« What's Here Is Correct | Main | Shorter Henry: Nice Try, Brad Berenson »

May 22, 2007


Don't these stupid clucks know how to use teh Google? I guess it is to much to ask from those dedicated civil servants running our country, but......

P.S. Berson was no Goodling as far as credentials, or complete lack thereof.

Boom. I'll buy it. Be fun to see some questions on that.

I think it's a fair surmise that if it's oppo, it's from the desk of La Goodling. And I think we'll know for sure if Monica appears on camera for the first time and has a fetching bouffant.

so this would mean that the corruption of the DOJ was a completly repuglican project, and the corruption reaches just about every repuglican congresscritter

so what's new ???

the fact that we got an evidence trail now, that's all

Repost (EPU'd) from "Question for Monica" thread. Didn't want these to get lost just because they were in a dead thread.

Several more questions for Goodling:

• Why would the White House Liason be involved in hiring, firing, and compensation decisions for non-Civil Service employees in the DoJ?

• It's been reported that you took charge of line-attorney hirings for interim appointed US Attorneys. Why would that be a responsibility for the White House Liason?

• Three weeks before resigning your position with the DoJ, you took a leave of absence. Please tell us about any interactions or work you did with DoJ during that period of time, including - but not limited to - visits to the office, e-mail, work done via remote computing, and the collection, deletion, and/or destruction of any documentation.

In other words, did you visit the DoJ offices, log in to DoJ computers, or engage in e-mail correspondence with DoJ officials during your leave of absence, and what were you doing or discussing when you did so?

• Did you ever work with Tim Griffin or others in identifying names to be researched with the aim of purging them from state voter rolls? What were the criteria and how did you identify these names?

• How did Rachel Palouse come to be nominated for the position of US Attorney?

• There's an e-mail from Rebecca Seidel to you and several others, dated January 12 2007, regarding questions being asked by Senator Feinstein and the strategy for responding to them. In it, Seidel states, "Phone call easier, and may be easier to get out of (i.e. not trapped up there) when she doesn't get the info she wants (i.e. why they were fired)."

What was Seidel referring to when she said "why they" -- meaning the US Attorneys -- "were fired"? What was the reason Seidel had in mind that she did not want to tell Senator Feinstein? Clearly this was a specific reason already known to you and the other recipients. What was it?

• (Echoing a commenter from above) Who is paying your attorney fees? Were you coached or did you engage in any rehearsal sessions before appearing here today? Who was present at those sessions? What was discussed?

That'll do for now, I suppose.

You know that feeling you get when you're forgetting something? I know there's one more question, an important one, I've forgotten here. Something I pointed out a few months ago, either here, at TPMMuckraker, or at FDL. Something that - like the detail of the WH Liason being involved in NON-political hirings and firings - gets right to the heart of the wrongness and politicization of the DoJ in a way that even non-partisan people not following the story can understand. And for the life of me, I just can't remember it.

Damn it, I hate when that happens.

Oh well, maybe it'll come to me during the hearings tomorrow. Or maybe one of the Congress members (or aides) will think of it.

Monica email: "We do not have a canned editorial response."

From a terrific David Shuster report on Olbermann.


"...botched his talking points."

it's possible,

but i ain't buying.

flagrant, ah say flagrant, disinformation is, to my mind,

the watermark of this entire administration.


of virtually all of the republican party as it currently exists.

just hold any of their statements up to the light for a few seconds.

the stain is always there -


it says

"we lie for power".

I vote with orionATL, botching was deliberate, an attempt to seed disinfo. Seems like Hatch has been very well insulated in all this so far, too well.

Whenever I see David Shuster on KO, I always yell at the tv, "c'mon David, admit that you cheated by reading off Marcy Wheeler's laptop. Give her the credit she deserves for contributing to your 'erudition.'"

Oh, he didn't cheat at all, trust me. He was upstairs in the courtroom most of the time. And hoenstly, if it weren't for people like Schuster who can ask a pointed question, I'd be nowhere.

Hmmm.... I only ever see Shuster (and KO) on one Mac or another, now that MSNBC's online. It's refreshing to watch any reporter convey a narrative that grapples with the complexities of a story as convoluted as the Libby mess. If Shuster has enough brains to read EW, I say more power to him!

As an old history professor of mine used to say (with a twinkle in his eye), "the more, the merrier"! This nation needs more journalists with Shuster's smarts and chutzpah.

Senator Pat Geary is Hatch's mentor.


phocoena wanderingly melotrope paurometabola bulbil idiomatically poetling concern
Purple Sandpiper (Calidris maritima)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad