Leahy Reaps What Fitzgerald Sowed

Shades of I. Lewis Libby!  Gonzales aide Monica Goodling has been advised by her attorney to take the Fifth rather than step into the perjury trap being offered by Sen. Leahy of the Judiciary Committee in his "probe" of the firing of eight US attorneys.

Here is Dan Eggen of the WaPo:

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."

Josh Marshall provides a copy of the letter and affidavit.  He also provides a few laughs, but we will come back to that.  More from the WaPo:

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.

So a senior official, probably McNulty, has already pinned the blame for his own bum testimony on Goodling.  If her "truth" does not match that "truth", who is lying?  Both the WaPo and the Times shelter their readers from the recent history invoked by Ms. Goodling's attorney, but the AP and The Hill do not.  From the AP:

John Dowd, Goodling's lawyer, suggested in a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., that the Democrat-led panel has laid what amounts to a perjury trap for his client.

..."The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real," Dowd said. Goodling was key to the Justice Department's political response to the growing controversy. She took a leave of absence last week.

"One need look no further than the recent circumstances and proceedings involving Lewis Libby," Dowd said, a reference to the recent conviction of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff in the CIA leak case.

Josh Marshall offers what is either the most naive or the most disingenuous comment I have seen today (but the day is young!):

And the most sensible defense against a perjury trap, I would have thought, would be to tell the truth.

D'oh!  Just tell the truth!  But if two or three others lie, or misremember, what then?  Or if Ms. Goodling misremembers, is that a deliberate lie or an honest mistake? And who will decide - calm, objective observers or partisan Dems looking for scalps and opportunities for fund-raising appeals?

Eventually, the partisan Democrats on the Committee will have an opportunity to vote out a criminal referral to the DoJ, which can then try the case in front of a partisan DC jury.  Is that really a sensible venue in which Ms. Goodling ought to try her luck?  Josh Marshall's strongest point is this - "I'm obviously not a lawyer".  Well, I am not a lawyer either, but in my view, as a tactical ploy Ms. Goodling ought to start with this letter and try to negotiate use immunity with the Senate.  Frankly I am surprised that the recently resigned Mr. Sampson is not going that route.

MORE:  Orin Kerr, who is a lawyer (or anyway, a student of the law), is skeptical of the use of the Fifth Amendment in this context.  I remain unskeptical of its value as a negotiating ploy - Ms. Goodling can hold out for use immunity now while Leahy has our attention and Gonzales is on the ropes, or he can slog through interminable contempt citations and appeals and obtain her testimony in time for the Thanksgiving recess.  (And what if Lindsay Lohan belches in public in the interim?  All eyes will be off of this.)

ERRATA:  Yes, you have heard of Ms. Goodling's attorney,  John M. Dowd, before - his report has kept Peter Rose out of the Hall of Fame, and a good thing, too.

Comments

[PeterUK]

Sod off sferris!

[Tom Maguire]

Magna-dittoes.

[Pofarmer]

Fitz reaps what he has sown. Serves em right.

[seamus]

This is beautiful...the Roverized Justice Department has now been definitively exposed as a bunch of lying, political hacks, afraid to testify in front of Congress...the Bush ship is slowly sinking into the muck...perfect!

Fitz is certainly an anomaly in the Department. He's been convicting Repubs and Dems...oh yeah, right, that's his job.

Abu Gonzales...how many more days until he jumps or is pushed off this stinking (sinking) ship?

[BarbaraS]

Only an idiot would testify in this environment. The game of gotcha is going strong. The dems in congress will believe McNulty because he is one of them. How in the world did Bush get so many dems in high offices? These people were appointed by him. I sincerely hope this will be a lesson to any future republican president: surround yourself with loyal appointees and forget about reaching across the aisle and appointing dems to your cabinet and other offices. Dems will knife you in the back at the first opportunity.

[Appalled Moderate]

One observation. If Gonzalez had not decided to fib, there would be very little here and no dramatic takings of the fifth.

A second observation. No other administration has ever done a similar purge of US attorneys. Also, there seems to have been an effort to pull all this in secret and avoid any oversight whatsoever.

Is the purge defensible? I think it is -- the Bush administration has a philosophy of law enforcement that is at odds with the establishment over the years. But do they ever bother defend anything they do? No. They try to do it in secret and hope nobody notices. When they caught, they act guiltier than a teenager with beer on his breath.

These people do not understand how to run a government. Playing politics is fine. (It's what politicians do.) Trying to implement major policy changes in secret is not.

[lurker]

Orin Kerr also notes the following:

"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:

Section 192 of Title 2 of the United States Code provides that a subpoenaed witness who refuses "to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House ... or any committee of either House of Congress", shall be guilty of a misdemeanor "punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months." 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. Id."

Give a choice between short jail time taking this route versus risking a twenty year jail time, which one will you take?

They may have wanted to slow Congress down as well.

The Democratic Congress is taking on dangerous waters with their show trials and hearings by taking advantage of Fitz's efforts against Libby.

John Dowd was apparently smart to make a reference to Libby's perjury trap as the main reason for Goodling to take the fifth. This implies that she did not do anything criminally. Instead she felt that even telling a non-criminal truth to Congress, Congress will misinterpret, twist her words, etc., and catch her in a perjury trap.

So sod off, sferris, no matter what you do or say, we just don't believe you.

[lurker]

Abu Gonzales...how many more days until he jumps or is pushed off this stinking (sinking) ship?

No earlier than Easter.

Why? Because that's when Bush can use recess appointments that will last to the end of his term, rather than having to nominate someone to Congress.

[Pete]

The notion that there is a "perjury-trap" is laughable. Libby lied his ass off, and was rightly convicted. The Libby conviction is a red herring here.

Ms. Goodling is trying to cover up her tracks.

[moflicky]

A reporter (didn't catch his name) accidentally said "Monica Lewinski" then quickly corrected himself.

Both he and Matt seemed to completely miss the irony. ;)

[lurker]

A second observation. No other administration has ever done a similar purge of US attorneys. Also, there seems to have been an effort to pull all this in secret and avoid any oversight whatsoever.

Not true. Clinton replaced 30 of the 93 he appointed. A much bigger purge than the current one. Why is this being a secret just an issue with you guys?

[boris]

If Gonzalez had not decided to fib ...

The lie continues ...

To misapply the Gonzales answer to a specific point and claim it is deceitful when applied to the general issue may be standard operating procedure for partisan democrat operatives, but more reasonable folk should make an effort to get it right.

In hindsight one might wish Gonzales had expanded on his answer like so ...

(1) I had some discussion about setting up the process to select for dismissals;

(2) I had no discussions about actually selecting for dismissals;

(3) I had a discussion about signing off on the results of the process to select for dismissals.

If only (2) was relevant to the question asked, leaving out the irrelevant points (1) and (3) is not lying, or fibbing, or being evasive.

In his interview with MSNBC Gonzales essentially made this same point.

[moflicky]

oops, - that was on this morning's Today Show, reporting on Goodling.

[Other Tom]

Goodness, what would this mad dog Seamus do with our precious civil liberties? The privilege against self-incrimination has a storied and hallowed place in the hearts of all true Gentlemen of the Left. Is Seamus jumping ship now, just because it's politically expedient to do so? To claim that a citizen asserting her Fifth Amendment rights sullies not only her, but the entire Justice Department, as liars, "afraid to testify before Congress," is redolent of the darkest days of the HUAC. My, how times do change!

[lurker]

Martha Stewart's name came up at other sites for perjury traps.

[hit and run]

From ABC (via the Corner):

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 Judiciary Committee.

The official, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, ignored White House Counsel Harriet Miers and senior lawyers in the Justice Department when he told the committee last month of specific reasons why the administration fired seven U.S. attorneys — and appeared to acknowledge for the first time that politics was behind one dismissal. McNulty's testimony directly conflicted with the approach Miers advised, according to an unreleased internal White House e-mail described to ABC News. According to that e-mail, sources said, Miers said the administration should take the firm position that it would not comment on personnel issues.

Until McNulty's testimony, administration officials had consistently refused to publicly say why specific attorneys were dismissed and insisted that the White House had complete authority to replace them. That was Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' approach when he testified before the committee in January.

But McNulty, who worked on Capitol Hill 12 years, believed he had little choice but to more fully discuss the circumstances of the attorneys' firings, according to a a senior Justice Department official familiar the circumstances. McNulty believed the senators would demand additional information, and he was confident he could draw on a long relationship with New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, a Democrat, in explaining in more detail, sources told ABC News.

In doing so, however, McNulty went well beyond the scope of what the White House cleared him to say when it approved his written testimony the week before the hearing, according to administration sources closely involved in the matter.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Criminey, Appalled Moderate, the Senate wants to add a secret surrender date certain to their bill for funding the troops. See the article link in the Float thread.

I want Diane Feinstein on the hot seat. Her interference with regard to Lam was far greater and more serious than anything else I've seen so far and now she's acting all insulted and high horse. Not that Lam was pathetic and deserved to be fired, but Feinstein is a hypocrite now.

[maryrose]

Monica's made a wise move and anything that stymies the dems in their partisan witch hunt and perjury traps is fine by me.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

was pathetic should read WASN'T

[lurker]

Steyn's reporting of the Black case implies that he was not impressed with Fitz at all.

[maryrose]

Let McNulty fry- he disregarded good advice to prolong his 15 minutes.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

See you all later, I've been up all night finishing a project and I'm now going to try to catch a couple of hours of sleep.

[MarkD]

Contempt of Congress is a virtue, not a crime.

[lurker]

maryrose, D. Kyle Sampson is going to fry himself. He actually believes in the Democratic Congress and that they wouldn't screw him! MSM believes that Kyle has something to say that contradicts Gonzales.

Looks like WH and Gonzales saw it coming with McNulty going above what was cleared for him. Is McNulty gone by now? If not, he needs to be gone.

Even if Gonzales is gone by Easter, looks like the WH and DoJ will learn from this and clamp down even more for very good reasons.

[Pofarmer]

If Gonzalez had not decided to fib,

Care to fill me in on the fib? Must have missed it.

[lurker]

Sara (Squiggler), great job in proving Dolt wrong about the women's suffrage rights (in the other thread).

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'Martha Stewart's name came up at other sites for perjury traps.'

Technically wrong. Martha didn't testify under oath, so she wasn't charged with perjury. She was charged with false statements and obstruction for lying to investigators. In the Comey-Fitz haunts of the Southern District of New York.

The message couldn't be plainer. Just refuse to cooperate, SAY NOTHING. Especially if you're innocent.

[lurker]

Gonzales didn't fib.

I don't get it when people say that WH and Gonzales are incompetent. If this had to do with the Berger case, then who handled Berger? A US Attorney or Gonzales?

[Rick Ballard]

TM,

Tom Holsinger had a very apt comment at Volokh concerning prosecutorial abuse of 18 U.S.C. 1001. Given that McNulty is out of SDNY and is wiggling with all his might to get off the hook, Ms Goodling's exercise of her right seems the only prudent course of action. McNulty appears to be at least as slimey as Fitz and that ABC piece indicates a great desire to toss a colleague under the train.

[Pofarmer]

and appeared to acknowledge for the first time that politics was behind one dismissal.

So, if somebody is not carrying out the policies of the administration, and is removed in favor of someone that will, or at least has the potential to, is that politically motivated?

I don't think so. Denying any administration the right to enforce it's policies is ludicrous. It was true for Clintoon, whom I have little regard for, and it's just as true for Bush. The problem is, the Lefties can't get over the fact that things they don't agree with aren't neccessarily wrong, or incompetent, or criminal, or whatever the talking point of the day is.

[lurker]

Patrick R. Sullivan, ah, Martha Stewart's case should have been the harbinger for Libby's case. Once Libby was falsely convicted and the Democratic Congress going after Gonzales, all of a sudden the light came on!

If we win back '08, one of the first things that the new Republican WH should do is to not renew Fitz's term.

[Pofarmer]

Given that McNulty is out of SDNY and is wiggling with all his might to get off the hook,

Reminds me of Fleischer with the INR memo. Libby made a convenient scapegoat their. Interesting only one person remembers the "hush, hush" detail.

[Other Tom]

Anybody taking any bets on whether or not Rove and Meiers get subpoenaed? Any bets on how the courts will rule on their claims of executive privilege? Haven't seen much on this lately...

My hunch is that the Dems figure they'll lose the court fight, and thus won't serve the subpoenas. But there's such a state of partisan warfare at this point that it's very hard to predict.

[Pofarmer]

Also.

Weren't these Attorneys targeted starting in 06? My understanding is that a review was launched after the 06 election. The process just now finishing up. If that is the story, and there's not much reason to doubt it's not, then the whole "removing in mid term" thing, goes out the window. They'd already served one term, and were left in place more as a convenience than anything. I suppose there would have been no outcry if They'd just all been removed at the end of Bush's 1st term?

[azaghal]

Picked this up at the Corner; what a chump:

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 Judiciary Committee.

The official, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, ignored White House Counsel Harriet Miers and senior lawyers in the Justice Department when he told the committee last month of specific reasons why the administration fired seven U.S. attorneys — and appeared to acknowledge for the first time that politics was behind one dismissal. McNulty's testimony directly conflicted with the approach Miers advised, according to an unreleased internal White House e-mail described to ABC News. According to that e-mail, sources said, Miers said the administration should take the firm position that it would not comment on personnel issues.

Until McNulty's testimony, administration officials had consistently refused to publicly say why specific attorneys were dismissed and insisted that the White House had complete authority to replace them. That was Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' approach when he testified before the committee in January.

But McNulty, who worked on Capitol Hill 12 years, believed he had little choice but to more fully discuss the circumstances of the attorneys' firings, according to a a senior Justice Department official familiar the circumstances. McNulty believed the senators would demand additional information, and he was confident he could draw on a long relationship with New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, a Democrat, in explaining in more detail, sources told ABC News.

In doing so, however, McNulty went well beyond the scope of what the White House cleared him to say when it approved his written testimony the week before the hearing, according to administration sources closely involved in the matter.

[sylvia]

Fox News alert - Tony Snow has cancer again.

[lurker]

In doing so, however, McNulty went well beyond the scope of what the White House cleared him to say when it approved his written testimony the week before the hearing, according to administration sources closely involved in the matter.

What gets me is that since he went beyond the scope of what was cleared for him, actions should have been taken against him for violating the rules of disrespecting cleared data.

[SlimGuy]

WASHINGTON -- A U.S. attorney in Florida is set to step down Friday, and Sen. Bill Nelson wants Congress to examine whether his departure is tied to prosecutor firings at the Justice Department.

Paul Perez, attorney for the Middle District of Florida, has previously denied any connection to the controversial dismissals of eight U.S. attorneys. He did not return calls for comment.

[azaghal]

Link to full article:

DOJ
Official Ignored White House Guidance

[lurker]

Oh, good grief!

Senator Reid, Billboard King:

There's an interesting little story in today's Washington Post about Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's efforts to insert a provision protecting billboard companies from local land-use controls into the bill funding U.S. troops in Iraq and setting a timetable for their withdrawal.

[sylvia]

I always did kind of whether how the 5th works, and why more people didn't use it. For instance, who was that women again, FOB, who didn't want to testify against Bill Clinton and spents months, years in jail. And I wonder if the idea of protecting yourself from past false statements would work. I think it should - the law is about any self-incrimination, not just self-incrimination related to the underlying charge.

[hit and run]

lurker:
Senator Reid, Billboard King:

Well, if I had the time, this would make for a fun little photoshop project.

[cathyf]

I've been working on coming up with just the right phrase for answering perjury-trap questions. The problem with "I do not recall" is that if you do recall, it's perjury. The problem with "I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that it would incriminate me" is that it admits something criminal. So here's my current formulation:

I exercise my 5th Amendment right to refuse to say anything that contradicts what a Democrat wishes is true.

[maryrose]

cathyf:
Excellent response and so far best comment of the day.

[Gabriel Sutherland]

Pofarmer: The review process for the US Attorneys began shortly after the Nov04 election. I don't think the plans were finalized until mid 2006 due to disagreements on the methods to replace the US Attorneys and locating candidates to fill the voids.

lurker: The "Clinton fired US Attorney" parallel doesn't work. President Clinton did remove all 93 US Attorneys, but they were not dismissed in the same fashion as the 2006 8 US Attorneys. The two dismissal do share some common factors, but they divert from each other at many points making their direct comparison a very weak argument.

[Gabriel Sutherland]

sylvia: That Friend of Bill was Susan McDougal.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Not that Lam was pathetic and deserved to be fired, but Feinstein is a hypocrite now.

Now?

[sbw]

Help me understand this: Is someone found in contempt OF Congress or found in contempt FOR Congress? :)

[lurker]

Only In The Liberal World

Funny after clicking on "f course we could just ask those seven White House Travel Office employee's that she fired, all to put in some friends, if partisan politics is part of her vocabulary."

The decision to fire the Travel Office employees was a lawful one. The Travel Office employees served at the pleasure of President Bill Clinton, and they were subject to discharge without cause.

Now don't tell me that this is different from those 8 US Attorney firings especially when the law of the land favors a US President.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Fox News alert - Tony Snow has cancer again.

Yeah --- and liver metastases.

Five year survival is not a large number, although I've read some about some new chemo cocktails that help.