Monica Goodling: Transcript Diary

This diary is for the purpose of compiling transcription comments from the Monica Goodling Live Blog diaries.  This service is for the curious, those short on time and/or on dial up connections.  I will be cut and pasting other people's comments transcribing the hearing.  If you would like to add your own comments, make sure they are substantive, objective descriptions of the proceedings.  Please use the Live Blogs for commentary, opinion and analysis.  The object is to keep this diary susbstantive, concise and most importantly quick to load.

Welcome to the:
U. S. House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary Hearing on:
The Continuing Investigation into the Us. S. Attorneys Controversy and Related Matters
Wednesday 05/23/2007 - 10:15 AM(EST)
2141 Rayburn House Office Building

Witnesses: Monica Goodling

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr presiding.
Hon. Lamar S. Smith, Ranking Member (R) TX 21

Committee Members.

Link to streaming video.
Links to the Live Blogs:
drational's Goodling Testimony Preview
Live Blog
Live Blog 2 donnamarie (10:50 EST)
Live Blog 3 asimbagirl  (11:05 EST)
Live Blog 4 joanneloen (11:30 EST)
Live Blog 5 shayera  (11:55 EST)
Live Blog 6 gchaucer2  (12:37)
Live Blog 7Crashing Vor  (13:08 EST)
Live Blog 8 boofdah (13:21 EST)
Live Blog 9 kate peterson  (14:59 EST)
Live Blog 10 Roadette (15:38 EST)

Reminder: This diary is primarily for transcription.  Please keep other comments to a minimum.

•  Okay, I'm here. I'm ready.

  Let the games begin!

  by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 06:45:01 AM PDT

  •  What the?

    I can't find streaming coverage!  cspan doesn't have it listed.  HELP!

    by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 06:56:54 AM PDT

    •  Here

      C-Span 3

      by donnamarie on Wed May 23, 2007 at 06:58:36 AM PDT

    •  try cspan 3 or

      go directly to the house judiciary link and click watch.

      by edrie on Wed May 23, 2007 at 06:58:38 AM PDT

    •  C-Span 3

      But it's not on yet.  I believe it'll start in about 5 minutes.  I'm wrong.  It's up right now.

      by Terre on Wed May 23, 2007 at 06:59:51 AM PDT

  •  please link

    to this house judiciary page (for button to view webcast)

    the one that you linked to in your diary does not contain the button to view the webcast - the feed is up & running - the camera is trained on the seal.
    
    
    ```
    peace
    
    

    by peace voter on Wed May 23, 2007 at 06:58:50 AM PDT

•  Great idea, Fabian! Thanks n/t

  by Its any one guess on Wed May 23, 2007 at 06:46:58 AM PDT

•  A truly valuable thing to do

  The live blogging is great but it is very hard to track events or get any sense of coherency from them.

  Thanks Fabian.

  15 Minutes before the hearing starts. Flex those wrists and get a large mug of cappuccino ready.

  by Welshman on Wed May 23, 2007 at 06:52:06 AM PDT

•  Crashing Vor #1

  the first live blogging thread diary will be posted by Crashing Vor.

  Any moment now.

  ````
  peace
  
  

  by peace voter on Wed May 23, 2007 at 06:52:15 AM PDT

  •  Hang on

    we may be trying something new.  Hate to barge in here.  Please, Please rec Fabian's diary, too.

    by donnamarie on Wed May 23, 2007 at 06:55:19 AM PDT

    •  I don't think we should recommend.

      We should stick with the first live blogging diary agreed to. Do we want to create confusion?

      by slinkerwink on Wed May 23, 2007 at 06:57:54 AM PDT

      •  2 different methods

        of Live Blogging.  This diary will NOT have the multitude of comments like the Live Blogs.

        by donnamarie on Wed May 23, 2007 at 07:00:59 AM PDT

        •  I agree

          I don't always have time to follow the liveblog threads, the comments are often repeated multiple times and if I'm just looking for content, I can do without the commentary.

          I like the concept here and would like to see how it works alongside the liveblogging diaries.

          by sidinny on Wed May 23, 2007 at 07:05:19 AM PDT

        •  i thought the purpose of this diary

          was to provide a synopsis/highlights after the fact?

          by Cedwyn on Wed May 23, 2007 at 07:28:45 AM PDT

          •  During.

            What do you have a split personality Cedwyn? TeeHee.  Sorry for the interruption, Fabian.

            by donnamarie on Wed May 23, 2007 at 09:43:03 AM PDT

•  I want this to be great.

  but with comments like

  "'All I ever wanted to do was serve this president and this administration and this department,'" Goodling said during a March 8 conversation, according to Associate Deputy Attorney General David Margolis.

  and the only official picture of her being the college one, I'm not holding my breath for a lot of substance.

  more like the
  I don't recall.
  but I do love god!

  Goodling proceeded "to bawl her eyes out"

  by Hey BB on Wed May 23, 2007 at 06:53:15 AM PDT

  •  ...this president and this administration

    Notice how she doesn't say, "this country."

    'nuff said.

    by mrCurmudgeon on Wed May 23, 2007 at 07:06:48 AM PDT

•  I think you should take this down

  because this wasn't in the order agreed to in the formulation of the live blogging diaries.

  by slinkerwink on Wed May 23, 2007 at 06:57:06 AM PDT

  •  if this is JUST transcription, it will serve

    a greater purpose.

    i often transcribe as close to verbatim as possible - yet on the live blogs, it is more reaction than transcription.

    that's why i also keep up firedoglake.

    when time is short, fact is better.

    by edrie on Wed May 23, 2007 at 07:00:21 AM PDT

  •  No No

    I am the organizerr of the Live Blogs and this TRANSCRIPTION diary is GREAT!!!

    by donnamarie on Wed May 23, 2007 at 07:02:06 AM PDT

  •  It isn't a live blog - it is a highlights diary.

    And a useful idea at that.

    by inclusiveheart on Wed May 23, 2007 at 07:02:48 AM PDT

•  I have always felt that this would be a useful

  addition to the live blogs.  Thanks for doing it.

  And just so that this comment has substance here are a couple of links to articles previewing Goodling's testimony:

  Newsday: Goodling: a Power player behind Justice's scenes

  http://www.newsday.com/...

  WaPo: Officials Describe Interference by Former Gonzales Aide

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

  by inclusiveheart on Wed May 23, 2007 at 06:59:30 AM PDT

  •  cnn just said that she would be "live

    in the newsroom" - i wonder if there is an interview or the actual hearing.

    by edrie on Wed May 23, 2007 at 07:01:14 AM PDT

    •  Taking the Fifth and then going on a media tour.

      I don't like the sound of that at all.

      by inclusiveheart on Wed May 23, 2007 at 07:07:51 AM PDT

•  who's covering the live blogging?

  i finally got cspan 3 to work!  woo hoo!!!

  by TrueBlueMajority on Wed May 23, 2007 at 07:00:38 AM PDT

  •  my only question is

    what will happen when this thread gets too big?

    will we have two parallel ideas going?

    i used to be able to transcribe from live dictation but i am very rusty now.

    i'm just grateful to have the video feed working--the last time Abu testified all I could get was audio and I couldn;t always tell who was questioning.

    by TrueBlueMajority on Wed May 23, 2007 at 07:05:46 AM PDT

    •  Stop Commenting!!!

      Go to Live Blog to comment!!

      by donnamarie on Wed May 23, 2007 at 07:17:02 AM PDT

•  CONYERS CALLS TO ORDER (10:27 EST)

  This is the header for the first section of transcription comments.  I will start a new header for each speaker and post all transcripts for that speaker as replies to that header.  Hopefully this will keep things organized and in order.  

  [Conyers has to shoo the press away.  Silly paparazzi!]

  by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 07:18:02 AM PDT

  •  Lamar Smith(R TX) Ranking Committee Member

    10:35 EST

    by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 07:22:53 AM PDT

  •  'Aggregated' comments

    Grant of immunity and subpoenas re: documents are "steps I did not take lightly".

    Grant of immunity does not mean comittee believes she committe a crime, nor should you construe her role is greater than others.
    (MyBrainWorks)

    Conyers' statement: We're investigating possible misleading of Congress, obstruction of justice and violations of the Hatch Act.
    (thebes)

    Conyers: If we cannot trust...Lists numerous things we should be able to trust at Justice.
    (inclusiveheart)

    by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 07:27:59 AM PDT

  •  CONYERS IS UP N/T

    by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 07:37:05 AM PDT

    •  (think blue)

      Conyers: who made recommendations to put each of 9 attys on the list.

      Upon advice of counsel:  she takes the 5th.

      Conyers: hereby communicating order signed by Chief judge of District court, provides in substance that can't refuse on basis of 5th amemdement.  Also that testimony obtained under compulsion can't be used against you in a criminal proceeding as long as the testimony and other info you provide is truthful.  I'm sure counsel has advised you that you're obliged to answer the questions.  If you need to confer with counsel, ok, and clock will be suspended.  With that said, pursuant to order, I direct you to answer the questions.  This completes the procedure for conferring use immunity pursuant to the order.

      [Was this all a formality?]

