Friday, May 25, 2007

The Goodling Testimony

Left wing blogs have gone wild over Monica Goodling's testimony Wednesday where she admitted she "crossed the [ethical] line" by taking "political considerations into account on some occasions [when making hiring decisions]".

However, there is still no evidence that anyone at the Justice Department did anything illegal.

Unethical actions — apparently. Foolish actions, especially from a public relations perspective — absolutely. But unethical and foolish behavior is different from criminal behavior and it doesn't warrant these continued congressional hearings and threats to subpoena the executive inner circle.

To quote Rep. Dan Lungren from his interview with the NewsHour (emphasis mine):

Look, the Democrats expected to have some big bang coming out of this hearing today. You just heard the disappointment in Mr. Davis' voice that nothing came forward; it ended with a thud.

The fact of the matter is, there is no illegality that has been presented with one iota of evidence with respect to the hiring or firing of these U.S. attorneys. Was it a botched job? Absolutely. Did they mishandle it? Absolutely. Did they do it in a way that was inartful? Absolutely.

But the idea that a president of the United States doesn't have a right to hire and fire U.S. attorneys for whatever reason he wants, other than trying to interfere with an investigation -- and there's no proof of that, even though they have been trying to suggest that -- people ought to understand.


I've gone after [the Bush Administration] for their inadequacies in the areas of national security letters and the Patriot Act, but this is not a question of proper management. What we're trying to find out in our committee, I suppose -- the reason why we're spending $250,000 is to show that there's some illegal activity. We haven't seen one iota of evidence.

If individuals in the Justice Department committed illegal acts, I want them prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But if there was illegal activity, why hasn't any evidence been discovered yet? And without evidence — apart from politically vindictive motives — how does the congress continue to justify these hearings? Show some evidence of illegal wrong doing or move on please!

No comments: