Comments (89)

Anonymous wrote on May 23, 2007 11:53 AM:

Amazing that she doesn't know who the Members are.

kmccook wrote on May 23, 2007 11:54 AM:

She keeps quoting Martha Stewart..that's a good thing;That's a bad thing.Impoverished vocabulary.

SS wrote on May 23, 2007 11:55 AM:

"I believe I crossed the line but I didn't mean to." The product of a first-rate law school.

b wrote on May 23, 2007 11:56 AM:

Too bad you can't get someone for perjury when they say "I don't know" or "I don't remember." Its like the stink in a room. No one will acknowledge it but everyone knows its there.

detepe wrote on May 23, 2007 12:00 PM:

Oh my, she's such an impressive witness.....NOT!

She thinks it's not illegal if she didn't mean to do anything illegal. Sheesh. I have a degree in accounting and I know more about the law than she does.

I loved her worrying that they were going to say mean things about each other. Oy!

Anonymous wrote on May 23, 2007 12:04 PM:

"I don't have any memories at this point".

This gal is making Fawn Hall look good.

Anonymous wrote on May 23, 2007 12:06 PM:

She didn't have to specifically ask what their political affiliation was. I she just said before the recess, "We did research them and found out." Hope someone follows up on this.

Anonymous wrote on May 23, 2007 12:07 PM:

"...We did research them and found out..."

Exactly. Follow up. How did they research? Simple Google search? Use of RNC Voter Vault program? Details are important here.

wvng wrote on May 23, 2007 12:09 PM:

The reThuglicans are carrying Bush's water again. Depressing. Their behavior prevents the hearing from gathering any momentum at all.

drational wrote on May 23, 2007 12:09 PM:

OK so she made Hatch Act violations
She admitted she broke the law.
But she has immunity.
Get the ones that don’t….

Who knew she used political barometer?
Who else used political barometer in making hiring?
Who APPROVED of her hiring practices?

drational wrote on May 23, 2007 12:12 PM:

OK so she made Hatch Act violations
She admitted she broke the law.
But she has immunity.
Get the ones that don’t….

Who knew she used political barometer?
Who else used political barometer in making hiring?
Who APPROVED of her hiring practices?

Anonymous wrote on May 23, 2007 12:18 PM:

Hope some of these comments make it to the Committee members before the recess ends.

PLEASE follow-up the "research" they were doing on candidates! Can the (political leaning) info learned from this "research" be legally used to evaluate a candidate?

And how pervasive was this practice?? WHO ELSE was using this strategy? EVERYONE in the hiring capacity?

Let's make that the issue!!

more smart comments wrote on May 23, 2007 12:23 PM:

Echoing above, but specifically who else EXACTLY constituted the "we" who "did research." Then, step by step, how did that discussion run. Give specific examples. These others broke the law equally.

Jane wrote on May 23, 2007 12:25 PM:

MG:

We did research them and find out.

Who is we?

Who else knew that you were doing this?

Did anyone instruct you to do this using any form of communication whatsoever?

Did you ever tell anyone that your hires were all loyal Bushies or words to that effect?

The Publican meme seems to be it's not a crime that we broke the law because we are Republicans and our hearts are pure.

PissedOffAmerican wrote on May 23, 2007 12:26 PM:

Man, I am so relieved. Its really comforting to know that we can ignore subpoenas, and break the law, as long as we didn't mean to. Here all this time I thought Rice was committing a crime by ignoring a subpoena. Thank God its been clarified to me. My trust is restored.

Now, I can get back to the important issue of fighting Alabama's decision to ban the sale of sex toys. It has really deflated my sex partner's faith in America.

c4logic wrote on May 23, 2007 12:31 PM:

Yes, I thought long and hard how to take the victims life and not get caught, but I didn't intend to break any laws. I do have some regrets. Sorry! I'm a good person. Really. I believe in Jesus and everything.

code: rate. As in 5th rate.

donviti wrote on May 23, 2007 12:32 PM:

guess that 6 months of trial training didn't prepare her for this huh?

Largo wrote on May 23, 2007 12:32 PM:

As long as I didn't mean to, I'm still going to Heaven, right?

Will Martha be there?

Pathetic.

bobestes wrote on May 23, 2007 12:36 PM:

I know she sounds kinda like a dope, but she is what she is; a pretty young kid that's drunk on conservative ideology who got put in a position she's in no way qualified for and got played by some serious bad guys like Rove and Gonzalez.

Anon wrote on May 23, 2007 12:38 PM:

(1) Don't they teach in law school that ignorance of the law is no defense? She's so ignorant she doesn't know about ignorance?
(2) Notice how she's freshly lightened her red hair to a more Fox News-friendly blond. Right-wing punditry awaits you, Ms. Goodling.

Louis wrote on May 23, 2007 12:38 PM:

Re: "I believe I crossed the line but I didn't mean to."

I wish I wanted to believe that.

harriett wrote on May 23, 2007 12:41 PM:

These 'people' have absolutely no conscious. Disgusting is too nice of a word to describe Ms. Goodling's actions. Please, please, PLEASE impeach Bush, Cheney, Rove and Gonzo. It's way past time.

KingElvis wrote on May 23, 2007 12:42 PM:

From the people who brought you "personal responsibility"

"I broke the law...but I didn't MEAN too."'

Jeezuz, what are you seven years old?

Mike M. wrote on May 23, 2007 12:45 PM:

I guess to be fair, it is now okay to answer all federal criminal charges with the plea that, "I didn't mean to do anything wrong."

Mike Valentine wrote on May 23, 2007 12:49 PM:

Has this woman really passed a bar or did she just go to Luny U. Law School?

the truth wrote on May 23, 2007 12:51 PM:

iraq: we didn't mean to break your country

new orleans: we didn't mean to abandon your city. wait; well, maybe we did

america: we didn't mean to get caught

EH wrote on May 23, 2007 12:55 PM:

Congresspeople really need to sit and let the testifyer's stew rather than trying to put words into their mouths. Just ask the questions and don't be afraid of a little dead air. I bet "silence" is a known tactic taught to those who are testifying before Congress. "If you don't want to answer a question, just give a short answer and leave it to silence. The Congresspeople won't be able to stand it and will fill in the void with lame gibberish."

r€nato wrote on May 23, 2007 1:00 PM:

just pathetic. "Honestly officer, I didn't mean to pull the trigger, it just sort of happened, and I meant well, and I was just doing the Lord's work, so how about a pass on this one?"

What will we tell the children?

gomer wrote on May 23, 2007 1:02 PM:

Pull her immunity, she is lying.

The rethugs are disgusting.

Birthday party???

Go Congressman Cohen!

Sharon Mahoney wrote on May 23, 2007 1:06 PM:

It's a theological defense. Sin isn't sin if you believe you aren't sinning. Abelard argued this in his Ethica; God looks not to the deed, but to the intention, and He punishes the intention rather than the act, -- "non enim Deus ex damno, sed ex contemptu offendi potest." Finally, where ignorance blinds or force coerces there is no sin, sin being essentially something contrary to conscience: "Non est peccatum nisi contra conscientiam."

So -- put simply, Monica didn't intend to break the law, so she didn't. It's that simple. See?

Security code: Paint, as in paint over guilt with ignorance.

SOMERSET wrote on May 23, 2007 1:14 PM:

Bobby was taking it easy on her. Shrewd questioning. Monica looks like a jackass for not being able to determine her actions legality. Of course, your actions were illegal, girl they were soley motivated by political machinations.
UH-DUH....
This Muckraking site is too much.........

I M P E A C H

ttc wrote on May 23, 2007 1:14 PM:

Monica goodling mentioned that she researched candidates in "westlaw" and "lexis nexis." Neither of those databases would have yielded political registrations. So she is not telling the whole story on that point. Choicepoint would have yielded the political registration prior to John Avarois of AmericaBlog's successful campaign to have that information deleted. Choicepoint is a Republican company and was the vehicle used to purge the Fla voter rolls in the 2000 Presidential election. Where did Monica Goodling obtain her political registration information? Choicepoint before it agreed to scrub itself? Where if anywhere did she get it afterwards? What is she trying to hide? A further thought: was she somehow tangentially mixed up in illegal surveillance in that she was getting some info on her candidates from sources like that? I know she didn't fully explain how she researched her candidates.

Spencer's Mom wrote on May 23, 2007 1:14 PM:

I hope SOMEONE on this committee has some kind of "gotcha" moment up his/her sleeve, because so far this hearing has been disappointing! Maxine Waters, and to some extent Linda Sanchez, have bene the only Dems with hard questions.

Conyers, perhaps you should step down, because you are not running a good inquiry.

And as for the Repukes on the committee, what a lovely chance to get their faces and Bush bootlicking on TV.

Why didn't the Senate go after Monica? At least they have more spine, and apparently, more information.

PEACE

ttc wrote on May 23, 2007 1:15 PM:

Monica goodling mentioned that she researched candidates in "westlaw" and "lexis nexis." Neither of those databases would have yielded political registrations. So she is not telling the whole story on that point. Choicepoint would have yielded the political registration prior to John Avarois of AmericaBlog's successful campaign to have that information deleted. Choicepoint is a Republican company and was the vehicle used to purge the Fla voter rolls in the 2000 Presidential election. Where did Monica Goodling obtain her political registration information? Choicepoint before it agreed to scrub itself? Where if anywhere did she get it afterwards? What is she trying to hide? A further thought: was she somehow tangentially mixed up in illegal surveillance in that she was getting some info on her candidates from sources like that? I know she didn't fully explain how she researched her candidates.

SOMERSET wrote on May 23, 2007 1:16 PM:

Bobby was taking it easy on her. Shrewd questioning. Monica looks like a jackass for not being able to determine her actions legality. Of course, your actions were illegal, girl they were soley motivated by political machinations.
UH-DUH....
This Muckraking site is too much.........

I M P E A C H

Jack Abramoff wrote on May 23, 2007 1:17 PM:

"I didn't mean to do anything wrong."

If the detainees at Gitmo state that, can they go home?

oblio wrote on May 23, 2007 1:20 PM:

I can't wait till small time criminals start using the "But i didn't mean to" defense. Frankly, I they could make strong case that if the laws should be applied equally therefore it now okay to break them as long you didn't mean to.

I hate to say it but the overall impression I am left with so far is that Congress is completely lame. Even if a good question gets in here and there it so disjointed that there is no break through narrative.

pj in jesusland wrote on May 23, 2007 1:26 PM:

Such clear reasoning from Goodling!

Reminds me of an entry in an illogical reasoning contest published in the Washington Post a few weeks back:

1. The symbol of the Department of Justice is a scale.
2. Fish have scales.
3. Conclusion: there's something fishy about Alberto Gonzalez.

sailmaker wrote on May 23, 2007 1:30 PM:

Well, search no further. This is a demonstration on why Regent University is a 4th tier law school - and why all those RU grad students hired by the DoJ should be fired.

Didn't mean to break the law. (!!!!) Repeatedly. And says this before Congress.

People are giving her a pass because she is 33. I say don't. For 6 years she has been working in a place that is supposed to be the model for the rest of the US. For 2 years she has been actively perverting the DoJ for political and quasi religious reasons. That perversion will not vanish with her admission, because civil servants can't be fired without cause.

33 is not too young to understand right from wrong. Don't give her a pass. It would be interesting to see if she remembers what happened to Jesus when he was 33.

SC: incredibly correct for this situation

pj in jesusland wrote on May 23, 2007 1:36 PM:

I can't believe Gonzalez is going to let a girl he appointed and to whom he granted unprecedented appointee powers take the fall for him.

What a pussy.

NCBlueneck wrote on May 23, 2007 1:43 PM:

>>I hate to say it but the overall impression I am left with so far is that Congress is completely lame.
Posted by: oblio
Date: May 23, 2007 01:20 PM

Some of those folks, you just gotta ask, how'd they get this Congress gig, they're dumber than Monica, fercrisakes! As for "political theatre", I think I would have to give this one two thumbs down.

Long Memory wrote on May 23, 2007 1:43 PM:

Did Spencer's Mom really say the Senate has more spine? After what they pulled yesterday? They get on their knees and perform an act that's still illegal in a few states, and they have spine?

No. Harry Reid and his pals in the Senate have 8 new American casualties on their hands as of this morning. The Senators are not just spineless. They're also gutless.

Legalize wrote on May 23, 2007 1:49 PM:

"'I believe I crossed the line but I didn't mean to.' The product of a first-rate law school."

Seriously. I can't believe her lawyers let her say that to a pannel full of lawyers.

frank wrote on May 23, 2007 1:50 PM:

Compare her voice when she gets tense to Elizabeth Hasselbeck's when Rosie starts to pin her down. Is there something about that reedy, raggedy, high pitch that is an aphrodesiac to conservative males?
She's shredding my last nerve here.

jc chasezbian wrote on May 23, 2007 1:53 PM:

i hope they find out what kind of research they did on these people.

did they obtain credit reports on them through identity theft?

btw, dont you feel she was hired for her looks? and that voice....she calls herself a "girl" in her opening statement.

code: like gee whiz, i hope they like me up there in that big ole scary capitol.

JamesL wrote on May 23, 2007 1:57 PM:

Testimony synopsis: I am indeed one of the best and the brightest and in addition I am extremely nice person and true American patriot, but in this instance I was too stupid, uninformed, ignorant, and out of the loop to answer you with any specificity. Anyway it wasn't my department and I didn't mean to do anything wrong. Am I done yet?

Next Witness: I am indeed one of the best and the brightest and in addition I am extremely nice person and true American patriot, but in this instance I was too stupid, uninformed, ignorant, and out of the loop to answer you with any specificity. Anyway it wasn't my department and I didn't mean to do anything wrong. Am I done yet?

I hate to admit it, but I agree with the Repubs on this one: Gitmo is the answer to any national security problem, and we definitely are talking about the national security of America here. That's what they do best. Just ship Gonzo and the rest of DOJ down there for a short visit. Put 'em on the plane this afternoon. A little lap dance, a little water fun and we'll know all the details by Friday.

Carl Nyberg wrote on May 23, 2007 1:58 PM:

Why did Goodling cross "the line"?

Was she ignorant?

What explicit and implicit guidance did she receive from supervisors on this matter?

Carl Nyberg wrote on May 23, 2007 2:00 PM:

Was the Justice Department optimized around furthering the goals of the Bush administration and the Republican Party?

How did Ms. Goodling further the goals of President Bush and the GOP?

skippy jones wrote on May 23, 2007 2:02 PM:

Ok. So what was the point of this? Didn't we all already know she used a political litmus test/violated the Hatch Act? Where's the news? What in the world did the Judiciary Committee hope to gain? She got a free pass...FOR WHAT? Our country gave this two-bit lawbreaker a get out of jail free card in exchange for......... where is the other part of the deal? Immunity is usually reserved for criminals who TESTIFY AGAINST someone...not who simply admit their own guilt and protect the rest of the organization. As of right now, my judgement is that the United States Congress just got burned. Surprise, surprise.

Legalize wrote on May 23, 2007 2:02 PM:

Per jc chasezbian, I wonder if the DOJ forces its staffers to be accompanied by shaparnones when they meet with anyone of the opposite sex. It really does sound like the Department has been turned into a wingnut summer camp, where instead of allowing the campers to participate in mock-trials and the like, they permit them to ACTUALLY RUN the place.

disgusted wrote on May 23, 2007 2:03 PM:

Every administration, it seems, must eventually have its Monica... why are they always named Monica????

LP wrote on May 23, 2007 2:04 PM:

It's a small step from admitting political hiring to admit the firings were political.

Anonymous wrote on May 23, 2007 2:07 PM:

Keyrist. This is the person hiring for Justice? Who can't even admit she broke laws but prefers to call them "rules." Unbelievable incompetence due to politico hatchet men like Karl Rove having too much influence over technocratic agencies, and people like Goodling being given important positions as a result.

I remember back in 2000 telling a friend Bush was an ideologue and was going to be a disaster. He said Bush can't be that bad because he's surrounded by good advisers. I said leadership starts from the top.

Anonymous wrote on May 23, 2007 2:08 PM:

Didn't she already perjure herself?

Early on she was asked what crime she had thought she might have committed, which lead to her pleading the 5th. She said it was about McNulty's testimony, that she thought she might be in trouble because it seemed he was accusing her of not providing him with info.

And yet... later on, Scott nails her ass to the wall and gets her to admit that she broke the law in her hiring practice...

So, she perjured herself already.

Checkmate.

cacambo wrote on May 23, 2007 2:10 PM:

I move that we introduce a new word into the political lexicon: a “GOODLING.”

A GOODLING is a malleable subordinate who is brainwashed to firmly believe in the absolute righteousness of a cause that is in reality evil.

The term resonates on a number of levels. It morphs “good” with “underling,” for example. Or even more evocatively, with “changeling,” which Wikipedia defines as follows: “In European folklore and folk belief, a changeling is the offspring of a fairy, troll, elf or other legendary creature that has been secretly left in the place of a human child. The motivation for this conduct stems from the desire to have a human servant….”

A “GOODLING” is to good as “truthiness” is to truth.

Scooby Doo wrote on May 23, 2007 2:13 PM:

Monica is a trip! This little devil is trying to act all sweet and innocent. What a crock! Talk about an extreme make over!

Hank Essay wrote on May 23, 2007 2:14 PM:

In other words, it depends on what the meaning of the word "the" is.

dogjudge wrote on May 23, 2007 2:16 PM:

Okay.

She's admitted to something that we all know has been going on.

Career attorneys at the DOJ were hired for their political views and their sympathy with the administration.

BIGGER QUESTION!

What can Congress DO to get rid of these political hacks?

Does the US have to live with all of these appointees until they die?

Blader wrote on May 23, 2007 2:18 PM:

Well, I for one always try to see things in terms of "the big picture".

So this sort of thing is still gratifying to see. It gives me hope that my mediocre children can stay mediocre and yet aspire to performing mediocre work for mediocre people in mediocre organizations.

How about that!

StephenH wrote on May 23, 2007 2:21 PM:

No, she didn't intend to comit a crime. Perish the thought! She only thought that she could break the law and never be prosecuted for commiting a crime. And since she pleaded the fifth and now has immunity, she was right.

mjay wrote on May 23, 2007 2:22 PM:

She reminds me of the virgin Connie Swale in Dragnet

mjay wrote on May 23, 2007 2:22 PM:

She reminds me of the virgin Connie Swale in Dragnet

Anonymous wrote on May 23, 2007 2:28 PM:

cacambo, good one! I hereby adopt usage of "GOODLING" as desribed by cacambo.

It does invoke exactly what you describe!

Especially the troll part!

RW wrote on May 23, 2007 2:28 PM:

Is this a friggin cartoon? Simpson doesn't know who put the names on the list and he was the keeper of the list. Goodling didn't know who put the names on the list and points to McNulty. McNulty doesn't know. Gonazales says it was McNulty's call but he is the boss and doesn't know.

Wait a minute I get it....it is the invisible hand that Adam Smith elluded to in his theory of market economics. The invisible hand did it!

Finally I can give two cents to the next GOP who says they are good persons and did not intend on breaking any laws. Officer I didn't intend on speeding my foot had a cramp. Or officer I didn't intend on drinking too much but they kept buying me drinks. Get real, there is no respect for the law, only the respect to serve at the pleasure of the president-king

TomChicago wrote on May 23, 2007 2:29 PM:

Startling that she sounds like such a babe-in-the-woods. THIS is what is running the show?

Expat wrote on May 23, 2007 2:31 PM:

Is there a Republican anywhere in the land that cares about the truth and justice? All they care about is their Party and their anti-democratic, anti-American ideology.

Dave wrote on May 23, 2007 2:31 PM:

Goodling is just a footsoldier. Not much will come from this hearing.
Rove is the preferred target.

vox clamantis in red state wrote on May 23, 2007 2:33 PM:

The freely given carnal blowjobs that led to Clinton's impeachment didn't stain the nation's credulity like this twit did with her cherubic "I didn't mean to." She was just being mean.

dogjudge wrote on May 23, 2007 2:37 PM:

Here's a wonderful idea.

How about putting Sampson, Goodling, McNulty and Gonzales all in the SAME room with the SAME committee at the SAME time and see what sort of answers you get.

Rusty wrote on May 23, 2007 2:37 PM:

Per "Has this woman really passed a bar or did she just go to Luny U. Law School?"

I believe she is a product of Regent Univ Law School. Founded by one Pat Robertson.

JNagarya wrote on May 23, 2007 2:54 PM:

"She thinks it's not illegal if she didn't mean to do anything illegal. Sheesh."

That's not what she said. You're talking about a person who is doubtless emotionally immature -- a "virgin," if you will -- and unworldly. That's why her statement sounds childish.

She did not, you'll note, lie on the point.

"Posted by: detepe
Date: May 23, 2007 12:00 PM"

dcrocks wrote on May 23, 2007 2:54 PM:

Did anyone ask Goodling whether she, Sampson, or any other DOJ or WH employee sent the names of attorneys for hiring or firing to outside organizations, such as the RNC, for review?

dcrocks wrote on May 23, 2007 2:56 PM:

Did anyone ask Goodling whether she, Sampson, or any other DOJ or WH employee sent the names of attorneys for hiring or firing to outside organizations, such as the RNC, for review?

john d'oh wrote on May 23, 2007 3:06 PM:

I would think that she ought to have her license to practice law revoked for this.

Not that she actually practices law.

Rust Belt wrote on May 23, 2007 3:06 PM:

Just a quick note regarding Westlaw and Lexis. They include voter registration databases which do include party affiliation.

Anonymous wrote on May 23, 2007 3:08 PM:

So what's the deal with her immunity? Can her testimony still be used as evidence in civil suits (for instance, by the shafted 'liberal' who didn't get the DOJ job)? How about if the shafted lawyer sues DOJ to get the job?

Jason wrote on May 23, 2007 3:21 PM:

The "George of Seinfeld Rule"
Remember, if YOU believe it, its not a lie.

Sadly MOST of the Republicons and especially the MSM live the George of Seinfeld rule daily regarding the Bush administration.

Jane wrote on May 23, 2007 3:22 PM:

http://www.abanet.org/cpr/regulation/scpd/disciplinary.html
is a site which lists all the atttorney disciplinary agencies. Monica passed the bar in Virginia. Here is the Virginia disciplinary agency contact iformation: VIRGINIA

George W. Chabalewski
Bar Counsel
Virginia State Bar
Eighth and Main Building
707 East Main Street, Suite 1500
Richmond, VA 23219-2800
804/775-0555
FAX: 804/775-0597
Website: www.vsb.org

Anonymous wrote on May 23, 2007 3:53 PM:

Have these follow up questions been asked:

1. Did your supervisors tell you to take political affiliations into account in hiring of career personnel at DOJ? If yes, who, when, where, etc.

2. Did you tell your supervisors you had taken political affiliations into account in making hiring decisions, reccomendations, etc.? Did they accept this?

3. Why did you think taking affiliation into account was allowed? You had these powerful and sweeping hiring responsibilities, you are a lawyer, and yet you did not know the content of the hiring laws your were operating under???

JNagarya wrote on May 23, 2007 4:07 PM:

"Have these follow up questions been asked:

"1. Did your supervisors tell you to take political affiliations into account in hiring of career personnel at DOJ? If yes, who, when, where, etc.

"2. Did you tell your supervisors you had taken political affiliations into account in making hiring decisions, reccomendations, etc.? Did they accept this?

"3. Why did you think taking affiliation into account was allowed? You had these powerful and sweeping hiring responsibilities, you are a lawyer, and yet you did not know the content of the hiring laws your were operating under???

"Posted by:
Date: May 23, 2007 03:53 PM"

As with Jackson Lee, the Reps. from AL and MN asked some excellent questions, and got her to, at minimum, agree that Gonzo is a liar.

The efforts by the assinine Republican't to disrupt those lines of quetioning were only mildly effective. Though I suppose Republican't view his efforts with approval, I think everyone else viewed it as equivalent to someone talking over the dialogue in an absorbing movie.

can't get back wrote on May 23, 2007 4:11 PM:

This political litmus test is being used all over the federal government, not only for US Attorneys, not just for DOJ, but, in many (all?) agencies. Can someone who is not a loyal Bushie get a non-political job in a federal agency?

ralph489 wrote on May 23, 2007 4:40 PM:

How do the Republicans get to say that this is a frivolous investigation, costing about $250,000. They spent $50,000,000 on Pres. Clinton, and uncovered 1 crime, which was unrelated to his job. We have now uncovered "probably not as many" as 50 counts of a felony vetting of career U.S. officials for political beliefs (Monica Goodling) and at least 1 or 2 people have lied under oath, as they in many cases directly contradict each other.

Peter PE wrote on May 23, 2007 9:21 PM:

I guess when a loyal Bushie dreaming to do things like save "snowflake babies" from liberals, they law can be as fuzzy as long as their cause is righteous.

Anonymous wrote on May 24, 2007 12:47 AM:

TPM Ladies and Gentlemen,

I'm having some problems with Goodling's testimony. I'm reading some things, and wanted to share some things that are jumping out. I would like to thank you in advance for reviewing my concerns.

1. "To the best of my recollection, I have never had a conversation with Karl Rove or Harriet Miers . . ." Follow-up: Who _did_ you contact, interface with, and discuss issues in EOP, White House Counsel's office, and the White House Administrative Office; and were there any legal counsel or outside counsel who acted as an intermediary between DOJ and the White House which Goodling regularly interfaced with inside, outside, or at other locations unrelated to the physical grounds of the WH/EOP; and were there any meetings on official DoJ-WH issues which occurred at private counsel's office who were located in the DC, Maryland, or Virginia areas?

2. Goodling states that she did meet with Miers "non on this topic": Follow-up, which meetings did she attend; and what ere the subjects of those other "unrelated" meetings; and who else was in attendance to confirm Goodling's version of what did or didn't happen at these meetings with Miers.

3. Goodling states she was "having communications with the White House Counsel's Office and the Office of Political Affairs": Follow0up: Who, if it was not Rove, was she talking to; and what written records were there related to taskings, comments, and other things of this unnamed person;' and how did this unnamed person pass information between Rove and Goodling or other DoJ Staff counsel?

4. Goodling discusses "exchanging e-mails with Scott Jennings" who has a private RNC account. What private e-mails connected with the RNC account did Goodling receive; were these provided to the Judiciary Committees in the House and Senate; and what CC: copies were sent to Fred Fielding?

5. I am concerned that Goodling stated that she exchanged e-mails in June 2006 with Jennings for this reason: That's quite some time ago. How did the RNC between now and then happen to lost all these e-mails; and think to go after the e-mails that Jennings and Goodling exchanged; or is the RNC saying that despite the surprise that Jennings and Goodling discussed issues, that these communications and e-mails were only done with the official accounts; if so: Have all these e-mails and CC/Blind copies been provided; and what were the IP numbers for all e-mail senders/receivers?

6. Goodling refers to a "list" of candidates that she says were related to the "replacements." Did this list come with any information of who provided it; how the GOP reviewed this list; and the means the GOP used to say that "this was the timing issue" related to why this list had to be generated; and what info does Goodling have about the specific information coming into the GOP that was driving the decision to act; and what information does Goodling have about the information GOP was getting about the US Attorney decisions, and what method GOP and the WH political office used to get this confidential information from the US Attorney and FBI on the status of the various alleged corruption scandals in re California?

7. I would like to know Goodling's ongoing Continuing Legal Education while associated with DOJ, US Attornye's office, and classes she took yearly to comply with her annual legal education. Has Goodling ever read the US Attorney Manual [evidence she attended specific video training courses; who else attended; and copies of her attendance records -- will lead to other training folders inside DOJ, and other personnel who were in the same training classes -- what were their views, what discussions did Goodling have, and how were issues with FBI MAOP raised during the US Attorney Manual Training]; or ever attended any of the US Attorney training sessions with the JAG office with DoD [Knowledge of Geneva Conventions: Treatment of prisoners; use of illegally captured information during interrogations]?

8. Bogden is alleged to have "unauthorized" conversations with Members of Congress. What is the Congressional Ethics status of this review; and how do we consider the assertion of "unauthorized communications" in light of the DOJ guidance released in the most recent data dump? [It was an attachment, and discussed ethics issues, geared for Members of Congress. Where was this guidance; and did Bogden and Members of Congress review it?]

9. Goodling says Bogden had "criticism" over the Patriot Act. What was the relationship between this assertion, the DOJ OPR/DOJ IG findings in re NSLs, and the conclusions that the Patriot Act was being illegally used to circumvent the warrant requirement; did Bogden have specific or generalized concerns about the NSLs in re prior constraint; or were Bogden and Goodling talking about use of the Patriot Act for rendition, warrantless interrogations, and the transfer of information from the NSA to the GOP?

10. Goodling asserts that there was a draft list in Sept 2006 which Sampson reviews. How does this timeline fit in with the November 2006 meeting/decision memorandum with the AG: and which workflow number can Goodling point to that shows which task she reviewed/did to support this review of the Sampson Sept 2006 list; can Goodling point to a specific workflow number she used to document the completion of this review; or was the review not documented as a workflow task; if not included, how did the AG have confidence that the "appropriate" personnel had reviewed the necessary information prior to him signing his Nov2006 decision memorandum to delegate this authority to fire/hire?

11. As part of her pre-immunity-negotiations, counsel for Goodling asserted that she might have a perjury problem. yet, at best, she has no access to records, does not remember things; and asserts that statements made about what was not forwarded by her was not true. This suggests that she has a bonafide disagreement with someone else, and there is no disputing that this difference of opinion over what did or didn't happen -- assuming her version is true -- doesn't subject her to perjury. Rather, the only reason she could suffer a perjury claim was if she lied. Again, remind us against why Goodling was given immunity; and what basis there was to assert a "problem" requiring immunity; yet Goodling's testimony -- as it relates to the original "concerns" that she had not provided all the information could not have been explained away, and not be perjury. There's a problem with assertion a concern with "perjury" when by Goodling's account she had done nothing wrong. Please share with the Committee the basis for the concern with "perjury".

12. Goodling discussed the SES Positions saying there was a high turnover rate. This is interesting, but meaningless -- unless taken in the context of the changes in the Patriot Act. Recall, the "normal" process still included Senate Confirmation. Yet, Goodling was asking candidates their political views, suggesting _before the changes to the Patriot Act were approved_ the White House was engaging in screening on the assumption that the President would have a direct appointment without outside review. Yet, the problem is, by RNC's own admissions, it was taking up to 76 days for the Congress to review and approve these issues. From all accounts the US Attorney Positions are finite: Say 90. Yet, Goodling suggests that there was a high turnover rate of SES positions. Very interesting, but meaningless -- SES positions [and what was or wasn't going on with the SES selections] isn't the same as the US Attorney confirmation process. Is it Goodling's position that there were actually two screening processes, and even if the Senate rubber stamped everything, there was still an internal SES promotion problem? If so, what was the GOP view of this issue 2001-2006? What can OPM say about these issues; and do they square with the manpower issues which the Committee has learned through GAO, CRS, and other DOJ IG reports on the SES manpower turnover issues?

13. Goodling states that she had inputs to the Office of Legal Policy positions. Once Viet Dinh left OLP, what inputs did Viet Dinh have to his follow-on selection; and where is a copy of his recommended replacement which Goodling may have reviewed during the selection process?

14. Goodling states that she was involved with the screening into the "National security Division." For sake of education, it would be useful to discuss the NSD relationship to the NSLs, rendition, FISA, DOJ Staff counsel, FBI warrantless surveillance, DHS warrantless interrogations, and interface efforts with NSA and intermediaries to process warrants. Could Goodling provide us with a list of personnel assigned to the NSD, and discuss the general workflows assigned to NSD; and the relationship NSD had with the FISA warrant processing system; and give us an approximate timeline of the major decisions or adjournments AG have in re FISA warrants? It would be useful to focus on the time lines and computer access times NSD personnel had 2001-2006, focusing on the NSD staff counsel access to non-official websites. It appears as though by mentioning NSD, Goodling may have pointed to the division with DOJ that Gonzalez had said were supposed to be processing FISA warrants; but, in fact, were not complying with the requirements, as the DOJ IG found in re NSLs. Once the Committee looks at the NSD staff counsel use of official resources, and compares these with the FISA requirements, it can be shown that the DOJ Staff was working on non-official business while the AG said his DOJ Staffing was short. Can Goodling shed light on why there is an apparent disconnect between AG statements on lack of DOJ Staffing in re FISA warrants; but the known DOJ STaff access and use of official DOJ resources for uses unrelated to FISA warrants?

15. Goodling has fatally disclosed that she was doing "Internet research" related to these screenings. However, DOJ Staff counsel access to the Internet did not include simple reading of information. There is third party data capture which shows the opposite: Not only were DOJ Staff counsel not looking at legal-related information; they were doing the opposite: Making changes to information unrelated to official DOJ activities. Could Goodling provide a sample of the Known IP sites she used while at DOJ; a copy of an e-mail header with her IP; and the committee use this IP-data to identify which specific DOJ staff counsel were using these IP numbers?

16. Goodling stated after moving to OAG that the EOUSA slot she was filling was not filled so she had to continue oversee the waiver requests. Could Goodling outside the types of jobs, issues, and workflows she was doing in EOUSA; then show the types of jobs she started going with in OAG. AT this juncture, it's not clear -- given the assertion that she really didn't do much with the WH -- what her new duties were in OAG. Was the change in job title just that -- a change in job title; or was there real new work that she was doing in OAG that was not getting done; and new things in OAG that were totally different than the EOUSA? [This will track to the workflow assignments, manning levels; and cross check with the DOJ IG personnel reviews of the manning levels assigned relative to the scope of work: What we're trying to do is establish who inside DOJ IG was reviewing the work assigned to DOJ Staff; and ask whether DOJ IG had indications that real work was or was not being done; and whether there were indicators that work wasn't getting done; and how these manning efficiencies were identified as audit issues during various GAO reviews of the manpower analysis.]

Beafraid,veryafraid wrote on May 26, 2007 7:57 PM:

Whoever wrote this last post is even more obsessed than I am about all this. Those of you who are paying close attention, did Monica mention Choicepoint in her testimony related to the caging of minority voters?

Cacombo, I like your addition to the political lexicon. There seem to be many Goodlings in this administration - not all of them young and not all of them female.

Beafraid,veryafraid wrote on May 26, 2007 7:57 PM:

Whoever wrote this last post is even more obsessed than I am about all this. Those of you who are paying close attention, did Monica mention Choicepoint in her testimony related to the caging of minority voters?

Cacombo, I like your addition to the political lexicon. There seem to be many Goodlings in this administration - not all of them young and not all of them female.

Alex H. wrote on June 3, 2007 3:16 PM:

Yeesh, she's pathetic. Thirty-three going on thirteen -- she sounds like a middle school student trying to weasel her way out of a detention by BSing to the principal.

Lost Cause wrote on June 10, 2007 3:56 PM:

Try being a member of the Communist Party in the so-called "land of the free".

Royal wrote on June 11, 2007 12:28 PM:

Is Monica Gooling secretly involved in a larger operation that displace career civil service workforce employees' in violation of civil service laws?