Comments (84)

Anonymous wrote on May 23, 2007 11:13 AM:

No remorse.

Englischlehrer wrote on May 23, 2007 11:15 AM:

Dude, Cannon is an idiot.

lolly wrote on May 23, 2007 11:15 AM:

So, how unresponsive/evasive does she have to be to get her immunity yanked?

Pamela wrote on May 23, 2007 11:16 AM:

Watching people lie is not easy.

Pamela wrote on May 23, 2007 11:17 AM:

Watching people lie is not easy.

Afraid of saying "Bad Things." Oh dear lord. Is this 2nd grade politics at play?

profmarcus wrote on May 23, 2007 11:17 AM:

thanks for the transcript... i listened but, as i'm sure you know, it's hard to grab it all as it's being said...

http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/

Matt wrote on May 23, 2007 11:17 AM:

Cannon going to read newspaper all day ... Goodling is being wasted on the House. The Senate committee must be pissed.

Ron Byers wrote on May 23, 2007 11:18 AM:

"I know nothing. I see nothing. I hear nothing."

Isn't this from a 1970s sitcom? All those fancy legal educations and nothing better than the Sgt. Schultz defense. Amazing, simply amazing.

If nobody knows why the fired prosecutors were on the list, why were they fired?

Ron Byers wrote on May 23, 2007 11:18 AM:

"I know nothing. I see nothing. I hear nothing."

Isn't this from a 1970s sitcom? All those fancy legal educations and nothing better than the Sgt. Schultz defense. Amazing, simply amazing.

If nobody knows why the fired prosecutors were on the list, why were they fired?

Pamela wrote on May 23, 2007 11:18 AM:

Watching people lie is not easy.

She Was Afraid of saying "Bad Things." Oh dear lord. Is this 2nd grade politics at play? Is the Devil going to get her-- or would that be Karl's job?

Pamela wrote on May 23, 2007 11:19 AM:

Watching people lie is not easy.

She Was Afraid of saying "Bad Things." Oh dear lord. Is this 2nd grade politics at play? Is the Devil going to get her-- or would that be Karl's job?

Matt wrote on May 23, 2007 11:19 AM:

Cannon going to read newspaper all day ... Goodling is being wasted on the House. The Senate committee must be pissed.

Matt wrote on May 23, 2007 11:19 AM:

Cannon going to read newspaper all day ... Goodling is being wasted on the House. The Senate committee must be pissed.

Pamela R wrote on May 23, 2007 11:21 AM:

Watching people lie is not easy.

She Was Afraid of saying "Bad Things." Oh dear lord. Is this 2nd grade politics at play? Is the Devil going to get her-- or would that be Karl's job?

She looks and sounds eerily like Dana Perino. Is this a Bushie thing? Vacant-headed, golf-course squeaky-voiced talking spokesmodels?

bobh wrote on May 23, 2007 11:22 AM:

the senate cmte sent her to the house first for just this reason - softballs

Pamela Ross wrote on May 23, 2007 11:23 AM:

(apologies for the posting burps)

Seitz wrote on May 23, 2007 11:23 AM:

**Goodling is being wasted on the House. The Senate committee must be pissed.**

Is the Senate not allowed to interview her?

jolly ranchero wrote on May 23, 2007 11:26 AM:

So each person who tesifies is simply going to blame someone else not presently in the room? So McNuts blames Gonzo, Gonzo then blames McNuts and Goodling, Goodling then comes in and reblames McNuts, and Sampson to boot?

My head will explode. This is what 3rd Graders do.

Midwest Product wrote on May 23, 2007 11:27 AM:

"Vacant-headed, golf-course squeaky-voiced talking spokesmodels?"

In her opening statement (linked in the post), this mid-30s woman refers to herself as a "quiet girl". I wonder if she wrote it herself or if it was done committee-style as McNulty's statement was.

c4logic wrote on May 23, 2007 11:28 AM:

So McNulty is the scapegoat for the whole thing, huh. Maybe like Tenet, he will write a book in 5 years that contradicts all of this.

Anonymous wrote on May 23, 2007 11:31 AM:

There is more finger-pointing going on here than in a roomful of women getting a manicure.

John Leblanc wrote on May 23, 2007 11:32 AM:

Her grating nasally valley girl accent is painful to listen to!

PJ White wrote on May 23, 2007 11:33 AM:

Yep, looks like they've agreed to make McNulty their bitch. He should be called back. Perhaps he will be the one to dump on them all. He must be pissed.

gcs wrote on May 23, 2007 11:33 AM:

So basically her defense boils down to "I made a list. That's all. I didn't know why I was making the list. Ask Kyle because he told me to make the list."

And this chick has a law degree? Oh, right it's from Regent U. My mistake.

goldberry wrote on May 23, 2007 11:34 AM:

Her statement has enough holes to drive a truck through. I like the one that says that she never met with Rove or Miers while she was at the DOJ. That leaves open the possibility that shemet with them BEFORE she went to the DOJ and maybe even AFTER she left it.
Someone should ask her about that.

mbbsdphil wrote on May 23, 2007 11:35 AM:

No. This is carefully staged political theater.

Dowd's strategy is to sell MG as the proverbial upbeat, energetic assistant, the type everyone in an office has worked with at one time or another. She had no "authority", doesn't know why her bosses made "their" decisions, and just helpfully did as she was told.

To careful observers, that line has the verisimilitude of a Greek mask or kabuki play, but so far, it's working. And her Breck girl curls and mini-me--mouse voice are just the ticket to assuage the testosterone of them big hunk Congress Critters.

TheraP wrote on May 23, 2007 11:36 AM:

daily emails - would obviate "meeting" with rove/miers

TheraP wrote on May 23, 2007 11:39 AM:

mbbsdphil - so why the 5th? if the theater...

bill wrote on May 23, 2007 11:39 AM:

So I guess its OK if you're lying for Jesus

Steve5117 wrote on May 23, 2007 11:39 AM:

I beleive I crossed the line, but I didn't mean to (get caught).

PJ White wrote on May 23, 2007 11:40 AM:

She is so incompetent for the job that she held. It's hard to believe that she ever had any power over anyone's life.

Pamela wrote on May 23, 2007 11:42 AM:

My favorite: "I didn't intend to commit a crime." Did OJ Simpson coach Goodling this morning? I expect to see her don too-small leather gloves any second now and show the room in mock disbelief that she ever actually worked for Sampson and Gonzo.

Piper wrote on May 23, 2007 11:48 AM:

Canon don't care about the justice system situation. He's worried about his freaking earmarks. He's just being complicit with Monica in continuing the "gum the committee with nothing" strategy.

mbbsdphil wrote on May 23, 2007 11:48 AM:

The theater is so that Congress never gets to why she took the Fifth.

Joe wrote on May 23, 2007 11:48 AM:

It's the immaculate termination.

osage wrote on May 23, 2007 11:48 AM:

She is dumping everything in the laps of McNulty and Sampson, both direct underlings of Gonzales. They took their marching orders directly from him. How can Gonzales claim that he is ignorant and therefore innocent, while two of his employees who reported directly to him claim to have no knowledge of ANYONE who provided the names of the USAs on the "to be removed list" that he ultimately approved to be fired? If someone "under" McNulty or Sampson had provided the names, they would remember who those people were and would have named them. Because someone "above" them provided the names, they purposely forget to avoid incriminating Gonzales, Rove, Miers and or Bush. It is inconceivable that NO ONE would remember any of the people WHO provided the names on the list. It is an ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that at least ONE or SOME or ALL of the people involved KNOW at least ONE or SOME or ALL of the names of the people who suggested that certain USAs be placed on the list. This is a classic example of a cover-up where lack of memory is used to avoid naming the crime bosses. Anyone who believes that the removal of USAs was not politically motivated is a naive idiot or an immoral liar.

bohdi wrote on May 23, 2007 11:49 AM:

What a joke. There is no democracy. It is dead. These old farts in the House look positively ridiculous. If you can't cross examine a practiced she-whore and expose her to the light of day after weilding all the 'powers of your office' what good is the notion of checks and balances? Why did they even bother with immunity when it is so transparent that she never had any intention of saying anything of substance or import? I seem to recall that they did not give immunity at Nuremburg. What they did is build a large scaffolding right outside the courtroom. Defendants understood clearly what the consequences of their testimony would be in the event of obfuscation and distortion.

Then again this little wolf would dutifully leap from the top of the courthouse with a tight noose around her gullet. She is one of the undead. A demon foot soldier for the cause.

I think they gave her immunity because they realize they have zero means to punish her or make her accountable.

mbbsdphil wrote on May 23, 2007 11:53 AM:

"Helpful" is just gosh really, really, like, important, girls, um, you know. We didn't like tell them to like, gosh, get the puck out of our sorority because they were fat, ewww, or anything, like you know what I mean?

PJ White wrote on May 23, 2007 11:55 AM:

Dan Lundgren, former Calif. AG, WHAT A TOAD? Another enabler. ME ME ME Aren't I great?

sc: fire. I wish could fire all these aholes.

we'recooked wrote on May 23, 2007 11:58 AM:

I've had CNN on for half an hour, there has been no mention of MG let alone contemporanious coverage of her testimony. What's the story?

mbbsdphil wrote on May 23, 2007 11:58 AM:

Now, the former Attorney General of California is testifying for Goodling. Like a Shrub speech writer telling us what Dubya really means, like his words and what he means are at all connected. Why is it that only the Republicans ever seem to plan or coordinate their questions? Conyers' Democrats, Sanchez excepted, act as if they're judging a 4-H Show, not conducting an investigation into criminal conduct in the House of Justice.

Peter Principle wrote on May 23, 2007 11:59 AM:

"'I know nothing. I see nothing. I hear nothing.' Isn't this from a 1970s sitcom?"

Actually, I think it's from a 1945 war crimes tribunal.

Pamela wrote on May 23, 2007 11:59 AM:

Fawn Hall Lives!

Pamela wrote on May 23, 2007 12:01 PM:

CNN is too busy breathing heavily while the Bush-man spews his vomit at the Coast Guard graduation. I suspect Bush is there roping in some hotties for his boy Rove.

Pamela wrote on May 23, 2007 12:05 PM:

I'm sorry I stopped practicing law. If THIS pathetic soul represents all it takes to make it in DC, damn, I would have been the Attorney General by now.

Yellow Dog wrote on May 23, 2007 12:05 PM:

Don't be fooled by the look and sound.

I worked for a woman like this - fairy-tale-princess appearance, daddy-take-care-of-me voice ...

and the ambition of Napoleon combined with the ruthlessness of Nero.

Trust me: Monica is absolutely the leader of the DoJ criminal conspiracy. She may have taken orders from Rove, but she issued them to everybody else, including Gonzales.

Immunity was a huge, HUGE mistake.

Steve5117 wrote on May 23, 2007 12:07 PM:

Peter Principle,

The tale of the Three Wise Monkeys is Japanese; Together they embody the proverbial principle to "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil". The three monkeys are Mizaru covering his eyes, who sees no evil; Mikazaru covering his ears, who hears no evil; and Mazaru covering his mouth, who speaks no evil.

Isn't Google great

Mad Dog Rackham wrote on May 23, 2007 12:09 PM:

So, Monica, since you don't recall anyone at DOJ putting those names on the list, or deciding why they should be fired, what you're testifying to is that it all came from the White House. Correct?

marblex wrote on May 23, 2007 12:11 PM:

this girl has an obvious tell when she lies: her entire face becomes flushed

The rethugs on the committee are too busy making speeches to notice aything legally significant.

This bitch is lying her ass off and none of the dems on the committe has even asked a significant follow up to this opening statement, particularly, what she knew as WH liason that Sampson didn't want the committee to know.

But then, the Dems are only good for theatrics, while the Rethugs rape the country.

CLEAN SWEEP 2008

Craig wrote on May 23, 2007 12:12 PM:

There's only one way to get these questions cleared up, and it would be soooooo entertaining. Four chairs at the table. Gonzo, Sampson, McNulty, and Goodling seated in said chairs. When one says "Not my call", we go to the next one.

Anonymous wrote on May 23, 2007 12:12 PM:

What it is about these White House flunkies?
Is Taking the Fifth the new Country Club liquer of choice?

Karl Rove's secretary will plead the 5th:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003267.php

JohnVA wrote on May 23, 2007 12:12 PM:

Tim Griffin was allegely involved in Vote "Caging" during the 2004 during the 2004 election as part of his work for Bush's campaign?

"Caging" is GOP tactic to remove minority (Dems) voters from the Registration rolls by sending them a letter with a "Return Reciept". If the person is not home to sign, is homeless or simply doesn't send the card back; then the GOP pushes to have them removed from the voter rolls. When the voter shows up on election day, their vote is contested and they are asked to proove they are registered.

And Voter suppression had nothing to do with the desire to remove certain USAs and replace them with their Voter Fraud opperatives... yeah right!

bc wrote on May 23, 2007 12:14 PM:

if she did nothing wrong, why resign?

joe wrote on May 23, 2007 12:14 PM:

So, why did she plea the 5th anyway?, she knows nothing, saw nothing, said nothing...

ahh.. this is all bullcrap.

bc wrote on May 23, 2007 12:21 PM:

Re: Anna Mills Wagoner, NC USA

Why did Monica's opinion have so much weight on the status of Wagoner? She got Sampson to remove her name twice from the list. Didn't Sampson then have to go tell whoever that he was taking Wagoner off the list because of Monica's opinion?
Maybe Sampson was the one who put her on the list to begin with.

Karen wrote on May 23, 2007 12:26 PM:

"If you can't cross examine a practiced she-whore and expose her to the light of day after weilding all the 'powers of your office' what good is the notion of checks and balances? "

Now - wait a minute. She's totally incompetent, she's at best being delibertately evasive. But a "she-whore"? Keep the conversation on point here. Attacking someone that personally does a disservice to your own arguments. It allows one to dismiss you entirely because of a single, gratutitous remark.

Pamela wrote on May 23, 2007 12:29 PM:

This woman made and broke careers?
Somebody save this Nation. Please.

This woman is the bait. They are going for Big Fish Rove. Have no fear. Reel them in. Hook line and stinker.

Sheila Jackson Lee: bravo, madame.

mageen wrote on May 23, 2007 12:29 PM:

This chick is so full of plausible deniability that I am about to choke! They are all part of a cabal of criminal lunacy! You bet her answers implicate the White House! As for the response/non-response of the Committee Members, they knew before she walked in that she would lie her head off. Their report will be a foregone conclusion: GUILTY AS SIN! And as for that scaffolding outside the courtroom in Nuerenburg, this time it should be a stake piled high with pitch pine!

Anonymous wrote on May 23, 2007 12:31 PM:

Rick Keller? The Pillsbury Dough Boy is on the House Judiciary Committee?

Rick wrote on May 23, 2007 12:31 PM:

I assume that the immunity is contingent on testifying and cooperating fully. Personally, I think she is being the good crypto-Nazi true believer, lying and taking a bullet for the Fuhrer and the movement.

I would like to see her asked about her "Christian faith" ...does it permit lying or half-truths...even for the "greater good?"

Do half-truths or omissions violate the terms of her immunity?

She should be told to produce the documents in her control or be charged and striped of her immunity.

Finally, Fawn Hall was HOT, Monica Goodling is no one's wet dream. And Fawn, after the hearings had a change of heart and expressed remorse....she was pissed to have been made a fool of by Col. Ollie North and his ilk.

Pamela Ross wrote on May 23, 2007 12:44 PM:

F-U, Issa. You're Leading the witness. This is not a cross examination. The Loyal Bushie took the 5th. Stop this self-serving oration.

Expat wrote on May 23, 2007 12:57 PM:

Monica Goodling is the Marta Goebbels of the Republican Party. She is willing to do or say what she has to in order to protect her Leader. That's the thing about the Republicans, loyal to the bitter end much like the true believers that surrounded the Fuhrer in the bunker during the last days.

Beth Partin wrote on May 23, 2007 1:04 PM:

Damn, people, can't you find a way to criticize her without displaying so much sexism? She whore? Valley girl? Criticize her on what she deserves to be criticized for--her failure as a civil servant!

Yossarian wrote on May 23, 2007 1:06 PM:

I think the knives are out for McNulty. Goodling ready to throw anyone under the bus. I bet darth vader's (Dick C) got to her. Any one want to bet that soon she will be crowing about how great AG is? I say send her to the gallows.

curtis wrote on May 23, 2007 1:09 PM:

she's tracy flick.

HangTheBitch wrote on May 23, 2007 1:12 PM:

treasonous republican whore of satan; her lies and obfuscations about Rove are NOT covered under an immunity grant.

curtis wrote on May 23, 2007 1:13 PM:

she's tracy flick.

Yossarian wrote on May 23, 2007 1:18 PM:

No no she's Dick's fav girl. So she must be Princess Leah. BTW, where do the repukes find these hot looking liaisons? I mean the best that Bill could do was find Monica L. But these freaks have some of the best looking woman around. Could it be that all the hot women are repukes? If so I am signing to become a repuke myself.

pointus wrote on May 23, 2007 1:20 PM:

Beth: Not to in any way condone sexism, but the rage many of us feel toward this horrible woman, who is lying and subverting our constitution as we speak, tends to find its most venomous expression when we're so absolutely frustrated by our inability to reach out and strangle the traitor we see on cSpan3.

code: female
"Monica Goodling is not really a female. She's a republican."

