Rewriting history is hard work.

Especially by committee.

Was it you or was it me?
Or was it he or she?
Was it A or was it B?
Or was it X or Z?

Was it you or was it me?
Or was it he or she?
Who dunnit?

I didn't, I, I didn't do it, I, I, I didn't, I didn't, I didn't do it, I,
I, I didn't, I, I didn't do it, I, I didn't, I didn't, I, I didn't do it,
I didn't do it, I didn't do it.

SO, Rove's known involvement on the USA purgings:

On April 7, 2006, Karl Rove gave a speech to the Republican National Lawyers Association that there are 13 states that he identified as a top priority for 'voter fraud'. Of the 13 states, 9 had USA's fired from them after he gave the speech.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/11/9422/52227

Then, there is the Sampson email about it being important to Karl.

And now we learn that Karl rounds up all the top dogs at DOJ and basically say's 'You better come up with something to cover your asses with because I ain't taking the fall!!"

I wonder what else he said that they didn't mention.

Can this cabal be treated as an organized crime group and charge the lot with obstruction. Then, see who folds first and points the finger where the blame really resides with. Rove.

I can't believe that everyone at DOJ involved is willing to take the fall for this guy.

Impeach Bush and Cheney now. There is more than enough evidence to go to trial, and it will tie them up for the rest of their term, and might possibly get the republicans to conivnce them to resign.

Funny that the underlings thought nothing about strong-arming the USAs and AUSAs when asked to by Rove, but it didn't occur to them that Rove might one day strong-arm them.

This seems to be a recurring theme - at least mid-level mafioso know what racket they are in - these guys seem to have bought the BS. This is one of my semi-serious theories on way they go for the Regent U types - demonstrated predispostion for buying it hook, line and sinker.

code: "fire" ... (I had "crime" earlier today .. HAL? Is that you? Are you messing with us?)

No one in the administration wants to take responsibility for firing the US attorneys just like no one wanted to step forward and take responsibility for outing Valerie Plame, or mis-representing pre-war Iraqi intelligence, or mishandling Katrina reconstruction contracts or . . .

These Bush Republicans are nothing more than a bunch of cowering careerists who equate (and confuse) GOP loyalty with patriotism.

Was a graphic on Daily show like this

"Where is the John Dean in all of this? Where is the guy who says, 'I may have to take the fall, but I'm not going alone.'? Is it Monica (oh, sweet irony of that name)is it Kyle, or Michael? Who will finally realize that s/he is expendable to Dear Leader and swim for the lifeboat?"

My guess is that either Margolis (the only non-political appointee involved in this....Sampson used his name CONSTANTLY) or Battle (the EOUSA who had to make the original calls) will wind up being the whistleblowers on this.

BTW, why are the testimony of McNulty, Elston, Battle, Margolis, etc being kept secret?

During his Senate testimony, wasn't Kyle Sampson specifically asked (multiple times) about meetings with Rove regarding the US Attorneys?

I don't recall him mentioning this meeting...

Perhaps he cleared this up in his second (private) session with congressional staffers. If he did not, a perjury charge could be on the cards for Mssr Sampson.

"Margolis also says he fingered U.S. Attorney from western Michigan Margaret Chiara ..."

Unfortunate phrasing.

Was Monica Goodling chosen or did she volunteer to go down as scape goat?

paul lukasiak: BTW, why are the testimony of McNulty, Elston, Battle, Margolis, etc being kept secret?

If I had to guess, it may be because it makes it a tad harder for later witnesses to try to shape their testimonies to not contradict that of earlier witnesses. (I.e., get their lies to agree with each other.) It doesn't make it impossible, of course, but a little harder.

"At this point, it wouldn't suprise me if she was found to have committed suicide by shooting herself several times."

Just like footprints in the sand, there were two bullet holes because Jesus was with her.

Ah, Karl, you once again betray your role:

'The Justice Department needed to provide specific reasons why it terminated the eight prosecutors in order to rebut _Democratic_ [emphasis mine] charges that the firings were politically motivated. The point Rove and other White House officials made is "you all need to explain what you did and why you did it," McNulty told the investigators.'

As if Spector, Sessions, and other Republicans didn't have valid points. That's the problem, here -- Rove and everyone else is trying to cast this as an issue only for Democrats. Considering how votes have gone in the Judiciary Committee, Rove has more to worry about than just Democrats. But admitting as much would ruin his framing. It's politics all the time for him, which is exactly the problem with the Justice Department -- they shouldn't be consulting the political side of the White House operation about anything related to this scandal. That in itself is a huge indicator of political impropriety.

"Was Monica Goodling chosen or did she volunteer to go down as scape goat?"

Since she has yet to provide any testimony, the jury is still out regarding her scapegoat status. Considering all the maneuvering by Down and the DoJ investigators, her testimony seems less likely than that of Rice before Waxman's committee. Goodling is a caged bird that is not going to be allowed to sing.

Protective custody for her might be worth considering.

"Was Monica Goodling chosen?"

Well, I suspect even she would admit she was "chosen"

But Jesus didn't do it this time.

Does anyone know where a full transcript of Kyle Sampson's Senate testimony might be found?

The Judiciary Committee only seems to have his written statement and "the google" doesn't turn it up.

Colonel Rove, in the study, with the candlestick. What do I win?

Codeword: bent. Do with it what you will.

In my opinion it all points to this- Goodling was given the names from the White House and told to come up with a cover story for each firing. That's why none of the people at the DOJ who you would think had input say they didn't have any input. Everything points to Goodling being given the names by Rove.

Goodling/Comstock rlationship started at RNC oppo research operaton

From the Legal Times 4/2/07
http://www.law.com/jsp/dc/PubArticleDC.jsp?id=1174912588726&hub=TopStories

"Goodling quickly won Comstock’s trust for her hard work and talent for digging up information on tort litigation and judicial nominations. And when Griffin left in 2001, Goodling became Comstock’s deputy. They helped prepare Ashcroft and Theodore Olson for their confirmation hearings to be attorney general and solicitor general, respectively.

When Comstock became Ashcroft’s spokeswoman in 2002, she brought Goodling along as her deputy."

Goodling has really boxed herself in.

If nobody was responsible for putting the names of the US Attorneys on a list to be fired, maybe they weren't actually fired after all.

It should be relatively easy to start from the end of the process - where the letters informing those US Attorneys who were fired that they were being fired - and follow the trail of the firing list back to where it started by asking a simple question: "Who did you get the firing list from?"

hate to get off topic but...does nayone know how to find out who in congress signed off on this threat: (to the universities): was it just that ass lamar smith from my home state o ftexas or were there democrats?

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070503-congress-to-universities-curb-piracy-or-we-will-be-forced-to-act.html

Perhaps the DoJ officals could stop their group circle-jerk long enough to spin the bottle and choose the bus tire bait . . . OR all sign their letters of resignation then run off to Dubai to write their books.

Michael Stevens:
RE: Sampson testimony transcript...

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/sampson_transcript032907.html

SIDE NOTE: I have heard this sorta thing before about Rove(r) . . . Arrives after foreplay has ended and leaves before anyone else gets a shot off.

Goodling did not make the list. Its clear from the email trail of released documents that prior to the firing, Kelley, Miers and Jennings were communicating primarily with Sampson. Goodling was in touch mostly with Jennings regarding Griffin's hiring. See graph:
http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w31/drational/Crown6-1.jpg

and discussion:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/30/103711/903

If Goodling accepts blame, it will be as a sacrifice for the sins of Rove (in Regent U lingo)

Is Moinca Goodling in this picture?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jpryan/436894522/

The Bloomberg article is a stunner. Sampson might be looking at some serious jail time.

Is it possible that Monica will say that she was responsible for the names on the list that no one has accepted responsibility for yet, to shield everybody else, and then, with her immunity in hand, skip off to te private sector where she will make millions from some rich rightwinger?

Monica Goodling Groupie

As Phil James notes above this is not all about some fired USAs. The WH is trying mightily to hide their tracks in a lot of different directions. In addition to the obstruction of justice related to the USA firings and the Hatch Act violations Phil James mentioned, I would also like to add that there are probably threads that connect to the Jack Abramoff scandal (a two-fer that includes ripping off Native American tribes (for the benefit of Cheney's Energy Task Force pals) and paying off legislators (comprising Rove's "permanent Republican majority")) as well as to ginning up excuses to invade Iraq (again for the fun and profit of the Energy Task Force participants). The cast of characters in all of this is interconnected.

If this were just about the attorneys Gonzo would be gone just to put an end to the scandal. But Bush can't afford to have a Senate-approved replacement for the AG who might pursue all the illegal activities the Executive Branch has been up to. So Gonzales has to stay put, while the WH hopes to God that everyone stays so focussed on the USAs, that they don't get around to uncovering the other skeletons lurking in their closet that are probably much much worse.

Monica did not approach Margolis until three hours after Sampson did. This implies that Sampson told Goodling that he had told Margolis. Goodling never stepped forward, she was outed, which shows how lacking in character she is. It is impossible to feel sympathy for her.

So Gonzales has to stay put, while the WH hopes to God that everyone stays so focussed on the USAs, that they don't get around to uncovering the other skeletons lurking in their closet that are probably much much worse.
Posted by: phred

Very good point. It's important to keep in mind that they have tried to put a "loyal Bushie" stamp on every department. Any gov't employee hired during the Bush terms is going to have to be seriously looked at- whether they be a political appointee or even some career employees. It now seems Goodling was tasked with making sure even the career employees at DOJ were "loyal Bushies." Anyway, it makes sense- the administration drags this out hoping that they can keep the Dems from looking at all the other unethical shit the administration has done. I really hope Leahy can pick up the pace and start connecting the dots. Time is running out and don't like the thought of these scumbags escaping justice.

"I really hope Leahy can pick up the pace and start connecting the dots. Time is running out and don't like the thought of these scumbags escaping justice."
-anonymous post

I could not agree with you more. As much as I dislike the current administration, what really worries me is that their precedent of unitary executive authority will go unchallenged. If their conduct is given a pass, how much further might a future President be willing to push such authority?

More than any other reason I have heard, this is why I want the whole disgraceful bunch impeached and where possible prosecuted.

"2. she is in some sort of emotional state which optimistically means that she will roll over on Rove"

More likely she'll bend over for Rove. But why is everyone so willing to do that?

No, Goodling can't take the fall and responsibility for the firing list. She'd have to prove that she was tasked with that by someone, did the 'research', set criteria herself, wrote up an original list, and then got Gonzo and Miers (at a minimum) to sign off on it. For one thing, that doesn't improve the legal jeopardy for her superiors and followthrough on that still leading to Rove. Nor can that assertion of responsibility be squared with the existing paper trail or potential future discoveries of emails, witnesses, policy, etc.

That last 28% in the electorate can in fact be changed. They don't go into opposition (none of the last 32% ever really do) to their Party and its leaders, but they can go passive- give up any defense of Team Bush- and poll as "undecided". They'll do that when the White House is exposed as a hive of crimes and conspiracy to commit crimes. It's not that these last hardcore sorts have a personal problem with Team Bush and the RNC stealing elections. They are, however, deeply allergic to their movement being pinned (i.e utterly discredited) in public opinion as having a proven record of and proven continued intent to steal elections.

I'd say that Karl Rove's email and paper trail ultimately leads to a conspiracy to deny the right and opportunity to vote to enough people across enough states and election years that the design is obvious. There's probably some small group of Republican election operatives in a so far undiscovered or hidden-in-plain-sight offshoot of the RNC whose job is to figure out how to engineer sufficient Democratic voter suppression every major election cycle. The problem is largely to identify them, but Karl should have left enough of a trail to find them.

Does this article actually say that Rove misled Congress? What a spinmeister to have this story buried!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18479265/site/newsweek/?from=rss

Rove, Still In the Mix

Web exclusive
By Michael Isikoff
Newsweek
Updated: 6:23 p.m. PT May 3, 2007

May 3, 2007 - Deputy chief of staff Karl Rove participated in a hastily called meeting at the White House two months ago. The subject: The firing of eight U.S. attorneys last year. The purpose: to coach a top Justice Department official heading to Capitol Hill to testify on the prosecutorial purge on what he should say.
Story continues below ↓advertisement

Now some investigators are saying that Rove’s attendance at the meeting shows that the president’s chief political adviser may have been involved in an attempt to mislead Congress—one more reason they are demanding to see his e-mails and force him to testify under oath.

At the March 5, 2007, meeting, White House aides, including counsel Fred Fielding and deputy counsel William Kelley, sought to shape testimony that Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General William Moschella was to give the next day before the House Judiciary Committee.

"More likely she'll bend over for Rove. But why is everyone so willing to do that?"
-Posted by obsessed

I suspect because in the insular world of the WH people still believe that Rove is the Messiah who will deliver unto them their Permanent Republican Majority. He's been referred to as Bush's Brain, and a genius, among other things, and I think these folks actually believe it.

Why they STILL believe it after last November is a mystery to me. Perhaps they think if they clap loud enough Rove will make everything turn out alright in 2008 and all will be well in their little world once more. That said, I see more and more cracks in the Republican facade these days. So I think Rove may finally be heading for the comeuppance he so richly deserves. We'll see...

The important thing to remember in understanding how this administration operates, and therefore who is responsible for certain decisions and steps, is this. Karl Rove does the thinking for all domestic policy. Dick Cheney does all the thinking for foreign policy. It's that simple. Bush himself does not think. Never has. Never will. Now what was the purpose of the USA firings? Simple. To jettision independent prosecutors who were either busy indicting high profile Republicans or not busy enough indicting Democrats, and replace them with political hacks who would do Rove's bidding. Again, remember, Rove does the thinking. If Rove doesn't go down in this fiasco, then nothing has happened, nothing has changed.

phred:

"My brethern these are troubled times, our President is under attack please pray for him and our leaders and show your support today in the collection plate...."

My far right former sinner friend got huffy at me for pointing out how a clear majority of Americans no longer support Bush's policies. He still did not back down on his support for the president but, he did agree that there were probably some republicans on the Madam's client list.

As I was leaving he began calling the Prayer List hotline for his church.

From Bloomberg:

"Margolis testified in private that he tried to console Goodling and listened to her discuss her personal life, a congressional aide said. He recalled telling a colleague that he was concerned about Goodling's emotional state, the aide said."

What was going on in Goodling's personal life that she felt compelled to tell Margolis about?

From a Legal News story:

"Her dedication was legendary, so much so that Ashcroft's office would ask to "borrow" her for projects. Corallo says Goodling would stay all night. "I'd come in at 8 a.m., and she'd be sleeping on my sofa in the office."

Goodling often traveled with Ashcroft on tours promoting neighborhood safety and the Patriot Act. Former colleagues say Ashcroft also had a particular taste for Goodling's brownies..."

Was Goodling having an affair with John Ashcroft? Goodling must have admired Ashcroft for years because she has a quote from Ashcroft on her Regent U. website. (link below)

If Goodling was having an affair with John Ashcroft (and I hope like hell she was), I want to hear every single salacious detail about it. I want to know who knew, when they knew and what they did to cover it up.

I want Monica Goodling in front of the television cameras, then John Ashcroft and I don't want the Democrats to show one iota of mercy or compassion for these two sanctimonious hypocrites.

Never forget!

Hey, a girl can dream!

I noticed that Corallo said that Ashcroft appreciated Monica's work and brownies, but I searched and could not find Ashcroft ever saying anything about her himself.

Comstock and Corallo are business partners.

Ashcroft said that he does not approve of the politicalization of justice. I think that he resigned because he knew where Rove was headed and did not want to be part of it. There is no indication that Ashcroft assisted Monica's career or approved of firing US Attorneys.

There is evidence that Comstock and Corallo assisted Monica's career and approved of the firings and loyalty oaths.

I don't think Ashcroft had an affair with Monica. I think he was repulsed by Rove's plans. I wish he would testify.

I am he as you are he as you are me
and we are all together
See how they run like pigs from a gun
see how they fly
I'm crying
Sitting on a cornflake
Waiting for the van to come
Corporation T-shirt, stupid bloody Tuesday
Man you've been a naughty boy
you let your face grow long

I am the eggman
they are the eggmen
I am the walrus
Koo Koo Kachoo

A linke again to the Bloomberg story:
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a2E0Xyb65axc

Note the timeline: March 5th is the White House meeting.

On March 8th Goodling is in Margolis's office crying that her government career may be over. Any guesses as to what may have been discussed between March 5th and March 8th? Given that no one in the DOJ aside from Gonzales would have the power to remove Goodling, and given that Gonzales seems to have been out of the loop on personnel decisions who does that leave?

Finally, when Margolis refers to Sampson's "binder filled with White House correspondence" doesn't this contradict Sampson's Senate testimony that he only had a small file containing U.S. Attorney information?

Of course I'm only speculating - but then aren't we all? And I'm going to incur the big-time wrath of Mrs P here. But then ... oh, well.

My view of Ms Goodling, expressed here a few weeks back, is only buttressed by these revelations today.

I assumed all along that she would crack, but I did not guess that she had already cracked - back on 3/5.

When they report her tears related to a career in government being over along with concerns about her "personal life," I read the tea leaves differently. I read that this a woman who has sacrificed a personal life for a career in government. And now she's found out that she has neither. She's not rich, she has no marriage, no children, and if she's smart she's also recognizing that not only does she have no government career now, she's got no career period. And nothing to fall back on.

Remember, she's a child of divorce, we presume. Or possibly the child of an unwed mother? In any case this is someone, I'm guessing, who has based her whole life on being perfect, getting ahead, proving herself to be better than her background would suggest.

And now the world is collapsing around her. It would not surprise me that her internal world is also collapsing, possibly her fundamentalist creed, who knows?

But, although she acted high and mighty when given too much power for an inexperienced young woman, she's in legal trouble, can't really discuss this except with her attorney, and I honestly think she will sing bigtime.

I'm ready to be corrected as events unfold. But believe me, people who appear powerful on the outside can be mighty vulnerable and fragile on the inside. And what we've heard today only convinces me that this is likely the case with our Ms Goodling.

If Goodling has the goods and is willing to spill them, she will redeem herself. And I suspect that's what's coming.

Sorry for the very long post here.

@michael Stevens:

"But if Sampson revealed that he discussed the e-mails with Gonzo, then Gonzales is definitely guilty of perjury."

Only if Al remembered Sampson telling him. Its not perjury if you hallucinate when you testify. Mabye Al didn't lie -- he may have suffered a traumatic brain injury. Repeatedly.

On the plus side for Al, if he is in fact functionally retarded, then he may have job security under Americans With Disabilities Act. Has anyone looked into whether the DoJ has facilities and programs in place for short bus employees? You know, the ones that have to wear a helmet when they brush their teeth.

Posted by: Michael Stevens
Good points about Sampson. Unless he was much more forthcoming in private he could be in some serious shit. Sampson decided to risk committing perjury and going to jail in an effort to protect Rove. WHY? Was there the promise of a job in the private sector, was he afraid of being seen as a disloyal Bushie- why would a guy with his background lie under oath and mislead investigators? Unless Sampson told a very different story in private he might want to get on the phone and see if they will allow him to strike a deal and start spilling his guts pronto. All signs now point to Rove- Sampson did his best to cover for him but he can't deflect attention from Rove any longer. But he can try and keep himself out of jail.

Look this is pretty simple,chimpy calls a prayer meeting,they all have a good pray,then chimpy calls out,in the name of Jesus I call on the person who put these names forward to stand up.Problem solved.

Will there be a story regarding the fact that McKay was on the list as early as Mar '05, at the time, he was asking questions/and pressuring DOJ on Asst USA Wales murder? That case has been big in Wash State and has never gone anywhere. No leads, no known motive, etc. Why would DOJ not be in full pursuit mode for one of their own? Apparently, McKay was quite frustrated over this and wanted more resources which the Washington State office never got.

More and more, the Bush administration looks and acts like a Mob-run operation, with Karl Rove being both the mastermind behind the Mob operation and the enforcer.

In the case of the DOJ, it wasn't jury-tampering (which on occasion the Mafia has practiced), but U.S. Attorney-tampering and career DOJ employee-tampering.

At the same time, the Republican "talking point" mouthpieces keep repeating that there's "no underlying crime" so move along, there's nothing to see here. Move along. Move along.

But we're not fooled anymore.

Crimes have been committed, especially by holy rollers like Monica Goodling, in an attempt to turn our Justice Department into an anti-abortion storm trooper arm of Pat Robertson's Regent University.

Crimes have been committed, and no amount of lies by the Bush administration and their talking heads in the MSM will change this.

All I can say regarding a possible Ashcroft/Goodling affair, or even her having a crush on him:

Ewwwwwwwww. ASHCROFT? Good God.

TheraP: Good post!

I agree entirely regarding your assessment of Goodling. I too think she is misguided young women who is in a very bad place.

I've never considered her as a cold, calculating apparatchik. I believe, as you do that she is a party faithful who gave her entire life over to what she considered a calling. She probably believes in the divine right of kings, with W appointed by God. She was definitely given far too much power for a person of her age and it certainly showed. But I never saw her as the power mad, ruthless sort.

Goodling is now faced with the hard reality that her life's work has been for naught. As you point out, she has no husband, no children, no money, and few prospect except for a strong possibility of jail time. She's rightfully scared and probably alone. I suspect she saw immunity as a glittering ray of light at the end of a long, dark, tunnel.

I very much disagree with those who suggest she and/or her attorney have been colluding with the administration to continue a cover-up. Goodling became radioactive to the administration the moment she announced her plans to plead the 5th. I very much doubt any of them "have had occasion" to speak a word to her since.

Were this sort of collusion to occur, Goodling, her attorney, and whomever they were colluding with would all be looking at long jail time. Even if Goodling wanted to go this route, her attorney never would.

And what would a cover-up from Goodling buy? My guess, maybe, "maybe" a month or two of time before the information came out through another source. Many of those involved are already singing. The surprise and disdain her lawyer showed upon learning of the DOJ plans to block her immunity should prove beyond any reasonable doubt that there is no collusion.

I suspect the DOJ's move to block her immunity has once again turned her world upside down and has once again put her into a very dark place.

I, like you, think Goodling will sing mightily if given the opportunity. She realizes she has sinned and wants nothing more than to clense her soul. (literally)

Question and clarification needed. I think I remember that Sampson was asked to come to the second private interview with all relevant documents. If he did bring his binder, the SJ Com. know what they need to know to bring the whole lot down; it he did not, what or, which, crimes is he guilt of?

And did anyone notice the breaking news on Daily Kos that Griffin is being investigated for election fraud revealed by the BBC report Palast, who got the email sent by mistake to a spoof site.....So many bodies,so few buses.....

what a coincidence. the security code is FEAR!

phil james said:

"The important thing to remember in understanding how this administration operates, and therefore who is responsible for certain decisions and steps, is this. Karl Rove does the thinking for all domestic policy. Dick Cheney does all the thinking for foreign policy. It's that simple. Bush himself does not think. Never has. Never will."

Hallelujah. Preach it, brother!

Bush himself isn't even on Time's list of the 100 most influential people. Even they're conceding, apparently, that Dubya's only a distraction.

And the rest of the governmental machinery is only there to employ friends and relatives as ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_stamp_%28politics%29

This is a small point that relates Monica Goodling prosecuting low-level crimes in the fall of 2004 during a presidential election.

From Legal Times (link below):

"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."

I checked Lexis-Nexis and Goodling was issued statements to the press as a DOJ spokeswoman in mid-September.

On or around 12/1/04, Goodling, DOJ spokeswoman, issued a statement to the New York Times about the budget for gun control.

Someoby ought to look at Goodling's calendar for that six-month rotation period.

Here is a very minor Monica sighting most likely from October 2004.

She is given the photo credit for a shot of Gonzalez holding the 2004 DOJ Task Force on Intellectual Property which came out in Oct. 2004. (It is in the Preface - pg 7 Adobe numbering)
http://www.eff.org/IP/criminal/DoJ-IP-Crime-Report-June2006.pdf
I first was just surprised someone in her position would have a photo credit - subsequently saw in comments on a TPMCafe post that she was an amateur photographer. She apparently was not a member or contributor to the task force which Kyle Sampson headed.

Unrelated, but the answer I would really like to know right now. Is Monica taking Barbara Comstock's phone calls?

mo2 said:

"Monica did not approach Margolis until three hours after Sampson did. This implies that Sampson told Goodling that he had told Margolis. Goodling never stepped forward, she was outed, which shows how lacking in character she is. It is impossible to feel sympathy for her."

Very, very good points!

But don't forget that Margolis wasn't the only one that Sampson told. The Bloomberg article:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a2E0Xyb65axc&refer=home

says that Sampson next went to see McNulty, right after he'd talked to Margolis and that (as we know, at some later point):

"[Goodling's] lawyers cited accusations by Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty that Goodling and others had misled him about the firings as a basis for refusing to testify."

Piecing this all together - and back-filling the timeline, as it were - it's now obvious that Kyle Sampson is among the "others" the McNulty is/was ticked off about "misleading him". It's not a suspicion on McNulty's part: he was apparently told at least parts of the truth about the stuff he and others told Congress, from various dates before Mar 6th; when prosecutors testified.

I (somewhat snarkily) wonder if Sampson went right to a shredding machine, with his folder, at about the same time that Goodling was crying? Or maybe he wishes he had, in retrospect?

Mar 8th was a Thursday. My memory of things is that Sampson actually announced his resignation during that following weekend ... and that it was essentially not accepted until a day or two later, when people were back at work, on the regularly scheduled work week.

I have to wonder if this wasn't Sampson's "Oh, hell; I'm in fear for my life now!" reaction to the idea that high-placed DOJ'ers would have been treating him as Pure Plutonium for the rest of that Thursday; with Friday confirming that he was seriously on many people's poop lists ... so he essentially said (to himself) that he wasn't returning to that Hostile Working Environment?

I have to also wonder about Monica's leave of absence, in that same basic light?

Both avoiding their work places, soon after at least part of the truth came out ... hmmm.

Were internal DOJ'ers essentially shopping for torches and pitchforks, after they found out? (Also factor in the news from this week that those two had secret authority grants.)

Giant Teapot said:

"No wonder the recent Gerald R. Ford funeral fetishized letting bygones be bygones and putting long national nightmares behind us. That's how Rove, Rumsfeld and Cheney survived the Nixonian cradle to come back to f**k us over even more ruthlessly. Only accountability followed by eternal vigilance will prevent this from happening again. I'd rather not watch a third iteration of this on the nursing home TV in 2040."

Exactly ... that last bit echoes my thoughts exactly.

One of the Congress people said something I liked, before Gonzo was scheduled to testity. It was something along the lines of: that in Texas, they held the trial first; then the hangings. I think that's essentially what it is going to take, to deter future wrong-doers from temptation. They have to be afraid to be in any danger of being treated like these current criminals are; or we will be seeing this crap every generation or so. And worse, every time it appears.

I'm of the opinion that this whole thing DOES in fact relate back to Clinton, in a sense. (A favored GOP “blame it all on him” bit of parrot-talk.) I think that when Clinton (essentially) declared war on Big Tobacco, any and all gloves came off. The decision to avoid any kind of oversight happened then - with the knowledge, consent and active cooperation of corporations. Stolen elections were planned almost immediately, and carried out.

And here we are, sorting it all out.

Taking their jobs away won't deter others.

Taking money from them won't help, either.

Hang a few dozen of them ... and that might straighten the remainder of them out, for a while. Might; no guarantees!

Essentially, this is all a bloodless Civil War within our government. I'm not hoping for any sort of bloodshed; but I think it's inevitable that escalation sets in, when one big set of interests decides that its way of life is not at all compatible with the other biggie's chosen way of life.

If you hit them, they'll hit you back. And then you hit them back-back. And so on. That’s just human nature. (For you to have hit them, in the first place, you feel they did you some wrong, before that. Not so, from their point of view. In their mind, you probably deserved to be hit then. So both parties end up seeing themselves as the victims, who are just trying to right some obvious, initial wrong.)

What I'm hoping - just a tiny, fragile little bit - is that the smarter Dems are trying hard to show the smarter Reps that this isn't going to end well for them ... unless they, temporarily, switch sides and kick ass on the people that are causing all of the citizens all this trouble.

I feel that if the call for Bush and Cheney’s impeachment came from Republicans, a lot of healing could take place, because of that. It would be seen as an acknowledgement that this cannot continue; and that the Rule of Law is all that holds this society together. And I’m hoping that more and more Republicans wake up, and see it’s in their court. The only way they’ll recover the people’s trust is to fix the mess that they helped to make over the last few years.

Sorry to keep going and going, on this. A lot fell into place, for me, with the Bloomberg article. And it's opening news doors, as well.

"Margolis recounted that Sampson read his e-mail exchanges with White House aides that showed the decisions on firing the prosecutors were closely coordinated with members of the president's staff, the aide said."

Why would Sampson read his e-mail exchanges to Margolis ... unless he was wearing a wire; and needed for it all to be audible? It makes little sense; if any. Why wouldn't the person he was showing them to, read it for him or herself?

Can you picture scheduled testimony, behind closed doors, that starts with your own voice, on tape, saying Lord Only Knows What Incriminating Things ... in response to things like Sampson's WH e-mails? Wouldn't it be impossible to pull a Gonzo, and brazen it all out? Not saying that did happen ... but having Senators quote you your own words, in such a situation, would speak volumes. It would say "We already have you. But we don't necessarily want you. We want the truly Big Fish. Rat 'em out. Or else, you fry."

I'm reconsidering a lot of things, now. "Why tell any of that to anyone?" was probably the first big question I had. There isn't a self-serving way for me to see it - imagining it in Sampson's shoes. Why serially incriminate himself with DOJ? They'd either already know it, already; or his and Monica's secret was safe from that person.

I can't buy a "conscience" excuse. No way in heck.

I'm wondering why the "voluntary" testimony by Sampson ... but pleading the 5th, for Monica? It sure looks like he was cooperating, earlier and more than perhaps we've pondered things, to date?

Why would Monica's lawyer have tried so hard, right from the first, to get her immunity ... unless she or they already had reason to believe that Kyle Sampson had it; or something better? In retrospect, it seems like a "me too" situation.

Go back and look at Monica's lawyer's assertions that she's in serious legal jeopardy even from her own truthful testimony ... and consider it from the point of view of a taped conversation between her and Sampson, on March 8th. (Not that he'd have told her he was wearing a wire!) Can you imagine all the "WTF?!" and "why!?" questions she'd have had for Sampson, as to why he told Margolis any of their deep, dark, shared secrets? (All the while, showing she knew about all of it.)

Very interesting stuff going on / being revealed.

I could be wrong about things ... and I'm likely just hoping some of this is possible / true ... but imagine the power of having two people quietly running a secret show ... if you've manage to turn one of them, at one (late) point or another, into some sort of a double agent?

Like the TPM TV show said: they can't fire Gonzo. He's there to prevent justice from happening. At this point, that's his only real value to anyone.

I'm more convinced than ever that the Dems have it all wrapped up; and are just biding their time. Hopefully, for Reps to start impeaching?

"That last 28% in the electorate can in fact be changed. They don't go into opposition (none of the last 32% ever really do) to their Party and its leaders, but they can go passive- give up any defense of Team Bush- and poll as "undecided". They'll do that when the White House is exposed as a hive of crimes and conspiracy to commit crimes."

Unfortunately, I have intimate knowledge of someone in that 28% . . . my mother. And let me tell you, she will stand by Bush as long as Bill O'Reilly does. Figuratively, BOR just opens up the top of her head and dumps in the trash. She honestly believes that man is fair and balanced (or she's refusing to admit her own bias to me). And she will never believe any proof about the White House's high crimes and misdemeanors because she will claim they are only lies made up by the "liberal media" and "secular progressives." When I attempt to have a rational conversation with her and use concrete examples of situations where political malfeasance has occurred, she just shuts down and says, "well, since you and I weren't there, you can't convince me that happened." Believe me, most of the 28% will stick with Bush&Co. until the bitter end and beyond.

C 92@May 4, 2007 10:52 PM

What did Monica Goodling do at DOJ in 2001? For that matter, what did Comstock and Corallo di?

Barbara Comstock, Mark Corallo and Goodling only show up on the DOJ OAP roster in January 2002:

Office of Public Affairs
Staff Contacts

Barbara Comstock
Director
(202) 616-2777

Lorena Gonzalez
Confidential Asst/Press Aide
(202) 616-2777

Monica Goodling
Senior Counsel
(202) 616-2777

Mark Corallo
Deputy Director
(202) 616-2777

Susan Dryden
Deputy Director
(202) 616-2777

Gina Talamona
Deputy Director
(202) 616-2777

Shannon James
Deputy Speechwriter
(202) 514-2007

Jill Stillman
FBI Special Agent
(202) 514-2007

Charles Miller
Public Affairs Specialist
(202) 514-2007

Bryan Sierra
Public Affairs Specialist
(202) 514-2007

Dana Perino
Public Affairs Specialist
(202 514-2007

Josie Duckett
Public Affairs Specialist
(202) 514 -2007

Casey Stavropoulos
Press Assistant
(202) 514-2007

Kerrie Jackson
Administrative Assistant
(202) 514-2007

Kim Wilson
Administrative Assistant
(202) 514-2007

I didn't know Dana Perino worked at the DOJ. Is Lorena Gonzalez related to Alberto?

In reading about Monica and Regents I see that Regents won an appeal to have the state issue bonds (Federally Insured)for the Va. Beach buildings.

Va's AG, a Regent grad and former partner at Huff, Poole & Mahoney, represented that district then.

Who made the money handling the legal/financial work for Regents?

Follow the money?

From a 3/30/07 WaPo story by Alan Cooperman, "Bush Loyalist Rose Quickly at Justice":

""She was the embodiment of a hardworking young conservative who believed strongly in the president and his mission," said David Ayres, former chief of staff to Bush's first attorney general, John D. Ashcroft."

From a 3/13/03 Legal Times story by Vanessa Blum, "Ashcroft's Inner Sanctum" (link below):

"Since taking the reins of the Justice Department in February 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft has relied heavily on a cadre of close advisers to monitor the department's wide-ranging activities and to flag issues that need his consideration.

Unlike other attorneys general who held daily or weekly meetings with the heads of DOJ units and agencies, Ashcroft only rarely sits down face to face with members of the department's senior management. Instead, most matters coming to his attention are filtered through longtime Chief of Staff David Ayres and Deputy Chief of Staff David Israelite -- known at Main Justice simply as "the Davids."

As a result, the attorney general's immediate staff wields unusual influence over policy decisions.

Interviews with 15 current and former Bush administration officials, many of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity, suggest that access to the attorney general is tightly controlled by political advisers who at times seem to run the department more like the office of a legislator seeking re-election than an executive branch agency.

What's more, Ashcroft has brought on a new layer of aides in recent months to oversee various aspects of the department's day-to-day business. To some, the expansion of the AG's staff seems to further limit the number of people reporting directly to Ashcroft and to centralize the flow of information through Ayres and Israelite.

On Oct. 3, the White House tapped James Comey Jr., U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, to be the new deputy AG -- the Justice Department's critical No. 2 post. But as the 42-year-old Comey learns his way around the department, he may find himself vying with Ashcroft's inner circle of advisers for authority...

Kyle Sampson, a Bush administration lawyer who helped guide Ashcroft through his rocky Senate confirmation in 2001, also joined the AG's personal staff in July. Among other duties, Sampson, 34, acts as a liaison with the Office of Legal Policy and Office of Legal Counsel and works on judicial nominations. Sampson graduated from University of Chicago Law School and clerked for Judge Karen Williams on the 4th Circuit.

Chuck Rosenberg, former special counsel to Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Robert Mueller III, oversees issues related to counterterrorism and national security. Rosenberg, 42, worked as an assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia for nearly a decade, where he tackled a number of sensitive espionage and national security cases.

Jeffrey Taylor, an Assistant U.S. Attorney from the Southern District of California, has been serving on detail in the AG's office since May 2002. Taylor, who is 38, focuses on criminal matters.

At the top, serving as Ashcroft's closest advisers and his political bodyguards, are Ayres and Israelite.

Ayres came on as campaign manager of Ashcroft's successful Senate bid in 1994 and has since served as Ashcroft's chief of staff. Ayres ran the campaign and later Ashcroft's Senate office while earning his business degree from the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School.

The 40-year-old father of four is known for being aggressive and intensely loyal to Ashcroft. He also shares his boss's deep religious conviction. In terms of influence with Ashcroft, no one in the Justice Department comes close to Ayres.

Israelite, a University of Missouri Law School grad and former litigation associate in the Kansas City office of St. Louis-based Bryan Cave, spent two years as a legislative aide to Missouri's other Republican senator, Christopher "Kit" Bond. Prior to joining the Justice Department, Israelite served as director of political and governmental affairs for the Republican National Committee..."

-

One avenue of investigation I think might be worth exploring is how much influence the Ashcroft Group LLC has at the DOJ.

http://www.ashcroftgroupllc.com/

I read about the Ashcroft Group in Wikipedia and the minute it opened the doors in the fall of 2005, the money came rolling in.

The Ashcroft Group roster:

John D. Ashcroft - Chairman
David T. Ayres - Chief Executive Officer
Tyler P. Alcorn - Senior Advisor
Lori Sharpe Day - Senior Advisor
William C. T. Gaynor II - Senior Advisor
Tracy A. Henke - Senior Advisor
Susan Richmond Johnson - Senior Advisor
Juleanna Glover Weiss - Senior Advisor

What? Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww? Or "Good God"? I have tears in my eyes from laughing after reading JulietL's comment.

An Ashcroft/Goodling affair would be a gazillion times funnier than Larry Flynt outing Bob Livingston and Bob Barr!

Webdems - FYI: Comstock and Corallo are prrtners in a consulting firm, according to Wikipedia (link below). I know Lurita Doan hired Corallo for damage control and supposedly Comstock is working for the Romney campaign.

I didn't know that Comstock was obsessed with "getting" the Clintons until I read the Wiki entry.

Based on my informal research, the Dems have to take the high road if Ashcroft was having an affair with Goodling. JulietL isn't alone in her "ewwwwww" and people who don't follow politics closely don't remember Ashcroft all that well. But they do know about the DOJ scandal.

The Dems can legitimately investigate whether Ashcroft used his romantic relationship with Goodling to influence the DOJ on behalf of his clients. Goodling could have served as a conduit to transmit information from the Ashcroft Group to the DOJ and WH and vice versa.

As hard as it would be, the big Dems must refrain from making comparisons between the Clinton/Lewinsky affair and the Ashcroft/Goodling one. But the rest of us can crack up laughing about it. :):):)

The big Dems need to remember that the only thing the two affairs have in common is the name, "Monica." Unlike Goodling, Lewinsky had no power to influence decisions that would benefit anyone financially or politically.

As much as I would like to hear every salacious detail about an Ashcroft/Goodling affair, I am quite willing to forego hearing them in the interest of maintaining decorum and focusing on the very real issue of a thoroughly corrupt DOJ.

After reading about Ashcroft's recent dealings with XM Radio and the National Association of Broadcasters, I think we can assume that John Ashcroft is a whore who will take whatever side of an issue that benefits him financially.

Even if Ashcroft did not have an affair with Goodling, the SJC and the HJC might want to inquire as to the nature of communications between the principals of the Ashcroft Group and high level DOJ officials.

As an aside, I'm beginning to wonder whether the identity of the person or entity footing Goodling's legal bills is relevant to the investigation.

Another aside - Regent U. has been busy placing text robots on certain pages on versions of its website in the internet archive. Robots have been placed on most of "news" pages, for example.

So sorry to hear that, Connie. Yes, I know people like that too.... They're defiant now, but they are noticing that their ugly opinions are no longer safe, that the atmosphere is changing.

I take the recently increasing defiance as a sign of progress, though, unhappy as it may be. Niebuhr says frantic orthodoxy is not a result of certainty, it's a sign of doubt sinking in. Denial is terrible in how it intensifies before it begins to break down.

I should have been more clear. It's not a large proportion of that last 28% that will ever give way- perhaps a third in the way I read the pollings. (There's some kind of polling bedrock for the Right at the 18-19% level.)

But there's a psychological and political line coincident with ~24% approval which historically is fatal to elected politicians who fall under it. When it is crossed is when their buddies in their Party sense the voters have become merciless and will hang them en masse if they stick together. And these buddies scurry away, every (wo)man for him/herself, leaving the weakest as prey for the wolves of the opposition. At the time Nixon got the famous phone call from Capitol Hill Republicans, Gallup had him dropping to 23% approval.