digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Goodling Admits Her Partisan Hirings Were ‘Illegal’

thinkprogress.org — In her opening statement to the House Judiciary Committee today, Monica Goodling — the Justice Department’s former White House Liason — admitted that she had “taken inappropriate political considerations into account” while hiring career employees at the Department.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • sonofdy1, on 10/11/2007, -113/+10So what? Thats not illegal.
    • flernk, on 10/11/2007, -13/+98I am so tired of the "so what" line from you people. That you are willing to happily ignore the gradual destruction of our Constitutional checks and balances system is frightening at best.
    • EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -13/+58@sonofdy, if you listen to the clip or read the transcript, Monica Goodling answers your BS. She said she broke the law (i.e., civil service laws), but didn't mean to.

      It's a bit like "Oops, I did it again" but whatever. She broke the law. There is no so what. So stop lying.
    • sonofdy1, on 10/11/2007, -81/+7Again, so what?
    • EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -11/+64@SonOfDy,

      Just out of curiosity, what exactly would it take for you to admit that this administration is criminal? Would Bush need to kill someone with his own hands? Would Cheney need to drink the blood of rich, white babies? Would Rove need to have stood in a voting booth, pointing a gun at people, telling them to vote Bush?

      I get the sense that you'd still say, "so what?"

      From what I got from Goodling's testimony, Gonzales, McNulty, and Sampson all lied to Congress under oath. So what? Isn't that what Clinton did? So What?
    • sonofdy1, on 10/11/2007, -71/+9An actual crime. I thought the Clinton witch hunt was lame. The DNC witch hunt to get anyone republican is worse. A politician lied. Big whoop. So what else is new? The DNC has 36 separate investigations into REPUBLICANS. Yet ignore clear cases where democrats have violated the law. So this is all political, and is not for the good of the country. So to me this whole thing is a waste of time for selfish partisan gain, just like the Clinton impeachment.

      The DNC has proven it's self worse than the GOP.
    • hawkeye17, on 10/11/2007, -8/+59"That's not illegal"? What she did is a violation of FEDERAL LAW(It's called the Hatch Act..look it up sometime). Wake up you ignorant Republican dupes. I bet money this person was going crazy over the Clinton affair too. Can you smell the hypocrisy?
    • flernk, on 10/11/2007, -13/+67The warrantless wiretapping was also patently illegal, if you're looking for "an actual crime."
    • Dumbledorito, on 10/11/2007, -9/+40"The DNC has proven it's self worse than the GOP."

      How? The probes into Republicans have actually gotten convictions. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, Mark Foley, Jack Abramoff, etc.

      They were actual convictions of the crimes they were investigated for. I'm so terribly sorry if the GOP is getting caught with their hand in the cookie jar (which is a very light metaphor for what they're actually doing), but there you go.

      And Karl Rove ordered US Attorneys to investigate trumped up voter fraud charges against Democrats exclusively. No evidence was found. When the investgations were halted, the attorneys sent to start these BS cases were fired. They were republicans, too, not "libr'ull traiters" or whatever you'd call them.

      The Dems have started to disappoint with their new congressional reign, but the GOP has been making corruption a party plank for the past 6 years, so you can probably expect a buttload more of them to be indicted.
    • sonofdy1, on 10/11/2007, -36/+6Jefferson got caught literal with the cash, where is he? oh thats right, STILL IN OFFICE.

      DNC = corrupt.
    • EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -7/+16Man, first of all, Jefferson has nothing to do with this. Second of all, no one is defending the Democrats as a stellar example, but pointing how BushCo is far, far worse (they actually kill people, ruin economies, lives). We're talking about the fate of the country here. Don't you get it?

      And as for Mr. Jefferson, they have to prove where the cash came from. I can keep $50,000 in my freezer if I want to. I'd probably be considered insane, but it's not illegal. Bribery is. As soon as they prove it, he'll be moving on out.
    • flernk, on 10/11/2007, -5/+31Oh, good, sonofdy, you're concerned about getting corrupt politicians out of office! I agree and Jefferson should be kicked out. And thanks so much for joining us! We need all the help we can get in the fight to impeach corrupt politicians like President Bush and Vice President Cheney, as well as trying to purge ourselves of Alberto Gonzales, Harriet Meirs, John Doolittle, Rick Renzi, and Ken Calvert. It's just a good thing we've already gotten rid of Paul Wolfowitz, Duke Cunningham, Mark Foley, Steven Griles, Tom Delay, Lester Crawford, Randall Tobias, Dusty Foggo, Scooter Libby, John Ashcroft...

      Oh, I'm sorry, did you forget that the current Republican party is the most corrupt in American history?
    • FlaG8r, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9sonofdy1, Jefferson still hasn't been charged with a crime and was re-elected by his district. There's a lot of people on the left that aren't happy about it, but there's not much that can be done until he is at least charged with something.
    • TubaTechno, on 10/11/2007, -18/+3By the way, very hypocritical to link to ThinkProgress for a political article, and then turn around and bash Fox news for being "right-wing".....

      Leave the spin at home.
    • relic2279, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6This is the same type of mentality of an individual who ignores and defends the politician(s) who break serious laws, commit illegal actions and immoral judgements. Yet when a certain Democrats *private* sex life comes into discussion, he should be impeached immediately.
      If presiding over the largest economic growth in US history is a crime, guilty as charged.

    • LukeSkope, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11But, but, but Clinton. Terrorism. 9-11. The boogy man. I can't recall. But Clinton did it too, and he got a blow job.
    • rhawk301, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4Karl Rove and AG Gonzales are the power players behind all this stuff. As people start getting burned around them, we will start to see a flood of fire extinguishers coming out and whistle blowers. Even Bush had to hire and fire several generals and other cabinet posts before he found just the right suck-ups. What we have is a dictator with spineless ninny minions lurking around the Executive Branch now.

      I have been watching sessions on C-SPAN and you should really hear how the Congress feels about the President. Its not just the Democrats, but some Republicans are also not very happy about what is going on. Yes, there are still some nut-job war mongers lingering around but too many any more. (but then again, who isn't going to vote for more money for our troops so they don't starve).

      I personally feel that we should have a separate funding process for ongoing operations, so our troops get clothes, bullet proof vests, bullets, food, etc. Then we have discussions on funding for extra war effort and time lines, etc, which I think will never get past the Congress.
    • StepCousin, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2My dyslexia sucks. At first, I thought it said "White House lesbian", which would have been a newsworthy story, especially considering that she would be the "lipstick lesbian" type (not the manly mullet type). Be that as it may, the story was lame....marked as such.

      Besides, who wants to put a hottie behind bars....kind of like that hot teacher who was screwing her teenage students.
    • dumpydooby, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4As far as I'm concerned, she's guilty of treason and should be treated like a criminal.
    • Crusader1145, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2I saw her testimony on TV yesterday and she never said her actions were "illegal", only that they were contrary to Civil Service rules. Not exactly the same thing. Not even close.

      To suggest that this somehow rises to the level of eroding our Constitutional rights is completely absurd. Lets not forget that Bill Clinton fired ALL the US attorneys within weeks of his swearing in. You don't think some of those firings weren't politically motivated? Geez, save the outrage for something meaningful because this sure isn't it.
    • sibhod, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2@crusader1145
      "Lets not forget that Bill Clinton fired ALL the US attorneys within weeks of his swearing in. You don't think some of those firings weren't politically motivated?"

      jesus ***** christ! When will this flawed argument stop being said? EVERY PRESIDENT replaces the US attorneys when sworn in. Bush did this as well, BUT Bush then also went on to fire his appointees mid-term which is unprecedented. The US Attorneys are legislative, and thus should not be subject firings on political whim.

      It is not illegal, but very very unethical.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1>> It's not illegal?

      Part of her admission was that the Republicans were using Caging lists to rig elections -- which is a Federal crime since they got a restraining order in 1987.

      The firings of the Prosecutors who were not coming down harder on Democrats for fictitious voter fraud cases, was also in swing states to put more "pro-Bush" people in place. A lot of this has to do with rigging elections. A Federal crime.
  • floorman56, on 10/11/2007, -28/+9She also said that she was ``not aware of anyone'' in the Justice Department ``ever suggesting the replacement'' of prosecutors ``to interfere with a particular case.'' which is what the Dem's were hoping she would do so they could "Get" Bush
    • EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -9/+29Of course she wouldn't say that. She's playing the part of Ollie North in a repeat of the Iran Contra hearings. She did it all on her own. If you believe her this statement, I have Bush's copy of the constitution to sell you -- brand new! Never been used!
    • yakimushi, on 10/11/2007, -9/+18She might not have been, but she certainly opened a door with this statement:

      "I have never attended a meeting of the White House Judicial Selection Committee. The attorney general and Kyle Sampson attended those meetings. To the best of my recollection, I’ve never had a conversation with Karl Rove or Harriet Miers while I served at the Department of Justice. And I’m certain that I never spoke to either of them about the hiring or firing of any U.S. attorney."

      Hopefully the Dems will take that information and turn it into an opportunity to get to the bottom of things, even if they have to go to the top.
    • EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -8/+12Yeah. She does indeed seem to be saying that her superiors did all the real planning. She even said they lied to congress. Time for Sampson and McNulty to take the hot seat again.
    • TubaTechno, on 10/11/2007, -12/+2"Of course she wouldn't say that. She's playing the part of Ollie North in a repeat of the Iran Contra hearings. She did it all on her own. If you believe her this statement, I have Bush's copy of the constitution to sell you -- brand new! Never been used!"

      Wait wait wait.....You're putting question the credibility of her testimony and now you're going to believe her when she says she hired people illegally?! Why are you only believing her testimony when it agrees with you?!
    • EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7@TubaTechno, what is so hard for you to understand? A crime was committed. It can't be denied. So she says, "Yes, screening job applicants for how well they'd suck up to GWB was my fault."

      She's got immunity, so anything she admits _she_ did is no problem for her. The only really patriotic thing she did was effectively admit that Gonzeles, McNulty, and Sampson lied under oath to Congress. That'll be followed up soon and denied. But at least there's something.

      And by admitting she had nothing to do with the decisions of the inner circle of WH & DOJ advisors on firing the USAs, she effectively showed that there _was_ undue political influence. But she did a great job (from the WH's point of view) of obfuscating that fact and leaving it for pundits to decipher.

      Basically, she threw herself on a grenade, with some shrapnel leaking out, but leaving her mostly unharmed too.
  • hawkeye17, on 10/11/2007, -7/+37She also said that Gonzales' testimony was 'inaccurate'. That would be perjury to all you Republican lapdogs out there. Bush could nuke Memphis tomorrow and some people here would find ways to rationalize it. Grow up already.
    • Loonacy, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1There were terrorists in Memphis about to detonate a bomb. We had to nuke them to prevent them from doing that!
    • cheifchuck0, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3Yeah, support the troops! Don't try to micromanage the generals on the ground. We are at war, its ok.
  • subman697, on 10/11/2007, -6/+10This will all hinge on who they give immunity to, and who doesn't "take one for the team".
    • Nougat, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6@subman697 (#6838792)

      Her first statement was to plead the fifth, after which she was granted immunity.
  • subman697, on 10/11/2007, -9/+2Is this a dupe story? Why isn't this getting Dugg up?
  • Nodaki, on 10/11/2007, -6/+7At least she seemed honest and genuine rather than Gonzales who has been lying boldfaced to Congress about his knowledge of the events. Not recalling a meeting you sat in for hours is complete *****.

    Nevermind her lack of qualifications to be there in the first place...Reagent University...hahaha.
    • EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -4/+19Honest? Getting her to answer a question seemed much like trying to get a cat into a bathtub full of water.

      [paraphrasing]

      "Did you break the law?" -> "I made a mistake."
      "What kind of mistake?" -> "I crossed a line."
      "Which line?" -> "A civil service rule."
      "A rule or a law?" -> "I crossed a line."
      "Do you think you broke a law?" -> "That's not for me to decide."

      I mean, come on! She knows she broke the law. She got immunity. Just say it. It was just as bad with her testimony on Gonzales, McNulty, and Sampson.

      "So by telling the committee they knew nothing, you realized they were lying?" ->
      "I realized they could have done better."
    • InsomniaSlim, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2@EntropyMan:

      She may be CYA so she doesn't "ruin her career." If there's anything left of it... I just don't understand why some people can't admit they broke a law, especially an attorney with immunity for crying out loud. But still, glad she was candid.
  • VeryBoredNow, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9But she sought immunity before the comments and got it.

    Everything she said CAN NOT be used against her now.
  • mookiemookie, on 10/11/2007, -6/+27I'd hit it...



    ...with a rolled up copy of the Constitution that they seem so intent on ignoring and destroying.
  • BillOReilly08, on 10/11/2007, -5/+11Every time I see Goodling, I read "Googling"
  • stefzula, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Looks like Gonzales taught her well on how to beat around the Bush (in more ways than one)
  • writh3n, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10They had limited time to question her yesterday and some republican shill wasted 5 minutes of the questioning time to rant about the sopranos and LBJ, I'm really surprised that didn't make news.
    • obliviousfool, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5There was another republican who spent his five minutes complimenting Goodling and complaining about wasting resources on this investigation and talking about how 2 of his friends were fired when Clinton took office and nobody prosecuted that etc. etc. I didn't catch his name, but the whole thing was rather funny.
  • thcobbs, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6If she's not already resigned or been fired, she needs to be.

    You can't have partisan politics choosing who gets hired into professional career positions in the federal government. I just weakens us as a whole because a more qualified candidate will likely be passed over and/or a good employee will be fired when the political climate changes....

    That's NOT what we need.
    • Maninthemiddle, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I agree with you, Civil Service demands such, yet it has been a part of the game since there was a Civil Service.

      Count on me to call for the end of it - enforce the Civil Service rules - but to pretend this is a Bush invention is a bit incredulous.

      As mentioned earlier, EVERY U.S. Attorney was fired by Mr. Clinton - apparently this is causing some dissonance, as yet, not a person has said "Your right, this is an ongoing problem that needs correction.".

      As the maninthemiddle, I'm open to sound argument, but I see BDS afoot - just as I saw CDS influence a decade ago.
  • geronimo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Whether or not this is illegal can be debated. What is interesting is how we are catching details of how our justice system works: it is very partisan, this lady worked for the GOP attacking democrats, and this is the person we entrust to staff our US attorneys? On top of that they sneak into congress additions to bills that allow for no senate oversight to the appointments, going against our system of checks and balances which ensures impartiality. It makes you realize that this administration is extremely partisan at the expense of credentials and democracy. Goodling graduated from a subpar law school(regent - 50% passed the bar) yet here she is rising up the ranks due to her loyalty to the party.I don't accept that this is how our system works, that still doesn't justify politicizing the rule of law.
    • razor150, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3What Goodling did was illegal, there is no debate there. She got partial immunity for this testimony. Her testimony says a lot about the state of the Justice Dept. None of this should be all that surprising after Bush nominated Gonzales knowing that the man was his lapdog.

      The funny thing about this whole scandal, it makes John Ashcroft look like a civil rights crusader.
  • Dhalsim007, on 10/11/2007, -20/+2Dugg down as inaccurate. The Justice Dept. positions serve at the whim of the President, and their political affiliations may be considered upon hiring. Nothing wrong there.
    • TubaTechno, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11"The Justice Dept. positions serve at the whim of the President, and their political affiliations may be considered upon hiring. Nothing wrong there."

      I'm sure their political affiliations could be made known, but it's against the law to take that into consideration in employing them.
    • flernk, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12@dhalsim007

      Um... did you even read the... oh nevermind. Of course you didn't.
    • razor150, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Never heard of the Hatch Act, have you? Well you're in good company, and I mean that sarcastically, apparently neither had the Administration. Remember, ignorance of the law isn't a defense.

      Take political consideration in the hiring and firings is illegal under the Hatch Act. Spread that around to your Republican buddies who continue to ignorantly claim nothing illegal happened.
    • ichbinladen, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2dhalsim007 is one stupid, stupid piece of *****.
  • johnhummel, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7I thought the more interesting part was when she testified how Gonzales told her "his side" of what he thought had happened. This coming out after Gonzales testified that he hadn't "coached" any of his staff on what they should say.

    Which, if pressed further, could be a lie. Which would be perjury. Unless, of course, he "forgot" that too.
    • razor150, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Nah, he remembers. He just claims to have tried to comfort her by telling her how he would testify.
  • TubaTechno, on 10/11/2007, -10/+2I'm going to be buried for this but.....

    Bush being responsible for her hiring illegally is similar to Clinton being responsible for Sandy Berger stealing (and being convicted of) national security documents....
    • johnhummel, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3We didn't say he was. We are saying that McNulty, Sampson, and Gonzales know more than they're letting on.

      If it turns out Bush ordered *them* to make these decisions, that's another issue. But right now, the chain shows Gonzales if not lied, at least "forgot" to tell Congress certain things, along with McNulty and Samspon - now we look at what the documents say (once all those "mysteriously missing emails" turn up).
    • Loonacy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5"they serve at the pleasure of the president"
      "the president can fire them whenever he wants"

      .....

      "the president can't be held accountable for these firings"

      WTF?
  • CheckPlease, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3So, an underling to the corrupt president's corrupt attorney general told a smidgen of truth behind a solid wall of "I dunno" obfuscation, and she gets immunity.

    So, was the expression "And Justice For All" really first penned by Metallica?
  • farksucksmasack, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Criminalization of a crime? NOT IN MY DEMOCRACY!!!!

    POLITICIANS WIN! EVERYONE ELSE LOSES!
  • uptown, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5I'm surprised she even has a memory of the event. I've been convinced they halls of the justice department are lined with those Men in Black memory zappers based on how much Gonzales has forgotten.
    • EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Not only that, but she has a clear memory of Gonzales telling her information that he forgot in front of Congress, once before that conversation, and again after.

      I forgot, then I remembered, then I forgot, then I forgot that I remembered. And now I remember that I forgot.
  • gcube9x, on 10/11/2007, -7/+3I agree with the "So what?". Politicians lie, cheat, and use corruption for personal and party gain regardless of party. This is not news to me.
  • JJsays, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Yes, Government should be a non-political environment. I call for everyone who is a member of a political party and serving in a "Local, State, Federal government" to step down from their jobs now.
  • Teku, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3Ok.. so she did what every other Justice Department White House Liaison has done as far back as anyone can remember?
    • EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6By "as far back as anyone can remember?" do you mean, last week? Or six years ago?

      It is not appropriate to filter civil service employees based on party affiliation. The question is somewhat different for USAs. But these are career employees she's talking about. They don't get hired and fired every four years.
    • Teku, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Yes it is inappropriate to do it openly, but to deny it goes on every single day in Washington is crazy. I am not saying what she did was right, I am saying that it is unfair to raise the ethics bar on one specific individual and continue to ignore this sort of practice everywhere else in the government. Look at the supreme court if you would like an example, everyone on there was picked by party affiliation and they serve for life.
    • EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5I agree that it shouldn't happen. But the way to stop it is to start enforcing the law. And it was enforced under the last admin -- remember Gore paying hefty fines for using the WH telephones to make fundraising calls? That's an appropriate response to keep political activity in check. The last six years? Not so much.

      As for SCOTUS, it's not so simple. If you watch the hearings, the nominee is very much aware that Congress can't ask party-line questions like that, and if they do, they get a non-answer. That's because it's on the record. And while both parties manage to work around that behind the scenes, at least the hearings show that it's wrong to ask someone if they'll vote your way in advance. And Souter managed to make it through as a fair minded individual despite the party gauntlet.

      But these civil service employees have no record and no cameras to back them up. If they say, "that's an inappropriate question," they've killed their interview. And they might ever know what Goodling was Googling behind their backs.

    • Teku, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Good point, perhaps you are right.
    • razor150, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2Yes Teku, you're completely right. Lets not do anything about it because everybody does it. Your argument had convinced me. /sarcasm
    • stepnw1f, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Wrong, what she did, was unlike any other administration, EVER! Read up carefully, then get back to us. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you don't know the difference.
  • kerrickter, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5I still can't get over the fact that there were 150 grads from Regent, including Gooding, hired as White House staff. What kind of money was given to Bush to make that happen? Sick.
  • SOULEVENT, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6[sarcasm] OH NO, MONICA IS TELLING THE TRUTH, SHE MUST HATE AMERICA!!! GET HER NEONAZIS GET HER, DONT LET HER SPEAK, PUT HER IN GUANTANAMOOOOOOOOOOOOO. SHES A TERRORIST. [end sarcasm]

    @sonofdy1

    yeah, so what, so what your President and his kind are MURDERERS, SO what if they have committed WAR CRIMES, SO WHAT IF THEY HAVE BETRAYED AMERICA, So what, SO what, So what if they have your ass sent to HELL.

    How long befoe this administration and blackwater helps finish off our soldiers overseas with a Nuke, your president has already proven he doesnt give a DAMN about The Constitution or the soldiers that wish to defend it, instead, he wishes to use them as his own personal mafia.

    BTW, stop pointing to Bill Clinton you liberal diggers, he is just one more piece of the puzzle. His blowjob was all the Bushies needed to not give a damn about treason on their part.



    • stepnw1f, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Hey Soulevent,

      Happy Memorial weekend to you and those comrades you served with.

      Cheers.
  • zoezack, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2What's it going to take for the mainstream media to pull this thread to do the unraveling?!!!!!!
  • gthrank, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2What's amazing about America is that you'll impeach a president for lying about an extramarital affair, but you are too chicken to impeach anyone in this administration for lying about war, breaking the law by using 'signing statements', suspending habeus corpus, authorizing torture, exposing a CIA agent for political ends, appointing prosecutors on political grounds, and the list goes on.

    WIMPS! Why are you so chicken of impeaching? DO something, otherwise your blah blah about democracy and a laws-based society is just hollow rhetoric.
    • tmwilkin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1You miss the point. The other elected officials don't want to impeach him because it helps him by not. Either way if he is impeached it doesn't do anything really its still a slap on the wrists. Today the democrats could impeach him if they want to, but they don't and that's it.

    • EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@gthrank, Because, actually, the crimes are too great in this case. It's much easier to impeach over lying about a blowjob. It doesn't question our entire form of government (well, it does, but it seems not to most people).

      If we were to actually expose what's been going on, where do we stop? The entire government has been compromised. And we, the people, either put them there, or at least let it happen. It's incredibly daunting to deal with this.

      We have never had an entire administration resign or be kicked out. But we'd better start soon.
    • Ergonaut, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1"We have never had an entire administration resign or be kicked out. But we'd better start soon."

      Warren G. Harding.
    • EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3"Warren G. Harding."

      Died or was killed in office. But as far as wide-spread criminality goes, it's a good example of what not to do.
    • gthrank, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1You people are in denial. What matters isn't how much the politicians could benefit, or what the partisan backlash would be against impeachment. If it's the LAW, they have the obligation to enforce it. If there is be a backlash against enforcement of a law, that doesn't prevent prosecutors from prosecuting. And if the prosecutor becomes unpopular - well you pay them to prosecute, not to win beauty contests. Some people will like impeachment and others will not, but that's beside the point- if the laws of the US have been broken by the administration, you have the right, YOU HAVE THE DUTY, to enforce those laws.

      Looking from outside, I'd say the left and right wings hate and mistrust each other so much. A house this divided cannot stand.
  • tmwilkin, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2if we want to take politics out of the equation then I would imagine senators and congressman and other elected officials should remove themself from the process of hiring their own staff. "I'm a great worker and can do all this for you...but I voted for the other guy......" umm that shouldn't be taken into consideration ? seriously if you wanna work in politics or for that matter any part of the government that is tied to elected officials or assigned officials (i.e. attorney general), then you live and breath politics otherwise find another career. You can't change just part of it.
    • EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2See my longer reply to Ergonaut below. I don't think you understand how it's supposed to work. Staff of Congressman != normal civil service employees.
  • honestjoe, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6 1. In the first five minutes of this hearing, we learned that in Ms. Goodling's view, Paul McNulty, the Deputy Attorney General, misled the Senate in his testimony about the limited role of the White House, when he personally knew otherwise. We also learned that Mr. McNulty withheld information from the Senate which had the effect of concealing Senator Domenici’s role in the termination of Mr. Iglesias. Ms. Goodling also admitted to taking inappropriate political considerations into account when hiring non-political DOJ employees.

    2. Second, in what I believe may have been the bombshell revelation of the hearing, we learned the Attorney General made public statements that Ms. Goodling believed were inaccurate and that he appeared to be engaged in "coaching" witnesses after the fact, in direct contradiction to the Attorney General's testimony that he had gone out of his way not to speak to any of the fact witnesses. This coaching made Ms. Goodling feel, in her own words "uncomfortable." This raises the most serious questions to date about the conduct of the Attorney General.

    3. Third, we learned the White House was intimately involved in the process of terminating the US Attorneys, from the beginning through final sign off, and Ms. Goodling believes Mr. Rove was involved in the process.

    4. Fourth, Ms. Goodling admitted that laws were violated with regard to the consideration of the hiring of career employees at the Department of Justice. By her own terms, she admitted she "crossed the line" with regard to the hiring of Assistant US Attorneys and Immigration Judges.

    5. Fifth, we learned that there indeed was a ninth US Attorney on the firing list, Mr. Graves from Missouri. Again, this contradicts the testimony of the Attorney General on this matter.

    Monica Goodling testified that Kyle Sampson lied. At issue was, says Goodling, Sampson’s denial "that he had some knowledge of allegations that Tim Griffin had been involved in vote ‘caging’ during the work on the President’s 2004 campaign."

    Well thast says alot when you add the 500 "USE TO BE" "missing" Rove office emails including a series of self-incriminating notes behind the prosecutor firings.

    In several emails obtained by subpoena by Congressional investigators, Goodling and Griffin complain about ‘that British reporter Palast’ (an American working with BBC London). In a February 5, 2006 email, Griffin gloats to Goodling that "no [US] national media" has picked up Palast’s discovery of the ‘caging’ operation.

    ‘Caging’ was a 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign scheme to challenge, on false evidence, the right to vote of tens of thousand of Black voters.

    ‘Vote caging’ is a crime; Tim Griffin directed it; Karl Rove, Goodling and Sampson knew it, yet Rove demanded the appointment of Griffin as the US Attorney for Arkansas.

    In email intercepted from the Bush campaign, "Subject: caging," written by Griffin himself, making clear that Griffin was not just involved, the but the director of this vote fixing scheme.

    Here’s how caging works: letters were sent "Do Not Forward" to voters at home addresses. When the letters were returned to sender ("caged"), the voter’s right to vote was challenged. The letters, however, were targeted at African-American homeless men, students — and soldiers send overseas — all legal voters who, because they were shipped to Iraq or for other reasons, were not at their home address. BBC obtained 50 ‘caging’ lists with 70,000 voters including large groups of servicemen.

    THEY VIOLATED A COURT ORDER AGAIN!

    The Republican Party has been under court order to specifically not engage in vote caging because of their long repeated history of commiting this crime here are just a few of the many examples:

    The Republican challenges in Ohio, Wisconsin and other battleground states prompted civil rights and labor unions to sue in U.S. District Court in Newark, saying the GOP is violating a consent decree, issued in the 1980s by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise and still in effect, that prevents the Republicans from starting "ballot security" programs to prevent voter fraud that target minorities.

    In 1981, the Republican National Committee sent letters to predominantly black neighborhoods in New Jersey, and when 45,000 letters were returned as undeliverable, the committee compiled a challenge list to remove those voters from the rolls. The RNC sent off-duty law enforcement officials to the polls and hung posters in heavily black neighborhoods warning that violating election laws is a crime.

    In 1986, the RNC tried to have 31,000 voters, most of them black, removed from the rolls in Louisiana when a party mailer was returned. The consent decrees that resulted prohibited the party from engaging in anti-fraud initiatives that target minorities or conduct mail campaigns to "compile voter challenge lists."

    To stem the tide of new registrations, the Republican National Committee and the Ohio Republican Party attempted to knock tens of thousands of predominantly minority and urban voters off the rolls through illegal mailings known in electioneering jargon as ''caging.'' During the Eighties, after the GOP used such mailings to disenfranchise nearly 76,000 black voters in New Jersey and Louisiana, it was forced to sign two separate court orders agreeing to abstain from caging.

    More recently:

    -- Wisconsin repeatedly has been named by the Bushies as one of the three states most targeted in the USA firings, yet still somewhat inexplicably . . .

    -- Wisconsin is where USA Biskupic, once on "the list," was taken off . . . apparently for blatant exercises in Bushie loyalty, like imprisoning (and ruining) a state worker set free after four months on appeal by a court appalled by the charges, and others . . .

    -- Wisconsin was subjected to huge GOP campaigns claiming fraudulent voters on the rolls, to too-few ballots, to not enough voting machines in minority areas, and so much more that it would take a book . . . but all of the above-quoted game plan happened here, with story after story (a favorite tactic was GOP mailing of flyers to homes of black voters, flyers that looked like official voting reminders -- -- but the election day listed was days after the actual day) . . .

    -- Wisconsin was (and is) a key swing state, the blue state closest to turning red in 2004.

    I could go on and on but you get the point.

    Who would prosecute? AGAG? He could have somebody like Tim Griffin slow walk any complaint into the abyss. Think about who appointed the federal judges remember the abyss that was the Ohio election in 2004, after which Conyers DID hold what would have been called hearings, if he'd had any authority whatsoever to convene them (which he didn't).

    The people over at epluribus are way ahead of everyon on this http://scoop.epluribusmedia.org/... the technical details of the e-mails help in tracing the other missing e-mails. These e-mails have info that would help find back up copies of the rest of the missing e-mails. They are also exposing crimes that lead all the way to the white house.
    • honestjoe, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Sorry I forgot to mention how the 500 Rove office emails including a series of self-incriminating notes behind the prosecutor firings were obtained.

      The e-mails were sent to georgewbush.org (a spoof site) instead of georgewbush.com (an RNC site). The owner of georgewbush.org forwarded the emails to Mr. Palast.

      Friends at georgewbush.org said: "Someone over at the rnc had some bad typing skills and whoosh- they started flooding in....ahhhh the wonder of CC'ing...if you've ever been on a listserve you know the feeling- you never can get off of it."
    • swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Right on, amazing post right there. Kind of long but full of information. Why the ***** is Palast holding on to those emails? I've been waiting for weeks for him to reveal the contents.
    • honestjoe, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3@swrostmore

      Palast gave them (the Rove office emails including a series of self-incriminating notes behind the prosecutor firings) to Conyers and Conyers has now admited that he has them "in his back pocket". To sum it up they were trying to lay a perjury trap by keeping it on the down low. IT WORKED! Now I prey they have the curage to follow it through. Maybe they will because yesterday Conyers had said:

      "Based on today’s testimony, I believe it is more important than ever that the Judiciary Committee get to the bottom of this matter. It is important that we obtain the testimony of Mr. McNulty, given that Ms. Goodling essentially stated that he misled Congress, as well as Mr. Sampson. It is also imperative that we at long last obtain the cooperation of the White House. Today we learned that laws have been broken and trust has been violated, and the American people deserve to learn the truth.

      This leads our investigation in two important directions. The first direction stays at the Department of Justice. That is where serious allegations of improper and potentially criminal activity have been made against senior Department officials. They must answer these allegations in an open and public hearing, under oath.

      The second direction is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. If testimony received to date has been truthful, no one at the Justice Department knows who put the names of the United States Attorneys on the list and why. That leaves one place where these answers reside: the White House.

      I have given the White House plenty of time to reach a resolution to allow us to obtain the testimony of Administration officials and the documents we need to get answers. My patience has run out and they have days, not weeks, to be forthcoming to the Committee."

      Its important to remember that in the email intercepted from the Bush campaign, "Subject: caging," written by Griffin himself, making clear that Griffin was not just involved, the but the director of this vote fixing scheme. In several emails Goodling and Griffin complain about ‘that British reporter Palast’ (an American working with BBC London). In a February 5, 2006 email, Griffin gloats to Goodling that "no [US] national media" has picked up Palast’s discovery of the ‘caging’ operation.

      No matter what they have been busted caging voters as shown by the e-mails and Goodling's testimony just put another nail in the coffin. The MSM just continues to ignore this like they did with the Downing Street Memos and etc. If you want to be well informed about what is going on in America you have to go outside of the country for news. Everyone knows by now that mainstream news is degenerate and almost juvenile in nature. No one looks to O'Reilly, Hannity and etc, for an intelligent political debate. Frankly, if you're looking for that level of debate on television these days, you will be sorely disappointed.

      Anyway the point is that the caging lists and the use of them by Griffin, Rove and others must be further investigated.

      I've always wondered about how lists could be used to affect elections, especially since Karl Rove came from a DM background. One thing the Republicans have done effectively is get lists from churches. If they can compare those lists to voter registration lists, they could identify real people that don't vote. They could try to market to those people, or, with enough additional "information" they could impersonate those people. Its everything that the Republicans have accused others for in terms of "voter fraud" (and probably much else) is something they did, themselves. Everything.

      There's a psychological term for it -- projection, is it?

      Anyway, I have seen accusations of this being done by Dems, so say Republicans pushing for national voter ID and that underscores that their probable purpose in such a list is just to get a larger pool from which to to steal identities that suddenly become Republicans voters.
    • Tbar1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Yes! Someone else gets it. I just found out about this today and have been trying to spread it. This is HUGE! It's been blacked out in the US. I had an experience at CBS today I'll share. Someone posted a Palast Video in response to one of my post at CBS. I found out about the E-Mails implicating Rove and tried to post them at CBS.

      They Shut-down all posting over it! No *****! After a few hours, they reopened the comments section and I found this;
      "Let them talk, The CIA/NSC/FBI group is sending Roves emails over there already so apparently they don't care if they know.
      Posted by ToolMangler at 07:46 PM : May 24, 2007"
      http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/23/iraq/main2844536.shtml#ccmm

      My guess is ToolMangler is one of the Mods and was telling another Mod to reopen the Boards. The MSM didn't want the E-Mail story going public! I have a feeling that this is about to go Ballistic!
    • honestjoe, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@Tbar1

      That also happened at ABC the exact same thing as CBS. Im sure its been the same with all the others as well.

      "The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

      How Americas Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence Agency and Why the Church Committee Covered It Up

      THE CIA AND THE MEDIA
      BY CARL BERNSTEIN
      http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/cia_press.html

      Remember when Goodling followed up with the explanation that it was a direct mailing term...Rove's specialty. It makes perfect sense that he would carry over that terminology for his acolytes to use.

      look at this email exchange about caging involved the now interim U.S. Attorney Tim Griffin of Arkansas. They fired the guy from Arkansas to install the SOB who committed a felony by participating in caging. You can the names and addresses of some of the folks they caged. They knowingly sent those letters to homeless shelters and naval bases. Look at all those people from Jacksonville, Florida. 1792 people on that spreadsheet. It contains a column for when the person received the caging letter. http://2004.georgewbush.org/deadletteroffice/ and http://www.flickr.com/photos/gregpalast/413062748/

      Before I give you the much more "RECENT" stuff this should give you a good warm up.

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Alan Levine [mailto:levine@jeb.org]
      Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 10:39 PM
      To: jeb@jeb.org; bdoster@georgewbush.org; toni@jeb.org; denver@jeb.org; william@jeb.org; patricia@jeb.org
      Subject: FW: Newt on What Is At Stake in 2004 Election

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Vince Haley [mailto:vhaley@gingrichgroup.com]
      Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 1:21 PM
      To: levine@jeb.org
      Subject: Newt on What Is At Stake in 2004 Election

      Alan,

      I wanted to forward along to you a synthesis by Newt on what he considers to be the defining issues of the 2004 election. Of course much of this is likely to be very familiar ground to you but I thought you would like to see what he is circulating.

      You should feel free to share it with Republican allies.

      All the best.

      Vince

      ATTACHMENT: NEWT-WHAT_IS_AT_STAKE_IN_2004_ELECTION.pdf

      http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=NEWT-WHAT_IS_AT_STAKE_IN_2004_ELECTION.pdf+&btnG=Google+Search

      Oh by the way the MSM new all about this stuff BEFORE the election! Like the rest of the MSM propaganda is ABC's only agenda Media executives will "never ever ever" air any story like this. The truth runs contrary to their efforts to prop up this corporatocracy. These are the worst sorts of traitors to our democracy.

      Remember the 2/06 email from Griffin to Goodling where they were congratulating themselves over the fact that the US media hadn't picked up British reports on this. Well what do you think of this:

      Sampson to Oprison cc Goodling

      Tim needs to be carefully managed
      Monica (cc'ed hereto) is the one here who tim calls regularly
      as tim is frequently calling you also, perhaps the two of you should compare notes
      monica, what say you?

      Monica responds:

      Yes, Tim and I speak daily. It's likely to be discussed Tuesday at the hearing, but when we spoke he was spun up and I don't think it was the best time. Yesterday's issue has now been resolved, so barring any concerns from you guys, I'll let him know today that the AG and the Senator have continued their discussions and that the AG sent the letter up as part of that dialogue.

      Q to monica: up to whom?

      Also, puts the lie to her statement today that she didn't know what caging is since she speaks "daily" with the guy running the operation.

      But the MSM wont talk about the voter suppression aspect of the attorneys purge because they dont want America to learn just exactly how Bush and the republicans support the troops - by taking away their rights as a citizen. Sorry, soldier, while you were busy fighting for democracy in Iraq, you have lost yours back home.

      Also keep this in mind http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,702108,00.html

      And the other reason they wont report it is because it clearly shows that THE 2004 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION WAS STOLEN.But last November's election Karl Rove (and Bush) "Mis-underestimated" how many votes they would have to throw out. But that mistake wont be made again 2008 is already stolen this voter roll purge is a done deal and is irreversable!

      MSM misses lots of news stories that might make trouble for the white house like Cheney and Rumsfeld being involved in the chemical weapons and drug tests on US Soldiers in 1974 and 1975 at Edgewood Arsenal Md that violated the Nuremberg Code of 1947 they are to busy to deal with "real issues" WMD not in Iraq and Cheney lies and evidence links Saddam to Al Qaeda BS they refuse to look at real stories 7120 men used in CIA/Army experiments and 40% are already dead 2098 men and of the 4022 survivors 54% or 2200 men are disabled and no one will look at it why was it wrong for Saddam to use WMD and okay for Cheney and Rumsfeld to authorize their use on american soldiers in the 70"s?

      It infuriates me how the American people can sit back and take all the crap from our president and his cohorts, without thinking how it affects our lives and the future of our country. We have become so complacent with our lives that we don't want to face any news story that may disturb our secure little universe. We have forgoten that you can't have the persuit of happiness without fighting for life and liberty too. And that it takes vigilence and constant hard work.
  • Ergonaut, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2All U.S. Attorneys should have been summarily fired immediately upon Bush entering office. Clinton did it for what I am certain must have been humanitarian reasons. That Bush kept most of Clinton's hires is unconscionable; apparently.
    • EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3No. Those are all Bush appointees that Bush fired mid-term. The next best time Bush could have easily fired all USAs was on starting his 2nd term in 2005. No one would have challenged that if he'd done it across the board.
    • jahurt, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@Erogonaut
      "All U.S. Attorneys should have been summarily fired immediately upon Bush entering office. Clinton did it for what I am certain must have been humanitarian reasons. That Bush kept most of Clinton's hires is unconscionable; apparently."

      Most of the U.S. Attornys *were* replaced when Bush entered office...
      http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2001/March/107ag.htm

    • geronimo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2exactly jahurt. What makes these firings peculiar is that this has rarely happened in the past, usually it's a few voluntary resignations between terms. This is a good precedent since doing so could allow for someone to look at investigations harming them and fire accordingly. That is why there is such an outcry here, a number of firings look suspect. One underreported case is DiBiagio who was investigating the DC Madam case. In any case, ignoring the precedent lends yourself to suspicious and congress and the public has a right to see if any coverups are happening. This isn't conspiracy talk, it's making sure our justice system provides justice, not political favors.

      http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8356415
  • Ergonaut, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1"Those are all Bush appointees that Bush fired mid-term."

    I stand corrected. So, it is acceptable to hire for political reasons, but not to fire. Hmmmm.

    "No one would have challenged that if he'd done it across the board."

    Right. As Clinton proved in so doing, throwing the baby out with the bathwater is usually worth it. There's a lesson there.
    • EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2No. You're missing the point. Let me try to summarize:

      1. Political appointees are generally picked because of party affiliation. USAs are political. They have 4 year terms, like Bush. It's okay for him to pick only Republicans for political jobs, though not very smart.

      2. Once in office, all political appointees, especially ones in the DOJ, are supposed to enforce the law, do their jobs, in a non-partisan manner. The EPA can be directed by Bush. They can't be told to enforce laws against Democrat-leaning companies and not against Republican ones, for example.

      3. Bush can fire USAs at will. However, it is usually done only at the change of administration. If he does fire mid-term, he'd better have a good reason. And one clearly illegal reason to fire is to influence (start or stop) on-going investigations.

      4. Civil service employees should never even be hired based on political views, and most definitely should not feel political influence as to how to do their job, and should absolutely never be fired for political reasons, because that equals influence for everyone else.

      Does that clear it up?
    • chicofaraby, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Why are you being purposefully obtuse?

      Political appointees are turned over when the White House changes hands. The reason these firings were noticed is because they weren't done at the change of administrations. The reason they are important is because they appear to be done in order to obstruct justice, a crime.

      But I doubt you needed that explained. I suspect you know.
  • rootofunity, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2You know it hasnt been mentioned and probably not that relevant, but hasn't anybody asked themselves why someone (Goodling) can get into such a high level posistion after graduating from a 4th tier school? Check out the statistics on this school. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/directory/dir-law/brief/glanc_03172_brief.php


    Oh wait now I remember, thats school is owned by Pat Robertson's

    Isn't the layers of Republican cronyism getting a little to silly?
  • viviwanu, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Die bitch! Die!
  • HeartlandUSA, on 10/29/2007, -2/+3sonofdy1

    This person is a paid Republican plant in the Digg community. Just look at the comments he makes & on which articles & how many. The GOP is paying people to fight an online

    blog propoganda war, which has been proven time & time again. They don't care about facts, they just want to make the Left look bad & the Right look good & they pay people to

    do this & here is a great example. This is a full-time job for some people, to put out propaganda to hurt our country, as the GOP has clearly done consistently for the last 6.5

    years. No morals, no ethics, & they laugh at the law.
  • SOULEVENT, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@stepnwolf

    You too, even though these days Memorial Day is just another thing Bush Loyalist can disgrace with their feigned patriotism, the same way they have disgraced EVERYTHING else this country is supposed to stand for, I do hope their are some that remember the TRUE patriots that gave their life so these disgusting sons of bitches have the ability to commit treason and blame it on their Commercialized Profiteering "War on Terror".
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.