DOJ Report: Sampson, Goodling Broke The Law

[babylonsister]

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/inspector_general_releases_rep.php

Inspector General Releases Report on Monica Goodling Hirings
By Kate Klonick - July 28, 2008, 10:31AM


The Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility released another part of their investigation into the politicization of the DOJ. The full report, "An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring by Monica Goodling and Other Staff in the Office of the Attorney General," can be found here (pdf).

We'll be reading through and posting on this all day. But at first glance here's a quite relevant section:

In sum, we concluded that the evidence showed that Goodling violated both federal law and Department policy, and therefore committed misconduct, when she considered political or ideological affiliations in hiring decisions for candidates for career positions within the Department. In particular, the evidence showed that she considered political or ideological affiliations in deciding several waiver requests from interim U.S. Attorneys, in promoting several candidates for career positions, and in disapproving a candidate for an EOUSA career SES position.

Late update: Here are the names of other implicated in the report:
former Chief of Staff to former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Kyle Sampson; Goodling's predecessor, former White House Liason Jan Williams, and EOUSA Director John Nowacki-- who is still at the department. The report states that Nowacki knew of the politicization of the DOJ but drafted a press statement saying otherwise. Of Sampson, Williams and Goodling the report states:

In sum, the evidence showed that Sampson, Williams, and Goodling violated federal law and Department policy, and Sampson and Goodling committed misconduct, by considering political and ideological affiliations in soliciting and selecting IJs , which are career positions protected by the civil service laws.

Late late update: Attorney General Michael Mukasey released a statement saying he is "of course disturbed" by the findings of the OIG report:

I have said many times, both to members of the public and to Department employees, it is neither permissible nor acceptable to consider political affiliations in the hiring of career Department employees. And I have acted, and will continue to act, to ensure that my words are translated into reality so that the conduct described in this report does not occur again at the Department.

Over the course of the last year and a half, the Justice Department has made many institutional changes to remedy the problems discussed in today's report, and the report itself commends these changes. The report includes one new recommendation for institutional change, and I have directed the prompt implementation of that recommendation. It is crucial that the American people have confidence in the propriety of what we do and how we do it, and I will continue my efforts to make certain they can have such confidence.

Late late late update: The Report also investigates whether officials (namely Williams, Goodling and Nowacki) gave "inaccurate or misleading" information to investigators. In the case of all three, it appears that they gave false testimony to the OIG at various times in the investigation.

[Sanity Claws]

1. This is grounds for disbarment

All of them committed illegal acts while acting as attorneys. Disbarment, anyone?

[rfranklin]

2. Okay, and when will they be charged with a felony?

And when will they start doing hard time? (After a "fair trial" of course.)

[Frustratedlady]

4. Oh, but we don't have time.

They'll just be pardoned.

What's happened to Gonzales's investigation? Wasn't something being done on that? Where is he? What's he doing, other than hiding?

[Piewhacket]

20. But you gotta believe the President didn't know!

In Congressonal testimony in 2007 Monica Goodling (b 1973) admitted to multiple willful violations of federal law and, to the extent her testimony was truthful, was given immunity and cannot be prosecuted for those crimes. Yet if Goodling is an attorney anywhere she has also admitted to acts of moral turpitude sufficient to warrant disbarment. Does her immunity deal cover that too? Doubt it.

Admittedly her story was somewhat incredible that she was the lone bad apple, acting with the best motives but all alone, and that no one higher up knew anything about what the 33 year old zealot was doing hiring and firing high level civil servants at DOJ. Oh yea, We all believed her tale on that, right folks? Not. But proving perjury requires more than rolling of the eyes at a fantastic story.

But now it also appears that her testimony about the extent of her own misconduct was less than truthful.... that could blow the immunity deal. Monica, you trouped in with four lawyers, didn't any of them mention that to you?

Anyway, all this additionally just has to make you wonder what kind of legal ethics classes are being taught at that"Christian" law school (founded by Pat Robertson) which Goodling attended and reputedly graduated 'cum laude' (and hired a bunch of graduates for DOJ). Perhaps Robertson's belief that a US Christian Fundamentalist Theocracy is a goal worthy of achieving by any means had something to do with the 'ethics' taught to Goodling.

[ProfessorGAC]

3. I Have A Question

Why does DOJ need a White House liaison? Wouldn't that be the AG? It sounds like the job involves consulting with the political arm of the WH before any decisions were made, even at the day to day, administrative level.

Otherwise, the AG would have the president's ear, and they wouldn't need a liaison. Would they?
The Professor

[babylonsister]

6. Probably too much involved for one guy to handle, especially the AG.

And I'm grateful; can you imagine if he was doing the investigation? All would be well, no harm, no foul.

[AndyA]

5. I have one hope. And that is that this Congress is waiting to pursue

criminal charges against members of the Bush Administration until AFTER Bush is out of office, so he cannot pardon anyone, including himself.

Perhaps they are just gathering information, so that in January after the new President is in office (and hopefully it will be a Dem), then they can go after this gang of crooks without worry of a pardon being issued after the fact.

I know it's far fetched...but one can hope... :shrug:

[yodermon]

14. he can issue pre-emptive pardons.

i think. didn't ford do that for nixon?

[REACTIVATED IN CT]

17. That is my hope, too. I don't know about

pre-emptive pardons, though. That could throw a monkey wrench into our hopes....

[Supersedeas]

7. So now the ball is in Muck-Muck Mukasey's court--what will the People's Attorney do? Claim executive

privilege for all?

