typo...

"Little by little, the look of the country changes because of the men we admire."

Spoken by "Grandad" in the movie "Hud"

Wasn't there a bear named Ling Ling . There is a liar named Goodling .

.
Now this starts to sound like something impeachable.

Is it not reasonable for us to hold accountable the top guy, when this kind of intentional lawlessness is happening in an organization as critical as the DoJ??

Impeach Gonzales now! Get some serious investigations going, and find out the link to the VP and the President.

This kind of stuff doesn't just "happen". People aren't naturally inclined to break the law (and, rest assured, they knew better). Somebody suggests it, or demands it, or orders it. Somebody higher up.

It feels like this whole thing is just going to blow over. How can we keep that from happening? These issues are not too sexy. They won't get a lot of media attention. But they are the basics of our government, the blocking and tackling that we have to do well in order to have a good government. Otherwise it (the government) will begin to rot from the core -- and I'm pretty sure that's happening.

Impeach now!!!

-- ARG

"Goodling obviously knew that her conduct in this regard was dubious, and testified about it even though no one had raised any question about it previously, so as to ensure that her immunity would extend to this episode, as well. (She was very well-advised by John Dowd.)""

I don't know if Goodling really was "very well-advised." In fact, I think if she was told to intentionally raise her misconduct that she was ill-served. True she has immunity in that whatever she actually says at the hearing cannot be used against her, but that does not mean she cannot be prosecuted for her actions through proof and evidence derived from other investigations. She has now told the DOJ Inspector General (as well as the EEOC maybe and other investigatory bodies) exactly where to look for potential evidence of her own wrongdoing. They may never have thought to look at immigration judges before this, and those who were turned down for positions as immigration judges may now rethink their rejection and seek to pursue any legal rights they might have.

is it only me, or is the wording strange? It says: "To hear Goodling tell it, she was assured by the attorney general's chief of staff that there was a legal basis for stocking the nation's immigration courts with political loyalists"

if "har-Monica" is an attorney, why does she pretend to be stupid and ignorant about laws that she is dealing with. why is there no talk about the requirements of the job from day one? Or did they re write the rules for the job, and then give them to her? She pretends to be stupid at times, but then becomes lucid about other things. Now don't quote me, but it appears she both knew the law regarding her position, and admits to breaking that law specifically. Having done so in testimony, and also contradicting doing the same act with another law, is any of her testimony believable?
Would I be wrong to assume congress should be issuing contempt of congress citations, and referring this to DOJ for criminal prosecution?

The best question I've read so far about this fetid scandal was in one of the Letters to the Editor in today's New York Times.

In essence the question was, if none of these people (Goodling, Sampson, McNulty, Gonza) think there was anything wrong or illegal about firing 9 or 10 or all the US attorneys - then why can't or won't any of them tell us where and how and with whom the list originated? It's clear they ALL develop selective amnesia about this one question, and yet, they still insist there was no wrongdoing.

I will donate $1000 cash to the campaign of the first Senator who grows a pair and asks that very question.

And which other* judges was Ms. Goodling and or her subordinates accountable for hiring? Any possibilities this matter affects other departments as well????
I can in fact assure the public of multiple layers of corruption within the Administrative Law Courts of America.I have the proof. America discriminates in courts of law under Gonzo

This good "Christian" woman is still covering her own butt and the butts of the Bush administration.

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

oldtree,

I came to make that point too. She's a lawyer in the fricken Justice Department. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse generally, but triply so for her.

Well, granted she is a crappy lawyer and it would amuse me to no end if in her defence she would cite her sub-par Regency Law education as why she was unaware of these laws.

Remember, Regency is just like Harvard guys...haw

Let's check on all of Bush's appointees.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/nominations/

Yet, still no one in the administration has a clue how those names got on the firing list? Hmm. Somehow I'm sure Fredo and friends agree with Monica that God reached down from heaven and put pen to paper and initiated those firings.

