Comments (152)

TheraP wrote on May 4, 2007 2:19 PM:

Rewriting history is hard work.

Especially by committee.

ebmck wrote on May 4, 2007 2:21 PM:

The purpose: to coach a top Justice Department official heading to Capitol Hill to testify on the prosecutorial purge on what he should say....

Was that top official McNulty, or was there someone else? It seems to be a quote form McNulty's account, but I'm unclear as to whether or not HE was the one being briefed.

Anonymous wrote on May 4, 2007 2:24 PM:

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.

Rusty wrote on May 4, 2007 2:29 PM:

That's what is so obvious about this scandal. It is no incident that no one is culpable, or even willing to take the blame. That's where the serious criminal charges are. That's where the obstruction of justice is. You are not going to see anyone step up and explain it either. No matter how many times they pull Albertross in to question him. This fact should have been answered in the first round of questions by the first person. Yet, how many people have come and gone and how many questions have been answered and we have nothing, Congress has nothing. My first question on the 19th would be "Mr. Gonzales, who put the names on the list and when? We don't move on until you provide an answer."

Anonymous wrote on May 4, 2007 2:30 PM:

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.

Crust wrote on May 4, 2007 2:32 PM:

Rove (according to McNulty): "you all need to explain what you did and why you did it.”

I suspect that should really be "you all need to explain what *I* did and why *I* did it". Or, in other words, good luck cleaning up after my mess.

Anonymous wrote on May 4, 2007 2:38 PM:

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.

mo2 wrote on May 4, 2007 2:39 PM:

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.

If it had occurred to one of them, they would have documented to CYA.

Rusty Austin wrote on May 4, 2007 2:42 PM:

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.

JP Stormcrow wrote on May 4, 2007 2:43 PM:

Some folks are born made to serve the Prez,
Ooh, they're loyal through and through.
And when the word comes down, orders from the chief,
Ooh, they point that finger right at you, lord,

It aint me, it aint me, I aint gonna get spun, spun.
It aint me, it aint me; I aint fired no one, no,

JP Stormcrow wrote on May 4, 2007 2:48 PM:

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?)

powkat wrote on May 4, 2007 2:49 PM:

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?

I'm gonna need more popcorn!

pj in jesusland wrote on May 4, 2007 2:52 PM:

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.

Anonymous wrote on May 4, 2007 2:54 PM:

The reason no one at justice knows? Karl just handed the AG the list. Or he gave it to Monica to give to Alberto. I think it's pretty obvious that's what all this is about.

whenwego wrote on May 4, 2007 2:55 PM:

Was a graphic on Daily show like this

r€nato wrote on May 4, 2007 2:56 PM:

Yeah but conservatives tell me this is a fake scandal. Why would they lie to me?

After all, people lie for no good reason all the time. Don't they?

paul lukasiak wrote on May 4, 2007 2:58 PM:

"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?

Anonymous wrote on May 4, 2007 2:58 PM:

And Rove needed to be involved at a DOJ preinterview meeting because _______??? I thought he wasn't involved in any of these types of decisions for DOJ performance related issues? I mean according to Abu, He doesn't recall who created the list, doesn't remember the process used or how they did it,but signed off on it because it wasn't improper.
SC:linen...as in The drip, drip, drip of hanging Karl's wet dirty laundry and linen out....guess he prefers the "slow bleed" approach.

Michael Stevens wrote on May 4, 2007 2:59 PM:

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.

William Ockham wrote on May 4, 2007 3:02 PM:

Hmmm... The pattern seems pretty obvious to me. The White House asks Kyle Sampson for a list of USAs to fire and he gives them one. On January 9, 2006, Kyle Sampson took credit for putting Chiara, Cummins, Ryan (although he later removed Ryan from the list), and Lam on the list. He sent an email to Harriet Miers and Bill Kelley that said:

I list these folks based on my review of the evaluations of their offices conducted by EOUSA and my interviews with officials in the Office of the Attorney General, Office of the Deputy Attorney General, and the Criminal Division.

Then, on September 13, 2006 he generates another list that includes all of the fired USAs except Ryan and Iglesias. When he fowards it to Michael Elston on October 17, 2006, he describes it as "my list of U.S. attorneys we should consider replacing".

The only real mystery is how Iglesias's name got added to the list between October 17 and November 7.

Vulture Breath wrote on May 4, 2007 3:04 PM:

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

Unfortunate phrasing.

mo2 wrote on May 4, 2007 3:05 PM:

So is Jack Abramoff the Linda Tripp of this scandal?

regular lurker wrote on May 4, 2007 3:05 PM:

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

busboy33 wrote on May 4, 2007 3:08 PM:

Great job by the Congressmen (and women) in cutting of Goodling's only avenues of escape. When she testifies, we already know she made the list. She's either got to give up Karl and admit she's just a pawn, claim she just made the list up herself (and go to prison for about a billion years), or refuse to answer even with an immunity grant (and back to prison).
I suppose she could also claim the elves left the list one night. I presume she's going to suffer from DoJ amnesia-itis as well, but she's pretty much on the hook. If everybody else remembers NOT making the list, and she doesn't remember if she did or not, that still puts it squarely in her lap. The White House Liason (with her secret authorization) is firing USAs. Her only job requirement is to advance WH directives. Unless Bush claims to have had problems with the USAs (doubtful), that stops the buck and Karl and/or Dick.

I almost feel sorry for Goodling. Then I remember what she did and can't wait to watch her self-righteous ass squirm.

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

Bearpaw wrote on May 4, 2007 3:08 PM:

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.

mbbsdphil wrote on May 4, 2007 3:09 PM:

If these US Attorneys were fired for legitimate reasons, presumably those reasons were as varied as the differences in their locations (thousands of miles apart), staffing, management and legal experiences, preferences, and mix of criminal and civil rights cases unique to their jurisdictions.

On the other hand, if they were fired for purely political reasons that were legal, but which the administration was not willing to admit to, or for illegitimate or illegal reasons, it was vital to agree on a simple cover story.

It seems the cover story hasn't held up. Neither have any reasons other offered so far. So, we're left with a criminal investigation that should start promptly.

mo2 wrote on May 4, 2007 3:14 PM:

"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.

JP Stormcrow wrote on May 4, 2007 3:15 PM:

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

I don't know if she thinks it is her yet. She is a Barbara Comstock protege - so the question is has Comstock thrown her under the bus yet.

To mix metaphors, between this and Plamegate/Scooter Libby, Comstock must be getting to be the world expert at talking people down off the ledge.

I don't know if there is a John Dean in the whole bunch,... hmmm, unless it were Rove himself, who in a career-capping balls-out show of hubris, goes on an expose of everyone but himself, counting on his superior ability to tell a stright-faced lie alongwith the "skeleton army" he has in the closet to keep him relatively safe. (I'm sure he has at least thought through that scenario - remember - attack their strength with your weakness.)

Node of Evil wrote on May 4, 2007 3:15 PM:

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.

the chief wrote on May 4, 2007 3:16 PM:

We need a chart for this one, ladies & gents.

bordersmuggler wrote on May 4, 2007 3:20 PM:

"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.

George wrote on May 4, 2007 3:24 PM:

Please do not use the expression "performance issues". It is instead "problems with his performance."

TheraP wrote on May 4, 2007 3:25 PM:

"Was Monica Goodling chosen?"

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

But Jesus didn't do it this time.

parrot wrote on May 4, 2007 3:29 PM:

For some reason folks are not focusing in the handout from the Nov 27th meeting, the meeting that AG AG refuses to remember being at, in which the stonewalling we are seeing now was described. Basically, the handout spells out that the DOJ will seek to not take responsibilities for the firings. It came up in Gonzalez's last appearance before the Senate and likely explains in spades exactly why AG AG can't allegedly being there. It is a document purposely setting a course to NOT TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for the firings within the DOJ.

Now, why would the AG not remember a meeting like that? Two possibilities:

1. The handout was never given at the meeting.
2. The handout was presented at the meeting.

If #2 is true then remembering that that was something substantive discussed at that meeting would certainly point to intent to deceive both Congress and the American people as to 1) who was responsible for the list of Attorney's fired and 2) either knowledge or or suspicion that obstruction of justice was a likelihood in the case of some of the firings.

If one can conveniently not remember that one was a meeting where that document was handed out then, well, off scott free! Or so goes the theory anyway.

Michael Stevens wrote on May 4, 2007 3:31 PM:

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.

regular lurker wrote on May 4, 2007 3:33 PM:

I didn't realize Goodling was a Barbara Comstock protege. Turning up the heat for Goodling, Comstock's partner, Mark Corallo, has said Gonzales should resign.

queridobobo wrote on May 4, 2007 3:33 PM:

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

Codeword: bent. Do with it what you will.

Steve5117 wrote on May 4, 2007 3:35 PM:

Anybody want to spend the weekend on the beach in Dubai? It's the money...who's setting up shop there? Who profited from their schemes?

Do I hear Karl singing...(apologies Don Mclean)
"Bye, bye to American SAkies, I be a big sheik when I get to Dubai!"

Anonymous wrote on May 4, 2007 3:36 PM:

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.

mo2 wrote on May 4, 2007 3:36 PM:

Yesterday someone commented that perhaps Monica had a romantic crush on Ashcroft, so I looked for the date of his departure in relation to Monica's location at the time:

"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.

