Leahy: Why does Gonzales aide fear incrimination?
By on Mar 26th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Leahy: Why does Gonzales aide fear incrimination?
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) responds to news that Gonzales aide Monica Goodling will invoke the Fifth Amendment:
“It is disappointing that Ms. Goodling has decided to withhold her important testimony from the Committee as it pursues its investigation into this matter, but everybody has the constitutional right not to incriminate themselves with regard to criminal conduct.
“The 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.“
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
56 Responses to “Leahy: Why does Gonzales aide fear incrimination?”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Bush Legacy
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
DADT
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Franken
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
International Relations
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Krauthammer
Kyl
LGBT
Limbaugh
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Rove
Sanford
Sotomayor
Steele
Supreme Court
Terrorism
ThinkProgress
Tiller
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
keep digging Pat....there's something fishy going on here
March 26th, 2007 at 5:06 pmI say she incriminates herself enough by refusing to incriminate herself. Can't we put her away for that? No? Darn it.
March 26th, 2007 at 5:07 pmInquiring minds want to know...
March 26th, 2007 at 5:08 pmCan we please at least wait for her to invoke the Fifth before we criticize her for it? Is that too much to ask?
March 26th, 2007 at 5:10 pmThat pesky Constitution wants again gets in the way of the surrender lobby.
March 26th, 2007 at 5:11 pmIf she's taking the 5th, she clearly did something illegal. A little more digging and a lot more will get uncovered. Give her immunity and she'll spill everything.
March 26th, 2007 at 5:11 pmIT'S CALLED PURE & UNADULTERATED GUILT, THAT'S WHY! EVERYONE KNOWS THAT DRILL.
March 26th, 2007 at 5:11 pmWASHINGTON — Monica Goodling, a senior Justice Department official involved in the firings of federal prosecutors, will refuse to answer questions at upcoming Senate hearings, citing Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, her lawyer said Monday.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070326/fired-prosecutors
She's probably taking a crash course at the Karl Rove School of Tes-Ta-Liers
The Justice Department also said yesterday that Monica Goodling, a senior counselor to Gonzales who worked closely with Sampson on the firings, took an indefinite personal leave from her job on Monday. A Justice official said that she is still employed there but that it is not clear when she will return.
Goodling was the DOJ liaison to the White House
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301396.html
Guess she failed the Rove sponsored class!!! LOL
March 26th, 2007 at 5:13 pmCan we please at least wait for her to invoke the Fifth before we criticize her for it? Is that too much to ask?
Comment by KRank
Well, her attorney has announced it. Other than the drama of her leaning into the microphone and announcing it herself, there isn't a huge distinction, is there?
Of course, it could just be a ploy of her lawyer's to get some form of immunity.
March 26th, 2007 at 5:15 pm"The American people are left to wonder what conduct is at the base of Ms. Goodling’s concern that she may incriminate herself...." - - The Republican American people don't wonder at all.
March 26th, 2007 at 5:15 pmDoes her action to take the fifth open her to contempt of Congress charges along with fines or penalties?
March 26th, 2007 at 5:16 pmmaybe because interfering in an ongoing investigation (like Cunninham) is illegal?
March 26th, 2007 at 5:19 pmA Justice official said that she is still employed there but that it is not clear when she will return.
Her next job will likely be cleaning the grease traps at the Purdy Women's Correctional Institute.
March 26th, 2007 at 5:20 pmWatch out for the badgirls, Monica.
We're all talking around the truth: THEY'RE CRIMINALS! Criminals never want to give up the goods. Funny thing about the 5th amendment: you can save your own bacon - but not your friend's. Failure to answer questions about Rove, or failure to answer under grant of immunity from prosecution will land you in the pokey.
I've posted this before, and I'll keep doing it until someone can tell me why this statute can't be used to go after Bushco:
From Wikipedia:
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (commonly referred to as RICO Act or RICO) is a United States federal law which provides for extended penalties for criminal acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization.
Under RICO, a person or group who commits any two of 35 crimes—27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes—within a 10-year period and, in the opinion of the United States Attorney bringing the case, has committed those crimes with similar purpose or results can be charged with racketeering. Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and/or sentenced to 20 years in prison. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity."
When the U.S. Attorney decides to indict someone under RICO, he has the option of seeking a pre-trial restraining order or injunction to prevent the transfer of potentially forfeitable property, as well as require the defendant to put up a performance bond. This provision was placed in the law because the owners of Mafia-related shell corporations often absconded with the assets. An injunction and/or performance bond ensures that there is something to seize in the event of a guilty verdict.
There is also a provision for private parties to sue. A "person damaged in his business or property" can sue one or more "racketeers." There must also be an "enterprise." The defendant(s) are not the enterprise, in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same. There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise. This lawsuit, like all Federal civil lawsuits, can take place in either Federal or State court. [1]
Both the federal and civil components allow for triple damages.
Racketeering activity means:
Any act or threat involving gambling, murder, kidnapping, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), which is chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year;
Any act which is indictable under a wide variety of specific provisions of title 18 of the United States Code relating to bribery, counterfeiting, theft, embezzlement, fraud, obscene matter, obstruction of justice, slavery, racketeering, gambling, money laundering, commission of murder-for-hire, etc.
Any act which is indictable under title 29, United States Code, section 186 (dealing with restrictions on payments and loans to labor organizations) or section 501 (c) (relating to embezzlement from union funds),
Any offense involving fraud connected with a case under title 11 (except a case under section 157 of this title), fraud in the sale of securities, or the felonious manufacture, importation, receiving, concealment, buying, selling, or otherwise dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), punishable under any law of the United States,
Any act which is indictable under the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act,
Any act which is indictable under the Immigration and Nationality Act, section 274 (relating to bringing in and harboring certain aliens), section 277 (relating to aiding or assisting certain aliens to enter the United States), or section 278 (relating to importation of alien for immoral purpose) if the act indictable under such section of such Act was committed for the purpose of financial gain
March 26th, 2007 at 5:20 pmPlease, Senator Leahy keep up the pressure!
You have to know that the administration is going to keep stonewalling this investigation.
They are also going to come up with talking points about this investigation simply being a witch hunt.
Hopefully, you will ask why there would be anything incriminating if this was all simple administrative procedures handling people who serve at the pleasure of the President.
March 26th, 2007 at 5:21 pm"Does her action to take the fifth open her to contempt of Congress charges along with fines or penalties?
Comment by stephennnn — March 26, 2007 @ 5:16 pm"
That's a good question.....
Though I am not a lawyer, I don't see how that can.
It's her right, but if they find that she did have something to do with it I would hope/think that they could file Obstruction of Justice charges.....
Are there any laywers here, and not not the Jake I play one on TP, who can answer this?
March 26th, 2007 at 5:21 pmHa Ha, Pat1 types funny words
March 26th, 2007 at 5:21 pmProving the administrations remarkable incompetence is the very defending of Gonzales, to the detriment of the DOJ, the Republican Party and the Bush Administration itself. Remember, these are the morons who tried to defend Miers' Supreme nomination until his own party finally got through to him.
Note to GOP: Schedule intravention with nominal head of party before he takes you ALL DOWN.
Note to Dems: Intercept and detain GOP intravention task-force and watch Bush effectively car-bomb his own party. Oh, try to contain glee!
March 26th, 2007 at 5:22 pmWell, her attorney has announced it. Other than the drama of her leaning into the microphone and announcing it herself, there isn’t a huge distinction, is there?
Of course, it could just be a ploy of her lawyer’s to get some form of immunity.
Comment by gummitch — March 26, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
I understand that. It just sounds like a bunch of screeching whenever either side launches pre-emptive attacks on what people say they're going to do. She's still a "loyal Bushie", presumably, and those people have a proven tendency to say one thing and do another (or to do one thing and then say another.)
I understand, too, that a controversy raised beforehand could have some impact on the events to follow. But mainly I prefer to criticize things that have happened rather than things I presume will happen.
March 26th, 2007 at 5:23 pm#14 smafdy
in the opinion of the United States Attorney
Their's yer kicker. Try to find a US Attorney who'll have such an opinion.
March 26th, 2007 at 5:23 pmthey fired any of the 8 that had a f*(kin spine...
Dogjudge:
"Witch hunt" is the wrong term - other than nominally, as there is no such thing as a "witch".
A "fishing expedition", on the other hand - sometimes you can catch a "cooler" full.
March 26th, 2007 at 5:26 pmSo far, all that has been alleged in the AG scandal is that Bush's people were doing something improper at the least or politically debasing at most with the firings of the 8 USAs. With Goodling's attorney announcing that she will take the 5th to avoid self incrimination when she appears before Congressional investigators, we may now have a situation in which criminal wrong doing might be at the heart of this fracas. If this kind of stonewalling becomes the norm in to hamper congessional oversight on the AG, the impeachment of Gonzales may be the only way to find out what Bush's people were really up to.
March 26th, 2007 at 5:29 pmI am not a lawyer, but my guess is where this could all get very dicey and potentially backfire on Ms. Goodling is if the committee gave her immunity for her testimony.
I am pretty certain that if she was given immunity and still refused to testify, then she could have some real legal problems.
Assume that happened.
Then assume that Ms. Goodling came up with essentially nothing. That could have some interesting consequences. As in why was she stonewalling the issue?
March 26th, 2007 at 5:29 pmCan you imagine if she does get an immunity deal out of this? Then Bush will be f**ked by a Monica, too.
:-D
.
March 26th, 2007 at 5:31 pm.
She already did. From the article linked below:
An aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will invoke her constitutional right to refuse to testify before a Senate panel investigating the firings of eight U.S. attorneys, her lawyer told the committee.
Read before you post.
March 26th, 2007 at 5:35 pmWe can only hope that this Monica has a stained blue dress when she doesn't testify
March 26th, 2007 at 5:36 pmRUCerious:
I thought about that while I was reposting (my first post on this topic was well before Attorneygate). Seems that the US Attorneys are part of the "organization" that is required in order to be charged under this law.
Anyway, maybe they'll use it after the next election.
Thanks.
March 26th, 2007 at 5:37 pmI understand, too, that a controversy raised beforehand could have some impact on the events to follow. But mainly I prefer to criticize things that have happened rather than things I presume will happen.
Comment by KRank
Good lord, where's the fun in that?
So, you wouldn't have said anything rude about Bush prior to his invasion of Iraq/Iran? Nothing like, "If he does that, I'll kick him the nuts?"
March 26th, 2007 at 5:40 pmDoes her action to take the fifth open her to contempt of Congress charges along with fines or penalties?
Comment by stephennnn — March 26, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
Nope. It's not a crime to refuse to incriminate one's self. It's not obstruction of justice.
Yes, some sort of immunization agreement can be reached. Goodling has been thrown off the bus. But if she knows something that could bust the bus driver....
The bottom line here is that at least one person is gravely concerned about a criminal investigation. She may refuse to testify, but she has already written e-mails which can, and will, be made public.
March 26th, 2007 at 5:41 pm[...] appear and take the Fifth.” Pat Leahy (D-VT), Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee issued the following statement on the matter: “It is disappointing that Ms. Goodling has decided to withhold her important [...]
March 26th, 2007 at 5:44 pmIt's going to be interesting to hear the right wingers argue that a.) Goodling is perfectly justified in taking the 5th even though b.) absolutely no crimes were committed by anyone.
Does anyone know if any Clinton administration officials -- down to and including the janitors at the Denver regional federal building -- ever invoked the 5th amendment in a congressional hearing?
If so, you know we'll be hearing about it ad nauseam on Fox News before nightfall.
March 26th, 2007 at 5:49 pmGoodling is Hookergate
NEW! HOOKERGATE AND GONZOGATE
montereyherald: goodling about feinstein&lam
March 26th, 2007 at 5:50 pmActually I guess the wingnut argument is pretty straight forward: Because a Cheney administration official lied to a grand jury AND the FBI and got busted for it, all Cheney administration officials are perfectly justified in pleading the 5th whenever they're asked to testify under oath.
In Rove's world, it makes perfect sense.
March 26th, 2007 at 5:53 pmShe already did. From the article linked below:
An aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will invoke her constitutional right to refuse to testify before a Senate panel investigating the firings of eight U.S. attorneys, her lawyer told the committee.
Read before you post.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — March 26, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
Where in your quoted piece does that say that she HAS invoked her Fifth Amendment right? It carries an statement of intent from her lawyer.
If she has refused to testify, that's not taking the Fifth. That's refusing to testify. As I understand it, she can't invoke the Fifth Amendment unless she is before a court or an investigating body. Neither of those acts have occurred yet. At this point, it's entirely possible that she will testify and answer all questions. I didn't say likely, but it is possible.
March 26th, 2007 at 5:54 pm"At this point, it’s entirely possible that she will testify and answer all questions."
Yeah, sure -- and at that point her lawyer will slap Pat Leahy on the back and tell him "April Fools!" and they'll both have a good laugh.
Precisely what planet is KRank living on? Because it's sure the hell isn't this one.
March 26th, 2007 at 5:58 pmHmm.... the granting of immunity could be used to compel testimony. Deffinitly not a good idea.
Her Lawyer is no run of the mill defense attorney. He has to bill a minimum of $750 an hour plus court costs. I wonder who is footing the bill?
March 26th, 2007 at 6:00 pmCan none we go make look take have any plans got point out...liberals dum...
March 26th, 2007 at 6:02 pmShe's a good Christian from Regents U.
March 26th, 2007 at 6:04 pmShe cannot tell a lie, therefore she will not testify.
If you have got nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about...Oh...Wait, that was the GOP talking point about illegal wiretapping.
March 26th, 2007 at 6:06 pmCan none we go make look take have any plans got point out…liberals dum…
Comment by Patrick1 — March 26, 2007 @ 6:02 pm
Huh? You drinking P1?
She’s a good Christian from Regents U.
She cannot tell a lie, therefore she will not testify.
Comment by RobG
So if she testifies she will be lying under oath? Even if she doesn't testify why? Because she would have to tell the truth?
March 26th, 2007 at 6:09 pmActually I guess the wingnut argument is pretty straight forward: Because a Cheney administration official lied to a grand jury AND the FBI and got busted for it, all Cheney administration officials are perfectly justified in pleading the 5th whenever they’re asked to testify under oath. In Rove’s world, it makes perfect sense.
Comment by Peter Principle
Even if they don't testify emails and other communications can be subpeonaed and could incriminate them. =)
March 26th, 2007 at 6:12 pmThat pesky Constitution wants again gets in the way of the surrender lobby.
Patrick1 @ 5:11 pm
Can none we go make look take have any plans got point out…liberals dum…
Comment by Patrick1 @ 6:02 pm
To Patsy0
March 26th, 2007 at 6:14 pmCould you please post in some intelligible language?
Precisely what planet is KRank living on? Because it’s sure the hell isn’t this one.
Comment by Peter Principle
I think KRank has a point. All sorts of negotiations behind the scenes are plausible at this point.
March 26th, 2007 at 6:24 pmI just find it ironic that the cabal that would alter, remove or destroy OUR Bill of Rights under the Constitution for their own nefarious reasons, would be so quick to take shelter in another of the Bill of Rights.
March 26th, 2007 at 6:57 pmThere is no 5th Amendment..Remember. No Habeus Corpus, no bill of rights period. So screw here and her 5th.
March 26th, 2007 at 7:26 pmI just find it ironic that the cabal that would alter, remove or destroy OUR Bill of Rights under the Constitution for their own nefarious reasons, would be so quick to take shelter in another of the Bill of Rights.
The Constitution only applies to the Bush Administration. *
*when applicable, as per the Bush Administration. Void in the District of Columbia.
March 26th, 2007 at 7:26 pmHmmm... where's Jake with his "Mommy, Mommy Clinton did it too!" BS?
March 26th, 2007 at 7:39 pmI think Goodling is waving a white flag.
If she indeed takes the 5th, congress should demand an immediate investigation before any evidence is destroyed.
Goodling was at all the meetings and I'm betting she kept her notes. Sampson is testifying the same day and this is a flare to him - who's going to be the "fall guy"? It's "let's make a deal time".
lol ... that "they serve at the pleasure of the president" is about to bite them in the ass ... if indeed bush is the "decider" here, as is claimed by that statement, than he can't very well divorce himself from it either. You can't have it both ways.
Like "gone-zo": "I attended no meetings" , to, "I was at meetings, but I didn't discuss anything and I was not involved with any decisions." Okay ... so, why attend the meeting then?
March 26th, 2007 at 7:51 pmMy nod to commenter #43 who just beat me to the punch about the supreme irony of a loyal member of the Royal Bush crime family hiding behind our Bill of Rights after they have worked for six years trying to destroy our Bill of Rights and our Constitution... Irons all around.. This illegitimate regime of lying worthless traitors is collapsing at warp speed...
March 26th, 2007 at 7:55 pmAs I understand it, she can’t invoke the Fifth Amendment unless she is before a court or an investigating body.
Comment by KRank — March 26, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
Her lawyer communicating to the committee that she will invoke the 5th suffices. It is enough to trigger negotiations regarding immunity. There is no need to go through a show where the witness is haled into the hearing and all parties know that the witness will answer each and every question by taking the 5th.
March 26th, 2007 at 8:05 pmUNLESS Goodling TAKES THE FIFTH, THE WHOLE CAN OF WORMS IS SET LOOSE AND THE SHIT HITS THE FAN----MUST BE A WAY TO GET HER TO START RATTING OUT GONZO and CHIMPya-----I WANT TO SEE THOSE WORMS WRITHING AND SHIT BEING FLUNG EVERY WHICH WAY AT Bushland Uber Allies!!!!!
March 26th, 2007 at 8:36 pmI immediately wondered what she was concerned about if she would tell the truth. I think the message is that the White House plans to call the investigation a partisan witch hunt no matter if it is conducted with dignity. It shows consciousness of guilt. Ms. Goodling has no reason to fear anything from talking with the legislature if she intends to tell the truth fear of the Libby precedent is no more than a convenient ruse through which to construct this as partisan when Republicans are also upset.
March 26th, 2007 at 10:49 pmIrony Watch...
In Goodling we have a "good" Christian, graduate of Messiah College no less and the Pat-Robertson founded Regent U. Law School.
And here she is, having gone down the garden path with her boss, ready to plead the Fifth to a dirty-minded public!
March 27th, 2007 at 9:21 amThe little bitch is probably in her room crying.
March 27th, 2007 at 9:48 amHa ha.
Josh Michael at Talking Points Memo has some interesting posts from supposedly knowledgeable people indicating that Goodling is all wet in her claiming the 5th. It won't protect her as she believes it will.
March 27th, 2007 at 10:08 amThis illegitimate regime of lying worthless traitors is collapsing at warp speed…
Comment by james k. s
At #47: still not quickly enough, methinks.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:25 pm