      by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 07:37:58 AM PDT

    •  Monica's written statement + Conyer

      Conyers: you can confer with You must answer questions but we will give you time to confer with your lawyer.

      Monica: wants to submit lengthier written remarks for the record.

      Conyers: OK

      Monica starts testimony. Denies that she withheld information for the deputy.
      (LNK)

      And even though she was"White House liaison" she really didn't have any involvement with the White House.
      by thebes

      her second "written" point:she claims she never had a conversation with karl Rove or Miers (although she did have conversations with their staff...)  And says she was never in charge of putting people on, or taking them off the list.  She apparently did RECCOMEND names to go on the list, but claims they didnt appear until LATER, see?  etc.  

      This is a long list of nuanced defenses, well coached but it's not going to hold.

      by willisnewton

      She says she doesn't know why anyone was fired
      She does acknowledge that she might have asked inappropriate political questions of career applicants.
      by thebes

      by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 07:48:36 AM PDT

    •  10:41

      She's talking way too fast

      The gist, so far, is that the Deputy AG lied in his testimony about his role and her role.

      Wasn't primary contact, never attended a meeting, no talks with Rove or Miers. Talked with members of their staff. Never recommended attorney's be removed from list.

      First learned of plan in mid-05, saw draft list in 05 from Sampson to go to Miers.

      Doesn't know why USAs were asked to resign. Not aware of anyone suggesting they be replaced for political retribution.

      Talking about her interviewing people for positions (no doubt in reference to the "dems can't be trusted" meme. Says she went too far in some instances in asking political affiliation questions.

      Now she's playing the victim card. Doesn't want to say anything negative about leadership.
      by kml

      by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 07:54:54 AM PDT

    •  10:43 EST

      Sampson...
      compiled the list.

      Kyle Sampson didn't tell her who recommended which name.

      He's the Compiler and the Aggregator.  I wonder if he got a bump in salary.
      by mayan

      by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 07:56:46 AM PDT

    •  10:47

      Conyers/Goodling

      G: when we had the nov 7 meeting i feel like he did discuss... don't recall tht we had any specific conv about the origins of the thing... he was my boss and didn't necessarily explain everything he was doing

      C:  he didn't have to explain everything to you

      G:  i don't recall that he ever laid it all out for me... i would gather some context from it

      by joanneleon

      by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 07:59:18 AM PDT

    •  Wexler (D FL)

      Questions about WH meetings and Rove.

      by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 11:17:10 AM PDT

  •  LAMAR SMITH UP (11:00 EST)

    by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 07:53:45 AM PDT

    •  no data available n/t

      by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 08:07:58 AM PDT

  •  Cannon (R UT)

    No substantive questions.

    by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 08:12:27 AM PDT

  •  Sanchez (D CA)

    [Sanchez re: complete answers]

    S: would it be fair to say that mcnulty knew, but was diminishing how active WH role was

    G: they were involved in the signoff and notif phone calls... i just felt that the statement didn't ... there were other things

    S: such as

    G: his knowl of how griffin came to be appointed... met with USA every week because he was so interested in topic... we'd go down a list of vacancies... whether we recvd names from senators

    S: so he wasn't compl forthcoming

    G: not sure i would have told him who in the WH cause not sure i even knew

    S: aside from those examples any others?

    G: testified that ?? commission... refers to CA commission... we had a vacancy in CA, in fall did interview candidates that weren't rec by comm, sampson said they were rather slow and didn't include all candidates so we interviewd candidates outside process

    ...

    S: can you explain what caging is

    G: it's a direct mail term, separate addr that may be good from those that may be bad... i don't really understand it

    S: griffin was involved in it

    G: yes... griffin doesnt believe there was anything wrong with it... was a good explanation

    [ Argh, she's a fast talker, and conveniently my neighbor's landscapers are now out in force with their sodding leaf blowers]
    by joanneleon

    by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 08:14:02 AM PDT

  •  Nadler (D NY)

    Nadler! My guy!

    My rep!

    "To assert 5th amendment priv you in effect asserting that crimes have been committed. What crimes are you aware of that caused you  to claim the 5th amendment."

    "Very ambiguous circs in which to testify."

    "His allegation might be construed by some as a crime."

    "That was the basis."

    "You testified about Dep'y Att'y Gen't McNulty - testimony not correct.  Written testimony detailed about how not correct it was. ... You informed him about AK issue"

    Not sure where he is going with this, but I love Nadler.
    by javelina

    by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 08:17:42 AM PDT

    •  Nadler

      Did you seek to deny a Democrat a promotion?

      A: Not my decision.  I was excited to work with her.  It was a "woman thing."  

      I don't remember.
      by Five of Diamonds

      Nadler follows up Sanchez's questions
      about woman Ms. Ashton not promoted because of "Monica Problem"
      Monica: Problem wasn't that she was a Democrat, it was personality conflict.
      by MyBrainWorks

      by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 08:20:58 AM PDT

  •  Scott (D VA)

    Rep Scott from Virginia...

    asking whether she believed they were illegal.  Is it illegal to take political considerations into account?

    She took political considerations into account?  

    He's pressing her...she admits that she crossed the law.  She didn't mean to.  Boo hoo...poor you!
    by mayan

    [new] Bobby Scott: Do you believe (0 / 0)

    that taking political considerations into account were illegal?

