Sign up for Emails from Sam-
I promise not to sell or give your email address to any other person, org. or entity!
Support our Sponsor
Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Personal Savior?
Submitted by jbenet on Fri, 12/07/2007 - 8:54pm.
Woke up in front of the TV about 3am to the current FCC hearings.
Current commissioners
Chairman Kevin Martin (R-NC), Commissioner Michael Copps (D-WI), Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein (D-SD), Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate (R-TN), Commissioner Robert M. McDowell (R-VA).
Three of them are Republicans and two are Democrats. All are appointed by the President.
Been thinking about Monica Goodling and her taking of the fifth. I reviewed her testimony [re THINK PROGRESS] and the appearance given was that her reason for seeking the Constitutional protection against self incrimination was that I do acknowledge that I may have gone too far in asking political questions of applicants for career positions, and I may have taken inappropriate political considerations into account on some occasions. And I regret those mistakes.
The full text of that statement is [emphasis mine:]
In every case I tried to act in good faith and for the purpose of ensuring that the department was staffed by well-qualified individuals who were supportive of the attorney general’s views , priorities and goals.
Nevertheless, I do acknowledge that I may have gone too far in asking political questions of applicants for career positions, and I may have taken inappropriate political considerations into account on some occasions. And I regret those mistakes.
In conclusion, I’d like to give the committee a little better sense of who I am, because the person that I read about on the Internet and in the newspaper is not me.
At heart, I’m a fairly quiet person. I try to do the right thing, and I try to treat people kindly along the way. I always knew that I wanted to grow up and do something to serve or help other people. I went to public schools growing up, but I chose Christian universities in part because of the value that they place on service .
I’ve seen in my life what violent crime can do to its victims. And I knew that at some point I wanted to do my part to seek justice on their behalf. And that’s why I’ve loved the Department of Justice, particularly my time as a prosecutor.
For the five years that I spent there, I worked as hard as I could at whatever task that was put before me. And I hope that’s the reason that I was promoted five times during my time at the department. I considered the people that I worked with to be my family. And I care about them deeply.
This is a very smart woman and the idea that she would take the 5th because she may have gone too far in asking political questions of applicants does not hold water.
Article VI of the Constitution says; The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
This is the idea that rings true, that Goodling knew she broke a fundamental tenant of the Constitution in the name of the Lord and therefore sought protection from that same document. The question is: Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and personal savior? This is what a Christian that wants to act in good faith asks if they want to ensure their fellow employees are supportive of the attorney general’s views. The value Evangelical Christian Universities place on public service is to being those they help into the fold. Once a person has accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and personal savior, they are part of your family.
Which brings me back to Chairman Kevin Martin of the FCC. It seems this test is part and parcel of this administration. Whenever one of these unqualified political appointees comes before Congress, they should be asked if at any point during the hiring process for their current job, or any other job they have held with the George Bush administration, was religion ever mentioned either tacitly or directly? (-I assume and hope they are being sworn in-)
Then as good Christians they will either tell the truth or burn in Hell for lying.
: )
.=.=.=.=.=.
Jamesbennett
»
- jbenet's blog
- Login or register to post comments
So like, if you said no...
then what?
There is to be no religious test.
Didn't I read that somewhere?
☺♥☺♥☺
One election at a time...
The End Justifies the Means
"Then as good Christians they will either tell the truth or burn in Hell for lying."
They will lie (and worry about the consequences of their "faith" later), deflect, distract, or do whatever it takes to evade the question. Your story about Goodling answers that question. A "good Christian" is often anathema to human nature.
Like the integral tool of any self-respecting fascist movement, the Religious Right has been used by the Bush Administration and the Neo-Conservatives simply to further their own aims, and to "keep the trains running on time."
What better applicant to one's nefarious organization than to have one who is predisposed to respect authority, and that possesses a desire to do "the Lord's good work." That the Neo-Cons' and the Religious Rights' goals must eventually diverge, with one party eventually being on the losing end, matters little to the Neo-Cons when the end justifies the means.
Mary Beth Buchanan -- Monica's boss
Q Do you know whether Ms. Goodling ever took religious
beliefs into account in making hiring decisions?
Read below to find the exciting answer to this question!
http://judiciary.house.gov/Media/PDFS/Interview071107.pdf
find Mary Beth's name on Monica's list 261/276
[page cites ff. with the 'slash' re the 071107.pdf]
http://firealbertogonzales.wordpress.com/2007/04/30/did-mary-beth-buchan...
From the 4/23/07 edition of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
“Cracking down on drugs and pornography was big business in former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft’s Department of Justice.
When federal prosecutors in California passed on cases involving glass bongs and hard-core sex movies, Pittsburgh-based U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan swooped in and stole the show.
Critics blasted “Operation Pipe Dreams,” calling the nationwide sting on drug paraphernalia trafficking a waste of resources. Buchanan charged on, though, and in 2003 won a conviction against Tommy Chong — the Los Angeles actor made famous by the marijuana-laced “Cheech and Chong” movies.
================================
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/28/us/28obscene.html
Todd Lochner, an assistant professor at Lewis & Clark College in Portland, Ore., who has written about prosecutorial decision-making in obscenity cases, said that Ms. Buchanan had established herself as the nation’s foremost obscenity prosecutor. “I can’t think of anybody who is as aggressive as she is,” Professor Lochner said.
Ms. Buchanan said she selected cases that she hoped would have deterrent effects on other pornographers.
============================
http://seesdifferent.wordpress.com/2007/06/07/mary-beth-buchanan-how-did...
June 7, 2007...7:39 pm
UPDATED:Mary Beth Buchanan: how did she get on (and off) the US attorney “LIST”?
Jump to Comments
Time to find more US attorney dots and try to connect them.
Mary Ann Buchanan was and is, by almost all accounts, a loyal Bushie US attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania. She investigated and prosecuted the hell out of Democrats in the Pittsburgh area, while turning a blind eye to alleged sins committed by Republicans. She received special assignments and had a leadership position amongst the US attorneys. Yet, as with some other apparently loyal and capable USAs, Mary Beth Buchanan’s name was, at one point in time, placed on the list of USAs to be considered for firing. WTF? over?
=======================
Friday, May 18, 2007
Mary Beth Buchanan - A Curious Plot Twist
==
http://2politicaljunkies.blogspot.com/2007/06/mary-beth-buchanan-in-news...
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Mary Beth Buchanan in the news AGAIN
Did you know she lawyered up for her meeting with Congress? According to the P-G, Buchanan's attorney is Roscoe C. Howard, partner of the DC lawfirm of Troutman Sanders (what, no one from BUCHANAN Ingersoll was available??).
Did you know that her name popped up in an e-mail in yesterday's document dump from the DoJ? Yep, here it is.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/dump-1/?resultpage=7& and 264/276 Here's how the McClatchy papers describe it:
A leader of an influential conservative legal group recommended a replacement candidate for the U.S. attorney in San Diego just days after the sitting prosecutor's name was secretly placed on a Justice Department firing list, according to a document released Wednesday.
The recommendation by the executive vice president of the Federalist Society, Leonard Leo, came before anyone outside of a tight group in the White House and Justice Department knew about a nascent strategy that ultimately led to the firings of nine U.S. attorneys.
It could not be determined whether a short e-mail, sent on March 7, 2005, making the recommendation meant that Leo knew of the plan to fire Carol Lam or whether his message was unsolicited and coincidental.
Out of fairness, let's just assume it's unsolicitied and coincidental.
Let's assume the Federalist Society had no idea far-right political appointees were purging Republican US Attorneys from their positions because they weren't "loyal Bushies." Leo Leo just happened to appoint a far-right attorney for a position he had no idea was being opened for the appropriate far-right attorney.
And the attorney Leo Leo suggested? Air Force General Counsel, Mary Walker. She shows up in this article at Law.com. http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1090180294718
==========================================Congress Interview excerpt follows
[MBB was executive director of the EOUSA over Monica]
[excerpt]
Interview of Mary Beth Buchanan
June 15, 2007 PDF pages104/276
http://judiciary.house.gov/Media/PDFS/Interview071107.pdf
201/276 [numbers in text are cited page numbers]
Q I assume that you heard the testimony of Ms.
Goodling before this committee?
A I heard some of it, yes.
Q And you heard that she said she crossed the line and
considered improper and unlawful political considerations in
the hiring of career Department of Justice employees?
A I heard that, yes.
Q Did you hear that during the time that she worked
for you?
A No. I watched it on C-SPAN 3, I believe.
Q I understand the testimony. But I am asking you, at
the time that you were executive director and she was your
deputy, were you aware that she was utilizing these improper
considerations in making recommendations?
A Well, first, I was not aware of it. And, second,
she wasn't making those recommendations to me at the time
that I was the director.
Q Well, did you suggest to her that political
considerations would be appropriately taken into account in
considering assistant U.S. attorney positions in offices
which were headed by interim or acting U.S. attorneys?
A I never suggested this to her. And, again, she
wasn't performing this role for me when I was the director
of the Executive Office for United States Attorneys.
139
Q Well, what personnel role did she play when she was
at the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys when you were the
director?
A She managed the appointments unit, which was the
unit that processed the paper work for interim United States
attorneys and for United States attorneys. And this process
involved a lot of paperwork.
Q Did it involve the selection of those people?
A It did involve the selection, but that was my role
as the director.
Q But did she make recommendations in that position?
A No.
Q That wasn't part of her job?
A No.
Q Did she make comments on any of them?
A No.
Q So you are saying that her job, when she was your
deputy and you were executive director was simply to deal
with paper work on assignments, appointments?
A She coordinated the activities of the appointments
unit, which would involve meeting with the appointment staff
on a regular basis to keep track of what U.S. attorneys were
leaving and what the time period was that we had to find an
interim U.S. attorney. And she updated me regularly on that
and she assisted me in the scheduling of interviews for
140
candidates for interim positions and for U.S. attorney
positions.
Q And any other role in personnel matters when she was
your deputy?
A She oversaw and coordinated the activities of the
counsel to the director's staff, which would have been
assistant U.S. attorneys who were on detail to the Executive
Office. And she met with them on a regular basis and made
sure that I was aware of any issues that were being handled
by those attorneys.
Q Was she involved in the selection of assistant U.S.
attorneys to be seconded to EOUSA?
A I don't understand your question.
Q Was she involved in the selection or review of
applications for assistant U.S. attorneys who would be
seconded to the Executive Office of the U.S. Attorneys?
A I don't know what seconded means.
Q Sent over there, transferred to work over there?
A Not during my tenure, no.
Q After you left the job of executive director of the
EOUSA, and while you were still the U.S. attorney for the
Western District, as you are now, did you have conversations
with Monica Goodling about her work in EOUSA?
A I am sure I did.
Q And, at that time, was she involved in the selection
141
or recommendation of assistant U.S. attorneys in offices
headed by interim U.S. attorneys or acting U.S. attorneys?
A I don't recall that.
Q When she was White House liaison and counsel to the
attorney general, did you have conversations with her?
A Yes.
Q And did she tell you of her role then in the review
and selection of assistant U.S. attorneys in offices headed
by interim and acting U.S. attorneys?
A No.
Q Did she tell you about her role in reviewing
potential immigration judges?
A No.
Q Did you know after you left the Executive Office and
before her testimony before this committee that she was
using political considerations in the hiring of career
employees at the Department?
A No. I learned of that only from watching her
testimony on C-SPAN 3.
Q And have you had any discussions with her since that
time?
A No, not about this.
Q About anything?
A I repeated to you the conversation, the only
conversation I had with her since she left the Department,
142
which was a brief telephone call simply to let her know that
people in the Department were thinking about her and we
wished her well and I hoped she was doing okay. [and we know where you live...]
Q But I understood that was before her testimony?
A That's correct.
Q So I am asking now since her testimony?
A That is the only conversation I have with her since
she left the Department, the only one. So there weren't any
after her testimony.
Q Do you know whether Ms. Goodling ever took religious
beliefs into account in making hiring decisions?
Mr. Flores. If I could interject. This might be a
good time. We are now at 1:00. We started over four hours
ago. We have three sides left to ask her questions. And I
am concerned about the time that we'll have. And I am
concerned about whether the witness needs a break for a
refreshment.
Mr. Nathan. You have got a lot of concerns, Mr.
Flores.
Mr. Flores. Could you please --
Mr. Nathan. If there are further questions, I think
you are going to have to do it today or reschedule with Ms.
Buchanan. I am confident that she's available to come back
to Washington.
Mr. Flores. I disagree with that. Perhaps an
145 [143 &144 missing]
Mr. Flores. And that would leave us with less than an
hour for three people. That would disproportionately
disadvantage Republican time.
Mr. Nathan. I didn't know there was Republican time.
Mr. Flores. Also, questions they would want to ask.
And I would hope that you could reconsider your position.
And perhaps we should take a few minutes for the four
counsel from the four sides to confer?
BY Mr. NATHAN:
Q Could you answer my question, please?
A The quick answer is no.
Q Ms. Buchanan, when you talked with Mr. McNulty and
Mr. Elston and objected to your being included on the list,
did you give reasons to them why you should not have been on
that list?
A The reasons would have been too numerous to mention.
Q Did you mention any of them?
A I didn't need to.
Q Did you mention that you have only brought
prosecutions against Republicans and not against any
Democrats?
A Absolutely not.
Q But is that a fact? Have you brought any official
political corruption cases against a Republican office
holder during the time that you have been the U.S. attorney?
146
A No Republican office holder has committed crimes
that could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Q And you know that in your district, I assume, or do
you mean anywhere, is it anywhere?
A In my judgment. That is the answer to your
question.
Q In your judgment? And did you investigate them?
A Absolutely.
.=.=.=.=.=
Jamesbennett