The Goodling hearing was mostly a pretty big dud

May 24th, 2007 – 1:03 AM by Eric Black

ebmug.jpgGood Thursday morning Fellow You-know-what-ers
On the Minnesota front, Goodling (that’s her below left in the committee hearing room) gave the first semi-official account of how Tom Heffelfinger came to be on the list of U.S. attorneys to be considered for firing. She had heard some complaining (she didn’t say from whom or when) that Heffelfinger spent too much time on Native American issues, in his capacity as chairman of the U.S. attorneys’ group that dealt with such issues.

monica_goodlingheffelfinger.jpgHeffelfinger (that’s him on the right) who has insisted all along that he didn’t know anybody in Washington was unhappy with his job performance when he decided to resign, and who seems to have kind of thing about defending his reputation for competence, was understandably pissed off. (Esteemed colleague Pam Louwagie gets the credit for the blistering Heffelfinger reaction quote in the Strib story this a.m. Sorry Pam, you should have had a byline.) Anyway, here’s the quote:

“If it’s true that people within the Department of Justice were critical of the amount of time I was spending on Indian issues, I’m outraged,” Heffelfinger said Wednesday afternoon. “Are they telling me that I spent too much time responding to the school shooting in Red Lake, which was the second-largest act of school violence prior to Virginia Tech? Are they telling me I spent too much time trying to improve public safety for Native Americans, who are victims of violent crime at a rate 2½ times the national population? If they are, then shame on them.”

The trouble is, the story and the quote both act like now we know what Heffelfinger’s name was doing on those let’s-fire-these-guys lists.

People, people, please. Goodling may know the real reason, or she may not. But that ain’t it.

At the risk of sounding like someone from planet Earth, suppose you are in charge of federal law enforcement in America. And suppose you have an experienced, loyal Republican (did you know Heffelfinger was appointed U.S. attorney by both Presidents Bush), highly-regarded prosecutor, who has never received a negative job evaluation. And suppose this prosecutor is in a state that has several Indian reservations and is the chairman of the U.S. attorney group that deals with Native American issues. And suppose, just suppose, you’ve decided he is spending too much time on Native American issues. (Heffelfinger thinks that’s drivel and it does sound drivelish, but just suppose that you do think it.)

Do you call the guy up and suggest that he reconsider how he’s budgeting his time? Do you just immediately put his name on a list of guys to fire? Or is it possible, just possible is all I ask you to consider, that we still don’t know the real reason Heffelfinger’s name was on those lists?

71 Responses to "The Goodling hearing was mostly a pretty big dud"

Bill Prendergast says:

May 24th, 2007 at 1:19 am

Mr. Black writes:
“At the risk of sounding like someone from planet Earth…”

Wow. That tone is not civil and substantive. It’s kind of confrontational, too–everybody who writes in here is from planet Earth. They just have strong opinions about politics, that’s all.

As for this particular issue–I’m putting Mr. Black down as a “no opinion” in light of his last remark: “is it possible, just possible is all I ask you to consider, that we still don’t know the real reason Heffelfinger’s name was on those lists?”

Most of us know we don’t know. All we have are our suspicions, based on Goodling’s behavior, the bizarre behavior of dozens of other people implicated in the Justice Department scandal–and our knowledge of the Bush administration’s integrity.

Hey, don’t yell at us because you had a bad day.

guyermo says:

May 24th, 2007 at 5:30 am

Your title is a bit misleading compared to the body of the story. Basically it was a ‘dud’ if the only reason you watched was to find out why Heffelfinger’s name was put on the list.

However, in getting Goodling to say that statements by McNulty and Gonzales to Congress were not accurate, it was far from a dud.

6th district Jim says:

May 24th, 2007 at 8:05 am

Maybe EB wants to leave OZ.
bill and dora can still skip down the
Yellow Brickhead Road……
This was definitely as earthshaking as the Scooter Libby trial–ie zero tremors
Definitely on target to Elephant takeover of Congressin 2008,
esp as voters reject he megamillionaires like Franken for common folk like Coleman and MB

bsimon says:

May 24th, 2007 at 8:54 am

I disagree both on the ‘big dud’ assessment and on the ‘zero tremors’ comment. One mostly overlooked passage included a claim by Ms Goodling that AG Gonzales, before he testified, reviewed with Ms Goodling the series of events leading up to the firings of the US Attorneys. Ms Goodling said the conversation ‘made [her] uncomfortable’. It is unclear whether the AG was actively trying to influence her subsequent testimony (i.e. obstruct justice). When he testified, he stated (under oath) that he had had no conversations with any justice officials about clarifying their stories. Smoke? Fire?

parthian says:

May 24th, 2007 at 9:02 am

None are so blind as those who will not see.

We don’t know how Heffelfinger’s name got on the list of “To Be Fired” US Attorneys, and no one in the DOJ will testify as to how “the list” was prepared. Some have joked that “the list” was “spontaneously generated”, sort of like Medieval yokels believed mice were spontaneously generated by debris and filth.

Since the WH is not going to release any emails from Miers and Rove, the ones who clearly made the calls on this, we aren’t likely going to get conclusive proof of the reasons behind these firings or get to the bottom of this scandal. This is simple WH stonewalling, and they will take it to the Supreme Court. If the emails were harmless, they’d release them.

Goodling testified that “someone” thought Heffelfinger “spent too much time on Native American issues”. I guess that means he was interested in protecting their rights and dealing with legal problems they faced. So he was probably not someone who would be too keen on blindly swallowing Rove’s pet project of “vote fraud” for this minority group, eh?

Basically the evidence is showing that your name got on “the list” if you were investigating or prosecuting Repubs for corruption, or if you were an independent US Attorney in a “swing” state Rove had identified for voter supression tactics. For those states, “loyal Bushies” were required and appointed.

That Repubs in Congress refuse to help get to the bottom of this likely abuse by the executive branch shows how low this “party” has degenerated.

bsimon says:

May 24th, 2007 at 9:08 am

parthian writes
“Goodling testified that “someone” thought Heffelfinger “spent too much time on Native American issues”. I guess that means he was interested in protecting their rights and dealing with legal problems they faced.”

In the MPR interview, he had a couple nice zingers along the lines of “if they thought I spent too much time investigating the Red Lake shootings, shame on them.” It seems that perhaps Mr Heffelfinger spent too much time pursuing equal justice for all Americans, rather than manufacturing specious voter fraud allegations.

rich says:

May 24th, 2007 at 9:28 am

Didn’t Jack Abramoff represent (or misrepresent) Indian gaming interests? Weren’t many of the fired attorneys on the same Indian committee Heffelfinger was on? Was this group getting too close to Jack?

Someone should follow Jack’s money from his restaurant to the White House to see if it got to the DOJ.

counter-coulter says:

May 24th, 2007 at 9:30 am

Sorry EB, but I’m going to have to agree with the people hear that Goodling’s testimony was far from being a “dud”. In her testimony, she implicated Gonzales in several crimes (witness tampering, obstruction of justice, perjury); she implicated that McNulty had perjured himself; she implicated that she even admitted to breaking the law herself. Her testimony alone has demonstrated the systematic politization of the DOJ, but your fun house mirror view that her testimony was a “dud” because she didn’t know exactly why Heffelfinger got on the list is ridiculous and intellectually lazy. I wonder how much of a “dud” it will be when a special prosecutor gets assigned to investigate the crimes committed.

counter-coulter says:

May 24th, 2007 at 9:48 am

rich says:
Weren’t many of the fired attorneys on the same Indian committee Heffelfinger was on? Was this group getting too close to Jack?

Not even close. Abramhoff represented the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians and their gaming interests, none of whom had interests here in MN. The only committe I can think of for Heffelfinger is the AG Advisory Committe’s subcommittee on Native American Issues, but they don’t receive any outside money or anything.

Where are you getting your information? This sounds like a smear job on Heffelfinger to provide cover for Gonzales, et al.

bsimon says:

May 24th, 2007 at 10:17 am

counter-coulter-
Heffelfinger has speculated that one common tie among the fired US Attorneys were that many (not all) were on the subcommittee of which he (Heffelfinger) was chair. Thus far, Congressional hearings have not included testimony on this subject. rich’s comment is the first speculation I’ve seen that ties that committee to Abramhoff as an explanation for attorneys making ‘the list’.

counter-coulter says:

May 24th, 2007 at 10:35 am

bsimon says:
rich’s comment is the first speculation I’ve seen that ties that committee to Abramhoff as an explanation for attorneys making ‘the list’.

I guess I saw the raising of Abramhoff as a red herring since the USAs are not elected positions, therefore they could not have been receiving campaign contributions from anyone. The subcommitte that Heffelfinger was on was an advisory committee on native american issues not a legislative body. I think that Heffelfinger’s speculation was about Gonzales’ and, by extention, the DOJ’s “priorities”; criticizing that the admin apparently deemed native american issues a low priority.

parthian says:

May 24th, 2007 at 10:44 am

Doesn’t it seem more likely that the US Attorneys on the Native American subcommittee would likely be inclined to protect the voting rights of this (traditionally Democratic leaning) minority group?

And that they would view WH “initiatives” targeting “vote fraud” among such a minority group with a particularly cold eye? Not exactly what Rove was looking for, I’ll bet.

C-C, Goodling’s vomiting out of her now personally confessed law-breaking was done so she would be immunized from any future charges. It’s hard to believe she didn’t know she had “crossed the line” as she said. Now she’s immune.

Again, what were the actual qualifications of this 33 year old 4th tier law school grad for her to be so heavily involved with hiring (and firing, apparently) at DOJ? What experience did she have with administering or even understanding the Civil Service Act if she’s now admitting to “crossing the line”? And who was “supervising” her? Gonzales?

And Repubs on the Committee sit and praise her! Revolting.

timmer says:

May 24th, 2007 at 10:49 am

I think you’re giving these amateurs in the US DoJ too much credit. Heffelfinger’s name initially was on the list for elementary-school simple reasons: he was Minnesota’s AG, and Minnesota is liberal. Thus, he was suspect.

counter-coulter says:

May 24th, 2007 at 10:55 am

parthian says:
Doesn’t it seem more likely that the US Attorneys on the Native American subcommittee would likely be inclined to protect the voting rights of this (traditionally Democratic leaning) minority group?

That’s a good point. One thing that’s come out of this investigation has been the concept oof trumped-up voter fraud charges. It would make sense that those who would want to protect voting rights would make the list of targeted terminations.

It’s hard to believe she [Goodling] didn’t know she had “crossed the line” as she said. Now she’s immune.

She knew. That’s exactly why she claimed the 5th and ultimately cut an immunity deal. It was funny to watch her verbal gymnastics in not wanting to say directly that she broke the law.

What experience did she have with administering or even understanding the Civil Service Act if she’s now admitting to “crossing the line”?

Now that’s just unfair! She was a class president after all! ;-)

I’m really curious to see if the senate will get a shot at having her testify. I’m also curious to see if if some folks get recalled to testify, now that Goodling was building her upper body strength by throwing everyone else under the bus. I don’t see how Gonzales could avoid perjury and obstruction charges after her testimony.

Paul S. says:

May 24th, 2007 at 11:10 am

Eric, this bit of sanity on your part – your impassioned plea for logic and reality – was just what I needed this gray morning. It almost makes up for yesterday’s description of the Gore excerpt in Time as “scary smart.” Let me put it this way, you’re half right on that one.

Paul S. says:

May 24th, 2007 at 11:12 am

Heffelfinger sure does take full advantage of the moralizing platform this bit of testimony offered him.

It is not inconceivable on practical or moral grounds for a US Attorney to spend too much time on even this holiest of issues.

bsimon says:

May 24th, 2007 at 11:14 am

counter-coulter writes
“I guess I saw the raising of Abramhoff as a red herring since the USAs are not elected positions, therefore they could not have been receiving campaign contributions from anyone. The subcommitte that Heffelfinger was on was an advisory committee on native american issues not a legislative body.”

I read rich’s note as implying that perhaps Heffelfinger et al were investigating casino operations, fraud related to tribes’ compensation from casino operators & Abramhoff’s rather deep involvement in casino licensing in multiple states. The implication was not that US Attorneys were receiving contributions, but were investigating elected officials who were receiving contributions. The undercurrent being that US Attys involved in such investigations were put on the ‘to be fired’ list in order to protect people like Abramhoff who were friendly to the administration.

Again, this is the first I’ve seen that allegation made. Its an interesting line of thinking, but without evidence is only speculative at this point. If I were a congresscritter on an investigative committee, I’d want to make sure Ms Rallston were asked such questions when she appears (though she’s trying to negotiate a Goodling-like immunity deal before doing so). For those who’ve forgotten, Ms Rallston used to work for Mr Abramhoff, before going to the White House to work for Mr Rove.

bsimon says:

May 24th, 2007 at 11:16 am

Paul S writes
“Heffelfinger sure does take full advantage of the moralizing platform this bit of testimony offered him.”

Who can blame him? His name appeared on a list of colleagues who were fired for ‘poor performance’. Doesn’t the guy have a right to defend himself & his reputation?

O.T. says:

May 24th, 2007 at 11:30 am

Kersten’s Column today:

By now, you must have heard of Rachel Paulose, the United States attorney for Minnesota. Critics suggest that she’s barely qualified to be an assistant prosecutor in Podunk. And at 34, she’s still wet-behind-the ears.
On top of that, detractors charge, Paulose is a partisan hack and a Bible-thumping evangelical Christian. They suspect that Karl Rove, that malevolent puppeteer, is pulling the strings to ensure that she dances to a militant Republican tune. How did someone so unsuitable become U.S. attorney? She didn’t. Because that’s not who Rachel Paulose is.

“Rachel is an unfair victim of [the Justice Department's] discharge of the eight U.S. attorneys,” says John French, a retired Minnesota lawyer and longtime DFL activist who has worked with Paulose and spoke at her investiture in March. “She’s been wired into it [the Washington controversy] by innuendo.”

Caught up in the swirl of events in Washington, including Wednesday’s testimony of former Justice Department official Monica Goodling, Paulose now finds herself in the line of fire, in a way that’s obscuring who she is and her real credentials. It’s been open season on her.

The first thing to get clear is that Paulose is a legal superstar. She graduated from Yale Law School and has worked at two of the nation’s most prestigious law firms, as well as the U.S. Justice Department. The U.S. Senate unanimously confirmed her to her current position.

Paulose also had experience as a federal prosecutor before she became U.S. attorney here. From 1999 to 2002, she worked as an assistant U.S. attorney for Minnesota in both the civil and criminal divisions.

In contrast, recent highly regarded U.S. attorneys such as David Lillehaug and James Rosenbaum (who was 36 when he was appointed) had no federal prosecutorial experience when they started the job. In fact, only two of the five U.S. attorneys who preceded Paulose had federal prosecutorial experience.

And Paulose’s age? Fourteen individuals under 35 have been nominated to serve as U.S. attorneys during the Clinton and Bush administrations, according to the Office of Public Affairs of the U.S. Department of Justice. The youngest was 29. Robert Kennedy was 35 when he became attorney general of the United States.

If Paulose is a Republican hack out to pervert justice, why are many prominent Democrats among her most ardent supporters?

David Kendall — Bill and Hillary Clinton’s personal lawyer — worked with Paulose for almost two years in Washington, and is full of praise for her as a lawyer and a person. He defended President Bill Clinton against impeachment charges, and is currently representing the Clintons in several civil matters.

“Rachel was terrific,” says Kendall. Her intelligence was second to none, she was an extremely hard worker, and she had great people skills, he adds. “I was extremely happy with her work. I was very sorry when she made the decision to return to Minnesota.”

A partisan hack? “I could never tell from Rachel’s work that she was a conservative,” says Kendall. “I don’t believe she would make a partisan decision — she would be guided by what her legal research told her. If someone asked her to do something for ideological reasons, there’s no question in my mind that she would resist.”

Here in Minnesota, French — another Democratic loyalist — echoes Kendall’s praise. By his count, he has chaired 11 DFL conventions. He scoffs at the notion that Paulose is a partisan hack.

“Rachel is as close to non-political as a political appointee can be,” French told me. “At her investiture, I said that the spirit of bipartisanship was alive and well in Minnesota. Who else but Rachel Paulose could bring people together on one stage — representing the whole spectrum in Minnesota — to speak in favor of one candidate? I bet Rachel and I would cancel out each other’s votes every time we walk into a voting booth. But so what? She’s terrific. Rachel has the capacity to create loyal friends and admirers no matter where they stand on the political spectrum.”

Perhaps the most incredible charge from Paulose’s critics is the notion that she was appointed as part of a Karl Rove plot, to suppress the minority vote in Minnesota in the 2008 election.

“Has anyone who says these things seen her face to face?” asks French incredulously. “She is a member of a minority herself. This is the silliest charge I’ve heard about her yet.”

Those familiar with Paulose’s record would concur. In Clinton’s Justice Department, she worked in the voting rights section under Janet Reno to protect minorities’ right to vote. At Yale, Burke Marshall — an architect of the 1965 Voting Rights Act — was one of her mentors, according to her résumé.

So why are the critics piling on Paulose today? Two reasons.

She’s young, female, a “person of color” and an immigrant. (Her grandfather came here from India with $7 in his pocket in the 1960s, she has said, and the rest of the family followed.) If she were a political liberal — as such people are expected to be — she would be the toast of the town. But she’s not. In some folks’ view, such renegades must be run out of the public arena quickly before other minority folks get similar uppity, independent ideas.

Second, she’s an evangelical Christian. “This image of her as a kind of Jesus freak is just bizarre,” says Kendall. “I’ve read things [about this] I find hard to believe. The descriptions of her aggressive religiosity just couldn’t be farther from the person I knew.”

In the current political circus atmosphere, that’s true of a lot of what we’re hearing about Paulose.

Bill Prendergast says:

May 24th, 2007 at 12:12 pm

This is another of the many reasons I don’t read Kersten:

“By now, you must have heard of Rachel Paulose, the United States attorney for Minnesota.”

Wow. Look at that lead. Kersten catching up to the headlines; the story has grown so big that even she can’t ignore it, in her little xenophobe world of menacing Islamic cab drivers who won’t pick her up if she’s got a bottle of wine in her hand. Kersten–commenting on an issue of general public interest? That is news.

But is it commentary? Or is it–GOP talking points, in the guise of independent column? As Eric Black would claim: “none of us will really ever know.” But we all have our suspicions.

As for Paulose herself: an astonishing career–”a legal superstar!” according to Kersten. Wow! She worked for TWO major law firms! She was with US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE! How many other attorneys can boast of an INCREDIBLE resume like that! It can’t be more than two or three, at most! WHOOOOOOA!

And what about the tremendous respect she commands from other attorneys? The leading attorneys on staff demoted themselves rather than participate with her as an administrator! That speaks volumes.

And what about the fact that Heffelfinger–you know, the guy with the experience? The respected guy?–what about the fact that they can defend Paulose by smearing him?

Poor Paulose, says Kersten. She’s the victim in this. Kersten goes straight to the “bottom-feeder” political arguments–accusations of racism and sexism (“you just hate her cause she’s a female person of color”)–but then Kersten flip-flops without missing a beat to (“you would love her if she was a female person of color who was liberal.”)

Very classy, KK. Leave out any discussion of the issue, claim martyr status for a person who was appointed to replace a vastly more experienced Republican. According to KK, Paulose’s the real victim in the DoJ scandal–not the attorneys who were fired for refusing to prosecute the GOP’s political opponents at the whim of Rove and the GOP.

bsimon says:

May 24th, 2007 at 12:22 pm

Bill P notes
“Kersten goes straight to the “bottom-feeder” political arguments–accusations of racism and sexism (”you just hate her cause she’s a female person of color”)–but then Kersten flip-flops without missing a beat to (”you would love her if she was a female person of color who was liberal.”)”

I had a similar thought, reading her piece in the dead-tree edition this mroning. Kersten seems to treat christian brown-skinned immigrants a whole lot different from non-christian brown-skinned immigrants.

counter-coulter says:

May 24th, 2007 at 12:33 pm

bsimon says:
I had a similar thought, reading her piece in the dead-tree edition this mroning. Kersten seems to treat christian brown-skinned immigrants a whole lot different from non-christian brown-skinned immigrants.

I found her whole use of playing the sex, race and religion cards incredibly funny. Her previous arguments have been that those who criticize people of different race, religion and sex (such as herself) are instantly labeled as some sort of “phobe” or “ist” and here she is attempting label her dtetractors based on nothing more than sex, race and religion. Quite an amazing feat to watch her turn her sleeves inside-out and play the victim while going on the attack.

Les says:

May 24th, 2007 at 12:35 pm

Kersten column aside, arent you guys sorta jumping the gun here? Heffelfinger wasnt fired, he resigned. Not only that, he resigned on his own accord, not because he thought he was on the way out. The fact that his name was on a list doesnt mean he would have been fired if he had not resigned. IIRC, Others on the list that Hefffelfinger was on were not fired.

So, he wasn’t replaced for anything other than his personal decision to resign. The fact you do not like his replacement is beside the point.

Paul S. says:

May 24th, 2007 at 12:51 pm

My underlying point, b, is that there’s a chance he’s over-moralizing. It can’t just be dismissed out of hand.

“How dare they criticize me for working on these issues” makes me roll my eyes.

Plus, as Eric says, this scant bit of testimony doesn’t really offer much evidence this was a particularly important factor for anyone.

O.T. says:

May 24th, 2007 at 12:55 pm

Bill say”And what about the tremendous respect she commands from other attorneys? The leading attorneys on staff demoted themselves rather than participate with her as an administrator! That speaks volumes.”

Sounds a little like Lori Swanson’s office, huh?

bsimon says:

May 24th, 2007 at 1:07 pm

Les writes
“So, he wasn’t replaced for anything other than his personal decision to resign. The fact you do not like his replacement is beside the point.”

I agree. Paulose is in the spotlight because of the timing of her appointment, followed by the self-demotion of her top staffers. The real stories – the ‘big questions’ if you will – are firstly about Gonzales and perjury, witness tampering & obstruction of justice and secondly about a coverup of White House involvement in the firing of the US attorneys.

Paul S writes
“My underlying point, b, is that there’s a chance he’s over-moralizing. It can’t just be dismissed out of hand.”

I respond by pointing out that Heffelfinger isn’t going out & looking for an audience. He is repeatedly asked for comment by the media, for the what, 2 months, that this has been going on, he has witheld judgement and not commented on what motivations the Justice Dept might have had in putting him on ‘the list’. It wasn’t until Ms Goodling spoke up & offered that perhaps he was a little too interested in native american issues that he started criticizing the DOJ. Frankly, he’s been quite professional throughout the whole ordeal.

bsimon says:

May 24th, 2007 at 1:09 pm

OT writes
“Sounds a little like Lori Swanson’s office, huh?”

Hey, thanks for an ‘original comment’ instead of another cut and paste job. Though I hesitate to give you full credit, since you & others have written the same thing innumerable times before…

To answer your question though, no, not really. Things seem to have quieted down in Swanson’s office since Hatch announced he’d be leaving.

Paul S. says:

May 24th, 2007 at 1:47 pm

Correct, b. The quote I’m responding to is:

“If it’s true that people within the Department of Justice were critical of the amount of time I was spending on Indian issues, I’m outraged,” Heffelfinger said Wednesday afternoon. “Are they telling me that I spent too much time responding to the school shooting in Red Lake, which was the second-largest act of school violence prior to Virginia Tech? Are they telling me I spent too much time trying to improve public safety for Native Americans, who are victims of violent crime at a rate 2½ times the national population? If they are, then shame on them.”

“Shame on them.” On who? Again: this based on no certainty that what this testimony hinted at had any real solid reality at all. To me, it feels like a guy indulging in the general glee of attacking the administration on moral grounds.

bsimon says:

May 24th, 2007 at 2:05 pm

Paul S writes
“To me, it feels like a guy indulging in the general glee of attacking the administration on moral grounds.”

To me, it sounds like you’re barking up the wrong tree. He’s been uncritical of the DOJ for months, giving them the benefit of the doubt on the whole firings subject, that is, until Ms Goodling’s comments about why he might have been added to the list.

O.T. says:

May 24th, 2007 at 2:32 pm

b, has Paulose’s office been in turmoil since the initial situation? Has there been more people quitting or demoting themselves? I would assume Eric and the Strib would love to let us know if that was the case- which it isn’t so your post is wrong.

It is also beautiful how you and others here say others use talking points and echo others when you have not offered an original thought yourself.

bsimon says:

May 24th, 2007 at 2:43 pm

OT writes
“It is also beautiful how you… have not offered an original thought yourself.”

A comical allegation, coming from Mr cut and paste. I doubt you’d find many people that agree with your assessment.

bsimon says:

May 24th, 2007 at 4:45 pm

Hey, in a bit of self-horn-tootin’ my ORIGINAL comment made it onto the Fix’s ‘wag the blog’ entry on Hillary & Iraq. OT, go check it out: I think you’ll like it. http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/

pasquino says:

May 24th, 2007 at 5:08 pm

The difference today was the way the Republicans rushed to Goodlings defense, throwing their capes over mudholes, throwing her easy yes, not even yes/no questions. Chivalry is not dead, but political integrity is very sick, at least on one side.

The phrase I keep hearing is “the criminalization of politics”. Meaning what? Politicians can never be guilty of a crime?

What we are seeing is worse. We are seeing the politicization of of the criminal justice system. First the Republicans used Homeland Security to hunt down Democratic legislators in Texas. We now know that lawyers who deliberately purged Democrats from voting lists gained promotion to U.S. Attorney posts. What else have they been unafraid to do? The Republican side seems to think government belongs to them, and only to them. This degree of politicization is beyond anything Nixon even contemplated.

Cash N. Carey says:

May 24th, 2007 at 6:17 pm

Where is DJ?

This is great stuff. The libs keep “investigating”, no charges are filed, no legislation passes, their ratings go lower than President Bush’s. And if the libs’ hatred of Paulouse isn’t based on her gender, race or religion – what would the critics be complaining about? BP- want to comment on her Christianity? parthian? And 4th tier law school? I never heard anyone refer to an Ivy League school as 4th tier. Liberals, never let the facts get in the way of your rage….

jonerik says:

May 24th, 2007 at 6:31 pm

My initial take on the Goodling testimony was also that it was a dud. But I didn’t listen and only saw portions of the transcripts. I think even if all the Congresspersons who are on this committee don’t know what they are doing, some of them do. You basically have to start at the bottom and work your way up slogging though everybody’s questions and the answers. Something called a record has to be made before the committee that has the competence to investigate the problem can take some action.

Ms. Goodling has now had her day but you don’t get to call a former deputy AG a liar without something else happening. Somebody is lying and you don’t lie to Congress without paying a heavy price.

parthian says:

May 24th, 2007 at 9:30 pm

Cash, my comments related to Monica Goodling. Try to pay attention to the details and not let your rage at lib’ruls undermine your reading comprehension.

O.T. says:

May 24th, 2007 at 10:49 pm

bsimon, I ask again the question you failed to respond to.

b, has Paulose’s office been in turmoil since the initial situation? Has there been more people quitting or demoting themselves? I would assume Eric and the Strib would love to let us know if that was the case- which it isn’t so your post is wrong.

