Lets hear her sing!

Well, I guess I'm just gonna have to trust Conyers on this. Others here have indicated that they did not believe Goodling would be granted immunity unless she was really going to dish up the goods. The question is no longer academic.

I remain concerned that we're about to see a repeat of the Iran-Contra trick and Goodling will now fall on her own sword and give up no one but herself. In essence, a skating party and everyone's invited.

I sincerely hope that I'm proven wrong about this. Time will tell.

No immunity. Put Goodling in jail for contempt of Congress. Actually, hers is a contempt for the American people.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

The song she will be singing can no doubt be predicted by who it is that's picking up her legal tab.

Suspect this may be more to cast fear in others...ie she sings and provides the access to higherups...under oath.

Immunity for Goodling is a sensible step. Nobody wants to throw Goodling in jail, anyway, despite her fevered dreams of martyrdom. Personally, I don't even care whether Rove goes to jail, though he probably desrves to. The important thing is to expose the Bushies' contempt for justice to the eyes of the world. The goal should be to just get the truth out, so we can see whether the American public can finally get over its delusion that "there's not a dime's worth of difference" between Republicans and Democrats.

I like it. I've had a hunch she is key to having everything beginning to tumble down around this administration. I think Conyers has some inclination as to how important her testimony is. Good call. Some Bush cronies are shitting a brick with this news. Wonder how the Republicans will vote.

2/3rds vote: is this going to be a problem?

Would Conyers put this to a vote if he did not have the numbers?

Goodling must make a proffer BEFORE the offer of imunity can be laid down for her.

If Conyers does nto insist on a proffer get ready for little or no good juicy bits on gonzales.

If there isnt enough in her proffer to interest Conyers...back to square one.

"A two-thirds vote of the panel is required to approve the resolution, which would direct the House counsel to apply to U.S. District Court for a grant of immunity for Monica Goodling, Conyers' statement said."

And THIS is why people like SPECTRE ahve not been burned at the stake yet. In an odd way we need their cooperation.

If the Repugs refuse to vote the correct way there coudl be interesting political problems for them

I also like the move.
There is nothing to be gained by convicting the little fish.
Also there is a missing part of the puzzle: the WH involvement. Maybe she holds the answer.

If they vote to offer immunity to Goodling,
she would be wise to steer clear of swimming pools prior to testifying.

Oath: to these people "oath" means nothing. It is to a "higher power" that they owe allegiance, so that excuses all sorts of "earthly" behavior. Has there been any indication at all from Goodling's attorney that she would be fully cooperative even if immunity is granted? Why are we assuming cooperation? What is the back channel communication between committee and attorney? thanks for any light on my muddled thoughts.

EdnSted is right. Goodling is headed for Republican martyrdom.

I don't wanna see her get immunity. I wanna see her go to jail for contempt of Congress. Susan McDougal went to jail to please Ken Starr--these people would be slapping Dems in jail in a heartbeat. Don't forget it. They play vicious hardball, truth and justice be damned. You wanna get the flock to flutter (and get Goodling to sing anyway, she's altogether too coy and precious to spend any time at all in jail) put the woman in jail. She committed crimes against the public. So did Rove, et al. Make an example of her. Otherwise, the flock will just sit on their hands, cozy in their belief that the Dems are too mamby-pamby to actually hold them accountable. Treat them as they would treat others--there's a concept you can quote them out of the Bible. These people have great respect for their own wealth and liberty, and nothing else.

For those suggesting that Goodling make a proffer, note that this would only make sense if she wanted immunity. But it is obvious that she doesn't want immunity since her real goal, as her lawyer has basically said, is to avoid the "perjury trap" that would await her if she testifies. Granting her immunity forces her to testify but does nothing to prevent her from being prosecuted for perjury for the testimony that she gives.

Granting Goodling immunity would seem like a no-brainer from the committee's perspective since (a) it is highly unlikely that she committed a crime, (b) it is even more unlikely that she would be investigated or prosecuted under the current circumstances and (c)it is doubtful that the committee would have an interest in such a junior person being prosecuted anyway. It also puts both the committee Republicans (who have to vote on the request for immunity) and the Justice Department, which will have to respond to the immunity application (by agreeing or refusing to waive the statutory notice period) on the spot.

What is surprising is that it took this long for the committee to figure this out.

My thought on the matter is that this is linked to the fact that the Justice Dept is sitting on that subpeona.

Conyers and the Panel have to have a strategy here, and since their options are limited for enforcing the subpeona, their best bet is to pressure the Justice Dept into coughing up the subpeonaed documents themselves. If Monica knows something, and esqecially if she knows a lot, that's a weapon they can use as leverage.

The two events (the JD refusing to serve the subpeona and the Panel's scheduled vote on Monica) can't be coincidence. If they vote tomorrow, the AG will have an idea of whether Monica is going to testify before he's called to the committee on Thursday.

There is no requirement that she be subpoenaed before the immunity order is obtained. Once the order is issued, she would be required (by subpoena or agreement)to appear. The committee then proceeds to question her and, assuming that she invokes the Fifth, then would present her with the immunity order.

The immunity is testimonial, meaning that whatever she says can't be used against her. In theory, she could still be prosecuted based on other evidence, but as a practical matter it would be extremely difficult to prosecute her for anything related to the testimony that she gives.

I don't mind her getting the offer of immunity. It would at least provide the committee with more information than if she just pleads the fifth repeatedly.

However, I don't trust her to tell the truth under any circumstance. Better have those perjury charges ready to go when she does sing.

U right on OSAGE. Gonzales's credibility is already toast so his main objective now is to protect Rove and Bush in order to get their support in the future. He's been Bush's private attorney since Texas so we know he is not honest, nor does he do anything without instructions from Bush/Rove. Knowing this the committee realizes they have an ace in the whole with Monica because her situation and how she will react is not predictable by the WH primarily due to the fact that she is inexperienced and incompetent. The mere threat that she might testify is making them all sweat.
code word: roll

It is too bad that a few days in jail could not preceed the immunity.
The fact that a justice official would not report any wrongdoings and take the fifith is disgudting.
I NEVER want to hear again the republicans say they are the party of morals.

" She gets immunity then provides a mountain of conflicting and mostly useless information. "

This is a good point. Immunity that is "imposed" on the witness, without a deal and the witness's cooperation, may not be worth much. After all, "I don't remember" is tough to prosecute.

It's likely, therefore, that Conyers has struck a deal with her. The negotiations would have been "IF we offer immunity, then WHAT will you say?"

So, at this point, it's reasonable to infer that Goodling has come to terms.

Alternatively (absent a deal), there may be political or PR reasons to offer immunity to her now. Possibly to make the Republicans on the committee take a stand. Or perhaps even to bring more pressure on Goodling in some way I don't understand yet.

I'm trying to give Conyers the benefit of the doubt here. He is clearly more knowledgeable and experienced in many areas and issues than I am. I do believe he's trying to get the truth to come out. Yes, I'm skeptical about granting immunity to Goodling, but I would like to believe that Conyers has an excellent grasp of the situation, is not being snowed by bullsh*t and is leading in the committee in the best possible direction. Then again, maybe I'm just bit desparate for something to believe in. It's been a long time since we've had any real oversight.

Dear Chairman Conyers: Don't let the nasty piece of work pull an Oliver North on you. Because she will if she gets the chance. Thanks.

She was a bigger fish than it seems because she helped keep the big Gonzo Fish out of the loop. She is Comstock's protegé, a loyalty-oath deliverer and oppo researcher on her seniors, promoted above her pay grade before her time. She is filth.

So this is the Chritian right wing. This is a great reason to keep church and state apart.

The offer of 5th Amendment (use or transactional?) immunity should hinge on whether she has knowledge of criminal acts by OTHERS. If she has only her own criminality to expose, no 5th.

Conyers needs four Republican votes for the 2/3 majority it takes to grant imunity. Untill now, everything has been done through voice votes, where Republicans could just sit on their hands. Now they have to actually cast a vote. The problem is, what kind of twisted logic can they use to justify a no vote on granting imunity for one of their own.

Mr. Rove...Sir... Utah Representative Chris Cannon... the top Republican on the administrative-law subcommittee...he would like a word with you...Sir.

Barry:

I believe it actually works the other way around. She can only plead the Fifth based on the chance that she would incriminate herself.

If you're talking immunity (rather than Fifth Amendment), then it would only be extended to her, not to others that she implicates.

But I agree with those skeptical of immunity here. "Pig in a poke" is an apt characterization of the decision to offer immunity in exchange for a promise of info from someone neither credibility nor a skin particularly worth saving.

If Monica had an affair with John Ashcroft, will she have to talk about it?

Let others speak to the legalities.

IMHO - speaking professionally here - it seems very likely that someone with an extremely rigid upbringing and a rigid exterior to a fragile personality structure - having no husband, children, other life to shore her up - this woman seems ripe to crack.

I say fragile personality structure because a stronger character would not need to depend so much on someone else's coat-tails, on appearing so tough on those under her. I doubt her inner self is what others have seen on the outside - the harpie that's been described.

So I see the immunity card as not surprising. If she has "cracked" I'm guessing that she will sing and sing the truth. Everything else has collapsed around her. She has no standing, no job, no power left - except to try and redeem herself. I find it hard to see her sitting on her hands. These criminals have no interest in her. They will throw her to the wolves. And she probably knows that by now.

She knows a lot. Of DoJ and the White House. Miers. Rove. etc.

And negotiating this the day before the AG"s testimony - well that should make for a couple of sleepless nights for all of them!

Word is "mother." And she could be the "mother" of all witnesses.

Brendan Sullivan was Oliver North's attorney. Those of us who were there remember a wonderful phrase:

"I am not a potted plant."

Security Code: false. (Do you guys have an irony generating component in your security code software?)

My instinct is that Conyers is making the right move by offering immunity. Every day that goes by without checking and balancing the big 3 (bush, cheney, rove) is a tragedy for the US. While Monica Goodling is almost surely deserving of prison time, the greater good is best served by moving the ball forward and getting her to testify.

I'm in favor of giving her immunity only if she's actually going to be forthcoming. We've have no way of knowing whether Conyers has some sort of proffer from her as to what her testimony would be. If he does and she spills, it's probably worth it.

If they are just blindly giving her immunity and she claims to have masterminded the whole plot, where does that leave things?

A question: if she does admit to criminal acts while testifying under immunity, she can't be prosecuted for them (at least based on her testimony). Could she still be disbarred based on testimony under criminal immunity?