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

[Fred Beloit]

An aside. Speaking about last laughs, there may be some news starting to emerge that some of you will hate as much as you hate Bush. There are some reports now that even the AP feels we may be starting to make real progress toward winning in Iraq.

[Fred Beloit]

Well, when you're right, you're right. Though the whitewater probe started about an event that happened long before Clinton was President, Starr expanded it because of the Lewinski mess (if I may use that term.)

[jim]

No, Fred; that's only if you really believe that Liberals and Democrats want Bush to lose.

For me, when Bush decided to invade Iraq after I and many others were *sure* there would be no WMD's and it would be a disaster, I decided "Well, maybe he knows something I don't. Let's wait and see."

And then everything I expected but did not want to happen, happened and then some.

So if it's finally working, that's great. Just color me skeptical, since we've been hearing success is just around the corner since two months after the invasion.

[jim]

OK. So if the GOP congress was justified in having Clinton aides deposed under oath in transcripts, it would seem that a Democratic congress is justified in wanting Bush aides to be deposed under oath with transcripts.

[Legalize]

When did I say anything about Whitewater, Fred? The GOP investigated Clinton for a laundry list of matters that involved calling up folks from the executive branch during his last term - constantly - to the point of it being a national distraction. And you're right; it had nothing to do with the presidency, but rather events that occured years before his presidency - matters having little to no public importance other than the GOP's desire to destroy the president - all while slinking around under their own rocks. Whitewater is also different because Reno actually appointed an independent prosecutor, i.e. the DOJ acted independently of the White House on the most partisan of matters.

When Clinton lied (about SEX) to the public he was ravaged in the press constantly; it was the biggest obsession of the year. Bush and Gonzo appear to be lying to the public about partisan prosecutions going on at Justice; if you're not bothered by the idea of USAs knocking on the doors of political opponents and serving them with papers, I don't really know what else to say to you. Do you know how dreadfully easy it would be for the USA in your District to indict you based on NOTHING? There is a saying in the legal community, which I'm sure you've heard: "any prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich" if he wants to. I don't want that to happen under any presidnet's watch. Unfortunately it is not at all clear that the present DOJ is free of abuse; in fact, it appears more and more likely with the disclosure of more documents, the sworn statments of the fired USAs, and the administration's own public statements, that the DOJ is being used as the president's personal law firm. If this isn't the case, or if it is the case, we need to get to the bottom of it.

As for your "les temps perdu[]" statement, you've lost me.

[Fred Beloit]

And when you're wrong, you're wrong. Do you really believe John Murtha wants us to win in Iraq after he has staked his future on us loosing?

[Jay B.]

Starr expanded it because of the Lewinski mess (if I may use that term.)

Not surprisingly, you have it exactly backwards. The Lewinsky mess came about after David Santelle and some other hack ruled that it was OK to expand the probe to Clinton's sex life -- and after Starr himself asked to be excused because he couldn't find anything that was worth prosectuing the Clintons. There was literally nothing to Whitewater. But keep thinking there's nothing important about THIS. The GOP's instincts have been perfect for 12 years now.

[bobdevo]

1. You may not invoke 5th Amendment protection using the rationale that you might perjure yourself if you testify. It only applies to criminal acts alredy committed.

2. You have a right not to incriminate yourself - but you don't have a right not to testify - so if Congress grants her either transactional or use immunity - she MUST testify - or go straight to jail - do not pass go.

3. The idea that a Department of Justice may invoke the 5th Amendment when being asked about DOING HER JOB is patently absurd. She doesn't have to incriminate herself - but she can't keep her job and not testify.

[Fred Beloit]

Delving into past events does not always cast light on the present. It will be interesting how this plays out. If a scandal can be made out of an innuendo, it is never a good thing. "You are a philosopher, Thrasymachus, I replied, and well know that if you ask a person what numbers make up twelve, taking care to prohibit him whom you ask from answering twice six,, or three times four, or six times two, or four times three, 'for this sort of nonsense will not do for me,' - then obviously, if that is your way of putting the question, no one can answer you." (Socrates, Plato's Republic.)

[jim]

"And when you're wrong, you're wrong. Do you really believe John Murtha wants us to win in Iraq after he has staked his future on us loosing?"

And when you're generalizing and misinterpreting at the same time, you're really wrong.

John Murtha wants the troops to come home, because he - along with most non-partisan experts - consider Iraq to be a disaster and a debacle that cannot be won.

He has looked at what appears to be reality to him, and acted accordingly.

Let's say that he is the cynical politican you think he is. If that were so, he would *definitely* want to be right about this. And if he thought there was any chance of us "winning" - then he would be supporting us staying there and winning.

No one wants to have the US fail on this large a scale. But Murtha and others are facing that we ALREADY HAVE. And they are following through on this - because you don't get out of a hole by digging it deeper.

[Mike Filancia]

Fred, What are you smoking? Bush was never a fighter pilot, you dope, he NEVER COMPLETED HIS TRAINING! What part of that fact don't you get? The thing that truly amazes me is how Bush supporters just continue to hold on to their delusions no matter hwo many facts they have in front of them--this kind of obstinacy makes you a prime candiate for the loony bin, Fred!

[nowinger]

Sadly, Bush has been very successful in instilling a culture of fear and hate among a substantial number of Americans, this fear has caused them to throw objective reality out the window. There is nothing these terrified people wouldnt believe or condone if it came from a source they believed to be tough on terrorists. They've already condoned torture, prisoner abuse, warrentless wiretapping on American citizens, holding American citizens in legal limbo, the idea that they also condone turning the DOJ into another arm of the Republican party and making the criminal justice system another form of dirty tricks isn't surprising. The end justifies the means.

[Fred Beloit]

G. Bush flew fighter planes, my dear friend, Mike. That makes him, can you guess????A fighter pilot. You are confusing his training with his service period, I believe. Nobrainer, before you call other people terrified, perhaps you might provide us some of your own courageous exploits. No fibbing now.

[caveman]

my name dan riehl. me type on keyboard. me like to club lion. me caveman. me grab woman by hair, me drag her back to cave. me have son on way now. me caveman.

[Hi]

chickenhawks come in many different varieties:

"Fighter Pilot' Georgie declined being assigned a foreign station, thus avoiding Viet Nam and letting others take the risks for which he merely cheerleaded...

and where or where are the Bush twins while other peoples children are killed?

[Tom Ritchford]

Calling someone a "fighter pilot" because they trained for the job at the taxpayers' expense and then backed out of actual fighting is like calling someone a parent because they have a lot of sex.

[Ralph]

It IS very telling that Goodling is taking the fifth:

From an article co-authored by an actual Stanford JD (doctor of jurisprudence), Dahlia Lithwick:

The idea seems to be that Goodling, a 33-year-old graduate of Pat Robertson's Regent University School of Law, could say something to Congress that's at odds with what McNulty or other DoJ-ers will say and thus expose herself to future charges if a future court doesn't believe her version. This is spin.

You can't take the Fifth because of some hypothetical future risk of perjury or obstruction of justice or making false statements to Congress or the crime of concealing information from Congress "by any trick, scheme or device." [...] If you could take the Fifth for maybe-someday exposure, then a witness at a criminal trial who had nothing to do with the crime at issue could refuse to testify based entirely on her claim that a prosecutor might subsequently allege that her testimony was untruthful. You also can't take the Fifth because you think your questioners are hostile, points out Neil Kinkopf, a professor at Georgia State University College of Law and a Clinton-era DoJ official.

[Fred Beloit]

Tom, where did you hear he backed out? By the way, what fighter did you fly, Tom. or was it a bomber? Or maybe you were a rifleman? No? In the artillery perhaps? A diver? Were you a mess kit repairman? Please now, no undue modesty. Tell us about your service to the country? Medical corpsman? USO? Coast Guard? How about Job Corps? Anything that gives you the right to look down on your betters? Anything at all? Perhaps Hi can help you. He has the stones of a Nero, oh, er hero, no, Nero.

[Fred Beloit]

Yes, actual Stanford JD Lithwick, do you see now what a terrible thing Fitzgerald hath wrought? It seems the legal community is divided over this question in spite of actual Stanford JD Lithwick, esq. A Constitutional crisis looms. Looking forward to the Supreme Court decision on this matter.

[jim]

I doubt I could get out of testifying in a murder, by pleading the 5th because I might get in trouble for perjury.

Similarly, I doubt the same would be a viable excuse for not giving testimony in any situation when subpoenaed.

Since the Fifth Amendment literally means "Self-incrimination", I would think that it only applies to testimony that would incriminate one's self in crimes that have **already been committed**.

And not against the hypothetical possibility of being charged with crimes **in the future** of perjury or similar, that come from the **testimony itself**.

But I guess we'll see how it all shakes out.

[caveman]

caveman like dan riehl. dan riehl write at caveman level. caveman understand! liberals bad. caveman eat liberals. when breakfast liberal sausages??!!

[Jimmm]

Gee Dan, more Repubs with faulty memories? Another reason why Repubs should get out of the driver's seat in DC: even the young ones are exceptionally prone to "senior moments."

Goodling's reasons for taking the Fifth: "The prosecutors are out to prove that I'm guilty"; "other defendants might testify under oath that I did something wrong."

If defending this is what the typical Republican opinon-monger has fallen to, then in this case, I actually pity Dan and his ilk/

[Jim]

Still think it's about "nothing," Dan?

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wned/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=1059437

[hastingspete]

Hah! A non-story, huh. That's why Republican congressmen and senators are backpedaling away from Gonzalez and the Administration so furiously here. They know a real story when they see one, and this one isn't losing legs.

Tell me: what is it, it has been five weeks now, and we have the AG scandal, the GSA scandal (organzied corruption of the worst sort), the VA hospital scandal, Libby busted and Plame still speaking out. You think these are all "non-stories"? Let me guess: Lewinsky, Travelgate and Whitewater were REAL stories. These? Piffle. Nonsense. Politicization of the Justice Department, party-druiven use of GSA funds, disgraceful treatemnt of vets, perjury convictions and a reminder that a undercover CIA agent had her cover blown. Non-stories. All of them.

You guys have collectiovely lost your minds. You deserve (and will) wander the wilderness for forty years.