(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
Spotlight



Support this site!
Keep
up with news
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search


RSS/XML Feed
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.
What was your role as WH liasion?
nomolos @ 97
I got news for you. The rest of America that’s watching this is not seeing Republicans making fools of themselves, they’re seeing Repubs saying that there’s no ‘there’ there and the Dems flailing around trying to find something. At best, right now, we can hope this hearing doesn’t hurt us, but somebody better have prepped and figured out just what the purpose of giving Goodling immunity was.
Shorter Monica: I was paid 120,000 to be a glorified secretary and partisan buzzsaw.
Your tax dollars at work.
She gave the AG’s travel schedule. And some morale boosting. Stanley Cup.
OOOhh. Very important.
What is your role as WH liasion?
MG: Basic job: 1) hiring of political appointees, 2) liaison function re: information and 3) moral boosting!!
emptywheel @ 114
Our congresscritters haven’t accomplished squat in eliciting detail and linkage to other actors; extremely superficial so far and not worth the fuss or immunity grant.
Goodling paraphased: EARS evaluations are too thourough to be useful, anecdotal opinions from Main DoJ administration is better.
What an idiot.
JGabriel @ 123
But they need to get the names of those supervisors.
She’s gabbling so fast, Coble can probably barely follow what she’s saying. Most of it is irrelevant details anyway.
Can’t you just tell how much she’d enjoy firing someone?
Did you see the initial or final list?
MG: No memory of first. I did see the Nov 27 list at the meeting
Somebody should be interviewing McNulty…
Monica is following Gonzo’s strategy…
Maybe it’s just me; but you can’t have it both ways! She ‘maintained her responsibility’ to hire/fire USA’s, yet she doesn’t follow through with it? So she’d put together some of this unwritten info on people, ’suggests’ her recommendations, and Al signs off on it without question? And Al just really didn’t see, read, or have in-depth consultation to the 8 dismissals?
Again she says she is just one of many but then says she is one of 3 or 4 who vetted all the non civil service hires at the DOJ. That may not seem significant to her but that is a hell of a lot of power.
Can you imagine having to work with her when she was planning her wedding?
Oh great, Bobby Scott’s gonna give a speech. THAT helps. Jeebus
Capital J @ 137
She does seem to ramble on about details.
This could hurt her though: she might let something slip.
Between Sampson and MoniKKKa, we got the freakin’ Romper Room running our Justice Dept. Jeezus…
Go SCOTT
Biodun @ 129
And who specifically did she interact with at the White House, when, and what was discussed?
TRex — she is married?
Scott’s reading statement instead of asking questions.
im4mary @ 140
I’m sure Monica would say, “You’re so mean! I was just part of a *consensus* process!”
TRex @ 143
Seeing as how I refuse to talk to any friend who is planning any wedding that doesn’t involve eloping, no.
Not sure the “coordination among Democrats” we’d like to see is possible; it may be illegal for majority members of the committee to meet without the minority present. There’s all kinds of sunshine laws that prevent members of local commissions to even have a cuppa together; there may be rules in the House just like that. Also, they are simply rusty after 14 years in the wilderness…
This is Stonewalling 101
Question: Based on Monica’s description of her own job, what could she possibly have done that would warrant taking the 5th? She just described herself as an office clerk.
Someone needs to probe that discrepancy.
pin her!
Scott: Did you break any laws?
Scott: You may have taken inappropriate political considerations in account. Were they illegal?
MG: Not for me to decide
Scott: Do you belive?
MG: I did not intend to break the law?
SCott: Was it against the law?
MG: I know I took them into account. I am not going to answer. I know I crossed the line
SCott: Of law?
MG Of rules.
I loooove Bobby Scott!!!!!!!!!
She admitted she crossed the line on Civil Service hiring laws. Scott forced her to say it. She didn’t want to do it, but he got it from her.
Scott BINGO!
Monica: I crossed the line.
Scott: What lines?
Go Rep Scott!!! She broke the law — now say it Heather!
MG: ‘I believe I crossed the law - lines…’
Scott just nailed her.
I crossed the line of civil service rules.
“But I didn’t mean too” ????
Bobby Scott is on to Domenici’s phone call.
this guy from virginia seems to be trying to nail down her breaking of laws, maybe to get her in deep trouble with the virginia bar.
LIE LIE LIE LIE
She also was involved in discussions about how to respond to Iglesias’ arguments. NOT JUST press accounts.
I think it is worthwhile for Scott to make sweet innocent servant of God acknowledge to the world that she is a criminal.
Her voice is dropping again. Slowing down, too.
This little girl voice is disgusting. “I crossed the line”…The problem is the line kept moving.
amy @ 126
We can hope so. Breaking radio silence before signing off this a.m. to remark that HJC proves to NOT be up to the task. A different chairman might help. Monica/Barbie, dressed for success w/little sweety girl voice, is in the lead…
Go, Scott, go!
Scott: Dominici?
MG: I’ve seen press accounts. I was aware he had problems with Iglesias performance.
Scott: Do you know which case?
MG: Stumbling
OMG, she just used the excuse that my kids use ALL the time when they do something they know is wrong … “I didn’t mean to” - that is hilarious! What is it with this generation of young people? As if “not meaning to” absolves them of all responsibility and gets them off the hook. She’s priceless.
She is lying
1,524 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND..
Citizen Hardin Smith and the Firepup Patriots:
JEEzus H. keeeRIST on a Goddamned CRUTCH…the Democrats on this committee are not worth a diaper full a diarrhea! They are officials of on of the most powerful legislative bodies in the history of the fuckin’ world…do ya think they might have done a bit of preparation, do ya think they might have coordinated through their staff, do ya think they might’ve had a few staff people who have some legal trainin’prepare researched questions for the committee members??!!!
Good God, after yesterday’s performance in the Senate, we need ta start a third party movement and draft Al Gore for president and…HIT THE GOD DAMNED STREETS! We gotta close every capitol, shut down every university campus and organize a march on Washington that will remind those rednecked fascists of General Sherman’s march ta the sea!!
I will never vote for another Democrat who is currently holdin’ federal office unless his last name is Feingold. I’m goin’ ta bed, assume the fetal position and turn the fuckin’ electric blanket up ta 10.
KEEP THE FAITH, NONE OF ‘EM ARE WORTH A SHIT!!
I broke the law, but I didn’t mean to!
Spare us!
If she has immunity how can she say she won’t answer a particular question?
Shit, Goodling’s gonna be able to go scot free on charges about asking political questions during hiring. With this testimony immunized and as broad as she can make it, it’s going to be incredibly difficult to pursue an indictment.
Bay State Librul @ 124
She is full of shit. The EARS process is an incredibly thorough performance evaluation
looseheadprop @ 165
This is rather like the bank robber who says, Judge, I robbed the bank but I didn’t meant to.
It’s about freakin’ time for someone to pounce on her weaseling answers and push for the truth. Yes!
MG–I thought you didn’t like talking meanly about people, exept Inglesies
MG is talking about the reasons invented after the fact–even by Cathie Martin, who was totally uninvolved, not any reasons she heard in November.
MG: Mercer said he was an absentee landlord
Scott: What else did Iglesias do wrong?
MG: Border district. Heard “someone” say he was a dud on the AGAC. Absentee landlord.
She keeps saying “somebody said”
Calling Iglesias a dud? Oh dear lord. And the absentee landlord issue. Good grief, Iglesias was in the Reserves!
“I broke the law but I didn’t mean to.”?! That’s her defense?!
Is she 15?
We don’t need generalities…
SPECIFICS to nail her
She says she wrote down the reasons - do we have that information?
Goodling uses the word ’somebody’ a lot, never seems to name names. She makes it sound like a lot of gossip, no doubt intentionally.
Am I hallucinating or is her face aging while I whatch and does her voice seem to be getting more and more childlike?
The pitch seems to be going up and up.
Is somneone going to ask her where that writing is?
Everybody’s worked with a Monica. Smiles up, shits down. Right now, Congress Critters are “up”. Like the “tall, good-looking one” who just started questioning her.
oooh, ooh, set up for the whole Iglesias was penalized for serving in the National Guard thing - Dems, do not DARE let this go by!
Gallegly: Do you agree with AG that things should have been handled differently? How?
MG Yes: We should have documented things?
YA THINK???
I’m joining late but it seems like she has nothing she is willing to add. Why the hell did anyone agree to give her immunity?
Mistakes were made
TeddySanFran @ 152
Are you kidding? Do you think that the minority didn’t work out their strategy? It doesn’t have to be a ‘formal’ meeting, they can all get together for lunch. C’mon. This is the type of thinking that gets us where we are today…and which each and every one of us could have predicted after Abu’s hearing.
This woman went to law school? Oy Vey!
Shorter Goodling: We developed a consensus by gossiping with each other.
Ya’ know, with some decent questioning, it would be so easy to break her down.
I’m discouraged that HJC dems are not very effective with her. But do we think Waters can reduce her to tears?
Helen @ 196
But but but, back when I was student body president, we didn’t need to document things before we “hired” or “fired” the kool kids.
TRex @ 188
6
Gall: You said in opening that when you first saw the list you said that there was no explanation as to how people got on list?
MG: I don’t remember, and I had forgotten it for a while.
What the fuck is WRONG with Conyers that he keeps interrupting and derailing monicas answers with “the gentlemans time is expired”! Why can’t he wait for her to finish her lie?
so she talks about concerns of various people at the Department of Justice about the USA’s, but a feeling that “we shouldn’t interfere with the wishes of the president”?
Excuse me?
“I don’t remember that time very well and I’d actually forgotten it for a while.”
When you first saw the list, there was no explanation for how people got on the list.
Monica: I don’t remember exactly.
No, I’m not kidding.
I am depressed… we need to get on Norske’s
bandwagon … democracy has been truly hijacked
Monica heard this, Monica heard that, as to Iglesias. What documents did she see? Who made them? Who Kept them? Didn’t she learn in law school that employment terminations should be documented? Who took the minutes of the meetings? What files did you keep? What files did Sampson keep? Where are they? Have you deleted documents? Why?
lhp: “Am I hallucinating or is her face aging…”
Oh my god. I just had the same thought.
I guess that means we’re not hallucinating.
JGabriel @ 191
This bothers me, too. Sometimes her quotes are pretty specific but she doesn’t attribute them. She should be asked, and if she doesn’t recall, asked how she can have such a clear memory of the words but not who spoke them.
Anyone keeping track of the “I don’t remembers”…..
I guess its better then I don’t recall
She’s too stupid to understand a Republican’s question. Incredible.
Monica, he’s asking you if you learned about why Iglesias was on the list after he was put on the list, ya dink!
EG: you are citing after the fact information, correct?
So far, it boils down to MG not recalling, not knowing and using the Nuremberg defense: “I followed orders.” Yeah! Right!
She is a motor mouth. One of the critters on the committee needs to tell her to respond succinctly and clearly.
The little girl’s voice is grating.
Goodling has a real moral disconnect. In her world, she can stick a shiv in somebody’s back at work and then go home and make brownies.
She also doesn’t seem so much Type A to me as passive aggressive.
Monica playing dumb about how Iglsias got on the list.
Am I imagining it, or do some of the Repubs on the committee seem to have drunk less Kool-Aid than others?
“sombody made the comment.”
jesus, i want to rip my face off. what is this, “heathers?”
Geldling is describing high-profile staffing decision meetings as if they were about planning a church picnic.
“It would have been better if we’d written things down. Someone would say something about someone and you’d say, gee, I thought that too.” Lions and tigers and bears, oh, my.
The displayed mediocre talent seems credible, but not the apparent absence of her righteousness and outsized ambition. I wonder whether her former colleagues are spitting up or falling down?
The Dems are fucking useless. She keeps admitting that other people told her to do bad stuff, or knew she was doing bad stuff, or were themselves doing bad stuff, and the D congresscritters don’t ask the obvious question: “Who the fuck are you talking about?!?!”
Her SJGabriel @ 214
Her Stepford make up must be running off
Hugh @ 52
She’s the fall girl. They set her up. She didn’t have real power, just seems to have been the conduit by which these guys issued their emails and orders.
Goodling: Oh, I didn’t mean I didn’t recommend people come on or off the US Attorney firing list when I said that — I just meant I didn’t do so to the White House! You’re so silly to have thought I meant that *in general*.
Monica: I recommended taking Wagner off the list.
How soon does Maxine Waters get to ask questions? I give her even odds of being the one to make MG cry.
NorskeFlamethrower @ 176
D’ya think, for the fastest primer possible, they might have had someone glance at FDL, TPM or dkos?
Hell, they could have called Josh Marshall or emptywheel.
There’s no excuse for any lack of preparation.
who is paying for Dowd to be there?
“I did make recommendations to Mr. Sampson as to people coming on or off the list”.
Boom.
Says she said Wagner should come off the list and “She did” Wow that sounds like a lot of power
notimetowaste @ 225
Why bother? You know she’ll just say she doesn’t recall.
Goodling says she wrote down the comments made by others regarding usag’s performance . Somehow though she is unable to cite the sources of those same remarks. Do you think anyone will remark on this inconsistency? Has anyone else noticed this?
We ask the US attorneys to be “helpful”
Helpful? Not legal?
Someone should ask a seemingly trivial question: Who comes up with the clever names for the DoJ programs?
My theory is Karl’s krew — it’s all highly political & framed. It might catch MG off guard & show an opening in that door.
Her attorney looks like Tweedle Dumb in Alice in Wonderland.
Perfect.
Helen @ 234
Sure does.
MG: Wagner was nice, helpful - that’s why I thought she should say.
Watt is doing ok - I get where he is going, but it’s a little slow getting there.
Jim @ 236
That’s the writing I want to see.
Lundgren up.
Lungren: Good job with the stonewalling. Keep it up.
ADJ at 227
Bullshit she didn’t have any power. She was able to block or slow down the hiring an firing of US Attorneys and AUSAs–CAREER PEOPLE!
SHe has fucked up this department for years to come.
Congress should be impeached.
Many bozos here…
Does the senate get a shot at her?
does he have a question?
Lundgren is an ass. Falling all over himself, talking about himself… Using his time to derail the hearing.
A shadow kept moving in and out of the room. Throw this liar in jail!
Oh gag! Who the hell cares what lundgren was doing when he was Cal. AG??? Ask a gd Question!!
Shorter Dan Lungren: Hi, Monica! You’re cute! I’ve made decisions, too!
Audj @ 227
But she did have real power per the Gonzales order, per her being only one of 3 or 4 people who decided who would and would not be hired across the entire DOJ. Her story is that she had no power. The record and her own statements say otherwise.
Her story is similar to Sampson’s. They wield power and then when called on it hide behind their nobodyness.
Lungren: You’re doing great, honey. I’m a former AG (Calif.) myself. Aren’t I hot stuff?
MG gazes adoringly.
Biodun @ 242
Your testimony has been “very strong.” What a load.
New thread…
Monica: I was trying to find very qualified people.
Monica is a direct copy of Dan Lungren 30 years younger and no lawyering experience. This ought to be a little love fest.
LJ/Aquaria @ 230
If Maxine makes her cry by screaming at her, I’m telling you right now, the MSM will show that clip constantly and it will be spun as Maxine losing her temper because, once again, the Dems were impotent.
So be careful what you wish for.
Lungren is making me nuts.
what a blowhard this asshole is
Please slow down the comments so we don’t interfere with Christy’s liveblogging.
Thanks.
Fucking ego maniac… Lundgren
ask germane questions
who’s to blow hard up,,,, oh (r) lungren of CA Please remmber it voter’s!!!
oh my god - these republicans just look like the biggest fools in history. seeing them in action explains so much of what has been allowed to happen in the past 6 years.
how in the world was sensenbrenner elected-
Lundgren: You didn’t intend to break the law.
MG: I was intending to find good lawyers.
JGabriel @ 179
Her testimony cannot be used to convict her of any crime. That was what the immunity agreement called for. There is no one who will prosecute Ms. Goodling and she is innocent of any crime as her testimony cannot be used against her.
“Intent” is not necessary to be culpable for breaking the law! Lundgren is an ass!
Did you notice MG’s lawyers going nuts behind her. MG just agreed with Lundgren that she SHOULD have politicized the justice process, “so the American voters can have faith in the political process.”
Lundgren isn’t necessarily helping Monica here, much as this resembles cunnilingus.
looseheadprop @ 244
Straight talk from a pro..I love it! She can remember everyone else in the room with the exception of some shadow that kept moving in and out of the room. Remember Hitchcocks shadow on the wall? Would that be Rove’s shadow on the wall behind Goodling?
Devil’s Advocate @ 219
Okay, so I was right about one thing - I predicted she’d have a squeaky voice.
She reminds me so much of the shallow little HR girls I have to interview with who have ice coming out of their pores. Well programmed, prissy little corporate robots.
Are other 1st world governments this lame? What about our past government? I keep thinking if this gang was around in during Nixon - well you get the idea.
I am also astonished that they seem completely incapable of connecting the dots between heru sing political litmus test to the overall politicization of the DOJ.
Sad, sad times…
“I was trying to find good lawyers…”. How would she know about good lawyers? She graduated from a fourth-tier “law school”.
Someone remove Lundgren. Not only does he sound revolting, he looks revolting.
dratty @ 256
Maxine doesn’t have to scream. All she has to do is be assertive. And she can be that.
What’s the gabbly address? I’ve never used it, is there anything I need to know first?
Lofgren: did you ever ask anyone their political affiliations?
Monica: Not career people.
One question: When do republicans start being americans first and then republicans? When does the truth matter more than the position of the party?
Seems she’s doing a fairly good job of trying to seem like she was over her head in her job (playing the age and sex cards well - she’s just a sweet young lady who overheard some conversations and maybe asked some questions she shouldn’t have but won’t admit it was breaking a very clear and obvious law). However, I think the questions will get more interesting. They have to get her yapping for a while before the good stuff comes out. Think Lorita Doan. She’ll start tripping up when the questions get tougher. She’s even stammering when the Republican from CA is questioning her.
For those of you who don’t know Conyers, you should know he plays the bumbling guy a lot, but he is sharp as a new tack and will stick it to Ms. Goodling if she continues to play this “I got immunity, and it erased my memory” game. He’s playing it a little cool (as he always does), but having watched him for decades, I know he’s pissed off and won’t let Goodling get away with bamboozling the committee.
I’m also looking forward to Barney Frank’s followup. He was getting somewhere interesting with his earlier questions. I love Barney!
Hugh @ 251
Hey Hugh, how’s it goin’, eh?
Does committing perjury remove her immunity? I’m thinking that’s why she has not submitted those documents.
I agree. Per emptywheel above, I hope someone asks her what in the hell she thinks she did (beyond making recommendations) to earn her $133,000/year.
LJ/Aquaria - I’m waiting for Ms Lee/TX
tommy -
little girl voice, staccato diction, student body president, vote tampering, winds up in washington dc ,hmmmmm
To follow the priorities of the AG which is dictated by the WH? Another question, was this California Rethuglican an elected USA?
This whole ideology that USA’s should ’shift focus’ on what they are currently working to the priorities of this administration, is wrong! Especially when these USA’s were pursuing political corruption investigations or serving our country in the armed forces!
Bay State Librul @ 104
back to cheerleader tryouts…
emptywheel at 8:55 am
ROFLMAO
looseheadprop @ 244
Well, to be fair to MG, she’s either a cog or a player, not both. My view is that she was just another political commisar — one of many planted around the Federal government to enforce party orthodoxy by our present Leninist regime. In her case, she was appointed to be the political enforcer for the president’s men in the Justice Department, a role for which she was politically very well qualified (being a partisan theocon) and which she carried out dutifully and mindlessly, exactly as instructed by her presidential puppetmasters. She’s a cog.. a guilty one (and she admitted as much today.. about crossing the line), but a cog nonetheless. She’s useful to them because she is perfectly capable of performing her duties as a political operatiove without any real awareness of her own significance in the party or about the complicity of those around her…. a mindless automoton. The only use she has to us is to expose with more clarity the rules and mechanisms by which rethug Leninism functions. Other than that, one should not expect much from her testimony.
What’s up with the recess? Maybe a super secret new piece of evidence? Maybe warn her that they’re going to charge her with contempt if she doesn’t start answering question?
And what’s the gabbly addy, plz?
ed @ 274
1861 or thereabouts is, I believe, the appropriate answer to that question.
gabbly link
http://www.gabbly.com/firedoglake.com
OMG! Are you hearing the commentary during the break? Commenter read part of Igleisas oped in the NYT! “Cowboy up, Mr Gonzales!”
Iglesias’ Op-Ed is in the LA Times.
cbl @ 285
Thanks cbl! Smooches!
congressman cannon mistakenly purchased some off brand Depends
ww @ 232
I wonder too.
Here in district 3 in CA we are working to get Lungren out!!!!!!!!!
Why does Lungren hate America?
Blue Girl @ 286
Personally, I think late in the Reagan years, when they were restructured at all levels into a leninist organization. At that point, they came to believe that they’re some type of force for reshaping American society, that they were the TRUE Americans and that they had to function as a tightly structured secret society whose aim is to restructure American society after their own image and ideals. It’s not so much that they place party before country but that they believe the country is wrong and that only the party, once it acquires total and absolute power, can save/transform the country. Basically, they’ve become a type of treason factory, as far as I’m concerned. MG is their model footsoldier.
amy @ 246
I wonder too.
Loo Hoo @ 295
Where is Cheney when you need him?
Hey!How did all the photographers get up front again?
bmaz @ 70
YES YES YES!
Wow! Sheila Jackson Lee is going after her big time… ” You would have been better served if you had been loyal to the Anerican people”…
Goodling coming across as a HR Rep…
Why did she need immunization
Devil’s Advocate @ 299
I love this lady! She’s PISSED.
Here’s the C-Span video link
http://www.c-span.org/watch/cs.....p;Code=CS3
Sheila rocks!
Helen @ 158
Why keep a paper trail if you know that you are crossing the line? Breaking the rules and regulations?
this gal has been coached well ..its why they delayed her testimony by the 5th crap..so they had time to coach her..someone needs to ask her how many hours she was coached and by whom..
and will someone please ask if Tenet hospitals was ever discussed regarding the USA firings ..in Carol Lam’s case and the Missouri USA firings!!
fly
Re: Duke
Nobody in their right mind would put in writing
the evidence on the Dukster…. that’s why we
have investigative reporters…
well what about the Tenet hospital case with carol Lam ready to pull the medicare and medicaide for the san Deigo Tenet Hospital…someone ask that..please…and now Jeb gets paid $450,000. bucks to be on their board!!
Younger staff…. teenagers?
interesting.. Carol Lam is not a rethug. We COULD run her for Congress in San Diego if we wanted to…
how did this POP TART get the job….what freaking joke the department of Justice is.
She has ZERO CREDIBILITY…WHAT A SHAME FOR THE DEPARTMENT AND THE WHITE HOUSE.
did pence miss her saying she crossed the line and broke the law
omar @ 310
again, she’s a political commisar in a leninist political party, not a Justice Dept professional. The only required qualifications for such a position are blind philosophical loyalty and either the stupidity or culpability to transform this loyalty into whatever action one’s puppetmasters spell out, without question.
It just makes me SICK that she is gonna get away with what she did. Funny part is, now that she is immune, she can lie her ass off, and boy is she doing a great job of that.
And what are wer going to do about any of it??
Yeah they undermined the credibility of the Justice Department.
So??
what ya gonna do??
They also falsified evidence to justify invading Iraq.
So??
And??
A war without end??
Sure!!!
What ya gonna do about it?
The list goes on and on and on Abu Gharib,UsA’s,voter registration purges,Cheney’s Energy Meetings,”Mission Accomplished”,on and on and on.
And what are the Dems gonna do??
NOTHING.
This is the end of the BS that this AG has been feeding the US public.
Thank this poor woman for being so dumb.
The house of cards is coming down.
Please vote …all the time.
This is the ONLY way to get to the bottom of this:
THEY ALL NEED TO BE IN THE SAME ROOM,
AT THE SAME TIME, LYING…er, I mean
TESTIFYING AT THESE HEARINGS.
Is that even possible? Otherwise, this is like
passing around a hot potato until it morphs
into a frickin’ ice cube.