Dora says:

May 24th, 2007 at 11:17 pm

OT vs bsimon. No contest. bsimon takes it.

Dora says:

May 24th, 2007 at 11:25 pm

parthian advises: “Try to pay attention to the details and not let your rage at lib’ruls undermine your reading comprehension.”

That’s just asking too much of CNC.

6th district Jim says:

May 25th, 2007 at 7:54 am

Oh that Pansy and Dora get the zingers….
as they march done the YellowBrickHead road hand in hand (and remember–dora’s the guy)
The USA excitement has them all a twitter
Imagine the outrage of people facing job reviews–it’s a spectacular scandal in govt!
Job reviews! Oh my gosh!
I learned one thing from this latest laugher:
Only Dems get to choose which administration appointees can be fired.
FEMA, fire them
Rummy, fire him
USA’s–no, not them
Alito–tried, but failed
Past Dem verdicts?
Sex with interns–no problem
Want real deaths from govt decisions?
Reno literally torches women and kids: no, that doesn’t meet the Dem standard for “firing.”
but job reviews: not allowed for govt workers :o )

the Dems are imploding before our eyes, and it couldn’t be funnier. these blogs have
more laughs than a Rosie diatribe. Please Pansy, dora, Bill–keep it coming.

counter-coulter says:

May 25th, 2007 at 8:57 am

6th district Jim says:
Oh that Pansy and Dora get the zingers….
as they march done (sic) the YellowBrickHead road hand in hand (and remember–dora’s the guy)

You sound angry Jim. I realize that it’s hard to watch an administration you’ve supported have their lies and criminality exposed, but there’s no need to lash out at others.

parthian says:

May 25th, 2007 at 8:59 am

What must it be like to be trapped in the brain of 6th Doofus Jim? He must be sober, his post was at 8am!

At least he’s easily amused, although I was sorry not to see his trademark “HAHAHAHA. Mega HAHAHAHA”.

Or his famous “Yawn. Big Yawn” Those gems are especially insightful and well worth memorializing on a public website.

Oh well, maybe next time…

bsimon says:

May 25th, 2007 at 9:07 am

OT asks
“has Paulose’s office been in turmoil since the initial situation? Has there been more people quitting or demoting themselves? I would assume Eric and the Strib would love to let us know if that was the case- which it isn’t so your post is wrong”

This isn’t about Paulose. The first mention of Paulose in this thread came from you, when you posted Kersten’s column. Nobody else is talking about her. This is about AG Gonzales & the DOJ.

Justin C. Adams says:

May 25th, 2007 at 9:16 am

Anyone else here think that Heffelfinger could make a good GOP candidate for either the Governor’s job when he leaves for Washington, or for Coleman’s job as his support in the GOP bottoms out over immigration?

How about Ellison’s job? Heffelfinger certainly would do better than Fine did.

bsimon says:

May 25th, 2007 at 9:28 am

“Heffelfinger certainly would do better than Fine did.”

That’s a pretty low bar.

Unless Ellison does something really stupid, he’s likely to hold the seat for as long as he wants it.

As far as Norm’s seat goes, what positions would Heffelfinger have to take that would both 1) beat Norm in the primary and 2) beat the DFL in the general? It would take a pretty talented candidate to thread those needles.

bsimon says:

May 25th, 2007 at 9:36 am

And since there’s no new topic yet, I’ll post my comment on Hillary from The Fix. The author was looking for input on Sen Clinton’s ‘delicate dance’ on Iraq, where she claimed she’d vote for one kind of funding/withdrawl bill. I wrote:

“As far as I can tell, neither Senator Clinton nor any of her competition for the Democratic nomination for President have offered a plausible plan for solving the Iraq problem. Waffling over whether they’ll vote for or against various imaginary bills is irrelevant. As candidates for President, they should be telling us what they would do if they were President now.”

OT: what do you think? A fair assessment? You agree or disagree? Be original!

maven says:

May 25th, 2007 at 11:30 am

- The BRAD BLOG – http://www.bradblog.com -

Palast Exclusive: The Goods on Goodling and the Keys to the Kingdom

And The No Longer ‘Missing’ Rove Emails Revealing the Cagey Scheme to Steal 2008…

Posted By Greg Palast On 24th May 2007 @ 00:20 In Election 2004, Greg Palast, Karl Rove, Election Fraud, Election 2008, Accountability, Dept. of Defense | 65 Comments

*** Special to The BRAD BLOG [1] by Greg Palast

[2]This Monica revealed something hotter — much hotter — than a stained blue dress. In her opening testimony yesterday before the House Judiciary Committee, Monica Goodling, the blonde-ling underling to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Department of Justice Liaison to the White House, dropped The Big One….And the Committee members didn’t even know it.

Goodling testified [3] that Gonzales’ Chief of Staff, Kyle Sampson, perjured himself, lying to the committee in earlier testimony. The lie: Sampson denied Monica had told him about Tim Griffin’s “involvement in ‘caging’ voters” in 2004.

Huh?? Tim Griffin? “Caging”???

The perplexed committee members hadn’t a clue — and asked no substantive questions about it thereafter. Karl Rove is still smiling. If the members had gotten the clue, and asked the right questions, they would have found “the keys to the kingdom,” they thought they were looking for. They dangled right in front of their perplexed faces.

The keys: the missing emails — and missing link — that could send Griffin and his boss, Rove, to the slammer for a long, long time.

Kingdom enough for ya?

But what’s ‘caging’ and why is it such a dreadful secret that lawyer Sampson put his license to practice and his freedom on the line to cover Tim Griffin’s involvement in it? Because it’s a felony. And a big one.

Here’s how caging worked, and along with Griffin’s thoughtful emails themselves you’ll understand it all in no time.

The Bush-Cheney operatives sent hundreds of thousands of letters marked “Do not forward” to voters’ homes. Letters returned (“caged”) were used as evidence to block these voters’ right to cast a ballot on grounds they were registered at phony addresses. Who were the evil fakers? Homeless men, students on vacation and — you got to love this — American soldiers. Oh yeah: most of them are Black voters.

Why weren’t these African-American voters home when the Republican letters arrived? The homeless men were on park benches, the students were on vacation — and the soldiers were overseas. Go to Baghdad, lose your vote. Mission Accomplished.

How do I know? I have the caging lists…

I have them because they are attached to the emails Rove insists can’t be found. I have the emails. 500 of them — sent to our team at BBC after the Rove-bots [4] accidentally sent them to a web domain owned by our friend John Wooden.

Here’s what you need to know — and the Committee would have discovered, if only they’d asked:

‘Caging’ voters is a crime, a go-to-jail felony.
Griffin wasn’t “involved” in the caging, Ms. Goodling. Griffin, Rove’s right-hand man (right-hand claw), was directing the illegal purge and challenge campaign. How do I know? It’s in the email I got. Thanks. And it’s posted below.
On December 7, 2006, the ragin’, cagin’ Griffin was named, on Rove’s personal demand, US Attorney for Arkansas. Perpetrator became prosecutor.
The committee was perplexed about Monica’s panicked admission and accusations about the caging list because the US press never covered it. That’s because, as Griffin wrote to Goodling in yet another email (dated February 6 of this year, and also posted below), their caging operation only made the news on BBC London: busted open, Griffin bitched, by that “British reporter,” Greg Palast.

There’s no pride in this. Our BBC team broke the story [5] at the top of the nightly news everywhere on the planet — except the USA — only because America’s news networks simply refused to cover this evidence of the electoral coup d’etat that chose our President in 2004.

And now, not bothering to understand the astonishing revelation in Goodling’s confessional, they are missing the real story behind the firing of the US attorneys. It’s not about removing prosecutors disloyal to Bush, it’s about replacing those who refused to aid the theft of the vote in 2004 with those prepared to burgle it again in 2008.

Now that they have the keys, let’s see if they can put them in the right door. The clock is ticking ladies and gents…

(Ed Note: You can easily contact your Congress Members to call and/or email them this information by clicking here [6]. Let them know they need to take action. Now. And feel free to point them towards this article, URL: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4594 [7])

===

Greg Palast is the author of the New York Times bestseller, Armed Madhouse: from Baghdad to New Orleans – Sordid Secrets and Strange Tales of a White House Gone WILD. For more info, or to hear Brad Friedman, Ed Asner and other troublemakers read from Armed Madhouse, go to http://www.GregPalast.com [8]

——————————————————————————–

Article printed from The BRAD BLOG: http://www.bradblog.com

URL to article: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4594

URLs in this post:
[1] The BRAD BLOG: http://www.BradBlog.com
[2] Image: http://www.GregPalast.com
[3] testified: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4591
[4] Rove-bots: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4559
[5] broke the story: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4551
[6] clicking here: http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
[7] http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4594: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4594
[8] http://www.GregPalast.com: http://www.bradblog.comwww.GregPalast.com

Click here to print.

maven says:

May 25th, 2007 at 11:38 am

The big story was not reported (what else is new)

posted by Greg Palast

[2]This Monica revealed something hotter — much hotter — than a stained blue dress. In her opening testimony yesterday before the House Judiciary Committee, Monica Goodling, the blonde-ling underling to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Department of Justice Liaison to the White House, dropped The Big One….And the Committee members didn’t even know it.

Goodling testified [3] that Gonzales’ Chief of Staff, Kyle Sampson, perjured himself, lying to the committee in earlier testimony. The lie: Sampson denied Monica had told him about Tim Griffin’s “involvement in ‘caging’ voters” in 2004.

Huh?? Tim Griffin? “Caging”???

The perplexed committee members hadn’t a clue — and asked no substantive questions about it thereafter. Karl Rove is still smiling. If the members had gotten the clue, and asked the right questions, they would have found “the keys to the kingdom,” they thought they were looking for. They dangled right in front of their perplexed faces.

The keys: the missing emails — and missing link — that could send Griffin and his boss, Rove, to the slammer for a long, long time.

Kingdom enough for ya?

But what’s ‘caging’ and why is it such a dreadful secret that lawyer Sampson put his license to practice and his freedom on the line to cover Tim Griffin’s involvement in it? Because it’s a felony. And a big one.

Here’s how caging worked, and along with Griffin’s thoughtful emails themselves you’ll understand it all in no time.

The Bush-Cheney operatives sent hundreds of thousands of letters marked “Do not forward” to voters’ homes. Letters returned (“caged”) were used as evidence to block these voters’ right to cast a ballot on grounds they were registered at phony addresses. Who were the evil fakers? Homeless men, students on vacation and — you got to love this — American soldiers. Oh yeah: most of them are Black voters.

Why weren’t these African-American voters home when the Republican letters arrived? The homeless men were on park benches, the students were on vacation — and the soldiers were overseas. Go to Baghdad, lose your vote. Mission Accomplished.

How do I know? I have the caging lists…

I have them because they are attached to the emails Rove insists can’t be found. I have the emails. 500 of them — sent to our team at BBC after the Rove-bots [4] accidentally sent them to a web domain owned by our friend John Wooden.

Here’s what you need to know — and the Committee would have discovered, if only they’d asked:

‘Caging’ voters is a crime, a go-to-jail felony.
Griffin wasn’t “involved” in the caging, Ms. Goodling. Griffin, Rove’s right-hand man (right-hand claw), was directing the illegal purge and challenge campaign. How do I know? It’s in the email I got. Thanks. And it’s posted below.
On December 7, 2006, the ragin’, cagin’ Griffin was named, on Rove’s personal demand, US Attorney for Arkansas. Perpetrator became prosecutor.
The committee was perplexed about Monica’s panicked admission and accusations about the caging list because the US press never covered it. That’s because, as Griffin wrote to Goodling in yet another email (dated February 6 of this year, and also posted below), their caging operation only made the news on BBC London: busted open, Griffin bitched, by that “British reporter,” Greg Palast.

There’s no pride in this. Our BBC team broke the story [5] at the top of the nightly news everywhere on the planet — except the USA — only because America’s news networks simply refused to cover this evidence of the electoral coup d’etat that chose our President in 2004.

And now, not bothering to understand the astonishing revelation in Goodling’s confessional, they are missing the real story behind the firing of the US attorneys. It’s not about removing prosecutors disloyal to Bush, it’s about replacing those who refused to aid the theft of the vote in 2004 with those prepared to burgle it again in 2008.

Bill Prendergast says:

May 25th, 2007 at 12:24 pm

Boy, I spent ten minutes on this and I can’t find anything about the Palast stuff that’s in the professional news media.

That includes the BBC news site. Why doesn’t Palast include the link to the BBC story in the piece that’s now being circulated on the web?

Palast says: “Our BBC team broke the story [5] at the top of the nightly news everywhere on the planet — except the USA —”

Great, then put up a link, you big lazy liberal/leftist punk with a juvenile tone–circle jerking the story around the liberal blogs doesn’t constitute “authority,” as necessary for making the charge stick.

Does ANYBODY have a link to the BBC reports Palast’s referring to? I’ve been to the BBC news site and looked under the name “Monica Goodling” and I couldn’t find anything.

O.T. says:

May 25th, 2007 at 12:28 pm

I am not excited for any of the candidates, least of all Hillary. I would vote for Chavez before her.

and also, i was responding to your post here: “To answer your question though, no, not really. Things seem to have quieted down in Swanson’s office since Hatch announced he’d be leaving.”

Justin C. Adams says:

May 25th, 2007 at 12:35 pm

Bsimon, right on the low bar of Fine, right on the perpetuity of Ellison.

Coleman, well, I wouldn’t go so far as to say a challenge is likely within the GOP, nor would I say it is likely such a challenge could suceed.

That said, it would need to be a highly qualified, homegrown, bush-critical, immigrant critical, longtime established and revered public figure in order to take down Coleman in the primary. That said, any GOP candidate who could take down Coleman in the primary would fare much, much better against Franken in the general than Norm will. Norm is just too easy a target for Al. Assuming it’s Al. I don’t think Norm can beat Al, but I do think Norm can beat Ciresi. I think someone like Heffelfinger, though, captures many of those DFL voters who are supposed to be not enchanted with Mr. Franken’s divisiveness but who will none the less vote for him over more of Sen. Coleman.

But like I said at the top, a challenge in the GOP primary seems pretty unrealistic, especially while head-to-head polls have Coleman in front (and therefore, his race remains worthy of big national money).

Then you didn’t ask me, but you didn’t qualify “competition” with “serious”, so what about Kucinich? He appears to be saying what he would do as president now.

And, if you ask me, the question they should be asked is what they are doing as Senators now. And what they were doing in 2003. Gore was on the Daily Show (yesterday or a few days before). He spoke of ‘ominous silence’ in the senate chamber prior to the Iraq war, something which was simply not how war powers resolutions were done.

I just can’t see myself voting for Hillary unless Jeb gets in the race.

Obama wasn’t there, but I have some trade policy issues with him. If he won the nomination, I’d probably vote for him, though he’s not who I want. Edwards at least has unequivically said it was a mistake to vote as he did and has a domestic agenda as the centerpiece of his platform, but I’m not really excited to vote Edwards either (among the “front runners”, I say Edwards).

I still want Feingold. Only person in the Senate to vote against the Patriot Act. Only person in the Senate who shouldn’t have been removed for failing to keep their oath. If you ask me.

Justin C. Adams says:

May 25th, 2007 at 12:46 pm

EB,

Any chance we can get someone at the BBC to confirm that this Palast story actually appeared on the tele?

Bill Prendergast says:

May 25th, 2007 at 12:56 pm

All I could find on the BBC news site about Goodling was a generalized article on the US Attorneys “row”.

This guy Palast is a sloppy SOB, isn’t he? If you want to promote a story into the America media by claiming it’s already being run by the BBC or some other credible news medium–for f’s sake, put up the link, the citation.

Otherwise it’s just a liberal version of another Drudge rumor. The American media are cringing cowards–they won’t break a story like that unless they can preface it with “The BBC reports that…”

O.T. says:

May 25th, 2007 at 1:01 pm

Heffelmeister does’nt really have any leg to stand on. He was not fired, he quit. At any time in goverment work, there are people above you that do not like your work and think you should be gone. I work in goverment, there are so many different types of people, all of which are somewhat protected against firing. If he was fired, then the list becomes news, otherwise it is not.

bsimon says:

May 25th, 2007 at 1:16 pm

Boy, this one has me stumped. Remember a few short weeks ago, when Speaker Pelosi & a group of other Congresscritters passed through Syria on their PR tour? Remember how all the wingnuts said she should be tried for treason for undermining official US diplomacy? I wonder what they would say if a gov’t official were to undermine the President’s Iran policy. I wonder what they would say if a rogue politician were to work with a foreign power to instigate a military strike on a sovereign nation? What would they say if this effort was designed to undermine diplomatic efforts favored by the President and Secretary of State?

Here’s an excerpt from Froomkin’s White House Watch (at washingtonpost.com) that raises the possibility that exactly that is going on….

Well-connected Washington blogger Steven C. Clemons has a much more alarming read on things: “There is a race currently underway between different flanks of the administration to determine the future course of US-Iran policy.

“On one flank are the diplomats, and on the other is Vice President Cheney’s team and acolytes — who populate quite a wide swath throughout the American national security bureaucracy.”

Clemons writes: “Multiple sources have reported that a senior aide on Vice President Cheney’s national security team has been . . . explicitly stating that Vice President Cheney does not support President Bush’s tack towards Condoleezza Rice’s diplomatic efforts and fears that the President is taking diplomacy with Iran too seriously.

“This White House official has stated to several Washington insiders that Cheney is planning to deploy an ‘end run strategy’ around the President if he and his team lose the policy argument.

“The thinking on Cheney’s team is to collude with Israel, nudging Israel at some key moment in the ongoing standoff between Iran’s nuclear activities and international frustration over this to mount a small-scale conventional strike against Natanz using cruise missiles (i.e., not ballistic missiles). . . .

“The zinger of this information is the admission by this Cheney aide that Cheney himself is frustrated with President Bush and believes, much like Richard Perle, that Bush is making a disastrous mistake by aligning himself with the policy course that Condoleezza Rice [and others] have sculpted.

“According to this official, Cheney believes that Bush can not be counted on to make the ‘right decision’ when it comes to dealing with Iran and thus Cheney believes that he must tie the President’s hands.”

counter-coulter says:

May 25th, 2007 at 2:33 pm

O.T. says:
Heffelmeister does’nt really have any leg to stand on. He was not fired, he quit. At any time in goverment work, there are people above you that do not like your work and think you should be gone. I work in goverment, there are so many different types of people, all of which are somewhat protected against firing. If he was fired, then the list becomes news, otherwise it is not.

Huh?? What exactly are you talking about? The only thing I’m aware of Heffelfinger discussing was the some of the “rational” given for name being on the list. Or is this some repub ad hominem against Heffelfinger for pointing out the admin’s incompetence?

jonerik says:

May 25th, 2007 at 2:45 pm

Bill P:

I don’t know about the Palast report but here is a link to ThinkProgress and a clip from Goodling’s testimony:
http://web2.westlaw.com/signoff/default.wl?fn=_top&rs=WLW6.09&rp=%2fsignoff%2fdefault.wl&mt=Minnesota&vr=2.0&sv=Split

I wish we had a few more reporters like Palast in the US (nothing against EB). Palast is a muckraking reporter which means he blurs the lines between commentary and fact. But I have found his reporting fact based and well researched.

jonerik says:

May 25th, 2007 at 2:50 pm

Bill P:
Whoops! Don’t know how that happened. Wrong link. This is the right link to Think Progress:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/23/goodling-caging-griffin/

bsimon says:

May 25th, 2007 at 2:51 pm

counter-coulter asks, about OT’s comments on Heffelfinger
“Or is this some repub ad hominem against Heffelfinger for pointing out the admin’s incompetence?”

Bingo! Heffelfinger joins the long list of people who used to work for the administration who are now discredited by administration supporters. Once you’re out, you’re out.

PhoenixWoman says:

May 25th, 2007 at 2:55 pm

Huh?? What exactly are you talking about? The only thing I’m aware of Heffelfinger discussing was the some of the “rational” given for name being on the list. Or is this some repub ad hominem against Heffelfinger for pointing out the admin’s incompetence?

Yeah. Heff has for over a year done his best not to criticize his replacement, and this is the first time he’s really taken a (well-deserved) two-by-four to Main Justice itself.

As for the bizarre attempt to tar Heffelfinger with the Abramoff brush: Anyone who’s been paying attention knows that for Abramoff, some clients were more equal than others — part of the charges against Abramoff included his deliberate defrauding of many of his clients, especially the Indian tribes. In other words, they’re among the biggest victims of Abramoff’s GOP K-Street money-laundering machine.

Justin C. Adams says:

May 25th, 2007 at 2:55 pm

On the subject of Alan Fine, guess what I saw last Sunday. Give up?

He was walking his own dog, without a leash!

The scandal of it all.

eric z says:

May 25th, 2007 at 5:02 pm

Phoenix Woman – I think the drift is not that Heffelfinger somewhat was complicit with Abramhoff. Rather his problem for the Bushies is that he was not. He even did a few reservation drug busts. Somebody decided we cannot have a non-team player. Rove does not like loose cannons, except those like Bachmann who shoot at his targets, somehow, no matter how loose the fixings.

I like that follow the money thing, the Abramhoff speculation, as well as the speculation that Heffelfinger made the hit list because he would not play ball with Kiffmeyer’s efforts to disenfranchise all the Dems she could while shouting “voter fraud” as if she were Chicken Little. May her retirement from office be happy for her and extended in duration. I agree with Mark Olson about that.

As to Katherine Kersten, I repeat what I have said elsewhere. Kersten would make a reasonably good surfboard if fiberglassed and painted properly but otherwise there’s no use to her. Palose is a hack, and deserves to be called a hack, and was given the job because she’s a hack. It would be good for the nation if Palose went surfing and got drifted to sea by a riptide while riding on Katherine Kersten.

And Heffelfinger, he went after Joe Biernat for three grand in plumbing and after Gary Zimmerman, again, for chump change – so, does anyone know any GOP targets he put away for political corruption during his tenure? DFL. IP. What about GOP? Sure, I know, the GOP has no corruption. Otherwise he would have pursued it, right?

How many GOP political corruption scalps do you think Palose will want to be collecting to establish bipartisan appeal?

Bill Prendergast says:

May 25th, 2007 at 5:15 pm

thanks, jonerik, for the direct link–

But it’s more of a “how do we get the American media to report on that angle of the story” kind of thing.

A viable BBC link pointing out what Palast reports–would give that angle of the story “credibility” with the Americans who decide what is and is not going to get coverage. The Palast muckraker thing, by itself, is not enough to force coverage of the issue. It’s not that I find the charge hard to believe, I just wish that he would document, document, document a story like that–when he claims that the BBC has already broken the story.

It’s important, it arm-twists the American media into addressing that issue publicly.

jonerik says:

May 25th, 2007 at 6:32 pm

Bill: I agree. Palast does have a tendency to grandstand. There’s no need or reason for this to be a “muckraking” story; just some honest fact checking and background work by reporters.

O.T. says:

May 25th, 2007 at 10:43 pm

counter, learn to read. what i said was in goverment work there is always somebody below you and above you that thinks you should be fired or they want your job. It is the nature of the beast. For him to be on a possible fire list is not a scandal. All you conspiracy theorists need to get a life.

Justin C. Adams says:

May 26th, 2007 at 7:54 am

Bill, I also agree with the assessment of Palast as a muckraker. He does have a remarkable gift for presenting the plausible, though, doesn’t he?

dare2sayit.com says:

May 26th, 2007 at 9:40 am

Hello Dump Bachmann members and other liberals.

I don’t know what all the fuss is about in the Antorney’s General firings. Liberal democrat Bill Clinton really cleaned house by firing dozens of them just to get to the one investigating the White Water scandal. Why doesn’t anyone bring that up?

6th district Jim says:

May 26th, 2007 at 10:35 am

counter-coulter says:
You sound angry Jim.

CC: if you think laughing one’s butt off at the postings here “sound angry,” then you must have learned your reading comprehension skills at a local public school. Good one though, it made me laugh even more.
Should anger be your cup of tea: Read the Affleck/Maher transcript from HBO last night, F-bomb anger in their assessment of your political friends. It made a Rosie view of bush look amicable. newsbusters.com has it.

pansy says:
What must it be like to be trapped in the brain of 6th Doofus Jim? He must be sober, his post was at 8am!
Those gems are especially insightful and well worth memorializing on a public website.

Parth:
good one. Now you’re getting into the fun here. Doofus is a winner. I respect that.
And remember, “public” is a relative term. When posting at a site with about 10 readers, one must have fun even when sober.
I just burst out laughing at the always serious,somber messages that Bill and Dora post, like it’s for 10,000 readers. And each post will be the next one to discredit a Dan Rather. C’mon. For most of us, it’s just a little entertainment.
That’s why CNC is still my fav–his posts usually are hilarious.

dare2sayit.com says:

May 27th, 2007 at 9:50 am

EB and DJ,

Thanks for starting to make this blog more intersting.

George Will has an interesting piece in Sunday’s paper which explains how the unlawful liberal illegal alien sanctuary city policies of communist mayors Rybak and Coleman are seriously hurting Minnesota. Dare to post something on that topic?

O.T. says:

May 27th, 2007 at 9:15 pm

from the nihilist, enjoy:

Top 11 Things MN State Senate President James Metzen Could Have Said To Try To Get Out Of His DWI Arrest
11. Don’t you know who I am? I’m Mike Hatch’s daughter.

10. No, I’m positive we changed the blood alcohol level to .8, not .08

9. If you arrest me, Minnesota will become just like Alabama.

8. If you had to work with Phyllis Kahn, you’d be drunk too.

7. I’m not driving drunk, I’m impersonating Ted Mondale.

6. I’ve talked to the Minnesota Supreme Court about me getting hypothetically arrested and they all agree that they would overturn my case.

5. My arms are more powerful than your guns!

4. Aren’t there some Republicans you could go arrest?

3. No, I haven’t been drinking. I’ve been inspecting E85 refineries with Judi Dutcher.

2. We couldn’t think of which wine went with pork, so we tried them all.

1. If that SOB Pawlenty would just let us raise taxes, this never would have happened!

seanh says:

May 29th, 2007 at 1:19 pm

d2si asked: “Hello Dump Bachmann members and other liberals.

I don’t know what all the fuss is about in the Antorney’s General firings. Liberal democrat Bill Clinton really cleaned house by firing dozens of them just to get to the one investigating the White Water scandal. Why doesn’t anyone bring that up? ”

It doesn’t get brought up because it is flat out BS.

The FACT is the republican appointed USA that Clinton dismissed (in a manner NOTHING like this administration has done)in the district with jurisdiction in the Whitewater affair had REFUSED to pursue an investigation despite pressure from the GHWBush administration.

This is a place where open-minded critical thinkers of all political persuasions encounter information and arguments that both support and challenge their preconceptions. The goal is not to eliminate differences but to narrow and clarify them. We begin with a bedrock agreement that the search for insight and clarity is important, serious - and fun.

We ask commenters to be civil and substantive and, if possible, good humored. We reserve the right to delete comments that disregard this request.

Follow The Big Question on Twitter Do you use Twitter? Follow The Big Question.