« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
From Brooks Brother Rioter to Judge
Monica Goodling says she was given the green light to hire immigration judges based on their political qualifications. So how'd that happen? And who's been getting the gig?
As a story in The Legal Times last year explained, immigration judges are different from other federal judges in that they're civil service employees -- meaning that there's a formal application process with the Justice Department's Executive Office of Immigration Review.
But, Jason McLure reported, "according to an immigration-judge hiring policy released by the Justice Department, the attorney general also has the option to pre-empt the formal vetting process and directly hire a judge of his choosing."
It was apparently this option that allowed Goodling, and others at the department before her, to do their thing.
So who's been getting the gig? The Times last year profiled one of those judges, Garry Malphrus.
A former Republican aide on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Malphrus also worked on the White House's Domestic Policy Council before becoming a judge. But he really showed his stripes in 2000, when Malphrus joined other Republicans in making a ruckus (chanting, pounding on windows and doors) outside the Miami-Dade Elections Department -- the so-called "Brooks Brothers Riot" -- during the Bush-Gore recount.
Malphrus, of course, had no immigration experience when he got the job, McLure reports. He had that in common with a number of his peers, who had similar backgrounds:
Among the 19 immigration judges hired since 2004: Francis Cramer, the former campaign treasurer for New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg; James Nugent, the former vice chairman of the Louisiana Republican Party; and Chris Brisack, a former Republican Party county chairman from Texas who had served on the state library commission under then-Gov. George W. Bush.
But why bother becoming an immigration judge? Well, the salary isn't bad ($113,904 in 2006) and "unlike his former colleagues at the White House, as a career civil service employee, Malphrus won’t be out of work should Republicans lose the White House in 2008." And as a friend of Malphrus tells McLure, "I think he's just working his way up the totem pole."
Now, here's the thing. Malphrus and all the others cited in McLure's piece were appointed before Goodling became White House liaison in April, 2005.
And here's what Goodling said in her written testimony yesterday:
Around the time I became White House Liaison in April 2005, Mr. Sampson told me that the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) had provided guidance some years earlier indicating that Immigration Judge appointments were not subject to the civil service rules applicable to other career positions.
"Some years earlier." So this had been going on since early in the Bush administration.
The Justice Department, caught red-handed, has tried to hit back after Goodling's testimony, claiming that there never was such an Office of Legal Counsel opinion.
To that, Goodling's lawyer issued a reply* today, saying in a press release:
"Ms. Goodling is aware of the fact that the Office of Legal Counsel never issued a formal opinion on the matter, and she did not suggest otherwise in her testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. Around the time Ms. Goodling became White House liaison in April 2005, Mr. Kyle Sampson told her that Acting Assistant Attorney General Daniel Levin had advised that Immigration Judgeships were not subject to the civil service rules applicable to other career positions. Ms. Goodling testified consistently with these facts before the House Judiciary Committee."
In other words, this was something that came from the top -- which helps explain why the Justice Department has been hitting back so aggressively against Goodling, who it turns out, actually had very little to do with what looks like a long-standing policy under Bush.
*Update: Dowd's complete reply today:
Today, Department of Justice spokesman Dean Boyd stated that the Department. had “located no record of an Office of Legal Counsel opinion advising that Immigration Judges may be appointed on the basis of political considerations or that civil service laws do not apply to such appointments.”Ms. Goodling is aware of the fact that the Office of Legal Counsel never issued a formal opinion on the matter, and she did not suggest otherwise in her testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. Around the time Ms. Goodling became White House liaison in April 2005, Mr. Kyle Sampson told her that Acting Assistant Attorney General Daniel Levin had advised that Immigration Judgeships were not subject to the civil service rules applicable to other career positions. Ms. Goodling testified consistently with these facts before the House Judiciary Committee.
In her written remarks, Ms. Goodling testified:
Around the time I became White House Liaison in April 2005, Mr. Sampson told me that the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) had provided guidance some years earlier indicating that Immigration Judge appointments were not subject to the civil service rules applicable to other career positions.This testimony is truthful and accurate.
In response to questions from Representative Nadler, Ms. Goodling stated:
I was informed that the Office of Legal Counsel had said that because those were positions under a direct appointment authority of the Attorney General, that we could consider other factors in those cases. Later, concerns were raised as a result of some litigation and the Civil Division came to a different conclusion. As a result of that, we actually froze hiring late in December of last year.This testimony is truthful and accurate.
In response to questions from Representative Goodlatte, Ms. Goodling stated:
In other cases like immigration judges and Board of Immigration appeals, I thought that we could consider other factors because I had been told that, in relation to immigration judges -- and I think my assumption was that that applied to the BIA as well.This testimony is truthful and accurate.
Finally, in response to questions from Representative Sherman, Ms. Goodling stated:
If you're asking about other categories like immigration judges or BIA members, originally, I was told that we could, particularly in relation to the immigration judges. And I assumed it applied to BIA positions as well. I was told that those factors could be considered.This testimony is truthful and accurate.
Comments (67)
Anonymous wrote on May 25, 2007 12:45 PM:Former OPM Director Kay Cole James must have her fingerprints ALL OVER THIS.
Before coming to the OPM, James was the Dean of Government at Regent University. And prior to that, a Vice President with Focus on the Family.
And guess what. Monica Goodling was a double major in Law -- and Government. She would have certainly been under James' tutilege.
Citizen 92 wrote on May 25, 2007 12:52 PM:Malphrus is also named specifically in this GAO report as likely not having been qualified to receive the appointment that he did:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06381.pdf
(he's the nameless White House appointee referenced in the report -- you've got to read it!)
Here's Gary:
First Job --
Associate Director
Domestic Policy Council
The White House
3 U.S.C. 105
AD-0301-00/00
$61,000
Second Job --
Immigration Judge
Executive Office for
Immigration Review
IJ-0905-00/01
$113,904
03/20/05
Nice salary increase!
And he also appears on another critical list in the report:
"Conversions Where It Could Not Be Determined Whether Appropriate Authorities and Proper Procedures Were Followed."
BluestateRedhead wrote on May 25, 2007 12:56 PM:Lawyers, please advise on two issues:
1. If hired through a process that crossed the civil service "line" (sorry, lady,law) and, DOJ maintains, without permission otherwise from the OLC, can all these hires be required to resubmit to proper hiring processes?
and
2. Does the use immunity extend to these admissions, given that the infractions were not known to exist before hand either to DOJ's investigators or to the HJC when it requested immunity for Good now Badling on USA issues?
security code: dress.
james wrote on May 25, 2007 1:01 PM:This has more teeth I think than the Attorney Purge - at least in that it's a blatant violation of the law to make political appointments to civil service positions. I bet the Senate and House will hone in on this considerably more.
Has anyone checked the Patriot Act for another sneak-around clause on this issue?
Jack wrote on May 25, 2007 1:02 PM:Seems similar to the post I saw on ThinkProgress this morning.
Anonymous wrote on May 25, 2007 1:05 PM:BluestateRedhed:
(1) The quick of it is no. These employees, for better and worse, now enjoy the same civil service protections that any other civil service employee enjoys. Even assuming the line was crossed (which seems obvious at this point), there isn't a lot to be done. Well, there is one thing. The federal government has been contracting out a lot of civil service positions since Bush took office. This isn't going to happen with immigration judges.
(2) The immunity would definitely extend to the admission Goodling made about "crossing the line." She can only be prosecuted for lying under oath, I believe, under the District Court's order.
stevix wrote on May 25, 2007 1:07 PM:Greg Palast has been all over the 'hirings', as opposed to the firings. He also has a collection of emails from Rove through his clandestine email accounts, describing the strategy of stealing the 2008 elections through the use of 'Rove-Bots' and sleeper cells implanted into DoJ.
MW wrote on May 25, 2007 1:08 PM:Why is Goodling's lawyer immediately issuing statements about her veracity?
Stormwatcher wrote on May 25, 2007 1:10 PM:Pictures and "Where are they now" photos of the Brooks Brothers rioters can be found at address below. The update is not current. Doubtless many more rioters are now in key positions.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31074-2005Jan23.html
Anonymous wrote on May 25, 2007 1:11 PM:These creeps should be out of a job when the Dems takeover. Every single lawyer and judge needs to be looked at closely and if they're qualifications aren't up to snuff then sayonara biotch. It won't happen but it should.
jeffgee wrote on May 25, 2007 1:17 PM:Working his way up the totem pole."
BluestateRedhead wrote on May 25, 2007 1:18 PM:Up to the top of the shame pole where a grotesque caricature of him will be carved.
Among other Brooks Brothers rioters for Bush 2000, John Bolton.
Anonymous answer to BluestateRedhead
another point of view on her (lack of) immunity is in the LAT,
currently under discussion at FDL.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-usatty25_may25,1,940844.story?track=rss&ctrack=2&cset=true
Your opinion?
security code: screw
which if anonymous is right, is exactly what happened in this case.
(why are these words always so apt?)
beowulf wrote on May 25, 2007 1:22 PM:Immigration judge is about the only way an attorney without any litigation experience can get "Judge" in front of his name. Its not an Article III judgeship-- but civil service protection isn't a bad substitute to Article III's lifetime tenure and besides everyone in your hometown will just know you're a "federal judge".
What's amazing is its a policital appointment (the AG can appoint directly) that doesn't require Senate confirmation OR a resignation at the end of the incumbent's terms. That plus the job title make it probably the most cake patronage job out there.
Anonymous wrote on May 25, 2007 1:26 PM:@beowulf
"...What's amazing is its a policital appointment (the AG can appoint directly)..."
This statement is in dispute. While the present Bush DOJ apparently has a policy allowing the politicals department to have some involvement in the IJ hiring and decisionmaking process there is question about whether that policy is legal.
The IJ's are characterized as career jobs, which means that the politically appointed AG nor the White House should have any discretion over the matter of hiring career staff.
The Commissar wrote on May 25, 2007 1:45 PM:A 'rioter?'
Those folks arrested during the RNC convention in 2004, weren't they "protesters, or demonstrators, or good solid citizens exercising their right of free assembly.?"
BJL wrote on May 25, 2007 1:49 PM:Carol Marin of the Chicago Sun Times points out that two of the purged U.S. Attorneys (Bogden & Chiara)where considered for "patronage" Immigration Judge positions to keep them quiet. She quotes Michael Elston as saying something like it would help to avoid a linkage to the others that were fired.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20070325/ai_n18757004
Anonymous wrote on May 25, 2007 1:51 PM:Anonymous answer to BluestateRedhead
(2) The immunity would definitely extend to the admission Goodling made about "crossing the line." She can only be prosecuted for lying under oath, I believe, under the District Court's order.
Does the immunity cover items mentioned in her opening statement, which were not followed up with questions? One is the caging issue, which the Committee was obviously not prepared to follow up on.
jon wrote on May 25, 2007 1:56 PM:So here's an idle question: Was the judge that dismissed charges against Posada Carrilles appointed through this process?
Somebody needs to put together a list of all the jusdges slipped in improperly. Take a good look at their cases, and keep following through.
Perhaps these judges should be subject to congressional review in the future? Congress could convert the positions to expiring appointments, so at least they sunset.
You can really sympathize with Bush wanting to pull the curtain over this whole sick show.
Austin Cooper wrote on May 25, 2007 1:56 PM:sc 'collar', as in: boundless pit of white collar crimes and treason
Malphrus' rise is a thrilling and inspiring story for all those who aspire to a place of authority, and responsibility, in the new order.
Malphrus calls to mind the individual stories of so many selfless civil servants in modern history, from Germany, Russia, Italy, Cambodia, Rwanda and the Sudan -- places where only strong, visonary leaders could end the chaos and confusing diversity of a society.
Places where these brave men, using the shield of organized protest to engage in violence to enemies of their cause, in a few short years could find themselves rewarded for their service -- their political and religious orthodoxy unquestionable, these people become responsible for critical bureaucratic roles in their government's policy towards (for example) 'racial undesirables'.
Because once the Leaders assume power, their strong visions for a bright, new future, free of strife and discord, can only be made real with the help of a bureaucracy -- whose chosen leaders have been promoted from the ranks. Who are unquestioning in their dedication to their God, and the principles of the Leader, and are responsive to orders.
We should applaud young Gary Malphrus as he proves the essence of the American dream: That a white male with a right-wing political philosophy can be recognized for his cunning and native ability by other white, male political conservatives, and awarded with lucrative positions guiding the fate of so many in this great nation.
Code = wheel, as in What Goes Around, Gary, Comes Around.
M. Stratas wrote on May 25, 2007 1:58 PM:To the Commissar: the Brooks Brothers rioters can be likened to the Brownshirts.
Mike Valentine wrote on May 25, 2007 2:00 PM:This is good. The bigger the scandal the bigger the Democratic victory next year. Unless Republicans turn on the President, and eat Bush to save their jobs, then will be a Democratic Congress and Presidency.
The only fly in the ointment is more dead troops between now and then. Support the troops, Impeach Bush.
Code word: (When) nuff said.
Anonymous wrote on May 25, 2007 2:12 PM:Interesting that she could remember her conversation with Kyle Sampson in 2004 about the ability to use politics to hire IJ's (and further remember that there was no WRITTEN policy) but somehow couldn't remember Karl Rove's utterances back in January 2007.
nellieh wrote on May 25, 2007 2:16 PM:If Monica was told the AG had the authority to 'place' people in career civil service employment vacancies without testing or using normal civil service procedures for hiring and it was done, how can these laws be bypassed with a stroke of the AG's pen? Or was /is it a signing statement? If so you can be sure it will be back dated. Something tells me not permitting others to compete for the judgeship is beyond illegal. If they can get some teeth into this it could get to couret as a potential felony. And maybe these cretins will get their due. At least get fired. CODE: animal. animals are what they are.
paladin wrote on May 25, 2007 2:29 PM:I'm very curious to know what impact Malphus and others like him have had in the immigration courts. Have they actually affected peoples' lives and if so, to what extent, negative or positive. We know what other political hacks have done (hello Brownie)--what about these guys?
paladin wrote on May 25, 2007 2:30 PM:I'm very curious to know what impact Malphus and others like him have had in the immigration courts. Have they actually affected peoples' lives and if so, to what extent, negative or positive. We know what other political hacks have done (hello Brownie)--what about these guys?
fdm wrote on May 25, 2007 2:42 PM:I don't have much to add except that my security code is "false", and I hate to let it go to waste. This applies to most everything coming out of this administration...
These words are suspiciously apt.
Uncle Montana wrote on May 25, 2007 2:50 PM:"When the Law breaks the Law, there is no Law" ~Billy Jack
Security Code:Clean, as in clean these fuckers out!
Anonymous wrote on May 25, 2007 3:05 PM:posted this with another article, but might be relevant here as well. just a piece of the negative effects of bad immigration judges (in the midwest). The biggest problem is probably in political asylum cases . . .
------------------
Wonder what relationship the politically-vetted immigration judges have to Court of Appeals recent and growing criticism of the outcomes of immigration hearings (i.e., chastising immigration judges for not properly considering evidence). Take a look at this article from 7/31/05 . . . and it appears that the criticism of IJ's continues (including in a decision released as recently as today, criticizing an Immigration Judge & the Board of Immigration Appeals for unreasonably discounting the prospect of harm to a woman and husband who fled Cameroon to avoid genital mutilation) - the Court decision mentions, for example, that the immigration judge "quotes selectively" from human rights reports. http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/3E0SLA06.pdf Wonder how many of these harshly criticized IJs are from the current wave of political appointments?
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20050731/ai_n14828243
"People seeking asylum in the United States are gaining support from an unexpected source: the Chicago-based 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals and, in particular, its best-known judge, Richard Posner.
"The appeals court, which oversees Wisconsin, has seen a major jump in its immigration caseload since 2002, when the U.S. attorney general streamlined the processing of immigration cases to clear a huge backlog. The court has issued a string of opinions criticizing sometimes in harsh tones how immigration judges have ruled against asylum-seekers. . . ."
XFR wrote on May 25, 2007 3:08 PM:I practice before IJ Malphrus and while he indeed had no experience or substantive knowledge of immigration law when he started, he has learned a tremendous amount and has already surpassed the knowledge base of many longer sitting immigration judges. The Department of Justice recently implemented several changes including testing of immigration judges and other measures to address competency. I'm not defending the "procedure" by which Judge Malphrus was "appointed" but at least he seems interested in becoming knowledgeable about immigration law.
parrot wrote on May 25, 2007 3:12 PM:No wonder the RNC emails "just can't be found"! There has been massive abuse of the law under these thugs. We need to get to the bottom of this as the rot has already become very apparent. One can only imagine the potential for spying by foreign powers given this tendency to just "hire your friends" without vetting them. And by friends, could we mean "donors" and rioters?
ohiomeister wrote on May 25, 2007 3:16 PM:XFR,
Have you seen any statistics comparing IJ Malphrus to other IJs?
Jason wrote on May 25, 2007 3:19 PM:Theres not enough time Parrot. The clock WILL get run out which is why the Republicons are saying, "Move on, nothing to see here."
m.a. wrote on May 25, 2007 3:22 PM:Before TPM readers get too carried away with this new issue of immigration judges, I would caution that other administrations likely treated IJs as an exception to the civil service rules as well.
Cal Damage wrote on May 25, 2007 3:22 PM:I was a DOJ Honors program attorney in an Immigration Court in 2005. (Apparently Monica never laid eyes on my resume) There was one IJ in that court who had been appointed by Clinton without immigration experience and one appointed by Bush without immigration experience.
Furthermore, the 7th Circuit's criticism of IJs asylum decisions falls upon IJs appointed by many different administrations. That criticism is mostly the product of the streamlining of the BIA appeals process so that Circuit Courts of Appeals are currently flooded with appeals from asylees.
Those interested in the widely varying rates of asylum denials by particular IJs should see the excellent report at http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/160/include/judge_0005_name-r.html
Boiled down to its simplest ingredients, the Democratic/American response to this, and all Republican usurpations is "Filibuster, Impeach, Repeal."
XFR wrote on May 25, 2007 3:27 PM:In this case, there appear to be two possibilities: either attack the policy changes, (apparently undocumented and probably illegal,) that permited these IJ appontments, and remove the recipients of Gonzo's largesse, or (and I like this just for its deviousness) eliminate the positions as part of a "phase two" Immigration Reform Bill, once we get an American in the White House again. Remember, the only court in the Constitution is the Supreme Court. All the rest are "such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Hmmm, based on that reading, it wouldn't even take the President's signature to make the change.
"Gosh, Mr. Malphrus, but there's no Immigration Court anymore. We'd be happy to take your application for administrator on one of the new Homeland Incoming-Persons Review Tribunals, but in the meantime, here's your release check. Buh-Byee!"
Desire - to see all of these f-ers in jail!
There are statistics as far as approval ratings for asylum cases. I don't believe they have numbers up for Judge Malphrus yet
http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/judgereports/
Anonymous wrote on May 25, 2007 3:39 PM:A word I learned right here in this comment section:
"kakistocracy" -- government by the lowest elements of a society. Its derivation relates to the Greek root for excrement or turds.
Anonymous wrote on May 25, 2007 3:51 PM:Just because an attorney says Goodling's assertions are "truthful and accurate" doesn't mean anything. It's an assertion by counsel, who can assert anything when "zealously" defending his client. Nobody is going to sanction Goodling's counsel for "believing" that his client was making truthful statements; or that "based on the best information" he "thought" his statement was accurate.
Inconsistent statements cannot all be correct. Either someone in the DOJ-GOP arean is lying; or falsity is truth, ala the US government under this reckless Bush Administration. And Americans wonder why the world resorts to force in open combat: It is perceived that Americans cannot rationally be engaged in any civil forum [court, law, legislation, or diplomacy].
