“As Congress continues its oversight to pull back the curtain on the politicization of the Justice Department, it is abundantly clear that we must do all we can to get to the truth behind this matter and the role White House played in it.”

Truly a fine, respectable, and absolutely unattainable goal Mr. Senator.

If all Sampson's and Goodlings' "I don't knows" were replaced with the facts of the matter the goal could be attained. You can go to jail for perjury.

Chris Cannon will fry in a very hot level of hell, if there is any justice in this universe

They need Kyle Sampson back. They also need to make it clear to Sampson that he, as the aggregator is going to be the fall guy at the very least unless he can give better answers.

Sampson was not honest the first time. He has to sweat a bit now for lying to Congress.

TPM readers,

Thanks for your attention to this. There were many Goodling TPM Muchraker-spots today, so I afraid this idea might get buried. As a favor, could you "pass along" the following suggestions where you may think it might be appropriate:

Recall the Goodling-counsel memo that said she was going to ask for immunity/plead the 5th because of the perjury issues. Fine, let's put that aside for the moment. Now, contrast this attorney-line-of-memos with what we've heard today from Goodling.

Here's the idea: Is there a good link between what Goodling's counsel said in writing about the concerns; with what Goodling said? I'm not getting a warm feeling that the two are connecting.

However, I think there is value in looking at this broadly: Examining to what extent DC-based legal defense [not just related to Goodling] are using various methods to make it appear their client has done something wrong; then have their client essentially provide nothing under testimony. I'm interested in seeing what we can learn from the Dowd-letter/Goodling-final testimony; and then shed some light into what Berenson might be up to with Ralston.

If -- as it appears Goodling's counsel has done -- counsel is making a smokescreen about a "big problem", only to have their client provide worthless trash, as Goodling appears to have done; I'm wondering to what extent the DC Counsel working for the GOP are going to do the same thing. If we read between the lines on the Goodling counsel memo, and compare it with what we heard from Goodling, the question that comes to mind: If counsel for Ralston [Berenson] or other WH Counsel-attorneys were to say the same things, should the Judiciary Committee again offer the same immunity?

It appears the game is this: Make your client appear as though they have alot of dirty juice, and are in real trouble, and refuse to testify; get the Committee to believe that your client has some "really good stuff that we can't get unless we give immunity"; and then watch the client walk away as the Committee gets nothing, and the immunity deal is secure.

If the GOP legal counsel are going to play this game, I argue that immunity should not be granted; and that the public needs something more tangible to say, "Yes, we are going to get some really good information." I'm not satisfied the grant of immunity told us more information that wasn't already available; or that Goodling really gave us something of value warranting immunity. Rather, I'd prefer the Committees make it more difficult to grant immunity; and that we question to what extent we can trust representations by counsel that their clients really have some "good stuff" or that they are really in "legal jeopardy" if they tell "the whole truth."

The Judiciary Committee took the bait, got trash, and granted immunity to someone that didn't really give much useful information. I suppose we can go to the next witness: "OK, the other person didn't have much, but maybe you do: Would you like immunity?" This isn't oversight, but the GOP pretending that they're going to roll over.

The grants of immunity seem to have been issued too easily; and the return on the immunity seems to be marginal: Especially in light of the other testimony that we don't have that's behind closed doors.

To abuse a boxing analogy, the Dems are just getting glancing blows, but no knockouts. AG AG is stumbling and wheezing, but he's not going down. It's time to knock him down.

Can we get all of these people to testify at once? Goodling, Sampson, McNulty and Gonzales? Maybe Comey? When Monica says "you have to ask Kyle", then ask Kyle. When they're all lined up, and nobody has any idea what happened, then start talking about impeaching Gonzales for incompetence while the hearing is in progress.

For instance, "You have no idea what has happened in your department, why or how these people were fired. You say they were not fired for improper reasons, but nobody in the DOJ knows why they were fired. Either you're a complete idiot, or you're lying through your teeth. Either way, you're unfit to be Attorney General."

Which Democratic congressman wants to take it up a notch?

"If counsel for Ralston [Berenson] or other WH Counsel-attorneys were to say the same things, should the Judiciary Committee again offer the same immunity?"

Ralston cannot be given immunity before testifying. If she were brought in a forced to plead the 5th for whatever issues she felt neccessary, than the committe would know exactly what details to expect if immunity were granted. And if she comes back after the immunity deal with a bunch of "I don't recalls" than slam her for perjury. You can forget something that was previously incriminating.

Why don't we put these people on a standard piece of equipment used by the US Goverment? A lie detector.

Basically, by not crossing them before they appear in public, they make the Republican members stick to their pre-examination talking points pretty much. This is how you can tell the difference between the "she did nothing wrong" Congressmen and the ones who are actually politically astute enough to smell the coffee and wonder how much roasting they'll receive in the next election.

I really hope that the DNC hit men are watching these hearings and zeroing in on the uneasy Republican members...as opposed to the cocky bastards who seem to think they can say anything, disregard the rule of law, etc, and believe, incredibly, that their constituency actually is going to support breaking the law for partisan purposes over actual ethical, legal behavior.

TPM readers,

Thanks for your attention to this. There were many Goodling TPM Muchraker-spots today, so I afraid this idea might get buried. As a favor, could you "pass along" the following suggestions where you may think it might be appropriate:

Recall the Goodling-counsel memo that said she was going to ask for immunity/plead the 5th because of the perjury issues. Fine, let's put that aside for the moment. Now, contrast this attorney-line-of-memos with what we've heard today from Goodling.

Here's the idea: Is there a good link between what Goodling's counsel said in writing about the concerns; with what Goodling said? I'm not getting a warm feeling that the two are connecting.

However, I think there is value in looking at this broadly: Examining to what extent DC-based legal defense [not just related to Goodling] are using various methods to make it appear their client has done something wrong; then have their client essentially provide nothing under testimony. I'm interested in seeing what we can learn from the Dowd-letter/Goodling-final testimony; and then shed some light into what Berenson might be up to with Ralston.

If -- as it appears Goodling's counsel has done -- counsel is making a smokescreen about a "big problem", only to have their client provide worthless trash, as Goodling appears to have done; I'm wondering to what extent the DC Counsel working for the GOP are going to do the same thing. If we read between the lines on the Goodling counsel memo, and compare it with what we heard from Goodling, the question that comes to mind: If counsel for Ralston [Berenson] or other WH Counsel-attorneys were to say the same things, should the Judiciary Committee again offer the same immunity?

It appears the game is this: Make your client appear as though they have alot of dirty juice, and are in real trouble, and refuse to testify; get the Committee to believe that your client has some "really good stuff that we can't get unless we give immunity"; and then watch the client walk away as the Committee gets nothing, and the immunity deal is secure.

If the GOP legal counsel are going to play this game, I argue that immunity should not be granted; and that the public needs something more tangible to say, "Yes, we are going to get some really good information." I'm not satisfied the grant of immunity told us more information that wasn't already available; or that Goodling really gave us something of value warranting immunity. Rather, I'd prefer the Committees make it more difficult to grant immunity; and that we question to what extent we can trust representations by counsel that their clients really have some "good stuff" or that they are really in "legal jeopardy" if they tell "the whole truth."

The Judiciary Committee took the bait, got trash, and granted immunity to someone that didn't really give much useful information. I suppose we can go to the next witness: "OK, the other person didn't have much, but maybe you do: Would you like immunity?" This isn't oversight, but the GOP pretending that they're going to roll over.

The grants of immunity seem to have been issued too easily; and the return on the immunity seems to be marginal: Especially in light of the other testimony that we don't have that's behind closed doors.

Posted by:
Date: May 23, 2007 06:53 PM

I am really fed up with the foregoing sort of conspirabunk. "I-F" is the biggest word in the language -- which is why the meaning -- and value of it -- are skipped over.

We don't need to speculate. Goodling is a dove in a pool of sharks. She isn't lying. But her lawyer -- who unlike you recognizes she has been cut loose to sink of swim -- his foremost ethical duty:" save his naive client's ass.

Your aim is exacly wehere Bushit, et al. wants it to be: below the issue. She put the real addmission, real issue up front -- and of course her legal team structured it: "caging". Tim What's-His-Name/Rove.

The speculation is a waste of time and bandwidth. Pay attention to the facts presented. And stop being suckered by yourself in looking too low at whether a victim is lying or not. She isn't. But she's up against it. Her lawyer knows that, and is being 100 per cent ethical in fulfilling his foremost ethical responsibility: protecting his client [even from herself] -- from everybody, on all sides.

It's okay to speak with an accent, but not to hear with one. Stop imposing your presumption on the reality, which is not that which you blindly presume.

And who are you anyway?

SC = wind. As in, Stop blowing -- or braking -- irrelevant wind.

"To abuse a boxing analogy, the Dems are just getting glancing blows, but no knockouts. AG AG is stumbling and wheezing, but he's not going down. It's time to knock him down.

"Can we get all of these people to testify at once? Goodling, Sampson, McNulty and Gonzales? Maybe Comey? When Monica says "you have to ask Kyle", then ask Kyle. When they're all lined up, and nobody has any idea what happened, then start talking about impeaching Gonzales for incompetence while the hearing is in progress.

"For instance, "You have no idea what has happened in your department, why or how these people were fired. You say they were not fired for improper reasons, but nobody in the DOJ knows why they were fired. Either you're a complete idiot, or you're lying through your teeth. Either way, you're unfit to be Attorney General."

"Which Democratic congressman wants to take it up a notch?

"Posted by: dcs
Date: May 23, 2007 07:17 PM"

These are the two stark options, about which I have mixed feelings, which clash: should he stay, or should he go --

1. As long as Gonzo remains where he is, he keeps the issue allive and front and center. And continues to damage Bushit.

2. If he goes, there is no longer a stone/wall (can you get him to testify truthfully, then?) betwen Congress and mutual boy-toys Bushit/Rove.

Which do you want? In view of the fact that Congress hasn't yet sufficient votes to impeach, I say leave Gonzo where he is. There are bigger fish to impeach.

SC = green. As in, Matters are not yet ripe.

The best thing about listening to Goodling yesterday was committee member Davis grilling her to the point of breaking. It made obvious to "us regular" folk listening in that she is saving her own . . . . . . well, you know. I sat on pins and needles when Davis was questioning her in rapid succsession and most gave their minutes for him to finish. Ahhhhhh. Gov't. in action. Why doesn't she just come clean at this point? It is so beyond obvious that she knows much more than she is telling. Who is she trying to protect? Everyone knows what everyone else is doing by now. I would pay to see Davis go at Rove. Can't wait.

I don't think that the Democratic party will do anything...but hold hearings...and pretend. This is clearly an impeachable offence of everyone involved and yes that means Bush, Rove (fired and prosecuted) Alberto Gonzales..(its the only way we will ever get out of Iraq) "caging" is highly illegal..and if the damn Democratic party really intended to go forward with protecting the Constitution....they would ask Greg Palast for the copies of the emails he has, that were sent around with the caging lists attached (from internal emails within the White House and the Justice Dept.)