The Whodunit Continues

This Washington whodunit just won't end.

Yesterday, Monica Goodling, the thirty-something former Justice Department official from Pat Robertson's Regent University, testified before the House judiciary committee, having secured a grant of criminal immunity. She confessed that she often considered the political affiliation of candidates for career jobs in the Justice Department--such as immigration court judges--which might be illegal. She said that the former Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty (who recently resigned) did not testify fully and accurately when he appeared before Congress to discuss the controversial firings of U.S. attorneys. Se insisted she had briefed him on matters he claimed to have knowledge of. She also said that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in March had discussed with her the firings of the US attorneys, even though Gonzales subsequently told Congress he hadn't talked about the firings with other potential witnesses. This admission raised the suspicion that Gonzales had been trying to coordinate testimony with another witness. In some settings, that could be considered obstruction of justice.

But there's one subject Goodling shed no light on: who cooked up the list of the U.S. attorneys to be fired. All the top Justice Department officials involved in this matter have testified, yet we still don't know who was responsible. It's rather curious that no one at Justice can explain what happened on this front. The firings occurred only a few months ago. This was not a minor action. It shouldn't be too hard for participants to recall who was in charge.

The absence of a clear answer to the primary question supports the speculation that the White House played a significant role. Goodling said that when it comes to this mystery she does not ‚ "hold the keys to the kingdom." Well, who has those keys? Perhaps they are resting on a desk at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Congressional investigators should continue to look there.

EDWARDS NOT SO GAY? Does former Senator John Edwards have something against gay people. From today's Washington Post:

Robert Shrum, the veteran Democratic strategist who worked on John Edwards's 1998 Senate campaign in North Carolina, does not remember his onetime client very fondly.

In his new memoir, "No Excuses: Concessions of a Serial Campaigner," Shrum recalls asking Edwards at the outset of that campaign, "What is your position, Mr. Edwards, on gay rights?"

"I'm not comfortable around those people," Edwards replied, according to Shrum. He writes that the candidate's wife, Elizabeth, told him: "John, you know that's wrong."

Edwards's pollster, Harrison Hickman, who was in the room during the discussion, says Shrum "is sensationalizing and taking out of context what was an honest discussion about [Edwards's] lack of exposure to these issues and openly gay people. I don't remember anything that expressed any kind of venom or judgment about gay people."

Cat-fight on the left! Among the consultants! Who's right? I don't know, of course. But the Edwards campaign sent out an email this morning announcing he will hold a press availability this afternoon. To talk about what? The email didn't say. No doubt, he'll avail himself of the opportunity to discuss Shrum's slam.

Posted by David Corn at May 24, 2007 11:18 AM