Gonzales Aide Will Refuse To Testify On Prosecutor Firings
The big controversy raging around the firing of Republican prosecutors who many suspect were let go because they either didn’t go after Democrats running for office fast enough or went after Republicans who were in office too quickly has just gotten even more controversial.
In what can only be seen as a public relations debacle for the Bush administration, a top aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will reportedly refuse to testify and invoke the Fifth Amendment — a protection under the constitution, but a tactic that has the image of an admission of guilt in American public culture and portrayed as such by Hollywood and in dramas and comedies for many years. Your Dictionary has it under “stonewall.” The Washington Post:
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales’s senior counselor yesterday refused to testify in the Senate about her involvement in the firings of eight U.S. attorneys, invoking her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.Monica M. Goodling, who has taken an indefinite leave of absence, said in a sworn affidavit to the Senate Judiciary Committee that she will “decline to answer any and all questions” about the firings because she faces “a perilous environment in which to testify.”
Goodling, who was also Justice’s liaison to the White House, and her lawyers alleged that Democratic lawmakers have already concluded that improper motives were at play in Justice’s dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys last year. Goodling also pointed to indications that Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty blames her and others for not fully briefing him, leading to inaccurate testimony to Congress.
The problem: that explanation may be acceptable to talk show hosts and others who routinely defend the administration, but it will most likely continue the nearly-staggering erosion in George Bush’s approval ratings since he will most assuredly lose more support among Democrats and independent voters. JUST LOOK AT THESE CHARTS.
The Post further notes:
Goodling’s refusal to testify illustrates the rising political and legal stakes surrounding the removal of the federal prosecutors, and underscores the fissures developing among Gonzales and his current and former senior aides as the attorney general struggles to keep his job.Goodling’s decision contrasts sharply with the approach of her onetime colleague D. Kyle Sampson, Gonzales’s former chief of staff, who resigned March 12: He has agreed to testify before the same Senate committee. Sampson has also disputed allegations by Gonzales and others that he withheld information about White House involvement in the firings, which were initially portrayed as a routine Justice Department personnel matter undertaken without significant White House involvement.
The problem: many will conclude that Goodling feels she has a lot to hide. Pleading the fifth does not WIN OVER skeptics in America. Here is some background on Goodling.
Key question: how will this impact already the soft support (according to Robert Novak) Bush has among Republicans? Will GOPers be willling to go to the mat for an administration where officials plead the Fifth?
What makes her refusal to testify even more damaging to the White House is the political context: CBS News reports that some GOPers now consider Gonzales a Political Dead Man walking — and that he is being propped up in office now by just one person:
The White House stood by Alberto Gonzales on Monday, even as support for the embattled attorney general erodes on Capitol Hill amid new questions about his honesty.But as one Republican senator puts it, Gonzales is on the “do-not-resuscitate” list, reports CBS News chief White House correspondent Jim Axelrod. It’s only Mr. Bush who’s keeping him on life support.
So once again — as on so many other issues — it’s the White House against those who have other ideas and demands…and the White House using a definition of compromise that essentially means accepting its decisions, ideas or policies. The problem is: clout in politics seldom blossoms out of increasing isolation and sliding poll numbers.
SOME OTHER REPORTING OF THIS STORY
AP
McClatchy Newsapers
Bloomberg
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.
–Ron Beasley: “Now if she hadn’t done anything wrong why would testimony before congress represent a “legally perilous” environment. …There is more to this story than anyone could have ever imagined.”
–Writing on Hugh Hewitt’s blog, Dean Barnett, in a post that must be read IN FULL, says it’s time for Gonzales to go. A small taste:
The Bush administration should move on from the bumbling and stumbling of the Gonzales era. Needless to say, Gonzales’ successor should be capable of competently dispatching mundane tasks such as firing eight U.S. Attorneys. The administration should also find an Attorney General who will forcefully articulate and defend the administration’s justifiable and necessary wartime policies. If the Democrats want to have a political battle on terrain so hospitable to Republican interests, all the better.
Now, doesn’t this just leap out at you as a bad thing. I mean, senior official at the Justice Department can’t talk about what she’s doing because it might incriminate her. Um, shouldn’t the folks at the Justice Department, that is the department in charge of identifying and prosecuting people engaged in criminal activity, have particularly little concern about incriminating themselves. Ok, I know that I’m one of Atrios’ dirty…hippies, but isn’t it kind of a big, I mean really big, problem if the folks in the Justice Department are generally engaged in criminal activity. I would describe this as surreal, except that implies too high a degree of normalcy.
Goodling’s attorney is saying that the potential for being challenged procedurally, with perjury or similar infraction, is potentially possible when going in front of the current Senate Subcommittee. Even if she tells the truth and has video of her entire life like a reality show, she could be called out on any misstep by the current congressional majority. Because of this risk, He has come up with a valid reason , correctly, I might add, to take the fifth.
By the way, Goodling, 33, is a 1995 graduate Messiah College in Grantham, Pa., an institution that describes itself as “committed to embracing an evangelical spirit.”She received her law degree at Regent University in Virginia Beach, Va. Regent, founded by Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson, says its mission is “to produce Christian leaders who will make a difference, who will change the world. Christians are not supposed to lie, are they??
–Cliff Schecter: “Several conservatives, especially those at the National Review, have been arguing that the US Attorney scandal is all about incompetence, but not illegal activity. Now that a DOJ employee is pleading the fifth, can we all just agree there is at least some underlining criminal activity?”
–Tennessee Guerilla Women: “According to Ms. Goodling’s attorney, it is the Democrats’ fault that his client has decided to take the Fifth. The Democratic-led Senate Judiciary Committee has laid a “perjury trap” for Ms. Goodling. And if you don’t believe it, just look at what happened to Libby when he got caught in one of those bad old Democratic perjury traps, suggested Ms. Goodling’s bizarro attorney. Where do they find these people?”
–Josh Marshall: “Enough of this shambling foolery. The controversy wasn’t ‘sparked’ by the break down of the cover-up. The ‘controversy’ is about the underlying bad acts. To say that there’s a scandal because the cover-up didn’t work is no more than a dingbat truism…This is about finding out what really happened. All the effort that has gone into preventing that tells you the tale.”
opinions powered by SendLove.to
30 Responses to “Gonzales Aide Will Refuse To Testify On Prosecutor Firings”
Dean Barnett’s post (what little I read here because I’m not dumpster diving for more of that) was purely political instead of caring about law, plain and simple. The defenders of Bush better understand this isn’t about the otherside’s politics, it’s about Bush and his defenders playing politics on a level where politics should be out of the question to begin with. They are dismantling basic law, and structure the republic has operated on, that authoritarian regimes in world history would recognize as directly from their playbooks.
Maybe what Hagel said Sunday on MTP about impeachment might become a reality before ’08 with the way Bush thumbs his nose at congress…..law…..hell, the public at large. As bad as what it means to the nation, it might be a logical and needed option very soon to remove a cancer.
What would a scandal in Washington be without a Monica?
But, as I note on my (shameless plug alert) blog, CaliBlogger:
Please disregard the term “blowjob” in the above post, it should read bl*wj*b.
Thank you.
Pyst said: “The defenders of Bush better understand this isn’t about the otherside’s politics, it’s about Bush and his defenders playing politics on a level where politics should be out of the question to begin with.”
Come on, Pyst…the Democrats aren’t being political here, only Bush is political? The Democrats are dedicated to the defense of the Constitution…never could a Democrat be partisan….
The Volkh Conspiracy has an excellent series of comments on this issue of Goodling taking the Fifth…many from lawyers who have had to deal in court with perjury and related issues.
The majority of commenters at VC could see that this was a good legal decision, given the potential for jeopardy.
I know liberals here like Pyst believe that the Democrats are not partisan, and that if Goodling tells the truth no one will be attacking her if she did nothing wrong…but if we consider that Bush’s impeachment is probably off the table, the Democrats need scalps to show their supporters.
As the commenters on VC note, if Goodling so much as makes a small mistake in her testimony, she opens herself to a world of hurt and massive legal bills as the Democrats pursue investigations on all fronts. Her testimony will be gone over with a fine tooth comb, and compared with all other written statement, emails, memos she could have made over the span of years.
THIS IS POLITICAL…as is self-evident by liberals such as Pyst declaring that it is not…and how dare Bush’s defenders claim it is…and then calling for Bush’s impeachment as the “removal of a cancer”.
Nope, no partisanship here….
Marlowe- Her lawyer referred to the Scooter Libby case, in which an administration official was convicted for perjury. But Libby purposely obstructed justice and perjured himself to protect Cheney’s involvement in Plame’s outing. He, like Rove were given multiple chances to correct the record by Fitzgerald. He chose not to, at the 5th GJ, Rove finally told the truth.
Since you guys love discussing Clinton’s woes- his aides went to Capitol Hill numerous times to testify before a ferociously political Congress. They were briefed about how to testify, and noone felt that they had to take the 5th.
By putting out 4 different versions of explanations for the firings, DOJ created the suspicious environment that wrongdoing occurred in the process-not the other way around. Monica Goodling’s extended leave of absence without cause and decision to take the fifth, only add to that suspicion. The truth is easy to tell, lies and coverup are complicated. This gang could not manage to tell the truth, if their lives depended on it.
The only conclusion a reasonable person can come to, is that Goodling advised McNulty (knowingly or unknowingly) to present false testimony to Congress during the initial hearings. If that is revealed she would be criminally liable.
kritter,
You may remember that President Clinton himself tried to use the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act to avoid legal proceedings http://www.assumption.edu/WebVAX/ETnew/wclin23.html.
Maybe the Republicans, realizing that the Democrats are going to be in charge for a long time, realize that testifying in front of them is a losing proposition.
All of them would be smart to take the fifth and refuse to testify.
Kritter said: “The only conclusion a reasonable person can come to, is that Goodling advised McNulty (knowingly or unknowingly) to present false testimony to Congress during the initial hearings. If that is revealed she would be criminally liable.”
Kritter, you should read the comments on VC. This was a highly rational decision. Asserting one’s Fifth Amendment rights does not imply guilt, as legal precedent acknowledges. Yes, Clinton sent his staffers to the Hill…but that was before Libby. None felt they had to take the 5th…because the GOP wasn’t interested in their scalps. The political climate is now far more vicious…the Left blogs will pour over one’s career and life for any opportunity to smear one.
Can you honestly say that this won’t happen?
The citing of Libby is VERY interesting! Kritter, you leave out the fact that Fitzgerald continued the investigation and interviews long after he fulfilled his original brief, and knew who leaked to Novak…Armitage.
That is what Goodling is concerned about here…she may be nailed on something totally extraneous to the object of the investigation.
And unlike Fitzgerald, who at least observed some proprieties, it is the Democrats who will be in charge of the investigation.
There was an excellent comment from a lawyer on the VC posts, describing how he advises his clients on perjury. To paraphrase:
One knows 3 things – Pure facts: the sun rose, the sun set; What One Thinks: I think Rove was in the room at the time; I think I like pizza; General knowledge-What Everyone Knows: the Cubs will choke; Speilberg is a successful director…On the stand, only the first knowledge should be mentioned. Any mention of the other two opens one to perjury.
Set aside politics, Kritter, and put yourself in her shoes. Facing a hostile Democratic investigation…liberal nutroots demanding Bush blood…the political need of the Democrats to feed the nutroots….
If she makes one tiny error under hours of cross-examination, she will be facing a million+ legal bill, and years of anxiety.
What would you do in her situation, were the roles reversed?
Marlow- don’t you think the WH has set the overall tone by overpoliticizing government? Karl Rove is a political operative- translation- dirty tricks guy- yet Bush kept him right at his elbow for 13 years. The result was that Bush has been seen almost universally as a divider, destroying unprecedented national unity after 9/11. They set the precedent for “gotcha” politics—-unless you want to look at the GOP congress during the Clinton years. Now the tables are turned, yet as far as I know, no one has accused Monica Goodling of anything illegal.
The firings themselves were done for a crass political purpose- which was unprecedented in our history. There have been 4 contradictory versions of events which no one to this day can explain away.
Quite obviously the planning and communications for the firings was done when there was a more friendly (complicit) environment in Congress. Just because the other party is now in power doesn’t mean that you should be allowed to hide the truth. The cloud of suspicion that rests on DOJ and the WH was created by inaccuracies coming out of the DOJ and the WH. GOP talking points describe this as a “witch hunt” or a “fishing expedition” by overzealous partisans. Even if that were true, what would you call Ken Starr’s obsession with Bill Clinton’s sex life?
Marlow-
The citing of Libby is VERY interesting! Kritter, you leave out the fact that Fitzgerald continued the investigation and interviews long after he fulfilled his original brief, and knew who leaked to Novak…Armitage.
Yes, because he realized that crimes were being committed during the course of his investigation, and also suspected a conspiracy. Remember Watergate? It wasn’t about the burglary, it was about the cover-up. BTW, Novak could not have printed his column without confirmation of Armitage’s claim- that confirmation came from Karl Rove.
Kritter said: “Marlow- don’t you think the WH has set the overall tone by overpoliticizing government?”
Kritter, I totally agree. The arrogance of the Bush WH has been extraordinary, and certainly they deserve a lot of what is now happening.
Kritter said: “GOP talking points describe this as a “witch huntâ€? or a “fishing expeditionâ€? by overzealous partisans. Even if that were true, what would you call Ken Starr’s obsession with Bill Clinton’s sex life?”
As I have often said here, the GOP’s treatment of Bill Clinton was bizarre and reprehensible. It was a process that bogged down his presidency, and did damage to the Republic. Yes, he may have lied about the affair, but I never thought that was really anybody’s business.
Kritter said: “The firings themselves were done for a crass political purpose- which was unprecedented in our history.”
No, Kritter, not unprecedented. As I have noted, what Jimmy Carter did in firing a US attorney in the middle of his term because he was investigating a Democrat for taking bribes was much worse
From Wikipedia on “Joshua Eilberg”":
In 1978, then-U.S. Attorney David Marston investigated Eilberg for money he received in connection with a federal grant to Hahnemann Hospital in Philadelpha. Eilberg contacted the Carter White House, and Marston was later fired. Eilberg lost his 1978 reelection bid, and, three months later, pleaded guilty to conflict of interest charges. He was sentenced to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.”
Kritter: This was embarrassing to Carter, yet no one ever said what he did was illegal!
This process is political…and Goodling is a minor player. Unlike Libby or Rove, there won’t be a huge lineups of donors to pay her legal defence fund.
If she makes a single misstep in hours of testimony before Congress, she
faces bankruptcy and the next few years of her life in legal jeopardy. Barring some sort of immunity, she would be foolish indeed not to take the Fifth.
Marlowe-Yes, Carter fired one USA , in my view improperly, for political reasons. But in the past 25 years only 10 have been fired midterm, and 8 or 9 of those 10 were due to misconduct issues. So the scope, plus the reasoning, to put in political allies of Rove and the administration were unprecedented.
I don’t remember if there was a congressional investigation into Carter, but do remember that there was still overall confidence in the justice system, because whatever he did , affected one situation only.It was an isolated incident to do a favor to a political ally, not a systemic attempt to politicize our justice system. Anyway, in the end, the politician did get the accountability that he so richly deserved.
We are all accountable for our actions and words, more so if we hold a position of public trust. The one agency that should never have been politicized was DOJ. Goodling knew what she was doing, and if she didn’t agree with it, could have resigned. Since we do live by rule of law, those that we trust to administer that law should be above reproach, and not try to circumvent it when held accountable. The USA’s were upholding their oath of office as it was intended to function—political interference with that is unjustified, as is lying about the motivation afterwards. You can’t commit an offense for political reasons and then refuse to testify because those holding the hearing are “overly political”. The Senate is still basically 50-50- even though they hold subppoena power, so Goodling would not be overwhelmed by political opponents of Bush.
BTW, lying to Congress is not a political offense, but an actual crime punishable by 5 years in jail. I see no reason for Congress to withhold its oversight role, just because this person doesn’t have Libby’s resources. It seems pretty obvious she has something to hide- or why take the extended leave?
I don’t know why the present situation should depend on rehashing which past president or party did what political maneuvering.
We are here, in a mess abroad and at home.
I’m not sure what all will come out in the investigation of the DOJ firings, but I have every intention of evaluating the results on their own merits, not on the basis of G. Washington’s politics.
[...] h/t: TMV. Filed under: US Politics | | [...]
I’d like to be able to analyze what’s going on without being told “But Clinton! But Clinton! But Clinton!” We get the idea. Now, what about this seemingly more-than-people-want-to-admit set of circumstances.
I’ll just wait patiently and see what develops.
Er Marlowe…at Volokh most everyone (including Eugene himself) weighed in and said this isn’t a valid reason to take the fifth and she could be held in contempt. Sure some of them complained that the amount of perjury fishing was insane, but that is a political environment question, not a constitutional one.
KR We need a term/rule to use when the Right use the ‘Clinton did it’ defence. This is just as bad as the Godwin Law. Maybe the Neo-Clinton Card.
Rudi: already done. (Admittedly not very catchy though)
Doma wrote-I don’t know why the present situation should depend on rehashing which past president or party did what political maneuvering.
You are right, of course. I shouldn’t let myself get caught up in these inane arguments. But I do, as point of fact, see a huge difference-one was a one time lapse of judgment-the other a systemic attempt to capitalize on a little known clause in the Patriot Act, and use the DOJ as a political arm of this WH. No one accused Carter or Clinton of anything like that. Ms. Goodling’s decision only makes it appear that there is a lot more to this than we know about. I certainly am not aware of any precedent for trying to put in loyalists who will put the narrow and partisan interests of the president ahead of their duties to be impartial under the law.
mikkel – All the people here who claim that TMV has been hijacked by an ‘Axis of Weevils’ (Liebruls) needs to read BalloonJuice. The snark and sniping at BJ is also at another level. Will Tim F’s term catch on, wait and see.
KR-
I see your point, and it becomes inevitable as a response to a ‘but Clinton was worse’ argument.
With so many things going wrong, I just wish we could address what the wrong-no-matter-who-does-it yardstick is.
This DoJ person attended Regency U(Pat Robertson’s) and is supposedly a member of the Religious Right. I guess the Ten Commandments don’t matter in the political arena.
Doma- Yes, you are right-but a lot of the justication for having the investigation into this in the first place, is that firings of 8 USA’s midterm by the same president who appointed them was unusual behavior.
I see it as a separation of powers issue- Congress needs to fight back against the “Unitary Executive” who has repeatedly shown his disdain for its powers. Also, we should all, whether liberal or conservative, want to avoid the use of Justice to hunt down political enemies- that just increases partisanship unnecessarily. It also makes us more like the banana republics that we rightfully abhor. Wouldn’t we risk encouraging a rash of political corruption by the party in power if it no longer fears prosecution because of political ties? What would it have been like if the GOP had retained their majority? I think this winner take all mentality is really dangerous.
> [...] I guess the Ten Commandments
> don’t matter in the political arena.
Ralph Reed…
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ralph+reed+lobbyist
KR-
I agree that this is a unique situation involving questions far beyond anything involved in past firings.
For that reaston, especially, I hope the Senate hearings lead to a clarification of what iare acceptable and unacceptable reasons for firing the prosecutors. Also, for that reason, I hope the Dems don’t politicize it, but use this as a guidepost for all future administrations.
It’s kind of shocking to think that we should be asking these questions at this late date in our history.
For that matter, it’s not at all clear where the president’s right to appoint department heads cross over into making all arms of the governement into arms of the president’s party.
I’d like to see some guidelines that both parties have to adhere to.
Bit, I’m living in dreamland, no?
Yes, I agree, Doma. I guess its hard for politicians to depoliticize anything that will affect their respective party’s political power. I’m a fairly partisan Democrat, but recognize that the same rules need to apply to everybody.What’s shocking is that so many are willing to chalk this one up to —”Clinton did it” or “they serve at the pleasure of the president”. The long tradition of the Justice Dept has been to follow the evidence and resist local political pressures regarding pending investigations. There has always been a hands off approach towards the USA’s. It is a tradition that has served us well, and one that should be maintained. This administration, with its “unitary executive’ concept has pushed the envelope on how politicized our agencies should be.
Maybe in a show of good faith, Shumer should recuse himself from the hearings. Or maybe we need another bipartisan commission of old codgers to show us the way back to integrity. What are Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton doing this spring???
KR W promised to bring back integrity to the Whitehouse. I guess this all depends on what the definition of “is integrity” IS.
Dems using firings as a smokescreen for their inability to deal with the desperate issues facing our country. Between this and Anna Nicole no one is talking about Iran, Iraq, illegal immigration, Syria, North Korea, etc.
Its a joke. Just eat your spinach. Don’t forget the milk!!!!!
Marlowe, since I am now backed up by many conservatives in the US governement I’ll reply…..you absoloutely wrong, you are playing politics on this board right now, and yes Bush is the one playing politicsas are his stooges that are pleading the 5th even before they are even infront of congress.
Your deflection was weak, and carries no water when it concerns the law in this country, so shut up with the sad excuses, and deflection tactics that a growing portion of the GOP won’t even try to use.
Pitiful
If she makes a single misstep in hours of testimony before Congress, she
faces bankruptcy and the next few years of her life in legal jeopardy. Barring some sort of immunity, she would be foolish indeed not to take the Fifth.
So, the same justice system that she administers for everyone else shouldn’t be applied to her? I don’t see you crying in your beer over Bud Cummins, Carol Lam or John McKay, marlowe! What of their stalled careers , financial ruin and wrecked lives? Is it now permissable to worry more about the wrongdoer than the innocent people who were smeared without justification because of Monica and friends?????
The firings came straight out of the blue, they were given no reason, even though they were ranked at the top in prosecutions. They played the game the way it is supposed to be played- the way we raise our kids to play it- like straight arrows. They are the ones I feel badly for, and for the future of our justice system. How many USA’s are going to take from this that they should prosecute more vigorously than they judge is warranted so as not to piss off some bigwig in their party???
I won’t put all my thought in this reponse but point you to take a look at the rest of my post at Reagan is Right. I think that Gonzales is toast. Everyone at DOJ knows this. Goodling is a smart woman and does not want to be the scalp taken in this mess. She does not want to be the Fall “guy’ that McNulty and Gonzales can point to to get out of jail free. There is a perjury trap set up for her to step in or, more likely, have her testimony set someone up for the trap. Perhaps her testimony would conflict with existing records of testimony in this matter. Maybe the Democrats know this and really want her in. She is wise to walk away.
This will not stop Leahy. The Dems will subpoena her anyway. If they get her on the stand and she asserts her right not to self-inciminate, they will be able to use that soundbite to bring down Gonzales in the political battle to come.
Stay Tuned
RR