Via Ben Smith, a statement from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, on the leak to the Associated Press of immigration information about Obama's aunt.

Early this morning, the matter was refered (sic) to Inspector General and ICE's Office of Professional Responsibility for action. They are looking into whether there was a violation of policy in publicly disclosing individual case information.

We also learned earlier today that internal Justice Department investigators are looking into the leaking of information, earlier this month, about a nationwide FBI probe of ACORN.

To be clear, though ICE appears to be the most likely source of the leak about Obama's aunt, we don't know with 100 percent certainty that that's where it came from. The Associated Press attributed its report to two sources, "one of them a federal law enforcment official." According to Dan Kowalski, an immigration law expert and the editor of the the online newsletter, Benders Immigration Bulletin,, the information would have been available to people at several government agencies, both at the Department of Homeland Security (of which ICE is a part) and the Department of Justice, which would have an enforcement role in immigration proceedings.

In the almost two years that TPMmuckraker has been covering the scandal over the removal of the U.S. attorneys, there have been many questions raised over the reasons behind the firings. On Monday, the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General's report answered some of those, but raised others. While it concluded that only three of the firings were carried out for political reasons or to interfere with active prosecutions, it could not gather sufficient evidence to conclude the rest of the firings were politically based. Regardless, the report strongly condemned the DOJs overall mishandling of the firings, calling the process "fundamentally flawed . . unsystematic and arbitrary."

As we wrote earlier this week, the report reveals that Todd Graves, David Iglesias and Bud Cummins were fired for reasons of politics, not performance.

The report lays out the investigations into each of the remaining U.S. attorney firings, but repeatedly states that its analysis and investigation were "hindered" due to many witnesses' "lack of recall"; the refusal of many witnesses to cooperate with the investigation or give testimony; and the administration's stonewalling in disclosing documents. Citing these obstacles, the report hedges its findings, requesting a prosecutor to continue the investigation with the power to compel testimony.

In the case of Margaret Chiara, the former Western Michigan U.S. attorney, the report could find no evidence that the rumors that Chiara was in a lesbian relationship with one of her subordinates were behind her removal.

Chiara has stated publicly that she believes the rumors -- which she called "false and malicious" in a statement yesterday from her attorney -- were the reason for the loss of her position.

Carol Lam, the U.S. attorney in the Southern District of California, was believed to have been asked to resign over her prosecution of former Executive Director of the CIA, Dusty Foggo and Brent Wilkes, a defense contractor who bribed former Republican Rep. Duke Cunningham and Foggo. But the report "found no evidence" to support those claims, stating that "the investigation and prosecution of Cunningham and Foggo were aggressively pursued by career prosecutors in Lam's office, both during and after her tenure."

Instead, the report supports the Department's previous claims that Lam was removed because of her poor statistics on gun and immigration prosecution statistics -- but blames the DOJ for poor handling of her removal.

In the case of Daniel Bogden of Nevada, little was known about his removal, except that he had not been diligent in prosecution of obscenity cases. The report found the claim to be behind Bogden's removal, but added some color to the removal. Interestingly, the report found that the complaints of Bodgen's dalliance in obscenity prosecutions were made by Brent Ward, the head of the DOJ Obscenity Prosecution Task Force -- who was friends with Attorney General Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson's brother and had direct conversations with Sampson regularly.

When questioned by the DOJ, Sampson stated he "did not recall whether those complaints played a role in the decision to remove Bogden," a response the report found "particularly suspect, given his role in the removal process."

In Arizona, Paul Charlton's termination was believed to be connected to his investigation of Republican Rep. Rick Renzi, but the report states that it could find no evidence to support that claim. Charlton had previously clashed with Main Justice on a decision he made to not seek the death penalty on a case involving a murder that transpired during a drug deal. Charlton believed it was this death penalty case as well as his policy of tape recording interrogations that led to his removal -- theories the IG report confirmed as the primary reasons for his dismissal.

Lastly, there is Seattle's John McKay who was believed to have been fired over his failure to prosecute voter fraud related to the 2004 Washington governor's election.

McKay famously received a call from Ed Cassidy, chief of staff to Washington Rep. Richard Hastings (R) asking about his prosecution, to which McKay responded, "Ed, I'm sure you're not about to start talking to me about the future direction of this case," after which Cassidy quickly ended the call.

Hastings claimed ignorance and told investigators that "he could not remember telling Cassidy to call McKay. . . or whether Cassidy had told him he had done so."

The report also mentions a meeting in Washington between McKay and White House Counsel Harriet Miers in which Miers reportedly asked McKay "why Republicans in the state of Washington were angry with him."

The report concludes that the "evidence suggests" that the primary reason for McKay's removal was an argument with Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty over an information sharing program -- not because of failure to prosecute voter fraud as McKay conjectured.

The OIG report, though nearly 400 pages long, is far from comprehensive. The investigation lacked the power to compel testimony or documents outside of the Justice Department and were consequently limited in their investigation. As a result, the report is forced to reserve judgment on whether many of the firings were inappropriately political, though it recommends that a prosecutor be appointed to look into whether crimes were committed.

Nora Dannehy, appointed on Monday by Attorney General Michael Mukasey will take up that mantle. It remains to be seen if that will be enough to ferret the truth out of unwilling witnesses and departments.

New details provided by the IG report released yesterday, gives definition to former U.S. Attorney Todd Graves' termination and paints a clear case for a politicized firing orchestrated by the office of Missouri Sen. Kit Bond (R).

Graves was the last U.S. attorney to be counted among those fired through the work of Kyle Sampson, chief of staff to Alberto Gonzales and Michael Battle, director of the Executive Office of the United States Attorney. His case differed from the others in many ways -- he was fired in January 2006, almost 11 months earlier than the other removed attorneys, and the circumstances around his dismissal were unclear.

But according to the report, Graves' removal was a result of multiple calls and emails from Bonds' legal counsel Jack Bartling, to members of White House Counsel -- who "kicked over" the complaints to the Justice Department.

Bond's problems with Graves' began in late fall of 2004. Bond's office had been having problems with another Missouri Congressman -- Rep. Sam Graves (R), U.S. Attorney Graves' brother. Between October and December 2004, a staffer from Bond's office reportedly called former U.S. Attorney Todd Graves to ask for his help in convincing his brother to fire his chief of staff. When Graves refused to intervene, the staffer told him "they could no longer protect [his] job," and hung up, according to the report.

Shortly after, in February 2005, Bartling began placing calls to the White House Counsel's office about Graves, pushing for a replacement. By the fall of 2005, the complaints had been passed to the Justice Department. In December, Bartling reached out again to Michael Elston, chief of staff to the deputy attorney general, who had interviewed Bartling when he had been applying for a position in that department.

In a call shortly before Graves' firing, Bartling asked Elston to, "'keep his ear to the
ground' to ensure that the Senator's role in requesting White House action on
Graves was not being disseminated within the Department," and make sure that Bonds name was never linked to Graves' ouster, the report states.

A little over a month later, Battle called Graves on January 24, 2006 to ask Graves for his resignation, acting on instructions from White House Liason Monica Goodling and using a speech similar to the one he would use with the other fired U.S. attorneys less than 11 months later.

While the IG report states that its investigation was significantly hindered by a number of witnesses refusal to cooperate and/or recall events, including that of Sampson, Goodling, members of the White House Counsel staff and Sen. Bond, it clearly states that they found Graves' firing to be directly a result of Bond's requests.

Acting on the report's findings, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed an ethics complaint this afternoon against Bond, stating that Sen. Bond and his staff violated Senate rules prohibiting "improper conduct which may reflect upon the Senate."

In a scathing statement released this morning, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) heralded the assignment of a prosecutor to the investigation into the removal of the U.S. attorneys stating "[p]erhaps a prosecutor can break down walls others cannot."

Leahy, who also chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, is holding a press conference at noon to discuss the findings of the IG report released this morning.

"This report verifies what our oversight efforts this Congress showed, that partisan, political interests in the prosecution of voter fraud and public corruption by the White House and some at the Department played a role in many of these firings," Leahy said in a statement.

"These abuses are corrosive to the very foundations of our system of justice."

Read all of Leahy's statement after the jump.

Read more »

The Justice Department Office of the Inspector General has released its 392 page tome on its findings in the investigation into the removal of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006.

The report can be found here (pdf). We'll be digging through it all day, but since it's a monster of a report, we welcome you to sift through it and let us know in the comments section what you find.

We'll be bringing you updates throughout the day so stay tuned.

Alberto Gonzales, the former attorney general who oversaw the Justice Department during the firings of nine U.S. attorneys, won't be presently referred to a grand jury for his role in the affair, but a prosecuter will be appointed to continue investigating the involvement of the Bush administration and other law makers in the firings, according to Washington Post sources familiar with a report expect to be released today.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey is preparing to name a prosecutor from within the DOJ to continue the work of the Offices of Professional Responsibly and the Inspector General, the same sources told the Post.

The report, the product of more than a years worth of investigations into the attorneys' firings is expected out this morning. It is co-written by the DOJ Inspector General Glenn Fine and the OPR Director H. Marshall Jarrett.

We'll be bringing you more from the OIG report as soon as it's released today so check back for updates

In news that should surprise no one familiar with the Justice Department politicization under Monica Goodling and Jan Williams, a study conducted by the New York Times found that immigration judges installed during this period of illegal hiring were more likely than their peers to reject immigrants' bids for asylum.

