…personally, professionally, economically…

…EVERYWHERE she turns slap her with a citation for BREATHING…

…use a compound electron microscope…

…on her and her family’s tax returns/investments…

…make sure she (nor her husband) can work as a garbage…’er sanitation engineers…

…that bi*ch can be made to sing…

…WITHOUT immunity…

…giving out TOO MUCH immunity….

…let’s too many criminals off the hook…

explain to me exactly what you think his motive was in Sandy taking COPIES of documents out of somewhere AFTER the presidencey he served was over?

and explain to me how this has anything to do with and organzied conspiracy to obsctruct justice and use illegal standards to hire prosecutors?

But, I’m all for giving her immunity if she’s got info to prove Rove, Bush or the White House Administration in general is guilty of something big.

So why does she need immunity??

I think she’s either guilty of a crime(s) or has witnessed others in the commission of crimes.

Perhaps she thinks it’s inevitable she’ll be indicted in the Abramoff mess? If so, she may be trying to share what she believes to be important information to avoid going to jail.

Think about this. Her friends say her testimony will do nothing to damage Rove. If this is true, the information she is willing to share probably has nothing to do with the White House. C’mon, if she testifies about ANY wrongdoing in the White House, it will definitely damage Rove.

If what her friends say is accurate, then her information probably concerns the Jack Abramoff mess. But that ship has sailed, Jack has apparently told the feds all their is to tell.

I think she probably has a lot of dirt on the White House and Rove. But if she’s not ready to share it, why in the hell should the Congress give her immunity???

She seems to be scared of prosecution, which means she’s probably scared of the Abramoff prosecutor. If she’s not willing to dish on the White House, let him prosecute her.

Recall,

“Betty Currie told the grand jury that when she came in the next day the president raised his deposition with her and said there were several things she may want to know. He then rattled off in succession, “You were always there when she was there, right?” “We were never really alone.” “You could see and hear everything.” “Monica came on to me, I never touched her, right?” “She wanted to have sex with me, and I can’t do that.”"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/mccollumtext121098.htm

Absolutely, give her a deal. I hope she buries the whole cabal.

Reading between the lines, Goodling’s attorney (Dowd) has been trying to get his client immunity from the very start. He used the fifth as the first move in this game. He as much as confirmed his play with his overwhelmingly positive response to Goodling’s immunity grant.

Immunity is quite rare, it’s a true gift for any attorney to get a guilty client completely off the hook. If Goodling doesn’t perjure herself, this should be a very big win for Dowd and Goodling.

Regarding Ralston, I realize she was an assistant to both Abramoff and Rove. Her problem is that her old boss Abramoff is already in jail and is actively cooperating with the feds.

Because of this, any evidence she has on Abramoff is probably old news. If Abramoff has really been telling all, she will have no new dirt to deal. She was just the assistant, Abramoff is the one who knew where all the bodies were buried,

Before she would be granted immunity, Congress would have to be VERY interested in what she has to say. And since her Abramoff information is probably already in the hands of the feds, she’ll have to deliver someone in a different food chain. If she can’t do that, I wouldn’t recommend granting her immunity.

I thought Goodling did not ask for immunity. I thought Dems gave it to her to make her stop with the 5th BS. Is this wrong?

Goodling seems to have had dozens of good reasons to request immunity, few of her reasons have any connection to the US Attorney scandal.

DOJ staffers have recently alleged that Goodling used political favoritism in the hiring of career Justice Department employees. This is clear violation of the law and carries strict criminal penalties.

Reports suggest she used this metric to hire a large number of employees. Goodling could be charged with a separate criminal count for ever single employee she improperly hired. If she were convicted of multiple counts, she could be facing many years of jail time.

I don’t know what laws Ralston has broken, but I cannot imagine her attorney would have recommended she request immunity if she were innocent or ignorant of any crimes. The proffer she apparantly gave would prove this out and would result in a denial of her immunity request.

Unless she can serve up some VERY big fish, I would hope the Congress would ignore her plea for immunity. If she’s criminally involved in the Abramoff scandal, it’s only a matter of time before the investigation turns her way or someone implicates her in a deal with the feds.