(Shot of spilled beans via Dougalug.)
The House Judiciary Committee will be taking testimony from Monica Goodling this morning, beginning at 10:15 am ET in 2141 Rayburn. C-Span3 and C-Span radio will be broadcasting the testimony live. And it looks as though the committee will have some sort of webcast going as well. I'll be liveblogging below, too. Hang on kids, we are about to learn what, if any, beans Monica decides to spill.
Please keep all comments brief and please take a moment to consider if you really want to add yours to the comment load on the servers. Fewer comments equals smoother liveblogging -- please don't make me keep having to interrupt because the one-liners pile up too high in the comments. Thanks!
__________________
REP. CONYERS QUESTIONS: Who placed the USAs to be fired on the list? Goodling says that she doesn't think that Graves is a similar situation, so she wants to discuss just the 8. Sampson kept the list, talked with a number of people, and that Sampson spoke to the DAG about it and presented it to the AG. Discussing Iglesias now -- who put his name on the list? Goodling says she doesn't know. Who would you recommend to answer that question? Goodling says that Sampson is the one who should be able to say when he put the name on the list. During meeting with AG, DAG and Sampson -- she asked how Iglesias got on list and someone in room said "that's been addressed." How did Sampson tell you about origins of the list? To the best of her recollection, the first time Sampson mentioned the list to her was in January at 2006. Had heard in mid-2005 that Sampson was engaged in an effort on this -- heard from Battle and Buchannon on this issue. Sampson didn't give her background, just handed her the memo and asked her to look at it. Sent e-mail in September 2006, no real context, but just what was n the e-mail. During the meeting, he did give her some context, but he didn't ever lay out all of the origins of the entire thing. Says Sampson was her boss, didn't necessarily tell her the whys of what he was doing -- says she just tried to help out when he asked her to do work.
REP. SMITH QUESTIONS: Thanking her for thinking public service is important. Did you meet with Miers or Rove? Goodling says not about USAs, but there was a meeting at the WH that Rove after the decision had been implemented -- that was the only time when she was in the room when this topic was discussed and Rove was there. There was in 2005, she had a social call in 2005, with Tim Griffin -- Griffin told her that he might have the opportunity to go back to Arkansas, that USAs were going to be replaced, and that if Cummins was one of them, he might get the nod for the USA position and a chance to go home. Also exchanged e-mails with Scott Jennings about meeting with attorneys from New Mexico, but doesn't recall that Jennings said what those meetings would be about.
She's not comfortable characterizing her role in the USA firings. She'll let others do that. Says she was responsible for more of what happened after the plan was implemented, not for the plan itself. Was responsible for finding replacements, etc., and making certain that paperwork was prepared for the nominations and/or replacements. Are you aware of any attempt to influence a particular case or investigation? Goodling says that she is not aware.
REP. SANCHEZ QUESTIONS: Goes into McNulty's problems according to Goodling. Goodling says that there were a number of items on which she briefed him, and that he wasn't entirely forthcoming about the particulars when testifying to Congress. Says that McNulty was downplaying the WH role in the firings -- McNulty was aware of the WH role because he participated in numerous meetings. WH was involved in the sign-off -- many offices signed off on the plan before it was implemented. Says that McNulty's statement didn't fully inform Congress about the extent -- this process with WH had been going on for a period of months. McNulty's knowledge on how Griffin came to be appointed in Arkansas. Met with McNulty weekly on this issue, where they had vacancies, names from Senators, how things had been going with interviews and otherwise. Says that she told him about Griffin's appointment in the weekly meetings. McNulty testified that the CA commission worked very well -- one of the things that he had been briefed on, DoJ took steps to interview candidates outside the commission -- says that Sampson and the AG thought the commission was rather slow and that they interviewed candidates outside that process. Talking about "vote caging" issues -- direct mail term separating good from bad addresses -- knew that this was an issue that might arise with Griffin in terms of oversight, says that Griffin doesn't think that he did anything wrong and has good explanation on why he was doing this. Says that McNulty was involved in discussions on this.
(Sorry, had to pause the Tivo for a few minutes while a weather alert was broadcast so that I could hear. Am catching up now.)
REP. CANNON QUESTIONS: Starts by reading things into the record. Statement of Moschella -- vouching character of Goodling as being a hard worker. Cannon now blathering on about why politicization hasn't happened here and what problems that Congress isn't dealing with -- jeebus, he's bringing up the Murtha issue from this week. Hello, political theater, and confusion and stalling tactics.
REP. SANCHEZ QUESTIONS: You said you had concerns about McNulty's testimony to Congress. To whom did you voice those concerns at DoJ? Says she spoke about this with Moschella, Sampson -- afraid that the DoJ was going down the road of saying bad things about former employees, did tell Sampson that there were a couple of things that weren't fully discussed. Also spoke with Ellston and Scolinos. Did you have any experience in making personnel decisions prior to the work directive for DoJ? Says that she had done some of that on Student Council in college and at the RNC for a few weeks (CHS says: "And this one time at band camp..."). Hired by Mary Beth Buchanon. If you were doing that as an interim position for hiring and firing, and then the position was filled, how did you retain that power if it was simply for interim? Goodlng says that they kept just referring stuff to her, and she enjoyed doing this. Recent news articles suggest that you tried to block AUSAs and career attorneys because of your perception that people might be Democrats. Is it true? Yes. How many decisions were made based on political basis? Doesn't remember how many, were times that she looked at a resume and held things up until the USA came in and could look that person over more closely.
REP. SENSENBRENNER QUESTIONS: Says that Goodling's testimony confirms documentation provided to committee. Going through the "serves at the pleasure fo the President" line of chatter now. Sensenbrenner doesn't think replacing a competent USA who had not been questioned for misconduct or severe problems in the office is unusual. (CHS says: Someone send him LHP's post. Someone had his GOP talking points wheaties this morning.) Sensenbrenner now bragging that he never signed a subpoena because he didn't have to -- not sure I'd be bragging about not doing my damned job for 6 years, but that's just me.
REP. NADLER QUESTIONS: Walking through the meaning of 5th amendmend assertion. What crimes might you be worried about revealing in your testimony that causedyou to claim the 5th? Says that these were very ambiguous circumstances -- says that McNulty's allegations of withholding might have been construed as a crime, that was the basis. Going through whether Goodling is saying that McNulty lied in his testimony -- Goodling says that will be for others to decide. Talking about specifics on Ashton and whether politics played a part for her not receiving a promotion (the "she has a Monica problem" woman). Goodling says she doesn't remember discussions as that time whether they involved questions of politics, but that it may have been two type A women having a personality conflict. Nadler asking whether her supervisors knew that she was asking political questions on hiring issues: immigration judges, Goodling says. Civil division came to different conclusion after some litigation -- says that they froze hiring in relation to immigration judges. Says that at times she was asked to facilitate the appointment of a Republican in a career position, and those were done at the request of someone above her.
Starting a new thread.
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
Question for Goodling:
zed?
great work, CHS!
egads
Christy!
FDL Live-blogging history-in-the-making once again!
Two zeds in a row?
“To the best of your knowledge”. Isn’t that the problem? They don’t seem to know shit in this administration; and what they think they know is flipping wrong!
So gonzo was invovled !
MSNBC breaking news banner: Key justice aide admits politics played part in DoJ firings
per Christy and mods -
stop with the 1 liners already - you can go here for that
http://www.gabbly.com/firedoglake.com
She speaks very fast. Like Dana Perino.
She didn’t know who wanted Tim Griffin to have a position in Justice? And she was the White House’s liaison to Justice?
This is too incredible for words.
LIAR
Is it just my impression or does she seem to be remarkably chatty. Maybe it’s nervousness but I think information is just going to come spilling out of her.
Anyone else think she’s lying when she’s looking down, not making eye contact and doing the um thing?
“Direct Mail term”? I worked for a year and a half in Direct Mail, and I never heard the term outside this context.
Ok, this might take awhile…But she`s tentively throwing folks under a bus. As this testimony continues, she`ll give them all up. She`s broken, but she`s being very careful.
Cannon: Read into record: From Moschella: Monica is WONDERFUL. She works hard!!
Eeh gads! It’s Rush’s doe boy brother!
Goodling: Tim Griffin has a very good reason for why ‘voter caging’ is ok.
(slaps forehead)
Goodling is coming across as not particularly bright, and very gullible — particularly with respect to what Republican superiors and peers tell her.
Her description of caging as only a “direct mail” strategy is to laugh. She knows full well that’s not what caging is for the RNC. Nothing there about willfully, systematically culling voter rolls of minorities.
Who is this arshole from Utah?
OfT - per CNN, shiny thing! Declassified Intel Links Bin Laden to Iraq Terror Plan!!!!!
Monica who?
now the hearing on John Murtha …Who’da fuk it.
Cannon (R-UT) smearing John Murtha!
Cannon: “There’s no problem.”
Then why, Rep. Cannon, did Monica Goodling need immunity before testifying?
What a frickin’ doofus!
Dude, is Cannon reading something about Murtha during this important testimony?
What the he– is Cannon talking about? This has nothing to do with this hearing. What an idiot!
What th hell is this dud from Utah talking about?
Cannon is an embarassment: he’s using his time to read criticisms that are completely irrelevant to this hearing.
Conyers is pathetic to let this go on!
WTF? What does this have to do with US Attorneys?
you folks are way overestimating her pay grade.
mid-level staffers with titles like “WH liaison” aren’t the real liaisons…except for protocol and minor stuff. no way was Rove ever talking to someone of her rank. Rove is at the Gonzalez level.
if she started taking the blame for everything, then she would be lying and clearly would be the “fall guy”
What was the premise for Cannon’s rant on Murtha, fer crissakes.
Shorter Cannon: “Can’t ask you anything about the US Attorney scanal that won’t make us all look bad, so I’m just gonna bitch to you about Murtha for the remainder of my time.”
What in the flying F is this Cannon dude babbling about and how is it relevant? Can he be instructed to stay on topic?
Yes, because Cannon is a tool. He just wants to put damaging info into the record. Don`t call on him anymore John.
Sanchez: Who did you speak to at DOJ re: McNulty testimony?
MG: Moschella. I expressed concern about talking bad about our friends.
Giving all the questions to Sanchez! Woo hoo! Slap on the head from Berman and Sanchez to Cannon & other Rubber Stampers to keep the hearings on topic! Woo hoo!
Cannon is reading long passages to shut her up and give her a chance to regain any composure….figure the first round will be soft on both sides….with the gop members using their time to protect and the dems letting her ramble remembering she has been under her counsel’s control for two months and prepped…just getting the prep stuff out first.
The difference between the repubs on the SJC and HJC is quite striking. Don’t they realize that their irrelevant, meaningless waste of time shows that they have no concern for the DoJ? It’s really lame.
I didn’t want to say bad things about the attorneys. Stab them in the back, denigrate them in private, and fire them, that’s OK.
LJ/Aquaria @ 19
She can read enough of the net to know that we’re wrong about her but not enough to know how caging relates to this whole matter? Yeah right!
could we possibiliy stop hearing how thankful we are for goodling to be taking time to testify? she’s unemployed and under IMMUNITY.
Has her voice dropped an octave? Who’s the gentlaman behind Ms Goodling.
Your professional work, not college. Oh-Oh.
Garrett Fitzgerald @ 14
Look under the Rovian glossary in the back of the direct mail book bound in human skin.
Where else did you hire and fire?
College; RNC.
Note, the only people who Monica talked to about the problems with McNulty are members of the clique: Sampson, Moschella, and Elston, all in on this.
Booyah, Sanchez just established that GOodling had no real personnel experience. “I was student body president”
MG: Mary Beth Buchanan interviewed me for the EO position
I’ve been watching this morning and if we are hoping for a “spill the beans” moment from this underling I think we can forget it…
All we are going to get is the usual “Administration runaround”.
And a Republican member just spent his whole time criticizing Murtha a Pelosi for a “Soprano” like attack on one of the poor pathetic Republican House members.
Why is this kind of BS allowed that has nothing to do with Goodling?
Sensenbrenner, after spending 70 million on a blow job, you are in NO POSITION to talk about fishing expedition over $250K.
Question for Goodling:
Why would the *White House Liason* be involved in hiring and firing line attorneys?
So that did occur, you blocked that hiring.
I didn’t block it permanently.
I wouldn’t be able to give you number of people who were not hired for political reasons.
Nathan @ 31
Then why was she given such extraordinary power to hire and fire. This is the crux of the matter. Goodling had real power. People with real power are players. She can’t be Lil Bopeep and the Godfather at the same time.
LS: Press reports say that you blocked AUSA who were democrats. true?
MG: I think that I did that. I did not block it, I delayed it.
LS: How many did you block for political reasons?
MG: Not many
Sanchez is doing much better this week than last time
Sanchez: You moved to block attnys who might be Dems.
Monica: I regret blocking that one hiring. I delayed it.
Republicans will always cover members of their own Party and their Grupenleader. The rise of the new fascists is on exhibit during these proceedings.
Bluetoe @ 29
Exactly. Why didn’t he gavel Cannon down? Why can’t he control the hearing. I’m telling you now, Nadler should put up a fight for this chair. I know you all like Conyers from his basement days, but this is not helping us at all.
Sanchez: articles say you blocked hirings of Democrats, including Taylor, is it true?
MG: Yes, but it was a snap judegment and it wasn’t a ‘permanent’ blocking.
is monica wearing a BLUE dress, or is it may web cast blurred ?
Berman and Sanchez did fire the warning shot to stay on topic with those snide little openings about “Back to the topic at hand…” Good for them.
Well, I can certainly say this is going just as expected. Short of the Democrats having smart chess moves for Goodling today, we can expect a lot of “I don’t knows” and “I was just a lowly plebe”
But, the pattern seems to be to slide the pea under another shell…so far, quite a few names: McNulty, Sampson’s, etc. SO, I would assume the smart play would be that once they all get finished not knowing who did what and when and why and pointing vague fingers at each other, that Conyers would now have to get them all under one roof and regrill them on the same shit and focusing specifically on how Goodling’s “snap judgements” on the politicized of hiring practices.
Sensenbrenner: Your testimony is confirming docs thathave been submitted. Are you aware that USA are appointed for 4 years?
MG: Yup - the 4 years were expired.
big bob @ 59
Looks like a black dress or suit. Hard to tell. Have not seen her stand up.
Monica: I was aware that AUSAs terms are for 4 years.
This is important. Goodling just said:
She’s suggesting that the USAs they’ve picked (like Paulose) were going to use the same political tests in hiring that she, Goodling, used.
People on this blog have asked better questions than those on the Committee.
I’m having problems with C-span can someone give me the link to the judiciary connection
Senssenbrenner just LOVES him some rule of law.
I love the leading question stuff….
I still think that this House hearing will provide sufficient information for a very serious Senate hearing….
Sens: What’s so unusual about firing someone who’s term has expired?
MG: Nothing unusual. Pres has right to hire the best people EVA!!
There is no coherent tactical strategy for eliciting useful testimony here by anybody other that Sanchez, and she is marginal. Dowd has prepared his witness well. Sanchez making headway, but only on Goodling personally and she is IMMUNIZED. Every question needs a followup asking about links to Gonzales, Sampson, Buchanan, Whitehouse etc. and it is simply not being done.
I highly doubt she was given the power to fire U.S. Attorneys, or hire them for that matter. DOJ personnel is another matter (which is what she was doing). That’s Gonzalez’s call…obviously he trusted her. but all that says is that she had power within the DOJ.
all I’m saying here is that it’s plausible, even probable that she never talked to Rove or Meiers. that’s actually likely. they don’t talk to people at her level.
I have a question.
At first, when Cornyn asked her who put the list together, Goodling invokes the fifth. When told that she cannot invoke the fifth, asnd Cornyn asks the question again, she responds that she does not know.
If she is being truthful in answering that she does not know who put the list together, why did she invoke the fifth? This makes no sense to me.
looseheadprop @ 54
Agree, she’s come loaded for bear. And I can think of no better person to hammer this little twerp than Sanchez, who comes off like a mother who knows her sweet daughter is full of shit.
Senselessbunner: What’s unusual about replacing someone whose term has expired?
will goodling be testifying before the senate judiciary committee?
i’m wishing for some whitehouse questioning….
Propagandee @ 32
It was pure distraction. It’s what the Republicans did when Gonzales was before the committee. They distract, carry water for the Administration, and generally try to derail the process. Just like this current bozo who is now talking about “fixed” terms for USAs as if it is written in stone when, in fact, it very much is not.
Sens: For the last 6 yrs I did not sign a subpoena
BWA HA HA. That’s cuz you did no oversight.
Nadler THANK GOD!!!!!!
Hugh @ 52
and even if she was merely liaison, the committee wants to get the chain of command, up to rove. i think what’s going on here is she’s not giving them the testimony they thought they’d be getting in that regard.
Nadler’s up. This should be good.
Current Republican idiot boasting about how he did no oversight for the last 6 years. No wonder he didn’t need to issue a subpoena.
oh, I see, you’re confusing AUSAs with USAs.
If she is being truthful in answering that she does not know who put the list together, why did she invoke the fifth? This makes no sense to me.
The invocation of the Fifth:
Nadler is getting to it now….
She didn’t exactly say that Sampson didn’t inform her fully, she actually said that she didn’t recall his briefing her on the big picture.
Nadler: You pleaded 5th. What crimes are you aware of that were committed?
MG: Did not commit crimes.
Nadler: These were ambiguous circumstances. I did not commit a crime.
MG being asked what crimes she needed the 5th for. Hahahaha!
I wish Barney Frank was part of this committee
Nadler: Why the 5th? YESH! That’s my congressman! Make her cry.
Ain’t no fish in the water? That Congressman must have been fishing in Cunningham’s Potomac-water hot tub. I hope this Committee eventually breaks MG’s facade. So far, Dowd’s strategy is working. She is coming off and the proverbial energetic, upbeat office assistant who doesn’t know why her bosses made their decisions. She just helpfully did what she was told.
Link to HJC page with feed…
caged black votes - Nice, Nadler!
if I had to guess, the invocation of the 5th relates to her admission that she blocked some AUSAs for political reasons.
Devil’s Advocate @ 72
It was kabuki that she and Conyers had to go through to establish the existence and the terms of her grant of immunity. Pure formality.
Bay State Librul @ 87
i wish they’d have read tiredfed’s instructions and list of questions.
sanchez was good - but otherwise… not so impressed, yet.
Jerry Nadler is from MY sate?
Go Jerry, go!
Ms. Legally Blonde is not speaking quite as quickly now that Nadler is questioning her.
dratty @ 57
It surely does no harm to have the Repubs making fools of themselves. Doing the tango to support a witness that has pled the 5th is fun to watch. In addition to making bloody fools of themselves it goes to reinforce the theory that the cover-up is going strong in Repub ranks. The prez is at an alltime low in the polls, the repubs are protecting him…. jeeze it is looking a lot better for 2008.
Nadler: Let’s talk about asking political questions. “Monica problem” Did you seek to deny Aston a promotion because a democrat?
MG: Not my job. I think it was two Type A women.
Nadler: Discussions?
MG: Her resp were shifted to me. She was JEALOUS
ms. ashton had more experience as a prosecutor, “certainly more than i did.” as in, i had NONE.
I see we have a troll.
Now MG is going back to the Abu defense about political affiliations.
She sounds practiced.
Goodling: “It wasn’t my decision…” regarding Ashton’s promotion.
Ask her about the “secret order” from Gonzales giving her that authority.
Isn’t she just a little pixie? Don’t you just want to pinch her cheeks?
Type A personality?
Two Type A’s…
Scorn
“Two type-A women”?!
Oh, I have worked with a Monica of my own. I think we all have.
Ohhhhhh. Burn, little girl, burrrrrrn.
TexBetsy @ 63
just thought it would be funny monica’s blue dress (roves seamen stained blue dress}
Nadler’s asking about the AUSA’s!!! FINALLY!! been since March that I sent emails about this!!
score one for looseheadprop!
Bay State Librul @ 87
That makes two of us … HJC needs a new Chaircritter (Trademarked it !)
Christy, EW, Jane, firepups … love you all !!! … now back to lurking …
Helen @ 98
Would there EVER be a problem having two type-A MEN?
Nadler: Did anyone give you questions to ask?
MG: we were allowed to consider ‘other factors’
That came out all wrong
it should read
Jerry Nadler is from my state!
Go, Jerry, go!
whoa is she something. I wouldn’t hire her as a nanny (which is the image I’m getting from her testimony) let alone put her in any position of national importance.
oh man is that bush ship sink-ing.
MG has shifted the question regarding McNulty’s testimony.
MG, as I have shown, told McNulty that his written testimony was correct. However, the issue on his testimony was whether or not Cummins had been fired to make room for Griffin. She hasn’t really addressed that.
her remark reminds me of when nancy reagan attributed all the hostility to her in the press to women reporters who were jealous she was a size 2.
Back to the pleasure of the President defense from the R side.
anybody else just see her atty smile and wink at somebody?
Wait, Little Miss Sunshine says she is a Type A personality? What happened to the I just wanted to help people Monica we have all come to know and love?
froze hiring of immigration judges!
imagine the reason for that
She’s going to play the Dem’s. She’s another one who was “just doing what she was told to do” but doesn’t know who ordered it or why. . . “Just doing my job.”
Coble: They serve atthe pleasure of the President. That has been lost in the shuffle. Who was resp for evaluating performance?
MG: DAG and AG
The time contraints on questioning works in the Republicans favor. They have no interest in getting to the bottom of this and will do all they can to stall and misdirect. For Dems on the Committee they are prevented from carrying on a lengthy probe.
Goodling’s testimony about ‘facilitating’ the placement of Republican candidates in the DoJ, even in non-political positions and awareness of her doing so by her superiors, is:
Pretty Damning.
She is contradicting Comey on the annual
performances
emptywheel @ 114
I wondered why someone didn’t ask her why she approved McNulty’s testimony and asserted that it was correct since they have documentation that this is what she did?!
Does the senate committee get to interview her too?
Bluetoe @ 122
Which is why then need to coordinate with each other.
TRex @ 105
Make sure you de-claw her first. Monicas are notorious for scratching and pulling hair. I socked one of these cats in the jaw when she started the “type A” screeching.. Settled that matter. But a blanket party equivalent we other women arranged settled her down for good.