Hopelessly Conflicted
Just when I was experiencing critical frustration-mass at the plethora of official paid leave this time of year - school employees and Congress in particular (but not consultants) - here's some refreshing evidence that not all run home to pick brush or extort money from bankers and the like.
Senators Leahy and Whitehouse (latter mellifluous name has only registered with me in last week or so) have crafted a highly stimulating and inspiring letter to our beloved Attorney General circa today from what I can tell, when the other kids are running wild (h/t Marcie at Next Hurrah). Good on you, Senators! I strongly encourage you to read the original letter but will defer to our hostess for primary coverage, as she is as always so down on this stuff:
Did you see the language those former prosecutors, Senators Leahy and Whitehouse, used in their latest letter to Alberto Gonzales? Here's the bit I found most interesting:
Really, though, the whole letter is worth a gander.
The Senators start by placing responsibility for Goodling's centrality to the case squarely on Gonzales' shoulders:
Senators Leahy and Whitehouse (latter mellifluous name has only registered with me in last week or so) have crafted a highly stimulating and inspiring letter to our beloved Attorney General circa today from what I can tell, when the other kids are running wild (h/t Marcie at Next Hurrah). Good on you, Senators! I strongly encourage you to read the original letter but will defer to our hostess for primary coverage, as she is as always so down on this stuff:
Did you see the language those former prosecutors, Senators Leahy and Whitehouse, used in their latest letter to Alberto Gonzales? Here's the bit I found most interesting:
We would appreciate hearing from you whether a special counsel is necessary for us to speak with,Hmmm. Maybe I meant Fitzgerald after all. It's a brilliant move, though. So long as Goodling pleads the Fifth, the Democrats will have cause--excellent cause, I'd say, to demand the appointment of a Special Counsel. If Fitzgerald doesn't want to do it, I hear Carol Lam is available.
Really, though, the whole letter is worth a gander.
The Senators start by placing responsibility for Goodling's centrality to the case squarely on Gonzales' shoulders:
As you are aware, Monica Goodling has indicated that she will assert her Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination before the Senate Judiciary Committee rather than testify. You must know that her testimony would be important to the Judiciary Committee, since you offered her as a Department witness and agreed in your meeting with Judiciary Committee Senators on March 8 that the Department would cooperate with the Committee in providing her testimony along with that of others.But the best is where Leahy and Whitehouse play their best imitation of confusion:
In the ordinary course, the Committee would discuss this with your Department to determine the best course of action with respect to a witness who has asserted Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, so as not to unwittingly hinder a prosecution by the Department. While it is premature to presume that any criminal prosecution will result from this inquiry now, it is also premature"Hopelessly conflicted." I'm not sure whether it's a romance novel or a comedy sketch. In any case, I'm not sure whether Leahy and Whitehouse agree with me about Goodling's intention (or lack thereof) of making an immunity deal. But if it is, in fact, her attention to act as a firewall protecting Gonzales, they sure intend to make sure he gets burned in the deal.
to presume one will not. It therefore seems advisable to have discussions between the Committee and the Department regarding how to proceed with regard to Ms. Goodling. Our question to you is: Who do we talk to at the Department of Justice? The office of the Attorney General appears to be hopelessly conflicted.