Madam Handbag – Moon of Alabama

May 23, 2007

Madam Handbag

Goodling

In the mids of the U.S. Attorney firing scandal is Monica Goodling.

She’ll testify under immunity at 10:15am today before the House Judiciary Committee. (There is a webcast link on the committee page and it is on CSPAN-3.)

Will she really spill the beans? I don’t think so. She probably drank too much red-cup cool-aid to ever get sober.

Goodling was an ardent practitioner of her faith, according to former colleagues [..] Her conservative ideals, they said, were such that she once refused to go to a Justice Department baby shower because the mother was unwed. They also said that she once balked at funding an anti-gun public service video because she thought it promoted rap music and glorified a violent lifestyle.
Link

Now what about that handbag. I certainly don’t known much about fashion, but isn’t this seriously out of style for an informal alumni barbecue?

Posted by b on May 23, 2007 at 12:58 UTC | Permalink

Comments

LOL, no kidding. My 1st thought was you had Photoshopped it in.

Posted by: garyb50 | May 23 2007 13:24 utc | 1

No photoshop, just a cut out from this one.
I rescued that pic from the Regency website when Goodling’s name first came up ;-).

Posted by: b | May 23 2007 14:23 utc | 2

Watching the hearing, Goodling looks pretty beaten and thinner than on the picture above. Fizzy tiny girl voice.

Posted by: b | May 23 2007 14:44 utc | 3

That handbag does not come from current international designer ranges (prada, vuitton, tods, etc. etc.) Imho. The t shirt is lame, proclaims Ralph Lauren, and the jeans are the type of vintage you are not supposed to wear, i.e. your own. The sun glasses also have an oldie look – remember those big, roundish Dior glasses? The pose is American feminine genteel – peculiarly dated, like the bag. The whole to me spells ‘will crack under pressure’, but I suppose it is doubtful any will be applied. (Not that I know the details.)

Posted by: Noirette | May 23 2007 14:57 utc | 4

Goodling opening statement – she says:
– not withholded information
– was not primary contact for WH – DOJ talks on AUSA hiring/firing
– may have made “mistakes” while interviewing job candidates
—
But then who made the recommendations to fire, Conyers askes. She says Kyle Sampsons was the “listholder”.
Who put Iglesias on the list, Conyers askes. Sampson she says.
…

Posted by: b | May 23 2007 14:58 utc | 5

Essentialy she blames Nulty and Sampson and she regrets having denied any “liberals” carreer positions.
And she talks MUCH too fast.

Posted by: b | May 23 2007 15:22 utc | 6

Rep Bobby Scott brings Goodling to say that with regards to partisan interviewing, she broke the “rules” while knowing these “rules” were law, i.e. she committed a crime there.
The Republicans on the committee are just waisting there time – no interest to find out anything …

Posted by: b | May 23 2007 15:52 utc | 7

She will confess to all the minor transgressions, while protecting her rights under the Fifth Amendment on all the crimes she committed.
The clothing is lame, but then christianists would of course abjure stylish designer clothing. She only owns two handbags: the one in the photo, and a snazzy one made of black leather with lots of shiny chrome studs that all the pastors are fascinated by.

Posted by: Lurch | May 23 2007 16:11 utc | 8

I did not know many of the details relevant to the Iran and contra initiatives. ~Fawn Hall, March 22, 1989,testimony at Oliver North’s Iran-Contra trial.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | May 23 2007 16:19 utc | 9

David Iglesias op-ed in todays LA times

Posted by: Uncle $cam | May 23 2007 16:22 utc | 10

David Iglesias is live blogging on U.S. Attorney Firings, Goodling Testimony here

Washington: Very cool that you are doing this chat. I am half-listening to the hearing today, and get the sense we will be no closer to the bottom of this issue. What do you think it will take to finally answer all the questions pertaining to the DOJ?
David Iglesias: Washington: Monica has dropped the dime on DAG McNulty so that’s one thing I’ve learned. Want to get to the bottom of this? Get Rove and company in to testify under oath.
_______________________
Weat Texas: I have only heard a few minutes of Ms. Goodling’s testimony. She seemed to say that she did not know where the list(s) for firing came from, but she knows it did not come from the White House. Is this an official, rehearsed Department of Justice response? It sounds a lot like the responses from Gonzales. If not from the White House, where else could the names come from?
David Iglesias: West Texas: If names weren’t placed on the list by DoJ, the only possible place to look is the White House.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | May 23 2007 17:05 utc | 11

Froomkin

There was one tidbit, however, related to Griffin, a former aide to Karl Rove: “In 2005,” Goodling said, “I had a social call at some point with Tim Griffin, who indicated to me, and he was working at the White House at the time, that he may have the opportunity to go back to Arkansas because some U.S. attorneys may be replaced, and if [Bud] Cummins was one of them, he might get a chance to go home.”
How could Griffin possibly have known that? And yet, in the summer of 2006, Cummins, the U.S. attorney in Little Rock, was told to resign and Griffin was given his job.

Posted by: b | May 23 2007 19:04 utc | 12

There was only one good questioning round by Rep. Artur Davis, D-Alabama,
He got some issues out of Goodling:
After she resigned and after Gonzales testified, she had an “unconformtable conservation” with him.
(then sudenly the Reps on the committee lauched a buch of procedural bullshit issues)
She thinks his testimony was “in part inappropriate” and an “inaccurate testimony” … i.e. she says Gonzales lied in his testimoney.
Davis could only get through to that because two other Dems did yield time to him and he is really good at asking.
Why can’t they always do so. There are some 20 Dems on the committee. Get one ot two smart person to really go into the issue and be able to ask smart questions and yield to them instead of the usual three minutes statements of unrelated issues.
They have wasted nearly five hours of hearing on irrelevant stuff to establish that Gonzales lied and should leave.
Seems like they all only count how many TV minutes they do get …
A bunch of self promoters …

Posted by: b | May 23 2007 20:04 utc | 13

Youtube: Hearing on Goodling & US Attorneys: ” Rep. Artur Davis grills Monica Goodling and causes an uproar from the Rethugs. You want to see this…

Posted by: Uncle $cam | May 23 2007 20:22 utc | 14

Total airhead. More eye-candy for the boys at Justice.

Posted by: Ben | May 23 2007 20:27 utc | 15

W/ my #14 in mind, the following from a dkos comment, is a A-1 prime example of what I have been denoting as Prop-agenda:
Meanwhile over on CNN:
Goodling says she didn’t discuss firings with White House

• Monica Goodling denies discussing firings with Karl Rove or Harriet Miers
• House Judiciary Committee grants Goodling immunity for testimony
• She disputes assertion she didn’t brief Paul McNulty adequately before he testified
• Goodling: Involvement in U.S. attorneys’ firings came after list drawn up

Highlight certain data sets, while omitting other data.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | May 23 2007 20:35 utc | 16

Cont…
I guess they just don’t think that her testimony that Gonzalas lied to Congress and tried to get her to back up his perjury is very newsworthy.
See how prop-agenda works?
Now, Imagine what FAUX and their ilk are reporting…

Posted by: Uncle $cam | May 23 2007 20:44 utc | 17

i think instead of studying the law of torts ms goodling studied the law of forts

Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 23 2007 21:49 utc | 18

What I learned from the Goodling testimony:
*America and the Constitution was founded on Christian principles.
*Harvard and Yale and Regent are all good Christian Universities of equal status.
*The Bar exam must be pretty fucking easy, if the only requirement for passing it is the ability to not remember jack shit.
*Gonzo’s a very kind man!
*Davis (D-Alabama) is one smart motherfucker.
*Everything is Clinton’s fault
*Something about fish / no fish in a pond, or something, not sure…lol
/snark

Posted by: Uncle $cam | May 23 2007 22:33 utc | 19

uncel
i’ve learnt that the institutions of power in america look first at the bottom of the barrel when they do their hiring
i think you would be very hard put to find a duo as dumb as sampson/goodling – their dumbness stretches credulity
about the law – i don’t think they have had any contact with it, at all. they are so dumb i doubt they could even do a close reading of their beloved & barfed up bible
dumbness, stupidity must be a cousin in the empire to pure savagery

Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 23 2007 22:40 utc | 20

i’ve learnt that the institutions of power in america look first at the bottom of the barrel when they do their hiring
when you shoot fish in a barrel they float to the top.

Posted by: annie | May 23 2007 22:59 utc | 21

lol, sorry, that didn’t come out right. i had just finished reading uncle’s post and thought, what a dead fish!

Posted by: annie | May 23 2007 23:01 utc | 22

This specimen that crawled out of someone’s nightmare isn’t a “conservative christian”, damnit, she’s a Bloody Theocrat. My heart & stomach precluded tuning into her testimony, but hoped y’all would enlighten me w/the heavy doses of sarcasm required to get through it. Looking through yr. remarks, am I the only person wondering what happens when these monstrosities start infiltrating the higher reaches of the ABA, or the committee that writes & grades the Bar Exam?

Posted by: jj | May 24 2007 3:22 utc | 23

The Keys to the Kingdom

Posted by: Rick | May 24 2007 16:14 utc | 24

Thanks, Rick, for the link to Palast’s story. Ugh, shudder.
Here’s an excerpt from one of the comments that made me smile, referring to Bush’s recent rulings on Dictatorship:

But what does it REALLY do…nothing, except say that he is the person who everyone should look to in the case of an Emergencey. He is incapable of pulling all the levers and knobs of government, so to actually put any “ACTION” in play would still rely on dedicated government and local government workers and career employess, and seeing how Gonzo is being gored from within the DOJ itself, I would find it hard pressed to think that chucklenuts would be able to fear monger the masses into submission. Especially seeing how much of a neccessity it is for the shopping masses to keep the other fascistas in money, and keep the evil Fascist cabal happy-like. This whole directive is his ultimate mindscape of Bush as historically relevant decidererer. He is dead within 3 days of invoking Martial law. Hung by Karl’s entrails from the Whitehouse portico.

Posted by: catlady | May 25 2007 4:30 utc | 25

The bag? It’s where she keeps the souls of the damned.

Posted by: jel | May 25 2007 13:17 utc | 26

Key Portion of Goodling’s Testimony Contradicted

Here’s the thing…she said that she was informed that it was perfectly fine to be asking administrative judges questions about their political leanings. She also testified that Kyle Sampson told her there was an opinion which said that political questions were appropriate.
Not so.

Says LA Times… read on at the link…
No such fucking president/opinion…
Though the hearing is still open, representatives still have three more business days to submit questions to her under oath, and she has to respond. Of course, that response will be written by real lawyers. Paid for, by???
Also, I accidentally put this in the wrong thread this morning…

Posted by: Uncle $cam | May 25 2007 21:46 utc | 27

Uncle, do the ?s have to be submitted in advance (in writing)?

Posted by: jj | May 26 2007 0:50 utc | 28

this handbag harlot of hell would be the worst lawyer in the world in a courtroom. pity the poor fool who seeks her counsel

Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 26 2007 1:05 utc | 29

US Attorney Resigns
Following Conyers’ Request for BBC Documents
Conyers, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee investigating the firing of US Attorneys, met Thursday evening in New York with Palast. After reviewing key documents, Conyers stated that, despite Griffin’s resignation, “We’re not through with him by any means.”
Conyers indicated to the BBC that he thought it unlikely that Griffin could carry out this massive ‘caging’ operation without the knowledge of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Rove.

[snip]
Last night Palast showed Conyers a Griffin email from August 2004 indicating that Griffin not only knew of ‘caging,’ but directed the operation.

Posted by: Rick | Jun 2 2007 6:12 utc | 30

You CAN remember!
Supeoneas, now with immunity.

Posted by: beq | Jun 4 2007 1:01 utc | 31

Ask your lawyer about minor side effects…..

Posted by: catlady | Jun 4 2007 1:40 utc | 32

rick #30, that is great news! i have been following this story!

Posted by: annie | Jun 4 2007 7:40 utc | 33

subpoenas. Can too spell.

Posted by: beq | Jun 4 2007 11:00 utc | 34

This one breaks the immunity deal: Disbar and indict , convict.
She was obeying “God’s laws” @ expense of man’s. …or so she thought…and in the process, she broke both. Burn her!

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jun 7 2007 5:16 utc | 35

uncle, she’s up shit creek. check out this pdf of this chain of emails re griffin. have you been following palast? meanwhile she tried to set up mcnulty to set the dogs off the scent. what a bitch. i hope she gets fried. plus, something really irked me about the tilted head and eyes looking up w/that innocent voice crap. fry her.

Posted by: annie | Jun 7 2007 5:58 utc | 36

Back to Main