Goodling Testifies Before The House Judiciary Committee

REP. JOHN CONYERS JR., D-MICH.CHAIRMAN:Good morning, Madam Witness, and to the members of the committee.

Today, the House Judiciary Committee continues its investigation into the controversy surrounding the United States attorneys and related matters.

Our sole witness today is Ms. Monica Goodling, who served as senior counsel to the attorney general and White House liaison until she resigned on April 7th, 2007.

As the members know, two months ago Ms. Goodling informed us that she would assert her Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate herself if she was called to testify.

As a result of that assertion, this committee, after careful consideration, authorized, by a vote of 32-6, a grant of immunity to Ms. Goodling, which we have secured from the chief judge of the United States District Court for the District -- the D.C. District.

The committee also authorized a subpoena to compel her testimony, as well as the production of documents.

Now, these are steps that I did not take likely, but only after consultation with the ranking member, Lamar Smith, and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle with the Justice Department.

I believe that this is an important and necessary step to help us get to the bottom of the U.S. attorney matter and other concerns regarding possible improperly politicalization of the Justice Department.

As the White House liaison and one of the attorney general's most trusted advisers, Ms. Goodling may well have information that will help us in our inquiry.

Let me observe that the fact that we are granting limited immunity to Ms. Goodling for her testimony should not be taken as any indication that the committee believes that she is guilty of a crime. Nor does the fact that she is testifying today mean that she necessarily has a greater role than some of the other individuals involved in the firing whom we have already interviewed or who have testified.

CONYERS:She is before us today in a public hearing simply because we have no other means of obtaining her testimony in a timely manner.

We appreciate your cooperation.

I would hope that the fact of her testimony would encourage others to come forward and cooperate with our inquiry.And that includes personnel in the White House itself, whose role in these firings appear to grow more central every day, every time another Department of Justice official denies recommending putting any particular prosecutor on the firing list.

The issues we are examining -- which include possible obstruction of justice, misleading the Congress, violations of the Hatch Act -- are obviously serious.If we cannot trust the Department of Justice to fairly and impartially enforce our nation's laws, if we cannot trust the testimony of our most senior officials in the administration, if it appears that the U.S. attorneys are merely pawns in a game of politics, then we will have suffered the loss of one of our nation's most fundamental principles, the rule of law.

And I would now recognize our ranking minority member -- whom I commend for the cooperation that has existed between all of us on this committee -- the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Lamar Smith, the ranking minority member.

REP. LAMAR SMITH, R-TEXAS RANKING MEMBER:Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Goodling, welcome.You are apparently the last witness we're going to hear from who's worked within the Department of Justice.

And let me say at the outset, I know this is not an easy process for you to go through, and I know you've never had to endure anything like this hearing before, which I think makes us all particularly appreciate of your being here.And thank you for being here.

Mr. Chairman, we, our staff, the public and the media have pored over reams of documents, heard from nearly 20 witnesses, issued a plethora of subpoenas and taken the extraordinary step of immunizing your testimony.

The Senate has received and examined evidence as well.

For some time, many have been on the edges of their seats, waiting for the moment in which you, Ms. Goodling, as the department's former White House liaison, might link the U.S. attorney dismissals to any appropriate action by Karl Rove or Harriet Miers.

I understand that the majority staff already has learned that you never had any contact with Mr. Rove or Ms. Miers.I do not share their disappointment.

When this investigation began, the department defended its actions on the ground that the dismissed U.S. attorneys served at the pleasure of the president.

When pressed, the department volunteered that the dismissals were mainly performance-related.

When examined, the evidence of performance problems was in some cases well-documented, and in other cases not.

SMITH:The questions about the differing degrees of proof as to whether this or that U.S. attorney really was dismissed for performance reasons have helped fuel the speculation.

With regard to the dismissals, the right interpretation may just be that the dismissals were in fact for performance reasons or, in one case, to offer an opportunity to another qualified candidate.

Finally, with regard to this investigation itself, we and our investigators see ever more clearly that the accusations of wrongdoing in these eight U.S. attorney dismissals don't seem to have legs.

But we won't stop.Instead, some try to graft on new legs, whether with regard to other U.S. attorneys, or with hearings in which we hear about the attorney general's activities as White House counsel or with new allegations against you, Ms. Goodling.

We want to hear from you today so that we can find out the truth, clear the air or take other appropriate steps.

We have not reached any final conclusion.And we should not until we know all of the relevant facts.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.I'll yield back.

CONYERS:I thank the gentleman.

And without objection, all other members' opening statements will be included in the record.

We'll now hear from Ms. Monica Goodling.

Ms. Goodling served in a variety of capacities in the Department of Justice, beginning in the Office of Public Affairs, then for a short period in the U.S. attorney's office in the Eastern District of Virginia, then in the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys and most recently in the Office of the Attorney General, where she was senior counsel to the attorney general and White House liaison.

She received her law degree from Regent University School of Law in 1999.

CONYERS:Ms. Goodling is accompanied by counsel.And we would please ask that he introduce himself for the record.

DOWD:Mr. Dowd.

CONYERS:Good morning, Mr. Dowd.

DOWD:Mr. John Dowd and Jeff King and Jim Sherry, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer Feld, on behalf of Ms. Goodling.

CONYERS:Thank you very much.We'll welcome-- we welcome you and are happy that you are here.

And under our House rules, Ms. Goodling is entitled to have counsel present for the purpose of advising her as to her constitutional rights.

And we thank you very much, sir.

I want to make sure you understand that your authorized role is to advise Ms. Goodling, and more specifically to advise her as to her constitutional rights.And with that understanding, we have furnished you with your own copy, counsel, of the notebook that we have given Ms. Goodling containing a number of documents that she may be questioned about today, to facilitate you and her memory and cooperation.

Have you received those documents?

Thank you.

And have you received them, Ms. Goodling?

GOODLING:Yes, thank you.

CONYERS:The documents are tabbed to make it easier to locate them if and when there is any necessity to use them.

We have also provided copies of the notebook to our friends up here for the same purpose.

REP. DAN LUNGREN, R-CALIF. :Mr. Chairman, point of personal privilege.

CONYERS:What is it?

LUNGREN:You just referred to some documents.We don't have them at our place here.

CONYERS:We gave a number of them...

LUNGREN:Are those the ones that were just given to us beforehand that...

CONYERS:Yes.

LUNGREN:OK.

CONYERS:Yes, sir.They're being copied now, Mr. Lungren.

One housekeeping matter before we proceed.

Ms. Goodling, our subpoena requires that you furnish us documents in your possession, custody or control relating to matters we're investigating.And although we have mentioned this to your counsel, we believe the committee is entitled to receive the documents without delay.

We understand from counsel that you wish to confer with your former employer, the Department of Justice, before they're released to us.And we will work with you to give you a reasonable time to take care of that, reserving the right to take further action if necessary.

Oh, you do have them?Thank you.Thank you very much, Counsel Dowd.

Ms. Goodling, given -- yes, sir?

DOWD (?):We're already corresponded and communicated about the balance of them with both you and the Department of Justice.

CONYERS:Exactly.

DOWD (?):Thank you, sir.

CONYERS:I thank you, sir.

Ms. Goodling, given the gravity of the issue we're discussing today and your role in the hearing, and to help ensure that there's no misunderstanding about your obligation here, we would ask that you be sworn in before we proceed.

Would you kindly raise your right hand?If you would please stand and raise your right.

Do you solemnly swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to provide the committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

GOODLING:I do.

CONYERS:Thank you.

Ms. Goodling, let us begin.

I will ask you, who made the recommendations to place the list -- place on the list of the United States attorneys to be fired each of the nine U.S. attorneys who were in fact terminated in 2006?

GOODLING:Upon the advice of my counsel, I respectfully decline to answer the question, based upon my Fifth Amendment right not to be a witness against myself, and my Sixth Amendment right to rely on my counsel's advice.

CONYERS:Ms. Goodling, I am hereby communicating to you an order signed by Chief Judge Hogan of the United States District Court for the D.C. District.

The clerk is bringing to you now a certified copy of the order to you.And we've made a copy for your counsel.And without objection, the order will be placed in the record.

The order provides, in substance, that you may not refuse, on the basis of your Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, to provide testimony or other information to this committee under compulsion.

The order also provides that testimony or other information obtained from you under compulsion pursuant to the order may not be used against you in any criminal proceeding, nor may information derived from what you provide us under compulsion be used against you as long as the testimony and other information you provide us is truthful.

As I am sure your counsel has no doubt advised you, you are obligated to answer each question completely and truthfully.And failure to do so could subject you to prosecution for perjury or for giving false statements to Congress.

So I want to be careful about how you answer each question.

CONYERS:And if you occasionally need to confer with your counsel, Mr. Dowd, before answering a question, we will be happy to accommodate you in that regard.And if a member has that happen, the clock will be suspended so that our time won't be running while she might be conferring with her counsel.

With that said, Ms. Goodling, pursuant to the order you now have in front of you, I direct you to answer the questions that will be put to you regarding our investigation as I have just described it.

This, Ms. Goodling, completes the procedure for conferring use immunity on you pursuant to the order.

Now, before we begin questioning, Ms. Goodling, I appreciate that you have a statement in writing that you would like to make.And we welcome it at this time.And we will include your statement in the record, and invite you to begin whenever you would like.

I ask the clerk to distribute copies of Ms. Goodling's written statement to every member of the Judiciary Committee.

You may proceed whenever you'd like.

GOODLING:Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, Chairman Conyers...

CONYERS:Pull the mike up just a little closer to you, please.

Nice loud voice.

GOODLING:Good morning, Chairman Conyers, Ranking Member Smith and members of the committee.Thank you for allowing me to make this statement.

With the committee's permission, I would like to submit lengthier written remarks to be entered into the record.

CONYERS:Without objection, so ordered.

GOODLING:My written remarks will address four topics that I expect will be of interest to the committee.

GOODLING:First, I wish to set the record straight regarding what I understood to be the deputy attorney general's allegation to Senator Schumer that I withheld information from him prior to his public and private testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The allegation is false.I did not withhold information from the deputy.

To the contrary, I worked diligently to compile and provide the deputy with dozens of pages of statistics and other information that I thought he was likely to need, based on the questions that were being asked at that time.

Despite my and others' best effort, the deputy's public testimony was incomplete or inaccurate in a number of respects.

As explained in more detail in my written remarks, I believe the deputy was not fully candid about his knowledge of White House involvement in the replacement decision, failed to disclose that he had some knowledge of the White House's interest in selecting Tim Griffin as the interim U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Arkansas, inaccurately described the department's internal assessment of the Parsky commission, and failed to disclose that he had some knowledge of allegations that Tim Griffin had been involved in vote- cadging during his work on the president's 2004 campaign.

After the deputy's public testimony, I continued to work to assemble information that the deputy had promised to provide in a future, private session.

On February 14th, 2007, the deputy attended a private briefing with the Senate Judiciary Committee.That afternoon I rode with him to the Senate building, intending to observe the session and support the deputy by providing any information that I had.

GOODLING:However, a few minutes before the private Senate briefing was to take place, the deputy made clear to me that he did not think I should attend.The deputy suggested that if someone recognized me as the White House liaison, the members would be more likely to ask questions about the White House.

As a result of that conversation, I waited outside the room while the deputy briefed the Senate committee.

During a break, Richard Hurtling told me the briefing was not going well, and recommended that I return to the department immediately.Like the deputy, Mr. Hurtling suggested it could complicate matters if I was recognized as the White House liaison.As a result, I returned to the department in a taxi.

In light of these events, I was surprised to learn that the deputy had blamed me for his incomplete or inaccurate information.

Second, I wish to clarify my role as White House liaison.

Despite that title, I did not hold the keys to the kingdom, as some have suggested.I was not the primary White House contact for purposes of the development or approval of the U.S. attorney replacement plan.

I have never attended a meeting of the White House Judicial Selection Committee.The attorney general and Kyle Sampson attended those meetings.

To the best of my recollection, I've never had a conversation with Karl Rove or Harriet Miers while I served at the Department of Justice.And I'm certain that I never spoke to either of them about the hiring or firing of any U.S. attorney.

Although I did have discussions with certain members of their staffs regarding specific aspects of the replacement plan, I never recommended to them that a specific U.S. attorney be added to or removed from Mr. Sampson's list.And I do not recall that they ever communicated any such recommendation to me.

Third, I wish to address my role in selecting U.S. attorneys for replacement.

I first learned that others more senior to me were discussing the possibility of replacing some U.S. attorneys at some point in mid- 2005.And I believe I first saw a list of candidates for replacement in January 2006, when Mr. Sampson showed me a draft memorandum he was preparing for Harriet Miers.

GOODLING:At that time, I recommended that two of the U.S. attorneys Mr. Sampson had listed be retained in office and that certain other U.S. attorneys be considered for replacement.

Paul Charlton and Daniel Bodgen were two of the U.S. attorneys that I recommended considering for replacement.However, it appears from the documents produced to Congress by the department that Mr. Sampson did not initially accept that recommendation.Mr. Bogden and Mr. Charlton did not appear on iterations of the list sent to the White House in January, April or May, and first appeared on the list in September 2006, presumably for reasons unrelated to my initial recommendation.

Although I'm prepared to tell the committee what I know about the eight replaced U.S. attorneys, the truth is that I do not know why Kevin Ryan, John McKay, Carol Lam, Paul Charlton, Daniel Bogden, David Iglesias and Margaret Chiara were asked to resign in December of 2006.

I can describe what I and others discussed as the reasons for their removal, but I just can't guarantee that these reasons are the same as those contemplated by the final decision-makers who requested these resignations.

However, I'm not aware of anybody within the department ever suggesting the replacement of these U.S. attorneys to interfere with a particular case or in retaliation for prosecuting or refusing to prosecute any particular case for political advantage.

Fourth, I wish to clarify my role in career hiring at the department.

During my five years at the department, I believe that I interviewed hundreds of job applicants, and the vast majority of these were applicants for political appointee positions.But some were applicants for certain categories of career positions.

Specifically, I interviewed candidates who were to be detailed into confidential policy-making positions and attorney general appointments, such as immigration judges and members of the Board of Immigration Appeal.I also interviewed requests for waivers of hiring freezes imposed on districts with an outgoing U.S. attorney or interim or acting U.S. attorney.

In every case I tried to act in good faith and for the purpose of ensuring that the department was staffed by well-qualified individuals who were supportive of the attorney general's views, priorities and goals.

GOODLING:Nevertheless, I do acknowledge that I may have gone too far in asking political questions of applicants for career positions, and I may have taken inappropriate political considerations into account on some occasions.And I regret those mistakes.

In conclusion, I'd like to give the committee a little better sense of who I am, because the person that I read about on the Internet and in the newspaper is not me.

At heart, I'm a fairly quiet person.I try to do the right thing, and I try to treat people kindly along the way.I always knew that I wanted to grow up and do something to serve or help other people.I went to public schools growing up, but I chose Christian universities in part because of the value that they place on service.

I've seen in my life what violent crime can do to its victims. And I knew that at some point I wanted to do my part to seek justice on their behalf.And that's why I've loved the Department of Justice, particularly my time as a prosecutor.

For the five years that I spent there, I worked as hard as I could at whatever task that was put before me.And I hope that's the reason that I was promoted five times during my time at the department.

I considered the people that I worked with to be my family.And I care about them deeply.

I have no desire to say anything negative about anyone that I worked with, including the leadership team or the U.S. attorneys who are the subject of my testimony.But I'm here to be a fact witness to what I heard, saw, did or know, and I'll do that to the best of my recollection.

Thank you for allowing me the time to make this statement.I'm prepared to answer your questions.

CONYERS:And I thank you for your statement.

Let me begin the questioning.And I want to just go back to the beginning here.

Could you tell the committee who made the recommendations to place on the list of U.S. attorneys to be fired each of the nine U.S. attorneys who were in fact terminated last year?

GOODLING:Mr. Conyers, let me just say that, in relation to Todd Graves, who I believe you're considering as the ninth, my recollection on that is slightly -- I have slightly conflicting testimony -- or memories.So I'd prefer to leave him out of most of what I talk about today, if I could, just...

CONYERS:You're going to be talking about the eight?

GOODLING:Right, right.

I'm happy to tell you what I remember about Mr. Graves, but in my mind, I have slightly conflicting memories of what happened there. So, for purposes of the testimony, I'd prefer to reference the eight.

In terms of those eight, I know that Mr. Sampson compiled the list.And I know that he told me that, at different times, he talked to different people about it.He never told me exactly who recommended which name and at what time they did that.And that's...

CONYERS:So, from your point of view, your answer to the question would be Kyle Sampson.

GOODLING:I mean, Mr. Sampson compiled the list.I know that he did speak to the deputy attorney general about it.And I know that he presented it to the attorney general.

CONYERS:And the attorney general being Mr. Alberto Gonzales?

GOODLING:Yes, sir.

CONYERS:Now, let's just take one example, the one that is so paramount here, David Iglesias, who was not put on the list to be fired 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 recommend a committee, just seeking the facts in the matter -- who would you recommend to answer that question?

GOODLING:I think Mr. Sampson's the only person who can tell you at what point he put that name on the list.

I can tell you that before I left the department, because there were questions about Mr. Iglesias, we had a staff meeting.And I believe the attorney general, the deputy attorney general were in the room, as well as a number of those of us that had been involved in this process.

CONYERS:The deputy attorney general and the attorney general.

GOODLING:Right.

CONYERS:Yes, ma'am.

GOODLING:It was toward the end of my time.

And I said -- I asked the question at that point -- I still don't know how Mr. Iglesias got on the list.And someone in the room just said, That's been addressed.And that was all they said.

So I didn't get from that answer any answer that I could provide to the committee.

CONYERS:Do you know who it was that gave that answer?

GOODLING:I don't remember.

CONYERS:Now, what did Mr. Kyle Sampson tell you about the origins of the process and how he came up with the names that were on the list?And I know you had a number of discussions with him, but just pulling them all together, as you can best recall.

GOODLING:To the best of my recollection, the first time he mentioned it to me was in January, when he stopped by my office with a draft copy of the memorandum and asked me to take a look at that.I don't believe he gave me any context at that time.

I had heard that he was engaged in an effort in mid-2005, because I was working in the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, and I know that he had spoken with both Mary Beth Buchanan and Mike Battle at various points.

GOODLING:And they had mentioned it to me.

So I knew that he had been engaged in some effort to evaluate U.S. attorneys before I spoke to him in January about it.But that's the first time I recall.

And I don't remember him telling me -- giving me any background at that point other than just handing me the memo and asking me to take a look at it.

Later in the year, he sent me a memo in September -- an e-mail in September.And, again, because he sent me the e-mail I don't remember that he gave me any context, of course, other than what was in the e- mail.

I think...

CONYERS:That was last year, in 206 -- 2006.

GOODLING:Yes, I'm sorry.September of 2006.

When we had the November 27th meeting, I feel like he did discuss a little bit of the context of this as something that he'd been working on for awhile.But, you know, I don't recall that we had any specific conversation where he sat down and laid out to me the origins of the entire thing.

There was some point that I remember him mentioning to me that he had consulted with different people throughout time.

But, you know, he was my boss.And he didn't necessarily explain everything that he was doing or why to me.He just sometimes asked for my help and I tried to provide it.

CONYERS:He didn't have to explain everything he was doing and why, did he?Because he was your boss.

GOODLING:Because he was my boss.

I mean, I'm sure that there were other conversations.But if your question is asking, you know, did he ever sit down and lay out for me exactly what this was all about, I don't recall that there was ever any point that he did that.

GOODLING:It was just, kind of, from time to time he would -- he would show me something and ask for my thoughts.Then, you know, I would gather some context from it.

That's the best I can do.

CONYERS:Thank you very much.

My time's expired.

Ranking Member Lamar Smith?

SMITH:Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Goodling, thank you for your comment about how important you consider public service to be and that being the motivation for much of what you have done.

And I certainly can appreciate your heartfelt comment about not recognizing a lot of what has been written about you.I think you will do a lot to counter that in your testimony today.

Also want to thank you for your candor.You said that you would, in fact, do some things differently, and we appreciate hearing that as well.

I just want to emphasize a couple of points in your testimony and then ask you a couple additional questions as well.

Once again, did you ever have any contact with, say, Harriet Miers about the replacement of any of these U.S. attorneys?

GOODLING:No.

SMITH:Did you ever have any contact with Karl Rove about the replacement of any of these U.S. attorneys?

GOODLING:No conversation with him before the decision was made.

There was one meeting at the White House after the decision had been implemented and he attended a meeting that I was also at.But that was the only time I've been in a room with him when this topic was discussed.

SMITH:And did you talk to anybody at the White House about the need to replace U.S. attorneys?

GOODLING:About the need to replace U.S. attorneys?

I don't believe I recall any conversations.But to be complete I should inform the committee that there was, I believe, in 2005, I had a social call at some point with Tim Griffin, who indicated to me -- and he was working at the White House at the time -- that he may have the opportunity to go back to Arkansas because some U.S. attorneys may be replaced and if Mr. Cummins was one of them he might get a chance to go home.

GOODLING:And, of course, I did exchange e-mails with Scott Jennings about meeting with some lawyers from New Mexico.But I don't remember that Scott Jennings even told me what the subject of that meeting was supposed to be.

SMITH:OK.Good.

Now, you testified a few minutes ago about your role.How would you describe your role in the decision to replace U.S. attorneys? Would you describe it as direct or indirect, or significant or minor? How would you describe your role?

GOODLING:You know, I'm not sure that I'm comfortable characterizing it.I'll let others make that assessment.

I mean, certainly I saw a draft memo in January.I had forgotten it, frankly, for a long time, but I did.And I saw an e-mail in September.And I was involved in the November 27th meeting.

The way I probably would characterize my role, without giving it a qualifier, is to say that I was responsible more for what happened after the plan was implemented than maybe what -- the plan itself.My role was really to help ensure that once we had a vacancy, that we were carrying out the process of interviewing candidates and doing the paperwork that's necessary to make sure that we have a nomination eventually.

SMITH:OK.

Thank you for that answer.

Couple more questions.

When you were helping prepare individuals to testify, did you ever intentionally withhold information from or mislead those you were helping to prepare to testify?

GOODLING:No.

SMITH:And a last question for you.

To the best of your knowledge, do you know if the department or the White House requested the resignation of any of the eight U.S. attorneys to retaliate for, interfere with or gain a partisan advantage in any case or investigation, whether about public corruption or any other type of offense?

GOODLING:I have no knowledge along that line.

SMITH:Thank you, Ms. Goodling for your testimony today.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.I will yield back.

CONYERS:Thank you.

Congresswoman, Subcommittee Chair Linda Sanchez is recognized.

REP. LINDA T. SANCHEZ, D-CALIF.:I thank the chairman.

Ms. Goodling, in your written testimony, you stated that you had some concerns about Deputy McNulty's testimony before Congress.In what way were Deputy McNulty's statements to Congress misleading?

GOODLING:I think in some ways, he simply didn't communicate all that he knew.

And I'm certainly not saying that he did it deliberately. Testifying is, as I'm finding out right now, a difficult thing.And I'm sure that there will be things that I don't remember.And I'm going to try to be complete, but there may be things that I leave out as well.So I'm not saying that it was deliberate.

But what I'm saying is when I looked back on the testimony, I believed that there were a number of things that I did brief him on and that that information wasn't fully -- wasn't fully revealed.

SANCHEZ:OK.

GOODLING:I'm just trying to address the fact that I felt like he accused me of withholding information, and I felt like I had provided some information that didn't get communicated.

SANCHEZ:I understand.

Can you be a little more specific?What things did you specifically brief him on that he -- you felt he was not entirely forthcoming before Congress when he testified?

GOODLING:He was asked whether the White House was involved in any way, and he said, Well, these are presidential appointments, so I'm sure White House personnel was informed at some point.

Certainly...

SANCHEZ:And why would that not be a complete answer?

GOODLING:I think because of the way -- the way it came across, I think people believed he was downplaying the role to a certain extent.

GOODLING:And the White House had been involved for several -- he was aware that the department had worked for at least several months with the White House, and that many offices in the White House had signed off, and that they were in fact, you know, participating and making phone calls and different sorts of things, with members.

SANCHEZ:So would it be fair to say that you believe that Deputy McNulty knew about the White House's role in the firing of the U.S. attorneys but wasn't -- sort of, diminished that before Congress and wasn't completely forthcoming with how active a role the White House played or was involved in?

GOODLING:I mean, they were involved in the sign-off.There were many offices that did sign off on the plan before it was implemented.And I'm just talking about the sign-off and then the actual notification phone calls and that sort of thing.

I just felt that the statement didn't fully express the fact that the White House was involved in the sign-off of the plan at the end, at least that's the part that I knew about, and that he at least knew that that was a process that had been going on for some period of months.

There were other things...

(CROSSTALK)

GOODLING:There were other things.

SANCHEZ:Such as?

GOODLING:His knowledge of how Tim Griffin came to be recommended for the appointment in the Eastern District of Arkansas.

I met with the deputy attorney general almost every week to talk about specific U.S. attorney vacancies because he was so interested in the topic.

As far as I know, that may be the first time that someone who was involved in the process provided weekly briefings.But he was very interested.

And so, every week, I would meet with him and we would go down a list of where we had vacancies and, you know, if there was any new news there, whether we'd received names from senators, whether we'd set up interviews, how the interviews had gone...

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ:... believe that his knowledge of how Griffin became recommended for that position wasn't fully forthcoming?

GOODLING:I know that I would have told him over the six months that that process was going on that he had worked at the White House and that the White House did want to provide him with an opportunity. I'm not sure that I would have told him who in the White House because I'm not sure that I ever knew who in the White House wanted it.

But certainly I believe that there was some information about Tim Griffin's appointment that I would have communicated in those weekly meetings.

SANCHEZ:OK.

Aside from those two examples, are there any others?

GOODLING:He testified that the Parsky Commission worked very well.That's a commission that refers to the California selection process.

And one of the things that I had been briefing him on was the fact that we had a vacancy in the Central District of California, and in the fall we did take steps to interview some candidates outside that weren't recommended by the commission.

And the reason that we did that was because Mr. Sampson told me that he and the attorney general believed that in some cases the Parsky Commission was rather slow and that they sometimes didn't include all the candidates that they had an interest in considering. And so we actually had interviewed candidates outside that process.

SANCHEZ:And so you believe that his testimony that it worked very well was not exactly accurate because you had -- there had been a way to go around that because you felt it wasn't working?

(CROSSTALK)

GOODLING:Now, in January he was accurate in saying that we were committed to working with it.

By the time January had come along, we -- the decision had been made, I believe at the White House, that we would continue to use the Parsky Commission, and we were using it in relation to the two new vacancies that were created there.

SANCHEZ:OK.

GOODLING:And the last thing was the voter -- the cadging issue, which was a reference to Tim Griffin.

SANCHEZ:Can you explain what cadging is?I'm not familiar with that term.

GOODLING:You know, my understanding -- and I don't actually know a lot about it -- is that it's a direct-mail term that people who do direct mail, when they separate addresses that may be good versus addresses that may be bad.That's about the best information that I have, is that it's a direct-mail term that's used by vendors in that circumstance.

But in any case, I knew that that was an issue that might arise. Because there had been stories about it...

SANCHEZ:That Tim Griffin was involved in that to some degree, or may have been involved.

GOODLING:Right.Right.

And I don't -- I believe that Mr. Griffin doesn't believe that he did anything wrong there, and that there actually is a very good reason for it, for -- or, a very good explanation.

SANCHEZ:But Mr. Sampson was -- or, pardon me, Mr. McNulty was aware of that, and...

GOODLING:He was aware that that was an issue.I told him the day before that it was -- that there was a good chance that it could come up.And I did provide him with information the night before to make sure that he had some information to review so that he could help to answer those questions.

CONYERS:Gentlelady's time has expired.

SANCHEZ:Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CONYERS:The chair recognizes Chris Cannon, the ranking member on the Subcommittee for Commercial and Administrative Law.

The gentleman from Utah is recognized.

REP. CHRIS CANNON, R-UTAH:Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Goodling, I would like to thank you for having -- actually I'm over here, Ms. Goodling.

GOODLING:Oh, I'm sorry.

CANNON:Down the line here, next to my good friend Mr. Lungren.

I want to thank you for being here today, and for your equanimity in difficult times.

I'd like to read a couple of things into the record here.

One is a statement I think -- this is Mr. Moschella, who was asked about Mr. Sampson and you and Mr. McNulty.

He responded, I found these people to be hard-working, smart, capable, trustworthy, exercise good judgment.So that's my general feeling about them.I mean, it was not unusual to find Monica Goodling BlackBerrying people at 2 in the morning and just working hard and being diligent on a number of matters.

CANNON:This is Moschella -- Mr. Moschella, again:I specifically asked Monica if she had put this together, because I didn't think the chart was very user-friendly.

And why did you choose Ms. Goodling to make this document? was the question.

Well, she was, you know, actively involved in my preparation. We didn't have a lot of stuff.As you see, this was sent to me at 9:56 the night before.And she was willing to put it together.

So, obviously, very hardworking.

And this, I believe is -- so I think that you have a good reputation in the department.I think that Mr. -- I'd earlier read into the record statements by Mr. Margolis about what a thoughtful and capable person you are.And you've certainly shown that thus far in your testimony.

So thank you for being so forthcoming.

And I apologize for the inconvenience.I know that we've had many discussions with your lawyer and also with you about the nature of your testimony.That has been very direct.I don't see that it is going to advance the debate very much.

Mr. Conyers initiated the discussion today by talking about getting to the bottom of the U.S. attorney matter and the politicization of the Department of Justice.And I think that that has probably not gotten us -- what we've done here over the many, many, many hours of committee work, staff work, and dozens of interrogations of people, I'm not sure we've advanced those two issues because I don't think that we've had a problem with it.

CANNON:At least, we haven't been able to -- the committee has not been able to show that there has been a problem there.

But on the other hand, we're not doing this in a vacuum.And I would like to read from the L.A. Times about another problem that we have facing Congress that we're not actually dealing with here, which, I think, is relevant in balancing out the vituperation that has tended to go on.

So this is May 23, 2007:Murtha's Misstep.

The Pennsylvania Democrat tarnishes the party's image and nearly receives a reprimand, playing earmark politics.With Democrats like Rep. John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi doesn't need Republicans.

After Pelosi promised the Democrats would preside over the most honest, the most open and the most ethical Congress, Murtha, whom Pelosi unsuccessfully pushed for majority leader, described a Democratic lobbying reform proposal as 'total crap' -- his words.

He graciously added, however, that he would support the legislation because 'that's what Nancy wants.'

Murtha's latest gift to Pelosi is the confrontation in which he allegedly told Rep. Mike Rogers, Republican of Michigan, who had opposed one of Murtha's pet projects, that 'I hope you don't have any earmarks in the defense' -- I can't quite say it the way, apparently, Mr. Murtha said it, but with a with a great deal more intensity than I'm putting in my voice, he said, 'I hope you don't have any earmarks in the defense appropriations bill because they are gone and you're not going to get any earmarks, now and forever.'

CANNON:Rogers, a former FBI agent, asserted that Murtha had turned the House floor into an episode of 'The Sopranos,' and he filed a resolution accusing his colleague of violating House rules.On Tuesday, the resolution was tabled -- meaning it's not going to proceed -- on a largely party-line vote.

Actually, it was a party-line vote with the members of the Ethics Committee voting present, as is our custom here.

So, on a largely party-line vote, but not before Democrats were put excruciatingly on the defensive on what Pelosi made -- has made a signature issue.

(UNKNOWN):Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry?

CANNON:I'm about done with this article, Mr. Chairman.

Excruciatingly on the defensive on what Pelosi had made her signature issue, that is ethical reform.Expect Republicans to continue making 'Sopranos' jokes.

Actually, Tony Soprano's less likely a model for Murtha than Lyndon Johnson, who was a tough guy and who played by rules that we've tried to change.

Going on, It doesn't help the Democrats' image that this dispute over Murtha's comments originated in an earmark, a special-interest provision...

CONYERS:The time of the gentleman has expired.

CANNON:Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And I yield back the balance of my time.

CONYERS:There wasn't any balance left.

(LAUGHTER)

The chair recognizes the senior member of Judiciary Committee, Howard Berman of California.

REP. HOWARD L. BERMAN, D-CALIF.:Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And I yield my time for relevant questioning to the gentlelady from California, Ms. Sanchez.

SANCHEZ:And I thank the gentleman for yielding.

SANCHEZ:To get back to the subject matter of this hearing, Ms. Goodling, you said that you had some concerns about Mr. McNulty's testimony before Congress.To whom at the DOJ did you voice those concerns?

GOODLING:I voiced them to a number of people.

And some of my concerns related -- or the majority of my concerns related more to I thought where we were going to be headed after the testimony.

I was very concerned.I didn't -- I didn't want us to go out and say bad things about our U.S. attorneys.

SANCHEZ:But to whom did you...

GOODLING:So when I left the hearing I spoke first with Will Moschella, and I expressed some concern that -- I expressed some concern about providing negative information about people who had worked for us, first.

