Comments (75)

steambomb wrote on April 13, 2007 1:00 PM:

Goodling writes: "Domenici says he doesn't move cases."

Putting all the content of the "scribble" aside. Gah damn! That handwriting is HORRIBLE. Who the hell are they giving jobs to in the justice department? Let alone a liason to the whitehouse. How the hell does she communicate with that handwriting. I know I know. Dont give them any excuses but damn!

Mooser wrote on April 13, 2007 1:03 PM:

One wonders just how Iglesias expressed this frustrating to Goodling and others...

Don't you mean "Domenici expressed..."?

Mooser wrote on April 13, 2007 1:05 PM:

"this frustration..."

Hank Essay wrote on April 13, 2007 1:10 PM:

The first line is the give away folks...It says:

"Underachieves in very important district"

What EXACTLY does that MEAN???

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

TheraP wrote on April 13, 2007 1:13 PM:

Question is: whose handwriting scratched off some of that?

When YOU write notes for your own use, do you go to so much trouble to get rid of portions of your notes?

I'd like to see other note samples. College notes, whatever.

It just seems strange to me. More like redacted notes, I'd say.

The Commissar wrote on April 13, 2007 1:13 PM:

The doc is from the Monica Goodling section; indeed it seems to be from her email stack.

But, are we sure the notes are hers?

Art Bovine wrote on April 13, 2007 1:14 PM:

WOW! Looks like Domenici will be stepping aside to "spend more time with his family" sooner than later.

cynicalgirl wrote on April 13, 2007 1:18 PM:

What's between "in over head" and "absentee landlord"? Something district? Can someone decipher?

anon, too wrote on April 13, 2007 1:19 PM:

Page 1172, Monica Goodling sends the “chart the AG requested” to Kyle Sampson and Michael Ealston. The actual draft of the chart is on pages 1168-1170, and summarizes the complaints against the USAs on the list for firing. What’s interesting is the side-by-side of the reasons given for the USAs being unsatisfactory, and the performance rating each received.

But more important, it established that AG Gonzoles requested the development of the list, if Monica is to be believed. To me this establishes that he was involved a bit more actively than he wants to let on.

starwheel wrote on April 13, 2007 1:19 PM:

WOW! Looks like Domenici will be stepping aside to "spend more time with his family" sooner than later.

Posted by: Art Bovine
-------------------------------------

My guess is rehab.

I also think Rove eventually will develop an alcohol problem as well. He apparently was drunk when he deleted those emails.

lysias wrote on April 13, 2007 1:21 PM:

"Absentee landlord" (I can't make out the words after that.) So there's merit to Yglesias's claim that he's been discriminated against for his reserve time.

I wonder if anybody told Goodling that, when he was absent, it was because he was performing reserve duty.

lysias wrote on April 13, 2007 1:22 PM:

"Absentee landlord" (I can't make out the words after that.) So there's merit to Yglesias's claim that he's been discriminated against for his reserve time.

I wonder if anybody told Goodling that, when he was absent, it was because he was performing reserve duty.

Anonymous wrote on April 13, 2007 1:22 PM:

Domenici may never have spoken to Goodling.

My guess is that someone probably told Goodling that "Domenici says he doesn't move cases" and she just added it to the list. Just as likely she may have overheard it at a meeting. Why would Domenici call Goodling?

Sure she was the #3 at DOJ, but in real terms she was a nobody. These decisions were being made above her pay grade, and Domenici wouldn't have needed to waste his time talking to the secretarial staff at DOJ to get to one of the principals.

The ridiculous thing here is that two months after these people have been fired, these staffers are still trying to invent "plausible" justifications after the fact. These people were fired for a reason on Dec. 7, 2006, so why would it be necessary to spend time brainstorming justifications after the fact?

Here's a surmise--Goodling was tasked with this job so that the principals would be given a layer of protection. She's the dupe who is busy inventing reasons and telling untruths so that her bosses don't have to. How very noble!

I would be curious to know what "very important district" means. "Very important district" from the perspective of say the 2008 election perhaps?

Anonymous wrote on April 13, 2007 1:22 PM:

Steambob: handwriting?! Please. How do you feel about, um, doctors?

Can anyone decipher what was crossed out?

lysias wrote on April 13, 2007 1:24 PM:

If Gooodling made the chart, what was Sampson's role as the Aggregator of the List?

lysias wrote on April 13, 2007 1:25 PM:

?What's between "in over head" and "absentee landlord"? Something district?

I think I've made it out. "Border district," I think.

Truth Ache wrote on April 13, 2007 1:26 PM:

cynicalgirl asks:

What's between "in over head" and "absentee landlord"? Something district? Can someone decipher?

I believe it's "border district". HTH

Gary Bullas wrote on April 13, 2007 1:30 PM:

I have a four year old granddaughter that writes better notes than this!

majanet wrote on April 13, 2007 1:31 PM:

transcription:

Iglesias: underachiever in very important district
##### performance (scribbled out)
absentee landlord
b@@@ district
in over head
Dominici (sp) says he doesn't move cases (little scribble)

The McKay stuff is interesting too.

TheraP wrote on April 13, 2007 1:34 PM:

just a guess here - but "doesn't move cases".. ASAP?

Anonymous wrote on April 13, 2007 1:36 PM:

I've had 100's of women working for me and I assure you, I've never seen a women's handwritting like this..

seesdifferent wrote on April 13, 2007 1:38 PM:

underachieves in very important district
Iglesias ???
absentee landlord [obvious reference to military-related absences]
border district
in over head
doesn't move cases ???

bo wrote on April 13, 2007 1:40 PM:

Domenici may never have spoken to Goodling. - Posted by: Date: April 13, 2007 01:22 PM

http://judiciary.house.gov/media/PDFS/OAG1159-1234.pdf - page 73

4/6/06 4:00 - 4:15 pm
Phone call with Sen Domenici
Attendee - Mochella, Sampson, Goodling.

Wrath of Shiva wrote on April 13, 2007 1:41 PM:

The comments apparently are:
- underachieves in very important district
- absentee landlord
- border district
- in over head
The scribbled out one appears to be:
- doesn't perform (???)

Security code word = false
(as in....Heh,heh - one could have fun with this one)

TheraP wrote on April 13, 2007 1:42 PM:

Just an intuitive comment on the first long scratched out part.

I would guess that is the "real reason" to get rid of him. It comes first next to Iglesias.

Then that is scratched off - and above, is written the part about underperforming. With more reasons below. (so the brainstorming about "reasons" - to cover the REAL reason)

So I'd try to figure out what that real reason is - that's been scratched off.

lysias wrote on April 13, 2007 1:45 PM:

Is that "lackluster" crossed out before the crossed out "performance"?

TheraP wrote on April 13, 2007 1:47 PM:

Or - job lacks performance?

I agree about the "lack" part.

Mikl wrote on April 13, 2007 1:48 PM:

on page 6 of the chart:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/attorneyresignations/?resultpage=6&

for a not yet public upcoming resignation (that they already have slated to be made on 3/9/07), there's the following note:

"When USA announces resignation, the Administration will seek recommendations of potential candidates from the WH-designated Republican lead."

Isn't that counter to the usual procedure of asking the Senators from that state?

Wish we could find out who the "lead" in question is.

Wrath of Shiva wrote on April 13, 2007 1:49 PM:

ThearP:

You're probably right. If it has to do with "performance", that was the original reason they gave. Except, of course, it wasn't backed up by any facts. So, they came up with a laundry list. And they call this brainstorming? Guess they misplaced the "brains" - and went straight to "storming"?

the exile wrote on April 13, 2007 1:50 PM:

If it's not a woman's handwriting, whose is it? McNulty's? Rove's? Time to subpoena handwriting samples from them all and get a forensic handwriting expert on the job.

Jim wrote on April 13, 2007 1:52 PM:

Under Iglesias - the crossed out reason may be "Its about performance" - used Photoshop to assist in deleting apparent cross out wave.

Jim wrote on April 13, 2007 1:53 PM:

Under Iglesias - the crossed out reason may be "Its about performance" - used Photoshop to assist in deleting apparent cross out wave.

Richmond wrote on April 13, 2007 1:53 PM:

It appears from the document that Associate DAG David Margolis attended the meeting, and adjacent to comments about Mr. Charlton, it was noted: "No Margolis." (1165). "Margolis" is also noted on 1166.

Ji wrote on April 13, 2007 1:53 PM:

Under Iglesias - the crossed out reason may be "Its about performance" - used Photoshop to assist in deleting apparent cross out wave.

alex wrote on April 13, 2007 1:53 PM:

Fired on December 7th.

Reason for firing on February 12th.

These people are idiots. And classless idiots.

k wrote on April 13, 2007 1:55 PM:

perhaps someone not at work, could blow up the scratched out part in photoshop/gimp or whatever, and carefully follow the lines of the scratching out and erase them, leaving the writing. It's not scratched out that completely.

Jim Clausen wrote on April 13, 2007 1:55 PM:

posted the monica handwriting stuff at FDL as well. I was the unsigned who pointed out the doc 5 dump and handwritten notes. Thanks for finding them important

blogenfreude wrote on April 13, 2007 1:57 PM:

Didn't Sampson say something during the hearing about how there weren't too many documents because the firings were the topic of offhand discussions? Oops.

Wrath of Shiva wrote on April 13, 2007 2:03 PM:

Try this....
Click on the pic showing handwriting. It opens into the full 2 pages of handwritten notes. Apart from the handwriting being terrible - it becomes apparent that this was a cover-up. They tried to come up with reasons that would (hopefully) stick.
They failed!

rita wrote on April 13, 2007 2:09 PM:

Did anyone notice the title of the chart? "Left-behind"? As in the "Left Behind" series of Tim LeHaye? The docudumps illustrate nicely why "serving at the pleasure of the President" does not preclude Congress or the public from asking questions as to why one was selected for "leaving behind" and others weren't. There are always reasons for the selection and those reasons better be good. Also the scribbler notes that some are good, some are underperformers and some are bad managers. That undercuts the notion that they all were fired for performance. And the ex post facto development of reasons just gives fuel to the suspicion that these were simply pretexts.

Rebel wrote on April 13, 2007 2:10 PM:

Jim has the right idea but it is "lack luster preformance" that was crossed out.

John wrote on April 13, 2007 2:10 PM:

My best guess using some pretty primitive graphics tools for the part crossed out above absentee landlord is:

Lack luster performance

Security code: debt as in "debt to society"

justthetruth wrote on April 13, 2007 2:11 PM:

Although interesting, I don't believe there is anything here that shows any wrongdoing. Indeed, I don't believe that there is any law that says that Senator Domenici can't lodge a complaint about the performance of a U.S. attorney.

However, this doesn't mean that wrongdoing hasn't occurred for I do believe that it has. Rather, I find it somewhat disturbing that so many of the commentors are drinking their own kool aid in their somewhat overzealous attempts to attribute wrongdoing where it isn't supported by the facts.

cmc wrote on April 13, 2007 2:20 PM:

possibly
"doesn't perform to t"

meaning?

doesn't perform to task???

Yondertree wrote on April 13, 2007 2:30 PM:

The scribbled out line seems to be the primary reason to fire Iglesias. The line above it is a re-write of this reason, apparently restating the reason in less politically damaging terms. If this had been done later with a different pen, reading what was scribbled out might be easy.

If you copy the note into Photoshop and enlarge it, you see two lines of scribbles through the line. Each of these lines has a pattern that can be followed and removed. The word “for” seems clear. The First word might be "doesn't" and the final word could possibly be “indict.” There are professionals who can read this line.

elliottness wrote on April 13, 2007 2:33 PM:

the scratched out part is (as noted earlier)

lackluster performance

which they knew was BS, so thay had to get more... creative I guess?

security code: salt, as in wounds?

global yokel wrote on April 13, 2007 2:35 PM:

I may have said this yesterday, but I can't get over the fact that you have to be certified nitwit to leave as many incriminating tidbits behind as the Bushniks have done.

These people aren't even clever crooks, and they are running the country?

Oy....

gchaucer2 wrote on April 13, 2007 2:42 PM:

How on earth do these comments jive with the first document in Group 3 which says: "The Administrtive Officer [Iglesias] was highly respected the staff throughout the USAO. The Administrative Division totally supported the mission of the USAO."?

PA citizen wrote on April 13, 2007 2:46 PM:

The poster at 01:22 has it right. The firings have nothing to do with the after-the-fact justifications made in this batch of files. They are just a diversionary tactic. The firings were strictly about appointing appropriate Yes Men in the key swing states for the 2008 election.

Senator Arlen Specter, the planter of the "poison pill" in the Patriot Act, is deeply involved in this conspiracy. To get to the bottom of it, Senator Leahy need look no further than to the gentleman on his right.

opuspa wrote on April 13, 2007 2:51 PM:

So her handwriting is bad -- (so she can be a physician in her next career). Haven't we learned that the only characteristic that counts in this administration is ZEALOTRY.

