TPMMuckraker DOJ Office Of The Inspector General: July 2008
Scott Bloch
Office Of Special Counsel Has The Same Political Problems As DOJ, Former Workers Say
The Department of Justice has been taking a lot of heat lately for the inspector general's report detailing pervasive, illegal partisanship among upper-level officials.
But former employees from the Office of Special Counsel say they've been complaining about the exact same problems for more than three years, and the White House is blocking a public report about misconduct in that office.
We often remind you that Special Counsel Scott Bloch is under investigation by the FBI. He's accused of deleting emails -- and possibly obstructing justice -- in an investigation stemming from his employees complaining about the same kind of partisan activity outlined in Monday's report from the DOJ Inspector General.
Now that group of employees who filed that complaint back in 2005 wants the White House to publish a report about their former employer.
A lawyer for the former employees, Avi Kumin, wrote a letter today to the White House Counsel, urging for a formal, public report.
Kumin rattled off several examples of parallels between DOJ and Bloch's office.
My clients' complaint reported that OSC officials hired several career employees primarily because they attended the Christian, conservative (and at the time only provisionally accredited) Ave Maria Law School. ...My clients reported years ago that Mr. Bloch fired them because of their perceived sexual orientation or perceived support for enforcing sexual orientation protections for federal employees. ...
My clients' compliant about OSC raised significant evidence that Mr. Bloch and his staff evaluated whistleblower and Hatch Act investigations based on partisan politics.
In theory, federal employees who feel they've faced discrimination for partisan or ideological reasons can file a complaint with the Office of Special Counsel. But it's hard to think that would get investigated impartially by an office itself accused of discriminating against people for political agendas. PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (2)
Topics: DOJ Office Of The Inspector General, Office Of Special Counsel, Scott Bloch
Harriet Miers
House and Senate Dems Claim Victory, Say Miers, Rove Should Testify
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) hailed today's court ruling and said he expects former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and political director Karl Rove to testify on Capitol Hill in September.
"Today's landmark ruling is a ringing reaffirmation of the fundamental principle of checks and balances and the basic American idea that no person is above the law.Judge Bates' decision makes clear that the Congress had the right to subpoena Harriet Miers to learn of her role in the US Attorney firings, that her claim to be immune from subpoena was invalid and that the Committee was entitled to challenge that claim in Court. The Judge also ruled that the White House may not claim Executive Privilege over documents without describing them in reasonable detail so that these claims of privilege can be evaluated by Congress.
We look forward to the White House complying with this ruling and to scheduling future hearings with Ms. Miers and other witnesses who have relied on such claims. We hope that the defendants will accept this decision and expect that we will receive relevant documents and call Ms. Miers, as well as ex-White House official Karl Rove, to testify in September"
Later, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) echoed Conyers' statements:
The claims are part of an arrogant White House cover up, designed to shield from public view the inappropriate and illegal actions of this administration. It is past time for senior administration officials to abide by the law and appear before Congress to offer testimony compelled by subpoena.PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (7)
Topics: DOJ Office Of The Inspector General, Harriet Miers, John Conyers, Karl Rove, Senate Judiciary Committee
DOJ Office Of The Inspector General
Mukasey Tells DOJ Workers That Political Scandal Has "Harmed" Department
Attorney General Michael Mukasey sent a letter to all Department of Justice employees yesterday trying to boost morale and addressing the Inspector General's report from Monday that concluded numerous high-ranking officials violated civil service laws.
In the letter first reported by the Wall Street Journal, Mukasey wrote:
I was disturbed and disappointed by those reports: disturbed by the finding that some Department employees had violated federal law, rules and regulations; and disappointed that these actions have harmed the reputation of this great institution.
He outlined several changes the Department has made in recent months, including a new process for hiring immigration judges and "mandatory training for all political appointees regarding prohibited personnel practices."
Mukasey also referenced the two additional pending reports from the IG, one about the firing of U.S. Attorneys and the other about politicization in the Civil Rights Division.
I do not know when those reports will be issued or what they will find. I am hopeful that they will recognize the many changes and actions taken by current Department employees to address the relevant issues. But I will review carefully those reports and any recommendations in them, as I have past reports, and I will not hesitate to respond as appropriate.
Read more for the full text of Mukasey's letter
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (3)
Topics: DOJ Office Of The Inspector General, Michael Mukasey, U.S. Attorneys
DOJ Office Of The Inspector General
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. PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (6)
Topics: Bradley Schlozman, Civil Rights Division, DOJ Office Of The Inspector General, Glenn Fine, Kyle Sampson, Michael Elston, Monica Goodling, U.S. Attorneys
Alberto Gonzales
Gonzales Was Oblivious To Politicization At DOJ: IG
Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales knew essentially nothing about the partisan culture and violations of federal law that were routine at the agency under his watch.
That's what we heard today from Glenn Fine, the Department of Justice Inspector General.
Fine told lawmakers on Capitol Hill today that his investigators interviewed Gonzales for their report, which found numerous senior officials were illegally using partisan considerations when hiring some prosecutors and judges.
The IG was emphatic. Take a look:
Topics: Alberto Gonzales, DOJ Office Of The Inspector General, Glenn Fine
Alberto Gonzales
White House Finally Responds to OIG Report
According to Press Secretary Dana Perino, the president and White House have "overall disappointment" in former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' politicized Justice Department.
Transcript from White House Press Briefing with Perino today:
QUESTION: Dana, what's your reaction to the Justice Department report where they -- the report essentially says, yes, that there was inappropriate influence on politics and ideology that was part of our hiring and firing practices?PERINO: Well as I have read the coverage of it -- I haven't read the report, but as I read the coverage of it, there's obviously information in there that would cause concern to anybody. And we agree with Michael Mukasey that -- the Attorney General -- that there was concern. There should be concern any time anyone is improperly using politics to influence career decisions. We believe that is improper. We could absolutely not defend that. And we are pleased that the Attorney General has taken steps to change it there at the Justice Department.
QUESTION: Can I infer from that that President Bush is disappointed in Alberto Gonzales?
PERINO: I think that if you look at the report, and it is in line with what the Attorney General said at the time, which was that he was not aware of that going on. And so I don't think there's anything -- disappointment doesn't necessarily go to the Attorney General.
QUESTION: You don't think it would change -- it doesn't change the President's . . .
PERINO: No, I don't. The whole situation -- the whole situation in terms of the politicization -- or accusations of politicization -- if you look at career hires that should not have had any sort of questions put towards them as to what sort of party they represent, or what affiliation they might belong to, or who they might vote for -- those are inappropriate for career positions. And the President is glad that the -- Attorney General Mukasey made sure that that is no longer ongoing at the Justice Department. And it's nothing that we could defend, and we never have.
QUESTION: But you won't go so far as to say that, looking at Alberto Gonzales's Justice Department, President Bush is disappointed this was going on?
PERINO: Well, I think that we are -- overall disappointment in the situation, sure.
To see Perino express the White House's disappointment in living color, click below:
Topics: Alberto Gonzales, DOJ Office Of The Inspector General, DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility, Glenn Fine, Justice Department, Michael Mukasey
U.S. Attorneys
Former U.S. Attorney Believes She Was Fired Over Lesbian Rumors
We wrote late Monday about the possibility of Margaret Chiara, one of the the nine fired U.S. attorneys, being dismissed over the rumors that she was in a lesbian relationship with assistant U.S. Attorney Leslie Hagen. The OIG report released on Monday morning disclosed that Hagen was refused a promotion at Main Justice after Monica Goodling got wind of stories about her alleged sexual orientation and her rumored relationship with Chiara.
In a statement yesterday to the Los Angeles Times, Chiara stated she agreed that the stories were the source of her firing:
"I could not begin to understand how I found myself sharing the misfortune of my former colleagues," Chiara said of the eight other U.S. attorneys who were fired. "Now I understand."Justice officials said after her firing that Chiara was let go because of mismanagement and because she had caused morale in her office to sink. Chiara said Monday she believed those concerns were raised by the same people who spread rumors about her and Hagen.
"I guess now I am persuaded with deep regret that this is what was the basis," she added. "There is nothing else."
The next phase of Inspector General's report is due out any day now. Maybe it will shed more light on the issue of why Chiara, and the other dismissed U.S. attorneys, lost their presidential appointments.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (2)Topics: DOJ Office Of The Inspector General, DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility, Justice Department, Monica Goodling, U.S. Attorneys
DOJ Office Of The Inspector General
Fine Says IG's Office Only Talked To One White House Official In DOJ Probe
Throughout the investigation of improper political influence on the Department of Justice's hiring process, the DOJ's inspector general interviewed 85 people -- but only one from the White House.
The IG, Glenn Fine, testifying this morning before the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that Karl Rove aide Scott Jennings was the only White House official he sought to interview for his report released Monday.
"Why were no others at the White House questioned?" Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) asked Fine.
"From the evidence that we had, both emails and discussions, we did not see that others were involved in this process, and we questioned the person who was involved," Fine said, referring to Jennings.
The process Fine was referring to was the partisan screening of prospective prosecutors and judges.
Yet Fine did note at least one exception, an example his report cited of a prospective immigration judge who was appointed after Rove expressed support for the candidate.
Fine was said he did not believe any of the misconduct described in his 140-page report called for criminal prosecution for false statements.
"We looked at that and clearly in our judgment and in the judgement of prosecutors who have been working on this case, we do not think there was a sufficient basis for a criminal prosecution for false statements."
Late Update:
Here's the exchange between Specter and Fine.
Topics: Arlen Specter, DOJ Office Of The Inspector General, Glenn Fine, Senate Judiciary Committee
DOJ Office Of The Inspector General
DOJ's Inspector General To Tesify On Capitol Hill Today
The Senate Judiciary Committee will get a chance to grill Department of Justice Inspector General Glenn Fine today about the report he released Monday.
Fine's 140-page report detailed incidents of DOJ officials violating federal law by using political considerations in the hiring of some federal prosecutors and judges.
Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has harshly criticized the DOJ for the misconduct outlined in the report.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)
Topics: Alberto Gonzales, DOJ Office Of The Inspector General, Glenn Fine, Senate Judiciary Committee
DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility
Man Denied DOJ Job Because of Wife's Democrat Ties Is Identified
Among our coverage yesterday of the OIG report, was the specific case of an "experienced terrorism prosecutor" who was denied a DOJ promotion because Monica Goodling discovered that his wife was a longtime Democrat.
That man has now been identified by The Buffalo News as William J. Hochul Jr., a career federal prosecutor from Western New York, whose wife, Kathleen Hochul, was a longtime Democrat:
The report does not name that attorney, but sources told The Buffalo News that it was William J. Hochul Jr., a winner of the Attorney General's Award for Exceptional Service -- and the husband of Kathleen C. Hochul, a longtime Democratic activist and former Hamburg Town Board member who was elected Erie County clerk in 2007.The Justice Department's liaison to the Bush White House, Monica M. Goodling, blocked Hochul's appointment to the counterterrorism post, sources said.
"As a result, a much less experienced, but politically acceptable, attorney was assigned this important responsibility," says the report, issued by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility and Inspector General.
The Buffalo News also identifies another Western New York federal prosecutor mentioned in the report, who was also nixed by Goodling for a promotion to Main Justice:
Similarly, although Michael A. Battle -- former U. S. attorney in Western New York -- headed the Executive Office of U. S. Attorneys from 2005 to 2007, Goodling blocked his choice for his own top assistant.PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (6)Goodling viewed Battle's pick as a "political infant" who had not proved himself to the Republican Party, Battle told investigators. Sources identified the failed nominee as John Kelly of the U. S. attorney's office in Rochester.
Topics: DOJ Office Of The Inspector General, DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility, Justice Department, Monica Goodling
Monica Goodling
In Gonzales' DOJ, Lesbian Rumors Could Cost You Your Job
It wasn't just Democrats who Monica Goodling was trying to rid the Justice Department of. If you were gay -- or even rumored to be gay -- your career was in jeopardy.
Today's IG report offers new details in the case of Assistant U.S. Attorney Leslie Hagen, whose tenure at Main Justice came to an end because Monica Goodling picked up on rumors that Hagen was gay and had an allegedly romantic relationship with her supervisor, the then-U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Michigan, Margaret Chiara.
Hagen, whose case was first reported by NPR in April, is not identified by name in the IG's report. However, her attorney confirmed to TPMmuckraker this afternoon that Hagen is the unnamed, allegedly lesbian, AUSA detailed in the report.
"I think the report vindicates what she has been saying all along," said Lisa Banks of Katz, Marshall and Banks LLP. "That she was the victim of pernicious discrimination from Monica Goodling."
Hagen had worked as a federal prosecutor for Chiara in Michigan before being detailed to DOJ headquarters in Washington, where she she worked in the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA). When it was time to renew Hagen's detail to the EOUSA, Goodling blocked it, and prevented her from obtaining other details within DOJ as well.
Calling Goodling's actions "wholly inappropriate," the report concluded that Goodling broke federal law in discriminating based on sexual orientation.
The ostensible reason for the actions taken against Hagen were rumors that she had improperly benefited financially from the purported relationship with Chiara, in the form of large bonuses and trips with Chiara at government expense. The report concludes, however, that Goodling never substantiated the allegations of financial improprieties and that Hagen's rumored sexual orientation was the reason she was not allowed to remain at Main Justice. One of the witnesses cited in the report is Mary Beth Buchanan, the former executive director of the EOUSA who remains the U.S. Attorney in Pittsburgh:
Buchanan said that Goodling told her that the AUSA and the U.S. Attorney were involved in a relationship, and that it would not be appropriate for the Department to do anything to further that relationship, such as employing them in the same geographic area. According to Buchanan, at that time the U.S. Attorney was trying to find a position in the Washington, D.C. area. Buchanan said she understood that Goodling was telling her not to select the AUSA because it would look like the Department was sanctioning the homosexual relationship.
As to the veracity of the rumors that surrounded Hagen and Chiara, Hagen's attorney described them as "completely false" in the interview with TPMmuckraker. "There was nothing to verify that my client was gay -- she never identified as such," Banks said. "The supposed relationship between her and the U.S. attorney was completely false, and nothing more than co-workers and friends. There was no improper relationship. No improper government trips. No improper bonuses."
Calls to Chiara's office were not immediately returned.
It's not clear what, if any, light the Hagen episode shines on the firing of Chiara as U.S. attorney. The professed reasons for the firings of the eight U.S. attorneys have never been very clear, but the circumstances surrounding Chiara's removal have been especially murky. Appointed U.S. attorney in 2001, she was asked to resign by Michael Elston, the chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, in November 2006. That was more than a month before the seven other U.S. attorneys were fired, in calls from Michael Battle, who had succeeded Buchanan as the executive director of the EOUSA. Chiara's resignation was effective March 16, 2007.
The official, albeit vague, reasons for Chiara's firing were "poor management issues" and a "loss of confidence by career individuals," according to then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in testimony to the Senate. But there was scant documentation within DOJ of Chiara's alleged problems.
In the absence of a more substantial explanation from the justice Department for Chiara's firing, it's not unreasonable to wonder if the rumors of her lesbian relationship with Hagen led to Chiara's downfall, too.
As a Republican source told NPR, "To some people, that's even worse than being a Democrat."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (14)Topics: DOJ Office Of The Inspector General, DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility, Justice Department, Michael Elston, Monica Goodling, U.S. Attorneys
DOJ Office Of The Inspector General
DOJ Misconduct Included Preparing False Statements For A Reporter
When a reporter last year asked about political litmus tests for Department of Justice officials, a guy in the press office said that's "crap."
But he was lying.
That amounts to "misconduct," according to the DOJ Inspector General's report today.
The press flack was John Nowacki, who is now the deputy director for the Executive Office for United States Attorneys' Staffs. He's one of the only DOJ officials named in today's report who is still working for the department.
Nowacki was a staunch defender for Monica Goodling. She helped hire him at DOJ and both are graduates of Regent University, the evangelical school in Virginia founded by televangelist Pat Robertson.
Nowicki is reportedly on assignment in Iraq and was unable to be reached for comment.
In March of last year, Nowacki received an email inquiry from Legal Times reporter Ted Goldman, who wrote:
Several longtime ausa's are telling me that the detaillee [sic] program at the [Executive Office of the U.S. Attorneys] has become far more politicized than ever before. ... if you'd like to give me a response, i'd very much appreciate it:
Nowacki knew at the time that Goodling was considering party affiliation and other political criteria when selecting people for DOJ positions. That's what he told the IG during its investigation.
Nevertheless, he set gears in motion to spin the reporter with a false denial.
Shortly after receiving this e-mail, Nowacki forwarded it to Acting EOUSA Director Steven Parent. In his e-mail, Nowacki commented, "Steve - Let's talk about this tomorrow. It's crap."
Nowacki began to circulate a draft statement in response to the reporter's inquiry that would go out under Parent's name.
In my tenure with EOUSA, I am not aware of any attempt to screen candidates on the basis of party affiliation by anyone, including Monica Goodling; that issue simply has never come up in any interviews in which I have participated. To suggest that those career employees who have been selected to serve details to EOUSA is based on anything but professional experience unfairly detracts from those career employees and is simply wrong.
The DOJ ultimately never sent the response, partly because "Parent said he did not want the statement to be attributed to him since he was not sure of the facts," according to the report.
The IG suggested DOJ should take disciplinary action against Nowacki.
We concluded that EOUSA Deputy Director John Nowacki committed misconduct by drafting a proposed Department response to a media inquiry which he knew was inaccurate. ... Nowacki is still employed by the Department. Therefore, we recommend that the Department consider appropriate discipline for him based upon the evidence in this report.
A spokesman for the DOJ did not respond to a request for comment.
Here at TPMmuckraker, we recall a lot of dubious statements coming out of the DOJ's Office of Public Affairs. If providing false statements to reporters amounts to misconduct, then the DOJ may have more people to deal with than just Kowacki.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (6)Topics: DOJ Office Of The Inspector General, Justice Department, Monica Goodling, U.S. Attorneys
Monica Goodling
Williams' Gentlemen Prefer Blondes
For an example of the stellar candidates that Monica Goodling's predecessor, Jan Williams was tapping for Immigration Judge positions, one needs to look no further than the bottom of page 94 of today's OIG report.
According to the report, the White House reached out to a Republican Congressman for a recommendation on an open IJ position in New York. The Congressman's office responded with a "great Republican" and added that "the candidate was a 'long time donor to the local GOP.' His name was forwarded to the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) by Jan Williams.
But apparently EOIR wasn't so happy with the Office of the Attorney General's pick.
In an e-mail dated December 7, 2005, [EOIR Deputy Director Kevin] Ohlson advised Williams that the candidate's conduct during his EOIR interview "causes us to question whether he possesses the appropriate judicial temperament and demeanor to serve as an immigration judge." Ohlson related that the candidate used profanity during the interview, acted abrasively, and when asked what his greatest weakness was, responded "Blondes." [emphasis ours]PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (3)
Topics: DOJ Office Of The Inspector General, DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility, Glenn Fine, Justice Department, Monica Goodling
DOJ Office Of The Inspector General
For Sampson, Hiring At DOJ Was All Republicans All The Times
The highest-ranking official flagged for breaking federal law in today's Department of Justice Inspector General's report was Kyle Sampson, a former chief of staff for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Sampson routinely violated DOJ policy and federal law by using overt political and ideological considerations when filling key DOJ jobs such as immigration judges, according to the report today from the DOJ's Inspector General. Federal law and Justice Department policy require career officials to be hired on merit and prohibit discrimination based on political affiliations.
Federal immigration judgeships were especially targeted for politicization. In October 2003, shortly after Sampson started working at DOJ, then as Counselor to Attorney General John Ashcroft, he began to overhaul the selection process for immigration judges. "[We] were only considering essentially Republican lawyers for appointment," Sampson said, according to the IG's report. (It was not clear from the report whether Sampson said that to IG investigators or in another setting)
Prior to 2004, immigration judges were appointed in an essentially non-political bureaucratic process handled by the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge. Vacancies were posted, resumes sorted, interviews conducted and decisions made by lower-level DOJ officials, according to the report.
Sampson's new process involved "coordination" with White House and an extra effort to get friends of the Bush administration into the judgeships when possible. Sampson circulated a document outlining the new process.
"Many lawyers seeking positions within the Administration, including judgeships, become known to the White House offices of Political Affairs, Presidential Personnel, and Counsel to the President." The document stated that some lawyers might qualify to be IJs, and that "coordination" was needed to ensure that such lawyers were "informed of the opportunity" to become IJs.
Also, Sampson often called over to the White House personnel office seeking "ideas for immigration judge postings." Sampson told a staffer to "contact the White House to get any candidate ideas that they had for immigration judges".
In one case, Sampson pushed a prospective judicial candidate who was supported by White House political director Karl Rove.
Regarding that candidate, whose name was not disclosed, Kevin Ohlson, then deputy director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, told the IG's investigators that he was "fully aware of the fact" that Sampson was pushing Rove's pick and that was affecting the formal evaluation.
"The finger was on the scale," Ohlson said.
That candidate was ultimately appointed to be an immigration judge in October 2005, the report said.
When questioned, Sampson said he thought the Immigration judges were political appointees, not career positions, and therefore not subject to civil service rules. He said Ohlson and the Office of Legal Counsel told him that. But Ohlson said he never said anything to that effect and investigators from the IG's office found no evidence that OLC provided any guidance to Sampson on the matter.
Sampson's lawyer, Brad Berenson, said today the hiring decisions were an honest mistake and that Sampson "immediately agreed with the recommendation to put a stop to this process" when he first learned he may have been wrong.
Here's a clip of Sampson's testimony on Capitol Hill in March 2007.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (4)Topics: Alberto Gonzales, DOJ Office Of The Inspector General, Glenn Fine, John Ashcroft, Justice Department, Karl Rove, Kyle Sampson
Alberto Gonzales
Report Confirms Gonzales' Hands Clean, Says Rep
From the WSJ.com's Law Blog:
White & Cases's George Terwilliger, who's repping Gonzo, said in a statement: "The report makes two important points regarding former Attorney General Gonzales. First, the investigation found that former Attorney General Gonzales was not involved in or aware of the politicized hiring practices of staffers. Second, when he became aware of the problems he moved to correct them. It's simply not possible for any cabinet officer to be completely aware of and micromanage the activities of staffers, particularly where they don't inform him of what's going on."PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (5). . . For his part, Gonzo said in a statement: "Political considerations should play no part in the hiring of career officials at the Department of Justice. I am gratified that the efforts I initiated to address this issue have now been affirmed and augmented by this report. I agree with the report's recommendations."
Topics: Alberto Gonzales, DOJ Office Of The Inspector General, DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility, Justice Department, Monica Goodling
DOJ Office Of The Inspector General
Conyers Considers "Criminal Referral" For Gonzales, Other DOJ Officials
Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are talking about a criminal investigation for DOJ officials -- Alberto Gonzales included.
Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said today's report about politicization in at the DOJ suggests that former AG Alberto Gonzales and other Justice officials may have given false statements under oath before Congress.
Conyers said in a statement this morning:
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."
A spokesman for the committee said the committee's lawyers are currently looking over the report and past testimony on the Hill.
That's probably not as dramatic as it sounds. Any criminal referral would be passed on to DOJ, which has so far refused to appoint a special prosecutor for the matter. Attorney General Michael Mukasey has said he's not going to pursue contempt referrals from Congress.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (2)Topics: Alberto Gonzales, DOJ Office Of The Inspector General, DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility, House Judiciary, John Ashcroft, Kyle Sampson, Michael Mukasey, Monica Goodling
DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility
Goodling Rejected Job Applicant Because He Was Married to a Democrat
The OIG report released today on the politicized hiring at the Justice Department, details a number of the candidates that were de-selected for positions under Monica Goodling's watch. One of them, was an "experienced terrorism prosecutor. . [who] had successfully prosecuted a high-profile terrorism case for which he received the Attorney General's Award for Exceptional Service."
Unfortunately for him, he had a wife who was a Democrat:
Battle stated that Voris told him that the candidate was head and shoulders above the other candidates who had applied for the counterterrorism detail. Battle agreed with that assessment, stating that the candidate was the best applicant for the detail. John Kelly, the EOUSA Deputy Director and Chief of Staff, stated that he and Battle wanted to hire the candidate because he was one of the leading terrorism prosecutors in the country and a very talented attorney.PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (7)The candidate's wife was a prominent local Democrat elected official and vice-chairman of a local Democratic Party. She also ran several Democratic congressional campaigns. The candidate was at times a registered Independent and at other times a registered Democrat. Notwithstanding the candidate's outstanding qualifications and EOUSA senior management's desire to hire him, Goodling refused to approve the detail.
. . . Battle, Kelly, and EOUSA Deputy Director Nowacki all told us that Goodling refused to allow the candidate to be detailed to EOUSA solely on the basis of his wife's political party affiliation. [emphasis ours]
Topics: DOJ Office Of The Inspector General, DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility, Justice Department, Monica Goodling
DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility
Goodling to Interviewee: What Is It About GWB That Makes You Want to Serve Him?
According to the OIG report released today, Angela Williamson, a deputy to Monica Goodling at the DOJ, was intimately involved in her bosses scurrilous hiring practices, attending interviews and often conducting interviews herself. Here's a sampling of the same questions that Goodling asked those being considered for political positions:
After Goodling resigned, Williamson typed from memory the list of questions Goodling asked as a guide for future interviews. Among other questions, the list included the following:PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (14)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?
Aside from the President, give us an example of someone currently or recently in public service who you admire.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?" [emphasis ours]
Topics: DOJ Office Of The Inspector General, DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility, George Bush, Justice Department, Monica Goodling
DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility
Leahy Says DOJ Scandal Harmed National Security
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the politicization in the Bush Administration's Department of Justice posed a threat to national security.
Responding to today's report from the DOJ Inspector General, Leahy said in a statement:
"The report reveals decisions to reject qualified, experienced applicants to work on counterterrorism issues in favor of a less experienced attorney on the basis of political ideology. Rather than strengthening our national security, the Department of Justice appears to have bent to the political will of the administration. Further, the report reveals that the 'principal source' for politically vetted candidates considered for important positions as immigration judges was the White House- a clear indication of the untoward political influence of the Bush administration on traditionally non-political appointments."
Leahy went on to criticize former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for not acknowledging the systemic problems in the DOJ.
"Like some in the administration who would place blame for the actions at Abu Ghraib solely onto the shoulders of a few bad apples, the Attorney General has tried to dismiss the Inspector General's first report on politicization issued last month as documenting the actions of just a few bad apples. But it was obvious from that first report, and becomes more so with this second joint IG/OPR report, that the problems of politicization at the Department are rooted deeper than that.In this report, we once again see that the Bush administration has allowed politics to affect and infect the nation's chief law enforcement agency's priorities.
Leahy said he looks forward to the Inspector General Glenn Fine's testimony before his committee on Wednesday.
Read Leahy's entire statement here.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (4)Topics: Alberto Gonzales, DOJ Office Of The Inspector General, DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility, Glenn Fine, Justice Department, Senate Judiciary Committee
DOJ Office Of The Inspector General
Inspector General Releases Report on Monica Goodling Hirings
The Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility released another part of their investigation into the politicization of the DOJ. The full report, "An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring by Monica Goodling and Other Staff in the Office of the Attorney General," can be found here (pdf).
We'll be reading through and posting on this all day. But at first glance here's a quite relevant section:
In sum, we concluded that the evidence showed that Goodling violated both federal law and Department policy, and therefore committed misconduct, when she considered political or ideological affiliations in hiring decisions for candidates for career positions within the Department. In particular, the evidence showed that she considered political or ideological affiliations in deciding several waiver requests from interim U.S. Attorneys, in promoting several candidates for career positions, and in disapproving a candidate for an EOUSA career SES position.
Late update: Here are the names of other implicated in the report:
former Chief of Staff to former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Kyle Sampson; Goodling's predecessor, former White House Liason Jan Williams, and EOUSA (Executive Office for United States Attorneys) Director John Nowacki-- who is still at the department. The report states that Nowacki knew of the politicization of the DOJ but drafted a press statement saying otherwise. Of Sampson, Williams and Goodling the report states:
In sum, the evidence showed that Sampson, Williams, and Goodling violated federal law and Department policy, and Sampson and Goodling committed misconduct, by considering political and ideological affiliations in soliciting and selecting IJs [immigration judges], which are career positions protected by the civil service laws.
Late late update: Attorney General Michael Mukasey released a statement saying he is "of course disturbed" by the findings of the OIG report:
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. 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.Over the course of the last year and a half, the Justice Department has made many institutional changes to remedy the problems discussed in today's report, and the report itself commends these changes. The report includes one new recommendation for institutional change, and I have directed the prompt implementation of that recommendation. It is crucial that the American people have confidence in the propriety of what we do and how we do it, and I will continue my efforts to make certain they can have such confidence.
Late late late update: The report also investigates whether officials (namely Williams, Goodling and Nowacki) gave "inaccurate or misleading" information to investigators, attorneys in civil-suits, and higher-ups at the DOJ.
Late late late late update: We think it's important to note that the former Attorney Generals Alberto Gonzales and John Ashcroft, who presided over the DOJ through all of this, were not implicated in the report.
The report also details some of the questions Goodling used for her interviews, here's a pithy little excerpt:
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?
Aside from the President, give us an example of someone currently or recently in public service who you admire.
And our personal favorite:
Why are you a Republican?
Of the Goodling and Angela Williamson (the Deputy White House Liason) interviewees, 34 persons said they discussed abortion, and 21 said they discussed gay marriage.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (31)Topics: Alberto Gonzales, DOJ Office Of The Inspector General, DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility, Glenn Fine, Justice Department, Kyle Sampson, Monica Goodling
David Iglesias
Iglesias Riffs on Predictions for Upcoming OIG Report
Former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias has been giving lots of talks as he promotes his new book, In Justice, but this interview with Harper's has been one of the best so far.
Iglesias treads a lot of old ground, but he also gives an interesting look ahead. As we wait for the OIG's report on the U.S. attorney firing scandal to drop, this is a good reminder of what we have to look forward to (Iglesias' response is in italics):
The Justice Department's Inspector General (OIG) and the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) have been investigating the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, including yourself, and their report is now due. The OPR has been heavily criticized lately for its failure to follow through on major investigations, and it has been manipulated--sometimes overtly--by political appointees. OIG has maintained its independence and integrity, however. Have you been interviewed in connection with this probe? Did it strike you as thorough and professional? Do you expect a report to be issued shortly, and if so, what are the major conclusions you would anticipate?PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (16)Yes, I was interviewed by attorneys from both OIG and OPR. They initially interviewed me in Albuquerque in June, 2007. They called me a couple more times with follow-up questions. I viewed them as professional and thorough. I expect the report to be filed any day now. I expect them to conclude that there is sufficient evidence to show that former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and former Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty committed perjury in their statements before Congressional committees and investigators. They may find that former McNulty chief of staff Mike Elston intimidated witnesses based on his calls to former U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins of Arkansas. I was aware that Elston had told Cummins that "the gloves would come off" if we kept speaking out about our forced resignations. I found out after In Justice went to print that Elston also told Cummins we would be "thrown under the bus" for our speaking out. It is appalling that a former career federal prosecutor like Elston would so flagrantly violate the law against witness intimidation. There may be enough evidence to warrant a formal investigation of conspiracy and obstruction of justice charges against Gonzales, McNulty and Elston.
Topics: DOJ Office Of The Inspector General, DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility, David Iglesias, U.S. Attorneys
Justice Department
CREW Files Bar Complaints Against Former DOJ Officials
After the news that a class action suit had been filed against former Justice Department officials Esther Slater McDonald and Michael Elston, we've been waiting for the other shoe shoe to drop: bar complaints.
Sure enough, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed complaints in the wake of the Inspector Generals report that found both McDonald and Elston in violation of federal law for taking "political and ideological" affiliations into account when hiring for the U.S. Attorney's Honors Program:
The Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit attorneys from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty and conduct that "seriously interferes with the administration of justice." By illegally taking political and ideological affiliations into account in screening applicants for career DOJ position, Mr. Elston and Ms. McDonald may have violated bar rules could be subject to discipline.
CREW's executive director Melanie Sloane told TPMmuckraker that due to the findings of the independent OIG report, the complaint should be taken fairly seriously. "The only question left for the bar is whether their violations of the law rise to level of professional responsibility," Sloane said. "And I bet that they do."
The complaint was filed, with the OIG report attached, against McDonald in the District of Columbia and Elston in Virginia. Copies of the complaint were sent to all other jurisdictions where they were bar members.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (7)Topics: DOJ Office Of The Inspector General, DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility, Esther Slater McDonald, Justice Department, Michael Elston, U.S. Attorneys
Must Read
Today's Must Read
For those hoping investigations by the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility might shine some light on the scurrilous activities at the Bush Justice Department, today's Los Angeles Times piece doesn't offer much solace.
The OPR, a watchdog of the Justice Department's lawyers and activities, has ceased to issue regular public reports of its investigations, some of which have resulted in the exoneration of attorneys accused of professional misconduct.
From the U.S. Attorney firing scandal; to selective prosecution of Democratic political figures; to unlawful detainment of terrorist suspects, the OPR is facing increasingly weighty caseloads, and meeting their investigations with decreasing transparency.
As the Times reports, the changes in disclosure have come with a new administration:
After President Bush took office in 2001, the Justice Department reversed a decade-old policy of publicly disclosing detailed summaries of OPR investigations of department lawyers found to have committed professional misconduct. Janet Reno, attorney general since 1993, had believed that publicizing the information would bolster confidence in the department; and during her tenure she had authorized the release of two dozen public summaries of misconduct cases -- including one against then-FBI Director William S. Sessions.The OPR also has been far behind in producing required annual public reports summarizing its activities. Last month, it released its report covering fiscal year 2005. That means many investigations undertaken during the tenure of former Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales remain under wraps.
Two weeks ago the OPR issued a report, along with the Office of the Inspector General, that found that the two attorneys in the Justice Department broke federal law when they hired new lawyers for the DOJ's Honors Program based on "political and ideological" factors.
But besides the report with the Inspector General, the OPR has failed to disclose the results of its investigations of misconduct relating to the war on terrorism.
According the documents obtained by the Times, the OPR has exonerated lawyers involved in two high-profile terrorism investigations:
According to a redacted copy of a confidential OPR report obtained by The Times, the office found that department lawyers had not engaged in misconduct in connection with the controversial practice of using special warrants to round up and incarcerate men after Sept. 11 who were considered witnesses to crimes. Human rights groups said the technique was a way to illegally detain, sometimes for months, dozens of Muslims whom the government suspected but could not prove were engaged in criminal activity.The report, issued more than a year ago, concluded: "Department of Justice attorneys involved did not misuse the material witness statute, and thus did not commit professional misconduct or exercise poor judgment."
There's nothing sinister going on in the lack of reports, insists Associate Deputy Attorney General David Margolis. He says that the decision was merely made to conserve resources and protect the privacy of accused attorneys:
"My goal is to get fair and speedy dispositions of allegations against our attorneys," he said, "and, to the extent possible, let the public know what we did and why we did it without unnecessarily or gratuitously . . . publicly humiliating our line attorneys as individuals."PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (5)
Topics: DOJ Office Of The Inspector General, DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility, Must Read, Torture, U.S. Attorneys
Justice Department
Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against the DOJ
It was bound to happen when you had a big mess of lawyers disqualified from hiring for illegal reasons. One of the de-selected masses filed a lawsuit claiming $100,000 in damages on Monday.
As the The Blog of Legal Times wrote yesterday:
The class action by Sean Gerlich -- filed yesterday in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia -- is the first suit resulting from an internal Justice report issued last week that says two former Justice officials illegally screened applicants to the honors and summer intern programs.PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (9)The two officials were Esther Slater McDonald, then counsel to the associate attorney general and now an associate at Seyfarth Shaw, and Michael Elston, then chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty and now a partner at McGuireWoods.
Gerlich's suit says the department politicized the selection process, mishandled the applications and failed to maintain the records, all in violation of the Privacy Act, the Civil Service Reform Act and the Federal Records Act. In addition, the suit claims violations of the First and 14th Amendments.
Gerlich says he was rejected because of his liberal affiliations, which officials dug up through Internet searches.
Topics: DOJ Office Of The Inspector General, Esther Slater McDonald, Justice Department, Michael Elston, U.S. Attorneys
Scott Bloch
Office of Special Counsel To Investigate DOJ Hiring
As predicted, there's been lots of fall out from the first report by the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General on the hiring practices used by the DOJ.
As the New York Times reports today:
The Office of Special Counsel, an agency that investigates political interference in the federal workplace, let the Justice Department know this week that it would be examining the issues raised in the report "to discuss what our next step should be," said James P. Mitchell, a spokesman for the office.The special counsel has offered to work with the department "to determine whether disciplinary action is warranted," Mr. Mitchell said. The inspector general's report noted that two department officials who it said were largely responsible for the abuses in 2006, Michael Elston and Esther Slater McDonald, could not face disciplinary action because both had left the department.
But Mr. Mitchell said: "That doesn't rule out others -- those who considered political affiliation in making decisions as well as those who let them do that. This is a prohibited practice, and this is an area that we enforce."
The OSC is no stranger to trouble. It's had its own issues lately, namely that the head of the department, Scott Bloch, is under investigation by the FBI.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (6)Topics: DOJ Office Of The Inspector General, Esther Slater McDonald, Justice Department, Scott Bloch, U.S. Attorneys
Follow us!
Inside TPM
-
Latest
-
Most Popular
All
TPMMuckraker
TPMDC
TPMLiveWire
-
Obama Shatters GOP's United Front On Birth Control
-
Dems Plot Payroll Tax Cut End Game
-
Why The GOP's Payroll Tax Cut Cave Is An Even Bigger Deal Than You Think
-
Obama's 2013 Budget Gives Up On 'Gitmo North' Proposal
-
Feds Circle Campaign Contribution Case Rife With Allegations Of Embezzling, Murder Threats
-
GOP Drops Demand For Offsetting Payroll Tax Cut
-
How Obama's Budget Throws A Big Punch At The GOP
-
Has Obama Cornered Republicans On Contraception?
-
Tax Avoidance Questions Continue To Haunt Romney
-
Obama To Draw Contrast With GOP In Budget
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
