1. Anonymous says:


    Matthew Friedrich is a big player in all this. He was at some of the crucial meetings.

    Also, he is married to Dabney Friedrich who works in the White House. She was the recipient of Kyle Sampson’s April 14, 2006 email listing the big 3 USAs (Chiara, Cummins, and Lam) plus one other. I call those the big 3 because they are the only ones on every single list.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Damn, Ockham, you are good.

    I just emailed Conyers office to express my concern over the Goodling immunity . . . one of the (many) maddening things from Iran-Contra was the House undercutting criminal investigations by granting immunity.

    I have great respect for Conyers, but I had to put my concerns in writing: Get a proffer. In writing. No blank checks.

    Goodling has to present compelling evidence or she gets jack shit.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Here’s my argument for giving Goodling immunity. First, Goodling is essentially a nobody. Conyers is after bigger fish. What we obviously need in this case is a special prosecutor. There’s just so much you can do with a congressional investigation (at least until impeachment is the clear path). Goodling’s testimony is the thing most likely to cause the kool kids to support a special prosecutor.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Dabney Friedrich is a perfect example of why Senate Judic must not confirm any more judicial or DOJ appointments until this is sorted out. Having a USA in DC who won’t enforce subpoenas was one of BushCo’s first moves, before the USA mass firings.

  5. Anonymous says:

    The first thing I think of when I now see a DOJ name is â€How much relevant experience does this person actually have for their jobâ€? When I see a list, like yours here, I wonder â€Does the combined relevant experience of these malfactors equal the the experience of one proper candidateâ€? This is a disturbing lens to reflexively view your top DOJ officials through. I am not alone in this reflex. The inexperience and, shall we say, â€questionable†credentials is really starting to affect the quality and nature of prosecutions from top to bottom. This pretty much the consensus opinion given to me by a number of experienced attorneys in the criminal field, and from both the prosecution and defense sides. A defense attorney, and his client, should never have to contemplate what the political and religious bent of a prosecution, and prosecutor, as a primary factor in forming the theory of their case.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Patricia Dabney Langhorne Friedrich was an aide to Sen Orrin Hatch in 2003.
    Hmm….seems there was a not-so-sleepy sleeper cell operating from there.

  7. Anonymous says:

    The Orlando Sentinel did some follow up on the LInX front and Sen. Bill Nelson.

    â€McNulty responded by scolding the prosecutors — including U.S. Attorney Paul Perez from Florida’s middle district — for failing to be â€friends on the same team.â€

    The correspondence was among several thousand pages of documents released amid the firings of eight U.S. attorneys. Perez denied any connection between his resignation in March and the August letter.

    â€I am saddened by Senator Nelson’s apparent politicization of this issue,†Perez wrote in an e-mail Thursday.â€

    Former US attorney Paul Perez resigned 3/13/07 to take a lucrative job with Fidelity National Financial. The most famous case Paul Perez brought during his tenure was against University of South Florida professor Sami Al-Arian for supporting terrorism. Al-Arian was acquitted of the most serious terrorism charge against him, acquitted of 8 of 17 counts overall, with the jury convicting on no counts and deadlocking on 9 smaller counts. None of Al-Arian’s 3 co-defendents were convicted (a mix of acquittal and deadlock). The investigation is reported to have cost some $50 million dollars and yielded zero convictions. No ’apparent politicization’ in that prosecution, right Mr. Perez?

  8. Anonymous says:

    A commenter from PA on Alterman’s site pegged Mary Beth Buchanan as a serious â€loyal Bushie†a couple of weeks ago. He/she didn’t give a lot of details, but it’s certainly interesting to see her pop up on this list now.

  9. Anonymous says:

    I’m nervous about the immunity, too. Goodling isn’t a nobody — there’s considerable evidence she was requiring illegal Republican loyalty oaths from Justice appointees. Unless she provides evidence that gets Gonzales or Bush nailed for ordering that, it would be very bad if she got away with it.

    Plus, since I had to suffer through Ollie â€got off on a technicality†North running for frickin’ Senate from my state, I take immunity deals for Republican criminals a bit personally.

  10. Anonymous says:


    Nice catch indeed. I would imagine that the Friedrich’s will be under a great deal of scrutiny at this point.


    There are a number of resources pegging Buchanan as a loyal Bushie. No doubt about it–she’s got to be near the top of any list of suspect USAs.


    Thanks for the link. Looks like Perez remains a loyal Bushie, even if he couldn’t pull of Bush’s show trial.

  11. Anonymous says:

    I’d love to hear Rachel Brand talk about prepping Alito (Mr. and Mrs.) for the confirmation hearing. I still think there’s a lot more to look into concerning judges (not just prosecutors).

  12. Anonymous says:

    What are the chances that Sampson is giving them a lot of what they need?

    He was present at the weekly meetings at the WH when the firings were discussed.

    Certainly he would have been aware of the real â€Lam Problemâ€

  13. Anonymous says:

    The immunity for Monica is a big surprise. I have a sinking feeling of Iran-Contra redux and deja vu.

    Iran-Contra was an important stepping stone for the impunity with which Bush-Cheney have acted. Since no one was ever held to account there as Ollie North fell on his sword with the immunity we then had Elliot Abrams, Poindexter, et al happily back to their screwing the American people and shredding the Constitution on behalf of the Shooter and Turdblossom.

    I hope Conyers has it right this time. However, I am sceptical that its going to work out. I feel the Dems have been taken to the cleaners again by the crafty Repubs who have been getting better at skirting the edges of the law while they loot taxpayer funds and use the executive branch to further their political and idealogical agenda.

  14. Anonymous says:

    Was that helpful DOJ rep, the one who was been in all the other closed door sessions, present when Sampson â€clarified†his previous testimony? If so, why? Because Sampson is no longer employed at the DOJ.

  15. Anonymous says:

    Here’s my argument for giving Goodling immunity. First, Goodling is essentially a nobody. Conyers is after bigger fish.

    I’m with those who think/fear/whatever that Goodling is a big fish, at least in her activities. If, as I suspect, she headed up the DOJ’s ’oppo research / loyalty oath’ section, she was working in a nice little loyal-Bushie network without bothering to trouble Abu G, therefore Abu G is off the hook, and with him in the clear are Harriet and Karl.

    Plus, you know, Oliver North.

  16. Anonymous says:

    i don’t know enough to know whether this is likely or not,

    but one thing that worries me about giving immunity to goodling is that it would allow her to take a lot of responsibility that might belong elsewhere.

    also of some concern: from now on, who would not make such a request of a congressional committee?.

    with respect to dabney friedrich,

    it seems a good bit of strategic thought may have gone into the whole matter of using the justice dept to meet administration political needs – of which the usa firings is just a special case.

    a guy named taylor (i think) has just been moved to u.s. attorney for the district of columbia. i presume it would be he would â€help†the congress with its subpoenas.

    now friar william tells us that freidrich distaff is up for the u.s. court.

    maybe this is why it took sampson (and rove) and their congressional moles a year to get all this act together.

    spur-of-the moment it was not.

    i wonder if one were to look carefully whether one might find a master plan in white house files for â€adjusting†the dept of justice to meet the bush administration’s power needs?

  17. Anonymous says:

    a note about the comparisons between monica goodling and ollie north

    ollie north rose to the highest rank of commissioned officers thru real work and achievment

    monica goodling attended regent school of law and small appliance repair. I don’t think her degree was the result of hard work, nor does her degree indicate any real achievement

    shorter story, monica goodling ain’t no ollie north

    look for lawyer goodling to implicate bush, kkkarl, and abu, AND manage to violate the terms of her immunity deal and end up in the dock herself

    ollie north worked for a presnit who valued talent

    lawyer goodling works for a presnit who values blind loyalty

    blind loyalty and talent are rarely found together

  18. Anonymous says:

    Mary Beth Buchanan held the position of Director of the Executive Office of US Attorneys (EOUSA) from June 2004 to June 2005. In this role, she would be responsible for all disciplinary actions and reviews of the 93 US Attorneys. As such, I believe Rep. Conyers is right to view Ms. Mary Beth Buchanan as a person of interest in the attorney firing issue.

    As a point of merit, Mike Battle took over Ms. Buchanan’s role as director of the EOUSA and has since resigned. Some have made allegations that Mike Battle resigned because he saw issue with the firings he carried out.

    Also, you may wish to read the editorial on Mary Beth Buchanan in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette that ran a few weeks back. The link is http://www.post-gazette.com/pg…..20-109.stm The editorial raises some serious questions and allegations on Ms. Buchanan’s abilities and performance as a US Attorney.

  19. Anonymous says:

    If John Conyers can’t be trusted to do an immunity deal right we’re lost anyway IMO.

  20. Anonymous says:

    If Monica is supposed to have done something illegal with DOJ types, requesting loyality oaths in blood or something, then why haven’t those DOJ lawyer types said something?

    Are is this just more suppose this, suppose that?

    Gather all the emails in the world and see if you can find something.

    I will warrant that this time the folks are going to be real careful about asserting anything positively, so the perjury trick is not going to happen again.

  21. Anonymous says:

    e dub:

    You still in DC?


    nope. i’m back in MI.

    Posted by: Lucy | April 17, 2007 at 17:35

    Does EW have a sockpuppet?
    I’m kidding!!!!

  22. Anonymous says:

    tokyo jodi the worm tongue thinks Conyers has got nuthin

    that’s a good sign

    tokyo jodi was also convinced that scooter didn’t do nuthin

    hey worm tongue, who do you like in the third race ???

    I figure it’s in the genes …

  23. Anonymous says:

    Immunity for any small to medium sized fish – so long as they’re willing to tell the truth. Maybe it’s risky, but this one feels like it has [email protected] at its center. He slipped up. He didn’t know he was going to have a Democratic Congress to deal with when he initiated it and he showed way too many cards…

  24. Anonymous says:

    â€Are is this just more suppose this, suppose that?â€

    So Tokyo Jodi, it was just a coincidence when USA Frederick Black was removed when he tried to prosecute a guy on Guam who gave a lot of money to Abramoff?

    Carol Lam is going after Cunningham’s buddies, and suddenly, they fire her. Have you seen that email? Do you figure that’s another coincidence?

    We’re not talking about consensual sex between adults here, aka the other Monica, these are our tax dollars. Are you a communist? Do you want six figure political contributions be a â€Get out of Jail Free†card? Do you recall Marc Rich’s pardon as negotiated by your Scooter? Why do you think this is bi-partisan? GOP does not want Democratically appointed USA’s going after them after 2008. There’s also the not so minor detail that this seriously injures the integrity of prosecutors everywhere.

    Per free patriot, who do you think is going to get taken first in the NFL draft? I want to know who not to bet on.

  25. Anonymous says:

    tokyo freepatriot the worm tongue

    Scooter didn’t out Plame. He did screw up his testimony by not saying he didn’t remember. He didn’t even adhere to his own notes. I do give you that he had a bad memory lapse about his memory.

    Tokyo John Casper

    what is the charge? Do you suppose it is? or maybe ?

    If I was a USA that was being considered for replacement by the reigning party, I might get busy on looking at some of that reigning party’s people. Sort of job security.

    Seriously though, I would imagine that all the USAs were looking at all the parties to one extent or another. So there could always be someone you could point at as being a friend of the person firing them.

  26. Anonymous says:

    â€What is the charge?â€

    The same charge that all those guys who successfully lynched African Americans got. The same charge that all those Roman Catholic priest who had sex with underage boys did not receive. Tokyo Jodi, all kinds of white collar criminals routinely avoid prosecution and or jail time for their crimes.

    Tokyo Jodi, there are no â€charges†yet. It’s about the EVIDENCE of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. Have you heard of Prosecutorial Misconduct? Have you heard of â€official misconduct?†Have you heard of â€administrative law?â€

    Please TJ what evidence that’s widely available at tnh and other sites don’t you find very compelling?

    What evidence will not stand up in the face of Gonzales saying 500 times tomorrow, â€I don’t remember and it wasn’t my fault, but I’m still qualified to be Attorney General?â€

  27. Anonymous says:

    Evidence? You say evidence Tokyo John Casper . I say conspiracy theories. Wishful thinking. Fishing for something.

    But I have never disagreed about Gonzales. He is an idiot.

    This whole overblown hyped up USA thing is Gonzales’ fault. Nothing more to it than a few idiots mispeaking.

  28. Anonymous says:


    The situation is very awkward for the administration because they don’t know exactly what e-mails are there. What does seem very clear is that the e-mails did concern government business, which would include firing U.S. attorneys. Otherwise there would be no plausible claim to executive privilege.

  29. Anonymous says:


    I agree that they seemed to have misused the system and the emails are mixed up over at the RNC. Ease and convenience of use leads people to be careless.

    It would appear that since the White House now realizes this too, they are now claiming Exec Priv.

    It is a real mess.

    But before you think that you have won me over, you silver tongued rascal, I disagree that anything illegal about the firing of the USA attorneys has been shown yet. You and the Democrats are hoping and praying that you will find something, or at least something that is embarassing and that is the why of all this silly hubbub.