Not that there is anything wrong with that:

Monica Goodling, a Justice Department official involved in the firings of federal prosecutors, will refuse to answer questions at upcoming Senate hearings, citing Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, her lawyer said Monday.
"The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real," said the lawyer, John Dowd. He said that members of the House and Senate Judiciary committees seem already to have made up their minds that wrongdoing has occurred in the firings.

Hmm, that may well be but last I looked, Congress could not prosecute anyone, except for impeachment. Now there's a thought . . .

mcjoan has a very good post on why the White House is making the politically obtuse decision to not have AG Gonzales fall on his sword:

[G]iven any rational observer can see how damaging this situation is, and that it's only getting worse, what could be going on in their heads? Only two possibilities come to mind, and I suspect only one is really the answer. First, Bush truly is so stubborn, so willful, and so stupid as to not see the danger that Gonzales poses to the already damaged presidency, and he isn't going to let his Fredo go. But what is much more likely, Karl Rove needs the distraction, the deflection that Gonzales provides. As long as he's catching much of the heat, the White House stays out of the focus.

This makes sense to me. Rove got Gonzo into this mess and he will keep using him as a shield until it becomes impossible. mcjoan concludes that moving to impeach Gonzales is the best way to overcome this stonewall.

I'm heading over to court and 5280.com to blog the Joseph Nacchio trial proceedings. Big Tent is out of pocket today. TChris or Last Night may stop in, but in case not, here's a place for you to bring everyone up to speed on the news and your thoughts.

When Robert Novak's Republican sources weigh in against Bush and Gonzales, it's worth a read.

"Gonzales never has developed a base of support for himself up here," a House Republican leader told me. But this is less a Gonzales problem than a Bush problem. With nearly two years remaining in his presidency, Bush is alone. In half a century, I have not seen a president so isolated from his own party in Congress -- not Jimmy Carter, not even Richard Nixon as he faced impeachment.

Republicans in Congress do not trust Bush to protect them. That alone is sufficient reason to withhold statements of support for Gonzales, when such a gesture could be quickly followed by his resignation under pressure. ....

More....

The ACLU is one of four organizations that have been granted status as human rights observers at the military commission proceedings. Ben Wizner, an ACLU staff attorney will be blogging from Guantanamo here.

Bump and Update: The LA Times is on the three fired U.S. Attorneys who opposed the death penalty.

Original Post:

Fired Margaret Chiara and the Death Penalty

On February 24, I wrote about the possibility Michigan U.S. Attorney Margaret Chiara was fired because of her anti-death penalty beliefs.

Quoting the Washington Post,

Chiara -- who had once studied to be a nun -- is personally opposed to capital punishment....Another of the fired U.S. attorneys, Paul K. Charlton of Phoenix, also clashed with Washington over the death penalty.

The Washington Post today has more on Chiara's firing and it isn't pretty for the White House. She was well-respected by the judges, federal prosecutors and defense lawyers in her district.

More...

A common word appeared yesterday on MSNBC's website about "Meet the Press" and in the NY Times in their stories posted two minutes apart: Mr. Gonzales's GOP support "Erodes." Today's NY Times article's heading uses a softer word: Republican Senators Express Reservations Over Gonzales.

Prior to this Democrat controlled Congress being sworn in, the GOP would never have asked the questions necessary to have made this an issue. They didn't dare to.  But, consider the timing: the rank political firing and then the cover up of its motives and people behind it all occurred after the election. The machinations were all before, but the axes fell after.

So why the GOP interest, now?

As usual, I speak only for me

Daily Kos trumpets the Senate's quick move on the Iraq Supplemental:

The Senate appears to be prepared to move quickly toward a vote on the supplemental spending bill containing language about benchmarks and withdrawal from Iraq that the House passed Friday - the vote could come as early as Tuesday. Republicans will be trying to remove all timetables from the bill - to them, even non-binding deadlines are too much an affront to Bush's power to wage endless war.

So now the fight is to retain NON-binding deadlines in the supplemental funding bill? Oh by the way, look and see who you'll be fighting with:

Webb doesn't favor a timeline for withdrawal, as the Nancy Pelosi bill passed by the House on Friday proposes . . . and he's working with Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel . . . to come up with a bipartisan bill that would incorporate some of what he calls "the more workable points" from the House bill without unnecessarily tying the hands of the military.

h/t MYDD.

What a win passing the House Iraq`supplemental funding bill was. What a bunch of unrealistic purity types those of us opposed to it were. Why, who could have imagined the Senate would likely weaken the bill? But hey, it was the best Dems could do, right? Clap louder please.

The first Guantanamo military commission proceeding is set to begin Monday with the arraignment of Australian David Hicks. He will be called upon to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty to providing material support to terrorists. He was originally charged with three charges of attempted murder, conspiracy and aiding the enemy, but those charges were dropped.

Today, David McLeod, his Australian lawyer said a plea deal is a possiblility.

Asked how Hicks would plead at tomorrow's arraignment McLeod said: ``That remains to be seen''.

More....

I read Max Frankel's 7,800 word article on the Scooter Libby trial last night. It left a bad taste, and I didn't write about it. Marcy Wheeler has a terrific analysis of the article and what's wrong with it at Firedoglake.

However, my problem with the article was not so much Frankel's embrace of Judith Miller, but his implication that no real crime was committed and Fitzgerald should not have compelled the journalists to testify.

This wasn't a case of whistle-blowing. This was a case of Administration officials using the media to discredit a war critic by outing his CIA agent wife through allegations that his trip to Africa was the result of nepotism and therefore his findings on that trip were not worthy of belief.

Since when are perjury and obstruction of justice not really crimes?

Max Frankel disappoints with this article.

Don't forget to watch "60 Minutes" tonight. John and Elizabeth Edwards will be on.

Update: My thoughts (also expressed in the comments below): I was surprised at how negative Katie Couric was. Everything from her repeatedly asking the same thing to her stern expression seemed off to me. I am wondering whether she was trying to prove she can be a tough interviewer.

The Edwards were great. Composed and very articulate. I don't know how anyone could argue with their decision ... either that it's theirs to make or that it's right for them. Very impressive.

Update: Transcript and video are here.

Florida v. UCLA, a rematch of last year's Final. A heck of a game on paper.

Georgetown v. Ohio State. Hibbard v. Oden. Tremendous matchup.

Not to brag or anything, but I nailed all 4 Elite Eight games. In addition, I picked 3 out of 4 of the Final Four teams, Florida, UCLA, and Georgetown. I had Texas A&M coming out of the South region, but the miracle Buckeyes survived and then won handily over Memphis in the Regional Final.