Justice Dept. confirms investigation of Goodling.
By on May 7th, 2007 at 10:19 am
Justice Dept. confirms investigation of Goodling.
Newsweek reports that the Justice Department has “confirmed it’s investigating whether [Monica] Goodling improperly assessed the political loyalties of applicants for career assistant U.S. attorney posts.” The probe began “after Jeff Taylor, the interim U.S. attorney in D.C., complained that Goodling tried to block the hiring of a prosecutor in his office for being a ‘liberal Democratic type.’”
UPDATE: Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) today said that “the Department of Justice gave notice that it would not object to the House Judiciary Committee’s grant of use immunity for Monica Goodling.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Nothing to see here – move along…
May 7th, 2007 at 10:22 amYes, the same Justice Department that Alberto Gonzales is in charge of. This will go far…not! Congress should just subpoena her already, they approved immunity for her. Get the ball rolling!!!
May 7th, 2007 at 10:24 amDoesn’t this mean the Judiciary Committee can’t give her immunity or something. I guess the justice department is covering it’s ass by investigating her.
May 7th, 2007 at 10:24 amThe Committee better stock up on tissues….
May 7th, 2007 at 10:30 amHas anyone considered that Monica Goodling may have had an affair with Ashcroft?
There’s isn’t much in the way of evidence, only innuendo, but consider:
The Legal Times reported that Ashcroft liked Goodling’s brownies.
Goodling regularly traveled with Aschcroft.
Goodling regularly spent overnights in the department working on projects – and slept on co-workers’ couches.
Goodling recently cried on the shoulder of career DOJ official David Margolis, reportedly taking a lot of time to talk about her “personal life.”
Goodling quotes Ashcroft on her 1997 Regent University website (back when she was in school).
There’s a fine line between conspiracy theory and fact with this Administration because of their extreme secrecy. Vince Foster’s death lead to many conspiracy theories – which were easily knocked down. Bush may be the same – but you’ve got to look closely at the evidence you’ve got first.
May 7th, 2007 at 10:38 amIt seems more likely than not that this investigation will somehow be botched.
The judiciary committee should push hard for a special prosecutor to investigate Goodling. Gonzales’ conflict of interest is off the charts here.
I salivate at the thought of Patrick Fitzgerald questioning Goodling in a grand jury hearing, but I bet just about any decent prosecutor could bring this little liar to her knees.
May 7th, 2007 at 10:39 am“Rios quesetion” is the core!
May 7th, 2007 at 10:40 amPersonally, i am positive that the liars are going to attempt to delay any appearance by goodling before Congress. Never forget– Jan 9 2009!
#5 The evidence cited in this comment does not even begin to build a circumstantial case for this improbable theory.
May 7th, 2007 at 10:40 amGoodling went to see veteran DOJ official David Margolis and “bawled her eyes out,” saying, “All I ever wanted to do was serve this president…”
That would be your first mistake, right there.
May 7th, 2007 at 10:42 amWhat I want to know is who initiated this investigation, and to what degree are they tied to main Justice. Could this investigation have been started by one of the honest USA’s, without direct input or approval by Gonzales? This scenario would create a difficult situation for Gonzales, because quashing the investigation after it has been announced is sure to cause a political uproar.
May 7th, 2007 at 10:46 amlet’s see, her boss is investigating her for doing something he told her to do. she is being investigated by someone that she hired because that person is a loyal bushie. she works for a person that hired her boss to obstruct justice because he couldn’t find anyone else that would take the job. she went to a school that has no accreditation in reality (they paid for it via their politicians on payroll though)
all pretty funny when your friend is the prosecutor. whaddya bet no charges are filed?
May 7th, 2007 at 10:50 amAs slow as this is going I don’t see much getting done..Same with all these investigation’s…..The Impeachiness is way to slow for my liking..There should be several grand jury investigation’s going on by now, from the top on down..Blessings
May 7th, 2007 at 10:54 am#6 VerbalKint
It seems more likely than not that this investigation will somehow be botched.
The judiciary committee should push hard for a special prosecutor to investigate Goodling. Gonzales’ conflict of interest is off the charts here.
I hate to see them delay her congressional testimony, but this is the DoJ’s Inspector General, Glenn Fine, who’s investigating and he doesn’t seem to have been doing the administration’s bidding at any point up to now.
May 7th, 2007 at 11:14 am#10 VerbalKint
What I want to know is who initiated this investigation, and to what degree are they tied to main Justice.
The probe began “after Jeff Taylor, the interim U.S. attorney in D.C., complained that Goodling tried to block the hiring of a prosecutor in his office for being a ‘liberal Democratic type.’â€
May 7th, 2007 at 11:17 am#11 oldtree
let’s see, her boss is investigating her for doing something he told her to do.
It’s not her boss. It’s the OIG (Inspector General) and OPR (Office of Professional Responsibility). They’re the ones, if you recall, who were denied security clearances by Bush himself when they were trying to investigate Gonzales on the NSA wiretaps. They had to wrap up the investigation because they couldn’t go any further, and the Dems hadn’t taken back Congress, yet.
May 7th, 2007 at 11:21 amInvestigate, investigate, investigate. Why don’t you dems try to do something that’s right for the country. You know, things like helping to re-build the New Orleans or get on with the war effort in Iraq before you lose the war.
May 7th, 2007 at 11:29 amChimpeach, thanks for the information. It gives me some hope that good will come of the investigation. If Goodling becomes convinced that the OIG can make a criminal case against her it greatly increases her incentive to make a deal, which gives Congress more leverage when negotiating an immunity agreement.
May 7th, 2007 at 11:30 am#12 Sharon
As slow as this is going I don’t see much getting done..Same with all these investigation’s…..The Impeachiness is way to slow for my liking..
There’s not really much they can do to speed things up. There are still too many Republicans in Congress to get an impeachment going. The only thing that will help it along will be public opinion and Republicans reading the writing on the wall about their own re-election chances. And the thing that will drive public opinion is seeing the administration repeatedly caught in corrupt activities and repeatedly getting caught lying about it. That’s what these hearings will accomplish. But, they might also knock a few obstructions out of the way.
Gonzales is a major problem for Bush. Nobody thinks Gonzales should stay. Every week it becomes more evident, but Bush can’t get rid of him, because he’ll have to replace him with someone who can make it through Senate confirmation hearings. And that would be someone who wouldn’t block investigations as Gonzales is willing to do.
May 7th, 2007 at 11:31 am#16 MAF54
Investigate, investigate, investigate. Why don’t you dems try to do something that’s right for the country.
You’re funny.
May 7th, 2007 at 11:33 am#17 VerbalKint
I don’t know how serious the improper hiring practices charge can be, but if they’ve already begun investigating that, she probably can’t be immune to prosecution on it when she testifies before Congress.
May 7th, 2007 at 11:41 amInvestigate, investigate, investigate. Why don’t you dems try to do something that’s right for the country. You know, things like helping to re-build the New Orleans or get on with the war effort in Iraq before you lose the war.
Comment by MAF54 — May 7, 2007 @ 11:29 am
Oh, pul-leease, you blithering idiot. Your side has deliberately created enough disasters to last a lifetime, and cleaning up the mess BushCo has made of the Justice Department is one of them.
It is truly astonishing that CONS can wreck, mangle and mishandle every last thing they get their greasy hands on for years on end, and then have the gall to complain that others aren’t cleaning up after them quick enough.
Now you scamper off home, Li’l Buddy. Mother Rove is calling. She’ll help you change your wet ones, make you a nice mug of cocoa, and tuck you into bed.
May 7th, 2007 at 11:47 amThe pedophile says:
To which we say:
There is nothing better for the country than indicting your criminal masters. Pedophile.
Then the pedophile wants to know why we don’t do their job for them.
To which we say: Don’t worry pedophile, we will fix that for you too.
May 7th, 2007 at 11:55 amFor the latest news, document dumps, email archives, hearing transcripts and other essential materials in the firings of U.S. attorneys, see:
May 7th, 2007 at 12:21 pm“The U.S. Attorney Scandal Documents.”
I think the point that has been missed is that if Goodling is a target of a DOJ investigation, the DOJ has the right to quash the offer of Congressional immunity! She then can fall back on her 5th Amendment rights not to testify.
This is a brillant move by the Bush administration to prevent the testimony of Goodling.
There is a lot to see here so I don’t know about “moving along.”
May 7th, 2007 at 1:57 pm#24 They don’t necessarily need her testimony to convict. Then she has two choices: squeal, or go to prison and hope for a pardon from Bush. Goodling won’t last a week in prison.
May 7th, 2007 at 2:29 pmThe reason for the investigation first is so that she can’t pull an Ollie North. Sorry there Robert, but this is actually a brilliant move on the part of the House Judiciary Committee.
Investigate first, then grant immunity, then if she purgers herself, she can’t claim that the information came out when she was immune, because the facts will already be known.
Next.
May 7th, 2007 at 4:00 pmI’m sure the trolls are upset that this isnt a really importante investigation, like investigating Clinton’s white house christmas list.
May 7th, 2007 at 7:38 pmDoJ investigating itself? I give it three weeks.
May 7th, 2007 at 11:17 pm