Monica Goodling and Kyle Sampson Broke The Law

July 28, 2008 at 10:36 am | Posted in American politics | 3 Comments

But who is surprised by that anyways.

The bigger question for Mormons is this. Kyle Sampson was supposedly a Bishop of his ward at the time he was violating the law and politicizing the DOJ. Then he testified to the Congress and said “I don’t remember” about 122 times! It would seem he was not honest with his fellow men.

The Gavel has excerpts from the report as well as Chairman Conyers considering perjury charges against Goodling, Sampson and Gonzales. Bring them down dude, bring them down!

Conyers, Sánchez Consider Criminal Referral on DoJ Politicization Report

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. and Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee Chairwoman Linda Sánchez had the following response to today’s Department of Justice Inspector General/Office of Personal Responsibility Report on “An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring by Monica Goodling and Other Staff in the Office of the Attorney General.”

“Today’s report describes ‘systematic’ violations of federal law by several former leaders of the Department of Justice,” said Conyers. “Apparently, the political screening was so pervasive that even qualified Republican applicants were rejected from Department positions because they were ‘not Republican enough’ for Monica Goodling and others. The report also makes clear that the cost to our nation of these apparent crimes was severe, as qualified individuals were rejected for key positions in the fight against terrorism and other critical Department jobs for no reason other than political whim. 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.”

“The House Judiciary Committee’s investigation into the politicization of the Department of Justice has been criticized by the Minority as a fishing expedition that has caught no fish,” said Sánchez. “This report, which found that Monica Goodling and many other Justice Department officials committed misconduct by violating both federal law and Department policy, adds to a growing public record that this Administration has tainted our system of justice.”

The report, released today by the Office of Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility found:

• Senior Bush Administration Department of Justice officials, including Monica Goodling, Kyle Sampson, Jan Williams, and others violated federal law and committed misconduct in basing hiring decisions for career prosecutor positions, details to senior Department offices and immigration judgeships on the applicant’s political affiliations and views. (125-27)

• The report highlighted political cronyism that was “particularly damaging” in a vital counterterrorism post when a qualified expert was rejected because his wife had the wrong political affiliation. Instead a candidate was chosen that “lacked any experience in counterterrorism issues” and who other DoJ officials believed “was not qualified for the position.” (136)

• Immigration judgeships were needlessly held vacant for long periods while Department leaders sought to identify politically suitable candidates, leading to a severe backlog of immigration matters. (128)

• Monica Goodling also made false statements to the Department’s own lawyers who were defending a lawsuit regarding Immigration Judge hiring. (138)

• A current Department official, John Nowacki, prepared and circulated a press release responding to public concern about these issues that he knew was false at the time; the report recommends that Mr. Nowacki be disciplined (127-28)

• Monica Goodling refused to approve several DOJ appointments for an AUSA who Ms. Goodling believed was gay. (132-33)

Excerpts from the Report:

“The evidence also showed that Goodling considered political or ideological affiliations when recommending and selecting candidates for other permanent career positions, including a career SES position in the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA) and AUSA positions. These actions violated federal law and Department policy, and also constituted misconduct.” (136)

“Goodling’s use of political considerations in connection with these details was particularly damaging to the Department because it resulted in high-quality candidates for important details being rejected in favor of less-qualified candidates. For example, an experienced career terrorism prosecutor was rejected by Goodling for a detail to EOUSA to work on counterterrorism issues because of his wife’s political affiliations. Instead, EOUSA had to select a much more junior attorney who lacked any experience in counterterrorism issues and who EOUSA officials believed was not qualified for the position.” (136)

“[W]e believe it was improper, and violated the law and Department policy, for Goodling to use political or ideological affiliations in selecting or rejecting detailees to these positions.” (136)

“[T]he 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 Judge], which are career positions protected by the civil service laws.” (137)

“We also concluded that Goodling committed misconduct when she provided inaccurate information to a Civil Division attorney who was defending a lawsuit brought by an unsuccessful IJ candidate. Goodling told the attorney that she did not take political factors into consideration in connection with IJ hiring, which was not accurate.” (138)

“The evidence detailed above demonstrates that Kyle Sampson, Jan Williams, and Monica Goodling each violated Department of Justice policy and federal law by considering political or ideological affiliations in soliciting and evaluating candidates for IJs, which are Schedule A career positions, not political appointments. Further, the evidence demonstrates that their violations were not isolated instances but were systematic in nature. The evidence demonstrates further that Goodling violated Department policy and federal law by considering political or ideological affiliations in selecting candidates for the BIA.” (115)

“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. Elston also stated that there were some Republicans that Goodling did not want to hire as detailees because they were not ‘Republican enough.’ ” (47-48)

Advertisements

3 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. David Kurtz at Talking Points Memo caught a nice quote from the Washington Post:

    Goodling regularly asked candidates for career jobs, “What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?”

  2. Goodling regularly asked candidates for career jobs, “What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?”

    I’ll take a stab at a possible response:

    “He’s my kind of fascist!”

  3. Dan Froomkin asks some great questions about the “big fish” that keep getting away:

    But the report doesn’t address who is responsible for creating the culture of corruption in which these aides thrived.

    Who asked them to behave this way? Or, barring an explicit request, how did they come to conclude that this was what their superiors expected of them? Who twisted the Justice Department, designed to operate with a large degree of independence, into a political adjunct of the White House?

    And is it really just a coincidence that Monica Goodling, the central culprit of this latest report, held the title of White House liaison?

    A June report by the same two Justice Department offices that produced yesterday’s findings concluded that over a five year period, aides stocked a prestigious hiring program with young conservatives, intending to reshape the department’s ranks. Two more internal reports are in the works, one about political interference with the Civil Rights Division and the other about the role of politics in the administration’s controversial firings of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006.

    Whether the eager, young politicos who carried out these policies are held accountable is one question. But who was pulling their strings is another.

    It’s unlikely that former absentee landlord Alberto Gonzales was a key player here. Not only did some of these practices pre-date him, but his primary task, which he bungled, appears to have been to conceal the fact that he wasn’t the one calling the shots.

    Indeed, it’s hard to reach any conclusion other than that White House political operatives masterminded a plan to defile the Justice Department’s mission in the short run and to seed its ranks with people who will be in a position to continue the corruption for a long time to come.

    Excellent questions Mr. Froomkin.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.

%d bloggers like this: