Goodling Makes The Smart Play

What did they expect? To do anything else would mean not having learned anything from the Libby debacle.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales's senior counselor yesterday refused to testify in the Senate about her involvement in the firings of eight U.S. attorneys, invoking her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Monica M. Goodling, who has taken an indefinite leave of absence, said in a sworn affidavit to the Senate Judiciary Committee that she will "decline to answer any and all questions" about the firings because she faces "a perilous environment in which to testify."

With all the emails released, none showing any wrong doing, various people remembering bits and pieces of this silliness, all the Dems are doing is setting a perjury trap that could be sprung for no better reason than a lost memory on an insignificant item. They'll use anyone or anything to get to Rove, Cheney or Bush.

Screw 'em. She has every right to take the Fifth in this non-story with which the media and the Dems are obsessed.

Comments

[mkultra]

"Screw 'em. She has every right to take the Fifth in this non-story with which the media and the Dems are obsessed."

Where did you get your law degree, Dan? So why don't you enlighten the rest of us with your musings on 5th Amendment jurisprudence.

Oh, and by the way, while you're at it, run down the DC Circuit's case law on the subject.

You might as well be talking about atrophysics.

You are clueless.

Again, where did you get your law degree? What year? And what bar exam did you take?

Tell us, Dan.

[mkultra]

In other words, neither she nor her attorney has given any reason that she should be able to invoke the 5th.

And you have provided no reason.

[Buzzy]

You don't have to provide "reasons" why you choose not to incriminate yourself. To make a person provide "reasons" they invoked the 5th amendment right not to incriminate themselves would be a violation of that constitutional right.

Let the DEMs prove that a crime was committed in firing the 8 USAs but they won't be able to do that. There wasn't any crime and they know it.

mkultra, you want to play lawyer when you don't have the slightest idea how the 5th amendment works? What a dimwit.

[vetter]

And stepping into the bat's box is the latest Dan-stalking lib buffoon, mkult! Yes oh wise attorney at law, how exactly does one invoke the fifth AND explain exactly the "reason" why? Stick with Kos, feeling smug and watching Perry Mason reruns, you've got nothing to offer here.

[nowinger]

Why would someone invoke the Fifth Amendment if nothing criminal had occured? If you did nothing wrong, let alone criminal, why would you want to invoke the right not to incrminate yourself?

It is getting harder and harder to believe that these firings were anything other than politically motivated, payback to at least some of these attorneys for failing to do their jobs in a way that benefited the Republican party, which by the way is illegal.

[Hi]

"Set a perjury trap."
Huh?
Kinda hard to get caught in a perjury trap if you don't lie.
Of course, if you have something to hide, or something to conceal, and feel compelled to lie, well, that's a different story. But what does a nice Bush DOJ official have to hide?
Yeah, screw 'em.

[sami]

There seems to be the implication that she is taking the fifth in order to avoid a charge of perjury. Kind of "if I testify I lie." This is hardly self-incrimination if the testimony itself is the crime. Still, the right to the 5th remains except...

Would one of the eminent legal scholars here address the issue of immunity - can't she be granted immunity in this case and be compelled to testify. Of course, I don't think one can be immunized against perjury in the compelled testimony.

[Mike Filancia]

Did anyone see Gonzales' interview with Pete Williams? It's hard to believe this guy ever went to law school...typical "argument": "I didn't know anything about the situation...I was busy keeping the President apprised of the situation (you know, the one I knew nothing about!)" -- Olbermann's take on this was hilarious. I'm a supporter of affirmative action to a degree but when you see people like Gonzales, Rice and Thomas holding positions of power, you have to reconsider...my theory is Bush doesn't want anyone around him who is smarter than he is (Cheney is smarter but totally delusional so he doesn't count)so he has surrounded himself with people who are absolutely incompetent--he sould be impeachable for this alone!

[southdakotaboy]

Well Hi the Dems have set a new standard for perjury and it has nothing to do with telling a lie anymore. All that is required now is not remembering every last detail in the exact order it happened months and years after the event.
I'm glad Bush and crew are starting to grow a backbone to these jerkoffs. What Bush should do while he still has the authority is fire all 93 and apoint the 93 most rapidly anti-liberal guys he can find and really start digging on these people. Arrest Harry Reid for that crooked land deal, start getting those ACORN people to role on political big wiggs in the Democratic Party. The gloves need to come off because being a gentleman at backalley brawl will get you killed. There are high power dems (Soros and Dean) who want to throw all Republicans in prison wether they did anything or not just like their buddies Hugo and Feidel do.

[madmatt]

Sh eis afraid of perjury because she lied to somebody who was testifying before congress...she kne wthe information was false and is thus lying scum like the rest of this administration.

[Hi]

southdakotaboy, I guess you'd advise Bush to 'Bring 'Em On!!!"
We can all guess how well that will turn out.
HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!

[jay k.]

you are 100% about learning from the libby debacle...if you are going to swear under oath to tell the truth...you better tell the truth. if you have something to hide...take the fifth. the bushies...it's not what they say...it's what they do.

[vetter]

SDboy, forget it. These freaks desperately want to believe, so speaking fact to their fancy is pointless. Remember, these are the self-same folk who believe that Clinton, disbarred for lying under oath, was "innocent" and the victim of the VRWC. They are hopelessly down the rabbithole of their own intellectual inconsistencies, Period. "Process crime," taking the fifth as an act of self protection from a witch hunt, Clinton firing ALL the AGs? Nope, doesn't even register as pertinent, let alone a mitigating factor. As Scooter Libby awaits sentencing for the "crimes" administration hater Armitage admitted to committing, we shall defer to Dan's iniatiting comment: "What did they expect? To do anything else would mean not having learned anything from the Libby debacle."
No, the only thing ya'll can do is watch them froth, laugh your ass off and be glad our "loyal" opposition is so lame.

[vetter]

Utterly OT but I just heard Tony Snow's cancer is back, apparently in his liver. Shall we hold our breath for well-wishes from the compassionate libs here, at the Puffington Toast, mydd and/or kos? Sure, sure...

[jay k.]

the real lesson from libby, and from abu gahrib and from the mis-use of intelligence and from katrina is that no one at the highest levels are going to be held accountable. that means if a congress suddenly interested in providing constitutional oversight expects accountability it is going to come at the expense of the everyday working folk...so i don't blame gooding one bit for taking the fifth. certainly gonzo isn't going to be held accountable any more than rummy was for abu gahrib. it all comes down to a white house that is nothing but a bunch of pussies. they beat their chest and talk about restoring integrity and doing not just the legal thing but the right thing...but at the end of the day they are all hat and no f'ing cattle.

[Legalize]

"There seems to be the implication that she is taking the fifth in order to avoid a charge of perjury. Kind of "if I testify I lie." This is hardly self-incrimination if the testimony itself is the crime. Still, the right to the 5th remains except...

Would one of the eminent legal scholars here address the issue of immunity - can't she be granted immunity in this case and be compelled to testify. Of course, I don't think one can be immunized against perjury in the compelled testimony."

You are correct as to your immunity point. If the Committees grant her immunity from criminal prosecution, the possibilty of incrimination resulting in the threat of criminal penalty evaporates; thus she may be compelled to testify.

As to the perjury avoidance angle, The Court has held that it is invalid to invoke the 5th amendment where one displays the "future intent" to perjure one's self. Whether one displays "future intent" is a matter of fact that must be flushed out in a hearing, which of course will take time. See the Apfelbaum case.

Her mere invocation of the 5th amendment is peculiar because no spectre of criminality has even been dispositively raised in this matter, which of course begs the questions: if no crime has been committed, why is she worried about incriminating herself? The reason - she intends to commit a crime by perjuring herself.

[warrenb]

Mike wrote..."my theory is Bush doesn't want anyone around him who is smarter than he is."

Brilliant! Couldn't have nailed it better myself. makes total sense to me. I, too, saw that dreadful "Alberto VO Fired" Gonzales interview last night and I gotta tell ya everytime this guy opens his mouth, the more laughable of a figure he is. HE is in charge of our justice system??? Please...Just look at this guys body language when he is trying to make one of his so called "arguments"...You can almost see the lying and untruthfulness ooze out of him like a flowing waterfall. Can't wait till he gets grilled by the Senate. his days are obviously numbered and the Administration is just buying time to look for a replacement which is inevitable.

[vetter]

Legal, if that is really your interpretation of the 5th the I hope to God you aren't really an attorney or practicing law anywhere other than as cyber-stalker of Conservos who threaten you...

[Legalize]

And your disagreement lies where, vetter?

[sami]

vetter,
Since you disagree legal's apparently reasonable explanation, could you answer my question? Thanks.

[gil]

Excuse me Home Page.

But the Fifth does look bad. The "what do you expect" defence is really ludicrous/ What do I expect? - How about the truth? - You have any problem with that? If you are in favor of public servants never to have to answer questions about their jobs, jobs that we tax payers pay for, then you are a Liberal now, not a Conservative. Is funny how conveniently you Republicans "fix" your ideas to fit the situation. You are against big Governmetnt... Until a Republican President is the one creating it, then you have no problem. You are against "big brother" powers.... Until a Republican President aquires them. You are for fiscal responsibility... Until a Republican Prsident forgets about it. You are for a strong Military, until a Republican President puts our Military in the worst shape in our generation. And now the part of "responsibility and serious Governance" has no problem with our public servants taking the fifth!!!

You had no problems with Clinton testifying about a land deal, and ending up answering questions about a sex with Monica (not a darn thing to do with the original investigation), then you should not have any problems with any one testifying to Congress about what can potencially be a really more serious charge than a BJ in the oval office right? Back then you were right..... "No one is above the law" Remember? Now is .... Take the fifth because just in case, and besides what do you expect?.... I "admire" the consistency of Republican "convictions" Home page.

[Mike_in_NY]

"Can't wait till he gets grilled by the Senate. his days are obviously numbered and the Administration is just buying time to look for a replacement which is inevitable."

Maybe Fred Thompson would be interested....He looks just like that guy on Law and Order....

[Hard Right]

Legalize again shows thinking is something he's not good at and how much of a hypocrite he is. He pronounces her guilty simply because she is a Rep. If it was a Dem he wouldn't be naking such statements.

The goal of the Dems for testimony is take any inconsistent statements made and then accuse them of perjury. The left knows this and doesn't like when we expose their little game.

[Zifnab]

Legal, I thought you'd given up posting here. Good to see another reasonable voice back on the boards.

"HE is in charge of our justice system??? Please...Just look at this guys body language when he is trying to make one of his so called "arguments"...You can almost see the lying and untruthfulness ooze out of him like a flowing waterfall."

You've seen Gonezo's political record, haven't you? I don't think he's won a position on merit alone since Bush plucked him from obscurity back in the 90s. Appointed to legal council. Appointed to Texas Supreme Court. Appointed to Secretary. Appointed to legal council again. Appointed to AG. I believe the "Daily Show" suggested he was appointed to his newspaper route back in middle school.

Dude makes ANS's success look merit-based.

[Hard Right]

What's amusing is how they want to to say Clinton was unfairly hounded. The difference is there was a significant appearance of improper and possibly illegal behavior. There is no such evidence or appearance here despite the efforts of the Dems to say there is. BTW, how many convictions of Clinton admin people?

[Legalize]

HR, if one wishes to invoke the 5th amendment one must do so with a reasonable basis of a fear of criminal penalty resulting to herself, as a result of her testimony. Her stated reason for invoking the 5th is the fear of being prosecuted for perjury even if she tells the truth. How can she be afraid of this if she tells the truth? How many witnesses would we have if they were permitted to invoke the 5th because they feared the possibility of being charged with "perjury" even though they intend to tell "the truth."

As previously stated, the intent to perjure one's self is not a valid use of the 5th amendment. Nor is fear of a "political witch hunt." Nor is protecting someone else (arguably this would be obstruction of justice). So, other than the recycled talking points you have so lovingly spit out, what is your position on the actual legal issues at play here?

[sami]

zifnab,
I think legal (excuse me if I'm putting words on your kb) is simply suggesting that she's pleading the fifth to avoid testimony because she knows she either perjures herself or opens the can of worms just like butterfield in Watergate.
To your assertion that dems are looking to frame the poor woman - bushwah. The repubs have done a pretty good job themselves.

[ME]

These are fun times... watching right wingers make utter fools of themselves while defending an administration from delayed oversight (and since the republicans didn't do any oversight for 6 years, there's plenty of material available to oversee!!!).

Dan Rhiel says she's taking the Fifth to avoid perjuring herself, because the Dems are laying a trap!

I'm starting to think that Rhiel is a parody...he can't be serious right? I mean, we're in Monty Python territory here, this is so absurd.

If what Rhiel is saying is true, than anybody, anywhere, with any testimony, could take the fifth, because there's a chance they could perjure themselves.

Of course that's rediculous. You can't plead the fifth on a future hypothetical.

Someone taking the fifth is not, as Dan sees, a vindication of that person. It is not, as Dan sees, proof that this is a witch hunt. No, what it does indicate, however, is that this person in concerned that they might have commited a crime. That's it.

How can you be such a hack Dan? do you do this intentionally to feed the idiots a daily does of bullshit so they can continue to hold on to their rediculous beliefs? are you just nuts?

You've got to be a parody.....one day you'll come out and laugh at everyone who defended you, making clear what fools they are for promoting the utter crap you write...right? right? hope springs eternal i guess.

[scarshapedstar]

"What's amusing is how they want to to say Clinton was unfairly hounded. The difference is there was a significant appearance of improper and possibly illegal behavior."

Appearance is in the eye of the beholder. The sun "appears" to revolve around the earth.

[Crazy Politico]

Amazing how many folks haven't listened to Leahy & Co. on the committee. They are looking for ANYTHING to nail ANYONE, so a 15 minute difference in appointment times would be enough for them to scream "LIES! LIES!" and look for a perjury charge.

As for the firings being politically motiviated, DUH! US Attorney's are political appointees, who work at the pleasure of the President. He can basically fire them for any reason he wants.

If they were only poltically motiviated, why wasn't Patrick Fitzgerald fired, since he was obviously chasing Bushites??

[Tom Ritchford]

I don't quite get your argument.

From reading, it appears that the Fifth Amendment allows you to avoid testifying if you believe that your statements might incriminate you.

In other words, she's saying, "Were I compelled to testify, I might reveal that I have committed a crime."

This is happening at the same time that Gonzales saying he may find out that U.S. Attorneys were purged for political reasons.

Please explain why you think this is a Good Thing for your "Conservatives"?

[Zifnab]

"The difference is there was a significant appearance of improper and possibly illegal behavior. There is no such evidence or appearance here despite the efforts of the Dems to say there is. BTW, how many convictions of Clinton admin people?"

That's a great question, HR. How many of Clinton's guys were convicted? And how many hours, how many millions of dollars did we spend pissing down Monica-gate? $40 million plus? Investigating Christmas Cards?

We haven't gotten anywhere near Bush's Christmas Card list. Although, if this isn't criminal, I dont' know what is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hq5hTDIiwZo

[Zifnab]

"If they were only poltically motiviated, why wasn't Patrick Fitzgerald fired, since he was obviously chasing Bushites??"

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-0703200151mar20,1,7008970,print.story?coll=chi-politics-stories2&ctrack=1&cset=true

"The ranking placed Fitzgerald below "strong U.S. Attorneys ... who exhibited loyalty" to the administration but above "weak U.S. Attorneys who ... chafed against Administration initiatives, etc.," according to Justice documents.

The chart was the first step in an effort to identify U.S. attorneys who should be removed. Two prosecutors who received the same ranking as Fitzgerald were later fired, documents show."

[Fred Beloit]

This is great, a bunch of new idiots are on the march. They have completely forgotten about The House Committee on Unamerican Activities that produced a team of Leftist Hollywood figures taking the fifth to avoid the fact they would have to tell the lie that they were not communists. Kos, please send us more of these geniuses. One can't but be happy to see open bigots like Mike Filancia joining the fray to help the Lefties look bad.

[Fred Beloit]

Zif, would you be so kind as to show something, anything, illegal about the firings. Unless you can propose something, this affair is merely politics as usual.

[Legalize]

You mean the proceedings that the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional because it is violative of the 1st amendment to criminalize mere membership in a political party? Those inherently un-American proceedings? See Slochower v. Board of Education:

//"...we must condemn the practice of imputing a sinister meaning to the exercise of a person's constitutional right under the Fifth Amendment. The privilege against self-incrimination would be reduced to a hollow mockery if its exercise could be taken as equivalent either to a confession of guilt or a conclusive presumption of perjury."//

See also Yates v. U.S.:

//"When the propriety of obnoxious or unfamiliar view about government is in reality made the crucial issue ... prejudice makes conviction inevitable except in the rarest circumstances."//

See also Watkins v. U.S.:

//"The mere summoning of a witness and compelling him to testify, against his will, about his beliefs, expressions or associations is a measure of governmental interference. And when those forced revelations concern matters that are unorthodox, unpopular, or even hateful to the general public, the reaction in the life of the witness may be disastrous."//

[Zifnab]

"Zif, would you be so kind as to show something, anything, illegal about the firings. Unless you can propose something, this affair is merely politics as usual."

Obstruction of Justice, for about the thousandth time now. You can't fire a prosecutor in the middle of an investigation. Period. There's no "pleasure of the President" about it. If attorney A is investigating public citizen B, and political figure C fires A to prevent the investigation from continuing, that's obstruction.

[Fred Beloit]

Thanks for helping us prove the point, Legal. "The mere summoning of..." Ms. Goodling "...and compelling [her]to testify, against [her] will, about [her]... expressions or associations is a measure of governmental interference." Yes, I know, out of the context of the case. But these political inquisitions, that are so often erroneously called Congressional investigations, offer almost no rights whatever to the unfortunates (but sometimes criminals) that must stand before them. For those not wishing to be martyred in a political purge, the fifth is the only way to go, and you folks can thank your hero Fitzgerald for this result.

[Fred Beloit]

Now YOU are truly "begging the question", Zif (Not as Legal put it. He should have written "raising the question".) Since Prosecutors are daily in the middle of an investigation or a trial, my good friend Zif, could you tell me when is a good time to fire them? Now ask yourself this question, when Clinton fired all of them, do you think there was not even one of them working on an investigation or trial? Were they all on vacation?

[Fred Beloit]

OK, my good friend Zif. Now do you agree?

[Zifnab]

"Since Prosecutors are daily in the middle of an investigation or a trial, my good friend Zif, could you tell me when is a good time to fire them? Now ask yourself this question, when Clinton fired all of them, do you think there was not even one of them working on an investigation or trial? Were they all on vacation?"

Janet Reno assigned all the prosecutors he fired as special prosecutors to the cases they were currently working on. Investigations were allowed to continue unimpeded.

[Hard Right]

And for all you know Zif new prosecuters were to be appointed and the investigations would have proceeded unhindered.

BTW, do you know why special prosecuters became necessary Zif?

[Fred Beloit]

And were all these rehired, Zif?

[Colin]

Surprisingly, Riehl is almost correct, although for the wrong reasons. Goodling did learn something from Libby's prosecution. She learned that lying under oath for the Bush administration is a really bad idea, because if they'll throw someone as powerful as Libby under the bus to save their asses, what chance does she have?

IMO, her attorney has said she'll plead the 5th in hopes that the Senate will offer her immunity in exchange for her testimony. I think they should grant immunity, and I look forward to her full and honest testimony on TV for all to see.

[Dan Riehl]

It'd be a good idea if some of the libs around here took the fifth instead of commenting and making themselves look so criminally stoopid. Once again, they are happy to ignore the provision which prohibits judgment of guilt based upon invoking the fifth. Now if a terrorist were to do it, well, that's just him ensuring his rights. Libs really do always pick the un-American side and slither up next to evil based upon their misguided politial judgment.

[Fred Beloit]

If she is smart, she learned more than what you claim, Colin. She would have learned from the Libby case that to lie, as you say, OR TO MAKE A MISTAKE under questioning is a life and fortune ruining proposition. I certainly learned that.

[Legalize]

"Thanks for helping us prove the point, Legal. "The mere summoning of..." Ms. Goodling "...and compelling [her]to testify, against [her] will, about [her]... expressions or associations is a measure of governmental interference." Yes, I know, out of the context of the case."

Uh, yeah, as in totally factually disimilar, but don't let that stop you.

"But these political inquisitions, that are so often erroneously called Congressional investigations, offer almost no rights whatever to the unfortunates (but sometimes criminals) that must stand before them."

Come down off the cross. One who stands before a Congressional hearing has all of the rights afforded anyone else standing before any criminal or civil tribunal in the United States.

"For those not wishing to be martyred in a political purge, the fifth is the only way to go, and you folks can thank your hero Fitzgerald for this result."

"Political purge." How utterly priceless. Of course, you still haven't addressed the issue that (a) pleading the 5th in anticipation of perjuring one's self is not proper invocation, and (b) if it were there would be very few criminal prosecutions in the United States. Nor can you cite any examples of such a theory being successful or being sanctioned by any court in the United States - ever.

You also have failed to address why it is ok for the WH to purge USAs who don't act as partisan arms of the Republican Party; nor have you addressed why it's ok for the AG to lie to Congress and to the public; etc. etc.

I look forward to more strawmen and talking points.

[Fred Beloit]

I remember the last line of a song Mel Brooks sang in one of his films. "The Inquisition's here and it's here to stay."

[jvf]

Obviously she (goodling) knows where the bodies are buried. I hope they do give her immunity, listen to her sing like a canary.

Fishing expedition? more like shooting fish in a barrel.

[Zifnab]

"And for all you know Zif new prosecuters were to be appointed and the investigations would have proceeded unhindered."

Fortunately, we live under a rule of law that doesn't leave such a question hanging. If you don't fire the prosecutors from the case, there's no doubt whether new appointies will prosecute as vigoriously as their predecessors.

One of the reasons subpoenas are being issued is to determine whether the prosecutors were deliberately fired to hinder investigations. If Congress can prove emphatically that Gonezo dropped these guys for persuing cases the President disapproved of, then Gonezo - and potentially the President - has committed a very eggregious violation of law - obstruction of justice.

That is the purpose of the subpoenas and the investigation. That is the broken law Congress is investigating.