Goodling's Lawyers Protest Justice Department Probe Revelation

[maddezmom]

Source: Bloomberg

Goodling's Lawyers Protest Justice Department Probe Revelation James Rowley
Thu May 3, 6:06 PM ET



May 3 (Bloomberg) -- Lawyers for former U.S. Justice Department aide Monica Goodling protested the agency's announcement of an internal investigation into whether she improperly considered the political affiliation of applicants to be prosecutors.

Goodling, 33, who resigned last month as an aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, has invoked her constitutional right against self-incrimination to refuse to tell Congress about her role in the firing of eight U.S. attorneys.

Her Washington lawyers, John Dowd and Jeffrey King, said in a letter they are disturbed that the Justice Department revealed the inquiry eight days after a House committee voted to compel Goodling's testimony by authorizing a grant of limited immunity from prosecution.

``The timing of your release smacks of retribution and intimidation,'' Dowd and King wrote. The letter is addressed to Glenn Fine, the Justice Department's inspector general, and H. Marshall Jarrett, counsel for agency's Office of Professional Responsibility.


Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20070503/pl_bloomberg/afb52ldtdji0_1

---

~snip~

In a letter on Thursday to the department, Ms. Goodling’s lawyer, John M. Dowd, said she would refuse to cooperate with the internal investigation, citing her constitutional right to avoid self-incrimination. The letter was written to the department’s inspector general and Office of Professional Responsibility, which are jointly conducting the inquiry.

Ms. Goodling had previously refused to appear before the House Judiciary Committee, which has voted to grant her immunity from prosecution to obtain her testimony about her role in the dismissals.

It is not clear whether the department’s inquiry would interfere with the House efforts to secure her immunized testimony, but Mr. Dowd in his letter expressed annoyance that the department had disclosed its inquiry.

“The timing,” he wrote, “smacks of retribution and intimidation.”

more:

[John Q. Citizen]

1. All the rats are scambling now, turning on each other, pointing fingers at each other.

Pass the popcorn. This is getting good...

[Fresh_Start]

2. smacks of retribution

gee, imagine GOPers taking revenge on people who don't toe the line. Goodling's SHOCKED because she's never witnessed such behavior before.

[jaysunb]

3. Hum Monica....Hum

And then SING my lovely....you're only 33. You can still have a future. Look at David Brock & John Dean. :evilgrin:

[w4rma]

5. No kidding. She should think of the books she can sell if she sings.

If she's the greedy type.

Or the morals and ethics that she will be promoting if she sings, if she's not into material things.

Either way, she's in a sweet position right now. She's got her immunity from prosecution. She should sing like a canary.

[papau]

8. She'll sell books on morals and ethics post testimony ala Bennet - w/ NYT reviews I'm sure. n/t

n/t

[McCamy Taylor]

4. Her lawyers are better than Guido and the divinity lawschool people at the DOJ.

AGAG can not even run a sucessful "retribution and intimidation" campaign without making it heavy handed and setting his department up for more bitch slapping at the hands of Congress.

Maybe none of the lawyers at DOJ is thinking this stuff up. Maybe it all comes straight from Rove and Justice is too scared of him to tell him that it is a bad idea.

Or maybe Regency just turns out dumb as bags of rocks attorneys.

[Cobalt-60]

9. more than half fail their bar exam from regency

[Demeter]

17. Both n/t

[caligirl]

6. repugs good at dirthy street sports with ax handles, a new low for Gonzo.

The game: Stop her from getting, keeping, immunity by disclosing the investigation in a leak. Look out fella's, gonzo has his goons circling the block.

[alittlelark]

7. She has been granted immunity... she has no 5th

That is my take on it. They granted her immunity in order to get the TRUTH of the story.

She can tell the truth (even horribly incriminating) and get off scott-free, or she can obfuscate and lie to Congress for whatever moral/religious/whatever reasons and have a criminal record.

It's her choice.

[EST]

11. The plot may be that the internal investigation takes precedence, however.

Since the DOJ is investigating her, they could well block the judiciary committee's immunity grant, since they can indict and force her to testify, themselves, they have a legitimate gripe. Their investigation could then stall congress for long enough so their plotting could be at least partially successful and themselves come up with a plan (preemptive pardons?) to stay permanently off the hook and stop any future investigations.

I think that's what they have in mind and they can probably pull it off. Of course, I also think, although they are skillfully deceptive (not Gonzo; he's merely a dumb, useful tool,) they seriously underestimate the crafty old masters-Leahy and Conyers-as well as underestimating the pissed-off-ed-ness of these gentlemen. There are several other intelligent members who are reaching for the axe, too.

[Polemicist]

10. Congress will now delay her testimony...

Because they won't want to let her take the stand with immunity in front of Congress and spill the beans about everything that happened, with her involvement, that was of a criminal nature. Cause basically she would be using her Congressional testimony to immunize herself against criminal or civil action by our judicial system.

This is how Oliver North walked during Iran-Contra. Federal prosecutors couldn't go after him on any crime they learned about due to his Congressional testimony. I don't think Congress is going to make the same mistake with Goodling. All they have to do is give Justice some time to investigate prior to Goodling's Congressional testimony. In fact, they likely could share their info with the Justice internal investigation, as long as the sharing is prior to Goodling's testimony. If they trust the independent investigator's office to not be eaten up with partisan Bushites.

I bet her lawyers were spitting mad. This screws up their entire "get her off scot-free" masterplan.

[Tiggeroshii]

12. Wow.

So they can use evidence to collectedby te DOJ to prosecute her and then the evidence she gives against Gonzalez and Bush co to take care of them?

Very interesting...

[Polemicist]

14. Yep, if they play it right, that's exactly what they will do...

From what I understand, Congressional immunity will not apply to any prosecutable crimes that the Justice Department has already uncovered concerning Ms. Goodling, prior to her Congressional testimony. But immunity will cover anything Goodling tells Congress that Justice investigators aren't aware of before her testimony. Sort of a reverse "fruit of the poisoned tree".

I'm just not sure how "independent" that Justice Dept. investigator really is. It's a damn shame we have to even ask that question. Is that one of the Justice offices that was salted with Bushie political partisans in anticipation of the looming fights with a Democratically controlled Congress? I'll be looking into that question today. If anybody knows who the investigator is and anything about his/her background, please share it with us.

Eventually Goodling must testify before Congress. Cause the bigger fish they want to fry are in the Office of Political Affairs in the White House. And Goodling is the direct link to them, acting as an assistant to the AG and WH liaison. She is absolutely at the nexus of the crime. So Congress won't wait forever on Justice. So if the "Investigator" is a Bushie, trying to gum up the works, Congress will only wait so long, before tossing the life-line to Goodling with the "get out of jail free card".

Normally before someone is given immunity, there is a proffer meeting, where the nature of the testimony is discussed, to determine if it is substantive enough to merit immunity (note - I'm not an attorney this is at the limits of my knowledge). I wonder if a proffer meeting occurred between Goodling, her attorneys, and Congressional staff and lawyers before immunity was authorized by the committee? And if so, what does the committee already know about Goodling's testimony? They likely couldn't legally share any information gained in a proffer meeting with the Justice investigators. But it could have been leaked.

[Mendocino]

13. Good news bad news

Good-Monica, we're going to provide you with a team of lawyers.

Bad-They all went to Regent.

[Ian David]

15. How do you "intimidate" someone who has immunity? n/t

[Vinca]

16. They're beginning to eat their own. nt

[SpiralHawk]

18. What would Jesus do?

I know what he wouldn't do. He wouldn't lie and hide the truth from the American people to cover the butts of a bunch of corrupt republicon cronies.