Gonzales aide to invoke Fifth Amendment

[Alicnwondrln]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17801652/

This story drives my nuts. If there is nothing to hide why is this woman refusing to testify. I dont believe for a minute her excuses. I mean I can kinda see Rove and Miers having issues especially him, but this lady. These people are a shame. Gonzales should be fired and I dont know why Bush isnt doing it. How can a man no one can trust to tell the truth run the department of JUSTICE! Theres more to life than loyalty, to bad after all the scandals for this president especially Katrina he hasnt learned that.


FREE VIDEO

• What’s Gonzales’ game?
March 26: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales almost seems to prefer to be thought of as incompetent. Keith Olbermann talks with Newsweek’s Richard Wolffe.
Countdown


Updated: 5:31 p.m. ET 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.

Goodling, who is Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' senior counsel and White House liaison, took a leave of absence this month. She was subpoenaed by the Senate Judiciary Committee along with several of Gonzales' other top aides.

There have been questions about whether Goodling and others misinformed Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty about the firings just before he testified before the Senate committee in February.

Dowd said that a senior Justice Department official had told a member of the Senate committee that he was misled by Goodling and others before testifying.

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.

Gonzales' support eroding
The disclosure comes even as the White House stood by Alberto Gonzales on Monday, while support for the embattled attorney general erodes on Capitol Hill amid new questions about his honesty.

Three key Republican senators sharply questioned Gonzales' truthfulness over the firings last fall of eight federal prosecutors. Two more Democrats on Sunday joined the list of lawmakers calling for Gonzales' ouster.

At issue is Gonzales' March 13 denial 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 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."

The White House is placing the onus on Gonzales to explain his action to lawmakers, but he is not scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee until April 17 - three weeks away.

"I grant you, I think that that seems like a long time," Perino said. "But I don't think I would read into that that the Justice Department isn't having ongoing discussions with members of the Judiciary Committee on both the House and the Senate side, and other members who have expressed interest."

Bush did not speak to Gonzales over the weekend.

Loss of credibility
Gonzales faces the toughest test of his two-year tenure at the Justice Department with the release of documents suggesting he was more involved with the firings than he indicated earlier.

Democrats have accused the Justice Department and the White House of purging the prosecutors for political reasons. The Bush administration maintains the firings were not improper because U.S. attorneys are political appointees.

Speaking to reporters in Orlando, Fla., Sen. Bill Nelson said whether or not Gonzales was fully engaged, "he has lost all credibility with me." Nelson, D-Fla., joined the ranks Sunday of lawmakers in both parties calling for Gonzales to resign.

"Unless he has a good explanation for not only what he knew and when he knew it but also for the ineptitude of the department ... he is a goner," Nelson said of Gonzales. "I think there might be enough Republicans who are calling for his resignation, even before he takes the witness stand."

Stopping short of demanding Gonzales' resignation, Sen. Arlen Specter cited a Nov. 27 calendar entry placing the attorney general at a Justice Department meeting to discuss the dismissals. Those documents "appear to contradict" Gonzales' earlier statements that he never participated in such conversations, said Specter, top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee that oversees the Justice Department.

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

Specter said he would wait until Gonzales' testimony before deciding whether he could continue to support the attorney general.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said Gonzales has been "wounded" by the firings. "He has said some things that just don't add up," said Graham, who also is on the Senate Judiciary panel. And Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., said the Justice Department has continually changed its story about the dismissals.

"You cannot have the nation's chief law enforcement officer with a cloud hanging over his credibility," Hagel said.

At the same time, Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California and Bill Nelson of Florida said Gonzales should step down.

Contradictory documents
At a March 13 news conference, trying to stem the furor over the firings, Gonzales said, "I never saw documents. We never had a discussion about where things stood."

But his Nov. 27 schedule, included in a batch of memos sent to Capitol Hill late Friday, showed he attended an hour-long meeting at which, aides said, he approved a detailed plan for executing the purge.

Since the schedule's release, Justice aides have said Gonzales meant he was not involved in selecting the prosecutors when he said he didn't participate in discussions about their firings. "He didn't say he wasn't involved," former Republican chairman Ed Gillespie said Sunday.

Also, Republican Sens. Trent Lott of Mississippi and Orrin G. Hatch of Utah reaffirmed their earlier support for Gonzales. Hatch called Gonzales "an honest man" but added: "But let's be honest about it, the Justice Department has bungled this attorney thing."

Three of the ousted U.S. attorneys Sunday said they have concluded their firings were politically motivated.

Former prosecutors John McKay in Seattle and David Iglesias in New Mexico both said they were rebuked in private conversations for not pursuing Democrats in their states more aggressively in election-year investigations. "It is troubling, connecting those political dots," Iglesias said.

Bud Cummins, who was replaced as U.S. attorney in Little Rock, Ark., by a Karl Rove protégé, acknowledged political appointees can be fired for no reason.

"But in this case it looks like that authority was delegated down through (former White House counsel) Harriet Miers, Karl Rove, Judge Gonzales and all the way down to a bunch of 35-year-old kids who got in a room together and tried to decide who was most loyal to the president," Cummins said.

 

[chris1gill]

Figures doesn't it? Why can't people just be honest?

 

[Charade]

Why isn't the fact that Clinton fired all 93 US attorney's being talked about?

And at least two of them were politically motivated.

 

[Alicnwondrln]

Why isn't the fact that Clinton fired all 93 US attorney's being talked about?

And at least two of them were politically motivated.

well when that happened....
oh wait that was over 10 years ago and not the topic
if you only argument is clinton did it to then thats WEAK

but to be fair
its either right or wrong
when one did it he was wrong just as the other is now

 

[wvrevy]

Why isn't the fact that Clinton fired all 93 US attorney's being talked about?

And at least two of them were politically motivated.

Which shows how little you understand the topic. Not only did Clinton fire all 93...but they were ALL politically motivated. Just as they were when Shrub did it when he took office, when Bush1 did it, and when Reagan did it before him.

But those wholesale changes at the beginning of presidential terms have nothing in common with these firings. These people were fired because they had the unmitigated gall to prosecute Republicans, and for no other reason. To Rove and the other scum, loyalty to the party is more important than justice, and this just further proves that.

 

[Free4Life11]

I can't blame her for wanting to protect herself. If wrongdoing occurred, why should she take the fall if he approved it? Sorry the buck has got to stop somewhere and you can't tell me it stops at the aides! If my manager approved something and it later turned out that it was wrong, I wouldn't jeopardize my career and future -- if you want to pay me the higher $$ then I will take on the added responsibility.

 

[NELSON]

With controversy over the prosecutor-firing scandal swirling around the White House, the Senate takes up debate on a resolution calling on President George Bush to fire Attorney General Alberto Gonzales if he fails to meet certain benchmarks by January 2009.

The resolution, which Democrats acknowledge lacks the force of law and will fail in a close vote, nevertheless “sends a loud message to the president that Congress is serious about the integrity of the American justice system,” according to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV.

The bill is part of the Democrat leadership’s innovative “Symbolic Governance Plan” which employs the traditional legislative process to make bold political statements instead of laws.

Republican Senators Arlen Specter and John Sununu released a joint statement expressing “shock about allegations that the White House played politics with political appointments” and threatening to cross the aisle to support the Democrat resolution “if it contains adequate expressions of shock and dismay.”

Meanwhile, the president, at a joint press conference with Mr. Gonzales, said, “I remain as confident in Attorney General Al Gonzales as I am unhappy about how he handled the dismissal of these prosecutors.”

Mr. Bush then used a rolled up newspaper to swat Mr. Gonzales across the nose, before sending him to Capitol Hill to be questioned by Congress.

 

[missypie]

She has absolutely nothing to gain and lots to lose by testifying under oath before Congress. There are so many examples of people being brought up on perjury/obstruction charges, rather than what they were originally accused of - Scooter Libby, Martha Stewart, Bill Clinton. I think the Gonzalez crowd is absolutely wrong, but I'd do the same thing if I were her.

 

[Mr. Malaprop]

Given the way this has turned into a political witch-hunt, I'd take the 5th in a heartbeat and have no regrets about it.

 

[Soubrette]

I'd say its time to start the Gonzales countdown clock...even Republicans are calling for his resignation. If he lasts another week, I'll be surprised. The only reason he'd last any longer is that the administration is scared about who they'd have to pick who'd actually pass throught this Congress as a successor.

 

[Anewman]

Why isn't the fact that Clinton fired all 93 US attorney's being talked about?

And at least two of them were politically motivated.

It is being talked about, you obviously heard somebody using that excuse(probably Rush).

Yes he(Clinton) fired ALL 93 judges at the beginning of his term and replaced them ALL, he did not wait till he was a lame duck and fire judges(that he had hired himself) when they did not dismiss public corruption cases involving his own political party.

 

[DISUNC]

Why isn't the fact that Clinton fired all 93 US attorney's being talked about?

And at least two of them were politically motivated.

This is like comparing Apples & Televisions!

 

[Anewman]

This story drives my nuts. If there is nothing to hide why is this woman refusing to testify. I dont believe for a minute her excuses.

There is a long line of political scapegoats, they usually reveal themselves by taking the fifth.

 

[LuvDuke]

Why isn't the fact that Clinton fired all 93 US attorney's being talked about?

And at least two of them were politically motivated.

I see the talking points memo made the rounds today.

First, they're all politically motivated. Clinton made the most of his opportunity as did George Bush in 2001.

Second, here's the difference: While Clinton, and every other president before him, had to get Congressional approval to replace those attorneys, George Bush had no such restriction after the passage of the Patriot Act. He could hire, and fire, at will. No questions asked and no oversight needed.

So he decided to take that opportunity in 2005. Why? The American people have a right to know no matter what the rightie talking heads claim.

 

[LuvDuke]

She has absolutely nothing to gain and lots to lose by testifying under oath before Congress. There are so many examples of people being brought up on perjury/obstruction charges, rather than what they were originally accused of - Scooter Libby, Martha Stewart, Bill Clinton. I think the Gonzalez crowd is absolutely wrong, but I'd do the same thing if I were her.

If Libby, Stewart, and Clinton hadn't concocted a story, they wouldn't have been charged with perjury.

If you tell the truth, you don't get hit with perjury charges.

People who tell the truth have nothing to lose. People claim the Fifth when they have something to hide that would incriminate them. And the Bush administration has something to hide.

Thank God the American people had enough sense to give the Republicans a kick in the *** last November. Look what's been uncovered in only 2 months.

 

[LuvDuke]

I'd say its time to start the Gonzales countdown clock...even Republicans are calling for his resignation. If he lasts another week, I'll be surprised. The only reason he'd last any longer is that the administration is scared about who they'd have to pick who'd actually pass throught this Congress as a successor.

There's one other reason why Bush won't fire anyone: You never know when they might wake up and figure out that sack of crap isn't worth taking bullet over.

 

[salmoneous]

Given the way this has turned into a political witch-hunt, I'd take the 5th in a heartbeat and have no regrets about it.

But the 5th amendment only protects you from testifying about a crime you have committed or could be charged with. It's not an all-inclusive "you don't have to testify if you don't want to" rule. In particular, you aren't allowed to use the 5th amendment to avoid testifying by claiming that if you'll lie if forced to testify.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Given the way this has turned into a political witch-hunt, I'd take the 5th in a heartbeat and have no regrets about it.

After seeing the way Bushco threw Scooter Libby under the bus, methinks Goodling's angling for an immunity deal...then she'll squeal like a pig.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Which shows how little you understand the topic. Not only did Clinton fire all 93...but they were ALL politically motivated. Just as they were when Shrub did it when he took office, when Bush1 did it, and when Reagan did it before him.

But those wholesale changes at the beginning of presidential terms have nothing in common with these firings. These people were fired because they had the unmitigated gall to prosecute Republicans, and for no other reason. To Rove and the other scum, loyalty to the party is more important than justice, and this just further proves that.

I wonder how many times the facts can be stated and simply brushed aside and/or ignored by the GW Bush Glee Club?

 

[Chicago526]

Considering how in this administration it always seems to be the aide's/deputy's fault when the poop hits the fan, I don't blame her one bit for taking the 5th!

Still, taking the 5th implies laws were actually broken, up until now it seemed to me that while Bush & Co. were just playing politics with the US Attorneys, they hadn't actuall broken any laws. Now I'm starting to wonder if all this smoke indicates a fire.