The common theme is zealotry. These people are driven by fierce, consuming beliefs that crush anything in their path. They are dangerous cultists who should not be allowed anywhere near the levers of power. The Goodlings of the world would start a nuclear war rather than "surrender" their crazy good vs. evil view of the world.

From Legal Times:

"...In September 2004, Goodling was dispatched to the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Eastern District of Virginia as part of a program to train department officials in the basics of prosecution. During her six-month rotation as a special assistant U.S. Attorney, Goodling spent much of her time handling misdemeanors before magistrate judges.

In spring 2005, Goodling returned to Main Justice, this time in the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys..."

"Program to train department officials in the basics of prosecution"?

Why and why was Goodling participating in this program in the middle of a presidential campaign?She was a highly regarded, experienced GOP operative.

I'd sure like to know the who, when and why of this program. I'd also like to know who participated in it and where and when they did their six-month stint.

What was prosecuting misdemeanors etc supposed to do for the careers of these "department officials"?

Sounds fishy to me.

Take a look at some of the details of Goodling's cases at my post in the TPM Cafe. Someone also posted some details about the career of Jane Cherry, one of Karl Rove's operatives mentioned in the emails.

First, isn't the the college yearbook Glamor Photo enough of an embarrassment that dear Ms. Buzz would want to release a professional head shot? As this image resonates, her credibility as anything more than a simpleton hack becomes more entrenched.

Second, does anyone know what movement on this issue will take place during the recess? Must the committee actually be in session to finally issue the subpoenas? Or can the Chair use his authority to issue them now? Based on her preemptive refusal to testify, the requirement for negotiation now seems moot. Is it necessary to further continue the charade that there is room for compromise, or can she be on the hot seat immediately when congress reconvenes?

John Nowacki: Another Wingnut Political Operative in the DOJ:

The Justice Department officials who were selected to be interviewed hit merely the tip of this iceberg. It is extremely important that the House and Senate Judiciary Committee's interview John Nowacki, Principal Deputy Director as well as the Acting Counsel to the Director in the Executive Office of the Justice Department, in order to establish the links between the Justice Department officials, the US Attorney's in the field, and the political operatives who helped remove the targeted US Attorney's. I have gathered and organized every document released so far from the Justice Department relating to John Nowacki as well as background information on his relationship with the Free Congress Foundation. You will be shocked at how many key pieces of information he gives to Paul McNulty, William Moschella, Michael Elston, William Mercer, Monica Goodling, and former employees Michael Battle and Kyle Sampson.
This story on John Nowacki, including updates, can be found at: http://misterapologist.blogspot.com/

she drank the kool-aid

.

The more this disgrace unfolds, the more I wonder just who the hell the DOJ is most focused on - garden variety crooks or anyone who opposes the Duhhbya/Darth regime?

Now that I think about it, I guess I don't really wonder all that much.

.

Hitler youth in adulthood. Sparked by the Moral Majority in the 80s, the fact is these lock in step anglo fundamentalist cracker spawn march lock in step with the republican party because their boy scout screwing preachers tell them so. This gives Karl Rove a woodrow.

Several future generations of these moronic, brainwashed, completely oblivious to reason and independent thought jesus freak automatons have been created in Jesus camps and await their role in government.

The solution, declare war on Iran, draft these smug baptist fuckers and send them to Iran equipped with only a bible, King James version of course.

Is there a sizeable chunk of Goodling emails in the document dump?

I slogged thru about half of the large March 20, then the links changed and I lost steam.

But in the first half, there were large sections of Elston emails, and Sampson emails, etc. A section for each main player. Is there one for Goodling?

If so, I'd like to look those over. If not, it raises an obvious question.

tbhull -

This is what extraordinary rendition was invented for - the re-education of GOP zealots.

"Oddly she is a graduate of Messiah College, a college founded and run by the Brethren in Christ Church, a pacifist religion related to the Anabaptist and Amish movments. She seems to be pretty bloodthirsty for such a background."

but then of course she went on to law school at regent university whose motto is: "CHRISTIAN LEADERSHIP TO CHANGE THE WORLD"

HH has it right...This kind of blind zeal has NO PLACE in ANY institution of this country. Maybe they'll send her to Co. Springs to take over for Dobson when the whole farce vaporizes in their face!!

so the question is now, what departments were immune from loyalty tests and dominion politics. how many congress critters had to pledge allegiance to get their business done by the president's pen. how many state politicos bent their knees for the money. what was threatened to build the coalition of the willing. on every axis the manure piles up.

Posted by: steambomb
Date: April 1, 2007 01:30 PM

Are you stating she may have kneeled before the power?

Is this God's will?

Did her father watch?

Nice post.

I can be overly, but this so blatantly appears to be an advertisement for the NY Times that I suspect your are paid by the NY Times. Time are tough for traditional media.

www.bugmenot.com

Takes care of pesky "subscription required, it's FREE" places like NYTimes.

Peter Principle, move over. We now have the Rove Principle: Everyone rises to their level of corruption.

Monica was a College Republican just like Jack Abramoff and Ralph Reed. She is and always has been a nasty, ruthless bitch willing to anything and everything including undermining our justice system to ensure a permanent GOP majority.

Yesterday, I started a thread about the Griles case at the TPM Cafe (link below) to make the case that the real purpose of McCain's famous 11/17/05 Senate Indian Affairs Committee hearing was an exercise in GOP damage control of fallout from the Abramoff scandal.

Italia Federici, long time girlfriend of Griles and GOP operative, covered her rear end by making sure she got it into the Congressional record that McCain and every other senator on the committee knew beforehand that she and Griles had a romantic relationship.

Senator Dorgan: Ms. Federici, you are under oath and the chairman has asked you a question. You are suggesting that somehow someone was trying to smear you, and you have indicated----

Ms. Federici: I was told that there was a narrative of a very personal nature that was being put forward from committee staff. You know, it sort of fits with----

To make a long story short, whoever investigated Griles at the DOJ knew what Federici meant once they learned of the Griles-Federici romantic relationship.

So whoever investigated Griles knew McCain's committee had covered up the Griles-Federici romantic relationship and let the DOI Deputy Secretary perjure himself. Why?

Make no mistake about the importance of Griles lying about his romantic relationship with Federici to Congress.

From the Court summary of the Griles conviction:

'Section 10: During both the October 20, 2005 investigative interview and the November 2, 2005 public hearing, the defendant, JAMES STEVEN GRILES, was questoned about, among other things: the true nature and extent of the defendant GRILES' relationship with Person A, the person who introduced Abramoff to the defendant; how and why the defendant's relationship with Abramoff thereafter developed; and the nature and extent of Abramoff's access to the defendant. It was material to the Senate Committee's investigation that the Senators and the Senate investigators who questioned defendant GRILES learned the truth out these issues.'

Why would Griles and Federici lie in the first place? Both Federici and Griles were single and had no reason to hide the fact they were dating for several years. I'm sure they attended government, political and social events as a couple and Griles, as the #2 at the DOI, was a high profile public figure.

Once the DOJ investigators knew McCain's hearing was fixed, they should have questioned everything else McCain said about the senate investigation including the fact that DOI Secretary Gale Norton was not involved in the scandal.

McCain publicly blew off Norton's involvement by summarily announcing her innocence in the Senate Indian Affairs Committe hearings despite the fact that Abramoff had told Todd Boulanger that he got to Norton through Federici:

'Todd, did we not request money for CREA from them? That is our access to Norton. We need money for them more than many of the others.'

Gale Norton knew that Federici and Griles had a romantic relationship. Norton had been friends with Federici since at least 1996 and Federici worked on Norton's 1996 senate campaign and then worked for Norton's Coalition of Republican Environmental Advocates, the predecessor of CREA, and Norton's Republican Patrons of the Arts. Norton brought Federici to Washington DC in 1998.

DOI Secretary Gale Norton met with Federici officially on at least two occasions in 2004 and earlier, had a scheduled phone call with Federici.

Based on CREA's 990s, Abramoff wasn't the only one paying Fedrici and I think CREA's 2003 990 may have been amended to so that it looked like CREA's only source of revenue was from Abramoff's Indian clients.

But after a 14-month investigation by the DOJ, all the DOJ came up with is yes, Griles lied about his affair with Federici to Congress, something everyone in the GOP knew in November 2005.

Someone in charge should review the DOJ's conclusion as to why Griles and Federici lied to Congress when both Griles and Federici knew before they testified that the Senate Indian Affairs Committe already knew about their romantic relationship. That ought to be good for a laugh.

Ms. Goodling's Email Signature included these Inspired words:

"There were many chances to lose our heart, our nerve, or our way. But Americans have always held firm, because we have always believed in certain truths. ... And we know that when the work is hard, the proper response is not retreat; it is courage."
GW Bush July 4th 2005.

I personally have never thought of pre-emptively taking the 5th before being questioned as an act of courage.

Another example of the vast lessons to be learned in citizenship in our post-democracy America.

I love the descriptions from Goodling's cronies: "idealistic", "Christian" "walked the walk", etc. Obviously, she learned little from history and her Christianity came from some Cliff Notes version of the Bible. Communications is rarely a tough major and much of the content is watered down social psychology--I doubt that she was cracking the books as much as people in the usual pre-law fields. It's nice to see that it's unlikely that she's taking the fifth gratuitously. I doubt that she'll wind up at the license plate academy, but hopefully she'll be disbarred. She probably has a future at some second string counterpart to "Focus on the Family".

but then of course she went on to law school at regent university whose motto is: "CHRISTIAN LEADERSHIP TO CHANGE THE WORLD"

Posted by: zk0sm0

What right do the American people have to interfere with God's work?

If one is a Bushie, the answer is obvious... NONE.

code: Sound.... as in- can't you hear the alarm bells

In the Legal Times article cited above, Michele Roberts, "a partner at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, the same firm where Goodling's attorneys, John Dowd and Jeffrey King, work," provided comments on Goodling's decision to announce her intention to take the 5th. She said, "There's a beauty in knowing 'I can't be prosecuted for something I didn't say'; there's some solace knowing 'they aren't going to hang me up to dry based on something I said that they thought was false.'"
As she claims, she may not have discussed this case with Goodling's attorneys; but she is certainly trying to furthering their spin tactics. A partner at a major law firm has to know that this Congress isn't going to try someone solely on the basis of "'...something I said that they thought was false.'" Like McKay and Iglesias, they won't issue indictments without strong supporting evidence.
This statement is nothing but an attempt to reinforce Goodling's attorney's claims that their client wants to avoid a hostile investigating committee, a privilege which is not granted in the constitution. It's an attempt to shift attention away from her implicit admission of guilt, prop up the story that Congress's is on a "witch hunt." and build public sympathy for the defendant. This is PR, not commentary.

Does the "R" next to the names on those prodigious supercomputer lists compiled by Ken Mehlman stand for "Republican" or "Rovian".

Her 5th Amendment claim is easily extinguished by the Senate Judiciary Committee granting her immunity for any PRIOR statements/acts that prove to be false/criminal as a result of the testimony she will give. Of course, once she gives sworn testimony she would subject to perjury if she lies.

If immunity is offered for past conduct, one cannot claim the 5th Amendment on the basis that one may lie in the future under oath and then be subject to a perjury charge.

Goodling taking the fifth is like Bush's signing statements: Rule of law is for the little people

@ Fred Dodsworth

I'm with you on Nixon - yet I actually understand what he was up to. The US (and Europe) in the late 60s and early 70s was in turmoil, with established values being challenged to their core.
Nixon shared those values, and believed he had to fight hard to protect them, including bending the law.

This president, and his enablers, have created a pretend threat against the polity, in order to be able to enforce special laws and ordinances, for the sole purpose of assisting them with looting the treasury and federal property. They have turned the US military into their own private army for commercial gain, launching a colonial war for profit that will resonate with disgrace for decades.
Nixon was a brilliant man brought down by a paranoia that was unwarranted, but yet there.
Bush is the consummate idiot, completely out of his league, near braindead as far as understanding the nuances and art of governance. Incredibly, while Nixon had surrounded himself with some dunces, there were also very capable men in his crew.
Bush, however, has thrown out every single person in his "entourage" capable of rational thought, and has instead kept the blind followers.
Goodling is just one of many, many who, unwittingly or with malice aforethought, are taking an axe to the core of everything that made America great, bringing her down.

Should we be surprised? Bush is a third generation shirker, riding the crest of what his grandfather and father achieved. Whenever he was in trouble with the law, his father's enablers showed up, paying hush money, distributing favors, hiding proof and removing paper trails. Driving under the influence? Drug abuse? Shady financial deals? Questionable ethics? Going AWOL?

"No problem, Mr. Bush, we'll take care of it."

We'd be idiots ourselves to think that such a man would have any respect for the law. We would, likewise, be fools to believe he had any understanding of how the law, as an instrument, works.
So this idiot stacks the Supreme Court, finds hangers-on to install as USAttys, pisses on the Geneva Convention, establishes secret courts, restricts habeas corpus, establishes prison camps outside the survey of international and national law -- and uses private armies to carry out dirty work through acts from extraordinary rendition to murdering tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

And he calls his Attorney General Fredo.

When will the US wake up, and remove this criminal and his cohorts from power?

I read the whole article...I loved the part about Ashcroft having a special fondnest for her brownies. That is just creepy. I am imagining them praying over them before chowing down...

These fanatics are like a lice infestation in the Government - starts with the Political appointee, then they make sure they hire in their friends. OPM has made special rules so they can have "exception hires' at different salary rates then career executives, with 4 year contracts, extra vacation time and all the civil service benefits - yes, it's true.

"I can be overly cynical.
Posted by: tbhull"

TB, being "overly cynical" about this conservative movement crew of social conservatives will still very much underestimate how dangerous they really are to America.

These are the same kinds of people who dove deepest into the waters of the John Birch Society in the '50's combined with some of the worst of the '60's and '70's religious cults. It's just that in those days they were still relegated to the fringes, not building law schools and populating the highest reachs of the Federal and State government administrations.

When the Democrats take back the White House there is going to have to be an almost equally obsessive program to go through the civil service and weed them out again. The "Goodlings" in our government are a real threat that exceeds the imaginary "Communists in government" that McCarthy became famous for attempting to purge.

A real danger is that action will not be taken to remove them because McCarthy was projecting an alcoholic fantasy of danger. This one is real, and it will really need to be dealt with.

kimik:

Got a link on that?

If she is afraid she will expose a crime, she is confessing, by implication, some crime. It isn't enough to convict her, but it is reason enough to fire her. If they put her back to work, her boss should be fired.