GSD wrote on April 13, 2007 2:52 PM:

Apparently she was writing in tongues.

-GSD

Jim Pharo wrote on April 13, 2007 2:54 PM:

Isn't the damning thing the timing (as pointed out up-thread?) These are reasons for firing that are obviously being brain-stormed AFTER the firing has occurred.

Isn't the the blue-print for a cover-up -- a cover-up that was undertaken to hide that the firings were for reasons they wanted to keep secret?

How can people say there's no proof of wrong-doing here? (Sen. Hatch I can understand; I think he's just a bad faith actor. But others on this thread: this is pretty compelling evidence of wrong-doing.

MaryCh wrote on April 13, 2007 2:57 PM:

A rantitious quibble.

Goodling didn't plead the fifth -- she hadn't been asked any questions yet. She got a good lawyer who made a so far successful preemptive strike, preventing Goodling from having to answer ANY questions. There are legal standards to for claiming the right against self-incrimination -- in other words the right to stonewall is not absolute (unless, of course, Fred Fielding could successfully argue that Goodling is merely an RNC email message.)

PS -- Glad youse guys can't get a look at my handwriting! (Security Code - hand. The muckraker computer has a sense of humor, or at least of topicality!)

Austin Cooper wrote on April 13, 2007 2:57 PM:

(Snark Alert)

After submitting the note to the "Zuricher Institut Fur Schrieben Von Die Hunde and Brake Replacement" in Des Moines, this handwriting analysis was obtained:

"The writer has a powerful need to dominate, particularly whatever they perceive as food, or underwear.

"They are only mildly focused on external stimuli (note the misspellings and half-formed letters) but instead live a complex inner life -- the chief features of which involve consuming a large number of 'Ho-Hos' while lying under an electric blanket in a fetal position (see what appear to be the words 'bride destruct').

"The last heavy crossing-out (Which appears to be the letter 'W') signifies a classic fantasy of Republicans, and professional septic-tank salespersons.

"We conclude that the writer is a first-order loon, who needs to see a therapist five times per week, minimum. They may also drive a Hummer-sized SUV, which should have a general mechanical check performed as soon as possible."

(Code = fear)

Rebel wrote on April 13, 2007 3:03 PM:

I believe the most over looked aspect is that Monica took those notes at one of the DOJ meetings on the subject 'What do we tell the publc?'.

Don't forget that Inglesias was added late to thier hit list. This is nothing but the DOJ justification for discharging the attorneys AFTER THE FACT.

Monica had the privledge to gather thoughts and put these TALKING POINTS in a printed pdf form.

Believe it or not the Security Code is "fact."

RandyR wrote on April 13, 2007 3:10 PM:

I gotta laugh.
It seems that last week Monica Goodling was shown to be making bullets against the Democrats. And I hope she kept one of those bullets to put between her teeth. Because this next thing is gunna hurt like hell.

Security Code; Shame I remember a little ditty from when I was 3 years old.
Shame shame everbody knows your name. Monica

Ro wrote on April 13, 2007 3:18 PM:

Sadly, the criminal activity by these people have set our country back generations. We are going to have to clean this mess up, along with all of the other messes they have left lying around.

Because of these folks, people of good will don't want to work in gov't service anymore, and those who do (and are honest) don't want to stay!

This is very sad and tragic. We should all be very afraid! I am!

John DiPippa wrote on April 13, 2007 3:35 PM:

The chart lies when it discusses Bud Cummins. It says that he requested to leave and dates their call to him in June 2006. But he has said that he was called in February 2006 and told that he was going to be replaced. He agreed to go along with the "I never intended to serve my entire term" cover but he was not happy about it.

TheraP wrote on April 13, 2007 3:44 PM:

Austin Cooper:

Interesting results of the handwriting analysis.

Please do not refer this patient.

I am too far "west" (security word) for her.

Morfydd wrote on April 13, 2007 5:04 PM:

Pfft. I'm a woman, and I have much worse, more stereotypically-male scragggly writing when writing for myself. (I also have an elegant hand when I really think about it, to the point that I've been paid to do calligraphy.) I bet when she writes for someone else to read it's fairly elegant - the capitals are smooth and striking.

But the content is pretty incriminating. Goodness.

PMad wrote on April 13, 2007 5:08 PM:

A State's Congressional Representatives are certainly entitled to COMPLAIN about a US attorney but notNotNOT to attempt to influence an attorney's judgment by threats or intimidation. While I would love to see the feet of these rodents at Justice sizzling all the way to disbarment...Why are not the House and Senate Ethics panels doing something about Domenici and Wilson?

LnGrrrR wrote on April 13, 2007 5:11 PM:

I like how under some of the 'insubordination' listed, it says, "ex. required fbi to videotape interviews despite fbi policy", but doesn't mention it elsewhere.

In fact, Charlton specifically ASKED about implementing a policy that involved taping interrogations...but nowhere in it mentioned that his office was doing so. hmph.

Code: False... heh.

Doodle Bean wrote on April 13, 2007 5:24 PM:

Good handwriting isn't a qualification for employment in the Bush-league DOJ... but membership in the Federal Sociey is!

Code word is 'fire'... As in 'to fire'

noshrub wrote on April 13, 2007 6:07 PM:

she left out the WWJD part...I'm sure it's in there somewhere along with the Fundamentals of Biblical Law citations.

steambomb wrote on April 13, 2007 10:47 PM:

I've had 100's of women working for me and I assure you, I've never seen a women's handwritting like this..

Posted by:

I have never met a woman with handwriting that bad. Even my daughter has better handwriting at her young age. That handwriting should indeed be checked out. As another poster has said. The word is 'knot' and I believe it is getting tighter.

elrapierwit wrote on April 13, 2007 11:20 PM:

This does not look like a female's handwriting. It is too heavy handed and cryptic. Comes across as short, forceful staccato communicative style which tends to be masculine thought pattern.

As a pharmacist I read lots of scribble, and this style is typical of men...not a female.

sab wrote on April 14, 2007 3:34 AM:

re: handwriting. I went into law school with nice neat handwriting. I came out three years later with handwriting just like ms. goodling's. Lots of reporters also have horrible handwriting. Taking lots of notes fast isn't good for penmanship.

Al in Austex wrote on April 14, 2007 6:08 AM:

Hey JusttheTRuth ,
I am not a lawyer- I drive a cab - but even I know that it is illegal for a Senator or a Congressman to call a USA Attorney with the INTENT of influencing an ongoing criminal investigation re Dominici , Wilson calling Iglesias.
Maybe we can get Former DOJ Assistant Attorney General Comey to be the Special Prosecutor for the USA Purge investigation.You may recall "justthetruth" that Mr Comey reafffirmed Mr Fitzgerald special prosecutors "hunting permit" when then AG Ashcroft had to recuse himself in the Libby matter.
The Neo Thugs are going down, hear that rumbling -thats the Impeachment Express slowly gathering steam -

Peter Duffy wrote on April 14, 2007 10:02 AM:

Buy Pete brown underpants.

Peter Duffy wrote on April 14, 2007 10:15 AM:

I agree with elrapierwit.There appears to be mutiple authors on some sheets, extra heavy crossing out of some words. Not the work of a self assured individual like Monica, who would see no reason to erase 'mistakes in transcription' on what were private notes at the time of writing and unlikely to be ever seen by another party. However ,later in hindsight and with the prospect of congressional oversight, maybe making the alterations made sense to somebody.

If they were not done by Monica, it could be dump on Monica time now, to impeach her credibility.

The results of the forensic tests will be interesting.

Dabb wrote on April 14, 2007 12:25 PM:

When are charges going to be brought against Domenici and Wilson? They broke the law. Or are they just going to get a slap on the hand and told not to do it again?

freepatriot wrote on April 14, 2007 4:19 PM:

"When are charges going to be brought against Domenici and Wilson?"

from now until the first tuesday after the first monday in November of 2008

at that time their participation in the United States Congress will be terminated

security code: like

as in "something LIKE that ...

206Bones wrote on April 14, 2007 7:02 PM:

I would like to confirm "lackluster performance" as the words referring to Iglesias, which are evident after removing the quasi-sinusoidal cross-out strokes.

Bushwacked wrote on April 16, 2007 11:16 AM:

At age 33, Monica Goodling became the #3 flack in our DOJ after a receiving a stellar legal education at Pat Robertson's Law School. How low into the mediocrity barrel do they have to scape to make Gonzalez look competent? Something tells me that now that the stakes are higher for magna cum Monica that she'll probably hire attorneys from a real law school to defend her. Hold out for the John Mitchell cell block in prison, Monica. You've earned it.

epenisa wrote on January 11, 2008 1:09 AM:

Hi all!
Nice work from your side... have a nice time with yoru blog :)
Bye