Gonzales ruined Monica Goodling's career

When Alberto Gonzales gave aides Monica Goodling and Kyle Sampson unprecedented power to fire U.S. Attorneys, Goodling probably had no idea that this controversy would blow up like it did.  As she quickly became a scapegoat in the firing scandal, her actions and educational background went under the microscope.  On March 8th, knowing that her career was heading south, Monica Goodling broke into tears in a colleague's office:

"All I ever wanted to do was serve this president and thisadministration and this department," Goodling said March 8, accordingto Associate Deputy Attorney General David Margolis.

Margolis told House and Senate investigators of the conversation during a private meeting this month.

During the 30- to 45-minute encounter, Goodling proceeded "to bawl her eyes out" and repeat the phrase, Margolis said.

That isn't to say that Monica Goodling had no knowledge what she was getting into.  She probably deserved what she got.  But when Alberto Gonzales was asked by the Senate about the conversations he had with Goodling, he shouldered the blame on her, and went on to not recall the specifics (along with the 64 other things Gonzales could not recall).

As the Senate prepares to pass a 'no confidence' vote, more conservatives are jumping ship.  Last night on the Daily Show, Education Secretary Margaret Spellings had some fun at Gonzales' expense.  And the far-right publication Human Events wrote a column for Wednesday titled, "Why Attorney General Gonzales Should Resign."

Comments

[Arlen]

Goodling is hardly a victim here. Gonzales did not ruin her career: she did, when she illegally considered politics when hiring people at the Justice Department, which she admitted she did today under oath. “I know I crossed the line,” she admitted today in testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. Somebody who illegally tried to stop Democrats and liberals from taking DoJ jobs based on their politics is not a victim, they're the one victimizing otherwise qualified job applicants.

[granny]

Oh my gawd! I just posted (below: immigration) and then went on and read Goodling's testimony and now I've gone right around the bend!

How disgusting! Pathetic! Transparent! Disrespectful! Condescending! Insulting!

Are we not SICK OF THIS!?

And I'm not above pointing out that apparently Ms. Goodling spent a great portion of her time between quitting, and arriving at the hearing table, having herself "done up" & reinvented for the "boys in the backroom".

And even worse, it works!

There is not a hair of remorse on this woman. Not a hair of truth. She is a set-up from the get-go. She got to the table with immunity - which is just what she (and they at 1600 Pennsylvania) intended.

Her lawyer played a perfect hand.

She's protecting Rove, & the WH, unloading all blame on Justice.

And will walk scott free off into some sink-hole/cauldron of conservative plot making, to concoct yet another plan for taking over the government for the personal, political and financial agendas of the "leaders" and their flock.

Oh PLEASE! (paraphrases coming) "I don't believe I intended to commit a crime!"

"I may have overstepped the rules. But I REGRET it!"

This woman is as cold, and calculated, and programmed as they get. A good soldier, and unless we're lucky, we'll see her again.

I have to go take a bath!

[NEG]

This is interesting and very telling. I think that in one statement Ms. Goodling identified the problem with the appointees to the Bush justice department. She said:

"All I ever wanted to do was serve this president and this administration and this department,"

That is not enough. She should have wanted to serve this country and its justice system. But, like Alberto and the other justice department appointees, she only wanted to serve George Bush, the administraton and the department.

[harper]

Take heart. In Monica Goodling's opening statement, she gratuitously mentioned Tim Griffin, now the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Arkansas, and his caging lists. This was a gift to the Judiciary Committee if only the Committee will take it. When Rep. Linda Sanchez asked what 'caging' was, Goodling said just that it was a term from the direct mail business. Goodling knows better! In Griffin's hands, caging was a brilliant technique for disfranchising mostly Black and poor voters in 2004 violation of the Voting Rights Act. Caging involved sending letters to about 70,000 registered Blacks (many of whom were serving in Iraq), residents of homeless shelters, etc. in a single state of which there is evidence, with directions to return the letter if the addressee was not at home. Then Griffin would ask the state's Secretary of State to remove from the voter rolls all voters whose letters had been returned. Soldiers voting absentee from Iraq, for instance, would have their ballots disqualified and would never know it. Targeting voters by race for disqualification is illegal. See the reporting of Greg Palast, www.gregpalast.com, and articles at www.bradblog.com. Palast has about 500 accidentally-missent emails from the Republican Party about caging and thus disqualifying voters. So, what about all the other states as to which Palast does not have such Republican Party emails? It's unlikely that Griffin used this nifty technique in but a single state. In my view, Goodling has offered up her old colleague Griffin for sacrifice. Anyone have an in with the House or Senate Judiciary Committee? Or any other relevant committee?