Monica Goodling testified yesterday to a House committee investigating the dismissals of eight US attorneys. The mystery of her demand for immunity seems to be solved - she may have violated the law in probing the political background of DoJ careerists:
Ms. Goodling acknowledged repeatedly that she had improperly sought to gauge the political leanings of applicants when she reviewed résumés for nonpartisan jobs or promotions, including posts as assistant United States attorneys and immigration judges or for temporary assignments at Justice headquarters.
She said she had done Google or Nexis searches on job candidates or searched their names on campaign-finance databases to see if they might have given money to Republican or Democratic candidates. She also pressed applicants’ references, at times, to ferret out the political background of the job candidates they were endorsing.
“There were times I crossed the line probably in my reference calls” by asking political questions, Ms. Goodling told the committee.
Political factors are routinely considered for some jobs at the Justice Department, like United States attorneys or senior posts, like the heads of the litigating divisions.
But civil service rules prohibit such questions when federal agencies are hiring or promoting staff members for career positions. Violations could be unlawful, although probably not a crime, Justice Department officials have said. Two internal investigative units have begun an inquiry into Ms. Goodling’s screening practices.
OK. And I actually think this bit from above makes sense, but I would love a better explanation:
Violations could be unlawful, although probably not a crime, Justice Department officials have said.
I guess that means that violations would be punished with dismissal but not prosecution, but still - why am I guessing, and shouldn't the Times provide a bit of an explanation? This notion that Ms. Goodling broke the law without committing a crime is a bit subtle. And why her desire for immunity if she did not commit a crime?
More mysteries:
She told lawmakers that she could not be precise about how many hiring decisions were influenced by inappropriate political considerations, though at one point she said it probably involved fewer than 50 jobs.
She provided details on only one case, an applicant for a position as assistant United States attorney in the District of Columbia. She blocked the hiring of Seth Adam Meinero after determining the candidate was a Democrat. “I think that when I did look at that résumé, I made a snap judgment, and I regret it,” she said.
She was ultimately bypassed and Mr. Meinero was hired, Justice officials have said.
I am afraid to ask, but - what did she find in her Googling? I found nothing on the FEC contributions data base; a Google on "Seth Adam Meinero" produced this seemingly unremarkable Howard University symposium on the Brown case. "Seth Meinero" doesn't seem scary either, unless someone wants to stretch and get nervous that he apparently won a prize sponsored by a one-time campus radical.
Well. Perhaps I am not cut out for Ms. Goodling's job; I haven't tried Nexis, so where is my commitment, anyway?
I'm sure this is the first time, anywhere, ever, that the politics of political appointees has ever been looked at or discussed.
Posted by: Pofarmer | May 24, 2007 at 02:21 PM
I continue to insist that these dopes have long since shot their wad on the long-awiated "oversight" role, and the public is becoming bored, and increasingly annoyed, with all of it. See, e.g., the delightfully plummeting congressional approval numbers.
Posted by: Other Tom | May 24, 2007 at 03:27 PM
Off-topic again, but what the hell. A bit of a torture update. Unquestionably, this stuff would never have crossed their minds if it weren't for Bushitler, and it serves us right. And anyway, they learned all this stuff from the Abu Ghraib survivors.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0524072torture1.html
Posted by: Other Tom | May 24, 2007 at 03:33 PM
The problem, alas, is that Assistant U.S. Attorneys are not considered "political" appointees. As the post and many other articles have properly pointed out, these are, essentially, civil service hires, and consideration of their politics is inappropriate and in fact against the law.
If we were talking the actual U.S. Attorneys themselves, then no problem considering their politics; they have policy-making and policy-advocating roles. The AUSAs do not, under the law.
What I hear, from people (Republicans) who would know, is that Goodling and like-minded individuals at Justice continued, even escalated, the politicization of DOJ that began under Clinton with his mass firings of the US Attorneys. It wasn't good when Clinton did it, and it's not good when our guys did it.
Posted by: PatHMV | May 24, 2007 at 03:57 PM
Ha ha, "Clinton did it!" and "It's happened before!" As if there aren't any valid standards to aspire to, besides a race to the bottom. It's all just partisan, eh?
Posted by: manys | May 24, 2007 at 04:18 PM
the politicization of DOJ that began under Clinton with his mass firings of the US Attorneys
??
Reagan replaced 89 of 93 U.S. Attorneys within the first 2 years of his presidency.
Posted by: Foo Bar | May 24, 2007 at 04:35 PM
... which is not to say that the tradition started with Reagan. That's just the earliest data point I can find.
Posted by: Foo Bar | May 24, 2007 at 04:37 PM
Drudge, in a story up today about 14 illegal aliens arested in Idaho who were working for the Federal Government, has unwittingly supplied the solution to this problem of unlawful political screening of applicants for government jobs.
Simply institute a new policy of only hiring illegals for all GS jobs.
The partisan political hiring angle will disappear, the savings to taxpayers in them being unable to collect their government benefits will be tremendous, and soon we'll have a Federal Bureaucracy every bit as good as Mexico's. Whats not to like?
Posted by: Daddy | May 24, 2007 at 04:58 PM
Never said anything about the Clintons. History didn't start with Clinton, or Reagan, or Bush. The view of history here is rather short. What's the basis for comparison?
Posted by: | May 24, 2007 at 05:22 PM
The purging of Democrats here kind of mirrors the purging of Baathists over there...and well, I'm sure the Repubs here think Democrats are the enemy, so Monica was just doing the Goodling!
Everything is politicized and well, maybe that's how it's always been. Justice isn't blind, she just has one eye open at a time.
Posted by: seamus | May 24, 2007 at 05:22 PM
Paul at Powerline notes that many of the job applicants that came across Goodling's desk were applying for political positions, but also asked to be considered for civil service positions if the political one didn't pan out.
I assume that Goodling had to come up with some kind of minimally plausible concern that she had somehow violated a law--a concern which seems fairly dubious--to justify her demand for immunity. Having performed that required little song and dance, she then proceeded to wad up the House's subpoena and oh so nicely invited the collective institution to shove it where the sun don't shine. Good for her.
Posted by: anduril | May 24, 2007 at 06:08 PM
Who cares?
Posted by: Sara | May 24, 2007 at 06:24 PM
I'm sorry. You want the New York Times to explain a semi-comprehensible comment from DOJ?
Goodling's original "perjury trap" justification, although supported by Sean Hannity, Richard Cohen and other legal beagles, was not flying. So there is this hiring business and the even less likely charge of preparing McNulty to lie.
I am still waiting for a description of the process worthy of the DOJ that resulted in Carol Lam being fired. It seems to me that Comey put the Gonzales/Sampson talking points to rest.
Posted by: Paleokaus | May 24, 2007 at 06:34 PM
It seems to me that Comey put the Gonzales/Sampson talking points to rest
Not much of a regular around here eh, Paleokaus?
Posted by: Jane | May 24, 2007 at 06:59 PM
If it's a Bad Thing to fire a US Attorney for political reasons--whatever that really means--is it also bad to fire the AG for politcal reasons?
Posted by: anduril | May 24, 2007 at 07:58 PM
"And why her desire for immunity of she did not commit a crime?"
Good grief, is that a serious question?
After Scooter Libbey, I would ask for immunity if someone from the gov't asked me 'how's the weather'. Why in the world would anyone take a chance of persecution? Sure, *you* may know you have committed no crime, but why take a chance?
Seriously, why take the chance? I would like to hear an answer to that.
Say nothing or be given immunity; those are the only choices a sane person should consider these days.
Posted by: Les Nessman | May 24, 2007 at 08:07 PM
She did contradict McNulty, right? A man Schumer had already stated he would support as replacement AG.
Indeed, being on the wrong side of someone Schumer supports seems to be quite criminal these days. But I'm sure that only looks political.
