Letters to the Editor
-
Now she can testify ?
What took so long ?
Time to sing that tune ...
She was fearful of a coordinated effort - maybe using untruths, or selected truths - among other staffers to make her the fall-gal for the bunch.
Maybe now she can get some immunity, a la Sampson ?
-
Goodling is Finally Off The Public Trough
God must have spoken to her on this Good Friday and told her that being a burden on the taxpayer was no longer a good idea.
As the British say: good riddance to bad rubbish!
-
heh
If she did nothing wrong, what is she afraid of? If there is nothing to be a fall-guy for she should have testified. She will anyway. A subpoena will be floating her way soon. Ours is a nation of laws. If she doesn't like it, too bad. Quitting her job won't get her out of whatever trouble she's in involved in.
-
Monica Goodling is about to get a lesson
that life and the law are somewhat more complicated propositions than she was taught at Messiah College and Regent Law School. Trusting in her personal savior may not be enough to get her through the next few subpoena-filled months inside the Beltway.
Her bogus excuse for invoking the 5th won't hold water; the prospect of transactional or use immunity looms in her immediate future; it's hard to imagine what this ill-prepared ditz will have to say when grilled publicly by Pat Leahy or Chuck Schumer.
Welcome to the Bigs, Monica.
-
Timing
Maybe it's just a coincidence but I got my "breaking news" alert about Goodlings resignation shortly after noticing Josh Marshall's damning post on TPM.
-
Resigning
such a nice name for such a desperate measure. who will be next.
someone remind me again, how long has it been since a doj employee has taken the 5th when called before congress?
-
The 5 th
How many more Christian College and Roberts University grads are criminally involved and in the DOJ? Just asking.
-
the nation's top educational institutions?
I just want to know what happened to the days when such a high-profile, high-prestige position would have been filled by a graduate from, say Harvard or Stanford? OK, let's say we won't be elitist and allow for maybe the possibility that he or she would have gone to at least a school that anyone has ever heard of????
Damn, this stressing "Bushie" loyalty over - um, I don't know - COMPETENCE permeates every level of every agency, it seems...
(As long as they're God-fearing Christians, they must be trustworthy for the position, right? - so goes the thinking. These people give Christians a bad name!!)
-
This chick isn't ready...
Gonzales may be able to prep himself for hearings by being subjected to harsh questioning, etc., though quite possibly he will fold. Monica G. sounds like someone who's folded already. And clearly she has some damaging things to say.
Karen Silkwood, anyone?
-
No crimes committed...
and people's lives are being ruined. Gotta love the "progressives".
And before everyone starts the slurs of me being an evangelist or some other supposed evil of religion, I'm an atheist.
I don't hold it against her for her religious upbringing and I certainly don't hold it against her that she isn't from Harvard or Yale. Isn't Bush from Yale?
-
"No crimes committed..."
***********"No crimes committed...
and people's lives are being ruined. Gotta love the "progressives".********
yeah - i was wondering - if no crimes have been committed, why have two DOJ staffers resigned so far?
innocent people (by definition) don't invoke the 5th amendment.
do the math.
-
Too bad Ms. Goodling is a Christian, a Republican, and a former employee of the Department of Justice under President Bush...
Because if she were a Muslim, a member of Al Qaeda, and Gitmo prisoner, the readers of Salon might be interested in her constitutional rights and a careful application of due process...
-
Due Process?
how's that again? nice straw man there...
due process is underway - why she resigned after announcing she would take the 5th, only she can explain. she hasn't even testified yet.
i think we're all dying for for her to face due process. she can then explain her apparent role in helping to politicize the doj and replacing competent republican appointees with cronies and political hacks.
or is that too complicated for you?
i would think any engaged citizen, republican, democrat or whatever would want to know what's been going on here.
-
I keep asking, and no one at Salon is willing to answer;
...what if a President Hillary Clinton, in response to complaints from Texas Democrats (maybe a telephone call or two from Sheila Jackson Lee) replaced a Texas US Attorney who appeared to be too focused on prosecuting immigration cases, and not spending enough time and resources on proseucting voting-rights cases for minorities? Or maybe the attorney had been too aggressive in seeking the death penalty, to the extent that President Hillary was uncomfortable with the USA's performance. In doing so, President Hillary didn't interfere with any ongoing investigation, and didn't tell any US Attorney to start or stop any prosecutions. There would ha ve been no obstruction of justice in any sense of the word. President Hillary knew that the US Attorney that she was firing was a conservative Democrat or a progressive Republican that she had appointed herself earlier, and the the attorney in question was a capable prosecutor (indeed that is why the person got the job).
Would you all be hollering about how the DoJ had been politicized? Would you be calling for investigations?
-
Of Mice and Elephants
ElephantMan:
Okay, I'll take the bait this time – barb-less (toothless) as it is ... only chum. It's certainly not the substantive but squeaky type of issue that, say, would constitute "the elephant in the room", as has the pathological dismemberment of such a competent justice administration as existed in the pre-reformation days.
But don't expect a contorted response to a question filled with so many tortured conditions.
"I keep asking, and no one at Salon is willing to answer;"
"... too focused on prosecuting immigration cases, and not spending enough time and resources on prosecuting voting-rights cases for minorities?"
In this case, this Salon reader - an immigrant Sponsor, with interests in Florida and Georgia - would be framing a reaction from within the contexts of the Administration's policies on illegal immigration and voting-rights abuses, confident that there would BE clear policies and adequate resources to enforce them, and confident that they would be geared toward minimizing both the urgency to illegally migrate into the U.S.A. and the ability to suppress a legally entitled vote.
Given that context, and those confidences, systemic suppression of legal votes had better get more attention than even a flood of illegal immigrants. One circumstance results in an irreversible condition, the other probably not.
Note that such a determination would not be politically motivated, but would be based on the USA's deliberate refusal to redress specific illegal actions against individual citizens in favor of dubious attempts to improve the effectiveness of policy.
No hollering for investigation here.
"... too aggressive in seeking the death penalty, to the extent that President Hillary was uncomfortable with the USA's performance."
In this case, this Salon reader - who lost an extraordinary friend when he failed to salvage the flight of United flight 93 on September 11, 2001 - would be framing a reaction in accordance with a recognition that a death sentence is at best a matter of (inefficient) cost reduction and at worst the price that our society is willing to pay for its own shortcomings (it's not a deterrent).
It is sad that even Christians forget to turn the other cheek, when his large Jewish family and the voice of the majority of the victims worked to prevent the war in Iraq and to highlight the incredulous approach this administration was taking toward it.
You see where I'm going with this ...
If Hillary (not a good example of a tolerant soul I believe) believed the performance too aggressive, then the USA probably needs to be relieved.
No hollering.
"... President Hillary didn't interfere with any ongoing investigation, and didn't tell any US Attorney to start or stop any prosecutions."
"There would have been no obstruction of justice in any sense of the word."
The present claims of the politicization of the DOJ, if that's what they really amount to, have discounted already the absence of daily ... scripture readings ... or other means of ensuring discipline. This crowd came pre-packaged with all the necessary discipline perversions already built in. That they were chosen for the purpose that they were chosen for - to subvert policies established to guarantee adherence to the Constitution - is the ultimate object of the investigation.
Since there has been no hollering, this is moot.
"Would you all be hollering about how the DoJ had been politicized? Would you be calling for investigations?"
No, and no.
That I would not be hollering in your hypothetical circumstances in no way relieves you from not hollering for investigations now. So, tell all Salon readers again, why it is that you are not doing so.
Whew.
Obviously your concepts regarding how the world should be improved have a very narrow and very exclusive focus. Par for your view of yourself within it, and for how you must only be able to grasp issues that arise in such a small world.