consider what this statememnt DOESN'T sat

"I believe that the thousands of documents that have been produced demonstrate only that in the weeks before my testimony, many in the Department struggled with the question of how best to provide Congress with accurate information about the removals of the U.S. Attorneys, consistent with our efforts to protect the reputations of the U.S. Attorneys involved."

how could you struggle with that ???

"struggled with the question of how best to provide Congress with accurate information"

it would seem that TELLING THE TRUTH was NOT AN OPTION

cuz, you know, the BEST WAY TO PROVIDE ACCURATE INFORMATION WOULD BE TO TELL THE TRUTH

but mcnulty was "STRUGGLING" with that

once you figure that out, mcnulty couldn't have been sturggling to find a way to tell the truth

Sounds like they've worked their story out.

Spoken like someone who wants to avoid an indictment, and who doesn't want to be snitched on by his associates.

So he'll defend to the death the faith-based, immaculate conception theory of the firing lists: no actual person ever identified a single attorney for firing, those names just sort of showed up one day. Maybe they were left at the door, like Moses in the bullrushes?

And he was incorrectly prepped with scrubbed, inaccurate and incomplete information. But no one meant any harm by that.

I think we're looking at a healing moment here.

Check this out.

"In the months since then, **we** have had the chance to review thousands of documents from within the Department, and Congress has heard dozens of hours of testimony and interviews from me and others at the Department. **We** have learned that my knowledge at the time I testified about the replacement of the U.S. Attorneys was in some respects incomplete."

Why does he speak in plural? Who is this **we** he is talking about? Him and Gonzales???

Let's think of questions to ask him and then send them off to some of the committee members...

1)Who do you think put together the list?
2)Based on your reading through the emails, what do you think happened?
3)What do you think of Goodling using partisan politics to hire/fire? Did you know of that practice? How would you have reacted had you learned that while employed by the DoJ?
4)Please tell us what you know of why each US Attorney was fired.
5)From what you know, is von Spakowsky qualified and competent to serve as FEC chairman?

and more?

Let's think of questions to ask him and then send them off to some of the committee members...

1)Who do you think put together the list?
2)Based on your reading through the emails, what do you think happened?
3)What do you think of Goodling using partisan politics to hire/fire? Did you know of that practice? How would you have reacted had you learned that while employed by the DoJ?
4)Please tell us what you know of why each US Attorney was fired.
5)From what you know, is von Spakowsky qualified and competent to serve as FEC chairman?

and more?

real hero here. or yet another skidmark on the justice system. knowingly lying to congress when his former lies didn't make it. and this is an attorney?
is congress going to nail him to the wall with hard questions or ask him about his cologne?

real hero here. or yet another skidmark on the justice system. knowingly lying to congress when his former lies didn't make it. and this is an attorney?
is congress going to nail him to the wall with hard questions or ask him about his cologne?

Will anybody in this g-damn administratin tell the truth? These people need to have a "purge of confession".

sounds like somebody got to mr. mcnulty. "all that ugly stuff that was said before...never mind."

1. In what respects was your knowledge incomplete?
What was missing?
2. Whose responsibility was it to inform the DAG, you, about this missing detail?
3. How often did you see/speak with this person?
4. Do you think this person did not understand their job?
5. Who hired this person?
6. Has anyone promoted this person within DOJ? If so, on what grounds? Who found this person competent? Can you produce their employee evaluation for each year of service?

7. What is the job title of the person or persons who left your knowledge incomplete?
8. Have you ever hired a person for that job title?
9. What job title does that person report to - who is their supervisor?
10. Did their supervisor hire them?

1. What did Monica Goodling tell you about Tim Griffin's role in Ballot security measures, i.e. caging?
2. Why did you omit these references to caging in your prior testimony.
3. What is the DOJ policy on enforcing NVRA, purging voters who do not vote in 2 consecutive general elections?
4. Who in the DOJ is leading the efforts to combat "Voter Fraud"
5. Who in the DOJ is charged with enforcing the 1982 and 1987 Consent Decrees, preventing RNC involvement in ballot security measures that are racially biased? In other words, after purging the civil rights section, who is left to protect against voter suppression?
6. What is your understanding of RNC involvement by Tim Griffin and others in 2004 ballot security efforts (caging)?
7. Who in the DOJ would know the most about Tim Griffin and other RNC and Bush/Cheney 2004 operative's involvement in ballot security programs in 2004?
8. Can you explain the Consent decrees and what they prevent?

Good Lord, this is annoying. The Dems got played again. When the police are investigating a group of people regarding a crime they seperate the suspects and apply steady, constant pressure. Here, the Dems applied some pressure and created some cracks in the story. Then they let the suspects re-group and get their stories straight. Now the wagons are circled, and the Dems will get nothing.

Again.

Those who have read the dump documents might remember the large number of drafts ****the team*** made prior to Gonzales' 2nd appearance wherein they cut and paste various phrases and denial statements.
Many of these phrases are in McNulty's statement above.
His term **WE** makes sense if you accept the doing-everything-by-committee- to-avoid -indiv.-blame process DOJ uses.
McNulty's carrying water shows in the last paragraph, with his emphasis on DOJ being non-partisan translates that he is still one of the pod people, no doubt already having secured his next rewarding job from his masters.

McNulty testimony:
"The Attorney General and I are responsible for evaluating the performance of the United States Attorneys ...U.S. Attorneys are removed or asked or encouraged to resign from time to time. However, in this Administration U.S. Attorneys are never—repeat, never— removed, or asked or encouraged to resign, in an effort to retaliate against them, or interfere with, or inappropriately influence a particular investigation, criminal prosecution, or civil case. ... Let me be perfectly clear—at no time has the Administration sought to avoid the Senate confirmation process by appointing an interim United States Attorney and then refusing to move forward, in consultation with home-State Senators, on the selection, nomination and confirmation of a new United States Attorney. Not once."
http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=2516&wit_id=2742

I'm surprised he's not using "It was to protect the troops" line. Because if the troops knew that we were corrupt as hell, they wouldn't believe a single thing we said and stop fighting. If they stopped fighting then we wouldn't have any terrorists to fight. With no terrorists, we couldn't prosecute the evildoers. Don't you get it Madam speaker? With no evildoers, why would we even have a department of justice?

Is it possible that the House Jud. Committee has been played again? It would seem so. Conyers plodding investigation has worked to the Republicans benefit. Dems on the Committee are poorly prepared and refuse to go for the jugular.

"...the finest group of professionals that could ever be found serving in a government department or agency."

finest group of professionals? Monica Goodling, Kyle Sampson, Alberto Gonzales? That alone is such a clear false statement to Congress that McNulty should be sent to prison for a few years.

McNulty must have been promised a nice job (and keeping his kneee caps) if he doesn't roll on the other conspirators.

God, these people are all cut from the same cloth, aren't they.
Is it too much to ask for ONE high-level "deep throat" (maybe a disgruntled IT worker for Blackberry who can locate all the 2005-2006 email traffic between DOJ and gwb43.com) to shine some light on these slugs??

McNulty has zero potential of being the last person holding the hot potato at the end of the day. This is a kiss-off speech. Nothing to see here, folks. Seeya latah, bye.

My god Kiel, where did you get that Goodling went after McNulty with "guns blazing". She merely mentioned he had been less than "fully candid" (in such a way that I thought "but you didn't here that from me" was going to follow her comment). McNulty is probably the most honest (and that's not saying much) of the group. He seems to be downplaying but not denying the involvement of others in the firings. Goodling is the most dishonest and blame damaged of the group. She immediately pleads the 5th, has her attorney give questions to the committee to make sure everything that might be a crime is asked about so it would be covered under her "immunity". She is all about CYA. She will and has done anything to do just that including bawling her eyes out about the injustice of it all and her good intentions. Then before the committee playing her cutest goody-goody two shoes with, "but I didn't mean to"..("did I mention caging...and Mcnulty wasn't fully candid and oh yeah, Gonzales might have had an inappropriate moment").
She's the dishonest one and has been covering from the get go and why? I feel she is the one the WH used the most (swear to god you won't ever mention this) to get things done. Gonzo turned all power over to her. The WH used her as a liaison to the DoJ. She didn't ask why she just did. And now she walks away clean. She's the liar (but it's not really lying if it's God's work). It isn't hard to believe that Miers and Rove worked her. She acts like she didn't do a thing...really...and is just naive and innocent. But look at what we know she's done, especially politicizing the hiring and firing, getting her buddies on etc. From the RNC to the WH to the DoJ. Just a coincidence? Luck? Competence? I don't think so. Willing to lie and do dishonest things without telling...Bingo.

The HJS better be sitting on some interesting documents/transcripts or this is all for nothing. Yes, they are getting played, it's breathtaking obvious, duh, and they are letting it happen.

In a way, I'd rather they didn't bother with the whole mess if they are going to end up with nothing. And nothing is what they are going to get if they don't change the game soon.

I don't mean to get all negative but, come on, where's the beef? So far, the Bush team has had to take a little heat but I doubt they care because, in the longer term, they are winning.

Code: please

They are busy job-hunting.
Why spit in the soup bowl.

http://www.jsonline.com/watch/?watch=1&date=6/22/2007&id=25435

In another humiliating setback, eastern Wisconsin US attorney Steve Biskupic ate crow and plea bargained his way out of having to prosecute felony charges he brought against a Wisconsin businessman for fraud, lying to the FBI, illegal campaign contributions, and the most serious of the bunch,
supporting Democratic candidates in general and gubernatorial candidate and incumbent governor Jim Doyle in particular.
The original indictment and charges carried up to 25 years. But after a progress conference with a less-than-enthusiastic 7th Circuit CA judge and the defendent Troha's defense attorney, Biskupic mea culpaed and took back the indictment, saying that it was no longer operative and he would have to respin the charges since the original crimes weren't really crimes at all even though he strongly believed that the defendent Mr. Troha had used the US mails to commit these non-crimes and had therefor committed mail non-fraud or unfraud. No real matter though, your honor, really, counsel and me we're gonna work out a bargain not to waste any more of your time on this.
And there won't be a trial, and certainly not one like that Georgia Thompson thing where you mocked me and mine. Misdemeanors for Mr. Troha. No more. No trial. I don't know how all this happened in the first place.
And that vet I jailed for mail unfraud, what am I supposed to do with his appeal next week?
If it please the court, I think I need a diet Fresca, my throat is a little sore.

FRIDAY, June 22, 2007, 10 a.m.
By The Associated Press
Troha pleads to two misdemeanors
Madison - Kenosha businessman Dennis Troha entered into a plea agreement today in which he pleaded guilty to two misdemeanors related to campaign contributions he gave to President Bush and the Democratic Party.

Troha's spokesman Jeff Fleming said one misdemeanor had to deal with contributions that were organized in a way to avoid campaign donation limits to Bush's campaign, while the other went to the federal account of the Democratic Party with the understanding it would be spent on Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle's race.

A federal grand jury indicted Troha in March for allegedly committing fraud and lying to the FBI about donations to Doyle. The indictment alleges Troha funneled more than $100,000 through family members to Doyle's campaign and others, skirting state laws that cap donations at $10,000 per election.

U.S. Attorney Steven Biskupic's office declined comment prior to the filing of papers in federal court.

Biskupic said last week that the deal was prompted by a federal appeals court decision overturning the conviction of state worker Georgia Thompson. She had been convicted of fraud for steering a travel contract to a company whose officers donated to Doyle's re-election campaign.

The U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago vacated Thompson's conviction in April, saying the evidence was "beyond thin," and ordered her immediate release from an Illinois prison.

Troha issued a statement Friday acknowledging his wrongdoing.

"My lawyers and the U.S. Attorney have undertaken substantial discussions and deliberations to reach this outcome," Troha said. "The new revised charges accurately state that I violated certain laws which are notably less egregious than the original indictment."

Troha said that many things written about him since the charges were filed have been "wrong and unfair," but he did not say what those were.

"My wife and I have always been most interested in working on causes that are important to us," he said. "This includes support of our church and of efforts to assist people who are economically and socially disadvantaged. We look forward to refocusing our energies on these activities."

Doyle has the final say over whether a new casino in Kenosha that Troha had previously been the developer for can go ahead. Troha backed out of the deal shortly before the indictment.