Harriet Miers

Conyers Tries to Talk Rove Down from Ledge of Contempt Proceedings

Kate Klonick | August 1, 2008, 2:31PM

Following the letter sent by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT), House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) sent his own demand for the testimony and documents following the ruling yesterday in House Judiciary Committee v. Harriet Miers et al.

In a letter to White House counsel Fred Fielding, Conyers called for "quick compliance" with the ruling and an answer to the subpoena issued to White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten for documents relating to the politicization of the Department of Justice.

Conyers also wrote to Miers attorneys, reminding him that the ruling meant his client was "legally required to testify" in answer to Congress' subpoena.

Lastly, Conyers penned a missive to Robert Luskin, Karl Rove's attorney, informing him that his client had been held in contempt of congress by the House Judiciary Committee, but that in light of the recent decision, he hoped that it would not be necessary to carry out the contempt proceedings:

. . .[T]he "precise legal issue" raised by Mr. Rove's claim of immunity from our subpoena as a former White House official was before Judge Bates in Committee on the Judiciary v. Miers. Yesterday's decision in that case provides an unequivocal answer. . . In his letter to me of July 29, 2008, Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith also noted the pendency of the District Court case and stated that "mr. Rove assuredly will abide by the court's decision when it issues." I trust that this is correct and that there will be no further need to enforce the subpoena through contempt proceedings in the full House, and have directed my staff to contact you immediately so that we can make arrangements for Mr. Rove to testify in September.

Senate Judiciary Committee

Senate Dems Ask AG Mukasey to "Assess Damage" to DOJ

Kate Klonick | August 1, 2008, 12:35PM

On the heels of the Senate Judiciary Committee's questioning on Wednesday of Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine, and the two recently released OIG reports, seven Democratic members of the committee have requested that Attorney General Michael Mukasey review the damage done to the DOJ by the illegal hiring practices.

Signed by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Charles E. Schumer (D-NY), and Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD), the letter requests an assessment on the "long-term damage" done to the Department:

We are concerned that the people hired into important career positions throughout the Department using the unlawful, politicized process described in the reports remain in place. This raises the troubling possibility that those positions are held by unqualified, partisan individuals. With this possibility extant, we believe it is inadequate for the Department simply to commit to discontinue the bad practices. There may be continuing consequences of the widespread illegal hiring process. We urge you to ensure that the people put in place via this illegal process meet the Department's high standard of qualifications, and do not undermine the Department's independence and ability to enforce the law without fear or favor.

Ted Stevens

Stevens Makes A Second Statement

Kate Klonick | August 1, 2008, 8:47AM

Around 5 PM Alaska time, Sen. Ted Stevens' office issued a second statement on his arraignment earlier in the day in federal court.

From the Anchorage Daily News:

I am pleased that the Judge has set a speedy trial date, which should allow ample time for a decision before the general election. I am looking forward to this trial as a way of finally showing the truth - that I am innocent.

We have a Bill of Rights and a trial by jury in our country to protect our citizens - so that every person has their day in court.

I am humbled by all the outpouring of support, expressions of friendship, and offers of prayers. This process has lasted for more than a year, causing great distress to my family and confusing the Alaskans who have put their trust in me for more than 40 years.

When all the facts come out at the trial, Alaskans will know that I continue to be a dedicated public servant and that I am working hard for them every day.

House Judiciary

Why Harriet's Got What the HJC Wants

Kate Klonick | July 31, 2008, 5:41PM

Now that we have a partial decision on House Judiciary Committee v. Harriet Miers et al. , maybe it's a good time for a little refresher on why the HJC wanted White House documents and Miers' testimony in the first place.

Miers name came up repeatedly over the course of congressional investigations into the U.S. attorney firing scandal, over her communications with former Chief of Staff to the Attorney General, Kyle Sampson.

Those communications revealed that Sampson and Miers began exchanging emails discussing the dismissal of U.S. attorneys, almost two years before those attorneys were purged from the department in December 2007. In March 2006, Sampson famously sent an email to Miers, ranking all of the sitting U.S. attorneys in order of "loyalty to the Attorney General."

Though Miers initially suggested that all 93 U.S. attorneys be dismissed, Sampson vetoed that idea, with the approval of the Attorney General, and arranged for limited dismissals, ultimately providing Miers with a seven person list of targeted candidates to be considered for removal.

Outside of the emails, others were observing politicization first hand. In the late summer of 2006, U.S. Attorney John McKay, who would be requested to resign just a few months later, described sitting down with Miers and others for an interview on a federal judgeship. McKay was asked, "why Republicans in the state of Washington would be angry" with him in regards to his failure to prosecute allegations of voter fraud in the 2004 Washington gubernatorial race.

A few months before the U.S. attorneys were asked to resign, in September of 2006, Sampson again emailed Miers another list of possibilities, this time with nine people listed.

The majority of this information and correspondence came out in the testimony of Sampson and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee in the spring of 2007.

Naturally all of this piqued the interest of the House Judiciary Committee, who were also investigating the U.S. attorney firings. They subpoenaed Miers to testify, and requested relevant documents from the White House. Miers and Bolten, on behalf of the White House, both claimed executive privilege in late June, with Miers even refused to show up to the Congressional hearing.

This ticked off House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) who held both Miers and Bolten in contempt. As we discussed yesterday, the contempt vote then went to the full House for a vote, where it was upheld, and the lawsuit was filed.

House Judiciary

BREAKING: HJC Wins Round One of Contempt of Congress Case

Kate Klonick | July 31, 2008, 11:12AM

The House Judiciary Committee has won the first round of its lawsuit against the White House over contempt of Congress in House Judiciary Committee v. Harriet Miers et al.

From the order:

Harriet Miers is not immune from compelled congressional process; she is legally required to testify pursuant to a duly issued congressional subpoena from plaintiff; and Ms. Miers may invoke executive privilege in response to specific questions as appropriate.

and that. . .

Joshua Bolten and Ms. Miers shall produce all non-privileged documents requested by the applicable subpoenas and shall provide to plaintiff a specific description of any documents withheld from production on the basis of executive privilege consistent with the terms of the Memorandum Opinion issued on this date

The ruling is the latest in an ongoing battle between Congress and the White House, to have senior aides testify about the U.S. attorney firings.

After looking over the Opinion, Federal Judge John Bates lays out protocol for Congressional subpoenas, stating that while there may be perfectly legitimate claims of executive privilege, a subpoena from Congress can't just be ignored-- and if it is, Congress has a right to sue for failure to respond.

But as far as those claims of executive privilege go, the questions of their validity is still on the table. The Opinion specifically states that the Court "expresses no view on such claims," but it does go so far as to demand that the White House produce specific descriptions of all documents that relate to the claim of executive privilege. This list of descriptions, often called a "privilege log," helps lift the veil on the swath of documents that are being considered under the Administration's privilege claim.

So in short, the White House can continue to claim executive privilege, and Congress can continue to sue them on the legitimacy of the claims. Unless the two parties can work something out, around and around we go.

Karl Rove

What's Next for Karl Rove?

Kate Klonick | July 30, 2008, 3:15PM

For those in a quandary about what the House Judiciary Committee's contempt citation of Karl Rove means, we refer you to the currently pending House Judiciary Committee v. Harriet Miers, et al.

Following the path of Miers, we see that after the committee votes on contempt, the resolution is then passed to the entire House. If the House approves the contempt of Congress resolutions, it goes to the DOJ for action.

But since Rove is claiming executive privilege, it is unlikely the DOJ will take any action -- at least they certainly didn't for Miers.

After the predicted DOJ demurring occurs, the House has passed a resolution that allows the HJC to file suit against the parties held in contempt-- which brings us back around to where we started: HJC v. Miers.

Alberto Gonzales

White House Finally Responds to OIG Report

Kate Klonick | July 30, 2008, 2:41PM

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:

U.S. Attorneys

Former U.S. Attorney Believes She Was Fired Over Lesbian Rumors

Kate Klonick | July 30, 2008, 12:33PM

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.

Karl Rove

In Contempt Vote on Karl Rove, the Ayes Have It

Kate Klonick | July 30, 2008, 10:50AM

The House Judiciary Committee has just voted to hold Karl Rove in contempt for failing to respond to a subpoena to face questioning from the Committee on the prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman.

The final vote was 20 ayes and 14 nays. With Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) voting "absolutely, 100% aye."

In a memo on the Full Committee meeting, Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) summarized the facts surrounding Rove's refusal to even appear before the committee and assert executive privilege:

Mr. Rove has refused even to appear before the Committee and assert whatever privileges that he believes may apply to his testimony, relying on excessively broad and legally insufficient claims of "absolute immunity" - never recognized by any court - in declining to appear.

House Judiciary

Conyers Committee To Vote on Rove Contempt

Kate Klonick | July 30, 2008, 9:14AM

The House Judiciary Committee's ongoing battle with Karl Rove continues today, with a vote on holding the former White House Chief of Staff in contempt.

Rove has refused to answer to a subpoena to testify before Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) committee, answering only in writing to questions from the minority representation of the HJC.

The vote is the first thing on the committee's agenda for their meeting today which starts at 10:15 AM ET. Be sure to check back for updates on the outcome of the proceedings.

EPA

Senators Call for Resignation of EPA Administrator Johnson

Kate Klonick | July 29, 2008, 6:39PM

Democratic Senators from the Environment and Public Works Committee called for the resignation of EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, in a press release published this afternoon.

Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) was joined by committee members Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) in charging that Johnson had given "misleading testimony before Congress," "refused to cooperate" with Oversight investigations and had politicized decisions before the EPA.

From the EPW press release:

The senators asked Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey to investigate apparent contradictions between the sworn testimony of Administrator Johnson and the testimony of other sworn witnesses regarding the circumstances surrounding EPA's denial California's request for a waiver under the Clean Air Act to set strong standards for global warming emissions from vehicles.

Johnson has repeatedly refused to appear before Congressional committees, including the Senate Judiciary Committee, who canceled a hearing scheduled for tomorrow, July 30, after Johnson informed them he would not be coming.

When Johnson has testified, however, as he did in May before the House Oversight committee, he has often driven questioners to furious distraction in his refusal to answer questions, and his inability to recount events.

Alaska

The Ted Stevens' Road to Ruin

Kate Klonick | July 29, 2008, 6:13PM

We've had a lot of coverage today at TPMmuckraker on the freshly indicted Sen. Ted Stevens (R), but we've actually been following Uncle Ted and his son, Ben, here at TPMm for more than a year.

So for the benefit of our readers we thought we'd wrap it up into one neat little package so you can see how an 84 year-old U.S. Senator can go from free gas grills to federal indictment.

Ladies and gentleman, we present: The Ted Stevens' Road to Ruin, the ultimate in Ted Stevens' timelines.

Ted Stevens

Stevens Declares Innocence in Public Statement

Kate Klonick | July 29, 2008, 4:41PM

Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) who was indicted today on seven counts of false statements, has released a statement through his Senate office:

I have proudly served this nation and Alaska for over 50 years. My public service began when I served in World War II. It saddens me to learn that these charges have been brought against me. I have never knowingly submitted a false disclosure form required by law as a U.S. Senator. In accordance with Senate Republican Conference rules, I have temporarily relinquished my vice-chairmanship and ranking positions until I am absolved of these charges. The impact of these charges on my family disturbs me greatly. I am innocent of these charges and intend to prove that.

Ted Stevens

Stevens Resigns from Two Committees

Kate Klonick | July 29, 2008, 4:30PM

From Roll Call:

Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), who has been indicted on seven counts of making false statements on his financial disclosure forms, has stepped down from his post atop two committees, according to a senior GOP aide.

Republicans may vote as early as Wednesday afternoon to select replacements.

Consistent with GOP bylaws that require Members who are under felony indictment to relinquish their ranking posts on committees, Stevens, the longest-serving Republican Senator, has officially stepped down as ranking member of both the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee and the ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense.

Ted Stevens

Financial Disclosure Forms at Center of Stevens' False Statements

Kate Klonick | July 29, 2008, 3:23PM

The recent indictment of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) is up in TPMmuckraker's document collection, but here's a quick and dirty summary of the seven counts of false statements which are based on his personal financial disclosure forms from 1999 to 2006.

According to the indictment, Stevens concealed "things of value," estimated at around $250,000, from his publicly filed personal financial disclosure forms over the past seven years. It is this concealment, and not the legality of accepting those "things of value," that is at issue.

We've reported extensively on those gifts from VECO and VECO's former CEO Bill Allen which are the primary exchanges named in the indictment.

While Allen pleaded guilty to bribery charges over these gifts in 2007, it's important to note that no bribery charges are being filed against Stevens.

For the DOJ comments on the indictment, check out our video of the press conference.

Ted Stevens

BREAKING: U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens Indicted in Federal Court

Kate Klonick | July 29, 2008, 12:48PM

From Reuters:

Sen. Ted Stevens from Alaska, the longest serving U.S. Republican senator ever, was indicted on seven counts related to his holding of public office, a federal law enforcement official said Tuesday.

Late update: It's worth noting that this comes a few days before the one year anniversary of the date federal agents raided Stevens' Girdwood home.

Ted Stevens, 84, has been a frequent character on TPMmuckraker. For a good profile on the indicted Senator, see here.

No one answered at Stevens' Senate Office in D.C. and the answering machine recording said that the office was closed. In a call to his Anchorage campaign office, the staffer who answered responded, "What?" when asked for a comment on the indictment, followed by a long silence. The staffer would not give further comment on whether or not the office knew that the indictment was handed up today.

Late late update: From McClatchy:
The Justice Department will be making a statement at 1:20 to announce the indictment.

The Anchorage Daily News reports that the indictment comes from a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C.

Late late late update: The AP is reporting the indictments are seven counts of false statements.

Our calls to Brendan Sullivan, Steven's attorney, were not immediately returned.

We have a copy of the Stevens indictment titled, United States of America v. Theodore F. Stevens, it can be viewed here.

The seven counts of false statements appear to be referencing seven years of false statements made on his financial disclosure forms relating to gifts he received from former VECO CEO Bill Allen for the renovations on his home in Girdwood, Alaska, among others.

Allen pleaded guilty to giving more than $400,000 worth of "illegal benefits" to politicians and their families in late 2007.

The DOJ Presser just started.

"As a member of the US Senate, Sen. Ted Stevens was required to file financial disclosure forms. . . to monitor or deter conflicts of interest within the US Senate and its membership."

Between 1999-2006 he accepted gifts from VECO, include substantial amounts of material and labor in his private residence. These allegations include addition of new first floor, new bedrooms and bathrooms.

The total amount of gifts is valued at over $250,000.

In a Q&A, it was revealed that Stevens will be turning himself in and will not be arrested. Stevens' attorney received a call earlier today informing him of his client's indictments.

Filing false financial disclosure statement can result in civil and criminal penalties, including up to 5 years in prison.

The DOJ is not alleging bribery or any kind of quid pro quo, and mentioned that the investigation is continuing.

DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility

Man Denied DOJ Job Because of Wife's Democrat Ties Is Identified

Kate Klonick | July 29, 2008, 10:31AM

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.

Duke Cunningham

Brent Wilkes' Anonymous Bondsman Thwarted By Ruling

Kate Klonick | July 29, 2008, 9:30AM

Brent Wilkes' "Secret Benefactor" will have to make himself known if he wants to help the convicted former-defense contractor make bail, a federal judge said Monday.

You might remember that we posted a few weeks back about an anonymous ally's guarantee on the balance of the $1.4 million Wilkes needed to make bail pending appeal. But there was a catch-- the benefactor wouldn't post unless his identity could be kept a secret-- so Wilkes' attorneys went to court to try to hide the man's identity.

From the San Diego Union-Tribune:

The man willing to make up the shortfall could lose his job if his name is linked to Wilkes, said lawyer Robert Rexrode, who is representing Wilkes for free.

"This is it," he said in court. "It's not going to happen if the name is public."

Rexrode wouldn't say what the man does for a living but said that the public attention that Wilkes has drawn "makes it difficult for past business associates to come forward."

Judge Larry Burns said he was willing to keep certain financial details private, but not the man's name.

"This person ... has to step up and stand here with Mr. Wilkes," Burns said.

Monica Goodling

In Gonzales' DOJ, Lesbian Rumors Could Cost You Your Job

Kate Klonick | July 28, 2008, 10:29PM

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."

Monica Goodling

Williams' Gentlemen Prefer Blondes

Kate Klonick | July 28, 2008, 4:47PM

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]

Alberto Gonzales

Report Confirms Gonzales' Hands Clean, Says Rep

Kate Klonick | July 28, 2008, 1:04PM

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."

DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility

Goodling Rejected Job Applicant Because He Was Married to a Democrat

Kate Klonick | July 28, 2008, 12:17PM

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]

DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility

Goodling to Interviewee: What Is It About GWB That Makes You Want to Serve Him?

Kate Klonick | July 28, 2008, 11:56AM

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]

DOJ Office Of The Inspector General

Inspector General Releases Report on Monica Goodling Hirings

Kate Klonick | July 28, 2008, 10:31AM

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.