Comments (79)

bordersmuggler wrote on May 7, 2007 1:51 PM:

She's still waiting for Johnny A. to ride in on the white horse to rescue her.

Allie wrote on May 7, 2007 1:54 PM:

I really, really, hope they got a good pro-offer, because it would be terrible if this turned into Oliver North.

linda wrote on May 7, 2007 1:54 PM:

oh goodie, looks like congress is going to repeat their grand blunder from iran contra...

there goes the accountability moment.

asdf wrote on May 7, 2007 2:04 PM:

A suicide bomber for Bush, but for poor Monica there won’t be 72 virgins on the other side.

madhaus wrote on May 7, 2007 2:06 PM:

They're letting her testify because they know she's a true Kool-Aid Regent U. Bushie!

Code: idea, as in I have an idea, let's hire a bunch of young idiots and if we get caught, we'll blame them for my idea!

ss wrote on May 7, 2007 2:10 PM:

Yes, shades of Ollie North, but if it helps shake Rove out of the trees (and Gonzoles, for that matter), it's worth it.

MikeSz wrote on May 7, 2007 2:10 PM:

Huh? Since there is another Bush functionary (Schlozman) who runs around making "Bushiesness" hires and resume re-writes for loyalty this sounds like a conspiracy. Who coordinated these two (more?) to come up with the same idea at the same time? Are they like girls-gone-wild and fed off each other to create career personnel politicizations?
I'd hate to see immunity given which creates another Olly North situation where traitorous acts are put beyond the court reach. Special prosecutor time to take over the investigations from the AG and all others.

drational wrote on May 7, 2007 2:11 PM:

I agree with immunity. She was in deep, mostly with respect to installing Griffin, but she wasn't the architect or even the principal executor of the firing plan. Her testimony will add to the case against Sampson and the White House originators of the plan without sacrificing a "big target". Let's hope she can remember something....

goldberry wrote on May 7, 2007 2:12 PM:

Hmmm, maybe they realize they can't stop her from testifying and they've given up trying to intimidate her because it could be considered interfering with a witness and is therefore illegal? IANAL but maybe the recent stink that Charlton, McKay and Cummins have made about Elston calling them with a quid pro quo regarding testifying before congress made them think twice about pursuing this strategy.
As for her immunity, doesn't she just have use immunity? So, if I understand it correctly, this means that she can still be prosecuted for crimes but her testimony can't be used against her. So, how is this similar to what happened with Ollie North, especially if her testimony is private instead of televised?

John S wrote on May 7, 2007 2:16 PM:

That's not a good sign. Based on prior moves by the DoJ, this would suggest that Monica Goodling has been thoroughly compromised as a witness.

So what can we expect from Monica, "I can't recall" or "It was all my fault"? Either way, AG AG and the WH get a free ride unless the e-mails can be tapped. My guess would be "All my fault". This would then be followed by a Presidential pardon and a position at Lathrop and Gates (or its equivalent). What's to complain about in this scenario. A nice benefit for adhering to the Republican code of silence. A little short term pain for long term gain.

Do you think the e-mails will reveal this little tit-for-tat for what it is? Hah! Those e-mails will ever see the light of day. These people are expert criminals and they're not as inept as you think. All the hard drives and servers will be wiped and destroyed "accidentally". If you don't believe me, just try and find any documentation of Bush's National Guard Service.

And of course, with such an "inept" administration, no court will sustain an obstruction of justice charge for stupidity. They've already "lost" 5 million e-mails according to accounts I've read. The audacious perfidy of this administration never ceases to amaze me.

tomboy wrote on May 7, 2007 2:16 PM:

It is pretty clear that she knowingly violated many laws in order to further her career and her preferred political agenda. I hope her testimony is worth immunity - that she spills enough beans that no right wing cause will offer he a golden parachute; I also hope that loss of her law license and said golden parachute will be punishment enough.

Ron Byers wrote on May 7, 2007 2:19 PM:

I wouldn't give her any immunity until and unless I got a really good proffer from her lawyer. I would want to know what she is willing to say before another step is taken.

As I recall the failure to get a solid proffer was the Ollie North mistake.

sponson wrote on May 7, 2007 2:19 PM:

Thinking that "justice" would be served by jailing a 33-year-old appointments secretary as the big kahuna of this White House operation is very twisted. She's now compelled to tell the truth; of course if she still refuses to do so, I'd support jailing her for that reason. But to emphasize prosecution for Goodling is truly missing the picture. Talk about small fry...

laura wrote on May 7, 2007 2:21 PM:

It's now time for a special prosecutor. The actions of Goodling and now Schlotzman appear to be coordinated from deep within the mighty walls of the White House. Rove may have wiggled out of Plamegate, his lust for power may just have caused him to trip up just enough to point the arrow right at his sorry self.

mo2 wrote on May 7, 2007 2:28 PM:

Reading that the US and Saudi Arabia are conducting covert operations in Iran coupled with the House and Senate investigations of the DOJ, make me afraid that these investigations will happen too late to stop Bushco from invading Iran.
PLEASE HURRY and nail these criminals before they strike again!

Arkansan wrote on May 7, 2007 2:30 PM:

How is it that everyone here knows exactly what this means and what will happen next, but the Democrats in congress haven’t a clue?

osage wrote on May 7, 2007 2:32 PM:

"They" aren't "letting" her testify before Congress. She isn't being prepared by Karl Rove in what to say during her testimony before Congress, she's being prepared by her attorney trying to prevent her from going to jail. If she lies in her testimony, she will most assuredly be prosecuted. What can she do to harm the case against Gonzales when it has already come out that she and Kyle Sampson were given the authority to hire and fire United States Attorneys by Gonzales himself. All she can do is testify WHO she got the names of USAs to be fired from and directly implicate Sampson, Gonzales, Mochella, Rove, Miers and Bush. If she has convenient lapses of memory, she will be indicted within the week. Even with full Court-ordered immunity, a witness is required, under penalty of perjury, to tell the full truth. If she tries to pull a Gonzales, the point of her lawyer obtaining immunity will be defeated. Would her attorney do that and do serious damage to his reputation and possibly be vulnerable to claims of negligence?

asdf wrote on May 7, 2007 2:33 PM:

Cheney is in the ME this week to meet with the few Arab countries left that are slightly friendly to us, trying to drum up support for the attack on Iran, I suppose.

Arkansan wrote on May 7, 2007 2:39 PM:

Osage-"If she lies in her testimony, she will most assuredly be prosecuted."

Not one of these criminals has been prosecuted for perjury so far, why would she be any different? Also, who would prosecute her?

The problem is that there may be no way to redress these crimes. The Democrats would have to become viscous attack dogs, and impeach Gonzales. That just isn’t going to happen.

TheraP wrote on May 7, 2007 2:41 PM:

osage, I second your opinion.

I'm just guessing that rove knew it was better to "cave" here than after some fruitless legal maneuvering.

My guess is Ms Goodling will spill the beans, but that rove's people will brand her as a very disturbed young woman. It may not work, but I'm guessing they will try to destroy her credibility and reputation.

I'm sure her lawyer has prepared her for all of this. And I trust she has a good therapist by now as well.

Security code is "crime."

regular lurker wrote on May 7, 2007 2:43 PM:

I sincerely hope Monica Goodling does not play the innocent martyr card. Any remnants of professional credibility will be lost if she does.

steve wrote on May 7, 2007 2:43 PM:

please stop typing "Security code" it's annoying

thanks

Anonymous wrote on May 7, 2007 2:44 PM:

As we've already seen, no one seems to know who put the names on the list. One by one they've all denied knowing anything. Monica G. is the last person left. If she denies knowing anything, it will be (even more) obvious that someone is lying. Then they have some serious prosecutorial leverage to squeeze these people until someone tells the truth.

The noose is tightening step by step.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 7, 2007 2:45 PM:

On a more mundane note, I'm interested in how much contact Goodling had with her bosses and former co-workers at the Ashcroft Group (link below)- Ashcroft, David T. Ayres, Susan Richmond Johnson etc.

Did Goodling pass inside info on to anyone at the firm or run interference for them at the DOJ?

And just who is paying Goodling's legal bills?

mo2 wrote on May 7, 2007 2:48 PM:

I wonder if Monica speaks with Barbara Comstock these days. I wonder if her lawyer allows her to. I hope the Monica has been a naughty girl so that when they smear her it's at least PG-13.

Anonymous wrote on May 7, 2007 2:53 PM:

Arkansan: "How is it that everyone here knows exactly what this means and what will happen next, but the Democrats in congress haven’t a clue?"

Lots of people here *think* they know exactly what this means. I wouldn't confuse their certainty for actual understanding of the legalities involved.

litigatormom wrote on May 7, 2007 2:54 PM:

1. The real problem with Congress' grant to Ollie North of "use" immunity was that North testified before Congress before any real criminal investigation had been done. As a result, all subsequent criminal investigation was deemed to be the "fruit of the poisonous tree" -- that is, obtained as a result of the revelations in his testimony, even though the words themselves were not used as evidence against him. Moral of the story: don't grant use immunity to a witness unless you already have evidentiary leads OTHER than Congressional testimony.
2. North was not the biggest fish in Iran-Contra but he was pretty high up. Monica is much smaller fry. Even if in the end she can't effectively be prosecuted, I'd be willing to give her up to get Abu G, Rove, etc. Her reputation as a lawyer is pretty worthless at this point, even to Goopers.
3. I'm assuming that her lawyer has given Congress a proffer, but we can't know for sure. The biggest shame would be for her to get up there and say nothing except that she doesn't remember whether she used to know anything.

Annette wrote on May 7, 2007 2:56 PM:

Even if she's granted immunity, couldn't the state bar association of whereever she is allowed to practice, bring up ethics charges against her for violating a hefty load of Model Rules of Professional Responsibility? If you can't toss her sorry ass in jail, you can at least force her to toss her totally worthless Regent paper in the trash ne'er to be used again! (Please pronounce the last "again" with a long A.)

Kind of like what Arkansas did to Clinton after his perjury.

mayan wrote on May 7, 2007 2:58 PM:

TheraP -> You're probably right...that's how they do things. OTOH, if she was that "disturibed" and "on the edge" it certainly makes them look like fools for giving her the keys to hiring and firing people such important officials while keeping her superiors out of the loop?

I've thought, since this developed, that abu Gonzo and his clowns should go either because of their lawlessness OR because of their profound and unfathomable incompetence. If they go the above route, it weights the latter even heavier. (Personally, of course, I think they are both criminal and incompetent).

goldberry wrote on May 7, 2007 3:04 PM:

Thanks for clearing that up litigatormom.
I'm betting that she is pretty sick of the whole thing and just wants to get it over with and put it all behind her. Spill the beans, tell the truth, get out of public life, find another job, fade into obscurity.
Or maybe that's just me.

nofltwlt wrote on May 7, 2007 3:10 PM:

Monica Goodling is devoutly religious, which is to say she cannot tell right from wrong. I hope the committee has pre-screened her and have a few aces up their sleeve that would establish if she is lying to them. Maybe a polygraph test is in order during her deposition to the committee.

I don't trust this fruitcake one bit. The committee should have put the squeeze on her and then sent her off to prison as well.

She is a conspirator, possibly even the leader of the conspirators!

Randomfactor wrote on May 7, 2007 3:10 PM:

Her testimony will be "I can't remember, I don't recall, I was out of that loop, I can't recall whether I remember being part of that loop." She adheres to a Higher Power than the Constitution.

obsessed wrote on May 7, 2007 3:13 PM:

I expect her to be combative, indignant, and unable to recall anything of interest.

BiggerBill wrote on May 7, 2007 3:18 PM:

Apropos of nothing, but does anyone know how many graduates of Regent U law school are out there? There are at least 150 (the number employed by the Bush Justice Department). What is their percentage employed in the private sector, as opposed to the government (smaller government being one of the sacronsanct conservative "principles")?

Outside Looking In wrote on May 7, 2007 3:27 PM:

She obviously knew what she was doing, for whom, and why. I doubt there is anything Congress can do to her. Who's paying for her lawyer? Think about it. She was working for the Feds...the lowest paying employment for a legal type. Where'd she get the money? She's gonna tip-toe around every question put to her cause there is a great goal at stake. Which she's not going to tell. I do want to see her and the rest of that bunch burn in Hell but it ain't gonna happen over this unless someone else steps forward with more damning evidence.

dhs wrote on May 7, 2007 3:27 PM:

Sounds like a head fake to me. The House and Senate Judiciary Committees at this point should demand a special prosecutor to investigate all criminal activities of the Justice Department, including illegal removal of the US Attorneys, bogus "voter fraud" schemes designed to deny minorities the right to vote, and whatever else. Everyone should be held accountable for crimes, from Karl Rove, Alberto Gonzales down to Monica Goodling. Zero tolerance.

No immunity for Monica. She should be investigated for her role in the criminal activities and go to jail with the Rove and the rest of the Brown Shirts.

Imprison the Justice Department 1500!

bordersmuggler wrote on May 7, 2007 3:28 PM:

goldberry

Any word on what dirt Elston might have had on Charlton, McKay and Cummins to threaten them with blackmail?

Anonymous wrote on May 7, 2007 3:39 PM:

I think there would be EXCELLENT cause to press for perjury if she simply says "it was all my fault". That would clearly be a lie, and I don't really think for a minute that this Congress will accept such a transparent kool-aid maneuver.

phil james wrote on May 7, 2007 3:45 PM:

nofltwlt says: I don't trust this fruitcake one bit. The committee should have put the squeeze on her and then sent her off to prison as well.
She is a conspirator, possibly even the leader of the conspirators!

You have got to be kidding. Leader of the conspirators? Mmmmmm........No. She was a message carrier and potential goat. We know the leader was and is Rove. The trick is getting Goodling to admit as much in her immunized testimony.

EvilPoet wrote on May 7, 2007 3:48 PM:

Will God be granting Goodling immunity? If there is a God like they say and this list is any indication - probably not.

"There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers." -Proverbs 6:16-19

Security Code: screw

Frederick wrote on May 7, 2007 3:49 PM:

The Democrats need to stop playing the fool with these
people, if she can't recall indict her . She will take a bullet for Rove's fat ass.

Django wrote on May 7, 2007 3:49 PM:

Until it's proven otherwise, I have to assume that they got a damned good proffer from her before offering immunity. And as far as who's paying her legal fees, I can see some enterprising lawyer taking her case for the publicity value alone. You can't buy better advertising.

phil james wrote on May 7, 2007 3:51 PM:

Any word on what dirt Elston might have had on Charlton, McKay and Cummins to threaten them with blackmail?

I understand that Elston had evidence that these USAs had intelligence, integrity, and decency. Clearly these qualities are intolerable in any member of the Bush Administration. By contrast, George Tenet demonstrates well what it takes to be a solid gold member of Bushco...you need to be a self-serving slime.

mo2 wrote on May 7, 2007 3:53 PM:

On Monday, April 30, 2007, a legal secretary at Akin Gump was suspended after she told her bosses she also worked at night for the escort service run by the DC Madam.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/05/03/akin-gump-suspends-secy-who-worked-for-dc-madam/

Goodling’s counselors are John Dowd and Jeffrey King at Akin Gump. I have no idea if these are related or not. Maybe just coincidence. Maybe material for Elston blackmail.

bordersmuggler wrote on May 7, 2007 3:58 PM:

Well stated, phil james.

Anonymous wrote on May 7, 2007 4:05 PM:

bordersmuggler: Elston threatened by implication that AG Gonzales wouldn't tarnish their sterling reputations by citing "performance issues" if the fired attorneys would keep their mouths shut about the circumstances surrounding their firings. I think one of the other USAttorneys (Margaret Chiara?) stated in an email that she was having problems finding a job. The other ones were likely to land on their feet but who needs that kind of stuff on their "permanent record"? If you have a mortgage and a family, the threat of smearing your reputation while you are trying to find another job can be powerful and intimidating.

Compassion wrote on May 7, 2007 4:10 PM:

Compassion and an ability to forgive are elements of wisdom.

I can well understand the desire for retribution here, but let's also recall that the good book says: "vengeance is mine, says the Lord."

Even if you look at this as a chess game, you have to give up some pawns in order to get to the rook, the bishop, the queen, and the king. The king is pretty impotent - even in chess, but the "queen" (rove) - now that is a prize!

I'm ready to cultivate compassion and forgiveness for pawns that have found redemption. And I believe Ms Goodling will prove to be a good candidate.

Rook (gonzo?), bishop (miers? - she sure worships the king!) - and "queen" seem to lack all semblance of any conscience - and I hope to see them gone before checkmate occurs.

But Ms Goodling - is surely a pawn. And must know that well by now.

jeffgee wrote on May 7, 2007 4:27 PM:

Todd Akin (R-MO) & Forrest Gump?
Stupid is as stupid does.

Red State Blues wrote on May 7, 2007 4:27 PM:

When I first heard Monica No-Goodling had been fired, I commented here on these pages that she was a small fish in a big pond and Congress should grant her immunity. I was shouted down then as a troll or worse, so it's interesting to see how the mood has gradually shifted in favor of immunity. I have to admit, given the memo delegating her "hiring and firing" authority and sundry other items found here in the excellent work at TPM Muckracker, I now have come full circle. I think she's up to her chinny chin chin in this, and I no longer think she's a bit player. She's not Rove, of course, but personally, I would like to see her do the perp walk.

Ron Thompson wrote on May 7, 2007 4:28 PM:

Oliver North's conviction was overturned on appeal because the court found that without his congressional testimony there would not have been evidence to convict him. It's not like the government had separately obtained good evidence against him, which was thrown out because Congress bumbled. Their evidence was obtained as a result of leads provided by his testimony, and so it was quite properly thrown out as a violation of his 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
So what's better, having everyone know that North is a liar who slipped the noose on a technicality, or refusing to grant him immunity and therefore never getting his lies and conduct on the record?
Like North, Monica Goodling is a very small fish, but one who could roll over on both Rove and Gonzales. If she does, she'll be cut off from wingnut welfare and have to find a job with no credentials but her notoriety and her diploma signed by Pat Robertson. Her life is going to be all downhill from here, even if she doesn't go to prison and pay huge legal bills and fines.

Pompano Pete Jr wrote on May 7, 2007 4:35 PM:

What is it with all this "Dems are stupid", "Ollie North redux", and "Rove's team are geniuses"??

Let's get this part clear:

There are no generic "Dems" running this process. The decision makers are Congressmen Conyers and Waxman and Senator Leahy. All are classic liberals, extremely experienced, and long time members of Congress. They have been ignored, insulted and marginalized for 12 long painful years. All of them knew very early on (2003) that the Bush regime had committed/were committing crimes worthy of impeachment.

They have been preparing for this process for quite some time. Their staffs/consultants are bright, experienced former prosecutors who have carefully watched what went on with the Libby trial, and know that the criminal justice system does not offer the solution needed. Only impeachment will begin to repair the damage done to our Constitution.

But, to be effective, the jury, the American public must be educated as to the nature and seriousness of the crimes. These crimes are not just perjury, obstruction and Hatch Act violations. The crime is undermining the Constitution and subverting the rule of law. And the gentlemen in charge of the investigative process know that quite well.

Some of you act as though this is and episode of some TV lawyer drama, and you want it all tied up in one hour of prime time TV. It ain't gonna happin that way.

Now, sit back, pay attention and quit maoning. Watch while the wheels of justice (which most of you are too young to have ever seen in action) slowly grind toward the removal of the POTUS.

Robin wrote on May 7, 2007 4:38 PM:

Can anyone comment on the loyalties of Glen A.Fine and H. Marshall Jarrett? Since they have both signed off on the imunity it would be helpful to know how impartial they are.

Yellow Dog wrote on May 7, 2007 4:39 PM:

nofltwlt and Randomfactor are right: These Xian freaks will say or do anything to fulfill "god's will."

Any lie, any crime, any torture, any murder, any genocide.

No threat of perjury charges or even prison will make the slightest dent in her certainty of righteousness.

god told them to do it, and no human can stop them.

Sharon A wrote on May 7, 2007 4:45 PM:

Oh, I think today's Bush Christians do a pretty good job of compartmentalizing their religious values from their disgusting behavior in office.

MLS wrote on May 7, 2007 4:47 PM:

No, that is not an accurate statement of the North and Pointdexter decisions. Those cases place a heavy burden on prosecutors to show that they in no way used the immunized testimony, either as leads for other evidence or as part of the prosecution strategy. As a practical matter, most observers have concluded that this makes it virtually impossible to prosecute an immunized witness unless (a) the prosecutors have put the entire case, including opening statements, etc, "in the can" before the immunized testimony is given or (b) the immunized testimony is given and remains in secret. Since neither these conditions apply here, it is fairly unlikely that Goodling can ever be prosecuted for acts covered by her testimony, even assuming that she committed a crime (which also seems unlikely).

Mr.Murder wrote on May 7, 2007 4:54 PM:

She cannot plead the 5th and become forgetful.

Now if she saved her emails to a disc or hard file...

Mr.Murder wrote on May 7, 2007 5:00 PM:

"Uncommon Sense," an AETN program on Arkansas public television, has a Democratic party guest on the program this week.

He discussed the first judicial district. It turns oput the opposition candidate to Marion Berry is under investigation by the FBI. Stubby Stumbaugh, a former cop with a history of improper conduct and disciplinary actions, was the Republican party candidate.

Did this shape Cummins' ouster?
http://www.aetn.org/
http://www.aetn.org/podcast/unconventional.rss

There's several overlapping issues I'm aware of, but the above fact bears additional emphasis.

RandyR wrote on May 7, 2007 5:02 PM:

If I'm correct Monica Goodling can only be immune to what she testifys about. If she stonewalls and withholds information then she is criminally liable for what she has held back. She will wish to reveal anything which could be criminal.
To avoid charges of conspiricy she should also reveal any role where she might have interacted with others who may have acted illegally. I hope that her lawyer has her stashed in a very secure place and that she recognises that her testimony could reveal and imprision persons "in the highest positions".

Too bad Steve
Security Code: neck As the French played, in the basket

Michael Stevens wrote on May 7, 2007 5:27 PM:

If she testifies fully and under immunity (and doesn't clearly perjure herself) there is almost NO hope of EVER prosecuting Goodling.

Iran Contra prosecutor Lawrence Walsh said (I paraphrase) that Congress should either decide on immunity OR prosecution. Because prosecuting immunized witnesses is nearly impossible.

Yes, technically she could still be prosecuted with evidence found prior to her testimony. But in the real world, her lawyers would use the grant of immunity to gut any case against her.

The easiest argument they could make: If her immunized testimony wasn't the cause of her prosecution, why wasn't she prosecuted before she gave immunized testimony? This is a compelling argument, and one that is difficult to counter.

All that said, there are some strategies Congress could use to prevent a re-occurrence of the Oliver North fiasco.

First, Congressional lawyers could demand a proffer of her planned testimony.

Secondly, once immunized, they could prohibit Goodling from entering a pre-testimony statement into the record. (This statement would be immunized)

Third, once immunized, an initial questioning (under oath) could be done behind closed doors and by Congressional staff attorneys, not Senators.

The staff attorneys could quickly pepper her with a carefully designed sampling of difficult questions to which she would be tempted to answer "I don't recall". They could also pepper her with questions to which they already have answers, these answers (unknown to Goodling) compiled and corroborated by Goodling's former co-workers.

If she were to answer "I don't recall", if her answers disagreed with under-oath statements from former co-workers, if she were an unfriendly witness, or she were to diverge from her earlier proffered testimony, the staffers would immediately halt the questioning and throw her out of the room.

By prohibiting an unfriendly witness from testifying, they would prohibit her from using "use" immunity to protect her. If the questions were chosen with care, this limiting of testimony could allow future prosecution.

If were to pass the test and answers fully and openly, then the she could be sent to the full Judiciary Committee for questioning. If her testimony before the full committee were to diverge from her previous testimony, she will have perjured herself.

Yes, it's complicated, but the Congress has to do something to prevent another Ollie North fiasco.

xyz wrote on May 7, 2007 5:45 PM:

A Cood Christian huh ? Will she havta swear on a bible ? Or is she already forgiven ?

Robin wrote on May 7, 2007 5:54 PM:

Answered my own question. Fine and Jarrett appear to have every reason to want to air this laundry. In fact it was Jarret's office that was denied security clearance by Bush to investigate previously.

This is such a sad scenario but you have to take pride in people that actually tough it out and are there come through when you need them. It looks like Fine and Jarrett are those people.

phil james wrote on May 7, 2007 6:09 PM:

What happens to Goodling is of no consequence. It is her testimony that matters. Does anyone really care if she walks and has a wonderful (albeit totally morally righteous fundamentalist christian) life? She is indeed a pawn in the game and as noted above (and I find the image holds so very much) Rove is the queen.

litle d wrote on May 7, 2007 6:14 PM:

Michael Stevens:

That's a very well thought out idea, are you a lawyer?

Michael Stevens wrote on May 7, 2007 6:39 PM:

litle d

No, I'm not a lawyer, I just play one on the internet :)

I've become very familiar with the legal process though years of business related legal matters. I've considered reading for the bar, but my research indicates that the process isn't nearly so simple as merely knowing the law.

steambomb wrote on May 7, 2007 9:10 PM:

All the bull dykes in prison are crying over this one. Oh well maybe on some other charge there lassies.

ttc wrote on May 7, 2007 9:11 PM:

I am not too surprised that the consensus on this site seems to be that goodling is some poor weak female dummy with a laughable resume that was used, but that is not how I see her. Possibly my view is affected by the fact that I am a Dale Carnegie fan, having read his book and found the guidance therein indispensible to my own work, literally, I don't see how I could do my job if I hadn't encountered Dale Carnegie. So I am impressed both by the fact that she took the course and is not afraid to have it on her resume. I'm not sure she understood the book, it is the opposite of the religious stuff she appears to be all pumped up about, but she can't have come away from the course with nothing. She has demonstrated maturity, ambition and leadership her entire life, from running a swim program to being the president of her student body, which is a huge job. She is not that well educated in the formal sense, having chosen to major in student government in college, but then so did I, no harm done. I would only make fun of the Evelyn Wood speed reading course if I was as rich as I assume Evelyn Wood's family is.

The person I mentally compare her to is Kathy Boudin. Like many smart and hardworking young people with a romantic streak, both Goodling and Bouding were also impressionable and got caught up in a cult-like web of organizations. Like alcholism, gambling or an eating disorder, once you are in it is a cancer, you never completely shake it, it is always lurking there inside you. I know whereof I speak. I predict this dreadful experience will motivate her to start to understand the irrational aspects of the hold this religious republican stuff has on her.

In fact, it is Dale Carnegie who holds the key to understanding people like Monica Goodling. Dale Carnegie says that the most important human drive is not the sexual drive or economic self-interest; it is the need to feel important.

mayan wrote on May 7, 2007 9:37 PM:

pompano pete jr...You have expressed my thoughts exactly. My sense is that things are ramping up and still very much in the ascending arc. The trajectory continues upward. I have a feeling that they know much more than they are letting on. I would like to believe that they might very well have an over-arching strategy. Finally, it stands to reason that there are loads of careerists from all agencies who would be coming forward to tell their stories to friendly ears.

I was thinking the other day about how I never expected the USA thing to become the scandal with the most legs...at least at this point. But then I realized that going after DOJ as an opening salvo is quite brilliant. Particularly if they can establish that DOJ is too compromised to conduct its own investigations into regime criminality. This forces the issue of having a special prosecutor (or independent counsel)...I can't keep 'em straight.

The last thing to keep in mind is that this is hardly the only scandal in town. All scandals, however, lead to the same places...Cheney and Rove. The dogs are circling...slowly and methodically. This is not a simple blowjob...they are faced with a regime that is literally a RICO conspiracy. I never thought we'd be this far so quickly.

Folks should sit back, enjoy the ride and invest in popcorn futures.

Al in Austex wrote on May 7, 2007 9:38 PM:

I would refer all of us back to Pompano Pete's post on this thread. This & other investigations into the organized criminal entreprise aka GWB 43 , are all being run by professional and competent individuals that are dedicated to preserving our Republic . We all need to take a deep breathe, and remember that alot of the questions that the various Committees will be asking Goodling , Sholzmann et all - well they already have the answers .(Unlike Comstock , & McNulty -when they were working on the Hill & after President Clinton - these current Hill Staffers have the goods on Abu G and all the rest of the Neo Thugs. This is not about lying about a BJ - this is about an illegal war, & massive corruption.) So yeah what Pompano Pete said earlier in this thread I agree with fully

nolo wrote on May 7, 2007 10:04 PM:

seems i'm late to this
particular party. . .

well, i hate to say "i told
you so. . ." but, i did.

tell you so. she'll sing now.

can we get a double-header?

this thursday? probably not
enough time to prep questions, etc. . .
but it would be a panic to have
monica goodling at 9:30 a.m. e.d.t.
this thursday -- and mr. alberto
gonzales in the afternoon -- may 10.

i can hope, eh?

and actually, gonzales is
already scheduled to be before
rep. john conyers' committee then. . .

that's all i've got, right now. . .

