This is the best of all situations...two possible co-conspirators who turn their guns on each other.

Security code = "attack" all too appropriate. Charge!!!!!

Isn't McNulty's denial a bit weird?

How can the documents and testimony prove the negative; that he didn't have knowledge about Griffen. I guess he's just saying he stands by his testimony.

she's icky, and there's these MONUMENTAL pauses before she answers, you can just smell the lie cooking.

Security code = mine

she just stepped on one, there

Why is the DOJ handing out replies for McNulty after he has resigned? Or didn't he really resign after all? Remember he said he did not have any future commitments.

re: Goodling vs. McNulty-

This is called "circling the wagons." Republicans have been doing this dance for quite awhile.

Circling the wagons? More like a circular firing squad!

Anyone else you'd like to implicate during your sworn testimony?

Question: Since she didn't specifically identify each of the interviews she conducted or vetted where political orientation was inappropriately sought or factored in the hiring process, can she be charged for any of those processes and decisions?

sc: every
As in: Every one of them is going down!

This is one of the reasons why it's probably not a good idea to get Karl to pay your legal fees. Odds are your attorney will be working for Karl and not for you.

Seems like caging may be the nub, here, and a more likely explanation of Goodling's 5th plea than Hatch Act violations.

Point 4 in her pdf laying out discrepancies between her and McNulty's testimony says:

"The deputy (McNulty) testified that he "[did not] know anything about" allegations that Tim Griffin "caged" black voters in Arkansas during the 2004 presidential election. In fact, I informed the Deptuy that this issue could arise on on February 5, (2006?). To help him prepare to answer the question, I requested and received information on the issue from Tim Griffin and forwarded this information to the Deputy Chief of Staff that night."

That 2/5/06 email exchange is apparently in possession of both Congress and journalist Greg Palast. Palast, in a recommended diary currently over at DailyKos (a/o 5pm EDT), writes about this email:

"In several emails obtained by subpoena by Congressional investigators, Goodling and Griffin complain about ‘that British reporter Palast’ (an American working with BBC London). In a February 5, 2006 email, Griffin gloats to Goodling that "no [US] national media" has picked up Palast’s discovery of the ‘caging’ operation."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/23/153243/890

Palast states vote caging is a crime (any beagles out there with a cite?) There has been little discussion of caging with regard to this scandal. It seems like there should be more.

It also seems as though Goodling and Ralston are copping pleas for different reasons. The scale of BushCo criminality may be taxing our collective imagination.

You have to give them credit for the skill with which they parse their language, including McNulty above." ... based on what I knew at the time" gives room for pause.

Similarly with Goodling, she uses every opportunity she gets to answer to the specifics of how a question is asked, and there are a few Dem members who should do a better job of follow-up when she is skirting the issue.

As to the sc: doubt
Quite apposite.

Q. "Could there possibly be a bigger douchebag than Chris Cannon?"

A. No.

This has been another episode of simple answers to stupid questions.

Goodling vs. McNulty sure seems like a perfect Rovian distraction. An invented controversy.

"This is one of the reasons why it's probably not a good idea to get Karl to pay your legal fees. Odds are your attorney will be working for Karl and not for you.

"Posted by: Cowboy
Date: May 23, 2007 05:18 PM"

One of the first questions she was asked was: Who is paying her legal fees.

She said she is, but she plans to set up a legal defense fund, but hasn't yet had time to do that.

Otherwise, I don't think she's lying. And her response to one of the Republican's was that she did have a larger role -- part of the "core" -- than he attempted to help her escape.

They are all a bunch of opportunistic lairs. The Republic would be served it Gooding, Gonzo, Shrub and Darth Cheny were tried, convicted and executed.

I watched "Monica" testimony today in full. It just seems incredulous to me that they've talked to Sampson and Goodling and McNulty and Gonzo himself and NO ONE can say how the names got on the list? Do they think people are stupid or what?

It did come across several times that Monica was very willing to throw McNulty under the bus. She also didn't seem to go out of her way to throw Sampson a life raft.

One of the beauties of her testimony is that at the end of it, we still have just finger pointing contained to a DOJ that is intentionally being portrayed *by the DOJ* as dysfunctional. In other words, the roads to the White House and specifically Karl's Shop remain blocked to a degree.

Pretty depressing when we know it leads back to the WH, they know we know, and we know they know... and they continue to thumb their nose at us while our things remain stuck up our... you get the picture.

After Commey, this is going to come across as a massive let down to the Press, which will lead to another round of "Fredo has weathered the storm" articles. If she's going to testify before the Senate, Schumer & Co. better bring the goods. :/

John

I thought it interesting that Goodling went on so long about how they were going down the wrong road in starting to criticize the fired prosecutors. She expressed concern about them and how she wanted to see them have successful careers. A spitting match with the DOJ and the WH would destroy that future. Because we all know what happens when you cross Karl Rove. That kid he defeated to become the head of the College Republicans? Forced out of politics forever.

"Do they think people are stupid or what?"

Why yes they do -- well, at least they think that way of Democrats -- can you blame them?

Reid and Pelosi are so in a rush to get out for the Memorial Day holiday that they would do anything including giving Bush everything he wanted to do it.

Watching the hearings, with a few exceptions, are we seeing the best of America? These representatives are a disgrace.

So in the end, despite the obvious craziness of the war, despite the obvious criminality of the administration, Bush will continue on with little resistance. This could only happen if the majority party was made up of idiots -- it is.

its the caging of votes that was stated in her opening statement...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/3958475.stm

The caging issue is big. Republicans have already been found criminally liable for this in the past. I don't have the cites, but there were at least two criminal cases. I seem to remember one in Texas -- may have been the late '90's, but still available for contempt citations against Republican party, I seem to recall.

When will someone in Congress start asking the right questions. The first question for Goodling in this matter was: Were you, at any time during your employment at DOJ, made aware of an ongoing public corruption investigation, and more specifically and investigation involving a member of Congress.

For instance, there is is a good chance that Goodling was aware of the Renzi investigation before it became public knowledge in late October 2006. Given her political background and testimony about her duties involving monitoring the travel plans of the President and Attorney General you can only imagine her reaction in September 2006, when she discovered the President was going to Phoenix to keynote a fund raiser for Renzi. Sampson was asked if he was aware of the Renzi investigation and, as I recall, he vaguely stated he may have read something in the newspapers about the matter--but was never pressed about when he became aware or whether he had been made aware in any other way.

Perhaps its just bad luck, but Charlton was added to Sampson's list on September 13, 2006. and everybody who had the authority to add his name has denied doing so. Why? Maybe because newspaper reports indicate top DOJ officials interfered with Chalton's investigation of Renzi. Congress needs to drain this swamp and start by asking the right questions.

On The Clock,

TPMmuckraker has known about "caging" since the beginning. Palst hasn't exactly kept it secret. ow.

"Reid and Pelosi are so in a rush to get out for the Memorial Day holiday that they would do anything including giving Bush everything he wanted to do it." --HKH

That's a slander, since Pelosi has already said she will vote nay, and in case you don't know, conference bills are NOT under her direct control. She, unlike Bush, is not a tyrant and cannot simply "shout" others into voting differently than the will.

When you get right down to it, what happened is that the White House wanted direct control over the DoJ. The Comey/Ashcroft story last week gives us a few clues about the reasons why this was important to them.

So they installed Gonzo as AG to be their Colonel Klink, because they trusted him to "see nothing" and let the political people run the show.

Apart from making sure DoJ was looking away on the Gitmo/torture/wiretapping issues, it seems one of their goals was to conduct a purge of USAs with suspect loyalty in order to shield Republicans from prosecution and target Democrats with bogus election fraud cases. They also wanted to run a little "K Street Project" on the DoJ career staff to make them more conservative through selective hiring (in explicit violation of the Hatch Act.)

So they slipped the Patriot Act provision in as insurance in case the Senate went Democratic, and they delegated personnel decisions to Goodling and Sampson-- loyal Bushies who could be trusted to take orders from Rove and his people.

But why did they need Sampson and Goodling? Why did they need to circumvent the standard hiring and firing procedures at the DoJ? To cut someone else out of the loop. Someone they didn't really trust. Who might that have been?

The answer is increasingly clear: McNulty.

They cut him out of the loop because he wasn't a Loyal Bushie. They ran the decision-making process around him and fed him a bogus account of the firings which he dutifully reported to Congress.

The proof is in the pudding. McNulty claims he was misled. He unknowingly gave false testimony. What did he do when the story started falling apart? He called Schumer to correct the record. What did Goodling do? Plead the fifth.

Goodling claims she gave McNulty the goods and he failed to deliver. But what motivation did McNulty have to perjure himself to protect the White House? Everyone agrees that he was so far out of the loop that he needed a briefing just to know what was going on. He wasn't the one who had been breaking the law and needed immunity from Congress. Goodling was.

Goodling was the one with the motive for McNulty to testify falsely, she was the one who was in the loop, she was the one breaking the law, she was the one who knew about the White House involvement, she was the graduate of Right-Wing-Wacko U with a penchant for oppo research and liberal-purging, and she was the one inside the loop who briefed McNulty.

It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to identify the liar here.

Did anyone ask Goodling why she asked the people she interviewed for jobs political questions.Who told her to ask these questions?

McNulty is probably the closest thing we will get to John Dean in this whole case. Those who have worked closely with him, both Rep. and Democrat (including Schumer) have said ( or at least strongly implied) that he is a man of integrity.

Remember, in many ways McNulty is the red-headed step-child of the Gonzales Justice Department. They didn't trust him, they didn't like him and he wasn't one of them.

I'm a democrat, I've worked with Paul on and off for over 10 years, I don't agree with his politics but I would trust him over a hack like MG anyday of the week.

Isn't McNulty's denial a bit weird?

Posted by: David in NY
Date: May 23, 2007 04:54 PM
--------------------------------------
Yes.

"I testified truthfully...based on what I knew at that time."

What the hell does that mean?

Are these folks learning ways to not answer questions from the enemy combatants they've been torturing?

SC: cord

So the republicans don't like that Lam investigated the Dukester.

Did he or did he not commit crimes? Yes he most certainly and without a doubt, did. So, they are unable to admit that one of their own was corrupt. So, they are saying they approve of his behavior, basically.

It would be intersting to see if McNulty would like to come back to the committee and "set the record straight."

"Isn't McNulty's denial a bit weird?

"Posted by: David in NY
Date: May 23, 2007 04:54 PM"

That's exactly what you want --

Sounds like continued hearings are necessary.

I want Goodling in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Smaller crowd, total; higher profile, more witnesses to it.

You want impeachment? It's takes building. Who will turn on Goodling -- McNulty? Gonzo himself? Either way, it will be pulic. Politcs must make it look like the turner/attacker is the righteous person. That requirement doesn't include Goodling. She has a good lawyer: She ain't goin' down. Others above her are.

There's no way Gonzo can survive.

Yet I have mixed feelings which clash: Should he stay, or should he go? As long as Gonzo stays, he keeps the issues alive, and front and center.

And continues to damage G. W. Bushit.

On the other hand: Remove Gonzo, and there is a straight, unobstructed inquiry from Congress to Bushit himself. And his toy-boy Rove.

Pay attention: Stop bashing Democrats. Put your energy instead into communicating to the whole Congress -- especially the Republican'ts [handle the truth] that you demand impeachment.

ASnother round of subpoenaed under oath testimonies is necessary. McNulty. Gonzo, again before the Senate. Goodling before the Senate.

All that need be demonstrated at this ppoint is that the DOJ didn't know what to say because they were intended to be left holding the bag. Except for Gonzo, who knows so little that he knows everything.

Sure: Get McNulty and Goodling to shoot at each other. And Goodling drag both Gonzo and WH into it. Let's pay attention and watch -- witness.

That will eventuate in impeachment. Not of DOJ small-fry. But off Gonzo, plus Bushit and Bushit's boy-toy Rove. (So, okay, they are each other's boy-toy.)

SC = cord. As in, Rope, give them enough, and let them fight it out in public?

"I always believed that if they got enough of them to start going on the record, this is what the result would be - turning on each other. Some might think this makes it harder to know what the truth is, but when it gets to this point, it's glaringly obvious that the people involved wouldn't know the truth if it jumped up and bit them on the ass.

"Posted by: Anne
Date: May 23, 2007 04:57 PM"

Perfect. They are therefore vulnerable.

We the people discern the truth, regardless what they say. The "totality of the circumstances" as Goodling tried to use as means to generalize away from the specific.

This is shooting fish in a barrel with so many fish in the barrel there ain't room for water.

SC = west. As in, Bushit, et al., are going south.

"Actually, McNulty's statement is more direct than anything we've heard from Monica the good underling. As the old saying goes, "the truth does not take many words" and Monica is a rat-a-tat-tat oral machine gun of words.

"Posted by: Biggus Diggus
Date: May 23, 2007 04:58 PM"

You have it wrong. Goodling is in so over her head that she hasn't accurate calculations re. context as to what is wanted as concerns facts and truth. But she isn't lying.

She was used by McNulty. And McNulty was used.

SC = judge. As in, judge.

"Let's see who has more friends in this town: someone who has worked on the Hill (both sides of the aisle), or some snot nosed brat who went to the worst law school in the nation.

"Posted by: Beth
Date: May 23, 2007 05:00 PM"

Not fair. She's a dove in a city of sharks.

She's to be discard. Her lawyer won't allow that.

erh -- someone is not telling the truth.

is it paul?

is it monica?

the bad news, for messrs. rove and
gonzales, is -- regardless of which
version one believes, mr. rove seemed
very deeply involved in efforts to
(1) "cage" black voters in florida
during the 2004 election, or (2) mr. rove
seemed very deeply involved in the
attempt to place his protege -- who
allegedly did these things -- into
a much-coveted u.s. attorney's seat,
via the "great good grace" of ms.
monica goodling, and mr. kyle sampson. . .

whaaaaaat?

no, the worse news is -- i'm
inclined to believe BOTH versions,
if i am john q. public. i am now
simply fed-up with these two-
bit, city-slickers -- lawyers,
and apparently -- liars, all!

"so. . . the children were out driving, is
that about the gist of it -- messrs. rove
and gonzales -- and wrapped the national
justice system, the 2004 election, and
our faith in the impartially-applied,
equal protection of law. . . including
voting laws -- around an old-elm-
tree down the way, just like that
blue '54 hudson???" asks officer leahy. . .

"is that it?"

"uh-huh. . ." they reply, as one. . .

click my name below, for an image
of a salient e-mail from tonight's
document dump, and the rest of the
above silliness. . .

"In her fetid little mind, cooperating with this committee is to invite eternal damnation - she would rather not. The equivocation and the lies are minor to her compared to the sin of cooperating.

"We shall see, at the end of the day, is such a thing was worth immunity: but at this point, no. Not in the least.

"Posted by: DWD
Date: May 23, 2007 05:20 PM"

Your view is the bigotry you attribute to Goodling. She, by contrast, has no clue as to the context in which she finds herself. She isn't lying; but she doesn't yet know where to put her feet. She is obedicant to external stabilizers. The Congress could provide that where there no Republican'ts [handle the truth] bent on disruption of continuity, "narrative".

She isn't evil, or the problem. And her lawyer is fulfilling his ethical responsibility -- client before all else -- properly.

Stop bashing the person in the middle -- especially the most naive/"verginal" of them all. Give her gudiance, and she'll lay the whole truth out.

Frankly, it's really stupid to bash the perpetrator/victim of the higher ups you claim to really want.

Give her room.

""In fact, Goodling said, she'd told him (McNulty) that the White House had been involved in Griffin's appointment all along.""

"Did anyone follow up and ask her who in the White House had been involved?

"Also:

""Ms. Goodling's characterization of my (McNulty's) testimony is wrong and not supported by the extensive record of documents and testimony already provided to Congress.”

"Did anyone follow up and ask if Goodlng's testimony was supported by the extensive record of documents and testimony NOT yet provided to Congress?

"If the Democrats would concentrate more on getting at the factsa instead of making speeches, we might actually be gewtting somewhere with all this hoopla.

"Posted by: Johann
Date: May 23, 2007 05:26 PM"

Smarten up, instead of interposing your presumption over the reality.

Conyers, at the end of the hearing, said the Committee members have five days to ask, in writing, follow-up questions of Goodling, and she must answer them.

Gee, maybe paying attention to what's really happening is less "righteous" -- arrogant -- than not listening at all because you know it all in advance.

SC = crime. As in, This is about crime, not about pride in being know-it-all, "See -- I told you so!" in advance of evidenced conslusion.

Palast has the proof plain and simple. Until then both parties to crime know that its he said, she said. The 500 emails must now be entered into the record by Conyers who has them and they must be preserved. They are the bette noir for the Crime Wave. If they get outlawed,expunged or in any way dismissed from the record than Conyers should be impeached first for utter incompetence and for chronic and pathetic erectile dysfunction.

We have yet to see one democrat with the exception of Murtha go balls to the wall on anything in 07'. Zero passion. Ludicrous piss ant threats. No follow thru. Conyers now has the set up for the next step. Produce what amounts to the equivalent of the Alexander Butterfield bomb during Watergate,i.e. the revelation of the tapes. Palast goes mainstream with the email revelation and Goodling is caught in a bald faced lie scheming with the Griffin Vampire. It is months and months after the time in which it was absolutely imperative to take the gloves off.

Do these pussy Democrats have anything hanging or are they all like Harry Reid. Old,depressed Alcoholics with no fire in the belly just Corporate semen.

"I was going threw the current dump of emails and found something interesting about Monica and Tim Griffin.

"She states that they talk daily, and the dialog is in response to Sampson and it contained with Sampson stating that Griffin needs to be carefully managed Monica (cc'd hereto).

"the docket number is dates:5/22/07 AGO1682 and AGO1683

"I find this interesting because he reference about Griffin was short, but she stated that her knowledge of purging us attorney's was limited if any is hard to believe because of the dialog in the emails. And the only response about Griffin was in reference to the Caging of Votes. This makes no sense as her daily conversations were apparent from others. What is she hiding and why?

"She may have immunity, but she can still be held accountable if she lied.

"Her daily conversations sound more like she was having a personal relationship with Griffin, but he may have not known about it! She is a good looking women at 33 and devoted to the DOJ, where else is she going to find a partner? There is something more under the surface.

"Also, in my view the reason AG and her met and the conversation in her words made her feel uncomfortable because she is timid, and needed to feel wanted, yet she knew what AG was doing and did nothing about it! That is obstruction of justice.

"AG did try to mold her views, she knew that because she felt uncomfortable, yet she did nothing about it.

"Posted by:
Date: May 23, 2007 11:21 PM"

Stop trying to hang one of the Rove/Bushit (mutual boy-toys) discards.

She stated the key issue as #1: Caging. Vote fraud by Rove and his aide Griffin.

Legal pleadings don't always put the most important issue last. They can, as in this instance, place the most imoportant first. It's your presumptive suspicon which throws you off.

Goodling isn't a liar -- she doesn't know enough politically to get away with that. She is telling the truth. But it is properly defensive: the 5th amendment plea was wholly defensive as concerns -- as she accurately said -- about the ambiguous situation in which she found herself as result of being cut loose.

Listen closely to her. And raise your sights above BS vengence. Wanting blood is Bushit, which is the opposite of lawful democratic justice.

Davis and Schiff are the two best questioners on the panel. Period. They seem to know how to get the truth out of the witness even when the witness is reluctant to give it.

"I testified truthfully according to what I knew at the time" means "candidly", not "correctly". Simply if someone told him the following day that what he said was bullshit, it only makes his information wrong, not a lie.

You can believe him or not, but his simple statement isn't just weasel words.

Goodling said that her legal fees are not being paid by anyone else other than her, at the moment , pending her setting up a legal defense fund. She has been too busy to getaround to it.

Will the funding be performance related? And if ,so, will the target be just McNulty alone as the fall guy?

It is no wonder that this administration is in such hot water...instead of finding the best and the brightest....the decider guy surrounded himself with the Beast and the somewhat Dim...and a host of fall guys. If your minions are dumb to begin with, they make perfect fall guys. They topple with barely a wimper..not even smart enough to tell the truth to save their skins

It is no wonder that this administration is in such hot water...instead of finding the best and the brightest....the decider guy surrounded himself with the Beast and the somewhat Dim...and a host of fall guys. If your minions are dumb to begin with, they make perfect fall guys. They topple with barely a wimper..not even smart enough to tell the truth to save their skins

How many lawyers did she have sitting behind her? They don't seem to bring this up after Sampson's- was it- 4 or 6.
She seems that she's trying SO hard to sound smart, yet claims to know so little about law. I'm thinking Regents should not be accredited- what is it- Bible Law School?

Near the end, Keith Ellison of Minnesota questioned Goodling about the Heffelfinger resignation. She had a ready answer about why there was dissatisfaction with Heffelfinger because of the "inordinate amount of time" he spent on NAIS affairs. Her comment supports the suspicion that his resignation was not entirely voluntary, and that had he not resigned he would have been the tenth U.S. Attorney to be fired.

It should be noted that five of the other fired USAs worked on NAIS. It has been pointed out that the revenue from gaming on Indian reservations eclipses the take from Vegas and Atlantic City combined.

Was NAIS in potential conflict with Jack Abramoff-related Indian gaming interests?

When Bill Kristol was so excited about the Attorney General Scandal I knew something was up. I believe the reason they wanted to take out McNulty is to cast "clouds" over the upcoming Aipac/Rosen/Weismann espionage trial (the MSM is not touching this one) by taking out Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty who is a prosecutor in this upcoming trial.

Just why is the MSM oh so silent on the Rosen/Weisman espionage trial? You chickenshits!

If she doesn't know anything, and she was just doing her job, what exactly was so so upsetting when she had her tear-fest in Margolis' office? Was it someone that could see into the future that she would likely be made a scapegoat? Was she feeling guilty about what she had helped to orchestrate?

Her meeting with Margolis coupled with her taking the fifth, says to me that she was more involved than she led on and that she knew all along that it was at least unethical, if not illegal.

It's only a matter of time before those employment lawsuits start hitting Justice.

Monica is going to be on the hotseat on many, many more occasions.

and so it goes on and on ......... I dont remember, the dog ate my homework, he said/she said, I know nothing (Sgt Schultz), McNulty is the guy/no Im not/yes you are/no I'm not/uh-huh/no way/way ...... we are really dealing with 6th graders. And the sad part is the impotence of "teachers"

Monica is a rat-a-tat-tat oral machine gun of words.
Posted by: Biggus Diggus

she was "running out the clock"

sc: poison

what is in the water at DoJ