Richard Parker (GOV '98), Monica Goodling (Law '99), and Brian Eichelberger (DIV '01)
Posted on 03/26/2007 1:14:42 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
Gonzales Aide Will Invoke 5th Amendment Republicans Back Away From Embattled Attorney General
POSTED: 9:54 am EDT March 26, 2007 UPDATED: 4:02 pm EDT March 26, 2007 WASHINGTON -- Monica Goodling, a 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.
"The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real," said the lawyer, John Dowd.
He said that members of the House and Senate Judiciary committees seem already to have made up their minds that wrongdoing has occurred in the firings.
Meanwhile, the White House stood by Gonzales on Monday, even as support for the embattled attorney general erodes on Capitol Hill amid new questions about his honesty.
Three key Republican senators sharply questioned his truthfulness over the firings last fall of eight federal prosecutors. Two more Democrats on Sunday joined the list of lawmakers calling for Gonzales' ouster.
Several Republicans also urged President Bush to allow sworn testimony from his top aides about their role in dismissing the U.S. attorneys -- a standoff threatening to result in Capitol Hill subpoenas of White House officials
(Excerpt) Read more at wnbc.com ...
Yep.
This is embarrassing. The administration should simply push back. We fired them because we can. The previous administration fired 100, we've fired 6. Deal with it.
Its hard to support people who simply won't fight.
AH! Applying the lessons learned from the Libby trial....if we have different memories about a discussion someone can go to jail. I wish all republicans would take the 5th in front of these witch hunting democrats. They are not interested in facts, they are interested in undermining anyone in the Bush administration.
The Fitzy/Walton legacy starts to show its true colors.
The Dems only want to get rid of Gonzales because he's Hispanic. Go ahead, try that.
Smart woman...I wouldn't talk to those idiots either...not after what happened to Scooter Libby.
No....there are a lot of reasons..and it isn't helpful to try to drag race into it.
Well, at least someone in the administration is doing something.
"I do not recall"
(repeat as necessary)
"This is embarrassing. The administration should simply push back. We fired them because we can. The previous administration fired 100, we've fired 6. Deal with it."
While the premise about firing them because they can may be right, hopefully they won't repeat your factually inaccurate details as fact. It will only put them further in the whole.
Here are the new rules (maybe not so new, just more obvious lately):
In a Democrat administration, talking to the press means one of the networks will hire you as a high-six-figures "consultant" when you leave office.
In a Republican administration, talking to the press means you will go to jail.
In a Democrat administration, exposing a real covert CIA agent means you are a brave whistleblower.
In a Republican administration, exposing a fake covert CIA non-agent means you will go to jail.
In a Democrat administration, firing 93 Justice Department attorneys in order to make sure you remove the half dozen who are actively investigating your boss is business as usual, nothing to see here, move along.
In a Republican administration, firing 8 Justice Department attorneys means you will go to jail.
Et cetera.
Yes, the chances of being "Libbied" are high.
Ms. Goodling has wisely decided not to be the next Scooter Libby. Why talk to these ruthless animals?
Incidentally, this is always the Hillary Clinton, Sandy Berger, etc. technique.... whenever hauled before a committee. "I don't recall" "I am not certain" "My memory precludes answering your question."
This is great---I hope all the aides plead the fifth. The committees have already decided someone's head should roll. I wouldn't testify either.
I think she's doing exactly the right thing.
She has a constitutional right. She is taking it. Her spokesmen have already cited the example of Libby, who was convicted for the crime of talking to a prosecutor and making an honest mistake, in a case where no crime had been committed in the first place. That's exactly what we have here.
The news media will go ballistic, because you can't keep writing stories about witnesses who say nothing but "I refuse to answer." Tough. CNN and company are going to have a hard time making news out of this, too. And C-Span will lose a lot of viewers who tire of watching Henry Waxman's nostrils while a series of witnesses repeat, hundreds of times, "I refuse to answer."
Pass the popcorn.
Why won't "I don't recall" work?
“The Dems only want to get rid of Gonzales because he's Hispanic. Go ahead, try that.”
Not true. Gonzales is a pompous moron. Being a moron covers any skin tone and culture. As an example, look at Bush.
Richard Parker (GOV '98), Monica Goodling (Law '99), and Brian Eichelberger (DIV '01)
I'm sure there are a number of Congressmen of both parties that they would love to question under oath, but Congress asserts that they have some kind of blanket privilege.
Well if you want to shut the Dems up and have them stop issuing subpoenas, issue some of your own and point out how Congress holds itself above the law even when there is evidence of criminal acts, which there isn't in the case of the firings.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.