Comments (80)

DBH wrote on May 3, 2007 5:04 PM:

Vigorous representation of your client would indicate that getting a free pass is ideal, so of course he would object.

RandyR wrote on May 3, 2007 5:06 PM:

Hey remember this is the same Justice Department that she stacked the deck at.

I guess she didn't select for loyalty.

zenster666 wrote on May 3, 2007 5:07 PM:

I cant' wait to read what she has to say to the committee. Can' wait to see an updated photo too. I'm tired of looking at that goofy hairstyle.

jdw wrote on May 3, 2007 5:10 PM:

Sounds like Dowd really, really, really wants to get his client under immunity to CYA her big time. One gets the feeling that Down might know she's screwed.

Unless this is all play acting by the DOJ and Dowd to make Congress think it's even more important to give her immunity to talk.

Swoosh wrote on May 3, 2007 5:11 PM:

Again, who is paying John Dowd's legal fees for representation of Ms. Goodling? Inquiring minds want to know.

Anonymous wrote on May 3, 2007 5:13 PM:

Akin and Gump? Hehe

Rawstory: "A legal secretary at one of Washington's most prominent law firms, Akin Gump, has been suspended after telling her bosses she secretly worked at night for the escort service run by the so-called D.C. Madam, Jeane Palfrey,

Anonymous wrote on May 3, 2007 5:13 PM:

Suspect this as a ploy. The group paying Ms. Goodling's legal expenses is likely on the same team as the group in Justice conducting the "investigation." The press release yesterday and the letter from Dowd today were coordinated.

Steve5117 wrote on May 3, 2007 5:16 PM:

What could Gonzo say if Monica were to say something outrageous, like that she had a brief affair with him?

I wonder if remembering not doing something would be eaiser than remembering the things he did?

Seitz wrote on May 3, 2007 5:16 PM:

**Suspect this as a ploy.**

Call me a conspiracy nut, but I agree with this.

mark wrote on May 3, 2007 5:18 PM:

Oh to finally test the wits, grit and cool emotional steel that comes with a law degree from Pat Roberston University within the crucible of an 8 hour Judiciary Committee hearing.

I predict a mascara filled puddle.

Anthony wrote on May 3, 2007 5:20 PM:

I was thinking the same thing earlier today.

Here a picture of Monica with guest who?

bobh wrote on May 3, 2007 5:21 PM:

Read the memo the attorney sent...it is INDEED akin gump !

One fo the most top shelf Law Houses out there in Dc.

Anthony wrote on May 3, 2007 5:21 PM:

I was thinking the same thing earlier today.

Here a picture of Monica with guest who?

"http://farm1.static.flickr.com/59/204490457_edc4497c67.jpg"

pinta wrote on May 3, 2007 5:23 PM:

"Can't wait to see an updated photo too. I'm tired of looking at that goofy hairstyle."

Geez! yes, puleeze. She looks 12 years old

bobh wrote on May 3, 2007 5:24 PM:

And the little turd lawyer didint cc the judiciary committee or leahy.

goldberry wrote on May 3, 2007 5:25 PM:

OOOooooOOOO. Sounds like the honeymoon is over. Maybe Monica's getting a clue.

Dan wrote on May 3, 2007 5:25 PM:

Totally not pertinent to the thread, but anyone else getting a McCain '08 ad at the top? Seems a little odd and targeted at the wrong market...

the truth will out wrote on May 3, 2007 5:26 PM:

This law firm is really entangled, isn't it?

I wonder if ms goodling will be wishing she'd picked another!

Or is she entangled in more ways than one?

TANK1 wrote on May 3, 2007 5:29 PM:

The DOJ has pretty good idea of what Goodling has done and probably wanted to give Congress a heads up before granting immunity.

bob wrote on May 3, 2007 5:29 PM:

McCain's probably not going to get many signatures on his "Outraged by Pork" petition here, but maybe his folks just want to plant the seed of McCain as anti-pork in the heads of folks on both sides of the aisle.

Tulkinghorn wrote on May 3, 2007 5:30 PM:

I doubt the head of the Criminal Defense section at Akin Gump is in the bag for the dead-enders at the DOJ. Goodling is in serious legal jeopardy - Dowd is not going to risk his reputation for Gonzo, not when he makes in a year what would take Gonzo ten years to earn.

Big Al wrote on May 3, 2007 5:36 PM:

Did she think that the Bushies would stand by her and not throw her under a bus if it suited their agenda? It's a rhetorical question of course, but she just might have been just that dumb to think that the thugs who employed her would retain power in perpetuity.
It must have been a heady experience for an incompetent hack from a 3rd rate law school, but she's learnin'.
When it's all over she'll have a book ghost written that portrays her as a naive victim of power players like Herr Rove and the other movers and shakers in the Bush Putsch.

TheraP wrote on May 3, 2007 5:39 PM:

Big Al

Picture the book tour. Somehow just the thought of all those protesters....

CatelynK wrote on May 3, 2007 5:39 PM:

Hey, Monica -- What's that sound?
It's a bus a'comin' to run you down.

But remember, the blood of scapegoats is the seed of the Bush Administration.

mo2 wrote on May 3, 2007 5:41 PM:

Anthony, Are you sure that's Monica with Rove in that picture? That female looks brunette with brown eyes, and rather petite.

mo2 wrote on May 3, 2007 5:44 PM:

Monica has "lawyers" plural, and one apparently is pricey. Who is paying her bills?

Punchy wrote on May 3, 2007 5:48 PM:

CAT FIGHT!!!

SteveW wrote on May 3, 2007 5:48 PM:

How can there NOT be another photo of her? There should be one of those cheesy "head and shoulders" shots that are used on newsletters, etc...

When are they scheduled to subpoena her?

John Bertsch wrote on May 3, 2007 5:55 PM:

Oh, so now a Republican has found out that the Republicans play hard ball with their enemies. Let's face it, the GOPers will crap on their brother if they have to.

SteveW wrote on May 3, 2007 5:55 PM:

oh man! no kidding, this is in the results of a google image search for "monica goodling".

http://www.cryptomundo.com/wp-content/patterson_bigfoot_lg.jpg

seems wierdly appropriate....

bcf wrote on May 3, 2007 5:57 PM:

"Many were suspicious of the timing yesterday of the Justice Department's announcement that Monica Goodling was under investigation for possible criminal wrongdoing"

Me too. I think they're just cramming to trying to get their "Republican's under investigation" numbers up just before they meet with Leahy.

Betcha dollar they'll want to include this one.

mbbsdphil wrote on May 3, 2007 6:05 PM:

Dowd may rant, but he won't be disappointed if the DOJ investigation delays the Congressional one. I had thought it was customary, however, to advise someone when they were the target of an investigation. Be wary of shiny objects and delays. Goodling has lots of stuff; let's get a proffer of what that might include before Congress issues its grant of immunity.

T. Atkinson wrote on May 3, 2007 6:11 PM:

Washington DC big firm attorney here.

This is not a ploy, or a coordinated conspiracy. Dowd is a sharp attorney, and values his law license a hell of a lot more than to engage in an abject violation of the law over a client like this. No attorney--not even bad ones--would risk the end of a profitable career over something like this. No way, no how. So you can put aside the coordination and conspiracy ploy theories.

The simple explanation is probably the correct one: Dowd is zealously representing his client. Who does not want to go to jail. She has undoubtedly damped her pillow on several sleepless nights at the prospect. So he is doing what any good attorney should: he is trying to get her out of this pickle relatively unscathed.

He had a sweert deal from Congress. Talk, tell us what you know, be truthful, and you will get sweet, sweet immunity.

That is a good deal.

Then along comes DOJ and starts screwing with it. Probably for the precise reason of preventing her from testifying. Which blows up his ability to get her out of the pickle.

If I were him, and I found out my client was the target ogf an investigation by the IG at DOJ from a press release and not opposing counsel, I would, to borrow a phrase from Justice Holmes, completely lose my shit.

I wouldn't have said it smacks of retribution and intimidation. I would have said that it is pure-D, unalloyed, transparent retribution and intimidation. And I may very well have traced my hand, middle finger extended, on the page to make my point (a stunt a partner of mine actually once pulled).

As to the issue of who is paying Dowd? Frankly it doesn't matter. I have clients whose bills are footed by others all the time, and the simple fact is that my confidentiality is with my client, and the person that pays the bills is entitled to--and is prohibited from getting, from me, anyway--anything. I have no more right to involve the person funding my client in strategy meetings or any other meetings with my client than I do involving opposing counsel.

Lawyers are not influenced by who writes the check. Not good lawyers, anyway. And Dowd is a good lawyer, despite what you may think of his client.

stephen wrote on May 3, 2007 6:18 PM:

Hey don't worry Pat's pryaing for her...." I see a ahh a a I feel it in my herat a very troubled woman a a a dare I say it a Lawyer who is deeply troubled and in a very sorrwful state and is contemplating suicide. I am telling you dear person do not entertain these thoughts in Jesus Name I heal you....unless you are putting our president and his minion Karl in jeapordy then by all means please OD, Jump off a building, step in front of a train. drive off a clif....I promise your reward will be in Heaven...Amen and amen!"

paul lukasiak wrote on May 3, 2007 6:21 PM:

"He had a sweert deal from Congress. Talk, tell us what you know, be truthful, and you will get sweet, sweet immunity. "

except that the deal that Congress is offering (right now) is use immunity. And if Monica is guilty of using political loyalty as a litmus test for non-political appointments, the case will be independent of her testimony, and based on the testimony of others, and data from the DoJ.

(I forget where I read it, but IIRC some DoJ attorneys were asked for recommendations for other hires. They came up with a list of 600 names. The list came back with 400 names, and it looked like the Democrats had all been stripped from the list.....)

Heh! wrote on May 3, 2007 6:26 PM:

No doubt Ms Monica is getting the hard knocks lesson that her Regent U. 'degree' never prep her for.

By accounts of those whom she worked for, she was a dedicated hard worker, but the sheer numbers of 150 Regent U grads in the Bush Admin is way too many to give comfort.

And who is paying her legal fees? Barbara Comstock? The suspense is killing me.

jay severin has a small pen1s wrote on May 3, 2007 6:34 PM:

I bet she can't wait to get in front of Congress and swear to God to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

bjobotts wrote on May 3, 2007 6:40 PM:

Can you say "scapegoat". She's incompetent...look at what she did...and all on her own...Just because we gave her the power to do it doesn't mean we knew that she was doing it. I was not personally involved and unaware she was doing...What a farce.

mo2 wrote on May 3, 2007 6:41 PM:

T. Atkinson, could it be that Dowd is working for free/cheap just because Monica's is a high-profile case?

I don't know what Dowd would do, but have no reason to think anything other than exactly what you say. But still, how does she afford a pricey lawyer?

Can somebody do a financial background search on Monica?

Similarly somebody yesterday raised the question of what kind of stipend Bill Mercer receives when he is in DC.

Anonymous wrote on May 3, 2007 6:53 PM:

mo2 - "could it be that Dowd is working for free/cheap just because Monica's is a high-profile case?"

take it from another big firm attorney: Yes. this case is worth its weight in gold in terms of publicity and prestige. no lawyer in his right mind would turn it down.

