I too am hoping that Rep. Conyers is not being too hasty here. What’s the rush to remove responsibility from Ms. Goodling for the actions she knowingly took while in public office? If there is any doubt as to her singular ability to significantly contribute to our knowledge of what occurred, I’d hope Congress would postpone action on granting immunity until matters have become more clear from other sources [though I understand that none of us on the outside have access to all the information that the Judiciary Committees now have, and thus cannot accurately assess the matter from here].

Following up on his interview which was highlighted here at FDL, Patrick Collins, former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, has written an op-ed for today’s Chicago Tribune – as did a former colleague (Safer?) of his who is now counsel for one of the Conrad Black co-defendants. The earlier Safer op-ed made a very good point regarding the power wielded by federal prosecutors, in reinforcing why no taint of partisan political motives should be tolerated in the administration of justice. Patrick Collins’s new op-ed draws upon and expands that theme:

Prosecutors alone have the power to present an indictment to a grand jury, an awesome power that, once executed, typically changes the course of lives forever.

[snip]

By contrast, in the U.S. attorney’s office where I have worked for 12 years as an assistant U.S. attorney, I’ve had the privilege of working with dozens of prosecutors and agents on myriad city, county, state and federal public corruption investigations. I am proud to say that I never saw any indication of any such shenanigans. In fact, I could not tell you the political preferences of most of my fellow prosecutors or agents. Whether they were “loyal Bushies” or “Clintonistas” or something in-between was not ascertainable by word or deed.

What I did come to learn, however, and what was obvious during our work sessions, was that agents and prosecutors simply did not care about the political affiliation of the targets of the corruption investigation. Instead, they were focused on scrupulously scrubbing the facts and the evidence, and on bringing the case if and only if the facts and evidence had been revealed.

We have heard as a defense of the summary dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys that all U.S. attorneys “serve at the pleasure of the president.” And that, of course, is true. But they must never serve only to please the president. U.S. attorneys serve the people of the United States.

If we replace non-partisan public service with blind political loyalty, we will have sacrificed one of the core values of our judicial system.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/…..;cset=true

[With thanks to in_cog_ni_to at DU]

Well, the next level has arisen, and it is a full blown criminal matter, IMHO.

basically, after the lawyers at DOJ assembled a candidate list based on, oh, going to Yale Law School, etc, for DOJ CAREER CIVIL SERVICE positions, in which any partisan litmus test is EXPLICITLY FOBIDDEN BY STATUE, guess what Paul McNulty and his assistant did:

they trolled the internet for any indications the nominees had done work for Democratic candidates of any stripe, were members in any “liberal” organization (like ACLU), etc. Such nominees were struck off immediately, leaving only those who were “loyal bushies”. The story is from Next Hurrah, here.

cinnamonape says: @ 218

April 17th, 2007 at 4:29 pm. . .

i’m puzzled as to why my post on religious
tolerance is reprinted in yours — that
seems mostly to deal with raven’s concerns
about being balanced in our perspectives
on the president — i guess because both
suggest not pre-judging. . .

erh. . . if so, never mind. . . i get it now.

Sandra in Dallas @ 2

I know that the stated goal of
Christians is to live a Christ-like life.
I’m finding it very hard to understand how
MG justifies what she is doing – surely
Christ would have shared all the information
he had and then accepted with humility
whatever consequences of his telling and
his actions themselves. Someone needs to ask
her this.

who are we to say this?

i am sorry to offend, here, but
i am less-than-thrilled with the
idea that — regardless of what i
may or may not think of her personally,
or her professed-faith, or her morals — that
anyone would think a religious question
belongs in the judiciary committee hearing
record.

this is exactly the sort of thing we are
mostly-rightly-castigating monica goodling
and rachel paulose for — loyalty-type
oaths. . . so i will draw a line, and
say i disapprove of any suggestion that
any line of questioning about her religious
beliefs would be either relevant, or wise.

if her beliefs garnered her favored status
on the federal job-site, that is another
matter entirely — but please do not con-
fuse/conflate these two very different things.

sorry — strong reaction, there.

not personal — just positional.

raven @ 157

Not a fucking word about gun rights, now jump up and down and rail about how he shouldn’t be there. My dislike for this president is deep but there is some real bullshit here on the lake. There’s your flamebait.

Yesterday his spokesman immediately said that Bush’s positions on guns remained the same,that “He fully supported the individuals right to bear arms. within the laws”. That statement presumes that his spokesman had, in fact, received this viewpoint AFTER the killings from Bush.

I was a bit taken aback by the statement, as it really wasn’t obviously related to the shootings to make such a DIRECT position statement about gun-control. I would have thought that the better, and more appropriate statement would have been…”Really, this isn’t a time to debate these issues…put that aside for at least a few days, please…
it’s a time for us to mourn the loss of these young students, so much lost promise, and their teachers who bravely confronted the killer and lost their lives”.

But the gunlaw issue was specifically raised by the President’s spokesman, presumably carrying the Presidents immediate views.

In addition, I thought it was oddly full of words that said nothing about the issue of CHANGING THE LAWS. It was the sort of statement that sounds right, or is defendable, against any criticism.

But it was Bush, himself (or his spokesman) that was the first national figure to raise gun-control as an issue on the heels of the shootings.

Petrocelli @
206

Raven @ 178 said, You know nothing about me, nothing.

Dear Raven, I was not demeaning you as a ‘baiter’, my comment meant that fanning the flames lowers the debate and creates more hatred, more destruction and more casualties when what is needed is more love, patience & understanding.
I would never presume to judge you, but if you allow anger to manage you, you are moving away from your true essence. Anger clouds one’s judgment as does fear and greed. And if you care to vent, do so with words to those who care for you. I am sure you will find many friends on the lake to listen, that is what makes FDL so special – the people who are here.
Be strong, be love … that is your essence.

ATTN: MOD/CHRISTY – I would appreciate it if you could show this comment to Raven.
Petrocelli

Thanks, I got it. A mile in the water helped me breathe some.

sandra in dallas @213:

Nolo – I did not mean she should be asked this in a congressional hearing; I meant that journalists and commentators should be pursuing this angle since she chose to go to a law school that advocates promoting christian principles in your work life. In that context it is absolutely fair game.

I’m sicking of self-described “devout” people of all religions being treated with kid gloves because of how they represent themselves.

agreed. sorry to have mis-
understood your meaning.

p e a c e

gman @ 200

this is exactly the sort of thing we are
mostly-rightly-castigating monica goodling
and rachel paulose for — loyalty-type
oaths. . . so i will draw a line, and
say i disapprove of any suggestion that
any line of questioning about her religious
beliefs would be either relevant, or wise.

I think it would be fair game if she
herself brings up her faith, which I
think Regent U Law School alums may
be apt to do. That would — fairly –
create an opening for some very
uncomforatble cross-examination of
the WWJD variety.

She put it in her resignation letter.
Oh yes, she will bring it up.

i have two thoughts — one, as i wrote
in my original comment (but was not
carried down-thread), her faith would
be relevant if the practice (or apparent
practice) of it led to favorable treatment
in gonzales’ office of attorney general.

that much is plainly warranted.

my comment was, again, in repsonse to
the suggestion by an earlier comment
that she should have to explain how
she squares with her professed faith.
the taking the fifth, and then
(it would seem), cutting an immunity
deal, all in return for nothing but
the truth — testimony.

so — let me make this very personal,
for all of these-faith-centered ones are:
would you feel comfortable asking the
same line of questions of a devout muslim,
or a devout hindu, or a devout jew? how
about a devout ethical humanist? obviously
my point is that one’s dislike for her brand
of perhaps hypocritical christianity is
irrelevant to the pursuit of the truth.

i promise to shut up about this, now — as
i, for one, am thrilled with the idea of
immunity for monica goodling (having pre-
dicted this a couple of weeks back); it
smiply must mean she has something rather
alarming to tell us. so, i’d listen. now,
we know rep. conyers will, too.

how high does it go? remember she traveled
regularly with john ashcroft. . . one may
easily imagine a much bigger fish, on the
line, much bigger than mr. gonzales. . .

i’m just sayin’. . .
will, too.

To Christy:

Thank you Christie, got the e-mail and got it here. I think it was sitemeter running slow (whatever sitemeter is :) and I think the cookie and/or image I mentioned came from their site directly while loading FDL. Whatever, Opera is up & running great. I think the multiple pagewidth reformats have ended too, now that I think about it.

Thanks so much to all involved!

Sandra in Dallas @ 2

I know that the stated goal of
Christians is to live a Christ-like life.
I’m finding it very hard to understand how
MG justifies what she is doing – surely
Christ would have shared all the information
he had and then accepted with humility
whatever consequences of his telling and
his actions themselves. Someone needs to ask
her this.

who are we to say this?

i am sorry to offend, here, but
i am less-than-thrilled with the
idea that — regardless of what i
may or may not think of her personally,
or her professed-faith, or her morals — that
anyone would think a religious question
belongs in the judiciary committee hearing
record.

this is exactly the sort of thing we are
mostly-rightly-castigating monica goodling
and rachel paulose for — loyalty-type
oaths. . . so i will draw a line, and
say i disapprove of any suggestion that
any line of questioning about her religious
beliefs would be either relevant, or wise.

if her beliefs garnered her favored status
on the federal job-site, that is another
matter entirely — but please do not con-
fuse/conflate these two very different things.

sorry — strong reaction, there.

not personal — just positional.

==========
Nolo – I did not mean she should be asked this in a congressional hearing; I meant that journalists and commentators should be pursuing this angle since she chose to go to a law school that advocates promoting christian principles in your work life. In that context it is absolutely fair game.

I’m sicking of self-described “devout” people of all religions being treated with kid gloves because of how they represent themselves.

“Christianity and Democracy are inevitably enemies.”
-Rousas Rushdoony, Founder of the Christian Reconstruction Movement

If that’s the stark choice we face, I know what I’ll choose. And Christ agrees with me! (He sends his sympathies and regards, btw.) ;-)

No way to coordinate stories then. Abu would be shitting bricks.

Oh well. Back to reality.