Breaking: Gonzales Aide Goodling Granted Immunity
Breaking: Gonzales Aide Goodling Granted Immunity
The House Judiciary Committee voted moments ago to grant immunity to Monica Goodling — former counsel to Alberto Gonzales and the Justice Department’s liaison to the White House — and issue a subpoena compelling her to testify. Yesterday, fired U.S. Attorney David Iglesias said he believes that Goodling holds the “keys to the kingdom” in terms of uncovering the roots of the U.S. Attorney purge:
I think Monica Goodling is holding the keys to the kingdom. I think if they get her to testify under oath with a transcript, and have her describe the process between the information flow between the White House counsel, White House and the Justice Department, I believe the picture becomes a lot clearer.
UPDATE: The AP notes, “The 32-6 vote by the House Judiciary Committee surpassed the 2/3 majority required to grant a witness immunity from prosecution. A separate vote to authorize a subpoena for Goodling passed by voice vote.”
UPDATE II: TPM Muckraker reports that the dissenters “were Reps. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Chris Cannon (R-UT), Randy Forbes (R-VA), Steve King (R-IA), Trent Franks (R-AZ), and Louie Gohmert (R-TX). Rep. Cannon claimed that the investigation was harming the Justice Department’s ability to conduct business, and Rep. Forbes called the committee’s investigation the ‘hearings to nowhere,’ saying that the investigation was interfering with the committee’s legislative work.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
84 Responses to “Breaking: Gonzales Aide Goodling Granted Immunity”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Sweet. A good decision, imho.
~Sean
April 25th, 2007 at 11:21 amWhat are the terms of that immunity, TP?
April 25th, 2007 at 11:22 amTHUD.
Gonzo just passed out...
April 25th, 2007 at 11:23 ambad idea imho. unless they got a very good proffer
April 25th, 2007 at 11:24 amWhat if she sees herself as a Christ figure and is willing to be nailed to the cross for the sins of the "chosen" people?
April 25th, 2007 at 11:25 amGranting immunity probably means they've brokered a deal. I wonder how this is going to play out.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:25 amThis is not a strategically smart move for us. Anyone who's read the background on this girl knows that she is the prototypical Bushie, and that she will not give anything up that leads to ousting Gonzo. This just allows her to smirk through the proceeding, and get a nice job with Exxon in return. Bush-league political play, if you ask me. This is why we can barely win a midterm when everyone hates Republicans.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:28 amsquel Bi-atch!!!
April 25th, 2007 at 11:28 amObviously, Monica Goodling wasn't qualified to hold the position she had. In my day, it was called being a "hired fall guy" except that these youngsters haven't been around the block long enough to realize that they're being patronized and seduced into believing the lie about themselves that they are qualified. They're mere "patsies" for this administration and it is rife with them, as we're all discovering (another Rove trick?).
Whatever Monica believes, now that she has immunity she had better tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth or this youngster will find herself in an orange jumpsuit quicker than you can say "impeach Bush"! At this point, the public has absolutely NO TIME for any more shenanigans, chicanery, or overt corruption thrown in their faces. The critical mass of consciousness KNOWS that this administration if full of corruption and desires them to be "gone" - lest the continue to be a total embarrassment to the real patriots of this country. Cheney's rating is something lke 9% - Bush's is dropping like the Titanic.
Clearly, it's time to get these liars and crooks out of office and into prison where they belong.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:29 amShe seems like the type of bimbo who will remain loyal to Gonzales. Be prepared for "I don't recall" 100 times.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:29 amThis is going to get interesting.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:29 amWhat Zooey said. I can't see little Miss Ecclesiastical Law rat out the big boys.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:29 amLet's hope with the deal there is a escape clause incase she decides at the last minute to become mum at answering anything.....Blessings
April 25th, 2007 at 11:29 amhere we go ... Pelosi in '07
April 25th, 2007 at 11:31 amIsn't Goodling one of the Regent's grads that Pat Robertson brags have infiltrated the White House? I know that crowd has in common a lowbrow weaselly quality, but will it outweigh her sense of Christian tribal loyalty?
April 25th, 2007 at 11:32 amI'm all for this... grant immunity to the lower ranks (only) to get at the real criminals... good move!
April 25th, 2007 at 11:32 amGONE-zales!
April 25th, 2007 at 11:34 amI called it! Her lawyer did a FANTASTIC job!
April 25th, 2007 at 11:34 amSAD!!!
A woman who chose to serve us, now has to get immunity to testify about what she knows in regards to that work.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:34 amYes, but has her Lord-God given his blessing? (Lord-God = Bush)
April 25th, 2007 at 11:36 amImmunity is typically granted conditionally.
If she doesn't cooperate, immunity is revoked.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:37 amFor the latest news, document dumps, email archives, hearing transcripts and other essential materials in the firings of U.S. attorneys, see:
April 25th, 2007 at 11:37 am"The U.S. Attorney Scandal Documents."
#3,
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. For some reason, that comment provided me with the best chuckle of the week so far.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:38 amWhen she was pleading the 5th before she testified she was admitting that she knew and participated in things that were illegal.
Well she can't plead the 5th now so she better cough up what she knows, how she knows it, names, dates, issues. Otherwise, surely she'd lose her immunity or be in contempt.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:39 amI'm glad the Repubs now have their own Monica to deal with.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:40 amI called it! Her lawyer did a FANTASTIC job!
Comment by Exley — April 25, 2007 @ 11:34 am
Yeah Exley, you're a damn genius.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:40 amLet’s hope with the deal there is a escape clause incase she decides at the last minute to become mum at answering anything…..Blessings
Comment by Sharon — April 25, 2007 @ 11:29 am
There is always an escape clause. Any basic deal would require her to cooperate or lose the deal. Committing perjury becomes very risky, because she is a goner if they can make the case separately. She would be on the hook for the original crimes, and perjury, and obstruction of justice.
For now I am cautiously hoping that the committee has struck a deal with appropriate safeguards. I hope they don't let down my trust.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:42 amHaving authorized immunity, someone on behalf of the Committee must now get it in writing with Goodling's lawyers. If it's not a complete immunity covering all possible uses of her testimony - and possible legal jeopardy to her - there'll be horse trading about those issues.
The horse isn't out of the gate yet, but close. Let's see who runs for cover.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:44 am#24 Good point, Shane. She has to give them something that implicates her in a possible crime, and I would hope that what she gives them implicates other wrongdoers (else why grant her immunity?).
April 25th, 2007 at 11:44 amThank you, Shane...But that is a little strong. Let's just say remarkably talented and extraordinarily gifted.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:48 amlet's see what kind of "Christian" she really is.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:49 amDon't hurt your arm trying to pat yourself on the back Exley. Now look into your crystal ball and tells us all what will happen next.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:50 amSo, this Monica will have to give oral testimony. Will Monica wear a blue dress to the hearings? Gonzales might buy a box of cigars for the event, although I don't think he'll get off.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:50 amGoodling and her attorney feel like the committee was setting a "perjury trap" for her. Couldn't that be avoided by telling the truth? Just sayin'
April 25th, 2007 at 11:52 amThank you. Thank you. Thank you. For some reason, that comment provided me with the best chuckle of the week so far.
Comment by Fed the Fcuk Up! — April 25, 2007 @ 11:38 am
Nobody does it like Zooey.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:52 amAh, she is gonna sing like a little bird....Cheney, Rove, Bush, you hear that little chirp, chirp, chirp....that's your jail cell calling.
But of course she is a repuke and we all know that repukes cannot tell the truth about anything.
Hating the Repuke Mafia daily
April 25th, 2007 at 11:52 amSo, this Monica will have to give oral testimony. Will Monica wear a blue dress to the hearings? Gonzales might buy a box of cigars for the event, although I don’t think he’ll get off.
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC)
You're so naughty.....
I do hope she wears a blue dress. :D
April 25th, 2007 at 11:53 am#7 imorgan82
This is not a strategically smart move for us. Anyone who’s read the background on this girl knows that she is the prototypical Bushie, and that she will not give anything up that leads to ousting Gonzo.
If she lies, the immunity deal is off. If she refuses to cooperate, no immunity. She's the go-between from Rove/Miers to the DoJ, but she was formally employed by the DoJ. She doesn't get protected by Executive Privilege. And, if she had to choose between protecting either Rove or Gonzales, I'd put my money on Rove.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:53 amFed the Fcuk Up!,
I'm here to serve. :D
April 25th, 2007 at 11:54 amNobody does it like Zooey.
Comment by Shane
Unless it's Shane.... :)
April 25th, 2007 at 11:54 amDoes Pat Robertson's University, PRU, offer degrees in lying?
Does Pat Robertson's University, PRU, offer degrees in immunity?
Does Pat Robertson's University, PRU, offer degrees in CYA?
April 25th, 2007 at 11:58 am#7 imorgan82
The thing about the bush cultist is that except for the boy king and big time of course everyone is expendable to them. she will throw torquemada gonzalez under 1000 buses if it protects her demi-god.
April 25th, 2007 at 12:01 pmI think our very own trolls graduated from Regent like Goodling. Only difference is she got a "decent" job with Gonzales and our trolls are paying their debt/tuition by trying to disrupt TP.
I'm sure the koolaid drinking trolls have caused some people to leave this site. But I'm sure they've encouraged others, like me, to come back more often and rail against the lies and distortions they and the administration and the right-wing-biased media try to shove down our throats.
Let’s just say remarkably talented and extraordinarily gifted.
Comment by Exley — April 25, 2007 @ 11:48 am
And even though they have this loser job this is what they believe about themselves. Funny and sad.
April 25th, 2007 at 12:05 pmI do hope she wears a blue dress. :D
Comment by Zooey — April 25, 2007 @ 11:53 am
Hope they swab it for DNA just for old time's sake.
April 25th, 2007 at 12:07 pmPat Robertson will call her and tell her that god will kill her and her family and send them all to hell if she testifies truthfully.
April 25th, 2007 at 12:07 pm" I think if they get her to testify under oath with a transcript,... I believe the picture becomes a lot clearer."
Well, not really. She won't remember anything.
Office Pool: How many times will she say, "I don't recall" or some variant?
April 25th, 2007 at 12:09 pmNo, Shane, the invocation of the Fifth Amendment is not tantamount to an admission of guilt, nor does the granting of immunitu compel the witness to somehow admit or confess that he or she invoked the Fifth because of some wrongdoing.
The US Supreme Court has said, “[W]e have never held, as the Supreme Court of Ohio did, that the privilege is unavailable to those who claim innocence. To the contrary, we have emphasized that one of the Fifth Amendment’s “basic functions … is to protect innocent men … ‘who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.’†In Grunewald, we recognized that truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as those of a wrongdoer, may provide the government with incriminating evidence from the speaker’s own mouth. 353 U. S., at 421-422.
Ohio v. Reiner
April 25th, 2007 at 12:09 pm"I don't recall" 50 times. "I don't know" 50 times. "I'm really not that bright" 50 times.
April 25th, 2007 at 12:10 pmJesus is coming after you, Monica. And boy, is He pissed.
You knew you shouldn't oughta done it, but you did. Now your punishment will be to swear to the God you fear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth regardless of the consequences to your "special friends."
Don't forget, Monica -- God is watching -- and unless you want to meet eternal damnation you'd better come clean with the Lord and the American people.
You've been worshipping false idols: Bush's only conversations with Jesus are after he has a couple of shooters with a beer chaser and a big fat line of blow.
God is speaking to you Monica -- can you hear him? He's guiding my hand as I write this post directly from God's lips to your eyes. Don't deny Him now.
C'mon, Monica, you know I'm telling you the gospel truth. Prolcaim boldly: "Get thee behind me, Satan!" and do your duty for your country.
April 25th, 2007 at 12:10 pmShe needs to be careful that she is not "lost" before the hearing. Someone may forget where they put her. Seriously, Ms. Goodling needs to watch her back with these criminals.
April 25th, 2007 at 12:10 pmHope they swab it for DNA just for old time’s sake.
Comment by Shane
Fun times.... :D
April 25th, 2007 at 12:11 pmThe lopsided vote, 32-6, makes me wonder whether Goodling is much of a threat or not. I would think that the Republicans on the committee would stonewall if they thought Goodling could bring down the White House. Perhaps the Republicans are anticipating a situation that will force the ouster of Gonzales, and catch a few fish in the Justice department, without seriously touching the White House.
April 25th, 2007 at 12:13 pmPat Robertson will call her and tell her that god will kill her and her family and send them all to hell if she testifies truthfully.
Comment by Republicans are the Fear and Smear Party — April 25, 2007 @ 12:07 pm
Well that's where all her friends will be so it will be cozy.
April 25th, 2007 at 12:18 pmNo, Shane, the invocation of the Fifth Amendment is not tantamount to an admission of guilt, nor does the granting of immunitu compel the witness to somehow admit or confess that he or she invoked the Fifth because of some wrongdoing.
Comment by Exley — April 25, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
You miss the point, Exley, which is more strategic than legal: why would the committee bother to grant immunity unless there was an agreement for valuable testimony? Here valuable most likely means testimony that would implicate others in a crime, and this would presumably be a crime that Goodling either witnessed or participated in.
April 25th, 2007 at 12:21 pmNo, Shane, the invocation of the Fifth Amendment is not tantamount to an admission of guilt
Comment by Exley — April 25, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
Well, Exley, let's just wait and see. Usually the Fifth is invoked instead of an answer to a specific question not just as a refusal to testify. So maybe one case precedent doesn't cover all the possibilities. But I'm no attorney, are you?
April 25th, 2007 at 12:22 pmThe lopsided vote, 32-6, makes me wonder whether Goodling is much of a threat or not.
Comment by VerbalKint — April 25, 2007 @ 12:13 pm
Or more optimistically, they all see the ship sinking and realize they better try to save their own careers by jumping ship. But I'm probably giving them too much credit.
April 25th, 2007 at 12:26 pmNail that whore. Make her squeel like a weenie dog.
April 25th, 2007 at 12:28 pmGawd I am going to love seeing Rove/Cheney smear one of their own!
April 25th, 2007 at 12:33 pmRepublicans will be up for re-election in '08...they will be jumping ship on a regular basis from here on out. Bring out the facts and watch the u turns. Dubya will not have 28% by the election of '08. Now, of course, we will still have the knuckle dragging moronic trolls making excuses for him.
April 25th, 2007 at 12:51 pmI can't imagine why Gonzales is hurting himself and delaying the inevitable.
http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2007/04/alberto-gonzales-appears-on.html#links
April 25th, 2007 at 1:10 pmI'm thinking they must have potentially serious charges against her or there wouldn't be an immunity deal .
April 25th, 2007 at 1:14 pmIf that's the condition, I think she will spill the beans.
I'm not sure anyone is going to sacrifice their life for this scumbag admin. that eats their own.
Goodling should fry over her own racketeering at the DOJ.
I hope they know exactly what she intends to tell them before they let her off the hook.
This is a devoutly religious person (misguided of course) so she should not be trusted. After all, she "believes" in things.
April 25th, 2007 at 1:58 pmHer attorneys would not have offered the legal advise to her to take the 5th with no legitimate basis for doing so knowing that it would infuriate Democratic Congressional leadership and make her look guilty. She would indeed have to incriminate herself by describing how she was personally involved in the long-standing and wide-spread actions of her superiors, colleagues and staff in the illegal removal of United States Attorney's for purely political purposes. Not only would she incriminate herself by truthfully testifying, but she'd also have to incriminate George W. Bush, Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, Alberto Gonzales, William Moschella, Kyle Sampson, their staffs, and the Republican Senators and Representatives involved as well. The smoke screen of implying Democrats assumed her guilt was her attorneys manuering toward the granting of immunity for what they knew would be incriminating testimony. They knew their client was guilty. They knew what her testimony would reveal. Being guilty, Goodling has no choice but to do whatever she can to minimize the damage to herself. After testifying, she can't expect any help from Gonzales, Miers, Rove or Bush because they are as guilty as she is, and they have much more to lose and will be more severely damaged. She can get through this without being prosectued, while the others face prosecution and or impeachment. I believe she is going to take a lot of people down with her testimony and the only thing she can do is save her own ass.
April 25th, 2007 at 2:33 pm> The US Supreme Court has said, “[W]e have
> never held, as the Supreme Court of Ohio did,
> that the privilege [5th amendment] is unavailable to
> those who claim innocence.
Please read the part where it says that the 5th amendment isnt available to people accused of terrorism. Or any of the other amendments either.
Spare me your shallow and selective reading of constitutional law Exlaxley.
Your not a lawyer and you cherry pick molehills that support your position while ignoring mountains that don't. Lets be honest, while legally the 5th isnt an admission of guilt, how many innocent people actually claim it? The court of public opinion isnt a court of law, and in the court of public opinion, people who plead the 5th look guilty.
Price of a bag of popcorn for the Monica Goodling hearing: 3$.
Chips and dip: 5$.
A sixpack of soda:2$.
Listening to all you "law and order" nazi's trying to use the "innocent until proven guilty" line: priceless.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:14 pmI hope the immunity doesn't also cover her continued ability to practice law. It would be sort of like saying to a doctor, you disfigured 379 human beings but we don't see any need to let that interfer with your practice of medicine.
Does anyone know what her standing before the bar would be?
April 25th, 2007 at 3:44 pm"you cherry pick molehills that support your position while ignoring mountains that don’t."
And you mix your metaphors with wild abandon...
And you might want to read the Supreme Court's language again:
'To the contrary, we have emphasized that one of the Fifth Amendment’s “basic functions … is to protect innocent men … ‘who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.’†In Grunewald, we recognized that truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as those of a wrongdoer, may provide the government with incriminating evidence from the speaker’s own mouth. 353 U. S., at 421-422.'
While it is likely you have never read a judicial opinion before, this passage should be accessible enough for you to understand.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:52 pm#65 Her standing in the bar in unaffected since she has commited no crime nor found guilty of any such crime. To somehow punish her for invoking her constitutional right is contrary to the very purpose of the Fifth Amendment.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:53 pmShe had better tell the truth. She has no idea what email or future email they will have on hand to nail her precious tender ass. I'm sure someone has already painted her a picture of the felicities of prison life. My bet is that she is shaking in her boots. She has to "give it up" now or later in prison. Looks like she has decided to give it up to the judiciary boys. In the end, she will be the less sore for it.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:59 pmCutting a deal for immunity means that she and OTHERS have been engaged in ILLEGAL activity.
Who? Rove, AbuGonz, Cheney and Bush.
George McGovern said in an interview THE OTHER DAY that Bush and Cheney would be forced to RESIGN.
I believe he's RIGHT.
Better tell the TRUTH, Monica.
Your IMMUNITY DEAL will DEMAND it, or NO IMMUNITY.
"Close but no cigar" WON'T cut it...
Your ETERNAL SOUL depends upon it also...
See you in hell my deluded followers (cause I'LL be THERE),
April 25th, 2007 at 4:01 pmMr. Bush
MURDEROUS WAR CRIMINAL
COWARDLY TRAITOR TO THE USA (TM--BushCrimeCo)
#65
In Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511 (1967), the U.S. Supreme Court held that an attorney may not be disbarred for claiming his privilege against self-incrimination.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:08 pm> While it is likely you have never read a judicial opinion before.
I'm about to graduate magna cum laude from law school in December you asshat.
That shows what a terrible judge of things you are.
My metaphor is totally apropriate. You nitpick about every slighty slanted headline on TP while defending people who have manipulated multitudious lies and milked every fear of the american people for political gain. Saddam will nuke us. Saddam has WMD. Saddam has ties to Al Queda. Alqueda commited 9-11. I never said Saddam had anything to do with 9-11.
As I said before, THE SUPREME COURT DOES NOT DICTATE OR CONTROL PUBLIC OPINION OR SOCIETAL PERCEPTIONS.
The common public perception is that those who plead the 5th are guilty.
Frankly, as much as I support the 5th amendment, the perception exists for a good reason. More often than not its true. Cite all the precedent you want, the fact remains that just because a person is found by a court to be legally innocent or guilty based on rulings of law and fact does not mean the person is necessarily innocent or guilty in reality. The laws of this country definitety were created with the idea its better for some guilty people not to be punished than it is for innocent people to be punished. So they err on the side of protecting the guilty. I'm not saying they made a bad decision, merely what their thinking was.
Like I said: Watching you law and order nutjobs screaming "INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY" makes me laugh. This from the same people who claim we should be able to hold american citizens without charges based solely on the word of the guy who told us he knew where saddams WMD was
April 25th, 2007 at 4:41 pmSeriously, Ms. Goodling needs to watch her back with these criminals.
Comment by mikeandjeffsmom — April 25, 2007 @ 12:10 pm
If I were in her position, I think I'd request witness protection.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:44 pmAs I said before, THE SUPREME COURT DOES NOT DICTATE OR CONTROL PUBLIC OPINION OR SOCIETAL PERCEPTIONS.
The common public perception is that those who plead the 5th are guilty.
Comment by Chocolate Jesus — April 25, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
And it's because of this that she'll likely have trouble finding employment, whether or not any action is taken to disbar her.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:47 pmGoodling will sing like a canary, if she knows what's good for her.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:51 pmAnd, if Goodling tells the truth, but that's still not enough for you to impeach Bush?
April 25th, 2007 at 4:57 pmChocolate, do you know if the immunity will protect her from potential civil suits as well, if the fired attourneys decide to sue?
April 25th, 2007 at 4:58 pm#76 Lily,
18 U.S.C. Sec. 6002, the immunity statute, applies only to criminal cases. It does not cover civil suits.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:10 pmThanks Exley.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:16 pmNo problem, Lily.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:22 pmI hope she doesn't have to fly in any small planes before she testifies.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:05 pmThe death bell for Gonzo.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:17 pmJohn Mitchell went to jail for protecting Nixon but somehow I don't think a cheap weasel like Gonzo will fall on a grenade for Team Bush.
My gut says he'll break the "unified" crime family's omerta once Monica stains his blue suit.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:25 pmSing Monica Sing. Remember you don't get to pick your cell mate. There maybe be LESBIANS in your room. Yikes Dykes! Pat Robertson would not approve.
April 26th, 2007 at 6:15 pmThe girl now has immunity and can, in all likelyhood, now say that everything that was done she did by herself with no prompting from Karl Rove and that Gonzo had no idea (mr. clueless himself)....and she will get away with it....ah immunity....
May 11th, 2007 at 4:31 pm