https://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Logo-Web.png00emptywheelhttps://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Logo-Web.pngemptywheel2007-05-22 09:37:002007-05-22 09:37:00Questions for Monica
BlueStateRedhead says:
EW, Could you give us some notion of what cannot be asked, given that she has use immunity? Since there is the WH investigation of her career hiring procedures on-going, does that mean, for ex. that Hatch Act infractions should be excluded?
Can you imagine what the softball questions coming from the minority will be that could potentially throw a spanner in the works? Where is the gain for them in her pain?
radiofreewill says:
GOP questions tomorrow likely to be centered on:
– getting the ’nothing to see here, everybody just move along’ statements on the record
– procedural delays to break any Dem questioning momentum
– immigration (politically ’safe’ for the Goopers)
That’s about it.
Swoosh says:
Good questions all. I have one more random one: Who is currently paying your legal expenses?
Quzi says:
IANAL, but these are some general questions I would like answered:
1) Did you ever have discussions with Karl Rove about the firings of any of the USAs? What were the discussions? 2) Who was the first person/s at the White House to recommend US attorneys for firing? 3) How involved was AG Gonzales in the firings of the US attorneys? Be specific. 4) Did you or anyone you know of in the White House or DOJ shred documents or destroy electronic media that was written in relation to the US attorney firings or in relation to the program Jim Comey described in his â€hospital scene†testimony? 5) What documents are missing from this investigation’s records? 6) What was Paul McNulty’s role in the USAs’ firings?
EW – LOL @ â€Have you ever prosecuted a case?†and one of my personal favorites: â€Did you or anyone else ever discuss firing Patrick Fitzgerald?†I would love that one answered!
Great detailed question, EW!
quake says:
Other random questions: Did you ever communicate regarding official bussiness using non-govt email (e.g., yahoo, gmail, republican party owned/controlled servers, etc.
Indyblue says:
How about asking her how often she communicated electronically with Rover or his staff. Did she use non-government email addresses and if yes, WHY? Who told her to use non-gov. email? Did this seem a little unusual to her?
Sara says:
I would ask her to fully describe any and all work with the Civil Rights Division of DOJ. The Personnel Changes have lost experienced DOJ staff doing classical and according to the mandate Voting Rights Cases — and have built up a staff with virtually no experience with such law. Ask her to detail all involvement with personnel decisions for this division. At some point I would ask her a broad question regarding the legislative history of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and probe her on some of the specifics.
I would ask her about her knowledge of cases before the courts on Indian Treaty matters. I would ask her if that ever factored into personnel decisions. I would ask her if she ever consulted with persons outside DOJ on Indian matters — for instance people in Interior. Who, what did they discuss? Did she ever read briefs or court papers?
I would also ask her about any involvement in searching for documents under subpoena. Did she have powers to search outside DOJ electronic archives? How does she understand her responsibilities to archive DOJ records under Presidential Records Act? Why were some E-Mail records archived at the RNC? Did she have access to search those archives?
It will take her a long time to deal with all this!!!
Neil says:
Good questions all. I have one more random one: Who is currently paying your legal expenses? Posted by: Swoosh
Has anyone offered to help pay your legal expense? If so who? Please explain the agreement.
Sailmaker says:
My question would be: when did you first hear about the provision in the Patriot Act reauthorization that allowed USAs to be seated without Senate consultation or confirmation, and how did you hear about it? Did you pass this word on to anyone else?
Follow up: When did you realize that you would be some part of the list formulator, if not THE list formulator??
BlueStateRedhead says:
Who hired you for DOJ? Did you go through the regular vetting procedures?
Not a lawyer says:
Additional questions:
What qualified you for your position at DoJ? What was the hiring process?
What qualified you for the authorities delegated to you? What discussions preceded the delegation?
Did your authority over personnel extend beyond political appointees? If so, how far? If so, down to what level did you exercise your authority, and how?
Are you aware of/have you been involved in similar delegations of authority in other executive agencies?
Avenging_Angel says:
It is not my intent to make light of this process, but I do feel that a jab (or an outright punch) to her credibility is warranted:
Have you ever prosecuted one case in your entire sorry life?
What the hell qualifies you to decide ANYTHING about USAs?
Do you feel any sense of shame or embarrassment at all that your law â€degree†came from a box of Cracker Jacks?
How can any reputable law firm take you seriously? Do you realize that you will never work again?
ExcuseMeExcuseMe says:
RE: Deborah Wong Yang
Have you ever communicated in any manner with any employee or Director of the law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. Were you ever instructed or otherwise encouraged to contact this law firm for any reason? What is the name and position of the person that made that request?
What are the names of the persons associated with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. with whom you communicated? What were the subjects of these communications? What were the dates of these communications?
MikeM says:
Re Carol Lam: When (and from whom) did you first hear of her signing bonus? Did you speak with anyone from her firm prior to her departure from office?
radiofreewill says:
Marcy – Since Monica is being compelled to testify tomorrow, the Dem questions need to be pointed and leading towards specific breeches of the Law (treating her as a hostile witness.)
Here’s a simple, rough outline of a format for questioning:
Dem Senator A – Questions regarding Role, Authority and Delegation? (POINT: Unlawful Political Influence)
> With no practical legal experience, it should be easy to show Monica’s ONLY role was Political, purely Political with no regard for Administrative Due Process (She was a straight-up hatchet woman)
Dem Senator B – Questions regarding Time-line? (POINT: Unlawful Political Influence)
> There is no evidence WHATSOEVER of contemporaneous administrative evaluation, only post-hoc CYA
Dem Senator C – Questions regarding Need for Secrecy inside DoJ? (POINT: Obstruction of Justice, Hatch Act violations)
> Why the ’Wall of Secrecy’ inside DoJ? > Were you aware of the untimely deaths of several AUSAs? Were they investigated?
Dem Senator D – Questions regarding The List? (POINT: Unlawful Political Influence, Obstruction, Perjury)
> Who put names on and took names off the List? When? Why?
Dem Senator E – Questions regarding Individual USAs? (POINT: Conspiracy to Defraud US, Unlawful Political Influence, Obstruction, Perjury)
> Clearly, the USAs weren’t fired for performance. That leaves politics – dirty politics to win in ’08
Dem Senator F – Questions regarding the Nov. 27th, 2006 Meeting? (POINT: Obstruction, Unlawful Political Influence, Perjury)
> Who was at the meeting? > Who made the decision to fire on the 27th? > Who stopped the decision on the 27th? > Who made changes to the List after the 27th? Why?
Dem Senator G – Questions regarding McNulty’s testimony to Congress? (Subornation of Perjury, Conspiracy and Obstruction)
> Why did you Coach McNulty with Lies?
Dem Senator H – Questions regarding Sampson/Rove/Miers/Gonzo/Bush? (Unlawful Political Influence)
> Monica DID NOT operate in a vacuum – she was told what to do.
Taken alltogether, the questions could be put together to show a coherent ’web of complicity’ emanating from the White House to defraud the USAs and US of Constitutionally-guaranteed prosecutorial independence.
zhiv says:
How about asking her about the curriculum at Regent University law school? Set her up with some good questions about God and politics, what her goals were in attending the school, the process of how she was hired (ultimately heading towards the way she mirrored her own hiring when she came to hire people herself), how her belief system influenced the decision making process. What is she proud of? (A set up question.) Given that training, does a religious agenda come first in your decisions? No? So political affiliation is more important than religious beliefs?
Doubt she’d fall for it. But the fact is that it’s religion, republican politics, and the rule of law (and civil rights, bipartisanship, highly qualified and motivated desire to work at the DoJ, etc.) a distant third.
Couldn’t resist throwing â€have you ever prosecuted a case†in at the very end, could you EW… with just a tiny grin as the knife twists in. Great stuff. And with all this being said, expectations for what the HJC is actually going to get around to are pretty low. Is there an accompanying deposition process? How does this all work? Will the SJC have a shot at her?
zhiv says:
MikeM– I think Yang is the one with the big lawyer signing bonus, not Carole Lam. I don’t remember hearing that she got a bonus.
RadioFreeWill — great questioning structure and general point. Unfortunately, tomorrow will not be the Senators, who are very good, but instead the congressmen and women of the House committee. And they’re fairly weak.
In the SJC there are even Republicans who care about the DoJ, who asked Gonzo important questions. But in the HJC the Repubs managed to provide a lot of distraction for Gonzo and showed a complete lack of concern for the topic of politicization, etc.–although their primary tactic is to bring up irrelevant DoJ issues that might seem important to their constituents. Conyers asks very good questions himself, but his committee doesn’t seem as effective as Waxman’s oversight group. They’re not getting as much exercise, I suppose.
Avenging_Angel says:
Great suggestions, radiofreewill. We need to take down Regent â€University,†as well as the Bush cabal.
golux says:
Do you have in your possession any copies of emails from or to Karl Rove or anyone else in the White House regarding the firing of USAs , voter fraud investigations, or criminal investigations of members of Congress?
Ishmael says:
IMHO, the temptation should be to avoid embarrassing Monica about her qualifications or lack thereof, as much fun as that would be – I’m suspicious that the Republicans on the committee could turn this into the Crying Game they tried when Mrs. Alito broke down when her husband was being questioned – do not â€misunderestimate†the willingness of the Repugs to turn this into a circus, and I have doubts about the discipline of the HJC Democrats when it comes to questioning, if only they had a Whitehouse to cede their time to! The prize with Monica, like any underling you give immunity to (and I’m SOOOO glad she has use as oppsoed to transactional immunity) is to flip on who gave the orders, to lead to Rove, Miers and ultimately Shrubya. I remember when Monica Lewinsky gave her testimony, many Republicans underestimated her ability to parry the questioning – we should keep our eyes on the ball here.
Anonymous says:
I would add:
How did you handle making sure that the DAG did not know about the secret order giving you hiring and firing power over his own staff? What other matters were you instructed to keep a secret from the Deputy Attorney General?
bmaz says:
Folks – All excellent areas of inquiry. But, please keep in mind that this interrogation of Goodling will be conducted under a grant of use immunity. Answers by Goodling cannot be used against her in a criminal prosecution, but she can still be prosecuted for any tangible crime. The committee is not limited to this one appearance. So, at least at first, you want to be careful tactically what you ask and how you ask it, so as not to taint independent evidence of criminal conduct on Goodling’s part that you may possess or reasonably expect to acquire. This is not open season for all purposes.
bmaz says:
Folks – All excellent areas of inquiry. But, please keep in mind that this interrogation of Goodling will be conducted under a grant of use immunity. Answers by Goodling cannot be used against her in a criminal prosecution, but she can still be prosecuted for any tangible crime. The committee is not limited to this one appearance. So, at least at first, you want to be careful tactically what you ask and how you ask it, so as not to taint independent evidence of criminal conduct on Goodling’s part that you may possess or reasonably expect to acquire. This is not open season for all purposes.
Anonymous says:
How does your faith help you rationalize your apparent hostility to fairness and the rule of law? What would Jesus do? Explain.
Anonymous says:
If Monica attempts to use the nebulous â€senior staff made the decisions†excuse that Gonzo has been so free with, I would like to see the committee nail her to specific names, even if it means Conyers has to go down a list and say, â€Was X a member of the staff involved in these decisions?â€
Canuck Stuck in Muck says:
What about: â€What is your relationship to the woman in your high-priced lawyer’s office who has been implicated in the ’Washington Madam’ scandal?â€
dotsright says:
Ms. Goodling, here is a list of emails that are being withheld on which your name appears as a recipient. I want to go over them one by one. I will give you the date and the subject matter and I want you to give us your fullest recollection of what is in this email.
There is obviously hard copy evidence out there in the form of the emails against which her testimony could be judged. I would not put it past the folks at DOJ to release some of these emails if they thought it could cause some embarrassment or a charge of perjury for Monica so she would have to be very careful and truthful in answering this one.
Stephen Parrish, CPA says:
Raw Story headline: Goodling fails to turn over documents subpoenaed by House committee
radiofreewill: she’s testifying before the HOUSE Judiciary Committee, right?
bmaz says:
Stephen Parrish – Thank you. This is bullshit and Dowd knows it. The DOJ and Court signed off on the cooperation/immunity agreement. That would include documentary testimony. Put her on the stand, swear her in, then read her the terms of her cooperation/immunity agreement. Tell her, in public and on the stand, that bad faith non-compliance with document production violates the terms of her agreement and ask her how she would like to proceed. Read her the riot act; comply or face obstruction charges that would now be crystal clear. It is time to put the foot on the throat and stake in the heart of these jerkoffs.
pseudonymous in nc says:
Conyers asks very good questions himself, but his committee doesn’t seem as effective as Waxman’s oversight group. They’re not getting as much exercise, I suppose.
Conyers needs to be on top form with the gavel tomorrow. Screw seniority: as we saw from the Gonzo session, there are people lower down the ladder who ask much better questions. No grandstanding: if you’ve got pointed questions, you get your time, and if you don’t, you yield it. And no fucking bullshit from the GOPpers.
What itchy fish said: time to bust open ’consensus’ bullshit: names, ranks and serial numbers of people who were authorised to put people on Kyle’s Little List and take those names off. Then the names of those people who actually put people on the List and took them off.
And as bmaz and others said, this can’t be about humiliating La Goodling. It’s all about filling in the gaps and blurs on the process, both with AUSA interviews and the US Attny. firings.
So: â€Were you led to believe that it was reasonable and proper to weigh Republican party affiliation when interviewing candidates for career positions? If so, by whom?â€
pseudonymous in nc says:
Read her the riot act; comply or face obstruction charges that would now be crystal clear. It is time to put the foot on the throat and stake in the heart of these jerkoffs.
Too damn right: she’s trying to have her cake and eat it now. Well, no cake for Monica.
I suspect that the hearing may last five minutes now: Conyers needs to say ’no documents equals contempt’, and there’s a cell in the basement.
And this makes me even curiouser about who’s paying Dowd’s bills and directing his actions. Because I don’t think she made that decision.
Rayne says:
Do you feel any sense of shame or embarrassment at all that your law â€degree†came from a box of Cracker Jacks?
Heh. I haven’t that one used since a showdown a few years back by a lone attorney for a corporation against a horde of lawyers for an IT vendors. Worked then, works now.
bmaz says:
Rayne – A couple of weeks ago, another regular here used the term â€Regent School of Law and Small Engine Repairâ€. Both are hilarious.
Jodi says:
Well, it would appear that everyone is getting cranked up.
The best one above was: What would Jesus do? Explain. -Posted by: &y
That was just plain lovely. Testimony under oath about what Jesus would do!
This is what I postulate will happen.
No one here will be satisfied by Monica’s testimony. The testimony will not be liked because it will hand over nobody’s head. Everyone here will say as they did for Gonzales that â€the committee should have asked other questions, rather than the ones that they asked.â€
And in the end, the old â€missing emails†and other missing damning correspondence and filthy nasty conspiracy plans will be blamed for a lack of evidence to bring criminal charges against Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.
~Surely somewhere some liberal soul will liberate those maps to where the bodies are buried and expose them to the light.~
Now why am I so scarcastic here? It is because everyone is looking at the wrong thing.
Look at Iraq people! That is where the smoking guns, and the dead bodies are.
All the rest is just side street theater.
JGabriel says:
Several more important question for Goodling:
• Why would the White House Liason be involved in hiring, firing, and payment decisions for non-Civil Service 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 or 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 when you did so?
• Did you ever work with Tim Griffin or others in identifying names to be researched with the aim of purging them from state voter rolls? What were the criteria and how did you identify these names?
• How did Rachel Palouse come to be nominated for the position for US Attorney?
• 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, â€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 â€why they†— meaning the US Attorneys — â€were firedâ€? What was the specific 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?
• (Echoing a commenter from above) Who is paying your attorney fees? Were you coached or did you engage in any rehearsal sessions before appearing here today? Who was present at those sessions? What was discussed?
That’ll do for now, I suppose.
You know that feeling you get when you’re forgetting something? I know there’s one more question, an important one, I’ve forgotten here. Something I pointed out a few months ago, either here, at TPMMuckraker, or at FDL. Something that – like the detail of the WH Liason being involved in NON-political hirings and firings – gets right to the heart of the wrongness and politicization of the DoJ in a way that even non-partisan people not following the story can understand. And for the life of me, I just can’t remember it.
Damn it, I hate when that happens.
Oh well, maybe it’ll come to me during the hearings tomorrow. Or maybe one of the Congress members (or aides) will think of it.
mahopac_maze says:
What I’d ask if I met her in an elevator, or was waiting for a flight or a Starbucks with her [etc.], is: â€So, Monica Goodling, as a lawyer and member of the bar in the District of Columbia, what criminal or impeachable offenses do you have personal knowledge of?â€
John Casper says:
snark Tokyo Jodi, I for one would be lost without your always helpful, Christianist, neocon insights. I had completely forgotten about your family fighting in Iraq for my right to inexpensive gas. In a prior thread, you mentioned you need to â€lose a few pounds†in anticipation of meeting your â€Hero,†the â€King†of his gender at an island. How callous of me to forget to ask how that is going? /snark
hauksdottir says:
Point: separation of church and state, Constitution vs 10 Commandments, democracy vs theocracy **************************
Is Paulose the only USA holding daily prayer sessions on taxpayer time?
Do you wish everybody did?
Are you deliberately choosing evangelists or graduates of evangelistic schools?
Were you chosen because you are an evangelist? by whom?
Have you prayed together with other officials in the DoJ? the WH? Who and why? What did/do you hope to achieve?
When you undertook to remake the DoJ into a branch of the Church, subservient to God’s law rather than the Constitution, whose orders were you following? Robertson’s? Bush’s? Mier’s?
Are you positioning evangelistic USA’s or other DoJ personnel on a career track to the Supreme Court? ******************************************
IOW, somebody is deliberately putting evangelists into powerful positions, and grooming them up the ranks, whether it be Monica with the entire DoJ or some generals at the Air Force Academy. These Loyal Bushies (TM) believe that he was anointed by God. Somebody is behind this scheme, and it affects the big picture if they are going to get impatient and jump-start the End Times because some preacher or neocon wants to be raptured. If Bush nukes Iran because somebody in a prayer session says that it is Armageddon Time (cue the music), we deserve to know who is calling the shots.
Neil says:
Look at Iraq people! That is where the smoking guns, and the dead bodies are. All the rest is just side street theater. Posted by: Jodi
I should take your advice? You can’t find your ass with two hands.
turtlens says:
Q: Although the AG delegated hiring/firing authority to you & KS, what sort of discussions did you have with AG after delegation? With KS? Can you provide specifics? E.g. dates/locations? Who were on the list as potential fires? What vetting process did you and KS have for hiring/firing? Who else did you involve in decisions? Who asked for updates on process? Can you explain the rationale for delegation? Who originally suggested delegation? Was WH involved in discussions preceding delegation? Was there an assumption/acknowledgment that delegation from AG to you/KS would distance WH principals & AG from responsibility for decisions?
Jodi says:
Tokyo John Casper Neil
I can always tell when I make a good contribution from your reactions.
That bit of logic and common sense really stung didn’t it?
EW,
Could you give us some notion of what cannot be asked, given that she has use immunity? Since there is the WH investigation of her career hiring procedures on-going, does that mean, for ex. that Hatch Act infractions should be excluded?
Can you imagine what the softball questions coming from the minority will be that could potentially throw a spanner in the works? Where is the gain for them in her pain?
GOP questions tomorrow likely to be centered on:
– getting the ’nothing to see here, everybody just move along’ statements on the record
– procedural delays to break any Dem questioning momentum
– immigration (politically ’safe’ for the Goopers)
That’s about it.
Good questions all. I have one more random one: Who is currently paying your legal expenses?
IANAL, but these are some general questions I would like answered:
1) Did you ever have discussions with Karl Rove about the firings of any of the USAs? What were the discussions?
2) Who was the first person/s at the White House to recommend US attorneys for firing?
3) How involved was AG Gonzales in the firings of the US attorneys? Be specific.
4) Did you or anyone you know of in the White House or DOJ shred documents or destroy electronic media that was written in relation to the US attorney firings or in relation to the program Jim Comey described in his â€hospital scene†testimony?
5) What documents are missing from this investigation’s records?
6) What was Paul McNulty’s role in the USAs’ firings?
EW – LOL @ â€Have you ever prosecuted a case?†and one of my personal favorites: â€Did you or anyone else ever discuss firing Patrick Fitzgerald?†I would love that one answered!
Great detailed question, EW!
Other random questions: Did you ever communicate regarding official bussiness using non-govt email (e.g., yahoo, gmail, republican party owned/controlled servers, etc.
How about asking her how often she communicated electronically with Rover or his staff. Did she use non-government email addresses and if yes, WHY? Who told her to use non-gov. email? Did this seem a little unusual to her?
I would ask her to fully describe any and all work with the Civil Rights Division of DOJ. The Personnel Changes have lost experienced DOJ staff doing classical and according to the mandate Voting Rights Cases — and have built up a staff with virtually no experience with such law. Ask her to detail all involvement with personnel decisions for this division. At some point I would ask her a broad question regarding the legislative history of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and probe her on some of the specifics.
I would ask her about her knowledge of cases before the courts on Indian Treaty matters. I would ask her if that ever factored into personnel decisions. I would ask her if she ever consulted with persons outside DOJ on Indian matters — for instance people in Interior. Who, what did they discuss? Did she ever read briefs or court papers?
I would also ask her about any involvement in searching for documents under subpoena. Did she have powers to search outside DOJ electronic archives? How does she understand her responsibilities to archive DOJ records under Presidential Records Act? Why were some E-Mail records archived at the RNC? Did she have access to search those archives?
It will take her a long time to deal with all this!!!
Good questions all. I have one more random one: Who is currently paying your legal expenses?
Posted by: Swoosh
Has anyone offered to help pay your legal expense? If so who? Please explain the agreement.
My question would be: when did you first hear about the provision in the Patriot Act reauthorization that allowed USAs to be seated without Senate consultation or confirmation, and how did you hear about it? Did you pass this word on to anyone else?
Follow up: When did you realize that you would be some part of the list formulator, if not THE list formulator??
Who hired you for DOJ? Did you go through the regular vetting procedures?
Additional questions:
What qualified you for your position at DoJ? What was the hiring process?
What qualified you for the authorities delegated to you? What discussions preceded the delegation?
Did your authority over personnel extend beyond political appointees? If so, how far? If so, down to what level did you exercise your authority, and how?
Are you aware of/have you been involved in similar delegations of authority in other executive agencies?
It is not my intent to make light of this process, but I do feel that a jab (or an outright punch) to her credibility is warranted:
Have you ever prosecuted one case in your entire sorry life?
What the hell qualifies you to decide ANYTHING about USAs?
Do you feel any sense of shame or embarrassment at all that your law â€degree†came from a box of Cracker Jacks?
How can any reputable law firm take you seriously? Do you realize that you will never work again?
RE: Deborah Wong Yang
Have you ever communicated in any manner with any employee or Director of the law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. Were you ever instructed or otherwise encouraged to contact this law firm for any reason? What is the name and position of the person that made that request?
What are the names of the persons associated with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. with whom you communicated? What were the subjects of these communications? What were the dates of these communications?
