« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
An ideologue, yes, but an ideologue acting on orders or on her own?
When Monica Goodling goes before the House Judiciary Committee this morning, that will be the central question.
No one can read the two profiles of Goodling in The Los Angeles Times and Washington Post this morning and not come away with the impression that Goodling was a true believer. From her high perch in the Justice Department, Goodling worked to make sure that the Justice Department was staffed with staunch conservatives. For her part, Goodling's conservative ideals were such "that she once refused to go to a Justice Department baby shower because the mother was unwed."
.
Goodling's influence at the department was far-flung. As both the Post and Times report this morning, Goodling on at least one occasion blocked the hiring of an assistant U.S. attorney because she feared he was a "liberal Democrat." And when Debra Wong Yang, the U.S. attorney for Los Angeles, stepped down last November, Goodling and Kyle Sampson went around the normal selection process and set to work finding a replacement. Despite the fact that a special commission had been set up in California to select and vet U.S. attorney candidates, Goodling and Sampson selected and began interviewing candidates of their own, a number of whom had been political appointees at the Department. When the commission members found out, they put a stop to it:
"They were caught in the act," said the person familiar with the process. "This was frankly a warning sign that problems existed among a relatively small group … who decided they had power and authority and could do what they wanted."
But had Goodling and Sampson decided this on their own? Or did they do it on orders from the White House? That's the key question for Goodling today. We'll see what she says.
Comments (53)
Crust wrote on May 23, 2007 9:32 AM:Any thoughts on Goodling resisting turning over subpoenaed documents?
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Goodling_fails_to_turn_over_documents_0522.html
Her attorney:
greggp wrote on May 23, 2007 9:34 AM:"Ms. Goodling has copies of other electronic documents and emails that would be responsive to the Committee's subpoena but which are copies of official Department of Justice documents, including un-redacted copies of documents produced to date only in redacted form,"
Someone please tell Paul Kiel that today is Wednesday, May 23, not May 24, as he indicates in the Talking Points Memo video.
JMCCW wrote on May 23, 2007 9:39 AM:after the disorganized and somewhat pitiful showing of the dems during the recent abugonz hearing i fear that, unless she plans to voluntarily drop bombs on her own, the reps won't be able to pierce her rethug armor.
Anonymous wrote on May 23, 2007 9:44 AM:This is a chicken and egg argument. Goodling was selected for the job precisely because she wouldn't need to be told explicitly what to do. The WH then gives instructions in code, knowing that she'll understand the code and they can maintain plausible deniability.
hotornot wrote on May 23, 2007 9:44 AM:all i want from the hearing is a new picture of her. this one everyone's got is getting kind of old.
defStef wrote on May 23, 2007 9:45 AM:Monica Goodling is eerily similar to the character Angela on NBC's "The Office" both in appearance and ideals.
jeffgee wrote on May 23, 2007 9:53 AM:Won't attend a baby shower because the mother is unwed but it's OK to lie for the President's brain and to use the DOJ to swing elections. That's GOP morality fer ya.
Anonymous wrote on May 23, 2007 9:55 AM:Any odds on how long it will take for her to turn on the waterworks today?
She was selected because she would know what to do, and because she is stupid enough to still believe it was God’s work. Rove doesn’t even believe in God, but he certainly knows how to manipulate other’s faith to his advantage.
It’s sickening. There will be no surprises today, just entirely predictable confessions of guilt. She’ll remember that it was all her fault.
Anonymous wrote on May 23, 2007 9:55 AM:She was selected because she would know what to do, and because she is stupid enough to still believe it was God’s work. Rove doesn’t even believe in God, but he certainly knows how to manipulate other’s faith to his advantage.
It’s sickening. There will be no surprises today, just entirely predictable confessions of guilt. She’ll remember that it was all her fault.
UnEasyOne wrote on May 23, 2007 9:57 AM:Imagine that heady feeling of power. Under thirty, hobnobbing with the real movers and shakers, able to make decisions affecting not only the people she hired but also those she rejected. Imagine how gleeful she was as she axed another application from another subversive "suspected Democrat." Keep that in mind when the tears start to flow.
She is being hung out to dry by her heroes - the perfect patsy. Looks like she made off with enough documents to shift some of the blame and her lawyer seems like a real bulldog already, using her purported knowledge and evidence to extract one concession after another.
I'm gonna have just as much empathy for her as she would for progressives like me. She knows she broke the law - if she makes a full confession implicating her masters I would support some compassion when the bill comes due - at sentencing. Otherwise I hope she does serious time, along with the rest of that criminal gang.
RickD wrote on May 23, 2007 10:00 AM:Did Monica Goodling fire a slew of US attorneys on her own? Of course not!
Why are these notions even entertained? Republicans run all their operations in a top-down hierarchical manner, except that when they get caught doing something illegal, suddenly somebody has to be the fall guy. Is there any reason we should play along with this at all?
John S wrote on May 23, 2007 10:02 AM:Anonymous has it right. It's not hard to anticipate the now immunized Monica saying "It's all my fault", boo-hoo (manufactured tears). Game over. Let's move on folks, nothing to see here. Just a poor misguided young graduate genuinely regretful for her actions. Yah-de-dah-de-dah. Don't believe it for a minute. But it makes it harder for the Democrats to penetrate the smoke screen. It's a game and the Democrats are being gamed...again. Like another poster said previously (sorry, but I can't remember who it was), I need to get these guys over to my place for poker
anon, too wrote on May 23, 2007 10:06 AM:The order delegating the personnel administration authority has a memo attached to it, which says: “In order to implement these new regulations, the Attorney General’s staff requested that I prepare a delegation for the Attorney General to the Chief of Staff and the White House Liaison (the “delegates”) to exercise these personnel administration authorities newly reserved to the Attorney General.”
Who the “I” in the above sentence is in question. The document says it is “From: Paul R. Cort.” Written next to this is “For” Paul R. Cort “Michael H. Allen.” The document is initialed: sgb or sqb. I don’t know if the initials stand for the concurring component or the individual who reviewed and concurred.
It’s presumptuous, to put it mildly, for "staff" to take this initiative on their own. It would make more sense if the idea to delegate originated with the AG. But it could also make sense if the initiative originated at the WH. This is where the investigation needs to pull back the covers.
Who initiated the regulatory changes, and who initiated the delegation of the personnel administration authorities reserved to the AG? This is not a spur of the moment type thing. It took planning to revise the regulations to get the personnel administration authority back to the AG and then transfer the reacquired authority.
Pete wrote on May 23, 2007 10:07 AM:"Goodling's conservative ideals were such "that she once refused to go to a Justice Department baby shower because the mother was unwed."
I don't think that makes her a conservative; it makes her sound unpleasant and judgmental. I know plenty of committed conservatives who, though they might disapprove of un-wed motherhood, would still support the expecting mother with their friendship.
Twin Planets wrote on May 23, 2007 10:10 AM:JohnS says, ". It's not hard to anticipate the now immunized Monica saying "It's all my fault", boo-hoo (manufactured tears). "
I have to disagree -- there are too many loose ends that extend towards the White House: missing emails, cc's on emails that have been handed over. Also, there's a certain proposed USA from Arkansas -- could his name have come from Goodling?
However, the most compelling reason to suspect WH involvement is the Iglesias case. If you're Sen. Domenici, who do you call? I'm betting it wasn't Monica Goodling.
Austin Cooper wrote on May 23, 2007 10:12 AM:"Any odds on how long it will take for her to turn on the waterworks today?"
Six To Five on Two Hours, and it'll be a Tammy Faye Bakker "heartfelt" extravaganza if it does happen.
Expect her attorney to run interference at crucial moments by barking at the Senators, giving lil' Monica a chance to get her storie(s) straight, as in all the rehearsal she's undoubtedly had this past week ...
This assumes she doesn't change her mind and decide to take the Fifth anyway.
Remember, Monica: Jesus saves; Perps Walk!
jolly ranchero wrote on May 23, 2007 10:14 AM:I'm guessing instead of testifying, she breaks down in tears right off the bat. The Dems spent an hour offering softball questions to avoid another cry-fest. The media labels her a martyr. She cops to nothing, and ends up a tragic hero.
Pessimistic indeed I am.
rickygee wrote on May 23, 2007 10:15 AM:If only congress could be more like our beloved president. A signing statement that says: "...even though we have granted you immunity, we reserve the discretion to change our minds if we feel it necessary to do so." Now that's the way all government should work!
RW wrote on May 23, 2007 10:15 AM:I suspect that Goodling and Sampson were quite able initiators not unlike the characters in the movie "Final Solution" where the group cabal compels individuals to submit and initiate what they believe is the thoughts of their leaders. Are they the Tucci's (Eichmann) and Branagh (Heydrich) or are they the ones sitting at the table who are the lieutenants of the cabal.
The secret memo by Gonzales appears to be more in line with a Tucci type of move, delegate authority to those who are completely in line with 'our' thinking. Goodling's profile is completely pure in an idealogue bit. She is commited to the revolution of a religious-evangelical interpretation of government and law as a tool of this cabal.
Simpson appears to be more of a mechanic, the ability to create a process of no tracks...yet all paths lead to him and Monica...to whom...the real core of the cabal...Rove & Myers.
It is almost creepy seeing this emerge. The personality likes of Cheney and his lieutenants, Rumsfeld and his lieutenants, using Powell like a prop, now it is Rice.
I suspect in 20 years it will be a mini series
Pete wrote on May 23, 2007 10:17 AM:Goodling has been granted limited immunity for whatever crimes she committed at Justice, but she has not been granted the right to lie with impunity in front of Congress. If she provides false testimony today, she could be prosecuted for it. If her lawyer is giving her advice worth what she is paying for it, he will advise her to tell the truth to the committee.
I'm not saying she won't be a good little Republican soldier and "take the fall" for this, but there is a stronger incentive for her to be truthful than many here seem willing to recognize. Immunity is granted in order to solicit truthful testimony; it does not give one the right to lie without consequence.
h keller wrote on May 23, 2007 10:19 AM:Jesus would shun Goodling.
SteveW wrote on May 23, 2007 10:20 AM:Her kind of morality is what we are fighting against in Afganistan.
These Republican fakes need to do time in jail.
Monica Goodling isn't bright enough to devise this scheme. Clearly this was all Karl Rove...period!
Cassidy wrote on May 23, 2007 10:22 AM:It is clear that Monica Goodling was a willing member of the cabal that facilitated and encouraged the arrest and imprisonment of innocent people. She believes it is acceptable to imprison people because of their political beliefs. Life in prison would not be too harsh a penalty for trying to turn America into a Gulag.
But who can do the actual investigation of these criminals? No one at the DoJ can be trusted. Who then?
Beth wrote on May 23, 2007 10:27 AM:I so detest the faux morality of people like Monica Goodling. She shows how low class she is that after she had been invited to a co-worker's baby shower, and lets it be known that she disapproves of the mother's choices and won't be attending. Hey, Monica, I thought you would be happy that she didn't have an abortion. Their selective morality is revolting. I hope she is totally humiliated at the Judiciary Committee today.
Tomg wrote on May 23, 2007 10:27 AM:actually it's too bad they gave her immunity, they will learn nothing get nothing and never be able to force her hand. Since Abu is big on waterboarding I say we start with DOJ to get to the bottom of it
HJ wrote on May 23, 2007 10:34 AM:To me, this represents just another piece of evidence, to the fact that this country is in the midst of a not so secret conservative coup attempt.
Me thinks we need to take a step back, and look around.
mbbsdphil wrote on May 23, 2007 10:38 AM:Goodling may have seen herself as the Virgin Mary; I suspect others saw her as the Snow Queen.
iam wrote on May 23, 2007 10:40 AM:Conservatism is antithetical to civilization.
iam wrote on May 23, 2007 10:40 AM:Conservatism is antithetical to civilization.
Hieronymus Braintree wrote on May 23, 2007 10:48 AM:Even if Monica Goodling claims it was all her own doing w/o input from higher ups (which I don't think she's going to do) this still raises the question of how come her superiors didn't notice what she was doing.
They could escape public oprobrium for criminality but it ain't going to improve their reputation for incompetency.
Anon wrote on May 23, 2007 10:48 AM:"Goodling's conservative ideals were such "that she once refused to go to a Justice Department baby shower because the mother was unwed."
