Goodling Bad

(blog title stolen from FrankensteinBlog)

Monica Goodling clearly used ideology in the hiring decisions of entry-level assistant US Attorneys, and now the Inspector General is looking into it.

The Justice Department has launched an internal investigation into whether Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales’s former White House liaison illegally took party affiliation into account in hiring career federal prosecutors, officials said yesterday.

The allegations against Monica M. Goodling represent a potential violation of federal law and signal that a joint probe begun in March by the department’s inspector general and Office of Professional Responsibility has expanded beyond the controversial dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys last year.

Of course, the House Judiciary Committee offered immunity to Goodling, so if she's under investigation at the same time, she may not be able to testify. And we all know that Goodling's testimony may be crucial to understanding just what went on in the prosecutor firing; after all, she was the liaison between the DoJ and the White House.

I'm not sure where that impasse will lead. But it's clear that Goodling broke the law and deserves to be held accountable. As does practically the entire top staff of the Justice Department. I mean, there's a US Attorney in Montana who's also an associate deputy attorney general, and he changed the law to allow him to to run the Montana office from Washington while never setting foot in there.

It's a tough call to decide whether it's worth it to let Goodling have immunity to testify, or not.

UPDATE: Balkinization brings up a great point, whether or not immunity will be placed upon Goodling is up to the DoJ:

So let's get this straight: It is up to the DOJ to decide whether Congress will be able to give immunity to Ms. Goodling. Whom, if anyone, would "we" trust in the current DOJ to make that decision? I can imagine that the Inspector General would be reluctant to grant immunity, but why should his decision control? Even those of us who are rabidly partisan shouldn't really be consumed by a desire to see Ms. Goodling go to jail (unlike others I could name). It will be more than enough to see her testify, under oath, in public before the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, and to use her testimony to nail others who are for more important than the 33-year-old graduate of Regent '99.

Isn't it clear that an independent prosecutor should be appointed (but by whom and under what authority) since everyone in the DOJ is hopelessly conflicted out?

I agree. Immunity for the lesser lights if they turn on those up the ladder is commonplace. And the independent prosecutor is a no-brainer.