Ex-Justice Aide Admits Politics Affected Hiring

Monica Goodling has admitted that she "crossed the line" when she took into consideration applicants political beliefs in what is the clearest indication yet that, under the Bush administration, the Justice Department is becoming politicised, caring more about party advantage than the writ of law.

Of course, she was only being so candid because she has been granted immunity from prosecution which means, unlike her boss when he took the stand and a bout of amnesia, she can actually tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

When she says she "crossed the line", she is actually admitting to crossing the line between what was legal and illegal.

She did eventually, after much probing, admit that she had broken the law:

Goodling stumbled several times before admitting, "The best I can say is that I know I took political considerations into account."

"Do you believe they were illegal or legal?" asked Scott.

"I don't believe I intended to commit a crime," she answered, confirming that Regent University graduates are indeed trained to speak in a lawyerly manner.

Scott pressed: "Did you break the law? Is it against the law to take those considerations into account?"

"I believe I crossed the lines," Goodling replied, "but I didn't mean to."

By "crossed the lines," Scott asked, did she mean that she had violated federal civil service laws?

Goodling responded: "I crossed the line of the civil service rules."

Scott clarified that those "rules" are, in fact, "laws."

And the lengths she went to in order to find out applicants political leanings was quite extraordinary.

She said she had done Google or Nexis searches on job candidates or searched their names on campaign-finance databases to see if they might have given money to Republican or Democratic candidates. She also pressed applicants’ references, at times, to ferret out the political background of the job candidates they were endorsing.

Civil service rules prohibit such questions when federal agencies are hiring or promoting staff members for career positions. Violations could be unlawful, although probably not a crime, Justice Department officials have said. Two internal investigative units have begun an inquiry into Ms. Goodling’s screening practices.

However, it was worth granting her the immunity as what she had to say was fairly important:

Goodling went on to:

• confirm that former DOJ Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson had compiled a list of US Attorneys who would be fired -- apparently for being insufficiently partisan in their inquiries and prosecutions -- and that Gonzales had been aware of the list and involved in meetings about it,

• place White House political czar Karl Rove in a room where the firings were discussed,

• acknowledge that, as early as 2OO5, there was talk about forcing US Attorneys out to make way for White House favorites and

• explain how US Attorneys were "rewarded" for helping to promote and defend the Patriot Act, at a time when that law was under attack as an assault on basic liberties.

There was plenty to make one think that Gonzales had been less than frank when he was questioned by the Committee. He stated that he had not spoken to any of his aides since the firings "to protect the integrity of this investigation".

However, that was not the story that Goodling told:

During a meeting in March before she resigned, Ms. Goodling said, Mr. Gonzales asked her questions that left her uncomfortable. She thought he might be trying to compare recollections, so their stories would be consistent if they were questioned about their actions, she said. “I just thought maybe we shouldn’t have that conversation,” she said.

Brian J. Roehrkasse, a Justice Department spokesman, said in a statement that Mr. Gonzales “has never attempted to influence or shape the testimony or public statements of any witness in this matter, including Ms. Goodling. The statements made by the attorney general during this meeting were intended only to comfort her in a very difficult period.”

Nevertheless, it does appear that Gonzales was having the very conversations that he previously claimed not to have had.

Virginia Congressman Bobby Scott concluded by stating that in Alberto Gonzales' Department of Justice "the culture of loyalty to the administration was more important than loyalty to the rule of law."

There was very little that Monica Goodling had testified which contradicted that statement.

Click title for full article.

Tags: Monica Goodling, Gonzales, fired US Attorneys