« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Why The Tears?
Tomorrow morning at 10:15 AM, Monica Goodling will testify before the House Judiciary Committee.
Goodling, remember, was the Justice Department's liaison to the White House and the last of the Department officials involved in the U.S. attorney firings to talk to Congress. Every other official has told Congressional investigators that they had nothing to do with putting any of the six U.S. attorneys at the center of the controversy on the list. So that leaves Goodling. What will she say?
And why, lawmakers will want to know, was she so upset on March 8th, when it finally became apparent within the Justice Department that Goodling, along with Kyle Sampson, had failed to tell others about the extent of White House involvement in the firings? Here's what David Margolis, a career DoJ official, told Congressional investigators:
"She came down about 8:00 and she started by saying, "Has Kyle talked to you?" And I said, "Yeah, he came by earlier." And then she proceeded for the next, it seemed like forever but it was probably only about 30 or 45 minutes, to bawl her eyes out and say, "All I ever wanted to do was serve this President and this administration and this department," and then cry more, and more, and more, and more, and talk about -- talk about how she came to Washington, you know. Personal stuff...."
Margolis said Goodling never told him why she was so upset: "And I wasn't anxious to hear, so I did not probe." But Congress will want to know why.
You can read more from Margolis' testimony here.
Comments (135)
Michael Stevens wrote on May 22, 2007 6:54 PM:It will be broadcast C-Span 3. C-Span 1 and 2 are dedicated to live happenings in the House and Senate. 1 and 2 may show bits and pieces, but if anything happens in the House or Senate, they'll cut away.
For those without that C-Span 3, www.C-span.org will stream live video over the internet.
In addition, the WashingtonPost.com ran live streaming video of Kyle Sampson's and Gonzo's testimony, they'll probably do the same with Goodling's.
Allsburg wrote on May 22, 2007 6:56 PM:George W. Bush told her that, with the Attorney scandal and all, the secret Oval Office blowjobs would have to stop.
slowlayne wrote on May 22, 2007 6:56 PM:"All I ever wanted to do was serve this President and this administration and this department" sums up everything that has happened over the past 6 years.
No mention of serving the country.
profmarcus wrote on May 22, 2007 6:56 PM:yeah, congress will want to know why and so does everybody else... let's hope we don't hear a repeat of the epic, marathon, "can't recall fest" we witnessed with gonzo... since she's got limited immunity, one would assume she has something to say, wouldn't one...? hmmmmm...?
http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/
jon wrote on May 22, 2007 6:59 PM:She's highly politicized, she came from a politically oriented school. She was hired to be a tool. She served as a tool to facilitate the politicization of a critical federal agency.
Now she's upset to find that the folks pulling political strings have used her as a tool, and decided that she's disposable.
Please excuse my lack of sympathy. Perhaps she can answer a few basic questions about the Constitution when she testifies? The excuse, that they are so incompetent that they should bear no responsibility for subverting the republic, cannot be accepted.
In other news today, we heard that she wants to withold Justice documents that she posesses. No reason given.
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Goodling_fails_to_turn_over_documents_0522.html
I understand giving immunity to little fish in order to get to the big fish, but you need to be sure you'll be getting those fish. Fitz's deal w. Ari Fleischer seems in hindsight like a very poor deal, for example.
sc: judge
TexasDemocrat wrote on May 22, 2007 7:01 PM:Well, depending on what she says, she'll likely have some cushy job for some defense contractor or pharmaceutical company.
Mike Valentine wrote on May 22, 2007 7:03 PM:WE want the biggest fishes in the sea of Bush corruption.
Code word BLACK; The days of the bill of rights hit a black patch with the Bush Administration.
Anonymous wrote on May 22, 2007 7:07 PM:Posted by: slowlayne
Date: May 22, 2007 06:56 PM
Good point. These people aren't doing what they think is right for all of us, just what they think is right for them.
BVD wrote on May 22, 2007 7:17 PM:"And then she proceeded for the next, it seemed like forever but it was probably only about 30 or 45 minutes, to bawl her eyes out... and then cry more, and more, and more, and more, and talk about... personal stuff.... And I wasn't anxious to hear, so I did not probe."
I'm sorry, but I find this really funny. The shit has completely hit the fan, the Empire is crumbling, and all he can think is, "Oh God, please get this hysterical woman out of here." SHE WOULDN'T STOP CRYING.
Alpha males.
bjobotts wrote on May 22, 2007 7:18 PM:Whoever was asking the questions in this interview seemed to let a lot go by like " I knew she must think everything was unraveling". What is he talking about? What was unraveling? Or at lest what did she think was unraveling? She just wanted to please the president etc. in what order, what was she so upset about if not that she knew at this point that she had been doing something wrong or unlawful? Being that emotional for that long indicates some strong mental emotional problems. And she was top level at the DoJ. God, she must have been the perfect dumb, usable glorifier of authority types that Rove had been looking for specially sent by good ole Pat R.
sailmaker wrote on May 22, 2007 7:19 PM:We need a poll or something, nickel bets on how far into her testimony she starts crying. I'm sorry for people who cry, and don't normally make fun of them. However, in this case, she has gotten the people's forgiveness in advance through the limited grant of immunity. I see her crying as a tactic to get people to stop asking hard questions; you can't answer questions if you bawl louder than the person asking the questions. My nickel is on 45 minutes into her testimony.
RJacob Watson wrote on May 22, 2007 7:19 PM:I'm late to this, but fundamentalists want not a free country, hey want a puritanical, repressive, intolerant place for their kind to live the way they want. Their rights are more right than others. Religion Gone Bad by Mel White.
Edog9 wrote on May 22, 2007 7:35 PM:I did not have sex with that woman Monica...
and you know Republican's think that just because Bush can say that and mean it, that he is a great man!
Do you suppose Barbara and George Sr. ever came into W.s room as a boy, or came home from work to find that terrorists had flown into their house, or a storm battered flooded city was left in place of their home, or a fire of insurgents shoting mortars at their roof?
Nancy Davies wrote on May 22, 2007 7:37 PM:Little Miss Goodling already sounds scared and overwhelmed. Since she's already this fragile and emotional, I wonder if Conyers and company can get more truth out of her than other witnesses who have appeared before the House Judiciary Committee.
Unless she's been exceptionally coached and hardened, Goodling seems especially vulnerable.
I'm just waiting for someone to finally blow the lid off Bush, Gonzalez, Rowe and their accomplices.
Male Chauvinist wrote on May 22, 2007 7:39 PM:Yeah, she'll cry, but a good questioner will be able to handle that. Just move her along and stop the clock until she can regain her composure.
If she's faking, there are folks who will be able to spot it in a heartbeat. In fact, the chattering crowd -Maureen Doyd for example- are probably waiting in the wings for this opportunity.
SteveW wrote on May 22, 2007 7:40 PM:All I ever wanted to do was serve this President and this administration and this department" sums up everything that has happened over the past 6 years.
No mention of serving the country.
Posted by: slowlayne
Date: May 22, 2007 06:56 PM
Excellent point and exactly what I was thinking.
Steve5117 wrote on May 22, 2007 7:52 PM:Excerpt from tomorrow's bible verse:
"Yea though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death..."
reflectionsv37 wrote on May 22, 2007 7:54 PM:Sorry sailmaker! My money says she'll be through 3 boxes of kleenex in the first 45 minutes. I too, would normally have some sympathy for someone crying, but in this case, I hope she cries all day long! She should have never been placed in the position and it will be good for the country to see just how far down in the barrel these people went looking for "Loyal Bushies"
Jerry Springer wrote on May 22, 2007 7:54 PM:Monica, show us your tits.
Anonymous wrote on May 22, 2007 7:56 PM:Goodling will begin to cry at some point in the hearing at which time the MSM will have their story. Congressional Dems bring a young innocent hard working patriotic staffer to tears. Have the Democrats no shame.
hungrycoyote wrote on May 22, 2007 7:56 PM:Maybe, after tomorrow, they'll come up with some new pictures of her. Getting very tired of seeing the one of her at that party.
Anonymous wrote on May 22, 2007 7:57 PM:Why the tears? Because she's just smart enough to figure out that she's taking the fall for The Big Guy.
I've only casual sympathy for such people.
Anonymous wrote on May 22, 2007 7:57 PM:Monica is the very definition of a loyal Bushie. She won't answer a single question that isn't asked from every conceivable angle. I won't be surprised if she cries during her testimony. She is one of the blindly entitled.
Anonymous wrote on May 22, 2007 7:58 PM:They cockroach's are starting to disburse when the light is turned on! There is NOT enough RAID made to exterminate these disease infested bugs.
But the loop is starting to close in on them one by one...Someone, is going to break down and and earthquake is going to shake Capital Hill like nothing before!!! In the end, we might not have a government to RUN the government...If you know what I mean!!!
Make sure you TiVo all show downs that happen in subcommittees and committees this week (they will be on Cspan 1/2 late at night if you miss Cspan 3 on the internet!
I need a conviction if it means all of them! Someone needs to serve time and a long long long jail sentence at that!
SamSara wrote on May 22, 2007 8:03 PM:Remember, this is the HOUSE Judiciary Committee. These guys couldn't intimidate Bambi. I look for Goodling to muddy the waters a little, and then swim off like the little fish she is. If Monica doesn't reveal something shocking, and easily explained in three sentences or less, then this bird has flown.
justadood wrote on May 22, 2007 8:05 PM:where are the office gossips when you *really* need them? You know, the Linda Tripp types, that seem to have the tape recorders handy for all those little personal moments?
Linda...where were you when we REALLY needed you?
sc:hope--hope Conyers gives her a 3-box grilling.....
Anonymous wrote on May 22, 2007 8:15 PM:SamSara,
I think that any attempt to intimidate this woman would only give Fox and friends fodder to feed their talking jackasses. Be nice to the young lady and let her help tighten the noose for the real prize. I'll take a gentle grilling of this tender lamb to get to the pigs up at 1600.
Let's see what she has to say, but anything less than candid truth will not be acceptable. Meanwhile, I'm sure she'll have a restful night, NOT!
mbhdude wrote on May 22, 2007 8:21 PM:You don't honestly think Monica is going to "recall" a lot of facts about what's she's done?
She is going to say a lot of
"I don't remembers, and
"That is not what happened"........
Even a day before her appearance in Congress, she has failed to produce the documents she was supposed to give Conyers committee.
mbhdude wrote on May 22, 2007 8:21 PM:You don't honestly think Monica is going to "recall" a lot of facts about what's she's done?
She is going to say a lot of
"I don't remembers, and
"That is not what happened"........
Even a day before her appearance in Congress, she has failed to produce the documents she was supposed to give Conyers committee.
Northern Observer wrote on May 22, 2007 8:30 PM:There is a tragic element here. Goodling is a true believer, someone raised and educated in the milk of Christian conservatism, at church, in her family and at Regent University. She has been molded from an early age into believing sincerely that Republicans are good and Christian and Democrats are evil and Liberal.
Steve5117 wrote on May 22, 2007 8:40 PM:So when the good- i.e. the Republican President - asks her to do something wrong, like ignore the law, how can it be bad? She's doing it for the good guys, the soldiers of Christ. Her ideology overrode her ethics and common sense. Her life is a condemnation of a conservative cultural movement that would raise people like this.
I hope the hearings can uncover some of this as they look at her background because her actions and the administration's ability to manipulate her only become clear when you look at her conservative beliefs. This is the fruit of conservatism as lifestyle, rather than the older Burkean tradition of conservatism as temperament.
I have absolutely no idea what she is going to do. I suspect, however, that right this moment this woman's mind is racing back and forth, but what she is thinking is only speculation.
No doubt with reports today of Dems' avantage over repugs in use of internet and technology and especially this place, where ever we are, cyberspace, has brought minions of them to watch us.
So, for our new audience, welcome, this is how we will continue to expose the lies and illegal activies that the Bush administration had wrough upon the American people. And, in the word of Jack McCoy (L&O), "First one(s) to come foreward gets the deal".
HURRY UP 10:15 AM
Tony Shifflett wrote on May 22, 2007 8:43 PM:It'll be interesting, that's for sure. Obviously she knows something, or wouldn't have taken the 5th.
I think Conyers & Co. will get what they want out of her.
Milton Wiltmellow wrote on May 22, 2007 8:45 PM:I expect her to fess up.
"I did it. I'm sorry."
How better to serve her masters?
(Does anyone remember Yvette Lozano?)
Anonymous wrote on May 22, 2007 8:47 PM:Procedurally speaking, why are they going forward with the testimony when she hasn't handed over the subpoenaed documents, which she has stated that she has?
marblex wrote on May 22, 2007 8:47 PM:the only "tragic element" here is that this talentless bitch was given so much power in the DOJ and that the spineless Dems don't have the fucking balls to do a goddamn thing about stopping this war or restoring the constitution.
greggp wrote on May 22, 2007 8:49 PM:CLEAN SWEEP 2008
Her lawyer says she will not produce documents responsive to the HJC subpoenas. This raises two issues in my mind:
First, I wonder why she would HAVE any documents responsive to the subpoenas. She doesn't work in the government anymore, so any offical documents would belong to the government and not to her. This may be a criminal act for her to have retained government property that did not belong to her.
Second, would such conduct be covered by her immunity deal? I am thinking that it would not be, because it appears that she received only use immunity for her testimony. If she took government documents, she could still be prosecuted for her conduct.
Johnsnottoodistracted wrote on May 22, 2007 8:49 PM:Of course depending what she lets out,if anything, ahe is the perefct target for wh smears.
Anonymous wrote on May 22, 2007 8:49 PM:"Oh come on.How can you take her seriously?She is having a tough time of all this.""Well Monica is not doing to well right now.Leave her alone.After all she had to step down due to stress." etc,etc
Still waiting for ANYONE to start telling the truth.Or,even asking the real questions and taking action.
Just like with anything else: all talk does not get anything done.Ask real questions,take real action.
Nothing changes if nothing changes.
Monica is crying because there's so much room:
JNagarya wrote on May 22, 2007 8:52 PM:http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/21/the-simpsons-v-the-media/
"yeah, congress will want to know why and so does everybody else... let's hope we don't hear a repeat of the epic, marathon, "can't recall fest" we witnessed with gonzo... since she's got limited immunity, one would assume she has something to say, wouldn't one...? hmmmmm...?
"http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/
"Posted by: profmarcus
Date: May 22, 2007 06:56 PM"
Any trial lawyer will tell you: Never ask a question of a witness if you don't already know the answer. Comey testified to the Committee before he testified publicly to the same facts. If you listen closely to Schumer's questions, you'll pick up that he was mostly leading Comey through a repeat of the story the Committee already knew.
Goodling got the limited immunity based upon at minimum an outline of the beans she will spill (usually known as a "proffer"). The "limited" might actually be instead a means to protect her from intimidation or coercion -- she's not worldly; she's easily led around by the nose.
She's probably also traumatized to have discovered she was used not only as a toll but like a fool.
SC = meat. As in, Iglasias says Goodling "Holds the keys to the kingdom," which doubtless means she doesn't spill mere beans; she spills the meat.
Anonymous wrote on May 22, 2007 8:52 PM:Margolis' comment exemplifies a mixture of ruthless ambition and lack of curiosity. Most listeners ask why a peer is distraught; competitors are usually curious, though often stealthily so. So either Margolis thought he already knew what was upsetting Goodling, and didn't want it confirmed because it would threaten him, or he's lying.
The third possibility is that, like most predators, he smelled fear in a dying peer and simply walked away, as most office colleagues do when a peer is about to be walked out the door without their access card or mobile phone.
Either way, it adds to the imagery of dysfunction and breakdown of group cohesion necessary to make the DOJ or any organization run. So, who's minding the store while Gonzo's prepping for yet another Congressional investigation?
ann wrote on May 22, 2007 8:54 PM:Steve: "I have absolutely no idea what she is going to do. I suspect, however, that right this moment this woman's mind is racing back and forth, but what she is thinking is only speculation."
I know exactly what she will do. Does anyone think that her attorney and others have not prepped and prepared her, so that she knows exactly when to dis-remember or to be so vague that she sheds no new light on a sinister enterprise? She will exactly do exactly what gonzo did, and then walk away, just like gonzo did.
Can someone address the issue of the documents? Are they not the property of the US government? If they are originals and not copies, why cannot they be seized at her home or attorney's office? Are original documents allowed to accompany resigning officials? If she refuses to hand over the documents, doesn't that nullify the immunity agreement?
JNagarya wrote on May 22, 2007 8:55 PM:"yeah, congress will want to know why and so does everybody else... let's hope we don't hear a repeat of the epic, marathon, "can't recall fest" we witnessed with gonzo... since she's got limited immunity, one would assume she has something to say, wouldn't one...? hmmmmm...?
"http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/
"Posted by: profmarcus
Date: May 22, 2007 06:56 PM"
Any trial lawyer will tell you: Never ask a question of a witness to which you don't already know the answer. Comey testified to the Committee before he testified publicly. If you listen closely to Schumer's questions, you'll pick up that he was mostly leading Comey through a repeat of the story the Committee already knew.
Goodling got the limited immunity based upon at minimum an outline of the beans she will spill (usually known as a "proffer"). S
he's not worldly; she's easily led around by the nose. She's probably also traumatized to have discovered she was used not only as a toll but like a fool.
SC = meat. As in, Iglasias says Goodling "Holds the keys to the kingdom," which doubtless means she doesn't spill mere beans; she spills the meat.
JNagarya wrote on May 22, 2007 8:57 PM:"yeah, congress will want to know why and so does everybody else... let's hope we don't hear a repeat of the epic, marathon, "can't recall fest" we witnessed with gonzo... since she's got limited immunity, one would assume she has something to say, wouldn't one...? hmmmmm...?
"http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/
"Posted by: profmarcus
Date: May 22, 2007 06:56 PM"
Any trial lawyer will tell you: Never ask a question of a witness to which you don't already know the answer. Comey testified to the Committee before he testified publicly to the same facts. If you listen closely to Schumer's questions, you'll pick up that he was mostly leading Comey through a repeat of the story the Committee already knew.
Goodling got the limited immunity based upon at minimum an outline of the beans she will spill (usually known as a "proffer").
She's not worldly; she's easily led around by the nose. She's probably also traumatized to have discovered she was used not only as a toll but like a fool.
Iglasias says Goodling "Holds the keys to the kingdom," which doubtless means she doesn't spill mere beans; she spills the meat.
JNagarya wrote on May 22, 2007 8:57 PM:"yeah, congress will want to know why and so does everybody else... let's hope we don't hear a repeat of the epic, marathon, "can't recall fest" we witnessed with gonzo... since she's got limited immunity, one would assume she has something to say, wouldn't one...? hmmmmm...?
"http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/
"Posted by: profmarcus
Date: May 22, 2007 06:56 PM"
Any trial lawyer will tell you: Never ask a question of a witness to which you don't already know the answer. Comey testified to the Committee before he testified publicly to the same facts. If you listen closely to Schumer's questions, you'll pick up that he was mostly leading Comey through a repeat of the story the Committee already knew.
Goodling got the limited immunity based upon at minimum an outline of the beans she will spill (usually known as a "proffer").
She's not worldly; she's easily led around by the nose. She's probably also traumatized to have discovered she was used not only as a toll but like a fool.
Iglasias says Goodling "Holds the keys to the kingdom," which doubtless means she doesn't spill mere beans; she spills the meat.
TheraP wrote on May 22, 2007 8:59 PM:Tomorrow we will all know. But to add to the speculation anyway.
The fact that she emotionally broke down in early March does not indicate an emotional illness by any means. It more likely suggests that she realized the magnitude of the events which were unfolding and their gravity for her personally. It is not at all unusual when a person's world comes crashing down (especially a single person who has dedicated herself to work and not married or started a family) to literally collapse emotionally for a time.
But we have to ask ourselves what this might have led to. Possibly a total reorganization of her priorities, a kind of conversion experience of some type. Unlikely a redoubling of efforts to continue down the same path. I would guess the former,given the degree of her emotional reaction in March.
Then we must ask ourselves about how her lawyer will have prepared her for this most difficult testimony. Would a top-notch lawyer want his client breaking down? Would that make her testimony look better? Would that justify all the work he's put into this immunity waiver? Something tells me an excellent lawyer would have prepared her for the tough questions, would have made sure she could withstand the limelight and the grilling, would have worked with her to foster the best presentation possible to make her a credible and composed witness. Psychological methods and possibly medication may have assisted this process.
We will know more tomorrow. But I'm guessing her testimony may be riveting and most helpful.
Jim wrote on May 22, 2007 9:01 PM:Break out the waterboard!!!!
regular lurker wrote on May 22, 2007 9:07 PM:In theory, Monica has Karl Rove's email responses, no?
TEL wrote on May 22, 2007 9:11 PM:JNagarya: I have the same understanding you have. Only a fool offers immunity without first determining if the witness has testimony worth the deal. Shumer already knows how she will testify. If her testimony is not consistent with the proffer, she will lose the immunity.
I assume (since she's also under investigation by the DoJ) that her goose is truly cooked, so she has a lot to lose if she doesn't have some compelling testimony tomorrow.
JNagarya wrote on May 22, 2007 9:14 PM:"the only "tragic element" here is that this talentless bitch was given so much power in the DOJ and that the spineless Dems don't have the fucking balls to do a goddamn thing about stopping this war or restoring the constitution.
"CLEAN SWEEP 2008
"Posted by: marblex
Date: May 22, 2007 08:47 PM"
WAKE UP --
Do the Democrats have enough votes to do what you want? No, they do not.
Will you continue to blame the Democrats because Bush vetoes any bill not exactly to his liking?
JNagarya wrote on May 22, 2007 9:26 PM:"Then we must ask ourselves about how her lawyer will have prepared her for this most difficult testimony. Would a top-notch lawyer want his client breaking down? Would that make her testimony look better? Would that justify all the work he's put into this immunity waiver? Something tells me an excellent lawyer would have prepared her for the tough questions, would have made sure she could withstand the limelight and the grilling, would have worked with her to foster the best presentation possible to make her a credible and composed witness. Psychological methods and possibly medication may have assisted this process.
"We will know more tomorrow. But I'm guessing her testimony may be riveting and most helpful.
"Posted by: TheraP
Date: May 22, 2007 08:59 PM"
I agree. She is unworldly, easily led by the nose. She suddenly discovered she was used, exploited. That's a tauma.
Her lawyer's foremost responsibility is to save her ass -- also from herself. His preparation will likely be very simple: tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Don't try to be clever.
He might also have to put the fear into her to ensure that it sinks in.
If she cooperates fully -- and perhaps the withheld documents are, in her mind, some sort of security (not rational, but who would be after such a shock?) -- the courts will be lenient with her. The invocation of the 5th Amendment might actually have been the lawyer's idea, and a hint of how devastated she was by the realization of the fact that (1) she was in deep legal trouble, (2) led there by those she idealized.
I would expect she offers some riveting testimny, so long as she can keep it together. Medication may be used in that regard.
SC = wound. No comment.
TheraP wrote on May 22, 2007 9:27 PM:Now I have a question related to these DoJ document copies. Could the withholding of them be a signal to the administration? That the cat is out of the bag? Or could be?
Remember, Ashcroft was a mentor, a lawschool professor. And recent events might have convinced her that Ashcroft had questioned the president's programs and was unwilling to sign off on some things.
Though her testimony is to the committee, naturally it is the Whitehouse that has the most at stake here. So what is this maneuvering telling them?
Lolly wrote on May 22, 2007 9:39 PM:"Her lawyer's foremost responsibility is to save her ass -- also from herself. His preparation will likely be very simple: tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Don't try to be clever."
Maybe. Did anybody ever clear up the question of who was paying her lawyers? If the attorney is on someone else's payroll, his/her foremost concern may just be to protect his/her employer.
Unethical? Well, yeah. But would the Bushies lose sleep over it?
Anonymous wrote on May 22, 2007 9:47 PM:That Raw Story article about Goodling, linked to in a comment near the top, is very concerning. It looks like Goodling has decided to remain a "loyal Bushie". I didn't think Goodling was this dumb to risk going to the slammer for Bush- I now see I was wrong. And it looks like her attorney is going to aid her. There's gonna be a showdown tomorrow and the Dems better be prepared. SHOW NO MERCY! If she is not 100% honest her ass needs to end up in jail. I honestly thought she would be scared into being truthful- I guess she's been so fucking brainwashed she no longer cares about her own well being.
Thera wrote on May 22, 2007 9:47 PM:Lolly, quite some time ago a person signing the full name and professing to be a DC lawyer said that Dowd could well be doing this pro bono, that it was the case of a lifetime. And that therefore he would be doing his darndest to represent her to the utmost of his skill - and for her.
I found the post very credible. And I found the reasoning persuasive. I got the sense that there are lawyers who care about the law and true justice and a DC lawyer, it seems to me, has allegiance to the future (and a revenue/client stream) not to a lame-duck administration, that will be leaving town.
The poster also suggested that he at times is in a position where someone else is footing the bill, but that his job is to represent the client - NOT the bill payer.
In my line of work, that would also be true/ethical.
mbbsdphil wrote on May 22, 2007 9:59 PM:I have to join the chorus. I can imagine no legitimate scenario under which Monica Goodling would retain any - any - DOJ documents.
An executive agency normally goes through a standard protocol on the termination of an employee, let alone one who has had access to highly confidential information transmitted between the WH and the Attorney General's executive office. There would be a check list to be signed as part of the protocol.
At a minimum, she would have had to certify that she was in compliance with relevant statutes and rules about the handling of confidential or national security data. Her mobile/pda/computer would have been taken, along with all storage devices, etc., as would all hard copies of any documents. Her access codes would have been changed, and all access to DOJ facilities, computers, etc., would have been terminated.
So, among the questions the House should ask tomorrow are what was the DOJ's protocol in dealing with Goodling? When did she leave the DOJ and when was her termination processed? By whom and with what documents? How was it different, if at all, from the process used with Sampson, Comey, etc. What was her belief about her right to retain ANY records in any format? Why did she retain them? Does she or her lawyer have them? Under what physical or virtual security protocols are they kept? What is her asserted legal basis for retaining them? Who authorized her to do so and with what undertanding?
It seems inconcievable that this security-obsessed administration would have allowed her to keep any records in order for her "to prepare for her own defense", for example. Even Congressional staff were not allowed to see some of these documents, except in secure rooms at the DOJ, and even then they had no right to copy or take notes about them.
"Outrageous" would be among the adjectives I would try not to use. Congress simply must take off the gloves and begin dealing with this administration as it would any proverbial Balkan dictator, and under similar rules.
mbbsdphil wrote on May 22, 2007 10:04 PM:Who's paying Dowd and the rest of Monica's team at Akin, Gump? She could not possibly pay for the legal bills she has already run up. Does Ken Mehlman, Dowd's DC partner know? Is he in any way connected with her defense or has he coordinated with anyone who is raising funds or paying his firm on her behalf?
TheraP wrote on May 22, 2007 10:06 PM:mbbsdphil: What if she had decided it was what her Lord and Savior would have done?
Anonymous wrote on May 22, 2007 10:07 PM:What is it with these "loyal Bushies" who are willing to risk going to the slammer to protect the White House? My ass would be singing like a canary if I was in her shoes, loyalty be damned. Oh well, I hope she's toughened up cause there ain't no crying in prison.
c92 wrote on May 22, 2007 10:08 PM:CREW today filed FOIA requests against several US Government Agencies requesting their recordkeeping guidance to see if they are adhering to the Federal Records Act.
The White House's blatant flouting of the Presidential Records Act by using RNC-provided accounts and a growing body of evidence that the Education Department did much of its business through "private" e-mail accounts raise the stakes on finding out the answer.
If Monica is the sole keeper of what should be DOJ government records, then that is more evidence that such an investigation is way overdue.
Keep this thought in mind tomorrow. And don't forget that some DOJ records that the Department failed to turn over list Kyle Sampson as the "custodian." I initially read that to mean that he was the sole possessor of the records - and the DOJ had none. That suspicion has now been reinforced.
Here's the list:
http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/wdc/documents/prosecutors/april26/sampson_withheld.pdf
I wonder if Monica is "custodian" of her exclusive records?
Anonymous wrote on May 22, 2007 10:09 PM:Who's paying Dowd and the rest of Monica's team at Akin, Gump? She could not possibly pay for the legal bills she has already run up. Does Ken Mehlman, Dowd's DC partner know? Is he in any way connected with her defense or has he coordinated with anyone who is raising funds or paying his firm on her behalf?
Posted by: mbbsdphil
I sincerely hope this is a question that gets asked. I was not very impressed with the last hearing and am hoping that the Dems are better prepared and stay on target and don't start bringing up off the wall shit.
mbbsdphil wrote on May 22, 2007 10:22 PM:Who's paying Dowd and the rest of Monica's team at Akin, Gump? She could not possibly pay for the legal bills she has already run up. Does Ken Mehlman, Dowd's DC partner know? Is he in any way connected with her defense or has he coordinated with anyone who is raising funds or paying his firm on her behalf?
Leon Kowalski wrote on May 22, 2007 10:29 PM:Words of wisdom from the great prophet:
LORD LUNDY
Who was too Freely Moved to Tears, and
thereby ruined his Political Career.
http://www.mainlesson.com/display.php?author=belloc&book=cautionary&story=lundy1
GEORGE
Who played with a Dangerous Toy, and suffered
a Catastrophe of considerable Dimensions.
http://www.mainlesson.com/display.php?author=belloc&book=cautionary&story=george
Anonymous wrote on May 22, 2007 10:38 PM:SC: crime -- 'nuff said
What's so depressing is these folks are just making shit up on the fly to continue the stonewalling and the Dems are playing right into their hands. At what point will Conyers or Leahy stand up and scream ENOUGH! You want a showdown, here's your fucking showdown! I'm so disgusted. Just complete disgust. How much more of this shit must we endure. Two more years of King George and his minions saying FUCK YOU to the American people. The Dems even rolled over for a small fish like Schlozman. If you people think they can tangle with a big fish like Rove you've got another thing coming. I really hope I'm wrong. The justice will finally be served. But I'm skeptical.
mbbsdphil wrote on May 22, 2007 10:44 PM:Sorry about the multiple posts; connection hiccup.
Yes, Dowd is the lead partner in Akin Gump's white collar crime group, but I doubt that he is taking this case pro bono.
This case will cost multiple hundreds of thousands even without a criminal case being filed against her. Her team includes at least Dowd, another partner, at least two associates and two researchers, and probably PR or other consultants. That's two to three thousand per hour.
There would be extensive interviews, research, materials prepared, prep sessions, and lots of phone calls with VIP-access only types in Metro DC. Lots of potent stuff to be juggled and possibly disclosed. Pretty high stakes stuff.
Monica would not normally have access to any of that talent, much less be able to pay for it. Somebody in the Best & Brightest's old guard called in favors. Now that Monica's not a DOJ employee, there are no restrictions on her accepting gifts from others. My guess is they're coming in whenever a bill needs paying.
Anonymous wrote on May 22, 2007 10:45 PM:Northern Observer
"tragic element here"? You've gotta be kidding.
Key figures in any drama, real or imagined by a playwright, have to have some aspects of nobility and honor to be tragic figures.
Having been brainwashed by Christian whackos into believing that GOPers and Bushies are good doesn't make this little twerp worthy of our sympathy.
Anonymous wrote on May 22, 2007 10:47 PM:If she doesn't have a legal basis for withholding these documents why can't they just have her hauled away to jail when she shows up. Conyers asks, "Did you bring the documents we asked for? No? Sgt at Arms, arrest this woman." That would be too sweet. At this point I don't think this "loyal Bushie" is going to tell us shit anyway. Good Christian that she is, she is going to have no problem lying her ass off. Stop coddling these creeps.
TomR wrote on May 22, 2007 10:52 PM:----
Can someone address the issue of the documents? Are they not the property of the US government? If they are originals and not copies, why cannot they be seized at her home or attorney's office?
Posted by: ann
Date: May 22, 2007 08:54 PM
----
According to a Raw Story article, the reason she isn't handing over the documents is because they are un-redacted and complete. So far, Congress has only received redacted documents from the DOJ.
So apparently, it's this difference that's slowing down the handover.
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Goodling_fails_to_turn_over_documents_0522.html
Yossarian wrote on May 22, 2007 11:02 PM:I think I know why she was bawling her eyes out. She couldn't stop crying because Karl had just told her that he finally didn't love her and that all that sex had been for free. Ooops! Premarital sex? And adultary? Well, that is what they teach at Liberty U but she really had believed Karl when he told her that he would marry her one day. Yikes. That lying bastard ruined this poor little girl from Liberty U. What would Jerry Falwell Christ say about this? That is why she started crying. Get it you libs?
Yossarian wrote on May 22, 2007 11:02 PM:I think I know why she was bawling her eyes out. She couldn't stop crying because Karl had just told her that he finally didn't love her and that all that sex had been for free. Ooops! Premarital sex? And adultery? Well, that is what they teach at Liberty U but she really had believed Karl when he told her that he would marry her one day. Yikes. That lying bastard ruined this poor little girl from Liberty U. What would Jerry Falwell Christ say about this? That is why she started crying. Get it you libs?
Anonymous wrote on May 22, 2007 11:04 PM:I think I know why she was bawling her eyes out. She couldn't stop crying because Karl had just told her that he finally didn't love her and that all that sex had been for free. Ooops! Premarital sex? And adultery? Well, that is what they teach at Liberty U but she really had believed Karl when he told her that he would marry her one day. Yikes. That lying bastard ruined this poor little girl from Liberty U. What would Jerry Falwell Christ say about this? That is why she started crying. Get it you libs?
Yossarian wrote on May 22, 2007 11:05 PM:I think I know why she was bawling her eyes out. She couldn't stop crying because Karl had just told her that he finally didn't love her and that all that sex had been for free. Ooops! Premarital sex? And adultery? Well, that is what they teach at Liberty U but she really had believed Karl when he told her that he would marry her one day. Yikes. That lying bastard ruined this poor little girl from Liberty U. What would Jerry Falwell Christ say about this? That is why she started crying.
uncle vester wrote on May 22, 2007 11:05 PM:We will know tomorrow; until then this is all speculation, as informed and interesting as it is (and there are some damned smart and informed people posting here tonight). We are trying to read what is essentially a blank page.
Is she prepped and medicated ten ways to Sunday? Has she been drinking? Will she be hung over tomorrow? Will she break down in tears and tell all, or use tears to try to obfuscate? Has the White House been breathing down her neck, openly or subtly - "You'd best stay off small airplanes, young lady"? Where is her God in all this?
Sleep soundly tonight, knowing you are not facing Monica Goodling's reckoning tomorrow morning.
Peace out.
Sierra T wrote on May 22, 2007 11:05 PM:Restore Honor
CN wrote on May 22, 2007 11:06 PM:Dump the GOP
Monica was crying because she realized she would have to take the fall for any improper actions she had been associated with. Margolis was distant to Monica because he knew, as she did, that she was dead woman walking.
It's no wonder Monica was upset -- all she ever wanted to do was serve the president, the administration, and now she was going to take the blame for their illegal actions. Why else would she have preemptively pleaded the Fifth? Because she knew that her testimony would implicate her, personally, in illegal acts.
This is what will happen tomorrow: now that she has immunity, she's going to walk into the hearing and suck up as much of the blame for herself. All her fault. All her idea. No one else knew anything. She will walk out of there looking like a bad person (hence her being upset), but she will be (1) immune from prosecution and (2) a conservative hero.
C 92 wrote on May 22, 2007 11:09 PM:Government documents are traditionally government work product.
Goodling is not the President. The papers and e-mails she creates while at DOJ are property of the Department - and not hers. Aside from a few samples of her work to serve as examples for future jobs, there is no reason why she should have taken any documents from DOJ. That's against the law.
And if she has the ONLY copies of the documents, then clearly there's a lack of effective controls on records at DOJ that is very alarming -- and likely in violation of the Federal Records Act.
CREW filed FOIAs today to learn more about federal agencies' recordkeeping guidance (or lack thereof):
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/28510
nuncamas wrote on May 22, 2007 11:28 PM:CN, I fear that you are right. And it makes me furious.
OhSnap! wrote on May 23, 2007 12:00 AM:I am disheartened to say I agree with CN and nuncamas...
Although, along the vein of AbuG, it just doesn't seem like there are enough power-neurons in her noggin to make that line believable.
But if previous Committee testimonies/aftermath are any indication, I'm going to be disappointed tomorrow.
linda wrote on May 23, 2007 12:09 AM:i have a bad feeling that by the end of the nightly news reports tomorrow evening, ms monica will be transformed into the poor, misguided -- but well-intentioned -- young christian woman who alone stood up to a bullying democratic congressional committee. wanna bet she's sitting alone at the table tomorrow.
bohdi wrote on May 23, 2007 12:11 AM:Lets get real here. This is a bush-cheney vampire addicted to the blood bank that she sucked off daily from the strewn limbs and viscera of Rovacula's enemies. She is one of the many hissing undead who claws and humps the thigh of her master, Worlds Most Skilled FatDrac, K.Rove.
No way she vomits anything of value up into daylight. She swore allegiance to her bloody,ugly lifestyle a long time ago after her brain had been hoovered out thru the frail stem by none other than P. Robertson, a 517 year old lisping hell demon with a penchant for plump,idiot virgins and a poker of molten radium for a joystick.
No way she is forthcoming. Her soul was lost a long time ago, never to be retreived.
Gini wrote on May 23, 2007 12:21 AM:There was a story a while back describing this woman as a "buzz saw" by an interviewee. I didn't get the impression that she's fragile. So she cried. Women do. Especially when things go wrong. But I believe her fundamental beliefs will fortify her and she will wrap herself in the cloak of righteousness. Her body language in the snippet of video told me she is proud of her hard work and revels in being indispensable. Remember she stayed late and slept on the couch? This woman is a fervent busybody for Jesus whose personal "truth" eclipses consensus reality. Her testimony is going to be a real show no matter what comes of it.
EdNSted wrote on May 23, 2007 12:37 AM:If Goodling sucessfully pulls off the Oliver North manuever tomorrow, that fact alone would speak volumes about the character and credibity of the Committee itself.
It would signal the end of not only this investigation but also of any real 'oversight'. If the Committee has just bought a pig in a poke, then the consequences will go far beyond this investigation.
"Key to the kingdom" or "Pig in a poke". Tomorrow will be interesting.
chabuka wrote on May 23, 2007 1:20 AM:Ahhh..poor little thuglet...thought she was pretty hot snot....for awhile. No regrets about trying to turn a Democracy into a Dictatorship...? Trying to promote a unitary executive and a one party rule....and never even bothering to look at the dictionary to find the definition of what that is..? I don't feel sorry for her...! I hope she gets every thing she has coming to her...double!
JNagarya wrote on May 23, 2007 1:40 AM:""Her lawyer's foremost responsibility is to save her ass -- also from herself. His preparation will likely be very simple: tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Don't try to be clever.""
"Maybe. Did anybody ever clear up the question of who was paying her lawyers?"
Foremost, it's no one's business outside the payor -- if there is such -- her lawyer, and her (if she need know). Though it usually happens in high profile cases, it is unethical for a lawyer to answer questions as to who are his clients.
"If the attorney is on someone else's payroll, his/her foremost concern may just be to protect his/her employer."
Never.
"Unethical? Well, yeah. But would the Bushies lose sleep over it?"
"Posted by: Lolly
Date: May 22, 2007 09:39 PM"
Where does all the paranoid speculation come from?
JNagarya wrote on May 23, 2007 1:56 AM:"I have to join the chorus. I can imagine no legitimate scenario under which Monica Goodling would retain any - any - DOJ documents.
"An executive agency normally goes through a standard protocol on the termination of an employee, let alone one who has had access to highly confidential information transmitted between the WH and the Attorney General's executive office. There would be a check list to be signed as part of the protocol."
The DOJ, as presently constituted, is going to comply with a standard protocol!?
"At a minimum, she would have had to certify that she was in compliance with relevant statutes and rules about the handling of confidential or national security data. Her mobile/pda/computer would have been taken, along with all storage devices, etc., as would all hard copies of any documents. Her access codes would have been changed, and all access to DOJ facilities, computers, etc., would have been terminated."
Not at the DOJ as presnetly constituted!
"It seems inconcievable that this security-obsessed administration would have allowed her to keep any records in order for her "to prepare for her own defense", for example."
Why do you assume they knew?
"Even Congressional staff were not allowed to see some of these documents, except in secure rooms at the DOJ, and even then they had no right to copy or take notes about them."
We don't know the documents she has, so we don't know whether they were among those to which Cogress was denied access.
"Posted by: mbbsdphil
shipwreckedcrew wrote on May 23, 2007 3:12 AM:Date: May 22, 2007 09:59 PM"
This is going to be a bloodbath tomorrow with her. She has all the markings of an idiot. The networks will probably cutaway under the terms of the "Decency Doctrine".
anon wrote on May 23, 2007 4:15 AM:...bloodbath...
