In a surreal interview today with Alberto Gonzales, NBC's Pete Williams highlighted the shifting sands underneath the Attorney General's increasing untenable position. With a single question, Williams revealed Gonzales' Catch-22 in the firings of U.S. attorneys: he cannot claim to both have played no role in the evaluations of the fired attorneys and know that their sackings were the result of performance issues.

For the story, see:
"NBC's Williams Nails Gonzales on His Catch-22."

I see Erhlichman...I see Haldemann...

As the liaison between the DOJ and Rove's office, she's not exactly a small fish information-wise. So, yeah, convicting her is pointless...it's what she can give up on the WH that's worth knowing. Make her talk, Oh, yeah.

The current AG of the U.S.A. is the very same person who "briefed" our current president, when he was governor of Texas, about 150+ people that were executed during the 1990s.

It is hard to believe that GWB really got "briefed" fully by the same man who is not quite currently candid with the American public about the firings of select USAs.

I often wonder how many innocent people our President "let die." (Then...and now in Iraq).

Torture-lite.

What wire-tapping?

You're against us if you're questioning our motives.

I'm the decider.

God told me to get Saddam...

Impeachibility.

It's time.

No more sacrificial lambs.

Do we need MORE evidence that our president believes that the US Constitution
"...is just a goddamn piece of paper." (?) (GWB)

How can a girl called Monica be a small fish?

Maybe she is trying on the Fifth Amendment to get an idea how it will fit some of her friends.

How rich is it that the AG's counsel might try to assert a protection to which she is not entitled? Hoo boy...

Senator Leahy says:
"American people are left to wonder what conduct is at the base of Ms. Goodling's concern that she may incriminate herself in connection with criminal charges if she appears before the committee under oath."

Mr. Bush says --My fellow Americans--a nation is called to profound responsibilities, and we seek to escape them.
We abdicate responsiblity as we seek yet more dictatorial power. I certainly milked it for all it was worth in 9/11. Our successes have been shared by a wealthy few. In the Bush dynasty we trust. Go back over everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he is linked in any way.

(might not be entitled. Sorry. Coulda worded that better.)

I remember the days of the 5th Amendment Communists. I'm glad those days are over!

Santorum/Keyes '08

I am glad to hear she may not be entitled to the fifth, but shame on you Kevin for suggesting that taking the fifth means there is serious funny business going on.

You damned elite red state orange counters are all a like.

Hey, speaking of Monica, the one from the 90's, she had more president in her than George Bush ever will

You don't take the Fifth if your innocent. Period. She's covering for her bosses. Period.

Don't you think it's funny that Al, AH, and all our patriotic trolls are going to be targeted by the FBI for giving aid to the enemy, now that they are associated with us subversives.

I hope you trolls did your taxes right.

Hey, speaking of Monica, the one from the 90's, she had more president in her than George Bush ever will.

Oh. No. You. Didn't!!!!!

Oh that is too good!

Now bust out the BWAHAHAHAHA's!

Does anyone alse feel concerned about spokespersons Perino and Snow saying things like "Congress has no oversight over the White House" ? What does this mean? How can it be true?

If presidents can be impeached then surely Congress has oversight capability over the White House. Or is COngress now so weak after 4 years of rubber-stamping, and the DOJ so packed with cronies as to now make Bush immune to any repercussions whatsoever? Has there been a coup while we were asleep?

Scared shitless...

Heheheheheh, hahahaha, bwahahahaha

Tony Snow just parroted that same talking point--"Congress has no oversight."
They figure, say it often enough, and the hapless American public, too busy trying to make ends meet, and able to catch the news once in a while after their third job, will hear it and concur somehow.

Meanwhile, Congress like a suspended satellite right on top of the white house.

Orin Kerr's commentary, of course, assumes that nothing Goodling testifies to truthfully could be an element of an underlying crime. However, if what she would say truthfully constitutes obstruction of justice, a violation of the Hatch Act, or some other crime that may be at the bottom of this scandal, then taking the Fifth makes sense. Goodling is in the best position to know whether truthful comments could be used to prove a criminal conspiracy against her as well as others in the White House and Justice. Certainly obstruction would be on her mind and taking the Fifth is better than lying, just ask Libby.

You're right, Jeralyn probably would be pissed. :-)

Re the "Congress has no oversight authority" line, I can't recall which blog had the best headline for that the other day:

Executive Branch Secedes from Union

Hee!

Another thought, it is illegal for a prosecutor to comment on a defendant's failure to testify. The rationale is that this invocation of the Fifth Amendment, in addition to concepts of incorporation, etc, is that the fact of a defendant not testify does not tend to prove or disprove guilt. On the other hand, refusing to testify when you are not currently a criminal defendant directly points to the fact that there is some underlying criminal conduct that must be hidden. There is really no other reason to assert the Fifth Amendment under congressional subpoena (as opposed to indictment). If anyone can counter this argument, then I'll reverse my giulty until proven innocent view of asserting the Fifth Amendment for anyone other than criminal defendants at trial.

Executive Branch Secedes from Union

Oh! That is too good! Best I could come up with was a feeble "Yo, Congress. You gonna take this?" type line...

If she doesn't want to commit perjury before Congress can't she just, you know, tell the truth when she testifies?

Cranky

Cranky, you are so damn cute.

Another benefit of Monica Goodling's pre-emptive "Fifthing" is that it will drive yet another stake into the shambling zombie of the argument that "USAttorney-gate" really was just an "overblown personnel matter", and the investigations are just some sort of political game being hyped by Congressional Democrats out of BDS.
I'm surprised "Jay" or "Norman" haven't jumped in on the thread yet to dis Kevin and we "moonbats" for foolishly following this "non-story", and forecasting dire retribution at the ballot box from the outraged citizenry at Congressional Democrats for wasting the Peoples' time with trivia....

wow, with the level of discourse on this comments thread I should stop trying to provoke discussion and just write out "kittenz r cute" a bunch of times.

If Congress offers her immunity, she has no incentive to testify at all. That's how it worked out during the Iran-Contra hearings: Congress offered immunity, no one testified, and then Bush I pardoned them all.

Joe: This might be the Maker's Mark talking, but I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Can you elaborate about the cute kitties, please? I mean, Kevin denied us catblogging last Friday...

That last comment of mine was not aimed at Jay C, I might add. I completely agree with his sentiment. If she is pleading the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimation, it is difficult for so-called pundits to say that there is no potential criminality in this invetigation. However, with the YouTube clip from Chris Matthews, they will certainly still try. I urge everyone to read this piece which could easily be the closing argument in a public trial of the media as the co-conspirators of executive branch corruption.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/03/26/matthews/index.html

No, see, Joe, my calling Cranky "cute" referred to the Bush administration's congenital inability to tell the truth, not to any particular tininess or fluffiness on Cranky's part. I have no information on that.

I thought your post was interesting and am personally hoping it draws feedback from someone far better schooled than I in the legal ramifications of and possible rationales behind pleading the Fifth.

All better now? If not, there's the door.

I mean lines like this: Oh! That is too good! Best I could come up with was a feeble "Yo, Congress. You gonna take this?" type line...

And this: Cranky, you are so damn cute.

And this: Oh. No. You. Didn't!!!!!

Oh that is too good!

Now bust out the BWAHAHAHAHA's!

I figured the readers of a magazine like Washington Monthly might have more salient comments than the children at sites like daily kos. Here is hoping that Josh Marshall never puts a comment thread on TPM.

Oh, and Joe: fwiw, I agree with you: "Taking the Fifth" - whatever the legal/Constitutional parameters surrounding its applicabilities - will, to the public eye, look inescapably like an admission of guilt - some sort of guilt. For an Adminstration which has, up to now, prided itself on its "message disclipline" and stonewalling skills this is an amazingly inept maneuver.

Sorry Joe - sometimes even WaMo readers let our hair down and have a little fun.

Deal.

I don't think it is a maneuver at all. I think she is genuinely trying to protect herself from a) lying and exposing herself to perjury or contempt of Congress charges when her statements turn out to be fabrications in 6 months, or b) telling the truth and exposing herself to serious jail time based on the testimony. That is, I believe that the truth (if it ever fully comes out) would provide the basis for an obstruction of justice indictment. No one pleads the Fifth before Congress (when they are not facing indictment) unless the truth woudl be the basis of a criminal prosecution. Ergo, the truth of what happened in the Purge is criminal, not merely unethical. Otherwise, pleading the Fifth is both a poor political/strategic move and a poor legal move.

I don't think perjury is the crime Ms. Goodling is attempting to avoid, but an actual underlying crime.

Look at Joe, the attention whore.

Jay C: Oh, and Joe: fwiw, I agree with you: "Taking the Fifth" - whatever the legal/Constitutional parameters surrounding its applicabilities - will, to the public eye, look inescapably like an admission of guilt.

Well, that's an observation that's been made repeatedly since the announcement of Goodling's intentions, including in other threads here at Political Animal. It doesn't really change based on the person in question's status as a defendant or a non-defendant, since, yes, a public presumption of guilt is present when anyone takes the fifth, regardless of what the law and standards of prosecutorial conduct are.

The only new thing Joe added to the discussion--and it is of interest--is questioning whether "refusing to testify when you are not currently a criminal defendant directly points to the fact that there is some underlying criminal conduct that must be hidden." That's where it'd be interesting to hear from some folks with expertise on this.

Rolling Stone Magazine just received a nomination in the General Excellence category by the American Society of Magazine Editors, which included their "Worst President in History?" cover story.(from RS issue 999)
One of the country's leading historians assessed George W. Bush, noting his presidency appears headed for colossal historical disgrace. "Many historians are now wondering whether Bush, in fact, will be remembered as the very worst president in all of American history."
"In early 2004, an informal survey of 415 historians conducted by the non-partisan History News Network found that eighty-one percent considered the Bush administration to be a "failure."
---more than half of those polled and nearly three fourths of those who gave Bush
a negative rating--reached back BEFORE Nixon to find a president
they considered as miserable as Bush. Twelve percent flatly called Bush the worst president in American history. And those figures were gathered before the debacles over Hurricane Katrina, Bush's role in the Valerie Plame leak affair and the deterioration of the situation in Iraq. Were the historians polled today, that figure would certainly be higher....repeatedly, Bush has undone himself, a failing revealed in every area of presidential performance."

I for one think anyone is entitled to the Fifth and that includes the Republican Monica. But she can't keep her day job.

She can't have it both ways.

Well, I think the question that HAS to be asked, ASAP:

If she's taking the 5th, does she have a job in the Bush administration any more?

I would think that taking the 5th would result in instant dismissal. In any administration that wasn't inherently criminal, that is.

Ouuu WEE!

There's a new Sheriff in town. crackin' heads and kickin' ass.

Go get em!

(guys i'll meet you behind the salon, where we can pour sugar in his horse's gas tank. No, that'll just help the horse. Let's just kick his dog and call it a day.)

Ohio v. Reiner seems to indicate that you do not have to be the person charged with a crime in order to plead the fifth.

But what do I know, IANAL, I just sell hot dogs at the beach.

Taking the Fifth Amendment in Front of the Federal Grand Jury in Order to Protect White Collar Defendants and Their Papers

According to the Court, Batt had reasonable cause to fear danger from her truthful answers since she spent extended periods of time with Alex and his brother in the weeks prior to the discovery of their injuries and she was with Alex within one potential time frame of his death. The defense theory was that she caused the injuries and death. "In this setting it was reasonable for Batt to fear that answers to possible questions might tend to incriminate her." Reiner, at 1255.

Joe--we generally display the utmost of professional discourse on this board.
Our general inclination is to assume singular importance in all journalistic endeavors.
Having been frustrated by the ruthless decider; however, while concurrently realizing our national tragedy as evidence mounts on any number of matters, our concern embitters us,
yet we attempt humor.

Let me clarify, I am not saying that legally taking the Fifth Amendment is an admission of guilt. I'm a lawyer and would probably get disbarred for being such an idiot. I'm saying that there is no good reason to take the Fifth unless you are scared that the truth would lead to criminal liability in some way (in a common sensical and political strategy way)

I'm saying that there is no good reason to take the Fifth unless you are scared that the truth would lead to criminal liability in some way (in a common sensical and political strategy way)

With all due respect, I think that's nonsense, even when you include your earlier weasel about your comments then pertaining only to congressional investigations.

Am I wrong to think of the McCarthy hearings? Am I wrong to think of Nifong?

Didn't Oliver North say he considered it an honor to lie before Congress? What happens when half a dozen of Rove's Oliver Norths point their finger at Goodling?

Joe on March 26, 2007 at 9:13 PM:

I figured the readers of a magazine like Washington Monthly might have more salient comments...

What you are seeing is a bunch of regulars talking, Joe. Your attempts at provoking discussion are appreciated, but are kinda like a stranger walking up to a group of friends in mid-discussion and interjecting yourself into the conversation.

Besides, the substantive discussion pretty much happened in the prior thread, and not everyone here is a lawyer with a background in Fifth Amendment claims and perjury cases.

...Mmmm...Maker's Mark...spiced cherry wine for me tonight, 'tho...

..Er, injecting themselves into the conversation...nothing personal, mind you.

But what do I know, IANAL, I just sell hot dogs at the beach.

All that outsourcing of programmer jobs, sucks, don't it?

http://www.airborne-ranger.com/ranger/wannabees/OllieNorth.html

An article on Oliver North that gave me chills

Look, I empathize with Joe's frustration. It does seem like today's news events have turned the corner in some intangible sense. Maybe like going from mendacity to criminality over a single weekend.

Several prominent Republican senators are hinting at impeachment proceedings! Its quite a step. And did you see Gonzales try to answer questions from a news reporter today? Olberman observed that AG looked like a seven-year-old confidently denying that he had broken the cookie jar. Not even aware that his denials were logically inconsistent.

I figured the readers of a magazine like Washington Monthly might have more salient comments...

After I went over backwards in my easy chair, laughing hysterically and sending a bowl of popcorn into the air, I recovered in time to go back and read this comment again--I am utterly, utterly entertain by the ridiculousness of this comment and I shall "cut and paste" it into a scrapbook of memories that I keep in what those of us who use computers call the "My Documents" folder on the "desktop" of my computing space.

"What happens when half a dozen of Rove's Oliver Norths point their finger at Goodling?"

You throw her in the klink and start prosecuting the next ones. Like a canned quail hunt with the VP. It's a target rich environment.

acw: Our successes have been shared by a wealthy few.

And there you have it folks...

Kevin's update from Orin Kerr seems to support Joe's comments:

The link to the letter [from Goodling's counsel] now includes the entire letter, which in turn relies heavily on Ohio v Reiner. I don't see how Reiner is helpful. That case just says that a person can both claim that they are innocent of any offense and yet also claim the Fifth Amendment privilege. Well of course; a person can say whataver they want about their culpability without changing whether they have a privilege. But the Fifth Amendment issue is whether a person has substantial reason to fear that their truthful testimony will help lead to them being prosecuted. Goodling's letter doesn't give a legally valid reason for that fear, at least as far as I can tell.

On the other hand, this may just be a way of slowing Congress down. I gather that Congress's main option would be to seek contempt sanctions...

Once an individual has been found in contempt by either House of Congress, a contempt order is presented to the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives for certification. 2 U.S.C. § 194. The President or Speaker in turn delivers the contempt citation to the appropriate United States Attorney. The United States Attorney is then required to bring the matter before the grand jury.

Forty pieces of silver...isn't that the Judas myth?

It is ridiculous to offer her immunity.

This just encourages the White House to lay all the blame at her feet, Congress can't touch her, and she doesn't have to give up the White House.

The immunity, if given, should at least specify that she must testify truthfully or be subject to perjury charges and her attorney's comments indicate that he's not going to let her testify under any circumstances that allow her to be charged with perjury for giving false testimony.

When a government employee takes the fifth to prevent discussing activity within their job, then, yes, there is some seriously funny business going on.

Oh, CWA - you delightful Minx! I remember seeing that Playboy piece floating around various USAF shops. North is indeed a wanker for every week, isn't he?

If Congress offers her immunity, she has no incentive to testify at all. That's how it worked out during the Iran-Contra hearings: Congress offered immunity, no one testified, and then Bush I pardoned them all.

My recollection is that against the indie prosecutor's (Walsh) wishes, congress gave Ollie blanket immunity, after which he proceeded to lie and take all the blame for everything that happened.

Granting immunity is a tricky tactic, one best handled by an experienced prosecutor.

When a government employee takes the fifth to prevent discussing activity within their job, then, yes, there is some seriously funny business going on.

When a US Citizen asserts their Fifth Amendment rights, they're presumed innocent.

With all due respect, I think that's nonsense, even when you include your earlier weasel about your comments then pertaining only to congressional investigations.

Am I wrong to think of the McCarthy hearings? Am I wrong to think of Nifong?

First of all, jerry, that is the third time you have called me something without cause (eg whore, wesael) and I am coming very close to quoting the current Vice President's comment to Sen. Schumer.

Secondly, in the McCarthy hearings, there was fear that not taking the Fifth (assuming that the truth was Communist sympathy) could lead to either criminal sedition charges, or at least social black-balling.

Third, I wasn't trying to weasel out of anything. Anyone who takes the Fifth Amendment is doing so because the truth will potentially lead to criminal liability. The exception is that choosing not to testify does not make a criminal defendant more likely guilty. As a litigator, I know a thing or two about trial strategy, and many defense attorneys will choose not to have even a defendant that is actually innocent take the stand. I have no idea what the reference to Nifong has to do with this case (considering that he is potentially violating the Model Rules of Professional Conduct by continuing a prosecution that he knows he does not have probable cause to support and, worse, a failure to discover exonerating evidence).

I know we all like to pretend that innocent until proven guilty applies to everyone, but can any liberal commentator actually say that if Bush was being impeached that you would give him the same treatment. jerry or anyone else, if you can provide me with something other than insults, non sequiters and diatribes, I would love for someone to tell me why this assumption is wrong. That is, jerry, why, exactly, is this nonsense?

Who would that USA be? Anyone know?

The USAtty for DC.

But the Fifth Amendment issue is whether a person has substantial reason to fear that their truthful testimony will help lead to them being prosecuted. Goodling's letter doesn't give a legally valid reason for that fear, at least as far as I can tell.

So Kerr is a gazillion times the lawyer I am (but I am a much better window washer!) but my take away was that the letter in unclear, and Kerr might feel differently if the letter said what the issue was. But that seems to be unrealistic, at least at this stage.

Apparently when Fitzgerald gave Ari immunity, Ari was supposed to "proffer" his testimony first, but Ari lucked out, held fast, and escaped.

I would think that before Goodling is given any immunity, they would then come forth and proffer their testimony.

At any rate, what's the diff between Goodling and Ari?

MsN: It was thirty pieces of silver

When a US Citizen asserts their Fifth Amendment rights, they're presumed innocent.

They are presumed innocent by the LAW, but this is a nation of individuals. Alan Dershowitz wrote a compelling article that is taught in most introductory Criminal Procedure or Criminal Adjudication classes that, while a defendant is presumed innocent by the law, no one (including defense attorneys and judges) actually believes that individual defendants are innocent.

This message board is not the law, do any of you here actually presume that Goodling is 100% innocent? If so, provide an alternative rationale for pleading the Fifth that is at least as likely or more likely than professional malfeasance between the White House and the DoJ.

First of all, jerry, that is the third time you have called me something without cause (eg whore, wesael) and I am coming very close to quoting the current Vice President's comment to Sen. Schumer.

Uh, so I called you an "attention whore", not a whore. And I never called you a weasel.

Okay Joe, we're done. And there is no way you are a lawyer.

At any rate, what's the diff between Goodling and Ari?

One was being dealt with by a special prosecutor looking for criminality; another is being dealt with by a congressional committee that may not have eventual criminal indictment uppermost in their minds.

Anyone who takes the Fifth Amendment is doing so because the truth will potentially lead to criminal liability.

No, but thanks for playing armchair lawyer.

It's the right of every American to assert their Fifth Amendment right. Anything beyond that is unreasonable and irresponsible prognostication.

Forget immunity. Send little Miss Run Amok II to jail for contempt. Now if I a glass of Gaja Barbaresco, I might feel more... nah.

The USAtty for DC.

Yes, but who? I guess I'll Google it.

If you want earnest handwringing, Joe, might I recommend another thread? Any other thread? We are just having fun over here - or trying to, anyway. We promise we will be Earnest Concerned Liberals again tomorrow - just grant us an indulgence here, mmm'kay?

One was being dealt with by a special prosecutor looking for criminality; another is being dealt with by a congressional committee that may not have eventual criminal indictment uppermost in their minds.

Doesn't seem like a whole lot of difference. But again, I just paint fences for a living.

Again, that outsourcing thing sucks, don't it?

Really, jerry, how exactly would you know I'm not a lawyer? What is your basis?

It's the right of every American to assert their Fifth Amendment right.

Thanks. I needed a refresher on whether the Constitution applies to everyone or not.

Anything beyond that is unreasonable and irresponsible prognostication.

Why? All that bloggers do is prognoticate. I ask, again, for someone to give me a non-damning reason for pleading the Fifth. Unless Norman Rogers is either a Congressman or a federal judge, there is no good reason not to prognosticate. It is certainly far from irresponsible, and much less forecasting than the media was doing during Fitzgerald's investigation. If I were Brian Williams I might consider such statements on national TV to be irresponsible, but I am merely a concerned citizen on a lightly-read blog.

[sniff sniff]

Methinks Joe is a concern troll.

I enjoy a good liberal concern troll.

Joe, you concern yourself with whatever and whathaveyou. Just make sure you don't take no for an answer and make sure you post and post and post and persist and persist and persist until one of these liberals screams and abandons the thread entirely.

Anyone who takes the Fifth Amendment is doing so because the truth will potentially lead to criminal liability.

No, but thanks for playing armchair lawyer.

It's the right of every American to assert their Fifth Amendment right. Anything beyond that is unreasonable and irresponsible prognostication.

OK, you've lost your mind Norm. Taking the fifth by definition means telling the truth could potentially incriminate yourself, so you invoke the 5th amendment. You could at least drop the pedantic tone. The only ones you people are fooling are yourselves. So why do you bother? Are you going to fall into a thousand little pieces when reality sets in? Or are you just afraid of being mad as hell like the rest of us, with not much you can do about it? Of course you'll be mad as hell at yourself, and there are some things you could do about that. I wish you would.

Is Norman Rogers clownsense?

Doesn't seem like a whole lot of difference.

One is a purely legal process. The other is a largely political process. They have differing goals and differing methods, which are sometimes at odds.

Sorry red state girl who fills her free time drinking at home socializing with names on a computer. I would find another thread, but this is actually the subject of this one. I figured maybe have an actual discussion about this issue here in between research, but oh well.

What the hell exactly is a concern troll?

Norman Rogers...what those of us who use computers call the "My Documents" folder on the "desktop" of my computing space

**scoff** A Windoze user. **scoff, scoff**

Congress has Kyle Sampson, willing to testify, and likely eager to clear his name. The woman taking the 5th could be irrelevant, except to show the administration has much to hide.
Sampson should spill the beans admirably.

Mr. Bush says he strains to articulate but he will continue to acquire information about you and protect his government from its citizens, so bothersome to him at this time.

OK, you've lost your mind Norm. Taking the fifth by definition means telling the truth could potentially incriminate yourself, so you invoke the 5th amendment. You could at least drop the pedantic tone. The only ones you people are fooling are yourselves. So why do you bother? Are you going to fall into a thousand little pieces when reality sets in? Or are you just afraid of being mad as hell like the rest of us, with not much you can do about it? Of course you'll be mad as hell at yourself, and there are some things you could do about that. I wish you would.

THANK YOU.

I was hoping someone would actually talk about something on this thread. Anyone who disagrees with what I and jussomebody are saying, just give me a reason and we can start a discussion or debate.

Cripes, USA for D.C. is Jeffery A. Taylor....Wiki:

...served as Counselor to Attorneys General John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales from 2002 to 2006 where he oversaw law enforcement operations by U.S. attorneys.... He was appointed interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia by Alberto Gonzales on September 22, 2006 and was sworn in seven days later.... He took office so quickly because he bypassed Senate confirmation under a provision of the USA Patriot Act.... ..."whose duty it shall be to bring [a contempt sanction] before the grand jury for its action." ...It is unclear (as of March 20, 2007) whether Mr. Taylor would fulfill this duty to convene a grand jury, or resist Congress at the direction of Bush or Gonzales.

Sorry we are not clicking Joe - And I am anything but impertinent under normal circumstances. I am quite sober and staid as a general rule. To the point I surrender my keys before the first sip, so to speak. But if you must pass judgment...

I am coming very close to quoting the current Vice President's comment to Sen. Schumer.

You mean Senator Leahy, don't you?

Taking the fifth by definition means telling the truth could potentially incriminate yourself, so you invoke the 5th amendment.

No, asserting your Fifth Amendment right is a RIGHT guaranteed to all Americans under the Constitution. Having pleaded it in court myself, I know a thing or two about a thing or two.

Oh wait--liberals, Constitution, laws, common sense--you're all out of your depth, aren't you?
When one of President CLinton's flunkies claimed the Fifth, it was their right. When someone in the Bush Administration claims the Fifth, well, we're dealing with guilty people aren't we? Yes, yes, yes.

For the record--ANY American who asserts their Fifth Amendment rights, regardless of what political party they belong to, are INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty...in a court of law!

[Cops just came on...]

I was hoping someone would actually talk about something on this thread. Anyone who disagrees with what I and jussomebody are saying, just give me a reason and we can start a discussion or debate.

Oh, but Joe, you were doing so well by insulting all of us....

(HINT: Next time don't walk out of the bathroom without washing your hands and expect us to shake hands with you, especially after complaining about the color of the guest towels.)

Thanks Blue Girl, I was more referring to ridiculous it is to say that you are "hanging out" on this message board. When I hang out with friends I do so, you know, in person at places like bars or the golf course. Not "in" cyberspace. You can leave this "room" without using a car or even your legs if you do not like the discussion topic.

[Cops just came on...]

Dang. We just lost Norm for 30 mins....

Well, I don't drink and drive...

This "Joe" person is a fraudulent poster. I have a sense about these things. All of "Joe's" comments should be submitted to the moderator and the database of known offenders should be consulted.

We await the results. Hopefully, the interns will be quick about it.

You can leave this "room" without using a car or even your legs if you do not like the discussion topic.

Exactly!!!!!

at places like bars or the golf course

Well, as I don't smoke, not lie...

Impeachment, you say? Bush said he fears impeachment because most jobs require knowledge and skills beyond the high school level that he barely attained.

One is a purely legal process. The other is a largely political process. They have differing goals and differing methods, which are sometimes at odds.

Yes but they have potentially similar endpoints: a criminal indictment. And in both cases it is illegal to lie.

Again, IANAL, I just earn my bones laying train tracks, but I can certainly understand why someone would want to plead the fifth before a congressional hearing while being innocent. Again, I point to the McCarthy hearings.

Well, Globe, you may not drive while drinking, but what do you know about Porky Pigging?

Snowjob: "Congress has no oversight authority".

See this bull? See this red flag?

Maybe this is just what the do-nothings needed to hear in order to finally get that they were being played. That and the looming spector (not Arlen, of course, because he never looms and rarely even weaves) of 2008, when they will have Bushy's coat tails to bury wherever their heads have been for the past 6 years.

No picking on BlueGirlRedstate. She is well regarded here.

but what do you know about Porky Pigging?

That a natural redhead reduces a state tpooper to a wet-chinned moron every time?

Just speakin' from experience, but...

No picking on BlueGirlRedstate. She is well regarded here.

Proving once and for all....

Globe,

No doubt!

Mooning is the sport down here in Georgia. But I hadn't heard of Porky Pigging until you mentioned it on a thread, what...a week ago? Had to look it up.

Mooning is the sport down here in Georgia.

And I'm still glad that the IOC rejected adding it to the Atlanta Olympics.

Oh you guys...You slay me!

For the record--ANY American who asserts their Fifth Amendment rights, regardless of what political party they belong to, are INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty...in a court of law!

[Cops just came on...]

Posted by: Norman Rogers on March 26, 2007 at 10:43 PM

But this is the court of public opinion and that makes them guilty.

Watching Cops? Looking for relatives? Or maybe a date?

When was the last time a sitting government official (or one on a leave of absence) took the 5th in a Congressional hearing? I cannot remember anything like this before. Normally a person resigns before refusing to testify.

Poindexter and North both took the fifth.

Nevermind -- I just realized that Ollie had been fired by then. Not sure about Poindexter.

I think Josh has the best slant on what is bothering Bush`s Monica.

"...somehow I find this more believeable -- she's afraid of indictment for perjury because she has to go up Congress and testify under oath before the White House has decided what it's story is. And yeah, I'd feel like I was in jeopardy then too."

What a rich source of screen play material these folks are.

"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." - I.F. Stone

Somebody help me here. I can't remember which Clinton administration member plead the 5th. Mercy knows they were called to testify before Congress frequently enough on pressing national security issues to make that an attractive option.

Can't anybody remember which Clinton "flunkies" plead the 5th? Jeesh, where's Norman when you need him?

Unbelievable -- two Monica scandals in one decade!

More headlines from today's tabloid press:

"Monica Skirts Testimony, Uplifts GOP Judiciary Committee Members"
"Monica On US Attorney Performance: 'They Weren't Hard Enough'"
"Monica to Congress: Smoke This!"
"Monica Spikes Testimony, Lashes Out At Submissive Committee Members"

She has a law degree from Pat Fucking Robertson!!! And works for our government, goddamn!

Joe, you've made some good points.
I think you've neglected something, however.
Ms. Goodling, in the process of testifying truthfully before a Congressional Committee could VERY easily provide evidence of her participation in a number of conspiracies.
Conspiracy to obstruct justice (several counts) is the one that comes to mind off the top of my head.
I'm not sure if there are actual crimes named:
- conspiracy to violate the Presidential Records Act
- conspiracy to violate the Hatch Act
or others.

But the point is that the very act of speaking truthfully could illustrate her participation in a number of crimes.

couple that with Josh Marshal's suggestion (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/013272.php - see last paragraph) that part of her problem is that the Bush Administration hasn't yet settled on its Final Answer, and it would seem that the potential crimes are pretty close to the surface.

In my opinion Goodling may be trying to suggest that her (truthful) testimony would implicate her, but actually it would be more damaging to Gonzalez, McNulty, Sampson and Rove.

The Senate needs to compel her testimony one way or the other. Just by the fact that she is invoking the Fifth Amendment tells us crimes have been committed by someone.

Such brave patriots these GOP appointees.

I think the problem is that have not decided which lies she can get away with, so it is better if she doesn't say anything at all.

MsN: It was thirty pieces of silver
Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State

Inflation. You just can't get good betrayal for less than forty these days.

"America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies, yet rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed."- George W. Bush

(but he was just joshing)

Norm made me laugh with: Joe, you concern yourself with whatever and whathaveyou. Just make sure you don't take no for an answer and make sure you post and post and post and persist and persist and persist until one of these liberals screams and abandons the thread entirely.

Indeed. Shades of Will Allen. And Will Alen, too.

UPDATE: Orin Kerr isn't sure Goodling has any standing to take the 5th in the first place. So maybe offering her immunity isn't necessary after all.

Dowd's been rather elliptical in the letter, which of course is not a legal filing and would become public even if the controversy never got to court, so he doesn't want to spell out the possible crime that he is afraid might put his client in jeopardy were she to testify, but I think its pretty clear from the reference to the prior allegation that she misled another witness into false testimony that the legal jeopardy comes from the possibility that her testimony would be used to charge here with some offense related to misleading Congress or tampering with a witness (there are several different provisions under which such charges could be brought) in regard to that prior action, so she probably has a basis for asserting the Fifth.

(And, given the arrogance pervasive throughout this administration, if she isn't confident that she can lie her way through her testimony without getting caught either in perjury or for the prior offense, my guess is she's guilty as all hell, though probably not the primary wrongdoer.)

The only new thing Joe added to the discussion--and it is of interest--is questioning whether "refusing to testify when you are not currently a criminal defendant directly points to the fact that there is some underlying criminal conduct that must be hidden."

Not really; the fact that someone has publicly accused you of something that involves the prohibited act essential to a particular crime (though without any claim about the required mental state), and that your truthful testimony might further implicate you in that crime even if you are innocent, would be reason to assert the 5th Amendment and refuse to testify, which doesn't mean a crime was committed. If (all for the sake of illustration, not my belief of what happened) Goodling did innocently mislead the prior witness, without the necessary intent to mislead Congress (perhaps because she herself was misinformed) her honest testimony might further implicate her because it might include an admission on the prohibited act, and even though she would deny the criminal intent, its possible that other misleading evidence might surface which would seem to suggest her intent, and then her testimony admitting to, and thereby fairly conclusively establishing, her involvement in the prohibited act would be the difference between conviction of the crime of which she was innocent and her remaining free.

So, while I think its more likely that she is guilty in this case, one should not, as a rule, take the invocation of the 5th by someone not yet criminally charged as an indication that there must be underlying criminality.

cmdicely: . . . but I think its pretty clear from the reference to the prior allegation that she misled another witness into false testimony . . .

Simply withholding or not providing pertinent information, especially if she had no duty to provide that information, rather than providing false information, is not clearly something that can be said to have been intended to create misleading testimony from the witness.

She might have withheld the information due to privilege or because she thought that someone else was supplying the information.

And even if she withheld it for "improper" reasons, it is not clear that would put her in jeopardy of offending the criminal provisions you have cited.

No one has yet alleged that Goodling provided false or inaccurate information to the witness or in any way encouraged him or tricked him into lying.

Absent something more concrete, I don't believe her attorney has met the threshhold necessary to invoke the Fifth.

That doesn't mean he can't, but I don't think the extant justifications provide a basis.

Standard conservative response #1; Nothing to see here, move along.
Standard conservative response #2: We didn't do it.
Standard conservative response #3: Okay, we did it, but the people who ought to be fired for doing it didn't know about it.
Standard conservative response #4: While, yes, it does now appear the people who ought to have been fired for doing did actually know about it, but there was nothing illegal about what they did.
Standard conservative response #5: Clinton did it, too.
Standard conservative response #6: Only if you're interested in facts and what the "liberal media" has to say can you believe that Clinton didn't do it, too, and isn't at-fault now.
Standard conservative response #7: We're in a war on terror, 9/11, Saddam Hussein was THE biggest threat the US faced, Iran ...
Standard conservative response #8: It's in the Bible, so, because the the Constitution is based on the Bible, you're wrong and probably an atheist.
Standard conservative response #9: Questioning us is not only anti-Christian, it's un-American, you godless commie DFH.
Standard conservative response #10:
We'll fund a by partisan committee to review this.

Simply withholding or not providing pertinent information, especially if she had no duty to provide that information, rather than providing false information, is not clearly something that can be said to have been intended to create misleading testimony from the witness.

Right. Its the act. The mental state is a separate question. But testifying to the act, since it can be used as evidence to establish an element of the crime, creates legal jeopardy and, therefore, there is grounds to invoke the fifth.

She might have withheld the information due to privilege or because she thought that someone else was supplying the information.

She might have. The fact that there could conceivably by an innocent reason for the act (even, if true, the fact that there is such an innocent reason that she would testify to if compelled to testify) does not mean that there is not legal jeopardy from testifying about the act itself (since there is no guarantee that the exculpatory parts of her testimony would be given the same weight as the inculpatory parts), and therefore is completely irrelevant to whether or not there are grounds to invoke the 5th Amendment.

And even if she withheld it for "improper" reasons, it is not clear that would put her in jeopardy of offending the criminal provisions you have cited.

I'm not sure what you mean by "improper" here such that it is different from reasons that would directly imply a violation of the cited criminal provisions. But the fact that there might be "improper" reasons that are not criminal does not change that testimony about the act itself could produce evidence which could be used to establish an element of a crime, which is what justifies invoking the 5th Amendment.

No one has yet alleged that Goodling provided false or inaccurate information to the witness or in any way encouraged him or tricked him into lying.

The fact that she has not been accused of the whole of the crime is not important, because that is not what is required to invoke the right against self-incrimination.

cmdicely: Certainly, if done with the requisite intent, and if the person was deliberately led to believe they had been fully informed, it would seem, on its face, to meet the requirements of 18 USC § 1001, which makes criminal anyone whoever knowingly or willingly "covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact" in any matter within the scope of "any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate."

Sorry, but I don't see it.

Failing to provide information that one has no duty to provide simply isn't an act of "covering up," regardless of the intention.

To "cover up" requires more than just failing to provide information, absent a duty to provide that information.

Remember, we're not discussing what Goodling's attorney could be referring to, but only what he has actually written and what he has actually written in itself provides no basis for saying her invocation of the Fifth is appropriate.

It is certainly possible that adding a few facts to his claims in the letter would demonstrate that her testimony might place her in jeopardy, but confined to the text of the letter, a simple failure to provide information that a witness felt was pertinent and that led the witness to provide false testimony does go to any element of any crime you've mentioned, unless failing to provide information in and of itself without any further context (since the letter provides none) constitutes "covering up" a material fact. I don't believe it does, although further context might make it so.

As noted, it may very well be that Goodling has a valid basis for invoking the Fifth that relates to the activities described in the letter, but a basis for invoking the Fifth doesn't exist in the text of the letter sent by her attorney without assuming facts or conditions not found within the letter.

There simply isn't any act described in the letter that would constitute a criminal act, absent the inclusion of facts or circumstances not stated in the letter.

Failing to provide information that one has no duty to provide simply isn't an act of "covering up," regardless of the intention.

This is, IMO, either untrue or irrelevant; certainly, when concealment would become "covering up", there, ipso facto, becomes a duty to disclose independently of whether there would otherwise be such a duty. But certainly, yes, failure to disclose information that there is no categorical duty to disclose may be covering up, particularly if someone is deliberately led to believe (even without direct misrepresentation) that they are fully briefed on the relevant facts, and then they testify to Congress on that basis.

It is certainly possible that adding a few facts to his claims in the letter would demonstrate that her testimony might place her in jeopardy

I certainly agree that the letter is not (nor does it purport to be) a legal brief marshalling all of the necessary facts and legal authorities to demonstrate the appropriateness of the claim.

The letter is simply a declaration that the right is being invoked, all the rest is posturing, nor should much more really be expected. It is not asking for a ruling by the committee, it is stating an ironclad determination to assert the right; if the committee chooses to challenge it, then the legal argument will be made in a court of law, the appropriate venue for such an argument.

OTOH, the publicly-available facts make clear that there is a basis for such a claim.