They’re actually rather slow. Somebody faxed and emailed them roughly 6 weeks ago and asked them to question the FUSA’s and AUSA’s who were interviewed but not accepted as to the rationale provided for not getting the USA slot.

â€Somebody faxed and emailed them roughly 6 weeks ago…â€

Ted Stevens has been parking his dump truck on the tubes again.

Fitz! EW!!

can I give tokyo jodi the worm tongue her BIG FAT GO FUCK YOURSELF now ???

or do I got to wait until the actual immunity agreement spells it out in english

can I get a ruling on that ???

EW, I have run hot and cold about whether immunity should be offered to Goodling, but consistently maintained that nothing more than use (testimonial) immunity should even be considered. I now finally convinced that Goodling has enough goods to be considered for immunity, maybe even a broader grant. However, there must be an awe inspiring proffer made, before anything goes further. The revelations of the last two days have placed a mass of exposure the weight of a small planet over her; it is time to turn up the pressure. I now think she can likely roll the whole bunch. I don’t care if she has John Dowd in her corner or not; if she has a lick of common sense, she is completely soiling her drawers right about now. If I were her, I would also be a might concerned where Dowd’s loyalties and priorities were as well. Dear Monica has become as much the â€hub†of this conspiracy as Gonzales. Dear Monica has a problem.

On Countdown today – Keith’s guest Turley said that Congressional investigators should dig into their investigations before Goodling’s immunized testimony. Or else she would pull a Ollie North.

I wonder what evidence Waxman, Conyers and Leahy already have stashed away and what else they need to connect all the dots. Maybe Monica’s testimony should just be the icing on the cake? Anyway, what do I know – I am just a citizen that would like to see all this corruption and criminality fully exposed and our long nightmare come to an end.

Jodi – ever hear of the term â€blacklistedâ€? Sure doesn’t sound like you have. Unless there was a critical mass of USA’s, FUSA’s, AUSA’s that came out, there would not be enough pressure to overcome the inevitable blacklisting that would follow.

Not to mention the beating from paid propagandists they would also take, casting aspersions on their reputations. I have a feeling you do understand this particular point operationally.

Can’t wait to start seeing written evidence implicating their puppet master(s). You know these â€kids†didn’t come up with this on their own.

(i) Daniel Metcalfe said these people are too stupid to realize that they don’t know. They’re incurious and, ultimately, they do not care that they don’t know.

(ii) A professor who’d retired from teaching at Messiah College commented somewhere that the overarching characteristic of students at these type of colleges is not their religious devotion but their devotion to Authority.

PS – OT, sorta, but I wonder if David â€I Am Robot†Addington is involved somewhre here.

I’m going to namedrop but not really because I don’t really know anyone important. Although the Queen is coming to Richmond, Va–where I live–tomorrow.

My husband works with a guy who knows Comey pretty well. So when my husband went off to work, I said if you should bump into â€friend of Comey†in the hall just say to him, â€Jane wants to know will Comey speak truth to power.†My husband only just now thought to tell me this, despite teasing me about putting Comey’s testimony on our family calendar.

The report of his colleague is Comey will tell it straight and he doesn’t care who is asking the questions. So add these words to Looseheadprop’s compelling portraits of Comey’s utter perfection.

The pressure builds…

NPR: Fired U.S. Prosecutors Slam Former Bosses
by Ari Shapiro
LINK to audio.

All Things Considered, May 2, 2007 · The U.S. attorneys fired by the Justice Department last year describe their former leaders at the Department of Justice and the White House as â€selfish,†â€self-serving†and â€inept†in written testimony to the House Judiciary Committee.

Their scathing chorus of opinion is especially striking when one considers that all of the federal prosecutors were appointed by President Bush.

As an addendum to the above post: For the life of me, I don’t see how the DOJ can negotiate and execute any of the above at this point. They are so far past the point of appearance of impropriety/conflict now that it cannot even be seen in the rearview mirror. It is flat out inherent and direct conflict.

Now there are several possibilities on this.

Check it out, from the Post:

The allegation against Goodling was referred to investigators several weeks ago by U.S. Attorney Chuck Rosenberg of Alexandria, who was serving temporarily as Gonzales’s chief of staff.

But also note that the Justice Department is being so open and happy to talk about this investigation of Goodling, it’s enough to make you really suspicious.

Oh and also, the Post notes that Dowd said today that Goodlin would testify under the immunity agreement. But we don’t know now what’s going to happen with it. My previous understanding was that even if DoJ said immunity would interfere with an ongoing criminal probe, Congress could effectively override or sidestep that. But now I’m not sure.

Also, you have to figure that Goodling and DoJ are gaming it out where if she gets immunity, she basically just takes all and entire responsibility and blame for everything bad that happened.

Great work! Makes me wish for a ’Progressive’s X-Prize’ – what a hoot it would be if some wealthy radical lefty put up a million dollar prize for the blogger who digs up evidence that leads to impeachment or incarceration of Bush/Cheney or Rove.

One can only dream…..

Anyone know who is paying for Goodling’s attorney bills?

Also, you have to figure that Goodling and DoJ are gaming it out where if she gets immunity, she basically just takes all and entire responsibility and blame for everything bad that happened.

Please let Leahy & Schumer be smart enough not to let this happen … please!

obsessed

I think they wait on Goodling until at least tomorrow, certainly until they see if they have anyone else. Given that Elston is now (bc of the dump today) at risk of perjury, I’d start with him first.

I don’t think Comey will blow it wide open. Think about how they insulated McNulty. I’m sure they insulated COmey more. Plus, the bulk of this stuff happened after he left.

Am I insane? Joe diGenova is Toensing’s husband, right?

So, what does this quote from him in tonight’s AP story signify?

â€An official using political affiliation in choosing such applicants clearly would violate traditional Department of Justice policy and practice, said Joe diGenova, who was the U.S. attorney in the District of Columbia during the Reagan administration.

â€There is no justification for it,†diGenova said. â€Politics should play no role in the decision-making process of career prosecutors. And if it does, that’s clearly improper, and clearly a violation of all of the traditional policies in the Justice Department.â€â€

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap…..78839.html

I think one of the valuable things Comey could provide, if they ask him the right questions, is an understanding of the nature and significance of the secret memo from Gonzales that Waas reported on. Just who was covered by that order? And what was the significance of taking power away from the DAG – which was Comey’s position after all – and redelegating it to the AG’s Chief of Staff and White House liaison?

For whatever reason, DiGenova has been really anti-Gonzales for a while.

Given that Elston is now (bc of the dump today) at risk of perjury, I’d start with him first.

All we really need is one first-class canary.

I’m completely puzzled on DiGenova. I thought the whole strategy was to keep Gonzales in place as a firewall and tough it out.

As for written evidence of Rove’s complicity, he’s probably figured out how to get around that, but the one thing he can’t protect against is somebody having a come to jesus moment, something that at least some jesus-freaks are predisposed to. Scooter’s a soldier – maybe one of the others is either running scared or answering to a higher power. There’s always the chance that one of these faith-based ferrets is actually a Christian.

So, was everyone in the upper echelons of the DoJ breaking the law? We can’t trust any part of it to investigate any other part.

“If you must break the law, do it to seize power: in all other cases observe it.†—Julius Caesar

Gonzales probably has been told to hang in until Memorial Day. He’ll have to take a few more arrows, slings, stones, and rotten vegies… but if he holds fast, his replacement will be waiting, he can get a medal for service to the country, and a nice retirement (non-working job offer at something like Carlyle or AEI).

Anything, even the contempt of the country, is possible to endure if there is an end-date.

They can even tell him that, with so many fish in the barrel, he won’t be taking all the hits.

How many vacancies are there now in Justice alone? If both Houses of Congress take the same week off, Bush will be busy appointing people right, right, and center. He doesn’t dare send anybody up for confirmation.

Can government work until summer with vacancies like this? Well, it is continuing to function, so my suggestion might be to not fill these positions at all and save some significant money. What was Gonzales doing for that salary, anyway? If all these administrators and assistants were going to prayer meetings and rah-rah revivals, they can go to them on the weekends. On their own time. And if 95% of their emails are on private accounts, dock them 95% of their pay for not doing the government’s job on the government’s time.

At this point, I’d talk to Goodling about a plea bargain. The shit under her is much too deep and too foul to consider immunity.

If indictments will keep these people out of government for the rest of their lives, then indict them. We really don’t want to smell this stench again. Ever.

bmaz 00:35 — IANAL, but have worked for attorneys; I concur with your perspective, having noted the same in what is a fairly conservative corporate law department. There are things that are simply beyond the pale, and they’ve done them, again and again. One of the things that was sacred was reputation. Badmouthing about other lawyers in public venue was simply not done, being defamatory — and this administration has done it. But in the reality in which they work, there is nothing sacred except the retention of power, and all conventions and laws are mere chaff if they impede that end. It is this separate reality that makes it so damned difficult for some of us to understand how they can do this, creating a kind of cognitive dissonance. They have no care whatsoever for their future roles as attorneys that they would harm their own reputations by demeaning others, elevating only those most like them in ruthlessness? It makes no sense.

Unless, though, there is an understanding within their own separate reality and community that these Schutzstaffel will be employed by others like them, who find what they’ve done as purgatives within the Justice Department, to be a credit to their skills rather than a detriment to employment. Agh. It makes my skin crawl.

Jodi — there’s a reason nobody has offered you personally any smoking gun-type evidence on a silver platter; ever hear of â€obstruction of justiceâ€? Maybe you should look that up in an encylopedia. And then perhaps you should ponder how emails and memos can be deleted, rerouted, or simply destroyed to create a black hole of evidence. Assuming you do actually comprehend the work of astronomers on black holes, you’ll realize that it’s the characteristics about the periphery that defines the void. To that end rational persons already have plenty of evidence to define a specific but gaping void.

â€They can fire whomever they want toâ€, they slander the USattornies they fired, they are â€selfishâ€, â€self-serving†and â€incompetentâ€. There is no ethical restraint, and the methods of frustrating the law so often inurring to business are well deployed. Here the list of the qualities of the wounded socio-paths who have elevated their own personal interests over the interest of the people begins. Conspicuous consumption and polymorphous pervesity meld giving rise to strange monstrous accidents of character.

The untemprered loyal underlings play mischieviously to please their masters, the father ineed has been slain. So at this point it really devolves into a question of decency. This break in the fundamental sense of decency which in the end alienates them from their own party. Transparency, honor, respect are relegated to a place of mere rhetorical boilerplating in moving ahead in the exercise of personal power in the name of pleasure. The dark sado-masochistic dimensions of these righteous christian apparatchik centurians become begrudgingly exposed as the cloak of plausible deniability is torn away thread by thread.

George Tenet in his facile and calculated â€mea culpa†protests that the claim that he has blood on his hand is repugnant. But blood has been spilt.

This is the moral price of seeking economic and personal gratification in the enterprise of others without a critical self-awareness of the lowly opinion of humanity such practices emobdy. Domestically the macabre charade remains political and economic but it is a slippery slope indeed.

I have a number of comments but since each takes up space I’ll separate them.

First – Don’t everyone get all worked up about DoJ or the US District Court shutting down an immunity deal to Goodling.

Here is the relevant statutory language [slightly edited but not paraphrased]18 USC 6005 entitled â€Congressional proceedingsâ€:

â€[a] In the case of any individual who has been or may be called to testify or provide other information at any proceeding before or ancillary to either House of Congress, or any committee, or any subcommittee of either House, or any joint committee of the two Houses,

a United States district court shall issue, in accordance with subsection [b] of this section, upon the request of a duly authorized representative of the House of Congress or the committee concerned, an order requiring such individual to give testimony or provide other information which he refuses to give or provide on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination, such order to become effective as provided in section 6002 [the immunity section] of this title.

[b] Before issuing an order under subsection [a] … a US district court shall find …

[1] in the case of a proceeding before or ancillary to either House of Congress, the request for such an order has been approved by an affirmative vote of a majority of the Members present of that House;

[2] in the case of a proceeding before or ancillary to a committee or a subcommittee of either House of Congress or a joint committee of both Houses, the request for such an order has been approved by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of the full committee; and

[3] ten days or more prior to the day on which the request for such an order was made, the Attorney General was served with notice of an intention to request the order.

[c] Upon application of the Attorney General, the United States district court shall defer the issuance of any order under subsection [a] of this section … not longer than twenty days from the date of the request for such order, as the Attorney General may specify.â€

The above language does NOT provide either the DoJ or the US district court justice ANY DISCRETION to turn down the Congressional committee’s power to pursue testimony from an immunity offer, so long the committee vote to authorize immunity is proper. All Section 6005 does is provide that the Congressional committee must give advance notice to DoJ of ten days & DoJ can cause an additional delay of up to 20 days more, and that DoJ can only halt the process if the US district court justice finds there is no evidence that the various steps have not been followed.

Bottom line: It’s a very simple certification process, with the 10 days PLUS 20 days being to provide DoJ enough time to get the witness dealt with in whatever proceedings DoJ has control over – such as the internal investigation by OPR or a grand jury.

Of course, this begs the question on whether Rep Conyers’ HJC SHOULD be offering immunity – because it’s pretty clear that John Dowd is gone all Pavlovian over it.

I should point out that a reader at TMP Muckraker named â€Glenn†posted first on this. As Glenn pointed out â€IANALâ€. Well, IAAL and Glenn is correct. Here’s a link to the that comment:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003139.php

Ok, unless I missed it, if you ask me the questioning of Comey by the Committee was overall pretty lame, or at least incomplete. Clearly the most interesting moment was when Comey explained the seriousness of the possible political tests for the hiring of AUSAs. Personally, I cannot believe they did not follow up with questions about his perspective on the secret order from March 2006 taking hiring, firing and administration power away from the DAG, as well as as the Associate AG, and giving it to the AG’s Chief of Staff and White House liaison. Since he was, after all, the DAG – he left before the order was put into effect, but the point is he has a unique perspectrive on what that order meant.

While I agree that the Administration is likely using the internal investigations to whitewash/delay/sidetrack, they face a real danger. In each of these executive branch investigative offices there are people who take their jobs seriously. They are probably really sweating it right now. They’ve seen how the Administration treats even Republicans who get in their way (see Iglesias, David). The Administration is counting on that fear, but we’re approaching the point where people are going to face the choice between selling out everything they believe in, but still risking ruin or standing up for truth, justice and the American way while facing certain ruin. Somebody is going to decide to be a hero. Heroes come from the most unlikely places (see Butterfield, Alexander and Dean, John).

Oddly enough, Chuck Shumer’s love of hearing himself talk is one of our greatest weapons. Oh, and I am eagerly awaiting someone asking Dick Cheney is he still thinks it was good idea to tell Patrick Leahy to â€go fuck your selfâ€.

It’s not McNulty that would be prosecuted but Monica herself for suborning false testimony. Same issue I raised in the other thread–suborning perjury or false testimony is a crime jsut as much as making the false tesitmony. This goes all the way to Rove and his top minions.

The problem, of course, is which fox can prosedute these chickens, since they have corrupted so many of the USAs, and stacked the judiciary. Congress can’t negotiate a plea, can it? Isn’t this the jod of the USA for DC? (Maybe DiGenova wants to be the next special prosecutor or even AG.)

Here’s what they were doing. In offices with interim USAs main Justice had to sign off on hires–not normally the case. So they went to Monica, which gave her the opportunity to use her loyalty tests (a better term, since as Jodi is fond of pointing out, they weren’t asked to swear fealty, as people were in the McCarthy era loyalty oaths, but there was a test, GOP conservative activism, federalist society membership etc) appliedd to all these applications).

As Marshall points out, what they were doing was trying to remake from top to bottom several crucial USA offices–San Diego and the ones with extensive Native American practices, plus Western Missouri and Arkansas. Corruption issues, Native Am issues, â€voter fraud†and oppo research on Hillary Clinton. A few swing states thrown in too.

It was all about winning elections, protecting cronies in the graft machine and getting their pals’ hands on energy resources.

Rayne,

I try to do what Einstein was so good at which was to escape the formalism, and use the common vernacular.

Bush should be impeached for gross incompetence, for dereliction of duty, for careless endangerment of our brave men and women. For negligence, for treason! …
I am not a lawyer. I will not try to format the litany of charges.

Everyday! Each day! Without end. And far beyond the end of his term in Jan 2009 the body bags fill.

Simply put, a vain little boy took his little stick, and poked a hole in the dyke, and now all his daddy’s friends can’t put the dyke back together, and everyone is drowning.

If there is progress in Iraq, it is only because Bush has become desperate worrying about his legacy, and so has decided to listen to the military instead of the yes men he has surrounded himself with. Here it is common to blame Cheney, or Runsfeld, Gonzales, or Miers. These people surround Bush because they anticipate what he wants and deliver.

Bush is worrying about his legacy, ok.
Well the Democratic Congress should worry about it’s own legacy and challenge the monster in the house down the street. Not pick and pick like so many pigeons at the leavings outside on the street. DemFromCT keeps saying the Democrats can â€Govern well.†Well I would like to see it.

When I said the Congress wouldn’t impeach Bush, it wasn’t because of any desire on my part that they choose another path, it was because I see only another layer of charlatans at work. Sure you can say that they are your charlatans now, but still nothing is being done.

emails? Crap! I think everyone expects to see the soap opera thing, where a diary is found, that a blogger or columnist or reporter can breathlessly bit by bit feed to the public, continually building network share, and print space.

And worse of all is the lack of reality I see here and over at FDL, and other places I have only become acquainted with recently.
You, and they think, you can just get out of Iraq immediately, and everything will be ok! NOT! NOT! And no, I don’t offer a quick easy solution. I don’t think there are any.

DemFromCT,

I got a revelation from my older brother a few weeks ago. He, like I, didn’t vote for Bush in 2004. â€â€¦ but duty is still duty…â€

trolls?

Bull! If you don’t won’t to hear me point out the holes in your theories, then just say at the top of the page, something like â€only certain liberal (Democratic, progressive, leftist, or what ever) self serving viewpoints are desired below and instant and complete agreement with all cockeyed stories is preferred, and I won’t be here.

I think that last column on the US-A vetting worksheet that Goodling and Sampson put together, the one with â€Fed.Soc.†(Federalist Society) as a header, pretty much provides all the proof necessary to make a case for patent politicization of the DOJ hiring and firing process.

This, along with Gonzales’ and Mercer’s now-revealed conspiracy to mislead a district judge, then change the law seriptitiously ON THE SAME DAY give Congress every possible incentive and ammo to IMPEACH GONZALES…NOW!

PS. EW for Congress! (Blogger in da House!)

bmaz: I was not commenting one way or the other on whether immunity for Monica Goodling is a good idea or not; I was just asking whether Congress could negotiate a plea, or wouldn’t that require DOJ or the USA for DC to do it? IANLAL (no longer) and I never did criminal law, but would’t someone from DOJ have to actually negotiate a plea to charges, since that is an executive function?

I was also commenting that suborning false testimony seems to be one of the charges she is open to. A pretty serious charge for someone who wants to continue as a lawyer, but presumably she doesn’t.

I’d like to see her testify too, especially if she will implicate higher-ups. There has to be something big in return for immunity. I’d say she is in a real pickle, along with Sampson, Elston and Mercer, maybe McNulty but less clearly so.

But the key is who is going to prosecute. Bush thinks that the Pres is above the law, and obviously those working for him to implement his will think it insulates them too. Gonzo isn’t going to appoint a special prosecuter, and Bush isn’t going to sign any new independent counsel law. They’ve stacked the relevant offices with loyalists.

Another point–to the extent picking USAs. like judges, is a patronage perk of the Party in Power that was usurped by the Unitary Executive, there may be a wedge here, as we saw when Congress by huge margins took away the AG’s power to appoint interim USAs without Senate confirmation.

Marcy – I’ve followed your work through Libby’s trial and now the DOJ USA scandal so far. And as another commenter stated, â€You are quite an extraordinary citizen!†I hope that you fax some questions for Conyers and Sanchez — I think they need you.

I’m worried that the DOJ’s internal investigation might become a vehicle for obstructing justice and ruining the Judiciary Committee’s inverstigation.

I hope Comey shares more with the committee behind the scenes or gives names of people that can elaborate on what the process was at DOJ.

Patriot Act change – Brett Tolman said â€That there had been questions raised about â€the propriety of their appointing power because of separation of powers.†The only other time I have read about this mysterious concern for separatin of powers is when Daniel Collins said those exact same words (in link above).

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002487.php

Mimikatz – As an aside, and I don’t think it is you, but I went to law school with a girl named Mimi Katz.

Saw this in a comment over at TPMuck. Provides a decent discussion of the immunity application process for a congressional committee. Thought folks mike like to see it:

Application of U. S. Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities
361 F.Supp. 1270
D.C.D.C., 1973.

â€On its face, § 6005 casts the role of the Court in terms of ministerial duty. The language is mandatory: “… a United States district court shall issue, … upon the request of a duly authorized representative of the House of Congress or the committee concerned, an order ….†(emphasis added). The statutory language imposes only two prerequisites or conditions,FN10 both procedural, for issuing the requested*1276 order: (1) if the proceeding is before a House of Congress, the request for an immunity order must have been approved by a majority of the Members present; if the proceeding is before a committee, subcommittee, or joint committee, the request must have been approved by two-thirds of the full committee membership, (2) at least ten days prior to filing the immunity request with the court, the committee or House must have provided the Attorney General with notice of an intention to seek immunity for the named witness or witnesses. In short, judicial discretion cannot be found on the face of the statute.â€

â€It is significant also to note that when the immunity relates to congressional proceedings the Attorney General is deprived of the discretion he enjoys under other sections of the statute. For grand jury and court proceedings (§ 6003) and certain administrative proceedings (§ 6004) the Attorney General may deny permission to seek an immunity order from the Court. Although § 6005 permits the Attorney General to apply to the court for a 20-day extension in which the court “shall defer the issuance of any order,†no veto power or other authority is bestowed.â€

â€If then, neither the Attorney General nor the court may deny a congressional application, the question naturally arises, “For what purpose does § 6005 require notice to the Attorney General and approval by the court?†Though the statute itself is silent here, the Working Papers again include a comprehensive discussion. With respect to the Attorney General, the Working Papers state at page 1440:

In the special instance of congressional inquiries, in contrast to administrative proceedings, it would be virtually unthinkable to give the Attorney General the additional power of disapproval of conferment of immunity, because in a Teapot Dome-type congressional investigation the Attorney General himself would be the focus of the inquiry.

Nevertheless, the Commission and the Congress did recognize the seriousness of immunization against punishment for crime and the potential adverse effect the conferring of immunity might have on criminal law enforcement. It was with the intent of minimizing any prejudicial impact on present and future law enforcement plans that the provision requiring notice of intended immunization was adopted. It was expected that timely notice would allow the Attorney General to assess the effect of a grant of immunity on investigations or prosecutions and then, should he feel it necessary, communicate with the concerned House of Congress or committee to “lobby†for a modification of immunity plans. (Working Papers at 1406). The memorandum filed by the Special Prosecutor indicates that he has made use of this opportunity although to no avail, as yet. It was also anticipated that a period of time up to 30 days would permit the Attorney General to “insulate from the immunity grant any incriminating data already in his files prior to the witness’ testimony.†(Working Papers at 1406). Presumably, if such incriminating data is available to the Special Prosecutor in this case, he has taken advantage of the opportunity to “insulate†it. Thus, though he is accorded no right to be heard in court in opposition to an immunity request, the Attorney General is given some protection in his role as the *1278 administrator of Federal law enforcement by the notice requirement of § 6005.â€

Posted by: case law

bmaz –

Is the blog handle “bmaz†in tribute to the Pirate glove artist? Do you have a blog soul mate somewhere here along the Mighty Missouri with the handle “osmi� Or “ozsmi� What are the odds that two best ever around the keystone both would have a “z†in their name?

Sorry about the baseball riff, but it connects to my theory on Dowd.

You may recall Dowd reported to the late MLB Commissioner Bart Giamatti [actor Paul’s father, master of Ezra Stiles College at Yale, President of Yale, Commissioner of MLB when King Dub was titular owner of the Texas Rangers – hey! Do you think it’s possible that King Dub took, or more accurately cut, a class or two by Prof Red Sox Fan?]. You can read Dowd’s entire report on Rose’s betting at http://www.dowdreport.com.

Apart from its direct purpose, Dowd’s report suggests his strengths as a trial lawyer include:

[1] a particularly facility with large complex fraud & corruption cases – the kinds of cases which his style of short, simple declarative sentences would help him in avoiding the pitfalls of over-caveating judgments, and

[2] an inclination to make the sort of definitive, practical judgments about people which, as anyone who has read his recent book would know, George Tenet sorely lacks.

I won’t bother with the link unless someone asked, but I left a rant about Buzz Saw Goodling at TPM Muckraker within a day or two of Sampson’s first public parsifying in front of the SJC.

Basically I called her a political thug. Based on her lost girl website & her – ahem – academic record & a bunch of other info Josh Marshall & Paul Kiel pulled together there & on TPM, I just don’t see her as very bright.

I expect Dowd didn’t need even one meeting with her to come to that conclusion. Given Dowd’s primary instinct would be to protect his client

[Having regard to the superficially odd appearance of a very inexperienced civil servant having the bling to retain him, I’m not saying Goodling’s best interests would be his sole agenda – but given his track record it seems clear he never loses sight of his highest duty, like any good trial lawyer.]
and that’s why I thought his spin on her taking the Fifth was so nuanced – as ti which nuance I include even his own shall-we-say blunt prose with Sen Leahy, which Ms. E. Wheel suggested was not exactly from the School of How To Get Along with Major Politicians [from which I demurred, feeling that given his own career as a US attorney Leahy would understand].

From that I deduce the Dowd would be VERY uncomfortable being specific on anything Buzz Saw might say under pressure – hell, with or without pressure. Which segues back to the starting point of your argument for giving Goodling anything she wants in the way of immunity, your words now: “IF 1) She has a good profferâ€.

You could Sing Sing an opera’s worth of difference between the type of deal which, for example, Laurence Fleischer made with Fitz, under which he could bounce all around the parameters of carelessness, inconsistency, incomprehensibility, creative gap filling, dittsiness & perjury, and a concise, detailed, binding proffer of testimony for immunity.

The first is a ticket on the train bound for freedom.

The second is simply a stage en route to having one’s promising career as the pseudo lawyer extinguished, losing out on a promising research support career at the American Enterprise Institute or the Hudson Institute or writing captions for one of Billy Kristol’s cartoon shops, & being indicted for perjury in the bargain.

Hey, I could be wrong. For all I know the chief lawyer on staff at Conyers’ committee could already have worked out this incredibly detailed & itemized virtual road map of evidence right to the bulls-eye located specifically where Rove’s heart should be.

But – as I say – I’m from Missouri.

P.S. Per your pull-over from TMP Muckraker – I covered the same territory earlier in this thread.

LabDancer – Remember Mazeroski from when I was a kid; had one of his later cards, probably 1966 or so. az in bmaz is Arizona. And kind of in response to both you and Mimikatz, yes, there must be something done as far as a special prosecutor or whatever. Mimikatz, what you described as to the problem on who even has the authority and sufficiently â€clean hands†to accomplish such an appointment, is exactly my point; the situation is so totally buggered up that the DOJ has a conflict in trying to resolve their freaking main conflict. My best idea is to have Congress and DOJ/Administration stipulsate to the person and parameters. Cannot, however, see the Administration negotiating in good faith. Then what? Submit to the court (which court?) for a special master or something? There is probably an answer out there, but I have no clue.

Shorter LabDancer @ 10:58:

Dowd is a smart lawyer who doesn’t lose sight of his client’s interests. He knows Ms. Goodling ain’t the brightest, and that she’s where she is because she’s a political thug (loyalty tests, etc.). Given this, he is highly unlikely to give a good proffer to the committee. He’d be loath to provide a specific account of what Goodling would be likely to say under pressure — that could be a direct path to killing Goodling’s â€career†in law and getting her nailed for perjury to boot — and is almost surely angling for the kind of super-elastic immunity deal that Fitz seems to have given Ari Fleischer. So it’s very unlikely that the committee has sewn up a detailed â€roadmap of evidence†from Goodling leading straight to Rove. Don’t get the hopes up.

Or something like that.

I’d like to request a link to the LD TPM post. Can’t have too much LD.