Surprise, surprise, surprise…

by Glynn Wilson

Perhaps you are too young, blog fans, to remember the Gomer Pyle Show and the Marine private’s routine refrain to Sergeant Carter.

But that’s what’s ringing in my ears this Monday morning as we wait to find out if what is being reported by the TPMMuckraker and The New York Times is true.

After offering what the Times calls “a blistering critique” of the political motivations that led to the firings of a group of United States attorneys in late 2006, the report to be released later today supposedly stops short of recommending criminal charges against former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales or others in the affair, including former Bush political guru Karl Rove.

While the first reaction on the part of anyone who has been watching this case closely for the past year might be outrage, since yes, we all want Gonzales and Rove — who were forced out of their jobs in Washington last August — to be prosecuted too.

But did anyone really expect the Bush Justice Department to recommend prosecuting the former head of the Bush Justice Department? That would have been the real surprise.

And yes, while we all want the House Judiciary Committee to lock Karl Rove up for contempt and for defying a Congressional subpoena to testify under oath — apparently the first person in American history to get away with that dastardly deed — perhaps it would be better to wait until the financial crisis is solved and the election is over and Bush is gone from the White House in January. Otherwise, Bush will just pardon them.

Once Obama takes charge of the Justice Department as the new president, with an even larger majority of Democrats in both houses of Congress, then Rove and the others can be brought up on criminal charges and prosecuted.

Former Justice Department counselor Monica M. Goodling and former chief of staff D. Kyle Sampson routinely broke the law by conducting political litmus tests on candidates for jobs as judges and career prosecutors, according to a report on the Bush Justice Department released Monday by the department’s own inspector general’s office.

Goodling passed over hundreds of qualified applicants and squashed the promotions of others after deeming candidates insufficiently loyal to the Republican party, investigators said. They interviewed 85 people and received information from 300 other people who sought jobs with the department.

Some examples of wrong-doing include the testimony of one former Justice Department official who told investigators Goodling was asking interviewees for their views on abortion. And in one glaring example of a demand for loyalty to Bush, Goodling asked candidates, “What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?”

The extensive report confirms the long-held suspicions of congressional Democrats and underscores the challenge the next president will face in restoring public confidence in the nation’s premiere law enforcement operation, according to the Washington Post.

Today’s study marks the second of four lengthy dissections of the role that partisan political considerations played in Justice Department employment decisions during the Bush administration. Reports on hiring problems in the Civil Rights Division and the firing of nine U.S. attorneys have yet to be released.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) called the political interference “widespread” and said it “could not have been done without at least the tacit approval of senior Department officials.”

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers and Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee Chairwoman Linda Sánchez say they are considering criminal referrals based on the report for former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez and others. The TPM Muckraker in Washington is covering this issue extensively.

“Today’s report describes ‘systematic’ violations of federal law by several former leaders of the Department of Justice,” Conyers said in a statement. “Apparently, the political screening was so pervasive that even qualified Republican applicants were rejected from Department positions because they were ‘not Republican enough’ for Monica Goodling and others.

“The report also makes clear that the cost to our nation of these apparent crimes was severe, as qualified individuals were rejected for key positions in the fight against terrorism and other critical Department jobs for no reason other than political whim,” Conyers said. “The Report also indicates that Monica Goodling, Kyle Sampson, and Alberto Gonzales may have lied to the Congress about these matters. I have directed my staff to closely review this matter and to consider whether a criminal referral for perjury is needed.”

“The House Judiciary Committee’s investigation into the politicization of the Department of Justice has been criticized by the Minority as a fishing expedition that has caught no fish,” Sánchez said. “This report, which found that Monica Goodling and many other Justice Department officials committed misconduct by violating both federal law and Department policy, adds to a growing public record that this Administration has tainted our system of justice.”

The report, released today by the Office of Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility found:

* Senior Bush Administration Department of Justice officials, including Monica Goodling, Kyle Sampson, Jan Williams, and others violated federal law and committed misconduct in basing hiring decisions for career prosecutor positions, details to senior Department offices and immigration judgeships on the applicant’s political affiliations and views. (125-27)

* The report highlighted political cronyism that was “particularly damaging” in a vital counterterrorism post when a qualified expert was rejected because his wife had the wrong political affiliation. Instead, a candidate was chosen that “lacked any experience in counterterrorism issues” and who other DoJ officials believed “was not qualified for the position.” (136)

* Immigration judgeships were needlessly held vacant for long periods while Department leaders sought to identify politically suitable candidates, leading to a severe backlog of immigration matters. (128)

* Monica Goodling also made false statements to the Department’s own lawyers who were defending a lawsuit regarding Immigration Judge hiring. (138)

* A current Department official, John Nowacki, prepared and circulated a press release responding to public concern about these issues that he knew was false at the time; the report recommends that Mr. Nowacki be disciplined (127-28)

* Monica Goodling refused to approve several DOJ appointments for an AUSA who Ms. Goodling believed was gay. (132-33)

Excerpts from the Report:

“The evidence also showed that Goodling considered political or ideological affiliations when recommending and selecting candidates for other permanent career positions, including a career SES position in the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA) and AUSA positions. These actions violated federal law and Department policy, and also constituted misconduct.” (136)

“Goodling’s use of political considerations in connection with these details was particularly damaging to the Department because it resulted in high-quality candidates for important details being rejected in favor of less-qualified candidates. 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.” (136)

“[W]e believe it was improper, and violated the law and Department policy, for Goodling to use political or ideological affiliations in selecting or rejecting detailees to these positions.” (136)

“[T]he 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 [Immigration Judge], which are career positions protected by the civil service laws.” (137)

“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.” (138)

“The evidence detailed above demonstrates that Kyle Sampson, Jan Williams, and Monica Goodling each violated Department of Justice policy and federal law by considering political or ideological affiliations in soliciting and evaluating candidates for IJs, which are Schedule A career positions, not political appointments. Further, the evidence demonstrates that their violations were not isolated instances but were systematic in nature. The evidence demonstrates further that Goodling violated Department policy and federal law by considering political or ideological affiliations in selecting candidates for the BIA.” (115)

“Elston said that Goodling made it clear to him that she did not want Democrats detailed to the ODAG because she had a ‘farm system’ approach to filling vacancies in the Department, and she wanted to ‘credential’ Republicans so that they could move on to higher political positions. Elston also stated that there were some Republicans that Goodling did not want to hire as detailees because they were not ‘Republican enough.’ ” (47-48)

And in this video, a DOJ lawyer tells Bill Moyers “the lunatics are running the country…”