Re Carol Lam: When (and from whom) did you first hear of her signing bonus? Did you speak with anyone from her firm prior to her departure from office?
Marcy – Since Monica is being compelled to testify tomorrow, the Dem questions need to be pointed and leading towards specific breeches of the Law (treating her as a hostile witness.)
Here’s a simple, rough outline of a format for questioning:
Dem Senator A – Questions regarding Role, Authority and Delegation? (POINT: Unlawful Political Influence)
> With no practical legal experience, it should be easy to show Monica’s ONLY role was Political, purely Political with no regard for Administrative Due Process (She was a straight-up hatchet woman)
Dem Senator B – Questions regarding Time-line? (POINT: Unlawful Political Influence)
> There is no evidence WHATSOEVER of contemporaneous administrative evaluation, only post-hoc CYA
Dem Senator C – Questions regarding Need for Secrecy inside DoJ? (POINT: Obstruction of Justice, Hatch Act violations)
> Why the ’Wall of Secrecy’ inside DoJ?
> Were you aware of the untimely deaths of several AUSAs? Were they investigated?
Dem Senator D – Questions regarding The List? (POINT: Unlawful Political Influence, Obstruction, Perjury)
> Who put names on and took names off the List? When? Why?
Dem Senator E – Questions regarding Individual USAs? (POINT: Conspiracy to Defraud US, Unlawful Political Influence, Obstruction, Perjury)
> Clearly, the USAs weren’t fired for performance. That leaves politics – dirty politics to win in ’08
Dem Senator F – Questions regarding the Nov. 27th, 2006 Meeting? (POINT: Obstruction, Unlawful Political Influence, Perjury)
> Who was at the meeting?
> Who made the decision to fire on the 27th?
> Who stopped the decision on the 27th?
> Who made changes to the List after the 27th? Why?
Dem Senator G – Questions regarding McNulty’s testimony to Congress? (Subornation of Perjury, Conspiracy and Obstruction)
> Why did you Coach McNulty with Lies?
Dem Senator H – Questions regarding Sampson/Rove/Miers/Gonzo/Bush? (Unlawful Political Influence)
> Monica DID NOT operate in a vacuum – she was told what to do.
Taken alltogether, the questions could be put together to show a coherent ’web of complicity’ emanating from the White House to defraud the USAs and US of Constitutionally-guaranteed prosecutorial independence.
How about asking her about the curriculum at Regent University law school? Set her up with some good questions about God and politics, what her goals were in attending the school, the process of how she was hired (ultimately heading towards the way she mirrored her own hiring when she came to hire people herself), how her belief system influenced the decision making process. What is she proud of? (A set up question.) Given that training, does a religious agenda come first in your decisions? No? So political affiliation is more important than religious beliefs?
Doubt she’d fall for it. But the fact is that it’s religion, republican politics, and the rule of law (and civil rights, bipartisanship, highly qualified and motivated desire to work at the DoJ, etc.) a distant third.
Couldn’t resist throwing â€have you ever prosecuted a case†in at the very end, could you EW… with just a tiny grin as the knife twists in. Great stuff. And with all this being said, expectations for what the HJC is actually going to get around to are pretty low. Is there an accompanying deposition process? How does this all work? Will the SJC have a shot at her?
MikeM– I think Yang is the one with the big lawyer signing bonus, not Carole Lam. I don’t remember hearing that she got a bonus.
RadioFreeWill — great questioning structure and general point. Unfortunately, tomorrow will not be the Senators, who are very good, but instead the congressmen and women of the House committee. And they’re fairly weak.
In the SJC there are even Republicans who care about the DoJ, who asked Gonzo important questions. But in the HJC the Repubs managed to provide a lot of distraction for Gonzo and showed a complete lack of concern for the topic of politicization, etc.–although their primary tactic is to bring up irrelevant DoJ issues that might seem important to their constituents. Conyers asks very good questions himself, but his committee doesn’t seem as effective as Waxman’s oversight group. They’re not getting as much exercise, I suppose.
Great suggestions, radiofreewill. We need to take down Regent â€University,†as well as the Bush cabal.
Do you have in your possession any copies of emails from or to Karl Rove or anyone else in the White House regarding the firing of USAs , voter fraud investigations, or criminal investigations of members of Congress?
IMHO, the temptation should be to avoid embarrassing Monica about her qualifications or lack thereof, as much fun as that would be – I’m suspicious that the Republicans on the committee could turn this into the Crying Game they tried when Mrs. Alito broke down when her husband was being questioned – do not â€misunderestimate†the willingness of the Repugs to turn this into a circus, and I have doubts about the discipline of the HJC Democrats when it comes to questioning, if only they had a Whitehouse to cede their time to! The prize with Monica, like any underling you give immunity to (and I’m SOOOO glad she has use as oppsoed to transactional immunity) is to flip on who gave the orders, to lead to Rove, Miers and ultimately Shrubya. I remember when Monica Lewinsky gave her testimony, many Republicans underestimated her ability to parry the questioning – we should keep our eyes on the ball here.
