Come on people, no one knew this was coming?
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales’s senior counselor yesterday refused to testify in the Senate about her involvement in the firings of eight U.S. attorneys, invoking her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
Monica M. Goodling, who has taken an indefinite leave of absence, said in a sworn affidavit to the Senate Judiciary Committee that she will "decline to answer any and all questions" about the firings because she faces "a perilous environment in which to testify."
[…]Goodling, who was also Justice’s liaison to the White House, and her lawyers alleged that Democratic lawmakers have already concluded that improper motives were at play in Justice’s dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys last year. Goodling also pointed to indications that Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty blames her and others for not fully briefing him, leading to inaccurate testimony to Congress.
Of course the WaPo decided to leave out some important facts, all of which were laid out in the Goodling letter:
John Dowd, Goodling’s lawyer, suggested in a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., that the Democrat-led panel has laid what amounts to a perjury trap for his client.
…"The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real," Dowd said. Goodling was key to the Justice Department’s political response to the growing controversy. She took a leave of absence last week.
"One need look no further than the recent circumstances and proceedings involving Lewis Libby," Dowd said, a reference to the recent conviction of Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff in the CIA leak case.
You can read the complete letter here.
So Goodling and her lawyer understand, as most of us already do, that the Democrats believe there was improper motives for the dismissals and this is now a witchhunt. The Libby trial taught them that this sort of thing is a setup for a perjury trial, plain and simple.
People will say "well if she is telling the truth then there will not be any perjury" which is a very naive way at looking at this. How about if someone else’s memory is faulty and states different times, dates, discussions, etc…as happened in the Libby fiasco?
What then? Cough…Libby….Cough…
Take a look at that WaPo article again and read this following sentence:
Goodling also pointed to indications that Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty blames her and others for not fully briefing him, leading to inaccurate testimony to Congress.
So it appears McNulty is already blaming her for the screwed up testimony. If this is true then her memory of events doesn’t match his, who is telling the truth?
The Libby fiasco will have repercussions for many years to come for exactly these types of reasons.
Only an idiot would testify to this partisan bunch, it’s all a game of gotcha to these folks and the truth matters not. What matters is the hint of corruption that the MSM will print based on all this tomfoolery.
See author page
