Who's Indicted? You Choose ...

[ZippyTheChimp]

Justice Officials Repeatedly Broke Law on Hiring, Report Says

By Carrie Johnson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 28, 2008; 3:00 PM

Former Justice Department counselor Monica M. Goodling and former chief of staff D. Kyle Sampson routinely broke the law by conducting political litmus tests on candidates for jobs as immigration judges and line prosecutors, according to an inspector general's report released today.

Goodling passed over hundreds of qualified applicants and squashed the promotions of others after deeming candidates insufficiently loyal to the Republican party, said investigators, who interviewed 85 people and received information from 300 other job seekers at Justice. Sampson developed a system to screen immigration judge candidates based on improper political considerations and routinely took recommendations from the White House Office of Political Affairs and Presidential Personnel, the report said.

Goodling regularly asked candidates for career jobs: "What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?" the report said. One former Justice Department official told investigators she had complained that Goodling was asking interviewees for their views on abortion, according to the report.

In on case, Goodling refused to extend the temporary assignment of a prosecutor because of her "perception of the (lawyer's) sexual orientation," according to the report.

Taking political or personal factors into account in employment decisions for career positions violates civil service laws and can run afoul of ethics rules. Investigators said today that both Goodling and Sampson had engaged in "misconduct."

The improper personnel moves deprived worthy candidates of promotions and damaged the credibility of the Justice Department, investigators wrote. An experienced counterterrorism prosecutor, for example, was kept from advancing in favor of a more junior lawyer who lacked a background in terrorism.

The procedures imposed on immigration judge candidates caused serious delays in appointing judges at a time when the courts suffered under a heavy workload, the report said.

Goodling, who resigned in 2007 amid a scandal over the department's politicized hiring, is a central figure in the long-running investigation into the way politics infused decision-making at the department. Sampson, who had served as a top aide to former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, also left the department last year and now works at a law firm in the Washington area.

The Justice Department IG's report, released this morning, cites several other workers who may have engaged in misconduct by using political or sexual orientation to screen candidates for immigration judgeships. It also cites instances in which current and former Justice employees, including one-time press aide and political appointee John Nowacki, may not have been candid with investigators.

Nowacki, who is on assignment in Iraq, could not be reached for comment this morning.

The extensive report confirms the long-held suspicions of congressional Democrats and underscores the challenge the next president will face in restoring public confidence in the nation's premiere law enforcement operation.

In a statement, current Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey said the department had already moved to institute changes to the hiring process and said he would consider more in light of today's report.

"Even as I commend the hard work and collaboration of the Justice Department's Offices of Inspector General and Professional Responsibility on today's report, I am of course disturbed by their findings that improper political considerations were used in hiring decisions relating to some career employees," Mukasey said. "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."

Goodling, a former operative at the Republican National Committee and a graduate of the Regent University law school, founded by Christian televangelist Pat Robertson, declined to be interviewed by investigators working for the inspector general and the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility. The investigators said they lacked the power to compel her to cooperate because she had left the department.

But she did testify before Congress in May 2007, under a grant of immunity from prosecution. Before the House Judiciary Committee, a shaken Goodling told lawmakers that "the best I can say is that I know I took political considerations into account on some occasions." She said she did not intend to break the law at the time.

"I did not hold the keys to the kingdom," she demurred.

John M. Dowd, a lawyer for Goodling, did not return several phone messages. Bradford Berenson, a lawyer for Sampson, said Sampson interceded several times to oppose the use of political criteria in hiring.

"With respect to immigration judges, he believed in complete good faith that they were not career civil service positions and that political criteria could be taken into account," Berenson said.

Today's study marks the second of four lengthy dissections of the role that partisan political considerations played in Justice Department employment decisions during the Bush administration. Reports on hiring problems in the Civil Rights Division and the firing of nine U.S. attorneys have yet to be released.

Wednesday, Inspector General Glenn A. Fine will testify about his findings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Last month, Fine disclosed that hundreds of candidates for summer law intern and elite entry-level honors program jobs had been excluded from hiring pools because of their Democratic affiliations or membership in environmental and social justice groups.

Fine said this morning that "high-quality candidates for important department positions [had been] rejected because of improper political considerations."

Senior Senate Democrats last week sent a letter to Mukasey asking him to exercise "vigilance" to ensure that unqualified political appointees do not wheedle their way into career civil service jobs in the waning months of the president's term.

This morning, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) called the political interference "widespread" and said it "could not have been done without at least the tacit approval of senior Department officials."

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) said today he had directed his staff to consider whether he should issue a criminal perjury referral, based on alleged misstatements by Goodling, Sampson and Gonzales to Congress.

"Apparently the political screening was so pervasive that even qualified Republican applicants were rejected...because they were 'not Republican enough' for Monica Goodling and others," Conyers said.

© 2008 The Washington Post Company

[ZippyTheChimp]

In a statement, current Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey said the department had already moved to institute changes to the hiring process and said he would consider more in light of today's report.

"Even as I commend the hard work and collaboration of the Justice Department's Offices of Inspector General and Professional Responsibility on today's report, I am of course disturbed by their findings that improper political considerations were used in hiring decisions relating to some career employees," Mukasey said. "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."

What a crock. Cover your ass political-speak.

Changing hiring rules implies there's a problem in the existing rules. The problem is, the rules which worked well before Bush and Gonzalez arrived on the scene, were violated.

[Ninjahedge]

The appointees that were hired during this time should be given their papers and asked to leave coupled with a new hiring phase.

If they really want to make a change, they have to make the scales even again.

[lofter1]

Who's Indicted? Our previous list grows by a possble TWO ...

White House Aides Can Be Subpoenaed

NY TIMES
By DAVID STOUT
August 1, 2008

WASHINGTON — President Bush’s top advisers cannot ignore subpoenas issued by Congress, a federal judge ruled on Thursday in a case that involves the firings of several United States attorneys but has much wider constitutional implications for all three branches of government.

“The executive’s current claim of absolute immunity from compelled Congressional process for senior presidential aides is without any support in the case law,” Judge John D. Bates ruled in United States District Court here.

Unless overturned on appeal, a former White House counsel, Harriet E. Miers, and the current White House chief of staff, Joshua B. Bolten, would be required to cooperate with the House Judiciary Committee, which has been investigating the controversial dismissal of the federal prosecutors in 2006.

While the ruling is the first in which a court has agreed to enforce a Congressional subpoena against the White House, Judge Bates called his 93-page decision “very limited” and emphasized that he could see the possibility of the dispute being resolved through political negotiations. The White House is almost certain to appeal the ruling.

It was the latest setback for the Bush administration, which maintains that current and former White House aides are immune from congressional subpoena. On Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee voted along party lines to recommend that Karl Rove, a former top political adviser to President Bush, be cited for contempt for ignoring a subpoena and not appearing at a hearing on political interference by the White House at the Justice Department.

Although Judge Bates did not specifically say so, his ruling, if sustained on appeal, might apply as well to Mr. Rove and his refusal to testify.

The House has already voted to hold Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten in contempt for refusing to testify or to provide documents about the dismissals of the United States attorneys, which critics of the administration have suggested were driven by an improper mix of politics and decisions about who should, or should not, be prosecuted.

Judge Bates, who was appointed to the bench by President Bush in 2001, said Ms. Miers cannot simply ignore a subpoena to appear but must state her refusal in person. Moreover, he ruled, both she and Mr. Bolten must provide all non-privileged documents related to the dismissals.

Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten, citing legal advice from the White House, have refused for months to comply with Congressional subpoenas. The White House has repeatedly invoked executive privilege, the doctrine that allows the advice that a president gets from his close advisers to remain confidential.

In essence, Judges Bates held that whatever immunity from Congressional subpoenas that executive branch officials might enjoy, it is not “absolute.” And in any event, he said, it is up to the courts, not the executive branch, to determine the scope of its immunity in particular cases.

“We are reviewing the decision,” Emily Lawrimore, a White House spokeswoman, said. Before the decision was handed down, several lawyers said it would almost surely be appealed, no matter which way it turned, because of its importance.

Democrats in Congress issued statements in which they were quick to claim victory in the struggle with the administration over the dismissals of the federal prosecutors and other occurences in the Justice Department, and that they looked forward to hearing from the appropriate White House officials.

“I have long pointed out that this administration’s claims of executive privilege and immunity, which White House officials have used to justify refusing to even show up when served with congressional subpoenas, are wrong,” said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont who is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Leahy’s House counterpart in the House had a similar reaction.

“Today’s landmark ruling is a ringing reaffirmation of the fundamental principle of checks and balances and the basic American idea that no person is above the law,” said Representative John D. Conyers, the Michigan Democrat who is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company