U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

35–603 PDF 2008

CONTINUING INVESTIGATION INTO THE U.S. ATTORNEYS CONTROVERSY AND RELATED MATTERS (PART I)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 23, 2007

Serial No. 110–56

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

PERRY APELBAUM, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

JOSEPH GIBSON, Minority Chief Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

MAY 23, 2007

OPENING STATEMENT 

Page 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ..................... 1

The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......................... 3

WITNESSS 

Ms. Monica M. Goodling, former Senior Counsel to the Attorney General 

and White House Liaison, U.S. Department of Justice 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 7

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 11

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Order Immunizing the Testimony of, and Other Information Provided by, 

Monica Goodling, May 11, 2007 .......................................................................... 6

Article from Newsweek, May 14, 2007, submitted by the Honorable Linda 

T. Sa ́nchez, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, 

and Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......................................................... 29

Article from The New York Times, May 11, 2007, submitted by the Honorable 

Linda T. Sa ́nchez, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary ............................................ 30

Order for the Delegation of Certain Personnel Authorities, Office of the Attorney General, March 1, 2006, submitted by the Honorable Chris Cannon, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary ........................................................................................ 72

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 114

Questions Submitted for the Record by the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., 

a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Chairman, 

Committee on the Judiciary, and the Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, and Member, Committee 

on the Judiciary ................................................................................................... 123

Letter to the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., dated June 28, 2007, from John 

M. Dowd, Attorney for Monica Goodling regarding Answers to Questions 

Submitted for the Record .................................................................................... 144

(1)

CONTINUING INVESTIGATION INTO THE U.S. 

ATTORNEYS CONTROVERSY AND RELATED 

MATTERS (PART I) 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 23, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:25 a.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable John Conyers, 

Jr. (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Conyers, Berman, Boucher, Nadler, 

Scott, Watt, Lofgren, Jackson Lee, Waters, Meehan, Delahunt, 

Wexler, Sa ́nchez, Cohen, Johnson, Gutierrez, Sherman, Schiff, 

Davis, Wasserman Schultz, Ellison, Smith, Sensenbrenner, Coble, 

Gallegly, Goodlatte, Chabot, Lungren, Cannon, Keller, Issa, Pence, 

Forbes, King, Feeney, Franks, Gohmert and Jordan. 

Staff Present: Elliot Mincberg, Chief Oversight Counsel; Sam 

Sokol, Oversight Counsel; Renata Strause, Staff Assistant; Crystal 

Jezierski, Minority Oversight Counsel; and Daniel Flores, Minority 

Counsel. 

Mr. CONYERS. Will the media move from the room and make sure 

that they are not interfering with the procedures in any way? 

I am going to ask the camera people to move away. We have got 

to have a reasonable appearance of a Judiciary Committee hearing 

here, and this is unreasonable at this point. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to insist that they follow 

your instructions. 

Mr. CONYERS. I would further like to ask the members of the 

press, the cameramen, in particular, to please move away from the 

table. We don’t want pictures taken while the witness is trying to 

give testimony, if you don’t mind. 

And I would appreciate it. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that the folks with 

the cameras have been listening to what you have been asking 

them to do; and I would like to ask that we have regular order and 

ask that you have them move to the side and not be between us 

and the table. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Smith. 

The fact of the matter is that we have more cameras than this 

room can accommodate. So, unfortunately, some of you will have to 

be excused; and we will have to clear the front of the witness table 

so that there are no cameras in front of it. 

2

I am sorry, but it is the great number of cameras that require 

that we invoke this instruction. I regret that very much, but please 

move away from the witness table. 

All cameras please move away from the witness table. 

All cameras. That means everybody with a camera please move 

away from the witness table. 

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, would you mind lengthening your instruction to include people without cameras if they are down in the 

well? 

Mr. CONYERS. Yes, Mr. Watt. It includes people without cameras 

that may be in the well in front of the witness table. Let’s see, do 

we need a Webster’s dictionary? For everybody in front of the witness table, please remove themselves. 

This is unusual, but I think it is necessary in fairness to everybody. 

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 7, 2007. 

As the Members know, 2 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 to 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 of Columbia. 

The Committee also authorized a subpoena to compel the testimony as well as the production of documents. 

Now these are steps that I did not take lightly 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 improper 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 firings, whom we have already interviewed or who 

have testified. 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 

3

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. 

I would now recognize our Tanking 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. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Goodling, welcome. You are apparently the last witness we 

are going to hear from who has 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. I know you have never had to endure 

anything like this hearing before, which I think makes us all particularly appreciative of your being here and thank you for being 

here. 

Mr. Chairman, we, our staffs, 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 lead the U.S. attorneys’ 

dismissals to any inappropriate action by Karl Rove or Harriet 

Miers. I understand that the majority staff already has learned 

that you never have 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 grounds 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. 

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 

they 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 as new allegations against you, Ms. Goodling. 

4

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. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman; and I yield back. 

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman; and, without objection, all 

other Members’ opening statements will be included in the record. 

We will 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. 

Ms. Goodling is accompanied by counsel, and we would please 

ask that he introduce himself for the record. 

Mr. DOWD. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CONYERS. Good morning, Mr. Dowd. 

Mr. DOWD. Mr. Chairman, John Dowd and Jeff King and Jim 

Sherry from Akin Gump Strauss are available on behalf of Ms. 

Goodling. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much. We welcome you and are 

happy that you are here. 

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. 

Mr. DOWD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CONYERS. 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. With that understanding, 

we have furnished you with your own copy, Counsel, of the notebook 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? 

Mr. DOWD. I have, Mr. Chairman; and I appreciate it very much. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

Have you received them, Ms. Goodling? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes, thank you. 

Mr. 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. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Chairman, point of personal privilege. 

Mr. CONYERS. What is it? 

Mr. LUNGREN. You just referred to some documents. We don’t 

have them at our place. 

Mr. CONYERS. We gave a number of them——

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

Mr. CONYERS. Yes. Yes, sir. They are being copied now, Mr. Lungren. 

5

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 are investigating; 

and although we have mentioned this to your counsel, we believe 

that 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 are 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. 

Mr. DOWD. Mr. Chairman, we have the document. 

Mr. CONYERS. You do have them. Thank you. Thank you, Counsel Dowd. 

Mr. DOWD. Mr. Chairman, I think we have already corresponded 

and communicated about the balance of them with both you and 

the Department of Justice. 

Mr. CONYERS. Exactly. 

Mr. DOWD. Thank you sir. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, sir. 

Ms. Goodling, given the gravity of the issues we are discussing 

today and your role in the hearing and to help ensure that there 

is no misunderstanding about your obligation here, we would ask 

that you be sworn in before we proceed. 

Would you kindly raise your right hand? 

Stand and raise your right hand. 

[Witness sworn.] 

Ms. Goodling, let us begin. I will ask you who made the recommendations to 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? 

Ms. 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. 

Mr. CONYERS. Ms. Goodling, I am hereby communicating to you 

an order signed by Chief Judge Hogan of the United States District 

for the D.C. District. The Clerk is bringing to you now a certified 

copy of the order, and we made a copy for your counsel. And, without objection, the order will be placed in the record. 

[The material referred to follows:]

6

ORDER IMMUNIZING THE TESTIMONY OF, AND OTHER INFORMATION PROVIDED BY, 

MONICVA GOODLING, MAY 11, 2007


Order.eps
7

Mr. CONYERS. The order provides, in substance, that you may not 

refuse on the basis of your fifth amendment privilege against selfincrimination 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 you to be careful about 

how you answer each question; 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. 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 would like. 

TESTIMONY OF MONICA M. GOODLING, FORMER SENIOR 

COUNSEL TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND WHITE HOUSE 

LIAISON, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Ms. GOODLING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

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. 

Mr. CONYERS. Without objection, so ordered. 

Ms. GOODLING. My written remarks will address four topics that 

I expect will be of interest to the Committee. 

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 efforts, 

8

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 ‘‘caging’’ 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 14, 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. 

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 somebody 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 Hertling told me the briefing was not 

going well and recommended that I return to the Department immediately. Like the Deputy, Mr. Hertling 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 the Deputy has 

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 have never had a conversation 

with Karl Rove or Harriet Miers while I served at the Department 

of Justice; and I am certain 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 mid2005, and I believe I first saw a list of candidates for replacement 

in January, 2006, when Mr. Sampson showed me a draft memoVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:15 Jan 29, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\FULL\052307\35603.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35603
9

randum he was preparing for Harriet Miers. 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 Bogden 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 am 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 am 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 5 years at the Department, I believe I interviewed 

hundreds of job applicants. 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 Appeals. I also reviewed requests for waivers of hiring freezes imposed on districts with an outgoing U.S. Attorney or 

an 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. 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 would 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 am 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 of because 

of of the value they place on service. 

I have seen in my life what violent crime can do to its victims, 

and I knew at some point I wanted to do my part to seek justice 

on their behalf. That is why I loved the Department of Justice, parVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:15 Jan 29, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\FULL\052307\35603.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35603
10

ticularly my time as a prosecutor. For the 5 years that I spent 

there, I worked as hard as I could at whatever task that was put 

before me; and I hope that is 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 am 

here to be a fact witness to what I heard, saw, did, or know; and 

I will do that to the best of my recollection. 

Thank you for allowing me the time to make this statement. I 

am prepared to answer your questions. 

Mr. CONYERS. And I thank you for your statement. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Goodling follows:]

11

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MONICA M. GOODLING


MMG-1.eps
12


MMG-2.eps
13


MMG-3.eps
14


MMG-4.eps
15


MMG-5.eps
16


MMG-6.eps
17


MMG-7.eps
18


MMG-8.eps
19

Mr. CONYERS. 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? 

Ms. GOODLING. Mr. Conyers, let me just say that, in relation to 

Todd Graves, who I believe you are considering as a ninth, my 

recollection on that is slightly conflicting testimony—or memories, 

so I would prefer to leave him out of most of what I talk about 

today, if I could. 

Mr. CONYERS. You are going to be talking about the eight. 

Ms. GOODLING. Right. Right. I am 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 would 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 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 is——

Mr. CONYERS. So, from your point of view, your answer to the 

question would be Kyle Sampson. 

Ms. GOODLING. Mr. Sampson compiled the list. I know that he 

did speak to the Deputy Attorney General about it, and I know he 

presented it to the Attorney General. 

Mr. CONYERS. And the Attorney General being Mr. Alberto Gonzalez? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes, sir. 

Mr. 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, who put his 

name on the list, ma’am? 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t know. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, who would you recommend a Committee, 

just seeking the facts in this matter, who would you recommend to 

answer that question? 

Ms. GOODLING. I think Mr. Sampson is the only person who can 

tell you at what point he put that name on the list. I can tell that 

you 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 who had been involved in this process. 

Mr. CONYERS. The Deputy Attorney General and the Attorney 

General. 

Ms. GOODLING. Right. 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 has 

been addressed. And that was all they said, so I didn’t get from 

that answer an answer that I could provide to the Committee. 

Mr. CONYERS. Do you know who it was that gave that answer? 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t remember. 

Mr. CONYERS. Now, what did Mr. Kyle Sampson tell about the 

origins of the process and how he came up with the names that 

20

were on the list? And I know you have had a number of discussions 

with him, but just pulling them all together, as you can best recall. 

Ms. 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 this effort 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, 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 is 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——

Mr. CONYERS. That was last year, in 2006? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes. I am 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 is something that he had been 

working on for a while. 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, you know, 

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. 

Mr. CONYERS. He didn’t have to explain everything he was doing 

and why, did he, because he was your boss. 

Ms. GOODLING. Because he was my boss. I am 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. 

It was just kind of from time to time he would show me something 

and ask for my thoughts; and, you know, I would gather some context from it. 

That is the best I can do. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much. 

My time is expired. Ranking Member Lamar Smith. 

Mr. 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 

what you had done. I certainly can appreciate your heartfelt comment about not recognizing a lot of what has been written about 

you. I think you would do a lot to counter that in your testimony 

today. 

Also, I want to thank you for your candor. You have said that 

you would, in fact, do some things differently; and we appreciate 

hearing that as well. 

21

I just want to emphasize a couple of points in your testimony and 

then ask you a couple of 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? 

Ms. GOODLING. No. 

Mr. SMITH. Did you ever have any contact with Karl Rove about 

the replacement of any of these U.S. attorneys? 

Ms. GOODLING. No conversation 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 was in the room when this topic was 

discussed. 

Mr. SMITH. Did you talk to anybody at the White House about 

the need to replace U.S. attorneys? 

Ms. GOODLING. About the need to replace U.S. attorneys? I don’t 

believe—I don’t 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. 

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. 

Mr. SMITH. 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? 

Ms. GOODLING. You know, I am not sure that I am comfortable 

characterizing it. I will let others make that assessment. 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 27 meeting. The way I probably would characterize my role 

without giving it a qualifier is to say I was responsible more for 

what happened after the plan was implemented than maybe 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. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you for that answer. 

A 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? 

Ms. GOODLING. No. 

Mr. SMITH. And last question for you, to the best of your knowledge, do you know whether the Department or the White House requested a 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? 

22

Ms. GOODLING. I have no knowledge along that line. 

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

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

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

Congresswoman, Subcommittee, Committee Chair, Linda 

Sa ́nchez is recognized. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. 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? 

Ms. GOODLING. I think in some ways he simply didn’t communicate all that he knew. And I am certainly not saying that he did 

it deliberately. Testifying is, as I am finding out right now, a difficult thing, and I am sure there will be things I don’t remember, 

and I am going to try to be complete, but there may be things that 

I leave out as well.

So I am not saying it was deliberate. But what I am saying is, 

when I looked back on the testimony, I believe that there were a 

number of things that I did brief him on; and that information 

wasn’t fully revealed. I am 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. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. I understand. Can you be more specific? What 

things did you specifically brief him on that you felt that he was 

not entirely forthcoming before Congress when he testified? 

Ms. GOODLING. He was asked whether the White House was involved in any way; and he said, well, these are Presidential appointments, so I am sure White House personnel was informed at 

some point. Certainly——

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Why would that not be a complete answer? 

Ms. GOODLING. I think because of the way it came across I think 

that people believed he was downplaying the role to a certain extent. 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. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Would it be fair to say that you believed 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, 

wasn’t completely forthcoming with how active a role the White 

House played or was involved in? 

Ms. GOODLING. They were involved in the sign-off. There were 

many offices that did sign off on the plan before it was implemented; and I am just taking 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 is the part that I knew about. And that that—he at 

least knew that that was a process that had been going on for some 

period of months. 

There were—there were other things. 

23

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Such as? 

Ms. 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—he 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 if there was any new news there, whether we received names 

from Senators, whether we set up interviews, how the interviews 

had gone——

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. So you believe his knowledge of how Tim Griffin 

became recommended for that position—he wasn’t fully forthcoming? 

Ms. GOODLING. I know I would have told him over the 6 months 

that that process was going on that he had worked with the White 

House, and the White House did want to provide him with an opportunity. I am not sure I would have told him who in the White 

House, because I am not sure that I ever knew who in the White 

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

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Aside from those two examples, are there any others? 

Ms. GOODLING. He testified that the Parsky Commission worked 

very well. That is 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. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. So you believed 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 it wasn’t working——

Ms. GOODLING. 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. 

And the last thing was the voter—the caging issue, which was 

a reference to Tim Griffin. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Can you reference what caging is? I am not familiar with that term. 

Ms. GOODLING. My understanding—and I don’t actually know a 

lot about it—it is 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 is about the best information that I have. 

24

That it just—it is a direct mail term that is 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. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. That Tim Griffith was involved in that to some degree or may have been involved? 

Ms. GOODLING. Right. And I believe that Mr. Griffin doesn’t believe that he did anything wrong there and there actually is a very 

good reason for it, a very good explanation. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. But Mr. McNulty was aware of that? 

Ms. GOODLING. He was aware that was an issue. I told him the 

day before 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 he could help to answer 

those questions. 

Mr. CONYERS. Gentlelady’s time is expired. 

The Chair now recognizes Chris Cannon, the Ranking Member 

on the Subcommittee for Commercial and Administrative Law. The 

gentleman from Utah is recognized. 

Mr. CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Goodling, I would like to thank you for having—actually, I 

am over here, Ms. Goodling. 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 would 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 hardworking, smart people, trustworthy, exercised good judgment. So that is my general feeling about them. I 

mean, it is not unusual to find Monica Goodling BlackBerrying people at 2 in the morning and just working hard and being diligent 

about a number of matters. 

This is Mr. Moschella again. I specifically asked Monica if she 

would 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 a 

sent to me at 9:56 the night before; and she was willing to put it 

together. So, very 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 had earlier read into 

the record statements by Mr. Margolis about what a thoughtful 

and capable person you are, and you certainly showed that thus far 

in your testimony. So thank you for being so forthcoming, and I 

apologize for the inconvenience. 

I know that we have had many discussions with your lawyer and 

also with—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 U.S. Attorney matter and the politization of 

the Department of Justice. And I think that has probably not gotten us—what we have done here over the many, many hours of 

25

Committee work and staff work and dozens of interrogations of 

people, I am not sure we have advanced those two issues. Because 

I don’t think that we have had a problem with these. At least you 

haven’t been able—the Committee has not been able to show that 

there has been a problem there. 

But, on the other hand, we are not doing this in a vacuum; and 

would I like to read from the L.A. Times about another problem we 

have facing Congress that we are not actually dealing with here, 

which I think is relevant in balancing out the vituperation that has 

tended to go on. 

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 Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi doesn’t need Republicans. After 

Pelosi promised that 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 proposal as total crap.’’ his words. ‘‘he graciously 

added, however, that he would support the legislation because that 

is what Nancy wants. 

‘‘Murtha’s latest gift to Pelosi is a confrontation in which he allegedly told Representative Mike Rogers, Republican of Michigan, 

who had opposed one of Murtha’s pet projects, I hope you don’t 

have any earmarks in the defense’’—I can’t quite say it the way 

Mr. Murtha said it. But with a great deal more intensity than I 

am 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 are not going to get any earmarks now and forever. Rogers, a 

former FBI agent, asserted that Murtha had turned the House 

floor into a episode of The Sopranos, and he filed a resolution accusing his colleague of violating House Rules. On Tuesday, the resolution was tabled’’—meaning it is not going to proceed—‘‘on a 

largely party line vote’’—actually, it was a party line vote with 

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 has made 

a signature issue.’’

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. 

Mr. CANNON. I am about done with this article, Mr. Chairman. 

‘‘on what Pelosi has made her signature issue.’’ that is ethical reform. ‘‘expect Republicans to continue making Sopranos jokes. 

‘‘actually, Tony Soprano is less likely a model for Murtha than 

Lyndon Johnson’’—who was a tough guy and who played by rules 

that we tried to change. 

He goes on, ‘‘It doesn’t help the Democrats’ image that this dispute over Murtha’s comments originated in an earmark, a specialinterest provision’’——

Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. CONYERS. There wasn’t any balance left. 

The Chair recognizes the senior Member of the Judiciary Committee, Howard Berman of California. 

26

Mr. BERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and I yield my time for 

relevant questioning to the gentlelady from California, Ms. 

Sa ́nchez. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. And I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

To get back to the subject matter of this hearing, Ms. Goodling, 

you said you had some concerns about Mr. McNulty’s testimony before Congress. To whom at the Department of Justice did you voice 

those concerns? 

Ms. 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 want us to go out and say bad 

things about our U.S. attorneys. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. But to whom did you——

Ms. GOODLING. So when I left the hearing I spoke first with Will 

Moschella, and I expressed some concern that—I expressed 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 what 

my concern was really that I was afraid that we were going to go 

down a road of saying bad things about people who had worked for 

us publicly. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. 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? 

Ms. GOODLING. I did say to Mr. Sampson—I did say there were 

a couple of things that I didn’t think were fully right. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Aside from Mr. Moschella and Mr. Sampson, was 

there anybody else that you voiced those concerns to? 

Ms. GOODLING. I talked to Mike Elston after that. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Anybody else besides Mr. Elston? 

Ms. GOODLING. I talked to Tasia Scolinos, but our conversation 

just related more to—it was a very short conversation. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Besides those four, anybody else? 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t think so. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Okay, thank you. 

Before you joined the Executive Office of 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? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes. Putting aside college, where I was a student 

body president and we actually did hire people to work on various 

organizations——

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. In a professional capacity outside of college. 

Ms. GOODLING. At the Republican National Committee, I was the 

deputy director there of research and strategic planning and——

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Hiring and firing——

Ms. GOODLING. I did some in the research department——

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. How did you get your position at the EOUSA? 

Who hired you? 

27

Ms. GOODLING. I interviewed with Mary Beth Buchanan, who 

was the director at the time. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. At EOUSA you were involved in the hiring process 

for nine of the assistant U.S. Attorney positions in offices of acting 

or interim U.S. Attorneys, is that correct? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. And press reports say that you insisted that you 

retain your power to review the hiring of AUSA’s after you became 

an aide to Alberto Gonzalez, is that correct? 

A.Yes, when I first—when I was in the executive office, I would 

refer significant requests to Mr. Sampson, who was in the AG’s office at the time. So when I moved to the AG’s office and basically 

took that role, my position in the executive office remained vacant 

for a long time, so there was somebody in the executive office to 

do it——

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. But you did retain your power to review the hiring 

as an AUSA—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 the interim, I am assuming you 

filled the position, and why would you still retain power of hiring 

and firing? 

Ms. 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 having—being able to provide input on——

One of the questions I would often ask Mr. Sampson was, do we 

think we are 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 6 more months before 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 a few weeks, of course, 

you would want them to be involved in the hiring decision. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. 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 said 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, ‘‘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? 

Ms. GOODLING. I think that when I did look at that resume I 

made snap judgment, and I regret it. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. So that did occur? You blocked that hiring? 

Ms. GOODLING. I didn’t block it permanently. He was hired, but 

I delayed it. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. How many applicants did you block or delay on 

the basis of what their potential political leanings might have 

been? 

Ms. GOODLING. I wouldn’t be able to give you a number. I don’t 

think—feel like there were 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 wasn’t extraordinary need and 

I agreed with it and how long it would be till the new U.S. Attorney got there——

28

Mr. CONYERS. The time of the gentlelady is expired. You can finish your comments, ma’am. 

Ms. GOODLING. 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 person the new U.S. Attorney would want to hire. Why don’t 

we wait and let them take a look at the request; and if they want 

to hire them when they get there, they can. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. I would like to ask the Chairman for unanimous 

consent to enter into the record the New York Times and Newsweek

articles about the decisionmaking for hiring and firing based 

on——

Mr. CONYERS. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The material referred to follows:]

29

ARTICLE FROM NEWSWEEK, MAY 14, 2007, SUBMITTED BY THE HONORABLE LINDA T. 

SA ́ NCHEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND

MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY


A-1.eps
30

ARTICLE FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES, MAY 11, 2007, SUBMITTED BY THE HONORABLE

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY


A-2.eps
31


A-3.eps
32


A-4.eps
33


A-5.eps
34

Mr. CONYERS. The Chair recognizes the former Chairman of Judiciary, Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. 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 4 years? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Were all of the U.S. Attorneys who were 

replaced, had their terms of 4 years expired? 

Ms. GOODLING. The eight, yes. 

Mr. 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? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. And were you aware that the Attorney 

General did respond to Senator Feinstein in a letter that contained 

a lot of statistics? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes, although I don’t think I saw it until sometime this year. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, this being the case that all of the 

U.S. Attorneys whose terms had expired, or were subject to replacement, what is 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? 

Ms. 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 believed the President does have the right to be served by the best 

people that he can find and people that he would like to have serve 

him. So I believe he has the right to make changes if he would like 

to. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Isn’t this an exercise of legitimate executive power, which practically every President, up to and including 

the current one, exercises all the time with officials within the executive branch subject to his appointment? 

Ms. GOODLING. I believe it is. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Now, you know, let me say that this Committee has spent $250,000 of the taxpayers’ money basically in investigating the replacement of U.S. Attorneys whose terms had expired. I was the Chairman of this Committee for 6 years during the 

Bush administration and the Chairman of the Science Committee 

for 4 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 have spent an awful lot of time 

and an awful lot of money finding that out. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

35

Mr. CONYERS. The Chair recognizes now the Chairman of the 

Constitution Subcommittee, Jerry Nadler of New York. 

Mr. NADLER. 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. 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes. 

Mr. NADLER. To assert fifth amendment privilege you are in effect asserting that you are aware of crimes that may have been 

committed and you are saying that you don’t want to be implicated. 

What crimes are you aware of that you feared your testimony 

might be asked about? 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t believe that I committed any crime. 

Mr. NADLER. I didn’t ask if you committed. I said what crimes 

were you aware of, or possible crimes were you aware of that 

caused you to be concerned enough to seek—to claim the fifth 

amendment. 

Ms. GOODLING. I asserted the fifth amendment based on the fact 

these were 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——

Mr. NADLER. Okay. So in other words that his allegation might 

be construed by some as a crime was your concern? 

Ms. GOODLING. Those were the—that was the basis for my exercise. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay. And are you aware of—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—that he testified that he did not 

have any knowledge of how Tim Griffin came to be recommended 

for an 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 

6 months. He testified that the Parsky Commission worked very 

well, and 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. And you also testified that he testified that 

he did not know anything about allegations that Tim Griffin caged 

Black votes, but that in fact you had informed him that this issue 

could arise and you had prepared him to answer the questions 

about it. 

These would seem to be direct contradictions, and in effect your 

testimony is that the Deputy Attorney General misinformed the 

Senate Judiciary in sworn testimony. Is that not correct? 

Ms. GOODLING. I am just saying that I didn’t believe he was fully 

candid, and the point that I was trying to make is I did give him 

some information. I didn’t withhold information. I gave him a lot 

36

of information. And he had some of that information and didn’t use 

all of it. 

Mr. NADLER. Although in fact he stated things directly contrary 

to what your written statement says he knew to be true. 

Ms. GOODLING. Those would be conclusions for others to draw. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay. That is fair enough. Now, let me switch topics for a moment and get back to follow up on some of what Ms. 

Sa ́nchez was asking about hiring—or rather asking political questions of non-political hirings. 

The New York Times discussed Robin Ashton, a career prosecutor 

serving on detail to the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys, who was 

slated to become a career Deputy Director of EOUSA 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, and therefore shouldn’t 

get the career job. 

Is that correct? Did you seek to deny her a promotion because 

you believed she was a Democrat? 

Ms. 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. You know, looking back on it, I think it was mostly the 

case of two type A women. She had been in the office as the only 

deputy——

Mr. NADLER. You did not recommend that she should not be promoted? 

Ms. 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. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay. Now, in general you have testified in your—

or there has been statements made, and you have essentially 

agreed with that and regretted it, and there is 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 or affiliations. 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes. Let me clarify, though, that I didn’t actually 

interview AUSA candidates. 

Mr. NADLER. Did you ask 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 kinds of questions either for assistant 

U.S. Attorneys or for any other career position—or for career positions at all? 

Ms. GOODLING. In some cases, 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 

37

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 

super——

Mr. NADLER. You froze hiring why? 

Mr. CONYERS. The gentleman’s time has expired. You can finish 

your answer, ma’am. 

Ms. 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 Republican in career positions, and sometimes those were at the requests of other 

people in the Department. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

Mr. CONYERS. The Chair is pleased to recognize the gentleman 

from North Carolina, the Ranking Member on the Intellectual 

Property Subcommittee, Mr. Howard Coble. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Goodling, good to 

have you with us today. Ms. Goodling, as the distinguished Ranking Member stated earlier, the U.S. Attorneys do in fact serve at 

the pleasure of the President. That’s been lost in the shuffle it 

seems. Having said that, I recall reading two articles, Ms. Goodling, and just because I read articles does not mean they are 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. 

Ms. 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 checkup of the office, but not necessarily of the U.S. Attorney. It is certainly true the EARS reports 

do make conclusions about the effectiveness of the U.S. Attorney. 

But for the most part, EARS evaluations are very in depth, and 

they are designed to look at the legal practice in the office and the 

administrative procedures. So for example, they would check to see 

if there is an inappropriate chain of indictment review. They would 

check—they would evaluate the supervisory structure on the administrative side. They would check the books and make sure that 

the accounting is done properly, that security procedures were 

being followed appropriately. And they make a lot of recommendations. In some cases, EARS reports are hundreds of pages long because they are 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. 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 are the ones that are working with the 

U.S. Attorney every day. They are the ones that have the opportunity to see when there is problems. Those are things that are 

going to be elevated above the U.S. Attorney. 

38

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Ms. Goodling. Ms. Goodling, 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? 

Ms. 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, or non-career 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. 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 was 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. You know, things, just reporttype 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, you 

know, 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, you know, come 

to the White House. And I so I would spend, you know, 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 those down to the White House so appointees 

would have the opportunity to do those sorts of things. And so 

there were a combination of things, and there were others I am 

sure I have not mentioned, but those were the three categories of 

things. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you. Finally, Ms. Goodling, did you have, did 

you ever see the initial list or the final list of the United States 

attorneys who were recommended for replacement? 

Ms. 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 am not sure if Kevin 

Ryan was on the list at that point or not. It may have been only 

six on that day. 

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. The Chair recognizes the Subcommittee Chairman on Crime, the gentleman from Virginia, 

Bobby Scott. 

39

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Goodling, as you have 

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 and 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 has been hard for us to get to the bottom of 

it, because when you ask simple questions you have accused others 

of not telling the truth under oath. You in fact yourself pleaded the 

fifth. So it has 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 ‘‘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? 

Ms. GOODLING. That is not a conclusion for me to make. I know 

I was acting——

Mr. SCOTT. No, 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? 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t believe I intended to commit a crime. 

Mr. SCOTT. Did you break the law? Did you break the law? Was 

it against the law to take those political considerations into account? You had civil service laws. You had obstruction of justice. 

Were there any laws that you could have broken by taking political 

considerations into account ‘‘on some occasions?’’

Ms. GOODLING. The best I can say is that I know I took political 

considerations into account on some occasions. 

Mr. SCOTT. Was that legal? 

Ms. GOODLING. Sir, I am not able to answer that question. I 

know I crossed the line. 

Mr. SCOTT. What line? Legal? 

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

Mr. SCOTT. Rules, laws? You crossed the law on civil service 

laws. You crossed the line on civil service laws. Is that right? 

Ms. GOODLING. I believe I crossed the lines, but I didn’t mean to. 

I mean I——

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. 

Ms. GOODLING. You know, it wasn’t——

Mr. SCOTT. In reference to the U.S. Attorneys, was 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? 

40

Ms. GOODLING. Not as far as I know. 

Mr. SCOTT. Not at all? 

Ms. GOODLING. Not as far as I know. 

Mr. SCOTT. Are you aware that Senator Domenici had called one 

of the U.S. Attorneys that was asked to leave? 

Ms. GOODLING. I have seen the press accounts, yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. You have seen the press accounts? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Do you know that he had a problem with one of the 

U.S. Attorneys? 

Ms. GOODLING. I was aware he had concerns with Mr. Iglesias’ 

performance. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. On the back of tab 26 you have a note that 

says, ‘‘Domenici says he doesn’t move cases.’’

Ms. 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. 

Mr. SCOTT. Do you know what cases he was talking about? 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t remember that the person who made the 

comment specified. 

Mr. SCOTT. Do you know what case he was talking about? Are 

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

Ms. GOODLING. I think I have seen press accounts. 

Mr. SCOTT. Was that one of the cases that you could have been 

talking about? 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t know. 

Mr. SCOTT. 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. 

Ms. GOODLING. It does not. 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. 

Mr. SCOTT. Other than Domenici’s problems that he doesn’t move 

cases, how could Mr. Iglesias’ name get on the list of fired attorneys? What else could he have possibly done wrong to get him on 

the list? 

Ms. 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—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. And Mr. Sampson had 

indicated that he heard Mr. Mercer express concerns about the 

amount of time that he spent in the office. But I also heard somebody else express a concern that he delegated a lot to his first assistant. So there were different comments that people made at different times. 

41

Mr. CONYERS. The gentleman’s time has expired. You may finish 

your statement if you choose. 

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

those down. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. The gentleman from California, Elton 

Gallegly. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Goodling, I am 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, in your opinion, should have taken 

place? 

Ms. GOODLING. I do agree things should have been handled differently. I think it would have been better to try to document some 

things. 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 

these U.S. Attorneys a chance to understand what 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 notified them in person and given 

them an opportunity to ask questions at that time. 

Mr. 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? 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t remember. And there were not 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 a while. 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. 

42

Mr. 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? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes. 

Mr. 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? 

Ms. GOODLING. I am sorry, what did I just agree to? I think I 

misheard the question. 

Mr. 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 had been certain justifications made public, or at least beyond the water cooler discussions? 

Ms. GOODLING. Right. 

Mr. 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? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes. At the November 27th meeting, there was 

a discussion about Daniel Bogden specifically. I think somebody 

made the comment like, you know, I know why—I know why it’s 

this group or I know why—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 was 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 okay. 

So we had that one discussion in that November 27th meeting, 

which was just a brief reference. But that is the only one where 

I remember that the group as a whole discussed the reason for that 

question. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. But that clearly wasn’t a statement saying it was 

for political reasons or implied that? 

Ms. 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’ case, if that was the question, sorry. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

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

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Goodling, this obviously has national implications, but it has some repercussions at 

local levels, too, and so I would like to ask you a couple of questions that relate to North Carolina, which happens to be where I 

43

am from. You testified in your opening statement this morning 

that, ‘‘I never recommended to them that a specific U.S. Attorney 

be added to or removed from Mr. Sampson’s list.’’

Ms. 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. 

Mr. 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? 

Ms. GOODLING. I did. I recommended retaining her in service in 

January and in September. 

Mr. 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. 

Ms. 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. 

Mr. WATT. What is your relationship with Ms. Wagner? 

Ms. GOODLING. She is just a U.S. Attorney that I have had some 

interactions with from time to time. She was very involved in 

Project Safe Neighborhoods, and did kind of a Project Safe Neighborhood gang conference that I attended with the Attorney General. And of course I have spoke with her at some U.S. Attorney 

conferences. 

Mr. WATT. And do you know who suggested putting Ms. Wagner 

on the list in the first place to be fired? 

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

and I recommended she come off. She was still on in September, 

and I recommended again that she come off, and she did. 

Mr. WATT. And what was your basis for recommending that she 

come off? 

Ms. 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 had been 

very, very helpful when we were doing some PATRIOT Act authorization efforts. We 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 am not sure if I remembered 

the PATRIOT Act at that point. 

Mr. WATT. Now there is a document that we have had produced 

to us where you wrote that she ‘‘bends over backward for AG visits.’’ You remember making that note about——

Ms. GOODLING. Yeah, that was a reference to the PATRIOT Act 

visit that we had done. 

Mr. WATT. Okay. And you thought that was a meaningful reason 

to keep or replace an attorney or not replace an attorney? 

Ms. GOODLING. I think it is 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 is a good thing. SomeVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:15 Jan 29, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\FULL\052307\35603.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35603
44

times 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. 

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

Ms. GOODLING. I am 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 they are responsive. 

Mr. 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? 

Ms. GOODLING. After the deputy did his briefing on this——

Mr. WATT. Would you tell us who was in the room for those, 

when those discussions took place? 

Ms. 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 like there was someone that moved at some 

point during the meeting, but I don’t remember specifically. 

Mr. CONYERS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CONYERS. The Chair is pleased to recognize the only ex-Attorney General that we have on the Committee, Dan Lungren of 

California. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Goodling—I am 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 are 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 has 

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 of 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. 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. 

45

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 is 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? 

Ms. GOODLING. That is 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. 

Mr. LUNGREN. 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 is going to do certain things? 

Ms. GOODLING. I certainly hope so. 

Mr. 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 own mind you had the 

intent to break any law at the time you did anything. Is that correct? 

Ms. 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. And my focus was on that. 

My focus—but in my focus I think there were times when 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. 

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—

that would be enthusiastic of the priorities. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Let me ask you, is it 93 U.S. Attorneys that there 

are? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes. 

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

Ms. GOODLING. Yes. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Do you believe that a President has the right to 

refresh an office and to say you have had your 4 years, I would like 

to give someone else a chance? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes. 

Mr. LUNGREN. You think that is violative of the Constitution? 

Ms. GOODLING. No. 

46

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

Ms. GOODLING. No. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Can you have two people, one who is in charge of 

an office, and then another one who comes in, both equally committed to prosecuting the laws of the United States? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes. 

Mr. LUNGREN. And you said in your written statement, however, 

I am 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 have 

had all the questioning from the panelists thus far about that, do 

you still stand by that statement? 

Ms. GOODLING. I do. I mean certainly I knew that Senator 

Domenici had told the Attorney General he had some concerns with 

public corruption. 

Mr. LUNGREN. And Dianne Feinstein had complained about the 

lack of prosecution of coyote cases in San Diego. 

Ms. 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. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. The Chair is going to announce a 5-

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. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Goodling, I want 

to—we only have 5 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? 

Ms. 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. 

Ms. 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? 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t remember that I did, but again I can’t be 

sure, and I may have. Sometimes people——

Ms. LOFGREN. If I could ask on that, 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. 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? 

Ms. GOODLING. I think the hiring was frozen to give the division 

time to evaluate—and actually I would 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. 

Ms. LOFGREN. About who they voted for? 

47

Ms. GOODLING. Yes, because they were applying for both. 

Ms. LOFGREN. 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 he was told to submit his resignation. 

And Mr. Sampson has stated that Graves was on a list of the 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? 

Ms. 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 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. I don’t know. But that was the first thing 

that made me think that maybe my historical memory just wasn’t 

correct. 

Ms. LOFGREN. So you do recall seeing his name now, though, or 

you don’t? 

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

Ms. LOFGREN. Do you think it is true one of the factors in removing Mr. Graves so quickly and installing his replacement, Mr. 

Schlozman, so promptly was to push forward with a vote fraud case 

that Mr. Schlozman was promoting and Mr. Graves was resisting 

in Missouri just before that election? 

Ms. 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 there were some issues 

that were being looked at there. And I, 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. 

Ms. LOFGREN. When Mr. Schlozman worked at Main Justice did 

you ever discuss the issue of voter fraud cases or voter ID laws 

with him? 

Ms. 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. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Did you discuss it with anyone else? These voter 

fraud or voter ID cases? 

Ms. GOODLING. Specific cases? 

Ms. LOFGREN. M-hm. 

48

Ms. GOODLING. 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. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Did you ever discuss them you think with Mr. 

Hans von Spakovskyi, who was over at the Voting Section of Civil 

Rights? 

Ms. GOODLING. No, I don’t remember ever having met him or 

spoken with him. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Do you remember who told you to have Mr. Battle 

fire Mr. Graves? 

Ms. 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. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Before my time expires I just want to make sure 

I understand you correctly. You never asked any immigration people applying just for immigration judge positions or BIA positions 

who they voted for? 

Ms. GOODLING. If they were applying for other positions I did. 

Ms. LOFGREN. But if they were just applying for that you never 

did? 

Ms. 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. 

Ms. LOFGREN. My time has expired. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. Members of the Committee, we will 

stand in recess until 10 minutes after 12. Thank you very much. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. CONYERS. I am pleased to recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the distinguished former Chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Bob Goodlatte. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Ms. Goodling, welcome. I appreciate the forthright testimony that you have 

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? 

Ms. GOODLING. Not a decision-maker. 

Mr. 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? 

Ms. GOODLING. Some would say that might seem odd. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Can you elaborate on that at all? What was 

your experience in terms of who were the replacements for these 

U.S. Attorneys? 

Ms. 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, you know, ultiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:15 Jan 29, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\FULL\052307\35603.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35603
49

mately we chose the people that we thought could best lead, given 

the circumstances and the situation that we were under. 

Mr. 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? 

Ms. 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 those offices will do a good job. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Now, with regard to the question of whether or 

not the Congress was misled in this matter, did you ever intend to 

mislead Congress through any of your activities in preparing the 

people who have testified for their testimony? 

Ms. GOODLING. No. I never deliberately withheld any information. I think looking back trying to figure out, you know, 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 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. 

Mr. 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 understood to be accepted models at the Department of Justice, such as that of David 

Margolis? 

Ms. GOODLING. You know, there were different categories. Different categories. I am sorry, in the personnel context it is particularly hard for me to make a general statement because it won’t be 

true in one category and then not true in another. And then there 

were sometimes odd situations that cropped up. I tried—if you are 

asking about detailed positions at Main Justice, you know, 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 

applied to BIA as well. 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 wellqualified, really bright lawyers that I wanted to have, you know, 

pull in the same direction in terms of priorities. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And with regard to the hiring of the career assistant U.S. Attorneys in the U.S. Attorney’s offices led by interim 

U.S. Attorneys, did you ever act as a screener for Republican candidates for those positions? 

50

Ms. GOODLING. I think that I probably did. Not in all cases. For 

the most cases, I looked at those waiver requests and I evaluated 

whether or not there really was an extraordinary need. The rule 

is to ensure that there isn’t hiring during the times that there is 

a vacancy so that the new U.S. Attorney coming in has the opportunity to hire some people that they would 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, you know, I may have researched 

folks and learned some information that influenced my decisionmaking. And I regret those mistakes. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Ms. Goodling. 

Mr. CONYERS. The Chair recognizes the distinguished gentlelady 

from Houston, Texas, Sheila Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. 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 is 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 the process, legal process, that we 

would hope most who are here would participate in. 

But allow me just to simply begin a series of questions, Ms. 

Goodling, and I would ask that 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 have indicated. But you might 

have been better served if you were loyal to the American people. 

And I give you counsel, whether you are willing to accept it or not. 

You have been described by Bruce Fein, a former senior justice official during Reagan, 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 is the challenge that we face 

here today. I would 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 an historical 

grounding in the African American community. But you described 

him as too liberal for the non-political position. He had formerly 

been a career attorney with the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Why did you dislike Mr. Meinero? 

Ms. GOODLING. I didn’t dislike him, and I regret the fact that I 

made a snap judgment based on the totality of the things that I 

saw on his resume. And I have no good explanation for it. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. But you did reject him. And it was only out 

of a career attorney’s, Mr. Taylor, who pursued to get Mr. Meinero 

hired. Is that correct? 

51

Ms. GOODLING. I didn’t actually reject him. I actually in fact authorized the hire later. I delayed it. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. After Mr. Taylor pursued it. Is that correct? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much. I understand that you 

have 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 email? 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t remember receiving an e-mail from Mr. 

Rove. I did receive e-mail from Harriet Miers. 

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

Ms. GOODLING. I can’t say that it didn’t happen during my time 

at the Department. I certainly had e-mail with the——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 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? 

Ms. GOODLING. I know that Mr. Rove was consulted after the 

plan—or I believe 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 am remembering correctly, that said it had been circulated to 

different offices within the White House and that they had all 

signed off. So I assume 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. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. But he was certainly in an office in the White 

House? 

Ms. GOODLING. He was in an office in the White House. I think 

it said 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. 

Ms. 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 in the removal of the 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? 

Ms. GOODLING. For me I can say I can’t give you the whole White 

House story. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And I thank you for that. I have to move to 

the next question. But I want the record to be clear the only way 

we can get to the full truth is if Mr. Karl Rove is sitting in the very 

same seat that you are sitting in. And he needs to be here. And 

he needs to be here post-haste. Let me ask you very quickly, you 

testified in response to Mr. Scott that someone at DOJ made a 

comment in a meeting that Senator Domenici says that statement 

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? 

52

Ms. 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 briefings, so 

it was the week before Valentine’s Day. I don’t remember the exact 

date. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And the year? 

Ms. 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. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Who else was at the meeting? 

Ms. GOODLING. The meeting was the Deputy Attorney General, 

Kyle Sampson, Mike Elston for at least part of it, and myself, and 

there may have been another person that came in and came out, 

maybe William Moschella, but I don’t remember. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. The Deputy Attorney General is? The name, 

please. 

Ms. GOODLING. Paul McNulty. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank you very much. I thank the distinguished Chairman. I thank the witness. I yield back. 

Mr. CONYERS. The Chair is pleased now to recognize the gentleman from Florida, Rick Keller. 

Mr. KELLER. 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? 

Ms. GOODLING. I started in the Office of the Attorney General as 

Counsel. I became the White House Liaison and was given a working title of Senior Counsel in April of 2006. 

Mr. KELLER. And before April of 2006 you had worked at the 

Justice Department in a variety of different positions for about 4 

years? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes. 

Mr. KELLER. Okay. I understand from your testimony that Kyle 

Sampson is the one who compiled the list of attorneys to be replaced? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes. 

Mr. 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? 

Ms. GOODLING. Right. 

Mr. KELLER. I am 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? 

Ms. GOODLING. She was a topic of frequent conversation. 

Mr. KELLER. Tell me what your communications were and when 

they took place. 

Ms. GOODLING. There were a lot. I am not sure I am 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, and that she just didn’t seem to be doing as 

much as they thought she should be. 

53

Mr. KELLER. When do you first remember those conversations 

about the lack of sufficient gun crime prosecutions taking place? 

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

Affairs. 

Mr. KELLER. What would be the time frame for that? 

Ms. GOODLING. Maybe 2003 or 2004 time period. 

Mr. KELLER. Okay. Were there any other topics of concern that 

you heard other than gun crimes? 

Ms. GOODLING. Immigration was the one that has been most frequently discussed in the past year-and-a-half or 2 years. 

Mr. KELLER. And so when did you first start hearing about the 

concern about immigration prosecutions? 

Ms. GOODLING. I believe while I was maybe in the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys. I am a little tentative on this, but I think 

there may have been some letters from Congress that came in, I 

think, during that time period. 

Mr. KELLER. Would that be around the 2004 time period? 

Ms. GOODLING. No, I was in the Executive Office in 2005. 

Mr. KELLER. The 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 around 

2004. Is that fair to say? 

Ms. GOODLING. I think 2005 probably. 

Mr. KELLER. 2005. 

Ms. GOODLING. In relation to immigration. 

Mr. KELLER. Okay. So 2003-2004 for gun crimes, 2005 for immigration crimes? 

Ms. GOODLING. To the best of my recollection. 

Mr. 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? 

Ms. GOODLING. No, I don’t remember anything like that. 

Mr. 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? 

Ms. GOODLING. No, I don’t remember anything like that. 

Mr. KELLER. Okay. The reason I bring this up is because one of 

the most controversial things, and you just heard it in the L.A. 

Times this week, and I am looking at an article May 18, 2007, and 

I will just read you what it says, speaking at Loyola Law School 

in Los Angeles, John McKay, who is a fired U.S. Attorney from 

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 the Department of Justice, the White House, and 

Carol Lam. I hear from you that you had heard complaints about 

not enforcing 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 12th, 2005, which is a full 

54

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 these 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? She 

said no. When I had the U.S. Attorney here, did you fire her because of Duke Cunningham? No. I looked at 10,000 documents, emails, many witness interviews, testimony. Not a shred of evidence. But I still see crap that we saw in the L.A. Times this week 

saying that our Attorney General is a criminal because he let Ms. 

Lam go because she prosecuted Duke Cunningham. And I just am 

happy that we were able set the record straight with your testimony that the problems that she incurred dealing with illegal immigration and gun crimes far pre-dated the breaking of the Duke 

Cunningham story. And I will yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. CONYERS. The Chair is pleased now to recognize the 

gentlelady from California, a distinguished Member of our Committee, Maxine Waters. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This hearing 

is absolutely necessary to continue the vote that we must do to determine whether or not the Justice Department is free of political 

influence. So I am very pleased that we have this hearing here 

today. 

I would like to ask our witness here today, why did you resign 

from your position? 

Ms. 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 realistic. 

Ms. WATERS. As I understand it, before you went to the Justice 

Department you worked with the Republican National Committee? 

Ms. GOODLING. I did. 

Ms. WATERS. What did you do there? 

Ms. GOODLING. My last position there was to be the Deputy Director of Research and Strategic Planning. 

Ms. WATERS. Did you do opposition research? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes, we did. 

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

Ms. GOODLING. Yes. 

Ms. WATERS. And she left the Republican National Committee, 

working with you on opposition research, and went over to head 

the press office. Is that right? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes. 

Ms. WATERS. And you left about that same time? 

Ms. GOODLING. About a month later. 

Ms. WATERS. Did you use any of your opposition research skills 

once you were at the Justice Department? 

55

Ms. 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. 

Ms. WATERS. 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. 

Ms. GOODLING. I certainly used Westlaw and LEXIS. 

Ms. 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? 

Ms. GOODLING. I did research people that we were considering 

for hiring, yes. 

Ms. WATERS. Did you use them in terms of helping to make decisions about who should be retired? 

Ms. GOODLING. Retired, no. No. Just you know, we would get resumes from a number of sources, and you would Google people or 

Westlaw, do Westlaw checks if you wanted to know if there was 

something negative about someone before you hired them to work 

at the Department. 

Ms. WATERS. But do you have a human resources division that 

is primarily responsible for doing that kind of work for you? 

Ms. 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. 

Ms. WATERS. So you basically were responsible for doing whatever research was necessary and the responsibility that you had for 

hiring. Is that right? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes. 

Ms. WATERS. Did you ever discuss any of the research that you 

had done or discovered with Mr. Karl Rove? 

Ms. GOODLING. No. 

Ms. WATERS. Anyone in his office? 

Ms. GOODLING. Research on people? I think I had conversations 

with Scott Jennings or Jane Cherry. 

Ms. WATERS. Let’s think a little bit deeper. Some of the research 

that you had done where you had used your skills that you had developed doing opposition research you may have used as you reviewed political appointees. 

Ms. GOODLING. Political appointees——

Ms. WATERS. For hiring. 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes. 

Ms. WATERS. And then did you discuss what you had discovered, 

found out about with Mr. Rove or anybody in his office? 

Ms. GOODLING. Not Mr. Rove. 

Ms. WATERS. Anyone in his office? 

Ms. GOODLING. From time to time I would talk to the people in 

the Office of Political Affairs, and they would ask, well, what do 

you think about this candidate, or what do you think about this 

candidate, and I might say, oh, I checked this person out and, you 

know, for whatever reason I really don’t think they are the best fit 

for it. I don’t——

Ms. WATERS. Did you document your research? Is it on file somewhere? 

56

Ms. GOODLING. I didn’t really keep that kind of file. Normally, 

if I found something that was negative about someone we didn’t 

hire them and I wouldn’t have necessarily retained that. 

Ms. WATERS. Do you have files that may have information in it 

that you gathered during your research using your opposition research skills? 

Ms. GOODLING. There would be some files, yes. 

Ms. WATERS. Where would those files be? 

Ms. GOODLING. At the Department of Justice. 

Ms. WATERS. Would you support us having access to those files? 

Ms. GOODLING. That’s really not a call for me to make. 

Ms. WATERS. Not that your decision would be one to determine 

it. Just in terms of all of the problems that we have, do you think 

it would be helpful for us to understand how it operated over there 

by having those files? 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t know that my opinion would be relevant 

in any way, and it certainly wouldn’t be my call. That would be 

something I think that the Committee would need to take up with 

the Department. 

Ms. WATERS. Your opinion would be very relevant. Let me just 

ask about in preparing for——

Mr. CONYERS. The time of the gentlelady has expired. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Darrell Issa, the 

gentleman from California. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me go through some 

areas in which your testimony really is relevant. June 15, 2006, the 

letter, the scathing letter about Carol Lam that was written by 

Senator Dianne Feinstein, one of the key appointers and confirmers 

of Carol Lam. Wasn’t that relevant to her firing? 

Ms. GOODLING. I think that the concerns about her immigration 

work certainly were relevant to her firing. And I know that the fact 

that Members of Congress had concerns with her on those issues 

was something that we definitely talked about. 

Mr. ISSA. So for 3 years there had been a constant drip, drip of 

Carol Lam not supporting the President’s stated policy of enforcing 

the Federal gun laws and doing it throughout the country. This 

wasn’t something he was asking for in southern California. He was 

asking for and getting it everywhere, including other parts of California. The President was seeking, and is still seeking, a comprehensive guest worker program that requires that there be a belief that there would be valid enforcement, and yet Carol Lam was 

not going after coyotes. Just the opposite, she set standards so hard 

to reach that basically the Border Patrol complained to people like 

myself and other Congressmen that they couldn’t do their job because they couldn’t meet the litmus test. Even after somebody was 

arrested 20 times, on the 21st time she still wouldn’t prosecute. 

Isn’t that a factor in the firing of Carol Lam? 

Ms. GOODLING. I believe it was. 

Mr. ISSA. Now Carol Lam has, to her credit, some high profile 

cases. But isn’t it true that U.S. Attorneys have to implement the 

policy uniformly around the country if they are to be effective, that 

if in fact you can get away with certain types of crime in a certain 

area crime will morph to those areas? Isn’t that true? 

57

Ms. GOODLING. Uniformity is certainly important. 

Mr. ISSA. Now do you know—earlier you were asked about opposition research. Isn’t it true that when people are being put up for 

confirmation positions that the FBI does an intensive search of 

their background, that opposition research isn’t even a factor on political appointees because in fact there is a thorough vetting 

through the FBI? 

Ms. GOODLING. The FBI is certainly much better at research 

than I am. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. So the whole idea that somebody would go on 

LEXIS-NEXIS to do op research, when in fact you are looking at 

people that are disclosing in voluminous forms their entire background, and then having the FBI go through extensive checks, 

that’s just pretty preposterous; isn’t it? 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t know that I would comment on the preposterousness——

Mr. ISSA. I will for you in this case. 

Now, Carol Lam, among other things, also chose to prosecute not 

once but twice her own cases, spending weeks in front of jury 

trials. Isn’t that a little unusual, a little bit of grandstanding when 

you are talking about somebody who has to oversee so many other 

U.S. attorneys? 

Ms. GOODLING. It was fairly unusual in extra large offices, where 

you had hundreds of staff members to supervise, for a U.S. Attorney to do so much trial work. 

Mr. ISSA. Isn’t that also a factor in the firing of Carol Lam? 

Ms. GOODLING. It was something I heard discussed, yes. 

Mr. ISSA. Let’s talk about Carol Lam. Because Mr. Keller mentioned that Members had made these complaints. Well, I am the 

Member. I am the Member who saw somebody who would not enforce stated national policy and brought this to the attention of Attorney General Ashcroft and then Attorney General Gonzalez; and, 

quite honestly, I spoke to the President directly on my concerns, 

and I am not ashamed of it. 

But let’s go through Carol Lam. Carol Lam is not a Republican, 

isn’t that right? 

Ms. GOODLING. I actually don’t know. Somebody told me she was 

an Independent, but I never checked her voter registration. 

Mr. ISSA. I have. It is public in California. So let’s go through 

this. She was a career professional assistant U.S. Attorney, right? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes. 

Mr. ISSA. So this Administration, even though it has the absolute 

right to make political appointments based on party registration 

and party loyalty and loyalty to the President, appointed a career 

professional in San Diego. 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes, actually, we did that in a lot of districts; and 

I supported that. In many cases, career professionals have the best 

backgrounds for the job. 

Mr. ISSA. So you were looking for people who had an obligation 

to deal with a policy for which the American people had chosen, 

but you looked at career professionals. 

Isn’t it also true that when people turned in their resignations 

or left for any reason you also looked very often to the existing career professionals inside the U.S. Attorney’s office? 

58

Ms. GOODLING. Yes. 

Mr. ISSA. So here we have an absolute right to make political appointments based on the party registration, party loyalty and support of the President, and yet you chose to be nonpartisan very 

often, and yet that is not being heard here today. 

Ms. GOODLING. I am afraid I don’t have a comment on that. 

Mr. ISSA. Well, I think my comment will stand on that. 

Last but not least, is there any reason that this group of Republicans and Democrats—there is not an Independent sitting here—

should be surprised that the Clinton administration appointed 

Democrats and disproportionately made lifetime appointments for 

Federal judges by people who were Democrats? I run into them all 

the time. Isn’t it in fact absolutely the right of a President elected 

by the American people to chose people who will support his policies and that, in fact, when you did that you were doing what was 

your right and when you chose not to was actually the exception 

that should be noted here today? 

Ms. GOODLING. I think Presidents of both parties have the right 

to pick the people who serve them. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, and hopefully the Chairman will respect 

the fact that perhaps today we have concentrated on whether or 

not the President has a right to choose people in his own party 

when, in fact, that is not the debate here today and shouldn’t be. 

Thank you. 

Mr. CONYERS. The Chair is pleased to recognize the only State 

prosecutor on the Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts, 

Bill Delahunt. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and thank you for 

your appearance here today. 

I just want to speak about the process, the hiring process and the 

termination process. It came to me as a surprise that someone of 

your experience—and I say this respectfully—was delegated by the 

Attorney General via an executive order that bypassed Mr. McNulty, that was extraordinary in its powers and authority to someone 

of your limited experience in terms of your legal experience. 

Were you familiar with that order? 

Ms. GOODLING. I was. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. You answered my question. 

What came to me as a surprise and maybe you can explain to 

us why the executive order by the Attorney General bypassed Mr. 

McNulty, who is the second in command; and as an addendum to 

that order, the so-called control sheet, it was stated that he was 

not to be made aware of the order. I find that disturbing in terms 

of having a professional process that wasn’t about political appointees but was about career and interim appointees. That I find 

very disturbing. 

Ms. GOODLING. I would like to explain to you what the reason 

was. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Please. 

Ms. GOODLING. This issue came up late in the fall of 2005. The 

Justice Management Division notified me that they had determined 

that the Deputies Attorney General going back many years, or at 

least a long period of time, maybe even into the previous Administration, had been signing off on personnel actions that had never 

59

been delegated to them and in some cases had further delegated 

those decisions to others; and they told me that David Margolis 

was one of those individuals that had made those decisions. There 

had never been a delegation of the personnel authority down to the 

Deputy Attorney General and no ability for that individual to further delegate; and they had realized that they had a problem. 

There had been all these personnel actions that had been signed 

off. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Let me just interrupt, because my time is limited. Why not notify the existence of the executive order to Mr. 

McNulty, who is the second in command of the Attorney General? 

Why a specific statement, a specific statement that Mr. McNulty 

was not to be notified regarding this executive order that was vetted and caused considerable controversy, considerable controversy 

within the Department of Justice itself, according to a report in the 

National Journal? 

Ms. GOODLING. I actually don’t think it did generate controversy. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Are you familiar with the article I am referring 

to? 

Ms. GOODLING. I did read the article, and I found it to be not 

very accurate. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. That is fair. 

Ms. GOODLING. There was not actually a decision not to notify 

him of the Attorney General’s order. It actually was an Attorney 

General’s order, not an executive order. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I meant——

Ms. GOODLING. The decision was made that Mr. Sampson would 

tell him about it personally. But he didn’t sign off on it because 

what we were doing, the first part of this chain was to delegate to 

the Deputy Attorney General the authority that people had assumed for many years had already been done. People didn’t think 

it was right to ask the Deputy to sign off on and approve something that would be delegating him authority in some cases, and 

there was a small portion that removed it. It just seemed to be odd 

for the Deputy to be sign off on something that was giving himself 

authority. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I will accept that. At the same time, it did remove some of the authority from him and conferred it upon you 

and Mr. Sampson. 

Ms. GOODLING. No, it actually gave him authority that he never 

had. It gave him personnel authority. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Let me accept that answer, and again let me just 

make a comment about the process. You know, Mr. Comey, correct? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes, I do. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. You are aware of his reputation? 

Ms. GOODLING. I am. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. How would you describe his reputation? 

Ms. GOODLING. I would describe him as a straight shooter. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. And in terms of his professional legal credentials? 

Ms. GOODLING. They are outstanding. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. They are outstanding. And his testimony before 

the United States Senate was that those prosecutors that were terminated were outstanding members of the bar, were excellent in 

60

terms of their performance. My only inference is that the process 

in which you were implicated was a flawed process, given the disparity between the experience of those, including yourself, that 

were involved and that of the true professionals in the Department 

of Justice like Mr. Comey. Thank you. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. Did you want to respond to that? 

Ms. GOODLING. I just wanted to say that it wasn’t uncommon for 

one person to have one experience with the U.S. attorney and for 

someone else to have another. Sometimes you might work with Mr. 

Smith on something and find him to be very responsive and someone else may have a different experience. It wasn’t an uncommon 

thing for people to assess people differently, and that sometimes 

happened. 

Mr. CONYERS. But with this Mr. Smith it is always quite positive. 

The Chair reminds our Members to allow the witness to complete 

her responses to their questions. 

I am pleased now to recognize Mike Pence of Indiana. 

Mr. PENCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and, Ms. Goodling, I appreciate very much your testimony today. 

I supported the granting of use immunity in this case because I 

am not afraid of facts, and Abraham Lincoln said it best. He said, 

give the people the facts and the Republic will be saved; and I am 

grateful for your candor coming before this Committee today and 

grateful for your service in that testimony. 

I was looking a little bit at your biography. I was piqued by a 

story on April the 8th, and I think the Boston Globe that reflected 

on the harsh spotlight that had been drawn on the Administration’s tendency—I am quoting now—to hire individuals from ‘‘conservative schools with sometimes marginal reputations.’’

You are a graduate, I think, cum laude from—is it Regent University School of Law and Government, Virginia Beach, Virginia? 

Ms. GOODLING. I have a master’s in public policy and a law degree from Regent, yes. 

Mr. PENCE. You may know that the Attorney General of the 

State of Virginia is also a graduate of Regent University of Virginia 

Beach, Virginia? 

Ms. GOODLING. I have heard that. 

Mr. PENCE. And I would assume you are not terribly concerned 

about the tendency of a conservative President to hire graduates 

from conservative graduate schools. 

Ms. GOODLING. Not at all. 

Mr. PENCE. Nothing that would concern you about that? 

Ms. GOODLING. No. 

Mr. PENCE. This graduate of a Christian college appreciates your 

sentiment about that, and it really leads me to the—my sense of 

this, and I want to ask you just a couple of yes no questions, if I 

can. 

Ms. Goodling, I still haven’t heard any facts or seen any facts 

that show anything illegal about the U.S. Attorney firings themselves; and I am trying to focus, as I did when the Attorney General was here, on the issue of wrongdoing and of illegality. When 

the Attorney General came before this Committee, he was very 

candid about mismanagement and administrative errors that were 

61

made. And I understand people’s harsh criticism of those things. 

We expected better. We didn’t get better. That is different, it seems 

to me, from wrongdoing. 

I am listening very intently, and I am studying this case, and I 

want to explore this issue of illegal behavior with you. Because it 

seems to me so much of this and even something of what we have 

heard today in this otherwise cordial hearing is about the criminalization of politics. In a very real sense, it seems to be about the 

attempted criminalization of things that are vital to our constitutional system of government, mainly, the taking into consideration 

of politics in the appointment of political officials within the government; and I want to speak to you about that. 

So let me see if you can, since you got a lot better grades than 

I did in law school. Is there anything illegal about the President 

being served at his pleasure by the people he believes would be 

best? 

Ms. GOODLING. No. 

Mr. PENCE. Is there anything illegal about the President being 

able to dismiss any of his political appointees for any reason or for 

no reason at all? 

Ms. GOODLING. No. 

Mr. PENCE. Is there anything illegal under our system about the 

President taking political considerations into account in determining who his political officials will be? 

Ms. GOODLING. No. 

Mr. PENCE. Is there anything illegal about taking those considerations into account since they are vital to the President being held 

accountable to the people and especially to the people who elected 

him? 

Ms. GOODLING. No. 

Mr. PENCE. Lastly, is there anything illegal about taking those 

considerations into account since they are just as vital to the President’s ability to assure that his officials are accountable to him? 

Ms. GOODLING. No. 

Mr. PENCE. With that, I appreciate those straightforward answers. 

Again, I just would say to my colleagues on both sides of the 

aisle on this Committee I am troubled about the fact that we seem 

to be moving ever further down the road of the criminalization of 

politics, and I appreciate the testimony that politics can be practiced in political appointments within an Administration. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman. 

The Chair is pleased now to recognize Steve Cohen, the gentleman from Tennessee, former State Senator. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Goodling, I have read your vitae. It says you grew up and 

you mostly went to public schools. Was that K through 12? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes. 

Mr. COHEN. And it says you want to Christian universities in 

part because of the value they placed on service. What was the 

other part that you chose Christian universities? 

Ms. GOODLING. I chose them because I had a faith system, and 

in some cases—I went to American University for my first year of 

62

law school, and then I transferred, and I enjoyed studying with 

people that shared a similar belief system that I did. It didn’t mean 

there wasn’t a lot of diversity of discussion, because, in some cases, 

I actually found the debate at Regent was much more vigorous 

than it was at American University my first year of law school. But 

I enjoyed being surrounded by people who had the same belief system. 

Mr. COHEN. The mission of the law school you attended, Regent, 

is to bring to bear upon legal education and the legal profession the 

will of Almighty God, our Creator. What is the will of Almighty 

God, the Creator, on the legal profession? 

Ms. GOODLING. I am not sure I could define that question for 

you. 

Mr. COHEN. Did you ask people who applied for jobs as AUSAs 

anything about their religion? 

Ms. GOODLING. No, I certainly did not. 

Mr. COHEN. Never had religion discussions come up? 

Ms. GOODLING. Not to the best of my recollection. 

Mr. COHEN. Is there a type of student, a type of person you 

thought embodied that philosophy of Regent University that you 

sought out at AUSAs? 

Ms. GOODLING. In most cases, the people at Regent are good people trying to do the right thing who wanted to make a difference 

in the world. If the question is if I was looking for people like that, 

the answer is yes. I wasn’t necessarily looking for people who 

shared a particular faith system. I don’t have any recollection that 

that entered into my mind at any point. But certainly there are a 

lot of people who applied to work for this President because they 

share his same faith system and they did apply for jobs. 

Mr. COHEN. Are there an inordinate number of people from Regent University Law School that were hired by the Department of 

Justice while you were there? 

Ms. GOODLING. I think we have a lot more people from Harvard 

or Yale. 

Mr. COHEN. That is refreshing. 

Is it a fact—are you aware of the fact that in your graduating 

class 50 to 60 percent of the students failed the bar the first time? 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t remember the statistics, but I know it 

wasn’t good. I was happy I passed the first time. 

Mr. COHEN. You mentioned in your opening statement Mr. 

Charlton was a problem district based on complaints you heard 

about unauthorized discussion with Members of Congress. Who 

told you about the violation of that departmental policy? 

Ms. GOODLING. I think I was aware of it in part because I was 

in the executive office and complaints would come to me. I don’t remember specifically who, but it was something I believe that had 

happened more than once and I heard about it from different people at different times. 

Mr. COHEN. What are unauthorized discussions with Members of 

Congress? 

Ms. GOODLING. Almost any—we would encourage U.S. attorneys, 

if they knew a Member of Congress personally and they got invited 

to a birthday party or something like that—of course, we didn’t 

necessarily care if they went to a birthday party. But if it was 

63

going to be a discussion about Department of Justice, the policy 

was they would talk to the Department before they had those conversations and certainly before they asked or made any request or 

stated any position. 

Mr. COHEN. You also mentioned that Mr. Vines was a problem 

district. He is from the middle district of Tennessee—or was. Who 

gave you that information and what was the reason that was a 

problem district? 

Ms. GOODLING. I actually believe I heard most of the information 

from Robin Ashton in the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys. When 

I got to that office, she told me that that was an office that—it had 

a lot of problems, and they were historical problems. 

