Loyal to the White House, Not the Rule of Law

Regent University School of Law graduate Monica Goodling, whose meteoric rise to the highest levels of the Department of Justice put her in a position to aid and abet a program of politicizing prosecutions by US Attorneys, opened her testimony before the House Judiciary Committee Wednesday by invoking her Fifth Amendment right to refuse to make statements that might incriminate her. Committee Chair John Conyers, D-Michigan, then delivered to Goodling a grant of immunity that allowed her to do something that is rare indeed for Bush administration true believers: Tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Goodling was right to be concerned about incriminating herself. Under questioning from Democratic committee members, the former political commissar for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales repeatedly admitted to "crossing the line" that separates legal and illegal activities by federal officials. In so doing she offered another powerful insight into the way in which the Bush administration, to which Goodling says she was unquestioningly loyal, has replaced the rule of law with political calculations.

Whether Goodling met the "truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth" mandate remains open to question. Like her former boss, she suffered from convenient memory loss at times regarding critical questions. But Goodling's "I don't recalls" came far less frequently than those of Gonzales. And she was willing to take a good deal more responsibility for what went awry in the Department of Justice than has the man who remains, tenuously, in charge of the agency.

Goodling opened her testimony with a declaration that she had "no desire" to speak negatively about those she worked with in the Bush administration. She then proceeded to point fingers of blame at members of what she described as her DOJ "family," including those who had revealed details of her role in the scandal over the hiring and firing of US Attorneys for political reasons.

Goodling went on to:

• confirm that former DOJ Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson had compiled a list of US Attorneys who would be fired -- apparently for being insufficiently partisan in their inquiries and prosecutions -- and that Gonzales had been aware of the list and involved in meetings about it,

• place White House political czar Karl Rove in a room where the firings were discussed,

• acknowledge that, as early as 2OO5, there was talk about forcing US Attorneys out to make way for White House favorites and

• explain how US Attorneys were "rewarded" for helping to promote and defend the Patriot Act, at a time when that law was under attack as an assault on basic liberties.

The former White House liaison for the DOJ told the committee she never attended meetings with top White House aides involving the areas for which she was responsible. At several turns, Goodling portrayed herself as a strangely disconnected and powerless underling who was left out of meetings, told to stay in the shadows, sent away from important sessions in taxis and otherwise neglected, dismissed and overlooked. Yes, she may have had the title of Director of Public Affairs, but, "no," Goodling told the committee, she was "not a decision-maker." Rather, she at one point presented herself as a sort of departmental cheerleader who would send out e-mails to political appointees asking "Hey, who wants to go up to the White House...?"

But the woman who earned her law degree from a school that teaches courses on how lawyers in positions of authority can use their power to identify and punish "sins," confirmed the crisis in the Bush administration's Justice Department, and the manner in which she perpetuated it.

"I do acknowledge that I may have gone too far in asking political questions of applicants for career positions, and may have taken inappropriate political considerations into account on some occasions," Goodling told the committee early in her testimony. She said she made "snap judgments" to block qualified applicants because they were Democrats or "liberal." Only under intense questioning from committee members Linda Sanchez, D-California, and Jerry Nadler, D-New York, did she offer the details and perspective that made it clear her so-called "mistakes" were part of a deliberate and ongoing pattern of politicization of the hiring process at the nation's chief law-enforcement agency.

Goodling, a former opposition researcher for the Republican National Committee, explicitly admitted to applying political and ideological litmus tests when interviewing applicants for key federal positions.

Even when Republican committee members attempted to diminish the significance of her admissions -- or, in the case of Minnesota Democrat Keith Ellison, to repeatedly interrupt legitimate lines of questioning -- Goodling continued to acknowledge that she had "crossed lines" of right and wrong.

Later, Goodling said that, despite invoking the Fifth, she did not believe she had violated any laws. In fact, the Hatch Act and a host of other civil service laws and federal rules make it clear that the aggressive politicization of federal agencies is illegal. Under questioning from Virginia Congressman Bobby Scott, Goodling admitted as much -- albeit, grudgingly.

Noting that the former Justice Department aide has acknowledged making personnel decisions based on political considerations, Scott asked, "Do you believe that it was legal or illegal for you to take those political considerations into account?"

Goodling stumbled several times before admitting, "The best I can say is that I know I took political considerations into account."

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

"I don't believe I intended to commit a crime," she answered, confirming that Regent University graduates are indeed trained to speak in a lawyerly manner.

Scott pressed: "Did you break the law? Is it against the law to take those considerations into account?"

"I believe I crossed the lines," Goodling replied, "but I didn't mean to."

By "crossed the lines," Scott asked, did she mean that she had violated federal civil service laws?

Goodling responded: "I crossed the line of the civil service rules."

Scott clarified that those "rules" are, in fact, "laws."

The congressman got to the point of the inquiry into US Attorney hiring and firing issues when he said that it appeared that in Alberto Gonzales' Department of Justice "the culture of loyalty to the administration was more important than loyalty to the rule of law."

Nothing in Monica Goodling's testimony contradicted that impression. ----------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' latest book, THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism has been hailed by authors and historians Gore Vidal, Studs Terkel and Howard Zinn for its meticulous research into the intentions of the founders and embraced by activists for its groundbreaking arguments on behalf of presidential accountability. Reviewing recent books on impeachment, Rolling Stone political writer Tim Dickinson, writes in the latest issue of Mother Jones, "John Nichols' nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic, The Genius of Impeachment, stands apart. It concerns itself far less with the particulars of the legal case against Bush and Cheney, and instead combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the "heroic medicine" that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

Comments (45)

1. Mr Nichols, Goodling obviously violated the Hatch Act, but here's the problem....

   Congress granted her limited immunity. Now, anybody who's older than 25 will remember that that immunity clearly BACKFIRED on Congress in the case of Oliver North and led to the guy being able to host some show on Fox News today.

   Goodling took after her fellows at the DOJ, but was her case against them compelling enough? We don't know.

   Was it a "John Dean" moment then? Not really, it was more like "Okay, I did something bad, but wasn't responsible. Those other guys MIGHT have done something wrong." Neither "Dean's 'cancer on the Presidency'" nor "North dressed as GI Joe saying 'I did it and thought it was a good idea'".

   So now what? Goodling has immunity and can (with some high-priced lawyers) spin that into a not guilty verdict (thanks to Congress).

   Kyle Sampson? "apparently for being insufficiently partisan in their inquiries and prosecutions" doesn't cut it legally.

   Rove? Lovely target, but the man escaped "Plame-gate" unscathed and his e-mails have been "lost" at the RNC.

   Gonzales? Maybe, but you'll need more DOJ guys to get immunity and rat him out.

   Impeachment from ANY of this (anticipating another book sales dip)....not from a Congress that just SURRENDERED to Bush on the Iraq supplemental spending bill.

   Posted by Mask at 05/23/2007 @ 1:27pm

2. Two interesting excerpts from the AP story on this...

   "'All I ever wanted to do was serve this president and this administration and this department,'" Goodling said during a March 8 conversation, according to Associate Deputy Attorney General David Margolis. . . "She was certainly shaken to her core," he added during the interview May 1. "She thought her career was over, or at least her career in Justice."

   If so, she was right.

   So, her first loyalty was to the President...then to his administration...third on the list was the Department of Justice.

   And now her career there is over.

   And another one bites the dust.

   Posted by Lillian at 05/23/2007 @ 1:38pm

3. "Now, anybody who's older than 25 will remember that that immunity clearly BACKFIRED on Congress"

   I remember that congress was unwilling to pursue the various players, which has led to Adm. Poindexter being brought out of the box. I think it's an incredibly poor showing for people that they don't actually go read the conclusions of the Iran-Contra affair, particularly as it has relevance now. Quite a lot of relevance.

   "So now what? Goodling has immunity and can (with some high-priced lawyers) spin that into a not guilty verdict (thanks to Congress)."

   Seriously, you think this is about Goodling? This is about casting doubt on McNulty's testimony, placing Rove with regard to the meetings, finding out about the AGs involvement, whether the WhiteHouse was involved and generally finding out more about the internal workings of this. This isn't some 'blue dress' conversation.

   "Rove? Lovely target, but the man escaped "Plame-gate" unscathed and his e-mails have been "lost" at the RNC."

   I wouldn't say that he escaped unscathed. He's on the radar quite heavily and it's just a matter of time.

   Posted by Draconis at 05/23/2007 @ 2:17pm

4. "And another one bites the dust."

   Just another Regent foot soldier. I believe there's, what, 150 left? Are they up to the same stellar standard?

   Posted by Draconis at 05/23/2007 @ 2:18pm

5. Granting immunity to a person whom admits passionate loyalty to the White House was a brilliant idea. I'll just be sitting here waiting for her to produce the smoking gun. Maybe she'll also provide evidence of WMD and a link between Osama and Iraq pre-dating 2005.

   Posted by phillymark at 05/23/2007 @ 2:20pm

6. She knows she's on the hook for suborning perjury (McNulty's testimony), so she's making sure to blame him.

   She knows there's an open-and-shut case against her for illegal politicization of hiring (people she's interviewed have and will continue to go on the record about the illegal stuff she asks in interviews), so she gives a little "aw shucks, maybe I crossed a line, I regret it" fake-admission to head off the impact of the witness testimony, when it becomes more public.

   The cabal is still obstructing justice and withholding evidence on the White House role, so she's hangig tough on that as much as she can -- but is forced to say that, yes, the White House did the final sign offs.

   And if she's the DOJ-WH liaison and is the umpteenth person to say, Gee, I just dont' know how that list got assembled -- then it's pretty clear that they''re all obsturcting justice and that Rove and Miers have to be subpoenaede ASAP.

   Good job, House Judiciary -- this is all we needed from her, for now.

   Posted by RLawrence at 05/23/2007 @ 3:09pm

7. The "ideology" and "philosophy" she claims the Administration has a right to advance through DoJ, by the way, is the gutting of the Voting Rights Act, the Constitution, and so on.

   Gonzales was advancing a "philosophy" when he and Card went ot Ashcroft's hospital room to harass him -- the "philosophy" of pursuing illegal spying, ignoring counsel's advice, and so on.

   Posted by RLawrence at 05/23/2007 @ 3:13pm

8. Posted by DRACONIS 05/23/2007 @ 2:17pm

   Sorry, DRAC....don't see it.

   1st- "Iran Contra"? Yeah, don't think you want THIS to end like THAT. North walks, gets a book deal, a TV movie royalty, and if not for Nancy Reagan, he'd be the US Senator from VA today and not getting a fat paycheck from Fox. Poindexter also walked and got several lucrative defense and high-tech jobs. Weinberger got pardoned (as just about ANY of the "Gonzo-gate" guys can get on Christmas 2008).

   2nd--Again, how much did Goodling implicate Gonzales or the White House?

   3rd-- Rove?...."He's on the radar quite heavily and it's just a matter of time"???? Doesn't that sound a BIT familiar...like Patrick Fitzgerald and "Fitz-mas" two years ago?

   Again, sorry, but I think we see where this is leading....if "Gonzo" could truly get nailed for something, he'd have "Rumsfeld'ed" two months ago.

   Posted by Mask at 05/23/2007 @ 3:19pm

9. Mask,

   Uhhh, that I presume would apply to Wolfiwitz too???

   Christ you're naive!

   Posted by freedomplease at 05/23/2007 @ 3:25pm

10. Someone should compile a video of all the answers from Gonzales, Sampson, and Goodling to "Who made the list"? Three minutes of "I aggregated," "He compiled," "Advice of senior management," and so on, with Conyers et al repeating the question and NEVER getting a stragith answer.

    And at the end of the video: Orrin Hatch or suchlike saying, "There's no evidence of wrongdoing."

    Posted by RLawrence at 05/23/2007 @ 3:29pm

11. " confirm that former DOJ Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson had compiled a list of US Attorneys who would be fired -- apparently for being insufficiently partisan in their inquiries and prosecutions -- and that Gonzales had been aware of the list and involved in meetings about it,

    • place White House political czar Karl Rove in a room where the firings were discussed,

    • acknowledge that, as early as 2OO5, there was talk about forcing US Attorneys out to make way for White House favorites and

    • explain how US Attorneys were "rewarded" for helping to promote and defend the Patriot Act, at a time when that law was under attack as an assault on basic liberties. "

    Seems to be the way most changes occur in an office as well as make sure evryone is on the same page....the trouble here, is many here do not happen to like the page...fair enough, but nothing appears out of order....and doesn't seem sinister.

    Posted by john maasch at 05/23/2007 @ 3:32pm

12. "I don't believe I intended to commit a crime," she answered

    Or, in other words, the only way I could do the job they wanted me to do was to break the law.

    Posted by nathanhale at 05/23/2007 @ 3:43pm

13. I've never been a big fan of creating analogies between the public and private sectors, particularly when conservatives do the "we should run our government like we run our business" shtick. And yet, I find myself pining for those moments. Is this really how our MBAs are taught to accord themselves when they got with their hands in the cookie jars? Are we to acquit anyone who fails to remember their crimes or who had grander purposes beyond merely disobeying the law? Working in the non-profit world perhaps makes me unaware of certain aspects of the business community. But at some point in my non-business community, unawareness of important things equates to incompetence which equates to getting your ass dumped on the street. The streets of Washington should be littered with these asses and yet I still see none.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/23/2007 @ 4:07pm

14. "...when they are caught with their hands stuck in the cookie jars." Anger does not lead to careful writing, it appears.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/23/2007 @ 4:09pm

15. Good heavens! The woman looks like Anne Coulter!!! (This Stepford Wives moment brought to you by the Bush administration...)

    Posted by barnesgene at 05/23/2007 @ 4:18pm

16. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 05/23/2007 @ 3:25pm

    Wolfowitz? He tried to score his Frau Farbissina girlfriend a bonus and he had no friends at the WB. Analysts I heard on NPR said that if Paulie Walnuts had been NICER to the World Bank gang...they probably wouldn't have turned on him. Instead, he quit and now moves onto the private sector and his NEXT multi-million dollar job for him and his gal.

    Okay, let's use that example. Gonzo and company quit...and get NEW high paying jobs. There's justice for you, huh?

    Christ, YOU're naive. "Fredo" isn't totally stupid, you know. If he could NOT get out from "imminent impeachment" or just plain embaressment, he would have quit two months ago.

    Goodling violated the Hatch Act, but was given immunity.....Sampson may have too, but will be given "limited immunity" too, so that Congress can get him to rat out Gonzales. If he does, THEN Gonzales may quit (maybe not...not much to fear from a Congress that caved on Iraq).

    If he DOESN'T, and pulls a "North" and falls on his sword for the AG....it ends, atleast legally. Then Gonzales "remains under a cloud" until January 20, 2009....but still REMAINS.

    The problem I have is one of MEMORY....the memory of "Fitzmas" and how "Libby will get indicted and thrown in jail (he did)", but "He'll rat out Cheney and Cheney will get impeached" (he didn't).

    Or "Fitzgerald will get Rove or Cheney subpoened, they'll perjure themselves, and Karl will be frog-marched (per Joe Wilson) or Cheney will get impeached"....he didn't and they didn't.

    "Plame-gate" got Libby...and that's where it ended.

    Will history repeat itself and "Attorney-gate" gets Goodling, maybe Sampson...and that's it? Who knows? But it's a good guess.

    Posted by Mask at 05/23/2007 @ 4:41pm

17. Christ, YOU're naive. "Fredo" isn't totally stupid, you know. If he could NOT get out from "imminent impeachment" or just plain embaressment, he would have quit two months ago.

    Embarrassment: Think made an "ass" of yourself. Or (r)osy (r)ed cheeks- this will help with the double r. Not the best word to butcher.

    Posted by phillymark at 05/23/2007 @ 4:49pm

18. Posted by PHILLYMARK 05/23/2007 @ 4:49pm

    Spell-check noted, my bad.

    If Congress won't impeach Gonzales and he won't quit, and he merely rides out his "embarrassment" until January 20, 2009...

    does it matter how you spell it?

    Posted by Mask at 05/23/2007 @ 8:27pm

19. Does this issue really warrent so much attention?

    If the AG resigns tomorrow, what does it change?

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 05/23/2007 @ 8:51pm

20. Wow!! Elle Woods could do a better job. I have one question do the "cons" and Regent University alums believe in the laws that matter to them most? Especially the one that says, "Thou shall not lie." What an interesting, albeit sad, time we live in.

    Posted by elpercho at 05/23/2007 @ 9:35pm

21. Actually, you know what's REALLY possible...

    that Goodling is so inept and ignorant....she REALLY DIDN'T think she was doing anything wrong, because she didn't know what the Hatch Act even was.

    Posted by Mask at 05/23/2007 @ 10:33pm

22. O.K. for you loyal bushies and neo-nuts out there let me make it very clear.

    Think motive.

    1) Why did the firings of these USA's happen?

    To create openings in the USA offices around the country.

    2) Why were a select few removed?

    The USA's removed were either USA's that were prosecuting Repugs lawbreakers office holders or not prosecuting Dem's before an election to make them look bad to voters, or they were being removed from critical swing states where more, shall were say, compliant loyalist individuals could be inserted that could direct the USA's office in benefiting Repugs in upcoming elections by any number of ways.

    3) Why was there a provision very quietly inserted into the (Un)patriot(ic) Bill that allowed for the replacement of USA's bypassing Senate confirmation?

    So that these, shall were say, compliant loyalist individuals could be inserted without the oversight of the Senate to be able to consider their qualifications before appointment. It's kind of like a King being able to install an idiot cousin into the House of Lords.

    4) Why was this done?

    To perform the treasonous act of stealing the 2008 elections.

    Simple really.

    "Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. " - George Orwell

    This is an attempt at a silent self-coup where our own government slowly assumes powers not given in an attempt to eliminate its opposition.

    It's all so Machiavellian...er..Roveian.

    itmfa

    Posted by COProgressive at 05/23/2007 @ 11:50pm

23. that Goodling is so inept and ignorant....she REALLY DIDN'T think she was doing anything wrong, because she didn't know what the Hatch Act even was.

    Posted by MASK 05/23/2007 @ 10:33pm

    No Mask, she knew what she was doing. She pleaded the 5th even before she was asked a question because she knew she was going to go to prison. She's a Lawyer and ignorance of the Law is no excuse.

    She is just another lying Republican.

    "Use power to help people. For we are given power not to advance our own purposes nor to make a great show in the world, nor a name. There is but one just use of power and it is to serve people." - George W. Bush - Yale Cheerleader

    another lying Republican. Why aren't all these people in prison.

    itmfa

    Posted by COProgressive at 05/24/2007 @ 12:03am

24. The study views the impact of the Justice Department's vision on the fight against public corruption and reveals the non-proportionate political profiling of elected Democratic officials.

    We presented the preliminary data through August 2004 at the Southern Speech Communication Annual meeting in April 2005 in Baton Rouge and as a refereed panel paper with data through December 2004 at the November 2005 annual meeting of the National Communication Association.

    We compare political profiling to racial profiling by presenting the results (January 2001 through December 2006) of the U.S. Attorneys' federal investigation and/or indictment of 375 elected officials. The distribution of party affiliation of the sample is compared to the available normative data (50% Dem, 41% GOP, and 9% Ind.).

    Data* indicate that the offices of the U.S. Attorneys across the nation investigate seven (7) times as many Democratic officials as they investigate Republican officials, a number that exceeds even the racial profiling of African Americans in traffic stops.

    Our paper explores the role of the fourth estate and others in detecting such profiling and concludes that what is really needed is transparency, the highlights of which are noted below.

    The current Bush Republican Administration appears to be the first to have engaged in political profiling.

    http://www.epluribusmedia.org/columns/2007/ 20070212_political_profiling.html

    A study of reported federal investigations of elected officials and candidates shows that the Bush administration's Justice Department pursues Democrats far more than Republicans. 79 percent of elected officials and candidates who've faced a federal investigation (a total of 379) between 2001 and 2006 were Democrats, the study found – only 18 percent were Republicans. During that period, Democrats made up 50 percent of elected officeholders and office seekers during the time period, and 41 percent were Republicans during that period, according to the study.

    "The chance of such a heavy Democratic-Republican imbalance occurring at random is 1 in 10,000," according to the study's authors.

    The vast disparity came not from the more high-profile investigations of state-wide or federal officeholders (the disparity there was 55-44 Democratic), but from the far more numerous investigations of local officials. The study found that 85 percent of the 309 local officials and candidates who faced investigation were Democrats. {er, obviously attempting to build a permanent base... and not in the desert}

    The Justice Department did not respond to our repeated requests for commment.

    http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002420.php

    Posted by hsuBfools at 05/24/2007 @ 02:51am

25. I'd say the DoJ kastopo usage has legs on it:

    Right-Wing ‘Voting Rights' Group Has Disappeared

    Just as the Bush administration's claims of voter fraud are being dismantled, so too is the American Center for Voting Rights (ACVR) -- a conservative front group that identified pervasive election fraud. Slate reports:

    With no notice and little comment, ACVR -- the only prominent nongovernmental organization claiming that voter fraud is a major problem, a problem warranting strict rules such as voter-ID laws -- simply stopped appearing at government panels and conferences. Its Web domain name has suddenly expired, its reports are all gone (except where they have been preserved by its opponents), and its general counsel, Mark "Thor" Hearne, has cleansed his résumé of affiliation with the group. Hearne won't speak to the press about ACVR's demise. No other group has taken up the ‘voter fraud' mantra.

    ACVR was led by Bush/Cheney '04's general counsel and produced such reports as "Democrat operatives far more involved in voter intimidation and suppression in 2004 than Republicans." Many of its studies targeted presidential battle ground states.

    ACVR, whose work has been commended by Karl Rove, was part of the Bush administration's "aggressive legal effort to restrict voter turnout in key battleground states in ways that favor Republican political candidates." Conservatives cited ACVR's studies as evidence of pervasive voter fraud.

    Of the 38 cases of voter fraud the Justice Department prosecuted between 2002-05, 14 were thrown out. As the New York Times notes, "In partisan Republican circles, the pursuit of voter fraud is code for suppressing the votes of minorities and poor people."

    But of those 38 prosecutions that the Justice Department brought between 2002 and 2005, a grand total of two were for fabricating or falsifying voter registration applications. This qualifies as one of our smaller crime waves.

    Given these figures, the Justice Department's intense focus on voter fraud is hard to explain. Yet, as Meyerson notes, from Karl Rove's perspective, "a crackdown on voter registration campaigns in minority communities made cold electoral sense." In close races, a key plank of his strategy "was to suppress black and Hispanic turnout -- a task that would become far easier if the airwaves were buzzing with news of voter-fraud indictments. It was a task that required federal prosecutors who would indict first and ask questions later."

    Tim Griffin -- a "37-year-old protege" of Karl Rove and the former research director of the Republican National Committee -- has become the poster boy for the Bush administration's politicization of the office of U.S. attorney.

    On Feb. 15, Griffin suddenly announced that he had "made the decision not to let my name go forward to the Senate" for approval. Instead, he will serve indefinitely as an "interim" prosecutor. By avoiding Senate approval, Griffin will also avoid having to answer questions under oath about his role in a plan to supress Florida votes -- primarily those of African-American servicemembers -- in the 2004 election. From the LA Times, 10/28/04

    http://thinkprogress.org/?tag=Electoral+Justice

    Posted by hsuBfools at 05/24/2007 @ 02:51am

26. Yep I agree. The repubs are new con 'supporters'/servicers to dic'tator philosophy. They lie, cheat, steal, pervert law, kill,... all to feed their greed. They'll lie to their grave because their god tells them to. Repubs always hear that voice in their heads telling them the best way to lie, steal, horde, covet, kill, feed their hunger for wealth and power, bend the rules, break the rules, actually there are no rules, er, laws for the repubs, because they are new con 'supporters'/servicers to the dic'tator philosophy. Repeat this over and over again until you can recite by memory. Teach it to your kids so they can teach it to theirs. Teach it to your neighbors so they can spread it to their families in other cities and states. Repeat it every time you see a repub, hear a repub, think of a repub, know it, believe it. Wait ten years before you stop doing this.

    Then it will safe.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 05/24/2007 @ 03:13am

27. "Sorry, DRAC....don't see it."

    You may not be make the equivalency between the effect on the American people from Iran Contra (being unwelcome in Tehran) and deliberately trying to subvert the judicial system to provide an electoral outcome. I doubt this will be barBrady'd out of existence.

    "Yeah, don't think you want THIS to end like THAT."

    I don't think it will. My inept invocation of Iran Contra was more about the questioning of low and middle level actors that led higher up...again, this isn't an 'abstract' concept involving other countries, it's the US judicial system which is likely to be a sore point.

    "Again, how much did Goodling implicate Gonzales or the White House?"

    Not a huge amount, but enough to keep the investigation going by contributing the the general air of malfesance. I know it's an outdated concept, but wasn't there an acceptance of responsibility for the actions of the department under his control? Admission of breaking the law by an underling, coupled with the financial pressures resignation of McNulty sticks to high heaven.

    Now, although you seem to be a massive pessimist, wouldn't you agree that this whole event is quite suspiciously positioned to hand an election result to someone?

    "Doesn't that sound a BIT familiar...like Patrick Fitzgerald and "Fitz-mas" two years ago?"

    While the investigation is not ongoing, it's still open to new information coming to light, and the RNC emails, should they ever come to light other than through Greg Palast, should make for interesting reading. Add to that the civil case and there could be a snowballing. These things don't operate in isolation to one another.

    "if "Gonzo" could truly get nailed for something, he'd have "Rumsfeld'ed" two months ago."

    I'm amazed you should use that collary. Rumsfeld was ousted because of horrendous reports from everyone that worked with him and a vast number of people calling for his resignation after the November elections. Usually it happens about a month after Bush publically gives his support.

    Now there's a vote of no-confidence next week...with everything else, plus a possible vote, it would become extremely difficult politically to continue operating, especially working with such a terrible memory.

    Gonzo's stalling, because every day is closer to handing the train wreck over to another administration. Isn't it fairly obvious from the Republican presidential lineup that they're not banking on it?

    Posted by Draconis at 05/24/2007 @ 06:18am

28. "O.K. for you loyal bushies and neo-nuts out there let me make it very clear.

    Think motive."

    1) Loyal Bushies and 'neonuts' will ignore motive and declare that this is a witch hunt. A fishing expedition. They're trusting that Democrats won't use the tools themselves. They don't understand cause and effect. They astroturf left wing sites for purposes unknown, but mostly to troll people who emote.

    2) You can't convict on motive, you need to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that illegality has occurred. I'm 99% sure that there's a link between the political aspirations to continually win elections and the Whitehouse because we have interesting bits of evidence, but the actual murder weapon needs to located.

    "It's kind of like a King being able to install an idiot cousin into the House of Lords."

    It's known as a Royal court, and frequently interbreeds increasing recessives.

    "This is an attempt at a silent self-coup where our own government slowly assumes powers not given in an attempt to eliminate its opposition."

    Without a doubt. How do you prove it?

    One angle that I don't feel is explored enough is the President's role in subverting the Constitution, a document that he swore to uphold. I really don't understand why that isn't being thrown front and center. Also we need to challenge the assertations of the 'Decider' and 'Commander guy' by pointing out that 'co-equal' isn't a form of cholestoral medicine.

    Posted by Draconis at 05/24/2007 @ 06:30am

29. "Does this issue really warrent so much attention?"

    Do you want a partisan judicial system that may eventually apply moral litmus tests to your political alignment in court, or would you prefer a judicial system that is blind to anything other than the facts in a case and advocacy by your representative and a jury.

    I can see how people might be a little bothered that it cuts into Baseball coverage, but the fall of democracies usually comes about from a judicial system in collusion with it's own government.

    Some guy once said that 'the Price of freedom is eternal vigilance'. He may have had more faith in his decendents than the current generation warrants.

    "If the AG resigns tomorrow, what does it change?"

    The AG, but you're missing the point. There isn't a desire for Gonzo to resign, there's a desire for him to tell the truth, or for the truth to come out through investigation. Although the right will characterise this as a people baying for Gonzales blood, they're completely and utterly wrong, because that's what Starr was doing in his two year investigation of Clinton.

    This is about removing political interference from the judicial department to the extent where _nuisance criminal charges_ are brought against Democrats on the run up to an election. Compare with any number of banana republics...

    Posted by Draconis at 05/24/2007 @ 06:43am

30. Mask,

    "she REALLY DIDN'T think she was doing anything wrong, because she didn't know what the Hatch Act even was."

    Puhleez, it was apparent from the get go that she was ill-equipped to be in the position, from the inept parsing of 'laws' to 'rules' and the trembly-lipped 'But I didn't mean to' defence of her criminal activity and the overlapping memory/no-memory of events that Gonzo nearly shot himself with.

    She's had lawyer training, but almost no experience judging from her performance which included babbling. Babbling! From a Director of Public Affairs given hiring and firing power over AGs

    Goodling; "I'm happy to tell you what I remember about Mr. Graves, but in my mind, I have slightly conflicting memories of what happened there."

    What does that mean? Slightly conflicting memories? Has anyone else undergone slightly conflicting memories?

    "GOODLING:Because he was my boss."

    A Nuremburg defence.

    "GOODLING:No conversation with him before the decision was made."

    Possibly a misstep, because at the start of her testimony she stated that she'd had no conversations with Rove.

    Re Whitehouse involvement; "GOODLING:I mean, they were involved in the sign-off.There were many offices that did sign off on the plan before it was implemented.And I'm just talking about the sign-off and then the actual notification phone calls and that sort of thing.

    I just felt that the statement didn't fully express the fact that the White House was involved in the sign-off of the plan at the end, at least that's the part that I knew about, and that he at least knew that that was a process that had been going on for some period of months. "

    Re Voter Caging "GOODLING:You know, my understanding -- and I don't actually know a lot about it -- is that it's a direct-mail term that people who do direct mail, when they separate addresses that may be good versus addresses that may be bad.That's about the best information that I have, is that it's a direct-mail term that's used by vendors in that circumstance."

    She seems completely unaware that the Republican party has been barred from caging since 1986 and that it's illegal.

    Posted by Draconis at 05/24/2007 @ 07:22am

31. (CBS/AP) A former Justice Department official at the center of the uproar over prosecutor firings told House investigators Wednesday that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales tried to review his story of the dismissals with her at a time when lawmakers were homing in on conflicting accounts.

    "It made me a little uncomfortable," Monica Goodling, Gonzales' former White House liaison, said of her conversation with the attorney general just before she took a leave of absence in March. "I just did not know if it was appropriate for us to both be discussing our recollections of what had happened."

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/23/politics/ main2840617.shtml

    Posted by hsuBfools at 05/24/2007 @ 08:36am

32. Witness tampering

    Posted by hsuBfools at 05/24/2007 @ 08:38am

33. Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee last month that he didn't know the answers to some questions about the firings because he was steering clear of aides -- such as Goodling -- who were likely to be questioned.

    "I haven't talked to witnesses because of the fact that I haven't wanted to interfere with this investigation and department investigations," Gonzales told the panel.

    Goodling said for the first time Wednesday that Gonzales did review the story of the firings with her at an impromptu meeting she requested in his office a few days before she took a leave of absence.

    "I was somewhat paralyzed. I was distraught, and I felt like I wanted to make a transfer," Goodling recalled during a packed hearing of the House Judiciary Committee.

    Gonzales, she said, indicated he would think about Goodling's request.

    "He then proceeded to say, 'Let me tell you what I can remember,' and he laid out for me his general recollection ... of some of the process" of the firings, Goodling added. When Gonzales finished, she said, "he asked me if I had any reaction to his iteration."

    Goodling said the conversation made her uncomfortable because she was aware that she, Gonzales and others would be called by Congress to testify.

    "Was the attorney general trying to shake your recollection?" asked Rep. Artur Davis, D-Ala.

    Goodling paused.

    "I just did not know if it was a conversation we should be having and so I just didn't say anything," she replied.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 05/24/2007 @ 08:42am

34. Gonzo's stalling, because every day is closer to handing the train wreck over to another administration. Isn't it fairly obvious from the Republican presidential lineup that they're not banking on it?

    Posted by DRACONIS 05/24/2007 @ 06:18am

    I agree with the first part. It IS "stalling". Playing out the clock on the incompetence and illegalities...just as they are on Iraq. As HSUB (our resident impeachment "scholar") has predicted, it MUST come to something serious by late Fall or....we're into the 2008 election season and it gets dropped ("What's the point? Bush will be gone in less than a year!", etc.)

    But re-reading your post, look at the number of "what ifs" and "this MAY lead to more laters".

    As for the no-confidence vote, I think Gonzales already knows the outcome of that vote (52-48, maybe 54-46 on nearly party lines) and therefore he can claim it's "partisan" and ignore it.

    So...unless the Senate impeachs "Gonzo"....what's next?

    Posted by Mask at 05/24/2007 @ 09:07am

35. After impeaching/resignating Frito or 2nd gear, 3rd gear will involve cHeney, 4th gear is hsuB, 5th is... Well, this part is for professionals.

    Mo, mo, mo, mo

    Posted by hsuBfools at 05/24/2007 @ 09:20am

36. Mask -

    Ignorance of the law is no defense.

    Posted by Hman23 at 05/24/2007 @ 10:26am

37. as they say at Regent Law School, Leges ab Republicani vanae

    Posted by nathanhale at 05/24/2007 @ 10:31am

38. Yep, he sure did:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marty-kaplan/oedipus-wrecks_b_49127.html

    Posted by hsuBfools at 05/24/2007 @ 11:19am

39. And why is King George still seated on the throne? Can't anyone outside a few Liberals, Progressives, and Libertarians see what's going on? This beautiful country of ours is under attack from the Right and from the "co-called" left, those who profess to be Democrats or even Liberals, such as the Clinton's, Lieberman and others. It's time for a real revolution. We must take back America before these fascists destroy our Constitution. Libertarians, Liberals, Progressives and Independants must unite under this cause. They must put asise their "less" importent differences on issues like abortion, taxes, guns and such to unite on the basis of our survival as a Constitutional country with a living working Bill of Rights that is under attack. It's time!

    Posted by Lucem ferre at 05/24/2007 @ 12:40pm

40. "Seems to be the way most changes occur in an office as well as make sure evryone is on the same page....the trouble here, is many here do not happen to like the page...fair enough, but nothing appears out of order....and doesn't seem sinister.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/23/2007 @ 3:32pm" There are none so blind as those that will not see.

    Posted by brantl at 05/24/2007 @ 12:58pm

41. sorry this not nazi germany and even though gonzales ,w,rove,and all foot soldiers trying to fix elections while they are pretending their trying to spread democracy to other countries with legit elections while here in america there trying nazi tactics to rig the elections ,democrats better get their butts in gear pronto and get america back to legit and fair and not rigged elections or welcome to nazi america 21st century style

    Posted by studlyguy at 05/24/2007 @ 1:16pm

42. Why was this overlooked? This was the Smoking Gun". Why didnt' they pick it up? This scandal is ALL about the next election. Speak up.

    From Greg Palast......

    Goodling testified that Gonzales' Chief of Staff, Kyle Sampson, perjured himself, lying to the committee in earlier testimony. The lie: Sampson denied Monica had told him about Tim Griffin's "involvement in ‘caging' voters" in 2004.

    Huh?? Tim Griffin? "Caging"???

    The perplexed committee members hadn't a clue -- and asked no substantive questions about it thereafter. Karl Rove is still smiling. If the members had gotten the clue, and asked the right questions, they would have found "the keys to the kingdom," they thought they were looking for. They dangled right in front of their perplexed faces.

    Posted by stilljl at 05/24/2007 @ 1:47pm

43. It's there for the picking. Perhaps they're waiting on the immigration bill?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 05/24/2007 @ 2:06pm

44. (More accuate) Legal point of view from Paul Mirengoff, one of 3 lawyer/proprietor of Power Line: (bold are mine)

    May 24, 2007

    Monica Goodling speaks, Part Three

    The Washington Post's coverage of Monica Goodling's testimony was so poor.....

    The Post's....presents a misleading and in some cases inaccurate picture. First,....Goodling did not provide any new information about "political meddling"....Her interrogators hit a dead-end here.....

    ....The "broad avenue" claim more closely resembles a Democratic talking point than the reality of the hearing.

    The authors also present a misleading picture....to which she "crossed the line.".....Goodling did not say she used political considerations routinely. Moreover, Eggen and Kane omit the fact (emphasized by Goodling) that many of the prospective employees in question were seeking political jobs but also wished to be considered for career positions.....

    The claim that Goodling used political considerations for "a wide array of career professionals" is also flatly false. Goodling identified two positions where this occurred.....In any event, the "wide array" language once again sounds like a Democratic talking point, and certainly is not an honest description of Goodling's testimony.

    Eggen and Kane.....Perhaps their inaccurate reporting of Goodling's testimony reflects frustration with the event itself.

    Posted by Paul at 12:33 PM

    Posted by Happy at 05/24/2007 @ 3:36pm

45. Wow, what she said wasn't what she said!!! Amazing, how people can say one thing and mean a totally different thing they just didn't know they weren't saying...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 05/24/2007 @ 5:44pm