Ms. Goodling said that in the course of her five years at the Justice Department, she interviewed hundreds of job applicants, most of them for positions subject to partisan political appointment. “But some were applicants for certain categories of career positions,” she went on, alluding to workers who are supposed to function free of naked political considerations.
“In every case, I tried to act in good faith, and for the purpose of ensuring that the department was staffed by well-qualified individuals who were supportive of the attorney general’s views, priorities and goals,” she said, before acknowledging that she might have gone too far in asking overtly political questions of some career applicants.
२३ मे, २००७
Monica Goodling testifies: "I may have gone too far in asking political questions..."
NYT reports:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२६ टिप्पण्या:
What do you care?
Doyle,
Why do you think anyone should care? I mean political-litmus tests for staff positions, incompetent managers at the highest ranks of government and a purging of AG's that must have come down from Angels because no one yet seems to know who made the decision. There is ABSOLUTELY nothing to see here.
And Ms. Goodling turns our to be a startlingly attractive woman as well!
See the great coverage and photos over at Above the Law (http://www.abovethelaw.com/).
That link is hilarious, yachira.
Monica Goodling is wearing a sober black suit, which strikes just the right note for congressional proceedings. Her dark blonde hair is immaculate: lustrous, straight but not flat, with the perfect amount of volume. The look is finished off with demurely curling tendrils -- elegant and feminine, but still businesslike enough for Congress.
Just another day of fishing and coming up empty. When all else failed, attack Christianity.
Thank you Democrats for turning congress into your own Cirque Du Pierrot.
Just another day of fishing and coming up empty.
Except for the part where Goodling admitted she broke the law.
She broke the law. But she didn't mean to!
Honest officer, I didn't mean to be speeding! That excuse works for me all the time!
She testified that, in her opinion, testimony given by Gonzales was inaccurate--implying that he lied. I think this might be a big deal.
Fritz said..."Just another day of fishing and coming up empty. When all else failed, attack Christianity."
Yeah, that's what this is ALL about...attacking Christianity.
It has nothing to do with
1. The Attorney General of the United States having absolutely NO idea of who is being hired or fired
2. No one under his purview knowing who did what, when or how.
3. The arbitrary firing of attorneys for reasons no one can readily explain (3 of which were in the top 10 out of 93).
4. And now, according to Ms. Goodling herself, Mr. Gonzales not being truthful in his press conference briefing/testimony.
DUH.
Goodling says she never discussed the 'attorneys' with white house officals but was asked questions by Alberto that made her feel uncomfortable.
Gonzales, is hanging by a thread, of course it is relevant!
Goodling said Paul McNulty "wasn't very candid in his response," but looks like she was trying to defend herself from McNulty's comments that would place some blame on her.
On hiring and 'political' affiliation, She was asked "So you broke the law..." and she responded with, "Look, I admit I crossed the line there... but I never discussed anything with the white house."
She'll probably be fine, but it does looks bad for Alberto Gonzales. I wonder why President Bush won't let go of the guy? There must be a good reason to keep him around.
Fritz wrote:
When all else failed, attack Christianity.
Hey, we need something to fill the time between the War on Christmas and the War on Easter.
I wonder why President Bush won't let go of the guy?
I think there's no one to replace him that would satisfy (read: completely kowtow to) the President.
Fred said...
I wonder why President Bush won't let go of the guy? There must be a good reason to keep him around.
Loyalty is a curious thing. Sometimes people use it sparingly, other times people don't understand it's applications, most times people are blinded by it and for good or for ill, they are ingrained with the sense that loyalty or the bonds of loyalty are or should be unwavering. Sometimes, someone like President Bush display this type of unwavering loyalty because they believe that a character of a person is more important than the behaviors they display.
You've seen it before, when a family or children of a murdered parent that was murdered by another parent stick by him or her they are showing loyalty that goes beyond. I think Bush is one of those guys. He, in the possible face that his underlings may have committed an impropriety, out of sheer loyalty is willing to overlook the behavior. It's actually quite normal and human even if some people may think it's irrational.
The most interesting part of the testimony was when she revealed that Alberto Gonzales lied twice to Congress about his involvement in the decision to fire the USAs.
Well she did break the law by admitting she asked potential new hires political questions like their view on Roe vs. Wade. These were not the AG interviews, these were interviews with individuals in many variety of positions within justice. You see, you actually can't ask those type of questions, it is illegal.
Imagine going to an interview and you are asked by the recruiter if you approve of Gay Marriage. Would you be ok with that?
Also, she did say that McNulty and Gonzales lied when they testified under oath before congress. But I guess for conservatives that doesn't matter much, unless it is about a blowjob. Then we need to hang the mofo.
Thanks Fritz for your highlighting the war on christianity. We have had a break recently with war on the poor christians. This time of the year really sucks with the holidays being over and no one silencing the christians.
By the way your picture of Bush-is that a parody of him "feeling our pain" or do you use that picture highlighting how you view him-compassionate and loving? Even in that picture he can't get away from the chimp face-poor thing.
This entire affair is like something out of a Monty Python sketch.
Nobody knows precisely why anybody was fired, nobody knows precisely how they even got on the list to be fired, and nobody knows precisely who did the firing.
All they know for sure is that they were definitely fired.
*As for Bush and loyalty...give me a break. It has less to do with loyalty than having the guts to admit a mistake. Tell me who he has EVER fired...for ANYTHING. When it becomes apparen that he HAS to get rid of someone (Brownie/Rummy), he first lets them twist in the wind...until the public outcry is so intense...they take it upon themselves to get the hell out of Dodge...or into another, even better position.(Rummy's new think tank deal))
And when Bush does finally leave office, there will be books by some of these people that will make your hair stand on end.
Didn't the Clintons fire ALL the AG's?
And they didn't make sure that the people they hired weren't on board with them?
I am not the only one who have been impressed by Goodling's performance today. Distinguished legal analysts concur in our assessment. Check out these posts at two leading law blogs:
1. Monica Goodling's Testimony [Volokh Conspiracy (Prof. Orin Kerr)]
http://volokh.com/posts/1179942941.shtml
2. Rounding Out My Monica Goodling Obsession [PrawfsBlawg (Prof. Adam Gershowitz)]
http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg
/2007/05/rounding_out_my.html
Sorry, Monica haters. The experts have weighed in. You lose.
Have a nice day!
ChrisBurp, if you're gonna regurgitate RNC talking points, at least get them right. AGs are not US Attys. (The answer to the 2nd question: No.)
I look forward to the day when Bush apologists stop saying "Well Clinton did it too!" That excuse never worked for my toddlers. Shouldn't the President be held to a higher standard than that applied to 4-year-olds?
If I hear one more attorney weigh in with "I may have been wrong and I regret my error"...I may puke.
Crossed the line? May have gone too far? She and Alberto can join the firm of Dewey Cheatum and How.
Hey don't tell me that po-dunk law school she attended didn't teach mediocre minds to think like a lawyer and behave like a weasel.
Yachira said..."Sorry, Monica haters. The experts have weighed in. You lose."
I don't remember anyone saying anything about "hating" Monica, or Bush for that matter.
I personally just think both are inept, incompetent and corrupt.
I think she went the full nine yards to getting herself off the hook. She pulled a great performance out of the bag. She described herself in her opening as "a quiet person ... [who] tr[ies] to do the right thing and help people along the way," and she very much succeded in presenting herself that way.
(She also said that "the person I read about on the internet is not me," which prompts me to go on record that if you're reading this corner of the internet, Monica, I think you seem to be a terrific person who was put into an untenable situation, FWIW, and I hope you come out of this okay.)
boston70 said...
"Imagine going to an interview and you are asked by the recruiter if you approve of Gay Marriage. Would you be ok with that?"
I'd be fine with it, as a general matter, but the question is whether the government qua an employer can legally ask those questions for civil service appointments, a more narrow question.
Methadras said...
"[Why won't Bush fire Gonzales?] Loyalty is a curious thing. ... [M]ost times people are blinded by it and for good or for ill, they are ingrained with the sense that loyalty or the bonds of loyalty are or should be unwavering. Sometimes, someone like President Bush display this type of unwavering loyalty because they believe that a character of a person is more important than the behaviors they display."
Bingo.
Just when you think banality and idiocy have reached a zenith up pops Simon. so modest and so much to be modest about.
Simon said...
"I think she went the full nine yards to getting herself off the hook."
Well DUHHH she was granted immunity.
(She also said that "the person I read about on the internet is not me," which prompts me to go on record that if you're reading this corner of the internet, Monica, I think you seem to be a terrific person .."
Albeit commiting criminal acts. Gotta love those law breakers.
boston70 said...
"Imagine going to an interview and you are asked by the recruiter if you approve of Gay Marriage. Would you be ok with that?" Simplesimon says: "I'd be fine with it, as a general matter, but the question is whether the government qua an employer can legally ask those questions for civil service appointments, a more narrow question."
There isn't a question there Simon. She can't. She also can't ask political affiliations..but she did. WHAT don't you get?
Methadras said...
"[Why won't Bush fire Gonzales?]and this is classic Simon: "President Bush display this type of unwavering loyalty because they believe that a character of a person is more important than the behaviors they display."
Priceless Simon...just priceless. i go to sleep secure in the fact that you alone, Simon, counterbalance the rest of us and bring the national average down to, well, average.
Harry,
Congratualtions, a new record: you almost misinterpreted almost everything in my comment. On the question of asking potential employees political questions, I was clarifying that Boston70 was erroneously broadening the question to apply to all employers, not debating what the rules are for civil service hires. And the comment that you call is "priceless" and "classic Simon" is (and is clearly labelled as) a quote from Methadras. If you want to dispute it, take it up with her/him.
Should we have a whip-around to get you some new reading glasses, or is it the comprehension skills that are lacking rather than the eyeballs?
"i go to sleep secure in the fact that you alone, Simon"
Married, actually. Sleep well, although my suggestion is to try waking up before posting - it might improve the quality of your contributions.
"Simon. so modest and so much to be modest about."
Winston Churchill, about Clement Atlee. Original.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा