but first, watch this video,
it encapsulates the whole issue:
now, here’s what mr. paul
mcnulty — the former deputy
attorney general (ah, so much in
the mind, and on the wronged lips,
of ms. monica goodling — and
featured in her lengthy sworn
testimony of this morning) — had
to say on this score:
“. . .I testified truthfully at the Feb. 6, 2007, hearing based on what I knew at that time. Ms. Goodling’s characterization of my testimony is wrong and not supported by the extensive record of documents and testimony already provided to Congress. . .“
but this quote, from point
four of ms. monica goodling’s
pre-prepared sworn statement
before the house judiciary
committee this morning, may 23,
2007, gives us some reason to
doubt that account:
erh — someone is not telling the truth.
the bad news, for messrs. rove and
gonzales, is — regardless of which
version one believes, mr. rove seemed
very deeply involved in efforts to
(1) “cage” black voters in florida
during the 2004 election, or (2) mr. rove
seemed very deeply involved in the
attempt to place his protege — who
allegedly did these things — into
a much-coveted u.s. attorney’s seat,
via the “great good grace” of ms.
monica goodling, and mr. kyle sampson. . .
the worse news is — i’m
inclined to believe BOTH versions, if i am john
q. public. i am now simply fed-up with these two-
bit, city-slickers — lawyers, and apparently — liars, all!
“so. . . the children were out driving, is
that about the gist of it — messrs. rove
and gonzales — and wrapped the national
justice system, the 2004 election, and
our faith in the impartially-applied,
equal protection of law. . . including
voting laws — around an old-elm-
tree down the way, just like that
blue ’54 hudson???” asks officer leahy. . .
“is that it?”
“uh-huh. . .” they reply, as one. . .
later — i intend to give them their
due — so here is the transcript, en todo,
on this particular topic — from the nytimes.com:
REP. SANCHEZ: Okay.
MS. GOODLING: And the last thing was the voter — the caging issue, which was a reference to Tim Griffin.
REP. SANCHEZ: Can you explain what caging is? I’m not familiar with that term.
MS. GOODLING: You know, my understanding — and I don’t actually know a lot about it — is that it’s a direct mail term that people who do direct mail — when they separate addresses that may be good versus addresses that may be bad — that’s the best information that I have, that it just — that it’s a direct mail term that’s used by vendors in that circumstance.
But in any case, I knew that that was an issue that might arise, because there had been stories about it.
REP. SANCHEZ: That Tim Griffin was involved in that to some degree —
MS. GOODLING: That there was — right.
REP. SANCHEZ: — or may have been involved.
MS. GOODLING: Right. No, and I don’t — I believe that Mr. Griffin doesn’t believe that he did anything wrong there, and there actually is a very good reason for it, for — or a very good explanation. . .
so. . . help me out here:
why, exactly, do we want a u.s.
attorney in arkansas who allegedly
treated black-folks’ names on voter-
lists in florida like “bad mail“???
i am waiting for an answer, mr. rove.
in short sentences; and small words.
in what way would mr. griffin be a
suitable chief federal prosecutor
for all the people of arkansas — even
if we posit, somewhat charitably, i think — that
all his actions were within the bounds of
the black-letter law?
mr. rove, you were keenly interested
in his appointment — why was he so desirable?
why shouldn’t we be worried about this
apparent skin-color obsession in florida?
a l l e g e d l y. . .