Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Justice Dept. Report on Hiring Violations
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > Judicial System
xyzse
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/29/washingt...ice.html?ref=us
QUOTE
Gonzales Aides Broke Laws in Hiring, Report Concludes

By ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: July 29, 2008
Senior aides to former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales broke the law by using politics to guide their hiring decisions for a wide range of important department positions, slowing the hiring process at critical times and damaging the department’s credibility and independence, an internal report concluded Monday.

The report, prepared by the Justice Department’s inspector general and its internal ethics office, singles out for particular criticism Monica Goodling, a young lawyer from the Republican National Committee who rose quickly through the ranks of the department to become a top aide to Mr. Gonzales.

Ms. Goodling, who testified before Congress in May 2007 at the height of the scandal over the firings of nine United States attorneys, introduced politics into the hiring process in a systematic way that constituted illegal misconduct, the report found.

Last month, the inspector general, Glenn A. Fine, released a separate report that found a similar pattern of politicized hiring at the Justice Department in reviewing applications from young lawyers for the honors and intern programs. The new report released Monday goes much further, however, in documenting pervasive evidence of political hiring for some of the department’s most senior career, apolitical positions, including immigration judges and assistant United States attorneys.

The inspector general’s investigation found that Ms. Goodling and a handful of other senior aides to Mr. Gonzales developed a system of using in-person interviews and Internet searches to screen out candidates who might be too liberal and to identify candidates seen as pro-Republican and supportive of President Bush.

When interviewed by the inspector general, Mr. Gonzales said he was not aware that Ms. Goodling and other aides were using political criteria in their decisions for career positions. Mr. Gonzales resigned last summer in the face of mounting accusations from congressional Democrats that politics had corrupted the department.

His successor, Attorney General Michael Mukasey, said in a statement Monday after the report’s release that he was disturbed by their findings that improper political considerations were used in hiring decisions relating to some career employees.

“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,” he said. “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.”

He said that over the course of the last year and a half, the Justice Department has made institutional changes to remedy the problems discussed in today’s report.

“It is crucial that the American people have confidence in the propriety of what we do and how we do it,” he said, “and I will continue my efforts to make certain they can have such confidence.”

An attorney for Ms. Goodling, John Dowd, did not return a phone message Monday.

In her position as White House liaison for the Justice Department, Ms. Goodling was involved in hiring lawyers for both political appointments and non-political, career positions. Regardless of the type of position, the report said, Ms. Goodling would run through the same batch of questions, asking candidates about their political philosophies, why they wanted to serve President Bush, and who, aside from Mr. Bush, they admired as public servants. Sometimes, Ms. Goodling would ask: “Why are you a Republican?”

Such questioning was allowed for candidates to political appointments, but was clearly banned under both civil service law and the Justice Department’s own internal policies, the inspector general said. Ms. Goodling’s questioning also generated complaints from one senior official who believed it was improper, long before the issue became a public controversy following the firings of nine United States attorneys. The inspector general concluded that Ms. Goodling knew that questioning applicants to career positions about their political beliefs was improper.

In one case, for instance, Ms. Goodling slowed the hiring of a prosecutor in the United States attorney’s office in Washington, D.C., for a vacancy because she said she was concerned that he was a “liberal Democrat.” After the United States attorney, Jeffrey Taylor, complained to her supervisors, he was allowed to hire the candidate anyway.

And in another case, colleagues said that Ms. Goodling refused to extend the appointment of a female prosecutor because she believed the lawyer was involved in a lesbian relationship with her supervisor, according to the report.

And in another case cited by the inspector general, Ms. Goodling blocked the hiring of an experienced prosecutor for a senior counter-terrorism position because his wife was active in Democratic politics. The candidate was regarded as “head and shoulders above the other candidates” in the view of officials in the executive office of United States attorneys, but they were forced to take a candidate with much less experience because he was deemed acceptable to Ms. Goodling.

In forwarding a résumé in 2006 from a lawyer who was working for the Federalist Society, Ms. Goodling sent an e-mail message to the head of the Office of Legal Counsel, Steven Bradbury, saying: “Am attaching a résumé for a young, conservative female lawyer.”

Ms. Goodling interviewed the woman herself for possible positions and wrote in her notes such phrases as “pro-God in public life,” and “pro-marriage, anti-civil union.” She was eventually hired as a career prosecutor.

Ms. Goodling also conducted extensive searches on the Internet to glean the political or ideological leanings of candidates for career positions, the report found. She and other Justice Department supervisors would look for key phrases like “abortion,” “homosexual,” “guns,” or “Florida re-count” to get information on a candidate’s political leanings.

More Articles in Washington »
Alberto Gonzales. That guy gives me the creeps. He really seems so oily. Then now to say that he didn't know anything about it? Almost everything that happened on the Justice Department that he was asked about he knew nothing about. Either he is the most inept person I know or just a liar. Signs point to the latter.
xyzse
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8072801270.html
QUOTE
Justice Officials Repeatedly Broke Law on Hiring, Report Says

By Carrie Johnson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 28, 2008; 1:02 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.

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. Brad Berenson, a lawyer for Sampson, had no immediate comment.

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."
graham4anything
at least one thing is for sure

Alberto was in line for becoming a US Supreme Court Justice...It was his for the asking, the first Hispanic on the court...

He never will be.

Thank God for that.

Wonder if that makes him bitter, and one day will yap his heart out because of that fact???
xyzse
Stranger things have happened. I doubt that he will be any time soon. Perhaps in 12-16 years he might have another chance to be one.
graham4anything
QUOTE(xyzse @ Jul 28 2008, 05:07 PM) *
Stranger things have happened. I doubt that he will be any time soon. Perhaps in 12-16 years he might have another chance to be one.

you misunderstand what I said

I said he was (in the start of W's term thought to be a sure shot

Now he won't

Maybe he will become so bitter, he will talk
Livyjr
Posted July 1, 2008 by J. Gerald Hebert

"The Ashcroft/Gonzales Legacy at Justice: What a Mess"

CLC legal intern Lisa Miller of the University of Virginia Law School assisted in researching and drafting this commentary.

The report issued last week by the Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General and Office of Professional responsibility is quite an indictment of the Department of Justice under the Bush Administration.

The Department’s spokespersons have been unusually silent about the report.

Normally, they rush to the Department’s defense, and try to either attack the motives of the accuser or spin the story in way that makes the Department look better than it deserves to look.

But this time, they couldn’t attack the messenger, because it was one of their own (and their own Inspector General at that).


Sadly this is only the first of several promised reports from the Inspector General on the politicization of the Justice Department.

Many more partisan abuses of the Department and its law enforcement powers are yet to emerge.

The soon-to-be-released IG report on the Civil Rights Division will be of particular interest.

For those of us who devoted a substantial part of our legal careers to the Department of Justice, the report is painful to read.

Having spent over 20 years at the Department of Justice, and having been hired under the Attorney General’s Honors Program, I found the process used at DOJ during the tenure of John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales to hire new lawyers and summer law students disgraceful on several levels.

It all began, according to the report, in 2002, when then Attorney General John Ashcroft changed the procedures for hiring new lawyers under the Honors Program.


Prior to 2002, DOJ had deployed career attorneys across the country to conduct regional interviews of prospective candidates at law schools across the country.

Starting in 2002, however, DOJ created a three-member Steering Committee, which reviewed candidates’ online applications, and then invited selected candidates to travel to DOJ headquarters in DC (at taxpayer expense) for an interview.

The Screening Committee was composed of several members of Ashcroft’s Working Group – a group comprised almost exclusively of political appointees.


This Steering Committee was a far more political body than the career attorneys who had been deployed to interview law students in the past.

The decision to create the Steering Committee came from the Working Group (which Ashcroft headed), and given the fact that the Working Group was essentially political appointees, it is not shocking that the Steering Committee improperly let political considerations guide their decision-making.

The three-person Steering Committee that screened applications in 2006 was comprised of Michael Elston, Esther McDonald, and Daniel Fridman.

None of the members of the Steering Committee ever worked as an attorney in any of the litigating Divisions of the Justice Department.

It seems rather obvious that none of them should have been placed on any committee that decided which lawyers should be hired for the Department’s litigating divisions (civil, criminal, antitrust, civil rights, tax, national security, and environmental and natural resources).

They lacked experience and knowledge, and should have never been placed on the Steering Committee in the first instance.

According to the report, Elston joined the Department in 1999 as a career Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA).

In 2005, he became Chief of Staff and Counselor to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty and 6 months later converted from a career employee to a political appointment.

Elston chaired the three-member Screening Committee.

Esther Slater McDonald was, without a doubt, the most unqualified of the three.

She graduated from law school in 2003 and joined DOJ in 2006.

She received special treatment in her hiring at DOJ.

A partner at the law firm where she was working (Jones Day) recommended her and she secured an interview within the week from Monica Goodling (who like McDonald, was not qualified for her job and appears to have violated federal law in her actions).

McDonald was given the position “Counsel to the Associate Attorney General.”

The third member, Daniel Fridman, joined DOJ in December 2004 when he as an AUSA in Florida.

In 2006, Fridman was detailed to the Deputy Attorney General’s office in Washington, D.C.

He had no significant legal experience prior to being detailed and never worked in any of the litigating Divisions.

He was the only one of the three Screening Committee members who was not cited for having violated federal law.

Elston and McDonald apparently felt they were above the law.

The report makes clear that “McDonald knew that using political and ideological affiliation was inappropriate, but did it anyway.”


In an e-mail dated October 2006, McDonald acknowledged that “there are legal constraints on career hiring to ensure that it’s not political.”

Unambiguously, the report concludes that “McDonald committed misconduct and violated Department policies and civil service law by considering political or ideological affiliations in assessing Honors Program and SLIP candidates.”

The IG report also found that the “most significant misconduct…was committed by Elston.”

Elston deselected some candidates and allowed the deselection of others based upon impermissible criterion.
[1]

Elston not only failed to provide adequate guidance to others and “failed to take appropriate action when he learned that McDonald was routinely deselecting candidates on the basis of what she perceived to be the candidates’ liberal affiliations,” but also personally deselected some candidates based upon their political affiliations.

[W]e concluded that Elston violated federal law and Department policy by deselecting candidates based on their liberal affiliations.”

Other Department of Justice officials also failed to carry out the duties of their office in an effective and competent manner.

In addition to McDonald and Elston, the report concludes that part of the reason this politicization problem continued unchecked was that other Justice Department officials failed in their oversight duties.

For example, the report is critical of Louis DeFalaise, Director of the Office of Attorney Recruitment and Management (OARM), who “did not adequately or timely address the concerns that were brought to his attention concerning the Screening Committee’s deselections.”

In his role as Director of OARM, DeFalaise failed to effectively conduct oversight given that he “had sufficient evidence to, at a minimum, raise concerns about the Screening Committee’s criteria or the deselection of particular candidates directly with Elston or discuss those concerns with other senior leaders at the Department.”

The report also implicates Acting Associate Attorney General William Mercer, who “did not adequately address the concerns that were brought to his attention by several senior Department officials that the Screening Committee’s deselections appeared to have been politicized.”

Like DeFalaise, as Associate Attorney General, Mercer had oversight powers over the Tax Division and Civil Division, as well as other components participating in the Honors Program and SLIP hiring process.

McDonald was one of his own staff members.

Mercer questioned McDonald about the standards the Screening Committee had applied, and “McDonald told him that the deselections were based on concerns about academic records, sloppiness of applications, and at times, ‘a concern that [the applicants] wouldn’t be able to follow DOJ policy based upon what they had written.’”

Given the nature of the complaints against McDonald and Elston, the report concludes that Mercer “should have pursued the matter further with Elston,” and did not investigate the deselections adequately.

Attorney General Mukasey issued a statement on the day the IG report was released saying that he would implement all the recommendations of the report.

His statement was as follows:

“I appreciate the hard work and collaboration of the Department's Office of Professional Responsibility and Office of Inspector General on this report."

"The Department overhauled its Honors Program and Summer Law Intern Program hiring processes last year, and I am pleased that the report remarked positively on these institutional changes."

"I have also made clear, and will continue to make clear, that the consideration of political affiliations in the hiring of career Department employees is impermissible and unacceptable."

"The joint report issued today contains additional recommendations aimed at ensuring that political and ideological affiliations are not inappropriately used to evaluate candidates for these programs; I accept, and have directed the implementation, of all of those recommendations.”

If we take the Attorney General at his word, and “the consideration of political affiliations in the hiring of career Department employees is impermissible and unacceptable,” then at least Mr. Elston and Ms. McDonald might still be subject to prosecution despite report's conclusion that they are beyond discipline.

And for others like DeFalaise and Mercer, at a minimum a letter should be placed in their personnel files indicating that they failed to perform their duties adequately.

It is not entirely correct for the IG to have concluded that nothing can be done to either Elston or McDonald for violating federal law.

While it may be true that no disciplinary action may be taken against them, there is one federal criminal provision that may well have been violated (18 U.S.C. § 600).

This section provides as follows:

Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”


It is not clear if the IG investigators interviewed any of the Honors Program applicants who actually were hired as a result of their pro-Republican ideology or affiliation (with either a campaign, the RNC or any Republican candidate).

McDonald herself refused to be interviewed.

If it could be shown that any person selected for the Honors Program was promised "directly or indirectly…any employment, position...as consideration, favor, or reward...for any political activity" or as a result of the applicant's connection "to any candidate or any political party" then the criminal Hatch Act provision cited above would apply.

Federal criminal law also prohibits a person from changing another federal employee's "official rank or compensation" for "giving or withholding or neglecting to make any contribution of money or other valuable thing for any political purpose[.]" 18 U.S.C. § 606.

If any of the Honors Program applicants were employed in federal clerkships (or by a congressional committee) at the time they were deselected and it could be shown that they were deselected because they had made a contribution "of money or other valuable thing" to a Democratic candidate or to the Democratic Party, then this provision would have been violated.

Unfortunately, the IG report does not include information that would enable one to know if facts were investigated by the IG to determine if either of these federal criminal provisions were violated by Elston and/or McDonald.

The mission statement of the United States Department of Justice is “to enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.”

What the current Administration has done to undermine this mission and what the two Presidential candidates will do to completely restore the integrity of the Department are two issues that warrant complete airing in the fall campaign.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] “As the leader of the Screening Committee, Elston should have ensured that the Committee members used appropriate criteria in making decisions, in accord with federal law ad Department policy. Yet, he did not discuss with Fridman and McDonald the proper criteria for evaluating candidates…”

http://www.clcblog.org/blog_item-233.html
Indianhead
Monica Golding should be offered immunity...
to get to Gonzalez...he should be offered immunity
to get to Rove...and he should be offered 5-15 years.

Put Kilpatrick on the case as special prosecutor...
and return USDOJ to the agency it should be.
I am convinced many career federal attorneys and
agents would welcome it.
Livyjr


"HI, KIDS, CAN I COME IN AND PLAY, TOO?"



"THIS IS HOW I LIKE TO LOOK WHEN I AM LOOKING LIKE I AM BASHFUL AND SHY!"



"DO YOU LIKE MY HAIR?"

"I JUST HAD IT STYLED YOU KNOW!"

"DO YOU THINK I NEED MORE MOUSSE?"

"OR WOULD JELL BE BETTER?"




"I GOT MY TEETH DONE, TOO, WHILE I WAS AT THE HAIR SALON!"

"AREN'T THEY PRETTY AND WHITE?"

"DON'T I HAVE NICE TEETH?"

"THERE'S NO SPINICH IN THERE CAUGHT IN MY TEETH, IS THERE?"

"OH, I HOPE NOT!"

"THEY PROMISED THEY WOULD GET IT ALL OUT!"
Livyjr






I have to confess in here that I find myself totally fascinated by the thought of Monica Goodling as a high-ranking public official here in the United States of America ....

I wonder if her head is full of air ....

Or whether it might be some lighter gas such as helium ....

I wonder if they are going to make a BOBBLE-HEAD DOLL out of her, now .....

It sure would be a good one ....

MONICA GOODLING BOBBLE-HEAD DOLLS ON SALE HERE!

You'll see them on the dashboards of cars all across America, real soon, I bet ....

I might get one myself for the dashboard of my truck ....

And so ...
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2008 Invision Power Services, Inc.