Three Sentences

by emptywheel

I--along with Monica Goodling's mom--am unsurprised that she resigned. Here's her mom (it seems like the acorn didn't fall that far from the thick tree):

Goodling's mother, Cindy Fitt of Osceola Mills, Pa., said the resignation had been anticipated. "She told me I'm to say 'no comment' for everything," the mother said in a brief telephone interview.

I'm rather more interested that Monica could only string three sentences together for her resignation letter.

I am hereby submit my resignation to the Office of the Attorney General, effective April 7, 2007. It has been an honor to have served at the Department of Justice for the past five years. May God bless you richly as you continue your service to America,

A significant chunk of the various document dumps included the standard form resignation letters Monica et al gave to the USAs to "resign" with. But there was no such protocol here.

.As the AP notes and Peterr noted before, things are getting kind of quiet at DOJ. The carnage so far:

Michael Battle, Director of Executive Office of US Attorneys, who quit in March after having to fire 8 perfectly good USAs

Kyle Sampson, Gonzales' Chief of Staff, who quit just before he said Gonzales was mis-remembering how involved he was in plans to fire the USAs

Monica Goodling, Gonzales' liaison with the WH, who quit today because, well, DOJ lawyers can't invoke the Fifth and remain on the public dime

Four top administrators in the MN USA self-demote so as to avoid USA Rachel Paulose's dictatorial ways

Michael Elston, Deputy AG Paul McNulty's Chief of Staff, who started a "planned" leave of absence just after he was interviewed by the Judiciary Committees last week

Best as I can tell, Richard Hertling is the only one still getting stuff done over at DOJ (it's his job to impede the investigation, so he's been quite busy of late.

At some point very soon, I expect the Republicans are going to begin to get very nervous about all this carnage. It just doesn't look good.

Update:

I had thought maybe Goodling was quitting, finally, because she had negotiated her immunity deal. But this quote from Conyers' spokesperson makes it sounds like that hasn't happened yet:

The Chairman remains committed to questioning Monica Goodling, especially with this new development. Her involvement and general knowledge of what happened makes her a valuable piece to this puzzle

So now I'm wondering--did Goodling stay so long just to reach 5 years in DOJ? Is there some kind of vesting that hits? Or was she just using up all her vacation, staying on my dime as long as she could, because she's looking at some big legal bills and a period of unemployment?

Comments

[John Casper]

It's people such as Monica who give God a really bad name.

[Kagro X]

Last crook who stretched out his time on the public dole bought himself three extra months in prison for it.

[emptywheel]

Kagro

I guess that means it's your turn to write the solicitation of letters for sentencing?

[bmaz]

I am not aware of any vesting threshold at 5 years for USAs. To my knowledge they are not any different as to retirement benefits than other similarly situated Fed employees. There is a commenter at FDL that did Fed retirement for a living although I am not sure if it is "Retired Fed". If I can find one of my AUSA friends this afternoon, I will ask. Probably your latter thought is closer to the mark. I doubt anyone will, but I would be interested in a "means" determination to see if Dear Monica had the capability of covering her legal bills that accrued before her resignation. They had to have been very substantial considering it is John Dowd and Akin Gump. Although unlikely to be prosecuted, it would still constitute a wrongful act if she did not have the means at the time.

[Albert Fall]

Before the letter, Monica was a kind of black box. The Fifth Amendment didn't seem like a strategy that served Rove ends, so why was she doing what she was doing?

I had kind of held out hope that she had an actual moral code, that her religious training had actually brought her some belief in truth and a spiritual dimension to her life, and that she was not just an authoritarian Stepford wife style Loyal Bushie, and that she had some fidelity to the truth.

Now, I just think she's a nut.

[jk]

"I hereby am submit"?

I wish her poor English skills didn't matter, but, last I checked, she used to be a senior official at the Justice Department. This is either another sign that she was highly unqualified (likely) or a sign that she was in a rush to get this out under intense pressure from someone else (more likely).

[TCinLA]

Now, I just think she's a nut.

Just another home-indoctrinated illiterate with a degree from a southern bible college. Remember when people with a background like this were usually the butt of the joke? Back in the good old days.

[freepatriot]

pleading the 5th didn't work

resigning didn't work

what will the good christian lawyer goodling do next to avoid telling the truth ???

if these lame fucks put half as much imagination into their military planning they probaly wouldn't be in this mess to begin with

but then again, probably not ...

[orionATL]

freepatriot -

hey,

she go to work for god.

when nobody else is hiring, he is - 24/7.

who knows.

there may be a few more nuns' convents left for guliani and partners to broker (cf. sara, previously).

[MadAsHell]

Re why Goodling might stay for five years - not entirely sure about this but I think you have superior reemployment rights with the federal government once you have reached the five year mark.

[baked potato]

I suspect that her handlers simply thought it best at first that she stay on, then changed their minds. I mean, they're already paying her legal expenses. She's following orders, as always. So her resignation just became another Friday night document dump.

[Kagro X]

what will the good christian lawyer goodling do next to avoid telling the truth ???

I know the play, but here's a news flash for Monica: there's no way to get that nail the second hand down without help.

[freepatriot]

so that's what it's all about

stay for five years ... you have superior reemployment rights with the federal government once you have reached the five year mark.

so does lawyer goodling want to work in the Prison Laundry, or work in the Prison Kitchen ???

if she's got 5 years in, lawyer goodling can choose which job she likes

sounds like a good idea for a betting pool

[AWMfan]

I believe that one is eligible for medical care for life after five years.

[P J Evans]

TPM was wondering if she was the off-camera 'Monica' that Tim Griffin was talking to, in a video from 2000 that they have.

[yam]

I'm curious about something. I'm a Minnesotan and I've seen a couple of news stories about this, some say 4 demoted themselves, some say 3. The linked article mentions a fourth; "Tim Anderson, a non-attorney who had been the acting administrator in the office" while others haven't brought this up.

I also like the fact that the DOJ sent someone in to stop the hemorrhaging and they did it anyway. This is gonna get worse before it gets better.

[Jodi]

5 years is the standard vesting time for industry and I assume for the government. It is a Federal law.

She will get something when she retires at 55 or later.

[pseudonymous in nc]

My guess is that someone told Mistress Goodling that she'd need a legal defense fund to keep paying her bills, and that her current employ was incompatible with such. I don't think that exempts her from paying out of pocket for any fees she's clocked up while officially at the DOJ.

But expect wingnut legal welfare to kick in the moment she's off the payroll. And I think that's a worthy topic of oversight. Because like Marcy, I'm yet to be convinced that Goodling is a mere functionary here. You can get a lot of power in your early 30s if you're a loyal Bushie.

On the wider picture, it's only a matter of time before a dirty DOJ seizes up. There's a shadow over ever US Attorney's office right now, and every judge and defence lawyer knows it.

[Jeff]

I also like the fact that the DOJ sent someone in to stop the hemorrhaging and they did it anyway. This is gonna get worse before it gets better.

This is a total embarrassment. That guy from Main DoJ is apparently coming back to effectively run the office. It's completely pathetic and a total embarrassment.

[Albert Fall]

No small irony here, that the aide to the man who signed the legal memo justifying torture is now relying on the constitution's prohibition against compelled self-incrimination.

Bet those folks at Gitmo would like a little Fifth Amendment now again.

Brings to mind dueling bumper stickers from years back: "A conservative is a liberal who got mugged" and "A civil libertarian is a convervative who got arrested."

[jwp]

PIN writes:

"Because like Marcy, I'm yet to be convinced that Goodling is a mere functionary here."

I agree and disagree. I agree Goodling wielded power. But she acted on behalf of others.

More importantly, fromm the political point of view, the public will never see her as an independent actor. The public never heard of her. Hell, the vast majority of the public has STILL never heard of her.

In my view, our goals should be steadfastly political, and the possibility of criminal prosecution should be jettisoned quickly and without regret -- or even a second thought.

Let's make Goodling talk in a public forum before the general public loses interest.

Now, if Goodling won't talk, then a prosecution for contempt of Congress might serve. Then the public will be focused upon what is politically important -- the cover-up, the authoritarian defiance of gwb regime.

[windje]

"Four top administrators in the MN USA self-demote so as to avoid USA Rachel Paulose's dictatorial ways"

Over the years, I have seen that people have very different levels of tolerance for abuse in interpersonal relationships.

Yet after about a month or similar very short time, four high ranking members of a US Attorney's management team simultaneously self demote themselves and the cause is attributed to 'dictatorial ways.'

I'm not buying that. Its too quick. Its too orchestrated. Its a smokescreen.

She must have done something that four senior people found to be so abhorrent that they bailed out. Those four didn't want to be associated with that decision in any way. Paulose in some way changed policy and/or perhaps instructed these staffers not to continue to pursue cases that were 'politically incorrect.'

Sad, but any action taken by the DOJ from now on is (in my opinion) subject to the presumption of guilt until demonstrated to be innocent and impartial.

This is what happens when you place political hacks, even well educated political hacks, in skill positions.

Defense attorneys should be boning up on the 'political witch hunt defense', since most of the citizenry will be viewing any case brought by the government as suspect from the git go. No wonder Scooter wants a new trial.

[Veritas78]

I suggest that the Judiciary Committee send a staffer to interview the self-demoters. I'll bet they have some worthwhile insights.

[knut wicksell]

I agree with Pseudonymous that the resignation was triggered by the mounting financial liability raised by her defense. Goodling may well be the 'smoking gun' in this case, and if she is, the thugs will throw everything they have to defend her. It's going to be a hard defense, because Leahy has the goods on her.

[jwp]

I agree with all of the last three comments. Excellent points.

I especially agree that "dictatorial style" did not drive the self-demotions. That stuff is often SOP, and easily evaded with a nod and smile. Then the career persons carry on, more or less as usual.

This type of mutiny is EXTREMELY weird.

[LabDancer]

I'm perpetually fascinated with how so often a criminal ends up with the very attorney who fits like a pre-bloodied Caberetta glove.

By now it should be apparent that Dowd's schtick is Cromagnon Moderne. If you want an unobstructed view of him at his ruthless worst, go into the Way Back Machine and set the dial to the 1980s when MLB Commish and former Ivy League don of letters Bart Giamatti [Father of the actor; friend of the Show] was retaining too much gas from boorish arrogance of part-time punter Pete Rose [Genotype to a certain Commander In Chief who shall go unnamed]. I particularly commend the well-considered treatment of Dowd's "investigative techniques" Baseball Bill James gave him on his "investigation" into the betting career of the equally boorish Pete Rose [Don't gag - at his best, James is as good a writer & observer on the human condition as we have.]*

None of what's happened has changed my bet on Dowd's campaign for Ms. Goodling, but I readily admit we have a much more fleshy read on who she is - and, I think, why was so important she got lawyered WAY up so early.

They know they absolutely have to keep this prime cut of Rove Youth as far away from a microphone, or a reporter, or a stenographer, as possible. For this is no shrinking Monica before us - this is Luca Brasi in a poodle skirt, Scarface in stretch Capris.

I think we can agree it appears unlikely that classical literature and the subtlties of composition are high among her peculiar strengths. Nor does it appear that she received more than a decorative veneer of moral depth from her foray into the halls of academe at ... Regent U. [Did I just put "academe" & "Regent U." in the same sentence? Whoa.]

That suggests to me that she may be, shall we say, less than entirely compelling - or at all adept - as a witness under oath. I'm thinking her best work may be with brass knuckles. For Monica is - muscle.

Okay, I exaggerate for effect. But I really don't think this is far from the mark. Josh Marshall has a little 'tube treatment up at TPM, which, if he's actually caught the Woodpecker on Steroids on digital, serves to reinforce the dispatches from the DoJ front lines of her as "buzz saw".

Mind you now: "buzz saw". Not scalpel. Not ANY surgically precise instrument or clever tool adapted to use in close quarters. Not even "skill saw". Wood chipper? Maybe. Certainly trending more towards the sledge hammer or others in the family of blunt instruments.

Got to hand to Dowd & his confederates. How creative of them to dress her up like she's been kidnapped from a cotillion?

And oooh, the stories she can tell! Albeit, monosyllabically.

But she won't. Not for some time. Maybe even never.

Were I among the staffers investigating for one of the Congressional committees which hold an interest in her, I would no more worry about her going invoking omerta ...er, the Fifth, than I would about her going up river for a stretch. I know I'd feel a whole lot better about the nation's fate once Monica takes on some tatoos and gives the uninitiated a better chance of seeing her coming.

*Given the season, I'll hoy me to the attic & root thru my complete collection of Baseball Analysts to find the particular edition. Damned if I know whether any of Bill's masterpieces from that era were transcribed from cellulose to electrode. Ach, it gives me an excuse to email the Sox: "Yankees Suck!" Sorry; must have channelled some Gilliard.

[windje]

To repeat from above:

She must have done something that four senior people found to be so abhorrent that they bailed out. Those four didn't want to be associated with that decision in any way. Paulose in some way changed policy and/or perhaps instructed these staffers not to continue to pursue cases that were 'politically incorrect.'

Take a look at this kos diary regarding Paulose - If the inference is correct, the question as to whether United Health Care bought themselves a USA inevitably arises.

Timing is everything.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/7/95411/09535

[Mickey]

PIN writes:

"Because like Marcy, I'm yet to be convinced that Goodling is a mere functionary here."

I agree and disagree. I agree Goodling wielded power. But she acted on behalf of others.

More importantly, fromm the political point of view, the public will never see her as an independent actor. The public never heard of her. Hell, the vast majority of the public has STILL never heard of her.

In my view, our goals should be steadfastly political, and the possibility of criminal prosecution should be jettisoned quickly and without regret -- or even a second thought.PIN writes:

I sort of disagree that "our goals should be steadfastly political" will be met following PIN's path. These are idealogogues who view the investigating Congressmen as evil incarnate. Negotiating, even offering immunity, doesn't turn them into people driven to tell all [or all of the truth]. I suspect that such negotiations will run into the same endless obstructionism that the Plamegate investigation encountered. Fitzgerald got Miller and Rove talking by using the steady threat of jail and indictment. I agree that displays of rhetoric are a waste of time. It is the essence of Rovianism to ignore such things. But I don't agree that giving them anything up front gets us anywhere. I favor the Monopoly Method [go directly to jail] as the way to obtain some version of true testimony. I vote for "our goals should be steadfastly political" by holding on to "the possibility of criminal prosecution" until Monica's cards are on the table and we know what we're going to get. If she wants to be a martyr, it's her call...

[Mimikatz]

Paulose was apparently interim US Atty in Minneapolis for almost a year before her regal investiture as permanent USA, so presumably the 3 or 4 managers had a taste of her managerial talents. It sounds to me like she really was way in over her head, as they were trying to convey.

Goodling was in a quandary in wanting to take the 5th and continue as a DOJ employee, constantly trumpeted as the "first DOJ staffer to ever take the 5th". She also put Gonzales (who presumably could have directed her to answer questions and would have been under pressure to open an investigation into the possible crimes if she didn't) in an untenable position. There was talk of subpoening her for before his April 17 testimony.

Truly BushCo botched this. if Alberto had resigned a few weeks ago when it broke, it would probably all be over. But Bush dug in his little heels, and now see where he is, with new scandals in Minnesota and Wisconsin, and people at DOJ dropping like flies. Sooner or later they will find the one person with the guts to testify and it will unravel, presumably all the way back to Rove.

[jwp]

Mickey,

I agree with much of what you say, but not the conclusion.

I agree that negotiating is a waste of time. For the same reason, I think trying to coerce her into talking with threats is a waste of time.

The beauty of giving immunity is that there is no need to negotiate. Simply give blanket immunity, and she has to talk.

Either that, or she has publicly committed the crime of contempt of Congress, and she goes straight to jail.

(So long as DOJ enforces the contempt -- that is where Sara's fear of the showdown on unitary government comes in, I think. The only out then is for gwb to declare everything Congress has done to be invalid. But that is high stakes for a president with approval in the 20s. It would probably bring impeachment to his door, finally.)

[QuickSilver]

Did Goodling write "I am hereby submit my resignation"? Or did she write "I am hereby submitting my resignation"?

Raw Story reported the first version, which was repeated by a small number of news outlets. Many other venues simply omitted that sentence or paraphrased it (including the Washington Post). By contrast, Editor and Publisher, The Detroit Free Press, CNN, and many other outlets quoted the letter as "I am hereby submitting my resignation."

Which is it? Anyone have a link to an actual copy/pdf of the letter?

[Albert Fall]

JWP:

I think the only thing completely in Congress' control vis a vis Goodling is whether to give her immunity or not, and I agree with you that when that card is played, she faces jail time for staying quiet or for lying even with a grant of immunity.

Right now, what we have is an AG who cannot tell an accurate story about the AG firings, sneaky behavior to get the AG appointment language into the Patriot Act, and Goodling (via Fifth Amendment) and Rove and Meirs (via exec privilege) looking like they have something to hide.

This narrative of a sneaky and deceptive administration, that is now working to prevent the truth from coming out, dovetails with the other known narratives about the Bushies regarding the war and Abramoff.

For Bush, leaving AG in place means the bleeding continues, while replacing AG means that Bush has to risk not having a loyalist at the head of DOJ.

If we assume that Rove is a political self-maximizing decision maker, it would appear that he believes that continuing to appear sneaky, deceptive, and resistent to the truth being told is a better alternative than letting the facts come out (indicating that we are appropriate to be concerned that his goal is to give political operatives subpoena and prosecution power through the DOJ).

The interests of Rove and Bush differ from those of Republicans up for election in 2008, and letting this matter fester a while longer could shift power away from Bush as those Republicans analyze their own interests.

I am sure that Democrats collectively, congressional Republicans collectively, and each Senator and Member individually, is running an extensive calculus of the different ways that a Constitutional confrontation with Bush plays out.

There will be a resolution at some point. For his part, I suspect that Rove would like to push for confrontation quickly, perhaps over this matter rather than the war, and then use the confrontation to try to get traction on a new set of talking points about Democratic over-reach.

The unknown variable is when a Bushie will break ranks and start eroding the Bush team from inside. The threat of jail time could be conducive to hatening that moment.

[Albert Fall]

TYPO CORRECTION:

The unknown variable is when a Bushie will break ranks and start eroding the Bush team from inside. The threat of jail time could be conducive to hastening that moment.

[pseudonymous in nc]

In political terms, as I've said here before, I have to wonder whether the strategy of having Dowd represent Goodling is designed to test out the defence for higher-ups.

Therefore, obtaining her testimony is both valuable for its potential content, and for proving the point that the Brave-Sir-Robin act (invoking poor, persecuted Scooter) ain't gonna work.

I'd also concur with Knut because while the principals tend not to leave their fingerprints on the machinery of government (or the private machinery of gwb43.com), the liasons and CoSes aren't as discreet.

On jwp's point: it's a case of second-guessing what the White House and Gonzo want. Is it the free pass for Goodling of immunity (in which case she falls on the prop sword), or a fight over testimony where they get to establish the precedent of screwing over Congressional oversight? I'm yet to be convinced that immunity provides adequate benefits to indict (in the court of political and public opinion) Goodling's superiors.

The Libby case proved that you could prosecute the second tier, but not touch their bosses in the courts. My guess is that Fitzgerald had a coin-toss choice over Rove, and a 25:75 over Cheney, but that he knew issues of classification and privilege would screw over any prosecution. In short, going after the bosses is for the politicians, not the prosecutors. Especially in circumstances when the very mechanism of prosecution is compromised.

In short: if you grant immunity to Goodling, you have to have the political will to impeach Gonzales. If you strike the king, you must kill him.

[bmaz]

I disagree that "our goals should be steadfastly political". Quite frankly, adherence to steadfast political goals, albeit it on the other side, is what got us to this point in the first place. The actions of the investigating Congressional committees should not be to advance political goals, they should be to advance the principle of justice irrespective of whether the benefit inures to the Democratic or Republican side. To act otherwise puts the result above the process; the foundation of American law, and indeed American democracy itself, is the primacy of a fair and impartial process not the guarantee of any particular result.

There has been a long and slow degradation of the understanding of this fundamental premise by both the American public and their elected leaders. When either side decides that "political goals" are primary, that inherently places results above the process. I have practiced law in the governmental misconduct and criminal areas for twenty years, and the phenomenon I describe is quite evident in the halls of justice. A lot of the circumstances and problems we are focused on today are the festering mature result of the primordial decisions of one party, the Republicans, to serve "political goals" by declaring themselves the "law and order party" and spreading fear of isolated and ultimately inconsequential, yet publically hyped and discussed results in criminal cases. If a particular criminal defendant went free because the police or prosecution had substantially violated fundamental Constitutional protections, they screamed and bellowed "Hide the women and children, those liberals have freed this heinous criminal on a technicality to roam your streets to rob, rape and murder again".

So it began with with characterizing hideous and substantive Fourth Amendment violations of fundamental search and seizure law as "mere technicalities". Soon judges and prosecutors, usually being elected officials themselves, started shading their duties and principles under the law to find creative ways around Constitutional protections in order to avoid results that would be unpopular. Then the officials ran again for election proudly proclaiming how they had protected the "law and order for the citizens" by "clamping down on criminals" and "elimianting the criminals use of technicalities". The more they talked the talk, the more they walked the walk.

The sad result over time is the situation we now find ourselves in where technicalities (read the Constitution) be damned, the government and justice system is to be used as just another partisan tool. The Attorney General of the United States dismissively brands the Genevea Conventions as "quaint" and inconsequential. The President of the United States belligerently ignores the Constitution screaming that "it's just a damn piece of paper". The Executive Branch acts and thinks like Article II of the Constitution (the one delineating and defining the Executive Branch) is the only portion that exists. This is what happens when political goals (the results) trump adherence to the principles of the system (the process).

[emptywheel]

QS

Rawstory seemed to get it form a TV discussion. I haven't seen the PDF of the letter.

P I N

I think the non-indictments of Rove and Cheney are somewhat unrelated. Libby, if he were to flip, might produce both (but that isn't going to happen). I think the Rove case is just weaker, dependent on people like ARi and (if he were to flip) Libby and Armitage.

With Cheney, OTOH, Fitz faced two problems: The constitutional qusetion of insta-declassification as it relates to IIPS, and the question of whether you can indict a VP for something he does in office (Spiro got indicted for stuff he did before entering office). Add those onto the circumstantial, but strong, case, I thikn you can't indict the VPotus.

[Albert Fall]

bmaz:

Well said.

Moreover, a principled pursuit of the facts will make any case that comes more credible (compare, e.g., the Clinton impeachment).

[jwp]

political in terms of bringing out the truth and protecting our institutions

v

seeking criminal indictments

[pseudonymous in nc]

Point taken, Marcy.

My more general point is this: if we've established (as I think is the case) that top-tier members of the executive branch simply lack the shame to fall on their own swords, then it forces a re-assessment of any tactics adopted towards the fast-track Bushie thirtysomethings. If I were convinced that immunizing Goodling would lead to testimony that disinfected the DOJ, I'd embrace any offer made by Congress. Instead, I see an executive branch that treats newly-arrived oversight as an fundamental affront to its power, as opposed to the return of normality. In that climate, conceding anything is problematic.

[emptywheel]

P I N

Then we are in agreement.

But we may yet find our John Dean.

[bmaz]

I am inclined to agree with pseudonymous in nc; there should be no blanket immunization of Goodling, at least not at this point. The one exception I do think should be discussed is the granting of use immunity to specific and targeted questions to see how she performs. Done correctly and intelligently, I think it would put both Goodling and her attorney Dowd on their heels; it would me if I were in their shoes (and I have had this done to a client before). If you are not getting good or desired testimony from her, or if you feel she is being deceptive, you terminate immediately and have lost nothing vis a vis the ability to prosecute her other than the ability to use her own answers against her. It could, however, create a fulcrum from which Goodling and Dowd must tip; either give up the dog and pony show by shutting up and riding with the Administration completely, or rolling over and cooperating completely. There are a lot of exigencies to be considered, so I am not saying this is the solution; just a thought.

[Jodi]

First all this convulsing over Monica's style of speech in her resignation just gives more an insight into the convulsers mind than any enlightment about Monica's.

Second, I have heard similar projections and carrying on about what she might have had the USAs do to get their jobs. ~~ sign loyality oaths in blood under the great Elm tree, on Haloween night, dastardly criminal and evil oaths to do bad~~~~. And now the public has a great need to know, and justice is not served by her silence! Oh, my gosh.
Heck don't these people know that these USAs are fairly good lawyers and know how to talk and protect themselves. Heck they could even "leak" if they thought themselves the victim of Satanic plotting or some such.

"Much ado about nothing."

Of course when she does deign to speak it will be something like.

Well I can't say for certain, but maybe it was like this. On that I'm not so sure of my uncertainity.
Well I can only quote my own notes from that period which you already have.
No I'm not evading the question. I am just making sure that I am not contradicting anyone else who might remember better than I those days and events.

The Libby lesson is in everyone's mind.

The great Fitzgerald lesson.

"Never be certain."

... and finally where did the bunny in the hat go?

[RossK]

Re: We may yet find.....

Is anybody compiling a list of below the radar folks who have done the most egregious things for which looming jail time would be a most excellent inducement for them to pull a little Johnny Dean circa 1973?

.

[P J Evans]

TPM is reporting that the Senate Judiciary committee is going to be looking at the Minnesota USA thing. We will find out (at least part of) what happened.

What's the going price for popcorn kernels in 55-gallon drums?

[John Casper]

"First all this convulsing over Monica's style of speech in her resignation just gives more an insight into the convulsers mind than any enlightment about Monica's."

Tokyo Jodi, who on this thread is "convulsing over Monica's style of speech?" This thread already has more than forty comments, so please identify the comment by name and time.

[Frank Probst]

How come nobody's pointing out the BEST reason to be pissed off about not having the best-qualified people for job working at the DOJ? More bad guys will get away!

[QuickSilver]

The AP/New York Times was one of the few to make clear that the resignation letter was addressed personally to Gonzales, with the words "May God bless you richly as you continue your service to America."

[Mauimom]

My guess is that someone told Mistress Goodling that she'd need a legal defense fund to keep paying her bills, and that her current employ was incompatible with such. I don't think that exempts her from paying out of pocket for any fees she's clocked up while officially at the DOJ.

But expect wingnut legal welfare to kick in the moment she's off the payroll.

Is anyone going to keep track of which legal fees were incurred for work before she resigned (and, at least when she was employed couldn't be paid by someone else) and which after? Or after she's resigned, is it all moot, and someone else can pay those bills, regardless of when they were accrued? 'Cause if that's the case, that's a mighty strong reason to resign.