Instead of spending our time attempting to unwind the implausable answers coming out this administration, we need to help these pathetic Dems in moving forward to impeach Fredo call Rove to testify. If the White House has nothing to hide, then Rove's testimony shouldn't be a problem.

The Dems would be smart to counter Bush's ludicrous claims this investigation has gone on too long, as if he and his stonewalling has nothing to do with the lag.

Sorry, Regents, NOT Regency.

I keep wondering if Greg Palast has all this incriminating information with these 500 emails why he doesn't make use of them in a constuctive way.......I'm sure some congressman or senator could make good use of them.....I don't understand why more people aren't questioning Mr. Palast's decision to keep them in his pocket when possibly the content could change the course of the country....what's going on with that?

I keep wondering if Greg Palast has all this incriminating information with these 500 emails why he doesn't make use of them in a constuctive way.......I'm sure some congressman or senator could make good use of them.....I don't understand why more people aren't questioning Mr. Palast's decision to keep them in his pocket when possibly the content could change the course of the country....what's going on with that?

Any info on the Inspector General at DOJ? Is he just a loyal Bushie? If not, I imagine that a number of the older holdovers are ready to re-claim the department's reputation, and will publicly fight any political interference.

What Monica is talking about is nothing other than affirmative action hiring for the Obedience School graduates -- people manifestly unqualified are nonetheless retained and promoted on the basis of shared religious bigotries.

Tulkinghorn @May 25, 2007 10:22 AM

"what was the main criminal activity she was granted immunity for?"

The main criminal activity, which nearly no one seemss to be picking up yet, is the one Goodling mentioned in her opening statuement: caging. The votes of thousands of citizens were stolen, including those of soldiers serving in Iraq.

Greg Palast of the BBC has hard evidence against the caging conspirators.
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4594

Goodling would do serious time if implicated in the caging conspiracy, which is why Dowd had her lay it out while under immunity.

Did anyone notice that Goodling kept saying, "I never met with Rove"? She seemed to be very specific in saying "met" or "never had any meetings". Does that just mean she never met face to face with him about the purge, and maybe she had lots of phone calls with him or emails from him, or hell, maybe even text messages, since he's purported to love his Blackberry so much? And whenever she asserted that she had not "met" with him, how come no questioners followed up by asking if she and Rove communicated outside of meetings, or if she communicated about the purge with his staffers? And have I missed it, or has Sara Taylor and whoever else from Rove's office not testified yet? OK, so everyone from DOJ keeps asserting that ROVE didn't tell them to do this or that, or add this or that person to the purge list, but how come no one seems to be asking if anyone from Rove's office or anyone that works with Rove directed DOJ to purge anyone? It's like the questioners dance up to subject of ROVE, but then they quickly back away with their tails between their legs instead of following up by saying "people who work in Rove's office", or "people who work with Rove".

Spencer's Mom - Rep Artur Davis of Alabama took that line of questioning. After his first 5 minutes expired, two other Dems yielded their time to him to follow through with Monica.

Rep Adam Schiff of California also had 10 minutes to ask probing questions about that office meeting with Gonzales.

BTW, Marty Lederman and others at Balkinization provide knowledgeable lawyers' input on this and other writings and hearings. I've been following some of their arguments (the ones I can comprehend!) for several months.

Monica Goodling is a wicked sinner and a bad Christian. While working to purge the heathens and Phillistines from the holy halls of justice, she allowed her activities to be detected by the enemy. Now the whole ritual purification effort may be in jeopardy. She will surely roast slowly in the fires of hell for this and the Devil has a red hot poker ready for her.

code: flower. As in flower of evil.

Very quick research reveals that several federal employment laws, and perhaps civil rights laws, were violated by Goodling's use of political tests for employment at DoJ. The EEOC is probably OBLIGATED to investigate. And, even more fun, the persons denied employment have several avenues for civil action against Goodling and others at DoJ, and other agencies, who used such practices.

We could get a class action going. Better set up that legal defense fund soon, Ms. Goodling, because no immunity against big fat lawsuits. My favorite would be under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for violating the applicants First Amendment Rights.

"I don't care if it rains or freezes, as long as I have my plastic Jesus."

Spoken by Paul Newman in "Cool Hand Luke."

Posted by: Not Him, Another Guy

Sung, I believe, by Harry Dean Stanton. But my memory of the movie is a bit hazy except for the scene of that young lady washing her car.

She was well prepared by Dowd and her handlers. She said just enough to deflect the questioners and her immunity allowed her to admit just enough about political hiring at the DOJ without any legal consequences. Her little-girl voice and senior-class-president-candidate earnestness caught some of the questioners off guard. Most of the Dems seemed afraid to be aggressive for fear of being labeled bullies by Fox noise. The republicans who
I know Conyers's position in the judiciary committee is probably about seniority, but he is an embarrassment with his mumbling bumbling questions. I don't recall anyone from the GOP sounding this dithered when they put Clinton on the grill.

As to Ms Goodling's comments about not meeting with K. Rove there is something from history that might be relavent. During the 3rd Reich, party functionaries often times did not recieve "orders" or directions on what to do. As true believers of the ideology they KNEW what was EXPECTED and acted accordingly. Those who took initiative on their own without orders or direction were often rewarded with more power and priviledge.

This jumped out at me, as it relates to many other legal issues: ". . .was assured by the attorney general's chief of staff that there was a legal basis for . . ."

Lawyers "assuring" other people of things; yet, there is no reasonable basis for that assurance. Seems similar to the FISA violations, renditino, prisoner abuse, illegal warfare, DOJ OPR getting blocked.

Time to get the spotlight on the broader legal issues; and take the lessons of the US Attorney firing e-mails: WH legal, political, and public affairs personnel were jointly asserting things that could not be reasonably linked with lawful activity.

Of special note is the assertion/finding by the Judge Vaughn adjudicating the NSA-AT&T litigation, where he found that no reasonable person could conclude the activity was legal. In light of Comey's testimony, and the assuraces above [the quote listed], it appears there is a rasonable basis to expand-generalize the findings and look squrely at the WH legal counsel office as it relates to memoranda on abuse [Bybee Memo]; public inconsistent statements on rendition [Berenson commenting about taking risks; then contradicting himself saying he can neither confirm nor deny the issues]; and the findings on FISA violations [Gonzalez asserting there was not enough staff to comply with FISA requirements; yet Comey concluding the program was not lawful].

This is not a political issue, but a legal one: To what extent legal counsel have inducted others to vioalte the law, not comply with their legal requirements, and have inducted the leadership to belive that war crimes were acceptable.

"Dowd got goodling to spill her guts about what she did since whatever she says will undoubtedly taint other investigations - if they look at immigration judges because of her testimony it's "fruit of the poison tree" and not usable." --- i am not deep throat Date: May 25, 2007 10:55 AM

Sorry, but that is incorrect. Only Monica Goodling is protected by the grant of immunity. If her testimony leads to investigation of others, they are fair game and have no protection.

The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine stems from the exclusionary rule established in Weeks v. U. S. and applied to the states in Mapp v. Ohio. It bars the use against a defendant of evidence obtained illegally. Evidence obtained legally -- for example, against immigration judges though initiated by immunized third-party testimony -- most certainly is admissable.

The Supreme Court held that Oliver North's own immunized testimony that eventually led to his criminal conviction and, therefore, was inadmissable. The government claimed that it developed the case against the disgraced lietenant colonel independently, but the Court disagreed and overturned his conviction.

Just to set the record straight.

Uncle Don

Isn't that what I just said about poisonous tree? Immunized testimony, and any leads therefrom, may be used against others in criminal cases and against HER in civil cases.

sue

Monkey see, monkey do, the President has no regard for non-beleivers, why should I?

I watched a clip of Pres. Asshole in China and he said he would say a prayer for all Christian in China.

What is the matter with this jerk, I'm sure a prayer for all the people of China would have been in order.

Just what is the President drinking these days?

Both the Senate and the Congressional JC have got to put their ego's aside.

He's some warfare tactics the must be used.

The next time anybody on this issue is in front of these Committees - you assign the pit bull - you gather the questions...and that pit bull gets to ask all the questions...yeild boys, yeild.

The pit bull hammers the witness for 5 minutes...the witness gets his/her obligitory "you rock and aren't the dems evil" from the next R...the next D yeilds to the pit bull...and we're off. Imagine the effect that would have on the witness - as the R is praising the witness...he/she will soon know that they are going to face the bit bull over and over again...that my friends is how you play war in the Republican world and win.

This comment by Waxman on GSA, seems eerily similar to what's been going on with the US Attorny firings, DOJ OPR, FISA-NSA, illegal prisoner abuse, war crimes, manufactured data on WMD, blocking efforts to impeach the President, stupid questions by the House Judiciary Committee indicating they are not versed on the issues: "It
would be a serious abuse if your statements were part of an effort to retaliate against these
witnesses for cooperating with the Oversight Committee's investigation."

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003296.php

Citizen 92- Thank you for posting the GAO report of May 1, 2006. I paged through it, and note Appendix V, "Conversions Where It Could Not Be Determined Whether Appropriate Authoriries And Proper Procedures Were Followed." These are the 19 (of 144) cases noted by the investigators as not having sufficient information to make an evaluation. Interestingly, three cases are from Health and Human Services, and the other 16 are DoJ appointments. The total number of conversions reported for Justice during the study period of 2001-2005 is 26, so the majority are "suspect". The positions are wide-ranging, as shown in the charts, pp 77-78. I want to read the GAO recommendations which are in the report.

It has been well known in government circles that government agencies, and DoJ in particular, as borderline and not so borderline political questions of career applicants. This is a very broad problem and Monica did not think it up or engage in it alone.

Favorite question to lawyer applicants: Are you a member of the Federalist Society? If not, why not? If so, why haven't you been to the meetings?

This is the absolute truth.

yes, often committee counsel did most of the questioning -- but not so much nowadays because of so much TV exposure. Back then, no CSPAN. Particularly House members need every mjnute in the sun they can get. It's pretty dark over there unless you step up.

GOP NAIVELY ASSUMED THERE WOULD BE PERMANENT SHIELDS TO DISCOVERY OF ILLEGAL WH-EOP-DOJ ACTIVITY

Here's the quote from the AT&T litigation [where Berenson is counsel] which, strikingly sounds similar to the above issue: "AT&T cannot
seriously contend that a reasonable entity in its position could have believed that the alleged domestic dragnet was legal."
http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/308_order_on_mtns_to_dismiss.pdf

Contrast the above quote about NSA -- where there was "no reasonable" basis to assert it was legal -- with the quote from the US Attorney issue [above at TPM]: ". . .was _assured_ by the attorney general's chief of staff that there _was a legal basis_ for . . ."

1. Discredited Shield: Internal DoJ-WH Memorandum Related To Alleged Illegal Activity Cannot Be Shielded, but is evidence

Where are the memorandum "assuring" DoJ Staff counsel that the "concerns" they may have had about the political-related decisions were "not an issue"?

2. Discredited Shield: Assertions of concerns without evidence to believe concerns were real

Once Goodling was "uneasy" about the conversation she had with Gonzalez, who else did she talk to about her concerns; how were these concerns documented; and what was Goodling told-assured to dismiss concerns she and others may have had about the legality of what they were doing?

3. Discredited Shield: WH Legal Counsel Arguably Reckless, Unreliable

How does the "assurance" that there was a "legal basis" for an issue compare with the Bybee Memo in re prisoner abuse?

4. Discredited Shield: Unitary Theory of Presidential Power

How did the AG-Presidential "decision" to "block" DOJ OPR get explained away with "assurances" that things were going to be just fine?

5. Discredited Shield: WH Political Cooperation With Outside Counsel To Editorialize Using Dubious legal Positions, Dissuade Congressional Oversight

To what extent were WH political offices involved with the "assurances" that things would work out on the assumption that the RNC would retain control of Congress; and the GOP would be able to dissuade US Attorneys from prosecuting these DOJ Staff counsel for their caging efforts?

6. Discredited Shield: The GOP Permanent Control of Government Not Assured

What was the basis for the "assurances" from the White House, president, Rove and others in the GOP that nothing would come of FISA violations, abuses, rendition, prisoner abuses, illegal surveillance, warrantless monitoring?

7. Discredited Shield: Improper classification, Invalid reliance on Executive
Privilege

To what extent was the -- now discredited argument -- that the activity was "classified" or "privileged" and would not see the light of day; yet the facts-evidence shows the opposite: That there was as illegal activity; no basis for classification of that illegal activity; that counsel knew or should have known prisoner abuse-FISA violations-illegal surveillance was not protected; and the President's fatal-public assurances about prisoners in Eastern Europe/FISA violations/warrantless surveillance would be admissible, and that executive privilege would not prevail?

8. Discredited Shield: RNC Spin To Affect Judicial Branch

To what extent is the lesson of the US Attorney firing e-mail/spin -- e-mails showing that the WH political-legal-public affairs office engaged in spin to muddy the waters on the US Attorney firings -- part of the plan to "ensure" that the legal challenges to the WH, DOJ staff conduct would amount to "nothing"; or used as the basis to "reassure" WH-EOP-DOJ Staff that nothing would happen?

9. Discredited Shield: President Decision To Ignore the FISA Court

To what extent were the Presidential assertions -- on the basis of allegedly reckless legal advice by WH counsel, that he could ignore the FISA court "During a time of war -- based on dubious, reckless, invalid, or unreasonable reviews of the FISA requirements, and substantially below what WH legal counsel should have been advising in light of clearly promulgated "exclusive" means to conduct surveillance against American citizens without a warrant?

For an agency with the primary mission of defending and strengthening our nation's laws, courts and system of justice, Gonzalez's Department of Justice sure has a lot of employees in key positions who either break the law, claim ignorance of the law or who repeatedly try to get around the law for partisan political purposes.

Gonzalez's appointment to important DOJ positions of in-over-their-head newbies, partisan evangelical operatives and outright ignoramuses is an indictment of Gonzalez's leadership abilities, whether or not he committed perjury or broke laws.

All those DOJ lawyers serving a bunch of knee-jerk conservative amnesiacs. What a shambles the Justice Department has become under Gonzalez.

The Goods on Goodling and the Keys to the Kingdom

Special to BRADBLOG
by Greg Palast

This Monica revealed something hotter — much hotter — than a stained blue dress. In her opening testimony yesterday before the House Judiciary Committee, Monica Goodling, the blonde-ling underling to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Department of Justice Liaison to the White House, dropped The Big One….And the Committee members didn’t even know it.

Goodling testified that Gonzales’ Chief of Staff, Kyle Sampson, perjured himself, lying to the committee in earlier testimony. The lie: Sampson denied Monica had told him about Tim Griffin’s “involvement in ‘caging’ voters” in 2004.

Huh?? Tim Griffin? “Caging”???

The perplexed committee members hadn’t a clue — and asked no substantive questions about it thereafter. Karl Rove is still smiling. If the members had gotten the clue, and asked the right questions, they would have found “the keys to the kingdom,” they thought they were looking for. They dangled right in front of their perplexed faces.

The keys: the missing emails — and missing link — that could send Griffin and his boss, Rove, to the slammer for a long, long time.

Kingdom enough for ya?

But what’s ‘caging’ and why is it such a dreadful secret that lawyer Sampson put his license to practice and his freedom on the line to cover Tim Griffin’s involvement in it? Because it’s a felony. And a big one.

Our BBC team broke the story at the top of the nightly news everywhere on the planet - except the USA - only because America’s news networks simply refused to cover this evidence of the electoral coup d’etat that chose our President in 2004.

Here’s how caging worked, and along with Griffin’s thoughtful emails themselves you’ll understand it all in no time.

The Bush-Cheney operatives sent hundreds of thousands of letters marked “Do not forward” to voters’ homes. Letters returned (”caged”) were used as evidence to block these voters’ right to cast a ballot on grounds they were registered at phony addresses. Who were the evil fakers? Homeless men, students on vacation and — you got to love this — American soldiers. Oh yeah: most of them are Black voters.

Why weren’t these African-American voters home when the Republican letters arrived? The homeless men were on park benches, the students were on vacation — and the soldiers were overseas. Go to Baghdad, lose your vote. Mission Accomplished.

How do I know? I have the caging lists…

I have them because they are attached to the emails Rove insists can’t be found. I have the emails. 500 of them — sent to our team at BBC after the Rove-bots accidentally sent them to a web domain owned by our friend John Wooden.

Here’s what you need to know — and the Committee would have discovered, if only they’d asked:

1. ‘Caging’ voters is a crime, a go-to-jail felony.

2. Griffin wasn’t “involved” in the caging, Ms. Goodling. Griffin, Rove’s right-hand man (right-hand claw), was directing the illegal purge and challenge campaign. How do I know? It’s in the email I got. Thanks. And it’s posted below.

3. On December 7, 2006, the ragin’, cagin’ Griffin was named, on Rove’s personal demand, US Attorney for Arkansas. Perpetrator became prosecutor.

The committee was perplexed about Monica’s panicked admission and accusations about the caging list because the US press never covered it. That’s because, as Griffin wrote to Goodling in yet another email (dated February 6 of this year, and also posted below), their caging operation only made the news on BBC London: busted open, Griffin bitched, by that “British reporter,” Greg Palast.

There’s no pride in this. Our BBC team broke the story at the top of the nightly news everywhere on the planet — except the USA — only because America’s news networks simply refused to cover this evidence of the electoral coup d’etat that chose our President in 2004.

And now, not bothering to understand the astonishing revelation in Goodling’s confessional, they are missing the real story behind the firing of the US attorneys. It’s not about removing prosecutors disloyal to Bush, it’s about replacing those who refused to aid the theft of the vote in 2004 with those prepared to burgle it again in 2008.

Now that they have the keys, let’s see if they can put them in the right door. The clock is ticking ladies and gents…

***************
Greg Palast is the author of the New York Times bestseller, Armed Madhouse: From Baghdad to New Orleans - Sordid Secrets and Strange Tales of a White House Gone WILD. For more info, or to hear Brad Friedman, Ed Asner and other troublemakers read from Armed Madhouse, go to www.GregPalast.com

"the department's Office of Legal Counsel had said it was OK".

Let's reflect on that a momont. Was this just a verbal OK? If not, where is the paper trail and did that paper trail cite the legal ruling authorizing such action.

Was Goodling just sloppy and stupid? From what she said yesterday she is still the one under the gun for criminal behavior, with only her immunity saving her.

Posted by: Buck
Date: May 25, 2007 12:07 PM

Sorry if the repetition of the caging issue offends you, but the caging issue itself offends many others. Thousands of eligible voters were illegally removed from the voter roles. The person who was in charge of the conspiracy currently serves as the United States Attorney for Eastern Arkansas. That activity very well may have affected the outcome of the 2004 Presidential election.

If in the next election, when you arrive at your polling station and discover you discover that you are ineligible to vote because your name is no longer on the list, you may reflect back that those persons who showed outrage at the discovery of caging by the RNC may have had good reason to be outraged.

Caging. Election fraud is what this is all about, and make no mistake that the Bush Regime is laying a foundation for the next round as well.

Combine the election rigging with the new action to put "the Decider" in charge after a national crisis adn what do you get? Imagine this: Polls showing Republican candidate down by 25 points going in to the election, despite the preemptive war with Iran, A bomb in Arkansas, or Missouri - somewhere with a new US attorney/Sycophant/Bushie.

