Judiciary committee to vote on Goodling immunity.
By on Apr 17th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Judiciary committee to vote on Goodling immunity.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) has scheduled a vote tomorrow to consider granting immunity to former Alberto Gonzales counsel Monica Goodling, in order to secure her testimony about the U.S. Attorney scandal. “Two-thirds of the Committee must approve immunity.” Conyers’ statement:
“As the White House Liaison in the Department while the US Attorney firings were planned and carried out, Ms. Goodling clearly has much to contribute to the Committee’s understanding of the surrounding circumstances,” Conyers said. “I am hopeful we can approve immunity so that we can schedule her to testify as soon as possible and begin to clear up the many inconsistencies and gaps surrounding this matter.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Beck
Birther
Brown
Budget
Bush
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
DADT
Deficit
Economy
Education
Election
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Global Warming
Haiti
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iran
Justice
LGBT
Limbaugh
Lobbying
McCain
Media
Military
National Security
O'Keefe
Obama
Palin
Race
Radical Right
Robertson
Sports
Steele
Steve King
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Terrorism
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Do your patriotic duty, Ms. Goodling.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:47 amRove’s first day in the penitentiary shower room ought to be an eye-opener!
April 17th, 2007 at 10:47 amGONE-Zales!
April 17th, 2007 at 10:48 amLegal question: If they grant immunity, does that mean she can be forced to testify? What if they do and she does and she just “can’t remember” anything?
April 17th, 2007 at 10:48 am“Two-thirds of the Committee must approve immunity.†Well that does it. I predict that the vote will be down party lines. The Democrats for it and the Republics against it.
I bet Monica really regrets being so quick to plead the fifth. After watching all her cronies testify, I bet she’s thinking “Shit, I didn’t need to plead the fifth, all I need to do is to not remember”.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:49 amA brown eye opener?
April 17th, 2007 at 10:49 amThis horse is gasping still I see.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:50 amPatrick in a stall with Black Fury
April 17th, 2007 at 10:52 amThis horse is gasping still I see.
Still whistling past the graveyard, I see.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:52 amWonderful. Ever since Goodling stated that she could not testify for reasons of self-incrimination I have been saying she should be granted immunity for her testimony. She was a major player in these events and can help shed some light on what has happened. I understand her fear of not wanting to testify for fear of punishment, and an immunity deal is the perfect compromise. The US government will get her full, much-needed, testimony, and she doesn’t have to worry about going to prison. While it is not the perfect situation, I think that is fair.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:53 am#7 – while the other end is still posting I see…..
April 17th, 2007 at 10:55 amBut when surrender is the only policy option you offer this is what we get.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:58 amI think they can grant immunity conditional on her testifying and cooperating with the committee. They don’t just write a blank check.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:00 am#4…. Normally with a grant of Immunity there are conditions. If the person granted immunity fails to testify in a truthful and open manner, the immunity can be withdraw.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:03 amFor the latest news, document dumps, email archives, hearing transcripts and other essential materials in the firings of U.S. attorneys, see:
April 17th, 2007 at 11:04 am“The U.S. Attorney Scandal Documents.”
#4 If granted immunity, Goodling can be forced to testify. If she lies she can be charged with perjury and obstruction of justice. If she outright refuses, she risks a contempt charge. This is no joke: Susan McDougal served 18 months for refusing to testify to a grand jury about Whitewater-related matters.
Goodling is a little fish. The Bush inner circle will cut her loose in a heartbeat. No pardon for her. Gonzo hatchet girl or not, I don’t think this shy uber-Christian has what it takes to serve time in prison.
I say give her immunity. She already faces the punishment of losing all credibility as a lawyer, which will severely compromise her future employment prospects.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:04 am#12 Wrong thread, idiot. Try to wake up before posting.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:05 amLike, oh my god, I’m in so much, like…trouble!
April 17th, 2007 at 11:06 amMs. Goodling, as a Christian fundamentalist, was only trying to do “God’s workâ€. That she perverted democracy, covered up for criminality, and damaged the justice system should be ignored. As long as she loves Jesus, who can really criticize her for trying to do His will? Any idiot who took the time to review the work of the fired attorneys would agree that, if Jesus were alive today, those attorneys wouldn’t just be fired, they would be in the fire. Damaging the political plans of God’s chosen President should have some consequences, right?
April 17th, 2007 at 11:07 amThe REligious Reich thinks they don’t have to follow the law if they’re doing Gods work. This results in torture and treason.
Who would Jesus torture?
April 17th, 2007 at 11:09 am#18.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:10 amhahahaha… excellent!
Here’s a more technical description of Immunity:
April 17th, 2007 at 11:13 am
anybody got a list of the R-side of the comittee? anyone with any integrity?
April 17th, 2007 at 11:14 amhttp://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMembership.aspx
I count 20 dems, 16 repubs… they need a 2/3 majority to approve immunity… anyone care to wager about the chances of 4 repubs having the integrity to get to the bottom of this?
April 17th, 2007 at 11:22 am#23
April 17th, 2007 at 11:24 amI Wiki-ed “House Judiciary Committee,” it doesn’t look promising. 17 Repubs and 22 Dems, of the 5 or so Repubs I recognized all are psychos (Issa, Lamar Smith, Sensenbrenner, etc). Hope I’m wrong.
#16: Goodling might be a “little fish” but she’s a little fish that needs to spend some time in jail. I hate the thought of giving her immunity but I guess that’s the price that has to be paid.
#22 http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMembership.aspx
I see we have an open slot, maybe Nancy should fill it before the vote.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:27 am#25…. I agree. . . . this looks like a party line vote to me. There needs to be a significant amount of pressure to find out the truth by granting immunity. Failure to support a grant of immunity should place that member at considerable risk.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:31 amSo what if she doesn’t get immunity, it will not go well for her in any event, and Republican stonewalling will only sink them the faster…
April 17th, 2007 at 11:31 amPatrick1 loves government corruption and wants us all to support it so that we’ll become “real” Americans.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:38 amIf she gets her immunity will she tell the truth? So what she lies what can you do if you grant her immunity? do you think she won’t lie anyways to protect her “come to Jesus” republican friends?? Here we have a God fearing woman who won’t tell the truth. Does anyone other than me see a problem with this??
April 17th, 2007 at 11:47 am#30 — Marcus, read comments #16 and #22. Accepting immunity then lying would put Goodling at great legal peril.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:57 amGoodling sounds like a “god fearing” hypocrite to me. If she receives immunity and insists on lying, then what? Can she be accused of perjury whilst enjoying immunity? Monica can be labeled as “the true american patriot” if she believes in truth and tells it; otherwise, she will become an american pariah.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:58 amComment by Raven — April 17, 2007 @ 11:31 am
Good point, and the republicans will have a hard time explaining why they should not give her immunity, while simultaneously claiming that she did nothing wrong.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:59 amI would suspect that Goodling’s testimony will be in sync with Sampson’s in that, of course, Gonzales was embroiled in these controversies; after all, if he wasn’t aware of what was transpiring “under his watch”, then we’ve got perhaps an equally strong case for his immediate ouster as AG. He’s either guilty by “omission” (culpable negligence in specific performance of his job description) or overt “commission” in that he was involved as he should have been, lied to congress and the american people, and needs to be relieved of his duties, with appropriate penalties, of course.
April 17th, 2007 at 12:00 pmWouldn’t a “true american patriot†agree to testify without immunity?
April 17th, 2007 at 12:03 pmComment by veritas — April 17, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
I have said from the beginning that even if he hasn’t committed acts deserving prison, he has at least committed acts deserving job termination. An individual cannot hold such a demanding position while constantly claiming, “I don’t remember”, “I didn’t know”, “I’m the boss, but I wasn’t involved.”
April 17th, 2007 at 12:04 pmBasically, Goodling comes across as a smart-ass neophyte and sycophantic lockstep neonazi who’s very deeply embroiled in the political motivation behind these firings. To plead the fifth in this country implies immediate “guilt” – whether it’s by association within the execution of her duties (being ordered to do so) or Goodling at the helm of this scandal, Monica holds the key right not and can be an invaluable source of information.
The next time I hear someone whose salary the people are paying (and being ripped off in doing so since none of them have been doing their job) say: “I can’t remember!” I think we should take them off to the local prison and begin an interrogation process. After all, they serve “at the pleasure of the people” who pay their salary.
If Bush believes that these cons serve at the “pleasure of the president” then let’s begin having him pay their salaries out of his own pocket and offshore bank accounts.
April 17th, 2007 at 12:06 pmChris L – you got it! AND, the next time the people are told by someone whose salary they have been paying “I can’t recall”, “I can’t remember”, perhaps we should escort them down to a local interrogation room and perhaps they will suddenly remember.
Of course, it goes without saying that the use of the “I don’t recall” testimony means “automatic ejection from their duties”.
These jokers are being paid to do their job and to be cognizant of what they are doing so they can remember it when interrogated. If not, out they go with a royal boot up their ass.
April 17th, 2007 at 12:09 pm#35 Point well taken on the immunity question re: patriotism. Absolutely, a real patriot would do so as an obligation to the people of this country should be concomittant with the rank of her position; however, she’s already incriminated this DOJ and Bush by pleading the fifth – making it clear that she has enough testimony to bury everyone. The way I view it is that Congress and the people are giving Monica another opportunity to prove her worth as an american citizen & patriot, now that she’s made it crystal clear that she’d be incriminated (along with the rest of them) in providing truthful, accurate testimony.
April 17th, 2007 at 12:12 pmIt’s time the people begin calling for immediate firings of anyone whose duty it is to provide truthful testimony in a congressional hearing who utters the mantra: I can’t recall – I don’t remember. The next one who does so needs to be made an example of – after all, we pay them for their ability to functon and to feign memory loss simply doesn’t cut it.
April 17th, 2007 at 12:14 pmIf any of you are supervisors or CEO’s of an organization, when was the last time you were asked a question by your superior and you answered “I don’t remember”??? Needless to say, you’d immediately become an “EX” CEO or supervisor immediately and be given the boot. WHY do we continue to permit these con-artists to dupe us like this? WE, the People, pay their salary; WE, the People are their “boss”. It’s time we start giving them the axe.
April 17th, 2007 at 12:16 pmDamaging the political plans of God’s chosen President should have some consequences, right?
Comment by Jim Corbett — April 17, 2007 @ 11:07 am
God doesn’t DO politics.
Time for Bushies to bend over, kiss their asses goodbye, and wait for the rapture. And wait, and wait, and wait…..
April 17th, 2007 at 12:19 pmSo what is to stop Goodling from suddenly forgetting ?
April 17th, 2007 at 12:23 pm#43 see #22
” The grant of immunity takes effect only after testimony has been given”
April 17th, 2007 at 12:59 pmWhen Monica heard how long the prison sentence could be, she probably sh*t in her panties. Now she is looking for a !00% fool proof way not to do time.
Sure she looked tough when she held the power, but doing real prison time? I doubt it. She knows what’s happened to Scooter. Does she want to take a chance on a pardon? Why take the chance? Her actions covey, “Get me out of this. I’ll do anything.” I think her backbone has turned to quivering jelly and protecting anyone other than herself is wishful thinking by Bush&Co.
April 17th, 2007 at 3:52 pmThrow her in jail now. How can you plead the fifth about something that hasn’t even occured. Oh por me she says, I may be asked a question by those meanies, that might be mean. Give me a break. Throw her in jail now because she will lie…it’s in her nature.
April 17th, 2007 at 4:48 pmThey should NOT give her immunity. Her 5th Amendment claim is BS.
The 5th Amendment protects you from being forced to be a witness against yourself.
The 5th Amendment does NOT protect you from being charged with perjury if give false testimony under oath – which, according to Goodling, is what she is afraid will happen if she testifies.
Subpoena her, make her swear on the Bible to tell the truth, and then ask her what she knows.
April 17th, 2007 at 4:48 pmThe perp is cuttin a deal with the D.A.
April 17th, 2007 at 4:49 pmIs Conyers the only one doing his job in Congress? Or are the others in the wrong position or afraid to stick their necks out
April 17th, 2007 at 4:58 pmfor fear of retribution. The Democrats should go for the throat like
the Republicans did with the impeachment of Clinton (the greatest
contemporary president for the people in this country).
Give them some time in Guantanamo then they might remember .
April 18th, 2007 at 9:48 pm