Gonzales aide who asserted Fifth resigns

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Text

By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - A top aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales abruptly quit Friday, almost two weeks after telling Congress she would not testify about her role in the firings of federal prosecutors.

There was no immediate reason given, but Monica M. Goodling's refusal to face Congress had intensified a controversy that threatens Gonzales' job.

She resigned in a three-sentence letter to Gonzales, calling her five-year stint at Justice an honor and telling him, "May God bless you richly as you continue your service to America."

Asserting her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, Goodling had rejected demands for a private interview with a House committee investigating the firings of eight U.S. attorneys.

She was senior counsel to Gonzales and was the department's White House liaison before she took a leave amid the uproar over the ousters.

The Justice Department declined comment on the resignation.

Goodling is at the center of the controversy because, as the bridge between the Justice Department and the White House, she may be best suited to explain how deeply Karl Rove and other members of President Bush's political team might have been involved in the firings. Congress also wants her to testify on Gonzales' role in light of his shifting explanations.

Her resignation came less than two weeks before Gonzales' own planned testimony to Congress, which may determine his fate as attorney general. Several Republican lawmakers have joined Democrats in calling for his resignation or dismissal over the firings and other matters at Justice.

Goodling's attorney, John Dowd, confirmed she had resigned but declined further comment.

Her resignation is the third by a Justice Department official who helped plan and coordinate the dismissals of the prosecutors, an effort that began shortly after President Bush won re-election in 2004.

Gonzales' chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, resigned under fire March 12 for orchestrating the firings.

Additionally, Mike Battle, the former director of the department's executive office of U.S. attorneys, announced several weeks ago that he was leaving to join a private law firm. Battle's resignation has not been linked directly to the controversy, although he helped notify some of the U.S. attorneys that they would be asked to leave.

"While Monica Goodling had no choice but to resign, this is the third Justice Department official involved in the U.S attorney firings who has stepped down," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., who was among the first senators to question the firings and the first to call for Gonzales' resignation.

"Attorney General Gonzales' hold on the department gets more tenuous each day," Schumer said in a statement.

Gonzales is also under fire for the FBI's improper and in some cases illegal prying into Americans' personal information during terror and spy probes.

Goodling's lawyers have asked Rep. John Conyers (news, bio, voting record), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, not to compel her to appear at a public hearing knowing of her intention to invoke the Fifth Amendment and refuse to answer questions.

Her lawyers have said such a hearing would be a perjury trap for her. They note allegations that Goodling misled Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty before he testified to Congress about the ousters, causing him to give an incomplete and possibly inaccurate account.

Goodling's mother, Cindy Fitt of Osceola Mills, Pa., said the resignation had been anticipated. "She told me I'm to say 'no comment' for everything," the mother said in a brief telephone interview.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hopefully Gonzales is next on the list of people who "resign" in this scandal. This administration can't buy an ounce of good PR since November 2006.

The last statement, by her mother, is comedy gold. I'm 100% sure that the official line for the Justice Department regarding anything asked of them is "no comment".
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Her lawyers have said such a hearing would be a perjury trap for her. They note allegations that Goodling misled Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty before he testified to Congress about the ousters, causing him to give an incomplete and possibly inaccurate account.
Aww... The poor baby's caught between lying and lying about her lies. It sounds like her lawyer just admitted she lied one way or another.

Top personnel working in the Department of Justice are supposed to be chasing the criminals, not committing the crimes. The foxes ARE guarding the henhouse! :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:
And they silence the voices arising,
From those who would show us the light,
With their guys with their spies in the skies watching you and your neighbor.

And Who's Watching Over Who's Watching Over You?
Tell me, who's telling who's telling you what to do what to do?
I hope they call her to testify, give her enough immunity to overcome the objection and grill her. If she declines to answer, jail her sorry ass for Contempt.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,021
55,485
136
Uhmmm... you can't compel testimony over the 5th amendment. That's the whole point.

What IS a question though is that she says that she is using it to protect herself from perjury charges, and that is something you can't use the 5th to protect yourself from. (because then nobody could ever get any testimony ever)

Congress could grant her immunity and then compel testimony from her though, I wonder if they are considering that?
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Goodling's mother, Cindy Fitt of Osceola Mills, Pa., said the resignation had been anticipated. "She told me I'm to say 'no comment' for everything," the mother said in a brief telephone interview.

Well at least there is some minor humor in this---someone told her mommy on her.---but no comment will not feed a single bulldog.

But I doubt that her resignation will do anything to deter the truth from coming out----I tend to suspect a subpoena will be served---she will take the fifth---congress will grant her a limited grant of immunity from prosecution in exchange for telling the truth---and that will put her on the horns of a dilemma.---she can consult with Judy Miller---but she will fail to tell the truth at her own peril.

At this moment in history----I can't summon up an ounce of pity for her---she owes the American people the truth for the taxpayer salary she accepted.---after that I can find compassion and redemption.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Uhmmm... you can't compel testimony over the 5th amendment. That's the whole point.

What IS a question though is that she says that she is using it to protect herself from perjury charges, and that is something you can't use the 5th to protect yourself from. (because then nobody could ever get any testimony ever)

Congress could grant her immunity and then compel testimony from her though, I wonder if they are considering that?
Congress did that during the Iran-Contra thing and because of that North never went to jail. (let's not debate whether he should/should not have been in jail)

Wonder if congress will make that mistake again.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Uhmmm... you can't compel testimony over the 5th amendment. That's the whole point.

What IS a question though is that she says that she is using it to protect herself from perjury charges, and that is something you can't use the 5th to protect yourself from. (because then nobody could ever get any testimony ever)

Congress could grant her immunity and then compel testimony from her though, I wonder if they are considering that?
Congress did that during the Iran-Contra thing and because of that North never went to jail. (let's not debate whether he should/should not have been in jail)

Wonder if congress will make that mistake again.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You may not be a professor---but maybe you are an attorney-- but thank you for confirming my point---a limited grant of immunity will trump any fifth amendment plea.

But you are really getting skinny when you link the ATF raids with attorney firings in 2/93.
After all, Clinton had only been in office for less than a month.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,021
55,485
136
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Congress did that during the Iran-Contra thing and because of that North never went to jail. (let's not debate whether he should/should not have been in jail)

Wonder if congress will make that mistake again.

I would prefer to find out what is going on in our government then to jail any one particular person.

Regardless of that, it doesn't appear like the 5th amendment really applies to what she's trying to use it for here. (ie. she says she doesn't want to get charged with perjury later) I doubt the democrats are going to push the issue though, as they seem to have enough ammo without her.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Uhmmm... you can't compel testimony over the 5th amendment. That's the whole point.

What IS a question though is that she says that she is using it to protect herself from perjury charges, and that is something you can't use the 5th to protect yourself from. (because then nobody could ever get any testimony ever)

Congress could grant her immunity and then compel testimony from her though, I wonder if they are considering that?

Interesting.

But I mean, if you're taking the 5th it would seem that they can't make you say why you're taking it. (Why am you taking the 5th? "Umm because I did it but don't want to incriminate myself" OK, just checking to make sure that it wasn't cuz you were worried about perjury charges.....)

I though those who take the 5th just have their lawyers answer on their behalf that they're taking the 5th and won't respon to any questions.

Would seem even if legally inappropriate, very difficult to enforce.

Fern
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,018
37
91
Originally posted by: Lemon law

But you are really getting skinny when you link the ATF raids with attorney firings in 2/93.
After all, Clinton had only been in office for less than a month.

:laugh: Right right, so after only one month in office, the Clinton Administration had enough data on every US attorney to ask them all to resign????

If you cannot say that is worse than these being asked to resign after the Bush Administration has been in office for 6 years and would know by now if they wanted them here still or not, then that is truly amazing...what Clinton did is magnitudes worse, they just had no clue but wanted to start clean with their own people...very nice...

Chuck
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,021
55,485
136
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Uhmmm... you can't compel testimony over the 5th amendment. That's the whole point.

What IS a question though is that she says that she is using it to protect herself from perjury charges, and that is something you can't use the 5th to protect yourself from. (because then nobody could ever get any testimony ever)

Congress could grant her immunity and then compel testimony from her though, I wonder if they are considering that?

Interesting.

But I mean, if you're taking the 5th it would seem that they can't make you say why you're taking it. (Why am you taking the 5th? "Umm because I did it but don't want to incriminate myself" OK, just checking to make sure that it wasn't cuz you were worried about perjury charges.....)

I though those who take the 5th just have their lawyers answer on their behalf that they're taking the 5th and won't respon to any questions.

Would seem even if legally inappropriate, very difficult to enforce.

Fern

Usually the 5th is taken in response to a specific question or series of questions... and you do have to give a reason for why you are taking it. (because in a practical sense people would simply take it every time they were asked a question that would be detrimental to their side's case if it weren't that way). There are many ways around it through various immunities, etc... the primary purpose is to keep the government from using coerced testimony from someone to put that same person in jail due to the abuses of that in England.

The biggest reason why you can't take the 5th for perjury though is because you can't use it to prevent yourself from being punished for a future crime (the perjury itself). In fact if you look at a lot of the case law, the 5th amendment has been used as a powerful protection against purjury in trials. (ie. we're not going to put you in a situation where you will certainly lie... so we can more readily believe the testimony that you DO give)

Her lawyer actually gave a set of reasons why she was taking it, and the long and short of those reasons were that she didn't want to participate in a hostile forum with democratic senators (which is pretty much a given) and that she was afraid that things she would say would be used in a later perjury trial. Neither one of these are viable applications of the 5th.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,775
6,770
126
Originally posted by: chucky2
Originally posted by: Lemon law

But you are really getting skinny when you link the ATF raids with attorney firings in 2/93.
After all, Clinton had only been in office for less than a month.

:laugh: Right right, so after only one month in office, the Clinton Administration had enough data on every US attorney to ask them all to resign????

If you cannot say that is worse than these being asked to resign after the Bush Administration has been in office for 6 years and would know by now if they wanted them here still or not, then that is truly amazing...what Clinton did is magnitudes worse, they just had no clue but wanted to start clean with their own people...very nice...

Chuck

Oh no, hehe, there's no such thing as getting everybody up speed.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: chucky2
Originally posted by: Lemon law

But you are really getting skinny when you link the ATF raids with attorney firings in 2/93.
After all, Clinton had only been in office for less than a month.

:laugh: Right right, so after only one month in office, the Clinton Administration had enough data on every US attorney to ask them all to resign????

If you cannot say that is worse than these being asked to resign after the Bush Administration has been in office for 6 years and would know by now if they wanted them here still or not, then that is truly amazing...what Clinton did is magnitudes worse, they just had no clue but wanted to start clean with their own people...very nice...

Chuck

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wrong---what Clinton did is the traditional right of an in coming President---to start with a clean slate of his appointees---most incoming Presidents do the same. What is highly unusual is what GWB did---which is to fire a good many of his own slate of attorneys mid-term---and for clearly political reasons --totally unprecedented in scope in our nation's entire history.

And now many documents leave it almost beyond any doubt---the firings were not based on the performance of the attorneys---who are supposed to work for the people and be independent---but were in fact because they were not being sufficiently partisan and biased.

And now almost no doubt about it---GWB&co. are busted. And worse yet---their earlier cover stories can't be supported by their own records. And to add insult to injury--they tried to sneak any re-appoints past Senate confirmation by invoking a clause of the Patriot act never intended to for the purpose.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
Monica Goodling? Deja Vu all over again? Sure this resignation could not be about a little tension relief?
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,018
37
91
Originally posted by: Lemon law

Wrong---what Clinton did is the traditional right of an in coming President---to start with a clean slate of his appointees---most incoming Presidents do the same. What is highly unusual is what GWB did---which is to fire a good many of his own slate of attorneys mid-term---and for clearly political reasons --totally unprecedented in scope in our nation's entire history.

And now many documents leave it almost beyond any doubt---the firings were not based on the performance of the attorneys---who are supposed to work for the people and be independent---but were in fact because they were not being sufficiently partisan and biased.

And now almost no doubt about it---GWB&co. are busted. And worse yet---their earlier cover stories can't be supported by their own records. And to add insult to injury--they tried to sneak any re-appoints past Senate confirmation by invoking a clause of the Patriot act never intended to for the purpose.

I'm sorry, that makes absolutely no sense, your logic there doesn't even hold water. If the firings should be based on the performance of the attorneys, then how is OK for Clinton to have fired all of them in one sweep?

If anything, Bush did a better job in only getting rid of a few...your saying that it's because the Bush Admin. decided 6 years in, Well, these ones we want to go, but Clinton said, F it, all of'em are gone, that's somehow worth all this bruhaha?

I guess what Clinton did would truly be Mission Accomplished!

Chuck
 

MaxisOne

Senior member
May 14, 2004
727
7
81
New president ... new appointees... the clean slate approach is more than appropriate in the Clinton case .. as a matter of fact .. its the norm ... When a new president is elected resignations are usually tendered by the heads of the various government agencies that serve at the pleasure of the president and the incoming president decides to accept and appoint someone else or allow them to continue. "The Senators from the respective home state" are then invited to either recommend a person or "veto" a recommendation as the normal courtesy. This "veto power" is quasi valid due to the fact that the appointee in question probably will not get confirmed in the senate if the appointee's home state Senator does not endorse the appointee. Clinton's actions where 100% above board and a horrendous analogy to use regarding this present fiasco.

Essentially ... if your job is listed in this book and listed as type PAS or PA.. all bets are off at the start of a new administration

Seriously ... please go take a few political science classes or two ...
 

Aegeon

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2004
1,809
125
106
To further clarify, while the President is supposed to be able to pick federal prosecutors he is comfortable with, albeit with Senate approval needed, when he initially takes office, after this he has been expected to basically leave them alone. The rare post Presidential transition firings in the past have been due to strong incompetence or serious scandal involving the personal actions of a federal prosecutor. Firing federal prosecutors for political reasons is a very different matter and a serious concern since federal prosecutors closely interact with the rest of the Federal Judicial Branch and have previously been able to maintain a degree of independence. If this is taken away federal prosecutors may be afraid to pursue charges against powerful politicians in the same party as the current President for fear of losing their jobs, and just as damagingly could be pressured to pursue federal investigations with little evidence at politically inconvenient times near elections against candidates from the party currently out of power.
 

thujone

Golden Member
Jun 15, 2003
1,158
0
71
Originally posted by: chucky2
Originally posted by: Lemon law

Wrong---what Clinton did is the traditional right of an in coming President---to start with a clean slate of his appointees---most incoming Presidents do the same. What is highly unusual is what GWB did---which is to fire a good many of his own slate of attorneys mid-term---and for clearly political reasons --totally unprecedented in scope in our nation's entire history.

And now many documents leave it almost beyond any doubt---the firings were not based on the performance of the attorneys---who are supposed to work for the people and be independent---but were in fact because they were not being sufficiently partisan and biased.

And now almost no doubt about it---GWB&co. are busted. And worse yet---their earlier cover stories can't be supported by their own records. And to add insult to injury--they tried to sneak any re-appoints past Senate confirmation by invoking a clause of the Patriot act never intended to for the purpose.

I'm sorry, that makes absolutely no sense, your logic there doesn't even hold water. If the firings should be based on the performance of the attorneys, then how is OK for Clinton to have fired all of them in one sweep?

If anything, Bush did a better job in only getting rid of a few...your saying that it's because the Bush Admin. decided 6 years in, Well, these ones we want to go, but Clinton said, F it, all of'em are gone, that's somehow worth all this bruhaha?

I guess what Clinton did would truly be Mission Accomplished!

Chuck

the issue isn't THAT they were fired... or WHEN they were fired... or even HOW MANY were fired...


it's WHY they were fired.

 
Aug 1, 2006
1,308
0
0
Originally posted by: chucky2
Originally posted by: Lemon law

Wrong---what Clinton did is the traditional right of an in coming President---to start with a clean slate of his appointees---most incoming Presidents do the same. What is highly unusual is what GWB did---which is to fire a good many of his own slate of attorneys mid-term---and for clearly political reasons --totally unprecedented in scope in our nation's entire history.

And now many documents leave it almost beyond any doubt---the firings were not based on the performance of the attorneys---who are supposed to work for the people and be independent---but were in fact because they were not being sufficiently partisan and biased.

And now almost no doubt about it---GWB&co. are busted. And worse yet---their earlier cover stories can't be supported by their own records. And to add insult to injury--they tried to sneak any re-appoints past Senate confirmation by invoking a clause of the Patriot act never intended to for the purpose.

I'm sorry, that makes absolutely no sense, your logic there doesn't even hold water. If the firings should be based on the performance of the attorneys, then how is OK for Clinton to have fired all of them in one sweep?

If anything, Bush did a better job in only getting rid of a few...your saying that it's because the Bush Admin. decided 6 years in, Well, these ones we want to go, but Clinton said, F it, all of'em are gone, that's somehow worth all this bruhaha?

I guess what Clinton did would truly be Mission Accomplished!

Chuck

Yeah, getting rid of a few that were either prosecuting Republicans or NOT prosecuting Democrats with enough alacrity. See the diff? I'm sure you can't but I thought I'd ask anyway.
 

smashp

Platinum Member
Aug 30, 2003
2,443
0
0
She need to just go in front of congress and Tell the truth. Its what Jesus would do.

Problem is she is stuck , If I lie....Perjury If i tell the truth I ruin my career by damaging other.


Time to be an adult little girl
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: Lemon law
But you are really getting skinny when you link the ATF raids with attorney firings in 2/93.
After all, Clinton had only been in office for less than a month.
I was pointing out all the crap that happened under Reno and despite all of these problems the Democrats didn't have any problems with her.

I am thinking that the next President will following in Clinton's foot steps and fire them all right at the start of their term so they can replace them with like minded people.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Congress did that during the Iran-Contra thing and because of that North never went to jail. (let's not debate whether he should/should not have been in jail)

Wonder if congress will make that mistake again.

I would prefer to find out what is going on in our government then to jail any one particular person.

Regardless of that, it doesn't appear like the 5th amendment really applies to what she's trying to use it for here. (ie. she says she doesn't want to get charged with perjury later) I doubt the democrats are going to push the issue though, as they seem to have enough ammo without her.
After what happened to Libby can you blame her?
Libby did not break any laws in what he actually did, but because his statements were inconsistent he is facing jail time.

Put yourself in her shoes. What would you rather do? Risk jail time, or just plead the 5th and be happy at home.
 

smashp

Platinum Member
Aug 30, 2003
2,443
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Congress did that during the Iran-Contra thing and because of that North never went to jail. (let's not debate whether he should/should not have been in jail)

Wonder if congress will make that mistake again.

I would prefer to find out what is going on in our government then to jail any one particular person.

Regardless of that, it doesn't appear like the 5th amendment really applies to what she's trying to use it for here. (ie. she says she doesn't want to get charged with perjury later) I doubt the democrats are going to push the issue though, as they seem to have enough ammo without her.
After what happened to Libby can you blame her?
Libby did not break any laws in what he actually did, but because his statements were inconsistent he is facing jail time.

Put yourself in her shoes. What would you rather do? Risk jail time, or just plead the 5th and be happy at home.


Then Don't Lie and tell the Truth. Its that Simple

Libby Was Lying to protect his Boss........... See Falling on sword
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: smashp
Then Don't Lie and tell the Truth. Its that Simple

Libby Was Lying to protect his Boss........... See Falling on sword
That?s your view through your partisan glasses.
Libby?s view is that he did not recall talking to other members of the press etc etc.

Now imagine she gets up in front of congress and says ?I don?t recall any meeting in which X X X was mentioned as a reason to remove this person from office?
And another person in the meeting shows up with notes saying that X X X was in fact talked about.

Now maybe she was lying about X X X, or more likely she just didn?t remember it because it was not important to her at the time. Either way she could be facing jail time.
She?d be stupid to put herself at risk like that.

Even you should be able to admit that.

BTW your "lying to protect the boss" statement is based on what evidence? I don't recall any evidence that points to that being the case. Did I miss that?