(Shot of spilled beans via Dougalug.)
The House Judiciary Committee will be taking testimony from Monica Goodling this morning, beginning at 10:15 am ET in 2141 Rayburn. C-Span3 and C-Span radio will be broadcasting the testimony live. And it looks as though the committee will have some sort of webcast going as well. I'll be liveblogging below, too. Hang on kids, we are about to learn what, if any, beans Monica decides to spill.
REP. COBLE QUESTIONS: Recalls that USAs were terminated for poor performance -- and then later learned that they had good performances. Who was responsible for this? Goodling says that DAG and AG were responsible for determining performance. EARS reports do make determinations on how things are going with USAs -- comprehensive review of each USA office both in legal aspects and also management and accounting. Explain your role as serving as WH liaison at DoJ -- what were your duties, both at DoJ and at WH? Goodling says she didn't serve at WH. (1) Hiring of political appointees -- Schedule C hiring interviews with component head and also Sampson. (2) Served basic liaison function of communication -- travel requests, schedules, reports, etc. (3) A lot of morale boosting for employees or communications (CHS notes: PR functions and rah rah rewards for employees to do things at the WH.) Did you ever see the initial list or final list of USAs who were recommended for replacement? Doesn't have a memory of seing the initial one in 2005 -- did see the one in 2006, was at the meeting where it was discussed.
REP. SCOTT QUESTIONS: Says that the criminal justice system cannot function if people do not feel that it is fair. This does not work if partisan political considerations are raised above legal considerations. Cultural loyalty to the Administration was more important than the rule of law -- and these are serious allegations, because it could undermine the confidence of the public in the system. It has been difficult to get to the bottom ofthis because we get conflicting answers, you have accused others of failing to be fully forthcoming today. Do you believe that political considerations being taken into account in hiring public employees? Says that she doesn't believe that she intended to break the law. Says that she knows that she crossed the line of the civil service rules, but she didn't mean to. She says that not as far as she knows that politicization played a role in the firings based on political considerations regarding investigations and prosecutions. Was aware of Dominici saying that he was irritated that Iglesias "didn't move cases," and is aware that the Senator called Iglesias about a case from press accounts. The reasons given for firing Iglesias don't include Dominici's complaints on the official list -- says that McNulty didn't feel it was apporpriate to raise the issues of one Senator with other Senators, though Dominici should raise it himself. Says that someone made a comment about Iglesias being "kind of a dud" on the AGAs board -- and the "absentee landlord" questions, not being in the office and delegating a lot of responsibility to his 1st assistant.
REP. GALLEGLY QUESTIONS: How should this have been handled differently? Goodling says it would have been better to document things differently. During the meeting, there was a lot of agreement -- but would have been better to document this. Would have been good to give the USAs more of an idea what the problems were, and to give them the opportunity to address them. Didn't want to do this in person because they didn't want to "litigate" with the USAs why they were being fired since they "served at the pleasure fo the President." Doesn't remember how names got on list -- doesn't remember that time very well. Sampson brought list in and asked for her thoughts. At Nov. 27th meeting, there was discussion about Bogden specifically -- DAG said he had a question about why Bogden was on the list, Sampson said general sense that "we could do better." Goodling said aware of one case on Patriot Act that she was aware of from years ago. AG nodded and said okay, brief reference -- only time group as a whole discussed a particular USA.
REP. WATT QUESTIONS: Watt asking about the conflict between Goodling's testimony and what he recalls from Sampson in Senate. Goodling says not a conflict -- she was talking about having not spoken to anyone in the WH about putting someone on or off the firing list, not at DOJ -- did talk about it with DoJ folks. Talking about Wagner in SC -- "bend over backwards" for AG, is that appropriate consideration? Goodling thought how helpful she was for AG ought to be taken into account -- some USAs are more engaged and responsive in helping with the AGs public events. Question about comments made about Iglesias -- who was in room? DAG, Sampson, Goodling, Ellston, and thinks that someone else may have been there, maybe Moschella.
REP. LUNGREN QUESTIONS: Spending his beginning time trying to bolster the witness' credibility -- nothing like a little vouching, I always say. Ahem. And then starts talking about himself and how he ran his AG office in CA. Goodling says that she was trying to find well-qualified people who were enthusiastic about the AG's priorities. (CHS notes: Nothing like a rah rah person who puts party over country and the rule of law, eh? Phrase of the morning thus far: "enthusiastic of the priorities.")
REP. LOFGREN QUESTIONS: Did you ever or have a staff member ask a job applicant who they voted for? Political appointees, yes; career appointees, maybe because a number of people interviewed for both types of positions. Goodling says she may have. You stopped hiring in the immigration field because you couldn't apply a political litmus test, is that fair? Goodling says that she thinks the hiring was paused so that officials could evaluate tyhe process after the civil service decision. Now talking about Graves -- Battle has testified that Goodling was the one who told them to ask for Graves resignation. Goodling says that her memory was that Graves had been asked to resign. In January, Sampson was asked question about how many had been asked to resign in 2005 -- Sampson said 8, said thought she heard incorrectly that Graves would have made 9. Do you think that putting Schlotzman into the USA position so quickly was to pursue a vote fraud case prior to the election? Goodling says that Graves was under investigation with the OIG at DoJ. Schlotzman talked to her about voter IDs -- said he had done an election law manual. Doesn't recall at this point of specific discussions on particular cases. Doesn't remember talking to Von Spakovsky about voter fraud issues either. Sampson would have told her to make the call on Graves. Doesn't remember if she asked political information from civil applicants, but we did research them and sometimes learned political information during the research.
Recess.
REP. GOODLATTE QUESTIONS: What was your experience in terms of who the replacements were for the USAs fired? Goodling says lots of debate on who to put in -- wanted good people -- chose the people who they thought could nest lead in the situation they were under. Says she thinks they will do a good job, in some circumstances she may have made different decisions, but thinks that ultimately they will do a good job. Did you ever intend to mislead Congress in any of your preparation for testimony activities? No, I never deliberately withheld information. (CHS notes: Can someone please ask her if she or anyone else ever made efforts to supplement or amend testimony to make it more complete in the weeks since it was given? And if not, why not?) Tried to find people at main justice who would be on the leadership team -- wanted them to be compatible ideologically. For immigration judges, thought they could consider other factors. Other cases also that cropped up from time to time -- wanted well qualified lawyers who pulled in the same direction in terms of priorities. Did you ever act as a screener for GOP candidates at the USAs offices for AUSAs? Yes -- looked at waiver requests, looked at resumes, did reference calls, may have learned information that influenced her decision-making. Regrets mistakes on this.
REP. JACKSON LEE QUESTIONS: Starts by discussing immigration judge stalling of hiring. You might have been better served if you had been loyal to the American people, and not just to the Bush Administration. Bruce Fein says that both she and Sampson knew politics, but not the law. Going into questions now on the Howard Univ. student who was applying for a DoJ position -- "too liberal" for the position. Goodling says that she regrets making a snap judgment made based on information on his resume. It was a career atty Taylor at civil rights who pursued hiring him -- and only through his intervention. Goodling says she doesn't remember receiving e-mail from Rove, but does recall receiving them from Miers. Can you tell us what Rove knew or what he did to create the plan to fire the USAs. Goodling says she knows that Rove was consulted -- Dec. 4th e-mail that Sampson forwarded to her, that Rove's office signed off on the firing plan. Goodling says she can't give the WH story -- Jackson Lee says that the only way they can get the full story is for SWh personnel to testify to their knowledge. Now onto Iglesias meeting.
Starting fresh thread.
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
FDL
This hearing feels like Lucy holding the football and moving it. Again.
Shorter Dan Lungren: Hi, Monica! You’re cute! I’ve made decisions, too!
oh he does have questions, stupid questions…
then why plead the 5th, ask for immunity honey?
Do the Dems even have her emails?!?
This is every bit as pathetic as the last appearance of Abu G. We’ve been saying rethugs are incompetent. I’m beginning to wonder about Dems.
P.S. Thanks for bring me up to speed when I got back.
MG: Domenici complained to Gonzales
Goodling on asking political questions of potential hires: “I was trying to hire good lawyers.”
anne @ 6
Note, earlier she said she only learned of Domenici’s involvement through press reports (though the most recent document dump shows that she was in on discussions on how to respond to this).
as someone else said, she’d be easy to trip up, if only. cmon dems, do your job!
JGabriel @ 7
There is nothing illegal about hiring good lawyers of the political party you happen to belong to…
MG: people who applied to both political and career positions were asked political questions
How can she think that is appropriate reasoning?
emptywheel @ 8
certain lie EW
looseheadprop @ 244
ADJ at 227
She’s the fall girl. They set her up. She didn’t have real power, just seems to have been the conduit by which these guys issued their emails and orders.
Bullshit she didn’t have any power. She was able to block or slow down the hiring an firing of US Attorneys and AUSAs–CAREER PEOPLE!
SHe has fucked up this department for years to come.
From kathleen Thanks LHP
Straight talk from a pro..I love it! She can remember everyone else in the room with the exception of some shadow that kept moving in and out of the room.
Remember Hitchcocks shadow on the wall? Would that be Rove’s shadow on the wall behind Goodling?
The implication of the photo is that Monica is spilling the beans. Far from it. She’s stonewalling and relying on her faulty memory to get her through this. She’s the Republican equivalant of Marta Goebbels who is willing to do and say anything to protect her Leader. This people are criminals and if they are not held accountable you might as well turn out the lights on American democracy.
Monica, trying to cover up for Sampson’s lies about there being only 8 USAs fired.
Goodling: “Yes, I asked individuals who they voted for.”
Jesus Fuck, woman. Even for political appointments you only ask about political affiliation — and even that’s questionable, not who people *voted* for in particular elections.
The Dems haven’t listened to numerous “suggestions” to funnel all their questions through two or so of their best questioners. I guess their egos can’t handle that, or perhaps they think their constituents would think them slackers if they didn’t at least ask a question or two, little realizing constituents would rather get to the bottom of all this.
Follow up to the question whether inquired into political party affiliation for AUSA: “Do you think it is proper(legal) to use political party affiliations as hiring criteria?”
Big tell: “Specific cases?” — breaks eye contact with Zoe….
Goodling admits that there were political litmus tests. What kind of a lawyer is she that she ever thought or could have thought that this was legal or permisible? Here she has this great power to hire and fire but seems to have no idea about what the rules and limits are. That this is unbelieveable understates the case.
LJ/Aquaria @ 16
Exactly. All they see are the cameras. This is exactly as I predicted and we’re gonna get KILLED for it.
Zoe Lofgren asking good questions.
Is it normal to grant immunity to amnesiacs? Does the immunity still hold when she is so unforthcoming?
Over an hour and nothing of importance revealed. I think the Dems are taking the approach that she’s a little fish. Kind of like Fawn Hall in Iran/Contra. At least so far, the questioning has been very non-confrontational.
“I wouldn’t have had that kind of authority” to fire a USA.
Hey Monica, what about the secret provision giving you authority.
did the Federalist Society come up specifically yet?
recess! what about lunch?
[Mod: Commenting under multiple names can get you banned from fdl.]
Not sure, but I think “I don’t remember” is her answering honestly but “I don’t think I recall” is her lying.
I don’t remember, I can’t be sure, I don’t recall. This is bullshit and the Dem. members on the committee seem ill prepared and all to willing to yield their time.
Spill the beans? Conyer’s committee hasn’t even made Goodling open the can.
emptywheel @ 24
I can’t believe no one has asked about that yet.
Recess.
Despite too much reliance on the Abu defense, she’s contradicting herself all over the place, and lying. Like that part of “I invoked the 5th because I believe I just witnessed bad things, I didn’t do them, well, except for asking about political affiliations which was crossing the line.”
Why do they keep letting her get away with the “I didn’t have the authority” trope? There is a delegation document specifically saying she did. This is inane.
I’m not seeing any of Christy’s live blog posts (??)
Here’s a theory — no Dem wants to beat MG up early on; the media meme would then be “mean dems.” So, they are waiting as everyone (who’s watching) sees what MG is, then they pounce.
This is an optimistic scenario. Don’t ask me why; I’m on a Kentucky high today, I guess….
Where is Maxine Waters - thought someone confirmed she serves on this committee?
realworld @ 22
MG must think she couldn’t have committed a crime if she doesn’t remember it. (Now there’s an original idea…)
Committee takes a potty break.
What a bunch of f____in posers.
TexBetsy @ 26
And, “I don’t have any specific memory now” as she looks away is her pants on fire.
Maybe they’re saving her up for Davis (D-AL). He’ll go near the end, but he’ll probably ask the best questions.
anne @ 28
What’s the story with the secret provision?
emptywheel @ 25
EW, two minds thinking alike. I asked the same question in a previous thread.
Now if we could only get Congress to ask it.
Will someone please ask her about alternate emails and the protocol they used in regards to them?
anne @ 12
In light of this response, does that mean that if their political affiliation was not republican, did that affect her evaluation/hiring of the non-republicans to get the job?
Dammit. Through many of these hearings, no Dems are challenging the talking point, or as MoniKKKa would say, “talkers,” that these USAs were on the list because of job performance or not coorperating with AG. The Repukes get on their high horses and say this happens.
This has no basis in FACT!! Why is no one defending Iglesias, Lam, etc.?!? They had stellar careers and were cooperative. It’s obvious through so much testimony and emails that Abu wanted them to break the law, and they wouldn’t. It’s so simple and factual. What are the Dems doing?!?
LJ/Aquaria @ 29
Yes. Ideally, the SJC will also have a hearing and will use all the lies from this one as a jumping-off point.
Shirley Jackson Lee is on the committee. I’m not sure Maxine Waters is.
MG must think she couldn’t have committed a crime if she doesn’t remember it. (Now there’s an original idea…)
Or she thinks she couldn’t have committed a crime if she doesn’t think the law is relevant to the Administration.
anne @ 28
because none of the Dems are even LISTENING TO HER ANSWERS. They’re all way too involved trying to figure out which side is their best side. You can tell that they may as well be coming into the hearing room one by one. No follow ups, no handing off from one member to another. Its every member for him or her self and its all about the teevee.
It wouldn’t be so bad, except that they’ve given this criminal immunity to get some answers and they’ve done nothing.
well, she’s done a pretty good job of throwing Sampson and McNulty under the bus - and Abu, but to a lesser extent.
What continues to bother me though, is her talking only about concerns within the dept, which evidently are conflated with (or are they assumed to be, via Abu?) the president’s will.
Kathleen @ 40
Secret Order
creeper @ 6
IMO, it’s NOT incompetency. It’s BLACKMAIL. Think NSA wiretapping.
I think we need to take a deep breath during this recess and think logically. Just because Monica received immunity from the committee doesn’t mean we should expect she’d dish out all the dirt on the higher-ups. It means she was covering her behind. Conyers and others on this committee are very smart, and they would not have granted her immunity if they don’t have something very juicy to question her about, and she’ll give it up sooner or later. It has to be more than the admission that she interviewed candidates regarding their political loyalty.
As mentioned very late in EPU land, those of you who don’t know Conyers should know he plays the bumbling old guy often, but he’s a very smart and slick man. If he looked befuddled, it’s that he’s pissed that she’s trying to pull a snow job, and you can bet that he and others will be much more aggressive in their further questioning. Conyers is a gentleman, always polite to others, but he tells the unvarnished truth and he is a stickler for the rule of law. He won’t let her pull one over on the committee - he’s got the goods and he’s giving her first the chance to offer them up, and if she doesn’t play nice, he’ll politely put her on a rotisserre until her goose is cooked.
‘Cowboy up,’ Alberto Gonzales
A fired U.S. attorney calls on the attorney general to serve the people, not politics.
I EPU’ed myself from way back in section I…sorry to just drop in and if this has been mentioned before, but why would Kyle Sampson drop a list by her office and “ask for her thoughts” if she didn’t have any input on the firing and didn’t know how those people had been selected?
what the Hell was she going to tell him if she knew so little? Why would he care about her thoughts?
And why didn’t anyone ask the follow-up?
There seem to be two narratives going on in Goodling’s testimony. The first is that she was a nobody with little power who may have inadvertently overstepped her authority occasionally. The second narrative line intrudes into the other from time to time. In this one (call it the Type A narrative), Goodling has the power to make and break people, a power that she repeatedly exercises.
The committee needs to call her on this. They also need to bring up the March 2006 grant of power from Alberto Gonzales. Lastly, they need to trace this all back to the White House. The White House connection is the story here and the committee should wake up to this.
kathleen @ 39
Gonzales took hiring, firing, and compensation authority for non-Civil Service employees from the DAG’s office and reserved it for himself.
Then he signed a secret memo re-delegating the authority to Chief of Staff and the White House Liason, i.e. Sampson and Goodling.
Slimy bastard.
Maxine is on the HJC. She got in some good sucker punches on Abu when he appeared before them.
After law school and a stint during the 2000 election doing opposition research for the GOP, Goodling landed in the public affairs office at the Justice Department. She did a six-month tour at the U.S. attorney’s office in Alexandria, Va., that was designed to give nonprosecutors a taste of the courtroom. In spring 2005, she became deputy director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys — a Justice Department arm that provides support, personnel and policy guidance to prosecutors around the country.
Her tenure at that office appears to have been crucial to facilitating the plan to fire U.S. attorneys. Former colleagues said that she prevailed upon the head of the office, Michael A. Battle, to replace two long-serving officials who probably would have viewed the firing of prosecutors without cause as highly suspicious, and helped install a fellow Regent law school graduate as a replacement.
LAT TIMES LINK
Remember Hitchcock’s shadow on the wall?
I just keep seeing Rove’s shadow looming large behind Goodling Bo Peep!
Remember that disappointing Comey testimony in front of the House that preceded his Senate appearance? When is McNulty’s testimony?
Aw heck, I don’t know how to use the gabbly, can someone explain?
So she was the most powerful woman in the DOJ? Self described type “A”?
Fooj @ 49.
“its blackmail. Think NSA wiretapping”.
BINGO!
The more you hear the more you can imagine how devastating losing the last election was. And for Domenici to have made that phone call, they must have been DESPERATE to win.
I never would have imagined that the government of the country I love has been reduced to a disbelieving headshaker. And (here I go), the Democrats are not much better. Many fail to get to the point (kudos to Rep. Sanchez for succinctly directing her questioning), while they cave into the demands of this disgustingly corrupt administration!
I know about the ‘prime the pump’ theory, but for how long? Niagra Falls? This administration has practically destroyed EVERY DEPARTMENT OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT! (sorry for yelling; I’ve worked to 12 hr nights with minimal rest. Please forgive my e-bursts!)
What have we become as a nation?
This staff work on this Committee seems so weak. WHo is prepping these Members?
Fave moments are when goopers put on their sugar voice and say “You’ve proven that there’s nothin to find in this fishin expedition” when Ms. Sacharine is sittin there takin the fuckin fifth..
Can we poll the jury?
Hey FDL’S bush is up on the boob tube BIN landen is going to attack the usa What timeing
Who’da thuk it!
Any Mac users who, like me, have problems with the HJC feed and the CSPAN3 feed, might have better luck, as I did, with the WaPo live feed.
Monica’s not exacly reflecting well on her law school.
…they need to ask Monica about her DOJ employee vetting worksheet, the one where she added a special column for identifying Fed/Soc members, it would be hard to call it anything but political.
landofthefree–I hope that you are right. I’ve signed every Conyers petition in the last 6 years and been a great admirer. But he doesn’t do a very good job with the questioning–his rate of speech slows him down and where are the follow-ups.
LJ/Aquaria @ 17
Add the total lack of any kind of serious pursuit here to the caving of Dems on the Iraq supplemental and the question of egos goes out the window. There’s something else at work here. Reps have got Dems over a barrel somehow. We’re screwed.
EW - Boy were you right about Goodling. Although there have been a couple of things positive that corroborate what we already knew; bottom line is this was a waste of prosecution leverage and silly immunity exercise. Basically nothing of value linking other actors.
looseheadprop @ 66
This staff work on this Committee seems so weak. WHo is prepping these Members?
Their makeup people?
anne @ 30
excellent point!
kathleen @ 40
Here’s a bit from my scandals list:
2. Firing of US attorneys. Most of the country’s 93 US attorneys are usually replaced within the first 2 years of a new administration and this is what happened when Bush came into office in 2001. US attorneys are political appointees and are chosen to reflect the policy priorities of a President. Still their primary job is to uphold the law, and the law is not supposed to be partisan. Karl Rove, of course, had other ideas. He believes that government should be politicized and populated with compliant partisan hacks loyal to him and his.
The plan was to create a list of political hires and fires of US attorneys under the direction of the White House (i.e. Rove and Harriet Miers) which Gonzales (and Bush) would then dutifully sign off on. There were two components. First, on February 7, 2006, regulations were published giving Attorney General Alberto Gonzales the power to hire and fire all non-civil service employees of the Justice Department (DOJ). On March 1, 2006, Gonzales signed an order delegating this power (subject to his nominal final approval) to two fairly junior and inexperienced staffers: Monica “Loyalty oaths” Goodling his senior counselor and liaison with the White House and his Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson. Second, sometime late in 2005 (shortly before the conference report for the Patriot Act Extension was filed on December 8, 2005), language originating at the DOJ was surreptitiously inserted into the act by Brett Tolman which allowed Gonzales to make indefinite interim US attorney appointments without Senate approval. The conference report was passed and became law on March 9, 2006. So again, the two parts were first to set up a system where Rove could control the hiring and firing of US attorneys and second to bypass the Senate confirmation process which might interfere with the first part.
After she answers that, yes, she thinks it is proper (legal) to use political affiliations in hiring, then ask her what sources did she use to provide authority to her claim. It is a simple follow up in depositions, and yet I don’t see it anywhere (how many lawyers are there on the committee?) But it is crucial here because she may inadvertantly say she heard it from “higher up”. You have to get her to say it, don’t assume she knows that it is improper/illegal.
conniptionfit @ 62
Type your name in the box. Click to change name. Comment in the comment box. Press enter on your keyboard.
TeddySanFran @ 66
Does that mean that there AREN’T little green blobs all over the hearing room?
JGabriel @ 17
And the people she was asking these questions were attorneys? People that should recognize that the question was illegal or at least that it was inappropriate.
Well the average ranking of the law schools of her hires dropped from I think it was 15 to 65.
She was really working hard to get good lawyers. It’s hard work, hard work I tell ya.
Not only would be useful to have MG react to Abu’s secret order but to respond to why McNulty was circumvented in that order?
kathleen @ 57
Dowd, Goodling’s laywer, is sitting right behind her and looks alot like ol’ Alfred.
landofthefree @ 50
I’m sorry. You mean when he finally gets thru all 35 members of the committee and gets to his second round about 3 hours from now? If he’s so smart, why doesn’t he communicate his questions to someone who’s coming up next, or have a junior member yield his or her time back to him. You give him too much credit. He’s running this hearing like its The Tonight Show with his intros and such.
If the committee knows ’something juicy’ they have an obligation to the American people to bring it up, and soon. Cuz right now they haven’t laid a glove on her.
Speaking of Rove - dare we hope someone on this committee will have the courage to ask her about any and all contact she had with Bush’s brain?
all i can say about this editorial from David Iglesias is wow.
Cowboy up
I agree the Dems need to push monica on the secret authority she was given.
Also, the “specific cases” pause, what general cases were discussed?
thanks TeddySF -
isn’t Yglesias set to chat at WaPo about now ?
linky anyone ?
bonkers @ 43
Agreed. A nice, pointed way of doing this would be to ask her, whenever she repeats one of the talking points she heard ’somebody’ say, whether she heard that before or after the firings, when, and from whom.
Then ask her what reasons she was aware of for the firings in general, or for specific attorneys, before the resignations were announced and the Congressional investigations began.
twolf1 @ 53
Link-y not work-y.
Drafty @ 46. That is what I keep wondering why in the hell did they give her immunity? For what reason?
Bo Peep is looking out for her sheep and those sheep do not include the congress, balance of powers provided by the constitution or the American publics “right to know”
..
Well, at least we don’t have to look at that
dumb picnic picture of her any more.
sheesh.
Doesn’t she look fabulous?
These Repubs are just fawning old men. ewwww.
…
Ms. Sugar Jesus is a much better liar than Gonzo- MUCH better–she slips in qualifications deftly that she will point out in any potential perjury investigation.
It would take HOURS of examination to get to the bottom of anything with this piece of human gargage. Five minute questioning sessions will get NOWHERE with her- I don’t care if Perry Mason does the questioning.
Halftime. Now we see the adjustments based on opening salvo’s which the first round was meant to establish. I hope.
big bob @ 68
Hunh. Maybe I better stick around to see what the D’s get out of Monica, after all. They wouldn’t play the OBL card if they weren’t scared shitless about something.
Or maybe it’s something else that’s about to hit the fan somewhere. It’s not like we don’t have tons of possibilities for that.
TeddySanFran @ 67
My HJC feed is working great; my DSL provider is working on the phone lines in my area, though, so things are kinda slow when I try to access FDL.
And a reminder (because what we really need are choices like this to make every day), WaPo chat today at 12:30:
David Iglesias, one of nine U.S. Attorneys fired last year in a move that has sparked a political firestorm for the Bush administration, will discuss the firings, his life now, and Wednesday’s testimony on the Hill by Monica Goodling, the former Justice Department liaison to the White House.
Badwater @ 68
Why not? She’s handling these lawyers pretty damn well.
TeddySanFran @ 66
I went to audio only on the CSPAN3 feed and it seemed to solve my problems. Since I’m doing some housework, anyway, I just crank up the ‘puter volume.
Exactly. The public will start agreeing that “there ain’t no fish” at the end of this “fishing expedition”. If Conyers doesn’t get improved performance from his Dems, he’ll have shot himself and the Democratic Party in both feet.
All them Congress Critters know this is an act, that Goodling’s testimony, predictably reveals as little as possible, despite her having been granted the Fifth. Why are they fence sitting, as if they don’t want to be seen as the Wicked Witch to MG’s Dorothy?
Goodling, on the other hand, is holding up remarkably well, showing the mettle that won her the right to oversee departmental wide hiring and firing in Rove’s House of Justice. Apart from being willing to put herself on the cross “instead of thee”, she must also understand the implied calculus that her support and paid legal fees will be forthcoming only as long as she lets no arrows pass her body.
Expect her to return to the hearing with her best sorority/student council president, “Gee girls, what shall we talk about next?”
cbl @ 86
You are welcome — Iglesias chatz at 12:30 eastern
TexBetsy @ 81
I went to CSpan3 main site, used standalone. No problems like I had from the FDL link.
Now that she’s admitted crossing the line on politicization, is it too much to ask to get someone on the committee to put the words FEDERALIST SOCIETY on the record?
TeddySanFran @ 33
You’re all giving these people way too much credit…talk about tools? They’re all tools Democrats and Republicans.
This is a complete facade except the real story of how both parties are enabling this isn’t even being broached….impeachment from the house or revolution and civil war, it’s that simple.
The Democrats don’t deserve to win in 2008 and at least the GOP is more theatrical during their hearings…hell, Sensenbrenner cut off a mike, for chrissake!!! Seeing any of that chutzpah here? No f’g way.
Time to put old John out to pasture and get someone with the fire in their belly to wield that gavel.
Must return to real life, pups. Keep the popcorn warm.
looseheadprop @ 67
Wasn’t Goodling an oppo researcher with Griffin? She is someone who was very, very much aware of the political angles in her hiring and firing questions and decisions yet they are giving her a pass on this.
Based solely on the tenor of comments from the Lake, this hearing is sounding about as helpful as a third rail……….or worse! ;-(
thanks big time meep!
60K visitors to the lake today
imagine if only half donated $25.00 . . .
I don’t understand. She was WH liason, but had no contact with the WH?
If she wasn’t a decisionmaker, how come names come off the list when she says so?!
LJ/Aquaria @ 92