Comments (97)

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

"The alleged concern that she may be prosecuted for perjury... [is] so far as we know an unwarranted aspersion against her employer."

The ending of that sentence is so delicious I can practically taste it. I have a feeling that whoever drafted this letter had a really fun time doing it.

Hmmmmmm wrote on April 3, 2007 3:43 PM:

"In addition, of course, the 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."

As I said, make her do it in public over and over, then try to hold onto that job.

elrapierwit wrote on April 3, 2007 3:44 PM:

Monica's problem is that she has been a political operative her entire 'legal career' to her, the law is politics..there is no such thing as rule of law in her mind...there are simply political rules.

That is why she thinks she can invoke the fifth, based on 'political opinions' being against her.
'
Needless to say, she is wrong. That is why there IS a rule of law, even if she never has respected it.

She fired people wily nily for political reasons and solely political reasons, why would an individual who does things predicated solely on political objectives even consider such a thing as rule of law necessary or essential. She doesn't.

She is a religious zealot who has used her political power to squash others and now she fears retribution. It never even crosses her mind that Congress might have to actually exercise fair and impartial rules of evidence, she didn't.

I hope they ream her a new anus.
Give her immunity...and then prosecute her for ANY reason they can find...based on the testimony of others about what she did.

Peter Kohan wrote on April 3, 2007 3:45 PM:

"Both of them were found to have deliberately misrepresented facts, which we are confident you do not expect Ms. Goodling to do. If her testimony is truthful, she will have nothing to worry about in terms of a perjury prosecution, which, of course, rests in the exclusive control of the Department."

I love it - she's afraid HER OWN DEPARTMENT is going to prescute her. Either this is all a shell game or the powers that be know that this woman knows more than what we thinks she knows - and they have threatened her with prosecution if she testifies truthfully.

Kimberly wrote on April 3, 2007 4:06 PM:

Looks like they intend for her to publically plead the 5th to each and every question, in front of cameras no less.

The references to Libby and Safavian as being completely irrelevant to this case because both were liars was an inspired rebuttal, and tossed those claims back in the lawyer's faces was comical.

Security code is "dress" (appropriately for congressional testimony)

Clay Allison wrote on April 3, 2007 4:07 PM:

Another employee has alleged that Goodling caused him to provide false testimony to Congress by failing to fully brief him on the reasons that the U.S. Attorneys were dismissed. If she testifies under oath, she must either affirm that she led a colleague to provide false testimony (a crime) or she must lie about it (perjury). She's in a trap with no way out.

Austin Cooper wrote on April 3, 2007 4:14 PM:

It's really difficult to have any empathy for these people.

It's reminiscent of so many other individuals who made a bad or outright evil cause their own -- because they were true believers or just figured they'd advance themselves ... and then made amazing, outrageous or even laughable attempts to squirm out of being held accountable for their actions.

Organized crime comes to mind. And Mussolini's Fascisti. And the nazis. Or, pick your own anology.

US8 wrote on April 3, 2007 4:17 PM:

Rep. Conyers: Please state your name.

Monica Goodling: I invoke my right against self incrimination afforded to me by the 5th amendment.

Rep. Conyers: Did you wash your hands after going to the bathroom?

Monica Goodling: see above

So on and so forth...all day long.

Security Code: pull

As in pull the rug out from under these jokers.

br wrote on April 3, 2007 4:18 PM:

Clay, if she in fact committed the law and is now going to be asked about it under oath, she certainly has a problem. She has the right to take the fifth amendment, but her employer and others can draw inferences from that. (Would a store be justified in dismissing a cashier who took the fifth when asked whether she was stealing from the cash register?) The basic reason she has problems in such a situation is that she broke the law.

And can anyone provide us with the details of the case in which DOJ and a court said that "adverse inferences should be drawn in a civil case against an employer for the invocation by its employee of his Fifth Amendment privilege"? It sounds like it might be very interesting.

What a wonderful letter.

monicawatch wrote on April 3, 2007 4:21 PM:

monicawatch - it just keeps getting better

Security word: cold. Cold month in hell for monica?

daCascadian wrote on April 3, 2007 4:25 PM:

"...If her testimony is truthful, she will have nothing to worry about in terms of a perjury prosecution, which, of course, rests in the exclusive control of the Department..."

Just remember the truth shall make you free

Clay Allison >"...She's in a trap with no way out."

Your logic is very faulty. Maybe the other employee isn`t being honest. More "he said, she said" nonsense.

There is no trap if she tells the truth. You do understand the word "truth" don`t you ?

"...you cannot save your face and your ass at the same time..." - vachon@shadrach.net

freepatriot wrote on April 3, 2007 4:25 PM:

I've said it before, and I'll say it again

where did this dumb bitch get her law license, from a CrackerJax box ???

gonna look really guilty, sitting there taking the fifth over EVERY question, and then having here lack of basis for invocation of the 5th Amendment EVERY FUCKING TIME SHE'S ASKED A QUESTION

westo wrote on April 3, 2007 4:28 PM:

Why the hell is she still employed at Justice??

nice code word - shame!

otter wrote on April 3, 2007 4:29 PM:

FWIW From NRO: "In response, attorney Dowd has just given a statement to National Review Online that suggests Goodling does not intend to go along with Conyers' request:

I think our earlier letter suffices and is very complete. Threats of public humiliation for exercising her Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights are not well taken and are frowned upon by the courts and the bar committee on ethics. Subjecting a person to public obloquy and humiliation makes the exercise of her basic rights more expensive. In a free country, every citizen should have the liberty to exercise their rights without threats or coercion."

Greg Diamond wrote on April 3, 2007 4:36 PM:

I just pulled the best security code to date: CRIME. I am not making this up.

Legalize wrote on April 3, 2007 4:37 PM:

Man, I knew oversight would be fun.

grandpa john wrote on April 3, 2007 4:38 PM:

Hard all time I see

KY3 Democrat wrote on April 3, 2007 4:44 PM:

While Goodling may be able to plead the Fifth in questions touching on her own culpability, she certinaly cannot plead in order to protect anyone else. The Fifth Amendment is not a free pass to conceal the truth from a sworn inquiry.

Goodling is courting a charge of obstruction of a Congressional inquiry or even perjury before Congress. She needs to start getting all her shit into one sock.

Security code = glove

KY3 Democrat: "Smell the glove, baby"

ahem wrote on April 3, 2007 5:13 PM:

"Subjecting a person to public obloquy and humiliation makes the exercise of her basic rights more expensive."

I think the expense here is Dowd's per-hour: I'd like to know who's paying him, because Mistress Goodling can't afford it without a little help from her friends.

As for public humiliation? She works for the damn Justice Department. And she should have thought about that before trying to run away like Brave Sir Robin.

BG portland wrote on April 3, 2007 5:17 PM:

Better code word than crime - nail. As in, NAIl the SOB's to the cross. I wonder if this conflict within DOJ may cause even more problems. If a special prosecutor type gets appointed by DOJ?? Congress?? then what fun we will have at all the dirty little secrets coming out!

Punchy wrote on April 3, 2007 5:19 PM:

I'll bet y'all $10 she refuses to show up, simply ignoring the Committee. You guys understand--these jokers have NEVER EVER had any accountability, legal responsibility, or oversight. They will DARE the Dems to find her in contempt, then cry and whine and spin it for weeks.

Sorry, but I see her defying any order to show up. We're very soon approaching a full-blown constitutional crisis, brought to you--by of all f'ed up things--our own Justice Department.

security word "screw". Apropos, I say.

Vulture Breath wrote on April 3, 2007 5:38 PM:

Maybe the simplest explanation is the right one - that she wants to plead the 5th because she has already committed a crime or crimes.

secutiy code = screw

Michael Stevens wrote on April 3, 2007 5:44 PM:

It was initially thought that Goodling plead the 5th to avoid (what was effectively) a charge of suborning perjury. The logic being that she had brifed McNulty for his untruthful congressional testimony. While this explanation seemed to be the most logical, it still had a lot holes.

For starters, Kyle Sampson also briefed McNulty. Kyle isn't stupid, why didn't he have the same concerns as Goodliing? Why did he testify openly?

Then there's the McNulty briefing itself. Many legal observers have said that even if she gave McNulty untruthful information, that sort of "he said, she said" is very difficult to prosecute.

Another oddity is that her attorneys didn't first try to negotiate immunity with congress. Legal observers suggest three was no reason for Goodling to pull the 5th card so quickly and so dramatically.

Then the Legal Times article hit and shone a bit more light on Goodling's role at the DOJ. The article suggests that Goodling held a great deal of power within the DOJ, more than almost anyone suspected. This was buttressed by the Kyle Sampson testimony that Goodling single-handedly removed a North Carolina USA from the purge list. With power comes responsibility, with responsibility comes culpability. So suborning perjury may be the least of Goodling's worries.

This is my guess as to how the Goodling timeline proceeded. Upon learning she would have to testify before congress, her high placed friends, (perhaps even the White House) recommended she first talk with attorney John Dowd.

When Dowd debriefed Goodling as to her behavior, he quickly concluded that Goodling was in significant legal jeopardy. He found that she participated in potential improprieties from her role as DOJ - White House liaison. And when she single-handedly pulled the NC USA from the purge list, it made her a final decision maker in USA firings. Perhaps she single-handedly pulled other USAs from the list, we just don't know.

I now believe that Goodling not only knows where the bodies are buried, she helped bury them. So why didn't her attorney try to negotiated for immunity? Especially when the conventional wisdom suggested she was little more than a low-level staffer. And why has she plead the 5th so brazenly, so publicly, and so prematurely?

Only John Dowd and Monica Goodling have an answer to that. Perhaps Dowd is trying to put pressure on the Administration? Although I've no idea how pressuring the Administration gets his client off the hook. Perhaps Gooding is still drinking the kool-aid and told her attorney she WON'T testify against "her" administration.

Neither of those make a whole lot of sense. I think we're still missing too many puzzle pieces to get a good handle on the truth.

Anonymous wrote on April 3, 2007 5:51 PM:

Bring it bitch! Go get 'em Conyers!

tbhull wrote on April 3, 2007 5:52 PM:

Posted by: elrapierwit
Date: April 3, 2007 03:44 PM

What you do not understand is that natural law exists on a higher plain than positive law (i.e. written laws). Monica and the rest of the good christian soldiers in BushCo place a higher vlaue on natural law.

Republican positions emanate from natural law, after all Pat Robertson, Fallwell, God, Jesus, Moses and Ted Haggard are all republicans.

Mrs. K8 wrote on April 3, 2007 5:53 PM:

Seems to me that Little Miss Goodling-Two-Shoes can only invoke the fifth relating to questions the answers to which will implicate HER and HER ALONE.

She has no right to avoid answering questions related to the implication of others, whether those others be situated more or less horizontally on the DOJ hierarchy, or those further up the food chain (i.e., the White House).

And she definitely has no right to avoid answering questions simply because truthful answers will help the respective Judiciary Committees to figure out the gory details of the conspiracy to turn DOJ into the enforcer of the RNC.

Security code: neck

As in "place your neck, uh I mean the neck of your employer right here on the investigative chopping block"

tbhull wrote on April 3, 2007 5:57 PM:

Posted by: Clay Allison
Date: April 3, 2007 04:07 PM

Your are right on that particular point. She could find herself in a Catch 22 if she did in fact mislead others that were to provide responses to Congressional inquiries. She needs to take the 5th if and when placed in that particular position.

However, one Catch 22 does not allow her to take the 5th on the panoply of other relevant questions Congress needs to ask her.

Code word: buttplug

tbhull wrote on April 3, 2007 6:06 PM:

Posted by: otter
Date: April 3, 2007 04:29 PM

Code of ethics? Please!

Conyers needs to make Dowd/Akin Gump some money by issuing a scorching subpoena to this jesus freak failure of an attorney and require her to meticulously plead the fifth to each and every questions in the very near future. Lights, cameras action truth.

Anonymous wrote on April 3, 2007 6:06 PM:

It just dawned on me: "Klieg lights and show trials."

Isn't that the Fox News channels business model?

Greg Diamond wrote on April 3, 2007 6:35 PM:

This from Wikipedia on Goodling:

"Goodling graduated from Messiah College in 1995 and then Regent University Law School in 1999. McClatchy Newspapers reported on Goodling's education noting Messiah College is "committed to an embracing evangelical spirit", and Regent was founded by Pat Robertson "to produce Christian leaders who will make a difference, who will change the world."

Now, I'm actually a church going Christian but even this stuff scares me.

Code word: judge

OhSnap! wrote on April 3, 2007 7:13 PM:

Dowd's NRO response (from otter above):

"...I think our earlier letter suffices and is very complete. Threats of public humiliation for exercising her Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights are not well taken and are frowned upon by the courts and the bar committee on ethics. Subjecting a person to public obloquy and humiliation makes the exercise of her basic rights more expensive. In a free country, every citizen should have the liberty to exercise their rights without threats or coercion."

1) insert eye roll here
2) now I have to look up the $500/hr billing rate word, "obloquy" (apparently someone is a 7-letter scrabble guru)

3) humiliation? um... I think she has already down that herself by speed invoking the Fifth and refusing to listen to offers on the table (possible immunity) by Congress...

4) so is this letter inferring she will not show up OR that her constant response will be "I take the Fifth"?

5) how does a 3-time law school-hopping "attorney" think that speed-invoking the Fifth looks? Congress doesn't need to humiliate her, she's doing *so* well on her own.

6) am I a bad person for loving this stuff?

bb wrote on April 3, 2007 7:14 PM:

Rep. Conyers,

You are so Goodling!

Alberto Gonnasolvethis wrote on April 3, 2007 7:17 PM:

Excellent article on Goodling in WaPo - excerpt/link:

Goodling enrolled in law school at American University but transferred to Regent, founded by religious broadcaster Pat Robertson in Virginia Beach.

Goodling and her lawyer declined to comment for this article, and classmates said they did not recall the reasons for her transfer. But "the curriculum at Regent is different from other law schools. There is an attempt by professors to integrate biblical principles into areas of the law," said Dugan Kelley, who worked with Goodling on Regent's moot court.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/29/AR2007032901964_pf.html

My security code="attack"

As in finally, we have a counterattack against these thugs.

BTW, anyone catch Pete McCloskey's piece on Conyers in the SF Chronicle a few weeks back? Its esp timely in light of above comments on Conyers letter:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/03/06/EDGRJN7AHK1.DTL

kentuck wrote on April 3, 2007 7:31 PM:

"In addition, of course, the 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."

Hmmmm.... this is getting very interesting. Monica has a 5th Amendment right to not answer the questions but she has no right not to show up?

stew wrote on April 3, 2007 7:38 PM:

How can someone be subject to public obloquy and humiliation from what they say about themselves? She has already admitted guilt, or at least guiltiness.

Explose Logorrhea wrote on April 3, 2007 8:08 PM:

For OhSnap!, above:

Obloquy:

1) Abusively detractive language or utterance; calumny: “I have had enough obloquy for one lifetime� (Anthony Eden).

2) The condition of disgrace suffered as a result of abuse or vilification; ill repute.

I'd say, based on definition #2: Mission already accomplished!

lolly wrote on April 3, 2007 8:12 PM:

Wow. I'm learning so much following these people.

If I'm ever accused of committing a crime--heck, if I'm caught red-handed--all I have to do is refuse to come testify. Apparently, I have some sort of right not to testify because it might embarrass me to do so!

aqualung wrote on April 3, 2007 8:19 PM:

Someone needs to ask Dowd the following: "How does answering questions truthfully expose one to public obloquy and humiliation?" Assuming, of course, that the respondent has behaved honorably, ethically and legally.

BQ wrote on April 3, 2007 8:20 PM:

Oooh, y'all missed some of the sweetest legal bitch-slapping in this exchange.

Note the snide part of the Conyers' letter where it is noted that comparing oneself to convicted
perjurers is an unwise legal theory, and that Conyers is certain that Dowd doesn't intend for his client to come in and lie (ie, knowingly suborn perjury by his client -- disbarment territory).

Thus illuminating Dowd's shrill response - Conyers' et al, just managed to make a lawyer with ice water in his veins sense the arrival of his nuts in his throat. He's not worried about "threats of public humiliation" of his client; he's worried about the possibility of his complete loss of the ability of continue to suck up legal fees from DC insiders.

Note the Freudian spectre of the Bar Association -- yer tellin me that they're gonna take Conyers' license for sending a letter that forcefully (and sardonically) educates Dowd on the finer points of 5th Amendment practice? pshaw! That leapt out because Dowd is worried about his own meal ticket.

OK, Now I get the security code references.
Here, it's fact - as in it's a fact that Dowd is worried he skated too close to the line in that letter. Heh.

NJ Phil wrote on April 3, 2007 8:22 PM:

If Goodling refuses to testify because she fears an unscrupulous prosecutor will attempt to indict her for perjury for giving truthful answers, then - just like Susan McDougal - who endured the manacles and the perp walks for refusing to testify in front of Ken Starr's grand jury - Goodling needs to go to jail for a good long time.

JC wrote on April 3, 2007 8:30 PM:

As has been said above, there is an assumption here by everyone, except for Punchy, that she will have no choice.

But why is that? What if she simply continues to ignore the requests?

Who prosecutes her? If the Justice department refuses, as is indicated by ignoring Conyers letter to the Justice department today?

Lawrence wrote on April 3, 2007 8:38 PM:

Maybe the Bushies are keeping her off the stand because they are afraid she might open the floodgates once she has sworn an oath on her sacred bible,to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Security Code: when

Anonymous wrote on April 3, 2007 8:43 PM:

Then that would be contempt of Congress. i fthe Justice Dept refused to cooperate, then they too, would be in contempt. We would have a genuine constitutional crisis. However, I don't think it would hold up before any judge, not even the Supreme Court, to say that "I was afraid I would be charged with perjury if I showed up for such a partisan spectacle, so therefore, I decided to take the Fifth Amendment and decided I did not have to show up to take the 5th Amendment... uh-huh..

Peter Kohan wrote on April 3, 2007 8:48 PM:

Re: Otter's post

It's only humiliation if she allows herself to be humiliated, if she has something to feel humiliated about, say... lying, or deceiving the Congress, or feeling the Democrats are pompous asses who (justifiably) loathe everything she represents.

Threats or coercion? Why hasn't any other Justice Dept. official felt threatened or coerced? They seem willing to testify with a transcript.

Laughable.

ROTTEN wrote on April 3, 2007 8:53 PM:

I hope this woman does not intend to harm herself. I have no sympathy for her, but this is a tight squeeze. Imagine the threats veiled or unveiled Rove has thrown at her.

She is terrified. She would rather cross Congress than cross Rove.

Security code: butter. I bet she used sweet, creamy "butter" in her brownies for Ashcroft.

Peter Kohan wrote on April 3, 2007 8:54 PM:

Re: Otter's post

It's only humiliation if she allows herself to be humiliated, if she has something to feel humiliated about, say... lying, or deceiving the Congress, or feeling the Democrats are pompous asses who (justifiably) loathe everything she represents.

Threats or coercion? Why hasn't any other Justice Dept. official felt threatened or coerced? They seem willing to testify with a transcript.

Laughable.

r€nato wrote on April 3, 2007 8:57 PM:

John Dowd is the guy who represented former Arizona Gov. J. Fife Symington III (just guess which party he belonged to), when Symington was prosecuted for defrauding a union pension fund relating to his career as a crooked developer. He was convicted, which caused Symington to resign his office.

Dowd is a ballsy GOP prick. Look for more in-your-face aggressiveness from him. That's just how he rolls.

Al in Austex wrote on April 3, 2007 9:11 PM:

This is basic Civics 101. The Committees of Congress will return checks & balances to the miscreants & criminals who would otherwise usurp Our Republic.
( And just FYI , I drive cabs ,& almost everyone I speak with has some ill will expressed toward the current Administration...mostly Iraq of course)
What do you reckon that some busy Congressional staffer has already had a close door debrief of the former FBI Station Chief :San Diego -you know that same recently retired station chief that "publicly asserted that the Carol Lam dismissal was political " What does Goodling know about the "real problem" with USA Lam ? Betcha Conyers and them will find out .
Patience in this unfolding Civic Lesson - this is history in the making .Gee I wonder who will be the Republican Howard Baker this time walking up the driveway of 1600 Pennslyvania ?

Ken wrote on April 3, 2007 9:19 PM:

What is the downside for Goodling if she refuses to testify? Any prosecution is at the discretion of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, isn't it?

"Jeffrey A. Taylor was appointed interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales on September 22, 2006. He was sworn in and took office on September 29, 2006.

From 2002 to 2006, Mr. Taylor served as Counselor to Attorney Generals John Ashcroft and Gonzales...."

Ms. Goodling seems to have a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Michael Stevens wrote on April 3, 2007 9:31 PM:

After giving it a bit more thought, I came up with a -possible- reason Dowd "may" have had Goodling plead the 5th. Dowd probably considered negotiating an immunity deal with congress. But once he had thoroughly questioned his client, gamed out all the moves, and considered the following factors, he didn't like the results.

First make the assumption that she *has* committed a criminal act. Also assume that a number of others had knowledge of Goodling's wrongdoing. Alternatively and equally damaging, there could just be strong documentary evidence of her wrongdoing. Dowd knows that Congress only need offer -use- immunity. And that this immunity would *only* prevent Goodling's own statements from being used against her. If others testified against Goodling or provided documentary evidence, she could still be charged.

This means Goodling would need the greater transactional immunity. As long as she was truthful, -transactional- would protect her from prosecution no matter what other evidence appeared. Unfortunately for Goodling, the courts have ruled that Congress is only required to grant -use- immunity. Once this -use- immunity has been granted, the witness is compelled to testify. Dowd would also assume that in any immunity negotiations, Congress would require a private "taste" of Goodling's testimony in advance.

Playing this game to the finish, one of two things would have happened. Goodling would have shown her hand to Congress and not have been offered immunity. Or Goodling would shown her hand to Congress and been awarded limited -use- immunity. If she has committed criminal acts, either result could leave Goodling worse off than she is now.

So why plead the 5th? Dowd is either holding out for transactional immunity or thinks it's fait acompli that Goodling is going to be criminally charged.

JT wrote on April 3, 2007 9:45 PM:

I think there's one very good reason she would plead the 5th in advance of being asked a question (which isn't really how the 5th works). They think they can get away with it. They are going to try to paint the Democrats in Congress as engaging in a partisan witch hunt. That's the same reason that Gonzales would make so many false statements to Congress as well.

They fundamentally do not believe in the rule of law.

The problem is that the credibility of the entire administration is shot. No amount of Fox News obfuscation is going to fool the American people into forgetting that using law enforcement powers for political ends is a prime Do Not. People aren't quite that stupid. One could explain it to even the most recalcitrant dolt with analogies to local law enforcement, pulling people over at night, and drunken friends of the Mayor.

Pleading the 5th is a desperate bluff. The FOW in Justice are up a creek, and they know it.

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

Ken,
sure it would be up to the DC USA, if Monica hadn't been up to her perky hair-band in his appointment and hadn't worked with him in the AGs counselor's office (which is where she worked, iirc)
this relationship alone would demonstrate a clear conflict of interest for Taylor (like Ashcroft eventually had to admit in the Libby case) Similarly, Gonzo will be hard-pressed to claim he has no conflict in choosing a replacement USA for Taylor.
finally, whatever crony they choose to try to choose another crony for this is going to have a hard time "cronying-up" with all of us watching.

TB wrote on April 3, 2007 10:25 PM:

Religion and politics mixed together are a lethal combination. These people have put themselves above our laws all along, trying to take a moral high ground. Fortunately, I think it is going to go down the toilet very soon...

Just to be funny, I wonder how soon nude pictures of her will show up?

Maybe that is what she is really afraid of -- being shown to be too human...

Brad Small wrote on April 3, 2007 10:27 PM:

Patience

That combination of manners, style,finely-honed wit and cunning appreciation of the power of the english language is pure JOHN CONYERS.

He is a master craftsman and a true gentleman...
who you don't want to mess with ( under circumstances like Ms. Goodling's ).

This should be great fun when the hearings go pubkic!
-Brad

Michael Stevens wrote on April 3, 2007 10:32 PM:

JT, I disagree.

As you put it, "thinking you can get away with it" is a fine and typical justification for breaking the law. But I don't see it as a justification for pleading the 5th.

If she still thought that the law didn't apply to her, she'd have willingly testified before congress and lied or said "I don't remember" the entire time. She's no G. Gordon Liddy. Her recent actions have done great harm to this Administration.

I think she's taking the 5th because she's done something illegal, because her lawyers told her to, and because she's putting her own well being above that of the Administration.

Monica Goodling is above all else a human being. Her reactions to this, hiding out and lawyering up, are all too human.

Anonymous wrote on April 3, 2007 11:18 PM:

Monica, darling. You make it all so clear that you're just taking voluntary vacation.

Since you're a government employee, remember that it is YOU who must pay for the pricey lawyers. You pay the bills. Not some RNC slush fund. Remember that.

Anonymous wrote on April 3, 2007 11:25 PM:

Security code: Roll

As in, "Roll over, Dowd: Explain your PAC money going to Congress."

Or, "Roll over Goodling, you need to get ready for Cong-yer-ess."

bcg wrote on April 3, 2007 11:31 PM:

I loved the letter: it completely takes the air out of each of Dowd's reasons for why his client doesn't have to testify and simultaneously discredits the spin he was trying to put on the case. At the same time, it spells out the likely consequences of Dowd's sticking with the line of action he is pursuing.
Dowd's claim that Goodling shouldn't have to appear because it would be embarrassing to her has no more standing than his previous claims about a hostile committee. I essence, it makes her emotional discomfort with the consequences of her own actions grounds for receiving a free pass. Although it's bullshit, I don't think it's going to float.
I would note, however, that it also makes Conyers out as a sadist.
I really don't get why she still has a job at DoJ, unless unresolved suspicions of public corruption and felonious behavior are no longer grounds for disqualification from employment in that part of the executive branch. Hmm, that sounds about right.
Actually, now that I think of Elliot Abrams, I'd have to guess conviction of a felony is not longer grounds for disqualification from a position in any part of the executive branch. And that is certainly a lot more than where Goodling is at now.

Anonymous wrote on April 3, 2007 11:42 PM:

Please educate me.

Down tells the AP that "Threats of public humiliation for exercising her 5th and 6th Amendment rights are not well taken..."

What is he talking about with the 6th?

eh wrote on April 3, 2007 11:42 PM:

She seems to be a good Bushie, so some group of Republicans is likely footing the bill for Dowd with the interest of using her as bait. Sampson volunteers to testify, Goodling refuses; it's a two-pronged attack to see how the committee responds in both cases. Goodling is going to be the subject of all of the run-of-the-mill defenses possible to keep from testifying (and likely even if she does). She's the first rock in the stonewall to be removed, and we'll likely hear a lot of legalisms in her bid to avoid just that.

I have to say, though, it's difficult to not ridicule people whose sole contribution to the site is to comment on whatever security code is at the bottom of their page. You people *do* know that the people who run the site can choose the words that appear, right? It isn't Jesus talking to you.

EH wrote on April 3, 2007 11:46 PM:

Reading the Sixth Amendment, possibly her lawyer is going to fight everything in terms of criminality. Putting several assumptions together, the administration knows that there are issues to be discovered here that rise to the level of criminality, so they're going to defend themselves on those terms. Use Goodling as the chum and then Alberto & Rove (& so on) can get a sense of how hard-lined the committee is going to be on this story.

Hardheaded Liberal wrote on April 3, 2007 11:53 PM:

John Dowd is listed as a partner & heavy hitter at the D.C. office of Akin Gump. Definitely high drawer.

But there does not seem to be a reported case on a contempt of Congress prosecution since one that I worked on during law school, United States v. McSurely, 473 F.2d 1178, 154 U.S.App.D.C. 141, C.A.D.C., December 20, 1972. And that may be the only Contempt of Congress case that has been reported since Dowd has been practicing law.

The late great Professor Norman Dorsen at Yale apparently told his students in Civil Rights & Civil Liberties class to "first, read the statute." [Next, read the cases that have construed the key words used in the statute.] Mr. Dowd apparently has not had time to ask the junior partner who is undoubtedly assisting him on Goodling's case to read the statute and a few relevant cases.

If Goodling's lawyers had read the statute, they would realize that 2 USC s 192 provides that any witness who has been subpoenaed to appear before a Congressional Committee who "willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months...."

Basically the case decisions show that in order to assert a defense to a criminal prosecution for Contempt of Congress, the witness must appear before the Committee at the time specified on the subpoena and state her objection(s) before the committee, so that the committee can explain to the witness why the objections are legally insufficient, and/or reframe the question(s) to avoid the objections, and the witness will have a chance -- on the public record of the committee hearing -- to decide whether to answer each question or not.

The committee letter is correct that a Fifth Amendment privilege protecting a witness from answering a question, like virtually every evidentiary privilege (e.g., attorney-client confidential communications), must be asserted as to each question to which it applies. A savvy questioner will be able to reframe most questions to make the privilege objection inapplicable to the question, as restated.

If Mr. Dowd does not do his research soon, he may end up leaving his client hung out to dry, with no way to assert a defense to a criminal charge of Contempt of Congress.

Punchy wrote on April 4, 2007 12:39 AM:

"A savvy questioner will be able to reframe most questions to make the privilege objection inapplicable to the question, as restated."

Count me as one who fails to see this. I think many of you are thinking about what a rational, law-abiding, reasonable person would do. I see nothing but a rabidly partisan hack with a insanely partisan lawyer who simply will defy--legally or not--Congress' attempts to get her to talk.

If she even shows up, which she wont. If the R's don't start painting her as an abused kitten and verbally sodomized patriot, which they will.

Shorter: anticipating logically legal steps only apply to those who respect such laws. These guys will not.

freepatriot wrote on April 4, 2007 1:42 AM:

Senator Leahy just hit monica's 5th Amendment invocation out of the park

here's the first three paragraphs of a letter to the Justice Department from Senators Leahy and Whitehouse

"As you are aware, Monica Goodling has indicated that she will assert her Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination before the Senate Judiciary Committee rather than testify. You must know that her testimony would be important to the Judiciary Committee, since you offered her as a Department witness and agreed in your meeting with Judiciary Committee Senators on March 8 that the Department would cooperate with the Committee in providing her testimony along with that of others."

"In the ordinary course, the Committee would discuss this with your Department to determine the best course of action with respect to a witness who has asserted Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, so as not to unwittingly hinder a prosecution by the Department. While it is premature to presume that any criminal prosecution will result from this inquiry now, it is also premature to presume one will not. It therefore seems advisable to have discussions between the Committee and the Department regarding how to proceed with regard to Ms. Goodling. Our question to you is: Who do we talk to at the Department of Justice? The office of the Attorney General appears to be hopelessly conflicted."

"We would appreciate hearing from you whether a special counsel is necessary for us to speak with, or how you suggest creating appropriate firewalls so that a non-conflicted person with appropriate knowledge and authority can have the customary discussions with the Committee regarding Ms. Goodling's testimony."

pay close attention to the first line of paragfraph 3:

"We would appreciate hearing from you whether a special counsel is necessary for us to speak with"

ouch

a little knowledge is a dangerous thing

security code: door

Anonymous wrote on April 4, 2007 1:49 AM:

How the hell can she afford this lawyer?!!!!!!!!! Who is footing these bills?

jimbo92107 wrote on April 4, 2007 1:49 AM:

I think Goodling should have her day in front of the US House of Representatives, where she can answer such hot-potato questions as, "What's your name?" with "I'll take the Fifth on that, representative."

Maybe BushCo will announce that their whole administration is taking the Fifth, and then Bush can pardon them all ahead of time! He can do that with a signing statement, right?

mooncalendargirl wrote on April 4, 2007 1:51 AM:

If what they say is true, some folks on the hill are reading digby and tpm. All this speculation about what's been going down at justice is hard to figure. Much less the pentagon links. I hope somebody can look beyond justin's enthusiasm and give the case a read:

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10764

There's a whole lot in the mix. Sun Tzu would easily identify the decoy strategy. With the Post leaving out the Sismi origins of Niger forgeries and Ledeen's buddies in that house, it seems like Doug Feith has a few tall tales up his sleeve that ain't been shook. Will congress go to wilkes et al?

Anonymous wrote on April 4, 2007 1:55 AM:

Monica Goodling is in so far over her head that I doubt she will ever testify without transactional immunity. This a young person who graduated from a Tier 4 law school in 1999, who has spent almost no time practicing law (or much of anything else for that matter) yet found herself senior counsel to the Attorney General of the United States and the DOJ's chief liason to the White House less than 6 years after graduation. She got there because of her religious and political zeal for the neo-conservative movement, not merit or experience.

I believe she has been exploited precisely because of her zeal. Despite her senior status at the DOJ, she is so young and so inexperienced that I can view her as nothing more than a foot soldier in this on-going crusade. Wiser and more experienced people would never have allowed themselves to be exploited in this way. Sampson is of the same ilk but at least he had the courage to come forward and testify rather than fall on his sword for Gonzales and Bush. He'll never work in DC again but at least he can return to Salt Lake City with some shred of dignity.

So, unless Goodling holds a good faith belief that she has committed a crime, she should step up as well rather than continue to prostitute herself to the evil men who darken the halls of the White House. Goodling deserves criticism but she does not deserve to serve time in jail for the high crimes and misdemeanors of this deeply corrupt administration.

Matt Rose wrote on April 4, 2007 2:18 AM:

Perhaps, the most bittersweet irony is that Ms Goodling does run the danger of being prosecuted by Alberto's Justice Department if she is honest about Alberto's justice department.

Think about it, would a "loyal Bushie" slipped into the line-up by Ms Goodling think twice about prosecuting Ms Goodling for telling the truth about this administration?

But if that prosecuter demonstrated "poor performance" by not prosecuting Ms Goodling for telling the truth, would Ms Goodling (loyal Bushie that she is) then feel compelled to fire said prosecuter for not prosecuting her???

Oy! My head is spinning.

Paddy Mac wrote on April 4, 2007 2:39 AM:

I think some of the first commenters, cited by digby, were correct. This Administration has never had any Congressional oversight, and thus has not the slightest clue how to proceed against an active Congress. President Bush fired Sec. Rumsfeld within hours of the polls closing, and we liberals, with our Constitutional theory of government, cheered the return of oversight. Really, it was an underling taking the fall for the failure of the leader; that's how Gonzales and his now-trapped Good(under)ling saw it. Thus, they purged the USAs after the election, not caring about the Congressional subpoena power; to them, it didn't really exist. They're now just lying and blockading out of sheer habit, since they know nothing else.

share wrote on April 4, 2007 4:29 AM:

What is the downside for Goodling if she refuses to testify? Any prosecution is at the discretion of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, isn't it?

"Jeffrey A. Taylor was appointed interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales on September 22, 2006. He was sworn in and took office on September 29, 2006.

From 2002 to 2006, Mr. Taylor served as Counselor to Attorney Generals John Ashcroft and Gonzales...."

Ms. Goodling seems to have a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Daily Kos wrote about if push finally comes to shove that the Senate Sergeant at Arms has the authority to arrest anyone as directed by the Senate including the President (because the Senate convicts on Impeachment) but I believe that Jeffrey Taylor can stop it if the Senate directs the Sergeant at Arms to arrest non-compliance to subpeona? or can the arrest take place but then??? Would like to hear more of this and how Mr. Taylor can be removed ASAP since he was never confirmed to his interim position.

sybelia wrote on April 4, 2007 4:34 AM:

I think she's taking the 5th because she's done something illegal, because her lawyers told her to, and because she's putting her own well being above that of the Administration.

But who is paying for her attorney? Dowd works for them and is protecting whoever is paying him not ms. goodling. Emptywheel poster wrote that whoever is paying Dowd giving a bribe to ms. goodling and that this in itself can be prosecuted.

Whistler wrote on April 4, 2007 5:05 AM:

One of the sweetest ironies here is that they -- as others said -- care not a whit for the concept of the Rule of Law ... apparently since they figured they were well on their way to having placed their loyal, Bushie buddies into prosecutor's jobs, everywhere. Once that was done, any true accountability goes out the window; right? And since they all got away with so much, in plain view, for so long, they'd surely get away with this, too ... right? (“Done deal! God's on our side! We can’t lose!�) But right in the midst of doing that -- insuring zero future accountability -- they get caught. And now, because of that, it's major accountability time!

That bit about a Special Counsel; ah, how sweet. To know you have a boatload of loyal buddies, perfectly willing to let you off the hook ... but you can't use 'em, because everyone inside is “conflicted�; and outsiders ain’t.

This whole mess is full of delicious ironies, for those who love the Rule of Law. It’s like the Dems are pointing to the fences they’re gonna hit the ball over, before they do.

Food for thought: anyone read Waxman's site’s letter, about having Rice come and talk to his folks on the 18th; the day after Gonzo's testimony? (Note that she's probably already guilty of Contempt of Congress, for having ignored previous info requests.) Guess who, unless I'm mistaken, is the only person who can accept a presidential resignation? If she's out of her job or in jail, then Dubya can't resign; can he? And then Cheney can’t be Prez. And bye-bye pardoning Dubya. It’s no wonder that Dubya’s dad fainted, the same day that the first connections to the White House hit the media.

You’d think religious types would know that the Bible says, “Be not deceived; God is not mocked. Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.� In this case; publicly.

baba wrote on April 4, 2007 7:39 AM:

I think she really doesn't get it, maybe she thinks the Rapture is coming next month

Security word "turn" as in turncoat i'm sure one will emerge very soon

Sara wrote on April 4, 2007 9:27 AM:

It's old law and has not been used since the time of Teapot Dome in the 1920's but the House can find a properly subpoenaed witness in contempt on its own dime -- the hearing is conducted in the well of the House -- and at least in the 1960's they still had a small jail in the sub basement of the place, built in Civil War times, just for this purpose. No toilets when I saw it, just chamber pots. I had a friend working for Hubert Humphrey back in the early 1960's, and he arranged for me to take a special tour of "wierd historical artifacts," and the old jail cells were one stop.

Elsewhere I noted that Speaker Nancy could make a big deal about hiring someone to white-wash the cells, and figure how to run in water and a drain for a flush toilet -- and then call the TV guys to watch the white-wash dry and the pipes being put in place. What was good enough for Judith Miller is good enough for Goodling and company. Of course this would only be necessary if she both refused to answer questions, inappropriately used the 5th, and offered limited use immunity, still refused. Then the contempt power of Congress is clear. If the USA for the District refuses to act, Congress can act on its own.

But Congress has to carefully tailor the questions to matters appropriate to oversight of DOJ and to matters that have a clear legislative intent. As Justice Warren wrote nearly 50 years ago this year (June 17, 1957) Congress has no power to expose for the sake of exposure. That decision day was long called "Red Monday" -- and it resulted in the "Impeach Earl Warren" signs all along our southern roadways for at least a decade. But "Red Monday" was also the death sentence to HUAC and the McCarthy and MacCarran style witch hunts.

Of course a Special Prosecutor would avoid all this mess -- whatever happened, criminal or not would go into a grand jury process. Rove (who we know really likes meeting with Grand Juries) and Meirs would not enjoy any claim to executive privilege before a GJ -- nor would anyone in DOJ. But it is private, and Monica would like that.

LongTom wrote on April 4, 2007 10:15 AM:

Can someone help me here? How is it possible to refuse to answer questions based on your right not to incriminate yourself BEFORE YOU'RE ASKED A QUESTION?

Doesn't the right against self-incrimination have to be invoked in response to a question or a specific request for information? If Monica's approach were even remotely acceptable, it would mean nobody would ever have to respond to a subpoena. "Hey, you might ask me something the answer to which might incriminate me," covers a lot of ground.

Am I wrong? Help me out here, bretheren of the bar!

melior wrote on April 4, 2007 12:23 PM:

I vehemently disagree with the suggestion that poor li'l Ms. Goodling does not deserve to spend time in jail if found guilty.

Justice should not be a patronage game, yet that's exactly how she has chosen to play her job from the outset, with full cognizance of the potential consequences.

That said, she should naturally be afforded the opportunity to exchange her testimony for a lighter sentence, should she decide to flip.

A Little Birdie Told Me wrote on April 4, 2007 12:43 PM:

Monica and Ashcroft sittin' in a tree, k-i-s-s-i-n-g...

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

Long Tom -- not a lawyer, (but Con Law in Grad School in History) -- Note above, there are two areas without question where a Congressional Committee can ask questions, and the witness must answer. 1) Oversight of DOJ. Monica is a high level Political Appointee in DOJ, with apparently the power to hire and fire, but probably many other authorities. Conyers Committee has absolute oversight powers in any of these areas.

The second area where he and his committee can always question is with regard to a legislative intent. Committee is writing legislation, considering revisions, and so on -- any question that relates to a broadly expressed intent to legislate is fair game. (For example, Sam Ervin's Watergate Special Committee was established for the purpose of assessing the recently passed Campaign Finance Legislation in 1973.) That is a broad construction -- but there has to be a legislative intent. You cannot do what HUAC used to do -- ask questions about long past opinions, associations, memberships, political beliefs because it is not in the power of a legislature to deal with these.

Remember the rules on 5th amendment are different for courts as opposed to Congress. Congress legislates and does oversight -- Courts indict, try and convict. (Congress retains a long un-used power to try for Contempt, which I mentioned above.) We saw an immunity agreement in the Plame case with Ari Flischer -- he took the 5th before the Grand Jury, and then offered testimony at trial that implicated Libby in spreading the Plame Identity -- but also made Ari a collaborator in that, to the extent he used that knowledge briefing the press during the Africa tour. That is a function where the Prosecutor decides he preferrs the testimony of a minor player more than he needs to indict. Generally, in Congress if the oversight and legislative intent matters are clear, 5th Amendment can only come into play if the question is "What did you do as part of your job -- and the answer is potentially criminal." As a DOJ employee under oversight, the ability to refuse is quite limited. Any employee has responsibility to tell a supervisor the truth related to work -- and while Monica may not realize it yet, Congress is one of her supervisors.

Now one thing that has struck me as this has unfolded is that some of the Bushies may see this as an opportunity to litigate their Unitary Government Thesis. One way to interpret the letter from Monica's Lawyer to Leahy and Conyers is a kind of "set up" for such litigation. It may be they think they have a case where Congress can be told it has no DOJ oversight powers. I hope Congress can avoid this by simply not depending on the courts to solve this issue. There are several ways they can do this.

It's fascinating -- each day raises a new bit in a whole string of bits.

PBen wrote on April 4, 2007 2:54 PM:

Remembering stories of Mob lawyers, and how they appear to be working for the street thug that got caught, all the while insuring that the Mob's interests are taken care of with the highest priority.

Not saying Bu$hCo's anything like organized crime, understand ....

Security Code: "weight"
"...you put the load right on (right on) me!"

google wrote on May 10, 2007 8:53 PM:

http://cb.ctu.edu.tw/~geek/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=57542 child porn [url=http://cb.ctu.edu.tw/~geek/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=57542]child porn[/url]
http://cc.dfps.tp.edu.tw/cch/viewtopic.php?p=84074 lolita [url=http://cc.dfps.tp.edu.tw/cch/viewtopic.php?p=84074]lolita[/url]
http://clubs.uow.edu.au/sitacs_board/viewtopic.php?p=56394 preteen [url=http://clubs.uow.edu.au/sitacs_board/viewtopic.php?p=56394]preteen[/url]

atribut957 wrote on October 29, 2007 10:13 AM:

1000 ôîðóìîâ 2 äîëëàðà 5000 ôîðóìîâ 8 äîëëàðîâ 10000 ôîðóìîâ 13 äîëëàðîâ 50000 ôîðóìîâ 50 äîëëàðîâ
Ðåôïðåäëîæåíèå: ÷åëîâåê êîòîðûé ïðèâåäåò ìíå êëèåíòà áóäåò ïîëó÷àòü 10% îò çàêàçà êëèåíêà!!!
Îáðàùàòüñÿ íà ìûëî forumdispatch(ãàâ)yandex.ru

1000 forums of 2 dollars, 5000 forums of 8 dollars, 10000 forums of 13 dollars, 50000 forums of 50 dollars
Referral: the person involved to me the client will receive 10 % from its order!!
e-mail forumdispatch (dog) yandex.ru

catrrictro wrote on November 20, 2007 3:09 PM:

drondr

IlliliaNede wrote on November 28, 2007 4:06 PM:

Live Online Porn Cams Live Hot Sex Shows Showing Hot Babes Playing

epenisa wrote on January 11, 2008 1:07 AM:

Hi all!
Nice work from your side... have a nice time with yoru blog :)
G'night

relourac wrote on January 22, 2008 4:16 AM:

cogetgetta

relourac wrote on January 22, 2008 4:17 AM:

cogetgetta

olorolca wrote on January 22, 2008 4:18 AM:

raccnaolo

monaclilil wrote on January 22, 2008 4:21 AM:

vardarcoal

delboliro wrote on January 22, 2008 4:22 AM:

trocdront

sitcaornov wrote on January 22, 2008 4:23 AM:

larolmo

sitcaornov wrote on January 22, 2008 4:23 AM:

larolmo

acrolmo wrote on January 22, 2008 4:25 AM:

zelgetboct

coricd wrote on January 22, 2008 4:26 AM:

lirolro

getbocli wrote on January 22, 2008 4:28 AM:

boacella

getbocli wrote on January 22, 2008 4:28 AM:

boacella

getbocli wrote on January 22, 2008 4:29 AM:

boacella