Wash. Post's Cohen's flat assertion that Goodling is "no criminal" undermined by her own lawyer's letter
In his April 10 column, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen stated as fact that former Justice Department White House liaison Monica Goodling, who recently invoked her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in the investigation into the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, is "no criminal -- but what could happen to her surely is." Cohen further claimed that "Goodling's problem is probably not what she's done but what she might do," adding that if she testifies before Congress, "she will produce a record -- a transcript -- that can be used against her." But even Goodling's own attorney -- unlike Cohen -- acknowledged that Goodling has been accused of actions that may be illegal and that her testimony could be used against her in the context of those allegations. Cohen ignored the allegation by deputy attorney general Paul J. McNulty that Goodling and others caused him to give inaccurate testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee by failing to inform him of relevant facts. If this allegation is true, Goodling could be prosecuted, as her own attorney has observed.
From an April 4 letter from John Dowd, Goodling's attorney, to House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers (D-MI) and Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law chairwoman Linda Sánchez (D-CA):
As explained in our March 30 letter, we advised Ms. Goodling to assert her Fifth Amendment Right after learning that Deputy Attorney General McNulty had privately told Senator Schumer that Mr. McNulty had not been entirely candid in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee and had blamed Ms. Goodling and others for failing to inform him of pertinent facts prior to his testimony. Mr. McNulty's allegations that Ms. Goodling and others caused him to give inaccurate testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee is a sufficient predicate for Ms. Goodling's invocation of her Fifth Amendment privilege, regardless of whether Mr. McNulty's allegation is factually correct -- which it is not.
Federal law (18 U.S.C. 1001) provides: "whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully -- (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both." Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) explained the possible criminal conduct in the context of D. Kyle Sampson, former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, who has also been accused of falsifying statements to Congress:
Federal law provides that if Sampson knew that he was causing DOJ officials to make inaccurate statements to Congress, he can be prosecuted for the federal crime of lying to Congress even though he did not personally make any statements to Congress. The Special Prosecutor should investigate not only Mr. Sampson's conduct but whether anyone else was involved in formulating the incomplete and erroneous congressional testimony or whether the officials who testified were aware that they were providing imperfect information to Congress.
In order to defend Goodling's decision not to "testify in today's political environment," Cohen also included misinformation about the conviction of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby for perjury, false statements, and obstruction of justice arising out of the investigation of the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity. He wrote that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald "not only knew early on who the leaker was but also that no law had been violated." As Media Matters for America has noted, Fitzgerald has alleged that Libby's obstruction prevented him -- and the grand jury -- from determining whether the alleged leak violated federal law. Media Matters has documented previous misinformation about the Libby case from Cohen (here and here).
See, in right-wing world, you're only a criminal if you get "caught". By pleading the fifth she thinks she can't be "caught" in a perjury trap. Of course, the best way to avoid a perjury trap is to simply "tell the truth".
Actually on Planet Wingnut you are only a criminal if you are a democrat of lefty and get caught. Some of them are still arguing that convicted felon Scooter Libby was guilty of nothing.
well just because she resigned does that mean they canT bring her before congress to testify I dont think she is helping herself any it goes to show this administration has no idea how to tell the truth and when it does it knows it gonna be in a hell of a lot of trouble and not the good kind either
more of the "libby really commited no crime" propaganda. clearly he did. there was a jury that was more than willing to cut him loose, but in the end they decided he had deliberately and willingly lied numerous times. he already had a pattern of trying to cover up his role in spreading plame's identity to the media, because he asked judith miller of the n.y. times to identify him as a "former hill staffer" instead of what he was, a white house aide.
If the members of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, have even the slightest reasonable suspicion, to think that any one or more of these U.S. Attorney dismissals, was meant to interfere with or prevent any Federal investigation or prosecution, then it is the Constitutional obligation of the members of those Judiciary Committees, to investigate completely those U.S. Attorney dismissals...
Because Obstruction of Justice is not only a crime, it is a serious crime.
And if such an investigation, in order to be complete, requires the testimony of Ms. Goodling, then those Senate and House Judiciary Committee members must call her.
They have to.
And of course Ms. Goodling will do whatever it is she thinks she has to do... which if it means invoking the fifth amendment right against self-incrimination, before a Congressional investigation, then so be it.
But the Senate and House Judiciary Committees can not let Ms. Goodling thwart any Congressional investigation whatsoever (least of all an investigation into a possible Obstruction of Justice!)...
...she can not thwart this investigation by way of a letter, from her attorney no less, claiming that she will invoke her right against self-incrimination, were those Committees, and this investigation, to call her.
They must call her anyway, letter or no letter (from her lawyer no less!)... she must be made to appear, and if she intends to raise her hand and be sworn, and then refuse to answer questions, then so be it.
But I can assure you of this: That for anyone in the legal profession to claim they would invoke their right against self-incrimination, before a Congressional investigation... I assure you, it's a far easier thing to claim, than to actually do...
...easier still to merely have your lawyer send off a letter, claiming it for you.
Because in the legal profession, it has career-long consequences, to refuse to co-operate with a legal proceeding, by way of invoking your fifth amendment right against self-incrimination.
It does.
And if the Senate and House Judiciary Committees think Ms. Goodling may or may not have information helpful to them, in an investigation into a possible Obstruction of Justice, then she must be made to appear...
...and if she wishes to risk the consequences of refusing to co-operate with a Congressional investigation, then so be it.
Then let us all see it.
Whether or not Goodling is criminal (she may be) has yet to be determined. What has been determined is that her qualifications were grossly inadequate for the position that the Bush crew placed her in. Unfortunately, there are also 150 other Regent College graduates of dubious quality that have been installed into various positions in the government thanks to our Decider-in-chief.
There is a great deal of irony within the contemporary conservatives claim that 18 U.S.C. 1001 is being abused through prosecutorial overreach, since it is one of their own, Antonin Scalia, who was the driving force for this law's expansive reach.
In the 1998 SCOTUS case, BROGAN v. UNITED STATES (96-1579), decided in a 5-4 split (actually 5-3.5-0.5, but that's confusing), Scalia's authored majority decision mused in a brutally sarcastic style about there being no dilemma, no trilemma, not even a lemma. This decision upheld the felony conviction of a man who had answered a simple monosyllabic no to FBI Agents asking if he'd taken bribes, even though the statute of limitations had run out on several of the crimes, and the Agents already had in their possession overwhelming evidence that Brogan had committed them.Also of note is that those comedic jokers of liberty at the Federalist Society published a note of hearty approval regarding this decision.(I advise that anyone who may have a use for this to archive it, as the page has recently disappeared from the FedSociety's server, and this link is to google's cache)
Now conservatives whine about Poor Scooter and the Mean Prosecutor, and Kay Bailey Hutchinson ponders the justice of a Martha Stewarty sort of technicality.
Equal application of the law is such a bothersome thing to contemporary conservatives, who don't really believe that personal responsibility is foundational precept of their political philosophy, but is instead a brutal strategy enabling them to unmercifully flog unwed mothers.