Crossed the Line

[cato2]

Ex-Justice aide testifies in attorney firings

Goodling says she weighed politics in considering job applicants

WASHINGTON - The Justice Department’s former White House liaison denied Wednesday that she played a major role in the firings of U.S. attorneys last year and blamed Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty for misleading Congress.

McNulty’s explanation about the dismissals, on Feb. 6, “was incomplete or inaccurate in a number of respects,” Monica Goodling told a packed House Judiciary Committee inquiry into the firings.


She added: “I believe the deputy was not fully candid.”



Ex-Justice aide testifies in attorney firings - Politics - MSNBC.com

[Caldric]

I don't know why Bush just didn't say "They were not prosecuting in the fashion I felt they should and they are now gone." End of it, if they disagree with the President he can tell them to pack their bags and get gone. They are lucky they made it as long as they did. I would have purged every Clinton lacky I could.

They work for him and have no right to the job they are not elected nor appointed by congress.

[cato2]

If she knew she crossed the line, then what is the mystery here? Should the Justice Department be this blatantly politicized?

Editorial
Witness for the Prosecutors

It would have been naive to think that Monica Goodling, a right-wing true believer and onetime Republican opposition researcher, was going to blow the whistle on the United States attorney scandal. But Ms. Goodling made some disturbing admissions yesterday, even as she strained to present every fact in the most favorable light to her Bush administration allies and claimed convenient memory lapses. Ms. Goodling admitted to politicizing the Justice Department in ways that certainly seem illegal; she made clear that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales lied at a critical point in the investigation; and she gave Congress all the reason it needs to compel Karl Rove and Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel, to testify about what they know.

In her testimony to the House Judiciary Committee, Ms. Goodling removed all doubt about whether partisan politics infected the Justice Department’s treatment of federal prosecutors. She admitted that she investigated the party affiliations, and even campaign contributions, of applicants for prosecutor, and other nonpolitical jobs. “I know I crossed the line,” she said of her actions, which may have violated federal law. Her admission that partisan politics was used to hire people only makes it more likely that it was also used to fire people.

Ms. Goodling appeared to be straining to make her testimony helpful to Mr. Gonzales, but when backed into a corner, she conceded that he had lied about his role in the scandal. At a press conference in March, he said he had not seen any memos or participated in any discussions about the firings. But Ms. Goodling made clear that he was briefed and attended a key meeting.

Ms. Goodling was an odd witness. She was one of the most powerful officials in the Justice Department, but claimed to be a minor player who barely knew what was going on around her. “At heart, I am a fairly quiet girl, who tries to do the right thing and tries to treat people kindly along the way,” said the 33-year-old Ms. Goodling. She presented herself as an innocent, yet testified only under immunity and admitted to apparently illegal practices.

The only people odder than Ms. Goodling were the House Republicans who rushed to praise her. Even in these partisan times, a Justice Department official who admitted to her level of wrongdoing ought to draw bipartisan condemnation.

As with other witnesses, notably Mr. Gonzales, Ms. Goodling’s memory lapses were not credible. On questions that made her uncomfortable, the past was a blur. But on others, her recall was remarkable, as when she denied misinforming Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty about the dismissal of the attorneys before he testified to Congress.

Ms. Goodling said she did not know how prosecutors were added to the list of those to be fired. Kyle Sampson, Mr. Gonzales’s former chief of staff, and the keeper of the list, has said the same thing. So have Mr. Gonzales and Mr. McNulty. They may think that if no one owns up, the scandal will go away. But since the list was by all accounts a joint Justice Department and White House effort, Congress has no choice but to question under oath the two people who are in the best position to shed light on the mystery: Mr. Rove and Ms. Miers.

Ms. Goodling made clear that the Justice Department was shamefully politicized. Congress needs to find out how far it went, and who was involved. Then it can begin the long and difficult process of trying to restore the department’s integrity and reputation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/op...=1&oref=slogin

[leobold1]

Originally Posted by Caldric

I don't know why Bush just didn't say "They were not prosecuting in the fashion I felt they should and they are now gone." End of it, if they disagree with the President he can tell them to pack their bags and get gone. They are lucky they made it as long as they did. I would have purged every Clinton lacky I could.

They work for him and have no right to the job they are not elected nor appointed by congress.

What amazes me is that there are people (using the term loosely) that STILL think a crime was committed.

Guess what, 26 were considered, 7 were cut loose. washingtonpost.com

US CODE: Title 28,541. United States attorneys

§ 541. United States attorneys

(a) The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, a United States attorney for each judicial district.
(b) Each United States attorney shall be appointed for a term of four years. On the expiration of his term, a United States attorney shall continue to perform the duties of his office until his successor is appointed and qualifies.
(c) Each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President.

US CODE: Title 28,546. Vacancies

§ 546. Vacancies

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the Attorney General may appoint a United States attorney for the district in which the office of United States attorney is vacant.
(b) The Attorney General shall not appoint as United States attorney a person to whose appointment by the President to that office the Senate refused to give advice and consent.
(c) A person appointed as United States attorney under this section may serve until the earlier of—
(1) the qualification of a United States attorney for such district appointed by the President under section 541 of this title; or
(2) the expiration of 120 days after appointment by the Attorney General under this section.
(d) If an appointment expires under subsection (c)(2), the district court for such district may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled. The order of appointment by the court shall be filed with the clerk of the court.

What crime was committed? Using politics to appoint or fire someone? In the United States?

YOU'RE KIDDING!

By the way...if Bush does fire Gonzales, wouldn't that be for political reasons?

Though he was usually depicted with two faces looking in opposite directions (Janus Geminus (twin Janus) or Bifrons), in some places he was Janus Quadrifrons (the four-faced).

His two faces(originally, one was always bearded, one clean-shaven; later both bearded) originally represented the sun and the moon, and he was usually shown with a key.

New name for the Democratic Party...the Janus Party!

[cato2]

I guess you missed the part where the aide admits to breaking the law?

In a day long appearance before the Democratic-led House Judiciary Committee, Goodling, 33, also acknowledged crossing a legal line herself by considering the party affiliations of candidates for career prosecutor jobs - a violation of law.

Gonzales Aide Says Crossed Legal Line - Forbes.com

[leobold1]

Originally Posted by cato2

I guess you missed the part where the aide admits to breaking the law?

In a day long appearance before the Democratic-led House Judiciary Committee, Goodling, 33, also acknowledged crossing a legal line herself by considering the party affiliations of candidates for career prosecutor jobs - a violation of law.

Gonzales Aide Says Crossed Legal Line - Forbes.com

I don't believe I was speaking to you. My comment was in response to Cal and expanded on.

[Woodmonkey]

Originally Posted by Caldric

I don't know why Bush just didn't say "They were not prosecuting in the fashion I felt they should and they are now gone." End of it, if they disagree with the President he can tell them to pack their bags and get gone. They are lucky they made it as long as they did. I would have purged every Clinton lacky I could.

They work for him and have no right to the job they are not elected nor appointed by congress.

I agree, Scott. Clinton fired 90 some attorneys and there was no problem. He wasn't accused of playing politics, he just wanted his own people in there.