Through the Looking Glass With Monica
I must admit to a case of Prosecutor-Gate fatigue, but there’s a development involving Monica Goodling that beggars belief.
The last time I checked in with Goodling, who is the beleaguered White House’s liaison with the beleaguered Justice Department, she claimed that she had been falsely accused in connection with the scandal and would take the Fifth when called before Congress, refusing to answer any questions on the grounds that she would incriminate herself by telling the truth.
Lawyers for Goodling say she is sticking to her guns because Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty has falsely accused her of failing to properly brief him on the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, which caused him to mislead Congress.
Makes you want to do hard drugs, doesn’t it?
More here.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
16 Responses to “Through the Looking Glass With Monica”
This entire non-issue is a waste of time, money, and brain cells. Douglas Kmiec’s op-ed in the LA Times makes that painfully clear.
Give a kid with no potty training and no upbringing a sandbox to play in and see how quickly the sandbox becomes unfit for any kid to play in.
Give someone like George W. Bush a federal government to play havoc with and see how quickly it becomes unfit to serve in or to serve the people.
I agree SW Anderson. IN 6 short years the WH has used the federal government to cement Republican control over previously non-partisan agencies, and in doing so may have even violated the Hatch Act. The result has been an even more bitterly partisan environment in Washingon.The WH has acted as an outreach of the RNC.
So much for DOJ’s promise of complete cooperation from their employees-they have either lied or decided to skip the hearings entirely. At least, Sampson had the guts to show up.
There goes the Earth.
No Polar Bears, No seals, ’cause they will eat them before they go.
No Florida, cause Greenland will flood Disney World and Bangladesh.
Only the roaches ( in and out of office) will survive and take over the planet.
Depressingly Yours,
Kim: by ‘previously non-partisan’, do you mean ‘previously and faithfully following liberal doctrine? And to raise a technical point, aren’t the agencies you refer part of the executive branch of the government, and as such, shouldn’t they (to the extent not otherwise proscribed by law) follow the President’s lead? And it would be far more accurate to say that the RNC is an outreach of the White House, as the head of the RNC is picked by Bush, etc…. btw, just as the DNC followed Clinton’s lead when he was President. Guess it takes a little wind out of the anti-Bush sails if you point out that he is/was doing just what Clinton did in his time, right?
Now, to the substance of Shaun’s post, she’s refusing to testify because, according to her attorney, she faces a the potential of “legal jeopardy… from even her most truthful and accurate testimony…”. I’d wager that Shaun’s comrades on the left have already written criminal referrals to the Justice Department… without bothering to wait and listen to the testimony. But there’s nothing wrong with verdict first, testimony later when there’s a Republican who needs frying, right?
And, in what seems to be a required footnote, save your breath screaming that I am some Bush sycophant…. for I, unlike some of the fire breathers here, am the true moderate!
stevesturm wrote:
First, I’m not so sure the president picks the head of the RNC. Are you?
Second, Clinton appointed a series of highly qualified, serious people who were charged with the responsibility of serving the people as a whole, not just fat-cat party backers, special interests in his political base, big corporations and the wealthy generally.
Clinton’s Cabinet sparkled with people of high achievement and excellent qualifications. Compare Robert Rubin and John Snow, Robert Reich and Elaine Chow for good examples of what I’m talking about. Clinton even appointed a Republican moderate, William Cohen, based on his excellent character and expertise. Then, we can talk about FEMA directos and attorneys general.
If only Bush had done nearly as well with appointments as Clinton did, our country, he and his administration would all be better off.
It is not about the right of a President to change the federal attorneys, it is about lying about why he did it. He replaced these attorneys because they were not political enough and then he did not have the guts to say so. Nothing wrong with playing political hardball as long as you are honest about it. If the voters want a Republican party that hires and fires civil servants on the basis of their politics, they should be able to vote for it.
Like puppet Janet Reno? Like quota-seeking Bill Lann Lee? Incompetent Les Aspin? Mike Espy, charged with receiving bribes? Sandy Berger? Lying Henry Cisneros? Poltiical hack and corporate shakedown artist Ron Brown? And while Rubin did an okay job, why don’t you compare Snow with Rubin’s successor Summers, who couldn’t even handle running a college? Face it, your guys are just as bad as the current batch.
And while I’m on my rant, I’ll go ahead and point out the number of times Clinton’s White House attempted to keep White House and Administration officials from having to testify…. all these attempts were, if I’m correct, shot down by the courts as an improper assertion of Executive Privilege. Shaun: were you blasting Clinton back then? Or is it just Republicans that send your blood pressure up?
And yeah, I’m pretty sure nobody gets to run the RNC without the blessing of the President… as was the case with the DNC when Clinton was in charge (i.e., McAuliffe)
Yeah, what Steve said.
You can say what you want about the Clinton group, but FEMA functioned very well under James Lee Witt, we had an economic boom under Rubin and I don’t remember Reno lying to Congress. Also she was not Clinton’s personal atty before becoming A.G. Most of the complaints about Reno were because people didn’t like what happened at Ruby Ridge and Waco, but she didn’t stack the justice system with Clinton loyalists whose top priority was pursuing Republican corruption, so that they could influence close elections. Everyone says but Clinton was worse- then why did he leave office with a 70% approval rating even after Starr’s 100 million dollar witchunt, while Chimpy’s is around 30%? Clinton must have been doing something right?
And Bush’s unpopularity has Democratic coffers full -they outmatched the GOP by 30 million. I think America wants a change.
Amazing, republicans accusing Democrats of “Joseph McCarthy tactics”. Is the republican party prepared to apologize now, for the destruction of American lives, because of that rat bastard McCarthy? Are they ready to make restitution for the careers they wiped out? If not, then they need to seriously STFU and tell the TRUTH for once in their pathetic service.
What exactly did the Clinton admin have to cover up that even holds a candle to the unbelievable stunts of the Bush administration? Bush has circumvented just about every tenet for the basis of our freedoms and waved his flag the entire time he’s done it. He’s sold out the Dept of the Interior to the people it was established to protect us from, invited his friends and heavy donors from the energy industry to the WH to write up our energy policy in their favor, started a war on false pretenses, constantly blown smoke up America’s ass about the progress of that war, and ballooned our national debt despite having the biggest surplus ever when he got into office.
Gimme a break. Apples and oranges.
“Off with their heads!”
stevesturm wrote:
Cabinet members and Clinton White House officials were summoned to testify before Congress 39 times. Most of those times they did so without the administration going to court seeking to avoid having them testify.
And, by the way, most of those instances were clearly fishing expeditions initiated by a rabid Republican Congress hellbent on getting something on Clinton and his people, one way or another. In the current situation with Bush and his people, there is ample and obvious reason to believe wrongdoing has occurred.
Awfully
Radical IslamQueen of Hearts of you Holly… I’ll be careful not to ‘paint roses’ in your presence.