|
Banned
|
Who is responsible for the appointments and the performance of the appointees.....at the US DOJ? Judging from these answers from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and from the account in the NY Times article below,
it certainly doesn't seem to be Gonzales, does it?
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...ny_051007.html
...... CONYERS: Thank you very much.
Mr. Nadler?
NADLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Attorney General, when did Monica Goodling start in her role as special counsel to you and the White House liaison?
GONZALES: Congressman, I'm not sure the exact date, but I'd be happy...
NADLER: Roughly?
GONZALES: I'm not sure. Let me -- I'd have to get back to you.
NADLER: Can you give me the year?
GONZALES: You know, I don't whether or not it was in the fall of '05 -- sometime in '05.
NADLER: Roughly, you know -- OK.
Now, to your knowledge, was Ms. Goodling involved in the hiring decisions of career assistant U.S. attorneys at any point?
GONZALES: I'm certainly aware, now, of allegations that -- well, she used to be the deputy, of course, in the Executive Office of the United States Attorneys. And so there she would have some role with respect to the hiring of career assistant United States...
NADLER: As special counsel and White House liaison, when she had that position, was she involved?
GONZALES: I think she did have some role in that position.
NADLER: Isn't that process reserved for U.S. attorneys, and in some cases for the Executive Office of the United States Attorneys?
GONZALES: Is what...
NADLER: The selection process for assistant USAs.
GONZALES: Typically, that is something that is conducted within the office of the specific United States attorneys' offices. There would be, however -- if you're talking about a situation where you had an interim United States attorney, there are...
NADLER: Well, we weren't talking about interim attorneys. We were talking about generally.
Now, allegations have been might that Ms. Goodling considered the political affiliations of career AUSA applicants. Would you agree that, if that is true, that practice would violate not only Department of Justice policy but also federal law?
GONZALES: In fact, those are very, very serious allegations. And if that happened, it shouldn't have happened.
NADLER: Now, Mr. Attorney General, when this committee asked Ms. Goodling to testify in front of us, she claimed her Fifth Amendment right not to -- the Fifth Amendment says you can't be forced to -- what's the word -- incriminate yourself with respect to a crime.
Can you tell this committee what crimes she might have thought -- from your stewardship of the department, what crimes there were that it might have been reasonable for her to think that her testimony might incriminate her or anybody else in?
GONZALES: Well, I can't do that, Congressman.
Obviously, it's always been my expectation and hope that Justice Department employees or former Justice Department employees would come forward and cooperate in connection with this investigation.
(CROSSTALK)
GONZALES: I offered up everyone.
NADLER: But you're not aware of any -- when someone who is the deputy attorney general, or special counsel to the attorney general, says that her testimony about the U.S. attorneys matter might implicate her in a crime, you're not aware of any crimes that she might have been referring to?
GONZALES: I offered her up...
NADLER: Or speaking of, I should say.
GONZALES: ... to come testify.
NADLER: What.
GONZALES: As an initial matter of course, I offered her up -- I offered up people on my staff...
NADLER: You're not aware of that.
Now, you have testified that you ask yourself every day whether you can be effective as the head of the Department of Justice.
Did you consider that, by many accounts, the morale at the Department of Justice and throughout the U.S. attorney community is at its lowest level since just after Watergate?
GONZALES: Did I consider that -- I don't know what's the source of that statement.
NADLER: Well, let me give you a different statement, then.
The recent ABC/Washington Post poll reports that 67 percent of the American people believe that the firings of U.S. attorneys were for political reasons, not for performance-based reasons. And, indeed, former Deputy Attorney General Comey said that the people who were fired had the highest performance, that they weren't for performance-based reasons.
If the American people don't believe you about this matter, how can they have confidence in other things you claim or that public corruption cases brought by your department are not similarly based on political considerations?
GONZALES: I think the American people are most concerned about the things that I alluded to earlier, Congressman. And that is, is our country safe from terrorism? Are we making our neighborhoods safe? Are we protecting our kids?
I will work as hard as I can -- working with this committee and working with DOJ employees -- to reassure the American people that this department is focused on doing its job.
NADLER: But you have a situation where most people believe that you didn't tell the truth about the U.S. attorneys.
And if that is the case -- they may be concerned about terrorism and ought to be, obviously, but it's a separate issue.
If most people believe that the United States attorney general has not told the truth about why these U.S. attorneys were fired, how can they have confidence in your job?
GONZALES: I don't believe that's an accurate statement.
And what I'm trying to do in appearances like this is to set the record straight.
NADLER: Well, the 67 percent -- 67 percent of the American people, according to the ABC/Washington Post poll, believe that the firings of the U.S. attorneys were for political reasons and not for performance-based reasons, which is exactly the opposite of what you have testified to.
GONZALES: I don't know when that poll was taken.
But, again, we've been very, very forthcoming, Congressman, in terms of our testimony...
NADLER: Well, I don't -- all right. That's a matter of opinion.
NADLER: But let me ask you this: If it is true, as you have testified, that you had very little personal involvement in the decision to fire the eight U.S. attorneys, you delegated that, you weren't really familiar with the reasons and the specifics -- and that's what you said -- and did not know the reasons some of them were on the list, how can we believe that you were involved in a hands-on manner in running the department in numerous other important issues?
GONZALES: Look at the record of the department. Look at the record of the department.
NADLER: No, that doesn't answer the question.
If you have stated to this committee and to other committees that in the matter of firing eight U.S. attorneys which you signed off on, you signed off on it without really knowing why or what their performance was, how can we believe that you really know what's going on in the department?
GONZALES: I think -- I think I was justified as head of that department to rely upon the people whose judgment that I valued, people who would know a lot more about the performance of United States attorneys. I think as head of the department I was justified in doing so.
Now, in hindsight, I've already said, I would have used a process that was more vigorous. There's no question about that.
But, again, Congressman, I would say, look at the record of the department in a wide variety of areas and...
NADLER: Well, let's look at the record of the department in a different area: national security letters.
Why is the government issuing NSLs to conduct fishing expeditions or, as the I.G. put it, to access NSL information about parties two or three steps removed from their subjects without determining if these contacts are real suspicious connections?
GONZALES: Well, of course, the I.G. also said that national security letters are indispensable -- indispensable.
NADLER: That's not the question.
(CROSSTALK)
NADLER: Excuse me. National security letters properly used may be indispensable. But they were abused. That was the I.G...
GONZALES: There is no question about that.
NADLER: So why is the department issuing NSLs to conduct -- I'll just repeat the question -- to conduct fishing expeditions, as the I.G. put it...
CONYERS: The gentleman's time has expired.
NADLER: May I have one additional minute?
CONYERS: Finish the question.
NADLER: Thanks.
To access NSL information about parties two or three times removed from their subjects without determining if these contacts are real suspicious connections?
Let me add to that, why is there no policy or practice of destroying information collected thusly, wrongly collected on innocent Americans?
GONZALES: There's a long answer I need to give with respect to NSLs. I'm not sure whether or not now is the time to do it.
But the I.G. identified some very serious issues with respect to the FBI's use of national security letters. No question they're an indispensable tool, but they've got to be used in a responsible manner, and we failed to do that. There's no -- we did. We failed to do that.
GONZALES: And the American people need to understand that we are taking steps to ensure that that doesn't happen again. The standard is whether or not is it relevant to a national security investigation?
NADLER: Are you taking steps to destroy information on people who are not involved in terrorism?
GONZALES: Yes. If it's not relevant to a national security investigation, yes, we are taking steps.
NADLER: Well, the testimony was that those records were not being destroyed. ........
|
<b>“She believes you’re a Democrat and doesn’t feel you can be trusted.”</b>
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/12/wa...pagewanted=all
May 12, 2007
Colleagues Cite Partisan Focus by Justice Official
By ERIC LIPTON
WASHINGTON, May 11 — Two years ago, Robin C. Ashton, a seasoned criminal prosecutor at the Department of Justice, learned from her boss that a promised promotion was no longer hers.
“You have a Monica problem,” Ms. Ashton was told, according to several Justice Department officials. Referring to Monica M. Goodling, a 31-year-old, relatively inexperienced lawyer who had only recently arrived in the office, the boss added, “She believes you’re a Democrat and doesn’t feel you can be trusted.”
Ms. Ashton’s ouster — she left the Executive Office for United States Attorneys for another Justice Department post two weeks later — was a critical early step in a plan that would later culminate in the ouster of nine United States attorneys last year.
Ms. Goodling would soon be quizzing applicants for civil service jobs at Justice Department headquarters with questions that several United States attorneys said were inappropriate, like who was their favorite president and Supreme Court justice. One department official said an applicant was even asked, “Have you ever cheated on your wife?”
Ms. Goodling also moved to block the hiring of prosecutors with résumés that suggested they might be Democrats, even though they were seeking posts that were supposed to be nonpartisan, two department officials said.
And she helped maintain lists of all the United States attorneys that graded their loyalty to the Bush administration, including work on past political campaigns, and noted if they were members of the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group.
By the time Ms. Goodling resigned in April — after her role in the firing of the prosecutors became public and she had been promoted to the role of White House liaison — she and other senior department officials had revamped personnel practices affecting employees from the top of the agency to the bottom.
The people who spoke about Ms. Goodling’s role at the department, including eight current Justice Department lawyers and staff, did so only on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution. Several added that they found her activities objectionable and damaging to the integrity of the department.
Ms. Goodling, who is under investigation by the department’s inspector general and ethics office, as well as Congress, has declined to testify before a House panel, citing her Fifth Amendment privilege to avoid making self-incriminating statements. Her lawyer, John M. Dowd, declined to comment on Friday.
A judge in Federal District Court in Washington signed an order Friday to grant Ms. Goodling limited immunity, which will allow House investigators to compel her to answer questions.
Justice Department officials declined to respond to questions about Ms. Goodling’s actions and refused to allow some agency employees to speak with a reporter about them.
“Whether or not Ms. Goodling engaged in prohibited personnel practices is the subject of an ongoing investigation,” a written statement said. “Given the ongoing nature of the investigation, we are unable to comment on the allegations.”
H. E. Cummins III, one of the fired prosecutors, said Justice Department officials should have recognized that Ms. Goodling’s strategy was flawed from the start.
“She was inexperienced, way too naïve and a little overzealous,” said Mr. Cummins, a Republican from Arkansas. “She might have somehow figured that what she was doing was the right thing. But a more experienced person would understand you don’t help the party by trying to put political people in there. You put the best people you can find in there.”
Ms. Goodling, now 33, arrived at the department at the start of the Bush administration after working as an opposition researcher for the Republican National Committee during the 2000 presidential campaign.
Her legal experience was limited; she had graduated in 1999 from Regent University School of Law, which was founded by Pat Robertson. Deeply religious and politically conservative, Ms. Goodling seemed to believe that part of her job was to bring people with similar values into the Justice Department, several former colleagues said.
She joined the department in the press office. Soon after, two lawyers said, Ms. Goodling complained that staff members in Puerto Rico had used rap music in a public service announcement intended to discourage gun crime.
“That is just outrageous,” she told one department lawyer. “How could they use government money for an ad that featured rap music? That kind of music glorifies violence.”
Ms. Goodling’s shift to the executive office, which oversees budgets, management and performance evaluations of United States attorneys, occurred as officials in the White House and Justice Department were considering replacing a number of the top prosecutors. The first lists of possible targets had already been drawn up. But while those lists were being refined, Ms. Goodling, who would become deputy director of the executive office, was quietly helping make other changes.
In addition to making clear that she wanted Ms. Ashton out, a Justice Department employee still in that office said, Ms. Goodling took actions that encouraged a second experienced prosecutor, Kelly Shackelford, to move on. James B. Comey, who served as deputy attorney general from 2003 to 2005, said Ms. Ashton and Ms. Shackelford were excellent lawyers, whose politics he did not know nor would he ever have asked. Ms. Ashton and Ms. Shackelford declined to comment.
Ms. Goodling helped recruit new office managers who included John Nowacki, another Regent University graduate, who had little experience as a prosecutor, but had previously served as the director of legal policy at a conservative research group, the Free Congress Foundation.
She also insisted that she be given final approval in hiring assistant United States attorneys in offices where there was an interim chief prosecutor. Interim United States attorneys always had to seek permission for hiring, but the review was typically lower level and involved checking that sufficient slots were available, current and former employees said.
But Ms. Goodling’s reviews delayed hiring decisions for weeks or months, creating problems in busy offices, and her concerns at times appeared to be for partisan reasons.
In one case, Ms. Goodling told a federal prosecutor in the District of Columbia that she was not signing off on an applicant who had graduated from Howard University Law School, and then worked at the Environmental Protection Agency.
“He appeared, based on his résumé, to be a liberal Democrat,” Ms. Goodling told Jeffrey A. Taylor, the acting United States attorney in Washington, according to two of the department employees who asked not to be named. “That wasn’t what she was looking for.”
Mr. Taylor ultimately found a way to go around Ms. Goodling in hiring the applicant.
She appeared to take similar concerns about political leanings into account when making decisions about promotions and special assignments for Justice Department lawyers.
Robert Nicholson, a career lawyer from the Southern District of Florida, was asked some unusual questions when he applied for a post at the Justice Department headquarters, according to two department lawyers, including Margaret M. Chiara, the former chief prosecutor Western Michigan.
“Which Supreme Court justice do you most admire and why? Which legislator do you most admire and why? And which president do you most admire and why?” Mr. Nicholson was asked by Ms. Goodling, according to Ms. Chiara and the other lawyer, who asked not to be named.
Mr. Nicholson, who did not get the job, did not dispute the account, but he declined to comment, citing the investigation of Ms. Goodling.
In another instance, two Justice Department officials said, Ms. Goodling decided she did not like the applicants for one prestigious posting at department headquarters and decided to offer the job to David C. Woll Jr., a young lawyer who she knew was a Republican. In the interview, a department official said, she asked Mr. Woll if he had ever cheated on his wife. Mr. Woll declined to comment for this article.
Last month, a group of department employees wrote anonymously to Congressional investigators alleging that political considerations were influencing the selection of summer interns and applicants for the Attorney General’s Honors Program, which hires promising lawyers right out of law school. The letter did not say if Ms. Goodling was involved in the process. Department officials declined to comment on the matter.
Hundreds of applications for the honors slots were winnowed by career lawyers, then reviewed by top political appointees, who removed many candidates, the letter said. “Most of those struck from the list had interned for a Hill Democrat, clerked for a Democratic judge, worked for ‘liberal’ causes, or otherwise appeared to have ‘liberal’ leanings,” the letter said.
Ms. Goodling worked less than a year at the executive office, then moved to the attorney general’s office, where she became the White House liaison and collected a $133,000 annual salary, according to federal records. She insisted that she retain her power to review hiring of assistant United States attorneys, two department employees said.
Her mandate over hiring expanded significantly in March 2006, when Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales signed a confidential memorandum delegating to her and D. Kyle Sampson, his former chief of staff, the power to appoint or fire all department political appointees other than the United States attorneys. That included interim United States attorneys and heads of the divisions that handle civil rights, public corruption, environmental crimes and other matters.
At the same time, Ms. Goodling, Mr. Sampson and Mr. Nowacki, according to e-mail released to Congressional investigators, were helping prepare the final list of United States attorneys to be dismissed. Ms. Goodling was also calling around the country trying to identify up-and-coming lawyers — and good Republicans — who could replace them, said one Justice Department official who received such a call.
Mr. Comey said that if the accusations about Ms. Goodling’s partisan actions were true, the damage was deep and real.
“I don’t know how you would put that genie back in the bottle, if people started to believe we were hiring our A.U.S.A.s (Assistant United States Attorneys) for political reasons,” he said at a House hearing this month. “I don’t know that there’s any window you can go to to get the department’s reputation back if that kind of stuff is going on.”
|
|