Comments (105)

obsessed wrote on May 2, 2007 4:30 PM:

If she blurts out confessions to every possible crime she committed while under immunity, does that let her off the hook in the DOJ investigation?

Citizen 92 wrote on May 2, 2007 4:30 PM:

FINALLY!!!

Don't lose sight of the fact that before Goodling arrived at DOJ she was a researcher in the RNC opposition research shop -- working for US Attorney in Arkansas Tim Griffin.

Opposition researchers have access to voter registration lists and party affiliations. This is public information. And the RNC has something called "Voter Vault" - which tracks all of this in a database, in addition to people's voting history, if they took out an absentee ballot, etc.

Monica as an RNC grad would likely have access and familiarity with Voter Vault.

And since we know that politicals were making the final decisions on career hires at DOJ, those politicals would have had access to resumes - which have applicants' home addresses.

Home address + name + registration = party affiliation.

And, it seems, if you were a Dem - that's as far as you got.

FINALLY THIS IS OUT!

solai wrote on May 2, 2007 4:31 PM:

Over and over again, Rove is the mastermind. Yet, he appoints someone to do his dirty work and take the fall. Are these people catching on yet???

Anon wrote on May 2, 2007 4:32 PM:

Of course it will impact the immunity offer. The US Attorney/DoJ are required to advise the Committee as to whether the immunization will impact an ongoing criminal case. I'm assuming this information was leaked as a way of telling the Committee not to get their hopes up about getting Goodling in to testify. They get to look like their taking action, while still protecting Rove et al. from having the facts get out. How convenient.

What?! wrote on May 2, 2007 4:33 PM:

And over on FOX they are wondering what the big deal is regarding the USAttorney purge as there has been no proof of wrong doing. I quess FOX is like Bush, "need to see you with a hatchet in your hand, standing over the body..."

Take a look at the Missouri USAtty case involving Medical Supply Chain(it involves the firing of multiple attorney's from the plantiff's Texas USAtty office and 2!! other attorneys from that office were found dead at their homes. One hell of a coincidence! Depositions revealed there were originally 10 names on USA purge list.

EdNSted wrote on May 2, 2007 4:34 PM:

But is it a real investigation, a mere dog and pony show, or worse, deliberately designed to obstruct justice? I don't know, but the question needs to be asked.

Anonymous wrote on May 2, 2007 4:37 PM:

A lot of stuff happening today!
"the OIG/OPR investigation."
Who heads up this department? Is it a loyal Bushie? I didn't even know Goodling was responsible in the hiring of career attorneys- WTF?! I can see how the White House could make a case for her involvement with the political appointees but the low level career attorneys- how on earth can they justify that!
Could this be a ploy on the part of the DOJ to sink her immunity offer and keep her from having to testify? The DOJ gets to review that deal to see if it interferes with any ongoing investigations (which this certainly counts as). Damn these Bushies are smart in a diabolical way!

Weasel Watch! wrote on May 2, 2007 4:38 PM:

Golden Oldies: Monica's Regent U. Home Page (link below)

Hi. My name is Monica Goodling,
and I'm a student at Regent University,
in Virginia Beach.
If I only had two seconds to tell you why I'm here,
I'd have to say this: I want to leave the world a better place than I found it. Tough assignment, but, worth a try.
Take a look around and see what's up.
Send me an e-mail if you want... I love to get mail.

And smile,
the world can be a good place or a bad place,
depending on which way you look at it.
But it's a lot better when you're smiling.

Thanks for visiting, and have a wonderful, wonderful day.

Anonymous wrote on May 2, 2007 4:42 PM:

I think folks need to be very cautious. It looks good at first but this might actually be very bad- the DOJ can say that because this is ongoing investigation they will not approve of the immunity deal. In fact, I think that is exactly what is happening her. They are going to do everything they can to keep Monica from having to testify. She is key to revealing the crimes of the White House and everyone knows it.

Anonymous wrote on May 2, 2007 4:44 PM:

The DOJ drags out the investigation, Monica never has to spill the beans, time runs out, and whaddya know, Monica is cleared.

gcs wrote on May 2, 2007 4:44 PM:

I'm sure it'll come as a tremendous surprise to Goodling that she broke the law or that such behavior was even illegal what with that oh-so-hard-to-get law degree from Joke U.

noshrub wrote on May 2, 2007 4:47 PM:

All that sleepin on the couch and hard work and stuff made a mess a the girl's hair, didn't it? Hope she brings her bible with her...perverts love to bring their bibles to their criminal trials.

Anonymous wrote on May 2, 2007 4:47 PM:

Of course it will impact the immunity offer. The US Attorney/DoJ are required to advise the Committee as to whether the immunization will impact an ongoing criminal case. I'm assuming this information was leaked as a way of telling the Committee not to get their hopes up about getting Goodling in to testify. They get to look like their taking action, while still protecting Rove et al. from having the facts get out. How convenient.
Posted by: Anon

Damn straight. This is not a cause for celebration IMO. This was a deliberate attempt to protect the WH. They must keep Monica from testifying.

