Department of Political Justice

I watched almost all of the Monica Goodling testimony before the House Judiciary Committee today. With apologies to William Shakespeare I can sum up what I saw: "Congress's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

First off Monica Goodling came off very well. She is a polite, soft-spoken, albeit misguided political hack of a young woman who seems genuine in her remorse for as she put it "crossing the line" when she used political litmus tests for career DOJ job hiring, a big no-no under the law. She did have a few interesting comments such as saying Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty was not completely accurate (translation: he lied) during his congressional testimony and she said Attorney General Fredo Gonzales was also inaccurate in his statements about the firings of U.S. Attorneys. She said on her way out of Justice when she resigned Fredo Gonzales talked to her about what he thought had gone on there as far as his involvement in the firings. This was after it was known a congressional investigation was underway and this smacks more of trying to coach a witness to get their stories straight rather than an innocent "hey remember when..." conversation. It's more like "hey Monica, remember when all those U.S. Attorneys were fired and I had nothing to do with it but I knew it was all for performance rather than political reasons?" In any event, Goodling didn't bury anyone, although she said McNulty and Fredo were inaccurate in their swore testimony and that Kyle Sampson compiled the firing list. To this day there isn't a person or document from the DOJ that answers the question who made the list, when was it made, when names were placed on it and when names were taken off and for what reasons. But did Democrats ask simple and penetrating yes-no questions in their alloted five minutes each? Nope. It was a an embarrassment not only to the art of cross-examination but to basic english speakers everywhere.

John Conyers and Maxine Waters can barely speak. It's like they were drunk or something. I understand the Republicans praising Ms. Goodling (even though she admitted to breaking the law - ah the joys of use immunity) and wasting the time of the hearing - one congressman Chris Cannon used his five minutes to read into the record a newspaper article about John Murtha's earmark threat to another congressman and that relates to the DOJ investigation how? - but the Democrats are fucking useless. You don't have to be Clarence Darrow to get out a decent question. "So you don't know who drafted the list do you Ms. Goodling?" "And you don't know when David Iglesias the US Attorney in New Mexico was placed on the list do you?" "And you don't have any records of who made recommendations or on what grounds those recommendations were made do you?" "So you can't say with any certainty that some or all of the firings were done to obstruct ongoing investigations into republicans such as Congressman Duke Cunningham better known now as inmate #11789 can you?" The number of questions are endless but the Democrats once again sounded like dull knives. As sharp as marbles. I mean come on. You've got five minutes and you ask a four minute question that doesn't even make sense? In the words of Steve Martin, "Here's a good idea - have a POINT. It makes it SO much more interesting for the listener!" It boggles the mind.

So even though Monica Goodling doesn't really understand, along with the apologist Republicans in Congress and the solid 28% loyal Bushies out in the country, how political considerations of career hirings and firings have deeply damaged the Department of Justice, she did well. She probably has a future talk show on FOX News in the works. No there was no bombshell or smoking gun but the fact that Deputy AG McNulty has already said Goodlings testimony today was wrong shows you the vipers are quickly turning on each other. The damage has been done and it will take a new Attorney General and a new staff at main Justice as well as 93 new US Attorneys to start to repair the damage. What Goodling and the rest don't understand or don't seem to care much about is that when you run the Justice Department like the personal chew toy of the White House you run it into the ground.

P.S. I have more respect now for former AG John Ashcroft and Deputy AG James Comey then I would ever have imagined. Watch this and this and tell me if you aren't embarrassed by the Godfather-like thugs running this government. Government by "sign this" in a hospital room. Boggles the mind even more than the Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee.

A Monica by any other name is still a nightmare

Katrina used to be a popular name in America. That was before Hurricane Katrina tried to turn New Orleans into Atlantis. Brian Williams of NBC Nightly News reported last week that in 2006 only 850 baby girls were named Katrina in the U.S. Makes sense. People don't like to name their kids after something that revives unpleasant memories. After Bill Clinton's "Monica problem" arose (pun intended) I thought well, there goes Monica as a girl's name. Another Monica has been in the news lately, Monica Goodling of the Department of Justice, and I'm hoping that "Monica" drops off the baby name lists completely since I'm unimpressed by their contributions to society so far.

Monica Goodling is the absurdly young and totally unqualified graduate of Pat Robertson's law school (no I'm not kidding) who was the Department of Justice's White House liaison (earning $133,000 a year) who had near total control over the hiring and firing of everyone at DOJ. Apparently going to a fourth-tiered law school (there is no fifth tier) and doing opposition research for the Bush-Cheney campaign is all you need to take control of the Department of Justice. Monica and her Rovian masters decided to put a few thumbs on the scales of justice and set the DOJ back 30 years when then President Nixon got Robert Bork (yes that guy) to fire Archibald Cox the Special Counsel. (Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy AG William Ruckelshaus resigned rather than fire Cox. Bork had no problem just following orders.)

I guess I shouldn't be shocked anymore but I am. I'm not shocked that people motivated by religion, politics and/or self-interest, with a bit of "what's the point of having power if you don't use it?" thrown in do immoral things. It's more that I'm impressed with how many different places they do these things. The Department of Justice is off-limits to politics for the day to day operations and especially for prosecutions. Another myth busted not by Mythbusters but by the usual suspects, W, Rove, Gonzales and his useful idiot Monica Goodling.

Here's how the New York Times reports how Ms. Goodling was using her time at the DOJ roughly six years after graduating from the Lord's Law School: "Two years ago, Robin C. Ashton, a seasoned criminal prosecutor at the Department of Justice, learned from her boss that a promised promotion was no longer hers. “You have a Monica problem,” Ms. Ashton was told, according to several Justice Department officials. Referring to Monica M. Goodling, a 31-year-old, relatively inexperienced lawyer who had only recently arrived in the office, the boss added, “She believes you’re a Democrat and doesn’t feel you can be trusted.” Ms. Ashton’s ouster — she left the Executive Office for United States Attorneys for another Justice Department post two weeks later — was a critical early step in a plan that would later culminate in the ouster of nine United States attorneys last year. Ms. Goodling would soon be quizzing applicants for civil service jobs at Justice Department headquarters with questions that several United States attorneys said were inappropriate, like who was their favorite president and Supreme Court justice. One department official said an applicant was even asked, “Have you ever cheated on your wife?” Ms. Goodling also moved to block the hiring of prosecutors with résumés that suggested they might be Democrats, even though they were seeking posts that were supposed to be nonpartisan, two department officials said." Hiring and firing based on political tests for career posts at Justice is against the law. No matter, laws are for other people not on a divine political mission.

The stories get worse. It seems as if the last few years at Justice has been like "Survivor: D.C." with political apparatchiks making lists of those not from the Church of W all to be sacrificed on the altar of well, Justice. Those Republicans are great at making lists. Ms. Goodling has resigned, taken the fifth (a DOJ first) and has been granted immunity before testifying to Congress. I'm sure she won't recall anything important and her fifteen minutes of infamy will soon pass. My only hope is that this finally puts and end to the name "Monica." So far I'm unimpressed with the progeny.

I don't recall - for now

I think I wrote about this before but I don't recall. I've searched my recollection but I can't recall. I have a vague memory of doing so but unless I am presented with other evidence I really can't provide any further answer other than what I've already said.

Memories like the corners of my mind are endangered in Washington. Who hasn't testified that they just can't recall anything important. I remember all the way back to Iran-Contra testimony of John Poindexter who was, if I can recall correctly, a National Security Advisor under Ronald Reagan and was called to testify about the arms for hostages with a covert slush fund diverted to the Contras scheme thrown in for good measure. In one memorable, at least for now - I may not recall this in the future, answer Poindexter could recall what he ate for breakfast while having a crucial conversation with one the of Iran-Contra players, Col. Oliver North (if I recall), but he couldn't recall the substance of the conversation. Those must have been some eggs.

So now we have George Tenet and Richard Perle (I'm not going to identify everyone I mention - if you don't know who these guys are go read some blog about the best hair gels out there) disputing what Perle may have said to Tenet after September 11. Tenet acknowledges he got the date wrong but insists he saw Perle leaving the White House in the days after 9/11 and told Tenet Iraq had to pay a price for the attack. Perle denies he said anything of the sort. Add this to the Alberto Gonzales testimony about fired U.S. Attorneys. He can't recall anything he did but he assures you he did nothing improper. To this day there is no answer as to who put together the firing list, or how they got on the list, or when the decision was made to fire them. No one can recall. Mind you these are people who for most part went to top colleges and law schools and have years of relying on their intelligence and powers of memory to recall bits and pieces of the law to do their jobs. All of a sudden they all become Sgt. Schultz knowing nothing and proud of it.

The game here is that saying, "I don't recall" is different than saying, "I don't remember." And now I'm having a bit of deja vu (not the movie by Denzel Washington althought that is on my Netflix queue) about this topic. Legally if you say "I don't remember" it's lost forever in the sands of time - sort of like my hopes and dreams. If you say, "I don't recall" then your memory can be refreshed by any method. Put a plate of scrambled eggs under Poindexter's nose and if his olfactory endings trigger his memory about subverting the Constitution then it's admissable. Show Alberto a memo that he did fire U.S. Attorneys for no real reason other than he can and that's what Karl Rove wanted then - Shazam! - no perjury, no obstruction of justice, no nothing. It's a miracle! But why go through all this? I mean, who has a plate of warm eggs or can piece together shredded memos at the right time?

I have a simpler solution. Since top officials in Washington seem to not recall very much, we invest in memory classes for all political appointees. As a backup we hire thousands of court stenographers and they are assigned, like Secret Service agents, to each high-level member of the government. They will walk next to each government official and take down everything they say for as long as they are in office. If they aren't doing anything improper as Gonzo says they won't mind the minor inconvenience. Under this plan you'd never hear, "I don't recall" anymore but rather "Let's take a look at the transcript."

A secondary benefit would be the job creation aspect. Can you imagine how many stenographers we would need to make sure "I don't recall" becomes a distant memory? Each top government official gets one, in the case of Gonzales maybe two would be in order. I'm sure they'll come up with some other excuse like alien possession at the time the alleged conversations were made but it's a start.