I don't think that makes her a conservative; it makes her sound unpleasant and judgmental. I know plenty of committed conservatives who, though they might disapprove of un-wed motherhood, would still support the expecting mother with their friendship.
Posted by: Pete
Date: May 23, 2007 10:07 AM
Dollars to donuts, the unwed DOJ employee celebrating her blessed event was black.
Another reason for Goodling not to be thrilled to attend.
some dude named steevo wrote on May 23, 2007 10:53 AM:She reminds me of Ainsley Hayes from The West Wing.
ralph489 wrote on May 23, 2007 10:56 AM:Isn't it a crime to consider party in hiring assistant U.S. attorneys?
They should look into her wrongdoings, based on crimes she may have committed. Also, she should be investigated for perjury.
eLad in Mo wrote on May 23, 2007 11:05 AM:Contrary to our expectations of Monica Goodling admitting it was all her fault with the tears and all, please remember that the political hacks in this administration will not do the right thing and come clean. To them, they're right in their actions and beliefs. Everything else is an attack on America, in their eyes, since they truly believe that they are the chosen ones to lead this great country out of the grasp of the heathens.
Get used to it folks, "I don't recall" is their motto.
Reagan meant it on the witness stand, but these thugs elevate it to an art form.
JNagarya wrote on May 23, 2007 11:06 AM:I wonder how much time she had to consult with her lawyer: it had to take weeks to do that makeover.
Tell me this isn't Ann Coulter pretending to be Monica Goodling.
psyopswatcher wrote on May 23, 2007 11:13 AM:Sanchez pointed out the term 'caging' in her first set of questions. Isn't that Rove's claim to fame? Starting his fortunes in the direct mail business?
And it seems to connect to the voting fraud charges? How to do it... caging.
psyopswatcher wrote on May 23, 2007 11:19 AM:Sanchez pointed out the term 'caging' in her first set of questions. Isn't that Rove's claim to fame? Starting his fortunes in the direct mail business?
And it seems to connect to the voting fraud charges? How to do it... caging.
JNagarya wrote on May 23, 2007 11:20 AM:She is a see-no-evil blindee. It's near impossible to criticize others' wrong actions as other than "mistiakes" or "errors". It's no wonder she was -- and still appears to be -- such a sucker.
Her testimony won't be fact-free. But it will be perspectiveless judgement-free.
Anonymous wrote on May 23, 2007 11:22 AM:Monica Goodling isnt a Virgin Mary or a Snow Queen, she's pond scum and I hope she gets hit by a car
Anonymous wrote on May 23, 2007 11:25 AM:I think we better take a damned close look at Alabama. They just outlawed the sale of sex toys there. Its obviously a conservative plot, and we better get to the bottom of it, before other states start implementing similiar laws.
Gads, whats wrong with you people? Can't you get your priorities straight?
An Alabama judge upheld the ban, stating that it was the state's obligation to protect "public morality". So we better get busy, or we're liable to find ourselves in the position where we can no longer use mechanical devices when we masturbate while eating dinner at Dennys.
We need hearings, and we need them now. I want answers.
Code word, "smile".
eLad in Mo wrote on May 23, 2007 11:35 AM:I have my priorities straight, so thank you very much. I already don't eat Denny's.
Anywho, back to Monica on The Hill today....
Code Words: Stay on target, Red Leader.
dpkesling wrote on May 23, 2007 11:39 AM:For the first time today, after reading of the Democratic concession on Troop Withdrawal Deadline... then after following the pessimism in the thread of this conversion, I'm beginning to wonder if the forces of reason have enough traction to change the course the USA is on? Not only has the president poo-pooed the idea of disengaging in Iraq, it's pretty clear that his plan is to both increase troop levels in Iraq AND to very quickly begin operation in IRAN. The government really appears to be totally disengaged with what the people who elected them want. Many citizens unquestioningly get their news AND opinion from the likes of Fox News. The Goodling testimony really involves a turning point or last chance... will Congress finally begin to peel up the corner on this horrible mess and have some guts, or will Bushco prevail. Yes, it's really coming down to that point.
notKeith wrote on May 23, 2007 11:43 AM:Bingo. At about 10:35 CDT, Monica Goodling admitted that she was aware that she "crossed the line" regarding civil code -- strike that -- "law" when she took into consideration the political position of candidates. By the way, did you see the questions of Sensenbrenner? what a slimy bastard. Why does he still represent Wisconsin?
Mike wrote on May 23, 2007 11:57 AM:In her opening statement, Monica Goodling admitted occasionally "going too far" in asking political questions during job interviews. She made it sound like a minor indiscretion of no real consequence. Probably not, moreover it shows a callous disregard of the law and a certain naivity. Such questions are illegal, so if an applicant answered them, he/she was a poor lawyer or one with no spine or one who desparately wanted the job. The only correct response to such inquiries is "I'm sorry you can't ask that."
Patrick McGonegal wrote on May 23, 2007 12:05 PM:Sorry folks, but any way she can blame herself she will. I am sure there isn't going to be much in the way of documentation supporting any connection between her actions and those higher up. She got her immunity, and now she will take (at least this portion) of the investigation down with her. Her immunity will effectively shield anyone above her from scrutiny. I am betting Monica will claim: "It was all my (and Kyle's) doing and everyone else was innocent, end of story, I'll be leaving now..." End of investigation.
This is why I am much more interested in the Susan Ralston ordeal. She may get immunity, but she doesn't have a letter in hand authorizing her to make decisions regarding the wheeling and dealing with Abramoff. No such letter exists because that authority is NEVER allocated to her position. Whatever she testifies about WILL have repercussions upwards...
doug wrote on May 23, 2007 12:28 PM:This administration will continue pumping a succession of bumbling witnesses into the hearing rooms as committee fodder, just as it pumps idealistic kids into Fallujah for their third tour. Everybody is expendable. At the end of the day, even George himself may be, as long as international oil conglomerates obtain the Iraqi leases.
regular lurker wrote on May 23, 2007 1:09 PM:The courts serve only the rich or well-connected.
I find myself slipping back into my old hatred for lawyers. They don't care about the law and they kid themselves if they think they do.
What a self serving lot they are.
Anonymous wrote on May 23, 2007 1:38 PM:If she does say "it's all my fault", and that's a lie, game is NOT over; she's perjured herself before the committee, and has NO immunity for that. The trick is to have corroborating evidence to confirm that she is not the sole actor, the blame-taker.
I hope that that evidence exists (such as in some of the slew of e-mails out there).
psyopswatcher wrote on May 23, 2007 2:46 PM:Sanchez pointed out the term 'caging' in her first set of questions. Isn't that Rove's claim to fame? Starting his fortunes in the direct mail business?
And it seems to connect to the voting fraud charges? How to do it... caging.
jaywrite wrote on May 24, 2007 1:01 AM:I know all too well this type of person. I have them every year in my college writing groups. They write that an idea (say creationism) is absolutely proven because it says so in the bible. When other students point out that the bible is NOT a scientific text, the 'true believer' resorts to a circular argument. The bible is truth, so creationism or any other issue mentioned in that august book is true.
This more or less extends to the rest of their lives. They appear to believe that since their lives are based on the 'truths' in the bible, anything and everything they do is God's will and cannot possibly be wrong.
And anyway, if it is wrong the 'lord' will forgive them... never mind the injury to others. 'He' will fix that as well. And when it comes time to testify... well the panel before which Ms. Goodling is testifying consists of 'unbelievers,' so if she cannot convert them to Jesus, then they simply don't count. They do not need to know about things that go on between 'we believers in the true faith.'
She need not worry about such minor things as THE LAW (or the writing of a logical argument) because she answers to a higher power. And if I give the student a failing grade or if Congress puts Ms. Goodling in jail for perjury, it is only because we are influenced by the devil... poor wrong thinking us.
The kicker is that my students immediately go to the department head and claim they are being discriminated against.
zilg gqjnysl wrote on July 6, 2007 2:51 AM:sbmx lieg lenhruwt rqsu ryto vbzisq qokscxt
zilg gqjnysl wrote on July 6, 2007 2:53 AM:sbmx lieg lenhruwt rqsu ryto vbzisq qokscxt
zilg gqjnysl wrote on July 6, 2007 2:54 AM:sbmx lieg lenhruwt rqsu ryto vbzisq qokscxt