Comments (58)

Yellow Dog wrote on May 23, 2007 4:30 PM:

Paul: You're doing yeoman's work with these speed-of-light postings, but please - it's "their" last meeting, not "they're."

Woodhall Hollow wrote on May 23, 2007 4:32 PM:

I am wondering how Davis was tipped off about the existence of this conversation and Monica's discomfort. Did Dowd hold it out as a carrot to get her immunity?

Whatever it was, it seemed like the rethugs were waiting for this to come out. Noticed how Lundgren went into action the instant Dowd stood up.

Davis was great--refused to be defensive or intimidated in any way.

David in NY wrote on May 23, 2007 4:38 PM:

I am aware of someone who was just convicted of witness tampering for this kind of activity based on a phone call comparing recollections.

Anonymous wrote on May 23, 2007 4:38 PM:

Wow. Monica sure was earning her money as -
"SENIOR COUNSELOR TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL"

Anonymous wrote on May 23, 2007 4:38 PM:

Wow. Monica sure was earning her money as -
"SENIOR COUNSELOR TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL"

Anonymous wrote on May 23, 2007 4:42 PM:

Echoes of Scooter/Cheney.

Hoppy wrote on May 23, 2007 4:44 PM:

A 33 year old graduate of a highly suspect "law" school is "senior counselor to the USAG"? Whatever her duties were, we can certainly be sure they had nothing to do with legal work. It looks very much like she was chosen to be a sacrificial lamb, just in case one was needed.

brandon wrote on May 23, 2007 4:46 PM:

Awesome work by Rep. Davis!

AG clearly guilty of perjury.

christomento wrote on May 23, 2007 4:46 PM:

Looking forward to what Greg Palast will add to this.

Security Code - story

hwc wrote on May 23, 2007 4:48 PM:

The Republicans went nuts before this point in the Davis questioning. They hopped up and started trying to stop the proceedings when Davis was asking, and Goodling was confirming, that three specific claims by Gonzales were "inaccurate".

Davis was walking right up to perjury issues for Gonzales and the Repubs tried to stop it.

It was after all that brouhaha that Davis pursued the "obstruction of justice" line of questioning in the video linked above.

Two additional dems gave their five minutes to Davis to continue his questioning.

osage wrote on May 23, 2007 4:49 PM:

Right! During her request for a job transfer Gonzales initiated a conversation with Goodling about HIS recollections of probative events relating to a current on-going Congressional investigation into HIS potential illegal firings of United States Attorneys because HE is a VERY KIND MAN? Absolutely beyond rational belief!

levelland wrote on May 23, 2007 4:50 PM:

She caught on to Davis's line of questioning about half way and started to clam up a bit when she realized that he was really talking about Gonzalas.

She is very chatty, violating the first rule of of depositions...only answer the questions and no more. I wouldn't be surprised that a thorough review of her transcribed testimony will not reveal something I bet she didn't intend to say.

JNagarya wrote on May 23, 2007 4:51 PM:

"I am wondering how Davis was tipped off about the existence of this conversation and Monica's discomfort. Did Dowd hold it out as a carrot to get her immunity?

"Whatever it was, it seemed like the rethugs were waiting for this to come out. Noticed how Lundgren went into action the instant Dowd stood up.

"Davis was great--refused to be defensive or intimidated in any way.

"Posted by: Woodhall Hollow
Date: May 23, 2007 04:32 PM"

The three most important lines of question asked were by Jackson Lee, and the Reps. from AL and MN. Stuff about voting fraud and Native Americans, and the juicy stuff about Polouse is now getting into the record.

One of the most important results of Goodling's testimony is that it raises some good questions and leads. IF the strategy is to get the principles fighting among themselves, pointing fingers at each other, based wholly upon CYA, it is working.

