Is Goodling's lawyer admitting she perjured herself?
Reading from the letter from Monica Goodling's attorney (see last post,) I came across this little goody.
Somebody (McNulty) has gone to Schumer and told him that he and others have lied. So, now, if Goodling goes up to testify and tells the truth, evidence of her earlier lies will be evident.
I think we've found that "perjury trap."
(As I said in the last post, it's only a perjury trap if you lie in the first place, and you can't blame Schumer for that.)
It appears that Monica Goodling has shifted from explanations of her actions into preparations for a criminal defense.
Later: A "disappointed" Sen. Leahy strikes back by adding to the appearance of guilt.
This American is wondering.
Fourth, it has come to our attention that a senior Department of Justice official has privately told Senator Schumer that he (the official) was not entirely candid in his report to the committee, and that the official allegedly claimed that others, including our client, did not inform him of certain pertinent facts.
Somebody (McNulty) has gone to Schumer and told him that he and others have lied. So, now, if Goodling goes up to testify and tells the truth, evidence of her earlier lies will be evident.
I think we've found that "perjury trap."
(As I said in the last post, it's only a perjury trap if you lie in the first place, and you can't blame Schumer for that.)
It appears that Monica Goodling has shifted from explanations of her actions into preparations for a criminal defense.
Later: A "disappointed" Sen. Leahy strikes back by adding to the appearance of guilt.
Mr. Leahy said this afternoon he was disappointed in Ms. Goodling’s decision, “but everyone has the constitutional right not to incriminate themselves with regard to criminal conduct.”
This American is wondering.
posted by mikevotes at
5:29 PM
8 Comments:
Funny how all those political witch-hunts in the 90's turned up nearly nothing. But from every tree the Democrats shake falls the fruits of criminality, corruption, and power abuse.
Odd, don't you think?
By
Anonymous, at 7:10 PM
Hmmm... another administration, another Monica. Can impeachment be far behind. Inquiring minds what to know.
To those Americans who voted for Bush, a big part of his appeal was his "personal responsibility" appeal. He was mister truth and character. Now he finds himself in his own imbroglio that truly one-ups Clinton. Where Clinton was screwing with an intern, Bush is screwing with the very fabric of the American system of governance and justice.
Has he jumped the shark? I think so. To me anyway, the more outrageously he demonizes the Dems, the more his administration's own shortcomings, failures and vapid hypocrisy (support the troops?) is brought to the front page and into American living rooms. For the first time in his presidency, Bush doesn't have exclusive control of the political media message. The opposition party now has their own bully pulpit and the media are beginning to feel empowered to not just act as WH stenographers.
We shall see.
By
-epm, at 9:01 PM
I think one reason may be that there was no early check on their power with a Republican Congress, and after they weren't challenged, they just kept on going.
There's ample evidence that some of this was going to happen anyhow, but I would speculate that they looked at those 80% approval ratings and internalized that.
I think it created something like a worship cult.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 9:03 PM
EPM, sorry you posted while I was writing.
I haven't seen anything tying it to Bush. That doesn't mean he couldn't have been deeply involved, but I wouldn;t hold that impeachment breath.
Bill Maher told the serious joke the other day that Hillary Clinton should run in '08 with the slogan, "restoring honor and dignity to the White House."
And, Jumping the shark. I think the shark jumping moment was Harriet Miers for Supreme Court. Certainly Katrina was far worse, but it Harriet Miers where the glitterati Washington Republicans got off the bus.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 9:10 PM
Howard Fineman said on Hardball that the attorney Goodling hired is a serious lawyer who you only hire if you're in serious criminal trouble.
By
Reality-Based Educator, at 5:52 AM
I saw that too.
I wonder if she's planning on paying for him or will there soon be a connection laundering legal defense fund.
By
mikevotes, at 7:21 AM
So today on Thom Hartmann's show, he was pointing out that Monica's going to be pleading the fifth on advice of counsel. But, pleading the fifth is only allowed in a criminal investigation, so that would have to mean that the congressional inquiry will by definition transition in an investigation of criminal action and intent once that step is taken, or it won't be allowed.
Interesting dance they're dancing in the Congress.
By
Anonymous, at 4:44 PM
One of the theories I read is that she is pleading the 5th to escape the possibility of being charged for briefing Paul McNulty to be untruthful before Congress.
Supposedly he's told Schumer she did that, and that's a crime, so despite all the garbage in the letter, that's likely the crime for which she is claiming the 5th.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 9:14 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home