« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
DOJ Report Shows Partisan Culture Reigned Beyond The Few Names Named
There are still two more uncompleted inspector general reports pending -- one about the firing of eight U.S. attorneys and another about political agendas in the department's Civil Rights Division.
Yet from the IG report Monday on hiring practices, it's already clear that a culture of partisanship prevailed inside the department, and many DOJ officials were playing along, some more actively than others.
"It had a significant effect throughout the department. I think one of the most significant things is people not objecting, people not standing up," Inspector General Glenn Fine told lawmakers today on Capitol Hill.
To be sure, Monica Goodling, Kyle Sampson and others appear to have been serious party hacks who violated department policy and federal law by screening out prospective lawyers and judges for partisan reasons. But many others went along, if only more passively.
Take for example what Michael Elston told the IG's investigators. Elston clearly understood how Goodling and others operated and admitted to adopting a go-along, get-along attitude.
For example, Michael Elston, former Chief of Staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, stated that when he sought attorneys for details to the [Office of the Deputy Attorney General], he would generally look for candidates with the type of experience required by the position, but he also looked for candidates with Republican or conservative credentials in order to get them approved by the [Office of Attorney General].Elston said that Goodling made it clear to him that she did not want Democrats detailed to the ODAG because she had a "farm system" approach to filling vacancies in the Department, and she wanted to "credential" Republicans so that they could move on to higher political positions.
We saw an example of this in an email sent by Bradley Schlozman, the U.S. Attorney for Missouri's western district. He was sending resumes for three prospective hires to DOJ headquarters. Apparently without any prompting, Schlozman began touting their political credentials.
In his e-mail, Schlozman described the three candidates as "rock-solid Americans" who would be a "hugely positive legacy for this Administration." Schlozman described each candidate in terms of their conservative political credentials. He wrote that the first applicant's "involvement with the Bush/Cheney campaign speaks for itself."
Yes, in some cases, Goodling and others actively screened out prospective lawyers and judges for partisan reasons. But in many situations, they didn't have to. Others did it for them.
July 29, 2008
Mr. John M. Dowd (Attorney for Monica Goodling)
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
1333 New Hampshire Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20036
202-887-4386; fax 202-887-4288
Mr. Bradford Berenson (Attorney for Kyle Sampson)
Sidley Austin
1501 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
202.736.8000 fax 202.736.8711
Re: Extenuating and Mitigating Circumstances for Your Clients, Former Senior Department of Justice Officials Monica Goodling and Kyle Sampson?
Dear Mr. Dowd and Mr. Berenson,
I am Joe Carson, PE, the current “dean” of federal whistleblowers (google my name for details), and chair of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) Watch steering committee .
Based on July 28, 2008 Department of Justice Report, “An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring by Monica Goodling and Other Staff in the Office of the Attorney General,” your clients engaged in significant professional misconduct in committing extensive violations of civil service law, rule and regulation, particularly including numerous prohibited personnel practices (PPP’s).
However, because of limitations in the scope and power of the investigation, the larger context which, I believe, creates extenuating and mitigating circumstances to their misconduct and lawbreaking, is not addressed. That larger context is detailed in my recent letters to the Attorney General and Congressional Oversight Committees. These letters and their extensive references are available at .
The DOJ Report, on page 3, admits its limitations - that it did not have subpoena power to compel Ms. Goodling to answer questions. That is because the Department of Justice does not have jurisdiction over the civil service laws violated by Mr. Sampson and Ms. Goodling. By the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 and Whisleblower Protection Act of 1989, the US Office of Special Counsel (OSC) , with the US Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) are the agencies with jurisdiction, including power to issue subpoenas and seek their enforcement (without Department of Jusice (DOJ) representation, by the way, see 5 U.S.C. §1204(i)) in Federal Court.
By §§ 1212, 1214, 1215, and 1216, OSC has the jurisdiction to investigate this matter, to make determinations of fault, to seek wide-ranging corrective action for those impacted, including applicants for employment, and to seek disciplinary action, including fines and debarment from federal employment for current federal employees.
The two attached (short) letters I authored or co-authored summarize my concerns. I am trying to spur Congress to request the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issue opinions about now 30-year long interpretations law by which OSC and MSPB largely nullified their statutory duties to protect federal employees and applicants for employment from PPP’s. Because interpretations of civil service law are agency cross-cutting matters, OLC has jurisdiction to consider them.
If the Office of Legal Counsel issues opinions contrary to OSC and MSPB’s interpretations, it would largely mitigate and extenuate your clients’ PPP’s and professional misconduct. This is because they occurred in a context in which the agencies - OSC and MSPB - primarily responsible to prevent, identify, stop, and deter PPP’s have failed to comply with fundamental aspects of their duties to do so - for many, many years before your clients came on the scene.
Had OSC and MSPB properly interpreted and implemented their duties, what happened in DOJ would be unimaginable, because the “public interest in a civil service free of PPP’s (in DOJ) would have been adequately protected,” and resultant DOJ’s culture would not have permitted the corruption of your clients. OSC and MSPB are both deeply corrupt and corrupting, as a result of their self-nullifying interpretations of the law. And so your clients are both perps AND victims.
Based on the perception we have a common cause - exposing OSC and MSPB lawbreaking - I solicit your help in doing so, for the sake of your clients, for the sake of the merit principles of the federal civil service, for the sake of rule of law and, in a war on terror, for the sake of preventing a nuclear 9/11.
Respectfully,
Joe Carson, PE
10953 Twin Harbour Drive
Knoxville, TN 37934
865-300-5831
jpcarson@tds.net
July 30, 2008 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a hard comment to follow...
As for perps-as-victims, I would agree up to a point, no doubt there were "mentors" to guide Monica through her metamorphosis from ideologically intractable Regent grad to flagrant partisan violator.
It really is awfully hard to find that one bad apple in the bushel, when they all seem to be rotten...
Goodling's descent started with Ashcroft, for certain, so Gonzales was at most a top level enabler, but I have personal doubts that he had the evil genius necessary to perpetrate and perpetuate such a far ranging partisan scheme. We should look deeper for that dark guidance, for some sort of Darth Vader-like influence on her as she entered the Bush sphere of influence.
Is there any doubt at that Ashcroft stage, Comstock was actively prepping Goodling to play the partisan hack? Could we possibly see Comstock, (one of those true neocon insiders from the seventh level of Republican hell,) have that finger of accusation pointed her way, if Monica is ever compelled to speak the truth, clearly and without dodging, about how she came to be the hand of Darth.
The sheer depth of the hackery may never be uncovered, unless some of these perps/victims are compelled to reveal the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
If there's anything to learn from Goodling's performance before Congressional committees, it's that, despite her religious delusions, she isn't predisposed to the whole truth. And we all might safely assume she'll get some world-class neocon coaching for court, much as she did before testifying to Congress.
A real-life courtroom might prove much more compelling than the congressional one, though.
With the threat of serious legal repercussions (hard time) now hanging like the sword of Damocles over all the above-mentioned "perps", the truth may not be nearly as avoidable in a real court of law.
Also, they won't have Congressional Republicans like Cannon and Lungren, et al, running interference for them.
July 30, 2008 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fine said it. Elston is a perfect example of it. Edmund Burke was right when he said All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
July 30, 2008 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Just like when Germans ignored millions of innocent people being sent to the gas chambers to be killed.
July 31, 2008 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone else remember when "a go-along, get-along attitude" was known as being an accessory or a co-conspirator?
July 31, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink