Democrats react to 5th Amendment plea

Posted: Monday, March 26, 2007 6:10 PM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: White House, Congress

From NBC's Ken Strickland
Democratic Sens. Pat Leahy and Chuck Schumer expressed disappointment upon learning today's news that Monica Goodling, counsel to the attorney general, will plead the Fifth Amendment and not testify before the Judiciary Committee regarding the US attorneys controversy. "It is disappointing that Ms. Goodling has decided to withhold her important testimony from the Committee as it pursues its investigation into this matter, but everybody has the constitutional right not to incriminate themselves with regard to criminal conduct," Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement. "The American people are left to wonder what conduct is at the base of Ms. Goodling's concern that she may incriminate herself in connection with criminal charges if she appears before the Committee under oath."

Schumer added, "We are disappointed that we won't hear Ms. Goodling's testimony at the Judiciary Committee hearing, particularly given her two roles as senior member of Attorney General's team and liaison to the White House. Each day brings new developments making it even more imperative to find out what happened."

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Sorry, but if Monica decides to take the Fifth, then I am even more certain that there is something rotten, and something to hide. Yes, I agree that she has the right to do so, but it doesn't sit well that she won't even attend the inquiry for fear of incriminating herself. The alternative is that the Administration has decided to co-operate fully by saying it permits staff to appear, however the staff are instructed to take the Fifth and stonewall.

BG Portland, OR (Sent Monday, March 26, 2007 6:23 PM)

Sen. Leahy, I don't wonder what conduct is at the base of Ms. Goodling's concern that she might incriminate herself. I figure most people with a brain larger than a Republican's have known for a long time. Please don't question our intelligence like that.

JIrby, Colorado Springs (Sent Monday, March 26, 2007 6:24 PM)

Can't Congress offer Monica II immunity from prosecution? And then if she still won't testify, can't they get her for contempt of Congress and give her Judith Miller's old cell?

Jim Dwyer (Sent Monday, March 26, 2007 6:55 PM)

Taking the 5th says it all.

mikeeg,abdn,wa (Sent Monday, March 26, 2007 7:00 PM)

God, does it always have to be about Monica? Make em all do the perp walk....slimeballs on parade....Repulsiv(can)

Greg R, Spokane, WA (Sent Monday, March 26, 2007 7:01 PM)

Something Rotten in the State Of Denmark"-"Imagine"-John Lennon

Still Crazy After All These Years (Sent Monday, March 26, 2007 7:37 PM)

Alright, alright, what's all this, then? Move along - nothing to see here. Routine administration business - nothing to see - move along.

Lee in Mountain View (Sent Monday, March 26, 2007 7:43 PM)

Saw last week that Ms. Goodling was on an indefinite LOA, and figured she was off somewhere learning to say that. Wonder who her coach was. Wonder who else went to the same class she did.

M.E., Albany, Ga. (Sent Monday, March 26, 2007 8:17 PM)

Quite frankly I've found this Dept. of Justice firings business very complicated, and a bit boring. Thankfully, Jon Stewart keeps us up to date in this video: http://minor-ripper.blogspot.com/2007/03/jon-stewart-keeps-us-up-to-speed-on.html

minor ripper (Sent Monday, March 26, 2007 8:19 PM)

drip, drip, drip - soon it will all come out, gonzales will be gone (maybe to prison for lying to congress) then Shrub and Elmer Fudd are next. You can only hide behind the 5th and executive privlege for just so long. This is going to be, as ed sullivan said, A REALLY BIG SHOW! PS.jirby, I salute your line about a brain bigger then a republican, good one.

beaverdambob (Sent Monday, March 26, 2007 8:40 PM)

My mama would say,best not to talk about that.

Desmond (Sent Monday, March 26, 2007 9:24 PM)

"Testify"-(Stevie Ray Vaughan)

M.E., Albany, Ga. (Sent Monday, March 26, 2007 9:31 PM)

A little thought for Monica....and all of the rest of the Bushies, including GW himself: Every one wishes to have truth on his side, but it is not every one that sincerely wishes to be on the side of truth. -Whately

R.Merrell (Sent Tuesday, March 27, 2007 12:17 AM)

Top Department of Justice official pleads the 5th. Constitutional...yes...the appropriate thing for a "Justice" Department offiicial to do, while the American people are awaiting answers, in a Democractic society.....no. I think we all see the handwriting on the wall, the new Bush strategy for stonewalling our Nation. Corrupt, immmoral and continuing to make a mockery of so called "transparent" government. The world watches very closely, a Nation that holds itself above all others and pats itself on the back, and screeches endlessly and how "open" we are, and then top officials, in the Justice Department of all departments, avoid testifying. The irony is lost on no one. Bush and his regime have dragged this Nation about as low as is possible. No matter what Pres. Clinton/Obama/Edwards or whatever Democract is elected does, there is no place for the United States to go but up, after this horribly poisonous episode in our history.

Coy Reese, Shady Spring, West Virginia (Sent Tuesday, March 27, 2007 8:54 AM)

Oh, the irony. What does she think, the constitution protects the rights of the individual? How quaint and old fashioned! If it doesnt protect the poor slobs in Guantanomo, or the people who are wiretapped without warrents, or the folks subjected to waterboarding, it doesn't apply to a weasely executive in the Justice Dept.

Amy B Portland, ME (Sent Tuesday, March 27, 2007 10:07 AM)

She was told that she would have to lie under oath to protect the president/vice-pres/atty-gen/Rove (same as Libby) and she decided to take the 5th instead to avoid going to jail for the crime of lying under oath. After all it is the lying about the real reasons for the (semi-legal) US attoney firings that is the crime.

Russell in Maryland (Sent Tuesday, March 27, 2007 10:21 AM)

bush and the boys at their best. They can testify only in private, not under oath, or take the 5th. Great way to govern. Let’s have a big round of applause for the decider and his thugs.

R. C in Denver (Sent Tuesday, March 27, 2007 10:39 AM)

Thanks, beaverdambob. It's always the truth that matters with me. The bushies are using the 5th to cover up crimes. Nothing unusual there.

JIrby, Colorado Springs (Sent Tuesday, March 27, 2007 10:46 AM)

Jim Dwyer==Could be that she could wind up in jail for contempt, remember Susan McDougal.

Seattle Sue (Sent Tuesday, March 27, 2007 10:57 AM)

You can't wind up in jail for refusing to testify when you assert your 5th Amendemnt rights. Everyone is constitutionally permitted to refuse to answer questions that would tend to incriminate them; thus, refusal to answer such questions cannot result in a contempt charge. Reporters who refuse to give up sources are not doing so under the 5th Amendment.

Carrie, NW Iowa (Sent Tuesday, March 27, 2007 11:59 AM)

Why are the die hard replublican loyalist's on the other posts not here to defend such a noble act by one of their scorned party members?

MK,MO (Sent Tuesday, March 27, 2007 12:20 PM)

MK,MO-In regard to the one with split-personality, As my father would say, I believe their mouth has overloaded their ass. It's got to be hard on them to keep up with answers for all the different personas they concoct for the day. I have noticed that when they don't get an immediate answer, they are now using one of their "multi-personalities" to answer their own posts. I believe the person has serious issues. But....then again, they could be having trouble adjusting that damper you spoke of.

M.E., Albany, Ga. (Sent Tuesday, March 27, 2007 2:08 PM)

MK-I was wondering the same thing.

MM (Sent Tuesday, March 27, 2007 2:51 PM)

Wake me up when this non-story is over. No crime here...nothing to see here...keep moving. These people serve "at the pleasure of the president" as political appointees. He can get rid of them at ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON. If Dems don't like it, then they should change the method for appointing the USA's. If not, then move along to some other witch hunt. No law was broken here.

Frank "Grimey" Grimes, Springfield, USA (Sent Tuesday, March 27, 2007 3:03 PM)

Grimey, "No crime here..." Then why is Monica taking the 5th? By the way, the method for appointing the USA's is the issue and the Congress, both Republics and Democrats, have voted to change the way the so-called Patriot Act allowed the Bushies to try to pull this stunt.

rick (Sent Tuesday, March 27, 2007 3:30 PM)

Rick...exactly! They changed the way it is now done. The Patriot Act provision is now gone. That's a good thing...now they must be confirmed by the Senate again. (I believe that's the way it should be). But, this doesn't change the fact that they can be fired for any reason at any time. If they don't like that, then they should change that part of the law so that the President needs the Senate's approval to fire someone. (That would be ridiculous). It also doesn't change the fact that no laws were broken when this was done. The President can fire them for any reason at any time, and under the Patriot Act provision that was the law at the time, he did not need approval for this. Sorry...case closed. As for this Monica person...only her and her lawyer know why she's taking the fifth. And I'm not her lawyer! ;)

Frank "Grimey" Grimes, Springfield, USA (Sent Tuesday, March 27, 2007 3:40 PM)

We don't know if any laws were broken or not. As I posted yesterday, there are 2 possible crimes: 1) Gonzales may have lied to Congress; and 2) There may have been obstruction of justice if the firings took place in order to halt specific investigations. Both are serious. In addition, there is an issue of Gonzales' competency which should be worked through. I don't know if there were laws broken or not, but the way to find out is through investigation. If the police were called to any situation where a possible crime had been committed and the story they got from the people involved kept changing and then people started taking the 5th, that wouldn't negate suspicions, it would just raise them. Same thing here. If there was no crime committed then why the elaborate and concerted effort to evade investigation and why evoke a protection that implies that you don't want to say something that could incriminate yourself if you haven't done anything incriminating?

M - In Texas (Sent Tuesday, March 27, 2007 5:49 PM)

The fact that the American people were lied to about WHY these US Attorneys were being fired means that there is something going on here that is either not right, ethical, or legal. If this is all on the up and up, then go under oath and tell the truth. This is nothing more than what the republicans would want if it was the other way around.

MM (Sent Wednesday, March 28, 2007 2:56 PM)

This stuff will go on until there is a new president. I love my country, but I'm ashamed to be represented by an administration such as this. We the people are losing touch with our own rights and are letting people who run on greed in the name of God to totally dismantle what should be the greatest nation of all.

MS USA (Sent Wednesday, April 11, 2007 5:46 AM)

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=101613