Jeff wrote on May 2, 2007 4:49 PM:

Remind me how Goodling ended up with the authority to do these hires, if she did in fact have it?

As the AP notes at the bottom of the story, picking up on Waas' from the other day, Goodling had to be specifically delegated the authority to take final action on hiring and firing and general administration of the SES, schedule C and Office of AG, DAG and AAG employees. Was she also delegated the authority to hire AUSAs, or did she not need to be, or did she not have authority for final action, only an advisory role or something?

For instance, I see in 28cfr0.15 that it specifically grants to the DAG the power and authority to take final action regarding hiring, firing and general administration of AUSAs.

So did Goodling also get this, and if so, how?

skaren wrote on May 2, 2007 4:49 PM:

Yes this has screwed her testifying and that is what it was designed to do.

oldtree wrote on May 2, 2007 4:50 PM:

I like that bio. fluffy really is a deep thunker. wonder how high her anti depressant level is lately?

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 2, 2007 4:50 PM:

Tell me Monigoo hasn't had a crush on John Ashcroft for the longest. She even quotes him on her Political Sites web page on her Regent U. site (link below).

"Real leadership isn't finding out what the polls say, getting there first, and then pretending you were the leader. Leadership is dreaming great dreams, discerning noble objectives, and being willing to pay the price to see them come true."
~Senator John Ascroft

The brownies, the trips, the special projects - all add up to office affair.

Monica and Ashcroft sittin' in a tree, k-i-s-s-i-n-g!

Anonymous wrote on May 2, 2007 4:51 PM:

And smile,
the world can be a good place or a bad place,
depending on which way you look at it.
But it's a lot better when you're smiling.

Thanks for visiting, and have a wonderful, wonderful day.
Posted by: Weasel Watch!

Keep smiling bitch. And remember, the truth will set you free!!!!!!!!!!!!!

rk wrote on May 2, 2007 4:51 PM:

It may be prudent to withdraw the offer of immunity. If she gets immunity, she will testify and confess to all sins. The North and Poindexter cases demonstrate that it is impossible to get a conviction under such circumstances. If the OIG investigator's tenure at DOJ pre-dates 2001 they are probably honest and should be allowed to pursue their investigation.

It is unlikely that sufficient evidence for impeachment will be uncovered in the next two years. Its better to get a conviction, even against one of the small rats, than to miss on a larger goal. The relevant Committees can still compel her to testify without immmunity. Future GOP rats need to know that they are risking their futures when they start to subvert the country.

rex applegate wrote on May 2, 2007 4:52 PM:

Oh my, Miss Goody-Goody Gumdrops is facing a nasty little sojourn in the slammer unless she rats out Mr. Ratf*cker himself and his mealy mouth pipsqueak of the Mormon Mafia! They are all looking like flaming turds at this point. Me thinks Rove, Gonzo, and other munchkins will get whacked hard with Bush & Cheney still on board, driving the GOP off a cliff. It can only get worse at this point for these monumental morons. A disasterous ending to the worst movie in American history.

bob wrote on May 2, 2007 4:55 PM:

Can she be immunized on specific topics? They could just avoid asking her about this issue.

Carl Nyberg wrote on May 2, 2007 4:56 PM:

If DOJ uses their own investigation to block Goodling getting immunity I think it kinda forces a special prosecutor to be appointed.

This might be what the Bush administration sees as the best option b/c a special prosecutor will keep info secret until the investigation is complete.

Dennis wrote on May 2, 2007 4:57 PM:

TPM has exposed enough information that the mainstream media ought to be screaming "fix" in the Justice Department. Instead, the mainstream media is as compliant and as nearly in denial as the White House.

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

sherifffruitfly wrote on May 2, 2007 4:58 PM:

The DoJ investigating itself? Doesn't this require a special prosecutor?

bibimimi wrote on May 2, 2007 4:59 PM:

bring her out, then keep her OUT!

Security Code: clean

as in 'come', Monica

as in 'house'

as in 'you ain't'

barrelhse wrote on May 2, 2007 5:02 PM:

rex- Same reaction: my,my,my.

(With Cheney holed up in his office with an arsenal of high-power weapons and night-vision goggles.)

Phill wrote on May 2, 2007 5:03 PM:

Who cares about putting Goodling in jail? Give her immunity, make her testify and find out who she was taking orders from.

Goodling is small fry. The people who eed to go to the big house are the ones giving her orders.

mo2 wrote on May 2, 2007 5:04 PM:

"The Justice Department is investigating"

That's a joke, right?

Anonymous wrote on May 2, 2007 5:06 PM:

Although Goodling probably deserves jail time I don't think she will serve a day as a result of this "investigation"- perhaps a written reprimand at the most. I think the immunity deal, which this investigation will sink, is imperative in connecting the dots back to the White House. Do I think her testimony will result in impeachment? No. Do I think it will make painfully obvious what lying, crooked sacks of shit we have in the White House- yep. And if we're lucky it'll get Rove a much needed jail term. We need Goodling's testimony- I think it is key. I fear this "investigation" was simply cooked up to thwart oversight. Goodling is hiding something, I suspect something big, something that protects the big criminals in the White House.

Bearpaw wrote on May 2, 2007 5:06 PM:

Re the echo chamber wondering what the big deal is:

See, if someone somewhere starts a rumor that there *might* be some kinda vaguely WMD-related development program being idly contemplated by someone in a country we don't like, that's sufficient cause to kill lots of people. And if you disagree, you're a traitorous coward.

If, on the other hand, you don't already have iron-clad *proof* that a Repub did something really, *really* wrong, you're not allowed to investigate them. And if you disagree, then you're just a partisan lefty whack-job.

It all makes perfect sense.

Larry Y. wrote on May 2, 2007 5:08 PM:

Seems pretty clear that this OIG investigation was the catalyst for the AG's announcement last week that DOJ would go back to having career employees interview applicants for career attorney positions. By the way, Glenn Fine, the DOJ IG, is one of the best of the bunch.

bajsa wrote on May 2, 2007 5:09 PM:

After dealing with these kids personally for a couple of days, I started calling them the 'Hitler youth' (I don't think I said it first), for obvious reasons.

EH wrote on May 2, 2007 5:10 PM:

My theory is that Regent grads and other pre-politicized DoJ people are the perfect underlings to swallow all of the convoluted rationale the Administration is using to justify all of this. That is, Goodling may have been perfect for the job just because she drank the Kool-Aid and believed (believe!) that if her bosses said it wasn't illegal, then it wasn't, just like they're trying to tell us. I bet it's only been after the fact that Goodling figured out she was screwed by the job duties that were assigned to her.

Phill wrote on May 2, 2007 5:13 PM:

Who cares about putting Goodling in jail? Give her immunity, make her testify and find out who she was taking orders from.

Goodling is small fry. The people who need to go to the big house are the ones giving her orders.

Adam wrote on May 2, 2007 5:13 PM:

Being a grad of Pat Robertson's "law school", I'm certain she feels obligated to a law higher than our petty Constitution and, therefore, has done nothing wrong.

ESL wrote on May 2, 2007 5:14 PM:

Remember in last week's documents that Monica had put out a directive to hire 'detailees' for one year only. Where did she get the authority to issue such hiring rules?
Also, put that directive together with Carol Lam's answers to questions regarding attorney hires and fiscal constraints mandating they hire inexperienced (low salary expectations) staff, and you've got the perfect outline on how to totally staff all offices with bureaucrats who follow orders blindly and have no experience whatsoever. Wonder who thought that out? Surely Monica hasn't shown any of that level of political operativeness (if that's a word?!)!

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 2, 2007 5:16 PM:

Seriously, why was Monica Goodling prosecuting low-level criminal cases out of the USA-EDVA's office in Alexandria in the fall of 2004(link to cases below)?

Goodling is an experienced oppo researcher who you would think should have remained in the DOJ Office of Public Affairs during a presidential election.

Instead, Goodling supposedly took advantage of a recently instituted DOJ program set up to give political appointees courtroom experience. My understanding is that the political appointees spend six months at a USA office.

Two of the three district court cases I found that listed Goodling as a Special AUSA were no-brainer plea bargains that probably took twenty minutes to settle. The court never even heard oral arguments in the one appeals case with her name on it.

What I suspect is that Goodling was working on the Bush campaign out of sight in the fall of 2006.

McNulty, Elston or Chuck Rosenberg can confirm what Goodling was doing in their office in the fall of 2006.

mo2 wrote on May 2, 2007 5:16 PM:

More information about this investigation - this is from July 18, 2006:
"The memos from OPR chief H. Marshall Jarrett to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, in February, March and April of this year show that while Gonzales publicly told the Senate that OPR was investigating, Jarrett was complaining to higher-ups that he was "unable to move forward" because of the lack of security clearances for himself and six staff members."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/18/politics/main1813753.shtml

C 92 wrote on May 2, 2007 5:20 PM:

Mrs P:

I wonder if Jane Cherry graduated from a law school? I can just see her job trajectory under this scenario...

What do you think? AUSA in Arkansas? Filling Mom's shoes? Doing some Clinton oppo?

TonyT wrote on May 2, 2007 5:21 PM:

Will this affect Congress' offer of immunity to Goodling?

Of course it will! Justice will use this as an excuse not to grant her immunity. Congress's request will die in the halls of Justice. That's the point of this investigation, because immunity will expose Karl, and that must be avoided at all costs. (pardon my paranoia)

Steve5117 wrote on May 2, 2007 5:24 PM:

I've noticed that some pages are being removed at regents.edu. I wonder if Pat will reissue diplomas to former students when he changes the name of his indoctrination center to meet the changing needs of his students.

What is begining to scare me is that the people who really believe that their brand of Christianity is the one true way. They are taught to beware of false prophets and if you offer any opinion that does not fit into their straight and narrow vision you are evil incarnate.

bryan wrote on May 2, 2007 5:28 PM:

Any Democrat or any person who did not disclose political affiliation AND applied for but did not get a US Attorney job. Needs to file discrimination suit ASAP.

There are penalties for these things.

Could this be a class action?

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 2, 2007 5:36 PM:

C 92@May 2, 2007 05:20 PM

Jane Cherry's mother, Sandra Wilson Cherry, went to Hendrix College undergrad which, I think, is where Tim Griffin went undergrad. Sandra Cherry then went to the University of Arkansas School of Law in Fayetteville, and later transferred to its Little Rock division.

I am curious about whether Jane Wilson Cherry went to law school and if so, where. I thought I read that she was an AUSA in Little Rock but I can't find the reference at the moment.

I had some fun today posting about the Cherrys, Griffin and the rest of the Little Rock gang in another TPM MR post (link below) under one of my other screen names, "Weasel Watch!". But you knew Weasel Watch! was me, I'm sure.

monicawatch wrote on May 2, 2007 5:37 PM:

monica - you have not been a good little goodling!

Your lord and savior is not happy.

Englischlehrer wrote on May 2, 2007 5:39 PM:

Perhaps a Letterman-style top 10 for: "Proof that the Justice Department has been politicized" would be good for us...any takers?

ViniloSuave wrote on May 2, 2007 5:39 PM:

Regent U. was orginally named Weybloe Normal School. You could lookitup.

TheraP wrote on May 2, 2007 5:40 PM:

Mrs P

We enjoy you in of your guises. We also enjoy how your guises seem to converse with one another at times.

Best use of multiple personality I've come across! Most helpful too!

Mrs P wrote on May 2, 2007 5:40 PM:

C 92, Jane Cherry, btw, worked for the RNC in Little Rock from from 8/03 until 9/04, according to FEC records. She then worked for the RNC in DC from 9/04 to 6/05.

I imagine Jane Cherry was an oppo researcher. What else would she have done for the RNC? Plus she now works for Karl Rove at the WH.

nolo wrote on May 2, 2007 5:40 PM:

conyers' immunity deal with ms.
goodling was struck in the manner
contemplated by 18 USC § 6005.

now, mr. gonzales mayseek an order deferring,
for no more than twenty days, the testimony
of ms. monica goodling, as is its right,
under 18 USC § 6005(c). . . but to do so,
he must assert one of the enumerated bases
therefor. . . . all of those would be
political kryptonite, to him, and the
white house, so i think he'll have to
let her take the immunity, and testify.

remember, her lawyer (at akin, gump) told
senator leahy -- in a letter, last month -- that
ms. goodling was NOT cooperating with the
internal DoJ inquiries. . . so -- there can
be no colorable assertion by DoJ that her
truthful testimony will compromise any
investigation into HER supposedly criminal wrongdoings. . .

do you see how circular it is?

here endeth the little sermon.

more at my indict dick cheney blog, soon.

OtisIsHungry wrote on May 2, 2007 5:40 PM:

Mrs. Panstreppon @ 5:16-
Kyle Sampson also tried acting like a lawyer once. He actually tried one case, a felon in possession of firearm case -- United States v. Heron Stepherson -- in the Southern District of Florida in March 2004. Judge Hurley presided and the local AUSA was Lothrop Morristhe. Sampson had to have been in FL for at least several months prior to that trial, but that time-frame doesn't really fit your theory that he would've been doing FL election work, does it? Maybe he stayed longer after March(6 mos.)?

Anonymous wrote on May 2, 2007 5:41 PM:

Does the fact that she resigned from DoJ affect any of this? Can Congress tell the DoJ "You can't disallow immunity because she doesn't work for you anymore"? Thanks.

Security code: bucket
I can't think of anything clever to do with "bucket".

Sharon A wrote on May 2, 2007 5:50 PM:

I think the important thing here is to remember all these scoundrels to ensure they don't reconstitute their careers at a later date to re-infest our democracy.

Create a database on these folks as they were doing on all of us with Poindexter's big brother database.

We can call it: Bush Evil Spawn Alumni or something to that effect.

Apparently, Congress is taking a page from John Dean's book that advocated purging Bushie's downline so they can't come back as did the Iran-Contra bunch.

You know, it's like a virus that just keeps coming back on us.

TheraP wrote on May 2, 2007 5:53 PM:

Mrs P - pardon the error, "We enjoy you in all of your guises" - that's the correction.

jlc wrote on May 2, 2007 5:54 PM:

Title 5 USC Section 2302(c) states:
(c) The head of each agency shall be responsible for the prevention of prohibited personnel pratices, for the compliance with and enforcement of applicable civil service laws, rules, and regulations, and other aspects of personnel management, and for ensuring (in consultation with the Office of Special Counsel) that agency employees are informed of the rights and remedies available to them under this chapter and chapter 12 of this title. Any individual to whom the head of an agency delegates authority for personnel management, or for any aspect thereof, shall be similarly responsible within the limits of the delegation.

This would seem to make Alberto responsible for actions he delegated to Ms. Goodling.

Ron Byers wrote on May 2, 2007 5:56 PM:

What made these guys think they were going to get away with all this shit? Did they truly believe they would never lose? Did they really think their failures in Iraq and Katrina wouldn't lead to a collapse of public support in 2006? Voter intimidation only works in close elections. The elections in 2006 weren't close and anybody who thought about it should have realized in 2005 that if the war wasn't over by 2006, the Republicans were screwed. Finally, why go through with the firings after the 2006 elections? How stupid was that. When they should have been lowering their profile, they boldly went where no sane man would go. So many questions, so few answers other than Rove and his Rovian political office are not as smart as they thought.

Security code brain. Something the entire political office of the White House lacked after 2005.

nolo wrote on May 2, 2007 6:05 PM:

my further, and additional thoughts
on the 18 USC § 6005(c) process
are now posted at the indict
dick spot i mentioned, above, josh. . .

TheraP wrote on May 2, 2007 6:07 PM:

Ron @ 5:56

Don't you remember David Brooks crowing about a "republican party in full" back after the 2004 (edition of a stolen) election?

These people really thought they were in possession of the magic bullet, that people would continue to elect (or not complain) ad infinitum.

For ever and ever - amen.

Honestly, this is the principle of "the repetition compulsion" that Freud talked about. Once a strategy has worked, people tend to endlessly repeat it, long after the results are in that the strategy will no longer work. That, I think, is what we are seeing in this DoJ mess - which is nothing but the tip of the iceberg of the rest of the bush regime.

TomInMaine wrote on May 2, 2007 6:13 PM:

This looks like a DOJ tactic to scare Goodling. In efffect telling her that if she reveals to much to the legislative committees, they might give you imunity but we won’t.

If you play dumb, we the DOJ will back off.

No wonder she pleaded the 5th, she must have known that one way or another she is in deep do do.

fly wrote on May 2, 2007 6:29 PM:

"I think the important thing here is to remember all these scoundrels to ensure they don't reconstitute their careers at a later date to re-infest our democracy.

Create a database on these folks as they were doing on all of us with Poindexter's big brother database. "

I was just thinking along the same lines. Given her age people will be dealing with the evil which is Goodling long after I'm dead. These weasels carry on for decades, think Wolfowitz.

Giant Teapot wrote on May 2, 2007 6:34 PM:

@ Ron Beyers wrote:
"What made these guys think they were going to get away with all this shit? Did they truly believe they would never lose?"

The answer to this may be revealed, but I hope not until the public/MSM are "ready" for it. The accelerating disclosures show the comprehensive nature of The Plan. Surely they didn't rest it all on unfounded hope. We already know that Rove has planned and carried out "false flag" operations against political rivals and uses the very audacity of them to succeed.

George Tenent's supposed revelation that Al Quida wants to nuke a large American city made me think, "They probably HOPE that will happen, preferably in October 2008." Perhaps they know it can be arranged.

webdems wrote on May 2, 2007 6:49 PM:

Re: reinfestation. How long did it take for the Scaife-oids to start disbarment proceedings against W.J. Clinton? Has anyone looked into that for the long list of criminals in the Bush administration?

Code: screw

Jillian wrote on May 2, 2007 7:18 PM:

Now can we start calling Goodling a 'komisar'?

How much more is it going to take?

nolo wrote on May 2, 2007 7:29 PM:

". . .In efffect telling her that if she reveals to much to the legislative committees, they might give you imunity but we won’t. . ."

Posted by: TomInMaine
Date: May 2, 2007 06:13 PM

hey tom -- 18 USC §§ 6005(a) and (b)
contemplate that a federal district
court, in this case, the DC district
court, will enter an order protecting
ms. goodling from the use of her truthful
statements in any proceeding against
her. so -- she simply will confess to
these hatch act violations -- under the
klieg lights of the house committee,
and any charge related to them, in
any forum, is barred. that is how
18 USC § 6005 use immunity works.

goodbye, mr. gonzales.

goodbye, mr. bloch.

so, this is literally a four-
corner stall attmept, and a weak
one, at that, by messrs. gonzales/cheney/
rove/bush. . . so, i say, buckle up!

Joe Buck wrote on May 2, 2007 7:33 PM:

If the Justice Department tries to hold up Ms. Goodling's immunity, Congress should just make her physically take the stand, ask her the questions they want to ask, and make her take the 5th in public.