[click my name for updates, as they occur. . .]

jimbo92107 wrote on May 7, 2007 10:58 PM:

I'm ready for my money shot, Mr. DeMille!

Come on, Monica, get that pretty little K-K-Kristian mug in front of those cameras and tell us a story!

Oh, and don't forget..."Thou shalt not bear false witness!"

[giggles]

cici wrote on May 8, 2007 1:07 AM:

Michael Stevens- excellent points. IANAL, but had a similar thought:

There have been rumors about Goodling and loyalty oaths. What if Congress strictly limited their questioning to just the firings of the USAs....and stayed clear of the loyalty oaths, allowing OPR and the IG to investigate that?

skyreader7 wrote on May 8, 2007 2:31 AM:

I don't know. I think the other Monica was more interesting. At least she knew what to do with her breasts.

Admiral Komack wrote on May 8, 2007 12:02 PM:

Her testimony will be "I can't remember, I don't recall, I was out of that loop, I can't recall whether I remember being part of that loop." She adheres to a Higher Power than the Constitution.

-Question:

If she starts with the "I don't remembers" can't her immunity be yanked and she be held in contempt of Congress?

Allen wrote on May 8, 2007 1:40 PM:

The Congressional committees should do their level best to complete their investigations before granting the little bitch immunity. All evidence developed before her immunized testimony can be used against her in a criminal trial. The Oliver North debacle occurred because the Congressional investigations jumped the gun.

Miss Goody-Goody Goodling needs to spend as much time in prison as possible as a deterent. Then, she'll learn just how much her Pat Roberston connections won't buy her. Whatever gave this poor excuse for a woman, a graduate of a 5th rate law school without any work experience (Holiday Inn, aside) the idea she was competent to work in the DOJ. Her own words convict her. Her job was not to be loyal to Dubya. So, all I can say to her, keep crying baby... it will make for great perp walk pics and will look really good when they walk you, handcuffed, into prison.

Michael Stevens wrote on May 8, 2007 4:58 PM:

Allen,

Technically you are correct, but realistically there is no hope of prosecution once she testifies under immunity.

If as you suggest, Congress were to acquire massive amounts of evidence prior to Goodling's testimony, their only recourse would be to hand her off to a prosecutor *before* she testifies. Baring that, she's mostly free and clear.

She would only be "mostly" clear because there are a few caveats which could leave Goodling on the hook.

For starters, she could perjure herself. If she says something totally at odds with multiple other people, she could be prosecuted. Prosecution would be difficult, but possible. Goodling's attorney has certainly told her how stupid it would be to throw away this very rare grant of immunity be perjuring herself.

Secondly, Goodling CANNOT use Gonzo's "I don't recall" defense, not if she wants the protection afforded by "use" immunity. "Use" immunity only protects a witness's own statements from being used against her. If Goodling pulls an "I don't recall", she will have offered no insight into the crime. Ad "I don't recall" statement can protect a witness against perjury, but doesn't do anything to protect a witness who has "use" immunity.

For example, if Goodling were to admit guilt in illegal act A, illegal act B, and illegal act C, she would be very well immunized against prosecution for any crimes related to those acts.

If however she were to answer "I don't recall" when asked about illegal act A, B, and C, her testimony would offer her almost no protection. Her testimony would only prevent a prosecutor from using the "I don't recall" statements.

A non-recollection answer gives no insight into the crime, it plants no tree from which poisonous fruit could emerge. If her testimony were (like Alberto Gonzales) to consist almost entirely of "I don't recall" statements, a future prosecution would be almost completely unencumbered.

So it is *Very Much* in Goodling's own interest to admit to any and all crimes she has knowledge of. "Forgetting" or leaving out parts of a crime could only leave her culpable. This is why "use" immunity is such an effective tool. It is in the witness's best interest is to discuss every single illegal or potentially illegal act they have knowledge of. If they don't mention it, they're not immunized against it.

nrglaw wrote on May 8, 2007 5:35 PM:

Allen--nicely stated.

abcrh wrote on May 19, 2007 1:37 AM:

[url=][/url]

abcrh wrote on May 19, 2007 1:37 AM:

[url=][/url]

mokplav fodxjrmse wrote on June 6, 2007 9:59 AM:

dhqipxvu plcgoxzqr epfdmwblz bktzwjeod vlokng etbfhpxuq ozmtvpg