Welcome to Gonzales Watch - Blawging the Ex-Attorney General

Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy (Dem. - Vt.) responded to Monica Goodling’s assertion of her Fifth Amendment privilege with a weighy rhetorical question: what might she be trying to hide?

“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.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.”

Leahy’s response is right on point with what is sure to be on the minds of many Americans as the U.S. Attorney firings scandal continues.

If, as the Justice Department Counsel to Gonzales maintains (through criminal defense lawyer John Dowd), she has a legitimate fear of prosecution by testifying before Congress, why do Attorney General Gonzales and President Bush continue insisting that neither they, nor their staff, have done anything wrong?

Wouldn’t public testimony, under oath, be a step forward towards sorting out the truth?

Technorati: Monica Goodling, John Dowd, Alberto Gonzales, U.S. Attorney FiringsSenate Judiciary Committee, Fifth Amendment, President George Bush, White House

Monica Goodling, a Department of Justice Counsel for U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (inset) is “assert[ing] her Fifth Amendment privilege as to any and all questions regarding the firings of U.S. Attorneys, and any other questions related” to the firings.

Those were the words of John Dowd, Goodling’s criminal defense lawyer. Dowd chairs the criminal defense practice at the D.C. law firm of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP.

As this blog predicted over the weekend and today, Dowd has moved to protect Goodling from the possibility that if she were to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee or House Judiciary Committee in their investigations of U.S. Attorney firings, that such testimony could result in charges against her.

According to Dowd:

It is not uncommong for witnesses who give testimony before the Congress to face criminal investigations and even indictments for perjury false statements, or obstruction of congressional proceedings…Accordingly, Ms. Goodling will not answer any questions before the [Senate and House Judiciary] Committee[s] or [their] staff under these circumstances.

Goodling’s name appears very frequently in the reams of e-mails that have been released so far to the U.S. Senate and House Judiciary Committees.

Goodling is shown above at a Regent University alumni event where she received her law degree in 1999. According to the school’s website, it bills itself as “America’s Preeminent Christian University.” The institution also claims to be “The nation’s academic center for Christian thought and action.”

According to The Washington Post, Goodling is currently “on an indefinite leave of absence from Gonzales’s office.”

Technorati: Monica Goodling, John Dowd, Alberto Gonzales, U.S. Attorney FiringsSenate Judiciary Committee, Fifth Amendment

Specter suggested on Meet the Press yesterday that Gonzales may not been entirely truthful about his knowledge and oversight of U.S. Attorney firings, contending that one “very critical element in this matter…is whether the attorney general has been candid.”

He also suggested that Gonzales could ultimately be forced out if his candor about involvement and knowledge of the firings is lacking:

Look, we have to have an attorney general who is candid, truthful. And if we find he has not been candid and truthful, that’s a, a very compelling reason for him not to stay on.

Gonzales Watch takes a keen interest in Specter’s analysis, given that last week we predicted a 90% chance of U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales resigning by Tuesday, March 28, 2007.

Given that the A.G. has been called to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow,

Yesterday Senator Arlen Specter (Rep. - Pa.) of the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmed what Gonzales Watch said yesterday, that White House aides are afraid to testify under oath, with a transcript, because of federal charges that they would face:

I think the president is wrong when he refuses to have a transcript. If you don’t have a transcript, senators are going to walk out and, in good faith, have different versions as to—as to what occurred. When you talk about oath, that’d be fine, but the individuals who make false official statements are subjected to the same penalty, five years as for perjury. (emphasis added)

Fear of being charged can be a huge motivator.