Did AG Gonzales lie about Monica Goodling?

[BarnOwl]

I seem to remember that someone on Sen Leahy’s committee asked Gonzo what Monica’s authority was in the DOJ. Does anyone else here have a similar recollection?

I think he characterized her as merely a conduit enabling the flow of information between the WH and DOJ, never mentioning that Goodling and Sampson wielded immense power in the hiring and firing within the Department, all of which Gonzales merely signed off on.

If the above is true, can our AG simply claim he forgot about these minor details :rolleyes:? Or might such a claim be so patently absurd that he could be nailed for perjury?

[TV_time]

I don’t recall.

[Gangster_Octopus]

[QUOTE=TV time]
I don’t recall.
[/QUOTE]

[Fir_na_tine]

Were his lips moving?

[BarnOwl]

I’m serious!

Honest. But I have to laugh.

Doesn’t anyone else remember?

[toadspittle]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/19/AR2007041902234_pf.html

LEAHY: What was Monica Goodling’s role in the process of evaluating U.S. attorneys and choosing U.S. attorneys for termination?

GONZALES: Senator, I don’t know of everything that she did in connection with this issue. Her job at the department was senior counselor. She worked – she was also the White House liaison. She worked on budget issues and special projects. She, in essence, supported Mr. Sampson.

Since Mr. Sampson was coordinating this effort, my assumption is, is that she coordinated Mr. Sampson’s efforts in connection with this review process.

CARDIN: Thank you.

Mr. Attorney General, I want to make sure the record’s clear about your knowledge of what Monica Goodling might be able to contribute to – her input or what she knows on the process with the dismissal of the U.S. attorneys. So I just want to give you that opportunity to make sure our record is complete about your knowledge in that regard.

GONZALES: Senator, I’m not sure I have anything to add about Ms. Goodling’s role. I don’t have any specific recollection about what else she might have done.

Certainly, after the fact, after the decision, I’m aware that she was involved with respect to preparation of testimony and things of that nature. But in connection of her involvement in the role of this – Let me just say this. There is in the documents, as I recall seeing them after the fact, obviously she’s involved in communicating with the White House with respect to certain individuals. And she is involved in other kinds of communications.

GONZALES: I don’t want to minimize her role. But I certainly – she was not one of the persons I was relying primarily on with respect her to a recommendation to me about this decision.

I relied primarily – what I would be relying primarily on the recommendation of the deputy attorney general, who every one of these U.S. attorneys reported to and was a former colleague.

I would be very interested – it was my understanding, sir, and my hope that Mr. Sampson would consult also with the acting associate attorney general, also the sitting United States attorneys (ph)…

CARDIN: I just want to make sure I got Monica Goodling – your recollection of whether there’s anything more that should be in the record from your testimony in regards to her.

GONZALES: Sir, I don’t have any independent knowledge beyond what’s reflected in the documents.

[LilShieste]

@BarnOwl

I seem to remember that someone on Sen Leahy’s committee asked Gonzo what Monica’s authority was in the DOJ. Does anyone else here have a similar recollection?

I think this is the part of the transcript that you’re talking about.

From the transcript:
*LEAHY: What was Monica Goodling’s role in the process of evaluating U.S. attorneys and choosing U.S. attorneys for termination?

GONZALES: Senator, I don’t know of everything that she did in connection with this issue. Her job at the department was senior counselor. She worked – she was also the White House liaison. She worked on budget issues and special projects. She, in essence, supported Mr. Sampson.

Since Mr. Sampson was coordinating this effort, my assumption is, is that she coordinated Mr. Sampson’s efforts in connection with this review process.*

LilShieste

Edit: Rats… toadspittle beat me to it.

[elucidator]

Youi still get a Participant’s Ribbon.

[Cervaise]

[QUOTE=BarnOwl]
I have to laugh.
[/QUOTE]
Lest you break down weeping, I assume.

I know. Me too.

[BarnOwl]

That was wonderful work - toadspittle and** LilShieste** .

Thank you both.

Apparently Alberto didn’t perjure himself. The hiring and firing could come under special projects.

BTW one of the commentators at talkingpointsmemo.com referred to our amnesiac AG as Gonzalzheimers, which I thought rather funny.

[MovieMogul]

From Salon:

As the Washington Post reports this morning, Justice is looking into allegations that Goodling “illegally took party affiliation into account in hiring career federal prosecutors.” As we noted last month, a group of Justice Department employees have charged, in a letter to Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers, that Gonzales’ aides have been “politicizing” the “non-political ranks of Justice employees” by refusing to hire young lawyers whose résumés show involvement with “liberal” judges or causes. The Post says that the Justice Department’s inspector general and Office of Professional Responsibility are now investigating Goodling’s role based on a referral from Alexandria, Va., U.S. attorney Chuck Rosenberg, who was working as Gonzales’ temporary chief of staff after Kyle Sampson resigned earlier this year.

Now, if there’s evidence that Goodling was checking the GOP bona fides of candidates for jobs that are supposed to be nonpolitical, she ought to be under investigation for it. But isn’t it interesting that, just as Goodling’s attorney is saying that she’s willing to testify about last year’s prosecutor purge in exchange for an offer of immunity from Conyers’ committee, the Justice Department reveals the existence of an investigation that could set up an Oliver North problem and prevent her testimony? With Goodling under criminal investigation, Gonzales’ people at Justice now have a basis for telling the Judiciary Committee, and the federal judge who would have to approve any immunity deal, that granting immunity to Goodling to testify before Congress would jeopardize any hope of prosecuting Goodling criminally – just like Congress’ grant of immunity to North ended up undoing his criminal conviction in the Iran-Contra affair. It’s all so … convenient.