EightGate — the “other” Monica

April 25th, 2007

… only this time there’s no cigar … UNLESS the Congress can get her to spill what she knows; then we can all light up! Miss Goodling’s Christocrat programming may stand in the way of that. The “what would Jesus do” question always rests on who you think Jesus is. Monica thinks Jesus is a Republican who whispers in Dubby’s ear.

Taking out Gonzales, who is obviously about as dim-witted as his boss, is not of much interest to me except perfunctorily, I’d just as soon see him stay in place with the cookie crumbs all over his mouth and that goofy, innocent look on his face; it’s terrific PR when we’re trying to expose a cabal, if you get my drift. I do get weary with those who say leave him there ‘cuz we don’t know what heinous, fanged thing Bush has in the wings. If we don’t know what we’re looking at at this point, and don’t have confidence in the will of the people to throw the bums out, we’ve lost the damned game anyhow!

It would be good to see Heckuva Job Fredo go and someone with respect for the Constitution in place, but I’m more interested in rooting out the actual cancer in the DoJ … Fredo is just a damned foot soldier, and he’s left cookie crumbs to follow. Karl is Toxic Man — there is much evidence of electioneering to get to … and there is a BIG difference between voter fraud and electioneering — the difference between state scandal and systemicatic national fraud.

Iglesias blew the whistle to the OSC, first read — the other Monica, next — the piece by digby, whom I adore, is well worth a read, if just to review the Bush statement on sacrificing his loyal minions. What a dolt! Dig mentions an article by Greg Palast, which I’ve posted last.

Jude

Iglesias Reveals He Filed Complaint Against Rove, Leading To Special Counsel Probe
Think Progress
4/24/07

Tonight on MSNBC, fired U.S. Attorney David Iglesias revealed key new details about the Office of Special Counsel’s (OSC) probe into Karl Rove and other White House officials reported today by the Los Angeles Times.

Iglesias said that on April 3, he filed a Hatch Act complaint with the OSC, charging that Karl Rove and others may have violated the law by firing him over his failure to initiate partisan-motivated prosecutions. Iglesias said he subsequently spoke with OSC chief Scott Bloch, who made clear that he was planning to launch an investigation. Despite suggestions that the White House may have initiated the OSC investigation to obstruct parallel congressional probes, Iglesias expressed confidence in Bloch.

Iglesias also said that while evidence of Rove’s potential illegal actions is currently only circumstantial, “I believe if OSC digs in, they can get direct evidence.”

[T]he Justice Department papers everything. I mean, the most minute issue has an incredible researched and memoed product. There has to be a paper trail. I haven’t seen it yet. If it’s not at the Justice Department, it has got to be at the White House.

Finally, Iglesias said he believes that Monica Goodling ― former counsel to Alberto Gonzales and the Justice Department’s liaison to the White House ― holds the “keys to the kingdom” in terms of uncovering the roots of the U.S. Attorney purge, since she can describe the communication that took place between the White House and the Justice Department.

Below, key excerpts from Iglesias’ interview:

Iglesias filed a Hatch Act complaint against several White House officials, likely leading to the Office of Special Counsel probe.

MATTHEWS: Was your complaint to the Office of Special Counsel the reason for this investigation of Karl Rove?

IGLESIAS: It could have started the ball rolling, yes. It’s is something I filed back on April 3 of this year…based on, you know, Special Counsel having powers to investigate where evidence goes. I actually filed a Hatch Act complaint against Gonzales, McNulty, Sampson and Goodling and they’re already getting documents from the Justice Department and possibly from the White House. […]

MATTHEWS: Do you believe the investigators, have they talked to you at all, have the people at the office ― has Scott Bloch talked to you at all?

IGLESIAS: Yes. I had a conversation with Mr. Bloch and his deputy and two other attorneys approximately three weeks ago.

MATTHEWS: And did that lead you to believe they were going to act like they have?

IGLESIAS: Yes, yes. Yes, it did.

MATTHEWS: So you believe affirmatively that your complaint to the Office of Special Counsel in the Justice Department led to this probe we’re reading about today in the L.A. Times, the Associated Press and here on NBC?

IGLESIAS: I do. There may be other complainants that I’m not aware of, but I believe my complaints are at least a partial basis for that.

There is a paper trail documenting the attorney purge, and if it’s not in the Justice Department, it’s in the White House.

SWEET: When you talk about how you wanted to know the link between the e-mails and the memos, sometimes a good lawyer knows the answer to a question before they ask it. Do you know what are in some of those memos and emails?

IGLESIAS: No, I sure don’t. But I do know that the Justice Department papers everything. I mean, the most minute issue has an incredible researched and memoed product. There has to be a paper trail. I haven’t seen it yet. If it’s not at the Justice Department, it has got to be at the White House.

Karl Rove may have violated the Hatch Act.

MATTHEWS: What law do you believe [Rove] broke?

IGLESIAS: He could have violated the Hatch Act by putting undue pressure on the Justice Department to fire me and my colleagues.

MATTHEWS: Do you have any evidence that Karl Rove had a hand in your dumping, your firing?

IGLESIAS: There are some emails ― there is some evidence. It is circumstantial now. I believe if OSC digs in, they can get direct evidence.

Monica Goodling “holds the keys” to uncovering the reasons behind the firings.

I think Monica Goodling is holding the keys to the kingdom. I think if they get her to testify under oath with a transcript, and have her describe the process between the information flow between the White House counsel, White House and the Justice Department, I believe the picture becomes a lot clearer.

Gonzales Aide Gets Immunity
House panel investigating prosecutors’ firings also approves subpoena.
The Associated Press
Wednesday 25 April 2007

A House committee voted Wednesday to grant immunity to Monica Goodling, a key aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales during the firings of eight U.S. attorneys. She had refused to testify, invoking her Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

The 32-6 vote by the House Judiciary Committee surpassed the two-thirds majority required to grant a witness immunity from prosecution. A separate vote to authorize a subpoena for Goodling passed by voice vote.

The House panel’s action was one of several scheduled committee votes pertaining to subpoenas for Bush administration officials, among them Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, whom lawmakers want to question about the administration’s now-discredited claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa - used in part to justify the war against Iraq.

But House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., postponed a vote on issuing a subpoena to former White House chief of staff Andrew Card on the same issue, saying White House Counsel Fred Fielding had made a compromise proposal worth pursuing.

Political Influence Questioned

Democrats say they want to force into the open the story of why the prosecutors were fired and whether they were singled out to influence corruption cases. Republicans point out that Gonzales survived a brutal Senate hearing last week with President Bush’s support and no evidence of wrongdoing in the prosecutors firings.

Gonzales, meanwhile, was busy mending fences Wednesday. He was scheduled to return to Capitol Hill to meet with a key critic, Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., who has complained that Gonzales was not truthful with him over the dismissal of Bud Cummins, the former U.S. attorney in Little Rock, Ark.

The Judiciary committee’s vote instructs a House lawyer to seek an immunity grant for Goodling from a federal court. The grant would not take effect unless Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., chooses to issue Goodling a subpoena compelling her to testify, Conyers said.

Goodling and her lawyer have invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, saying they believe Democrats have set a perjury trap for her. Conyers said Wednesday he hopes Goodling changes her mind and voluntarily tells the committee her story.

“I do not propose this step lightly,” Conyers told the panel. “If we learn something new in the course of our investigation … we can always stop the process s before the court issues an order.”

Politics of Immunity

Some Republicans cautioned that immunity has tied the hands of prosecutors in the past, notably during the Iran-Contra scandal. Admiral John Poindexter and Lt. Col. Oliver North were granted immunity and later had their convictions reversed when a judge ruled that they were based too much on immunized testimony.

“Think of the consequences to the integrity and reputation of this committee and this institution should we grant immunity and it’s impossible to prosecute someone,” said Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., a former chairman of the panel.

But Sensenbrenner was one of only six lawmakers, all Republicans, to vote against the immunity grant. The others were Reps. Chris Cannon of Utah, Randy Forbes of Virginia, Steve King of Iowa, Trent Franks of Arizona and Louis Gohmert of Texas.

Rice’s aides have insisted she has answered questions repeatedly before Congress and in the media about Bush’s statement on uranium.

Waxman said Rice was “giving us no choice but to proceed with a subpoena.”

“If we are stonewalled then we can’t hesitate to call on the powers available to us,” Waxman said.

Fishing Expeditions and Witchhunts

Republicans dismissed the subpoenas as political fishing expeditions by zealous majority Democrats eager to assert their newly won oversight power.

Rep. Tom Davis of Virgina, top Republican on Waxman’s committee, called a Rice subpoena duplicative and evidence of a witchhunt. Though the uranium claim was false, Rice already has explained that she believed it to be true at the time.

Waxman’s questions to her “have been asked and answered,” Davis said.

“Subpoenaing Secretary Rice has more to do with political theater than legitimate oversight goals,” said House Republican Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

The barrage of subpoenas is an example of the Democrats’ newfound power and the plethora of White House business from which they have to choose after six years of a Republican majority that did virtually no executive branch oversight. ++

House Offers Monica Goodling Immunity to Compel her Testimony on U.S. Attorney Scandal
BuzzFlash
Wed, 04/25/2007

The House Judiciary Committee has authorized an offer of immunity to compel testimony of former Justice Department-White House Liaison Monica Goodling, a key player in the U.S. Attorney scandal. The deal would legally prevent her from taking the Fifth before a Committee hearing as she has threatened.

32 members of the Committee brought the vote over the two-thirds threshold required by law; six voted against it and two were not present. A Democratic source told BuzzFlash that Goodling could still reject the deal, but “it would look terrible” since she would be legally protected from prosecution for anything (truthful) she says.

Her only possible motive for refusing to testify now would be to protect top officials who she has essentially admitted engaged in illegal activities when she threatened to take the Fifth in the first place.

Judiciary Chairman John Conyers assured the Committee that he did “not propose this step lightly,” but that they have “exhausted all reasonable efforts to obtain Ms. Goodling’s critical information short of providing her with limited use immunity.” He also stressed that the immunity protection “does not take effect unless we use it to compel testimony from Ms. Goodling over her Fifth Amendment assertion” so she is still fair game until she actually testifies.

As unfortunate as it would be for Monica Goodling to escape justice for her actions, she has already resigned from her post. There remain bigger fish to fry that are still swimming in the Bush Administration cesspool. ++

Job Description: Lighting Rod
by digby, Hullabaloo
Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Greg Palast, who has been writing about the “voter fraud” fraud for years, writes an interesting piece today [posted below] arguing that Gonzales is irrelevant to the deeper problem within the DOJ with respect to voting rights.

I was struck particularly by this:

We’ve been here before. Gonzales is getting Libby’d. Takes the bullet for Karl Rove and the White House. If you wondered why the Republican jackals like the sinister Senator Specter piled on Gonzales ― it’s because they were told to.

These guys learned from Richard Nixon. In 1973, when Nixon was getting hammered over Watergate, he threw the Senate Committee his Attorney General, a schmuck named Richard Kleindienst. Famously, Nixon’s own Rove, a devious creep named John Erlichman, told Nixon to leave the Attorney General, “twisting slowly in the wind.”

Rove and Bush are doing the Nixon Twist on Gonzales.

I think so too. When someone like Jeff Sessions is tearing into Gonzales, then you can bet money it’s a political strategy. That guy has never gone against the wingnut grain in his life.
When I read Palast’s piece it immediately reminded me of a Bush quote that I’ve always found to be illuminating:

During a trip to West Point on June 1, Bush pulled White aside for a private talk. “As long as they’re hitting you on Enron, they’re not hitting me,” said Bush, according to this Army official. “That’s your job. You’re the lightning rod for this administration.”

For all his faults, one of the hoariest myths about Bush that persists to this day is that he is loyal to a fault — one of those backhanded criticisms that actually makes him somewhat sympathetic. It’s nonsense. Bush uses people like kleenex, always has. He keeps people like Rummy and Gonzales around long after any other president would have because they serve a purpose —- reinforcing the idea that he is not personally responsible for anything that’s happened.

In this case, Gonzales keeps the eye off of Rove, Bush’s brain (and conscience.) The longer they leave him out there as degree of separation between the corruption of the DOJ and the white house, he serves his purpose. That’s why he hasn’t resigned and why Bush hasn’t asked for it. He’s doing his job.

Update: Here was the the dog that didn’t bite during the Libby trial:

Wells contended, it was Rove―the political strategist―who had to be protected at all costs. He was, Wells said, “the lifeblood of the Republican Party” and the man George W. Bush absolutely needed for the coming re-election campaign. Indeed, after [then-press secretary Scott] McClellan issued a public statement exonerating Rove of any involvement in the leak (a statement that turned out three years later to be false), Cheney and Libby huddled about the matter. McClellan had cleared Rove but at that point had said nothing about Libby, leaving the implication that Libby had leaked but Rove hadn’t. Cheney personally wrote a note, an excerpt of which Wells read to the jury and highlighted by displaying on an audio-visual machine during his opening statement: “Not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the guy that was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others,” Cheney’s note read.

The translation, according to Wells: The vice president was not going to allow Karl Rove to be protected and Libby to be sacrificed…

The Libby defense ultimately didn’t go there for reasons nobody understands. But it does track nicely with the old “lightning rod” theory of governance, doesn’t it? Gonzales is getting the Libby treatment. I wonder how much he likes it. ++

Don’t Fire Gonzales
Greg Palast
Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Before President Bush fired his sorry ass, US Attorney David Iglesias of New Mexico, in a last sad attempt to suck up to his Republican padrones, allowed his chief mouthpiece, Norm Cairns, to speak with me. He shouldn’t have.

