Did Gonzales Obstruct Justice By Attempting To ‘Shape’ Goodling’s Testimony?
Did Gonzales Obstruct Justice By Attempting To ‘Shape’ Goodling’s Testimony?
In a damaging revelation made late in her testimony today, Monica Goodling disclosed that right before she took a leave of absence from the Department of Justice, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales personally attempted to shape her future testimony to Congress about the U.S. attorney purge.
Describing it as an “uncomfortable” conversation, Goodling claimed that in a personal meeting with Gonzales, he “laid out for me his general recollection…of some of the process…regarding the replacement of the U.S. attorneys.” After he had “laid out a little bit of it,” Gonzales asked Goodling if she “had any reaction to his iteration.” She then added:
I remember thinking at that point that this was something that we were all going to have to talk about, and I didn’t know that it was — I just — I didn’t know that it was maybe appropriate for us to talk about that at that point.
Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) asked her if she felt the Attorney General was trying to “shape your recollection,” to which she replied “no.” But Goodling acknowledged she was “uncomfortable” with the conversation. Watch it:
Gonzales’ conversation with Goodling took place on either March 14th or 15th, a week after “the House Judiciary Committee requested that Goodling testify before the committee.” Goodling’s testimony indicates that the Attorney General may have crossed “into a borderline area of coaching a likely witness before the eventual testimony.” More importantly, Gonzales’ attempts to coach a witness could potentially be viewed as an obstruction of justice. Here’s 18 USC section 1505:
Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede…the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress–
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
Yet another example of why there is “no confidence” in Alberto Gonzales.
Transcript:
GOODLING: I had decided that I couldn’t continue working on his staff because of the circumstances. I felt that I was somewhat paralyzed. I just felt like I — I was distraught. And I felt that I wanted to make a transfer.
So I went back to ask him if it would be possible for me to transfer out of his office. He said that he would need to think about that. And I think he was, you know, trying to, you know, just trying to chat. I was on his staff. But he then proceeded to say, Let me tell you what I can remember. And he kind of — he laid out for me his general recollection of…
DAVIS: Recollection of what, Ms. Goodling?
GOODLING: Of some of the process. DAVIS: Some of the process regarding what?
GOODLING: Some of the process regarding the replacement of the U.S. attorneys. And he — he just — he laid out a little bit of it, and then he asked me if he thought — if I had any reaction to his iteration.
And I remember thinking at that point that this was something that we were all going to have to talk about, and I didn’t know that it was — I just — I didn’t know that it was maybe appropriate for us to talk about that at that point, and so I just didn’t. As far as I can remember, I just didn’t respond.
.GOODLING: And so I just didn’t. As far as I can remember, I just didn’t respond.
JACKSON-LEE: The time of the gentleman has expired. We now recognize the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Gutierrez for five minutes.
GUTIERREZ: Thank you very much.
I would like to yield my time to Mr. Davis.
DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Gutierrez.
Had you finished your answer, Ms. Goodling, regarding your conversation with the attorney general?
GOODLING: I think there was a little bit more to the discussion, but I’m having trouble remembering it.
DAVIS: Well, let me try to help you a little bit. I know it’s been a long day, and so let me try to help you a little bit.
You said that you thought part of the conversation was inappropriate with the attorney general. Did you say that, Ms. Goodling?
GOODLING: I don’t know if I said — I didn’t know if I meant to say inappropriate. I said it made me a little uncomfortable.
DAVIS: What was it that made you uncomfortable about your conversation with the attorney general, Mr. Gonzales.
GOODLING: I just — I did not know if it was appropriate for us to both be discussing our recollections of what had happened, and I just thought maybe we shouldn’t have that conversation.
GOODLING: So I didn’t respond to what he said.
DAVIS: Why did you think it might be inappropriate for you to have this conversation with the attorney general?
GOODLING: I just knew that, at some point, we would probably all have to talk about our conversations and I just — I’m not saying that I — I’m not saying that I definitely thought it was inappropriate. I think, in all fairness, that he was just talking to someone on his staff and I was distraught and I was asking for a transfer. And I think he was being kind. He’s a very kind man. But I just didn’t know that I thought that maybe this was a conversation that we should be having.
DAVIS: Ms. Goodling, did you tell the attorney general that you felt that part of his testimony, or part of his public statements, were not fully accurate.
GOODLING: No, I didn’t.
DAVIS: And was there a reason why you didn’t share with the attorney general that part of what he had said to the committee or the public might not be accurate?
GOODLING: I just — I feel like it — I feel like after he had the press conference, people came out fairly soon and said that they thought the statements were inaccurate. I don’t think that I needed to do that. I think that other people had already raised questions about that.
DAVIS: Do you think the attorney general appreciated that he had made statements that were not accurate?
GOODLING: I don’t know.
DAVIS: Did you ask him?
GOODLING: No, I didn’t.
DAVIS: Do you think the attorney general would have been concerned about making public statements that were not accurate?
GOODLING: I don’t know what he — I know that he testified before the Senate, and he clarified his remarks from his press conference. So I believe he cared about the fact that he didn’t express everything in the best way that he could. And I think he’s already apologized for that and tried to clarify it.
DAVIS: Let me ask you this, Ms. Goodling: During the conversation that you’ve said made you somewhat uncomfortable with the attorney general, did the attorney general discuss the circumstances around any of the terminations of the U.S. attorneys?
GOODLING: He discussed a little bit.
As I recall, he just said that he thought that everybody that was on the list was on the list for a performance-related reason, and that he had been upset with the deputy because he thought that the deputy had indicated that — by testifying about Mr. Cummins, that there was — that the only reason there was to relieve him in order to give Mr. Griffin a chance to serve.
He said that he thought, when he heard that, that that was wrong, that he really thought that Mr. Cummins was on the list because there was a performance reason there, too.
And — I think there was more to the discussion. That’s the part I’m remembering right now. But I think he just kind of laid out what he remembered and what he thought. And then he asked me if I had any reaction to it. DAVIS: Do you know — let me ask you this way. You say the attorney general asked if you had any reaction to what he said.
Do you think, Ms. Goodling, the attorney general was trying to shape your recollection?
GOODLING: No. I think he was just asking if I had any different…
DAVIS: But it made you uncomfortable.
GOODLING: I just did not know if it was a conversation that we should be having, and so I just — just didn’t say anything.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
39 Responses to “Did Gonzales Obstruct Justice By Attempting To ‘Shape’ Goodling’s Testimony?”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
Gee, I’m shocked, shocked, i tell you to hear that Berto was coaching her to lie and “recreate the truth.” What republican crap, but I repeat myself. We’re freeking doomed. We’ve had it. How much you want to be that after the republicans loose the WH next November, chimpy boy attacks the US and then declares himself on-going dictator because of “national security” threats?
May 23rd, 2007 at 7:58 pmJust because she didn’t think that Gonzo was trying to shape her recollection doesn’t mean that he wasn’t. She seems kind of stupid.
May 23rd, 2007 at 7:59 pmHEY FOLKS…Gonzales is MOOT at this point. Don’t be distracted from what this is really all about, VOTER SUPRESSION which the Rove-Bot cronies who’ve been installed in the U.S. attorney spots are going to help make a reality in 2008.
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:00 pmLooks like 08 is ALREADY FIXED and we can probably started practicing saying Yes Mr. President-elect Giuliani…
BTW…today’s edition of the New York Times Western edition was a brochure for pro-Giuliani advertising and a multi-page negative screed against Democrats, just one negative story after another, including smearing of John Murtha, which the times was happy to expand upon.
Anybody who thinks the NY Times is liberal or Progressive is a dupe.
Comment by Republicans are the Fear and Smear Party — May 23, 2007 @ 7:59 pm
That’s exactly what she would like us to think.
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:02 pm#4 Ah I see, the nefarious double-secret reverse whammy head-fake psychology Jedi-mind-trick.
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:08 pmShirley sez:
No maybe about it. Look here for a small glimpse on how far it goes.
Fair elections are a thing of the past in this country.
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:09 pm#4 Ah I see, the nefarious double-secret reverse whammy head-fake psychology Jedi-mind-trick.
Comment by lestatdelc
Otherwise known as the helpless blond manuver.
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:11 pmLike I’ve said many times, she has had way too much time to be coached on what to say…of course she is coached, they had to get their stories in line….they are all crooks and liars.
Hating the Repukian Mafia daily
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:21 pmApparently, according to Keith, Gonzales came out with a statement tonight over this issue in particular, saying he was not trying to influence her, he was trying to “comfort her.”
If he felt it necessary to address this aspect of her testimony, must have hit a nerve.
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:23 pmTripMaster Monkey—I read that article this morning thanks to the erudite posters here on TP. I really hate to say it but the Fascist Right is pushing those of us who disagree into a corner. Harper’s Magazine and other left-of-center mainstream media have suggested the importance of Porgressives arming themselves, and I have the sinking feeling that instead of the Ruling Class having their taxes raised to pay off the National Debt and fund badly needed social programs, they are more likely pushing North America into an armed conflict along the lines of the Spanish Civil War of the 1930s.
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:24 pmAnd, of course, you know who won that blood bath…
People say I am anti-Semitic, and perhaps I am, but it increasingly appears to me that the people making all this happen, the ones manipulating public opinion and creating and orchestrating the policy from the think tanks, take for instance the guy California GOP Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner just installed in California to write the new Draconian so-called universal health plan for shill Schwarzeneggar, are Z i o i n i s t, neoconservative
J e w s.
Example…Had the New York Times and the main TV news networks covered Greg Palast’s exposure of the Florida voter suppression fraud of 2000 the way they covered the Howard Dean Scream Speech Bush would not have been able to steal the WH. Instead they made a mockery of the hanging chad controversy the way they are currently making a mockery of Al Gore’s weight, as the Times did today in its Op-Ed section, very insulting and demeaning.
gonzales is completetly unfit to be the man of rock solid truth and rock solid integrity.
he is totally corrupted along with the 110th, infact as far as i’m concerned
might as well bulldoze the entire doj and k street for starters, they would
finally begin to get rid of some of the parasites infesting this complete
cesspool of high class political hoodlums dude
GONZALES IS A FRIGGIN SHIFTY EYED, FAST SMOOTH TALKING PARASITE
it’s friggin disgusting DUDE…….. now….. looks like i’ll be chillin for a couple of days DUDE
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:29 pm“Gonzales’ attempts to coach a witness could potentially be viewed as an obstruction of justice. ”
How many different potential obstructions of justice are we up to now? I’ve lost count.
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:31 pmHe was just trying to kindly intimidate her to go along with his story. And then he sent her away saying he’d look into transferring her. She obviously didn’t like working for liars and new she could be targeted for breaking the law herself.
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:34 pmUnfortunately Shirley is right in that this country is likely to get into an internal armed conflict at some point in the near future. While it may be class driven, I believe it will also be resource driven - - water is a problem in the SouthWest. No question that the purpose of the republicans is concentrate everything (and I do mean everything) into the hands of the rich, white, suit-wearing, dyed-blond-hair, top 0.01% of the population. At some point, the masses will rebel and will likely be crushed by the “thug-class” known as Blackwater and Co.
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:34 pmLooks like Judd backed the wrong horse.
Poor Hillary
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:45 pmHow sad. She is just a kid and has been thrown to the wolves by the boy bushies. What she is failing to admit is that she had a gut feeling, a gut reaction to something that the unpatriotic Attorney General Gonzales said to her and that there is always a good reason for gut reactions. She was correct in stating that she was uncomfortable with her conversation with Gonzales. What she did wrong was to try and protect Gonzales. How sad for her. And the boy bush supporters are cheering and the republics that interviewed her were playing pocket pool during their questioning and she was too naive to recognize that she was being patronized by these republics.
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:49 pm#6 — TMM & Shirley
That article is stunning. Thanks for the heads up.
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:56 pmHow sad. She is just a kid and has been thrown to the wolves by the boy bushies.
This is sort of true, at least on the face of it. But she was a graduate of Pat Robertson’s Regent University, and their mission is to put loyal republican christians in places of power in order to do just what she did.
Personally, I believe she asked for, and received, everything she had coming to her. You could argue it’s a sad story, but I’m not really sure about that.
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:59 pmGonzales later testified on the hill he did not talk to any other fact witnesses.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:08 pmNancy,
It is sad for her. Her family indoctrinated her with these silly fundamentalist values and sent her off to some 4th rated college that focused on religion and not on the law. If she had been my daughter, she would not have found herself sitting in front of Congress with republics masterbating while they patronized her and Democrats trying to get at the truth.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:11 pmMr “I don’t recollect” and “I don’t remember” and “I don’t recall” was laying out step-by-step for her what he remembered?
Did the august committee ask Goodling if what Abu remembered that day was more complete than what he remembered in the witness seat?
She has been carefully groomed and carefully coached, but no veneer can hide the hardness of her face. This is no innocent staked out before the wolves, but a steel trap to slow down the investigation into the real corruption.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:22 pmYes
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:25 pmWitness tampering
obstruction of justice
lying to Congress under oath
TREASON
…this no good al Ceeracka Bushite…
…sure has a lot of “credit” with the DUHmerikkkan public…
…they aren’t SCREAMING for their Repulsivescum representatives…
…to force his resignation…
…the right wing Repulsivescum/Independent/Democrat conned’selfserving inbred Bushites…
… LOVE their gods Bushiva and L’il Dick…
…more than the Rule of Law and the Constitution…
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:32 pmIn her testimony today before the House Judiciary Committee, former DOJ White House liaison Monica Goodling joined Alberto Gonzales, Kyle Sampson and Paul McNulty in disclaiming any role in the creation of the infamous list of U.S. attorneys to be fired. It should comes as no surprise that the graduate of Regent University law school would have us believe the list so central to the prosecutors purge appeared magically, untouched by the hands of man. Call it Immaculate Conception.
For the details, see:
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:33 pm“Monica Goodling’s Immaculate Conception.”
in #22 I was just answering the question posed by the TP headline whether or not Gonzo obstructed justice. So did chimpy and shooter.
I’m even more pissed off at the democrats in the congress tonight. I swear to God I will vote for any other dem who opposes them in the next election. Boxer/Feinstein/Eshoo I’m tired of writing…you’re no better than the chimpy leg humpers who have given this imbecile a free pass since Jan. 01.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:36 pmI’ll bet she was thinking she could end up being the next Valarie Plame with Cheney and his thugs blaming everything on her. Not that she is innocent but it seems those above her were making the decisions and getting orders from the White House.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:59 pmOf course he freakin’ did. Has there been a single, solitary moment in this Admin’s history when they didn’t lie, steal, or break the law?
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:13 pmI smell impeachment for Gonzales.
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:26 pmThe very FACT…
…of Monica Goodling’s LACK of qualifications for her position at DOJ…
…is proof positive…
…that the criminal Bushite junta is/has been attempting to DESTROY…
…the government of the United States of America…
…”starving the beast”…
…a CONSERVATIVE right wing ideology…
…If you don’t believe…
…look into the lack of qualifications of Bush appointees…
…throughout any number of government agencies…
…starting with “Heckuva job” Brownie formerly of FEMA…
…Bush is a TRAITOR!
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:36 pmDuring Clinton’s impeachment trial, Bill Frist said that “there is no reasonable doubt that this meeting was an attempt by President Clinton to coach Ms. Currie’s probable testimony” when Mr. Clinton told Ms. Currie “We were never really alone,” etc.
Statement of Sen. Frist (R-Tenn.) from the Senate’s closed deliberations on the articles of impeachment against President Clinton, excerpts of which senators were allowed to publish in the Congressional Record for Friday, Feb. 12. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-srv/ politics/ special/ clinton/ stories/ fristtext021399.htm
What would Bill Frist say now??
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:04 pmI think Frist would say. ITS ALLLLIIIIIIIVVVVVE.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:07 pmWell Gonzales deserves the 5 years of imprisonment the statute calls for!
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:12 pmAny lawyers reading this? I’ll keep saying this one word until it happens–disbarment! File ethics violations against Goodling, Gonzales, Sampson, Elston, Mercer, Jennings, Schlozman and anyone else who was involved, perhaps even McNulty and Battle, although I see those two as peripheral players who followed orders that they could not have known to have been illegal. Remember, they cannot hold any prosecutorial or counsel offices if they have no law license. So, no more AG, not more USAtt, no more White House Counsel, etc.
Ethical standards for prosecutors are even higher than for judges and certainly higher than for politicians (since politicians are effectively self-[non]-policing). What may not rise to a prosecutable crime may still get quite a few of this bunch disbarred.
Don’t forget that Sandy Burger agreed to surrender his law license essentially permanently, Bill Clinton lost his for a year. This is not a minor technicality we are talking about–this can and should ruin their careers. Just wishing that it were prosecutable will not make it happen. But filing a complaint with the ABA and state bar associations will achieve similar results (sans prison time) and will be, potentially, more embarrassing, since the “prosecution” would be professional and not political.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:23 pmThis is clearly the Rescumlican tactic du jour - Gum it to death!
Talk about circle jerks… he said that she heard that they told someone that no one knew who might or might not have done it…
These creeps look more and more like a Racketeer Influenced and Criminal Organization everyday. Oh, oh, wait a minute… that means… (drum role)
…it’s time for RICO! RICO! RICO! RICO!
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:25 pm#33, I like the disbarment idea.
By the way, you don’t need to be an attorney to file a complaint.
And while where at it, I’d like to see the president dis-MBA’d too….
The would really put an end to this corruption.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:32 pmOf course, he was tampering with the witness. He says he was “comforting her” but he was actually telling her what to say and what he was going to say.
Lawyers must be having fits over this — Gonzo is not only incompetent and over his head; he has broken the law with his witness tampering his lies before Congress and his willingness to subvert the Constitution.
Impeachment is not sufficient. After he is impeached, he should be held for trial.
(I am not holding my breath)
May 24th, 2007 at 12:27 amIt’s difficult to decide who is more stupid here — Gonzo or her. But they clearly were working to carpenter a consistent story.
May 24th, 2007 at 7:00 amEveryone keep forgetting the main plank of the Republican party: The law does not apply to us. Any law. Ever.
How do we expect them to obey the law when they are immune to it?
Geeze, give ‘em a break.
May 24th, 2007 at 10:18 amthe dems need to start prosecuting some of these neo-cons. then you will see a whole bunch of them start snitching. didnt gonzo commit purgery twice already? thats a good place to start. Prosecute Now!
May 24th, 2007 at 6:58 pm