Comments (113)

Anonymous wrote on April 25, 2007 11:27 AM:

Iglesias is a man scorned. A John Dean for the new millennium

DF wrote on April 25, 2007 11:27 AM:

Monica Goodling, come on down.

The arguments against granting immunity by the handful of loyal bushies on the minority side were beyond weak, they contradicted themselves. Sensenbrenner said he was voting against immunity because he was afraid that Miss Goodling may escape justice like Oliver North. A few minutes later another Republican said that he was voting against immunity because the evidence was clear that there was no wrongdoing and the whole investigation is just a waist of time.

Mike wrote on April 25, 2007 11:29 AM:

I guess the democrats learned nothing from thier experience at handing out imunity from Iran Contra hearings. She can not go before the commitee and lie, without any downsides, like jail.

Aeneas wrote on April 25, 2007 11:31 AM:

Goody Goodling immunized?

Be still mah hort!

She thought this would be a fun job, but prison stipes don't appeal to her fashion sense, so she'll play stool pigeon cheerfully.
She just might give up the keys to the Bastille, quit, go home and bake cookies for the church socials. Better a footnote to history than bunk mate to Big Biker Momma.

David in NY wrote on April 25, 2007 11:32 AM:

Prison rape jokes are not funny.

longtimeobserver wrote on April 25, 2007 11:33 AM:

How coincidental and apt. Security code "fear" says it all.

RNC, be afraid, very afraid.

Sebastian Dangerfield wrote on April 25, 2007 11:34 AM:

Mike: The immunity grant does not immunize her from any charges of lying to Congress. It only applies to the past actions that are the subject of the testimony sought.

JT wrote on April 25, 2007 11:35 AM:

Was it use or transaction immunity?

Duffy wrote on April 25, 2007 11:36 AM:

Goehrmert Pyle?

Well, goo-oo-ly!

Spencer's Mom wrote on April 25, 2007 11:37 AM:

Can we get details of the immunity deal? Such as consequences for Ms. Regent University if she "doesn't recall" specifics?

She obviously had enough recollection of her dealings, dirty dealings, to plead the fifth before any questioning. Let's hope her memory doesn't fail her in the upcoming days and weeks.

code word: weight, as in "of the world"

JTL wrote on April 25, 2007 11:40 AM:

What if she cops to it and takes responsibility for being the one who made the list? What happens then?

tekel wrote on April 25, 2007 11:42 AM:

NO! NO IMMUNITY WITHOUT PROFFER! Oh, lordy, my head is going to explode. It's Iran/Contra all over again, except this time Ollie North is a dumb blond chick who loves her some Jeebus!

Why should she get immunity? What could she possibly say that Waxman and Conyers don't already know? She's just going to lie anyway. Here's an idea: How about we spraypaint her brown, lock the bitch up in Cuba, and just forget she exists?

We already know that DOJ has withheld communications in the Renzi/Charlton/USA episode. What else do you need to charge Gonzales with obstruction? He's said many many times that he accepts responsibility. Let's see him accept it from the inside of an orange jumpsuit.

There is no "doubt" that she's guilty as hell.

poggy wrote on April 25, 2007 11:43 AM:

Does anyone know what congress can/will do if she
ignores the subpoena and immunity offer, which seems likely given her loyalties and past noncompliance?

Punchy wrote on April 25, 2007 11:43 AM:

"Can we get details of the immunity deal? Such as consequences for Ms. Regent University if she "doesn't recall" specifics?"

You'd better believe most of her testimony will be the "I cannot recall", "I cannot remember", and "I have no recollection" sort.

You cannot punish someone for "forgetting", only lying. Therein lies her sudden memory lapses. Trust me, they will be numerous and often.

EdNSted wrote on April 25, 2007 11:45 AM:

So the question is no longer merely academic. The deal has been done. We'll soon see whether we have bought real sunlight for this investigation or merely a pig in a poke, a la Iran-Contra.

I don't know but I'm certainly hoping for the best.

liberal wrote on April 25, 2007 11:45 AM:

JTL wrote, What if she cops to it and takes responsibility for being the one who made the list? What happens then?

If other evidence arises contradicting her claim of responsibility, she gets thrown in jail for lying to Congress. (I assume this includes Ch 18, Section 1001, which is a felony.)

Ephus wrote on April 25, 2007 11:45 AM:

According to the Judiciary Comm. website, the House General Counsel is instructed to seek use immunity from the D.C. District Court. It is not transactional immunity.

So, Goodling cannot be prosecuted based upon anything she says, nor can she be prosecuted based upon anything developed from what she says. She could, however, be prosecuted for her prior actions, SO LONG AS,

1. All of the evidence that is used to prosecute here is entirely unrelated to her testimony;

2. All of the people involved in the prosecution are entirely unaware of the substance of her testimony.

What that means in real life is, unless a prosecutor someplace already has a prosecution in a box, which can be sealed and dated, and a team that can be shielded from all news of her testimony, any conviction obtained would be thrown out on appeal. That is what happened with Poindexter.

On the other hand, if Goodling lies, including falsely claiming not to remember things that she actually remembers, she can be (1) held in contempt of Congress or (2) prosecuted under Section 1001 (which has a five year statute of limitations).

tekel wrote on April 25, 2007 11:47 AM:

JTL: what happens then?

She gets off, scott-free. And nobody is ever punished for anything. And the Obama DOJ starts out with 148 Loyal Bushies, just waiting for Rush to tell them which talking points to use to undermine the Democratic administration.

Given that she will falsify her testimony, we're better off not hearing from her at all. The only possible good outcome is if they can prove she's lying in real-time on the stand, and instead of getting in the car and going home, she goes directly to jail.

