Attorneygate

[GG]

You are right Gekko, to the extent that if you carry out your logic any further why have US attorneys at all?

Which I'm sure the administration would love....except around election time.

 

Wow, digging deep into the Oliver Stone archives, and that's the best you could do?

 

Why not extend your impeccable logic to the next step and ask, why have a Presidency? Why the need for the Supreme Court? Why not have Congress be the master of all?

[Wacka]

What the dems want is a Politboro.

[Kelly the Dog]

What the dems want is a Politboro.

I've had them at Taco Bell, they're really just glorified chicken burritos, and they suck. That's not what Dems want at all.

[X. Benedict]

I've had them at Taco Bell, they're really just glorified chicken burritos, and they suck. That's not what Dems want at all.

 

Give me some good carne asada on a whole wheat Cominturn, and I'm happy.

[Johnny Coli]

Just when you could have sworn Gonzales and Cheney had all the copies shredded or burned, Gonzo's Senior Counsel (and liason to the WH ) dusts off a copy of the Constitution so she can plead the Fifth.

 

Gonzales aide to invoke Fifth Amendment

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.

 

...

 

Goodling, who is Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' senior counsel and White House liaison, took a leave of absence this month [no doubt to "spend more time with her family" ]. She was subpoenaed by the Senate Judiciary Committee along with several of Gonzales' other top aides.

 

Imagine that, a Senior Counsel at the DOJ pleading the Fifth. Nah, there's nothing illegal going on.

 

Seems Goodling doesn't want to be "scootered" for this one and end up doing Rove's and/or Abu Gonzales' prison time.

The potential for taking the blame for the department's bungled response "is very real," Dowd said. "One need look no further than the recent circumstances and proceedings involving Lewis Libby," he said, a reference to the recent conviction of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff in the CIA leak case.

 

Hell'uv a job, Gonzo!

[Johnny Coli]

Interesting interview on NBC last night if you’re into train wrecks. Alberto was interviewed by Pete Williams, seemingly in an effort to clear up some of the mess he’s gotten into over the US-atty purge. He didn’t do so swell.

 

The attorney general talks to NBC's Pete Williams in an exclusive interview

 

Williams: So you didn't get into the decision about specifically which U.S. attorneys to include on this list until the very end?

 

Gonzales: Absolutely. Now, that's not to say that during the process I may not have heard about the performance — or particular matter with respect to the United States attorney. For example — we've already confirmed that Senator Menacheet did call me about the performance of the United States attorney in New Mexico.

The president — the White House has already confirmed that there was a conversation with the president, mentioned it to me in a meeting at the Oval Office — in terms of concerns about — about the commitment — to pursue voter fraud cases in — in three jurisdictions around the country. I don't remember that conversation, but what I'm saying is during the process there may have been other conversations about specifically about the performance of US attorneys. But I wasn't involved in the deliberations as to whether or not a particular United States attorney should or should not be asked to resign.

 

Williams: By the way, do you —

 

Gonzales: I don't recall being involved.

 

(...)

 

Williams: To put this question another way — if you didn't review their performance during this process, then how can you be certain that they were fired for performance reasons?

 

Gonzales: I — I've given — I've given the answer to the question, Pete.

 

 

Wow. Remember, this is the US Attorney General who doesn’t do himself any favors in a softball interview. Is there any wonder why the Admin doesn’t want any of these people testifying under oath, on the record and in public?

 

One other neat little tidbit to mull over while we watch Gonzo flop around…how far up Dubya’s Supreme Court Justice nominee list do you think he was?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Cominturn

 

Comintern.

[X. Benedict]

Comintern.

 

My bad, but still, yum.

[stuckincincy]

Just when you could have sworn Gonzales and Cheney had all the copies shredded or burned, Gonzo's Senior Counsel (and liason to the WH ) dusts off a copy of the Constitution so she can plead the Fifth.

 

Gonzales aide to invoke Fifth Amendment

Imagine that, a Senior Counsel at the DOJ pleading the Fifth. Nah, there's nothing illegal going on.

 

Seems Goodling doesn't want to be "scootered" for this one and end up doing Rove's and/or Abu Gonzales' prison time.

Hell'uv a job, Gonzo!

 

Since you like to excerpt to your particular bent, here's a full article. The boldface is mine.

 

The 93 discharged - all the Federal prosecutors in '93 by AG, Reno, including the ones investigating Whitewater, don't seem to bother you. IIRC, the words at the time was that they all served at the pleasure of the President. I'm not aware of the then Dem Party controlled legislature raising a fuss.

 

 

Gonzales aide refuses to testify before Senate

 

LAURIE KELLMAN

 

 

WASHINGTON - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' liaison with the White House will refuse to answer questions at upcoming Senate hearings about the firings of eight U.S. attorneys, citing her Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, her lawyer says.

The Olympian - Click Here

 

"I have decided to follow my lawyer's advice and respectfully invoke my constitutional right," Monica Goodling, Gonzales' counsel and White House liaison, said in a statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

 

The revelation complicated the outlook for Gonzales, who is traveling out of town this week even as he fights to keep his job and his agency's investigatory power.

 

The House was to vote late Monday on stripping him of his authority to appoint U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation, similar to a measure the Senate passed this month. Bush has signaled he would not veto it.

 

John Dowd, the lawyer for Gonzales counsel Monica Goodling, who plans to take the Fifth, 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.

 

Goodling, one of several aides involved in the firings of federal prosecutors, will refuse to answer senators' questions.

 

"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.

 

Gonzales had promised to let his top aides testify under oath before the House and Senate Judiciary Committees.

 

"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," said Leahy.

 

Dowd shot back in a second letter that Leahy's comments were a good illustration of why testifying was "perilous" for Goodling.

 

"It is the politically charged environment created by the members of the committee ... that has created the ambiguous and perilous environment in which even innocent witnesses would be well advised not to testify," Dowd wrote.

 

Democrats allege the firings were a purge of those deemed by the Justice Department not to be "loyal Bushies" - and a political warning to other prosecutors to fall in line with the administration. Gonzales has denied that.

 

The news of Goodling's refusal to testify toughened an already daunting week for Gonzales, who retains President Bush's support, apparently on condition that he patch things up with Congress. There was little sign of that happening.

 

Republicans over the weekend lobbed new criticism at Gonzales and more Democrats called for his resignation. Gonzales, meanwhile, was in Denver on Monday, leading a round-table discussion on curbing child sex abuse. He was expected to remain out of town most of the week.

 

But Goodling's announcement appeared to be an unforeseen piece of bad news for Gonzales' agency, which had no immediate comment.

 

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who is leading the Senate's investigation into the firings, said Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty told him Goodling misled him before he testified to Schumer's panel on Feb. 6.

 

A day earlier, Goodling was among aides who helped McNulty prepare his testimony. Schumer has said McNulty may have given Congress incomplete or otherwise misleading information about the circumstances of the firings.

 

A little more than two weeks before that, she helped organize the response to senators asking whether the firings were politically motivated, the e-mails show. Specifically, she wanted to show that one of the fired prosecutors, Carol Lam of California, had been the subject of complaints by members of Congress.

 

On Jan. 18, 2007, Goodling sent an e-mail to three Justice staffers titled: "I hear there is a letter from (Sen. Dianne) Feinstein on Carol Lam a year or two ago."

 

"I need it ASAP," Goodling wrote.

 

She was later sent two letters, from Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., dated Oct. 13, 2005, and 19 House members, on Oct. 20, 2005, which both complained that Lam was too lax in prosecuting criminal illegal immigrants.

 

Additionally, Goodling was involved in an April 6, 2006, phone call between the Justice Department and Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., who had complained to the Bush administration and the president about David Iglesias, then the U.S. attorney in Albuquerque. Domenici had wanted Iglesias to push more aggressively on a corruption probe against Democrats before the 2006 elections.

 

Iglesias told Congress earlier this month that he turned down what he believed to be pressure from Domenici to rush indictments that would have hurt Democrats in the November elections.

 

Gonzales' truthfulness about the firings of seven prosecutors on Dec. 7 and another one months earlier also have been questioned. At a March 13 news conference, Gonzales denied that he participated in discussions or saw any documents about the firings, despite documents that show he attended a Nov. 27 meeting with senior aides on the topic, where he approved a detailed plan to carry out the dismissals.

 

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Monday that Gonzales "might be accused of being imprecise in what he was saying," but maintained that the attorney general was not closely involved in the firings.

 

"I understand the concern. I understand that people might think that there are inconsistencies," Perino said. "But as I read it, I think that he has been consistent."

 

Gonzales is not scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee until April 17 - three weeks away."

 

http://www.theolympian.com/101/story/72799.html

[RI Bills Fan]

Since you like to excerpt to your particular bent, here's a full article. The boldface is mine.

 

The 93 discharged - all the Federal prosecutors in '93 by AG, Reno, including the ones investigating Whitewater, don't seem to bother you. IIRC, the words at the time was that they all served at the pleasure of the President. I'm not aware of the then Dem Party controlled legislature raising a fuss.

Gonzales aide refuses to testify before Senate

 

LAURIE KELLMAN

WASHINGTON - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' liaison with the White House will refuse to answer questions at upcoming Senate hearings about the firings of eight U.S. attorneys, citing her Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, her lawyer says.

The Olympian - Click Here

 

"I have decided to follow my lawyer's advice and respectfully invoke my constitutional right," Monica Goodling, Gonzales' counsel and White House liaison, said in a statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

 

The revelation complicated the outlook for Gonzales, who is traveling out of town this week even as he fights to keep his job and his agency's investigatory power.

 

The House was to vote late Monday on stripping him of his authority to appoint U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation, similar to a measure the Senate passed this month. Bush has signaled he would not veto it.

 

John Dowd, the lawyer for Gonzales counsel Monica Goodling, who plans to take the Fifth, 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.

 

Goodling, one of several aides involved in the firings of federal prosecutors, will refuse to answer senators' questions.

 

"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.

 

Gonzales had promised to let his top aides testify under oath before the House and Senate Judiciary Committees.

 

"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," said Leahy.

 

Dowd shot back in a second letter that Leahy's comments were a good illustration of why testifying was "perilous" for Goodling.

 

"It is the politically charged environment created by the members of the committee ... that has created the ambiguous and perilous environment in which even innocent witnesses would be well advised not to testify," Dowd wrote.

 

Democrats allege the firings were a purge of those deemed by the Justice Department not to be "loyal Bushies" - and a political warning to other prosecutors to fall in line with the administration. Gonzales has denied that.

 

The news of Goodling's refusal to testify toughened an already daunting week for Gonzales, who retains President Bush's support, apparently on condition that he patch things up with Congress. There was little sign of that happening.

 

Republicans over the weekend lobbed new criticism at Gonzales and more Democrats called for his resignation. Gonzales, meanwhile, was in Denver on Monday, leading a round-table discussion on curbing child sex abuse. He was expected to remain out of town most of the week.

 

But Goodling's announcement appeared to be an unforeseen piece of bad news for Gonzales' agency, which had no immediate comment.

 

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who is leading the Senate's investigation into the firings, said Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty told him Goodling misled him before he testified to Schumer's panel on Feb. 6.

 

A day earlier, Goodling was among aides who helped McNulty prepare his testimony. Schumer has said McNulty may have given Congress incomplete or otherwise misleading information about the circumstances of the firings.

 

A little more than two weeks before that, she helped organize the response to senators asking whether the firings were politically motivated, the e-mails show. Specifically, she wanted to show that one of the fired prosecutors, Carol Lam of California, had been the subject of complaints by members of Congress.

 

On Jan. 18, 2007, Goodling sent an e-mail to three Justice staffers titled: "I hear there is a letter from (Sen. Dianne) Feinstein on Carol Lam a year or two ago."

 

"I need it ASAP," Goodling wrote.

 

She was later sent two letters, from Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., dated Oct. 13, 2005, and 19 House members, on Oct. 20, 2005, which both complained that Lam was too lax in prosecuting criminal illegal immigrants.

 

Additionally, Goodling was involved in an April 6, 2006, phone call between the Justice Department and Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., who had complained to the Bush administration and the president about David Iglesias, then the U.S. attorney in Albuquerque. Domenici had wanted Iglesias to push more aggressively on a corruption probe against Democrats before the 2006 elections.

 

Iglesias told Congress earlier this month that he turned down what he believed to be pressure from Domenici to rush indictments that would have hurt Democrats in the November elections.

 

Gonzales' truthfulness about the firings of seven prosecutors on Dec. 7 and another one months earlier also have been questioned. At a March 13 news conference, Gonzales denied that he participated in discussions or saw any documents about the firings, despite documents that show he attended a Nov. 27 meeting with senior aides on the topic, where he approved a detailed plan to carry out the dismissals.

 

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Monday that Gonzales "might be accused of being imprecise in what he was saying," but maintained that the attorney general was not closely involved in the firings.

 

"I understand the concern. I understand that people might think that there are inconsistencies," Perino said. "But as I read it, I think that he has been consistent."

 

Gonzales is not scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee until April 17 - three weeks away."

 

http://www.theolympian.com/101/story/72799.html

 

 

**Yawn**

 

Only Guilty People take the fifth...

[stuckincincy]

**Yawn**

 

Only Guilty People take the fifth...

 

Don't be naive. It is part of the Bill of Rights, because the Founders knew well that government can and will hang citizens, figuratively and literally, to suit their particular political purposes.

 

You must have been asleep or absent when things like the H.U.A.C. or the Alien and Sedition Act were discussed in history class.

[PastaJoe]

Don't be naive. It is part of the Bill of Rights, because the Founders knew well that government can and will hang citizens, figuratively and literally, to suit their particular political purposes.

 

You must have been asleep or absent when things like the H.U.A.C. or the Alien and Sedition Act were discussed in history class.

 

All the Justice dept. and administration officials had to do from the start is tell the truth. Libby got in trouble by not doing so. He was even given a chance to change his statements and he declined. Rove was given the same opportunity by Fitzgerald and did change his statements, and that's why he wasn't charged. If they're not willing to tell the truth, then the truth must be worse than the consequences of lieing. It will come out eventually, as it always does, so why not just cut their losses now and get it over with. Even if they aren't charged with crimes, the court of public opinion will view them as guilty due to this continual resistance to answer questions in public, and therefore they will no longer have to confidence of the public to represent us in the Justice department. At the end of the day they're supposed to be working for us, not Bush.

[Johnny Coli]

Since you like to excerpt to your particular bent, here's a full article. The boldface is mine.

 

The 93 discharged - all the Federal prosecutors in '93 by AG, Reno, including the ones investigating Whitewater, don't seem to bother you. IIRC, the words at the time was that they all served at the pleasure of the President. I'm not aware of the then Dem Party controlled legislature raising a fuss.

 

There are about five or six links in this thread about why the two (Clinton/Reno removing USAs in '93, Bush removing the same number of USAs in '01, but the additional eight subsequently under suspicious circumstances) are not the same and I don't see the point in continuing to knock down that GOP talking point yet again.

 

"I have decided to follow my lawyer's advice and respectfully invoke my constitutional right," Monica Goodling, Gonzales' counsel and White House liaison, said in a statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

 

"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

 

Explain to me how she would be in legal jeopardy were she be forced to testify giving "her most truthful and accurate testimony"? Where exactly is the legal jeopardy? You plead the Fifth to avoind incriminating yourself. This isn't a criminal investigation (yet).

 

"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.

 

Libby was prosecuted and convicted for lying under oath during a grand jury investigation. Are you suggesting that Goodling is invoking her Fifth Amendment rights because if she does go before Congress she intends to lie under oath? I'm pretty sure you can't take the Fifth because you intend to perjure yourself. Plus, she hasn't testified before anybody yet, so she couldn't have even committed the act of perjury. Can you take the Fifth to keep from testifying about someone else's perjury? Any lawyers out there?

 

Dowd shot back in a second letter that Leahy's comments were a good illustration of why testifying was "perilous" for Goodling.

 

"It is the politically charged environment created by the members of the committee ... that has created the ambiguous and perilous environment in which even innocent witnesses would be well advised not to testify," Dowd wrote.

 

Actually, it's become a politically charged environment because no one as of yet will testify under oath (Sampson is this week, I believe). It's also become a politically charged environment because McNulty admitted before Congress that Cummins was removed for political reasons. The Bushies have only themselves to blame.

[RI Bills Fan]

Don't be naive. It is part of the Bill of Rights, because the Founders knew well that government can and will hang citizens, figuratively and literally, to suit their particular political purposes.

 

You must have been asleep or absent when things like the H.U.A.C. or the Alien and Sedition Act were discussed in history class.

 

But... But... I read right here on this board how Sen McCarthy was right and those damm liberals kept attacking him until they finally beat him down.

 

And if people said thaat here it must be true, right?

[Wacka]

HUAC is the house. McCarthy was a senator. He was right. Get Ann Coulter's book Treason and check out the references. The USSR's own files show he was right.

[UConn James]

Actually, it's become a politically charged environment because no one as of yet will testify under oath (Sampson is this week, I believe). It's also become a politically charged environment because McNulty admitted before Congress that Cummins was removed for political reasons. The Bushies have only themselves to blame.

 

I wouldn't care two sh--s to sundown if they were fired for political reasons. That's any president's constitutional right.

 

Thing is --- to me --- you'd better be ready to freely admit to any and all that they were fired for political reasons. And if you don't want to accept the heat that comes with that, then you'd better rethink your moves or come up with a better reason.

 

This isn't about what DCT/CTM/BJ touts as simple bad marketing; it's the admin's culture to flat-out lie when they think what they do won't be received well. The American people don't like it when they're lied to, time and time again. Tell the truth from the start and there's 100x less of a problem.

[Bungee Jumper]

I wouldn't care two sh--s to sundown if they were fired for political reasons. That's any president's constitutional right.

 

Thing is --- to me --- you'd better be ready to freely admit to any and all that they were fired for political reasons. And if you don't want to accept the heat that comes with that, then you'd better rethink your moves or come up with a better reason. This isn't about DCT/CTM/BJ touts as simple bad marketing; this a culture that flat-out lies when they think what they do won't be received well. The American people don't like it when they're lied to, time and time again. Tell the truth from the start and there's 100x less of a problem.

 

 

I'd just like to caveat that I think "marketing" and "lying" are largely synonymous anyway...

[PastaJoe]

HUAC is the house. McCarthy was a senator. He was right. Get Ann Coulter's book Treason and check out the references. The USSR's own files show he was right.

 

Ann Coulter and the U.S.S.R.; two great ways to check facts.

[Joey Balls]

OH NO THERE GOES TONY FRATTO

GO GO GONZALES!

 

 

Funny statement from White House spokesperson Anthony Fratto in this morning's paper. He claims that embattled US Attorney General Alberto G. "can be effective going forward".

 

This following on the heels of Gonzales' testimony yesterday which included a whopping total of 71 convenient memory lapses.

 

Gotta say this for the Bushies they can sure stand by their Brownie...opps I mean man no matter how incredibly inept and unqualified they may be.