(Goodling) DOJ Official Brings Storm by Taking the Fifth in Gonzales Flap

[maddezmom]

DOJ Official Brings Storm by Taking the Fifth in Gonzales Flap
T.R. Goldman and Emma Schwartz
Legal Times
April 2, 2007


Taking the Fifth Amendment is everybody's right. But it's a choice that can send up a red flag, often invoked by people who have something to hide. Think of Enron's Andrew Fastow and Iran-Contra's Oliver North.

So when Monica Goodling said last week that she would refuse to talk to Congress about the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys, it was hard not to wonder what this 33-year-old party loyalist may have done wrong.

Her pre-emptive move (Congress has yet to issue a subpoena) immediately raised questions, innuendo and gossip: Was she trying to avoid incriminating herself in a crime (and if so, what crime?), or, as her attorneys claimed, was she merely afraid that in the "perilous" partisan environment, even an innocent witness could end up in trouble?

Some D.C. defense lawyers remain puzzled by Goodling's strategy. Few would publicly criticize her, but some said that the decision ultimately draws more attention to Goodling instead of her superiors, who are ultimately Congress' target.

more:http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1175245444489&rss=newswire

[DRoseDARs]

1. If she had just waited until she herself was presented with a subpoena or even just a request...

...that she appear, she might not have made such a mess of this for herself. Then again, Bush loyalists aren't very bright. Very few of them can handle strategery for any length of time without screwing it up.

[murielm99]

2. The article has people who claim

she is very bright. But considering the type of schools she went to, I wonder how she would stack up at more academically challenging places.

I am not knocking Christian schools. There are many good ones out there. I went to one of them as an undergrad.

Is she really guilty of a crime? Or is she just arrogant?

I think she is, in her own way, just as arrogant as that Lurita woman. I think the problem with many of the * administration people is simple arrogance. They think they cannot be touched, because they have had six years of anything goes.

I am sure she is not as untouchable as she seems to think. There are many older and wiser heads in Congress. They can find a way to get to her if she has committed a crime. I think they should be figuring out a way to cite her for contempt of Congress, too.

[POAS]

3. The statement her lawyers

released and her affidavit proclaiming her 5th amendment rights are, on their face, evidence of contempt of Congress.

Claims of "playing politics" with a Congressional hearing and charges that some in Congress (notice they only named Democrats) have already passed judgement show great contempt.

[demnan]

4. I wonder if she's related to Congressman Goodling from PA

who retired a few years ago.

[fasttense]

5. The only reason you can take the fifth amendment is to keep

from being compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against yourself. Political atmosphere, or more likely, dislike of the people questioning her, is not covered by the 5th. Nothing else is covered by the 5th. She is misapplying the 5th Amendment and congress can force her to be a witness.

[RC]

6. Why was Monica Goodling prosecuting low-level criminal cases

Why was Monica Goodling prosecuting low-level criminal cases in the fall of 2004?
By mrs panstreppon | bio

4 of 4 people recommend this blog entry.

Why was Monica Goodling, Department of Justice liaison to the White House, prosecuting low-level criminal cases out of the US Attorney's office in the Eastern District of Virginia (USA-EDVA) in the fall of 2004?

Was Monica Goodling padding her resume to justify an appointment as a USA or other similar position?

One person who knows the answer is the Attorney General's new Chief of Staff, Chuck Rosenberg. Rosenberg was an assistant US attorney in the USA-EDVA's office at the time. He subsequently became the USA in June 2006.

Goodling is named as the "special" assistant US attorney in a 9/28/05 appeals case. Does "special" mean that Goodling hasn't passed the bar?

>SNIP<

On March 28, 2007 - 2:57pm whiterosebuddy said:

Something tells me that while this Monica may not be wearing thongs she knows how to polish knobs better than the average bushie. Afterall, she is was the point person, designated by Jennings to handle the 'sensitive issue'. Just what is her expertise?
login or register to post comments | link |
On March 28, 2007 - 3:16pm mrs panstreppon said:

We've been trying to answer that question at the TPM Muckraker for a couple of days.

We can't find any evidence that Goodling passed the bar. She is not listed in two legal reference sources, Westlaw and Martindale.

She graduated from Messiah College in 1995 and Pat Robertson's Regent University Law School in 1999. Regent U. has not been recently confused with Harvard as you might guess.

>SNIP<

As for Goodling's having passed the bar or not -- she simply must have passed the bar. To appear in federal district court, you must first be admitted to a state bar (or the DC bar). So to be a SAUSA, she had to be a licensed attorney. I expect she is a member of the Virginia state bar, having graduated from Regent and worked as a SAUSA in Alexandria, though as a federal government lawyer it doesn't matter what state bar she is a member of.

There's plenty of room to criticize Goodling's background and credentials (e.g., Regent isn't exactly the most highly regarded of alma maters) or her appointment as a SAUSA, but trying to make something out of the "special" in Special Assitant United States Attorney is a dead-end and undermines the credibility of other, more valid criticism.

>MORE<
http://americaabroad.tpmcafe.com/blog/mrs_panstreppon/2007/mar/28/why_was_monica_goodling_prosecuting_low_level_criminal_cases_in_the_fall_of_2004

[enough]

7. The summary of Goodling's short happy career is fascinating.

k&r