Michele wrote on April 25, 2007 11:48 AM:

Don't get your hopes up for any Goodling "revelations." She'll suffer from the same pathological memory loss as all of her superiors. Dems get an "A" for effort, but this cabal of scumbags is not going to relent. They feel completely justified in their devious manipulation of the DOJ. In Neocon world, the ends (make the world safe for uber-conservatives and Rapture-horny Evangelicals) always justify the means.

Punchy wrote on April 25, 2007 11:50 AM:

How many weeks does she get to prepare her lies? Does she get the same 3 weeks to forget things as Gonzo did, or must she forget them in mere days?

Thrackazog wrote on April 25, 2007 11:50 AM:

Immunity without proffer? Fine, as long as "without proffer" is amended to "without proffer but with a lie detector and big injection of sodium pentothal."

C Turner Joy wrote on April 25, 2007 11:52 AM:

Ephus said:

"On the other hand, if Goodling lies, including falsely claiming not to remember things that she actually remembers..."

I don't follow. How could it possibly be proven that she remembers something she says she doesn't?

hiflyer wrote on April 25, 2007 11:52 AM:

first off I would suggest that the lengthy negotiations between the Committee and her counsel have covered the possibility of the 'i dont recall' and the repercussions of such....

Secondly I think there is real worry on the part of the admin on what could come of such testimony...this could very well be the next administration exposed by a Monica.

Lastly...given what happened 'under' Clinton...isn't the name Monica Goodling sound more like a James Bond sex puppet satire than a DOJ lawyer? grin

Peter Principle wrote on April 25, 2007 11:52 AM:

What we will hear next, no doubt, is DOJ saying that in light of the department's internal ethics probe, and the Office of Special Counsel's newly initiated Hatch Act investigation, having Monica testify before Congress wouldn't be prudent -- strictly from a law enforcement perspective, you understand.

code word: false, as in bearing false witness.

doofman wrote on April 25, 2007 11:53 AM:

Just to be clear, "transactional immunity" means that, regardless of whatever voting or Judicial approval takes place, the immunity doesn't take effect until Goodling actually testifies, correct? So, since it will likely be several weeks before that would happen any way, isn't it very possible that the immunity offer could be revoked, if necessary, between now and then?

Security code: Attack!

goldberry wrote on April 25, 2007 11:53 AM:

I don't know who reads these comments but because I come from a fundy household, I have a little insight into how these people think and there are some things the Judiciary committee needs to consider when offering Monica Goodling immunity.
1.) Fundies do not recognize the authority of man or the government of man. Therefore, Monica may not feel any obligation to be completely forthcoming with her information and may feel free to deceive for items where she believes there is no evidence. So, it is very important that whoever deals with her, whether privately or publicly, gets her to acknowledge that she will submit to the authority of the state. Otherwise, IMHO, her testimony may be worthless.
2.)If you can get her to affirm that the state has authority over her, you must get her to swear on the most sacred thing you can get your hands on. Borrow some fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls if necessary. Also, there is a passage in Romans where Paul asked his followers to submit to the authority of the state as they are God's authority on earth. You might want to read that to her. The swearing should be done by someone she has respect for. Get the most religious person on the committee to swear her in.
3.) Read the Left Behind series (if you can stomach it) to understand the fundy attitude towards earthly government. To sum it up, their against it. Use this knowledge to your advantage. There are a lot of mindfields to navigate in the fundy mind.
If she acknowledges the state, you can expect truthful testimony from her.

Hank Gillette wrote on April 25, 2007 11:54 AM:

I don't doubt that she is guilty of something. Despite her high position, she was not the instigator of this mess. Most of us are sure that some really corrupt things have been going on in the Bush administration. The Congressional committee needs evidence though, to break the log-jam and to get the public understand the need to get behind the upcoming subpoenas.

If Ms. Goodling is truthful (and that could be a big if), giving her criminal immunity will be well worth it. Chances are, if she admits to criminal behavior, she will be disbarred. It won't be as though she will get off with no repercussions.

Ron Byers wrote on April 25, 2007 12:03 PM:

I don't follow. How could it possibly be proven that she remembers something she says she doesn't?

That's not impossible, just difficult. Lying about forgetting is still lying.

What we really need is somebody willing to tell the truth rather than lie for the cause. The more people you have involved in a conspiracy the greater the likelihood someone will turn. Eventually somebody flips and Katy bar the door.

tekel wrote on April 25, 2007 12:03 PM:

goldberry: if we could break just a few of her knuckles with a hammer, I'm sure none of that would be necessary. She wouldn't last a day in an Egyptian prison.

She would confess her treason in the first fifteen minutes, and she'd renounce Jesus before eight hours had passed. The next six weeks would be just for fun. If we start today, we could probably play the video at the commencement for Regent's Law School. What rapture!

security code "door" as in

Torture is the door to Monica's soul. Let's kick it open.

goldberry wrote on April 25, 2007 12:05 PM:

One other thing: I expect that the fundamentalist community will try to make a martyr of Ms. Goodling. They will consult their history book for how the Romans persecuted the early Christians for comparison. If Monica submits to earthly authority, this should be publicized and particular emphasis should be given to the voluntary nature of her cooperation. I don't know if grants of immunity can be contingent on her agreement to not go on the 700 Club and undermine her own tesitmony but I'd certainly consider it. The fundies are still a powerful PR machine. So let's try to avoid making her the next Paul of Tarsus.

Dan Kurtz wrote on April 25, 2007 12:06 PM:

Cannon shows great GOPocricy. He was an impeachment manager who thought a consensual BJ was some grandiose violation of the rule of law, but the systmatic politicization/criminalization of DoJ and the very rule of law that Cannon was for upholding before he was against it.

Ron Byers wrote on April 25, 2007 12:06 PM:

My first sentence above was a quote from a couple of comments up. I guess html is turned off.

Ron Byers wrote on April 25, 2007 12:06 PM:

My first sentence above was a quote from a couple of comments up. I guess html is turned off.

Ron Byers wrote on April 25, 2007 12:07 PM:

My first sentence above was a quote from a couple of comments up. I guess html is turned off.

jdw wrote on April 25, 2007 12:08 PM:

Dem's might want to recruit David Iglesias over to the other side. He clearly is pissed off at the Repubs on a lot of levels, from the hacks in the Administration to his local Senator and Congressman. I don't know what district Iglesias lives in, but he might make a good candidate to swipe a Repub seat in the House come 2008. He's a freaking poster boy for the impact of corruption and hackery by Repubs, and would make a great example of how current Repub leadership is driving away members of their own party.

Official A wrote on April 25, 2007 12:08 PM:

Perhaps this is why the Office of Professional Counsel announced its investigation yetserday. That is the ongoing investigation with which Ms. Goodling's testimony is likely to interfere. Count of DOJ objecting on this grounds.

Security Code: "glove", as in "If the glove doesn't fit you must acquit."

Roger Bixley wrote on April 25, 2007 12:09 PM:

. Rep. Sensenbrenner wondered whether it was wise to grant Goodling immunity, because doing so would let her off the hook.

Let her off the hook? Is he admitting that something nefarious happened that she SHOULD be on the hook for?

RW wrote on April 25, 2007 12:10 PM:

I think the pre-emptive move by her lawyers about perjury drills back to Gonzales' testimony and Bush telling comments afterward when Bush said,
Gonzales testified as honest as he could...meaning not the whole truth and nothing but the truth...meaning without eventful amnesia he is holding back the whole truth.

If Goodling testified similarily it would be perjury...either way it is a lance to secure those RNC emails. Once those are exposed the cabal will be exposed and obstruction (cover up) and perjury (cover up) of the underlying crime, (treason) will have their days in court.

This is why Josh Marshall's pre-emptive note about blanket immunity after leaving office is interesting, wonder why they didn't get stuck in the Patriot Act?

Richard L. Adlof wrote on April 25, 2007 12:12 PM:

The immunity being offered NEEDS to cover only the stuff Gooding testifies about. If no names are named, the potential conspiracy charges need to stay on the table. If stuff is not said, then no carte blance.Of course, any crimes committed during and after her testimony - including perjury remain available for referral to Justice for investigation and prosectution.

regular lurker wrote on April 25, 2007 12:15 PM:

Any document dumps in the near future?

Dave Dorsett wrote on April 25, 2007 12:16 PM:

An above post made what I think will prove the accurate assessment of what will happen.
The Bloch(sp?) internal investigation is a really canny move by the Bushies and sprang up with incredibly coincidental timing........
They'll stand against her immunity because it will be "imprudent" vis a vis Bloch's little faux investigation.
Bloch currently needs the DOJ or some related outfit to clear HIM for past improprieties that are under investigation. There'll be a quid pro quo: he gets off, he clears Rove in his mockup of an investigation, and along the way Bloch's investigation stops the Goodling revelations in their tracks.
I hope I'm wrong, but let's face it; this is the stuff that Bush and his coterie (including Poppy) of Iran Contra scot-freeers are absolute masters at.

Michele wrote on April 25, 2007 12:17 PM:

Goldberry,

Thanks for your insights. I was also raised in a fundie household (and managed to recover at about age 11 when the foolishness of the belief system became apparent to me), but had a different experience. Because we were taught to be loyal only to God's (invisible) kingdom in heaven, we were discouraged from active involvement in the governments of men on earth. Whether you agree that loyalty should be to God's kingdom or not, it's hard to argue the logic of not being able to have it both ways. I can't understand the "rationale" that compels people who actively disdain human government to get so deeply involved in it. If you have no respect for the institutions, shouldn't you be barred from managing them?

As you no doubt know, you can't win with these people (and here I'm talking about a certain breed of fanatical fundamentalist Christian--not the majority of Christians who truly try to apply the teachings of Christ in their lives). If they are called to account for their actions, they are experiencing "Christian persecution." Every lie, every misdeed, can be justified as obeying God's law over man's, and therefore becomes an honorable pursuit in their eyes. They thrive on their deluded self-image as righteous warriors and anything that contradicts that self-view is tossed out as ungodly, therefore meriting no consideration. Heaven help us.

goldberry wrote on April 25, 2007 12:18 PM:

To Roger Bixley: If a person feels that the current "system of things" is going to shortly pass away via a rapture and an apocalypse, they have a lot less investment in following the rules. IF you can prove that Monica was perjuring herself, her attitude may still be "So what? You're not the boss of me." She would willingly go to prison as a martyr because she would know that her time in jail is going to be short. What does imprisonment mean to a person who believes that the reward of internal paradise and Kingdom Come is only a few months way?
That is Monica's mindset. In a way, the immunity deal is a way for the state to get her to renounce this belief. But she may not feel bound by the agreement and no lengthy sentence will have any effect on her if she clings to the belief that Armageddon is just around the corner.

paulf wrote on April 25, 2007 12:24 PM:

Libby was convicted of lying when he said he didn't remember, or something like that.

I think this deal recognizes that Goodling is a small fish, but she has the potential to rake in a much bigger fish. WHile it would be nice to see Goodling in jail someday, the reality is that she is unlikely to ever serve serious jail time for being a political hack. And in the big picture, nobody cares a whole lot about Monica Goodling.

For Democrats, the big thing is to uncover as much information as possible about the WHite House. WHile immunizing Goodling isn't perfect, it opens a big door to the guys we really want to take down, Rove and Bush and others.

