Anyone know if her lawyer is the same John Dowd who got Pete Rose banned from baseball?

i seem to recall reading that, while congress has historically relied on the doj to pursue their legal needs,

they also have the option to use their sergeant-at-arms.

it’s occurred to me recently that there is the possibility of an actual, physical confrontation between the congress and the president arising out of this particular situation – the administration’s doj is the target of congressional oversight requests, e.g., for subpoenas, contempt citations.

would the congress send over their â€troops†to the doj to deliver a summons or arrest for contempt?

would the president physically rebuff the congressional personnel?

with george bush unsuited by virtue of his personal traits to function as president, e.g., by compromise and tact to quell the flames before they consume,

we could end up with an unprecedented confrontation between the two branches of government.

I read the same thing, mainsail, so you’re not crazy. Not for that reason, anyway. But I think the deal fell apart when it was exposed to sunlight.

And Congress does indeed have the option of enforcing contempt on its own authority, orion. It hasn’t been used for decades, but the â€inherent contempt†process contemplates exactly that. Would the president physically rebuff Congressional personnel? It’s a question the press may have to start asking, because the Members of Congressional oversight committees are starting to take a second look at this procedure.

Yup, Kagro–every move coming from BushCo seems to be forcing us back to the Teapot Dome scandal.

Btw–I doubt you saw it when you were there, but the display case in the first floor of Prettyman had some of the original docs from Teapot Dome. Egregious, an FDL reader, thought it was some kind of portent.

So, AG had a senior counselor whose pedigree is Messiah College & Falwell’s Regent Law School.

Obviously, she’s got God on her side.

Could that be the way this thing ends?

1. Congress subpeonas Goodling but DOJ refuses to serve it.
2. Congress sends it’s Sargeant at arms to serve the subpeona, but Bushie orders the physical blocking of Sargeant at arms.
3. Bushie is Impeached, convicted and removed from office.

What explains the failure of the mainstream media to cover the purge scandal for so long, and so many other scandals? Do you think somebody just set up newspaper editors to cheat on their wives, and threatened to tell if the editors wouldn’t play ball when they come back some day and ask for something?

It wouldn’t be that hard to do, when you think about it. People wouldn’t talk about it.

Is keeping Goodling on the payroll an outside attempt at trying to claim executive privilege, rather in keeping with your premise that they are trying to push the envelope on the Fifth Amendment? They’d be pushing executive privilege, too.

Ditto for Sampson, since we don’t have any solid idea what his current employment status may be.

As for the tone of the letter – I think this is schwing for the base, as is the bulk of the logic employed. What happens if Leahy swats at it, after all?

Heh. Excellent question. Accepting immunity implies admission, doesn’t it? On the horns of a dilemma…

I think a good portion of the base is permanently deluded, they’ll never see what happened as wrong or illegal. That promotion piece written by James Tobin’s attorneys suggests they expect lots of investigations; is Dowd angling for a piece of the action by demonstrating his schwing? Is the attitude really just marketing designed to appeal to a few future prospects?

And while anyone would opt to do so, if they had the cash . . . you don’t really need such big time lawyers if you’re just going to negotiate immunity and then, for the rest of your life, be absolved of sin.

FWIW, Ari Fleischer lawyered up with Williams & Connolly, another mega-firm (and apparently outside his income bracket — he refused to tell reporters who was representing him because he didn’t want to be billed for their answering reporters’ calls).

Hold it. She’s still on the government payroll. She can’t take â€free†legal representation if she’s still employed at the DOJ, can she? Inside the Beltway, that falls under â€gift†rules, doesn’t it? (Outside the Beltway, it would simply be called a â€bribeâ€, of course.)

She can’t take â€free†legal representation if she’s still employed at the DOJ, can she?

It’s close to the end of Dubya’s term, though, and if the firm can wait until 2009 to be paid, I’m sure the bill will be â€taken care of†somehow. (IIRC, Clinton said before the end of his term that he would raise money to pay his staffers’ legal bills.)
———————-
â€Monica, Katherine Harris is holding for you on line one.â€

I think this is the most intense period in American politics since McCarthy or Watergate. The stakes and potential for direct constitutional conflict are emmense, yet the public hasn’t a clue that the very fabric of freedon here in the US is on the line. Who blinks first, what if noone binks? WOW!

I’m just happy that the statute of limitations on obstruction is longer than the amount of time Bush still has in office.

I don’t believe that Goodling can refuse a grant of immunity if it adequately removes her risk of criminal prosecution. She could then be compelled to testify. Getting there involves an elaborate dance, in which each side flirts with the other about what they know, about what crimes their immunity would protect them, etc. Dowd will want blanket immunity, Congress limted transactional immunity; hence, the dance and ultimately horse trading.

I think Dowd is playing the same multi-level game as Rove. If Goodling has the goods on top people, that’s one more chit that makes Dowd an inside player, for the same reason J. Edgar Hoover kept elaborate files. Professionally, he needs to keep his client out of the way if she’s innocent, and off the hook if she committed crimes. He needs to protect her from reprisals if she talks at all. For Karl and Dubya, that would be recommitting the original sin, an act they would take great pride in punishing with biblical excess, lest anyone else consider such infamy.

But you’re right, Dowd and Akin Gump are the top of the heap. They have far more reach and power than Sampson’s firm. This is too convoluted and expensive a game for them to do it for free. Goodling almost certainly could not afford them, probably not even the work they did this week. Nor would she have direct access to them without a sponsor. Which means they must implicitly consider that sponsor’s interests. (Implicitly, because ethics rules would bar putting any interest above their client’s; they would rationalize them as not being in conflict.)

The Libby reference may be code for the risks the WH could incur if they threaten a small-fry like Goodling. Like her having a compromising photo of the King of Bohemia, so he can’t make her disappear without paying a consequence. It might telegraph to Congress that she knows some good stuff, suggesting immunity would be worth the price. The disparaging remarks about Congress being engaged in an illegitimate, partisan fishing expedition – apart from the irony when seen from the perspective of the fired US Attorneys – is good theater; it bolsters Goodling’s argument that her fear of implicating even her innocent self is reasonable.

In the end, this keeps the crowd’s eyes off the ball, which is still on the WH’s side of the net.

EW: â€â€¦ it just strikes me that Goodling is really the key player in the negotiations between WH and DOJ on these firings. […] So her unique invocation of the Fifth may actually be a strategy to shut this thing down. Or, at the very least, to ratchet up the stakes.â€

Maybe it was too obvious to state, but I think at least part of it — if not an immunity ploy — is to delay the investigation as long and as much as possible.

Bush is out in 2009. If Goodling, in her role as WH liason for DOJ, is the lynchpin here (and I think it’s probably a troika of Sampson, Goodling, and Jennings) then pushing her 5th Amendment claim to resist questioning through the courts, up to SCOTUS, could seriously muck things up, at least for a little while.

But I don’t see how she gets around testifying if granted immunity. She can refuse a pardon, yes. But I don’t think immunity for testimony can be turned down.

.

mbbsdphil: â€Dowd and Akin Gump are the top of the heap. They have far more reach and power than Sampson’s firm. This is too convoluted and expensive a game for them to do it for free. Goodling almost certainly could not afford them, probably not even the work they did this week. Nor would she have direct access to them without a sponsor.â€

So who is it? Comstock? Parsky? Someone else?

Anyone have any ideas or educated speculation?

.

EW: â€No, that’s a good point–delay delay delay […] I’m coming aroud to the immunity position–though something about this still strikes me as a different move, perhaps immunity, but there’s a catch…â€

Thanks, I agree. She’s definitely way overlawyered for just an immunity deal, and her excuse for invoking the fifth is way too coy. Something’s fishy, but ultimately, immunity has to come into play. My guess is they’re looking for something special in the immunity deal, something outside the norm, extreme even for this type of situation.

I would guess that either means they have testimony they *know* will lead to impeachment proceedings, and they’re trying to keep her as protected as possible from repercussions OR they really are trying to keep her from testifying under any situation.

â€Nor would she have direct access to them without a sponsor.â€

So who is it? Comstock? Parsky? Someone else?
Anyone have any ideas or educated speculation?

How’s this for a guess?

On second thought, Swopa’s guess lends more weight to Marcy’s â€pushing the envelope†theory. If Goodling was holding out for immunity but sponsored by the Janus-like White House and RNC, the immunity isn’t ultimately for her.

This is an interesting thread, the discussion of Goodling’s motives and the legal issues involved. I frankly think the discussion is a bit lofty, though, for the Bush mentality of the DOJ or the rest of the Administration.

I think they are so arrogant, so full of their Unitary this and that theory, so paranoid about Congress [and the C.I.A.] that the deepest thought from them is â€No. I don’t want to.†They start with â€No†and fit everything else around it. My read is Monica is in way over her head. Her emails are naive and sophmoric. I think she’s scared and doesn’t want to talk. I think they’re afraid to let her talk. I expect they found some high powered lawyer and said â€she can’t talk to Congress†and he wrapped up a story designed to keep her out of the spotlight.

I don’t think the run of the mill Bushie is as smart as the commentors in this thread. I think they’re just obstructionists figuring out ways to obstruct. I like EW’s, â€No, that’s a good point — delay delay delay.†Just niggle and frustrate Congress until they wear out or we’re out of office. I suggest the best strategy would be to send her directly to jail. If they fight in court, fine. But negotiating with them is just falling for their bait. When has it ever worked? Win or lose in court.

Or just give her immunity for all things for life [Then put her in jail when she still won’t talk – the â€Fitzgerald Methodâ€].

Evidently the story that McNulty told Schumer he testified falsely based on what Goodling told him was confirmed by David Schuster, per Atrios. So she is in line for false statements by proxy.

But who fed her the false information? Who laid out the strategy? That’s why she can’t testify, not her personal jeopardy, for which she could be given immunity.

The Mehlman connection is really interesting. Pro bono representation would qulaify as a gift, one would think; even reduced rates would.

Please be careful about claiming that invoking the Fifth Amendment necessarily means that one has something to hide. It was Senator McCarthy (and the notorious HUAC) who used Fifth Amendment pleas by witnesses to badger them and accuse them of being Communists or pinkos.

While it is entirely likely that Ms. Goodling is in the WH plots up to her ears, invocation of the Fifth is not in and of itself an admission of guilt. Let’s not abuse the Constitution to get at the abusers. There must be several other ways to get information. After all, Congress can grant immunity to her even if she doesn’t want it, thus compelling her to testify. If, on the other hand, they wish to pursue a criminal investigation, she cannot be compelled to testify against herself.

Please do not flame me for this; I am not a concern troll. I have written on the maladministration’s Constitutional misbehavior in diaries at kos and in comments here and at other sites. But I’m concerned to hear even Christie at FDL saying that she must have something to hide if she wants to invoke the Fifth. On other evidence, I’m sure she has plenty to hide, but we should not chip away at Fifth Amendment rights, even for those who would not wish to grant us the same rights.

Good News maybe — NPR reported out the first poll of public opinion regarding whether Congress should fully investigate the USA firings on All Things Considered tonight. 72% say Yes — Congress should proceed. That is darn high given that this whole story only started being reported by the MSM over the last two weeks. If Bush’s base on this is only 28%, that is significant.

There is another way to proceed, assuming that Gonzales can be forced out quickly. It is informal, but it was used during Watergate. The Senate can demand, as part of confirming a new AG, a commission for an Independent Prosecutor, and hopefully they remember enough Watergate Lore to remember to get it in Writing. In the case of Elliot Richardson, it was verbal only, which was the weak spot at the time of the Saturday Night Massacre, when he resigned rather than fire Cox. But subsequently, with the Next AG after the Massacre, Senate Judiciary got the commission spelled out in writing as the basis for Jaworski’s authorities.

At some level a distinction needs to be made between Congressional Investigative work, and the actual investigation of crimes through normal process — a prosecutor, a Grand Jury, and a trial judge who receives indictments and moves cases toward trial. The two can play off each other, but ultimately Congress has a different purpose from the Courts — Congress’s interests are in the effective operation of DOJ and not precisely in guilt or innocence of individual officials.

All this is why I think pressure has to be put on House Members to begin writing resolutions of impeachment against Gonzales and putting them in the Hopper, which is what will move Conyers to prepare (staff up) for an impeachment investigation in his committee. A formal impeachment investigation removes many witness protections not possible in an oversight hearing — Executive Privilege is off the table, and I would imagine Fifth Amendment claims would be less powerful. But it is otherwise a narrow investigation — it is focused on Gonzales’s role and actions. And Impeachment is always a political move — it is about formally saying so and so is not qualified or fit to hold high office. Gonzales has virtually no friends in Congress — he has no political constitutency other than Bush, and thus I suspect done right, he could not only be impeached, but convicted. And if he looks down the tunnel, he might well decide to resign and focus on defending himself in court. Which would mean — an AG vacancy, and Leahy could then write a commission for a Special Prosecutor as part of a package in confirming a new AG.

You know that 28% that want Congress to fully investigate is dead on where public opinion vis a vis Nixon was at the beginning of the public debate in the Rodino Judiciary Committee impeachment process. Hearings that establish facts can only inform and strengthen this measure of public opinion — something absolutely necessary if a process is to go forward. (This is not at all like Clinton’s impeachment, where Clinton never went below 50%). And Gonzales is not Bush — Gonzales can be removed without legally touching Bush. All it would do is prevent DOJ being used as a political asset by Bush.

Swopa!

So, Mehlman is a partner in Achin’ Gump but the law licenses he holds in DC & Maryland are inactive. Since he can’t, therefore, currently practice law — right? — one can only imagine what he’s bringing to the firm.

To the lawyers on this thread from a non-lawyer:

If Goodling takes the 5th is she at risk of disbarment ?