Jane wrote on May 23, 2007 1:26 PM:

Working off of her initial statement Monica Goodling starts by blurring the issues: the Deputy AG has stated that he believes that she withheld information from him. His implication was that this was information about the factors that went into the hiring decisions including White House involvment. She changes it to the information that she worked " diligently" to proved to him "based on the questions being asked at that time." This isn't about the document dump she prepared for him when he had to testify -- this was about whether or not she ever told him what her involvement in the firings and hirings was and what she knew of White House involvement.
She even gets miffed that she wasn't allowed to sit in at the Hearing and was sent home in -- gasp -- wait for it -- A TAXI. (Note to MG: For your information I do not believe that the Nation is interested in your transportation problems.)

Monica you claim that he was not fully candid about his knowledge of White House involvement in the replacement decisions -- this is pure speculation on your part -- you claim to have no knowledge of White House involvement and you weren't there when he testified? I can see that it would have been useful to you to be there because you would have been able to tailor your testimony better. On the other hand, someone should ask you whether anyone has fed you information from that hearing? Some on the committee are carrying the White House's water.

You state that you were not the primary White House Contact for purposes of the U.S. Attorney Replacment Plan. So who was?

The specificity with which you state that you never had a convesation with Karl Rove or Harriet Miers while you served at the Department should be probed. Did you have conversations with them prior to your hiring and then go undercover? Did you have any communication with them via any means such as email or via third parties concerning anything to do with the Attorney Replacement Plan?
Or staffing the DOJ with Bushies?

In any event, tell us what alerted you to Rove's interest in getting Griffin in place in Arkansas.

Which two AG's did you recommend retaining and why? What were you told or surmise about why they were on the list in the first place? What was your evidence for these beliefs?

Who are these others more senior to you who were discussing the possiblity of replacing U.S. Attorneys in mid -2005? Why did you seek to put Charlon and Bogden on the list? Did anyone alert you that there was a problem with these two? When did you first learn that they were not put on the list since you reference the documents produced to Congrss by the Department as proof that Mr. Sampson did not initally accept your recommendation. Again you are extremely specific in stating that these two "appeared on the list in September 2006, presumably for reasons unrelated to my INITIAL recommendations." So once you realized tht your initial recommendations were not followed did you seek help in getting them followed?

Again that suspect specificity "I am not aware of ANYONE WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT ever suggesting the replacement of these U.S, Attorneys to interfere with a particular case in retaliation or in retaliation for prosecuting or refusing to prosecute a particular case for policial advantage." So were you aware of anyone outside of the Department seeking to remove a U.S. AG for these purposes? What about Senator Domenici?

Detail all of the ocassions on which you took "inappropriate political considerations into account". Who directed you to do so and who did you tell that you had done so? Do you have any idea how this became common knowledge at the DOJ?

Note to Monica: Nobody cares whether you are a nice girl or not: you were taking actions that were trashing our Constitution and making a farce of the DOJ as a non-partisan insitution which could be trusted to implement even handed Justice -- you would have done far less damage if you had been a career violent criminal.

Your touching concern for those you worked with and shafted leads to grave concerns that you are completely willing to shade the truth to protect them to the detriment of the Nation. The Commandment concerning witness is not that you shall bear kind witness but that you shall not provide false witness. Re-read the Bible and consider your eternal future if you truly believe. Oops -- probably like most Christians you have not even thought of reading it from cover to cover.

FedUp wrote on May 23, 2007 1:27 PM:

Am I the only one who is frustrated with the "Gee...I really don't know/remember" defense that comes from repuglicans when they're cornered after doing something unethical or illegal?

I do know that if I tried to get out of consequences by claiming I "couldn't remember" I'd be without a job. I am expected to remember why things that happen under my management occur.

Why can't we just axe the whole bunch of them for the gross incompetencies they've exhibited to-date?

Oh...I forgot...we've transitioned from a democracy to a kingdom and they haven't sent out the memo yet...

Yossarian wrote on May 23, 2007 1:33 PM:

Hey Karen,

What are we supposed to call her then? She was fully involved in destroying our constitution with the rest of these repuke freaks, so i think it is very good that someone is calling her what she is "a whore." But you are absolutely correct if what you mean is that calling her that is an insult to prostitutes.

