Comments (79)

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 14, 2007 7:04 PM:

I'm trying to find about Goodling's background. So far, all I've learned is that she is an alumnus of Regent University. Regent U.'s mission is to "to provide exemplary education, from a biblical perspective, leading to bachelors, masters and doctorate degrees for aspiring servant-leaders in pivotal professions, and to be a leading center of Christian thought and action."

Photos of Goodling:

http://www.regent.edu/alumni/chapters/washington_dc/DCPicnicPhotos.htm

Jay Severin has a small pen1s wrote on March 14, 2007 7:06 PM:

C'mon. How are these people supposed to remember these thing with all the terrorism-related things to remember?

EasyRider wrote on March 14, 2007 7:09 PM:

In the Spring of 2004 there were rumors of how to get rid of Fitz. Miers appears to have suggested to fire everyone and Fitz would no longer be a problem.

That is the reason for the her blanket firing. It was something out of the blue. She and the White House had a real big problem and wanted to stop all the investigations. Do it without be impeached.

Let us stop dancing around the real story.

They were using codes to hid their messages to eachother. They censured the emails to Fitz.

They are criminals and racketeers.

Daniel wrote on March 14, 2007 7:10 PM:

That looks like one boring picnic.

Geoff wrote on March 14, 2007 7:18 PM:

For a Wingnut, she's pretty cute.

Anonymous wrote on March 14, 2007 7:24 PM:

G O T C H A

mbbsdphil wrote on March 14, 2007 7:29 PM:

The Attorney General is a close confident of and talks to the president daily. His department has a laundry list of deputy-, under-, assistant-, and associate attorneys general, and every possible combination of the above titles. Why does it need a separate officer whose only job is to coordinate with the White House?

Is it to coordinate politically correct messages, and to bend the law first and foremost to partisan political advantage? Anything else Mr. Rove would consider resolutely unimportant.

Anonymous wrote on March 14, 2007 7:30 PM:

Spring 2004

Fitz was both a USA and a special prosecutor. I haven't heard that Meier's plan would have extended to special prosecutors as well.

Rita wrote on March 14, 2007 7:36 PM:

On June 20, 2006 Rove's Assistant Scott Jennings wrote Gooding about setting up a meeting with Mickey Barnett, a New Mexican pol who was "heavily involved" in the Bush campaign legal team, to discuss some sensitive issue having to do with Iglesias.

Goodling's calendar shows that she met with Barnett and Patrick Rogers the next day at 5:30.

Rogers (a NM attorney specializing in voter fraud) is one of pajama Pete's 4 choices to replace Iglesias.

mbbsdphil wrote on March 14, 2007 7:36 PM:

EasyRider, exactly right; Mr. Simpson was speaking not in tongues, but in code.

Private companies use code to talk about race, gender and age discrimination, to avoid admitting that they think an otherwise qualified candidate/employee is too old, the wrong sex or race. All prohibited reasons for taking decisions. Just as they use code for union busting.

Mr. Sampson was doing the same. "Chafing" at Justice Dept initiatives is likely to be code for a host of ethical or plain sensical reasons to disagree with "Justice's" desired use of prosecutorial power to threaten, intimidate or embarrass Democrats and ignore the foibles (illegal acts) of Republicans.

Heaven forfend what being a "strong" USA meant to Mr. Sampson and his masters. Let's Find Out.

Leta wrote on March 14, 2007 7:38 PM:

Might it be that the rush to get Griffin installed in as USA in AR was that Cummins in mid '06 was handed a corruption case and no-bid contracts concerning Gov Matt Blunt in MO - (the USA in MO had to leave quietly because his wife was one of the beneificieries of the no-bid contracts and the case went to the USA AR)

Was Cummins aggressively pursuing Blunt wrong-doings - dropping Giffin in short-circuited the Blunt investigation, stopped any bad press for Blunt or Daddy Senator Blunt in a state that was moving to light blue - and
Rove got a potential Republican corruptin scandal quieted during the McCaskill/Talent war - Rove got a tow-fer with Griffin IMHO.

Anonymous wrote on March 14, 2007 7:44 PM:

Regent U.'s mission is to "to provide exemplary education, from a biblical perspective, leading to bachelors, masters and doctorate degrees for aspiring servant-leaders in pivotal professions, and to be a leading center of Christian thought and action."

Regent was founded by Pat Robertson. Does that tell us anything?

Baffled wrote on March 14, 2007 7:45 PM:

I wonder why politicos STILL use email when planning things they don't want the public to know about? It was well established in 2006 that emails are tracked, stored, and subpoenaed--they should not be surprised to see these emails resurfacing. How hard is it to walk down the hall to your fellow conspirator's office or use the phone? This administration is so incompetent, it can't even execute a political hit job without leaving a massive paper trail.

Anonymous wrote on March 14, 2007 8:15 PM:

Ms. Goodling's entire job at DOJ (as the liaison position at all the cabinet agencies is) is job placement and ego stroking. The idea that this was somehow a rogue operation (much like Abu Ghraib right?) of a few mid-level employees keeping their bosses in the dark does not pass the smell test. All that said, she is a cutie.

Dave wrote on March 14, 2007 8:16 PM:

Baffled - That's probably why Jennings didn't use the White House email system. As a few commenters here pointed out yesterday, he sent and received email via gwb43.com (or something like that, I don't recall off the top of my head), which is (apparently) owned by the RNC and may or may not (more likely) be captured by WH systems.

In fact, that's a potentially very serious issue: did WH staff make a practice of using email systems that are not covered by WH IT backup and retention systems? That could put such communications under the rader if official WH records are subpoenaed.

Since Jennings used the gwb43.com address in his email sig, it's easy for me to beleive that, yes, WH staff did use non-official email systems as a matter of course. And knowing these guys, I have no problem beleiving it was precisely to keep things out of the real WH systems.

As an alternative explanation, since he was using an RNC-owned email system, perhaps Jennings was acting in some sort of RNC role, but that's just as bad. I can't think of a good explanation for it.

Even trying to discount for my utter lack of respect for this administration, I think this is something that should be investigated. At the least we need to know if 1) gwb43.com email is monitored and archived with "official" WH email; 2) if not, was this a one-time thing on Jennings part; and 3) if not 1 & 2, how extensive is this practice and why are they doing it.

tekel wrote on March 14, 2007 8:46 PM:

is Regent accredited? Or is it a jesus-freak diploma mill?

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 14, 2007 8:49 PM:

Re gwb43.com - It looks like the White House Office of Political Affairs used gwb43.com all of the time.

Look at this notice of open positions in the Bush administration that was posted on a Kentucky Republican website:

http://www.shelbykygop.org/includes/OPA%20PP%20January%2027%202006.pdf

J. Scott Jennings - jsj@gwb43.com
Mike Davis - md@gwb43.com
Jane Cherry jcherry@gwb43.com

Former DOJer wrote on March 14, 2007 9:22 PM:

Monica's job at DOJ is and always has been purely political. She went to Messiah undergrad and Regent Univ. Law School and the sum total of her actual prosecutorial experience is handling traffic cases as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney in Paul McNulty's district (now the current Deputy A.G.) for about six months. Her political mojo (which is considerable in light of her age and inexperience) is allegedly linked to Karl Rove.

dcb1995 wrote on March 14, 2007 9:24 PM:

You think little Donald Segretti was behind this? You're missing the overall!

Al in Austex wrote on March 14, 2007 9:40 PM:

Okay time to get set for the Deluge - this is the the real deal here. We are going to get Abu Gonzales & Turd Blossoms resignation out of this at the very least .
The checks and balances do work in our system - we are fixing to relearn some hard lessons regarding an outraged Congress reining in a renegade Executive . Even Sununu the Jr is after the AG now !!!
Paging Elliot Richardson ..

Ed wrote on March 14, 2007 9:44 PM:

It seems to me that someone needs to review the White House e-mail policy. One would think that such a policy would require that all official White House communication be conducted over official White House resources. Failure to do so should result in harsh sanctions. I'm not sure if this policy is a matter of the public record or not. I could not find it.

Matt Rose wrote on March 14, 2007 10:04 PM:

People are marveling at how utterly ammeter this purge was, and how this administration didn't know it was going to get caught.

But it makes sense when you realize these are the same bozos who couldn't get some water and toilet trucks to New Orleans after every news station in the world was broadcasting forecasts and video of the horror named Katrina; Does anyone remember the Superdome festering while The President napped?

It's the same group of incompetents who were hired for political loyalty, without consideration for ability or even a vague understanding of the job the American people were hoping they would do. And they got caught trying to fire more honest, hard working people, imagine that.

freeper wrote on March 14, 2007 10:19 PM:

Who knew nobody knew? Nobody of course. Hertling only gave faulty testimony to Congress in a series of complicated accidents which unfortunately gave the illusion of a cover up. But to be clear, that's not a lie.

Pfft. Duh. I mean why do I even have to explain these things? Now back to Free Republic.

(security codeword was "false" though "phony" might have been slightly more perfect)

Ticia wrote on March 14, 2007 10:21 PM:

Sununu calls for Bush to fire Gonzales.

busted! wrote on March 14, 2007 10:29 PM:

" Monica's job at DOJ is and always has been purely political. She went to Messiah undergrad and Regent Univ. Law School and the sum total of her actual prosecutorial experience is handling traffic cases as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney in Paul McNulty's district (now the current Deputy A.G.) for about six months. Her political mojo (which is considerable in light of her age and inexperience) is allegedly linked to Karl Rove."

Do she's exactly the type of young and inexperienced College Republican, or should I say College Fundie, Rove likes to put in important jobs knowing they're die hard loyalists having all the ideology and no other skills or qualifications.

Anytime you find one of these people they're probably up to no good.

There are plenty of nonpartisans with professional skills who also have the career and gravitas to object if given unethical marching orders. Rove and this administration habitually avoid such people.

Ticia wrote on March 14, 2007 10:44 PM:

House overturns Bush orders on secret papers.

wigmar1 wrote on March 14, 2007 10:45 PM:

Check out Regent's PR guy, from their website (no kidding):

PR/NEWS CONTACT: JOE MIRACLE
Acting Director of Public Relations/PR Specialist
Phone (757) 226-4095 Fax (757) 226-4888
e-mail: josemir@regent.edu

I feel like asking him why the blurb for Rudy the G's appearance next month doesn't say anything about Bernie Kerik.

cynical or just realistic? wrote on March 14, 2007 10:55 PM:

"People are marveling at how utterly ammeter this purge was, and how this administration didn't know it was going to get caught."

Remember they thought they would keep the Republican Rubber Stamp Congress. The Senate at least. Had they done so, they probably would have gotten away with it.

Besides, this administration's salient quality has always been hubris. Ever notice everybody besides Cheney in this administration chronically wears a smirk? Bush, Rove, Gonzalez, Condi. Rumsfeld did and probably still does.

They never thought they'd get caught, and frankly I don't think they care too much.

Look at Iran/Contra for example. Where's the consequences? Impeachment? Hardly anyone paid a price even once they were caught. Reagan left office with low popularity, but he's been revised into a hero of conservatives, and he always was a hero to the plutocratic base.

The sad reality is that even if this case busts wide open, the odds of impeachment are slim. President Cheney? The odds of being the unlucky one to be prosecuted, also slim. The odds of a conviction and punishment, slim. Consequences are a slim chance of a slim chance of a slim chance.

Even if they're made completely lame ducks from here out, they've pushed an agenda, successfully, for six years. Plenty of tax cuts, plenty of favors to Big Corporate, an invasion or a ME nation... I mean these guys will be treated as kings in the private sector, any investigation a badge of honor where they're going.

At the end of 2005, ExxonMobil reported record profits, reporting US $36 billion in annual income, up 42% from the previous year (the overall annual income was an all-time record for annual income by any business, and included $10 billion in the third quarter alone, also an all-time record income for a single quarter by any business). Exxon was getting tax breaks from this admin, and a war that skyrocketed oil prices. You think anyone in this admin will ever want after doing such favors?

Even if the public sours on Republicans for some time, their contributors at places like Exxon Mobil expect that. It's factored in. They always have gun control or gay marriage or some other boogy man anathema to conservatives and moderates to get those voters back after a small loss. It's several steps forward, one small one back.

That's why this type of stuff continues, and gets worse. No consequences.

Anonymous wrote on March 14, 2007 11:01 PM:

Re: gwb43.com - It looks like the White House Office of Political Affairs used gwb43.com all of the time.

Isn't that illegal?? I presume they are using goverment computers/network to access gwb43. Isn't that using government resources for campaigning? Didn't the wingnut world erupt in (feigned) indignation when Al Gore used government phones to make campaign calls, even though they were billed separately?

mjc wrote on March 14, 2007 11:16 PM:

maybe they use it to keep correspondence off the wh mail server.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 14, 2007 11:26 PM:

I checked Jack Abramoff's email correspondence posted at Rep. Waxman's House Oversight Committee website and Rove's former administrative assistant, Susan Ralston, used georgewbush.com and rnchq.org as her email addresses.

http://oversight.house.gov/abramoff/docs/0948_001.pdf

How are these emails being archived? More importantly, are they covered by subpoenas for information?

vttex wrote on March 14, 2007 11:57 PM:

It seems like Karl Rove or/and the White House really wanted Griffin in Arkansas. Is that the only place they could install him? If I were prone to wild speculation, I would say that having an ally as USA in Arkansas could be benificial to those who were not above using improper methods to defeat Hillary Clinton in the general election.

Citizen 92 wrote on March 15, 2007 12:00 AM:

What a fine web, eh Mrs. P?

The whole point of this was to shoot the emails out of the reach of the White House archiving system. That way, when called upon to produce e-mails under subpoena, they could say they had nothing.

I would hazard that gwb43.com is a goldmine of information.

By definition, all "records" created by Presidential (White House) appointees are "Presidential Records." And "Presidential Records" under law, must be retained and properly archived. The gwb43.com system subverts this.

FatKat wrote on March 15, 2007 12:19 AM:

I was searching around and found this...

It is very powerful in context! Read very slowly and carefully! And read it to the end because it is long!
[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 3, Volume 1]
[Revised as of January 1, 2002]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 3CFR13233]

[Page 815-819]

Executive Order 13233 of November 1, 2001

Further Implementation of the Presidential Records Act

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution
and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to
establish policies and procedures implementing section 2204 of
title 44 of the United States Code with respect to
constitutionally based privileges, including those that apply
to Presidential records reflecting military, diplomatic, or
national security secrets, Presidential communications, legal
advice, legal work, or the deliberative processes of the
President and the President's advisors, and to do so in a
manner consistent with the Supreme Court's decisions in Nixon
v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977), and
other cases, it is hereby ordered as follows:
etion 1. Definitions.
For purposes of this order:
(a) ``Archivist'' refers to the Archivist of the United States
or his designee.
(b) ``Presidential records'' refers to those documentary
materials maintained by the National Archives and Records
Administration pursuant to the Presidential Records Act, 44
U.S.C. 2201-2207.
(c) ``Former President'' refers to the former President during
whose term or terms of office particular Presidential records
were created.
e. 2. Constitutional and Legal
Background.
(a) For a period not to exceed 12 years after the conclusion
of a Presidency, the Archivist administers records in
accordance with the limitations on access imposed by section
2204 of title 44. After expiration of that period, section
2204(c) of title 44 directs that the Archivist administer
Presidential records in accordance with section 552 of title
5, the Freedom of Information Act, including by withholding,
as appropriate, records subject to exemptions (b)(1), (b)(2),
(b)(3), (b)(4), (b)(6), (b)(7), (b)(8), and (b)(9) of section
552. Section 2204(c)(1) of title 44 provides that exemption
(b)(5) of section 552 is not available to the Archivist as a
basis for withholding records, but section 2204(c)(2)
recognizes that the former President or the incumbent
President may assert any constitutionally based privileges,
including those ordinarily encompassed within exemption (b)(5)
of section 552. The President's constitutionally based
privileges subsume privileges for records that reflect:
military, diplomatic, or national security secrets (the state
secrets privilege); communications of the President or his
advisors (the presidential communications privilege); legal
advice or legal work (the attorney-

[[Page 816]]

client or attorney work product privileges); and the
deliberative processes of the President or his advisors (the
deliberative process privilege).
(b) In Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, the Supreme
Court set forth the constitutional basis for the President's
privileges for confidential communications: ``Unless [the
President] can give his advisers some assurance of
confidentiality, a President could not expect to receive the
full and frank submissions of facts and opinions upon which
effective discharge of his duties depends.'' 433 U.S. at 448-
49. The Court cited the precedent of the Constitutional
Convention, the records of which were ``sealed for more than
30 years after the Convention.'' Id. at 447 n.11. Based on
those precedents and principles, the Court ruled that
constitutionally based privileges available to a President
``survive[] the individual President's tenure.''Id. at 449.
The Court also held that a former President, although no
longer a Government official, may assert constitutionally
based privileges with respect to his Administration's
Presidential records, and expressly rejected the argument that
``only an incumbent President can assert the privilege of the
Presidency.'' Id. at 448.
(c) The Supreme Court has held that a party seeking to
overcome the constitutionally based privileges that apply to
Presidential records must establish at least a ``demonstrated,
specific need'' for particular records, a standard that turns
on the nature of the proceeding and the importance of the
information to that proceeding. See United States v. Nixon,
418 U.S. 683, 713 (1974). Notwithstanding the constitutionally
based privileges that apply to Presidential records, many
former Presidents have authorized access, after what they
considered an appropriate period of repose, to those records
or categories of records (including otherwise privileged
records) to which the former Presidents or their
representatives in their discretion decided to authorize
access. See Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433
U.S. at 450-51.
e. 3. Procedure for Administering
Privileged Presidential Records.
Consistent with the requirements of the Constitution and the
Presidential Records Act, the Archivist shall administer
Presidential records under section 2204(c) of title 44 in the
following manner:
(a) At an appropriate time after the Archivist receives a
request for access to Presidential records under section
2204(c)(1), the Archivist shall provide notice to the former
President and the incumbent President and, as soon as
practicable, shall provide the former President and the
incumbent President copies of any records that the former
President and the incumbent President request to review.
(b) After receiving the records he requests, the former
President shall review those records as expeditiously as
possible, and for no longer than 90 days for requests that are
not unduly burdensome. The Archivist shall not permit access
to the records by a requester during this period of review or
when requested by the former President to extend the time for
review.
(c) After review of the records in question, or of any other
potentially privileged records reviewed by the former
President, the former President shall indicate to the
Archivist whether the former President requests withholding of
or authorizes access to any privileged records.
(d) Concurrent with or after the former President's review of
the records, the incumbent President or his designee may also
review the records in

[[Page 817]]

question, or may utilize whatever other procedures the
incumbent President deems appropriate to decide whether to
concur in the former President's decision to request
withholding of or authorize access to the records.
(1) When the former President has requested withholding of the
records:

(i)

If under the standard set forth in section 4 below, the incumbent
President concurs in the former President's decision to request withholding
of records as privileged, the incumbent President shall so inform the
former President and the Archivist. The Archivist shall not permit access
to those records by a requester unless and until the incumbent President
advises the Archivist that the former President and the incumbent President
agree to authorize access to the records or until so ordered by a final and
nonappealable court order.

(ii)

If under the standard set forth in section 4 below, the incumbent
President does not concur in the former President's decision to request
withholding of the records as privileged, the incumbent President shall so
inform the former President and the Archivist. Because the former President
independently retains the right to assert constitutionally based
privileges, the Archivist shall not permit access to the records by a
requester unless and until the incumbent President advises the Archivist
that the former President and the incumbent President agree to authorize
access to the records or until so ordered by a final and nonappealable
court order.

(2) When the former President has authorized access to the
records:

(i)

If under the standard set forth in section 4 below, the incumbent
President concurs in the former President's decision to authorize access to
the records, the Archivist shall permit access to the records by the
requester.

(ii)

If under the standard set forth in section 4 below, the incumbent
President does not concur in the former President's decision to authorize
access to the records, the incumbent President may independently order the
Archivist to withhold privileged records. In that instance, the Archivist
shall not permit access to the records by a requester unless and until the
incumbent President advises the Archivist that the former President and the
incumbent President agree to authorize access to the records or until so
ordered by a final and nonappealable court order.

e. 4. Concurrence by Incumbent President.
Absent compelling circumstances, the incumbent President will
concur in the privilege decision of the former President in
response to a request for access under section 2204(c)(1).
When the incumbent President concurs in the decision of the
former President to request withholding of records within the
scope of a constitutionally based privilege, the incumbent
President will support that privilege claim in any forum in
which the privilege claim is challenged.
e. 5. Incumbent President's Right to
Obtain Access.
This order does not expand or limit the incumbent President's
right to obtain access to the records of a former President
pursuant to section 2205(2)(B).

