Aide to the US Atty General to invoke the 5th Amendment

[Tock]

Anyone else think the wheels are coming off the Bush Administration?
Now that the Dems are running Congress, they're asking questions. And the Republican administration has to take the 5th? They're afraid that if they tell the truth that they'll get themselves in legal trouble?

That's the sort of thing that makes you say, "Hmmmmm . . . "


----------------------
As a parenthetical () explanation, all this is about the firing of a bunch of federal prosecutors. It seems that a while back, the Bush Administration considered firing all the U.S. federal prosecutors, but the top folks decided just to get rid of the ones that they thought weren't aggressive enough against Democrats. This decision, as it turns out, was made in a meeting that was chaired by the Atty. General.

Now that the federal prosecutors have been fired, and now that the Democrats are the majority party running Congress and get to ask questions, they're wanting to know what's going on. The Atty General told them, "Not me, I didn't have anything to do with this." Of course, that was not true.

Some other interesting threads have been pulled from this fabric which may turn into further questions and involve more people, but the big question Congress is not happy with is, "Why did the US Atty General lie to Congress?"

=================================================

Gonzales aide to invoke Fifth Amendment

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070326/...ed_prosecutors

By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
Mon Mar 26, 7:45 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' liaison with the White House will refuse to answer questions at upcoming Senate hearings about the firings of eight U.S. attorneys, citing her Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, her lawyer said Monday.

"I have decided to follow my lawyer's advice and respectfully invoke my constitutional right," Monica Goodling, Gonzales' counsel and White House liaison, said in a statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The revelation complicated the outlook for Gonzales, who is traveling out of town this week even as he fights to keep his job and his agency's investigatory power.

In an interview with NBC News, Gonzales said Monday he was "really pained" by Republicans and Democrats alike who widely say the attorney general has lost his credibility.

Asked why he would want to remain as attorney general amid so many calls for his ouster, Gonzales said he's been asking himself lately whether it's appropriate for him to stay in his job.

But, he said, "at the end of the day, it's not about Alberto Gonzales. It's about this great Department of Justice that does so many wonderful things for the American people."

Nonetheless, the news was not good for Gonzales.

The House voted 329-78 to strip the attorney general of his power to indefinitely appoint federal prosecutors, approving a bill similar to one passed in the Senate. President Bush, who is standing by Gonzales, has signaled that he will not veto the legislation.

Meanwhile, another Republican added his criticism to the growing chorus.

"His word is tarnished," said Rep. Ted Poe (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, said of Gonzales.

Goodling's statement contradicted her boss' promise to allow his top aides to testify before Congress, voluntarily and under oath.

John Dowd, Goodling's lawyer, suggested in a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), D-Vt., that the Democrat-led panel has laid what amounts to a perjury trap for his client.

Goodling, one of several aides involved in the firings of federal prosecutors, will refuse to answer senators' questions.

"The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real," Dowd said. Goodling was key to the Justice Department's political response to the growing controversy. She took a leave of absence last week.

"One need look no further than the recent circumstances and proceedings involving Lewis Libby," Dowd said, a reference to the recent conviction of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff in the CIA leak case.

Leahy swiftly cast doubt about Goodling's motives.

"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," said Leahy.

Dowd shot back in a second letter that Leahy's comments were a good illustration of why testifying was "perilous" for his client.

"It is the politically charged environment created by the members of the committee ... that has created the ambiguous and perilous environment in which even innocent witnesses would be well advised not to testify," Dowd wrote.

Democrats allege the firings were a purge of those deemed by the Justice Department not to be "loyal Bushies" — and a political warning to other prosecutors to fall in line with the administration. Gonzales has denied that.

The news of Goodling's refusal to testify toughened an already daunting week for Gonzales, who retains Bush's support, apparently on condition that he patch things up with Congress. There was little sign of that happening.

Republicans over the weekend lobbed new criticism at Gonzales and more Democrats called for his resignation. Gonzales, meanwhile, was in Denver on Monday, leading a round-table discussion on curbing child sex abuse. He was expected to remain out of town most of the week.

But Goodling's announcement appeared to be an unforeseen piece of bad news for Gonzales' agency, which had no immediate comment.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who is leading the Senate's investigation into the firings, said Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty told him he was misled by other Justice Department aides before he testified to Schumer's panel on Feb. 6.

A day earlier, Goodling was among those who helped McNulty prepare his testimony. Schumer has said McNulty may have given Congress incomplete or otherwise misleading information about the circumstances of the firings.

A little more than two weeks before that, Goodling helped organize the response to senators asking whether the firings were politically motivated, e-mails show. Specifically, she wanted to show that one of the fired prosecutors, Carol Lam of California, had been the subject of complaints by members of Congress.

On Jan. 18, 2007, Goodling sent an e-mail to three Justice staffers saying, "I hear there is a letter from (Sen. Dianne) Feinstein on Carol Lam a year or two ago."

"I need it ASAP," Goodling wrote.

She was later sent two letters, from Rep. Darrell Issa (news, bio, voting record), R-Calif., dated Oct. 13, 2005, and 19 House members, on Oct. 20, 2005, which both complained that Lam was too lax in prosecuting criminal illegal immigrants.

Additionally, Goodling was involved in an April 6, 2006, phone call between the Justice Department and Sen. Pete Domenici (news, bio, voting record), R-N.M., who had complained to the Bush administration and the president about David Iglesias, then the U.S. attorney in Albuquerque. Domenici had wanted Iglesias to push more aggressively on a corruption probe against Democrats before the 2006 elections.

Iglesias told Congress earlier this month that he rejected what he believed to be pressure from Domenici to rush indictments that would have hurt Democrats in the November elections.

Gonzales' truthfulness about the firings of seven prosecutors on Dec. 7 and another one months earlier also has been questioned. At a March 13 news conference, Gonzales denied that he participated in discussions or saw any documents about the firings, despite documents that show he attended a Nov. 27 meeting with senior aides on the topic, where he approved a detailed plan to carry out the dismissals.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Monday that Gonzales "might be accused of being imprecise in what he was saying," but maintained that the attorney general was not closely involved in the firings.

"I understand the concern. I understand that people might think that there are inconsistencies," Perino said. "But as I read it, I think that he has been consistent."

Gonzales is not scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee until April 17 — three weeks away.

[Tock]

Another US Senator getting involved in this mess is Republican Senator Pete Domenici (R-New Mexico).

It seems that shortly before the 2006 elections, the Senator (and the other Republican US Senator from New Mexico) telephoned one of the soon-to-be fired federal prosecutors and tried to "rush a corruption probe against Democrats in an effort to sway the 2006 elections." As it turned out, the prosecutor and the FBI decided they should drop all the charges in the case, due to lack of evidence. Shortly afterward, the federal prosecutor lost his job.

Here's how another wheel of the Republican machine is about to come off:

=======================

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/domenici_...eTUlLIwrKWwvIE


Domenici caught up in prosecutor scandal

By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS, Associated Press Writer
Sat Mar 24, 7:25 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Sen. Pete Domenici (news, bio, voting record), known as the quintessential straight shooter in the mannerly Senate, is an unlikely figure to be caught up in the political scandal over federal prosecutor firings.

An elder statesman with an untarnished reputation during his six terms, the New Mexico Republican commands equal parts affectionate respect and fear in Congress for his power, his loyalty, and his sometimes bullying ways.

It's his cantankerous streak — well known to colleagues who have tangled with him on budget and spending matters — that may have landed the 74-year-old Domenici at the center of the growing furor.

Revelations that Domenici phoned one of the ousted U.S. attorneys and complained to President Bush and the Justice Department about him helped touch off a larger congressional investigation into the firings, which has embarrassed the administration, threatened the job of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and sparked a showdown between the White House and Congress over whether Bush's aides should have to testify.

Domenici, who faces re-election next fall, is dealing with troubling consequences of his own.

He's under investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee after a watchdog group accused him of trying to pressure David Iglesias, then the U.S. attorney in Albuquerque, N.M., to rush a corruption probe against Democrats in an effort to sway the 2006 elections.

Domenici has hired prominent Washington lawyer Lee Blalack, best known for defending jailed former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., against bribery charges.
It's an improbable spot for a senator revered for his mastery of Senate rules and procedures, whose low-key style and familiarity in the halls of Congress have earned him bipartisan goodwill and the nickname "Uncle Pete."

"It's very out of character, so I think people are a little puzzled and sad for him more than anything else," said Chris Garcia, a University of New Mexico political scientist. "It's uncomfortable for him, and somewhat of an embarrassment for everybody."

Domenici is a fierce advocate for his state, where he's a formidable political powerbroker and is beloved for his prowess in drawing coveted federal dollars to projects and agencies.

In Congress, lawmakers, aides and reporters know Domenici can be brusque when he feels strongly about something. He's been known to phone colleagues to register dismay or check the status of a top priority — and then to hang up briskly when he's finished without saying goodbye.

Iglesias has described being on the other end of one such call. He said Domenici — his one-time patron for the job of U.S. attorney — called him at home last fall to ask whether he planned to file corruption charges before the November elections. When told it was unlikely, according to Iglesias' account, Domenici responded, "I am very sorry to hear that," and then the line went dead.

Both Domenici and Iglesias declined to comment for this story. The senator has acknowledged calling Iglesias about the case, and said he regretted doing so, but he denies he pressured the ousted prosecutor.

"I've had some tough phone calls with him, but he didn't intimidate me," said Rep. David Hobson (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio, who has tussled with Domenici in spending negotiations.

Domenici "can be difficult to work with," Hobson added. "He always advocates his position, and he's very frank — you know where he stands — but he's also effective."

The Senate's second-most senior Republican, Domenici was either chairman or senior GOP member on the Budget Committee for more than two decades before stepping aside in 2006 to take the helm of the Energy panel.

He's usually an understated presence on Capitol Hill, where he wears sportcoats instead of business suits, but he is fervent about certain things: balancing the budget, promoting nuclear power and defending his state.

Domenici is "dogged — he doesn't fight to lose," said Robert Stevenson, a former senior aide. "He can be tenacious. There are things he feels passionate about, and he makes no secret about it."

Colleagues and political observers say they don't know enough about the case to judge Domenici's conduct. Some of them noted that it's not unusual for a member of Congress to phone a state or local prosecutor for a status report on a case, although Senate guidelines advise against intervening in pending court actions.

Domenici's office referred questions to his attorneys, who declined to comment.

Garcia said some believe the senator "maybe got a little careless," after several years of Republican domination of the White House and both chambers of Congress.

Domenici has experienced health problems in recent years, including bursitis in his hip that had him zipping around the Capitol in a scooter for several months, and nerve damage in his arm that's a relic of his short stint as a baseball pitcher.

More recently, there have been whispers that the senator is getting forgetful and increasingly temperamental in his old age. His supporters angrily dismiss those reports as Democratic efforts to undermine Domenici's popularity and loosen his seemingly unshakable grasp on his Senate seat.

It's unclear whether the case will do Domenici lasting damage.

"He has a lot of close personal relationships with other senators, and I don't think this changes the nature of those personal relationships," said Sen. John Sununu (news, bio, voting record), R-N.H.

Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat, said Domenici's ties to the prosecutor uproar has put longtime colleagues in an awkward spot.

"What Senator Domenici did under what circumstances, I don't know, so I'm not going to judge him," Durbin said. "I just think it's inappropriate for a member of Congress to contact a U.S. attorney or a prosecutor and to urge a prosecution in a political context."