Posted by: Maybeex | May 24, 2007 at 08:11 PM
Say nothing or be given immunity; those are the only choices a sane person should consider these days.
I guess taking responsibility is passe. Maybe the new standard should be that if the person doesn't think it is (or should be) illegal then it isn't.
Posted by: manys | May 24, 2007 at 10:25 PM
Schumer's plan to replace Gonzales with his errand boy McNulty blew up in his face. And now he's stuck with bupkis. Al D'Amato was right...Schumer is a putz. In this particular case he has no power and Gonzales can stay as long as President Bush wants. Oh and by the way, they won't be getting Rove anytime soon either. Truly an exercise in futility that wasted taxpayer money.
Posted by: maryrose | May 24, 2007 at 10:55 PM
Reagan replaced 89 of 93 U.S. Attorneys within the first 2 years of his presidency.
Foo bar - Foo bar - Foo bar you can't simply post lying bs anymore. Its too easy to use google and find out the real facts.
When your link saying Reagan fired prosecutors didn't work - gee that was suspicious, I googled and found that ::::::
The Congressional Research Service reports that from 1981-2006, only two US Attorneys were clearly forced from their job, mid-term. That's two out of 486 -- and both were in the Reagan Administration. (tip)
And unlike in the current controversy, in one case there was clear cause and in the other, public political conflict.
Reportedly, in 1984 President Reagan dismissed J. William Petro, US Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio, for having loose lips. Petro was later convicted of disclosing information about an indictment. Sounds like cause to me.
Reagan also dismissed William Kennedy, US Attorney for the Southern District of California, in 1982, reportedly for asserting that the CIA had pressured DOJ to pressure him not to pursue a case. Sounds like publicly arguing with your boss. Nothing like today's cases. And besides, it's only one, not eight.
http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/208046.htm
TWO fired by Reagan --not 93.
In the future you can do it too, google stuff your going to post so you don't look like a liar.
Posted by: woof2222 | May 24, 2007 at 11:45 PM
After Scooter Libbey, I would ask for immunity if someone from the gov't asked me 'how's the weather'.
Yep, and after Martha Stewart, I wouldn't even discuss the weather with a federal investigator. My only conversation will be about the imminent arrival of my attorney.
Posted by: woof2222 | May 24, 2007 at 11:48 PM
If she had to ask, she was really dumb. In these applications you must list every organization you belonged to, detail all your professional activities and give names of references. And it is perfectly acceptable to ask in the interview the applicant to describe his views on various legal issues. If you can't tall after all that, you are stupid.
(I was nominated for a judgeship on 3 occasions--the Carter WH apparently thought I was too conservative; the Reagan WH thought I was too liberal--and probably both were right.)
Posted by: clarice | May 25, 2007 at 12:42 AM
Reagan dismissed J. William Petro, US Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio, for having loose lips.
Sounds like the Carol Lam situation ( and prolly the Arizona situation too)
Lam looks to have leaked in such an egregious manner the DOJ would be derelict not to have canned her.
BTW - I find it delicious to see Emptiness embracing the leaking of GJ testimony.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | May 25, 2007 at 01:00 AM
1. Here is a link to what is almost surely the LA Times piece cited by Foo Bar - Google points to the LA Times but delivers a 404.
2. Foo Bar lying? Please - people make mistakes, but let's not be saying he (She? They?) lied, especially when they haven't - see (3).
3. Grand reconciliation (or an attempt) - Reagan may perfectly well have replaced Carter's attorneys as their 4 year terms came due, and why not? That is different from firing them during their term, which he may well have done only twice.
The alternative view, that Reagan left the Carter appointees in place, strikes me as deeply unlikely. (Note to linguists - for some reason, "deeply" unlikely means the same as "highly" unlikely - why? A level of unlikeliness that represents an extreme? Or am I making that phrase up?)
Since Bush was firing many of his own appointees, the second term purge looked odd.
After Scooter Libbey, I would ask for immunity if someone from the gov't asked me 'how's the weather'.
Well, that was my original theory re Monica, as noted in the post to which I linked (and her attorney cited the Libby trial, too).
Posted by: Tom Maguire | May 25, 2007 at 01:32 AM
She did contradict McNulty, right? A man Schumer had already stated he would support as replacement AG.
Indeed, being on the wrong side of someone Schumer supports seems to be quite criminal these days. But I'm sure that only looks political.
Well the lefties just know what's going on here and who is wrong or right - McNutly is to be believed! it's the template, it's the hate. Paranoia, deep destroyer...
Insty:
they LOVED them in the Plame affair! I mean ONLY the anon sources that told them 24biz hours or Cheney was demanding this and that on the back of airforce one.
Klein:
I find it NORMAL that lefties selective truth like - what's new?...
Allah;
Glenn sounds sorta like the leader of a cult, doesn't he?
Anyways...see a pattern? Lefty bloggers wanting to believe they're template NOT the reality of things? So, they really do want things to be as shitty as possible -- they see that as a means of power grab -- not very admirable or inspiring.
I suppose that's why they "timetables" took a Pelosi.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | May 25, 2007 at 01:46 AM
Glenn sounds sorta like the leader of a cult, doesn't he?---
Rick Ellison McEllensburg I meant...not Insty.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | May 25, 2007 at 01:58 AM
Klein is about two weeks late with this news. The blogs had this then. And we are now in Dilaya (sp) doing the same thing. I wonder if Klein will report that in another two weeks.
Posted by: BarbaraS | May 25, 2007 at 02:35 AM
tops:
Glenn sounds sorta like the leader of a cult, doesn't he?---
Rick Ellison McEllensburg I meant...not Insty.
I don't know. I think Reynolds is just taking it slowly. Army of Davids was sowing seeds...
Just wait until he organizes a YearlyInsta conference and has everyone converge on Knoxville......
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | May 25, 2007 at 07:41 AM
Since Bush was firing many of his own appointees, the second term purge looked odd.
But wasn't this started immediately after the 04 elections? It certainly wouldn't have made sense to waste time on it before(cart before the horse and all that). The only thing that made it look odd is that it took so long to get it done, not that that's anything new in the govt. It shows that there was obviously some standards here for Prosecutors and choosing which ones were let go.
Posted by: Pofarmer | May 25, 2007 at 08:39 AM
woof2222:
Foo bar - Foo bar - Foo bar you can't simply post lying bs anymore.
Maybe not, but I can hope that people attempting to refute me actually take the time to read the links they cite in response.
Here is your uspolitics.about.com link. If you manage to make it halfway down the page, you'll find this quote from testimony from Stuart Gerson, a Bush 41 DOJ official:
OK, so what did your about.com page mean when it said only 2 U.S. attorneys had been clearly forced from their job "mid-term"? Well, if you click through to the Congressional Research Service report and look at the fourth sentence, you'll see it says:
So only 2 U.S. attorneys whose terms spanned a single presidential administration were clearly forced out mid-term. The CRS report focused on those whose terms spanned a single administration precisely because it is so common for them to be removed at the start of a new administration, which is what happened under both Reagan and Clinton.
Given that my point was to respond to the idea that Clinton had been the first to do a wholesale purge at the start of his presidency, and given that your cite said only 2 had been removed midterm from '81-'06, one might have hoped that upon reflection something would seem amiss- I don't see how there's even a misreading of the '81-'06 factoid that absolves Reagan and doesn't absolve Clinton.
1. Here is a link to what is almost surely the LA Times piece cited by Foo Bar - Google points to the LA Times but delivers a 404.
Yes, that was it- thanks, TM. The LA time must have moved the page, since, as you say, it still shows up in Google results.
Posted by: Foo Bar | May 25, 2007 at 09:00 AM
I do not know how to use the habbo coins
Posted by: sophy | January 06, 2009 at 07:38 PM
When you have LOTRO Gold, you can get more!
Posted by: LOTRO Gold | January 14, 2009 at 04:36 AM