I would add:
How did you handle making sure that the DAG did not know about the secret order giving you hiring and firing power over his own staff? What other matters were you instructed to keep a secret from the Deputy Attorney General?
Folks – All excellent areas of inquiry. But, please keep in mind that this interrogation of Goodling will be conducted under a grant of use immunity. Answers by Goodling cannot be used against her in a criminal prosecution, but she can still be prosecuted for any tangible crime. The committee is not limited to this one appearance. So, at least at first, you want to be careful tactically what you ask and how you ask it, so as not to taint independent evidence of criminal conduct on Goodling’s part that you may possess or reasonably expect to acquire. This is not open season for all purposes.
Folks – All excellent areas of inquiry. But, please keep in mind that this interrogation of Goodling will be conducted under a grant of use immunity. Answers by Goodling cannot be used against her in a criminal prosecution, but she can still be prosecuted for any tangible crime. The committee is not limited to this one appearance. So, at least at first, you want to be careful tactically what you ask and how you ask it, so as not to taint independent evidence of criminal conduct on Goodling’s part that you may possess or reasonably expect to acquire. This is not open season for all purposes.
How does your faith help you rationalize your apparent hostility to fairness and the rule of law? What would Jesus do? Explain.
If Monica attempts to use the nebulous â€senior staff made the decisions†excuse that Gonzo has been so free with, I would like to see the committee nail her to specific names, even if it means Conyers has to go down a list and say, â€Was X a member of the staff involved in these decisions?â€
What about: â€What is your relationship to the woman in your high-priced lawyer’s office who has been implicated in the ’Washington Madam’ scandal?â€
Ms. Goodling, here is a list of emails that are being withheld on which your name appears as a recipient. I want to go over them one by one. I will give you the date and the subject matter and I want you to give us your fullest recollection of what is in this email.
There is obviously hard copy evidence out there in the form of the emails against which her testimony could be judged. I would not put it past the folks at DOJ to release some of these emails if they thought it could cause some embarrassment or a charge of perjury for Monica so she would have to be very careful and truthful in answering this one.
Raw Story headline: Goodling fails to turn over documents subpoenaed by House committee
Link: http://rawstory.com/news/2007/….._0522.html
radiofreewill: she’s testifying before the HOUSE Judiciary Committee, right?
Stephen Parrish – Thank you. This is bullshit and Dowd knows it. The DOJ and Court signed off on the cooperation/immunity agreement. That would include documentary testimony. Put her on the stand, swear her in, then read her the terms of her cooperation/immunity agreement. Tell her, in public and on the stand, that bad faith non-compliance with document production violates the terms of her agreement and ask her how she would like to proceed. Read her the riot act; comply or face obstruction charges that would now be crystal clear. It is time to put the foot on the throat and stake in the heart of these jerkoffs.
Conyers asks very good questions himself, but his committee doesn’t seem as effective as Waxman’s oversight group. They’re not getting as much exercise, I suppose.
Conyers needs to be on top form with the gavel tomorrow. Screw seniority: as we saw from the Gonzo session, there are people lower down the ladder who ask much better questions. No grandstanding: if you’ve got pointed questions, you get your time, and if you don’t, you yield it. And no fucking bullshit from the GOPpers.
What itchy fish said: time to bust open ’consensus’ bullshit: names, ranks and serial numbers of people who were authorised to put people on Kyle’s Little List and take those names off. Then the names of those people who actually put people on the List and took them off.
And as bmaz and others said, this can’t be about humiliating La Goodling. It’s all about filling in the gaps and blurs on the process, both with AUSA interviews and the US Attny. firings.
So: â€Were you led to believe that it was reasonable and proper to weigh Republican party affiliation when interviewing candidates for career positions? If so, by whom?â€
Read her the riot act; comply or face obstruction charges that would now be crystal clear. It is time to put the foot on the throat and stake in the heart of these jerkoffs.
Too damn right: she’s trying to have her cake and eat it now. Well, no cake for Monica.
I suspect that the hearing may last five minutes now: Conyers needs to say ’no documents equals contempt’, and there’s a cell in the basement.
And this makes me even curiouser about who’s paying Dowd’s bills and directing his actions. Because I don’t think she made that decision.
Do you feel any sense of shame or embarrassment at all that your law â€degree†came from a box of Cracker Jacks?
Heh. I haven’t that one used since a showdown a few years back by a lone attorney for a corporation against a horde of lawyers for an IT vendors. Worked then, works now.
Rayne – A couple of weeks ago, another regular here used the term â€Regent School of Law and Small Engine Repairâ€. Both are hilarious.
Well, it would appear that everyone is getting cranked up.
The best one above was:
What would Jesus do? Explain. -Posted by: &y
That was just plain lovely. Testimony under oath about what Jesus would do!
This is what I postulate will happen.
No one here will be satisfied by Monica’s testimony. The testimony will not be liked because it will hand over nobody’s head. Everyone here will say as they did for Gonzales that â€the committee should have asked other questions, rather than the ones that they asked.â€
And in the end, the old â€missing emails†and other missing damning correspondence and filthy nasty conspiracy plans will be blamed for a lack of evidence to bring criminal charges against Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.
~Surely somewhere some liberal soul will liberate those maps to where the bodies are buried and expose them to the light.~
Now why am I so scarcastic here? It is because everyone is looking at the wrong thing.
Look at Iraq people! That is where the smoking guns, and the dead bodies are.
All the rest is just side street theater.
Several more important question for Goodling:
• Why would the White House Liason be involved in hiring, firing, and payment decisions for non-Civil Service 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 or 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 when you did so?
• Did you ever work with Tim Griffin or others in identifying names to be researched with the aim of purging them from state voter rolls? What were the criteria and how did you identify these names?
• How did Rachel Palouse come to be nominated for the position for US Attorney?
• 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, â€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 â€why they†— meaning the US Attorneys — â€were firedâ€? What was the specific 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?
• (Echoing a commenter from above) Who is paying your attorney fees? Were you coached or did you engage in any rehearsal sessions before appearing here today? Who was present at those sessions? What was discussed?
That’ll do for now, I suppose.
You know that feeling you get when you’re forgetting something? I know there’s one more question, an important one, I’ve forgotten here. Something I pointed out a few months ago, either here, at TPMMuckraker, or at FDL. Something that – like the detail of the WH Liason being involved in NON-political hirings and firings – gets right to the heart of the wrongness and politicization of the DoJ in a way that even non-partisan people not following the story can understand. And for the life of me, I just can’t remember it.
Damn it, I hate when that happens.
Oh well, maybe it’ll come to me during the hearings tomorrow. Or maybe one of the Congress members (or aides) will think of it.
What I’d ask if I met her in an elevator, or was waiting for a flight or a Starbucks with her [etc.], is: â€So, Monica Goodling, as a lawyer and member of the bar in the District of Columbia, what criminal or impeachable offenses do you have personal knowledge of?â€
snark
Tokyo Jodi, I for one would be lost without your always helpful, Christianist, neocon insights. I had completely forgotten about your family fighting in Iraq for my right to inexpensive gas. In a prior thread, you mentioned you need to â€lose a few pounds†in anticipation of meeting your â€Hero,†the â€King†of his gender at an island. How callous of me to forget to ask how that is going?
/snark
Point: separation of church and state, Constitution vs 10 Commandments, democracy vs theocracy
**************************
Is Paulose the only USA holding daily prayer sessions on taxpayer time?
Do you wish everybody did?
Are you deliberately choosing evangelists or graduates of evangelistic schools?
Were you chosen because you are an evangelist? by whom?
Have you prayed together with other officials in the DoJ? the WH? Who and why? What did/do you hope to achieve?
When you undertook to remake the DoJ into a branch of the Church, subservient to God’s law rather than the Constitution, whose orders were you following? Robertson’s? Bush’s? Mier’s?
Are you positioning evangelistic USA’s or other DoJ personnel on a career track to the Supreme Court?
******************************************
IOW, somebody is deliberately putting evangelists into powerful positions, and grooming them up the ranks, whether it be Monica with the entire DoJ or some generals at the Air Force Academy. These Loyal Bushies (TM) believe that he was anointed by God. Somebody is behind this scheme, and it affects the big picture if they are going to get impatient and jump-start the End Times because some preacher or neocon wants to be raptured. If Bush nukes Iran because somebody in a prayer session says that it is Armageddon Time (cue the music), we deserve to know who is calling the shots.
Look at Iraq people! That is where the smoking guns, and the dead bodies are.
All the rest is just side street theater.
Posted by: Jodi
I should take your advice? You can’t find your ass with two hands.
Q: Although the AG delegated hiring/firing authority to you & KS, what sort of discussions did you have with AG after delegation? With KS? Can you provide specifics? E.g. dates/locations? Who were on the list as potential fires? What vetting process did you and KS have for hiring/firing? Who else did you involve in decisions? Who asked for updates on process? Can you explain the rationale for delegation? Who originally suggested delegation? Was WH involved in discussions preceding delegation? Was there an assumption/acknowledgment that delegation from AG to you/KS would distance WH principals & AG from responsibility for decisions?
Tokyo John Casper
Neil
I can always tell when I make a good contribution from your reactions.
That bit of logic and common sense really stung didn’t it?