« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
So -- the day we'd been waiting for has come and gone. The major points are clear by now:
1) Goodling, as directly as she could, accused the deputy attorney general of perjuring himself in testimony to Congress.
2) She said that, in their last conversation, the attorney general had tried to check his recollection of the firing process with her. This was after Congress had requested to interview her, leading to the conclusion that Gonzales was trying to shape her recollection. For his part, Gonzales, through his spokesman, says he was only trying to "comfort her in a very difficult period of her life."
3) She admitted to breaking the law by applying a political litmus test to non-political career positions at the Justice Department, including assistant U.S. attorneys -- that litmus test even included checking applicants' political contributions. She couldn't say just how many times she'd done this, and it was unclear who, if anyone, had told her to do this.
4) Even though she described herself as having a major role in the firing process, she knew remarkably little about it. In fact, she gave the inescapable impression that those involved in the process avoided talking about the reasons for the firings -- or, at least, with the exception of the now-famous brainstorming sessions that took place after Congress started asking questions, reasons certainly were not volunteered. When Goodling herself asked in a meeting who'd put U.S. Attorney for New Mexico David Iglesias on the firing list (this was in February), a voice said "that's been addressed." She says she can't remember who said that.
With the exception of the meeting with Gonzales, Goodling unloaded all of this in her first minutes of testimony. And as Dahlia Lithwick points out in her column today, the hearing was largely characterized after that by what was left unsaid:
In that first few hours, Goodling manages to give committee Democrats both too much and too little to wrap their heads around. She testifies that former Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty gave false and misleading testimony to the Senate with regard to the U.S. attorney purge. She took the Fifth, she says, because of McNulty's inaccurate testimony, plus the "ambiguous environment" of the hearings, and not because of any crime of her own. She testifies that her role as White House liaison has been overblown. She had little contact with the White House (or Karl Rove or Harriet Miers) about the names on the list of U.S. attorneys who were fired but concedes that the White House was extensively involved ("several departments signed off") in the process. She talks about the "final decisionmakers" without ever quite naming them. She puts her former bosses Kyle Sampson, McNulty, and Gonzales in the room as the arbiters of the "list." But almost nobody sees fit to ask follow-up questions about how the list was made, what criteria were used, and what exactly the White House did to play along. Nobody asks why she cried when she quit, what she made of those e-mails, or much of anything at all about Alberto Gonzales.Finally, Goodling takes complete blame for having "crossed the line"—even the legal line, i.e., the civil-service rules—by asking "political questions of applicants for career positions." In response to a question from Bobby Scott, D-Va., she adds, "But I didn't mean to." Oh. Well then, that's OK....
Democrats who might have pursued the leads she floated about the White House role in the firings stop asking these questions once Goodling fails to implicate Rove. They are so blindsided by her admission of injecting politics into her own hiring practices that they forget to ask who else at the DoJ might have directed her to do so, or done so themselves.
The Democrats have five more days to ask follow-up questions of Goodling. There's still plenty of ground to cover.
Comments (132)
uncle vester wrote on May 24, 2007 10:24 AM:Well they better sh*t or get off the pot, for the good of the (sc) nation. Make Arthur Davis point man.
Kirk Tofte wrote on May 24, 2007 10:25 AM:What about her written testimony regarding "caging" practices?
bordersmuggler wrote on May 24, 2007 10:25 AM:Paul Kane reports in WaPo about the Dowd feed to Arthur Davis.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2007/05/goodlings_lawyer_told_dems_to.html
Emptywheel suggests a reason for the seeming sacrifice of Gonzales:
"Dowd may have done this as a soft proffer, a guarantee that there'd be enough in Monica's testimony to merit the immunity. And he may have directed Monica's testimony into topics that are somewhat damning to the AG, but not lethal. In any case, it raises interesting questions about whom Dowd is serving here."
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/05/monicas_loyalti.html
DB wrote on May 24, 2007 10:26 AM:I thought Lithwick's story in Slate was very accurate, though I didn't follow all of the testimony. Goodling was very sharp, very poised and very well prepared I thought, as much as I disagree with her and the forces she served. I do think she bamboozled many of the Democrats, and her fawners from the GOP went ahead with their unction despite the crimes and misdeeds she "confessed" to. Pretty interesting event. what comes next?
TheraP wrote on May 24, 2007 10:27 AM:If the "comfort" of gonzales makes even a republican zealot "uncomfortable," then it is definitely:
TIME. FOR gonzales. TO GO.
tgr wrote on May 24, 2007 10:29 AM:uncle vester -- you said it!
Talk about an exercise in hair-tearing frustration. Did someone slip the Koo-Aid into the Democrats coffee?
SC: keep -- as in, keep asking, dammit.
hwd wrote on May 24, 2007 10:30 AM:Criminals in this USA can take comfort. If all these people running the DOJ are telling the "truth" it's safe to say they are not competent enough to prosecute anyone successfully.
Pete wrote on May 24, 2007 10:30 AM:On the whole it was a poor performance by Congressional Democrats, who as Lithwick points out, failed to ask the most important follow-up questions. I hope Goodling will still appear before the Senate, because I would like to see her questioned by a really sharp legal mind like Sheldon Whitehouse.
And why did Republicans continue to thank her for her service after she admitted to breaking the law in the course of doing her job? It's like a board of directors thanking a CEO who has admitted to embezzling from the company. It just shows how twisted the priorities of Republicans have become.
Max wrote on May 24, 2007 10:31 AM:Why is everyone ignoring her comment in the opening statement concerning "Caging"? I expected the MSM to ignore the statement. Silly me, I expected more out of this site.
linda wrote on May 24, 2007 10:36 AM:i am appalled at how ill-prepared the democrats are. i really expected conyers to have greater control over the line of questioning. and frankly, i find it infurtiating all the kiss-ass commentary prefacing many of the democrats' questions -- poor miss monica, has to sit before the committee for all these hours. get to the goddamned point and nail these bastards for their subversion of the agencies of the federal government. what the fuck is it going to take to get these people to understand the threat these republicans pose to the country.
gtash wrote on May 24, 2007 10:40 AM:No. It's time to pour the heat on Goodling. Gonzales appears more and more to me as a mere functionary of White House offices and personnel. The Committee is needs to focus on getting the names; then getting their testimony, notes, and emails; and they also need to quit fooling around about subpoenas for all those folks the White House claims will interview out of sight and off the record. All of them. Now. Gonzales is a diversion; he is not the problem. This is so plain now. McNulty and Sampson---sideshows. RNC emails---vital. Links to Lam's removal--vital.
ww wrote on May 24, 2007 10:40 AM:Code = "bent" as in "hell-bent" to get at the truth.
Max,
So give, complainer. What's your comment on Monica's "opening statement concerning 'Caging'"?
TheraP wrote on May 24, 2007 10:43 AM:Pete:
It's like everybody, legislators from both sides of the aisle, are behaving like the cowed victims of abuse.
That's what worries me here. It's Stockholm Syndrome - and you see it on both sides of the aisle.
Not only that, but like victims, who yearn for rescue but then turn on their rescuers and vent all the anger they wanted to vent on the abusers, we see people becoming enraged at and tearing apart even the dems who are trying to right the wrongs.
So, a combination of Stockholm Syndrome, on the one hand, and venting rage at those who are trying to be helpful on the other hand.
We need to stand up, be strong, and not tear each other apart - as we search for REALISTIC solutions to the problems at hand.
End of sermon.
illinitarheel wrote on May 24, 2007 10:43 AM:One thing that caught my attention in her testimony was her comment that the AG's evaluation of U.S. Attorneys depended partly on how "responsive" they were to the AG, and one way to be responsive was to write op-eds when they were asked to. Thus apparently she and others in the AG's asked the Attorneys to write op-eds, which it is logical to assume were political in nature. Is this proper? Seems one more example of how the whole operation became increasingly politicized. I'm sorry no one on the committee followed up on this. Am I imagining a problem that doesn't exist?
Code "bent" -- and they certainly were!
Vlad wrote on May 24, 2007 10:43 AM:In her opening statement she claims that she never "had a conversation" with Rove or Miers, and "never spoke" to either of them regarding the firings. Would that include email correspondence, I wonder? Was this ever made clear?
Mike Nilsen wrote on May 24, 2007 10:45 AM:When Goodling herself asked in a meeting who'd put U.S. Attorney for New Mexico David Iglesias on the firing list (this was in February), a voice said "that's been addressed." She says she can't remember who said that.
Musta been God.
DW wrote on May 24, 2007 10:45 AM:Yes, I am an attorney and senior official at the Justice Department of the United States of America and I repeatedly broke the law regarding politicization of hiring at the Dept. But I didn't MEAN to. And Kyle said it was okay. Now Mom says I can't stay up late and watch Hannity. But I didn't MEAN TO!
Yellow Dog wrote on May 24, 2007 10:46 AM:Tolja.
That's exactly how my old boss used to do it. Barbie looks, little-girl voice, perfect balance of smarts and false modesty to keep 'em off-balance.
She's the one, y'all. No way in hell McNulty and Sampson, much less Gonzales, could keep up with her.
Wouldn't surprise me a bit if she has even Rove wrapped around her little finger.
She's IT. Strip her immunity and throw her in jail immediately.
Not to excuse the spineless dems on that committee, but I'm not sure even waterboarding would break that tough cookie.
Gordon wrote on May 24, 2007 10:47 AM:She was very animated when Sanchez asked about McNulty's inaccuracies. Felt she was either running out the clock on her own answer, or perhaps relieved (adrenalin rush) that she had survived some prior line of questioning.
"Ask about the AG" might have been a fair swap of info for distraction, but she had something much stronger if they'd only asked the right question.
(And "caging" is a telemarketing term - separating good addresses from bad? Puhlease!)
bordersmuggler wrote on May 24, 2007 10:47 AM:Remarks by Conyers on dailykos.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/23/184541/682
Frederick wrote on May 24, 2007 10:48 AM:The Democrats in the House don't know how to ask followup questions, the hearings were incomplete.
Anonymous wrote on May 24, 2007 10:49 AM:John Conyers is terrible as head, he stumbles along
haphazardly. The Republicans continued to praise her, even after she admits politics was involved in the hiring
process.
Hope that HJC reads TPM!
More unasked q's. I was cringing listening to the lack of follow up. C'mon, some of this stuff is deposition 101, and there are enough lawyers on HJC they should have been able to get through this. The 5 minute limit is ridiculous.
1) you said Kyle Sampson talked to people to make up the list. WHO did he tell you he talked to? name every person.
2) Why did you put Bogden and Charlton on the list?
3) You said you did not meet with Miers and Rove "about the US attorneys" "while you worked for DOJ". While at DOJ did you meet with Miers and/or Rove for any reason? For what reason? Did you communicate with Miers and/or Rove other than in a meeting while you were at DOJ? For what reason? Did you meet with Miers and/or Rove before or after you worked at DOJ? For what reason?
4) Name every person you can recall who is now at DOJ (career), BIA, etc, whose political bona fides you investigated. Produce any documents you have showing the same.
Sharron wrote on May 24, 2007 10:51 AM:Do witnesses have to be questioned by the congressmen? Let's face it, these people are not elected because of their sharp analytical or questioning skills. They should either delegate the time to one or two who have boned up on the matter or get some committee staffer to do the questioning.
riera18 wrote on May 24, 2007 10:51 AM:BLOGGED BY Greg Palast ON 5/24/2007 12:20AM
Palast Exclusive: The Goods on Goodling and the Keys to the Kingdom
And The No Longer 'Missing' Rove Emails Revealing the Cagey Scheme to Steal 2008...
*** Special to The BRAD BLOG by Greg Palast
This Monica revealed something hotter --- much hotter --- than a stained blue dress. In her opening testimony yesterday before the House Judiciary Committee, Monica Goodling, the blonde-ling underling to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Department of Justice Liaison to the White House, dropped The Big One....And the Committee members didn't even know it.
Goodling testified that Gonzales' Chief of Staff, Kyle Sampson, perjured himself, lying to the committee in earlier testimony. The lie: Sampson denied Monica had told him about Tim Griffin's "involvement in 'caging' voters" in 2004.
Huh?? Tim Griffin? "Caging"???
The perplexed committee members hadn't a clue --- and asked no substantive questions about it thereafter. Karl Rove is still smiling. If the members had gotten the clue, and asked the right questions, they would have found "the keys to the kingdom," they thought they were looking for. They dangled right in front of their perplexed faces.
The keys: the missing emails --- and missing link --- that could send Griffin and his boss, Rove, to the slammer for a long, long time.
Kingdom enough for ya?
But what's 'caging' and why is it such a dreadful secret that lawyer Sampson put his license to practice and his freedom on the line to cover Tim Griffin's involvement in it? Because it's a felony. And a big one.
Our BBC team broke the story at the top of the nightly news everywhere on the planet - except the USA - only because America's news networks simply refused to cover this evidence of the electoral coup d'etat that chose our President in 2004.
Here's how caging worked, and along with Griffin's thoughtful emails themselves you'll understand it all in no time.
The Bush-Cheney operatives sent hundreds of thousands of letters marked "Do not forward" to voters' homes. Letters returned ("caged") were used as evidence to block these voters' right to cast a ballot on grounds they were registered at phony addresses. Who were the evil fakers? Homeless men, students on vacation and --- you got to love this --- American soldiers. Oh yeah: most of them are Black voters.
Why weren't these African-American voters home when the Republican letters arrived? The homeless men were on park benches, the students were on vacation --- and the soldiers were overseas. Go to Baghdad, lose your vote. Mission Accomplished.
How do I know? I have the caging lists...
I have them because they are attached to the emails Rove insists can't be found. I have the emails. 500 of them --- sent to our team at BBC after the Rove-bots accidentally sent them to a web domain owned by our friend John Wooden.
Here's what you need to know --- and the Committee would have discovered, if only they'd asked:
'Caging' voters is a crime, a go-to-jail felony.
Griffin wasn't "involved" in the caging, Ms. Goodling. Griffin, Rove's right-hand man (right-hand claw), was directing the illegal purge and challenge campaign. How do I know? It's in the email I got. Thanks. And it's posted below.
On December 7, 2006, the ragin', cagin' Griffin was named, on Rove's personal demand, US Attorney for Arkansas. Perpetrator became prosecutor.
The committee was perplexed about Monica's panicked admission and accusations about the caging list because the US press never covered it. That's because, as Griffin wrote to Goodling in yet another email (dated February 6 of this year, and also posted below), their caging operation only made the news on BBC London: busted open, Griffin bitched, by that "British reporter," Greg Palast.
There's no pride in this. Our BBC team broke the story at the top of the nightly news everywhere on the planet --- except the USA --- only because America's news networks simply refused to cover this evidence of the electoral coup d'etat that chose our President in 2004.
And now, not bothering to understand the astonishing revelation in Goodling's confessional, they are missing the real story behind the firing of the US attorneys. It's not about removing prosecutors disloyal to Bush, it's about replacing those who refused to aid the theft of the vote in 2004 with those prepared to burgle it again in 2008.
Now that they have the keys, let's see if they can put them in the right door. The clock is ticking ladies and gents...
===
Greg Palast is the author of the New York Times bestseller, Armed Madhouse: from Baghdad to New Orleans - Sordid Secrets and Strange Tales of a White House Gone WILD. For more info, or to hear Brad Friedman, Ed Asner and other troublemakers read from Armed Madhouse, go to www.GregPalast.com
riera18 wrote on May 24, 2007 10:51 AM:BLOGGED BY Greg Palast ON 5/24/2007 12:20AM
Palast Exclusive: The Goods on Goodling and the Keys to the Kingdom
And The No Longer 'Missing' Rove Emails Revealing the Cagey Scheme to Steal 2008...
*** Special to The BRAD BLOG by Greg Palast
This Monica revealed something hotter --- much hotter --- than a stained blue dress. In her opening testimony yesterday before the House Judiciary Committee, Monica Goodling, the blonde-ling underling to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Department of Justice Liaison to the White House, dropped The Big One....And the Committee members didn't even know it.
Goodling testified that Gonzales' Chief of Staff, Kyle Sampson, perjured himself, lying to the committee in earlier testimony. The lie: Sampson denied Monica had told him about Tim Griffin's "involvement in 'caging' voters" in 2004.
Huh?? Tim Griffin? "Caging"???
The perplexed committee members hadn't a clue --- and asked no substantive questions about it thereafter. Karl Rove is still smiling. If the members had gotten the clue, and asked the right questions, they would have found "the keys to the kingdom," they thought they were looking for. They dangled right in front of their perplexed faces.
The keys: the missing emails --- and missing link --- that could send Griffin and his boss, Rove, to the slammer for a long, long time.
Kingdom enough for ya?
But what's 'caging' and why is it such a dreadful secret that lawyer Sampson put his license to practice and his freedom on the line to cover Tim Griffin's involvement in it? Because it's a felony. And a big one.
Our BBC team broke the story at the top of the nightly news everywhere on the planet - except the USA - only because America's news networks simply refused to cover this evidence of the electoral coup d'etat that chose our President in 2004.
Here's how caging worked, and along with Griffin's thoughtful emails themselves you'll understand it all in no time.
The Bush-Cheney operatives sent hundreds of thousands of letters marked "Do not forward" to voters' homes. Letters returned ("caged") were used as evidence to block these voters' right to cast a ballot on grounds they were registered at phony addresses. Who were the evil fakers? Homeless men, students on vacation and --- you got to love this --- American soldiers. Oh yeah: most of them are Black voters.
Why weren't these African-American voters home when the Republican letters arrived? The homeless men were on park benches, the students were on vacation --- and the soldiers were overseas. Go to Baghdad, lose your vote. Mission Accomplished.
How do I know? I have the caging lists...
I have them because they are attached to the emails Rove insists can't be found. I have the emails. 500 of them --- sent to our team at BBC after the Rove-bots accidentally sent them to a web domain owned by our friend John Wooden.
Here's what you need to know --- and the Committee would have discovered, if only they'd asked:
'Caging' voters is a crime, a go-to-jail felony.
Griffin wasn't "involved" in the caging, Ms. Goodling. Griffin, Rove's right-hand man (right-hand claw), was directing the illegal purge and challenge campaign. How do I know? It's in the email I got. Thanks. And it's posted below.
On December 7, 2006, the ragin', cagin' Griffin was named, on Rove's personal demand, US Attorney for Arkansas. Perpetrator became prosecutor.
The committee was perplexed about Monica's panicked admission and accusations about the caging list because the US press never covered it. That's because, as Griffin wrote to Goodling in yet another email (dated February 6 of this year, and also posted below), their caging operation only made the news on BBC London: busted open, Griffin bitched, by that "British reporter," Greg Palast.
There's no pride in this. Our BBC team broke the story at the top of the nightly news everywhere on the planet --- except the USA --- only because America's news networks simply refused to cover this evidence of the electoral coup d'etat that chose our President in 2004.
And now, not bothering to understand the astonishing revelation in Goodling's confessional, they are missing the real story behind the firing of the US attorneys. It's not about removing prosecutors disloyal to Bush, it's about replacing those who refused to aid the theft of the vote in 2004 with those prepared to burgle it again in 2008.
Now that they have the keys, let's see if they can put them in the right door. The clock is ticking ladies and gents...
===
Greg Palast is the author of the New York Times bestseller, Armed Madhouse: from Baghdad to New Orleans - Sordid Secrets and Strange Tales of a White House Gone WILD. For more info, or to hear Brad Friedman, Ed Asner and other troublemakers read from Armed Madhouse, go to www.GregPalast.com
dave Buchen wrote on May 24, 2007 10:53 AM:if she is aware that she crossed the line now, but wasnt aware when she was acrtually crossing the line, HOW and WHEN did she find out that she was breaking the law?
MediaFreeze wrote on May 24, 2007 10:54 AM:Question that neeeds to be asked:
Who at the Whitehouse DID she have discussions about the attorney firings with?
Did she discuss it with Sara Taylor?
Did she discuss it with Scott Jennings?
Anyone else?
Who?
buck wrote on May 24, 2007 10:55 AM:Lithwick, Orin Kerr (at Volokh.com) and a number of other legal experts point out that Dem questioning was inept--in fact, I see a stunning parallel to Paul's #4 above. No one seemed to want to ask follow up questions. And the questions that were asked often lack punch--good for a starting question, but useless without a follow up. So Goodling skated so far.
But did anyone try to count how many known lies she told? I've counted four that have been contradicted by previous evidence--not testimony, evidence--and three more that contradict testimony, including the two instances where McNulty and Gonzales have since claimed that she lied. Even ignoring the last two, there seems to be enough material to browbeat her into giving up more info or face perjury charges--which is what she was most afraid off prior to immunity.
If Dems are not willing to demand truthful answers, they should not have given her immunity. Now she has claimed sole responsibility for what we already knew was blatantly illegal--political considerations in civil service personnel decisions--so everyone else is off the hook. But her testimony actually makes it more difficult to find criminality in acts of others, except for repeated perjury.
It seem Gonzales was involved in at least one meeting where the fates of the USAs were decided--he previously said that he was not at any meetings. On several of the USAs Goodling claimed that complaints go back to the time before the list was being put together. Yet, there is no evidence to support her claim--in fact, there is plenty of contradictory evidence.
She claimed no knowledge of the reasoning behind Iglesias's removal. She did not want to talk about Graves, yet claimed that he was asked to resign because of "investigations"--yet Graves asked for one of the reviews himself and the timeline of the investigations does not fit with the timing of the firing. She claimed that Lam was a big question mark since 2004--possibly even 2003, yet all evidence points in the opposite direction. She claimed problems in Heffenfinger's office, yet there is no paper record of any problems. And she disavowed any knowledge of the Cummins situation, which is hard to believe. Worst of all is the clumsy claim that the delegation of responsibility for personnel decisions to her and Sampson was a long-standing policy that was simply put in writing and claiming that McNulty could not be told about the (non)-change because it actually expanded his powers. Say what??
So she seems to have been recycling all the bogus excuses that DoJ has been throwing out in the hope that some of them stick. Not one Dem called her on this. Aren't some of these guys lawyers? Davis was a AUSA before and his questioning was sharp, but the rest of the bunch fell asleep at the wheel. No wonder Congressional approval ratings are in the pits.
E wrote on May 24, 2007 10:56 AM:Vlad, Shelia Jackson-Lee asked just that question.
REP. JACKSON-LEE: Thank you very much.
I understand that you've made a point, that you say, to the best of my recollection I had no meetings with Mr. Rove or Harriet Miers. Did you receive e-mail?
MS. GOODLING: I don't remember receiving an e-mail from Mr. Rove. I did receive e-mail from Harriet Miers. I --
REP. JACKSON-LEE: But there was a possibility. You don't recollect, but there might have been a possibility of receiving an e- mail.
MS. GOODLING: I can't say that it didn't happen during my time at the department. I certainly had e-mail when I was --
REP. JACKSON-LEE: Thank you.
Can you tell us anything about what Karl Rove knew about the plan to fire the nine U.S. attorneys or what he did to create the situation leading to those firings?
MS. GOODLING: I know that Mr. Rove was consulted after the plan -- or I believe he was consulted, I guess. I may not know for sure. When the plan went to the White House for approval, it was transmitted to the White House counsel's office. And there was an e-mail that Mr. Sampson forwarded to me, I think, on December 4th, if I'm remembering correctly that said that it had been circulated to different offices within the White House and that they had all signed off. So I assume that he was one of the individuals that signed off as part of that process, but I don't know for sure. I think the e-mail just referenced the officers. Certainly --
REP. JACKSON-LEE: But he was certainly in an office in the White House.
MS. GOODLING: He was in an office in the White House. I think it said that White House Political had signed off. Political is actually headed by Sara Taylor but does report to Mr. Rove, so I don't know for sure.
REP. JACKSON LEE: I thank you.
Samsara wrote on May 24, 2007 10:56 AM:I expected another lackluster performance by the House Democrats, and they did not disappoint. This whole process would have been better served had Leahy and Specter done everything through the Senate Judiciary Committee. That would have saved the Representative the hour or two they spent preparing for this hearing, and given them more time for important things like protecting their earmarks.
TheraP wrote on May 24, 2007 10:56 AM:The performance by the Republicans on the committee is beneath comment.
As I think about this, I'm beginning to wonder if public hearings are rather a waste of time.
Legislators, for the most part, are given to grand standing. Not to formulating good questions.
I wonder if we would get farther here letting the staffers do the questioning - under oath of course - and having that come out later. Or have public hearings only after the relevant questions have been asked in depth by people who are adept at questioning (rather than preening).
Just an observation from the sidelines.
anon wrote on May 24, 2007 11:00 AM:...In her opening statement she claims that she never "had a conversation" with Rove or Miers, and "never spoke" to either of them regarding the firings. Would that include email correspondence, I wonder?...
Yeah, I wondered that as soon as she said it. It would have been simple enough to ask "So, does 'never spoke' include e-mail, Blackberry, and communications through third-parties? Is that a blanket 'never spoke' or are you just talking about direct oral communication?"
Stuff like that happened all day long. Drove. Me. Crazy.
ARG in Chicago wrote on May 24, 2007 11:01 AM:.
I hate to say this, but I see this whole thing going away. Notwithstanding Greg Palast's excellent reporting (let's see those e-mails, Greg), the fix is in here. (And thanks for the post, riera18.)
It's summer now, nobody's paying attention, and the mainstream media just don't care to follow this complicated story. To me, it looks like they're going to get away with it.
I hope I'm wrong. TPM and other outlets should keep the heat on. But I'm at work today and nobody is talking about this. Nobody even knows who Monica Goodling is. (Contrast that to the Clinton story -- everybody knew who that Monica was!)
Nope, everybody's talking about who won on American Idol. This politics crap is just tooooo boring.
I guess I'm just feeling a little depressed.
-- ARG
SteveW wrote on May 24, 2007 11:05 AM:The Senate Dems need to recall her and force answers to any and all unanswered questions. Period!
Why is it all these folks are allowed (yes allowed) to lie under oath to Congress and get away with it? Isn't that a violation of the law? Okay, yes it is...so why won't the Dems in Congress hold someone, anyone accountable for their lies? Answers like," I don't recall" should absolve them from prosecution. Neither should, "I may have broken the law, but I didn't mean to." I can't wait to try that one when I get pulled over for speeding.
The list of current and since resigned liars (at least under my definition) continues to grow by the day, what with Gonzo/Fredo, McNulty, Goodling, Mochella (sp?), Doan at GSA, Rice, Ashcroft ("we will be attacked by Al Queda prior to the 2004 elections") Rumsfeld ("we know exactly where they store the WMD...they're right here" pointing to a map"), Wolfowitz ("oil revenues will pay for the Iraq war")......
The larger question is, has anyone in the Bush Administration EVER told the truth to Congress or the American people?
Kathleen wrote on May 24, 2007 11:09 AM:Who Monica Who? Who Who Who?
bordersmuggler wrote on May 24, 2007 11:10 AM:Palast nails it.
"the real story behind the firing of the US attorneys. It's not about removing prosecutors disloyal to Bush, it's about replacing those who refused to aid the theft of the vote in 2004 with those prepared to burgle it again in 2008."
Tim Griffin and Karl Rove MUST DO TIME IN PRISON!!!
Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 24, 2007 11:12 AM:"The Democrats have five more days to ask follow-up questions of Goodling. There's still plenty of ground to cover."
What does that mean? Why five days? What format do the questions take? Who asks them of who?
Since Goodling testified before the HJC, can she still be called by the SJC?
Peter Duffy wrote on May 24, 2007 11:13 AM:Gonzalez seems to leave no paper trail whatsoever in the Attorneys' affair. In all the document dumps from the Judiciary Committees, I have no recollection of seeing any document generated by the AG. His MO appears to be keep all communications on a verbal 'one to one' basis where possible for deniability. I think Snator Leahy has already complained of Gonzalez's fondness for informal tete a tetes on matters of public interest.
Very spooky.
What do you think, Josh?
twirling fartknocker wrote on May 24, 2007 11:14 AM:The Democrats are virtually worthless.
While they have actual majorities in both houses, they remain ineffective as leaders of Congress.
It seems that Rove's "permanent republican majority" may have come to pass without us even realizing it.
Democrats are so afraid of stepping out of line, for fear of Repug scolding, that they self-censor on everything from getting to the truth here to failing to hold BushCo accountable via Iraq war funding.
"Thank you, Ms. Goodling, for helping to pervert our justice system." "Yes, we want our troops funded, so that more can die for no good reason in Iraq."
Who needs Republicans when you've got the Democrats doing their bidding for them? Lip service to being the "party of the people" notwithstanding.
Johnsnottoodistracted wrote on May 24, 2007 11:15 AM:Did anyone think to ask her when she comes to work everyday who tells her what to do?Who gives the assignments?instruction?When she has a question who does she ask?Who tells her what to do??
Mark Jones wrote on May 24, 2007 11:15 AM:And really,when someone mentions white house they need to stop everything and go to this white house and find who they are talking about.
Do we need to supply questions?
Has the money been spread that well?
Are the dems just repos spelled different?
For the record-the Congressman's name is Artur (no H) Davis. He is young and Harvard educated. He defeated an extremely corrupt, incompotent incumbent named Earl Hilliard a few years ago.
Mark Jones wrote on May 24, 2007 11:15 AM:For the record-the Congressman's name is Artur (no H) Davis. He is young and Harvard educated. He defeated an extremely corrupt, incompotent incumbent named Earl Hilliard a few years ago.
Samsara wrote on May 24, 2007 11:17 AM:I agree with TheraP. Public testimony only workers if you have people like Specter and Leahy who know how to question a witness. If you don’t have prosecutors on the Committee, let prosecutors on staff ask the questions. Grandstanding to show your ineptitude is counter productive.
bruce tonnessen wrote on May 24, 2007 11:20 AM:how about the point of why this dodo was given the job of picking usa's and ausa's at all. was it her vast experience in oppo research? her education? ugh
Linda wrote on May 24, 2007 11:23 AM:Vlad is right. Monica frequently & carefully said that she never had a "conversation" or "spoke" to the WH about the list--but she definitely left open the possibility of written communication--I'm surprised that no one followed up on that.
Joe Blow wrote on May 24, 2007 11:24 AM:If you were going to plan to fire a bunch of USA's for political purposes (which is almost certainly legal in the abstract, if not suspicious), no attorney worth his/her degree (even from Regents) would want to discuss the reasons. "Let's fire Joe Smith" or "Let's replace "Joe Smith with Tom Jones" is pretty inoquous. "Let's replaces Smith so that he can indict democrats or end investigations on republicans" is probably obstruction of justice.
parrot wrote on May 24, 2007 11:25 AM:I heard a lot of commentary yesterday about how Monica Goodling appeared to be a robot. I think the 'robots' where the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee. If you noticed, even after she admitted to probably breaking the law, "crossing the line", the Republican committee of all white, all men, decided that she had not...as if saying that someone who has taken the 5th, gotten immunity, and then stated plainly as capable that the law was broken is not good enough to actually admit that the law was broken.
C'mon, where is the Dems response to that? It seems to be just sitting there in a haze as the Democratic leadership tries to deal with its war bills. Which is typical for the Democrats in Congress. They sat there and let the Republicans run roughshod over the Constitution for six years...and they continue to do so today.
mayan wrote on May 24, 2007 11:27 AM:I actually think that the frustrating aspect of the hearing for me is the five minute format. It is almost impossible to develop an effective line of questioning with follow-ups, knowing that a stentorian voice is going to declaim "time's up" in the middle of a question. Just when a head of steam develops, it's time to be whisked off to rethug Planet KoolAid with tourguides, Cannon, Lundgren, Sensenbrenner.
I actually thought there were some stars yesterday. Rep. Lee, Davis, Schiff, Waters, Scott were all ably nibbling at aspects of the case. But knowing that the questioning will only be for 5 minutes and that the hearing will only last a day puts the kibosh on things. Yes...I hope Monica pays a visit to Leahy and his posse.
Finally, I still have the strong feeling the Congressionals are sitting on evidence (behind the doors hearings and who knows what documents) and that there may be a strategy to the pace. Wishful thinking? Quite possibly.
bordersmuggler wrote on May 24, 2007 11:28 AM:The caging issue is big. Republicans have already been found criminally liable for this in the past
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4594
"Caging is eye-legal".
SC: attack
DickTater wrote on May 24, 2007 11:31 AM:I would say that the Dems were timid and ill-prepared.
The fact that it is a woman, and women are allowed to cry their way out of a lot of stuff - still. She acted shy and demur and like her crap doesn't stink. She was just a hard worker, diligent, all for the cause. Well, so were lots of Good Germans. How do you think you seal off a whole continent, identify every enemy, truck and ship them in for wholesale slaughter, without a lot of diligent, hardworking clerical and administrative people?
I think the people got rooked on this immunity deal. Not that the Dems couldn't have squeezed more out of her. The usual white-collar weasel/corporate defenses were swallowed whole and never really examined. Maxine Waters started down a great path of asking how Monica vetted people using her Oppo Research skills....then Maxine seemed to have a Senior Moment and lost her point, her thrust, and the good thread she was tugging on.
What we are learning is that there will be very few leaks or breakdowns by this crowd of career criminals. They have perfected the system, for 30 + years, of how to scapegoat a few, keep their mouths shut. The wheel will come around again, and your position and money and corrupt friends will cover you and keep you afloat until the wheel comes round again. If you are white and have a responisble position, saying that you made a mistake or that you don't recall will usually keep you out of prison.
The fact that they are perverting everything America constitutionally stands for does not affect them. The fact that they are cheating....themselves and us....from ever having any hint of govt. decency does not slow them down or discomfit them a bit. No one is brave enough or bothered enough on that team to spill the beans. When you CAN'T count on truth 'willing out'....when you see almost half a Nation willing to let any abomination stand....you have to really start watching your butt. For awhile I thought we had checked our headlong rush over the brink.
Now I see the steering wheel is once again firmly in THEIR hands....these people without conscience. They are perpetrating WAR on the 80% of Americans who are just regular folk....and they almost appear (the Good Germans) to not even understand that simple fact. It cannot bother you if you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge it.
Now see, against all better judgement and among people who en masse saw our own horribly transparent failures and hypocrisy....French, English, German, Canadian countries have all inserted rightwing, authoritarian, pro-corporate governments. Even as their populace howled against rightwing, corporo-authoritarians. This has very little to do with the will of the people, and voting anymore. Corporate interests have solved the election problem and are having their way - in broad daylight - against informed and angry populations. We can at least stop kicking ourselves as the Greatest Nation of Hypocrites. The industrialized world is coalescing as a Corporatocracy over our dead bodies and Dead America.
TheraP wrote on May 24, 2007 11:33 AM:Excellent points, mayan.
jeffgee wrote on May 24, 2007 11:35 AM:Palast gets it. Burgle in 08. Sounds like a bumper sticker.
olo wrote on May 24, 2007 11:36 AM:All part of the planned 30-year Rove-Reich during which the GOP rules, not governs, breaking the military, the middle class and the goodwill of the world toward America.
The GOP can't win without cheating.
But to listen to the GOP toadies at the hearing yesterday, the hearings were nothing more than persecution of Christians. Kongressman Kotex Jim Sensenbrenner called it a fishing expedition and complaining about the cost. Apparently Clinton's lying about a blowjob was much worse than trying to swing elections using US Attorneys. Nothing to see here.
I hope that slimy bitch loses her immunity & gets locked up for a long time.
The code is screw. haha
Mooser wrote on May 24, 2007 11:36 AM:Congressional hearings are sort of a problem, when every politician knows, right down to his bones, that the display of any intelligence is the kiss of death in American politics.
Steve5117 wrote on May 24, 2007 11:38 AM:How the hell are you supposed to examine somone under those circumstances?
TheraP
If anything, we could hope that more people will become aware of the stupidity of their elected represenatives avoiding asking pertinent questions with the important issues in front of them.
I believe there was enough damage done to cause further defensive measures to be undertaken. In this marvelous electronic age who really knows who knows what about whom?
I also find it interesting that many right leaning organizations have dissapeared online or reworked their websites eliminating certain pages, references and/or links to places they no longer want to be associated with.
budfox wrote on May 24, 2007 11:41 AM:For the most part the Dems, certainly in the House, seem prepared to let this fade away.
The House members have important fundraisers to go to and these hearings are cutting into their important face time with donors.
westwind wrote on May 24, 2007 11:41 AM:Didnt read above posts, so this may be covered.
But I assume all the "follow-up" Question areas had already been covered in some interview or discussion arrangement -- and the results were found "wanting."
So the Qs were not asked...since the staff/members already knew the answers were not helpful.
Anonymous wrote on May 24, 2007 11:42 AM:I was only able to watch a few bits here and there, but I thought Shiela Jackson-Lee did well; and I was quite impressed with Artur Davis as well. Many of the other members seemed uncomfortable - even emabarrassed - as they were questioning and either didn't seem to be listening carefully to the responses or seemed flummoxed by her non-answers (hence the lack of good follow-up).
Jackson-Lee and Davis both spoke with authority and didn't let Goodling get away with the evasions and qualifications she used successfully with other questioners. Instead of condescending and making excuses for her, they treated her like an adult who was capable of thinking and acting like one.
Just wish the time limits kept interfering with what little momentum those lines of questioning had. The format stank.
