Comments (57)

And justice for all..... wrote on April 12, 2007 6:43 PM:

Something tells me that we need to start "waterboarding" certin "elected" even "unelected" officals to get the truth. I mean whats good for the goose is good for the gander... Right?
Security Code= snake... how fitting....

Gary Reilly wrote on April 12, 2007 6:45 PM:

They damn well better get a proffer first.

We can't stand for more Iran-Contra undercutting of prosecutions.

jdw wrote on April 12, 2007 6:48 PM:

One would hope that they pass on giving immunity.

Jim Houston wrote on April 12, 2007 6:50 PM:

Goodling just might talk if she thinks she might go to jail anyway having to talk to congress under immunity and refusing to talk.She just might get the message.

negativequity wrote on April 12, 2007 6:53 PM:

Oh my God.
Is this happening again? (Iran-Contra, Watergate)I feel like I am stuck in the movie "Groundhog Day". I just want to get on with my life. But something tells me that if this Administration has its way, those days will never come back.
Good luck my fellow Americans. Thanks TPM for all the hard work.
Security Code: bell - "for whom the bell tolls"

Anonymous wrote on April 12, 2007 6:58 PM:

It is almost certainly true because it explains why she has not been issued a subpoena of her own yet.

fatkat wrote on April 12, 2007 7:01 PM:

the closer we get to AG testifying, the more junk surfaces. Yet, those who can supply information are now caving in in hope of offering something that will tease congress! Tomorrow is Friday, and we all know what happens on Friday, and just in time before next weeks hearings! Also, if you go to the site that Greg mentioned on TMP with the Republicans Attorney referral network, check out the names in the areas of service, and their work experience! Very interesting who you will find! And the conflict of interest that is occurring.

JT in Seattle wrote on April 12, 2007 7:08 PM:

The problem with immunity in the Iran-Contra context was the immunizing North was STUPID. If you immunize the person who is the ultimate target of the investigation, you greatly diminish your chances of a successful criminal prosecution down the line.

The is absolutely no reason to believe that Goodling is the equivalent of Col. North. If anything, she's a like North's secretary (the uber-hottie Fawn Hall), except she is not as hot and would never stuff anything in her panties that wasn't Pat Robertson approved.

There is a reason she is claiming the 5th. The claim that it was because of the political environment has always seemed suspect to me. I think she may know about criminal activity and went along with it. There is no way a 4th rate christian madrasa like Regent produced someone capable of running the purge.

EdNSted wrote on April 12, 2007 7:40 PM:

The problem with granting immunity to Goodling is that Goodling could probably be convinced to take the fall -- a la "It was all my idea really, I kinda went out on a limb. No, I never really informed my bosses about what I was doing. I'm really sincerely super duper sorry about this whole entire misunderstanding and I promise it'll never ever ever ever happen again."

In this scenario, Goodling falls on her sword and walks due to immunity. She gives up nobody. Everyone walks. Nothing to see here folks. Please move right along.

Alfred Kelgarries wrote on April 12, 2007 7:46 PM:

I like it. "Christian Madrassa", right up to the political suicide bombing (refusing to appear even if subpoenaed). Do we really think the current DOJ would put Goodling in jail for refusing to obey a "Democrat Congress" (note spelling of first word" subpoena? Hear that hollow echo...

ps: how about "Theonazi" rather than "Christian"? My dad was a graduate theologian, and he has been brought to tears (at 91 and still living, though the alzheimers is beginning to take its toll) by the "abomination that causes desolation, standing in a holy place" that is modern right-wing protestant fundamentalism...

Code: fact. How mavellous. your bell-effect random dollars at work

Alfred Kelgarries wrote on April 12, 2007 7:48 PM:

And to the poster suggesting she'll do an ollie north, that trick only works once. rest assured our congressional staffers will have a proffer of what she will say and if she deviates, deal is off.

code: lock. Oh my it only gets better...

Anonymous wrote on April 12, 2007 8:01 PM:

It's way too early to grant Goodling immunity. Too many other people to hear from.

freelunch wrote on April 12, 2007 8:06 PM:

Who will be our Maximum John Sirica ready to help? I'm sure there are a few law-and-order judges in DC who would be willing to help Goodling have the spine and integrity to answer truthfully after she makes her proffer. Wouldn't a real Christian confess her mistake and take her punishment like an adult?

code: bell, again. "It tolls for thee."

FlyOnTheWall wrote on April 12, 2007 8:17 PM:

Let's not lose sight of the big picture. Goodling's claim of privilege is apparently based upon the fact that she offered McNulty incomplete information before he testified to Congress. That exposes her to prosecution, in that she indirectly misled Congress.

If the Congress chooses to grant her "use immunity," that would bar the use of her statements before Congress in any prosecution of that earlier crime. But if she in any way misleads Congress, she opens herself to even greater legal liability - for directly misleading a body she had previously only indirectly misled. That's a heck of a lot easier to prove.

But we shouldn't get carried away. Any offer of immunity is, at best, months away. First the committee needs to exhaust other avenues. Then it needs to notify Justice thirty days before the grant. In all probability, Congress would then have to demonstrate its willingness to cite Goodling for contempt. The TIME story is just a tactical maneuver by Congressional Dems in their ongoing negotiations with Fred Fielding, to prove that they have other avenues available to them, should they need to pursue them.

lestatdelc wrote on April 12, 2007 8:24 PM:

Dunno about Fawn Hall not stuffing things in her panties that was not Pat Robertson approved. She married Danny Sugerman, former manager of The Doors after all. (wry grin)

LOL Security Code word = potato

The algorithm must have thought I was going to post about Dan Quayle

Anonymous wrote on April 12, 2007 8:27 PM:

"Wouldn't a real Christian confess her mistake...?"

Yeah, but what does that have to do with Ms. Gooding?

FlyOnTheWall wrote on April 12, 2007 8:27 PM:

Let's not lose sight of the big picture. Goodling's claim of privilege is apparently based upon the fact that she offered McNulty incomplete information before he testified to Congress. That exposes her to prosecution, in that she indirectly misled Congress.

If the Congress chooses to grant her "use immunity," that would bar the use of her statements before Congress in any prosecution of that earlier crime. But if she in any way misleads Congress, she opens herself to even greater legal liability - for directly misleading a body she had previously only indirectly misled. That's a heck of a lot easier to prove.

But we shouldn't get carried away. Any offer of immunity is, at best, months away. First the committee needs to exhaust other avenues. Then it needs to notify Justice thirty days before the grant. In all probability, Congress would then have to demonstrate its willingness to cite Goodling for contempt. The TIME story is just a tactical maneuver by Congressional Dems in their ongoing negotiations with Fred Fielding, to prove that they have other avenues available to them, should they need to pursue them.

sniflheim wrote on April 12, 2007 8:28 PM:

She just might be the type to do the time for the family until the pardon comes.

sniflheim wrote on April 12, 2007 8:29 PM:

She just might be the type to do the time in contempt for the family until the pardon comes.

Kathy wrote on April 12, 2007 8:36 PM:

Congress has to work FAST. We can't wait months! No dawlding

Anonymous wrote on April 12, 2007 8:39 PM:

"Wouldn't a real Christian confess her mistake..."

Well, sure, but what does that have to do with Ms. Gooding.

Alfred Kelgarries wrote on April 12, 2007 8:46 PM:

I DONT BELIEVE IT! JACK CAFFERTY JUST READ MY EMAIL ON CNN! HOLY SMOKES!

DF wrote on April 12, 2007 8:49 PM:

Grant her immunity, put her under oath, televise her testimony, and move on. Puting another scooter in jail is a waist of time.

DF wrote on April 12, 2007 9:00 PM:

Good job Alfred.

JT in Seattle wrote on April 12, 2007 9:14 PM:

Alfred,

I prefer the phrase "Christian madrasa" because I think that it has as much to do with real Christianity as a Muslim madrasa has to do with the true nature of Islam.

It is the fundamentalism, regardless of stripe, that needs to be confronted.

United, I stand alone against collectivism wrote on April 12, 2007 9:16 PM:

What a sad bunch of losers, on both sides. GET ON WITH IT. Quit piece-mealing and put something substantive together. Either you have the goods on these sorry sons-o-bitches, or you don't. Quit pussy-footing around and nail one of the bastards. Otherwise, don't waste taxpayer time and money stretching out a sticky, stinky turd. Pinch the fucker off already! BENT: as in "Hell bent for justice" and constantly disappointed.

Alfred Kelgarries wrote on April 12, 2007 9:26 PM:

JT:

Right, of course. I believe my dad calls it "Revelatory Drift", where a faith has a great revelator, but his followers and their followers drift away from the revelations until all that is left are the names and some of the forms.

That's why it is time for believers (and I am not one but I try to respect those who do) to perhaps take back their faiths from the extremists. i didn't do religious history in college, can anyone cite an example in history of this happening? (I exempt Protestantism because that was as much political and social and economic as theological.)

code: degree. This thing is scary...

Johann wrote on April 12, 2007 9:33 PM:

Please keep in mind here that Monica Goodling has not yet invoked her Fifth Ammendment rights against self incrimination. She has only stated that if questioned by Congress she would claim those rights.

Anonymous wrote on April 12, 2007 9:55 PM:

I'm so depressed. Just got off the phone with a college educated friend. All they could talk about is Imus or Duke Lacrosse. When I mentioned the missing emails all I got was a "Huh". The Dems are really going to need to make an effort to get these stories out there. Come up with some good talking points and keep mentioning it because right now the public is convinced Don Imus/Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson is the biggest story out there. And in a week there will be another scandal du jour. This story is just not getting the coverage it should. When you have the president and his henchmen taking a shit on the Constitution there should be outrage amongst the public- but there is pretty much silence. Dems need to do a better job of manufacturing the outrage and forcing people to take notice. Part of the problem is I don't know how you can reduce all these scandals into sound bites that the typical American who is glued to tv will understand.

Anonymous wrote on April 12, 2007 10:01 PM:

I think she is going to be the one to bring down the whole cabal. Not sure why, I just have a hunch. History will remember her name.

Karl wrote on April 12, 2007 10:14 PM:

So she gets immunity, takes the fall for everyone else's deeds, Gonzaliar, Rove, the White House and anyone else of consequence skates, and it's back to business as usual. What have the Democrats accomplished then, other than getting rid of a few DoJ underlings?

fatkat wrote on April 12, 2007 10:55 PM:

Here are some good news stuff regarding hiding
emails..

http://wood-s.newsvine.com/_news/2007/04/12/660271-time-for-the-it-boys-to-rip-into-the-white-houses-private-server

The quote below is From :http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/4/12/73713/5692
By Last Night in Little Rock, Section Corruption Cases

The FBI's computer forensics teams can recover them. I've got clients in prison who can attest to that.

It does not require the FBI--any competent computer forensics person with access to the server can recover them, or at least most of them. Therefore, Congress should issue a forthwith subpoena duces tecum for the server itself.

Now thats is good!

Johann wrote on April 12, 2007 11:02 PM:

Alfred Kelgarries:
To respond to your questions about:

That's why it is time for believers to perhaps take back their faiths from the extremists. i didn't do religious history in college, can anyone cite an example in history of this happening? (I exempt Protestantism because that was as much political and social and economic as theological.)

Citing an example from history is unlikely since all religions are "political, social and economic, as well as theological".

The whole idea of religion was thought up to help rulers, priests and shamans control the great mass of the unwashed populations. Therefore, any example from history will show religious reformations to be just a change in priests and rulers.

zz wrote on April 12, 2007 11:12 PM:

Give her immunity. Fake-Christians such as her will do anything to save their skin. Like snakes, they will even "molt their beliefs" in a jiffy! She is a snake, she always has been, the veneer of fake-faith is busted. So, Plan-B - squeal like a pig. She will. Grant her immunity.

TheraP wrote on April 12, 2007 11:13 PM:

Alfred -

There are lots of examples of people "trying" to reform a faith. But I think the best examples of actual reform are evident in monastic orders. The Trappists, for example, were reformers within the Cistercian order and the Cistercians reformed the Benedictines. Many, many individuals, especially within these monastic settings, have successfully carried out religious reforms.

However, it's easier to do something like that on a small scale. And, given that people in monasteries have dedicated their lives to spiritual growth and development, and to the extent that they are psychologically healthy and led by psychologically healthy people, there is probably a far higher potential for success in this setting.

I would assume the same has happened in Buddhist monasteries and Zen monasteries.

Expecting the fundies to reform, however, is another story entirely. Instead of dedication to spiritual development, they have dedication to believing the "literal" reading of ancient texts, e.g. the bible or the koran.

Getting back to the matter at hand. In my line of work, I'd say there's always a chance that someone like monica COULD in a situation of high anxiety find herself having to question the motives of those she has so blindly followed and MIGHT come to see that she has not only broken laws but betrayed her own deepest values.

I think there's more hope of one individual having a true change of heart than a whole bunch of people who tend to follow blindly what they are taught. She comes from a broken home and seems to want to redeem herself. You never know. Be we can hope...

I too think there is a chance here - that she could break this thing open. (I guess that's in god's hands - truly.)

zz wrote on April 12, 2007 11:33 PM:

TheraP,

You quote "betrayed her own deepest values"? That assumes two things - "lack of sheep-mentality" and "deep-faith leading to questions". She has neither! She probably holds the key to impeachment which would be ironic (given her "hmmm-christian" belief) since impeachment is "Sooooo Secular"!

DaddyD wrote on April 13, 2007 12:06 AM:

Questions: Is is better to drag this thing out or speed it up? Slow, I think. Ideally, the Dems want this to come to a head next year, for maximum political gain. But, what of pardons? You know they're gonna happen. So, can the Dems work this in such a way as to force Bush to make early decisions on pardons?

tired wrote on April 13, 2007 12:08 AM:

I hope the earlier poster was wrong and history will not remember Monica's name (at least not this Monica). I worked with her once and she's like Beetlejuice. Say her name three times and... poof! there she is.

code sheep, as in need to count some.

JD21 wrote on April 13, 2007 12:10 AM:

Oh my my my it looks like the Republicans may have behaved even worse than we thought. I didn't think that was possible anymore. Not with how riddled their credibility is. By the way I am referring here and to my other posts to Republican politicians and officials when I refer to Republicans of course. Of course Republicans will claim that Republicans aren't breaking these laws which are all so clear when the Republicans pass them to make a Democratic White House keep proper records of their business but are all so hopelessly confusing when they apply to their own. Funny how amnesia once again sets in for Republican lawbreakers. The old double standard rears its ugly head.

Seriously, it's time to start seriously thinking about impeaching. And fast.

whizkid wrote on April 13, 2007 12:18 AM:

As Kurt Vonnegut said, we are the only nation"...with a national anthem which was giberish, sprinked with question marks".
So it goes.

whizkid wrote on April 13, 2007 12:19 AM:

As Kurt Vonnegut said, we are the only nation"...with a national anthem which was giberish, sprinked with question marks".
So it goes.

whizkid wrote on April 13, 2007 12:35 AM:

OK. I've read some more postings. Don't want this to die? Pick up the phone. I know we love our computers. But if you want to have impact - CALL!!! I was in commercial media. These people hate to have to answer a phone and actually TALK to an outraged Listener/Veiwer/Consumer/Constituent.
Call MSM and local Congress and....Get Er Done!!!!

Michael Stevens wrote on April 13, 2007 1:46 AM:

Good point FlyOnTheWall,

However I'd be more inclined to offer her limited transactional immunity. I'd specify the limiting factor as immunity from the very specific charges related to her false briefing of McNulty. I'd go so far as to list out each of the specific criminal charges from which she would be immunized.

Unlike use immunity, she'd be immunized against the crime, not against whatever she happened to say on the stand. In this way it would be far more difficult for the fruit of her testimony to immunize her against other crimes. (see Oliver North). Her actual testimony would have no relevance to the immunity.

This would compel her testimony and deter her from falsely falling on her sword. Because were she to falsely fall on her sword under this sort of immunity, she could be charged for any unrelated crimes her testimony revealed. The deterrent against her taking a bullet for the administration would be no more or less than it is right now. She would remain criminally culpable for everything except the McNulty lie.

I wonder if Schumer and company have the brass to unilaterally grant her limited transactional immunity? It would be one hell of a bold negotiating ploy. Goodling already seems terribly anxious not to testify, this move would probably scare the daylights out of her.

It would force her to either testify, face contempt of congress charges, or come up another justification for pleading the 5th. (another crime to which she is potentially culpable).

A unilateral grant of limited transactional immunity might even terrify her enough to turn on the administration and become a friendly witness.

Bob in Arkansas wrote on April 13, 2007 2:25 AM:

It would seem that this would be the ideal time to send the subpoenas to the white house staff. Use the excuse, that due to unavailable e-mail documents that have not been either saved or kept according to the law, only these staff members testimony will answer the questions necessary to complete the investigation. One of two things will happen, they will suddenly find more e-mails or Bush faced with a violation of the law visible to the public will suddenly allow them to testify.

nofltwlt wrote on April 13, 2007 7:39 AM:

I don't know about you or Ms. Goodling but I am feel embarrassment every time one of these public figures behave as Ms. Goodling is doing. Americans deserve the truth. If Ms. Goodling violated the law then her faith and her family should insist that she fess up to her transgressions.

Devoutly religious people are the most dangerous people on earth, here's why. Ms. Goodling must only say a prayer and confess her sin(s) and she is refreshed, repaired, ready and prepared to go out and do awful things all over again.

When people like Goodling face the gates she is likely to hear, "I was just kidding, you actually had to DO good in order to get in, Fawell and Robertson were just leading you astray and it is now time to pay for your sins".

TheraP wrote on April 13, 2007 9:13 AM:

zz

Point well taken!

Ok. She has betrayed "my" deepest values! And I wish she'd question things and find a deeper "grounding" instead of just following like a sheep.

Honest faith involves paradox. Leaping into the darkness. Sometimes people can become scared enough that the leap is better than simply peering over the cliff.

Ok. It's my hope here that her "faith" will literally be catapulted beyond her own narrow understanding - even to her surprise - and she will receive the strength to spill the beans and "save" us all.

I'm old. But I still have hope!

The word is "judge." Very apt.

JT wrote on April 13, 2007 9:17 AM:

As I recall, Monica's lawyer said she was going to invoke the Fifth only because she was afraid that she might testify honestly and still be accused of perjuring herself in that honest testimony.

Offer her immunity from prosecution for perjury for any honest testimony she gives the committee. End of privilege claim. (Unless, of course, that isn't really the self-incrimination she was trying to avoid.)

Anonymous wrote on April 13, 2007 9:21 AM:

Is it posible that the closed door interviews that the commitee's investigators have been holding these past two weeks have yeilded nothing of value? The WH would know this because of the republican back door communication to them.

The email trail has apparently died (or will lead to nowhere). The MSM is more concerned with Imus. Abu G. will display his ever growing amnesia affliction on Tuesday. Bush will fight back (stuborn is as stubborn does) screaming Executive Privledge...to run out the clock - and dampen the publics appettite for the story in the process.

And so that leaves them with the last card - Goodlings immunity.

I hope my assesment is wrong.

nrglaw wrote on April 17, 2007 1:44 PM:

I'm a little surprised at all the posts suggesting that Goodling will fall on her sword here. Her immunity deal is not going to stand up in those circumstances. I don't think this person wants to go to jail.

artur@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 9:37 PM:

hello

artur@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 9:37 PM:

hello

artur@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 9:37 PM:

hello

tonny@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 9:56 AM:

hello

tonny@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 9:57 AM:

hello

kate@gmail.com wrote on May 6, 2007 10:25 PM:

hello

catarina@aol.com wrote on May 23, 2007 3:11 AM:

buy cialis

free downloads music wrote on September 30, 2007 3:29 AM:

Hi, there!..66c7675abbbd8a574c6cf5b5b76e9a3d