Questions remain for Goodling and her bosses

Calculated.

“Calculated” is the best word to describe Monica Goodling’s testimony Wednesday before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee under immunity for her role in the hiring and firing of U.S. attorneys. Her answers were carefully coached, carefully phrased and carefully calculated to sound like an apology for breaking the law because, as Goodling said several times, “I didn’t mean to.”

Opinion: Questions Remain for Goodling and Her Bosses

That’s like saying, “I didn’t mean to stab that guy as we passed on the street, but I understand that I crossed the line in doing so, and I apologize.” Think that would get me off easy?

There’s still one question I’d like to see posed to Goodling:

“You’ve essentially admitted that you broke the law, and you are now immune from prosecution and required to answer our questions truthfully and completely. Who, therefore, ordered you to include political considerations in U.S. attorney Department of Justice hiring decisions?”

Keep in mind what U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minneapolis, asked Goodling and her response, in so many words. Why wasn’t Assistant U.S. Attorney Joan Humes considered, given her lengthy resume? Oh, I heard she was a liberal; that’s why she wasn’t considered. While her response to this question can’t be treated as a de facto admission of legal wrongdoing, the identity of the person who told her that was OK should be interesting indeed.***Note: corrected. See this excerpt for a great little exchange, though

Goodling’s claim that she never communicated with Harriet Miers and Karl Rove on Justice Department issues falls somewhere between “strains credibility” and “absolutely preposterous.” She has served, after all, as the White House liaison: If she didn’t communicate with them, with whom did she communicate? The calculation behind throwing Kyle Sampson under the bus and Sampson issuing an immediate retort is simple enough: Make officials at this level squabble, and it ends here.

But the piece de resistance of Goodling’s testimony may have been her claims regarding former Minnesota U.S. Attorney Tom Heffelfinger’s work: She testified she “heard” that Heffelfinger was on a list of attorneys to be sacked because of his work on Native American issues. There are two tines to this fork, one of which is addressed by Eric Black:

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.

... [S]uppose 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?

A very good point, and one worth exploring in more depth with Goodling’s partners in crime. However, the other side of the issue is this: perhaps Native American issues did figure into the decision to put Heffelfinger’s name on the Naughty List. If so, where else have we seen Native American issues popping up in Bush administration scandals?

Oh, that’s right: Jack Abramoff bilked Native American tribes out of millions of dollars, along with his buddies Ralph Reed, Michael Scanlon, and Grover Norquist. Several Republican lawmakers were involved with that little scam. Yet another connection to that deep-seated, pervasiveand corruption-laden story. Only time will tell whether there is a connection, but experience says we should assume the worst.

It is difficult to know how to address the Department of Justice matter anymore. “Scandal” does not do the matter justice. “Constitutional Crisis” is getting closer, but still lacks a certain je ne se quoi. “All-encompassing clusterbomb of corruption?”(transpose) A mouthful. One thing about the ordeal, however, is clear: No matter who all was involved, somebody at the highest levels of the Bush administration has put personal ideology and political loyalty ahead of commitment to the ideals of American government, American law, and American justice, and may have polluted the Department of Justice for years to come with those who share such twisted commitments.