Go here or here for a stream of Goodling's testimony.
Please keep extraneous comments to a minimum to lighten the load on the servers.
So here is my takeaway:
- Monica did ask political questions of civil service employees
- Rove may have emphasized that DOJ needed to make sure its story was straight
- Gonzales tried to coach Monica's testimony
- Monica is paying for her own legal defense, but she intends to set up a legal defense fund after the fact–I wonder if her performance netted her any contributions to that effect?
What am I missing?
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Davis still speaking on cspan3
She also implicated McNulty and Sampson. She seemed willing to toss DOJ types under the bus but avoided mention of WH types whenever possible.
ZED
nuts
Marcy!
Well done!!
the caging…in her opening statement.
The RNC is on a gag order not to do this..and its against the law..dont remember which law , but it is.
EW: did we get Gonzales on perjury?
Thank you CHS, EW and FDL for an invaluable public service!
So today was a try-out for her defense fund — a solicitation event?
Cripes.
Wonder if her old mentor Babs coached her on this one.
twolf1 @ 1
Gee that would be great to hear, except that cspan 3 interrupted the last 5 minutes of the testimony to put on a COMMERCIAL here in northern Virginia.
Well, they have their priorities I guess.
Pending that, wonder if someone made her a little a loan?
is it 19 or 9? 9 is IX
1oldlady @ 6
Wonder if MSM will pick up on this. Not!
What am I missing?….
The caging of votes!!! she stated in her opening statement! That is a smoking gun!!! get on it
Davis being interviewed by someone on the still live Cspan3 just said that they got NO proffer from Goodling before granting immunity! WTF is wrong with these morons? Amazing incompetence by our boys.
allan_in_upstate @ 8
thankyou!
Brought this over from the other thread because it needs repeating and I was like no. 278 or something:
Well isn’t that just f..king great. FINALLY after 7 1/2 hours of testimony someone gets on point as to why Goodling was here (her knowledge of the process) and is about to nail Abu, and that person is allotted 5 f..king minutes because Adam Schiff had to speechify and fearless leader Conyers (who people this morning were lauding as having some sort of ’secret plan’) CUTS HIM OFF IN MID QUESTIONING lest he gets thought of as unfair to the Goopers.
I hope that now, finally, all of the Conyers defenders will now realize that he has no business, none at all, being chairman of this committee, despite what he has done in the past. His running of this hearing today was nothing shory of abysmal and to cut off the questioning of goodling just now, rather than to extend it and allow the Goopers equal time borders on sheer incompetence. I for one, will be sending a letter to the Speaker setting out my absolute disgust in his performance.
SnarKassandra @ 12
Feels like XIX.
I wonder if Olbermann’s comment will be about Goodling, or about the Osama Boogieman Look Away! stuff designed to know her off the headlines?
spurious @ 11
THAT pissed me off. If they were going to go that far and ask her how she was paying fees, why didn’t they ask if she’d gotten a loan from anyone or any entity? Or if she’d already gotten a new job? Or if she was moonlighting??
Schiff set her up then Davis applied the shiv in the first round of questioning. Schiff was just great in how he got her to agree that all these things were sufficient to get a name on the list then WHAM on how come Abu wasn’t on the list since he was guilty of all the above. BEST scene of the day IMNSHO.
Monica admitted she often performed oppo-research-type research on prospective hires, and probably did this with respect to persons seeking civil-service positions.
spurious @ 13
EPU’d from prior thread. Dowd DID offer info on Monica’s meeting with the AG as a carrot to the committee for immunization!
And I love Davis’ new talker, that the letter of the law is too low a standard to apply to the AG.
spurious @ 18
a little federalist society cross-stitch fest? :)
Ron Mexico @ 21
so what was she looking for? and which parts are legal and which aren’t?
“What am I missing?”
Monica said McNulty lied? (did she say that?)
bmaz @ 15
pig in a poke
Main Stream Media.
Is it uncommon of for big name attorneys to take these kinds of high public profile cases pro bono simply because it’s like free advertising for them? Seems like this appearance could have been a freebie. no?
dakine01 @ 22
Well that might have been good theatre, but correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think she was granted immunity to give her opinions as to whether Gonzales should resign or not.
MSM is the MainStream Media
Why did she get immunity for her testimony today?
What did she say today that revealing criminal wrongdoing on her part?
Conyers’ team got played.
Did Monica actually say she was paying for her own defense? The summary said she hoped to set up a defense fund but didn’t actually say she was paying the bills as of now.
Everything was run by the WH and the WHCO. Time to subpoena Harriet Miers. Let her be questioned under oath. And get Sampson back.
Is this a reasonably stated takeaway?
Monica implicated Gonzalez saying he testified untruthfully about his knowledge of the termination list.
And I’m going to agree that Conyers’ desire for orderliness in proceedings over incisiveness in questioning hasn’t helped the HJC, by comparison with the SJC or with Waxman’s committee.
Comity doesn’t mean allowing the GOPpers to throw poo at every occasion.
spurious @ 11
No way her lawyer works for less than $750-1,000/hour.
Also, Davis, with the mike still on, said that Monica’s attorney never made a proffer to the committee. And Conyers took a flyer on that?
As much as I love John Conyers for all he’s done in the past, he’s just not that good anymore.
Rayne @ 20
Yeah. And how much in fees and costs accrued while you were still officially at DOJ prior to resignation? Who paid those fees accrued prior to resignation? Was there an agreement with Dowd to forebear payment of fees and costs accrued whil still at DOJ? Bogus!
Muzzy @ 30
I don’t think law firms can afford to do that.
I think you’re missing the fact that Goodling testified that both Gonzales and McNulty lied to Congress. That sounds like a big deal to me. She gave this testimony in a quiet, restrained way, and she came across as honest (is she really honest? Dunno), and she was very definite about Gonzo being in meetings and involved with the USA firings.
So I think in the end she was a very good witness.
Chrity, the piece missing from your list is
GONZO DID SEE THE LIST!
Marcy, or LHP, or someone:
When the DOJ had a chance to block Monica’s immunity deal, I simply assumed that they would, because that’s their style. But they didn’t. I’ve always been baffled and stunned by that, but no one else seems to mention it. Can someone tell me what that’s all about?
Wonder what Olbermann will have to say about all this tonight.
Muzzy @ 30
If it wasn’t a freebie, it cost approximately 10k-15K for 3 attys for the day like this
SnarKassandra @ 12
The pitcher of beer got to her table as she was doing her Roman numerals…
Well, we’ve already got McNulty starting to turn on her. MoniKKKa basically said Abu was lying several times, so we’ll have to see how he responds. Plus, doesn’t Congress now have much more leverage to compel Rove/Miers to testify now, since there’s so much contradictory testimony out there, and no one in DOJ seems to be the Decider for “the list”?? All seems worthwhile to me.
Of course, it depends on what the Congresspeople do with this now…
neurophius @ 27
She said that McNulty knew more about the firings that he had said and that he had told her not to attend a meeting with Congress people because they might ask about White House connections seeing as she was the WH liaison.
Ironically IMHO Goodling did way better than Gonzalez…SOME of the Don;t know’s don’t recalls seemed sincere.
But she definitely was uncomfortable with questions about Gonzalez..
She offered opinions when Repubs asked for them, demurred when Dems asked–except under Davis artful grilling.
1oldlady @ 23
Mainstream media.
And also: thank you thank you thank you to FDL, Marcy and CHS for your liveblogging. Deeply appreciated.
TeddySanFran @ 32
She broke the law in terms of her using political criteria in hiring career officials at the DOJ, including immigration and BIA judges. So, she was right in holding out for that–otherwise, she would’ve been in real legal jeapardy (even if she said she didn’t really mean it).
The immunity was worth it in terms of the info that looks like Abu tried to tamper with her testimony.
What about the AG’s secret Letter of delegation giving her and Sampson secret authority to fill the highest positions at DOJ? What did we hear her say about that?
Jane S. @ 38
Some do it. Some lawyers just love them some TV time. But in this case, I wonder if Dowd could be pro bono simply because of the political favors that can be called in later or are being called in. Either way. Take care of our girl, that kind of thing. just a guess, i have no evidence.
So, not being able to catch the whole dog and pony show, I did get the definite sense that Abu just got put in a cow catcher.
Now what?
They gonna have the lying fascist back again to try and get something straight?
I think his ‘I don’t recall’ might just have gotten stomped on.
dratty @ 31
It puts the redubyacans off their talking points about Abu and why the firings occurred.
Every little bit helps. Small steps for big returns done the road. Be patient.
do-si-do @ 25
Or a witness with fingers crossed on both hands.
allan_in_upstate @ 8
I’ll second that. Or reiterate, as the case may be. There were an awful lot of critical comments today, were they really warranted?
I think we all knew she would try to stonewall, and the Republicans who claimed to be so concerned about the rule of law under Clinton would prove themselves to be complete hypcrites (as usual).
But in the end, the testimony about AGAG was worth it. The caging may also be a damaging admission. Monica was a small fish…AGAG is the big fish defending Bush, Cheney, and Rove.
Mimikatz @ 34
I’d like the SJC to get Scott Jennings under oath. Once you complete the Sampson-Jennings-Goodling triangle, Rove slots into place.
Ralph @ 41
Agreed, but for what was she immunized? Going over the line (but not meaning to) when mixing up whether people were applying for civil service jobs or political jobs?
pseudonymous in nc @ 19
Iraq, I think
SnarKassandra @ 26
She cannot use politics as a basis for hiring/firing career roles — those roles that are not political appointments. She admitted she used criteria that were biased and not related to the job for which the persons were applying.
Same thing is not legal in hiring by private companies, either.
Mimikatz @ 34
When the question was first asked, she said that she was paying at this point.
Look where we were last November (elections). Look where we are now.
Do all lawyers make that much money?
Ralph @ 40
yeah and she might have been a better one if Davis had been allowed to fully question her at the end. I don’t know who I’m madder at. Davis for waiting until the last 5 minutes (which I might excuse since he might have realized the descrepency late in the session), Schiff for only allowing Davis 5 minutes or Conyers for not having the good sense God gave him to know to extend the end of the questioning. That was a comedy of errors and a disgrace.
worst questioning ever!
who cares what her opinion of gonzo is
they should have focused on who created the lists, what the process was, and what criteria was used
these lists kept appearing, but no one can say who created them, why people were added and subtracted and how it was done…..that is the crux of the matter
Jane S. @ 37
Oh yes they can, if they are a big enough firm–and the dividends will pay off in terms of future clients. Goodling was in real legal jeapardy, and Dowd did get her off. She is in the free and clear as long as she did not perjure herself. And my guess is that Dowd will make sure she didn’t–and will correct the record if need be to protect her.
When asked about AG’s May 10th testimony, Monica, who was in a position to know, at least 3 times stated that Alberto had lied.
Is this equal to lying about getting head?
Yeah…I’m missing the gotcha in this testimony. The House seems most of the time to be totally inept at questioning in oversight committees, the Senate is frightenly (for the Repubs) efficient.
The worst thing here, which was completely unaddressed, is that this woman’s job title was “White House Liason”. With whom did she liase? It was completely and incompetantly glossed over.
Is Goodling scheduled to appear before the Senate Committee?
Jane S. @ 38
Sure they *can*. But do you really think that in representing a high profile Repiglican, that they *would*?
They know they’re gonna get paid, or have already been paid. The only question is by whom.
TeddySanFran @ 33
She admitted to asking the partisan questions of career appointees and of none ausa types (immigration judges and such). Forget which Dem it was but he forced her to say she’d broken the law instead of breaking rules.
SnarKassandra @ 64
Some make very little, some make far more.
Mimikatz @ 34
Yes. And Rove.
Muzzy @ 30
It’d be illegal anyhow. bmaz, can you elaborate?
OtisIsHungry @ 53
That they were correcting Clinton-era errors.
Well – she didn’t seem to mean to do a lot of stuff, which I totally understand.
I mean – I didn’t mean to run over those pedestrians crossing the street when I raced to get to work because I listened to her testimony for a tad too long this afternoon. I was also told by the arresting officer that ignorance of the law doesn’t matter.
**/snarky as hell/**
On Monica’s legal fees, if they are representing her pro bono, didn’t she perjure herself when she said that she is paying the fees herself. In other words, if they are working for free, I think she would have had to say that.
SnarKassandra @ 64
Do all lawyers make that much money?
Oh, there’s one I can answer from personal experience.
No.
Maybe a revolution is in order because we sure don’t have a representative government from this debacle. There shouldn’t be career politicians.
Ed*ard Teller @ 72
Important to distinguish the difference between a billing rate and actual earnings. In my experience, billing rate typically represents a 2.5 to 3.0 multiplier over gross earnings.
In other words, $250 billing rate / 2.5 multiplier = $100/hour pay.
TeddySanFran @ 59
Going over the line is her euphemism for breaking the law. That she didn’t mean to would be believable only if she was the latest hayseed to fall off the cart on her way to Washington. As someone who had been involved in hiring and firing decisions for several years and at the DOJ to boot, it comes across as lame and pathetic.
I kinda feel that for Monica Goodling, if she needs money for her defense (the question is still unanswered re: defense against what?) might find being a hooker more respectable than working in the Bush/Abu DOJ. Of course she might have to settle for “Liberal” clients, since her RePuke Theocon buddies seem to prefer either little boys or Jeff Gannon types, and I’m pretty sure she’s a girl.
Jane S. @ 76
Pro bono could mean an agreement that she pays them some small token amount. Or agrees to raise money later. I’ve had friends who are defense attys who take cases pro bono, if they believe in the case, for instance.
about the caging of votes here is the link to read up on it in 2004
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/pro…..958475.stm
SnarKassandra @ 64
No it varies significantly even within a firm/city/region. Some states do cap how much public defenders make and there are pro-bono attys in some areas.
That is still a LOT of money.
Re Monica’s personal circumstances. I think she moved into Alesandria VA when she got the Liason job–so 2005? The house at that time was worth definetely 450K. I know because my brother lives three doors down from her ( he bought at 200K). So she hasn;t been earning 100K very long and is now unemployed. Se has five year (?)-old BMW 3-series convertible which I imagine she’s paid-for. (
Amazing how bad some Congresscritters are at questioning. Maybe some FDLers will watch these hearings and think, “Damn, I can do better than that!” and actually run for office. We need more informed and passionate people there.
TeddySanFran @ 33
She broke the law in asking political questions of civil service job candidates. Just like I’ve been saying all along, which is why we should have gone after her for a plea bargain instead…
Senator Leahy is not disappointed in the Goodling testimony:
Leahy: Goodling Testimony “Confirms Our Worst Fears”
Let’s start outsourcing lawyers.
someone was asking about KO’s Special Comment tonight — here from msnbc.com
Keith Olbermann will deliver a Special Comment tonight on the “compromise” struck between the Democratic leadership and the White House over the latest troop funding bill…
Here’s a preview…
“The Democratic leadership has, in sum, claimed a compromise with the Administration, in which the only things truly compromised are the trust of the voters, the ethics of the Democrats, and the lives of our brave, and doomed, friends, and family, in Iraq.
You, the men and women elected with the simplest of directions – Stop The War – have traded your strength, your bargaining position, and the uniform support of those who elected you… for a handful of magic beans.”
Just looking at the doc-dump: it appears that MG was using a non-DOJ email address that’s been redacted (OAG000001668).
Did she violate the Hatch act?
dakine01 @ 55
Oh yeah, they looked REAL put off today. Let’s take off the rose-colored glasses ok? She offered NOTHING worth immunity until possibly the very end and then Conyers (who everyone this morning also told me to ‘be patient’ about) CUT THE QUESTIONING OFF.
Disgraceful. And as for patience, here’s a clue. There’s only 18 months left. You want patience? How about Conyers and Co. being patient and either not having the hearing until they were prepared for it or at least allowing Davis to finish his line of questioning? How about THEM patience?
The one area (and it is probably the crucial one) that got shorted again today was the extent of White House (Rove’s) involvement.
emptywheel @ 89
But WHY is it so HARD for her to admit that. She has immunity so if I understand immunity, she won’t be prosecuted in return for her testimony.
pseudonymous in nc @ 93
hum..what date and from who? her email date and from who
Bustednuckles @ 94
No but Loreta Dorn did.
Scott Jennings is the link MG provided. There’s no getting Rove or Harriett up on the Hill until Jennings testifies, and MG only linked to Jennings, but barely.
Considering MG testified that no one “knew” she was asking political questions of people interviewing for both civil service and political job, thus creating no link up the command chain, I’m still not convinced of the purpose of her immunity. Why immunize her to testify about something she wasn’t going to tie anyone else to?
Her conversation with Abu on her penultimate work day contained no illegality for her — she said she did not speak. So, again, immunized for what?
SnarKassandra @ 86
Seems like it, doesn’t it? average worker puts in 2080 hours a year…but remember these are folks who’ve put in 6-plus years in school, studied for and passed the bar. There’s a lot of time and money that goes into making this kind of wage, not exactly gravy work right after college or for some time. Lawyers do years of grunt work to get to partner and top billing. Some of the best guys I know aren’t rich because they hated the rat race of private practice or the corporate world and went into teaching instead, or into public service. Honorable work that doesn’t exactly ensure you’re going to be wealthy or continuously employed.
Britisher @ 87
What part of Alexandria? I lived in Old Town and grew up a bit south of there.
C-span3 has just started replaying Goodling’s testimony.
PBS NewsHour will have a segment on Goodling’s testimony right after the news summary (first segment). It will be interesting to see what their takeaways are.
Bustednuckles @ 93
If not that, then other federal civil rights laws. It is illegal to discriminate against someone for their political views. We are not talking political appointees here, rather civil service jobs.
We have Navy ships off Iran, And we have the cave-in. And we have Iraq. And have Goodling.
@ 97
I wonder if she doesn’t want to be disbarred.
dakine01 @ 71
SO WHAT? SHE HAS IMMUNITY!!!!! You don’t give someone immunity to get that person to admit his or her crimes, you give them immunity in order to get them to implicate others above them. Sheesh.
dratty @ 95
Dratty every repub was offering softball questions from the talking points list. Questions that she was well rehearsed on. Did you expect anything different from them? I sure didn’t. Lundgren, Cannon, Gohmert et al responded prety much as anticipated. Most of these a**hats are in safge seats and were NOT ever USAs. The Senate group is a different bunch. I say again, there was useful info came out of the hearing; just ignore the redubyacan talking point quesitoners. They were irrelevant.
as the hearing ended, cspan reported, (in a voice over), mcnulty has released a statement contradicting what monica had testified to regarding his tesimony. he stands behind the truth & accuracy of his testimony & said monica was incorrect in hers.
i cant find his statement anywhere on the net.
(this is getting good – repubs against repubs. divide & conquer!)
Oklahoma kiddo @ 63
Look where we were in March 2003… a lot of damage needs to be repaired.
November’s election results were a surprise… we’ve done right well with that gift… we can’t yet do it all, but we’re heading in the right direction.
Ed*ard Teller @ 72
Outside of mergers and acquisitions, very few make more than these guys.
emptywheel @ 89
You were so right. Absolutely nothing of value today elicited that could not have been obtained without immunity grant. Absolutely useless waste of leverage. Don’t know if you saw above, but they didn’t even get a proffer. If this is indicitative of our side’s tactical prowess, we are in a world of hurt.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 91
Hunter Thompson was way ahead of the curve on that one – Hired a huge Samoan attorney, who also doubled as bodyguard.
Rayne I consider anybody that buys clothes not on sale and not used is rich.
Again what’s important to realize is that if Goodling didn’t testify about an illegality then it’s not covered by the immunity agreement. And if she perjured herself today then she can be gotten for that as well.
Educated Plaintiff (110) –
Check out TPMmuckraker for the McNulty response.
dratty @ 107
Well, she also tried to throw Sampson under the bus on this one–said that he said that it was all right for her to take “other considerations” (code for political vetting) into account when vetting civil service employees, and he was her boss. If I recall correctly, she also seemed to point the finger at McNulty in saying that he knew. She was really good at playing dumb and vague, but the implication was there.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com….._unco.html
Paul Kane at Wapo got the point on Davis’ line of questioning.
Why Conyers or someone doesn’t get emptywheel on staff or as a consultant is beyond me.
As others have noted…”caging” is a BIG Issue… the short term goal was to get an edge on the 2006 elections as the R’s were clearly losing, the long term goal here was to get set up the 2008 elections as best they could–especially “voter fraud” which could be used to contest a Dem victory.
Bustednuckles @ 95
That’s just about all she admitted to, and as we know from the current Lurita Doan case, the recommendations regarding violations of the Hatch Act go to the President for decision-making.
dratty @ 108
Dratty, let’s just agree to disagree. I think the testimony had value. You don’t. Given that there’s been less than five months to uncover six years worth of lies and cr*p, it takes a long time. H2Ogate took over two years from the break-in to resignation and 18 months from the first investigations. It takes time to get info slowly but surely.
Let’s just focus on the illegality. According to her testimony:
Abu, McNulty, and Sampson are all guilty of perjury. Abu is guilty (perhaps) of witness tampering.
Simple story. That is what our politicians should focus on. She stated that the top staff at justice are all perjurious felons.
The other key point is that other than Bud Cummins/Sampson…. not one top person at justice yet claims they know who put the names on the list. Either they are lying, or it came from the White House. Well one of them has to be lying. If it came from the white house, the white house had to give the list to somebody.
SnarKassandra @ 115
And I consider many who always buy clothes not on sale or not on consignment either financially foolish or spiritually lacking. ;-)
SnarKassandra @ 64
Speaking for Christy Hardin Smith… a big NO, but there are lots of ways to do lawyering. Some are REALLY rewarding in other ways.
speaking for me now, you’ve gotten a good start with your enrollment in the FDL School of Law.
Yeah and I amy a cream filled twinkie!
Someone told her her legal bills would be taken care of. This needs to be explored more fully.
Her lawyer is costing someone a bunch of $ or else they are doing it on the cuff.
Thing of value in exchange for, or to put pressure on for, specific testimony = haw many differernt kinds of obstruction of justice?
Don’t forget McNulty has TODAY publically called her a liar.
SOmebody’s got a perjury problem, who do I intend to bet on coming out a winner in this little head to head contest?
McNulty with years of experience (both legal and politcal) or MG?
Hmmm? pretty easy choice. I’ll put my money in this contest on the man who actually knows and understands the law and it’s consequences over
little miss
“but I didn’t mean to break the law”
I think McNulty is going to turn this Bambi into roadkill.
dakine01 @ 109
All due respect but your not gewtting it. I am ignoring what the Goopers said but YOU were the one who said that they were ‘off their game’. What I’m saying is that it didn’t throw them off their game of talking points for one minute.
did the questioneres ever get any more about holding up immigration judges?
I just got home. Are they coming back or are they done?
Educated Plaintiff @ 110
I heard this on C-SPAN also, who’s next, Abu hisself? If two people like McNulty and Monica the II tell two different tales then at least one is wrong or lying. Of course since they are RePukes, they are probably both lying, just different lies slanted to their particular needs. Truth, the Constitution, Justice, and the Reputation of the USA – all casualties of the Bush/Cheney Crime Cabal.
looseheadprop @ 127
Oh, I do so love marinated and grilled venison tenderloins…
Can someone please tell me to who and what this is all supposed to be leading? Give everyone immunity except Rove, Bush and Cheney.
looseheadprop @ 127
wow! coming from you, lhp.
looseheadprop @ 127
I think McNulty is going to turn this Bambi into roadkill.
The way I see it, the only way she could’ve preserved her rethug member-in-good-standard card was by saying “I have no recollection” over and over again. I’m sure a few fundie churches will pass around a collection plate for two for her, but otherwise my suspicion is that she’s done. She was far too loquacious, as Rep Conyers said, to be eligible for some type of rethug good-sport reward.
bmaz @ 15
Yeah, but it’s only use immunity. If she could be convicted onthe docudumps alone (and with the inclusion of the Greg Palast emails, who knows?) she is not home free.
Also her immunity deal does not protect her from perjury in the immunized testimony.
McNulty is saying he WRITTEN TESTIMONY is a lie. So, she doesn’t eveen have the safety net of saying “oh, I got flustered and mispoke”
If McNulty can prove hwat he is saying………….
Even the Wapo gets it: Goodling’s testimony raises the question that Abu could’ve attempted to shape her future testimony (witness tampering. obstruction of justice). More importantly, her testimony showed that he lied both to the Senate and House judiciary committees when he said that he had not spoken to any of the other “fact witnesses” about the firing process.
Bingo. That was worth immunity in my book. If the dems can hang onto it and make some hay.
lhp @ #127 – ding!
TeddySanFran @ 100
Sampson knew.
Not only that, he has testified that he could not recall Monica asking such qusetions.
Kyle Sampson, you’re the next contestant in the Plea Bargain is right.
Elliott @ 129
Nope.
Davis on NewsHour!!
dakine01 @ 123
Well that we certainly agree on. Can we also agree that these hearing formats do NOT do anything to move the story forward, a la the Watergate hearings? Can we agree that there needs to be more coordination between members of the majority when questioning a witness and/or longer time for each member to question the witness even if it (horrors) means another day of hearings?
I don’t think we’re in that much of a disagreement. I think that the hearing was BEGINNING to be of great use. The frustration that I have is that we now are slaves to our Reps vacation or fundrasing dinner schedules. There is no way that this should have been a one day hearing with 5 minutes per questioner.
solai @ 130
They’re done. Some of them are likely toast. CSPAN3 is I think replaying some of it now.
It’s at TPM.
1oldlady @ 98
Included in an email chain, Jan 13th 2007, forwarding article on Lam to Sampson, Elston, Moschella, Roehrkasse, Scolinos (and herself). Probably a Blackberry account.
But yes, Scott Jennings was Rove’s liaison with DOJ. And GSA. And all sorts of places. And he needs to be winkled out from the White House.
njr @ 111
I sure hope I live long enough (maybe 30 more years) to see it.
dratty @ 127
When I said puts them off their game, I was referring to the world at large; you are correct in that in the committee, they did not go off the points. And the rest of the world can see that they were idiots when MG was saying that Abu, Sampson, and McNUlty were lying. Just like most of the world outside Redubyacan aplogists could see that Libby lied to the FBI and grand jury and that the Chimp lied when he said anyone leaking Plame’s name would be fired.
tbsa @ 145
here
Bambi is road kill. LOL! And I was thinking how she must’ve studied that other bambi’s testimony. Fawn Hall!
Lungren: ‘The fact of the matter is…’ [lie lie lie lie lie]
Artur Davis is speaking on the NewsHour with that awful Dan Lundgren.
Absolutely useless waste of leverage. Don’t know if you saw above, but they didn’t even get a proffer. If this is indicitative of our side’s tactical prowess, we are in a world of hurt.
Question: does the grant of immunity from House Judiciary cover any testimony she might give before Senate Judiciary? I presume not, but if I am wrong about that, then “world of hurt” is an understatement. Hopefully Senate Judiciary will be able to pick this up.
Fresh thread for everyone, if you want it.
Spirit @ 43
Anyone? :-(
McNulty said this afternoon,
[TPMmuckraker]
At one point in her testimony when they asked who was in attendance at a key meeting, she named most attendees by name, but referred to the DAG and not to McNulty by name. I think this was a bit of parsing on her part.
I also believe McNulty was set up:
– Delegation of Authority dd. 01-MAR-06
– McNulty sworn in 17-MAR-06
– McNulty is kept out of the loop on certain communications
– Handouts provided for McNulty’s testimony do not match his testimony; Goodling helped prepare his testimony, though.
Set up.
I GOT THE ZED !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
new thread…
Woodhall Hollow @ 139
But why? I must fundamentally misunderstand the point of immunizing a witness who first proposed to take the Fifth. I expected her to testify to her own criminal wrongdoing (for which she was immunized) and link higher-ups or White House officials to that criminal conduct, either through participation, supervision, or direction. I did not hear that today. Can someone please explain how “worth it” her immunity deal was? She was subpoena-ed; about what did she propose to take the Fifth?
She didn’t need immunity to testify to Abu’s touching refresher of her recollection — she did nothing wrong. And, on the political test for civil service applicants, she linked no one to it.
I am in NYC now, enjoying the Randi Rhodes take on all of this while listening to the stream from KLSD in San Diego.
Gotta luv da toobz!
I’m not a defender of everything this administration has done in the department of justice… -Lungren
So we should agree with your dissmissive attitude about the firings of
8,10,16, 18 US Attorneys?One thing I’m puzzled by is Goodling’s response that Human Resources wasn’t involved in the hires she was evaluating/making. In my experience in the private sector, and in companies of size, while HR may not have participated in the interview process above a certain level, or in areas of specialization, those of us who did were well-coached, BY HR, in what was allowable in interviewing and assessing candidates. And much of that was to comply with federal laws.
I can’t imagine that departments of our government aren’t similarly as vigilant in transferring that knowledge to all and sundry involved in hiring. HR folks have asses to cover too.
In other words, I’m not buying Goodling’s over-eager public servant who may have “crossed a line” without really realizing it schtick. She held a very responsbible position…and I don’t believe that she wasn’t made aware of guidelines. As elsewhere in this administration, smells like they were conveniently, and with hubris, ignored.
Blub @ 136
I agree. It’s not like she couldn’t remember lots of stuff. What’s one more I don’t know? That those who have testified have foregone another invocation of faulty memory indicates for me at least that some of these people didn’t like each other. So rather diplomatically and wisely STFU they went ahead and dumped on somebody who is now likely to dump back on them So it goes. There is no honor among thieves.
Also–one more really damning peice that came out, was the admission that they knew that Griffin would be in trouble with a Senate confirmation due to caging allegations. Now, she knows damn well that “caging” is not a direct mail strategy, rather a voter suppression technique. She was lying when she played dumb. But–we do know that it was a “concern” at the DOJ. I hope that Leahy gets his hands on her and follows up on that.
SnarKassandra @ 157
What exactly does this mean?
Christy Hardin Smith @ 152
Thanks CHS. I’ll like this topic…. I appreciate all your work with the live-blogging today and all the other posts. Thank you.
Woodhall Hollow @ 136
ding!
Did anyone here stick around C-SPAN3 (on the web, since they were busy running commercials on TV) long enough to catch Davis’ answers to reporters afterwards? During the hearing, he was the only one who really seemed to pin down MG on the fact that AGAG lied under oath (and/or McNulty lied under oath), not to mention possible witness tampering — but then he was totally backpedaling to the reporters. He didn’t want to comment on laws broken, thought that as far as AGAG is concerned there needs to be a higher standard, blah blah blah.
Any of the lawyers here able to tell me if there are legal reasons for this, or is Davis deep down another spineless weaselly Dem who doesn’t want to upset anyone?
Rayne @ 117
TY!!
Ralph @ 40
Good point. I don’t think Goodling came across as particularly honest, per se. More so, she came across as too nervous about facing criminal charges to lie.
So, even though I don’t think she’s a very honest person, I do think she was largely telling the truth in her testimony today.
phred @ 169
Davis, with Schiff, is the co=sponsor of the House no-confidence-in-AGAG resolution. Someone posted his voting record in an earlier thread, though, and he’s no progressive, not really.
emptywheel @ 138
IIRC, lots of leaks from SWORN DEPOSITIONS to he committee from both Sampson and McNulty. I agrees with “bambi as roadkill” theory. Conyers is setting monica up for perjury against her immunity, aka plea bargain time! the reason he “cut off” davis was to make sure she didn’t set up some clever remark like “oh gee? where am i? is this kansas?” to hide behind when that time comes.
back to coding, dammit…
TeddySanFran @ 158
She needed immunity in order to testify to ANYTHING. You can’t bleed water out of a stone, and if she invokes the 5th and refuses to answer any questions at all (which was her right) then you have to either give her immunity or forget about her testimony. And her testimony did show that she had an excellent reason for invoking the 5th. No one in their right mind would relinquish their right to remain silent if they knew they had broken the law, as she most assuredly did. And she did make some damning statements about old Abu, even though she tried to soft-peddle it by saying that she didn’t know it was wrong.
Well, it sure looks like he was trying to tamper with her testimony. and better yet, it shows that he lied on at least 2 separate occasions to congressional committees.
dobbs is talking about monica now…..
JGabriel @ 168
– Starts out pleading 5th
– chatters rapidly like a magpie to filibuster answers
– big billing 3 attorneys sitting behind her
Uh, definitely didn’t LOOK honest.
@ 165
I made the first comment on the new thread.
@ 164
When you first get to a new thread with no comments, the first comment shows as a “zero” shortened to “z” then called “zed” by the fine folks at fdl…
My impressions:
Monica repeatedly stated that she didn’t want to say anything “bad” about the fired attorneys. Sounds to me like she was trying to discount accusations that she or her colleagues in the AG’s office tried intimidate the fired attorneys into silence about their firings with subtle threats that the AG’s office would have to say “bad things” about the attorneys if the attorneys complained publicly. Sounds like she was trying to put a bad fact into a good light.
Monica also rushed to get the statement about the caging lists in real early as if to prevent structured questioning on the issue.
Gonzales saw at least one list of the fired attorneys.
Gonzales was the real liaison with the White House including Rove.
Gonzales (and McNulty?) attended the meetings in the White House.
Monica did not make the decisions. Monica seemed to be claiming to be uncertain about where the list of attorneys originated. Monica heard bad things about the performance of several of the attorneys on the list.
One of the attorneys was considered to be a poor performer because he spent too much time on the Native American, I’m not certain of the term, but “subgroup?” That is apparently a euphemism for spending too much time trying to make sure the Voting Rights Act was not violated.
So, did Monica cry?
Did she express remorse?
Did she smirk?
I think ZED is zero in australia or canada or someplace.
One thing to keep in mind about Lungren’s time as CA’s state attorney general: it’s an elected office (currently held by Jerry Brown). So whoever has the job is more politician than lawyer.
Lungren claimed the Dems were trying to criminlize politics WRT Gonzalez and DOJ operations. Then he said the Dems have found no criminal evidence. Then he said the ‘no confidence’ vote was an example of the criminalizing politics. By my account it is politicizing the question of Gonzalez’s suitaibility to run the DOJ, not criminalizing it. Lungren sounded forceful and authoritative but his argument was a fallacy.
neurophius @ 178
No.
Yes (to an extent)
Yes.
conyers, Davis et al setting her up for perjury—now that is an interesting theory. If that is the case, then she will not only have to “correct” her testimony but might find that her memory is more complete than she remembered in order to be credible in terms of any memory corrections.
Goodling looks like she’s been rehearsing every waking moment since she left the DOJ. Aside from a rather shaky start (it doesn’t say much for Regent that its star alumna pleaded the Fifth after being given immunity) she was considerably more poised than any other Bush toady on a C-SPAN-televised hearing.
My guess is that she’s been promised the support–financial, careerwise, and whatever else she wants–of “loyal Bushies,” as long as she covers the Administration’s ass.
neurophius @ 178
She smirked when describing what an open and honorable org the Federalist Society is with a Rethug.
Ralph @ 40
Yeah. This was definitely worth immunity.
Now, what next?
TeddySanFran @ 170
I was afraid of that. I had hoped there was a legal reason. Sigh. The Dems just kill me.
Bustednuckles @ 93
Yes.
JGabriel @ 188
And that is just for starters, since there are other federal employment codes that were violeted. IANAL, but I do know that it is illegal to discriminate against a potential hire based on political or party affiliation.
as i see it, her immunity maybe won’t last long… when the written questions come in, even the best lawyers, paid or not, can only help her to a) answer, b) answer wrongly, or c) not answer. and everything except a) may cost her her precious immunity … *after* she already confessed her own misdeeds. this is no court where you have to impress the jury, this is a puzzle. keep yourself calm, keep the others agitated. bot don’t cause panic or you may loose some pieces. soon we’ll have Kyle Sampson back for questioning, ready to admit perjury … or setting the field to hang Abu for perjury. Remember Scooter ? ^^
Monica being discussed on the T. Carlson show on MSNBC.
What kind of Tuckery is this?
I am so curious to find out what’s in the documents that she desperately didn’t want to give up, but acquiesced to give up this morning. (I think it was Christy that gave us the heads-up on that negotiation). I wonder if those documents contain any evidence that proves AG tried to influence her testimony, it shows who had their dirty hands on the politicization of our Justice Department…
Does anyone know if those docs will become public? If they don’t get aired soon, it means they must have some interesting information that the committee doesn’t want to tip their hand.
It’s gonna be an interesting week.
Spirit @ 154
Spirit, I’m thinking the DOJ is in a bit of a tither, a bit off their game of late… to block her immunity they would have had to claim privilege… which she had none being just a clerk, or claim that her immunity would intrude on their own investigation of her… which they were not investigating…
those left to decide these things probably didn’t think she was worth the effort to contrive something…
What I learned today is that the Democratic Party slogan could be: We’re the one’s who aren’t dicks!
I couldn’t believe how awful the Republicans were today. That might go down well with Rush’s listeners but I’ve got to think that most mainstream Americans would think they were a bunch of asshats…
Dick Armey vouching for McNulty’s honesty
neurophius @ 191
Snort!
I always think of “what kind of fuckery is this” whenever Tuckery comes on.
Whats the Link for the new Document Dump?
SnarKassandra @ 64
In a word, no.
FYI there has been a new thread up for a while now, but the topic isn’t Monica.
rayne at 125
thank you for that rayne.
> What am I missing?
The most important thing, apparently:
How much did her haircut cost?
The only thing that could possibly be _more_
important would be blow jobs, but I have the
feeling that Ms. Goodling is unaquainted with
the concept.
“I think ZED is zero in australia or canada or someplace”.
No, Zed is grocery stocker at my local market though I haven’t seen him lately.
Rayne @ 173
Looks like we’re reading her demeanor slightly differently. Goodling’s chattines read to me as nervousness, for the most part. I.E., fear or prosecution.
Her filibuster attempts were kinda lame, and tended to feature a lot more pauses, hemming and hawing, and “I don’t know”’s.
If Elston and Griffin confirm Monica’s caging references, or if there are docs or a trail to confirm it, McNulty’s in bad shape IMO.
looseheadprop
choice comment, best i’ve read all day
SnarKassandra @ 179
Thanks – zed is also a letter of the Roman alphabet. I learned this playing Scrabble with someone who kicks my ass so handily it’s not funny any more. I hate going to her house.
LoneStarLiberal @ 193
We have a Winner!
Best new Democratic slogan I’ve seen in a long time. MUCH better than, well, “We can better.”
Honestly, though, I had the same feeling, numerous times, throughout the day. Thanks for coming up with such a pithy way of stating it.
Cassie:
Zed is zero for most countries that have relation to british english. Usually canada, the UK itself, australia and quite a few of what used to be their colonies. The US is pretty much a brat with keeping to the zero pronunciation.
Oh: surgery went well. I”m mentally able, but sore at the moment. I’m glad to see the hearing bore some fruit.
njr @ 111
November’s elections were -NOT- a surprise to many people in Washington D.C. As early as March it was fairly apparent that House was going to be under Democratic control. The senate looked close to being Democratic as well, but was much harder to call. (Leiberman was part of that reason -part-)
I realize this might not have been the perception in the rest of the country. But everyone I talked to, every poll I saw, confirmed this.
The only groups that disagreed with this sentiment were ones connected to the White House. Which honestly befuddled a lot of people. In the past if Rove said “win”, that meant a win. Instead they lost, and they lost HUGE.
Now why did Rove say that? And why is congress investigating these firings?
Get it? Got it? Good.
dmac @ 200
No problem — some of the nicest things I’ve ever owned were consignment items.
Like my favorite cashmere sweaters. Somebody obviously didn’t like cashmere and I love it but can’t afford it. A Christmas gift somebody hated and took to consignment is now my favorite sweater for $15. They’re happy, I’m happy, it’s a good thing.
i just keep hearing in my head
“liar liar pants on fire”
remember when that used to piss off someone?
called out on a lie, cornered………..rage would ensue……..
i keep hearing that in my head the last few months……..sing songy…
liar liar pants on fire……….the liar would go back to the cave and regroup, humiliated………..republicans, pants on fire………it’s happening………like the speed of it or not, it is happening.
I’ve gotten excellent jeans for costumes/casual wear and a few other items via consignment. It’s really so badly maligned yet the stuff is good almost all the time. Then again, one of my aunts worked for The Salvation Army for most of her life, so i’m very comfy with the whole concept. Digging through bins is a fun thing, sometimes.
aliasofwestgate @ 212
90% of what I own is second hand somehow. Either a second hand store or a friend.
rayne
Like my favorite cashmere sweaters. Somebody obviously didn’t like cashmere and I love it but can’t afford it. A Christmas gift somebody hated and took to consignment is now my favorite sweater for $15. They’re happy, I’m happy, it’s a good thing.
my favorite sweater of all time was from a garage sale, and favorite coat of all time from salvation army………but lately, due to weight gain, medical, need clothes…….friends have told me to go to thrift store to buy clothes, but since money is tight right now, was having a problem with it…….before, i did it, but had money flowin’ didn’t bother me……..but this time it did………another friend reminded me of the sustainability of it, and that resonates big with me, and reminded me of how many things i’ve donated to the same store……….so, thanks for reminding me of the reasonableness of going to the thrift store……..little ray of sunshine you passed my way.
@ 164
What’s Zed?
Zed is dead baby….Zed is dead…
MG’s defense fund has and needs only one contributor. Richard Mellon Scaife
Apologies if someone else already noticed this, and IANAL, but this clip:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/ar…..p#comments
seems to me (and I watched it twice) to be Monica basically admitting that she and Gonzo were trying to get their stories straight in the week or so before she resigned. Am I reading too much into it? Or did she basically just admit that they were trying to subvert the judicial process by colluding on testimony?
Some questions for the peanut gallery:
1. Was it just me, or did Conyers seem a little asleep at the wheel today? (is he always that detatched?)
2. I’m not up on Robert’s Rules, but as Committee Chair, isn’t Conyers allowed to tell people to stop bloviating (like the knucklehead who thought it was a hearing about Jack Murtha threating Republican pork) and to stick to questions that are pertinent to the proceedings at hand?
3. Again a proceedure question (please forgive my ignorance), but couldn’t they just turn the questioning over to one sharp, ex-prosecutor on the committee (Schiff?) and let them have at it? There were one or two good lines of questioning, but a lot of it seemed like political point making rather than the kind of go for the jugular questioning that was clearly required here.
When pressed, MG caved on some critical points. This could have happened more if people hadn’t been so interested in making hay.
Is it only me, or is she kinda hot with that little girl soprano voice? I bet she’s an animal in the sack.
ROFLMAO.
Bluetoe @ 216
Did it suddenly get very cold around here?
Sounded to me like her fifth amendment was only about the improper hiring questions but in her opening statement she was trying to give the gift of “caging”. and nobody took up that challenge AT ALL.
She delivered the Gonz, maybe Kyle and McNulty too, and just a few sprinkles of Rove.
Conyers pretty much failed today in management. Rep. Jackson-Lee and Mr. Davis and the gracious Mr. Guitierez and Ms. Wasserman-Schultz were finally able to make a bit of headway and get some of the stuff Out There despite Mr. Conyers’ ineptitude.
Several folks need to come back, e.g., McNulty, maybe Kyle. Also time for the subpoenas to Harriet and Rove.
Mary @ 204
If you have time or the inclination, won’t such testimony, “docs, or trail” pull down Elston, Griffin, and Goodling just as fast as McNulty?
dmac @ 214
Yes, exactly, it’s recycling. And depending on where you shop, there’s more than that going on. My folks, for example, both donate time to St. Vincent de Paul’s thrift shops in two locations (north and south ends of the country). In Florida, t-shirts donated are provided to a nearby charity that concentrates its efforts on the Hispanic community; the shirts are used by produce workers in the fields and are given to them freely. Bedding is provided to some of the migrant workers who often arrive with nothing but the clothes on their backs; what bedding isn’t fit for humans goes to animal shelters.
But much of the clothing is brand new or barely used, and much of it is extremely expensive designer clothing. It’s not suitable for hard working laborers; it sells for little, but the money is turned around and used to help indigent folks with assorted emergency expenses, like rent, power bills, gasoline, fresh food. Often the people helped most are children.
My $15 went to help some family, and I have a fantastic cashmere sweater. Bonus!!
Conyers looks old and tired and out of it. Sad.
This whole thing is a cover-up about CAGING and the 2008 elections. Rove’s creepy little clone down in Arkansas hiding under a slimy rock and gunning for Hillary
You dont know me @ 219
It’s just you.
nuncamas @ 222
I was thinking the same thing about Conyers. Wtf, where did he have to be so badly that he left the hearing with someone else at the helm for a minute. Geesh! Have a frickin clue, Conyers! And I don’t remember him cutting off one repub the whole day the way he did with the dems, even when they deserved it.
This was a hearing, not an investigation. It had all of the earmarks of a hearing – unfocused questioning, no laying of a foundation for pointed inquiry, a lack of co-ordinated agenda(s). But you don’t grant use immunity for a hearing. What’s the point? You give the witness every opportunity to escape legal jepardy in exchange for nothing. I fear that the Democrats have their own Monica Goodlings ( inexperienced/ untalented/ partisan/ ideological) running things on their side. Maybe the well of national politics is just dried up.
to: you don’t know me…
perhaps you don’t know, but I think the Average commenter here is a 40ish female, so, with comments like this, they probably WON’T ever want to get to know you.
to: Rayne and dmac, a clear 95% of my clothes are from the thrift store. Everything from fancy down to jeans, and even shoes! But, now I can’t even go window shopping without having a near heart attack when I like at the prices.
Hi y’all-
I have one answer, I think, to the question of where did Conyers have to be. On the evening news (ABC?) there was a piece about hearing on the IRS’s use of private collection companies to pursue money owed to the Treasury. Seems the privates are out of control and cost more than keeping it in-house did. Surprise?!
Anyways, Conyers was heading that committee, I believe. Had the sound low, but it looked like he was chair.
Like we say so often, ya just can’t keep up with the evil these rethugs have done — sometimes, it seems, you have to be in 2 places at once.
223 “If you have time or the inclination, won’t such testimony, “docs, or trail” pull down Elston, Griffin, and Goodling just as fast as McNulty? “
No, not unless Elston was asked and also lied about it.
Goodling has immunity. She says that one thing McNulty lied about is that that he said he knew nothing about the caging issues with respect to Griffin. So did he or did he not lie?
Goodling says she briefed McNulty that the caging issue was out there with respect to Griffin. She’s got immunity, plus she’s just saying she briefed him to be ready for the questions.
Goodling says she got Griffin to send her info (that would be “his side of the story” info on the caging and why he did nothing wrong – and the fact that he sent it to her wouldn’t inclupate him in any way). If Griffin confirms he was asked for it and sent it, that gives a chip of support to Goodling – indirect, but support. Plus there’s probably a trail of him sending it in some way.
Goodling says she discussed this with Elston, McNulty’s COS. Again, there’s nothing inculpatory about them discussing that caging charges have been made about Griffin and how to respond to them. Again, there may be some paper trail.
So then you have her going with McNulty to the hearing, he excludes her from the hearing, and when asked about Griffin and caging he pleads sheer ignorance.
The circumstantial and possibly documentary support that Griffin and Elston could provide to Goodling’s version make it pretty hard for McNulty to win the “he said/she said” on that and don’t really take skin off Elston’s or Griffin’s nose.
IMO, FWIW
Excellent work today by the reporting team and bloggers. Many thanks.
No. Zed is the letter z. Americans say zee. The countries you mention say zed.
Zero is zero, or aught or naught or oh.
Conyers is on Daily Kos about Monica II.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…..184541/682
Thanks very much Mary, extremely helpful, as per usual.
At this point they should not even ask Abu back. Subpoena Miers (not rove, yet) and let Abu beg to come in and correct the record.
Maybe I got this wrong as I didn’t watch Hardball tonight, just the clips on MSNBC, but it appears that Chris missed the story on Monica because his “on the scene guy” left early as he is getting married! Anyway, I almost left the party early, too, as I looked in the pond and saw no new fish. But, Davis’ fireworks at the end were missed by many! Great example of the problems caused by the news deadlines for getting Pablum to read with an attitude and good looks.
“What am I missing?”
Probably not much. But with all of the evidence from the circular firing squad of Gonzales, Goodling, Sampson and McNulty, in ordinary times would not one ask for a special prosecutor to sort out who has perjured themselves and who hasn’t?
But of course, these are not ordinary times, and the people named are virtually the entire senior level of main DOJ. So who would oversee the special prosecutor?
Alternatively, one could ask the Office of Special Counsel to do the job. For example, IIRC, they just indicted Loreta Doan for perjury(?). But their charge is subject to review by . . . . The White House!
So who has enough independence to investigate these crooks and liars?
Bob in HI
TeddySanFran @ 75
That’s strange. Just how were they “correcting … errors”?
Nancy Pelosi’s performance is pretty abysmal by itself. Read her groveling speech before AIPAC just after the 2006 election. She is a traitor.
Rep. Conyers has steadfastly done the right thing for decades.
I love and respect Congressman Conyers. He started protecting US citizens from ELECTION fraud just after the theft of votes using Diebold by Rove in the fake 2004 Presidential “election”. And he kept at it, even though Kerry disappeared for months after he conceded BEFORE the votes were even counted. Rep. Conyers kept up the pressure on Kerry to sign off on the legal papers so that the Green Party could an attempt at an honest recount, then investigation after the recount was halted and at least, in New Mexico – they started destroying records even though they are supposed to keep sign-in sheets and ballots for a year after an election.
He put up with Senselessbrenners insults, including not allowing a ranking member of the Judiciary to have a meeting room for a hearing on the theft of America votes and having to meet in a basement. Conyers is a true American hero and I will send a snail mail of my appreciation for his work on our behalf.
He seems to be under some great pressure and we all know how the bush regime aka the mafia treats people who try to hold them accountable. I shut off the repukes when they start speaking and the repukes are unbelievable in their turning oversight into a sickening circus. I could not stay in the same room with them for one hour and Conyers has been putting up with the shit we witnessed today for decades and remains one of the very, very few honorable men in our Congress.
CONYERS ALLOWED GOODLING TO FILIBUSTER THE QUESTIONS WITHOUT ANSWERING THEM. THIS WAS A DOG AND PONY SHOW WELL REHEARSED BY MG AND HER COACHES. HE IS BLOWING IT BIG TIME. ANSWER THE QUESTION DO NOT BEAT AROUND THE BUSH.
CONYERS ALLOWED IRRELEVANT NEWS ARTICLES READ. POINT OF ORDER CHAIRMAN. HE GAVE THE REPUBS GREAT TALKING POINTS
[Mod Note; comments in all upper case letters are frequently ignored by other commenters. Although, we do not suggest you switch to emulating ee cummings.]
landofthefree @ 186
Ever heard of Gonzales, McNulty, Sampson & Goodling pie?
Eat ‘em all up, spit ‘em out (get ‘em out of office any way possible), then move on to Lurita “Cookies” Doan. Don’t forget some milk to wash down the cookies!
Along the way collect more and more information that brings us closer to the White House crew.
*ilbo @ 202
Hey, when I was a kid there was a guy who lived down the road named Zero Moore. I kid you not. I always wondered if he had a cousin named Lester “Les” Moore. Woulda been very hick cool. Maybe there could be another relative named Lot Moore. The possibilities are nearly infinite.
jayt @ 78
Oh, there’s one I can answer from personal experience.
No.
No, no, and. speaking for the other guy here….no.
theExile @ 82
I find the level of your comment uncalled for.
McNulty can’t touch Goodling, no one can touch Goodling. Goodling is free and clear. Don’t even waste time dreaming up ways to prosecute her. It is Not going to happen.
Goodling gave answers, she was responsive, she didn’t “forget” everything. Thus far, she’s been the most forthcoming witness to openly testify regarding this matter. A lot of the questions were horrible, but that is not her fault.
Unless she told complete fabrications she is in absolutely no jeopardy of ever being prosecuted for any of her DOJ conduct. There may be a few revelations she didn’t reveal because of the poor questions and (criminal) lack of follow up questions, but that’s not her fault either.
The form of immunity she was granted only immunizes her actual testimony. If she was aware of illegal acts and did not mention them, she would have to be a bat-shit insane modern-day G Gordon Liddy. Goodling is no Liddy. People like Liddy don’t draw attention to themselves by requesting immunity. People like Liddy just show up with the rest of the crowd and lie their asses off.
And even if what she said about McNulty was incorrect or misremembered, she’ll never be prosecuted for it. It’s a he-said, she-said. And since Sampson would likely side with her, McNulty is the one running a (very small) risk of perjury.
Bottom line: Immunity and prosecution do not mix, not since the Oliver North precedent.
To quote the Iran Contra, Ollie North findings:
{The Oliver North precedent indicates}”an absolute deterrent of any prosecution after a grant of immunity in a high-profile case.”
And to think the Congress once again went down the immunity road without a proffer.. =shakes head= Things could have turned out a lot worse than they did. At least Goodling didn’t cop to every crime committed by the White House.
For those still skeptical regarding Goodlings Freeness and Clearness from future prosecution, here’s the Iran Contra summation regarding congressional immunity grants: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/part_x.htm
Snark alert:
Does anyone else see the resemblance between Monica’s lawyer and Quasimodo, as played by Charles Laughton, in “The Hunchback of Notre Dame”?
He may be a great lawyer, but that’s a face only a mother could love.
Mmulligatawny @ 245
Mulligatawny:
It was coarse, but the really offensive comments were from those who chatted completely off topic about clothes buying
I think many 40ish women are hot as well, if that makes it any better.
D. Moore @ 229
what gets me is that the R’s on the panel got only one thing right. yale and hahvaard are freakin’ xtian schools! he had to remind us just how ingrained the godmyth crutch really is in ALL the major colleges in our country. darn.
on top of that, moanica is just the tip of the corruption iceburg, there are probably thousands just like her still in the bushco “government”.
must be tired and cynical. hope upon hope that bush/cheney/rove/miers/hughes and now fielding are just as disturbed about this as i am.
i hope they are not sleeping either.
justice means never having to say you remember.
Monica’s testimony made it abundantly clear that the decisions to fire up to 12 US Attorneys were made by the White House. On to Harriet and Karl.