(And though it may seem to contradict my point above about treating her like an adult, I think those two were displaying good parenting skills: speaking with calm authority, showing respect, and having the expectation that the child is capable of doing the right thing.)
As for Conyers - all I could think was, please, someone, get that man a cup of coffee!
TheraP wrote on May 24, 2007 11:49 AM:As you can see, Mooser anticipated your thoughts, Steve.
Honestly, were it not for this specific site, I would be in despair.
The kind of reporting, analysis, and basic decency of the site and most commenters here gives me hope.
I feel like many times we are working together to kick a ball down the field. Against great odds, admittedly. But nonetheless, it feels good to be a part of this.
So, from the bottom of my heart, I thank tpm and all you loyal readers, researchers, and thinkers.
goldberry wrote on May 24, 2007 11:51 AM:Monica Goodling reminds me of a 9/11 highjacker in that she didn't know who was planning everything, she didn't know all of the other participants, her knowledge of the plot is limited to her small part in it.
jdw wrote on May 24, 2007 12:00 PM:Everything and everyone is carefully compartmentalized while the real culprits are safely behind the firewall of executive privelege.
The other thing that is abundantly clear is that Kyle Sampson used his email binder to work out a deal with the thugs. He and Rove have each other by the nuts.
Does the Senate have an outstanding subpeona out on her? Perhaps the House Dems just chased around the edges, while Schumer & Co. will push harder on the USA story.
I confess - it was a disappointing performance by House Dems.
nolo wrote on May 24, 2007 12:05 PM:B R E A K I N G -- new witness at
june 5, 2007 senate judiciary
hearing! -- one TODD GRAVES!
i just got off the phone with the
director of communications for sen.
patrick leahy's judiciary committee,
and -- though not yet on the website
committtee agenda -- todd graves will
also appear as a witness on june 5, 2007.
a double-header! woo hoo!
schlozman v. graves -- what a wonderful
contrast that should offer -- in ethics, style and substance. . .
click on my name, below, for
the rest of that story. . .
and, buckle up for june 5!
yellowdogD wrote on May 24, 2007 12:09 PM:I suspect the Greg Palast-email story is one big scam. I've been reading about it for weeks now, yet the congress doesn't have them yet? Either no emails on no there there. Prove me wrong. Please.
Anonymous wrote on May 24, 2007 12:09 PM:Goodling's written statement:
" I consider the people I worked with my family and I cared for them deeply"
Goodling's testimony"
Anonymous wrote on May 24, 2007 12:11 PM:"I am shoving brother McNulty unde the bus"
" I am trying to shove Uncle Gonzo under, too"
" and brothr Kyle gets blamed for the rest of what I could not pin on the others"
Goodling's written statement:
" I consider the people I worked with my family and I cared for them deeply"
Goodling's testimony"
mmm wrote on May 24, 2007 12:11 PM:"I am shoving brother McNulty unde the bus"
" I am trying to shove Uncle Gonzo under, too"
" and brothr Kyle gets blamed for the rest of what I could not pin on the others"
It was a pretty sad performance by the dems. Completely playing into the hands of the reps contention that this is a waste of time.
I am not sure why folks felt this was evidence of her competence; if she was an admin I would have said she did well, but I hardly think she had the kind of gravitas (or familiarity with civil service law regarding hiring, for that matter) I would expect of someone with her title to be unable to escape with the "gosh, I was just trying to do good" comments.
All in all it was another depressing day for democracy.
Anonymous wrote on May 24, 2007 12:13 PM:Goodling's written statement:
" I consider the people I worked with my family and I cared for them deeply"
Goodling's testimony"
Anonymous wrote on May 24, 2007 12:13 PM:"I am shoving brother McNulty unde the bus"
" I am trying to shove Uncle Gonzo under, too"
" and brothr Kyle gets blamed for the rest of what I could not pin on the others"
Goodling's written statement:
" I consider the people I worked with my family and I cared for them deeply"
Goodling's testimony"
the truth will out wrote on May 24, 2007 12:15 PM:"I am shoving brother McNulty unde the bus"
" I am trying to shove Uncle Gonzo under, too"
" and brothr Kyle gets blamed for the rest of what I could not pin on the others"
see? that's what happens when you have no life and work becomes your family. you start to treat people like you learned growing up in a dysfunctional family....
chimpeach wrote on May 24, 2007 12:16 PM:She seemed to leave the impression that she didn't have a lot to do with those in the White House. How could that be? She was the White House liaison for the DoJ. I'd have liked to see them pursue that line of questioning a little more vigorously and get down to the relationships and the workflow. It was just too convenient for her to slough things off on Sampson and McNulty in her testimony. She was making big decisions on the hiring and firing of career professionals. If she was such a minor player, why would she think she was qualified for that task?
I think she should have been hammered on the "I didn't mean to..." answer, too. Didn't mean to exclude people from the DoJ who weren't loyal Bushies? How so? Was it by accident? No. Her attitude towards non-Republicans was bordering on malicious intent. She was going for ideological purity. She knew it was wrong and didn't care.
Finally, I'd have asked what she thought of the idea of the DoJ being politicized. Should U.S. Attorneys have a politial bias in the way they perform their duties? Would she have applied for a job there if it were during a Democratic administration? Would she think it was proper if, during a Democratic administration, career DoJ professionals who had been at their jobs for 15 or 20 years were forced out because it became known that they voted Republican?
This thing needs to be turned around and thrown back in the Republicans' faces. Let's see if Cannon and Lungren would think it was all hunky dory if the shoe were on the other foot.
Victoria Trostle wrote on May 24, 2007 12:21 PM:Worth comparing: The tone of Lithwick's midday report on Goodling's testimony to PRI's "To The Point" (KCRW website has them archived) and the more distanced analysis of this column.
jdw wrote on May 24, 2007 12:21 PM:I do agree with the comments about Palast's set of e-mails: it's time to produce them or just STFU. Produce even *one* that goes to one of these stories. The example in the article spammed above - produce the e-mail and attachment with the caging list. And have it authenticated.
Frankly, we'd all be very happy if it were true. It would help aid Congress's case that it needs to get it hands on those e-mails.
modmom wrote on May 24, 2007 12:21 PM:Knowing what we know about the administration's use of unauthorized surveillance, is it a stretch to think that the administration might be using blackmail to keep the Democrats from pushing forward and the media covering fluff?
After seeing the lack of a plan of action to combat ELECTION fraud after the 2000 debacle in FL, which Palast exposed way back then and seeing what little was done in 2004, and continues to this day (I have no faith in the current legislation), you have to wonder why? Are they complicit, blackmailed or ignorant?
here's a good read:
Palast Exclusive: The Goods on Goodling and the Keys to the Kingdom
hwc wrote on May 24, 2007 12:21 PM:And The No Longer 'Missing' Rove Emails Revealing the Cagey Scheme to Steal 2008...
*** Special to The BRAD BLOG by Greg Palast
This Monica revealed something hotter --- much hotter --- than a stained blue dress. In her opening testimony yesterday before the House Judiciary Committee, Monica Goodling, the blonde-ling underling to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Department of Justice Liaison to the White House, dropped The Big One....And the Committee members didn't even know it.
Goodling testified that Gonzales' Chief of Staff, Kyle Sampson, perjured himself, lying to the committee in earlier testimony. The lie: Sampson denied Monica had told him about Tim Griffin's "involvement in 'caging' voters" in 2004.
Huh?? Tim Griffin? "Caging"???
The perplexed committee members hadn't a clue --- and asked no substantive questions about it thereafter. Karl Rove is still smiling. If the members had gotten the clue, and asked the right questions, they would have found "the keys to the kingdom," they thought they were looking for. They dangled right in front of their perplexed faces.
The keys: the missing emails --- and missing link --- that could send Griffin and his boss, Rove, to the slammer for a long, long time.
Kingdom enough for ya?
But what's 'caging' and why is it such a dreadful secret that lawyer Sampson put his license to practice and his freedom on the line to cover Tim Griffin's involvement in it? Because it's a felony. And a big one.
So here's the skinny, and the email...
FULL EXCLUSIVE:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4594
I think that many of you have unrealistic expectations for congressional hearings and investigations. These are, fundamentally, political shows. They don't unfold like an episode of "Law and Order".
Even in the all-time classic Watergate Hearings, the real investigative work was driven by Woodward and Bernstein of the Washington Post. The Congressmen take their lead from what they read in the press. The only thing that would blow the lid off an investigation would be a whistle-blower and/or a lucky question (for example, asking about the taping system in the Nixon White House).
To be honest, there is no real evidence of a crime in the prosecutors purge. Incompetence? Politicization? Suspicion? Yes. But, there is nothing in the currently available e-mails or testimony that goes beyond "stench". No smoking gun.
Any evidence beyond that, if it exists, would have to come from the White House side of things and the White House, by losing all its e-mails and refusing to testify, and by Gonzales running interference has effectively walled that off. Changing that would require intense media scrutiny of the lost e-mails and obstruction by the White House. That is not likely to be forthcoming because, frankly, this story is too complicated for soundbytes.
Politically, the hearings have been successful in creating a public image of incompetence, starting with Gonzales and the "full-support" the President has for that incompetence.
Welcome to the inefficient, plodding, often-frustrating pace of democracy and political maneuvering. Calibrate your expectations accordingly.
MichApple wrote on May 24, 2007 12:24 PM:She will probably get a gig being legal analyst for Sean Hannity. She has the right hair do! The men were pretty easy on her but the women at least asked some tough questions.
Anonymous wrote on May 24, 2007 12:27 PM:"In fact, she gave the inescapable impression that those involved in the process avoided talking about the reasons for the firings --"
There may be a possibility she and Sampson
( and others) were something like cutouts.
Wiki gives best summary of that role..
n espionage, a cut-out is a courier or mechanism used to pass information and devices from one spy to another while operating in a "denied area" or a hostile environment.
The two forms of cut-outs are the block and chain. A block cut-out is an agent familiar with the entire spy network or cell and those who are in it, while the chain cutout is simply an agent who is aware of only the person providing the information and the spy who is receiving the information. The chain cut-out helps to maintain the compartmentalization of the spy network, which increases security by maintaining everyone's anonymity.
Steve5117 wrote on May 24, 2007 12:28 PM:DO NOT DESPAIR TheraP:
I see these historical happenings as progressing very nicely. Slowly, but surely we are chipping away the foundation of lies that this administration has built itself on.
This is a chess match and clearly the administration is under attack. I wonder, when the pawns are all gone who the WH will have to sacrifice to protect itself?
The three ways a chess game can end could be fun to think about in the current context. First, a player could resign, admitting that defeat was inevitable. Second, a player can be checkmated, the situation where there is a direct attack on the king and there are no moves that can be made to escape. Lastly, there is the stalemate. This is the situation where the king is not under direct attack, but any move he makes would expose him, ie., he has no moves left.
What do you think king Bush's position is right now?
Buck wrote on May 24, 2007 12:31 PM:The other Buck posting here is not me.
On another note, have any employment lawsuits hit justice yet? You can be sure there will be a bucketful. Anyone have any idea how many might be out there?
Monica will likely sit on the hot sit a number of times well after 2009.
hwc wrote on May 24, 2007 12:33 PM:The King is playing for, and rapidly nearing the point of, a stalemate. Losing all the White House e-mails virtually ensured a stalemate.
bohdi wrote on May 24, 2007 12:39 PM:This sad period in American history may well be remembered for the pathetic abscence of the Democratic party from the field. Yesterday was a clown show. How many legal assistants from how many Ivy league schools does it take to back a congressman as he prepares a rapid fire lineup of questions to get to the essence of this Kabuki act?
This is about election fraud on a national scale that is thus far incomprehensible to the dozing,incurious public. Its about the groundwork for laying out millions in caging lists to insure criminal control over our election process. We are talking millions of felonies here and once revealed literally all participants go to the slammer for a combined total of hundreds or thousands of years. I do not exaggerate. John Dean has delineated the nature of the real crimes and their consequences.
The 500 emails that Conyers now holds, the ones given to him by the only person in this land who seems to know what is really going on and has the proof are sufficient to incriminate the plot leaders and their underlings and begin to tear the lid off this can of maggotry. If Conyers cannot manage to get it up, if he won't go to the next level he must be eclipsed by a massive internet movement to expose the emails, publish them for all to see and new figures must emerge to demand the truth. The tired,ill prepared,passionless and confused performance given by these 'public servants' was embarassing and without excuse.
World's most skilled fatman K.Rove wins round 5 easily by anticipating his opponents style and the lack of will in his opponents punches.
Please wrote on May 24, 2007 12:41 PM:To sum up, the Attorney General apparently lied to Congress (which is against the law). The Deputy Attorney General apparently lied to Congress (again, against the law). A senior DOJ staff admits to having violated the Civil Service Code (i.e., the law). The Attorney General may have engaged in attempted witness tampering (uh huh, that too). All of this according to sworn testimony before Congress. And that's not even getting into the fact that the most generous interpretation of why the AG fired US attorneys is no clear reason at all based on no organized process with little or no documentary evidence considered.
This should be more than sufficient evidence for Congress to impeach Gonzales.
RW wrote on May 24, 2007 12:46 PM:here is a definition of caging:
Caging has also been used as a form of voter suppression. A political party challenges the validity of a voter's registration; for the voter's ballot to be counted, the voter must prove that their registration is valid.
Voters targeted by caging are often the most vulnerable: those who are unfamiliar with their rights under the law, and those who cannot spare the time, effort, and expense of proving that their registration is valid. Ultimately, caging works by dissuading a voter from casting a ballot, or by ensuring that they cast a provisional ballot, which is less likely to be counted.
With one type of caging, a political party sends registered mail to addresses of registered voters. If the mail is returned as undeliverable - because, for example, the voter refuses to sign for it, the voter isn't present for delivery, or the voter is homeless - the party uses that fact to challenge the registration, arguing that because the voter could not be reached at the address, the registration is fraudulent. It is this use of direct mail caging techniques to target voters which probably resulted in the application of the name to the political tactic.
On the day of the election, when the voter arrives at the poll and requests a ballot, an operative of the party challenges the validity of their registration.
While the challenge process is prescribed by law, the use of broad, partisan challenges is controversial. For example, in the United States Presidential Election of 2004, the Republican Party employed this process to challenge the validity of tens of thousands of voter registrations in contested states like Florida, Nevada, Ohio, and Wisconsin. The Republican Party argued that the challenges were necessary to combat widespread voter fraud. The Democratic Party countered that the challenges were tantamount to voter suppression, and further argued that the Republican Party had targeted voter registrations on the basis of the race of the voter, in violation of the federal Voting Rights Act law.
Ironically I lived in Racine WI where caging was preformed and not so coincidentally the turnout in African American areas was down.
Hmm wrote on May 24, 2007 12:46 PM:About those 'cageing' lists. Greg Palasts seems to have a list of (a part of the) people whose votes were purged, did he make those names public? Do these people know their vote was thrown out? Is anyone contacting them about it? Can they sue anyone for throwing out their votes?
webdems wrote on May 24, 2007 12:48 PM:Maxine Waters failed to ask a critical question when she opened the line of questions regarding Barbara Comstock.
"Ms. Goodling, did you ever communicate with Barbara Comstock about hiring or firing of anyone in the Department of Justice after she left DoJ? Did you discuss any DoJ matters with her in written, electronic or spoken communication?"
And then, if yes...
"This committee will require copies of any communication between you and Ms. Comstock. How soon can you provide them?"
And then,
"Would it be useful for this committee to interview Ms. Comstock?"
(I believe the keys to the politicizaion of DoJ lie with Comstock.)
H8Generation wrote on May 24, 2007 12:49 PM:Forget it Democrats. The democratic leadership caves to Republicons. The democratic leadership are cowards trying to make a good show. But when the rubber meets the road they cave...to Bush. They should have told him to shut up and sit down. VETO THE BILL PLEASE!! But no the cowards caved.
Cincinnati Kid wrote on May 24, 2007 12:54 PM:The Dems should ask themselves, "If the tables were turned, what would the GOP do?"
Cincinnati Kid wrote on May 24, 2007 12:55 PM:Truth and justice are on the side of the Dems in this scandal, and yet they act like they are toothless and cowardly. Hey Dems, if you don't want to lose your majority or what little respect you now have, then grow a pair!
The Dems should ask themselves, "If the tables were turned, what would the GOP do?"
webdems wrote on May 24, 2007 12:55 PM:Remember how aggressive Republicans were on Clinton, and he was (legally speaking) a saint compared to the Bush admin and the current DOJ!!
Truth and justice are on the side of the Dems in this scandal, and yet they act like they are toothless and cowardly. Hey Dems, if you don't want to lose your majority or what little respect you now have, then grow a pair!
It appears that a problem with the House Judiciary Committee is that they do not consider the hearing a strategic opportunity.
They could use it to make news.
They could use it to pressure other potential witnesses. (Example: see my recommended questions to Waters above.)
If you imply that someone will be added to a witness list (with all that entails), they may engage in behavior that will provide some clues.
It's called SQUEEZING. Dems need to SQUEEZE hard. Now.
What we are getting is scattered random questions of witnesses. Focus, Dems. Get a strategist to develop the message and focus!
Steve5117 wrote on May 24, 2007 12:57 PM:Thanks for the encouragement.
So long as they do not tip over the chessboard!
TheraP wrote on May 24, 2007 1:00 PM:Sorry, I accidentally put Steve's name in as the poster.
Should have read:
Steve5117:
Thanks for the encouragement. Etc.
TheraP wrote on May 24, 2007 1:01 PM:Sorry, I accidentally put Steve's name in as the poster.
Should have read:
Steve5117:
Thanks for the encouragement. Etc.
ricardo wrote on May 24, 2007 1:04 PM:Golly, I just wish we could find those gosh-darn people that put that nasty little firing list together
Tik-Tok wrote on May 24, 2007 1:07 PM:While it's comforting at first to think that the Dems really did all their good questioning behind closed doors, thus excusing the absolutely putrid performance they put on with Monica, I recall the Watergate hearings where the same sort of format was followed. (Not the 5-minute-per-speaker disaster, but the closed hearing/open hearing). When the public hearing was held, the Congresspeople or their sharp staff asked critical, relevant questions of each witness, knowing the answers in advance, and thus kept the nation apprised of the developing story. If the Dems have such a story in this case from behind the scenes, it would seem appropriate to try to push it into the public consciousness. Instead, I was not surprised to hear that even NPR did not mention the products of the hearing last night in their news. I guess we have to rely on the DOJ to police all this up.
Steve5117 wrote on May 24, 2007 1:08 PM:I surf all over the place and enjoy some of the things I encounter....
Bush is drinking heavy
Laura is sleeping at the Mayflower
Radio stations begining to air disclaimers befor and after Rush Limbaugh's program.
Slowly but surely the barrier is falling away.
Mark Kernes wrote on May 24, 2007 1:20 PM:Does anyone seriously think that Goodling laying the blame for so much on McNulty is believable? It took Gonzales less than 24 hours after McNulty's resignation to decide that he was the one who put together the list of US attorneys to be fired, and now Goodling, who pled the Fifth for so long, lays it all on McNulty as well. Isn't that just a little too convenient?
And what was this crap about her job as "White House liaison" being "overblown"? The White House's fingerprints are ALL OVER this mess, and somebody brought them there. If not Goodling, WHOSE JOB IT WAS, then who?
Prof. Cheese in WI wrote on May 24, 2007 1:50 PM:Two things struck me about Goodling's testimony. First, given how many times and about how many legal subjects she claimed that she "was not qualified to make such a judgment" (re possible perjury, Hatch Act issues, etc.), she clearly did not have the legal experience to be one of the two central hiring figures at DOJ for either career OR political appointments. Don't you want even the political folks to have the necessary legal knowledge not to break the law, say in following legal hiring procedures?
Second, all the Republican "sucking up" to Goodling reminded me of the scene in the movie, Quiz Show, after Van Doren confesses to lying to the public by his participation in the fixed TV game show. Several of the congressmen, like the Republicans yesterday with Goodling, started saying how impressed they were with VanDoren's thoughtful confession, until one blue-collar-like congressman refused to join in and condemned him for his deceit. Can't we get some more Democrats like that!?! Here's hoping Goodling has her own "summer sequel" at the SJC.
SC: fire...as in "Where the is still smoke, there is..."
jaywrite wrote on May 24, 2007 2:10 PM:I don't trust Goodling. She was very careful to say, "I believe..." and "according to my recollection..." Christians have a funny way of tweeking their memories to fit what they've been 'called' to do.
AND she would never get another Christian in trouble no matter what Albe... er no matter what he's done.
jaywrite wrote on May 24, 2007 2:10 PM:I don't trust Goodling. She was very careful to say, "I believe..." and "according to my recolection..." Christians have a funny way of tweeking their memories to fit what they've been 'called' to do.
AND she would never get another Christian in trouble no matter what Albe... er no matter what he's done.
Rick Rettberg wrote on May 24, 2007 2:15 PM:A long time ago, Steve Martin did a comedy routine in which his character said, "Well, excuuuuse me! I didn't know armed robbery was a crime." (paraphrased)
Goodling is a lawyer. She had a duty to know the laws applicable to her job. She can't claim she didn't know what she was doing. She knew exactly what she was doing.
Dick Mulliken wrote on May 24, 2007 2:22 PM:I was absolutely astounded by the questions not asked: Was she instructed to use political criteria? If so, by whom? If not, did others (including superiors) know she was using them? etc. Was she aware at the time that she was violating the law? If so, what was her personal rationale? etc.
JNagarya wrote on May 24, 2007 2:38 PM:"It's like everybody, legislators from both sides of the aisle, are behaving like the cowed victims of abuse.
". . . . Not only that, but like victims, who yearn for rescue but then turn on their rescuers and vent all the anger they wanted to vent on the abusers, we see people becoming enraged at and tearing apart even the dems who are trying to right the wrongs."
Agreed. I find it at minimum tiresome from those who don't know, and make no effort to know, the facts, so bent are they on Bushit vengenace against Bushit, et al., because they are better than the vengeful Bushit, et al.
They bash the Democrats for not impeaching -- ingoring (or not bothering with) the fact that they haven't yet sufficient votes to do that. (What they are doing is building the case -- they are farther along than the bashers realize.) They bash Democrats for not passing an Iraq bill "with teeth" -- ignoring the fact that they haven't yet sufficient votes to do that. And ignoring the fact that Bushit, not the Democrats, is responsible for the vetoing of the first bill.
I'm tired of the tantrums, and the concomitant unwillingness to accept the facts.
"So, a combination of Stockholm Syndrome,"
I don't buy that part of it. There is habit of following along (Republicans) and denial (Republicans). There is actually no great difference in this set of Republicans than the Watergate set. They too sat their filbustering for Nixon -- anything but deal with the issue, and the evidence, for which the Committee was convened, and on which holding hearings.
". . . and venting rage at those who are trying to be helpful on the other hand."
Yep. And I'm fed up with the mindlessness of it -- the demand that Bushit, et al., because they are a lynch-mob, and because lynching is wrong, should be lynched.
"We need to stand up, be strong, and not tear each other apart - as we search for REALISTIC solutions to the problems at hand."
That requires pause for thought. And then actual thought, instead of reiterations of the same old presently insupportable demands, and tantrums.
"End of sermon.
"Posted by: TheraP
Date: May 24, 2007 10:43 AM"
SC = fear. As in, The Republican'ts [handle the truth] are afraid to admit and face their well-founded fear of their party "leadership" and of their own future.
bjobotts wrote on May 24, 2007 3:11 PM:My GOD you even missed the point in this article! Not a mention of Goodling saying THE MOST IMPORTANT THING that Griffin was involved in "vote caging" in the 2004 election. Congress didn't even know what caging was and you don't even feel it's significant enough to mention in this article. It's enough to incriminate the entire GOP and especially Rove and Griffin and Gonzales. It's the POINT behind the entire prosecutor purge...VOTER SUPPRESSION! You don't mention it and Congress doesn't even know what it is. It's how the republicans are eliminating democrats from office. Caging, Caging, Caging. Congress did not even know enough about it to further question her. I know Conyers has an email from Griffin to Rove mentioning how no one was even aware about the caging, and I see why. Their investigators suck. That could bring down the lot of them and you don't even mention it.Thanks for the insightful round-up.
rougegorge wrote on May 24, 2007 3:48 PM:The Democrats seem very unconcerned about the voting issue. I just cannot figure out why. Greg Palast's been talking about this for a long time along with others (Bradblog, Fitrakis, etc.) and now there have even been some indictments in OH and other places (not to mention tests on the system by various academics, etc, that show it can be coopted).
Watching the hearing, the Republicans are still behaving as if they are in charge and the Democrats are still behaving as if they are the minority and are not quite prepared. They can't see the forest for the trees! It's frustrating and scarey. I hope they are doing more behind the scenes, but I fear that they may not be... if so, we are in BIG trouble!
Charles wrote on May 24, 2007 3:51 PM:Paul, I think your characterization overreaches. -- Failing to be fully candid is not identical to perjury. Clinton, for example, was sanctioned over contempt of court.
- She did not admit she had broken the law. She said she had broken the civil service rules.
Her testimony was self-serving and very likely false in places. But tread lightly on the legal terminology.
Max wrote on May 24, 2007 5:17 PM:bjobotts
I guess we are both foolish conspiracy nuts. And to ww, if you are asking me to draw you a chart, sorry I don't have the time.
TELynchJr. wrote on May 24, 2007 5:18 PM:She needs to expand on her "caging lists' testimony. Who, What Where, etc.
Max wrote on May 24, 2007 5:18 PM:bjobotts
I guess we are both foolish conspiracy nuts. And to ww, if you are asking me to draw you a chart, sorry I don't have the time.
JNagarya wrote on May 24, 2007 5:25 PM:""The Democrats have five more days to ask follow-up questions of Goodling. There's still plenty of ground to cover.""
"What does that mean? Why five days? What format do the questions take? Who asks them of who?"
In writing. Of Goodling. Five days should be sufficient to formulate and send the questions.
The same criteria -- limited immunity, not perjuring herself, continue to apply.
"Since Goodling testified before the HJC, can she still be called by the SJC?"
Certainly -- as did Gonzo. In addition, her limited immunity deal with the House Judiciary Committee does not apply to any other House committe, or to the Senate.
"Posted by: Mrs Panstreppon
JNagarya wrote on May 24, 2007 5:31 PM:Date: May 24, 2007 11:12 AM"
"C'mon, where is the Dems response to that? It seems to be just sitting there in a haze as the Democratic leadership tries to deal with its war bills. Which is typical for the Democrats in Congress. They sat there and let the Republicans run roughshod over the Constitution for six years...and they continue to do so today.
"Posted by: parrot
Date: May 24, 2007 11:25 AM"
Every hear of majority of votes? The Democrats were the minority, and shut out of the process, during those six years. So you bash them for having not done anything?
They would also need a majority of votes to impeach. They don't have that yet, because the Republican'ts haven't yet decided they waqnt to win reelection in 2008. That's the Democrat's fault also?
The lack of knowledge, and or reality-testing, by you and your ilk is by now beyond tiresome. It is infuriatingly stupid.
BarnOwl wrote on May 24, 2007 5:35 PM:For these hearings, we (Dems) should allow each Rep to ask questions in the first round. Then, turn the interrogations over to one very astute person - Arthur Davis, for example.
He would ask almost all the questions we wished the Reps had asked, and when appropriate another Democratic committee member could throw in a Q as well.
Some of the other Reps would have their tits in a ringer over this, but so what. The hearings shouldn't be about face time on TV. It's getting to the truth.
What do you think?
JNagarya wrote on May 24, 2007 6:10 PM:"A long time ago, Steve Martin did a comedy routine in which his character said, "Well, excuuuuse me! I didn't know armed robbery was a crime." (paraphrased)
"Goodling is a lawyer. She had a duty to know the laws applicable to her job. She can't claim she didn't know what she was doing. She knew exactly what she was doing.
"Posted by: Rick Rettberg
Date: May 24, 2007 02:15 PM"
She didn't claim she didn't know what she was doing when she violated the law.
Her central impediment was stated up front: She doesn't want to say anything "negative" about anyone. And certainly doesn't want to directly confront the fact that she engaged in violations of law which she knew were violations at the time.
Hopefully the SJC will demand her testimony, and they will start out by making clear to her that of first importance is the truth, regardless whether positive or negative.
Otherwise, a question:
Was the DOJ by and large kept in the dark about what it was doing re. the firings, so that when the scandal began, they had no existing cover story already prepared? Or did they simply believe they'd never get caught?
If the above is the fact, who aside from Gonzo are the few who knew the full story and intent?
Sharon A wrote on May 24, 2007 6:12 PM:Oh, I bet Conyers ends up with more for his efforts doing the whole "Columbo" routine than anyone could have extracted by making Monica look like a martyred saint standing in front of a panel of inquisitors.
JNagarya wrote on May 24, 2007 6:23 PM:"My GOD you even missed the point in this article! Not a mention of Goodling saying THE MOST IMPORTANT THING that Griffin was involved in "vote caging" in the 2004 election. Congress didn't even know what caging was and you don't even feel it's significant enough to mention in this article. It's enough to incriminate the entire GOP and especially Rove and Griffin and Gonzales. It's the POINT behind the entire prosecutor purge...VOTER SUPPRESSION! You don't mention it and Congress doesn't even know what it is. It's how the republicans are eliminating democrats from office. Caging, Caging, Caging. Congress did not even know enough about it to further question her. I know Conyers has an email from Griffin to Rove mentioning how no one was even aware about the caging, and I see why. Their investigators suck. That could bring down the lot of them and you don't even mention it.Thanks for the insightful round-up.
"Posted by: bjobotts
Date: May 24, 2007 03:11 PM"
There is a post (followed by comments) on DailyKos from Rep. Conyers. He also responds to a comment on the issue of Voting Rights Act violations, and caging, stating the fact that he's very concerned with that issue. So he knows the issue, which means the Committee (at least the Democrats) know the issue.
Perhaps the strategy is to pretend to be stupid, and unprepared, in order to get on the record perjurious testimonies which can be used subsequently against specific liars to force them to finally tell the truth.
Evidence gathering can be mistaken for "fishing expedition" or falsely labeled as being that.
I don't know why a person would assume Congress stupid, even though it has more evidence than the person holding that assumption.
Robert Stein wrote on May 24, 2007 7:36 PM:Monica's "admission" and the Department's probe of her hiring booboos could be a ploy to divert attention from the real questions about Rove and the White House: http://ajliebling.blogspot.com/2007/05/monica-misdirection.html
ben dover wrote on May 24, 2007 8:41 PM:The only way to get this bitch to say anything truthful is to put her in prison and I ain't talking no Martha Stewart Meringue Resort. I am talking Attica.
sue wrote on May 24, 2007 8:55 PM:Having worked on a congressional committee staff, let me point out that it is easy to spot which questions should have been asked after the hearing is over. Not so easy at the time.
One area that Rep. Conyers needs to follow up on is Goodling's admission that she checked the political contributions made by persons who were applicants for career positions at DoJ. Conyers should seek all records of DoJ personnel searching web sites that list contributions, like whitehouseforsale.com. Political contributions are political "speech" enjoying the highest level of First Amendment protection. Denying a federal government job based, in part, on constitutionally-protected activity is fertile ground for congressional oversight.
borussky wrote on May 24, 2007 9:42 PM:The late Walter Karp would say the rich Democrats and the rich Republicans are on the same team. It can look like ineptitude but only because we come to the theatre believing that the two parties compete for power. But between them the two parties have a monopoly on power already. All they have to do is keep reformers out of power.
The Rs got away with BCCI, Iran Contra, Savings and Loan, and now this...
Bo
borussky wrote on May 24, 2007 9:42 PM:The late Walter Karp would say the rich Democrats and the rich Republicans are on the same team. It can look like ineptitude but only because we come to the theatre believing that the two parties compete for power. But between them the two parties have a monopoly on power already. All they have to do is keep reformers out of power.
The Rs got away with BCCI, Iran Contra, Savings and Loan, and now this...
Bo
ralph489 wrote on May 25, 2007 1:46 AM:This was absolutely disturbing. Why was this so nonconfrontational? The Republicans on the committee repeatedly said that there was not a 'shred of evidence' of wrongdoing. BUT SHE ADMITTED TO HAVING BROKEN A FEDERAL LAW! I wanted to punch something during this whole testimony. This is insane. She also justified this violation by saying that she was told this was OK, by a higher up; she didn't know who. She should be compelled to figure out who told her that and give that information to the committee, so that the higher up could explain himself. "law and order" party my ass.
sue wrote on May 25, 2007 9:09 AM:As Ralph said it was disturbing to watch the Rs praise her "candor" when in fact she was trying to get as much stuff out under her immunity deal as she could. Why the Dems didn't point out that the Rs were praising a person who, as counsel to the AG, committed serial felonies, is beyond belief. And as good as Rep Davis was, he never nailed down how many times she might have used political methods to weed out applicants for career jobs. 50, 150, 300? Wy don't we find out who they are and get a class action 1983 lawsuit for violating their constitutional rights? There also may be civil suit opportunities under the Civil Service laws.
sue wrote on May 25, 2007 9:10 AM:As Ralph said it was disturbing to watch the Rs praise her "candor" when in fact she was trying to get as much stuff out under her immunity deal as she could. Why the Dems didn't point out that the Rs were praising a person who, as counsel to the AG, committed serial felonies, is beyond belief. And as good as Rep Davis was, he never nailed down how many times she might have used political methods to weed out applicants for career jobs. 50, 150, 300? Wy don't we find out who they are and get a class action 1983 lawsuit for violating their constitutional rights? There also may be civil suit opportunities under the Civil Service laws.
sue wrote on May 25, 2007 9:13 AM:sorry about the double posting. i'm a new commentor!
Dimitri wrote on May 25, 2007 10:10 AM:Interesting points to consider:
1. Ms. Goodling took the Fifth, but Mr. Sampson did not.
2. Since the DOJ AG and Deputy AG have recused themselves, Mr. Fine and Mr. Jarrett are indeed running a parallel investigation (recent letter to Chairman Conyers), presumably against the AG and Deputy AG.
3. The immunity order apparently covers not only the House Judiciary hearing, but the DOJ parallel investigation as well, which, even now, continues.
4. On a Friday in May, Chief Judge Hogan issues the immunity order. The following Monday, the Deputy AG resigns.
5. At the House Judiciary hearing, Ms. Goodling starts out by alleging, in so many words, that the Deputy AG did it.
Conjecture: Ms. Goodling may now offer the parallel investigation incriminating testimony against the Deputy AG. A similar next step, with plea bargaining, could then lead to the resignation of Attorney General Gonzales.
Elementary, my dear Watson.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on May 25, 2007 1:24 PM:SHE SAID GRIFFITH ENACTED CAGING - i.e. ELECTION FRAUD - BEFORE BEING APPOINTED to his US Attorney position while she was being questioned by Rep. Sanchez.
The next one hundred and fifty HOURS of her testimony should have been about Rove(r)'s butt-buddy breaking election law and violating the decades old court order specifically prohibiting the RNC from CAGING. This has RICO implications for the RNC and ROVE and GRIFFTH are primary actors in the felonious acts.
WHY IS NO ONE OUTSIDE of a few progressive radio hosts who received e-mails from folk like me grinding this one into the dirt (Rhetorical question . . . Corporate media whoredom and no duh is the answer)?
Our Congress folk are idiots.
anon wrote on May 25, 2007 6:35 PM:sue - Schiff, a Democrat, also praised her candor. He did so because she was candid.
Marnie wrote on May 25, 2007 9:03 PM:This woman is a lawyer??
Who doesn't know the law, and can't look up the law? (40 years ago when I worked my way through college as a part time legal secretary it was, I believe, Staten's Form Book, as well as a room full of wonderfully cross referenced volumes published by West's Publishing). She doesn't think like or talk like a lawyer. But then neither does Gonzales.
She is an outstanding example of a graduate of Jerry FellintoHell's law school.
Wonder what law firm will hire her now, or any other graduate of that school?
Shady Backflash wrote on May 25, 2007 11:56 PM:Sad that the Bushies are so impressed by the lowest common denominator in so many different areas.
excellent, but no mention of the "caging" of votes? isn't that the smoking gun in the 2004 election theft issue?
Hank wrote on May 26, 2007 3:06 PM:You have to wonder how a lawyer who was in the top 10% of her class and received 5 promotions could be so ignorant of the laws applicable to her job.
Ms. Goodling justified asking political questions to applicants for career positions by claiming that sometimes the candidates were interviewing for political and career positions at the same time.
I wonder if applicants for career positions were routinely asked if they also wanted to apply for a political position at the same time. If they said "yes", then they could be asked political questions. If they said "no", it could be assumed that they weren't "loyal Bushies".
neassopaw wrote on June 12, 2007 4:27 PM:
awhks oerad wrote on September 13, 2007 7:31 PM:http://www.agolubi.org
ghnlptasq vagcby tmyfi kayelhvtp kpgbcz juvxwh ywxfstdvm
awhks oerad wrote on September 13, 2007 7:32 PM:ghnlptasq vagcby tmyfi kayelhvtp kpgbcz juvxwh ywxfstdvm
awhks oerad wrote on September 13, 2007 7:32 PM:ghnlptasq vagcby tmyfi kayelhvtp kpgbcz juvxwh ywxfstdvm