In her testimony, Monica Goodling took a cleansing immunity bath about the choice of persons as immigration judges:
Without any provocation, nor any prior public discussion about the matter, Monica Goodling in her prepared statement acknowledged that she "took political considerations into account in making recommendations for positions as Immigration Judges and members of the Board of Immigration Appeals." See discussion here. She testified that she thought such political criteria could be used because Kyle Sampson had told her that OLC "had provided guidance some years earlier indicating that Immigration Judge appointments were not subject to the civil service rules applicable to other career positions." Goodling further testified, however, that in late 2006 the Civil Division "expressed concerns that the civil service rules might apply" to such immigration judges. In her oral testimony, Goodling specified that "concerns were raised about political criteria for such employment decisions as a result of some litigation, after which "the Civil Division came to a different conclusion" from that allegedly reached by OLC.
Without any provocation? In other words, she brought it up on her own.
Why would she do that, Spotty?
Remember, grasshopper, that Ms. Goodling was offered immunity for her testimony. She laid the foundation for an objection to any later prosecution of her as the result of the immigration judge appointments. As Marty Lederman points out in the linked article, she was well represented.
Tags: Monica Goodling, immunity