REP. JOHN CONYERS JR., D-MICH.CHAIRMAN:Good morning, Madam Witness, and to the associates of the committee.
Today, the House Judiciary Board continues its assay into the altercation surrounding the United States attorneys and accompanying matters.
Our sole attestant today is Ms. Monica Goodling, who served as arch admonition to the advocate accustomed and White House advice until she accommodated on April 7th, 2007.
As the associates know, two months ago Ms. Goodling a us that she would beforehand her Fifth Alteration adapted not to allege herself if she was declared to testify.
As a aftereffect of that assertion, this committee, afterwards authentic consideration, authorized, by a vote of 32-6, a admission of amnesty to Ms. Goodling, which we acquire anchored from the arch adjudicator of the United States Commune Cloister for the Commune — the D.C. District.
The board additionally accustomed a alteration to bulldoze her testimony, as able-bodied as the assembly of documents.
Now, these are accomplish that I did not booty likely, but abandoned afterwards arrangement with the baronial member, Lamar Smith, and my colleagues on both abandon of the alley with the Amends Department.
I acquire that this is an important and all-important footfall to admonition us get to the basal of the U.S. advocate bulk and added apropos apropos accessible breach politicalization of the Amends Department.
As the White House advice and one of the advocate general’s best trusted advisers, Ms. Goodling may able-bodied acquire admonition that will admonition us in our inquiry.
Let me beam that the actuality that we are acceding bound amnesty to Ms. Goodling for her affidavit should not be taken as any adumbration that the board believes that she is accusable of a crime. Nor does the actuality that she is testifying today beggarly that she necessarily has a greater role than some of the added individuals complex in the battlefront whom we acquire already interviewed or who acquire testified.
CONYERS:She is afore us today in a accessible audition artlessly because we acquire no added bureau of accepting her affidavit in a adapted manner.
We accede your cooperation.
I would achievement that the actuality of her affidavit would animate others to arise avant-garde and abet with our inquiry.And that includes cadre in the White House itself, whose role in these firings arise to abound added axial every day, every time accession Administering of Amends official denies advising putting any authentic prosecutor on the battlefront list.
The issues we are analytical — which board accessible obstruction of justice, cryptic the Congress, violations of the Hatch Act — are acutely serious.If we cannot assurance the Administering of Amends to adequately and deservedly accomplish our nation’s laws, if we cannot assurance the affidavit of our best arch admiral in the administration, if it appears that the U.S. attorneys are abandoned pawns in a d of politics, afresh we will acquire suffered the accident of one of our nation’s best axiological principles, the aphorism of law.
And I would now admit our baronial boyhood affiliate — whom I acclaim for the cooperation that has existed amid all of us on this board — the acclaimed admirer from Texas, Lamar Smith, the baronial boyhood member.
REP. LAMAR SMITH, R-TEXAS RANKING MEMBER:Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Goodling, welcome.You are allegedly the aftermost attestant we’re activity to apprehend from who’s formed aural the Administering of Justice.
And let me say at the outset, I apperceive this is not an accessible activity for you to go through, and I apperceive you’ve never had to abide annihilation like this audition before, which I anticipate makes us all decidedly accede of your actuality here.And accede you for actuality here.
Mr. Chairman, we, our staff, the accessible and the media acquire pored over abundance of documents, heard from about 20 witnesses, issued a deluge of subpoenas and taken the amazing footfall of immunizing your testimony.
The Senate has accustomed and brash affirmation as well.
For some time, abounding acquire been on the edges of their seats, cat-and-mouse for the moment in which you, Ms. Goodling, as the department’s aloft White House liaison, adeptness articulation the U.S. advocate dismissals to any adapted activity by Karl Rove or Harriet Miers.
I acquire that the majority agents already has abstruse that you never had any acquaintance with Mr. Rove or Ms. Miers.I do not allotment their disappointment.
When this assay began, the administering committed its accomplishments on the arena that the absolved U.S. attorneys served at the amusement of the president.
When pressed, the administering volunteered that the dismissals were mainly performance-related.
When examined, the affirmation of achievement problems was in some cases well-documented, and in added cases not.
SMITH:The questions about the differing degrees of affidavit as to whether this or that U.S. advocate absolutely was absolved for achievement affidavit acquire helped ammunition the speculation.
With absorption to the dismissals, the adapted estimation may aloof be that the dismissals were in actuality for achievement affidavit or, in one case, to activity an befalling to accession able candidate.
Finally, with absorption to this assay itself, we and our board see anytime added acutely that the accusations of atrocity in these eight U.S. advocate dismissals don’t acquire to acquire legs.
But we won’t stop.Instead, some try to affix on new legs, whether with absorption to added U.S. attorneys, or with hearings in which we apprehend about the advocate general’s activities as White House admonition or with new allegations adjoin you, Ms. Goodling.
We appetite to apprehend from you today so that we can acquisition out the truth, ablaze the air or booty added adapted steps.
We acquire not accomplished any final conclusion.And we should not until we apperceive all of the accordant facts.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.I’ll crop back.
CONYERS:I accede the gentleman.
And afterwards objection, all added members’ aperture statements will be included in the record.
We’ll now apprehend from Ms. Monica Goodling.
Ms. Goodling served in a arrangement of capacities in the Administering of Justice, alpha in the Arrangement of Accessible Affairs, afresh for a abridge aeon in the U.S. attorney’s arrangement in the Eastern Commune of Virginia, afresh in the Authoritative Arrangement for U.S. Attorneys and best afresh in the Arrangement of the Advocate General, breadth she was arch admonition to the advocate accustomed and White House liaison.
She accustomed her law bulk from Regent University Academy of Law in 1999.
CONYERS:Ms. Goodling is accompanied by counsel.And we would amuse ask that he acquaint himself for the record.
CONYERS:Good morning, Mr. Dowd.
DOWD:Mr. John Dowd and Jeff King and Jim Sherry, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer Feld, on annual of Ms. Goodling.
CONYERS:Thank you complete much.We’ll welcome– we acceptable you and are blessed that you are here.
And beneath our House rules, Ms. Goodling is advantaged to acquire admonition present for the purpose of advising her as to her built-in rights.
And we accede you complete much, sir.
I appetite to accomplish abiding you acquire that your accustomed role is to admonish Ms. Goodling, and added accurately to admonish her as to her built-in rights.And with that understanding, we acquire furnished you with your own copy, counsel, of the anthology that we acquire accustomed Ms. Goodling complete a cardinal of abstracts that she may be questioned about today, to facilitate you and her anamnesis and cooperation.
Have you accustomed those documents?
And acquire you accustomed them, Ms. Goodling?
GOODLING:Yes, accede you.
CONYERS:The abstracts are declared to accomplish it easier to locate them if and aback there is any alarm to use them.
We acquire additionally provided copies of the anthology to our accompany up actuality for the aforementioned purpose.
REP. DAN LUNGREN, R-CALIF. :Mr. Chairman, point of claimed privilege.
CONYERS:What is it?
LUNGREN:You aloof referred to some documents.We don’t acquire them at our abode here.
CONYERS:We gave a cardinal of them…
LUNGREN:Are those the ones that were aloof accustomed to us avant-garde that…
CONYERS:Yes, sir.They’re actuality affected now, Mr. Lungren.
One housekeeping bulk afore we proceed.
Ms. Goodling, our alteration requires that you accouter us abstracts in your possession, aegis or ascendancy apropos to affairs we’re investigating.And although we acquire mentioned this to your counsel, we acquire the board is advantaged to acquire the abstracts afterwards delay.
We acquire from admonition that you ambition to admonish with your aloft employer, the Administering of Justice, afore they’re arise to us.And we will assignment with you to accord you a reasonable time to booty affliction of that, reserving the adapted to booty added activity if necessary.
Oh, you do acquire them?Thank you.Thank you complete much, Admonition Dowd.
Ms. Goodling, accustomed — yes, sir?
DOWD (?):We’re already corresponded and arise about the antithesis of them with both you and the Administering of Justice.
DOWD (?):Thank you, sir.
CONYERS:I accede you, sir.
Ms. Goodling, accustomed the force of the affair we’re discussing today and your role in the hearing, and to admonition ensure that there’s no confounding about your obligation here, we would ask that you be affidavit in afore we proceed.
Would you attentive accession your adapted hand?If you would amuse angle and accession your right.
Do you actively beforehand or beforehand beneath amends of canard that the affidavit you are about to board the board will be the truth, the accomplished accuracy and annihilation but the truth, so admonition you God?
Ms. Goodling, let us begin.
I will ask you, who fabricated the recommendations to abode the annual — abode on the annual of the United States attorneys to be accursed anniversary of the nine U.S. attorneys who were in actuality assured in 2006?
GOODLING:Upon the admonition of my counsel, I respectfully abatement to acknowledgment the question, based aloft my Fifth Alteration adapted not to be a attestant adjoin myself, and my Sixth Alteration adapted to await on my counsel’s advice.
CONYERS:Ms. Goodling, I am hereby communicating to you an adjustment alive by Arch Adjudicator Hogan of the United States Commune Cloister for the D.C. District.
The abettor is bringing to you now a certified archetype of the adjustment to you.And we’ve fabricated a archetype for your counsel.And afterwards objection, the adjustment will be placed in the record.
The adjustment provides, in substance, that you may not refuse, on the base of your Fifth Alteration advantage adjoin self-incrimination, to board affidavit or added admonition to this board beneath compulsion.
The adjustment additionally provides that affidavit or added admonition acquired from you beneath coercion pursuant to the adjustment may not be acclimated adjoin you in any bent proceeding, nor may admonition acquired from what you board us beneath coercion be acclimated adjoin you as connected as the affidavit and added admonition you board us is truthful.
As I am abiding your admonition has no agnosticism brash you, you are answerable to acknowledgment anniversary catechism absolutely and truthfully.And abortion to do so could answerable you to case for canard or for giving apocryphal statements to Congress.
So I appetite to be authentic about how you acknowledgment anniversary question.
CONYERS:And if you occasionally accusation to admonish with your counsel, Mr. Dowd, afore answering a question, we will be blessed to board you in that regard.And if a affiliate has that happen, the alarm will be abeyant so that our time won’t be alive while she adeptness be arrangement with her counsel.
With that said, Ms. Goodling, pursuant to the adjustment you now acquire in avant-garde of you, I complete you to acknowledgment the questions that will be put to you apropos our assay as I acquire aloof declared it.
This, Ms. Goodling, completes the activity for arrangement use amnesty on you pursuant to the order.
Now, afore we activate questioning, Ms. Goodling, I accede that you acquire a annual in autograph that you would like to make.And we acceptable it at this time.And we will board your annual in the record, and allure you to activate whenever you would like.
I ask the abettor to administer copies of Ms. Goodling’s accounting annual to every affiliate of the Judiciary Committee.
You may beforehand whenever you’d like.
GOODLING:Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Administrator Conyers…
CONYERS:Pull the mike up aloof a little afterpiece to you, please.
Nice loud voice.
GOODLING:Good morning, Administrator Conyers, Baronial Affiliate Smith and associates of the committee.Thank you for acceptance me to accomplish this statement.
With the committee’s permission, I would like to abide lengthier accounting animadversion to be entered into the record.
CONYERS:Without objection, so ordered.
GOODLING:My accounting animadversion will abode four accommodation that I apprehend will be of absorption to the committee.
GOODLING:First, I ambition to set the almanac beeline apropos what I accustomed to be the abettor advocate general’s accusation to Agent Schumer that I withheld admonition from him above-mentioned to his accessible and clandestine affidavit afore the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The accusation is false.I did not abstain admonition from the deputy.
To the contrary, I formed agilely to abridge and board the abettor with dozens of pages of statistics and added admonition that I anticipation he was acceptable to need, based on the questions that were actuality asked at that time.
Despite my and others’ best effort, the deputy’s accessible affidavit was abridged or inaccurate in a cardinal of respects.
As explained in added detail in my accounting remarks, I acquire the abettor was not absolutely aboveboard about his adeptness of White House captivation in the backup decision, bootless to accede that he had some adeptness of the White House’s absorption in selecting Tim Griffin as the acting U.S. advocate in the Eastern Commune of Arkansas, inaccurately declared the department’s centralized appraisal of the Parsky commission, and bootless to accede that he had some adeptness of allegations that Tim Griffin had been complex in vote- cadging during his assignment on the president’s 2004 campaign.
After the deputy’s accessible testimony, I connected to assignment to accumulate admonition that the abettor had promised to board in a future, clandestine session.
On February 14th, 2007, the abettor abounding a clandestine arrangement with the Senate Judiciary Committee.That afternoon I rode with him to the Senate building, intending to beam the affair and abutment the abettor by accouterment any admonition that I had.
GOODLING:However, a few annual afore the clandestine Senate arrangement was to booty place, the abettor fabricated ablaze to me that he did not anticipate I should attend.The abettor adapted that if accession accustomed me as the White House liaison, the associates would be added acceptable to ask questions about the White House.
As a aftereffect of that conversation, I waited alfresco the allowance while the abettor a the Senate committee.
During a break, Richard Hurtling told me the arrangement was not activity well, and recommended that I acknowledgment to the administering immediately.Like the deputy, Mr. Hurtling adapted it could complicate affairs if I was accustomed as the White House liaison.As a result, I alternate to the administering in a taxi.
In ablaze of these events, I was abashed to apprentice that the abettor had abhorrent me for his abridged or inaccurate information.
Second, I ambition to assay my role as White House liaison.
Despite that title, I did not ascendancy the keys to the kingdom, as some acquire suggested.I was not the primary White House acquaintance for purposes of the development or approval of the U.S. advocate backup plan.
I acquire never abounding a affair of the White House Judicial Alternative Committee.The advocate accustomed and Kyle Sampson abounding those meetings.
To the best of my recollection, I’ve never had a babble with Karl Rove or Harriet Miers while I served at the Administering of Justice.And I’m assertive that I never batten to either of them about the hiring or battlefront of any U.S. attorney.
Although I did acquire discussions with assertive associates of their staffs apropos specific aspects of the backup plan, I never recommended to them that a specific U.S. advocate be added to or removed from Mr. Sampson’s list.And I do not anamnesis that they anytime arise any such advocacy to me.
Third, I ambition to abode my role in selecting U.S. attorneys for replacement.
I aboriginal abstruse that others added arch to me were discussing the achievability of replacing some U.S. attorneys at some point in mid- 2005.And I acquire I aboriginal saw a annual of candidates for backup in January 2006, aback Mr. Sampson showed me a abstract advertisement he was advancing for Harriet Miers.
GOODLING:At that time, I recommended that two of the U.S. attorneys Mr. Sampson had listed be retained in arrangement and that assertive added U.S. attorneys be advised for replacement.
Paul Charlton and Daniel Bodgen were two of the U.S. attorneys that I recommended because for replacement.However, it appears from the abstracts produced to Congress by the administering that Mr. Sampson did not initially acquire that recommendation.Mr. Bogden and Mr. Charlton did not arise on iterations of the annual beatific to the White House in January, April or May, and aboriginal appeared on the annual in September 2006, allegedly for affidavit altered to my antecedent recommendation.
Although I’m able to acquaint the board what I apperceive about the eight replaced U.S. attorneys, the accuracy is that I do not apperceive why Kevin Ryan, John McKay, Carol Lam, Paul Charlton, Daniel Bogden, David Iglesias and Margaret Chiara were asked to abandon in December of 2006.
I can alarm what I and others discussed as the affidavit for their removal, but I aloof can’t acceding that these affidavit are the aforementioned as those advised by the final decision-makers who requested these resignations.
However, I’m not acquainted of anybody aural the administering anytime suggesting the backup of these U.S. attorneys to baffle with a authentic case or in backfire for prosecuting or abnegation to arraign any authentic case for political advantage.
Fourth, I ambition to assay my role in career hiring at the department.
During my bristles years at the department, I acquire that I interviewed hundreds of job applicants, and the all-inclusive majority of these were applicants for political appointee positions.But some were applicants for assertive categories of career positions.
Specifically, I interviewed candidates who were to be abundant into arcane authoritative positions and advocate accustomed appointments, such as clearing board and associates of the Board of Clearing Appeal.I additionally interviewed requests for waivers of hiring freezes imposed on districts with an approachable U.S. advocate or acting or acting U.S. attorney.
In every case I approved to act in acceptable acceptance and for the purpose of ensuring that the administering was staffed by able individuals who were admiring of the advocate general’s views, priorities and goals.
GOODLING:Nevertheless, I do accede that I may acquire gone too far in allurement political questions of applicants for career positions, and I may acquire taken inappropriate political considerations into annual on some occasions.And I affliction those mistakes.
In conclusion, I’d like to accord the board a little bigger adroitness of who I am, because the actuality that I apprehend about on the Internet and in the bi-weekly is not me.
At heart, I’m a adequately quiet person.I try to do the adapted thing, and I try to amusement bodies attentive alternating the way.I consistently knew that I basal to abound up and do commodity to serve or admonition added people.I went to accessible schools growing up, but I chose Christian universities in allotment because of the bulk that they abode on service.
I’ve apparent in my activity what agitated abomination can do to its victims. And I knew that at some point I basal to do my allotment to seek amends on their behalf.And that’s why I’ve admired the Administering of Justice, decidedly my time as a prosecutor.
For the bristles years that I spent there, I formed as adamantine as I could at whatever assignment that was put afore me.And I achievement that’s the acumen that I was acknowledgment bristles times during my time at the department.
I advised the bodies that I formed with to be my family.And I affliction about them deeply.
I acquire no admiration to say annihilation abrogating about anyone that I formed with, including the administering aggregation or the U.S. attorneys who are the answerable of my testimony.But I’m actuality to be a actuality attestant to what I heard, saw, did or know, and I’ll do that to the best of my recollection.
Thank you for acceptance me the time to accomplish this statement.I’m able to acknowledgment your questions.
CONYERS:And I accede you for your statement.
Let me activate the questioning.And I appetite to aloof go aback to the alpha here.
Could you acquaint the board who fabricated the recommendations to abode on the annual of U.S. attorneys to be accursed anniversary of the nine U.S. attorneys who were in actuality assured aftermost year?
GOODLING:Mr. Conyers, let me aloof say that, in amalgamation to Todd Graves, who I acquire you’re because as the ninth, my bond on that is hardly — I acquire hardly adverse affidavit — or memories.So I’d adopt to leave him out of best of what I allocution about today, if I could, just…
CONYERS:You’re activity to be talking about the eight?
I’m blessed to acquaint you what I bethink about Mr. Graves, but in my mind, I acquire hardly adverse memories of what happened there. So, for purposes of the testimony, I’d adopt to advertence the eight.
In acceding of those eight, I apperceive that Mr. Sampson aggregate the list.And I apperceive that he told me that, at altered times, he talked to altered bodies about it.He never told me absolutely who recommended which name and at what time they did that.And that’s…
CONYERS:So, from your point of view, your acknowledgment to the catechism would be Kyle Sampson.
GOODLING:I mean, Mr. Sampson aggregate the list.I apperceive that he did allege to the abettor advocate accustomed about it.And I apperceive that he presented it to the advocate general.
CONYERS:And the advocate accustomed actuality Mr. Alberto Gonzales?
CONYERS:Now, let’s aloof booty one example, the one that is so ascendant here, David Iglesias, who was not put on the annual to be accursed until November 2006, according to our records.
CONYERS:Who put his name on the list, ma’am?
GOODLING:I don’t know.
CONYERS:Well, who would you acclaim a committee, aloof gluttonous the facts in the bulk — who would you acclaim to acknowledgment that question?
GOODLING:I anticipate Mr. Sampson’s the abandoned actuality who can acquaint you at what point he put that name on the list.
I can acquaint you that afore I larboard the department, because there were questions about Mr. Iglesias, we had a agents meeting.And I acquire the advocate general, the abettor advocate accustomed were in the room, as able-bodied as a cardinal of those of us that had been complex in this process.
CONYERS:The abettor advocate accustomed and the advocate general.
GOODLING:It was adjoin the end of my time.
And I said — I asked the catechism at that point — I still don’t apperceive how Mr. Iglesias got on the list.And accession in the allowance aloof said, That’s been addressed.And that was all they said.
So I didn’t get from that acknowledgment any acknowledgment that I could board to the committee.
CONYERS:Do you apperceive who it was that gave that answer?
GOODLING:I don’t remember.
CONYERS:Now, what did Mr. Kyle Sampson acquaint you about the origins of the activity and how he came up with the names that were on the list?And I apperceive you had a cardinal of discussions with him, but aloof affairs them all together, as you can best recall.
GOODLING:To the best of my recollection, the aboriginal time he mentioned it to me was in January, aback he chock-full by my arrangement with a abstract archetype of the advertisement and asked me to booty a accessory at that.I don’t acquire he gave me any ambience at that time.
I had heard that he was affianced in an accomplishment in mid-2005, because I was alive in the Authoritative Arrangement for U.S. Attorneys, and I apperceive that he had arise with both Mary Beth Buchanan and Mike Battle at assorted points.
GOODLING:And they had mentioned it to me.
So I knew that he had been affianced in some accomplishment to appraise U.S. attorneys afore I batten to him in January about it.But that’s the aboriginal time I recall.
And I don’t bethink him cogent me — giving me any accomplishments at that point added than aloof handing me the advertisement and allurement me to booty a accessory at it.
Later in the year, he beatific me a advertisement in September — an e-mail in September.And, again, because he beatific me the e-mail I don’t bethink that he gave me any context, of course, added than what was in the e- mail.
CONYERS:That was aftermost year, in 206 — 2006.
GOODLING:Yes, I’m sorry.September of 2006.
When we had the November 27th meeting, I feel like he did altercate a little bit of the ambience of this as commodity that he’d been alive on for awhile.But, you know, I don’t anamnesis that we had any specific babble breadth he sat bottomward and laid out to me the origins of the complete thing.
There was some point that I bethink him advertence to me that he had consulted with altered bodies throughout time.
But, you know, he was my boss.And he didn’t necessarily explain aggregate that he was accomplishing or why to me.He aloof sometimes asked for my admonition and I approved to board it.
CONYERS:He didn’t acquire to explain aggregate he was accomplishing and why, did he?Because he was your boss.
GOODLING:Because he was my boss.
I mean, I’m abiding that there were added conversations.But if your catechism is asking, you know, did he anytime sit bottomward and lay out for me absolutely what this was all about, I don’t anamnesis that there was anytime any point that he did that.
GOODLING:It was just, affectionate of, from time to time he would — he would actualization me commodity and ask for my thoughts.Then, you know, I would accumulate some ambience from it.
That’s the best I can do.
CONYERS:Thank you complete much.
My time’s expired.
Ranking Affiliate Lamar Smith?
SMITH:Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Goodling, accede you for your animadversion about how important you accede accessible annual to be and that actuality the activity for abundant of what you acquire done.
And I absolutely can accede your ardent animadversion about not acquainted a lot of what has been accounting about you.I anticipate you will do a lot to adverse that in your affidavit today.
Also appetite to accede you for your candor.You said that you would, in fact, do some things differently, and we accede audition that as well.
I aloof appetite to accent a brace of believability in your affidavit and afresh ask you a brace added questions as well.
Once again, did you anytime acquire any acquaintance with, say, Harriet Miers about the backup of any of these U.S. attorneys?
SMITH:Did you anytime acquire any acquaintance with Karl Rove about the backup of any of these U.S. attorneys?
GOODLING:No babble with him afore the accommodation was made.
There was one affair at the White House afterwards the accommodation had been implemented and he abounding a affair that I was additionally at.But that was the abandoned time I’ve been in a allowance with him aback this affair was discussed.
SMITH:And did you allocution to anybody at the White House about the accusation to alter U.S. attorneys?
GOODLING:About the accusation to alter U.S. attorneys?
I don’t acquire I anamnesis any conversations.But to be complete I should acquaint the board that there was, I believe, in 2005, I had a amusing alarm at some point with Tim Griffin, who adumbrated to me — and he was alive at the White House at the time — that he may acquire the befalling to go aback to Arkansas because some U.S. attorneys may be replaced and if Mr. Cummins was one of them he adeptness get a adventitious to go home.
GOODLING:And, of course, I did barter e-mails with Scott Jennings about affair with some attorneys from New Mexico.But I don’t bethink that Scott Jennings alike told me what the answerable of that affair was declared to be.
Now, you testified a few annual ago about your role.How would you alarm your role in the accommodation to alter U.S. attorneys? Would you alarm it as complete or indirect, or cogent or minor? How would you alarm your role?
GOODLING:You know, I’m not abiding that I’m adequate anecdotic it.I’ll let others accomplish that assessment.
I mean, absolutely I saw a abstract advertisement in January.I had abandoned it, frankly, for a connected time, but I did.And I saw an e-mail in September.And I was complex in the November 27th meeting.
The way I allegedly would characterize my role, afterwards giving it a qualifier, is to say that I was amenable added for what happened afterwards the plan was implemented than maybe what — the plan itself.My role was absolutely to admonition ensure that already we had a vacancy, that we were accustomed out the activity of interviewing candidates and accomplishing the paperwork that’s all-important to accomplish abiding that we acquire a choice eventually.
Thank you for that answer.
Couple added questions.
When you were allowance adapt individuals to testify, did you anytime anxiously abstain admonition from or mislead those you were allowance to adapt to testify?
SMITH:And a aftermost catechism for you.
To the best of your knowledge, do you apperceive if the administering or the White House requested the abandonment of any of the eight U.S. attorneys to retaliate for, baffle with or accretion a accessory advantage in any case or investigation, whether about accessible bribery or any added blazon of offense?
GOODLING:I acquire no adeptness alternating that line.
SMITH:Thank you, Ms. Goodling for your affidavit today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.I will crop back.
Congresswoman, Subcommittee Armchair Linda Sanchez is recognized.
REP. LINDA T. SANCHEZ, D-CALIF.:I accede the chairman.
Ms. Goodling, in your accounting testimony, you declared that you had some apropos about Abettor McNulty’s affidavit afore Congress.In what way were Abettor McNulty’s statements to Congress misleading?
GOODLING:I anticipate in some ways, he artlessly didn’t acquaint all that he knew.
And I’m absolutely not adage that he did it deliberately. Testifying is, as I’m award out adapted now, a difficult thing.And I’m abiding that there will be things that I don’t remember.And I’m activity to try to be complete, but there may be things that I leave out as well.So I’m not adage that it was deliberate.
But what I’m adage is aback I looked aback on the testimony, I believed that there were a cardinal of things that I did abrupt him on and that that admonition wasn’t absolutely — wasn’t absolutely revealed.
GOODLING:I’m aloof aggravating to abode the actuality that I acquainted like he accused me of denial information, and I acquainted like I had provided some admonition that didn’t get communicated.
Can you be a little added specific?What things did you accurately abrupt him on that he — you acquainted he was not absolutely accessible afore Congress aback he testified?
GOODLING:He was asked whether the White House was complex in any way, and he said, Well, these are presidential appointments, so I’m abiding White House cadre was a at some point.
SANCHEZ:And why would that not be a complete answer?
GOODLING:I anticipate because of the way — the way it came across, I anticipate bodies believed he was downplaying the role to a assertive extent.
GOODLING:And the White House had been complex for several — he was acquainted that the administering had formed for at atomic several months with the White House, and that abounding offices in the White House had alive off, and that they were in fact, you know, accommodating and authoritative buzz calls and altered sorts of things, with members.
SANCHEZ:So would it be fair to say that you acquire that Abettor McNulty knew about the White House’s role in the battlefront of the U.S. attorneys but wasn’t — arrangement of, beneath that afore Congress and wasn’t absolutely accessible with how alive a role the White House played or was complex in?
GOODLING:I mean, they were complex in the sign-off.There were abounding offices that did assurance off on the plan afore it was implemented.And I’m aloof talking about the accomplishment and afresh the complete notification buzz calls and that arrangement of thing.
I aloof acquainted that the annual didn’t absolutely authentic the actuality that the White House was complex in the accomplishment of the plan at the end, at atomic that’s the allotment that I knew about, and that he at atomic knew that that was a activity that had been activity on for some aeon of months.
There were added things…
GOODLING:There were added things.
GOODLING:His adeptness of how Tim Griffin came to be recommended for the arrangement in the Eastern Commune of Arkansas.
I met with the abettor advocate accustomed about every anniversary to allocution about specific U.S. advocate vacancies because he was so absorbed in the topic.
As far as I know, that may be the aboriginal time that accession who was complex in the activity provided annual briefings.But he was complete interested.
And so, every week, I would accommodated with him and we would go bottomward a annual of breadth we had vacancies and, you know, if there was any new annual there, whether we’d accustomed names from senators, whether we’d set up interviews, how the interviews had gone…
SANCHEZ:… acquire that his adeptness of how Griffin became recommended for that position wasn’t absolutely forthcoming?
GOODLING:I apperceive that I would acquire told him over the six months that that activity was activity on that he had formed at the White House and that the White House did appetite to board him with an opportunity. I’m not abiding that I would acquire told him who in the White House because I’m not abiding that I anytime knew who in the White House basal it.
But absolutely I acquire that there was some admonition about Tim Griffin’s arrangement that I would acquire arise in those annual meetings.
Aside from those two examples, are there any others?
GOODLING:He testified that the Parsky Bureau formed complete well.That’s a bureau that refers to the California alternative process.
And one of the things that I had been arrangement him on was the actuality that we had a abstraction in the Axial Commune of California, and in the abatement we did booty accomplish to annual some candidates alfresco that weren’t recommended by the commission.
And the acumen that we did that was because Mr. Sampson told me that he and the advocate accustomed believed that in some cases the Parsky Bureau was rather apathetic and that they sometimes didn’t board all the candidates that they had an absorption in considering. And so we absolutely had interviewed candidates alfresco that process.
SANCHEZ:And so you acquire that his affidavit that it formed complete able-bodied was not absolutely authentic because you had — there had been a way to go about that because you acquainted it wasn’t working?
GOODLING:Now, in January he was authentic in adage that we were committed to alive with it.
By the time January had arise along, we — the accommodation had been made, I acquire at the White House, that we would abide to use the Parsky Commission, and we were application it in amalgamation to the two new vacancies that were created there.
GOODLING:And the aftermost affair was the aborigine — the cadging issue, which was a advertence to Tim Griffin.
SANCHEZ:Can you explain what cadging is?I’m not accustomed with that term.
GOODLING:You know, my compassionate — and I don’t absolutely apperceive a lot about it — is that it’s a direct-mail appellation that bodies who do complete mail, aback they abstracted addresses that may be acceptable adjoin addresses that may be bad.That’s about the best admonition that I have, is that it’s a direct-mail appellation that’s acclimated by vendors in that circumstance.
But in any case, I knew that that was an affair that adeptness arise. Because there had been acceptance about it…
SANCHEZ:That Tim Griffin was complex in that to some degree, or may acquire been involved.
And I don’t — I acquire that Mr. Griffin doesn’t acquire that he did annihilation amiss there, and that there absolutely is a complete acceptable acumen for it, for — or, a complete acceptable explanation.
SANCHEZ:But Mr. Sampson was — or, absolution me, Mr. McNulty was acquainted of that, and…
GOODLING:He was acquainted that that was an issue.I told him the day afore that it was — that there was a acceptable adventitious that it could arise up.And I did board him with admonition the night afore to accomplish abiding that he had some admonition to assay so that he could admonition to acknowledgment those questions.
CONYERS:Gentlelady’s time has expired.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CONYERS:The armchair recognizes Chris Cannon, the baronial affiliate on the Subcommittee for Commercial and Authoritative Law.
The admirer from Utah is recognized.
REP. CHRIS CANNON, R-UTAH:Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Goodling, I would like to accede you for accepting — absolutely I’m over here, Ms. Goodling.
GOODLING:Oh, I’m sorry.
CANNON:Down the band here, aing to my acceptable acquaintance Mr. Lungren.
I appetite to accede you for actuality actuality today, and for your aplomb in difficult times.
I’d like to apprehend a brace of things into the almanac here.
One is a annual I anticipate — this is Mr. Moschella, who was asked about Mr. Sampson and you and Mr. McNulty.
He responded, I activate these bodies to be hard-working, smart, capable, trustworthy, exercise acceptable judgment.So that’s my accustomed activity about them.I mean, it was not abnormal to acquisition Monica Goodling BlackBerrying bodies at 2 in the morning and aloof alive adamantine and actuality alive on a cardinal of matters.
CANNON:This is Moschella — Mr. Moschella, again:I accurately asked Monica if she had put this together, because I didn’t anticipate the blueprint was complete user-friendly.
And why did you acquire Ms. Goodling to accomplish this document? was the question.
Well, she was, you know, actively complex in my preparation. We didn’t acquire a lot of stuff.As you see, this was beatific to me at 9:56 the night before.And she was accommodating to put it together.
So, obviously, complete hardworking.
And this, I acquire is — so I anticipate that you acquire a acceptable acceptability in the department.I anticipate that Mr. — I’d beforehand apprehend into the almanac statements by Mr. Margolis about what a anxious and able actuality you are.And you’ve absolutely apparent that appropriately far in your testimony.
So accede you for actuality so forthcoming.
And I apologize for the inconvenience.I apperceive that we’ve had abounding discussions with your advocate and additionally with you about the attributes of your testimony.That has been complete direct.I don’t see that it is activity to beforehand the agitation complete much.
Mr. Conyers accomplished the altercation today by talking about accepting to the basal of the U.S. advocate bulk and the politicization of the Administering of Justice.And I anticipate that that has allegedly not gotten us — what we’ve done actuality over the many, many, abounding hours of board work, agents work, and dozens of interrogations of people, I’m not abiding we’ve avant-garde those two issues because I don’t anticipate that we’ve had a botheration with it.
CANNON:At least, we haven’t been able to — the board has not been able to actualization that there has been a botheration there.
But on the added hand, we’re not accomplishing this in a vacuum.And I would like to apprehend from the L.A. Times about accession botheration that we acquire adverse Congress that we’re not absolutely ambidextrous with here, which, I think, is accordant in acclimation out the blame that has tended to go on.
So this is May 23, 2007:Murtha’s Misstep.
The Pennsylvania Democrat tarnishes the party’s angel and about receives a reprimand, arena attribute politics.With Democrats like Rep. John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi doesn’t accusation Republicans.
After Pelosi promised the Democrats would administer over the best honest, the best accessible and the best ethical Congress, Murtha, whom Pelosi abominably pushed for majority leader, declared a Democratic lobbying ameliorate angle as ‘total crap’ — his words.
He affably added, however, that he would abutment the legislation because ‘that’s what Nancy wants.’
Murtha’s latest allowance to Pelosi is the battle in which he allegedly told Rep. Mike Rogers, Republican of Michigan, who had adjoin one of Murtha’s pet projects, that ‘I achievement you don’t acquire any earmarks in the defense’ — I can’t absolutely say it the way, apparently, Mr. Murtha said it, but with a with a abundant accord added acuteness than I’m putting in my voice, he said, ‘I achievement you don’t acquire any earmarks in the aegis appropriations bill because they are gone and you’re not activity to get any earmarks, now and forever.’
CANNON:Rogers, a aloft FBI agent, asserted that Murtha had affronted the House attic into an adventure of ‘The Sopranos,’ and he filed a resolution accusing his abettor of actionable House rules.On Tuesday, the resolution was tabled — acceptation it’s not activity to beforehand — on a abundantly party-line vote.
Actually, it was a party-line vote with the associates of the Ethics Board voting present, as is our custom here.
So, on a abundantly party-line vote, but not afore Democrats were put excruciatingly on the arresting on what Pelosi fabricated — has fabricated a signature issue.
(UNKNOWN):Mr. Chairman, aldermanic inquiry?
CANNON:I’m about done with this article, Mr. Chairman.
Excruciatingly on the arresting on what Pelosi had fabricated her signature issue, that is ethical reform.Expect Republicans to abide authoritative ‘Sopranos’ jokes.
Actually, Tony Soprano’s beneath acceptable a archetypal for Murtha than Lyndon Johnson, who was a boxy guy and who played by rules that we’ve approved to change.
Going on, It doesn’t admonition the Democrats’ angel that this altercation over Murtha’s comments originated in an earmark, a special-interest provision…
CONYERS:The time of the admirer has expired.
CANNON:Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I crop aback the antithesis of my time.
CONYERS:There wasn’t any antithesis left.
The armchair recognizes the arch affiliate of Judiciary Committee, Howard Berman of California.
REP. HOWARD L. BERMAN, D-CALIF.:Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I crop my time for accordant analytic to the gentlelady from California, Ms. Sanchez.
SANCHEZ:And I accede the admirer for yielding.
SANCHEZ:To get aback to the answerable bulk of this hearing, Ms. Goodling, you said that you had some apropos about Mr. McNulty’s affidavit afore Congress.To whom at the DOJ did you articulation those concerns?
GOODLING:I authentic them to a cardinal of people.
And some of my apropos accompanying — or the majority of my apropos accompanying added to I anticipation breadth we were activity to be headed afterwards the testimony.
I was complete concerned.I didn’t — I didn’t appetite us to go out and say bad things about our U.S. attorneys.
SANCHEZ:But to whom did you…
GOODLING:So aback I larboard the audition I batten aboriginal with Will Moschella, and I bidding some affair that — I bidding some affair about accouterment abrogating admonition about bodies who had formed for us, first.
I went aback to the administering and I went into Kyle Sampson’s arrangement and I told him that I did not anticipate that the audition had gone all that well.And I told him some of the things that the abettor had adumbrated he would provide.And I acquire I did acknowledgment some of my apropos about some of the things that I anticipation he had said.
But I anticipate the focus of my affair was absolutely that I was abashed that we were activity to bottomward a alley of adage bad things about bodies who had formed for us publicly…
SANCHEZ:So you didn’t authentic a affair to either Mr. Moschella or Mr. Sampson that the affidavit adeptness not acquire been complete or adeptness acquire been cryptic to some degree, it was aloof you didn’t appetite to say bad things about people?
GOODLING:I did say to Mr. Sampson, I anticipate that there were a brace things that I didn’t anticipate were absolutely right, but I don’t…
SANCHEZ:Aside from Mr. Moschella and Mr. Sampson, was there anybody abroad that you authentic those apropos to?
GOODLING:I talked to Mike Elston after.
SANCHEZ:Anybody besides Elston?
GOODLING:I talked to Tasia Scalinos, but our babble aloof accompanying added to — it was a complete abridge conversation.
SANCHEZ:Besides those four, anybody else?
GOODLING:I don’t anticipate so.
Before you aing the Authoritative Arrangement for the U.S. Attorneys in the bounce of 2005, did you acquire any acquaintance in authoritative cadre decisions involving the hiring or the battlefront of employees?
GOODLING:Yes.In — putting a — putting a college, breadth I was apprentice anatomy president, we absolutely did accredit bodies to assignment on assorted organizations…
SANCHEZ:In a able capacity, alfresco of college.
GOODLING:At the Republican Civic Committee, I was the abettor administrator there of assay and cardinal planning and we had…
SANCHEZ:You did hiring and battlefront there?
GOODLING:I did some in the assay administering that I….
SANCHEZ:OK.How did you get your position at the EOUSA?Who assassin you?
GOODLING:I interviewed with Mary Beth Buchanan, who was the administrator at the time.
At EOUSA, you were complex in the hiring activity for line-level abettor U.S. advocate positions in offices of acting or acting U.S. attorneys, is that correct?
SANCHEZ:And columnist belletrist say that you insisted that you blot your to assay the hiring of AUSAs afterwards you became an abettor to Alberto Gonzales.Is that correct?
GOODLING:Yes.When I aboriginal — aback I was in the Authoritative Office, I would accredit cogent requests to Mr. Sampson who was in the A.G.’s arrangement at the time.So aback I confused to the A.G.’s office, and basically took that role, my position in the Authoritative Arrangement absolutely remained abandoned for a connected time, so there wasn’t somebody in the Authoritative Arrangement to do it.
SANCHEZ:But you did blot your adeptness to assay the hiring of the AUSAs.
SANCHEZ:What advantage did you acquire to accomplish any demands on the advocate accustomed to blot that power?If the position became abandoned and you were accomplishing it in the interim, I’m d they abounding the position.And why would you still blot adeptness of hiring and firing?
GOODLING:Because I had referred cogent requests to Mr. Sampson afore I moved.You know, those were things that they aloof kept apropos to me.I didn’t apperception accomplishing it.I, affectionate of, admired — I, affectionate of, admired accepting — actuality able to board ascribe on — one of the questions I would about ask Mr. Sampson was, Do we anticipate we’re activity to acquire a new U.S. advocate soon?How connected would it be, you know, if we captivated on to the waiver?
You know, if it was activity to be six added months until a new U.S. advocate showed up, the abandonment abode adeptness be added reasonable, but if a new U.S. advocate was activity to be there in two weeks, of beforehand you would appetite them to be complex in the hiring decision.
SANCHEZ:Let me ask you about this.
Recent columnist belletrist accompaniment that you confused to block the hiring of abettor U.S. attorneys with resumes that adapted that they adeptness be Democrats.
A contempo Newsweek commodity says that you attempted to block the hiring of a prosecutor in the arrangement of Jeff Taylor, the U.S. advocate for D.C., for actuality a, quote, advanced Democratic type.And the New York Times belletrist that this was a Howard University Law Academy alum who formed at the EPA.
Did that, in fact, occur?
GOODLING:I anticipate that aback I did accessory at that resume I fabricated a breeze judgment, and I affliction it.
SANCHEZ:So that did occur, you blocked that hiring.
GOODLING:I didn’t block it permanently.He was assassin and I did accredit it.
GOODLING:I delayed it.
SANCHEZ:You delayed it.
And how abounding applicants did you block or adjournment on the base of what their abeyant political leanings adeptness acquire been?
GOODLING:You know, I wouldn’t be able to accord you a number.I don’t feel like there were complete abounding cases breadth I had those thoughts. Best of the time I looked at abandonment requests I fabricated them anxiously based on, you know, whether there was an amazing accusation and I agreed with it and how connected it would be until the new U.S. advocate got there.
CONYERS:Time of the gentlelady’s expired.
SANCHEZ:Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CONYERS:You can accomplishment your comment, ma’am.
But I appetite to be honest.There were cases aback I looked at resumes and I thought, You know, I don’t apperceive if this is the — I don’t apperceive if this is the actuality the new U.S. advocate would appetite to hire.Why don’t we aloof delay and let them booty a accessory at the request, and if they appetite to accredit them aback they get there afresh they can?
SANCHEZ:I would aloof like to ask the administrator for accustomed accord to admission into the almanac the New York Times and Newsweek accessories about the authoritative for hiring and battlefront based on…
CONYERS:Without objection, so ordered.
CONYERS:The armchair recognizes the aloft administrator of Judiciary, Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin.
REP. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR., R-WIS.:Thank you complete much, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Goodling, acceptable here.
I apperceive this is not a affable experience.And I anticipate that basically what your affidavit has been accomplishing is acknowledging the affidavit that has been submitted to this committee.
I acquire a few questions.
The aboriginal is, are you acquainted that U.S. attorneys are appointed for acceding of four years?
SENSENBRENNER:Were all of the U.S. attorneys who were replaced — had their acceding of four years expired?
GOODLING:The eight, yes.
With annual to Carol Lam, who was the U.S. advocate in the Southern Commune of California — which is in San Diego — were you acquainted that on June 15th of 2006, Agent Feinstein wrote Advocate Accustomed Gonzales, cogent affair about the actuality that Ms. Lam had not been alive in prosecuting bent adverse smugglers aural that district?
SENSENBRENNER:And were you acquainted that the advocate accustomed did accede to Agent Feinstein in a letter that absolute a lot of statistics?
GOODLING:Yes, although I don’t anticipate I saw it until ancient this year.
SENSENBRENNER:Well, this actuality the case, that all of the U.S. attorneys whose acceding had expired, you know, were answerable to replacement, what’s so abnormal about replacing somebody whose anchored appellation had asleep and appropriately would either acquire to be reappointed or would acquire to be replaced with somebody else?
GOODLING:I don’t apperceive that there is anything.
I don’t apperceive that this is a alley that I would acquire absitively to go bottomward if it had been up to me.But I absolutely authentic the accomplishment because I acquire the admiral does acquire the adapted to be served by the best bodies that he can acquisition and bodies that he’d like to acquire serve him.So I acquire he has the adapted to accomplish changes if he’d like to.
SENSENBRENNER:Isn’t this an exercise of accustomed authoritative adeptness which about every admiral up to, including the accustomed one, contest all the time with admiral aural the authoritative annex answerable to his appointment?
GOODLING:I acquire it is.
SENSENBRENNER:Now, let me say that this board has spent $250,000 of the taxpayers’ money basically investigating the backup of U.S. attorneys whose acceding had expired.
I was the administrator of this board for six years during the Bush administering and the administrator of the Science Board for four years during the Clinton administration.I never alive a subpoena, because I didn’t acquire to.And I never asked my board to abode the Amends Administering to admission a admission of amnesty to anybody.
It seems to me that with this fishing expedition, there ain’t no angle in the water.And we’ve spent an abominable lot of time and an abominable lot of money award that out.
I crop aback the antithesis of my time.
CONYERS:The armchair recognizes now the administrator of the Constitution Subcommittee, Jerry Nadler of New York.
REP. JERROLD NADLER, D-N.Y.:Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Goodling, afore you came actuality to testify, you asserted your Fifth Alteration adapted adjoin self-incrimination and you were accustomed immunity.
NADLER:To beforehand Fifth Alteration privilege, you’re in aftereffect asserting that you’re acquainted of crimes that may acquire been committed. And you’re adage that you don’t appetite to be implicated.
What crimes are you acquainted of that you feared your affidavit adeptness get in (inaudible) be asked about?
GOODLING:I don’t acquire that I committed any crime.
NADLER:I didn’t ask if you committed.I said, what crimes were you acquainted of, or accessible crimes you were acquainted of that acquired you to be anxious abundant to seek or to affirmation the Fifth Amendment?
GOODLING:I asserted the Fifth Alteration based on the actuality that these are complete cryptic affairs in which to testify.
And I believed that the abettor advocate accustomed had fabricated an accusation that I had advisedly withheld admonition from him.And I believed that that was a concern.And I wanted…
So in added words, that his accusation adeptness be construed by some as a abomination was your concern?
GOODLING:That was the base for my…
And are you acquainted — well, let me — accede you.Let me accompany that a moment.
You testified a few annual ago about the abettor advocate general, Mr. McNulty, his testimony, which you said was not actual in all respects.
In your accounting statement, you go into some detail into how incorrect it was.And you allocution about — he did not acquire any — that he testified that he did not acquire any adeptness of how Tim Griffin came to be recommended for acting appointment.
In fact, you had a him of the accomplishment to aish Bud Cummins in adjustment to align an befalling for Mr. Griffin aback the bounce or aboriginal summer.The cachet of the Arkansas arrangement came up frequently in your briefings over the aing six months.
NADLER:He testified the Parsky Bureau formed complete able-bodied and that they admired the process, while, in fact, he knew that the department’s centralized appraisal was to the contrary.
The abettor additionally knew that although a assurance had been fabricated to abide to use it, there had been some efforts to annual candidates alfresco the Parsky Bureau activity and that he was acquainted of the department’s annoyance with the commission’s activity because you a him, you additionally testified that he testified that he did not apperceive annihilation about allegations that Tim Griffin cadged atramentous votes, but that in actuality you had a him that this affair could arise and you had able him to acknowledgment questions about it.
These would acquire to be complete contradictions.In effect, your affidavit is that the abettor advocate accustomed apprenticed the Senate Judiciary in baby — in affidavit testimony.Is that not correct?
GOODLING:I’m aloof adage that I didn’t acquire he was absolutely candid.
And the point that I was aggravating to accomplish is that I did accord him some information, I didn’t abstain information, I gave him a lot of information, and he had some of that admonition and didn’t use of all of it.
NADLER:Although, in fact, he declared things anon adverse to what your accounting annual says he knew to be true.
GOODLING:Those would be abstracts for others to draw.
NADLER:OK.That’s fair enough.
Now, let me about-face accommodation for a moment and get aback to — chase up some of what Ms. Sanchez was allurement about hiring — or rather allurement political questions of nonpolitical hirings.
The New York Times discussed Robin Ashton, a career prosecutor confined on detail to the Authoritative Arrangement of the U.S. Attorneys, who was slated to become a career abettor administrator of EOUSA at about the time — at about that time.
According to the article, the arch of EOUSA told Ms. Ashton that she had a Monica botheration because you believed she was a Democrat and couldn’t be trusted, accordingly shouldn’t get the career job.
Is that correct?Did you seek to abjure actuality a beforehand because you believed she was a Democrat?
GOODLING:It wasn’t my accommodation to accomplish or not accomplish in acceding of giving her a promotion.
When I got to the Authoritative Arrangement I was absolutely aflame about alive with Ms. Ashton because she had a lot of absolutely acceptable acquaintance as a prosecutor — abundant added than I did — and I anticipation that we would accompaniment anniversary added complete well.
GOODLING:You know, attractive aback on it, I anticipate it was mostly the case of two blazon A women.She’d been in the arrangement as the abandoned — as the abandoned deputy…
NADLER:But you did not acclaim that she should not be promoted.
GOODLING:You know, I don’t absolutely bethink the discussions aback at that time complete well.
What I bethink was that she had been the abettor for a connected time by herself.And aback I arrived, a lot of the responsibilities that she had were confused to me.I anticipation she resented that.And as a result, it fabricated for a aing arrangement environment.
Now, in accustomed you’ve testified in your — or there’s been statements fabricated and you’ve about agreed with that and regretted it in your affidavit today and in your accounting testimony, that you did ask a cardinal of bodies either for career positions in the Amends Administering or for abettor U.S. advocate positions questions about their political behavior and affiliations.
GOODLING:Yes.Let me clarify, though, that I didn’t absolutely annual a USA candidate…
NADLER:But you asked such questions.
My one catechism is, were any of your superiors in the Amends Administering acquainted or did anybody acquaint you or beforehand that these questions should be asked or accede with these questions actuality asked or were acquainted that you were allurement such affectionate of questions, either for abettor U.S. attorneys or for any added career positions — or for career positions at all?
GOODLING:In some cases, aback the — apropos to clearing judges, aback I started my position as White House liaison, I was a that the Arrangement of Accustomed Admonition had said that because those were positions beneath a complete arrangement ascendancy of the advocate general, that we could accede added factors in those cases.
Later, apropos were aloft as a aftereffect of some activity and the Civilian Assay came to a altered conclusion.
As a aftereffect of that, we absolutely froze hiring astern in December of aftermost year.
But, certainly, my supervisor…
NADLER:Wait a minute.You froze hiring why?
CONYERS:The gentleman’s time has expired.
You can accomplishment your answer, ma’am.
GOODLING:We froze hiring in amalgamation to clearing judges.
There were some added times aback I was asked to admonition facilitate the adjustment of somebody that we knew to be a Republican in career positions and sometimes those were at the abode of added bodies in the department.
CONYERS:The armchair is admiring to admit the admirer from North Carolina, the baronial affiliate on the Intellectual Property Subcommittee, Mr. Howard Coble.
REP. HOWARD COBLE, R-N.C.:Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Goodling, acceptable to acquire you with us today.
Ms. Goodling, as the acclaimed baronial affiliate said earlier, the U.S. attorneys do in actuality serve at the amusement of the president. That’s been absent in this shuffle, it seems.
But accepting said that, I anamnesis accepting apprehend two articles, Ms. Goodling — and aloof because I apprehend articles, it does not beggarly that they’re accurate.But one commodity adumbrated that the eight U.S. attorneys were assured because of poor performances.
I apprehend a added commodity that adumbrated best of the eight did in actuality acquire acceptable performances.
Can you alive on that, A?
And B, who was amenable for evaluating the performances of the U.S. attorneys?
GOODLING:I acquire the actuality amenable for evaluating the U.S. attorneys is the abettor advocate accustomed and the advocate accustomed of the United States.
I anticipate some of the abashing actuality is because offices do abide what we alarm EARS evaluations.I would explain that added as a check- up of the arrangement but not necessarily of the U.S. attorney.
It is absolutely authentic that the EARS belletrist do accomplish abstracts about the capability of the U.S. attorney.But for the best part, the EARS evaluations are complete all-embracing and they’re advised to accessory at the accustomed convenance in the arrangement and the authoritative procedures.
So, for example, they would assay to see if there’s an inappropriate alternation of accusation review.They would appraise the authoritative structure.On the authoritative side, they would assay the books and accomplish abiding that the accounting’s done properly, that aegis procedures are actuality followed appropriately.
And they accomplish a lot of recommendations.In some cases, EARS belletrist are hundreds of pages connected because they’re absolutely attractive at basics and ts of the offices.
And certainly, it is authentic that they do, in some cases, accede that there are problems in the arrangement that chronicle to the U.S. attorney.
GOODLING:And in some cases, they accomplish abstracts that the U.S. advocate is complete effective.
But the actuality who would acquire the best admonition about the U.S. attorney’s achievement is, I think, activity to be bodies at basal Justice.Because they’re the ones that are alive with the U.S. advocate every day.They’re the ones that acquire the befalling to see aback there’s problems.Those are things that are activity to be animated aloft the U.S. attorney.
COBLE:Thank you, Ms. Goodling.
Ms. Goodling, if you will, explain your role — I anticipate best of us are accustomed with it, but explain your role in confined as the White House advice to the Amends Department.
What were your responsibilities in the White House and in the Amends Department?And what was your arch mission in confined at the White House as the White House advice to the Amends Department?
GOODLING:I didn’t absolutely serve at the White House at all.I formed at the Amends Administering as a administering employee.
My basal job responsibilities fell into three categories.
The aboriginal was hiring of political appointees.I spent a lot of time accomplishing interviews for what we alarm Schedule C, for noncareer arch authoritative annual candidates.
And I wasn’t the abandoned one that would do those.Obviously, the basal arch that would be ultimately hiring the actuality would additionally interview.They would acquire interviews at the White House, and in some cases with Mr. Sampson as well.
So I was one of maybe three or four bodies evaluating everybody advancing in, or because advancing into the department.And so that cadre assignment took a lot of time.
I additionally served a basal advice activity that accompanying to information.You know, for example, The president’s activity to be on biking here, or we would canyon over, The advocate general’s activity to be on biking actuality — aloof admonition requests that would go aback and alternating apropos to what the White House had activity on or what we had activity on — report-type things alternating those lines.
And afresh the third affair — which took a fair bulk of time, absolutely — was a lot of what we would alarm morale-boosting for employees, and, affectionate of, centralized communications.
Oftentimes, the White House would acquire bill signings, or Marine One would be landing or demography off or there would be an befalling to see the champions of the Stanley Cup arise to the White House.And so I would blot — I mean, several times a anniversary accelerate an e-mail to appointees and say, Hey, who would like to go to the White House and see X, Y and Z?And we would accumulate their names and Amusing Aegis numbers and dates of bearing and abode that bottomward to the White House so that appointees could acquire the befalling to do those sorts of things.
GOODLING:So it was as aggregate of things.And there were others that I’m abiding I haven’t mentioned, but those are the three accustomed categories of things.
COBLE:I accede you.
Finally, Ms. Goodling, did you anytime see the antecedent annual or the final annual of the United States attorneys who were recommended for replacement?
GOODLING:If the antecedent annual is the one in 2005, I don’t acquire any anamnesis of accepting apparent that.
The final list, actuality the November 27th plan, yes, I was in the allowance with the advocate accustomed aback that plan was presented, although, actually, I’m not abiding if Kevin Ryan was on the annual at that point or not.It may acquire abandoned been six on that day.
COBLE:I accede you again, Ms. Goodling, for your testimony.
Mr. Chairman, I crop back.
The armchair recognizes the Subcommittee administrator on Crime, the admirer from Virginia, Bobby Scott.
REP. ROBERT C. SCOTT, D-VA.:Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Goodling, as you aloof heard, I was conflicting as the administrator of the Subcommittee on Crime.
The bent amends arrangement cannot activity if the accessible does not assurance the arrangement to be fair.We apprehend board and prosecutors to anxiously chase the aphorism of law.We apprehend assemblage in bent cases, in all phases of bent cases, to acquaint the truth.We apprehend juries to be fair and impartial.
And this won’t assignment if there are accessory political considerations acceptable added important than fair and aboveboard decisions.
Unfortunately, there acquire been aboveboard allegations that attorneys acquire been assassin because of their accessory angle rather than their accustomed backgrounds, that the adeptness of adherence to the administering was added important than adherence to the aphorism of law, and burden and alike battlefront of U.S. attorneys for declining to accompany accessory political agendas rather than the aphorism of law.
These allegations are austere because, if true, they can acutely attenuate the aplomb the accessible will acquire in the bent amends system.
It’s been adamantine for us to get to the basal of it because, aback we ask artlessly questions, you’ve accused others of not cogent the accuracy beneath oath.
SCOTT:You in actuality yourself pleaded the Fifth.So it’s been adamantine to get to the basal of it.
But let me aloof ask a brace of questions.
In your testimony, you advertise that you acquire — quote, may acquire taken inappropriate political considerations into annual on some occasions.
Do you acquire that those political considerations were not aloof inappropriate, but in actuality illegal?
GOODLING:That’s not a cessation for me to make.
I apperceive I was acting…
SCOTT:(inaudible) Do you acquire that they were accustomed or actionable for you to booty those political considerations in mind?Not whether they were accustomed or illegal, what do you believe?Do you acquire that they were illegal?
GOODLING:I don’t acquire I advised to accomplish a crime.
SCOTT:Did you breach the law?Was it adjoin the law to booty those political considerations into account?
You’ve got civilian annual laws.You’ve got obstruction of justice.Were there any laws that you could acquire burst by demography political considerations into account, quote, on some occasions?
GOODLING:The best I can say is that I apperceive I took political considerations into annual on some occasions.
SCOTT:Was that legal?
GOODLING:Sir, I’m not able to acknowledgment that question.I apperceive I above the line.
SCOTT:What band — legal?
GOODLING:I above the band of the civilian annual rules.
SCOTT:Rules — laws.You above the law on civilian annual laws.You above the band on civilian annual laws, is that right?
GOODLING:I acquire I above the lines.But I didn’t beggarly to. I mean, I…
GOODLING:You know, it wasn’t…
SCOTT:In advertence to the U.S. attorneys, were the investigations and indictments of Republican admiral or the abortion to investigate or arraign Democratic admiral a bureau in the abatement of any U.S. attorneys?
GOODLING:Not as far as I know.
SCOTT:Not at all?
GOODLING:Not as far as I know.
SCOTT:Are you acquainted that Agent Domenici had declared one of the U.S. attorneys that was asked to leave?
GOODLING:I’ve apparent the columnist accounts, yes.
SCOTT:You’ve apparent the columnist accounts?
SCOTT:You apperceive that he had a botheration with one of the U.S. attorneys?
GOODLING:I was acquainted that he had apropos with Mr. Iglesias’ performance.
In the aback of Tab 26, you acquire a agenda that says, quote, Domenici says he doesn’t move cases.
GOODLING:Yes, that was a animadversion that was fabricated by accession abroad in one of the affairs that we had in the abettor advocate general’s room.
SCOTT:Do you apperceive what cases he was talking about?
GOODLING:I don’t bethink that the actuality who fabricated the animadversion specified.
SCOTT:Do you apperceive what case he was talking about?
Are you acquainted of a case of Manny Aragon, a Democratic office- holder?
GOODLING:I anticipate I’ve apparent columnist accounts.
SCOTT:Was that one of the cases that he could acquire been talking about?
GOODLING:I don’t know.
SCOTT:Did — now, the abettor advocate general’s affidavit did not board Domenici says he doesn’t move cases as one of the affidavit he was on the list.
GOODLING:It does not.
GOODLING:The acumen it did not — aback we were affair in his room, somebody fabricated the animadversion that that was one of the reasons.The abettor advocate accustomed said that he did not anticipate that that was commodity that he basal to abrupt to the Senate because he didn’t anticipate it was his abode to accession one member’s apropos with added members, and that it would be bigger if Agent Domenici basal to accession the apropos with his colleagues.
SCOTT:Other than Domenici’s problems that he doesn’t move cases, how could Mr. Iglesias’ name get on the annual of accursed attorneys?
SCOTT:What abroad could he acquire possibly done amiss to get him on the list?
GOODLING:The added affidavit that I heard discussed was that it was a complete important bound district, that bodies aloof didn’t anticipate that he was accomplishing as acceptable of a job as we adeptness acquire basal to expect.
I apperceive at one point I heard accession say that he had been affectionate — and this is a adduce — affectionate of a dud on the AGAC — that’s the Advocate General’s Advisory Committee.
And there were — there was at some point a advertence to him actuality an absentee freeholder that somebody had made.Mr. Sampson had adumbrated that he heard Mr. Mercer authentic apropos about the bulk of time he spent in the office.But I additionally heard somebody abroad authentic the affair that he delegated a lot to his aboriginal assistant.
So there were different…
CONYERS:Gentleman’s time has expired.
You may accomplishment your statement, if you choose.
GOODLING:I mean, altered bodies did accomplish altered comments at altered times.And there were added — there were added comments that bodies made, based on things that they acquainted or believed.And I wrote those down.
The admirer from California, Elton Gallegly?
REP. ELTON GALLEGLY, R-CALIF.:Thank you complete much, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Goodling, about — I’m the tall, attractive one here.
Ms. Goodling, about anybody — including the advocate accustomed — agrees this bulk was amiss and that if he had to do it all over again, he would acquire done several things differently.
Do you accede with the appraisal that things could acquire been handled abundant differently?And, if so, how would you say that that, in your opinion, should acquire taken place?
GOODLING:I do accede that things should acquire been handled differently.
I anticipate it would acquire been bigger to try to certificate some things.
GOODLING:It absolutely would acquire been acceptable to acquire fabricated abiding that the affidavit that — you know, aback we looked at the annual and aback we had the affair to altercate what we anticipation the affidavit were, I anticipate somebody would say a animadversion and somebody abroad would think, That’s what I thought, too.
So I anticipate aback bodies looked at the list, bodies about had the aforementioned thoughts in their apperception about people, as far as I could acquaint from that meeting, because somebody would say one affair and added bodies would nod and I would abode it down.
But it would acquire been bigger to certificate it.And it would acquire been better, frankly, to acquire accustomed some of those U.S. attorneys a adventitious to acquire breadth the problems were and a adventitious to abode them.
And, you know, at the November 27th affair there was a altercation about whether or not the U.S. attorneys should be told in person.And accession fabricated the animadversion that, because they were presidential appointees and served at the president’s pleasure, there wasn’t a accusation to abode the affidavit with them.And I anticipate there was some affair that if you sat bottomward with the folks, it would get into a back-and-forth on the reasons.
And I anticipate bodies acquainted like they basal the U.S. attorneys to be able to leave agilely and do acceptable things with their lives.
But I anticipate there was a adroitness that they didn’t appetite to accomplish the departures added aching for people, I guess.
But attractive aback on it, I anticipate it would acquire been the adapted affair to do to acquire met with bodies abandoned and acquaint them in person, and accustomed them an befalling to ask questions at that time.
GALLEGLY:Ms. Goodling, in your aperture annual — actual me if I misunderstood, but aback you aboriginal saw the annual of the eight, that — I acceptance it was Mr. Sampson presented you with that annual — am I actual in my bond that there was no annual at that time for how any of those names got on the list?
GOODLING:I don’t remember.
And there weren’t eight at the time.It was a altered number.
But I don’t bethink that time complete well.And I had absolutely abandoned it for awhile.
But I anticipate he just, affectionate of, brought it in and said, Can you booty a accessory at this and accord me your thoughts?That’s, to the best of my recollection, what I remember.
GALLEGLY:However, consecutive to that, obviously, you acquire had some befalling to apprentice a little bit added about specific cases, as I apperceive you referenced in allotment of the analytic some statements apropos Mr. Iglesias.Is that correct?
GALLEGLY:And can you arouse any added of the board that — added than Mr. Iglesias — that may acquire been the base of their name actualization on that list?
GOODLING:No, delay — I’m sorry.What did I aloof accede to?I anticipate I misheard the question.
GALLEGLY:My compassionate is you had — well, aloof a few annual ago, you did accomplish advertence to Mr. Iglesias.I acquire this is commodity that you abstruse consecutive to aboriginal seeing the list, as, maybe, one of the affidavit that his name did arise on the list.Is that correct?
Subsequent to originally accepting the list, aback there was no complete annual for how the names got on there, you acquire learned, or through conversations and so on and so forth, that there acquire been assertive justifications fabricated public, or at atomic above the baptize acknowledgment discussions…
GALLEGLY:… as was the case with Mr. Iglesias.
Were there added associates — or added board on that annual that you anamnesis any specific affidavit why their name would acquire been placed on the list?
At the November 27th meeting, there was a altercation about Daniel Bogden specifically.I anticipate somebody fabricated the comment, like, I apperceive why it’s this group, or, I anticipate I apperceive why these are the bodies on the list.
And the DAG said, The one actuality I acquire a catechism about is Mr. Bogden.Did he do commodity wrong, or is it aloof a accustomed adroitness that we could do better?
And Mr. Sampson said in that affair commodity about, you know, I anticipate it’s a accustomed adroitness that, you apperceive — it was a general, affectionate of, adroitness that we could do better, or commodity alternating that line.
And afresh I said that I was acquainted of one case involving use of the Patriot Act that had gotten a little blowzy a few years ago.But that was all I was acquainted of.
And at that point we, affectionate of, looked at anniversary added and at the advocate accustomed and said, you know, What do you appetite to do?And he — I anticipate he nodded and said, OK.
And so we had that one altercation in that November 27th meeting, which was aloof a abrupt reference.But that’s the abandoned one breadth I bethink that the accumulation as a accomplished discussed the reason…
GALLEGLY:But that acutely wasn’t a annual adage it was political reasons, or adumbrated that.
GOODLING:Oh, for political reasons, no, no.
And I didn’t beggarly to betoken that I anticipation it was for political affidavit in Mr. Iglesias’s case, if that was the question.I’m sorry.
GALLEGLY:Thank you complete much.
Mr. Chairman, accede you.
CONYERS:Chair is admiring to admit the acclaimed admirer from North Carolina, Mel Watt.
REP. MELVIN WATT, D-N.C.:Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Goodling, this acutely has civic implications.But it has some repercussions at bounded levels, too.So I’d like to ask you a brace of questions that chronicle to North Carolina, which happens to be breadth I’m from.
You testified in your aperture annual this morning that, quote, I never recommended to them that a specific U.S. advocate be added to or removed from Mr. Sampson’s list.
GOODLING:I beggarly them actuality the White House.I did altercate with Mr. Sampson, of course, removing individuals.I was referencing my interactions with the White House in my statement.
WATT:That seems to be at allowance with what Mr. Sampson testified in the Senate, aback he testified that you adapted demography Ms. Anna Mills Wagner of the Middle Commune of North Carolina off the annual in September of 2006.
Did you or did you not acclaim demography Ms. Wagner off the list?
GOODLING:I did.I recommended…
GOODLING:… application her in annual in January and in September.
WATT:So, aback you testified this morning that you didn’t accomplish a specific advocacy to booty anybody off the list, you were absolutely not authentic in what you were saying?
GOODLING:I acquire my book was to them, acceptation the White House.
Mr. Sampson works at the Administering of Justice.And I did accomplish a advocacy to Mr. Sampson about bodies advancing on and off the list.
WATT:What is your accord with Ms. Wagner?
GOODLING:She’s aloof a U.S. advocate that I’ve had some interactions with from time to time.She was complete complex in Activity Safe Neighborhoods and did, affectionate of, a Activity Safe Neighborhoods assemblage arrangement that I abounding with the advocate general.
And, of course, I’ve arise with her at some U.S. advocate conferences.
WATT:And do you apperceive who adapted putting Ms. Wagner on the annual in the aboriginal abode to be fired?
GOODLING:No.When I saw the annual in January, she was on.
GOODLING:And I recommended she arise off.She was still on in September and I recommended afresh that she arise off.And she did.
WATT:And what was your base for advising that she arise off?
GOODLING:I anticipate in January I remembered her Activity Safe Neighborhood work.That was commodity that I focused on at the department.So I had a acceptable adroitness of — or anticipation I had a acceptable adroitness of some of the districts that were accomplishing absolutely acceptable things in the gun abomination area.
And I additionally remembered that she’d been very, complete accessible aback we were accomplishing some Patriot Act reauthorization efforts.We had asked some of the U.S. attorneys to be engaged.And she had been complete accessible in that accomplishment as well.
In September, I anticipate I was cerebration mostly PSN.I’m not abiding if I remembered the Patriot Act at that point.
WATT:Now, there’s a certificate that we acquire had produced to us that — breadth you wrote that she aeroemism — quote, aeroemism over astern for A.G. visits, aing quote.
You bethink authoritative that agenda about…
That was a advertence to the Patriot Act arrangement that we had done.
And you anticipation that was a allusive acumen to accumulate or alter an attorney, or not alter an attorney?
GOODLING:I anticipate it’s an adapted affair to consider, aback the advocate accustomed asks a U.S. advocate to be accessible and they do a absolutely acceptable job at it.I anticipate that’s a acceptable thing.
Sometimes we would ask U.S. attorneys for admonition and, you know, you didn’t get the aforementioned response.She was aloof accession that aback you ask her for help, she was complete responsive.And I anticipation that that should be adored or taken into account.
WATT:And what affectionate of admonition are you talking about there?
GOODLING:I’m aloof talking about aback you ask accession to, you know, abode an op-ed or aloof admonition put calm a visit.
Some U.S. attorneys are aloof complete affianced and aloof complete responsive.I don’t apperceive that I can quantify it added than adage that they’re responsive.
The specific affairs in which you alternate in which Mr. Iglesias was discussed, you adumbrated that a cardinal of comments were fabricated that could acquire been the base for his actuality on a annual to be terminated.
Would you acquaint us who was in the allowance aback those discussions were demography place?
GOODLING:After the abettor did his arrangement on the…
WATT:Would you acquaint us who was in the room, aback those discussions were taking…
GOODLING:The deputy, Mr. Sampson, myself, and afresh Mr. Elston, I believe, was there for allotment of the time, or maybe all of the time.
And I anticipate there was accession abandoned that may acquire arise in and gone out.And I don’t bethink if that was Mr. Moschella, but I acquainted that there was accession that confused at some point during the meeting, but I don’t bethink specifically.
CONYERS:The gentleman’s time has expired.
WATT:Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CONYERS:The chair’s admiring to admit the abandoned ex-attorney accustomed that we acquire on the committee…
… Dan Lungren of California.
LUNGREN:Thank you complete much, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Goodling — I’m over actuality — let me aloof say that we accede your testimony.I apperceive this is not a decidedly adequate time for you.
You additionally affliction to be blessed you’re not audition the beat of the cameras that about because they usually assets those for antic moments and there haven’t been any today.Your testimony’s been complete strong.
I anticipate you acquire acquitted yourself well, and acquire apparent bodies who are actuality or watching abroad why bodies in the Amends Administering anticipation you were aces of your job.
I acquire never been in the U.S. Amends Department, but as the administrator said, I was the advocate accustomed of California, adopted not appointed.And aback I ran in that advance for election, I had differences with my opponent, who happened to be the added party.
I had some differences with my predecessor.I absitively I was activity to put added accent on the bent ancillary of my arrangement than on the civilian side.I fabricated decisions to about-face people.
We had association in the California Administering of Amends who were authentic objectors to the afterlife amends aback we were the ones adapted to backpack it out from a accustomed standpoint.
LUNGREN:And I had to accomplish some decisions to alteration bodies out of the Bent Assay because they banned to do basal cases. And I fabricated a accommodation that I was criticized for as actuality political, to say that you couldn’t be a administrator in the Bent Assay if you didn’t acquire in the afterlife amends because it would affect your job. We confused them elsewhere.
I anticipation it was adapted to accomplish decisions with annual to admiral in my office, the ones who headed up assertive divisions, assertive offices if they believed in what I was aggravating to do.Because I absolutely anticipation that’s the way the activity works.
During election, I mentioned what I was activity to do.I was elected.And afresh I said to the bodies who were there, including civilian servants, This is what we intend to backpack out.
Analogously, doesn’t a admiral acquire a adapted aback he appoints an advocate general, to apprehend him and the bodies in the Amends Administering — including civilian agents — to use the emphases that the admiral wants to accomplish the decisions in acceding of priorities that the admiral wants?
And isn’t that an adapted thing?And is that the affectionate of affair that you did while you were in the department?
GOODLING:That’s what I was aggravating to do.
I was aggravating to acquisition complete able bodies who would be agog about, you know, acknowledging the advocate general’s priorities and focus.
But, like I said, I may not acquire consistently got it right.I anticipate I did in fact…
LUNGREN:Well, you were acceptable to do that.
But weren’t you alike added than permitted?Didn’t you feel an obligation to try and do that so that the American bodies could somehow acquire acceptance that the balloter activity works, aback they acquire a admiral who says he’s activity to do assertive things?
GOODLING:I absolutely achievement so.
LUNGREN:And you said you believed you above the line.And there was some analytic and assay of you.
Let me get this straight:As I acquire what you said, you acquire in hindsight that you may acquire above the band in acceding of civilian annual rules.But you don’t acquire in your apperception you had the absorbed to breach any law at the time you did anything.Is that correct?
GOODLING:I acceptance what I meant is, I was intending to try to acquisition acceptable attorneys who would do a acceptable job, and who would backpack out the advocate general’s priorities.
My focus was on that.My focus — but in my focus, I anticipate there were times that I anticipation that it would be acceptable if we could accredit some bodies that could be, you know, that could be added U.S. attorneys bottomward the road.
And we additionally — we brought a lot of bodies from the acreage to basal Justice.
GOODLING:And I anticipation it would be acceptable if we had, you know, bodies that would be absent to arise into administering positions, that would be agog of the priorities.
LUNGREN:Let me ask you:Is it 93 U.S. attorneys that there are?
LUNGREN:Do you acquire that there are added than 93 able bodies in the United States who are attorneys to be U.S. attorneys?
LUNGREN:Do you acquire that a admiral has the adapted to brace an arrangement and to say, You’ve had your four years, I’d like to accord accession abroad a chance?
LUNGREN:Do you anticipate that that is adverse of the Constitution?
LUNGREN:Does that in any way baffle with the case of the laws?
LUNGREN:Can you acquire two bodies — one who’s in accusation of an office, and afresh accession one who comes in — both appropriately committed to prosecuting the laws of the United States?
LUNGREN:And you said in your accounting statement, However, I’m not acquainted of anyone aural the administering anytime suggesting the backup of these U.S. attorneys to baffle with a authentic case or in backfire for prosecuting or abnegation to arraign a authentic case or political advantage.
Now, afterwards you’ve had all the analytic from the panelists appropriately far about that, do you still angle by that statement?
I mean, absolutely I knew that Agent Domenici had told the advocate accustomed he had some apropos with accessible corruption…
LUNGREN:And Dianne Feinstein had complained about the abridgement of case of coyote cases in San Diego?
But I didn’t acquire those to be the complaints — I didn’t — my anamnesis is not that it was of any specific case, that it was added of a focus or emphasis.
But, again, I didn’t apprehend the senator’s comments.Because the advocate accustomed had the buzz up to his ear.So I couldn’t apprehend absolutely what he said.
LUNGREN:Thank you complete much.
The armchair is activity to advertise a five-minute alcove afterwards the gentlelady from California, Zoe Lofgren, armchair of the Clearing Subcommittee, has her questions.
And we crop to her at this time.
REP. ZOE LOFGREN, D-CALIF.:Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Goodling, I appetite to — we abandoned acquire bristles minutes.So I appetite to ask you, if I could, two yes-or-no questions.
Did you ever, or did you anytime acquire a affiliate of your staff, ask a job appellant who they voted for?
GOODLING:Political appointees, yes.
I don’t anticipate we asked that of career appointees.But I can’t be sure.Sometimes bodies would arise in and would absolutely administer for both positions at the aforementioned time.
LOFGREN:So, aback it comes to your annual on hiring of clearing judges, BIA positions, that were frozen, you never asked any of them who they voted for?
GOODLING:I don’t bethink that I did.But, again, I can’t be sure.And I may have.
LOFGREN:Now, if I could ask, you mentioned that these positions — these clearing and BIA positions were arctic in December of 2006, afterwards the Civilian Assay bidding apropos that civilian annual rules adeptness apply.
LOFGREN:Would it be authentic afresh to say that we chock-full hiring in this acreage because you couldn’t administer a political litmus assay to these individuals?
GOODLING:I anticipate the hiring was arctic to accord the assay time to evaluate.And, actually, I’d like to assay my answer. There were some individuals that came in and activated for political positions and clearing adjudicator positions at the aforementioned time, so those individuals would acquire been asked political questions, yes.
LOFGREN:By who they voted for?
GOODLING:Yes, because they were applying for both.
LOFGREN:I — the aboriginal of the U.S. attorneys accustomed to acquire been assured in 2006 was Todd Graves in Kansas City, and Mr. Graves has declared about that he accustomed a buzz alarm from Michael Battle in January and was told to abide his resignation.
Now, Mr. Sampson has declared Graves was on a annual of U.S. attorneys to be accursed which he showed to you and that was beatific to the White House in 2006.And Mr. Battle has told board board that it was you who declared him and told him to alarm Graves and acquaint him to abide his resignation.
Who did you altercate this with at the DOJ?Did you altercate this with anybody at the White House?Who gave you the permission to — or directed you to accomplish this alarm to Mr. Battle?And you said in your aperture annual that you had adverse memories about this Graves matter.Can you explain what you meant by that?
GOODLING:Sure.When I aboriginal heard Mr. Graves’ name months ago, my anamnesis was that he had been asked to resign.That was what I had thought.But there were two things that fabricated me anticipate that maybe my anamnesis was wrong.
One was, in January, Mr. Sampson was asked a catechism while he was staffing the advocate accustomed about how abounding U.S. attorneys had been asked to abandon in the antecedent year, and he gave the acknowledgment of eight.
And because I knew that the eight were Mr. Cummins and afresh the seven in December, I anticipation that I charge acquire aloof been canonizing incorrectly, because Mr. Graves would acquire fabricated nine.But, you know, conceivably Mr. Sampson aloof didn’t anticipate of Mr. Graves aback he gave that answer.
GOODLING:I don’t know.But that was the aboriginal affair that fabricated me anticipate that maybe my actual anamnesis aloof wasn’t accurate.
LOFGREN:So you do anamnesis seeing his name now, though, or you don’t…
GOODLING:Oh, I do, yes.I bethink seeing it on the list.
LOFGREN:Do you anticipate it was authentic that one of the factors in removing Mr. Graves so bound and installing his backup with Mr. Schlozman so promptly was to beforehand avant-garde with the vote artifice case that Mr. Schlozman was advertisement and Mr. Graves was abashed in Missouri, aloof afore that election?
GOODLING:You know, I don’t bethink annihilation like that.My anamnesis of the acumen why I was cerebration that Mr. Graves had been asked to leave accompanying added to the actuality that he was beneath assay by the ambassador accustomed and that there were some issues that were actuality looked at there.
And like I said, I had adverse memories on it, but I anticipation that that was — that was my anamnesis of what was activity on during that aeon of time.
LOFGREN:When Mr. Schlossman formed at basal Justice, did you anytime altercate the affair of aborigine artifice cases or aborigine ID laws with him?
GOODLING:You know, I anticipate he did acknowledgment them to me from time to time.I bethink one babble breadth he told me that they had done an acclamation law manual.
LOFGREN:Did you altercate it with anyone else, these aborigine artifice or aborigine ID cases?
GOODLING:The specific cases?
GOODLING:Oh, I don’t acquire any memories, at this point.I absolutely would acquire apparent acceptance in the clips, and they may acquire arise up in affairs that I was in.
LOFGREN:Did you anytime altercate them, do you think, with Mr. Von Spiscospi (ph), who was over at the voting section, civilian rights?
GOODLING:No, I don’t bethink anytime accepting met him or arise with him.
LOFGREN:Do you bethink who told you to acquire Mr. Battle blaze Mr. Graves?
GOODLING:If I did accomplish that buzz call, it would acquire been at Mr. Sampson’s request.I wouldn’t acquire had that affectionate of authority.
LOFGREN:Before my time expires, I aloof appetite to accomplish abiding I acquire you correctly.
You never asked any bodies applying aloof for clearing adjudicator positions or BIA positions who they voted for?
GOODLING:If they were applying for added positions, I did.
LOFGREN:But if they were aloof applying for that, you never did?
GOODLING:I don’t bethink that I did, but I can’t be sure.
And I do apperceive that we did assay them.And in some cases, we abstruse political admonition in the assay process.
LOFGREN:My time has expired.
Members of the committee, we’ll angle in alcove until 10 annual afterwards 12.
Thank you complete much.
CONYERS:I’m admiring to admit the admirer from Virginia, the acclaimed aloft administrator of Agriculture Committee, Bob Goodlatte.
REP. ROBERT W. GOODLATTE, R-VA.:Mr. Chairman, accede you complete much.
Ms. Goodling, welcome.I accede the aboveboard affidavit that you’ve given.I acquire the assay that is activity on actuality today.And we complete abundant acceptable your participation.
I acquire a few questions.Were you anytime in any way a arch decision-maker in the assay activity and the abatement process, apropos the U.S. attorneys?
GOODLING:No, not a decision-maker.
GOODLATTE:Some acquire declared that the administering requested the resignations of the U.S. attorneys for accessory purposes, such as to exact avengement adjoin U.S. attorneys who prosecuted Republicans or bootless to arraign Democrats in accessible bribery cases.
If that were true, would it acquire fabricated any adroitness for the administering to acquire declared career aboriginal abettor U.S. attorneys as acting U.S. attorneys to alter these individuals, as occurred in the commune of New Mexico and the commune of Nevada?
GOODLING:Some would say that adeptness acquire odd.
GOODLATTE:Can you alive on that at all?
What was your acquaintance in acceding of who were the replacements for these U.S. attorneys?
GOODLING:There absolutely was a lot of agitation about those topics, aloof because we basal to ensure that we put acceptable bodies into those spots.And we were authoritative those decisions in a time that there was a lot of assay on what was happening.
But we interviewed several bodies for all the spots.And ultimately we chose the bodies that we anticipation could best lead, accustomed the affairs and the bearings that we were under.
GOODLATTE:And are you annoyed that that was the aftereffect of those who were put in those positions, that they were absolutely accomplishing the responsibilities that we apprehend of U.S. attorneys to conduct these offices in a able and non-partisan fashion?
GOODLING:I absolutely anticipate that they will do a acceptable job.
I mean, in some circumstances, if it had been up to me I adeptness acquire fabricated altered decisions.We interviewed, like I said, a cardinal of bodies in altered spots.And there were disagreements, as there sometimes are aback you annual assorted bodies for altered spots.
But, ultimately, I anticipate the bodies that are arch these offices will do a acceptable job.
GOODLATTE:Now, with absorption to the catechism of whether or not the Congress was mislead in this matter, did you ever, in any way, intend to mislead Congress through any of your activities in advancing the bodies who acquire testified afore their testimony?
GOODLING:No.I never advisedly withheld any information.I think, attractive back, aggravating to bulk out what happened, I anticipate sometimes we started advancing answers for questions A, and afresh we got questions B and we started advancing answers for catechism B, and afresh we got catechism C.
And at some point alternating the line, bodies aloof started answering questions and we had never absolutely sat bottomward and talked them all out and put all the facts on the table and ample out what they were.And altered bodies had abandoned altered things, and it aloof snowballed into a not acceptable situation.
GOODLATTE:Sure.With absorption to the hiring of career admiral into administering or activity positions, in your admission to these interviews, did you advance to chase what you acquire to be accustomed models at the Administering of Justice, such as that of David Margolis?
GOODLING:You know, there were altered categories in — altered categories and I — I’m sorry, but in the cadre context, it’s decidedly adamantine for me to accomplish a accustomed annual because it won’t be authentic in one chic and not authentic in another.And afresh there were sometimes odd situations that circumscribed up.
I approved — if you’re allurement about abundant positions at basal Justice, I approved to acquisition bodies that would be allotment of the administering team, that would be on the aforementioned folio in acceding of philosophy.And in those positions, because they were in administering offices, I absolutely did appetite to ensure that ideologically they were compatible.
In added cases like clearing board and Board of Clearing appeals, I anticipation that we could accede added factors because I had been told that, in amalgamation to clearing board — and I anticipate my acceptance was that that activated to the BIA as well.
GOODLING:And, you know, afresh there were added camp cases that affectionate of circumscribed up abandoned from time to time.And, you know, but my absorbed was to ensure that we had well-qualified, absolutely ablaze lawyers, that I basal to have, you know, cull in the aforementioned administering in acceding of priorities.
GOODLATTE:And with absorption to the hiring of the career abettor U.S. attorneys in the U.S. attorneys offices led by acting U.S. attorneys, did you anytime act as a screener for Republican candidates for those positions?
I anticipate that I allegedly did.Not in all cases.For the best case, I looked at those abandonment requests and I evaluated whether or not there absolutely was an amazing need.
The role is to ensure that there isn’t during the time that there’s a vacancy, so that the new U.S. advocate that’s advancing in has the befalling to accredit some bodies that they’d like to assignment with.
I anticipation that was a acceptable rule, and I approved to accomplish it.
Sometimes there were cases of amazing need, and I looked at resumes or I adeptness acquire fabricated advertence calls — or I did accomplish advertence calls in some cases.And in some cases, I may acquire researched association and abstruse some admonition that afflicted my decision-making.And I affliction those mistakes.
GOODLATTE:Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
GOODLATTE:Thank you, Ms. Goodling.
CONYERS:The armchair recognizes the acclaimed gentlelady from Houston, Texas, Sheila Jackson-Lee.
REP. SHEILA JACKSON-LEE, D-TEXAS:Thank you complete much, Mr. Chairman, and accede you for committing this board and yourself to the American people.
I acceptable the witness.
Just for the record, I anticipate it’s important to note, because we acquire an important agitation about immigration, there couldn’t acquire been a greater disservice to the American bodies by blockage on the clearing board and others who would participate in a activity — a accustomed activity — that we would achievement best who are would participate in.
JACKSON-LEE:But acquiesce me aloof to artlessly activate a alternation of questions, Ms. Goodling, and I would ask that they — your answers — be as cryptic and as abrupt as possible, about truthful, because we do acquire a beneath aeon of time.
I noticed that you were declared as a loyal actuality or with acute adherence or abysmal adherence to the president, Admiral Bush, and absolutely we acceptable adolescent bodies into this arrangement of government, of accessible service, as you’ve indicated, but you adeptness acquire been bigger served if you were loyal to the American people.And I accord you counsel, whether you’re accommodating to acquire it or not.
You acquire been declared by Bruce Fein, a aloft arch Amends official during the Reagan administration, both you and Mr. Goodling — alibi me, you and Mr. Sampson — that you knew backroom and not the law.And I anticipate that’s the claiming that we face actuality today.
I’d like to apperceive what your altercation was with Seth Adam Meinero, a Howard University Law Academy graduate, that you allegedly declared or adjourned in his hiring as a career prosecutor, a alum of Howard University, one of the top, outstanding law schools in the nation, that graduates an arrangement of assorted law acceptance and approaching attorneys but has a actual accomplishments in the African-American community.
But you declared him as too advanced for the nonpolitical position.He had aforetime been a career advocate with the Environmental Aegis Agency.
Why did you animosity Mr. Meinero?
GOODLING:I didn’t animosity him.
GOODLING:And I affliction the actuality that I fabricated a breeze acumen based on that accumulation of the things that I saw on his resume, and I acquire no acceptable annual for it.There were…
JACKSON-LEE:But you did adios him, and it was abandoned out of a career advocate to Mr. Taylor who pursued accepting Mr. Meinero hired. Is that correct?
GOODLING:I didn’t absolutely adios him.I actually, in fact, accustomed the accredit later.I delayed it.
JACKSON-LEE:After Mr. Taylor pursued it, is that correct?
JACKSON-LEE:Thank you complete much.
I acquire that you’ve fabricated a point that you say, To the best of my recollection, I had no affairs with Mr. Rove or Harriet Miers. Did you acquire e-mail?
GOODLING:I don’t bethink accepting an e-mail from Mr. Rove.I did acquire e-mail from Harriet Miers.I…
JACKSON-LEE:But there was a possibility.You don’t recollect, but there adeptness acquire been a achievability of accepting an e-mail.
GOODLING:I can’t say that it didn’t arise during my time at the department.I absolutely had e-mails…
GOODLING:… aback I was at the Republican…
JACKSON-LEE:Can you acquaint us annihilation about what Karl Rove knew about the plan to blaze the nine U.S. attorneys, or what he did to actualize the bearings arch to those firings?
GOODLING:I apperceive that Mr. Rove was consulted afterwards the plan — or I acquire that he was consulted.I acceptance I may not apperceive for sure. Aback the plan went to the White House for approval, it was transmitted to the White House Counsel’s office, and there was an e-mail that Mr. Sampson forwarded to me, I think, on December 4, if I’m canonizing correctly, that said that it had been broadcast to altered offices aural the White House and that they had all alive off.
So I acquire that that — that he was one of the individuals that alive off as allotment of that activity but I don’t apperceive for sure.I anticipate the e-mail aloof referenced the offices.Certain…
JACKSON-LEE:But he was absolutely in an arrangement in the White House.
GOODLING:He was in an arrangement in the White House.I anticipate it said that White House political had alive off.Political is absolutely headed by Sara Taylor but does abode to Mr. Rove, so I don’t apperceive for sure.
GOODLING:So I don’t apperceive for sure.
JACKSON-LEE:I accede you.
With that in mind, isn’t it a actuality that you cannot accord us the abounding annual about the White House captivation in the plan to aish U.S. attorneys and isn’t it a actuality that the abandoned way we can get the adventure is if the White House provides abstracts and makes its cadre accessible to be interviewed by the Congress?
GOODLING:For me, I can say that I can’t accord you the accomplished White House story.I…
JACKSON-LEE:And I accede you for that.I acquire to move to the aing question, but I appetite the almanac to be ablaze that the abandoned way we can get to the abounding accuracy is if Mr. Karl Rove is sitting in the complete aforementioned bench that you’re sitting in.And he needs to be here.And he needs to be actuality post-haste.
Let me ask you quickly.You testified in acknowledgment to Mr. Scott that accession at DOJ fabricated a animadversion in a affair that Agent Domenici says that Mr. Iglesias doesn’t move cases in amalgamation with Mr. Iglesias actuality on the annual of accursed U.S. attorneys.
When did that affair booty place?Who fabricated the animadversion about Agent Domenici?And who abroad was at the meeting?
GOODLING:The DAG, Kyle Sampson, Mike Elston, and there may acquire been accession actuality and myself were in the meeting.It was afterwards his Senate testimony, but afore his clandestine briefing, so it was the anniversary afore Valentine’s Day.I don’t bethink the exact date.
JACKSON-LEE:And the year?
GOODLING:2007.It would acquire been, I guess, afore February 12th or about that aeon at some point.
I don’t bethink who in the affair fabricated the comment.But I wrote it down.And I don’t bethink what your added catechism was.
JACKSON-LEE:Who abroad was at the meeting?
GOODLING:The affair was the abettor advocate general, Kyle Sampson, Mike Elston for at atomic allotment of it, myself and there may acquire been accession actuality that came in and came out, maybe William Moschella, but I don’t remember.
JACKSON-LEE:I acceptance the abettor advocate accustomed is — the name, please?
JACKSON-LEE:I accede you complete much.
I accede the acclaimed chairman.
I accede the witness.
I crop back.
CONYERS:The armchair is admiring now to admit the admirer from Florida, Ric Keller.
REP. RIC KELLER, R-FLA.:Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Goodling, aback did you aboriginal get acknowledgment to the position of arch admonition to the advocate accustomed and White House Liaison?
GOODLING:I started in the Arrangement of Advocate Accustomed as counsel.I became the White House advice and was accustomed a alive appellation of arch admonition in April of 2006.
KELLER:And afore April of 2006, you’d formed at the Amends Administering in a arrangement of altered positions for about four years?
I acquire from your affidavit that Kyle Sampson is the one who aggregate the annual of attorneys to be replaced?
KELLER:And you didn’t see that annual of abeyant U.S. attorneys to be replaced, to the best of your recollection, until January of ’06?Is that right?
KELLER:I’m activity to focus best of my questions on Carol Lam- accompanying issues, aback that seems to be the best controversial.
Did you anytime allege to anyone aural the Administering of Amends apropos Carol Lam?
GOODLING:Yes.She was a affair of accepted conversation.
KELLER:Tell me what your communications were and aback they took place.
GOODLING:There were a lot.I’m not abiding I’m activity to bethink them all.
There were a lot of conversations about her assignment in the gun abomination area, which was an breadth that I formed in.And so the bodies that I formed on in amalgamation to Activity Safe Neighborhoods would frequently name her commune as one that they acquainted was underperforming, that she aloof didn’t acquire to be accomplishing as abundant as they anticipation she should be.
KELLER:When do you aboriginal bethink those conversations about the abridgement of acceptable gun abomination prosecutions demography place?
GOODLING:I acquire it was while I was in the Arrangement of Accessible Affairs…
KELLER:What would be the timeframe for that?
GOODLING:Maybe 2003 or 2004 time period.
Were there any added accommodation of affair that you heard, added than gun crimes?
GOODLING:Immigration was the one that’s been best frequently discussed in the accomplished year and bisected or two years.
KELLER:And so aback did you aboriginal alpha audition about the affair about clearing prosecutions?
GOODLING:I acquire while I was maybe in the Authoritative Arrangement for U.S. Attorneys.I’m a little acting on this, but I anticipate that there may acquire been some belletrist from Congress that came in, I think, during that time period.Those were…
KELLER:Would that be about the 2004 time period?
GOODLING:No.I was in the Authoritative Arrangement in 2005.
KELLER:2005 time period.So, to the best of your recollection, the aboriginal apropos you heard about gun crimes and Carol Lam were 2003, 2004 and about clearing administering about 2004?Is that fair to say?
GOODLING:I anticipate 2005 probably.
GOODLING:In amalgamation to immigration…
KELLER:OK, so 2003, 2004 for gun crimes 2005 for clearing crimes.
GOODLING:To the best of my recollection.
KELLER:Did anyone at DOJ anytime say to you, or did you apprehend or apprehend an e-mail, that she should be accursed for prosecuting Duke Cunningham or any added Republican-related official?
GOODLING:No, I don’t bethink annihilation like that.
KELLER:Did you anytime acquire any communications with anyone at the White House wherein they adapted that Carol Lam should be accursed for prosecuting Duke Cunningham or any added Republican official?
GOODLING:No, I don’t bethink annihilation like that.
KELLER:OK.The acumen I accompany this up is because one of the best arguable things — and you aloof apprehend it in the L.A. Times this week, and I’m attractive at an commodity May 18, 2007.
And I’ll aloof apprehend you what it says:Speaking at Loyola Law Academy in Los Angeles on Thursday, John McKay, who was the accursed U.S. advocate in Washington state, said he doubtable that U.S. advocate Carol Lam was removed in San Diego to derail the accretion delving of then-Rep. Randall ‘Duke’ Cunningham.
You apprehend that accusation over and over, and yet I acquire the abstracts here, the aboriginal of 20 associates of Congress to accuse about Carol Lam not prosecuting actionable clearing was February 2, 2004, from Darrell Issa, which was broadcast to Administering of Justice, the White House and Carol Lam.
I apprehend from you that you had heard complaints about not administering gun ascendancy gun crimes in 2003, 2004, and you had heard complaints about not administering immigration-related prosecutions in 2005.
And yet, the San Diego Tribune did not alike breach the antecedent adventure of Duke Cunningham until June 12, 2005, which is a abounding 14 months afterwards Congressman Issa wrote the aboriginal of abounding belletrist accusatory about her not administering adverse clearing laws, which makes it absolutely absurd that she was accursed as a affectation for Duke Cunningham because all the problems were occurring, as we apprehend from the abstracts and your affidavit and others, afore the adventure alike bankrupt about Duke Cunningham.
And, in fact, aback I had Carol Lam adapted here, I asked her, Do you acquire any affirmation whatsoever that you were accursed because of Duke Cunningham?
KELLER:She said no.
When I had the U.S. advocate here, Did you blaze her because of Duke Cunningham?:No.
I’ve looked at 10,000 documents, e-mails, abounding attestant interviews, testimony, not a atom of evidence.But I still see (inaudible) that we saw in the L.A. Times this anniversary adage that our advocate general’s a bent because he let Ms. Lam go because she prosecuted Duke Cunningham.
I’m blessed that we were able to set the almanac beeline with your affidavit that the problems that she incurred ambidextrous with actionable clearing and gun crimes far predated the breaking of the Duke Cunningham story.
And I will crop aback the antithesis of my time.
CONYERS:The armchair is admiring now to admit the gentlelady from California, a acclaimed affiliate of our committee, Maxine Waters.
REP. MAXINE WATERS, D-CALIF.:Thank you complete much, Mr. Chairman.
This audition is absolutely all-important to abide the assignment that we charge do to actuate whether or not the Amends Administering is chargeless of political influence.So I’m complete admiring that we acquire this audition actuality today.
I’d like to ask our attestant actuality today, why did you abandon from your position?
GOODLING:There were several reasons, but the primary and best important one to me was that I aloof acquainted I couldn’t be able in the role anymore.My job adapted me to assignment with U.S. attorneys every day, and afterwards actuality a allotment of this accomplishment I aloof — I didn’t anticipate that that was a — realistic.
WATERS:As I acquire it, afore you went to the Amends Administering you formed for the Republican Civic Committee?
WATERS:What did you do there?
GOODLING:I was — my aftermost position there was to be the abettor administrator of assay and cardinal planning.
WATERS:Did you do activity research?
GOODLING:Yes, we did.
WATERS:And I acquire it that you formed with Ms. Barbara Comstock.
WATERS:And she larboard the Republican Civic Committee, alive with you on activity research, and went over to arch the columnist office.
WATERS:Is that right?
WATERS:And you went over about that aforementioned time?
GOODLING:A ages later.
WATERS:Did you use any of your activity assay abilities already you were at the Amends Department?
GOODLING:I anticipate — best of what activity assay is, and it tends to be a affectionate of abrogating term, is absolutely aloof actuality able to use Westlaw…
WATERS:No, I apperceive what it is.
I appetite to apperceive if you acclimated the abilities that you had developed at the Republican Civic Board already you had gone over to the Amends Department.
GOODLING:I absolutely acclimated Westlaw and Lexis.
WATERS:You acclimated your activity skills.In what way did you use them?Did you use them to do assay on U.S. attorneys or anyone abroad aback you were over there?
GOODLING:I did assay bodies that we were because for hiring, yes.
WATERS:Did you use them in acceding of — arise to accomplish decisions about who should be retired?
Just — we would get resumes from a cardinal of sources.And you would Google bodies or Westlaw — do Westlaw checks.You basal to apperceive if there’s commodity abrogating about accession afore you assassin them to assignment at the department.
WATERS:But do you acquire a animal assets assay that’s primarily amenable for accomplishing that affectionate of assignment for you?
GOODLING:No.No.For political appointees, I and my abettor — my abettor — were appealing abundant it.
Occasionally we would ask adolescent agents to help.But we didn’t acquire a agents to do that.
WATERS:So you basically was amenable for accomplishing whatever assay was all-important in the albatross that you had for hiring? Is that right?
WATERS:Did you anytime altercate any added assay that you had done or apparent with Mr. Karl Rove?
WATERS:Anyone in his office?
GOODLING:Research on people?I anticipate I had conversations with Scott Jennings or Jane Cherry…
WATERS:Well, let’s anticipate a little bit deeper.
Some of the assay that you had done, breadth you had acclimated your abilities that you had developed accomplishing activity research, you may acquire acclimated as you advised political appointees…
GOODLING:Political appointees, yes.
WATERS:… for hiring.And afresh did you altercate what you had apparent or activate out about with Mr. Rove or anybody in his office?
GOODLING:Not Mr. Rove.
WATERS:Anyone in his office?
GOODLING:From time to time, I would allocution to bodies in the Arrangement of Political Affairs, and they would ask well:What do you anticipate about this appellant or what do you anticipate about this candidate?
And I might:Say, oh, well, I arrested this actuality out, and, you know, for whatever reason, I don’t anticipate that they’re the best fit for it.
WATERS:Did you certificate your research?Is it on book somewhere?
GOODLING:I didn’t absolutely accumulate that affectionate of book normally. Commonly if I activate commodity that was abrogating about someone, we didn’t accredit them.And I wouldn’t acquire necessarily retained that…
WATERS:Do you acquire files that may acquire admonition in it that you aggregate accomplishing your research, application your activity assay skills?
GOODLING:There would be some files, yes.
WATERS:Where would those files be?
GOODLING:At the Administering of Justice.
WATERS:Would you abutment us accepting admission to those files?
GOODLING:That’s absolutely not a alarm for me to make…
WATERS:Well, not that your accommodation would be one to actuate it.Just in acceding of all of the problems that we have, do you anticipate it would be accessible for us to acquire how it operated over there by accepting those files?
GOODLING:I don’t apperceive that my assessment would be accordant in any way.And it absolutely wouldn’t be my call.That would be commodity I anticipate that the board would accusation to booty up with the department.
WATERS:Your assessment would be complete relevant.
Let me aloof ask about in advancing for…
CONYERS:The time of the gentlelady has expired.
WATERS:Thank you complete much.
The armchair recognizes Darrell Issa, the admirer from California.
REP. DARRELL ISSA, R-CALIF.:Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And let me go through some areas on which your affidavit absolutely is relevant.
June 15th, 2006, the letter — the belittling letter about Carol Lam that was accounting by Agent Dianne Feinstein, one of the key appointers and confirmer of Carol Lam — wasn’t that accordant to her firing?
GOODLING:I anticipate that the apropos about her clearing assignment absolutely were accordant to her firing.And I apperceive that the actuality that membess of Congress had apropos with her on those issues was commodity that we definitively talked about.
ISSA:So for three years there had been a connected drip, dribble of Carol Lam not acknowledging the president’s declared activity of administering the federal gun laws and accomplishing it throughout the country.
This wasn’t commodity he was allurement for in southern California, he was allurement for and accepting it everywhere, including added genitalia of California.The admiral was gluttonous and is still gluttonous a complete bedfellow artisan affairs that requires that there be a acceptance that there would be authentic enforcement.
And yet Carol Lam was not activity afterwards coyotes.Just the opposite, she set standards so adamantine to adeptness that basically the Bound Patrol complained to bodies like myself and added congressmen that they couldn’t do their job because they couldn’t accommodated the litmus test. Alike afterwards somebody was arrested 20 times, on the 21st time she still wouldn’t prosecute.
Isn’t that a bureau in the battlefront of Carol Lam?
GOODLING:I acquire it was.
ISSA:Now, Carol Lam has, to her credit, some high-profile cases, but isn’t it authentic that U.S. attorneys acquire to apparatus the activity analogously about the country if they’re to be able that if, in fact, you can get abroad with assertive types of abomination in a assertive breadth abomination will morph to those areas?Isn’t that true?
GOODLING:Uniformity is absolutely important.
ISSA:Now, do you apperceive — beforehand you were asked about activity research.Isn’t it authentic that aback bodies are actuality put up for acceptance positions that the FBI does an accelerated chase of their background, that activity assay isn’t alike a bureau on political appointees because in actuality there is a complete vetting through the FBI?
GOODLING:The FBI is absolutely abundant bigger at assay than I am.
ISSA:OK.So the accomplished abstraction that somebody would go on LexisNexis to do op assay aback in actuality you’re attractive at bodies that are advice in abundant forms their complete background, and afresh accepting the FBI go through all-encompassing checks, that’s aloof appealing preposterous, isn’t it?
GOODLING:I don’t apperceive that I would animadversion on the preposterous…
ISSA:Well, I acceptance I will for you in this case.
Now, Carol Lam, amid added things, additionally chose to arraign not once, but twice, her own cases, spending weeks in avant-garde of board trials.Isn’t that a little unusual, a little bit of blowhard aback you’re talking about somebody who has to baby-sit so abounding added abettor U.S. attorneys?
GOODLING:It was adequately abnormal in extra-large offices breadth you had hundreds of agents associates to supervise, for a U.S. advocate to do so abundant balloon work.And that’s…
ISSA:So isn’t that additionally a bureau in the battlefront of Carol Lam?
GOODLING:It was commodity I heard discussed, yes.
ISSA:OK.Well, let’s allocution about Carol Lam, because Mr. Keller mentioned that associates had fabricated these complaints.Well, I’m the member.I’m the affiliate who saw somebody who would not accomplish declared civic activity and brought this to the absorption of Advocate Accustomed Ashcroft and afresh the Advocate Accustomed Gonzales.And, absolutely honestly, I batten to the admiral anon on my concerns, and I’m not abashed of it.
But let’s go through Carol Lam.Carol Lam was not a Republican, isn’t that correct?
GOODLING:I absolutely don’t know.Someone told me she was an Absolute but I never arrested her aborigine registration.
ISSA:Right.Well, I have.It’s accessible in California.So let’s go through this.She was a career able abettor U.S. attorney, right?
ISSA:So this administration, alike admitting it has the complete adapted to accomplish political accessories based on affair allotment and affair adherence and adherence to the admiral appointed a career able in San Diego.
GOODLING:Yes, actually.We did that in a lot of districts.
GOODLING:And I authentic that.In abounding cases, career professionals acquire the best backgrounds for the job.
So you were attractive for bodies who had an obligation to accord with a activity for which the American bodies had chosen.But you looked to career professionals.
Isn’t it additionally authentic that aback bodies affronted in their resignations or larboard for any reason, you additionally looked complete about to the complete career professionals central the U.S. attorney’s office?
ISSA:So actuality we acquire an complete adapted to accomplish political accessories based on affair registration, affair adherence and abutment of the president.And yet you chose to be non-partisan complete often.And yet that’s not actuality heard actuality today.
GOODLING:I’m abashed I don’t acquire a animadversion on that.
ISSA:Well, I anticipate my animadversion will angle on that.
Last but not least, is there any acumen that this accumulation of Republicans and Democrats — there’s not an absolute sitting actuality — should be abashed that the Clinton administering appointed Democrats and disproportionately fabricated lifetime accessories for federal board by bodies who were Democrats.I run into them all the time.
Isn’t it, in fact, absolutely the adapted of a admiral adopted by the American bodies to acquire bodies who will abutment his behavior and that in actuality aback you did that you were accomplishing what was your right, and aback you chose not to, was absolutely the barring that should be acclaimed actuality today?
GOODLING:I anticipate presidents of both parties acquire the adapted to aces the bodies to serve them.
And, hopefully, the administrator will annual the actuality that, conceivably today, we acquire concentrated on whether or not the admiral has a adapted to acquire bodies in his own affair when, in fact, that’s not the agitation actuality today and shouldn’t be.Thank you.
CONYERS:The armchair is admiring to admit the abandoned accompaniment prosecutor on the committee, the admirer from Massachusetts, Bill Delahunt.
REP. BILL DELAHUNT, D-MASS.:Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for your actualization actuality today.And I aloof appetite to allege about the activity — the hiring activity and the abortion process.It came to me as a abruptness that accession of your acquaintance — and I say this respectfully — was delegated by the advocate general, via an authoritative order, that bypassed Mr. McNulty, that was amazing in its admiral and ascendancy to accession of your bound acquaintance in acceding of your accustomed experience.
Were you accustomed with that order?
DELAHUNT:That’s — you answered my question.What came to me as a abruptness — and maybe you can explain to us why the authoritative adjustment by the advocate accustomed bypassed Mr. McNulty who is the added in command.And as an accession to that order, a declared ascendancy sheet, it was declared that he was not to be fabricated acquainted of the order.
I acquisition that advancing in acceding of accepting a able activity that wasn’t about political appointees, but was about career and acting appointees.
DELAHUNT:That I acquisition complete disturbing.
GOODLING:I’d like to explain to you what the acumen was.
GOODLING:This affair came up astern in the abatement of 2005.The Amends Administering Assay notified me that they had bent that the assembly advocate accustomed activity aback abounding years — or at atomic a connected aeon of time, maybe alike into the antecedent administering — had been signing off on cadre accomplishments that had never been delegated to them, and in some cases had added delegated those decisions to others.And they told me that David Margolis was one of those individuals that had fabricated some decisions.
There had never been a arrangement of the cadre ascendancy bottomward to the abettor advocate general, and no adeptness for that abandoned to added delegate.And they had accomplished that they had a problem, that there had been all these cadre accomplishments that had been alive off…
DELAHUNT:Let me aloof interrupt, because my time is limited.
But why not acquaint the actuality of the authoritative assay to Mr. McNulty, who was the added in command of the advocate general?
Why a specific annual — a specific annual that Mr. McNulty was not to be notified apropos this authoritative adjustment that was vetted and acquired ample controversy, ample altercation aural the Administering of Amends itself, according to a abode in the Civic Journal?
GOODLING:I absolutely don’t anticipate it did accomplish controversy. It was…
DELAHUNT:Well, according to — are you accustomed with the commodity that I’m apropos to?
GOODLING:I did apprehend the article.And I activate it not to be complete accurate.
GOODLING:There was not absolutely a accommodation not to acquaint him of the advocate general’s adjustment — it absolutely was an advocate general’s order, not an authoritative order.
DELAHUNT:I meant an attorney…
GOODLING:The accommodation was fabricated that Mr. Sampson would acquaint him about it personally.But he didn’t assurance off on it, because what we were accomplishing — the aboriginal allotment of this alternation was to agent to the abettor advocate accustomed the ascendancy that bodies had affected for abounding years had already been done.
GOODLING:And bodies didn’t anticipate it was adapted to ask the abettor to assurance off and acquire commodity that would be delegating him ascendancy in some cases, and there was a baby allocation that removed it.It aloof seemed to be odd for the abettor to assurance off on commodity that was giving himself authority.
DELAHUNT:OK, I’ll acquire that.At the aforementioned time it did aish some of the ascendancy from him and conferred it aloft you and Mr. Sampson.
GOODLING:No, it absolutely gave him ascendancy that he never had. It gave him cadre authority.
DELAHUNT:Well, let me acquire that answer.And, again, let me aloof accomplish a animadversion about the process.
You apperceive Mr. Comey — correct?
GOODLING:Yes, I do.
DELAHUNT:You’re acquainted of his reputation?
DELAHUNT:How would you alarm his reputation?
GOODLING:I would alarm him as a beeline shooter.
DELAHUNT:As a beeline shooter.And in acceding of his able accustomed credentials?
DELAHUNT:They’re outstanding.And his affidavit afore the United States Senate was that those prosecutors that were assured were outstanding associates of the bar, were accomplished in acceding of their performance.
My abandoned inference is that the activity in which you were alive was a awry activity accustomed the alterity amid the acquaintance of those, including yourself, that were complex and that of the authentic professionals in the Administering of Amends like Mr. Comey.
CONYERS:Did you appetite to accede to that?
GOODLING:I aloof basal to say that it wasn’t aberrant for one actuality to acquire one acquaintance with a U.S. advocate and for accession abroad to acquire another.
GOODLING:Sometimes you adeptness assignment with Mr. Smith on commodity and acquisition him to be complete responsive, and accession abroad may acquire a altered experience.It wasn’t an aberrant affair for bodies to appraise bodies differently, and that sometimes happened.
CONYERS:But with this Mr. Smith, it’s consistently absolutely positive.
SMITH:Thank you, Chairman.
CONYERS:The armchair reminds our associates to acquiesce the attestant to complete her responses to their questions.
I’m admiring now to admit Mike Pence of Indiana.
REP. MIKE PENCE, R-IND.:Thank you, Chairman.
Ms. Goodling, accede complete abundant your affidavit today.I authentic the acceding of use amnesty in this case because I’m not abashed of facts.I anticipate Abraham Lincoln said it best aback he said, Accord the bodies the facts and the republic will be saved.And I’m beholden for your artlessness advancing afore this board today and beholden for your annual in that testimony.
I was attractive a little bit at your biography.I was affronted by a adventure on April the 8th in, I think, the Boston Globe that reflected on the acrid spotlight that had been fatigued on the administration’s addiction — I’m commendation now — to accredit individuals from, quote, bourgeois schools with sometimes bordering reputations, aing quote.
You’re a graduate, I anticipate cum laude, from is it Regent University Academy of Law and Government, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
GOODLING:I acquire a master’s in accessible activity and a law bulk from Regent, yes.
PENCE:And is it additionally — and you don’t accusation to acknowledgment this.I anticipate you may apperceive that the advocate accustomed of the accompaniment of Virginia is additionally a alum of Regent University in Virginia Beach, Virginia.
GOODLING:I’ve heard that.
PENCE:And I would acquire you’re not awfully anxious about the addiction of a bourgeois admiral to accredit graduates from bourgeois alum schools in this country.
GOODLING:Not at all.
PENCE:Nothing that would affair you about that?
PENCE:Thank you.Well, this alum of a Christian academy appreciates your affect about that, and it absolutely leads me to the — my adroitness of this — and I appetite to ask you aloof a brace of yes or no questions if I can.
Candidly, Ms. Goodling, I still haven’t heard any facts or apparent any facts that actualization annihilation actionable about the U.S. advocate firings themselves.
PENCE:And I’m aggravating to focus, as I did aback the advocate accustomed was here, on the affair of atrocity and of illegality.
When the advocate accustomed came afore this committee, he was complete aboveboard about bribery and authoritative errors that were made. And I acquire people’s acrid criticism of those things.We accepted better.We didn’t get better.But that’s different, it seems to me, from wrongdoing.
And I’m alert complete intently.I’m acceptance this case.And I appetite to assay this affair of actionable behavior with you.Because it seems to me so abundant of this — and alike commodity of what we’ve heard today in this contrarily affable audition — is about the criminalization of politics.In a complete absolute sense, it seems to be about the attempted criminalization of things that are basal to our built-in arrangement of government, namely the demography into application of backroom in the arrangement of political admiral aural the government.
And I appetite to allege to you about that.So let me see if I can — aback you got a lot bigger grades, it seems to me, in law academy than I did, let me see if I can (inaudible) you here.
Is there annihilation actionable about the admiral actuality served at his amusement by the bodies he believes would be best?
PENCE:Is there annihilation actionable about the admiral actuality able to aish any of his political appointees for any reason, or for no acumen at all?
PENCE:Is there annihilation actionable beneath our arrangement about the admiral demography political considerations into annual in free who his political admiral will be?
PENCE:Is there annihilation actionable about demography those considerations into annual aback they’re basal to the admiral actuality captivated answerable to the people, and abnormally to the bodies who adopted him?
PENCE:And, lastly:Is there annihilation actionable about demography those considerations into annual aback they’re aloof as basal to the president’s adeptness to assure that his admiral are answerable to him?
PENCE:Well, with that, I accede those aboveboard answers.
I — again, I aloof would say to my colleagues on both abandon of the alley in this committee, I’m afflicted about the actuality that we acquire to be affective anytime added bottomward the alley of the criminalization of politics.
And I accede the affidavit that backroom can be accomplished in political accessories aural an administration.
And I crop aback the antithesis of my time.
CONYERS:I accede the gentleman.
The armchair is admiring now to admit Steve Cohen, the admirer from Tennessee, aloft accompaniment senator.
REP. STEPHEN I. COHEN, D-TENN.:Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Goodling, I’ve apprehend your vitae and it says that you grew up and you mostly went — you went to accessible schools.Is that K through 12?
COHEN:And it says you went to Christian universities in allotment because of the bulk they placed on service.
What was the added part, that you chose Christian universities?
GOODLING:I chose them because I had a acceptance system, and in some cases — I went to American University for my aboriginal year of law school.And afresh I transferred.
GOODLING:And I enjoyed acceptance with bodies that shares a agnate acceptance arrangement that I did.It didn’t beggarly that there wasn’t a lot of assortment of discussion, because in some cases I absolutely activate the agitation at Regent was abundant added alive than it was at American University my aboriginal year of law school.But I enjoyed actuality amidst by bodies that had the aforementioned acceptance system.
COHEN:The mission of the law academy you attended, Regent, is to accompany to buck aloft accustomed apprenticeship and the accustomed profession the will of absolute God, our creator.What is the will of absolute God, our creator, on the accustomed profession?
GOODLING:I’m not abiding that I could ascertain that catechism for you.
COHEN:Did you ask bodies who activated for jobs as AUSAs annihilation about their religion?
GOODLING:No, I absolutely did not.
COHEN:Ever had adoration discussions arise up?
GOODLING:Not to the best of my recollection.
COHEN:Is there a blazon of student, a blazon of actuality that you anticipation embodied that aesthetics of Regent University that you approved out as AUSAs?
GOODLING:In best cases the bodies at Regent are acceptable bodies aggravating to do the adapted affair who basal to accomplish a aberration in the world.If the catechism is if I was attractive for bodies like that, the acknowledgment is yes.I wasn’t necessarily attractive for bodies who aggregate a authentic acceptance system.I don’t acquire any bond that that entered into my apperception at any point.But absolutely there are a lot of bodies who activated to assignment for this admiral because they allotment his aforementioned acceptance arrangement and they did administer for jobs.
COHEN:Are there a lot of — an disproportionate cardinal of bodies from Regent University Law Academy that were assassin by the Administering of Amends while you were there?
GOODLING:I anticipate we acquire a lot added bodies from Harvard and Yale.
Is it a actuality — are you are of the actuality that in your admission chic 50 to 60 percent of the acceptance bootless the bar the aboriginal time?
GOODLING:I’m not — I don’t bethink the statistics, but I apperceive it wasn’t good.I was blessed I anesthetized the aboriginal time.
COHEN:Thank you.That was good.
You mentioned in your aperture annual Mr. Charlton was a botheration district, based on complaints you’d heard about crooked altercation with associates of Congress.
Who told you about the abuse of that authoritative policy?
GOODLING:I anticipate I was acquainted of it in allotment because I was in the authoritative arrangement and complaints would arise to me.I don’t bethink accurately who.But it was commodity I acquire that had happened added than once, and I heard about it from altered bodies at altered times.
COHEN:And what are crooked discussions with associates of Congress?
GOODLING:Almost any.We would animate U.S. attorneys if they knew a affiliate of Congress abandoned and they got access to a altogether affair or commodity like that, of beforehand we didn’t necessarily affliction if they went to the altogether party.
But if there was activity to be a altercation about the Administering of Justice, the activity was that they would allocution to the administering afore they had those conversations and absolutely afore they asked or fabricated any requests or declared any position.
COHEN:You additionally mentioned that Mr. Vines was a botheration district. He’s from the Middle Commune in Tennessee, or was.Who gave you that admonition and what was the acumen that was a botheration district?
GOODLING:I absolutely acquire I heard best of the admonition from Robin Ashton in the Authoritative Arrangement for U.S. Attorneys.When I got to that office, she told me that that was an arrangement that has had a lot of problems — and they were actual problems.
COHEN:What were the problems?Define problems.
GOODLING:There were — there was a lot of agitation amid the staff.Different camps of bodies that weren’t alive together.And the U.S. attorney, I was told by Ms. Ashton, had absolutely assassin a administering analyst to arise into the arrangement and assay the career bodies that formed for him.
GOODLING:And that complex some of the career agents actuality asked to go to — as she told me — to the best of my recollection, anyway, a berth with the administering adviser and her analyst for the weekend and be analyzed…
… and afresh they would arise aback and accelerate the belletrist to the U.S. attorney.And the U.S. advocate anticipation that this would admonition him acquire his staff.
It was a complete camp annual and I may not be canonizing it correctly.But in any case, the career agents in that arrangement didn’t accede actuality asked to be analyzed.And it acquired some turmoil…
COHEN:And I acquire Mr. Vines was the subject, possibly, of an age bigotry suit.Is that accurate?
GOODLING:I anticipate there were absolutely assorted age bigotry suits.
COHEN:Do you apperceive aloof what came out of that?
Is that still ongoing?
GOODLING:I acquire I heard that one or two of them may be acclimatized and that one adeptness be activity to trial.But I don’t know.That may acquire been bound by now.
COHEN:While you were asked questions, which were accurate, apropos the president’s adeptness to accredit or blaze who he wanted, isn’t it a actuality that, historically, afore this president, there were not U.S. attorneys who were asked to leave or who were accursed during their acceding or during the appellation of the president, except in times of aspersion or performance-related disagreements?
GOODLING:You know, Mr. Gerston (ph) testified in the Senate, and I was there.And he said that he did not anticipate it was unprecedented.He anticipation it had happened before.But he didn’t elaborate, and I never heard that he provided any examples.
You know, U.S. attorneys are accepted to four years.And it wouldn’t abruptness me to acquisition that, in the Amends Department’s connected history, it’s happened before.But I can’t accord you any examples.
COHEN:Thank you, ma’am.
CONYERS:The board will angle in alcove for three votes and a lunch, which will crave our abiding at two o’clock sharp.
The allowance will additionally be austere except for crooked — except for accustomed staff…
… so that the allowance can be reset.The allowance will be austere except for accustomed staff.
CONYERS:The attestant and her admonition are back.Thank you.
Before we resume questioning, I would agenda that while a cardinal of associates haven’t had the befalling to catechism our witness, there are a cardinal of questions actual unanswered.I’d like to accomplish the best of this befalling while we acquire Ms. Goodling here.
And I will altercate with our baronial boyhood member, Mr. Smith, how we adeptness best admission this situation, whether by accepting a added annular of questions or a beneath set aeon of connected analytic beneath House rules adeptness be the bigger way to go.And these discussions acquire not amorphous yet.
The board will resume and Randy Forbes of Virginia is the aing actuality to be recognized.
REP. J. RANDY FORBES, R-VA.:Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Goodling, abounding of us feared this day would come, but we did not apprehend it would access so soon, aback the actuality that accession was a Christian would be the answerable of a band of analytic as to how accession performed their job at the Administering of Amends or any added bureau in the United States government.
It’s not a acceptable day, nor a acceptable assurance of things to come, and I aloof achievement those individuals watching this above the country apprehend the sea change that’s taken place.
In addition, aback my commune is aing to Regent University, I’d like to point out that not abandoned is the advocate accustomed of Virginia a alum of Regent University, but this year, Regent University acceptance won the American Bar Association’s Negotiation Antagonism February 11, not abandoned assault out 220 teams, but additionally assault the aloft winner, Harvard University.
And the American Bar Association, not absolutely a work of conservatism, has declared Regent University to attack internationally in their competition.And that Regent has won the ABA’s Civic Appellate Advocacy Antagonism 11 out of the aftermost 14 years, including acceding aboriginal for the best brief.
FORBES:Ms. Goodling, I apperceive it’s sometimes difficult, aback you sit at a table with a audition like this, aback beforehand today, you had dozens of cameras snapping in your face, and aggravating to acreage questions by 40 members, some of whom we adeptness characterize as, let’s say, beneath than friendly.
At some of our contempo hearings, some of our members, you accusation to know, of this complete committee, acquire said that associates of the board acquire affronted their words around.
And alike associates of this board acquire been borderline of what they said bristles annual afterwards they said it, abundant beneath bristles minutes, or bristles months before, as we apprehend you to remember.
You’ve been complete accommodating in your affidavit today, and we aloof accede you.
You know, we’re on a fishing advance today, to see if there was any backroom complex in authoritative what everybody actuality recognizes as political appointments.
As the acclaimed aloft administrator of this board declared earlier, quote, there aloof are not any angle in the pond, end of quote.
Chairman Conyers stated, at the alpha of today’s audition that its purpose was to get to the basal of, quote, any possible, end of quote, wrongdoing, not that there is alike any declared wrongdoing.
The administrator added declared the accent of the Amends Department, quote, adequately and impartially, end of quote, assuming its role.
The administrator afresh talked about authoritative assertive advisers at the Amends Administering were not merely, quote, pawns in a d of politics, end of quote.
So far throughout this hearing, there not abandoned is no affirmation of atrocity but there is no accusation of any atrocity on your part.
What puzzles me, and absolutely honestly, embarrasses me, is that we do not administer the aforementioned accepted to ourselves.
FORBES:Currently, we’re a nation at war.As such, one of the best important things we can do is to, quote, adequately and impartially, end of quote, adapted aborigine funds for aggressive projects.
It’s absolutely acute that these projects not become, quote, pawns in a d of politics, end of citation marks.
Yet bygone there was a resolution — this resolution — on the attic of the House that was not a fishing expedition, but rather a specific accusation that to the best of my adeptness has not been refuted, that adjoin the rules of this House — which are absolute adapted here, accounting and adopted by the majority — a arch affiliate of the majority and the administrator of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, the complete board that would admeasure aborigine funds to acute aggressive projects, threatened abeyant earmarks in the aegis appropriations bill of a affiliate of this House not because they were not bare for the aegis of this nation, but abandoned because that affiliate batten adjoin and voted adjoin a $23 actor activity that administrator basal in his own district.
If the aforementioned majority that calls these hearings today voted bygone to not alike discuss, to not alike accessory at those absolute allegations, I claiming my accompany on the added ancillary of the alley to explain how they absolve these actions.
I claiming my accompany on the added ancillary of the alley to explain why it is not as important that the American bodies acquire aplomb aback it comes to allocating their tax dollars for civic defense, that the rules of the House should be followed and those allocations fabricated on a quote, fair and impartial, end of quote, base with an according or greater antecedence than we acquire for political appointees.
FORBES:The acumen some do not acquire the appliance of those questions is complete simple:We do not administer the aforementioned accepted to ourselves as we administer to you.
For that, I’m sorry, and I appetite to say you acquire succeeded in accomplishing what you set out to do today and that is assuming your charge and your acceptable appearance that led you to a career in accessible service.
And I aloof accede you for the abode with which you acquire been actuality today and for advancing and actuality actuality this afternoon.
And with that, I crop back, Mr. Chairman.
CONYERS:The armchair now recognizes the acclaimed gentlemen from Florida, Robert Wexler for his remarks.
REP. ROBERT WEXLER, D-FLA.:Thank you complete much, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Goodling, I complete abundant accede how difficult it is to sit actuality for connected periods and acknowledgment our questions.With that in mind, I would like to ask you a few questions about some of the things you either declared beforehand or alluded to earlier.
You batten about a affair that you abounding in the White House breadth Karl Rove was additionally in attendance.
Was that the affair at the White House on March 5th that you accredit to?
WEXLER:And could you acquaint us who abroad was at the meeting?I acquire you were there Mr. Rove was there.Who abroad was at that meeting?
GOODLING:It was a affair declared by the White House Counsel’s Office.Fred Fielding was there.Bill Kelley was there.There were some bodies from White House communications, Dana Perino, I’m not abiding of the other, some bodies from White House political, I believe, but I’m not abiding who.It adeptness acquire been Scott Jennings, but I am not 100 percent.
From the administering — well, you beggarly the bodies from the administering from the agenda entries.
The added White House people…
WEXLER:Who from the administering was there?
GOODLING:Kyle Sampson and myself, the deputy, Mike Elston, Will Moschella, Brian Roehrkasse from our Accessible Affairs Office.
GOODLING:I’m not absolute of the others.I anticipate there were others and they were on a agenda allure that’s been arise by the department.
Mr. Rove came in astern and afresh larboard early, but he was there.
WEXLER:Do you anamnesis Mr. Rove, at that meeting, adage that the Administering of Amends bare to board specific affidavit why the prosecutors were terminated?
GOODLING:I bethink he said something, but I don’t bethink absolutely what the animadversion was.I bethink somebody abroad from the White House, I acquire it was, fabricated some animadversion and afresh he emphasized it or re-emphasized it.At least, that’s what I remember.But I don’t bethink the actuality of it.
But that’s absolutely commodity that did arise up, so that adeptness acquire been the occasion.I aloof can’t remember.
WEXLER:How connected was Mr. Rove in the meeting?
GOODLING:You know, I don’t remember.Because I don’t bethink how connected the affair was.I’d guess, maybe, he was there bisected the time that the blow of us were there.But I didn’t fix it in time.
WEXLER:What happened — what occurred at the meeting?
Could you acquaint us?
GOODLING:There was a altercation about Will Moschella’s affidavit and decidedly the position the administering should booty on the legislation.It was complete ablaze — the White House association fabricated ablaze that they did not anticipate that the legislation should be captivated up, that they aloof basal it to pass.
And they fabricated ablaze that we weren’t to booty a position adjoin the legislation in the audition the aing day.
WEXLER:Was there any altercation about the abortion of the prosecutors?
GOODLING:I remember, at one point, there was a advertence to aback Tim Griffin’s name was submitted to the admiral for approval. And I arrested my book and said that it was June.
GOODLING:I anticipate that’s the abandoned animadversion I fabricated in the meeting. And I anticipate that’s the abandoned advertence to a specific abandoned I bethink in the meeting.
Mr. Sampson had adapted that maybe the way to conduct the affair would be for bodies to apprehend through Mr. Moschella’s able animadversion and afresh animadversion on them.So allotment of the affair was bodies annual the animadversion and afresh talking about them.
There was a animadversion about the administering defective to explain its reasons, but I don’t bethink who fabricated it.But it was made.
WEXLER:There was a animadversion about the administering defective to explain its affidavit for…
GOODLING:I acquire there was a advertence to, the administering needs to explain the affidavit for the dismissals.Or maybe — it adeptness acquire been a animadversion fabricated by the communications association that they aloof basal bodies to be ablaze in the testimony.I can’t accord you a specific.And I don’t apperceive who said it.
WEXLER:Did you go to abounding affairs at the White House at that time?
GOODLING:No, not that many.
WEXLER:Was that your first, second, third, fourth?
GOODLING:No.I alternate to guess, maybe 10 or 15.
So the basal band actuality is, to the best of your recollection, somebody said, The Administering of Amends needs to arise up with its affidavit why the prosecutors were terminated.It may acquire been Karl Rove.Or he may acquire aloof re-emphasized what accession abroad said, correct?
GOODLING:There was a animadversion about bodies defective to ablaze about what we did, commodity alternating that line.It may acquire been by the advice people.I aloof — I can’t acquaint you any added than I…
WEXLER:Did Karl Rove say annihilation abroad in the meeting?Or was that the complete purpose why he came?
GOODLING:I abandoned bethink that I feel like he said one thing. But that’s all that I acquire in my memory.
WEXLER:So to the best of your recollection, the acumen why Karl Rove spent his admired time was one.And that was to acquaint the Administering of Amends to arise up with affidavit why it accursed eight or nine prosecutors.
GOODLING:I don’t acquire anyone said arise up with.I acquire it was added a bulk of, Explain what you’ve done, but, again, I don’t apperceive if that was his comment.I aloof can’t — I can’t recall. I bethink that I acquainted like he interjected one affair into the conversation.
WEXLER:Thank you complete much.
CONYERS:Thank you, sir.
The baronial subcommittee on the Judiciary Clearing Committee, Steve King of Iowa.
REP. STEVE KING, R-IOWA :Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Ms. Goodling, for your affidavit actuality today and for the abode with which you’ve presenting yourself to this committee. And as I accept anxiously to the words that you’ve chosen, I acquire it’s annihilation but scripted.I acquire that it’s a authentic assay of your anamnesis and as authentic as you can possibly be beneath any circumstances, let abandoned the affairs with about $50,000 annual of camera lenses sitting in avant-garde of you.
Just to aboriginal reflect aloft commodity that I anticipate was responded to complete able-bodied by Mr. Forbes of Virginia, but I had gone aback in the breach and took a accessory at the founding abstracts of Harvard University, and I acquisition that Harvard University was founded aloft Puritan principles, and I would point out that the architect was John Harvard who was a adolescent minister.
And one of the advance was to be connected with the Puritan aesthetics of the aboriginal colonists.Many of its aboriginal graduates became ministers in Puritan congregations to beforehand acquirements and ster into posterity, quote, abashed to leave an benighted admiral to the churches.
So Harvard was founded to supplement the admiral itself.And afresh aback I looked aback on the founding abstracts of Yale and I acquisition that they basal to — they did authorize Yale in 1701 as a aftereffect of a bourgeois acknowledgment by congregationalist leaders abashed of what they articular as the accretion abandonment of Harvard Academy from its Calvinistic heritage.
KING:So afresh I accessory at Regent University, which Mr. Forbes has so able-bodied laid out their accreditation and additionally your accreditation accompanying — whether it was advertent or inadvertent.
And actuality I read, Our students, adroitness and administrators allotment a calling founded on biblical advance to accomplish a cogent aberration in our communities, our cities, our nations and the world.
So I would abide that Regent is a almsman to Yale, which is a almsman to Harvard, in actuality founded aloft religious principles.And this nation was founded aloft religious principles, as was our Constitution.
So I anticipate it is a commendable thing, not a aspersing thing.And we will on this ancillary of the alley angle up for all of our principles, our built-in advance and our Christian advance whenever they are challenged or whenever we acquire the befalling afterwards them actuality challenged.
And I accede you for apery an befalling to do that today.
I aloof — so I affable into the austere allotment of this altercation — not that that was not, but the added advisory part.And that would be, if I could ask to added absolutely explain to us the procedures that were adopted, and the affidavit for them to be adopted, your role and that of Kyle Sampson in selecting new officials.
What was the acumen for that?Could you go into that with some added depth?What was the annual abaft that?
GOODLING:Do you beggarly the U.S. advocate officials, or…
KING:Yes.Between a U.S. advocate and that — backup U.S. attorneys.
Let me aloof — I’ll accomplish it a little easier.Was there a bequest from the Clinton administering that bare to be addressed?
GOODLING:Do you bureau in acceding of activity of hiring, or…
KING:Well, activity or rules or policy.
How about authoritative language?
GOODLING:If you’re acclamation the arrangement and the adjustment that Mr. Delahunt was allurement about earlier, I accede the befalling to explain that a little bit added fully.
There was a assay that there had not been, in fact, a arrangement to the abettor advocate accustomed and that it bare to be corrected.
GOODLING:So what absolutely happened was the adjustment was beatific up to the advocate accustomed and I accustomed it as the agents actuality amenable for things that originated from the Amends Administering Division.
And it was absolutely to fix some problems.A added allotment of that was a acceptance of accomplished cadre accomplishments to accomplish abiding that all the decisions that had been fabricated by the abettor advocate accustomed and those he had delegated to in the accomplished were ratified and accurately established.
So that was the added allotment of the package.The third allotment of the amalgamation was to do the arrangement to the arch of agents and the White House liaison.And I absolutely wasn’t the White House advice at the time.
And as I anticipate aback on it — and I may not be canonizing aggregate — but it was about housekeeping.And the adjustment was absolutely giving ascendancy to the abettor advocate general.
It did retain, from the abettor and the associate, cadre ascendancy for their staffs, which was abundantly historical, but on a added breezy basis.
The advocate general’s staff, I understood, historically, had some albatross for alive with those staffs.But it accustomed that for the aboriginal time.So, in that regard, it did abstain some authority.
But that’s a little bit added abounding annual of it.
KING:Well, accede you, and I accede that.And I would aloof bound point into the almanac that we acquire important issues afore this Congress.
One of them was aloft by Mr. Forbes, with absorption to the advantage motion that was brought yesterday.
Another one was aloft by the admirer from Wisconsin, in a antecedent hearing.That had to do with a admirer who was beneath investigation, a briber and a bribee, as I recall.And the briber had been sentenced.The bribee has not been addressed.
KING:There’s accession assay that has to do with the administrator of the Amends Approps who is sitting over the appropriations of the Amends Committee.
All of these things are far added important than this affair that’s afore you today.And I will say that this is a bazaar afterwards a cause, and it’s time to bead this issue.
And I accede you for your testimony.
And I crop back.
CONYERS:The armchair now recognizes the admirer from Georgia, a cloister in his aloft life, Hank Johnson.
REP. HANK JOHNSON, D-GA.:Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Goodling, I apprehension you’ve got three lawyers, accomplished lawyers, who’ve been with you today.And you all acquire been advancing for this accident for some time.
Who’s advantageous for your lawyers?
GOODLING:I’m advantageous for them.
JOHNSON:Has anyone agreed to antithesis you for accustomed fees?
GOODLING:No.I intend to authorize a accustomed aegis armamentarium at some point, but I haven’t had the adventitious to do that yet.
JOHNSON:Well, ma’am, let me ask you this question.On March 1st, 2006, there was an order, adjustment cardinal 2808-2006, advantaged Arrangement of Assertive Cadre Authorities to the Arch of Agents to the Advocate Accustomed and the White House Advice of the Administering of Justice.Were you acquainted of that adjustment aback you were assassin as White House liaison?
GOODLING:Yes.That’s the third allotment of the altercation that I was aloof having.
JOHNSON:And that adjustment accustomed ample ascendancy to you and the arch of staff, who was Kyle Sampson, to take, quote, final activity in affairs pertaining to the appointment, employment, pay, break and accustomed administration, end quote, of a advanced ambit of advisers in the Administering of Justice, including accessory — abettor U.S. attorneys.Is that not correct?
GOODLING:I absolutely don’t acquire that arrangement accompanying to AUSAs.
JOHNSON:Well, let me ask you this question.You accustomed or you declared in your annual to this board that you do accede that you may acquire gone too far in allurement political questions of applicants for career positions.
JOHNSON:Did those career positions board abettor United States attorneys?
JOHNSON:And about how abounding times did you exercise that ascendancy with annual to abettor U.S. attorneys?
GOODLING:I don’t anamnesis that I interviewed any…
JOHNSON:Would you say that would be 30?40?50?Or more?
GOODLING:I don’t — I don’t apperceive that I could — I don’t apperceive that I could estimate.I had abandonment requests that came in from time to time, from…
JOHNSON:I’m speaking aloof of your abettor U.S. attorneys. How abounding times did you use political questions in your appraisal of abettor U.S. attorneys?
GOODLING:I don’t apperceive that I could estimate.Sometimes bodies came to the administering and they were aloof absorbed in advancing to the administering and they interviewed with me for political positions or they were absorbed in…
JOHNSON:Now, a U.S. attorney’s position is not a political position.That’s a career position.Correct?I mean…
JOHNSON:How abounding times did you use that adeptness that you had to accredit and blaze with annual to hiring of U.S. — abettor U.S. attorneys and you acclimated political affidavit for authoritative a accommodation not to hire?How abounding times did you do that?
GOODLING:I can’t accord you an estimate.
JOHNSON:Would you say beneath than 50 or added than 50?
GOODLING:I alternate to accord you a reason, aloof because I can’t — or, an estimate, because I can’t remember.I don’t anticipate that I could acquire done it added than 50 times, but I don’t know.I aloof — there were times aback bodies came to the administering and they were absorbed in career positions or political positions.And those people, I absolutely asked political questions of…
JOHNSON:OK.But let me ask you — let me ask you.These bodies that you asked…
(UNKNOWN):Mr. Chairman?Mr. Chairman?
Can she accomplishment her answers?This is the fourth time he’s disconnected her answer.I’d accede absolution her accomplishment her answer.
JOHNSON:Mr. Chairman, if I adeptness respond?
CONYERS:You may not respond.
Let’s let her aloof accomplishment her answers, please?
I don’t appetite her to booty up all my time, though.Because I’m aggravating to get avant-garde to some added questions.
GOODLING:I was complex in career hiring in a cardinal of altered ways, sometimes because bodies would arise in and they would be absorbed in altered sorts of positions at the aforementioned time.And they would sometimes get asked political questions.
When I was attractive at abandonment requests for AUSA positions…
JOHNSON:OK, this is non-responsive to my question.
GOODLING:I did not commonly ask questions.
JOHNSON:All right.Thank you.
Now, did the advocate accustomed apperceive that you were allurement political questions of applicants for career positions?
GOODLING:I don’t acquire that he knew.
JOHNSON:Did the abettor advocate accustomed apperceive that you were allurement those kinds of questions of applicants for career positions?
GOODLING:I’m apologetic — it depends on the category.I’m sorry. I was aloof complex in too abounding altered categories of cadre things to accord you beeline answers that are activity to administer to anniversary one.
JOHNSON:Well, let me ask you this question, then:Who knew that you were allurement — let me ask it this way.Did you altercate the actuality that you were allurement political questions of applicants for career positions with any of the following:the advocate general, yes or no?
GOODLING:Discuss it, no.I did acquire resumes from him of Republicans.
JOHNSON:Did you — the abettor advocate general, yes or no?
GOODLING:I don’t know.
JOHNSON:The accessory advocate accustomed or the acting accessory advocate general.
CONYERS:The gentleman’s time has expired, but amuse acknowledgment the questions.
GOODLING:I don’t apperceive specifically, but I do apperceive that I did annual detailees for their offices, and I anticipate that they had a adroitness that I was attractive for bodies that were about Republicans to assignment on their staffs as detailees, and those were bodies who currently captivated career positions.So in that category, I would anticipate they had a accustomed adroitness of that.
JOHNSON:Did anybody in the White House apperceive that you were asked…
CONYERS:Gentleman’s time has expired.
(UNKNOWN):Mr. Chairman, may I ask accustomed accord to acquaint into the almanac the abstracts I anticipate the admirer was apropos to.
CONYERS:Could you let me aloof — let us accomplishment this aboriginal and I’ll admit you.
(UNKNOWN):I’ll delay for an introduction.
CONYERS:Could I beforehand to the admirer from Georgia that he abide any connected band of analytic for the record.And we may go into a added annular or assignment out some arrangement of accident that you may abide on.
JOHNSON:Thank you, sir.
The armchair recognizes the admirer from Florida — oh delay a minute.You acquire a accustomed accord request.
(UNKNOWN):Thank you.Thank you, Mr. Chairman.I would aloof like a accustomed accord to acquaint into the almanac the certificate that the admirer of Georgia was apropos to, which, by the way, is complete authentic and attenuated in its delegation…
CONYERS:Please aloof acquaint the document, please.
(UNKNOWN):I ask accustomed consent.
CONYERS:Without objection, so ordered.
CONYERS:From Florida, our abettor Tom Feeney is now recognized.
REP. TOM FEENEY, R-FLA.:Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Goodling, aloof to assay the aftermost point, there were bodies absorbed in jobs at the Amends Administering that were not decidedly choosy.
FEENEY:They would be blessed to serve either as a political appointee or in a career, non-political position.
Is that my compassionate of the affidavit that you aloof gave?
GOODLING:Yes.Sometimes bodies aloof basal to assignment at the administering because it’s a acceptable place.
FEENEY:And in adjustment to awning the branch — accomplished branch of requirements and considerations, there were times aback bodies applying for added than one position, but including political positions, were asked adapted political questions?
GOODLING:I would annual them as if they were a political appointee.But if I didn’t acquire a political position I could acclaim them for, afresh I would sometimes canyon their resumes on to bodies for application for career positions.
And absolutely there were added cases breadth the advocate accustomed or the abettor advocate accustomed or altered bodies gave me resumes of bodies that they, you know, knew were Republicans and said, You know, would you accede casual these on to accession for consideration?
So a lot of times aback somebody beatific me a resume, they beatific it to me because they knew that I was complex in a lot of hiring, mostly on the political side.And aback they beatific me the resume, they told me apace that the actuality was a Republican.So I already knew that.
Sometimes aback I interviewed people, if I — alike if I wasn’t aggravating to ask them a political question, they would aloof self-disclose because they knew I was a Republican and they ample it would admonition them get the job, I assume.
So sometimes bodies aloof self-disclose that affectionate of admonition to me.And the aforementioned affair occurred aback I did advertence calls.There were times I above the line, probably, in my advertence calls by asking.But there were added times I didn’t, and bodies aloof would advance the information.
So there were a lot of times that I accustomed admonition about someone’s political affiliation.And I’m aloof not activity to sit actuality and acquaint the board that if I knew it, I could absolutely exclude it from my brain.Sometimes I knew breadth they were advancing from, and I can’t say that it didn’t comedy a bureau in what I anticipation about someone.I’m aloof actuality honest.Sometimes it helps them.
FEENEY:Did you acquire any compassionate of how the antecedent Amends Administering formed beneath Admiral Clinton?Was political considerations anytime advised in either political or conceivably career positions, to your knowledge?
GOODLING:I don’t know.
FEENEY:You weren’t there at the time.
Well, you know, I aloof appetite to say that beneath complete difficult affairs you’ve conducted yourself with a lot of chic and a lot of dignity.Ninety-nine percent of the cameras that were actuality aboriginal affair in the morning are gone.
And I affliction to acquaint you, you’ve been a huge disappointment to a lot of bodies that were assured to acquisition some admirable cabal of the Amends Administering to abjure amends to the American people.
FEENEY:So in that adroitness you’ve been a huge disappointment.But in accession adroitness you acquire not been.You said that of the conceivably millions of bodies watching us at one point during the day, abandoned a few knew you personally.Described yourself as a adequately quiet girl, tries to do the adapted thing, tries to amusement bodies attentive alternating the way.I consistently knew I basal to abound up and do commodity to serve or admonition added people.
And I would say that millions of Americans now apperceive a lot added about you, and they’re appreciative to acquire somebody like you confined in government, and they acquire that this is a huge sacrifice.
And I appetite to acquaint you that, you know, aback we acquire such big issues in avant-garde of us, it’s a abashment that we acquire spent so abundant time and money and assets on attorneys and board for a bottom-line question, and that is, was backroom anytime advised in the political arrangement activity or the backup activity of political appointees?
I supported, by the way, arising a alteration to you because I anticipation maybe you had the aureate acknowledgment and could acquaint this board that some huge abomination had occurred in adjustment to abuse somebody because of an advancing assay or try to aish somebody in adjustment to baffle with an investigation.
But in all the time I’ve spent alert to assemblage and annual materials, I haven’t apparent one atom of affirmation to absolve the time that we’ve taken on this.
The admiral arise bygone that there are advancing agitator plots to advance us actuality in the United States.This board has a lot of assignment to do affronted alarm and abomination and a cardinal of added issues.And I aloof achievement that Congress and this board can get on with the absolute assignment and stop the circus.
And I appetite to accede you for advancing today.
With that, I crop back.
CONYERS:The armchair recognizes Brad Sherman, the acclaimed admirer from California.
REP. BRAD SHERMAN, D-CALIF.:Thank you.
I’d like to allocution to you about your assignment in hiring nonpolitical folks.And you indicated, aloof to the aftermost questioner, that sometimes you above the band aback you were blockage their references and you asked whether, you know, they had been complex in politics, and on what side.
Were your superiors at Amends acquainted that sometimes you above the line?
GOODLING:If we’re talking about detailees to administering offices, those are, affectionate of, arcane policymaking positions.
I anticipate that bodies about had a adroitness that, aback I was attractive for bodies to assignment in the administering offices, I was attractive to accompany in bodies that were activity to be alive ancillary by ancillary with political appointees and would allotment those aforementioned views.
If you’re allurement about added categories like clearing board or BIA members, originally, I was told that we could, decidedly in amalgamation to the clearing judges.And I affected it activated to BIA positions as well.I was told that those factors could be considered.
In amalgamation to…
SHERMAN:So you were told that you could ask political captivation for the BIA board and the clearing judges?
GOODLING:I was told that, because they were complete accessories by the advocate general, that added factors could be considered.But I absolutely don’t bethink allurement political questions of those applicants.I generally…
SHERMAN:Who told you that you could ask those questions?
GOODLING:I don’t apperceive that anyone told me I could ask the questions.They told me I could accede added factors.
SHERMAN:Who told you you could accede those political factors?
SHERMAN:OK.Also, in attractive at the nonpolitical appointees, you’ve talked about accomplishing Web searches.And I apperceive that you had, you know, acclimated Google or LexisNexis, see what was in the press.
SHERMAN:There are, also, though, some authentic Web sites that aloof focus on people’s political contributions.In attractive at nonpolitical appointments, did you anytime accessory at FEC.com or TRE.com (ph) or any of the added sites that are appealing abundant focused on political giving?
GOODLING:Occasionally.Not awfully often.It bluntly wasn’t complete accepted to acquisition bodies in the law administering breadth that were alive on that site.
But, yes, we did in some cases assay those records.
SHERMAN:Even aback it was a actuality who had activated abandoned for a nonpolitical position.
GOODLING:I apperceive we arrested them in amalgamation to clearing judges, breadth we anticipation that we could accede added factors.And I anticipate that I did in some cases assay them for detailees, mostly because I was attractive for bodies that would be alive in basically political positions.
I don’t acquire a specific bond that I did it in an AUSA case, but it’s — I can’t aphorism it out.Sometimes — I did a lot of research, and sometimes I had a assemblage of resumes and I addled through them.And I aloof — I don’t appetite to aphorism out that at some point I did that.
SHERMAN:So, detainees, BIA judges, clearing judges, were all subject, on breach at least, alike if they hadn’t activated for any political position, were all, perhaps, answerable to an assay breadth you were aloof activity to, say, FEC.com or TRE.com (ph) to see their political giving.
GOODLING:Occasionally.Like I said, I absolutely was too alive to get about to accomplishing it awfully often.And I did sometimes complete agents to — I would accord them resumes and ask them to assay them.
But, frankly, we had a lot of added things activity on and it didn’t about about-face up annihilation and it wasn’t complete accessible best of the time, anyway, so.
There’s been a altercation of Carol Lam’s declared failings.And I apperceive that there was a letter from Agent Feinstein that’s in the book of abstracts accustomed to us breadth the Amends Administering responds and says, She’s accomplishing a abundant job.She’s accepting — we’re on ambition to be 40 percent academy on the adverse smuggling prosecutions.
SHERMAN:Why would the Amends Administering acquaint Agent Feinstein that these criticisms of Carol Lam were inaccurate and that she was accomplishing a abundant job, and afresh go off and blaze her, allegedly for not accomplishing a acceptable job?
GOODLING:I anticipate the administering approved to abode the apropos by adage what acceptable things it could.You know, if you do two cases and afresh you change it to four, that’s 100 percent increase.But four cases in a authentic chic may not absolutely be all that great.
I think, you know, the administering approved to board admonition to assure the agent that there was some acceptable assignment actuality done in this area, but maybe not as abundant acceptable assignment as the administering basal to acquire done.
SHERMAN:But it’s an acutely acceptable letter that Amends beatific acquainted that bisected the abettor U.S. attorneys in this commune arraign bent clearing cases.Was there some acumen you activate this letter unpersuasive?
GOODLING:You know, I’m not abiding that I absolutely had any captivation in drafting it.I did apprehend a lot of discussions about Carol Lam’s clearing record, and I bethink audition bodies activity like it was difficult to accede to those belletrist because they basal to be able…
CONYERS:Gentleman’s time has expired.
GOODLING:… we were accomplishing more.
CONYERS:You can finish.
GOODLING:I anticipate the administering would acquire been happier to be able to acquire an alike added absolute response, but provided the best acknowledgment that it could.
The administrator recognizes the admirer from Texas, Adjudicator Louie Gohmert.
REP. LOUIE GOHMERT, R-TEXAS:Thank you, Mr. Chairman.And I do accede the time.
I do anticipate it’s noteworthy in all the complaints about inquiries — complaints about U.S. attorneys, for example, aback an acclamation is won by beneath than 200 votes and they’re anxious that admitting all the belletrist of abeyant aborigine fraud, that the U.S. advocate doesn’t accompany it, that that somehow is abhorrent to analyze about that.
Yet, aback Agent Dianne Feinstein writes a letter anxious about the abridgement of prosecutions over the clearing issue, not one actuality on the added ancillary of the alley has aloft any affair about the barbarism of Agent Feinstein sending that letter.
Why?Because it’s a acceptable inquiry.Why wouldn’t it additionally be a acceptable assay aback accession is not advancing animal smuggling that sometimes after-effects in death, advancing aborigine fraud?
Now, I apprehend that our majority is aggravating to accomplish it easier to vote so nobody’s arrested and we can’t acquisition out about aborigine artifice — that seems to be the administering we’re headed.But it shouldn’t be annihilation amiss aback bodies are absent that pursued.
Now, as far as backroom arena a role in the appointments, I abhorrence to be the agent of this news, but backroom has consistently played a role in appointments.I’ve accustomed of Democrats who were gluttonous to get Republican appointments, and they would alarm accustomed Republicans and say, Would you amuse put in a acceptable babble for me, because I apperceive this will be an issue.
And, gee, I accede your affidavit today.And you acquire to acquire that you may acquire done commodity amiss by saying, Gee, this actuality may be a advanced Democrat.
Do you acquire any abstraction how abounding bodies would acquire basal your arch and contacted the White House if accession like you were put into position and you anticipation it was a abundant abstraction to accredit advanced Democrats, the aforementioned way that if Bill Clinton had put in a bourgeois bourgeois Republican in a position like yours?His supporters would acquire had his head.
GOHMERT:Politics is at play.Now, I would additionally like to point my colleagues to the actuality that I had two acceptable accompany from law academy who were appointed as federal board in 1992, aboriginal in that year. They got a letter from Administrator Biden adage he wouldn’t acquiesce backroom to accumulate them from accepting a audition and acceptance aural three or four months.
Several months later, because of politics, he let those able board bottomward the vine.They were afterwards reappointed and confirmed, assuming how they were acceptable qualified.
When Admiral Clinton accursed 93 attorneys on the aforementioned day, 12 canicule afterwards Janet Reno was hired, there was no investigation.There was no analysis of a actor dollars.
And, frankly, Chairman, I accede — well, I see armchair is not here, but aback I was a judge, if somebody had a affirmation to accede a assay to the added ancillary and they presenting it 30 annual afore the hearing, we were either activity to exclude that affidavit because that was grossly unfair, or there would be a continuance.
And I anticipate it’s a little arbitrary to present these abstracts that allegedly somebody’s had for some times that we got 30 annual afore the audition as a side, and I didn’t get until over an hour into it because of the copying.So aback some of us acquire been anxious about the abridgement of afterward of justice, I don’t see that as a problem.
And I would additionally point out, aback we accompany up God and Christianity and catechism somebody’s acceptance for accessory a religious college, that Harvard itself — if we appetite to accredit to them — Psalm 8 is on Emerson Hall that houses the Aesthetics Department.
GOHMERT:What is man that thou art alert of him? — talking to God, from Psalm 8.
The Latin byword meant accuracy for Christ and the church, and that was the official adage of Harvard in 1692.
And the rules and precepts of Harvard in 1646 said, Let every apprentice be audibly instructed and agilely apprenticed to accede able-bodied the basal end of his studies is to apperceive God and Jesus Christ, which is abiding life, and accordingly to lay Christ at the basal as the abandoned foundation.
It is allotment of the foundation.
And I would additionally abide to my colleagues that the abhorrence abomination bill anesthetized out of this board and taken to the attic and anesthetized afresh leaves an opening.If accession actuality seems to advertise there’s commodity amiss about actuality a Christian and accession is induced to accomplish abandon adjoin that Christian, afresh the actuality on this board could possibly be answerable beneath the abhorrence abomination bill as the assumption for accepting committed the act of violence.
And I would aloof animate my colleagues to accede able-bodied your comments and your votes in this committee.I crop back.
JACKSON-LEE:The gentleman’s time has expired.
I now admit the gentlelady from Wisconsin, Ms. Baldwin, for bristles minutes.
BALDWIN:Thank you.I’m acquisitive to be able to adeptness two curve of questioning.We’ll see how far we get.The aboriginal relates to Advocate Accustomed Gonzales’ antecedent accepting that, for a time, Milwaukee U.S. Advocate Steve Biskupic was on the annual of bodies to be terminated.
Do you acquire any adeptness about who adapted that Mr. Biskupic be placed on this annual to be assured in the aboriginal place?
GOODLING:I don’t.He wasn’t on the January annual or the September list…
BALDWIN:I’m acquainted of that.
GOODLING:… that I saw.And those were the abandoned two I can bethink seeing.And those were the abandoned two I can bethink seeing. And obviously, he wasn’t on the final list.I don’t bethink audition annihilation abroad about it.
BALDWIN:Do you acquire any adeptness about why he was placed on that beforehand list?
BALDWIN:Did you anytime apprehend of any apropos of any affectionate about Mr. Biskupic, whether from accession central the Administering of Amends or anywhere else?
GOODLING:I feel like I would apprehend the columnist abridgement every day, and I feel like I did occasionally see acceptance that complex his office.But I can’t bethink any, specifically, and I don’t bethink any discussions about them.
BALDWIN:OK.Did you anytime apprehend of or participate in any altercation of whether Mr. Biskupic was loyal to the admiral or the administration?
GOODLING:I don’t bethink any.
BALDWIN:OK.Did you anytime apprehend of or participate in any altercation on whether Mr. Biskupic was abundantly alive in prosecuting declared vote artifice in Wisconsin?
GOODLING:I aloof don’t bethink actuality a allotment of any altercation about him at all.
BALDWIN:No discussions at all about Mr. Biskupic.
GOODLING:I don’t anamnesis any.Like I said, I may acquire at some point, but I aloof don’t bethink any.
BALDWIN:Mr. Sampson testified that afterwards you aing the advocate general’s office, which was afore Mr. Biskupic was taken off the list, that he acceptable would acquire arise to you about Mr. Biskupic.
Did you anytime acquire any babble with Kyle Sampson about Mr. Biskupic?
GOODLING:As I sit actuality today, I don’t bethink any.But, you know, I can’t aphorism it out.Sometimes what happened with Mr. Sampson is that we would allocution about U.S. attorneys in the ambience of added jobs that were aperture up, like, for example, aback the accessory advocate accustomed position opened, aback the ATF position opened, aback the Arrangement on Abandon Adjoin Women position opened.
Sometimes, he would say, you know, let’s booty a accessory at the U.S. attorneys and see if you see any there we should consider.And so, sometimes I would say, well, what about this one or what about this one or I don’t absolutely apperceive abundant about this one.
And sometimes he would say, Oh, I like that person, you know, or he would acquire comments.It may acquire been in a ambience like that, but I aloof don’t bethink — I aloof don’t bethink any conversations about him at all.
BALDWIN:OK.I’m activity to about-face to a altered band of analytic then.You’ve testified today that afterwards Abettor Advocate Accustomed Paul McNulty’s Senate testimony, that you were anxious about key aspects of his testimony, and you told Kyle Sampson and possibly others that allotment of his affidavit was inaccurate.
Is that correct?
GOODLING:I said that I was anxious about the administering that we were going.I did accession with Mr. Elston that the cadging issue.I said I gave you admonition the night before.
And his acknowledgment was he aloof didn’t anticipate that the abettor had had abundant time to blot it and feel adequate with it.
I bethink adopting that one with Mr. Elston.
I acquire I aloft one or two others with Mr. Sampson.
But best of my comments to people, decidedly I anticipate Ms. Scalinos and Mr. Moschella, absolutely aloof accompanying to the actuality that I was anxious that we were aperture a aperture to adage bad things about bodies that had formed for us.
GOODLING:And I aloof anticipation — and I accustomed that Congress was complete absorbed in the topic.But I aloof — I aloof didn’t anticipate that it was the adapted affair to do, to say abrogating things about bodies who had formed for us.
Their annual had ended, and we were aggravating to — or at least, my compassionate was that we were aggravating to accord them the befalling to leave agilely and affably and to acquire a ablaze future.And I didn’t appetite to do annihilation to accident that.
BALDWIN:With absorption to Mr. McNulty’s Senate affidavit — that you had apropos that key aspects of his affidavit were inaccurate — did you acquaint Mr. McNulty that you had these concerns?
GOODLING:I don’t anticipate I did, no.
BALDWIN:Did you acquaint the advocate accustomed that you had these concerns?
GOODLING:No, he was on biking at the time.
And you said that you told Will Moschella you anticipation the affidavit would alpha this affair bottomward a bad road.
Did you acquaint Mr. Moschella about the inaccuracies that you categorical beforehand for our committee?
GOODLING:No, I don’t anticipate so.
BALDWIN:If not, why not?
GOODLING:You know, the babble I had with him was adapted alfresco the audition room.And, you know, I was — my focus was that I was aloof — I was aloof cerebration that — I aloof didn’t anticipate this was activity to be good.I anticipation it would be bad for the U.S. attorneys complex and bad for the department.I aloof didn’t anticipate it was a acceptable road.
And my — I was — my focus was on that.And so I heard added things that I anticipation weren’t absolutely right, but my focus — I was so abundant added focused on the added thought.
I did go aback to the department.I mentioned a few things to Kyle.But, again, my focus was absolutely on the administering we were going.
And afresh — and Kyle had asked me, Well, what does the abettor anticipate about how the affidavit went?
And I said, I don’t know.I didn’t allege to him.
And afresh the aing morning, you know, I anticipate — my bond is that the abettor provided acknowledgment some point at that day that he had arise to some association on the Senate ancillary and that they had basically adumbrated that they aloof bare a little bit added admonition and that the affair was activity away.
GOODLING:And I anticipate we went through a aeon of time that we basically anticipation that it was over, and I think, you know, I anticipate I aloof confused on to the aing thing.I anticipate I confused on to accepting the abettor accessible for his clandestine briefing, and I aloof — I anticipate we anticipation we were on the way to absolute it, and I aloof forgot it, I guess.I don’t acquire any added annual added than that.
JACKSON-LEE:Mr. Franks of Arizona is next, accustomed for bristles minutes.
REP. TRENT FRANKS, R-ARIZ.:Well, accede you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Goodling, I acquire been so afflicted with the way that you’ve handled yourself actuality today.I anticipate that your affidavit has been not abandoned complete aboveboard and sincere, but it’s reflected a complete authentic attitude on your part.And I anticipate we are all advantageous to acquire had your attendance in the Amends Department.
I was addled by your accounting affidavit in that the activity for advancing into government and to the abode that you came was to try to accomplish a bigger world, to try to accomplish things bigger for your adolescent animal beings.In a sense, that should be the activity for government in general, you know, as a protector of people’s rights and as accession that is committed to amends in the animal environment.
With that said, you know, I can’t admonition but apprehend afresh and afresh the questions to you accompanying to, were some of these firings or were some of these considerations based on political considerations.
Well, I acquire to echo what’s oft been afresh here, that that is absolutely aural the ambit of the department, absolutely the ambit of the admiral to do absolutely that.And I anticipate that if accession is committed and believes in what they acquire in, they absolutely sometimes can believes that it serves the annual of amends to accredit bodies or to advance bodies of their persuasion, of their acceptance structure, because they acquire that’s best for humanity.
So in a adroitness you’d be accomplishing commodity adjoin your own censor if you didn’t accede their alignment and what they believed in their accepted desolation with yourself.
FRANKS:With that said, the analytical catechism for this board and for your administering is this affair about justice.And the absolute issue, if there is one actuality — and I acquire to anticipate that Mr. Sensenbrenner is actual I don’t see any angle in the pond here.
But the absolute catechism is, did you, at any time, at your break at the Amends Department, anytime seek to anticipate or baffle with or affect or admission any authentic case or any accomplishment to change the aftereffect of justice, that is the assert for your agency, by hiring or battlefront of aggressive to do so any actuality or any of these U.S. attorneys that are beneath discussion?
GOODLING:I absolutely did not.
FRANKS:Do you apperceive of anyone in your administering or the administering that did.
GOODLING:I don’t anamnesis anybody anytime adage annihilation like that. I aloof don’t.I can’t say that — I can’t beforehand to what added bodies were thinking, and I can’t beforehand to what bodies may acquire been cerebration that they didn’t say.
But aback we — we didn’t allocution about what the affidavit were added than Mr. Bogden, at atomic in conversations I was in, until afterwards it was in progress.And I never heard anybody say annihilation like that.
FRANKS:Well, I think, again, the acumen I acknowledgment the questions in such complete acceding is because that’s absolutely the abandoned catechism that should be afore this committee, alike admitting you’ve accustomed every added affectionate imaginable.
And I absolutely acquire apparent no affirmation of any affectionate afore this board that says that any of these attorneys were accursed because of some accomplishment to change the aftereffect of a case or to admission a case or to admission or baffle justice.
And, with that, I aloof appetite to accede you for coming.Thank you for your annual to your country, and I achievement the complete best in activity for you.
FRANKS:I crop back.
JACKSON-LEE:Gentleman’s time has expired.
I admit the acclaimed admirer from California, Mr. Schiff, for bristles minutes.
REP. ADAM B. SCHIFF, D-CALIF.:Ms. Goodling, I’d like to ask you about some of the acceptance that you and others in the Amends Administering acclimated to put bodies on the annual to be fired.
SCHIFF:I anticipate you testified with annual to Mr. Iglesias that there was a altercation about the annual for his actuality on the list. Accession mentioned he was an absentee landlord.Someone abroad mentioned that there was an abnormal arrangement of authority.
I anticipate the abstracts accede that those justifications were not abstruse until afterwards he was placed on the list.But I’ll awning that later.
Let me acquire for the moment that that’s a accustomed consideration.If a U.S. advocate delegated too abundant of his ascendancy to the aboriginal abettor U.S. attorney, that adeptness be a acumen to abode him on a annual to be fired.Is that right?
GOODLING:It could be.
SCHIFF:So if he delegated some of the best important decisions in the arrangement — decisions over hiring key bodies like the arch of a bribery breadth — and delegated that away, that adeptness be a acumen to put him on the list?
GOODLING:I anticipate that you would accessory at the accumulation of affairs in every case.But that adeptness be a bureau you would consider.
SCHIFF:And if you aish accession who was accomplishing a bribery assay in his arrangement afterwards acceptable reason, in a way that interfered with the investigation, that would be a acceptable acumen to put him on a annual to be fired?
GOODLING:I don’t apperceive the specifics of what you may be apropos to.
SCHIFF:No, but I’m aloof allurement you about — that would be a acceptable acumen to be put on a list.
GOODLING:I don’t know.
SCHIFF:The U.S. advocate sets the accent in the office.If the U.S. attorney’s bribery of his arrangement after-effects in low morale, and that assurance affects the affection of the assignment done by the arrangement and the acceptability of the office, that adeptness be a accustomed acumen to put him on a annual to be fired, right?
GOODLING:In some cases, assurance can be improved.In some cases, you do accusation to accomplish a change.
But, again, it’s activity to be the accumulation of the circumstances.
SCHIFF:If Mr. Iglesias or any added U.S. advocate came afore Congress and testified clumsily or inconsistently, or lacked credibility, that adeptness be a acumen to put him on a annual to be fired, right?
Certainly if accession testifies clumsily or inconsistently, or not absolutely truthfully, that would be acumen to be fired, wouldn’t it?
GOODLING:I mean, I anticipate you’d acquire to accessory at the circumstance.It’s not accessible to sit actuality and acknowledgment questions and try to accord you complete answers.But, you know, I don’t know.
I mean, obviously, it would be commodity that you would acquire to accessory at.
SCHIFF:If — in the case of Mr. Iglesias or any added U.S. advocate — the senators from that state, alike senators of the aforementioned party, bidding a accident of confidence, as the advocate accustomed testified, that adeptness be a acumen to abode them on the annual to be fired.
GOODLING:I anticipate that that could be a bureau you would accede in some cases.
SCHIFF:And if a U.S. advocate or any added key Amends Administering official approved an antithesis of loyalty, adherence added to the actuality that assassin them or amenable for their jobs than to advocate the laws and anxiously assassinate their office, that adeptness be a acumen to put them on a annual to be fired, right?
GOODLING:I’m not abiding that I understand.
SCHIFF:Well, you said the totality.Let’s add up that accumulation of circumstances.You acquire a U.S. advocate or a top law administering official in the administering who breach assembly his authority, whose accomplishments annual assurance in the arrangement to plummet, whose affidavit afore Congress is abridged and inconsistent, who’s absent the aplomb of senators alike of his own party, and who creates the consequence that his adherence takes a academy antecedence than his assignment to advocate the laws and the Constitution, the accumulation of those affairs would absolutely accreditation a position on the annual to be fired, wouldn’t it?
GOODLING:That wouldn’t be my alarm to make.
SCHIFF:By that standard, Ms. Goodling, shouldn’t accession acquire placed the advocate accustomed himself on the annual to be fired?
GOODLING:That wouldn’t be my accommodation to make.
SCHIFF:That would be the president’s decision, correct?
SCHIFF:But assurance has plummeted in the department, hasn’t it?
GOODLING:You know, I’ve larboard the administering and I’m not in a position to be able to acknowledgment the question.
SCHIFF:The advocate general’s affidavit was inconsistent with his above-mentioned annual that he was not in any affair or complex in any altercation of the firings.Wasn’t that inconsistent?
GOODLING:I do anticipate there were some inconsistencies.
SCHIFF:Senators of the advocate general’s own affair acquire absent aplomb in his performance, haven’t they?
GOODLING:I’ve apparent bi-weekly accounts, but I acquire no immediate adeptness added than that.
SCHIFF:The advocate accustomed has absolutely created a perception, if not a reality, that his adherence to the admiral is a academy antecedence to him than anxiously active the duties of his office. Wouldn’t you agree?
GOODLING:I don’t apperceive what my acumen of that would be.I formed for him and I anticipation he was a acceptable man, and I anticipation he approved hard.I aloof don’t apperceive that I can authentic an assessment on that.I aloof don’t — I don’t, frankly, apperceive what I anticipate about the topic.
SCHIFF:I acquire no added questions.
JACKSON-LEE:Time of the admirer has expired.
I admit the acclaimed admirer from Alabama.The admirer is accustomed for bristles minutes.
REP. ARTUR DAVIS, D-ALA.:Let me aces up on my colleague’s questions.As you know, you’re no best at the department.Mr. McNulty is no best at the department.The actuality who charcoal at the administering is, frankly, Advocate Accustomed Gonzales.
And as you may or may not be aware, Mr. Schiff and I acquire conflicting a no-confidence resolution for the House to vote on because Mr. Gonzales.As you additionally may be aware, there’s a agnate resolution in the United States Senate.
So I appetite to aces up on his focus on the actuality who’s still there, the advocate accustomed of the United States.
Going aback to your affidavit beforehand today, Ms. Goodling, Accustomed Gonzales testified that he never saw the U.S. attorneys list, the annual of assured U.S. attorneys.
DAVIS:Is that authentic to your knowledge, Ms. Goodling?
GOODLING:I acquire he did see a list.
DAVIS:So if Accustomed Gonzales testified that he didn’t see the list, you acquire that would be inaccurate affidavit on his part, don’t you?
GOODLING:I acquire he saw a list.
DAVIS:So accordingly you acquire it would be inaccurate testimony.
DAVIS:If Accustomed Gonzales testified that he had never been a about the list, do you acquire that would be authentic or inaccurate testimony?
GOODLING:I acquire it would be inaccurate.
DAVIS:Are there any added inaccuracies in the affidavit that Accustomed Gonzales gave the Senate that you are able to allotment with us?
GOODLING:I don’t apperceive that I saw all of it.
DAVIS:Let me admonition you a little bit with one added one.The advocate accustomed testified that he was not complex in any discussions about the U.S. advocate firings.Do you acquire that to be authentic or inaccurate?
GOODLING:He was absolutely at the November 27th meeting.
DAVIS:So you acquire that to be accession allotment of inaccurate testimony, don’t you, Ms. Goodling?
DAVIS:And aback did you aboriginal become acquainted that the advocate accustomed had fabricated inaccurate statements to the United States Senate?
GOODLING:Actually, I should assay — I anticipate those were statements that he fabricated in a columnist conference, not in testimony.
DAVIS:Well, I’ve absolutely represented to you some of it came in testimony.But I wouldn’t decay admired time ambiguity over that.
When did you aboriginal become acquainted there were inaccuracies in Accustomed Gonzales’ accessible account?
DAVIS:You’ve mentioned three.
JOHN DOWD, AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER FELD:See the testimony?
DAVIS:Mr. Dowd, as I understand, you’re not a actor in these proceedings.
Ms. Goodling, would you like me to echo the question?
(UNKNOWN):Ms. Chairwoman, he’s been allurement her specific questions about affidavit allegedly fabricated by the advocate general.We apperceive he’s testified several…
DAVIS:Madam Chairwoman, I would ask for a cardinal that I be accustomed to abide my questions of the witness.
(UNKNOWN):Well, I’ll accomplish my point of adjustment first.My point of adjustment is…
JACKSON-LEE:The admirer may proceed.
(UNKNOWN):Point of adjustment is that the attestant has been asked questions purportedly to ask her assessment apropos affidavit allegedly accustomed by the advocate general.He has cited affidavit actuality in the House and affidavit in the Senate.The attestant has said that she believes he’s talking about…
DAVIS:Madam Chairwoman, I asked for a cardinal on a point of order.
(UNKNOWN):… that she was — it was her understanding…
DAVIS:Madam Chairwoman, I asked for a cardinal on a point of order.
JACKSON-LEE:If the admirer will suspend, let me acquiesce the admirer to finish…
(UNKNOWN):She has aloof declared that the comments she was apropos to went to a columnist arrangement that the advocate accustomed made, not to testimony.
Now, in the bulk of fairness, if the admirer is activity to columnist his question, the attestant has the adapted to accessory at the abstracts to which he is apropos and acknowledgment the questions…
DAVIS:Madam Chairwoman, I asked for a cardinal or a annual of a point of order.
JACKSON-LEE:The admirer from California has not fabricated a aldermanic inquiry.
I anticipate the band of analytic of the gentleman, point of order, the band of the analytic of the admirer from Alabama is an adapted band of questioning, and I would acquiesce the admirer to proceed.
DAVIS:Ask that the time be restored.
JACKSON-LEE:Mr. Dowd, let me additionally advertise that I accede the role that you play, but you are to admonition the witness.You’re not a actor in the hearing.
I accede the gentleman.
The admirer from Alabama may proceed.
DAVIS:Madam Chairwoman, can my time be restored, accustomed the…
JACKSON-LEE:It has been abeyant and your time has been restored.
(UNKNOWN):Madam Chairman, on that, I abode the cardinal of the chair.
JACKSON-LEE:The cardinal of the armchair has been appealed.
GOODLING:Madam Chairwoman, I’d like to argue with my attorney.
(UNKNOWN):I move to table.
(UNKNOWN):The catechism is on the?
JACKSON-LEE:The catechism is on the move to table.
The catechism is on the move to table.All those in favor say aye.
All those adjoin no.
JACKSON-LEE:The cardinal of the armchair — the cardinal of the chair, the ayes acquire it.
(UNKNOWN):I ask for a recorded vote.
JACKSON-LEE:A recorded vote has been called.The abettor is not present.This board stands in recess.
(UNKNOWN):Until what time?
JACKSON-LEE:Until such time as the armchair recalls or calls the committee.
(UNKNOWN):Well, what do we acquaint the attestant beneath these circumstances?
JACKSON-LEE:The attestant has asked for a arrangement time with her lawyer.That will be accustomed at this time, and we will alarm the board in alcove at this time.
(UNKNOWN):Well, I object, Madam Chairwoman.Can I beforehand with added questions and move on and acquiesce the armchair to booty up this affair and acquire a abstracted vote later?
JACKSON-LEE:Yes, does the admirer suspend?
We acquire to append at this time, so the audition is now in recess.
(UNKNOWN):Madam Chairman, aldermanic inquiry.
JACKSON-LEE:The motion on the attic is for a recorded vote on the motion to table.
(UNKNOWN):Madam Chairman, aldermanic inquiry.
(UNKNOWN):Madam Chairman, you’ve declared that we’re in alcove but it’s my compassionate we couldn’t go in alcove afterwards — if there was an argument and there was an argument to the recess.
JACKSON-LEE:Well, the armchair has disqualified that we are in the activity of award the clerk, and so we are recessing for that purpose.I heard the objection.The argument is heard.
(UNKNOWN):You cannot alcove beneath the rules of this House unilaterally.
(UNKNOWN):Well, there is a report…
(UNKNOWN):And we can’t stop the business of the House because a abettor is not here.Members are here.We’ve asked for a vote on the motion to table.
(UNKNOWN):A point of order.This is a recorded vote that was requested.You can’t alcove aback that — that’s non-debatable.You go to it.
JACKSON-LEE:Let me crop to the admirer — is the admirer gluttonous recognition, Mr. Schiff?
SCHIFF:Yes, Madam Chair.
JACKSON-LEE:Are you gluttonous recognition.
SCHIFF:I am gluttonous recognition.
JACKSON-LEE:You are recognized, Mr. Schiff.
SCHIFF:Yes, aback there’s no one to almanac the vote…
JACKSON-LEE:The abettor is now here.
SCHIFF:OK.Well, that answers my question.
JACKSON-LEE:The catechism is now on the motion to table.And the abettor will alarm the roll.
Mr. Berman votes aye.
CLERK:Mr. [REP. RICK BOUCHER, D-VA.] Boucher?
Mr. Scott votes aye.
CLERK:Mr. Watt votes aye.
CLERK:Ms. Lofgren votes aye.
CLERK:Ms. Jackson-Lee votes aye.
CLERK:Ms. Waters vote aye.
Mr. [REP. MARTIN T.] Meehan [D-Mass.]?
(UNKNOWN):Point of order, Madam Chairman.The photographers in the able-bodied are interfering with the witness’ befalling to argue with counsel.
I would ask that we…
(UNKNOWN):Madam Armchair (inaudible) ask the vote continue.Ask that the vote continue.
JACKSON-LEE:I’d ask that the admirer from California would suspend.And I’d ask that the vote continue.And I’d ask that if admonition are abashed by any photographers, amuse admonish the clerks or officials, and we will abode that question.
Would the vote proceed, please?
CLERK:Ms. Sanchez votes aye.
CLERK:Mr. Johnson votes aye.
REP. LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, D-ILL.:Aye.
CLERK:Mr. Gutierrez votes aye.
Mr. [REP. ANTHONY] Weiner? [D-N.Y.]
CLERK:Mr. Schiff votes aye.
CLERK:Mr. Davis votes aye.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz?
REP. DEBBIE WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ, D-FLA.:Aye.
CLERK:Ms. Wasserman Schultz votes aye.
REP. KEITH ELLISON, D-MINN. :Aye.
CLERK:Mr. Ellison votes aye.
CLERK:Mr. Coble votes no.
Mr. [REP. STEVE] Chabot [R-OHIO]?
CLERK:Mr. Lungren votes no.
CLERK:Mr. Cannon votes no.
CLERK:Mr. Keller votes no.
CLERK:Mr. Forbes votes no.
CLERK:Mr. King votes no.
CLERK:Mr. Franks votes no.
CLERK:Mr. Gohmert votes no.
Mr. [REP. JIM] Jordan [R-OHIO]?
JACKSON-LEE:Are there added associates in the accommodation who ambition to casting their vote?
Gentleman from Florida?
JACKSON-LEE:Gentleman from Florida, did you casting your…
CLERK:Mr. Wexler votes aye.
JACKSON-LEE:Gentleman from California?
GALLEGLY:I vote no.
CLERK:Mr. Gallegly votes no.
JACKSON-LEE:Gentleman from California?
(UNKNOWN):I vote yes.
JACKSON-LEE:Any added associates of the chamber?
Gentleman from California?
(UNKNOWN):I’m from Florida.
JACKSON-LEE:That’s Mr. Lungren.He gave the amiss admonition — alert to the baronial member.
JACKSON-LEE:I’ll acquire the admirer recorded…
CLERK:Mr. Delahunt is not recorded?
DELAHUNT:I was not.
CLERK:Mr. Delahunt votes aye.
JACKSON-LEE:Any added associates in the chamber?
JACKSON-LEE:Any added associates adulatory to vote that acquire not casting their vote?
The abettor will report.
CLERK:Seventeen associates voted aye eight associates voted nay.
JACKSON-LEE:And the motion failed.
DAVIS:May I resume, Madam Chairwoman?
The motion to table passes.The gentleman’s motion does not pass.
CLERK:Excuse me.It was 17 aye and nine nay.
JACKSON-LEE:Thank you.The abettor has corrected.And the motion to table passes.
DAVIS:May I resume, Madam Chairwoman?
JACKSON-LEE:That you may.And your annual are two annual and 19 seconds.We abeyant the clock.
DAVIS:And that’s adequate time, Madam Chairwoman?
JACKSON-LEE:That is adequate time.
DAVIS:Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
DAVIS:Ms. Goodling, I apologize for the interruption.Let me go aback to you, and I’ll accord the abettor a adventitious to leave, so you can get set up.
Ms. Goodling, aback did you aboriginal become acquainted that the advocate accustomed fabricated accessible statements that you anticipation were inaccurate?
GOODLING:I’m not sure.I anticipate I saw the columnist arrangement that day, and it addled me that it wasn’t right, but I couldn’t put my feel on it adapted away.
DAVIS:Did you acquaint to the advocate accustomed that you acquainted his statements weren’t right?
GOODLING:I don’t anticipate I did.I can’t bethink what day it was, but I don’t bethink that I did.
DAVIS:Did you apprehend any of the bi-weekly accounts of the advocate general’s affidavit to the United States Senate?
GOODLING:I saw some of his Senate testimony, yes.
DAVIS:Were there aspects of his Senate affidavit that you anticipation were inaccurate, based on what you read?
GOODLING:I’ve apprehend so abounding things, aggravating to adapt for today, that I’m abashed some of it’s appealing muddled.If you acquire a authentic annual to ask me about, it adeptness admonition me.
DAVIS:Well, let me arise at it this way.
DAVIS:Did you acquaint to Mr. McNulty that you acquainted that advocate general’s accessible statements, whether to the columnist or the committee, were not accurate?
GOODLING:No, absolutely not to Mr. McNulty.
DAVIS:Did you point — well, did you acquaint to anyone that you acquainted the advocate general’s statements, either to the board or to the public, were not accurate?
GOODLING:No.I anticipate that was — that was adapted adjoin the end of my time at the department, and I don’t anticipate I was really…
DAVIS:When is the aftermost time you batten to the advocate general, Ms. Goodling?
GOODLING:I batten to him the Thursday or Friday my aftermost abounding anniversary at the department, and afresh I took leave the following…
DAVIS:Do you acquire a acceptable anamnesis of that conversation, Ms. Goodling?
GOODLING:I acquire anamnesis of some of it.
DAVIS:Was there any allotment of that babble that fabricated you uncomfortable?
DAVIS:Would you acquaint the board about it?
GOODLING:I had absitively that I couldn’t abide alive on his agents because of the circumstances.I acquainted that I was somewhat paralyzed.I aloof acquainted like I — I was distraught.And I acquainted that I basal to accomplish a transfer.
So I went aback to ask him if it would be accessible for me to alteration out of his office.He said that he would accusation to anticipate about that.And I anticipate he was, you know, aggravating to, you know, aloof aggravating to chat.I was on his staff.But he afresh proceeded to say, Let me acquaint you what I can remember.And he affectionate of — he laid out for me his accustomed bond of…
DAVIS:Recollection of what, Ms. Goodling?
GOODLING:Of some of the process.
DAVIS:Some of the activity apropos what?
GOODLING:Some of the activity apropos the backup of the U.S. attorneys.And he — he aloof — he laid out a little bit of it, and afresh he asked me if he anticipation — if I had any acknowledgment to his iteration.
And I bethink cerebration at that point that this was commodity that we were all activity to acquire to allocution about, and I didn’t apperceive that it was — I aloof — I didn’t apperceive that it was maybe adapted for us to allocution about that at that point, and so I aloof didn’t.As far as I can remember, I aloof didn’t respond.
GOODLING:And so I aloof didn’t.As far as I can remember, I aloof didn’t respond.
JACKSON-LEE:The time of the admirer has expired.We now admit the acclaimed admirer from Illinois, Mr. Gutierrez for bristles minutes.
GUTIERREZ:Thank you complete much.
I would like to crop my time to Mr. Davis.
DAVIS:Thank you, Mr. Gutierrez.
Had you accomplished your answer, Ms. Goodling, apropos your babble with the advocate general?
GOODLING:I anticipate there was a little bit added to the discussion, but I’m accepting agitation canonizing it.
DAVIS:Well, let me try to admonition you a little bit.I apperceive it’s been a connected day, and so let me try to admonition you a little bit.
You said that you anticipation allotment of the babble was inappropriate with the advocate general.Did you say that, Ms. Goodling?
GOODLING:I don’t apperceive if I said — I didn’t apperceive if I meant to say inappropriate.I said it fabricated me a little uncomfortable.
DAVIS:What was it that fabricated you afflictive about your babble with the advocate general, Mr. Gonzales.
GOODLING:I aloof — I did not apperceive if it was adapted for us to both be discussing our recollections of what had happened, and I aloof anticipation maybe we shouldn’t acquire that conversation.
GOODLING:So I didn’t accede to what he said.
DAVIS:Why did you anticipate it adeptness be inappropriate for you to acquire this babble with the advocate general?
GOODLING:I aloof knew that, at some point, we would allegedly all acquire to allocution about our conversations and I aloof — I’m not adage that I — I’m not adage that I absolutely anticipation it was inappropriate.I think, in all fairness, that he was aloof talking to accession on his agents and I was addled and I was allurement for a transfer.
And I anticipate he was actuality kind.He’s a complete affectionate man.But I aloof didn’t apperceive that I anticipation that maybe this was a babble that we should be having.
DAVIS:Ms. Goodling, did you acquaint the advocate accustomed that you acquainted that allotment of his testimony, or allotment of his accessible statements, were not absolutely accurate.
GOODLING:No, I didn’t.
DAVIS:And was there a acumen why you didn’t allotment with the advocate accustomed that allotment of what he had said to the board or the accessible adeptness not be accurate?
GOODLING:I aloof — I feel like it — I feel like afterwards he had the columnist conference, bodies came out adequately anon and said that they anticipation the statements were inaccurate.I don’t anticipate that I bare to do that.I anticipate that added bodies had already aloft questions about that.
DAVIS:Do you anticipate the advocate accustomed accepted that he had fabricated statements that were not accurate?
GOODLING:I don’t know.
DAVIS:Did you ask him?
GOODLING:No, I didn’t.
DAVIS:Do you anticipate the advocate accustomed would acquire been anxious about authoritative accessible statements that were not accurate?
GOODLING:I don’t apperceive what he — I apperceive that he testified afore the Senate, and he antiseptic his animadversion from his columnist conference.So I acquire he cared about the actuality that he didn’t authentic aggregate in the best way that he could.And I anticipate he’s already apologized for that and approved to assay it.
DAVIS:Let me ask you this, Ms. Goodling:During the babble that you’ve said fabricated you somewhat afflictive with the advocate general, did the advocate accustomed altercate the affairs about any of the terminations of the U.S. attorneys?
GOODLING:He discussed a little bit.
As I recall, he aloof said that he anticipation that everybody that was on the annual was on the annual for a performance-related reason, and that he had been agitated with the abettor because he anticipation that the abettor had adumbrated that — by testifying about Mr. Cummins, that there was — that the abandoned acumen there was to abate him in adjustment to accord Mr. Griffin a adventitious to serve.
He said that he thought, aback he heard that, that that was wrong, that he absolutely anticipation that Mr. Cummins was on the annual because there was a achievement acumen there, too.
And — I anticipate there was added to the discussion.That’s the allotment I’m canonizing adapted now.But I anticipate he aloof affectionate of laid out what he remembered and what he thought.And afresh he asked me if I had any acknowledgment to it.
DAVIS:Do you apperceive — let me ask you this way.You say the advocate accustomed asked if you had any acknowledgment to what he said.
Do you think, Ms. Goodling, the advocate accustomed was aggravating to appearance your recollection?
GOODLING:No.I anticipate he was aloof allurement if I had any different…
DAVIS:But it fabricated you uncomfortable.
GOODLING:I aloof did not apperceive if it was a babble that we should be having, and so I aloof — aloof didn’t say anything.
Mr. Davis, I don’t apperceive that I acquire annihilation to add to that point, but I do appetite to clarify, to the admeasurement that at the alpha of your analytic I adumbrated answers based on testimony, I appetite to be — I appetite to assay that I anticipate that the statements you were referencing were columnist accounts, and I didn’t beggarly to advertise that…
DAVIS:Well, Ms. Goodling, if you’ve noticed, what I’ve done in my questions, I’ve consistently said either/or.I’ve referred either to accessible statements or to testimony.
Let me ask you one final catechism with my bound time about the advocate general.
Do you anticipate it is important that the advocate accustomed of the United States accord truthful, accurate, complete affidavit to the United States Congress?
DAVIS:And if you were to discover, Ms. Goodling, that you larboard commodity out of your affidavit aback today, would you arise aback and actual it to the committee?
DAVIS:Would that be a acceptable convenance for a attestant who apparent that he…
JACKSON-LEE:The gentleman’s time has expired.The gentleman’s time has expired.
Let me admit the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Wasserman Schultz for bristles minutes.
WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ:Madam Chair, I’d like to crop afresh one minute of my time to Mr. Davis.
JACKSON-LEE:Gentleman is accustomed for one minute.
DAVIS:Thank you, Mr. Wasserman Schultz.
Let me echo the question, Ms. Goodling.You’ve said that if you apparent that there was commodity abridged or not authentic about your testimony, you’d arise aback and actual it.Is that correct?
GOODLING:I’m activity to accusation to argue with admonition on a catechism like that.
DAVIS:Would it be a acceptable convenance for any attestant who apparent that he had fabricated an inaccurate annual afore the Congress to arise aback and actual it…
(UNKNOWN):Madam Chair, she asked to argue with counsel.The administrator said that she would acquire the adapted to consult…
JACKSON-LEE:This is not a point of order.
(UNKNOWN):Point of order.
JACKSON-LEE:The admirer is out of order.
(UNKNOWN):Point of order.The administrator said at the alpha of the hearings that she would acquire the adventitious to argue with counsel.
JACKSON-LEE:If the admirer would suspend, if the admirer would suspend, if the attestant wishes to argue with counsel, she has the befalling to ask, and we will append for a moment.
GOODLING:Madam Chair, she aloof said she did.She aloof said she did and she was interrupted…
DAVIS:Madam Chairwoman, the attestant said that she would appetite to…
JACKSON-LEE:If the admirer from Alabama would suspend, Ms. Goodling, could you accompaniment for the almanac do you accusation to argue with admonition at this time?
GOODLING:I wasn’t allurement to argue at this second.I was adage that if aback I go aback and assay this archetype I anticipate that there will be a lot of things that maybe I didn’t get the opportunity…
JACKSON-LEE:I accede the gentlelady.So your acknowledgment is that you are proceeding with your acknowledgment to Mr. Davis’ question…
GOODLING:I’m proceeding with my answer.
JACKSON-LEE:… therefore, you’ve answered Mr. Lungren’s catechism that you did not ask to argue at this time.
Gentleman may proceed.
One catechism about Mr. McNulty.Did Mr. McNulty accomplish any advance to go aback and actual the almanac apropos any aspect of his affidavit to the Senate, to your knowledge?
GOODLING:I don’t know.
DAVIS:Well, do you apperceive of any?
GOODLING:I don’t apperceive of any.
DAVIS:And did Mr. McNulty, to your knowledge, accomplish any advance to actual the almanac apropos any aspect of his statements in bankrupt briefings with the United States Senate.
GOODLING:I don’t.I don’t apperceive of any.I bethink — at the end of my time at the department, I bethink there was a altercation that the administering was activity to adapt answers to abode statements that may not acquire been accurate.So I bethink audition that the administering was activity to assignment on answers to do that, but I don’t apperceive if it occurred.
DAVIS:My time has expired, Madam Chairwoman.
WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ:Madam Chair, I crop two added annual of my time to Mr. Davis.
DAVIS:Thank you, Ms. Wasserman-Schultz.
Let me about-face to accession area, Ms. Goodling.You acquire been an abettor U.S. advocate for a aeon of time in your own career, is that right?
GOODLING:I was a adapted abettor U.S. attorney, yes.
DAVIS:Did you arraign cases at some point?
GOODLING:I did some cases.Actually, I didn’t end up accomplishing any abomination trials.They all pleaded out.But I did some work.
DAVIS:Well, are you accustomed with the rules and the able rules of albatross that administer U.S. attorneys and associates of the Administering of Justice?
GOODLING:I’m accustomed with some of them.I wouldn’t affirmation to be an expert.
DAVIS:All right.Let me ask you a few questions about it.In your opinion, from what you apperceive of the able rules of responsibility, would it be adapted for a United States agent to acquaintance a prosecutor about a specific case?
GOODLING:The administering got inquiries about cases all the time, and there was an adapted and is an adapted way to abode them.
DAVIS:Would it be adapted for a agent to alarm the U.S. advocate and ask about the specifics of a authentic case?
GOODLING:In some cases, it may be OK.If they were aloof calling to ask commodity that’s in the accessible record, it adeptness be OK, although, of course, the administering acceding would be that that catechism would go to the Arrangement of Aldermanic Affairs.
DAVIS:Now, what if they weren’t calling about the accessible almanac but about admonition accustomed abandoned to the U.S. advocate and the Administering of Justice.Would that be appropriate?
GOODLING:I don’t absolutely apperceive the rules in this breadth complete well…
DAVIS:Do you apperceive of any circumstance, Ms. Goodling, in which it would be adapted for a United States agent to alarm a United States advocate to ask about admonition accustomed abandoned to that U.S. Attorney’s office?
GOODLING:I can’t anticipate of one, but again, I’m not an able in this area.
DAVIS:Similar question:Would it be adapted for a affiliate of the United States House to alarm a United States advocate to ask questions about the specifics of a authentic case involving facts accustomed abandoned to the U.S. attorney?
GOODLING:I’m not an able in this area, Mr. Davis, and I alternate to acknowledgment questions that I don’t apperceive the acknowledgment to.
DAVIS:Let me ask accession question.Do you apperceive of any instance in which it would be adapted for a baby-kisser to alarm a U.S. advocate to ask him or her to arraign anyone?
GOODLING:I don’t anticipate that would be adapted — unless, of course, the actuality had affirmation of wrongdoing, in which case, they should booty it to the FBI…
DAVIS:And if the actuality didn’t acquire affirmation of atrocity and artlessly declared and fabricated the inquiry, you accede that would be inappropriate, wouldn’t it?
GOODLING:If accession declared accession and said, go arraign this actuality because I don’t like them, and didn’t acquire evidence, that would acutely be a problem.
DAVIS:And let me ask you a catechism about that.
To your knowledge, based on aggregate that you’ve abstruse about these facts, and your antecedent position, was there a buzz alarm from a affiliate of the United States Senate to David Iglesias, apropos case of authentic cases?
GOODLING:I’ve apparent columnist accounts, but I don’t acquire any…
DAVIS:Would that be adapted for Agent Domenici to call…
JACKSON-LEE:I would admonish associates that they charge acquiesce the attestant to acknowledgment the question.I ask the associates to be reminded that assemblage charge be able to acknowledgment the question.
GOODLING:I don’t apperceive if the alarm happened, and I don’t apperceive the specifics of the alarm if it did, and I can’t abode a academic or commodity that I don’t apperceive annihilation about.
GOODLING:I’m not an able in this area.I just, frankly, I anticipate it raises questions, but I don’t apperceive the rules in this breadth able-bodied abundant to say.
DAVIS:Final question, Ms. Goodling.During your arrangement affair with Mr. McNulty for his affidavit did the Domenici alarm to Iglesias arise up?
GOODLING:I don’t anticipate that — I’m aggravating to bethink the date of the call.
Do you bethink the date of the call?
DAVIS:Well, I’m allurement you, Ms. Goodling.You alternate in the briefing.
GOODLING:I can’t bethink the time sequence, I’m sorry.I did abode the call, or the alarm was commodity that was discussed in the abettor advocate general’s office.But I don’t bethink aback that was.
JACKSON-LEE:Now admit the admirer from Minnesota, Mr. Ellison, for bristles minutes.
ELLISON:Do you apperceive Thomas Heffelfinger, ma’am?
GOODLING:I’ve met him, yes.
ELLISON:Before he resigned, was there any babble about problems with his performance?
GOODLING:I acquire I did apprehend a few.
ELLISON:What were they?
GOODLING:There were some apropos that he spent an amazing bulk of time as the baton of the Native American Subcommittee of the AGAC and put — clearly, bodies anticipation that that was important work, but I anticipate there was some concern…
ELLISON:Excuse me, accede you.You’ve answered it.
ELLISON:Ma’am, alibi me, could you acquaint me please, was there apropos about whether or not he was acceptance associates of Native American tribes to use affiliated IDs in adjustment to vote?
GOODLING:I don’t bethink annihilation answerable specific.The affair that I heard aloft was aloof that he spent an amazing bulk of time on the subcommittee business.
ELLISON:Did his — did annihilation about voter, affiliated IDs anytime arise up in that altercation about problems with Thomas Heffelfinger?
GOODLING:I don’t acquire any bond of it.
ELLISON:Did you acquire any communications from Secretary of Accompaniment Mary Kiffmeyer apropos Thomas Heffelfinger?
GOODLING:I don’t acquire any bond of anytime seeing annihilation like that.
ELLISON:Did you anytime annual Joan Hume?
ELLISON:When did you annual you?
GOODLING:It would acquire been — it would acquire been afterwards Tom Heffelfinger notified us that he was activity to leave.
ELLISON:Now, you apperceive she’s a 1990 alum of the University of Minnesota, right?
GOODLING:I don’t bethink her resume.
ELLISON:Well, do you anamnesis that she’s the arch of civilian in the U.S. Attorney’s Arrangement in Minnesota?
ELLISON:And you acquire that she had clerked for Adjudicator Rosenbaum, who’s a Minnesota federal judge, right?
GOODLING:I don’t bethink her resume.
ELLISON:Well, you anamnesis that she — do you anamnesis that she at atomic had a good, solid resume, had formed for the U.S. attorney’s arrangement and had been practicing law for some 15, 16 years?
You apperceive that?
GOODLING:I bethink she was the civilian chief.That’s my recollection.
ELLISON:She didn’t get the job, did she?
GOODLING:No, she didn’t.
ELLISON:You knew she was Democrat, right?
GOODLING:I absolutely don’t apperceive that I heard she was a Democrat. I did apprehend she was a liberal.
ELLISON:OK.You heard she was a liberal.
Was that a bureau — was that a bureau in your accommodation to bypass her?
GOODLING:I anticipate it was a bureau in some ways.But it wasn’t the overarching factor.
ELLISON:Now, the actuality who you did accredit was Rachel Paulose. Is that right?
GOODLING:There was a console of bodies involved, but yes.
ELLISON:Rachel Paulose was hired.
Now, you apperceive that four abettor U.S. attorneys acquire abdicate because she is so bare in management, in the U.S. Attorney’s Arrangement in Minnesota.
You apperceive that today, right?
GOODLING:I apprehend columnist accounts that they went aback to…
ELLISON:You apperceive that’s true, don’t you?
GOODLING:I don’t acquire they resigned.I acquire they went aback to their positions as AUSA.
ELLISON:No, they abdicate their administering positions…
(UNKNOWN):Would you let her acknowledgment the question?
ELLISON:They abdicate their administering positions.Is that right?
ELLISON:And they went aback to (inaudible) positions.
Is that right?
GOODLING:That’s what I acquire from the paper.
ELLISON:So Ms. Paulose was — and you apperceive Ms. Paulose personally, isn’t that right?
GOODLING:I met her during the annual process.
ELLISON:She declared you as a acquaintance of hers.
Would you use that appellation acquaintance as well?
GOODLING:We became accompany afterwards the hiring process.
ELLISON:And you’re accompany today, right?
GOODLING:I haven’t arise to her in some time, but yes.
ELLISON:How abundant time has gone by aback you batten to her?
GOODLING:Maybe February, maybe aboriginal March.
ELLISON:So you batten to her as aboriginal as aftermost — as March ’07.
GOODLING:Maybe I — maybe the aboriginal anniversary of March.I can’t recall.
ELLISON:Did you as Ms. Humes if she was a affiliate of the Federalist Society?
ELLISON:Did you ask her about her religious affiliation?
ELLISON:Did you ask her accurately about her affair affiliation?
GOODLING:I don’t acquire that we did.The annual was conducted by Mr. Margolis, Mike Battle and myself, all three of us.
ELLISON:Excuse me.That’s not acknowledging to my question, but we’ll move ahead.
Did Ms. Paulose anytime beforehand a administering at the arrangement — any arrangement of a U.S. attorney?
GOODLING:I don’t acquire she had.
ELLISON:And Ms. Joan Humes had beforehand the civilian division, is that right?
ELLISON:So you all bypassed a arch of civilian and went to somebody who had no acquaintance in administering artlessly because they were a liberal?
GOODLING:No, not at all.There were added affidavit complex in the decision.
GOODLING:To clarify, we…
ELLISON:No, I don’t accusation a clarification.Thank you, ma’am.
GOODLING:Well, I would like to complete my answer.
ELLISON:Well, I don’t accusation an answer.
(UNKNOWN):These are not the rules we started under.
ELLISON:No, Madam Chair, I acquire the ascendancy to ascendancy my questions.I got an acknowledgment to my catechism and I’d like to beforehand on.
(UNKNOWN):You’re a affiliate of this board and those are not the rules beneath which the administrator arise this hearing.
ELLISON:Madam Chair, this is a military…
JACKSON-LEE:I’ll acquiesce assemblage to acknowledgment the question.You can ask them to abbreviate.
Ms. Goodling, because of the conciseness of the time, I would ask you to be added absolute in your answers to the gentleman.
JACKSON-LEE:The admirer may continue.
ELLISON:Madam Chair, I’d like to ask for at atomic two annual of my time to be restored.I’ve been disconnected here.
JACKSON-LEE:Time has been abeyant on anniversary of the times we have.Thank you, gentlemen.
ELLISON:Thank you, Madam Chair.
GOODLING:Could I abide my answer?
ELLISON:… did you ask Rachel Paulose.
JACKSON-LEE:Let the admirer proceed.
ELLISON:There’s no catechism afore the witness.
GOODLING:I didn’t finish…
(UNKNOWN):There is a catechism afore the witness.She’s aggravating to acknowledgment it.
JACKSON-LEE:Regular order.Regular order.The armchair will rule.The admirer will proceed.
You can board your acknowledgment that you basal to complete as the admirer finishes his added question.
Will the admirer proceed?
ELLISON:Did Rachel Paulose’s political amalgamation comedy any role in her hiring?
GOODLING:Yes, it did.
ELLISON:And that would be that she was a Republican?
ELLISON:Did her religious amalgamation comedy a role in her hiring?
GOODLING:No, it did not.
ELLISON:Did her associates in the Federalist Association comedy a role in her hiring?
GOODLING:I don’t bethink that was commodity we talked about.
ELLISON:Did the actuality that she never approved a case to a board appulse your cerebration on her hiring?
GOODLING:She had two to three years case acquaintance as an AUSA, which is a lot added than some of the U.S. attorneys that we hire.And that was cogent experience…
ELLISON:How did that acquaintance analyze to Accustomed (ph) Hume’s (ph) experience?
GOODLING:As I recall, Rachel’s acquaintance was some civilian and some criminal.
JACKSON-LEE:The gentleman’s time has expired.And she can complete her answer.
GOODLING:Rachel Paulose was alleged based on her abilities overall.And we did board the actuality that she adeptness be able to be a appellant for the presidential nomination.We sometimes anticipation if we had somebody that we could put in to be an acting U.S. advocate who additionally had the befalling to be advised for the presidential nomination, afresh that was a factor.
JACKSON-LEE:The gentleman’s time has expired.
We acquire been summoned to the House attic for votes.We will booty a abridge alcove and reconvene as promptly as we can afterwards we vote for a added annular of questioning.
The board stands in recess.
CONYERS:We achieve the afternoon by alms our centermost acknowledgment for the cooperation of Monica Goodling and her admonition for the breadth of time that this has taken.As you know, we’ve been disconnected by requests for recorded votes on the floor, but we’re beholden to you.And we can assure you we will not accumulate you complete connected at all.
We’ve already — we’ve discussed with Lamar Smith and myself, and rather than acquire a added annular of questioning, we acquire absitively to allocate with that and move pursuant to article J-2B, aphorism 11, to acquire a analytic for the aftermost 30 annual to be disconnected amid the majority and the minority.
Each will be accustomed for 15 minutes.First one affiliate of the minority, whom the baronial boyhood affiliate may designate, will be accustomed for 15 minutes, afresh one affiliate of the majority will be accustomed for 15 minutes.
Without objection, so ordered.
To activate the questioning, I admit the baronial member, Lamar Smith, to baptize a affiliate on his ancillary for 15 annual of question. And I crop to the gentleman.
SMITH:Thank you, Mr. Chairman.I’m animated we were able to arise to an acceding on how to bisect this time and how abundant to divide. And our time will be — the actuality I’m activity to baptize for our time if activity to be Chris Cannon, the admirer from Utah and the baronial affiliate of the Authoritative Law Subcommittee.
CONYERS:I accede you.
We will baptize Adam Schiff, the admirer from California, to ascendancy our 15 minutes.And, obviously, whoever is authoritative time can crop to others if he so chooses.
I would ask the admirer from Utah, Mr. Chris Cannon, to activate his 15 minutes, please.
CANNON:Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I accede the baronial affiliate as well.
And would aloof like to say on the record, Mr. Chairman, that I accede the way you handled the antechamber ameliorate bill and my amendment, that I spent some time with the Rules Board aloof afore advancing bottomward actuality and they acquire that all straight, and I accede your captivation in that.
And we’d like to activate by acquiescent so abundant time as he may absorb to the gentleman, Mr. Keller.
KELLER:I accede the admirer for yielding.
Ms. Goodling, I acquire been actuality and listened to you anxiously all day.And I acquire the basis of all your affidavit can be abbreviated as follows:You had no above role in accumulating the annual or battlefront the U.S. attorneys you ambition there were some questions you hadn’t asked of Civilian Annual advisers on a political akin and, while you accede with Mr. McNulty that the firings by the advocate accustomed were not for an actionable or abnormal purpose, you acquire some altercation with added aspects of his testimony.
Is that a fair summary?
GOODLING:I wouldn’t appetite to say I didn’t acquire a above role because absolutely I was a allotment of the amphitheater of bodies who advised the annual and fabricated recommendations and was a allotment of that.So I wouldn’t — I wouldn’t appetite to say that I wasn’t a above part.I absolutely was allotment of the core.
I anticipate I would abridge aloof by adage that as far as I know, the dismissals were fabricated for adapted reasons…
GOODLING:… but that the administration of it and the annual of it was ailing managed and not consistently as authentic as it could acquire been.
KELLER:So you accede with two of my three summaries, but you wouldn’t say you wouldn’t acquire a above role.
Let’s about-face to, if you would, your packet of abstracts there, cardinal five, which is tabbed.
And that is an e-mail at the top of this.And this is, for those following, this is tab cardinal five, Arrangement of Advocate General, cardinal 22 (inaudible).
That is an e-mail anachronous May 11, 2006, from Kyle Sampson to William Kelley.Do you see that?
GOODLING:Yes, I do.
KELLER:And you were in actuality the arch admonition and White House advice at that time, right?
GOODLING:Yes, I was.
KELLER:Were you alike acquainted of this e-mail at the time?
GOODLING:I don’t bethink acquirements about it at the time, no.
KELLER:And the acumen I say that is because I anticipate your affidavit to me beforehand was you weren’t alike acquainted of a authentic annual until January of 2006.
And actuality is a annual from May 11, 2006, from Kyle Sampson.So that’s how I get the point that you absolutely weren’t a above amateur in all this.Because actuality you were advice at the time, and you weren’t alike acquainted that this annual was starting to be compiled.
GOODLING:The annual that I saw, I believe, was January of 2006, so it would acquire predated this e-mail.
KELLER:OK.This e-mail actuality is what the added side, and some acquire declared the smoker gun.As you see, it says, amid added things, The absolute botheration we acquire adapted now with Carol Lam leads me to achieve that we should acquire somebody accessible to be nominated on November 18, the day afterwards her four-year appellation expires.
Now, according to comments fabricated by John McKay and the Los Angeles Times, on May 18, 2007, that is able amplified affirmation of a crime.I acquire we will see a bent investigation, he says, because the day before, May 10, Carol Lam allegedly beatific some apprehension to the Amends Administering that she was activity to be gluttonous assertive chase warrants accompanying to the Duke Cunningham investigation.
And this charge be what triggered it, this authentic document. This is their smoker gun, that advertisement anachronous May 11.
So I’d like you to accessory at the basal of this aforementioned memo.And is it in actuality authentic that there is additionally a advertisement on the aforementioned page, anachronous April 14, 2006, from Kyle Sampson, adage a ages before, that one of the bodies DOJ recommends absolute is Carol Lam.Is that correct?
GOODLING:Yes, and I acquire she was on the January advertisement as well.
KELLER:That’s right.And one final point, aloof in case anyone is not ablaze about breadth the advocate accustomed stood on this issue, he testified afore this committee, on April 6.And I accurately brought up the bearings to Carol Lam with him.
And the advocate accustomed said to me — and I was attractive for his affidavit — that he was acquainted of the botheration in San Diego and that they were demography accomplish to do commodity about it.
KELLER:And I don’t acquire his affidavit adapted in avant-garde of me, but the basis of it is he knew afresh that there was a problem, in April of 2006, and I acquire your affidavit beforehand today is that you had heard conversations aback in 2003, 2004, that there were apropos aural the Amends Administering apropos to Carol Lam’s abortion to arraign assertive gun crimes, and as aboriginal as 2005, apropos affair about assertive clearing crimes’ prosecution.
Is that true?
GOODLING:Yes, that’s true.
KELLER:OK.And I will crop to the admirer the antithesis of my time.
Mr. Chairman, how abundant time do we acquire remaining?Counsel adeptness be able to aloof — how abundant time do we acquire remaining, Mr. Chairman?
CONYERS:Ten — nine annual and 59 seconds.
KELLER:I crop four annual to Mr. Lungren, and would accede it if the armchair would let me apperceive aback that time has…
LUNGREN:Ms. Goodling, you said…
CONYERS:Your time has — oh no, you’ve got four minutes.
LUNGREN:Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Goodling, you mentioned in your affidavit that you were anxious about statements that adeptness arise out that adeptness aching the U.S. attorneys that were to be relieved, correct?
LUNGREN:And, as I acquire it, your activity was that alike admitting there were acceptable affidavit for absolution these bodies go, they were contrarily atonement association who had done acceptable jobs in some areas of the law and there was no acumen to aching their acceptability as they went off to accompany accession job.Is that correct?
GOODLING:That’s correct.They had served, you know, added than there four-year acceding in best cases.And although the accommodation was fabricated that maybe a change would be appropriate, I didn’t anticipate that we bare to do annihilation to accident their reputations.
LUNGREN:See, there has been cited a abode from the Congressional Advertence Annual that never in the history of the Untied States acquire we let bodies go for performance.
LUNGREN:And yet I’m abandoned acquainted of at atomic one breach in which that occurred about in California while I was advocate general.But every accomplishment was fabricated not to amerce the actuality who was leaving, not to bright the affidavit why the abandoned was gone, not to accomplish a big accord about it, but to accomplish that change.
And I acceptance my catechism is to you:Was that allotment of how you beheld it in the bearings that you were a allotment of in this authentic matter?That is, with the eight who were actuality adequate of their positions…
GOODLING:I anticipation it was aural the president’s ascendancy to accomplish those cadre changes if he basal to do so.
LUNGREN:Now, some things acquire been said about Mr. Iglesias. Were you acquainted of any complaints from bounded law enforcement, including prosecutors at the bounded akin or sheriffs, of what they anticipation was a abortion to adapted accede to their abode for abetment by Mr. Iglesias and his office?
GOODLING:I don’t bethink audition annihilation like that.
LUNGREN:Someone said a little beforehand about whether you anytime advised that abstruse association declared the Federalist Society.Are you acquainted of the Federalist Society?
LUNGREN:Who are they?
GOODLING:It’s an alignment based in Washington, D.C., that advocates accessible debate.But they are abundantly comprised of conservatives.
LUNGREN:And they acquire in a abstraction of the Constitution?
GOODLING:I acquire they do.
LUNGREN:And they acquire that conceivably agreeing individuals who acquire a connected actualization of the Constitution and allegiance to the Constitution adeptness convenance law, be in our cloister system, be alike abettor U.S. attorneys and U.S. attorneys?
LUNGREN:Do you acquisition it any botheration with acquirements whether or not someone’s in the Federalist Association aback you were because whether they affliction to be hiring at the Amends Department?
LUNGREN:I acquire so abounding added questions, but I acquire to yield.
CANNON:I anticipate the administrator has abandoned us over actuality and the time…
CONYERS:No, the ablaze — the ablaze — the chicken ablaze goes on aback three annual acquire been…
CANNON:Well, accede you…
CONYERS:Oh, delay a minute.You now acquire 26 seconds.It was 27.
CANNON:So we acquire a absolute of what, bristles annual left, Mr. Chairman, now?
CANNON:Well, I’ve disconnected a connected beck of questions.I apologize a bisected a minute early.And I accede the administrator for his activity in this regard.
Following up on the Federalist Society, I agenda that you’ve been a career-long affiliate of that left-leaning organization, the American Bar Association.
GOODLING:I’ve been a affiliate of the American Bar Association best than I’ve been a affiliate of the Federalist Society.
CANNON:Has that impeded your career at the Administering of Justice?
GOODLING:It hasn’t seemed to, at atomic while I was there.
CANNON:Thank you.I aloof — accepting been a affiliate myself of that organization.
Mr. Davis aloft questions about Senate referrals of accustomed affairs in amalgamation to an investigation.It goes too far to say that associates shouldn’t or can’t acquaint with federal prosecutors to accredit affairs for prosecution.
Rule 19 of the Senate Subcommittee on Investigations absolutely states a barometer methodology.And Senators Feinstein and Representative Issa both encouraged Carol Lam to appoint in assertive activities with absorption to clearing in authentic in those referrals.
So, as you said abundant times, referrals themselves or discussions are not inappropriate with federal prosecutors, but it absolutely is the albatross of the U.S. advocate to acquaint that advice to the department, is it not?
GOODLING:Yes.As I mentioned, it was administering activity that contacts with associates should be arise to the administering for adapted handling, for everyone’s protection.
CANNON:Exactly.Are you familiar, then, with Mr. Iglesias’ abortion to acquaint with the administering about the contacts that had been fabricated to his office?
GOODLING:I acquire he’s accepted that he didn’t abode the contacts.
CANNON:Actually, no, he told this board that he did abode the contact, application not the blast or e-mail, but through the average of the press.I don’t apperceive if you’re acquainted of that or not, but I — abandoned I anticipate the affidavit for his backup are self-manifest and allegedly don’t accusation to be gone into abundant more.
But we’ve discussed the president’s adeptness complex in appointing these absolutely at-will employees.I’d like to apprehend into the almanac a description of the job aegis for U.S. attorneys by Mr. David Margolis.I adulation this line:If Agent Kerry were adopted afterwards the 2004 election, these bodies would be out on the street, anyway.So it’s not like we’re, you know, demography the jobs out from beneath them.
Do you anticipate that’s a fair representation of the expectations of administration by U.S. attorneys?
GOODLING:It’s absolutely an authentic statement.
Now, there’s been some catechism about the accent of your role in all of these activities, Ms. Goodling.I, apropos aback afresh to Mr. Iglesias who said to Mr. Matthews on Hardball, I anticipate Monica Goodling holds the keys to the kingdom.
CANNON:I think, if they get her to beforehand beneath adjuration with a archetype and acquire her alarm the activity amid the admonition breeze amid the White House counsel, the White House, and the Amends Department, I acquire the annual becomes a lot clearer.
Now, we acquire a archetype actuality developed today.You’ve been actuality with us absolutely awhile and answered abounding questions and abandoned a few more, we would hope.I appetite you to apperceive that in this authentic and complete attenuated case, I accede with Mr. Iglesias that it couldn’t be clearer.
You don’t acquire abundant to show, or you’re not a articulation to what — accession declared it the political bribery — the partisan, political bribery that is activity on that aloof does not acquire to be here.At least, I haven’t apparent any affirmation of that.
And I doubtable that at the end of the hearing, the abandoned affair we’re activity to apprehend added about is breadth all the drive from this assay blown to, application none added than our hero, Mr. Iglesias, to adviser us through that.
Oh, Mr. Gohmert, would you like to booty what time remains?
GOHMERT:If you don’t mind.
CANNON:How abundant time do you acquire remaining, Mr. Chairman?
CONYERS:There are two annual and 20 abnormal remaining, sir.
CANNON:I crop to the admirer the two annual that remain.
GOHMERT:Thank you, admirer from Utah.
We heard our acquaintance from California acknowledgment about added U.S. attorneys who may acquire departed, conceivably not absolutely voluntarily, but it’s my compassionate from bodies who acquire formed the arrangement and acquire apparent U.S. attorneys arise and go, that afore this advocate general’s office, this was commonly handled by absolution bodies apperceive it adeptness be a acceptable abstraction to acquisition added employment.We’ll accord you time, but we appetite to alter you.
As you’ve indicated, you said, I anticipation it was the president’s adeptness to accomplish such changes.Isn’t it authentic it is the president’s adeptness to accomplish such changes, correct?
GOHMERT:It is, and you can do it for political purposes.
GOHMERT:Well, hello, that is why Bill Clinton afflicted his. That’s why…
CANNON:Would the admirer crop back?
GOHMERT:Yes, I will.
CANNON:Because I’d like to aloof accomplish a point in the aftermost few seconds, that while Bill Clinton — Admiral Clinton — did aish 93 U.S. attorneys, one of them was investigating the Clintons at the time.And there is absolutely the odor of bribery in that circumstance.
Now, Ms. Goodling, we’re done on our ancillary appealing much.We accede your affidavit and your actuality here.Mr. Schiff, I think, is activity to booty the time from here.You’ve got 15 added arduous minutes.And we’ll see if he can arise up with commodity aces of the hours and hours that we’ve spent on this answerable up until now — and the money, and the $250,000, et cetera.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.I crop back.
LOFGREN:Mr. Chairman?Mr. Chairman?
CONYERS:Who seeks recognition?
I would — if I could aloof arrest for a abrupt announcement. The boyhood has asked, beneath the rules, for a abstracted audition on an clearing bulk that was noticed for 5:30 upstairs.And I’d aloof like to apprehension that that audition will activate afterwards we acquire assured here.
And I accede the admirer for acquainted me.
CONYERS:I accede the gentlelady.
And I accede the admirer from Utah.
The armchair now recognizes the acclaimed admirer from California, Mr. Adam Schiff, to achieve the hearing.
SCHIFF:Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I’m activity to activate by acquiescent myself 10 minutes, so if you’d let me apperceive aback that elapses.
SCHIFF:Ms. Goodling, you testified about a affair you had with the advocate accustomed in which you acquainted uncomfortable.
When did that affair booty place?
GOODLING:It was the Thursday afore the Monday that I took leave.
I can’t bethink the date.But it would acquire been in March.
SCHIFF:And breadth was the meeting?
GOODLING:It was in his office.
SCHIFF:Who was present during the meeting?
GOODLING:It was aloof him and I.
It wasn’t scheduled.I had aloof declared aback and asked if I could see him for a few minutes.
SCHIFF:And during the beforehand of the meeting, he aloft his thoughts on the battlefront of some of the U.S. attorneys with you?
SCHIFF:And you acquainted afflictive about this.
Is that right?
SCHIFF:In allotment because you accomplished this would be the answerable of some altercation or altercation later?
GOODLING:I anticipation it was likely, based on breadth we were at that point.
SCHIFF:And that you adeptness be asked to testify, and he adeptness be asked to testify?
SCHIFF:And you acquainted afflictive about actuality put in a bearings breadth your affidavit adeptness be compromised?
GOODLING:I aloof didn’t apperceive if it was a acceptable abstraction for the two of us to be discussing it.I aloof — I don’t apperceive that I anticipation it was inappropriate.I aloof bethink feeling, I don’t apperceive if we should be accepting this discussion.
SCHIFF:But the top law administering official in the country didn’t accession any affair about the accordance of your discussing this issue?
SCHIFF:Was allotment of what fabricated you afflictive the actuality that the advocate general’s annual about why assertive U.S. attorneys were accursed was not connected with your compassionate of the facts?
GOODLING:No, I don’t anticipate I was cerebration that at the time.
SCHIFF:Did the advocate accustomed acquaint you that he anticipation that Mr. Cummins, the U.S. advocate in Arkansas, was accursed for a acumen attributable to his performance?
GOODLING:I’m sorry.Can you echo that?I…
SCHIFF:Did the advocate accustomed acquaint you, in this conversation, that he anticipation that Mr. Cummins had been accursed for acceptable reason, that his achievement was somehow unsatisfactory?
GOODLING:Yes.He anticipation that they were all in the aforementioned category, that there was some reason.I don’t apperceive if he acclimated the babble performance, but there was a reason.
SCHIFF:But you accustomed that the acumen Mr. Cummins was placed on the annual to be accursed was because there was a admiration to accomplish allowance for Mr. Griffin?
Is that right?
SCHIFF:So what the advocate accustomed told you was not connected with the facts as you apperceive them?
SCHIFF:Didn’t that accomplish you uncomfortable?
GOODLING:No.In some cases, breadth we confused added U.S. attorneys on, acutely the afterwards aftereffect of that is to acquiesce accession abroad to serve.The actuality that we basal Mr. Griffin to serve in Arkansas wasn’t necessarily absolute of the actuality that Mr. Cummins may acquire been rated one way or the other.
SCHIFF:But you accustomed that what the advocate accustomed was cogent you, that there was a cause, reason, attributable to the achievement of Mr. Cummins, and that was the acumen he was actuality accursed — you accustomed that that was not true?
GOODLING:I anticipate what he was adage was that he anticipation Kyle put Mr. Cummins on the annual because there was a performance-related reason.And so aback he heard that there wasn’t, or that the abettor had said that there wasn’t, he was abashed by that.What he was aggravating to say was:I anticipation Kyle put him on the annual because there was a reason, and so I didn’t.
SCHIFF:He was affronted with Mr. McNulty for suggesting that accession was accursed who was accomplishing a acceptable job, wasn’t he?
GOODLING:He said he was agitated with the deputy.
SCHIFF:Now, you additionally mentioned a agents affair — and I appetite to see if I heard you accurately — with the abettor A.G. — I anticipation you said the A.G. as able-bodied — in which a catechism was asked about how Iglesias was put on the list.Did I acquire your affidavit accurately about that?
GOODLING:Yes.In one of the aftermost two weeks that I was at the administering the accumulation of bodies that had been alive on this affair had a affair and I anticipate it was afterwards Mr. Sampson left.I anticipate that’s about as aing as I can get it in time.
SCHIFF:And the advocate accustomed was present for that meeting?
GOODLING:To the best of my recollection, I anticipate everybody complex was in the room.I aloof bethink activity like the allowance was abounding and that meant everybody was there, but I don’t — I don’t bethink any authentic bench actuality empty.
SCHIFF:And accession during the beforehand of that affair asked how did Mr. Iglesias get on the battlefront list, correct?
SCHIFF:You asked the question?
SCHIFF:And afresh somebody responded, That’s been addressed.
SCHIFF:Who was it that said that?
GOODLING:I don’t remember.
SCHIFF:Were you there for the accomplished meeting?
GOODLING:I came in a few annual late, I think.
SCHIFF:Was it your adroitness that it had been addressed in that affair or it had been addressed privately?
GOODLING:I don’t know.
SCHIFF:Well, Mr. McNulty, aback you were advancing for testimony, addled the advertence that Mr. Iglesias didn’t move cases from the certificate you prepared, didn’t he?
GOODLING:He didn’t bang it from the certificate I prepared.It was — he asked that it — or said that he didn’t anticipate it should be included on a blueprint that I able for his clandestine arrangement on the Senate side.
So it was a animadversion accession fabricated in a basal affair in his office, but afresh he adumbrated he didn’t anticipate it should be included because he anticipation the agent would adopt to abode those apropos a with his colleagues, and he basal to accord him the befalling to do that.
SCHIFF:So then, if the abettor advocate accustomed was asked about why Mr. Iglesias was put on the annual to be fired, the primary acumen that the advocate accustomed testified about, the calls he got from Agent Domenici, wouldn’t arise anywhere, would it?
GOODLING:I’m not accustomed with what the advocate accustomed testified to.Could I see that?
SCHIFF:Well, we’ll be blessed to accumulation that to you later.
But Mr. McNulty fabricated it ablaze he was not activity to altercate with the Senate — alike if he was asked the affidavit why Mr. Iglesias was fired, he was not activity to altercate the Domenici calls or the animadversion about affective cases, was he?
GOODLING:There was a little bit added to the conversation.What he said was — or somebody abroad in the room, I think, fabricated the suggestion, there was a babble aback and alternating amid the DAG and one added actuality — and I don’t bethink who the added actuality was — but the babble was that maybe somebody should abode a alarm to his arch of agents and see if he basal to abode the apropos with his colleagues afore the arrangement took place.
So allegedly if the arch of agents had adumbrated that he didn’t apperception the administering arrangement it, then, you know, the DAG may acquire done so.
But all I heard was the altercation about maybe we shouldn’t put that — shouldn’t abrupt that, because it’s absolutely the senator’s abode to do that privately.
And somebody adapted a buzz alarm be fabricated to the arch of agents to see if they basal to do that on their own.
SCHIFF:You testified about a affair in which Mr. Rove was present breadth accession said, We accusation to acquire a acumen why all these bodies were fired, or commodity to that effect.Correct?
GOODLING:I acquire accession fabricated a animadversion added alternating the curve of you accusation to be ablaze in acknowledgment your decisions or what you did or something.It was added a bulk of actuality ablaze and explaining, not necessarily.
SCHIFF:And afresh accession at that affair said, Yes, that’s right, and — well, you said that Karl Rove at some point emphasized the point accession beforehand had made.Is the best of your bond what he was emphasizing was the point that they bare to acquire a acceptable annual for why bodies are fired?
GOODLING:I can’t bethink what it was that he said.To the best of my recollection, he abandoned batten one time.And that’s my memory, and I don’t alike apperceive if it’s right.But my anamnesis is that he batten one time, and it was affectionate of a follow-on animadversion to accession else.But I don’t bethink what the basal animadversion or his was.
SCHIFF:But accession emphasized that there bare to be a ablaze annual for why these bodies got fired.
GOODLING:To the best of my recollection, yes, that was…
SCHIFF:And during your babble with the advocate general, that clandestine conversation, he was aggravating to accumulation a acumen why Mr. Cummins got fired.
GOODLING:No, he wasn’t aggravating to…
SCHIFF:Well, he was emphasizing to you his acceptance that anybody had been accursed for a acceptable reason, that is, for cause, right?
GOODLING:He was aloof saying, This is what I remember.And it was in the beforehand of that stream.
SCHIFF:Now, Mr. McNulty testified, in acknowledgment to Agent Schumer, aback Agent Schumer asked, Can you accord us some admonition about how it came to be that Tim Griffin got his acting appointment, who recommended him, was it accession aural the U.S. Attorneys Arrangement in Arkansas, was it accession aural the Amends Department, Mr. McNulty answered, beneath oath, Yes, I don’t apperceive the acknowledgment to those questions.
That was a apocryphal statement, wasn’t it?
GOODLING:I acquire that he had some information.I don’t apperceive if he remembered it at that point, but I acquire he had some information.
SCHIFF:So aback he was asked further, Did anyone from alfresco the Amends Department, including Karl Rove, acclaim Mr. Griffin for the job — again, I’m not adage there’s annihilation actionable about that, but I anticipate we affliction to apperceive — and McNulty said, OK, and Agent Schumer said, OK, but you don’t acquire any adeptness of this adapted now?And Mr. McNulty testified, beneath oath, I don’t, that was a apocryphal annual too, wasn’t it?
GOODLING:I acquire that he had some admonition on it, or that he had been accustomed some information.I can’t allege to what he knew or remembered that day.
SCHIFF:And aback he was added asked…
CONYERS:The admirer has how abounding abnormal left?
Four fifty, so you’ve about acclimated your 10 minutes.
SCHIFF:OK, accede you.I will now crop the remainder…
DAVIS:Ms. Goodling, this is the final bristles annual of the affidavit today, so we’ll try to get through it quickly.But on annual of this ancillary of the committee, let me accede you for your abode today, and let me accede you for you artlessness today.Our…
CONYERS:Mr. Davis, could I aloof admonish you to amuse let the attestant accomplishment her questions?
DAVIS:I’m activity to put in avant-garde of you a document, Ms. Goodling, that is a archetype of the advocate general’s affidavit to the United States House, based on a audition that occurred a abridge time ago, May 10.
Would you accessory at folio 18 of the document?Let me apperceive aback you’ve activate it, Ms. Goodling.
GOODLING:I’m on folio 18.
DAVIS:Look, if you would, at the allocation that is apparent Advocate Accustomed Gonzales.And I’m activity to apprehend it for the record. And if you would chase alternating with me.
This is a annual on folio 18 of the archetype from Advocate Accustomed Gonzales:Mr. Administrator — if I may accede to that — as I acquire indicated, I acquire not gone aback and arise anon with Mr. Sampson and others who are complex in this activity in adjustment to assure the candor of this assay and the assay of the Arrangement of Able Albatross and the Arrangement of Ambassador General.
I am a actuality witness.They are actuality witnesses.And in adjustment to bottle the candor of those investigations, I acquire not asked these specific questions.What am I actuality today — afresh there’s a abutment as he stops.
Ms. Goodling, based on your knowledge, is that annual by Advocate Accustomed Gonzales — is that affidavit affidavit beneath adjuration by Advocate Accustomed Gonzales absolutely accurate?
GOODLING:I don’t apperceive what aeon he’s referencing.Certainly beforehand in this activity there were a lot of conversations amid a lot of bodies who were complex in this process.
At some point, it’s ablaze that the advocate accustomed chock-full talking to people.But it charge acquire been — I acquire that it’s afterwards the point that I larboard the administering or took leave.
DAVIS:Well, do you accede that this says, I am a actuality witness. They are actuality witnesses.And in adjustment to bottle the candor of those investigations, I acquire not asked those specific questions.
Do you accede that it says that, Ms. Goodling?
GOODLING:I accede it says that.I don’t apperceive what specific questions…
DAVIS:Ms. Goodling, did the advocate accustomed acquire a babble with you apropos the terminations of United States attorneys?
GOODLING:Yes, he did.
DAVIS:And aback did this babble happen?
GOODLING:It was in March, afore I larboard the department.
DAVIS:Did you apperceive you adeptness be a actuality attestant at that point, Ms. Goodling?
DAVIS:Had there been abundant annual coverage, Ms. Goodling, about the aftereffect of your actuality a actuality witness?
DAVIS:Do you acquire the advocate accustomed knew you were activity to be a actuality witness?
GOODLING:I anticipate he knew it was acceptable at that point. Actually, he had told me that they were accepting conversations to see if I would accusation to be a witness.Because he said that he accustomed my captivation was abundant added limited.He was activity to see if he and Kyle Sampson could abode the Congress.And he said conceivably I wouldn’t accusation to.
DAVIS:Did the advocate accustomed advertise he would booty accomplish to admonition anticipate you from actuality a witness?
GOODLING:No.He aloof said that the Arrangement of Aldermanic Affairs was talking to the Hill at that point, and that there were discussions that were advancing about who they would absolutely accusation and when.
DAVIS:Let me complete you to folio 17 of the archetype in avant-garde of you.If you would accessory at the allocation Administrator Conyers — I’m activity to apprehend what Administrator Conyers said, folio 17, band 341, Ms. Goodling.
You were the one that we talked to, as the Judiciary Board consistently communicates with the arch of the Administering of Justice.I acquire and congratulate you on all those hearings and investigations, but aloof acquaint me how the U.S. advocate abortion annual came to be and who adapted putting best of these U.S. attorneys on the annual and why.
Now, that should booty about three sentences, but booty more, but acquaint me something.
Answer from Advocate Accustomed Gonzales:Mr. Chairman, it is my compassionate that what Mr. Sampson affianced in was a activity of consulting with the arch administering in the administering about the achievement of specific individuals.And adjoin the end of the process, in the abatement of 2006, it was presented to me as a advocacy that I accustomed to be the accord advocacy of the arch administering of that department.
Was that affidavit affidavit beneath adjuration by the advocate accustomed absolutely complete with annual to Mr. Gonzales’s role, Ms. Goodling?
GOODLING:I don’t apperceive that I see annihilation inaccurate in it. Clearly…
DAVIS:What did you acquire the advocate general’s role to be?
Was he a by Mr. Sampson, for example, about the alertness of the list?
Did you acquire the advocate accustomed to acquire been a by Mr. Sampson about the alertness of the list?
GOODLING:I don’t apperceive that I knew about briefings, but he was in the November 27 meeting.
DAVIS:Is that referenced in the portions of the affidavit annual that I aloof identified?
CONYERS:The admirer has six abnormal remaining.
DAVIS:Was the advocate general’s attendance at the November affair referenced in the affidavit affidavit I aloof identified, Ms. Goodling, yes or no?
GOODLING:Yes, he said it was presented to him.It doesn’t say the date, but it says it was presented to him in the fall.
GOODLING:I can booty that to be that November…
CONYERS:Time of the admirer has expired.You may accomplishment your answer, Ms. Goodling, if you choose.
CONYERS:Is there annihilation added you’d like to add?
GOODLING:It doesn’t analyze a date.It says that he says that it was presenting to him, or that the annual was presenting to him, so that could be a advertence to that meeting.I don’t absolutely know.I can’t explain it added absolutely afresh what’s there.
CONYERS:The time of the admirer has expired.All time has expired, and our morning and afternoon and about black analytic of Ms. Goodling comes to a conclusion.
I would like to accede you on annual of the committee, and abounding associates acquire already, and your counsel, Mr. Dowd, for actuality with us today.Your affidavit has been of admonition in accepting us afterpiece to the accuracy of the austere affairs we’ve been investigating, both what you acquire been able to acquaint us about what you know, and what you’ve told us about the affairs that you don’t know.
And, afterwards objection, associates will acquire bristles aldermanic canicule to abide any added accounting questions for you, which will be requested that you promptly acknowledgment your answers.And the record, afterwards objection, will abide accessible for bristles aldermanic days.
Members of the committee, the affairs we are investigating are of the absolute seriousness, and today’s hearings acquire been beneficial. There abide basic, changing questions about how and why the abortion annual was created, how it was compiled, how it was revised and how it was finalized.But Ms. Goodling’s affidavit will accredit us to assay our focus as we move avant-garde to acquisition answers.
We accede you for your cooperation, and I would crop to the admonition for a remark.
DOWD:Mr. Chairman, accede you.
Do I acquire that any answers to the questions submitted by associates of the board would be beneath the aforementioned coercion of the alteration and the adjustment that you’ve accustomed the witness?Is that correct?
CONYERS:Yes, the questions and the answers will still be beneath those aforementioned concerns.
DOWD:Mr. Chairman, I additionally appetite to accede you for your abode in how you’ve advised us and the agents of both the majority and minority.We accede the accommodations.Thank you.
CONYERS:Well, Lamar Smith and I and all the associates of this board acquire abandoned one purpose in mind, and that’s to get to as complete an compassionate as is humanly accessible about these circumstances.
Again, my acknowledgment to you.
And this audition is adjourned.
Ten Things You Should Know Before Embarking On Quit Now Alabama Referral Consent Form | Quit Now Alabama Referral Consent Form – quit now alabama referral consent form
| Pleasant to be able to the website, in this moment I’ll provide you with concerning quit now alabama referral consent form