Former justice department official Monica Goodling testified before the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, May 24, 2007. During questioning by Minnesota fifth district congressman Keith Ellison, Goodling said Justice officials worried former U.S. Attorney Tom Heffelfinger spent too much time on a panel dedicated to Native American affairs. Goodling's testimony was the first indication of why Heffelfinger appeared on a list of prosecutors Justice officials considered removing. Heffelfinger told the Associated Press Goodling's comments are the first indication he's received that the Justice Department had any dissatisfaction with his performance. He says his time devoted to Indian issues was warranted.
Transcripts
text | pdf |
CHAIR: Now recognize the Gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Ellison, for five minutes.
MR. ELLISON: Do you know Thomas Heffelfinger, ma'am?
SUBJECT: I've met him, yes.
MR. ELLISON: Before he resigned, was there any conversation about problems with his performance?
SUBJECT: I believe I did hear a few.
MR. ELLISON: What were they?
SUBJECT: There were some concerns that he spent an extraordinary amount of time as the leader of the Native American Subcommittee of the AGAC. And clearly, people thought that was important work. But I think there was some concern--
MR. ELLISON: Excuse me. Thank you. You've answered. Can you tell me--
GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL: Madam Chair, she was answering the question.
MR. ELLISON: Excuse me. Ma'am, excuse me. Could you tell me, please, was there concerns about whether or not he was allowing members of Native American tribes to use tribal IDs in order to vote?
SUBJECT: Oh, I don't remember anything subject specific. The concern that I heard raised was just that he spent an extraordinary amount of time on the subcommittee business.
MR. ELLISON: Did anything about voter tribal IDs ever come up in that discussion about problems with Thomas Heffelfinger?
SUBJECT: I don't have any recollection of it.
MR. ELLISON: Did you receive any conversation, any communication from Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer regarding Thomas Heffelfinger?
SUBJECT: I don't have any recollection of ever seeing anything like that.
MR. ELLISON: Did you ever interview Joan Humes?
SUBJECT: Yes.
MR. ELLISON: When did you interview her?
SUBJECT: It would have been after Tom Heffelfinger notified us that he was going to leave.
MR. ELLISON: Now, she's a 1990 graduate of the University of Minnesota, right?
SUBJECT: I don't remember her resume.
MR. ELLISON: Well, do you recall that she was the chief of civil in the US Attorney's Office in Minnesota?
SUBJECT: Yes.
MR. ELLISON: And you understand that she had clerked for Judge Rosenbaum, who's a Minnesota federal judge, right?
SUBJECT: I don't remember her resume.
MR. ELLISON: Do you recall that she at least had a good, solid resume, had worked for the US Attorney's office, and had been practicing law for some 15 or 16 years? You know that.
SUBJECT: I remember she was the civil chief. That's my recollection.
MR. ELLISON: She didn't get the job, did she?
SUBJECT: No, she didn't.
MR. ELLISON: You knew she was Democrat, right?
SUBJECT: I actually don't know that I heard she was a Democrat. I did hear she was a liberal.
MR. ELLISON: OK. You heard she was a liberal. Was that a factor?
[LAUGHTER]
Was that a factor in your decision to bypass her?
SUBJECT: I think it was a factor in some ways, but it wasn't the overarching factor.
MR. ELLISON: Now, the person who you did hire was Rachel Paulose. Is that right?
SUBJECT: There was a panel of people involved, but yes.
MR. ELLISON: Rachel Paulose was hired. Now, you know that four assistant US attorneys have quit because she is so inadequate in management in the US Attorney's Office in Minnesota. You know that today, right?
SUBJECT: I read press accounts that they went back to--
MR. ELLISON: You know that's true, don't you?
SUBJECT: I don't believe they resigned. I believe they went back to their positions as AUSAs.
MR. ELLISON: No, they quit their leadership positions.
GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL: You got let her answer the question.
MR. ELLISON: They quit their leadership positions.
CHAIR: [INAUDIBLE] suspend. Please remind members to please allow the witness to answer the question.
MR. ELLISON: They quit their leadership positions, is that right?
SUBJECT: Yes, and then--
MR. ELLISON: They went back to line positions, is that right?
SUBJECT: That's what I understand from the paper.
MR. ELLISON: And you know Ms. Paulose personally, isn't that right?
SUBJECT: I met her during the interview process.
MR. ELLISON: She described you as a "friend of hers." Would you use that term "friend" as well?
SUBJECT: We became friends after the hiring process.
MR. ELLISON: And you're friends today, right?
SUBJECT: I haven't spoken to her in some time, but yes.
MR. ELLISON: How much time has gone by since you spoke to her?
SUBJECT: Maybe February? Maybe early March?
MR. ELLISON: So you spoke to her as early as last March '07?
SUBJECT: Maybe. Maybe. Maybe the first week of March. I can't recall.
MR. ELLISON: Did you ask Ms. Humes if she was a member of the Federalist Society?
SUBJECT: No.
MR. ELLISON: Did you ask her about her religious affiliation?
SUBJECT: No.
MR. ELLISON: Did you ask her specifically about her party affiliation?
SUBJECT: I don't believe that we did. The interview was conducted by Mr. [? Margolis, ?] Mike [? Battle, ?] and myself.
MR. ELLISON: Excuse me. That's not responsive to my question, but we'll move ahead. Did Ms. Paulose ever lead a department at the office or any office of a US attorney?
SUBJECT: I don't believe she had.
MR. ELLISON: And Ms. Joan Humes had led the civil division, is that right?
SUBJECT: Yes.
MR. ELLISON: So you all bypassed a chief of civil and went to somebody who had no experience in management simply because they were a liberal?
SUBJECT: No, not at all. There were other reasons involved in the decision.
[INTERPOSING VOICES]
SUBJECT: To clarify, we spent--
MR. ELLISON: No, I don't need a clarification. Thank you, ma'am.
SUBJECT: Well, I would like to complete my answer.
MR. ELLISON: Well, I don't need an answer. You have answered.
GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL: Parliamentary inquiry. These are not the rules we started under.
MR. ELLISON: Madam Chair, I have the authority to control my questions. I got an answer to my question. And I'd like to proceed on--
GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL: You're a member of this committee. And those are not the rules to which the Chairman announced this hearing.
MR. ELLISON: Madam Chair, this is [INAUDIBLE] tactic.
CHAIR: [INAUDIBLE] sustained. I am very, very sensitive and responsive to the lawyers that are on this committee and their questioning form. But it is the rules of the committee that members allow witnesses to answer the question. You can ask them to abbreviate. Ms. [? Goodling, ?] and because of the shortness of the time, I would ask you to be more precise in your answers to the Gentlemen. The Gentlemen may continue.
MR. ELLISON: Madam Chair, I'd like to ask for at least two minutes of my time to be restored. I've been interrupted here.
GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL: I object.
CHAIR: Time has been suspended on each of the times.
MR. ELLISON: Thank you.
CHAIR: Thank you, Gentlemen.
MR. ELLISON: Thank you, Madam Chair.
SUBJECT: Could I complete my answer?
MR. ELLISON: Did you ask Rachel--
CHAIR: Let the Gentleman proceed.
MR. ELLISON: There's no question before the witness.
SUBJECT: I didn't finish.
GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL: There is a question before the witness.
MR. ELLISON: There's no question.
GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL: She's trying to answer.
CHAIR: Regular order. Regular order. The chair will rule. The Gentleman will proceed. You can include your answer that you wanted to complete as the Gentleman finishes his other question. Will the Gentleman proceed?
MR. ELLISON: Did Rachel Paulose's political affiliation play any role in her hiring?
SUBJECT: Yes, it did.
MR. ELLISON: And that would be that she was a Republican?
SUBJECT: Yes.
MR. ELLISON: Did her religious affiliation play a role in her hiring?
SUBJECT: No, it did not.
MR. ELLISON: Did her membership in the Federalist Society play a role in her hiring?
SUBJECT: I don't remember that was something we talked about.
MR. ELLISON: Did the fact that she never tried a case to a jury impact your thinking on her hiring?
SUBJECT: She had two to three years prosecution experience as an AUSA, which is a lot more than some of the US attorneys that we hire. And that was significant experience in [? our view. ?]
MR. ELLISON: How did that experience compare to Joan Hume's experience?
GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL: Expired.
CHAIR: Gentlemen, will sustain.
SUBJECT: As I recall, Rachel's experience was some civil and some criminal.
CHAIR: The Gentleman's time has expired.
GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL: We'll let her complete her answer.
CHAIR: And she can complete her answer.
SUBJECT: Rachel Paulose was selected based on her qualifications overall. And we did include the fact that she might be able to be a candidate for the presidential nomination. We sometimes thought if we had somebody that we could put in to be an interim US attorney, who also had the opportunity to be considered for the presidential nomination--
MR. ELLISON: I didn't ask you about presidential anything--
SUBJECT: --then that was a factor.
MR. ELLISON: --in the process.
CHAIR: The Gentleman's time has expired. We have been summoned to the House floor for votes. We will take a short recess and reconvene as promptly as we can after we vote for a second round of questioning. The committee stands in recess.
[GAVEL STRIKES]
GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL: They're going to talk.
[CHATTER]