    Monica: I don't know/I didn't intend to break the law/I cannot answer that question

    by Jennifer Clare

    by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 08:32:33 AM PDT

  •  Bobby Scott (VA)

    S: I'm chair of subcomm on crime... cannot trust the system if they think it's not fair... expect juries to be fair and impartial.. this won't work if political ... partisan views rather than legal backgrounds... firing USAs for failing to pursue partisan agendas rather than rule of law

    S: has been hard for us to get to the bottom of this... you yourself pleaded the fifth, let me ask some questions... do you beleive political consid were illegal?

    G: not for me to judge

    S: what do you believe

    G: don't believe i intended to commit a crime

    S: is it against the law, civil serv laws, obstr of justice

    G: best i can say is that i knew i took pol consid into acct on some occasion, know i crossed the line

    S: what line

    G: civil service... believe i crossed some lines but didn't mean to

    S: were they factor in removal of any USAs

    G: not that i know

    S: were you aware that USA was asked to leave

    G: saw press accts

    S: had a problem with iglesias

    G: know he had a prob with mr iglesias

    ...

    S: know wht cases he was talking about

    G: don't know the person specified

    S: do you know what case

    G: [no answer]

    ...

    S: dep AG testim didn't include - "because he doesn't move cases on the list"

    G: dep AG said he didn't think it waws something he wanted to brief to senate...

    S: other than domenici's problems, what else could iglesias have possibly done wrong

    G: other reasons i heard was that it was an important border district... heard he was "kind of a dud".... absentee landlord... somebody else concerned he delegated... diff people made diff comments at diff times, and I wrote those down

    by joanneleon

    by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 08:36:40 AM PDT

  •  Elton Gallghy R-CA

    "Do you think things oculd have been done differently"

    G:  Yes.....looked at the list and we talked about it...some had same ideas.  Would have been better to doc and give USA's chance to address concerns."

    "The USA's maybe should have been told in person...too much trouble to tell them since they serve at pleasure of pres.  wanted USA's to leave quietly.  didn';t want to make departures more painful.,

    Looking back, would be been right to meet in person...

    by PsychoSavannah

    Pleasure of the President
    "Because they were Presidential appointees and served at the pleasure of the president, there wasn't a need to litigate the reasons [for their firings] with them."

    "They wanted the US Attorneys to leave quietly and do good things with their lives. But there was a sense that they didn't want to make departures more painful for people, I guess."

    by anue

    by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 08:41:21 AM PDT

  •  Watt (D NC)

    Watt: National implications, repercussions at local level too.

    You said that "I never recommended a specific attorney be remove or added to the list"

    G: I was talking about my interaction with the WH.

    W: In opposition to what Sampson said.

    What about Wagner?

    G: Yes, I did.

    W: So when you said that, that was not accurate?

    G: Talking about WH.

    W: What was your relationship with her?

    G Spoke with her at some conferences.

    W: What was your basis for removal of her on list?

    G: Patriot Act renewal efforts, safe neighborhoods...

    W: You remember saying she "bends over backward for AG visit"?

    G: Yes, in reference to PA

    W: You think that's appropriate?

    G: Yes

    W: Specific meetings in which you participated where Iglesias was discussed. Would you tell us who was in the room?

    G: DAG, Sampson, myself, Elston and another individual who may have come in, but I don't remember who.

    by kml

    by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 08:43:59 AM PDT

  •  Watt (D NC)

    W: ms goodling this obv has national, but also has local implications, NC... you testified

    G: i meant the white house

    W: seems to be at odds w/ what mr sampson testif in senate - said you suggested taking ms anna mills wagner off the list in sept 06; did you or did you not

    G: i did, rec retaining her in jan and sept

    W: you testif this mornign you didn't

    G: believe my sentence was accurate

    W: what was your relat with wagner

    G: had contact from time to time, she was involv w/ safe neighb

    W: who sugg putting her on the list

    G: no, saw she was on list and rec she come off

    W: your basis

    G: rememb her safe neighb work... work in gun crime area... very helpful in patriot act...

    W: doc we had produced to us where you wrote that she bends over backward for AG visits

    G: yes that was ref to patriot act work we had done

    W: you thought that was meaningful reason

    G: think it's appropriate when AG asks for help... when you asked her for help she was responsive, thought she should be rewarded

    W: what kind of help

    G: op ed, some attys are more responsive, don't know i can quantify

    W: specific meetings you participated, mr iglesias was discussed, number of comments were made that could have been basis for him to be term, who was in room

    G: after dep did his briefing

    W: tell us who in room

    G: sampson, myself, elston, another indiv came in but don't rememb, may have been maschella
    by joanneleon

    by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 08:46:27 AM PDT

  •  Zoe Lofgren (D CA)

    zoe lofgren...
    yes and no questions..

    did you ever ask or have a member of your staff ask candidates who they voted for...

    on political appointments yes.... on the others, i don't remember.

    did you stop hiring because you couldn't apply a political litmus test on individuals.

    wow!   she admitted some were delayed to review...

    battle was fired by monica - who did she discuss with at doj - who gave her directions to make call....

    and once again, my internet connection flakes out.

    sh*t

    by edrie

    by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 08:53:00 AM PDT

  •  Lofgren (D CA)

    L: did you ever or ever have a member of your staff ask a job applic who they voted for

    G: when they were pol appointees yes

    L: never asked others who they voted for

    G: don't remember

    L: these pos were frozen in 2006 after civil div expressed concerns.. fair to say we stopped hiring because you couldn't use pol litmus test

    G: because they were applying for both, they would have been asked pol Qs

    L: recvd phone call from Michael Battle ... graves was on list to be fired, sent .... Battle said it was you who called to tell to submit resignation... who directed you to make this call to mr battle

    G: when i first heard mr graves name, memory was he had been asked to resign... two things make me think my mem was wrong... mr graves would have made 9 (not 8)

    L: you do recall seeing his name

    G: oh i do yes

    L: was a factor in remov graves so quickly - to push forward with vote fraud

    G: don't rem anything like that... related more that he was under investig by IG... some conflicting memories

    L: discuss voter id laws w/ mr schlaussman?

    ....

    L: who told you to have battle fire graves

    G: if i did make that call, would have been sampson's req, i didn't have that authority
    by joanneleon

    by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 08:55:02 AM PDT

  •  Jackson Lee (D TX)

    Good questions but I have no transcripts.  :(

    by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 09:21:05 AM PDT

    •  Yay! Sheila Jackson Lee D TX

      L:  for record, couldn't have been a greater disservice by stalling on immigr judges.  you were described as a loyal person, extreme loyalty to pres bush... you might have been better served if you were loyal to the american people... give you counsel whether you accept it or not... you were described by mr stein that you and mr sampson knew politics but not the law.  want to know your disagreement with mr. ? grad of howard university, one of top schools in nation, has a historical grounding in afr amer community, you described him as too liberal.  why did you dislike him

      G: didn't dislike him, have no good explan

      L:  you rejected him

      G: didn't rejected, delayed it

      L:  after mr taylor pursued it right

      G: yes

      L:  you said i had no meetings with rove or miers, did you recv emails

      G: might have

      L:  what rove knew about plan to fire, what he did to lead to it

      G: know rove was consulted after the plan, may not know for sure... was an email sampson forwarded to me said it had been circul in WH and they had all signed off, assumed he was one of them

      L:  he was in WH

      L:  you cannot give us the full picture about WH, and only way we can get full story is to get documetns

      G: can't give you the full pic about WH

      L:  karl rove needs to be here and he needs to be here posthaste

      L:  domenici said iglesias doesn't move cases, who was at mtg

      G: the dag, myself, sampson, may have been another person, was week before valentines day 2007... don't remem who made the comment but i wrote it down

      L:  who else at mtg

      G: DAG, sampson, elston, myself, someone else may have been elston

      joanneleon

      by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 09:24:30 AM PDT

  •  Goodlatte (R VA)

    Goodlatte: were you ever in any way a principle decision maker?

    G: no not a dec maker

    ...

    Goodlatte: what was your experience about who were replacements

    G: were alot of disc, wanted to put good people in those slots, interviewed several, chose who we thought could best lead

    Goodlatte: indeed fulfilling responsib in nonpartisan fashion

    G: i think they'll do a good job, would sometimes have made a diff decsion

    Goodlatte: whether congress was misled:  did you ever intend to mislead in preparing people for testim

    G: no, looking back, we started preparing answers for quest A, quest B, at some point diff people had forgotten diff things, snowballed into a not good situation

    Goodlatte: leadership and policy positions, did you follow accepted models, david margolis

    G: there were diff categories, hard to make statements, true in one case and not in another... tried to find people for leadership team who would be on same page, ideologically compatible... immigr appeals, my assumpt that applied to IA as well.  my intent for really bright lawyers

    Goodlatte: career asst USAs led by interim - did you act as a screener

    G: think i probably did, not in all cases, looked at waiver requests, new USA has oppty to hire who they wanted... looked at resumes and made calls, learned some info thaqt infl my decisions and regret those mistakes

    by joanneleon

    by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 09:25:27 AM PDT

  •  Maxine Waters (D CA) n/t

    by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 09:31:23 AM PDT

    •  Maxine Waters R CA

      W: decisions about who should be retired?

      G: retired? no, no

      W: did you have an HR division to help do that work

      G: no, we didn't have a staff to do that

      W: so you were basically responsible for doing that research

      G: yes

      W: did you ever discuss with rove

      G: no

      W: anyone in his office

      G: think i had conv with jennings or ?

      W: as you reviewed pol appointees, did you discuss w/ rove or his office

      G: would talk to OPA

      W: did you document your research? on file somewhere

      G: didn't really keep that kind of file

      W: do you have files w/ info you gathered doing you research using your opposition research skills

      G: there would be some at doj

      W: can we get them

      G: not decision for me to make

      W: would it be helpful for us to understand by having those files

      G: [squeak] committee would have to take up w/ dept

      by joanneleon

      by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 09:33:30 AM PDT

      •  Maxine Waters (R CA) or (D CA)? n/t

        by DSPS owl on Wed May 23, 2007 at 11:10:53 AM PDT

  •  Issa (R CA) n/t

    by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 09:32:45 AM PDT

  •  Delahunt D MA n/t

    by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 09:36:09 AM PDT

    •  Delahunt asks about secret order

      "i find that disturbing," he says
      goodling: "deputies AG going back had delegated decisons in the past" ie. this order just made things more offical and ABOVE BOARD
      D: then why was it a SECRET order?
      G: Samson was gonna tell him personally, see?  
      D: (we'll let that slide) Sin't Comey a stand up guy?
      G: yes

      by willisnewton

      by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 09:43:02 AM PDT

    •  Delahunt

      Conyers: only state prosec on committee, Bill Delahunt, D-MA

      D: speak about hiring and term process... surprise to me tht someone of your experience was delegated by AG by exec order that bypassed mcnulty that was extraord in its powers of auth to someone of your limited experience, were you aware of that order

      G: i was aware

      D: can you explain to us why exec order by AG bypassed mcnulty who was second in command... was stated that he was not to be made aware of the order... find that to be disturbing...

      G: like to explain reason, this issue came up late fall 05, they had determined that dep AG going back years had been signing off on things not delegated to them and he delegated... never been deleg down to dep AG

      D: why not notify existence of exec to mcnulty, why a specific statement that mcnulty was not to be notified, was vetted and caused considerable controversy in doj

      G: don't think it did generate controversy

      D: article

      G: read article didn't think it was fair

      G: decision was made that sampson would tell him about it personally, he didn't find out... people didn't think it was right to ask him to approve something that giving himself auth

      D: it did remove some auth

      G: gave him some auth he never had...

      D: you know comey

      G: i do

      D: aware of his reput

      G: i am

      D: how would you descr

      G: straight shooter

      D: reput

      G: outstanding

      D: those prosec who were term were outstand members of bar... process in which you were impic was flawed... given exper of true professionals

      G: it wasnt uncommon for one person to have one experience with someone and someone else to have diff experience

      by the ever reliable, always stunning .....joanneleon!

      by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 09:46:01 AM PDT

  •  Pence (R IN) n/t

    by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 09:41:22 AM PDT

  •  Cohen (D TN) n/t

    by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 09:51:43 AM PDT

    •  Cohen

      C: you went to public schools k thru 12

      G: yes

      C:  chose christian univ, mostly for service, why

      G: i enjoyed studying with people who had same belief system that i did

      C: mission of regent univ is to bring to bear upon legal profession the will of the almighty - what is the will of the almighty

      G: not sure i can answer that

      ...

      C: is there a type of person who you thought embodied that type of regent person that you sought in USAs?

      G: good people at regent if question is was i looking for people like that then yes, but not looking for particular faith

      ...

      G: think there were alot more people from harvard and yale

      C:  well that's refreshing

      [disgruntled noises from somewhere]

      ...

      C: regent grads fail the bar

      G: disappointed about that

      ...

      C: mr byons? was a problem.. who gave you that info

      G: robin ashton mostly

      C: define problems

      G: a lot of turmoil among staff... usa had hired a mgmt analyst to analyze career people, involved them being asked to go to a cabin with the mgmt consultant for weekend and they would send back a report to USA... was a bizarre tale may not rememb exactly, career folks didn't apprec

      C: age discrim

      G: think there were multiple age discr suits

      ...

      C: pres power to hire or fire whoever he wanted - wasn't it fact there were USAs who were not asked to leave except in cases of scandal or disagreement

      by joanneleon

      by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 10:16:36 AM PDT

  •  Forbes (R VA) n/t

    by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 11:01:57 AM PDT

    •  Fishing Expedition

      Serious bloviation, partisan attacks and a pat on the back for Ms Goodling.

      by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 11:08:15 AM PDT

  •  King (R IA) n/t

    by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 11:15:37 AM PDT

  •  Wexler (D FL)

    Wexler... (0 / 0)

    The meeting at the White House!

    Thanks for asking!

    Who was in the meeting?  She lists a fairly long list of names.  March 5th.

    How long was Mr. Rove in the meeting?  She says half the time but she doesn't remember how long the meeting was.

    Discussion about Will Mochella's testimony and the legislation - I don't know what legislation she is talking about - Tim Griffin came up at the meeting.

    The Department needing to explain reasons for dismissal - communications folks wanted people to be clear in their testimony (that is a bit dodgy actually).

    Rove said that they needed to be clear maybe or maybe he reiterated someone else's comment.
    
    by inclusiveheart

    by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 11:18:43 AM PDT

  •  Johnson (D GA)

    Query about paying for her legal defense.  
    A: Paying for it herself, may create a legal defense fund.

    Who knew she was asking political questions of applicants?

    by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 11:24:37 AM PDT

  •  Feeney (R FL)

    Discuss applicants, interviews.  Applicants' political leaning may have influenced her decisions.

    More stroking of Ms Goodling.

    by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 11:29:54 AM PDT

  •  Sherman D CA

    Finger pointing at Sampson.
    Oppo research on judges, applicants.

    asking about non-pl appointees

    U admitted to crossing the line Were you superiorsaware of this?

    G:  wanted to bring in people with same views.  Was told we could for imm judges...pol affil could be considered for non-political applicants.

    S:  who told you could ask thos questions

    G:  Sampson
    PsychoSavannah

    by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 11:35:08 AM PDT

  •  Gallegly (R CA) n/t

    by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 11:55:15 AM PDT

  •  Baldwin D-WI

    Baldwin D-WI

    Asking about Abu Gonzales' involvement with "biscupric" (SP???)

    G: didn't knwo about it

    B:  did you know anything about it early

    G:  "I feel like I remember reading press clippings"

    B:  any disucssion on biscupric about vote fraud?

    G:  no disc at all...jsut don;t remember

