Tweet
The Inspector General for the Department of Justice has decided to expand his investigation into the US Attorney purge.
In a letter dated May 30, 2007 (PDF), Inspector General Glenn Fine and H. Marshal Jarrett, Counsel, Office of Professional Responsibility write to Senators Leahy and Specter informing them of the expansion of the investigation to include:
…allegations regarding improper political or other considerations in hiring decisions within the Department of Justice (DOJ). Among the issues that we intend to investigate are allegations regarding Monica Goodling's and others' actions in DOJ hiring and personnel decisions; allegations concerning hiring for the DOJ Honors Program and Summer Law Intern Program; and allegations concerning hiring practices in the DOJ Civil Rights Division.
Wow, if I were someone who did not yet have an immunity deal, or if I were someone who only had use immunity and who might not have fessed up yet to every single law I broke, I might be worried.
Jason Leopold interviewed David Iglesias over at Truthout.
Iglesias had several interesting questions that he wished the Committee had asked Goodling, including whether she broke any other laws. Hmmm?
One item missing from the joint investigation's letter was any mention of investigating improper considerations used in hiring AUSAs. Folks, this is such a huge NoNo. I think maybe Fine and Jarrett need to consider expanding their investigation yet again.
163 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
zed? 2x in a day??
looseheadprop!
looseheadprop!!!
Just for idle curiosity, how many times do you figure AL-VIN fibbed yesterday? ;})
Yay! LHP! Missed your posts and now to go back and actually read it….
OMG! rwcole or Blub are you here?
Hi all,
I really recommend you take a few minutes and whatch the Inglesias inteview.
Sounds like a guy who knows how to investigate a criminal case, eh? I think he braought up some really good points.
I also wonder how many of those quaestions he has already heard the answer to ( law enforcemnt is notortiously gossipy ) and is trying to push that info into the public sphere by posing these questions.
Inglesias in this interview reminds me of Graves’ testimony yesterday
dakine01 @ 3
I didn’t see the testimony!!! Arrrggghhh! And Csapn did not have a repeat last night (I checked) double Arrgghh!
Sunshine, I love it. May we all need SPF 100
LHP – this isn’t one of those investigations that blocks other investigations is it? By that I mean DOJ personnel can’t hide behind this expanded investigation in order to not abide by requests from SJC.
Iglesias is reading the blogs!
At TPM:
Iglesias Finds Schlozman’s Testimony Unbelievable
LHP when I asked why McNulty resigned are you the one who said that you think that Scheumer/Leahy have something up their sleeves?
I still do not get why McNulty resigned if Goodling/Sampson by-passed him on many of their decisions or process.
I am still wondering how McNulty’s resignation effected the A*P*C/ Rosen espionage trial/hearing. The MSM and the blogspshere is completely silent on this scandal/trial. Have not searched today, but yesterday there was 0 about this upcoming hearing. Does anyone know whether it was delayed for the 6th time.
Is McNulty still involved?
looseheadprop @ 7
sorry, no video… but if you want mp3’s of yesterday’s hearing, here they are (scroll down to #7)
edit – and here’s the streaming video from c-span.
Gnome de Plume @ 9
Not that I am aware of. However, I put nothing past Abu and he may try to pull a stunt like that.
lhp, it’s nice to have you back. I can’t wait to see them tumble, one after the next.
I wrote Issa’s office on Monday (faxed) that I would like to meet with Issa to talk with the good rep., and heard back today that his District Director would like to meet with me on Friday. I think that they know I wrote Judge Walton, which is fine, because they have access to both signatures.
Do you think I should meet with the DD, or hold out for a meeting with Issa. I’m kinda freaked for some reason.
Loohoo
I’m here
looseheadprop @ 7
I watched it early this morning on CSPAN 1
Is this the Alvin you are looking for Schlozmann.
http://12.170.145.161/search/b…..ext=firing
First paragraph
looseheadprop @ 6
I saw Graves’ testimony last night. VERY impressed.
legal question.. my understanding is that “use immunity” granted to Commissar Goodling covers only potential self-incrimination arising from her testimony before the commission.. presumably, if she broke any other laws while serving as shrub’s political inquisitor at Justice (to Iglesias’ point) she can still be prosecuted, right?
looseheadprop @ 7
It was on very late. I watched it online with Suzanne and some others. It ran until 1:00 am MST on CSPAN-1, which means they should video of it as well on their website.
Watching the interview with Iglesias here (and on ‘Real Time’ with Maher), he reminds me of Todd Graves. It’s about the law, not the politics.
sorry.. by commission I meant, before the committee
TexB @ 19
no nonsense
looseheadprop @ 7
They had it but it was at 12:30AM EDT. Some folks re-blogged it on late nite. I’m sure the replay is available and I’m pretty sure that C&L AND TPM both have at least some high lights.
It was an incredible contrast seeing AL-VIN and his chipmunk/helium voice trying to answer the questions and THEN seeing Todd Graves come in as a professional right after with ALL the facts and informatin rolling off his tongue in complete, articulate sentences.
One of Graves’ best lines was after Whitehouse had asked hom about participation in the MO legal community and he had provided some of his committees and interacttion, Whitehouse asked about if he had known AL-VIN at all before being replaced. Graves replied that he’d had some dealings with him on a MO civil rights mediation for a cross burning which the main DoJ tried to overrule but Graves got his way. Whitehouse then asked if AL-VIN was know in the MO legal community and Graves said not really but that he understood that AL-VIN had some high school connections. Priceless snark and slap down said most politely.
looseheadprop @ 7
I found it here, scroll down to to about #9, it’s not quite 2 1/2 hours
Thank you, looseheadprop!
What do you think of Inspector General Glenn Fine and H. Marshal Jarrett, Counsel, Office of Professional Responsibility? You imply that they can be relied upon to investigate responsibly. But as the last 4 months have shown us, I am reluctant to trust almost anything the DOJ does. Are Fine & Jarrett reasonably independent of Rove’s tentacles? Or will they just obfuscate and interfere with other investigations?
The good side, for me, is that these guys can actually issue indictments, and you know, like, throw people in the slammer. But do they have to get approval from Bush to actually issue indictments and bring people to trial???
Also, I keep forgetting: is the OPR the unit that makes its findings public, or the one that doesn’t?
Not to pile on, but have you checked out
Treasongate: Beyond Karl Rove?
Bob in HI
Loo Hoo. @ 14
I’d say you should go ahead and meet with the DD… no telling when Issa himself would be available. Is he your congresscritter? or are you in an adjoining district?
Via TPM commenter Rebel, a URL (pdf) to a doc written by Craig Donsanto entitled The Federal Crime of Election Fraud.
From pg 6 read the heading:
What investigative procedures should be avoided in in election fraud matters?
Then look at the 2nd underlined paragraph:
Non-interference in elections:
Of course, EVERY single committee member knew this before Alvin testified, which is likely why not a single Gooper–not even Arlen–showed up. They just let the Dems have at him.
Kathleen @ 11
What may be happening–and I really don’t know this,but it’s fun to speculate, is a scenario something like this:
McNulty (who had to be confirmed as DAG by the Senate) resigns. Now there is no DAG. WH is afraid to send a real hack to the SJC to replace him. You notice there is no nominee for this important spot yet?
IF, if if, the WH sends an actual decent law abiding lawyer (a slim chance, but a chnace) then they can impeach Abu with gusto.
If the WH does not send a decent nominee for the open DAG slot and they impeach Abu (or he finally cracks and resigns) there is no head to DOJ because that person has to be confirmed by the Senate.
Oh, that would be embarassing.
Something is up. I genuinely don’t know what it is, but that fact that McNulty resigned while attending a conference of all the USA’s, in short, when surrounded by ans supported by his peeps, his homeys–means something.
Something happened or is happening. I am having a great time beating my own brains out trying to figure out what
This goes with the letter I posted above. From Leahy’s site: Link
Blub @ 26
He’s my very own, Blub.
Loo Hoo. @ 14
Do you have reason to believe that Issa will actually see you? DD may be the best you get.
What are you planning to do in this meeting, chastise him for his role inte USA massacre?
Woodhall Hollow @ 28
“carrion, my wayward son”
Kathleen @ 18
Watched the whole hearing. Leahy will not be “cheney’d”. He must have said “subpoena” 20 times.
I swear Leahy looks like the god that I grew up hearing about at Catholic schools. But in my heaven god will look like Leahy or Helen Thomas. Maybe there will be a two headed god in heaven, both Leahy and Thomas together laying down the law.
During the hearing I could not quite figure out why Feinstein seemed to get perturbed with Leahy.
punaise @ 32
LOL!
looseheadprop @ 6
B-b-b-ut in the last thread, egregious told us that Leopold was a very bad boy, and the prodigal son, and we shouldn’t let him back into the family?
Bob in HI
Via Truthout:link
Kathleen @ 33
I love his impish smile
Blub @ 20
If a prosecutor can prove that he already had a case before she testified, or that his disocvery of the the incriminating evidence was inevitable without her testimony, she can be prosecuted even for the things she testified about.
In addition, she can be prosecuted for anything she did not testify about however, if she mentioned something that lead to the discovery of other crimes during her immunized testimony, and it would not have been discovered otherwise, she is likely in the clear, but that will turn on really fine disticntions in the facts.
Really? I missed that. Maybe he got so carried away that he “stole” some of her material (it was obvious that someone has taken the FDL consensual (snark intended) recommendation to heart and planned their attack–my guess is that Whitehouse is the strategist in this respect.
Or maybe she was just generally pissed, that is not really at Leahy?
Thanks Elliot, I just emailed the link to myself and will have fun watching it later tonight. If I ever actually leave my office and go home. Sigh
Loo Hoo. @ 31
my sympathies…
I’m in the 53rd.. Davis’ office is usually reasonably responsive.. ‘course I imagine the fact that she’s not evil, helps :)
I think meeting with your critter’s DD is fine. Even in professional lobbying work, meetings at that level are the norm for routine contacts.. your goal is to register your views with the Member and perhaps to provide some suggestions (in terms of policy or strategy) that might conceivably impact the member’s position on legislation or oversight. The DD may even be better than the member himself, especially if he has a good personal connect with the member’s leg director.
Kathleen @ 34
I thought I’d missed something, but I saw it again last night. (I didn’t watch the entire thing, some of what I had seen earlier in the day and what I missed when I went off to work.)
Originally I thought I’d missed something, but watching again, I was still clueless as to what transpired…’you brought it up’ – ‘no, you did’ ….??
looseheadprop @ 31
Mainly the occupation, but his Carol Lam letter and his vote against class action suits as well. Christy asked us to contact our folks Monday morning.
punaise @ 33
Are you suggesting that he was dead meat? :-)
Sometimes I see your pun before I see your name, and I think “Hey, that sounds like punaise!” faster than my eyes can scroll upwards. :-)
Bob in HI
OT-Sorry but I was EPU’d
This is from the last thread. I read it late. Why did he say JW should go to jail?
At JTA “Libby leads Jews pleading leniency for Libby-without success”
http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iow…..libby.html
Bob Schacht @ 26
I don’t know either of them personally. I think they have been taking a fairly conservative approach, you know–really bulletproof positions that are well supported in fact and law.
Not the raw meat you may hope for. That being said, you may recall the hissy fit I took when the WH would not grant security clearances to OPR to allow them to investigate mishandling of classified material.
The letter that they wrote was IMHO a stinging indictment of the the ethical situation and essentially accused the Wh of obstruction of their investigation. In not such polite language either.
They showed some cojones as John Dean would say
What’s anybody else’s take on Scott Bloch? I don’t fully trust him (but his appearance and bearing is very much my ex father-in-law’s — albeit younger — so I’m a bit distracted by that.)
Israel and the “cakewalk in Iraq” zealots have a year to pre-emptively strike Iran before the Bush administration is hopefully dust.
AT JTA
Israel wants nuclear deadline for Iran (breaking news)
Israel will propose to the United States an end-of-year deadline for Iran to show it is backing down from its nuclear ambitions.
Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz, who heads the Israeli team in the U.S.-Israel strategic dialogue, said he would propose the deadline Thursday, when the dialogue participants meet for the second time this year.
“Sanctions must be strong enough to bring about change in the Iranians by the end of 2007,” Mofaz told a group of Hebrew-speaking reporters after meeting Wednesday with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Mofaz also said that it was his understanding that the United States was prepared to lead a separate bid to increase sanctions against Iran if the U.N. Security Council does not authorize new sanctions.
Bob Schacht @ 36
Not Leopold’s questions!!!
Inglesias’s questions.
Near the end of the interview, Inglesias posed a series of questions that he would like to see answered publicly.
AZ Matt @ 37
OOOhhh! That could be interesting. Very interesting.
Read this article about Iran last night forgot to post it.
“Iran past the paranoia” by Peter Hitchens
http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_06_04/cover.html
Elliott @ 38
Leahy almost lost it at one point. He was actually yelling at Alvin, and was bellowing like an angry
elephant–er, rhinoceroslion! [Hmmm. Maybe rhino is the right metaphor. Y’know, like when they get a bead on you just before rushing at you like an armored freight train? I got the feeling that Leahy was about ready to do that!]Bob in HI
looseheadprop @ 51
Inglesia’s questions the best, to the point, on target! He is pissed!
Bob Schacht @ 45
road kill for the vulChairs of the Committee
Bob Schacht @ 53
It was a joy to behold!
AZ Matt @ 37
SAT Question: Which one of the following four words does not belong with the other three:
Republican environmental advocacy group ?
allan_in_upstate @ 57
Republican?
Bob Schacht @ 54
Leahy’s head looked like it was going to explode, fire coming out of his eyes. He looked like Charlton Heston (Moses) when he came down from talking to god and everyone was partying and honoring a “golden calf”
Leahy has had enough of the lies, spin and horseshit! I thought he might jump out of his seat he was so angry. The people directly behind him were stone faced, they knew he might strangle anyone in his reach.
looseheadprop @ 48
Actually, no I don’t. When did you write that? I think you wrote it before I discovered FDL. What has happened to that investigation? Any chance of reviving it? If security clearances are required, would the SSCI take a look at it? Of course, they cannot issue indictments, but if that case is not moving at all, maybe they could do *something*?
Bob in HI
Elliott @ 59
Or environmental–there are certainly plenty of Republican Advocacy Groups.
Actually, I think it could go either way
Thanks for the clarification on Goodling’s immunity, Looseheadprop
looseheadprop @ 61
Which is ironic, since I remember when my home state Republican Senator, Bob Stafford, was one of the Senate’s most ardent environmentalists. And he was not so-much of an oddity then. It was a time when it wasn’t so much about party as geography. Urban-Industrial vs rural.
looseheadprop @ 62
On the other hand, perhaps it’s just opposite day, like clear skies etc.
Bob Schacht @ 61
I don’t thinkI wrote a front page post abt it, but I certainly had a little meltdown about it. There may even have been some unprofessional language involved (blushing and looking down at tops of shoes)
The White House refused to issue security clearances to the lawyers in OPR, so they couldn’t investigate.
Istead of just taking it quietly, they wrote a letter saying that they were being denied the tools (the clearances) they needed to do their jobs–and then sent it publicly.
That took some stones. And this was quite a while ago, before it was fahionable to call bullshit on Bushco. So I admired that act.
Bob in HI is speaking about my views, perhaps you would like to see them first hand.
Bob in HI: “So I think that Leopold haters (that is what you are, isn’t it? That’s what you sound like, anyway) are cutting off your noses to spite your faces.”
egr comments:
original sin:
Speaking of false witness and/or lying about other people, in case anyone here was thinking about letting Jason Leopold back into the family—here are his tags for Murray Waas’s new book: bad book, delusional, loser, murray waas is a liar, plagiarism, plagiarist, propaganda, waas is a dirtbag, waas sucks, waas the liar
my response:
Bob,
I did not identify myself as a “Leopold hater” = your term. I was reporting what was appearing at book review sites about Murray’s latest and found this, which I thought would be interesting data to share with fellow firedoglake folks.
If you have read my comments over the years you will know that as a Christian I do not hate anyone as a matter of principle, altho the person who carjacked and murdered the Marine trombone player Dale Fredericks comes pretty close as I am from a music family with a trombone player who served in the armed forces and who personally knew Dale.
Please don’t put words in my mouth. I am bringing information forward for other people to evaluate. I honor your relationship with him and if you feel I am way, way off base I would like to hear why. Thank you for considering my ideas and I am open minded and ready to hear yours.
*******
In the interests of domestic peace, this is my last comment on the subject.
Schlozman, Abramoff, Gonzo, Goodling… How many damn wheels have to fall off that freakin’ wagon until someone in the MSM wakes up and says “He’s dead, Jim”???
…And until the requisite number of Representatives report out a Bill of Impeachment and 67 votes can be mustered in the Senate? How many more outrages need to be exposed, how many more troops and how many more thousands of Iraqis, need to die?
Meanwhile I am stocking up on mucho popcorn in anticipation of the runup to the Gotterdammerung.
Interesting..
“Iraq will become Hillary’s war”
http://thehill.com/dick-morris…..06-06.html
Hagel in trouble?
http://www.nysun.com/article/55981
looseheadprop @ 62
Two answers? OK, so I shouldn’t expect to be hired by ETS.
Speaking of Goodling and immunity. There is a new doc dump at TPM. Read the 2nd collection.
Now I don’t have a precise recall of what I recall about Goodling’s testimony, but I do seem to remember that she testified that she didn’t have much to do with the delegation of AG authority which gave her and Kyle the power to hire and fire.
These emails seem to say otherwise.
LHP–would this sort of thing endanger her immunity? If my memory about her testimony is right, that is?
S.O.S. from MA @ 68
Nothing on the PBS News Hour yesterday or today about Schlozman. And the WaPo deep-sixed it.
Kathleen @ 68
Well, that is interesting about Hagel. If the Gooper base pulls this off, my prediction is that Nebraska will elect a new Dem senator.
S.O.S. from MA @ 68
They need someone to lie about a b j under oath, then they will start impeachment proceedings. Until that happens the long list of lies, deaths, destruction and corroption that this administration has been the source of is just not enough!
allan_in_upstate @ 69
in all fairness allan, I responded before you edited your comment, otherwise I would have said “environmental”
Bob,
IG’s have a weird existance. You are their to investigate your own boss..
So obviously, your boss has an inherent conflict of interest whenever dealing with you.
I can’t remeber, was it Dept. of General Services? About a year or so ago, the IG got into a public brawl with his Departemtn’s Cabinet Secy.
She wa trying to cut his buget–and my favorite–outsource his investigations to a contractor she had chosen without following the bidding rules.
I would have laughed myself silly if I saw that in a movie plot. Seeing it in real life made me so queasy.
I’ve been counsel to an IG, I know the difficulties of that world. Consequently IG’s tend to be very cautious and make sure they do not go out on a limb.
Kinda like PatFitz bringing a plain vanilla case he KNEW he could win.
You only get on shot to strike at the king. If you don’t kill he king with that one blow, the king kills you. This is seared into the brain of every IG
I should probably add that I don’t particularly wish prison on a munchkin-level tool like Goodling. She’s no Scooter.. I just would like to see sufficient leverage found against her to get her to ‘fess up about her bosses and give us more ammunication to send Abu to the career woodshed…
Kathleen @ 73
The funny thing about the whole Clinton perjury thing is that, in his case, there really was no underlying crime. Adultery is not illegal. Outing a covert CIA agent–esp when you hold a high level security clearance–is!
(not to defend Clinton’s lies–I was really pissed off at him about it. Still am, on some level)
S.O.S. from MA @ 68
I was a kid during Watergate. It was the first time in my life that I paid attetnion to the news (now of course I am such a news junki I will soon need an inpatient news rehab program).
But I remeber saing almost the same thing to my parents. WHEN WILL THEY FINALLY HAVE ENOUGH?
I was so frustrated. Since then, I have had tow experiences that changed my perspective:
1) actually doing criminal cases and realizing that you really really want to be absolutely sure you have a prosecutable case before you shoot your wad; and
2) tracking a bill or two through the legislature and seeing how hard it is to get needed votes
hvaing both obstacles does not result in 1 2, it results in 1 x 2
Sure did not hear about this in the MSM.
http://english.aljazeera.net/N…..52385A.htm
I called C-SPAN this afternoon re: replays of the
Judiciary hearing. After being told it aired twice last night plus twice on C-SPAN3 and that would probably be it, I whined a bit about middle of the night, dial-up, etc.
They actually called me back tonight and left a message. It will be shown again, no earlier than Fri. Most likely this weekend – still working on the schedule. Well worth calling when something seems slighted. 202/737-3220.
Their online schedule isn’t always perfect, but worth keeping an eye on.
Hope I didn’t screw up the link.
Apology
egregious @ 67
Dear egregious,
Thank you. Your correction is accepted, and I apologize for mischaracterizing your remarks.
I try to be a Christian, too.
No more words need be said about this.
My apologies again,
Bob in HI
Woodhall Hollow @ 71
I’m confused. I thought at one point she was saying that she didn’t even know that this authority had been delegated to her.
Am I misrembering?
Cause if I am remebering correctly, that would be a much more clear cut circumstance. She would have to have been insane to testify that way if ahe knew she sent or recieved emails.
Huh?????
looseheadprop @ 79
I guess my question is when and under what circumstances will/should the independent counsel law come into play here? And what needs to happen to appoint such a counsel?
SunnyNobility @ 81
You can watch it on line here
http://12.170.145.161/search/b…..ext=firing
If and when someone goes after Rove, let me know.
LHP–a Libby question I have been wanting to ask you for a couple of days.
EW thinks that Scooter may find some friends on the DC Circut Court of Appeals (which is ironic, since my grandfather served on it, earlier in the century and he would be rolling in his grave if he knew anything about this). If, say, Scooter got some relief from them, would Fitz be able to appeal the appeal and take it to the Supremes?
I wonder because one would think that it would put the court in an interesting situation, since the ability to charge perjury and obstruction of justice is such a key weapon in a prosecutor’s arsenal.
Though my personal opinion is that none of the Libby camp ever thought they’d really have to file an appeal. They were counting on a much easier pardon. Funny how life changes so unexpectedly.
looseheadprop @ 82
Well, I seem to recall something along the lines of what you seem to recall. Which is that she played really dumb about the issue.
The emails are really worth a read. In one she instructs that it be sent back up to her “outside normal channels.”
!!!!
So if all this is so, what about her immunity?
Loyal Bushies are closely watching what happens to Scooter. If he actually goes to jail, they may not be quite so loyal. Of course, the Decider will be too busy thumping his chest to notice their change in attitude until it’s too late.
an act of God for Gulianni
http://news.independent.co.uk/…..621814.ece
looseheadprop @ 76
Yes, your memory is accurate. Your “she” = Lurita Doan. Your IG example came out in her testimony, I believe.
Thanks for your informative reply!
Bob in HI
allan_in_upstate @ 72
I used to set my watch by the NewsHour. Never missed it.
Now I can barely stand to whatch it. It has become a charicature of it’s former self. Several years ago, I was at a breakfast where Jim Lerher was the keynote speaker and I had a nice long talk with Bill Baker. He kept referrng darkly to how much pressure PBS and especailly the NewsHour were under form the government. At first I thought he meant funding cutbacks, but as the conversation progressed, he said it was more than that.
I did not press him and came away totaly mystified. I have often wondered what exactly is going on with the news division at PBS.
For example how Moyers came to leave, and how he came back.
I think there is backstory there as well, but doubt we will hear any of it until there is a Dem in the WH, if ever.
Just getting here, LHP, but I want to point out a diary at dkos detailing the participation of Fred Malek. Very interesting, and I hadnt heard the name before. Looks like this guy has been pushing for agency and justice politization since Nixon.
Of cource he’s a loyal Bushie.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/6/182434/8934
SunnyNobility @ 81
Bless you, bless you, a thousand times bless you my child!
Bob in HI
Thank you. Peace be with you. Let us fight the common enemy and not each other.
————-egregious
Blub @ 84
There is no more Independant Counsel Law. It expired.
OT – Re: “Don’t ask don’t tell”
Wolf gets spanked, again…
BLITZER: Politically speaking, Congressman, who has got the stronger political stance on this sensitive issue?
ARMEY: I don’t know.
This issue, to me, is such a trivial thing. I will tell you, it is not — it is not for you to require me to be interested in your sex life, and it’s not for me to want to be interested. Why would you even know if, in fact, people are doing their job?
But what distressed me when I watched this segment was that we have a big issue that is so much bigger in retirement security in America. We should expect presidential candidates to be spending their time and energy on something like this.
This issue, to me, is obnoxious in its triviality. And it should just go away. The fact is, whether you’re gay or straight, what your love life is, are you cheating on your wife, it is, fundamentally, none of my business.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRA…..om.01.html
egregious @ 95
Amen, Sister!!! *g*
Bob in HI
“If you think Bush is evil now wait until he nukes Iran”
http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=11084
Blub @ 77
I disagree for if she isn’t punished now, she’ll keep coming back, just like all the H2Ogate and Iran/Contra players were allowed to creep back onto the scene.
I almost exploded when Senator Leahy exploded. I don’t recall ever before seeing such genuine outrage in Congress. We need more of it.
Betcha no one has shouted at Alvin that way for a long, long time, if ever. Too bad. It might have deterred him from his fibbing ways.
Kathleen @ 98
He is already beyond evil for even considering it. The Goopers have been clamoring for a nuke drop ever since Tora Bora. Sickening.
Woodhall Hollow @ 87
If the Circuit Court overturned the conviction, there would normally be a remand back to the district court for retrial.
One of the exceptions would be if the conviction was overturned b/c the court found that the statute under which the defendant was convicted was unconstitutional (not likely here, perjury and obstruction of justice have been on the book for evah! That’s why I loved PatFitz’s choice of a plain vanilla statute to charge under) then you would take the case up to the Supremes b/cyou need to figure out for shizzle if it is a crime or not.
The closest we come to the second version, is the attack they make on PatFitz’s appointment and whetehre that is constitutional.
Reggie said it had to be, or else there was no logiacl way to hold a high ranking DOJ official accountable if he broke the law.
Sally @ 100
You know what struck me about that hearing? All of the Dems took the role of talking down to him like he was a little boy. It was very effective. They should do it more often, and show the country how real adults behave.
{{{{{{{egregious and Bob in HI)))))))
dakine01 @ 100
Ditto. Goodling may have played the little-girl, small-voice act in front of the committee,
but we have to remember that she (and Schlozman and others) have done
a great deal of damage to the justice system in this country.
looseheadprop @ 91
I’ve been leery of them since back when they didn’t cover the outrageous criminal efforts of ADM to corner the market in lysine, an essential amino acid.
Woodhall Hollow @ 88
Outside normal channels? As in, I know this is illegal and I have consciousness of guilt and am trying to hide my illegalactivities??
OMG!
I really have to squeeze out some time to look at these emails, don’t I?
Kathleen thanks. Unfortunately I’m really unable to view online replays, so I tend to keep an eye on C-SPAN schedules. Tried to send a schedule link, but flunked. Trying again. This is the best I can manage:
http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:
8080/cspan/schedule.csp
looseheadprop—
By the way thanks for your part in saving the nation. Deep thanks.
looseheadprop @ 107
There really aren’t that many–and they are all on one thread so it is pretty easy to follow. Take about 10 minutes max.
dakine01 @ 100
Hold her accountable, so that she can not walk back into a position of power…ever. “alice This woman is dangerous! So sweet as she stabs you in the back
Oh–re the outside normal channels. One of the commenters at TPM thinks that is so that the delegation order doesn’t get recorded at the Official records place (forget to the official name). But the emails do show that she was involved in the drafting process of the order. Which seems to me, to directly contradict her testimony.
So maybe she “forgot” about the emails? LOL.
egregious @ 110
EG, honey, I ddn’t do anything to save anything. I’m just coming hear to vent and to provide a teensy bit of accurate information (when I have it or can look it up) and to share my silly speculations with you all.
I’m searching in the dark, trying to get to the bottom of some pretty dark deeds.
Nope, it’s the Fitz’s and the Comey’s and the masscred USA’s and the Leahy’s and the Nadler’s and all the other folks who are out there in public dong the heavy lifting, while I sit here protected and anonymous, who deserve our praise.
Later Lakers
looseheadprop @ 114
Thanks for the very insightful “speculations”
Kathleen @ 112
hehe.. true. The problem is there’s thousands of little political moles like her, infiltrated through the devices of the one man leninist rethug political machine (Rove) into all corners of the Federal bureaucracy… Ultimately, we’ll need to find all of the little ideologues and purge them… no idea how to do this.
Anyone besides me thinking that Alvin, Monica and Kyle were just dumb enough to forward their e-mails to Greg Palast’s spoof-site?
FYI, new thread
looseheadprop @ 96
New Thread
looseheadprop @ 114
Wrong, in a big way, looseheadprop! I read here enough to value the experience and expertise behind your comments and posts. It is indeed a small but important part of saving this country! It pushes the rest of us forward with more knowledge and vigor that what we are doing is right.
Woodhall @ 104, too bad the Republics weren’t there to witness grown-ups in action. They should have left Bush the way they left poor pitiful Alvin to suffer alone the righteous wrath of Leahy and Company.
Let’s hope Leahy will repeat his performance should Gonzales ever appear under oath before him again.
Hey, lhp, great post — but will this add to the “ongoing investigation, so we can’t comment” soup?
Also, did you see that Froomkin mentioned Anthony Fauci’s letter on official stationery in his chat today?
Breaking: Cheney Blocked Justice Official’s Promotion After Eavesdropping Furor
Just read LHP, and watched the interview.
HOLY CONSTITUTIONAL BATSHIT!!!!
What great stuff!
After yesteday’s SJC Hearing with Baby Schloz wetting his pampers, and Todd Graves hanging the entire DOJ, the Iglesias interview, and a letter from Fine/Jarrett . . . I’m smelling roasted thugs over open fires!!!
Great posting LHP, thanks so much . .
looseheadprop @ 76
The IG you are remembering is IG at GSA. His battle was with Lurita Doan, the cookie lady who is now fighting with Scott Bloch about her Hatch Act violations Bloch wants to report to the Preznit.
And the Italia Federici person is, iirc, the former girlfriend of the Interior Dept fellah who just married his housemate in order to avoid having her testify against him. Looking over at tpm muckraker for the details on this….
C’mon get real.
First of all: Jason Leopold. Do we have to go there?
Second: The “expanded” investigation is obviously being expanded to go DOWN the chain of command, not up. No mention of the WH involvement angle, you’ll notice. So let’s not get all excited, unless I’m misreading you. The “expanded” investigation is nothing but a dilatory tactic designed to insulate the Executive Branch officials who created the problem in the first place.
Woodhall Hollow @ 10
SWEET READ! *GRIN*
From: Goodling, Monica
Sent: Thursday, January 19,2006 7:15 PM
To: Corts, Paul R
Dump 2-Page 11
Subject: RE: AG Delegations
Please do a deagation from AG to his Chief of Staff and the White House Liason, by position titles.
OK to send directly up to me, outside of system. Thank you.
ccmask @ 129
BINGO! That’s the one.
The delegation — it becomes clearer in other emails also involves that which was conferred upon her and Kyle re hiring and firing. At least that is how I read it.
Now, did little Monica commit perjury at Waxman’s hearing? Need to wade through transcripts (bet her lawyer already is!).
AZ Matt @ 17
BINGO!!!!
I’m suspicious of some of these documents. There are dates missing on letters, and the underlining seems very irregular.
What I remember about Monica’s testimony is that she thought they were correcting or making right something that had been ongoing prior to the delegation.
Regarding Cheney and the non-promotion if you don’t do the illegal thing I want you to do. Hmmmm….that ain’t right.
What thugs. End it.
Kathleen @ 99
Someone should take the infamous black box away from the Preznit and hide it for the next two years. Could be trust Gates? I know we can’t trust Bush, Cheney, Rove or Gonzales.
Bob in HI
Sally @ 101
Hmm. Do ya suppose Abu Gonzo might have raised his voice with Alvin *after* Alvin’s testimony?
*g*
Bob in HI
LS @ 132
IIRC, originally the delegation was intended to confer upon her and Kyle the power to hire political operatives, but that later it was changed to cover only civil employees.
But still, she seemed to act like she had nothing to do with ANY of it. That is unless I don’t recall my recollection of the testimony.
Bob Schacht @ 134
Gates wanted to bomb everybody during Iran Contra! They are the same criminals – the same players. Iran Contra criminals are in control of our country. This whole Putin thing is theater. I believe Putin is just as much a neocon as the others. It is smoke and mirrors as the circle tightens. IMHO
Monica Goodling became White House liaison in April 2006, the month after Gonzales signed the order.
Blub @ 77
I know I’m EPU’ing, but I couldn’t pass up a reply to this.
Goodling needs the heaviest book possible thrown at her. If this isn’t done now, she will become a hybrid beast inside the next 10 years of the worst sort — half Comstock, half Libby. She has to be checked short now or we will reap a truly nasty harvest in about 2 terms with this one. Think Iran-Contra and the continuing repurcussions.
Woodhall 136, I’m not sure she remembered it, but she justified it as if it had to be done to make something right. I think that is how she described it, but you know, we all add our own little creative dialog into what we remember!!!
I had not known that Cheney was so involved in this until now. D’oh….
John Dowd, an attorney for Goodling, said in an interview that it was “absolutely untrue” that his client was ever delegated the authority outlined in the confidential March 1, 2006 order signed by the attorney general. “She had no authority,” Dowd said, “My God, she was an assistant to the chief of staff to the attorney general. She was an assistant to the assistant.” An attorney for Sampson, Brad Berenson, said that his client was not available for comment for this story.
ccmask @ 138
But, didn’t she work with him for a while prior to that or did I invent that?
ccmask @ 140
LOL!
Well, lets hope that Leahy hauls her up to the Senate for testimony 2.0, where she will undergo some real questioning by some real adults. And soon!
LS @ 142
No, I believe you are right.
LS @ 141
Yes, she has been at DoJ for awhile (except for a short stint getting some real lawyer experience in VA) for a number of years.
I love this story, as bad as it is. I must be mental.
AZ Matt @ 17
great post, LHP! — the expanding
investigation, and the below, need
to be counter-punched by DoJ, so. . .
could it be that the above letter,
hinting at tampering with witnesses,
and hinting at perjury by alberto
gonzales — largely on the word of
ms. monica goodling – has engendered
a new DoJ document dump, aimed at further
eroding ms. goodling’s credibility?
i plainly think so.
so, when we couple the above-letter, and the
related hearing transcript excerpts from
goodling and gonzales — WITH the document
dump of this evening — over at TPM, we see
a picture emerging. . .
oh, yeah — dick hertling has
turned over some more e-mail
to more fully-implicate ms.
monica goodling as a central par-
ticipant in DoJ hiring and
firing, via the “secret dele-
gation order” we first learned
about at the end of april 2007. . .
could it be that this is the
counter-punch to the leahy-
specter letter of this after-
noon, essentially hinting at
perjury by alberto gonzales?
it would make sense to try
to further discredit ms. goodling, now. . .
to that end, tonight’s dump mostly
confirms the mechanics of how it came to
be that young monica (and young kyle)
were granted breath-taking authority
to make end-runs around the deputy
attorney general on hire-fire decisions. . .