I went back to the department and I went into Kyle Sampson's office and I told him that I did not think that the hearing had gone all that well.And I told him some of the things that the deputy had indicated he would provide.And I believe I did mention some of my concerns about some of the things that I thought he had said.

But I think the focus of my concern was really that I was afraid that we were going to down a road of saying bad things about people who had worked for us publicly...

SANCHEZ:So you didn't express a concern to either Mr. Moschella or Mr. Sampson that the testimony might not have been complete or might have been misleading to some degree, it was just you didn't want to say bad things about people?

GOODLING:I did say to Mr. Sampson, I think that there were a couple things that I didn't think were fully right, but I don't...

SANCHEZ:Aside from Mr. Moschella and Mr. Sampson, was there anybody else that you voiced those concerns to?

GOODLING:I talked to Mike Elston after.

SANCHEZ:Anybody besides Elston?

GOODLING:I talked to Tasia Scalinos, but our conversation just related more to -- it was a very short conversation.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ:Besides those four, anybody else?

GOODLING:I don't think so.

SANCHEZ:OK.Thank you.

Before you joined the Executive Office for the U.S. Attorneys in the spring of 2005, did you have any experience in making personnel decisions involving the hiring or the firing of employees?

GOODLING:Yes.In -- putting aside -- putting aside college, where I was student body president, we actually did hire people to work on various organizations...

SANCHEZ:In a professional capacity, outside of college.

GOODLING:At the Republican National Committee, I was the deputy director there of research and strategic planning and we had...

SANCHEZ:You did hiring and firing there?

GOODLING:I did some in the research department that I....

SANCHEZ:OK.How did you get your position at the EOUSA?Who hired you?

GOODLING:I interviewed with Mary Beth Buchanan, who was the director at the time.

SANCHEZ:OK.

At EOUSA, you were involved in the hiring process for line-level assistant U.S. attorney positions in offices of acting or interim U.S. attorneys, is that correct?

GOODLING:Yes.

SANCHEZ:And press reports say that you insisted that you retain your to review the hiring of AUSAs after you became an aide to Alberto Gonzales.Is that correct?

GOODLING:Yes.When I first -- when I was in the Executive Office, I would refer significant requests to Mr. Sampson who was in the A.G.'s office at the time.So when I moved to the A.G.'s office, and basically took that role, my position in the Executive Office actually remained vacant for a long time, so there wasn't somebody in the Executive Office to do it.

SANCHEZ:But you did retain your power to review the hiring of the AUSAs.

GOODLING:Right.

SANCHEZ:What leverage did you have to make any demands on the attorney general to retain that power?If the position became vacant and you were doing it in the interim, I'm assuming they filled the position.And why would you still retain power of hiring and firing?

GOODLING:Because I had referred significant requests to Mr. Sampson before I moved.You know, those were things that they just kept referring to me.I didn't mind doing it.I, kind of, liked -- I, kind of, liked having -- being able to provide input on -- one of the questions I would often ask Mr. Sampson was, Do we think we're going to have a new U.S. attorney soon?How long would it be, you know, if we held on to the waiver?

You know, if it was going to be six more months until a new U.S. attorney showed up, the waiver request might be more reasonable, but if a new U.S. attorney was going to be there in two weeks, of course you would want them to be involved in the hiring decision.

SANCHEZ:Let me ask you about this.

Recent press reports state that you moved to block the hiring of assistant U.S. attorneys with resumes that suggested that they might be Democrats.

A recent Newsweek article says that you attempted to block the hiring of a prosecutor in the office of Jeff Taylor, the U.S. attorney for D.C., for being a, quote, liberal Democratic type.And the New York Times reports that this was a Howard University Law School graduate who worked at the EPA.

Did that, in fact, occur?

GOODLING:I think that when I did look at that resume I made a snap judgment, and I regret it.

SANCHEZ:So that did occur, you blocked that hiring.

GOODLING:I didn't block it permanently.He was hired and I did authorize it.

SANCHEZ:But you...

GOODLING:I delayed it.

SANCHEZ:You delayed it.

And how many applicants did you block or delay on the basis of what their potential political leanings might have been?

GOODLING:You know, I wouldn't be able to give you a number.I don't feel like there were very many cases where I had those thoughts. Most of the time I looked at waiver requests I made them strictly based on, you know, whether there was an extraordinary need and I agreed with it and how long it would be until the new U.S. attorney got there.

But I'm...

CONYERS:Time of the gentlelady's expired.

SANCHEZ:Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CONYERS:You can finish your comment, ma'am.

GOODLING:Sure.

But I want to be honest.There were cases when I looked at resumes and I thought, You know, I don't know if this is the -- I don't know if this is the person the new U.S. attorney would want to hire.Why don't we just wait and let them take a look at the request, and if they want to hire them when they get there then they can?

SANCHEZ:I would just like to ask the chairman for unanimous consent to enter into the record the New York Times and Newsweek articles about the decision-making for hiring and firing based on...

CONYERS:Without objection, so ordered.

SANCHEZ:Thank you.

CONYERS:The chair recognizes the former chairman of Judiciary, Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin.

REP. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR., R-WIS.:Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Goodling, welcome here.

I know this is not a pleasant experience.And I think that basically what your testimony has been doing is confirming the documentation that has been submitted to this committee.

I have a few questions.

The first is, are you aware that U.S. attorneys are appointed for terms of four years?

GOODLING:Yes.

SENSENBRENNER:Were all of the U.S. attorneys who were replaced -- had their terms of four years expired?

GOODLING:The eight, yes.

SENSENBRENNER:Yes.

With respect to Carol Lam, who was the U.S. attorney in the Southern District of California -- which is in San Diego -- were you aware that on June 15th of 2006, Senator Feinstein wrote Attorney General Gonzales, expressing concern about the fact that Ms. Lam had not been vigorous in prosecuting criminal alien smugglers within that district?

GOODLING:Yes.

SENSENBRENNER:And were you aware that the attorney general did respond to Senator Feinstein in a letter that contained a lot of statistics?

GOODLING:Yes, although I don't think I saw it until sometime this year.

SENSENBRENNER:Well, this being the case, that all of the U.S. attorneys whose terms had expired, you know, were subject to replacement, what's so unusual about replacing somebody whose fixed term had expired and consequently would either have to be reappointed or would have to be replaced with somebody else?

GOODLING:I don't know that there is anything.

I don't know that this is a road that I would have decided to go down if it had been up to me.But I certainly supported the effort because I believe the president does have the right to be served by the best people that he can find and people that he'd like to have serve him.So I believe he has the right to make changes if he'd like to.

SENSENBRENNER:Isn't this an exercise of legitimate executive power which practically every president up to, including the current one, exercises all the time with officials within the executive branch subject to his appointment?

GOODLING:I believe it is.

SENSENBRENNER:Now, let me say that this committee has spent $250,000 of the taxpayers' money basically investigating the replacement of U.S. attorneys whose terms had expired.

I was the chairman of this committee for six years during the Bush administration and the chairman of the Science Committee for four years during the Clinton administration.I never signed a subpoena, because I didn't have to.And I never asked my committee to request the Justice Department to obtain a grant of immunity to anybody.

It seems to me that with this fishing expedition, there ain't no fish in the water.And we've spent an awful lot of time and an awful lot of money finding that out.

I yield back the balance of my time.

CONYERS:The chair recognizes now the chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, Jerry Nadler of New York.

REP. JERROLD NADLER, D-N.Y.:Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Goodling, before you came here to testify, you asserted your Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and you were granted immunity.

GOODLING:Yes.

NADLER:To assert Fifth Amendment privilege, you're in effect asserting that you're aware of crimes that may have been committed. And you're saying that you don't want to be implicated.

What crimes are you aware of that you feared your testimony might get in (inaudible) be asked about?

GOODLING:I don't believe that I committed any crime.

NADLER:I didn't ask if you committed.I said, what crimes were you aware of, or possible crimes you were aware of that caused you to be concerned enough to seek or to claim the Fifth Amendment?

GOODLING:I asserted the Fifth Amendment based on the fact that these are very ambiguous circumstances in which to testify.

And I believed that the deputy attorney general had made an allegation that I had deliberately withheld information from him.And I believed that that was a concern.And I wanted...

NADLER:OK.

So in other words, that his allegation might be construed by some as a crime was your concern?

GOODLING:That was the basis for my...

NADLER:OK.

And are you aware -- well, let me -- thank you.Let me pursue that a moment.

You testified a few minutes ago about the deputy attorney general, Mr. McNulty, his testimony, which you said was not correct in all respects.

In your written statement, you go into some detail into how incorrect it was.And you talk about -- he did not have any -- that he testified that he did not have any knowledge of how Tim Griffin came to be recommended for interim appointment.

In fact, you had informed him of the effort to remove Bud Cummins in order to arrange an opportunity for Mr. Griffin since the spring or early summer.The status of the Arkansas office came up frequently in your briefings over the next six months.

NADLER:He testified the Parsky Commission worked very well and that they respected the process, while, in fact, he knew that the department's internal assessment was to the contrary.

The deputy also knew that although a determination had been made to continue to use it, there had been some efforts to interview candidates outside the Parsky Commission process and that he was aware of the department's dissatisfaction with the commission's process because you briefed him, you also testified that he testified that he did not know anything about allegations that Tim Griffin cadged black votes, but that in fact you had informed him that this issue could arise and you had prepared him to answer questions about it.

These would seem to be direct contradictions.In effect, your testimony is that the deputy attorney general misinformed the Senate Judiciary in small -- in sworn testimony.Is that not correct?

GOODLING:I'm just saying that I didn't believe he was fully candid.

And the point that I was trying to make is that I did give him some information, I didn't withhold information, I gave him a lot of information, and he had some of that information and didn't use of all of it.

NADLER:Although, in fact, he stated things directly contrary to what your written statement says he knew to be true.

GOODLING:Those would be conclusions for others to draw.

NADLER:OK.That's fair enough.

Now, let me switch topics for a moment and get back to -- follow up some of what Ms. Sanchez was asking about hiring -- or rather asking political questions of nonpolitical hirings.

The New York Times discussed Robin Ashton, a career prosecutor serving on detail to the Executive Office of the U.S. Attorneys, who was slated to become a career deputy director of EOUSA at around the time -- at around that time.

According to the article, the head of EOUSA told Ms. Ashton that she had a Monica problem because you believed she was a Democrat and couldn't be trusted, therefore shouldn't get the career job.

Is that correct?Did you seek to deny here a promotion because you believed she was a Democrat?

GOODLING:It wasn't my decision to make or not make in terms of giving her a promotion.

When I got to the Executive Office I was actually excited about working with Ms. Ashton because she had a lot of really good experience as a prosecutor -- much more than I did -- and I thought that we would complement each other very well.

GOODLING:You know, looking back on it, I think it was mostly the case of two type A women.She'd been in the office as the only -- as the only deputy...

NADLER:But you did not recommend that she should not be promoted.

GOODLING:You know, I don't really remember the discussions back at that time very well.

What I remember was that she had been the deputy for a long time by herself.And when I arrived, a lot of the responsibilities that she had were shifted to me.I thought she resented that.And as a result, it made for a tense office environment.

NADLER:OK.

Now, in general you've testified in your -- or there's been statements made and you've essentially agreed with that and regretted it in your testimony today and in your written testimony, that you did ask a number of people either for career positions in the Justice Department or for assistant U.S. attorney positions questions about their political beliefs and affiliations.

GOODLING:Yes.Let me clarify, though, that I didn't actually interview a USA candidate...

NADLER:But you asked such questions.

My one question is, were any of your superiors in the Justice Department aware or did anybody instruct you or suggest that these questions should be asked or agree with these questions being asked or were aware that you were asking such kind of questions, either for assistant U.S. attorneys or for any other career positions -- or for career positions at all?

GOODLING:In some cases, when the -- relating to immigration judges, when I started my position as White House liaison, I was informed that the Office of Legal Counsel had said that because those were positions under a direct appointment authority of the attorney general, that we could consider other factors in those cases.

Later, concerns were raised as a result of some litigation and the Civil Division came to a different conclusion.

As a result of that, we actually froze hiring late in December of last year.

But, certainly, my supervisor...

NADLER:Wait a minute.You froze hiring why?

CONYERS:The gentleman's time has expired.

You can finish your answer, ma'am.

GOODLING:We froze hiring in relation to immigration judges.

There were some other times when I was asked to help facilitate the placement of somebody that we knew to be a Republican in career positions and sometimes those were at the request of other people in the department.

NADLER:Thank you.

CONYERS:The chair is pleased to recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, the ranking member on the Intellectual Property Subcommittee, Mr. Howard Coble.

REP. HOWARD COBLE, R-N.C.:Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Goodling, good to have you with us today.

Ms. Goodling, as the distinguished ranking member said earlier, the U.S. attorneys do in fact serve at the pleasure of the president. That's been lost in this shuffle, it seems.

But having said that, I recall having read two articles, Ms. Goodling -- and just because I read articles, it does not mean that they're accurate.But one article indicated that the eight U.S. attorneys were terminated because of poor performances.

I read a second article that indicated most of the eight did in fact have good performances.

Can you elaborate on that, A?

And B, who was responsible for evaluating the performances of the U.S. attorneys?

GOODLING:I believe the person responsible for evaluating the U.S. attorneys is the deputy attorney general and the attorney general of the United States.

I think some of the confusion here is because offices do undergo what we call EARS evaluations.I would explain that more as a check- up of the office but not necessarily of the U.S. attorney.

It is certainly true that the EARS reports do make conclusions about the effectiveness of the U.S. attorney.But for the most part, the EARS evaluations are very in-depth and they're designed to look at the legal practice in the office and the administrative procedures.

So, for example, they would check to see if there's an inappropriate chain of indictment review.They would evaluate the supervisory structure.On the administrative side, they would check the books and make sure that the accounting's done properly, that security procedures are being followed appropriately.

And they make a lot of recommendations.In some cases, EARS reports are hundreds of pages long because they're really looking at nuts and bolts of the offices.

And certainly, it is true that they do, in some cases, reveal that there are problems in the office that relate to the U.S. attorney.

GOODLING:And in some cases, they make conclusions that the U.S. attorney is very effective.

But the person who would have the most information about the U.S. attorney's performance is, I think, going to be people at main Justice.Because they're the ones that are working with the U.S. attorney every day.They're the ones that have the opportunity to see when there's problems.Those are things that are going to be elevated above the U.S. attorney.

COBLE:Thank you, Ms. Goodling.

Ms. Goodling, if you will, explain your role -- I think most of us are familiar with it, but explain your role in serving as the White House liaison to the Justice Department.

What were your responsibilities in the White House and in the Justice Department?And what was your principal mission in serving at the White House as the White House liaison to the Justice Department?

GOODLING:I didn't actually serve at the White House at all.I worked at the Justice Department as a department employee.

My basic job responsibilities fell into three categories.

The first was hiring of political appointees.I spent a lot of time doing interviews for what we call Schedule C, for noncareer senior executive service candidates.

And I wasn't the only one that would do those.Obviously, the component head that would be ultimately hiring the person would also interview.They would have interviews at the White House, and in some cases with Mr. Sampson as well.

So I was one of maybe three or four people evaluating everybody coming in, or considering coming into the department.And so that personnel work took a lot of time.

I also served a basic liaison function that related to information.You know, for example, The president's going to be on travel here, or we would pass over, The attorney general's going to be on travel here -- just information requests that would go back and forth relating to what the White House had going on or what we had going on -- report-type things along those lines.

And then the third thing -- which took a fair amount of time, actually -- was a lot of what we would call morale-boosting for employees, and, kind of, internal communications.

Oftentimes, the White House would have bill signings, or Marine One would be landing or taking off or there would be an opportunity to see the champions of the Stanley Cup come to the White House.And so I would spend -- I mean, several times a week send 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 gather their names and Social Security numbers and dates of birth and transmit that down to the White House so that appointees could have the opportunity to do those sorts of things.

GOODLING:So it was as combination of things.And there were others that I'm sure I haven't mentioned, but those are the three general categories of things.

COBLE:I thank you.

Finally, Ms. Goodling, did you ever see the initial list or the final list of the United States attorneys who were recommended for replacement?

GOODLING:If the initial list is the one in 2005, I don't have any memory of having seen that.

The final list, being the November 27th plan, yes, I was in the room with the attorney general when that plan was presented, although, actually, I'm not sure if Kevin Ryan was on the list at that point or not.It may have only been six on that day.

COBLE:I thank you again, Ms. Goodling, for your testimony.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

CONYERS:Thank you.

The chair recognizes the Subcommittee chairman on Crime, the gentleman from Virginia, Bobby Scott.

REP. ROBERT C. SCOTT, D-VA.:Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Goodling, as you just heard, I was introduced as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime.

The criminal justice system cannot function if the public does not trust the system to be fair.We expect judges and prosecutors to strictly follow the rule of law.We expect witnesses in criminal cases, in all phases of criminal cases, to tell the truth.We expect juries to be fair and impartial.

And this won't work if there are partisan political considerations becoming more important than fair and impartial decisions.

Unfortunately, there have been credible allegations that attorneys have been hired because of their partisan views rather than their legal backgrounds, that the culture of loyalty to the administration was more important than loyalty to the rule of law, and pressure and even firing of U.S. attorneys for failing to pursue partisan political agendas rather than the rule of law.

These allegations are serious because, if true, they can clearly undermine the confidence the public will have in the criminal justice system.

It's been hard for us to get to the bottom of it because, when we ask simply questions, you've accused others of not telling the truth under oath.

SCOTT:You in fact yourself pleaded the Fifth.So it's been hard to get to the bottom of it.

But let me just ask a couple of questions.

In your testimony, you indicate that you have -- quote, may have taken inappropriate political considerations into account on some occasions.

Do you believe that those political considerations were not just inappropriate, but in fact illegal?

GOODLING:That's not a conclusion for me to make.

I know I was acting...

SCOTT:(inaudible) Do you believe that they were legal or illegal for you to take those political considerations in mind?Not whether they were legal or illegal, what do you believe?Do you believe that they were illegal?

GOODLING:I don't believe I intended to commit a crime.

SCOTT:Did you break the law?Was it against the law to take those political considerations into account?

You've got civil service laws.You've got obstruction of justice.Were there any laws that you could have broken by taking political considerations into account, quote, on some occasions?

GOODLING:The best I can say is that I know I took political considerations into account on some occasions.

SCOTT:Was that legal?

GOODLING:Sir, I'm not able to answer that question.I know I crossed the line.

SCOTT:What line -- legal?

GOODLING:I crossed the line of the civil service rules.

SCOTT:Rules -- laws.You crossed the law on civil service laws.You crossed the line on civil service laws, is that right?

GOODLING:I believe I crossed the lines.But I didn't mean to. I mean, I...

SCOTT:OK.

GOODLING:You know, it wasn't...

SCOTT:In reference to the U.S. attorneys, were the investigations and indictments of Republican officials or the failure to investigate or indict Democratic officials a factor in the removal 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 aware that Senator Domenici had called one of the U.S. attorneys that was asked to leave?

GOODLING:I've seen the press accounts, yes.

SCOTT:You've seen the press accounts?

GOODLING:Yes.

SCOTT:You know that he had a problem with one of the U.S. attorneys?

GOODLING:I was aware that he had concerns with Mr. Iglesias' performance.

SCOTT:OK.

In the back of Tab 26, you have a note that says, quote, Domenici says he doesn't move cases.

GOODLING:Yes, that was a comment that was made by someone else in one of the meetings that we had in the deputy attorney general's room.

SCOTT:Do you know what cases he was talking about?

GOODLING:I don't remember that the person who made the comment specified.

SCOTT:Do you know what case he was talking about?

Are you aware of a case of Manny Aragon, a Democratic office- holder?

GOODLING:I think I've seen press accounts.

SCOTT:Was that one of the cases that he could have been talking about?

GOODLING:I don't know.

SCOTT:Did -- now, the deputy attorney general's testimony did not include Domenici says he doesn't move cases as one of the reasons he was on the list.

GOODLING:It does not.

(CROSSTALK)

GOODLING:The reason it did not -- when we were meeting in his room, somebody made the comment that that was one of the reasons.The deputy attorney general said that he did not think that that was something that he wanted to brief to the Senate because he didn't think it was his place to raise one member's concerns with other members, and that it would be better if Senator Domenici wanted to raise the concerns with his colleagues.

SCOTT:Other than Domenici's problems that he doesn't move cases, how could Mr. Iglesias' name get on the list of fired attorneys?

SCOTT:What else could he have possibly done wrong to get him on the list?

GOODLING:The other reasons that I heard discussed was that it was a very important border district, that people just didn't think that he was doing as good of a job as we might have wanted to expect.

I know at one point I heard someone say that he had been kind -- and this is a quote -- kind of a dud on the AGAC -- that's the Attorney General's Advisory Committee.

And there were -- there was at some point a reference to him being an absentee landlord that somebody had made.Mr. Sampson had indicated that he heard Mr. Mercer express concerns about the amount of time he spent in the office.But I also heard somebody else express the concern that he delegated a lot to his first assistant.

So there were different...

CONYERS:Gentleman's time has expired.

You may finish your statement, if you choose.

GOODLING:I mean, different people did make different comments at different times.And there were other -- there were other comments that people made, based on things that they felt or believed.And I wrote those down.

CONYERS:Thank you.

The gentleman from California, Elton Gallegly?

REP. ELTON GALLEGLY, R-CALIF.:Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Goodling, almost -- I'm the tall, good-looking one here.

Ms. Goodling, almost everyone -- including the attorney general -- agrees this matter was mishandled and that if he had to do it all over again, he would have done several things differently.

Do you agree with the assessment that things could have been handled much differently?And, if so, how would you say that that, in your opinion, should have taken place?

GOODLING:I do agree that things should have been handled differently.

I think it would have been better to try to document some things.

GOODLING:It certainly would have been good to have made sure that the reasons that -- you know, when we looked at the list and when we had the meeting to discuss what we thought the reasons were, I think somebody would say a comment and somebody else would think, That's what I thought, too.

So I think when people looked at the list, people generally had the same thoughts in their mind about people, as far as I could tell from that meeting, because somebody would say one thing and other people would nod and I would write it down.

But it would have been better to document it.And it would have been better, frankly, to have given some of those U.S. attorneys a chance to understand where the problems were and a chance to address them.

And, you know, at the November 27th meeting there was a discussion about whether or not the U.S. attorneys should be told in person.And someone made the comment that, because they were presidential appointees and served at the president's pleasure, there wasn't a need to litigate the reasons with them.And I think there was some concern that if you sat down with the folks, it would get into a back-and-forth on the reasons.

And I think people felt like they wanted the U.S. attorneys to be able to leave quietly and do good things with their lives.

But I think there was a sense that they didn't want to make the departures more painful for people, I guess.

But looking back on it, I think it would have been the right thing to do to have met with people individually and notify them in person, and given them an opportunity to ask questions at that time.

GALLEGLY:Ms. Goodling, in your opening statement -- correct me if I misunderstood, but when you first saw the list of the eight, that -- I guess it was Mr. Sampson presented you with that list -- am I correct in my recollection that there was no explanation 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 different number.

But I don't remember that time very well.And I had actually forgotten it for awhile.

But I think he just, kind of, brought it in and said, Can you take a look at this and give me your thoughts?That's, to the best of my recollection, what I remember.

GALLEGLY:However, subsequent to that, obviously, you have had some opportunity to learn a little bit more about specific cases, as I know you referenced in part of the questioning some statements regarding Mr. Iglesias.Is that correct?

GOODLING:Yes.

GALLEGLY:And can you recollect any other of the judges that -- other than Mr. Iglesias -- that may have been the basis of their name appearing on that list?

GOODLING:No, wait -- I'm sorry.What did I just agree to?I think I misheard the question.

GALLEGLY:My understanding is you had -- well, just a few minutes ago, you did make reference to Mr. Iglesias.I assume this is something that you learned subsequent to first seeing the list, as, maybe, one of the reasons that his name did appear on the list.Is that correct?

Subsequent to originally receiving the list, when there was no direct explanation for how the names got on there, you have learned, or through conversations and so on and so forth, that there have been certain justifications made public, or at least beyond the water cooler discussions...

GOODLING:Right, right.

GALLEGLY:... as was the case with Mr. Iglesias.

Were there other members -- or other judges on that list that you recall any specific reasons why their name would have been placed on the list?

GOODLING:Yes.

At the November 27th meeting, there was a discussion about Daniel Bogden specifically.I think somebody made the comment, like, I know why it's this group, or, I think I know why these are the people on the list.

And the DAG said, The one person I have a question about is Mr. Bogden.Did he do something wrong, or is it just a general sense that we could do better?

And Mr. Sampson said in that meeting something about, you know, I think it's a general sense that, you know -- it was a general, kind of, sense that we could do better, or something along that line.

And then I said that I was aware of one case involving use of the Patriot Act that had gotten a little messy a few years ago.But that was all I was aware of.

And at that point we, kind of, looked at each other and at the attorney general and said, you know, What do you want to do?And he -- I think he nodded and said, OK.

And so we had that one discussion in that November 27th meeting, which was just a brief reference.But that's the only one where I remember that the group as a whole discussed the reason...

GALLEGLY:But that clearly wasn't a statement saying it was political reasons, or implied that.

GOODLING:Oh, for political reasons, no, no.

And I didn't mean to imply that I thought it was for political reasons in Mr. Iglesias's case, if that was the question.I'm sorry.

GALLEGLY:Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, thank you.

CONYERS:Chair is pleased to recognize the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina, Mel Watt.

REP. MELVIN WATT, D-N.C.:Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Goodling, this obviously has national implications.But it has some repercussions at local levels, too.So I'd like to ask you a couple of questions that relate to North Carolina, which happens to be where I'm from.

You testified in your opening statement this morning that, quote, I never recommended to them that a specific U.S. attorney be added to or removed from Mr. Sampson's list.

GOODLING:I mean them being the White House.I did discuss 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 odds with what Mr. Sampson testified in the Senate, when he testified that you suggested taking Ms. Anna Mills Wagner of the Middle District of North Carolina off the list in September of 2006.

Did you or did you not recommend taking Ms. Wagner off the list?

GOODLING:I did.I recommended...

WATT:OK.All right.

GOODLING:... retaining her in service in January and in September.

WATT:So, when you testified this morning that you didn't make a specific recommendation to take anybody off the list, you were really not accurate in what you were saying?

GOODLING:I believe my sentence was to them, meaning the White House.

Mr. Sampson works at the Department of Justice.And I did make a recommendation to Mr. Sampson about people coming on and off the list.

WATT:What is your relationship with Ms. Wagner?

GOODLING:She's just a U.S. attorney that I've had some interactions with from time to time.She was very involved in Project Safe Neighborhoods and did, kind of, a Project Safe Neighborhoods gang conference that I attended with the attorney general.

And, of course, I've spoken with her at some U.S. attorney conferences.

WATT:And do you know who suggested putting Ms. Wagner on the list in the first place to be fired?

GOODLING:No.When I saw the list in January, she was on.

GOODLING:And I recommended she come off.She was still on in September and I recommended again that she come off.And she did.

WATT:And what was your basis for recommending that she come off?

GOODLING:I think in January I remembered her Project Safe Neighborhood work.That was something that I focused on at the department.So I had a good sense of -- or thought I had a good sense of some of the districts that were doing really good things in the gun crime area.

And I also remembered that she'd been very, very helpful when we were doing some Patriot Act reauthorization efforts.We had asked some of the U.S. attorneys to be engaged.And she had been very helpful in that effort as well.

In September, I think I was thinking mostly PSN.I'm not sure if I remembered the Patriot Act at that point.

WATT:Now, there's a document that we have had produced to us that -- where you wrote that she bends -- quote, bends over backward for A.G. visits, close quote.

You remember making that note about...

GOODLING:Yes.

That was a reference to the Patriot Act visit that we had done.

WATT:OK.

And you thought that was a meaningful reason to keep or replace an attorney, or not replace an attorney?

GOODLING:I think it's an appropriate thing to consider, when the attorney general asks a U.S. attorney to be helpful and they do a really good job at it.I think that's a good thing.

Sometimes we would ask U.S. attorneys for help and, you know, you didn't get the same response.She was just someone that when you ask her for help, she was very responsive.And I thought that that should be rewarded or taken into account.

WATT:And what kind of help are you talking about there?

GOODLING:I'm just talking about when you ask someone to, you know, write an op-ed or just help put together a visit.

Some U.S. attorneys are just very engaged and just very responsive.I don't know that I can quantify it more than saying that they're responsive.

WATT:All right.

The specific meetings in which you participated in which Mr. Iglesias was discussed, you indicated that a number of comments were made that could have been the basis for his being on a list to be terminated.

Would you tell us who was in the room when those discussions were taking place?

GOODLING:After the deputy did his briefing on the...

WATT:Would you tell us who was in the room, when those discussions were taking...

GOODLING:The deputy, Mr. Sampson, myself, and then Mr. Elston, I believe, was there for part of the time, or maybe all of the time.

And I think there was another individual that may have come in and gone out.And I don't remember if that was Mr. Moschella, but I felt that there was someone that moved at some point during the meeting, but I don't remember specifically.

CONYERS:The gentleman's time has expired.

WATT:Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CONYERS:The chair's pleased to recognize the only ex-attorney general that we have on the committee...

(LAUGHTER)

... Dan Lungren of California.

LUNGREN:Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Goodling -- I'm over here -- let me just say that we appreciate your testimony.I know this is not a particularly comfortable time for you.

You also ought to be happy you're not hearing the clicking of the cameras that often because they usually reserve those for gotcha moments and there haven't been any today.Your testimony's been very strong.

I think you have acquitted yourself well, and have shown people who are here or watching elsewhere why people in the Justice Department thought you were worthy of your job.

I have never been in the U.S. Justice Department, but as the chairman said, I was the attorney general of California, elected not appointed.And when I ran in that campaign for election, I had differences with my opponent, who happened to be the other party.

I had some differences with my predecessor.I decided I was going to put more emphasis on the criminal side of my office than on the civil side.I made decisions to shift people.

We had folks in the California Department of Justice who were conscientious objectors to the death penalty when we were the ones required to carry it out from a legal standpoint.

LUNGREN:And I had to make some decisions to transfer people out of the Criminal Division because they refused to do capital cases. And I made a decision that I was criticized for as being political, to say that you couldn't be a supervisor in the Criminal Division if you didn't believe in the death penalty because it would affect your job. We moved them elsewhere.

I thought it was appropriate to make decisions with respect to supervisors in my office, the ones who headed up certain divisions, certain offices if they believed in what I was trying to do.Because I actually thought that's the way the process works.

During election, I mentioned what I was going to do.I was elected.And then I said to the people who were there, including civil servants, This is what we intend to carry out.

Analogously, doesn't a president have a right when he appoints an attorney general, to expect him and the people in the Justice Department -- including civil servants -- to use the emphases that the president wants to make the decisions in terms of priorities that the president wants?

And isn't that an appropriate thing?And is that the kind of thing that you did while you were in the department?

GOODLING:That's what I was trying to do.

I was trying to find very well-qualified people who would be enthusiastic about, you know, supporting the attorney general's priorities and focus.

But, like I said, I may not have always got it right.I think I did in fact...

LUNGREN:Well, you were permitted to do that.

But weren't you even more than permitted?Didn't you feel an obligation to try and do that so that the American people could somehow have faith that the electoral process works, when they have a president who says he's going to do certain things?

GOODLING:I certainly hope so.

LUNGREN:And you said you believed you crossed the line.And there was some questioning and cross-examination of you.

Let me get this straight:As I understand what you said, you believe in retrospect that you may have crossed the line in terms of civil service rules.But you don't believe in your mind you had the intent to break any law at the time you did anything.Is that correct?

GOODLING:I guess what I meant is, I was intending to try to find good lawyers who would do a good job, and who would carry out the attorney general's priorities.

My focus was on that.My focus -- but in my focus, I think there were times that I thought that it would be good if we could hire some people that could be, you know, that could be other U.S. attorneys down the road.

And we also -- we brought a lot of people from the field to main Justice.

GOODLING:And I thought it would be good if we had, you know, people that would be wanting to come into leadership positions, that would be enthusiastic of the priorities.

LUNGREN:Let me ask you:Is it 93 U.S. attorneys that there are?

GOODLING:Yes.

LUNGREN:Do you believe that there are more than 93 qualified people in the United States who are attorneys to be U.S. attorneys?

GOODLING:Yes.

LUNGREN:Do you believe that a president has the right to refresh an office and to say, You've had your four years, I'd like to give someone else a chance?

GOODLING:Yes.

LUNGREN:Do you think that that is violative of the Constitution?

GOODLING:No.

LUNGREN:Does that in any way interfere with the prosecution of the laws?

GOODLING:No.

LUNGREN:Can you have two people -- one who's in charge of an office, and then another one who comes in -- both equally committed to prosecuting the laws of the United States?

GOODLING:Yes.

LUNGREN:And you said in your written statement, However, I'm not aware of anyone within the department ever suggesting the replacement of these U.S. attorneys to interfere with a particular case or in retaliation for prosecuting or refusing to prosecute a particular case or political advantage.

Now, after you've had all the questioning from the panelists thus far about that, do you still stand by that statement?

GOODLING:I do.

I mean, certainly I knew that Senator Domenici had told the attorney general he had some concerns with public corruption...

LUNGREN:And Dianne Feinstein had complained about the lack of prosecution of coyote cases in San Diego?

GOODLING:Yes.

But I didn't understand those to be the complaints -- I didn't -- my memory is not that it was of any specific case, that it was more of a focus or emphasis.

But, again, I didn't hear the senator's comments.Because the attorney general had the phone up to his ear.So I couldn't hear exactly what he said.

LUNGREN:Thank you very much.

CONYERS:Thank you.

The chair is going to announce a five-minute recess after the gentlelady from California, Zoe Lofgren, chair of the Immigration Subcommittee, has her questions.

And we yield to her at this time.

REP. ZOE LOFGREN, D-CALIF.:Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Goodling, I want to -- we only have five minutes.So I want to ask you, if I could, two yes-or-no questions.

Did you ever, or did you ever have a member of your staff, ask a job applicant who they voted for?

GOODLING:Political appointees, yes.

I don't think we asked that of career appointees.But I can't be sure.Sometimes people would come in and would actually apply for both positions at the same time.

LOFGREN:So, when it comes to your statement on hiring of immigration judges, BIA positions, that were frozen, you never asked any of them who they voted for?

GOODLING:I don't remember 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 immigration and BIA positions were frozen in December of 2006, after the Civil Division expressed concerns that civil service rules might apply.

LOFGREN:Would it be true then to say that we stopped hiring in this field because you couldn't apply a political litmus test to these individuals?

GOODLING:I think the hiring was frozen to give the division time to evaluate.And, actually, I'd like to clarify my answer. There were some individuals that came in and applied for political positions and immigration judge positions at the same time, so those individuals would have been asked political questions, yes.

LOFGREN:By who they voted for?

GOODLING:Yes, because they were applying for both.

LOFGREN:I -- the first of the U.S. attorneys known to have been terminated in 2006 was Todd Graves in Kansas City, and Mr. Graves has stated publicly that he received a phone call from Michael Battle in January and was told to submit his resignation.

Now, Mr. Sampson has stated Graves was on a list of U.S. attorneys to be fired which he showed to you and that was sent to the White House in 2006.And Mr. Battle has told committee investigators that it was you who called him and told him to call Graves and tell him to submit his resignation.

Who did you discuss this with at the DOJ?Did you discuss this with anybody at the White House?Who gave you the permission to -- or directed you to make this call to Mr. Battle?And you said in your opening statement that you had conflicting memories about this Graves matter.Can you explain what you meant by that?

GOODLING:Sure.When I first heard Mr. Graves' name months ago, my memory was that he had been asked to resign.That was what I had thought.But there were two things that made me think that maybe my memory was wrong.

One was, in January, Mr. Sampson was asked a question while he was staffing the attorney general about how many U.S. attorneys had been asked to resign in the previous year, and he gave the answer of eight.

And because I knew that the eight were Mr. Cummins and then the seven in December, I thought that I must have just been remembering incorrectly, because Mr. Graves would have made nine.But, you know, perhaps Mr. Sampson just didn't think of Mr. Graves when he gave that answer.

GOODLING:I don't know.But that was the first thing that made me think that maybe my historical memory just wasn't accurate.

LOFGREN:So you do recall seeing his name now, though, or you don't...

GOODLING:Oh, I do, yes.I remember seeing it on the list.

LOFGREN:Do you think it was true that one of the factors in removing Mr. Graves so quickly and installing his replacement with Mr. Schlozman so promptly was to push forward with the vote fraud case that Mr. Schlozman was promoting and Mr. Graves was resisting in Missouri, just before that election?

GOODLING:You know, I don't remember anything like that.My memory of the reason why I was thinking that Mr. Graves had been asked to leave related more to the fact that he was under investigation by the inspector general and that there were some issues that were being looked at there.

And like I said, I had conflicting memories on it, but I thought that that was -- that was my memory of what was going on during that period of time.

LOFGREN:When Mr. Schlossman worked at main Justice, did you ever discuss the issue of voter fraud cases or voter ID laws with him?

GOODLING:You know, I think he did mention them to me from time to time.I remember one conversation where he told me that they had done an election law manual.

LOFGREN:Did you discuss it with anyone else, these voter fraud or voter ID cases?

GOODLING:The specific cases?

LOFGREN:Yes.

GOODLING:Oh, I don't have any memories, at this point.I certainly would have seen stories in the clips, and they may have come up in meetings that I was in.

LOFGREN:Did you ever discuss them, do you think, with Mr. Von Spiscospi (ph), who was over at the voting section, civil rights?

GOODLING:No, I don't remember ever having met him or spoken with him.

LOFGREN:Do you remember who told you to have Mr. Battle fire Mr. Graves?

GOODLING:If I did make that phone call, it would have been at Mr. Sampson's request.I wouldn't have had that kind of authority.

LOFGREN:Before my time expires, I just want to make sure I understand you correctly.

You never asked any people applying just for immigration judge positions or BIA positions who they voted for?

GOODLING:If they were applying for other positions, I did.

LOFGREN:But if they were just applying for that, you never did?

GOODLING:I don't remember that I did, but I can't be sure.

And I do know that we did research them.And in some cases, we learned political information in the research process.

LOFGREN:My time has expired.

CONYERS:Thank you.

Members of the committee, we'll stand in recess until 10 minutes after 12.

Thank you very much.

(RECESS)

CONYERS:I'm pleased to recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the distinguished former chairman of Agriculture Committee, Bob Goodlatte.

REP. ROBERT W. GOODLATTE, R-VA.:Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

Ms. Goodling, welcome.I appreciate the forthright testimony that you've given.I understand the scrutiny that is going on here today.And we very much welcome your participation.

I have a few questions.Were you ever in any way a principal decision-maker in the review process and the removal process, concerning the U.S. attorneys?

GOODLING:No, not a decision-maker.

GOODLATTE:Some have alleged that the department requested the resignations of the U.S. attorneys for partisan purposes, such as to exact retribution against U.S. attorneys who prosecuted Republicans or failed to prosecute Democrats in public corruption cases.

If that were true, would it have made any sense for the department to have named career first assistant U.S. attorneys as interim U.S. attorneys to replace these individuals, as occurred in the district of New Mexico and the district of Nevada?

GOODLING:Some would say that might seem odd.

GOODLATTE:Can you elaborate on that at all?

What was your experience in terms of who were the replacements for these U.S. attorneys?

GOODLING:There actually was a lot of debate about those topics, just because we wanted to ensure that we put good people into those spots.And we were making those decisions in a time that there was a lot of scrutiny on what was happening.

But we interviewed several people for all the spots.And ultimately we chose the people that we thought could best lead, given the circumstances and the situation that we were under.

GOODLATTE:And are you satisfied that that was the result of those who were put in those positions, that they were indeed fulfilling the responsibilities that we expect of U.S. attorneys to conduct these offices in a professional and non-partisan fashion?

GOODLING:I certainly think that they will do a good job.

I mean, in some circumstances, if it had been up to me I might have made different decisions.We interviewed, like I said, a number of people in different spots.And there were disagreements, as there sometimes are when you interview multiple people for different spots.

But, ultimately, I think the people that are leading these offices will do a good job.

GOODLATTE:Now, with regard to the question 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 preparing the people who have testified before their testimony?

GOODLING:No.I never deliberately withheld any information.I think, looking back, trying to figure out what happened, I think sometimes we started preparing answers for questions A, and then we got questions B and we started preparing answers for question B, and then we got question C.

And at some point along the line, people just started answering questions and we had never really sat down and talked them all out and put all the facts on the table and figured out what they were.And different people had forgotten different things, and it just snowballed into a not good situation.

GOODLATTE:Sure.With regard to the hiring of career officials into leadership or policy positions, in your approach to these interviews, did you attempt to follow what you understand to be accepted models at the Department of Justice, such as that of David Margolis?

GOODLING:You know, there were different categories in -- different categories and I -- I'm sorry, but in the personnel context, it's particularly hard for me to make a general statement because it won't be true in one category and not true in another.And then there were sometimes odd situations that cropped up.

I tried -- if you're asking about detailed positions at main Justice, I tried to find people that would be part of the leadership team, that would be on the same page in terms of philosophy.And in those positions, because they were in leadership offices, I really did want to ensure that ideologically they were compatible.

In other cases like immigration judges and Board of Immigration appeals, I thought that we could consider other factors because I had been told that, in relation to immigration judges -- and I think my assumption was that that applied to the BIA as well.

GOODLING:And, you know, then there were other bizarre cases that kind of cropped up individually from time to time.And, you know, but my intent was to ensure that we had well-qualified, really bright lawyers, that I wanted to have, you know, pull in the same direction in terms of priorities.

GOODLATTE:And with regard to the hiring of the career assistant U.S. attorneys in the U.S. attorneys offices led by interim U.S. attorneys, did you ever act as a screener for Republican candidates for those positions?

I think that I probably did.Not in all cases.For the most case, I looked at those waiver requests and I evaluated whether or not there really was an extraordinary need.

The role is to ensure that there isn't during the time that there's a vacancy, so that the new U.S. attorney that's coming in has the opportunity to hire some people that they'd like to work with.

I thought that was a good rule, and I tried to enforce it.

Sometimes there were cases of extraordinary need, and I looked at resumes or I might have made reference calls -- or I did make reference calls in some cases.And in some cases, I may have researched folks and learned some information that influenced my decision-making.And I regret those mistakes.

GOODLATTE:Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CONYERS:Thank you.

GOODLATTE:Thank you, Ms. Goodling.

CONYERS:The chair recognizes the distinguished gentlelady from Houston, Texas, Sheila Jackson-Lee.

REP. SHEILA JACKSON-LEE, D-TEXAS:Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for committing this committee and yourself to the American people.

I welcome the witness.

Just for the record, I think it's important to note, because we have an important debate about immigration, there couldn't have been a greater disservice to the American people by stalling on the immigration judges and others who would participate in a process -- a legal process -- that we would hope most who are would participate in.

JACKSON-LEE:But allow me just to simply begin a series of questions, Ms. Goodling, and I would ask that they -- your answers -- be as cryptic and as brief as possible, however truthful, because we do have a shortened period of time.

I noticed that you were described as a loyal person or with extreme loyalty or deep loyalty to the president, President Bush, and certainly we welcome young people into this system of government, of public service, as you've indicated, but you might have been better served if you were loyal to the American people.And I give you counsel, whether you're willing to accept it or not.

You have been described by Bruce Fein, a former senior Justice official during the Reagan administration, both you and Mr. Goodling -- excuse me, you and Mr. Sampson -- that you knew politics and not the law.And I think that's the challenge that we face here today.

I'd like to know what your disagreement was with Seth Adam Meinero, a Howard University Law School graduate, that you apparently described or stalled in his hiring as a career prosecutor, a graduate of Howard University, one of the top, outstanding law schools in the nation, that graduates an array of diverse law students and future lawyers but has a historical grounding in the African-American community.

But you described him as too liberal for the nonpolitical position.He had formerly been a career attorney with the Environmental Protection Agency.

Why did you dislike Mr. Meinero?

GOODLING:I didn't dislike him.

GOODLING:And I regret the fact that I made a snap judgment based on that totality of the things that I saw on his resume, and I have no good explanation for it.There were...

JACKSON-LEE:But you did reject him, and it was only out of a career attorney to Mr. Taylor who pursued getting Mr. Meinero hired. Is that correct?

GOODLING:I didn't actually reject him.I actually, in fact, authorized the hire later.I delayed it.

JACKSON-LEE:After Mr. Taylor pursued it, is that correct?

GOODLING:Yes.Yes.

JACKSON-LEE:Thank you very much.

I understand that you've made a point that you say, To the best of my recollection, I had no meetings with Mr. Rove or Harriet Miers. Did you receive e-mail?

GOODLING:I don't remember receiving an e-mail from Mr. Rove.I did receive e-mail from Harriet Miers.I...

JACKSON-LEE:But there was a possibility.You don't recollect, but there might have been a possibility of receiving an e-mail.

GOODLING:I can't say that it didn't happen during my time at the department.I certainly had e-mails...

JACKSON-LEE:Thank you.

GOODLING:... when I was at the Republican...

JACKSON-LEE:Can you tell us anything about what Karl Rove knew about the plan to fire the nine U.S. attorneys, or what he did to create the situation leading to those firings?

GOODLING:I know that Mr. Rove was consulted after the plan -- or I believe that he was consulted.I guess I may not know for sure. When 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 remembering correctly, that said that it had been circulated to different offices within the White House and that they had all signed off.

So I assume that that -- that he was one of the individuals that signed off as part of that process but I don't know for sure.I think the e-mail just referenced the offices.Certain...

JACKSON-LEE:But he was certainly in an office in the White House.

GOODLING:He was in an office in the White House.I think it said that White House political had signed off.Political is actually headed by Sara Taylor but does report to Mr. Rove, so I don't know for sure.

GOODLING:So I don't know for sure.

JACKSON-LEE:I thank you.

With that in mind, isn't it a fact that you cannot give us the full picture about the White House involvement in the plan to remove U.S. attorneys and isn't it a fact that the only way we can get the story is if the White House provides documents and makes its personnel available to be interviewed by the Congress?

GOODLING:For me, I can say that I can't give you the whole White House story.I...

JACKSON-LEE:And I thank you for that.I have to move to the next question, but I want the record to be clear that the only way we can get to the full truth is if Mr. Karl Rove is sitting in the very same seat that you're sitting in.And he needs to be here.And he needs to be here post-haste.

Let me ask you quickly.You testified in response to Mr. Scott that someone at DOJ made a comment in a meeting that Senator Domenici says that Mr. Iglesias doesn't move cases in connection with Mr. Iglesias being on the list of fired U.S. attorneys.

When did that meeting take place?Who made the comment about Senator Domenici?And who else was at the meeting?

GOODLING:The DAG, Kyle Sampson, Mike Elston, and there may have been another person and myself were in the meeting.It was after his Senate testimony, but before his private briefing, so it was the week before Valentine's Day.I don't remember the exact date.

JACKSON-LEE:And the year?

GOODLING:2007.It would have been, I guess, before February 12th or around that period at some point.

I don't remember who in the meeting made the comment.But I wrote it down.And I don't remember what your other question was.

JACKSON-LEE:Who else was at the meeting?

GOODLING:The meeting was the deputy attorney general, Kyle Sampson, Mike Elston for at least part of it, myself and there may have been another person that came in and came out, maybe William Moschella, but I don't remember.

JACKSON-LEE:I guess the deputy attorney general is -- the name, please?

GOODLING:Paul McNulty.

JACKSON-LEE:I thank you very much.

I thank the distinguished chairman.

I thank the witness.

I yield back.

CONYERS:The chair is pleased now to recognize the gentleman from Florida, Ric Keller.

REP. RIC KELLER, R-FLA.:Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Goodling, when did you first get promoted to the position of senior counsel to the attorney general and White House Liaison?

GOODLING:I started in the Office of Attorney General as counsel.I became the White House liaison and was given a working title of senior counsel in April of 2006.

KELLER:And before April of 2006, you'd worked at the Justice Department in a variety of different positions for about four years?

GOODLING:Yes.

KELLER:OK.

I understand from your testimony that Kyle Sampson is the one who compiled the list of attorneys to be replaced?

GOODLING:Yes.

KELLER:And you didn't see that list of potential U.S. attorneys to be replaced, to the best of your recollection, until January of '06?Is that right?

GOODLING:Right.

KELLER:I'm going to focus most of my questions on Carol Lam- related issues, since that seems to be the most controversial.

Did you ever speak to anyone within the Department of Justice regarding Carol Lam?

GOODLING:Yes.She was a topic of frequent conversation.

KELLER:Tell me what your communications were and when they took place.

GOODLING:There were a lot.I'm not sure I'm going to remember them all.

There were a lot of conversations about her work in the gun crime area, which was an area that I worked in.And so the people that I worked on in relation to Project Safe Neighborhoods would frequently name her district as one that they felt was underperforming, that she just didn't seem to be doing as much as they thought she should be.

KELLER:When do you first remember those conversations about the lack of sufficient gun crime prosecutions taking place?

GOODLING:I believe it was while I was in the Office of Public Affairs...

KELLER:What would be the timeframe for that?

GOODLING:Maybe 2003 or 2004 time period.

KELLER:OK.

Were there any other topics of concern that you heard, other than gun crimes?

GOODLING:Immigration was the one that's been most frequently discussed in the past year and half or two years.

KELLER:And so when did you first start hearing about the concern about immigration prosecutions?

GOODLING:I believe while I was maybe in the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys.I'm a little tentative on this, but I think that there may have been some letters from Congress that came in, I think, during that time period.Those were...

KELLER:Would that be around the 2004 time period?

GOODLING:No.I was in the Executive Office in 2005.

KELLER:2005 time period.So, to the best of your recollection, the first concerns you heard about gun crimes and Carol Lam were 2003, 2004 and about immigration enforcement about 2004?Is that fair to say?

GOODLING:I think 2005 probably.

KELLER:2005?

GOODLING:In relation to immigration...

KELLER:OK, so 2003, 2004 for gun crimes 2005 for immigration crimes.

GOODLING:To the best of my recollection.

KELLER:Did anyone at DOJ ever say to you, or did you hear or read an e-mail, that she should be fired for prosecuting Duke Cunningham or any other Republican-related official?

GOODLING:No, I don't remember anything like that.

KELLER:Did you ever have any communications with anyone at the White House wherein they suggested that Carol Lam should be fired for prosecuting Duke Cunningham or any other Republican official?

GOODLING:No, I don't remember anything like that.

KELLER:OK.The reason I bring this up is because one of the most controversial things -- and you just hear it in the L.A. Times this week, and I'm looking at an article May 18, 2007.

And I'll just read you what it says:Speaking at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles on Thursday, John McKay, who was the fired U.S. attorney in Washington state, said he suspected that U.S. attorney Carol Lam was removed in San Diego to derail the expanding probe of then-Rep. Randall 'Duke' Cunningham.

You hear that allegation over and over, and yet I have the documents here, the first of 20 members of Congress to complain about Carol Lam not prosecuting illegal immigration was February 2, 2004, from Darrell Issa, which was circulated to Department of Justice, the White House and Carol Lam.

I hear from you that you had heard complaints about not enforcing gun control gun crimes in 2003, 2004, and you had heard complaints about not enforcing immigration-related prosecutions in 2005.

And yet, the San Diego Tribune did not even break the initial story of Duke Cunningham until June 12, 2005, which is a full 14 months after Congressman Issa wrote the first of many letters complaining about her not enforcing alien immigration laws, which makes it literally impossible that she was fired as a pretext for Duke Cunningham because all the problems were occurring, as we hear from the documents and your testimony and others, before the story even broke about Duke Cunningham.

And, in fact, when I had Carol Lam right here, I asked her, Do you have any evidence whatsoever that you were fired because of Duke Cunningham?

KELLER:She said no.

When I had the U.S. attorney here, Did you fire her because of Duke Cunningham?:No.

I've looked at 10,000 documents, e-mails, many witness interviews, testimony, not a shred of evidence.But I still see (inaudible) that we saw in the L.A. Times this week saying that our attorney general's a criminal because he let Ms. Lam go because she prosecuted Duke Cunningham.

I'm happy that we were able to set the record straight with your testimony that the problems that she incurred dealing with illegal immigration and gun crimes far predated the breaking of the Duke Cunningham story.

And I will yield back the balance of my time.

CONYERS:The chair is pleased now to recognize the gentlelady from California, a distinguished member of our committee, Maxine Waters.

REP. MAXINE WATERS, D-CALIF.:Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

This hearing is absolutely necessary to continue the work that we must do to determine whether or not the Justice Department is free of political influence.So I'm very pleased that we have this hearing here today.

I'd like to ask our witness here today, why did you resign from your position?

GOODLING:There were several reasons, but the primary and most important one to me was that I just felt I couldn't be effective in the role anymore.My job required me to work with U.S. attorneys every day, and after being a part of this effort I just -- I didn't think that that was a -- realistic.

WATERS:As I understand it, before you went to the Justice Department you worked for the Republican National Committee?

GOODLING:I did.

WATERS:What did you do there?

GOODLING:I was -- my last position there was to be the deputy director of research and strategic planning.

WATERS:Did you do opposition research?

GOODLING:Yes, we did.

WATERS:And I understand it that you worked with Ms. Barbara Comstock.

GOODLING:Yes.

WATERS:And she left the Republican National Committee, working with you on opposition research, and went over to head the press office.

WATERS:Is that right?

GOODLING:Yes.

WATERS:And you went over about that same time?

GOODLING:A month later.

WATERS:Did you use any of your opposition research skills once you were at the Justice Department?

GOODLING:I think -- most of what opposition research is, and it tends to be a kind of negative term, is really just being able to use Westlaw...

WATERS:No, I know what it is.

I want to know if you used the skills that you had developed at the Republican National Committee once you had gone over to the Justice Department.

GOODLING:I certainly used Westlaw and Lexis.

WATERS:You used your opposition skills.In what way did you use them?Did you use them to do research on U.S. attorneys or anyone else when you were over there?

GOODLING:I did research people that we were considering for hiring, yes.

WATERS:Did you use them in terms of -- happen to make decisions about who should be retired?

GOODLING:Retired, no.No.

Just -- we would get resumes from a number of sources.And you would Google people or Westlaw -- do Westlaw checks.You wanted to know if there's something negative about someone before you hired them to work at the department.

WATERS:But do you have a human resources division that's primarily responsible for doing that kind of work for you?

GOODLING:No.No.For political appointees, I and my assistant -- my deputy -- were pretty much it.

Occasionally we would ask younger staff to help.But we didn't have a staff to do that.

WATERS:So you basically was responsible for doing whatever research was necessary in the responsibility that you had for hiring? Is that right?

GOODLING:Yes.

WATERS:Did you ever discuss any other research that you had done or discovered with Mr. Karl Rove?

GOODLING:No.

WATERS:Anyone in his office?

GOODLING:Research on people?I think I had conversations w