DOJ Okays Limited Immunity for Monica Goodling

It's official. The Justice Department will allow the House Judiciary Committee to offer limited immunity to Monica Goodling for her testimony about the U.S. Attorney firings and Alberto Gonzales' role in them.

The move means that Goodling is likely to testify in front of the House Judiciary Committee on a broad range of questions about the firings that she helped coordinate, including the extent of involvement by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and the White House, officials said.

I'm not sure what the "limited" qualifier means in this case. According to the letter sent by DOJ, it sounds like they are agreeing to whatever immunity the House asks for.

The Judge is expected to grant the request Friday.

Update: Another name to add to the mix: Jay Apperson. The line that caught my eye:

When he was counsel to a House subcommittee in 2005, Jay Apperson resigned after writing a letter to a federal judge in his boss's name, demanding a tougher sentence for a drug courier. As an assistant U.S. attorney in Virginia in the 1990s, he infuriated fellow prosecutors when he facetiously suggested a White History Month to complement Black History Month.

< Phil Spector's Burden | D.C. Madam Gets New Lawyer >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    There's a lot more to this Apperson clown (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by scribe on Tue May 08, 2007 at 07:45:02 AM EST
    than the mere paragraph you put up.  

    The letter to the judge for which Apperson was fired was over Sensenbrenner's signature, and it was the one which inspired a huge brouhaha because in it Sensenbrenner was trying to make the Seventh Circuit gove above guidelines.

    Apperson was the guy drafting the Feeney Amendment.

    Apperson was the guy who (tried to) put into operation the system by where Congress was to be notified when federal judges gave downward departures on sentencing.

    And, "White History Month" is a common touchstone codeword among Klukkers, "Southern Heritage" students and neo-Nazis.  "Joking" about it was no joke - it was the secret lodge handshake.

    And he spent a lot of time on Starr's Special Prosecutor staff.

    But, still, the E.D. Va. said they would not rehire him.  Does anyone think that an honest answer to "why?" might be "he was so odious, we could/would not have him."

    No, this appointment as an AUSA in DC was both a rehabilitation for an evident racist to get him back on the merry-go-round of conservative advancement, and an opportunity to show black folks The Way Things Are, when Jim Crow runs your courthouse in DC.

    Apperson had made all the stops and, most likely after a year or so on the prosecutorial job, he would have been up for another, higher appointment.  Maybe even a lifetime one.

    And, as to the "limited" immunity, I think it might be a lay term/misnomer for "use" immunity - I read (I think at TPM a week or so ago) that's all the House would offer her.  That, in light of Ollie North, means the slow progress of bringing her before the committee is pretty much irrelevant and still leaves her exposed.  Like the breasts on the statue of Lady Justice, which she was responsible for having covered over.

    "limited use": a phrase used at... (none / 0) (#2)
    by the rainnn on Tue May 08, 2007 at 10:08:47 AM EST
    the april 25, 2007 house
    judiciary committee hearing --

    some background on rep. conyers'
    meaning in calling it "limited
    use" immunity, re ms. goodling
    , here:

    that was the phrase rep.
    john conyers first used to
    describe the sort of immunity
    he had in mind. . . he later clarified
    the remarks, at the same hearing, by
    referring explicitly to 18 USC § 6005
    immunity.  at the time, i think all
    rep. conyers was trying to say was
    that the house judiciary committee
    would be careful in its grant
    of "use" immunity.

    i think he now means that he will
    have to think a fair bit about which
    questions he intends to ask ms. goodling.

    offering her too many "kitchen-sink"
    openings -- with open-ended lines of
    questioning -- could lead to an ollie
    north redux. . .  not. a. good. thing.

    buckle up for this thursday!

    limited immunity (none / 0) (#3)
    by talex on Tue May 08, 2007 at 10:13:08 AM EST
    Interesting. I've have always thought that regardless of immunity Goodling could still invoke the fifth on certain questions citing, if need be, that her immunity may not encompass every matter. Limited immunity could give her more reason to do that.

    I also look for her to invoke the now infamous repub answer of "I don't recall" which could render her testimony impotent.

    Speaking of the DOJ (none / 0) (#4)
    by avahome on Tue May 08, 2007 at 10:21:18 AM EST
    Wonder what Monica knows about this:

    Discussion: The Resurrection of Jim Crow

    "Jim Crow, like the Dark Lord in the popular Harry Potter children's books, never completely died. And the resurrection, assisted by the seeding of political appointees and agreeable new hires within the very government institutions designed to protect the civil rights of Americans, is now dangerously close at hand."