In May 25 articles on former Justice Department official Monica Goodling's May 23 testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, The Washington Post and The New York Times reported Goodling's assertion that in mid-March, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales told her his version of events surrounding the controversial U.S. attorney firings. Both articles noted the Justice Department's response -- that Gonzales had not sought to influence Goodling's memory of events. But neither article noted that the very fact that the conversation occurred appears to contradict Gonzales' testimony to both the House and Senate judiciary committees that he had not spoken about the firings of the prosecutors to anyone involved in them once investigations had begun on the issue.

The Times article reported that Goodling “told the House Judiciary Committee about a private conversation with Mr. Gonzales in mid-March, shortly before she resigned, which she said left her feeling 'uncomfortable' that he might have been trying to coach her into agreeing with his version of events related to the dismissals.” Likewise, the Post article reported that Goodling's testimony “included a description of a conversation with Gonzales during which, she said, he sought to discuss the U.S. attorney firings at a time when both Congress and the Justice Department had begun investigations of the matter. Goodling said the conversation left her 'uncomfortable.' ” Both the Times and the Post articles also reported that the Justice Department's response that Gonzales had simply been attempting to comfort Goodling and had not sought to influence her recollections.

However, as Media Matters for America has noted, during his May 10 testimony before the same House committee, Gonzales stated that, “in order to protect the integrity of this investigation,” he had “not gone back and spoken directly with” those “involved” in the firing process. From that testimony:

REP. JOHN CONYERS (D-MI): But tell me -- just tell me -- how the U.S. attorney termination list came to be and who suggested putting most of these U.S. attorneys on the list and why. Now, that should take about three sentences, but take more. But tell me something.

GONZALES: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that what Mr. Sampson engaged in was a process of consulting with the senior leadership in the department about the performance of specific individuals, and that toward the end of that process, in the fall of 2006, what was presented to me was a recommendation that I understood to be the consensus recommendation of the senior leadership of the department.

CONYERS: OK. In other words, you don't know. And I'm not putting words in your mouth, but you haven't answered the question.

I know the procedure, but look, we've got 30-something members of Congress, much of your staff, you've prepared for this, you've been asked something like this question before now ...

GONZALES: Mr. Chairman, if I may respond to that, as I've indicated, 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.

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. What I'm here today ...

CONYERS: OK, so that's why you're not going to answer the question, because you want to protect the integrity of the investigation.

Additionally, during Gonzales' April 19 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he stated: “I haven't talked to witnesses because of the fact that I haven't wanted to interfere with this investigation.”

In contrast to the Post and the Times, a May 23 McClatchy Newspapers article reported that members of Congress said Goodling's testimony “seemed to contradict” Gonzales' denial that he had talked to any of the potential witnesses. From the article:

Goodling answered “no” when Rep. Artur Davis, D-Ala., asked her directly, “Do you think the attorney general was trying to shape your recollection?” She said, “I just did not know if it was a conversation that we should be having.”

Lawmakers said her disclosure was important nonetheless because it seemed to contradict Gonzales' testimony to Congress under oath that he couldn't answer some details about the firings because he'd had to avoid discussing certain details with his staff in order to avoid any perception that he was compromising congressional and two internal departmental investigations.

In a statement late Wednesday, the Justice Department said Gonzales “has never attempted to influence or shape the testimony or public statements of any witness in this matter, including Ms. Goodling.”

The meeting with his aide was only intended to “comfort her in a very difficult period of her life,” Brian Roehrkasse, a spokesman, said in the statement.

Roehrkasse also said that the conversation took place before one of two internal investigations were launched. Congressional inquiries were well underway.

From the May 25 Times article, headlined "Bush Reaffirms His Support for Gonzales":

The Democrats said Ms. Goodling's testimony about Mr. Gonzales had further fueled their complaints. She told the House Judiciary Committee about a private conversation with Mr. Gonzales in mid-March, shortly before she resigned, which she said left her feeling “uncomfortable” that he might have been trying to coach her into agreeing with his version of events related to the dismissals.

Justice Department officials said that Mr. Gonzales was not seeking to shape her recollections, but was trying to comfort Ms. Goodling at a difficult moment when she was upset at the prospect of giving up her job on his staff.

From the May 25 Post article, headlined "Politics at Work in Inquiry, Bush says":

The continued skirmishing over the prosecutor dismissals came a day after a former senior Justice Department aide leveled new allegations against Gonzales and Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty. Monica M. Goodling's testimony included a description of a conversation with Gonzales during which, she said, he sought to discuss the U.S. attorney firings at a time when both Congress and the Justice Department had begun investigations of the matter. Goodling said the conversation left her “uncomfortable.”

Goodling, who resigned in April as Gonzales's senior counselor and White House liaison, also told the House Judiciary Committee that she had “crossed the line” by considering political criteria when reviewing applicants for some career positions at the department.

A Justice Department spokesman said after Goodling's testimony that Gonzales “never attempted to influence or shape the testimony or public statements of any witness,” and that his statements to Goodling were meant “only to comfort her in a very difficult period of her life.”

Democrats, however, pounced on the testimony, contending that the meeting appeared to represent an effort by Gonzales to coach Goodling. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), a former U.S. attorney, said yesterday that the conversation reminded him of previous allegations that Justice Department officials had attempted to influence witnesses in the prosecutor firings.