I was under the impression that it is standard practice that the â€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?

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.

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 â€the Lord made me do itâ€.

Immunity granted in Iran/Contra was in my estimation the last shovelful on the grave of the â€old democratsâ€.
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

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.

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 â€monicaâ€
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 â€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 â€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 â€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

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

– 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 â€very
interestedâ€, if she was flying solo;
an off-the-reservation, black-bag-ops mission?

it won’t pass the first filter — the
â€hmmm. . . smells like bullsh!t†filter. . .

just my. $0.02.

p e a c c

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 â€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.

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. â€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 â€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.

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.

totally OT
but you was great today on the BOOK teeVee

i’m disappointed with hjc, too.

i just don’t think conyers has the â€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 â€given and take†or â€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.

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.

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.

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 â€think†tank. Let’s just hope she spends a little time in court before then.

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 â€pig in a pokeâ€? And you think immunized witnesses tend to be self-serving?

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?

Did not Patrick Fitzgerald buy â€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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

â€. . .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?. . .â€

– 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 â€yes†answers
to a series of questions as simple as â€did mr. rove know you were
doing. . .X?â€, where â€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 — â€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. . .

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.â€

I think outcome 3 is most likely when Monica testifies.

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!

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, â€get rid of Yang.†She said, â€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.

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.

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

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

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 â€Will no one rid me of this noxious priestâ€, I didn’t mean that someone should *kill* him!)[see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T…..ssination]
But whereas Miers may be content with indirection, I don’t think Rove is satisfied with such subtlety.

Bob in HI

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/~immer…..Doubt.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.

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 â€Travel Gate,†on â€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.

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 â€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 â€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?

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?

okay, whose been â€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)

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?

Jodi backwards is i doj.

gini

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

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 â€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.

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,â€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 toâ€. 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.

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

Per obsessed, bullseye Steve.

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.

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…

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 â€gangsters convicted of tax evasionâ€.