Ms. Monica in front of the House

Republicans pandered. Democrats smelled something rotten.

———-

From MSNBC:

Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., hammered Goodling on her decisions to hire prosecutors who favored Republicans.

“Do you believe they were illegal or legal?” Scott asked.

“I don’t believe I intended to commit a crime,” Goodling, a lawyer, answered.

“Did you break the law? Is it against the law to take those considerations into account?” Scott said.

“I believe I crossed the line, but I didn’t mean to,” she responded.

Goodling told the House committee that she and others at the Justice Department fully briefed McNulty, who is resigning later this year, about the circumstances before his Feb. 6 testimony in front of a Senate panel. Goodling also said Kyle Sampson, who resigned in March as chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, compiled the list of prosecutors who were purged last year.

“To the best of my knowledge, I never had a conversation with Karl Rove or Harriet Miers while I served at the Department of Justice and I’m certain I never spoke to either of them about the hiring or firing of any U.S. attorney,” Goodling said in her opening statement to the House Judiciary Committee.

——–

“I don’t believe that I intended to commit a crime.” What a bunch of lawyer speak!!! I’m 100% positive that there is something rotten in the cotton. The problem is that we are playing out an episode of Law and Order where it is clear that one of the twins killed the man but they both point the finger at each other and so everyone is confused. How could you not know if you spoke to Karl Rove? A conservative not knowing if they met Karl Rove. Somebody get me a barf bag I’m about to puke.

  • I agree, they could have handled this situation better.
    My problem is, why did you pukes not raise hell when your patron saint fired 90 some odd prosecutors when he took office. He fired even those that were investigating his crimes. To know people pukes like you is to understand you.
    James Duck

  • james griles

    These people graduated law school?!? These people claim to be Christian?!?
    I am consistently amazed at the ease with which members of this administration set aside their allegedly high level of Christian morality in favor of protecting the President and themselves. Half-truths are lies. Lying is a sin.
    Ms. Goodling is a lawyer who claims that she didn’t mean to break the law in a circumstance where every effort was made to conceal the legally questionable behavior of she and her cohorts.Not meaning to violate the law and not knowing she violated the law are also very different things. She apparently knew that politically motivated firings of US Attorneys were illegal but went along with them until caught. In any situation when federal laws may be broken, most laymen would pause to ask important questions. This law school graduate and high-ranking Justice Dept. official never seems to have paused once regardless of anyone’s concerns, including her own.
    The holy Ms. Goodling would likely be the first person to point out to any defendent that ignorance of the law is not an excuse for violating the law. What then is the excuse for a trained lawyer working at the top levels of the Dept. of Justice?
    Her law school should have it’s credentials investigated especially when you consider that hundreds of its graduates were also working in the DOJ as these apparent crimes were committed by their associates.
    Any lawyer pleading the fifth and only agreeing to testify while immunized must know that something’s not right.
    In short, this Christian lawyer seems to have knowingly violated the laws of both God and man. There is simply NO excuse!

  • James Duck –

    Thank you for your comments.

    I have to smile when I read a post like this. Either you’re intentionally not seeing the point because of partisan glasses may be obscuring your vision or you just haven’t been following the scandal.

    President Clinton, as is common with presidents going back to Reagan, replaced most the US attorneys at the beginning of his term.   According to the LAT: Reagan replaced 89 of the 93 U.S. attorneys in his first two years in office. President Clinton had 89 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years, and President Bush had 88 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years.

    In a similar vein, the Justice Department recently supplied Congress with a district-by-district listing of U.S. attorneys who served prior to the Bush administration.

    The list shows that in 1981, Reagan’s first year in office, 71 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys. In 1993, Clinton’s first year, 80 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys.

    Okay, so here’s the problem, a large group of US attorneys were fired in the middle of their term.  This is unprecedented.  This has never been done before.  The question is why?  If they were fired because of poor performance, then great.  Unfortunately, they were not fired because of poor performance.  The evidence supporting that these attorneys had good recommendations and good evaluations is overwhelming.  Also, there is more evidence mounting that these attorneys were targeted for a variety of issues but the common theme of these issues seems to be a lack of partisanship on their part.  That’s disturbing problem, but then again, you probably know this.

    Thanks again for your comments.

     

  • James G –

    You’re 100% correct.

    Thanks for your comments.

  • Pingback: Where's the Outrage? » A couple of things – Thursday Evening Edition()