« Speaking of Back-Dating Signatures | Main | Did Orrin Hatch and Byron York Get Their Oppo Research from Monica? »

May 22, 2007

Comments

Before the comments begin, a distraction that is not without merit, I believe.

You are an amazing truth seeking-sleuth-scholar, and you are working at saving our constitution from what Larry Tribe recentlyy descibed as a "slow motion coup" against it. And doing so at a head-spinning rate. A Standing O for you today! And most days, come to think of it.
Thank you so much.

Ditto BlueStateRedhead. I didn't have the patience to wade thru the documents--are you saying they didn't turn over the draft testimony with her comments?

EW - you are incredible!
I just read at Raw Story that she is refusing to turn over documents to the committee --- can she legally withold documents?

karen

I don't know--it seems like there would be executive privilege claims that might be valid. But once she has been given immunity, she has to testify.

Jane S

I just think the timing may derive from two causes.

1) If Monica intends to blame McNulty, she can saw she was too rushed to review this.

2) But ultimately, this has to serve as some kind of validation that Monica signed off on the testimony AS CORRECT before McNulty delivered it. Had we had it months ago, we might have been able to charge her for leading McNulty to misdirect Congress.

In regards to withholding documents, I'd throw her @ss in jail for contempt of Congress! I am so tired of the obstruction of justice by these DOJ crooks.

Even with immunity, even with a subpeona, she is still bound (where applicable) to prootect attorney/client priviledge and executive privledge.

These privledges are asserted by the client or executive not by the lawyer. The lawyer is bound by such assertions even if s/he wants to disclose.

The House or Senate Committee that issued the subpeona has standing to contest,in court, an overbroad assertion of privledge by the WH.

EW--Thanks for the clarification. That is a sleazy maneuver.

Yesterday I glanced at the first group of docs. and I noticed the glee from Gonzales' little band of thugs about the story they planted in the WaPo. I became sick and could look no more. Are you live-blogging Monica tomorrow at FDL? And I am taking it for granted that someone sent Conyers (and/or any HJC member) your list of questions...

LHP: Does that mean she can go in there, admit to her own crimes, and refuse to testify about anyone else's involvement due to executive privilege??

LHP - But the priviledge is not Goodling or Dowd's to assert; has the government formally asserted it? If so, that is certainly not evident. Privildge is waived if not affirmatively plead generally. The DOJ had ample opportunity to make inquiry and take action on such issues prior to signing off on the immunity/cooperation package. If Dowd really thought this was an issue, he was obligated to transfer the documents back to the government or make other arrangements; he cannot blithely sit on them and assert priviledges he does not possess. I maintain this is bullshit.

Bullshit indeed! But what's new. Everyone who doubted Monstica would be anything but a firewall raise your hand.

I'm predicting outlandish stonewalling. A shit storm from the committee afterward - and an answer of "Nany-nany-boo-boo" from Monstica's neocon lawyers while sticking their tongues out.

Check out the latest on Susan Ralston From RAW STORY:

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Former_Rove_aide_pleads_Fifth_on_0522.html

now her request for immunity makes sense...

just please God don't let her put on her own slide show

She's getting on my nerves. If she's not going to hand over the damn documents, they should just charge her with obstruction of justice. They can do it right before they swear her ass in, just so she can't try to use her immunity deal to interfere with the suit. She can give her testimony in handcuffs, and they can lead her off to central booking when she's done. Enough already.

Actually, now's probably the time to make polite phone calls to your favourite members of the HJC, ideally ones a little lower down the ladder like Mel Watt, Bob Wexler, Maxine Waters, Hank Johnson, Artur Davis.

And put me in the category of people who expect stonewalling, bullshit and righteous indignation from God's Own Chooser Of Career Prosecutors. She's going to take her immunity deal, wipe her backside with it, and rub it in the HJC's faces. And it's going to be a test of Conyers' authority to deal with it.

Incidentally, my guess as to why she's refusing to turn over the documents is that they prove her guilt, and they wouldn't be covered by her "use immunity" deal. She's in a REALLY bad spot here. If she hands over the documents, she'll look guilty (because she is), but if she withholds them, she'll look like she's obstructing justice (because she is). Isn't she supposed to have the best lawyers in town? Because it seems to me that they should have gotten her an immunity deal that covered the documents, since it's been clear all along that the DOJ is withholding them. They obviously didn't, and now their client is twisting in the wind. She's at the mercy of Alberto Gonzales and his minions now--they can leak all sorts of nasty documents tonight that will make her look like the anti-Christ when she testifies tomorrow.

Frank Probst - They should, and normally would, be covered in the immunity/cooperation agreement. This, however, is not a standard criminal prosecution, so who knows what the House counsel has done.

Frank, of course her deal didn't cover the document. Her (rove's) attorney never, ever intends to turn them over. If they were covered in her deal, she'd have no excuse not to, and would be in that much deeper. Now, she'll just plead the fifth on them. Then the whole think will be spun with half truths to keep the public confused.

I see this whole thing as a careful calculation - obviously they figure they'd rather deal with obstruction of justice - since that's just something Democrats use when they can't find a real crime, than deal with what come out of those docs. Right now they've got one small fry facing obstruction. They let those docs loose and they have a half dozen facing real crime.

Well played from their end, but I'm with you, cuff her ass - enough all ready - stirr the fucking pot.

Susie Q's snake Berenson sez:

"The subjects this morning that she will be unable to testify to...are the subjects of the relationship between Jack Abramoff and his associates and White House officials, including Ms. Ralston, and the subject of the use by White House officials of political e-mail accounts at the RNC,"

"She has material, useful information about both of those subjects."

"She is more than willing to provide it to the committee. However, she will, as we have previously discussed, require a grant of immunity before she is comfortable going forward,"

I think Ralston will be more useful than Goodling, but either one will do - all roads leave to rove.

all roads LEAD to rove

obsessed

I will guarantee the drawbridges are up leading to Rove's castle.

This is just like a playback of all the speculation about Wilson-Plame-Rove.

Ending in "less than squat."

Idjo: I know how deeply you idolize Karl Rove, but he will go down. Napoleon, Hitler, Al Capone, Unabomber, Eric Rudolph, Nixon ... they all go down eventually. If you keep committing crimes, eventually it catches up with you.

Per earlier discussion on these boards:

If this is evidence of her guilt developed independently of her testimony, shouldn't she be prosecuted for obstruction based on getting McNulty to lie to Congress? Don't ask her any questions about McNulty's prep, find an honest USA.....oh, never mind....We'll have to catch up on this one next administration.

Ahh Jodi . . . desperation is a stinky cologne.

Keep up the great work EW! I'm looking forward to tomorrow's blogging.

Is it important that the "judge" referred to is probably Gonzo, himself? If I remember correctly, that's his nickname in the DOJ. If you're going to tell me that I'm stating the obvious, please do so gently. bfn

That attachment is a Word document... I wonder if the changes to it were tracked?

If the document was prepared as a study guide for Paul McNulty's HJC testimony by John Nowacki and reviewed by Monica Goolding for accuracy, who is the client that can claim privilege?

Can the HJC ask Goodling if Paul McNulty's testimony was consistent with the docuemnt? In what ways McNulty's testimony was consistent with the document but inconsistent with the truth? Who put the untruth in the document?

From a prior post, EW suggested the purpose of tomorrow's quesioning is meant to provide credible reasons for the committee to follow up next with White House participants. Is Monica going to play Scooter here by taking the hit on obstrction and burying the rest of the story or is he cat out of the bag?

hauksdottir, as you know word leaves tonsa meta-data in the document, whether or not track changes is enabled. Yes the original when analyzed ould provide a picture of who added what.

Dismayed, I like your secondary analysis,and it seems all plausible. Question is, which we shall probably never know unless she gets a big book deal, exactly how complicit is Monica -- or the whole cabal? How up to her ears in illegality-cum-lapdog is the dear thing?

Who is the big enchilada? Is there a coordinating brain, or is the whole state indeed rotten, with numerous participants willing to shoot the moon?

get em EW, thanks much as always. hope that our collective desire to keep democracy will be enough. we are a complacent lot.

why are any privileged documents in the possession of Goodling?

privileges are waived if you do not keep your documents confidential. part of that is keeping control of them. that is a hurdle for the Admin to parachute in and claim privileges now. though I doubt Goodling gave legal advice, or was senior enough to ever fit into executive privilege

but whatever about that. what is she doing with confidential govt docs at home?

that does not happen by accident

Gary,

I will have to take your word for it since you might have the experience.

.creare i temi nokia
basquet-posiciones de los jugadores en la cancha
sesso con il cane
pasqua disegno per bambini
fotos del final de la fea mas bella
naked melina perez
animali superdotati
sara-varone foto
melita tonioli nuda
sesso con gli animali

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad