pogo says:

April 5th, 2007 at 11:34 am

nolo at 147 -

Don’t misunderstand what I was trying to say. Indeed, lying to Congress is a crime, but that’ a different issue, although closely related. There is criminal exposure for lying to Congress, but there is only jeopardy to your law license for violating Rules of Professional Conduct. . .

pogo — not to quibble, but commission
of almost any crime, and certainly any
crime involving moral turpitude — like
lying to congress — is direct grounds
for disbarment by summary proceedings in
most states — i dunno’ ’bout DC, but i
suspect it follows the majority rule. . .

and, btw, the attorney-client privilege is
not hers to assert — it belongs to the
government; not gonzo — the governement.
presumably the government won’t assert
it in a defense to the charge that some
of its highest-ranking agents lied to it
about matters involving the exercise of
criminal prosecutorial discretion, in part-
isan-charged regional USA investigations. . .

so — a proposal — let’s just agree
that monica “take-five-for-freedom-fries“
goodling is in various forms of peril, even
without considering whether she testifies
before congress. . .

Come on!! How long can this crap go on?

I think it is high time that long knives be drawn and that tourches be lite.

Once she’s no longer employed by the government, her friends and associates will legally be permitted to pay her legal bills. I don’t think Dowd will have to wait very long for his money. I won’t be surprised if she’s a private citizen within the next 2 weeks.

Consider that she’s been on paid leave for the past 2 weeks. She can’t have a lot of vacation time left and I very much doubt the DOJ wants her back in the office. An employee who has plead the 5th cannot be anywhere that requires national security clearances. These days, I suspect that’s pretty much the whole DOJ.

Unpaid leave? Not with house payments and mounting legal bills. I think she’ll be forced to resign very shortly, if only so that her GOP friends can legally throw her some cash.

There is a much more flattering and descriptive (frontal) picture of her but according to one paper I read they were denied the right to use it. Maybe Monica just doesn’t want to be anything other than anonymous.

Stephen at 23 — It wouldn’t apply to Monica — it would apply to those lawyers who are working for the Committees who are licensed in DC. The Ethics Opinion applies to conduct by those who work within the DC Bar. Goodling’s attorney is trying to shape how they will act by throwing out a constraint — except that constraint may be an invalid one that only points to conduct that is no longer restricted. No response from the DC Bar, btw — at least, not yet. I e-mailed on this yesterday.

Isn’t there a fairly simple answer to this conundrum?

Dangle immunity in front of her, but condition it on coming in and making a full proffer. If the proffer ultimately turns out to be BS, then nail her ass for obstructing a congressional investigation.

Robert at 178 – you aren’t by chance a member of the Virginia Bar, are you? If so, do you have access toa directory of VA Bar members?

Sorry, no. Not a member of the Virginia State Bar.