Comments (96)

theswan wrote on April 17, 2007 11:27 AM:

Lets hear her sing!

Richard L. Adlof wrote on April 17, 2007 11:38 AM:

May Congress have the forethought to only offer immunity on acts disclosed. If she excludes stuff let her head roll. If she fails to name names, conspiracy charges should be leveled.

EdNSted wrote on April 17, 2007 11:39 AM:

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

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

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

Duffy wrote on April 17, 2007 11:43 AM:

No more hiding behind the fifth Monica. Testify truthfully and directly or you're going to jail.

Dennis wrote on April 17, 2007 11:45 AM:

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

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

jfaberuiuc wrote on April 17, 2007 11:46 AM:

I could be dead wrong about this, but I seem to remember that one is still completely liable for perjury and false statements after pleading the fifth. Essentially, you may admit to a crime and be protected, but if you lie in any way while doing so you are busted. Even if Goodling is a criminal, I'd take her testimony in a heartbeat.

bordersmuggler wrote on April 17, 2007 11:47 AM:

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

jawbone wrote on April 17, 2007 11:47 AM:

Does she need to agree to testify honestly and completely before they give her this immunity? And what about when she lies to them? Is there a clause negating the immunity if she screws with them?

(Security code: salt, salt in the wound?)

Hiflyer wrote on April 17, 2007 11:51 AM:

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

MLS wrote on April 17, 2007 11:58 AM:

The immunity order that the committee obtains from the court will exclude perjury, false statements or failure to comply with the order. Thus, she could be prosecuted for lying or for failing to testify in accordance with the order.

Tony Prentakis wrote on April 17, 2007 12:00 PM:

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

georgia wrote on April 17, 2007 12:01 PM:

So they'll be voting on her immunity while Gonzo is at the Senate hearing? That puts some pressure on him to be a bit more forthcoming.

Anonymous wrote on April 17, 2007 12:01 PM:

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

EdNSted wrote on April 17, 2007 12:03 PM:

bordersmuggler wrote:

> can no doubt be predicted by
> who it is that's picking up
> her legal tab.

I'm afraid there may be more than a grain of truth here.

jawbone wrote:

> Is there a clause negating
> the immunity if she screws
> with them?

I would imagine the answer is yes, however, it boils down to what the committee can prove and what Goodling's handlers know the committee can prove.

Code word: "Body" as in "of evidence"

magster wrote on April 17, 2007 12:05 PM:

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

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

Adonis wrote on April 17, 2007 12:06 PM:

Good move. No fun in nailing her hide to the wall. Let's use her to go after the evil SOBs who used her. She'd scared. Never imagined she'd get caught. Thought it was would be a fun job, but reality has a way of biting one on the buns.

bobh wrote on April 17, 2007 12:08 PM:

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

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

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

jdw wrote on April 17, 2007 12:08 PM:

"I got a bad feeling about this, Chewy."
-Han Solo

I just don't see the need in this. Unless Conyers and Co. already know for certain that Goodling will sing on Rove if granted immunity, I don't see where this is going to get them anywhere that they're not already going to get the goods on.

bobh wrote on April 17, 2007 12:10 PM:

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

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

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

Paul wrote on April 17, 2007 12:11 PM:

Hopefully this whole debacle will end her career and she will also be disbarred. After all, regardless of prosecution for a crime, she has basically admitted to committing one and acting in unethical ways. This should be enough for her disbarment.

Matt wrote on April 17, 2007 12:13 PM:

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

bobh wrote on April 17, 2007 12:16 PM:

Yaknow what?

Even of Goodling refuses its another shot at Gonzales and committee republicans!

Now he testifies on Thursday. Vote on Goodling immunity on Wednesday and get EACH repug on the record a day before AGAG testimony.

Fucking brilliant.

yellowdogD wrote on April 17, 2007 12:18 PM:

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

Anonymous wrote on April 17, 2007 12:19 PM:

Don't like cutting anyone a deal and I'm getting real tired of the D's rolling over (instead of rolling up their sleeves) in this (and other) battles. Make her plead the fifth, hold her in contempt if she exercises her right improperly and let her think about all this while in jail

islalvr wrote on April 17, 2007 12:22 PM:

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

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

Goodling knows EVERYTHING...

She may be guilty as hell, but so are many others, so giving her immunity assures justice will be done, even if it isn't done to her. I would agree with many of these commentors, Goodling's hubris balloon, the one she lived by as she trashed the lives of the US-A's and the interns alike, acting out the part of Bush's office bitch, has been popped, not deflated. So her quick ascension, her domineering powers, her friends in high places, have all fallen.

The humiliation alone is poetic justice.

Putting Goodling in jail only gives them a lonely martyr to lament and hide behind, but giving her immunity will be like opening a window-shade.

All the little cockroaches who KNOW Goodling knows everything will scurry for the cracks... If Goodling gets immunity, watch the resignations start stacking-up.

"just the facts Ma'am"

codeword-fact

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

EdnSted is right. Goodling is headed for Republican martyrdom.

Mark wrote on April 17, 2007 12:26 PM:

If a person granted is granted use immunity, they are still subject to prosecution if they perjure themselves. This should be an interesting test of the "take the 5th because, no matter what I say, I will be accused of perjury because of the Scooter Libby facotr and the political storm surrounding this controversy" argument, which I think is a complete loser for 5th amendment jurisprudence. I can't way to see what Monica has to say.

Ellen wrote on April 17, 2007 12:35 PM:

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

KO wrote on April 17, 2007 12:36 PM:

If they offer immunity and she doesn't take it, isn't it an implicit admition that she isn't refusing to testify on the grounds of self-incrimination?

I think the offer is one she can't really refuse.

MLS wrote on April 17, 2007 12:37 PM:

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

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

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

Arkansan wrote on April 17, 2007 12:39 PM:

Did they already subpoena her? She says she’ll invoke her right; shouldn’t they call her bluff first? We’ll have to suppose they know aren’t buying a a pig in a poke, because this could backfire bigtime.

These are true believers, Ms. Buzzsaw might just take a bullet for the team, she knows God is on their side after all. Her martyrdom through perjury and professional self-destruction may just assure her a place in heaven, even if her new place on earth will be as a clerk at a Wal-Mart.

Her expensive lawyer would advise her well if he reminded Ms. Monica that these boys don’t take care of the girls who make sacrifices for them. Ask Linda Tripp et al, all that and not even a kiss goodnight. But the lawyer will just simply protect those who pay his fees. Poor Miss M, she really is all alone in this.

Please, please at least let limit the scope of the immunity.

Anna S. wrote on April 17, 2007 12:47 PM:

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

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

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

osage wrote on April 17, 2007 12:49 PM:

With Sampson's previous public testimony and on-going private testimony, and now with Goodling's upcoming testimony, the odds of Gonzales avoiding indictment for lying to Congress are slim and none. If his intent is not to avoid indictment, but rather to prevent the incrimination of others (Rove, Bush, Cheney), he will testify in a last ditch effort to plausibly deny his guilt, and bascially limit the blame to those below him. He can then resign or be fired, at which point he'll be assured of having the resources of the friends of the Bush admininstration to defend him against lying to Congress. Frankly, I see that as his and the Bush administration's best and only option. Gonzales being abandoned by Bush to defend himself on his own is not something Bush can allow. An isolated and alienated Gonzales would ensure Bush's impeachment.

MLS wrote on April 17, 2007 12:51 PM:

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

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

judyinnm wrote on April 17, 2007 12:57 PM:

I don't understand what is taking them so long - it was the first thought that popped into my head when she initially vaoed to "take the Fifth". I think I even said that, somewhere...

scavok wrote on April 17, 2007 1:03 PM:

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

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

Arkansan wrote on April 17, 2007 1:19 PM:

MLS-Thanks for the clarification, this way is more efficient.

bjobotts wrote on April 17, 2007 1:23 PM:

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

scott wrote on April 17, 2007 1:27 PM:

make sure she's disbarred, too

Diane wrote on April 17, 2007 1:39 PM:

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

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

Well I'm not a huge fan of this immunity offer. I just get sick of people getting offfor their crimes and in the end one token person gets a slap on the wrist.

I already know what's going to happen. She gets immunity then provides a mountain of conflicting and mostly useless information. The Administration will "lose" all e-mails/documents/evidence. The White House will claim executive privilage and the president will head out to the ranch for a long weekend. Everyone will scowl at Rove and shake their heads knowing full well the guy's guilty as sin (again) but do nothing (again). And America won't watch a single minute of it because we'll all be too busy watching the MSM dust off and trot out all of their "school tragedy" experts to drone on and on for the next 3 weeks.

The Commissar wrote on April 17, 2007 1:54 PM:

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

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

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

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

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

Bonnie wrote on April 17, 2007 1:59 PM:

There were a lot of immunity deals in the Iran-Contra scandal, which is why many of the main players are now working for Bush; e.g., Eliot Abrams. Immunity needs to be done in a very careful manner.

EdNSted wrote on April 17, 2007 1:59 PM:

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

anonymous wrote on April 17, 2007 2:00 PM:

It's the little fish that enable the big fish.

There needs to be a disincentive for people like Sampson and Goodling to carry out the illegal, unethical, and immoral orders of their superiors and granting Goodling total immunity fails to impose any such disincentive.

Conyers needs to make sure that she proffers and that she isn't going to assert a lapse of memory ("I can't recall . . .") for important questions or offering her immunity will accomplish virtually nothing, including being able to convict Goodling of giving perjured testimony after being given immunity.

They should wait on Goodling and see if they can get her on something - better to offer a plea deal than a grant of immunity.

ahem wrote on April 17, 2007 2:17 PM:

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

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

Michael Stevens wrote on April 17, 2007 2:20 PM:

The key is *Limited Transactional Immunity*

This *won't* grant her immunity for any crimes she admits to in her testimony. It will only grant her immunity for the exact criminal statue(s) listed in the immunity grant. In this case, I'd grant her immunity from the exact crimes she could be charged with for providing false information to McNulty.

Ollie North was granted "use" immunity. This prevented any of his testimony being used against him. Hopefully, congress will have learned their lesson and only grant limited transactional to Goodling.

Scott L wrote on April 17, 2007 2:29 PM:

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

anonymous wrote on April 17, 2007 2:46 PM:

"She is filth."

And a hypocrite, it would seem.

Would Jesus lie, plead the Fifth, or aid and abet others who are lying?

What exactly do they teach at Regent University [Christian] School of Law?

Do they actually teach legal ethics?

Barry McCafree wrote on April 17, 2007 2:48 PM:

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

anon wrote on April 17, 2007 3:02 PM:

Don't prosecutors usually get a "sample" of the witness's testimony _before_ an offer of immunity? Is there any evidence that Ms. Goodling has given a "sample" of anything? You can offer a "sample" through your lawyer, right? Does that mean there are letters from her lawyer that we haven't seen?

Code: meat, as in "Sure, Ms. Goodling can have immunity if she offers up some meat."

DF wrote on April 17, 2007 3:03 PM:

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

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

newkidontheblock wrote on April 17, 2007 3:03 PM:

"Her expensive lawyer would advise her well if he reminded Ms. Monica that these boys don’t take care of the girls who make sacrifices for them."

Yeah, just ask Katherine Harris about that..... she was a "true believer" too.

Security code: tail and I won't even go there....

biwah wrote on April 17, 2007 3:06 PM:

Barry:

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

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

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

Dabb wrote on April 17, 2007 3:07 PM:

I'm not a fan of immunity for this wannabe. My mind keeps going back to Georgia Thompson and the "beyond thin" evidence that sent her to jail. These people have destroyed lives. How about some restitution along with the immunity?

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on April 17, 2007 3:21 PM:

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

parrot wrote on April 17, 2007 3:25 PM:

Re: The Small Fish Theory

I'd personally like to see a list of her direct reports and the organization under them before we get on to the "she's a small fish" bandwagon. At minimum, there are no "small fish" at the DOJ when it comes to committing felonies. So, the import of giving her immunity is not, in all likelihood, that she is a small fish...but that she is not a big enough fish.

Codeword: smell ...as in you get the picture?

TheraP wrote on April 17, 2007 3:31 PM:

Let others speak to the legalities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

jinny wrote on April 17, 2007 3:33 PM:

From what I understand, Goodling's expensive attorney was Ollie North's attorney during Iran Contra. Is she going to be let off as easily as North was and how can she afford such an expensive attorney?

When will Democrats learn that going easy on Republicans means that they will be repeat offenders for ever?

JT in Seattle wrote on April 17, 2007 3:43 PM:

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

"I am not a potted plant."

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

ES wrote on April 17, 2007 3:45 PM:

I think (hope?) that Conyers and his pals are smart enough not to let Monica pull an Ollie North on them. The letters that I've seen from Conyers reveal him to be a very bright guy.

It would be sweet if Monica lots of copies of those "lost" emails. If I'd have been in the building for two weeks after my resignation, I'd have been printing documents or emailing them to another account, whatever it took to give myself some bargaining chips.

Just a thought.

Rich wrote on April 17, 2007 3:48 PM:

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

talex wrote on April 17, 2007 3:49 PM:

Yeah but will she be truthful?

Or will we hear the "I don't recall" song over and over again?

Hank Gillette wrote on April 17, 2007 3:56 PM:

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

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

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

Ellen wrote on April 17, 2007 3:57 PM:

When it comes to high-profile, government-controlling corruption, how do we benefit by showing mercy to the merciless? We're not talking about taking an eye for an eye here, we are talking about putting people who belong in jail in jail. These are the people who casually threw Ms. Thompson in prison to get at a big fish in her party--when it was patently clear she had done nothing wrong. Goodling was aware of the Wisconsin affair, and undoubtedly many others. Do not feed fascists. They will never be satisfied.

It is not that I do not understand the reasons for letting this "little one" get away. But, by letter her have a pass, the other ones that are "little" now will be emboldened.

Heh. OT, but funny how the language that these people have used to describe terrorists has become my lexicon for describing them.

barry wrote on April 17, 2007 5:26 PM:

remember this is the bush mafia and they don't think they are going to do any hard time ---they have goodfella mentalities about this --so why would she get immunity??? big mistake ---I say indict and charge them with a bunch of felony crimes and throw away the key

barry wrote on April 17, 2007 5:26 PM:

remember this is the bush mafia and they don't think they are going to do any hard time ---they have goodfella mentalities about this --so why would she get immunity??? big mistake ---I say indict and charge them with a bunch of felony crimes and throw away the key

Johann wrote on April 17, 2007 6:29 PM:

The Goodling perjury trap:
The way Monica sees it, if she testifies against and implicates any White House Republican (Read that as Karl Rove or Alberto Gonzales), they will say she is lying and have the US Attorney for DC prosecute her for perjury. She is between a rock and a hard place and she sees her only hope as pleading the fifth, refuse to testify, and support the administration.

az5762 wrote on April 17, 2007 7:23 PM:

No offense to fat, lady singers . . . but i think the fat lady is about to let a nice, long, carmina barona (spelling?)-esqe aria go under the rotunda of the capitol building. And i used to *hate* opera.

security phrase: i'm ready for my close-up Mr. Deville

JEP wrote on April 17, 2007 7:56 PM:

"she knows God is on their side after all."

She may be rethinking that little bit of brainwashing...

Giant Teapot wrote on April 17, 2007 8:24 PM:

"What exactly do they teach at Regent University [Christian] School of Law?

Do they actually teach legal ethics?
Posted by: anonymous
Date: April 17, 2007 02:46"

It's a rigorous program: 3 years studying just One Book.

Here's the 1L curriculum:
http://www.quizlaw.com/blog/crim_law_replaced_with_the_bla.php
It's hard to pick a fav, but "Sharia Law: Right Idea, Wrong Religion" is a prerequisite for a theocratic DOJ.

Anonymous wrote on April 17, 2007 8:53 PM:

She thought she was serving her king and saviour,but oh! look! suddendly a bigger animal popped up!
It's Congress with oversight!

ahem wrote on April 17, 2007 9:44 PM:

"Don't prosecutors usually get a "sample" of the witness's testimony _before_ an offer of immunity?"

You mean a proffer? Yeah, sometimes:

http://library.findlaw.com/2005/Feb/21/138691.html

I like the concept: make her queen for a day, see what she's got to say. And if Dowd wants the whole caboodle, to hell with them both.

But I don't want her and her lawyer dictating what Congress does.

Anonymous wrote on April 17, 2007 10:26 PM:

"Michael Stevens"

You nailed it.

MLS wrote on April 17, 2007 11:09 PM:

Congress doesn't have the option of providing immunity only for specified crimes. The only kind of immunity it can provide is use immunity (just like Oliver North received), which means that the scope of the immunity will be determined by the responses to the questions that are asked of the witness, not by the immunity order itself. Thus, if Goodling were asked about a completely unrelated crime (robbing a liquor store) in the hearing, her response could not be used against her and it would be difficult and perhaps impossible to prosecute her for that crime.

casam wrote on April 17, 2007 11:29 PM:

"The important thing is to expose the Bushies' contempt for justice to the eyes of the world."
Posted by: Tony Prentakis
Date: April 17, 2007 12:00 PM

We saw his contempt for justice and THE WORLD when he invaded Iraq in 2003. Nothing new to most of the world.
What is important, and it's not getting out there, is your vote. If you don't want your vote, flipped, ignored, or disappeared again you best try to put a stop to THIS... (I don't think bush plans on leaving )
Scientific Report Finds 'Serious Security Vulnerability' Similar to 'Princeton Diebold Virus Hack' in Widely Used iVotronic System, Allowing a Single Person to Change Election Results Across Entire County Without Detection.
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4396#comments

Michael Stevens wrote on April 18, 2007 12:05 AM:

MLS:

Are you certain the congress cannot grant transactional immunity?

This article on Findlaw states that congress Can in fact grant transactional immunity.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/lazarus/20020205.html

Star wrote on April 18, 2007 1:34 AM:

I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings

MLS wrote on April 18, 2007 7:48 AM:

Michael Stevens

Pretty certain. There used to be a statute that provided transactional immunity for witnesses who testified before Congress, but it was repealed in 1862.

Anonymous wrote on April 18, 2007 8:05 AM:

I cannot see an experienced operator like Chairman Conyers letting the immunity offer go to a vote by the panel unless he had a cast iron GUARANTEE that Ms Goodling was going to produce wortwhile testimony relating to third parties in DOJ mess.

It is too early in the game for him to cash in the immunity chip for low value testimony, while Goodling's position could be undermined overnight by a 'bigger fish' copping a plea, effectively stranding her on the shore.

It looks like game on for Lil Al and the Turd Blossom.

See how it long takes for the WH and DOJ to start dumping on Monica.

EdNSted wrote on April 18, 2007 11:03 AM:

Raw Story is now reporting that late yesterday, the House Judiciary Committeee decided to delay voting on Goodling's immunity:

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Democrats_delay_major_moves_in_two_0418.html

Mild;y cynical wrote on April 18, 2007 12:52 PM:

Maybe I'm just naive, but what if it plays out like this...

Young lawyer with few supports but strong sense of idealism gets out into the world and pushed forward into a high profile job where she feels she gets to make a difference. She gets asked to do some things that she knows are wrong but she feels they are for the good of the country etc. The stuff starts to hit the fan and suddenly this young idealist finds that she has fewer people willing to talk to her and she starts to feel alone. She gets told to keep her mouth shut and everything will blow over, but it doesn't. She looks around and starts to figure out that she is one of the people lower down who is starting to twist slowly in the wind. She starts to copy all of the documents which she has kept - as she was trained to do since she is a lawyer - just in case. She keeps getting told to say nothing and things will be fine, but she now realizes that things are not fine and likely never will be - her professional career is in ruins, she faces ethical problems and possible disbarrment and has no-one to back her up. Remember she is still an idealist but her world is falling down around her.

Along comes a congressman who says that he's not out to get her, he recognizes that she was swept up and that she was asked to do thigs she knew were wrong, by people who were acting for the wrong reasons. She is now doing some soul searching, and if she truly believes, is reading her bible and reflecting. She realizes that there is no way out for her but the truth.

She starts to understand that she can go down in history as an endnote for the first JoD staffer to quit and take the fifth or she can try and redeem her life by telling the truth and producing the documents to back it up - in the process becoming a household name and launching a new life on the motivational speaker circuit. Maybe, just maybe - she's going to tell the truth.

But I'm probably just being naive.

code: expert, as in about to hear the testimony of an expert witness

Big D wrote on April 18, 2007 4:11 PM:

The fifth ammendment states: "...shall not be compelled in any CRIMINAL case to be a witness against himself..."
I thought this was an investigation not a criminal case.

Go ask Alice wrote on April 18, 2007 6:11 PM:

Ellen:
Even though I would like to see Goodling jailed for contempt, it is more important to get the to big fish in this WH scandal (Gonzales, Bush and Rove). I don't think you can compare this situation to Ken Starr's, ultimately unsuccessful $40 million dollar fishing expedition/witch hunt of the Clinton's because the Clintons' and Susan McDougal were innocent - and Ken Starr knew that! Otherwise, he surely would have offered her immunity to get at them. At that point, he had to settle for humiliating McDougal and putting her through the wringer of going to jail to ruin her reputation by creating the illusion of guilt. Because she was a friend of the Clintons', I assume he hoped that there would be a perception (not a reality) of "guilt" by association.

Not to pre-judge, but it appears that Goodling's fingerprints are all over this one. Nevertheless, we need to stay calm and be adults about this and not be consumed with visions of pay-backs and revenge, as attractive and well-deserved as that may be. That is how the Rethugs expect su to react. There is too much at stake here. Limited transactional immunity would be best, but if Congress cannot offer that, then they need to be very circumspect about what questions she is asked and be sure they are going to get something worthwhile before they grant her use immunity.

juddy@hotmail.com wrote on April 26, 2007 5:48 PM:

penis enlargement chat

margaret@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 4:40 AM:

hello

margaret@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 4:41 AM:

hello

margaret@gmail.com wrote on May 5, 2007 2:59 PM:

hello

monyka@gmail.com wrote on May 6, 2007 3:58 AM:

hello

kate@gmail.com wrote on May 7, 2007 5:49 AM:

hello

kate@gmail.com wrote on May 7, 2007 5:49 AM:

hello

kate@gmail.com wrote on May 7, 2007 5:50 AM:

hello

smwyblx lrudm wrote on August 21, 2007 4:48 AM:

vnmrgs dotqkfyli qhjrv ejirpvyuo oetyrvsz ltcumxqwn yihnckt

limewire wrote on September 26, 2007 9:48 AM:

Hi boys!9efe5314dfefe85c2694ddd63a5aca6b

mp3 downloads wrote on October 7, 2007 10:53 PM:

Hi, there!..663143b21a73299a6288e5b52042f128