some additional gloss on monica goodling’s "take five" emerges. . .

with a sincere hat tip to
the TPM Muckraker, i offer
some additional gloss on monica
goodling’s reasons for asserting
her fifth amendment privilege
against self-incrimination — prior
to being charged with any crime. . .

and, from the mouth of her akin gump
lawyer, john m. dowd, no less:

note that dowd focuses on ms. goodling’s
alleged role in “supplying” mr. mcnulty
with plainly false statements to congress:

when all the window-dressing is removed,
we see the akin gump partner likening
ms. goodling to several of the watergate
conspirators, at least insofar as some of
those conspirators were not required
to appear before sen. sam ervin in order to
assert their fifth amendment privileges. . .

[i'm not sure i'd press that comparison. . .]

on the other hand, it may well be that
mr. dowd is rather slyly suggesting — akin to
several of the watergate conspirators — that
his client would be willing to testify, if, of
course, she is granted broad immunity. . .

precious! my bet? she’ll get
immunity — and she’ll testify.

eventually.

"take five for freedom" goodling = neck bolts for gonzales. . .

sen. leahy has indicated
that the DoJ is “hopelessly
conflicted“, in a letter dated
march 30, but just released by
his office today. . .

he asks alberto gonzales to advise whether
the DoJ will agree that a “special counsel”
need be appointed to advise the senate judiciary
committee about matters related to monica
“take five for freedom” goodling. . .

he goes on to point out that it might be
unprecedented for the DoJ to be paying a
“career” (important for hatch act
analysis) employee that has asserted the
5th, and or refused, prospectively, to
cooperate with an investigation of this sort. . .

and, just in case the images
are blurry on your monitor at home:

“. . .On a related matter, we understand that you initially ordered an investigation by the Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility and that a joint Office of Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility investigation is now under way. Is Ms. Goodling cooperating with that investigation? It is our understanding that career Department employees are required to cooperate with OIG and OPR investigations.

We are told by the Department that despite Ms. Goodling’s unwillingness to testify, she nonetheless remains on your payroll. Has it ever happened in the history of the Department of Justice that an attorney has refused to cooperate with OIG or OPR or asserted Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and remained an employee of the Department? Please provide information regarding any precedent for these extraordinary circumstances. . .”

the screws are tightening on gonzales’
neck-bolts, no? he should resign; monica
will take a deal, and rove will be indicted.

i can dream, right?

goodling, et al. to give private testimony to judiciary committee

my very quick reaction,
to the news that several other
players in the purge scandal will
give testimony to the house judiciary
committee in private, but in transcribed
sessions, is generally positive.

i certainly could be proven wrong,
but my gut-feeling is that these
people were the minor players — and by
taking statements in private, the
bigger fish may more easily be fried.

sampson’s testimony was illuminating
yesterday, in that it suggested a pretty
out-of-control, who-cares-about-the-law
culture at the DC office of the attorney
general. . .

no files, no paper, no notes. . . just
some e-mail. . . riiiiight.

so — get the underlings to admit what
was going on, then prosecute the
top of the AG office — and perhaps
beyond. . .

consider the real possibilty that
ms. goodling is asserting the fifth
because she aguably commited criminal
violations of the hatch act.

in return for the truth, the committee
gets a whole lot more on ranking admin-
istration officials.

at first blush, this looks like a
savvy, prosecution-driven, move. . .

but i could be wrong. . .