« The Superseding Indictments--What They Tell Us | Main | Pioneering Corruption, Part Three »

May 12, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b97969e200d83549b6eb69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Why I Worry about Goodling's Immunized Testimony:

Comments

I was under the impression that it is standard practice that the "prosecutor" (in this case, the committee) only grants immunity *after* the perp reveals what the testimony will be. Do you not believe this is the case here? Have I been watching too much Law and Order?

You forget one thing - documents. She can't say the buck stops with her or she perjures herself and then any immunity deal is off.

I agree with markinsanfran. Unless John Conyers is an idiot he had to get some kind of profer of what she's going to say.

richard

My point is that even the documents may back up her claim to have been the overriding authority. THe delegation of authority to her and Sampson sure does--she has only to get AGAG's sign off, and at no point is there a place where someone would be ordering her to make inappropriate political decisions. They may well have built in that firewall protection.

Yeah, everyone is just being too cooperative.

And then we have the evidence of Monica crying over her lost career. Sure looks to me like she made up the crusade all by herself.

Her defense will probably be "the Lord made me do it".

Thanks very much emptywheel, I have been eagerly anticipating your post on this. While I think your pessimism is warranted, I would add, however, Monica may not play very well on national teevee. Asking DOJ job candidate if he cheated on their wife? Prurient types might infer that Monica was hitting on the guy, that interpretation is completely consistent with her question. Her testimony might reveal just how completely unfit she was for any position at DOJ. It's not what we want, but it might turn out to be of some value.

Immunity granted in Iran/Contra was in my estimation the last shovelful on the grave of the "old democrats".
With it [immunity] the dems of the era nullified all criminal activity of consequence. It is as if the dems of now never realised that, so here we go again. They thought they would be famous-like-Watergate.

I'm with you, EW. What incentive does she have to tell the truth, now? She can lie like a rug, and nothing she says can be used in her prosecution. She can blab on and on about what she did at the DOJ, but all she needs to do is cite the secret order and she becomes a free agent. "Oh, Dang! You mean I wasn't supposed to ask applicants who their favorite president was? I see now why that might not have been so ethical. But at the time, it seemed the most natural thing to do!"

She's the poisoned pawn, EW. Her testimony before Congress will be good theatre, but little else good will it do. We already have enough to nail Rove and Miers. We have witness testimony that they wanted Griffin in place of Cummins. Just subpoena the weasels, and dare them to lie. Now, that's a slam dunk!

Love your work, as always. I hope we can see your stint on C-Span today at some point in the future.
CSiM

Canuck

Oh, she has to tell the truth, and I expect she will. But I expect that she may be able to tell the truth in such a way that closes off investigation into the WH, rather than opens it up.

Can her testimony be held off, say until Mr. Rove and Ms. Miers have their day? Would that help anything?

i think you are absolutely in
good compnay here, emptywheel, in
being very skeptical of ms. goodling's
deal. as i have written here and on
mine, i think today's new revelations
(per your link to the nytimes.com, above)
admit of more than one interpretation.

i think her immunity order may be the
primary reason more and more are coming
out of the woodwork to tell their "monica"
stories -- they want to be sure rep. conyers
is fully-prepped, and ready to use these new
facts in the way that best suits him.

and -- i think -- chairman conyers intends
to use all of this to melt the iceberg-rove,
by inverting its tip
. . . she is that tip.

and conyers will "dunk" her. that is, ms. goodling
cannot -- without risking a perjury rap -- maintain she
did all this, on her own. at a minimum, several
of the most-damaging e-mails she and kyle sampson
sent out indicate, ON THEIR FACE, that the white
house, harriet miers and karl rove were "very
interested" in particular names, and actions. . .

so, i will, despite my immense admiration for your
accuity in all matters libby, respectfully
dissent, and suggest that when -- not if -- when
ms. goodling's immunity deal yields up karl rove
on a platter, it will be hailed as a fair bargain.

remember that david iglesias said she holds the
keys -- and as a control freak, she is going to
sing loudly about how "close" she was to the real
seat of power -- rove/cheney/bush 43. . . and
all before memorial day! cool!

as always, excellent work, here!

-- nolo

I have been concerned about Monica's immunity right from the first reports about it. Its too much of deja vu with Ollie North still fresh in my mind. I believe the fact that North, Poindexter, et al got away with Iran-Contra has led to the excesses and hubris of Rove, Cheney, et al.

I am actually quite convinced that Monica testifying under immunity means the whole lot get away with it once again since she will take responsibility for the whole thing. Barbara Comstock and Mark Corallo are coaching her right now. Which means the next time the excesses will be even worse - maybe they'll get away with outright dictatorship.

All said and done, Monica at 31, a Regents grad with no real background responsible for the hiring/firing of everyone important in the DoJ. Wow! That's a career on a rocket booster. She's going places even if there is a detour in the slammer which IMO is very unlikely!

". . .She can lie like a rug, and nothing she says can be used in her prosecution. . ."

-- floyd, above

this is simply not true.

she will be charged with
perjury -- her order of
immunity only covers truthful
statements
. take a look.
go ahead. i'll wait.

you see -- the e-mails she
sent and received will prevent
her from lying -- why are harriet miers
and karl rove mentioned as being "very
interested
", if she was flying solo;
an off-the-reservation, black-bag-ops mission?

it won't pass the first filter -- the
"hmmm. . . smells like bullsh!t" filter. . .

just my. $0.02.

p e a c c

". . .North, Poindexter, et al., got away with Iran-Contra. . ."

-- ab initio, above

they did -- but those were very
different circumstances. you had
a soldier of fortune, a true black-
bagger saying (falsely, of course!)
that it was all his idea. . . but,
at least, he was the kind that
often/always worked alone. . .

it was plausible deniability.

this wouldn't be plausible.

goodling is a scooter libby-type
"mini-me" to the white house. . .

she plainly thrives on the approval
of others -- and it will show.

just my hunch -- she'll say karl
was running this whole crazy show.

especially when someone tells her
sampson is being looked at for perjury. . .

Well, I suppose somebody could ask little Miss Goodling-Two-Shoes if she ever worked as an escort for the DC Madam or similar service, discover that she had, and then the IRS nails her for tax evasion (the Al Capone analogy... if you can't get them for the crimes they have done, check for extra unreported income).

People who are so aggressive about pushing their holiness (covering the statues of Justice, asking interviewees about infidelity, doing the Lord's work in lieu of their job) tend to have "sinful" natures that they are compensating for. Like the preacher in The Scarlet Letter, the person who is outwardly professing the utmost holiness is inwardly the most guilty.

So, while she is judging others and choosing those who will judge others in the future, we just might find that her personal character is erected upon swamp muck.

Which, of course means that Turdblossom and (hmmm... did Bush ever give Comstock a nickname???) would be delighted in her company.

Thanks lolo, nice comment.

For what it's worth, I'm concerned as well, EW. It's one thing to work for a guy and know what he wants you to do and do it. It's another for him to expicitly tell you to do it. "Oh yes, sir. Mr. Rove was interested in Mr. Blanks future, but he in no way attempted to sway my decision - Never said one word to that effect" True statement? But did a look or communication through another party tell her otherwise?

I think she's going to firewall, then when the panel throws a fit, the radio thugs will jump on the bandwagon with the old "why would she lie, she had immunity, they just didn't like the truth" I'm just feeling a big Rovian PR stunt here with her. And if she gets caught in a little lie - who prosecutes her - Abu? Oh, we'll have an ongoing investigation will we? yippee. Like you said, this seems too easy.

I hope the panel has a whopper of a trick up their collective sleeve. I hope I'm dead wrong and we have an explosive week, but I'm not holding my breath. It's just too easy to skirt around the truth in situations like this, and Monica's (kkkarls) lawyers will have her well prepared.

oops, meant nolo.

Never worked a case involving the feds where immunity was granted before a proffer was in hand outlining specific knowledge of the perp. Then an interview would be conducted in the presence of the prosecutor so no one could play hide the weenie.

I hope Conyers hasn't bought a pig in a blanket so to speak.

Another way for HJC to go is to ask Monica what her "value add" was to the DOJ, besides as the sex police, Bush loyalty oaths, the Federalist Society, and screening for liberal Democrats. My guess is that the usual work product of a DOJ attorney, a legal opinion, a brief, some kind of document, will be completely absent from anything she produced. I hope after her testimony America is asking, why did we pay Monica one of the top salaries at Justice, $133,000/year? (probably more than Fitz?) What return was there back to the taxpayers?

Another thing we've got going for us imvho is the Cathie Martin angle. Scooter really pissed Cathie off over the whole Plame deal (See AOD for the juicy details). That helped Fitz's case. My hope is that many, many people who Monica pissed off/backstabbed, have had a chance to talk with someone at the HJC. If not, I hope they will, once they hear about her immunity deal.

totally OT
but you was great today on the BOOK teeVee

Bill Maher You tube on Monica. IMHO, he saved his best line for his last line.

i'm disappointed with hjc, too.

i just don't think conyers has the "go get 'em" attitude that's needed here and that's reflected in his committee's performance.

i think conyer's experience leads him to want to make a deal, understandably.

he does not seem to be able to handle a situation involving very determined repubs to whom "given and take" or "fair play" are signs of weakness.

to me, the exchange thursday when the repubs threatened to demand a vote re: sanchez's comments showed how surprised and unprepared conyers was for these often-used repub hardball tactics.

nadler is good: waters will chew your leg off: the guy from south florida is good: johnson is not too bad.


but too many of the others, conyers included, can't seem to ask a direct question with a few sharp words.

Is there no information-sharing between HJC and SJC? One would surely hope so.
I share your misgivings about Monica's immunity -- and I hope we're both surprised by what comes out -- maybe not in open hearing, but behind the scenes.
I heard Arianna (I think) talking on Bill Maher last night about Rove's change of demeanor lately -- her take was that he must be feeling the pressure -- because he has been chewing people out (the White House dinner, the moderate Republicans). And I do have some faith that this unraveling conspiracy to politicize DOJ and obstruct justice must have Rove more than a little worried-- Harriet must be vulnerable, or she wouldn't have left the WH -- and you just hope for that little oversight, or little error, that leaves some info out in the open, somewhere.
It's not that a lot of people (and I'm not talking about on the Hill) aren't looking for evidence and sharpening their knives. A lot of people in Justice have a huge case with Monica and the WH. And these are people who know how to put together a case and know what's evidence and what isn't. I guess that's what makes me the most hopeful.

I don`t get it. Where are the e-mails. What about all the posts and discussion about checking hard drives and such. Is all this still up in the air.

Will anyone on the HJC ask about the billing/payment arrangements for Monica's legal team? I cannot imagine how she's "affording" representation as costly as John Dowd and his team.

If he/they are supposedly doing this pro bono, shoudn't that be on the record?

Abu stated that neither Bush nor Cheney made the list. How did Abu know that and when did he know it? Wexler didn't ask. Wexler didn't ask if Rove made the list, as he should have. So ask Monica straight up, who made the list. If she says she made the list, then what was Kyle Sampson's role with his desk draw? Ask about Rove's role in making the list. Ask for a list of all the email addresses to which she sent emails, and subpoena the servers and the hard disks. They took Lewinski's computer, take this Monica's computer as well.

The pursuit of justice in the political relm has me baffled. The moment I heard that Fitz had subpoenaed Libby I thought Cheney was involved and that Cheney was as good as impeached: look at how easy it was for them to impeach Clinton. I've learned my lesson, and don't hold too much hope for this round of investigation. It IS irritating that Goodling can get off with sucessful perversion of justice in firing the USAs for political reasons, setting a country wide example of how to violate EOE hiring practices, politicizing the civil service, and seduction of the office of Attorney General to delegate unregistered authority (did not go to the Federal Registry, why?) to her, all on my taxpayers dime. Heck of an immunity deal there. Better get our money's worth in other people's sentences, since we are not going to see her brought to justice.

Someone should ask her why she was being given unprecedented secret hiring/firing authority, and why it was not revealed to the public.

Sheldon Whitehouse should be made a guest panelist for HJC, I agree.

After reading NYT on Monica, I think the only reason she hired attorneys with Federalist Society backgrounds was that evil flying monkeys were not available.

Monica's the typhoid blanket given to the Indians, the plague corpse thrown down the town well. Let's hold her accountable for all her works. That seems more likely to reveal the known unknowns than a grant of use immunity and a few not very clear recollections about Uncle Karl's e-mails.

Monica Goodling has never really practiced law. That six months stint as an AUSA's assistant, for example, didn't count. It was like confusing the high school play with Broadway; it was just hubris and resume padding. Except that that apparent experience was used as cover by her minders for a salary and level of authority that were wildly out of whack with her experience or skills. With that, she's done enormous damage.

Monica, for example, reportedly asked questions that amount to serial, intentional violations of federal employment laws, behavior on a scale that would have disrupted corporate headquarters staff at a private company, and which would put an HR vice president on the street or behind bars.

But Monica's minders let her get away with it until a few weeks ago. She politicized the DOJ at the entry level (at first); people like Schlozman did it a level above that, and Gonzales a level above that. It used to be said that the Chinese invented bureaucracy and the British perfected it. But that triple play at the DOJ is an honest to goodness hat trick, a whopping success for Gozar the Destructor. It could only have been the result of Intelligent Design.

Monica's unlikely to reveal anything that burns the WH or 'Fredo as long as somebody picks up the tab for Akin Gump. She knows that with her resume and public downfall, finding another legal job would be ugly, if her backers spread the word she's no longer reliable. If she keeps mum on what counts, she'll end up back at Regent or at a "think" tank. Let's just hope she spends a little time in court before then.

I'm convinced Conyers is well positioned to screw this up, and offer immunity without knowing much. He doesn't impress me as all that innovative -- he seems as Chairman-Majority to test the political winds as he did in the minority.

ALl I know: After it's over, maybe I'll know more.

I agree with markinsanfran. Unless John Conyers is an idiot he had to get some kind of profer of what she's going to say.

Never worked a case involving the feds where immunity was granted before a proffer was in hand outlining specific knowledge of the perp

So you all don't think a good prosecutor would just buy a "pig in a poke"? And you think immunized witnesses tend to be self-serving?

May Bee, it's rare to find swans swimming in the sewer.

Can someone explain the relationship between the Senate Judiciary and the House Judiciary Committee, if any, with regard to Goodling's immunity? As Marcy said, it would be great if Whitehouse questioned her. Is there still an opportunity for that?

"I think the only reason she hired attorneys with Federalist Society backgrounds was that evil flying monkeys were not available."

I agree, but I couldn't resist inserting Maher's last line, "the lawyer, Monica hired when she wanted to keep her ass out of jail went to a real law school."

Did not Patrick Fitzgerald buy "a pig in a poke" with Ari Fleischer's testimony? Albeit with the disclaimer that it was something prosecutors rarely do? I hung on your every word during the Libby trial, EW, and most since then. This posting confirms my worries, despite wanting to have faith in Conyers.

Conyers, et al. demos almost never follow up the up-yrs answers : i.e.answer the question I asked. Can we expect more intelligent questioning in La Monica?

Under the RICO Law, hiring somebody with the expectation that that person would fulfill a certain task, ie enough for a jury to convict, provided the expected action is unlawful

it don't matter if monica and abu discussed the topic

if it happened, and it's a conspiricy, WE DON'T HAVE TO PROVE THEY DISCUSSED IT, WE JUST HAVE TO PROVE THEY DID IT

read the RICO statute some time

Re: rxbusa -- I recall maher's final line is "She hired an elite lawyer." This in reference to the negative connotation the wingers attach to liberal elites.

I see the wisdom in everything EW had to say in this post but I want to believe nolo.

Monica was living in her own little Disney World there for a while. Graduating from a horrific law school but somehow achieving a high level government job in spite of that, freely able to impose her political and moral sensibility onto DOJ hiring and firing, and then finally made White House liasion, where Uncle Karl promised her even bigger things to come.

Then Disney World turned into Federal Penitentiary World. She lost her job, realized she had committed crimes, and she seemed to be crying on David Margolis shoulder, not Karl's. Margolis, ethical, law-abiding man...

Maybe fear and inexperience will make her come clean. But I agree that the HJC has just been awful at these hearings.

Having Babs Comstock, Queen of Hyper-Partisan Oppo Research, as her mentor does not reflect favorably on Ms Monica's judgment.

Per Steve Elliott -- agree that Congress absolutely must get its hands on ALL RNC and WH related servers. Asking for the emails from specific (existing) accounts would miss any additional users/accounts that Rove (et al) created and killed for specific projects. Congress needs the servers.

I shudder to think what kind of Bright, Shiny Object the Rovians are cooking up in an effort to obscure this Congressional schedule. Between the Monica hearings and the Wilkes' arraignment, let us hope more puzzle pieces fall into place in the form of resignations, vacations, 'unpaid leave' assignments, and -- with any luck -- indictments.

Persuasive analysis. I agree with EW that I would much rather see Goodling before the Senate Committee than the House. The Senate has some serious prosecutors who know how to get real information from witnesses (Whitehouse and Leahy, for examples), and some of the Republicans will pose some tough questions as well (Sessions is typically a reliable Bush-bot, but here, as a former US Attorney, he seems genuinely offended by the firings). The House questioners, however, seem less professional, and often insist on making political speeches rather than asking probing questions.

Goodling is in a position where she could plausibly say that this whole politicization was her idea and that she received no direction from the White House. Her difficulty, however, would be in not knowing whether there are emails out there that could contradict this version of events. Immunity doesn't protect you from perjury, and she has to know that if her testimony is contradicted by later released emails, she could be in a serious pickle.

Give Monica to Senator Whitehouse for questioning, and we'll get to Miers and Rove. But give her to HJC, and she will form the perfect firewall for the White House.

I agree EW. HJC has been disorganized and ineffective. Justification to subpoena Rove and Miers comes only with reasonable suspicion of criminal wrongdoing and getting that out of Goodling will require a top-rate prosecutor in top form.

We know Whitehouse is all over this issue. Maybe he'll make sure he gets his shot.


I think the effort to pin the blame on Monica has already begun. There was a quote from a Justice Dept. offical (can't remember their name or where I read it) basically describing her as naive and overzealous. I ,too, would feel much better if this were being held by the Senate rather than the House Judiciary committee. The House one is just so large and unwieldy with so many members of wildly varying abilities that it all gets watered down.

My $0.02, I don't think Monica's holier-than-thou, Miss Goodie two shoes, attitude is going to allow her to be painted as the scapegoat. I also don't think she going to hold up well under questions from liberal Democrats.

I think Goodling knows more about White House involvement in this debacle, and if she takes us there, it will be worth the immunity.

But if she obfuscates and deceives and lies outright, doesn't she violate her immunity agreement? Doesn't even one lie jerk the immunity rug out from under her? She still has to tell the whole truth and nothing but the trutn, and I agree, if Whitehouse is allowed to dohis work, the White House will be revealed as the most guilty of all possible parties.

How ironic, Whitehouse takes down The White House.

God is such a funny guy.

If Monica the 2nd breaks down blubbering like a born-again baby girl when she is forced to speak the truth, do you suppose all those fired US-A's, or anyone else who learned they had a "Monica Problem" will feel even a tinge of sympathy for her?

Whenever the office bitch bawls like a poor, abused baby, usually the rank and file folks she intimidated, those people whose lives she ruled or ruined with her fundamentalist arrogance and misguided authority, are cheering out loud, and hoping she sees them doing it.

EW -- I think you're right. Like with Libby it's all about firewalls. At this point the DOJ is a wreck and that's fine with the White House -- let Gonzales the buffoon and the religious hacks he left in charge take the rap. Bush and Rove don't care about that or how the administration is perceived. Let's face it -- Rove is slick, slimy and slippery as an eel. Plamegate told us that. I hope and pray the SJC finds the trail of bread crumbs to Rove's door, but I won't hold my breath. The best result may be that HJC and SJC show how Bush's DOJ is a domestic equivalent of his Iraq policy and further reduce Republican chances in 2008. We'll be years undoing the damage in any case.

Someone should ask her why she was being given unprecedented secret hiring/firing authority, and why it was not revealed to the public.

Posted by: Sailmaker

Did they ask Gonzo these questions? If so, did he answer?

". . .Can someone explain the relationship between the Senate Judiciary and the House Judiciary Committee, if any, with regard to Goodling's immunity? As Marcy said, it would be great if Whitehouse questioned her. Is there still an opportunity for that?. . ."

-- Posted by: rxbusa | May 12, 2007 at 21:40

good questions, here, rxbusa. . .

last one first -- i am a huge fan of whitehouse, and would
love to see him handle the questioning, but i don't think it
likely. . . most of all, i think rep. conyers will use his
questioning of monica to build an absolutely iron-clad POLITICAL
case -- not a legal one, necessarily -- to subpoena karl rove.

he needs to have all of america outraged by what karl rove has
done, and continues to do -- that comes from monica's "yes" answers
to a series of questions as simple as "did mr. rove know you were
doing. . .X?
", where "X" is each of the matters alleged in today's
new york times article, and those that will emerge between tomorrow
and her may 24 or may 25 hearing date. . .

i still think it likely that mr. rove finds his way to the business
end of an indictment. . .

now as to the first question -- "use immunity" under 18 USC 6005
contemplates that her truthful statements cannot be used in the HJC,
the SJC or any court of law to implicate her in a criminal or civil matter.

this is sort of a one-shot deal. and so, i do think there's been a proffer.

and my hunch is that it was a dooooozie. . . thus, the smooth path to immunity.

just my educated guesses, here, though. . .

I see North redux with Goodling. Though I do wonder about this: things like the lack of an official photo -- how long has that Regent party shot been used now? -- just make me curious about her position.

But it's the White House-DOJ emails, I think, that take this investigation onwards. And for that, at least, there's the combined weight of HJC, SJC and Waxman's oversight committee.

But the HJC has to be prepped to the eyeballs on this. Even if it's only a few members who do all the questioning, while the GOPpers showpony and try to throw spanners in the proceedings.

Monica has a martyr complex. She won't rat out the criminals above her in the culture of corruptlicans. She'll be evasive. Or she won't recall. And she and the religious wingnuts will play the martyr card to the max, probably even throwing in that the HJC is crucifying her. And she'll shed a few tears to further this scam, even though she ruined the careers, and hurt the children, of countless people...while claiming to be a Christian. Don't weep for Monica. She entered government only to promote Pat Robertson's warped religious agenda, totally subverting our democratic form of government in the process. So, don't weep for this evil bitch, because she placed her religion above our Constitution, as if she were acting on the orders of al Qaeda. And we all know what al Qaeda would do to our Constitution if ever given the chance. Oh, wait, that's exactly what Monica was doing, subjugating our Constitutional rights to her religious whims. Evil. Evil. Evil.

IIRC, past Congressional committees delegated much of the questioning of witnesses to staff counsel, practicing attorneys skilled in direct and cross examination, and thoroughly briefed on the subject matter.

Is Congressional media face-time now the real priority?

Don't get between a camera and a careerist.

I'm not quite as cynical as ew, but almost. If nothing else, everyone will notice that Gonzo and crew hired, promoted and kept giving more authority to, an incompetent flake with a holy roller complex.

The WH inner bubble crew will look stuoier than they already do, if that's possible.

Three possibilities:
1. Monica sings
2. Monica stonewalls successfully
3. Monica stonewalls and emails already in the possesion of HJC show her to be lying.

Will Monica be able to ride the razor's edge? Or has HJC made sure that there is no edge to ride?
I think #2 is least likely .

Monica can pick her poison. If I understand things correctly, Goodling is only being offered immunity from prosecution to testify strictly concerning what she knows about the US attorney firings. Accept the deal or not, she's still in deep do-do with EOE for illegal hiring practices....just for starters.
If Monica's integrity hasn't been completely short-circuited as a result of her stay at Pat Robertson's Hallelujah University and Baptismal, she should simply, and patriotically, tell everything she knows. (Hey, Monica, what would Jesus do?) If she does this, my bet is she'll soon be gainfully employed once again......and she might even be considered a hero to most Americans.

Monica can pick her poison. If I understand things correctly, Goodling is only being offered immunity from prosecution to testify strictly concerning what she knows about the US attorney firings. Accept the deal or not, she's still in deep do-do with EOE for illegal hiring practices....just for starters.
If Monica's integrity hasn't been completely short-circuited as a result of her stay at Pat Robertson's Hallelujah University and Baptismal, she should simply, and patriotically, tell everything she knows. (Hey, Monica, what would Jesus do?) If she does this, my bet is she'll soon be gainfully employed once again......and she might even be considered a hero to most Americans.

Suppose the cloth is whisked away, and again the hat is empty?

Does that mean the rabbit escaped again, or that it was never in the hat again?

Is the rabbit really that good, or is it all just imaginary?

What Watson said five posts up. I'd add that I was totally disappointed by the lack of teamwork during the Gonzalez testimony, but the one person who appeared effective on the HJC was Arthur Davis (D-AL). Maybe I'm wrong, but somebody should shoehorn him with a flow chart...

I agree with you, EW. The way she scurried to the Fifth Amendment at the outset suggests she's no dumb bunny. If she was going to spill anything significant, I'd look more for a contract with a news org than an immunity deal.

In pursuit of higher-ups, the artful dodge is all we're likely to get.

OTOH, from the collective evidence gathered thus far, if there's nothing indictable there's at least the raw makings of great political ads...

Along these lines:

The GOP only knows one way to win: faking out 51%. They faked representational democracy in Florida in 2000 while excluding thousands from voting for Democrats. A majority voted for Gore in the US and in Florida, yet Bush was declared the winner.

In 2003, they launched the third longest and second most expensive war in US history on trumped-up intelligence reports about WMDs. In 2004, they lied about Senator Kerry's distinguished military service in Vietnam, impeded Democratic precincts from voting in Ohio, and used terror alerts to indicate only George Bush could be trusted to stop terrorists.

And now it's become clear that they have launched fake investigations of Democrats in close races to create the appearance of corruption where none existed.

Lying, cheating, faking: they can't win on their merits, so they steal their offices and say 'that's politics.'

It isn't. It's Grand Theft Democracy.

She was only granted "use" immunity - so she may still be prosecuted. The use immunity statute (18 U.S.C. § 6002) allows the government to prosecute the witness using evidence obtained independently of the witness's immunized testimony. § 6002 provides:

[N]o testimony or other information compelled under the order (or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or other information) may be used against the witness in any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise failing to comply with the order.

The Supreme Court upheld the statute in Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972). In so doing, the Court underscored the prohibition against the government's derivative use of immunized testimony in a prosecution of the witness. The Court reaffirmed the burden of proof that, under Murphy v. Waterfront Commission, 378 U.S. 52 (1964), must be borne by the government to establish that its evidence is based on independent, legitimate sources:

This burden of proof, which we affirm as appropriate, is not limited to a negation of taint; rather, it imposes on the prosecution the affirmative duty to prove that the evidence it proposes to use is derived from a legitimate source wholly independent of the compelled testimony.

If Monica lies, she runs the risk that the Dems get evidence exposing her.

She is undoubtedly being advised by counsel that she cannot have any certainty about what documents will turn up, or that the Reps will be successful in their continued efforts to conceal emails from Congress or prevent Rove and Meirs from testifying.

She must also know that if it suited Rove’s purposes, he will smear her thoroughly, relentlessly, and mercilessly.

To me, this means that as she calculates whether to tell the truth or not she is thinking:

1. She can take the fall. She can claim that she alone drove the firings from her interpretation of what being a “loyal Bushie” required, and hope that all to-date-concealed emails to Sampson, Taylor, Jennings and Rove, plus any other unknown documents, never come to light.

I think she has to consider this to be a high risk option, since Congress is on the trail of all the other players, and it sounds on its face dubious that she would be the kingpin the firings. Even if she was central to the placement of political operatives in USA positions, the Lam replacement was obstruction of justice related, not political.

2. She can tell the truth. She avoids jail time, which is what she was angling for with taking the Fifth and seeking an immunity deal so early on. We know from the email traffic that she was constantly in touch with Sampson, Griffin, Taylor and Jennings, all Rove protégés.

Rove hasn’t tried to destroy her yet, which makes me think that there is a hole card the Reps think they can play, or that Rove thinks it will be everyone else who takes the fall, not him.

3. She can blame others. Sampson and Gonzales have already used the “nameless countless others were to blame” defense. In an immunity deal, I do not think Monica can claim not remembering, but even if she feeds the entire DOJ management to Congress, there is the risk that Congress winds up chasing its tail running dozens of new stories to ground.

Refusing to take responsibility and blaming others is part of the authoritarian personality. It is part of the culture of the Bush administration. It is a Rove political strategy. It requires more time and effort by investigators to prove or disprove, and for crimes of intent—such as perjury—it lets the blame-monger say, “No, I honestly thought that so and so was the one who had the responsibility.”

I think outcome 3 is most likely when Monica testifies.

STUPIDITY REIGNS…OR DOES IT? BIGGER FISH TO FRY

What do we know about stupidity, Frank Zappa said it has to be the basic building block of the Universe due to the fact there is so much of it. What can we do about it and how it can effect our lives.

There are degrees of stupidity and we have deliberate acts of stupidity, therein we leave stupidity behind and get into the realm of criminal acts which is where the present administration seems to operates today.

Without morality or ethics, human behavior leaves the domain of civilization and the boundaries of the rule of law. So we can view our country as having lost it’s Constitutional bearings, it’s moral turpitude and ethical standards in favor of PROFIT and corporate greed. That has precipitated the undoing of Democracy in favor of the rule by politic instead of law. Kindness, peace and virtue have little value in the competitive corporate world.

Several generations have been educated in a system that encourages cheating. So our education system fosters criminal behavior when they enter the business or government environment theyoften sell out to the highest bidder.

Business and Government including Executive, Legislative and Judicial branch have been infiltrated by political operatives of the Corporate Cabal made up of the New World Order that intend to Globalize their enterprises backed by the US Military under the command of their leader George Bush. Who has with great zeal and enthusiasm exercised the powers of the office of the Presidency of the United States to promote the special interests of his supporters over the interests of the American People and against the intent of the Constitution of the United States which he has sworn to protect and defend.

The media too has become the Fourth Estate and under reports or spins stories in support of corporate interests that they have been purchased by. SOme stories go unreported. The Bill of Rights Article one give us free speech protection but little controversial reporting is encouraged by the bosses of printed press, the air ways or the networks. This state of the media is an undue influence on keeping the American public uninformed (and more funding of National Public Radio and other unbiased news sources are needed.)

By political pressure on the US Department of Justice the administration has politicized the Federal Department of Justice and the election process to subvert the will of the people who’s sovereignty he serves.

With caution to the wind his administration has embroiled this Nation in a preemptive war of great destruction on another sovereign nation without probable cause. Using unverified information he proceeded to bring our country to an ill-advised war and flying in the face of a war commission’s advice he refuses to withdraw our troops. The American people want out and have expressed that to him.

It now seems that he has politicized all branches of government to serve his special interest allies over the interests of the citizens. He has spent our political capital in the collective nations of the world. He has caused the military industrial complex to make great profit at the expense of the domestic good while weakening our armed Forces.

The energy sector of the economy has made windfall profits, Enron, Halliburton and other corporations have, as oil prices have escalated, reaped windfall profits at the expense of the American people. These are some of his closest allies. In ground oil once of little value at $35 a barrel is very profitable since the war at $60.00 a barrel making Oklahoma and especially Texas Companies very rich. Those savings were not passed on to the American consumer but gouged us, as he was able to deregulate the industry by appointing Industry professionals to regulatory positions.

Enron one of Bush/Cheney’s biggest supporters was involved in the $70 million scamming of California energy market. That cost the Democratic party to lose the governorship.

And the Bush Administration has weakened environmental law. He has watched the American infrastructure deteriorate highways power grid and storm damage have been ignored as well as water and waste water infrastructure. On his watch gross negligence has occurred. And pollution damage our environment.

The department of State also has lost its influence among the family of Nation due to failed policy and the leadership role that comes with that influence by going against the United Nations. In the name of Christianity he has ordered troops to slaughter civilians and kidnap suspected enemy combatants of our state to secret torture camps. Violating the Geneva Convention that protects combatants from both sides, he has put our troops in great jeopardy were they to be captured, certain torture and death would follow. These policies have energized the Jihadists and terrorism is on the rise throughout the world as attacks have increased. So his policies have failed to stop these national threats.

He has managed the war effort recklessly causing our troops to be in harms way. Over 3,000 were killed after he stated the war was won. over 100,000 non-combatants were killed of the people we were to be liberating. We are occupying another nation.

He has caused our military to destroy the complete infrastructure of 25 million peoples. Two million refugees had to leave their homeland to escape religious persecution.

Now he is once again posturing with Iran and has moved our Naval Fleet within striking distance of of Iran threatening it’s security.
More recently arms bazaar’s have been selling offensive weapons in the region of the Middle East and the escalation of hostilities are ongoing. The region has become destabilized.

The out of control military spending has left the National coffers bare. The domestic security is insufficient. Domestic programs have suffered greatly. maore uninsured lack health care as it is increasing rapidly in cost and lwer quality as more profits are taken.

National Guard resources have been used to prosecute the war and the Nation has diminished ability to respond to domestic disasters. Some Veterans hospitals have deteriorated.

The administration has broken the trust and thumbed their noses at the sovereignty of the American People. The President has violated the separation of powers and has flaunted the oversight powers of US Congress. Impeachment paper have been prepared.

The Congress of the United States has a solemn duty to uphold the US Constitution. When the Executive Branch fails to up hold the US Constitution, Congress must initiate these duties or be in jeopardy of violating the Constitution themselves.

If all the above proves out as very recent events indicate then an impeachment committee should be formed to explore the appropriateness of such sanctions with a special counsel appointment.

Three possibilities:
1. Monica sings
2. Monica stonewalls successfully
3. Monica stonewalls and emails already in the possesion of HJC show her to be lying.

Will Monica be able to ride the razor's edge? Or has HJC made sure that there is no edge to ride?
I think #2 is least likely.

Posted by: John Forde | May 13, 2007 at 01:45
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DING! that sounds about right.

well-put!

. . .She was only granted "use" immunity - so she may still be prosecuted. The use immunity statute (18 U.S.C. § 6002) allows the government to prosecute the witness using evidence obtained independently of the witness's immunized testimony. § 6002. . .

-- by bobdevo
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

right you are, bob! -- but how does anyone
develop completely independent proof of wrong-
doing -- without making some small part of their
vast documentary case rely on an e-mail already
delivered, or a statement already made. . .?

i am not saying it is impossible -- just
a very, very tall order, here. . .

i suppose if all those quoted anonymously
in yesterday's new york times would go on the
record, and testify under oath before a grand
jury, all that evidence would avoid the taint. . .

though akin, gump's john dowd would surely
argue that the new york times eight would NOT
have come forward, but for monica's immunity,
thus even their statements were gathered in
some form of negative-reliance on the use
immunity. . . convoluted, i know, but there
are likely judges who would buy it. . .

just a few thoughts, here. . .

p e a c e

Albert Fall:

She can take the fall. She can claim that she alone drove the firings from her interpretation of what being a “loyal Bushie” required, and hope that all to-date-concealed emails to Sampson, Taylor, Jennings and Rove, plus any other unknown documents, never come to light.

I think she has to consider this to be a high risk option, since Congress is on the trail of all the other players, and it sounds on its face dubious that she would be the kingpin the firings. Even if she was central to the placement of political operatives in USA positions, the Lam replacement was obstruction of justice related, not political.

My point is just that by telling the truth she will take the fall. We know, for example, that when Harriet tried to tell Sampson to get rid of Yang, she didn't say, "get rid of Yang." She said, "is there a possibility of replacing her." And from that, Sampson made sure that Yang left, in Yang's case, by being escorted out nicely.

So while Monica may report that Harriet asked a range of questions:

  • Is there a possibility we can replace Chiara with Brand?
  • Is there a possibility we can get rid of Lam?
  • Is there a possibility we can free up the USA position in NV for a rising GOP star?
None of those would be an order. Harriet suggests, Goodling implements. And in the case of NM, we know that Goodling was even taking orders directly from the GOP leadership. So no smoking gun pointed at Harriet, though Harriet was driving the whole operation. And if Harriet is smart enough to stay clean, you can bet Rove was.

Suppose the cloth is whisked away, and again the hat is empty? Does that mean the rabbit escaped again, or that it was never in the hat again? Is the rabbit really that good, or is it all just imaginary? Posted by: Jodi

You don't have to convince anyone your opinion is that nothing wrong was done at DOJ.

Your magic show metaphor is cute... credit where credit is due.

of course there is the possibility that

the hjc and sjc hearings are serving as distractions for the bush apparatchiks in the doj,

thus allowing the career attorneys in doj an opportunity to move forward with cases against corruption that they not been allowed to institute prior to this.

in short,

the hjc hearings,

while i don't doubt for a minute they are intended as serious business by the congressmen and their aides,

may have the happy effect of keeping the rovians pinned down under fire.

certainly,

we have seen in the last two or three weeks what seems to me an extraordinary number of new or renewed charges/investigations into republican corruption by the doj and its u.s. attorneys in the field.

it's even possible that the republicans will, in time, turn on rove, accusing him of sacrificing them to the doj to protect himself and the president.

perhaps we shouldn't awfullize too much just yet.

EW--

I agree with your analysis of how telling the truth could be a form of taking the fall.

Hopefully she will be asked specifically about communications with Sampson, Taylor, Jennings, and the missing 18 days.

Some of those folks--Sampson in particular, since he appears to have perjured himself already--will face their own legal jeopardy and have Rove stories to tell.

It may be that no one puts Rove in the room when criminal behavior occurs. But if Rove spends his summer being distracted from committing new depredations, that is still a benefit to our country.

We know, for example, that when Harriet tried to tell Sampson to get rid of Yang, she didn't say, "get rid of Yang." She said, "is there a possibility of replacing her."

Twenty-first century version of, "who will rid me of this troublesome priest?"

. . .Twenty-first century version of, "who
will rid me of this troublesome priest?
". . .

Posted by: John Casper | May 13, 2007 at 11:58

very nice reference, there -- now, just
to reiterate -- i think empty wheel's view
has much appeal. . . i am simply going
to remain hopeful that the process will
work to serve us karl rove-cum-baked-
alaska, for dessert. . .

it is clear that chairman conyers is
on a focused mission to prove that which
we all suspect. he likely may have even
more documents on this (courtesy the
"new 8" -- the new york times eight,
as was alluded to in the saturday story). . .
ones karl and monica forgot about -- or don't
know exist. . .

i will trust that he will get, and follow,
the very-best advice on how to catch karl
rove in an outright lie. . . or, find solid
evidence of rove's commission of a felony. . .

Good post, EW!
I'm with nolo, mostly, because Rove is such a control freak that he would not just allow Monica to work on her own. But in one of your comments you point to what may be the critical element, regarding Miers: The King Henry defense (Gee; when I asked "Will no one rid me of this noxious priest", I didn't mean that someone should *kill* him!)[see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_a_Becket#Assassination]
But whereas Miers may be content with indirection, I don't think Rove is satisfied with such subtlety.

Bob in HI

ew at 10:42 - I agree. It seems that the problem here is that giving Monica immunity removes any incentive on her part to pin the responsibility for the firings on anyone but herself. Since Harriet and Rove have been so slick about concealing/obfuscating their directives to Monica regarding the firings, then it follows that perhaps the only way to reveal the full extent of their involvement is by a fully incentivized (read, terrified) Monica who is confronting potential criminal charges with no offer of immunity on the table and with her best escape being to pin the blame elsewhere, on higher-ups.

Giving Monica immunity creates the wrong incentive, giving Monica every reason to serve as a black hole of accountibility, pulling all blame away from the higher-ups and falling on her own sword.

As Marcy pointed out, it may very well be the case that Monica can take full blame for the firings with a modicum of lying and with general consistency with the evidenitary record. And this is what Monica is likely to do unless she is given the proper incentive to pin the blame elsewhere by giving a different interpretation of the factual record of her communications with Rove and Harriet.

Some aide or adviser to Bush said that their job was to turn his ideas (thoughts, wishes) into reality... and now I can't find the quote. :(

It wasn't the famous one about creating their own reality (in the article linked below); it was about implementing Bush's vision of reality. However, with people on staff trained to execute his slightest whim, Bush can insulate himself from responsibility. The people hired are not only loyal, but subservient.

Each administration, over the course of a term, is steadily shaped by its president, by his character, personality and priorities. It is a process that unfolds on many levels. There are, of course, a chief executive's policies, which are executed by a staff and attending bureaucracies. But a few months along, officials, top to bottom, will also start to adopt the boss's phraseology, his presumptions, his rhythms. If a president fishes, people buy poles; if he expresses displeasure, aides get busy finding evidence to support the judgment. A staff channels the leader.

(snip)

Paul O'Neill, who was asked to resign his post of treasury secretary in December 2002, said when we had dinner a few weeks ago. ''You don't have to issue an edict, or twist arms, or be overt.''

(snip)

This signaling system -- forceful, national, varied, yet clean of the president's specific fingerprint -- carries enormous weight.

http://www.cs.umass.edu/~immerman/play/opinion05/WithoutADoubt.html

Henry II, like most of the warring kings, would humble himself or express penitence to get back into the good graces of the Church. I simply cannot imagine any member of the Bush dynasty climbing down from their pedestals. But pedestals can be shaken.

Bobdevo and nolo are exactly right about the parameters of use immunity. As a defense attorney, you HATE use immunity, because a good prosecutor can still prove up most any crime with independent evidence. And traditionally, trial courts are extremely broad and permissive in determining what is independent evidence; as long as there is some seperate corroborating source, anything said by a use immunized defendant usually finds it's way in. For these reasons, in the traditional criminal prosecution setting, a defense lawyer usually tries to get a firm plea deal in conjunction with the use immunity so things are bolted down for the client.

In the current situation, however, there is no active criminal prosecution and the Judiciary committee is not a prosecuting agency. The kneejerk response is "well little Goodling is going to be in the clear, because the corrupted Bush Justice Department will never prosecute her aggressively" therefore "Goodling will take the bullet herself and/or just obfuscate". But if i were Goodling or her lawyer, I sure as hell wouldn't be going down that road of thought because it is extremely likely that a new sheriff will be in town at the DOJ come January 2009 and it will still be well within the statute of limitations for a whole host of criminal offenses.

I don't know what will result from all this; but in some regards, Goodling and her high priced handler Dowd, have managed to place themselves in a legal no man's land. They have lost the ability to assert the Fifth, have no immunity from prosecution, have no agreement with a prosecutor and don't know who the next prosecutor is or what their whims will be. This still leaves open ALL of the possibilities that have been discussed eloquently by everybody above. This is going to be a very interesting next 30 days or so. EW, go get a manicure or something fancy, because I think your fingers may be busy.

I guess I am tired of technical reading, and I have been trying to divert my mind with some fictional reading. There is always the poets, and the classics and of course my favorite science fiction, but I've have picked up a few (call them semi-fictional) books from the discount tables of BAM for myself and my grandmother as well. (She is declining now and I read to her.)
Anyway, I picked up something on "Travel Gate," on "White Water," on Monica Lew?? and Clinton. Wow, another Monica! Could this be a significant indicator or flag?

Anyway, my observation is that it seems that there are all these incidents that the Republicans or the Democrats will scream are very significant and with the help of an Obsessive Press essentially throw the whole country's attention toward, and in the end, was anything proven other than everyone hates everyone else?

So the question is again, is there anything to all this? Or is it just a bunch of not so smart incidents by indviduals that with a bit of cut and pasting can be made to seem like a real evil plan?

Then when the situation is dissected, we will find nothing. No rabbit. Not even a hat, perhaps.

Damn, is everyone involved in Politics just thrashing about in a dream or a nightmare? No reality. Only very willing imaginations.

Tokyo Jodi, one of the priorities on Goodling's agenda was seeding the Department of Justice with lawyers who think your uterus belongs to men.

Great post, Marcy.

After last week, I'm not confident the HJC could stand up to damp cat litter, and I fear that outmoded patriarchical "courtesy" will stop Conyers from telling her to STFU and simply turning off her mike when she Ollies.

Should the HJC recieve enough stem cell transfusions to allow regeneration of the Dems' gonads, vertebrae, and frontal lobes, I'm hoping they'll place Monica's crimes in the context of Rove's assault on the rule of law.

And then perhaps they'll competently prep to address the following:

kirk murphy @ 167

OT, but...

1) Monica controlled hiring of AUSA's

2) Two egregious criminal prosecutions came out of Biskupic's US Attorney Office:

a) woman directly released on appeal to Federal Court

b) vet jailed for "fraud" on charges arising from his complaint against the VA for fraud against PTSD claimants.

3) Wise folks here at FDL have concluded Biskupic is not responsible for one of the egregious criminal cases.

4) If not Biskupic, who?

5) Would search of court records (Lexis or whatever database attorneys use) show if the same AUSA (or AUSAs) prosecuted both cases?

6) Both the egregious criminal prosecutions advanced Rovian objectives (voting fraud's a problem; PTSD isn't).

7) Did Monica choose the AUSAs who served Rove's political goals through false criminal prosectuions?

8) Will review of AUSA's approved by Monica demonstrate other egregious false criminal prosecutions highly beneficial to WH political goals?

9) Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

oops - apologize for fdl url ('kirk murphy @167') lurking at head of list.

Please feel free to delete!

okay, whose been "GETTING SMALL" ???

whoever it is, you spilled that stuff all over the links column

all the text over there is small (they're having some fun now, my o my)

Me, I did that, freep.

I'm experimenting. Do you hate it? I also took out some of the red...

bmaz at 14:33

thanks very much for this lawyer's view of use immunity.

it helps this non-lawyer understand the parameters of the immunity deal better and it makes the hjc seems a good deal less feeble.

i think many of us are so accustomed to feeling powerless against the bush juggernaut that we extend that feeling to new situations at the drop of a hat - or of an immunity deal.


OT

i wonder if i keep reading, copying out, and saving lawyers' comments for several more years,

could i maybe get a web-log-world law degree?

orion

It'd be ranked higher than Regents U, that's for sure.

Jodi backwards is i doj.

Orion - You are welcome. But keep well in mind that you get what you pay for in legal opinions, and those I give here are quite free. Shorter version, use immunity is not necessarily the bugaboo some here might think as far as letting Goodling off the hook; however, I fully agree with EW that I am not sure I would have offered it to her at this point. And the only thing that would change my mind in that regard is if Goodling supplied an eye opening proffer (statement of the info she can provide). Also, EW is right about your degree; it not only would be better than Regent's, you would be better off than a whole lot of lawyers from good schools who, for some reason, don't really know much about the law.

gini

are we now supposed to flip your name backwards and make something of it?

hauksdottir: If Monica darling obfuscates, it would be nice if one of the more competent HJC examiners uses Paul O'Neill's words "You don't have to issue an edict, or twist arms, or be overt" to get at whether she took Miers and Rove's "gentle nudges" (if they were indeed so) as the explicit orders of the White House.

On EW's take that if Harriet used nuance in her language than Monica gets her off the hook...I guess that I feel like if high level White House personnel (the General Counsel and the Deputy Chief of Staff) are making their wishes known, putting pressure on low level but powerful players at the DOJ, they are still heavily implicated. Even if they aren't criminally implicated, if a sordid amount of White House involvement is exposed, it turns up the pressure for Rove and Miers to testify.

jodi => idjot = flawed anagram
jodi ======= fraud and a sham

I dearly want to agree with nolo, but unfortunately ew has persuaded me

The most comforting thing I've found in this fascinating thread (thanks to all for giving me something good to read this weekend!) is OrionATL's notion that, however badly the HJC is botching this, it's serving the purpose of keeping the jury-rigged DOJ "pinned down under fire" and allowing some of the investigations they aimed to impede to continue and expand. It's also comforting that what may have been their principal objective - vote suppression - failed to enable them to retain control of either house of congress and is now bringing their broad campaign to skew elections under much greater scrutiny.

With apologies to Menken, nobody ever went broke underestimating the ability of Democrats to play hardball. I have no faith in Conyers ability to go to the mat, although I don't question his intentions. Actually, I wouldn't have much more faith in the SJC.

For one thing, where aren't the Democrats doing a better spin job? Gonzales can't remember a key meeting from November? He hands over total hiring authority to an inexperienced partisan hack like Goodling? WTF?!? That alone should be grounds for impeaching AG.

Is it not appropriate at the beginning of Monica`s testimony to confirm with her some of her beliefs regarding all that we already know or assume, ( with extreme prejudice ), about her. In particular her religiously biased higher education, and how it effects her own decision making in regards to justice and the administration of same. Questions such as,"do you believe church and state should be kept seperate?" Then continue this line of questioning, allowing her to dig herself into a big hole. If you know your opponent well enough, you can pretty much follow the" cardinal rule - don`t ask a question you don`t already know the answer to". How do think she would answer this question? Do you believe a Republican is more likely to administer justice better than a Democrat? Now you already know what she believes. Blindside her and see what she says under oath, and keep it up.

Steve: Why aren't you on the HJC?

Watching these hearing is so painful - so many missed opportunities.

"Do you believe a Republican is more likely to administer justice better than a Democrat?"

Per obsessed, bullseye Steve.

There is no way that Conyers should allow her immunity with a strong proffer.

personally, I think that the committee should first require Monica to give non-immunized testimony.... and threaten her with contempt of congress should she use the 5th Amendment in an inappropriate fashion.

Then load the questions full of references to Gonzales, Miers, and Rove, and let her take the fifth amendment.

if the White House wants to stonewall, might as well make them look guilty....

for anyone who is interested, I'm compiling a list of questions for Monica Goodling. I'm planning on sending them in advance of the hearing tentatively scheduled for some time next week. I'm hoping that we can help the HJC members conduct a better hearing than the last couple (no insult intended). please leave them at the end of this thread or on any related thread on Firedoglake.com. thanks.

Great job TiredFed, thanks.

Questions (I think obvious, but so what):
What was your screening process for attorneys? Was there a written protocol?
With whom was this process developed? [All names and positions] Was the process internally developed or in consultation with White House personnel?
What was your goal in adapting this process?
Is there a reason that so many candidates from top-tier law schools were rejected by your screening process?

That's all I've got for now...

Mutant - thanks. Are these all in the context of the secret delegation for Monica and Kyle?

Please dont think questions are obvious. Getting them all down in writing will help.

Scott J. Bloch is Special Council at the US Office that investigates Hatch Act violations. He appeared on C-SPAN recently and made it quite clear that his mission was to enforce the law without regard to political affiliation. I imagine that he and his subordinates will review Monica Goodling's testimony carefully and if the rules against political activity have been as dismissed as it appears, we could see some "gangsters convicted of tax evasion".

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad