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.

–Constructive Interference:

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.

–Reagan Was Right:

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.

–Maria Maria:

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.”