Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Live Blogging on Truthout: Goodling's testimony to HJC part 2.



12:32 PM EDT
A report just released by RAW STORY, titled "108 House Democrats Co-Sponsor Gonzales 'No Confidence' Motion," reads as follows:
"The number of Congress members co-sponsoring a vote of no confidence for the attorney general mushroomed to 108 within 48 hours of the introduction of the resolution by Representatives Adam Schiff (California) and Artur Davis (Alabama) on Monday. Several prominent Democratic leaders are included on the list of representatives who are seeking the legislative rebuke and subsequent resignation of Alberto Gonzales.
"'The extraordinary support for this House resolution so soon after introduction reflects an emerging consensus in Congress and across the country: Mr. Gonzales should step down,' said Representative Schiff in a statement released to RAW STORY. 'The Justice Department needs a strong and independent voice, and someone of unimpeachable credibility. We must reluctantly conclude that the current attorney general does not fit the bill.'" - William Rivers Pitt



12:41 PM EDT
Goodling said she resigned from the Justice Department as White House liaison last month because she "couldn't be effective in [her] role anymore." - Jason Leopold



12:47 PM EDT
Representative Daryl Issa (R-California) is criticizing Carol Lam, the former US attorney for San Diego, saying she allegedly failed to prosecute illegal immigration as well as other federal crimes, and, as such, her firing was justified. Goodling responded to Issa's statements by saying that she believes Lam's alleged poor performance as a federal prosecutor in enforcing the Bush administration's priorities played a role in her firing. However, according to documents released by the Justice Department over the past few months, Lam had an impeccable evaluation as a US attorney. - Jason Leopold



12:57 PM EDT
Representative Bill Delahunt (D-Massachusetts) questioned Goodling about a secret attorney general order that gave unprecedented authority to White House liaison Goodling and chief of staff to the attorney general, Kyle Sampson. The document can be read here:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/others-charge/. - Matt Renner


1:05 PM EDT
The committee is in recess for floor votes and lunch. The hearing will resume at 2:00 PM EDT. - Victoria Harper


1:05 PM EDT
The hearing is in an hour-long recess for lunch and to accommodate some House votes.
Goodling thus far hasn't been moved very much by the questioning. She has, either accidentally or by design, offered a few important pieces of testimony - paramount among them was her admission that political affiliations were involved in hirings and firings within the DOJ - but has not exposed much beyond this. No new information about Rove's alleged involvement has been forthcoming, nor has she spoken at any length about general White House involvement in this matter. She has also managed to avoid giving the Gonzales "I don't recall" answer quite as often as he did. - William Rivers Pitt


1:08 PM EDT
As demonstrated by Representative Mike Pence (R-Indiana), Republicans are viewing the firing of the eight US attorneys as an action that is entirely justified because the president can hire and fire US attorneys at will, despite the fact that documentary evidence has surfaced showing the dismissals were politically motivated, and in some cases appeared to have taken place as a result of failures to prosecute alleged voter-fraud cases. - Jason Leopold

1:08 PM EDT
As the hearing recesses for three votes and lunch, I find myself wondering what the need for immunity was in the first place. It was already known that Monica Goodling considered politics in her recommendations for hiring Justice Department officials. And her testimony is not shedding any new light on the US attorney firings. Goodling, like everyone else who has testified, doesn't know who requested that the eight US attorneys be added to Sampson's list. If she is lying, then the immunity order does not apply (as it does not protect against false testimony). So my question so far is: Why did she need immunity? - Scott Galindez

No comments: