Alberto Gonzalez may seem, from his own descriptions, to have had little or nothing to do with running the Justice Department over the past year. But he does appear to have at least had some top-down influence on the form of his subordinates' non-denial denials when facing congressional inquiries. Last month, I noted the odd locution Gonzalez favored in a Washington Post op-ed professing his innocence ("I know that I did not -- and would not -- ask for the resignation of any U.S. attorney for an improper reason"). Testifying today, Monica Goodling showed a similar habit of distancing herself not only from her own actions but even from her intentions. Asked whether her efforts to hire GOP-leaning prosecutors was legal or illegal, Goodling replied, "I don't believe I intended to commit a crime." Now it's clear enough why she didn't say merely, "I didn't commit a crime." (In all likelihood, she did.) But why not say "I did not intend to commit a crime"? Why add one more level of uncertainty to her denial? I mean, she presumably knows whether or not she was consciously breaking the law. Why not either fess up or lie flat-out? In Gonzalez's case, I assumed that, since he wasn't under oath, his overcomplicated diction was merely a subliminal tic. With Goodling, who was under oath, I'm not so sure. Is it just another "tell," a subconscious indication that she's not being honest? Or might it be more calculated? Could she worry that there are others in the administration who know perfectly well that she "intended" to break the law? And, if so, would adding that little "I don't believe" at the beginning decrease her legal jeopardy for lying under oath? Any feedback by readers with requisite legal expertise would be especially welcome. And sorry in advance for getting so far down into the linguistic weeds (again). I just find fascinating the utter inability of figures in the U.S. Attorneys scandal to speak in clear, declarative sentences when they're denying guilt. --Christopher Orr