That seems like the right thing to infer here.
Monica Goodling, a Justice Department official involved in the firings of federal prosecutors, will refuse to answer questions at upcoming Senate hearings, citing Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, her lawyer said Monday.
“The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real,” said the lawyer, John Dowd.
UPDATE: Looks like this is prompted by the fact that at least one Dept. Of Justice official lied under oath.
Monica M. Goodling — who is on an indefinite leave of absence from Gonzales’s office — also alleges in a sworn declaration that a “senior Department of Justice official” has admitted he was “not entirely candid” in his Senate testimony and has blamed Goodling and others for not fully briefing him.
The declaration does not identify the senior official, but says the admission was made to Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), a member of the Senate Judiciary panel who is leading the U.S. attorneys probe. The only two Justice officials who have testified in front of that committee about the firings are Gonzales and Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty.
Goodling’s lawyer is apparently saying they’re afraid her testimony would, Scooter Libby style, conflict with earlier testimony and leaver her open to perjury.
Here is some free advice for the Republicans on perjury: stop lying so much.
Well let’s not get carried away.
There’s a presumption of innocence in our system, remember, and she has a right to invoke the fith amendment.
It’s tough to make political hay with that but there we go.
Still, to me it’s a sign that Congress should really keep digging … there’s something there …
I don’t think invocation of the 5th indicates a crime by itself, but when your lawyer says something like that, it kinda does.
You know Oliver has blown a gasket when Frameone Paul is reminding you of a presumption of innocence!
just like liberals though, all for constitutional protection when IT SUITS THEM, but not any other time boy!
Pedro, STFU.
There are many critics here but none with less to say than Pedro.
There goes the Bush administration: stonewalling another investigation.
Just as Katrina made everybody realize how inept and crony-ridden this administration was, this case will open the eyes of a lot of people to just how corrupt – dim-wittedly corrupt — they are.
Pedro: don’t worry, unlike republicans we actually believe in habeas corpus, access to counsel, and the right to a fair trial.
We’re not going to jail Ms. Goodling. In fact, we’ll probably grant her immunity for her testimony so we can jail her superiors.
They’re Republicans, lying is in their DNA.
Remember Tucker Carlson telling Karen Hughes that Bush used a swear word and she insisted not?
Tucker, good little lickspittle he is said, She was lying and she knew I knew she was lying. I admire her for it.
Paul and zadura, you guys should do a comedy act….
Paul
“Pedro, STFU.”
zadura
“There are many critics here but none with less to say than Pedro”
Hilarious I tell ya…!
Man, Oliver, at least read the PDF of her lawyer’s statement and letter to Sen. Leahy. They state she won’t talk to Judiciary because the Democrats have gone public saying she lied already.
You’re helping your own Senators shoot themselves in the foot legally, but scandal buzz/meme is always the default if you’ve got nothing to legislate except surrender and shrimp subsidies.
come on now steve….It’s SPINACH subsidies that everyone is up in arms about,oh and peanuts…..
Ya got me Pedro. But I love that scampi, and I think I could stand stalwart shoulder to shoulder with Oliver, Nanc, et.al., on that issue. Spinach, surrender – not so much.
pedro anyone who would take what Oliver wrote and extrapolate from it that liberals only support the constitution when it suits them is an idiot. Plain and simple.
And Stevesh, what a load of shit. She’s saying she won’t testify because the committee has already drawn conclusions? But what better way to change those conclusions than to testify under oath?
How exactly does Leahy or anyone “drawing conclusions” before hand open her up to self-incrimination? You guys are just dumber than posts for buying half the shit you get fed …
Quite frankly I’ve found this Dept. of Justice firings business very complicated, and a bit boring. Thankfully, Jon Stewart keeps us up to date in this video:
http://minor-ripper.blogspot.com/2007/03/jon-stewart-keeps-us-up-to-speed-on.html
Why Goodling’s “perjury trap” excuse for taking the Fifth is simply more smoke and mirrors:
http://volokh.com/posts/1174946183.shtml
Peedro/Steve = same sock-puppet poster.
Pedro, since liberals wrote the Constitution, one could rightly conclude that they were in favor of its protections.
They may well have been, but it is clear you and oliver aren’t
Pedro, you are not making any sense at all.
You apparently agree that the Constitution is a liberal document and that the framers of the Constitution were liberals. Yet you snidely deride all opposition as “liberals.” If you aren’t aligned with the Constitution, pray tell, what are you?
Pedro, you are not making any sense at all.
Just cut and paste that, the rest is just kind of gravy on top.
I don’t understand any of this. Its legal for a Presdient to fire every US attorney. Whats being investigated? As to Goodling. Lets see. Scooter Libby may do time merely because of ‘lies’ that were found as part of the investigative process only. If I’m Goodling, have committed no crime, but will be questioned 500 times for 10,000 hours over the next 12 months and possibly put in jail, if even one iota of my voluminous testimoney doesn’t match, I’m not taking the risk.
Dugger
She got a law degree from Pat Robertson University? HAHAHA, that’s the kind of people Republican’ts hire.
Shorter Dugger: she’s gonna lie and obstruct, just like Scooter Libby lied and obstructed.
You apparently agree that the Constitution is a liberal document and that the framers of the Constitution were liberals. Yet you snidely deride all opposition as “liberals.”
The “liberals” that wrote the Constitution, wouldn’t recognize what has happened to it since.
The “liberals” who hide behind the Supreme Court’s robes today, would have been quietly removed from the room where the Founding Fathers assembled.
On this issue, Frank, the founding fathers would have tarred and feathered Bush and run him out of town while screaming about Royal Prerogatives.
midderpidge: You’ve already mentioned the tarring and feathering trick. Executive privilege would have been more recognizable to them than Congressional oversight.
The first self – generated Senate inquiry, according to Wyn Craig Wade, was the investigation into the sinking of the Titanic.
A few things to point out to our troll friends:
1) Dugger – Technically, yes, the USAs all serve at the pleasure of the President. The issue here is not that he fired them, but why he fired them. It is illegal for the President to use the Dept. of Justice as a tool for political prosecution or persecution. That means that if he, or his office, directed USAs to carry out activities for purely political purposes, that’s illegal. The fact that he fired them for refusing is called evidence.
2) Since there is some confusion as to what the issue is with Goodling involking the 5th amendment and what it implies, let’s all start by reading the whole text of the 5th amendment:
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
As you can see, the right against self incrimination is used to keep from being a witness against yourself in CRIMINAL CASES, not civil cases and legislative or administrative investigations of procedure and process.
In this case, no indictments have been filed and no one has been charged with a crime. This means that Ms. Goodling is either wrong in the way she is using the 5th amendment (not surprising considering where she went to law school) or is implying that criminal charges WILL be filed as a result of her testimony. She is still wrong in the way it is being used, but the implication is written on the wall in neon right now.
Oops, I’m meant invoking, not involking.
“…I’m not taking the risk.”
once again conservative kool-aid drinkers just don’t get it because they live in a self-imposed fantasy land of talking points and spin.
They don’t understand how the system of checks and balances works in this country, they have no idea what the fifth amendment is or how it works and they have nothing but contempt for the truth. Simple as that.
md
It can’t be ‘why he fired them”, right? Only Bush knows that. And if the issue were, as you opine, that they may have been directed to do illegal things, wouldn’t you think Bush would know that, by firing these attorneys, he guarantees they will go public with your ‘illegalities’. I never understand how Bush at one point can be the evil genius mastermind able to fool every stinking Democrat on the war but at other times is a total, self-inciminating buffoon – except those Bush-variations always seem to fit the left’s scandal du jour.
Dugger, do you even think before you write?
Only Bush knows why he fired them so we will never know the truth? Is that your argument?
In that case, we will never be able to determine criminal liability in any case ever. There is something called mens rea, or the determination of a criminal’s intent. And we come to these conclusions based on evidence, whether physical or testimonial.
Maybe this administration decided that the embarrassment of being fired will keep them quite, or that it will turn into a he said/he said situation, and they have more credibility, or maybe their incredible hubris made them feel untouchable. I have no idea and don’t care to speculate.
What everyone knows is this 1) there is evidence to suggest that this Administration tried to use the Dept. of Justice for political purposes. (Mind you, there is no definitive conclusion, but there is enough evidence that if it were a regular criminal investigation, as State’s Attorney or District Attorney would look into it)
2) It is the job of Congress to investigate, since the Dept. of Justice cannot investigate itself, to determine if a crime has been committed.
3) Any attempt by the Administration to stonewall or obstruct such an investigation makes it look more and more as if something sinister has occurred.
Dugger, you are simply astonishing some times.
This scandal has been fueled entirely by the administration’s inability to get and keep it’s story straight about why these USAs were fired. At the same time that no one at the DOJ seems able to give a straight answer that holds up to any scrutiny, there is ample indication that some conservative politicians and operatives were bringin political pressure on the DOJ to do something about prosectuors whose investigations they didn’t like.
Put it all together and an investigation is entirely warranted simply to get at the truth of the matter.
Now you come along yet again with your “We can never know the mind of Bush so why bother” defense.
Just because you have constructed two totally ridiculous strawman images of Bush in your own head doesn’t mean that Congress should abdicate its oversight responsibilities does it? Is it quite possible, Dugs, my thick friend, that Bush was able to put over his bullshit excuse for a war for a variety of reasons none of which have to do with competence? Can it also be that the Bush administration can operate well in some instances but drop the ball on others? Can it not also be the case that this entire affair might never have been discovered if the Dems hadn’t decided that congress should not bow in fealty to the president? Why if the Republicans had won in 06 none of this would be happening and Bush would indeed look like a mastermind, wouldn’t he?
Once again you prove the rule that conservatives live in a fantasy world of self-reingforcing talking point and spin.
There’s a simple question here: What’s the truth of the matter? When an administration can’t give a straight answer to that question then an investigation is entirely warranted.
If I’m Goodling, have committed no crime, but will be questioned 500 times for 10,000 hours over the next 12 months and possibly put in jail, if even one iota of my voluminous testimoney doesn’t match, I’m not taking the risk.
The 5th says you don’t have to testify against yourself regarding past crimes. It’s not a preventative measure against future crimes. In other words, you can’t claim the 5th because your only other choice is to lie under oath.
I never understand how Bush at one point can be the evil genius mastermind …but at other times is a total, self-incriminating buffoon
It is a unique talent, I’ll give him that.
Frank, I have to admit, you got me. I never read Wyn Craig Wade’s book and so I don’t know what obscure qualifying point you are trying to make if there is one.
My simple history investigation tells me Congress has been hold inquiries, including into malfeasance of the executive branch, since 1792.
md
yes.
Now think a minute. You seem to be getting the cart before the horse.
For there to be ‘criminal liability’ wouldn’t there have to be a crime? Actus reus?
You said ‘The issue here is not that he fired them, but why he fired them.’
When and where (except possibly ‘hate’ crimes) is motive for an action (the ‘why’) – vice the action itself- a criminal element itself? If I do ‘A’ its perfectly OK if my motive is ‘B’ , but not Ok is my motive is ‘C’? I don’t think so.
frame
Exactly why does the adminstration need to keep its story straight if its legal to fire the attorneys. WHy I (Pres) do somethin legal is own business. Should you have to explain countless times -ad infinitum- why (presumably) you didn’t like Red Dawn? No, its your business and its legal. The attorney’s can be fired at the Pres’s discretion. Just like Bubba did.
Quaker
Good point. But I well know if I knew I was going to be questioned for a year or more countless times about what originally were numerous minor episodes in my life, I would at some point say something contradictory. And my reading of Today’s poolitical climate, is that would put me in jail. But if I could just claim the Fifth and it provides me an out from what seems like an ideological fishing expedition, I probably would take it rather than go to jail on an inadvertent memory lapse or misspeak.
Dugger,
Your nuts. If the president cannot fire USAs in order to obstruct justice. It’s called, um, obstruction of justice and that’s a crime. They said they fired the attorneys for performance related issues but that’s turned out to be bullshit. So why did they fire them? That’s the very simple question that the administration has no answer for.
To restate that, the president cannot fire USAs in order to obstruct justice.
I shoot I guy and tell the cops it was in self-defense. Only through an investigation do they discover that no, I had been planning to shoot the guy for months in premeditated fashion.
Bush tells everyone he fired the USAs for performance related issues. But what if an investigation reveals that there was actually an orchestrated campaign to fire attorneys who were investigating republicans? Would have no problem with that? If you didn’t have a problem with that I would seriously question your judgement.
Tell me, if the president fired the USAs to block investigations of fellow republicans, would you dismiss it as the president’s perogative? Do you understand the implications of that for the future of our democracy?
Dugger, I don’t know what your profession is (please tell me if you are an attorney, so we can take this discussion to a deeper level).
The actus reus here is not the firing, it is the use of a government department for the pursuit of political gains.
The mens rea is to subvert the Constitution and the will of the people by manipulating the results of an election of giving the appearance that a political party is corrupt.
Motive is irrelevant. Motive is almost never an element of amy crime. Motive can only be used an added piece of evidence that puts together the pieces of the puzzle that is a crime.
The firing is not a crime nor is the motive for the firing. But the firings are evidence of the administrations attempt to commit a crime or a part of a conspiracy to commit a future crime (i.e., replace these attorneys with ones more willing to do the Administration’s bidding). Attempt and Conspiracy are crimes (called inchoate crimes) which often carry the same or a slightly lesser punishment than the act itself.
I probably would take it rather than go to jail on an inadvertent memory lapse or misspeak.
Sure. That would be unfortunate. However, it probably wouldn’t happen if you didn’t invent a cover story out of whole cloth the way Mr. Libby did.
At any rate, I’m not convinced that an actual crime (other than maybe lying to Congress) has taken place.
It’s true that the AG can fire U.S. Attorneys for any reason at all. But so far, the AG has offered only one reason–performance–and that turned out to be bogus. Beyond that, the only reason seems to be “because we can.”
Quaker
I believ a ‘bogus’ reason for doing something legal does not then make the action illegal.
frame
You first have to establish the crime – the obstruction of justice, if you say so – in this case. Firing those attorneys is perfectly legal. What is the crime? Establish the crime first.
md
Are you saying that a crime – has been established? I don’t know of one. What crime specifically? You seem to be claiming that those attorneys were asked to do something illegal (the use of a government department for the pursuit of political gains.).
You prove that? Who did it? Maybe what you mean is that if you guys were allowed a fishing expedition, you might uncover a crime – like Scooter Libby’s.
“The firing is not a crime nor is the motive for the firing’
And this
seems like backtracking
from this:
” The issue here is not that he fired them, but why he fired them.”
Dugger –
Scooter Libby committed a crime: He perjured himself. This crime wasn’t uncovered in some fishing expedition to catch him out. He lied under oath to investigators. That was his choice. He chose to commit a crime.
In the case of the USAs you already have conflicting testimony from DOJ officials and testimony that is contradicted by subsequent evidence. I’m no lawyer but it seems to me that if there is probable cause or the appearance of malfeasance, whatever the term is, then there is justification for an investigation.
You seem to think that an investigation is entirely unwarranted because the president can do whatever he wants. That’s a dangerous attitude to have in a democracy my friend. Or don’t you care?
I believe a ‘bogus’ reason for doing something legal does not then make the action illegal.
No, it just makes it a lie.
And a lie under oath is what, dugger, say it with me, a crime.
Attorney General: So what are you working on now?
USA: Well, I’ve been investigating Duke Cunningham’s dealings with Dusty Foggo and Porter Goss, and a lot of it seems to point back to Rep. jerry Lewis of California…”
Atty. Gen.: Uh huh, that’s great. You’re fired.
USA: Wha…?
frame
You well know Scooter Libby’s crime was purely a by-product of the investigation.
And I’m thinking we have got to have a crime before we investigate. Right now, politicians and ideologues don’t like the way this ‘looks’ – despite it being legal.
Not to get side tracked but dugger you’ve got to be kidding. Libby’s crime was purely a product of his lying under oath. You know if you don’t do that there’s high probability that you will never be charged with and found guilt of perjury.
And if you could please tell me how, in the secretive world of washington politics, someone can prove a crime without an investigation into suspicious matters I’m all ears. There is enough of an appearance of wrongdoing or unethical behavior here to warrant an investigation.
You’re only argument against an investigation is that it might lead to other Bush administration officials being charged with perjury, as if they have no choice in the matter to not lie under oath.
Although this being the Bush administration, that may well be the case…
To sum up you want to stop an investigation into possible wrongdoing because some of those people being investigated might break the law during the course of the investigation by lying to the investigators.
The idea that people ae being tricked into providing conflicting testimony because of faulty memories is just more conservative bullshit spin that no one in their right mind believes.
Wow! We can really see the disconnect between Dugger and reality there. There was an underlying crime that Scooter Libby obstructed the investigation and lied to investigators about.
I believ a ‘bogus’ reason for doing something legal does not then make the action illegal.
Likewise, Dugger.
Maybe you misread the sentence just prior: I DON’T believe an actual crime has taken place (other than maybe lying to Congress). But even if it’s not illegal, it sure is embarrassing to fire a bunch of people–people who just got good job reviews–and not be able to give anybody a reason for it.
frame
I haven’t said Libby was tricked. I agree Libby committed a crime – by definition. But I also that crime was not the crime for which the investigation was initiated and that the crime part of the mechanics of the this investigative process. The answers he gave did not reveal he committed ‘the’ crime.
I know you are not very fond of conservatives and Bushies, but I would hope one day, you and others will look at the big picture of all of this (also review Weinberger and Cisneros) and you won’t find it a reason to cheer. IMO – its sad.
With Libby being the last ‘gotcha’, I would happily agree to revise this ugly ‘gotcha’ process. On my side and yours, Clinton years and earlier, it has always, IMO, really been about politics.
Can’t argue that, Quaker. Their timing sucked too.
Wow. According to Dugger, in the case of the outing of a covert CIA officer for political reasons, it is the investigation into the misdeed that is about the politics.
Just as the Bush administration trying to subvert the justice system for pure political power and then lying about it is actually about a Democratic congress playing “Gotcha”.
Given the lack of honor, integrity, honesty and credibility in the Bush adminstration; it’s love of cronyism, corporate favoritism, and partisanship; and several years of a Republican rubberstamp congress that didn’t even pretend to hold the adminstration accountable; I can see why a Bush-lover like Dugger would want all oversight into the shady dealings of the Bush adminstration dropped.
“I would hope one day, you and others will look at the big picture of all of this …”
It’s astonishing really. Here we have a guy who thinks that there should be no oversight of the executtive because someone might choose to lie during the investigation talking about missing the big picture …
You know dugger libby didn’t have to lie to the investigators. He could have told them the truth. Anyone involved in this USA situation has the same option. Perjury is only part of the mechanics of an investigation if someone CHOOSES to perjure themselves.
Taking the 5th because you don’t want to have to make that choice is not a valid position.
But wait, there’s more!
http://www.davidcorn.com/archives/2007/03/cunningham_scan.php
and this too;
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/013285.php
There is enough of an appearance of wrongdoing or unethical behavior here to warrant an investigation.
oops.