Michael Jones wrote on April 25, 2007 12:25 PM:

Above post got it right. Something seemed fishy with the OPC investigation. Mr. Bloch(?) is too much the team player to really pursue the investigation. But now it creates the "ongoing investigation" that would trump the immunity deal. They are evil chess players!!!! salt as in wounds!

Rich wrote on April 25, 2007 12:27 PM:

Cannon and Sensenbrenner were involved in the bogus impeachment of Clinton. It would seem the rule of law means far less to them than they claimed back them.

anon wrote on April 25, 2007 12:27 PM:

Depressing thread all around. And, yes, Team Bush certainly knows how to gum up the works. Give them a few more weeks and they'll be pushing Lee Hamilton as a bi-partisan replacement for Gonzales.

Anonymous wrote on April 25, 2007 12:30 PM:

Torture is the door to Monica's soul. Let's kick it open.

Posted by: tekel

I suggest a little waterboarding would be fun to watch.

sc: when. Say when.

bordersmuggler wrote on April 25, 2007 12:31 PM:

jdw: my sentiments as well. Look ahead to Iglesias as a leader of a resurrected (from the rubble) republican party.

I hope someone is looking into Ms. Goodling's background, including the circumstances of her landing the WH/DoJ liaison position with such little experience. What did John Ashcroft have to do with it? Every major drama in history has had an important sexual component at its very center, and this one is no exception.

Chloe wrote on April 25, 2007 12:33 PM:

"Fundies," "rapture believers," "rightous warriors" ?

How ever did we end up with these whack jobs and Christian ayatollahs running our country?

Yes, I know, naive question.

We have to get rid of these characters before they destroy us and then we've got to change that electoral college system that got us into this damned mess.

slb wrote on April 25, 2007 12:34 PM:

>> Does anyone know what congress can/will do if she ignores the subpoena and immunity offer > I don't follow. How could it possibly be proven that she remembers something she says she doesn't? <<

Not easily, but remember the Libby case. If the prosecution can show sufficient evidence to conince a jury that it simply is not credible that she does not remember, she could be convicted, just as Libby was. (Libby, of course, made Fitzgerald's task a little easier by fabricating a story that was easily knocked down.) She was in a very responsible position; it was her *job* to remember things and to keep notes about them. Claiming not to remember things you had responsibility for managing, as Gonzales did so extensively, is tantamount to admitting that you are incompetent to do your job, probably not something that Ms Goodling is going to want to have on the public record at this stage in her career. (Or should I say "ex-career"?) Gonzo might get away with it because Bush is his buddy, but Goodling has no such tie to Bush to fall back on.

jak1 wrote on April 25, 2007 12:37 PM:

>> Rep. Sensenbrenner wondered whether it was wise to grant Goodling immunity, because doing so would let her off the hook.<<

I don't understand this comment. I thought that nothing IMPROPER happened. And that there was no EVIDENCE of ANY wrongdoing. It would let "her off the hook" for what exactly?

Ephus wrote on April 25, 2007 12:39 PM:

As someone mentioned upthread, it is difficult, but not impossible, to prove that somebody lied about not remembering an event. The most important thing is that the statute of limitations (5 years) will last well into the next (hopefully Democratic) administration. So Goodling should have a healthy fear that she would actually be prosecuted if she blithely claimed lack of recall.

slb wrote on April 25, 2007 12:40 PM:

>> Rep. Sensenbrenner wondered whether it was wise to grant Goodling immunity, because doing so would let her off the hook. <<

Yeah, what will Gonzo and the Boy King do if the underlings who might otherwise be blamed for the whole mess (a la Abu Ghraib) are granted immunity and only the guys at the top are left to hang? What kind of a world is that, when the big cheeses have to pay for their own screw-ups?

Anonymous wrote on April 25, 2007 12:41 PM:

If the DoJ objects to giving Goodling immunity, then the committee would be forced to consider whether to defer or delay conferring immunity. And regardless of what the DoJ says, the local federal court has to approve giving Goodling immunity.

So does the DOJ have to argue immunity before a court, or do they just hand out an edict?

As to the "regardless" thing, I'm confused. Suppose the DOJ says no to immunity, does the local court proceed anyway? And if that's the case, does it matter what DOJ says?

rk wrote on April 25, 2007 12:44 PM:

The Democrats face two obstacles. 1)Unlike Iran-Contra there is no possibility of a prosecution of Goodling. This DOJ won't do it and there is little value in waiting to do the investigation during the next president's administration. 2)The OSC investigation of Rove (by Scott Bloch) is likely desgned to stake out maximum investigative turf, shield personnel from questions, and run out the clock on the administration. That OSC investigation will wind up on January 20, 2009.

In this environment it may make sense for the committee to offer immunity to Goodling (if it yields truthful testimony). The congressional investigations can be used to collect information to further discredit the administration with the electorate and for possible impeachment proceedings.

Nina wrote on April 25, 2007 12:45 PM:

I think you've got to calculate in just how SCARED the Bush patrol must be right now... Goodling is going to be called to the carpet... Gonzales will in all likelihood resign in the next few weeks (and any confirmation hearing has got to be bad for Republicans)... and Lurita Doan's office is going to get a spanking through an OSC investigation. If you think the WH spin is disconnected from reality NOW, just wait. I promise you.

texas star wrote on April 25, 2007 12:45 PM:

Listen all of you idiots.....no crime was commited!

This is a fishing expedition and no dice!

texas star wrote on April 25, 2007 12:46 PM:

Listen all of you idiots.....no crime was commited!

This is a fishing expedition and no dice!

Anonymous wrote on April 25, 2007 12:46 PM:

3 guesses which august institution of higher learning lies within Randy Forbes district.

texas star wrote on April 25, 2007 12:46 PM:

No crime was commited!

This is a fishing expedition and no dice!

steambomb wrote on April 25, 2007 12:47 PM:

Perhaps this is why the Office of Professional Counsel announced its investigation yetserday. That is the ongoing investigation with which Ms. Goodling's testimony is likely to interfere. Count of DOJ objecting on this grounds.

Security Code: "glove", as in "If the glove doesn't fit you must acquit."

Posted by: Official A
Date: April 25, 2007 12:08 PM

You stole my thunder. And the media seems to be playing right along rather well doesn't it? If we want our country back we better get behind the democratic party and see this through. Even if it means picketing media outlet offices to force them to cover the real news.

phil james wrote on April 25, 2007 12:49 PM:

The investigation of Hatch Act violations ala Doan has nothing to do with the firing of the USAs except in the most general way as part of an Executive Branch-wide conspiracy to politicize every part of our government. And the OSC is not part of DOJ so the claim of interference is invalid on its face.

Anonymous wrote on April 25, 2007 12:51 PM:

I think Goodling is key to bringing down the whole cabal and Conyers knows it.
Code word: pain
As in, "I hope Conyers brings some serious pain to these crooks in the white house."

Prof. Cheese wrote on April 25, 2007 12:52 PM:

A "memory" dilemma for Goodling:

Ms. Goodling's testimony will have to have SOME valuable, and incriminating, evidence, or she would have no basis for invoking her 5th Amendment rights. If she has no memory of what she did/said with others, especially if it was damaging, how could she have then known to invoke the 5th? By invoking the 5th, she will HAVE to have remembered something. If she remembers nothing, she has no basis for taking the 5th, I don't think (but I confess, I am not a lawyer).

Of course, a similar dilemma face Gonzales re his basis/criteria for his "decision" to fire the 8 USAs, although that did not stop his oft-noted "I do not recall"s. However the differnece with Goodling is that she remembered enough to claim the 5th right away. Some good will have to come from this testimony.

One last note re theological implications of her invoking the 5th. If she did nothing wrong, she had nothing to fear from her testifying. If she did do something wrong, she did have a basis for claiming the 5th. However, if she did nothing wrong AND THEN pleaded the 5th, I think she arguably is guilty of bearing false witness in her pleading of the 5th with no real justification for doing so.

Security Code: Desire...for the truth to come out.

EH wrote on April 25, 2007 12:56 PM:

Funny, torture and presumption of guilt sure seems popular around here.

Mooser wrote on April 25, 2007 12:57 PM:

Let's drop this idea about Iglesias coming over to the good side.
Remember, the prosecuters were let go because they would not corrupt the DOJ enough, not because they refused to do it at all.
He (Iglesias) simply thought they were going to far and were being imprudent. Had a more sophisticated plan been operative, he would have been right on it. We'll be 'pain' throught the nose for these people. But if one of them shows a glimmer of integrity, we should make them our hero. Maybe Iglesias doesn't belong in jail, but if he has been a Rethug insider, he's no good, ever!

za wrote on April 25, 2007 12:59 PM:

Mike,

No, the immunity only covers past crimes. it does not cover perjury during the interview, nor does it cover any crimes after the interview.

VJB wrote on April 25, 2007 1:00 PM:

Oh, Monica, if only you had simply been handing out bl**jobs. Uh, 'handing'? Maybe the wrong verb; she'd have to be called Senorita Wences. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Se%C3%B1or_Wences

Anonymous wrote on April 25, 2007 1:00 PM:

A couple of thoughts from an old guy who was witness to Watergate.
When the Watergate break-in occurred, I was in private law practice in Washington, having left the US Attorney Office the year before. As Watergate developed, we all had the same sick feeling in the pit of the stomach many have expressed here - "they are going to get away with it".
The break-in occurred in the summer of 1972, Nixon was elected by the second largest majority ever (23% over McGovern) that fall. A year later, he fired Special Prosecutor Archibold Cox as part of the "Saturday Night Massacre". Only in the spring of 1974, almost two years later, was he brought down by the House impeachment proceedings, and the Attorney General (John Mitchell) and a dozen and a half others went down on felony convictions and off to the Big House.
We really were afraid they were going to get away with it and NOBODY foresaw how far so many would fall. This is much worse than Watergate and their sticky fingerprints are on everything.
We would all like to see justice tomorrow, but it will take time. And it is going to be very satisfying when it comes. Oh, and it's not going to take two years.
Incidentally, Mitchell went down on perjury and obstruction of justice charges, which I think is very likely to happen to Fredo.

bowtiejack wrote on April 25, 2007 1:00 PM:

A couple of thoughts from an old guy who was witness to Watergate.
When the Watergate break-in occurred, I was in private law practice in Washington, having left the US Attorney Office the year before. As Watergate developed, we all had the same sick feeling in the pit of the stomach many have expressed here - "they are going to get away with it".
The break-in occurred in the summer of 1972, Nixon was elected by the second largest majority ever (23% over McGovern) that fall. A year later, he fired Special Prosecutor Archibold Cox as part of the "Saturday Night Massacre". Only in the spring of 1974, almost two years later, was he brought down by the House impeachment proceedings, and the Attorney General (John Mitchell) and a dozen and a half others went down on felony convictions and off to the Big House.
We really were afraid they were going to get away with it and NOBODY foresaw how far so many would fall. This is much worse than Watergate and their sticky fingerprints are on everything.
We would all like to see justice tomorrow, but it will take time. And it is going to be very satisfying when it comes. Oh, and it's not going to take two years.
Incidentally, Mitchell went down on perjury and obstruction of justice charges, which I think is very likely to happen to Fredo.

Jeff (no, the other one) wrote on April 25, 2007 1:01 PM:

Who's got the pool on how many "don't recall" repeats (and variants) Goodling uses? Will she break Gonzales' all-time record?

I think the spectator with the tally poster will need a really big poster this time. Or maybe a digital counter of some kind...

pre-amerikkkan wrote on April 25, 2007 1:03 PM:

She will lie. If her so-called "religion" is worth it's "salt" she will tell the truth.

She will lie.

Believe me, native people have ample experience with those who have used their myth/religion to "save" themselves and rip off everything the Mother has to offer and oh, yeah, commit genocide while they're at it.

Monica, make your choice. You swear to tell the truth or prove once again that xtians and mormans have no ability to create moral citizens.\

code rule

TGR wrote on April 25, 2007 1:05 PM:

Goodling will get immunity from incriminating herself by means of forgetfulness.

Can't wait to get the clicker out to count the I-Can't-Recalls.

Security Code: Rove Diversion

regular lurker wrote on April 25, 2007 1:11 PM:

Thank you, bowtiejack. Much appreciated.

monicawatch wrote on April 25, 2007 1:12 PM:

Could monica know something about Senselessbrenner?

Makes you wonder!

ahem wrote on April 25, 2007 1:13 PM:

"whether it might interfere with an existing or possible investigation."

And look what the White House's guy just cooked up... an ongoing investigation -- albeit not a criminal one -- that can drag this out for as long as possible.

dweb wrote on April 25, 2007 1:16 PM:

If this is just a fishing expedition texas star, perhaps you might want to trot over to Daily Kos and see if you see any patterns in the flow of e-mails between Goodling, Sampson and other DOJ folks and key individuals at the white house. Makes a pretty fascinating pattern of timing and volumes when laid against the calendar of events taking place during the period covered.

Probably you won't bother to read anything that conflicts with your beliefs, but here's the link anyway:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/25/95422/7576

Jillian wrote on April 25, 2007 1:22 PM:

I guess now we'll find out how far Regent University Law School grads go when the operative rule is "Thou shalt not bear false witness".

So far, not so good.

KYJurisDoctor wrote on April 25, 2007 1:23 PM:

I can't imagine why Gonzales is hurting himself and delaying the inevitable.

http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2007/04/alberto-gonzales-appears-on.html#links

Brook Haley wrote on April 25, 2007 1:28 PM:

Any takers? I'm making books for the 2008 Democratic presidential winner: David Iglesias or Carol Lam as the new AG?

RandyR wrote on April 25, 2007 1:29 PM:

As I see it Goodling cannot use the I don't remember defense. Her immunity only covers what she has testified to. If she "has no recollection" she is no longer immune on that issue. Her immunity is only for that which she testifies to.

For example. if she is asked, "Who put the names on the list". If she answers she doesn't know then she then owns all her misdeeds regarding that. The immunity requires she name her involvement and she can be tried for failing to answer, if that answer leads to a crime.

Security Code: when And that's the pregnant question. Even though she is no longer a DOJ employee when will she be allowed to testify.

elrapierwit wrote on April 25, 2007 1:30 PM:

hmmm, is it me...or are all of the dissenting votes from states targeted by Karl Rove this upcoming election, with the exception of VA?

This just gets more and more curious.

code; crush

the GOP have been threatened with being crushed if they vote for subpoenas.

TheraP wrote on April 25, 2007 1:31 PM:

If I were on the committee, I would insist that she provide proof for all her testimony.

Obviously one can't "prove" poor memory - so that's out.

And if she has to supply proof, she can't exactly fall on her sword.

word is "sticky" - for her sticky fingers

Peter Duffy wrote on April 25, 2007 1:47 PM:

Anybody know if the Senate Judiciary committee subpoena'd Sara M Taylor , the White House operative and Scott Jennings boss today?.

donviti wrote on April 25, 2007 1:51 PM:

the great thing is man, when she swears on that Bible, their aint no way in HELL she is lying

woooohoooooooooooo

Robin wrote on April 25, 2007 2:01 PM:

Not to excuse anything Ms. Goodling did, I think it important to consider that all testimony and non-testimony is being choreographed by the Whitehouse in this great dance.

I think it would be fair to assume that both Sampson and Goodling (et al) have all been tested in a mock up for their testimony. I would venture further down this plank to suggest that the difference between the two is that Sampson could and would, fall on his sword and Goodling most likely broke into tears and owned up to a babysitting job in 1986 she didn't pay taxes on among other things.

That great pains have been taken to protect her from even having to say "I take the 5th" demonstrates to me it is not Monica Goodling that is actually asking for it.

Just a thought before I hit the water.

ineedalife wrote on April 25, 2007 2:12 PM:

Well they can only grant immunity for past crimes and her objection was that she was going to committ crimes in the future, i.e. lie to Congress in her testimony, if forced to testify.

I don't think her lawyers will accept. She is in a horrible position in that she has the goods on Rove and she doesn't have the stones to lie to Congress under oath. If I were a realtive of Goodling I would be sure she doesn't stay alone in a hotel. People with he goods on BushCo tend to get suicided under those conditions.

G. Domenic wrote on April 25, 2007 2:16 PM:

Thanks Josh for video updates!

I really apprecitate your research!!!

Great work!!! A great service to our democracy!!!

G. Domenic wrote on April 25, 2007 2:17 PM:

Thanks Josh for video updates!

I really apprecitate your research!!!

Great work!!! A great service to our democracy!!!

Drits'n'Dravy wrote on April 25, 2007 2:19 PM:

Even if Goodling attempts to take responsibility for compiling the USA list, doesn't the ultimate responsibility always lead back to the Prez? We are continually reminded that no one but GWB had the authority to fire all these USAs, so I do not understand how Goodling can take a dive that protects Bush.

Michele wrote on April 25, 2007 2:25 PM:

I also think it's going to be a hard sell for Goodling to pull the "I can't remember" schtick. If she can't remember anything why was it necessary for her to plead the fifth? How can you possibly be in jeopardy of self-incrimination from information you can't remember? Not that members of this administration have ever let a little thing like logical fallacy stand in their way, but she inadvertently painted herself into a corner with that move. I look forward to seeing how she slithers out of it and have every confidence that she will.

Anonymous wrote on April 25, 2007 2:35 PM:

Brook - My vote for Democratic AG is Eliot Spitzer.

Austin Cooper wrote on April 25, 2007 2:37 PM:

Goodling is a critical and important witness -- but even after negotiating immunity, I doubt that she'll provide much.

My view is cynical, but think about who you're dealing with. Goodling is a white, upper-middle-class evangelical True Believer. All she has to do is "hold her mud", and she'll be on easy street courtesy of the Rethug old-boy gravy train ... never mind that this one thought (her current and future success decided by a crew of fat, older white males) should truly give lil' Monica pause.

But, one of the fat white men is Karl Rove. As White House liason, Goodling knows exactly what she did, and when, and who she could bring down if she did as the subpoena she will accept and the oath she will take should compel her to do.

Goodling will *only* tell the "truth" in cases where documentary evidence shows that she said this, or did that. Otherwise, expect her testimony to mirror Gonzales'. Expect her to say that she 'respectfully disagrees' with recollections or testimony of other witnesses, then immediately say she 'just can't recall' what occured in this conversation, or that meeting, except where she has no choice but to admit a fact.

Expect her to appear initially polite, reserved and correct. After she's been pushed and questioned for a while, Goodling will become righteously affronted that her integrity is being impugned (something she'll take from Condi's book). She will allow her attorney to paint the picture of a poor little young woman, badgered and unfairly questioned by big, bad Senators.

The only thing which will allow her to carry this off, under the dead seriousness in the expressions of someone like Senators Leahy or Schumer, are those implicit and explicit promises of present legal assistance and future payoff that have been made to her already.

In the world Goodling inhabits, government service is all about bending law, tradition, custom and practice towards the peculiar evangelical interpretations of reality she believes in. We can't know if Goodling is a Dominionist, but at a minimum her brand of 'christianity' percieves America as dominated by a liberal elite in the media, in academia, in medicine and 'so-called' science, a country laboring under the yoke of a homosexual, secular humanist, liberal and godless agenda... which, to her, persons like Senators Finegold and Schumer represent.

It should be a small matter for lil' Monica to feel personally justified in being an evasive witness when questioned by godless liberals like that. She will have immunity, after all, and what better way to twist the devil's tail (in her view) than to first negotiate a Get Out Of Jail Free card -- and then reveal that she just "can't recall" anything that isn't in a documentary record? And her counsel -- paid for by the Rethug gravy train -- will be right there to help.

I'd be surprised if her testimony went beyond the occasional fact she can't explain away or ignore. I could be wrong, but sadly it doesn't seem likely.

We need to find a John Dean in the Rethug ranks -- and lil' Monica doesn't possess Dean's depth of character, or the understanding that she was and is involved in doing wrong.

Code = shame -- something Goodling doesn't possess a true sense of.

Dr. Wu wrote on April 25, 2007 2:37 PM:

As much as I'd like to see the little Jesus Camper rotting away in a 6-by-9 in Marion, Illinois for her complicity in sabotaging democracy, we all know that wouldn't happen. At worst, she'd be sent to Club Fed for a few months en route to a lucrative no-show job at some wingnut think tank. So it makes sense to let her off the hook and see if there's a chance she can roll over on Gonzo or Rover. If you thought Gonzo looked like a deer in the headlights, wait until you see Goodling trying to corroborate Gonzo's bullshit. She's in ten feet over her head already and it's only going to get worse.

jimbo92107 wrote on April 25, 2007 2:40 PM:

Look, if the immunity deal's been done, then get Goodling into the hot seat asap, before she and her lawyer have weeks to work out a strategy. Not everybody's as dumb as Abu Gonzalez, but Goodling is young and may not have the chutzpah to lie in Pat Leahy's face.

Two ways to put a Christianist through hell: tell the truth, and make THEM tell the truth.

Tulkinghorn wrote on April 25, 2007 2:43 PM:

'She gets off, scott-free. And nobody is ever punished for anything. And the Obama DOJ starts out with 148 Loyal Bushies, just waiting for Rush to tell them which talking points to use to undermine the Democratic administration.'

If the 148 Bushies can not be fired, they could always be kept busy prosecuting parking tickets for the District of Columbia. Maybe 74 can be busy investigating the other 74, and vice versa.

SC horse: as in... dang, I can't think of anything clever.

goldberry wrote on April 25, 2007 2:54 PM:

>That's because the law requires that the Justice Department be allowed an opportunity to provide its views on immunity -- i.e. whether it might interfere with an existing or possible investigation.

Ahhh, maybe this is where the Office of the Special Counsel comes in. The DOJ might say that another government entity is already investigating.
BUT, who started investigating first? Was it Congress or the OSC? Will the OSC simply backdate their email?

Firestorm wrote on April 25, 2007 3:25 PM:

I'll place my bet that goodling doesn't even get to testify, that the DOJ, her lawyer will say "Nope, never going to happen!" (while flipping the bird). The white house and DOJ are completely done with any nano form or mask of cooperation. We have reached the brick wall.

I hope I am wrong.

bajajazz wrote on April 25, 2007 3:27 PM:

The OSC is "investigating" violations of the Hatch Act. Goodling's testimony pertains to the firing of USA's for political reasons. DOJ may contrive a situation that prevents Goodling's testimony but Hatch Act violations aren't it.

By the way, Ollie North got off because his lawyer directed him to take an "immunity bath" and blab all when he testified before Tom Lantos, Democrat from Tel Aviv. Goodling would be well-advised to do the same thing if and when she appears before Waxman.

Dave Adams wrote on April 25, 2007 3:47 PM:

Assuming Gonzales will still be there, it will be interesting to see how the DoJ spins this. If they recommend against immunity, is there not then an onus on them to either convene a Grand Jury or to actually prosecute Goodling for the likely crimes that she covered up when she invoked her 5th Amendment rights? How do they wiggle out of that one?

Pompano Pete wrote on April 25, 2007 4:08 PM:

The one element missing thus far from this discussion is the competency, motivation and patriotism of the Congressional staffs supporting Leahy, Conyers, Waxman, et al. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make a name for yourself in the Democratic Party. Those folks can see USA appointments, judgeships, and political office in their futures if they can uncover and prosecute Bushco's DOJ.

Don't for one second think that they are salivating and busting their butts to get this all exactly right.

Security code - credit What every staff person is seeking.

steambomb wrote on April 25, 2007 4:11 PM:

I'll place my bet that goodling doesn't even get to testify, that the DOJ, her lawyer will say "Nope, never going to happen!" (while flipping the bird). The white house and DOJ are completely done with any nano form or mask of cooperation. We have reached the brick wall.

I hope I am wrong.

Posted by: Firestorm
Date: April 25, 2007 03:25 PM

I think you are right. And I think this latest investigation into rove is a firewall to help keep the information internal. Unless something drastic is done this whitehouse is going to stonewall every, E-V-E-R-Y way it can until 2009. This country needs the truth to regain its footing. Until we have it we will remain in turmoil. If this administration stays on the path they are on and congress continues to handle it with kid gloves we are in for a long, long time of darkness within our future. To this I again plead with the Republicans to take their party back. Start by cosponsoring the HR 333. We need patriots to step forth for their country. Code word 'When'? Oh when indeed..

Whistler wrote on April 25, 2007 4:23 PM:

I see a lot of surface-level assumptions and talk going on, but how many of you looked closely at the list of Republicans who were against Monico Badling testifying ... and compared their list of home states to the states that are in deep doodoo over the US Attorney purge? They can say what they want, but the reality seems to be that they don't want to fall under indictment, themselves.

It tells me there is still a LOT more to find!

Go back and re-read the list of states that had key Rethuglicans whining about all this ... and do some thinking about why they'd be so worried.

Garth wrote on April 25, 2007 4:42 PM:

i completely agree that the OSC probe, run by a loyal Bush aparatchik, is a firewall to keep goodling from testifying.

rover is circling the wagons.

security code - narrow

as in narrow-minded-robber-barron-jesus-freaks

somniculusfaber wrote on April 25, 2007 6:00 PM:

goldberry-
Your comments on fundamentalism are spot on, and help point to the fact that our government is being disbanded by people who want America to be a Christian fascist state. This rang alarmist to my ears until very recently, I must admit, but here it is; the house of cards is starting to fall, the "dots are connecting". The emerging picture is ugly and disturbing beyond description.

bowtiejack-
Your perspective on the issue helps reassure a scared girl who barely remembers the first Persian Gulf war as it happened that it may not in fact be the end of my and our beloved democracy.

Chloe-
Your call to have the electoral system overhauled once we have these people out of office has never rung more true or necessary an action as it does today.

There's a storm brewing outside...

Hank Gillette wrote on April 25, 2007 7:33 PM:

According to the Washington Post, the DOJ has already informally cleared the way for Ms. Goodling to receive immunity:

"Republicans on the panel were wary of approving the immunity deal, but most grudgingly agreed. Committee staff held informal talks with Justice Department officials this week to determine whether the deal would interfere with criminal probes and were assured no such investigation was ongoing, Conyers said."

No ongoing investigation. What a surprise.

chuckles wrote on April 25, 2007 8:45 PM:

I wonder if Monica has diarrrrrrrrreha yet?...chuckle chuckle

DF wrote on April 25, 2007 9:10 PM:

Despite what’s in the post, I still think that Dave Dorsett is onto something
“The Bloch(sp?) internal investigation is a really canny move by the Bushies and sprang up with incredibly coincidental timing........
They'll stand against her immunity because it will be "imprudent" vis a vis Bloch's little faux investigation Bloch currently needs the DOJ or some related outfit to clear HIM for past improprieties that are under investigation. There'll be a quid pro quo: he gets off, he clears Rove in his mockup of an investigation, and along the way Bloch's investigation stops the Goodling revelations in their tracks.
I hope I'm wrong."

I hope he’s wrong too, but he makes good sense.

Bloch’s web page.
http://www.osc.gov/specialcounsel.htm

His last job was Deputy Director and Counsel to the Task Force for Faith-based and Community Initiatives at the U.S. Department of Justice

He’s even published articles. One is titled “Don’t Bury the Hatch Act”.

Roadbloch?

piotr wrote on April 25, 2007 10:45 PM:

To the lawyers here:

if someone takes the 5th with no incriminating information to reveal, is it a form of obstruction of justice -- by wilfully misleading the interrogators?

withheld wrote on April 28, 2007 11:33 PM:

Ineedalife.

What you said at the last. can you give instances?

nonymus

nonymus wrote on April 28, 2007 11:44 PM:

You guys all missed it. Ms Goodling's life is in jeopardy, according to Ineedalife. Go back and read it again. He is saying that Monica could get whacked to keep her from testifying against Bush & Co. Do you believe it's possible?

I do.

epenisa wrote on January 11, 2008 12:58 AM:

Hi
Nice work from your side... have a nice time with yoru blog :)
G'night