Richard Cohen, liberal pundit, has examined the evidence and concluded that Monica Goodling is not a criminal:

>In the end, though, some thought has to be given to why Monica Goodling feels obligated to take the Fifth rather than merely telling Congress what happened in the AG’s office. She’s no criminal — but what could happen to her surely is.

That’s not good news for Goodling. For according to Cohen, neither was Scooter Libby:

>No lawyer is going to be thrilled about letting a client testify in today’s political environment. Remember, please, that I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby was not convicted of the crime that the special prosecutor was appointed to find — who leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame — but of lying to a grand jury. In fact, the compulsively compulsive Patrick Fitzgerald not only knew early on who the leaker was but also that no law had been violated. No matter. Fitzgerald valiantly persisted, jailing Judith Miller of the New York Times for refusing to reveal her sources and, in the end, nailing Libby. It was a magnificent victory, proving once again that there is nothing more dangerous to the republic than a special prosecutor with money to spend.

4 thoughts on “Criminal”

  1. I read Cohen’s article earlier today, and left a comment asking how he knew Goodling was not a criminal. He misses the point more often than not.

  2. I want to know how Cohen “knows” what Patrick Fitzgerald knew concerning the identity of the leaker. Also, the fact that no one was indicted for a crime does not mean one did not occur. In some cases absence of evidence does not entail evidence of absence.

  3. The stupid thing is that Cohen doesn’t think he needs any evidence for the claim that Goodling is not a criminal. This in spite of the fact that she has already invoked the fifth (inexplicably according to those who know about the laws).

Comments are closed.