Seems pretty unlikely. She might take the 5th or something but I'm sure she'll do just fine. Congress takes good care of idiots and her markings are more GOP insider than idiot. Are networks covering the hearings? I just glanced at TV guide but didn't notice any hearings, other than CSPAN.
johnnydrama wrote on May 23, 2007 4:56 AM:The one thing that may point to some juicy testimony tomorrow is that she is in very real jeopardy of being found guilty of numerous violations of using religious or political litmus tests for hiring career people at the DOJ. Which is very illegal.
So she better not be caught trying to flex the truth tomorrow.
Dusty wrote on May 23, 2007 5:13 AM:I will be comfy, with my tv on CSPAN3 when this dog and pony show starts in a few hours. She won't give up anything easily..but we better not hear any "I do not recollects" outta her.
EvilPoet wrote on May 23, 2007 6:43 AM:Poor, poor Monica - shedding tears over the harvest she has reaped.
Security code: narrow as in "...strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." [Matt. 7:14-15]
phil wrote on May 23, 2007 7:07 AM:I bet nothing happens, or at the minimum, some time will be wasted. The only way to deal with this corruption is with a crack task force team, bust the frigging doors down, yank the security cards, take the evidence. Remember these people broke their oath of office, time delays equal destruction of evidence, and more crappy assed leadership.
Bugboy wrote on May 23, 2007 7:12 AM:Ashcroft had developed a taste for Ms. Goodling's "brownies", and I think her roots are showing.
You know what they call a bleach blond standing on her head...
Yea, I know, that's in bad taste, but you gotta be rude to get through how obtuse things have gotten lately.
SC is turn for it's GOP's turn.
Numero Uno Larry the Cable Guy Fan wrote on May 23, 2007 7:31 AM:After the cave job yesterday my hope is that the Dems grew a spine overnight and are going to hand Goodling a new one. This could be one of my greatest tv viewing experiences ever or it could be one of the most frustrating. My hopes are high but my expectations are low. As Larry would say, Git Er Done!
Dawn wrote on May 23, 2007 7:41 AM:code word: potato
You say potato, I say potato?
It will also be on the live audio feed from c-spanradio.org for those of us who can listen but not watch at work. Starts at 10:15 EST.
dono wrote on May 23, 2007 8:06 AM:The 'Quickening'...
She was sobbing because her soul hadn't yet left her body like most loyal bushies... I am sure now that it is gone, she will be a fine Republican ready to do her duty!
dono wrote on May 23, 2007 8:06 AM:The 'Quickening'...
She was sobbing because her soul hadn't yet left her body like most loyal bushies... I am sure now that it is gone, she will be a fine Republican ready to do her duty!
gtash wrote on May 23, 2007 8:10 AM:Ms Goodling will not answer any question forthrightly. She probably won't cry in public unless there is an opportunity to look bullied by her questioners. If she picks her opportunity well, she get sympathy from the public and Dems will look mean and out of control. I think this is going to be theatre and Goodling is going to give us a show. I do not suppose for a moment that this woman is going to be all helpless and cow-eyed. She is a veteran oppo researcher and a closet-Nazi when given an ounce of authority--and perhaps a riding crop. The "cry story" was a plant. IMHO.
Rob wrote on May 23, 2007 8:21 AM:"Serving government" doesn't give you permission to become a criminal, hon.
Jack Abramoff wrote on May 23, 2007 8:27 AM:Six figures for her legal tab? No problem. There's plenty in the black ops slush fund I helped set up with my buddy Karl to handle it.
trippin wrote on May 23, 2007 8:28 AM:"Hi, Ms. Goodling, Jesus here. I'm taking the time to speak to you here on this blog in order to remind you that if you swear to Dad that you'll tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, you'd better do it.
"I know you went to Pat Robertson University. I'm willing to overlook that bit of idolatry. I'll even overlook your worship of George Bush. Oh, did I mention, I've never had a conversation with the man in my life. If he told you that, he's B.S.-ing you.
"Monica -- may I call you Monica? -- just remember that I love you. And I love America. It's just those goddamn Republicans I can't stand: all taking my name in vain and sh!t like that. So you just do your patriotic duty today. Dad and I will be watching if it's not on CSPAN-3 like the rest of the important hearings."
Marshall wrote on May 23, 2007 8:42 AM:I have a possible answer about how Ms. Goodling had DOJ docs in her possession after her resignation. Is it possible that she had one of those external e-mail accounts that figure so prominently with Mr. Rove?
kenga wrote on May 23, 2007 8:47 AM:Marshall
I've changed my mind on a couple of things in this whole affair. And read the whole thing, and think about it before you decide whether you agree or not. Impeachment should NOT be a goal.
Gonzalez is a big fish, so is Bush, for that matter. They're both toast at this point - they'll never again hold significant federal office. Holding them accountable is not unimportant, but it's not as important as cleaning up the lower echelons. (metaphor - that's an awful burn you have - it must hurt like hell! But first, lets dig that plutonium pellet out of your abdomen before it causes 6 kinds of cancer.)
The little fish, if allowed to swim free, will grow to become big fish later.
They need to be caught now, tagged, marked, and put in a farm. They must be prevented from holding elective or appointed office in the future, and associating with them must impart a stigma that the politically ambitious will avoid like plague.
They should be convicted and sentenced wherever possible, and dis-barred when appropriate. Their dishonesty, opportunism, and contempt for Constitution and honest government must be made manifest.
These are the people who will make the next generation of movers and shakers - they are the future AGs, SecDef, SecEn, VP, SCOTUS, even POTUS. And that's why we can't afford to let them slip away so we can get a couple of sound-bites for the DLC to use in upcoming elections. The stakes are much higher than just 2008 or 2012
Cheney, Rumsfeld, Abrams, Poindexter ... any of those names sound familiar? Those are just the ones I recall right away - there are others who have also been involved in scandals in previous administrations. Had they been taken down during Nixon's admin, or Reagan's, we wouldn't be dealing with them now, nor the impact of their belief systems and tactics.
C. Reaves wrote on May 23, 2007 9:18 AM:Goodling, Ralston, Sampson, Paulose, and others will be the vanguard of the next generation of political operators. And they will not stop, ever.
Oh I don't think she is going to be able to wriggle out of this. She is not even close to the stature of Gonzales who could get away with all the memory problems. I admit my legal expertize is based on Law & Order re-runs, but if she lies on the stand her immunity evaporates. There are thousands of emails and other documents to catch her lying with, not all of which she is aware. She is walking through a legal minefield today, and the only path through them is the absolute truth (its about time!). There is a worry that that she is a lawyer and may be able to craft her answers to give some wiggle room, but fortunately for the nation she isn't likely to be a very good lawyer, having come from Pat Robertson's law school. Neither will she have many allies among the Committee - even the Republicans don't like what happened at Justice.
I doubt she will be able to withold Justice documents for long either. Those DO belong to the people, not her. Only a Pat Robertson lawyer could think otherwise. I suggest search warrants, US Marshals, and a moving van.
Just had an interesting thought. Who are Goodling's lawyers? Are THEY of the same Pat Robertson School of Steal the Nation Out From Under the Others brand of law?
ttc wrote on May 23, 2007 9:19 AM:I bet she's got relevant stuff in her basement filing cabinet and on her home computer, or perhaps on a drive she took out of the office, possibly deliberately after this all happened, perhaps in the unthinking and inevitable way it happens with tens of thousands of employees who feel an overwhelming need to finish a "secure" job at home and who then never get around to bringing the stuff back. The RNC emails might have ALL been routinely copied to a home computer, inasmuch as they were technically unofficial. All her "official" data storage, computers, files, drives, etc., would have been retained by doj after she was terminated. Her lawyer's statement is, among other things, a frank open acknowledgment that she has illegitimate custody of stuff like this. Let's take a moment to admire this candor. In the quiet of her home, she could have broken out the shredder and taken a hammer to her hard drive. None would have been the wiser
C Reaves wrote on May 23, 2007 9:36 AM:As for her breaking down on the stand? Won't happen. As with all these Bush politcal hack incompetents, from Brownie to Sampson to Goodling, they all know how to play the role of competent professional. In reality it's more like "I'm not a smart person, but I play one in the Bush administration". She'll play her part to the end.
Tom The Patriot wrote on May 23, 2007 9:37 AM:Someone above posted it as a joke, but here is a question that the gutless mainstream media will never ask all the GOP candidates: I'm SURE Mitt, McCain, Tancredo, Giuliani, you do support water boarding Gonzales, Rove and Monica G to find out who broke the law, right?
PS. Read somewhere Monica got a REAL lawyer, not a Christian Broadcast Network one (original name of Regent Law School)!
KatKanDu wrote on May 23, 2007 9:44 AM:sailmaker: "I see her crying as a tactic to get people to stop asking hard questions; you can't answer questions if you bawl louder than the person asking the questions."
Doctor's orders: Monica Goodlittlegirl may not drink liquids 24 hours before testimony, so she won't have enough water in her system to make tears.
Allsburg: "George W. Bush told her that, with the Attorney scandal and all, the secret Oval Office blowjobs would have to stop."
Too bad. She was on a crash diet and the only organic substance she was allowed to consume was ... well, you know.
Anonymous wrote on May 23, 2007 9:52 AM:"If the attorney is on someone else's payroll, his/her foremost concern may just be to protect his/her employer."
Absolutely true. If someone else is paying her lawyers then THEY are the client not Goodling, and the lawyers will represent Goodling's interests only until it conflicts with the real client's interests - at which point Goodling will be sacrificed. However, if someone is giving Goodling money to pay her lawyers herself then Goodling is the client.
the exile wrote on May 23, 2007 10:42 AM:She's got immunity. She's going to cop to everything, and say that all decisions were hers and hers alone, that she's proud of what she did and shame on the democrats for criminalizing politics. Ollie friggin North all over again. The dems better be ready THIS time to act like prosecutors rather than speechmakers and to crack through her crap to get the real culprits.
the exile wrote on May 23, 2007 11:05 AM:Well I was pretty spectacularly wrong!
Anonymous wrote on May 23, 2007 12:37 PM:did anything happen? I don't mean to sound like the "oh my god were all gonna die" guy. But did anything happen? Did some doors get cracked down on her words? Anyone get their security cards yanked? Any damning evidence confiscated yet?
I seriously doubt it.
If anything it will give the real corruption more time to destroy documents.
Bill wrote on May 31, 2007 11:43 AM:MSN I NIIPET
jcwvxybze ezckg wrote on August 2, 2007 5:03 PM:MSN
mzqgiw quwcmebfj buena tyzquahb lbecq ntfvd sbfhij
vuxhdcoil eqov wrote on August 2, 2007 5:04 PM:cmygzo gejh zyhpd zmxw wvunok ilyxbgfoc geqi http://www.xpizhy.lhmcsvbr.com
vuxhdcoil eqov wrote on August 2, 2007 5:06 PM:cmygzo gejh zyhpd zmxw wvunok ilyxbgfoc geqi http://www.xpizhy.lhmcsvbr.com
gmcwnhl iacs wrote on August 2, 2007 5:09 PM:snuxo dlkw rzslojy navgj njhyfqa gbse xbtswekvj [URL=http://www.qtyfgk.cqawvzsyu.com]fyqnbisga ozqwj[/URL]
gmcwnhl iacs wrote on August 2, 2007 5:10 PM:snuxo dlkw rzslojy navgj njhyfqa gbse xbtswekvj [URL=http://www.qtyfgk.cqawvzsyu.com]fyqnbisga ozqwj[/URL]
jxcoeywdi bistcnqy wrote on August 2, 2007 5:11 PM:mtbpdhrfk nfxektoz oavsyirz iyjtgvanq jhvnmxbr cjsxvkn rufjzwq [URL]http://www.putche.kijby.com[/URL] tomuybvwe qnuzdbv
2005 toyota tacoma lift kits wrote on September 22, 2007 8:54 AM:Good site. Thanks.
2006 alarm security suite zone wrote on September 22, 2007 10:35 AM:Good site. Thank you!
2007 nissan pathfinder wrote on September 23, 2007 2:32 AM:Cool site. Thank you!
3d home design online free wrote on September 23, 2007 2:00 PM:Very good site. Thank you!!!
3d home design online free wrote on September 23, 2007 2:00 PM:Very good site. Thank you!!!
4 play northwest magazine wrote on September 23, 2007 2:55 PM:Nice site. Thanks!!!
add link wrote on September 24, 2007 11:49 AM:Cool site. Thanks.
add link wrote on September 24, 2007 11:50 AM:Cool site. Thanks.
adobe photoshop elements 40 eng wrote on September 24, 2007 1:45 PM:Nice site. Thank you:-)
adobe photoshop elements 40 eng wrote on September 24, 2007 1:45 PM:Nice site. Thank you:-)
amd athlon xp 3200 512k 400mhz cpu wrote on September 25, 2007 10:22 AM:Very good site. Thank you:-)
amd athlon xp 3200 512k 400mhz cpu wrote on September 25, 2007 10:22 AM:Very good site. Thank you:-)
antique black dining room table wrote on September 25, 2007 9:31 PM:Cool site. Thanks:-)
applying geometric tolerancing in autocad wrote on September 26, 2007 2:25 AM:Good site. Thank you.
applying geometric tolerancing in autocad wrote on September 26, 2007 2:26 AM:Good site. Thank you.
astrology books wrote on September 26, 2007 1:41 PM:Good site. Thank you!!!
ããã¥ã©ã« ãã©ã³ã¹ ç« wrote on September 27, 2007 4:22 AM:Cool site. Thanks.
bohrkrone wrote on September 29, 2007 11:43 AM:Nice site. Thank you!