11:17 PM:

~~~How can she plead the 5th before any questions are asked?
Doesn't she have to show up and plead to each specific question?

Posted by: tiny ...
Date: April 3, 2007 11:05 PM ~~~

No. I think they passed a bullshit law to do away with that kind of theatre. I think I remember screaming at my TV when I heard about it. Oh wait maybe that was.... no I do think it was that one. hmm so many....anyway I think that is what happened.

1970cs wrote on April 4, 2007 12:09 AM:

Sheldon Whitehouse doesn't appear to be a back bencher, and is a former USA in Rhode Island.

Anonymous wrote on April 4, 2007 2:34 AM:

Security code: Snake

As in, "Goodling's lawyer is a snake for pretending that Goodling has to cooperate with COngerss which has no executive power; but is pretending that the Congress might prosecute her. No, only the unitary President can prosecute usinge Executive Power. Snakes like to pretend the Power belongs to the President; but that the Legislature has usurped power form the President to prosecute and invoke Garrity. Snakes are connected to tyranny."

Peter Duffy wrote on April 4, 2007 2:54 AM:

The Senate (and the IRS) should establish who is funding Ms Goodling's attorneys. Unless she is an agressive saver/borrower, based on her DOJ income, it is difficult to see how her expensive law firm would accept her as a client in what is likely to be a protracted legal relationship.

Anonymous wrote on April 4, 2007 3:15 AM:

Peter Duffy,

Her lawyer also has a PAC which provides money to the DNC and GOP.

Peter Duffy wrote on April 4, 2007 6:27 AM:

Thanks. I hope "her lawyer" does not have to dip into his DNC budget!!!

Anonymous wrote on April 4, 2007 12:41 PM:

~~~How can she plead the 5th before any questions are asked?
"Doesn't she have to show up and plead to each specific question?"
Posted by: tiny ...
Date: April 3, 2007 11:05 PM ~~~

"No. I think they passed a bullshit law to do away with that kind of theatre. ...."
Posted by: steambomb

Actually, per John Conyers (D-MI) and Linda Sanchez's letter on the post below:

"... Fifth Amendment privilege, under long-standing Supreme Court precedents, does not provide a reason to fail to appear to testify; the privilege must be invoked by the witness on a question-by-question basis. ..."
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002945.php

bibimimi wrote on April 4, 2007 12:55 PM:

Party over Law or Country...

TREASON!!

Firing's too good for this woman.