House Judiciary Committee Votes to Grant Goodling Immunity
Well, well, well, the House Judiciary Committee voted, 32 to 6, to grand immunity to former aide to US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Monica Goodling. The Committee also, immediately, subpoenad her, although most members (still) hope that she will be testify voluntarily (fat chance). Representative John Conyers: “I do not propose this step lightly. We can always stop the process before the court issues an order.”
Besides the House Committee, ‘the Senate Judiciary Committee was also meeting to consider subpoenas in the continuing investigation of the firings. The Senate panel voted to authorize a subpoena of Sara Taylor, the White House political affairs director, to get around what Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who heads the panel, called White House “stonewalling”.’
It is becoming more and more serious. I repeat what I said when this story broke: if Gonzales / the White House would have admitted to having made mistakes, share (most of) what happened, etc. this controversy would have died a quick death. Now, however, the behavior of “Gonzo” et al. encouraged Democrats (the media and, yes, Republicans) to dig deeper and… well, it has already hurt Bush, Gonzales, Rove, etc. tremendously, and it will damage them / their reputation even more.
According to quite some people Goodling was at the very center of everything: she was
the
weakest
link
. She knows exactly what happened, how it happened, why it happened, who decided what, etc. If Goodling testifies, well, it seems to me that Gonzales, Bush and Rove will get
very nervous
.
In the past, I wrote that Goodling should not be granted immunity. I still stand by that… mostly. First and foremost, I think that it is incredibly sad that people who are supposed to do what is in the best interest of the American people, to serve them, are only willing to answer the questions of the people they are supposed, are only willing to be accountable, if they are granted immunity for everything they possibly did / are doing wrong. Second: how do they know that she won’t lie to protect, not her legal status, but her reputation? They don’t, they can’t.
That being said, it seems to be necessary to this. So, as such, if they want to know what really happened, this is the logical, albeit cynical, step to make.
Meanwhile, there seems to be a real subpoena frenzy going on now: the House Oversight Committee also approved a subpoena for Condoleezza Rice.
By 21-10, the House oversight committee voted to issue a subpoena to Rice to compel her story on the Bush administration’s claim, now discredited, that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa.
Some would say: “finally, some real oversight,” others would say: “dear God, here comes the whitch hunt.”
And both sides would be right.
H/t Shaun .
That’s - a joke, a meaningless statement. It is on par with saying you put on your underwear via the left leg or the right leg.
The kicker is - while Immunity can override the 5th Amendment, if all key players invoked a 5th than it’d shut down the investigation hard.
But at an extreme political cost.
Maybe they should vote to grant Rice immunity.
If she lies, her immunity becomes void.
But I agree, what exactly are they giving her immunity for? I could understand her invoking the 5th amendment under direct questioning, but refusing to even appear without the guarantee suggests virtually everything to do with the US Atty firings was illegal.
Overlooked in all the frenzy and frothing at the mouth is that firing Fed attorneys is something the AG can do at any time for political reasons or whatever, just like Billy Jeff did under the ogress Janet.
Another Plamegate, much ado about very little, and the silliness of DC just keeps getting sillier. Let’s prosecute real crimes, like Sandy Berglar stealing and destroying documents that the 9/11 Commission never got to see. And because of lil Gonzo trying to be all things to all men, no one got to administer a polygraph test to liar Sandy Berglar. Gonzo thought if he was nice, he’d be treated nicely. Big mistake.
Then why did he need three weeks of intense coaching by WH attorneys before he testified?Wow, he need all of that just to be nice? ??? I’m having just a tiny bit of trouble believing that.
Daveinboca did you watch the hearings or are you just repeating the party line-the “nothing to see here folks, lets keep it moving,”non-issue talking point?
Where are 5 million emails? Where are Rove’s emails? Why did Monica Goodling choose to take the 5th after disappearing from Washington?
Cmon -you guys had your interminable hearings grilling the Clinton folks in the ’90’s —with subpoenas for all. There was even a hearing on the Socks the Cat fan club and the Clinton Christmas card list.
The least we can do is return the favor.:)
I think if that would have been how Gonzales would have dealt with it from the beginning: calm, telling people enough to satisfy their curiosity, standing by his / the president’s right to do this, the controversy would have died a quick death.
Sadly for them they didn’t. They acted as if they had a lot to hide and… they do. Rove did things he should not have done, there has to be accountability. Also - the JoDo has been turned into a Republican fortress.