« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
The morning papers provide a host of further detail on the Justice Department's investigation of Monica Goodling.
First, we'll start with the new facts about the investigation, and then turn to the burning question of whether this might compromise Congress' offer of immunity to Goodling.
The department's inspector general launched an investigation into the U.S. attorney firings back in March. Not long after that, Chuck Rosenberg, the U.S. Attorney for eastern Virginia and Kyle Sampson's replacement as Gonzales' chief of staff, requested that the inspector general look into Goodling's hiring of entry-level assistant U.S. attorneys. Rosenberg has since gone back to being a full-time U.S.A.
The accusation focuses on Goodling's meddling in a particular group of hires: entry-level attorneys working for acting or interim U.S. attorneys -- in other words, U.S.A.s who had not been confirmed by the Senate. The New York Times explains:
...when an interim United States attorney is in place, one who has not been confirmed by the Senate, he or she must seek the approval of officials at department headquarters [to hire attorneys], a rule that perhaps allowed Ms. Goodling to investigate the political backgrounds of the applicants.
As the Justice Department has underlined, if Goodling was checking to see if these applicants were Republicans before hiring them, that would be against the law.
Now, there's an important point that needs to be made here. And that is that Gonzales had signed an order in March of last year that gave Goodling and Sampson the power to hire and fire interim U.S. attorneys. And it's already been conclusively shown that Goodling played a major hand in the firing of the eight Senate-confirmed U.S. attorneys last December. So if these allegations about Goodling's involvement in the hiring of entry-level prosecutors are correct, it looks like Goodling was working to completely overhaul certain U.S. attorney offices -- replacing the U.S. attorney with an administration loyalist and staffing it with entry-level loyalists. Top to bottom.
On to immunity. The Los Angeles Times puts it most simply:
...the Justice Department is unlikely to support immunity while its own probe is pending. The issue of immunity is ultimately decided by a federal judge. Justice Department officials are supposed to weigh in with a recommendation next week.
Here's how Congress' offer of immunity works: the Justice Department has a period of time, ten days, to decide whether the immunity might compromise a potential criminal investigation (that deadline is Monday, but could be extended). The DoJ makes a recommendation -- if the DoJ decides that it will, then Congress has to reconsider its offer. Congress could still go forward at that point, but the federal court in D.C. makes the final determination. It would seem to be highly unlikely that Goodling would still get her immunity with this probe ongoing.
Goodling's attorney told The Washington Post that she would testify if given immunity. But that would seem to be a big "if" now.
Suspicion of the timing of this revelation is understandable. As the Justice Department's liaison to the White House, Goodling likely has a lot to tell -- and Congress may never hear it.
Note: The Wall Street Journal adds some insight into what the Justice Department deems newsworthy:
In mid-March, The Wall Street Journal sought information from the Justice Department on Ms. Goodling's role in the selection of [entry-level assistant U.S. attorneys]. The department turned down a request for expedited handling of the Journal's query, citing that it "does not believe the specific topic of your request is the subject of widespread and exceptional media interest."
Comments (63)
Jim Houston wrote on May 3, 2007 9:41 AM:This is just a ploy by Rosenberg to keep Goodling quiet a little longer,but will backfire on him in the end.
mike wrote on May 3, 2007 9:43 AM:seems highly suspicious, still congress can drag her into testify then when she doesn't toss her in jail for contempt and let her sit there until Bush pardons her.
EdNSted wrote on May 3, 2007 9:44 AM:Quis custodiet custodes ipsos?
Anonymous wrote on May 3, 2007 9:48 AM:Read Jesselyn Radack's book "The Canary in the Coalmine": http://patriotictruthteller.net/ for all you need to know about how DOJ OPR and OIG operate in this administration. Also, look at Toby Moore's revelations with regard to the Georgia investigation of John Tanner and others in Paul's piece on the purge in the Civil Rights Division: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002989.php.
This is DOJ's way of keeping Goodling from having to testify in front of Congress, at least for now. An OPR investigation could easily drag on far enough into next year so that we will all be occupied with the election.
The "O" in "DOJ" stands for "Obstruction," as in Department of Obstruction of Justice.
Security code: shirt, as in time to wave the bloody one.
Official A wrote on May 3, 2007 9:49 AM:Utterly predictable. The Executive Branch is building a firewall of "internal" investigations to stymie Congressional investigations. I really don't see how Congress can keep impeachment off the table much longer, unless of course they decide to cave in and move on, which at this point would not surprise me.
Security Code: bucket, as in "The bucket stops here."
Glenn wrote on May 3, 2007 9:54 AM:Congress could still go forward at that point, but the federal court in D.C. makes the final determination. It would seem to be highly unlikely that Goodling would still get her immunity with this probe ongoing.
Paul, I think you're making an unwarranted assumption, at least if you read the statute that governs this -- 18 USC 6005. The issuance of the order by the district court is purely a ministerial act. The statute says that the court "shall issue" the order upon a finding that the proper Congressional authorization has been made (i.e., in this case, 2/3 of the full committee voting in favor), and that the DOJ got the requisite 10 days' notice. There is no discretion under the statute for the district court to decide whether the immunity grant is a good idea or not, no matter what DOJ says.
Now I admit I do not practice in this area, so maybe the courts have put a spin on the otherwise plain language of the statute I'm unaware of, so I suggest you do some digging with lawyers who do practice here (or with Congressional aides). And it certainly might be true that Congress would be unwilling to push forward with immunity in the face of the investigation -- but it looks to me like that would be Congress' choice, not that of the court. I don't think there's any basis to assume that the district court would, or could, determine on its own that immunity was not a good idea.
tomg wrote on May 3, 2007 10:00 AM:yeah, time drop the immunity thing and go straight for the subpoenas, swear her in listen to 'I plead the 5th' for 40 times or more and hold her in contempt and throw her ass in jail until she agrees to testify.
Andy wrote on May 3, 2007 10:00 AM:Obviously, DOJ is of primary importance but are there other "Goodlings" in other departments placing Neocon fellow travelers in similar positions? Just when we thought DOD could not me more screwed-up.
Hermagoras wrote on May 3, 2007 10:08 AM:Just when I thought I'd seen every move in the Bush administration shell game, they come up with a new one. If they put half this kind of creative energy into actually doing their jobs... Not bloody likely.
nffcnnr wrote on May 3, 2007 10:08 AM:Why not impeach Gonzales?
TruthSeeker wrote on May 3, 2007 10:09 AM:security code: "shirt" As in, "i served honorabley as a US Attorney and all i got was this lousy t-shirt."
I was never comfortable with the immunity deal extended to Goodling. She needs to pay for her crimes. Now hopefully, she will...
Johnsnottoodistracted wrote on May 3, 2007 10:09 AM:Still wondering why anyone thinks she has a memory left.
nffcnnr wrote on May 3, 2007 10:10 AM:She must like the idea of being a real team player.Not much coaxing to go numb.
Besides she may be trying to impress a prospective husband.
A solid denial of any memory surely (in her mind) boosts her chances of a good catch.
oops: "honorably"
impeach Gonzo: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/03/opinion/03bowman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
security code: adjust as in, "my last post required me to..."
Jake wrote on May 3, 2007 10:12 AM:Could Goodling base hiring decisions on membership in the Federalist Society rather than strict party affiliation?
case law wrote on May 3, 2007 10:20 AM:Application of U. S. Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities
361 F.Supp. 1270
D.C.D.C., 1973.
"On its face, § 6005 casts the role of the Court in terms of ministerial duty. The language is mandatory: “... a United States district court shall issue, ... upon the request of a duly authorized representative of the House of Congress or the committee concerned, an order ....” (emphasis added). The statutory language imposes only two prerequisites or conditions,FN10 both procedural, for issuing the requested*1276 order: (1) if the proceeding is before a House of Congress, the request for an immunity order must have been approved by a majority of the Members present; if the proceeding is before a committee, subcommittee, or joint committee, the request must have been approved by two-thirds of the full committee membership, (2) at least ten days prior to filing the immunity request with the court, the committee or House must have provided the Attorney General with notice of an intention to seek immunity for the named witness or witnesses. In short, judicial discretion cannot be found on the face of the statute."
"It is significant also to note that when the immunity relates to congressional proceedings the Attorney General is deprived of the discretion he enjoys under other sections of the statute. For grand jury and court proceedings (§ 6003) and certain administrative proceedings (§ 6004) the Attorney General may deny permission to seek an immunity order from the Court. Although § 6005 permits the Attorney General to apply to the court for a 20-day extension in which the court “shall defer the issuance of any order,” no veto power or other authority is bestowed."
"If then, neither the Attorney General nor the court may deny a congressional application, the question naturally arises, “For what purpose does § 6005 require notice to the Attorney General and approval by the court?” Though the statute itself is silent here, the Working Papers again include a comprehensive discussion. With respect to the Attorney General, the Working Papers state at page 1440:
In the special instance of congressional inquiries, in contrast to administrative proceedings, it would be virtually unthinkable to give the Attorney General the additional power of disapproval of conferment of immunity, because in a Teapot Dome-type congressional investigation the Attorney General himself would be the focus of the inquiry.
Nevertheless, the Commission and the Congress did recognize the seriousness of immunization against punishment for crime and the potential adverse effect the conferring of immunity might have on criminal law enforcement. It was with the intent of minimizing any prejudicial impact on present and future law enforcement plans that the provision requiring notice of intended immunization was adopted. It was expected that timely notice would allow the Attorney General to assess the effect of a grant of immunity on investigations or prosecutions and then, should he feel it necessary, communicate with the concerned House of Congress or committee to “lobby” for a modification of immunity plans. (Working Papers at 1406). The memorandum filed by the Special Prosecutor indicates that he has made use of this opportunity although to no avail, as yet. It was also anticipated that a period of time up to 30 days would permit the Attorney General to “insulate from the immunity grant any incriminating data already in his files prior to the witness' testimony.” (Working Papers at 1406). Presumably, if such incriminating data is available to the Special Prosecutor in this case, he has taken advantage of the opportunity to “insulate” it. Thus, though he is accorded no right to be heard in court in opposition to an immunity request, the Attorney General is given some protection in his role as the *1278 administrator of Federal law enforcement by the notice requirement of § 6005."
Barbara wrote on May 3, 2007 10:25 AM:Political gamesmanship aside, I am not convinced that Ms. Goodling should be given immunity at this point because (a) it's unwise to give immunity unless you have a very good idea of what you are immunizing and (b) I have a lot of doubts about whether she would be all that forthcoming in her testimony even with immunity. It does look, however, that she's about to get the standard reward for all loyal Bushies who are outed for inappropriate behavior -- a big push under the bus and a round of noisy scapegoating.
jeffgee wrote on May 3, 2007 10:30 AM:I suspect Andy is right about other "Goodlings". The Bushie body snatchers installed pod people in every department they could. Look at what has been revealed about the Depts. of the Interior, Energy, Labor HHS, Education. Look at all of the recess appointments Bush has made when he knew the appointees would never pass Senate's muster and those were made when he had a rubberstamp legistature. And Cheney's energy task force: is his secrecy necessary because the division oil spoils of the impending Iraq war was planned there?
RandyR wrote on May 3, 2007 10:32 AM:Every rock has lots of Bushie bugs crawling around underneath. Turn on the lights.
What about Sampson's biggest lie, that he was just the aggregator of the list. He had the power to hire and fire. That's perjury, and it can't be anything else. I would guess that it would be easy to show that he didn't answer truthfully about that and I'm sure "I don't recall" would be believable.
On a second issue, what don't we know about who the fired AG's were investigating. We know where documents were filed but many investigations are confidential but available to the DOJ. I'll bet there are some pretty big fish that got off the hook.
It seems that much of this disaster will come out without Monica Goodlings Congressional testimony. I would much rather see her go to jail than to get her testimony quickly. I feel confident that she is a very dirty little girl and perhaps 3 or 4 years in solitude would be good to contemplate her Christian values and cleanse her soul.
Security Code: push I wonder who will get pushed under the bus for this.
budfox wrote on May 3, 2007 10:33 AM:Looks like Rove will be able to 'run out the clock' with bogus internal investigations. A different result could happen if we had a MSM that chooses to do its job...they won't.
Organic George wrote on May 3, 2007 10:34 AM:Is it important to "get" Goodling?
She is the conduit to Rove, so isn't Rove the real target?
goldberry wrote on May 3, 2007 10:37 AM:So, congress could still go forward and they could do it quickly and force the justice department to settle the matter as soon as possible. If she doesn't get immunity, that will be just as newsworthy as if she did. No immunity guarantees that the spotlight will be trained on the DOJ and WH for possible obstruction of justice. And the quicker this narrative plays out, the better for the Democrats because continuity in the story is crucial for maintaining public interest. So, give Goodling immunity and let the chips fall where they may. In the end Goodling is just a small cog in a corrupt machine and if she brings an end to it, she can throw herself on the mercy of the public.
Austin Cooper wrote on May 3, 2007 10:39 AM:Is Chuck Rosenberg a loyal Bushie? What's known about him?
Any tactical decisions about what to do about Goodling at Justice aren't being *made* at Justice. They're being made in the White House.
