The Monica Goodling Report

The Department of Justice’s Inspector General’s Office has released another of its reports on the politicization of DOJ under Bush. This one ought to be called the Monica Goodling report, as it focuses on her litmus test hiring. I’ll post some updates on the details, but here is the conclusion:

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, which are career positions protected by the civil service laws.

Not only did this process violate the law and Department policy, it also caused significant delays in appointing IJs. These delays increased the burden on the immigration courts, which already were experiencing an increased workload and a high vacancy rate. EOIR Deputy Director Ohlson repeatedly requested candidate names to address the growing number of vacancies, with little success. As a result of the delay in providing candidates, the Department was unable to timely fill the large numbers of vacant IJ positions.

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.

In addition, we concluded that Williams provided inaccurate information to us concerning her Internet research activities.

Because Goodling, Sampson, and Williams have resigned from the Department, they are no longer subject to discipline by the Department for their actions described in this report. Nevertheless, we recommend that the Department consider the findings in this report should they apply in the future for another position with the Department.

In addition, we concluded that EOUSA Deputy Director John Nowacki committed misconduct by drafting a proposed Department response to a media inquiry which he knew was inaccurate. Although Nowacki knew that Goodling had used political and ideological affiliations to assess career attorney candidates for EOUSA detail positions, he drafted a media statement in which the Department would have denied the allegations. Nowacki is still employed by the Department. Therefore, we recommend that the Department consider appropriate discipline for him based upon the evidence in this report.

Hey! Good news! We might actually get to fire someone over this–John Nowacki, who is still employed by DOJ, just got caught lying about Goodling’s practices. Though, in Mukasey’s statement on the report, he somehow forgot to mention that he was going to fire Nowacki for covering up his colleague’s illegal activities.

Even as I commend the hard work and collaboration of the Justice Department’s Offices of Inspector General and Professional Responsibility on today’s report, I am of course disturbed by their findings that improper political considerations were used in hiring decisions relating to some career employees. 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.

I guess that means we’ll just have to try to get Sampson and Goodling and Nowacki disbarred based on this report.

Update: Conyers and Sanchez are considering a criminal referral for perjury.  I’m still reading the report, but I bet this would be a tough thing to pull off, since Sampson did admit Goodling’s politicization of Immigration Judges, and Monica admitted to it all. 

image_print
  1. DefendOurConstitution says:

    the evidence showed that Sampson, Williams, and Goodling violated federal law

    Isn’t DOJ the one that’s supposed to immediately prosecute violations of federal law by federal employees? I sure hope indictments are being prepared (but I won’t hold my breath).

    • GeorgeSimian says:

      No shit! Does this mean that every ex-employee of the DOJ is immune from begin prosecuted by them? If they broke the law, wouldn’t that mean that the DOJ needs to do something? Why isn’t one of the recommendations something like, “they broke the law, and should be prosecuted”?

      • Peterr says:

        IANAL, and have not dug through the citations in the report for the laws and regulations involved. I do know, however, that in many situations like these, the penalty for breaking the DOJ regs or the federal law is often removal from your government job.

        Since they no longer have a govt job, there may be no penalty left that can be enforced.

        Except, of course, to pursue getting Monica’s law license yanked.

        • PetePierce says:

          Goodling and Williams sure as hell have violated federal law, and they violated one of the most common code sections that is being prosecuted in your district and all of the 94 federal districts hundreds of times a week:

          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.

          In addition, we concluded that Williams provided inaccurate information to us concerning her Internet research activities.

          USC18§ 1001. Statements or entries generally

          a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
          (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
          (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
          (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
          shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.
          (b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
          (c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—
          (1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
          (2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

        • PetePierce says:

          In detail the law violated was amended in 1996:

          Section 1001 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as
          follows:

          “Sec. 1001. Statements or entries generally

          “(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any
          matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or
          judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and
          willfully–
          “(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick,
          scheme, or device a material fact;
          “(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
          statement or representation; or
          “(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing
          the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or
          fraudulent statement or entry;

          shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or
          both.
          “(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial
          proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations,
          writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or
          magistrate in that proceeding.
          “(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the
          legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to–
          “(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment,
          a matter related to the procurement of property or services,
          personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a
          document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to
          the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative
          branch; or
          “(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the
          authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office
          of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House
          or Senate.”.

          [[Page 110 STAT. 3460]]

  2. behindthefall says:

    How nice to see some plain, non-squirrelly language in anything at all coming out of DOJ!

  3. BillE says:

    What happens next? Can they charge Goodling after the Ollie North immunity? Sampson would be a great one to go after, he might flip with enough pressure applied. Bush will probably pardon them for doing his orders though.

    • Peterr says:

      It would appear that because much of the investigation developed out of Goodling’s immunized testimony (see pdf page 6 – report page 1), she is off the hook — as long as her answers to Congress were true.

    • RickinSF says:

      Somehow I can’t imagine W pardoning anyone that far down the food chain. Besides, letting some underlings take it in the neck would give an impression, to some, that justice did work its’ course.

  4. Helen says:

    I am bored to death with these reports saying that because they no longer work there, nothing can be done. Here’s my new retirement plan: I am going to get a job at a bank. I will then rob the bank. I will then retire. Apparently, according to the DOJ, who’s supposed to enforce the law, I am free and clear.

  5. Peterr says:

    ooooohhhhh – pdf 14: not just a timeline of who worked where when, but a full-color timeline . . .

    paging looseheadprop . . .

    *g*

  6. kspena says:

    This feels like the pentagon reports that went after a few bad apples for prisoner abuse. When will we get to a ‘Sands’ type analysis that describes the upper circle players of the US government planning the strategy and tactics of politization of DOJ? Who hired ‘Sampson and Goodling and Nowacki’ for what purpose?

  7. SanderO says:

    Disciple of losing one’s job is not appropriate for violations of the EOUSA laws which seem to be about discrimination.

    Last I heard it was a crime to discriminate in hiring and employment practices.

    Haa?

    She gets a get out of jail card because she testified in congress about her law breaking? Oh that’s neat.. every two bit criminal should spill the beans in congress and receive immunity.

    We have an accountability problem in the nation – a serious one and it is NOT just in government.

  8. Arbusto says:

    Unless the law states perjury before Congress must be prosecuted, don’t expect any indictments fro this DoJ.

  9. windje says:

    Ms Goodling is a member of the Virginia Bar.

    Time for the Virginia Bar Association to proceed to have Ms Goodling show cause as to why she should not be disbarred.

  10. rafflaw says:

    I have no problem with Goodling losing her law license, but what about the bigger fish who authorized or instructed Goodling to take these outrageous actions? I want Mukasey to go after the higher-ups who allowed this practice and ordered it. This situation has a certain Rovian smell to it.

  11. AlbertFall says:

    Not discussed:

    At whose direction did Goodling impose the political litmus test?

    Beuller? Beuller? Beuller?

    Rove? Rove? Rove?

    Yes, I know that she probably internalized Rove’s requirements and probably did not take a direct order. But still…..

    • bmaz says:

      AlbertFall – Maybe I haven’t been paying enough attention, but haven’t seen your name lately. Boy, no kidding as to Rove, but also curiously lacking is the pointed spear at Gonzales. I have always felt that AGAG was weak, and that if he were separated from the herd and made the full on attack point, he would roll over. Unfortunately, there seems to be no motivation to go after anybody ultimately responsible with any gusto.

  12. Olsonist says:

    It doesn’t seem that Monica Goodling is a member of the Virginia State Bar. The VSB has a Member Directory search page and it lists no one under the last name Goodling.

    She may have been admitted to the Bar and then dropped for some reason or another. Or she may in fact never have been admitted in the first place.

    • bmaz says:

      As of April last year, Goodling was indeed a member of the Virginia bar and, to the best of my knowledge, that was the only bar she was a member of. I imagine she still is and note that the website you refer to specifically notes that only members who agree to have their names be public are accessible. Goodling undoubtedly opted out of this.