May 23, 2007
Goodling Offers Up Red Meat On The Stand
UPDATED.
Democrats on the Hill got some answers on the U.S. attorney firings this morning when Monica Goodling began her testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. Goodling, a former White House liaison in the Justice Department, resigned in early April and invoked her Fifth Amendment rights when asked to testify. The committee offered her immunity later that month.
As Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif., pointed out today, Goodling didn't really offer big "gotcha moments," but she has provided a much more intimate and detailed look at the decision-making process in the Justice Department than had previously been revealed to congressional investigators.
She said that her role in the firings had been exaggerated and criticized Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty -- who resigned last week -- for "misleading" statements he made about Goodling's own involvement in the firings.
"He accused me of withholding information, and I felt like I had provided him with that information that he did not communicate," she said.
When asked for examples of McNulty's incomplete answers, she said "he was aware that the department had worked for at least several months with the White House and the White House had in fact signed off." She said McNulty knew about the administration's role in the firings, because she had informed him about it, but said she didn't have any contact with White House adviser Karl Rove about the firing decisions before they were made.
CongressDailyPM also reports (subscription) that Goodling "did on a couple of occasions recommend removing certain names from the list. Her role increased, she said, after the decisions were made and she focused on finding replacements and preparing the response after the controversy erupted. Goodling said she was not the primary Justice contact with the White House on the issue."
In another exchange during today's hearing, Goodling admitted that political considerations did play a role in her job. The legal implications led to a tense exchange between Goodling and Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va. Scott tried to pin Goodling down on which laws she broke, if any, when she and her colleagues were making hiring decisions.
"The best I can say is that I know I took political considerations into account," Goodling said. "I know I crossed the line."
"Legal?" Scott asked, probing further about Goodling's admission.
"I crossed the line of the civil service rules."
"Rules or laws?" Scott pushed.
"I believe I crossed the line, but I didn't mean to," Goodling said.
Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., asked how many appointments she blocked or delayed based on political leanings. Goodling said she couldn't give a definitive number.
"I want to be honest," she said. "There were cases when I looked at resumes and I thought, 'I don't know if this is the person the new U.S. attorney would want us to hire.'"
Republicans on the committee went easier on Goodling this morning. Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, thanked her for her "equanimity" and read statements about her diligence and dedication to her job. Cannon also used his time to read from a Los Angeles Times editorial about Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., and the actions on earmarks about which he has recently drawn criticism.
Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., expressed frustration with Congress' focus on the attorney firings and asked Goodling if the firing of attorneys "is an exercise of legitimate executive power."
"I believe it is," Goodling said.
Sensenbrenner continued: "This committee has spent $250,000 of taxpayers' money basically investigating the replacement of attorneys whose terms had expired.... There ain't no fish in the water."
Posted at 5:25 PM
Posted to:
Alberto Gonzales, Attorney Scandal, Bush Administration, Congress, House
Share via