Jake wrote on May 2, 2007 8:07 PM:

What specific law(s) prevent U.S. Attorneys being hired based on political affiliation, or (God forbid) membership in the Federalist Society?

ROTTEN wrote on May 2, 2007 8:17 PM:

Pat Robertson has been notably silent.

I may have missed it but has anyone heard from him weigh on his Regent U and Goodling matter?

LWood wrote on May 2, 2007 8:35 PM:

Robertson is too busy flying blood diamonds in from Africa to pay attention to a lowly grad's status of dangling from the rope. Anyway he alread has her money.

RonG wrote on May 2, 2007 8:43 PM:

So, Rove is Bush's Haldeman, Gonzales is like Nixon's FBI chief who was left to twist slowly in the wind, Joshua Micah Marshall is Bush's Woodward & Bernstein, Cheney is Bush's Nixon (Bush has the ego but not the balls to be his own Nixon). All we need is "Deep Throat," the secret insider, and John Dean, the designated scapegoat. I won't be around 30 years from now to find out who Bush's "Deep Throat" was, but I suspect his John Dean is ready to step forward. Another Monica-inspired impeachment, anyone?

Jason wrote on May 2, 2007 8:55 PM:

SEND BUSH THE SAME BILL HE VETOED! I can't post on the other thread so I'll just put it here.
This administration is corrupt from their head to their littlest toe. You give a bully an inch and he'll take your lunch money for the rest of your school year. Republicon's are bullies.

pj in jesusland wrote on May 2, 2007 9:00 PM:

Bush can't pre-pardon people who are likely to be proven guilty, can he?

Watch out that Specter doesn't put words to this effect into the DOJ appropriations bill.

Mack in Chicago wrote on May 2, 2007 9:14 PM:

Exactly which law did she allegedly break? And in what context/spirit was this law written?

EdNSted wrote on May 2, 2007 9:21 PM:

> Bush can't pre-pardon people who are
> likely to be proven guilty, can he?

Oh, I think he can.

Ford pre-emptively pardoned Nixon for any crimes that MAY have committed while in office. Nixon was never even charged with the crimes he committed, let alone convicted.

But the question I have is this: Is there anything in the law that prevent a sitting president from pre-emptively pardoning himself for any crimes he may have committed?

Ron Byers wrote on May 2, 2007 10:16 PM:

Mack in Chicago. Look at 5 USC 2302(b)(1)

Generally stated, § 2302(b) provides that a federal employee authorized to take, direct others to take, recommend or approve any personnel action may not:

(1) discriminate against an employee or applicant based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicapping condition, marital status, or political affiliation;

Note the political affiliation language.

Anonymous wrote on May 2, 2007 10:22 PM:

1. Justice doesn't have to agree to immunity under 6005 and they can't veto it. Justice can at most delay the order from issuing for 20 days after application is made to the District court.

2. Can anyone point to a criminal provision? 2302 is not criminal.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 2, 2007 10:27 PM:

OtisIsHungry@May 2, 2007 05:40 PM

Thanks ever so much for the info. I sent an email to Josh and Paul about the case and what I think should be done about it.

Stay tuned.

Jake wrote on May 2, 2007 10:40 PM:

Being a member of the Federalist Society is not necessarily a "political affiliation" : )

VL wrote on May 2, 2007 10:54 PM:

But is she a federal employee in the legally parsed sense of the word? Or will she get a new designation, like "Presidential appointee," which will be deemed NOT to be an employee, but a . . . friendly combatant, so to speak. Therefore subject to no law but the President.

I expect Monica to wilt rather quickly if she has to testify; however, anyone want to make Fawn Hall comparisons? One notable memory I have of Fawn was that she, too, was slavishly loyal to her Boss--who hadn't even had sex with her yet, he was so honorable.

Pat Robertson is a pedohile wrote on May 2, 2007 11:36 PM:

God fuck her.

nrglaw wrote on May 2, 2007 11:52 PM:

This is pure crap from the DOJ. What do they care if Monica Goodling was overly political? That's what she was supposed to be doing!

So presto, an "active investigation"! And now she likely can't testify, because Congress won't extend the immunity deal any further.

As a lawyer, I admire the tactic--its very clever. But its also very cynical and dangerous. It suggests that the mess at Justice is now totally out of control.

Ron Byers wrote on May 3, 2007 12:27 AM:

nrglaw

As has been pointed out several times, the AG doesn't have the power to stop the grant of immunity. The statute is designed to give the AG a chance to pursuade congress not to grant immunity.

To the totally unnamed author above, I took about 3 minutes and found 18 USC 245. There are probably other criminal statutes involved. None of the criminal lawyers I have read on this subject think there is any question but that the alleged actions are criminal. That's why the inspector general is looking into the case. You might want to do your own research.

parrot wrote on May 3, 2007 1:20 AM:

Would hate to be AG AG. I wonder if he'll willingly testify before Congress again...

I'd be guessing they're blowing the dust off the Sargeant-at-Arms manual tonight down at the nation's Capitol.

false as in true!

Michael Stevens wrote on May 3, 2007 1:52 AM:

Unless Goodling has privately proffered evidence which implicates the White House in crimes, I can't see the Senate going through with the immunity grant.

Goodling is now on the hook for multiple felony counts. A prosecutor will have a lot more leverage against someone in her situation than does the Congress. Especially if the goal is to wring out every bit of truth she knows.

The reason is that Special Prosecutor (SP) can put real teeth into an immunity grant. An SP can first demand a proffer or taste of her testimony. If the proffered taste is adequate, the SP can then grant immunity which is *conditional* to her actual testimony backing up her proffered information. Most importantly, a prosecutor can pull back the grant of immunity if she were to renege or plays games.

The current congressional immunity statute does not allow Congress this level of flexibility. If offered Congressional immunity, Goodling could admit to everything or forget everything and Congress would have little recourse. In the same situation, a Special Prosecutor could tear up the immunity grant and go after her.

With Goodling now implicated in multiple felonies, I think it's time for Congress to give up on Goodling and throw her to the real wolf, a Special Prosecutor.

/I wonder of Patrick Fitzgerald has any free time?

bonzo wrote on May 3, 2007 3:01 AM:

This multiple Goodling investigation situation has similarities to the congressional hearings into Iran/contra impacting on independent prosecutor Larwence Walsh's investigation. The big difference is that Walsh investigation was an honest effort while this DOJ investigation of goodling is suspect at best.

For those interested in historical precedent, suggest you google iran contra "lawrence walsh" "use immunity"

eyeswideopen wrote on May 3, 2007 4:28 AM:

Check out the OIG, Office of the Inspector General, for the Dept. of Justice. The Inspector General is a Clinton appointee named Glenn Fine, confirmed 12/15/2000, a Harvard graduate, Magna Cum Laude. We're not talking a Bush nitwit here. This is a real public servant. I have hope.

Al in Austex wrote on May 3, 2007 5:02 AM:

My Dear Robertson is a Pedophile,
please do not use anymore personalized ,utterly rude remarks such as your last post .. "f###ck Goodling ",this is serious thread , which cares deeply about criminal wrong doing affecting our Republic- We do not need the likes of these types of comments here "mucking up " our discourse.
Again kindly refrain from such future boorish remarks -unless of course you are trying to "muck up " the thread-in which case one of our of very clever other poster wil track down from whence you came on the "internets" (could it be gwb.43 ?) -and stop anymore of your poison from getting here,

Al in Austex wrote on May 3, 2007 5:07 AM:

Even Senator Sessions is abandoning Abu G now.-
Security Code sticky as in "sticy wicket '

Johann wrote on May 3, 2007 7:24 AM:

The DOJ investigation of Monica Goodling serves two purposes.

1. To whitewash any wrongdoing on her part, declare her innocent, and bring double-jeapardy into play in any future actions against her.

2. To derail the Congressional investigation.

In these ways it is a win/win for Republicans.

bajsa wrote on May 3, 2007 7:46 AM:

Monica is just another of the GOP hired Hitler Youth.

Tahut wrote on May 3, 2007 7:49 AM:

Everyone seems to have forgotten one minor, little thing that carrys a whole lotta weight. Where did Goodling get the money to pay for such an expensive lawyer? Did she get paid that much working for the US Government? It should be obvious to the most casual observer that "someone" is bankrolling her defense. Someone who has something to hide. No doubt she is well aware of what she was doing, for whom, and for what purpose. Just my two cents worth.

William Dunbar wrote on May 3, 2007 8:24 AM:

What a PERFECT way to squash the Immunity Testimony. This looks awfully suspicious.
And I agree, where is Monica getting the money for what HAS TO BE a HUGE legal bill?

Anonymous wrote on May 3, 2007 8:31 AM:

This is what I think happened:
Rove & Bush had been getting complaints from powerful Republicans about some attorneys who were not aggressive enough in going after Dem "voter fraud" and were too zealous in prosecuting cases that involved Republicans. Rove whittled down this list of people he had received complaints about to those that were ultimately fired. The benefits would be twofold- they could replace them with more ideologically driven loyal Bushies and they would make powerful Republicans in their district happy.
Rove sends the list to Goodling who is tasked with inventing a cover story for each firing- she does have Sampson and a few others helping her out, but she's essentially the one calling the shots. So they brainstorm and see what excuses they can come up with- this person was weak on immigration, this one was weak on porn, didn't pursue gun cases, blah, blah, blah. Some of the cover stories were better than others. But ultimately, when looked at closely, they all fall apart and we're left with, "They serve at the pleasure of the president."
While what they've done is incredibly improper I'm not sure anyone has done anything illegal at this point. Sure, they lied their asses off with their constant claims about how none of these firings were politically motivated (when in fact they all were) but for example, when it comes to proving these firings were done to stop politically sensitive cases- I don't think that will ever be able to be done. This is simply another stain on a white house covered in scandals- some much worse than this one (the case for going to war).
What does seem to be illegal is what Goodling was doing in hiring the career attorneys. First- her involvement was unprecedented. Second, she was considering each candidates political background which is a violation of federal law. So Goodling might end up serving some time- though I doubt it. But ultimately, as this has unfolded, I just think it's one of many Bush scandals- it's not going to amount to any jail time for Rove or anythiing like that. Just more proof that this administration is made up of lying sacks of shit. Goodling's testimony is key to tracing it back to Rove but even with her testimony nothing will happen to Karl.

