Monica’s Job History
The DOJ IG report provides more details than we’ve seen before of Monica Goodling’s entire work history. And when you look at it, it’s pretty damn clear that her primary purpose at DOJ was to politicize the department.
Here are the details the report gives. As we knew, Monica’s first job out of law school was doing oppo research for the RNC:
From 1999 to February 2002, she worked for the Republican National Committee (RNC) where she held the positions of research analyst, senior analyst, and deputy director for research and strategic planning. Among her duties was what she described on her résumé as “a broad range of political research.”
Her first job at DOJ was spin–working in the Public Affairs department with Libby’s future PR flack Barbara Comstock and Rove’s future PR flack Mark Corallo:
According to Goodling’s résumé, while at OPA she worked closely with the OAG regarding public communications about the Department’s work, including media events, press releases, speeches, and talking points.
Then, they shipped her across the Potomoc for a short sting in a US Attorney’s office–so she’d look like a "real" lawyer when future promotions became available.
In September 2004, Goodling began a 6-month detail as a Special Assistant United States Attorney in the USAO for the Eastern District of Virginia, where she handled criminal felony and misdemeanor cases.
I believe the use of "handled" here does not include actually "handling" anything in a courtroom–as I recall Monica testified before Congress she had no real prosecutorial experience.
But here’s the real tip-off about Monia’s career: they created a brand new political Deputy Director of EOUSA for her to move into in March 2005–at which position they had her approving waivers for AUSA hires requested by interim US Attorneys.
The political Schedule C Deputy Director position for Goodling was a new position within EOUSA. Contemporaneous e-mails of senior managers within the OAG and ODAG indicate that OAG personnel approved Goodling’s appointment as a political Deputy Director.
Then finally, they institutionalized and expanded this institutionalized political hiring and firing function by moving it to the Attorney General’s office.
Goodling’s major responsibility as White House Liaison was to interview and process applicants for political positions in the Department. In that job, she also interviewed and was involved in the selection of career attorneys who were candidates for temporary details to various Department offices, and candidates for immigration judge and Board of Immigration Appeals positions. In addition, Goodling continued to process waiver requests by interim U.S. Attorneys, although neither of her predecessors as White House Liaison, Susan Richmond and Jan Williams, had done so.
In other words, it seems the primary purpose of her career at DOJ was to create new levels of politicization in key positions.
Exactly. They were looking for someone to turn into the tool to do the job, found Monica, honed her into the tool they needed and then put her where they wanted her and let her go.
In other words, it seems the primary purpose of her career at DOJ was to create new levels of politicization in key positions.
And you gotta admit, she did that well!
I almost think you could write a Monica book now!
My spouse was quick to point out that those hired are still employed by the WH terrorists and could well, unless we are vigilant, become judges at some future time. We must purge all those hired by bushco from the secret service gatekeeper to the supreme court “judges”.
And how do they become judges?
A judicial nominating committee is formed by a prominent Republican party hack attorney and notice and application forms are mailed out via snail mail on the letterhead of the prominent law firm. Individuals are asked to apply and submit names of their homeboys and homegirls that they deem “qualified” to the party hack at his law firm. These names are then submitted to a “nominating committee” currently filled with Republican party hacks who often disregard just like Monica Goodling did with the Immigration Judge candidates, any relevant litigation experience in a federal or even a state court room. Whomever the nominating committee picks is then rubber stamped by a robot in the US Senate who is republican in most cases.
AFJ’s Website does a decent job of pointing out the ones (most of them in the Bush administration) who have terrible qualifications to be on the bench.
Get a hold of one of the questionaires. It’s similar to the ones they hand out in a fast food restaurant where the individuals there have qualifications close to equal to those on the federal bench, particularly when they went to a law school as completely shitty as Goodling did.
How Judges Think by Richard A. Posner
Judge Richard Posner, former Chief Judge at the Seventh Circuit, has a chapter in his new book acknowledging the politicization of the federal bench and the Supreme Court, making this very point.
When Clarence Thomas was appointed to the bench by Bush Sr., he had next to no litigation experience in a federal or state courtroom whatso fucking ever.
In some districts there are a gamut of federal judges who came from a state court bench and had little time on that particular state court bench and little or no time actually litigating cases in state court let alone federal district court or oral argument and briefing in an appeals court.
Want a quick example? One Frank Hull was appointed by one William Jefferson Clinton after a few months on a state court bench and no significant litigation experience in any courtroom including a moot courtroom in law school or high school. Welcome to the Bannana Republic USA where most of the citizens don’t read jack shit and it shows.
You get the democracy you deserve and are you ever getting it in spades.
Your Congress is kicking the shit in the can on down the road right now to the administration and its relationship with this worthless Congress after Jan. 20.
The idiot federal government is now in the process of bailing out markets, mortgage bankers, and credit rating firms who monitored them and ultimately Mr. Andrea Mitchell who fucked up supremely with a bigger safety net than the New Deal era promoted.
7 27 08 The Way We Live Now: No Free Bubble NYTimes Magazine
Frank Hull was appointed by William Jefferson Clinton after gaining no courtroom experience anywhere litigating and a few months stint on a state court bench to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. If you want to hear some of the most imbecilic questions imaginable reflecting zero understanding of case law, constitutional law, the fact pattern in the trial court, FRE, FRCrP, show up for an oral argument where Frank is on the pannel.
Law students have smirked at her consummate stupidity. Thank you William Jefferson Clinton!
See, a conspiracy to commit hatch violations : )
Back from the great lake gitchee gami…some awesome, juicy wonderful reading upon my return.
http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEX…..xtell1.htm
Also a great article about the dialectic and intercultural perspectives.
We must change our brains!!
It really is a fascinating issue. For me the crucial political facet of this inquiry is the possibility of self-consciousness vis-a-vis the unconscious denial of a shadow projection. This is distinguishing phenomenon of the Rovian political character: the attribution of one’s one guilty weaknesses to an opponent. Of course perceptive neurology is organically imprinted by personal traits. There is really no escaping the guilt that initially arises in the pointing of the accusatory finger.
And does this point the way to Rove’s refusal to testify. Is it ultimately his inability to deny the coordination of activities at SmartTech?
This is really the point Georges Bataille makes about guilt, elitism and consumerism in the Accursed Share. The irony is that the solution that exists in something akin to a sacred wholism.
Rove may be in deep shit over the 2006 Ohio pres election
1) Bush can’t pardon someone convicted under a civil RICO case, which is what Arnebeck is compiling. (Also, can’t remember if it came up during the interview, but as some have suggested that Rove simply invoke Executive Privilege to avoid being deposed in this case, Exec Privilege does not come into play in such a case. It only refers to Congressional testimony.) 2) Connell had agreed to meet with the House Judiciary Comm. several months ago, but so far Judiciary hasn’t followed up. 3) Arnebeck makes a tantalizing reference to the finding in the Paula Jones case that sitting Presidents may be deposed in civil cases.
1) Bush can’t pardon someone convicted under a civil RICO case, which is what Arnebeck is compiling. (Also, can’t remember if it came up during the interview, but as some have suggested that Rove simply invoke Executive Privilege to avoid being deposed in this case, Exec Privilege does not come into play in such a case. It only refers to Congressional testimony.) 2) Connell had agreed to meet with the House Judiciary Comm. several months ago, but so far Judiciary hasn’t followed up. 3) Arnebeck makes a tantalizing reference to the finding in the Paula Jones case that sitting Presidents may be deposed in civil cases
The complete, short email, sent today from Arnebeck to AG Mukasey, follows in full below…
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 10:51 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Report of Rove threats against witness Michael Connell
Dear Attorney General Mukasey:
We have been confidentially informed by a source we believe to be credible that Karl Rove has threatened Michael Connell, a principal witness we have identified in our King Lincoln case in federal court in Columbus, Ohio, that if he does not agree to “take the fall” for election fraud in Ohio, his wife Heather will be prosecuted for supposed lobby law violations.This appears to be in response to our designation of Rove as the principal perpetrator in the Ohio Corrupt Practices Act/RICO claim with respect to which we issued document hold notices last Thursday to you and to the US Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform. See: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6189 and http://www.archive.org/d……..CourtCase.
I have informed court chambers and am in the process of informing the Ohio Attorney General’s and US Attorney’s offices in Columbus for the purpose, among other things, of seeking protection for Mr. Connell and his family from this reported attempt to intimidate a witness.
Concurrently herewith, I am informing Mr. Conyers and Mr. Kucinich in connection with their Congressional oversight responsibilities related to these matters.
Because of the serious engagement in this matter that began in 2000 of the Ohio Statehouse Press Corps, 60 Minutes, the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, C-Span and Jim VandeHei, and the public’s right to know of gross attempts to subvert the rule of law, I am forwarding this information to them, as well.
Cliff Arnebeck, Attorney
###-###-####
Cell ###-###-####
cc: Robert Fitrakis, Esq.
Henry Eckhart, Esq
Woops, 2004
In answer to your earlier question, I think all this stuff looks goofier than all get out. Secondly, Bush or any other President for that matter can absolutely pardon people in a civil RICO case, it is just that the pardon would only be effective for underlying crimes and could not obviate a civil damage award; but the pardon would bugger up the litigation of such a suit I might add. I personally think this Arnebeck dude is malpracticing, to the point of extremely questionable conduct, his client’s case and that his tactics are pathetic. Geragos would be ashamed of this shit. I have said this earlier, I will say it again, people are getting way too overhyped on this with what appears to be currently known. Now maybe someone will put it into a nice little bow that makes more sense, and I will change my mind; but, from what I have seen so far, this is just a bunch of inflated breathless hype so far.
Arnebeck speculates that Roves involvement in killing the investigations in Ohio was one imagined comment made to an FBI agent who transferred from Buffalo to Cincinnati. It seems pretty flimsy to me too. But the links to SmartTech, the removal of hard drives, the statistical anomalies and the like will not go away.
And the attribution of the threat by Rove to a “credible source” seems odd and questionably removed unless the “credible source” turns out to be Mike Connell.
I agree there is something “airy” about Arnebeck’s approach, but will the IT side of the Ohio debacle ever be fully investigated?
Heh, no clue, it should be; but, I am afraid that the breathless other stuff will bleed the attention off of that and then everything will die with a whimper.
Not sure Arnebeck is totally wet though. He is exploiting the lower civil burden of proof and the presumption arising from the facts of the destroyed emails which might otherwise shed light on the Rove, SmartTech, Blackwell circle. In the light of destroyed evidence circumstantial details would naturally take on a new greater weight and its this not precedented inferential reason that seems to premise Arnebeck’s stretches.
It is what is going on vis a vis a supposedly threatened witness that bothers me and the way it is all being attempted to be played out in the press. I have issues with those aspects.
Arnebeck, Bob Fitkaris and Harvey Wasserman have been putting their time in on the Ohio selection in 2004
“How Ohio pulled if off” documentary on the Ohio selection. Arnebeck, Fitkaris and Wasserman’s focus on these election issues have been instrumental. I was able to go to some of the Conyers hearings in Columbus just after the election. I saw Palast quite a few times at these hearings
“but will the IT side of the Ohio debacle ever be fully investigated?”
this video,where Pallast points to the proprietary code of Diebold and the fact that Kerry’s name is missing sure seems to confirm how screwed up the e-voting system is.
http://www.bradblog.com/
thanx
From page 92 of the report, Sampson was helping terrorist too:
To think Sampson and the other Bozos are appointing IJ’s to sit in judgement of human beings is kind of sad.
I still say we should focus on having her disbarred. If she wants to take the fall for this, she should lose her law license for it.
They? Who?
Goodling interview questions.
You must be kiddin’ Loo Hoo. And the followup question from the candidate was probably “because I hear he can’t even return the second serve when it’s slow and in his strike zone.”
Let me count the ways about George Bush that makes me wanna serve him:
Here’s my list:
Good Night Bush
This question has an unmistakeably religious cast. It’s of a piece with asking, “What Would Reagan Do“?
Bill Kristol’s op-ed makes it clear
we have met the enemy, and the enemy is the Democrat party
that’s gonna be a real problem for the repuglitards come november
when 70% of the population is your enemy, well, kinda makes it hard to win elections
67 Democratic Senators and 4 impeached supreme court justices
you’re either for us or against us, and America has decided we’re AGAINST the repuglitard party
so how’s that permanent repuglitard majority workin out, kkkarl ???
I dislike the positions of certain of the Supreme court as much as you do. I’d love to see them off the bench. But not one of them has done anything to warrent impeachment. Ridicule, yes.
But I think any of the DOJ employees that benefited from Monica’s Welfare Program should have to re-interview for the job against an open field. A small percentage of them MIGHT be best fit for the position and their politics should have nothing to do with that.
Boxturtle (I think Gooding would take disbarment before she rolled over on BushCo)
this stuff about Rove’s hand in rigging the 2006 Ohio pres election points to the extremes they’ll go to.
Threats to M Connell about taking the fall for the election fraud etc.
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6214
“Karl Rove has threatened a GOP high-tech guru and his wife, if he does not “‘take the fall’ for election fraud in Ohio,” according to a letter sent this morning to Attorney General Michael Mukasey, by Ohio election attorney Cliff Arnebeck.
The email, posted in full below, details threats against Mike Connell of the Republican firm New Media Communications, which describes itself on its website as “a powerhouse in the field of Republican website development and Internet services” and having “played a strategic role in helping the GOP expand its technological supremacy.”
The disclosure from Arnebeck comes on the heels of a dramatic announcement last week, made at a Columbus press conference, announcing Arnebeck’s motion to lift a stay on the long-standing King Lincoln Bronzwell v. Blackwell federal lawsuit, challenging voting rights violations in the 2004 Presidential Election in Ohio.
“The motion was made following the discovery of new information, including details from a Republican data security expert, leading Arnebeck towards seeking depositions of Rove, Connell, and other GOP operatives believed to have participated in the gaming of election results in 2004. A letter [PDF] was sent to Mukasey at the same time last week, asking him to retain email and other documents from Rove”
This is dated 7/24 so I’m alittle behind
Is this what the FBI warrants and search in Cuyahoga County were about?
OT- Novak says he has a brain tumor
When the hell was he ever a “journalist”? Oh and FUCK HIM
Maybe that Little Black Corvette should have been and should now be parked unless and until Novak has successful treatment for whatever tissue type of tumor he has.
Obviously the most common type of tumor is the same one that Teddy Kennedy has, who does not drive his boat or his cars now a Glioblastoma IV.
Grade IV (glioblastoma multiforme, GBM) is an extremely aggressive and lethal form of brain cancer. Unfortunately, it is the most common form of brain tumor in adults, accounting for 67% of all astrocytomas.
A patient with GBM seems fine as long as you’re ignorant of the disease as Kathleen Connolly’s well meaning statement shows:
He didn’t seem fine when he dislocated a homeless elderly gentleman’s shoulder that he appropriated as the hood ornamant of his little black Corvette for a segement of time where the attorney riding his bike next to Novak saw the newly acquired hood ornamant and Novak did not.
What’s the M&M on a GBM treated with current state of the art modalities?
Morbidity is from the tumor location, progression, and pressure effects. The overall prognosis for GBM has changed little in the past 2 decades, despite major improvements in neuroimaging, neurosurgery, radiation treatment techniques, and supportive care. Few patients with GBM survive longer than 3 years and only a handful survive 5 years. Previously reported long-term survivors of GBM may be patients diagnosed with GBM who actually harbor low-grade glioma, pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma, ganglioglioma, or other lesions. Occasional patients with a single necrotic, demyelinating plaque of multiple sclerosis also may be misdiagnosed with GBM, especially if only CT scans are obtained.
Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), like other brain tumors, produces symptoms by a combination of focal neurologic deficits from compression and infiltration of the surrounding brain, vascular compromise, and raised intracranial pressure. Presenting features include the following:
Headaches (30-50%)
Headaches are nonspecific and indistinguishable from tension headache.
As the tumor enlarges, it may have features of increased intracranial pressure.
Seizures (30-60%): Depending on the tumor location, seizures may be simple partial, complex partial, or generalized.
Focal neurologic deficits (40-60%): As some patients with GBM survive longer, an increasing number of patients experience cognitive problems, neurologic deficits resulting from radiation necrosis, communicating hydrocephalus, and occasionally cranial neuropathies and polyradiculopathies from leptomeningeal spread.
Mental status changes (20-40%): With the advent of MRI, GBMs are increasingly diagnosed at an earlier stage and with subtle personality changes.
In fairness to Novak, his brain tumor COULD explain why he hit that guy and drove off. I don’t think so, but if I were a juror in his hit-and-run trial, this would be enough for me to say “reasonable doubt”.
I suppose it’s asking too much for us to hope for a deathbed conversion in support of truth and justice.
Obviously in any patient we want the best possible treatment and outcome, even Novak, and you are 100% correct in your assessment of course.
Why too much? He’s already had one conversion.
Though it didn’t seem to have any effect.
You’re right. It will all stay in the confessional.
The deathbed is sufficient to hell with the conversion.
I share your hunch that news of a brain tumor could explain Novak’s recent ‘black corvette incident’, but as you point out, we would need more information.
Just for those who’ve been… ‘joyous’ about this news… I think Novak is a dirtbag, but I’d never be gleeful about anyone having a brain tumor.
FYI, brain cancers are on the rise, and that’s raising questions. If you have a cell phone handy, put it next to your computer screen and turn it on. (I’m guessing you’ll see an electromagnetic disturbance.) Then consider how close you really want to place an electromagnetic pulse to your brain– from any cell phone unit (yes, the newer units have lower pulses than the older model units, but still…).
Consider buying a headphone and using it.
Novak’s going to need a strong social support network; whether he’s lived his life in a way that will enable him to have support at this time is none of my affair. Clearly, Ted Kennedy’s generous spirit and willingness to work on behalf of others has probably allowed him to have a very strong and emotionally warm social support system while he and his family face ominous decisions. Whether Novak is as fortunate remains to be seen, although frankly it’s absolutely none of my business.
And Hmmmm… @73, FWIW — I think anyone who’s read your comments over time would interprete your remarks to mean that you are fed up with extremism. I hear ya on that topic.
Goodling’s pay grade may very well have been higher than the average AUSA or USA who handles/administrates real litigation which ought to make people like Iglesias and the other politically fired US Attorneys feel great.
I have been harping for over a year here that Goodling filled the ranks of immigration judges with individuals who had never practiced immigration law in the court where they were presiding, and I was dead on right. Of course, again, and again, many many federal judges have never practiced law in a federal court room when they don’t come from the ranks of former AUSAs or USAs and a number of them are on the federal appellate bench. Frank Hull on the Eleventh Circuit is one shining example who was briefly and I mean a few months briefly a state court judge in Fulton County Georgia and had no litigation experience in a state court room or a federal courtroom. Think you’re fast food maintainance person could be a federal judge? You bet your ass they could. By the way in surveys of decisions by the Immigration Courts, the Immigration Court in the Northern District of Georgia granted asylum 5% of the time; in the exact same fact pattern of cases, the Immigration Courts in the Southern District of Florida granted asylum 95% of the time with the exact same backgrounds of defendants and the exact same fact patterns. Welcome to the “Goodling vetted” judges.
Now let’s see: Marcy quoted:
Goodling and Williams sure as hell have violated federal law, and they violated one of the most common code sections that is being prosecuted in your district and all of the 94 federal districts hundreds of times a week:
And what law did that violate that is prosecuted hundreds of times a week in the 94 district federal courts?
18 USC 1001 Statements or entries generally
As amended in 1996:
H.R.3166 Related Bills: H.RES.535, H.R.1678, S.1734 Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 104-292
Section 1001 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as
follows:
“Sec. 1001. Statements or entries generally
“(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any
matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or
judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and
willfully–
“(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick,
scheme, or device a material fact;
“(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or representation; or
“(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing
the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or
fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or
both.
“(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial
proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations,
writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or
magistrate in that proceeding.
“(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the
legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to–
“(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment,
a matter related to the procurement of property or services,
personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a
document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to
the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative
branch; or
“(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the
authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office
of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House
or Senate.”.
[[Page 110 STAT. 3460]]
H.R.3166
Title: An Act to prohibit false statements to Congress, to clarify congressional authority to obtain truthful testimony, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Martini, William J. [NJ-8] (introduced 3/27/1996) Cosponsors (3)
Related Bills: H.RES.535, H.R.1678, S.1734
Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 104-292 [GPO: Text, PDF]
House Reports: 104-680
And how about Regent University Law School at the scum rung of law schools in the US–what’s the level of scholarship and training there? Well at least you can take home a homily/aphorism/moralism/devotional that the idiots that go there recite. One of them is working in a tiny grocery in my neighborhood using her constitutional law skills making change and talking on her like cell phone after graduating from the Pat Robertson moroned down “law school”:
Scandal puts spotlight on Christian law school
Grads influential in Justice Dept.
“Sin is so appealing because it’s easy and because it’s fun,” the law student warned.
And this here nugget of OBGYN research could be why so many well educated 13 year olds have like babies in the like United like States couldn’t it? Like? OMG!!!!!!!! R you readin’ any books today or R you doin’ your like thing on the web?
OMG! Lookee here: Because if you have teenyboppers there is an excellent chance this article details their reading skills and that is the key to why your Congress and your Judiciary holds you in such low regard. They know that the bell shaped curve of Americans aren’t aware of anything about Goodling’s/Williams’/Sampson’s conduct/ and they don’t know who they are and they don’t care.
Welcome to Deliberate Indifference America where a candidate for President says drilling and a gas tax holiday that will get you 5 Gummi Bears at the candy section of your grocery will save you from high gas prices.
Literacy Debate: Online, R U Really Reading?
OT via Wonkette:
He’s in intensive care.
Any AG that gave a lick about the DOJ would be pounding the bejeebies out of Goodling, Sampson et al. that Mukasey has no inclination to tells you all you need to know about him, his allegiances and intentions. As a wise woman asked earlier, what about John Nowacki?
there you are !
What do you know about this Rove stuff @20
From the department of nitpicking:
“Then, they shipped her across the Potomoc for a short sting…”
Perhaps you meant “stint”?
Thanks again for your work in the weeds, EW!
Who’s the “they” here? i.e., the people controlling her career path at DOJ?
Bob in HI
The immunity Congress granted Miss Goodling in exchange for her hole-ridden testimony may prevent an effective prosecution for all her crimes, though perhaps not.
It should not at all deter her state bar licensing authorities from concluding that her actions violated the law and her oath of office, and that are clear and convincing evidence that her capacity to tell the truth, when it conflicts with her religious-cum-political beliefs, is severely impaired. If they have not already done so, they should take immediate, appropriate action to limit her ability to inflict on other clients what she has inflicted on the Department of Justice and the people of the United States.
IIRC her bar is PA. What’s the first step? Is there a moral turpitude charge possible?
IIRC, Bmaz said long ago that the hirees were protected by the same Hatch Act she violated. True?
Are their names known? If not, can they be deduced from DOJ bios? And then what? Is their privacy protected?
Goodling is subject to disciplinary action by any bar she has passed if any. Theoretically one needs to pass the bar to be hired by policy by this DOJ. One can flunk the bar and run for President as attorney Hillary Rhodam “give me money so I can pay myself back 11 million while I have more than $111 million in the bank Clinton” has shown. The Hatch Act does not protect Goodling from disbarment or bar disciplinary proceedings nor would it protect her from prosecution per 18USC 1001. What protects her is a clusterfucked DOJ at Main Justice and a clusterfucked OLC and an impotent feckless OPR and an impotent feckless IG.
Next to nothing comes of the vast majority of Fein investigations. The worst penalty is being asked to leave DOJ. There is no execution with teeth whatsoever.
Let them come across Tamisha Robinson and John Robinson first time crack dealers and they’ll pounce with both feet because DOJ being the quintissential chickenshits of the legal community do love to beat up on defenseless bottom feeders.
digg
Hot duggity dugg
From page 122, more lies to investigators from Monica (Christian-in-her-mind-only) Goodling:
When she heads off to the Pearly Gates someday she will have to explain to St. Peter why she lied so much.
Is this Soviet style apparatchik employed as we read and write?
-G
No idea . . . but she may get a new line on her resume as “Worst Person in the World” for the terrorism angle EW highlighted in the previous thread.
For those in a hurry.
I just scanned the report. Somebody please help me to understand why the scope of the report is limited to Monica’s activities and not direction she was given? Seems awfully obvious she was given a mission that she undertook with zeal and that she knew was illegal – thus requesting immunity.
OK – She’s a White House Liaison. So, assume direction she was given was privileged. So – I’m getting annoyed here -where’s the “why” in this whole report? Don’t these investigators want a motive? Lots of clear evidence of behavior and admission to the behavior but no stated reason for the behavior. It’s these kinds of reports that lead scholars like Pressman and Rabkin to state in the non-impeachment hearings, without reservation, that there is no evidence of impeachable offenses. IG reports consistently stop with the flunkies.
Seems to me the “why” was her oath of office that she mistook to actually be a loyalty oath to the President.
Typical, unaccountable Washington.
As Earl said in #17 – “whole-ridden testimony” is pretty useless.
She was just a bad apple – the Lynndie England of DOJ.
You’re right sparkles:
For the past 7 years we’ve been victims of a lot of bad apples executing their duties with zeal (torture, politicization, etc) under the direction of privileged executives who benefit from selective recollection.
So clear to me know.
How is that the headline stops at Goodling and Sampson? Where is the unveiling of those who created the culture and signed off on the advancements that allowed them to advance and thrive.
Right, more of the “few bad apples” approach. Goodling did not just spring forth into the DOJ out of the void.
She sprang forth from the loins of Barbara Comstock, fertilized with the seed of Mark Corrallo, apparently. As the heavenly angels of Regent University looked on.
I see. And was little Kyle Sampson just riding her coattails?
Kyle was the spawn (the hatchling?) of Orrin Hatch and Liz Cheney.
Absolutely you’re correct.
Nothing will be done to her, Sampson or Williams by DOJ even as DOJ prosecutes hundreds of 18USC§1001 cases a week in all 94 district courts. It may be the most common charge prosecuted second to small time drug prosecutions or in Southwestern states immigration cases now. Mukasey DOJ doesn’t prosecute anything that had to do with the hijacking of DOJ by former employees. Of course many people were involved particularly Rove and Miers and Miers’ attorneys on staff, OLC, and Ashcroft and Gonzales were markedly responsible le at the time this happened.
OT – whoever is keeping watch over the Cass Sunstein wiki page is vigilantly preventing people from adding anything about Prof. Sunstein’s moral relativism regarding prosecutions of the Bush administration. Not important, apparently. Yet the fact that he has a Rhodesian Ridgeback – very, very important.
Ridgebacks are pretty cool dogs. It’s extremely important info. Cass Sunstein has as much to do with the dirilection of prosecution of these individuals as Rhodesian Ridgebacks in all the on point states where they currently reside. Cass Sunstein is a law professor with a prodigious body of work who is now one of the newest distinguished profs at Harvard Law because his fiance Samantha Power is the Executive Director of the Carr Center for Human Rights
in Public Policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.
The prosecution of the Bush administration could and should be done by
a) Oversight with some balls by this Congress. Cass Sunstein is not the one who is chickenshit to invoke inherent contempt. See Waxman’s Committee, See Conyers’ Commitee and See Leahy’s Committee. They have the means to do that right this moment and they’re not because????????
b) The current DOJ is obstructing the prosecution of most of the people to whom you refer. See Mukasey. See Gushing accolades by Schumer and Feinstein during SJC confirmation. See Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility whose reports are toothless and accomplish next to nothing. You don’t see any prosecutions of Goodling, Sampson, or Williams and many of their supervisors for having violated 18USC1001 do you?
There are Rhodesian Ridgebacks and Basset Hounds who know more constitutional law than Monica Goodling.
c) Local Bar Associations have the ability to discipline/petition for disbarrment of many of these people and delete their licenses to practice law. Has Texas made any moves against Miers or Gonzales? How about Missouri and Ashcroft? How about the D.C. Bar and Josh Bolten? Why is Yoo still licensed to practice law in the state of California and in D.C.?
OT but interesting. Jason Burnett–an HP Scion is testifying before Barbara Boxer’s Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works on EPA altering reports and Senator Larry Craig is tryin’ to drill him.
The topic is the Bush adminsitration’s interference with California’s attempt to limit tail pipe emissions.
Who says you can’t survive a litte footsie in a Minnesota airport bathroom particularly if you’re in the US Senate even if you were dumb enough not to get a lawyer on board early on?
Jason Burnett — The John Yoo Of The EPA — Steps Down [UPDATED]»
Just so you are aware:
NOTICE OF COMMITTEE HEARING TIME CHANGE TO 10:00 a.m.
The hearing on “Politicized Hiring at the Department of Justice” scheduled by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary for Wednesday, July 30, 2008 in the Senate Dirksen Office Building, Room 226 will begin at 10:00 a.m. rather than the previously scheduled time of 9:00 a.m.
By order of the Chairman
Witness List
Hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee
on “Politicized Hiring at the Department of Justice”
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226
10:00 a.m.
The Honorable Glenn A. Fine
Inspector General
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, D.C.
OT: Did anyone notice this?
Novak:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25875755/
Methinks this has something to do the “The Black Corvette Incident”.
I outed Plame/Wilson because of the tumor..the hit and run…the tumor.
Oh fer chrissakes… that’ll teach me to read the comments first.
I was going to leave today with just having lurked, but I feel compelled to point out that Monica Goodling IIRC did not go to just any “law school” and that that school was being investigated, or do I misremember? Wasn’t it hinted at that the school was nothing more than a RNC mill?
As far I know, spousal hires don’t get to be distinguished professors at Harvard Law School. For the sake of the student he will teach, let’s hope he is distinguished by his prodigious body of work as opposed to his fiance.
Snark.
Woops. that comment is incomprehensible because it is a comment on PeterPeirce at 55.
Does anyone know where Goodling is now, beside in the arms of her finance/husband right wing blogger?
Practicing law? If so, can she be fired on the basis of the report?
No clue what she is doing, she is a member of the Virginia bar, and I think someone tried taking action against her and it went nowhere. The problem is going to be that Goodling and people like her did these acts while working for the government, apparently approved and sanctioned by their employers, and under the DC ethics code which was effectively gutted of any teeth several years ago for governmental attorney misconduct occurring in the course and scope of their employment. The remedy is impeachment if the Administration will not enforce the law and insists on breaking it.
One of the news reports says that investigators had already gotten inquiries from the Bar about Monica’s lawbreaking.
IIRC, congress can impeach an individual who has left office, and did so once?
I think this is the only tool we can use right now to rebuke any of these “lawyers”, I for one think it is extremely urgent to get yoo disbarred, we need to make it absolutely clear his opinions are worthless and the only way to do that is have the man disbarred
Miss
GoodbarGoodling gets her well-deserved share of abuse for her incompetence and for ignoring her oaths and legal obligations in favor of giving back to her political patrons. But it is those patrons who gave her an absurd level of authority — beyond her experience, competence and judgment — and control over both the lives of others and the staffing of the Department of Justice.Then again, actually performing doesn’t seem relevant to George Bush – starting with his self-perception that he’s competent to be President. What’s important is that whatever government does, it’s done by the faithful and that it protect its present incumbents.
Presumably, that’s why Bush installed the former Dean of Regent University, Kay Coles James, as head of the White House’s Office of Personnel. As with Brownie at FEMA, hiring was about raw patronage. They hired that way throughout the federal government, not just at the DOJ. Their priority made a self-fulfilling prophecy of their belief that government is inherently destined to fail and should be outsourced to the private sector, which should be paid much more to do the same things as bureaucrats, because as Enron and IndyMac demonstrate, it is incapable of fault or failure.
Sure seems to be business as usual for the Bush regime
I want to know whether there really are second oaths to W. In the FDL DOJ Politicization thread, LS @ 42 wonders whether if there were, whether that’s tied into continuity-of-government, a chillingly consistent theory. Especially when you consider the Christian nature of Regent U., and of Blackwater, and if you’ve seen the film ‘Jesus Camp’. I would be very happy to see the second oath idea convincingly refuted.
Well, that came off pretty darn anti-Christian, didn’t it? Sorry sorry sorry, not my intent at all. I should have stressed Regent U, Blackwater leadership, and ‘Jesus Camp’ are not mainstream Christian but rather frickin loony wingnut offshoot sects of Christianity.
(Can I have ‘Edit’ back please?…)
Well, that came off pretty darn anti-Christian, didn’t it?
Not to this Christian, fwiw. In fact I think you raise a good point, which testimony by and about Goodling in particular has suggested more than once.
“How Ohio Pulled it off” documentary by Ohio Univ. film students
http://www.howohiopulleditoff.com/
Yes, they can. I still think to some extent, it would be good to do for Gonzales
Not gleeful about anyone with brain tumor either. But fair is fair. DC cops should impound the corvette, and the doctors should taser the guy before ops.
The word “commissar” popped into my head when I read about the Goodling Report.