Brad wrote on May 23, 2007 2:03 PM:

So, . . . Why did she take the fifth? What crimes is she testifying to in her testimony? Why does she get immunity?

the tick. wrote on May 23, 2007 2:06 PM:

She may look like the girl next door, but from what I could tell, the BS meter was going crazy.

The mystery list and how it got compliled seems to escape her, I guess that she just had more important things to do, like file her nails or something.

Did she talk to Rove,,maybe, can'nt remember..oh dear dear dear. Oh, I guess that she fits the blonde stereo type then, or she is a clever liar.

cacambo wrote on May 23, 2007 2:17 PM:

I move that we introduce a new word into the political lexicon: a “GOODLING.”

A GOODLING is a malleable subordinate who is brainwashed to firmly believe in the absolute righteousness of a cause that is in reality evil.

The term resonates on a number of levels. It morphs “good” with “underling,” for example. Or even more evocatively, with “changeling,” which Wikipedia defines as follows: “In European folklore and folk belief, a changeling is the offspring of a fairy, troll, elf or other legendary creature that has been secretly left in the place of a human child. The motivation for this conduct stems from the desire to have a human servant….”

A “GOODLING” is to good as “truthiness” is to truth.

heh wrote on May 23, 2007 2:22 PM:

well Monica is consistent in saying she didn't recall meeting with Karl or Harriet. I noticed that throughout but did mention that the office of the White House political team signed off on the fired attorneys, that much we gotincluding Karl.

I'm hearing the audio and she sounds like a shrill little girl. I can't believe this Regent masters degree grad is at the DOJ. An unheard of universtiy is suddenly making decisions that will impact me. This administration has brought down this nation's standards at least a notch,the thought of anything further and I throw up.

Yossarian wrote on May 23, 2007 2:38 PM:

These repukes are so racist. Congressman from Georgia was asking this bitch a question and her freaking lawyer gets up and shouts that he is not letting her answer the question. Good lord!!! Racist Racist Racist. The congressman is a black rep so her lawyer got up and shouted that he wasn't letting her answer. This is bullshit. Somebody needs to tell these freaking white repukes that they don't own the country. Man oh man.

Yossarian wrote on May 23, 2007 2:45 PM:

Is it just me or are all the freaking Dems just castrated males whose voices are lower than this chick's. Where are the dem women? These dems are freaking weak, weak, weak,weak. Next election i want these dem freaks to lose. The repukes are so much more forceful about their side but the dems are just pathetic. Kick em out!!!

Anonymous wrote on May 23, 2007 2:52 PM:

Watching this on cspan is giving me a heart burn. Dems are just freaking weak. They should just resign and leave. They are pathetic. Repukes are so good at changing the subject. They keep bringing up Clinton when he left about 6 years ago. This bullshit. Dems in the house, resign now!!! You are just weak and pathetic and not worthy of running this country.

Yossarian wrote on May 23, 2007 3:11 PM:

Adam Schiff from CA is a total dumb ass. Freaking dumb ass. What a waste of time to have the dems do any questioning. They are just not capable of running the congress. I don't like the repukes but shit they at least do a better job with rhetoric and showing their people in better light. Dems on the other hand need to be sent back to the hinterland of politics.

Yossarian wrote on May 23, 2007 3:28 PM:

Finally one good dem Congressman. Rep. Davis from Alabama is on the ball. Thank you Lord!!! Goodling and Rep. Lungran from CA, both racist freaks, tried to derail the the line of questioning from Rep. Davis but they LOST. All racists are losers and these two are the biggest, fattest losers.

Jerry wrote on May 23, 2007 4:22 PM:

Jolly Ranchero wrote "This is what 3rd Graders do."

But wasn't this the same crowd that claimed the adults were back in power after Clinton? Some people should just keep their mouths shut.

Roanna wrote on May 23, 2007 4:36 PM:

Did anyone notice that the republican congressman from West Virginia (I think) read statistics of achievements about Liberty University that were achieved well after Goodlings education. ps Liberty is still a 4th tier college.

JNagarya wrote on May 23, 2007 4:36 PM:

"the senate cmte sent her to the house first for just this reason - softballs

"Posted by: bobh
Date: May 23, 2007 11:22 AM"

It does get her on the record. I sure hope the Senate takes a wack at raking her over the coals of her testimony. There being fewer committee members, they should be able to keep the Democratic narrative going without too much Republican't [handle the truth] interruption.