I thought I read a comment that one cannot take the fifth in order to evade incriminating other people.

If Schumer, and the committee, has independent evidence of the suspected wrongs by Goodling, that would present a classic situation for the granting of limited use immunity for compelled testimony. The right to prosecute Goodling is maintained and she is placed in the chair for testimony. Personally, I am still curious as to whether Goodling is a member of any state bar. I have seen one lone statement that she is a member of the Virginia bar, but it was unsubstantiated, so it seems to still be an open question. If she is indeed a bar member, invocation of the 5th in relation to your duties and obligations as an attorney is certainly grounds for a complaint and punitive action thereon. It would be interesting for a Virginia resident to file a complaint simply to see how the bar there responded. I have seen Dowd in action in a high profile criminal case where he represented a politician, and he was, at least at first, not at all beligerent as he has been, curiously, right off the bat here.

EW,

You are losing perspective. Goodling is not the issue. And Goodling is not going to jail. Blonde 30 somethings are not the profile for prison. Get over it.

The point is political. How do we protect our children?

Politicizing DOJ is bad. It is important to get any such activities into the light of day. All the rest is small potatoes.

Immunize her. Completely. And put her in front of the cameras.

If she lies, then she will have trouble.

Besides, chasing some small fry like Goodling around with a bazooka is just STUPID politics.

By the way, there is a rumor that Elston ordered a lot of summer intern job offers revoked one year because the applicants looked too liberal or too Democrat to him.

Maybe true. Maybe not. If true, maybe legal. I really don’t know. And I don’t care that much. My point is that I doubt that Goodling was the lone ranger.

Anyway, let’s hear what she has to say.

Based on all the crap that’s been coming out of the DOJ lately, I think that it’s quite reasonable to conclude that she may well incriminate herself if she testifies. Hell, I’d be afraid to even admit that I worked there. I liked the Congressional response, though: You can’t claim blanket Fifth Amendement rights and just not show up. You have to come before Congress and exercise your right to remain silent. Furthermore, you STILL can’t make a blanket invocation. You have to do it on a question-by-question basis. I’m not sure if the second assertion will hold legal water, but the first one seems pretty reasonable to me.

As for immunity, there’s no way in hell I’d offer anyone immunity at this point in the game. If Goodling has something to hide, Congress should try to figure out what it is. If she’s trying to be the firewall, I can’t figure out who she’s protecting. Gonzo? He’s in more than enough trouble already. She might as well be a plumber on the Titanic.

Frank Probst

I seem to recall even Kenny Boy Lay had to show up to say he was taking the Fifth. If Bush’s best buddy has to do so, I imagine Monica can hack it.

Frank

As to keeping her job, I don’t think so. And if they did, I’m guessing it wasn’t a top official in DOJ.

They believe a perjury trap is being set against her, in which the committee will choose to believe someone else’s testimony over hers.

MayBee,

The way to avoid a perjury trap is not to lie under oath. You can’t lie under oath unless you’re asked a question. She is claiming she doesn’t even have to answer any questions because the committee might not believe her. Since when is ’No thanks, you won’t believe me anyway’ a serious option?

This isn’t a trial, it’s a committee hearing. She’s being asked to tell what she knows and what she did. If her answer would incriminate her she’s free to take the 5th. But preemptively? Based on an opinion that she won’t be believed? What the committee chooses to believe won’t put her in jail. Only what can be proved in a court of law would do that. She’s free to lie, tell the truth or take the 5th. But not before being asked a question.

Yup—no immunity, make her plead. At the least, it’s good teevee and causes everyone to wonder.

I think she actually did commit crimes, but her expensive law firm is trying to do PR as well, but not so well. I don’t get their insulting tone—that wasn’t in her best interests. So they may have another client who’s actually paying her bill. I don’t think she comes from money, and she’s not making enough on a government salary to afford them.

Frank: She’s kept her job so far because her job is to follow Karl’s orders. Karl ordered her to stall: voila. She’s doing her job about as well as the boss could ask.

Her problem now is, how to explain that to the board of directors without getting her boss fired?

irene-
The way to avoid a perjury trap is not to lie under oath. You can’t lie under oath unless you’re asked a question. She is claiming she doesn’t even have to answer any questions because the committee might not believe her. Since when is ’No thanks, you won’t believe me anyway’ a serious option?

This isn’t a trial, it’s a committee hearing. She’s being asked to tell what she knows and what she did. If her answer would incriminate her she’s free to take the 5th

Has anyone ever been tried for perjury that didn’t actually lie?
Why would any innocent person take the 5th – they can’t incriminate themselves if they did nothing wrong, right?

Ace Armstrong,

Hitler was having trouble with the Wermacht (German Army), so he had the members of the Wermacht also take a pledge to the person of the fuhrer, Herr Hitler. So it went into the official government employees there also. It wasn’t just the SS.

When the USA firing questions first broke, the mystery was, what was the WH up to?

Those of us who are following closely are concluding that the answer was to put police power in the hands of Rove’s olitical operatives, in pursuit of the permanent Republican majority.

Goodling and the Fifth Amendment is the next mystery. Why would someone who was not obviously one of the key players make her first public position the assertion of the Fifth, with a legally dubious explanation of fearing her testimony would not be believed?

Everything about this is speculation right now, but I cannot help myself from chewing over the mystery.

Under what scenario does Goodling asserting the Fifth advance any agenda Karl Rove would want to advance? I cannot see one, which makes me think that Goodling is doing this without WH guidance or approval.

Who knows….It may even be that Goodling, having been a good little authoritarian operator for so long, upon being apprised by counsel that she was committing crimes, is repenting.

I do not count on it. There is no evidence of it. The whole history of the Bush administration as being full of pious, self-righteous liars suggests that Goodling is likewise unrepentant.

But that still leaves the mystery….

Still don’t think she’s angling for immunity. However, I am beginning to believe she has some legal jepardy. She seems like the type that would have no problem pulling loyalty question duty. But all that aside, she’s first and foremost playing for delay. She will have to appear, and for my money she won’t answer a single question. Her handlers will see to that, answering some questions and not others would help the investigators, so even that won’t happen.

My gut feeling is that Karl thought through this as a possible reality long ago. Monica is probably as much a cutout as anything. She’s expendable, a true believer, and probably yet a level removed from Rove. Even if they get through her, there will be yet another expendable moderately complicit operator to stonewall yet again.

Somewhere the committe is going to have to find a loose stone. Monica covers for Rove and Abu. Abu covers for Rove and Monica. If these neocon dicks figure they can weather this if they can hold their line. And perhaps they can. But once that first Trojan goes down, the hole in the shield wall will allow one hell of a bloodletting.

Popcorn — Need more popcorn.

Nice post EW – and solid comments all around, except for a couple of you pissy one’s. You know who you are.

By calling the House and Senate requests that Monica testify some flip flop version of McCarthyism, the Akin letter on behalf of Monica seeks to direct our attention away from the core reason Monica has been invited (will be subpoened) to testify. She is a Senior Management person in DOJ, and Congress in its oversight role, has a right to question her on ANYTHING she knows about DOJ management practices. They would have that oversight right if DOJ was running smoothly — and they sure have it if DOJ has very apparent problems.

In a previous thread, I speculated that what the administration is trying to do is litigate a case that raises their Governing Principle — Unitary Government — to a ripe issue to be decided in the courts. Remember both Roberts and Alito seem to be believers in this principle, and they may see this as a chance to prevail in an appeals setting on this. For this reason, a cautionary reason, it is in my opinion in the interest of Congress not to play that game right now. Under the Unitary Government Thesis the claim would be made that Congress has no oversight or supervisory role in how the DOJ is run, because the management political appointees work for the President, and only the President and his appointees can supervise a staffer such as Monica. Congress, right now, does not need to put its well established oversight powers at risk in any litigation that raises this question.

If, as some assume, Schumer has other sources telling him Monica (perhaps at the direction of the AG) administered loyality oaths, or in other ways participated in inappropriate hiring and firing decisions on political ideological grounds, then Conyers’s or Leahy’s committees can establish those facts without any participation by 5th amendment Monica. They can process her through a Contempt Citation, and for the time, just let it hang. By taking the 5th, she would not be able to challenge that characterization. Fine.

But the key thing is to get rid of Gonzales and his whole top level DOJ Management team. If public opinion and all don’t accomplish that soon, then Conyers has to proceed with impeachment against Gonzales, (I remind that impeachment is neither appealable nor a matter for a pardon), because the most important thing is to get him gone — forcing the President to nominate an acceptable more a-political AG. Part of that package can be a Special Prosecutor to deal with the Monica case, and any others that might surface.

From a Democratic point of view (and I am not only a Democrat, I am a DFL’er) the most important objective for Leahy a DOJ that can do its regular work — normal operations. Afterall, it is Democrats that run competent Governments and take care of normal everyday business. We like plain Jane Prosecutors, plain Jane Judges, and reasonably efficent, highly competent management that doesn’t produce snits at every turn. Trying to get there will be one piece of the ticket to our next election — and we don’t need to do it below the radar. We don’t need super secret E-Mail servers to accomplish this. Democrats are just plain brown wrapper normal order folk.

But I do favor a Gonzales Impeachment which would be rather attention grabbing. I’d focus on the Lying to Congress (a felony) charge, and perhaps a few minor ones, and I believe the votes might be there even in the Senate for this. I doubt if it would get far beyond preliminary hearing before Bush would push Gonzales out — but he has no political base with Congress, and many Republicans are not going to vote that it is OK to lie to them. (And many are done covering up for Bush).

But above all, we don’t want this viewed as any sort of â€Constitutional Crisis†as some are suggesting. We don’t want to play into an appeals game where the thesis of Unitary Government is at the heart of the issue. Monica is something of a bright object out there, and if we focus on that we chance litigation on who supervises her?

I’m sorry, but giving immunity is pretty lame. You are left with perjury as an offense. It is better to find out what MG did, or could have done and hold those offenses (probably many of them) over her sweet golden locks.

Most of these idiots are not talking because the ultimate offense is treason, which probably does not have an expiration date.

MayBee

No, it’s this part you seem to be missing:

Note, Schumer was focusing on AUSAs, which aren’t the same kind of political appointment, making the questions legally much more problematic than the same questions of USAs, at least as I understand it.

AUSAs aren’t political appointees, they fall under civil service guidelines. So while it may be legal to ask USAs, it is not legal to ask AUSAs.

I’d also point out–According to Monica’s lawyers, she has been unjustly accused. I hear what you’re saying about perjury–after all, I’m the one who brought up the reason WHY they mentioned McCarthy. But she is doing more than refusing to put herself in a position to (falsely or no) perjure herself. She is forgoing the opportunity to counter McNulty’s claims against her. She has already been accused, by a witness, of causing perjury. Invoking the Fifth doesn’t remove her perjury risk. On the coontrary, it leaves it out there, uncontested.

tomj

My point about the Republican loyalty oaths is that, no, you’re not just talking perjury. Schumer implied, at least, that he has evidence against perjury.

Sara

I understand (and agree with) what you’re saying about a constitutional crisis. But I’d add one more thing: Bush has pushed recess appointments far beyond what has been done before. He didn’t try recessing Bolton a second time, but seriously considered it. So keep in mind that we may get a constitutional crisis anyway, if on appointments, rather than justice.

Then of course, there’s the bigger issue that there is no justice so long as DOJ is politicized to the extent it appears to be.

The Quote is about L. Patrick Gray Nixon’s nominee to head the FBI.

The Quote is from Ehrlichman’s phone tape introduced into evidence during the Ervin Committee Hearings.

The occassion was Gray’s testifying more or less truthfully about the ITT investigations. (Does one remember Ditta Beard?) This honesty was unhelpful, and what Ehrlichman proposed was to leave Gray twisting in the wind with no Presidential support, in hopes he would withdraw from the FBI nomination. (he did).

I don’t think this is yet where Gonzoles has arrived. Bush still is stubbornly supporting him in public, though there are reports he is not making the requesite phone calls. It is a â€watch all exits†time.

I agree largely with Sara.

Distract and delay is the game. And, if possible, gwb will try to claim the moral/constitutional/God-Given high ground — saying — somehow — that it would violate the Constitution for Goodling to tell Congress what she has been doing at work. As Sara says, this should be avoided.

Congress should be seen as not vengeful, but as serious, respectful, and high-minded. The way to do that is to make clear that Congress is not looking for convictions. Congress should be looking for information — to make sure that our Government is being run right.

If that is the agenda — and seen to be the agenda — it will be harder for gwb clan to resist providing information. Sunshine is key.

That is why Goodling — and others — should be given immunity. Make them talk. Now. While it matters.

EW, Iran – Contra failed because Congress did not have guts enough to step up and prevent Sullivan and North from turning their hearing into a propaganda session. And Congress did not have guts enough to demand testimony about all from everyone. At some level, Congress did not really want to know. It feared the story.

The people who are back now came back for much longer and more tangled reasons than that they got immunity.

And do you really fear the return of Goodling?

This situation is not Plame. Because of secrecy concerns, Plame could not easily have been investigated by Congress. Not in open session. You needed a grand jury approach.

Here, there is no reason for secrecy. And no excuse for it.

I think â€twisting in the wind†was applied in 1972 to the handling of George McGovern’s first running mate, Thomas Eagleton (who recently passed away). When it was revealed that Eagleton had once sought psychiatric help, McGovern refused to back him up. So it was politically current already before the Patrick Gray incident.

Can’t the committee ask the AUSAs or USAsif they’ve ever had Ms. Goodling or her staff request loyalty oaths of them? And can’t they get those answers before she appears, to then ask her about any positive responses they receive? I’ve got to believe that at least some of them are ready to tell the truth about any oaths demanded of them.
I may be missing fine points of this issue, and I haven’t read all the comments to date. Are the AUSAs legally bound to secrecy about an oath if they were asked for one?

dustbunny

It appears that some of the AUSAs have already told the Committee about this–presumably that’s the basis on which Schumer made the allegations.

But that won’t make her talk.

On a minor side-issue that has intrigued EW and a few others of us (on an FDL thread) — to wit, whether Goodling is duly licensed to practice law in VA or anywhere else. Virginia’s State bar does not have a very good website, and its search function only locates lawyers who have had disciplinary issues or who are practicing without malpractice insurance … not very helpful. But because she did the obligatory short stint in the EDVA federal prosecutor’s office (handling super-small-bore cases, usually Park Service prosecutions for petty offenses), and because she entered appearances in a few cases there (and I do mean a few, about 4), I think it overhwhelmingly likely that she does in fact hold a VA license. In order to practice in that court you have to give your VA license information, including Bar Number. In addition, although the Bushies may not care a whit about credentials, I doubt very seriously that career prosecutors in the EDVA would allow an unlicensed attoreny to practice in their office.
Nuts. It would have been delicious if it turned out she wasn’t even licensed in addition to being woefully unqualified for the high position she holds (as EW says still!!!).

The small-bore cases also point to a potential strategy of assigning these Bible-college Bushies a few resume-padding bullet points before pushing them through the ranks.

I’m with Marcy on the question of immunity: it’s foolish right now to underestimate the importance of people like Goodling to the Bush machine. If she gets away with this tactic, then it sets a precedent against further oversight of those higher up the greasy pole. Which may explain why she’s been fitted out with a very not-cheap attorney, and that’s a subject worthy over oversight in itself. I’d like to see her claim the 5th if asked who’s paying her legal bills.

Marcy, above:

Sebastian

Somewhere I remember seeing that her DC and VA bar licenses are lapsed (Which is true of most of htese Bushies, including the guy they’re bringing into WA–what’s with that). Which woudl make sense–she had it, but is no longer paying dues.

I’m a member of the bar in California, but my membership is â€inactive†because I don’t practice any more. I DO pay membership dues, so that if I should need to, I could â€reactivateâ€. However, the dues for â€inactive†members are far less that those for active ones.

It used to be quite easy to â€waive in†to bar membership in DC on the wheels(wink) of your bar membership in another state. However, DeeCee lawyers got miffed at all the competition, so they made it a lot harder [e.g., had to have practiced for 5 years in other state, etc.]

Sometimes, as I vaguely recall, you could work â€as a lawyer†in the Federal Government without becoming a member of the DC bar. But my role, when I did that, involved just â€office work,†and did not include appearing in court.

I think the trail of her bar admission is an interesting one. I don’t know how hard it is to pass the bar in VA (in CA, it’s VERY hard). Another thing people used to do in the past was go to some weenie-ass state with an easy bar exam, take the prep class & pass the bar there, and then parlay that bar membership into membership in DC.

Just some misc. pieces of info. Hope they’re helpful.