There are currently 11 users and 245 guests online.
Goodling admits political influence in DOJ hiring
Submitted by R. Neal on Wed, 2007/05/23 - 11:13am.
On CNN just now, she testified before Congress that part of her job was to check out the political background of lawyers applying for career DOJ jobs. No ties yet to the fired US Attorneys...
And thank goodness they now have a proper photo to replace that summer camp photo they've been running for weeks!
UPDATE: Says she never talked to Karl Rove or Harriet Miers and she especially never talked to them about firing any US Attorneys. (Her job was senior counsel and White House liaison for Gonzalez and the DOJ.)
UPDATE: CBS: Goodling says it's all on McNulty and Sampson. Says Sampson compiled the list of prosecutors who were fired. Says Deputy AG McNulty's testimony before Congress "was incomplete or inaccurate in a number of respects," and he was "not fully candid" with Congress. Regarding other hires, Goodling says "I may have gone too far, and I may have taken inappropriate political considerations into account on some occasions. And I regret those mistakes."
The question of the day that none of the congresscriminals is smart enough to ask is "What question(s) did you think was going to make you incriminate yourself?" And of course, the appropriate follow-up question.
Submitted by R. Neal on Wed, 2007/05/23 - 12:11pm.
Sounds to me like she's been coached to lay it all off on the lower ranking officials, and cop to the "inappropriate political considerations" regarding hires she was involved in.
Submitted by Factchecker on Wed, 2007/05/23 - 12:23pm.
Exactly. She made mistakes because she is meek and naive (as well as immune from prosecution). And the bigger (but not biggest) fish who squealed are the real villains.
How could anyone have expected anything else than this?
If she lies during her testimony, my bet is the immunity deal is toast. It is a matter of connecting the dots now. So she tossed those two under the bus. OK. Now what was going on, asynchronously, between those two and Gonzales and/or Rove?
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
Submitted by Bbeanster on Thu, 2007/05/24 - 10:10am.
Rep. Artur Davis (D-Alabama) is a very sharp guy. He is nailing Alberto to the wall with his examination of Goodling.
More accurately, I think he is pounding the nails into Alberto's coffin lid.
Just for fun, I checked 4 conservative blogs (Instapundit, RedState, Powerline, NR The Corner) to get their take on Goodling's testimony. The unanimous verdict - Monica who?
Geez, you think a law professor might be just the teeniest bit interested in what's happening in the DOJ.
"Her legal experience was limited; she had graduated in 1999 from Regent University School of Law, which was founded by Pat Robertson. Deeply religious and politically conservative, Ms. Goodling seemed to believe that part of her job was to bring people with similar values into the Justice Department, several former colleagues said."
After seeing her performance on the tube yesterday, I'm wondering what her other credientials might be?
Dahlia Lithwick is right; the Dems got pwned. A big part of the problem was all the sniggering about her crying spell (which may have well been a strategic leak) and the Regent U. stuff. She may not have met the qualifications for her job title, but it was a big mistake to assume she was an airhead.
It's apparent that the basic rule of thumb with the Bushies is: If the position is politically important like Goodling's, assume it's held by a savvy political operative. If it's not, like the head of FEMA, assume it's held by a mindless hack.
Agreed on Davis - he definitely outflanked her on Gonzales (although I suspect she was prepared to give some ground on that front anyway - just not that much).
The problem is, no one got her to point a finger at the White House. If they'd just picked up on the clues...
So, just how did Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.) know to ask all those probing, dramatic questions about the mid-March meeting between Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and Monica Goodling?
Her lawyer told him to ask, that's how.
So that's the calculation. She gives just enough to justify the grant of immunity. Not one iota more. The rest is just kabuki.
The question of the day that none of the congresscriminals is smart enough to ask is "What question(s) did you think was going to make you incriminate yourself?" And of course, the appropriate follow-up question.
CAFKIA
-----------------------------------------------------------
It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.
- William G. McAdoo
Sounds to me like she's been coached to lay it all off on the lower ranking officials, and cop to the "inappropriate political considerations" regarding hires she was involved in.
Exactly. She made mistakes because she is meek and naive (as well as immune from prosecution). And the bigger (but not biggest) fish who squealed are the real villains.
How could anyone have expected anything else than this?
More from the accountability free administration. "I crossed the line on civil service rules, but I didn't mean to."
Oh, gag me.
Aren't conservatives supposed to be big on personal responsibility and accountability? Where's CBT?
If she lies during her testimony, my bet is the immunity deal is toast. It is a matter of connecting the dots now. So she tossed those two under the bus. OK. Now what was going on, asynchronously, between those two and Gonzales and/or Rove?
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
Better inquisitors, plz
Did anyone else know David Iglesias was the inspiration for A Few Good Men?
Rep. Artur Davis (D-Alabama) is a very sharp guy. He is nailing Alberto to the wall with his examination of Goodling.
More accurately, I think he is pounding the nails into Alberto's coffin lid.
Wow. Look at this resume:
Link...
I'm a bit embarrassed that I didn't know a thing about this guy until today. He is impressing the heck out of me. Brilliant young man.
I saw this a couple of weeks ago on PBS:
Link...
Just for fun, I checked 4 conservative blogs (Instapundit, RedState, Powerline, NR The Corner) to get their take on Goodling's testimony. The unanimous verdict - Monica who?
Geez, you think a law professor might be just the teeniest bit interested in what's happening in the DOJ.
You think he was about Monica or about Janet Reno, if he was blogging during the Elian Gonzalez incident? Heh.
It's much more interesting to keep on blatting about Newsom/Christian thing, no doubt.
____________________________
Am I the only solipsist here?
I hate it when women pull the girl thing. "Oh, silly me, I just didn't know." This is not a mistake in how many cups of butter to add to your cake.
Reading about her amazing rise to the big time I was struck by the fact that her only credientials seemed to be her "loyalty to the administration".
Link...
"Her legal experience was limited; she had graduated in 1999 from Regent University School of Law, which was founded by Pat Robertson. Deeply religious and politically conservative, Ms. Goodling seemed to believe that part of her job was to bring people with similar values into the Justice Department, several former colleagues said."
After seeing her performance on the tube yesterday, I'm wondering what her other credientials might be?
A tier 4 school on a scale where tier 1 is best. I understand the W admin hired some 160 Regent graduates to be on its staff.
Dahlia Lithwick is right; the Dems got pwned. A big part of the problem was all the sniggering about her crying spell (which may have well been a strategic leak) and the Regent U. stuff. She may not have met the qualifications for her job title, but it was a big mistake to assume she was an airhead.
It's apparent that the basic rule of thumb with the Bushies is: If the position is politically important like Goodling's, assume it's held by a savvy political operative. If it's not, like the head of FEMA, assume it's held by a mindless hack.
Agreed on Davis - he definitely outflanked her on Gonzales (although I suspect she was prepared to give some ground on that front anyway - just not that much).
The problem is, no one got her to point a finger at the White House. If they'd just picked up on the clues...
Holy crap:
So that's the calculation. She gives just enough to justify the grant of immunity. Not one iota more. The rest is just kabuki.
Post new comment