Goodling writes: "Domenici says he doesn't move cases."

Putting all the content of the "scribble" aside. Gah damn! That handwriting is HORRIBLE. Who the hell are they giving jobs to in the justice department? Let alone a liason to the whitehouse. How the hell does she communicate with that handwriting. I know I know. Dont give them any excuses but damn!

"this frustration..."

Question is: whose handwriting scratched off some of that?

When YOU write notes for your own use, do you go to so much trouble to get rid of portions of your notes?

I'd like to see other note samples. College notes, whatever.

It just seems strange to me. More like redacted notes, I'd say.

WOW! Looks like Domenici will be stepping aside to "spend more time with his family" sooner than later.

Page 1172, Monica Goodling sends the “chart the AG requested” to Kyle Sampson and Michael Ealston. The actual draft of the chart is on pages 1168-1170, and summarizes the complaints against the USAs on the list for firing. What’s interesting is the side-by-side of the reasons given for the USAs being unsatisfactory, and the performance rating each received.

But more important, it established that AG Gonzoles requested the development of the list, if Monica is to be believed. To me this establishes that he was involved a bit more actively than he wants to let on.

"Absentee landlord" (I can't make out the words after that.) So there's merit to Yglesias's claim that he's been discriminated against for his reserve time.

I wonder if anybody told Goodling that, when he was absent, it was because he was performing reserve duty.

Domenici may never have spoken to Goodling.

My guess is that someone probably told Goodling that "Domenici says he doesn't move cases" and she just added it to the list. Just as likely she may have overheard it at a meeting. Why would Domenici call Goodling?

Sure she was the #3 at DOJ, but in real terms she was a nobody. These decisions were being made above her pay grade, and Domenici wouldn't have needed to waste his time talking to the secretarial staff at DOJ to get to one of the principals.

The ridiculous thing here is that two months after these people have been fired, these staffers are still trying to invent "plausible" justifications after the fact. These people were fired for a reason on Dec. 7, 2006, so why would it be necessary to spend time brainstorming justifications after the fact?

Here's a surmise--Goodling was tasked with this job so that the principals would be given a layer of protection. She's the dupe who is busy inventing reasons and telling untruths so that her bosses don't have to. How very noble!

I would be curious to know what "very important district" means. "Very important district" from the perspective of say the 2008 election perhaps?

If Gooodling made the chart, what was Sampson's role as the Aggregator of the List?

cynicalgirl asks:

What's between "in over head" and "absentee landlord"? Something district? Can someone decipher?

I believe it's "border district". HTH

transcription:

Iglesias: underachiever in very important district
##### performance (scribbled out)
absentee landlord
b@@@ district
in over head
Dominici (sp) says he doesn't move cases (little scribble)

The McKay stuff is interesting too.

I've had 100's of women working for me and I assure you, I've never seen a women's handwritting like this..

Domenici may never have spoken to Goodling. - Posted by: Date: April 13, 2007 01:22 PM

http://judiciary.house.gov/media/PDFS/OAG1159-1234.pdf - page 73

4/6/06 4:00 - 4:15 pm
Phone call with Sen Domenici
Attendee - Mochella, Sampson, Goodling.

Just an intuitive comment on the first long scratched out part.

I would guess that is the "real reason" to get rid of him. It comes first next to Iglesias.

Then that is scratched off - and above, is written the part about underperforming. With more reasons below. (so the brainstorming about "reasons" - to cover the REAL reason)

So I'd try to figure out what that real reason is - that's been scratched off.

Or - job lacks performance?

I agree about the "lack" part.

ThearP:

You're probably right. If it has to do with "performance", that was the original reason they gave. Except, of course, it wasn't backed up by any facts. So, they came up with a laundry list. And they call this brainstorming? Guess they misplaced the "brains" - and went straight to "storming"?

Under Iglesias - the crossed out reason may be "Its about performance" - used Photoshop to assist in deleting apparent cross out wave.

It appears from the document that Associate DAG David Margolis attended the meeting, and adjacent to comments about Mr. Charlton, it was noted: "No Margolis." (1165). "Margolis" is also noted on 1166.

Fired on December 7th.

Reason for firing on February 12th.

These people are idiots. And classless idiots.

posted the monica handwriting stuff at FDL as well. I was the unsigned who pointed out the doc 5 dump and handwritten notes. Thanks for finding them important

Try this....
Click on the pic showing handwriting. It opens into the full 2 pages of handwritten notes. Apart from the handwriting being terrible - it becomes apparent that this was a cover-up. They tried to come up with reasons that would (hopefully) stick.
They failed!

Jim has the right idea but it is "lack luster preformance" that was crossed out.

Although interesting, I don't believe there is anything here that shows any wrongdoing. Indeed, I don't believe that there is any law that says that Senator Domenici can't lodge a complaint about the performance of a U.S. attorney.

However, this doesn't mean that wrongdoing hasn't occurred for I do believe that it has. Rather, I find it somewhat disturbing that so many of the commentors are drinking their own kool aid in their somewhat overzealous attempts to attribute wrongdoing where it isn't supported by the facts.

The scribbled out line seems to be the primary reason to fire Iglesias. The line above it is a re-write of this reason, apparently restating the reason in less politically damaging terms. If this had been done later with a different pen, reading what was scribbled out might be easy.

If you copy the note into Photoshop and enlarge it, you see two lines of scribbles through the line. Each of these lines has a pattern that can be followed and removed. The word “for” seems clear. The First word might be "doesn't" and the final word could possibly be “indict.” There are professionals who can read this line.

I may have said this yesterday, but I can't get over the fact that you have to be certified nitwit to leave as many incriminating tidbits behind as the Bushniks have done.

These people aren't even clever crooks, and they are running the country?

Oy....

The poster at 01:22 has it right. The firings have nothing to do with the after-the-fact justifications made in this batch of files. They are just a diversionary tactic. The firings were strictly about appointing appropriate Yes Men in the key swing states for the 2008 election.

Senator Arlen Specter, the planter of the "poison pill" in the Patriot Act, is deeply involved in this conspiracy. To get to the bottom of it, Senator Leahy need look no further than to the gentleman on his right.

Apparently she was writing in tongues.

-GSD

A rantitious quibble.

Goodling didn't plead the fifth -- she hadn't been asked any questions yet. She got a good lawyer who made a so far successful preemptive strike, preventing Goodling from having to answer ANY questions. There are legal standards to for claiming the right against self-incrimination -- in other words the right to stonewall is not absolute (unless, of course, Fred Fielding could successfully argue that Goodling is merely an RNC email message.)

PS -- Glad youse guys can't get a look at my handwriting! (Security Code - hand. The muckraker computer has a sense of humor, or at least of topicality!)

I believe the most over looked aspect is that Monica took those notes at one of the DOJ meetings on the subject 'What do we tell the publc?'.

Don't forget that Inglesias was added late to thier hit list. This is nothing but the DOJ justification for discharging the attorneys AFTER THE FACT.

Monica had the privledge to gather thoughts and put these TALKING POINTS in a printed pdf form.

Believe it or not the Security Code is "fact."

Sadly, the criminal activity by these people have set our country back generations. We are going to have to clean this mess up, along with all of the other messes they have left lying around.

Because of these folks, people of good will don't want to work in gov't service anymore, and those who do (and are honest) don't want to stay!

This is very sad and tragic. We should all be very afraid! I am!

Austin Cooper:

Interesting results of the handwriting analysis.

Please do not refer this patient.

I am too far "west" (security word) for her.

A State's Congressional Representatives are certainly entitled to COMPLAIN about a US attorney but notNotNOT to attempt to influence an attorney's judgment by threats or intimidation. While I would love to see the feet of these rodents at Justice sizzling all the way to disbarment...Why are not the House and Senate Ethics panels doing something about Domenici and Wilson?

Good handwriting isn't a qualification for employment in the Bush-league DOJ... but membership in the Federal Sociey is!

Code word is 'fire'... As in 'to fire'

I've had 100's of women working for me and I assure you, I've never seen a women's handwritting like this..

Posted by:

I have never met a woman with handwriting that bad. Even my daughter has better handwriting at her young age. That handwriting should indeed be checked out. As another poster has said. The word is 'knot' and I believe it is getting tighter.

re: handwriting. I went into law school with nice neat handwriting. I came out three years later with handwriting just like ms. goodling's. Lots of reporters also have horrible handwriting. Taking lots of notes fast isn't good for penmanship.

Buy Pete brown underpants.

When are charges going to be brought against Domenici and Wilson? They broke the law. Or are they just going to get a slap on the hand and told not to do it again?

I would like to confirm "lackluster performance" as the words referring to Iglesias, which are evident after removing the quasi-sinusoidal cross-out strokes.