And by a (for them) happy bureaucratic coincidence, if the DoJ internal investigation concludes lil' Monica may have broken the law, then no immunity. No Congressional testimony.
Monica will be charged with what ammounts to a misdemeanor (it may in fact be one). She'll probably plead out; she goes down -- not for any crimes she may have committed at the direction of Rove, but for what in the political world is the functional equivalent of a traffic infraction.
It isn't likely, though, that Congress will forget Goodling. This whole twist only delays the request that she testify. And, it's possible that other revelations -- in documents or other testimony -- will result in her indictment on other charges.
The White House strategy, as Josh has already said here several times, is *run out the clock*. Delay, obfuscate; burn the villages and wipe the hard drives in the retreat and leave nothing of use to the Enemy.
Then, it's 2009, and The Commander Guy doesn't give a damn after that. And, he'll be signing pardons for everybody, probably right up to the Inauguration of a Democratic President.
lgrn wrote on May 3, 2007 10:39 AM:Ok, so now we have at least three situations in which key players privy to details in Congressional investigations are being investigated by the Administration itself, so Congress just backs off. How far could this go?
"The White House today announced it is launching a full scale investigation of the Vice President, the Attorney General, and the entire Executive Branch. This will likely delay any testimony on Capital Hill in various investigations already launched by the House and Senate.
White House Spokesman Tony Snow denied any possiblity of an attempt to cover up illegal activities on the part of the Adminstration, but could give no further details as to the cases involved due to the fact he himself was under investigation for being an absentee landlord in his role as White House Spokesman."
Glenn wrote on May 3, 2007 10:40 AM:Hey "case law"...nice find, thanks. In other words, the statute means what it says, and it's up to Congress to decide, regardless of any DOJ investigation.
By the way, the "immunity" that is granted is "use immunity" -- i.e., Goodling's testimony could not be used against her as evidence. This is contrasted with the broader "transactional immunity," where you get a free pass for whatever you've done (or specified possible crimes). Even with the immunity, if the DOJ had evidence independently gathered that she had committed a crime, she could still be prosecuted.
Security code: poison -- 'nuff said.
Jeff wrote on May 3, 2007 10:40 AM:And that is that Gonzales had signed an order in March of last year that gave Goodling and Sampson the power to hire and fire interim U.S. attorneys.
Is this a reference to the secret order that Waas reported on, or a distinct order?
If this is a reference to the secret order, and if you are correct that that order covered interim U.S. Attorneys, then it is clear that the failure to produce that order to the congress as a relevant document is a massive problem for the DoJ and the administration.
But if you're talking about a different order, or if it's not correct that the secret order covered interim USAs, then it's not as clearly a problem that the document was not turned over to congress.
C 92 wrote on May 3, 2007 10:43 AM:So now we know that Goodling had positioned herself as a personnel officer, among other things at DOJ.
Now she's proven herself devious on a number of fronts, but I seriously doubt she was expert enough on personnel issues to come up with the idea that someone would need to be a gateway for a Patriot-appointed interim US Attorney's hiring of staff.
She had to have help.
Remember Kay Cole James - the former Director of Office of Personnel Management -- the US Government's HR department?
Kay Cole James was Dean of the Regent School of Government.
And Monica was a joint major of government and law at Regent (according to her resume - http://web.archive.org/web/20000309185220/home.regent.edu/monigoo/resume.htm)
She and James would have definitely crossed paths.
rmadilo wrote on May 3, 2007 10:43 AM:I think the reason for notice to the AG and his right to delay for 20 days beyond the 10 notice days is because if they DoJ wants to prosecute the person, they have to write down all the evidence they currently have of any crimes s/he may have committed.
Think about that: this will have the effect of putting a fire under the IG to collect all evidence. Any DoJ foot dragging by the IG or anyone else trying to block the gathering of evidence will become part of the record.
doofman wrote on May 3, 2007 10:46 AM:If I'm reading caselaw's post correctly, it sounds like Congress can immunize her whether the DoJ like it or not, even if it WOULD compromise "internal investigations," and that the relevent law was actually written with this particular type of scenario in mind. Gonzales gets his 10 (or possibly more, but not infinite) days notice so he can beg and plead the House or Senate Judiciary committees to reconsider, but at the end of the day, Leahy can tell him to shove it, and the Federal court can't do anything about it.
Now, as for the question of whether Congress SHOULD immunize Goodling....look, I know a lot of people here want to throw every person who did anything criminal here in jail. But that's not realistic. The key questions are A) how guilty is she compared with everyone else and B) can she give us anyone higher up. If she's the guiltiest of all, even beyond Rove and Gonzales, then immunizing her is a very bad idea. But at the end of the day, she might have to go free to put those two guys away. If that's the case, then the deal is worth it. I'm just hoping the committee knows what it's in for (just because they haven't shown their hand doesn't mean that they don't know what they're doing).
hoi polloi wrote on May 3, 2007 10:47 AM:Quis custodiet custodes ipsos?
And who's going to guard the guardians?
tgr wrote on May 3, 2007 10:48 AM:Chuck Rosenberg at Justice, and Scott Bloch at the White House. Pretty smart maneuver by the Rovians. The veneer of propriety is sickening.
This is typically of an Orwellian administration. With initiatives like "Clear Skies," and "No Child Left Behind," that do the exact opposite; and Rove's favorite tactic of attacking opponents for the exact crimes and misdemeanors that he's up to himself, this smokescreen/voodoo politics has reach a new level of Machiavellian skullduggery.
I agree with Hermagoras above; perhaps the greatest tragedy of this (and other sordid affairs) is that if they'd expended the same amount of energy they've used to cover their incompetent asses (not to mention their criminal graft, war-profiteering and power-grabbing) at simply doing the jobs appointed them, this country'd be in a different place today.
But does anyone outside the blogosphere or the beltway really care about all this? Panem et circences.
MLS wrote on May 3, 2007 10:53 AM:Glenn and case law are correct that the court's role here is purely ministerial. The Attorney General can delay the grant of immunity, but unless he can persuade the committee not to go forward with the application, he cannot stop it.
As a practical matter, once the witness is granted immunity, it will become very difficult, if not impossible, to prosecute her for underlying crimes about which she testifies. It is true that she will receive only use immunity, but the courts have placed a very burden on prosecutors to show that the prosecution did not use the immunized testimony in any way at all.
Jeff wrote on May 3, 2007 10:57 AM:Take a good look at Tom Flocco's web page. Suspicious deaths and firings among USA's in Texas - Missouri while their offices were probing Medicare fraud
Texas assistant U.S. attorney deaths raise foul play questions
"DOJ news reports, press releases scrubbed from web while autopsies and death certificates raise questions related to national Medicare fraud probe;"
http://www.tomflocco.com/fs/DeathsFoulPlayQuestions.htm
AND,
Senate ignored 5 Texas asst. U.S. attorney deaths and firings at Gonzales hearing
http://www.tomflocco.com/fs/UsAttDeathsFirings.htm
ann wrote on May 3, 2007 10:58 AM:Posted by: Jeff
Question from lay-person regarding these dueling investigations/firewall investigations: Do you mean that an internal DOJ investigation would take precedence over a congressional investigation? Are there any precedents that show a congressional investigation should not be be given more immediate attention? What good is subpoena power to our Dems then? thanks
larry wrote on May 3, 2007 11:02 AM:Scott Bloch (Office of Special Counsel--"investigating" possible politically motivated firings of US Attorneys as well as Hatch Act violations by Karl Roverol and his minions) is himself being investigated by the OIG at the Office of Personnel Management for purging existing career staff, and for bypassing career managers and having political staff hire new attorneys at the Office of Special Counsel. The newly hired attorneys hail from, among other places, the Ave Maria school of law, the Federalist Society, and the National Republican Lawyers Association.
Jaime Frontero wrote on May 3, 2007 11:08 AM:case law:
Excellent citation, in your 10:20 post, of the pertinency of § 6003 - 5.
Now your job, should you choose to accept it, is to find those hitherto unexamined, 6-point sub-clauses in the latest revisions to the 'Patriot' Act and the Military Commissions Act which nullify and/or supersede your citations.
Would you be terribly surprised to discover that they are there, somewhere?
JF
Richard L. Adlof wrote on May 3, 2007 11:12 AM:I tend towards agreeing with Truthseeker’s appraisal of Lil’ Missy Monica (not so) Goodling.
Our blonde femme fatale is playing the (wrong-way) Ollie North in this adventure – Waist deep in having done the deeds and looking to land a right-wingnut radio program in a drive-time slot with a little pick-up work at the FAUX Opinion-cast Network.
What she needs to realize is that both sides are hunting her now and that doing the honorable thing may be her only hope. The big difference between this Administration and Congress is the shallow grave and bags of lye attitude of Bush & Co.
The smart thing is to sit before every Committee that will have her for the next five years and express fear for her life. She needs to say whatever she needs to say. A well-lit cell may be her best bet.
Sampson NEEDS to be in lock-up, do not pass go immediately. The Gonzales order points to his testimony being a pile of dung.
Gonzales NEEDS to be in stir also. The order is proof of Conspiracy to do a crap load of illegal misdeeds.
Stock tip: The PEOPLE need to invest in a block wall, blindfold and bullets.
mbbsdphil wrote on May 3, 2007 11:14 AM:The combination of Geldling's (and Sampson's) delegated authority from Gonzales with Geldling's authority to have final say over the local hiring by an acting or interim USA of his or her junior lawyers, is Geldling applying the Rove/Cheney feudal hiring model to her level of the federal feudal structure.
Geldling imagines herself with power, an outcome intended by Rove of filling key slots with such people as her. More importantly, it gives Rove & Co., direct access to these hires by virtue of their absolute control over conduits such as Geldling.
That creates a feudal structure in which even the most junior hires owe fealty to Geldling, Main Justice, and the WH, which trumps their loyalty to those who supervise them and with whom they work. As other commentators have pointed out, this is an outright adaptation of a Soviet-style dual bureaucracy - Party and functional bureaucrats workiing at cross purposes and for different masters.
I agree that this isn't a change of style or emphasis. It is a wholesale corruption of the administration of Justice and the federal bureaucracy. Congress's should do what it can to confirm that such abuses are stopped now.
stephen wrote on May 3, 2007 11:18 AM:I think she should be thrown in jail after she does her fifth dance. I suggest that she be given the same cell as Susan Mc Dougal and that she be perp marched exactly the same was as Susan. Of course I suspect that Monica the Second will not be as sexy as Susan but she will sure look good in Jail House Orange with chains or her feet and around her waist!.....Uh oh I'm gettin a woody!!!!!!!!
Anonymous wrote on May 3, 2007 11:19 AM:mbbsdphil:
do you blog anywhere else?
Tony wrote on May 3, 2007 11:34 AM:Bush and his cohorts are damaging the country in many ways. Impeach the man, then cheney, and get on with cleansing. Really sad stuff, these opportunists.
tjallen wrote on May 3, 2007 11:38 AM:Regarding the guardian: The guardian guards only those who do not guard themselves. So who guards the guardian? If the guardian guards himself, he's not guarded by the guardian (because the guardian only guards those who do not guard themselves). But on the other hand, if he does not guard himself, then he's guarded by the guardian (himself again). One wonders if these contradictions russell anyone?
case law wrote on May 3, 2007 11:48 AM:JF,
Snark wrote on May 3, 2007 11:48 AM:Do you think there's a question (one I hope not to see on my Con Law exam) of whether or not this is an unconstitutional legislative veto under Chadha? I see that the USCA notes of decisions regarding this statute all seem to predate Chadha. On the one hand, this procedure modifies substantive rights without satisfying bicameralism and presentment. On the other, I suppose the fact that it is "use" immunity may moderate this concern, because it seems to be more a rule of evidence than a shield from criminal liability. I wonder if there are also arguments available regarding the importance of the "informing" function of congress or impermissible congressional influence over the executive as in Bowsher.
Sister Goodling was doing the Lord's work, supporting her brethren and filling the DOJ with the heavenly hosts. She deserves praise; her blessed work will rain the might of heaven upon the wicked and smite the enemy. Hallelujah. No matter the earthly pain she suffers at their hands, she will have her reward in heaven. Hallelujah.
Jake Bryan wrote on May 3, 2007 11:49 AM:Larry said, "Scott Bloch (Office of Special Counsel--"investigating" possible politically motivated firings of US Attorneys as well as Hatch Act violations by Karl Roverol and his minions) is himself being investigated by the OIG at the Office of Personnel Management for purging existing career staff, and for bypassing career managers and having political staff hire new attorneys at the Office of Special Counsel."
Doesn't this situation, on its face, present mutual conflicts of interest requiring recusal? At what point can the Congressional committees request an independent special prosecutor for this, which could then also allow that special prosecutor to expand into the whole Rove/White House/Justice scheme?
Anonymous wrote on May 3, 2007 11:53 AM:Monica is an IEB - an Improvised Explosive Bureaucrat - planted by Rove.
Anonymous wrote on May 3, 2007 12:06 PM:I am praying very hard that these horrible human beings are brought to justice before I leave this planet. I simply cannot believe that those who are responsible for so much death, deceit, and suffering will go unpunished, If I believed any other way, I could not bear to exist any longer. I'm certain I'm not alone in my feelings. The Bush Administration will not only be considered the worst one in history, it will be reviled for generations to come.
dotsright wrote on May 3, 2007 12:17 PM:The only interesting thing in all this is that the Bushists must be awfully nervous that Miss Monica may just say more than they'd like or they wouldn't be pulling this maneuver or that she's not the old pro at the "I don't remember, I don't recall." game that Sampson and Gonzalez were.
Long Memory wrote on May 3, 2007 12:17 PM:Call me slow on the uptake, but one of the problems I've always had with Republicans in the White House is that they have the opportunity to shape the judiciary. I don't EXPECT Bush to nominate anybody to the bench who isn't a card-carrying member of the Federalist Society. (Nevermind that these guys and gals seem to spend an inordinate amount of time denying that they're members.)
But when you lard the bench with Federalists and then you make it so the USAs are Federalists as well, then doesn't that smack of a takeover of the legal system in this country?
slb wrote on May 3, 2007 12:25 PM:>> I think she should be thrown in jail after she does her fifth dance. I suggest that she be given the same cell as Susan Mc Dougal and that she be perp marched exactly the same was as Susan. <<
I am not a lawyer, but I know enough to know that there is some confusion here, as expressed by stephen and several others, between claiming a Fifth Amendment privilege and flat-out refusing to testify.
You cannot be put in jail for claiming a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. What good would a Constitutional right be if you could be jailed for exercising it?
The Fifth Amendment only covers testimony against yourself, however. It does not exempt you from having to testify against others.
Susan McDougal was not imprisoned because she took the Fifth Amendment and refused to testify against herself. She was jailed because she refused to testify against Bill Clinton. That's a very different thing. It doesn't mean it wasn't prosecutorial abuse, because I think McDougal's claim was that they wanted her to testify to things that were not true, and then jailed her because she refused to do it.
There were lots of questions at the time little Monica announced she would take the Fifth as to just what testimony she was afraid might incriminate her. I think now we may have an idea. And I agree with Barbara, above, that maybe Congress really doesn't want to be too quick to grant her immunity. Let's see what kind of case can be put together without her testimony, and find out just how big a player she really was. Immunity can always come later if necessary.
osage wrote on May 3, 2007 12:30 PM:Isn't this all just a desperately elaborate attempt to postpone the inevitable prosecutions of Sampson, Goodling, Gonzales and Rove, and ultimately the exposure of the multiple illegal actions of a disgraced criminal president? What good does buying time do for anyone (but perhaps the GOP), when they know that the current administration will soon be unable to obstruct justice, and that a 2009 veto proof Democratic Congress will come after them with all guns blazing? Aren't Sampson, Goodling, Gonzales and Rove ALL going to end up doing prison time anyway? And realistically, are they still clinging to the slim and diminshing posibility that a Republican will reside in the White House in 2009? I sincerely believe that at the very least they will all go to jail and that Mr. Bush will be whacking weeds in Texas and declaring him the "commander guy" to prarie dogs, gila monsters and ratttle snakes, and they won't take him seriously either.
HeyThereItsEric wrote on May 3, 2007 12:50 PM:I wouldn't trust the DOJ's inspector general to be anything other than a whitewashing service.
(Shameless commentary plug) With the help of others at ePluribus Media, I spent a couple of days last week tearing apart the DOJ Office of Inspector General's report on the the replacement of Guam's U.S. Attorney, Fred Black. The report seems to clear the Administration of wrongdoing; it exonerates people in the text, but damns them in the footnotes.
It's a veritable master's thesis of misdirection and deception.
I've put the URL for the timeline's introduction in the "URL" for this comment (it's at ePluribusMedia's community site - search for "OIG Black"). The actual timeline is a link from there; it's too long to fit as a commentary.
Bob Gaines wrote on May 3, 2007 1:34 PM:Osage: "Mr. Bush will be whacking weeds in Texas and declaring him the "commander guy" to prarie dogs, gila monsters and ratttle snakes, and they won't take him seriously either."
As a native son I agree that Texas has a lot to answer for, but not Gila monsters ("Range: Mojave, Sonoran and Chihuahuan deserts of extreme southwestern Utah, southern Nevada, southeastern California, Arizona and southwestern New Mexico into Mexico. http://www.desertusa.com/sep97/du_gilamonster.html)
gtash wrote on May 3, 2007 1:59 PM:The DOJ is not the only agency stocking up on Bushista-lawyers is it? I think a probe of virtually very Federal agency and its hiring practices is in order.
Johann wrote on May 3, 2007 2:24 PM:What nobody seems to be considering is that Monica Goodling admits, to the DOJ investigators, to all sorts of crimes against humanity, takes the blame for everything, gets declared guilty, starts serving a prison term and then immediately gets pardoned by President Bush.
End of story, and Monica cannot be prosecuted again because that would constitute double jeopardy and would violate her constitutional rights.
Anonymous wrote on May 3, 2007 3:03 PM:Till Gitmo is closed, these folks should be held at that facility.
WestofLeft wrote on May 3, 2007 3:24 PM:Monica Goodling was the Administration's tool, sort of an undertool of Gonzales. Now, with an investigation of the DOJ by Congress threatening, she is suddenly under investigation by that Department?
* First of all, does anyone believe Gonzales-the-Incompetent capable of effectively investigating one of his own staff?
* Second of all, the convenience of it all breeds, it looks like, a conflict of interest: keeping the investigation going for months, years, even decades, will serve the interests of both the White House, Rove and Gonzales. That conflict needs to be dealt with.
Am I the only one to detect that infamous Karl Rove smell all over it? How could it be anything else? How could anyone take seriously that Gonzales is going to investigate his own (fundamentalist Christian) appointee?
In politics you look, it seems to me, to the person who is benefited by an action, to find who is behind it. What purpose could it serve to have her investigated, to anyone, other than to give the White House cover by giving her cover?
Does not pass the "Come on, now" test.
Adam wrote on May 3, 2007 4:28 PM:Monica Goodling kind of looks like Tonya Harding
D.C. wrote on May 3, 2007 4:38 PM:http://www.tonyaharding.org/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=album20&id=reno_1
What if the DOJ investigation came first? The DOJ investigation would explain why Goodling retained an attorney and asserted her fifth amendment rights, while no one else has done so. The DOJ said that the investigation was started by Chuck Rosenberg "a few weeks ago" while he was acting chief of staff. That would place it between March 16 and April 26, according to DOJ press releases about his tenure. Goodling asserted the 5th on April 3, which was after ample time for the investigation to have begun. The House Judiciary Committee did not vote to give her immunity until April 25. Rather than starting an investigation to keep Goodling from testifying, it is also possible that she initially refused to testify because of the investigation.
WestofLeft wrote on May 3, 2007 5:59 PM:D.C.:
"The DOJ said that the investigation was started by Chuck Rosenberg "a few weeks ago" ... between March 16 and April 26, according to DOJ press releases ... Goodling asserted the 5th on April 3, which was after ample time for the investigation to have begun."
But Justice investigations don't normally get to the subject of the investigation so quickly. Usually, they don't know they are being investigated (especially if they are no longer "in the house" as Goodling wasn't) for a number of months.
So. An investigation started prob'ly in March, when AFAICT Justice must have known that Goodling was going to come up in some fashion (Rove cleverly calls all his shots -- he keeps one step ahead of adversaries by anticipating their moves. In this case since he knew G-man wasn't going to say squat, he also knew Congress, in its bumbliness, was going to look to Goodling next), and preempted the legislative branch all hollow.
Christ! I think that man is demonic.
I never bought what the modern Republicans are selling, that adversaries are actively evil, but with Rove?
Maybe I'm just fried that nobody on our side can use the same skills for good, rather than for evil.
Don.
nikto wrote on May 3, 2007 6:41 PM:Let's cut the crap, shall we?
IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH
Tired in Tennessee wrote on May 3, 2007 7:34 PM:IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH
IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH
IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH
IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH
IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH
IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH
IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH
IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH
IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH
IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH
IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH
IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH
IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH
IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH
IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH
IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH
IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH
IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH
IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH
IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH
IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH
IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH
IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH
IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH
IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH
IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH
IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH
I am surprised that no one has looked into a local case where a prosecutor with the Nashville U.S. Attorney's office is suing charging age discrimination, specifically, alleging it [his forced retirement] was part of an officewide
the truth will out wrote on May 3, 2007 9:09 PM:effort to drive out more experienced prosecutors in favor of younger attorneys. As was reported in The (Nashville) Tennessean on April 8, the trial was delayed until August.
Adam is right!
She does look like Tonya Harding.
Thus we get - Monica Hardling.
Very good, Adam!
V. throop wrote on May 4, 2007 7:51 AM:Isn'y it just possible that Ms. Goodling actually wants to testify ?
Why else would she state early on and publically that she untended to take the fifth ?
Note that most other folks including Libby, Abmaroff, Miers, etc have just been quietly disappeared into the back ground.