zed?

Wouldn’t be cool if she gets total immunity and then takes total responsibility letting everyone else off the hook.

I know that the stated goal of Christians is to live a Christ-like life. I’m finding it very hard to understand how MG justifies what she is doing – surely Christ would have shared all the information he had and then accepted with humility whatever consequences of his telling and his actions themselves. Someone needs to ask her this.

what is her liability if she doesn’t tell the whole truth? Is she then not immune? Or does it all depend on the immunity agreement? Can’t trust anything coming from these people anymore.

no idea how good of a source ,but this link explain how the e-mails worked .. http://trustme.com/story.php?t…..ion-system

Give it to her – immunity to underlings is what brought Nixon down.

Do they have enough votes for immunity?

The congressional committees should point out to Monica G. that Abu G. (are they related?) and other political appointees at the DOJ really aren’t doing God’s work. So if she wants to avoid hellfire, not to mention ill-fitting orange jumpsuits, she ought to cooperate VERY fully indeed.

Christy, I would have been so excited about this earlier today, but since you explained to me the perils of immunity (as shown in Iran contra) I can only agree with your hope that the committee avoids mistakes. By the way, over the weekend I read a really interesting profile of the chief lawyer on the Senate Judiciary Committee, a former USA in New York. He sounds like a smart guy. I hope that we have many smart lawyers/staffers involved.

[check on the sed!] now. . .

this is a rather startling
development, in my opinion.

and christy — i cannot imagine
why representative conyers would
schedule a vote, if he did not
think it would pass by the required
two-thirds. . . which must mean
some minority party members have
accepted the proffered version of
what she knows. . .

i could be wrong, but it would look
very “sketchy” for this administration,
if republican committee members now
vote to block the immunity deal — having
toed the party line that there is
nothing to hide.

the republicans should be only
too happy to hear her out. . .

now, usually these are written deals,
at least in my experience — but that
is not before congress — it is before
a court. . .

so my hunch she must have something
pretty alarming to talk about. . .

and we should know pretty soon. . .

as always — you run a cool joint here. . .

Is it too paranoid to wonder if Monica intends, once she has her immunity, to take as much blame for everything as she can manage?

Except for the trappings of immunity (Iran-Contra) this is perfect! Gonzo will walk-in Thursday probably not knowing what Monica (isn’t that sweet) is, isn’t going to throw Abu to the curb. Do ya think he’s gotten much sleep lately. A little mental torture for the Abu Gonzales…ya think?

Sandra in Dallas @ 3

I know that the stated goal of Christians is to live a Christ-like life. I’m finding it very hard to understand how MG justifies what she is doing – surely Christ would have shared all the information he had and then accepted with humility whatever consequences of his telling and his actions themselves. Someone needs to ask her this.

Perhaps her view of the Christ-like life parallels Bush’s view.

…or to take all the blame for *one* thing?

Re: conniptionfit @ 11
Would the immunity be for past acts only, or would and perjury on her part in her testimony be covered, as well?

nolo @ 10

[check on the sed!] now. . .

this is a rather startling
development, in my opinion.

and christy — i cannot imagine
why representative conyers would
schedule a vote, if he did not
think it would pass by the required
two-thirds. . . which must mean
some minority party members have
accepted the proffered version of
what she knows. . .

i could be wrong, but it would look
very “sketchy” for this administration,
if republican committee members now
vote to block the immunity deal — having
toed the party line that there is
nothing to hide.

the republicans should be only
too happy to hear her out. . .

now, usually these are written deals,
at least in my experience — but that
is not before congress — it is before
a court. . .

so my hunch she must have something
pretty alarming to talk about. . .

and we should know pretty soon. . .

as always — you run a cool joint here. . .

I don’t know how much she has to offer…other than herself and Abu on behalf of Bush/Rove. In the end, she’ll take one for the team. She could always get a job at the reknowned Pat Roberts Law School from whence she came.

One thing I’m fairly certain of…Rove will not be implicated by Goodling.

I’m sure the Sunday School Teacher is praying for immunity.

evabaruk @ 7

Do they have enough votes for immunity?

It takes 2/3 vote in committee.
21 D’s, 16 R’s.
It will take 1 R vote w/all D’s.

What’s interesting about this whole mess is “what is the potentially illegal activity that requires immunity”.

One would have to guess obstruction- is there another possibility?

Am I correct in thinking that if she is granted and accepts immunity, that she can be questioned on anything relating to the DOJ/WH situation?

conniptionfit @ 11

Is it too paranoid to wonder if Monica intends, once she has her immunity, to take as much blame for everything as she can manage?

Doesn’t the proffer take care of this? She’s gotta have something (and someone) big to offer up in exchange for the immunity.

AG is twisting in the wind on this one. The possibility of immunity for Goodling has to be really screwing with his head.

conniptionfit @ 10

Is it too paranoid to wonder if Monica intends,
once she has her immunity, to take as much
blame for everything as she can manage?

well, even IF she were so inclined,
that still leaves the problem of all
those documents — three in particular,
as i recall — that point directly to
alberto gonzales’ deep connection to
the cming-purge. . .

so, even if her akin gump lawyers wanted
to get to that special place for her (and
i don’t think they do — they just want to
know that the hatch act stuff is off the
table, imo), i don’t think it will sell.

gonzales’ fingerprints are turning up
in the most unexpected places. . .

nolo – ya beat me to it – I will be very curious as to who votes for this and who votes against it

and will We The People be informed of the tally ?

House Judiciary Committee membership

yellowdogD @ 18

evabaruk @ 7

Do they have enough votes for immunity?

It takes 2/3 vote in committee.
21 D’s, 16 R’s.
It will take 1 R vote w/all D’s.

They’ll have enough. The Republics want this as much as the Dems do. In contrast to the Scoots scenario…one (maybe two if you count Abu) will be sacrificed for another (Rove).

Sandra in Dallas @
3

I know that the stated goal of Christians is to live a Christ-like life. I’m finding it very hard to understand how MG justifies what she is doing – surely Christ would have shared all the information he had and then accepted with humility whatever consequences of his telling and his actions themselves. Someone needs to ask her this.

That would presuppose that she’s a Christian rather than a Christianist.

JF @
15

Re: conniptionfit @ 11
Would the immunity be for past acts only, or would and perjury on her part in her testimony be covered, as well?

IANAL but my undrstanding is past acts only. If she gets caught lying on testimony after the immunity, put a fork in her.

dakine01 @ 27

“If she gets caught…”

BIG IF

I meant 4 Rep. votes.
My brain must have gone to sleep there.

Helen @
21

conniptionfit @ 11

Is it too paranoid to wonder if Monica intends, once she has her immunity, to take as much blame for everything as she can manage?

Doesn’t the proffer take care of this? She’s gotta have something (and someone) big to offer up in exchange for the immunity.

If Conyers is gonna offer her immunity, shouldn’t he know what she’s gonna say already? Would they really go into this blind? I hope to hell not.

And chance Gonzo refuses to be sworn on Thursday?

JF @ 31

And chance Gonzo refuses to be sworn on Thursday?

That should be “Any”

Joe Klein’s conscience @ 30

Love your handle! I didn’t know you existed??

What I wouldn’t give to see this through the eyes of an attorney … the triangulation of evidence coming from congressional hearings along with what Fitz is searching for to reopen his investigation. I am sure there are questions sprinkled through the hearings that will converge into some blockbuster indictments and convictions in the (not too distant) future.

JF @ 31

And chance Gonzo refuses to be sworn on Thursday?

He may resign before the hearing starts.

Big Bob: Interesting link that you posted, is it true, who knows, is it possible that this administration would do something like that, yes. About granting immunity to Mz Goodling, I would really hope that they wait a little longer, and see what else pops up. I suspect that she will fall on the sword for these clown, but I might be wrong.

Sandra in Dallas @
3

I know that the stated goal of Christians is to live a Christ-like life. I’m finding it very hard to understand how MG justifies what she is doing – surely Christ would have shared all the information he had and then accepted with humility whatever consequences of his telling and his actions themselves. Someone needs to ask her this.

That’s an interesting angle…

Perhaps the House Judiciary Committee could use that venue to squeeze Monica Goodling like a zit on the face of humanity…

Sandra in Dallas @ 2

I know that the stated goal of
Christians is to live a Christ-like life.
I’m finding it very hard to understand how
MG justifies what she is doing – surely
Christ would have shared all the information
he had and then accepted with humility
whatever consequences of his telling and
his actions themselves. Someone needs to ask
her this.

who are we to say this?

i am sorry to offend, here, but
i am less-than-thrilled with the
idea that — regardless of what i
may or may not think of her personally,
or her professed-faith, or her morals — that
anyone would think a religious question
belongs in the judiciary committee hearing
record.

this is exactly the sort of thing we are
mostly-rightly-castigating monica goodling
and rachel paulose for — loyalty-type
oaths. . . so i will draw a line, and
say i disapprove of any suggestion that
any line of questioning about her religious
beliefs would be either relevant, or wise.

if her beliefs garnered her favored status
on the federal job-site, that is another
matter entirely — but please do not con-
fuse/conflate these two very different things.

sorry — strong reaction, there.

not personal — just positional.

kdh22 @
28

dakine01 @ 27

“If she gets caught…”

BIG IF

I don’t think so much. As some of the gangster movies have talked over the years, she probably has to offer a “taste” to Conyers et al just to get them talking. Some of the unofficial wink and a nod where Dowd goes to Conyers and asks “Well, now what can we get if she says something like ‘Rove called me and told me to make sure Iglesias is on the list.’ It won’t be exactly that but something along those lines.” Conyers takes it under advisement then says that “We’ll consider immunity for her actions of requiring loyalty oaths as long as her testimony is along the lines of what you just described.

IANAL, but the scenario works for me.

It is dumb ideas like this that allowed Oliver North to become the dumbass he is today!

madmatt @ 40

It is dumb ideas like this that allowed Oliver North to become the dumbass he is today!

I think he was a dumbass before ideas like this.

They should wait to make this decision until after Gonzales testifies.

madmatt @ 40

It is dumb ideas like this that allowed Oliver North to become the dumbass he is today!

That’s cause the courts thought it polluted the prosecution of Ollie, not the prosecution of someone like Rove based on Ollie’s testimony.

she proffered, your Honor,
so we honored her proffer
and all hearing long
did she doff her coy *coughers*.

Petrocelli @ 34

What I wouldn’t give to see this through the eyes of an attorney … the triangulation of evidence coming from congressional hearings along with what Fitz is searching for to reopen his investigation. I am sure there are questions sprinkled through the hearings that will converge into some blockbuster indictments and convictions in the (not too distant) future.

You’re right. This is a convergence that our country has never seen before. I’ll give BushCheneyRove Co. credit in that regard. They’ve infiltrated and manipulated every aspect of gov’t for the good of the party. Fuckers!

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales: Let me begin with the attacks on my credibility, which really have pained me and my family. You know, I have grown up — I grew up with nothing but my integrity. And someday, when I leave this office, I am confident that I will leave with my integrity.
alberto lies e’er so

Christy -

What conditions are imposed on Monica Goodling should she be granted immunity from prosecution?

I remember the tone of Dowds letters to the committee (go Cheney yourselves basically).

I will assume he has been conciliatory in private. after those letters he had better have something good to offer.

Now I’m puzzled — I can’t see how AGAG’s resigning from his office would prevent him from testifying before the committee.

It’s the person they want to testify, what difference would his job title (or lack of one) make?

dakine01 @ 39

kdh22 @
28

dakine01 @ 27

“If she gets caught…”

BIG IF

I don’t think so much. As some of the gangster movies have talked over the years, she probably has to offer a “taste” to Conyers et al just to get them talking. Some of the unofficial wink and a nod where Dowd goes to Conyers and asks “Well, now what can we get if she says something like ‘Rove called me and told me to make sure Iglesias is on the list.’ It won’t be exactly that but something along those lines.” Conyers takes it under advisement then says that “We’ll consider immunity for her actions of requiring loyalty oaths as long as her testimony is along the lines of what you just described.

IANAL, but the scenario works for me.

Yeah. I suppose Dowd could piece-meal it to the committee, just like low-level criminals do when they catch one, right?

punaise:

You’re truly insufferable…And incorrigible. There’s no hope for you…*g*

Man o’ man!

How powerful do I feel?!

I ask Christy a question downstairs & I get a whole thread in reply!

Seriously, thanks for addressing the question.

Stephen — There are any number of variations on the immunity theme. You never hand out blanket immunity if you can help it — what you do is limit the immunity to a specific “use” (as in “during testimony on X day at Y time”) or some other variation on limitations to immunity for specific purposes (i.e. regarding conduct during a specific setof meetings and/or conversations). What immunity does not protect you from is if you lie — you can be charged with perjury for doing so with or without an immunity deal. I don’t know what will be offered in this case, nor do I know what has been proffered. If I hear any specifics, I’ll certainly let everyone know. But I do hope that any offer will be very narrowly drawn, designed to bring out only that information that the Committee must have to move the investigation forward and no more. Wide-ranging immunity deals are what sunk the Iran-Contra prosecution — and they were designed to do so. I do not imagine that John Conyers or his staff will fall for that sort of ruse — but not knowing specifics, I cannot say for sure on this particular immunity rumor.

backatcha, Biodun :~)

I can’t see how this is a good idea. I would at least drag her ass in front of Congress and force her to take the Fifth before I’d even consider this.

kdh22 @
45

Petrocelli @ 34

What I wouldn’t give to see this through the eyes of an attorney … the triangulation of evidence coming from congressional hearings along with what Fitz is searching for to reopen his investigation. I am sure there are questions sprinkled through the hearings that will converge into some blockbuster indictments and convictions in the (not too distant) future.

You’re right. This is a convergence that our country has never seen before. I’ll give BushCheneyRove Co. credit in that regard. They’ve infiltrated and manipulated every aspect of gov’t for the good of the party. Fuckers!

Would you think me arrogant if I told you most of America’s traditional allies – Canada, France, Germany, etc., saw it before the onset of the Iraq debacle? The behavior of the Bush regime – brushing aside our informed opinions – left no doubt about their criminal intent to fill the pockets of their friends at the expense of America and its soldiers.

speaking of immunity:
Wasn’t the Ari Fleischer immunity deal an example of giving immunity when you have no idea what he’s going to say?

Boy,

I sure hope all is concluded by May 15. Over at CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/i…..o.ap/index

This will affect many stations that play music AND carry proceedings, including NPR. What ever happened with NET NEUTALITY???

Christy Hardin Smith @ 53

Stephen — There are any number of variations on the immunity theme. You never hand out blanket immunity if you can help it — what you do is limit the immunity to a specific “use” (as in “during testimony on X day at Y time”) or some other variation on limitations to immunity for specific purposes (i.e. regarding conduct during a specific setof meetings and/or conversations). What immunity does not protect you from is if you lie — you can be charged with perjury for doing so with or without an immunity deal. I don’t know what will be offered in this case, nor do I know what has been proffered. If I hear any specifics, I’ll certainly let everyone know. But I do hope that any offer will be very narrowly drawn, designed to bring out only that information that the Committee must have to move the investigation forward and no more. Wide-ranging immunity deals are what sunk the Iran-Contra prosecution — and they were designed to do so. I do not imagine that John Conyers or his staff will fall for that sort of ruse — but not knowing specifics, I cannot say for sure on this particular immunity rumor.

Christy, someone asked earlier what would happen if AG refused to be sworn in. I think he is still under oath even if he is not sworn in, is that not so?

Carolyn in Baltimore @
48

I remember the tone of Dowds letters to the committee (go Cheney yourselves basically).

I will assume he has been conciliatory in private. after those letters he had better have something good to offer.

good point. And it reinforces my belief that Dowd HAS to be giving over something/someone big (read:more than Ab G) or Conyers would just tell him to go cheney himself back. Especially if they can already get MG on setting up false testimony for McNulty and/or Abu G.

My $.02

Shouldn’t every tool Republic party loyalist who enabled the unjust, unethical and probably illegal politiciation of the DOJ be accountable? Unless her testimony is pivotal and there is no other way to advance the investigation and get what she has, then run her through the meat grinder like every other mf-cker who is using our government as a vehicle to insure a permanent Repulic majority.

Leta @ 12

Except for the trappings of immunity (Iran-Contra) this is perfect! Gonzo will walk-in Thursday probably not knowing what Monica (isn’t that sweet) is, isn’t going to throw Abu to the curb. Do ya think he’s gotten much sleep lately. A little mental torture for the Abu Gonzales…ya think?

Ya think maybe the whole thing’s a red herring? i.e. Conyers knows he doesn’t have the votes, but does Gonzales?

It could be that Conyers just constructed another big sweat box for A.G.

Tom @ 22

AG is twisting in the wind on this one. The possibility of immunity for Goodling has to be really screwing with his head.

I’m hoping Karl is scared as well.

Petrocelli @ 56

Arrogant? Not at all. Prescient (sp?)? Absolutely. Some of us in this country saw it, but too many forces aligned against us.

This is copied from the “Dead Mail Office” georgewbush.org (as opposed to .com)

—-Original Message—–
From: Karen Unger [mailto:karen@jeb.org]
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 9:31 PM
To: ‘Alan Levine’ [mailto:levine@jeb.org]
Cc: ‘Jeb Bush’ [mailto:jeb@jeb.org]; bdoster@georgewbush.org
Subject: RE:

Oh yeah. Bill can be a bit nutty. Brettler, are you familiar with what’s going on down there? Do you know what Bill is talking about?

> —–Original Message—–
> From: Alan Levine [mailto:levine@jeb.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 9:36 PM
> To: Karen Unger [mailto:karen@jeb.org]
> Cc: Jeb Bush [mailto:jeb@jeb.org]; bdoster@georgewbush.org
> Subject:
> karen,
> today i was in pasco county with the LG. while there, bill bunting pulled me and the LG aside
> and told us that he was going after rep. anderson because anderson would not drop mail for the
> president. I don’t know what is going on, but bill is capable of sometimes being fairly extreme,
> and it worries me that he may do something that draws attention. it may be worthy of someone
> talking to him...
>
> alan

old gold @ 42

They should wait to make this decision until after Gonzales testifies.

Hoo Boy – could this be a leak in order to put the screws to Gonzales and influence his testimony?

Is it my imagination or are the scales of justice in the photo above, tilted dramatically to the right?

Petrocelli @ 56

No, I don’t find your statement arrogant. Hell, if it weren’t for Tony Blair (and his corporate bosses), the UK wouldn’t have been so gung ho on allying with us. The age of the European, Asian and Middle Eastern countries give them a distinct advantage in perspective. Most of them have a history of this type of tyranny that we in the US have only just come to know in the last 40 – 50 years. And, that’s not saying too much for us considering we’ve only been around 230 years or so. Isn’t this exactly the type of shit our forebearers detached themselves from the monarchy for?? Again, Fuckers!

“tilted to the right”

depends on which perspective you see justice from.

artfay @ 67

Is it my imagination or are the scales of justice in the photo above, tilted dramatically to the right?

Our right, Her left

The imdakine01 @ 27

JF @
15

Re: conniptionfit @ 11
Would the immunity be for past acts only, or would and perjury on her part in her testimony be covered, as well?

IANAL but my undrstanding is past acts only. If she gets caught lying on testimony after the immunity, put a fork in her.

If she lies during her testimony after she’s been immunized for past acts, she not only is subject to being prosecuted for perjury/obstruction, but her immunity for any past acts disappears, and she can be prosecuted for any past acts too (assuming that she committed any crimes, of course).

From Waxman:

Committee Will Consider Transportation Amendments and Testimony of Secretary Rice

On Wednesday, April 18 at 10:00 a.m., the Oversight Committee will hold a business meeting to consider H.R. 401, the National Capital Transportation Amendments Act of 2007, and potentially consider a subpoena for the testimony of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

jayt @
62

Leta @ 12

Except for the trappings of immunity (Iran-Contra) this is perfect! Gonzo will walk-in Thursday probably not knowing what Monica (isn’t that sweet) is, isn’t going to throw Abu to the curb. Do ya think he’s gotten much sleep lately. A little mental torture for the Abu Gonzales…ya think?

Ya think maybe the whole thing’s a red herring? i.e. Conyers knows he doesn’t have the votes, but does Gonzales?

It could be that Conyers just constructed another big sweat box for A.G.

Yes but, you don’t think Arlen is letting on?

litigatormom @ 71

The imdakine01 @ 27

JF @
15

Re: conniptionfit @ 11
Would the immunity be for past acts only, or would and perjury on her part in her testimony be covered, as well?

IANAL but my undrstanding is past acts only. If she gets caught lying on testimony after the immunity, put a fork in her.

If she lies during her testimony after she’s been immunized for past acts, she not only is subject to being prosecuted for perjury/obstruction, but her immunity for any past acts disappears, and she can be prosecuted for any past acts too (assuming that she committed any crimes, of course).

Hope this doesn’t bust the margins….

I’m really anxious to see how this immunity offer all shakes out. I think it will be one for the books, especially since we know how the Iran/Contra immunity deals worked out.

AZ Matt @ 72

From Waxman:

Committee Will Consider Transportation Amendments and Testimony of Secretary Rice

On Wednesday, April 18 at 10:00 a.m., the Oversight Committee will hold a business meeting to consider H.R. 401, the National Capital Transportation Amendments Act of 2007, and potentially consider a subpoena for the testimony of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Number two, after Gonzales. Line ‘em up!

I’d really like to see Condi sweat. She’s right in the middle of things too.

JF @
64

Petrocelli @ 56

Arrogant? Not at all. Prescient (sp?)? Absolutely. Some of us in this country saw it, but too many forces aligned against us.

Prescient is correct. The forces aligned against you was because of the mind- numbing fear wrought by the 9/11 tragedy. Then ‘the evil doers’ took advantage of the nation in deep shock and enacted every possible means of stealing money for their greedy friends.
FYI, the forces aligned with you on a global scale are far greater than those who oppose you. Keep fighting the fight, but with laws and in courts, not with weapons and violence.

In other words,
How much good could a Goodling sling if a Goodling could sing good?

litigatormom @ 71

Is it time to break out another goat?

Cuewhiffle @ 77

In other words,
How much good could a Goodling sling if a Goodling could sing good?

Tee hee :)

Petrocelli @ 76

JF @
64

Petrocelli @ 56

Arrogant? Not at all. Prescient (sp?)? Absolutely. Some of us in this country saw it, but too many forces aligned against us.

Prescient is correct. The forces aligned against you was because of the mind- numbing fear wrought by the 9/11 tragedy. Then ‘the evil doers’ took advantage of the nation in deep shock and enacted every possible means of stealing money for their greedy friends.
FYI, the forces aligned with you on a global scale are far greater than those who oppose you. Keep fighting the fight, but with laws and in courts, not with weapons and violence.

We gotta get the courts out of the hands of the criminals, IMO.

noen @ 75

AZ Matt @ 72

From Waxman:

Committee Will Consider Transportation Amendments and Testimony of Secretary Rice

On Wednesday, April 18 at 10:00 a.m., the Oversight Committee will hold a business meeting to consider H.R. 401, the National Capital Transportation Amendments Act of 2007, and potentially consider a subpoena for the testimony of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Number two, after Gonzales. Line ‘em up!

I’d really like to see Condi sweat. She’s right in the middle of things too.

Maybe Condi was competing with Bush’s other work wife, Harriet Miers, for Bush’s affections here.

But how much prescience did it really take to know that “president shit-for-brains” and his buddies would do exactly what they have done?

hang a left @ 73 asks:

Yes but, you don’t think Arlen is letting on?

Arlen gets to obstruct and obfuscate in the Senate. Conyers is House Judiciary.

kdh22:

The problem with Ollie North’s immunity deal, as someone upthread pointed out, is that it screwed up the prosecution of North himself. I don’t think that Monica G herself is or should be a major target here. So if she can’t be prosecuted later on, so be it. Giving her immunity shouldn’t affect the ability to prosecute others.

Peterr @ 78

litigatormom @ 71

Is it time to break out another goat?

I think it’s a little early. I don’t want to run out of goats.

I too am hoping that Rep. Conyers is not being too hasty here. What’s the rush to remove responsibility from Ms. Goodling for the actions she knowingly took while in public office? If there is any doubt as to her singular ability to significantly contribute to our knowledge of what occurred, I’d hope Congress would postpone action on granting immunity until matters have become more clear from other sources [though I understand that none of us on the outside have access to all the information that the Judiciary Committees now have, and thus cannot accurately assess the matter from here].

Following up on his interview which was highlighted here at FDL, Patrick Collins, former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, has written an op-ed for today’s Chicago Tribune – as did a former colleague (Safer?) of his who is now counsel for one of the Conrad Black co-defendants. The earlier Safer op-ed made a very good point regarding the power wielded by federal prosecutors, in reinforcing why no taint of partisan political motives should be tolerated in the administration of justice. Patrick Collins’s new op-ed draws upon and expands that theme:

Prosecutors alone have the power to present an indictment to a grand jury, an awesome power that, once executed, typically changes the course of lives forever.

[snip]

By contrast, in the U.S. attorney’s office where I have worked for 12 years as an assistant U.S. attorney, I’ve had the privilege of working with dozens of prosecutors and agents on myriad city, county, state and federal public corruption investigations. I am proud to say that I never saw any indication of any such shenanigans. In fact, I could not tell you the political preferences of most of my fellow prosecutors or agents. Whether they were “loyal Bushies” or “Clintonistas” or something in-between was not ascertainable by word or deed.

What I did come to learn, however, and what was obvious during our work sessions, was that agents and prosecutors simply did not care about the political affiliation of the targets of the corruption investigation. Instead, they were focused on scrupulously scrubbing the facts and the evidence, and on bringing the case if and only if the facts and evidence had been revealed.

We have heard as a defense of the summary dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys that all U.S. attorneys “serve at the pleasure of the president.” And that, of course, is true. But they must never serve only to please the president. U.S. attorneys serve the people of the United States.

If we replace non-partisan public service with blind political loyalty, we will have sacrificed one of the core values of our judicial system.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/…..;cset=true

[With thanks to in_cog_ni_to at DU]

Badwater @ 81

noen @ 75

AZ Matt @ 72

From Waxman:

Committee Will Consider Transportation Amendments and Testimony of Secretary Rice

On Wednesday, April 18 at 10:00 a.m., the Oversight Committee will hold a business meeting to consider H.R. 401, the National Capital Transportation Amendments Act of 2007, and potentially consider a subpoena for the testimony of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Number two, after Gonzales. Line ‘em up!

I’d really like to see Condi sweat. She’s right in the middle of things too.

Maybe Condi was competing with Bush’s other work wife, Harriet Miers, for Bush’s affections here.

Now there is a triangle I don’t even want to think about. Bush, Harriet and Condi. The interpersonal dynamics of that trifecta are just too weird to contemplate.

Peterr @
78

litigatormom @ 71

Is it time to break out another goat?

How soon can we find one that isn’t on the lam?

noen @ 82

But how much prescience did it really take to know that “president shit-for-brains” and his buddies would do exactly what they have done?

Pre-9/11, the president was destined to be a 1-termer. Afterwords, the fear impulse took over, and too many people gave him the benefit of the doubt. He then used and stoked that fear to get (re)elected and enact laws/orders that would have been unthinkable without 9/11 as a backdrop.

Bob in Arkansas, USA @ 36

Big Bob: Interesting link that you posted, is it true, who knows, is it possible that this administration would do something like that, yes. About granting immunity to Mz Goodling, I would really hope that they wait a little longer, and see what else pops up. I suspect that she will fall on the sword for these clown, but I might be wrong.

Thanks, but unkown if true. i’d hope that the nsa would have copies thou.

I think Goodling’s religious background will compel her to tell the truth as she knows it if she is given immunity.

The purpose of these investigations should be to nab the big boys, not get tied up by the little people. So Leahy and Waxman should hand out properly-negotiated immunity deals like candy to anyone under the cabinet level.

People will talk about Oliver North. In his case, I would have given him blanket immunity to drive the investigation up through the NSA and into the Oval Office.

Let me put this another way. I’m a big believer in the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions. The amount of punishment meted out could never match the harm done. But the accurate historical record resulting from the TRC approach has much bigger benefits. Remember, the Republicans like to play games with alternate realities and getting a *real* historical record would put an end to that unhealthy game.

Stephen Parrish, CPA @ 88

Peterr @
78

litigatormom @ 71

Is it time to break out another goat?

How soon can we find one that isn’t on the lam?

There is no shortage of goats. They clone them in a secret room somewhere. Probably in large vats.

LS @ 91

I think Goodling’s religious background will compel her to tell the truth as she knows it if she is given immunity.

Her “religious” background should compell her to tell the truth without immunity. Hell, her “religious” background should have compelled her not to break the law to begin with.

LS @ 91

I think Goodling’s religious background will compel her to tell the truth as she knows it if she is given immunity.

Pretty frickin flimsy.

Stephen Parrish, CPA @
88

Peterr @
78

litigatormom @ 71

Is it time to break out another goat?

How soon can we find one that isn’t on the lam?

Baa – d pun.

OT, but if you’re at home and not up to watching the chimpy at VaTech, the original “The Long Hot Summer” with Paul Newman, Joanne Woodward, Orson Welles, et al is on Fox Movie Channel even as I type. Just starting in fact.

The President of the United States is on the campus of Virginia Tech University to add his gravitas to the mourning there.

Yeah- she has the same religious background as the president of the United States- who NEVER lies.

litigatormom @ 84

kdh22:

The problem with Ollie North’s immunity deal, as someone upthread pointed out, is that it screwed up the prosecution of North himself. I don’t think that Monica G herself is or should be a major target here. So if she can’t be prosecuted later on, so be it. Giving her immunity shouldn’t affect the ability to prosecute others.

My only concern is that her testimony after immunity will be half-truths. I suppose, like Sampson, if they feel she isn’t being forthcoming enough (read: naming names) they will bring her back in? They’d have to do that if they’re going for the big guys and she’s not a high-value target? And, how many chances will they give her? Of course, these rhetorical questions are all based on the fact that she will lie. That’s not a certainty, but a possibility at the very least.

Litigatormom, btw, thanks for explaining things to me. I love to learn…especially wrt law, gov’t and politics. CHS and Emptywheel have obliged me that way as well, and I appreciate them to.

Dan @ 92

The purpose of these investigations should be to nab the big boys, not get tied up by the little people. So Leahy and Waxman should hand out properly-negotiated immunity deals like candy to anyone under the cabinet level.

People will talk about Oliver North. In his case, I would have given him blanket immunity to drive the investigation up through the NSA and into the Oval Office.

Let me put this another way. I’m a big believer in the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions. The amount of punishment meted out could never match the harm done. But the accurate historical record resulting from the TRC approach has much bigger benefits. Remember, the Republicans like to play games with alternate realities and getting a *real* historical record would put and end to that unhealthy game.

Total agreement here. While justice and serving time are important. Getting the truth out would be more so. The one problem is “What is the truth?” Just how far down does this rabbit hole go?

Also, giving immunity and then not getting the truth out is even worse.

rwcole @ 98

The President of the United States is on the campus of Virginia Tech University to add his gravitas to the mourning there.

Which is why I give thanks to movie channels on the cable box. Watching Da Chimp smirking his way through something like a public ceremony after a tragedy makes me physically ill.

JF @ 94

LS @ 91

I think Goodling’s religious background will compel her to tell the truth as she knows it if she is given immunity.

Her “religious” background should compell her to tell the truth without immunity. Hell, her “religious” background should have compelled her not to break the law to begin with.

DING! DING! DING! DING!

Petrocelli @ 96

Is it time to break out another goat?

How soon can we find one that isn’t on the lam?

Baa – d pun.

don’t overlook the Christmas angle: Carol lamb

Haven’t read all of the above, but couldn’t Abu G take the fifth too?

Can someone confirm whether AGAG is still under oath even if he is not sworn in at the hearings on Thursday? And that he is at risk of perjury even if he is not sworn in?

Has the ClusterPotus spoken yet?

Is it time to break out another goat?

ga you guys -

punaise – (natch)

Gonzales is Bush’s goat to guy

I kid ewe not !

Dan @ 92

The purpose of these investigations should be to nab the big boys, not get tied up by the little people. So Leahy and Waxman should hand out properly-negotiated immunity deals like candy to anyone under the cabinet level.

People will talk about Oliver North. In his case, I would have given him blanket immunity to drive the investigation up through the NSA and into the Oval Office.

Let me put this another way. I’m a big believer in the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions. The amount of punishment meted out could never match the harm done. But the accurate historical record resulting from the TRC approach has much bigger benefits. Remember, the Republicans like to play games with alternate realities and getting a *real* historical record would put an end to that unhealthy game.

Athough some immunity deals may be necessary we must pursue the little demons as well as the big fish, imo. Remember Iran Contra as CHS pointed out in the post and recent suggestions by John Dean @findlaw and on KO.

Punishment of some sort is needed in order to keep this from happening again. imo

itwasntme @ 105

Haven’t read all of the above, but couldn’t Abu G take the fifth too?

I’m sure he can – he has the same rights as you and me. But oh what a circus that would be: the highest law enforcement official in the country taking the fifth. Talk about Popcorn.

Petrocelli @
106

Can someone confirm whether AGAG is still under oath even if he is not sworn in at the hearings on Thursday? And that he is at risk of perjury even if he is not sworn in?

I can’t see any way that they WON’T swear him in. As to him pleading the Fifth, there’s no way he can do so and keep his job.

itwasntme @ 105

Haven’t read all of the above, but couldn’t Abu G take the fifth too?

Yes, he could. And Leyhe(sp?) has said he doesn’t really mind if GW wants this justice dept. to be his shining legacy. As a Dem, it would be incredible campaign material.

rwcole @ 107

Has the ClusterPotus spoken yet?

The arena is filled so people have gathered on the field at Lane Stadium. This is a solem event, maybe people could lighten up on the fact that someone they don’t like is there and support the thousands of others.

I don’t see why Goodling and her attorneys would make any sort of proffer at all, as Congress is not a prosecutor. In criminal investigations, a potential defendant is hightly motivated to make a proffer, to encourage the prosecutor to grant immunity. But Goodling does not fear that the Justice Department will prosecute her, so she has no incentive to bargain for the privilege of immunity. In fact, she doesn’t want immunity at all, because then she would be compelled to testify.

Congress should just immunize her and grill her, without wasting any time on negotiations.

raven @ 113

rwcole @ 107

Has the ClusterPotus spoken yet?

The arena is filled so people have gathered on the field at Lane Stadium. This is a solem event, maybe people could lighten up on the fact that someone they don’t like is there and support the thousands of others.

Everyone has.

noen @ 115

raven @ 113

rwcole @ 107

Has the ClusterPotus spoken yet?

The arena is filled so people have gathered on the field at Lane Stadium. This is a solem event, maybe people could lighten up on the fact that someone they don’t like is there and support the thousands of others.

Everyone has.

yea, that’s what ClusterPotus conveys.

raven @ 116
noen @ 115
raven @ 113
rwcole @ 107
Has the ClusterPotus spoken yet?
The arena is filled so people have gathered on the field at Lane Stadium. This is a solem event, maybe people could lighten up on the fact that someone they don’t like is there and support the thousands of others.
Everyone has.

yea, that’s what ClusterPotus conveys.

Maybe he’ll tell us to go shopping?

Petrocelli -

lying to Congress is lying to congress whether you are under oath or not

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 47 > 1001 Prev

If you’re under oath & lie, you could also violate 18 USC 1621.

penaties for both are 5-8 years per infraction

yea, that’s what ClusterPotus conveys.

Maybe he’ll tell us to go shopping?

I meant the phrase not the person.

Frank Probst @
111

Petrocelli @
106

Can someone confirm whether AGAG is still under oath even if he is not sworn in at the hearings on Thursday? And that he is at risk of perjury even if he is not sworn in?

I can’t see any way that they WON’T swear him in. As to him pleading the Fifth, there’s no way he can do so and keep his job.

What if he refuses to be sworn in? Does it really make a difference?

cbl @ 118

Petrocelli -

lying to Congress is lying to congress whether you are under oath or not

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 47 > 1001 Prev

If you’re under oath & lie, you could also violate 18 USC 1621.

penaties for both are 5-8 years per infraction

How much has that been used? How many who lied but were not under oath have gone to prison?

cbl @ 118

Petrocelli -

lying to Congress is lying to congress whether you are under oath or not

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 47 > 1001 Prev

If you’re under oath & lie, you could also violate 18 USC 1621.

penaties for both are 5-8 years per infraction

That’s what I thought, thanks cbl!

noen @
101

Dan @ 92

The purpose of these investigations should be to nab the big boys, not get tied up by the little people. So Leahy and Waxman should hand out properly-negotiated immunity deals like candy to anyone under the cabinet level.

People will talk about Oliver North. In his case, I would have given him blanket immunity to drive the investigation up through the NSA and into the Oval Office.

Let me put this another way. I’m a big believer in the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions. The amount of punishment meted out could never match the harm done. But the accurate historical record resulting from the TRC approach has much bigger benefits. Remember, the Republicans like to play games with alternate realities and getting a *real* historical record would put and end to that unhealthy game.

Total agreement here. While justice and serving time are important. Getting the truth out would be more so. The one problem is “What is the truth?” Just how far down does this rabbit hole go?

Also, giving immunity and then not getting the truth out is even worse.

Well, there are precedents in South Africa and Argentina. In both cases it was a managed process where the commission tracked your testimony against the evolving record. I’m not an expert, but my guess is that you might get one mulligan but if it turns out that you’ve lied then you’re really in trouble, especially since there would be so much existing testimony by people trying to avoid legal jeopardy.

I also think that TRCs would probably work better than “bipartisan” congressional committees where half the congressman act as safe harbors for the person giving testimony.

Immunizing Goodling is a moral hazard–reward for bad behavior. Afterwards everyone else will see the pattern & take the 5th immediately.

zig alert…

noen,

Just an fyi, Mods ask we only quote three times, max. It creates a mess with margins and a lot of work back stage..)

dakine01 @
83

hang a left @ 73 asks:

Yes but, you don’t think Arlen is letting on?

Arlen gets to obstruct and obfuscate in the Senate. Conyers is House Judiciary.

But don’t both committees have back and forths?

noen,

believe, but don’t quote me that this is what Elliot Abrams was charged with but pled down via Walsh to 2 misdemeanor counts of “witholding information from Congress”

raven @ 119

yea, that’s what ClusterPotus conveys.

Maybe he’ll tell us to go shopping?

I meant the phrase not the person.

So you want people to lighten up and you do that by flamebaiting? Exactly how does that work raven?

It is my fervent desire that Bush not use this time to advance his political agenda. I would wish the same for his foot soldiers, that they too would not seek to politicize this horrible event for their own use. Same for every Dem, every independent and every repub.

hang a left @ 126 asks:

But don’t both committees have back and forths?

I would imagine Conyers and Leahy and their staffs work together. But don’t forget, Arlen likes to come off as independent minded and strong on rule of law before he caves to Chimpy/Rove and company. So he needs to be able to bray and hee-haw around. Conyers can ignore him and Leahy can use that to keep Arlen from being too much of a distraction

I have no problem what so ever giving this women amunity

anything and everything it takes to put the people that hired her in jail…anything and everyhing

sorry, we have to deal, we cannot wait until 08 and we cannot wait until the next senatorial election

these people must come before the bar of justice even if it means their minions get a pass

Eureka Springs @ 125

zig alert…

noen,

Just an fyi, Mods ask we only quote three times, max. It creates a mess with margins and a lot of work back stage..)

ok

cbl @ 127

noen,

believe, but don’t quote me that this is what Elliot Abrams was charged with but pled down via Walsh to 2 misdemeanor counts of “witholding information from Congress”

And was then pardoned after having the convictions “overturned” for whatever reasons. And he is now back in the State Dept as a dep or under secretary.

noen @ 128

raven @ 119

yea, that’s what ClusterPotus conveys.

Maybe he’ll tell us to go shopping?

I meant the phrase not the person.

So you want people to lighten up and you do that by flamebaiting? Exactly how does that work raven?

It is my fervent desire that Bush not use this time to advance his political agenda. I would wish the same for his foot soldiers, that they too would not seek to politicize this horrible event for their own use. Same for every Dem, every independent and every repub.

I pointed out what I though was very good example of what I was talking about.

eCAHNomics @
124

Immunizing Goodling is a moral hazard–reward for bad behavior. Afterwards everyone else will see the pattern & take the 5th immediately.

My interpretation, FWIW, is that the lawyers don’t quite understand an Evangelical like Monica. She’s very good at following orders but very bad at lying, especially under oath. In retrospect, I think the whole fifth amendment brouhaha was intended to cut her an immunity deal not because she had planned to lie but because she planned *not* to lie. Yep, she probably did some pretty unethical things and followed orders but to take a bible in your hands and swear to God that you will not lie? Uh-uh. She wasn’t going to lie under oath and her lawyers knew it.

John in Erie @ 58

Boy,

I sure hope all is concluded by May 15. Over at CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/i…..o.ap/index
The link’s not working. What is this about?
This will affect many stations that play music AND carry proceedings, including NPR. What ever happened with NET NEUTALITY???

dakine01 @ 132

cbl @ 127

noen,

believe, but don’t quote me that this is what Elliot Abrams was charged with but pled down via Walsh to 2 misdemeanor counts of “witholding information from Congress”

And was then pardoned after having the convictions “overturned” for whatever reasons. And he is now back in the State Dept as a dep or under secretary.

Isn’t he working with Cheney? Doing the same magic in Iraq that he did in Nicaragua.
:(

solai @ 135

John in Erie @ 58

Boy,

I sure hope all is concluded by May 15. Over at CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/i…..o.ap/index
The link’s not working. What is this about?
This will affect many stations that play music AND carry proceedings, including NPR. What ever happened with NET NEUTALITY???

The link’s not working. What is this about?

portia.vz @ 134

eCAHNomics @
124

Immunizing Goodling is a moral hazard–reward for bad behavior. Afterwards everyone else will see the pattern & take the 5th immediately.

My interpretation, FWIW, is that the lawyers don’t quite understand an Evangelical like Monica. She’s very good at following orders but very bad at lying, especially under oath. In retrospect, I think the whole fifth amendment brouhaha was intended to cut her an immunity deal not because she had planned to lie but because she planned *not* to lie. Yep, she probably did some pretty unethical things and followed orders but to take a bible in your hands and swear to God that you will not lie? Uh-uh. She wasn’t going to lie under oath and her lawyers knew it.

Interesting take, but the motives of those who follow her example could be quite different.

So Monica was profane enough to get involved in illegal activities for which she must plead the fifth- but she’s too holy to lie about it?

Pardon me while I puke!!

raven @
113

rwcole @ 107

Has the ClusterPotus spoken yet?

The arena is filled so people have gathered on the field at Lane Stadium. This is a solem event, maybe people could lighten up on the fact that someone they don’t like is there and support the thousands of others.

Yes, maybe we could. Or maybe he could have put his ego aside for one day and let the Governor and two senators go instead. Bush just doesn’t have an empathic side to his personality. His presence is just more trouble than it’s worth.

Eureka Springs @ 109

Dan @ 92

The purpose of these investigations should be to nab the big boys, not get tied up by the little people. So Leahy and Waxman should hand out properly-negotiated immunity deals like candy to anyone under the cabinet level.

People will talk about Oliver North. In his case, I would have given him blanket immunity to drive the investigation up through the NSA and into the Oval Office.

Let me put this another way. I’m a big believer in the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions. The amount of punishment meted out could never match the harm done. But the accurate historical record resulting from the TRC approach has much bigger benefits. Remember, the Republicans like to play games with alternate realities and getting a *real* historical record would put an end to that unhealthy game.

Athough some immunity deals may be necessary we must pursue the little demons as well as the big fish, imo. Remember Iran Contra as CHS pointed out in the post and recent suggestions by John Dean @findlaw and on KO.

Punishment of some sort is needed in order to keep this from happening again. imo

The lesson from Iran Contra is that it’s difficult to run a Congressional investigation without jeopardizing subsequent criminal investigations. The amount of time that the principals in Iran Contra took in exercising their legal rights more than exhausted the public’s attention span and Bush I was elected. Later Reagan would actually be deposed and simply plea Alzheimers.

And where did Eliot Abrams end up?

The criminal justice system is simply not scaled right to handle political crimes of this magnitude. Future Roves would simply never include the possibility of jail time for their Monica Goodlings in their calculations. They would consider their ability to act as firewalls and go from there. But if the entire Republican brand came crashing down, a future Rove would remember that.

I’m not chanting “Free Monica Goodling!”, but I am saying that other than a few pesky e-mails, it’s 4/17/07, and the firewall still hasn’t been pierced. I watched for years during the Libby investigation and trial and did *not* find it a satisfying experience.

Yes, maybe we could. Or maybe he could have put his ego aside for one day and let the Governor and two senators go instead. Bush just doesn’t have an empathic side to his personality. His presence is just more trouble than it’s worth.

Oh, I’m just flamebating, don’t pay any attention to me. I don’t have any interest in this topic.

Flamebait is a message posted to a public Internet discussion group, such as a forum, newsgroup or mailing list, with the intent of provoking an angry response (a “flame”) or argument over a topic the troll often has no real interest in.

portia.vz says

Yes, maybe we could. Or maybe he could have put his ego aside for one day and let the Governor and two senators go instead. Bush just doesn’t have an empathic side to his personality. His presence is just more trouble than it’s worth.

I was really disappointed that one of the first things GW said was “But… but… people still have a right to bear arms in this country” I thought that was completely uncalled for.

Solai, John in Erie:

LAS VEGAS, Nevada (AP) — Internet radio broadcasters were dealt a setback Monday when a panel of copyright judges threw out requests to reconsider a ruling that hiked the royalties they must pay to record companies and artists.

A broad group of public and private broadcasters, including radio stations, small startup companies, National Public Radio and major online sites like Yahoo Inc. and Time Warner Inc.’s AOL, had objected to the new royalties set March 2, saying they would force a drastic cutback in services that are now enjoyed by some 50 million people. (Time Warner is also the parent company of CNN.)

In the latest ruling, the Copyright Royalty Board judges denied all motions for rehearing and also declined to postpone a May 15 deadline by which the new royalties will have to be collected.

However, they did grant leniency on one point, allowing the webcasters to calculate fees by average listening hours, as they had been, as opposed to the new system of charging a royalty each time every song is heard by an online listener. That exemption counts for last year and this year. After that, the new per-song, per-listener fee structure goes into effect.
[snipped]

I did a refresh when it stalled while loading – there’s something that’s not right there, don’t know what. That seemed to work.

Bush up at the convocation

I really like your perspective Dan @ 141
Very good, you sum it all up well.

perris @
130

I have no problem what so ever giving this women amunity

anything and everything it takes to put the people that hired her in jail…anything and everyhing

sorry, we have to deal, we cannot wait until 08 and we cannot wait until the next senatorial election

these people must come before the bar of justice even if it means their minions get a pass

I have a problem if they offer her anything but transactional immunity; she should not be offered blanket immunity at this point in time since her testimony could affect subsequent testimony of others. Fielding knows this.

If there’s a chance Goodling did something so egregiously wrong that we have not yet thought of, I want her locked up so that it shows up on her CV so that she never holds government employment or office again. Ever.

Immunity was offered too frequently in Iran-Contra, and we’re being burnt even today for this mistake. Immunity must be highly limited and narrow if offered at all.

edit: Adding this passing, remaining thought — I want these f*ckers who have trashed the Constitution, regardless of their rank and status in our government, to sweat a choice between a lesser punishment and a serious punishment.

They should NOT be sweating being shunned by their party for squealing under immunity, or a lesser punishment. Apply the Clinton test here: if this had been any member of the Clinton Adminstration, do you think Ken Starr would even let the word immunity float?

Susan McDougal, anybody?

Rayne @ 147

I have a problem if they offer her anything but transactional immunity; she should not be offered blanket immunity at this point in time since her testimony could affect subsequent testimony of others. Fielding knows this.

If there’s a chance Goodling did something so egregiously wrong that we have not yet thought of, I want her locked up so that it shows up on her CV so that she never holds government employment or office again. Ever.

Immunity was offered too frequently in Iran-Contra, and we’re being burnt even today for this mistake. Immunity must be highly limited and narrow if offered at all.

could immunity be offered to protect her from criminal proceeding, but NOT impeachment?

if impeachment (if deserved) were combined with immunity – it would keep her out of government forever.

noen @
82

But how much prescience did it really take to know that “president shit-for-brains” and his buddies would do exactly what they have done?

Exactly NONE: all you had to do is see what he did when Gov of Texas

President Bush is speaking at Remembrance Ceremony For Vtech Shootings.

Rayne @ 147

perris @
130

I have no problem what so ever giving this women amunity

anything and everything it takes to put the people that hired her in jail…anything and everyhing

sorry, we have to deal, we cannot wait until 08 and we cannot wait until the next senatorial election

these people must come before the bar of justice even if it means their minions get a pass

I have a problem if they offer her anything but transactional immunity; she should not be offered blanket immunity at this point in time since her testimony could affect subsequent testimony of others. Fielding knows this.

If there’s a chance Goodling did something so egregiously wrong that we have not yet thought of, I want her locked up so that it shows up on her CV so that she never holds government employment or office again. Ever.

Immunity was offered too frequently in Iran-Contra, and we’re being burnt even today for this mistake. Immunity must be highly limited and narrow if offered at all.

I like the idea that you put her on the stand and make her take the 5th. Then later you give her immunity. I don’t know the law but to me that would seem to be the best way to go.

Bush spoke. Said all the right things then swaggered off the stage.

Just listening to Bush, he sounds so lethargic. Strange.

http://www.anonymousliberal.com has an amazing article critiquing the problems the Senate Judiciary committee has had so far and posing 5 brilliant questions for Gonzales, each with a tree of followups which would allow a 3rd grader to box Abu into a corner on a series of key issues.

I just called every senator on the Judiciary Committee and asked them to print the article:

http://judiciary.senate.gov/members.cfm

Hopefully we can avoid a repeat of Iran Contra if we get these politicians to do their homework.

No reference to 9/11, he looks groggy today. Someone must have read late night from last night. I am very surprised.

It’s probably just me, but I don’t see how it helps grieving to assemble in the tens of thousands and listen to a bunch of boring speeches.

Not a fucking word about gun rights, now jump up and down and rail about how he shouldn’t be there. My dislike for this president is deep but there is some real bullshit here on the lake. There’s your flamebait.

Groggy and lethargic. Weren’t his eyes bloodshot during the last SOTU? All I can think is “weird”.

PJ Evans,
Thanks.

A Muslim, a Jew, a Buddhist on the stage.

raven at 157 — That was rude, and not what I would expect from you. I realize that emotions are running high given your personal connection to people on campus, but that was over the line.

Thanks Dan,

Sounds like we are in agreement for the most part. I just hope the idea of a truth and reconciliation commission is held off until the folks who can be prosecuted, are.

Also…as Selise asks.. I would ask if impeachment or some sort of inability to ever work in government could still be a consequence of facts laid out in a truth and reconciliation process?

raven @ 160

A Muslim, a Jew, a Buddhist on the stage.

Yeah. What’s that all about? Religions of the victims? Shooter was Buddhist?

Moslem anticipating lawsuits against cops?

Sandra in Dallas @
3

I know that the stated goal of Christians is to live a Christ-like life. I’m finding it very hard to understand how MG justifies what she is doing – surely Christ would have shared all the information he had and then accepted with humility whatever consequences of his telling and his actions themselves. Someone needs to ask her this.

that would assume that she really is the Christian she purports to be and has a more than shallow understanding, any real understanding, of what it means…..

OMG, Sedki Riad is speaking. He is a professor representing the Muslim Community. Wow, who would have thunk it. Ha! the wingnuts are going to go nuts. What a nice touch for a horrible occasion I wonder who picked him to speak. Great idea.

lolo

noen @ 151

I like the idea that you put her on the stand and make her take the 5th. Then later you give her immunity. I don’t know the law but to me that would seem to be the best way to go.

here’s the best strategy;

give the board authority to grant immunity on the fly

get her on the stand, get her to invoke the 54th, then spot imunitiy as she inokes the 5th

cut her short when she gets into a field that does not involve the imunity she was given

Jane has a fresh thread, up and read for the reading for everyone.

NH

New Hamsher

Ain’t Love Grand

raven @
157

Not a fucking word about gun rights, now jump up and down and rail about how he shouldn’t be there. My dislike for this president is deep but there is some real bullshit here on the lake. There’s your flamebait.

Christy Hardin Smith @
161

raven at 157 — That was rude, and not what I would expect from you. I realize that emotions are runnign high given your personal connection to people on campus, but that was over the line.

I love FDL precisely because people by and large ignore flame baits and refuse to sink to the level of these baiters.

obsessed @ 154

http://www.anonymousliberal.com has an amazing article critiquing the problems the Senate Judiciary committee has had so far and posing 5 brilliant questions for Gonzales, each with a tree of followups which would allow a 3rd grader to box Abu into a corner on a series of key issues.

I just called every senator on the Judiciary Committee and asked them to print the article:

http://judiciary.senate.gov/members.cfm

Hopefully we can avoid a repeat of Iran Contra if we get these politicians to do their homework.

nice, I suggested we get make it a community effort to submit to waxman, since abu torture is preparing for everything they can think of we have to have something that preperation won’t help

nice link there

perris @ 167

noen @ 151

I like the idea that you put her on the stand and make her take the 5th. Then later you give her immunity. I don’t know the law but to me that would seem to be the best way to go.

here’s the best strategy;

give the board authority to grant immunity on the fly

get her on the stand, get her to invoke the 54th, then spot imunitiy as she inokes the 5th

cut her short when she gets into a field that does not involve the imunity she was given

That would be great, but I doubt the repubs in the committee would go along with that.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 161

raven at 157 — That was rude, and not what I would expect from you. I realize that emotions are runnign high given your personal connection to people on campus, but that was over the line.

You know I respect your judgment . If you mean the statement about the different religious traditions that are speaking I meant no offense, I was very happy to see that. If you are talking about the other statement I apologize to you.

noen @
151

Rayne @ 147

perris @
130

I have no problem what so ever giving this women amunity

anything and everything it takes to put the people that hired her in jail…anything and everyhing

sorry, we have to deal, we cannot wait until 08 and we cannot wait until the next senatorial election

these people must come before the bar of justice even if it means their minions get a pass

I have a problem if they offer her anything but transactional immunity; she should not be offered blanket immunity at this point in time since her testimony could affect subsequent testimony of others. Fielding knows this.

If there’s a chance Goodling did something so egregiously wrong that we have not yet thought of, I want her locked up so that it shows up on her CV so that she never holds government employment or office again. Ever.

Immunity was offered too frequently in Iran-Contra, and we’re being burnt even today for this mistake. Immunity must be highly limited and narrow if offered at all.

I like the idea that you put her on the stand and make her take the 5th. Then later you give her immunity. I don’t know the law but to me that would seem to be the best way to go.

Wasn’t her attorney, Dowd, formerley Ollie North’s attorney during Iran Contra?

Surely this should raise red flags? For instance how could she afford such an eminent attorney for her defense?

It’s interesting to speculate- but at this point- not knowing much of what’s going on- I will trust that congress knows what it’s doing with immunity and is playing it smart. If we later find out that they botched the thing- there will be plenty of time ta flame em.

noen @
75

AZ Matt @ 72

From Waxman:

Committee Will Consider Transportation Amendments and Testimony of Secretary Rice

On Wednesday, April 18 at 10:00 a.m., the Oversight Committee will hold a business meeting to consider H.R. 401, the National Capital Transportation Amendments Act of 2007, and potentially consider a subpoena for the testimony of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Number two, after Gonzales. Line ‘em up!

I’d really like to see Condi sweat. She’s right in the middle of things too.

Must disagree with this assessment of her involvement. Condi is just another Abu – an incompetent yes-person, placed in a position that has historically been of great import to the running of our republic, but has been neutered since 2001 to do the bidding of the Rove/Cheney/Bush axis. She does as she is told, says what she is told, thinks what she is told. Nothing more and nothing less.

hang a left @ 126

dakine01 @
83

hang a left @ 73 asks:

Yes but, you don’t think Arlen is letting on?

Arlen gets to obstruct and obfuscate in the Senate. Conyers is House Judiciary.

But don’t both committees have back and forths?

no.

Petrocelli @ 170

raven @
157

Not a fucking word about gun rights, now jump up and down and rail about how he shouldn’t be there. My dislike for this president is deep but there is some real bullshit here on the lake. There’s your flamebait.

Christy Hardin Smith @
161

raven at 157 — That was rude, and not what I would expect from you. I realize that emotions are runnign high given your personal connection to people on campus, but that was over the line.

I love FDL precisely because people by and large ignore flame baits and refuse to sink to the level of these baiters.

You know nothing about me, nothing.

Sort of OT from the LA Times political ‘blog’:

Lifelong Republican, Marine veteran and former congressman Pete McCloskey has left the GOP and registered with the Democratic Party, the Contra Costa Times reports on its politics blog. McCloskey says he is disgusted with the “succession of ethical scandals, congressmen taking bribes and abuse of power by both the Republican House leadership and the highest appointees of the White House. … A pox on (Republicans) and their values.”

STTP in Ohio @
52

Man o’ man!

How powerful do I feel?!

I ask Christy a question downstairs & I get a whole thread in reply!

Seriously, thanks for addressing the question.

Stick around and we might even toss in a pedicure. ;-)

Petrocelli — Raven has been commenting here at the lake for a long time, and has a lot of very valuable insights from years of military experience. Everyone’s emotions are running high from the last couple of days, and I’d suggest that everyone take a deep breath before hitting the publish button…that goes for me as much as anyone. (I got good news that a friend of mine finally heard from his daughter, who is safe, so I’m finally able to take a deep breath at this point.)

jinny @ 174

Wasn’t her attorney, Dowd, formerley Ollie North’s attorney during Iran Contra?

Surely this should raise red flags? For instance how could she afford such an eminent attorney for her defense?

That’s what I thought…but I’m certain that the big picture is being managed by Rove via Fielding.

Fahrender at #165: Ok, speaking as a Pagan — this is my take on what I’ll call the “funnymentalist Christians.”

The leaders in these cults do not want followers who can reason for themselves.

More often than not, they have either a TV show, radio program and/or a school as well as a church.

You will find that they are more observant of the ‘laws’ laid down in the Old Testament rather than the those in the Beatitudes. (I have come across a few who do not recognize verses quoted from the New Testament.)

They tend to a certain spiritual laxness — the idea seems to be that once they are saved it doesn’t matter if they continue to sin as God will forgive them. They don’t seem to consider that by committing these sins they may be harming others as well as themselves, nor do they see any need to seek forgiveness from those that they harm.

Oh, and being “saved” means that they’re better than everyone else…

Note, I have friends and acquaintances that I do consider to be real Christians (i.e. they follow the teachings of Jesus), and they’re just as appalled by the above folks as I am.

Christy Hardin Smith @
181

Petrocelli — Raven has been commenting here at the lake for a long time, and has a lot of very valuable insights from years of military experience. Everyone’s emotions are running high from the last couple of days, and I’d suggest that everyone take a deep breath before hitting the publish button…that goes for me as much as anyone. (I got good news that a friend of mine finally heard from his daughter, who is safe, so I’m finally able to take a deep breath at this point.)

I’m so glad to hear about your friend, I’ll go away for a while.

noen @ 153

Just listening to Bush, he sounds so lethargic. Strange.

Didn’t watch (couldn’t) but I’m hoping his lethargy indicates that he knows this could be his last speech pre-forced-resignation or -impeachment… A boy can dream…

eCAHNomics @ 156

It’s probably just me, but I don’t see how it helps grieving to assemble in the tens of thousands and listen to a bunch of boring speeches.

not sure, but somehow it helps. kinda like when the preacher who never knew the deceased gets up and says nice things. it helps. humans have been doing it for thousands of years. JMO

Christy Hardin Smith @ 181

(I got good news that a friend of mine finally heard from his daughter, who is safe, so I’m finally able to take a deep breath at this point.)

YAY!

raven @ 157

Not a fucking word about gun rights, now jump up and down and rail about how he shouldn’t be there. My dislike for this president is deep but there is some real bullshit here on the lake. There’s your flamebait.

cmon guys. today is not the day for it. I agree with you that GW did not need to attend, but if he saved the only good speech he’s ever given in his life (including 9/11), I’m glad he saved it for today. my son is on the 20 yard line at Hokie Stadium. we think it was ok.

(((((raven)))))

People grieve in different ways. For some of us it’s going to be anger, others tears.

raven @ 157

…My dislike for this president is deep but there is some real bullshit here on the lake. There’s your flamebait.

Is it at all possible that Bush was coached to avoid those key topics you cited precisely because we wrote our anticipation? That’s exactly what blogs like FDL and DailyKos are trying to do, reshape and reform this administration and its actions; if Bush didn’t pander to his clinging base and actually left the event without any partisan shots, in a complete about face from his past and now typical behavior, perhaps the bullshit you decry worked.

In which case I personally would call it something other than bullshit.

(And maybe you might want to look to see which domains visited FDL in the last 24 hours.)

Rayne @ 190

Christy Hardin Smith @ 161

…My dislike for this president is deep but there is some real bullshit here on the lake. There’s your flamebait.

Is it at all possible that Bush was coached to avoid those key topics you cited precisely because we wrote our anticipation? That’s exactly what blogs like FDL and DailyKos are trying to do, reshape and reform this administration and its actions; if Bush didn’t pander to his clinging base and actually left the event without any partisan shots, in a complete about face from his past and now typical behavior, perhaps the bullshit you decry worked.

In which case I personally would call it something other than bullshit.

(And maybe you might want to look to see which domains visited FDL in the last 24 hours.)

he even mentioned blogs. someone must be paying attention.

TiredFed @
188

raven @ 157

Not a fucking word about gun rights, now jump up and down and rail about how he shouldn’t be there. My dislike for this president is deep but there is some real bullshit here on the lake. There’s your flamebait.

cmon guys. today is not the day for it. I agree with you that GW did not need to attend, but if he saved the only good speech he’s ever given in his life (including 9/11), I’m glad he saved it for today. my son is on the 20 yard line at Hokie Stadium. we think it was ok.

Before I go, I did not make myself clear. I was pointing out that Bush did not do all the horrible thing that people thought he was going to do in his speech. I was reacting through my tears at this tragedy to what I felt were unnecessary attacks on Bush on a solemn day like this.

perris @
167

noen @ 151

I like the idea that you put her on the stand and make her take the 5th. Then later you give her immunity. I don’t know the law but to me that would seem to be the best way to go.

here’s the best strategy;

give the board authority to grant immunity on the fly

get her on the stand, get her to invoke the 54th, then spot imunitiy as she inokes the 5th

cut her short when she gets into a field that does not involve the imunity she was given

That works for me, but these immunity deals are negotiated ahead of time. The people giving testimony do have some leverage to get more rather than less coverage. And trying to have it both ways is what was so frustrating about the Oliver North experience.

If you give her immunity, she testifies and then it turns out later that she lied, it’s *still* perjury.

Anyway, it’s pretty much a done deal. My guess is that you are gonna *love* the testimony and the progress towards nailing one of the big names.

raven @ 192

TiredFed @
188

raven @ 157

Not a fucking word about gun rights, now jump up and down and rail about how he shouldn’t be there. My dislike for this president is deep but there is some real bullshit here on the lake. There’s your flamebait.

cmon guys. today is not the day for it. I agree with you that GW did not need to attend, but if he saved the only good speech he’s ever given in his life (including 9/11), I’m glad he saved it for today. my son is on the 20 yard line at Hokie Stadium. we think it was ok.

Before I go, I did not make myself clear. I was pointing out that Bush did not do all the horrible thing that people thought he was going to do in his speech. I was reacting through my tears at this tragedy to what I felt were unnecessary attacks on Bush on a solemn day like this.

hope you see this before you go. I know what you were trying to do. I was just trying to move us away from the heat being generated. Newbies don’t know you. I have the utmost respect for you. Sorry and hope to “see” you soon around the lake.

hope you see this before you go. I know what you were trying to do. I was just trying to move us away from the heat being generated. Newbies don’t know you. I have the utmost respect for you. Sorry and hope to “see” you soon around the lake.

Thanks, if you didn’t hear Nikki Giovanni’s closing ,make sure you catch it.

raven @ 192

Tens and hundreds of thousands have died because of his past speeches, including more than 3000 of our own troops.

Thousands have been neglected and abused in their hour of greatest need because his words have been empty and fake.

The world no longer looks to the U.S. as a beacon of democratic hope because of his persistently thoughtless, disrespectful words.

The commentary you labeled “attacks” remain necessary every day that man is in office. For as much damage as he has done every time he has opened his mouth over the last 6 years, we cannot mount enough pressure to rein him in for the remaining 2 years. The world counts on us to do it.

Thank you Rayne at 12:16!

noen @ 112

itwasntme @ 105

Haven’t read all of the above, but couldn’t Abu G take the fifth too?

Yes, he could. And Leyhe(sp?) has said he doesn’t really mind if GW wants this justice dept. to be his shining legacy. As a Dem, it would be incredible campaign material.

Wouldn’t Abu taking the fifth be like a priest nevering wanting to go to a confessional? How could he be trusted in the judicial system if he cannot testify under oath because he might get caught doing something wrong?

I would really like to ask CHS this. You’ve been a prosecutor and my guess is that you’ve dealt with immunity deals. How did you do it? What kinds of guidelines did you use? What were the tradeoffs you were willing to make?

Oops. I found the answer earlier @ 53.

this is exactly the sort of thing we are
mostly-rightly-castigating monica goodling
and rachel paulose for — loyalty-type
oaths. . . so i will draw a line, and
say i disapprove of any suggestion that
any line of questioning about her religious
beliefs would be either relevant, or wise.

I think it would be fair game if she herself brings up her faith, which I think Regent U Law School alums may be apt to do. That would–fairly–create an opening for some very uncomforatble cross-examination of the WWJD variety.

gman @ 200

this is exactly the sort of thing we are
mostly-rightly-castigating monica goodling
and rachel paulose for — loyalty-type
oaths. . . so i will draw a line, and
say i disapprove of any suggestion that
any line of questioning about her religious
beliefs would be either relevant, or wise.

I think it would be fair game if she herself brings up her faith, which I think Regent U Law School alums may be apt to do. That would–fairly–create an opening for some very uncomforatble cross-examination of the WWJD variety.

She put it in her resignation letter. Oh yes, she will bring it up.

Here is just a little food for thought: “Christianity and Democracy are inevitably enemies.”
-Rousas Rushdoony, Founder of the Christian Reconstruction Movement

While I have the highest respect for those who make a sincere attempt to live an honorable and decent life, I have very little use for the modern Neo Con Christian who go by the creed “the end justifies the means”! It would appear that the DOJ was intent ally staffed with individuals such as that! As I said before, I think it is too early to even consider offering Mz. Gooding immunity. I suggest that they supena her and if, as her attorney said does not come forward to either testify, or plead the 5th then charge her with contempt of congress. Let the administration sweat a little longer, the longer they do the more chance that they will make a mistake! Just my .o1 worth.

If Goodling gets a good immunity offer she better be able to deliver Rove.

If she gets total immunity I want the flames to singe Cheney as well.

big bob @
5

no idea how good of a source ,but this link explain how the e-mails worked .. http://trustme.com/story.php?t…..ion-system

That looks like solid tech research, big bob. The rest of the information might have a decided liberal bias, but so do I :) Thanks for the link!

Jwoods @ 198

… Wouldn’t Abu taking the fifth be like a priest nevering wanting to go to a confessional? …

Agreed. If he were to do that he would be putting a big “KICK ME OUT NOW, IMMEDIATELY, DO NOT LET ME PASS GO, DO NOT LET ME STEAL ANOTHER TWO HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS (IN FACT, MAKE ME RETURN WHAT I ALREADY TOOK)” sign on his back. He’d never make it outta the Committee room without them voting to tell W to fire him.

As it is, his only defense will be so bumbling and inept and laced with obvious “I jus’ can’t recall so’s you can’t get me”s that this would be the logical equivalent of his putting a big “KICK ME OUT BECAUSE I’M SO FRICKIN STUPID, NO ONE COULD EXPECT ME TO RUN THE UNITED STATES JUSTICE DEPARTMENT” sign on. :)

Aka “Better to be silent and be thought an idiot than to speak and remove all doubt”

(sorry ’bout the all bold caps above)

Raven @ 178 said, You know nothing about me, nothing.

Dear Raven, I was not demeaning you as a ‘baiter’, my comment meant that fanning the flames lowers the debate and creates more hatred, more destruction and more casualties when what is needed is more love, patience & understanding.
I would never presume to judge you, but if you allow anger to manage you, you are moving away from your true essence. Anger clouds one’s judgment as does fear and greed. And if you care to vent, do so with words to those who care for you. I am sure you will find many friends on the lake to listen, that is what makes FDL so special – the people who are here.
Be strong, be love … that is your essence.

re the comment at 65. isn’t this prima face a declaration of conspiracy. they didn’t want to call attention, so this guy needed a talking-to.

Petrocelli @
206

Raven @ 178 said, You know nothing about me, nothing.

Dear Raven, I was not demeaning you as a ‘baiter’, my comment meant that fanning the flames lowers the debate and creates more hatred, more destruction and more casualties when what is needed is more love, patience & understanding.
I would never presume to judge you, but if you allow anger to manage you, you are moving away from your true essence. Anger clouds one’s judgment as does fear and greed. And if you care to vent, do so with words to those who care for you. I am sure you will find many friends on the lake to listen, that is what makes FDL so special – the people who are here.
Be strong, be love … that is your essence.

ATTN: MOD/CHRISTY – I would appreciate it if you could show this comment to Raven.
Petrocelli

noen @ 121

cbl @ 118

Petrocelli -

lying to Congress is lying to congress whether you are under oath or not

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 47 > 1001 Prev

If you’re under oath & lie, you could also violate 18 USC 1621.

penaties for both are 5-8 years per infraction

How much has that been used? How many who lied but were not under oath have gone to prison?

It’s a tangent, but the easy answer is Martha Stewart.

TPM just posted that the house panel will meet tomorrow to vote on immunity for Mz. Gooding. Do you suppose that yellow liquid at Alberto’s feet is pineapple juice?

In my best-of-all-possible-worlds, I’d have the Senate questioning Goodling with a grant of immunity while the House is questioning Gonzales — at the same time.

No way to coordinate stories then. Abu would be shitting bricks.

Oh well. Back to reality.

“Christianity and Democracy are inevitably enemies.”
-Rousas Rushdoony, Founder of the Christian Reconstruction Movement

If that’s the stark choice we face, I know what I’ll choose. And Christ agrees with me! (He sends his sympathies and regards, btw.) ;-)

nolo @
38

Sandra in Dallas @ 2

I know that the stated goal of
Christians is to live a Christ-like life.
I’m finding it very hard to understand how
MG justifies what she is doing – surely
Christ would have shared all the information
he had and then accepted with humility
whatever consequences of his telling and
his actions themselves. Someone needs to ask
her this.

who are we to say this?

i am sorry to offend, here, but
i am less-than-thrilled with the
idea that — regardless of what i
may or may not think of her personally,
or her professed-faith, or her morals — that
anyone would think a religious question
belongs in the judiciary committee hearing
record.

this is exactly the sort of thing we are
mostly-rightly-castigating monica goodling
and rachel paulose for — loyalty-type
oaths. . . so i will draw a line, and
say i disapprove of any suggestion that
any line of questioning about her religious
beliefs would be either relevant, or wise.

if her beliefs garnered her favored status
on the federal job-site, that is another
matter entirely — but please do not con-
fuse/conflate these two very different things.

sorry — strong reaction, there.

not personal — just positional.

==========
Nolo – I did not mean she should be asked this in a congressional hearing; I meant that journalists and commentators should be pursuing this angle since she chose to go to a law school that advocates promoting christian principles in your work life. In that context it is absolutely fair game.

I’m sicking of self-described “devout” people of all religions being treated with kid gloves because of how they represent themselves.

OT & EPU’ed re: Opera browser

To Christy:

Thank you Christie, got the e-mail and got it here. I think it was sitemeter running slow (whatever sitemeter is :) and I think the cookie and/or image I mentioned came from their site directly while loading FDL. Whatever, Opera is up & running great. I think the multiple pagewidth reformats have ended too, now that I think about it.

Thanks so much to all involved!

Helen @ 201

gman @ 200

this is exactly the sort of thing we are
mostly-rightly-castigating monica goodling
and rachel paulose for — loyalty-type
oaths. . . so i will draw a line, and
say i disapprove of any suggestion that
any line of questioning about her religious
beliefs would be either relevant, or wise.

I think it would be fair game if she
herself brings up her faith, which I
think Regent U Law School alums may
be apt to do. That would — fairly –
create an opening for some very
uncomforatble cross-examination of
the WWJD variety.

She put it in her resignation letter.
Oh yes, she will bring it up.

i have two thoughts — one, as i wrote
in my original comment (but was not
carried down-thread), her faith would
be relevant if the practice (or apparent
practice) of it led to favorable treatment
in gonzales’ office of attorney general.

that much is plainly warranted.

my comment was, again, in repsonse to
the suggestion by an earlier comment
that she should have to explain how
she squares with her professed faith.
the taking the fifth, and then
(it would seem), cutting an immunity
deal, all in return for nothing but
the truth — testimony.

so — let me make this very personal,
for all of these-faith-centered ones are:
would you feel comfortable asking the
same line of questions of a devout muslim,
or a devout hindu, or a devout jew? how
about a devout ethical humanist? obviously
my point is that one’s dislike for her brand
of perhaps hypocritical christianity is
irrelevant to the pursuit of the truth.

i promise to shut up about this, now — as
i, for one, am thrilled with the idea of
immunity for monica goodling (having pre-
dicted this a couple of weeks back); it
smiply must mean she has something rather
alarming to tell us. so, i’d listen. now,
we know rep. conyers will, too.

how high does it go? remember she traveled
regularly with john ashcroft. . . one may
easily imagine a much bigger fish, on the
line, much bigger than mr. gonzales. . .

i’m just sayin’. . .
will, too.

sandra in dallas @213:

Nolo – I did not mean she should be asked this in a congressional hearing; I meant that journalists and commentators should be pursuing this angle since she chose to go to a law school that advocates promoting christian principles in your work life. In that context it is absolutely fair game.

I’m sicking of self-described “devout” people of all religions being treated with kid gloves because of how they represent themselves.

agreed. sorry to have mis-
understood your meaning.

p e a c e

Petrocelli @ 208

Petrocelli @
206

Raven @ 178 said, You know nothing about me, nothing.

Dear Raven, I was not demeaning you as a ‘baiter’, my comment meant that fanning the flames lowers the debate and creates more hatred, more destruction and more casualties when what is needed is more love, patience & understanding.
I would never presume to judge you, but if you allow anger to manage you, you are moving away from your true essence. Anger clouds one’s judgment as does fear and greed. And if you care to vent, do so with words to those who care for you. I am sure you will find many friends on the lake to listen, that is what makes FDL so special – the people who are here.
Be strong, be love … that is your essence.

ATTN: MOD/CHRISTY – I would appreciate it if you could show this comment to Raven.
Petrocelli

Thanks, I got it. A mile in the water helped me breathe some.

nolo @ 38

Sandra in Dallas @ 2

I know that the stated goal of
Christians is to live a Christ-like life.
I’m finding it very hard to understand how
MG justifies what she is doing – surely
Christ would have shared all the information
he had and then accepted with humility
whatever consequences of his telling and
his actions themselves. Someone needs to ask
her this.

who are we to say this?

i am sorry to offend, here, but
i am less-than-thrilled with the
idea that — regardless of what i
may or may not think of her personally,
or her professed-faith, or her morals — that
anyone would think a religious question
belongs in the judiciary committee hearing
record.

this is exactly the sort of thing we are
mostly-rightly-castigating monica goodling
and rachel paulose for — loyalty-type
oaths. . . so i will draw a line, and
say i disapprove of any suggestion that
any line of questioning about her religious
beliefs would be either relevant, or wise.

if her beliefs garnered her favored status
on the federal job-site, that is another
matter entirely — but please do not con-
fuse/conflate these two very different things.

sorry — strong reaction, there.

not personal — just positional.

raven @ 157

Not a fucking word about gun rights, now jump up and down and rail about how he shouldn’t be there. My dislike for this president is deep but there is some real bullshit here on the lake. There’s your flamebait.

Yesterday his spokesman immediately said that Bush’s positions on guns remained the same,that “He fully supported the individuals right to bear arms. within the laws”. That statement presumes that his spokesman had, in fact, received this viewpoint AFTER the killings from Bush.

I was a bit taken aback by the statement, as it really wasn’t obviously related to the shootings to make such a DIRECT position statement about gun-control. I would have thought that the better, and more appropriate statement would have been…”Really, this isn’t a time to debate these issues…put that aside for at least a few days, please…
it’s a time for us to mourn the loss of these young students, so much lost promise, and their teachers who bravely confronted the killer and lost their lives”.

But the gunlaw issue was specifically raised by the President’s spokesman, presumably carrying the Presidents immediate views.

In addition, I thought it was oddly full of words that said nothing about the issue of CHANGING THE LAWS. It was the sort of statement that sounds right, or is defendable, against any criticism.

But it was Bush, himself (or his spokesman) that was the first national figure to raise gun-control as an issue on the heels of the shootings.

cinnamonape says: @ 218

April 17th, 2007 at 4:29 pm. . .

i’m puzzled as to why my post on religious
tolerance is reprinted in yours — that
seems mostly to deal with raven’s concerns
about being balanced in our perspectives
on the president — i guess because both
suggest not pre-judging. . .

erh. . . if so, never mind. . . i get it now.

pow wow @ 86

I too am hoping that Rep. Conyers is not being too hasty here. What’s the rush to remove responsibility from Ms. Goodling for the actions she knowingly took while in public office? If there is any doubt as to her singular ability to significantly contribute to our knowledge of what occurred, I’d hope Congress would postpone action on granting immunity until matters have become more clear from other sources [though I understand that none of us on the outside have access to all the information that the Judiciary Committees now have, and thus cannot accurately assess the matter from here].

Following up on his interview which was highlighted here at FDL, Patrick Collins, former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, has written an op-ed for today’s Chicago Tribune – as did a former colleague (Safer?) of his who is now counsel for one of the Conrad Black co-defendants. The earlier Safer op-ed made a very good point regarding the power wielded by federal prosecutors, in reinforcing why no taint of partisan political motives should be tolerated in the administration of justice. Patrick Collins’s new op-ed draws upon and expands that theme:

Prosecutors alone have the power to present an indictment to a grand jury, an awesome power that, once executed, typically changes the course of lives forever.

[snip]

By contrast, in the U.S. attorney’s office where I have worked for 12 years as an assistant U.S. attorney, I’ve had the privilege of working with dozens of prosecutors and agents on myriad city, county, state and federal public corruption investigations. I am proud to say that I never saw any indication of any such shenanigans. In fact, I could not tell you the political preferences of most of my fellow prosecutors or agents. Whether they were “loyal Bushies” or “Clintonistas” or something in-between was not ascertainable by word or deed.

What I did come to learn, however, and what was obvious during our work sessions, was that agents and prosecutors simply did not care about the political affiliation of the targets of the corruption investigation. Instead, they were focused on scrupulously scrubbing the facts and the evidence, and on bringing the case if and only if the facts and evidence had been revealed.

We have heard as a defense of the summary dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys that all U.S. attorneys “serve at the pleasure of the president.” And that, of course, is true. But they must never serve only to please the president. U.S. attorneys serve the people of the United States.

If we replace non-partisan public service with blind political loyalty, we will have sacrificed one of the core values of our judicial system.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/…..;cset=true

[With thanks to in_cog_ni_to at DU]

Well, the next level has arisen, and it is a full blown criminal matter, IMHO.

basically, after the lawyers at DOJ assembled a candidate list based on, oh, going to Yale Law School, etc, for DOJ CAREER CIVIL SERVICE positions, in which any partisan litmus test is EXPLICITLY FOBIDDEN BY STATUE, guess what Paul McNulty and his assistant did:

they trolled the internet for any indications the nominees had done work for Democratic candidates of any stripe, were members in any “liberal” organization (like ACLU), etc. Such nominees were struck off immediately, leaving only those who were “loyal bushies”. The story is from Next Hurrah, here.