Democrats: Please Stop Being Mean To Monica Goodling!
The House Democrats just won’t leave Monica Goodling alone. Even after the Justice Department lawyer invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege, the Dems still want to have a little “conversation” with her. From the NYT:
House Democrats on Tuesday requested a private interview with an aide to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales who has asserted her constitutional right not to testify at a public hearing about the dismissals of United States attorneys.Representative John Conyers Jr., a Michigan Democrat who is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, sought the interview in a letter to a lawyer for the aide, Monica Goodling, who is on leave as the Justice Department’s liaison to the White House…. Mr. Conyers’s letter said that House lawyers wanted to question Ms. Goodling to evaluate the legality of her refusal to testify. It said she could not assert the privilege as a blanket justification not to appear.
Look, guys, she’s just not that into you. Can’t you just leave her alone? Go beat up on Kyle Sampson some more — we think he still has some lunch money left in his pockets.
(Our suspicion: Chairman Conyers wants to offer Goodling a babysitting job. ‘Cause John Conyers loves making lawyers babysit his children. He thinks the kids absorb legal knowledge by osmosis. And he’s heard about Goodling’s legendary brownies!)
Meanwhile, over at the WSJ Law Blog, Peter Lattman gets in a cheap double entendre at Monica’s expense:
Are we this poor woman’s only defenders?
Democrats Seek to Interview Gonzales Aide [New York Times]
Congressional Democrats to Goodling: Unzip It! [WSJ Law Blog]
Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Monica Goodling (scroll down)
(17) 
Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!
Yes, you are her only defender, David Lat. No one else thinks this political hack bimbo is a diva. A true diva, as other commenters have noted, would say "Bring It On, John and Pat!"
And as someone who almost landed clerkship at One First, you should know that using the Fifth Amendment as blanket refusal to appear is total bullshit.
Seriously, Lat, your bias is showing big time on this one. Mean old Democrats are calling BS on poor Monica's transparent efforts to evade a legitimate subpoena by bogus invocation of the 5th Amendment. Boo hoo. For the first time in years, Congress is taking its oversight responsibilities seriously, and the poor conservatives just don't know what to do now that they're suddenly accountable for their actions.
This has to be Stephen Colbert-style irony. Lat previously questioned the validity of Goodling's Fifth Amendment claim:
http://www.abovethelaw.com/2007/03/breaking_monicas_lips_are_seal.php
As a former prosecutor, he surely knows that "using the Fifth Amendment as blanket refusal to appear is total bullshit" (as 11:26 puts it).
Lat probably just decided at a certain point that it would be more interesting to be contrarian. It's boring to be one of a million bloggers and commentators attacking Monica Goodling.
Is this the beginning of the Lat v. Lattman showdown, I've been waiting for?
David, your blog can be fun and dishy. But, honestly, I don't think I'm alone in becoming tired of your incessant need to defend beleaguered conservatives. Carl Rove is a mean-spirited political fixer and his "rap" was cringe-inducing, but from you we get "Demonizing Karl Rove is a favorite political pastime of the left. But is the man really that scary? Check out his performance at last night's Radio and TV Correspondents' dinner". What's the worst you say about Harriet Miers? " [T]he work ethic of the 61-year-old Miers lies beyond question." Where's the dish in that?
You bill your site as "news and gossip about the profession’s most colorful personalities and powerful institutions, as well as original commentary on breaking legal developments." Your conservative agitprop is anything but. You've got readers on the left and the right. Why keep alienating the former to pander to the latter?
Are all of you people so tone-deaf? Let's assume that Lat actually was trying to "defend" Monica Goodling. Do you think he would be continually bringing up her brownie baking skills or discuss Sampson's lunch money? Are you kidding?
Get a grip.
Word, bsa (11:57)--I'm a tree-hugging pinko, but even I can see the humor in Lat's "defense" of Goodling.
11:47am-
1) I struggle to believe you missed the playfulness in Lat's Rove post; it can't possibly be taken seriously
2) You are right to note that Lat's interest seems to trend toward conservatives, but there are probably a couple reasons for that, such as the conservatives are running things right now, and they have gotten themselves into some trouble doing it.
3) Assuming Lat is sympathetic toward conservatives; so what? This isn't NPR; it's a gossip blog, and its tone is entirely consistent with its genre.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
come on lat. why would anyone defend her, other than because of their own political allegiances or because they are friend or family? for example, gotta love the poster who noted she has 'blue eyes' in response to the ashcroft comment about her 'brown eye' - priceless naivete of the sort that invites derision. she is a serious hack in the hackiest administration in history. it appears that her deep devotion to jesus is the only credential that makes her eligible for the job. as for you folks who think the defense of the good monica is all contextual, lat's conservative bias has been apparent from the outset of 'underneath their robes' - not that he would deny it. to be fair though, it only rarely, as in this case, interferes with the entertainment value of his blog.
I don't think we are meant to take seriously a post calling upon the Democrats to stop "being mean" to Monica Goodling.
Also, 11:47, Lat was positively vicious towards Harriet Miers. Look back at some of the stuff he wrote about her on Under Their Robes.
You all complain about Lat being overly-conservative....would you all complain if he was being liberal? Are we not asking too much of bloggers and journalists to be objective? Can a person ever be objective? Certainly not. Keep on truckin, Lat...this is all good stuff.
The moonbats are out in force today.
I am not a "moonbat." But I am confused by people who complain about opinions being expressed in a blog. Isn't that what blogs are for?
reason #199995 why I fucking hate the angry left. its a gossip blog so it can be as subjective as it wants to be, including if talking about this whacko jesus freak.
I don't understand what it is about this site that attracts so many moonbats. Lat himself is a centrist who does a good job at poking fun at both sides of the spectrum. He even recently made fun of WorldNetDaily -- that sure isn't an example of conservative bias.
Yet every single time a true Christian is mentioned on this site -- be it Monica Goodling, Pat Robertson, Karl Rove or Janice Rogers Brown -- leftists start to turn the comments into a hate fest. I mean, even at conservative forums like FreeRepublic commenters don't turn that hysterical every single time a Democrat like Clinton or Dean is mentioned.
It really is hilarious that the moonbats are now so far in left field that, from their perspective, even someone who ridicules the WorldNetDaily is considered a conservative just because he doesn't share the leftists' hatred for everything that Christianity stands for.