Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

May 23, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

GOODLING TESTIFIES....So far Monica Goodling has called Paul McNulty a liar and admitted that she might have used partisan criteria for hiring career prosecutors in the Justice Department. But only a teensy little bit. Honest:

She said she never spoke to former White House counsel Harriet Miers or Karl Rove, President Bush's top political adviser, about the firings. But she admitted to have considered applicants for jobs as career prosecutors based on their political loyalties — a violation of federal law.

''I may have gone too far, and I may have taken inappropriate political considerations into account on some occasions,'' Goodling said. ''And I regret those mistakes.''

Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., hammered Goodling on her decisions to hire prosecutors who favored Republicans.

''Do you believe they were illegal or legal?'' Scott asked.

''I don't believe I intended to commit a crime,'' Goodling, a lawyer, answered.

''Did you break the law? Is it against the law to take those considerations into account?'' Scott said.

''I believe I crossed the line, but I didn't mean to,'' she responded.

Could we get a clarification of "some occasions" please?

In other news, Goodling is now the latest high-ranking DOJ official to say that, really, she has no idea why those U.S. Attorneys were fired last year, or who made the choices. The list appeared, somehow, but apparently not from any human hand. It's a miracle!

Kevin Drum 12:48 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (129)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

For the latest news, document dumps, email archives, hearing transcripts and other essential materials in the firings of U.S. attorneys, see:
"The U.S. Attorney Scandal Resource Center."

Posted by: Angry One on May 23, 2007 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

Bottom line so far from Goodling's testimony: Kyle Sampson is going to have to have a little return visit to the halls of Congress.

Posted by: frankly0 on May 23, 2007 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

Instead of "Goodling Day" maybe Kevin should have called it "Groundhog Day."

I think I have seen this testimony before...and again, and again, and again...

Posted by: RD on May 23, 2007 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum:The list appeared, somehow, but apparently not from any human hand. It's a miracle!

I just finished telling my husband that further testimony will reveal that a God, theatrically bearded and robed, visited the USAs, stone tablet in hand, and personally decreed their dismissals. No earthly being did it, obviously.

I wonder if this dipshit is really saying that she never even stopped to think whether she was breaking laws because what's good for George Bush is good for Christian America and the world. The arrogance of this woman's mindset is just staggering.

Posted by: shortstop on May 23, 2007 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINK

The list appeared, somehow, but apparently not from any human hand. It's a miracle!

Not necessarily. A rational explanation is possible: elves (or very short White House minions).

Posted by: Believer on May 23, 2007 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK

Perhaps the list was immaculately conceived.

Posted by: fostert on May 23, 2007 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK

she might have used partisan criteria for hiring career prosecutors in the Justice Department.

And what is wrong with that? As Mark Corallo, a former Justice Department official said, the civil rights division of DOJ was infested with radical liberal Democrats who no respect for the law. So it's absolutley appropriate to replace them with originalists who respect the rule of law and the original intent of the law instead of supporting liberal judicial activism.

Link

"Mark Corallo, a former Justice Department spokesman, said Goodling was trying to bring balance to the department, and he ridiculed those who criticized her for trying to screen potential hires based on their political beliefs. The civil rights division, he argued, has long been populated by "some of the most radical Democrats in the law.""

Posted by: Al on May 23, 2007 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK

fostert: Perhaps the list was immaculately conceived.

Ooh, good one.

Posted by: shortstop on May 23, 2007 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINK

Big deal. A lawyer granted immunity admits to crimes. I'm surprised that she hasn't (yet) admitted to stealing office stationary.

Did anyone really expect Goodling to provide anything of substance in her testimony?

Posted by: Disputo on May 23, 2007 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINK

I'm going to use that excuse next time I'm indicted for a felony:

"Your honor, I didn't mean to break the law when I robbed the convenience store at gunpoint."

Posted by: Doug-E-Fresh on May 23, 2007 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINK

''I don't believe I intended to commit a crime,''

Two caveats in a nine word sentence.

Ms. Goodling, when you say you didn't intend to commit a crime, do you mean you didn't expect to be prosecuted for your actions?

Posted by: Carl Nyberg on May 23, 2007 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

More like spontaneous generation than immaculate conception - that has at least 1 identifiable party. It poofed from nothingness, just like the mistakes that keep making themselves.

Posted by: snoey on May 23, 2007 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK

"The civil rights division, he argued, has long been populated by 'some of the most radical Democrats in the law.'"

Yeah! Like those who believed in, you know, civil rights. And NOT just for white Christian men, but for black people! And brown people! And women!

Posted by: Cal Gal on May 23, 2007 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

Al states: "the civil rights division of DOJ was infested with radical liberal Democrats who no respect for the law. So it's absolutley appropriate to replace them with originalists who respect the rule of law and the original intent of the law instead of supporting liberal judicial activism."

Thanks, Al, for the idiotic and ignorant projection. You must be working off the wrong talking points, as these aren't judges we're talking about here. They're career attorneys in the civil rights division. Their job is to enforce the laws as written and help protect minority voting rights without fear and without regard to how the cases will impact contested elections between Ds and Rs.

Posted by: fnook on May 23, 2007 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

No, no, if you are going to make a religious reference, at least get it right. The Immaculate Conception refers to Mary being born without Original Sin. The Incarnation refers to the conception of Jesus.

Not that anyone in the White House understands that stuff either

Posted by: mikeyes on May 23, 2007 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

As Mark Corallo, a former Justice Department official said, the civil rights division of DOJ was infested with radical liberal Democrats who no respect for the law.

Mark Corallo was (1) the former press secretary for Rep. Bob Livingston, who resigned in disgrace; (2) communications director for the House Gov't Reform Committee; and (3) DOJ Press Secretary from 2002 on.

In other words, he's a political hack with zero legal training and zero legal experience.

But I guess he's well qualified to judge the legal experience and legal opinions of career DoJ lawyers who've been there for decades, under Republican and Democratic officials alike.

Christ, are you *really* this fucking stupid?

Posted by: TR on May 23, 2007 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

So is it more likely that she wanted immunity so that she could lie through her teeth about other people (Paul McNulty) or is it because she was about to say something that might be a smoking gun and bring new evidence to light than might incriminate her as well?

So far she hasn't said much that hasn't already been said (I have no idea why those attorneys were fired...) so I would vote for the first reason.

Posted by: lamonte on May 23, 2007 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

I keep 2 comments in mind (paraphrasing):

On a Froomkin chat, retired Messiah College prof (who didn't have Goodling in any classes, but knew her by sight): what's most important to these people is not ideology but blind obedience to Authority.

In a Findlaw interview with lawyer who left DoJ (can't recall name. Began with M?): They are ignorant & willfully incurious; don't care that they are ignorant; unusually & deliberately paper-less for bureaucrats.

Posted by: Tilli (Mojave Desert) on May 23, 2007 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

Since US attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President, one would assume the list was prepared by people reporting to the President, either in the Justice Dept or in the White House. What's the big deal? It's the President's job to decide whether or not to replace a US attorney.

Does anyone know what sort of political considerations are illegal in the hiring of US attorneys? I presume that Republlican Presidnets generally appoint Reps and Dems appoint Dems. I assume that's legal. What does it mean to go over the line?

Posted by: ex-liberal on May 23, 2007 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

Mark Corallo was (1) the former press secretary for Rep. Bob Livingston, who resigned in disgrace; (2) communications director for the House Gov't Reform Committee; and (3) DOJ Press Secretary from 2002 on.

Not only that, but he was also Karl Rove's personal spokesman. I.e. he's a career criminal.

Posted by: Stefan on May 23, 2007 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK

TR: Yes. Yes he is.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on May 23, 2007 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

al wrote: radical liberal Democrats who no respect for the law

but he meant: radical liberal Democrats who know respect for the law

fixed it for ya! thank me later

Posted by: thersites on May 23, 2007 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, Al, if you're taking Mark Corallo's opinion as gospel, I'll look forward to seeing you join him in urging Gonzales to submit his resignation.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-04-04-bush-team_N.htm?csp=34

Some Republicans, including former Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo, say Lone Star loyalty "is the only reason Gonzales is still around." He says Gonzales should step down over mismanagement of the U.S. attorneys flap.

"Alberto Gonzales' loyalty to George Bush has got to trump George Bush's loyalty to Alberto Gonzales," Corallo says.

Posted by: Otto Man on May 23, 2007 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

Al

Even if your absurd assertion is true about the Democrats, that doesn't absolve this administration. "Someone else did it too" is not a valid legal defense.

Posted by: tomeck on May 23, 2007 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

ex-lib: Since US attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President, one would assume the list was prepared by people reporting to the President, either in the Justice Dept or in the White House.

No shit, Sherlock. But which people, I think, is the question.

Posted by: thersites on May 23, 2007 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

ex lib

What does it mean to go over the line?

Firing DA's for not pursuing bogus vote fraud charges against Democrats is over the line, whether it pleases the president or not.

Posted by: tomeck on May 23, 2007 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK

thersites, I understand that the question is which people. But, since the firings were legal and within the President's authority, why does it matter which people?

Posted by: ex-liberal on May 23, 2007 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK

Gee, ex-liberal, that's a really good question. And I feel certain you're asking it in good faith...once gain.

I have a hazy memory of quite a few people explaining this to you before. But I can't remember their names. I'm pretty sure General Gonzales wasn't involved, though.

Posted by: shortstop on May 23, 2007 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK
Perhaps the list was immaculately conceived.

No, I think the one thing we can be sure of about the list is that it was not conceived without sin.

In approximately the same way that the Pacific Ocean is not without salt water.

Posted by: cmdicely on May 23, 2007 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

No, I think the one thing we can be sure of about the list is that it was not conceived without sin.

That Regent law course on "Controlling Sin" could have been useful here.

Posted by: shortstop on May 23, 2007 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK

Firing DA's for not pursuing bogus vote fraud charges against Democrats is over the line, whether it pleases the president or not.

Posted by: tomeck on May 23, 2007 at 1:32 PM

No it doesn't. There is no line to cross since these US attorneys can be removed by the President for no reason whatsoever or for the crassist political reasons imaginable.

Posted by: Chicounsel on May 23, 2007 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINK

since the firings were legal and within the President's authority, why does it matter which people?

If the firings were legal, and it doesn't matter which people, why won't they tell us?

And fostert: if the list was immaculately conceived the question remains; was it intelligently designed?

Posted by: thersites on May 23, 2007 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINK

I want to know how she can get away with saying she never talked to the WH about the subject when she wrote several emails talking about how "the White House" thinks this and the "the White House" thinks that about hiring and firing.

Posted by: plunge on May 23, 2007 at 1:43 PM | PERMALINK

While she was granted immunity, is she under oath? Me thinks she's not being entirely forthcoming. Imagine that.

Posted by: JeffII on May 23, 2007 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK
…"some of the most radical Democrats in the law."" Al at 1:08 PM
That's the new Republican DoJ: there's commie rats, and there's the godly.
….What does it mean to go over the line? ex-lax at 1:24 PM
Here is the glorious Bush cultural revolution in action. It's good to have US Attorneys who file phony partisan charges as long as it benefits party over country and the political agenda of the theocrats.

In the meantime, GSA chief violated Hatch Act
By DANIEL FRIEDMAN
May 22, 2007

An Office of Special Counsel report has found that General Services Administration chief Lurita Doan violated the Hatch Act, which bars federal officials from partisan political activity while on the job, sources say.
...Doan has until June 1 to respond to the OSC report, which was delivered to her May 18, according to officials. The officials asked to remain anonymous because the report has not been made public.
After Doan responds, the report will be sent to President Bush with recommendations that could include suspension or termination. The president is not required to comply with the suggestions.
Office of Special Counsel spokesman James Mitchell said the independent office will release the report after it is sent to the White House, but will not comment on the investigation until then. The White House did not return a call seeking comment....

She's also doin' a heckuva job.

Posted by: Mike on May 23, 2007 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

You guys are about three months behind in the desperate talking points, ex-lib and Chicounsel. But thanks for your valiant attempts to derail the thread; Mel's got a "Good Soldier" Boy Scout badge for you. Now, back to Monica's accidental lawbreaking...

Posted by: shortstop on May 23, 2007 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

The list appeared, somehow, but apparently not from any human hand. It's a miracle!

Not at all. The White House has perfected its computerized management of administrative departments; printers spit out auto-generated lists of disloyalists to fire. Soon, we won't need any people at all to screw up government!

Posted by: Shelby on May 23, 2007 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

No it doesn't. There is no line to cross since these US attorneys can be removed by the President for no reason whatsoever or for the crassist (sic) political reasons imaginable. Posted by: Chicounsel

Not true, and you know it.

And, BTW, that would be crass, crasser and crassest. Thank god you've got a paralegal or secretary to proof your briefs (foo!), huh?

Posted by: JeffII on May 23, 2007 at 1:49 PM | PERMALINK

I agree with plunge. It's preposterous to think that Goodling, the frigging DOJ White House Liaison, didn't communicate with the White House about the firings.

Check her e-mails -- did Monica just commit perjury? Perjury isn't covered by her grant of limited immunity.

Posted by: pj in jesusland on May 23, 2007 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK

There is no line to cross since these US attorneys can be removed by the President for no reason whatsoever or for the crassist political reasons imaginable.

Some constructive criticism: you're a total idiot.

You really should do something about that.

Posted by: frankly0 on May 23, 2007 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK

There is no line to cross since these US attorneys can be removed by the President for no reason whatsoever or for the crassist political reasons imaginable.

True, but then, those who made the decisions can also be called under oath to explain what those crassest political reasons imaginable were. I don't know why Bush didn't just say, "Yeah, those USAs weren't handing down enough high-profile voter fraud indictments last year, and Karl Rove's colelague needed a job, so I fired 'em to create some openings."

Though, obstruction of justice and violations of the Voting Rights Act might apply in certain cases, and the suspicion of those possibilities and the refusal of the White House and the AG to explain themselves makes it worth looking into.

Posted by: Tyro on May 23, 2007 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK
There is no line to cross since these US attorneys can be removed by the President for no reason whatsoever or for the crassist political reasons imaginable.

What you seem to miss (among other things) is whether or not it is not prohibited by statute law, maladministration can be sanctioned by Congress. Whether it "crosses the line" is a value judgement, not a question only of legality. The President has an obligation to follow the law, but he does not have impunity so long as he doesn't break the law.

Posted by: cmdicely on May 23, 2007 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

Kevein stumbled on the truth: "It's a miracle!"
Clearly the Hand of G_d handed down the list, as He did the Ten Commandmentts to Moses.

The GOPers are in such holy awe that they cannot bring themselves to utter the truth.

The G_dless Democrats will pay a great price for their lack of respect as soon as the truth is understood.

Anyway, that is the only alternative left, other than that everyone is lying their asses off. Which couldn't be, right?

Posted by: anon on May 23, 2007 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK

We do attract the most obtuse trolls over here, don't we? (Have a slice of pie!)

Speaking of obtuse trolls, "Thomas1" is spamming the threads at Think Progress as "Patrick1" today.

He is not missed.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on May 23, 2007 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK
It's preposterous to think that Goodling, the frigging DOJ White House Liaison, didn't communicate with the White House about the firings.

Was her claim that she didn't talk to the White House, or that she didn't talk to Harriet Miers.

I mean, if she was talking to, e.g., Karl Rove, she mightn't also have been talking to Harriet Miers.

Posted by: cmdicely on May 23, 2007 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINK

on the same theme, "the oversight Congress":

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0507/4137.html

I wrote in favor of this when the Dems won their majorities in the 2006 elections.

Al: As Mark Corallo, a former Justice Department official said, the civil rights division of DOJ was infested with radical liberal Democrats who no respect for the law.

"Infested"? Gracious.

Posted by: MatthewRmarler on May 23, 2007 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

Al, et al,

It's wrong because it's against the law. Period. End of story.

You're confusing (to the shock of many) the federal attorneys with career prosecuters. Federal attorneys are the ones who are the appointees.

Also adroitly ignored is that Bush the second cleared house upon entering office, so these bleeding fed atty libruls are his prior appointees, the b*stards. What's different from all previous administrations is that the Patriot Act has eliminated that teeny hurdle represented by congressional confirmation of their replacements. Would you care to discuss this in light of constitutional separation of powers?

Show your work.

Al bleated:

she might have used partisan criteria for hiring career prosecutors in the Justice Department.

And what is wrong with that? As Mark Corallo, a former Justice Department official said, the civil rights division of DOJ was infested with radical liberal Democrats who no respect for the law. So it's absolutley appropriate to replace them with originalists who respect the rule of law and the original intent of the law instead of supporting liberal judicial activism.

Posted by: Trollhattan on May 23, 2007 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK

Since US attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President, one would assume the list was prepared by people reporting to the President, either in the Justice Dept or in the White House. What's the big deal? It's the President's job to decide whether or not to replace a US attorney.

Bzzzttt! Unfortunately for this talking point, Bush has already said he wasn't involved in the process. If it's the president's job, then someone usurped this job unbeknownst to Bush and we have to get to the bottom of it.

Posted by: Stefan on May 23, 2007 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

AND, the truly wonderful thing is that as long as no one can PROVE that nobody did anything wrong, or intended to, or had anything to do with the matter (given that they won't release items requested - or do so without blocking out info in them_...then NO PROBLEMO...it's all about the "legal"...not the ethical with these moral hypocrites!!!! AND, they shave that one pretty close too...

Posted by: Dancer on May 23, 2007 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINK

Man. I wonder Karl who Rove could have possibly Turd written Blossom up that list?

Posted by: scarshapedstar on May 23, 2007 at 2:11 PM | PERMALINK

ex-lib: ...since the firings were legal...

If the firings were done in violation of the Hatch Act (which it seems obvious they were), then no, they're not remotely legal. And if they were done in the furtherance of obstruction of justice (which is also pretty obvious, at least in the Iglaseas and Lam cases), then, no, they're not remotely legal.

You can't just point to the president's ability to fire these people as the be-all and end-all of your argument. It's perfectly legal to drive a friend to the airport. It's not perfectly legal to drive your friend to the airport after he's robbed a bank and is making a getaway. This is a pretty straightforward legal principle, you know.

Posted by: DH Walker on May 23, 2007 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

Al: "Mark Corallo, a former Justice Department official..."

...has more recently worked as a flack for Karl Rove. Agenda much?

Posted by: Kenji on May 23, 2007 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

I think some people are missing the point here.

If the USAs were fired as part of an effort to interfere with investigations there exists a legitimate concern over potential obstructions of justice. Furthermore, those instances in which USAs were canned for failing to aggressively pursue democrats, or for being to aggresive in pursuing republicans, presents a serious concern over the legitimacy of our democracy; perhaps not illegal, per se, but certainly worthy of Congressional oversight.

Also, no matter the reason, when lying to a Congressional committee under oath a person is guilty of perjury. That is a crime, and it must be pursued. If not, then why even bother administering an oath? Why bother having Congressional oversight? Would Al, Orwell, et al. prefer we have a Congressed based on the model of the Russian Duma? Simply an arm of the executive whose job is to simply pass budgets without oversight? Hell, let's just abolish Congress altogether.

Finally, no matter the administration, no matter the ideology, and no matter the political winds, the Hatch Act explicitly prohibits the consideration of political affiliation when hiring career officials. It doesn't matter if it's Justice, State, HUD, HHS, Defense, or GA, Hatch prevents the use of the bureaucracy to further entrench incumbants, or to institutionalize a particular party in government. These laws are fundamental. Personally, I don't think civil service protections go high enough up the bureaucratic ladder. If the point of the bureaucracy is to place technical experts in government service to effectively administer Federal programs, there is no reason to place political appointees as far down the ladder as they currently are.

Posted by: Everblue Stater on May 23, 2007 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

Some testimony:

Goodling: The best I can say is that I know I took political considerations into account on some occasions.
Scott: Was that legal?
Goodling: Sir, I'm not able to answer that question. I know I crossed the line.
Scott: What line -- legal?
Goodling: I crossed the line of the civil service rules.
Scott: Rules -- laws. You crossed the law on civil service laws. You crossed the line on civil service laws, is that right?
Goodling: I believe I crossed the lines. But I didn't mean to. I mean, I...

The Hatch Act of 1939.
The original Act forbids intimidation or bribery of voters and restricted political campaign activities by federal employees. It prohibits using any public funds designated for relief or public works for electoral purposes. It also forbids officials paid with federal funds from using promises of jobs, promotion, financial assistance, contracts, or any other benefit to coerce campaign contributions or political support.
The most restrictive measure was brought about by Republicans in the Senate. It dictates that persons below the policymaking level in the executive branch of the federal government must not only refrain from political practices that would be illegal for any citizen but must abstain from "any active part" in political campaigns.

Posted by: Mike on May 23, 2007 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

Ex-Liberal & Chicounsel & others:

Goodling isn't talking about firing US Attorneys. She's talking about firing Assistant US Attorneys.

This may shock you, but that IS a violation of the law. Lower level civil servants cannot be fired or hired on the basis of politics. It violates statutory law. It also may violate the Constitution (because it involves government punishment of political speech).

What Goodling is describing is a clear violation of standing law. It is a separate LEGAL question from the firing of the US Attorney.

Posted by: MDtoMN on May 23, 2007 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK

Guys, the trolls must have swollen bellies from all the feeding they're getting here today.

As for the list, it is sort of like Jesus, in that no human was responsible for conception.

Posted by: JoshA on May 23, 2007 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK

no human was responsible for conception.

That settles it. Karl Rove.

Posted by: thersites on May 23, 2007 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

And it was Jesus, of course, who did the firing.

Posted by: Kenji on May 23, 2007 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

a lot of confusion here:

1. USAs are political appointees. other DOJ officials (including AUSAs) are usually not. the Hatch Act applies to them. that's who Monica had some responsibility for.
2. it's perfectly plausible that she doesn't know who put names on the list...that's above her paygrade. but yeah, either/both/all of McNulty, Sampson or Gonzalez lied.
3. she took the 5th because she violated the Hatch Act.
4. she testified that she never had contact with Rove (she was present at one meeting where he was present) but did receive a couple e-mails from Meiers. this is plausible. the DOJ/WH liaison isn't the real liaison folks...that's above her paygrade. that's a mid-level position. Rove doesn't talk to underlings at DOJ, he talks to Gonzalez and maybe the DAG. that's the way Washington works.
5. Gonzalez leaves on Friday.

Posted by: Nathan on May 23, 2007 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

Everblue Stater: "I think some people are missing the point here."

No, they get the point. They're recycling months-old RNC talking points that have already been proven to be false because it's the only thing they have left.

Posted by: chaunceyatrest on May 23, 2007 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

Monica fingers The White House Judicial Selection Committee
…meetings were convened weekly by White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales. When Gonzales became attorney general in February of this year, Bush named Miers to take his place.
The committee is a key part of the judge-picking process, which Gonzales instituted during the first weeks of the administration. Interviews with a half-dozen lawyers who have been a part of the process confirm that it remains today essentially what it was in 2001, and that the White House counsel--first Gonzales, then Miers--has been the one in charge. The process was designed to identify candidates for vacancies and vet their legal qualifications, judicial philosophy, and confirmability. The counsel's office has done much of the vetting, and the committee (including several associate counsels and a Justice Department lawyer, as well as Andrew Card, Karl Rove, and the deputy chief of staff for policy) functions as a court of sorts, deciding which candidates to interview and ultimately which to recommend to Bush….

More discussion on the Hatch Act

Posted by: Mike on May 23, 2007 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

Let me get this straight: the liason between the WH and the DOJ never spoke to WH Counsel or the de facto COS. Either she's still lying, or she wasn't doing her job. Or both.

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on May 23, 2007 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

Where did she go to law school, again?

Oh, right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monica_Goodling

Posted by: Trollhattan on May 23, 2007 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK

melosebrain: um, neither. see my post above. or see her testimony on that score. the official liaison (which is what she was) isn't that high up on the totem pole. Rove deals with Cabinet rank, not her level. he's going to call Gonzalez directly, not go through some 32 year old.

there's plenty of lower-level WH-DOJ everyday contact. that was her job. and the job of everyone in her position before her. typical of blogosphere types...not understanding Washington. do you really think that Reno went through a DOJ functionary to talk to the Clinton White House?

Posted by: Nathan on May 23, 2007 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK

Nathan, what's your point?

Posted by: Kenji on May 23, 2007 at 3:12 PM | PERMALINK

a lot of confusion here

No one's confused about your dishoensty, partisanship and piss-poor grasp of the law, Nathan.

I pity your clients. That pity doesn't extend to the Republicans you carry water for, though.

Posted by: Gregory on May 23, 2007 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK

There is no line to cross since these US attorneys can be removed by the President for no reason whatsoever or for the crassist political reasons imaginable.

Well, I can fire any of my employees for any reason or no reason at all too, but if I fire them in order to obstruct justice, I have committed a crime.

More generally, there are many things that are legal to do, but if in the act of doing any of those legal things, I am obstructing justice, then I have committed a crime.

It's truly amazing that a lawyer doesn't comprehend this. Oh, nevermind... you probably graduated from Regent....

Posted by: Disputo on May 23, 2007 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK
§ 1512. (c) Whoever corruptly otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

After having brought down one of the most corrupt Republican Congressman in history, successful prosecutor Carol Lam was investigating further Republican corruption.

She was summarily removed.

Pete Domenici pressured David Iglesias to rush a case he was working on prior to the elections, who refused.

He was summarily removed.

Now -- clearly there were attempts to impede and/or influence here, and since only the President can remove these U.S. Attorneys...

He shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for up to twenty years, right? Because Bush was elected on the premise that the "rule of law" is paramount.

(whoops, I see Disputo beat me to it)

Posted by: trex on May 23, 2007 at 3:21 PM | PERMALINK

it doesn't amaze me anymore that "Gregory" will continue his verbal masturbatory diarrhea even when I note that crimes were probably committed and that either/all of McNulty/Sampson/Gonzalez lied to Congress.

he doesn't even bother to read the posts. he just bloviates.

Posted by: Nathan on May 23, 2007 at 3:25 PM | PERMALINK

chaunceyatrest: They're recycling months-old RNC talking points that have already been proven to be false because it's the only thing they have left.

And lest anyone confuse "ex-liberal" with someone who comments in good faith -- fat chance -- "ex-liberal" (among others) has been corrected in these talking points before. It's as if he/she/it were compelled -- or rather, motivated -- to post GOP-friendly talking points on this boards.

Posted by: Gregory on May 23, 2007 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINK

he just bloviates

No, Nathan, I just note that you're a liar, a GOP apologist and a piss-poor lawyer whose opinion isn't worth scraping off a shoe -- something regular readers of these boards already know.

And I note that in your scatological little post, you did nothing to refute these points, so I'll consider them conceded. Thank you.

I do pity your clients.

Posted by: Gregory on May 23, 2007 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

BUSH:
The point is: al-Qaeda had plans in Iraq, you see. And what I find interesting is that some people want to smoke and mirrors away their problems. Which I find interesting. The important thing is not to do what it happened.

Posted by: absent observer on May 23, 2007 at 3:38 PM | PERMALINK

What does it mean to go over the line?

To use the nation's law enforcement infrastructure to maintain political control.

Sure, maybe individual prosecuters here or there may step out of line because of their beliefs. That's a far cry from an orranized, concerted effort, which is what we have now.

In short, politics, not the rule of law, is now supreme.

Posted by: Horatio Parker on May 23, 2007 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

it doesn't amaze me anymore that "Gregory" will continue his verbal masturbatory diarrhea

"masturbatory diarrhea"?

Now there is a rather odd, incoherent mixed metaphor.

Posted by: cmdicely on May 23, 2007 at 3:52 PM | PERMALINK

Now there is a rather odd, incoherent mixed metaphor.

I'm sure you're familiar with the lawyer joke about pounding the table when you can't pound facts or the law. I don't want to think what Nathan is pounding.

Posted by: Gregory on May 23, 2007 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINK

"masturbatory diarrhea"?

Now there is a rather odd, incoherent mixed metaphor. Posted by: cmdicely

You forgot "icky."

Posted by: JeffII on May 23, 2007 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINK

absent observer at 3:38 PM
The important thing is not to do what it happened.

Brilliant.

Posted by: thersites on May 23, 2007 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK
…Reno went through a DOJ functionary to talk to the Clinton White House? Nathan at 3:04 PM
How sad that your political agenda thinks it necessary to attempt to smear a fine honest Attorney General by trying to associate her with such Republicans crooks and liars like Aschroft, Abu Gonzales, Meese and Mitchell. Posted by: Mike on May 23, 2007 at 5:02 PM | PERMALINK

Mommy, that lady maked me frow up.

The stench of the ever-growing manure pile of personal and political degradation is making me feel physically sick, but it seems to be roses in the noses of our media, entire government, and religious leaders, their deafening silence santioning every bit of it all.

Oh, and the latest bit of dung is Pelosi and Co rolling over for Bush on the war timeframes while Bush sends more ships to the straits to help escalate us getting into it with Iran.

We live in interesting times......

Posted by: Zit on May 23, 2007 at 5:14 PM | PERMALINK

Miss Goodwrench is exactly the type of stupid vicious bluenose who lives to make trouble at school board meetings.

Posted by: cld on May 23, 2007 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINK

5. Gonzalez leaves on Friday.

Could you elaborate, Nathan?

Posted by: obscure on May 23, 2007 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK

how did I smear Reno?

obscure: that's my prediction.

Goodling has given you blokes the goods...but you're all too stupid to see it...you're too busy being accusing her of being a liar for not knowing whether the WH was involved or who suggested the names. the funny thing is, her testimony is probably true...that stuff was above her pay grade. but she's given you what you need if you'd pay attention: confirmation that one, two or all three of the top three at DOJ lied to Congress.

Posted by: Nathan on May 23, 2007 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINK
but she's given you what you need if you'd pay attention: confirmation that one, two or all three of the top three at DOJ lied to Congress.

Since they contradicted each other (and sometimes individually themselves) that much was already clear. I suppose she also may have confirmed that the Earth orbits the Sun.

What we need is to start finding out what actually happened before the investigation.

Posted by: cmdicely on May 23, 2007 at 5:46 PM | PERMALINK

Frankly, what I find most confirming of my view of Bush being the worst President in history is the fact that someone who I wouldn't even consider for a job as a law clerk somehow was appointed to the upper echelons of the Justice Department. Cronyism is cronyism, and all administrations want loyalists where possible, but c'mon, this is just ridiculous. No one should have any doubt about why things are so F*d up with this bunch in charge.

Posted by: Jim on May 23, 2007 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK

I hear a brief news conference by Artur David , D, Alabama as the hearing adjourns on
C-Span 3.They are talking about perjury. The testimonies contradict each other. Goodling said McNulty was incomplete. Gonzales did not correct the record. Mr. David keeps saying information and testimony were never corrected by Gonzales and this is problematic. Indeed, he contends that Goodling made an effort to be truthful. He is bothered by the fact that she did not go to McNulty to get him to correct his statements.
That they were unbothered by that. And it raises the question if the AG knew the testimony was inaccurate all along. No confidence in the AG.
It is clear, he says, and effort was made to come up with an explanation for the firings that was political, and hence the problem.

Oh, goodie--they are beginning to re-broadcast the first 90 minutes of the hearing on C-Span 3!

Posted by: consider wisely always. on May 23, 2007 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK

No, Nathan, I just note that you're a liar, a GOP apologist and a piss-poor lawyer whose opinion isn't worth scraping off a shoe...

Sounds like he would fit right in at the DOJ.

Posted by: asdfg on May 23, 2007 at 5:59 PM | PERMALINK

"ex-liberal" (among others) has been corrected in these talking points before.

Hmmm. It's as if ex-lib is simply a computer program and the computer is rebooted each morning (or reformatted)

Posted by: ckelly on May 23, 2007 at 5:59 PM | PERMALINK

BUSH:
The point is: al-Qaeda had plans in Iraq, you see.

In other words... Al Qaeda had plans in Iraq once Bush created an anarchical failed state out of it. Go figure.

Posted by: ckelly on May 23, 2007 at 6:02 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, Kevin.

Dems are like the nerds in HIgh School that could never get a date. Monica Goodling is a very attractive young lady, but all liberals see is "Lies Lies Lies!"

No wonder you guys are so unpoplar.

Posted by: egbert on May 23, 2007 at 6:05 PM | PERMALINK
Goodling has given you blokes the goods...but you're all too stupid to see it...you're too busy being accusing her of being a liar for not knowing whether the WH was involved or who suggested the names. the funny thing is, her testimony is probably true...that stuff was above her pay grade. but she's given you what you need if you'd pay attention: confirmation that one, two or all three of the top three at DOJ lied to Congress.
Possibly. It's now been confirmed by several independent sources that Gonzo and Sampson lied to Congress. And it's been proven that either Goodling or McNulty is lying, or possibly both. But why on earth should we take Goodling's word over McNulty's on this "briefing?" If you want to play "one of these things does not belong here," McNulty is the only one who isn't a "Loyal Bushie." He's also the one whom the Loyal Bushies would be most likely to keep out of the loop while engaging in blatant and deliberate violations of the Hatch Act and obstruction of justice.

They set up an entirely parallel extralegal mechanism for hiring and firing people in the DoJ. Why would they do that? To cut people they didn't trust out of the loop and put the whole department effectively under direct White House control. WHo did they delegate authority to? Goodling and Sampson. Who would they want to cut out of the loop? A careerist like McNulty.

White House fingerprints are all over this. Who talked to the White House? Goodling and Sampson.

Who knew so little about the whole affair that he needed to be "briefed" before his testimony? McNulty.

Who does Occam's Razor suggest is lying?

Posted by: AJL on May 23, 2007 at 6:08 PM | PERMALINK

Everyone is assuming that Chicounsel's use of "crassist," was an ignorant spelling error. Actually, it was used intentionally as the adjectival form of Crassism, referring to the ideology of the so-called neocons. Probably should have been capitalized though.

Posted by: Pavo on May 23, 2007 at 6:10 PM | PERMALINK

Furthermore, who called Senator Schumer voluntarily to attempt to correct the record? McNulty. Who tried to plead the fifth and demanded immunity before testifying? Goodling.

You see where this is going.

Posted by: AJL on May 23, 2007 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINK

mhr, when are you getting your ass over to Iraq?

Additionally, how many dead US soldiers per day are you willing to spend in order to put off withdrawal until after Bush leaves office?

Posted by: Disputo on May 23, 2007 at 6:20 PM | PERMALINK

egbert--I don't recall anyone commenting on the appearance of Samson or McNulty
Being a little sexist, aren't you?

AJL--I felt similarly. Why is she pleading the 5th and why did McNulty respond so quickly.

Posted by: consider wisely always on May 23, 2007 at 6:20 PM | PERMALINK

"masturbatory diarrhea"?

Nathan doesn't know if he's coming or going?

Posted by: ckelly on May 23, 2007 at 6:29 PM | PERMALINK

Dubya looks inappropriately happy these days. He's probably getting ready to screw us on social security.

I am appalled to hear Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, bad-mouthing Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Murtha in this hearing--it apppears a major non-sequitor in the hearing on the firing of US attorneys.

Posted by: consider wisely on May 23, 2007 at 6:36 PM | PERMALINK

NBC news just passed over this inside 20 seconds and proceeded on to a more important topic, airport delays.

Posted by: cld on May 23, 2007 at 6:41 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry, she is starting to remind me of Ann Coulter and the "ums" and the rapid speech are getting too annoying.

Posted by: consider wisely on May 23, 2007 at 6:42 PM | PERMALINK

verbal masturbatory diarrhea

I always suspected that Nathan was a coprophage fetishist.

Posted by: Disputo on May 23, 2007 at 6:46 PM | PERMALINK

but she's given you what you need if you'd pay attention: confirmation that one, two or all three of the top three at DOJ lied to Congress.

Um, that was already blindingly obvious.

Posted by: Stefan on May 23, 2007 at 6:54 PM | PERMALINK

egbert: No wonder you guys are so unpoplar.

We're unaspen, too.

ckelly: Nathan doesn't know if he's coming or going?

Now, you just get better and better all the time.

Re Ms. Goodling's pay grade and "how Washington works," which Nathan might be able to tell us just as soon as he figures out how his "law firm," basic grammar, the island of Manhattan and his own ass work: It has been explained from day one that part of the problem with Abu's Justice Funhouse is that people who shouldn't have the power--for example, 32-year-old attorneys with six months of prosecutorial experience and crap law degrees--have the power. How anyone could have missed this is beyond me. Not only was Goodling making decisions and talking to people she shouldn't have been talking to; they created the fricking position just so she could do these things.

None of that suggests that Gonzo didn't know/wasn't involved, of course, but to imply that this administration and DoJ work like any other, and that the person hired to talk to the White House, who created a trail of indications that she was, you know, talking to the White House, is dumb even by Nathan's standards.

Posted by: shortstop on May 23, 2007 at 6:57 PM | PERMALINK

Nathan may be dumb, but that last sentence of mine was dumb, too. Should have read:

None of that suggests that Gonzo didn't know/wasn't involved, of course. But it's dumb even by Nathan's standards to imply that this administration and DoJ work like any other, and that the person hired to talk to the White House, who created a trail of indications that she was, you know, talking to the White House, wasn't talking to the White House.

Posted by: shortstop on May 23, 2007 at 7:03 PM | PERMALINK

Senator Pat Leahy says it best:
"It is curious that yet another senior Justice Department official claims to have limited involvement in compiling the list that led to the firings of several well-performing federal prosecutors. What we have heard today seems to reinforce the mounting evidence that the White House was pulling the strings on this project to target certain prosecutors in different parts of the country.
“It is deeply troubling that the crisis of leadership at the Department allowed the White House to wield undue political influence over key law enforcement decisions and policies. It is unacceptable that a senior Justice Department official was allowed to screen career employees for political loyalty, and it confirms our worst fears about the unprecedented and improper reach of politics into the Department’s professional ranks.

“As Congress continues its oversight to pull back the curtain on the politicization of the Justice Department, it is abundantly clear that we must do all we can to get to the truth behind this matter and the role White House played in it.”

Posted by: consider wisely on May 23, 2007 at 7:07 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry, she is starting to remind me of Ann Coulter and the "ums" and the rapid speech are getting too annoying. Posted by: consider wisely

Yep. A female version of Coulter.

Posted by: JeffII on May 23, 2007 at 7:10 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, Eggy.

If you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be? Poplar?

Thanks for playing!

(And okay, so-stipulated that our li'l Monica isn't bad looking, but she's no Valerie Plame.)

Steak and Eggy tap-tapped:

Ah, Kevin.

Dems are like the nerds in HIgh School that could never get a date. Monica Goodling is a very attractive young lady, but all liberals see is "Lies Lies Lies!"

No wonder you guys are so unpoplar.

Posted by: Trollhattan on May 23, 2007 at 7:11 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry, she is starting to remind me of Ann Coulter and the "ums" and the rapid speech are getting too annoying. Posted by: consider wisely

Yep. A female version of Coulter.

Posted by: JeffII on May 23, 2007 at 7:15 PM | PERMALINK

Today I heard them announce that they are going to remove the "bad actors" from the Iraqi government.

Two thoughts occured.

First, I guess the democracy experiment isn't going so well and to get it back on track the US feel they have to directly interfere in the administration in Iraq. As if the Iraqis needed any more proof that they are just the latest US colony!

Second, the democracy experiment here isn't going so well, either. So, when a brigade, experienced in this bad-apple process, rotates back home, I say send them to D.C. to defenestrate a few of the "actors" here.

Public servants who have no shame are a liability as they have no conscience and, therefore, no judgement.

Goodling falls into this category at a semi-low hanging level. Gonzales at the highest and most damaging, among others.

Further, it is so depressing how mediocre so many of these people are.

Makes you want to think it's a bad dream.

Unlike never-ever, egbert et Al (ha, ha!) who think it is a wet dream.

Posted by: notthere on May 23, 2007 at 7:15 PM | PERMALINK
Dems are like the nerds in HIgh School that could never get a date. Monica Goodling is a very attractive young lady, but all liberals see is "Lies Lies Lies!"

You vant ve should talk about her tits?

Posted by: obscure on May 23, 2007 at 7:20 PM | PERMALINK

JeffII, you stole my joke!

Posted by: Disputo on May 23, 2007 at 7:22 PM | PERMALINK

This great comment was over at TPM:
"When you get right down to it, what happened is that the White House wanted direct control over the DoJ. The Comey/Ashcroft story last week gives us a few clues about the reasons why this was important to them.

So they installed Gonzo as AG to be their Colonel Klink, because they trusted him to "see nothing" and let the political people run the show.

Apart from making sure DoJ was looking away on the Gitmo/torture/wiretapping issues, it seems one of their goals was to conduct a purge of USAs with suspect loyalty in order to shield Republicans from prosecution and target Democrats with bogus election fraud cases. They also wanted to run a little "K Street Project" on the DoJ career staff to make them more conservative through selective hiring (in explicit violation of the Hatch Act.)

So they slipped the Patriot Act provision in as insurance in case the Senate went Democratic, and they delegated personnel decisions to Goodling and Sampson-- loyal Bushies who could be trusted to take orders from Rove and his people.

But why did they need Sampson and Goodling? Why did they need to circumvent the standard hiring and firing procedures at the DoJ? To cut someone else out of the loop. Someone they didn't really trust. Who might that have been?

The answer is increasingly clear: McNulty.

They cut him out of the loop because he wasn't a Loyal Bushie. They ran the decision-making process around him and fed him a bogus account of the firings which he dutifully reported to Congress.

The proof is in the pudding. McNulty claims he was misled. He unknowingly gave false testimony. What did he do when the story started falling apart? He called Schumer to correct the record. What did Goodling do? Plead the fifth.

Goodling claims she gave McNulty the goods and he failed to deliver. But what motivation did McNulty have to perjure himself to protect the White House? Everyone agrees that he was so far out of the loop that he needed a briefing just to know what was going on. He wasn't the one who had been breaking the law and needed immunity from Congress. Goodling was.

Goodling was the one with the motive for McNulty to testify falsely, she was the one who was in the loop, she was the one breaking the law, she was the one who knew about the White House involvement, she was the graduate of Right-Wing-Wacko U with a penchant for oppo research and liberal-purging, and she was the one inside the loop who briefed McNulty.

It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to identify the liar here."

Posted by: LaFollette Progressive

This is an excellent and scholarly analysis.

Posted by: consider wisely on May 23, 2007 at 7:30 PM | PERMALINK

It's a miracle!

Another nail in the coffin of Intelligent Design.

Posted by: craigie on May 23, 2007 at 7:32 PM | PERMALINK

"Monica Goodling is a very attractive young lady, but all liberals see is "Lies Lies Lies!"

Uh-oh, it's obvious that eggy is trembling for his country again. Just hope his mom is out of the house while he does it.

Posted by: Kenji on May 23, 2007 at 7:52 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin doesn't read enough science fiction. Clearly, the list was generated via time travel, as follows:

- Gonzales contacts the 22nd-century RNC for strategic advice. They send Monica Goodling back in time to help out.

- Goodling, having studied history, knows that 9 US Attorneys were fired; she writes their names down on a list that she brings back with her.

- But when she gets to present-day DOJ, she's horrified to see that no one's made such a list. Did the Democrats get there first and change history? Will her future soon evaporate? To get things back on track, she leaves the list lying around and people just assume it's from a valid authority.

So those names were chosen by the universe - or, if you will, God.

(Plot stolen from The Anubis Gates by Tim Powers, sort of.)

Posted by: Hob on May 23, 2007 at 8:14 PM | PERMALINK

Consider Wisely, I think you mean Sergeant Schulz, He was the one who saw routinely "nussink" and was much closer to Abu's intellectual weight. Of course, Schulz was kind of lovable, so it falls apart there.

Posted by: Kenji on May 23, 2007 at 8:22 PM | PERMALINK

Obstruction of justice.
Gonzales issued a statement tonight that he did not influence Goodling prior to her testimony. He says he was comforting her. Tampering with witness? This is on Olbermann

Posted by: consider wisely on May 23, 2007 at 8:25 PM | PERMALINK

"...so it falls apart there."

ROTFLMAO.

Ta!

Posted by: notthere on May 23, 2007 at 8:29 PM | PERMALINK

I knew I had heard this story before, Hob.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on May 23, 2007 at 8:29 PM | PERMALINK

He says he was comforting her.

Anytime I hear that from a creepy guy like Gonzo, I take that as, "I was trying to rape her."

Posted by: Disputo on May 23, 2007 at 8:49 PM | PERMALINK

YUCK!

That is all.

Posted by: shortstop on May 23, 2007 at 9:38 PM | PERMALINK

I notice she said she never spoke to Miers or Rove, that doesn't mean she didn't communicate with them in some other way.

Posted by: E on May 23, 2007 at 10:07 PM | PERMALINK

Hogaaaaaaan!

Posted by: Kenji on May 23, 2007 at 10:28 PM | PERMALINK

A miracle?

It's Monica Goodling's Immaculate Conception.

Posted by: Angry One on May 24, 2007 at 12:05 AM | PERMALINK

More like Immaculate Rejection.

Posted by: Kenji on May 24, 2007 at 2:04 AM | PERMALINK

Hmmm, if nobody seems to be admitting that they are responsible for the firings, and that they have been properly delegated the authority to do so by GWB, the original source of the "serves at the pleasure of" authority, then it would appear that there have been no valid firings, therefore Lam and the others actually still have their jobs, and should return to their offices and evict the imposters.

Posted by: Steve Harsch on May 24, 2007 at 2:18 AM | PERMALINK

"Mark Corallo, a former Justice Department spokesman, said Goodling was trying to bring balance to the department, and he ridiculed those who criticized her for trying to screen potential hires based on their political beliefs. The civil rights division, he argued, has long been populated by "some of the most radical Democrats in the law."

Let us try this one:

"Mark Corallo, a former Justice Department spokesman, said Goodling was trying to bring balance to the department, and he ridiculed those who criticized her for trying to screen potential hires based on their skin color. The civil rights division, he argued, has long been populated by "some of the most radical Whites in the law."

So quotas are good now!

Posted by: mat1492 on May 24, 2007 at 8:06 AM | PERMALINK

SECRETS OF THE DEEP

So Monica Goodling doesn't know who placed the names on the list of U.S. Attorneys to be fired. She may have been the liason between the Sept. of Justice and the White House but knowledge of any White House recommendations was above her pay grade.

The swamp of Washington politics has absorbed this secret. Nobody knows who decided which attorneys must go. Not "Can't Recall' Gonzales, not Deputy Attorney General McNulty, not Chief of Staff Sampson. Nobody.

Maybe Karl Rove knows, but he isn't talking. And some of his possibly revealing e-mails have mysteriously disappeared. Probably forever lost into a black hole.

I think that the names must have been put on the list by Penn & Teller.

Homer www.altara.blogspot.com

Posted by: Homer Hewitt on May 24, 2007 at 9:42 AM | PERMALINK

We've just witnessed the Immaculate Termination. Some US Attorneys got fired but no one fired them.

Posted by: Matt B on May 24, 2007 at 10:11 AM | PERMALINK

"I believe I crossed the line, but I didn't mean to." - GOP Monica Goodling 5/23/07

“I don’t think that I could have done it more than 50-times." - GOP Monica Goodling 5/23/07

Posted by: mr. irony on May 24, 2007 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK

I'm coming to this debate a little late, but I have to say... Too bad there isn't a little stained dress to find here.....
And too bad the Democrats can't find one or two of their number to channel the power-hungry, hypocritical, ruthless ideologues that seem to make up the majority of the Republicans in power. People, we are sending spaniels against pit bulls here.

Posted by: cynicalp on May 24, 2007 at 9:02 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly