So now that we and the news outlets have had some time to digest Monica Goodling's testimony yesterday before the House Judiciary Committee, I thought I'd bring you a short recap of the salient points that came to light.

Goodling asserted that Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty "was not fully candid" in his testimony earlier this year about what he knew about White House involvement; he had accused her and former Gonzales chief of staff Kyle Sampson of misleading him in the preparation for his testimony.

She "may have taken inappropriate political considerations into account" with regards to applicants for non-political career positions.  She "regret[s] those mistakes."

She said that she really wasn't in the position of power everone thinks she was, and that she didn't have a decision-making role in the US Attorney firings.

It's not a smoking gun, but it was enough to get Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) and Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) fired up:  Goodling contradicted Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' earlier testimony that he had had no conversations with his senior staff about the firings.  She stated that in a March meeting shortly before her resignation, Gonzales asked her questions about her recollection of events that left her "uncomfortable."  Knowing that she would very probably be called to testify, she said "I just thought maybe we shouldn't have that conversation."

When pressed if she thought the AG was attempting to "coach" her testimony, she said no, he was just "being kind."

Goodling maintains that she doesn't know who compiled the list of names of attorneys to be fired, or the real reasons why they were on the list.  Since everyone denies this knowledge, Democrats and the New York Times editorial board conclude that they have no choice but to follow the trail and "to question under oath the two people who are in the best position to shed light on the mystery: Mr. Rove and Ms. Miers."