Why I Worry about Goodling's Immunized Testimony

by emptywheel

I've long been a skeptic of the value of Monica Goodling's testimony. And today's big story on Monica doesn't make me feel any better about it. Here's a short version of Monica's entire career--basically a direct path to where she eventually oversaw all kinds of hiring and firing at DOJ.

1999: Monica gets her JD from Regents U

1999-2001: Monica works in oppo research for the Bush-Cheney campaign with Barbara Comstock, Mark Corallo, and Tim Griffin; she is involved in preparing Ted Olson and John Ashcroft for their nomination hearings

2002 to 2004: Monica serves as Barbara Comstock's Deputy; in 2002 Ashcroft changes the rules on civil service hires, resulting in a dramatically different profile among the career ranks; Monica serves as point person on judicial nominations

September 2004 to March 2005: Monica works in ED VA, playing prosecutor

March 2005 to Fall 2005: Monica works in EOUSA, reviewing AUSAs appointed by interim USAs

Fall 2005 to April 2007: Monica works as counselor to AGAG. In this position she retains her authority over reviewing AUSA hires. In March 2006, Gonzales cedes hiring decisions over political appointees to her.

With the exception of the six months when she was playing prosecutor in ED VA, she was slowly accruing more and more authority over hiring at DOJ, first by helping to prep judicial nominees Ashcroft and Olson, then by taking the internal lead on judicial nominations, then by overseeing the newly politicized hiring of career appointees, and finally, in March 2006, by having the authority to hire and fire political appointees. When she left in April, she appears to have had some influence over all level of hires at DOJ, from lifetime judgeships to summer interns.

And as today's article explains, in that role she has done a number of things that clearly violate federal employment practices. She has denied promotions to people who appear to be Democrats, has asked partisan questions in interviews for career positions, and she asked one nice Republican if he had ever cheated on his wife.

We're about to excuse Monica all of these actions--actions which span six years of efforts to politicize DOJ--and in so doing, ensure that the IG investigation into these activities may expose further illegalities, but no actionable way to hold Goodling accountable for them. And what are going to get in exchange? What higher up is she going to deliver us, with her immunized testimony?

Given how long Monica's been playing this role--preceding Gonzales' tenure at DOJ--she's not going to point to Gonzales. In fact, in his testimony the other day, he very carefully stated that she only had authority over the AUSAs hired by interim USAs. In other words, even knowing they had sewn up an immunity deal with Monica, the HJC did not lead Gonzales to expose himself at all through her testimony.

But I'm not sure Monica will get us where we need to go in this, either--the White House. After all, she has been given a good deal of authority. The delegation to her of hiring authority on political hires, for example, makes no requirement that she consult anyone. She didn't have to consult with Harriet Miers and Karl Rove--that was just consultative, not managerial. So she will honestly be able to testify that she was in charge of this whole process. She was not ordered to do what she did--it's not clear anyone ordered her to politicize DOJ. Which means she will have the ability to be perfectly honest--but also perfectly effective as a firewall.

And the fact that it's HJC that has granted her immunity, and not the SJC, gives me no more confidence. While there have been moments of excellence, by and large the HJC hearings have been wastes of important oversight opportunities. 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.

Now, I hope this report...

Committee staffers and Goodling's attorney, John Dowd, have held only informal talks about her testimony, according to aides on Capitol Hill. Those talks are expected to intensify next week, with the committee's goal to have Goodling testify before the House breaks for a week-long Memorial Day recess on May 25.

Dowd declined to comment yesterday, but he has said that Goodling would cooperate if ordered to testify under the immunity grant.

...means we are clarifying what we'll get before we actually put Goodling on the witness stand. But if Dowd tells us that she's going to take complete responsibility for all of the politicization of the DOJ, if Dowd tells us she has had no direction other than her own instinct about the role she's supposed to play, what position does that put us in? Can we even charge her for the employment violations she has committed, now that Hogan has signed off on her immunity?

I hope I'm going to be pleasantly surprised. But right now, I'm very skeptical that Monica's immunity deal is going to do us much good.

Comments

[Markinsanfran]

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?

[richard locicero]

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.

[richard locicero]

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.

[emptywheel]

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.

[DonS]

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".

[John Casper]

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.

[floyd]

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.

[Canuck Stuck in Muck]

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

[emptywheel]

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.

[pd]

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

[nolo]

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

[ab initio]

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!

[nolo]

". . .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

[nolo]

". . .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. . .

[hauksdottir]

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.

[John Casper]

Thanks lolo, nice comment.

[Dismayed]

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.

[John Casper]

oops, meant nolo.

[Elliot Ness]

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.

[John Casper]

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.

[Elliott]

totally OT
but you was great today on the BOOK teeVee

[John Casper]

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

[orionATL]

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.

[mk]

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.

[Steve Elliott]

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.