[[Page 818]]

e. 6. Right of Congress and Courts to
Obtain Access.
This order does not expand or limit the rights of a court,
House of Congress, or authorized committee or subcommittee of
Congress to obtain access to the records of a former President
pursuant to section 2205(2)(A) or section 2205(2)(C). With
respect to such requests, the former President shall review
the records in question and, within 21 days of receiving
notice from the Archivist, indicate to the Archivist his
decision with respect to any privilege. The incumbent
President shall indicate his decision with respect to any
privilege within 21 days after the former President has
indicated his decision. Those periods may be extended by the
former President or the incumbent President for requests that
are burdensome. The Archivist shall not permit access to the
records unless and until the incumbent President advises the
Archivist that the former President and the incumbent
President agree to authorize access to the records or until so
ordered by a final and nonappealable court order.
e. 7. No Effect on Right to Withhold
Records.
This order does not limit the former President's or the
incumbent President's right to withhold records on any ground
supplied by the Constitution, statute, or regulation.
e. 8. Withholding of Privileged Records
During 12-Year Period.
In the period not to exceed 12 years after the conclusion of a
Presidency during which section 2204(a) and section 2204(b) of
title 44 apply, a former President or the incumbent President
may request withholding of any privileged records not already
protected from disclosure under section 2204. If the former
President or the incumbent President so requests, the
Archivist shall not permit access to any such privileged
records unless and until the incumbent President advises the
Archivist that the former President and the incumbent
President agree to authorize access to the records or until so
ordered by a final and nonappealable court order.
e. 9. Establishment of Procedures.
This order is not intended to indicate whether and under what
circumstances a former President should assert or waive any
privilege. The order is intended to establish procedures for
former and incumbent Presidents to make privilege
determinations.
e. 10. Designation of Representative.
The former President may designate a representative (or series
or group of alternative representatives, as the former
President in his discretion may determine) to act on his
behalf for purposes of the Presidential Records Act and this
order. Upon the death or disability of a former President, the
former President's designated representative shall act on his
behalf for purposes of the Act and this order, including with
respect to the assertion of constitutionally based privileges.
In the absence of any designated representative after the
former President's death or disability, the family of the
former President may designate a representative (or series or
group of alternative representatives, as they in their
discretion may determine) to act on the former President's
behalf for purposes of the Act and this order, including with
respect to the assertion of constitutionally based privileges.
e. 11. Vice Presidential Records.

[[Page 819]]

(a) Pursuant to section 2207 of title 44 of the United States
Code, the Presidential Records Act applies to the executive
records of the Vice President. Subject to subsections (b) and
(c), this order shall also apply with respect to any such
records that are subject to any constitutionally based
privilege that the former Vice President may be entitled to
invoke, but in the administration of this order with respect
to such records, references in this order to a former
President shall be deemed also to be references to the
relevant former Vice President.
(b) Subsection (a) shall not be deemed to authorize a Vice
President or former Vice President to invoke any
constitutional privilege of a President or former President
except as authorized by that President or former President.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to grant,
limit, or otherwise affect any privilege of a President, Vice
President, former President, or former Vice President.
e. 12. Judicial Review.
This order is intended to improve the internal management of
the executive branch and is not intended to create any right
or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a
party, other than a former President or his designated
representative, against the United States, its agencies, its
officers, or any person.
e. 13. Revocation.
Executive Order 12667 of January 18, 1989, is revoked.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

November 1, 2001.

EO 13234

salesanalyst wrote on March 15, 2007 12:23 AM:

computer people out there, I have a question. Would it be possible to track IP addresses embedded in email messages sent from inside the White House to any public email system logs to search for WH operatives who are using GMail or Yahoo or any other anonymous system? Maybe that's why Karl Rove never appears to have any emails in document dumps that get released in times like these. He's probably just not using his WhiteHouse email addy...You'd have to think he's at least smart enough to know how easy it is to track email, and we all know how easy it is for these guys to flaunt any laws, including ones as "innocuous" as pertains to document retention.

"Even trying to discount for my utter lack of respect for this administration, I think this is something that should be investigated. At the least we need to know if 1) gwb43.com email is monitored and archived with "official" WH email; 2) if not, was this a one-time thing on Jennings part; and 3) if not 1 & 2, how extensive is this practice and why are they doing it."

Vulture Breath wrote on March 15, 2007 12:37 AM:

Every night when I say my prayers I say a special thank you for Macaca. He is the reason we now have oversight.

FatKat wrote on March 15, 2007 12:50 AM:

salesanalyst...

Now I'm no computer person, but to your question, yes there is away to find the IP address or orgin of the email. a hacker might find it or not! But you have bought up a good point about his "snake in the grass" ways! Hes like "where's Waldo"...!? He uses a blackberry as in most photos of him.

Dave wrote on March 15, 2007 1:51 AM:

salesanalyst & FatKat - You could do it, but with some limitations:

1) obviously, you need access to the actual emails in their native format. Printed or otherwise extracted versions won't work.

2) Depending on the email system, you probably need a copy as received by one of the original recipients. My guess is that once it's been forwarded or replied to, the orignal's routing info will be replaced.

Good litigators know to get electronic versions of as many documents, emails, etc. as possible. I'd hope the same would be done when the WH gets hit. (Yeah, "when" - a man can dream, can't he?)

Frankly, I'd exepect Waxman to be on gwb43.com like corruption on a Republican if anybody points it out to him. (Speaking of which, I'm considering calling Pelosi's office to aks if they have a position on WH political staff conducting business using a private email system.)

speedcat wrote on March 15, 2007 2:10 AM:

You have to have the complete headers in an email in order to track what mailservers it has gone through, then track back to the source mailserver, but at that point I do not believe the IP address of the individual workstation is actually tracked. You'd have to do a FOIA on the company that owns the mailserver, or hack it, to get that information.

speedcat wrote on March 15, 2007 2:15 AM:

Also - I saw AOL.com email addresses in that correspondence link with Susan Ralston.

Like (redacted)RALSON@AOL.com.

So she's using AOL as well to do Presidential business. Not good.

geezer wrote on March 15, 2007 2:43 AM:

Isn't Messiah College located in PA? Is the Monica Goodling (who received her undergrad education at Messiah)any relation to the former GOP congressman from PA? Just wondering.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 15, 2007 9:18 AM:

geezer, Monica Goodling might be related to former representative William F. Goodling but she is not his daughter, according to his House bio.

John wrote on March 15, 2007 9:46 AM:

That cookout looks like a nightmare. Where's the beer!?

Anonymous wrote on March 15, 2007 11:20 AM:

Al in Austex: Wish you were right, but the history of this administration shows that every time they have their backs to the wall, they attack.

The more under seige they feel, the more aggressive the attack.

I'd say the most likely result of this scandal is that cheney and rove move up the martial-law declaration from October 2008 to October 2007.

That's the martial-law declaration that comes immediately after the nuclear attack on Iran and right before the cancellation of elections and the crowning of shrub as Dictator for Life.

Yellow Dog wrote on March 15, 2007 11:20 AM:

Not enough coffee - the comment to Al in Austex is from me.

blowyourhousedown wrote on March 15, 2007 12:52 PM:

Guess who else graduated from Regent University? Freak freshman Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.). Regent's game plan is to "educate" (they might be accredited now, but for a long time they weren't) right-wingers to supply them with impressive-sounding diplomas and then send them as individual "Trojan Horses" into the system, in order to deconstruct it from within. It would be interesting to investigate how many Regent alums are in the Bush Administration.

phil wrote on March 15, 2007 9:45 PM:

Read the full actual "Karl Rove Question" email for yourself.

It's quite a read.

http://www.monkeytypesthebible.com/2007/03/emails-suggest-karl-rove-knew-of.html

phil wrote on March 15, 2007 9:47 PM:

Sorry about that. CLick on my name here to see the document.

Jau wrote on March 24, 2007 12:44 AM:

I agree with Daniel. Could be the worst BBQ of all time!

Drew wrote on March 24, 2007 4:23 PM:

>For a Wingnut, she's pretty cute.

I disagree, but I'm sure the other occupants of her future cellblock will side with you on this matter.

jeffgee wrote on March 24, 2007 5:04 PM:

Time to bang the war drums about Iran. That'll get the Alberto and the DOJ off the front page.

Anonymous wrote on March 24, 2007 6:21 PM:

I've not heard anyone raise concerns about potential security concerns of using outside ISPs.

Are not White House communications under some umbrella of protection?

Are aol or gwb43.com as secure as usdoj.gov or who.eop.gov?

Would a private security business be allowed to rifle through the White House trash cans?

And this from an administration that has been so preoccupied with maintaining its secrecy?

hang a left wrote on March 24, 2007 11:23 PM:

"I would hazard that gwb43.com is a goldmine of information."

I really have spent some time thinking about this. Why in the heck would they release these documents knowing that we would catch on to the gwb.whatthehelleveritis.nut

There is more to this...IMO much more.

They have been using outside servers for their transactions. Betcha. There is no way with the web these people have woven that they can not communicate electronically.

Color me in tin. This was too darn easy to figure out. Although there are juicy tidbits in the released documents, inside it just doesn't sit right for me. After watching these criminals in action for so long, I just can't believe that gwb43 is really where they collude.

DallasNE wrote on March 24, 2007 11:59 PM:

Gee, Goodling needs some time off to go lawyer up so give her a break.

On another note, it has been reported that Rove does 95% of his e-mail work on the RNC account GWB43. Does that mean that the RNC pays 95% of his salary?

mb wrote on March 25, 2007 1:41 AM:

Question: If all kinds of emails from above mentioned public servants have been erased from GWB43.com (and I'm sure there are folks working there who know exactly how to do that without a trace), is that something that would be ever discovered, and if so be considered illegal?

Clue wrote on March 26, 2007 2:48 PM:

Bill - No alcohol allowed at Regent U event.

JONESEY wrote on March 26, 2007 6:33 PM:

As far as tracking e-mails go, it's usually done by IP address or by url. DNS (domain name service) is the applications that is used to convert one to the other or vice versa. Remember that IP (Internet Protocol) addresses are logical addresses, not physical ones. Someone with expertise and certification in e-mail mapping and tracking could do this. The trick is that the person must already hava a security clearance.

Mauimom wrote on March 26, 2007 7:05 PM:

Has Mlle. Goodling passed the bar anywhere? I think it would be a problem, given the "rigorous" legal education she obtained.

t.mack wrote on March 26, 2007 7:44 PM:

Is Monica Goodling a daughter of ex dongressman Bill Goodling? She went to Messiah College and probably came from south central PA.

t.mack wrote on March 26, 2007 7:47 PM:

Is Monica Goodling a daughter of ex dongressman Bill Goodling? She went to Messiah College and probably came from south central PA.

Dave wrote on March 26, 2007 7:49 PM:

Goodling is a 95 grad of Messiah College and graduated with a law degree from Regent in 99. Questionable political ethics runs in her family. She is the daughter of Bill Goodling, US Rep from Pennsylvania, who is best known for being one of the worst offenders of bouncing checks(hundreds of bounced checks) during the House Bank Scandal back in the 90's.

33 and a senior aide at the Whitehouse...I wish I was born to a congressman!

Dave wrote on March 26, 2007 7:54 PM:

Oh, and a friend of mine(a black guy no less!) claims to have taken her virginity during our time at Messiah(I am a grad). I certainly can't confirm this as guys will say anything but the story he gave seemed plausible.......

Pat wrote on March 26, 2007 9:02 PM:

to dave: cheap shot about virginity. argue the case on its merits.

Dave wrote on March 26, 2007 9:14 PM:

Youre right, I can't confirm or deny that report. It is tempting to take that kind of shot though at an administration that prides itself on Christian Morality. Nonetheless, retract my second post.

emailgeek wrote on March 26, 2007 10:51 PM:

re: email tracking

email contains headers that have detailed information about its path. for example, each server that touches the email will leave behind a marker for itself -- these are known as trace fields like the 'Received' header. look at "RFC 822" for the technical details (circa 1980s) -- http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc822.html.

BUT the "printed" emails that were in the document dump do not include these headers (at least from the PDFs that i've seen). i dunno if that constitutes improper disclosure or not, but the printed emails do not contain the entire content of an email message.

Rob wrote on March 26, 2007 11:44 PM:

Wouldn't it be ironic if the Senate subpoenaed the NSA for the email records?

Rob in Dallas

Joe wrote on March 26, 2007 11:51 PM:

I also heard about a black guy taking Goodling's virginity at Messiah college. But I can't vouch for the story myself.

Maalox wrote on March 27, 2007 10:53 AM:

Ms. Goodling's boyfriend in each of these pics may be another tentacle of information to follow here.

The same guy?
http://ksgfaculty.harvard.edu/richard_parker

He works for Senator Kennedy and his girlfriend is the official conduit between Karl and Gonzo?

He may be one of the pillowtalking moles in the DNC and, oddly enough, Mother Jones.

Check the profile.

JakeT wrote on March 27, 2007 11:12 AM:

I also went to school with Miss Goodling at Messiah. Come one, people, does anyone really think she was responsible for anything at all, or just following orders? Please be realistic - a 33-year old making senior White House / DOJ decisions? She's being singled out in a politically motivated witch hunt. I pity her right now, she's just avoiding the inevitable before the political dogs tear her to shreds.

Bill Goodling was not one of the worse offenders in the House Scandal, the scandal involved more than 450 Representatives, most of them Democrats. Goodling wasn't even one of those prosecuted for improper involvement.

All the slamming of Christianity is juvenile - you act as if Christians are second or third class citizens - stick to details and facts, not personal slander. Both Messiah and Regent are accredited and no more or less legitimate as Penn State or Harvard. Those who have sat through their rigorous Gen Ed requirements will say probably more so... And bringing up Goodling's virginity is juvenile and sad. Monica was attractive, ambitious, and charismatic - painting her as a town whore is an insult to anyone who knew her. Stick to facts, please.

John wrote on March 27, 2007 5:41 PM:

Bill Goodling absolutely was one of the worst offenders in the house bank scandal, you are wrong there. There were others as well, Democrat, Republican, but Bill was near the top.

John wrote on March 27, 2007 5:45 PM:

According to the Washington Post, Goodling bounced over 400 checks during his time in congress. Where would you be if you did that? Jail.

John wrote on March 27, 2007 5:46 PM:

According to the Washington Post, Goodling bounced over 400 checks during his time in congress. Where would you be if you did that? Jail.

paulf wrote on March 27, 2007 5:54 PM:

The bouncing checks thing was a bogus scandal, there was nothing illegal about any of it, Newt Gingrich whipped it up and the stupid media played along.

I am an older grad of Messiah ('79), one of the few liberals at the Christian liberal arts school, although I've heard it has gotten much more liberal in recent years. It's not a wingnut political school, in fact it is affiliated with a Mennonite-type denomination of pacifists.

JakeT wrote on March 28, 2007 10:34 AM:

It was a bogus scandal, or rather not a scandal at all - and a nice juicy smoke and mirrors attempt to smear Mr. Goodling (and I suppose, by some stretch of the imagination, Ms. Goodling). It wasn't even a bounced check - they had an overdraft in place that would allow them to borrow from future funds, no more illegal than the overdraft I have on my checking account through PNC Bank. Get your facts straight. If I bounced 430 checks, I would go broke on overdraft fees but most likely not go to jail. You are comparing apples to horse crap (which is what your argument most accurately resembles).

While Goodling was 11th on the list of 'worse offenders', he was merely one of many people who did it, and was never even brought up on any charges. Even Newt - who made the stink - was guilty of it. In fact, as it wasn't even wrong (was more of a Newt-led witch hunt to shameface Democrats) nobody was prosecuted regarding this. Some people were ousted in following elections, and others were brought up on UNRELATED charges. But nothing illegal was done here. Smoke and mirrors, typical smear politics. And highly successful - 'Rubbergate' led to 14 Democrats being ousted from office in the next election.

I liken it to the hubbub in PA over the ridulous raises they gave themselves in Congress, and the resultant decries from their constituents. Not illegal at all, though by my standards not really intelligent. And which led to a public outcry leading to people being voted out of office.

paulf, Messiah was gradually getting more liberal in my days at Messiah too. Certainly not wingnut or the right-wing-factory that some are painting it to be here. Instead of looking at facts, some will always choose to blow smoke and play emotional buzz words. In short, typical silly politics.

Joe T wrote on March 28, 2007 2:09 PM:

I'm not sure which Mesiah College you guys went to but it was hardly a bastion of liberalism. Although it is true that it isn't quite a Regent or Liberty, it was not a place where most liberals feel comfortable. I remember many of the members of the Democrat club were victims of harrassment and even vandalism to vehicles. On election day, the college allowed, and even endorsed, the circulation of Christian Coalition Voting guides at chapel. A student was kicked out of school for getting divorced and professor was fired due to, in his opinion, for being gay. Don't try to call Messiah liberal, those of us who are liberal graduates know better.

By the way, it is illegal to pass bad checks and many people go to jail for this.

But I guess the real issue is the Bush Whitehouse wants to go on having the ability to lie therefore they resist being put under oath. If there is nothing to this, than testify. Goodling's actions are not that of an innocent.

Joe T wrote on March 28, 2007 2:19 PM:

They should just give her immunity to testify. I agree with Jake that she is too insignificant to have a real hand in this. She is merely a young attorney with good connections and a father with enough sway to help her land a job in the White House. But she knows what happened and it is her duty as a public servant, and a Christian, to be honest and shed some light on what could be a non-issue

JakeT wrote on March 29, 2007 4:36 PM:

I have overdraft protection to protect me from 'bad checks' and as such, doubt I'd go to jail if I bounced one. It would simply come out of my overdraft account. Writing 'bad checks' is considered illegal by law - but not enforced as such every single time. But before we head down a massive tangent that does not relate, let me say this - what they did in 'rubbergate' was not illegal, as they had a system in place to handle this practice. Newt pushed the issue as a moral one - why do lawmakers get to do this when we don't? That was the whole issue. It wasn't a legal issue, but more of a smokecloud issue to stir up public sentiment - and to get rid of some Democrats in Congress.

I agree that they should give Monica immunity to testify. She is covering her butt, which is, in this case, smart. She has lost nothing yet, but it's rather inevitible that she eventually is given immunity, forced to talk, and is fired from the DOJ with her career down the toilet. What she did by pleading the fifth is simply prolonging the inevitable. I feel bad for her, on a personal level, because I personally believe that the DOJ and WH did something rather underhanded. She is already in way too deep to escape this one. And if someone did lie under oath or obstruct justice, then they should be held accountable to the same laws as we are. I predict a massive smoke screen of denial from everyone involved, some scapegoat offerings, and yet another political debacle. In short, business as usual in our horrendously inept political system. It's all about politics.

And the issue of Messiah being a bastion of the Right or the Left? Ridiculous. There were what I would consider strongly conservative views from staff and students that shaped the college. And there were many liberal views that I had to endure as well, again from staff and students. It was all there, sloshed around.

I tended to notice only those political views that clashed with my own, as I am sure Joe T went through, as well. I was in the snack shop when they announced Slick Willy won the election, and endured the cheers (there were a lot) and the taunts and jibes to the Republicans present. I had to sit through a ridiculous J-Term class with a liberal, minority professor, and had to spew horse crap statements about how I agreed that all whites were inherently racist just to get a good grade from the professor. I had to sit through books and lectures on pacifism being the biblical standard. I had to sit through what I considered bizarre homoerotic theater classes and lectures from our dear Professor Genzel. There was lots of stuff I disagreed with, and lots I agreed with. It goes both ways, that's life.

But I find the initial sentiments on this discussion board that Messiah is a cookie cutter Right Wing clone machine to be laughable. And I find the sentiment that Goodling is of inferior moral character because of her parentage or even rumors from a male-locker-room mindset to be laughable.

I do, however, agree that she needs to come clean. And I believe she will - in the most politically and legally opportune way possible. Immunity. I just never thought I'd see a person I knew and went to school with on the news headlines.

Dave wrote on March 30, 2007 6:16 PM:

Jake,

So sorry you had to spend a J-term being taught by a "minority" professor. It is just that mindset by students at Messiah that made me leave with a bad taste in my mouth about the so-called evangelicals that went to that school.

Carol wrote on April 3, 2007 4:28 PM:

Another liberal Messiah grad here, just had to share a few comments:

First, to the issue - we were talking about Goodling taking the 5th, right? Stand up and tell the truth, without regard for the praise or punishment it may bring. That's the moral thing to do. If you decide to keep quiet, don't be surprised or cry foul when the whole country thinks you're guilty. You can learn these virtues anywhere; you don't have to attend a Christian college to pick them up.

Next, nobody cares if you had black or white professors at Messiah, whether you were forced to listen to Democrats cheer at a Clinton victory, or whether you were given right-wing propaganda. And for crying out loud, nobody cares who Monica Goodling did or did not have sex with while she was in college. And we certainly don't care what color he may have been. Do we?

Come on alums, you're making us all look like idiots. And we're not; at least not all of us.