How about the quid pro quo links bet. Gonzalas and Halliburton pre-2000?

Whoever demonstrates their integrity will be lauded and praised into immunity from any degaded crap flung their way.

If the ”handout” you’re referring to is McNulty’s 06 February 2007 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, here it is –

http://judiciary.senate.gov/te…..it_id=2742

There’s been not reponse to your query, Reticulant. I’m waiting, too… The testimony relates to the rollback of the provision of the Patriot Act allowing gonzo to appt USA’s, which I’m not sure was the subject of the hearing.
Noneltheless, McNulty says:
“It should come as no surprise to anyone that, in an organization as large as the Justice Department, U.S. Attorneys are removed or asked or encouraged to resign from time to time. However, in this Administration U.S. Attorneys are never—repeat, never— removed, or asked or encouraged to resign, in an effort to retaliate against them, or interfere with, or inappropriately influence a particular investigation, criminal prosecution, or civil case. Any suggestion to the contrary is unfounded, and it irresponsibly undermines the reputation for impartiality the Department has earned over many years and on which it depends.”

http://judiciary.senate.gov/te…..it_id=2742

So we have McNulty saying the “all of the changes were for performance reasons”…and we have Goodling handing out letters from Congress persons crabbing about USA’s.

And then we have Goodling’s lawyer using the word “firings” instead of “resignations”.

I think Goodling’s got trouble with more than the Senate Judiciary Committee.

They said she might get in trouble for having used ‘one word’, so I’d guess it was that she told McNulty to tell Congress the Attorneys were ‘resignations’ when it was really ‘firings’.

She should be given immunity on something like that if she’ll just tell the truth and air out the DOJ laundry.

Rayne,

I think Christy did. I definitely did–he sat behind me, about 3 people down from Shuster.

If we can find an email for him, I’m happy to ask.

How about Shuster? Would he have a copy?

Under the federal False Statements statute, 18 USC 1001, it is a felony to cause another person to make a false statement to Congress. Since McNulty has allegedly told Senator Schumer that he made a false statement to Congress based on information provided to him by Monica Goodling, Goodling could very well be prosecuted for a Section 1001 violation.

And it occurs to me that Goodling is very likely toast even if she pleads the Fifth. She doesn’t have to open her mouth or take the stand to be nailed for a Section 1001 violation, not if McNulty has proof positive that she fed him bogus information.

mc @
20

“Was McNulty trying to say something in the briefer that he couldn’t say verbally?

Was he blowing the whistle?”

Finally! Just what this scandal needs-somebody blowing something.

AND there is a Monica involved. It’s 1998 all over again. All Monica, all the time!

I wish! Seems to me it is all Anna Nicole all the time. Someone’s gonna hafta abduct or bump off another blonde soon or MSM might have to cover something meaningful.

Should we tell Fallon? I think everyone but the hardcore wingnuts has figured it out by now.