Justice official invokes Fifth Amendment, won’t shed light on U.S. attorney firings or Domenici meeting

A Justice Department senior aide is refusing to testify about a meeting with Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M. and other involvement she had in the decision last year to fire eight U.S. attorneys.

Monica Goodling’s decision to invoke her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was advised by her attorney, who told the Associated Press the Senate Judiciary Committee’s inquiry into the firings is a perjury trap.

Goodling’s decision to refuse a subpoena means she won’t shed light on the conversation with Domenici, who says he complained about former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias. Goodling, the Justice Department’s liaison to the White House, was intimately involved in the firings and considered a key witness in the investigation.

She’s currently on voluntary leave from her job.

Subpoenas haven’t actually been issued by Senate or House committees investigating the firings, but have been authorized by members of both committees.

Iglesias claims he was fired for political reasons after refusing pressure from Domenici and U.S. Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., to speed incitements in a public corruption probe in time to influence voters in the November 2006 election. Domenici counters that he called to inquire about the investigation but didn’t apply pressure, and says he had several meetings with Justice officials to complain about Iglesias’ performance before the October 2006 phone call.

Goodling’s decision further complicates a series of contradictions, withheld facts and backtracking by the Department of Justice that have caused the situation to explode into a full-blown scandal. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has explained his own contradictory statements in part by saying his former Chief of Staff, Kyle Sampson, withheld information from him.

Sampson, who has agreed to testify next month, has pointed the finger at Goodling and others, according to the Washington Post.

Gonzales has also agreed to testify before Congress.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. and chair of the Judiciary Committee, said Goodling’s refusal to testify is “disappointing,” but pointed out that “everybody has the constitutional right not to incriminate themselves.”

“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,” Leahy said in a statement.

Sampson claims he provided false information under oath because Goodling supplied him with false information. That could be an allegation that leads to criminal charges.

An interesting facet of this scandal is that no members of Congress or the U.S. attorneys who were fired alleged criminal activity when the investigation began. Many have alleged that the Bush Administration fired the attorneys for political reasons, and the original concern was about a provision in the Patriot Act that allowed the attorney general to appoint interim U.S. attorneys indefinitely. It’s a provision Congress has since voted to strip, and President Bush has indicated he’ll sign into law.

It’s the Bush Administration’s response to the congressional inquiries that has caused the situation to erupt into a scandal that leaves the public wondering if there is something more nefarious afoot.