Goodling Admits Her Partisan Hirings Were ‘Illegal’
Goodling Admits Her Partisan Hirings Were ‘Illegal’
In her opening statement to the House Judiciary Committee today, Monica Goodling — the Justice Department’s former White House Liason — admitted that she had “taken inappropriate political considerations into account” while hiring career employees at the Department.
Later during the hearing, Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) asked Goodling whether she believed her actions had broken the law. Goodling initially tried to dodge the question, saying “that’s not a conclusion for me to make.” Scott followed up: “Do you believe that they were illegal?” Goodling again tried to squirm her way out of a straight answer, “I don’t believe I intended to commit a crime.”
But Scott continued to push for a real answer, listing the various types of laws that may have been broken. He again asked Goodling, “Were there any laws that you could have broken by taking political considerations into account, quote, on some occasions?”
Goodling eventually relented, admitting, “I crossed the line of the civil service rules.” Scott clarified, “Rules? Laws. You crossed the law on civil service laws. You crossed the line on civil service laws, is that right?” She said, “I believe I crossed the lines. But I didn’t mean to.” Watch it:
UPDATE: The Plank parses Goodling’s testimony.
Transcript:
SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Goodling, as you just heard, I was introduced as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime.
The criminal justice system cannot function if the public does not trust the system to be fair. We expect judges and prosecutors to strictly follow the rule of law. We expect witnesses in criminal cases, in all phases of criminal cases, to tell the truth. We expect juries to be fair and impartial.
And this won’t work if there are partisan political considerations becoming more important than fair and impartial decisions.
Unfortunately, there have been credible allegations that attorneys have been hired because of their partisan views rather than their legal backgrounds, that the culture of loyalty to the administration was more important than loyalty to the rule of law, and pressure and even firing of U.S. attorneys for failing to pursue partisan political agendas rather than the rule of law.
These allegations are serious because, if true, they can clearly undermine the confidence the public will have in the criminal justice system.
It’s been hard for us to get to the bottom of it because, when we ask simply questions, you’ve accused others of not telling the truth under oath. You in fact yourself pleaded the Fifth. So it’s been hard to get to the bottom of it.
But let me just ask a couple of questions.
In your testimony, you indicate that you have — quote, may have taken inappropriate political considerations into account on some occasions.
Do you believe that those political considerations were not just inappropriate, but in fact illegal?
GOODLING: That’s not a conclusion for me to make.
I know I was acting…
SCOTT: (inaudible) Do you believe that they were legal or illegal for you to take those political considerations in mind? Not whether they were legal or illegal, what do you believe? Do you believe that they were illegal?
GOODLING: I don’t believe I intended to commit a crime.
SCOTT: Did you break the law? Was it against the law to take those political considerations into account?
You’ve got civil service laws. You’ve got obstruction of justice. Were there any laws that you could have broken by taking political considerations into account, quote, on some occasions ?
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…
SCOTT: OK.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
114 Responses to “Goodling Admits Her Partisan Hirings Were ‘Illegal’”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
Stop the presses! Patrick1 says these hirings are legal. So they must be. Right Patrick? Patrick?
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:53 pmHeh.
Squirm baby…..
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:53 pmHey, all laws are just rules, or even guidelines, to this administration and its flunkies.
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:53 pm“That’s not a conclusion for me to make.”
Yes, that’s right, you shouldn’t try to draw that conclusion. That’s a task that requires someone who knows the first thing about law.
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:54 pmThe problem I see is that she knew she crossed the line, but she doesn’t think she was wrong to do it…the ends justify the means.
and I bet if you asked anyone involved they would agree that it was the right thing to do, but may of been the wrong way to go about it…
They can’t see why this trivalizes our Justice Department…which is exactly why they need to be removed. It is down right mind boggling they AG could still be in office after congress is threating to have a no confidence vote…any sane person would step down.
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:54 pm“But I didn’t mean to.â€
I have a Christian Get Out Of Jail Free Card
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:55 pmShe’s a liar and a traitor, and she should be disbarred.
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:56 pmShe’s obviously wrong. Right Patrick???
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:56 pmShe broke the law… but she didn’t mean to.
Hmmmm….
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:57 pmShe is telling some truth, but mixed with lies, so her testimony is worthless.
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:57 pm“I believe I crossed the lines. But I didn’t mean to.”
F*ck me. Who knew it was so hard for DoJ employees to get sound legal advice?
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:58 pmFake blond, lying, greedy, hypocritical, holier-than-thou….
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:58 pmOops, those are the basic requirements to be a Republican and work in the WH.
I hope she gets jail time for this, but of course chimp-boy will pardon everyone.
This might be somewhat amusing if the Bush Administration was trying to do the right thing for the country. Instead of enforcing the law, Bush’s cronies circumvented the law solely to advance their own partisan agenda and expand their power.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:00 pmDisbarred? Has she actually passed the bar?
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:00 pmSince it can’t be legal, Patrick-pee-in-his-pants-coward will avoid debate by chanting that Clinton did it too.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:00 pmShe is just so cute! I won’t believe she’d ever do anything bad.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:00 pmGood to the very last drop of rationalization… Laws? Laws? This is the Bush crime family… We are above the “law” and the stinking piece of paper called the “Constitution.” Just ask Der Fuhrer, excuse please, the Decider…The Blamer… The Liar-in-Chief.
It’s TIME to draw the LINE on the Bush occupation of Iraq.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:00 pmOh well, if you didn’t MEAN to. /snark
It sounded to me like she knew exactly what she was doing. What I want to know is this…who directed her to conduct her interviews this way? Someone like this would most likely need a lot of direction so who was doing the directing?
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:01 pmI would say, “she graduated from law school and should know better,” but then I remembered it was fourth-tier Regent School of Law.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:01 pmHoly crap. A “You Can’t Handle The Truth” moment in real life.
“I don’t believe I intended to commit a crime.”
What on earth does that mean? How can she not know her own intentions???
Gun => Smoke
Maybe God told her to do it?
Maybe a Liberty University terrorist can get her out of this jam.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:01 pmNot her fault… she had faulty intel! (She was told god would protect her.)
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:01 pmwonder what person she is hiding now? little putzes don’t make such decisions on their own, and to pretend otherwise is absurd. but funny, oh yes.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:03 pmUhh……..whatsup?……..i was busy jerking off to her pics………i miss something?
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:04 pmSo similar to LOTS of other illegal acts by this administration, they now have an undetermined number of attorneys in career spots that shouldn’t be there.
We shouldn’t have to live with this George W. Bush agenda until they all die off.
What can be done to purge the Department of Justice of these folks?
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:06 pmI hope the Democrats are far more agressive this afternoon than they were this morning. I mean, Goodling said she NEVER talked to Rove. She was the liason between the White House and Justice, for heaven’s sake, and lack of voter fraud prosecutions was Rove’s baby. They can’t let this go.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:08 pmdoes she have immunity to an illegal act that she admits to having comitted?
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:09 pmThis Legally Blond chick was “senior counsel and White House liaison”?
SENIOR COUNSEL????
I’d like to see the junior counsel.
Who’s the intern? A fetus?
Also, will any administration in its right mind ever hire another Monica?
Batting 0 fer 2.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:10 pm(my imitation of Patrick1nut, who is, understandably, quite silent on this thread)
It just shows to go ya, had Clinton not recieved blowsjob from anuther Monica, and been harder on terror, then we never would’ve been attached my libural luving jihads, and this poor lil thang wouldn’t be up there, defending her country!
Please waits while I cut and paste from RightWingNews.com, to makes myself look smarter?
(sorry, that last sentence was a michael imitation, complete with inappropriate punctuation)
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:12 pma box of rocks has nothin’ on me
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:13 pmAlberto? KKKarl? Are you out there?
KKKarl, you obviously have time to coach Goodling on how to avoid direct questions.
How ’bout you take some time to visit with congress? Sure, you can do a little dance to divert attention, but bring your e-mails with, for sure.
KKKarl?
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:13 pmIgnorance of the law is no excuse, even for bottom of the barrel ranked law school grads.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:13 pmShe’s a liar and a traitor, and she should be disbarred.
Comment by john o.
Yeah, but I say disrobed first. I’d like to see what she has covered up.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:15 pmDRxJ,
AWESOME!!
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:15 pmDidn’t mean too? That’s her defense? She knew the rules, knew what she was doing was against the rules, did it anyway…but “didn’t mean to”?
That’s like saying, I know stealing cars is illegal, I was found driving a car that wasn’t mine which I took from somebody…but was I doing something illegal? Well, I didn’t mean too. Sure, I knew the law and did it anyway…but I didn’t mean to.
WHAT?
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:15 pmHas she been admitted to the bar anywhere?
If so, the process should begin to get her *dis*barred.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:16 pmGOODLING: I believe I crossed the lines. But I didn’t mean to. I mean, I…
….I thought GOD told me to do it. It’s all GODS fault!
SCOTT: Uhh…. mmm.k…I have no more questions. I yield back.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:16 pmComment by DRxJ — May 23, 2007 @ 2:12 pm
too many words. p1 is usually one or 2 lines.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:17 pmTo bad she won’t be doing any time.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:18 pmAaah, she didn’t mean to. Ask my kids how much slack they got when they ‘didn’t mean to.’ Try NONE. Throw the book at her.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:18 pmSure I robbed the bank, but I didn’t mean to…… I parked illegally yesterday, but didn’t mean to.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:19 pm#39. That’s funny. Of course, Republicans don’t know how to “raise their kids right.” Just ask “Dr.” Laura.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:20 pmIt’s not illegal when someone who serves at the pleasure of the president does it.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:20 pm“I don’t believe I intended to commit a crime?” And these right-wing fools call out Clinton for the definition of “is?”
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:21 pmNow I’m wondering exactly what she meant to do, since she says she didn’t mean to break the law.
What a lying little sheep.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:22 pmThese Rethugs are appalling. Party over country. I don’t know why I haven’t had a stroke yet listening to these mothera;lskdjf;lakjs. It boggles the mind that they somehow got elected.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:24 pm“The danger then consists merely in this: the president can displace from office a man whose merits require that he should be continued in it. What will be the motives which the president can feel for such abuse of his power, and the restraints that operate to prevent it? In the first place, he will be im-peachable by this house, before the senate, for such an act of mal-administration; for I contend that the wanton removal of meritorious officers would subject him to impeachment and removal from his own high trust.”
–James Madison
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:25 pm#42 Either this is a namejacking, or Patrick has mastered the art of self-parody.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:26 pmDoes anyone know if this has a real chance of getting all the way up to Bush? It seems like all the would-be patsies are jumping ship for immunity.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:26 pm#42. It’s not illegal when someone who serves at the pleasure of the president does it. –Comment by Patrick1
I’m looking for that exception in the law. Nope, I don’t see it. Can you point it out?
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:27 pmGoodling Admits Her Partisan Hirings Were ‘Illegal’
Does this mean all the wingnuts will attack her now, like they did Jessica Lynch? I mean, she’s committed the greatest crime in the bushtard code of justice: she’s off-message.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:29 pm.
It’s not illegal when someone who serves at the pleasure of the president does it. –Comment by Patrick1
Yes, which is why you’ll never be prosecuted for being Bush’s butt-boy.
But we were talking about Monica Goodling’s admission that she did something illegal. Good thing she has immunity so she can be honest about that.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:30 pm.
GOODLING: I don’t believe I intended to commit a crime.
So here we have a DoJ hire who does not know that negligence is not a defense?
As moronica said, she’s playing her Xtian get out of jail free card, that’s obviously all they learn at Regent.
Ps. Did anyone else know know that Monica Goodling anagrams to Moaning God coil…
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:33 pm-If this is the payoff for granting immunity,well, don’t grant it again.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:33 pmI think Patrick-it-hurts-to-be-so-stupid must be in an emergency troll meeting getting the new talking points.
It’s futile, Patrick. Just give up and go. Please.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:34 pmBut now what will happen to the Fright-Winger talking point that there were no laws broken?
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:41 pmChimpy : I didn’t mean to cause 9/11
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:42 pmDarth C. : I didn’t mean to cause 9/11
Rummy : I didn’t mean to cause 9/11
Kinda-sleezy-Lice : I didn’t mean to cause 9/11
Colon Bowell : I didn’t mean to cause 9/11
Turdblossom: I didn’t mean to cause 9/11
Ten Ant: I didn’t mean to cause 9/11
Wolfoshitz : I didn’t mean to cause 9/11
As much as I don’t trust the administration and want the truth of several years of lies and policy abuse to come to light…
What will be the result of this?
Have we learned anything new?
Is anyone out there beyond the blogs paying attention to this?
Is there a way we can use these hearings to get more people to pay attention?
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:42 pmGosh, if only we had a Democrat administration. Then none of these things would be happening. Because Dems are good and Repubs are bad. Right. Nice fairy tale TP, but so untrue.
I have given up on believing that either party can be trusted. They are all corrupt as far as I am concerned, so I am for smaller government and shorter terms in office.
Reduce their power and you will reduce the damage they do.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:43 pm#42 It’s not illegal when someone who serves at the pleasure of the president does it. - Patrick1
Didn’t work for Nixon 30 years ago, won’t work here.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:43 pmWhat she really means is that those laws that she has broken are all liberal and satanic. You know, they have to do with fairness, anti-discrimination, affirmative action type laws. Bad, very bad. As opposed to Conservative/Christian cronyism which is of course just dandy. She doesn’t really have to follow those morally repugnant laws when she is following the higher law of GOD/PARTY. Uh, Party may go first there.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:46 pmpatrick said:
>Uhh……..whatsup?……..i was busy jerking off to her pics………i miss >something?:
i can see where a real live woman would be out of the question for you since most would pass on an inbred, redneck, trailer park republican. too bad–you seem so smart.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:47 pmThis is getting pretty clear.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:48 pmThe Devil (Rove) made her do it.
Wow!
So if we make fun of Liberty University, we can be prosecuted for hate crimes.
Wow!
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:50 pmReduce their power and you will reduce the damage they do.
Comment by Cynicon Implant
By not voting? Or is there some new party to vote for?
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:51 pmNow poster #58 tries to paint both sides of the fence the same color.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:51 pmPretty hard to do when one side is always in the shade.
Love the HATE CRIME comment there LOL Many of you support that law LOL
Nothing like passing a law that limits your free speech!
Let us trust a room full of lawyers!
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:52 pmIf “IGNORANCE of the law is no excuse”…
…then draw your own conclusions…
…when it comes to a “LAWYER”… NO…
…an OFFICER of the CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER in the country…
…breaks the law…
…intended or NOT…
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:53 pmNow poster #58 tries to paint both sides of the fence the same color.
Pretty hard to do when one side is always in the shade.
Heyzeus, didn’t you mean
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:53 pmone side is always in the hades
I really wish they would ask if she had received any EMAILS from Karl Rove or Alberto Gonzales regarding the firing of the US attorneys or the lists of firings or the politicizing of the hirings or firings..
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:55 pmShe just keeps saying there were no DISCUSSIONS with these people regarding the questions she is being asked.
#66 Bias crime laws do not outlaw any speech.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:57 pmI think poor Monica’s rapid response weeks ago in hiding behind the 5th Amendment pretty much tells the story concering her knowledge aforethought in regards to law breaking.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:58 pm.
Shorter Monica:
Kyle did it; Kyle, not me, Kyle …
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:59 pmI was being diplomatic, RUCerious……..:)
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:00 pm“…but I didn’t mean to.” Credo of BushCo.
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:04 pmthe Rs keep bringing up Carol Lam, as if to say she was prosecuting but, at the rate she was doing so, were not the cases the DOJ wanted her to. Listen to this. She was prosecuting wrong cases.
When Lam was prosecuting Republicans those were the wrong cases. Voter fraud, and immigration issues were not the right cases. OK
Goodling is testifying like A-GAG, seldom offering explicit details, and going around the question, beating around the bush.
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:04 pmI keep thinking what is GOING TO TAKE to finally take down this sorry ass excuse for an administration. They are all crooks. I am 45 years old — have lived through Nixon (I was a very precocious 14 yr. old : I knew every player in Watergate) — Nixon, in retrospect, was a walk in the park. Everyday it seems there is someone resigning, under fire, under investigation.
What is FINALLY GOING TO TAKE TO BRING DOWN THIS ADMINSTRATION?
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:07 pmGoodling is testifying like A-GAG, seldom offering explicit details, and going around the question, beating around the bush.
Comment by Alana
Beating around the who?
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:09 pmWTF?
From earleir in her testominy today:
How do you square her own testimony with itself?
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:11 pmThose are two contradictory statements.
oops!
What is FINALLY GOING TO TAKE TO BRING DOWN THIS ADMINSTRATION?
I write too fast and I don’t go back to check:
What is IT GOING TO TAKE TO FINALLY TAKE DOWN THIS ADMINSTRATION?
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:11 pmParis Hilton didn’t mean to violate her DUI probabtion, twice no less!
We all know where she’s going!
Hmm… maybe Good4Nothing Golding and Paris could be roommates!
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:23 pmShe’s a lawyer who didn’t know she was breaking the law. Is that overincompetent or overunderqualified?
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:24 pmIt boggles the mind that they somehow got elected.
Comment by Lupeyg2 — May 23, 2007 @ 2:24 pm
They didn’t, remember? They stole the vote both years.
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:24 pmAnd this particular issue leads us right to that investigation.
with other tasty stuff to come to light, I am sure!
Someone like this would most likely need a lot of direction so who was doing the directing?
Comment by Kiki
That’s what they should have asked her, who coached her for the hearing?
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:26 pmShe’s a lawyer who didn’t know she was breaking the law. Is that overincompetent or overunderqualified?
Comment by shane
Yes.
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:29 pmRosencrantz writes: “Didn’t mean too? That’s her defense? She knew the rules, knew what she was doing was against the rules, did it anyway…but “didn’t mean toâ€?”
I’m completely down with the sentiment, and am astonished that someone like Goodling would hold such a high-ranking post in the DoJ.
But I’m not sure that she “knew the rules.” I’ll bet it’s more likely that she didn’t know the rules because she wasn’t concerned with them. She did what she thought Jesus and George wanted her to do, and with this crowd, smacking down the godless libruls is the prime directive.
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:29 pmAn ATTORNEY doesn’t KNOW whether her ACTS were ILLEGAL???
BS!!
OR an attorney who got a WORTHLESS degree from a diploma mill…
OR a LIAR who knew EXACTLY what she was doing for “her president”.
Yup…
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:40 pmWhat would you expect from a graduate of a lower tier fundamentalist Christian college? The AG hired dozens of these flunkies, not based on their abilities, which they obviously had little of, but because they were mailable, gullible, right wing nuts.
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:42 pmThis is all Bill and Hillary’s fault!!!
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:45 pmI thought it was a great question about whether she was uncomfortable while talking to Gonzales (before she quit). It sure sounds to me like he was trying to “help” her remember things “correctly” and in line with what he wanted to say. Gonzales does not deserve to be the highest law authority of our country. What a slimebag.. Sounds like a syndicate or something. I know, it sounds like the movie “The Firm”.
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:48 pmBut I’m not sure that she “knew the rules.†I’ll bet it’s more likely that she didn’t know the rules because she wasn’t concerned with them. She did what she thought Jesus and George wanted her to do, and with this crowd, smacking down the godless libruls is the prime directive.
Comment by JM
I think this is probably very true. This administration came into Washington convinced that “the rules” were whatever they said they were. We are, after all, talking about people who dismissed the Geneva Conventions as “quaint” and simply announced that they no longer applied.
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:49 pmMonica’s purpose in life is to carry out Pat Robertson’s commitment to purge the legal system of liberals. That is the stated reason for the very existence of Regent Law School: “Christian Leadership To Change the World.” Or in the words of the Dean, “a legal education that recognizes the critical role the Christian faith should play in our legal system.”
Rules don’t matter to these people as long as their focus is on a greater, Godly good. It’s results that matter, not how you get those results.
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:57 pm“I didn’t mean to do it”, “They made me do it”, “It wasn’t me”.
Sheesh, can’t any of these bozos accept responsibility for what they do. If Ms. Goodling didn’t know that what she was doing was illegal, she has no business having a license to practice law.
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:58 pmIgnrance is a non-excuse and the Bushies are full of non-excuses. Ms. Goodling, you are a liar and a fraud.
May 23rd, 2007 at 4:12 pmIf I were Goodling who is under oath, telling the truth(?), the whole truth(??) and nothing but the truth(???), I’d be sure to check my brakes before climbing in my car everyday for the next couple years.
May 23rd, 2007 at 4:43 pmGoodling 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.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=198563
May 23rd, 2007 at 4:46 pmThis was the most anti-climactic hearing ever. Jeez. I’m blue in the nuts.
May 23rd, 2007 at 5:04 pmI didn’t mean to get drunk and run over those people.
May 23rd, 2007 at 5:10 pmIt just happened. The Republicans just said Clinton did it too.
May 23rd, 2007 at 5:15 pmAlthough she seems sortof cute, she also seems dumb as a post. Which sorority did she belong to? I am not much for that genre but isn’t there some kind of “Reece Whitherspoon goes to Washington” type films? out there already?
May 23rd, 2007 at 5:32 pmI was in a meeting when a big elepant came in the room and shit on the floor. But i can’t rember when , what the elephant looked like, or if it was really shit. It looked like it but I can’t remember.
May 23rd, 2007 at 5:55 pmCaging voters to eliminate them from the polls is a felony. They are protecting the thugs who stole the elections in 2000 and 2004 and will try to do it again in 2008 by putting loyal Bushies in office. That thug is the fat piglet KKKarl Rove.
May 23rd, 2007 at 6:01 pmBush and Rove have totally undermined our Justice department with these incompetent little idiots from Pat Roberson’s crap law school..
Gonzales must be Impeached and disbarred for lying under oath to Congress..
The failure to Impeach Bush and Cheney for all these many offenses will be our nations downfall and ruin..wait and see..
IMPEACHMENT Now to Save America..!
May 23rd, 2007 at 6:41 pm“So if we make fun of Liberty University, we can be prosecuted for hate crimes.”
It’s Regent University. Liberty University is Falwell’s school.
May 23rd, 2007 at 7:47 pmJust think. There are 149 more “Monica Goodlings” in our government. Kind of makes you feel all safe and warm and fuzzy doesn’t it?
NOT!
How in the hell these people got their jobs is beyond me. And what are they doing as payment for the jobs they were granted, even though they were not qualified for them?
I don’t worry about the 9 US Attorneys who were fired. I worry about the US Attorney’s who weren’t fired. What are they doing and what have they done to keep their jobs?
May 23rd, 2007 at 7:51 pmall laws are just rules, or even guidelines, to this administration and its flunkies.
and to the 20 million illegal immigrants.
They learned from Bush, laws don’t matter.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:01 pmWhat is IT GOING TO TAKE TO FINALLY TAKE DOWN THIS ADMINSTRATION?
Comment by Kay #79
TOO late Kay,
…TOO late to take “IT” back…
…the grammar police have already issued your post a failing grade…
…remedial writing class at 8:30 am sharp…
…at the top of the TP threads…
…BE THERE! :-)
(Eddie Murphy laugh for effect goes here…)
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:48 pmGoodling is about to spill the beans.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:00 pmWhat a pile of nothing!
Great job Dems! There is NO STORY here–excepting the political payback angle. No laws were broken; nothing illegal was done; the person who apparently misled congress has resigned. All we are left with is a heaping, steaming pile of minutia.
May 24th, 2007 at 4:19 amThe only thing she regrets is being caught in the act, I think she would do this over and over again.
May 24th, 2007 at 8:23 amI’m a conservative, but want to be fair. Has someone here or in Congress spelled out which laws were broken by these firings?
The only thing I’ve seen so far is the allegation of “obstruction of justice” based on Goodling’s testimony on 5/23: http://thinkprogress.org/ 2007/ 05/ 23/ gonzales-obstruction/
I believe Gonzales has squandered his integrity with contradictory statements and should resign. What isn’t clear to me is whether any other laws were broken? I thought U.S. attorneys “serve at the pleasure of the president” and that Clinton/Reno had pulled similar stunts in the 90s.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:25 pmWhen are we going to discuss impeachment? How many of the cronies are going to “cross the line” before we look at the real target? Disgusted!
May 24th, 2007 at 1:54 pmThe only bar Goodling should have been admitted to was the topless one that serves free drinks.
May 24th, 2007 at 2:22 pmI didnt mean to rob that bank sir.
May 24th, 2007 at 2:22 pmI didnt mean to steal the 38 million dollar pension fund sir.
I didnt mean to use illegal accounting methods to manipulate earnings and expenditures of our company with the result ending in erroneous stockmarket fluctuations and earnings reports called fraud.
I didnt mean to set that house on fire with my gas can and lighter sir.
I didnt mean to be speeding 110mph in a 70 zone sir.
I didnt mean to lie out of my ass sir.
It was a total complete unintentional accident that i committed crimes sir, since im a lawyer, i cannot be held accountable for my actions in the justice department.
The Goods on Goodling and the Keys to the Kingdom
Special to BRADBLOG
by Greg Palast
This Monica revealed something hotter — much hotter — than a stained blue dress. In her opening testimony yesterday before the House Judiciary Committee, Monica Goodling, the blonde-ling underling to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Department of Justice Liaison to the White House, dropped The Big One….And the Committee members didn’t even know it.
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.
The keys: the missing emails — and missing link — that could send Griffin and his boss, Rove, to the slammer for a long, long time.
Kingdom enough for ya?
But what’s ‘caging’ and why is it such a dreadful secret that lawyer Sampson put his license to practice and his freedom on the line to cover Tim Griffin’s involvement in it? Because it’s a felony. And a big one.
Our BBC team broke the story at the top of the nightly news everywhere on the planet - except the USA - only because America’s news networks simply refused to cover this evidence of the electoral coup d’etat that chose our President in 2004.
Here’s how caging worked, and along with Griffin’s thoughtful emails themselves you’ll understand it all in no time.
The Bush-Cheney operatives sent hundreds of thousands of letters marked “Do not forward†to voters’ homes. Letters returned (â€cagedâ€) were used as evidence to block these voters’ right to cast a ballot on grounds they were registered at phony addresses. Who were the evil fakers? Homeless men, students on vacation and — you got to love this — American soldiers. Oh yeah: most of them are Black voters.
Why weren’t these African-American voters home when the Republican letters arrived? The homeless men were on park benches, the students were on vacation — and the soldiers were overseas. Go to Baghdad, lose your vote. Mission Accomplished.
How do I know? I have the caging lists…
I have them because they are attached to the emails Rove insists can’t be found. I have the emails. 500 of them — sent to our team at BBC after the Rove-bots accidentally sent them to a web domain owned by our friend John Wooden.
Here’s what you need to know — and the Committee would have discovered, if only they’d asked:
1. ‘Caging’ voters is a crime, a go-to-jail felony.
2. Griffin wasn’t “involved†in the caging, Ms. Goodling. Griffin, Rove’s right-hand man (right-hand claw), was directing the illegal purge and challenge campaign. How do I know? It’s in the email I got. Thanks. And it’s posted below.
3. On December 7, 2006, the ragin’, cagin’ Griffin was named, on Rove’s personal demand, US Attorney for Arkansas. Perpetrator became prosecutor.
The committee was perplexed about Monica’s panicked admission and accusations about the caging list because the US press never covered it. That’s because, as Griffin wrote to Goodling in yet another email (dated February 6 of this year, and also posted below), their caging operation only made the news on BBC London: busted open, Griffin bitched, by that “British reporter,†Greg Palast.
There’s no pride in this. Our BBC team broke the story at the top of the nightly news everywhere on the planet — except the USA — only because America’s news networks simply refused to cover this evidence of the electoral coup d’etat that chose our President in 2004.
And now, not bothering to understand the astonishing revelation in Goodling’s confessional, they are missing the real story behind the firing of the US attorneys. It’s not about removing prosecutors disloyal to Bush, it’s about replacing those who refused to aid the theft of the vote in 2004 with those prepared to burgle it again in 2008.
Now that they have the keys, let’s see if they can put them in the right door. The clock is ticking ladies and gents…
***************
May 27th, 2007 at 4:59 pmGreg Palast is the author of the New York Times bestseller, Armed Madhouse: From Baghdad to New Orleans - Sordid Secrets and Strange Tales of a White House Gone WILD. For more info, or to hear Brad Friedman, Ed Asner and other troublemakers read from Armed Madhouse, go to http://www.GregPalast.com