Gonzales: Witness Tampering? No, It Was Witness Consolation.

Monica Goodling testified to Congress in May about a meeting she had with Gonzales where he’d given her his recollection of the firing process. It took place in March of this year, after the U.S. attorney firing controversy had blown up and Congress signaled that it would be investigating. Gonzales’ discussion of the matter had made her “uncomfortable,” she testified.

Gonzales had repeatedly told both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees that he had not spoken to any of the players in the firings about them in order to preserve the integrity of their testimony. That was evidently false, as Gonzales implicitly admitted today. But more than that, Gonzales has to worry about whether that conversation might constitute witness tampering or obstruction of justice. The Justice Department’s internal probe of the firings has expanded to include whether Gonzales might have been improperly trying to shape Goodling’s future testimony.

Today, Gonzales gave his best shot at explaining that conversation away. You had to understand the context, he said. And this was “in the context of trying to console and reassure an emotionally distraught woman.” He gallantly tried to assure her that “no one had done anything intentionally wrong” — but just to make her feel better. He was not trying to “shape her testimony,” he said.

LEAHY: When Monica Goodling testified under oath before the House Judiciary Committee, she crossed the line with the unprecedented vetting of potential career hires for political allegiances throughout the department, including apparently for career assistant U.S. attorney positions. I’m not talking about political positions, but for career ones.
She testified under oath that she crossed the line.
Were you aware that Ms. Goodling was doing so?

GONZALES: That she was crossing the line? No.

LEAHY: Were you aware that she was asking about political allegiances in vetting career Justice Department?

GONZALES: I don’t recall being aware of that. If I’d been aware of that, that would have been troubling to me.

LEAHY: Do you know whether other officials at the White House were aware she was doing that?

GONZALES: Not that I’m aware.
Let me just mention I’m aware — and I think I became aware after the U.S. attorneys were asked to resign — there was an issue that I became aware of where Ms. Goodling apparently asked a potential career hire into the D.C. U.S. attorney’s office improper questions.
So at some point I did become aware of that. But otherwise I can’t recall being aware of other instances where she may have asked improper questions.

LEAHY: So when you consider, recommend or approve candidates for appointment to career positions at the department, do you ever consider their political party affiliation or ideology or membership in nonprofit organizations or demonstrated loyalty to the president or any of those matters?

GONZALES: Did I? No.

LEAHY: Do you ever?

GONZALES: Do I ever? No.

LEAHY: Do you know whether anybody else in the department does that?

GONZALES: Well, again, apparently, based upon the testimony, it appears that Ms. Goodling, as she testified, may have cross the line.

LEAHY: Have you made it clear that people cannot do that?

GONZALES: Yes. We have now revised policies both with respect to immigration judges, with respect to Civil Rights Division, with respect to career assistant United States attorneys, with respect to the honors programs. We’ve changed our policies to make it clear.

LEAHY: Do you make that clear, that nobody at the White House can do that either?

GONZALES: In terms of?

LEAHY: Those hires.

GONZALES: I don’t know whether or not I have not communicated with the White House about that, no.

LEAHY: It might not be a bad idea.
(LAUGHTER)
They also have — they’re also in the book. Feel free to contact them.
You testified to both the Senate and House Judiciary Committee that you didn’t speak with anyone involved in the firings of the U.S. attorneys about that process because you didn’t want to interfere with the investigation.

LEAHY: But on May 23rd, Monica Goodling testified under oath before the House Judiciary Committee that she had an uncomfortable conversation with before shortly before she left the department during which you outlined your recollection of what happened and asked for her reaction.
Which one of you is telling the truth?

GONZALES: I did have that conversation with her in the context of trying to console and reassure an emotionally distraught woman that she had done something wrong. And I tried to reassure her, as far as I knew, no one had done anything intentionally wrong. And that was the basis of the conversation that I had.
She came to my office — this was March 15th, just days after this really became a big story. And she came in and she was emotionally distraught and…

LEAHY: But, you know, we sent you written questions on this yesterday — so on the eve of this, we got answers and no place in there did you make reference to that.
So it’s your statement now that she did come and you did talk with her?

GONZALES: Again, we had the conversation for the purpose of — I had a — my conversation with her, she was seeking to get a transfer. I was simply trying to console this very emotionally distraught woman.