Possible timeline shows Gonzales discussing US Attorneys with staff after launch of internal probe
 An analysis of public testimony and dates by RAW STORY may reveal that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales continued to discuss the process that resulted in the firing of eight US Attorneys with members of his staff other than Monica Goodling after Justice Department offices began an internal investigation into the matter. Gonzales had insisted that he did not discuss the firings to avoid biasing the outcome of the investigation.
"At some point, it's clear that the Attorney General stopped talking to people," former White House liaison Monica Goodling told the House Judiciary Committee on May 23. "But it must have been -- I assume that it's after the point that I left the department or took leave."
A Justice Department spokesman, Dean Boyd, confirmed to RAW STORY via e-mail that Goodling began her leave of absence on Monday, March 19, after a staff meeting.
If Goodling was correct in saying that the Attorney General continued to discuss the process for the firings beyond the beginning of her leave of absence, it would mean that Gonzales falsely stated that he had avoided discussing various matters with his staff to preserve the integrity of the investigation. It would also imply that Gonzales discussed the process with staff other than Goodling.
RAW STORY was unable to confirm the precise date on which the investigation began. A spokeswoman for the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General would not confirm the calendar date on which the OPR investigation was initiated.
"I have no comment," said Cynthia Schnedar, Counselor to Inspector General Glenn Fine in a Thursday phone call. She also was unwilling to comment on why her office could not release the date on which the investigation began.
While the precise date could not be determined, earlier reports showed that the investigation began the week Goodling went on leave, which culminated in her resignation in April.
"Gonzales this week directed the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility to investigate the circumstances of the firings, officials said," according to the AP report on Saturday, March 24.
Note: RAW STORY's timeline is presented at the end of this article.
After the investigations began, Gonzales frequently failed to answer questions during Congressional testimony, insisting that he was trying to avoid compromising the Justice Department's internal fact finding.
"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," the Attorney General said in one exchange. "I am a fact witness. They are fact witnesses. And in order to preserve the integrity of those investigations, I have not asked these specific questions."
While it was not possible to determine the precise date the OPR investigation began, it was evident from correspondence between the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Justice Department that the nature of the internal investigation was a source of dispute within members of Gonzales's staff.
"When the [Office of the Inspector General] learned of the request, the OIG discussed with OPR the OIG's belief that, within the Department, the OIG was the entity who should conduct an investigation. OPR disagreed because it believed that it had jurisdiction to conduct the investigation," said a letter sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee by Glenn Fine, the Justice Department's Inspector General, and H. Marshall Jarrett, the Counsel in the Office of Professional Responsibility. The letter was sent to RAW STORY by Judiciary Committee staff, and is available at this link.
Ultimately, interim Justice Department Chief of Staff Chuck Rosenberg asked OPR and OIG to carry out the investigation jointly, which the two offices agreed to, according to the letter.
An exchange during the Senate committee's hearing with the Attorney General made it clear why OIG's participation in the investigation was so important.
"In choosing OPR as the place that you wish to refer this investigation, did you take into account that OPR does not ordinarily make their findings public and that they are ordinarily limited to the conduct of lawyers in their conduct as lawyers, the things that might subject them to bar disciplinary activity, and there's really no relation between anybody's conduct here that's being questioned and their conduct as lawyers?" Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) asked Gonzales in the April 19 hearing.
Gonzales demurred on the question, noting only that the investigation was now being jointly managed by OIG and OPR.
"Senator, that's, I guess, a fair question. And I think that's the reason why I raised with our acting chief of staff is to have the Office of Inspector General also look at this," he replied.
While Goodling testified that she was uncomfortable with a conversation the Attorney General initiated with her on the process for firing the Attorneys because she might later be a 'fact witness,' it was clear from the dates involved that the Justice Department's internal investigation had not yet started.
"It was the Thursday before the Monday that I took leave. I can't remember the date. But it would have been in March," she told Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) during her House Judiciary Committee hearing.
The Thursday in question was March 15, the day before her last full day of work on March 16.
While Gonzales has maintained that he avoided discussions on the process that led to the firing of the Attorneys since the internal investigation began, another remark from Goodling appeared to suggest that his claimed effort to preserve the integrity of the investigation came too late to be of much use.
"Certainly earlier in this process there were a lot of conversations between a lot of people who were involved in this process," she said in the hearing.
Considering such problems, Senator Whitehouse said in a press conference last week that he was concerned that an obstruction of justice had occurred.
"It is surprising how often a whiff of obstruction of justice has reared its head in the course of this investigation," he said when introducing the Senate's no confidence motion against Gonzales with Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). "There's been the cloud of that hanging over this entire investigation."
#
March 15 - Monica Goodling has private discussion with Attorney General on firing of US Attorneys that she says in later Congressional testimony made her feel 'uncomfortable.'
March 16 - Goodling works her last full day at the Justice Department.
Also, US Attorney for Eastern District of Virginia Chuck Rosenberg is appointed interim Chief of Staff to the Attorney General.
March 19 - Goodling begins her leave of absence.
March 24 - AP reports that an internal investigation has been initiated at the Justice Department during this week (Goodling later stated she believes that Gonzales was discussing the matter with staff during this time period).
March 26 - The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility and Office of the Inspector General write to the Senate Judiciary Committee and confirm that they are jointly investigating the firing of the US Attorneys after interim Chief of Staff Chuck Rosenberg settled a dispute over which office should investigate the matter.
April 6 - Monica Goodling resigns from the Justice Department.
April 19 - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee and says he is unable to answer a variety of questions due to the ongoing internal investigation.
May 10 - Gonzales appears before the House Judiciary Committee and again claims he cannot answer some questions due to the pending investigation.
May 23 - Monica Goodling testifies before House Judiciary Committee and states that Attorney General continued to discuss the firings of the US Attorneys after she went on leave on March 19.
May 24 - Senator Sheldon Whitehouse warns of a 'whiff of obstruction of justice' at the Justice Department in a press conference introducing the Senate's 'no confidence resolution' against the Attorney General.
May 30 - OPR and OIG write to the Senate Judiciary Committee to confirm that they have expanded their probe to cover politicization of hiring at the Justice Department.
|
