Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, on why he's not prosecuting DoJ officials who illegally politicized the department:
"Not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime."
Duh. Crimes are reserved for poor people who steal stuff, not rich, well-connected dudes who, you know, wrongfully and willfully subvert the rule of law.
One aspect of the DoJ's illegal hiring practices not mentioned here yesterday, was the department's bias against perceived homosexuality:
Goodling intervened and blocked the extension. The report said that several witnesses told investigators that her opposition was based on the "alleged sexual orientation."
One official told investigators about a conversation in which he told Goodling that he had heard the rumors that the women were lesbians. He said Goodling responded to that news "by putting her head in her hands and asking why no one had told her about this information before."
Monday's report also said that Goodling used an Internet search that included the words "gay" and "homosexual" to screen candidates and their backgrounds.
Investigators found that Goodling used the same search parameters as Jan Williams, who served as White House liaison before Goodling. The report said that Williams had used the string in late 2005 and early 2006 to research candidates for positions on a national advisory commission on violence against women.
Dan Froomkin, on the DoJers named in the department's Inspector General report for illegal hiring practices:
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?
"The policies and attitudes of this administration encouraged politicization of the department and permitted these excesses," charged Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. "It is now clear that these politically rooted actions were widespread, and could not have been done without at least the tacit approval of senior department officials."
The New York Times opines that current Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, "needs to get serious about punishing this sort of wrongdoing," if "he hopes to leave office with any sort of reputation for integrity..." Fat chance. Mukasey was installed to put the DoJ back together while simultaneously thwarting any investigation of its activities. That was the apparent deal with Congressional Democrats, who seem unwilling to hold anybody from the Bush administration accountable for their actions, lest Fox News say something nasty about them.
Dallas News' Rod Dreher explains why conservatives should be up in arms about this DoJ scandal:
We conservatives are big on insisting that racial and gender quotas in hiring are bad, because they substitute a false and politically correct standard for hiring, a standard that marginalizes people who are actually more capable of doing the job. I believe that. What the Bush crowd did at Justice, though, makes a mockery of conservative arguments for meritocracy in hiring. The damage this administration has done to conservatism is going to take a long time to overcome. Heck of a job, Alberto. Heck of a job.
Honestly, I haven't encountered many conservatives - especially actual, living, breathing members of the Republican party - who seem to feel that they should be subservient to any ideal that interferes with what they want to do. Blame it on Ayn Rand or whatever, but there it is.
Now, this won't come as much as a surprise for anyone who's been following the scandals wrapped around Alberto Gonzalez' Department of Justice, but the DoJ's inspector general (pdf) found that several DOJers repeatedly broke the law "by conducting political litmus tests on candidates for jobs" as immigration justices and prosecutors.
Monica Goodling and Kyle Sampson were the main culprits. "What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?" asked Goodling, regularly, to candidates for career jobs.
As Steve Benen points out, this is the second of four reports being prepared by the DoJ's Inspector General, and that the first report "documented six years of illegal hiring practices" in the department, so it's hardly anything new. Still, it contains some egregious behavior.
Things are a-brewin' in Congress today that are sure an embarrassment to the Republican party.
Okay...so a FISA bill granting retroactive immunity for telecoms was passed in the Senate and sent down to the House. Only House Democrats instead want to consider granting a 21-day extension of the "Protect America Act" instead, which was soundly beaten by both the right and left.
So, then the House votes on contempt citations for former White House aides, Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers, for refusing to testify in the Congressional investigation of the prosecutor purge. No brainer, right? Surely even Republicans would recognize that their body's power is being compromised by the White House, and that, even if they question the worthiness of the investigation, would be interested in ensuring their authority is respected in the other branches of government...right?
The House voted 223-32 in favor of contempt citations for chief of staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers on Thursday. They are accused of failing to cooperate in a congressional inquiry into whether the firings of at least nine federal prosecutors were politically motivated.
Minority leader John Boehner led angry Republicans on a walkout before the vote, leading to the lopsided tally.
Okay, so maybe they're dead wrong on all the measures, and so maybe they're acting like a pack of spoiled 13-year-olds, but at least they're getting exercise! Too bad Hastert's not around to enjoy the benefits...
Another juicy rumor about a scandal that may break just in time for the 2008 elections: the investigations into the Prosecutor Purge may soon yield results:
recent behind-the-scenes activity in several investigations suggests that the issue that roiled Congress in 2007 could re-emerge in the heat of the election year. Two inquiries by the House and Senate ethics committees are examining whether several congressional Republicans, including one running for the Senate this year, improperly interfered with investigations.
As potent as the congressional probes might be, they appear to be far narrower than a sprawling inquiry launched by the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR).
Investigators from these offices have been questioning whether senior officials lied to Congress, violated the criminal provisions in the Hatch Act, tampered with witnesses preparing to testify to Congress, obstructed justice, took improper political considerations into account during the hiring and firing of U.S. attorneys and created widespread problems in the department's Civil Rights Division, according to several people familiar with the investigation.
The internal Justice Department probe cannot bring charges but can refer findings to a U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia or a special prosecutor, who could then pursue a criminal investigation. One source close to the investigation expects the offices to issue a scathing report within the next three months, but they have not announced a timeline for their joint inquiry.
"I think it could be historic," said David Iglesias, former U.S. attorney in New Mexico , who was one of the nine ordered to resign by the Bush administration. "Arguably it's the most significant investigation OPR and OIG have done in a generation, or maybe ever."
(For my wingnut fans, a "rumor" is "a statement or report current without known authority for its truth.")
Hopefully the investigations do yield tangible results. The rule of law needs to be free from political interference and consideration.
Loads of things happened surrounding the prosecutor purge controversy. Here are some of the highlights:
Congress put more pressure on Gonzo, and by all accounts, he was completely miserable, worse than ever. The kicker was over testimony concerning Gonzo?s attempt to wring intelligence concessions from then-Attorney Gen?l Ashcroft while he was in the ICU, in which Gonzo blames everybody but himself. But the one moment that seems to bode trouble for the Attorney General was his contradictory remarks about Bush?s spying activities. Basically the testimony was so bad that Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) was talking impeachement. A guy can dream, can?t he?
The House Judiciary Committee approved of issuing a contempt of Congress citation against Josh Bolton and Harriet Miers for failing to appear before Congress to give testimony on the attorney firings. A full House vote on the citation needs to occur before it is issued. The DoJ has vowed to ignore the citation, setting up a constitutional confrontation between Congress and the White House. (The Gavel has video of Congressional leaders? comments.)
BooMan is most shocked by the fact that the Committee vote was along strict party lines, noting a similar citation against the Reagan White House was approved of in 1983 by a 413-0 vote: ?Ronald Reagan was not only a Republican president, unlike Bush he was a popular president. Nevertheless, in 1983, not a single Republican member of congress was willing to let him stonewall a congressional committee. Today, not a single Republican on the Judiciary Committee was willing to say the same.?
What?s ironic about Republican opposition is that they don?t want this citation to get to court, for fear of losing it and creating an ?imperial presidency.? Rightie Ed Morrissey has the reasoning behind this stance.
That?s why House Democrats wrote a report used to justify the citation, which alleges ?specific ways that several administration officials may have broken the law during the multiple firings of U.S. attorneys.? According to the report, DoJ and White House officials ?obstructed justice and violated federal statutes that protect civil service employees, prohibit political retaliation against government officials and cover presidential records,? all of which seem clearly substantiated from DoJ and WH testimony in recent weeks, and should bolster Congress? case that criminal wrongdoing actually occurred. At the very least, they?ve got evidence of perjury on Alberto Gonzalez.
Look at that, the Cheney story has gotten very interesting.
Let's start with Bush's rejection of Congressional subpoenas for documents of former White House staff, Harriet Miers and Sara Taylor, as part of the investigation into the prosecutor purge, claiming "executive privilege." This came close on the heels of yesterday's announcement that VP Cheney, while acknowledging he was part of the executive branch, would still reject oversight on how his office handled classified information, because it's not an "agency." Next up: subpoenas to the White House and Cheney's office from the Senate Judiciary Committee concerning the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program. Expect more of the same stonewalling from Bush and Cheney.
The news of the rejection of Congressional subpoenas and the impending constitutional crisis comes at the time of newfound (and long overdue) scrutiny into Cheney's dealings embodied in the recent Washington Post four-part series revealing details of the Vice President's powerful and unprecedented position in the government.
The chattering classes have turned against Cheney.
First, he's being investigated for possibly trying to influence Monica Goodling's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Second, subpoenas have been issued to compel former Rove aide, Sara Taylor, and former White House counsel, Harriet Miers, to testify about the prosecutor purge.
Monica Goodling is testifying before the House Judiciary Committee right now. (TPM Muckraker has video excerpts of the hearing, and Christy Hardin Smith is live blogging the testimony.)
Already in her opening statement she made some damning remarks in her opening statement against Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty:
...I believe that the Deputy was not fully candid about his knowledge of White House involvement in the replacement decision, failed to disclose that he had some knowledge of the White House?s interest in select [Karl Rove assistant] Tim Griffin as the Interim U.S. Attorney...inaccurately described the Department?s internal assessment of the Parsky Commission, and failed to disclose that he had some knowledge of allegations that Tim Griffin had been involved in vote ?caging? during his work on the President?s 2004 campaign....
Goodling also testified that McNulty asked her not to appear in a meeting with the Senate Judiciary Committee so that her presence as White House would not spur committee members to ask questions about the White House.
While Goodling denies any involvement in the decision about firing, she admits she herself made political consideration when hiring, and knew it violated civil service regulations.
A report also came out recently that shows Goodling was distraught when she heard that her office was being accused of illegal activities:
"All I ever wanted to do was serve this president and this administration and this department," Goodling said during a March 8 conversation, according to Associate Deputy Attorney General David Margolis.
Margolis told House and Senate investigators of the conversation during a private meeting earlier this month.
During the 30- to 45-minute encounter, Goodling proceeded "to bawl her eyes out" and repeat the phrase, Margolis said.
First, as a DoJ employee, Goodling does not serve the President and the administration. She serves in the Department of Justice, period.
Second, the word "nation" or "country" or "constitution" or the like is conspicuously absent from her list of masters.
Update:Kevin Drum: "In other news, Goodling is now the latest high-ranking DOJ official to say that, really, she has no idea why those U.S. Attorneys were fired last year, or who made the choices. The list appeared, somehow, but apparently not from any human hand. It's a miracle!"
The recent testimony by Ashcroft aide, Paul Comey, has continually grown since it was given last week. It turns out now that Senate Democrats are going to try to use the testimony to disbar, or indict, Attorney General Gonzalez:
...Democrats will ask the Texas Bar Association to determine whether Gonzales violated his code of professional responsibility or broke laws by bringing up the NSA program in the hospital in front of Ashcroft's wife, who lacks security clearances.
It's clearly an end-around gambit by Democrats who apparently want to avoid impeaching the administration's pin-headed yes-man, but it also reveals the political difficulties the President is presenting to the nation.
