A Consequential Game of Chicken

Peter Baker writes in The Washington Post: "The discovery could hardly have come at a worse moment for the administration. It was the latest demoralizing event after weeks that included the conviction of a former White House aide, a guilty plea by another former administration official, the resignations of several other officials and a steady drumbeat of revelations that have jeopardized the attorney general's job.

"And at a time of siege, with Bush wrestling Congress for control of the war in Iraq, Snow's absence while he undergoes treatment will deprive the president of his most prominent public advocate. In his year at the White House lectern, Snow has become the public face of the Bush presidency, a forceful yet upbeat defender of an embattled administration whose verbal jousting and television celebrity made him a popular figure in Republican circles, even when his boss was not. . . .

"Snow was tapped to take over for [Scott] McClellan last spring as part of a White House shake-up and quickly redefined the job. Under Snow, the daily briefing often took on the feel of a cable news back-and-forth and the White House used him regularly on morning television and Sunday talk shows. In a departure for a presidential spokesman, he even hit the campaign trail last fall, headlining dozens of Republican fundraisers, and he remains a big draw on the speaking circuit."

Baker writes that for now, Perino and presidential counselor Dan Bartlett will fill in for Snow.

Said Perino: "I do know that Tony Snow loves this job. He says it is the best job he's ever had in his life. He, in fact, has called it 'communications Disneyland.' (Laughter.) So he loves the job, and I think his intention, of course, is to come back. The President wants to have him back, as you heard today. So as soon as we have more on that, we can let you know. But the intention is that he'll be back, and I just don't know when."

Monica Goodling Watch

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy sent a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales yesterday: "On March 8 you met with me and other Senators in my Capitol office about the mass firings of United States attorneys. You agreed at that time that the five Justice Department employees would cooperate with us in our investigation and that there would be no need for the Committee to utilize its subpoena authority. Soon thereafter, D. Kyle Sampson resigned as your chief of staff. A few days later, we were told that he was no longer employed at the Department of Justice and had hired an attorney. Now we have learned that Monica Goodling has taken a personal leave of absence from the Department and we have been informed by her counsel that she will invoke the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination in a criminal matter.

"Is Ms. Goodling still employed by the Department of Justice? What is the employment status of Michael Battle, Michael Elston and William Mercer with the Department of Justice? Please inform the Committee of those employees who have separate counsel."

Speculation continues about on what grounds Goodling is invoking the Fifth Amendment. (See yesterday's column.)

Reynolds Holding writes for Time that the most plausible scenario "is that Goodling suspects committee members of planning a 'perjury trap,' trying to catch her in a lie. And even if she does tell the truth, the committee could still get her if her testimony contradicts what others have told the committee, creating inconsistencies that might 'leave her liable for at least being indicted for perjury,' explains Professor Randolph Jonakait of New York Law School."

Scooter Syndrome

The Wall Street Journal editorial board comes to Goodling's defense: "Democrats determined to play up this faux scandal shouldn't be surprised if government officials decide they'd rather not step into this obvious perjury trap. . . .

"Ms. Goodling has been around, and she can see Democrats don't really want to know the truth; they want to shout 'liar, liar' and set the stage to accuse Justice officials of criminal behavior. . . .

"Count Ms. Goodling's silence as one more unintended consequence of the Scooter Libby case. Mr. Libby made the mistake of cooperating with the investigation into a leak he had nothing to do with, and he later found himself charged with perjury based on little more than conflicting memories of who said what and when. The prosecutor never even charged anyone for the leak that started it all.

"There's no apparent underlying crime in this 'scandal' either, but we'll bet more than one Democrat will soon be calling for a 'special prosecutor' to investigate it nonetheless."

But the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle editorial board sees it another way, suspecting that Goodling invoked the Fifth not because she was afraid she had done something illegal -- but because she was afraid that she might lie.

"Call it the Scooter syndrome, named for I. Lewis 'Scooter'' Libby, the former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney convicted recently of lying under oath. . . .

"[I]t's truly alarming that truth in Washington is such a fragile commodity that it might slip away at any moment, that the line between fact and falsehood is so faint and easily missed that mid-level operatives such as Goodling aren't sure they can stay on the right side."

Gonzales Watch

Dan Eggen writes in The Washington Post: "The attorney general's precise role in the firings . . . is still far from clear. Gonzales's interview Monday with NBC News, and his breakneck tour of U.S. attorney's offices around the country in recent days, has done little to tamp down growing unrest among fellow Republicans over Gonzales's credibility, which has emerged as the central challenge facing the embattled attorney general.

"Gonzales cut short a news conference in Chicago yesterday when an aide halted questions about the firings. The appearance had been scheduled to last 15 minutes; Gonzales walked out after less than three."

Laurie Kellman writes for the Associated Press: "Senate Republicans exiting their weekly policy lunch no longer bothered to defend Gonzales' response to lawmakers' questions about the firings. At most, they mustered an appeal to withhold judgment until the attorney general testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 17. . . .

"[D]efending Gonzales became more difficult with Monday's refusal by his counsel, Monica Goodling, to testify before the Judiciary Committee with other Justice officials involved in the firings, as the attorney general had promised. She said statements by Democrats indicate they have already concluded wrongdoing on the part of Justice officials, including her. . . .

"Goodling's announcement, some senior Republicans felt, strengthened the Democrats' charge that the Justice Department had something to hide.

"All of which added up to scandal fatigue inside the caucus, the senators said."

Waiting for Sampson

Sridhar Pappu of The Washington Post profiles key U.S. attorney-firing figure Kyle Sampson, who he describes as "short and balding and chubby, looking like a smaller Karl Rove. . . .

"Tomorrow Sampson, 37, appears voluntarily and under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee. As chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales until his resignation March 12, Sampson was the man in charge of the axing of eight federal prosecutors who were perceived as not being with the program the administration wished to prosecute. His testimony could be pivotal as lawmakers probe the depth of involvement in the sacking by Gonzales and the White House."

Among his biographical details: "After a brief stint in private practice at a Salt Lake City law firm, Sampson came to Washington in 1999 to work as counsel of the Senate Judiciary Committee for a man he will face tomorrow, Orrin Hatch. Before long, Sampson joined the Bush transition team following the contested 2000 election. His former law school classmate Elizabeth Cheney, daughter of the vice president, had suggested him for the job, according to a report in the Salt Lake Tribune."

Things Fall Apart

John Dickerson writes in Slate: "An administration that came into office boasting of exemplary teamwork looks like it's going to end in a hail of blame-placing, finger-pointing, and backbiting."

He quotes on "former senior administration official" as saying "it feels like it's every man for himself."

Democratic Overreach?

That the Democrats are going overboard in investigating the Bush administration is becoming an essential Republican talking point -- in spite of poll results that show, for instance, that Americans overwhelmingly support a congressional investigation into White House involvement in the firing of the U.S. attorneys.

The latest salvo: A blistering White House response to a Washington Times story this morning in which Jon Ward reports that "House Democrats are set today to bring in private sector lawyers -- at a cost of up to $225,000 over the next nine months -- to help committee staff investigate the Bush administration."

The White House this morning e-mailed reporters this statement from Perino: "The House Judiciary Committee's decision to award a $225,000 contract to a private law firm for work related to the dismissal of U.S. Attorneys is further evidence that Democrats care more about investigations than legislation. The contract does not devote one penny to the challenges the American people expect their leaders to address, like protecting American citizens from terror, decreasing our dependence on foreign sources of energy, and making health care more affordable. Instead of funding show trials, the Democrats should show they care about passing a responsible budget and giving our military commanders in Iraq the resources they need to win. We look forward to the House Judiciary Committee's disclosure of its bidding process for awarding this taxpayer-funded contract."

Royal Snub

Jim Hoagland writes in his Washington Post opinion column: "President Bush enjoys hosting formal state dinners about as much as having a root canal. Or proposing tax increases. So his decision to schedule a mid-April White House gala for Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah signified the president's high regard for an Arab monarch who is also a Bush family friend.

"Now the White House ponders what Abdullah's sudden and sparsely explained cancellation of the dinner signifies. Nothing good -- especially for Condoleezza Rice's most important Middle East initiatives -- is the clearest available answer."

Hoagland writes that the Saudis "see Bush swimming against a tide of scandal and stench that engulfs his most trusted aides. In the traditional Saudi worldview, this is a moment to hedge, not to indulge in the kind of leadership needed to break the Israeli-Palestinian deadlock or the deadly morass of Iraq."

Commencement Watch

Peggy Fletcher Stack writes in the Salt Lake Tribune: "Some Brigham Young University students, faculty and alumni have launched several petition drives voicing their opposition to Vice President Dick Cheney speaking at the school's commencement in April. . . .

"An online petition at http://cheneyspeech.blogspot.com says, 'Cheney has made misleading statements about the tragic war which continues in Iraq, levied outrageous partisan accusations against his Democratic opponents, and used vulgarity on the Senate floor. He has been linked to serious scandals involving botched intelligence reports, no-bid contracts awarded to friends and political donors, and perjury convictions handed down to his own staff.'"

Bush will speak on April 28 on the Kendall Campus of Miami Dade College, then on May 11 at St. Vincent College in Latrobe, Pa., and finally at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy on May 23.

Joe Curl writes in the Washington Times: "In an 'Open Letter to President Bush from Saint Vincent College Friends, Students and Alumni,' [an] online petition charges that the president is 'squandering . . . the lives of our troops by clinging to failed tactics in an ill-conceived, unjustified war' and his policies 'are at odds with our values.'"

Live Online

I'm Live Online today at 1 p.m. ET.

Cartoon Watch

Pat Oliphant on Bush's good dog; Mike Luckovich on Rove rules; Dwane Powell on the revenge of the mouse.