Breaking: Monica's Lips Are Sealed
(No, not THAT Monica -- it's a bit late for that, dontcha think?)
Breaking news from 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 Associated Press also has a story, available here.
We're going to play unfrozen caveman legal commentator, and ask: Based on what we currently know about the U.S. Attorney firings, how could Goodling's testimony expose her to criminal liability, to place her in a position to invoke the Fifth Amendment? What are we missing here?
Here's what her lawyer, John Dowd, has to say about the matter. From the AP:
The potential for taking the blame for the department's bungled response "is very real," Dowd said. "One need look no further than the recent circumstances and proceedings involving Lewis Libby," he said, a reference to the recent conviction of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff in the CIA leak case.
The lesson we took away from the Libby case was: "Don't lie under oath."
So doesn't Dowd's argument prove too much? What does Goodling have to worry about as long as she testifies truthfully?
P.S. We have nothing against the DOJ or the White House under the current Administration. To paraphrase the classic defense against charges of racism, "Some of our best friends are [Bushies]!!!"
We're just confused, that's all. Clearly there were some screw-ups here. But is anyone (aside from Daily Kos types) seriously arguing that the underlying conduct was criminal?
Gonzales Aide Won't Answer Questions About Prosecutor Firings [Bloomberg]
Gonzales Aide to Invoke Fifth Amendment [Associated Press]
(43) Comments
She's totally afraid of a perjury trap. These days, you can testify to the best of your recollection about a non-criminal matter in one forum and do the same in another about a non-criminal matter and wind up Libbied. Or even just Roved. (Getting Roved is expensive and will keep you awake at night.)
I think it is almost (almost) to the point where any Bush administration official who testifies under oath can expect that their testimony could indirectly expose them to eventual criminal liability.
Welcome to the Fitz era.
Same John Dowd that took down Pete Rose?
Does she really fear exposing herself to criminal liability, or is this a ploy to avoid having to tell the truth about conduct (either her own, or that of colleagues) that is merely embarrassing? Perhaps the Senate can grant her immunity, and then she will have no legal option but to spill the beans.
4:34 - The only reason it is "almost (almost) to the point where any Bush administration official who testifies under oath can expect that their testimony could indirectly expose them to eventual criminal liability" is because any Bush administration official likely participated in or was privy to criminal activity!
I'm having a hard time with the argument that you can claim the fifth because the testimony you are about to give will be perjured. You can cure the self-incrimination by just not perjuring yourself!
Unless the idea is that she has already committed perjury and that her current testimony would reveal that, I don't see anything that could support a fifth amendment privilege. Nobody is really arguing that the underlying firings were illegal. Political suicide maybe, but that's not protected under the fifth amendment.
And I agree with 4:38 that the Senate should just grant her immunity (especially since it's pretty unlikely that there was anything illegal anyway), and then force her to testify!
4:34 - The only reason it is "almost (almost) to the point where any Bush administration official who testifies under oath can expect that their testimony could indirectly expose them to eventual criminal liability" is because any Bush administration official likely participated in or was privy to criminal activity!
4:49
What about an accessory / conspiracy charge to possible obstruction of justice or existing perjury conduct (see AGAG).
4:49
Are you seriously contending that she has nothing to worry about as long as she tells the truth? I suppose you believe no innocent person has ever been convicted (or at least charged and forced to undergo a long and expensive trial). She would be stupid to testify under oath in this climate. Some prosecutor is just waiting for the chance to make a name for himself by charging someone in this "scandal."
she's a 34c?
The AP article says she says that a senior DOJ official blamed her for not fully briefing him and thus causing him to be "not entirely candid" in testifying to Congress. So could her theory be that she could be charged with accessory to perjury or conspiracy to commit perjury, something like that?
I don't know if those are real crimes, but that would make more sense than a theory that she has to take the 5th because she fears prosecution for perjury for the testimony she is being asked to give. Unless it's a new Bush administration angle: "We can't help ourselves from lying every time we open our mouths, so we shouldn't have to testify." Actually, maybe that is actually the most likely possibility . . .
Yes, Lil Prof, same John Dowd of Akin Gump.
Lat: Can we get moritorium on the Clinton blow job jokes. They were kind of old about six years ago. Aside from interjecting the kind of faux edginess favored by pretenders like Peter Lattman, it only undermines the legitness of your conservative cred.
Also, you miss the story here (again, shades of PLattman): how about a post on Monica's resume? Why was someone with such a tepid resume involved in making these kinds of HR decisions? For a website that drools over resumes, why is the DOJ managerment so mediocore? Perhaps it is the soft bigotry of low expectations?
To bring this full circle: Monica L's degree from LSE blows MonicaG out of the water.
"What does Goodling have to worry about as long as she testifies truthfully?"
Tell me you are not a criminal defense attorney. Would you say the same of someone who invokes the Fourth Amendment to prevent a police search of his home or car? Innocent people an invoke the 5th. In fact, they're exactly the people the framers had in mind when they wrote the amendment.
WC Assoc--I'm no criminal defense attorney, but I know that you can only invoke the 5th amendment in a _civil_ proceeding when you can show you have a realistic, reasonable fear of prosecution.
5:11 -
No, I'm not contending that she has nothing to worry about as long as she tells the truth. Just that the things she might be worried about aren't protected by any fifth amendment privilege. The fifth amendment protects against self-incrimination regarding underlying criminal acts. Testimony that you find inconvenient to give (for whatever reason), when the testimony does not implicate you in some criminal scheme, is just not protected by the fifth.
5:00 - i agree with you that if that's a possible concern than it's protected. I guess my disagreement is whether that's really a valid concern. This isn't a federal investigation yet, it's congressional hearings where very few if any people have provided testimony under oath.
Didn't John Ashcroft teach at Regents U?
WC Assoc -- you're no criminal defense attorney. you're an idiot.
Lat,
Its hard to understand why you claim that "no one by those Daily Kos" people are claiming the underlying conduct is criminal.
Maybe not right now, but perhaps that is exactly why Monica is planning on taking the fifth. If there had been a conversation among Senior DOJ atty's and the WH to the extent of "Gosh this Carol Lam is really getting out of control with her investigtion into the Dukestir, and now into #3 at CIA Dusty Foggo - we need to stop her!" wouldnt that be criminal conduct?
Sounds like obstruction of justice to me.
I thought the fear stems from the following: if the firings were to eliminate an ongoing investigation of a party loyalist, it is obstruction. At the very least, there is certainly a risk. She should be able to take the oath. If the senate is serious about getting at the truth, and not about prosecution, they can immunize her per 6002 and compel her to testify. That is what any good criminal defense lawyer would do in this situation. If she is compelled, and this is televised, I wish the futute prosecutor (if any) good luck in trying to overcome the Kastigar issue. Remember Ollie North?
i meant: she should be able to take
(or plead) the 5th, not oath
ATL writes:
But is anyone (aside from Daily Kos types) seriously arguing that the underlying conduct was criminal?
Depends on what you mean by the underlying conduct. If you mean firing the AUSAs, I would hazard to guess that was probably not criminal (possibly slimy, but not criminal). If you mean the (possibly false) recent testimony before Congress regarding that issue, there may be an issue: If you help someone make up a false story to tell Congress, that's aiding and abetting the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, which is one of the things that Oliver North was convicted of. See 18 USC 1505.
I'm sorry, what exactly is a 'Daily Kos type?' And please cite a single instance of anyone on Daily Kos alleging that the underlying conduct was criminal. I know this blog is a snarkfest, but why must you buy into the whole 'the left blogosphere wackos' argument? Jeez, at least have the decency to pick a blog that is actually far to the left. Daily Kos is moderate.
Can Congress even grant immunity? I can see them granting immunity from whatever contempt powers they may have. But the decision to grant immunity in the criminal sense traditionally rests in the executive. There is no way in hell this executive is granting anyone immunity.
Wow, yah she wants to avoid proescution for Obstruction of Justice, the Perjury explanation is just a red herring.
8:31
Poindexter was granted immunity to testify in front of Congress. That's what got his convictions overturned.
What I want to know is how a 1999 graduate of the purported "law school" at a purported "university" founded by Pat Robertson has acquired the tital of "Senior Counsel" to this nation's Attorney General.
I mean title. Oops.
no ring
lat,
get with it man. first, it's not kos, it's josh marshall at TPM that's doing all the work here.
second, there are a million ways to let go of us attorneys correctly. the one SOLITARY way you can't fire them is becuase they're prosecuting your ally and you don't like that.
look at the "slippery slope" that lawyers like to speak of constantly. what would keep bush/gonzales from letting go every single us attorney that ever decided to prosecute a republican? what's the point of the position at that stage? it ceases to exist really...
8:05: "Daily Kos is moderate."
Do you also believe John Paul Stevens is a member of the vast right wing conspiracy?
Re: immunity
Perhaps she's threatening to take the 5th to get immunity?
Really, how can a member of any bar ethically maintain freedom from the appearance of impropriety while at the same time admiting by asserting the Fifth that she will not answer questions for fear of self-incrimination. The Rules of Ethics are a hoax - depending on your connections - at least it seems so! This is just such a great wound against America's Bar to have Justice Department policy makers who appear to have fired Sr. Prosecutors for exercising discresion. Just another bunch of attorneys skipping around disclosure of what already appears to the general public as lawyers doing busininess as usual - bending the rules to suit themselves. This is just insult to Injury, I say and righteous, fair minded attorneys should not just sit by mute when others of our profession stain our image in public.
