Justice official to plead the Fifth before Senate panel

[gldstwmn]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/...eys/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A Justice Department official will refuse to answer questions during a Senate committee hearing on the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, citing her Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate herself, her lawyer said Monday.

In a letter sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Monica Goodling's lawyer said she would not testify because senators have already decided that wrongdoing occurred.

"The public record is clear that certain members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have already reached conclusions about the matter under investigation and the veracity of the testimony provided by the Justice Department to date," John Dowd, Goodling's lawyer, said in a letter to the committee's chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont.

The letter said Goodling learned that a senior Justice Department official blamed her and other Justice Department officials for any misleading statements he had made to one of the Democratic senators who has pushed for answers about the firings, Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York.

Goodling is a senior counsel and White House liaison to Gonzales. She is taking a leave of absence from the department.

The committee has subpoenaed Goodling to testify Thursday. Democratic and Republican senators have raised questions about the firings, which e-mail released by the Justice Department suggests may have been done for political reasons.

Democrats said they continue to want Goodling to testify.

"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," Leahy said in a written statement. "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."

Goodling's decision to plead the Fifth Amendment "raises even more questions concerning the potential misconduct and legal violations by the administration in this ongoing scandal," said Rep. John Conyers, the Michigan Democrat who leads the House Judiciary Committee. That committee also wanted to hear Goodling's testimony on the firing.

The White House said Goodling's decision shows how political the investigation has become.

"It is unfortunate that a public servant no longer feels comfortable that they will be treated fairly in testimony in front of Congress," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.

"The attorney general, with the president's support, has urged members of the Justice Department to cooperate with Congress' request for testimony," Perino said. "However, we must respect the constitutional rights of the people involved and the decision of those individuals and their counsel to protect those rights."

Gonzales under fire
Partially due to conflicting accounts of how the firings were carried out, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has come under increasing political pressure, with a growing number of lawmakers calling for his resignation.

Gonzales has said he had a limited role in last year's firings, which have triggered a dispute between Congress and the White House over the testimony of top presidential aides. After his chief of staff's resignation in the firings uproar, the attorney general told reporters that he "was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on."

But documents released Friday night show Gonzales attended a meeting in late November in which the firings were discussed. Justice Department officials said that meeting does not contradict Gonzales' previous statements that he was not involved in the details of the dismissals or in selecting specific prosecutors -- a task he said was left to his chief of staff, Kyle Sampson.

President Bush continues to stand by his attorney general and expressed confidence in him in a White House statement Friday.

Sampson expected to defend firing
Sampson will testify on the firing of the U.S. attorneys before the committee on Thursday.

Sampson was the key Justice Department official in charge of deciding who should be dismissed and the main liaison with the White House over the process. Gonzales has said that Sampson was "charged with directing the process."

Friends familiar with his expected testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee say he will testify that he did what he was told and will defend the power of the Justice Department to be able to fire the prosecutors, because they serve at the pleasure of the White House.

"Kyle is very much a supporter of the president and the attorney general," one friend told CNN. "His main interest is in telling the truth."

The friend said Sampson would "never do anything to hurt any of them" and doesn't believe his version of events will do that.

Friends say Sampson believes innocent bungling was more to blame for the firestorm over the firings than anything malicious.

Friends also say Sampson will tell the truth and is not expected to go on the attack against any former officials. They say he is very quiet, very loyal and isn't the type of person who will try to "get" anyone.

What is not known is how Sampson will answer questions from lawmakers such as how the specific U.S. attorneys were chosen, what specific role did the attorney general play in the process given some of the conflicting evidence, and how much influence the White House exerted.

Sampson has said he did not resign because he had misled anyone or withheld information, but for "failing to appreciate the need for and organize a more effective political response to the unfounded accusations of impropriety in the replacement process," according to a statement his attorney, Bradford Berenson, released on March 16.

The statement also said, "The fact that the White House and Justice Department had been discussing this subject for several years was well known to a number of other senior officials at the department."

Specter: Firings have left a 'cloud' over department
A leading GOP senator Sunday questioned whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales "has been candid" about the firings of the attorneys, while another said the issue has left a "cloud" over the Justice Department chief.

Sen. Arlen Specter, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, told NBC's "Meet the Press" that Gonzales would have a chance to "present his case" but had some explaining to do. The attorney general is scheduled to appear before the committee April 17.

"We have to have an attorney general who is candid, truthful," Specter said. "And if we find he has not been candid and truthful, that's a very compelling reason for him not to stay on."

President Bush has said he stands solidly behind Gonzales, who was White House counsel before becoming attorney general in 2005.

Two other Republican lawmakers -- Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska -- also expressed doubt about Gonzales' credibility Sunday

[seeker007nmss]

I don't understand what the big deal is. When Jimmy Carter was Pres he sacked over 90 - yes 90 - and no one made a stink about it.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by seeker007nmss

I don't understand what the big deal is. When Jimmy Carter was Pres he sacked over 90 - yes 90 - and no one made a stink about it.

You are listening to the right wing spin. Comparing the two is comparing apples and oranges. No one disputes the right of any President to hire and fire US Atty's. That is not the issue here. In fact, just about every Pres. gets rid of almost all of the sitting US Atty's when they take office. The position of US Atty is a political appointment.

The issue here is whether the White House fired these US Atty's because:

1. they were ready to prosecute Republican politicians and their cronies;

and/or

2. they were not prosecuting enough Democrat politicians and their cronies;

This is obstruction of justice and illegal. In other words, once they are in office, the WH cannot fire them for applying the law. Otherwise, why have a Justice Dept. at all.

It truly amazes me that Fox and the other right wingers are trying to equate the two.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

You are listening to the right wing spin. Comparing the two is comparing apples and oranges. No one disputes the right of any President to hire and fire US Atty's. That is not the issue here. In fact, just about every Pres. gets rid of almost all of the sitting US Atty's when they take office. The position of US Atty is a political appointment.

The issue here is whether the White House fired these US Atty's because:

1. they were ready to prosecute Republican politicians and their cronies;

and/or

2. they were not prosecuting enough Democrat politicians and their cronies;

This is obstruction of justice and illegal. In other words, once they are in office, the WH cannot fire them for applying the law. Otherwise, why have a Justice Dept. at all.

It truly amazes me that Fox and the other right wingers are trying to equate the two.

why Jason, you're sounding more reasonable with every Liberal-leaning comment you make Actually, this is pretty much what I was referring to when I commented on the whole mess in my thread a week or so back. It isnt the firings per se that are troubling. it is the obvious politically motivated hack job that this administration has tried to execute.

So, is obstruction of justice, along with misleading a whole country about a war that wasnt necessary, finally enough to impeach the scoundrels?? Especially if (as you say) obstruction of justice on Clinton's part was enuff to get HIM impeached? Even you should be able to see that the grounds for impeachment here far FAR outweigh the "grounds" the Republicans had against Clinton...

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

So, is obstruction of justice, along with misleading a whole country about a war that wasnt necessary, finally enough to impeach the scoundrels??

Baby steps. Rome wasn't built in a day. The US government is even slower.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Baby steps. Rome wasn't built in a day. The US governement is even slower.

by GAWD they bulldozed Clinton's farce of an impeachment thru...and poor old Ken Starr was FLOUNDERING before the lucky snippet of info from the backstabbing friend of Lewinsky (Linda?) anyway....Im just sayin..

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

by GAWD they bulldozed Clinton's farce of an impeachment thru...and poor old Ken Starr was FLOUNDERING before the lucky snippet of info from the backstabbing friend of Lewinsky (Linda?) anyway....Im just sayin..

That was a concerted effort though. They were out to get him from the begining. You can't say the same with the Dems and Bush.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

That was a concerted effort though. They were out to get him from the begining. You can't say the same with the Dems and Bush.

That is because the D's played ball with W on Iraq up until just after the 2004 election. And, I bleive more than half of them still maintain the invasion was justified but W messed it up through incompetency. While W is incompetent, that number of D's makes impeachment impossible even if you ignore that Clinton killed under the same evidence and still supports that evidence and the fact that over 90% of the D's gave W the power to invade Iraq.

Maybe there is some other reason to impeach W, but for those reasons, he will never be impeached because of Iraq.

This is not saying I do not think he should go. I despise him.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

That was a concerted effort though. They were out to get him from the begining. You can't say the same with the Dems and Bush.

more's the pity. unfortunately, the fact of the matter was, there wasnt any way the Dems could have done anything without the numbers to do so. Which we only just now got. so, I say, time to pursue the Impeachment agenda.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

more's the pity. unfortunately, the fact of the matter was, there wasnt any way the Dems could have done anything without the numbers to do so. Which we only just now got. so, I say, time to pursue the Impeachment agenda.

Never happen on Iraq as they would have to impeach themselves in the process and ruin Hillary's chances of getting elected. Hillary = $$$$$$$$$ (esp. when Bill's involved) -- so there is no chance of that.

Your blind faith in the D party and your failure to see that they are not far from being as bad as the R's never fails to astound me.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

That is because the D's played ball with W on Iraq up until just after the 2004 election. And, I bleive more than half of them still maintain the invasion was justified but W messed it up through incompetency. While W is incompetent, that number of D's makes impeachment impossible even if you ignore that Clinton killed under the same evidence and still supports that evidence and the fact that over 90% of the D's gave W the power to invade Iraq.

Maybe there is some other reason to impeach W, but for those reasons, he will never be impeached because of Iraq.

This is not saying I do not think he should go. I despise him.

but we now have more than one reason.

and Jason, we've already determined that Bush KNEW his evidence was faulty however Clinton did NOT. Bush used it anyway because it served his agenda. Clinton did not have an overpowering need to get Iraq's oil. Bush did. ergo, lie to the country and hide behind evidence that is OLD and discredited almost from the start (but that was conveniently overlooked eh?)

As for the "vote" you keep going back to, again, the Dems were ganged up on and anyone who didnt go along with the plan was labeled "traitor"

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Never happen on Iraq as they would have to impeach themselves in the process and ruin Hillary's chances of getting elected. Hillary = $$$$$$$$$ (esp. when Bill's involved) -- so there is no chance of that.

Your blind faith in the D party and your failure to see that they are not far from being as bad as the R's never fails to astound me.

I am not so blind, but I am also aware of political suicide which is exactly what every Dem who would have potentially voted their conscience would have committed. At that time, under those circumstances, the Dems' hands were TIED.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

but we now have more than one reason.

and Jason, we've already determined that Bush KNEW his evidence was faulty however Clinton did NOT. Bush used it anyway because it served his agenda. Clinton did not have an overpowering need to get Iraq's oil. Bush did. ergo, lie to the country and hide behind evidence that is OLD and discredited almost from the start (but that was conveniently overlooked eh?)

As for the "vote" you keep going back to, again, the Dems were ganged up on and anyone who didnt go along with the plan was labeled "traitor"

Blah blah blah - Clinton still supports the WMD evidence as a reason to kill and a reason to invade Iraq. There is no getting away from that.

Also, we do not have Iraq's oil.

For any further debate - please see the last 1,000 times we discussed this

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

I am not so blind, but I am also aware of political suicide which is exactly what every Dem who would have potentially voted their conscience would have committed. At that time, under those circumstances, the Dems' hands were TIED.

Please see the above post and it's reference to the 1,000 other posts on this topic, which illustrate how deluded you are

And - the poor spineless D's. That their hands were tied is hardly an excuse and, if anything, just shows how pathetic they truly are.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Blah blah blah - Clinton still supports the WMD evidence as a reason to kill and a reason to invade Iraq. There is no getting away from that.

Also, we do not have Iraq's oil.

For any further debate - please see the last 1,000 times we discussed this

If Clinton still supports this war (in spite of everything) then I have lost major amounts of respect for him. and thats saying a LOT. This war is WRONG. but its primarily wrong because Bush lied to us and he KNEW he lied. this was orchestrated from the beginning. I firmly believe the two Presidents' motivations were completely Different. for Clinton it was a last resort, for Bush it was what he wanted from the first. E.V.I.L.