I think Sensenbrenner makes a good point. Doesn't it seem obvious that Ms Goodling can now claim responsibility for anything that might be perceived as illegal?
If she does, how will that effect the progress of this investigation?
Does it make sense to know what happened at the expense of any ability to pursue justice once you know?
I hope the Senators have weighed these things well, and know what they're doing...

Oh for Pete's sake, don't be an apologist disguised as some sort of concerned legal maven! Ms Goodling's prosecution, as an underling who apparently followed orders so well she had to resign, is immaterial. We need to speak to power here, and Gonzalez is the man who needs to be prosecuted. Everything bad that happened ultimately came from him. Ms Goodling will not fall on her sword repeatedly during these proceedings, so eventually she will tell the truth, and we can find out what happened and punsish *those in charge* of it, for a change. You Republicans never cease to amaze me with your sleaziness.

Huss, you do raise a good point.

She could claim responsibility for it all and absolve everyone. However, she is a Republican and desires to get appointments/promotions in the future; maybe even fame and fortune as well. Taking the rap would only help the current administration, which is quickly falling out of favor with many Republicans.

Whereas, telling the truth would advance her in many circles. So, is she a Bushie, or a true Republican? Does she care about money, or loyalty oathes? Does she want to look like an imbecile by taking the rap and admitting to awful decisions, or like a subservient mule? Should be interesting testimony.

Regarding Patrick Huss's comment, isn't it the case that the immunity only applies to past acts about which Gooding will testify? She would still be subject to prosecution for perjury if she lies under oath during this testimony, wouldn't she?

Stillpoint, you're correct.

"Tactical", you are mistaken to form the Republican stereotype around Huss's post. As a moderate-independent who usually votes Democrat, I certainly see light in Huss's post, especially since blame may be a matter of judgment in this case. It is not fairly obvious that Huss is a sleazy republican.

In fact, I would not be surprised to learn that he is a Democrat. The Democrats in Congress cannot rush things or act completely irrational in the manner you propose.

Goodling will surely tell the truth and she is the right witness to probe for information. The immunity she is being granted only applies to her actions in relation to the firings. It will not protect her from perjury if she were to lie. This was a good move by investigators and will likely lead to the source of the problems.

yes, goodling is liable for a perjury prosecution if she lies. so, even if she desires to "help" white house personnel, she would place herself in jeopardy if she does, because she and her lawyer do not know what evidence congress has or will obtain elsewhere. she would be a fool if she did anything other than scrupulously tell the truth, and the whole truth.

more important, since nothing she did would have been done alone, the federal conspiracy statute--including conspiracy to obstruct justice and/or commit fraud--comes into play. if white house personnel directed, through goodling, doj to fire prosecutors who were investigating republican operatives or office holders in order to impede those investigations, that is classic obstruction of justice (regardless of the "authority" to fire). congress may also have to immunize lower level white house assistants. the ultimate targets are rove, cheney, and bush.

She can't claim total responsibility for everything illegal without setting herself up for perjury charges. (Unless she actually did everything illegal, which seems pretty darned unlikely.)

Immunity only covers past crimes, and is limited in other ways.

Many of the folks running the Judiciary Committee have experience in this sort of thing, plus they're getting expert advice. They know how the Roll Up game is played.

Another thing... is "an apologist disguised as some sort of concerned legal maven" for "someone who thinks rationally"?

Stillpoint, I am not a lawyer, but I don't think you can get immunity from perjury under any circumstance. I don't doubt for a moment that she would be subject to prosecution if it could be proven that she lied under oath to Congress.
If it could be proven.
My concern is that, given how crucial her testimony appears to be to this investigation, Ms Goodling may be in a position to say almost anything, because the evidence to confirm or refute simply isn't available. I hope my concern is unfounded, and I give credit to Senators Spector and Reid as former prosecutors, to know when to grant immunity and when not to, but it still worries me.

Tactical, you made my day. I've never been mistaken for a Republican apologist before. I haven't laughed so hard in years.

"Immunity?" Why not just pardon everyone and be done with it? When, exactly, should big-gun politicians be made to face consequences? This melodramatic political theatre gets more ridiculous by the minute.

Sensenbrenner is a fool from the same state that sent Joe McCarthy to Washington rather than a nut farm. Sorry. That's an oxymoron.

Goodling has the potential to shed a great deal of light on the motivation behind post-election US Attorney firings. This administration has a long history of breaking rules and laws, and of having twisted motives for its actions. Iraq is just one example of many. And Rove, Gonzales, and Libby are just three of those who stand out for the extent of their willingness to put party above America and Americans.

I certainly don't expect Goodling to sink Gonzales, but she may sink a couple of Senators who managed to dodge criminal investigations when those US Attorneys were fired.

In my opinion, Democrats are wasting time on Gonzales. There are lots of other more important issues Congress should be using its time for, including refusing to send any supplemental funding bill to Bush. Congress is not obligated to even respond to supplemental requests.

Testimony is interfering with the V. Tech shooting investigation? That was over in 24 hours. How about the war in Iraq is interfering with our attempts to catch Osama BL? Not a shred of evidence? It seemed an allegation was all they needed to start investigations against the Clintons. Monicas job was to deliver Roves orders to the political lackeys in the DoJ. Will the girl fall on her sword of false-righteousness? Or will she, under oath to her God, speak the truth and save her soul?

I think the hope is that Monica would prefer to sell out her ex-bosses than go to jail. If she gets caught lying to congress, she could easily do time. She's 33 and has a long future if she doesn't get locked up. It would really be pretty dumb of her not to cooperate fully.

List the crimes!!! Firing someone? How much time and money is being spent on this folly? Where is the healthcare? Where is the social security fix? Where is the education fix? Go ahead and try to convict because someone got fired! How about just letting it go and get to work and fix all the real problems.

"The public has a strong interest in knowing the truth and knowing it now, so I am willing to vote for immunity for Ms. Goodling," he said.

Wow, a Republican who acknowleges that some non-republicans actually count for something! Something we haven't seen in over a decade! Maybe there is some hope for a few of them after all!

If Goodling doesn't testify then we are unlikely to get any evidence that she was involved in any wrong doing, so she would never have been prosecuted anyway. It's somewhat paradoxical but the point is, Goodling wasn't likely to be prosecuted unless she testified and she wasn't going to testify if she wasn't given immunity. As far as her taking the rap for someone else because she has immunity, I would say not to damm likely. Her immunity doesn't extend to lying to congress, so she isn't going to risk jail to save someone else's ass. She has a sweet deal that she isn't going to risk by perjuring herself.

The really disturbing thing about this case is that it is just one of many many cases that we are learning about, where the administration lied or kept facts from Congress or the public. Of course this is nowhere near as significant as the lies surrounding the war in Iraq, but congress has to deal with each and every case if only to let the people involved know that they can't lie with impunity.

I would advise Ms. Goodling not to be a snitch. Keeping her mouth shut is appropriate. I second Tom' comments. This is just political witchhunt. Those prosecutors deserve to be fired even if the reason is "refusing to send birthday Bush's little puppy." The president reserves his right to fire anybody.

On the other hand, she could just 'testify' like Gonzales did by "disremembering" the details on all the critical questions like Who drew up the list? What were the criteria? Who made the final decisions on the list? etc.

I can't imagine that she'll give up Karl Rove because no one really knows how involved he will continue to be in running the party, and he can be a really nasty enemy.

And who would recognize the truth if she told it? This process was so wicked and so buried and convoluted (mostly to give cover to the WH, Rove, Cheney, Gonzales, Meirs), that even the truth might sound too weird to be plausible.

At any rate, I'm sure she will find it a challenge to meet the Christian requirement to tell the truth and her political desire to survive to rule another day in some other Repulican administration.

I think trying to root out undo influence of the exectuive branch of the judicial branch is majorly important. Without checks and balances, this government is no better than a central american dictatorship. When and if we get to the bvottom of this only then will real progress on education, women's right to choose, the environemnt etc. be possible. I hope Monica's testimony puts these SOBs behind bars, but I'm not holding my breath. They'll never see justice and we all know it.

Now Goodling no longer has the chance to stonewall in order to save Gonzales, Rove and Bush. She will either have to fall on her sword by lying to try to protect them, or, horror or horrors for this administration, actually tell the truth. There is no immunity for perjury, so she could still go to jail if she lies. In view of the Renzi case, where a US attorney was fired in a clear attempt to stop an ongoing criminal investigation, which means, despite White House spin, that there may be an underlying crime, a special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate who was responsible for the firing, as if we didn't already know.

In my opinion the fact that she refused to testify rather than using the Gonzales tactic of amnesia or just lying as other have done, shows the strong likelyhood that she will tell the truth, and that she does not want to be the scape goat for the illegalities that were involved. She is a mid thirties ladder climber and certainly is concerned about her career future.

Its always interesting to watch when the destiny of a Nation becomes entangled in the character of an individual citizen. Ms Goodling may be an honorable, upstanding citizen for all I know, but the obfuscation of the truth must stop with her for that to become clear. It is so sad that we've reached the point that we can't help but question the integrity of all of the people involved in this fiasco. I'd like to think that these are people who've earned the benefit of the doubt by playing such crucial roles in the Justice Department. The tragic fact is that we all know too much to give them the benefit of the doubt and too little to blame any individuals, so the whole bunch is tainted.
Lets hope in Ms Goodling we have an individual whose love of country outweighs her career loyalties, whose dedication to the pursuit of justice outweighs her dedication to her bosses. Time will tell.

You don't get it. Goodlings job was liaison with the White House. Not only can she finger Gonzales, she can finger Rove, Cheney and Bush.