[Ashcroft sent confidential, handwritten letter of resignation to GW Bush on November 2, 2004.]

In spring 2005, Goodling returned to Main Justice, this time in the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys, where she worked for Mary Beth Buchanan, the U.S. Attorney in Pittsburgh, who knew Goodling from her days in the press shop."

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1175245444489

JP Stormcrow wrote on May 4, 2007 3:41 PM:

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."

mo2 wrote on May 4, 2007 4:01 PM:

There was an election in November 2004. Was Monica sent to Virginia to work on the GOP campaign - while on federal payroll?

regular lurker wrote on May 4, 2007 4:12 PM:

Goodling has really boxed herself in.

chuck wrote on May 4, 2007 4:14 PM:

Check this leak from committee interviews in Bloomberg:

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

Johann wrote on May 4, 2007 4:15 PM:

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?"

VJB wrote on May 4, 2007 4:22 PM:

If there is no one willing to take responsibility for the Pearl Harbor Day Massacre, then perhaps we all were delusional and it didn't really happen. We should take the 7-8 USA'a sternly to task for not showing up at the office last week. Must have been a misunderstanding.

Your code words are depressing. BTW.

bobh wrote on May 4, 2007 4:22 PM:

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

Monica Goodling Groupie wrote on May 4, 2007 4:28 PM:

Bush's approval numbers are at 28%. At this point I don't see how this scandal can lower those- for the people who still support Bush there is nothing that can be revealed that will shake their faith in him. His supporters are insulated from reality, living in a Fox News fueled alternate reality. Which is why I'm surprised that instead of just telling the truth and putting this behind them the White House has decided to fight the investigation tooth and nail. I don't think you have to be a conspiracy theorist at this point to discern what all signs point to: Rove was the one who ultimately came up with the names and he gave them to Goodling and told her to come up with a cover story for each fired attorney. And while what Karl did was highly improper I doubt any illegal intent can be proved. The White House obviously lied when they said it was about performance related issues but it's not like the White House has not been shown to be liars before. And the 28% who still support Bush do not care if Bush and his cronies are shown to be liars- they just blame any bad news on the "liberal media". So I'm baffled as to why the administration is putting up such a big fight. Could there be some truth to some of the more sinister conspiracy theories floating around? I still think these Rove wanted the majority of these attorneys gone because he had received complaints about them being too tough on GOP folks and too soft in pursuing the all important Dem "voter fraud" cases. And he also saw this as an opportunity to pad the resumes of some "loyal Bushies". So why not just admit Karl is behind it, take the hit for a week, and move on? Rove is a scumbag- EVERYONE knows that and the 28% don't care. I'm at a loss to explain this big fight the administration is putting up that is just serving to drag out this scandal. Protect Karl at all costs seems to be the mantra. Weird. It's not like folks are going to hate Bush any less or more if the truth comes out- hate is hate and at this point there's not going to be any love for the folks who lied us into this disastrous war.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on May 4, 2007 4:32 PM:

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.

paul lukasiak wrote on May 4, 2007 4:39 PM:

Michael Stevens:
RE: Sampson testimony transcript...

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

Mellifluous wrote on May 4, 2007 4:39 PM:

Only one commenter here has noted, in passing, that there is some question as to why the "let's fix an explanation around the firings" occurred in the White House.

I have more questions here. If it was a Justice Department issue, because of "performance-related" reasons, why was the WH involved? Shouldn't the meeting have been at Justice? No WH operatives/flaks/whatever need have been there unless, as the current evidence seems to indicate, there was no one in the JD who detailed the firings. Meaning that they had to originate in the WH.

What am i missing here?

bordersmuggler wrote on May 4, 2007 4:44 PM:

From the Bloomberg story:

"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."

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

Richard L. Adlof wrote on May 4, 2007 4:48 PM:

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.

phil james wrote on May 4, 2007 4:48 PM:

Monica Goodling Groupie

Because there is a real risk that Rove might be indicted for obstruction of justice for the USA firings in the first place and for the cover-up in the second place, in addition to his eventual indictment for Hatch Act violations. The Bush Administration is covering Rove's ass because Rove runs the Bush Administration.

drational wrote on May 4, 2007 4:49 PM:

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)

mo2 wrote on May 4, 2007 4:51 PM:

from chuck's link above:
"Monica Goodling, at the time an aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, sobbed for 45 minutes in the office of career Justice Department official David Margolis on March 8 as she related her fears that she would have to quit, ... 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."

Two things:
1. ha ha, Monica cried when she realized that what she had done to others was now being done to her
2. she is in some sort of emotional state which optimistically means that she will roll over on Rove

C 92 wrote on May 4, 2007 4:52 PM:

Is Moinca Goodling in this picture?

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

Anonymous wrote on May 4, 2007 4:59 PM:

It's now obvious that the White House was behind the firings- just read the Bloomberg article. Margolis, the guy whose shoulder Monica cried on, told them as much:
"Margolis recalled that he was stunned to learn the extent of White House involvement in the dismissals" It's out. Let there be no mistake- the White House was behind these firings. It's clear as day. But why they were fired, that is still murky.

Anonymous wrote on May 4, 2007 5:04 PM:

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

phil james wrote on May 4, 2007 5:08 PM:

I thought the reason they were fired was not murky at all. I thought it was pretty obvious why they were fired. Is that still really a question?

Russ in New Mexico wrote on May 4, 2007 5:10 PM:

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?

JP Stormcrow wrote on May 4, 2007 5:13 PM:

>>>Margolis sobbing ...

Ain't it hard when you discover that
He really wasn't where it's at
...
He's not selling any alibis
As you stare into the vacuum of his eyes
And ask him do you want to make a deal?
(Ok ... a little mixeed up from the original.)

And they must protect Rove - there is no other "there" there, other than Cheney in OVP. It is Tweedledum (Rove) & Tweedledummer (Cheney) propping up Tweedledummerer, everything else in the admin is a facade.

phred wrote on May 4, 2007 5:14 PM:

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.

Anonymous wrote on May 4, 2007 5:16 PM:

I thought the reason they were fired was not murky at all. I thought it was pretty obvious why they were fired. Is that still really a question?
Posted by: phil james
It is in my mind. Tell me why you think they were fired. There could be any number of reasons (none good). While some reasons might simply be improper some are downright illegal. I think some of the more sinister reasons I've heard, which would result in jail time, are going to be almost impossible to prove.

mo2 wrote on May 4, 2007 5:17 PM:

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.

bobh wrote on May 4, 2007 5:19 PM:

That bloomberg article is not a smoking gun its a smoking crater about a mile wide.

Sheesh.

Anonymous wrote on May 4, 2007 5:25 PM:

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.

Anonymous wrote on May 4, 2007 5:32 PM:

The Republicans have learned well from the Germans: "We had no idea . . ."

America needs some adult supervision. Either it comes from within -- in the form of prosecutions -- or it comes from without.

Americans must decide if they want to exercise sovereignty and provide leadership to ensure this does not happen again. There needs to be a method to ensure that prosecutions and ienvestigations -- regarldess who controls the government -- continue to assert the rule of law.

One argument for having criminal cases -- whereby pbulic servants known as "prosecutors" enforce the law, thereby eliminating the requirement for prviate parties to enforce the laws -- is to ensure that justice does not become a blood spoort. Yet, this Justice Department has well demonstrated it is willing to not enforce the law, and proseucte illusory problems while claiming this system is good for Iraq and the world to emulate.

America needs to show it can assert the rule of law regardless the shifting political winds. Without a fair showing and needed reforms, the world has little to be inspired by. America's legacy is the WWII-legacy where it was second to none. However, the results of WWII are not relevant today, in the 21st Century: America's system of governance is not impressive. It could be better.

Each disclosure is another drip: America needs to solve this problem, or the world will slowly unite to compel a solution from without.

security code: Push, as in, "AMerica has pusehd the world around for too long; American citizens need to push back against this government, otherwise the world will push back against America."

If you don't push, the world will.

phred wrote on May 4, 2007 5:37 PM:

"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.

JTL wrote on May 4, 2007 5:40 PM:

"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?"

Russ, that's the thing I'm most nervous about and why I really hope they're careful when they give her immunity.

obsessed wrote on May 4, 2007 5:42 PM:

"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?

moe99 wrote on May 4, 2007 5:45 PM:

The purpose: to coach a top Justice Department official heading to Capitol Hill to testify on the prosecutorial purge on what he should say....

In my profession, we call that "sandpapering."

Anonymous wrote on May 4, 2007 5:52 PM:

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.

bobh wrote on May 4, 2007 5:55 PM:

old karl is at it all the time apparently:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18479265/site/newsweek/

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.

“They let Moschella come up here without telling him the full story,” said the Democratic staffer.

SPENCER ADAMS wrote on May 4, 2007 5:55 PM:

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.

Jake Bryan wrote on May 4, 2007 6:08 PM:

Two questions:
1. In light of your quoted piece above:

"The Justice Department needed to provide specific reasons why it terminated the eight prosecutors in order to rebut Democratic 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."

How did Rove know that they didn't already have reasons?

2. Is there any reason why Congress can't charge *all* of these DOJ political appointees, including Gonzales, with conspiracy to obstruct Congressional oversight of GOP political interference with DOJ?

Seems to me that if the lot of them were accused of conspiracy, that would really tend to loosen up multiple mouths.

phred wrote on May 4, 2007 6:10 PM:

"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...

Anonymous wrote on May 4, 2007 6:30 PM:

It's kind of funny; the genius Rove told Moschella to testify (lie) about the "performance related reasons" that caused the attorneys to be fired. Those bullshit reasons in turn pissed off the attorneys, whose reputations were sullied, and caused them to speak out and refute the lies. By the way, Moschella lied under oath. Even though it was most likely unknowingly on his part should he be looking at a jail cell in his near future?

phil james wrote on May 4, 2007 6:30 PM:

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.

cherry flavored wrote on May 4, 2007 6:34 PM:

Dear Regency U patsies, here is a look at your future from Rick Perlstein at the Campaign for Americas Future:

"I explained that this was why Richard Nixon's White House specifically recruited dedicated conservatives to do his dirty work - "good, healthy right-wing exuberants," as he described the likes of Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy.

And what do conservatives think of convicted felon G. Gordon Liddy, who cheerfully worked overtime specifically to break the law on the White House's behalf? They made him one of their most popular speakers and radio hosts. The party of law and order indeed."

Steve5117 wrote on May 4, 2007 6:37 PM:

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.

j swift wrote on May 4, 2007 6:55 PM:

I keep saying it is "The Immaculate Termination". Nobody knows nothing, did nothing, names and lists just appeared, , no plans, no policies, no files, decisions were made but memory of when and where fails.

It is the Hand of God working in mysterious ways.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 4, 2007 7:29 PM:

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!

United, I stand alone against collectivism wrote on May 4, 2007 7:29 PM:

See,... It's like they have,... It's,... it's like we have,... we,.... we.. Alright, look.... I can't justify the,.. uh,... the,... the Amer'can people,.... they, they're afraid,... and when I, and I understand that.... And I do..... And when I say we're gonna do sum'n about that we're gonnna do it..... And we are. See, it's like,... it's,... uh,.... like,..... Alright, listen... I know there's lots of,... of,... critics, uh,...out there,....lot of NAY-sayers of the way I've,.... the way this administration,...has,...uh,... handled the,...uhh, this,.... Alright look!... Now, listen. .....You,... you can't,... I can't,... It's hard work,... keeping Amer'ca safe from the,.... uh,.... from these,.... uh,.... Look. Now,... They hate our freedoms,... And so,...so,... And, so I say let's move forward,... n give this uuuuuhhh,.... chance to work,.... let's not SECOND-guess,....uh,... the commanders,... uh,.... in the field,... And so,... so,... I have to support the troops..... I'm the "commander guy"!?!......... WTF

mo2 wrote on May 4, 2007 7:44 PM:

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.

Michael Stevens wrote on May 4, 2007 8:13 PM:

KENNEDY: And did you attend any meetings in the White House where the issues of replacing U.S. attorneys was discussed?

Today alone, Two separate bombshells suggest Sampson was less than forthcoming in his Senate testimony. It's clearly possible that his deception may have reached the level of perjury.

A. He never mentioned this newly discovered meeting with Rove, even though he was asked repeatedly about Rove and specifically about meetings in the White House.

On this point Sampson may *barley* dodge a perjury charge. I've just given his testimony a quick review, he was not specifically asked about the meeting in question, but he was asked about White House meetings. While this point alone may not be enough to nail him for perjury, combined with the point below, it clearly suggests attempts at subterfuge.

B. He never mentioned the folder with the e-mails that purport to link the terminations to the White House. He never mentioned that he discussed this with Margolis, probably McNulty, and possibly Gonzo.

This revelation looks like clear cut case of perjury. Sampson was asked repeatedly about the process, Sampson was asked repeatedly about White House involvement. Yet Kyle Sampson never mentioned the e-mails, he never mentioned the White House involvement, he never mentioned his opinion that the White House had orchestrated the firings.

And if Sampson discussed these e-mails with Gonzales, both he and Gonzo could be guilty of perjury.

Sampson does have an very big out. We don't know what was asked and answered in the second (private) testimony given by Sampson. It would make sense for a staunch Republican like him to only reveal the most damning information in private. Thus he looks like a good company man on TV while taking himself off the hook for perjury. We really can't discount the possibility that Sampson came much more clean in private than he did in public.

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

Whether Sampson revealed those facts in his private testimony or not, I think it's crystal clear that that Sampson's public testimony was crafted to hide White House involvement. At least in public, he has made getting information from him as hard as pulling teeth.

MidwestLiberal wrote on May 4, 2007 8:33 PM:

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

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 4, 2007 8:52 PM:

@May 4, 2007 07:44 PM

"Ashcroft said that he does not approve of the politicalization of justice."

Come on, which Democrat or Republican publicly approves of the politicalization of justice? Karl Rove himself wouldn't admit to it.

You think you know why Ashcroft resigned but you are only guessing and, in the process, you ascribe qualities to John Ashcroft that we can't confirm one way or the other.

Goodling's colleagues knew that AG John Ashcroft had a taste for Monica's brownies and they knew she traveled with him often. Trust me, Goodling's special relationship with the AG did not hurt her career.

It was on Ashcroft's watch when Goodling was supposedly began working at the USA-EDVA's office in September 2004 as part of a program to train department officials in the basics of prosecution.

According to Legal Times, Goodling, as a special assistant U.S. Attorney, spent much of her time handling misdemeanors before magistrate judges.

Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it, to dispatch a highly regarded, experienced oppo researcher to try misdemeanor cases in Alexandria during a presidential campaign?

We already know that D. Kyle Sampson's resume was inflated by his claim that he tried a criminal case in Palm Beach in March 2004. I suspect Sampson spent more time at the beach then he did in court.

Obviously, I don't know if Goodling had an affair with Ashcroft but I'm a Democrat and I can have fun guessing why she was crying to David Margolis about her personal life for 45 minutes. Note that the Bloomberg story specifically states "personal life."

From most accounts, Goodling was a ruthless bitch on wheels. According to Mark Corallo, she had no trouble firing people who didn't follow the party line. Remember his story about how Goodling handled the whiny intern?

What made Monica Goolding wimp out on March 8 and start bawling about her personal life to
David Margolis, an older man who has been with the DOJ for forty years? According to the Bloomberg story, Margolis was concerned about Goodling's emotional state.

I went back re-read TPM MR's 3/8 stories and if Goodling was reading TPM MR that day, she knew the party was over and she knew the Dems weren't going to let up.

This particular story was leaked for a reason and I'm pretty sure it wasn't leaked by a Republican congressional aide. Again, Goodling wasn't bawling about her career, she was bawling about her personal life.

So far, none of us even know if Goodling has a personal life. Nobody has come up with a current or even an old boyfriend. Her friends seem to be political associates. We know she once attended a Regent U. alumnae picnic and that's about it.

The fact that former AG, John Ashcroft, hasn't publicly defended Monica Goodling is strange. Ashcroft apparently had high regard for her work and had some kind of personal affinity for her.

Pat Robertson is another one who hasn't made a public statement defending Goodling.

Neither Ashcroft, a Regent U. professor, or Robertson have defended the reputation of Regent U. despite the fact that is being maligned by the left as a third-rate law school.

Curious.

Correction: Legal Times, not Legal News, carried the 4/2/07 Goodling story by T.R. Goldman and Emma Schwartz, "DOJ Official Brings Storm by Taking the Fifth in Gonzales Flap", (link below).

Anonymous wrote on May 4, 2007 8:57 PM:

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?

gtash wrote on May 4, 2007 9:09 PM:

Crust said: Rove (according to McNulty): "you all need to explain what you did and why you did it.”

I suspect that should really be "you all need to explain what *I* did and why *I* did it". Or, in other words, good luck cleaning up after my mess----

So my question is this: are all of those who claim to have put forward nothing, yet attend a meeting at which Rove tells them to develop an alibi--are all those guys obstructing a Congressional investigation? Is that perjury or obstruction of justice?

TheraP wrote on May 4, 2007 9:11 PM:

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.

lysias wrote on May 4, 2007 9:16 PM:

Where do the brainstorming sessions DOJ had on what reasons to give for firing the USA's fit into the timeline?

busboy33 wrote on May 4, 2007 9:21 PM:

@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.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 4, 2007 9:31 PM:

@May 4, 2007 08:57 PM

Between 3/5/07 and 3/8/07, Goodling learned she would be called to testify before Congress.

From a 3/7/07 TPM MR story (link below):

"When the Senate Judiciary Committee meets tomorrow, they will vote on whether to issue subpoenas to several Justice Department officials.

Those officials are: Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty's chief of staff Mike Elston, Alberto Gonzales' chief of staff Kyle Sampson, acting Associate Attorney General William Mercer, outgoing Director of the Executive Office of the United States Attorney Michael Battle, and the Justice Department's White House liaison, Monica Goodling.

In a statement Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said, “Now that it’s clear that there was a concerted effort to purge an impressive crop of U.S. Attorneys, the next step is to identify and question those responsible for hatching this scheme to use U.S. Attorneys as pawns in a political chess game...”

Read the last two paragraphs from the Bloomberg story again:

"Margolis testified that he believed Sampson informed him of the e-mails because the two had enjoyed a cordial relationship, the aide said. Margolis told investigators he believed Sampson felt a need to inform McNulty and Gonzales because the two had endured criticism for the firings, the aide said.

After Sampson left his office, Margolis testified that he went toward McNulty's office to inform his boss and stopped because Sampson had already gone into the room carrying the binder filled with White House e-mails, the aide said."

Margolis made it sound like Sampson showed the WH emails to him and McNulty out of courtesy. My memory is fuzzy on the all of the details but hadn't McNulty and Elston already testified to Congress by then?

Anonymous wrote on May 4, 2007 9:48 PM:

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.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 4, 2007 10:02 PM:

TheraP@May 4, 2007 09:11 PM

Goodling, the big crybaby, cracked on 3/8, not 3/5.

You know I've had some fun here speculating about an affair between Goodling and Ashcroft and they may very well have had one. If they did, it will come out.

Goodling's breakdown on 3/8 in front of someone who doesn't seem to have been all that close to her is odd. It is as if Goodling had already given up the ship yet Sampson hadn't. He actually tried to brazen it out in front of Congress.

It'd be interesting to know if Goodling got weepy before or after Gonzales met with the Senate Judiciary Committee on 3/8/07.

Read the 3/9/07 WaPo story about the meeting by Paul Kane and Dan Eggen, "Gonzales Yields On Hiring Interim U.S. Attorneys." Link below.

Gonzales caved in on removing the provision about USAs from the Patriot Act after the WH fought the measure for months. he also agreed to let DOJ officials testify without being given subpoenas.

"Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales agreed yesterday to change the way U.S. attorneys can be replaced, a reversal in administration policy that came after he was browbeaten by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee still angry over the controversial firings of eight federal prosecutors."

Browbeaten? What the hell went on in that meeting?

"The capitulation came just hours after several leading Senate Republicans sharply criticized Gonzales for his handling of the issue."

Arlen Specter:

"One day there will be a new attorney general, maybe sooner rather than later," Specter said at a committee hearing where a new round of subpoenas to the Justice Department was considered.

Did Gonzales give Goodling really bad news when he returned to the DOJ after the meeting?

L.Duce wrote on May 4, 2007 10:44 PM:

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.

marblex wrote on May 4, 2007 10:46 PM:

the Bushies will have her killed long before then. Hence, the leak of 411 that at least one person was "worried about her emotional state"

She never testifies

She dies tragically of "suicide" by a bullet to the back of the head

xargaw wrote on May 4, 2007 10:51 PM:

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.

C 92 wrote on May 4, 2007 10:52 PM:

@ Mrs. P.

The mention of the 45 minute "personal" conversation that Goodling had was indeed suspicious, coded language.

The MSM will only push the envelope so far, so that may be Bloomberg's way of hinting at the Ascroft affair for which they may only have heresay evidence.

As you've pointed out before, Monigoo's Regent University circa-1997 website lovingly quotes Ashcroft -- and she really struck the mother loade -- she got to work with him, on his staff when Bush took office.

The fact that no one of the esteemed leaders of Regent University, who were only recently boasting of 150 alums employed in the Bush Administration really is fishy. Monica is dragging the school's reputation through the mud, yet not a peep from Emeritus Professor Ashcroft, former OPM Director and Dean of Government at Regent Kay Cole James or the grand poobah himself Pat Robertson. Nothing. That's pretty crappy damage control, unless there's someting bigger being covered up.

The Oracle wrote on May 4, 2007 10:54 PM:

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.

TheraP wrote on May 4, 2007 11:10 PM:

Thank you for the correction, Mrs. P.

You've got the time lines. I'm just thinking about the psychological dynamics.

Sorry for the error above.

JulieL wrote on May 5, 2007 12:02 AM:

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

Ewwwwwwwww. ASHCROFT? Good God.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 5, 2007 12:10 AM:

TheraP,

I'm thinking about the psychological dynamics, too. As a law student, Goodling was somewhat immature socially. You read her treacly greeting on her Regent U. home page.

On a page about a touch football team she played on, she wrote this: "My Grammie would probably be horrified to find her little princess playing football with the boys, and I must admit it does feel a bit risque at times, but it really is a good way to relieve stress.

A bit risque? At 23?

These are the ones that fall hard when they fall, TheraP.

Suppose Goodling was having an affair with John Ashcroft and she found out that the Democrats knew about it. How do you think she would have reacted?

How about crying her eyes out because she and John Ashcroft were about to make a mockery of Christian right wing piety? Everyone from Jon Stewart to Jay Leno would be laughing about an affair between Goodling and Ashcroft on national television.

If Legal Times hadn't run the story about Goodling traveling with Ashcroft, making brownies for him, working on the AG's special projects, etc, I don't think I would have picked up on Goodling crying about her personal life.

When I read the Legal Times story, I was 99% sure that it was coded. The description of Goodling's relationship with Ashcroft sounded like a recipe for an office affair.

I suppose there is no sense speculating about an affair between Goodling and Ashcroft since if there was one, it is going to come out sooner or later.

I have a big smile on my face thinking about how frantic everyone on the right would be right now, trying to keep a lid on the story if Ashcroft and Goodling did, indeed, have an affair.

Who knows? Maybe we'll get lucky this time around.

Michael Stevens wrote on May 5, 2007 12:14 AM:

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)

Giant Teapot wrote on May 5, 2007 12:24 AM:

PBS local WETA in Washington, DC has been running "All the President's Men" and documentaries about Watergate a lot recently.

(For you youngsters, Woodward and Bernstein were like TPM, except they used paper libraries, rotary dial telephones and old-timey manual typewriters.)

Now 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.

BluestateRedhead wrote on May 5, 2007 12:41 AM:

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!

molly wrote on May 5, 2007 12:48 AM:

Read on WMR several years ago...Buzz around Washington is Karl Rove is a lot like J. Edger Hoover.(who)Dressed up in women's clothes and could use deadly force to prove a point.Had a little something on a lot of politicians..even entertainment people. Maybe everybody is scared of Karl.

Whistler wrote on May 5, 2007 12:52 AM:

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

Whistler wrote on May 5, 2007 12:55 AM:

One of the web links discussing Time's list of the 100 Most Influential People:

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/22142

... and even Jay Leno just mentioned that Bush isn't on the list, any more.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 5, 2007 2:03 AM:

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.

Whistler wrote on May 5, 2007 2:40 AM:

Note to "time line junkies": unless I'm mistaken, March 6th was the first day for Congress to hear from the core group of the fired US Attorneys.

(Folks, not every little thing is listed here on TPM! Some things you'll have to seek elsewhere. But it might not be a bad time for timelines to be updated ... since we're now "back-filling"?)

March 5th would have been the last day that the GOP was in charge of telling only their side of the story; and getting away with their smears.

March 6th was the day Justice would take off her blindfold, and pick up her balance and her sword.

And go hunting.

Not like there's much mercy to be had from a united group of righteously-indignant Federal prosecutors. They were all there, in hotels or wherever, across the capitol, on March the 5th ... just waiting for their chance to tell Congress what they knew, the very next day.

All that followed was inevitable.

Monica knew that it would be.

Hence the tears.

Put yourself in her shoes. All the secrets. All the lies that had gone before. All the wrongs done. Several victims, coming to talk to those who had also been victimized. Mercy? No chance!

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. She knew that new, dangerous alliances were about to be formed. Alliances not easily broken. Nor controllable. And certainly vengeful, for wrongs done to them.

Like standing on the beach and looking at a sea full of troop ships, readying for invasion ... at least it might seem thus; if you were one of the people up to their eyeballs in dirty deeds that were then still secret. And would not remain so.

"For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, and shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation." (Luke, chapter 19, verses 43 and 44.)

The Gipper's Ostracized Parrots have much to fear. Their house of cards is being dismantled.

JP Stormcrow wrote on May 5, 2007 2:56 AM:

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?

Whistler wrote on May 5, 2007 3:00 AM:

TPM's partial coverage of the Mar 6th testimony (at the Senate), from four fired prosecutors:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002684.php

And (it's linked above, under "this meeting") what Rove was doing, just one day prior to the USA's Senate testimony ... to "shape" the DOJ's scheduled testimony, to be given to the House.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18479265/site/newsweek/

How much more dot-connecting is really needed?

Whistler wrote on May 5, 2007 4:38 AM:

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.

Whistler wrote on May 5, 2007 5:25 AM:

Also: factor in Bush Senior's allegedly heat- and dehydration-related (sure!) fainting spell, which happened on March 11th.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/03/bush_41_hospita.html

(Just one example link: lots of other stories ran, online, at the time.)

I've always strongly suspected it was closely tied to revelations (with some sort of damning proof) that the White House was involved in the prosecutor mess ... but Kyle Sampson going around the DOJ and talking to at least two bigshots within that department, just the Thursday before that ... yeah, news of that day would do it.

And all the while, Bush Junior wasn't even in the country. He was being abused by Latin Americans as an assassin; war criminal; and all the rest.

I'm wondering how long Gonzo took to tell how bad he'd screwed up, by granting Sampson and Goodling the secret authority he'd given them, to hire and fire ... and how Sampson had walked around on the 8th, telling folks a bit about their misdeeds; and how it looked like he'd lost control of all of those e-mails that Sampson had, in a folder. (Proof that he'd kept CYA copies for himself.) I bet the actual fainting moment was "and I just got that man's resignation, effective right now."

I have to wonder what situation would put Sampson up to telling several leaders in Justice about the WH plans, and the folder full of e-mails? And if he was wearing a wire, when those unplanned DOJ conversations took place? And if he wasn't cooperating, secretly, for at least a few days?

Kyle and Monica NEED witness protection; big time!

I've said for some time that I suspected the Dems were much smarter than Reps gave them credit for.

Even Iglesias once said on TV (late March?) that he was surprised at the speed of all this. I'm of the opinion that stings like this are planned for a long time, in advance; and happen too quick to plan for. It's just good prosecution technique.

Whistler wrote on May 5, 2007 6:46 AM:

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?

average aussie wrote on May 5, 2007 7:03 AM:

I just looked into my crystal ball and you know what? Monica was giving the "pres" a little head and choked. She actually died laughing tho!. So I guess we wont see her testifying.

Connie wrote on May 5, 2007 8:13 AM:

"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.

lysias wrote on May 5, 2007 9:35 AM:

Was Bush in the country at the time of the Mar. 5 meeting in the White House?

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 5, 2007 10:16 AM:

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?

steambomb wrote on May 5, 2007 10:21 AM:

I guess they better check with Karl because he knows "the math". It fits like a code word "glove".

Steve5117 wrote on May 5, 2007 10:37 AM:

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?

Anonymous wrote on May 5, 2007 10:52 AM:

All this talk of Ashcroft reminds me of one of the funniest videos ever- Ashcroft singing, "When the Eagles Soar". For those who haven't seen it you should check it out. It's classic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M789kRvbziM

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 5, 2007 11:41 AM:

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..."

-

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 5, 2007 11:46 AM:

Ashcroft, Ayres and Rove go back to 1994.

Per Wikipedia entry for Karl Rove (link below):

1994 John Ashcroft senatorial campaign

In 1993, according to the New York Times, Karl Rove & Company was paid $300,000 in consulting fees by Ashcroft's successful 1994 Senate campaign. Ashcroft was a satisfied customer, and paid Rove's company more than $700,000 over the course of three campaigns.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 5, 2007 12:27 PM:

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

regular lurker wrote on May 5, 2007 12:29 PM:

What JulieL said.

Fingers Crossed! wrote on May 5, 2007 12:38 PM:

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 wrote on May 5, 2007 12:44 PM:

Dana Perino worked at the DoJ when Barbara Comstock did??!! (And Goodling was there at the same time.)

Where did Perino come from? Is she one of those Scaife-etts from the IWF?

I have believed that Comstock was running the purge from outside the DoJ. Comstock is behind most of the dirty tricks perpetrated by the wackos.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 5, 2007 2:27 PM:

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.

Anonymous wrote on May 5, 2007 2:33 PM:

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.

Jillian wrote on May 5, 2007 2:33 PM:

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.

domga wrote on May 5, 2007 3:38 PM:

Congratulations Monica Goodling. For your outstanding work at DOJ you hae won an all expense paid vacation to Bermuda. My office has arranged for a small plane to fly you round trip.
Have a great trip!
Carl Rove

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 5, 2007 3:47 PM:

Webdems@May 5, 2007 12:44 PM

Thanks for mentioning the International Women's Forum, an organization I never heard of before today. I see from Wikipedia (link below)that it was founded by Barbara Olson. I assume this Barbara Olson is the one who was married to Ted Olson.

Queen Elizabeth is at the Kentucky Derby this afternoon. There, irrefutable proof that Barbara Olson was a fucking dumb c**t who would say or do anything for a buck.

I still can't believe that Olson went after former President Bill Clinton's mother, Virginia Kelly, because she went to the racetrack in the afternoon. Forget the Whitneys and the Vanderbilts at Saratoga in August - the Queen of England is at the racetrack this afternoon!

Why every racetrack owner in this country wasn't furious with the Republicans in the '90s is beyond me. Racetrack owners spend millions of dollars every year to try to get people to go to the track and if the media could have covered the president's mother enjoying herself at the track, they would have gotten oodles of free publicity. Hello? Bill Clinton was a very popular president.

I know I would have gotten a big kick out of seeing the president's mother at the track. I like going to the track and Mrs. Kelly would have reminded me of such. But no, the president had to shield his mother from the media because the lowlife, ignorant Republicans and the vicious Washington press corps thought she was fair game even though Mrs. Kelly wasn't involved in politics at all.

Olson also went after Mrs. Kelly because she dated men. Big whoop-de-do! Mrs. Kelly was a single woman who had the right to date anyone she wanted to date without having to take shit from the likes of Barbara Olson. Anyone keeping score of how many men Ann Coulter has dated since she told everyone about Bill Clinton's crooked penis?

I couldn't believe Olson compared Mrs. Kelly unfavorably to the nasty, meanspirited old bag, Barbara Bush. I'd take Mrs. Kelly to be my mother over Bush any day of the week.

Why Ted Olson permitted Olson's book criticizing Bill Clinton's mother to be published posthumously is beyond me. What a sordid little memento to remember Barbara Olson by!

LOL - The mere mention of Barbara Olson is like waving a red flag in front of me. Who the fuck gave Barbara Olson the right to go after Virginia Kelly who apparently was one of the few decent people left in Washington DC in the '90s?

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 5, 2007 4:44 PM:

Steve5117@May 5, 2007 10:37 AM - I ran a Lexis-Nexis search on Regent U. and read the 2000 story about Regent U. and the bond issue.

From the LA Times:

"Virginia's Supreme Court ruled, 5 to 2, that the state can issue construction bonds for the Christian-based Regent University founded by religious broadcaster Pat Robertson without violating the separation of church and state. The court said the bond issue is legal because no public money would be spent and the state's credit would not be at stake. The court did rule, however, that Regent's School of Divinity may not use buildings financed by the bonds. The court said the Virginia Constitution bars the state from helping to provide religious training."

Out of curiousity, I searched the FedSpending.org
federal grant database for Regent U. (link below). Overall, Regent U. received $1.5 million in federal money betweem 2000 and the first quarter of 2006 which is not all that much.

But take a look at the graph. Federal assistance to Regent U. spiked in 2004 for some reason. I don't know what that means, if anything. I'm curious as to how the rest of 2006 went for Regent U. and federal assistance.

As an aside, I read the other day that some of the Katrina aid pledged by foreign countries was re-directed to private agencies and I wondered if Pat Roberton's Operation Blessing was one of them.

The Operation Blessing 990s are available online at the Foundation Center's 990 Finder. Search by EIN# 541382657.

"Responsibility" & "Values" wrote on May 5, 2007 4:47 PM:

American thought and American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate these stations, for publicity is the most powerful weapon that can be wielded in a republic. And when such a weapon is placed in the hands of one person, or a single selfish group is permitted to either tacitly or otherwise acquire ownership or dominate these broadcasting stations throughout the country, then woe be to those who dare to differ with them. It will be impossible to compete with them in reaching the ears of the American people.
-Rep. Luther Johnson (D.-Texas), in the debate that preceded the Radio Act of 1927 (KPFA, 1/16/03).

In the Radio Act of 1927, Congress mandated the FCC’s forerunner, the Federal Radio Commission (FRC), to grant broadcasting licenses in such a manner as to ensure that licensees served the “public convenience, interest or necessity.” As former FCC commissioner Nicholas Johnson pointed out (California Lawyer, 8/88), it was in that spirit that the FRC, in 1928, first gave words to a policy formulation that would become known as the Fairness Doctrine, calling for broadcasters to show “due regard for the opinions of others.” In 1949, the FCC adopted the doctrine as a formal rule (FCC, Report on
Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, 1949). In 1959 Congress amended the Communications Act of 1934 to enshrine the Fairness Doctrine into law, rewriting Chapter 315(a) to read: “A broadcast licensee shall afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of conflicting views on matters of public importance.” "A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a...frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount." - U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969. - Steve Randall

"The Wall Street Journal's editorial board is confusing the Equal Time principle in current law with the Fairness Doctrine, a policy which the FCC abandoned in August 1987. The Fairness Doctrine, instituted in 1949, required licensees to "Cover vitally important controversial issues of interest in their communities" and to "Provide a reasonable opportunity for the presentation of contrasting viewpoints." The Fairness Doctrine also codified what became known as the "Personal Attack Rule" and the "Editorial Rule." The Personal Attack Rule required broadcasters to notify the subjects of on-air personal attacks that an attack had occurred, and to then provide them with an opportunity to respond. Similarly, the Editorial Rule allowed political candidates to respond either to criticisms or to station endorsements of another candidate." - Media Matters

"There are many misconceptions about the Fairness Doctrine. For instance, it did not require that each program be internally balanced, nor did it mandate equal time for opposing points of view. And it didn’t require that the balance of a station’s program lineup be anything like 50/50. Nor, as Rush Limbaugh has repeatedly claimed, was the Fairness Doctrine all that stood between conservative talkshow hosts and the dominance they would attain after the doctrine’s repeal. In fact, not one Fairness Doctrine decision issued by the FCC had ever concerned itself with talkshows. Indeed, the talkshow format was born and flourished while the doctrine was in operation. Before the doctrine was repealed, right-wing hosts frequently dominated talkshow schedules, even in liberal cities, but none was ever muzzled (The Way Things Aren’t, Rendall et al., 1995).