[Mz Pip]

8. Since it's unlikely that

any these creeps will face prosecution, I can only hope that no law firm in the country will hire them and they never practice law again.

Probably wishful thinking, though. There are probably plenty of neo-con run law firms who are looking for lawyers as unethical as this bunch.

[Canuckistanian]

9. This is a violation of the Hatch Act, is it not?

BTW, has ANYONE ever been prosecuted under the Hatch Act?

[dysfunctional press]

10. when they get their presidential pardons- does it mean they also can't be disbarred?

:shrug:

[Piewhacket]

21. Federal

Congress(acting through a Federal Judge) has not the legal authority to grant immunity for lawyer discipline by a licensing State. Note that Clinton was disciplined while in office! Incredible, but he apparently consented to it. Interestingly, there was and remains substantial doubt whether Clinton committed any disciplinary offense at all. There appears no similar doubt about Goodling's conduct.

[dysfunctional press]

22. that's congress- what about a presidential pardon?

:shrug:

[Piewhacket]

24. Presidential pardon does not excuse State law claims.

RE: PARDON
The Presidential pardon is very broad but is constitutionally troublesome when it is applied to the president himself or to members of his own administration. Personally, were I a member of Congress, I would view such applications of the pardon as an abuse of the executive raising an impeachment issue, but this may be the only remedy available for such abuses (Ford's pardon of Nixon is an an exception I would allow as being at the fringes of abuse but not over the line- but I concede it was understandably troublesome to many).

But, there is another limit to the Presidential pardon - it applies only to FEDERAL crimes, not to violations of State law. For example, a Presidential pardon of a murderer who was convicted under both state and federal law, such pardon would only apply to the federal crime. A State Governor usually has the power to pardon state crimes, and such decisions by a Governor would be upheld but may have political consequence including subjection the governor to a recall election, which does occasionally happen (eg Grey Davis, CA).

A pardon may be justified based on a miscarriage of justice, or due to an extraordinary rehabilitation, and some other reasons, and the pardon is a power I believe we should grant to certain people. But such powers are also capable of abuse. When the pardon is used to shield government actors from the consequences of lawless conduct related to their office, it presents to my view an especially grave threat to our democracy.

Hope that helps with some of the questions about the pardon power and how it may or not apply to Goodling and associates.

[dysfunctional press]

25. goodlings crimes are federal, aren't they?

and if she were pardoned for them- what would a state base a disbarment on?

[Ichingcarpenter]

11. She was just an overzealous staffer acting on her own

I just predicted what Dana Perrino will say.

[mod mom]

12. Goodling Rejected Experienced Career Terrorism Prosecutor because of wife's political affiliation

from page 136:

Goodling’s use of political considerations in connection with these details was particularly damaging to the Department because it resulted in high-quality candidates for important details being rejected in favor of less-qualified candidates. For example, an experienced career terrorism prosecutor was rejected by Goodling for a detail to EOUSA to work on counterterrorism issues because of his wife’s political affiliations. Instead, EOUSA had to select a much more junior attorney who lacked any experience in counterterrorism issues and who EOUSA officials believed was not qualified for the position.

[mod mom]

13. Leahy responds:

Comment Of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.),
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee,
On Inspector General And Office Of Professional Responsibility Report
On Politicization At The Department Of Justice
July 28, 2008
“Today’s report from the Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility about their investigation into improper political influence in the hiring of attorneys for key career positions throughout the Department of Justice provides a close examination of another troubling chapter at the Department. The policies and attitudes of this administration encouraged politicization of the Department and permitted these excesses. It is now clear that these politically-rooted actions were widespread, and could not have been done without at least the tacit approval of senior Department officials.

“The report reveals decisions to reject qualified, experienced applicants to work on counterterrorism issues in favor of a less experienced attorney on the basis of political ideology. Rather than strengthening our national security, the Department of Justice appears to have bent to the political will of the administration. Further, the report reveals that the ‘principal source’ for politically vetted candidates considered for important positions as immigration judges was the White House– a clear indication of the untoward political influence of the Bush administration on traditionally non-political appointments. The report finds that this politicization caused delays in filling immigration judge positions just as the workload and importance of those judges was increasing. The report documents similar improper politicization in the hiring of career attorneys to crucial positions throughout the Department.

“Like some in the administration who would place blame for the actions at Abu Ghraib solely onto the shoulders of a few bad apples, the Attorney General has tried to dismiss the Inspector General’s first report on politicization issued last month as documenting the actions of just a few bad apples. But it was obvious from that first report, and becomes more so with this second joint IG/OPR report, that the problems of politicization at the Department are rooted deeper than that. In this report, we once again see that the Bush administration has allowed politics to affect and infect the nation’s chief law enforcement agency’s priorities.

“I look forward to the Inspector General’s testimony Wednesday before the Judiciary Committee. His office’s investigation has shone much needed light on hiring decisions made at the Department of Justice in the shadow of the White House.”

# # # # #

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200807/072808a.html

[babylonsister]

15. Thanks for that-Wednesday it is! nt

[MadrasT]

18. Patrick Leahy

Master of Understatement: "Today’s report... provides a close examination of another troubling chapter at the Department".

Gee, ya think so, Pat?

:kick:

[samsingh]

16. someone should go to prison for this treason

[Hobo]

19. Didn't they give her immunity?

So she would testify before Congress?

Hobo


:beer:

:toast:

[elehhhhna]

23. IIRC, yeas -- but that does not cover LYING under oath to Congress or investigators,

so she still goes to PRISON--for the lies AND Obstruction of Justice! YAY!!!