Goodling testifies in front of the House committee today. She is being questioned on the roles she and other Justice Department and White House officials played in the firings of at least eight US attorneys last year.
Keep in mind that Ms. Goodling is testifying under a grant of limited use immunity, which means she cannot be prosecuted for testimony that may incriminate her in the scandal. However, she can be prosecuted if she perjures herself and withholds any information from Congress.
If you were looking for Ms. Goodling to be the next deep throaat, then you would be disappointed. But, in her testimony today, she can be called Ms. 'Inconsistent' Goodling. Some of her testimonies were very inconsistent and inaacurate with the testimonies of Gonzo and former DAG James Comey.
First she drops this bombshell. She crossed the line in hiring USAs based on political affliation. - William Rivers Pitt writes:
Representative Bobby Scott (D-Virginia) is asking the toughest questions to date. He challenged Goodling on the legality of hiring and firing DOJ officers based on political affiliation, and her high-speed replies slowed down considerably. She tried to talk around the nub of his questioning with responses like, "I know I crossed the line." Representative Scott did not let this stand, however, and asked: "Which line? The rules or the laws?" Goodling violates the labor law. And Jason Leopold says:
Goodling has admitted to using a political "litmus test" to hire political appointees at the Justice Department in what appears to be a violation of federal labor laws. So far, Goodling has acknowledged monitoring the political affiliations of several applicants for various prosecutorial positions to ensure that they were wholly Republican applicants.
This is the law that Goodling violated from the Dept. of Labor:
There are a number of federal laws that employers must follow when hiring employees. Generally speaking, these laws prohibit discrimination in employment decisions based on race, color, religion, sex, age, ethnic/national origin, disability, or veteran status. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) administers and enforces laws affecting the hiring of employees under the age of 18, veterans, and certain foreign workers.
In addition, in Goodling's testimony, she throws former DAG Paul McNulty under the bus. Concerning McNulty's testimony about the process for selecting new U.S. attorneys in California, Goodling asserted that the McNulty was inaccurate. She said that in advance of McNulty's February testimony, she had briefed him that the Justice Department had gone outside the normal selection process in seeking replacements for U.S. attorneys in California. Wrong, Monica! Here is partial transcript of McNulty's testimony to the Senate:
Sen. Feinstein: . . .In my heart of hearts, Mr. McNulty, I do believe -- I could not prove in a court of law -- but I do believe, based on what I was -- heard, is there was an effort made to essentially put in interim U.S. attorneys to give, as one person has said, bright young people of our party to put them in a position where they might be able to shine. That, in itself, I don't have an objection to; I think you're entitled to do that. But I think to use the U.S. attorney spot for this is not the right things to do, and that's why I think we need to put the law back the way it is.
Let me just ask just one --
MR. MCNULTY: Senator, may I respond real briefly?
SEN. FEINSTEIN: Sure, sure.
MR. MCNULTY: And I respect your position on that. But I don't want it -- to just want to make it clear that that premise has to be looked at in light of the process we go through to select the new U.S. attorneys because if that were the case, that we were doing this just to give a sort of a group that had been pre-identified or something an opportunity to serve, it would not square with the process that exists in virtually every state in one way or another to work with the home- state senators to come up with the list of names of individuals.
McNulty told the Senate during questioning about a provision of the Patriot Act reauthorization act that allowed the administration to appoint interim U.S. attorneys indefinitely without Senate approval.
Moreover, Goodling said that McNulty, gave the Senate incomplete and inaccurate testimony about the U.S. attorney firings on Feb. 6 in a number of specific areas. Here is testimony with McNulty to Senator Schumer where McNulty was clueless in his assessment of the White House's role in the firings.
SEN. SCHUMER: . . .Was the White House involved in anyway?
MR. MCNULTY: These are presidential appointments --
SEN. SCHUMER: Exactly.
MR. MCNULTY: -- so the White House personnel, I'm sure, was consulted prior to making the phone calls.
Also Goodling was contradictory to Gonzo's testimony concerning the USA selected list for firing. Jason Leopold writes:
Monica Goodling testified that Alberto Gonzales did see the list of US attorneys selected for firing, directly contradicting the attorney general's previous testimony before Congress. Goodling then said Gonzales attended a November 27 meeting last year to discuss the firings. Gonzales testified that he did not recall the details of that meeting. A heated exchange then ensued between Judiciary Committee members about whether Goodling was responding to questions about Gonzales's sworn testimony or whether she was testifying about statements Gonzales had made in another forum about his knowledge of the firings.
This is certainly a hearing from both Senate and HJC of White House officials from the Attorney General office covering asses and pointing fingers to blame. I find it amazing that a Director of Public Official knows more DOJ procedures than her immediate boss, former DAG McNulty. I know that Goodling is the liason to Gonzo. But according to organizational chart, Public Official Dept. reports to the Deputy Attorney General not to the Attorney General. Goodling's testimony demostates for a coverup from the Attorney General office all the way up the food chain to the White House to use political profiling of USAs for a personal and political agenda. She wasn't the smoking gun but it does show the role of an incompentent Attorney General who doesn't know how to run a Justice Department, who hires unqualified staff members in certain job positions, who delegates duties to wrong chain of command in his office, and whose duties should be relieved pronto. Finally, Goodling's testimony along as other members from the Justice Dept has definitely smells curtains for Gonzo. Gonzo beyond a reasonable doubt perjured himself in both hearings of the Senate and the House Judiciary Committee in his role in the USA firings.
No comments:
Post a Comment