Comments (30)

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 26, 2007 6:46 PM:

O.T. - While searching for something else, I came across this 7/6/03 Raleigh News and Observer story, "Taylor linked to loan fraud" by Pat Stith about whether AG blocked Rep. Charles Taylor (R-NC) from being charged in a bank fraud case.

"In 2000 and 2001, the former president of an obscure bank in the western end of North Carolina admitted to FBI agents that he had violated federal banking laws. He also implicated 11th
District U.S. Rep. Charles H. Taylor of Brevard, who founded Blue Ridge Savings Bank and was chairman of its board of directors.

The banker, Hayes C. Martin of Asheville, and a major borrower, Charles E. "Chig " Cagle, a political confidant of Taylor, have pleaded guilty to scheming together to defraud the bank and launder money. In FBI interviews, Cagle also said Taylor was involved.

In April, Martin and Cagle testified against the lawyer who helped put the loan packages together. The lawyer, Thomas W. Jones, was convicted of bank fraud. All three now await sentencing.

Taylor, however, has not been charged. He was not subpoenaed before the federal grand jury that indicted the others. And the FBI hasn't interviewed him.

Lawyers for Jones are pressing their own case about why investigators have not questioned the congressman. They have filed an unusual motion in federal court that raises questions about whether a Republican administration in Washington stopped
the FBI from investigating a Republican congressman...

Robert J. Conrad Jr., the U.S. attorney for the Western District of North Carolina, would not comment last week when he was asked if he had notified the Justice Department about the Taylor allegations or comment on what, if any, instructions he had been given.

Monica M. Goodling , deputy director of public affairs at the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, also had no comment when asked whether Ashcroft or his aides had blocked an investigation of Taylor..."

Giant Teapot wrote on March 26, 2007 6:46 PM:

Perhaps Dowd's letter was intended to signal to Sampson's lawyer that Goodling's not going to play along. Suppose (not unlikely at all) she gets immunity and is forced to testify truthfully? Sampson better not try to hand Leahy the weak-ass spin that Mike Allen swallowed.

Hmm. Perhaps this Monica is signaling that she's not gonna get on her knees.

oldtree wrote on March 26, 2007 6:56 PM:

you do know he is referring to the plane and the condo in mexico, right?

Giant Teapot wrote on March 26, 2007 6:58 PM:

@ Mrs P:

Is Goodling a married or maiden name, I wonder? Martindale-Hubbell/LexisNexis, Findlaw, etc. are not showing Monica Goodling as a member of any U.S. state bar. Her title "counsel to AG and WH liaison" indicates she's in an attorney slot, which would require her to be admitted to at least one state bar.

Lawyer or not, if she (or Kyle) take the Fifth, I don't think they can maintain security clearances of any significance. This "resigned under fire but not off the payroll" sh*t needs to be called the outrageous shenanigans it is.

Bob Waller wrote on March 26, 2007 7:05 PM:

A thought occurred to me on the way home. What if everyone that Congress wanted to call to testify took the Fifth Amendment? It would be politically damaging to the Administation, no doubt; on the other hand, what recourse would Congress have in discharging its oversight responsibilities?

Tom Betz wrote on March 26, 2007 7:09 PM:

Monica Goodling may never have taken a bar exam.

She came right out of law school (Pat Robertson's Regent University Law School, where they teach that the Ten Commandments supersede the Constitution) into the Bush administration.

Giant Teapot wrote on March 26, 2007 7:15 PM:

@ Tom Betz:

That was my point. I mused yesterday whether graduates of her "law school" could ever pass a bar exam. But you can't be a "Counsel" to the Attorney General of the U.S. unless you're a licensed attorney! Being only a "law graduate" would be a problem. But if so, at least she wouldn't have to worry about being disbarred for her part in the conspiracies.

Mike Conwell wrote on March 26, 2007 7:17 PM:

"You shall not bear false witness" The Fifth, uhh... make that Ninth Commandment

Giant Teapot wrote on March 26, 2007 7:21 PM:

@ Bob Waller:

Even if they're shut out totally on testimonial evidence, the gates are already open on documentary evidence. I think plenty more of that is coming: some via subpoena, and some from career level civil servants who are feeling emboldened to come forward.

Mark F. wrote on March 26, 2007 7:24 PM:

Something tells me Kyle WANTS to get got. I think he wants to tell the truth. He knows they're sending him off to Azazel anyway, so why the hell not tell the truth?

bohdi wrote on March 26, 2007 7:25 PM:

No rules apply for these people. Democrats are painfully slow to realize this. Russian military is now leaking an April 6th attack by U.S. on Iran. What does a rabid,moronic dog do when it is badly cornered and feels nothing but rage and impotence? It starts another War.

Welcome all to the world of the first psychotic King of the 21st Century.

Anonymous wrote on March 26, 2007 7:26 PM:

Giant Teapot@March 26, 2007 06:58 PM

I was just looking for Goodling's bio but I can't find anything.

I don't think Goodling is married. She bought her home singly under her own name.

I checked Westlaw and no dice on Monica Goodling.

I found a news story dating back to May 2002 which refers to Goodling as "chief counsel in the department's press office." Another story referred to her as "attorney Monica Goodling, an adviser in Ashcroft's office."

Goodling is 33 years old. Say she started at the DOJ in 2001 when she was 27. What did she do before then?

Rebel wrote on March 26, 2007 7:40 PM:

@-

"Goodling is 33 years old. Say she started at the DOJ in 2001 when she was 27. What did she do before then?"

------------

With the name "Monica," need you ask?

Bugboy wrote on March 26, 2007 7:58 PM:

Where DO these people come from? Someone said pod people before, now appropriate. 27 and a suit at DOJ, go figure. That ain't right...

...because my security code is "right"

Save US fromTheAmericanTaliban! wrote on March 26, 2007 8:47 PM:

"She came right out of law school (Pat Robertson's Regent University Law School, where they teach that the Ten Commandments supersede the Constitution) into the Bush administration."

Are you KIDDING me?! Where was the media while all these unqualified nuts were taking over the country? The more I learn about these criminals the more I want to throw up.

cf wrote on March 26, 2007 8:48 PM:

Giant Teapot@March 26, 2007 06:58 PM et al.:
On the website http://www.thememoryhole.org/legal/virginia-bar.htm
you can access
www.thememoryhole.org/legal/virginia-bar.xls
and find Monica Marie Goodling on the list (# 7909, alpha order)
I'm sure she' got crackerjack legal skills: a Regent dean, Jeffrey A. Brauch, issued a bar-pass prayer that upped the pass rate from below 50% to near 70% (lowest in Virginia). He has great legal skills himself: he authored a paper "showing" why ERISA preempted the San Francisco domestic partners ordinance... at least his creds are better than Goodling's are...

http://regent.edu/acad/schlaw/faculty_staff/brauch.cfm

Giant Teapot wrote on March 26, 2007 9:19 PM:

Thanks, cf!

So a "bar-pass" prayer increased Regent graduates' pass rate, but still not by enough to make them better than least likely to pass? Those who wouldn't have passed without the magic prayer are surely among Virginia's great legal minds.

Checking into DOJ's standards of conduct for employees and attorneys and VA bar's ethics ....

What state is Kyle admitted to?

SLOUCH wrote on March 26, 2007 9:43 PM:

This is the kind of thread I LIVE for lately, with some active raking bubbling to the top!

kentuck wrote on March 26, 2007 10:25 PM:

How ironic! Another Monica involved in a White House scandal? Where's that witch, Lucianne Goldberg, when you need her?

djcrow22 wrote on March 26, 2007 10:32 PM:

So did she pass the bar or what? Is she a lawyer?

lori wrote on March 26, 2007 10:51 PM:

I think Sampson is dangling a threat trying to squeeze more $ out of the Republicans as a "severance package."

ewastud wrote on March 26, 2007 10:55 PM:

My suspicion is that Kyle Sampson is the designated fall guy. His role this Thursday will be to try to put a spin on the documentary evidence to make it appear less damning than it actually is. He will lie as much as he needs to to protect higher-ups. That is his key responsibility as "fall guy." Naturally, he will expect a full pardon if he gets caught and prosecuted for his lies.

ewastud wrote on March 26, 2007 11:00 PM:

Methinks it appropriate that Monica Goodling seek a name change to "Badling," her Regent Law School diploma notwithstanding.

mbbsdphil wrote on March 26, 2007 11:37 PM:

Josh has two good updates. The latest is from USNews about what Sampson intends to say to Congress. Essentially, he is telegraphing that he'll undercut Gonzales' assertion that he wasn't in the loop.

How 'bout them apples? The subordinate hanging his boss out to dry on a lying or perjury rap. Now that's the mark of the boy-man that Rove considered good enough to sit in for him should he have to fight an indictment.

Even if he is in the loop on how all this has to work out, I think that will rightly devastate Mr. Gonzales. Somehow, I don't think a Medal of Freedom is in his future.

I think that Sampson's testimony means one of two apparently contradictory things: Rove's shop is ready to tell Bush that it's time to pull the plug on Alberto. Or, it will tell George to fight like hell to keep him. It won't mean that, of course. George would fight for Gonzales, but only until Rove decides there are too many holes in him to be an effective human shield for Rove.

Since Gonzales' departure is likely to involve lying or perjury, there seems little chance he'll be able to return to a TX law partnership. More likely, it will mean a review by the TX bar of his license to practice. The substitute soft landing may be a "political" fellowship at a right wing think tank or university.

If rugby players eat their dead, what does Karl Rove do?

mbbsdphil wrote on March 26, 2007 11:44 PM:

Teapot, "counsel" does not necessarily mean legal adviser. It can also mean providing non-legal counsel or advice. Dan Barlett is White House counsel, but he works as Rove's principal deputy, not in Fielding's shop.

Goodling's job is as a glorified assistant, trying to make sure the DOJ and WH remain on the same page of the hymnal (so to speak). She doesn't appear to provide any legal advice.

Ironically, Catherine Martin is employed as a communications adviser for the EOP, and formerly for the OVP, even though she has a Harvard Law degree and six to eight years of practice, plus time on the Hill.

Giant Teapot wrote on March 27, 2007 1:19 AM:

I have to disagree with you, mbbsdphil. "Counsel" is a term of art in Federal employment. Non-attorneys can't be called "counsel."

And as Peter Principle pointed out over on Volokh Conspiracy, the "Counsel to the Attorney General" part of Monica's dual job title means ... _the Attorney General's lawyer_ is taking the Fifth. Spin that, PR flacks. (Oops, her other title was DOJ PR flack, and she's on indefinite leave. She's a one-woman PR disaster.)

caj wrote on March 27, 2007 8:13 AM:

Would someone please help me define these terms used by the dark-side? Is there a dictionary of "'publican spin terms" I could refer to?

Politically motivated -

misstatements -

mislead Congress -

white-collar criminal -

legally perilous -

not entirely candid -

White House was appropriately advised -

I wasn’t involved in the deliberations -

inaccurate testimony to Congress -

improper reasons -

Richard L. Adlof wrote on March 27, 2007 10:48 AM:

The question is where does Sampson see food and clothes money coming from . . . Is he a short-term thinker or got his eye on 2009 and beyond.

It is almost he will have to choose between severing the connection between the AG's office and the White House in an attempt to protect the Administration (thus the thump-thump of bus tires for in his and most certainly the Torture Czar's futures - only he will get an all expense paid trip to employment is some right wing-nut thought-less tank until some future Republican Administration needs a slime-ball) OR TELLING THE TRUTH and never working again.

The Congress folk can't waste their questions on this one. Let us pray that six years of avoiding the truth has not made then soft.

Anonymous wrote on March 27, 2007 11:31 AM:

Bob Waller says, "A thought occurred to me on the way home. What if everyone that Congress wanted to call to testify took the Fifth Amendment?"

That's fine.. But taking the Fifth does not stop all discovery! And, Congress could hold a Dutch auction on immunity; that is, "Get it early while it's fresh, folks.. Latecomers to this party face indictment." That should shake up the whole pack pretty nicely. Imagine these guys shoving each other out of the way in order to be the first one to spill his guts to Congress, haha!

Plus, coordinated pleas of the Fifth might trigger investigations into conspiracy, very serious sh*t.

NO no no, everybody pleading at the same time is a good way to get them all busted. Remember, the Senate Justice Committee has a number of experienced lawyers and prosecutors; they know how to handle hostile witnesses, they know what blood smells like.

KY3 Democrat: "We don't have to hang 'em together when we can hang 'em separately."

Security code = "mother".. Yep, it's a mother..

Anonymous wrote on March 27, 2007 1:20 PM:

My money is on the fact being discovered that Ms. Goodling ain't even barred.
And she thinks taking the 5th will somehow make that fact undiscoverable!

I think she's going to feel some "pain"!