    B:  did you have any conversation with Sampson about biscuric?

    G:  "Sitting here today, I don't remember"....sampson would ask about USA's for new positions opening up.....maybe comments about names, but no specific comments

    B;  McNulty's senate testimony....you were concerned about part of his testi being inaccurate

    G:  said I was concerned with direction we were going....his response was deputy didn't have enough time to absorb it...told him about it the night before....I was concerned about saying bad things about ppl tha tworked for us and didn't think it was nice to talk mean about them...wanted to give them chance to leave quietly

    B:  you concern about McNulty's testimony...did you tell him?  AG?

    G;  no

    by PsychoSavannah

    by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 11:56:01 AM PDT

  •  Schiff (D CA)

    Nailed Gonzales on the "pleasure of the president" versus the good of the DOJ/Nation.

    by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 11:59:03 AM PDT

  •  Davis (D AL)

    Legal quibbling about Goodling consulting with lawyer.
    Committee fighting about parliamentary procedure.

    The clerk is found, hallelujah!  Vote to table commences.

    by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 12:06:11 PM PDT

    •  Davis

      Artur Davis

      AD:  Do you think AGAG made accurate or inaccurate statements?

      MG:  I think he made inaccurate statements.

      by N in Seattle

      by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 12:07:15 PM PDT

    •  Gutierrez yields his time. n/t

      by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 12:14:04 PM PDT

    •  Questions

      When did you become aware that the AG made statements that weren't accurate?

      MG:  Uh.  Duh.  I don't know.

      Did you tell the AG that he made false statements?

      MG:  No.

      Did you communicate with McNulty that the AG made false statements?

      MG:  No.

      by fabooj

      by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 12:16:09 PM PDT

    •  Gonzales apparently tried to coordinate

      Goodling's testimony with his own.  She didn't "feel comfortable" with that.

      Gonzalez was trying to

      have her repeat what he wanted her to say.

      VERY interesting

      by kimoconnor

      by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 12:19:30 PM PDT

      •  This item is the bombshell that the MSM

        hasn't picked up on yet.

        It is huge and should go into the body of your diary.  Big no-no to try to compare testimony when you are under investigation.

        by inclusiveheart on Wed May 23, 2007 at 12:44:21 PM PDT

        •  Unfortunately, this IS the body of my diary!

          I spent half the time trying to keep up on which member was up.  Covering the SJC has got to be way easier than keeping track of 38(!) HJC committee members.

          And don't get me started on parliamentary procedures!

          by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 01:29:27 PM PDT

          •  You are doing a fabulous job.

            n/t

            by inclusiveheart on Wed May 23, 2007 at 01:32:46 PM PDT

    •  Davis - rough transcript

      MG: "I did not know if it was appropriate for us to both be discussing our recollections of what had happened and I just thought that maybe we should not be having that conversation."
      "I knew that at some point we would all have to talk about our conversations. I'm not saying that I definitely thought it was inappropriate. I think that in all fairness he was just talking to someone on his staff, and I was just brought in.. I think he was just being kind, he's a very kind man."

      Davis: "Did you tell the AG that you felt that part of his testimony, or part of his public statements were not fully accurate?"
      MG: "No, I didn't."
      D: "Was there a reason..?"
      MG: "I feel like after he had the press conference, people came out fairly soon and said that the statemenets were fairly inaccurate. I didn't feel like I had to do that."

      D: "Do you feel the AG would have been concerned about making public statements that were not accurate?"

      MG: He testified in front of the senate and clarified his press conference statements, therefore he must have cared.

      by anue

      by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 12:23:17 PM PDT

    •  Do you think

      Gonzo's congressional testimony was truthful?
      MG: Of course!
      Davis: Would it be a good practice for someone who discovered they"d accidently misinformed congress to correct this?
      MG: I'd have to consult counsel.

      by MyBrainWorks

      by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 12:25:06 PM PDT

    •  Davis asks if OK for Sen to call Attorney

      She says yes if about something in public record.

      Followup.
      she says she doesn't really know the rules....

      Followup.

      I can't think of one. I'm not an expert.

      Followup. Appropriate for member of house to call attorney about a case.

      I'm not an expert....

      Followup. For a politician to call about prosecution.

      I don't know when that would be appropriate....If said prosecute because I don't like him, that's wrong. (parapharsed)

      by LNK

      by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 12:28:12 PM PDT

  •  Ellison (D MN)

    by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 12:26:33 PM PDT

    •  Rachel Palouse

      Sorry. I was interrupted, didn't get the gist of the questioning.

      by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 12:33:08 PM PDT

      •  Monica liked Palouse because

        she was a Republican.  Swears Federal Society membership & Christian faith had nothing to do with it.

        But admitted the part about republicans=good.

        by MyBrainWorks on Wed May 23, 2007 at 01:16:21 PM PDT

    •  Ellison re: Paulos

      You know that several attys in her office quit their leadership positions because Paulos sucked so bad.

      And you are good friends, right? So you are aware of the situation, Paulos was elevated over a Democrat?

      Monica: Um, I hardly ever talk to her!

      by Jennifer Clare

      by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 12:35:16 PM PDT

  •  Cannon (R UT), last R up n/t

    by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 01:51:55 PM PDT

    •  Cannon on Lam's termination says Gonzalez

      was "aware of the problem in San Diego and that they were going to do something about it." Cannon says these concerns went back to 2004.

      Using gun control on Lam when she was prosecuting corporate cases is a base appeal to the base.

      How very, very.......Republican.........

      Note "honorable folks" from Lungren...

      always the highblown concept like "honor" rather than the legal circumstances

      by 4Freedom

      by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 01:59:34 PM PDT

  •  Keller (R FL)

    Talking about memos.
    Yields to Lundgren.

    by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 01:54:45 PM PDT

  •  Lungren (R CA)

    About US Attorney firings - not making a fuss about it, in essence letting them go quietly.

    by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 01:58:41 PM PDT

  •  Unknown (R) (losing my live stream)

    Lam & immigration.
    U.S. Att'y's responsibility to communicate with DOJ?

    Monica:  Yes.

    Iglesias fail to communicate?

    Monica, yes, he failed.

    "[W]e shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets . . . we shall never surrender[.]"

    by Miss Butter

    by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 02:03:29 PM PDT

  •  Schiff (D CA)

    Griffin: ??

    Working on timelines and meetings.
    Goodling asked how Iglesias got on The List.  No substantive answer was received "That's been addressed".

    McNulty:  ??

    Meeting with Rove:  "We need to be clear as to the reasons for the firing."

    Trying to get Goodling to say that she was aware that others were committing perjury or lying.

    by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 02:18:09 PM PDT

    •  More...

      Was the point that they needed to have a ...

      good explanation for why these people were fired."  Bingo. Why were they discussing this?  She has scrupulously avoided any implication of Rove.  I mean, she jumps right in very quickly any time that comes up and insists nothing had anything to do with Rove.

      If it's our freedom they hate, they must love Bush's response to the WTC attacks.

      by geomoo

      Further cementing several lies:
      ..Fredo about Bud Cummings being fired for cause

      ..about Fredo being generally lost in space (i.e., Sgt. Schultz defense)

      ..McNulty stonewalling reasons for shitcanning Iglesius

      Didn't make much progress on:

      ..Rove, except a rather neutral comment about "making reasons clear"

      by TerribleTom

      by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 02:19:40 PM PDT

  •  Davis again!

    Davis gives goodling

    a transcript of gonzo's testimony Page 18.

    "As I have indicated I have not gone back to discuss w/ sampson & others to protect the integrety of this investigation."

    Is that statment accurate?

    by MyBrainWorks

    Gonzales/Sampson connection ....pursuing perjury again re: The List.

    by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 02:23:31 PM PDT

•  Fabian,

  I don't want to link to this in any of the Live Blog diaries just yet.  You'll get too many people in here.  Is that okay or do you want me to link?  There's a lot of newbies or lurkers in the Live Blogs.

  by donnamarie on Wed May 23, 2007 at 08:19:51 AM PDT

  •  Hold off right now.

    I'm trying like mad to keep up.  I'm about two speakers behind.  I wish I could spend the time to put links in to all the comments, but that's too much.

    I'm keeping this diary updated with links to all the live diaries though.  If you can put a single link to this diary in LiveBlog's master diary, that should be enough.

    Thanks, dear!

    by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 08:24:44 AM PDT

    •  I'll keep checking back

      Let me know when you want the Master updated with a link to here.

      by donnamarie on Wed May 23, 2007 at 08:34:29 AM PDT

      •  You can go ahead. Thanks. n/t

        by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 08:49:06 AM PDT

•  Just to record..

  ..one or two comments from Goodling:

  A key comment picked up by Conyers

  Gonzales, as well as the Deputy AG, was present at the meeting that discussed Inglesias.

  She then said she was told that the reasons for him being on list had been decided.

  So Gonzales was far more engaged than he has said he was - first strike to Conyers.

  Interesting:   The decision has been made to blame McNulty (sp?) for much of what has happened. He is the fall guy.

  This strategy works fine at defending the individual whilst under questioning, except that the directness of her criticisms is bound to get a rejoinder now from McNulty. So, if nothing else comes out of today, it will be the reaction tomorrow that will matter.

  This is following a classic model of such hearings. What is said by way of defence creates responses that begin to pick away at the stitches of the fabric of the whole cloth.

  Again

  Question: Who was responsible for assessing performance?

  Her answer:"The Deputy AG and the AG of the United States.

  This is the second time that she has tied Gonzales in deeper than Gonzales has ever accepted.

  There seems to be a pattern here to her answers, that I wish the hearing would explore. She seems quite prepared to bury Gonzales along with McNulty. They should encourage her.

  The cross-examination should deal less with her role and more her perceptions of the role of others. She seems ready to open up to this opportunity if offered.

  I want to know more about these meetings

  ..at which the firings were discussed.

  Who was present? Did she not say earlier that Gonzales was present at least at one?

  This is very different from the osmosis-like,water-cooler informal discussions that Gonzales and Kyle Sampson suggested was the means by which the list was formulated. They appear to have been formally reviewed. Gonzales maintained that he was simply handed a list as a result of some vague consultative process.

  There must have been minutes of these meetings. Where are they?
  

  by Welshman on Wed May 23, 2007 at 08:48:50 AM PDT

•  Okay....

  Done for now.  I'll update later.  I need to thank everyone whose comments I used.  But right now, I'm tired and hungry and I want to get Gonzales under oath.  

  Wondering how the GOP is going to spin this.  Is Monica their little darling or will they say that someone who has been in the DOJ for over five years is a clueless bimbo who doesn't know what she is talking about?

  by Fabian on Wed May 23, 2007 at 02:28:00 PM PDT