AP: Gonzales aide to invoke Fifth Amendment, refuse Senate questions

[sabra]

Source: AP

BREAKING NEWS AP: Gonzales aide to invoke Fifth Amendment, refuse Senate questions

Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/

---

more:

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aYXEgusB_EyI

March 26 (Bloomberg) -- Monica Goodling, a counsel to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales who helped coordinate the dismissals of eight U.S. attorneys, will invoke her constitutional right not to answer Senate questions about the firings, her lawyer said.

Goodling, one of four Justice Department officials the agency said could be interviewed by the Senate Judiciary Committee, will invoke her Fifth Amendment privilege not to answer the panel's questions, John M. Dowd, her lawyer, said in a statement. Dowd said the committee had requested her testimony under oath.

``The hostile and questionable environment in the present congressional proceedings is at best ambiguous; more accurately the environment can be described as legally perilous for Ms. Goodling,'' Dowd said in a letter to Senator Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who chairs the panel. Dowd cited statements by senators accusing the Justice Department of misleading Congress.

The Judiciary Committee is investigating whether the firings were carried out for improper political purposes, such as interfering with criminal investigations.

[wicket]

1. More popcorn already?!

:popcorn: :popcorn:

[merh]

8. I have plenty to share

[brooklynite]

26. Has anyone else found themselves watching.....

.....a hell of a lot more C-SPAN this year?

[barbtries]

40. oh hell yeah

n/t

[caledesi]

69. Hell yes! I have even set my alarm! Now that is sick. NT

[Hepburn]

100. No kidding....

....I actually put it in my Links so I could just pop it up to see what is going on.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

2. watch the squealing piglets on Faux and elsewhere

start defending her constitutional rights, and insulting anyone who DARES even think about the ramifications of that decision and reasons behind it

[ClintonTyree]

55. It's just a witch hunt...

after all, the partisan Senate committee has already made up their minds that there's malfeasance within the Justice Department. Why dignify this partisan witch hunt with honest answers? :shrug: There's nothing to see here, there's no story. She's merely exercising her Constitutional rights to uphold the unitary executive powers of President Bush. President Bush has said there's been no wrong-doing and if we can't believe our President, who can we believe? If you question our President in a time of war you're a traitor to your country! These Democrats should just stop playing the blame game and get on with the work they were elected to perform.

Besides,the Democrats are just looking to payback the honest, diligent Republican party for their investigations into the murderous, criminal Clinton administration. :sarcasm:

Does that about cover it? ;)

[Roy]

123. On the other hand.......

If she goes before the senate with the talking points given her by Mr Rove, she knows she may be frog marching alone.

Remember, this administration "DEMANDS" loyalty but do not extend it to their "faithful followers"

[ejbr]

62. Faux is right!

President Clinton's people SHOULD have been required to testify under oath, while Monica Whoeverthef&ck should be protected!
:nopity:

[John Q. Citizen]

3. All righty now, if that's true! Very cool.

[tk2kewl]

4. immunize him

[kath]

12. It's a she. Even Repugs let some women out of the kitchen, I guess.

[tk2kewl]

22. so immunize her then

and she then has no claim to the 5th amendment

[indypaul]

56. conditioned on strict veracity.

one proven untruth and immunity gone.

[KnaveRupe]

43. Look how that worked out when Ollie North invoked the 5th!

Instead, the Dem talking point should be that since this aide is invoking the 5th, SHE believes that a crime HAS been committed, and that she doesn't want to implicate herself.

Confirmation that something illegal happened here! Alert the media!!

[Scout]

94. I'm sending that talking point to my list

she sure doesn't want to implicate herself, look what just happened to Scooter ... she could be next :evilgrin:

[WorldResident]

140. Only the Justice Department can immunize

See the problem?

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. gee you think?

and so it begins

[HereSince1628]

6. Fine. He doesn't want to incriminate himself. That says something doesn't it?

So let Congress give him immunity and then slap his merry ass on the grill until his boss is well done.

[kath]

14. herself.

[HereSince1628]

34. Yeah, right. Over at TPM they had incorrectly listed Sampson

as the aid. Moving between work, shopping and home I missed the correction--

"The original version of this post, which ran for just under ten minutes, incorrectly listed Kyle Sampson rather than Monica Goodling, as the the DOJ aide who plans to take the 5th at the senate hearing."

[jelly]

48. Yes, it's huge; it means she has something incriminating to say.

If I'm not mistaken, pleading the Fifth gives rise to a permissible inference of guilt in any resulting legal proceedings against her (i.e., the jury is allowed to hold that against her).

Providing her immunity sounds like a plan to me. As much as I would hate to see any of those idiots receive a get out of jail free card, at least it would reverse the outrageous recurring theme we've seen in scandals involving this administration, where it's the little guys that always get the brunt of the blame, while the guys actually calling the shots continue to sit pretty in the WH.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

70. Technically, you're not correct:

There is no permissible inference of guilt from refusing to testify. In fact, a jury instruction will always state that no such inference should be drawn.

Of course, the reality is likely that jurors draw that inference anyway.

[jelly]

77. Very sorry; I was dead wrong w/r/t criminal proceedings, but I think it holds for civil litigation.

My observation was drawn from an issue that arose in a complex case I worked on, involving several related criminal and civil cases. I recall that an inference of guilt for our client was an issue, but I guess it was limited to the civil aspects of the matter.

[Hepburn]

102. The 5th Amendment applies at ANY time.

Does not matter if it is criminal or civil or even if there are court proceedings pending, not pending and not even considered or even if no investigation going on. One has a right to invoke the 5th ANY TIME one believes that a statement could be incriminating under ALL circumstances.

[jelly]

107. The correction concerned whether, once having taken the Fifth, an inference of guilt is permitted.

I agree with the point you make, and never intended to suggest otherwise.

[Hepburn]

108. OK....

...I should have read more closely. I see what was being discussed now.

[jelly]

109. No prob, the point's worth emphasizing.

None of which should allow us to lose sight for one moment of the most important point to draw from all of this, i.e., that the ratbastards are going DOWN.

:toast:

[Hepburn]

111. Yeah......

....just like the freaking Titanic! :evilgrin:

[jelly]

119. Rethuglicans sinking: a visual aid . . .

[Hepburn]

129. Great pic ~~ thank you!

I saved it for future use!

[jelly]

144. thanks *grin*

[krispos42]

149. How about impeaching here and Gonzo?

'High crimes an disdemeanors' is subject totally to Congressional definition, IIRC. The simple fact that Gonzo and his aides are invoking the 5th on a case involving the politization of the Justice Department means they have lost the trust of the people and cannot do their job.

Gonzo and his aides should be removed from office immediately via impeachement. One more stepping stone to Bush and Cheney.

[The Sushi Bandit]

7. Cool!

that means they know it was illegal

[ljm2002]

9. Okay now it's starting to get interesting...

and you gotta love her lawyer's words:

"The hostile and questionable environment in the present congressional proceedings is at best ambiguous;
more accurately the environment can be described as legally perilous for Ms. Goodling."

I love the way the lawyer starts out complaining about the "hostile" environment (which would most certainly *not* be grounds for taking the Fifth), and then slides right into the truth of the matter, admitting that "more accurately" there is actual legal peril for Ms. Goodling.

Well Good for us, Ms. Goodling!!! I love the sound of "legal peril" when it applies to members of the Bush administration such as yourself. Please feel free to exercise your Constitutional right not to incriminate yourself (at least that one is still in force); every time you do, and every area of inquiry where you use it will be a clue for the committee on where to dig deeper.

Let the games begin.

[coalition_unwilling]

25. Send her to Guantanamo for committing acts of aggression against

the U.S. Constitution. She's just as much an enemy combatant as any of the current concentration camp inmates.

[krispos42]

150. And there are no civil rights there...

Can we waterboard here and then drag her up in front of a secret military tribunal? Then can we take her testimony and use it to 'question' Rove et. al. in the same manner? How would they like being arrested on heresay and coerced testimony!?!?!?

[InkAddict]

75. Legally perilous?

I'd suspect it may even be physically perilous in the "small plane" sort of way.

[Divernan]

117. She has zip prosecutorial experience, but ties to Karl Rove

I came across this very interesting comment from a former Dept. of Justice employee at the following website:

www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002760.php


Monica's job at DOJ is and always has been purely political. She went to Messiah undergrad and Regent Univ. Law School and the sum total of her actual prosecutorial experience is handling traffic cases as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney in Paul McNulty's district (now the current Deputy A.G.) for about six months. Her political mojo (which is considerable in light of her age and inexperience) is allegedly linked to Karl Rove.

Posted by: Former DOJer
Date: March 14, 2007 09:22 PM

[truthisfreedom]

10. Imagine the squirming discomfort in the Porcine Wonder's office today.

Just oodles of fun.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jacobin]

13. but but but I thought they had 'nothing to hide'

:rofl:

Immunize her and then subpoena her!!!

:bounce:

[maddezmom]

15. Gonzales aide to invoke Fifth Amendment

Source: Associated press

Gonzales aide to invoke Fifth Amendment By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
4 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - Monica Goodling, a Justice Department official involved in the firings of federal prosecutors, will refuse to answer questions at upcoming Senate hearings, citing Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, her lawyer said Monday.

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

He said that members of the House and Senate Judiciary committees seem already to have made up their minds that wrongdoing has occurred in the firings.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070326/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/fired_prosecutors

---

from the WaPo on 3/23

Sampson, who resigned March 12 after the discovery of e-mails contradicting assertions that the White House was not closely involved in the firings, may be the official best positioned to describe the roles top Justice and White House officials played in the ouster of the federal prosecutors.

The Justice Department also said yesterday that Monica Goodling, a senior counselor to Gonzales who worked closely with Sampson on the firings, took an indefinite personal leave from her job on Monday. A Justice official said that she is still employed there but that it is not clear when she will return.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301396.html

[grasswire]

16. her lawyer

John M. Dowd heads the firm's criminal litigation group. Mr. Dowd has prosecuted and defended significant criminal matters at trial and in parallel proceedings before Congress and regulatory agencies for more than 30 years. His practice focuses on the trial of complex civil and criminal cases.

Mr. Dowd is noted for his representation of a U.S. district judge, a former U.S. attorney and two U.S. senators. In addition, he represented a U.S. governor in a lengthy, high-profile criminal trial involving 23 counts charging false statements, wire fraud and attempted extortion.

Mr. Dowd has represented a U.S. senator before the Department of Justice and the Senate Ethics Committee; a U.S. Army colonel in the Iran Contra Hearings; a U.S. senator before the Senate Ethics Committee; and a U.S. governor in litigation with the Resolution Trust Corporation and in a fact-finding hearing before the House Subcommittee on General Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, which inquired into the failure of the savings and loan industry. He has served as an arbitrator for the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris.

Mr. Dowd has also served as special counsel to three commissioners of a professional sports organization in the investigations of one of its team's players, a team owner and others.

Before entering private practice, Mr. Dowd was a trial attorney in the Tax Division of the U.S. Department of Justice and chief of the Organized Crime Strike Force in the Criminal Division. He tried the first prosecution of the federal RICO statute in United States v. Parness. At the request of the attorney general, he also supervised an internal investigation of the FBI and the investigation of Congressman Daniel Flood of Pennsylvania.

Mr. Dowd received his A.B. cum laude from St. Bernard College in 1963 and his J.D. from Emory University in 1965. He was a captain in the U.S. Marine Corps and a member of the Judge Advocate General Corps. He is a member of the District of Columbia Bar and the American Bar Association. He serves as a member of the board of trustees of Flint Hill School.

Mr. Dowd is listed in Who's Who in America and has been recognized for more than 10 years in The Best Lawyers in America.

[Iwasthere]

18. indefinate peronal leave, hmmm

[Jacobin]

32. Who's paying her legal fees?

This guy is going to be very very expensive and there is no way an assistant to the AG is going to be able to afford him.

Follow the money....Who is paying his legal fees.

[grasswire]

33. that was my next question

Will they use money from Scooter Libby's legal defense fund to pay Goodling's fees?

I recall that a lot of people who worked for Clinton were forced to lawyer up and couldn't afford it. And THAT was for a personal indiscretion. This one's gonna be more expensive.

[Morgana LaFey]

126. Don't worry. The RNC has deep, deeep pockets.

There is no SHORTAGE of money for the right projects.

[krispos42]

151. And the more they spend on legal defense, the less they have for 2008

Works for me!

[ClintonTyree]

65. In other words...

he represents people who are in trouble up to their eyeballs and who are usually guilty of the charges. One of those "trial lawyers" the Reich-Wing mouthpieces are always railing against? :wow:

[epppie]

17. Ok, here's the deal:

we refuse to testify under oath and if we do testify under oath, we will take the fifth.

Oh, and we have nothing to hide.

[Iwasthere]

19. They have no choice

They eventually WILL have to testify and they eventually WILL all plead the 5th. Then what?

[coalition_unwilling]

28. How about we use some water boarding? That will make them

talk.

[Divine Discontent]

31. LOVE THE IDEA

just scaring them with their own evil shit sounds good... she'll talk in seconds.

these sob's are falling, thank God!

again, this looks bad to normal americans who don't pay attention to anything but TomKat and Naomi's sweeping car garages.

[coalition_unwilling]

41. The phrase out of every Dem's mouth from now until Gonzo resigns

or is indicted should be "WHAT ARE THEY HIDING????" Alternate meme: "If Repukes don't have anything to hide, then why are they afraid to testify????" (which plays off the RW's meme about warrantless wiretapping.)

[ClintonTyree]

68. Can I be the one to hook the batteries up to Rove's testicles?

PLEASE? OH PLEASE? I know I'd have to wear several layers of gloves and my retinas would be burned out afterward but I'm willing to sacrifice so we can get to the truth of the matter.

PLEASE? :woohoo:

[jelly]

84. Be my guest.

Your sacrifice would be for the benefit of the collective. (Personally, I'm not going anywhere near Rove's testicles).

[Felinity]

110. Bad idea

What makes you think Rove wouldn't find that enjoyable?

[ClintonTyree]

112. I wasn't thinking about using car batteries....

submarine batteries would work MUCH better! ;) After I got through with him he'd be singing Soprano in the church choir. He'd make the California Raisins look H-U-G-E! :rofl:

[tofurkey]

118. Rove has testicles?

I didn't think they've descended yet.

[krispos42]

152. I just want to touch him with a crucifix

I figure the searing, burning, sulfurous fire from that contact would do the job. I have a welder's helmet and a breathing mask, so I'll be protected.

You can borrow the helmet if you want :-)

[wryter2000]

38. Welcome to DU

:hi:

You about summed it up there.

[Morgana LaFey]

127. Yes. They're trying to say the hearings are a PERJURY TRAP

after all, look what happened to Scooter Libby. True -- they actually invokved him today.

[smoogatz]

163. A perjury trap. Good one!

Nah, a perjury trap would be forcing a sitting President to testify about an extra-marital affair. This here is just asking a few public servants some direct questions about stuff they did in connection with, you know, their jobs. All they have to do is tell the truth. Of course, if they broke the law--or believe they may have broken the law--then they can always refuse to incriminate themselves.

[Morgana LaFey]

167. Hey! I didn't say it was a VALID rationale, just that that's what

they're trying to claim. Truth isn't an issue for these people, remember??

[Divine Discontent]

20. oh this is NOT good

for them! this kind of thing just makes the regular joe think their a bunch of corrupt bastards....

well...

lol.
www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<--- top 2008 items!

[notadmblnd]

21. Well by taking the fifth is it ok to assume that she knows she's guilty of wrong doing?

nt

[jelly]

54. Short answer is yes, even from a strictly legal perspective.

That is to say, she is still presumed innocent until proven guilty, but her failure to testify, combined with other evidence, can be used as evidence to establish her guilt. A jury would be allowed to hold her refusal to testify to support an inference of guilt.

**edited to day -- as someone helpfully pointed out elsewhere in this thread, an inference of guilt would definitely NOT BE PERMITTED in the context of criminal proceedings - but I'm pretty sure it would be allowed in the context of civil proceedings. Sorry.

[EVDebs]

76. Did she go to Regent University Law, the Pat Robertson school ?

http://www.regent.edu/alumni/chapters/washington_dc/DCPicnicPhotos.htm

[notadmblnd]

35. she should tender her resignation ASAP

nt

[Vincardog]

39. members of the House and Senate Judiciary committees seem already to have made up their minds that

wrongdoing has occurred in the firings.

After careful review her lawyer agrees.

[brooklynite]

23. Why, whatever for?

It was all perfectly legal.....wasn't it?

[otherlander]

24. The Ffth Amendment

"...nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Sounds quaint.

[coalition_unwilling]

29. And obsolete??? tee, hee, hee. BTW: Why is John Yuu allowed to

be a professor of law at UC-Berkeley? Or is advocating torture protected under academic freedom?

[disndat]

97. Probably

John Yoo has RW connections with deep pockets, or even to the Rev. Sung Young Moon. He was law clerk to Clarence Thomas and Sandra Day O'Connor, I think, at the time of the '00 Gore/Bush election dispute. At least, he was on the Lehrer Hour, advocating the case to validify Bush's election in Florida.

[coalition_unwilling]

145. Pepperdine (Yuppiedine) law school I could understand. But a

state-funded school of law (Boalt Hall at UC-Berkeley)? What an outrage to us California taxpayers. I had to watch Yoo on the Lehrer Newshour last night. Of course, Judy Woodruff made absolutely no mention whatsoever of the fact that Yoo had written memos advocating use of torture.

[disndat]

146. Yoo at Boalt Hall, U.C.

It's a mystery to me too how U.C. Berkeley could have Yoo on their faculty. He is the enabler to all the horrible, evil things the Bush Administration has perpetrated. Maybe some DUer from U.C. Berkeley could give us a clue on this bizarre anomaly. On second thought I don't think you can buy your way into a State University, especially, a State University as prestigious as U.C. Berkeley.

[coalition_unwilling]

154. Any U.C.-Berkeley DU'ers reading this? How did John Yoo end up

at UC-Berkeley law school?

[merwin]

49. As far as I know, this is not a criminal case, therefore 5th DOES NOT APPLY.

[jelly]

72. Unfortunately, it does apply.

From a Supreme Court case, McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34 (1924) (emphasis added) (full text at http://supreme.justia.com/us/266/34/case.html):

The government insists, broadly, that the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination does not apply in any civil proceeding. The contrary must be accepted as settled. The privilege is not ordinarily dependent upon the nature of the proceeding in which the testimony is sought or is to be used. It applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings, wherever the answer might tend to subject to criminal responsibility him who gives it. The privilege protects a mere witness as fully as it does one who is also a party defendant.

[NashVegas]

98. That's Absolutely Fine & Dandy

But the basic fact is, if someone in the Justice Department of the United States of America intends to use the 5th Amendment before congress, it can only be assumed that there is criminal wrongdoing on her part.

[jelly]

103. Oh, absolutely!

However, that's a separate issue. I was simply responding to someone who reasoned that since the hearing would not be a criminal proceeding, that the Fifth Amendment would not apply.

But getting back to your point, I agree that it appears highly, highly significant that she is planning to take the Fifth. It's further proof that they have something to hide; I can't wait for the day when that slimy something is at last exposed to the light of day.

[YankmeCrankme]

164. Actually, according to your quote it doesn't

"...wherever the answer might tend to subject to criminal responsibility him who gives it."

Since no criminal act was committed or will be the result of her testimony, i.e. the firings or the decision to fire based on political motives are not illegal in this sense, I would say the the 5th doesn't apply. I don't think the scandal is based on illegal actions, as much as, the failure of the Justice Dept to be foreright and the fact that the lawyers were removed because they weren't "loyal" enough or willing to bend to WH direction in the manner of doing their jobs.

[jelly]

165. Not only those who engage in illegal activities are entitled to take the Fifth.

Guilty and innocent persons alike are entitled to take it. An innocent person may take the Fifth out of fear that answering certain questions could make it appear that they have engaged in criminal activity, even if they have not.

Example: a murder occurs on the corner of Maple and Fifth Street on the night of March 25th. Bob did not commit the murder, but knew the victim. In fact, the victim owed Bob a lot of money. Bob also recalls hanging out on that corner for some time on the night of March 25th, although he cannot remember exactly when he was there or how long he spent there.

In the course of their investigation, Bob is asked by the police whether he was anywhere near the corner of Maple and Fifth Street on the night of March 25th. He refuses to answer on the basis that his answers could tend to subject him to criminal responsibility, even though he is perfectly innocent.