That was two years back, while I was investigating strange doings in New Mexico and Arizona, where, simultaneously, state legislators, Republicans all, claimed they had evidence of “voter fraud.” Psychiatrists call this kind of mutual delusional behavior folie a deux. I suspected something else: I smelled Karl Rove.

In the New Mexico legislature, a suburban Albuquerque political hackette, Justine Fox-Young (her real name), claimed to have “several” specific cases of vote identity rustling.

Like Joe McCarthy waving his list of “Communists,” she waived documents of “evidence” of illegal voting on the floor of the Legislature. I called Ms. Fox-Young and asked her to send me the papers.

The “evidence” never arrived. Maybe her fax machine was broken. I called Justine.

Q. Justine, you’ve uncovered criminals! Did you turn their names over to the US Attorney?

A. Well, no, but someone did.

Whose initials are Karl Rove?

She swore to me that US Attorney Iglesias would back up her story: he was investigating the evil voters and was about to indict them.

So I got Iglesias’ guy Norm on the phone. Was Iglesias prosecuting, or actively investigating, one single real case of voter fraud?

Norm went into a lengthy swirly-whirly river of diving, ducking bullshit. I dove in.

Me: In other words, you can’t back her story?

Norm: Well, yeah, uh, I guess you’d say that’s true.

I guess I will say that, Norm. Fox-Young had just plain made it up; fibbed, lied, faked the evidence.

There was a multi-state con in operation. But what was it? Each of these bogus claims of voter fraud was attached to a sales pitch for a state law to tighten voter ID requirements ― to prevent these ne’er-do-wells from voting twice. In Arizona, one crack-pot Republican legislator, the Hon. Russell Pearce, claimed he had evidence that five million Mexicans had illegally crossed the border to vote.

The point: Rove knew that a “challenge” operation by the Republican Party, run from his office, knocked out 300,000 voters ― mainly poor ones, voters of color. His crew wanted to hike that higher.

The notable thing about this crime of voter identity theft is that it doesn’t happen. You are more likely to encounter ballot boxes that spontaneously combust. I found cases of voters struck by lightening ― but out of 120 million votes cast, I couldn’t find a dozen criminal cases of a bandit stealing someone’s identity to vote.

Since the Republicans couldn’t find such criminals, they had to make them up. Force prosecutors to bring false charges against innocent voters (one did just that in Wisconsin) or at least claim they were hot on the trail of the fraudulent voters.

Iglesias, though a Republican, wouldn’t bring bogus charges. And he wouldn’t lie about active investigations that didn’t exist except in Rove’s imagination.

That was his mistake.

Rove’s right-hand hit-man, Tim Griffin, added Iglesias to the hit list of prosecutors who were cut down on December 7, 2006.

Griffin himself, after the December 7 firings, was appointed by Attorney General Gonzales, at Rove’s personal request, to one of the newly-vacated slots as US Attorney for Arkansas. The sleeper cell of Rove-bot US attorneys is now in place to bless voter suppression games in 2008.

I’ve previously reported for BBC that Griffin was the Man in the Memos who directed the massive, wrongful purge of African-American soldiers in 2004 ― the ‘caging’ list scam.

Based on that expose, voting rights lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr., said, “Griffin and Rove should be in jail, not in office.” That, too is another story ― But the important thing to pick up here is:

1. It’s all about the 2008 election.

2. It’s not about Gonzales.

We’ve been here before. Gonzales is getting Libby’d. Takes the bullet for Karl Rove and the White House. If you wondered why the Republican jackals like the sinister Senator Specter piled on Gonzales ― it’s because they were told to.

These guys learned from Richard Nixon. In 1973, when Nixon was getting hammered over Watergate, he threw the Senate Committee his Attorney General, a schmuck named Richard Kleindienst. Famously, Nixon’s own Rove, a devious creep named John Erlichman, told Nixon to leave the Attorney General, “twisting slowly in the wind.”

Rove and Bush are doing the Nixon Twist on Gonzales.

Look, I have no sympathy for Alberto the Doomed. He’s guilty of a crime I employed in racketeering cases: “Willful failure to know.” It’s a kind of fraud; Alberto was going way out of his way to not know what he had to know, that Rove and the President were toying with prosecutors.

Gonzales is their glove-puppet. Why fire him? The nation watches these hearings and wants to kill something. But why shoot the puppet? It’s time to fire the puppeteer. Eh, Mr. Rove? ++

This is based on “The Theft of 2008″ from the new, expanded edition of Armed Madhouse: From New Orleans to Baghdad - Sordid Secrets and Strange Tales of a White House Gone Wild, released this week by Penguin.

“So keep fightin’ for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don’t you forget to have fun doin’ it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin’ ass and celebratin’ the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was.”
~ Molly Ivins, 1944 - 2007

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Entry Filed under: Political Waves