T. Atkinson is right about the rest of it, too. once he takes a case, a guy like Dowd is going to fight it tooth and nail for one thing: the client. that's how he got to be who he is. suggestions of conspiracy are ridiculous and show a complete misunderstanding of how the process actually works.

code is "turn," as in, "an honest buck"

Pete wrote on May 3, 2007 7:09 PM:

Sounds like this bird is ready to sing.

mo2 wrote on May 3, 2007 7:12 PM:

OT - Rove's missing emails span the 2004 election and tie into curious events in Ohio. (I have not read this before!)
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0704/S00462.htm

"SMARTech hosts georgewbush.com, mc.org, ohiogop.org and gop.com among other Republican web domains, in a bank basement.

Furthermore, the same hosting site that handled redirections from Blackwell's "official" site also handled the White House e-mail accounts that have become central to investigations of the Gonzales purge of eight federal prosecutors."

syvanen wrote on May 3, 2007 7:20 PM:

To Atkinson. What if entering into an understanding with the DOJ and playing an outrage charade IS in the best interests of his client? Would that be unethical?

Anonymous wrote on May 3, 2007 7:21 PM:

Lots of talk about possible criminal wrongdoing. What's the crime. 5 USC 2302 is the statute that makes political screening a "prohibited personnel practice," but it's not criminal.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on May 3, 2007 7:23 PM:

Oooo . . . The Repugantcants need to nominate the dream team of Ollie North and Lil' Missy Notso Goodling as their ticket in 2008.

Two American patriots who braved evil Demon-crat hearings and came forth untouched by evil justice . . .

Chabuka wrote on May 3, 2007 7:28 PM:

Mr. Dowd...
speaking of "lack of professional courtesy" how IS your client, Ms. Goodling..? Oh, and your self..? Mr. Gonzales, Mr. McNulty..etc...you all also, seem to be lacking in integrity, or any sense of fair play....or justice...ironic..!

chabuka wrote on May 3, 2007 7:37 PM:

Dan..I have an idea, lets all ask McCain about his involvment in the Keating Five scandal....that probably is something he doesn't want to get out while he is talking about "pork" and how to fix it...

Matchoo wrote on May 3, 2007 7:37 PM:

If Goodling has Hatch or Cannon working their magic during her hearings, we'll have another few moments like these...

http://snuffmonkey.com/gonzales/

regular lurker wrote on May 3, 2007 7:38 PM:

Desperation has arrived.

Apparently a White House spokesperson announced yesterday there's an "investigation" of SIGIR's Stuart Bowen. Now for the hilarious part: the committee "investigating" Bowen, the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency, is in charge of "cross-cutting management challenges." Hardly worthy of a press conference.

Anonymous wrote on May 3, 2007 7:41 PM:

Totally not pertinent to the thread, but anyone else getting a McCain '08 ad at the top? Seems a little odd and targeted at the wrong market...

Posted by: Dan

CNN reported that these advertisements were bought as a package deal. The specific sites they run on are randomly chosen. I do agree with McCain about not surrendering, especially when it comes to restoring credibility to our DoJ.

tbhull wrote on May 3, 2007 7:50 PM:

The repub controlled DOJ and Goodling's attorney are ham and eggin' Goodling's testimony to effectively delay the same. She will never testify.

Anonymous wrote on May 3, 2007 7:58 PM:

One of the reasons the Bush administration places unqualified dupes in positions of power is to make them feel obligated and therefore compliant and controllable. The other is making them the fall guy/gal when the shit hits the fan because they followed dubious orders to commit dubious acts.

Sarah wrote on May 3, 2007 8:04 PM:

Again, who is paying John Dowd's legal fees for representation of Ms. Goodling? Inquiring minds want to know.

This is the most important thing to remember when listening to Dowd's public statements. There is no way that Goodling could afford Dowd and since he is a gift by someone, she is accepting a bribe in having this powerful republican law firm representing her.

DF wrote on May 3, 2007 8:07 PM:

I also think the DoJ investigation may screw up the immunity grant. If the Dowd letter is right, then a DoJ investigation does not in itself preclude the grant of immunity. But would it necessitate another vote in the House Judiciary Committee? The investigation gives the Republicans some cover. They could now oppose immunity and argue that they don’t want Monica to walk like North did.

Don’t worry Monica, Fox News will have a spot waiting for you. Look out Greta.

D. Fiduk wrote on May 3, 2007 8:36 PM:

Goodling's new theme song? 'Wake Up Little Susie'.

Where's your messiah now, Monica? Nyaaaah......

Buck wrote on May 3, 2007 8:45 PM:

This thing's gonna really get rolling when a huge cache of the "missing" emails turns up not missing. And they will, or have.

Congress will do fine with what it has.
Patience is a virtue.

TTC wrote on May 3, 2007 9:02 PM:

If you want to see what a great guy John Dowd is, read a recent (Jan 2007) four page decision in a criminal case from the DC federal district court , Tri-State Hospital Supply Inc. v. U.S., where he basically lunges at the throat, metaphorically speaking, of some poor customs inspector who seems to have nabbed his client. It doesn't work well for him. His scorched earth tactics get shot down.

EdNSted wrote on May 3, 2007 9:26 PM:

At times, I swear I'm watching a David Copperfield show, trying to decide which parts are real and which parts are illusion...

ttc wrote on May 3, 2007 9:34 PM:

Dowd has quite a resume. His antics seem in fact to be a perfect illustration of the oldest saw in the legal profession: if you have the facts, argue the facts, if you have the law, argue the law, if you have neither, pound the table. He's pounding.

ahem wrote on May 3, 2007 10:27 PM:

Has anyone asked DOJ for Goodling's official head shot? Does she have one? If so, has she refused permission to release it? Has DOJ?

I'm reminded of this:

"OLBERMANN: And clearly, we need a subpoena to get a new head shot of Ms. Goodling, but that‘s another story for another time."

tbhull wrote on May 3, 2007 10:42 PM:

Monica Goodling does not exist. She is a Karl Rove creation. The above picture is Karl Rove's blow up doll with cheap/tacky lipstick purchased at a Utah truck stop smeared all over the face.

bmaz wrote on May 3, 2007 10:43 PM:

That is horrible. She should file an EEOC complaint immediately! I demand that a formal record be promptly made of this serious dispute!

not atkinson wrote on May 3, 2007 11:14 PM:

"What if entering into an understanding with the DOJ and playing an outrage charade IS in the best interests of his client? Would that be unethical?"

Not if it would mean presenting falsehoods to the court.

slb wrote on May 3, 2007 11:23 PM:

>> The timing of your release smacks of retribution and intimidation. <<

Hey, isn't that the sort of thing that Goodling and Sampson wanted loyal Bushies to do? Pervert the system to further the interests of the Boy King and his jester Karl? She who lives by the sword...

Michael Stevens wrote on May 4, 2007 12:00 AM:

This latest move by the DOJ could be an attempt to keep Goodling from testifying, or it could be a legitimate move to stop a criminal from being granted immunity.

Either way, I think Congress should punt this right back into the lap of the Department of Justice. They should force the DOJ to make one of the following choices:

A. Appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the entire affair.

OR

B. Get out of the way and allow her to testify under a grant of immunity.

Prosecuting a former top aide to the Attorney General would be a tremendous conflict of interest within the DOJ. So if Justice doesn't think a Special Prosecutor is warranted, then they can hardly object to Goodling testifying under immunity.

Daroo wrote on May 4, 2007 1:51 AM:

The link to the web archive of Ms. Goodling's Regent U. homepage includes a b&w photo that for some reason Google Images has not picked up. For all you voyeurs who missed the mentions of this back in March - enjoy

studying for con law final wrote on May 4, 2007 8:39 AM:

There is a possibility that the Justice Department could still delay immunity by challenging the constitutionality of the statute. There may be three arguments here:
-Legislative Veto. Chadha (1983) makes it difficult for congress to reserve to a committee the power to "veto" executive branch action. Granting immunity, albeit limited, may qualify.
-Bowsher (1986). Agents of Congress can't exercise direct authority over executive officials. Similar to a legislative veto. Since granting immunity might effectively end criminal prosecution, maybe that would qualify.
-Legislative immunity. Speech and Debate clause protects agents of Senators and representatives who are engaged in activity which is an indispensible element of the legislative process (as in Gravel, 1972). Maybe this provides an implicit power to immunize witnesses.
Anyway, it just seems to me that the issue is not cut and dry - especially since the case cited by the witness's lawyer predates two of the cases I listed above. Just a thought.

RL wrote on May 4, 2007 8:46 AM:

Is it a ploy? We'll see when this goes to a judge. The Judiciary Committee will certainly fight any attempt by DOJ to use its investigation to shut down her testimony. If Dowd vigorously joins the committee lawyers to oppose DOJ, it's no ploy. He's a zealous counsel. If not, it's all just Kabuki.

This maneuver by the DOJ really does seem fairly ham-handed. A small tactical move with little strategic foresight. But, hey, it just shows what poor lawyers they are. As this entire mess has shown - they're partisans first, and lawyers second (if at all).

AnneW wrote on May 4, 2007 9:18 AM:

The best and the brightest at Justice have either quit or have been pushed out of decision making.

This is so ham handed I have to think the hand of Rove (or one of "experienced" 30 year old aides, maybe the new "Monica") is involved.

Whistler wrote on May 4, 2007 9:30 AM:

Big Al said:

"Did she think that the Bushies would stand by her and not throw her under a bus if it suited their agenda? It's a rhetorical question of course, but she just might have been just that dumb to think that the thugs who employed her would retain power in perpetuity."

Sure ... because it was God's will. Don't forget to factor that in. They do. Or did. (Or ... well, maybe this is a giant test of faith or something? It'll work out. Yeah, sure ... just keep prayin'! Just hope that big, bad realities will go away!)

That, or they could read their own Bibles, once in a while. I've quoted it before: "Be not deceived; God is not mocked. Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."

It's about protecting Karl. That's what's going on, in this latest mini-scandal of Badlings'.

The moment she resigned, she had no value to them. She was all liability; all of the time.

Iglesias said she has the keys to the kingdom. She was ideally placed, between all the players.

Folks: why blame the DOJ for this? Haven't all those public hearings shown them to be but mere puppets? It's almost like you folks are in denial about how bad things really-really are, in this administration?! The way things are supposed to be, keeps being talked about ... as if they might apply to all this, in some way. Huh?

If there's been any lesson that needs to sink in, more, it's that the rules don't apply to them. No boundaries are recognized by them. But they are human: personal accountability scares them.

Karl wanted Perps In perpetuity. Instead, he's looking at the total ruin of his overblown image as a smart guy, and Prison Time in Perpetuity.

He's backed into a corner. Fighting dirtier, now. And the closer they get to frog-marching him out, in handcuffs, the dirtier it'll continue to get.

Take heart, buckaroos, when you see such signs! They're shaking in their very human boots!

It means they won't be able to plead "insanity," credibly, when the time comes. (In World War II, bomber crews were reportedly able to get out of duty if they could prove they were crazy. But fearing your own death, under conditions of war, proved one was rational - enough. Hence, sane enough to continue being part of a bomber crew; regardless of any nutty symptoms appearing.)

I still think that George's father fainting, the same weekend that the first reports hit the media that the US Attorney Purge was already tied to the White House, was a major sign of the end of this particular brand of Republican Rule ... and maybe the beginning of the GOP's end, period? (At the mid-point of March, or thereabouts, IIRC.)

Bush Sr. was smart enough to connect those dots, way back: and to see the end coming ... fast!

I dearly love Gonzo's little Freudian slip about his being worried that Congress was given information ... followed by a bogus, nonsensical qualifier, to muddy those unintentionally clear waters. It was delightful. He may as well have said, "Oh sh*t! Accountable?! Me!? Run away!"

I expect more of this, at least weekly. It's all in knowing - and watching for - human behavior.

nolo wrote on May 4, 2007 10:59 AM:

. . .There is a possibility that the Justice Department could still delay immunity by challenging the constitutionality of the statute. There may be three arguments here:
-Legislative Veto. Chadha (1983) makes it difficult for congress to reserve to a committee the power to "veto" executive branch action. Granting immunity, albeit limited, may qualify.
-Bowsher (1986). Agents of Congress can't exercise direct authority over executive officials. Similar to a legislative veto. Since granting immunity might effectively end criminal prosecution, maybe that would qualify.
-Legislative immunity. Speech and Debate clause protects agents of Senators and representatives who are engaged in activity which is an indispensible element of the legislative process (as in Gravel, 1972). Maybe this provides an implicit power to immunize witnesses.
Anyway, it just seems to me that the issue is not cut and dry - especially since the case cited by the witness's lawyer predates two of the cases I listed above. Just a thought.

Posted by: studying for con law final
Date: May 4, 2007 08:39 AM

just my take here -- one, none of these
involve the fifth amendment assertions
ms. goodling has made -- two, the case
cited by dowd is a watergate case. that
is where 18 USC 6005 was tested. it
survived. intact. it works exactly
the way mr. dowd suggests in his letter.

she will sing -- and she will sing, soon.

any additional attempts to badger her out
of her fifth amendment privilege will be
dealt with harshly by the federal district
court judges in the DC district. that is
what the DoJ/OIG was up to yesterday -- intimidation -- and the courts will say so.

good to see that the chess-match proceeds.

click my name, and look at the third
post down on my blog -- the indict
dick cheney blogspot -- for the (more
fullsome) rest of the story. . .

Stormwater wrote on May 4, 2007 11:05 AM:

I am shocked! Shocked, I tell you, to discover that there has been illegal activities taking place in the DOJ!

A. Gonzales

Anthony wrote on May 4, 2007 5:56 PM:

mo2: re: the picture. Here is the sight where a claim is made that this is Monica.

"www.granby01033.blogspot.com/" Search Monica and you'll find the picture. A Note at the end of the blog entry claims its Monica.

Anthony wrote on May 4, 2007 6:11 PM:

Here is the 'site.'

Whistler wrote on May 4, 2007 11:53 PM:

Just a thought: alleged witness intimidation, in other circles ... this is older stuff, but some folks saw former NM (Democrat) Attorney General, Patricia Madrid's actions as having hurt a Federal corruption case - the one the GOP pushed Iglesias to rush, just before the 2006 election - when she chose to file state charges against the folks that had agreed to be Federal witnesses. The witnesses clammed up, soon after finding out that while they might be immune from one sort of prosecution (Federal), that they were still in legal danger from another source (NM state). I'm wondering if the GOP thought what Patricia had done was a good idea; and applied it to Goodling?

http://www.marioburgos.com/2006/06/patricia-madrids-smart-political.html

http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/44810.html

Whistler wrote on May 5, 2007 7:46 AM:

A follow-up to the above, to balance things out:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/012767.php

whizkid wrote on May 5, 2007 9:53 PM:

Yes Mr. Dowd, the American people are concerned as well. What are/were her motives and who is supplying her with a gunman carrying a BAR to defend her/them?

whizkid wrote on May 5, 2007 10:02 PM:

A good question asked earlier, is there even a "pro" photo...a head shot of this bitch?
What is she, the Mata Hari of the Right?

nfrtiogu yhqn wrote on August 30, 2007 4:49 AM:

nacvu dhntvfzo xzbnudcgv powc tdxyvg lpjecf cywzgsjn

nfrtiogu yhqn wrote on August 30, 2007 4:50 AM:

nacvu dhntvfzo xzbnudcgv powc tdxyvg lpjecf cywzgsjn