Recent ThinkProgress post: Goodling In Private Email: ‘Send Directly Up To Me, Outside The System’
But there may be many more missing emails, it turns out, because many people within the White House have been exchanging emails on a Republican National Committee account using private laptop computers provided by the party for nearly two dozen employees of the president.snip
Are they allowed to accept laptops a gifts?
Stephen Parrish, CPA @ 147
BINGO!
(I was starting to get paranoid about this–thinking I had in my eagerness read too much into those emails. LOL)
ccmask @ 148
Depends on who the gifts are from. If it is a personal gift from a personal friend or family–sure. But not from a political contact. On the other hand, I think that they can be provided with laptops for non-govt related work. ie, Karl Rove has a laptop that is owned by the GOP which he uses in his White House office.
Congress may want to look into tightening up the regs on this. If they dare.
Stephen Parrish, CPA @ 148
I’m just getting to the new emails. jeez-o-man!
Even if Marcy’s most recent TNH post may have been mentioned in comments in one or more of today’s earlier threads, I think that this post of hers is worth mentioning now. Please read it: Hold > Get Agency to Answer That …
Here is a link to the details of Goodlings immunity.
So the question is, did she commit perjury in her testimony re her involvement of the delegation?
LINK to written answers from Comey to Sanchez’s questions.
Jason Leopold’s video interview–however it was done, it was technically superior to anything I have seen on the net—super picture resolution, jump-free images, smooth sound, no glitches with the media player. I liked the interview content too, but the media technique is really superior. Anybody know how he did that?
Some hearsay evidence, FWIW:
A young attorney has joined our law firm. His conservative credentials include Pacific Legal Foundation and clerking for a conservative judge. He is one of those limited government-fiscal responsibility conservatives who does not rank Bush high on those scales.
He says he interviewed with Kyle Sampson for a civil position. Fully half of the interview was about why he didn’t participate more in electoral politics, what he thought of electoral politics, etc.
He didn’t get the job.
Comey’s answers to Sanchez are interesting.
He is asked about the Ashcroft hospital visit–if the room was secured for handling classified info and if anyone in the room did not have a security clearance.
And he says (what we all knew) that the hospital room was not “secure” and that Mrs Ashcroft did not have a security clearance.
What is it with the Bushites and their lack of care and concern when handling our nation’s “secrets” — even secrets (like the NSA) which should not be secret?
I have to say something about the leopold interview with iglesias that has yet to be said: its a damn good interview. I find it curious that no one here has bothered to say that. Leopold asked really good questions and deserves kudos. We seem to applaud other journos when they do good work but for some reason whenever leopolds name comes up we avoid him like the plague. Even LHD went so far as to say “not leopolds questions, Iglesias.” Well I disagree. Leopolds questions arr excellent and he comes off like a pro. I really am beginning to think that all this drivel about this reporter is bunk. Why not give recognition where its due. Egregious said something about not letting him back into the family. That’s not exactly a christian ideal there egregious is it? Doesn’t christianity say you should not judge lest ye be judged?
I also want to make a point about leopolds interview with joe wilson. Did anyone catch that leopold mentions his rove story to wilson? That’s pretty damn courageous. I have a lot of respect for this guy after watching these videos and I am ashamed that I allowed myself to believe all the bs being shoved down my throat for more than a year by dozens of people on this blog.
Congrats leopold. You have done good work. I am sorry I passed judgment on you.
Way down here in EPU-land, but one more thing about the Comey answers. Apparently Kyle Sampson wanted to consolidate the office-staff of the AG and DAG. Comey lays out a very clear concise answer as to why that would be a bad idea–and does so in a way (without ever explicitly saying so) that it makes it clear that it was an effort to put himself in a position to control EVERYTHING at the DoJ.
Of course, it was a Rove-Meirs scheme. They didn’t want anymore Comey’s writing honest legal opinions which would undermine those written by flunkies like Yoo, as Comey apparently did.
Where does AG hold law licenses? Could a local action to get him disbarred render him unable to continue in his position?
Way EPU’d – but I’ve been wondering about this
If a prosecutor can prove that he already had a case before she testified, or that his disocvery of the the incriminating evidence was inevitable without her testimony, she can be prosecuted even for the things she testified about
In addition, she can be prosecuted for anything she did not testify about however, if she mentioned something that lead to the discovery of other crimes during her immunized testimony, and it would not have been discovered otherwise, she is likely in the clear, but that will turn on really fine disticntions in the facts.
Might that explain why HJC was so unaggressive in its questioning of Goodling (eg over caging). They didn’t want her to tell them about things they had independent ways of getting to?
eliot @ 159
I posted that interview and said it was good days ago!