I am reading the statement sent out by Monica Goodling's lawyers. (I wonder what she is currently doing "on leave." More creative writing? Ass saving?) She is currently being represented by Akin Gump, who I am sure is giving her a nice discount on the oodles of dollars they charge for a first year associate to answer a simple e-mail, let alone a Congressional investigation. And in fact, she is being represented by John Dowd--the man who brought down Pete Rose.
Now before I continue, aren't we all a little bit curious about how she is paying for her legal fees? Has a legal fund been established, like the one that has been and presumably continues to pay for Scooter's legal fees until the case remains unresolved post-November 2008? (All together now: pardon!) Otherwise, I don't know how she is paying for her legal fees unless (1) someone in her family has some serious coin; or (2) Akin Gump is providing a serious discount or performing the case pro bono. Anf if (2) is the case, I am sure Akin Gump's acts are purely out of the goodness of its partners' collective heart.
So what has Ms. Goodling gotten from Dowd's hard work? The visible work product is Dowd's letter to Senator Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Comittee, detailing the reasons why she will be invoking the Fifth Amendment.
Here are the reasons. First, "certain members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have reached conclusions about the matter under investigation and the veracity of the testimony provided by the Justice Department to date." Translation: we all know she is screwed, so why be further embarrased? The Senators know that they have received false testimony and stated that fact. Even worse, they said something would be done because apparently this Congressional oversight thing is effective.
The next two reasons deal with Senator Spector's claims that the hearings are for political purposes and may lack objectivity. Translation: if Goodling had invested in Whitewater or had oral sex with the president (Clinton, of course--it would be OK if it was Bush), then that would be a worthwhile investigation. But concerns about good government and truthtelling, now that is political.
Fourth, one senior DOJ official privately informed Senator Schumer that he and allegedly others were not entirely truthful (by telling either lies of omission or commission--parentetical is mine). And this could lead to being indicted like David Safavian, Ollie North, and others have been. Translation: I am begging you for immunity. Sweet immunity you taste like ambrosia.
Well, let me say that I stand unimpressed by Akin Gump. If I knew better, I would think that all they were doing is mimicing White House talking points........