Comments (205)

Anonymous wrote on April 4, 2007 3:04 PM:

That's a lot of no's from the lawyer.

And his no's are probably expensive.

Who's paying for Monica's expensive lawyer?

If she's not paying for him, then she's accepting a gift, and as a government employee, that's breaking the law.

Citizen 92 wrote on April 4, 2007 3:08 PM:

Ironic that her lawyer is asking Conyers and Sanchez to honor "prior Congressional practice" when the defendant herself chose to throw "prior Congressional practice" to the wind.

Rebel wrote on April 4, 2007 3:08 PM:

Let the subpoenas begin!

Code Word: "clean" as in it's time to CLEAN house!

Claudia wrote on April 4, 2007 3:12 PM:

SUBPOENA!

Steve H. wrote on April 4, 2007 3:13 PM:

Wait. Don't these folks believe that McCarthy was the good guy?

Canvas -- knock 'em to the canvas.

Mark Richards wrote on April 4, 2007 3:13 PM:

The subpoena should be issued forthwith. No more screwing around.

I wondered what all this "code word" stuff is, and then I realized, looking at the CAPTCHA "security code".

Mine reads, and how perfect, "blood".

Anne wrote on April 4, 2007 3:14 PM:

I'm starting to get the feeling that this is all about turning this into the big, bad Congresspeople against poor, little Monica, and when lawyer Dowd thinks the scene has been properly set, Ms. Goodling will appear and tearfully invoke her 5th amendment rights.

It's just the latest act in the kabuki theatre.

B00mer wrote on April 4, 2007 3:17 PM:

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

Rusty Austin wrote on April 4, 2007 3:18 PM:

I would hope that Mr. Conyers is not intimidated by this yahoo. It seems to me Dowd has decided he has nothing to lose by attacking. That remains to be seen. In the words of Speaker Pelosi, "there's a new congress in town," one that seems to be interested in fulfilling its constitutional obligations.

Pinson wrote on April 4, 2007 3:19 PM:

Nice. I assumed that they were trying in the past to avoid the issue of McNulty and false testimony to congress. Taken to the mat by Conyers, they come right out and call McNulty a liar. Ball's in your court, Mr. McNulty. Time for a John Dean moment? Someone's going to sing on this conspiracy to save their own skin, wonder who's going to jump first.

Security code: poison.

Seriously, what' up with the security codes around here!

Anon wrote on April 4, 2007 3:19 PM:

John Dowd is absolutely right about Goodling's invocation of the Fifth Amendment. It is sad to see John Conyers (and perhaps Elliot Mincberg, who used to work for PFAW) attempting to penalize an individual for asserting their rights under the Fifth Amendment.

The McCarthyism claims are completely unwarranted, but Dowd is absolutely right about the law. Despite the protestations of Republicans, there is enough circumstantial (if not direct) credible evidence of wrongdoing here that Democrats do not need to engage in the same type of Constitution trampling that Republicans have engaged in over the past six years.

SLOUCH wrote on April 4, 2007 3:22 PM:

Goodness, this lawyer seems convincing, th the layman, and you're right, that's got to cost a lot. It sure is a good thing WE'RE still paying the Buzzsaw's salary.

secret code = fact

Derelict wrote on April 4, 2007 3:23 PM:

I'm starting to get the feeling that this is all about turning this into the big, bad Congresspeople against poor, little Monica, and when lawyer Dowd thinks the scene has been properly set, Ms. Goodling will appear and tearfully invoke her 5th amendment rights.

It's just the latest act in the kabuki theatre.

Yes, but with one big difference: That kabuki doesn't play well any more. Especially now that we're in the realm of criminal charges, her absolute refusal to cooperate or comply with a subpoena means somebody is going to jail. And the way she, Gonzales, and the rest of the crew are going about things, they're ALL painting themselves into a criminal conspiracy corner.

Randy wrote on April 4, 2007 3:23 PM:

Goodling is the 'Big Fish' that the committee is looking for. She is the source that Sampson is the 'aggragator' of information for. She leads right to Rove and Jennings. And they to the President and Vice President.

Hook that fish and filet her like a trout.

Securuty Code: Meat like in fresh

EH wrote on April 4, 2007 3:26 PM:

The McCarthyism claims are completely unwarranted, but Dowd is absolutely right about the law.

The Fifth is not a Get Out Of Testifying Free card. The only reasons she would have to plead it is if her answers would expose her to legal jeopardy. There's no reason to believe these are the only questions she would be asked, and I don't think anybody would say that Conyers et al already know what she did wrong and will ask questions only about that. Goodling is an ant in this process: she had no power but did the dirty work. It's the power part that is the problem here.

And really, by Dowd's logic, nobody would ever come to Bush with ideas about stopping the Iraq War, since there's plenty of evidence he's already made up his mind there. Heck, for that matter, as steadfast this administration is on their policies, Dowd's logic serves as an argument against *ever* negotiating with the President.

MediaFreeze wrote on April 4, 2007 3:26 PM:

From the obvious department...

It "it is not" true that Monica caused McNulty to give inaccurate testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee then what is the basis for her taking the Fifth?

Kentucky wrote on April 4, 2007 3:26 PM:

Mr. Conyers comments aside, in the publics view the innocent to do invoke the Fifth Amendment.

Compel Ms. Goodling to appear and compel her to plead the fifth to every question; it will be a PR disaster for the republicans. It might be somewhat of political theatre, but everyone would clearly know the lay of the land from that kind of testimony.

Allsburg wrote on April 4, 2007 3:28 PM:

She can't just plead a blanket fifth. She's got to testify to things that don't potentially implicate her. She can only take the fifth when congress asks her about preparing McNulty.

Code word: "ambidexterously", as in, "John Dowd's letter gives congress the finger ambidexterously."

The Commissar wrote on April 4, 2007 3:28 PM:

That 1977 DC (Bar Ass'n?) Ethics Committee statement clearly is on Dowd's/Goodling's side.

Also toward the end of the letter --- Do I detect a hint of a request for immunity in exchange for testimony? If so, if Goodling rolled, that would be huge.

personalman wrote on April 4, 2007 3:31 PM:

I don't what what Anon means about Dowd being "right" about the invocation of the Fifth. Anon sounds like a judge issuing a ruling. This is the crux issue after all. How about: 'there's two different positions each with truthful aspects." Let's go to the mats in time honored tradition. Subpoena time....

What about good faith in the presentation of these positions? Dowd gratuitously cites McCarthy as analoguous. Hmmm. And what about his presumption that various Senators have reached conclusions. Like.. what conclusions? Evidence? None. Just bad faith invective, like his references to Libby and Safavian. Did you find anything provocative or undignified in the committee's letters? I didn't . OK I know Dowd is allowed his defense lawyer outrage, but please.....

NEVERvoteRepublicanagain wrote on April 4, 2007 3:31 PM:

I agree with the first poster. Who is paying for all these attorney's??? Maybe that should be discovered before we can move on. She is a government employee, employed by ME and other tax payers and she is not doing her job so she must be TERMINATED IMMEDIATELY from government service. She can't have it both ways.

With all this media hype, she most likely is GUILTY of conspiracy and as such should not be working for the DOJ. What is the limit on bribing a federal worker??

Jeff wrote on April 4, 2007 3:32 PM:

Anon:

How pray tell is asking someone to come in behind close doors in an interview (that is not under oath) to tell what questions she will decline to answer and on what basis she declines to answer them "penalizing" that individual and "Constitution trampling"? Seems a bit too lenient to me...

Dennis wrote on April 4, 2007 3:32 PM:

Goodling is apparently like the bookkeeper for the mafia; the only one, except for the Don, who really knows what is going on.

One can accurately bet that when it comes to presidential pardons at the end of Bush's term, Goodling's pardon will come ahead of Scooter Libby's.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

Jay wrote on April 4, 2007 3:35 PM:

She should still receive a subpoena. There are questions that may not concern her personal criminal activity that she could answer. Additionally, I don't understand Mr. Dowd's totally adversarial nature. When Plato Chekeris (sp) came in as Monica Lewinsky's attorney, the first thing he looked for was immunity. If Monica Goodling is his only client (not the administration) why not look for a deal? I'd think she is small fish in this matter.

EdNSted wrote on April 4, 2007 3:35 PM:

The sun is starting to shine in places that haven't seen the light of day in years. We can only hope that this train goes all the way to Blackwater. That's when pleading the Fifth Amendment will really become the national pastime and hundreds of cockroaches will scurry for the dark crevices.

Code word: "false", as in testimony.

ice weasel wrote on April 4, 2007 3:35 PM:

What are we waiting for here? Get her in front of the committee. This is ridiculous posturing that only serves to make goodling...errr..."buzz saw" look like a victim.

There's no downside to making her testify.

Stephen Dulaney wrote on April 4, 2007 3:36 PM:

Sure seems like Rove is still involved in the communications plan with this attach line about McCarthy

even comparing Conyers to Sen. Joseph McCarthy, "who infamously labeled those who asserted their constitutional right to remain silent before his committee 'Fifth Amendment Communists.'"

security code "fact"

that's wierd

Richard L. Adlof wrote on April 4, 2007 3:37 PM:

Yo Monica!

Come in and go on camera saying "I ascert my right to not incriminate myself." OR roast in the prison of our choice for obstructing Justice and contempt of Congress.

greenchilecheeseburger wrote on April 4, 2007 3:38 PM:

If she's given immunity, doesn't her ability to plead the 5th go out the window? And, on a related note, if she's given immunity and still refuses to testify, does that mean that she can't be held in contempt because of said immunity?

Code word "push" as in under a bus.

Explosive Logorrhea wrote on April 4, 2007 3:38 PM:

That's exactly what I was wondering, The Commissar. Although, again - this time with the McCarthy allusions - Dowd seems awfully pugalistic for someone who seeks a deal.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on April 4, 2007 3:39 PM:

Subpeona all of Monica's emails beginning with her first day on the job.

anon wrote on April 4, 2007 3:39 PM:

With McNulty's statement to Schumer in the open, Dowd's position looks smarter every day. Look at the Scooter Libby case. Though I certainly believe he lied (and believe that indictments should have gone farther up the administration ladder), look at the evidence presented by Fitzgerald. Basically, because of everyone's conflicting testimony and bad recollection of events and conversations, the question for the jury was who do you believe, Russert or Libby? The jury believed Russert, so Libby is convicted. That's what Dowd means by 'perjury trap.'

In this case, we know that McNulty has already tried to save his own skin by blaming his subordinates. Who knows what the rest of DOJ will say to these committees? Certainly Goodling won't know before she goes to testify. In such a situation, she is walking into a trap. She could (if true) say she had nothing to do with it and, if the committee, special prosecutor, or whoever decides they think McNulty is more credible, then she's indicted. The "truth" would make no difference.

The committee is a trap for Goodling or anyone else, and the big dogs have already shielded themselves with a phalanx of Goodlings and Sampsons. Dowd's likely to help Goodling be the only person who never testifies to these committees.

Jim wrote on April 4, 2007 3:39 PM:

I'm simply bewildered (again): How can an employee of the Executive branch, especially one without even the sketchiest claims of Executive privilege, refuse to testify before Congress? And how can a fifth-amendment claim be valid when there isn't even (officially) a crime that's being investigated?

Code word: glove, as in Rove probably handled all the paper regarding this with gloves on.

personalman wrote on April 4, 2007 3:40 PM:

Jay is on the right track, in my opinion. Immunity is the obvious way out. But Dowd ain't making his client's life easy by pissing off Leahy. He has the sanctimonious arrogance of his client, and he should know better. I have to say, just as a show of balls, when he says to the committee, in effect: 'you have her affidavit, why would you ever need her to appear?' Brass, and big too.

Glenn wrote on April 4, 2007 3:41 PM:

As a lawyer (yeah, I know, I hate that intro too) who's actually looked at these Fifth Am issues before, Conyers is 100% correct that the privilege cannot be invoked to refuse to testify, unless it is absolutely clear that any and all relevant questions would be incriminating. Occasionally in a court case -- where, mind you, there is a very tightly circumscribed definition of what's "relevant" to the issue at hand, unlike a Congressional inquiry -- that might be the case, but I can't see how it could possibly be true here. Dowd knows this, of course; he also knows, though, that until his client is under a subpoena, she can dither all she wants.

The "McCarthy" business is really appalling. Conyers is offering to explore her invocation behind closed doors. And she's a FUCKING DOJ OFFICIAL for chrissakes. Do we not have a slightly higher standard for them?

Helen Rainier wrote on April 4, 2007 3:41 PM:

Who the hell does this little right-wing fundie nutwing think she is? Maybe they need to slap her with obstruction of justice.

Michael Markman wrote on April 4, 2007 3:42 PM:

Goodling's lawyer says that she's justified in not testifying because the Democrats have already reached conclusions. That's not persusasive. This is not a trial, it's an investigation. At some point in an investigation, it's natural to form some hypothesis to test. The investigation can help to confirm or refute the hypothesis. Given the Republicans' willful lack of respect for and knowledge of science, they can't be expected to understand this. There's enough evidence now to support the hypothesis that the firings were meant to advance Republican partisan goals through voter suppression, taking the heat off corrupt Republican office-holders, and embarrassing and harrassing of Democrats. It's an hypothesis worth testing. Strange that the Republicans aren't

Aaron wrote on April 4, 2007 3:42 PM:

If anyone here thinks John Conyers is going to curl up in a ball in the corner because of this letter, you don't know John Conyers. This is an ass-kicking waiting to happen and it would be very wise not to antagonize this man further. But any chance at wisdom went out the window for Shrub's minions when the Clintonites took all the W keys off the keyboards back in January 2001.

So let the good times roll. And when I say "good times" of course I'm talking about subpoenas. Security Code: like, as in "You are, like, sooo going down, Monica!"

whenwego wrote on April 4, 2007 3:43 PM:

"which it is not". Then no crime was committed, so why the Fifth again?

PBen wrote on April 4, 2007 3:45 PM:

I wrote this in another thread (too late for anyone to read)....

Remembering stories of Mob lawyers, and how they appear to be working for the street thug that got caught, all the while insuring that the Mob's highest priority interests are taken care of first.

Not saying Bu$hCo's anything like organized crime, understand (koff, koff)....

ihatebeets wrote on April 4, 2007 3:45 PM:

Perhaps knowledge of who might be paying for Ms. Goodling's attorney can be found on gwb43.com emails?

What is it about government employees named Monica anyway?

John wrote on April 4, 2007 3:45 PM:

They should immunize here and make her talk

code: seem

Henk wrote on April 4, 2007 3:46 PM:

What's up with these Cristians and the persecution complex? They always think someone's picking on them.

Tony Gerard wrote on April 4, 2007 3:49 PM:

I'm not a lawyer, and can't pretend to know whether Goodling's invocation of the Fifth Amendment is valid. What catches my eye, instead, are the repeated claims by her lawyer, the White House, and Congressional Republicans that Goodling is justified in refusing to testify before a hostile committee. Citizens can't opt out of testifying because they don't feel like it.

Mooser wrote on April 4, 2007 3:50 PM:

"butter" wouldn't melt in her mouth.

shrubsy wrote on April 4, 2007 3:50 PM:

yeah, who is paying for her LAWYER? Mr Dowd don't come cheap

Why will not conyers and others continually bring up that she is an employee of the govt? I know they alluded to it, but it should be the beginning of every sentence they speak on the subject.

You can see how the bushco cartel makes it easy to jail journalists, nail whistleblowers, cover and hide for crooks on the US payroll.

Legalize wrote on April 4, 2007 3:51 PM:

"If she's given immunity, doesn't her ability to plead the 5th go out the window? And, on a related note, if she's given immunity and still refuses to testify, does that mean that she can't be held in contempt because of said immunity?"

Yes. If she is immunized, it is impossible for her to incriminate herself, and thus renders moot her assertion of her 5th amendment privilege. At this point I'd subpoena her attorney and/or try to disqualify him because he's essentially making himself a witness with personal knowledge. That would be a cold-blooded move :)

code "expert," as in "I do not purport to be an ..."

MarkAtl wrote on April 4, 2007 3:51 PM:

From the obvious department...

It "it is not" true that Monica caused McNulty to give inaccurate testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee then what is the basis for her taking the Fifth?
Posted by: MediaFreeze
Date: April 4, 2007 03:26 PM

EXACTLY!

Montie wrote on April 4, 2007 3:52 PM:

I wouldn’t be surprised if this isn’t a big side show. She seems like that type that Rove could manipulate (e.g. “it is God’s work we’re doing here, Monica”) into playing a role that will ultimately protect the Whitehouse. My guess is she’ll eventually be “dragged down to congress and forced to testify”, as the GOP storyline will go, but with immunity and only to say as little as possible, more or less, take the blame, and in turn protect everyone else. It will all be very dramatic, as her lawyer clearly intends to make it, and also fit right in with republican mythology (think Ollie North). Afterwards, the right will SCREAM enough is enough (after all, it’s nothing but a bunch of damn Democrats attacking a good, Christian woman!), and subpoenas will not be issued for Rove and Miers. Case closed.

I’m not saying that’s what will happen, but my guess is that’s their game plan.

Timtimes wrote on April 4, 2007 3:54 PM:

Time for a pool. Who will be the one to roll? The John Dean of this admin? It's gonna happen. Maybe she'll be the one?

My personal favorite would have been Colin Powell, but I guess he was in too deep.

Perhaps this will not happen at all and we'll get the 'unraveling' through RNC emails?

Enjoy.

Dave Adams wrote on April 4, 2007 3:56 PM:

Apparently having your own personal lawyer acknowledge that you are "implicated in a crime" is sufficient reason not to testify in front of Congress but not sufficent reason to lose your job in the freaking US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

Gill wrote on April 4, 2007 3:56 PM:

Oh, wow, calling the 'Thugs to account for their lies and loyalty tests is now the same as McCarthyism? So...I guess that makes Jeff Gannon the new Edward R. Murrow?

Mellifluous wrote on April 4, 2007 3:59 PM:

I accept the challenge: She is a fifth-amendment Nazi.

Martin Bento wrote on April 4, 2007 4:00 PM:

As I understand the fifth, it is protection against *self* incrimination. If Goodling's position is that McNulty lied, then her own testimony would not incriminate her. In fact, it would tend to have the opposite effect. The fact that, as the Commissar seems to suggest, someone might believe someone else over her is always a risk in a court case, and not a fate imposed on her by forcing her to testify. The Congress cannot compel her to be implausible; if she is telling the truth, she probably won't be, at least to a point of legal jeapardy; and her own testimony will presumably be directed at being as plausible as possible. To me, she only has a case for the fifth if a) McNulty was telling the truth, which she now officially disavows, or b) She is guilty of other crimes not yet identified. Or both, of course. I suspect b is true, and agnostic on a, since neither side is credible.

marblex wrote on April 4, 2007 4:01 PM:

she has the right to invoke the fifth, but must appear and assert her privilege in response to each question on an individual basis. Not all questions will support application of the privilege, if any.

I don't see how the wingers can have it both ways. First they shriek "it's not a crime" then they claim this woman has the right to withhold her testimony based upon a constitutional right that expressly exists and arises in a criminal context.

I remember when the wingers impeached Clinton for "lying" they shrieked "rule of law! rule of law!" Now that their vase network of crimes is being exposed, their honeymoon with the rule of law is over.

greenchilecheeseburger wrote on April 4, 2007 4:02 PM:

Thanks Legalize.

Maybe, as some have sort of suggested above, Dowd is baiting the committee to give Monica immunity. Then, she can confess to all of the wrongs and take all the heat away from everyone else. Maybe there's a form of immunity that is defined.

They can say you're immune wrt testimony involving "X". But, at the same time not let her off the hook for partaking in a larger conspiracy.

code word "bent" as in over.

davcbr wrote on April 4, 2007 4:04 PM:

"that he provided false testimony to Congress because Goodling and others kept information from him." She has been accused of a crime by Mr McNulty it would seem, and she is taking the fifth on this. Isn't it possible to grant limited immunity to anything that pertains to McNulty's testimony? Seems there are a lot of other questions she could answer, unless of course she wants to take the fifth on them also; but that could only be determined in Congress.

Password is false, which is true. Honest.

oldtree wrote on April 4, 2007 4:04 PM:

little resembles the law that we had in this country up until 2001. Since then, it has changed more without amendment to the constitution than in all recorded history.
this attorney is rather clear that he has been ordered by the exu branch to stonewall. I do hope he gets to do time for obstruction of justice as well, it would be fitting

marblex wrote on April 4, 2007 4:06 PM:

Due to the Separation of Powers, Congress could only offer her legislative immunity. Prosecutorial immunity would have to be granted by the DOJ. Uhm...good luck with that.

I would love to hear what John Dean has to say about it. He is an expert on these matters.

nellieh wrote on April 4, 2007 4:06 PM:

Subpeona, She takes the Fifth and then immunity. I don't think they can refuse immunity and then lying or perjury can ebter the picture. When will she be FIRED! Code is potato as in hot!

walkshills wrote on April 4, 2007 4:08 PM:

I think emptywheel's speculation at LH on the key role that Monica played might be the real burr under the saddle. The strings to some many elements of the Repug empire tie together at DoJ. I trust Conyers and Leahy will continue to pull the strings to unravel the Constitutional heist.

That diary is here: http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/04/domestic_spying.html

Anonymous wrote on April 4, 2007 4:08 PM:

At least we all know where everyone stands. Conyers must now do the right thing and subpoena her god fearing ass post haste, make her have her oliver north moment, and assert that 5th amendment each and every time they ask her a question. It's time to take the gloves off people.

Hmmmmmm wrote on April 4, 2007 4:09 PM:

Let the public plea of the 5th begin... I am tired of the government paying this criminal. She won't hold that job after pleading the 5th on TeeVee.

greenchilecheeseburger wrote on April 4, 2007 4:11 PM:

marblex,

She seems to already enjoy some form of immunity from the DOJ due to the fact she hasn't been fired.

code word "spade" need I say more?

EdNSted wrote on April 4, 2007 4:14 PM:

IANAL, but I'm not especially fond of offering immunity in exchange for testimony. This "tool", along with presidetial pardons, was terribly misused during the Iran-Contra investigations in order to allow the principle architects of the crimes to skate. I would only support immunity for Goodling if it was clear her testimony would implicate her superiors. Granting her immunity, and then having her claim "it was all my idea and my superiors had no idea", is simply falling for the same old bait and switch.

Austin Cooper wrote on April 4, 2007 4:14 PM:

Goodling *should* be on leave, pending the results of an *independent* internal-affairs investigation.

Then, reprimanded and placed on a performance action plan (read: We're covering our butts legally as we push you out), or -- oh, hell; just fire the idiot.

Her counsel can make all the assertions he wants that supports Goodie's perception of events -- that's his job, and I suspect he's a Kool-aid drinkin' kid, too. But, it doesn't make those perceptions real.

Anon wrote on April 4, 2007 4:16 PM:

1. Dowd is right about the law. She's been fingered for indictable conduct. 'Nuff said.

2. I would tread lightly if I were an attorney staffer for the Committee. The DC Bar Legal Ethics Committee Opinion is on all fours.

3. It is no one's business how Monica is paying her legal bills. You can be sure the government is not. (On the other hand, you might ask who paid for Fitzgerald's failed "Plamegate" investigation and shameful Libby prosecution, if you care to know).

4. It is unconstitutional to fire a government employee for taking the Fifth, so please stop asking why she hasn't been canned. Uniformed Sanitation Men Ass'n v. Comm'r of Sanitation, 392 U.S. 280 (1968).

5. It would be improper to call her for the sake of pillorying her in public. You might like to see it happen, but it's not what the Congress should be doing.

magster wrote on April 4, 2007 4:16 PM:

Unless she broke the law, this is a stupid strategy. In the who to scapegoat sweepstakes, invoking the 5th is a way of saying "pick me, pick me." McNulty will blame her, Gonzales will blame her, Rove and Jennings and Meyer might blame her, it all will get referred to a AUSA for a grand jury, and she's toast.

OG Lib wrote on April 4, 2007 4:16 PM:

"Wait. Don't these folks believe that McCarthy was the good guy?"

Yeah, Ann Coulter told us so:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/103-5874489-0995056?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=ann+coulter&Go.x=10&Go.y=11

BinGA wrote on April 4, 2007 4:16 PM:

Am I wrong or is this the first time Dowd has mentioned a grant of immunity in his responses to the Committee? Just wondering if this is an overture for the lawyers to meet and discuss immunity.

Code=crime

earlofhuntingdon wrote on April 4, 2007 4:17 PM:

The McCarthy analogy is quaint and inaccurate. Had Sen. McCarthy made similar inquiries in the early 1950's, Ms. Goodling would be living on the streets with nary a mega-law firm near her.

Unlike Tailgunner Joe, who often made up accusations against imaginative villains because it was good copy, Congress is engaged in legitimate investigation of possible criminal conduct by the DOJ and the WH. It is not inventing ghost threats; it's found real ones.

Akin Gump's letter is just a riposte to Mr. Waxman's parry. More to come. If nothing else, it allows Mr. Waxman to insist, no, really insist, on the appointment of a special prosecutor. Among other unsolved mysteries, I don't believe Congress could grant the breadth of immunity Ms. Goodling will seek.

Ms. Goodling should be allowed to ponder her position unassisted by immunity. Let the special prosecutor work away. The statutes of limitation on any crimes with which she might be involved have a long time to run. And given her zeal, she is unlikely to turn and become fully cooperative without being confronted with the most serious consequences her prior acts would justify.

Punchy wrote on April 4, 2007 4:17 PM:

"She can't just plead a blanket fifth"

She "can", and will. She will not testify. Dowd will force this as far as he can, becuase the longer it's All About Monica, it's not about Cheney or Bush or Rove's role.

Quit citing law, precedent, theory, and common sense when projecting what Goodling will do. You need to look at it under a PURELY political lens...which says, paint MG as a cute kitten being torn to shreds by a satanic demonic Senatorial committee. And ask Hannity to broadcast this for 4 weeks straight.

ahem wrote on April 4, 2007 4:17 PM:

I can't help thinking that this is a deliberate escalation, and one orchestrated by whoever's paying Dowd on the sly. (On the gwb43.com server.)

Buzzsaw Goodling isn't directing it, that's for sure. Severe dickishness at $500/hr. And yes, designed to make it look as if poor Mistress Goodling is being dragged up to the Hill by that angry black man.

Well, fuck it: gloves off time. If she asserts the 5th when she's asked her name, it will say more than her silence.

Ariadne wrote on April 4, 2007 4:17 PM:

Not being a lawyer or versed in the Fifth Amendment, I'm a little confused. EH hit on it a little. If Goodling refuses to testify by taking the Fifth, does that mean everything she would say would incriminate her, or that she would lie about everything, which would later set her up for false testimony?
Or is it because, if she testifies, the meanies on the committee will rattle her so much that she'll get confused and make mis-statements? In which case, her incompetence will be exposed, which, while not actionable, would be embarassing? (I know, I know, i'ts hard to find a competent hiree in the Bush administration).
Finally, since she is (or was) a government employee, does she have a right to refuse to testify about what she did while employed by the government? There aren't many jobs I know of where you can refuse to talk to the boss about your job performance.

JT wrote on April 4, 2007 4:18 PM:

Wotthehell???! He says the Committee is like McCarthy because they have falsely accused her of saying she won't appear at the hearing, says that she has never said she wouldn't appear at the hearing, and that's why she has a Fifth Amendment right to refuse to appear at the hearing?

Did we follow a rabbit with a pocketwatch down a hole somewhere along the way and I didn't notice?

Anonymous wrote on April 4, 2007 4:20 PM:

Methinks she's getting really bad legal advice. The Administration has buried those a lot more important than she (heck, Sampson was called 'the next Karl Rove').

Her faith in the shark tank of her peers is misplaced and she should take a deal and dish.

Crust wrote on April 4, 2007 4:22 PM:

Gooding has already stated through her lawyer that "Mr. McNulty's allegation that Ms. Goodling and others caused him to give inaccurate testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee" is false.

Can she still plead the Fifth before Congress to questions ("Did you cause Mr. McNulty to give inaccurate testimony? To your knowledge, did others do so?") that in effect she has already answered to Congress via her lawyer?

bibimimi wrote on April 4, 2007 4:23 PM:

McCarthy was conducting a witch hunt on private citizens.

Goodling is a government employee. This is contempt of congress, purely. There's NOTHING noble in this, thunderthighs.

Ron Byers wrote on April 4, 2007 4:23 PM:

Subpeona all of Monica's emails beginning with her first day on the job.

Posted by: Mrs Panstreppon
Date: April 4, 2007 03:39 PM

Considering her blanket refusal to talk about anything, that isn't a bad idea. I don't think the administration could refuse. If I were the committee I would want all of them without anything redacted. That would probably get her attention. I am sure it would get Karl's.

jeffgee wrote on April 4, 2007 4:24 PM:

A little waterboarding might produce some answers. After all, it's OK with her boss Al Gitmo and his bosses Dick and The Decider to get answers with a little dunk in the water.

Doc wrote on April 4, 2007 4:24 PM:

Haven't we seen this many times before? Attorney public outrage is directly proportional to client guilt. A sign from below.

Books Alive wrote on April 4, 2007 4:27 PM:

I just realized there's quite a delicious irony in Sen Leahy's letter of March 30 - it's co-signed by Sen Sheldon "Whitehouse." (no quotes, of course!) He's a bang-up, four-year, recently employed US Attorney from Rhode Island.

bding wrote on April 4, 2007 4:28 PM:

I am reminded of the line in Liar,Liar when Jim Carrey utters to the judge, "I can't your honor because it would be damaging to my case"

querulous wrote on April 4, 2007 4:28 PM:

if she really is a small fish, grant her use immunity for any answers as they relate to the McNulty thing, and then she has no basis for invoking the Fifth, no?

at any rate, they should compel her attend and invoke the Fifth for every question. that would look really bad for the DOJ.

Anon wrote on April 4, 2007 4:29 PM:

McCarthy was investigating suspected infiltration of communists into the federal government. Many of the people he called were government employees.

The point of Dowd's McCarthy reference is that McCarthy insinuated substantive guilt based on witnesses' invocation of the Fifth. Whether you like the comparison or not, Conyers and Leahy have done exactly the same thing, and it's improper for someone in their position to do.

It is not contempt to refuse to answer questions based on a valid invocation of the 5th amendment. She's been fingered for indictable conduct. She can refuse to answer questions about that conduct or any other question that would provide "a link in the chain."

Citizen 92 wrote on April 4, 2007 4:30 PM:

Books Alive

Also ironic is apparently she lived in a dorm called "Whitehouse" while she was an undergrad at Messiah College... at least according to her old webpage (in the "friends" section:

http://web.archive.org/web/19991008221738/home.regent.edu/monigoo/friends.htm

Punchy wrote on April 4, 2007 4:30 PM:

"It is unconstitutional to fire a government employee for taking the Fifth, so please stop asking why she hasn't been canned"

It's also probably not illegal for my investment broker (who got his degree online) to go to Vegas every single weekend and lose his house, car, and max out his credit cards. Doesn't mean I shouldn't replace him with a different investment professional, one from a Tier 1 or 2 accounting school.

Michael Stevens wrote on April 4, 2007 4:30 PM:

Monica Goodling is no small fish. I think her it will be difficult for her attorneys to portray her as such.

Recall that Monica Goodling single-handedly removed a North Carolina US attorney from the purge list. That makes her a Final Decision Maker in the US Attorney purge.

The list of final decision makers may only include Abu Gonzales, Harriet Myers, Karl Rove, and ... Monica Goodling.

tbhull wrote on April 4, 2007 4:30 PM:

Enough with tossing the word salad and these flowery fancy mind fuck letters. Immediately issue a subpoena to this fundamentalist gash and require her to appear before the cameras under oath within a week, well before gonzo's testimony.

DallasNE wrote on April 4, 2007 4:32 PM:

"Goodling was also invoking the Fifth, he wrote, because Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty had told Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) that he provided false testimony to Congress because Goodling and others kept information from him. That would implicate Goodling in a crime -- and that's reason enough for her to invoke the Fifth."

Now there are a lot of assumptions wrapped into that little gem. What information did McNulty say Goodling "kept" from her that was germain to the lie McNulty that told. And what is the underlying crime that Goodling seeks protection from incriminating herself on? Frankly, the withholding of information could make the testimony incomplete but it would not have caused McNulty to lie, that is, unless Goodling actually lied to McNulty and he simply parroted what Goodling told her. But McNulty would not be subject to Perjury if he told the truth about what was told to him. In a criminal sense, this isn't obstruction of justice because there is no alledged crime. About the only possible criminal liability left is contempt of Congress and when is the last time anybody has been found guilty of that.

Frankly, it is hard to see the legal grounds for Goodling taking the 5th. In that sense, I could see granting her immunity limited to "crimes" committed prior to her testimony.

Crust wrote on April 4, 2007 4:35 PM:

Anon @ 4:29, prefacing a comment with "Whether you like the comparison or not" doesn't do anything to make it more valid. Do you have links to quotes of Conyers and Leahy "insinuat[ing] substantive guilt based on witnesses' invocation of the Fifth"? (I'll even let you backpedal to one "witness" -- Goodling -- rather than "witnesses".)

earlofhuntingdon wrote on April 4, 2007 4:36 PM:

Dowd's rate at Akin Gump is probably $750-1000/hr. Other partners are probably $500-750. Associates $350. Research staff $175. Any meeting would likely include at least three of these people.

Ms. Goodling's resume does not suggest she would have access to this talent, much less be able to pay for it. It is highly unlikely this work is being done for free, even to get access to the dirt Goodling must have.

Congress' investigation must include who's paying the bill, particularly since she remains employed at DOJ, which puts limits on her fundraising that no longer apply to Sampson and his team of six only slightly less influential and expensive lawyers.

A suitably crafted grant of immunity would remove the risk of criminal prosecution, thus removing Goodling's right to refuse to testify. It does not mean Goodling would cooperate with full and complete answers. That is likely to cost much more than a grant of immunity.

dlc wrote on April 4, 2007 4:37 PM:

Looks pretty clear to me. Immunize her already.

malcontent wrote on April 4, 2007 4:39 PM:

Throw her in jail for contempt. I'd also like to see some stronger language from the Democrats; perhaps something along these lines:

We know there are traitors in this administration, and we're going to ferret them out and send them to the gallows.

cevrero wrote on April 4, 2007 4:39 PM:

Ok Monica, you don't want to testify? I guess a special prosecuter will just charge you with obstruction of justice based on McNulty's testimony.
We'll see if you invoke your 5th amendment rights then,....I'll bet she breaks her silence.

jhpearman wrote on April 4, 2007 4:40 PM:

John Dpwd is doing what any good attorney would do--protecting his client--the committee has the option of granting immunity.As liason between the DoJ and WH,she would be in a great position to witness activities and conduct in both departments.

Los Diablo wrote on April 4, 2007 4:41 PM:

Per the first person's comment...I too want to know who is paying her legal bills. It is already getting expensive for her and even though she is stealing a nice chunk of our tax dollars at the moment...I still don't think it is enough for this type of repesentation.

Thomas Allen wrote on April 4, 2007 4:41 PM:

Goodling's lawyer should have started the letter off with "I'm not a lawyer, but..." for all the knowledge he seems to have about the law.

cars wrote on April 4, 2007 4:45 PM:

No question Monica is going to get a least one subpeona. But subpeona McNulty first. Ask him under oath who told him to lie, and what specifically the lie was. That claim is so confusing that it is likely to be a lie itself. Has McNulty lawyered up yet? Also, is there collusion between McNulty and Dowd about this?

I don't know, but these guys are digging themselves in a bigger hole by the day.

Anon wrote on April 4, 2007 4:47 PM:

CRUST - Try this:

Leahy: "Everyone has the constitutional right not to incriminate themselves with regard to criminal conduct. The American people are left to wonder what conduct is at the base of Ms. Goodling's concern that she may incriminate herself."

Not as bad as "Fifth Amendment Communists," perhaps, but that's what makes it a punch analogy.

jonesin wrote on April 4, 2007 4:48 PM:

"As liason between the DoJ and WH,she would be in a great position to witness activities and conduct in both departments."

Given her uber-fanaticism for all things Bush and his ilk, I find it extraordinarily unlikely that even with immunity, that she would answer any questions truthfully. It's not like she wants to dump, but cant. She WONT dump, no matter what. Loyal to the core. Immunity wont change that; it'll only make her new lies look more legitimate.

Anon wrote on April 4, 2007 4:49 PM:

Thomas Allen - What does he get wrong?

RickinSF wrote on April 4, 2007 4:50 PM:

She must be dirty, or know a lot of dirt, if her lawyer's kneejerk is the 5th.

code=clean, as in: "She should come clean."

EdNSted wrote on April 4, 2007 4:50 PM:

I don't know how things work in DC, but I can tell you that around here, if I suddenly began spending far more money than my position would reasonably merit, I would very quickly attract the attention of local authorities who would be more than happy to make inquiries.

In addition, Ms. Goodling's high position in the DoJ and access to the White House makes her integrity a matter of national security. I believe the recently enacted Patriot Act allows the FBI to inquire about Ms. Goodlings finances if national security is an issue. Heck, I don't even think the FBI would need a warrant, a National Security Letter might be all that was needed to see if she inappropriately living beyond her means...

I'm just sayin'.

earlofhuntingdon wrote on April 4, 2007 4:51 PM:

Dowd's letter skillfully conflates the issues. It ignores that Ms Goodling's assertion alone is not adequate to establish that she has lawfully asserted the Fifth. It confuses filing an "affidavit" to assert the Fifth with the unsworn "declaration" Ms. Goodling actually filed. He finally brings up the subject of immunity in his last paragraph.

Time for a special prosecutor. The innocent as well as the criminal have Fifth Amendment rights - except, of course, in BushWorld (no small irony). Let's let the special prosecutor investigate and properly determine which Ms. Goodling is. Her DOJ, of which she remains an employee, is hopelessly conflicted.

chuck wrote on April 4, 2007 4:56 PM:

The McCarthyism claims are completely unwarranted, but Dowd is absolutely right about the law. Despite the protestations of Republicans, there is enough circumstantial (if not direct) credible evidence of wrongdoing here that Democrats do not need to engage in the same type of Constitution trampling that Republicans have engaged in over the past six years.

Concern troll alert.

Listen, the defense that's being made here is not "my client is invoking her right to self-incrimination," but rather "my client, who is innocent, is invoking the 5th because she thinks the Senators will be mean to her" ("some Senators have already reached conclusions").

That is NOT a reason for invoking the 5th Amendment. If you could do that, no one would ever testify to anything. At least not anything meaningful.

kiki wrote on April 4, 2007 4:57 PM:

Now, how would her testifying support McNulty's allegation? Unless it means that her truthful testimony would corroborate his allegation.

So, if she won't stand up and defend herself from the charge, then doesn't that suggest that she and her lawyer agree that she's guilty of a crime?

Crust wrote on April 4, 2007 4:58 PM:

Anon, the phrase "Fifth Amendment Communists" in essence asserts that the people in question are Communists (as opposed to alleged Communists). Leahy merely raised the issue of doubt, not the same thing at all as McCarthy.

If you want to find extreme rhetoric from political leaders on this issue, you need to look on the Republican side starting with the President with his absurdly over-the-top talk of "show trials", etc.

no one of consequence wrote on April 4, 2007 5:00 PM:

"4. It is unconstitutional to fire a government employee for taking the Fifth, so please stop asking why she hasn't been canned. Uniformed Sanitation Men Ass'n v. Comm'r of Sanitation, 392 U.S. 280 (1968)."

But it's not unconstitutional for a government employee to be fired for not cooperating with an internal investigation, if said cooperation will not be used in a subsequent criminal trial.

So, is there an internal investigation ongoing? How can there not be? And is she cooperating?

The Commissar wrote on April 4, 2007 5:02 PM:

Lawyers from big firms will take often high-profile cases pro bono (i.e. the client doesn't have to pay).

mayan wrote on April 4, 2007 5:02 PM:

I don't know how one would go about appropriately discovering the finances behind her very expensive lawyer but it would be very interesting to find out who's paying for it. Are the Goodlings well-heeled? Is there a defense fund? If so, who's paying into it? And, as another reader put it...if it is a "gift" - is it ethical to accept it as someone on the DOJ payroll?

Security word "wind" - as in the Dems "wind" in 2006 hopefully they will win more in 2008.

Anonymous wrote on April 4, 2007 5:04 PM:

When a commenter compares "The American people are left to wonder what conduct is at the base of Ms. Goodling's concern that she may incriminate herself." (a completely accurate statement)to "Fifth Amendment Communists" (ad hominem), one doesn't have to wonder whose water Anon is carrying.

I'm sorry that Anon has to compare the American people to Communists to make his alleged point. He should be ashamed of himself.

br wrote on April 4, 2007 5:04 PM:

According to the lawyer's letter, Ms. Goodling knows for a fact that Paul McNulty, a Justice Dept. official, made a false statement to Sen. Schumer regarding his previous testimony.

Isn't there a crime by McNulty, according to the facts that Ms. Goodling knows? (I realize that the supposed statement was made informally, but in the circumstances wouldn't a false statement be interference a congressional investigation?) Or at least a violation of Mr. McNulty's duties as an attorney?

And then isn't Ms. Goodling, as a Justice Dept. employee, obligated to report Mr. McNulty's crime or ethical violation in writing to the Department? (As Sen. Leahy points out elsewhere, reporting it to the Attorney General would probably create a conflict of interest, but perhaps to the Inspector General?)

Perhaps some former Justice Dept. attorney here can help us.

Chris wrote on April 4, 2007 5:07 PM:

Messiah University.

Regent (Pat Robertson) School of Law.

Who would think she'd hide behind "secular" arguments to protect herself. What happened to her "faith".

noodlesoup wrote on April 4, 2007 5:08 PM:

Granting "immunity" is moronic. Do you people really think that a "bigger fish" (e.g., Rove or Cheney) will be hand-slapped for violating the Hatch Act?

The Dems should subpeona Monica and let her "Fifth!" herself to every question. It will make her look like a lying scounrel. The penalty for the Hatch Act is a slap on the hand (see below).

Penalties for Violating the Hatch Act: An employee who violates the Hatch Act shall be removed from their position, and funds appropriated for the position from which removed thereafter may not be used to pay the employee or individual. However, if the Merit Systems Protection Board finds by unanimous vote that the violation does not warrant removal, a penalty of not less than 30 days' suspension without pay shall be imposed by direction of the Board.

Anonymous wrote on April 4, 2007 5:08 PM:

"...Lawyers from big firms will take often high-profile cases pro bono (i.e. the client doesn't have to pay)..."

But unfortunately Federal employees are not allowed to receive free legal counsel. That's akin to accepting an in-kind gift and that too is SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED by government ethics.

Just ask and of the Clintonites who went through the "pleasure" of Dan Burton's committee... They're still paying off their legal bills.

Uncle Don wrote on April 4, 2007 5:08 PM:

If subpoenaed by either the House or the Senate Judiciary Committee, Ms. Goodling may NOT refuse to appear. If subpoenaed and she refuses to appear, Ms. Goodling can be cited -- and indicted -- for contempt of Congress. The Committee would be required to pass a resolution of contempt which then must be approved by the full House or Senate. The matter then would be referred to the U. S. Attorney for the District of Columbia who can choose whether to prosecute or to decline prosecution. If he chooses to go forward, the matter would be presented to a Grand Jury which can elect either to "no-bill" or to indict. If the latter, then the case would go to trial.

If Ms. Goodling responds to a Congressional subpoena from either the House or the Senate Judiciary Committee and invokes her right under the fifth amendment to the Constitution in response to questions, the Committee can vote to grant one of two types of immunity and compel her testimony. The first type is "use" immunity, which means that only her response to a specific question cannot be used in a criminal prosecution against her. All other testimony is open for use.
The second type is "transactional" immunity, which means that NOTHING she says under oath can be used against her in a criminal prosecution.

Ms. Goodling has absolutely no right to refuse to appear in response to a Congressional subpoena. Congress has the power to legislate and in order to legislate, Congress has the power to investigate. So long as the underlying object of a Congressional investigation is the production of legislation, then Congress' powers of investigation are broad and expansive, limited only by other provisions of the Constitution which might constrict those powers.

If granted either "use" or "transactional" immunity and Ms. Goodling still refuses to answer questons, she can be held in contempt of Congress.

If granted either type of immunity and Ms. Goodling lies in response to questions, then the immunity is vitiated and she can be prosecuted for perjury, withholding evidence and obstruction of justice.

dc wrote on April 4, 2007 5:12 PM:

Anon -

You say it's "unconstitutional to fire a government employee for taking the Fifth," citing Uniformed Sanitation Men Ass'n v. Comm'r of Sanitation, 392 U.S. 280 (1968). That case is more nuanced: it held that a public employer cannot condition employment on waiver of 5th amendment rights, but it also stated: "petitioners, being public employees, subject themselves to dismissal if they refuse to account for their performance of their public trust, after proper proceedings, which do not involve an attempt to coerce them to relinquish their constitutional rights."

Also, go back to Conyers's letter and the cases cited there. They all say that you can't be dismissed/judged guilty simply for invoking your 5th Amendment rights, but your silence CAN be held against you and people CAN make inferences about why you're not testifying.

Moreover, you certainly can be fired if your refusal to testify implicates your job function -- I.e., you can't be a credible liaison or DOJ official if you allegedly cause false testimony to be given to Congress and you offer no evidence or testimony to refute that allegation. At best, it's strange for a DOJ official to refuse to assist Congress in its information-gathering role on the weak assertion that DOJ prosecutors will indict her for her truthful statements.

Having said all that, she has every right to take the Fifth as to specific questions.

The point is just that her refusal to testify does and should come with negative inferences about her and her ability to act as a DOJ official.

earlofhuntingdon wrote on April 4, 2007 5:13 PM:

Mr. Dowd is well-versed in the political theater of white collar crime trials in Washington. He is, so to speak, an Olivier award winner.

These letter exchanges are a form of open negotiation. They are meant to manipulate an uninformed public as much as to delay Mr. Waxman or get him to change tack. He is also hoping that the public will become exhausted or confused because of the many scandals that even a mildly inquisitive Congress will soon discover.

Defending a client is not about proving the truth. It is also about throwing up so many conflicting possibilities that it prevents twelve good men and true from concluding essential damning facts beyond a reasonable doubt.

Anon wrote on April 4, 2007 5:13 PM:

Chris - Your really hit the nail on the head. She should refuse to testify on Biblical grounds. What is Dowd thinking?

[Blank] - Leahy and Conyers have both insinuated that her invocation of the Fifth suggests involvement in underlying criminal wrongdoing. The McCarthy comparison is fair in the sense that any audacious rhetorical flourish is fair. I don't understand how I have compared the American people to communists.

I'm a Democrat, I don't like Bush, but the eagerness of many of you to see this "gash" hauled in for public chastisement based on her exercise of a simple constitutional right is not pretty. (The ridicule of where she went to college is also out of place. Suffice it to say that I expect precious few Regent grads got where she did as fast as she did. I expect MG brought something of her own to the table).

itsbenj wrote on April 4, 2007 5:15 PM:

who are the people saying that Dowd is being "smart" in this case??? there is nothing smart about what he's doing! you can't just write a letter saying you take the fifth and refuse to appear before Congress! what part of that is "smart"? every lawyer knows this, why doesn't this clown know it? this is supposed to be some kind of wrangling or bargaining? this is like trying to bluff in a poker game when everyone can clearly see you have no cards at all...

itsbenj wrote on April 4, 2007 5:18 PM:

lots of confusion around the 5th. taking the Fifth IS an admission of guilt. its just not a 'confession'. you can't possibly in any sense refuse to testify against yourself if there is nothing criminal to testify about. the very invocation of the fifth is certainly an admission of guilt of some kind. it just says, 'you'll have to make a case against me without my own testimony against myself' - that's all.

Anon wrote on April 4, 2007 5:21 PM:

itsbenj -

You're wrong. The Supreme Court has held over and over again that innocent people can take the Fifth. These holdings plainly are inconsistent with your statement that "taking the Fifth IS an admission of guilt."

Amicus Publicus wrote on April 4, 2007 5:26 PM:

(1) As a big firm lawyer myself, those rates earlofhuntingdon suggest seem a bit high. Knock a couple hundred off the partner rates, and $50-$100 off the associate rates. Still a good bit of cash.

(2) 28 U.S.C. 1746 permits a sworn declaration to be used in any situation in which an affidavit is called for, just so long as you say the magic words "I state under penalty of perjury" (well, that's a paraphrase b/c I'm not going to bother to look it up). Lawyers will routinely refer to such a sworn declaration as an affidavit, and it is functionally the same.

rumpole wrote on April 4, 2007 5:29 PM:

I don't understand the need for a Kabuki dance. Put her under oath, compel her presence, and if she invokes the Fifth, find her in contempt and bring charges immediately. The more time wasted, the more likely it is that they will run out the clock on W's term.

The rules sure are different when there's a Republican in office.

biggerbox wrote on April 4, 2007 5:31 PM:

Conyers letter was an elegant piece of writing, both in the lines and between them. They pretty much made it clear that anyone who'd been to a decent law school knew that she had no basis not to testify, but that they'd be generous and let her meet privately with staff. It was clear that the alternative would be to appear in public before the cameras and be forced to assert the Fifth for each and every question individually, until the committee was bored.

I'm guessing that comparing Conyers to McCarthy means they won't be taking the easy way. It pretty much throws any offer of compromise down the toilet. Dowd is saying he doesn't want to compromise, he doesn't care about the actual law, and will make enough noise to delay as long as possible, and dares them to make his client testify.

I, for one, wouldn't have thrown Conyers gentlemanly offer back in his face like that. It should be fun to see what happens now.

feckless wrote on April 4, 2007 5:32 PM:

I wonder if they will trot out Mrs. Alito to cry on command for poor Ms. Goodling. Mean mean mean democrats!

Jillian wrote on April 4, 2007 5:32 PM:

'Anon"- Goodling's duties are subject to review, whatever her rights may or may not be.

enough wrote on April 4, 2007 5:32 PM:

I wonder if Dowd is Rove's matador waving a big red flag and trying to get Conyers to go after Goodling.

She deserves to sit in jail and she is a "senior" DOJ official--not really a little fish.

She is also to dumb to be a major problem in the future. We don't really need to take her out.

Why not give her full immunity and make her testify in public and go for Rove.

earlofhuntingdon wrote on April 4, 2007 5:35 PM:

The invocation of your Fifth Amendment right is expressly NOT an admission of guilt. About every other Hitchcock and every third Henry Fonda film make the point that the innocent are often wrongly accused. For the more adventurous, read Ohio v. Reiner, 532 US 17 (2001).

Other evidence strongly justifies further investigating Ms. Goodling. She was not an assistant anything. She is a Big Fish. Waxman will just have to work harder to land her.

JT wrote on April 4, 2007 5:40 PM:

'Anon"- Goodling's duties are subject to review, whatever her rights may or may not be.
Posted by: Jillian

QFT.

I'm not following the McCarthy connection. That concerned people's private political associations. Is she asserting that she doesn't work for Justice? Or is she.... wait? She's saying she's a Communist?

Or maybe she killed Laura Palmer and she just *knows* they're going to ask her about that...

Wapiti wrote on April 4, 2007 5:46 PM:

tbhull -

I don't think there will be much testimony in front of cameras before Abu G testifies. They don't want to give him a chance to prepare a story that matches the other testimony - they want him flying blind, unsure what anyone else said.

Heh. security code: doubt (Abu G survives)

Anon wrote on April 4, 2007 5:59 PM:

Since everyone is so concerned about how much Monica is paying for her lawyer:

"The Washington Times first reported last week that Mr. Conyers agreed to pay up to $225,000 to bring in extra lawyers for his investigation of why the eight US. attorneys were fired."

earlofhuntingdon wrote on April 4, 2007 5:59 PM:

Ms. Goodling's March 26th declaration is not an affidavit. It does not state the location where made (Ms. Goodling is on indefinite paid leave at an undisclosed location), it is not witnessed, and does not appear to be sworn. Ms. Goodling acknowledges that her statement is subject to the penalties of perjury - but that would apply to any false statement made to Congress.

The rates someone is paying for Ms. Goodling's lawyers are not exaggerated. They are about right in NYC or Metro DC for a top partner in a high profile white collar crime case that could lead to the indictment of high government officials. $750+/hr for a name partner, $500 for another one, $350 for a mid-level associate, and $175 for research assistance. I make no claim that they are worth it.

It would be helpful to compare that to what Libby paid, via the fundraising trust set up by the likes of Tucker Carlson's dad, if those figures are available.

The pay for a first year associate at Jones Day, for example (comparable to Akin Gumjp, Goodling's lawyers), is publicly reported as $175,000/year plus bonus. It goes up every year. Income from fees has to pay for that, overhead and a profit share for partners.

Ms. Goodling has generous friends. So does Mr. Sampson.

ohiomeister wrote on April 4, 2007 6:02 PM:

Conyers should subpoena Goodling, get everything he can from her on every topic but the specific ones for which she takes the 5th, and THEN immunize her and ask her questions about the rest.

Anon wrote on April 4, 2007 6:03 PM:

"Ms. Goodling generous friends."

Good thing, too. Unlike Leahy and Conyers, she can't rely on us generous taxpayers to foot the bill.

foolme1ns wrote on April 4, 2007 6:04 PM:

Subpoena her ass, and if she refuses to show, lock her up for contempt. This really isn't that difficult. It happens all the time. These people are not above the law, but they are beneath contempt.

Put her in jail.

Robert Pleznac wrote on April 4, 2007 6:07 PM:

Why not grant Ms. Goodling immunity then compel her to testify? Getting to the truth is more important than implicating this witness as the "rot" went much higher up in the Justice Department and the White House.

Robert Pleznac wrote on April 4, 2007 6:07 PM:

Why not grant Ms. Goodling immunity then compel her to testify? Getting to the truth is more important than implicating this witness as the "rot" went much higher up in the Justice Department and the White House.

scavok wrote on April 4, 2007 6:09 PM:

To the webmaster: 'subpoena' needs to be added to your wonderful selection of security codes.

It is a little long, but I think we are going to be seeing a lot of it from now on.

Michael Stevens wrote on April 4, 2007 6:12 PM:

Regarding the pro bono comment above. As I understand it, pro bono legal representation is considered a violation of the gift rule. I think the government sees pro bono legal service no differently from pro bono home renovation. Both are gifts, both are forbidden.

So how is she paying these sky high legal fees? Perhaps her attorney has given her net financing terms. Net 180, maybe net 360. Dowd probably expects she won't be a government employee 6 moths from now. Once she's a private citizen, her legal bills could be satisfied with private donations from GOP friends.

Regarding these calls for her to be granted immunity. I used to agree with that strategy. That was before we learned that she was a final decision maker in the attorney purge.

Monica Goodling *is* a big fish. I don't think that Big fish should receive immunity unless they are willing to be a friendly witness to the prosecution and serve up even bigger fish.

enough wrote on April 4, 2007 6:24 PM:

Commissar, Interesting point. The attorney might be pro bono. If so, what are the implications of that. He would providing a very expensive service to a high level attorney in DOJ--an agency his law firm must have other clients appearing before.

readerOfTeaLeaves wrote on April 4, 2007 6:25 PM:

Hmmmm... let's see. The same crowd that smeared John McKay, Iglesias, Cummings, Lam, et al -- the same crowd that takes their salaries from the public purse, no longer has to respond to questions from Congress?

Asking why US atty's were summarily fired for being too fair minded and principled now generates a charge of being a "McCarthyite". Boy, by next week, I'll be they'll be calling Conyers a Nazi. I'm looking forward to a very big bag of popcorn for this showdown.

tbhull wrote on April 4, 2007 6:26 PM:

Posted by: Wapiti
Date: April 4, 2007 05:46 PM

Point well taken.

However, if she is going to plead the fifth and Congress will not currently offer her any form of immunity, the pre-gonzo testimony spectacle of her taking the 5th without giving any insight to gonzo/Congrsss would wratchet up the presuure on gonzo.

Any chance Gonzo takes the 5th? Of he would be gone as AG if he did.

Code word: Holy KY Jelly

pf wrote on April 4, 2007 6:30 PM:

Monica Goodling -- or one of her lawyers -- must be stalking the TPM message boards as anon.

OhShap! wrote on April 4, 2007 6:34 PM:

Regarding mainly ANON's commentaries:

I am still confused as to why Ms. Goodling stating on the outset that she will be taking the Fifth with regards to *any* questions is appropriate given the circumstances:

1) DOJ liason AND a "lawyer" - asserting her Fifth amendment right

2) Dowd's previous letter mentioning the Sixth Amendment - pertains to criminal prosecutions...which has yet to be mentioned by the committee

3) your first post mentioned "evidence of wrongdoing" but I am still at a loss as to the LEGAL wrongdoings done. Has a law been broken with the US Attorney firings?
-- I don't believe so. It is "wrong" but not illegal, right?

4) you called the Plamegate investigation "shameful" and questioned who paid for it. Duh, taxpayers did. But the shame was not in Fitz's prosecution - he stated that he could not determine if there was *the* underlying crime committed due to the obstruction of justice employed by players (Libby, Rove, etc.) - why do people forget that little point. Libby wasn't shameful. Frakking CoS of the VP lied to Feds/Grand Jury. Repeatedly.

5) This investigation goes to the heart of Bu$hCo politicizing the DOJ (and anything else he could). Do not forget this. Had people testifying in front of Congress not LIED and falsely shredded the reputations of those USAs, this would not be the issue it was.

You seem like a knowledgable attorney, but you seem to be forgetting the bigger picture.

Goodling is asserting her Fifth. Fine. But she better be geared up for the maelstrom that is coming.

While it is true that innocent people can invoke the Fifth... How many times is this the rule vs. the exception? Seriously.

OT: is this the advice you would be giving Goodling? Based upon what? I am genuinely curious.

My biggest question is her vocal, outright, straight from the door response that she will be invoking the Fifth. Right from the outset.

That is what I find questionable about her "good faith" and her role in this.

enough wrote on April 4, 2007 6:47 PM:

Commissar, Interesting point. The attorney might be pro bono. If so, what are the implications of that. He would providing a very expensive service to a high level attorney in DOJ--an agency his law firm must have other clients appearing before.

Bonnie wrote on April 4, 2007 6:48 PM:

I agree with the following:

Subpoena her ass, and if she refuses to show, lock her up for contempt. This really isn't that difficult. It happens all the time. These people are not above the law, but they are beneath contempt.

Put her in jail.

Posted by: foolme1ns
Date: April 4, 2007 06:04 PM

Maybe Monica could break Judith Miller's jail record. I have no sympathy for her in that she is continuing to steal the taxpayers' money by being employed by us. May I suggest that she wear a blue dress to testify.

Marple wrote on April 4, 2007 6:48 PM:

The letter refers to immunity, so my guess is he is putting that question to the legislature. Only they know if Goodling can, through immunity, provide the "Real Answers" sought. In my mind it is not "A Fish" being caught that is of primary interest. The "Game" needing to be PUBLICLY EXPOSED is of a group of officials, using "Bushies" to destroy "US Attorney" independance, was a CONSPIRACY against the United States. Administration officials along with Justice Department officials conspired to legally attack Democrats, let criminal Republicans skate, and prevent independance, thereby undermining the rule of law and our justice system. This is an outright attack on the United States by those conspirators. Impeachment would be too kind.

Andy wrote on April 4, 2007 6:54 PM:

Anyone else getting a McCain ad served to them?

YY wrote on April 4, 2007 6:58 PM:

What is the problem with not giving testimony about something which one does not know because one was not briefed about it. So McNulty gave "false" testimony on basis of stuff he did not know by preparation, that is not wrong. This is not a contest of how well prepared and briefed you are to weave a tale. It's what you know and what you don't know and whether you are truthful.

McA wrote on April 4, 2007 6:59 PM:

Why is TPM running a link to an Obama attack site? (The link titled "Obama Exposed")

bartkid wrote on April 4, 2007 7:02 PM:

>And his no's are probably expensive.
Paying through the no's.
Heh.

code = mother.

BTW, I googled "Akin Gump", found their webpage, and what a coincidence: "FORMER RNC CHAIRMAN KEN MEHLMAN RETURNS TO AKIN GUMP"

Bugboy wrote on April 4, 2007 7:02 PM:

I don't see ANYWHERE in the 5th where it says you don't have to show up to answer the questions you are going to plead the 5th to.

But my take on it is this:

"Gee, "Buzz Saw" I'll take your case, I'm sure your good pals in the WH will take care of your legal bills (which won't be much don't worry about a thing). You know, your pals in the WH who who gave you and "Mini-Me" too much authority with too little experience and shoved you both out onto the legal thin ice? And then failed to advise you how to lie about it like they did Skooter? Now you just sit right down here and we'll take care of EVERYTHING."

John Snyder wrote on April 4, 2007 7:03 PM:

You can forget about Goodling going to jail for contempt. Not going to happen. For reasons that I explain in greater detail in the attached URL, Goodling's play here is to buy immunity, which Congress can do at its own discretion and with virtually no input from any other branch. (The Attorney General can appear before the district court to argue against it, which I would love to see him try.)

Anonymous wrote on April 4, 2007 7:06 PM:

PRO BONO ATTORNEY AGAINST THE LAW. Government employees cannot accept in kind gifts. Must pay.

Florida Democrat wrote on April 4, 2007 7:07 PM:

I'll try to clear the employment issue.

Goodling may invoke the 5th all she wants before Congress without repercussions to her employment except as follows:

1- If her position requires a security clearance of any kind. Federal employees who have taken the 5th can not be issued a security clearance. There are ways to maneuver her job title to avoid this.

2- If DOJ investigates her actions she is required to comply and answer all questions. Failure to completely cooperate is grounds for dismissal. Invoking the 5th in administrative job related investigation is considered no cooperating and dismissal is mandatory. She has a right to plead the 5th constitutionally but not to save her job where there is only administrative penalties at stake.

So get rid of her requires either a security clearance job or an administrative DOJ investigation where she takes the 5th.

Both are unlikely given that DOJ can easily amend her security requirements and DOJ can opt not to start an administrative investigation.

As stated before, the attorney issue is certainly an IOU from Goodling to pay the bills. When she leaves government service the bill will be paid by someone else. This covers the Federal Employee ethics rules.

If Congress believes she committed criminal acts is irrelevant to prosecution as the DOJ must investigate and prosecute. I can hear the statement now that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute.

Goodling will get off and keep her job through the end of Bush's term. She will flip on anyone and in February of 2009 she will accept a position at some law firm for an incredibly inflated salary.

Florida Democrat wrote on April 4, 2007 7:15 PM:

Okay, a few missing words in the above post and a missing "n" and maybe a few other omitted letters (my keyboard needs to be replaced).

The most important is this, "She will NOT flip". I think you can figure out the rest.

Feel free to correct as necessary.

code word- sharp as in not a sharp typist

annabanana wrote on April 4, 2007 7:30 PM:

Title of article should be:

Lawyer to CONGRESS (not "Dems"): "No No No No"

You can't plead the 5th to a question you haven't been asked. Maybe they'll ask her something she CAN answer without lying or admitting to a crime. (You never know.)

Anon wrote on April 4, 2007 7:40 PM:

pf - Actually, I'm Alberto Gonzales.

Steve Smith wrote on April 4, 2007 8:18 PM:

Too bad Pete Rose never had this guy as his defense lawyer....

Michael wrote on April 4, 2007 8:29 PM:

Is our ambitiously loyal, hatchet-wielding Christian Monica Goodling planning to do a C. Gordon Liddy, refuse to testify, ever, and serve hefty jail time rather than rat on her corrupt superiors?

Anonymous wrote on April 4, 2007 8:38 PM:

I plead the fifth from now until 2060. This should cover most of my life.

BTW if she's innocent why does she need to plead the fifth?

monicawatch wrote on April 4, 2007 9:18 PM:

Earlier threads on monica goodling (like last week) established that she purchased a house in 2002 worth $280,000 (putting 5 K down) and the current worth has almostt doubled. Thus, you could assume she has the potential to tap into that with a home equity loan - to pay for legal fees (for a while). On the other hand, whether or not the mortgage suddenly is paid off does bear watching. If there is a second mortgage (or any mortgage) that is a public record and can be tracked.

A great deal bears watching here. Legal. Financial. Relationships.

tmb wrote on April 4, 2007 10:12 PM:

Please - - a top lawyer at the Justice Department taking the fifth - - and she has not been fired . . . what does this tell anyone who is facing criminal prosecution in America about "justice" in America? The criminals are running the show and average citizens on B.S. drug charges etc. do serious time with no mercy from right wing judges that make up the vast majority of the Federal Bench . . . the country is Germany in the late 30s . . .

tekel wrote on April 4, 2007 10:29 PM:

Wow, this thread got long. Three quick points:

1. She still has her job becuase her job is to do what the boss tells her. Her boss is Karl, and Karl told her to stall for as long as possible. Seems like she's doing as well as could be expected. If I was her, I'd be afraid to leave my house.

2. I saw two very interesting ideas above: Mrs. Panstreppon suggested subpoenaing all of Monica's emails. That's a good one, if Conyers can pull it off- I'm sure she'll respond by claiming privilege over those materials. And a couple of posters suggested asking who is paying for her lawyer... that's a fair question, isn't it? Would Akin Gump be required to reveal that information, to prove they're not in violation of federal law?

3. This is a race, people. We want to crack the nut open as fast as possible, so that Bush can't just run out the clock. We really only have 10 months before prezinential campaign hooha takes over the MSM entirely. Leahy and Conyers and Waxman all know this. It's a race, but it's in the dark- they're all on different paths, and they all lead to the same place (plain-english, written proof of corruption of the entire national GOP), but there is no way to tell in advance which path is the shortest one. But I think that Waxman may be closest to the prize if he can actually get his hands on the gwb43 emails... and lordy, lordy, I hope he decides to just share everything with us.

security code: "meat" as in "that bitch is dead meat."

Anonymous wrote on April 4, 2007 10:59 PM:

The Rethugs trot out Joe McCarthy.

The Administration has made him look like a total amateur for sheer suit-and-tie fascism.

Anonymous wrote on April 4, 2007 11:33 PM:

I think we're going to be talking about Monica Goodling months from now. I've got a hunch she's gonna bring 'em all down.

mjames wrote on April 5, 2007 12:22 AM:

IMO:
1. Conyers has a right to know the basis for MG's taking the Fifth. Exactly where is the danger of "self-incrimination?" If it's simply McNulty v. MG, there can't be a perjury charge, because that's just a "he said, she said" (unless, of course, the prosecutor is a political hack like Ken Starr or Tim Griffin). So that can't be it. (And, Anon, it wasn't just Russert v. Libby; it was 9 instances of lying v. Libby.) Dowd has to supply that info. Otherwise, taking the Fifth doesn't fly.
2. MG should have been fired for not cooperating with an investigation. An adverse inference can be drawn from her taking the Fifth. Why hasn't she been fired? That should be the first question to Gonzales on 4/17, followed by the name of the special prosecutor.
3. Information as to who is paying MG's legal fees is both relevant and discoverable. It is not privileged information.
4. MG is a co-conspirator with Gonzales, Sampson, and a whole bunch of other unqualified alleged lawyers who have maybe prosecuted one case among them. The conspiracy: to turn the DOJ into a Republican political machine. Rove is the puppetmaster. (Whoever said MG better not leave her house is right!)
5. MG will never accept immunity. First, because she is a self-righteous hack who thinks she was doing the Lord's work. (Because the Lord is a Republican!) Second, because Rove would never allow it. Third, because she'll be paid handsomely for her silence. A nice partnership at some big Republican firm where she will continue to know nothing about the law.
6. That's why Dowd is coming on so strong. He's got nothing. But he has to fight anyway. In his letter he seems to be conceding that she will appear if subpoenaed - or at least he's saying she hasn't refused to appear if subpoenaed. So, Conyers needs to subpoena her. Interesting that she afforded no due process to the fired attorneys, not even giving them a heads up that they were in trouble, but she now claims all of HER constitutional rights, even those that don't exist.

MG should never have been employed at the DOJ. She has zero qualifications: no experience, no superior education, no Law Review, no exceptional life story. Nothing. She never even tried a case! And that despicable wretch is cavalierly destroying the careers of lifelong US attorneys. As if she would know good lawyering if she fell over it.

There is no way any reasonable person would have any sympathy for her at all. Her very existence reinforces the country's view that Bush and Rove are sociopathic liars who care about nothing except the continuation of Repub power.

MG is the symbol of corruption and the country, as it gets to know her, will despise her as much as I do. A juvenile brat destroying people's lives - and proud of it. She makes me sick.

pre-amerikkkan wrote on April 5, 2007 12:31 AM:

None of this should be a surprise. How was this country taken? If we could research to the beginning, we might find the ancestors of all these bushies authorizing smallpox blankets for distribution to indians in order to make it easier to steal Everything. Manifest destiny is still a working concept but now everyone is getting screwed, not just poor troglodytes. some justice.

code word: stiffed as in been stiffed for 500 years.

Tom D. wrote on April 5, 2007 12:52 AM:

This is easy folks.

The democrats in Congress should do all they can witin their power to expose and hunt down any target with an end towards disgracing this republican administration and ensure GOP defeat in 2008.

Why, you ask? Here's why . . .

Torture

Extra-ordinary rendition

Abu Graib

Gitmo

Illegal wire taps

Illegal use of national security letters

Lies to Congress, the United Nations and the American people to justify the invasion of Iraq

3,000 american soldiers killed

Tens of thousands of american soldiers injured

Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed (some murdered at the hands of US soldiers)

Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians injured

Millions of Iraqi refugees

Hmmmmmm wrote on April 5, 2007 1:09 AM:

Don't immunize her and don't negotiate with her. Get the bitch in front of the TeeVee cameras pleading the 5th already... The sooner the better. Once the words come out of her mouth, their little story is over and it is BUSH OFFICIAL PLEAS THE 5TH!

Meanwhile, I put $2 on Gonzalez on Friday the 13th a week ago and no one would "take my money" 'cause there was no way he would last that long... I still think that's the day he will go...

The question is, do the Dem's have the balls to immunize him afterwards and go after the big fish?

tbhull wrote on April 5, 2007 1:11 AM:

Posted by:
Date: April 4, 2007 11:33 PM

You may be right. If so, it would be so Genesis and OLld Testament in that the only female amongst the balding fat boys raised in KR's image betrays bring down all of this 2 inch cocks.

tbhull wrote on April 5, 2007 1:14 AM:

With that cheap lipstick smeared all over her smug face, MG's picture above looks like some anon human character disguised as a muppet. She also resembles some computer generated character from early versions of computer Jeopardy.

Does she take it anally to remain a virgin?

Anonymous wrote on April 5, 2007 1:15 AM:

"fire" - as in flames

tbhull wrote on April 5, 2007 1:20 AM:

Thank god for the women's movement. 40 years ago this featureless god zombie would have her long locks in a bee hive due charming snakes in the sticks of West Virgina while trance dancing in some white wood church hopped up on strychnine.

John Snyder wrote on April 5, 2007 1:36 AM:

You can't refuse immunity. If Congress grants immunity, she must talk.

Anonymous wrote on April 5, 2007 2:06 AM:

It's only helpful if MG's immunity is conditional on her full and complete cooperation, and void if she lies, etc. If she just answers yes or no, Congress gets little. This really needs to be done through a special prosecutor. Dowd representing her makes this a Big Deal. He wouldn't waste his reputation or his need to rake in the bucks on a nothing case. He'd be laughed at.

If there are crimes, the most likely chief conspirator would be Karl. He always acts through intermediaries, so direct evidence will be hard to get.

For Karl, politics isn't a substitute for war; it is war. I think it's important always to be wary of his unparalleled ability to distract. Congress needs to be short, sharp, clear and direct, and just as focused. Unlike Mr. Bush, they also have to stay focused on how they would run a govt. Mr. Bush just wants to run it down and raid the cookie jar.

Anonymous wrote on April 5, 2007 2:13 AM:

To correct a bit of misinformation in this thread.

1. Immunity is awarded, it Cannot be refused. The courts have held that an immunized witness MUST testify and that Congress need only offer a very limited form of immunity called "use immunity" in order to compel testimony.

2. "Use immunity" would only prevent her own statements from being used against her. If other testify, or other evidence appears, she could still be prosecuted.

2. If she were immunized and still refused to testify, it would be VERY bad for the administration. She knows all the DOJ officials who would have to prosecute her, this means a special prosecutor would HAVE to be appointed. A special prosecutor tasked to investigate the White House is the LAST thing this administration wants.

3. Regarding her high legal bills. There's probably nothing to see here. While government employees can't let others pay their legal bills or take pro bono service. Her attorney can put her on a payment schedule or give her net terms. Then, the moment she is no longer employed by the government, friends and associates can pay off her bills.

4. A question to ponder. If she were still drinking the Administration kool aid, why wouldn't she just appear voluntarily before Congress and lie or use the "I don't remember" defense? Wouldn't falling on her sword like that have created a lot less grief for the administration than this business of pleading the 5th?

Taking all of the above into account, I think we have to seriously consider that Goodling is pretty damn scared, has put the kool-aid aside (for the moment), and is looking out for number-1. If this is true, it means she's probably willing to deal. That... is a good thing.

bcg wrote on April 5, 2007 2:31 AM:

As far as Goodling's crime goes, "Goodling was also invoking the Fifth, he wrote, because Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty had told Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) that he provided false testimony to Congress because Goodling and others kept information from him. "
As I understand it, Goodling could have suborned perjury from McNulty simply by knowingly feeding him false information.

Anon: "Good thing, too. Unlike Leahy and Conyers, she can't rely on us generous taxpayers to foot the bill."
There's a big difference here: Conyers and committee are investigating the unprecedented, and possibly corrupt, firing of USAs. That's in the scope of their duties and, as it involves the corruption of the DoJ, and the electoral system of this country, the expense seems warranted. Unlike, say, the price of investigating an Oval Office blow job.
You claim that you're not a troll; but, the introduction, and repetition, of this completely irrelevant item about Conyers' expenses (calculated, as best as I can tell, to do nothing but put him in a bad light) undercuts your claim. I think that you were lying.
It should be obvious why the price of Goodlings' lawyers is germane, but I'll go over it any way. Firstly, there's the issue of her accepting gifts while she's on the public payroll. Secondly, there's the possibility that her co-conspirators are trying to cover her ass in order to save their own. Knowing who's paying would go a long way towards telling us who has a pronounced interest in her defence.

Now, if there's may be an indictable offence under investigation, it seems to me that, following the administrations own playbook, Ms. Goodling could be taken into custody as a material witness and held indefinitely. Isn't turn about fair play?
Unfortunately, DoJ would have t o do it.

Sanny G wrote on April 5, 2007 4:54 AM:

To be clear, when Goodling's lawyer says, "Your letter essentially encourages Ms. Goodling to ignore her lawyer's advice and and sacrifice her Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights - or face being hauled to a public hearing merely to repeatedly assert her privilege to question after question. This is a choice that the Constitution does not require Ms. Goodling to make," he is lying. To questions the answer to which implicates her in the obstruction of justice or conspiracy to mislead Congress she has every right to plead the Fifth, and that right should be respected. But as the committee proceeds to investigate potential grounds for impeachment of AG Gonzalez or other political appointees, a process that is inherently political, she is legally obliged to provide truthful answers to every question asked, as long as the answer does not expose her to criminal liability.

This is an effort to buy time and negotiating room for the administration because Ms. Goodling knows too much. If they can delay her testimony long enough to reach a compromise, the administration wins.

Bugboy wrote on April 5, 2007 7:37 AM:

I'd like to know why no one seems to be able to find a more recent photo of Ms. Buzz Saw than a grainy picnic photo from what, 10 years ago?

Code is rain as in when it rains it pours.

Anonymous wrote on April 5, 2007 9:05 AM:

To everyone who has suggested that MG be subjected to Gitmo-type interrogations/indefinite detentions (and there are more than a few of you), is it that you oppose the use of these means, support their use, or support their use on Republicans only (as opposed to Taliban and suspected terrorists)? Does it have something to do with the appalling misogyny that has been directed in this forum against the "gash" in question? Are you all just joking?

bordersmuggler wrote on April 5, 2007 9:22 AM:

To the previous poster:

Certainly not. No one posting on this site ever says anything in jest.

Get a life.

tbhull wrote on April 5, 2007 10:09 AM:

Posted by:
Date: April 5, 2007 09:05 AM

I sincerely apologize that you feel this way about the excessive X-rated cartoon-like rhetoric used against poor 'ol brownie making MG. In your opinion, has MG earned and/or does she deserve a more civil, refined and professional approach? Methinks not, but unreasonable minds could differ.

I wish I could conjer up a more appropriate and/or pleasing image of this pile of worthlessness, such as her baking brownies in the kitchen while Ashcroft and of other three members of his good old boy gospel quartet whip out a few golden oldies typcally found on Hee-Haw reruns while the the best of The 700 Club plays in the background on a Beta max, but she has left the kitchen and Christ for politics. The game and the names used are quite different.

If she cannot stand the heat then she needs to get back in the kitchen.

Phoenix Woman wrote on April 5, 2007 10:28 AM:

Go check out FDL today -- looks like Goodling's lawyer (who may well be a graduate of a right-wing religio-ideology factory, as she is) might be giving her bad advice: http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/04/05/ooopsies/

EdNSted wrote on April 5, 2007 10:37 AM:

Granting immunity in exchange for testimony may be a trap -- and precisely what the White House is hoping for. MG could then fall on her sword for the 'greater good', in essense saying "gee, yeah, sorry, it was all my idea, I kinda like went off on my own tangent here, and I never really informed my bosses about this and, no they never approved of what I was doing and yeah, it seemed like a good idea at the time, I really had no intent to corrupt the DoJ, sorry, sorry,etc, etc....".

Those supporting immunity seem to be assuming that MG would then be required to tell the truth. But I don't think that's necessarily so. As Oliver North clearly demonstrated so many years ago, there's no real penalty for lying to Congress. In this scenario, it was all just a great big misunderstanding that resulted from a single rogue DoJ employee who was being a bit overly aggressive in her job and who didn't understand that her actions would be misinterpreted: MG skates; as do her superiors. Point, game and match.

Aquaria wrote on April 5, 2007 10:39 AM:

Some interesting characters have invoked the Fifth even before testifying before Congress, like, oh, Enron bad boys, Kenny-boy Lay and Andrew Farstow. And Ann Baskins, in re: HP spying scandal.

Are you sure you want to be in that kind of company, Monica?

Think about it.

the truth will out wrote on April 5, 2007 11:17 AM:

EdNSted

Seems to me that if she wants to take the whole rap, there would need to be a huge history of emails, going way back, showing how this one person constructed the whole shebang.

As Mrs P said yesterday, subpoena all her emails.

If she hopes for immunity and tells a pack of lies, there better be more proof than just her word.

And while IAMAL - I suspect the committee chair and members would do an excellent job of insisting on total proof for every lie.

the truth will out wrote on April 5, 2007 11:20 AM:

IANAL - should have been N not M above.

No lawyer here.

vox clamantis in red state wrote on April 5, 2007 12:01 PM:

No exceptions were made by the Repukes for Monica Lewinsky to not testify about much more personally embarassing subject matter. They gladly dragged her, then President Clinton and his family, thru all the slime and muck they could find.
If ever there was a payback due, this is it.

vox clamantis in red state wrote on April 5, 2007 12:02 PM:

No exceptions were made by the Republicans for Monica Lewinsky to not testify about much more personally embarassing subject matter. They gladly dragged her, then President Clinton and his family, thru all the slime and muck they could find.
If ever there was a payback due, this is it.

EdNSted wrote on April 5, 2007 12:26 PM:

the truth will out,

(IANAL - seems important to clarify since there are several attys participating here)

I hope you are correct because it's been a long time since there's been any real oversight of the executive branch by Congress. In fact, several in this administration appear to be quite shocked at how this whole congression oversight thing works.

zk0sm0 wrote on April 5, 2007 1:11 PM:

tbhull: your vulgar and transparent misogyny is inappropriate and unproductive - seek counseling and keep it out of here.

_____

[blank]: "Does it have something to do with the appalling misogyny that has been directed in this forum against the "gash" in question?

please do not paint the entire forum with the pathetic ravings of one disturbed individual. doing so is disingenuous to say the least.

zk0sm0 wrote on April 5, 2007 1:17 PM:

anon: "...look at the evidence presented by Fitzgerald. Basically, because of everyone's conflicting testimony and bad recollection of events and conversations, the question for the jury was who do you believe, Russert or Libby?"

what a ridiculous misrepresentation of the case against libby. the facts established by the prosecution were substantial and overwhelming - significantly more than merely russert's word versus libby's. your claim to being a democrat is laughable as your kool-aid mustache is showing.

tbhull wrote on April 5, 2007 1:22 PM:

Posted by: zk0sm0
Date: April 5, 2007 01:11 PM

transparent misogyny? What does this mean?

Any chance MG pulls out the sexual diversity card? If I remember correctly Gonzo has lightly played the racial diversity card. Gonzo has certainly played the racial diversity card by proxy through several Senators.

Anonymous wrote on April 5, 2007 5:02 PM:

Sanny G - The bizarre definition that you have given to the word "lying" shows smart Monica is being. What you call "lying" is a fairly straightfoward legal argument. If this is "lying," then one side of every contested issue is "lying."

Michael wrote on April 5, 2007 11:07 PM:

I absolutely detest this "codeword" crap! So it's a codeword, big deal... that and a tarot reading will determine the value of your post. It makes me sick. It's just like how people who call themselves "bloggers" but are really just people who comment on blogs (that allow it) who can't wait to type "First!" or variations thereof without any intelligent comment.

Stop making me puke! I enjoyed TPM comments until this fad emerged.

Josh, please tell people not to do this anymore.

BTW my code word was "STFU moron"!

OhSnap! </