« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Gonzales: Witness Tampering? No, It Was Witness Consolation.
Monica Goodling testified to Congress in May about a meeting she had with Gonzales where he'd given her his recollection of the firing process. It took place in March of this year, after the U.S. attorney firing controversy had blown up and Congress signaled that it would be investigating. Gonzales' discussion of the matter had made her "uncomfortable," she testified.
Gonzales had repeatedly told both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees that he had not spoken to any of the players in the firings about them in order to preserve the integrity of their testimony. That was evidently false, as Gonzales implicitly admitted today. But more than that, Gonzales has to worry about whether that conversation might constitute witness tampering or obstruction of justice. The Justice Department's internal probe of the firings has expanded to include whether Gonzales might have been improperly trying to shape Goodling's future testimony.
Today, Gonzales gave his best shot at explaining that conversation away. You had to understand the context, he said. And this was "in the context of trying to console and reassure an emotionally distraught woman.” He gallantly tried to assure her that "no one had done anything intentionally wrong" -- but just to make her feel better. He was not trying to "shape her testimony," he said.
LEAHY: When Monica Goodling testified under oath before the House Judiciary Committee, she crossed the line with the unprecedented vetting of potential career hires for political allegiances throughout the department, including apparently for career assistant U.S. attorney positions. I'm not talking about political positions, but for career ones. She testified under oath that she crossed the line. Were you aware that Ms. Goodling was doing so?GONZALES: That she was crossing the line? No.
LEAHY: Were you aware that she was asking about political allegiances in vetting career Justice Department?
GONZALES: I don't recall being aware of that. If I'd been aware of that, that would have been troubling to me.
LEAHY: Do you know whether other officials at the White House were aware she was doing that?
GONZALES: Not that I'm aware. Let me just mention I'm aware -- and I think I became aware after the U.S. attorneys were asked to resign -- there was an issue that I became aware of where Ms. Goodling apparently asked a potential career hire into the D.C. U.S. attorney's office improper questions. So at some point I did become aware of that. But otherwise I can't recall being aware of other instances where she may have asked improper questions.
LEAHY: So when you consider, recommend or approve candidates for appointment to career positions at the department, do you ever consider their political party affiliation or ideology or membership in nonprofit organizations or demonstrated loyalty to the president or any of those matters?
GONZALES: Did I? No.
LEAHY: Do you ever?
GONZALES: Do I ever? No.
LEAHY: Do you know whether anybody else in the department does that?
GONZALES: Well, again, apparently, based upon the testimony, it appears that Ms. Goodling, as she testified, may have cross the line.
LEAHY: Have you made it clear that people cannot do that?
GONZALES: Yes. We have now revised policies both with respect to immigration judges, with respect to Civil Rights Division, with respect to career assistant United States attorneys, with respect to the honors programs. We've changed our policies to make it clear.
LEAHY: Do you make that clear, that nobody at the White House can do that either?
GONZALES: In terms of?
LEAHY: Those hires.
GONZALES: I don't know whether or not I have not communicated with the White House about that, no.
LEAHY: It might not be a bad idea. (LAUGHTER) They also have -- they're also in the book. Feel free to contact them. You testified to both the Senate and House Judiciary Committee that you didn't speak with anyone involved in the firings of the U.S. attorneys about that process because you didn't want to interfere with the investigation.
LEAHY: But on May 23rd, Monica Goodling testified under oath before the House Judiciary Committee that she had an uncomfortable conversation with before shortly before she left the department during which you outlined your recollection of what happened and asked for her reaction. Which one of you is telling the truth?
GONZALES: I did have that conversation with her in the context of trying to console and reassure an emotionally distraught woman that she had done something wrong. And I tried to reassure her, as far as I knew, no one had done anything intentionally wrong. And that was the basis of the conversation that I had. She came to my office -- this was March 15th, just days after this really became a big story. And she came in and she was emotionally distraught and...
LEAHY: But, you know, we sent you written questions on this yesterday -- so on the eve of this, we got answers and no place in there did you make reference to that. So it's your statement now that she did come and you did talk with her?
GONZALES: Again, we had the conversation for the purpose of -- I had a -- my conversation with her, she was seeking to get a transfer. I was simply trying to console this very emotionally distraught woman.
Comments (107)
Slim Pickin's wrote on July 24, 2007 2:25 PM:His tone here didn't ust make me go eww. It was more like, EEEEWWWWWWWWW!
Who said chivalry is dead?
ifthethunderdontgetya wrote on July 24, 2007 2:31 PM:Monica Goodling, distraught?
Funny, she struck me as a cold hearted harpy.
Johann wrote on July 24, 2007 2:35 PM:Gee. If she didn't think there was anything wrong, she had no reason to be distraught.
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 2:35 PM:Well, she was crying for like an hour or two. He was her boss too. Nonetheless, if he's indicted for witness tampering he should resign, or be impeached.
urban pirate wrote on July 24, 2007 2:42 PM:Please dont feed the trolls. They are paid to distract.
I volunteer to be a mod to keep out people who post endlessly and disruptively.
Johann wrote on July 24, 2007 2:44 PM:Impeach. Send a message to all future AG's that lying to Congress and stonewalling Congressional investigations will not be tolerated. Otherwise, a precedent is set that Congress is really impotent.
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 2:48 PM:ifthethunderdontgetya:
Were you paid to post that?!
biggerbox wrote on July 24, 2007 2:56 PM:How did Gonzo graduate from Harvard Law? He didn't have to know very much to realize that, despite whatever chivalrous response he might have had, he needed to avoid talking to that woman.
Even a graduate of her bogus law school should have been able to understand a direct "I can't be talking to you, you are a potential witness", and understand why she was left to find someone else's shoulder to cry on.
Context, my ass. It wasn't kindly Mr. Whipple consoling the check-out girl about her boyfriend. The context was that two legal professionals in highly responsible positions, about to be embroiled in a Congressional investigation. Good lawyers would know how to behave.
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 3:03 PM:Saying "It's going to be O.K." and handing her a Kleenex is hardly witness tampering.
Amos Rutledge wrote on July 24, 2007 3:07 PM:>>> Funny, she struck me as a cold hearted harpy.
What she struck me as was a much shorter word than "harpy."
Anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 3:22 PM:Wow, who would have thought that being handed a Kleenex and told "It's going to be O.K." would leave someone feeling uncomfortable. Seems he screwed that up too.
tjallen wrote on July 24, 2007 3:28 PM:Big difference between explaining what he thought her testimony ought to be, and handing her a Kleenex. Wake up Jake.
chimpeach wrote on July 24, 2007 3:41 PM:Here, allow me to help refresh some faulty memories. It was not "It's going to be O.K." Here's Goodling's testimony:
"He laid out for me some of his general recollections...of some of the process for the replacing of the US Attorneys," she said. "He asked me if I had any reaction to his iteration, and I remember thinking at that point that this was something we were all going to have to talk about, I didn't know if it was maybe appropriate to talk about that at that point, and as far as I remember, I just didn't respond."
Funny, Goodling seemed to suspect it might be tampering.
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 3:47 PM:Fine, it could have been: "I do remember you giving me a list with names, but I don't remember any of us intentionally trying to politicize these replacements, do you?" After she starts crying, Gonzales handed her a Kleenex and told her: "It's going to be O.K., don't worry, just tell the truth."
Jane wrote on July 24, 2007 4:06 PM:How comforting to her to allow her to give her reaction to his recital. Gonzales lies again.
PBen wrote on July 24, 2007 4:11 PM:We didn't do anything wrong, did we? in that context is blatant coaching.
Posted by: Jake D.
>> Fine, it could have been: "I do remember you giving me a list with names, but I don't remember any of us intentionally trying to politicize these replacements, do you?" After she starts crying, Gonzales handed her a .44 and told her: "It's going to be O.K., don't worry, just do what you think is right."
chimpeach wrote on July 24, 2007 4:15 PM:I fixed that for you....
"Fine, it could have been: 'I do remember you giving me a list with names, but I don't remember any of us intentionally trying to politicize these replacements, do you?'"
Yup, that would be enough to call it witness tampering, especially when he shouldn't have been talking to her about the U.S. Attorney firings AT ALL. And, he was fully aware of that, because he even said to the SJC at an earlier hearing that he was unable to answer certain questions, unable to ask his staff about them, due to the ongoing investigation.
Anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 4:22 PM:"My administration will avoid even the APPEARANCE of impropriety"... King George Bush
grad69 wrote on July 24, 2007 4:37 PM:So, Bert was doing his best to console her, and her main remembrance was that it made her "uncomfortable." Heckuva job, Al. You can't even do that right.
J. Thomason wrote on July 24, 2007 4:44 PM:How can someone remember the "intention" of another? Suggesting that he knew her "intention" could be nothing else than attempting to shape her testimony.
chimpeach wrote on July 24, 2007 4:47 PM:"Fine, it could have been: 'I do remember you giving me a list with names, but I don't remember any of us intentionally trying to politicize these replacements, do you?'"
Yup, that would be enough to call it witness tampering, especially when he shouldn't have been talking to her about the U.S. Attorney firings AT ALL. And, he was fully aware of that, because he even said to the SJC at an earlier hearing that he was unable to answer certain questions, unable to ask his staff about them, due to the ongoing investigation.
chimpeach wrote on July 24, 2007 5:08 PM:"Fine, it could have been: 'I do remember you giving me a list with names, but I don't remember any of us intentionally trying to politicize these replacements, do you?'"
Yup, that would be enough to call it witness tampering, especially when he shouldn't have been talking to her about the U.S. Attorney firings AT ALL. And, he was fully aware of that, because he even said to the SJC at an earlier hearing that he was unable to answer certain questions, unable to ask his staff about them, due to the ongoing investigation.
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 5:34 PM:I saw it the first time, chimpeach. My silence should, in no way, convey agreement with your legal opinion on what constitutes witness tampering.
rule wrote on July 24, 2007 6:40 PM:Wow, those trolls are persistent.
I agree with a good post above. These aren't two people in the breakroom of some factory in Ohio. They are supposed to be legal professionals at the highest levels of the justice department of the greatest superpower on the planet. They should have known they shouldn't be talking about that.
Isn't it amazing that he now uses that "I cant' talk about that" excuse in his testimony when it's politically expedient but not then when Goodling stopped by that day. Funny how his mind seems to allow him to know things one moment and not the next. Maybe he should see a doctor.
parrot wrote on July 24, 2007 7:44 PM:Pretty clear perjury. Goodling only testified to what happened, not to what she was trying to do...Gonzalez is testifying about what he was trying to do in a conversation that on its face seems to have been legally inappropriate at best. Of course, later, he couldn't "console" the committee with the more than the same testimony that he tried to pass on to Goodling when she was emotionally distraught.
Still, I'm curious about that meeing on Nov 27 that AG AG can't seem to remember...probably where the intent to mislead the public and the Congress was place on the agenda. Naturally, AG AG is surrounded by forgetfulness when there is criminality afoot...and those memos he signed? He doesn't know where the content came from, who was behind the scenes making it happen? Well, then, surely, he needs to be impeached right away...
chimp wrote on July 24, 2007 8:20 PM:Gonzo repeated at least three times how this "woman", and almost let slip out, "girl", was "emotionally distraught". Way to throw her under the bus, Fredo. Nice. On the one hand he tries to make out like he's the hero consoling this irrational creature, while undermining her credibility with the other.
What a transparent ploy. Stunts like that might work on a jury in a personal injury case, but not likely to fool a panel of career prosecutors.
I'm thinking perjury, obstruction, and witness tampering.
Rule of law.
anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 9:41 PM:JakeD: "My silence should, in no way, convey agreement with your legal opinion on what constitutes witness tampering."
I'm sure you didn't learn anything useful about witness tampering at "Stanford Law," since you learned nothing about evidence.
The Oracle wrote on July 25, 2007 1:08 AM:Gonzo met with Monica, not over testimony, but over the latest waterboarding techniques. This is why she was crying. Crying, that is, for "More! More!"
Gonzo later stated that he was sent to "counsel" Monica on "behalf of the President of the United States," claiming executive privilege, especially regarding the sensual waterboarding technigues they were testing, but only for national security purposes.
Hey, this sounds as plausible as Gonzo claiming that he only met with Monica to console her, and not to try to make sure their "recollections" were consistent, so they wouldn't be caught in outright lying to Congress.
Oh, what a tangled web we weave....
SC: Doubt.
As in, it is beyond a reasonable doubt that the Bush administration is by far the worst, most incompetent and most corrupt administration in American history. There is no doubt. No doubt at all.
incunabulum wrote on July 25, 2007 9:25 AM:They should have asked him again.
"Have you spoken with Ms. Goodling since her appearance here before this committee?"
"Did you stop by to once again 'tell' her your recollection?"
"Something along the lines of, 'From what I remember I was just consoling you. I was trying to reassure you because you were distraught. Yes. I distinctly remember you being upset. And I remember how kind I was. I am not trying to influence your account of what happened that day. I'm just sayin'...'?"
Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 12:17 PM:badnews:
That's not the CIA directly -- that's Fitzgerald's "summary" -- try again.
Rodney Lamprey, jr. wrote on July 26, 2007 1:31 AM:First Gonzales says that he did learn that Monica Goodling had asked inappropriate questions of career hires, then Gonzales says that he consoled Ms. Goodling by telling her that no one had done anthing wrong. He just contradicted himself in almost the same breathe.
also, Gonzales says that they revised the policies so that hires would not be screen by inappropriate information. Hadn't that always been the policy, or did he or Ashcroft change the earlier policy? Can Gonzales offer proof that he actually revised the policy recently to stop illegal screening, or did he just lie again?
MODAeuon wrote on October 8, 2007 7:51 PM:The too is necessary to you? People! Same very simply to find!
LjXiUuon wrote on October 9, 2007 2:47 AM:xanx http://med241.fateback.com/xanx.html
Who knows where to find the ?
RyCOquon wrote on October 9, 2007 11:43 AM:advertising greenville newspaper http://yc3475511dn.h16.ru
Chill! I have an information on the the is well!
SADqeuon wrote on October 12, 2007 10:31 PM:som without prescriptions http://prohom.imess.net/som-without-prescriptions.html
order viagra online
Cqzjeuon wrote on October 13, 2007 6:33 AM:order viagra online
cipo without prescription
Belladonna wrote on October 21, 2007 10:33 AM:cipo without prescription
Belladonna
ZApUjuon wrote on October 31, 2007 7:14 AM:d
HOgqyuon wrote on November 2, 2007 7:48 AM:d
s
HOgqyuon wrote on November 2, 2007 7:48 AM:s
s
MAbeUuon wrote on November 5, 2007 1:28 AM:s
LJLFSEREDSFDSFDSFFDSFTRTTSSGFSGF
SANOyuon wrote on November 5, 2007 5:50 AM:l
LJLFSEREDSFDSFDSFFDSFTRTTSSGFSGF
SANOyuon wrote on November 5, 2007 5:50 AM:l
LJLFSEREDSFDSFDSFFDSFTRTTSSGFSGF
ByljUuon wrote on November 5, 2007 10:09 AM:l
LJLFSEREDSFDSFDSFFDSFTRTTSSGFSGF
PiCOyata wrote on November 5, 2007 11:50 AM:l
ugguuftytfsdghkogbfryjnkll
Pjreqata wrote on November 9, 2007 6:14 AM:by nexium online
ugguuftytfsdghkogbfryjnkll
GOhUeuon wrote on November 13, 2007 5:26 AM:alprazolam anax cod overnight
a
WyzqUata wrote on November 14, 2007 5:53 AM:a
cheap tramadul no prescription
WyzqUata wrote on November 14, 2007 5:54 AM:cheap tramadul no prescription
cheap tramadul no prescription
XOsUyata wrote on November 14, 2007 2:49 PM:cheap tramadul no prescription
cialis levira viagra
VebqUata wrote on November 14, 2007 6:18 PM:cialis levira viagra
cialis levira viagra
VebqUata wrote on November 14, 2007 6:19 PM:cialis levira viagra
cialis levira viagra
FqleUata wrote on November 15, 2007 6:23 AM:cialis levira viagra
brand carisoprodol collins
KUTAjata wrote on November 15, 2007 9:55 AM:brand carisoprodol collins
cipro hc otic drops
VUmqjata wrote on November 15, 2007 1:26 PM:cipro hc otic drops
cipro hc otic drops
BUCyqata wrote on November 15, 2007 4:51 PM:cipro hc otic drops
meridia hillcrest hospital
DUvAOggg wrote on November 15, 2007 7:06 PM:meridia hillcrest hospital
dollar car rental com
LjXAyggg wrote on November 18, 2007 8:08 PM:dollar car rental com
rental cars cheap
HqXeiata wrote on November 19, 2007 11:03 AM:rental cars cheap
The most popular source of drug information online
FOheyggg wrote on November 19, 2007 12:29 PM:The most popular source of drug information online
,
FOheyggg wrote on November 19, 2007 12:30 PM:,
,
ma104zda wrote on November 19, 2007 2:01 PM:,
c798t
ViwAyata wrote on November 19, 2007 5:32 PM:buy zoloft online
ViwAyata wrote on November 19, 2007 5:33 PM:buy zoloft online
buy zoloft online
GymUjggg wrote on November 20, 2007 10:15 PM:buy zoloft online
a
GymUjggg wrote on November 20, 2007 10:16 PM:a
a
GqbUjggg wrote on November 23, 2007 9:43 PM:a
rental cars cheap
NjTAOata wrote on December 2, 2007 8:45 AM:rental cars cheap
lipitor muscle ache
NjTAOata wrote on December 2, 2007 8:45 AM:lipitor muscle ache
lipitor muscle ache
XApUqggg wrote on December 2, 2007 8:24 PM:lipitor muscle ache
2549
XApUqggg wrote on December 2, 2007 9:18 PM:2549
2549
XApUqggg wrote on December 2, 2007 9:18 PM:2549
2549
TApUjuon wrote on December 5, 2007 10:47 AM:2549
f
Pymiquon wrote on December 5, 2007 3:32 PM:f
q
PyCAeuon wrote on December 6, 2007 8:21 PM:q
o
PyCAeuon wrote on December 6, 2007 8:23 PM:o
o
Nebqiggg wrote on December 7, 2007 7:57 PM:o
dosage of xanax
Nebqiggg wrote on December 7, 2007 7:58 PM:dosage of xanax
dosage of xanax
Nebqiggg wrote on December 7, 2007 7:59 PM:dosage of xanax
dosage of xanax
CUheOuon wrote on December 10, 2007 9:09 PM:dosage of xanax
:)L2lzyqw0vBdvE8X:)
HObUqata wrote on December 12, 2007 8:12 AM::)
ppa
HObUqata wrote on December 12, 2007 8:12 AM:ppa
ppa
Kexiyata wrote on December 27, 2007 5:38 AM:ppa
Vv
XUhqAata wrote on December 29, 2007 8:13 AM:Vv
Vv
CeKqUggg wrote on December 31, 2007 10:28 AM:Vv
2
CeKqUggg wrote on December 31, 2007 10:29 AM:2
2
CeKqUggg wrote on December 31, 2007 10:30 AM:2
2
CeKqUggg wrote on December 31, 2007 10:31 AM:2
2
SemqUggg wrote on December 31, 2007 11:32 PM:2
kokkk21
XONqiggg wrote on January 1, 2008 7:13 AM:kokkk21
kokkk21
FOxijggg wrote on January 2, 2008 1:36 PM:kokkk21
2
PygjAggg wrote on January 2, 2008 6:36 PM:2
e
PygjAggg wrote on January 2, 2008 6:37 PM:e
e
Fyhjqata wrote on January 4, 2008 8:11 AM:e
buy
Fyhjqata wrote on January 4, 2008 8:12 AM:buy
buy
HiNeyata wrote on January 7, 2008 5:55 PM:buy
best
CUvqiata wrote on January 10, 2008 8:07 AM:best
best
XOleUata wrote on January 19, 2008 8:40 AM:best
best
KjmUiata wrote on January 21, 2008 4:47 AM:best
best
KjmUiata wrote on January 21, 2008 4:47 AM:best
best
VebqUata wrote on January 25, 2008 7:22 AM:best
lear
VebqUata wrote on January 25, 2008 7:22 AM:lear
lear
VebqUata wrote on January 25, 2008 7:23 AM:lear
lear
VebqUata wrote on January 25, 2008 7:23 AM:lear
lear
PACiUata wrote on January 27, 2008 12:55 PM:lear
buy
XODjUata wrote on January 28, 2008 1:34 PM:buy
best
SjlUeata wrote on January 29, 2008 9:57 AM:best
buy
buy