Anonymous wrote on May 25, 2007 4:01 PM:Mr. Bush treats the government like a Victorian living room, filling it to the picture rails with stuffed specimens of every species of Republican hack it can find in the Empire.
Selected individuals may, indeed, learn something about their jobs and even perform well. Good on 'em. But that seems an unintended consequence, like a breeder birthing a two-headed pig; how frequently does it happen?
I suspect that Goodling's statement about immigration judges "not being subject to ordinary civil service rules" was her shorthand recollection for the fact that the AG, and hence his chief of staff and WH liaison, could in practice ignore the vetting process and hire whatever roadkill, friends and family they wanted. Like a Wolfowitz dating service.
Regarding the latter, it was in 2001 that Mrs. Wolfowitz wrote George Bush that her husband, then the number two man at the Defense Dept, was having an illicit affair with Ms. Riza, a foreign national with no US security clearance. An arrangement that would have been common knowledge among foreign embassies in Metro DC, and which could open him up to blackmail. Mr. Libby, Mr. Cheney's chief of staff, intercepted the letter so that Mr. Bush never heard about the possible national security vulnerability in his Defense Dept. (Wayne Madsen has more.)
John S wrote on May 25, 2007 4:12 PM:In response to comments by m.a. and XFR, I most heartily concur with their assessment. Anyone can be a judge. Experience doesn't matter. Knowledge doesn't matter. It's "learn as you go" and if your case comes before me during my learning phase, well let's just say that life isn't fair.
Will somebody please appoint me as a judge? I have a background in science and therefore can follow a simple chain of logic! Wow! Supreme Court here I come. Whooppee! Appointment for life. All I need to do is pretend that my personal and political biases have nothing, absolutely nothing to do with my decisions. No siree, nothing at all. Pure legal argument. Jurisprudence to the max.
Code: fact. Nothing but the facts ma'am.
Lawrence wrote on May 25, 2007 4:39 PM:Is it possible that the Democrats intentionally ignored pursuing the Caging issue? Since the reference was made in her opening statement prior to granting her immunity, Monica has placed herself in a very vulnerable position. Maybe when she and her legal team realize how precarious her situation is, they may be willing to make some sort of deal.
Buck wrote on May 25, 2007 4:45 PM:Or maybe I am just being delusional, has anyone else thought something along this line?
Monica said caging was a marketing term. She didn't talk about illegal caging.
THAT is another matter altogether.
Matt wrote on May 25, 2007 5:01 PM:I don't see that this scandal has any legs?
cfw wrote on May 25, 2007 5:05 PM:Unless there is proof that someone other than Monica, Sampson, and the other people who have already lost their jobs is involved...
I had thought MG got use immunity as opposed to transactional immunity. Use is (as far as I know) all the 5th Amendment requires. Use means nothing she said can be used against her, and the "fruit of the poisonous tree" (facts learned from what she said) are out of bounds. But things that were in the hopper being investigated or were discovered without what she said (or inevitably would have been) are probably ok for use in trial.
lysias wrote on May 25, 2007 5:18 PM:Can we find out how often these guys are being reversed by the Board of Immigration Appeals?
m.a. wrote on May 25, 2007 5:26 PM:I believe John S. unfairly misconstrued my comment. As an immigrant advocate, I'm sure I care much more deeply about the quality of the IJs than most people commenting on this piece. I certainly did not say that anyone could be an IJ.
My point is, IJ's have been hired on a political basis before Bush so TPM should be careful of making too much of the revelations about IJ and BIA hiring in Goodlin's testimony. I'm sure TPM writers will continue their excellent investigation and come up with a thorough analysis of the issues raised.
XFR wrote on May 25, 2007 5:32 PM:John S.:
I don't believe my previous post stated "anyone could be a judge" although it does feel good to hear someone heartily concurring with me (perhaps if I had some connections I could give pursuit to my judicial aspirations) even if they are being disingenuous. What can I say? I just think the "Brooks brother raider" is not a bad guy and might actually turn out to be a good judge.
ttc wrote on May 25, 2007 5:54 PM:None of this is new. And, apart from the caging, none of it is terrible terrible stuff. It seems to me that Goodling had a very able lawyer who found a few "soft" crimes in which her involvement was tangential which she could safely admit to as an immunity ticket. I think in her testimony she was truthful but guarded. "I never spoke to" is different from "I never dealt with."
She was a horrible personnel manager, if that is what her actual duties consisted of, asking inappropriate questions and making snap judgments about people. She saw more and heard more than she 'fessed up to in the public show, all of which I assume will be explored in private. But her version of what she saw and heard is going to be so distorted by her fanaticism and her obvious narcissim (ever meet a student body president who wasn't a narcissist?) that I wonder how useful it would be. She, Griffin and Sampson are quite a trio.
Anonymous wrote on May 25, 2007 5:55 PM:Lawrence - you are delusional. She was immunized before making the statement. Her lawyers are not stupid.
cal wrote on May 25, 2007 6:03 PM:"Former OPM Director Kay Cole James must have her fingerprints ALL OVER THIS.
Before coming to the OPM, James was the Dean of Government at Regent University. And prior to that, a Vice President with Focus on the Family."
Wow - what a find. "Dean of Government at Regent University" goes straight into the OPM.
Now that's a story I'd like to hear more about.
And where is she now?
Steve5117 wrote on May 25, 2007 6:26 PM:XFR,
Yes he might be a good judge, but he still was put in that position for the wrong reasons. He wasn't qualified when he first began though, was he? What about the qualified people who didn't get the job?
Perhaps the thing you need to look at is, given his past performance, what would happen 10 years from now when some party insider reminds him of how he got where he is when they need him to decide a case a certain way?
This is a crooked administration, born from a crooked party.
Maybe we could outlaw Republicans.
C92 wrote on May 25, 2007 6:30 PM:@ cal
After a brief stint as a Senior Vice President for National Security Transformation at MZM, the corrupt organization run by Mitchell Wade that was bribing Congressman Duke Cunningham with boats, cars, hookers and the like, then she went to the Heritage Foundation.
And guess what else? She's involved in a Commission on Federal Election Reform...
http://www.american.edu/ia/cfer/bios/james.htm
psyberdawg wrote on May 25, 2007 6:59 PM:cal & C92 -- great stuff on KCJ!
----------------------------------------------
Can we find out how often these guys are being reversed by the Board of Immigration Appeals?
Posted by: lysias
Date: May 25, 2007 05:18 PM
According to this article:
[Patronage 'crime' does pay -- for Justice Dept.
Chicago Sun-Times, Mar 25, 2007 by Carol Marin]
"So poorly regarded are immigration judges that it was noted in a recent ruling that federal appeals courts have thrown out about 40 percent of their decisions as of September 2005."
JNagarya wrote on May 25, 2007 10:13 PM:(Click name below for full article.)
"Why is Goodling's lawyer immediately issuing statements about her veracity?
"Posted by: MW
Date: May 25, 2007 01:08 PM"
Why not? His foremost responsibility is to save her ass from herself.
It's also a smart move to respond at every instance, as affirmative defense. Silence is viewed as assent. Shoulda learned that from the Gore and Kerry campaigns.
As well, in order to protect her, it may be necessary to do some thread-pulling parallel to the Congress doing so, thus tend to assist the investigation, at least in ways which might help his client down the road.
JNagarya wrote on May 25, 2007 10:23 PM:"another point of view on her (lack of) immunity is in the LAT,
currently under discussion at FDL.
"http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-usatty25_may25,1,940844.story?track=rss&ctrack=2&cset=true
"Your opinion?"
That's not new; but it is a relatively rare full explanation of the meaning of Goodling's limited -- "use" -- immunity.
"Posted by: BluestateRedhead
Date: May 25, 2007 01:18 PM"
SC = Summer. As in, Summer.
JNagarya wrote on May 25, 2007 10:28 PM:"Does the immunity cover items mentioned in her opening statement, which were not followed up with questions? One is the caging issue, which the Committee was obviously not prepared to follow up on.
"Posted by:
Date: May 25, 2007 01:51 PM"
There's no evidence the Committee was not prepared to deal with it. And, to the contrary, Conyers expressly addressed that issue, after the Goodling testimony, on DailyKos, saying he is aware of and (obviously) concerned with it.
Ever heard of "timing"?
From whence comes the assumption that Congress is stupid?
The Commissar wrote on May 26, 2007 12:24 AM:'kakistocracy' stems from the Greek 'kakos,' meaning simply 'bad, low, base.'
'kopros' is the word for turds or excrement.
mo2 wrote on May 26, 2007 1:58 AM:Quick google tells me that Levin interpretted rules on torture for the Bush Administration. Above says "Acting Assistant Attorney General Daniel Levin." Does this mean that Levin himself has never been confirm by the Senate?
Anonymous wrote on May 26, 2007 7:36 PM:I realize this may be a bit out there. Has anyone else noticed the similarities between Monica Goodling and the character of "Elle Woods" portrayed by Reese Witherspoon in "Legally Blonde?" Is it an act? Does she really think she's that cute? Bat your eyelashes and sweep your hair toward your face and all the meany Democrat old men will refill their Viagra prescriptions and poof no more crimes, incompetence, lies, or obstruction.
The Skeptical Cynic wrote on May 26, 2007 8:39 PM:Re: This is good. The bigger the scandal the bigger the Democratic victory next year. Unless Republicans turn on the President, and eat Bush to save their jobs, then will be a Democratic Congress and Presidency.
I would not be so sure about this! The Dems in Congress, who callously cynically betrayed of those Democrats who canvassed , leafleted, rallied, did the phone banks in order to put ito office those courageous enough to end this horrible war, have really pissed off their base. They could very well sit out the next election saying,
The Skeptical Cynic wrote on May 26, 2007 11:31 PM:"What's the use? Just pass me the f***ing kool-ade."
Re: This is good. The bigger the scandal the bigger the Democratic victory next year. Unless Republicans turn on the President, and eat Bush to save their jobs, then will be a Democratic Congress and Presidency.
I would not be so sure about this! The Dems in Congress, who callously cynically betrayed of those Democrats who canvassed , leafleted, rallied, did the phone banks in order to put into office those courageous enough to end this horrible war, have really pissed off their base. They could very well sit out the next election saying,
Lawman wrote on May 27, 2007 12:27 AM:"What's the use? Just pass me the f***ing kool-ade."
When is Schlozman's hearing? What if he's not back from vacation yet? He needs to be well-rested so he can try to explain all those "investigative trips" he took, using the funds intended to combat human traffkicking.... I bet many popups trips appear....
Melinda wrote on May 27, 2007 10:03 AM:What is caging? Why id dn't the dems do their reserch on this? This could be an actual violation of the 1964 voting rights act. Can Monica be called back to testify again and answer more specific questions about the attempt to prevent black soldiers from voting? Did Griffin specifically target these soldiers? Please investigate this further.I cannot believe they would be that stupid.
The Sheriff Wannabbee wrote on May 28, 2007 1:07 AM:Schlozman hearing is supposed to be June 5th - is that right? You can expect he will deny politicizing the hiring at the Civil Rights Devision but if the [Perry Mason] reps get it right, they will ask the number of people and names [under seal]for how many people Schlozman was involved in the solicitation/recruitment and process. And of those, how many people did he know before he gave them career as well as career management positions. Some people used to think Cronyism was as much as catchword as was "is he one of us" for Schlozman during the time he was at the Civil Rights Division.
G4AM wrote on May 28, 2007 12:35 PM:I am curious whether anyone is looking into the level of cooperation with this violation of law by the immigration judges and others HIRED in this process. If they deliberately cooperated, it would seem they violated the law, too. Shouldn't they be fined, prosecuted (if possible), and - most importantly - FIRED.
Bill wrote on May 31, 2007 11:46 AM:MSN I NIIPET
cixqlfbe phomiu wrote on July 6, 2007 7:05 AM:MSN
xmurjeog dfgtswrm kspimu egolib cfnjus gkox osnruf
vitrectomy recovery wrote on December 20, 2007 5:07 PM:vyklscdg5jpe vitrectomy recovery vitrectomy recovery