Conyers, Sanchez Question Whether Monica Goodling Can Take the Fifth

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 07:54:48 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

House Judiciary Chair John Conyers and subcommittee Chair Linda Sanchez have written Monica Goodling's lawyer saying they don't think she has a good faith basis for invoking her 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. First off, they say Goodling has to appear and invoke the privilege on a question by question basis.

Then, they write,

The fact that a few Senators and Members of the House have expressed publicly their doubts about the credibility of the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General in their representations to Congress about the U.S. Attorneys' termination does not in any way excuse your client from answering questions honestly and to the best of her ability. Of course, we expect (as we are sure you do) your client to tell the truth in any interview or testimony. The alleged concern that she may be prosecuted for perjury by the Department of Justice for fully truthful testimony is not only an unjustified basis for invoking the privilege and without reasonable foundation in this case but also so far as we know an unwarranted aspersion against her employer.

More...

The references in your letters to Mr. Libby and Mr. Safavian are particularly unwarranted and inappropriate. Both of those individuals, former high-ranking officials in the Bush Administration, were found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by juries of their peers, in cases brought by Presidentially appointed U.S. Attorneys, of knowingly and intentionally lying or providing false information primarily to Executive branch agents or officials. Neither matter involved truthful testimony by the defendants. Both of them were found to have deliberately misrepresented facts, which we are confident you do not expect Ms. Goodling to do. If her testimony is truthful, she will have nothing to worry about in terms of a perjury prosecution, which, of course, rests in the exclusive control of the Department.

[hat tip Raw Story.]

< Is Alberto Gonzales Putting Federal Executions on Hold? | U.S. Interrogates Terror Suspects at Secret Ethiopian Jails >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Conyers, Sanchez Question Whether Monica Goodling Can Take the Fifth | 21 comments (21 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

HA HA...Witch hunt... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by desertswine on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 10:39:41 AM EST

A witch hunt is....

Remember this one?

SOCKS THE CAT!

In one of the many Republican sponsored investigations used to harass the Clinton administration, the use of White House staff, postage, and stationary to answer mail addressed to the Socks the cat was probed by Sen Dan Burton.

To the tune of how many millions was it? 30? 40?

: How wonderful it is (none / 0) (#27)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 06:13:21 PM EST

to see that scar faithfully endorses the time honored "two wrongs make a right" philsophy.
What a moral compass you are. I stand in awe at your position.
Or is that laughter?
Disgust??

Is Schorr still opining??? Wow and Gesh. (1.00 / 1) (#12)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 07:40:33 AM EST

But whatever he is now passing opinions on...

The last time I heard him he seemed to be struggling to accept the fact that we had been attacked by terrorists.

Of course the point is that the Demos are on a witch hunt, with the head Demo admitting no crimes in evidence.

I assume you are in favor of police sweeps to just pick people up and subject them to public questioning...

"Don't worry, just tell us the truth and you will have nothing to fear...."

et al - The treatment of Lewis Libby has taught people a vauable lesson.

: Yes, (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by Sailor on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 10:03:26 AM EST

people have learned you don't get to lie and commit perjury without consequences.
People also don't get to refuse to appear.
BTW, rethugs were for subpoena powers before they were against them.

i think goodling will cut a deal. . . (none / 0) (#1)
by the rainnn on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 08:58:04 PM EST

great post, here!

the concerns that animate
goodling's assertion of the
fifth -- i believe -- go well
beyond simply the threat of a
perjury charge. [hatch act, anyone?]

i do think she'll deal -- in private.

on a somewhat-related note,
last week, karl rove "rapped" (solely
in the dictionary sense of that word,
mind you), and then, did a little
stand-up "comedy" routine at the
beltway correspondents' banquet. . .

as part of that "routine", he taunted
patrick fitzgerald, by saying his
own (rove's) name was "patrick fitzgerald".
it seemed clear that the "joke" was -- to
the extent they were capable of any humor -- that
mr. rove had escaped indictment in the
CIA leak investigation. . .

this must change.

so -- i humbly offer my video rejoinder to
mr. rove, to mr. cheney, and to mr. bush.

[forgive the rather proletarian
editing effects/efforts -- it is all
i have to work with. . . i offer it,
gratis, for/to/on any site or blog that
would like to post/link it. . .]

in closing -- i predict -- so will end
monica's "five for freedom" quest -- with
a whimper -- and, a deal.

more to your point, jeralyn. . . (none / 0) (#2)
by the rainnn on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 09:18:48 PM EST

sen. leahy has indicated
that the DoJ is "hopelessly
conflicted", in a letter
released by his office today. . .

he asks alberto gonzales to advise whether
the DoJ will agree that a "special counsel"
need be appointed to advise the senate judiciary
committee about matters related to monica
"take five for freedom" goodling. . .

he goes on to point out that it might be
unprecedented for the DoJ to be paying a
"career" (important for hatch act) employee
that has asserted the fifth, and or refused,
prospectively, to cooperate with an invest-
igation of this sort. . .

the screws are tightening on gonzales'
neck-bolts, no?

Sure, uh huh. (1.00 / 1) (#3)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 09:28:52 PM EST

Sunday morning I watched Leahy admit that there was no crimes to investigate, but he wanted to investigate to find some crimes to investigate so he could investigate some crimes.

What a bunch of champs the Demos have.


which would of course explain. . . (none / 0) (#4)
by the rainnn on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 10:10:20 PM EST

monica's "five for freedom", eh, jim?

seriously -- what is your on topic
take as to why monica took the fifth. . .

can't be -- as you say -- perjury, right?

i think you know there's more here.

but you're just parroting talking points.


The issue is simple. (none / 0) (#8)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 10:55:00 PM EST

She understands that the Demos are on a witch hunt and has chosen not be part of it.

Over 50 years ago there were other, now infamous Senate hearings. One comment from them has become famous, and applies today.

Let us not assassinate this lad(y) further, Senator.... You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

The Senators need to remember those hearings, and how those reckless charges by McCarthy defined a generation.


a fascinating bit of irony, there, jim. . . (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by the rainnn on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 07:48:08 AM EST

although i am almost certain
the irony was unintended/not
known to you, as you wrote it.

your quote is from hearings
related to political witch-
hunts, broadly-speaking.

after those abuses, laws -- like
the hatch act -- were amended
and strengthened, in an effort to
insure the abuses would not re-occur. . .

it seems likely monica goodling
was asking about partisan political
loyalties, of underlings, while on
the clock for the DoJ. . . and that
would make her the questioner in
your quote, not the victim. . .

ironic, that.


This may come as a surprise to you, rainnn, (none / 0) (#17)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 08:40:07 AM EST

but I understood the McCarthy flap when it was going on, because I was fortunate enough to have level headed people explain it to me, and thus had no need to have it explained to me over the next 50 years by the press and various people who will defend your right to agree with them.

The Left has become the Right of the 30's, 40's and 50's. The major difference is that it has taken complete control of the Democratic Party, whereas the Right never got complete control of the Republican Party.

Since this is a legal blog it is not surprising that you want to quote various laws that supposedly prevent such things from happening again. That they can not prevent people from having their reputations destroyed, not to mention their lives and fortunes, as a result of political firestorms has been amply demonstrated time and again.

Today's Demos, like McCarthy in the 50's, have taken a situation and utilized incompetence of the other side to try and destroy political opponents.
That the Right then and the Demos now truly believe their actions just and on the side of God do not make them proper, correct or acceptable models of political behavior.


so, jim -- you admit that. . . (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by the rainnn on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 09:15:00 AM EST

monica IS joe mccarthy, right?

cool. just so we've got that straight.

your suggestion that sen. patrick leahy
is "like" joe mccarthy is offensive --
unsupported by the factual record, illogical
and offensive. . .

cheers.


: Odd (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by squeaky on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 09:22:04 AM EST

McCarthy is one of ppj's heros.

: How drool you are. (none / 0) (#26)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 06:05:26 PM EST

First you toss off an insult and then you knowingly make an incorrect statement..
And the difference between McCarthy and Leahy is simple.
There actually were communists in the government.
Ta Ta!!

What crime do you have to show us? (none / 0) (#11)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 07:24:25 AM EST

I repeat. Leahy admitted that they had no crime to investigate.


: Well then (5.00 / 2) (#21)
by Repack Rider on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 09:43:54 AM EST

Leahy admitted that they had no crime to investigate.
In that case she has nothing to worry about.
Of course, the fact that Goodling claims to be in legal jeopardy surely is a lot of smoke suggesting a fire, and Mr. Gonzales' conflicting statements indicate that at least one of his statements to Congress is a lie.
Wait. Lying to Congress is a crime.
Well then, there you have it. Lots of good stuff to investigate.

: Walter (1.00 / 2) (#15)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 08:15:52 AM EST

Uh, I understood that you didn't understand what you thought you meant to say, Walter.
But my point was, and remains. This is a witch hunt. If you want to join the pack, sign on.
Wait....you already have.

What does the end of this sentence mean? (none / 0) (#6)
by oculus on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 10:13:15 PM EST

The alleged concern that she may be prosecuted for perjury by the Department of Justice for fully truthful testimony is not only an unjustified basis for invoking the privilege and without reasonable foundation in this case but also so far as we know an unwarranted aspersion against her employer.

"Aspersion against" does not appear to be the correct phrase. Maybe "aspersions on"?

aspersions all around, eh. . . (none / 0) (#7)
by the rainnn on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 10:26:26 PM EST

i agree that it reads awkwardly,
but i guess the intent is to say
that monica's taking the fifth may
imply an unwarranted-by-the-
facts-pressure from her
employer -- mr. gonzales' office -- to
do unlawful things. . .

DA (none / 0) (#18)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 08:51:25 AM EST

You wrote:

HAHAHAAH

Is that a comment?

Do you have it copyrighted?

And no. An investigation is something law enforcement would do, based on enough information to have a reasonable person believe a crime has been committed.

A witch hunt is.... well, just observe the Democrats.

BTW. You wrote:

That won't work around here boy, you'll not earn any Rove points with your imbecilities today.

As you most likely know, referring to members of the black community and southern whites, as "boy" is considered a high insult.

I would urge you to not bring ethinic insults into the discussion.

So you like to call me, boy?? (none / 0) (#28)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 06:16:05 PM EST

Well boy, I made the request in an attempt to educate you. You, boy, rejected it.

You know boy, I can handle that.

Ta Ta! Boy!