According to the Times, of the 31 judges appointed during Goodling's tenure, only 16 had extensive enough records to support statistical analysis. Of those, nine rejected immigrant asylum seekers at a rate higher than other local judges, three were more likely to grant asylum, and four were in keeping with averages.

Collectively, the group was 6.6 percentage points greater in denying asylum than their combined local averages.

From the Times:

In Houston, for example, Judge Chris Brisack denied asylum in 90.7 percent of his cases, while other judges in that city averaged a 79.1 percent denial rate. Judge Brisack, a former Republican county chairman who also works in the oil business, did not return a call.

Garry Malphrus, the judge later elevated to the Board of Immigration Appeals, denied asylum 66.9 percent of the time, compared with an average denial rate of 58.3 percent among other judges at his court in Arlington, Va. Judge Malphrus, a former associate director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, did not return a call.

The highest gap belonged to Judge Earle Wilson. He worked first in Miami, where he denied 88.1 percent of asylum requests -- 9.8 percentage points higher than the local average. He then moved to Orlando, where his denial rate was 80.3 percent -- 29.2 percentage points higher than peers.

It wasn't but two weeks ago that Attorney Gen. Mukasey made the bold statement in a speech to the American Bar Association, that the Justice Department would not systematically remove all those hired during the DOJ's period of politicization.

"Two wrongs do not make a right," said Mukasey of the idea of dismissing those hired through the flawed process. "[T]he people hired in an improper way did not, themselves, do anything wrong. It therefore would be unfair - and quite possibly illegal given their civil service protections - to fire them or to reassign them without individual cause."

But even more interesting in the light of the Times report, is Mukasey's specific defense of IJs hired under Goodling's watch and his highlighting of one of the judges he had recently promoted:

One of the Immigration Judges identified by the joint report as having been hired through the flawed process was recently tapped - by the revised hiring process that gives no consideration to politics - to be a member of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Putting aside fairness to him, it would have ill served the public interest not to appoint him merely because those who first hired him had violated the civil service laws. Firing him and all those like him would be wrong, and it would be harmful to the Department and to the country.

In the same speech, Mukasey promised a "swift and unambiguous response" if anyone is "found to be handling or deciding cases based on politics, and not based on what the law and facts require."

The Times study certainly suggests that judges hired under this illegal process were likely to rule more harshly than their peers. It will be interesting to see if Mukasey considers these findings proof of "handling or deciding cases based on politics."

Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and embattled former White House liaison Monica Goodling are among those newly named as defendants in a private class-action lawsuit against the DOJ.

The suit, Gerlich et al. v. Department of Justice, was orginally filed in response to the Inspector General's report on politicized hiring in the Attorney General's Honors Program. The report found that a number of DOJ officials, namely Esther Slater McDonald and Michael Elston, had broken the law in basing hiring decisions based on political affiliations.

The amended lawsuit expands the defendant list from only the Justice Department to specific individuals. Besides Gonzales and Goodling, Elston and McDonald are also named as new defendants in the case.

The suit also added five new plaintiffs.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey dove right into the sensitive topic of the politicization of the Justice Department in his speech to the American Bar Association this morning in New York.

"I would like to talk to you today about a topic that I'm sure is of mutual interest," Mukasey began. "[N]amely, professionalism at the United States Department of Justice."

Calling the findings of the two recent reports by the DOJ Inspector General on politicization in the Justice Department "disturbing," Mukasey bemoaned the system for failing to stop the "active wrong-doing."

I want to stress that last point because there is no denying it: the system failed. The active wrong-doing detailed in the two joint reports was not systemic in that only a few people were directly implicated in it. But the failure was systemic in that the system - the institution - failed to check the behavior of those who did wrong. There was a failure of supervision by senior officials in the Department. And there was a failure on the part of some employees to cry foul when they were aware, or should have been aware, of problems.

Mukasey went on to describe the changes to the Justice Department and responded to critics complaints that those named in the OIG reports have suffered no consequences.

"Far from it," Mukasey said. "The officials most directly implicated in the misconduct left the Department to the accompaniment of substantial negative publicity. Their misconduct has now been laid bare by the Justice Department for all to see. . .To put it in concrete terms, I doubt that anyone in this room would want to trade places with any of those people."

Previously, there have been legislative requests to dismiss those hired at the DOJ during this politicized period -- an idea Mukasey called "unfair" today:

Other critics have suggested that we should summarily fire or reassign all those people who were hired through the flawed processes described in the joint reports. But there is a principle of equity that we all learned in the schoolyard, and that remains as true today as when we first heard it: two wrongs do not make a right. As the Inspector General himself recently told the Senate Judiciary Committee, the people hired in an improper way did not, themselves, do anything wrong. It therefore would be unfair - and quite possibly illegal given their civil service protections - to fire them or to reassign them without individual cause.

The full text of the attorney general's speech after the jump.

Read more »

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:

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.

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.

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.

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."

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]

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."

. . . 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."

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."

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.

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.

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]

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:

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]

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.

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.

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?

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.

We already know that the the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility is investigating the alleged politically motivated prosecution in the case of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman (D). Today, TPMmuckraker independently verified that the OPR is looking into another complaint-- this one for prosecutorial misconduct-- involving the Northern District of Alabama's U.S. Attorney's office, specifically U.S. Attorney Alice Martin.

The new OPR investigation stems from a case involving Axion Corp., which was acquitted in October 2007 of violating the Arms Export Control Act. In an interview with TPMmuckraker this morning, Henry Frohsin, an attorney for Axion Corp., confirmed that they had sent a letter of complaint against Martin to the OPR on May 9. News of the investigation was first reported by Scott Horton, at the American Lawyer, citing anonymous sources.

"We consider this a serious case of prosecutorial misconduct that impacted the rights of the defendant," Frohsin, of the Birmingham office of Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell and Berkowitz, told us, "and we intend to rigorously pursue this matter with authorities at the Department of Justice."

Frohsin also stated that a DOJ attorney had been assigned to look into their complaint.

Martin has been with the Northern District of Alabama U.S. Attorney's office since September, 2001 and originally prosecuted a bid-rigging case against Siegelman, which was thrown out due to lack of evidence. U.S. Attorney Leura Canary started the successful, but disputed, prosecution of Siegelman for federal corruption -- but mysteriously recused herself from the case before it culminated. Both Martin and Leura Canary have been named in the affidavit of Republican lawyer, Jill Simpson, who claimed to have overheard a conversation assuring Siegleman's downfall, that occurred between William Canary, a wealthy Republican donor and Leura's husband, and the son of Siegelman's opponent in the governor race.*

Martin's case against Axion Corp., began in 2007 when the company was charged with violating the Arms Export Control Act by exchanging drawings for a Blackhawk helicopter part to a Chinese manufacturer.

According to an article on the case in the Birmingham News, one of the prosecution's own witnesses stated that the drawings Axion sent to the Chinese were not marked "with customary warnings barring it from being sent to trading partners subject to arms control laws." And according to the defense, the Black Hawk drawings were also available over the Internet-- excluding them from arms-control provisions:

"Hang on, I have not heard about that before," trial judge Johnson said as Alex Latifi lawyer James Barger cross-examined a government witness on the trial's fifth day. "These drawings are on the Internet?"

Despite their crumbling case, the prosecution refused to withdraw. Judge Inge Johnson of the Federal District Court of Birmingham threw out the case, writing that the "evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction."

The defense later filed a claim for compensation from the government-- called a Hyde motion. The defense argued that the Justice Department engaged in wrongful prosecution, and they were entitled to whatever money they spent fighting the prosecution.

And Judge Johnson agreed, ordering the Justice Department to pay the legal expenses incurred by Axion in defending itself from federal prosecution in April 2008.

From the Birmingham News:

Latifi, an engineer trained at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, will be able to collect about $500,000 in expenses, said his Birmingham attorney, Henry Frohsin. Latifi contends that he was selected for prosecution under arms-export laws because of his ethnic background.

And apparently the DOJ immediately started covering its tracks:

Johnson's ruling also said the government has withdrawn its request for a certification from the court endorsing the asset seizure as having had a reasonable cause. That eliminates any chances for Axion's lawyers to demand a hearing to examine the Justice Department's memos, legal papers and investigative methods, said Frohsin, a lawyer with the Birmingham office of Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz.

[Late Update]: This post has been changed from its original form to reflect the accurate roles of Alice Martin and Leura Canary in the prosecution of Don Siegelman.

There a whole host of issues confronting the Justice Department that remain unaddressed-- overall politicization, the Office of Legal Counsel memos, torture memos, hiring and firing practices, and selective prosecution. But when it comes to hard answers to Congressional Oversight, Attorney General Michael Mukasey dances around the questions, usually deflecting criticism that stems from the Gonzales era.

When Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) requested a listing of the OLC memoranda that the DOJ chose not to review, Mukasey stated that he didn't know that it "would serve anybody's interest" to do so.

When Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) questioned him about why Judith Miller was left in jail, he demurred, stating that it fell into the responsibilities of special counsel.

When Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) wanted to know if anyone was planning on reviewing Gitmo detainees files to see why they were being detained, Mukasey deferred noting the cases were before the D.C. district court.

And when Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) demanded accountability for the loss of valuable civil servants to the politicization of the DOJ Honors Program, the Attorney General stated that it had already been "covered by the OIG report."

But when it was Sen. Joe Biden's (D-DE) turn to ask questions, he took a more straight forward approach, tearing into Mukasey as an "enigma," "acting like you float above up in the ether somewhere."