posted
Bloomberg has a story just out that the House Judiciary Committee will vote tomorrow on granting immunity to Monica Goodling (former liason to the White House for Attorney General Gonzales).
I wonder if she cut a deal? She was going to plead the Fifth Amendment and refuse to testify. As the liason between the AG and the White House, she is uniquely placed to testify about the US attorney firings.
It takes a 2/3 vote on the commitee to grant immunity. I would guess that Chairman Conyers wouldn't have gone public with this if he didn't have the votes to get it done.
quote: A House panel is considering whether to grant limited immunity from prosecution to force a former aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to testify about the firings of eight U.S. attorneys.
The House Judiciary Committee will meet tomorrow to discuss a proposal to grant immunity to Monica Goodling, who resigned as a senior counselor to Gonzales after invoking her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
quote: Immunity Grant Such limited immunity must be granted by a federal judge. The Justice Department would have the opportunity to register any objections over whether an immunity grant would interfere with any criminal investigation.
I guess the commitee votes, then it goes to a judge.
posted
I think the timing of the vote is interesting. It comes just one day before AG Gonzales' do-or-die testimony to Congress. If she is granted immunity, it rachets up the pressure on Gonzales that much more.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not nearly as fascinating as the story, or rather complete lack of reporting, about Dianne Feinstein and her awarding of military contracts to her husband. Dianne Feinstein more infoPosts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
DK, how is that relevant to this story? If this is actually an issue, it warrants it's own thread and in no way alters the analysis of the U.S. Attorney firings.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Not nearly as fascinating as the story, or rather complete lack of reporting, about Dianne Feinstein and her awarding of military contracts to her husband. Dianne Feinstein more info
Her husband owns less than a quarter of the company in question. So saying "her husband's company" as the article does, or you, who more directly act like she's signing the US Treasury over to him, are either wrong or highly misleading. Second, everything that went to her "husband's company" was voted on by other people. She was in charge of an appropriations subcommittee, and all of this happened while the REPUBLICANS controlled Congress. Considering the specialized work that URS does, if they didn't have a government contract, they'd likely be out of business.
Furthermore, and though I know this doesn't excuse any possible wrongdoing, if she did anything wrong, maybe you should look to your goldenboy role models in the White House first. They were pioneers in 21st century no-bid contracts that are obvious conflicts of interest. At least we aren't hearing reports that URS is skimming off the top like Bush's buddies have been.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Her husband owns less than a quarter of the company in question. So saying "her husband's company" as the article does, or you, who more directly act like she's signing the US Treasury over to him, are either wrong or highly misleading.
I don't think that's misleading, especially since the article gave the stock ownership percentage. In a publicly traded company, that would be considered a controlling share for many SEC purposes, and it's certainly enough ownership that anything improper in relation to a 100% owner would also be improper in relation to him.
But just the fact that he's Feinstein's husband isn't enough to make this improper, and I suspect if there were more, we will hear enough about it to judge. The second link gives us some possible conflicts, but there's nothing firm there yet until the list of what Klein gave her is compared to what she voted on.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Furthermore, and though I know this doesn't excuse any possible wrongdoing, if she did anything wrong, maybe you should look to your goldenboy role models in the White House first. They were pioneers in 21st century no-bid contracts that are obvious conflicts of interest. At least we aren't hearing reports that URS is skimming off the top like Bush's buddies have been.
Do you mean like having your Haliburton stock options raising in value more than 3,000 percent between 2004 and 2005? Or deferred salary payments in the hundreds of thousands annually while handing out those no-bid contracts to your former company? Yeah, I agree %100 with you on that one, Lyrhawn. It's a pity that things like this count as having "no ties to Haliburton" to many.
About Goodling: Perhaps I am misremembering, but even if they award her immunity can't they further charge her with something else in the future? Does her having plead the 5th Amendment, which doesn't seem reasonable if she is being questioned about the activities of someone else, negate the ability to use another tactic to charge her with something?
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it would depend on what the immunity specifically covers. If it says she is immune from all crimes to date, they can't charge her later unless she commits a new crime.
If the immunity is specific and only says certain things are okay, then it's possible she could be charged later.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does her having plead the 5th Amendment, which doesn't seem reasonable if she is being questioned about the activities of someone else
That's not only reasonable but common.
The article mentioned limited immunity, which probably means "use immunity," which prevents anything she says under the grant of immunity from being used directly or indirectly against her. They basically have to make sure the investigators don't even see the transcripts.
This is in contrast to the broader transactional immunity, which is immunity from prosecution for the underlying transactions.
So, based on my guess (a pretty good one) that she receives use immunity, it's difficult, but still possible, to charge her.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does her having plead the 5th Amendment, which doesn't seem reasonable if she is being questioned about the activities of someone else
That's not only reasonable but common.
I was under the impression that the Fifth only protected you from incriminating yourself. Could you expand a bit on this?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, that was my question. I thought the 5th only applied when you were under testimony about yourself. Or is that the context of the hearing?
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the Feinstein thing is outrageously unfair. Vice President Cheney worked really hard to get us into this war and Sen. Feinstein did practically nothing. Why should her connections get to share in Halliburtons profiteering?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I was under the impression that the Fifth only protected you from incriminating yourself. Could you expand a bit on this?
The 5th is involved whenever you might incriminate yourself - which is very easy to do when talking about someone else.
Just imagine, for instance, that you and KoM are planning to rob a bank. The instant you agree both to do it, you have committed a crime (in Virginia at least, some states require an overt act as well, which could be as simple as borrowing the getaway car).
There's no way for KoM to testify about your involvement (truthfully) without also incriminating himself.
This leads to one of the most lopsided aspects of our justice system. Prosecutors can arrange for immunity. If they want to nail you and don't care about nailing KoM, they can give him immunity and force him to testify against you.
Even though you have the right to compel KoM to testify, you don't have a way to arrange immunity. Therefore, he can escape your compulsion via the 5th amendment.
In this case, if a crime was committed and Goodling was present, it would be possible to charge her as an accessory or co-conspirator. Any of her testimony about anyone else present would tend to incriminate her.
No inference may be drawn from someone asserting the 5th amendment in a criminal context, but negative inferences can be drawn in the civil context.
quote:I think the Feinstein thing is outrageously unfair. Vice President Cheney worked really hard to get us into this war and Sen. Feinstein did practically nothing. Why should her connections get to share in Halliburtons profiteering?
So we see that both sides of this can interject irrelevancies into the discussion.
The allegations (such as they are) involving Feinstein date back to before the war.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The vote to consider immunity has been pushed back one week. Hard to tell how this will affect the AG's testimony tomorrow. My own belief is he would have to really pull a rabbit out of his hat to survive.
quote: “At the request of our ranking minority member, Lamar Smith (R-Texas), I have announced a one-week delay in the committee vote to apply for immunity for Monica Goodling,” Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) said. “It is my hope that a short delay, agreed to in the spirit of bipartisan cooperation, will enable the minority to join us in taking this critical step in our efforts to uncover the truth about why the U.S. attorneys were terminated and what it means for the integrity of federal law enforcement.” http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/goodling-immunity-vote-pushed-back-2007-04-18.html
The committee breaks down to 22 Dems, 17 Repubs. Often when a vote is postponed, it means the votes aren't there to pass it.
I would guess there was some major arm-twisting after the vote was publicly scheduled, and some members decided to switch their vote.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I admit it: I imagined a Perry Mason moment, where Goodling would get immunity and then sing like a canary on national TV: naming names, pointing fingers, hauling skeletons out of all manner of fusty closets. There would have been staggering back-stabbed scapegraces all over the Beltway. (I get carried away sometimes. ) Alas, it looks like any testimony from Goodling could be a long time coming.
The committee voted 32-6 on April 25 to grant immunity to Goodling. However, this has been overshadowed by recent allegations that Goodling broke the law by improperly using party affiliation in her role in hiring assistant US Attorneys.
quote: Chief amongst the allegations against Goodling is that she is said to have quizzed candidates for open career positions at the department on their political preferences and affiliations. If she ultimately made decisions to hire career employees based on their personal politics, she will have broken the law.
The DoJ has launched a joint investigation into these allegations, using it's Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility. But this slows down the Congressional investigation--which may have been a motive for the DoJ investigations.
quote: The department's investigation, however, could delay the date when lawmakers hear from Goodling. Conyers' panel is trying to win a grant of immunity from prosecution for Goodling, who has said through her lawyer that she would assert her right against self-incrimination if called to testify.
But the Justice Department is unlikely to support immunity while its own probe is pending. The issue of immunity is ultimately decided by a federal judge. Justice Department officials are supposed to weigh in with a recommendation next week.
The DoJ will, as I understand it, issue a recommendation to the federal judge petitioned by the committee to grant immunity. As the article says, they are unlikely to recommend immunity at this point, and perhaps the committee might have second thoughts on granting immunity now as well. So the DoJ investigations, while probably necessary, have the effect of killing an important avenue in the House committee's investigation. Unless the judge sees it differently.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The DoJ blinked and did not oppose immunity for Goodling. Maybe there will be a Matlock moment after all.
Today, a federal judge granted immunity for Goodling.
quote: "Monica Goodling may not refuse to testify," Hogan began his brief order, which said that Goodling could not be prosecuted for anything other than perjury in connection with her testimony.
quote:But the Justice Department is unlikely to support immunity while its own probe is pending.
You know, there are very good reasons for that in many (even most) circumstances. There's more than one example of a criminal getting off because of a too-early grant of immunity.
We'll see how this plays out. In this case, prosecuting Goodling seems like a lower priority than 1) finding out what happened and 2) preserving the possibility of prosecuting higher ups if needed.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Maybe there will be a Matlock moment after all.
That, or she'll spend a couple of days remembering how to not recall anything that happened ever that was in any way related to the case.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
A commenter on a blog summed up a quote from Goodling when she cried on a colleague's shoulder before resigning:
quote: "All I ever wanted to do was serve this President and this administration and this department" sums up everything that has happened over the past 6 years.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
)