The Fairness Doctrine simply prohibited stations from broadcasting from a single perspective, day after day, without presenting opposing views. (ala FOX, despite FOX's constantly repeated self-proclamation of somehow being "Fair And Balanced" -ed). In answer to charges, put forward in the Red Lion case, that the doctrine violated broadcasters’ First Amendment free speech rights because the government was exerting editorial control, Supreme Court Justice Byron White wrote: “There is no sanctuary in the First Amendment for unlimited private censorship operating in a medium not open to all.” In a Washington Post column (1/31/94), the Media Access Project (MAP), a telecommunications law firm that supports the Fairness Doctrine, addressed the First Amendment issue: “The Supreme Court unanimously found [the Fairness Doctrine] advances First Amendment values. It safeguards the public’s right to be informed on issues affecting our democracy, while also balancing broadcasters’ rights to the broadest possible editorial discretion.” Indeed, when it was in place, citizen groups used the Fairness Doctrine as a tool to expand speech and debate.

For instance, it prevented stations from allowing only one side to be heard on ballot measures. Over the years, it had been supported by grassroots groups across the political spectrum, including the ACLU, National Rifle Association and the right-wing Accuracy In Media. Typically, when an individual or citizens group complained to a station about imbalance, the station would set aside time for an on-air response for the omitted perspective: “Reasonable opportunity for presentation of opposing points of view,” was the relevant phrase. If a station disagreed with the complaint, feeling that an adequate range of views had already been presented, the decision would be appealed to the FCC for a judgment. According to Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of MAP, scheduling response time was based on time of day, frequency and duration of the original perspective. “If
one view received a lot of coverage in primetime,” Schwartzman told Extra!, “then at least some response time would have to be in primetime. Likewise if one side received many short spots or really long spots.” But the remedy did not amount to equal time; the ratio of airtime between the original perspective and the response “could be as much as five to one,” said Schwartzman.

As a guarantor of balance and inclusion, the Fairness Doctrine was no panacea. It was somewhat vague, and depended on the vigilance of listeners and viewers to notice imbalance. But its value, beyond the occasional remedies it provided, was in its codification of the principle that broadcasters had a responsibility to present a range of views on controversial issues. From the 1920s through the ’70s, the history of the Fairness Doctrine paints a picture of public servants wrestling with how to maintain some public interest standards in the operation of publicly owned but corporate-dominated airwaves. The 1980s brought Regan with an army of anti-regulatory extremists; not least among these was Reagan’s new FCC chair, Mark S. Fowler. Formerly a broadcast industry lawyer, Fowler earned his reputation as “the James Watt of the FCC” by sneering at the notion that broadcasters had a unique role or bore special responsibilities to ensure democratic discourse (California Lawyer, 8/88). It was all nonsense, said Fowler (L.A. Times, 5/1/03): “The perception of broadcasters as community trustees should be replaced by a view of broadcasters as marketplace participants.” To Fowler, television was “just another appliance-it’s a toaster with
pictures,” and he seemed to endorse total deregulation (Washington Post, 2/6/83): “We’ve got to look beyond the conventional wisdom that we must somehow regulate this box.”

Of course, Fowler and associates didn’t favor total deregulation: Without licensing, the airwaves would descend into chaos as many broadcasters competed for the same frequencies, a situation that would mean ruin for the traditional corporate broadcasters they were so close to. But regulation for the public good rather than corporate convenience was deemed suspect. Fowler vowed to see the Fairness Doctrine repealed, and though he would depart the commission a few months before the goal was realized, he worked assiduously at setting the stage for the doctrine’s demise. He and his like-minded commissioners, a majority of whom had been appointed by Reagan, argued that the doctrine violated broadcasters’ First
Amendment free speech rights by giving government a measure of editorial control over stations. Moreover, rather than increase debate and discussion of controversial issues, they argued, the doctrine actually chilled debate, because stations feared demands for response time and possible challenges to broadcast licenses (though only one license was ever revoked in a dispute involving the Fairness Doctrine- California Lawyer, 8/88).

The FCC stopped enforcing the doctrine in the mid-’80s, well before it formally revoked it. As much as the commission majority wanted to repeal the doctrine outright, there was one hurdle that stood between them and their goal: Congress’ 1959 amendment to the Communications Act had made the doctrine law. A controversial 1986 legal decision by Judge Robert Bork and then-Judge Antonin Scalia, both Reagan appointees on the D.C. Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals in a 2-1 opinion avoided the constitutional issue altogether, and simply declared that Congress had not actually made the Fairness Doctrine into a law. Wrote Bork: “We do not believe that language adopted in 1959 made the Fairness Doctrine a binding statutory obligation,” because, he said, the doctrine was imposed “under,” not “by” the Communications Act of 1934 (California Lawyer, 8/88). Bork held that the 1959 amendment established that the FCC could apply the doctrine, but was not obliged to do so-that keeping the rule or scuttling it was simply a matter of FCC discretion. “The decision contravened 25 years of FCC holdings that the doctrine had been put into law in 1959,” according to MAP. But it signaled the end of the Fairness Doctrine, which was repealed in 1987 by the FCC under new chair Dennis R. Patrick, a lawyer and Reagan White House aide. A year after the doctrine’s repeal, writing in California Lawyer (8/88), former FCC commissioner Johnson summed up the fight to bring back the Fairness Doctrine as “a struggle for nothing less than possession of the First Amendment: Who gets to have and express opinions in America.”

Though a bill before Congress to reinstate the doctrine passed overwhelmingly later that year, it failed to override Reagan’s veto. Another attempt to resurrect the doctrine in 1991 ran out of steam when George H.W. Bush threatened another veto. What has changed since the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine? Is there more coverage of controversial issues of public importance? “Since the demise of the Fairness Doctrine we have had much less coverage of issues,” says MAP’s Schwartzman, adding that television news and public affairs programming has decreased locally and nationally. According to a study conducted by MAP and the Benton Foundation, 25 percent of broadcast stations no longer offer any local news or public affairs programming at all (Federal Communications Law Journal, 5/03). The most extreme change has been in the immense volume of unanswered conservative opinion heard on the airwaves, especially on talk radio. Nationally, virtually all of the leading political talkshow hosts are right-wingers: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Oliver North, G. Gordon Liddy, Bill O’Reilly and Michael Reagan, to name just a few. The same goes for local talkshows. One product of the post-Fairness era is the conservative “Hot Talk” format, featuring one right-wing host after another and little else.
Disney-owned KSFO in liberal San Francisco is one such station (Extra!, 3-4/95). Some towns have two. When Edward Monks, a lawyer in Eugene, Oregon, studied the two commercial talk stations in his town (Eugene Register-Guard, 6/30/02), he found “80 hours per week, more than 4,000 hours per year, programmed for Republican and conservative talk shows, without a single second programmed for a Democratic or liberal perspective.” Observing that Eugene (a generally progressive town) was “fairly representative,” Monks concluded: “Political opinions expressed on talk radio are approaching the level of uniformity that would normally be achieved only in a totalitarian society. There is nothing fair, balanced or
democratic about it.” For citizens who value media democracy and the public interest, broadcast regulation of our publicly owned airwaves has reached a low-water mark. In his new book, Crimes Against Nature, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. probes the failure of broadcasters to cover the environment, writing, “The FCC’s pro-industry, anti-regulatory philosophy has effectively ended the right of access to broadcast television by any but the moneyed interests.” According to TV Week (11/30/04), a coalition of broadcast giants is currently pondering a legal assault on the Supreme Court’s Red Lion decision. “Media General and a coalition of major TV network owners-NBC Universal, News Corp. and Viacom-made clear that they are seriously considering an attack on Red Lion as part of an industry challenge to an appellate court decision scrapping FCC media ownership deregulation earlier this year.” Considering the many looming problems facing media democracy advocates, Extra! asked MAP’s Schwartzman why activists should still be concerned about the Fairness Doctrine. What has not changed since 1987 is that over-the-air broadcasting remains the most powerful force affecting public opinion, especially on local issues; as public trustees,
broadcasters ought to be insuring that they inform the public, not inflame them. That’s why we need a Fairness Doctrine. It’s not a universal solution. It’s not a substitute for reform or for diversity of ownership. It’s simply a mechanism to address the most extreme kinds of broadcast abuse." - Steve Rendall, FAIR Senior Analyst

MICROWAVE MIND CONTROL: MODERN TORTURE AND CONTROL MECHANISMS ELIMINATING HUMAN RIGHTS AND PRIVACY
by Dr. Rauni Leena Kilde, MD September 25, 1999

Eleanor White's comments: Dr. Rauni Kilde, formerly the Chief Medical Officer for Lapland (northern Finland), is one of our bravest professional supporters. She was given an award from CAHRA for her appearance on a now-unavailable video by Transmedia Productions in London, England. She has given us permission to post this article, an example of the most vigorous support we have ever received. We thank Dr. Kilde most sincerely.

HELSINGIN SANOMAT, the largest newspaper in Scandinavia, wrote in the September 9, 1999 issue that Scientific American magazine estimates that after the Millenium perhaps ALL people will be implanted with a "DNA microchip". How many people realize what it actually means? Total loss of privacy and total outside control of the person's physical body
functions, mental, emotional and thought processes, including the implanted person's subconscious and dreams for the rest of their life. It sounds like science fiction but it is secret military and intelligence agencies' mind control technology, which has been experimented with for almost half a century. Totally without the knowledge of the general public and even the general academic population. Supercomputers in Maryland, Israel and elsewhere with a speed of over 20 BILLION bits/sec can monitor millions of people simultaneously. In fact,
the whole world population can be totally controlled by these secret brain-computer interactions, however unbelievable it sounds for the uninformed. Human thought has a speed of 5,000 bits/sec and everyone understands that our brain cannot compete with supercomputers acting via satellites, implants, local facilities, scalar orother forms of biotelemetry.

Each brain has a unique set of bioelectric resonance/entrainment characteristics. Remote neural monitoring systems with supercomputers can send messages through an implanted person's nervous system and affect their performance in any way desired. They can of course be tracked and identified anywhere. Neuro-electromagnetic involuntary human
experimentation has been going on with the so-called "vulnerable population" for about 50 years, in the name of "science" or "national security" in the worst Nazi-type testing, contrary to all human rights. Physical and psychological torture of mind control victims today is like the worst horror movies. Only, unlike the horror movies, it is true. It happens today in the USA, Japan, and Europe. With few exceptions, the mass media suppresses all information about the entire topic. Mind control technology in the USA is classified under "non-lethal" weaponry. The name is totally misleading because the technology used IS lethal, but death comes slowly in the form of "normal" illnesses, like cancer, leukemia, heart
attacks, Alzheimer's disease with loss of short term memory first. No wonder these illnesses have increased all over the world. When the use of electromagnetic fields, extra-low (ELF) and ultra-low (ULF) frequencies and microwaves aimed deliberately at certain individuals, groups, and even the general population to cause diseases, disorientation, chaos and physical and emotional pain breaks into the awareness of the general population, a public outcry is inevitable.

[Eleanor White comment: ELF/ULF frequencies on their own cannot be focussed and are practically impossible to transmit in the usual manner of radio transmissions. ELF/ULF cannot carry voice. ELF/ULF CAN be carried on radio and ultrasound carrier signals, however, and are effective in things like setting up a target to be more receptive to hypnosis,
force a target to be unable to sleep, and force a target to fall asleep daytime. This is like the reverse process of reading the brain's natural ELF/ULF electrical activity using biofeedback.]
Who is behind a sinister plan to microchip and control and torture the general population? [Eleanor White's comment: Reports from persons targeted by neuro-electromagnetic experimentation show that not everyone is implanted. The fact that those few victims who have had implants removed cannot get custody of the implants means someone has a keen interest in controlling the use of covert implants and preventing the publication of this practice.] The Patent Office of the U.S.A. has granted patents for purposes of mental
monitoring and mind alteration. Apparatus and method for remotely monitoring and altering brainwaves, methods for inducing mental, emotional and physical states of consciousness, in human beings. Method of and apparatus for desired states of consciousness are among some of them.

People who have been implanted, involuntarily or through deception voluntarily have become biological robots and guinea pigs for this activity under the guise of national security. The real consequences of microchip implantation (or with today's advanced hidden technology, using only microwave radiation for mind control,) are totally hidden from the public. How many know the real dangers of microwaves through mobile phones? How many believe the disinformation that microwave radiation is not causing health problems? The economic issues in the mobile phone industry are enormous. Therefore health issues are deliberately brushed aside. However, the same thing is inevitable in the future as with the tobacco industry. When economic compensation for health damages becomes big enough, as in the tobacco industry, health hazards will be admitted and users are then responsible for their tobacco-related illnesses. Today, already about 50% of Finns, Swedes and Norwegians use mobile phones, especially the young population. Mobile phones used in mind control was yet another "brilliant" idea by these nazis. Military and police agencies can follow every user, influence their thoughts through microwaves, cause healthy people to hear voices in their heads and if needed burn their brains in a second by increasing the current 20,000 times. That probably happened to Chechnyan leader General Dudayev who died talking to a mobile phone. Heating effect of tissues with the speed of light is a known effect of high power microwave and electromagnetic pulse weapons. According to Navy studies they also cause fatigue states, depression, insomnia, aggressiveness, long and especially short term memory loss, short catatonic states, cataracts, leukemia, cancer, heart attacks, brain tumors and so forth. Alteration of behavior and attitudes hs been demonstrated as well.

Dr. Ross Adey has found out that by using 0.75 milliwatts per square centimeter intensity of pulse modulated microwave at a frequency of 450 MHz it is possible to control ALL aspects of human behaviour. Microwave radiation excites the hydrogen bond in the cells and can interfere with meiosis, which leads to tumors. All our emotions, moods, and thoughts have a
specific brain frequency which has been catalogued. When these records fall into the wrong hands, our behaviour and attitudes are manipulated by persons whose ethics and morals are not in our best interest by any standard. Both military and intelligence agencies have been infiltrated with such despicable persons. The Director of the Swiss Secret Service had to resign in September 1999 because of his agency's involvement in illegal arms deals and a plan to create an ORGANIZATION within the legal Secret Service. This globally infiltrated organization has "octopus type" activities in all major intelligence services in the world, working together with the Mafia and terrorists. It has recruited people from all important government institutions, state and local administrations. It owns Star Wars technology which is used against military and civilian populations, claiming it is "non-lethal"weaponry.
"Down and out" people, jobless, freed prisoners, mental outpatients, students and orphans are trained by this organization to harass, follow, and torture innocent people, who for whatever reason have been put on the organization's hit list. They are ALREADY in every apartment block.

[Eleanor White comment: This gang-like colour-coding is not reported in all areas. Dr. Kilde's experience is with northern Europe.] Deception is the name of the game, so recruits are told untrue sinister stories of their victims to keep them motivated. They have a military order and get rewarded for their evil actions, which include Satanism, and symbols and yellow-orange-black colors. However, fresh recruits must wear pink - and the highest elite wears yellow ties with dark suits. Even dashes of yellow or orange in their ties may signal their recruitment
as well as yellow shirts or other objects with that color for signalling. Too many world leaders fit into this signalling. However, it is quite possible they are only used as fronts for this global organization without any knowledge of it's criminal activity in the field against innocent people. Mass media and big industry are also infiltrated. Who are the targets?

Experimentation with soldiers and prisoners may continue, as well as handicapped children, mental patients, homosexuals and single women. They are still experimental guinea pigs for
electronic and chemical warfare. But today ANYONE can become a target, even those who invented the system. Researchers who find out about this secret radiation of the population become targets themselves.

The U.S. Senate discussed the issue on January 22, 1997. The U.S. Air Force's "Commando Solo" aircraft have been used to send subliminal radio frequency messages to manipulate even the minds of foreign nations in their elections. Haiti and Bosnia are a couple of recent examples. In July 1994 the U.S. Department of Defense proposed the use of "non-lethal"
weapons against anyone engaged in activities the DoD opposes. Thus opposing political views, economic competitors, counterculture individuals and so forth can be beamed to sickness or death. The Psychiatric Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM) for mental disorders has been a brilliant cover up operation in 18 languages to hide the atrocities of military and intelligence agencies' actions towards their targets. THE MANUAL LISTS ALL MIND CONTROL ACTIONS AS SIGNS OF PARANOID SCHIZOPHRENIA.

If a target is under surveillance with modern technology via TV, radio, telephone, loudspeakers, lasers, microwaves, poisoned with mind altering drugs via airducts, giving familiar smells
which cause headache, nausea and so forth, if he claims his clothes are poisoned, his food or tap water as well --- all medical schools teach their students that the person is paranoid, ESPECIALLY if he believes intelligence agencies are behind it all. Never is the medical profession told that these are routine actions all over the world by intelligence agencies against their targets. Thus, victims of mind control are falsely considered mentally ill and get no help since they are not believed and their suffering is doubled by ignorant health profess-
ionals. The unethical abuses of power by individuals in charge of biomedical telemetry are incomprehensible to normal people. The goal of mind control is to program an individual to carry out any mission of espionage or assassination even against their will and self-preservation instict and to control the absolute behavior and thought patterns of the individual. The purpose of mind control is to disrupt memory, discredit people through aberrant behavior, to make them insane or to commit suicide or murder.

How is it possible that this technology is not stopped by political top authorities? They themselves will also be targets someday, a fact they have not always realized. How much are they involved? This year the 1999 European Parliament in "Resolution on Environment, Security, and Forein Policy", in paragraphs 23, 24, and 27 calls for "non-lethal" weapons
technology and development of new arms strategies to be covered and regulated by international conventions. Also, it calls for an international convention introducing a GLOBAL BAN on all developments and deployments of weapons which might enable ANY FORM OF MANIPULATION OF HUMAN BEINGS. Project HAARP in Alaska is a global concern,
and calls for it's legal, ecological, and ethical implications to be examined by an international independent body before any further research and testing. It is possible that the USA will ignore those resolutions. The dangers of non-lethal mind control weapons were already revealed in an expert meeting of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva, in
July 1994.

Only increased public awareness of the microchip implants, their frightful consequences to privacy by influencing of individuals' thoughts and actions, causing people to become biological robots with physical and emotional pain whenever the supercomputer technician so wishes, is enough reason to refuse to take the chip into your body for whatever reason.
It is the biggest threat to humanity and the most sinister plan to enslave the human race forever. If you have a choice and want to remain a normal human being with privacy, do not have your children nor yourself implanted with a DNA microchip. Otherwise your vision, hearing, sensing, thoughts, dreams and subconscious will be influenced by an outsider, who does not have your best interests in mind, to say the very least. These entirely unamerican, anti-human nazi activities are utterly criminal, degenerate, illegal, unethical, immoral, and inhuman. MICROWAVE MIND CONTROL WITH "NON-LETHAL" WEAPONS IS THE BIGGEST CRIME IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND AGAINST THE POPULATION OF PLANET EARTH. IT MUST BE STOPPED BY ALL PEOPLES OF THIS GLOBE.

Rauni Kilde MD

..

Steve5117 wrote on May 5, 2007 5:15 PM:

Mrs P
Thanks, I only have Google but have found that McGuire/Woods represented the school. I would like to know who at the firm pled the case, who were witnesses, and who ended up buying the bonds?

Frank J. Donatelli, formerly of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, is one of the partners. Arkin/Gump is the 1st U.S. law firm to open offices in Dubai...

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 5, 2007 5:44 PM:

Steve,

Here is some of the Regent U. case info. let me know if you want me to post the case facts which are a bit lengthy.

As to who bought the bonds, I would imagine they were marketed like any other government bond issues.

From Lexis-Nexis:

SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA
260 Va. 608; 538 S.E.2d 682; 2000 Va. LEXIS 147

November 3, 2000, Decided

PRIOR HISTORY: [***1] FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND. Randall G. Johnson, Judge.

DISPOSITION: Reversed and remanded.

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant state building authority challenged the order of the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond (Virginia) which refused to validate bonds approved by appellant that were designed to finance projects for the benefit of a private religious university.

OVERVIEW: Appellant state building authority approved the issuance of revenue bonds, pursuant to the Educational Facilities Authority Act, Va. Code Ann. § 23-30.39 et seq., for the benefit of a private religious university. Appellant filed a motion for judgment requesting validation of the bonds. The trial court refused to validate the bonds, holding the university was ineligible to participate in the bond financing program because the university was a pervasively sectarian institution. On appeal, the court reversed the judgment, determining that, although the university was pervasively sectarian, its participation in the bond program did not violate the federal Establishment Clause, and similarly did not violate Va. Const. art. I, § 16. The court reasoned that the issuance of the bonds on behalf of the university did not result in governmental indoctrination because it determined eligibility for aid neutrally, and any funds received were from the private choices of investors and not the government. However, the court concluded the specific terms of the Act prohibited use of bond financed facilities by the university's divinity school.

OUTCOME: The court reversed the order refusing validation of the bonds because, with exception of the divinity school, the inclusion of the university in the bond financing program did not violate state or federal law. However, Virginia statute prohibited utilization of the bond-financed facilities by the divinity school. Accordingly, the court remanded the case for an order validating the bonds consistent with the court's opinion.

COUNSEL:
William G. Broaddus (James A. Sonne; McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe, on briefs), for appellant.

Ayesha Khan (Steven K. Green; Steve Bricker; Rebecca K. Glenberg; Richard W. Ferris; Steve Bricker & Associates, on brief), for appellees.

Amicus Curiae: State Council of Higher Education (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General; William H. Hurd, Solicitor General; Ashley L. Taylor, Jr., Deputy Attorney General; Maureen R. Matsen, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Alison P. Landry, Assistant Attorney General; Valerie L. Myers, Assistant Attorney General, on brief), in support of appellant.

JUDGES:
Present: Carrico, C.J., Lacy, Keenan, Koontz, Kinser and Lemons, JJ., and Poff, S.J. OPINION BY JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS. JUSTICE KOONTZ, with whom JUSTICE KEENAN joins, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

OPINION BY: DONALD W. LEMONS

OPINION: [*613] [**684] OPINION BY JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS

The Virginia College Building Authority ("VCBA" or "Authority") approved the issuance of revenue bonds, colloquially referred to as "conduit bonds," for the benefit of Regent University ("Regent"). The funds to [***2] be raised by the bonds were designated to finance projects at a new campus in Alexandria and for refinancing of student housing on the Virginia Beach campus. Pursuant to the Public Finance Act of 1991, Code §§ 15.2-2600 to -2663, the VCBA [*614] filed a motion for judgment in the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond requesting validation of the bonds.

Appellees, Barry Lynn and other unnamed Virginia members of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and Frank Feibelman, Mary Bauer, and Bernard H. Levin appeared and filed grounds of defense contesting the validation of the bonds. At the time of the circuit court hearing, VCBA had completed approximately thirty-five bond issues for private colleges or universities in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

After hearing evidence, the circuit court refused to validate the bonds, holding that Regent is ineligible to participate in the VCBA program because Regent is a pervasively sectarian institution and because its primary purpose is "religious training." In this appeal, we consider the circuit court's denial of Regent University's participation in bond financing of these projects pursuant to the Educational Facilities Authority Act, [***3] Code § 23-30.39 et seq. (the "Act").

Steve5117 wrote on May 5, 2007 6:21 PM:

Thanks again Mrs. P

I have a theory: It is all about money.

My musings...
Karl has been building his database of names for a long time. (He may have known for a while who was charging for Deborah's sophisticated services.)

When you know the needs of your sources of money, you provide those needs. Whether it's a law changed, or ignored, or whether it's assuring the base that your party is sanctioned by God, Inc.

When did the business of America become Business?

I believe the business of America is to protect our freedoms.

In MBA classes I was taught that the purpose of business was to "increase the owners equity". But in my opinion that statement is incomplete, I think it is to provide a product or service while increasing owners equity and providing for the employees.

Bush's puppetmasters really don't care about people.... it's the cause, but it takes money.

mo2 wrote on May 5, 2007 6:53 PM:

Yes, Dana Perino was communications director at the CEQ: "Recalling a meeting at the Council of Environmental Quality to coordinate U.S. agencies' efforts on behalf of Bajagua,..“It was somehow understood that the Vice President’s office had directed the meeting"

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Whistleblowers_allege_influence_peddling_by_members_0329.html

Connie wrote on May 5, 2007 10:22 PM:

"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."

I remember reading that somewhere . . . the tipping point, right? We need to get to that point soon.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 5, 2007 11:07 PM:

Read the 3/3/107 Rocky Mountain News profile of Dana Perino by Chris Barge, "Coloradan steps right into the media spotlight". Link below.

Perino is just so adorable - she thinks Bill Clinton belings in jail!

Buck wrote on May 6, 2007 12:42 PM:

Could someone limit post lengths. People who are too lazy to post a link, or perhaps are trying to screw up the continuity of reading comments are becoming bothersome. Perhaps some javascript to allow posts of a certain length to collapse might fix the problem.

JEP wrote on May 6, 2007 1:31 PM:

...I just figiured something out, in terms of Karl's "Karlooloo" effect, and why his slimy tentacles seem to be wrapped around everything.

This is a pattern of deferral to a willing micro-manager, so arrogant he couldn't stop taking on new projects and Roving them into oblivion...

But why did so many rely on Karl for the most difficult manipulations?

Everyone close to Bush, in any way, figured "...if Rove can get W elected twice, he can handle anything else." Thus the "Just ask Karl!" in an emergency pattern.

Because Rove couldn't resist trying to juggle all the "options" on one Blackberry, and voils...Karlooloo was born.

But when he got tasked Katrina, Karl handed it off like a hot potato, faster than Tommy Franks and the 'EErack War...

Obviously, Karlooloo knows a losing hand when he's holding it...

At least up until November, 2006.

stew wrote on May 6, 2007 1:53 PM:

Hey lawyer types, what does the phrase "conspiracy to suborn perjury" mean? Just askin'

Anonymous wrote on May 6, 2007 6:44 PM:

I hope I don't get too much flak for this comment, but as a female, I think I can make it with some degree of confidence.

The day Goodling cried to Margolis -- I strongly suspect she was under the influence of PMS.

Whoever is in charge of scheduling her testimony, should use their calendar to assure that she's in a similar state of mind on that day.

Mark wrote on May 10, 2007 9:26 AM:

What's sad is that after al of this Gonzales will probably still skate.

*sigh*

El Borba wrote on May 10, 2007 2:01 PM:

Thank you Paul Kiel for another powerful article.

And thanks to Robert Wexler for finally asking a detailed question along these lines in a hearing!

gspyvqo njdug wrote on July 5, 2007 12:04 PM:

afvstnjy ckds bslhpomy okrha glrjnzk bdvfh sxod

kilka wrote on July 31, 2007 12:51 PM:

gmc trucks here www.gmctruck.fora.pl
gmc from america www.gmctruck.fora.pl
real gmc www.gmctruck.fora.pl

and www.emeraldring.fora.pl rings

Alex wrote on October 2, 2007 9:34 AM:

Hi, nice page.!
look on my pages:
conservation dedicated organization profit

ok.. bitte