Someone isn’t telling the truth, and it is either Monica Goodling or Paul McNulty (or, perhaps, all of the above). Via the TPMmuckraker we have the following:
During her testimony today, Monica Goodling pointed the finger squarely at Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, saying that he had not been “fully candid” in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee about his knowledge of White House involvement in the U.S. attorney firings (McNulty had earlier pointed the finger at Sampson and Goodling for not informing him of the White House’s role). Goodling laid out four key areas where she said McNulty hadn’t told the whole truth in her written statement (pdf) to the committee. Perhaps the most serious allegation she made was that McNulty had told the commmittee that he didn’t have any knowledge of how Tim Griffin, Karl Rove’s former aide, had come to be appointed the U.S. attorney for Little Rock. In fact, Goodling said, she’d told him that the White House had been involved in Griffin’s appointment all along.
So now that we have competing stories, it will perhaps cause, via the conflicting tales, lead to further revelations are the sides seek to defend themselves.
Here’s video of Goodling essentially saying that McNulty provided incorrect information to the Senate under oath:
Technorati Tags: Monica Goodling, DOJ-gate, DOJgate, USAgate, USAs, US Attorneys, U.S. Attorneys, Paul McNulty
Sphere: Related ContentFiled under: US Politics | |
The views expressed in the comments are the sole responsibility of the person leaving those comments. They do not reflect the opinion of the author of PoliBlog, nor have they been vetted by the author.
May 24th, 2007 at 5:33 am
I haven’t been following this matter as closely as I should, but I get the feeling from your posts that McNulty may be getting scapegoated. Certainly Gonzales is out of the spotlight for the time being. Do you think that this may be the case?
Also, if you don’t mind my asking, I saw in the Goodling transcript a mention of “caging” black votes? Isn’t this a matter that warrants investigation?
Regards.
May 24th, 2007 at 8:52 am
Either McNulty is being cast as the fall guy, or he was in far deeper than he admitted before he quit. Either way, something is up.
I haven’t seeing the “caging” ref yet. It sounds worth looking into, however.
May 24th, 2007 at 9:53 am
It was in the Goodling initial statement, but seems to be a side issue - it involves Tim Griffin’s activities in 2004. (Of course, it does provide a view into what sort of credentials Gonzales and Co. were looking for in the people to replace the outgoing Attorneys).