<p><a href=“It%20will%20be%20interesting%20if%20they%20decide%20to%20give%20Goodling%20immunity.”>quote</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It wouldn’t make any difference. For Falwell types like Goodling, it’s Jihad. You’d have better odds of getting the truth out of Kahlil Sheik Mohammed.</p>
<p>“For Falwell types like Goodling, it’s Jihad. You’d have better odds of getting the truth out of Kahlil Sheik Mohammed.”</p>
<p>I don’t assume this. She broke rank. If she were really drinking the Kool-Aid, she’d fall on her sword instead of pleading the 5th. This one has some instincts for self-preservation at the expense of the administration. No way is she going to swallow contempt of Congress. If she gets immunity, I bet we’ll learn something.</p>
<p>Hanna:</p>
<p>I don’t think there is anything to give Goodling immunity from. The odds of a crime having been committed in this affair are slim, IMO. If a crime was committed, it would be Rove or Harriet Meirs…and neither one of them would have left a smoking gun for the underlings. In other words, everything would have been couched in terms of loyalty to administration policy, etc. </p>
<p>The picture I see emerging is that the entire Executive Branch of government was set up as a political arm of the Republican National Committee under Rove and staffed with yes-men and yes-women who should be viewed as incompetent hacks.</p>
<p>If you want a good laugh, watch yesterday’s hearing with the head of the GSA. The hearing was about a Hatch Act violation: she organized a staff meeting and teleconference for GSA employees with Rove’s deputy giving the GSA staff a PowerPoint presentation on targeted Democratic house and senate seats in the 2008 elections and how GSA building ceremonies could be used to help Republicans in those districts. The woman was a $200,000 Bushie contributor and a complete hack.</p>
<p>The overriding impression from Kyle Sampson’s Attorneygate hearing today was pure hack incompetence.</p>
<p>“I don’t think there is anything to give Goodling immunity from.”</p>
<p>Then why did her lawyer advise her to take the 5th? It makes the administration look terrible, and they clearly aren’t instructing everyone to take it. I’m not saying that a crime was committed or by whom, but I think it’s a safe bet that she has some reasonable fear of prosecution. At any rate, it’s worth giving it a shot. Give her blanket immunity from anything arising out of her tenure at DOJ and see what happens next. It’s not like anyone really wants her to do jail time even if she did do something wrong; she’s small fry. IMHO, giving her immunity has no down side and a lot of possible benefit.</p>
<p>“If a crime was committed, it would be Rove or Harriet Meirs”</p>
<p>But all their instructions were carried back and forth through Goodling. Whatever they’d be guilty of, she’d be guilty of conspiracy to do.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh really? The evidence is just going to be produced? Even with the great lengths the White House is going to, to hide it?</p>
<p>Key officials, including Rove, conducting government business using non-government emails, to avoid supeonas and leaving the audit trail required by law.</p>
<p>Refusing to let aides testify to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and refusing to turn over many, many requested documents.</p>
<p>Denying security clearance to investigators looking into wrongdoing by the Attorney General.</p>
<p>The head of the GSA calling the Inspector Generals who worked for her “terrorists” (her exact words) for rooting out corruption in the crony contracts.</p>
<p>LOL. Nothing to see here, folks. Any evidence the White House has of their corruption, they are just going to turn over when asked…by the Tooth Fairy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not only that, but they used their non-government email accounts to do it, acknowledging in the messages that it wasn’t supposed to be circulated like that.</p>
<p>Hanna:</p>
<p>I think the entire administration was staffed with such Kool-Aid drinking hacks that Rove and Meirs wouldn’t even have to commit a crime to get rid of Carol Lam and stop the corruption investigation. They would simply have to comment that Lam wasn’t a “loyal Bushie” and these hack underlings would run off and fire her without a thought.</p>
<p>These people are so mindless that they can’t even grasp the underlying crime in the Valerie Plame case – systematically outing a classified intelligence operative. In their minds, Plame was an enemy because her husband spoke out against Bushie policy and, therefore, was fair game. </p>
<p>With that mindset, the Libby trial was a witchhunt and the evil meanies would witchhunt them, too.</p>
<p>Samson’s attorney let him testify because it was probably apparent, from the first consultation, that Sampson was too incompetent to commit a crime. He really was the perfect chief of staff for Gonzales. The amazing thing is that anybody in the Department of Justice could remember where they parked their cars in the lot at the end of the day. The biggest challenge for most of them each day was probably matching a pair of socks to wear.</p>
<p>Out here in middle America, we regular people understand perfectly the “underlying crime in the Plame case,” as well as what Goodling has to be afraid of. This is a fishing expedition, with Rove as the big catch, by highly principled men such as Chuck Schumer (guffaw). People see the Democrats as consistently doing nothing but playing politics, while at least Republicans stand for something.</p>
<p>Gosh, I wonder if Jack demanded loyalty from his Attorney General–his brother Bobby? I don’t seem to remember Jack hiring his staff from Liberty U either. This has the potential to backfire on you; contrary to what you believe, most Americans are smart enough to see what is really going on.</p>
<p>Oh, I really hope the smart Americans will enlighten the dummies among us as to what is really going on.</p>
<p>^^^Didn’t call anyone dummies. Obviously not the case. Simply offering a different perspective.</p>
<p>Are there any bipartisan smarties? Is intelligence strictly a left sided brain thing? :o</p>
<p>Are there any moderate smarties? Do smarties have to take an extreme stance on every issue? ;)</p>
<p>“Not just the botched Iraq invasion and occupation, but the out-of-control budget deficits.”</p>
<p>You’re 100% right about that, but we know that the Plame thing was not about the “underlying crime” at all, and we also know that if Bush and every member of his administration walked on water, the media and the democrats would be howling because they can’t swim. But absolutely no way to Hillary.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If this is supposed to be a reference to AttorneyGate, you’re 100% wrong. I believe you see the world that way. But polls show that most Americans (60%) support the Democrats issuing supoenas to get to the bottom of things.</p>
<p>One thing I’ve found that in politics, the people will support if you govern well OR you govern honestly. They don’t even demand you do both at the same time. The Bushies have done neither and their approval ratings show it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s what it was all about for me. For all the times I’ve listened to Bush mangle the pronounciation of the phrase “nuclear non-proliferation”, I happen to agree that it is a major objective for US foreign policy and intelligence.</p>
<p>To turn around and have the entire top level of the administration out the identity of a classified agent in the non-proliferation department at CIA because they don’t like the report her husband filed is treason in my opinion.</p>
<p>It is so despicable that I can hardly put it into words.</p>
<p>The grilling of interesteddad’s $200k hack can be seen here:</p>
<p><a href=“Page not found | Crooks and Liars”>"I Don't Remember" Doan Vs Rep. Braley | Crooks and Liars;
<p>It’s also important to note that when Valerie Plame was outed, so was Brewster-Jennings (CIA front company) and all other associated agents and contacts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Today’s Washington Post editorial.</p>
<p>Let’s start a thread about Iran holding British soldiers hostage. Seems a little more important to me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>More important than whether Americans have a criminal justice system that we can count on as basically fair and impartial?</p>
<p>In terms of the long term survival of our democracy, there are few things more important. However concerned we are about the sailors personally, their capture, though it certainly has escalated the present tensions in the world, doesn’t imperil the American way of life in quite the same way.</p>
<p>Pursuing a perjury conviction for Karl Rove vs. escalated tensions in the world?</p>
<p>I’ll pick the latter.</p>
<p>I’d rather have America a democracy (or at least a republic) and at war than America a totalitarian system and at peace. Having America both a totalitarian system AND at war? Anathema.</p>
<p>“More important than whether Americans have a criminal justice system that we can count on as basically fair and impartial?”</p>
<p>US Attorneys are political appointees. Period.</p>
<p>“contrary to what you believe, most Americans are smart enough to see what is really going on.”</p>
<p>I agree. That’s why Bush’s approval ratings are around 35% this week, with approval of his handling of the war around 26%. It took a while, but people do indeed realize what is going on.</p>