Now, the question is whether she has any incriminating evidence re Rove or Harriet Meiers, and whether she would give it up truthfully if she does. Her lawyer will advise her that her only danger is lying to the committee.

Her biggest danger, if she decides to provide cover to the White House by lying, is that the committee has some e-mails or other evidence she does not know they have. Then if she, for example, says something directly contradictory to something she wrote, she is jammed.

She is a good Christian woman. (No sarcasm intended.) I assume that she will come in and tell the truth, as she ought. Let’s see what happens next.

My prediction: this is the end of the Gonzales scandal. He may not survive, but it goes no further.

Ms. Goodling hasdisplayed herattention to detail every day of her short and meteoric political life, so her testimony should be precise, accurate and exhaustive, if she lives up to her billing as one of those ultimate over-achievers who channel every resource and rocket to the top. Unfortunately for this “Monica,” her ascent occurred in a failing administration, and her ballistic trajectory was chopped off, as the political house of cards about her collapsed.

Ms. Goodling’s testimony could prove to be historic, if she answers with the depth of her perspective; she knows everything…and the right questions can leave her no room for obfuscation, especially with an immunity agreement already on the table. Which is why I say, line up the former DA’s like Hodes, who are on the committees and can effectively question her, and get the questions refined down to their least ambiguous framing.

General note: no reference to violence against public officials or otherwise. Period. Everyone knows this, but I’m saying it again, because I don’t want to get a call from the Secret Service about veiled threatening language and a request for blog records. Hope that was clear enough for everyone.

Can we say ‘rot in a hell of their own making’?

. . . member little, if anything, about what Rove said or did. Monica will smirk, take her immunity to the bank, and give them nothing.

Pretty much. Waxman needs big dirt on her, badly, to get anything out of her. She’s as arrogant and blameless as the rest of them. They ALL have Stay Out Of Jail Lives in their own minds. Only thing that’s gonna work is to actually PROVE something and charge them, to make them sweat. Just testifying, at this point, is a walk in the park for them all.

So because she has immunity, she can’t claim 5th Amend? Is that right?

dakine01 @
120

Stephen Parrish, CPA @ 114

From Wikipedia:

Use immunity

(snip)

Use immunity only prevents the prosecution from using the witness’ own testimony against them. However, should the prosecutor acquire evidence substantiating the supposed crime — independent of the witness’s testimony — the witness may then be prosecuted for same.
(my emphasis)

That’s the theory but even with Use immunity granted to Ollie North and the Prosecutor making special pre-cautions to not be tainted, Ollie North’s conviction were still overturned by the courts because of the Possibility of it having been tainted.

Ollie’s testimony was thrown out not only because Congress jumped the gun on immunity but because the appeal went to people like David Sentelle, Lawrence Silberman, and Stanley Sporkin, former counsel for the CIA. Sentelle is still around doing damage and now he’s aided and abetted by Janice Rogers Brown.

The court that will be enforcing subpoenas in this case and others is considered to be in Bush’s pocket so a word of caution about optimism should subpoenas be ignored.

I’m all for impeaching some of the people on the Federal bench including at least two sitting Supreme Court justices who told outright lies at their confirmation hearings.

nolo at 125 — Thanks — my phone rang just as that part was coming up, and I msised the exact wording. But I’d still like to see how they write it up because saying it and having what you’ve written conform to what I think that means are two completely different thing. Devil is in the details in something like this, as you well know.

well-put, indeed.

and devilish details have
ruled the day, here for far too long. . .

p e a c e

Thank you for everything.

any time. it what I live for (no, really).