The Monica Goodling Report: Selected Extracts (with Illustrative Video)

Joe Windish has provided some background, some blogger reactions, and some other useful links.

I spent a couple of hours this afternoon browsing the report (h/t to Sadly No! where I found the link to the report (actually entitled ‘Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring by Monica Goodling and Other Staff in the Office of the Attorney General’) (pdf.file) I’ve set out relevant quotes below. I felt angry while I was reading it—which probably shows in my commentary; I don’t know—but now that I’m done I just feel sad. I certainly don’t feel disposed to rejoice, but I do want to see these people held accountable.

The Judiciary Committee site has published the responses of John Conyers and Linda Sanchez:

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. and Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee Chairwoman Linda Sánchez had the following response to today’s Department of Justice Inspector General/Office of Personal Responsibility Report on “An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring by Monica Goodling and Other Staff in the Office of the Attorney General.””Today’s report describes ‘systematic’ violations of federal law by several former leaders of the Department of Justice,” said Conyers. “Apparently, the political screening was so pervasive that even qualified Republican applicants were rejected from Department positions because they were ‘not Republican enough’ for Monica Goodling and others. The report also makes clear that the cost to our nation of these apparent crimes was severe, as qualified individuals were rejected for key positions in the fight against terrorism and other critical Department jobs for no reason other than political whim. The Report also indicates that Monica Goodling, Kyle Sampson, and Alberto Gonzales may have lied to the Congress about these matters. I have directed my staff to closely review this matter and to consider whether a criminal referral for
perjury is needed.”

“The House Judiciary Committee’s investigation into the politicization of the Department of Justice has been criticized by the Minority as a fishing expedition that has caught no fish,” said Sánchez. “This report, which found that Monica Goodling and many other Justice Department officials committed misconduct by violating both federal law and Department policy, adds to a growing public record that this Administration has tainted our system of justice.”

Even thought I expected to find some evidence of wrongdoing, this report shocked me. his is what evil looks like when latches on to a young person’s good intentions: like a well brought up, polite young woman—religious and zealous to a fault in carrying out what she sees as her duty—whose loyalties, beliefs, and wish to do the right thing have become so entangled with a political agenda that she is happy to do anything to serve the cause.

And isn’t astonishing—seriously, isn’t it?—that so many hardcore law and order Republicans who blithely break the law if they decide that (1) the law is wrong or doesn’t matter; (2) the end justifies the means; or (3) both. They are the same people who are most likely to insist that lawbreakers take the consequences of their own actions with respect to the laws that they believe are important and do matter. They are particularly inclined to temper mercy with justice.

The Judiciary Committee site sums up the findings.

Senior Bush Administration Department of Justice officials, including Monica Goodling, Kyle Sampson, Jan Williams, and others violated federal law and committed misconduct in basing hiring decisions for career prosecutor positions, details to senior Department offices and immigration judgeships on the applicant’s political affiliations and views. (125-27)

In addition…

The report highlighted political cronyism that was “particularly damaging” in a vital counterterrorism post when a qualified expert was rejected because his wife had the wrong political affiliation. Instead a candidate was chosen that “lacked any experience in counterterrorism issues” and who other DoJ officials believed “was not qualified for the position.” (136)

Immigration judgeships were needlessly held vacant for long periods while Department leaders sought to identify politically suitable candidates, leading to a severe backlog of immigration matters. (128)

Monica Goodling also made false statements to the Department’s own lawyers who were defending a lawsuit regarding Immigration Judge hiring. (138)

A current Department official, John Nowacki, prepared and circulated a press release responding to public concern about these issues that he knew was false at the time; the report recommends that Mr. Nowacki be
disciplined (127-28)

Monica Goodling refused to approve several DOJ appointments for an AUSA who Ms. Goodling believed was gay. (132-33)

Where would these people have drawn the line, I wonder? I am not asking rhetorically—I really do wonder.

Before you consider poor Monica’s tragically mistaken performance of her duties, you might want take a detour to consider another unfortunate young woman (Sarah Taylor) explaining to an irate Patrick Leahy that she took an oath to serve the president. It’s an extraordinary video and illustrates what I imagine was the mindset of many of these young officials. SARAH TAYLOR:

To understand Monica Goodling’s errors and the issue of intent, you should first know that the Justice Department hires both ‘political’ and ‘career’ attorneys. And on page 12 of its report, it says:

It is not improper to consider political affiliations when hiring for political positions. However, both Department policy and federal law prohibit discrimination in hiring for Department career positions on the basis of political affiliations.

Apparently, Goodling decided that the distinction didn’t matter. From page 17 of the report:

Our investigation demonstrated that Goodling sometimes used for career applicants the same political screening techniques she employed in considering applicants for political positions. In addition, she used for candidates who were interested in any position, whether career or political, the same political screening she used for applicants who applied solely for political positions, and some of these candidates were placed in career positions.

You may be thinking that signs of political discrimination are likely to be subtle….difficult to pin down. Think again.

The Deputy White House Liaison sat in on Goodling’s interviews. (Page 18) She said that Goodling always asked the same questions and asked all candidates the same questions; and she herself sometimes was permitted to conduct interviews using these questions. After Goodling resigned, she made a little list. (Page 18) Here are the questions that Ms. Goodling used to ask the candidates—ALL of the candidates (page 18-19)

Tell us about your political philosophy. There are different groups of conservatives, by way of example: Social Conservative, Fiscal Conservative, Law & Order Republican.

[W]hat is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him? [my personal favorite]

Aside from the President, give us an example of someone currently or recently in public service who you admire.

The DoJ adds: ‘We found that this last question often took the form of asking the candidate to identify his or her most admired President, Supreme Court Justice, or legislator. Some candidates were asked to identify a person for all three categories. Williamson told us that sometimes Goodling asked candidates: “Why are you a Republican?”’

Some of the candidates felt that their political views were being probed. You think?

Several candidates interviewed by Goodling told us they believed that her question about identifying their favorite Supreme Court Justice, President, or legislator was an attempt to determine the candidates’political beliefs. (Page 19)

And it wasn’t just a matter of naming your favorite Republican—you also had to hold the right views on abortion and gay marriage.

For example, one candidate reported that after he stated he admired Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Goodling “frowned” and commented, “but she’s pro-choice.” Another candidate commented that when Goodling asked him to name his favorite judge, it seemed to him that she was trying to “get at my political views.”

We also found that many of [the] interview notes reflected that the topics of abortion and gay marriage were discussed during interviews. It appeared that these topics were discussed as a result of the question seeking information about how the applicant would characterize the type of conservative they were. (Page 19)

Buh-but…did no one notice or ever complain? Why, yes.

Regina Schofield, former Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs, said she complained to OAG Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson about Goodling asking inappropriate questions of OJP candidates, such as questions about abortion. Schofield said she told Sampson that Goodling needed to be trained, and that Sampson seemed to agree with the suggestion. (Page 19)

More at Buck Naked Politics