Today’s Must Read

The morning papers provide a host of further detail on the Justice Department’s investigation of Monica Goodling.

First, we’ll start with the new facts about the investigation, and then turn to the burning question of whether this might compromise Congress’ offer of immunity to Goodling.

The department’s inspector general launched an investigation into the U.S. attorney firings back in March. Not long after that, Chuck Rosenberg, the U.S. Attorney for eastern Virginia and Kyle Sampson’s replacement as Gonzales’ chief of staff, requested that the inspector general look into Goodling’s hiring of entry-level assistant U.S. attorneys. Rosenberg has since gone back to being a full-time U.S.A.

The accusation focuses on Goodling’s meddling in a particular group of hires: entry-level attorneys working for acting or interim U.S. attorneys — in other words, U.S.A.s who had not been confirmed by the Senate. The New York Times explains:

…when an interim United States attorney is in place, one who has not been confirmed by the Senate, he or she must seek the approval of officials at department headquarters [to hire attorneys], a rule that perhaps allowed Ms. Goodling to investigate the political backgrounds of the applicants.

As the Justice Department has underlined, if Goodling was checking to see if these applicants were Republicans before hiring them, that would be against the law.

Now, there’s an important point that needs to be made here. And that is that Gonzales had signed an order in March of last year that gave Goodling and Sampson the power to hire and fire interim U.S. attorneys. And it’s already been conclusively shown that Goodling played a major hand in the firing of the eight Senate-confirmed U.S. attorneys last December. So if these allegations about Goodling’s involvement in the hiring of entry-level prosecutors are correct, it looks like Goodling was working to completely overhaul certain U.S. attorney offices — replacing the U.S. attorney with an administration loyalist and staffing it with entry-level loyalists. Top to bottom.

On to immunity. The Los Angeles Times puts it most simply:

…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.

Here’s how Congress’ offer of immunity works: the Justice Department has a period of time, ten days, to decide whether the immunity might compromise a potential criminal investigation (that deadline is Monday, but could be extended). The DoJ makes a recommendation — if the DoJ decides that it will, then Congress has to reconsider its offer. Congress could still go forward at that point, but the federal court in D.C. makes the final determination. It would seem to be highly unlikely that Goodling would still get her immunity with this probe ongoing.

Goodling’s attorney told The Washington Post that she would testify if given immunity. But that would seem to be a big “if” now.

Suspicion of the timing of this revelation is understandable. As the Justice Department’s liaison to the White House, Goodling likely has a lot to tell — and Congress may never hear it.

Note: The Wall Street Journal adds some insight into what the Justice Department deems newsworthy:

In mid-March, The Wall Street Journal sought information from the Justice Department on Ms. Goodling’s role in the selection of [entry-level assistant U.S. attorneys]. The department turned down a request for expedited handling of the Journal’s query, citing that it “does not believe the specific topic of your request is the subject of widespread and exceptional media interest.”