Ellison suggests Goodling lied about Rove.
By on May 25th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Ellison suggests Goodling lied about Rove.
House Judiciary Committee member Keith Ellison (D-MN) on Monica Goodling’s claim that she never discussed the U.S. Attorney firings with Karl Rove: “I don’t buy that. On the level, Goodling was candid and of course it’s possible, but I just don’t buy that one.”
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
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
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
Does Karl have pictures of Monica with Pat Robertson?
May 25th, 2007 at 10:23 pmIn her testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, former DOJ White House liaison Monica Goodling joined Alberto Gonzales, Kyle Sampson and Paul McNulty in disclaiming any role in the creation of the infamous list of U.S. attorneys to be fired. It should comes as no surprise that the graduate of Regent University law school would have us believe the list so central to the prosecutors purge appeared magically, untouched by the hands of man. Call it Immaculate Conception.
For the details, see:
May 25th, 2007 at 10:27 pm“Monica Goodling’s Immaculate Conception.”
I don’t buy it either. Not on any level.
May 25th, 2007 at 10:32 pmWho knows, that’s all he was saying. She didn’t seem candid to me either. Her parasite attorney had to vett everything she said, so everything she said is suspect.
May 25th, 2007 at 10:32 pmYes Karl Rove was involved, but he hides in the shadows protected by President Bush. Rove is Bush’s brain man, so without Karl he is finished.
May 25th, 2007 at 10:33 pmFind evidence that Goodling perjured herself, then revoke her immunity.
May 25th, 2007 at 10:41 pmGoodling said she never spoke to Rove in regards to this job. She obviously has talked to him and so she can always say she thought it was before she was doing this job and “didn’t remember”.
May 25th, 2007 at 10:45 pmWhat was sickening about the whole thing was how hard the repugs fought to interupt the hearing. They were defintely afraid of the truth coming out.
May 25th, 2007 at 10:56 pmEllison is making a name for himself.
May 25th, 2007 at 11:17 pmellison “suggests”? he hasn’t figured out that all these rethugs always lie all the time?
blockhead!
May 25th, 2007 at 11:22 pmWe have to be believers. Believers in justice. Just as George W Bush has a 28 per cent approval rating, Al Gore is now a hero, on top of the world. Karl Rove will be caught, it may take time, but he will be caught in his own web.
May 25th, 2007 at 11:24 pmwell, the whole weasely parsing of “i dont believe i meant to commit a crime”
not “i didnt mean to commit a crime”
or even “i didnt commit a crime”
she left herself quite a bit of wiggle room with that one.
May 26th, 2007 at 12:33 amn69n, as far as I know ignorance of the law is no excuse…especially for a Justice Department employee. A jury might figure since she graduated from Regent she might have gotten some bad advice.
May 26th, 2007 at 12:42 amShould not have let her attorney frame the questioning. There was little follow up on the areas she opened up accidentally but the right questions were not asked. She should appear more than once to do follow up.
May 26th, 2007 at 1:37 amAs a consumer I would hate to have to choose between the integrity of this modern day Breck girl and the that of the US Dept of Justice–if one or the other has to go down, I think I will hang with the lovely blonde hair.
jon
May 26th, 2007 at 1:54 amConnecting the dots: from human behaviors to ecosystem decline
http://StudentsForTheEarth.org
Just think about the twisted people who put her in this position of great power in our country. They should have to resign in severe shame for such an outrage.
- Tom
May 26th, 2007 at 8:12 amI think she testified that she did not “have conversations” with Rove about the firings. This surely leaves open the possibility that she received emails or other instructions from Rove or his staff directing her about who to fire, etc. I am often disappointed that many congressfolk seem not to pay attention to the exact language used by people who have been preparing for weeks about how to evade and conceal without technically lying in their testimony. Does anyone think Goodling was not so prepared?
May 26th, 2007 at 8:19 amFor folks who say they love God a whole lot more than the rest of us, they sure are good at lying.
May 26th, 2007 at 10:19 amKarl Rove? Can you imagine the Bush team group of politicians signing on to the concepts: TRUTH, JUSTICE AND THE AMERICAN WAY?
If the Bush team did adapt those concepts would America discover the answer to questions like, “who outted Valerie Plame”?
The answers to some of these Bush team behaviors may already be stashed in a time capsule that will NOT open until after the “statue of limitations” run out.
May 26th, 2007 at 10:20 amI still think this is about parsing words. Discuss is defined as “talking about”, and it doesn’t include anything about emailing in the definition. I would bet that there were emails passing between the two, or that Rove emailed her. That isn’t really discussing and she wasn’t actually lying..
May 26th, 2007 at 11:01 amI wish someone would have asked her about any emails to or from Rove during her sworn testimony.
Oh, well then, if Ellison says so, without any evidence, it must be true. Just like about a million things Democrats have said over the past 6 years. The truth isn’t important; making speculative claims is.
May 26th, 2007 at 3:18 pm# 21,
Ellison simply showed he did not believe certain testimony. What is wrong with that? Americans can still Judge or be critical of assertions.
That is how America found out about the FAKE YELLOW-CAKE. America used its judgment.
May 26th, 2007 at 3:53 pm#22,
Ellison can believe what he wants, but why is Think Progress posting it up here as if every person’s suspicions and suggestions warrant placement on their blog? Ah, because they endorse the speculation, although there is no evidence. In the same vain, why don’t they endorse speculation by Iranian president that the Holocaust never happened, or that Santa Clause isn’t real?
When you take interest in someone’s speculation, it’s akin to endorsement of it being true.
And no, that is most certainly not how America found out about fake yellow cake, although I’m sure you’d like to think so.
May 26th, 2007 at 5:06 pm# 23,
How did America find out about fake yellow-cake if not by someone else’s thinking? The Bush team did not tell. And the Bush team is still MUM. Although the whole world, by now, knows that the catalyst for war with Iraq was based upon fake yellow cake.
The Bush team has a “ton” of behaviors that are coming to light by virtue of America’s intellect. The bush team is not talking. Another behavior was Valerie Plame.
If America finds out who outted Valerie Plame, it won’t likely come from the Bush team.
May 26th, 2007 at 8:28 pm# 23,
And your comments about “Think Progress” posting the comments of an American elected official – you should want to “take that back”.
One of the early targets of neo-conservatives was the “liberal” press. And they have made an impact. A federal judge said the President operated outside his authority in the Guantanomo Affair. Two mainstream newspaper columnists interpreted that as “helping Mr. Bush at the polls”.
Should a newspaper columnist suggest that breaking the law may help someone at the polls. You would be acting ethically if you decided that kind of reporting ought not be published and you might add that Valerie Plame’s identity should not have been published. So, neocons have had an impact on the American press.
May 26th, 2007 at 8:48 pmMaybe she didn’t ‘talk’, ‘communicate’, ‘interface’ or even ‘hold hands’ with Rove. Maybe she DID somehow communicate with Rove via one of Rove’s firewall minions – Oprison, Cherry, Sare__ (I forget the last name). You get the idea, I think someone might have been a very communicative go-between. We really need to get our hands on those 5 million RNC emails.
May 27th, 2007 at 8:49 pmwhat about rove’s aids, what did monica goodling discuss with them? Rove might talk through his aids to his lapdogs at the justice? department.
June 1st, 2007 at 2:09 am