As far as the US Attorney scandal goes, there are, indeed, possible crimes that may have been committed -- not least among them, obstruction of justice. It's one thing for US Attys to have been replaced for political reasons, such as not pursuing enough immigration cases, or to make way for a new US Atty whose personality Bush prefers. It's another for US Attys to have been replaced with the intent of bringing an end to serious investigations into the criminal activities of corrupt Republicans.

[watrwefitinfor]

Well, if they could toss out the Due Process part as they did,

then why are they clinging to the self-incrimination part like a drowning man?

I hope OH I HOPE they drag her ass up there to Capitol Hill and make her say it in front of the tv cameras. I hope they do not let her get away with just the letter from her lawyer, and don't demand an appearance.

The whole world needs to hear his minions taking the 5th. Else it will be buried by that liberal media.

Wat

[fob]

67. Yes, in the immortal words of the Godfather of Soul Himself,

Please, Please, Please, call her up there and make her sit there for 4-8 hours straight replying "I plead the Fifth" to question after mothereffin' question. Ask things like, When did george bush* tell you about this plan?

Hell, call her back day after day until she talks. They want a "show trial"? I say give 'em one!

[Joffan]

116. That phrasing of the 5th is hugely relevant

"nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"

and that is not at all what is required. No-one's asking her to be a witness against herself. Immunity for full and accurate testimony would ensure this.

I'm pretty sure that the general principle that any sworn testimony can be used for criminal proceedings ensures that the Senate hearings are indeed covered by the 5th amendment, despite wishful thinking elsewhere in the thread.

[HappyWeasel]

143. Yeah....since she is not testifying against herself...

her refusal to testify could be used as evidence against Gonzales and Rove.

[wtmusic]

27. A little non-torture might get her to talk

we can do that, right?

[Scriptor Ignotus]

30. testyfing against yourself is always

"legally perilous" when you are guilty.

[Divine Discontent]

36. LoL

yep. she knows she heard them say things which were wrong by the constitution, firing attorney's just because they weren't going after the right people in the adm. minds. fine, take the 5th, you just make them look all the more guilty!

of course Faux News will be running 90% of their shows about Nicole's accidental overdose and Webb's aide carrying a gun into the Senate office.

www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<<--- new 08 stickers

[WePurrsevere]

37. MONICA?! Oh that is priceless.

:rofl: and some folks say there is no such thing as karmic justice. :evilgrin:

[maddezmom]

50. ....

:spank:


:loveya:

[CrazyOrangeCat]

57. !

:rofl:

[TankLV]

121. I wonder what if she has any familiarity with cigars

or owns any blue dresses?

[berni_mccoy]

42. SHE CAN'T USE THE 5th AMMENDMENT TO PROTECT OTHERS!!!!!

If the questions are worded properly, she can't invoke the 5th ammendment to protect Gonzales.

Congress Needs to NAIL HER FOR THAT.

[kath]

47. Good point - she still has to tell what she knows about what OTHERS did.

[Babel_17]

51. Conspiracy charges?

If she feels to be in jeopardy of being charged with conspiracy to commit crimes then couldn't she still plead the fifth?

If the committee plays its cards right in the questioning and keeps the questions to a few, very pointed, ones then even if she pleads the fifth they could build up a lot of public interest in the case.

I am not a lawyer (IANAL) so ......

I hope your take is correct and we can get some information from her.

I wonder how immunity works. Are there back and forth offerings and proffers? She can't refuse full immunity, can she?

[jelly]

61. I have a little experience with seeking immunity for clients in federal criminal investigations.

It's a delicate dance involving the US Attorney's office, informal proffers by the potential witness/target of an investigation, and the potential witness' lawyer making a case (a) for why the client is only minimally blameworthy (if at all); and (b) that the client would make a credible witness in the prosecution of the truly blameworthy persons involved. In my experience, typically you will not see people get offered immunity if they had a significant role in the crime themselves. The best they can hope for under those circumstances is lighter sentencing pursuant to an agreement to cooperate with the government, providing information and testifying if need be.

[Morgana LaFey]

128. What a great point! I hope the Senate jumps on this.

But I worry they won't. (I sure don't have a LOT of faith in our elected Dems. I find myself over and over again worrying that they'll let things go, not put up a fight, overlook, forgive, take known liars' at their word, etc., etc. You'd think I had some HISTORY with them that makes me nervous about their performance, wouldn't you?)

[Patsy Stone]

44. Oh...my...

Someone else with nothing to hide...

[BeHereNow]

92. And we all know, those with nothing to hide, hide nothing. N/T

BHN

[Marie26]

45. This PROVES that there were illegal activities here.

Republicans have been trying to say that the firings weren't illegal - well, there goes that talking point. People take the 5th because their statements would incriminate them in criminal matters. This is HUGH.

[creeksneakers2]

46. She ought to be fired

Testifying before Congress is part of her job. She refuses to do it. She should be fired.

I don't blame her one bit for taking the 5th. However,if there is no consequence for taking it then everybody who is called before Congress can take it.

[skids]

52. "There are soooo many amendments, but I can only choose one!" n/t

[gratuitous]

53. Wait, don't miss this . . .

It was the Justice Department itself that gave Congress the referral to Monica Goodling. That is, Alberto and George and the rest of the boys are quite willing to throw Monica under the bus to distract their pursuers. But Monica doesn't want to play.

Surely her boss, Mr. Gonzales, could order her to appear before Congress, couldn't he? Or her boss's boss, Mr. Bush could order her to appear, couldn't he? Let's see what happens, or if anyone will mention that she serves at the pleasure of the President and the Attorney General.

It leads to one and only one conclusion: That by invoking the Fifth Amendment and refusing to testify, she is pleasing her government masters.

[bunny planet]

58. Seems like the 5th ammendment is the only one left that these assclowns

in office haven't dismantled. Looks like they'll all be needing that one.

[CrazyOrangeCat]

59. yep.

They've eviscerated the 1st, but they'll cling to number 5 . . .

This is too cool.

K&R

:popcorn:

[PegDAC]

80. Agreed.

They'll cling to the second, too, until someone "pries it from their cold, dead hands".

:evilgrin:

[CrazyOrangeCat]

81. yeah.

Oh the irony . . . considering their chickenhawk ways re: Vietnam.

[Patsy Stone]

120. And the guns

we'll always have the guns.

:hi:

[Botany]

60. Water Board help?

:rofl:

[yardwork]

66. Seriously. Toss them in Gitmo! Oh? Suddenly the Repugs don't like that idea?

[Generator]

63. On another issue

Am I the only one that continues to be reminded of the closed door, no oath, no transcript testimony that our great leaders Herr Bush and Dr. Evil Cheney gave to the 9/11 commission?

That's right. The biggest tragedy (certainly as it's played in all our mainstream world's) that's ever happened to this country, the worst terrorist attack and can we expect our leaders to tell us what they did and swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Of course we can't.Our leaders are the enemies. They don't work for us, they don't tell us the truth, and all I could think of when I read this was OF COURSE she has to take the fifth amendment. The truth told on oath for all of these bastards leads straight to prison and treason. Can't have that. GOD BLESS America. What a great country.

[CrazyOrangeCat]

71. I'm with you.

Blows my mind on a regular basis.

They hurriedly carted away all the evidence to the greatest crime in the history of the nation. And they thought they'd get away with it.

It may take years, my friend, but we'll see some light shone on this monstrosity yet.

[FatDave]

78. No, you're not the only one who remembers.

I think we need to start bringing that up again. There's people paying attention now who weren't back then, and maybe it got past them.

[Skittles]

64. these people serve bush, not the American people

f***ing cowards, all of them

[EVDebs]

73. Related DU post....important info...questions to ask

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x507606

And another link to the question the GOP doesn't want you to ask...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=506213&mesg_id=506213

[Initech]

74. Proof that there was some downright criminal activity going on.

Honestly, what more evidence do we need to put these criminal scum fucks behind bars? I'm convinced that Bush could start sacrificing live animals on national television and the MSM would call it a "political statement".

[LiberalFighter]

79. When invoking the 5th must it be for all questions?

Or if the witness answers a question does that revoke the 5th after that point?

[LiberalFighter]

82. Reason I ask...

How about asking any of the following questions?

Are you are liar?

Are you having an affair?

Are you committing treason against the United States?

Did you commit a crime for the Republican Party?



I have a couple of nasty questions but thought better of posting.

[whistle]

83. Why dosen't Alberto Gonzales do what Vice President Spiro T Agnew did

...when he resigned on Oct. 10, 1973, and pleaded nolo contendere or no contest?

[antonialee839]

85. Legally perilous for Ms. Goodling.....

and it's about to get legally perilous for the rest of these criminals.

[liberal N proud]

86. Let the evidence convict them all!

Only the guilty or those protecting the guilty plead the fifth.

[Marrak]

87. The wheels appear to be falling off this bus!

The email system Waxman wants is the ticket to all this...I gotta feeling Ms. Goodling has been praying alot as of late (she's alum of pat robinson's Regent "Law", class of '99)

:nopity: :kick:

[caledesi]

88. She is taking personal leave beginning Monday!

lookie here:

<snip>

The Justice Department also said yesterday that Monica Goodling, a senior counselor to Gonzales who worked closely with Sampson on the firings, took an indefinite personal leave from her job on Monday. A Justice official said that it's not clear whether she will return.

<snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301396.html

[The Wizard]

89. If crimes were committed

the investigation must expand to others. You pick the others. pleading the Fifth implies crimes were committed. If telling the truth means self incrimination...................
Get the keys for that room at the Gray Bar Hotel and License Plate Factory.

[redirish28]

90. Judiciary committee should have called her on it. No more Habas Corpus remember Chimp outlawed it.

Anyone know if CSPAN carried it? My wife and I can watch it tonight if CSPAN carried it.

[pinto]

91. So the WH has put out it's meme. It's really all about protecting rights.

Technically true, of course. The 5th Amendment is a right of all citizens. Just seems odd that the Constitution suddenly bears some weight with these folks. What's a four letter word for changing the focus of a story? :eyes:

(via Ms. Malvoux report on WH response on the intent to invoke the 5th, CNN.)

[Scout]

93. If you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to hide Monica. n/t

[onehandle]

95. Guilty. Now get Rove up there. nt

[19jet54]

96. Self-incrimination question for lawyer?

... forgive me, but the 5th only applies to SELF-incrimination; but he/she must answer all questions not self-incriminating such as questions regarding Gonzales, Rove, Miers involvement & conversations? Otherwise he/she can be held for contempt of court?

