Richard Cohen, "columnist" for the Washington Post, makes an idiot of himself once again in what is ostensibly a diatribe about special prosecutors:
Monica Goodling is not my kind of gal. A graduate of two schools not known for partying (Messiah College and Pat Robertson's Regent University Law School), she would not be my ideal seatmate on a long airplane flight. But for vowing to take the Fifth in the ongoing probe of why and how eight U.S. attorneys were fired, I offer her my hearty congratulations. She knows that in Washington, free speech can cost you a fortune in legal fees. ...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.
Ignorance of the law aside ( I understand that obstruction of justice and perjury are a tad abstract for simpletons like Cohen), does Richard Cohen honestly believe that repeating a falsehood ad nauseum makes it true? I really am getting tired of having to remind Cohen and crew that what Libby committed WAS a crime; moreover, Judith Miller spent her days fluffing the pillows in her cell because she refused to reveal the source who committed a criminal act, not one who sought to expose it.
And this insistence that Fitzgerald knew who the "real" criminal was, but who went ahead and prosecuted Libby and his posse anyway is specious, fallacious, and just fucking ignorant. Fitzgerald was tasked with more than just "finding out who outed Valerie Plame;" there were more crimes committed in that act than just the act itself. Again, a legal concept that is too sophisticated for Cohen and his ilk.
But it's Cohen's closing statement that is just too rich:
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.
I'm not even going to get started on the assumptions Cohen makes about Goodling and her refusal to testify. First Amendment rights? Free speech? QUOI?! Has Cohen been following this story AT ALL? The woman was the umbilical cord between DOJ and the White House - her fingerprints are all over the purely political US Attorney firings! She lied to higher ups and forced them to perjure themselves! She doesn't want to testify because she knows that she's going to GO TO JAIL IF SHE DOES!
I really think Cohen should audit some law classes, albeit at a school OTHER than Regent University. His wishful thinking that poor, put-upon Christian calendar girl Goodling is a legal naif in the big bad woods of D.C. is just morbidly embarrassing. Yes, Goodling is innocent until proven guilty. But to think that she's taking the Fifth (which she has to do in personam, not through a letter from her attorney) as some sort of free speech protest is just fucking laughable. And to use a wingnut favorite: if she's innocent, then what's the problem with testifying?
UPDATE: edited for style. That's what happens when I haven't had my second cup of coffee BEFORE I start writing.


You can't do it to that song! Earwurm!
More on the story at eschaton...
Posted by: Mr.Murder | April 10, 2007 at 09:27 AM
Good rant, wt.
the compulsively compulsive Patrick Fitzgerald
I would add that redundancy in the name of bitchy character assassination is conduct unbecoming a major op/ed writer.
Posted by: geor3ge | April 10, 2007 at 09:40 AM
I was just about to take on this column but you saved me the pain.
Thanks!
.
Posted by: spork_incident | April 10, 2007 at 09:53 AM
I've never understood Goodling. She could testify.
Posted by: spiiderweb | April 10, 2007 at 09:56 AM
Forget political labels. If any one in this country cannot acknowledge the difference in professionalism
Between Ken Starr and Pat Fitzgerald as special prosecutors. Then they as my grandfather would
Say don’t know Shit from Shineola.
Monica Goodling actions are self- serving {read CYA}
Posted by: Tom | April 10, 2007 at 10:15 AM
Cohen's a nappy ho.
Posted by: NTodd | April 10, 2007 at 10:56 AM
tigre --
Thank you for an excellent parting of the murky waters deliberately muddied by our MSM. The only way out the Bushies have in this case is to complicate a very simple situation, and the MSM is helping them at every turn.
Let's see -- you do snark, you do righteous anger, and you write well.
I think I'm starting to hate you.
Posted by: Gummo | April 10, 2007 at 10:57 AM
Cohen forgot to add that although Imus's remarks were clearly racist, he is still funnier than Steven Colbert.
knew early on who the leaker was but also that no law had been violated
Boy is he a dunce. A dunce among dunce among dunces.
Posted by: sdf (Stu) | April 10, 2007 at 10:59 AM
Gummo, but what about my mad Photoshop skillz?
[/runs away]
Posted by: watertiger | April 10, 2007 at 11:06 AM
Gummo, but what about my mad Photoshop skillz?
[/runs away]
Fine, fine, I bow to your awesomeness.
Or what Cohen would call your awesome awesomeness.
Posted by: Gummo | April 10, 2007 at 11:13 AM
ditto, saves me the pain of reading the source.
great, great and more of the same wt. nothing like burning stupid to get the cleansing juices flowing.
Posted by: NW | April 10, 2007 at 11:17 AM
god, fucking fuck richard cohen, he actually used to be human back in the seventies.
Posted by: Sharkbabe | April 10, 2007 at 11:39 AM
Sure she's innocent. That shouldn't save her from torture. Pull off a couple of her fingernails and she'll be begging to testify.
The Geneva Conventions are quaint, right? Let's see how she likes "quaint" with a bag over her head so she can't anticipate the next time she's going to get hit with the electric cattle prod...
Posted by: smiley | April 10, 2007 at 12:44 PM
well, if he doesn''t think treason is a crime, of course goodling is as pure as ivory.
the editorial pages are tools of evil.
Posted by: pansypoo | April 10, 2007 at 01:19 PM
If she committed no crimes she can testify - and let us know who DID commit them.
I'm so damn sick of IOKYAR. These people are NOT above the law, no matter what they think or how many Rpeublican chirstianist "lawyers" from their little christianist colleges they get into the judiciary.
Posted by: donna | April 10, 2007 at 04:45 PM
Cohen has finally clutched his pearls so hard he's cut off all oxygen to his brain.
How one can conflate investigation of the crimes of Iran-Contra and the current administration with the harrassment of the Clinton White House over Christmas card lists and a losing land deal absolutely boggles the mind.
I'll give you a fucking clue, Richard - no one had death squads rape them and/or gun them down or got thrown into jail without charges and tortured for years on end because of a fucking legal if losing Arkansas land deal.
Even if you believe that crap about Hillary killing Vince Foster (and precisely why a lesbian took him for a lover the wingnuts never quite explain), that still leaves George's administration up at least 800K to 1.
Posted by: sister of ye | April 10, 2007 at 04:59 PM
Totally great rant - but you may have missed some potential visuals. Partying with Richard Cohen? Richard and Monica joining the Mile High Club? (Don't want to disturb your dinner, but...)
Posted by: bbbustard | April 10, 2007 at 06:36 PM
Also, just because Fitzgerald didn't prosecute the underlying crime doesn't mean he doesn't think one was committed.
It just meant (or could mean) that he didn't feel like he could get a conviction under the narrow definition of the statute.
Posted by: four legs good | April 10, 2007 at 07:02 PM
Ah, I hope you voted for Cohen for Atrios' wanker of the day; he lost out to Broder, but should have won going away.
Posted by: scarecrow | April 10, 2007 at 09:00 PM
"Oh Dickie, have another cocktail weenie, ya weenie!"
Posted by: TF-MA | April 10, 2007 at 09:06 PM