Peter Duffy wrote on May 3, 2007 8:49 AM:

Anyone know if she was applying religious (non)/belief tests and other values based criteria to the her selections.

Ron Byers wrote on May 3, 2007 8:56 AM:

Well written at 8:31 AM by the person who didn't even leave an alias, but I don't think the genie can be shoved back into the bottle. The US Attorney investigation has moved way beyond the 8 fired US Attorneys. It has moved into a close examination of the White House efforts to politicize the DoJ. There is blood in the water. This scandal started out as a second rate poorly handled firing, but it has become much, much more.

Tip of my hat to Josh Marshall and the entire team here at TPMMuckraker. Good work.

T2 wrote on May 3, 2007 9:07 AM:

It took them awhile, but they finally figured out a way to keep Goodling shut up...put her under another investigation which would keep her in wraps The "can't comment on something under investigation" ploy has served Rove/Bush for years and they'll continue to employ that strategy whenever necessary.

Johnsnottoodistracted wrote on May 3, 2007 9:08 AM:

Does anyone think she has a memory left?
What's the big deal?
Nothing is happening to all the others who have no memory.She has the same play book.Or wrote it.
Does anyone think this example of fruit salad will provide any excitement?
Come on!
Your walking down that path with them again.
Don't get distracted.

phil james wrote on May 3, 2007 9:10 AM:

Excuse me for not popping the champagne just yet but I believe any investigation by any arm of the Justice Department or any other Executive Branch entity is suspect on its face until proven beyond any doubt whatsoever to be otherwise. This has all the earmarks of yet another stall tactic. And even if Goodling is taken down, that leaves Rove standing as Fitzgerald found out with Scooter. We don't need another Libby. We need Rove incarcerated...where he can give his orders to Bush through his lawyer.

swampcracker wrote on May 3, 2007 9:15 AM:

Johann (May 3, 7:24 AM): "To whitewash any wrongdoing on her part, declare her innocent, and bring double-jeapardy into play in any future actions against her."

I agree with your comment but add one more possible outcome -- intimidation of the Senate investigation witness. The implied double jeopardy would put Goodling back into "Plead the 5th" mode.

phil james wrote on May 3, 2007 9:21 AM:

Double jeopardy only applies in trial situations not based on DOJ investigations. The fact that an arm of DOJ declares her "innocent" does not mean she can't be investigated and remedies sought by Congress.

Mauimom wrote on May 3, 2007 9:36 AM:

I hope that someone from the Judiciary Committee was watching Olbermann last night when Jonathan Turley was on. He explained the dangers of too quickly granting immunity to Goodling and urged the Committee to "go slow" and investigate thoroughly before having her testify before them pursuant to any grant of immunity.

micheal wrote on May 3, 2007 9:42 AM:

If I am the DOJ and I want to block the investigation by Congress what better way to do it than by launching my own investigation that will impede the judiciary committee from doing its work? It is nefariously genius.

Jeff wrote on May 3, 2007 9:59 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

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 3, 2007 10:36 AM:

@May 2, 2007 10:27 PM

Weasel Watch! laid out the case today in another TPM MR post that Kyle Sampson was really on vacation when he "tried" the Heron Stepherson case in Palm Beach in March 2004.

Link below. At the moment, WW!'s comment is the last one.

Joe wrote on May 3, 2007 10:37 AM:

Congress can grant immunity, regardless of whether the DOJ and/or President nitwit like it. In fact, the more they don't want it, the more they should give it! Frankly, give her immunity from parking and speeding tickets for the next 5 years for all I care.

She's as corrupt as the rest of them but, as another poster pointed out, small fry - not even minnow size. I can't envision her testimony not brining AG/AG down. That's more than worth not seeing her spending 18 months in Danbury Federal Prison!

jaywrite wrote on May 3, 2007 1:26 PM:

And this oh so Christian woman who graduated from Pat Robertson Law School doesn't have the integrety to stand up and tell the truth.

... oh yes, I forgot, Christians are special. They can do any dirty deed and not have to account for their harm because they are forgiven.

Jimmy wrote on May 23, 2007 3:26 PM:

Who cares? She is a hot chick! Brains to! Very nice. I think that you need to point the finger at the people truly responsible for this. Let's give them heat for having this beautiful woman do their dirty work..... Common America wake up!