[jaybeat]

113. If she's mixed up in it, there might not be a lot she could say

Without incriminating herself, that is, at least on conspiracy to obstruct, at least. If Gonzo or anyone else told her to do something illegal, and she did it, to admit that he told her to do it, and then plead the 5th when they ask her if she did it, would not look very good for her. They could ask her "Well, if you didn't do it, what was your boss's reaction?" Plead the 5th. Very easy I'm thinking to get her boxed into a corner, where, if the answer was "no" to an incriminating question, she'd say "no." If the answer would be "yes," then she pleads the 5th. Gotcha!

It can't be used in criminal court against her, but as far as Congress and the American people are concerned, if she pleads the 5th, she is admitting that talking would incriminate her in one or more crimes.

And we know she didn't do them by herself.

Which means it is just a matter of time till we establish positively what they were, and who did them.

Hence the fateful question, "What did the __________ know, and when did (s)he know it?"

This is big. This is huge. K & R, Baby!!

:toast: :beer: :popcorn:

[Richard Steele]

99. "Questionable congressional environment" MY ASS! Only GUILTY people can plead the Fifth!

It's all starting to unravel, and they know it.

[TankLV]

122. Yes - it's controlled by HONEST DEMOCRATS now, not CRIMINAL REPUKES

pretty "questionable" environment for CRIMINAL REPUKES if you ask me...

[Friday]

101. Slightly off topic

This doesn't apply to Monica Goodling but to the entire USA purge in general. I saw it in a group I am in and just had to post it here.

I find the hypocrisy astounding. Tony Snow is whining about Executive Privilege. Here is a snip from an op-ed piece he wrote about Clinton in 1998 during the Lewinsky saga, titled “Executive Privilege is a Dodge” This is a direct quote:

"Evidently, Mr. Clinton wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up."

Kara

[LynnTheDem]

104. Republic Party = Hypocrisy.

"Do as we say, not as we do."

It's the Republic Party motto.

[Sapere aude]

105. Good find, welcome to DU

[rpannier]

106. self delete

[Hotler]

114. I'm tired of popcorn, how about ..

nachos and shooters!

[rodeodance]

115. ...the House voted 329-78 to repeal a 2005 law that Democrats argue gave Gonzales

....... Besides the inquiries by the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, two internal watchdog units of the Justice Department have started a joint investigation.

Also today, the House voted 329-78 to repeal a 2005 law that Democrats argue gave Gonzales too much power to appoint interim U.S. attorneys. Similar legislation passed the Senate last week and the Bush administration has dropped opposition to the measure. It would restore a 1986 law that gives courts the power to appoint U.S. attorneys 120 days after a vacancy occurs.

[Canuckistanian]

124. Forget her.

The real action is with Susan Ralston.

Who, conveniently, is seemingly MIA.

[struggle4progress]

125. Gonzales wonders about staying in his job

Last Update: Mar 26, 2007 8:23 PM

WASHINGTON (AP) - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says he's been wondering lately whether it's appropriate for him to remain at his job. He told NBC News he's "really pained" by Republicans and Democrats alike who widely say he has lost his credibility over the firings of eight U.S. attorneys ...

http://www.woai.com/news/national/story.aspx?content_id=26a21f71-7a96-4cb5-a35b-f74dc97da34e

[juno jones]

130. Interesting...

...but she might be forced to be negotiate depending on what 'Rove, jr' says in his 'honest and forthcoming' testimony. Her name was on those e-mails, she was in the loop, as it were...

[Heidi]

131. Kick.

:kick:

[Xipe Totec]

132. Attorney general aide won't testify on firings

Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An aide to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Monday invoked her constitutional right against self-incrimination and refused to testify before a Senate panel investigating the firing of eight prosecutors.

Monica Goodling, who was involved in the firings, said: "I have decided to follow my lawyer's advice and respectfully invoke my constitutional right because the ... circumstances present a perilous environment in which to testify."

Democrats, who took power in Congress in January, accuse the Bush administration of firing the prosecutors for political reasons, partly because Republicans viewed them as not pursuing corruption allegations against Democrats strongly enough.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070326/pl_nm/usa_prosecutors_dc_4

---

Now, does Gonzales fire the aide, or do we impeach Gonzales?

[dweller]

133. is there a subpoena with her name on it?

just checking.

dp

[Xipe Totec]

134. It's not clear from the article

but if a subpoena had been issued, I'm sure the White House would already be screaming and hollering.

That does not mean a subpoena could not be issued in a heartbeat.

[bornskeptic]

139. She has been subpoenaed already.

The Administration's (flimsy) claim of executive privilege doesn't apply to her, since she is a DOJ employee and not a whitehouse staffer.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

135. Just like the mafia criminals did years ago before a senate committee investigating racketeering

"I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds it may tend to incriminate me." Same criminal minds fifty years later, bunch of low-life hoods that belong in jail.

[Divernan]

136. It's important she be made to invoke this while under oath at public hearing.

Just because she announces she WILL invoke the fifth amendment shouldn't get her off the hook of being subpoenaed, pulled in front of one or more commmittees and being sworn in. Then, in front of the TV cameras, and the nation, she can be asked dozens of detailed questions, and invoke her right against self-inCRIMination. That will hammer home to the public that something criminal was going on within the DOJ and increase pressure for Gonzales to leave, as well as a major house-cleaning.

On edit: sloppy writing by the reporter of this article. No one invokes their 5th Amendment right via a statement by themselves or from their lawyer to the papers. They can only invoke it in response to a question before a hearing body - such as a court of law or at a legislative hearing.

[Xipe Totec]

137. Good point!

Invoking the 5th by press release is BS.

[Supersedeas]

153. Great point...absolutely!

[PSPS]

138. "... not pursuing corruption allegations against Democrats strongly enough."

See the "liberal media" spin this already? No mention, at least in this snippet, about the more important motive: these prosecutors were beginning to put some heat on bush, his cronies and fellow henchmen. Nor is there any context for the "corruption allegations against Democrats" smear (they were simply refusing to pursue non-existent "crimes.")

[cassiepriam]

141. They are all innocent victims now, pursued by the big bad mean congress.

[And the Oscar goes]

142. This is going to be interesting

Dowd is doing and saying what is best for his client, but the reference to Libby was telling - both he and the committee know they are playing a game now - and he is letting the committee know that the situation as regards his client is ambiguous, and potentially incriminating, because of somebody political higher than her. Also, I bet he is angling for immunity for her as it is a much better option than a trial. Now, there's not many reasons why her testimony might be clearly incriminating - conspiracy to perjure or defraud, or perverting the course of justice, or conspiracy to subvert the judicial or election process (what the hell am I saying - there's a million things they could have been conspiring to f**k up), - but either Gonzales or Rove was the one doing the main perjuring and defrauding, not her. The Democrats need a quick resolution here to keep it in the public eye - I vote for immunity - and then quiz the hell out of her about Gonzales' and Rove's involvement. It's a get out of jail free card, and her lawyer would be forced to advise her to accept it. If she didn't... which she could theoretically do, then someone above her is politically forcing her not to testify - and then it's all out war, because Gonzales is expendable here and would be sacrificed if necessary - there's only two people then that she could be protecting - Rove and Bush - and only impeachable crimes that would be worth this much effort. Checkmate in 5.

[yellowcanine]

147. All of a sudden the DOJ people have discovered the Constitution and the

Bill of Rights. How convenient.

[On the Road]

148. He Can be Convicted without Ever Testifying Again

his previous appearances are already on the record. All that's needed is to prove they were wrong.

[OwnedByFerrets]

155. Has anyone brought up the possibility.........

that Goodling was informed that if she ratted out the administration that she would find a horsehead in her bed one morning? Or something even worse?

[autorank]

156. The 5th is even better than testimony. Why? K&R

Because everybody knows what it is to invoke the 5th amendment...you're GUILTY!

That's what it means when you don't testify...you're GUILTY!

The right to invoke it is sacred - you should not be forced to testify against yourself.

But how ironic, the "justice" department people invoke the 5th (because they're GUILTY) after they
abolish habeas corpus. Rich irony, not lost on some of us. The 5th will be lost on no one.

THEY'RE GUILTY!

[autorank]

157. The 5th is even better than testimony. Why? K&R

Because everybody knows what it is to invoke the 5th amendment...you're GUILTY!

That's what it means when you don't testify...you're GUILTY!

The right to invoke it is sacred - you should not be forced to testify against yourself.

However, we should not be required to draw the obvious conclusion, when you refuse to testify,
you have something to hide.

But how ironic, the "justice" department people invoke the 5th (because they're GUILTY) after they
abolish habeas corpus. Rich irony, not lost on some of us. The 5th will be lost on no one.

THEY'RE GUILTY!

[EVDebs]

158. As Sampson's attorney, Berenson is now controlling the AG

Check into Berenson's WH background. A DailyKos expose on him shows he's also Ralston's attny.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/3/19/12148/2763

With Dowd counselling Goodling to keep her mouth shut and "stonewall it" the Octopus will never be fully exposed.

CIA/Cunningham/Wilkes/Foggo/GOP-moneylaundery/funding

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x514448

[EVDebs]

160. BTW, Berenson is also Ralston's attny. Should HE be testifying too?

[Zorra]

159. "I refuse to answer because it may INCRIMINATE me." n/t

[EVDebs]

161. ....And expose the Octopus (CIA/Wilkes/Foggo/GOP money trail)

all extra-Constitutional and illegal but, oooooooooh, sooooooo, much money. And the Dems can't touch us, "national security" !

[Javaman]

162. Wonder if the freeps heads are exploding over this...nt

[ProudDad]

166. Monica, why is it always Monica?

Monica Lewinski

Monica G. Moorehead

and now...

Monica Goodling


This may cut down on the number of people who call their daughters (or sons) Monica in the future....

[Imagevision]

168. Cannot Rove merely do the same??

[bobthedrummer]

169. lots of interesting hyperlinks in this thread-and Mr. Gonzales is still "rehearsing the truth"-kick

[TheGriz]

170. AH PLEAD FIF!

[IndianaGreen]

171. I expect nothing less than a contempt of Congress citation

Send this fundamentalist bleached blonde to prison, in the name of Jay-Zeus!