Monica’s Job History

/in /by

The DOJ IG report provides more details than we’ve seen before of Monica Goodling’s entire work history. And when you look at it, it’s pretty damn clear that her primary purpose at DOJ was to politicize the department.

Here are the details the report gives. As we knew, Monica’s first job out of law school was doing oppo research for the RNC:

From 1999 to February 2002, she worked for the Republican National Committee (RNC) where she held the positions of research analyst, senior analyst, and deputy director for research and strategic planning. Among her duties was what she described on her résumé as “a broad range of political research.”

Her first job at DOJ was spin–working in the Public Affairs department with Libby’s future PR flack Barbara Comstock and Rove’s future PR flack Mark Corallo:

According to Goodling’s résumé, while at OPA she worked closely with the OAG regarding public communications about the Department’s work, including media events, press releases, speeches, and talking points.

Then, they shipped her across the Potomoc for a short sting in a US Attorney’s office–so she’d look like a "real" lawyer when future promotions became available.

In September 2004, Goodling began a 6-month detail as a Special Assistant United States Attorney in the USAO for the Eastern District of Virginia, where she handled criminal felony and misdemeanor cases.

I believe the use of  "handled" here does not include actually "handling" anything in a courtroom–as I recall Monica testified before Congress she had no real prosecutorial experience.

But here’s the real tip-off about Monia’s career: they created a brand new political Deputy Director of EOUSA for her to move into in March 2005–at which position they had her approving waivers for AUSA hires requested by interim US Attorneys. 

The political Schedule C Deputy Director position for Goodling was a new position within EOUSA. Contemporaneous e-mails of senior managers within the OAG and ODAG indicate that OAG personnel approved Goodling’s appointment as a political Deputy Director.

Then finally, they institutionalized and expanded this institutionalized political hiring and firing function by moving it to the Attorney General’s office.

Goodling’s major responsibility as White House Liaison was to interview and process applicants for political positions in the Department. In that job, she also interviewed and was involved in the selection of career attorneys who were candidates for temporary details to various Department offices, and candidates for immigration judge and Board of Immigration Appeals positions. In Read more →

Share this entry

Monica Goodling Helped the Terrorists Win

/in /by

Apparently, in Monica Goodling’s world, Democrats are scarier than terrorists. That’s the only thing I can conclude from the news that Goodling even politicized the hiring of am EOUSA counter-terrorism position, resulting in the US being served by an unqualified hack rather than someone who knew something about terrorism.

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.

In a post 9/11 world, how did this go unmentioned? And what does President Bush plan to do about the fact that this woman helped the terrorists win?

Share this entry

The Monica Goodling Report

/in /by

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.

Read more →

Share this entry

They’ve Compartmentalized Mukasey from the Corruption

/in /by

I know, I know, a lot of you want me to talk about Rove in Ohio. But I’ve been distracted with something else so I haven’t had a chance to assess it yet, and anyway, I’ve been pondering this assessment from Scott Horton:

The ultimate problem here is that Mukasey is not paying attention to the matter. Instead he is relying on political flaks at the Justice Department to prepare answers on his behalf, trodding down the same path that destroyed the careers of Alberto Gonzales and Paul McNulty. He has allowed himself to be roped into a series of incorrect statements about specific aspects of the Siegelman investigation. Michael Mukasey needs to recognize that he has brought his tenure at the Justice Department to the edge of a precipice.

Horton is talking, specifically, about the Siegelman investigation in general, but I suspect Horton is right on the money, and not just as it pertains to Siegelman (heck! maybe it pertains to the Ohio allegation as well…).

To support that argument, I point to two exchanges in Mukasey’s testimony before the House Judiciary the other day which suggest he’s not being informed of key issues that Congress regards as critical. First, there was his admission that he only recently realized–presumably between his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, when he refused to guarantee that Congress would learn the results, and that before HJC, when he said Congress would "absolutely" learn the results–that Congress itself requested the OPR investigation of the Siegelman affair.

Davis: Can we see OPR report?

MM: Absolutely. Congress was the complainant. Complainant always informed. If finding of misconduct, then you’ll get the report.

It is inconceivable to me that Mukasey didn’t go into the SJC hearing expecting a question about the Siegelman affair, if for no other reason than all the chatter pertaining to his Siegelman-related subpoena from HJC at the time. But no one thought to inform the Attorney General two key facts: that Congress had requeted the investigation and that, therefore, Congress would be guaranteed to learn of its results. Now, to some degree, this was just bad staff work on the part of DOJ, a failure to prepare for an obvious question. But the effect was to put Mukasey into an antagonistic relationship with Congress, defending something (hiding the results of the OPR investigation) that put the AG into an unnecessarily confrontational position.

Read more →

Share this entry

Sanchez v. Mukasey on “Executive Privilege”

/in /by

I wanted to look closely at the exchange between Congresswoman Sanchez and Attorney General Mukasey to see if it gets us any closer to determining whether DOJ reviewed Bush’s invocation of absolute immunity for Rove–and specifically whether Mukasey bought off on the claim that the matters in question pertained to Rove’s "official duties."

Sanchez: There are a number of different areas of questioning that I have and I’m going to try to get through them as quickly as I can. First off, in response to questioning before the Senate Judiciary Committee on July 9 about the allegations of selection prosecution of Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, you stated and I’m quoting you here, "Various avenues open for exploring those allegations, including having testimony on the subject." Given your assertion about the ability of Congress to investigate the Siegelman matter through testimony, I’m wondering, do you support Karl Rove’s decision to ignore a congressional subpoena on July 10 and refuse to testify about his role in the Siegelman matter and other matters regarding the politicization of the Justice Department?

Mukasey: As I understand it, Mr. Rove acted at the request of the President in response to the invocation of Executive Privilege. He has offered to meet with staff, he has offered to discuss the matter–

Sanchez: But he has not offered to be under oath or be subjected to a transcript, and my understanding from prior court law–and I would expect an Attorney General to understand this as well–is that if the White House wishes to invoke a claim of Executive Privilege, the witness still has to present himself before Congress and claim that privilege on a question by question basis.

Mukasey: With all due respect, that’s a matter that is still being litigated on which I can’t comment any further.

Sanchez: But prior case law has held that that is the case.

Mukasey: Don’t know that. I know that is a matter under active litigation and is I believe sub judice before a judge in–

Sanchez: So you agree that Karl Rove can disregard a congressional subpoena–

Mukasey: What I’m saying is the question of whether an immediate advisor to the President has to appear at all when a proper claim of has been made of Executive Privilege is a matter that I believe is actively before a District judge and I shouldn’t comment anymore on that and I won’t.

Read more →

Share this entry

Rove All-But Confirms He DID Talk to Non-DOJ People About Siegelman

/in /by

In a classic non-denial denial, Karl Rove makes it clear that he did talk to people about Siegelman’s prosecution–even while he denies that he spoke to anyone in DOJ about it.

As I posted three minutes before TPM posted these "exclusively" (huh), Rove has submitted answers to questions that Lamar Smith decided to ask him about Siegelman, in lieu of actually showing up before Congress and answering questions that someone without an interest in covering up Republican politicized prosecutions might ask.

We can talk about these documents in more detail in comments (and I’ll post a timeline in a follow-up post). But here’s the most important part of the question and answers. Smith repeatedly asks Rove whether or not he ever communicated with:

Department of Justice officials, State of Alabama officials, or any other individual about the investigation, indictment, potential prosecution, prosecution, conviction, or sentencing of Governor Siegelman

And repeatedly, Rove answers that he has never directly or indirectly communicated with:

Justice Department or Alabama officials [] about the investigation, indictment, potential prosecution, prosecution, conviction, or sentencing of Governor Siegelman

Rove would not make the same denials about talking to "any other individuals" he did about DOJ and Alabama officials.

Now to be fair to old Turdblossom, Rove does add this caveat, repeatedly:

nor have I asked any other individual to communicate about these matters on my behalf

But that’s not the same thing as answering whether he spoke to anyone about it all.

So, even with Rove’s careful parsing, even having gotten questions tailor made to allow Rove to squirm out of answering real questions on this matter, he basically refuses to deny that he communicated about Siegelman’s prosecution with other people. Rove doesn’t even deny he spoke to Bill Canary or Rob Riley (Rob is the son of the governor, and therefore not an Alabama official) about it, which is one of the central implications of all the allegations out there!

It was a nice trick, Lamar Smith, to try to pretend that Rove had answered real, antagonistic questions about his involvement in the Siegelman affair. But I think all you’ve accomplished is to make it clear that he was, in fact, involved in the plot to prosecute Governor Siegelman.

[As a reminder, Governor Siegelman will chat with us tomorrow at 12ET/9PT, so we’ll get the opportunity to ask him what he thinks of this wild parsing.]

Share this entry

Pardon Watch: The Betting Pool

/in /by

I can’t tell you how many times I started this post–an open thread for predictions of who, how many, how explicit the crimes that Bush would pardon. But every time I started the post, I deleted it–thinking it was unseemly to start Pardon Watch this early (though, admittedly, a full year after Libby’s commutation kicked off the self-protective pardon-fest).

But now Charlie Savage has broached the subject. And Dan Froomkin piled on, too, noting the vile Victoria Toensing calling for pre-emptive pardons of any and all long-term investigations:

‘The president should pre-empt any long-term investigations,’ said Victoria Toensing, who was a Justice Department counterterrorism official in the Reagan administration. ‘If we don’t protect these people who are proceeding in good faith, no one will ever take chances.’

(I guess Victoria doesn’t have much faith in McCain’s ability to win this election….)

So I hereby kick off a once-monthly post calling for predictions on how many Get Out of Jail So You Can Keep Me Out of Jail Free cards Bush issues. Plus one for Roger Clemons, because Bush is a baseball guy…

We’ll give out five hub-caps, one for the most accurate guess each month. bmaz–I’m adding five hubcaps onto your normal football requisition.

Here are my current predictions and Bush’s likely logic behind each: Read more →

Share this entry

Meet the Bloggers and SendKarlRoveToJail.com

/in /by

meet the bloggers
Well that was fun. A replay of the premiere of Meet the Bloggers should be up here shortly. [Update: It’s both there now and at left.] The highlight of the piece, IMO, is that Cenk got the name of the Sargeant at Arms in: Bill Livingood. How cool would it be if a guy named "Livingood" walked up to Karl Rove and put him in handcuffs? It’s like something right out of Dickens. I decided yesterday that, in addition to putting Rove in a shipping container on the Mall in front of Congress (don’t worry–we’ll outfit it and air condition it) until he agrees to testify, Congress ought to contract with Blackwater to help Mr. Livingood do the arrest. After all, they’ll do anything for money, right?

Meanwhile, BNF has a petition drive up so you can encourage HJC to respond to being blown off in a timely and forceful manner.

I’ve got to go pack now so I can get a plane to Netroots Nation. I’ll poke my head in occasionally, but I expect to be pretty busy for the next several days. bmaz will have the keys, so maybe ya’ll can discuss whether or not Brett Favre should continue to start for the Packers.

[See the SendKarlRoiveToJail video here.]

Share this entry

Isn’t It Time to Chat with Kyle Sampson Again?

/in /by

Here’s an exchange between Dick Durbin, Senior Senator from Illinois, and Rove acolyte Kyle Sampson about the firing of Patrick Fitzgerald.

Durbin: Were you ever party to any conversation about the removal of Patrick Fitzgerald from his position as Northern District of Illinois US Attorney?

Sampson: I remember on one occasion in 2006, in discussing the removal of US Attorneys … or, the process of considering some US Attorneys that might be asked to resign, that I was speaking to Harriet Miers and Bill Kelley and I raised Pat Fitzgerald. Immediately after I did it I regretted it. I thought, I knew it was the wrong thing to do. I knew that it was inappropriate. And I remember at the time that Harriet Miers and Bill Kelley said nothing, they just looked at me. I regretted it and I withdrew it at the time and I regret it now.

Durbin: Do you recall what you said at the time about Patrick Fitzgerald?

Sampson: I said, Patrick Fitzgerald could be added to this list.

Durbin: And, there was no response?

Sampson: No. They looked at me like I had said something totally inappropriate, and I had.

Durbin: Why did you do it? Why did you recommend, or at least suggest that he be removed as US Attorney?

Sampson: I’m not sure, I don’t remember. I think it was maybe to get a reaction from them. I don’t think that I, I know that I never seriously considered putting Patrick Fitzgerald on a list and he never did appear on a list.

Now put that exchange together with Rove’s non-denial denial that he was involved in having Patrick Fitzgerald fired:

But Robert Luskin, Rove’s attorney, today issued an unequivocal statement about all of this to the Tribune on behalf of Rove, former deputy chief of staff to President Bush, architect of Bush’s presidential campaigns and a private consultant in Washington now.

"Karl has known Kjellander for many years,” Luskin said, "but does not recall him or anyone else arguing for Fitzgerald’s removal. And he (Rove) is very certain that he didn’t take any steps to do that, or have any conversations with anyone in the White House — or in the Justice Department — about doing anything like that.”

Of course, when Rove says "I don’t recall" about an event, it usually means, "I won’t admit it until you show more evidence" about that incident. Read more →

Share this entry

Waxman’s Investigation

/in /by

Unlike HJC, Oversight does not publicly release subpoenas when they serve them. So Mukasey’s cowardly letter begging Bush to invoke executive privilege so he doesn’t have to go to jail for shielding Dick Cheney’s role in outing Valerie Plame is one of the first hints of the scope of what Waxman was after. Here are some details I find particularly interesting.

The subpoenaed documents concern the Department’s investigation by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald into the disclosure of Valerie Plame Wilson’s identity as an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency. The documents include Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") reports of the Special Counsel’s interviews with the Vice President and senior White House staff, as well as handwritten notes taken by FBI agents during some of these interviews. The subpoena also seeks notes taken by the Deputy National Security Advisor during conversations with the Vice President and senior White House officials and other documents provided by the White House to the Special Counsel during the count of the investigation. Many of the subpoenaed materials reflect frank and candid deliberations among senior presidential advisers, including the Vice President, the White House Chief of Staff, the National Security Advisor, and the White House Press Secretary. The deliberations concern a number of sensitive issues, including the preparation of your January 2003 State of the Union Address, possible responses to public assertions challenging the accuracy of a statement in the address, and the decision to send Ms. Plame’s husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, to Niger in 2002 to investigate Iraqi efforts to acquire yellowcake uranium. Some of the subpoenaed documents also contain information about communications between you and senior White House officials.

[snip]

Much of the content of the subpoenaed documents falls squarely within the presidential communications and deliberative process components of executive privilege. Several of the subpoenaed interview reports summarize conversations between you and your advisors, which are direct presidential communications. Other portions of the documents fall within the scope of the presidential communications component of the privilege because they summarize
deliberations among your most senior advisers in the course of preparing information or advice for presentation to you, including information related to the preparation of your 2003 State of the Union Address and possible responses to public assertions that the address contained an inaccurate statement. Read more →

Share this entry