To a non-lawyer it looks like the WH thumbs its nose at the Judiciary just as it does to the Legislature. Pleading the Fifth may be just a tactic, not a well-reasoned or ethical step. Crudely put, it's just the bosses pulling a card from their library of B-movies.
To a non-lawyer it looks like the WH thumbs its nose at the Judiciary just as it does to the Legislature. Pleading the Fifth may be just a tactic, not a well-reasoned or ethical step. Crudely put, it's just the bosses pulling a card from their library of B-movies.
I'm guessing she's all kerfuffeled about this 5th Amendment because at Regent they use the Bible, and not the Constitution and federal law, to teach their students.
As for her lawyer's claims, I would hope to get more for my money at (I'm guessing) $750/hr. than she's afraid of the big bad committee who might be mean to her defense. The argument is internally contradictory. She will assert her right against self incrimination because even if she tells the truth, she could be in jeopardy. Seems to me what he's really saying is, if she tells the truth, she's looking down the barrel of a multi-count indictment in the District Court in D.C. and doesn't want to spend the waning days of the Bush Junta ..err Administration in the slammer.
I am just waiting for all the conservative hypocrites who stomped around when Clinton was in office and smirked at the "it all depends on what your definition of is, is" legalisms to explain why a mid-level toadie is suddenly so interested in asserting constitutional rights her bosses have spent six years using as so much toilet paper.
PS ..The delicious irony of Dowd citing to recent case law involving disgraced GOP figures (Safavain, North and Poindexter) should not be lost on people.
LilProf, how much are they paying you to run that nonsense up the flagpole?
It's not their testimony that could lead to criminal liability, it's their criminal acts (like Scooter's deliberate lying under oath, for example) that could lead to criminal liability.
I'm with the previous posters who suggest that the firings would consitute obstruction of justice if they were initiated for the purpose of interfering with criminal investigations. This is by far the most plausible explanation for Ms. Goodling's refusal to testify, and I'm willing to bet that internal notes, memos and e-mails, if subpoenaed successfully, will confirm that that is exactly what happened. The fear of being "Libbied" argument... utter BS.
And I'm opposed to immunity for any of these devout Christian criminals and incompetents. Subpoena the e-mails and memos, and then prosecute all of 'em. It's time for some accountability. Welcome to the Pelosi era, LilProf.
PeeJay,
I get paid $20 per post by an association of large tobacco interests.
What happened to the era where the civil libertarians were on the left?
And welcome to the Pelosi era? Congress has managed to retain an approval level below that of the President's.
LilProf,
Arguing that Scooter Libby was simply fogetful rather than a blatant liar doesn't make you a civil libertarian. It makes you're a damn fool.
This Congress has only been at it for three months and hasn't even begun to wield it's subpoena power. Even Republicans are fed up with the incompetence and the hubris. It won't be long now.
Sounds to me like a hint that she wants full immunity before she testifies.
3:52- I'm merely talking about the ability to exercise 5th Amendment rights. The ACLU defended Ollie North on this.
The American people want an end to the war. They don't care about subpoena power and what looks like dumbass congressional and interbranch infighting. Pelosi and Hoyer need a positive agenda. That's how you get 'er done.
3:52- I'm merely talking about the ability to exercise 5th Amendment rights. The ACLU defended Ollie North on this.
"This Congress has only been at it for three months..."
Whatever happened to that 100 day agenda? Oh, well...who really expected Pelosi to keep her word / be competent anyway? I guess if they elected her choice Murtha, things would have gone smoother.
The American people want an end to the war. They don't care about subpoena power and what looks like dumbass congressional and interbranch infighting. Pelosi and Hoyer need a positive agenda. That's how you get 'er done.
3:52- I'm merely talking about the ability to exercise 5th Amendment rights. The ACLU defended Ollie North on this.
"This Congress has only been at it for three months..."
Whatever happened to that 100 hour agenda? Oh, well...who really expected Pelosi to keep her word / be competent anyway? I guess if they elected her choice Murtha, things would have gone smoother.
The American people want an end to the war. They don't care about subpoena power and what looks like dumbass congressional and interbranch infighting. Pelosi and Hoyer need a positive agenda. That's how you get 'er done.
LilProf,
I never said she didn't have the right to take the 5th. All I said is that it indicates to me that there's some serious criminal activity behind her decision. Anyone who disagrees is probably foolish enough to believe that Scooter Libby is forgetful rather than a bald faced liar, which you implied in your original post.
And you're clearly right about Pelosi. Perhaps we should bring back the ultra-competent Hastert Congress.
5:27 I am as amazed as you are that Nancy Pelosi's Congress has a lower approval rating than Denny Hastert's. What could account for this?
I am really frustrated by this anomaly. It must be some kind of Frank Luntz-ish polling trick.