Comments (60)

Vulture Breath wrote on May 16, 2007 5:37 PM:

This should be good. Or not. Depends how much she remembers.

ploeg wrote on May 16, 2007 5:44 PM:

She's getting her Marine Lt. Colonel uniform pressed as we speak.

Mike Valentine wrote on May 16, 2007 5:46 PM:

Hold on Bushies....... It's going to be a bumpy ride.

Code word..... face, like face the music and dance.....

I shouldn't get this excited but darned if I can help it.

Smells like IMPEACHMENT.

Angel wrote on May 16, 2007 5:46 PM:

Unbelievable. Code word is: .....MEMORY.

How apt! Hope Monica's is clear and sound and that she's a real tattletale and spills the beans on Rove and Co.

anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 5:46 PM:

How much do you want to bet she's going to lie?

How much do you want to bet that the immunity she's been given will have been for naught?

Of course, I hope otherwise, but really they had her over the barrell with evidence that she'd fired and hired employees for improper reasons, so the should have cut a plea deal, not an immunity deal.

What a shame.

There is absolutely no incentive for small bit players to ever step up and say no to their superiors now.

Just wait to see if you get caught and then negotiate a plea deal; until them, go ahead and commit as many crimes and acts of malfeasance as you want.

Congress will give you a pass in the end.

hobodeluxe wrote on May 16, 2007 5:47 PM:

depends on whether she's more loyal to the truth or more loyal to party.

mwb970 wrote on May 16, 2007 5:48 PM:

Monica's in way over her head. She'll be lucky if she doesn't burst into tears.

Mike Valentine wrote on May 16, 2007 5:49 PM:

Would Monica go to jail for Alberto?

anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 5:50 PM:

"depends on whether she's more loyal to the truth or more loyal to party"

She apparently broke the law for partisan reasons, got hired for partisan reasons, and went to a school that basically teaches conservative partisanship, so do you really believe there is a legitimate question as to which she's more loyal to?

tomm9050 wrote on May 16, 2007 5:58 PM:

She's not immuned for perjury and they would not give immunity to her if they weren't expecting something big in return.

bobh wrote on May 16, 2007 5:59 PM:

i want to see her proffer - the one that should have been given to the SJC for her immunity deal.

RandyR wrote on May 16, 2007 6:03 PM:

I don't believe they will get blood from this turnip.
A few months ago there was a Cheney Quote about how gullible the Christians were in supporting them. I wonder if Monica realizes how cynical the Administration is, and how unimportant her faith is to them. This reminds me of the Childrens Crusade.

Oliver North wrote on May 16, 2007 6:03 PM:

"She's not immuned for perjury and they would not give immunity to her if they weren't expecting something big in return."

Yeah, the Democrats never make mistakes when giving immunity to witnesses.

Security Code: "like" as in "like Oliver North."

bobh wrote on May 16, 2007 6:07 PM:

Take a look at the HJC website...AGAG is schudled to speak at 930am that same day

Thursday 05/10/2007 - 9:30 AM
2141 Rayburn House Office Building
Full Committee
Oversight Hearing on the United States Department of Justice

Witness List:
The Honorable Alberto Gonzales
Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice

bobh wrote on May 16, 2007 6:10 PM:

And here come the Republics : theyre going to get down to the cmte level and shut down the house, they say;

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gop-threatens-to-shut-down-house-over-rules-change-2007-05-16.html

GOP threatens to shut down House over rules change
By Jackie Kucinich
May 16, 2007
House Republicans Wednesday threatened to shut down House business by calling a series of procedural votes until the Democratic leadership assured them that rules governing key parliamentary procedures would go unchanged.

Republicans began their assault in the mid-afternoon after hearing that the Democratic leadership allegedly planned to change the germaneness rule, which would limit the ability of the minority to challenge provisions in a bill on the floor.

“This is an astonishing attempt by the majority leadership to duck accountability for tax-and-spend policies the American people do not want,” said House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio). “The majority leadership is gutting House rules that have been in place for 185 years so they can raise taxes and increase government spending without a vote. House Republicans will use every tool available to fight this abuse of power.”

Stacey Bernard, a spokeswoman for House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), said the Republican antics were counterproductive and that they had not even seen the content of the bill they were protesting.

“They are delaying a bill that is critical,” she said, referring to the defense authorization bill that was scheduled to come to the floor. “They don’t know what they are doing.”

A GOP leadership aide said if the rule were changed, Republicans would continue to call the procedural votes and begin to thwart progress on the committee level as well.

“We will bring down the House,” the aide said.

kind of convenient it comes now

William Dunbar wrote on May 16, 2007 6:13 PM:

re: will Monica spill the beans?
I'd love to hear other comments...
isn't it in Monica's interest to spill everything and not cover up.
Reason #1:
Any potential crimes she's committed (i.e.-requiring loyalty oaths) are given a 'Get Out of Jail' card...AS LONG AS she testifies to them.
Reason #2:
She has an $800/HR attorney working for her, meaning he; a) has gotten her to tell her entire involvement, b) he wants those 'crimes' in the transcript, and c) he's not going to allow her to perjure herself.
I'd be shocked if something (or many things) don't come out that put the final nails in Gonzo's exit.
And don't ya love it? Another administration surrending to another Monica's mouth.

xargaw wrote on May 16, 2007 6:25 PM:

I would hope that her testimony would give the committee some of the missing pieces, but I fear this will be more circular blame. She will blame Sampson and McNulty who have already resigned or she will not remember. How can you prove someone does not remember? There appears to more amnesia in the DOJ than in a dementia ward in a nursing home.

Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 6:36 PM:

I just hope the Dems are better prepared than they were for the last hearing. PLEASE- don't waste time asking Monica about the jails in Houston, the status of NSLs, or a Cuban terrorist. I hope they show up prepared- if they can't please contact Josh Marshall and the TPM staff. I'm sure they'd be happy to write your questions for you- they seem to have a better grasp of this story than most of the politicians.

mo2 wrote on May 16, 2007 6:38 PM:

About John M Dowd - no Yale, no Fed Society, a RICO conviction, an internal FBI investigation = sounds like a great guy for this task.

http://akingump.com/attorney.cfm?attorney_id=58

"Before entering private practice, Mr. Dowd was a trial attorney in the Tax Division of the U.S. Department of Justice and chief of the Organized Crime Strike Force in the Criminal Division. He tried the first prosecution of the federal RICO statute in United States v. Parness. At the request of the attorney general, he also supervised an internal investigation of the FBI and the investigation of Congressman Daniel Flood of Pennsylvania.

Mr. Dowd received his A.B. cum laude from St. Bernard College in 1963 and his J.D. from Emory University in 1965. He was a captain in the U.S. Marine Corps and a member of the Judge Advocate General Corps. He is a member of the District of Columbia Bar and the American Bar Association. He serves as a member of the board of trustees of Flint Hill School.

Mr. Dowd is listed in Who's Who in America and has been recognized for more than 10 years in The Best Lawyers in America."

Tom Betz wrote on May 16, 2007 6:41 PM:

What the hell? Are they taking her testimony in open session?

Are they idiots?

You don't take testimony in open session unless staff attorney have done extensive interviews -- UNDER OATH -- in closed session!

Does nobody remember Sam Dash?

isaac wrote on May 16, 2007 6:45 PM:

being granted use immunity isnt a license to perjure one's self, immunity would be withdrawn were that the case

Michael Stevens wrote on May 16, 2007 6:49 PM:

As I posted in a previous thread, I think Goodling should first be questioned by Senate staff attorneys behind closed doors.

They should forbid her from entering an (immunized) statement into the record. They should then pepper her with a sampling questions designed to temp Goodling into answering "I don't recall". Perhaps these questions could be related to some unseemly, but entirely lawful DOJ happenings.

They could ask her questions to which they already had answers. The questions need only be related to things she would be tempted to provide stonewall response or incorrect answer. These questions need not even go into the realm of illegal acts. They could simply be embarrassing or put people for which Goodling has high esteem in a bad light.

The Senate staff attorneys could look through the private testimony given by her former co-workers to find a few unflattering revelations to which a number of her co-workers agreed. They could quiz Goodling on these (perhaps lawful) items.

The point of this exercise would be to gauge Goodling's willingness to cooperate and provide testimony fully and truthfully.

Were Goodling to repeatedly answer "I don't recall", were Goodling's answers not well aligned with facts already in hand, were Goodling an unfriendly witness, were Goodling simply to make staffers tear answers out of her (as was seen with Kyle Sampson) then the hearing could be immediately halted and Goodling asked to leave.

The staffers could have a short conversation with Goodling's attorney (read him the riot act). They could tell him that his client would either have to straighten up and openly reveal everything she knows, or she would never be given another opportunity for immunity.

The Congress could do this because "use" immunity only protects a witness's own testimony from being used against them. When a witness is not given the opportunity to testify on a topic, the witness is not immunized against future prosecution related to that topic.

cevrero wrote on May 16, 2007 6:49 PM:

Memo to gonzales:
Better get some secret wire tapping going on monica got the goods.

Buck wrote on May 16, 2007 6:50 PM:

Monica may have the keys to the kingdom, but the real treasure lies elsewhere. The traps have been set and many are already ensnared and don't know it yet.

angryvietnamvet wrote on May 16, 2007 7:03 PM:

I have not been that impressed by the quality of the quetions by the House c.O.T. Judiciary, frankly. Particularly the suckass republicans. Ins unfortunate that the Senator Leahy's more astute and wizened committe isn't getting a first crack at this christofascist bullshitter. I agree that she should be waterboarded by the committee attorneys in private first before the lame congressmen do their bit.

mw wrote on May 16, 2007 7:16 PM:

Michael Stevens,
Your suggestions are excellent and could prevent a disaster on Wednesday. I suggest you write or e-mail the members of the House Judiciary Committee with those very ideas.

Greenjeans wrote on May 16, 2007 7:22 PM:

Dear Ms. Goodling: You will be asked to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God. Will you be true to your oath before God?

Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 7:38 PM:

re William Dunbar at 6:10
"She has an $800/HR attorney working for her, meaning he; a) has gotten her to tell her entire involvement..."

IIRC...If you tell your attorney that you committed a crime, you can not then lie about it in sworn testimony and claim attorney-client privilege. The attorney, as an officer of the court, must come foward or otherwise signal that your testimony is perjured.

So if "Goodling tells all" and directly implicates herself in crimes to her attorney, she must disclose those facts if asked in her testimony and cannot deny or "do not recall" or "forget" if it is perjurious.

Goodling does not have to directly implicate self by "tell all" to her attorney. She can relate a matter, e.g., in a hypothetical way so that a lawyer gets the idea without it being acknowledged as fact.

KestrelBrighteyes wrote on May 16, 2007 7:48 PM:

Michael Stevens - I second mw's post above. PLEASE contact the House Judiciary with your suggestions. We can only hope they'd come up with the ideas themselves, but why take a chance?

Re: Monica - This woman believes she is part of "God's plan" for the Republican party and the government - no question where her loyalty lies. However, she IS a Regent graduate, and by no means the brightest bulb in the string. Given the fact that she was dumb enough to write down the comments about what Dominici said about Iglesias not "moving cases", and that fact that she is very worried about giving testimony, I think the best we can hope is that her incompetence will trip her up, that she might accidentally say something that will give Gonzales and Rove an "oh s**t" moment.

Anyone know if she's been cramming for testimony like Gonzales did?

BTW, I'm betting she makes it no more than an hour her testimony before breaking into tears. Anyone else?

foggylady wrote on May 16, 2007 8:07 PM:

how..ironic???
bizarre?
ok.....co-incidental..
Fire Dog Lake reports that
"the DCMadam's assistant, the one who lost her job after being identified, her day job was assisting the head of AkinGump's criminal litigation group, John M. Dowd...................."
Irony..I'll settle for the ironic contrast between these 2 women.
and a loud snark

JamesRobert wrote on May 16, 2007 8:18 PM:

Why are there no papparazzi following this chick around, seeing what she's up to, where she's hanging out and with whom, whether she's doing all kinds of "prep" work for her testimony. Who gives a shit about Pitt and Jolie when there's someone this politically "hot" on the scene? I want pictures, I want juicy insider stuff!

Dennis wrote on May 16, 2007 8:21 PM:

I don't think anything will come of this that has not come already. We know that Rove, et.al. were in on stacking the AGs to benefit the Republican party. We know that Gonzales was in on it. We know that Card was in on it.

But, although they tried to stack the deck, did they actually break any laws? And if so, outside of political fodder for the democrats to put republicans down during the upcoming elections, what will become of that?

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

Oracle wrote on May 16, 2007 8:32 PM:

The HJC and not the SJC.
Ugh.

Unless the gonzo pre-show has already been set up.

Jan Strain wrote on May 16, 2007 8:32 PM:

As the joke goes, where is Monica when you need her? Well Georgie Porgie, guess who is coming to the hill?> Your very own Monica and she is not wearing a little blue dress but she is wearing a smile and a paper saying immunity....Book your flight before its a one way stop to Leavenworth!

bjobotts wrote on May 16, 2007 9:16 PM:

What can one expect from a ruthless politicized operative like Monica who sees herself as above the law and whose ultimate authority is not of this world. It's not lying if it is God's will. She has demonstrated that she has no moral code, is power hungry and willing to follow her authoritarian leaders without questioning if it is right or wrong. Can't say she's found God as she believes she stands for him so expect her to continue doing what she has done all along and finding anyway she can to beat the game. Morals, right or wrong, honesty or goodness have nothing to do with it. Perhaps not even loyalty.

Rob wrote on May 16, 2007 9:44 PM:

She's been preping for this hearing for months, she will lie like a rug, so don't get your hopes up it's all show

Robert L wrote on May 16, 2007 10:05 PM:

Michael Stevens:
The preliminary approach you suggest would be very good, except that Goodling will have her attorney with her, and if he is as smart as people say, he will interfere and not allow a line of questioning that could trip her up and endanger her agreement before substantive issues are tabled. I could see him asking for permission to take her aside privately and explain to her how to appear forthright, while answering the non relevant questions. When the real questions come, he will have prepared her to stall or maintain plausible deniability with her answers. She's smart enough to do that.

Security word is "screw," as in that's what they do to the constitution.

Steve5117 wrote on May 16, 2007 10:08 PM:

CNN doing story on Comey's rush to the hospital

The Oracle wrote on May 16, 2007 10:30 PM:

If Monica Goodling were a Christian, she would tell truth and nothing but the truth, so help her God, without any memory lapses, next week.

However, she is a Pat Robertson ?Christian? and is probably being coached right now to lie and obfuscate as if she were Alberto Gonzales.

Monica Goodling...a Christian? Nope. No way. Nada.

I'll only believe it if she answers all questions honestly and comprehensively, without constantly looking to her attorney (who will be present) for guidance. Answering all questions truthfully and comprehensively would be the Christian thing to do, unless one is trying to protect members of the most lying and deceitful (and anti-Christian) administration in American history. Consequently, I don't believe Monica has the "Christian" in her to do the "Christian" thing.

EOG wrote on May 17, 2007 12:29 AM:

Crunch time for Monica. We will soon find out where her loyalties lie (no pun intended). Is she an American first, or a Republican first? Does she value truth, and the rule of law, or her ideology? Then there is the fundamentalist Christianist frame: Will she tell the truth and go to heaven, or lie and burn in hell? The choice is hers.

Michael Stevens wrote on May 17, 2007 2:47 AM:

Robert, I've no doubt that Dowd is a very smart attorney. Because of that, I'm not worried about his actions.

Lets consider Dowd's agenda in this matter. Dowd doesn't work for the administration, Dowd works for Goodling. As Goodling's protector, I think his number one priority will be to insure his (seemingly guilty) client is free of all legal jeopardy.

