Monica Goodling Testimony

WASHINGTON - House Democrats rejected a Republican bid Tuesday to reprimand Rep. John Murtha, a senior lawmaker accused of threatening legislative reprisals against a GOP member who had crossed him.

Before and after the largely party-line vote, which caused some Democrats discomfort, Republicans taunted Democratic leaders about their campaign promises to run a more ethical and open Congress.

The House voted 219-189 to kill the Republicans' motion to reprimand Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, Iraq war foe and close ally of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

Two Democrats — Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and Jim Cooper of Tennessee — voted against killing the motion. One Republican — Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania — voted for the motion to table, or kill, the proposed reprimand.

Murtha, known for his bluff manner and fondness of pork barrel projects, did not dispute claims that he charged across the House floor May 17 to confront Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich. Rogers had tried unsuccessfully to strike a $23 million Murtha earmark — a targeted spending item — for a drug intelligence center in Murtha's district.

In a House speech Monday, Rogers said Murtha threatened him by saying, "you will not get any earmarks now and forever." Rogers, backed by House GOP leaders, said Murtha's threat violated congressional ethics rules.

In conversations with colleagues and reporters, Democrats played down the incident. Murtha is known for blowing off steam, they said, and his comments to Rogers were too vague to constitute a genuine violation of ethics rules. "It's time to put on your long pants and grow up," Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., said in an interview when asked how Democrats would respond.

Still, several Democrats said some party members found it distasteful to vote to protect Murtha.

When Democrats took control of the House and Senate in January, they vowed to reform the practice of placing earmarks in spending bills. Members seeking earmarks would have to identify themselves and their intentions in time for staffers to review the items, leaders said."

Sorry, what was that you libs were saying about the POTUS's right to fire any sitting USA?

I don't know about Monica Goodling, but Question Hillary would crack under questioning in front of the HJC before you could say "straightjacket."

I have doubts that there will be big bombshells tomorrow. Monica Goodling might go the I don't recall route any time she fears she might be putting anybody in serious danger.

Just my hunch. The faulty memory card is something that people in this administration play all the time. Even with immunity, she is still a loyal bushie.

I heard that she's withholding documents as well. I heard it as a rumor, but if that's true, I don't expect much, though I will be listening to it on C-SPAN.

America has a Monica problem.

If Monica was reduced to tears in Margolis' office, what chance does she stand under the HJC's grilling? I predict she'll resist, but ultimately, she'll spill her guts. Unfortunately, it won't be much. Rove & Co. aren't dumb enough to entrust Monica Goodling with their big secrets.

That's OK, though. You just need to keep pulling on the small threads and eventually it will all unravel.

Goodling is, quite simply, a wild card. As trifecta has pointed out, she could still pull an Alberto and throw a ton of "I don't recall"s at the committee, but I've got a hunch that won't happen. Her name and her presence is EVERYWHERE in the Purge, and we have documents and corroborating witnesses (e.g. Chiara) that peg her as a driving, perhaps illegal, force to politicize the DoJ. Given that, "I don't recall" won't cut it, and her immunity deal does not protect her from perjury.

So she has a little bit of an incentive to tell the truth (documents), and a little bit of a disincentive to tell everything (loyal Bushie). I've watched this story a long time, and I STILL don't know what she'll say tomorrow. We'll just have to wait and see.

Also a reason why you need very good lawyers on the committee. The questions have to very specific or she will likely dodge.

Did you do A, when this person did B, on date C kind of thing.

If she is in possession of DOJ documents and she is no longer a DOJ employee, isn't she in possession of stolen property?

My understanding is she will on answer questions from graduates of Regent Law School or members of the Federalist society.

If she is in possession of DOJ documents and she is no longer a DOJ employee, isn't she in possession of stolen property?

My understanding is she will only answer questions from graduates of Regent Law School or members of the Federalist society.

Question: can the Senators tap a professional prosecutor so sit in for them, so that someone competent can ask the questions each time?

Or hell, can we just get Sheldon Whitehouse to ask ALL the questions for the Dems from now on?

Cycloptichorn Right on Sen Whitehouse.

How about one of the eight fired US attorneys? They would probably enjoy asking those questions. That what I would call poetic justice.

Thanks Joe. I'm really beginning to like you after this past weekend. I still don't agree with some of your opinions, but it almost seems like you're beginning to like this whole blogging thing. :-)

"Given that, "I don't recall" won't cut it, and her immunity deal does not protect her from perjury."

more importantly than protecting her from perjury, "I don't know" doesn't provide her with any of the kind of arguments that Ollie North used to successfully overturn his conviction.

I personally think that before she testifies with immunity, she should be required to testify without it, and take the fifth....

You cannot take the fifth unless you have legitimate reason to think that the information would subject you to criminal sanctions (i.e. you can't use the fifth to avoid responding to a question just because you want to keep the information secret for political reasons).

Then, once she's taken the fifth on various questions, she is asked those questions again... at that point she can't say "I don't remember" because what you don't remember isn't protected by the Fifth Amendment.

Just read the transcript excerpts....

to me, they seem to be intended to send Goodling the message "we've already talked to people and have a good idea of what happened, so we'll know when you are lying." This will be critical when it comes to questioning Goodling especially with regard to the "prep session" done in the White House with Rove present that resulted in Moscella giving Congress bogus reasons for the firing of the attorneys.

Goodling could get some major pity points from the press if she just gets Mrs. Alito to sit behind her and cry on her behalf.

Here's a few more questions for Ms. Goodling:

• There's an e-mail from Rebecca Seidel to you and several others, dated January 12 2007, regarding questions being asked by Senator Feinstein and the strategy for responding to them. In it, Seidel states, "Phone call easier, and may be easier to get out of (i.e. not trapped up there) when she doesn't get the info she wants (i.e. why they were fired)."

What was Seidel referring to when she said "why they" -- meaning the US Attorneys -- "were fired"? What was the reason Seidel had in mind that she did not want to tell Senator Feinstein? Clearly this was a specific reason already known to you and the other recipients. What was it?

• Why would the White House Liason be involved in hiring, firing, and compensation decisions for NON-Civil Service, NON-political, employees in the DoJ?

• It's been reported that you took charge of line-attorney hirings for interim appointed US Attorneys. Why would that be a responsibility for the White House Liason?

• Three weeks before resigning your position with the DoJ, you took a leave of absence. Please tell us about any interactions or work you did with DoJ during that period of time, including - but not limited to - visits to the office, e-mail, work done via remote computing, and the collection, deletion, and/or destruction of any documentation.

In other words, did you visit the DoJ offices, log in to DoJ computers, or engage in e-mail correspondence with DoJ officials during your leave of absence, and what were you doing or discussing when you did so? Did you collect, make copies of, delete, or destroy, any documents during this period and, if so, what were they?

• Did you use political affiliation, religious affiliation, or both, as a test or consideration in hiring, firing, promotional, or compensation decisions at the DoJ? Details?

These are in addition to the more obvious questions Goodling should be asked regarding the Civil Rights department, voter suppresion, contacts with the President, Karl Rove and his office, the White House Counsel's Office, the reasons for the US Attorneys' firings and the people involved.

Question Hillary: "House Democrats rejected a Republican bid Tuesday to reprimand Rep. John Murtha, a senior lawmaker accused of threatening legislative reprisals against a GOP member who had crossed him. [...] Republicans taunted Democratic leaders about their campaign promises to run a more ethical and open Congress."

This is from the same Republicans who replaced a Republican committee member, John Dolittle, because he's under investigation with another congressman, Ken Calvert, who's also under investigation?

Really?

That's just too funny. QH, you're a laugh riot.

Too bad that they can't bring in Rep. Braley with recent trial lawyer experience to give Goodling the Doan experience.

Personally, I'd buy a ring side seat to watch that match up.

Jay.

You guys purport to be journalists, right? The place where "well-educated, active consumers turn to TIME.com to get their daily dose of must-know news."

From your link to TheHill:

>John Dowd, Goodling’s attorney, said his client refuses to hand over unredacted documents related to the firings of U.S. attorneys last year because they are official Department of Justice (DoJ) documents and she does not have the department’s permission to do so.

That response was not sufficient for Conyers, who demanded in a follow-up letter that Goodling, who has resigned in the wake of the U.S. attorney scandal, comply fully with the committee’s subpoena.<

Okay, riddle me this:

How is it that Goodling, who *resigned her position* that is, RESIGNED HER POSITION, and is therefore no longer a DOJ staffer, is in possession of *official*, that's OFFICIAL, DOJ documents? I can tell you, if I resigned *my* position and I, upon my departure, spirited away SUBPOENAED documents that some government investigatory committee was demanding to see, I'm pretty confident that I'd be sharing a room with the Dukester for a pretty long time. And these being unredacted documents of which the redacted ones are the subject of investigations into potential criminal activity, turned over in "compliance" of a legitimately issued subpoena.

Does it not occur to you guys to inquire about that almost incredible fact, or are you all so lazy and jaded that you believe that it is pretty much unremarkable?

I repeat, apparently she took a bunch of official Department of Justice documents WHICH ARE UNDER SUBPOENA with her when she resigned and refuses to hand them over. Is that of NO INTEREST to you?

Must-know news my arse.

Right wing Christian extremist terrorist group arrested with napalm bombs at Falwell's funeral. Plot includes students at Falwell's Liberty University and soldiers at Fort Benning.

>The devices were made of a combination of gasoline and detergent, a law enforcement official told ABC News' Pierre Thomas. They were "slow burn," according to the official, and would not have been very destructive.< from ABC news.

Slow burn is pretty destructive. Ask the Vietnamese.

Also of no interest to Time.com?

How much will America learn about the corrupt Justice department, its electioneering, and direct undermining of constitutional guarantees in next week's TIME cover story?

Not a thing.

James: you have hit the issue! How can a individual who resigns from her government post still have government documents in her position? Either they are her letter accepting her resignation and sundry personnel items and we are being misled. Or, they are official and subject to search and seizure. I would have the cops out at her home toute suite. That the MSM and even the Conyers Committee are dilly dallying with this surprises me.

Interesting news story on violating the Hatch act courtesy of TPM

http://www.federaltimes.com/index.php?S=2777859

Karen, what do you think of this situation?

When is the MSM going to ask this administration some hard questions about violations of the law?

Top story right now at Time.com.

``
American Idol's Final Showdown

Will Jordin's voice win out over Blake's showmanship? TIME's James Poniewozik reviews the final performances

* PODCAST: American Idol's Finale``

Third story right now at Time.com.

``

CSI Too Close to Home

Sure, forensic science makes great TV, but Texas residents oppose a plan for a "body farm" in their neighborhood

* Ripple Effect: Where CSI Meets Real Law and Order``

"Must know" news. (My arse.)

TPM Muckraker:
``
Karl Rove's Secretary Will Plead the Fifth on Abramoff
By Laura McGann - May 22, 2007, 5:03 PM

Karl Rove’s former secretary, Susan Ralston, will plead the Fifth if she is forced to testify about White House dealings with Jack Abramoff, according to a memo released by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform today.

Ralston gave a voluntary deposition to the committee on May 10, where she said if subpoenaed, she would invoke her Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. ``

Another one pleads the fifth. No mention in Time.com.

But no. Time.com (and other "Protect the Bush Administration" media) only find it interesting that there were "tears." Boo hoo.

``
Bush Authorizes New Covert Action Against Iran

May 22, 2007 6:29 PM

Brian Ross and Richard Esposito Report:

The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert "black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.

The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a "nonlethal presidential finding" that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions.

"There are some channels where the United States government may want to do things without its hand showing, and legally, therefore, the administration would, if it's doing that, need an intelligence finding and would need to tell the Congress," said ABC News consultant Richard Clarke, a former White House counterterrorism official.

Current and former intelligence officials say the approval of the covert action means the Bush administration, for the time being, has decided not to pursue a military option against Iran.

"Vice President Cheney helped to lead the side favoring a military strike," said former CIA official Riedel, "but I think they have come to the conclusion that a military strike has more downsides than upsides."``

More downsides than upsides. I'll say.

james has it exactly right. i am appalled when watching any of the wdc chatter monkeys' appearances on programs like hardball or meet the press. look at the smirks of howard fineman or jill zuckerman as they talk about the wiley karl rove and how he'll still be standing at the end of this dreadful administration. their admiration for his complicity in so many of the corruption scandals is contemptible.

what is wrong with you people that you don't recognize the grave danger they pose to this country. are the party invites that valuable.

Does it seem like ABC is doing a better job reporting the news now that Mark "Drudge Rules Our World" "Please Mistah Hewitt. Please Don't Call Mee A Librul!" Halperin left? I think so. Is Time.com featuring more stories about American Idol since he came aboard?

The real question is: Did Alberto Gonzales have sex with that woman, Monica Goodling, and then wipe his dick on the Constitution?

Karen re Goodling docs: "The [House Judiciary] committee ... tells me that its dispute here is with the Justice Department"

What do you mean when you say the committee told you so? In The Hill article you link to, the head of that committee, John Conyers, is quoted on the record making a very different statement. Conyers specifically stated that the dispute is with Goodling and her attorneys, and that he does not believe DoJ permission is required. It may well be that the committee is simultaneously seeking DoJ permission as you say, but that doesn't mean they believe it is required.

Please explain the apparent inconsistency or correct your comments.

nfox paraphrasing James:

"How can [an] individual who resigns from her government post still have government documents in her position?"

I don't know how it works, but this doesn't necessarily indicate improper behavior on Goodlings's part or that the documents were innocuous.

Remember that when O'Neill was fired he was issued CD's with documents on them and he later released 19,000 non-classified files to Ron Suskind (see http://thepriceofloyalty.ronsuskind.com/thebushfiles/ ). It initially struck me as mighty fishy, but apparently the release of documents to O'Neill was standard practice and O'Neill's putting of them on the public record, while perhaps unprecedented, was legal.

Now obviously Goodling was in a much more junior position (at least officially) than O'Neill had (Secretary of the Treasury) so I don't know if the same procedures applied.

"...Goodling told the House committee that she and others at the Justice Department fully briefed McNulty, who is resigning later this year, about the circumstances before his Feb. 6 testimony in front of a Senate panel. Goodling also said Kyle Sampson, who resigned in March as chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, compiled the list of prosecutors who were purged last year.

She said she never spoke to former White House counsel Harriet Miers or Karl Rove, President Bush's top political adviser, about the firings. But she admitted to have considered applicants for jobs as career prosecutors based on their political loyalties — a violation of federal law.

"I may have gone too far, and I may have taken inappropriate political considerations into account on some occasions," Goodling said. "And I regret those mistakes."

IN OTHER WORDS, SHE'S NO WORSE THAN ANY CLIXON DEMOCRAP.

NEXT WITNESS!

related to the topic of the extreme, pervasive, and illegal transformation of the entire Executive branch into an arm of the GOP:

GSA chief violated Hatch Act, OSC report finds --
http://www.federaltimes.com/index.php?S=2777859

(Lurita Doan and those Rove powerpoint presentations they gave to all Agencies and Departments about working to elect more Republicans)

Goodling: “I was not the primary White House contact for purposes of the development or approval of the US Attorney replacement plan.” -- http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/23/goodling-points-to-white-house/

So who was? Maybe Time can find out?

So far, Miss Goody-Two-Shoes' performance has been of the "I don't know", "I don't recall", and the Nuremberg defense.

She is a motor mouth and has a grating little girl's voice.

She looks and acts like a well-rehearsed robot.

The Goods on Goodling and the Keys to the Kingdom
Special to BRADBLOG
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:

1. ‘Caging’ voters is a crime, a go-to-jail felony.

2. 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.

3. 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