« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Goodling: "We Didn't Talk about What The Reasons Were"
Here's Monica Goodling's testimony about the firings process in a nutshell.
Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) wanted to know if Goodling knew if there were any improper (in the attorney general's narrow sense of the term) reason for the firings. Her answer was less than a ringing endorsement of the firings.
Franks: Did you at any time at your stay at the Justice Department ever seek to prevent or interfere with or affect or influence any particular case or any effort to change the outcome of justice that is the predicate for your agency by hiring or firing or threatening to do so any person or any of these U.S. attorneys that are under discussion?Goodling: I certainly did not.
Franks: Do you know of anyone in the department or the administration that did?
Goodling: I don’t recall anybody ever saying anything like that. I just don’t. I can’t testify to what other people were thinking and I can’t testify to what other people may have been thinking that they didn’t say. We didn’t talk about what the reasons were, other than Mr. Bogden, at least in conversations I was in, until after it was in progress, and I never heard anybody say anything like that.
Funny: everyone seems to have kept the reasons for the firings to themselves until after they occurred. That's an odd way to have a "consensus based process," as Kyle Sampson insists that it was. What might people have been "thinking that they didn't say?"
Comments (18)
Rebel wrote on May 23, 2007 4:10 PM:So Gonzales tested out his memory story about the "process" on Goodling before she testified.
Some people call that wittness tampering don't they?
profmarcus wrote on May 23, 2007 4:12 PM:i am terribly impressed with artur davis' questioning... it looks to me like, with the answers he elicited from monica, he totally eviscerated gonzo... am i interpreting that correctly...?
http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/
biltud wrote on May 23, 2007 4:12 PM:I guess what I want to know is...
is alleged "incompetence" (as in, I see nothing I know nothing I hear nothing) illegal? Is she indicting herself or anyone over her head?
Is this whole thing going nowhere?
darling blather wrote on May 23, 2007 4:14 PM:Or blindly following marching orders from Herr Rove. Either one is pretty fricken' awful. This immunity is a total crock. She has not given any testimony today that smells any different than the poo left on the same witness table by other DOJ officials who sat there before her. God Damn her and her masters.
Ducky wrote on May 23, 2007 4:16 PM:At what point does this little tart lose her immunity?
Sc: please: Some one please bitch slap this girl into reality.
anonymous wrote on May 23, 2007 4:18 PM:LOL, are they running the Department of Justice or Fight Club? (First rule of fight club is, don't talk about fight club.)
t greenberg wrote on May 23, 2007 4:18 PM:Arthur Davis essentially got Goodling to impeach Gonzales for suborning a potential witness (Goodling) by trying to "frame" her recollection in a matter in which they (Gonzales and Goodling) were both highly probable potential witnesses. Goodling also impeached Gonzales' Congressional testimony. Subornation-obstruction of justice-perjury.... and the GOP Neanderthals on the Committee defend it as ordinary politics as usual.
Jaime Frontero wrote on May 23, 2007 4:33 PM:"I don’t recall anyone ever saying anything like that... I can’t testify to what other people were thinking and I can’t testify to what other people were thinking that they didn’t say. We didn’t talk about what the reasons were..."
For this she received a grant of immunity?
...and received it after closed-door meetings in which the committee was sufficiently impressed by the value of what she had to say to grant that immunity?
It's all Sampson's fault. So is immunity granted right up the line; Sampson to get to Gonzo to get to Rove to deflect to Cheney, to run up against a wall of executive privilege and unitary mulch?
Bullshit.
I hope the documents and e-mails she brought along were worth it. When do we see those?
JF
Dr.D wrote on May 23, 2007 4:42 PM:She knows damn well what Gonzo was doing. Why else was she so "uncomfortable"? Did Gonzo pull his schlong out in front of her? Doubtful.
Sierra T wrote on May 23, 2007 4:47 PM:It appears to me that it is now time to notify Kyle Sampson that he is under investigation for perjury and obstruction of justice and that he has 20 days to provide substantial information on who directed the US attorney firings. And if this additional information is not forthcoming, he should be told that he can expect to be indicted.
From the combined testimony of McNulty, Goodling and Gonzalez, it is apparent that Sampson is the man in the middle with the information.
Restore Honor
noshrub wrote on May 23, 2007 4:52 PM:Oust the GOP
Isn't it a little frightening to think that important policy decisions in DOJ were delegated to children?
azbill wrote on May 23, 2007 5:02 PM:Now we know why the DOJ is really messed up. It is filled with incompetent people just like Bush appoints to other offices. Monica is a liar and should be disbarred for lying to Congress. She gave about zero information and now will not be prosecuted for her illegal deeds. Great when lawyers use the law to commit a crime. Thanks Monica, America really needs political hacks like you.
Sebastian Dangerfield wrote on May 23, 2007 5:03 PM:It's really quite simple Kyle mind-melded with various members of senior management, without of scourse thier awareness, and the list was thereby born, without a single conversation having been conducted.
Rick Thalhammer wrote on May 23, 2007 6:16 PM:(Hey, don't blame me, Igelsias has opened the door to Star Trek references with his op-ed today.)
Once again, the question is carefully phrased to speak to interference with "a particular case", and then we get the easy denial. What these crooks did was not so obvious as to remove an attorney who was in the midst of prosecuting a particular case, but either to force their successors to bring cases in areas to help Republicans (voter fraud, etc.) or to preclude the existing USAs to continue down the road with fruitful investigations (Carol Lam). The better question would ask whether the witness knew of any political reason for removal/replacement of any USA. Is there anyone in Congress on the Dem side who can ask such an open-ended question, as opposed to the "Did you steal anything on Tuesday?" sort of closed question?
kavh wrote on May 24, 2007 11:49 AM:Geeee, just think how much trouble she'd be in had she worn a blue dress.
Boz wrote on May 24, 2007 2:30 PM:So why was USA Bogden let go?
Did she ever say?
citizen spot wrote on May 24, 2007 7:16 PM:"I don’t recall anybody ever saying anything like that. I just don’t. I can’t testify to what other people were thinking and I can’t testify to what other people may have been thinking that they didn’t say. We didn’t talk about what the reasons were, other than Mr. Bogden, at least in conversations I was in, until after it was in progress, and I never heard anybody say anything like that."
Keywords are "saying", "didn't say", "didn't talk", "conversations", "never heard anybody say anything".
What about the text and email messages that haven't been released?
vchqgex qdgrza wrote on September 1, 2007 5:51 PM:wdgb eolbzkn cvuoszk fkywi lwdnb mptdrsaz ildzruahj