The day immunity was granted, Dowd had done 90% of his job. Dowd can probably taste this victory. The only way Dowd can lose this case is for his client to perjure herself. So Dowd's single remaining hurdle is to protect Goodling from a charge of perjury.

He knows that the only way Goodling will be completely clear of a perjury charge is if she testifies truthfully, completely, and fully. I think that is exactly what Dowd will direct his client to do. He may even prep her with difficult questions to insure she is ready to tell these hard truths.

Were I Dowd, I'd put a little scare into Goodling by telling her the following truths:

I'd tell her that this case is probably going to continue for years.
I'd tell her that it's very likely a special prosecutor will be appointed to investigate every aspect of this matter.
I'd tell her that if she wastes this rare and precious grant of immunity by lying, stonewalling, or "forgetting", she runs a good chance of being caught.
I'd tell perjury is serious business and to think about Scooter Libby before she decided to hold back any information.

I can't imagine any attorney in this situation would direct his immunized client to lie, stonewall or forget. It's just not in the attorney's best interest and could get the attorney into a heap of trouble.

The million dollar question is whether Goodling is ready to come clean. If she doesn't, I won't blame Dowd.

Anonymous wrote on May 17, 2007 3:18 AM:

I'd really like to know who is paying Goodling's legal bills. Maybe it's been taken on pro-bono. Either way, not cheap. High profile sure, but no sirree, not cheap.

Anonymous wrote on May 17, 2007 7:26 AM:

"She's not immuned for perjury and they would not give immunity to her if they weren't expecting something big in return.

"Posted by: tomm9050
Date: May 16, 2007 05:58 PM"

Be real: any trial lawyer will tell you that one doesn't ask a witness a question without knowing in advance the answer to the question.

The Committee already knows the substance and value of her testimony -- which is why she got the limited immunity. If she reneges and lies, she'll be charged.

She is a resident of ReligioDreamworld, not politically sophisticated. Her lawyer's first task is to save her ass. He has told her to just tell the truth. And to do that, he had to put the fear in her as to the consequences of lying.

In addition to which, the Committee has sufficient hard evidence already to determine whether she is telling the truth or lying. What you are seeing -- especially with testimony of such as Comey -- is presentation of the case for impeachment to We the people/jury.

Matters are farther along than you so far resalize. Note, as example, that Whitehouse didn't avoid the "i" word. Netierh has my Representative, though he properly "instead" spoke cautiously of the necessity for careful and full investigation.

The investigation continues; but the "show cause" phase of the impeachment effort has already begun.

SC = cord. As in, Andrew Card is going to learn the correct spelling of "rule of law".

bordersmuggler wrote on May 17, 2007 7:32 AM:

Michael Stevens @May 17, 2007 02:47 AM

"Dowd doesn't work for the administration, Dowd works for Goodling."

How do we know that for sure?

Repeating the previous poster's question, who IS paying Goodling's legal bills? Is it perhaps coming from a slush fund set up to quiet departed officials who "know too much?" Perhaps the same fund that provided the $1.5 million bribe to Debra Yang to resign as U.S. Attorney, in the middle of the Jerry Lewis investigation?

If you think Dowd works only for Goodling, you're repeating everyone else's mistake in underestimating the deviousness of RoveCo.

JNagrya wrote on May 17, 2007 7:47 AM:

"What the hell? Are they taking her testimony in open session?"

I certainly hope so, as foremost is demonstrating the severity of the issue, and present the facts, to We the people.

"Are they idiots?"

No, they are not. They are mostly lawyers, yes; but not idiots.

"You don't take testimony in open session unless staff attorney have done extensive interviews -- UNDER OATH -- in closed session!

"Does nobody remember Sam Dash?

"Posted by: Tom Betz
Date: May 16, 2007 06:41 PM"

And you think they _haven't_ _already_ taken her testimony in closed session? Then you don't _THINK_.

Go back and listen to the Comey testimony: it is obvious he had testified to the same incident and facts in closed session: Schumer's questions simply lead him through the story "most efficiently". Schumer was able to ask the "correct" questions because he already knew the story to come.

SC = mark. As in, mark my words: the Committee already knew what evidence she had to offer before they agreed to her lawyer's request for the immunity deal.

And her lawyer will save her ass by putting the fear in her as to the consequences of lying. She's politically unsophisticated, and in over her head: she'll tell the truth; or she will be charged and then perhaps given a second chance after a second lecture on the consequences.

JNagarya wrote on May 17, 2007 7:59 AM:

"Michael Stevens @May 17, 2007 02:47 AM

""Dowd doesn't work for the administration, Dowd works for Goodling."

"How do we know that for sure?"

How do you know the opposite for sure? Let's look at your irrationality, in furtherance of your ignorant's unevidenced conspirabunk --

"Repeating the previous poster's question, who IS paying Goodling's legal bills?"

She was paid six figures. She should therefore have sufficent funds to pay them herself.

"Is it perhaps coming from a slush fund set up to quiet departed officials who "know too much?" Perhaps the same fund that provided the $1.5 million bribe to Debra Yang to resign as U.S. Attorney, in the middle of the Jerry Lewis investigation?"

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. It's at that point (actually earlier) that you slip into irrational BSing --

"If you think Dowd works only for Goodling, you're repeating everyone else's mistake in underestimating the deviousness of RoveCo."

How do you know it's a "mistake" to presume that Dowd works only for Goodling? You don't. You simply introduce a illiterate conspirabunker's "perhaps," then pretend that's factual evidence on which to base your conspirabunk.

I've long known that online "debate" is atrocious. You provide the proof of that fact.

"Posted by: bordersmuggler
Date: May 17, 2007 07:32 AM"

SC = horse, as in "bordersmuggler" is a horse's ass.

ttc wrote on May 17, 2007 8:04 AM:

1. The public hearing is just the show, the wedding if you will. It is going to be a good show, but still just a show. The real committee business, the marriage, the relationship, takes place in private. The congressmen are amateur questioners. Their behind the scenes staff investigators are the pros.

2. Monica Goodling's possible crimes are basically a sideshow. In a laxly supervised shop in which she was allowed way to much authority given her inexperience (she is hardly young, but she has a thin resume) she appears to have been running her own rogue operation of doing very inappropriate job interviews and hiring and firing lower level people for inappropriate reasons. She's been given immunity and she will tell us all about that in a flat, affectless voice. She's no dummy, by now I bet she understands she was in over her head.

3. Her role in the larger story of the firing of the US Attorneys, which was obviously organized by Rove out of the White House, was likely more incidental and perhaps involved nothing illegal. Again, she will tell us what she knows, and that may be a good bit, but don't expect her to inculpate herself because she had at most a supporting role. Firing underlings was Monica's show. Firing US Attorneys was Rove's show.

4. While Goodling graduated from Regent Law School, she initially enrolled at American University in Washington DC, where she did well. That is a perfectly respectable law school. Messiah College, her undergraduate alma mater, is a Church of the Brethren school. It is also a very well respected place, one of the best and most affordable places someone needing a socially conservative campus could go. Like many capable and intelligent women, both on the right and the left, somewhere along the line she got radicalized, probably over the abortion issue, and developed a cultlike outlook. As a college student, she probably spent too much time in Republican party politics and student government and not enough time in class and that contributed to her radicalization. While her choices are reprehensible, her basic intelligence and her abilities should not be underestimated. She is probably more of a subversive than a minion.

bordersmuggler wrote on May 17, 2007 8:09 AM:

Notice how JNagarya is reacting the way the Republicans reacted when the name of Jerry Lewis was brought up in the HJC Gonzales hearing?

Reactions like are looking like the give-away that the "seeker" is getting "warm."

Steve Pordon wrote on May 17, 2007 8:18 AM:

bobh: "'We will bring down the House,' the aide said."

Holla, yo!

Cervantes wrote on May 17, 2007 8:45 AM:

Who's paying Ms. Goodling's legal bills?

bordersmuggler wrote on May 17, 2007 9:04 AM:

Cervantes

"Who's paying Ms. Goodling's legal bills?"

Relevant question, and one that has been asked for weeks now with no one providing an answer.

IANAL, IANA investigative reporter. Is there any way that someone can discover the answer to that much repeated question? If John Dowd is working pro bono, would his firm release that information? If he is not, it is beyond doubt that someone other than Monica Goodling is forking over the substantial $$$, and the motive for the generosity is of immense concern.

Anonymous wrote on May 17, 2007 9:23 AM:

Monica looks like someone who has squirreled away every dime she's ever made. What was she making- around $150,000 a year? She might be quickly running out of money but it wouldn't surprise me if she has the cash to pay this guy for at least another month or so.

Yellow Dog wrote on May 17, 2007 10:15 AM:

bjbotts wrote: "What can one expect from a ruthless politicized operative like Monica who sees herself as above the law and whose ultimate authority is not of this world. It's not lying if it is God's will. She has demonstrated that she has no moral code, is power hungry and willing to follow her authoritarian leaders without questioning if it is right or wrong."

Precisely. This has nothing to do with party loyalty, or being a Christian, or being none too bright.

Goodling is a bush-worshipping, obedient authoritarian, Xian freak. "god" annointed Dear Leader, "god" speaks to her daily and instructs her about destroying democrats and protecting Dear Leader, and "god" will surely be whispering into her ear the blatant lies she must tell the committee to protect Dear Leader.

Anonymous wrote on May 17, 2007 10:30 AM:

Goodling lived in DC, had a mortgage and a car. She made the six figure salary for only a few years. With those expenses and assuming an otherwise miserly existence, it’s unlikely she could have saved even $75 a year. But even at that rate she’d only have saved $200,000 or so, likely less than Dowd’s retainer, unless he is representing her at a substantially reduced fee.

bill wrote on May 17, 2007 11:54 AM:

"Nagrya:

>>"Dowd doesn't work for the administration, Dowd works for Goodling."

"How do we know that for sure?"

How do you know the opposite for sure? Let's look at your irrationality, in furtherance of your ignorant's unevidenced conspirabunk --<<

It isn't necessary to know for sure, to consider the possibility. Michael Stevens' analysis of Dowd's position is perfect if Dowd is an honorable attorney, loyal to Goodling. However if the client was a mob flunkie, it would be reasonable to consider the possibility that the lawyer appearing was loyal to the family first. So many aspects of the behavior revealed so far resembles that of organized crime, it would be foolish to not consider the possibility. If I were forced to bet right now I'd probably put my money on Dowd being on the up-and-up, but I'd rather hold my chips until I see more cards. The openness of Goodling's testimony will tell us a lot about Dowd.

JNagarya wrote on May 17, 2007 3:06 PM:

"Notice how JNagarya is reacting the way the Republicans reacted when the name of Jerry Lewis was brought up in the HJC Gonzales hearing?

"Reactions like are looking like the give-away that the "seeker" is getting "warm."

"Posted by: bordersmuggler
Date: May 17, 2007 08:09 AM"

What in hell does that _personal attack_ mean? Try it again -- this time in AmerEnglish.

I don't have to prove my credentials to a conspirabunkering ass -- my statement of the facts on the issue are sufficient to establish those. Nor will I ask irrelevant questions, the answers to which are none of my business, such as who is paying Goodling's lawyer. She was paid 6 figures for at least a few years. And she isn't likely one who partys hardy. She doubtless can pay for her own defense. In any event, it's irrelevant.

JNagarya wrote on May 17, 2007 3:16 PM:

"Cervantes

""Who's paying Ms. Goodling's legal bills?""

"Relevant question, and one that has been asked for weeks now with no one providing an answer."

You ar unbelievable.

It is only relevant to two persons: Goodling, and her lawyer. As a matter of ethics it is essentially no one else's business. And I mean the ethics of those who would ask that question.

"IANAL, IANA investigative reporter. Is there any way that someone can discover the answer to that much repeated question? If John Dowd is working pro bono, would his firm release that information?"

Shithead: A lawyer cannot even acknowledge who s/he represents as a client if it isn't already known. It would be unethical to do so.

Clue: the Canon of ehtics is readily available: read them.

"If he is not, it is beyond doubt . . . ."

Above you essentially admit that you don't know who is paying her legal bills. Now the answer to a different formulation of that same admission is "beyond doubt"!?

"that someone other than Monica Goodling is forking over the substantial $$$, and the motive for the generosity is of immense concern."

All of which is unevidenced conspirabunk. What happened? Missed the latest issue of "The National Enquirer"?

"Posted by: bordersmuggler
Date: May 17, 2007 09:04 AM"

The issues are important and of interest. Who is paying her lawyer is irrelevant, unless shown by evidence -- not horseshit, irrelevant conspirabunker's fantaisizing -- to be relevant as an issue. She hasn't even testified yet, and you're already painting her lawyer as part of an imaginary conspiracy.

Not everything is a conspiracy; get a life.

JNagarya wrote on May 17, 2007 3:23 PM:

""Nagrya:

">>"Dowd doesn't work for the administration, Dowd works for Goodling."

""How do we know that for sure?"

"How do you know the opposite for sure? Let's look at your irrationality, in furtherance of your ignorant's unevidenced conspirabunk --<<

"It isn't necessary to know for sure, to consider the possibility."

1. It's no one's business but her's and his.

2. I don't presume evil, wrongoding, skullduggery, or -- especially -- conspiracy -- simply because I disapprove of the actors, or the actor's actions. I need evidence, not "possibility".

Then again, I have a lif.

"Michael Stevens' analysis of Dowd's position is perfect if Dowd is an honorable attorney, loyal to Goodling. However if the client was a mob flunkie, it would be reasonable to consider the possibility that the lawyer appearing was loyal to the family first. So many aspects of the behavior revealed so far resembles that of organized crime, it would be foolish to not consider the possibility. If I were forced to bet right now I'd probably put my money on Dowd being on the up-and-up, but I'd rather hold my chips until I see more cards. The openness of Goodling's testimony will tell us a lot about Dowd."

Run out of "If"s, did you? "If" is the biggest word in the English language; but as it consists of only to letters, it is a landmine for the unwary. I don't presume evil, etc., of others. I need evidence, not "If," "then" is "possible".

"Posted by: bill
Date: May 17, 2007 11:54 AM"

SC = mine. As in, "If" is a landmine which mostly explodes in the face of its ab/user.

Christopher Cooke wrote on May 17, 2007 5:37 PM:

Regarding the comments about who is paying for Goodling's attorney, John Dowd, I note the following:

1. I don't think the DOJ can properly pay his bill;

2. Given his law firm, I would suspect he charges anywhere from $500/hour to $650/hour

3. Goodling probably can't afford to pay that hourly rate, unless she is independently wealthy

4. attorney ethical rules would allow Dowd to accept payment from someone other than Goodling, such as a foundation, etc., so long as Goodling was okay with it

5. attorney ethical rules would still require Dowd to represent Goodling's interests, not the fee-payer's interests, and I would guess that the vast majority of attorneys abide by these rules (in my opinion);

6. Dowd is not a "mob" lawyer or a lawyer for the Cali drug cartel; he is a lawyer for a very big and respectable law firm that presumably has much more high-paying clients who are more important to his and his firm's livelihood, so even if someone else is paying his fees, I predict he will be ethical and put Goodling's interests first.

7. even if no one else is paying Dowd's fees, he may have entered into alternative billing arrangements with her so that money is not a big problem right now. E.g., he may ethically defer requiring Goodling to cough up the money for his bills, until she (a) gets her "book deal" or speaking engagements tour, and (b) nails down her guest appearance on the Ollie North show to promote the book; and/or (c)the "Save Monica Goodling" foundation holds its fundraiser (see, e.g., the Scooter Libby foundation as an example).

So, I for one don't see much relevance regarding this issue, or much impact of it on Goodling's testimony.

bill wrote on May 17, 2007 6:16 PM:

>>JNagarya

SC = mine. As in, "If" is a landmine which mostly explodes in the face of its ab/user.<<

The prudent always weigh "if"-- probability and possibilty--, based on evidence, including history and pattern, with utmost care.