« What IF They Threw Libby under a Bus? | Main | Waxman Gets Busy »

March 26, 2007


I see RawStory was picking up on Sampson deciding to invoke the fifth in front of Leahy's committee this week. Us out to sea folk would call that battening down the hatches.

change that to Monica Goodling taking the 5th, Josh just corrected.

Kagro X,

This post currently looks a little messed up (partially duplicated content). FWIW, I'll put my advice out there. The Judiciary Committee ought to begin impeachment proceedings against Alberto Gonzales. That would be pointless if we were dealing with any other White House (any other AG would have already resigned), but this one just might to try to fight it out. If they did fight it, the constitutional grounds shift considerably. I can't imagine a scenario where executive privilege would trump an impeachment investigation.

The first step in impeachment is drawing up the charges. The ground is shifting so fast, that is difficult to do, but i wouldn't be surprised if Conyers has some staff looking into that. Then the Committee debates the charges. We are nowhere near ready for that phase because so much is still unfolding. I'd look at Conyers' document and testimony requests. He's going to build a case at least for lying to Congress through the people just below Gonzales.

And Monica Goodling taking the 5th really doesn't look good for them. How can a taxpayer-supported employee refuse to testify to Congress?

But did they get to the Ninth Commandment?

As for Monica Goodling,

Of the aide, Monica Goodling, who has served as the Justice Department's liaison to the White House, the lawyer notes, "She's a graduate of Regent University Law School in Virginia Beach - a law school that teaches law from a Christian perspective," accredited fairly recently, in 1996.
(H/t Laura Rozen.)

How can a taxpayer-supported employee refuse to testify to Congress?

And also have a lawyer whose charges will eat her annual pay in a week, too; over at FDL someone commented that Dowd's bill must already have hit 10K. Is there a Monica Goodling defense fund that we haven't heard about?

Should Conyers get a hopper full of impeachment resolutions, citing the AG's lying to Congressional Committees, and then lay out an investigation, he could give Goodling limited use immunity to testify in an impeachment investigation. Likewise, Executive Privilege is not all that useful in an impeachment process -- which would get Conyers to Rove-under-oath.

There is also an old process -- I believe the last time it was used was during Teapot Dome, where the House can try a contempt of Congress charge in the well of the House, and use its own "Cell in the deep Basement" to keep custody of one found in contempt until they testify, and void their contempt. Back in the early 1960's a friend was working for Hubert Humphrey, and he got me in on a tour of the never seen bits and pieces of the Capitol, and I vividly remember the little jail, which was built at the time of the Civil War -- and it had no toilets, just Chamber Pots. I don't know whether they would want to revive this old Contempt of Congress process -- but Turdblossem on Chamber Pot gets a giggle from me.

Gah, nothing's ever easy, you know? Reformatted.

By the way, as a treat for TNH readers, I'll give you a sneak preview of what's next: certain Members of Congress are taking a hard look at dusting off the antiquated procedure of "inherent contempt," involving the charging, arrest, trial and imprisonment of contemnors all exclusively under legislative branch authority.


The House used to conduct its own contempt proceedings up until about 70 years ago. I half-jokingly suggested someone ask Sen Byrd how it's done. Since there is an inherent conflict of interest in the DOJ investigating itself, the Congress has to go back to taking care of its own business. Unfortunately, Fitz' mandate doesn't cover the US Attorney scandal, or I would suggest asking him to handle the case.

oops. sorry Kagro, I didnt notice the byline.

lets clear a few things up here:

first off, Monica Goodling has to prove that she has an actual case of self incrimination before she can invoke her 5th Amendment rights

this dumb bitch can't just "claim" 5th Amendment protections in a vacumn. There has to be an under-lying crime, and monica goodling PERSONALLY has to be culpable for criminal charges in that case before she can claim any 5th Amendment protections.

from what I've heard, monica goodling just has a claim that the Democrats are being mean, and the fact that some people who have testified before congress have been prosecuted for perjury, so monica goodling fears to testify

this AIN'T gonna qualify as a valid invocation of 5th Amendment rights, so monica goodling can kiss my shiny white ass, raise her hand, take the oath, and answer the FUCKING questions. or she can rot in a jail cell intil she chjanges her mind

next up, Congress has the power to allow the Sargent At Arms of the House of Representatives to serve subpeonas, and to serve contempt of Congress Warrents, so the USAs ain't the only body that can enforce contempt of Congress rulings

and third, did I hear a repuglican Senator calling for impeachment ???

that didn't take too long, did it ???

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad