Comments (51)

bobh wrote on May 11, 2007 12:29 PM:

good god i want to see her proffer

steve wrote on May 11, 2007 12:32 PM:

this better not fizzle out like everything else

bobh wrote on May 11, 2007 12:35 PM:

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/thomas_f_hogan/index.html?query=UNITED%20STATES&field=geo&match=exact

the judges in the limelight - take a look at his decisions

bordersmuggler wrote on May 11, 2007 12:35 PM:

Goodling's lawyer has said that, with an immunity seal, she would cooperate and testify honestly.

Will a series of "I don't recall" answers be accepted as honest testimony?

Peter Duffy wrote on May 11, 2007 12:36 PM:

Any helpful guidance on her proffer? I hope she has no amnesia issues.

hwc wrote on May 11, 2007 12:37 PM:

Don't get your hopes up. Goodling is obviously the designated patsy. With immunity, she confess to putting all the names on the list with no direction from the White House.

Without any of the White House e-mails, there will be no way to dispute her story.

Why do you think Gonzales leaked the secret order delegating authority to Sampson and Goodling?

Peter Duffy wrote on May 11, 2007 12:37 PM:

Any helpful guidance on her proffer? I hope she has no amnesia issues.

Peter Duffy wrote on May 11, 2007 12:38 PM:

Any helpful guidance on her proffer? I hope she has no amnesia issues.

bobh wrote on May 11, 2007 12:38 PM:

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/thomas_f_hogan/index.html?s=oldest&

some more here

and read the last few line sof this article - interesting:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-07-10-congress-raid_x.htm

CN wrote on May 11, 2007 12:50 PM:

In all likelihood, the hearing will be a dud. Goodling is a True Believer and will not sell out her ideological compatriots so easily. She, with the help of her attorney, will aim for that sweet spot on the spectrum of honesty: truthful enough to avoid a perjury prosecution, but not nearly forthcoming enough get her friends in trouble. She can follow the supreme example of Gonzales, her ex-boss, and talk prodigiously without saying anything:

"I don't recall the particulars of that conversation."
"I don't recall who gave that order."
"I don't remember being involved in that decision."
"Someone else at the DoJ might know the answer to that question, but I don't."
"I don't know why Person X did what he/she did."

It will be highly unsatisfying.

obsessed wrote on May 11, 2007 12:53 PM:

IS there a proffer in this case or did Congress just completely screw up?

dancingpartner wrote on May 11, 2007 1:04 PM:

Wonder if she will be reduced to sniffles and tears when the meanies go after her?

TheraP wrote on May 11, 2007 1:14 PM:

Public hearing? Or private?

phil james wrote on May 11, 2007 1:16 PM:

The simple fact that DOJ did not fight the immunity deal makes this suspect. On the other hand the immunity deal wasn't offered blindly either, so maybe she does have something on Karl. If all her testimony does is make Gozales look like the mendacious twerp he's already demonstrated he is, then it isn't worth it.

Buck wrote on May 11, 2007 1:18 PM:

Without any of the White House e-mails, there will be no way to dispute her story.

Why do you think Gonzales leaked the secret order delegating authority to Sampson and Goodling?
Posted by: hwc
Date: May 11, 2007 12:37 PM

Maybe she's betting that the emails aren't ever going to show up. If so, good luck with that Monica.

TheraP wrote on May 11, 2007 1:19 PM:

bobh:

Could you provide some analysis of your own here? You've given some references up thread. But for those of us who lack legal training, some hints at the very least would be helpful.

Thanks

paul wrote on May 11, 2007 1:20 PM:

With decent odds, I'd consider making a bet that Goodling ends up being prosecuted for either perjury or contempt.

Does immunity protect against disbarment?

Anonymous wrote on May 11, 2007 1:29 PM:

Not expecting much.

The withheld documents are what matters--even if it's only to learn that loyal Bushies have destroyed documents.

Testimony can be helpful if a witness cooperates in good faith. I worry here though. Who was it again who is paying her attorney's legal fees?

Richard L. Adlof wrote on May 11, 2007 1:41 PM:

Disbarment is not a legal remedy . . . It is a disenfranchisement or revocation of credentials by a body . . . Non-governmental body.

I have typed on a fair number of threads that TPM readers should be writing letters expressing concern to each of these farging bastages Bar Associations . . . The loss of their ability to practise law would alter the universe greatly.

I also suggest getting the Federalist Society's member list and doing the same.

TheraP wrote on May 11, 2007 1:45 PM:

Re: who is paying her legal fees?

Wouldn't it matter more the ethics of the attorney than the source of the money?

It would in my profession.

Anonymous wrote on May 11, 2007 1:55 PM:

From the USAToday piece:

"Hogan said investigators do not need approval from elected officials or their lawyers to seize possible proof of a crime.

"The power to determine the scope of one's own privilege is not available to any other person, including members of the coequal branches of government: federal judges ... or the President of the United States," the judge said.

So, would this judge, Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan, be the one that would preside over the enevitable fight of 'Executive privlegde'?

TheraP wrote on May 11, 2007 2:05 PM:

Maybe monica has the "proof" and the Judge has already seized it?

hwc wrote on May 11, 2007 2:13 PM:

I'd say it's a pretty good bet that the White House and RNC e-mails are never going to show up. They are long gone.

Gotta hand it to the Bushies. This has been a very skillfully executed stonewall. If you were a cartoonist, you would draw a circle of loyal Bushies, all wearing dunce caps ("I know nothing") and pointing to someone else.

I don't see any mechanism for cracking the wall of silence, given that the e-mails are never going to be produced.

EdNSted wrote on May 11, 2007 2:18 PM:

This is pure speculation on my part but the recent Murray Waas article leads me to suspect that the Judiciary Committee may have more evidence than either the White House or Ms. Goodling's attorney is currently aware of. There is obvious dissention in the DoJ right now. And while I wouldn't yet bet on it, I also would not be surprised to find out that their are people in the DoJ who are not going to let this just slide.

One thing is certain. If it turns out that the Judiciary Committee has just fallen, once again, for the old Oliver North gambit, then this new 'oversight' will have turned out to be mostly hot air.

mayan wrote on May 11, 2007 2:35 PM:

EdNSted -> perhaps it's wishful thinking on my part but I'm inclined to agree with you. Monica's immunity does not protect against perjury to Congress. She doesn't know what they have or not (unless of course Rove's plumbers and the NSA help out the defense). Without knowing the hand they are holding, she's running a might big risk.

OTOH, Rovian amnesia may make perjury difficult. It all happened so long ago and she was such a busy evangelical operative, my goodness, she may...jeepers...have just forgotten most of everything.

MBF wrote on May 11, 2007 2:37 PM:

While I agree that the administration intends to have Monica take the fall, I doubt that she is smart enough to do so without committing perjury, for which she could be prosecuted later. Perjuring herself would be a very dangerous and stupid thing to do now that we know there are leakers within the Justice Department who are providing documents to the press. She may be a true believer, but she definitely isn't going to go to jail for the cause.

mayan wrote on May 11, 2007 2:37 PM:

Some logistics questions:

1. Any information as to when the hearing is?

2. Any sense as to whether the hearing will be public or behind closed doors?

3. Any knowledge as to whether Dowd, her attorney, has made any proffer?

uncle vester wrote on May 11, 2007 2:46 PM:

MBF-

"Perjuring herself would be a very dangerous and stupid thing to do now that we know there are leakers within the Justice Department who are providing documents to the press."

I agree. She can't know what the committee may be able to pull out of their hat. It'll be interesting to see if the Rovians were able to make everything disappear, and if she can skate without taking somebody big down.

eric wrote on May 11, 2007 2:47 PM:

"TPM readers should be writing letters expressing concern to each of these farging bastages Bar Associations
Posted by: Richard L. Adlof
Date: May 11, 2007 01:41 PM"

The bar associations have nothing to do with licensing or disciplining attorneys. Instead, attorneys are licenced by the states through their court systems. Ethics complaints go to something that is usually called a board of professional responsibility.

Anonymous wrote on May 11, 2007 2:53 PM:

My head tells me not to get excited about this hearing. My gut says that if Rove and Co. were less arrogant and more competent, we never would have gotten this far.

Hope the hearing is on a Wednesday, the old "Anything can happen day" on the Micky Mouse club.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on May 11, 2007 3:07 PM:

eric,

Thank you.

anon wrote on May 11, 2007 3:43 PM:

Personal ethics and a place in the heaven of her choice aside, I just don't see what Ms. Goodling has to gain by telling the truth. If she lies, there's an upside--a future cushy job, lots of love from her peers, no jail time, etc. If she tells the truth, it's all downhill from there--not only will the administration be out to get her but all of peers as well, no one will employ her, and she's likely to open such a can of worms if she tells the truth that, even if she is protected from prosecution, she will be tangled up in legal messes for years. Her testimony is likely to be critical but immunity seem like a mistake.

TheraP wrote on May 11, 2007 3:49 PM:

What if she burned a few CD's along with the midnight oil she was always burning?

I'm not giving up hope. Maybe I should. But I'm a sucker for hope!

hwc wrote on May 11, 2007 4:36 PM:

Guys:

Monica worked in the Justice Dept. She knows how it works. Her fear was never a perjury charge from the Senate hearings, but the retaliatory perjury indictments from the loyal bushies in the justice department.

I don't know if you've noticed, but Rove doesn't take any prisoners when it comes to retaliation. He didn't think twice about outing a CIA agent, why would he care about some two-bit Pat Robertson lackie?

sdh wrote on May 11, 2007 4:40 PM:

I share the skepticism that others have expressed and worry that she will turn out to be the next Ollie North--whose high-profile testimony turned up very little that Congress didn't already know and effectively hobbled the independent prosecutor's pursuit of his co-conspirators.

What is worse: she may be turned into the next right wing-martyr-hero, a la North... a living example of the value of trashing the constitution, breaking the law, and unethicality in the pursuit of a pure all-white, all-republican America.

regular lurker wrote on May 11, 2007 6:01 PM:

Good point hwc.

nolo wrote on May 11, 2007 6:24 PM:

i have easy-view images of the
actual immunity order sign by u.s.
district court judge thomas hogan,
ans some very interesting tibits
from the memo of law filed there-
with, over at my site. . . feel free
to repost them here, paul! or, click
on my name, below to see 'em. . .

okay -- as i mentioned last night, it
seems plain that chairman john conyers
has karl rove in his sights, and monica
goodling's testimony will, i believe,
do much to tighten that noose/close this loop.

she is reputed to be a bit of a know-it-all,
and letting her talk, all about what karl or dick
or even george said ex rel the hirings, firings,
and political prosecutions and/or deferrals will
be very-illuminating, i predict. and, it will almost
certainly nail down the political defensibility
of hauling mr. rove in under a house judiciary
committee subpoena to explain where those e-mails
went. . .

for more -- click on my name, below.

Anonymous wrote on May 11, 2007 7:38 PM:

I think giving her immunity is a risk that had to be taken. Sampson has decided he would rather go to jail than not protect the White House. With the DOJ holding back all those emails it's crucial for Goodling to trace this all back to the obvious culprit- Rove. And the obvious reason- politics.

Anonymous wrote on May 11, 2007 8:07 PM:

By the way, time is quickly running out and the Pubs are good at spreading the blame when it comes to problems. Dems better step it up before the public starts to turn on them in a big way and starts believing that this is just a political fishing expedition and the Dems are more concerned with attacking Republicans than trying to fix all the shit Republicans have fucked up. If the Dems want to score some points with the public I think hauling some oil company execs in and making them testify UNDER OATH (something the Republicans refused to do) would be a good start. People are fucking furious about these gas prices. Interesting that EVERY refinery seems to have had an unexpected shutdown at around the same time. Have we learned nothing from the Enron debacle? I really think that the Dems need to wrap this up within the next two months and begin a MAJOR investigation into what's been going on with Big Oil. Wanna win points with the public and get their abysmal approval ratings up- do that. QUICK. Because the public doesn't just hate Bush.

gizmo wrote on May 12, 2007 1:17 AM:

Second Monica in the past decade looking for immunity. Never a dull moment.

ttc wrote on May 12, 2007 8:12 AM:

or she may choose to play Joan of Arc. She might admit all, justifying it as necessary to stop the killing (abortion). God via his messenger John Ashcroft chose her to save Christianity, nothing else matters.

We already know from the absurd tenor of her lawyer's letters that her lawyer does not have full control of her. She's a handful.

JEP wrote on May 12, 2007 10:02 AM:

"Goodling is a True Believer and will not sell out her ideological compatriots so easily."

Her "friends" have turned on her, expect her to do the same in return, most "True Believers" believe in an eye for an eye, they revert to the Old testament in times like these.

Opening their own internal "there's GAMBLING" going on here" investigation gave her the standard WH "shut-up or else" warning.

Garth wrote on May 12, 2007 12:51 PM:

I would not be surprised after having gone to the effort of obtaining immunity and bascially admitting to the comission of a crime; ie. pleading the fifth, she may turn on these rat bastards.

Whatever she chooses to do, she will have completely and totally justified to herself. I doubt she'll dance like kyle.

With her I expect it will be all or nothing. And she's in big trouble if its nothing.

She's scared.

She's already gone boo-hooing to people.

She's a fundy and they are weird, but they always seem to somehow rationalize for number #1.

It will be very interesting to see what happens.

In her mind, turning on Rove may be completely justifiable.

security code: free

as in the truth shall set you free Monica.

Garth wrote on May 12, 2007 12:56 PM:

as for the grant of immunity, i completely agree with it. monica is a thirty something pawn in a barrel of pretty big fish.

this whole experience should have been something of an eye opener for her.

but she could turn over some big rocks in this investigation and letting her off with a slap on the wrist is a small price to pay to tighten the noose on Commandant Busch.

security code: sound

[and fury]

Garth wrote on May 12, 2007 12:57 PM:

security code: knot

'nuff said

Anonymous wrote on May 12, 2007 2:58 PM:

I think she'll accept all the responsibility for everything and swear under oath that she acted alone without knowledge of her superiors (hence Gonzo's delegation memo) or the White House. Utter and complete bullshit, of course, but that's what she'll say, and it will be hard to disprove. Like Italia Fredereci (Jack Abramoff's bagman, er, baggirl, at Interior) testifying before the Senate Indian Affairs committee, where even McCain was about to go across the table at her because it was so obvious she was lying. When you're a true-believer neocon whore convinced that the Chimpster is Jesus' messenger on earth, perjury doesn't seem like that big a deal.

uncle vester wrote on May 12, 2007 5:08 PM:

"Like Italia Fredereci (Jack Abramoff's bagman, er, baggirl, at Interior) testifying before the Senate Indian Affairs committee, where even McCain was about to go across the table at her because it was so obvious she was lying."

I'm starting to wonder if there's been some de facto legalization of lying to Congress, because no one ever seems to get busted for it.

The Oracle wrote on May 12, 2007 8:02 PM:

Monica Goodling has a martyr complex. Odds are she will still not testify, but will go to jail to protect the "culture of corruption" Republicans who are her masters.

People are focusing on the internal emails at the Justice Department and the emails between Justice and Rove's political operation in the White House.

I just wonder if there are any emails between Monica Goodling and Pat Robertson?

As Goodling was purging the Justice Department of as many Democrats or Independents or "not-loyal-enough" Republicans, did Pat Robertson ever contact her and say "good job, Goodling"?

I bet he did.

And what about the other 150 Regent University Law School "moles" strategically placed throughout the federal government...and answering to Pat Robertson's warped religious and political agenda? Do they also communicate regularly with their "master," Pat Robertson? Are they also being told that their doing a heckuva job?

So, Monica will act the martyr before any congressional hearing. She won't rat out her fellow "culture of corruption" Republican crony pals. And the "spirit of truth" will be denied, and justice will not be served.

JNagarya wrote on May 14, 2007 9:12 AM:

"Personal ethics and a place in the heaven of her choice aside, I just don't see what Ms. Goodling has to gain by telling the truth. If she lies, there's an upside--a future cushy job, lots of love from her peers, no jail time, etc. If she tells the truth, it's all downhill from there--not only will the administration be out to get her but all of peers as well, no one will employ her, and she's likely to open such a can of worms if she tells the truth that, even if she is protected from prosecution, she will be tangled up in legal messes for years. Her testimony is likely to be critical but immunity seem like a mistake.

"Posted by: anon
Date: May 11, 2007 03:43 PM"

Have you not noticed that there has been no effort to smear the fired AGs? What does that tell you about what they know -- and, in fact, are telling, Rove be damned.

Goodling is at best a neophyte at politics. Navie child. She hasn't a clue how to operate in a political envirnonment like Congress. And her lawyer's first job is to save her ass. And he knows, though she may not, that Congress doubtless has documented much more than it has let on. Remember "perjury trap"? We're talking about a person with o experience of the real world, no political sophistication. A blind dupe too inexperienced to know she is a blind dupe.

So he will tell her, essentially: "There is no "God" in Congress, so no "God" to save you there. Just tell the truth, child, and you'll be okay." And the best he can do to get her to tell the truth in order to save her own ass -- he hasn't time to educate her to real-world and political reality -- is to put her in fear of lying.

That means she will most likely spill the beans, even while she doesn't recognize that she is doing that.

As well, she worked with Samson. And the first we heard from him after he resigned was through his lawyer a shot across the bow of the White House. Has he lied? Perhaps. Does Congress know, if he has? Not much doubt about it. She will likely feel more loyalty to him -- and he's largely looking after his own ass, and to hell with Rove -- than to anyone else as the one who most often took her hand and showed her how to walk down a corridor without bouncing off the walls.

She tells the truth, or she's eaten alive.

Anonymous wrote on May 14, 2007 9:31 AM:

"I think she'll accept all the responsibility for everything and swear under oath that she acted alone without knowledge of her superiors (hence Gonzo's delegation memo) or the White House. Utter and complete bullshit, of course, but that's what she'll say, and it will be hard to disprove. Like Italia Fredereci (Jack Abramoff's bagman, er, baggirl, at Interior) testifying before the Senate Indian Affairs committee, where even McCain was about to go across the table at her because it was so obvious she was lying. When you're a true-believer neocon whore convinced that the Chimpster is Jesus' messenger on earth, perjury doesn't seem like that big a deal.

"Posted by:
"Date: May 12, 2007 02:58 PM"

1. Congress has more documentation than they are letting on. Her lawyer knows that. And her lawyer's job is to save her ass -- put the fear in her, because she isn't exactly politically astute.

2. I wonder how many emails between her and Rove were on her computer hard drive that weren't deleted. And perhaps to Bushit -- saving those as the beginnings of the "Second Coming Testament".

I suspect her lawyer will convince her to be straightforward and fully truthful. If, that is, she has sufficient sense to be scared -- as she should be. If, on the other hand, she's a know-it-all, she'll be shredded if she tries to BS and lie; and reminded that she can be prosecuted for perjury using evidence of which she is unaware, and which was developed prior to her appearance.

UNDER OATH or UNDER ARREST.

C wrote on May 16, 2007 6:00 AM:

I can't believe how blown out of proportion this story is. A key person involved has immunity from prosecution in exchange for cooperating and testifying truthfully??? Put the blinders on America! When we go through all this b.s. because 8 DOJ lawyers were fired and we want to know if politics were involved it's time for the pharmaceutical companies to start developing that reality pill. Here in Wisconsin we would have thrown the girl in prison, waited for the scandal to blow over and then let her out a few months later only to say sorry - your innocent, want your job back?

To many lawyers, it's all about making deals, what a circus.