Dear Mr. Attorney General: do you recall yet?
By Kirstin Ellison
Posted on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 05:25:52 PM EST
Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT), the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has sent Attorney General Alberto Gonzales a set of written questions in advance of Gonzales' next appearance before the committee on July 24.
Specifically, Leahy is seeking clarification of Gonzales' previous testimony that he had had no conversations with anyone about the investigation into the US attorney firings. Former aide Monica Goodling, however, testified that she felt "uncomfortable" during a conversation she had with him that he apparently did not remember.
Leahy said he wants Gonzales to explain fully what happened during that exchange.
Gonzales did not answer between 60 to 100 questions the last time he appeared, Leahy said. "I would like to avoid a repeat of that performance," he said.
Ha.
That immunity might come in handy for Monica Goodling, after all
By Kirstin Ellison
Posted on Thu Jun 07, 2007 at 11:43:10 AM EST
So despite Monica Goodling's testimony that she wasn't really as powerful a figure as everyone thought she was, new documents show that she requested increased authority over personnel decisions and directed that this delegating-process happen "outside the system."
Gonzales didn't just delegate this authority to her suddenly out of thin air - it wasn't a surprise to her. She requested the authority and got it, all the while taking efforts to make sure it didn't go through normal channels. She must have known it would have been met with resistance somewhere along the line.
Hat tip to Think Progress, which has actual graphics of the damning emails.
Monica Goodling's testimony, redux
By Kirstin Ellison
Posted on Thu May 24, 2007 at 11:02:59 AM EST
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."Monica Goodling's testimony today
By Kirstin Ellison
Posted on Wed May 23, 2007 at 11:15:53 AM EST
Monica Goolding is scheduled to appear before the House Judiciary Committee today to give testimony about the US Attorney firings. She's been offered an immunity deal in exchange for her testimony, and Washington is eagerly anticipating what she might have to say.
After all, she was integral to the whole scandal. Young and inexperienced, she nevertheless was granted enormous authority to make hiring (and firing) decisions, which she often did on a political basis. For example:
When Jeffrey A. Taylor, interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, wanted to hire a new career prosecutor last fall, he had to run the idea past Monica M. Goodling, then a 33-year-old aide to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales.
The candidate was Seth Adam Meinero, a Howard University law school graduate who had worked on civil rights cases at the Environmental Protection Agency and had served as a special assistant prosecutor in Taylor's office.
Goodling stalled the hiring, saying that Meinero was too "liberal" for the nonpolitical position, said according to two sources familiar with the dispute.
The tussle over Meinero, who was eventually hired at Taylor's insistence, led to a Justice Department investigation of whether Goodling improperly weighed political affiliation when reviewing applicants for rank-and-file prosecutor jobs, the sources said.
Stay tuned for more on her testimony as it comes to light.
UPDATE: Goodling says she believes testimony about the timeline of the planning of the firings by Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, who resigned earlier this month, "was incomplete or inaccurate in a number of respects." This disagrees with transcripts released by the Committee yesterday that have McNulty saying he believes Goodling and Kyle Sampson had provided him with misleading information in preparation for his testimony.
NYT: Why This Scandal Matters
By Kirstin Ellison
Posted on Mon May 21, 2007 at 01:59:35 PM EST
Today in an editorial, the New York Times calls for action by Congress to "save the Justice Department." In strong words, the editorial lays out the meaning and impact of both Alberto Gonzales' actions, and the decision Congress now must make.
As Monica Goodling, a key player in the United States attorney scandal, prepares to testify before Congress on Wednesday, the administration's strategy is clear. It has offered up implausible excuses, hidden the most damaging evidence and feigned memory lapses, while hoping that the public's attention moves on. But this scandal is too important for the public or Congress to move on. This story should not end until Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is gone, and the serious damage that has been done to the Justice Department is repaired....
...These prosecutors have enormous power: they can wiretap people's homes, seize property and put people in jail for life. They can destroy businesses, and affect the outcomes of elections. It has always been understood that although they are appointed by a president, usually from his own party, once in office they must operate in a nonpartisan way, and be insulated from outside pressures.
This understanding has badly broken down. It is now clear that United States attorneys were pressured to act in the interests of the Republican Party, and lost their job if they failed to do so.
This gets right to the heart of the whole scandal - it doesn't matter that it's a Republican administration targeting Democratic politicians. Rather, what's important is the corruption of the institution - a disregard for the rule of law in favor of partisanship.
The NYT urges Congress to pass a "no confidence" resolution, and advocates for Gonzales' removal. But it hits upon the greater need facing the government:
But it also needs to insist on new leadership that will restore the department's traditions of professionalism and impartiality, and re-establish that in the United States, the legal system does not work to advance the interests of a political party.
Can I repeat that? "The legal system does not work to advance the interests of a political party."
DoJ launches internal investigation of hiring practices
By Kirstin Ellison
Posted on Thu May 03, 2007 at 03:35:05 PM EST
The media is abuzz today about the announcement that the Justice Department is launching an internal investigation into whether or not Monica Goodling, Gonzales' former White House liason who resigned in April, illegally took partisan affiliation into account when hiring nonpolitical career federal prosecutors.
Additionally, statements released by some of the fired US attorneys raise new questions about how their dismissal was handled. From the Washington Post:
In newly released statements, the two alleged that they were threatened by Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty's chief of staff immediately before Gonzales testified in the Senate in January.
Paul K. Charlton of Phoenix and John McKay of Seattle said that Michael J. Elston called them on Jan. 17 and offered an implicit agreement of Gonzales's silence in exchange for their continuing not to publicly discuss their removals. Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee the next day and refused to provide details about the firings.
"My handwritten and dated notes of this call reflect that I believed Mr. Elston's tone was sinister and that he was prepared to threaten me further if he concluded I did not intend to continue to remain silent about my dismissal," McKay wrote in response to questions from the House Judiciary Committee.
Elston is denying this, of course. But that's not the end of it:
|
Common Blog
