Comments (16)

Princess Sparkle Pony wrote on May 23, 2007 11:38 AM:

So I guess the strategy is for everybody in the DOJ to say they don't know anything about anything, and then none of them will get in trouble. Yay!

Robin Boerner wrote on May 23, 2007 11:39 AM:

They had better check the water at DOJ. As many memory problems as that place has Usama may have pulled off another terrorist plot and they can't even remember when they used to remember and don't have a clue at the DOJ something is wrong.

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

Somebody follow "I wrote that down"

Pinson wrote on May 23, 2007 11:43 AM:

Why can't democrat committee people ask better questions?!?!?! After a long, windy opening statement about the majesty of the law and the sanctity of juries, Bobby Scott from Virginia launches into this: "Did you break the law?" Jeepers. What a zinger! Conyers needs to organize his people better.

Stanley Krute wrote on May 23, 2007 11:47 AM:

The Democrats don't know how to do proper research. They don't know how to construct an information-yielding line of questions.

The GOPpers don't know how to do anything other than repeat the Karl Rove talking points in sleep-inductive fashion.

Sad sad sad.

The DoJ stonewalling defense is working.

Dave S wrote on May 23, 2007 11:49 AM:

Agreed, Pinson. Is anyone going to ask Ms. Goodling what the Attorney General's role was? What directions he gave? There's no way they undertook a process like this without his direct instruction to do so.

nuffsaid4now wrote on May 23, 2007 11:51 AM:

Rep. Scott's line of questioning was not all that bad, he got her there in the end. I'm paraphrasing, but he kept asking her if she thought she had broken the law when she took a person's political ideaology into consideration, not if she broke the law, but if she thought she had broken the law.

Goodling: i crossed the line.

Scott: The law, Ms. Goodling, you broke the law.

Goodling looking like a deer caught in the headlights.

No prevaricating allowed.

BS wrote on May 23, 2007 11:55 AM:

I can't take it anymore.

I don't know. I don't remember. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

Why can't one of these bozos say what is on everyone's mind-

"Either you are lying through your teeth or you are so incompetent and forgetful you are a good candidate for a memory study. In either case, leaving the people's business in your hands is wrong, and anyone still in their jobs will be fired or we will institute impeachment proceedings. Thank you, you are dismissed."

Security code desire. As in I have the desire some Dems would grow some cojones.

TheraP wrote on May 23, 2007 12:03 PM:

'black' - THIS IS A BLACK DAY!

losing all faith in our govt here....

foobar wrote on May 23, 2007 12:03 PM:

I tell you what. That one and only picture you've used for Goodling doesn't do her justice.

DanInAlabama wrote on May 23, 2007 1:32 PM:

I hope one day someone does her, and the rest of this criminal administration, justice.

Anonymous wrote on May 23, 2007 1:38 PM:

Monica Goodling's lawyer advises her to refer to Karl Rove as his alias: Eidohnry Member.

gotfunny wrote on May 23, 2007 1:56 PM:

It's like a 4-way game of keep away. Congress will never get their hands on ball without flipping one of the guys throwing it over their heads. Continuing to fruitlessly chase the ball is a waste of time.

Superior: There is no ball. Oh that ball. He's got it. I mean if it exist. Look I didn't think of the ball before this so I can't say. But if it exist, he's got it. How do I know that? I don't recall how sir.

Subordinate: I had the ball, but he's got it now. And I only had it because I was told to. Where did it come from? Not from me, it may have come from him and him and him but I'm not sure. How do you know this? I don't recall sir.

(Repeat and Rinse 3 times or more)

Democrats: You mean after all of these investigations we have no balls?

Public: Yep.

It's time to take action whether its indictments or impeachments. Who's scared of censures or no confindence votes when the reason for such action is their ignoring Congress and the rule of law to begin with.

It reminds me of a clueless mother who finds her kid with a pack of cigarettes. She tries to centure him & talk out of getting into such things fearing they are gateways to other bad things without ever knowing the kid way beyond that point. He is already a major drug addit and a drug dealer. Mom can't put it all together. Dad can, but Dad can't convince Mom to accept it and make Junior to stop using. So Mom continues to tell Junior she is losing faith in him and smoking is bad while Junior denies everything while at the sametime being stoned to the bone.

Al wrote on May 23, 2007 1:57 PM:

I'm just a simple little Christian girl trying to do good. They gave me the title "White House Laison" but they really didn't mean it. I never talked to Mr. Rove or Ms. Meier. Everyone kept me in the dark. Ohh, I do wish I could help. I just love to help...

Anonymous wrote on May 23, 2007 2:48 PM:

Point is, I think, to get her to admit that she broke the law. Later if she is shown to have lied elsewhere, her immunity disappears.

jdw wrote on May 23, 2007 3:49 PM:

She points at Kyle. So it becomes rather obvious that one has to hammer Sampson into revealing:

(a) how each person got added to the lists he compiled (and that number is up around 30 names now); and

(b) for all the documents supporting those additions and deletions

His own testimony is that he was the keeper of the lists. "Who else should Congress go to for answers and documentation on this information?"

John