shelbinator.com

What on earth can we make of a House committee hearing when the main element of the entire lead-up coverage has been about how delicate and crying-prone the witness is? I figured it was just the media looking for something juicy to talk about (like the borderline criminal conduct throughout the DOJ and a 5th amendment plea wasn’t juicy enough). However, the committee itself has just spent the first 10 minutes of convening going out of its way to move the cameras and press out of the well and away from the gentle witness, Ms. Monica Goodling.

Alright, the hearing’s finally underway. Monica’s hair, by the way, looks fantastic.

10:42 - Alright! Very first question and she’s already pled the fifth not to clarify whether she received any orders from anyone in particular!

10:46 - Goodling’s statement: the Deputy AG’s allegation that she didn’t provide him the necessary information for his testimony is false. After that, the chain of “A said that B said that C…” confused me and I went for more coffee. But the gist of it is, “I was sent home and boy was I surprised when the DAG blamed me for his lousy testimony.”

10:49 - Here’s the key line: “…and I do not recall that [Miers and Rove] ever communicated [attorney recommendations] to me.”

10:52 - She may have gone too far in some cases with political questioning for certain political appointments, and she regrets any such mistakes.

10:53 - Now we get to know a little bit about her: she’s a quiet person, she chose Christian universities b/c of the value they place on service, and she considers her coworkers her family and doesn’t want to speak ill of any of them. The voice is starting to waver like crazy.

Conyers just asked her about the nine attorneys and she asked not to speak about Graves, the ninth, as she has “conflicting memories” about him. We shall hereafter be discussing “the eight,” who were apparently compiled by Kyle Sampson, according to Goodling.

11:05 - Lamar Smith (ranking member) basically asked her the point-blank questions of “Did Rove or Miers have conversations with you about whom to fire?” and “Do you have any knowledge that the White House’s advice was to gain a political advantage or retaliation based on prosecutions?” She gave the obvious “No” and “I have no such knowledge.”

Now she’s trying to be as nice as possible about saying DAG McNulty didn’t necessarily mislead the committee on purpose in his testimony, but she felt like he unfairly blamed his downplay of White House role in the firings on her not briefing him adequately and she sure did brief him adequately. She doesn’t think he intentionally left things out, because, “as I’m finding out right now, testifying is hard!” Like math!

11:11 - Chris Cannon (R-UT) is whining about having this hearing in the first place because he’s still not convinced there’s any politicization of the Justice Department (he apparently doesn’t watch the news). Now he’s deflecting reality by reading an article (oh guess he does read some papers) about John Murtha, who called lobbying reform “total crap,” and told Mike Rogers (R-MI), “You’re not going to get any earmarks [in the defense approp bill] now or ever,” being quite the tough guy. WTF does this have to do with crap, Cannon? His time has expired, and he didn’t address the issue at all. Jerk.

11:14 - Linda Sanchez (D-CA) - Did you go tell people that you felt DAG McNulty’s testimony wasn’t so hot? Yes, a couple people (including Sampson), but mostly she was concerned that the DOJ might be going down an ugly road of saying bad things about the attorneys they had fired when they didn’t have to. Did she have any personnel experience before? Goodling tried to start by citing her role as class president in college, Sanchez interrupted dismissively and is steering her toward her role in the EOUSA. Sanchez is being kind of snippy and interruptive.

11:19 - Sanchez reads allegations in the paper that Goodling blocked the hiring of someone based on his “liberal Democratic” leanings. Goodling admits she may have made a snap decision and she regrets it, but he was eventually hired. How many other times did you do that? I can’t tell you exactly what all the hiring decisions were based on.

Oh good God here comes Sensenbrenner. I need coffee.

11:22 - ‘brenner is trying to point out that all of the eight had completed their four year appointments, so what’s so unusual about firing them if they’d have to be reappointed anyway? [No, Jim, they wouldn’t.] He also cited specifically that Sen. Feinstein had written the AG about Carol Lam’s sub-stellar performance prosecuting smugglers. Now he’s complaining about the committee and “this fishing expedition” and its spending the taxpayer’s money.

11:24 - Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) cuts right to the point: why did you invoke the fifth amendment, what crimes were you aware of? She said she wasn’t involved with or aware of any particular crime but was concerned about McNulty’s allegations about her not telling him all he needed to know. [Hmm. Fair point.] “I don’t think he was being fully candid…. I gave him a lot of information and he didn’t use all of it.”

11:27 - Again with the political hiring decisions: Ms. Ashton didn’t get a job, allegedly b/c Goodling thought she was a Democrat, but Goodling says I think it was just a question of “two type A women” not working well together, she can’t recall exactly what else went into decisions about Ashton’s career. Did anyone instruct you to ask these kinds of questions about people’s career advancement? Because of the issues involved in certain prosecutions, she was made aware that she could consider “other factors” in career decisions.

11:30 - Howard Coble (R-NC) - Asks for elaboration on the discrepancies b/w early reports of “poor performance” versus later reality of good performance reviews, and who’s in charge of that? She believes that’s up to the DAG and AG…but these evaluations are based on “hundreds of pages” of reports on the effectiveness of the office. Um.

Her job at DOJ: she was one of about 3 people who evaluated non-career political hirings; general liaison with the WH about “what was going on” at DOJ; and in the other direction, hooking up political appointees with fun opportunities at the WH like seeing “the Stanley Cup champions.” Yeehaw!

11:35 - Bobby Scott (D-VA), chmn subcommittee on crime, saying “the criminal justice system cannot function” if people don’t perceive it as fair, and we’ve seen serious allegations of political favoritism that undermines the rule of law. Scott’s aide is annoyingly chewing gum in the background. Do you believe these political considerations were legal or illegal? I do not believe I intended to commit a crime. The best I can say is that I took political considerations into account…and I crossed the line [of civil service rules]…but I didn’t mean to. [Ummmm…. Though I’m very proud of her for not going for the strategically placed box of Kleenex at this point, I’d be crapping myself.]

Were prosecutions (or failures thereof) of particular political parties a factor in the firings? Not that she was aware of. She was aware that Domenici had concerns about Iglesias’ performance.

11:41 - Elton Gallegly (R-CA) - Do you agree with the assessment this affair could’ve been handled differently and how? She does: it would have been a good idea to have documented the reasons for the formation of the list, based on these random comments made at meetings; and maybe the could’ve [OMG] given the USA’s a chance to address these concerns! But basically they were shafted without consultation because of the whole “pleasure of the president” thing, and they didn’t want to “make the departures more painful” by haggling over job performance.

As for when she saw Sampson’s list, she doesn’t remember knowing any reasons why the list was the way it was. Gallegly keeps referring to USA’s as “judges” when he asks if, like the concerns about Iglesias, she learned about the reasons for the list later on. At a meeting Sampson said about Bogden a general sentiment that “they could do better.” At that point Goodling recalled to Sampson and Gonzales there was an earlier such instance involving the Patriot Act that had “gotten messy,” [that’s important!], she looked at them inquiringly, and they decided to go ahead anyway.

11:47 - Mel Watt (D-NC) - Says Goodling’s testimony that she didn’t influence the list conflicts with Sampson’s earlier testimony that she recommended taking Ms. Wagner off the list. Yes, she recommended they retain her. So you were inaccurate earlier this morning? No, when I said “them” I meant “the White House,” I did not advice the WH on any USA’s to keep or fire. What was your basis for recommending she come off the list? I remembered her project regarding gun crime doing very well, and she was very helpful duing the Patriot Act reauthorization. Do you remember making a note that she “bends over backwards for AG visits?” Yes, that was in reference to the Patriot Act office visits. Do you think that was relevant? Yes I think it’s a good thing to note when people are very responsive when you ask for help. What kind of help are you talking about? I just mean when you ask someone to write an op-ed or put together a visit, some USAs are just very responsive.

Hmmmmm.

11:52 - Dan Lungren (R-CA), a former AG of CA, is going on and on talking about his own decisions regarding careers of employee attorneys and how certain political factors are appropriate to consider because they will affect their performance, like whether they believe in the death penalty or not. Lungren’s aide is also chewing gum like a madman.

Clarifying her “crossed the line” comment, she tried to focus on hiring people who would support the AG’s priorities enthusiastically. Now Lungren is hammering away on the pleasure of the president factor, so isn’t it fine to fire whomever whenever, so long as you stand by your earlier statement that you didn’t believe the firings to interfere with any active prosecutions? Agreed.

11:58 - Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) - Did you ever ask a candidate whom they voted for? Political appointees, yes. Career positions? I can’t be sure, I may have. Would it be fair to say we stopped hiring in this [civil service] field because you couldn’t apply a political litmus test? Well some people were applying for both political and civil service positions so they would have been asked political questions.

Now they’re talking about the ninth, Graves, and her conflicting memory is confusing me.

And thank God, there’s a recess. But Ms. Goodling found her feet soon after the wavering bit, and stayed strong throughout. I think the whole Kleenex thing was totally overblown, she’s no weepy little girl…and her hair still looks thuper!

Sod this liveblogging, I’m out.

12:25 - Okay wait a sec. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) just asked that Ms. Goodling’s answers be “as cryptic and brief as possible.” Cryptic? What?

Can you tell us what Mr. Rove knew about or did to contribute to the firings? She knew that “White House political” office had signed off on the plan, which does report to Mr. Rove, but she can’t say for sure what he knew. Rep. Lee said the only way they’ll know the truth is if Rove is sitting where Goodling’s sitting, “and he needs to be here post haste.”

12:30 - Keller (R-FL) - What were your conversations regarding Carol Lam? I know she was working on gun crime b/c that was my area, and I recall when people would talk about her district it was that it was underperforming (noted in the 2003-04 timeframe). The other concern mentioned was immigration prosecutions, may have been some letters from Congress coming in while I was in EOUSA in 2005. Did you ever hear that she should be fired for prosecuting Duke Cunningham or any other official? Not that I recall. Any such word from the WH? I don’t recall hearing anything like that. Keller goes on to read an article saying fired USA McKay suspected Lam was fired over Cunningham, but Keller holds up various testimony about gun crime and immigration related news. He’s got a point but stretches it way too far saying “so it is literally impossible” that she was fired over Duke Cunningham b/c the first complaints about her immigration performance started 14 months before the Cunningham story broke. [Uh, I don’t see the logical integrity at all.]

12:36 - Maxine Waters - Why did you resign? I just didn’t feel I could be effective working with USAs every day having been part of this whole affair. Before that you worked for the RNC on opposition research? Yes. Did you use your opposition research skills once at the DOJ? I think that’s a negative term when it’s really just using Westlaw and Lexis. I know what it is, did you use your opposition skills at DOJ? I certainly used Westlaw and Nexis. Did you use them to make decisions about who should be retired? Retired, no, we would get resumes from people and you would Google them and check Westlaw to make sure there wasn’t anything negative about them. Did anyone else help you with that? It was basically me and my assistant, we didn’t ask junior employees. Did you discuss the research you had done with Rove? No. Anyone in his office? Research, uh, maybe someone in the office like Scott Jennings. Let’s think deeper, you may have discussed your research about political appointees? Not with Mr. Rove, but maybe with someone in political affairs, saying I checked this person out and I don’t think they’d be a good fit for whatever reason. Did you document your research? I didn’t keep a file, normally if I found something negative we wouldn’t hire them and I didn’t keep a file. Would you support us having access to the files you did keep on political appointees? That’s not my call. Do you think it’d be helpful for us to know what was in there? That’s not my call, but I don’t think it’s relevant.

[Whew, that got dicey. Maxine Waters obviously never Googled anybody, swinging “opposition research” around like a dead cat.]

12:42 - Darrell Issa (R-CA) - Basically rehashing the whole Feinstein letter about Lam’s performance. Now pointing out that “opposition research” is a silly red herring b/c the FBI does extensive background research on appointees. “The FBI is certainly better at research than I am.” Issa says he himself talked to Ashcroft and Bush about he concerns about Lam’s poor performance. Carol Lam is not a Republican is she? I don’t know her affiliation. Well I know, it’s public in California; but she’s a career professional…you chose on a non-partisan basis.

Issa argues that the Clinton admin disproportionately chose Democrats for appointments including judges, but isn’t it the right of the president to choose people who will support their policies? I think it is the right of the president to hire people in that way.

[Note: hiring people is different from firing people in the middle of an administration.]

12:47 - William Delahunt (D-MA) - I’m surprised the AG by exec order delegated such authority to a newbie like you, bypassing McNulty; are you aware of that exec order? I am. Can you tell us why that EO bypassed the second in command and stated that he was not to be made aware of that EO? This issue came up Fall ‘05, management determined that DAGs in the past had signed off on personnel decisions not delegated to them, and they had further delegated such authority to others, resulting in problematic personnel decisions. Yes but why not at least notify the DAG, why a specific statement that the DAG not be notified regarding an EO that caused considerable controversy in the DOJ? I don’t think it generated controversy, that article was not accurate, and it was not an EO it was an AGO, but Mr. Sampson was going to talk to Mr. McNulty, and people didn’t think it would make sense for the DAG to sign off on an AGO that gave him authority he didn’t have actually.

How would you describe Mr. Comey’s reputation and legal credentials? A straight shooter, and outstanding.

12:53 - Mike Pence (R-IN) - Takes issue with an article’s description of Regent University as sub-par, where she got her MPP and JD - and where the AG of VA got his degree. Do you have a problem with the president picking people from conservative schools? No. Well this graduate of a Christian school appreciates that sentiment.

[Um, hi, okay, good for you two. Love-fest over.]

Lousy handling is different from wrong-doing. [Good parry! woo!]
And now we’re talking about the criminalization of politics; taking politics into consideration in the appointment of officials is vital to the republic; is there anything illegal about the president hiring or dismissing anyone for any reason he sees fit? No.
[Repeat such questions several times, same answer.]

12:58 - Cohen (D-TN) [I’m pretty sure] Why did you choose Christian universities? I had a faith system and I enjoyed being with people who shared my values.
What is the will of almighty God on the legal profession?
I’m not sure I can answer that.
Did you ever ask people about their religion or did it come up for AUSA appointments?
Not to the best of my recollection.
[some question I missed about consideration]
I wasn’t looking for people who held a certain faith system, but I know the president likes people who [have strong convictions? or something? distracted]
Were there a lot of appointments from Regent University while you were there?
No I think we have a lot more from Harvard and Yale.
“Well that’s refreshing.” [Dick.] Are you aware that 50% of the people in your class failed the bar? [Dick]
I didn’t know the number, I knew it wasn’t good, and I was glad I passed.

—–

Recess till 2pm. I’m really going to the lab this time.

—–

Let’s see if I can think heat treats and congress at the same time.
2:15 - Oh good gravy, Randy Forbes (R-VA) is waxing indignant that “we’ve come to that day” when “being a Christian” is the subject of questions about how you do your job. Yeah, that guy Cohen was being douchey, but Ms. Goodling herself brought up Christianity at the outset in her opening statement. Forbes said he hopes the people watching today will “notice the sea change we’ve undergone.” Yeah, we’re not under the complete control of the Bush theocracy anymore! OMG! Maybe that guy should see how the FDA operates….

Now Forbes is off on a complete tangent once again, not at all related to Goodling or the DOJ, talking about Murtha growling at the Republican about defense appropriations. Nice soapbox, Randy.

2:19 - Robert Wexler (D-FL) - Who else was at the meeting at the WH where Rove was at? Field, Kelly, Perino from communications, Sampson and myself and DAG, Elston, Michela, some others…Rove came in late and left early.
Did Rove say the DOJ needed specific reasons to provide for firing the attys?
That came up but I don’t remember what was the occasion.

2:25 - Steve King (R-IA) - He is lauding Mr. Forbes’ rant and is now telling us how the founding documents of Harvard University talk about the Puritan faith and providing support to ministry, and Yale’s founding docs also cite religion and the concern that Harvard was straying from its Calvinistic roots, and thus Regent is a successor to Harvard & Yale for being founded on religious principles, which he thinks is laudable, and “we will, on this side of the aisle, stand up for our constitutional principles as well as our Christian principles, whenever they are challenged and even when they are not.” KING OF THE DOUCHERY! HUZZAH! HUZZAH! Yes, once again, the GOP claims ownership of the Christian faith. Mother of Christ!

He asked one procedural question about DOJ personnel matters, and is now rehashing what Forbes ranted about other issues the Congress should be dealing with, calling this hearing “a circus without a cause.” I have never, ever heard anything out of King’s mouth that isn’t irritating or useless.

2:30 - Our slow-talkin’ new Rep from Dekalb, Hank Johnson - Asked who is paying for the 3 attorneys she has with her? She’s paying them herself, though will look into setting up a legal defense fund.
You say you may have gone too far asking political questions of career applicants, did that include AUSA’s?
Yes.
About how many times did that come into question, 30, 40, 50, more?
I don’t know that I could estimate that; there were times people came to the department interested in either career positions or political positions at the same time.

[Now a member of the audience objects to the chairman b/c Johnson keeps interrupting Goodling’s answers; Johnson asks the chair if he can respond; he cannot; he doesn’t want her answers taking up all his time (though they weren’t very long); Goodling starts to answer again, Johnson interrupts again saying she’s being unresponsive to his question (though really, I think she was). His time expired, Goodling was allowed to finish her answer, and Johnson tried to wedge in a followup question anyway. Yeah, Johnson did not make Dekalb proud today.]

2:49 Louie Gohmert (R-TX) just said, in relation to people inquiring whether USAs are prosecuting voter fraud cases, “I understand that our majority is trying to bring about a vote where nobody’s checked and anyone can vote.” Yes, we are the party of voter fraud, thanks Gomer. How are those absentee ballots coming?

2:52 And now Gomer is talking about references to Christianity at Harvard. Jesus, they’re sensitive. OH, snap! And now he points out that the hate crimes law might apply to someone on this committee who asks someone a question regarding their religious beliefs and…hell he lost me, but you get the gist.