Via Reuters: Attorney general aide won’t testify on firings
An aide to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez on Monday invoked her constitutional right against self-incrimination and refused to testify before a Senate panel investigating the firing of eight prosecutors.Monica Goodling, who was involved in the firings, said: “I have decided to follow my lawyer’s advice and respectfully invoke my constitutional right because the … circumstances present a perilous environment in which to testify.”
[...]
Goodling, 33, a counsel to Gonzales and White House liaison, said in a two-page declaration she would decline to answer any of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s questions “about the firings of U.S. attorneys or related questions.”
Wow.
For a case that is allegedly about nothing (according to some), it sure keeps providing more and more suggestions that there is, in fact, something going on.
Those who have paid any attention to the released e-mails will recognize Goodling’s name as being quite prominent in much of the correspondence.
The WaPo version of the story (Gonzales’s Senior Counselor Refuses to Testify) notes the following:
Monica M. Goodling — who is on an indefinite leave of absence from Gonzales’s office — also said that at least one senior Justice Department official blames her for failing to fully brief him prior to a Senate appearance, leading to “less than candid” testimony.The reference is to Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty, who told the Senate Judiciary Committee in early February that most of the prosecutors were fired for “performance-related” reasons. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) has said that McNulty called him to apologize for not telling the truth and blamed it on incomplete briefings.
Update: It does occur to me this is one way to avoid the Scooter Libby trap: refuse to testify until one is granted immunity.
Sphere: Related Content
March 26th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Angling for immunity was the first thought that sprang to my mind.
March 26th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
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
March 26th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
“It does occur to me this is one way to avoid the Scooter Libby trap..”
Another way might be to put respect for the law above lovality to the boss - and tell the truth for a change.
But how naive I would be to assume anyone in this adminstration places a higher value on preserving our system of Justice than preserving the “permanent majority party” even as incompetent, corrupt and destructive as it’s reign has proven with Bush, Rove, Cheney, Delay, Abromoff, Hasert, et al at the wheel.
I think the more that is revealed concerning the mechanics and motivations for much that has transpired over the last 6 years, the less sympathetic will look the case of Libby.
March 26th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Randy,
I am not excusing it, just trying to understand it.
March 26th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
[...] A CROSS SECTION OF OPINION ON THIS NEWS STORY: –Political Scientist Steven Taylor:”Wow. For a case that is allegedly about nothing (according to some), it sure keeps providing more and more suggestions that there is, in fact, something going on…It does occur to me this is one way to avoid the Scooter Libby trap: refuse to testify until one is granted immunity.” –The excellent legal blog The Volokh Conspiracy’s Orrin Kerr has a post that must be read in full. A small excerpt: According to the first page of the letter Goodling’s counsel sent to the Senate, the rationale for taking the Fifth seems to be that Congress isn’t being very open-minded and Democrats don’t trust the Bush Administration. That’s a new one; I don’t think I’ve ever come across that one before. [...]
March 26th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
It does occur to me this is one way to avoid the Scooter Libby trap: refuse to testify until one is granted immunity.
I don’t think that would have helped Libby. Immunized witnesses can still be prosecuted for perjury. Immunity only protects you if you tell the truth.
March 27th, 2007 at 3:54 am
Yay for Gonzales!
March 27th, 2007 at 6:49 am
McNulty Ignored White House Guidance
ABC News:
The firestorm over the fired U.S. attorneys was sparked last month when a top Justice Department official ignored guidance from the White House and rejected advice from senior administration lawyers over his testimony before the Senate Judici…
March 27th, 2007 at 7:28 am
It does occur to me this is one way to avoid the Scooter Libby trap: refuse to testify until one is granted immunity.
Immunity from what? Nobody is saying that a crime was committed.
March 27th, 2007 at 7:43 am
Ratoe,
To be fair, there has been some heated rhetoric over perjury, obstruction of justice and the like. Further, I suppose anyone who watch the Libby trial might be a tad skiddish about testifying. And, to also be fair, the notion that one might seek immunity against potential future charges is not an unprecedented one.
Now, having said all of that, you know that my position on this whole thing is that the DoJ needs to tell the whole story and I don’t defend the assertion of Fifth Amendment rights or anything of the sort at this juncture.
Still, as I said in a previous comment, I am just trying to understand the move, not defend it.
March 27th, 2007 at 8:42 am
Dr. Taylor,
My comment was not intended as criticism of you or your views.
I respect your opinions. I’ve come here at least once a day for quite some time to get your take on things. I disagree with your assessment of the Libby trial (one of the few things we disagree on lately), but I appreciate your efforts to be fair and informative on all these political and legal matters.
{BTW I consider myself generally a slightly left independent}
I guess I was venting frustration with the unyielding administration charade.
They simply appear to suffer no shame in mischaracterizing events or even bald faced lying if it appears likely to enhance their political spin.
Brzezinski on the Daily Show described the adminsitration’s character as manichean paranoia: Believing that their own moral superiority justifies committing immoral acts to achieve their goals. He was referring primarily to foreign adventures, but the analysis applies quite well to their domestic agenda and their over-reaching, appalling actions at home.
March 27th, 2007 at 8:55 am
Randy,
Thanks for the note. I appreciate it.
S
March 30th, 2007 at 11:33 am
[...] Goodling’s decision to take the Fifth is the best evidence yet that something nefarious was in fact going on when the eight U.S. attorneys were fired, suggests Troy University political scientist Steven Taylor. He writes at PoliBlog, “For a case that is allegedly about nothing (according to some), it sure keeps providing more and more suggestions that there is, in fact, something going on.” [...]