Goodling Hints Attorney Firings Came From ‘White House Judicial Selection Committee’
Goodling Hints Attorney Firings Came From ‘White House Judicial Selection Committee’
In her opening statement before the House Judiciary Committee today, Monica Goodling — the Department of Justice’s White House liaison — said she had no idea where the idea to fire several U.S. attorneys may have originated. “I did not hold the ‘keys to the kingdom,’” she said. “I was not the primary White House contact for purposes of the development or approval of the US Attorney replacement plan.”
In denying her own role in the firings, Goodling pointed a finger at the White House, appearing to suggest that the attorney purge may have arose from a group of select White House advisers.
I have never attended a meeting of the White House Judicial Selection Committee. The attorney general and Kyle Sampson attended those meetings. To the best of my recollection, I’ve never had a conversation with Karl Rove or Harriet Miers while I served at the Department of Justice. And I’m certain that I never spoke to either of them about the hiring or firing of any U.S. attorney.
Watch it:
The Weekly Standard reported in October 2005 that Alberto Gonzales instituted the White House Judicial Selection Committee in the first weeks of the administration. Harriet Miers chaired the meetings once Gonzales left for the Department of Justice. Karl Rove is a member of the committee.
UPDATE: Also in her opening statement, Goodling described how she was told not to show her face before congressional investigators because “if someone recognized me as the White House liaison, the members would be more likely to ask questions about the White House.”
Full transcript:
GOODLING: First, I wish to set the record straight regarding what I understood to be the deputy attorney general’s allegation to Senator Schumer that I withheld information from him prior to his public and private testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The allegation is false. I did not withhold information from the deputy.
To the contrary, I worked diligently to compile and provide the deputy with dozens of pages of statistics and other information that I thought he was likely to need, based on the questions that were being asked at that time.
Despite my and others’ best effort, the deputy’s public testimony was incomplete or inaccurate in a number of respects.
As explained in more detail in my written remarks, I believe the deputy was not fully candid about his knowledge of White House involvement in the replacement decision, failed to disclose that he had some knowledge of the White House’s interest in selecting Tim Griffin as the interim U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Arkansas, inaccurately described the department’s internal assessment of the Parsky commission, and failed to disclose that he had some knowledge of allegations that Tim Griffin had been involved in vote- cadging during his work on the president’s 2004 campaign.
After the deputy’s public testimony, I continued to work to assemble information that the deputy had promised to provide in a future, private session.
On February 14th, 2007, the deputy attended a private briefing with the Senate Judiciary Committee. That afternoon I rode with him to the Senate building, intending to observe the session and support the deputy by providing any information that I had.
However, a few minutes before the private Senate briefing was to take place, the deputy made clear to me that he did not think I should attend. The deputy suggested that if someone recognized me as the White House liaison, the members would be more likely to ask questions about the White House.
As a result of that conversation, I waited outside the room while the deputy briefed the Senate committee.
During a break, Richard Hurtling told me the briefing was not going well, and recommended that I return to the department immediately. Like the deputy, Mr. Hurtling suggested it could complicate matters if I was recognized as the White House liaison. As a result, I returned to the department in a taxi.
In light of these events, I was surprised to learn that the deputy had blamed me for his incomplete or inaccurate information.
Second, I wish to clarify my role as White House liaison.
Despite that title, I did not hold the keys to the kingdom, as some have suggested. I was not the primary White House contact for purposes of the development or approval of the U.S. attorney replacement plan.
I have never attended a meeting of the White House Judicial Selection Committee. The attorney general and Kyle Sampson attended those meetings.
To the best of my recollection, I’ve never had a conversation with Karl Rove or Harriet Miers while I served at the Department of Justice. And I’m certain that I never spoke to either of them about the hiring or firing of any U.S. attorney.
Although I did have discussions with certain members of their staffs regarding specific aspects of the replacement plan, I never recommended to them that a specific U.S. attorney be added to or removed from Mr. Sampson’s list. And I do not recall that they ever communicated any such recommendation to me.
Third, I wish to address my role in selecting U.S. attorneys for replacement.
I first learned that others more senior to me were discussing the possibility of replacing some U.S. attorneys at some point in mid- 2005. And I believe I first saw a list of candidates for replacement in January 2006, when Mr. Sampson showed me a draft memorandum he was preparing for Harriet Miers.
At that time, I recommended that two of the U.S. attorneys Mr. Sampson had listed be retained in office and that certain other U.S. attorneys be considered for replacement.
Paul Charlton and Daniel Bodgen were two of the U.S. attorneys that I recommended considering for replacement. However, it appears from the documents produced to Congress by the department that Mr. Sampson did not initially accept that recommendation. Mr. Bogden and Mr. Charlton did not appear on iterations of the list sent to the White House in January, April or May, and first appeared on the list in September 2006, presumably for reasons unrelated to my initial recommendation.
Although I’m prepared to tell the committee what I know about the eight replaced U.S. attorneys, the truth is that I do not know why Kevin Ryan, John McKay, Carol Lam, Paul Charlton, Daniel Bogden, David Iglesias and Margaret Chiara were asked to resign in December of 2006.
I can describe what I and others discussed as the reasons for their removal, but I just can’t guarantee that these reasons are the same as those contemplated by the final decision-makers who requested these resignations.
However, I’m not aware of anybody within the department ever suggesting the replacement of these U.S. attorneys to interfere with a particular case or in retaliation for prosecuting or refusing to prosecute any particular case for political advantage.
Fourth, I wish to clarify my role in career hiring at the department.
During my five years at the department, I believe that I interviewed hundreds of job applicants, and the vast majority of these were applicants for political appointee positions. But some were applicants for certain categories of career positions.
Specifically, I interviewed candidates who were to be detailed into confidential policy-making positions and attorney general appointments, such as immigration judges and members of the Board of Immigration Appeal. I also interviewed requests for waivers of hiring freezes imposed on districts with an outgoing U.S. attorney or interim or acting U.S. attorney.
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.
I have no desire to say anything negative about anyone that I worked with, including the leadership team or the U.S. attorneys who are the subject of my testimony. But I’m here to be a fact witness to what I heard, saw, did or know, and I’ll do that to the best of my recollection.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
64 Responses to “Goodling Hints Attorney Firings Came From ‘White House Judicial Selection Committee’”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Great two threads on a non-story. TP is on a roll today.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:43 amDon't lie, Monica.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:43 amNo offense, TP, but you need to run this copy past an editor.
It has some whacked-out grammar.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:43 amPatrick1 sez:
Keep telling yourself that, Patty, if it makes you feel better.
Meanwhile, the adults have things to discuss. Glad you feel it's a 'non-story', so we don't have to endure your pernicious nonsense on yet another thread.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:45 amI MADE THE DECISION!!!
I am the decider. It is my responsibility. Why do you whacko lefties keep wanting to blame everyone but me for the crap that goes wrong in my administration?
If I want to stack the DOJ with partisan hacks, I will. If I want to out a covert CIA operative for political gain, I will. If I want to lie to American people about, oh, whatever, I will. AND IT'S MY RESPONSIBILITY!
Pisses you off doesn't it that you can't touch me. You wussies wont even take on when it comes to ending the war, even though you have the majority in both houses, you have 70 percent of country wanting it finished, and my approval ratings are terrible. I OWN YOU!!
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:46 amMy gosh ... this woman is a motor mouth ... too bad she tells lies to protect Harriet Miers and Karl Rove and Gonzales.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:48 amI have to second the copy editor thing, too. It's 'arisen,' not 'arose.' Also, I fervently hope Goodling's testimony will be a nail in Karl Rove's coffin.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:48 amFor the latest news, document dumps, email archives, hearing transcripts and other essential materials in the firings of U.S. attorneys, see:
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:48 am"The U.S. Attorney Scandal Resource Center."
"Keys to the Kingdom" BWahahahahahahhaa
take her keys away- she's drunk on Chrustianity
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:49 amI await the "what Gonzalez had for lunch" thread.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:49 amCan somebody say perjury?
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:50 amSo why did she request immunity? If she doesn't know sh*t and can't to the best of her recollection, remember if she even had meetings with Rove or Miers. I don't kow about you but if I had a meeting with Rove, or Miers for that matter, I would certainly remember it unless he gave me an injection of some sort of drug which eliminated any short term memory before leaving the meeting.
"I have no desire to say anything negative about anyone that I worked with, including the leadership team or the U.S. attorneys who are the subject of my testimony. But I’m here to be a fact witness to what I heard, saw, did or know, and I’ll do that to the best of my recollection."
Ms. Goody-Goody, painting herself as an angel among devils in sheeps clothing. Expect more, 'I don't recall(s)'.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:50 am"The buck stops at... I don't recall."
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:52 amOMG, it's Pam Smart!
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:53 amAt least she didn't say "I Don't Recall..." 50+ times...
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:56 amBush's partisan firings within the Justice Department have created an environment where the Department has no credibility. Bush claims to be so tough, yet he allows the nation's top law enforcement agency to be undermined by his political aims. BUSH TRULY HAS NO ABILITY TO LEAD.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:56 amWhy did she plead the fifth? What did she need immunity from, if she's sticking to her guns that she doesn't know anything? Can't someone just ask her what she did that she thinks is criminal? I mean, she's got immunity, so what's she got to worry about?
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:58 amAs I stated before, she had way too much time to coordinate her story with what Gonzo and Rove wanted her to say. Sounds.....like it is.....heavily scripted.....mmmm....just a little, me thinks.
Hey Patti 1", you are just as stupid today as everyother day, idiot.
Hating the Repukian Mafia daily
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:58 am#15 - give it time...
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:58 amI can't wait to see the appeals that come out of this. Now that the Dept. of Justice is just another one of Rove's tools, what weight can its investigations possibly have?
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:00 pm.
Yay! Recess!!
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:01 pmEverybody under the bus!
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:01 pmIf what Goody said in her opening statement is true, shw wouldn't need immunity.
Your god knows what's in your heart, Monica.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:01 pmDon't start thinking you're fooling him.
She is a martyr in the War against Satan. No way in hell she will say anything that damages a fellow Xian. Her faith is stronger than truth, justice or honor.
Christian whore she is.
We need more lions.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:02 pmI can’t wait to see the appeals that come out of this. Now that the Dept. of Justice is just another one of Rove’s tools, what weight can its investigations possibly have?
Comment by Grand Moff Texan
None.
Defense attorneys are drooling at the thought of the appeals they'll file....
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:03 pmAt least she didn’t say “I Don’t Recall…†50+ times…
Comment by S.D
No but she said "um" thousands of times. Shouldn't you learn not to do that in law school?
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:03 pmSo far, she is playing dumb and trying to pass herself off as just an underling who was just doing what she was told to do. I hope Maxine Waters goes after her. Scott was great. He made her admit that she broke civil service laws.
Short recess now.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:03 pmIf she did nothing wrong, or if she did not know what really happened, then why did she quit her job? Why all the stories of her sobbing? Why go into seclusion? Why plead the 5th? Why need a battery of attorneys with her?
She is not going to say anything. That is pretty clear. This stinks to high heaven.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:04 pmMonica Goodling, useful idiot. She wanted immunity for what? She has an over inflated view of herself, which is why she fits great in this administration. Where are the documents Monica?
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:05 pmMonica Goodling= Useful Idiot.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:07 pm"....to the best of my recollection.", but unfortunately you have to keep in mind that my memory is pretty shaky...
No, she hasn't said "I don't remember" fifty times, but the day is young.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:08 pmher opening statements are nothing more than an attempt to soften any blows that come later. A preemptive strike so to speak. She wanted immunity for a reason and, if the members of this committee have some brass one's, we should hear more today.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:09 pmGreat two threads on a non-story. TP is on a roll today.
Comment by Patrick1
And one slimy weasel, too!
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:09 pm3431 9 killed today
http://news.yahoo.com/i/721;_ylt=Alf1grEbYsclag59Xyym4A6s0NUE
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:09 pm"I mean, she’s got immunity, so what’s she got to worry about?"
Comment by Tom — May 23, 2007 @ 11:58 am
She admitted to breaking civil-service laws in hiring.
She also is dancing around admitting knowing that Tim Griffin "caged" voters in his district, with bogus voter-fraud prosecutions.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:09 pm#17-Tom
"Can't someone just ask her what she did that she thinks is criminal." Actually, Congressman Mel Watt [D-NC] did just that. Goodling's answer was that she may have broken some civil service rules. Watt inquired rules or laws? Goodling response was that she may have inadvertenly violated rules but not knowlingly the law. Her testimony seemed to include a lot of I don't recall and my memories are not accurate concerning that particular question. Her voice is so high, I half expected the water glass to shatter from her high pitched sound.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:09 pmdidn't she violate employment discrimination laws with her admission on their hiring practices? whether or not she doesn't think she committed a crime i would think is irrelevent but it is the INTENT that should implicate her.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:09 pmThis weaponized twinkie would be better off stiffing the Mexicans who cut the grass around her sorority house. This is the kind of low-quality human capital the Republican machine has coughed up.
Pathetic.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:10 pm.
So far it looks like Goodling plans to stick with lying. If her opening statement is indicative, then she was granted immunity for nothing.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:12 pmI consider this hearing proof that both sides are just playing to the middle. Look at what happened here. This woman has no proof to offer that requires 5th Amendment protections. So the government grants her immunity so that we can here evidence that she knows nothing? She admits to some of her own crimes and cannot be brought before a court?
If you see my point she would have had to offer something to the committee that was tangible so that any of her criminal acts would be rendered harmless. So since she has nothing to offer than why would she get a deal rather than face the law?
The whole process we are watching is displayed to take us away from the truth that the government is making an enemy of the citizens. The idea of a general strike or a revolt is marginalized by the appearance that the problems of corruption are being dealt with. Before we realize it years of wasted time go by.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:15 pmSo far it looks like Goodling plans to stick with lying. If her opening statement is indicative, then she was granted immunity for nothing.
Comment by VerbalKint
Do you think we could count on Conyers for a nice charge of perjury...?
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:15 pmShe is dancing around the use of words, just like Gonzales did. I wish someone would cut through the crap and ask some very direct, pointed questions. They have to ask the right questions to throw her off-script. They are fishing right now and she appears to have been well-rehearsed. She has several times answered with lightly changing what was asked with re-asking the question in a very slightly different way and then answering her question. Interesting slight of hand (or mouth).
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:16 pmThey must have assured her that these guys didn't have any real evidence or connections to the top echelon, so they didn't know what to ask. They probably convinced her it wasn't really lying, just not being entirely forthcoming with what they were fishing for.
Do you suppose God parses what is lying and what isn't really..?
So, when is Minnie Mouse back on?
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:17 pmZooey sez:
Let's hope they're just giving her enough rope to hang herself, and then, when they can demonstrate conclusively that she lied under oath, she can say bye-bye to immunity.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:20 pmSCHWWWIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNGGGGG!!
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:20 pmIt boggles the mind to consider the power this green, incompetent kid wielded.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:24 pmShe looks much older than 33. More of a 38 or 43 I'm thinkin'.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:26 pmSheila Jackson Lee is making the case for subpoena-ing Karl. That's what this is all about; setting the stage for Rove's testimony.
Sweet.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:28 pmLet’s hope they’re just giving her enough rope to hang herself, and then, when they can demonstrate conclusively that she lied under oath, she can say bye-bye to immunity.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey
That would be the smart and most sensible route to take.....what are the odds? Oy.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:30 pmNow Goodling is being grilled about being an oppo for the RNC before coming to Justice. She was under Barbara Comstock, and admits to doing oppo research at Justice for hiring. She also admits to telling the White House about it. She's admitted that oppo files are kept at the DOJ.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:38 pm"She’s admitted that oppo files are kept at the DOJ."
Hmm. I wonder if they contain emails... that Gonzo refuses to turn over...
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:42 pmGoodling: "...failed to disclose that he had some knowledge of allegations that Tim Griffin had been involved in vote- cadging during his work on the president’s 2004 campaign."
So, Tim Griffin engaged in vote-cadging and was rewarded with a federal prosecutor position. To paraphrase, somebody violated federal election laws and was given a promotion for his lawbreaking behavior. Give it up, conservatives. Vote-cadging is a federal crime and one of the administration's "true believers" just testified that the Bushies engaged in it. Back in '99, you were all saying that the rule of law was the most important thing. Have you all flip-flopped?
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:43 pm#52 ~ To what extent is a candidate responsible for the actions taken by members of the campaign? If proven out, does this potentially either expose Bush/Cheney to legal consequences, or provide a legal basis for challenging the 2004 election results?
Just exposing the dirt isn't good enough, I want a little accountability.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:51 pmThis chick is following the Gonzalez/Rove Party line and blaming McNulty
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:51 pmDid Monica Goodling's statement that she never had a conversation with Karl Rove or Harriet Miers cover written communications? When she says that she never spoke to either include e-mail? That was a very carefully worded statement. The definition of conversation is an informal verbal communication. A spoken exchange.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:55 pmLike I mentioned in this post...
Comment by Saywho — May 23, 2007 @ 12:15 pm
There is a possibility that the citizens of the USA are being played by a duplicity of a corrupt government but you can believe a room full of lawyers if that makes you feel better.
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:21 pm"I have never attended a meeting of the White House Judicial Selection Committee. The attorney general and Kyle Sampson attended those meetings. To the best of my recollection, I’ve never had a conversation with Karl Rove or Harriet Miers while I served at the Department of Justice. And I’m certain that I never spoke to either of them about the hiring or firing of any U.S. attorney."
She DIDN'T say that she hadn't corresponded by email with Rove or Miers...
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:36 pmWhat does John Murtha and earmarks have to do with this hearing? Am I missing something?
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:57 pmWTF?
How do you square her own testimony with itself?
Those are two contradictory statements.
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:09 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.
As Monica Goodling will tell you, the mission of Regent University law school is to bring the will of the Almighty to the law. But when it comes to the ultimate paternity of the purged prosecutors list, the Almighty resides not in Heaven, but in the White House.
For the details, see:
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:20 pm"Monica Goodling's Immaculate Conception."
PATRICK, you seem to be a pathetic little 'man'. I hope you'll someday get out of Mommy's basement and out into this Real World (tm). You really don't seem to have any life outside of trolling and spammong this forum.
May 23rd, 2007 at 4:00 pmpathetic, indeed.
Great two threads on a non-story. TP is on a roll today.
Comment by Patrick1 — May 23, 2007 @ 11:43 am
Wanna talk about lying about marital infidelity instead. moron? We are talking major crime in the crime family and Rethugs, all 28% of you can't stand it. Drag the fat pig, KKKarl Rove to the fire.
May 23rd, 2007 at 4:09 pmIf she lost some weight(okay,a lot of weight) she could be out doing Coulter impressions. She could just create some kind of fake Adams apple and just wear polonecks. She'd probably make enough money to pay off her legal bills.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:09 pmPatrick - Were you a Hitler youth?
May 24th, 2007 at 12:56 am