goodling, et al. to give private testimony to judiciary committee

my very quick reaction,
to the news that several other
players in the purge scandal will
give testimony to the house judiciary
committee in private, but in transcribed
sessions, is generally positive.

i certainly could be proven wrong,
but my gut-feeling is that these
people were the minor players -- and by
taking statements in private, the
bigger fish may more easily be fried.

sampson's testimony was illuminating
yesterday, in that it suggested a pretty
out-of-control, who-cares-about-the-law
culture at the DC office of the attorney
general. . .

no files, no paper, no notes. . . just
some e-mail. . . riiiiight.

so -- get the underlings to admit what
was going on, then prosecute the
top of the AG office -- and perhaps
beyond. . .

consider the real possibilty that
ms. goodling is asserting the fifth
because she aguably commited criminal
violations of the hatch act.

in return for the truth, the committee
gets a whole lot more on ranking admin-
istration officials.

at first blush, this looks like a
savvy, prosecution-driven, move. . .

but i could be wrong. . .