Here’s NYT coverage of former Justice Department liason Monica Goodling’s testimony before Congress. Much is made of Goodling’s agrrement to testify only if granted immunity from prosecution, but the article didn’t come right out and say why Goodling insisted on immunity—she was worried about being lured into a perjury charge.

While Goodling admitted she “crossed the line” when dealing with applicants for career positions in the Justice Department, it appears as though she treated U.S. Attorney Anna Mills Wagoner more than fairly when questioned by Rep. Mel Watt.

According to the transcript, via Capital Beat, Goodling says she recommended Wagoner be removed from Kyle Sampson’s list of U.S. attorneys to be fired due to Wagoner’s Project Safe Neighborhoods workand her help with Patriot Act reauthorization efforts, not to mention just generally being an engaged and responsive U.S. attorney. In the end, Wagoner was taken off the list, which is what Watt should have wanted to hear, right?

But note carefully Watt’s line of questioning:

WATT: You testified in your opening statement this morning that, quote, “I never recommended to them that a specific U.S. attorney be added to or removed from Mr. Sampson’s list.”

GOODLING: I mean “them” being the White House. I did discuss with Mr. Sampson, of course, removing individuals. I was referencing my interactions with the White House in my statement.

WATT: That seems to be at odds with what Mr. Sampson testified in the Senate, when he testified that you suggested taking Ms. Anna Mills Wagoner of the Middle District of North Carolina off the list in September of 2006. Did you or did you not recommend taking Ms. Wagoner off the list?

GOODLING: I did. I recommended…

WATT: OK. All right.

GOODLING: … retaining her in service in January and in September.

WATT: So, when you testified this morning that you didn’t make a specific recommendation to take anybody off the list, you were really not accurate in what you were saying?

Surely, Watt knew Goodling had immunity (never assume), so his questions couldn’t have been a perjury trap. But they’re a perfect example of why people would seek immunity from prosecution when testifying before Congress. Especially this Congress.