Martial law, elections cancelled or negated by crooked courts under "special circumstances..."

Don't think it couldn't happen. If we put the parts together, most of it already has.

Security code "safe" I don't think so.

"...reckless legal advice by WH counsel"

"...legal counsel have inducted others to violate the law"

To the poster(s) above, at 11:29am and 12:10pm today: YES!

Indeed this is a big problem, and an old one. Many laws and procedures in the Executive Branch require "seeking a written legal opinion" and this requirement has been widely abused.

It appears one can secure a written legal opinion for anything, because one can always find/pay a partisan-enough or evil-enough lawyer to write it.

I recall abuse of this principle from Iran Contra, many CIA activities, NSA activities, Yoo on torture, and many other examples. What began as a sensible precautionary measure, to seek a legal opinion, has become permission to carry out crimes.

This allows the perps to say, "Hey what do I know about the intricacies of the law? I'm just a politician, and I did seek a legal opinion, just as I am required, and I acted in good faith on that basis..."

I don't know how to work our way around this, except to disbar or otherwise punish the lawyers who are willing to undermine justice in this way. But, for example, Yoo, the Torture-is-the-American-Way guy, is making 150K+ teaching his legal views at UC Berkeley - some punishment for okaying the torture of children! I can only hope the guilt rots a hole in his brain, and leaves him an empty man. Unfortunately, he stands as an idol and role model for lawyers and law students everywhere.

I don't believe in final justice in some post-death world, so it is important that we punish these people here and now, or they really do get away with it.

tjallen

""Goodling obviously knew that her conduct in this regard was dubious, and testified about it even though no one had raised any question about it previously, so as to ensure that her immunity would extend to this episode, as well. (She was very well-advised by John Dowd.)""

"I don't know if Goodling really was "very well-advised." In fact, I think if she was told to intentionally raise her misconduct that she was ill-served. True she has immunity in that whatever she actually says at the hearing cannot be used against her, but that does not mean she cannot be prosecuted for her actions through proof and evidence derived from other investigations. She has now told the DOJ Inspector General (as well as the EEOC maybe and other investigatory bodies) exactly where to look for potential evidence of her own wrongdoing. They may never have thought to look at immigration judges before this, and those who were turned down for positions as immigration judges may now rethink their rejection and seek to pursue any legal rights they might have.

"Posted by: bubba
Date: May 25, 2007 10:24 AM"

That's a very good point. The limited immunity agreement is only between the House Judiciary Committee and Goodling. It doesn't apply to other House committees, or to the Seante, or any other investigative body.

Goodling might have been advised by Dowd to let on where the bodies are buried in order to get lesser punishment down the road for being "cooperative".

The reality is that, though doubtless told by word or action, long ago, that anything goes, she at the DOJ did what she did willingly. She didn't need to be told to ask political questions. SOP.

But that doesn't mean she wasn't. Or that her superiors, and co-equals, didn't know it. Or that it wasn't an affirmative, aggressive policy. She was entirely a political operative, and that is what she was required to be. And apparently had so little compunction against being that that she was promoted with remarkable speed.

This gets better and better, and isn't going away any time soon. I want to see her testify to the Senate Judiciary Committee, under oath, and with no immunity.

I'd also like to see what's in the unredacted documents she apparently did give to the House Committee.

Bubba,
She was very well advised.
The fact that she told the committee where to look for her crimes gets her off the hook.
It's the "fruit of the poison tree" argument."
That's why Ollie North never did the time either.

Frankly, I don't care if they gave Monica immunity if it provides valuable information to get this Administration and restore the DOJ. It would seem that as far as she is concerned, there would be enough information to dis-bar her, which, is not part of immunity.

Wonder what relationship the politically-vetted immigration judges have to Court of Appeals recent and growing criticism of the outcomes of immigration hearings (i.e., chastising immigration judges for not properly considering evidence). Take a look at this article from 7/31/05 . . . and it appears that the criticism of IJ's continues (including in a decision released as recently as today, criticizing an Immigration Judge & the Board of Immigration Appeals for unreasonably discounting the prospect of harm to a woman and husband who fled Cameroon to avoid genital mutilation) - the Court decision mentions, for example, that the immigration judge "quotes selectively" from human rights reports. http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/3E0SLA06.pdf Wonder how many of these harshly criticized IJs are from the current wave of political appointments?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20050731/ai_n14828243
"People seeking asylum in the United States are gaining support from an unexpected source: the Chicago-based 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals and, in particular, its best-known judge, Richard Posner.

"The appeals court, which oversees Wisconsin, has seen a major jump in its immigration caseload since 2002, when the U.S. attorney general streamlined the processing of immigration cases to clear a huge backlog. The court has issued a string of opinions criticizing sometimes in harsh tones how immigration judges have ruled against asylum-seekers. . . ."

True seperation of church and state would bar law from being taught at a religious school. Exception being religious law can be taught but not leading to a degree in law.

Besides, who ever heard of a good Christian lawyer?

Again, this is sufficient evidence of criminal conspiracy. Where are the RNC and other non-governmental emails? Apparently, the Republican Party asserts that these emails "belong to the Executive" branch, even if they are evidence of a crime and even if they don't exist.

I love reading the comments here because they are so funny.

Has anyone on this board ever actually read the decisions issued by Immigration Judges????

Those things have so much boilerplate in them a trained monkey could do the job.

What do they have so much boilerplate??

Because the immigration and asylum petitions on which they are based all look alike.

Trust me -- once you've read one Falun Gong or Tamil Tiger asylum petition you never have a need to read another because they all read alike.

The oral record of order from these immigration hearings are hilarious in that the judges say the same thing everytime. Its the lowest form of "judging" there is.

Re getting Goodling to tell the truth.

Someone here should start a petition to have Leahy "waterboard" her.

A grant of immunity for testimony doesn't allow you to commit perjury, it in fact requires you to tell all the truth regardless of the legality of your actions.

So I don't think Monica got good advice about telling lies about her understanding of the legality of her actions. She can still (perhaps especially) be prosecuted for lying to the nice congresscritters!

JR

This article from a couple months ago points out another handy use for Immigration Judgeships -- to buy silence.

--------------------------------------------------

"Patronage 'crime' does pay -- for Justice Dept.
Chicago Sun-Times, Mar 25, 2007 by Carol Marin":

"Patronage, after all, can be a useful tool in shutting people up. Consider the cases of two of the recently whacked federal prosecutors, Margaret Chiara, the U.S. attorney in Grand Rapids, Mich., and Daniel Bogden, the U.S. attorney in Nevada.

"When all hell started to break loose over the firings, Justice officials began to scramble, looking for ways to put a lid on what was quickly becoming a firestorm.

"In Bogden and Chiara's cases, the Bushies considered handing out a little patronage to ease the blow of their firings.

"Justice Department officials tried to offer each of them new jobs as immigration judges. White House Counsel William Kelley, in an e- mail, uses the "p" word outright, writing about "a new patronage" opportunity for Bogden, one that might quiet administration critics of the purge.

"In Chiara's case, Deputy Attorney General Michael Elston says in one of the released documents that getting her a new federal job like immigration judge "may help us avoid linking this to the others" who were fired. Lessening the blow, perhaps."

(Click name for full article)

She was not well advised to bring the subject up if she then lied about it. She loses any immunity if she perjures herself.

To John

Goodling doesn't "lose immunity" if she perjures herself. She simply has no immunity for the new crime of perjury. She still has immunity for the topics about which she has immunity.

This is an educated audience here. If you are not a lawyer, don't make statements about the law. If you are a lawyer and went to Regent Law School, don't make statements about the law.

rsgtzfpq ncmb sghzluqkd anquifmtz twxvehfb bmavwrhi tquyknl