Richard Parker (GOV '98), Monica Goodling (Law '99), and Brian Eichelberger (DIV '01) at a Regent's University Gathering (click here).
I happen to agree with the NY Times Editorial on the subject. Monica "Goody Two Shoes" Goodling continually lied to Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee and for all the 'lack' of information she put forth the Committee Chairman Conyers was tongue tied by lunch time as to whether the rest of the day required only authorized personnel in the meeting room. The 'play/gaming' by the Republicans, including Ms. Goody Two Shoes, was an obstruction of Justice that in and of itself requires an investigation.
Monica brought three personal attorneys with her to be sure she didn't slip up and indict herself. I don't believe they protected her at all, she obviously was determined to obstruct justice and provide as safe a political harbor as she could for her president as she did in her capacity of 'liason' to the White House. That was LIASON to the WHITE HOUSE. WHITE HOUSE. Got that part. Her title alone gives away the intent of the Special Order by Alberto Gonzalez.
If I only had a nickel for every 'coached' word she spoke by her first attorney that simply told her to say "I don't know and I don't recall;" by her second attorney that coached her to say "I forgot;" and by her third attorney that coached her to say "I think that is all I can say about that;" I'd be a millionaire today.
She admitted openly that her use of the authority she was given was abused. She admitted that on several occassions, one being when she would call on USA Attorneys to take up political activism as a part of their job description. For full and enthusiastic participation the USA Attorney's received high scores and were allowed to keep their jobs even in the face of lacking the passion of true Bushies.
She cited the reauthorization of The Patriot Act. She had requested of all the USA Attorneys to make themselves available regarding the reauthorization by writing Op-Eds or making special appointments. She openly stated their active participation to rally for reauthorization was rewarded by considering them vital in their capacity and therefore an asset to the political directive of the President and Attorney General therefore important to keep in their 'career' positions. What is a quandry to me, is how she discerned any USA Attorneys that were not doing a good job when their 'time' included partisan politics. Where did they have time to actually practice as USA Attorneys?
Here is a timeline of all the shenanigans of the Bush White House regarding this matter (click on).
She went on to state that the 'complaint' regarding Ms. Carol Lam came from Senator Feinstein in regard to Immigration litigation. The Republican members of the House Judiciary returned to that issue over and over and never pursued any relevant questions. I mean none. Pence asked six questions I believe and all were completely irrelevant to the proceedings. Not only that but in defense of the Goodling credentials they 'buffed' their best act in ranting about the victimization of Regent University, christian doctrine, god and the criminalization of politics. The Republican members were more of a horror than Goody was considering the brevity of their positions and the fact these hearings were to discern criminal actions by the people involved, including the extent the White House dictated it's outcome.
But in regard to the Lam issue, it would seem Senator Feinstein wrote a letter concerned about the number of immigrant prosecutions. Goodling stated she felt it was a good letter and needed consideration in any decision her capacity could afford it. All the Republican members of the House Committee agreed with the Goodling assessment and complained the hearings being conducted with her brilliant testimony of good conscious was completely unnecessary considering the Iraq war was blazing in their good conscious. It was amazing to hear how House Republicans exhibited limited capacity in their attention to detail of the hearing while only able to obsess over the money for Iraq. Amazing.
At any rate there was this matter of USA Attorney Lam that required a reply to Senator Feinstein. Did Goody confront the letter with intent to fire? No. Did she address the letter to the Senator with concern for the lack of direction of Attorney Lam? No. Did she address a letter to Senator Feinstein a meaninful way at all, including asking for facts and evidence that would be helpful in directing the actions of Attorney Lam? No.
What Monica did was to write a letter to Senator Feinstein highlighting the 'good' that Attorney Lam carried forward in her practice, pointing to an example of how easy it was to bring a 'good light' to Monica's office by pointing out a 100% improvement in prosecution of immigration litigation even if that meant being deceptive because the number had increased from two to four. Did Monica realize the brevity of such an action when a USA Senator was looking for answers in regard to potential legislation and the ? lack ? of effectiveness of current laws as reflected by the performance in the Justice Department? Of course not. Monica Goodling USED her authority to play politics while disaffecting the outcome of potential legislation and quite possibly making any Democractic member of the House and Senate look like a fool in writing irrelevant legislation based on insignifant and burnished evidence in correspondence. Monica Goodling is of deep concern to me in that she completely disregards the brevity of the role of government in citizen lives while touting a Master's Degree in Public Policy. Oh, really?
Mr. Rove is obviously indictable in that he attended a pivotal meeting whereby he expressed that the attendees of that meeting better get their act together since the USA Attorney firings were meeting with such concern in the public and might lead to disclosure of 'the truth' rather than a manipulated story that would save the president from impeachment. Just that simple. Mr. Rove needs to testify but after the performance by Monica yesterday it is very unwise to allow him immunity. Mr. Rove will simply due as Goody did and put on a happy face while brushing off any political gaming that occurred in the White House.
I found the demeanor of the Republican House members of the Judiciary Committee patriarchal and condescending. Monica Goodling threw them a 'bone' at the very onset of her testimony when it was dominated by "I don't know and/or I don't recall.' The Republican members of the Judicial Committee responded in kind by complimenting her honest and trustworthy demeanor in revealing her willingness 'to forget.' Amazing. They continued on and on about how questions regarding the inclusion of religious preference were even questioned by other Democratic committee members. At one point the House member from Virginia only made a speech and another asked questions of 'members across the isle' while never directing one question to Monica. Simply amazing.
Well, you'll excuse me but a 'career' position and quite honestly, I believe a political position cannot be determined by race, creed or national origin. That is discrimination and litigable all by itself. Simply because it is the law. Political appointees are supposed to have some degree of discrimination but I don't recall even the Republican Party excluding religions other than Christianity from their party; at least it isn't in their party platform YET.
TO NOTE: In Monica's testimony she did state that when Republican name, rank and religious preference were revealed to her voluntarily it mattered in her hiring and firing. I'll be darn, she admitted to breaking the law. Not only that but exhibited the inability to disregard political perference over 'good and honest' judgement granted within her authority. Hm.
I found the proceedings yesterday disturbing to say the least and should have been a concern of every American. While Democratic members of the committee were faced with time constraints 'used up' by rantings of Monica while she contextualized a somewhat acceptable answer touting her accomplishments, or should I say her preceived accomplishments, while acting under her 'special order' authority to the Attorney General, there were some members such as the Honorable Hank Johnson of Georgia that will submit further questioning in written deposition outside the proceedings. Again the 'Star Players' from my last entry were again acting in exceptional capacity and were able to extract information against Monica's will with repeated and focused questions, but, in far fewer number that time would not allow due to her narcisstic responses over and over and over again. My, my.
We need to remove the Republican influence from our government as without exception as noted yesterday they are not interested in 'the truth' but simply the manipulation of 'the moment' to bring about 'good' results at the polling booth and never once acted in respect for the USA Constitution. I am deeply concerned for our democracy and the undermining capacity of the Republicans that remain in the elected positions in both legislative houses. I mean, they did take an oath to uphold the USA Consitution, right? They did not yesterday, in any measurable capacity.
