Monica Goodling Instructs DOJ Officials to Delete Documents

[kpete]

Monica Goodling Instructs DOJ Officials to Delete Documents

.....Yes, that's an instruction to delete documents. And notice the date: February 12, 2007. That's well after Congress began investigating this matter. I don't believe any subpoenas or document requests had yet been issued (someone please correct me if I'm wrong about that), but it was pretty clear by then that document requests were likely.
.....




Let's review the timeline. On January 17, 2007, Senators Feinstein and Leahy grilled Alberto Gonzales on the recent spate of U.S. Attorney firings. On January 25, 2007, Senator Schumer announced that he was going to hold hearings on the firing of U.S. Attorneys. And on February 6, Schumer held the first set of hearings, in which Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty testified that Bud Cummins was not asked to leave for "performance-related" reasons, but rather to make way for Karl Rove protege Tim Griffin. That damaging testimony helped propel this story to the front pages.

And two days later, on February 8, 2007, Senators Durbin, Schumer, Murray, and Reid sent a follow up letter to Alberto Gonzales asking all sorts of questions arising out of McNulty's testimony, including a number of questions about the replacement of Bud Cummins with Tim Griffin.

It is in this context that Monica Goodling, four days later, sends out the above-displayed email, which attaches updated talking points re: Griffin/Cummins and various other U.S. Attorney related issues and instructs the recipients to delete prior versions of the documents.

755367.GIFhttp://www.anonymousliberal.com/2007/04/monica-goodling-instructs-doj-officials.html#links

[dysfunctional press]

1. actually, it seems like she's instructing them to update software...

just because the word "delete" is used, it doesn't necessarily mean that anything nefarious is at play.

[angstlessk]

2. that is not software, those are documents .doc and pdf are NOT

software. She is replacing documents becuse???? the old docs would implicate them in wrongdoing???not fit for public consumption (she indicates THESE doc could be shared with the media)???

[dysfunctional press]

3. i think that you're mistaken here...

she's instructing them to update the software, and in the process, there are some docs that wouldn't be compatible...at least that's how i interpret it.

[Cooley Hurd]

4. There's nothing about software in the email...

She's asking the recipients to update the attached documents, not the software. Besides, since Adobe Acrobat and MS Word are both "backwards-compatible", there would be no reason why the docs themselves wouldn't be compatible with updates of the software.

:hi:

[originalpckelly]

5. No, you're wrong. She doesn't even mention updating software.

When she refers to SDCA, that is the abbreviation of the "Southern District of California" as in the US Attorney's office for that district, as in CAROL LAM'S OLD OFFICE!

What she's doing is somehow altering documents that the recipients of this e-mail previously had. However, we do not know what these alterations were, or if they are intended to mislead Congress or anyone else.

Finally, it does say to delete the old versions of the documents, and if this was some innocent alteration, why make sure to tell the others to delete the documents?

It just doesn't pan out if she isn't talking about something that might look wrong.

[bluerum]

9. NOT AT ALL! She is telling them to replace previous versions of word docs

and pdf documents with newer "current" versions of the documents AFTER the Feb.6 hearings and Feb. 8 letters.

Looks like an attempt to cover tracks and re-direct.

Edit: dates.

[KharmaTrain]

6. Do They Have The Previous List And Subsequent One?

While I would hope this was the reason Goodling ran for the 5th, I don't think she's that smart...she's covering up far more.

It looks like she's destroying evidence, and by that date the first hints of an investigation was starting, but this appears to be a memo saying to replace one list with another...as if you got an inner-office memo saying a new directive was superceding a previous one. Now if there are copies of the emails with the previous and redacted list, I don't see any smoke here...but if they can't find a list that matches with the changes...THEN, let the fireworks begin.

The mess here will be getting the RNC emails...also the gwb43 ones. Besides them not having to be protected like the .gov servers do, by now one would afford a high tech tech to scrub servers and puters to delete all traces of emails. Hell, with their money, how hard would it be just to replace servers with new software?

Here's hoping Goodling is a scared little girl right now...and that little voice in her haid tells her to be a good xtian and her redemption is confessing to Congressmen Waxman and Conyers.

[originalpckelly]

7. Yes, I think I have to agree. While deletion in and of itself looks bad...

it might not be bad, they could simply have a policy of deleting old version of documents, but it seems a little odd and maybe that policy itself is in violation of the federal records act, which applies to non-White House personnel and it mandates retention of their documents.

If this is a deletion policy, it would seem to afoul of that law.

In addition, I have to wonder why, if they don't have a deletion policy, they are deleting documents. That connotes some type of incriminating or otherwise unpleasant information in those documents.

On thinking about it a little more, it would seem that a mandatory deletion policy would have to be approved by the National Archives and Records Administration. She wouldn't have to tell these people to delete a document, because they'd be aware of the deletion policy.

So she did definitely violate the federal records act.

[KharmaTrain]

8. The Definition of "Delete"

That's a vague term. Could it mean just replacing one list with another...just like when you get an update on a project, the older material is no longer "operative" and thus in a sense "deleted"...while not in a physical sense. Again, if the past and redacted lists are available, I can't see how there was a violation as no evidence was destroyed. Thus the word "delete" should be given a bit of latitude here.

The one thing this memo does call do is ramp up the demand to get the RNC and gwb43 emails to see if there was some real obstruction happening here (bet ya a shiny new dime there is).

Cheers...

:hi:

[warrior1]

10. did she get immunity?

For the love of my dog, I hope not. If she won't speak with out conditions, then put her ass in jail.

Or is anyone of a mind that she will be ruin no matter what?

[KharmaTrain]

13. I Think A Deal Is In Place

At least that's what TPM was reporting last week. The last I read was they were trying to get her in to testify before Gonzo's next "appearance".

I don't see a problem immunizing her...someone's gonna have to be in order to "squeeze up" and get the bigger fishes. She's got her hands all over the USA scandal and the fact she ran to lawyer up so fast when her name became public told me she's one scared little girl.

Immunity dosn't give on the right to lie and deceive. Thus if she offers information that leads to criminal charges against Rove and Gonzo, I think that's a fair trade.

Monica's political life is in limbo for now. While I'd say it's toast, look at how many ex-cons in the Nixon and Raygun regimes ended up in this one...she may have a future in the GOOP party of 2024.

[bluerum]

11. I have found, that saving all versions of documents helps me do my job

and maintain historical context and continuity in a project. You simply shuffle the older documents into a directory named as such, and keep the current documents in a directory named current.

My sense is that this is exactly what they are trying NOT to do in this case.

[durtee librul]

12. Better go get Fawn Hall

at least she knew how to run a shredder...aaahhhhh the goold old days.

[C_U_L8R]

14. Better than shredding or deleting

these goobers just re-write history.
They know missing docs raise suspicion...
so they just replace the old incriminating docs
with new sanitized docs. Deviously simple.

[Joanne98]

15. "Can be used with media and friendlies"

[rosesaylavee]

16. Like Timmeh's MTP... n/t

[snappyturtle]

17. Her directive doesn't sound good--she isn't directing the

recipients to keep the old documents AND put them into new format, whatever, with software, which I don''t think she was doing. It's like she was ordering the destruction on gov't documents.