I don't see Goodling as lying. I see her as largly honest. The impediment is her "hear, see, speak no evil" attitude. It was when she was pinned down to finally giving her opinion -- that, yes, Gonzo is a liar -- and when she admitted having broke the law, that she was closest to tears: she had to almost face the fact that she, too, is capable of evil; that violating the law, even if only the law of man, is wrong.

As a day like this wears on, its gets tiring, and therefore more difficult to not just say, "Okay, alright, I'll tell the whole story -- just please don't interupt so I can get it out."

Good, though, the details about her going to the Senate with McNulty (?), then being told by him to leave, else it might raise questions about the White House. If she is trying to save her ass, she is helping to drag the WH into it. And that bit of testimony about Rove in that meeting was a goody.

Now: what are the unredacted documents she has? And did she finally turn them over to the Committee? As evidence of good faith?

Anonymous wrote on May 23, 2007 4:51 PM:

Hey fix that typo. It's not They're last meeting.

JGabriel wrote on May 23, 2007 4:52 PM:

PAul Kiel @ top: "Goodling's testimony is sure to lead to questions about whether Gonzales was trying to tamper with a witness of a congressional investigation."

More than that -- Gonzales testified before the Senate that he'd had no such conversations, because he'd recused himself from the matter and didn't want to taint his testimony as a fact witness.

Sounds like a potential perjury charge.

JNagarya wrote on May 23, 2007 4:59 PM:

"More than that -- Gonzales testified before the Senate that he'd had no such conversations, because he'd recused himself from the matter and didn't want to taint his testimony as a fact witness.

"Sounds like a potential perjury charge.

"Posted by: JGabriel
Date: May 23, 2007 04:52 PM"

Gonzo is cooked fifteen ways from Sunday. Fried.

And McNulty and Sampson are gonna have continuing problems. Time to schedule subpoenaed testimony from them again. And Gonzo.

And with Hertling.

Damn, she named a bunch of people who need to testify under oath.

spinn wrote on May 23, 2007 5:04 PM:

Didn't AG repeatedly say he didn't talk to people about any of this? Because he's a "fact witness" and didn't want to influence anyone's testimony, or something?

cacambo wrote on May 23, 2007 5:15 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.

Paul wrote on May 23, 2007 5:17 PM:

Well, I heard that when Clinton was the president, he fired over 100 prosecutor.
How is this number compared with the number here?

Why no one is questioning about Cliton?
Liberals are miserable.

W Action wrote on May 23, 2007 5:28 PM:

Paul, where'd you hear that?

David Brooks wrote on May 23, 2007 5:28 PM:

"Well, I heard that when Clinton was the president, he fired over 100 prosecutor."

Oh, no, not this one again.

It is routine for an incoming President to ask for the resignation of USAs. In their first two years, Reagan and Clinton both replaced 89, and Bush I replaced 88. Only two attorneys were dismissed 1981-2006, both under Reagan. Neither Reagan nor Clinton sought to remove USAs that they had themselves appointed, but two under Clinton resigned rather than be fired for cause.

But then I doubt the troll is still listening.

Anonymous wrote on May 23, 2007 5:29 PM:

Wow, cacambo sounds like someone who has really done his homework on this story. Full of intellectual honesty. Fair and balanced.

Bearpaw wrote on May 23, 2007 5:29 PM:

"Well, I heard that when Clinton was the president, he fired over 100 prosecutor. How is this number compared with the number here?"

Ye gods, there's still someone out there who thinks that's a clever question.

Anonymous wrote on May 23, 2007 5:30 PM:

"Well, I heard that when Clinton was the president, he fired over 100 prosecutor.
How is this number compared with the number here?

Why no one is questioning about Cliton?
Liberals are miserable."

please stop teh stupid

Anonymous wrote on May 23, 2007 5:30 PM:

Sorry, I meant Paul, I think. We all know which one---the troll.

>> Wow, cacambo sounds like someone who has really done his homework on this story. Full of intellectual honesty. Fair and balanced.

David Brooks wrote on May 23, 2007 5:34 PM:

"Bush I replaced 88"... apologies; make that Bush II (43).

pallewog wrote on May 23, 2007 5:34 PM:

Dear Ralph....I mean Paul,

Do your homework please.

"...tastes like burning."

Pompano Pete Jr wrote on May 23, 2007 5:38 PM:

Paul, that is a totally pathetic comment.

But, you have a right to pursue such an investigation. But, before anyone responds to your question, perhaps you could clarify a few points.

How many of those 100 alleged fired prosecutors talked among themselves and discovered that none of them could identify any cause for their dismissals? How many Clinton USAs contacted Congress to indicate that they believed their firings were improper?

Remember, every one of the fired prosecutors were appointed by Bush based on their qualifications and, I assume, their standing as good Republicans in their local communities. Yet, every one of them believes they were treated improperly. How did that happen? And when has something like this taken place at any time in our history.

Finally, USAs are nominated by the highest ranking elected official of the President's party in the state. Usually, 4 names are submitted, and the WH selects one from that list. Why was that process completely ignored after the 2004 elections?

I don't expect you to respond in that it would take a modicum of knowledge about what happened, and all you have are talking points.

Eric wrote on May 23, 2007 5:38 PM:

I can't believe Conyers didn't give the 15 min. the Dem's had to Rep. Davis of Alabama, the only onw who seemed to get to the point with his questions.
MY GOD!

Hank Gillette wrote on May 23, 2007 5:58 PM:

I still can't believe that some of the Republicans on the committee were still dragging out the "Clinton fired 93 U.S. Attorneys" talking point. Isn't there anyone who can bury this by pointing out that all recent presidents have replaced most or all U. S. Attorneys after taking office?

UnEasyOne wrote on May 23, 2007 5:59 PM:

Monica has some memory problems herself. She didn't remember who said a lot of really key things. I loved how Davis made it clear that her secondary purpose (after cya) was to protect the AG. Her reluctance to answer many of his questions made it perfectly clear that she was NOT being "open and candid." I wish that instead of each member grandstanding they would designate one member (Davis) or staff council to do the questioning. There were only a couple of times they laid a glove on her. Lack of continuity was the biggest reason for that.

Hank Essay wrote on May 23, 2007 6:03 PM:

Sounds like Big Dog Clinton's "memory refresh" with Betty Currie that sent the right wing thug noise machine into a tizzy about witness tampering during the impeachment insanity...I seem to remember that this conversation was portrayed as the worst thing ever to happen in American history...

I imagine we will be hearing similar voices of concern about this witness tampering and obstruction and justice...right?

irina wrote on May 23, 2007 6:27 PM:

I love and respect Congressman Conyers. He started protecting US citizens from ELECTION fraud just after the theft of votes using Diebold by Rove in the fake 2004 Presidential "election". And he kept at it, even though Kerry disappeared for months after he conceded BEFORE the votes were even counted. Pressuring Kerry to sign off on the legal papers so that an attempt at an honest recount, then investigation after the recount was halted and at least, in New Mexico - they started destroying records even though they are supposed to keep sign-in sheets and ballots for a year after an election.

He put up with senselessbrenners insults, including not allowing a ranking member of the Judiciary to have a meeting room for a hearing on the theft of America votes and having to meet in a basement.

Conyers is a true American hero and I will send a snail mail of my appreciation for his work on our behalf.

He seems to be under some great pressure and we all know how the bush regime aka the mafia treats people who try to hold them accountable. I shut off the repukes when they start speaking and the repukes are unbelievable in their turning oversight into a sickening circus. I could not stay in the same room with them for one hour and Conyers has been putting up with the shit we witnessed today for decades and remains one of the very, very few honorable men in our Congress.

pirate jenny wrote on May 23, 2007 6:27 PM:

As an attorney, she should damn well know what made her "uncomfortable" during her conversation with Gonzales.

SC: "school"
as in the only difference between Regent Law School and Harvard is that the former doesn't bother teaching students about witness tampering. Yeah, right.

Anonymous wrote on May 23, 2007 6:29 PM:

I'm concerned about "recollections": recall the meeting [different issue, but similar] with the page scandal.

Recall there was "concern" that there was a meeting where people were asked to review what they remembered; one stood up and said this wasn ot appropriate. The problem is when people get to gether -- after they know they're going to be called to testify, or suspect they will be called -- to review their memories, make their stories consistent.

In theory, the witnesses are not stupposed to have coordinated their recollections; rather, it is the job of the jury to decide what most likely happened, and to use the inconsistences as they deem feet to discredit witnesses, ignore testimony, or use the inconsistencies to ask for more clarification.

Getting to the AG-Goodling meeting, let's consider the issue: Gonzalez asserted X, Y, Z during testimony; and others have asserted that it was not true. Rather, Sampson said in so many words that the AG had not been candid; this was worse when the Nov 2006 meeting-memoranda surfaced showing the AG was involved.

Consider the meeting AG had with GOodling: Did Goodling recall AG discussing his "recollections" on omsething that the workflows in the DOJ about the November 2006 meeting [where AG confirmed he was delegating the decision]; and how does the meeting with the DOJ Staff related to the Nov2006 decision relate to what AG Gonzalez said to Goodling.

My problem with the supposeded meeting with GOnzalez-GOodling is that Gonzalez supposedly left impressions with GOodling. The key issue is: If we contrast what AG said under oath, with what the workflows said about the Nov2006 meetings, with the delegation letter; it's unclera what AG coordinated with Goodling on.

Bluntly, it appears as though the AG when he testified about what had or happened in Jan2007 [and this was later disrpoven], and contrast with this with the problem with the Nov2006 meeting, I don't see how the AG could possibly have a "meaningful" discussion with Goodling over what he did or didn't recall.

Rather, it appears -- and this may be the obvious implication -- because AG made inconsitente statemetents between [a] what he said happened; and [b] what is documented, there is no way that AG could have possibly have a reasonable story with GOodling over what he "recollected." It doesn't add up.

The only reasonable conclusion -- give the AG appearent perjury [given the inconstency between what he said, the workflows, and the delegation letter, and the Nov2006 meeting] that regardless what AG said to Goodling, it's not a reasonable assertion of what he most likley remembered.

Rather, what will be interesting is to compare [a] what was in the workflows; [b] what wasi n the delegation letter to sampson; and [c] what Goodling _documented_ the AG said. If, as it appears, the AG has lied, then if we compare what the AG is reported to have said with the evidence of what most likely happened, we'll get an idea of whether the AG most likely intended to mislead Goodling; and to what extent -- given the short time between the Nov-Jan events and teh AG-Goodling meeting -- whether AG did or did not correctly report information to GOodling about what as going on.

EH wrote on May 23, 2007 6:34 PM:

Funny how many people are effectively sidetracking the thread due to one person's hit-and-run "Clinton Did It!" Figure it out: that's why people bring up Clinton (again), because Dems can't control their instinct to defend him even if the mention is completely out of context. For some reason, a lot of people find themselves physically incapable of resisting this power.

UnEasyOne wrote on May 23, 2007 6:47 PM:

Goodling is slick and has a very convenient memory. Note that the "White House Liason" never talked to anybody about that list. Uh huh. Then she's at a big meeting at the White House. Rove speaks - once. She has no memory of what he says. She should be asked who else was at that meeting - maybe their memories would be better. Time and again, she remembered that things were said, but didn't remember who said them.

I think that we (or at least I) have underestimated her. This was a classic example of "plausible deniability." Anything that might be proved otherwise, she admitted. Other things she was vague about - except the one conversation with Gonzolez. Makes me wonder why she would expose him to a witness tampering charge - is there an email? A tape? What?

phil james wrote on May 23, 2007 7:01 PM:

Poster says: A 33 year old graduate of a highly suspect "law" school is "senior counselor to the USAG"? Whatever her duties were, we can certainly be sure they had nothing to do with legal work. It looks very much like she was chosen to be a sacrificial lamb, just in case one was needed.
-------
No. No. She got immunity remember. She turns out to be the slick one. She has covered her ass very well indeed, knowing full well the s was going to hit the f. Gonzo is the moron sycophant who she just testified is guilty of witness tampering. As long as the goat Gonzo is swinging in the wind...turdblossom has cover.

David Brooks wrote on May 23, 2007 7:02 PM:

Not defending Clinton per se - Reagan did it! - but putting the unprecedented nature of the recent events into sharper focus. Thanks for the opportunity, troll.

Anonymous wrote on May 23, 2007 7:04 PM:

A Goodling. I love that one. Thanks goes to Cacambo for such a great explanation! She's definitely a righteous underling. Bush, Cheney, Rove and Gonzo are thugs abusing their power. Poor dear just wanted to please her President, and can't be blamed. What a bunch of crap. She's not THAT stupid, she's a lawyer, albeit a very questionable one. She knew exactly what was happening. We all do.

lysias wrote on May 23, 2007 7:21 PM:

Goodling's testimony was requested by the House Judiciary Committee on March 8th? I guess we know, then, why she broke down in Margolis's office that day.

Jane wrote on May 23, 2007 9:30 PM:

So why wasn't Gonzo included in her opening statement and cited as having lied about not talking to fact witnesses such as herself? She seems to have a meme that if it is done by someone she likes it is not a lie.

Gonzo going on about his recollections of that a certain USAG was fired for X reasons which made her uncomfortable because she knew, as she started to say she had told him (I need the transcript) that the USAG was fired for reasons Y. Now she knows what was common knowledge in the DOJ and she may well know specific things that Gonzo was told but rather than confirm to Davis that Gonzo lied she weasels --- well, maybe he was talking about a different time frame -- well, I can't say what was in his mind and maybe that was his recollection.

By that standard I fail to see why she cut the shower for the unwed mother -- for all Goodling knew the woman thought she was married. Any bets as to whether she attended a shower for the Cheney boy?

I also bet that if directly asked whether she thought Gonzo was attempting to coach her to say that the firing was for X reasons when she knew it was Y I think she would have said he was just sharing his recollections.

The strict Christian method for lying is to provide the truth and nothing but the truth but not the whole truth. To illustrate, there is an old tale in a set of histories by Stoddard about the attorney faced by a strict Presbyterian witness who claimed that a will had been signed at a point when the attorney was certain the testator was already dead. The statement of the witness was that the testator had life within him at the point that the will was signed. The attorney thought hard and then asked if the deceased had a live fly within his mouth. The witness confirmed that this was so and that this was the life within in him. Be very very careful in dealing with witnesses with this mind set.

kavh wrote on May 23, 2007 9:56 PM:

In response to Rep Watt's (D-NC) questioning why MG took name of mid-NC USA off the firing list (twice)--MG said that she "was really helpful" and "responsive" to DOJ's requests for assistance. This USA was "helpful" when Monica asked for assistance w/reauthorization of the Patriot Act.

What could a federal prosecutor DO to assist with reauthorization of the Patriot Act??

Anonymous wrote on May 23, 2007 11:28 PM:

So if Gonzo told Monica what he remembered, but then subsequently 'could not recall.' Wouldn't Monica then be able to remember for him? Did anyone ask specifically what AG said to her at that meeting?

JNagarya wrote on May 24, 2007 1:16 AM:

"Monica has some memory problems herself. She didn't remember who said a lot of really key things. I loved how Davis made it clear that her secondary purpose (after cya) was to protect the AG. Her reluctance to answer many of his questions made it perfectly clear that she was NOT being "open and candid." I wish that instead of each member grandstanding they would designate one member (Davis) or staff council to do the questioning. There were only a couple of times they laid a glove on her. Lack of continuity was the biggest reason for that.

"Posted by: UnEasyOne
Date: May 23, 2007 05:59 PM"

You don't get it.

1. Her layer's foremost ethical responsibility is to protect his client -- even from the client. He has done an excelent job in that regard.

2. Goodling plead the 5th because she has no idea where she is, as concerns context. She's a dove in a pool of sharks. Her layer's responsibility is to save her ass.

3. The is honest. And obedient -- stability-seeking. But she doesn't yet know where to put her feet. Give her some assurance, emotional security, and room, and she'll lay it all out.

ASnd stop trying to hang a victim, a discard who has been cut loose. Or are you about distracting from getting those who cut her loose?

JNagarya wrote on May 24, 2007 1:23 AM:

"Monica has some memory problems herself. She didn't remember who said a lot of really key things. I loved how Davis made it clear that her secondary purpose (after cya) was to protect the AG. Her reluctance to answer many of his questions made it perfectly clear that she was NOT being "open and candid." I wish that instead of each member grandstanding they would designate one member (Davis) or staff council to do the questioning. There were only a couple of times they laid a glove on her. Lack of continuity was the biggest reason for that.

"Posted by: UnEasyOne
Date: May 23, 2007 05:59 PM"

It's not complicated. She said it up front. She's honest; but her impediment -- to this point -- is that she doesn't want to say anything "negative" about anyone. Once oriented -- no longer disoriented -- she'll have only one issue to confront in herself: Why she doesn't want to tell the truth when it's "negative".

Stop beating up on a victim who has been cut loose to sink or swim.

JNagarya wrote on May 24, 2007 1:30 AM:

"Goodling is slick and has a very convenient memory. Note that the "White House Liason" never talked to anybody about that list. Uh huh. Then she's at a big meeting at the White House. Rove speaks - once. She has no memory of what he says. She should be asked who else was at that meeting - maybe their memories would be better. Time and again, she remembered that things were said, but didn't remember who said them.

"I think that we (or at least I) have underestimated her. This was a classic example of "plausible deniability." Anything that might be proved otherwise, she admitted. Other things she was vague about - except the one conversation with Gonzolez. Makes me wonder why she would expose him to a witness tampering charge - is there an email? A tape? What?

"Posted by: UnEasyOne
Date: May 23, 2007 06:47 PM"

I think you're clueless. You "think" -- belief is not "think" -- what you want, and that's the end of it for you.

She's not a liar. But she is disoriented. And she's in denial about saying anything :"egative" about anyone. Once her lawyer gets through to her that there are liars in the world, she'll begin to deal with the reality that not saying anything "negative" is a foeshortening of the full truth.

Conyers is wise enough to recognize that. We don't do lynch-mob "justice" -- Bushit does.

SC = sharp. As in, be sharp, or be presumtuous.

The Oracle wrote on May 24, 2007 2:09 AM:

Gaaawwwddd, Monica Goodling looks like Ann Coulter.

Same hair stylist? Same makeup artist? Same spin coaches?

The likeness is uncanny.

anon wrote on May 24, 2007 2:32 AM:

MG: But, he then proceeded to say, ah, "Let me tell you what I can remember" um, and he kinda, he laid out for me his general recollection of

Rep. Davis: Recollection of what, Miss Gooding?

MG: Of some of the process

Rep. Davis: Some of the process regarding what?

MG: Some of the process regarding the a, the replacement of the US attorneys, uhm, and he, he just, he had a, he laid out a little bit of it and he asked me if I thought, if I had any reaction to his iteration, and I remember thinking at that point that this was something that we were all going to have to talk about and I didn't know that it was, I just, I didn't know that it was maybe appropriate for us to talk about that at that point so I just didn't, as far as I can remember I just didn't respond.

ritikatootie wrote on May 24, 2007 2:53 AM:

I love the way the dems saved the last conversation with gonzales until they were the last questioners on the committee. No repubs there had any time left to defend the gonzales/goodling goodbye gabfest.

Oh, Lundgren jumped up and down on some point of order but no one was left with time to draw some concession that maybe goodling's recollections were muddled by her emotions (or whatever). The dems had a full 15 to 20 minute exclusive to discuss this issue.

This conversation was damaging to gonzo and I think it will resonate.

PJ White wrote on May 24, 2007 7:56 AM:

Gonzales is a goner. Guilty of witness tampering, obstruction, perjury, and who knows what else. The danger is that he will resign on Fri afternoon and Bush will make a recess appointment when Congress is on Mem Day holiday. BIG DANGER!

PJ White wrote on May 24, 2007 8:03 AM:

JNagarya, for the most part I agree with you. Monica seems clueless. She is someone who was ambitious and was given a job, based on loyalty and apparently naivete, that she was not up to. Now, she does have to defend herself. However, someone has to pay her legal fees, or contribute to the fund that will pay them. Who would that be, I wonder? Would willingness to help her be based on how well she protects her 'heroes'?

Jane wrote on May 24, 2007 8:31 AM:

If the Rethuglicans had been investigating rather than committing political hari-kari on behalf of Bushco they could have asked Monica anything they wanted any time they wanted instead of sending puffball questions. Mostly, they asked her to confirm that she saw now evil, heard no evil, did no evil.

The Rethuglicans strategy was inept and they dug the pit they fell into instead of inquiring earlier in the hearing as to what DOJ had been up to.

The picture of Monica from her fellow workers who have dealt with her for years as a little tin pot dictator is probably accurate. They have far more information than we do. A typical little authoritarian is a wind vane for power. She will kick those who are down and be sweet to those in power -- hence the little lost girl act for the committee. JNagaraya, you fell for it. She isn't somebody who is doing bad things because she is clueless, she is clueless so that she can do bad things without taking responsibility or recognizing her sense of entitlement (Shut out and sent home in a taxi--gasp!-- and drops the offender in the soup in a way she doesn't drop the AG who was doing far worse to our Country). Then she wonders why she feel queasy and can't quite say straight out what she is thinking.

Joe wrote on May 24, 2007 10:00 AM:

These exchanges offer an excellent illustration of what an effective prosecutor can accomplish examining a witness, particularly if given the time. The each-member-gets-five-minutes protocol is ineffective and often tedious and embarrassing when it comes to trying to elicit information from well-rehearsed/briefed witnesses.

And do I not recall Gonzales in his testimony clearly expressing his understanding of the impropriety of his having certain discussions with "fact witnesses"? I seem to recall that he actually used this as an excuse for his ignorance of pertinent facts.

Roy wrote on May 24, 2007 10:41 AM:

As an Alabamian, I have always been proud to have Congressman Davis represent my state. His performance yesterday reinforces that pride.

Ward wrote on May 24, 2007 11:15 AM:

I think Jane is right in both her comments.

I had a long-term girl friend (a southerner) for whom maintaining her reputation for innocence was the most important part of her core personality. And she lied in exactly this way.

I also think that this sort of person, given power, is likely to use it badly ("tin-pot dictator.")

I don't agree with JNagaraya that Monica is basically innocent. I do agree with him that the focus should be kept on those with real power in this situation.

azbill wrote on May 24, 2007 8:17 PM:

This clueless little twit was WHITE HOUSE LIASON but she never heard from somebody in the WH?? All very strange and of course not true.

When are the next hearings regarding "caging" by the Repulsive party? They have been under court order not to cage again. Looks like KKKarl's buddy he got a job for in Little Rock needs to be called into Congress to ask him what he knows about caging.

Next they need to IMPEACH Abu Gonzales. He is a criminal and should not be heading the justice department. A good person (wink) for that job would be Sen.Orin Hatch. That great (wink) senator from the good Mormon state of Utah. At least he wouldn't be in the senate anymore.

Bill wrote on June 12, 2007 5:09 PM:

MSN I NIIPET
MSN