Mr. COHEN. What were the problems? Define ‘‘problems’’. 

Ms. GOODLING. There was a lot of turmoil among the staff, different camps of people that weren’t working together. The U.S. attorney, I was told by Ms. Ashton, had actually hired a management 

analyst to come into the office and analyze the career people that 

worked for him; and that involved some of the career staff being 

asked to go to, as she told me—to the best of my recollection, anyway—a cabin with the management consultant or a psychiatrist for 

the weekend and be analyzed. Then they would come back and 

send the report to the U.S. attorney, and the U.S. attorney thought 

that this would help him understand his staff. 

It was a very bizarre tale, and I may not be remembering it correctly. But, in any case, the career staff in that office didn’t appreciate being asked to be analyzed, and it caused some turmoil. 

Mr. COHEN. I understand Mr. Vines was a subject possibly of an 

age discrimination suit. Is that accurate? 

Ms. GOODLING. I think there were multiple age discrimination 

suits. 

Mr. COHEN. Do you know what came of that? Is that still ongoing? 

Ms. GOODLING. I believe I heard that one or two may be settled 

and one may be going to trial, but I don’t know. That may been 

resolved by now. 

Mr. COHEN. While you were asked questions that were accurate 

concerning the President’s power to hire or fire whoever he wanted, 

isn’t it a fact historically before this President there were not U.S. 

attorneys who were asked to leave or who were fired during their 

term or in the terms of the President except in times of scandal or 

performance-related disagreements? 

Ms. GOODLING. You know Mr. Gerston testified in the Senate, 

and I was there, and he said he did not think it was unprecedented. He thought it had happened before. But he didn’t elaborate, and I never heard that he provided examples. 

You know U.S. Attorneys are confirmed for 4 years, and it 

wouldn’t surprise me to find that in the Justice Department’s long 

history it has happened, but I can’t give you any examples. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, ma’am. 

Mr. CONYERS. The Committee will stand in recess for three votes 

and a lunch, which will require our returning at 2 o’clock sharp. 

The room will also be cleared except for unauthorized—except for 

authorized staff so that the room can be reset. 

The room will be cleared except for authorized staff. 

64

[Recess.] 

[2:12 p.m.] 

Mr. CONYERS. The witness and her counsel are back. Thank you. 

Before we resume questioning, I would note that while a number 

of Members haven’t had the opportunity to question our witness, 

there are a number of questions remaining unanswered, I would 

like to make the best of this opportunity while we have Ms. Goodling here, and I will discuss with our Ranking minority Member, 

Mr. Smith, how we might best approach this situation, whether by 

having a second round of questions or a shorter set period of extended questioning under House Rules might be the better way to 

go. And these discussions have not begun yet. 

The Committee will resume, and Randy Forbes of Virginia is the 

next person to be recognized. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Goodling, many of 

us feared this day would come, but we did not realize it would arrive so soon. When the fact that someone was a Christian would 

be the subject of a line of questioning as to how someone performed 

their job at the Department of Justice or any other agency in the 

United States Government, it is not a good day, nor a good sign 

of things to come, and I just hope those individuals watching this 

across the country realize the sea change that is taking place. 

In addition, since my district is contiguous to Regent University, 

I would like to point out that not only is the Attorney General of 

Virginia a graduate of Regent University, but this year Regent 

University students won the American Bar Association’s Negotiation Competition on February 11th, not only beating out 220 teams, 

but also beating out the former winner, Harvard University. And 

the American Bar Association, not exactly a bastion of conservatism, has chosen Regent University to compete internationally in 

their competition. And that Regent has won the ABA’s national Appellate Advocacy Competition 11 out of the last 14 years, including 

placing first for the best brief. 

Now Ms. Goodling, I know it is sometimes difficult when you sit 

at a table with a hearing like this, when earlier today you had dozens of cameras snapping in your face, and trying to field questions 

by 40 Members, some of whom we might characterize as, let’s say, 

less than friendly. At some of our recent hearings some of our 

Members, you need to know, of this very Committee have said that 

Members of the Committee have turned their words around. And 

even Members of this Committee have been unsure of what they 

said 5 minutes after they said it, much less 5 minutes or 5 months 

before, as we expect you to remember. You have been very gracious 

in your testimony today, and we just thank you. 

You know, we are on a fishing expedition today to see if there 

was any politics involved in making what everybody here recognizes as political appointments. As the distinguished former Chairman of this Committee stated earlier, ‘‘There just are not any fish 

in the pond.’’

Chairman Conyers stated at the outset of today’s hearing that its 

purpose was to get to the bottom of ‘‘any possible’’ wrongdoing. Not 

that there is even any alleged wrongdoing. Chairman further stated the importance of the Justice Department, ‘‘fairly and impartially,’’ performing its role. The Chairman then talked about makVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:15 Jan 29, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\FULL\052307\35603.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35603
65

ing certain employees of the Justice Department were not merely, 

‘‘pawns in a game of politics.’’ So far throughout this hearing there 

not only is no evidence of wrongdoing, but there is no allegation of 

any wrongdoing on your part. What puzzles me, and quite honestly 

embarrasses me, is that we do not apply the same standard to ourselves. 

Currently we are a Nation at war. As such, one of the most important things we can do is to ‘‘fairly and impartially’’ appropriate 

taxpayer funds for military projects. It is absolutely crucial that 

these projects not become ‘‘pawns, in a game of politics.’’ Yet yesterday there was a resolution, this resolution on the floor of the 

House that was not a fishing expedition, but rather a specific allegation, that to the best of my knowledge has not been refuted, that 

against the rules of this House, which are contained right here, 

written and adopted by the majority, a senior member of the majority and the Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, the very Committee that would allocate taxpayer funds to 

crucial military projects, threatened potential earmarks in the Defense Appropriation bill of a Member of this House not because 

they were not needed for the defense of this Nation, but merely because that Member spoke against and voted against a $23 million 

project that Chairman wanted in his own district. Yet the same 

majority that calls these hearings today voted yesterday to not 

even discuss, to not even look at those unrefuted allegations. 

I challenge my friends on the other side of the aisle to explain 

how they justify these actions. I challenge my friends on the other 

side of the aisle to explain why it is not as important that the 

American people have confidence when it comes to allocating their 

tax dollars for national defense, that the rules of the House should 

be followed, and those allocations made on a ‘‘fair and impartial’’ 

basis, with an equal or greater priority than we have for political 

appointees. 

The reason some do not understand the relevance of those questions is very simple. We do not apply the same standard to ourselves as we apply to you. For that I am sorry. And I wanted to 

say you have succeeded in doing what you set out to do today, and 

that is showing your commitment and your good character that led 

you to a career in public service. And I just thank you for the graciousness with which you have been here today and for coming and 

being here this afternoon. And with that I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CONYERS. The Chair now recognizes the distinguished gentleman from Florida, Robert Wexler, for his remarks. 

Mr. WEXLER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Goodling, I very much appreciate how difficult it is to sit here for extended periods and answer our questions. With that in mind, I 

would like to ask you a few questions about some of the things you 

either stated earlier or alluded to earlier. You spoke about a meeting that you attended in the White House where Karl Rove was 

also in attendance. Was that the meeting at the White House on 

March 5th that you refer to? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes. 

66

Mr. WEXLER. And could you tell us who else was at the meeting? 

I assume you were there, Mr. Rove was there. Who else was at that 

meeting? 

Ms. GOODLING. It was a meeting called by the White House 

Counsel’s Office. Fred Fielding was there, Bill Kelley was there. 

There were some people from White House Communications, Dana 

Perino, I am not sure of the other. Some people from White House 

Political, I believe, but I am not sure. It might have been Scott Jennings, but I am not 100 percent. From the Department, well, you 

may know people from the Department from the calendar entries. 

The other White House people——

Mr. WEXLER. Who from the Department was there? 

Ms. GOODLING. Kyle Sampson and then myself. The Deputy, 

Mike Elston, Will Moschella, Brian Roehrkasse from our Public Affairs Office. I am not positive of the others. I think there were others. And they were on a calendar invite that has been released 

from the Department. Mr. Rove came in late and then left early. 

But he was there. 

Mr. WEXLER. Do you recall Mr. Rove at that meeting saying that 

the Department of Justice needed to provide specific reasons why 

the prosecutors were terminated? 

Ms. GOODLING. I remember he said something, but I don’t remember exactly what the comment was. I remember somebody else 

from the White House, I believe it was, made some comment, and 

then he emphasized it or reemphasized it. At least that is what I 

remember. But I don’t remember the substance of it. But that is 

certainly something that did come up, so that might have been the 

occasion. I just can’t remember. 

Mr. WEXLER. How long was Mr. Rove in the meeting? 

Ms. GOODLING. You know, I don’t—I don’t remember, because I 

don’t remember how long the meeting was. I guess maybe he was 

there half the time that the rest of us were there. 

Mr. WEXLER. M-hm. 

Ms. GOODLING. But I didn’t fix it in time. 

Mr. WEXLER. What happened? What occurred at the meeting? 

Could you tell us? 

Ms. GOODLING. There was a discussion about Will Moschella’s 

testimony, in particular the position the Department should take 

on the legislation. It was very clear—the White House folks made 

clear that they did not think that the legislation should be held up, 

that they just wanted it to pass. And they made clear that we 

weren’t to take a position against the legislation in the hearing the 

next day. 

Mr. WEXLER. Was there any discussion about the termination of 

the prosecutors? 

Ms. GOODLING. I remember at one point there was a reference 

to when Tim Griffin’s name was submitted to the President for approval. And I checked my book and said that it was June. I think 

that was the only comment I made in the meeting. And I think 

that is the only reference to a specific individual I remember in the 

meeting. Mr. Sampson had suggested that maybe the way to conduct the meeting would be for people to read through Mr. 

Moschella’s prepared remarks and then comment on them. So part 

of the meeting was people reading the remarks and then talking 

67

about them. There was a comment about the Department needing 

to explain its reasons, but I don’t remember who made it. But it 

was made. 

Mr. WEXLER. There was a comment about the Department needing to explain its reasons for——

Ms. GOODLING. I believe there was a reference to the Department 

needed to explain the reasons for the dismissals or maybe—it 

might have been a comment made by the communications folks 

that they just wanted people to be clear in the testimony. I can’t 

give you a specific, and I don’t remember who said it. 

Mr. WEXLER. Did you go to many meetings at the White House 

at that time? 

Ms. GOODLING. No, not that many. 

Mr. WEXLER. Was that your first, second, third, fourth? 

Ms. GOODLING. No. I hesitate to guess. Maybe 10 or 15. 

Mr. WEXLER. Okay. So the bottom line here is to the best of your 

recollection somebody said the Department of Justice needs to come 

up with its reasons why the prosecutors were terminated. It may 

have been Karl Rove, or he may have just reemphasized what 

someone else said. Correct? 

Ms. GOODLING. There was a comment about people needing to be 

clear about what we did, something along that line. It may have 

been by the communication people. I just can’t tell you any more 

than that. 

Mr. WEXLER. Did Karl Rove say anything else in the meeting, or 

was that the entire purpose why he came? 

Ms. GOODLING. I only remember that I feel like he said one 

thing, but that is all that I have in my memory. 

Mr. WEXLER. So to the best of your recollection, the reason why 

Karl Rove spent his valuable time was one, and that was to tell 

the Department of Justice to come up with reasons why it fired 

eight or nine prosecutors. 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t think anyone said come up with. I believe 

it was more a matter of explain what you have done. But again, 

I don’t know that was his comment. I just can’t—I can’t recall. I 

remember that I felt like he interjected one thing into the conversation. 

Mr. WEXLER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, sir. The Ranking Member on the Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee, Steve King of Iowa. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Goodling, 

for your testimony here today, and for the poise with which you 

have presented to this Committee. And as I listen carefully to the 

words that you have chosen, I believe it is anything but scripted. 

I think it is a careful analysis of your memory, and as truthful as 

you can possibly be under any circumstances, let alone the circumstances with about $50,000 worth of camera lenses sitting in 

front of you. I just first reflect upon something that I think was responded to very well by Mr. Forbes of Virginia. But I had gone 

back in the break and took a look at the founding documents of 

Harvard University. And I find that Harvard University was 

founded upon Puritan principles. And I would point out that the 

founder was John Harvard, who was a young minister, and that 

one of the principles was to be consistent with the Puritan philosVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:15 Jan 29, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\FULL\052307\35603.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35603
68

ophy of the first colonists. Many of its early graduates became ministers in Puritan congregations. To advance learning, perpetuate it 

through posterity, quote, dreading to leave an illiterate ministry to 

the churches. So Harvard was founded to supplement the ministry 

itself. And then when I look back on the founding documents of 

Yale, and I find that they wanted to establish—they did establish 

Yale in 1701 as a result of a conservative reaction by Congregationalist leaders, worried of what they identified as the increasing departure of Harvard College from its Calvinistic heritage. 

So then I look at Regent University, which Mr. Forbes has so 

well laid out their credentials, and also your credentials simultaneously, whether it was advertent or inadvertent, and here I read 

our students, faculty and administrators share a calling founded on 

Biblical principles, to make a significant difference in our communities, our cities and our nations in the world. So I would submit 

Regent is a successor to Yale, which is a successor to Harvard in 

being founded upon religious principles. And this Nation was 

founded upon religious principles, as was our Constitution. And so 

I think it is a laudable thing, not a derogatory thing. And we will 

on this side of the aisle stand up for all of our principles, our constitutional principles, and our Christian principles whenever they 

are challenged, or whenever we have the opportunity without them 

being challenged. And I thank you for representing an opportunity 

to do that today. 

So I would go into the serious part of this discussion, not that 

that was not, but the more informative part, and that would be if 

I could ask you to more fully explain to us the procedures that 

were adopted and the reasons for them to be adopted, your role and 

that of Kyle Sampson’s in selecting new officials. What was the 

reason for that? Could you go into that with some more depth? 

What was the rationale behind that? 

Ms. GOODLING. You mean the U.S. Attorney officials or——

Mr. KING. Yes. Between the U.S. Attorney and that replacement 

of U.S. Attorneys. Let me just make it a little easier. Was there 

a legacy from the Clinton administration that needed to be addressed? 

Ms. GOODLING. Do you mean in terms of process of hiring or——

Mr. KING. The process or rules or policy. How about regulatory 

language? 

Ms. GOODLING. If you are addressing the delegation and the regulation that Mr. Delahunt was asking about earlier, I appreciate 

the opportunity to explain that a little bit more fully. There was 

a discovery that there had not been in fact a delegation to the Deputy Attorney General, and that it needed to be corrected. So what 

actually happened was a regulation was sent up to the Attorney 

General. And then I received it as the staff person responsible for 

things that originated from the Justice Management Division. And 

it was really to fix some problems. A second piece of that was a 

ratification of past personnel actions to make sure all the decisions 

that had been made by the Deputy Attorney General, and those he 

had delegated to in the past, were ratified and correctly established. So that was the second piece of the package. 

The third piece of the package was to do the delegation to the 

Chief of Staff and the White House Liaison. And I actually wasn’t 

69

the White House Liaison at the time. And as I think back on it, 

and I may not be remembering everything, but it was essentially 

housekeeping. And the regulation was actually giving authority to 

the Deputy Attorney General. It did retain from the deputy and the 

associate personnel authority for their staffs, which was largely 

historical, but on a more informal basis. The Attorney General’s 

staff had I understood historically had some responsibility for 

working with those staffs. But it established that for the first time. 

So in that regard it did withhold some authority. But that is a little bit more full explanation of it. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. And I appreciate that. And I would just 

quickly point into the record that we have important issues before 

this Congress. One of them was raised by Mr. Forbes with regard 

to the privileged motion that was brought yesterday. Another one 

was raised by the gentleman from Wisconsin in a previous hearing 

that had to do with a gentleman who was under investigation, a 

briber and a bribee as I recall, and the briber has been sentenced; 

the bribee has not been addressed. There is another investigation 

that has to do with Chairman of Justice Approps, who is sitting 

over the appropriations of the Justice committee. All of these 

things are far more important than this issue that is before you 

today. And I would say that this is a circus without a cause, and 

it is time to drop this issue. And I thank you for your testimony, 

and I yield back. 

Mr. CONYERS. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 

Georgia, a magistrate in his former life, Hank Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Goodling, I noticed 

you have got three lawyers, fine lawyers who have been with you 

today, and you all have been preparing for this event for some 

time. Who is paying for your lawyers? 

Ms. GOODLING. I am paying for them. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Has anyone agreed to reimburse you for legal fees? 

Ms. GOODLING. No. I intend to establish a legal defense fund at 

some point, but I haven’t had the chance to do that yet. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, ma’am, let me ask you this question. On 

March 1, 2006, there was an order, ORDER NO. 2808-2006 entitled 

Delegation of Certain Personnel Authorities to the Chief of Staff, 

to the Attorney General, and the White House Liaison of the Department of Justice. 

Were you aware of that order when you were hired as White 

House Liaison. 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes. That is the third piece of the discussion that 

I was just having. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And that order granted broad authority to you and 

the Chief of Staff, who was Kyle Sampson, to take ‘‘final action in 

matters pertaining to the appointment, employment, pay, separation and general administration’’ of a wide range of employees in 

the Department of Justice, including associate—assistant U.S. Attorneys. Is that not correct? 

Ms. GOODLING. I actually don’t believe that delegation related to 

AUSAs. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Let me ask you this question. You acknowledged 

or you stated in your statement to this Committee that you do acVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:15 Jan 29, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\FULL\052307\35603.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35603
70

knowledge that you may have gone too far in asking political questions of applicants for career positions. Correct? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Did those career positions include assistant United 

States attorneys? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And about how many times did you exercise that 

authority with respect to assistant U.S. Attorneys? 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t recall that I interviewed——

Mr. JOHNSON. Would you say that would be 30, 40, 50, or more? 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t think—I don’t know that I could—I don’t 

know that I could estimate. I had waiver requests that came in 

from time to time. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I am speaking just of your assistant U.S. Attorneys. How many times did you use political questions in your evaluation of assistant U.S. Attorneys? 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t know that I could estimate. Sometimes 

people came to the Department, and they were just interested in 

coming to the Department, and they interviewed with me for political positions or AUSA positions. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I am talking about—a U.S. attorney’s is not a political position, that’s a career position, right? 

Ms. GOODLING. Right. 

Mr. JOHNSON. How many times did you use that power that you 

had to hire and fire with respect to hiring of assistant U.S. Attorneys and you used political reasons for making a decision not to 

hire? How many times did you do that? 

Ms. GOODLING. I can’t give you an estimate. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Would you say less than 50 or more than 50? 

Ms. GOODLING. I hesitate to give you a reason, just because I—

or an estimate, because I can’t remember. I don’t think that I could 

have done it more than 50 times, but I don’t know. I just—there 

were times when people came to the Department and they were interested in career positions or political positions, and those people 

I certainly asked political questions of. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. Let me ask you, these people that you 

asked——

Mr. DOWD. Mr. Chairman, may she finish her answers? That is 

the fourth time he has interrupted her answer, and I would appreciate letting her finish her answer. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, if I might respond? 

Mr. CONYERS. You may not respond. Just let her just finish her 

answers, please. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I don’t want her to take up all my time, though, 

because I am trying to get forward with some other questions. 

Ms. GOODLING. I was involved in career hiring in a number of 

different ways. Sometimes because people would come in and they 

would be interested in different sorts of positions at the same time, 

and they would sometimes get asked political questions. When I 

was looking at waiver requests for AUSA positions——

Mr. JOHNSON. This is not responsive to my question. 

Ms. GOODLING [continuing]. I did not normally ask questions. 

71

Mr. JOHNSON. All right. Thank you. Now, did the Attorney General know that you were asking political questions of applicants for 

career positions? 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t believe that he knew. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Did the Deputy Attorney General know that you 

were asking those kinds of questions of career—of applicants for 

career positions? 

Ms. GOODLING. I am sorry, it depends on the category. I am 

sorry, I was just involved into too many categories of personnel 

things to give you straight answers that are going to apply to each 

one. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, let me ask you this question then. Who knew 

that you were asking—let me ask it this way. Did you discuss the 

fact that you were asking political questions of applicants for career positions with any of the following? The Attorney General? Yes 

or no? 

Ms. GOODLING. Discuss it? No. I did receive resumes from him 

of Republicans. 

Mr. JOHNSON. The Deputy Attorney General? Yes or no? 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t know. 

Mr. JOHNSON. The Associate Attorney General or the Acting Associate Attorney General? 

Mr. CONYERS. The gentleman’s time has expired, but please answer the questions. 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t know specifically. But I do know that I did 

interview detailees for their offices. And I think that they had a 

sense that I was looking for people that were generally Republicans 

to work on their staffs as detailees. And those were people who currently held career positions. So in that category, I would think they 

had a general sense of that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Did anybody in the White House know that you 

were asking——

Mr. CONYERS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, may I ask unanimous consent to introduce into the record the document——

Mr. CONYERS. Let us finish this first, and I will recognize you for 

introduction. Could I suggest to the gentleman from Georgia that 

he submit any continued line of questioning for the record? And we 

may go into a second round or work out some sort of circumstance 

that you may continue on. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. CONYERS. You are welcome. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr.—Oh, wait a minute. You have a unanimous consent request. 

Mr. CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like a 

unanimous consent to introduce into the record the document that 

the gentleman from Georgia was referring to, which by the way is 

very careful and narrow in its delegation. 

Mr. CONYERS. Please just introduce the document, please. 

Mr. CANNON. I ask unanimous consent. 

Mr. CONYERS. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. CANNON. Thank you. 

[The material referred to follows:]

72

ORDER FOR THE DELEGATION OF CERTAIN PERSONNEL AUTHORITIES, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL, MARCH 1, 2006, SUBMITTED BY THE HONORABLE CHRIS CANNON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH, AND MEMBER, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY


B-2.eps
73


B-3.eps
74

Mr. CONYERS. From Florida, our colleague Tom Feeney is now 

recognized. 

Mr. FEENEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Goodling, just to 

clarify the last point, there were people interested in jobs at the 

Justice Department that were not particularly choosy. They would 

be happy to serve either as a political appointee or in a career nonpolitical position. Is that my understanding of the testimony that 

you just gave? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes. Sometimes people just wanted to work at 

the Department because it is a good place. 

Mr. FEENEY. And in order to cover the whole realm of requirements and considerations, there were times when people were applying for more than one position but, including political positions, 

were asked appropriate political questions? 

Ms. GOODLING. I would interview them as if they were a political 

appointee. But if I didn’t have a political position I could, you 

know, recommend them for, then I would sometimes pass their resumes on to people for consideration for career positions. And certainly there were other cases where the Attorney General or the 

Deputy Attorney General or different people gave me resumes of 

people that they, you know, knew were Republicans and said, you 

know, would you consider passing these on, you know, to someone 

for consideration? So a lot of times when somebody sent me a resume, they sent it to me because they knew that I was involved 

in a lot of hiring, mostly on the political side. And when they sent 

me the resume, they told me flat out that the person was a Republican. So I already knew that. Sometimes when I interviewed people, even if I wasn’t trying to ask them a political question, they 

would just self-disclose, because they knew I was a Republican, and 

they figured it would help them get the job, I assume. Sometimes 

people just self-disclosed that kind of information to me. And the 

same thing occurred when I did reference calls. There were times 

I crossed the line probably in my reference calls by asking, but 

there were other times I didn’t. And people just would volunteer 

the information. So there were a lot of times that I received information about someone’s political affiliation. And I am just not 

going to sit here and tell the Committee that if I knew it I could 

completely exclude it from my brain. Sometimes I knew where they 

were coming from, and I can’t say that it didn’t play a factor in 

what I thought about someone. I am just being honest. Sometimes 

it helped them. 

Mr. FEENEY. Did you have any understanding of how the previous Justice Department worked under President Clinton? Was 

political considerations ever considered in either political or perhaps career positions to your knowledge? 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t know. 

Mr. FEENEY. You weren’t there at the time. Well, you know, I 

just want to say that under very difficult circumstances you have 

conducted yourself with a lot of class and a lot of dignity. Ninetynine percent of the cameras that were here first thing in the morning are gone, and I want to tell you you have been a huge disappointment to a lot of people that were expecting to find some 

grand conspiracy of the Justice Department to deny justice to the 

American people. So in that sense you have been a huge disVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:15 Jan 29, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\FULL\052307\35603.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35603
75

appointment. But in another sense you have not been. You said 

that of the perhaps millions of people watching us at one point during the day only a few knew you personally. You described yourself 

as a fairly quiet girl, tries to do the right thing, tries to treat people 

kindly along the way. I always knew I wanted to grow up and do 

something to serve or help other people. And I would say that millions of Americans now know a lot more about you. And they are 

proud to have somebody like you serving in government. And they 

understand that this is a huge sacrifice. And I want to tell you that 

when we have such big issues in front of us it is a shame that we 

have spent so much time and money and resources and lawyers 

and investigators for a bottom line question, and that is was politics ever considered in the political appointment process or the replacement process of political appointees? 

I supported, by the way, issuing a subpoena to you because I 

thought maybe you had the golden answer and could tell this Committee that some huge crime had occurred in order to punish somebody because of an ongoing investigation or tried to remove somebody in order to interfere with an investigation. But in all the time 

that I have spent listening to witnesses and reading materials I 

haven’t seen one shred of evidence to justify the time that we have 

taken on this. 

The President announced yesterday that there are ongoing terrorist plots to attack us here in the United States. This Committee 

has a lot of work to do fighting terror and crime and a number of 

other issues, and I just hope that Congress and this Committee can 

get on with the real work and stop the circus. And I want to thank 

you for coming today. With that I yield back. 

Mr. CONYERS. The Chair recognizes Brad Sherman, the distinguished gentleman from California. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. I would like to talk to you about your 

work in hiring non-political folks. And you indicated just to the last 

questioner that sometimes you crossed the line when you were 

checking their references. And you asked whether, you know, they 

had been involved in politics and on what side. Were your superiors at Justice aware that sometimes you crossed the line? 

Ms. GOODLING. If we are talking about detailees to leadership offices, those are kind of confidential policymaking positions. I think 

that people generally had a sense that when I was looking for people to work in the leadership offices I was looking to bring in people that were going to be working side by side with political appointees and would share those same views. If you are asking 

about other categories, like immigration judges or BIA members, 

originally I was told that we could, particularly in relation to immigration judges, and I assumed it applied to BIA positions as well. 

I was told that those factors could be considered. In relation to——

Mr. SHERMAN. So you were told you could ask political involvement for the BIA judges and the immigration judges? 

Ms. GOODLING. I was told that because they were direct appointments by the Attorney General that other factors could be considered. But I actually don’t remember asking political questions of 

those applicants. I generally——

Mr. SHERMAN. Who told you you could ask those questions? 

76

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t know anybody told me I could ask the 

questions. They told me I could consider other factors. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Who told you you could consider those other factors? 

Ms. GOODLING. Kyle Sampson. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Okay. Also in looking at the non-political appointees, you have talked about doing Web searches. And I know 

that you, you know, used Google or LEXIS-NEXIS to see what was 

in the press. There are also though some particular Web sites that 

just focus on people’s political contributions. In looking at non-political appointments, did you ever look at FEC.com or tray.com or any 

of the other sites that are pretty much focused on political giving? 

Ms. GOODLING. Occasionally. Not terribly often. Frankly, it 

wasn’t very common to find people in the law enforcement area 

that were active on that side. But yes, we did in some cases check 

those records. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Even when it was a person who had applied only 

for a non-political position? 

Ms. GOODLING. I know we checked them in relation to immigration judges, where we thought that we could consider other factors. 

And I think that I did in some cases check them for detailees, 

mostly because I was looking for people that would be working in 

basically political positions. I don’t have a specific recollection that 

I did it in an AUSA case, but I can’t rule it out. I did a lot of research. And sometimes I just had a stack of resumes, and I flipped 

through them. And I don’t want to rule out that at some point I 

did that. 

Mr. SHERMAN. So detailees, BIA judges, immigration judges were 

all subject on occasion, at least even if they hadn’t applied for any 

political position, were all perhaps subject to an analysis where you 

were just going to, say, FEC.com or tray.com to see their political 

giving? 

Ms. GOODLING. Occasionally. Like I said, I actually was too busy 

to get around to doing it terribly often. And I did sometimes direct 

staff to. I would give them resumes and ask them to check them. 

But frankly, we had a lot of other things going on, and it didn’t 

often turn up anything. And it wasn’t very helpful most of the time 

anyway, so——

Mr. SHERMAN. I understand. There has been a discussion of 

Carol Lam’s supposed failings. And I know that there was a letter 

from Senator Feinstein that is in the file of documents given to us 

where the Justice Department responds and says she is doing a 

great job. She is getting—we are on target to be 40 percent higher 

on the alien smuggling prosecutions. Why would the Justice Department tell Senator Feinstein that these criticisms of Carol Lam 

were inaccurate and that she was doing a great job and then go 

off and fire her supposedly for not doing a good job? 

Ms. GOODLING. I think the Department tried to address the concerns by saying what good things it could. You know, if you do two 

cases and then you change it to four that’s a hundred percent increase, but four cases in a particular category may not actually be 

all that great. I think, you know, the Department tried to provide 

information to assure the Senator that there was some good work 

77

being done in this area, but maybe not as much good work as the 

Department wanted to have done. 

Mr. SHERMAN. But it is an extremely convincing letter that Justice sent, noting that half the assistant U.S. Attorneys in this district prosecute criminal immigration cases. Was there some reason 

you found this letter unpersuasive? 

Ms. GOODLING. You know, I am not sure I really had any involvement in drafting it. I did hear a lot of discussions about Carol 

Lam’s immigration record. And I remember hearing people feeling 

like it was difficult to respond to those letters, because they wanted 

to be able to do more——

Mr. CONYERS. The gentleman’s time has expired. You can finish. 

Ms. GOODLING. I think the Department would have been happier 

to be able to have an even more positive response, but provided the 

best response that it could. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Texas, Judge Louie Gohmert. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do appreciate 

the time. I do think it is noteworthy in all the complaints about 

inquiries or complaints about U.S. Attorneys, for example, when an 

election is won by less than 200 votes, and they are concerned that 

despite all the reports of potential voter fraud that the U.S. Attorney doesn’t pursue it, that that somehow is offensive to inquire 

about that. Yet when Senator Dianne Feinstein writes a letter concerned about the lack of prosecutions over the immigration issue, 

not one person on the other side of the aisle has raised any issue 

about the impropriety of Senator Feinstein sending that letter. 

Why? Because it is a good inquiry. 

Why wouldn’t it also be a good inquiry when someone is not pursuing human smuggling that sometimes results in death? Pursuing 

voter fraud? Now I realize our majority is trying to make it easier 

to vote so nobody is checked and we can’t find out about voter 

fraud. That seems to be the direction we are headed. But it 

shouldn’t be anything wrong when people are wanting that pursued. 

Now, as far as politics playing a role in the appointments, I hate 

to be the bearer of this news, but politics has always played a role 

in appointments. I have known of Democrats who were seeking to 

get Republican appointments, and they would call known Republicans and say would you please put in a good word for me because 

I know this will be an issue? And gee, I appreciate your testimony 

today, and you seem to believe you may have done something 

wrong by saying, gee, this person may be a liberal Democrat. Do 

you have any idea how many people would have wanted your head 

and contacted the White House if someone like you were put in 

your position and you thought it was a great idea to hire liberal 

Democrats? The same way that if Bill Clinton had put in a right 

wing conservative Republican in a position like yours, his supporters would have had his head. Politics is at play. 

Now, I would also like to point my colleagues to the fact that I 

had two good friends from law school who were appointed as Federal judges in 1992, early in that year. They got a letter from 

Chairman Biden saying he wouldn’t allow politics to keep them 

from having a hearing and confirmation within 3 or 4 months. SevVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:15 Jan 29, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\FULL\052307\35603.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35603
78

eral months later, because of politics, he let those qualified judges 

down the vine. They were later reappointed and confirmed, showing how they were good, qualified. When President Clinton fired 93 

attorneys on the same day, 12 days after Janet Reno was hired, 

there was no investigation. There was no quarter of a million dollars. And frankly, Chairman, I appreciate—I see the Chair is not 

here. But when I was a judge, if somebody had a requirement to 

disclose or discover to the other side and they presented it 30 minutes before the hearing, we were either going to exclude that documentation, because that was grossly unfair, or there would be a 

continuance. And I think it is a little unfair to present these documents that apparently somebody has had for some time, that we 

got 30 minutes before the hearing and I didn’t get until over an 

hour into it because of the copying. So when some of us have been 

concerned about the lack of pursuit of justice, I don’t see that as 

a problem. 

And I would also point out when we bring up God and Christianity and question somebody’s belief for attending a religious college, that Harvard itself, we want to refer to them, Psalms 8 is on 

Emerson Hall that houses the Philosophy Department. What is a 

man that thou out art mindful of him? Talking to God from Psalm 

8. The Latin phrase meant truth for Christ and the church. And 

that was the official motto of Harvard in 1692. And the rules and 

precepts of Harvard in 1646 said let every student be plainly instructed, and earnestly pressed to consider well, whether the main 

end of his life and studies is to know God and Jesus Christ, which 

is eternal life, and therefore to lay Christ as the bottom, and the 

only foundation. It is part of the foundation. 

And I would also submit to my colleagues that the hate crime bill 

passed out of this Committee and taken to the floor and passed recently leaves an opening. If someone here seems to indicate there 

is something wrong about being a Christian and someone is induced to commit violence against that Christian, then the person 

on this Committee could possibly be charged under the hate crime 

bill as the principal for having committed the act of violence. And 

I would just encourage my colleagues to consider well your comments and your votes in this Committee. 

I yield back. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. [Presiding.] The gentleman’s time has expired. 

I now recognize the gentlelady from Wisconsin, Ms. Baldwin, for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. BALDWIN. Thank you. I am hoping to be able to reach two 

lines of questioning. We will see how far we get. The first relates 

to Attorney General Gonzales’s previous acknowledgment that for 

a time Milwaukee U.S. Attorney Steve Biskupic was on the list of 

people to be terminated. Do you have any knowledge about who 

suggested that Mr. Biskupic be placed on this list to be terminated 

in the first place? 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t. He wasn’t on the January list or the September list that I saw. 

Ms. BALDWIN. I am aware. 

Ms. GOODLING. And those were the only two I can remember seeing. And obviously he wasn’t on the final list. I don’t remember 

hearing anything else about it. 

79

Ms. BALDWIN. Do you have any knowledge about why he was 

placed on that earlier list? 

Ms. GOODLING. No. 

Ms. BALDWIN. Did you ever hear of any concerns of any kind 

about Mr. Biskupic, whether from someone inside the Department 

of Justice or anywhere else? 

Ms. GOODLING. I feel like I would read the press clippings every 

day. And I feel like I did occasionally see stories that involved his 

office, but I can’t remember any specifically, and I don’t remember 

any discussions about them. 

Ms. BALDWIN. Okay. Did you ever hear of or participate in any 

discussion of whether Mr. Biskupic was loyal to the President or 

the Administration? 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t remember any. 

Ms. BALDWIN. Okay. Did you ever hear of or participate in any 

discussion on whether Mr. Biskupic was sufficiently active in prosecuting alleged vote fraud in Wisconsin? 

Ms. GOODLING. I just don’t remember being a part of any discussion about him at all. 

Ms. BALDWIN. No discussions at all about Mr. Biskupic? 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t recall any. Like I said, I may have at 

some point, but I just don’t remember any. 

Ms. BALDWIN. Okay. Mr. Sampson testified that after you joined 

the Attorney General’s Office, which was before Mr. Biskupic was 

taken off the list, that he likely would have spoken to you about 

Mr. Biskupic. 

Did you ever have any conversation with Kyle Sampson about 

Mr. Biskupic? 

Ms. GOODLING. You know, as I sit here today I don’t remember 

any, but, you know, I can’t rule it out. Sometimes what happened 

with Mr. Sampson is that we would talk about U.S. Attorneys in 

the context of other jobs that were opening up. Like for example 

when the Associate Attorney General position opened, when the 

ATF position opened, when the Office of Violence Against Women 

position opened, sometimes he would say let’s, you know, take a 

look at the U.S. Attorneys and see if you see any there we should 

consider. And so sometimes I would say, well, what about this one 

or what about this one? Or I don’t really know much about this 

one. And sometimes he would say, oh, I like that person. You know, 

he would have comments. It may have been in a context like that. 

But I just don’t remember. I just don’t remember any conversations 

about him at all. 

Ms. BALDWIN. Okay. I am going to turn to a different line of 

questioning then. You have testified today that after Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty’s Senate testimony that you were concerned about key aspects of his testimony, and you told Kyle Sampson and possibly others that part of his testimony was inaccurate. 

Is that correct? 

Ms. GOODLING. I said that I was concerned about the direction 

that we were going. I did raise with Mr. Elston the caging issue. 

I said I gave you information the night before, and his response 

was he just didn’t think that the Deputy had had enough time to 

absorb it and feel comfortable with it. I remember raising that one 

with Mr. Elston. I believe I raised one or two others with Mr. 

80

Sampson. But most of my comments to people, particularly I think 

Ms. Scolinos and Mr. Moschella, really just related to the fact that 

I was concerned that we were opening a door to saying bad things 

about people that had worked for us. And I just thought—and I understood that Congress was very interested in the topic, but I just 

didn’t think that it was the right thing to do to say negative things 

about people who had worked for us, you know. Their service had 

ended, and we were trying to—or at least my understanding was 

that we were trying to give them the opportunity to leave quietly 

and peacefully and to have a bright future. And I didn’t want to 

do anything to damage that. 

Ms. BALDWIN. With regard to Mr. McNulty’s Senate testimony, 

you had concerns that key aspects of his testimony were inaccurate. Did you tell Mr. McNulty that you had these concerns? 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t think I did, no. 

Ms. BALDWIN. Did you tell the Attorney General that you had 

these concerns? 

Ms. GOODLING. No. He was on travel at the time. 

Ms. BALDWIN. Okay. And you said that you told Will Moschella 

you thought the testimony would start this issue down a bad road. 

Did you tell Mr. Moschella about the inaccuracies that you outlined 

earlier for our Committee? 

Ms. GOODLING. No, I don’t think so. 

Ms. BALDWIN. If not, why not? 

Ms. GOODLING. You know, the conversation I had with him was 

right outside the hearing room. And you know, I was—my focus 

was that I was just thinking that this—I just didn’t think this was 

going to be good. I thought it would be bad for the U.S. Attorneys 

involved and bad for the Department. I just didn’t think it was a 

good road. And I was—my focus was on that. And so I heard other 

things that I thought weren’t quite right, but my focus, I was so 

much more focused on the other thought. I did go back to the Department. I mentioned a few things to Kyle. But again, my focus 

was really on the direction we were going. And then Kyle had 

asked me, well, you know what does the Deputy think about how 

the testimony went? And I said I don’t know. I didn’t speak to him. 

And then the next morning, you know, I think my recollection is 

that the Deputy provided feedback at some point that day that he 

had spoken to some folks on the Senate side, and that they had basically indicated that they just needed a little bit more information 

and that the issue was going away. And I think we went through 

a period of time that we basically thought that it was over. And 

I think, you know, I think I just moved on to the next thing. I 

think I moved on to getting the Deputy ready for his private briefing. And I just—I think we thought we were on the way to resolving it. And I just forgot it, I guess. I don’t have any other explanation other than that. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. The gentlelady’s time has expired. Mr. Franks 

of Arizona is next, recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Goodling, I 

have been so impressed with the way that you have handled yourself here today. I think your testimony has been not only very credible and sincere, but just reflected a very conscientious attitude on 

your part. And I think we are all fortunate to have had your presVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:15 Jan 29, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\FULL\052307\35603.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35603
81

ence in the Justice Department. I was struck by your written testimony in that the motivation for coming into government and to the 

place that you came was to try to make a better world, to try to 

make things better for your fellow human beings. In a sense that 

should be the motivation for government in general, you know, as 

a protector of people’s rights and as someone that is dedicated to 

justice in the human environment. 

With that said, you know, I can’t help but hear again and again 

the questions to you related to were some of these firings or were 

some of these considerations based on political considerations? 

Well, you know, I have to repeat what has often been repeated 

here, that that is certainly within the purview of the Department, 

and certainly within the purview of the President to do exactly 

that. And I think that if someone is dedicated and believes in what 

they believe in they actually sometimes can believe that it serves 

the cause of justice to appoint people or to maintain people of their 

persuasion, of their belief structure, because they believe that is 

best for humanity. So in a sense you would be doing something 

against your own conscience if you didn’t consider their persuasion 

and what they believed in their common pathos with yourself. 

With that said, the critical question for this Committee and for 

your Department is this thing about justice. And the real issue, if 

there is one here—and I have to think that Mr. Sensenbrenner is 

correct, I just don’t see any fish in the pond here. But the real 

question is did you at any time at your stay at the Justice Department ever seek to prevent or interfere with or affect or influence 

any particular case or any effort to change the outcome of justice, 

that is the predicate for your agency, by hiring or firing or threatening to do so any person or any of these U.S. Attorneys that are 

under discussion? 

Ms. GOODLING. I certainly did not. 

Mr. FRANKS. Do you know of anyone in your Department or the 

Administration that did? 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t recall anybody ever saying anything like 

that. I just don’t. I can’t say that—I can’t testify to what other people were thinking. And I can’t testify to what people may have 

been thinking that they didn’t say. But you know, when we—we 

didn’t talk about what the reasons were other than Mr. Bogden, at 

least in conversations I was in, until after it was in progress. And 

I never heard anybody say anything like that. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, I think again the reason I mentioned the 

questions in such direct terms is because that is really the only 

question that should be before this Committee, even though you 

have received every other kind imaginable. And I certainly have 

seen no evidence of any kind before this Committee that says that 

any of these attorneys were fired because of some effort to change 

the outcome of a case or to influence a case or to influence or 

thwart justice. 

And with that, I just want to thank you for coming, thank you 

for your service to your country, and I hope the very best in life 

for you. 

Ms. GOODLING. Thank you. 

Mr. FRANKS. I yield back. 

82

Ms. JACKSON LEE. The gentleman’s time has expired. I recognize 

the distinguished gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Ms. Goodling, I would like to ask you about some of 

the criteria that you and others at the Justice Department used to 

put people on the list to be fired. I think you testified with respect 

to Mr. Iglesias that there was a discussion about the rationale for 

his being on the list. Someone mentioned he was an absentee landlord. Someone mentioned that there was an improper delegation of 

authority. I think the documents reveal that those justifications 

were not learned until after he was placed on the list, but I will 

cover that later. Let me assume for the moment that that is a legitimate consideration. 

If a U.S. Attorney delegated too much of his authority to the first 

assistant U.S. Attorney, that might be a reason to place him on a 

list to be fired. Is that right? 

Ms. GOODLING. It could be. 

Mr. SCHIFF. So if he delegated some of the most important decisions in the office, decisions over hiring key people, like the head 

of a corruption section, and delegated that away, that might be a 

reason to put him on the list? 

Ms. GOODLING. I think that you would look at the totality of circumstances in every case. But that might be a factor you would 

consider. 

Mr. SCHIFF. And if you remove someone who is doing a corruption investigation in his office without good reason, in a way that 

interfered with the investigation, that would be a good reason to 

put him on a list to be fired. 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t know the specifics of what you may be referring to. 

Mr. SCHIFF. I am just asking you generally. That would be a 

good reason to be put on a list? 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t know. 

Mr. SCHIFF. The U.S. Attorney sets the tone in the office. If the 

U.S. attorney’s mismanagement of his office results in low morale, 

and that morale affects the quality of the work done by the office, 

the reputation of the office, that might be a legitimate reason to 

put him on a list to be fired, right? 

Ms. GOODLING. In some cases morale can be improved. In some 

cases, you know, you do need to make a change. But again, it is 

going to be the totality of the circumstances. 

Mr. SCHIFF. If Mr. Iglesias or any other U.S. Attorney came before Congress and testified incompletely or inconsistently or lacked 

credibility, that might be a reason to put him on a list to be fired. 

Right? Certainly if someone testifies incompletely or inconsistently 

or not fully truthfully, that would be a reason to be fired, wouldn’t 

it? 

Ms. GOODLING. I mean I think you would have to look at the circumstances. It is not easy to sit here and answer questions and try 

to give you complete answers. But, you know, I don’t know. It may 

be—I mean obviously it would be something that you would have 

to look at. 

Mr. SCHIFF. If in the case of Mr. Iglesias or any other U.S. Attorney the Senators from that State, or even Senators of the same 

83

party expressed a loss of confidence, as the Attorney General testified, that might be a reason to place them on the list to be fired? 

Ms. GOODLING. I think that that could be a factor you would consider in some cases. 

Mr. SCHIFF. And if a U.S. Attorney or any other key Justice Department official demonstrated an excess of loyalty, loyalty more to 

the person that hired them or responsible for their job than to uphold the laws and faithfully execute their office, that might be a 

reason to put them on a list to be fired, right? 

Ms. GOODLING. I am not sure that I understand. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Well, you said the totality. Letus add up the totality 

of circumstances. You have a U.S. Attorney or a top law enforcement official at the Department who improperly delegates his authority, whose actions cause morale in the office to plummet, whose 

testimony before Congress is incomplete and inconsistent, who has 

lost the confidence of Senators of even of his own party, and who 

creates the impression that his loyalty takes a higher priority than 

his duty to uphold the laws and the Constitution. The totality of 

those circumstances would certainly warrant the position on the 

list to be fired, wouldn’t it? 

Ms. GOODLING. That wouldn’t be my call to make. 

Mr. SCHIFF. By that standard, Ms. Goodling, shouldn’t someone 

have placed the Attorney General himself on the list to be fired? 

Ms. GOODLING. That wouldn’t be my decision to make. 

Mr. SCHIFF. That would be the President’s decision, correct? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes. 

Mr. SCHIFF. But morale has plummeted in the Department, 

hasn’t it? 

Ms. GOODLING. You know, I have left the Department. I am not 

in a position to be able to answer the question. 

Mr. SCHIFF. The Attorney General’s testimony was inconsistent 

with his prior statement that he was not in any meeting or involved in any discussion of the firings. Wasn’t that inconsistent? 

Ms. GOODLING. I do think there were some inconsistencies. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Senators of the Attorney General’s own party have 

lost confidence in his performance, haven’t they? 

Ms. GOODLING. I have seen newspaper accounts, but I have no 

firsthand knowledge other than that. 

Mr. SCHIFF. The Attorney General has certainly created a perception, if not a reality, that his loyalty to the President is a higher 

priority to him than faithfully executing the duties of his office. 

Wouldn’t you agree? 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t know what my perception of that would 

be. I worked for him, and I thought he was a good man, and I 

thought he tried hard. I just don’t know that I can express an opinion on that. I just—I don’t frankly know what I think about the 

topic. 

Mr. SCHIFF. I have no further questions. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. The time of the gentleman has expired. I recognize the distinguished gentleman from Alabama. The gentleman 

is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. If the mike will 

work. Ms. Goodling, I apologize for that. Let me pick up on my colleague’s questions. 

84

As you know, you are no longer at the Department. Mr. McNulty 

is no longer at the Department. The person who remains at the Department is, frankly, Attorney General Gonzales. And as you may 

or may not be aware, Mr. Schiff and I have introduced a no confidence resolution for the House to vote on considering Mr. 

Gonzales. As you also may be aware, there is a similar resolution 

in the United States Senate. So I want to pick up on his focus on 

the person who is still there, the Attorney General of the United 

States. 

Going back to your testimony earlier today, Ms. Goodling, General Gonzales testified that he never saw the U.S. Attorneys list, 

the list of terminated U.S. Attorneys. Is that accurate to your 

knowledge, Ms. Goodling? 

Ms. GOODLING. I believe he did see a list. 

Mr. DAVIS. So if General Gonzales testified that he didn’t see the 

list, you believe that would be inaccurate testimony on his part, 

don’t you? 

Ms. GOODLING. I believe he saw a list. 

Mr. DAVIS. So therefore you believe it would be inaccurate testimony? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. If General Gonzales testified that he had never been 

briefed about the list, do you believe that would be accurate or inaccurate testimony? 

Ms. GOODLING. I believe it would be inaccurate. 

Mr. DAVIS. Are there any other inaccuracies in the testimony 

that General Gonzales gave the Senate that you are able to share 

with us? 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t know that I saw all of it. 

Mr. DAVIS. Let me help you a little bit with one other one. 

Ms. GOODLING. Yeah. 

Mr. DAVIS. The Attorney General testified that he was not involved in any discussions about the U.S. Attorney firings. Do you 

believe that to be accurate or inaccurate? 

Ms. GOODLING. He was certainly at the November 27th meeting. 

Mr. DAVIS. So you believe that to be another piece of inaccurate 

testimony, don’t you, Ms. Goodling? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. And when did you first become aware that the Attorney General had made inaccurate statements to the United States 

Senate? 

Ms. GOODLING. Actually, I should clarify. I think those were 

statements that he made in a press conference, not in testimony. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, I have actually represented to you some of it 

came in testimony. But I don’t want to waste valuable time quibbling over that. When did you first become aware there were inaccuracies in General Gonzales’ public account? You mentioned three. 

Mr. DOWD. Can she see the testimony? 

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Dowd, as I understand, you are not a participant 

in these proceedings. Ms. Goodling, would you like me to repeat the 

question? 

Mr. LUNGREN. Ms. Chairwoman, he has been asking her specific 

questions about testimony allegedly made by the Attorney General. 

We know he has testified several occasions. 

85

Mr. DAVIS. Madam Chairwoman, I would ask for a ruling and I 

be allowed to continue my questions. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I will make my point of order first. My point of 

order is——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. The gentleman may proceed. 

Mr. LUNGREN. The point of order is the witness has been asked 

questions purportedly to ask her opinion concerning testimony allegedly given by the Attorney General. He has cited testimony here 

in the House and testimony in the Senate. The witness has 

said——

Mr. DAVIS. Madam Chairwoman, I ask for a ruling on the point 

of order. 

Mr. LUNGREN [continuing]. That she was—it was her understanding——

Mr. DAVIS. Madam Chairwoman, I ask for a ruling on the point 

of order. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. If the gentleman would suspend to allow the 

gentleman to continue. 

Mr. LUNGREN. She just stated that she believed the comments 

she was referring to went to a press conference that the Attorney 

General made, not in testimony. Now, in the manner of fairness, 

if the gentleman is going to press his question, the witness has the 

right to look at the documents. 

Mr. DAVIS. Madam Chairwoman, I ask for a ruling or a statement of a point of order. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. The gentleman from California has not made 

a parliamentary inquiry. I think the line of questioning of the gentleman—on the point of order, the line of questioning of the gentleman from Alabama is an appropriate line of questioning, and I 

would allow the gentleman to proceed. 

I would also indicate that I appreciate the role that you play, but 

you are to counsel the witness. You are not a participant in the 

hearing, and I thank the gentleman. 

The gentleman from Alabama may proceed. 

Mr. DAVIS. Madam Chairwoman, can my time be restored? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. It has been suspended, and your time has 

been restored. The gentleman, Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you——

Mr. LUNGREN. Madam Chairwoman, I appeal the ruling of the 

Chair. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. The ruling of the Chair has been——

Ms. GOODLING. I would like to consult with my attorney. 

Mr. DAVIS. I move to table. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. The question is on the move to table. Question 

is on the move to table. 

All those in favor, say aye. 

All those opposed, no. 

The ruling of the Chair, the ayes have it. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I ask for a recorded vote. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Recorded vote has been called. The Clerk is 

not present. This Committee stands in recess. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Until what time? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Until such time as the Chair recalls or calls 

the Committee. 

86

Mr. LUNGREN. What do we tell the witness under——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. The witness has asked for consultation time 

with her lawyer. That will be granted at this time, and we will call 

the Committee in recess at this time. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Well, I object. 

Mr. DAVIS. Madam Chairwoman, may I proceed with other questions and move on and allow the Chair to take up this issue and 

have a separate vote later? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Gentleman suspends. We have to suspend at 

this time. So the hearing is now in recess. 

Mr. FORBES. Point of parliamentary inquiry, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. LUNGREN. The motion on the floor is for a recorded vote on 

the motion to table. 

Mr. FORBES. Madam Chair, parliamentary inquiry. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Yes. 

Mr. FORBES. Madam Chairman, you stated that we are in recess, 

but it is my understanding we couldn’t go in recess if there was an 

objection, and there was an objection to the recess. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. The Chair has ruled that we are in the process of finding the Clerk, and so we are recessing for that purpose. 

I have heard the objection. The objection is heard. 

Mr. LUNGREN. You cannot recess. Under the rules of this house, 

you cannot recess unilaterally. We can’t stop the business of the 

House because a Clerk is not here. Members are here. We have 

asked for a vote on the motion to table. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Point of order. This was a recorded vote that was 

requested. You can’t recess. That is nondebateable. You go to it. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Is the gentleman seeking recognition? Mr. 

Schiff? 

Mr. SCHIFF. Yes, Madam Chair. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Are you seeking recognition? 

Mr. SCHIFF. I am seeking recognition. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. You are recognized. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Since there is no one to record the vote——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. The Clerk is now here. 

Mr. SCHIFF. That answers my question. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. The question is now on the motion to table, 

and the Clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Conyers. 

[no response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Berman. 

Mr. BERMAN. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Berman votes aye. 

Mr. Boucher. 

[no response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Nadler. 

[no response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Scott votes aye. 

Mr. Watt. 

Mr. WATT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Watt votes aye. 

Ms. Lofgren. 

87

Ms. LOFGREN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren votes aye. 

Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Jackson Lee votes aye. 

Ms. Waters. 

Ms. WATERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Waters votes aye. 

Mr. Meehan. 

[no response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Delahunt——

Mr. LUNGREN. Point of order, Madam Chairman. The photographers in the well are interfering with the witness’ opportunity to 

consult with counsel. I would ask that we——

Mr. DAVIS. Madam Chairman, I ask that the vote continue. I 

would ask that the vote continue. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I would ask that the gentleman from California would suspend, and I would ask that the vote continue. And 

I would ask that if counsel are disturbed by any photographers 

please advise the clerks or officials, and we will address that question. 

Would the vote proceed, please? Thank you. 

The CLERK. Mr. Delahunt. 

[no response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Wexler. 

[no response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Sa ́nchez. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Sa ́nchez votes aye. 

Mr. Cohen. 

[no response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Johnson votes aye. 

Mr. Gutierrez. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gutierrez votes aye. 

Mr. Sherman. 

[no response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Baldwin. 

[no response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Weiner. 

[no response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Schiff. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Schiff votes aye. 

Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Davis votes aye. 

Ms. Wasserman Schultz. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Wasserman Schultz votes aye. 

Mr. Ellison. 

Mr. ELLISON. Aye. 

88

The CLERK. Mr. Ellison votes aye. 

Mr. Smith. 

[no response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Sensenbrenner. 

[no response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Coble. 

Mr. COBLE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Coble votes no. 

Mr. Gallegly. 

[no response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Goodlatte. 

[no response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Chabot. 

[no response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lungren votes no. 

Mr. Cannon. 

Mr. CANNON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cannon votes no. 

Mr. Keller. 

Mr. KELLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Keller votes no. 

Mr. Issa. 

[no response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Pence. 

[no response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Forbes. 

Mr. FORBES. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Forbes votes no. 

Mr. King. 

Mr. KING. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. King votes no. 

Mr. Feeney. 

[no response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Franks. 

Mr. FRANKS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Franks votes no. 

Mr. Gohmert. 

Mr. GOHMERT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gohmert votes no. 

Mr. Jordan. 

[no response.] 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Are there other Members in the chamber who 

wish to cast their vote? 

The gentleman from Florida. 

Mr. FEENEY. No. 

Mr. WEXLER. She meant this gentleman. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Gentleman from Florida did you cast——

The CLERK. Mr. Wexler votes aye. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Gentleman from California. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I vote no. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gallegly votes no. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. The other gentleman from California. 

89

Mr. SHERMAN. Votes aye. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. How am I recorded, Madam Chair? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Gentleman from Florida. 

That is Mr. Lungren. He gave the wrong information. Listening 

to the Ranking Member—yes, sir. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Chair, I am the gentleman from Massachusetts; and how am I recorded? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. How is the gentleman recorded? 

The CLERK. Mr. Delahunt is not recorded. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I vote aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Delahunt votes aye. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Any other Members in the chamber? 

Mr. MEEHAN. I am the younger gentleman from Massachusetts. 

I vote aye. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Any other Members wishing to vote that have 

not cast their vote? 

The Clerk will report. 

The CLERK. Seventeen Members voted aye; eight Members voted 

nay. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And the motion fails. 

The motion to table passes. The gentleman’s motion does not 

pass. 

The CLERK. Excuse me, it was 17 aye and 9 nay. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. The Clerk has corrected, and the 

motion to table passes. 

Mr. DAVIS. May I resume, Madam Chairwoman? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. That you may, and your minutes are 2 minutes and 19 seconds. We suspended the clock. 

Mr. DAVIS. And that is restored time, Madam Chairwoman? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. That is restored time. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Mr. DAVIS. Ms. Goodling, I apologize for the interruption. Let me 

get back to you. And I will give the Clerk a chance to leave so you 

can get set up. 

Ms. Goodling, when did you first become aware that the Attorney 

General made public statements that you thought weren’t accurate? 

Ms. GOODLING. I am not sure. I think I saw the press conference 

that day, and it struck me that it wasn’t right, but I couldn’t put 

my finger on it right away. 

Mr. DAVIS. Did you communicate to the Attorney General that 

you felt his statements weren’t right? 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t think I did. I can’t remember what day 

it was, but I don’t remember that I did. 

Mr. DAVIS. Did you read any of the newspaper accounts of the 

Attorney General’s testimony to the United States Senate? 

Ms. GOODLING. I saw some of his Senate testimony, yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Were there aspects of his Senate testimony that you 

thought weren’t accurate based on what you read? 

Ms. GOODLING. I have read so many things trying to prepare for 

today that I am afraid some of it is pretty muddled. If you have 

a particular statement to ask me about, it may help me. 

90

Mr. DAVIS. Let me come at it this way. Did you communicate to 

Mr. McNulty that you felt the Attorney General’s public statements, whether to the press or the Committee, were not accurate? 

Ms. GOODLING. No, definitely not to Mr. McNulty. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, did you communicate to anyone that you felt 

the Attorney General’s statements either to the Committee or to 

the public were not accurate? 

Ms. GOODLING. No. I think that was right toward the end of my 

time at the Department, and I don’t think I was really——

Mr. DAVIS. When is the last time you spoke to the Attorney General, Ms. Goodling? 

Ms. GOODLING. I spoke to him the Thursday or Friday of my last 

full week at the Department, and then I took leave the following——

Mr. DAVIS. Do you have a good memory of that conversation, Ms. 

Goodling? 

Ms. GOODLING. I have a memory of some of it. 

Mr. DAVIS. Was there any part of that conversation that made 

you uncomfortable? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Would you tell the Committee about it? 

Ms. GOODLING. I had decided that I couldn’t continue working on 

his staff. Because of the circumstances, I felt that I was somewhat 

paralyzed. I just felt like—I was distraught, and I felt that I wanted to make a transfer. So Iwent back to ask him if it would be possible for me to transfer out of his office. 

He said that he didn’t—that he would need to think about that; 

and I think he was, you know, trying to, you know, just trying to 

chat. I was on his staff. But he then proceeded to say, let me tell 

you what I can remember. And he kind of—he laid out for me his 

general recollection. 

Mr. DAVIS. Recollection of what, Ms. Goodling? 

Ms. GOODLING. Of some of the process. 

Mr. DAVIS. Some of the process regarding what? 

Ms. GOODLING. Some of the process regarding the replacement of 

the U.S. attorneys. And he just—he laid out a little bit of it, and 

then he asked me if I thought—if I had any reaction to his 

iteration. And I remember thinking at that point that this was 

something that we were all going to have to talk about, and I didn’t 

know that it was—I just—I didn’t know that it was maybe appropriate for us to talk about that at that point. And so I just didn’t—

as far as I can remember, I just didn’t respond. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

We now recognize the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 

Gutierrez, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you very much. I would like to yield my 

time to Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Gutierrez. 

Had you finished your answer, Ms. Goodling, regarding your conversation with the Attorney General? 

Ms. GOODLING. I think there was a little bit more to the discussion, but I am having trouble remembering it. 

Mr. DAVIS. Let me try to help you a little bit. I know it has been 

a long day. So let me try to help you a little bit. 

91

You said that you thought part of the conversation was inappropriate with the Attorney General? Did you say that, Ms. Goodling. 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t know if I said—if I meant to say ‘‘inappropriate’’. I said it made me a little uncomfortable. 

Mr. DAVIS. What was it that made you uncomfortable about your 

conversation with the Attorney General, Mr. Gonzalez? 

Ms. GOODLING. I just did not know if it was appropriate for us 

to both be discussing our recollections of what had happened. I just 

thought maybe we shouldn’t have that conversation, and so I didn’t 

respond to what he said. 

Mr. DAVIS. Why did you think it might be inappropriate for you 

to have this conversation with the Attorney General? 

Ms. GOODLING. I just knew that at some point we would probably 

all have to talk about our conversations, and I just—I am not saying that—I am not saying that I definitely thought it was inappropriate. I think, in all fairness, that he was just talking to someone 

on his staff. And I was distraught, and I was asking for a transfer. 

And I think, you know, he was—he was being kind. He is a very 

kind man. But I just didn’t know that—I thought that maybe this 

was a conversation that we shouldn’t be having. 

Mr. DAVIS. Ms. Goodling, did you tell the Attorney General that 

you felt that part of his testimony or part of his public statements 

were not fully accurate? 

Ms. GOODLING. No, I didn’t. 

Mr. DAVIS. And was there a reason why you didn’t share with 

the Attorney General that part of what he has said to the Committee or the public might not be accurate? 

Ms. GOODLING. I just—I feel like it—I feel like after he had the 

press conference people came out fairly soon and said that they 

thought the statements were inaccurate. I don’t think that I needed 

to do that. I think that other people had already raised questions 

about that. 

Mr. DAVIS. Do you think the Attorney General appreciated that 

he had made statements that were not accurate? 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t know. 

Mr. DAVIS. Did you ask him? 

Ms. GOODLING. No, I didn’t. 

Mr. DAVIS. Do you think the Attorney General would have been 

concerned about making public statements that were not accurate? 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t know what he—I know that he—I know 

that he testified before the Senate and he clarified his remarks 

from his press conference, so I believe he cared about the fact that 

he didn’t express everything in the best way that he could. And I 

think he has already apologized for that and tried to clarify that. 

Mr. DAVIS. Let me ask you this, Ms. Goodling. During the conversation that you said made you somewhat uncomfortable with 

the Attorney General, did the Attorney General discuss the circumstances around any of the terminations of the U.S. attorneys? 

Ms. GOODLING. He discussed a little bit. As I recall, he just said 

that he thought that everybody that was on the list was on the list 

for a performance-related reason and that he had been upset with 

the Deputy because he thought that the Deputy had indicated that, 

by testifying about Mr. Cummins, that there was—that the only 

reason there was to relieve him was in order to give Mr. Griffin 

92

a chance to serve. He said that he thought, when he heard that, 

that that was wrong, that he really thought that Mr. Cummins was 

on the list because there was a performance reason there, too. 

And I think there was more to the discussion. That is the part 

I am remembering right now. But I think he just kind of laid out 

what he remembered and what he thought and then he asked me 

if I had any reaction to it. 

Mr. DAVIS. Do you know—let me ask it this way. You say the Attorney General asked if you had any reaction to what he said. Do 

you think, Ms. Goodling, the Attorney General was trying to shape 

your recollection? 

Ms. GOODLING. No. I think he was just asking if I had any different——

Mr. DAVIS. But it made you uncomfortable. 

Ms. GOODLING. I just did not know if it was a conversation that 

we should be having, and so I just—just didn’t say anything. 

Mr. Davis, I don’t know that I have anything to add to that 

point, but I do want to clarify to the extent that, at the beginning 

of your questioning, I indicated answers based on testimony. I want 

to be—I want to clarify that I think that the statements you were 

referencing were press accounts, and I didn’t mean to indicate 

that——

Mr. DAVIS. Well, Ms. Goodling, if you notice what I have done 

in my questions, I have consistently said ‘‘either or’’. I have referred either to public statements or to testimony. 

Let me ask you one final question in my limited time about the 

Attorney General. Do you think that it is important that the Attorney General of the United States give truthful, accurate, complete 

testimony to the United States Congress? 

Ms. GOODLING. Of course. 

Mr. DAVIS. And if you were to discover, Ms. Goodling, that you 

left something out of your testimony inadvertently today, would 

you come back and correct it to the Committee? 

Ms. GOODLING. I certainly would try to. 

Mr. DAVIS. Would that be a good practice for a witness who discovered that——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. The gentleman’s time has expired. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Let me recognize the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Wasserman 

Schultz, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, I would like to yield 1 

minute of my time to Mr. Davis. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Gentleman is recognized 1 minute. 

Mr. DAVIS. Let me repeat the question, Ms. Goodling. You said 

that if you discovered there was something incomplete or not accurate about your testimony, you would come back and correct it, is 

that correct? 

Ms. GOODLING. I will need to consult with counsel on a question 

like that. 

Mr. DAVIS. Would it be a good practice for any witness who discovered that he had made an inaccurate statement before the Congress to come back and correct it? 

Mr. LUNGREN. Madam Chair, she asked to consult with counsel. 

The Chairman said that she would have the right to consult——

93

Ms. JACKSON LEE. This is not a point of order——

Mr. LUNGREN. Point of order——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. The gentleman is out of order. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Point of order. The Chairman said at the beginning of the hearings that she would have a chance to confer with 

counsel. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. If the gentleman would suspend. If the witness wishes to consult with counsel, she has the opportunity to 

ask——

Mr. LUNGREN. Madam Chair, she just said she did. She just said 

she did, and she’s been interrupted. 

Mr. DAVIS. Madam Chairwoman, the witness said that——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. If the gentleman from Alabama would suspend, Ms. Goodling, could you state for the record, do you need to 

consult with counsel at this time? 

Ms. GOODLING. I wasn’t asking to consult at this second. I was 

saying that if when I go back and review this transcript I think 

that there will be a lot of things that maybe I didn’t get the opportunity to address, but——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentlelady. So your answer is you 

are proceeding with your answer to Mr. Davis’ question. Therefore, 

you have answered Mr. Lungren’s question that you did not ask to 

consult at this time. 

Gentleman may proceed. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you. 

One question about Mr. McNulty. Did Mr. McNulty make any attempt to go back and correct the record regarding any aspects of 

his testimony to the Senate, to your knowledge? 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t know. 

Mr. DAVIS. Do you know of any? 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t know of any. 

Mr. DAVIS. And did Mr. McNulty, to your knowledge, make any 

attempt to correct the record regarding any aspects of his statements and closed briefings with the United States Senate? 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t know of any. 

I remember at the end of my time at the Department, I remember there was a discussion that the Department was going to prepare answers to address statements that may not have been accurate. So I remember hearing that the Department was going to 

work on answers to do that. But I don’t know if it occurred. 

Mr. DAVIS. My time has expired, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, I yield 2 additional 

minutes of my time to Mr. Davis. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Gentlelady is recognized. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Ms. Wasserman Schultz. 

Let me shift to another area, Ms. Goodling. You have been an assistant U.S. attorney for a period of time in your own career, is 

that right? 

Ms. GOODLING. I was a special assistant U.S. attorney, yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Did you prosecute cases at some point? 

Ms. GOODLING. I did some cases. Actually, I did not end up doing 

any felony trials. They all pleaded out. But I did some work. 

94

Mr. DAVIS. Are you familiar with the rules and professional rules 

of responsibility that govern U.S. attorneys and members of the 

Department of Justice? 

Ms. GOODLING. I am familiar with some of them. I wouldn’t claim 

to be an expert. 

Mr. DAVIS. Let me ask you a few questions about it. In your 

opinion, from what you know of the professional rules of responsibility, would it be appropriate for a United States Senator to contact a prosecutor about a specific case? 

Ms. GOODLING. The Department got inquiries about cases all the 

time, and there was an appropriate—there is an appropriate way 

to address them. 

Mr. DAVIS. Would it be appropriate for a Senator to call the U.S. 

Attorney and ask about the specifics of a particular case? 

Ms. GOODLING. In some cases, it may be okay. If they were just 

calling to ask something that is in the public record, it might be 

okay. Although, of course, the Department protocol would be that 

that question would go to the Office of Legislative Affairs. 

Mr. DAVIS. What if they weren’t calling about the public record 

but they were calling about information known only to the U.S. attorney and the Department of Justice? Would that be appropriate? 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t really know the rules in this area very 

well——

Mr. DAVIS. Do you know of any circumstance, Ms. Goodling, in 

which it would be appropriate for a United States Senator to call 

a United States attorney to ask about information known only to 

that U.S. Attorney’s office? 

Ms. GOODLING. I can’t think of one, but, again, I am not an expert in this area. 

Mr. DAVIS. Similar question. Would it be appropriate for a Member of the United States House to call the United States attorney 

to ask questions about the specifics of a particular case involving 

facts known only to the U.S. Attorney? 

Ms. GOODLING. I am not an expert in this area, Mr. Davis; and 

I hesitate to answer questions that I don’t know the answer. 

Mr. DAVIS. Let me ask another question. Do you know of any instance in which it would be appropriate for a politician to call a 

U.S. Attorney to ask him or her to prosecute anyone? 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t think that would be appropriate. Unless, 

of course, the person had evidence of wrongdoing, in which case 

they should take it to the FBI——

Mr. DAVIS. And if person didn’t have evidence of wrongdoing and 

simply called and made the inquiry, you agree that would be inappropriate, wouldn’t it? 

Ms. GOODLING. If someone called and said go prosecute this person because I don’t like them and didn’t have evidence, that would 

clearly be a problem. 

Mr. DAVIS. Let me ask you a question about that. To your knowledge, based on everything that you have learned about these facts 

in your previous position, was there a phone call from a Member 

of the United States Senate to David Iglesias regarding prosecution 

of particular cases? 

Ms. GOODLING. I have seen press accounts, but——

95

Mr. DAVIS. Would that be appropriate for Senator Domenici to 

call——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. The Chair would remind Members that they 

must allow the witness to answer the question and—I ask the 

Members be reminded that witnesses must be able to answer the 

question. 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t know if the call happened, and I don’t 

know the specifics of the call if it did. And I can’t address a hypothetical or something that I don’t know anything about. I am not 

an expert in this area. I just—frankly, I think it raises questions, 

but I don’t know the rules in this area well enough to say. 

Mr. DAVIS. Final question, Ms. Goodling. During your briefing 

session with Mr. McNulty for his testimony, did the Domenici call 

to Iglesias come up? 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t think that—I am trying to remember the 

date of the call. Do you remember the date of the call? 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, I am asking you, Ms. Goodling. You participated 

in the briefing. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

Ms. GOODLING. I can’t remember the time sequence. I am sorry. 

I did address the call, or the call was something that was discussed 

in the Deputy Attorney General’s Office. But I don’t remember 

when that was. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I now recognize the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Ellison, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ELLISON. Do you know Thomas Heffelfinger, ma’am? 

Ms. GOODLING. I have met him, yes. 

Mr. ELLISON. Before he resigned, was there any conversation 

about problems with his performance? 

Ms. GOODLING. I believe I did hear a few. 

Mr. ELLISON. What were they? 

Ms. GOODLING. There were some concerns that he spent an extraordinary amount of time as the leader of the Native American 

Subcommittee of the AGAC. And clearly people thought that was 

important work, but I think there was some concern——

Mr. ELLISON. Excuse me. Thank you. You have answered. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Madam Chair, she is answering the question——

Mr. ELLISON. Ma’am, excuse me, can you tell me, please, Was 

there concerns about whether or not he was allowing members of 

Native American tribes to use tribal IDs in order to vote? 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t remember anything subject specific. The 

concern that I heard raised was just that he spent an extraordinary 

amount of time on the Subcommittee business. 

Mr. ELLISON. Did anything about voter tribal IDs ever come in 

up in that discussion with problems about Thomas Heffelfinger? 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t have any recollection of it. 

Mr. ELLISON. Did you receive any communications from Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer regarding Thomas Heffelfinger? 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t have any recollection of ever seeing anything like that. 

Mr. ELLISON. Did you have—interview Joan Humes? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes. 

Mr. ELLISON. When did you interview her? 

96

Ms. GOODLING. It would have been—it would have been after 

Tom Heffelfinger notified us he was going to leave. 

Mr. ELLISON. Now you know she was a 1990 graduate of the University of Minnesota right? 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t remember her resume. 

Mr. ELLISON. Do you recall she is chief of civil in the U.S. attorney’s office in Minnesota? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes. 

Mr. ELLISON. And you understand that she had clerked for Judge 

Rosenbaum, who was a Minnesota Federal judge, right? 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t remember her resume. 

Mr. ELLISON. Do you recall that she at least had a good solid resume, had worked for the U.S. attorney’s office and had been practicing law for some 15, 16 years? You know that? 

Ms. GOODLING. I remember she was the civil chief. That was my 

recollection. 

Mr. ELLISON. She didn’t get the job, did she? 

Ms. GOODLING. No, she didn’t. 

Mr. ELLISON. You knew she was Democrat, right? 

Ms. GOODLING. I actually didn’t hear she was a Democrat. I 

heard she was a liberal. 

Mr. ELLISON. You heard she was a liberal. Was that a factor in 

your decision to bypass her? 

Ms. GOODLING. I think it was a factor in some ways, but it 

wasn’t the overarching factor. 

Mr. ELLISON. Now the person you did hire was Rachel Paulose, 

is that right? 

Ms. GOODLING. There was a panel of people involved, but, yes. 

Mr. ELLISON. Rachel Paulose was hired. Now you know that four 

assistant U.S. attorneys have quit because she is so inadequate in 

management in the U.S. attorney’s office in Minnesota. You know 

that today, right? 

Ms. GOODLING. I read press accounts that they went back to 

AUSA——

Mr. ELLISON. You know that is true, don’t you? 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t believe they resigned. I believe they went 

back to their positions as AUSA——

Mr. ELLISON. No, they quit their——

Mr. LUNGREN. Let her answer the question. 

Mr. ELLISON. They quit their leadership positions. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Gentleman will suspend. Gentleman will suspend. Remind Members to please allow the witness to answer the 

question. 

Mr. ELLISON. They quit their leadership positions, is that right? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes, then——

Mr. ELLISON. Then went back to line positions, is that right? 

Ms. GOODLING. That is what I understand from the paper. 

Mr. ELLISON. So Ms. Paulose—and you know Ms. Paulose personally, is that right? 

Ms. GOODLING. I met her during the interview process. 

Mr. ELLISON. She described you as a friend of hers. Would you 

use that term ‘‘friend’’ as well? 

Ms. GOODLING. We became friends after the hiring process. 

Mr. ELLISON. And you are friends today, right? 

97

Ms. GOODLING. I haven’t spoken to her in some time, but, yes. 

Mr. ELLISON. How much time have you—how much time has 

gone by since you spoke to her? 

Ms. GOODLING. Maybe February—February, maybe early March. 

Mr. ELLISON. So you spoke to her as early as March ’07? 

Ms. GOODLING. Maybe. Maybe. Maybe the first week of March. 

I can’t recall. 

Mr. ELLISON. Did you ask Ms. Humes if she was a member of 

the Federalist Society? 

Ms. GOODLING. No. 

Mr. ELLISON. Did you ask her about her religious affiliation? 

Ms. GOODLING. No. 

Mr. ELLISON. Did you ask her specifically about her party affiliation? 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t believe that we did. The interview was 

conducted by Mr. Margolis, Mike Battle and myself——

Mr. ELLISON. Excuse me. 

Ms. GOODLING. All three of us were in the room——

Mr. ELLISON. That is not responsive to my question, but we will 

move ahead. 

Did Ms. Paulose ever lead a department in any office of the U.S. 

attorney? 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t believe she had. 

Mr. ELLISON. And Ms. Joan Humes had led the Civil Division, 

is that right? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes. 

Mr. ELLISON. So you all bypassed a chief of civil and went to 

somebody who had no experience in management simply because 

they were a liberal. 

Ms. GOODLING. No, not at all. There were other——

Mr. ELLISON. Now——

Ms. GOODLING [continuing]. Reasons involved in the decision. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I remind the witness’s being allowed to answer the question. 

Mr. ELLISON. Now——

Ms. GOODLING. To clarify, we——

Mr. ELLISON. I don’t need a clarification. 

Ms. GOODLING. I would like to complete my answer. 

Mr. ELLISON. I don’t need an answer. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Parliament inquiry, the rules we started with——

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Would the Member suspend? 

Mr. ELLISON. I have the authority to control my question. I got 

an answer to my question, and I would like to proceed——

Mr. LUNGREN. You are a Member of this Committee, and 

those——

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair——

Mr. LUNGREN [continuing]. Are not the rules——

Mr. ELLISON [continuing]. This deleterious—

Mr. LUNGREN [continuing]. The Chairman announced——

Mr. ELLISON [continuing]. Tactic——

Mr. LUNGREN [continuing]. At the beginning——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Point of order——

Mr. LUNGREN [continuing]. Of this hearing. 

98

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I ask the gentleman to suspend. 

I am very, very sensitive and sympathetic to the lawyers that are 

on this Committee in their questioning form, but it is the rules of 

this Committee that Members allow witnesses to answer the question. You can ask them to abbreviate. 

Ms. Goodling, because of the shortness of the time, I would ask 

you to be more precise in your answers to the gentleman. The gentleman may continue. 

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, I would like to ask for at lead 2 

minutes of my time to be restored. I have been interrupted here. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I object. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. The time has been suspended on each of the 

times. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. ELLISON. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. GOODLING. Could I complete——

Mr. ELLISON. Now——

Ms. GOODLING [continuing]. My answer? 

Mr. ELLISON [continuing]. Did you ask——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Will the gentleman proceed? 

Mr. ELLISON. There is no question before the witness. 

Ms. GOODLING. I didn’t finish my answer. 

Mr. LUNGREN. There is a question before the witness. She should 

be permitted to answer. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Regular order. Regular order. 

The Chair will rule. The gentleman will proceed. You can include 

your answer that you want to complete as the gentleman finishes 

his other question. Would the gentleman proceed? 

Mr. ELLISON. Did Rachel Paulose’s political affiliation play any 

role in her hiring? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes, it did. 

Mr. ELLISON. And that would be that she is a Republican? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes. 

Mr. ELLISON. Did her religious affiliation play a role in her hiring? 

Ms. GOODLING. No, it did not. 

Mr. ELLISON. Do her membership in the Federalist Society play 

a role in her hiring? 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t remember that was something we talked 

about. 

Mr. ELLISON. Did the fact she never tried a case to a jury impact 

your thinking on her hiring? 

Ms. GOODLING. She had 2 to 3 years prosecution experience as 

an AUSA, which is a lot more than some of the U.S. attorneys that 

we hire. And that was significant experience and——

Mr. ELLISON. How did that experience compare to Joan Hume’s 

experience? 

Mr. LUNGREN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Chairman will suspend. 

Ms. GOODLING. As I recall, Rachel’s experience was some civil 

and some criminal. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Gentleman’s time has expired, and she can 

complete her answer. 

Ms. GOODLING. Rachel Paulose was selected based on her qualifications overall, and we did include the fact that she might be able 

99

to be a candidate for the Presidential nomination. We sometimes 

thought if we had somebody that we could put into to be an interim 

U.S. Attorney who also had the opportunity to be a considered both 

a Presidential nomination then that was a factor. 

Mr. ELLISON. Nonresponsive. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. The gentleman’s time has been expired. We 

have been summoned to the House floor for votes. We will take a 

short recess and reconvene as promptly as we can after we vote for 

a second round of questioning. 

The Committee stands in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. CONYERS. [Presiding.] Members of the Committee, our first 

round of questioning, our first round of questioning has concluded. 

There is one exception. As we have discussed with Lamar Smith, 

rather than have an entire second round of questioning, we have 

decided to move, pursuant to clause (j)(2)(b) of Rule 11, for 30 minutes of extended questioning by Members, to be divided equally between the majority and the minority. First, one Member of the minority, who will be recognized by the Ranking Member for 15 minutes or more—or more people, not more minutes; and then one 

Member of the majority will be recognized for 15 minutes to recognize other Members. 

Without objection, the motion is agreed to. 

So we will suspend for a moment until our witness and her counsel arrive, and we will begin. 

We conclude the afternoon by offering our deepest thanks for the 

cooperation of Monica Goodling and her counsel for the length of 

time that this has taken. As you see, we have been interrupted by 

requests for recorded votes on the floor, but we are grateful to you, 

and we can assure you we will not keep you very long at all. 

We have already—we have discussed with Lamar Smith and myself, and rather than have a second round of questioning we have 

decided to dispense with that and move, pursuant to clause 

(j)(2)(b), Rule 11, to have questioning for the last 30 minutes to be 

divided between the majority and the minority. 

Each will be recognized for 15 minutes, and without—first, one 

Member of the minority whom the Ranking minority Member may 

designate will be recognized for 15 minutes, then one Member of 

the majority will be recognized for 15 minutes. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

To begin the questioning, I recognize the Ranking Member, 

Lamar Smith, to designate a Member on his side for 15 minutes 

of questioning; and I yield to the gentleman. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad we were able 

to come to agreement on how to divide the time and how much 

time to divide, and our time will be—the person I am going to designate for our time is going to be Chris Cannon, the gentleman 

from Utah and Ranking Member of the Administrative Law Subcommittee. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. We will designate Adam Schiff, the 

gentleman from California, to control our 15 minutes; and, obviously, whoever is controlling time can yield to others if he so chooses. 

100

I would ask the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Chris Cannon, to 

begin his 15 minutes, please. 

Mr. CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the Ranking 

Member as well. 

And I would just like to say on the record, Mr. Chairman, that 

I appreciate the way you handled the lobby reform bill and my 

amendment that I spent some time with the Rules Committee just 

before coming down here. They have that all straight and appreciate your involvement in that. 

We would like to begin by yielding so much time as he may consume to the gentleman, Mr. Keller. 

Mr. KELLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Ms. Goodling, I have been here and listened to you carefully all 

day; and I believe the gist of all your testimony can be summarized 

as follows: 

You had no major role in assembling the list or firing the U.S. 

attorneys, you wish there were some questions you hadn’t asked of 

Civil Service employees on a political level, and while you agree 

with Mr. McNulty that the firings by the Attorney General were 

not for an illegal or improper purpose you have some disagreement 

with other aspects of his testimony. Is that a fair summary? 

Ms. GOODLING. I wouldn’t want to say I didn’t have a major role, 

because certainly I was a part of the circle of people that reviewed 

the list and made recommendations, and I was a part of that. I 

wouldn’t want to say I wasn’t a major part. I certainly was part 

of the core. 

I think I would summarize just by saying that, as far as I know, 

the dismissals were made for appropriate reasons. But the handling of it and the explanation of it was poorly managed and not 

always as accurate as it could have been. 

Mr. KELLER. So you agree with two of my three summaries, but 

you would say you had a major role. 

Let’s turn, if you would, to your packet of documents there, Number 5, which is tabbed; and that is an e-mail. At the top of this—

and this is for those following—this is tab Number 5, Office of Attorney General, number 22 Bates stamp. That is an e-mail dated 

May 11, 2006, from Kyle Sampson to William Kelly. Do you see 

that? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes, I do. 

Mr. KELLER. And you were, in fact, the senior counsel and White 

House Liaison at that time, right? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes, I was. 

Mr. KELLER. Were you even aware of this e-mail at that time? 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t remember learning about it at the time, 

no. 

Mr. KELLER. And the reason I say that is because I think your 

testimony to me earlier was you weren’t even aware of a particular 

list until January of 2006. And here is a list from May 11, 2006, 

from Kyle Sampson. So that is how I get the point that you really 

weren’t a major player in all the—because here you were liaison at 

the time, and you weren’t even aware that this list was starting 

to be compiled. 

Ms. GOODLING. The list I saw I believe was January, 2006, so it 

would have predated this e-mail. 

101

Mr. KELLER. This e-mail here is what the other side and some 

have called the ‘‘smoking gun’’. As you see, it says, among other 

things, the real problem we have right now with Carol Lam leads 

me to conclude that we should have somebody ready to be nominated on November the 18th, the day after her 4-year term expires. 

Now according to comments made by John McKay and the Los 

Angeles Times on May 18, 2007, that is powerful circumstantial 

evidence of a crime. I believe we will see a criminal investigation, 

he says, because the day before, May 10th, Carol Lam supposedly 

sent some notice to the Justice Department that she was going to 

be seeking certain search warrants related to the Duke 

Cunningham investigation; and that must be what triggered it, this 

particular document. This is their smoking gun, this memo dated 

May 11th. 

So I would like you to look at the bottom of this same memo; and 

is it in fact true that there is also a memo on the same page dated 

April 14, 2006, from Kyle Sampson saying that a month before that 

one of the people DOJ recommends terminating is Carol Lam, is 

that correct? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes, and I believe she was on the January memo 

as well. 

Mr. KELLER. That is right. 

And one final point, just in case anyone is not clear about where 

the Attorney General stood on this issue. He testified before this 

Committee on April the 6th—and I specifically brought up the situation to Carol Lam with him, and the Attorney General said to 

me—I am looking for his testimony—that he was aware of the 

problem in San Diego and that they were taking steps to do something about it. 

And I don’t have his testimony right in front of me, but the gist 

of it is he knew then that there was a problem and in April of 

2006. And I believe your testimony earlier today is that you had 

heard conversations back in 2003, 2004, that there were concerns 

within the Justice Department relating to Carol Lam’s failure to 

prosecute certain gun crimes and as early as 2005 regarding concern about certain immigration crimes prosecution, is that true? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes, that is true. 

Mr. KELLER. And I would yield the gentleman the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining? Counsel might be——

Mr. CONYERS. Nine minutes and 59 seconds. 

Mr. CANNON. I yield 4 minutes to Mr. Lungren and would appreciate if the Chair would let me know when that time——

Mr. CONYERS. Your time has—oh no, you have 4 minutes. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Goodling, you mentioned in your testimony that you were 

concerned about statements that might come out that might hurt 

the U.S. attorneys that were to be relieved, correct? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes. 

Mr. LUNGREN. And as I understand it, your feeling was that even 

though there were justifiable reasons for letting these people go, 

they are otherwise honorable folks who had done good jobs in some 

102

areas of the law, and there was no reason to hurt their reputation 

as they went off to pursue another job, is that correct? 

Ms. GOODLING. That’s correct. They had served, you know, more 

than their 4-year terms in most cases; and although the decision 

was made that maybe a change would be appropriate, I didn’t 

think that we needed to do anything to damage their reputations. 

Mr. LUNGREN. There has been cited a report from the Congressional Reference Service that never in the history of United States 

have we let people go for performance, and yet I am personally 

aware of at least one occasion in which that occurred somewhere 

in California while I was an Attorney General. But every effort was 

made not to penalize the person who was leaving, not to articulate 

the reasons why the individual was gone, not to make a big deal 

about it, but to make that change. 

And I guess my question is to you, was that part of how you 

viewed it in the situation that you were a part of in this particular 

matter, that is, with the eight who were being relieved of their positions? 

Ms. GOODLING. I thought it was within the President’s authority 

to make those personnel changes if he wanted to do so. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Now some things have been said about Mr. 

Iglesias. Were you aware of any complaints from local law enforcement, including prosecutors at the local level or sheriffs, of what 

they thought was a failure to timely respond to their requests for 

assistance by Mr. Iglesias and his office? 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t remember hearing anything like that. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Someone said a little earlier about whether you 

ever considered that secret society called the Federalist Society. 

Are you aware of the Federalist Society? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Who are they? 

Ms. GOODLING. It is an organization based in Washington, D.C., 

that advocates open debate, but they are largely comprised of conservatives. 

Mr. LUNGREN. And they believe in a study of the Constitution? 

Ms. GOODLING. I believe they do. 

Mr. LUNGREN. And they believe that perhaps like-minded individuals who have a constant—a view of the Constitution and fidelity to the Constitution might practice law, be in our court systems, 

be even assistant U.S. attorneys and U.S. attorneys? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Do you find it any problem with learning whether 

or not someone is in the Federal Society when you were considering 

whether they ought to be hired at the Justice Department? 

Ms. GOODLING. No. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Excuse me, I have so many more questions, but 

I have to yield back. 

Mr. CANNON. I think the Chairman has since forgotten us over 

here in the time. 

Mr. CONYERS. The yellow light goes on when 3 minutes have 

been—oh, wait a minute, you now have 26 seconds. It was 27. 

Mr. CANNON. I yield. So we have a total of—what—5 minutes 

left, Mr. Chairman, now? 

Mr. CONYERS. Six. 

103

Mr. CANNON. I interrupted a long stream of questions. I apologized a half a minute early, and I thank the Chairman for his diligence in this regard. 

Following up on the Federalist Society, I note you have been a 

career-long member of that left-leaning organization, the American 

Bar Association. 

Ms. GOODLING. I have been a member of the American Bar Association longer than I have been a member of the Federalist Society. 

Mr. CANNON. Has that impeded your career at the Department 

of Justice? 

Ms. GOODLING. It hasn’t seemed to, at least while I was there. 

Mr. CANNON. Thank you. I jest, having been a member myself of 

that organization. 

Mr. Davis raised questions about Senate referrals of legal matters in connection to an investigation, and it goes too far to say 

that Members shouldn’t or can’t communicate with Federal prosecutors who refer matters for prosecution. Rule 19 of the Senate 

Subcommittee on Investigations explicitly states a referral methodology, and Senator Feinstein and Representative Issa both encouraged Carol Lam to engage in certain activities with regard to immigration in particular and those referrals. 

So, as we said numerous times, referrals themselves or discussions are not inappropriate with Federal prosecutors, but it really 

is the responsibility of the U.S. attorney to communicate that communication to the Department, is it not? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes. As I mentioned, it was a Department policy 

that contacts with Members should be reported to the Department 

for appropriate handling for everyone’s protection. 

Mr. CANNON. Are you familiar with Mr. Iglesias’s failure to communicate with the Department about the contacts that had been 

made to his office? 

Ms. GOODLING. I understand he confirmed that he didn’t report 

the contact. 

Mr. CANNON. Actually, no, he told this Committee that he did report the contact using not the telephone or e-mail but through the 

medium of the press. I don’t know if you are aware of that or not, 

but, personally, I think that the reasons for his replacement are 

self-manifest and probably don’t need to be gone into much more. 

But we will discuss the President’s power, involvement of appointing these really at will employees. 

I would like to read into the record a succinct description of the 

job security for U.S. attorneys by Mr. David Margolis. I love this 

line. 

If Senator Kerry were elected after the 2004 election these people 

would be out on the street anyway, so it is not like we are, you 

know, taking the jobs out from under them. 

Do you think that is a fair representation of the expectations of 

tenure by U.S. attorneys? 

Ms. GOODLING. It certainly is an accurate statement. 

Mr. CANNON. Thank you. 

Now there has been some question about the importance of your 

role in all of these activities, Ms. Goodling. Referring back again 

to Mr. Iglesias, who said to Mr. Matthews, on Hardball, I think 

Monica Goodling holds the keys to the kingdom. I think if they get 

104

her to testify under oath with a transcript and have her describe 

the process between—the information flow between the White 

House counsel, the White House and the Justice Department, I believe the picture becomes a lot clearer. 

Now we have a transcript being developed today. You have been 

here with us quite a while and answered many questions and only 

a few more, we would hope. I want you to know that in this particular and very narrow case I agree with Mr. Iglesias that it 

couldn’t be clearer. You don’t have much to show or you are not a 

link to—what someone called it—the political corruption, the partisan political corruption that is going on. That just does not seem 

to be here. At least I haven’t seen any evidence of that. 

And I suspect that at the end of this hearing the only thing we 

are going to hear more about is where all the momentum from this 

investigation dissipated to, using none other than our hero, Mr. 

Iglesias, to guide us through there, that——

Oh, Mr. Gohmert, would you like to take a—what time remains? 

Mr. GOHMERT. If you don’t mind. 

Mr. CANNON. How much time do we have remaining, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. CONYERS. There is 2 minutes and 20 seconds remaining, sir. 

Mr. CANNON. I yield to the gentleman the 2 minutes that remain. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I thank the gentleman from Utah. 

We have heard our friend from California mention about other 

U.S. attorneys who may have departed perhaps not completely voluntarily, but it is my understanding from people who have worked 

the system and have seen U.S. attorneys come and go that before 

this Attorney General’s office this was normally handled by letting 

people know it might be a good idea to find other employment, we’ll 

give you time, but we want to replace you. 

As you have indicated, you said, I thought it was the President’s 

power to make such changes. Isn’t it true? It is the President’s 

power to make such changes, correct? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes. 

Mr. GOHMERT. It is. And you can do it for political purposes. 

When Bill Clinton fired 93 U.S. attorneys, it was all for political 

purposes, and they said that. But they had the good judgment to 

say, you guys did a good job, fine, this is purely political purposes. 

We want our own people in there, people that think like we do. So, 

goodbye. We will help you any way we can. And that is what most 

attorneys general have done until this one. 

So it seems to be more of a political witch hunt we are about, 

when really what is at the bottom of it all is bad personnel management by this Attorney General’s office. Instead of quietly saying 

find other employment, they said, and we think it is job related, 

it relates to job performance. As a result, they had people that 

lashed back, that naturally they are going to have to defend themselves in their job performance, which gave fuel to the political debate to come into here. So that now we have polls indicating a majority of Americans think that this was done for political purposes. 

Well, hello, that is why they—Bill Clinton changed his—that is 

why——

Mr. CANNON. Will the gentleman yield back? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Yes. 

105

Mr. CANNON. I would like to make a point in the last few seconds. That while Bill Clinton—President Clinton did this to 93 U.S. 

Attorneys, one of them was investigating the Clintons at the time; 

and there is certainly the odor of corruption in that circumstance. 

Now, Ms. Goodling, we are done on our side pretty much. We appreciate your testimony and your being here. 

Mr. Schiff I think is going to take the time from here. You have 

15 more grueling minutes, and we will see if he can come up with 

something worthy of the hours and hours that we have spent on 

the subject up until now and the money and the $250,000, et 

cetera. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CONYERS. Who seeks recognition? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Ms. Lofgren. If I could just interrupt for a brief 

announcement. The minority has asked under the rules for a separate hearing on an immigration matter that was noticed for 5:30 

upstairs, and I would just like to notice that that hearing will 

begin after we have concluded here. And I thank the gentleman for 

recognizing me. 

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentlelady, and I thank the gentleman 

from Utah. The Chair now recognizes the distinguished gentleman 

from California, Mr. Adam Schiff, to conclude the hearings. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to begin by 

yielding myself 10 minutes. So if you would let me know when that 

elapses. 

Mr. CONYERS. I will. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Ms. Goodling, you testified about a meeting you had 

with the Attorney General in which you felt uncomfortable. When 

did that meeting take place? 

Ms. GOODLING. It was the Thursday before the Monday that I 

took leave. I can’t remember the date. But it would have been in 

March. 

Mr. SCHIFF. And where was the meeting? 

Ms. GOODLING. It was in his office. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Who was present during the meeting? 

Ms. GOODLING. It was just him and I. It wasn’t scheduled. I had 

just called back and asked if I could see him for a few minutes. 

Mr. SCHIFF. And during the course of the meeting he raised his 

thoughts on the firing of some of the U.S. Attorneys with you? 

Ms. GOODLING. He did. 

Mr. SCHIFF. And you felt uncomfortable about this. Is that right? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes. 

Mr. SCHIFF. In part because you realized this would be the subject of some controversy or dispute later? 

Ms. GOODLING. I thought it was likely, based upon where we 

were at that point. 

Mr. SCHIFF. And that you might be asked to testify and he might 

be asked to testify? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes. 

Mr. SCHIFF. And you felt uncomfortable about being put in a situation where your testimony might be compromised? 

106

Ms. GOODLING. I just didn’t know if it was a good idea for the 

two of us to be discussing it. I don’t know that I thought it was 

inappropriate. I just remember feeling I don’t know if we should be 

having this discussion. 

Mr. SCHIFF. But the top law enforcement official in the country 

didn’t raise any concern about the propriety of your discussing this 

issue? 

Ms. GOODLING. No. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Was part of what made you uncomfortable the fact 

that the Attorney General’s statement about why certain U.S. Attorneys were fired was not consistent with your understanding of 

the facts? 

Ms. GOODLING. No. I don’t think I was thinking that at the time. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Did the Attorney General tell you that he thought 

that Mr. Cummins, the U.S. Attorney in Arkansas, was fired for a 

reason owing to his performance? 

Ms. GOODLING. I am sorry, can you repeat that? 

Mr. SCHIFF. Did the Attorney General tell you in this conversation that he thought that Mr. Cummins had been fired for good 

reason, that his performance was somehow unsatisfactory? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes. He thought that they were all in the same 

category, that there was some reason—I don’t know if he used the 

word ‘‘performance’’—but there was a reason. 

Mr. SCHIFF. You understood that the reason Mr. Cummins was 

placed on the list to be fired was because there was a desire to 

make room for Mr. Griffin. Is that right? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes. Yes. 

Mr. SCHIFF. So what the Attorney General told you was not consistent with the facts as you know them? 

Ms. GOODLING. Right. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Didn’t that make you uncomfortable? 

Mr. SCHIFF. No. In some cases, we—where we moved other U.S. 

Attorneys on, obviously the downstream effect of that is to allow 

someone else to serve. The fact that we wanted Mr. Griffin to serve 

in Arkansas was not necessarily exclusive of the fact that Mr. 

Cummins may have been rated one way or the other. 

Mr. SCHIFF. But you understood that what the Attorney General 

was telling you, that there was a cause reason owing to the performance of Mr. Cummins, and that was the reason he was being 

fired, you understood that that was not true? 

Ms. GOODLING. I think what he was saying was that he thought 

Kyle put Mr. Cummins on the list because there was a performance-related reason. And so when he heard that there wasn’t, or 

that the Deputy had said that there wasn’t, he was surprised by 

that. What he was trying to say was I thought Kyle put him on 

the list because there was a reason. And so I didn’t——

Mr. SCHIFF. More than that, he was angry with Mr. McNulty for 

suggesting that someone was fired who was doing a good job, 

wasn’t he? 

Ms. GOODLING. He said he was upset with the Deputy. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Now, you also mentioned a staff meeting—and I 

want to see if I heard you correctly—with the Deputy AG, I 

thought you said the AG as well, in which a question was asked 

107

about how Iglesias was put on the list. Did I understand your testimony correctly about that? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes. And in one of the last 2 weeks that I was 

at the Department the group of people that had been working on 

this issue had a meeting. And I think it was after Mr. Sampson 

left. I think that is about as close as I can get it in time. 

Mr. SCHIFF. And the Attorney General was present for that 

meeting? 

Ms. GOODLING. To the best of my recollection I think everybody 

involved was in the room. I just remember feeling like the room 

was full, and that meant everybody was there, but I don’t—I don’t 

remember any particular seat being empty. 

Mr. SCHIFF. And someone during the course of that meeting 

asked how did Mr. Iglesias get on the firing list, correct? 

Ms. GOODLING. I asked. 

Mr. SCHIFF. You asked the question? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes. 

Mr. SCHIFF. And then somebody responded that has been addressed? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Who was it that said that? 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t remember. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Were you there for the whole meeting? 

Ms. GOODLING. I came in a few minutes late, I think. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Was it your sense that it had been addressed in that 

meeting or it had been addressed privately? 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t know. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Well, Mr. McNulty, when you were preparing for testimony, struck the reference that Mr. Iglesias didn’t move cases 

from the document you prepared, didn’t he? 

Ms. GOODLING. He didn’t strike it from the document I prepared. 

It was—he asked that—or said that he didn’t think it should be included on a chart that I had prepared for his private briefing on 

the Senate side. So it was a comment someone made in a prep session in his office, but then he indicated he didn’t think it should 

be included because he thought the Senator would prefer to address those concerns privately with his colleagues. And he wanted 

to give him the opportunity to do that. 

Mr. SCHIFF. So then if the Deputy Attorney General was asked 

about why Mr. Iglesias was put on the list to be fired, the primary 

reason that the Attorney General testified about, the calls he got 

from Senator Domenici wouldn’t appear anywhere, would it? 

Ms. GOODLING. I am not familiar with what the Attorney General testified to. Could I see that? 

Mr. SCHIFF. Well, we will be happy to supply that to you later. 

But Mr. McNulty made it clear he was not going to discuss with 

the Senate, even if he was asked, the reasons why Mr. Iglesias was 

fired. He was not going to discuss the Domenici calls or the comment about moving cases, was he? 

Ms. GOODLING. There was a little bit more to the conversation. 

What he said was—or somebody else in the room I think made the 

suggestion—there was a conversation back and forth between the 

DAG and one other person, and I don’t remember who the other 

person was, but the conversation was that maybe somebody should 

108

place a call to his Chief of Staff and see if he wanted to address 

the concerns with his colleagues before the briefing took place. So 

presumably, if the Chief of Staff had indicated that he didn’t mind 

the Department briefing it, then, you know, the DAG may have 

done so. But all I heard was the discussion about maybe we 

shouldn’t put that—shouldn’t brief that because it is really the 

Senator’s place to do that privately. And somebody suggested a 

phone call be made to the Chief of Staff to see if they wanted to 

do that on their own. 

Mr. SCHIFF. You testified about a meeting in which Mr. Rove was 

present where someone said we need to have a reason why all 

these people were fired, or something to that effect. Correct? 

Ms. GOODLING. I believe someone made a comment more along 

the lines of you need to be clear in explaining your decisions or 

what you did or something. It was more a matter of being clear in 

explaining, not necessarily——

Mr. SCHIFF. And then someone at that meeting said, yes, that’s 

right, and—well, you said that Karl Rove at some point emphasized 

the point someone earlier had made. Is the best of your recollection 

what he was emphasizing was the point that they needed to have 

a good explanation for why people were fired? 

Ms. GOODLING. I can’t remember what it was that he said. To the 

best of my recollection, he only spoke one time. And that is my 

memory, and I don’t even know if it is right, but my memory is he 

spoke one time. And it was kind of a follow-on comment to someone 

else. But I don’t remember what the originating comment or his 

was. 

Mr. SCHIFF. But someone emphasized that there needed to be a 

clear explanation for why these people got fired? 

Ms. GOODLING. To the best of my recollection, yes, that was 

something——

Mr. SCHIFF. And then during your conversation with the Attorney General, that private conversation, he was trying to supply a 

reason why Mr. Cummins got fired? 

Ms. GOODLING. No, he wasn’t trying to—he wasn’t trying to——

Mr. SCHIFF. Well, he was emphasizing to you his belief that everyone had been fired for a good reason, that is for cause, right? 

Ms. GOODLING. He was just saying this is what I remember. And 

it was in the course of that stream. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Now, Mr. McNulty testified in answer to Senator 

Schumer, when Senator Schumer asked, can you give us some information about how it came to be that Tim Griffin got his interim 

appointment? Who recommended him? Was it someone within the 

U.S. Attorney’s office in Arkansas? Was it someone within the Justice Department? Mr. McNulty answered under oath, yeah, I don’t 

know the answer to those questions. That was a false statement, 

wasn’t it? 

Ms. GOODLING. I believe that he had some information. I don’t 

know if he remembered it at that point. But I believe he had some 

information. 

Mr. SCHIFF. So when he was asked further, did anyone from outside the Justice Department, including Karl Rove, recommend Mr. 

Griffin for the job? Again, I am not saying there is anything illegal 

about that, but I think we ought to know. And McNulty said, okay, 

109

and Senator Schumer said, okay, but you don’t have any knowledge 

of this right now, and Mr. McNulty testified under an oath, I don’t. 

That was a false statement, too, wasn’t it? 

Ms. GOODLING. I believe that he had some information on it. Or 

that he had been given some information. I can’t speak to what he 

knew or remembered that day. 

Mr. SCHIFF. And when he was further asked——

Mr. CONYERS. The gentleman has how many seconds left? 4:50. 

So you have nearly used your 10 minutes. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you. I will now yield the remaining 4:50 to 

Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, may I proceed? 

Ms. Goodling, this is the final 5 minutes of the testimony today, 

so we will try to get through it quickly. On behalf of this side of 

the Committee, let me thank you for your courtesy today and let 

me thank you for your candor today. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Davis, could I just remind you to please let 

the witness finish her questions? 

Mr. DAVIS. Certainly. 

Mr. CONYERS. Okay. 

Mr. DAVIS. I am going to put in front of you a document, Ms. 

Goodling, that is a transcript of the Attorney General’s testimony 

to the United States House based on a hearing that occurred a 

short time ago, May 10th. Would you look at page 18 of the document and let me know when you found it, Ms. Goodling? 

Ms. GOODLING. I am on page 18. 

Mr. DAVIS. Look, if you would, at the portion that is marked Attorney General Gonzales. And I am going to read it for the record. 

And if you would follow along with me. This is a statement on page 

18 of the transcript from Attorney General Gonzales: 

Mr. Chairman, if I may respond to that, as I have indicated, I 

have not gone back and spoken directly with Mr. Sampson and others who are involved in this process in order to protect the integrity 

of this investigation and the investigation of the Office of Professional Responsibility and the Office of Inspector General. I am a 

fact witness. They are fact witnesses. In order to preserve the integrity of those investigations, I have not asked these specific questions. What I am here today, and then there is a hyphen as he 

stops. 

Ms. Goodling, based on your knowledge, is that statement by Attorney General Gonzales, is that testimony sworn under oath by 

Attorney General Gonzales fully accurate? 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t know what period he is referencing. Certainly earlier in this process there were a lot of conversations between a lot of people who were involved in this process. At some 

point it is clear that the Attorney General stopped talking to people, but it must have been—I assume that it is after the point that 

I left the Department or took leave. 

Mr. DAVIS. Do you agree that this says I am a fact witness, they 

are fact witnesses, and in order to preserve the integrity of those 

investigations I have not asked those specific questions? You agree 

that it says that, Ms. Goodling? 

110

Ms. GOODLING. I agree that it says that. I don’t know what specific questions——

Mr. DAVIS. Ms. Goodling, did the Attorney General have a conversation with you regarding the terminations of the United States 

Attorneys? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes, he did. 

Mr. DAVIS. And when did this conversation happen? 

Ms. GOODLING. It was in March, before I left the Department. 

Mr. DAVIS. Did you know you might be a fact witness at that 

point, Ms. Goodling? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Had there been substantial news coverage, Ms. Goodling, about the eventuality of your being a fact witness? 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Do you believe the Attorney General knew you were 

going to be a fact witness? 

Ms. GOODLING. I think he knew it was likely. At that point actually he had told me that they were having conversations to see if 

I would need to be a witness, because he said that he understood 

my involvement was much more limited. He was going to see if he 

and Kyle Sampson could address the Congress, and he said perhaps I wouldn’t need to. 

Mr. DAVIS. Did the Attorney General indicate he would take 

steps to help prevent you from being a witness? 

Ms. GOODLING. No. He just said that the Office of Legislative Affairs was talking to the Hill at that point, and that there were discussions that were ongoing about who they would actually need 

and when. 

Mr. DAVIS. Let me direct you to page 17 of the transcript in front 

of you. If you would look at the portion, Chairman Conyers. I am 

going to read what Chairman Conyers said, page 17, line 341, Ms. 

Goodling. 

You are the one that we talked to, as the Judiciary Committee 

regularly communicates with the head of the Department of Justice. I approve and congratulate you on all those hearings and investigation, but just tell me how the U.S. Attorney termination list 

came to be and who suggested putting most of these U.S. Attorneys 

on the list and why. Now that should take about three sentences, 

but take more, but tell me something. 

Answer from Attorney General Gonzales. Mr. Chairman, it is my 

understanding that what Mr. Sampson engaged in was a process 

of consulting with the senior leadership in the Department about 

the performance of specific individuals, and that toward the end of 

that process and in the fall of 2006 what was presented to me was 

a recommendation that I understood to be the consensus recommendation of the senior leadership of that Department. 

Was that sworn testimony under oath by the Attorney General 

fully complete with respect to Mr. Gonzales’s role, Ms. Goodling? 

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t know that I see anything inaccurate in it. 

Mr. DAVIS. What did you understand the Attorney General’s role 

to be? Was he briefed by Mr. Sampson, for example, about the 

preparation of the list? Did you understand the Attorney General 

to have been briefed by Mr. Sampson about the preparation of the 

list? 

111

Ms. GOODLING. I don’t know that I knew about briefings, but he 

was in the November 27th meeting. 

Mr. DAVIS. Was that referenced in the portions of the sworn 

statement that I just identified? 

Mr. CONYERS. The gentleman has 6 seconds remaining. 

Mr. DAVIS. Was the Attorney General’s presence at the November meeting referenced in the sworn testimony I just identified, Ms. 

Goodling? Yes or no. 

Ms. GOODLING. Yes, he said it was presented to him. It doesn’t 

say the date. But it says it was presented to him in the fall. I can 

take that to be that November date. 

Mr. CONYERS. The time of the gentleman has expired. You may 

finish your answer, Ms. Goodling, if you choose. Is there anything 

further you would like to add? 

Ms. GOODLING. It doesn’t identify a date. It says—he says that 

it was presented to him, or that the list was presented to him. So 

that could be a reference to that meeting. I don’t really know. I 

can’t explain it more fully than what is there. 

Mr. CONYERS. The time of the gentleman has expired. All time 

has expired. And our morning and afternoon and almost evening 

questioning of Ms. Goodling comes to a conclusion. 

I would like to thank you on behalf of the Committee, and many 

Members have already, and your counsel, Mr. Dowd, for being with 

us today. Your testimony has been of help in getting us closer to 

the truth of the serious matters we have been investigating, both 

what you have been able to tell us about what you know and what 

you have told us about the matters that you don’t know. 

And without objection, Members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit any additional written questions for you, which will be requested that you promptly return your answers. And the record, 

without objection, will remain open for 5 legislative days. 

Members of the Committee, the matters we are investigating are 

of the utmost seriousness, and today’s hearings have been beneficial. There remain basic unanswered questions about how and 

why the termination list was created, how it was compiled, how it 

was revised, and how it was finalized. But Ms. Goodling’s testimony will enable us to clarify our focus as we move forward to find 

answers. We thank you for your cooperation, and I would yield to 

the counsel for a remark. 

Mr. DOWD. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Do I understand that any 

answers to the questions submitted by Members of the Committee 

would be of the same compulsion of the subpoena and the order 

that you have given the witness? Is that correct? 

Mr. CONYERS. Yes. The questions and the answers will still be 

under those same concerns. 

Mr. DOWD. Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank you for your 

courtesy and how you treated us, and the staff of both the majority 

and minority. We appreciate the accommodations. Thank you. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, Lamar Smith and I and all the Members of 

this Committee have only one purpose in mind, and that is to get 

to as thorough an understanding as is humanly possible about 

these circumstances. Again, my thanks to you. And this hearing is 

adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:38 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(113)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

114

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY


1-1.eps
115


1-2.eps
116


1-3.eps
117


1-4.eps
118


1-5.eps
119


1-6.eps
120


1-7.eps
121


1-8.eps
122


1-9.eps
123

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR., A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND CHAIRMAN, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, AND THE HONORABLE ROBERT C. SCOTT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA, AND MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY


2-1.eps
124


2-2.eps
125


2-3.eps
126


2-4.eps
127


2-5.eps
128


2-6.eps
129


2-7.eps
130


2-8.eps
131


2-9.eps
132


2-10.eps
133


2-11.eps
134


2-12.eps
135


2-13.eps
136


2-14.eps
137


2-15.eps
138


2-16.eps
139


2-17.eps
140


2-18.eps
141


2-19.eps
142


2-20.eps
143


2-21.eps
144

LETTER TO THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR., DATED JUNE 28, 2007, FROM JOHN

M. DOWD, ATTORNEY FOR MONICA GOODLING REGARDING ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD


3-1.eps
145

Æ


3-2.eps