Will Monica Goodling fall on her sword?

[Piggy]

On the day that former Department of Justice senior counselor and White House liaison Monica Goodling -- who earlier copped the fifth beneath the looming shadow of the "attorneygate" dustup -- was granted immunity to testify before Congress, a DoJ spokesman commented that, lo and behold, it appears that the department staffer who was behind the possible use of "prohibited considerations" in the removal of 8 US attorneys was... Monica Goodling.

So what have we here? Are the boys at justice quaking in their boots and grasping at straws... or have they just snookered the capitol gang but good? Or is it all just bread and circuses?

Will she finger Alberto "Joe I-Don't-Know" Gonzalez, or others in the DoJ? Will she shut down the show by fingering herself instead? (That's enough snickering in the back row, thank you very much.) Will she blame the butler? Or will the whole show be cancelled due to low ratings before the first season is over and we get to the episode where a woman gives birth in a public place?

Let's figure the spread on this one. Make your predictions and we'll see where the smart money's at.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Monica who?

 

[President Bush]

If she were any less qualified, she’d be Vice President.

 

[Piggy]

Goodling

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monica_Goodling

 

[Crossbow]

My guess is that Goodling will hold for immunity from prosecution, and when that is done, then she will promptly proceed to spill the beans blaming herself, Gonzales, and everyone else she worked with.

And if she does not get immunity, then she will blab as much as possible in order to take the focus off of her.

 

[WildCat]

Damn Piggy, you've been here long enough to know of the mandatory Planet X option.

 

[Piggy]

Damn Piggy, you've been here long enough to know of the mandatory Planet X option.

But obviously not long enough to like it.

 

[davefoc]

I didn't vote.

I just don't know.

I think the situation is that she and Sampson worked with the white house (meaning Karl Rove probably) to fire attorneys that were either prosecuting Republicans too aggressively or Democrats not aggressively enough for their liking). Gonzales just rubber stamped the deal. I don't think the idea that he had any duty to resist the politicization of his office ever occurred to Gonzales while this was going on.

The question in the poll is whether Goodling will in some way cover this up even though she has immunity. I think she'll describe what went on but will that necessarily implicate Gonzales? I think Gonzales was left out of the loop as much as possible to provide plausible deniability for him. I think he's pretty much admitted that already by not being to put together two intelligible sentences in a row as to how the firings came about. And what will it mean that she was working with the white house on the firings? The White House will claim that they were just giving some rough guidance and that it was she and Sampson that were really making the decisions based upon criteria that the White House believed to be legitimate.

So my expectation for the Goodling testimony is that it will provide a little more support for the idea that Gonzales is a sycophant that cooperated with the White House efforts to use the justice department for partisan political purposes. But that is fairly obvious right now anyway, so I don't expect her testimony to be that significant with respect to the eventual outcome of this scandal.

I thought Comey's comments the other day about the very positive reputations of seven of the eight fired attorney's was more damaging to Gonzales' credibility than Goodling's testimony will be.

 

[Piggy]

Shameless bump

Well, Al's back before the boys on the hill today... getting a much easier digestion passing through the lower intestine of the government than he received from the upper... and a bit more polished and deft at the rope-a-dope.

Still no word from our evangelical ingenue.

The plot thins, like Karl Rove's hair.

 

[hgc]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/4796045.html

Immunity for Goodling approved. I think the sword is pointing elsewhere.

 

[Piggy]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/4796045.html

Immunity for Goodling approved. I think the sword is pointing elsewhere.

Oh, they had already approved it when I started the poll.

The question is, given the DoJ response -- shocked, shocked to discover that Ms. Goodling was the loose canon -- and Goodling's almost religious loyalty to the department, is this a snooker play?

Will Monica use her testimony to essentially say "I did it", and leave Congress twisting in the wind?

 

[hgc]

Oh, they had already approved it when I started the poll.

The question is, given the DoJ response -- shocked, shocked to discover that Ms. Goodling was the loose canon -- and Goodling's almost religious loyalty to the department, is this a snooker play?

Will Monica use her testimony to essentially say "I did it", and leave Congress twisting in the wind?

She is not immune from charges of purgery.

 

[Darth Rotor]

She is not immune from charges of purgery.

Aye, which will doubtless inform her testimony, having seen Scooter take one for "the team."
http://www.regent.edu/alumni/chapte...caGoodlingandBrianEichelbergerAutoCorrect.jpg

A comment on the OP: Bill Clinton had a Monica who was a sword swallower, this Pres has a Monica who is being asked to fall on her, his, or Big Al's, sword.

I am trying to figure out which of those two Presidentes I'd like to work for least, in terms of being in their personal staff/inner circle. At least with Bill Clinton, you could count on some golf, beer, and McD's junk food now and again.

DR

 

[Piggy]

She is not immune from charges of purgery.

True. But if she and Justice have agreed that she blames herself under immunity, and they clam up... could be effective. The acceptance of immunity (by DoJ itself, which had to sign off) and the dept's comments that Goodling may have been behind the potentially wrongful firings came on the same day.

Of course, if I understand aright, immunity is conditional to actually providing material assistance in the case, so if that is the plan, there's still the chance she could be charged anyway if stonewalling is alleged.

 

[davefoc]

I think the chances of perjury charges here are close to zero.

Perjury seems to be seldom prosecuted. It seems to require very strong evidence of intent to deceive in a situation where the issues are significant. And it requires unambiguous evidence that there was deceit. The Libby case was unusual in that all those criteria were met. And even with overwhelming evidence of intent to deceive on an unambiguous and significant issue there were still some that argued that the threshold for perjury charges hadn't been met.

The truth may very well be that Rove and Miers were mighty pissed at US Attorneys that were not acting in what they saw as a sufficiently partisan way so they conspired with Gonzales to put two inexperienced people in charge of the review and firing process and then they told those two inexperienced officials who to fire. But Goodling's spin on the real situation will be close enough to what is plausible that there won't be any perjury issues. And far enough away from putting blame on Miers and Rove that Bush will probably be able to continue to be able to hide behind the fiction that nothing wrong was done.

I still think there's about a 50% chance that Gonzales will be fired but I can't see any logical reason for thinking the chances are that high. Bush won't fire Gonzales because:
1. Firing Gonzales won't do much to stop the investigation that looks like it leads at least to Rove and Miers and probably to Bush.
2. Firing Gonzales would be an admission of error on the part of Bush and Bush doesn't seem like the sort of fellow that ever admits mistakes.
3. Firing Gonzales is opposed by most of the Bush base support and would probably in net result in a weakening of support for Bush. Yes most people think that he should be fired but the people who think he should be fired aren't Bush supporters anyway.
4. Firing Gonzales would require the Bush administration to go through another approval process for the attorney general and this looks to be a not very fun process for whoever follows Gonzales.

The main reason to think he will be fired is that he should be for the good of the country. I just don't see that as being any kind of motivating factor for Bushco but there is still the chance I suppose that something breaks in the scandal that puts so much pressure on the moderate Republican congressmen that they feel a need to pressure Bush to force his hand on Gonzales. Or even less cynically, that Republican congressman decide to act against Gonzales because they decide to put the interests of the country ahead of their own narrow political calculations. Is that inconceivable?

 

[hgc]

... Or even less cynically, that Republican congressman decide to act against Gonzales because they decide to put the interests of the country ahead of their own narrow political calculations. Is that inconceivable?

That depends on whether acting on indications that political fallout from sticking with Bush is outpacing political fallout from bucking him is dinstinguishable from acting in the best interests of the country.

New definition for "moderate" Republican: One who's looking at defeat next year due to association with Bush.

 

[davefoc]

Here's a NY Times article about some of Goodling's hijinks with the hiring, firing and promotion of attorneys in the justice department:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/12/washington/12monica.html?pagewanted=1&hp

WASHINGTON, May 11 — Two years ago, Robin C. Ashton, a seasoned criminal prosecutor at the Department of Justice, learned from her boss that a promised promotion was no longer hers.

“You have a Monica problem,” Ms. Ashton was told, according to several Justice Department officials. Referring to Monica M. Goodling, a 31-year-old, relatively inexperienced lawyer who had only recently arrived in the office, the boss added, “She believes you’re a Democrat and doesn’t feel you can be trusted.”

 

[Piggy]

Reminds me of Sampson's recommendation against firing the remaining attorneys, partly on the grounds that they met a list of criteria which included being "loyal Bushies".

 

[Piggy]

OP goes on vacation

Just a quick note that I'm going to be away for a week, so will not be checking in for progress.

Seems like "attorneygate" isn't such the hot topic around here, but I've enjoyed reading the posts.

I'll check back next Sunday and see if there's any news.

Cheers.

-Piggy