Democrats Should Point Out Goodling & Co.'s Inexperience

In an article that appeared in the Legal Times, and which can be read by clicking on the link in this entry's title, there is a discussion about how an immigration judge named Garry Malphrus got his job. Malphrus had no experience in immigration cases. He had apparently never practiced immigration law. He was, however, politically connected. Indeed he was one of the so-called "Brooks Brothers" rioters who intimidated the Dade County Board of Elections into shutting down its recount. Obviously a person who really respects the rule of law.

According to Monica Goodling's testimony, she was told by Kyle Sampson that political hires could be made for the immigration service. Goodling took this as meaning that she could look into the political background of applicants and take such consideration into account. As it turns out, she couldn't and she was forced to admit this week before the House Judiciary Committee that she broke the law.

Overlooked in all of this is how little experience Monica Goodling had compared to the power she was given. She had no experience as an attorney either prosecuting or defending criminal cases or in handling civil cases. She was a political hack who was given her job precisely because she wasn't qualified. According to Wikipedia, this was her background:

Ms. Goodling worked alongside Tim Griffin as an opposition researcher for the Republican National Committee during the 2000 presidential campaign. She joined the Department of Justice's press office after George W. Bush was elected president. She moved to the department's executive office, which is responsible for budgeting, management, personnel management and evaluation, later becoming deputy director of the executive office.[3] After less than a year, Goodling moved again, to the attorney general’s office, working as the the White House liaison

How in the world does that type of experience qualify a person to be hiring and/or firing United States Attorneys for the various Federal Court districts around the country? It is hard to imagine the presumption of a person like Goodling who would assume that she was capable of carrying out such duties given her lack of experience.

We would love to see some Democrat in the future go through her background and then ask her just why she thought she was qualified for the job she had before she resigned. How in the world could a person who had never been in a courtroom, never presented a civil or criminal case to a jury or a judge, never wrote a brief, or handled a client's legal problem, know who should be an United States Attorney? Only in the Bush Administration could this kind of inexperienced incompetent end up making decisions on who to hire and who to fire.

House Republicans Praise Goodling as She Admits to Violating the Law

Monica Goodling appeared in front of the House Judiciary Committee and admitted to "crossing the line" and looking into the political affilations of people being considered for jobs in the Justice Department. Yet, in spite of this admission, only obtained after she was granted immunity from having her testimony used against her, Republicans on the Committee praised her. Here is one example from the Washington Post article linked to above:

"There not only is no evidence of wrongdoing, but there is no allegation of any wrongdoing on your part," Rep. Steve King (Iowa) told her.

King's remarkable comments are just one more example of the fact that Republicans don't think that the rules apply to them. Republicans like King don't think that Goodling crossed any lines because they believe that, for Republicans, lines don't exist. They are so quick to attack the sins of Democrats and yet so unwilling to recognize their own sins.

As the Washington Post editoral writers wrote in a May 24, 2007 editorial:

It was sad, as well, that so many Republican committee members chose to ignore this ugly fact and heap praise on Ms. Goodling. "I think you have . . . shown people who are here. . . . why people in the Justice Department thought you were worthy of your job," said Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.). "Millions of Americans now know a lot more about you, and they're proud to have somebody like you serving in government," said Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) Violating the law against politicizing the civil service is no grounds for pride.

Sad, but not surprising. One thing that comes through time and time again when detailing the actions of this administration or the Republican party in Ohio: they just don't think that the rules apply to them.

Washington Post Reports 26 U.S. Attorneys Considered for Firing

At first it was eight, then nine, then ten, and now the figure is at 26. That's the number of U.S. Attorneys considered for firing by Ol' Alberto and his gang of radical, religious right conservatives at the U.S. Department of Justice. That number, by the way, is being reported by the Washington Post in a story that is linked to this entry's title.

Of course, no one claims to know how the names of any U.S. Attorneys got on the list. Gonzales claims that he didn't put the names on the list, his former chief of staff claims not to remember how names got on the list, and his former second in command claims not to know how names got on the list. So what we have is a Department of Justice in which over 25% of the total numer of U.S. Attorneys in the whole country were being considered for termination and no one supposedly knows how or why their names were selected.

People talk about impeaching Bush and/or Cheney. Actually Gonzales would be a much better target. He is demonstratably incompetent, he is not an elected official, so you don't have the argument about undoing the result of an election, and the mainstream media is inclined to believe that he should go. In short, impeaching Gonzales doesn't have the downside of impeaching either Bubble-Boy or Shotgun Cheney.

Was U.S. Attorney in Seattle Fired Because He Pushed for Murder Investigation of Pro-Gun Control Prosecutor

John McKay was one of eight U.S. Attorneys ordered to resign their positions with the Justice Department. Previously he was first thought to be on the list of U.S. Attorneys to be fired in September of 2006. It has come out during hearings on the firing of the U.S. Attorneys, however, that his name was on a list of U.S. Attorneys to be fired in March of 2005. Now here is where it gets very interesting.

According to this story in the Seattle Times, McKay was pushing for the U.S. Department of Justice to devote more resources to investigating the murder of one of his assistants, Tom Wales. Wales was murdered in October 0f 2001, shortly before McKay assumed office. Wales was known as a person who was in favor of strong gun control. Because Wales worked as an attorney in the Seattle office, that office was recused from any involvement in the investigation of his death.

At a hearing on this scandal in Washington, Representative Mel Watt, (D-NC), raised the possibility that McKay's pushing for action on the Wales investigation led to his firing. This quote is from the Times article: "It was suggested that Mr. Sampson had concerns or that concerns had been raised ... relating to the murder of an assistant U.S. attorney named Thomas Wales, in which Mr. McKay had requested some action by the department."

So here's where we are with McKay: In March of 2005, he was pushing for this investigation and he was also in trouble with the White House because he didn't push for a bogus voter fraud investigation in the Washington state elections of 2004. So which is it? Was he put on the list because he thought that the murder of a pro-gun control Assistant U.S. Attorney should be investigated or because he wouldn't investigate bogus claims of voter fraud? Either way, it is another example of the perversion of the Justice Department under Gonzales.

The Real Reason Why Monica Goodling was Going to Take the Fifth?

According to this story in the Washington Post, Monica Goodling, former aide to Attorney General Gonzales is being investigated by the Justice Department for improperly considering the political affiliations of attorneys applying for jobs at that Department.

If you remember, earlier this year Goodling's attorney wrote to both Senate and House Committees and told them that his client wasn't going to testify because of her concern that she would incriminate herself. At the time he made it appear that her concerns centered on the make-up of the Committees. He argued in his letter that he believed that Democrats, especially Sen. Schumer from NY, had already prejudged his client.

Now, however, we find out that his client may have violated Federal law. That makes his concerns over his client's testimony much more understandable. It may have had nothing to do with any alleged "prejudging" by Schumer and much more to do with the fact that Goodling was already a target of an internal investigation. We wonder if Regent University Law School is still proud of this particular alumnus?

Did Regent's University Scrub Its Website After Goodling Resigned?

Earlier this month we posted a story about how Regent University posted on its website the fact that 150 of its alumni either worked or had worked for the Bush Administration. As one of our readers pointed out to us that information appears to be gone from the University's website.

Why was this done? The reader suggests three possible reasons: " Could they be embarassed that the public now knows where Bush's advice comes from? Or maybe the info has been removed because of the Gonzalez Attorneys General scandal? Or perhaps they withdrew the info because their claim was overblown/inaccurate?

It would be interesting if someone would call up Regent's University and ask them about this apparent change. If you do, let us know by posting a comment on our blog.

Is the AP Reporting or Analyzing & is There a Difference Anymore?

If you click here, you can read an article by the Associated Press on the fired U.S. Attorneys that appeared in the Guardian newspaper in the United Kingdom written by Julie Hirshfeld Davis . The article seems to be reporting on the political implications of the scandal, but it contains the following language:

The escalating uproar over President Bush's firings of eight U.S. attorneys has handed Democrats a weapon they have long sought - evidence his administration improperly allowed politics to trump the law. There are a couple of problems: The evidence is largely circumstantial and the proof is missing.

Consider the highlighted part of the above quote. First of all, as any trial lawyer or judge will tell you, "circumstantial evidence" is evidence. It is not any less valuable than direct evidence, that is, evidence that a witness heard or saw firsthand. There are many people now serving just sentences in state and federal prisons because of circumstantial evidence. Second, she never explains what "proof" is missing or what "proof" she expects or what "proof" she would consider satisfactory.

Ms. Davis goes on to set forth both positions regarding whether the firing of the U.S. Attorneys was political in nature. Indeed she sets forth both positions in a pretty straight-forward manner. Why, then, does she throw in the language quoted above which has the effect of basically undercutting one side of the debate? Basically what she has done is to signal the reader her opinion without coming right out and saying it is her opinion.

There is nothing wrong with the Associated Press and/or Ms. Davis doing analysis on the firing of the U.S. Attorneys. There is nothing wrong with Ms. Davis having an opinion, BUT it should be called just that so that the reader will know what he or she is reading. To do otherwise is to do a disservice to the readers of her articles.

Not only is it a disservice to her readers but such writing encourages readers to believe that Ms. Davis and/or the AP has an agenda regarding the reporting of the fired U.S. Attorneys. The mainstream media is always telling us that it has no agenda with regard to supporting the Bush Administration, yet time and time again the mainstream media has passed on false information from the Bush Administration and refused to own up to their mistakes. (Click here for a review of such reporting and the Iraq War.)

Well, here is a thought for Ms. Davis and other mainstream media types: the circumstantial evidence that keeps accumulating that the mainstream media has a bias for the Bush Administration and its policies is pretty convincing and their denials, the direct evidence if you will, is becoming less and less convincing.

Profile of Influence of Regent University Law School on Justice Department

Last week we posted an entry on the influence of Regent University, founded by Pat Robertson, in the Bush Administration, especially the Department of Justice. The Boston Globe printed a relatively long piece today, examining Regent University's law school.

This is a quote from the article: Not long ago, it was rare for Regent graduates to join the federal government. But in 2001, the Bush administration picked the dean of Regent's government school, Kay Coles James , to be the director of the Office of Personnel Management -- essentially the head of human resources for the executive branch. The doors of opportunity for government jobs were thrown open to Regent alumni.

The article goes on to note that the law school, from which Monica Goodling graduated, is a "fourth tier" law school, essentially ranked at 136th place among American law schools. The article describes Goodling as follows: Documents show that Goodling, who has asserted her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to avoid testifying before Congress, was one of a handful of officials overseeing the firings. She helped install Timothy Griffin , the Karl Rove aide and her former boss at the Republican National Committee, as a replacement US attorney in Arkansas.

Because Goodling graduated from Regent in 1999 and has scant prosecutorial experience, her qualifications to evaluate the performance of US attorneys have come under fire. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, asked at a hearing: "Should we be concerned with the experience level of the people who are making these highly significant decisions?"

Clearly what matters more than experience or competence or academic achievement with the Bush Administration is being on the right side of conservative issues. A person with as little credentials as Monica Goodling can get hired because she is a true believer.

More Turmoil Caused by a Bushie in the Justice Department

During the last two days the media has been reporting on the U.S. Attorney in Minnesota who replaced an U.S. Attorney who resigned last year. Her name is Rachel K. Paulose and she is a former senior aide to Paul J. MacNulty, the deputy U.S. Attorney General. The reason why the media has been reporting on her is that Thursday three of the managing attorneys in her office resigned their management positions and went back to being staff attorneys. According to reports in the Minneapolis media, this was a protest against her "ideologically driven and dictatorial managerial style."

Readers of this blog may remember that we contrasted her experience and age at becoming a U. S. Attorney with that of Greg White, the former Lorain County Prosecutor who is the present U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio. Needless to say, there is really no comparison between the two since Mr. White had over 20 years of experience in running a prosecutor's office before becoming U.S. Attorney. Why would the Bush Administration give such an important job to a relatively inexperienced attorney?

The answer, of course, is politics. In politics it is common to reward those who have been loyal to you. So, on one hand, giving Ms. Paulose her present position can be seen as political business as usual. There may be more sinister motives at work, however. In the Times article quoted above appears this passage: She is also one of several conservative lawyers who worked at Justice Department headquarters or the White House who have been named to top jobs in United States attorneys offices on an interim basis. Others are J. Timothy Griffin in Arkansas, Bradley J. Schlozman in Missouri, R. Alexander Acosta in Miami and Matthew M. Dummermuth in Iowa.

Every one of those states is a "swing state" in the 2008 presidential election, including Arkansas, which, although it went for Bush twice, was carried by Clinton twice in the 1990s. Having conservative partisans in U.S. Attorneys' offices could be helpful in pressuring voting rights groups carrying out registration drives among poor people and minorities. (You can read the whole Times article here. )

U.S. Attorney Firings Had Origins in 2004 Presidential Election

Politico, an online website devoted to politics, has a story that claims that the origins of the firing of the U.S. Attorneys are to be found in the 2004 Presidential election and even perhaps in the 2000 election. The story claims that the Bushies were upset in 2000 when people questioned the black robed coup that led to his becoming President. In particular they were upset that Democrats were arguing that had all the votes of Afro-American voters been counted, Gore would have won Florida.

In order to make sure that such accusations were not made after the 2004 election, the Bushies wanted to use the U.S. Justice Department to gather evidence of what they call "voting fraud", targeting organizations that were registering poor and minority voters. According to the article Republicans kept pushing this theme with the media, but could produce little evidence of such activities. The Bushies hoped that the U.S. Justice Department could provide such evidence. Such evidence could then be used to push for voting restrictions that would make it difficult to register voters opposed to Bush. Restrictions such as voter identification requirements, limiting the activities of organizations engaged in voter registeration, while, at the same time, making sure that such restrictions didn't prevent Republican allies from carrying out their own voter registration drives.

Those U.S. Attorneys who didn't get on the program, especially in "swing" states made King Karl and Bubble-Boy angry. This anger probably intensified when they lost control of Congress in 2006. Lo and behold, we get a bunch of fired U.S. Attorneys for what appears to be crass political reasons.

Bush won by over 3 million votes. Although Democrats may wonder about what happened in Ohio, very few people have argued that the popular vote didn't show a clear Bush victory. Ironically, taking action to avoid so-called "voter fraud" has led to Bush and Rove looking like they are manipulating the U.S. Department of Justice for political reasons.

In Politics Its Your Friends Who Hurt You, Not Your Enemies

The Washington Post is running an article today, (4.1.2007), about how Senator Domenici has been caught up in the firing of U.S. Attorney David Iglesais. The article points out that Representative Heather Wilson, NM-R, was the first Republican that Domenici ever endorsed in a primary. She was being groomed to succeed Domenici when he retired. His chief of staff was heavily involved in running her early campaigns. Now, both of them are facing possible investigations into their ethics and Domenici has to worry about being re-elected in 2008.

All of this points out that who usually gets politicians in trouble isn't their enemies, its their friends. Almost every major political scandal is caused by some politician doing some person they know, a relative, friend, political backer, contributor, whatever, a favor that they shouldn't be doing. Here was Domenici, well respected and known in New Mexico as "St. Pete" among politicos, gliding along the pathway of political life when he decides to do a favor for Heather Wilson. Bam! All of a sudden he finds himself in political trouble. All because he decided to muscle a U.S. Attorney, and then get him fired, because the U.S. Attorney didn't use the justice system to help his protege in a close election.

The article also points out how arrogant Republicans have become under George W. Bush. The article contains this quote: "Bell denied that the senator pressured Iglesias to boost the reelection bid of Wilson, who spent more than $4.7 million and ultimately won by 861 votes out of more than 211,000 ballots cast. Bell called the allegations "stupid." Note that he doesn't explain why it is "stupid". It's like all he has to do is pronounce something "stupid" and that answers everything. That's called arrogance, friends, and it is a common trait among Republicans.

It remains to be seen if this will cost either or both Domenici and Wilson their jobs. Clearly, since she only won by 861 votes, Wilson was going to get a tough opponent in 2008. She was going to be at the top of any Democratic hit list. Domenici, though, was expected to win re-election relatively easy. Now, though, it is looking as if he will get a much tougher opponent. All because he did a friend a favor he shouldn't have done.
___________________________________________________________________
Click on the link in this entry's title to read the Washington Post article.

For Bush & Rove Everything is About Right-Wing Republicanism

Although he campaigned as a "compassionate conservative" in order to get power, Bubble-Boy Bush and his "brain", King Karl Rove, are right wing zealots. This is shown by their desire to do away with Social Security, by their response to Hurricane Katrina, by their willingness to use unilateral military force in Iraq, and by the current scandal with the fired U.S. Attorneys.

This is also shown by this article in the New York times about King Karl's influence in picking U.S. District Attorneys. Now, let's be clear about something: all presidents are influenced by politics when making selections for U.S. District Attorneys. Those positions are patronage positions and are political plums that presidents get to hand out.

What makes Rove's involvement in this process somewhat different is that he was interested in advancing a particular philosophy in making these political appointments. That philosophy is dedicated to reducing the role of government in people's lives, to increasing the prerogatives of corporations in our society, and to increasing the power and influence of the wealthy at the expense of the rest of us. Anyone who gets in the way of their agenda, even other Republicans, gets cut down without mercy.

What is also obvious about Rove and Bush is that all ethical & moral considerations are subordinate to their desire to have a right-wing government. If they have to trash someone's reputation to get and maintain power, lie about their opponents, mislead the Congress, lie to the American people, to name just a few of the things they have done in their political careers, so be it.

Bush Justice Department Official to Take 5th Amendment Before Congress

As the article from CNN linked to in this entry's title reports, an official of the Bush Justice Department is going to take the 5th Amendment instead of testifying about the firing of the U.S. Attorneys. This is actually a pretty smart move, but one that makes her look guilty and will ratchet up the news coverage of the Congressional hearings. It is smart because she has reason to believe that someone in the Justice Department is trying to make her the sacrificial lamb. Apparently she doesn't plan to pull a "Libby" and take one for the team. Can you imagine how the wingnuts would have howled if an official working for Janet Reno had taken the 5th Amendment in front of a Republican Congress?

Doesn't Executive Privilege Need Conversations?

In the law the existence of a privilege depends on a communication taking place between the person claiming the privilege and another party. For example a patient talking to a doctor, a client talking to a lawyer, or a parishioner talking to a minister or a priest. The privilege exists to protect both parties to the conversation, but can be waived by the party who is seeking the advice or making the confession in the case of a parishioner talking to a priest. It is important to keep these two points in mind when analyzing the controversy over whether Rove, Miers, or other should testify under oath in front of the Congress.

If you click on the link in this entry's title, you can read a blog entry on Huffington Post by Lane Hudson in which he describes a very interesting conversation yesterday at the White House press briefing. Snow claimed that the President was not briefed on the firing of the U.S. Attorneys and that he did not sign off on the firings. At that point Ed Henry of CNN asked Snow how the White House could be claiming executive privilege if no conversations took place? Snow's anwer, "That's an intriguing question."

That basic point is being lost in the media handling of this issue. Today in the Washington Post there was an editorial in which the editorial writer asks the following question: "is the president not entitled to confidential advice on personnel matters?" Well, yes he is, but so far the White House has not claimed that the President ever received such advice about the firing of the U.S. Attorneys. If there was no communication between Bush and his advisers, then, as Ed Henry asked Snow, how can he claim a privilege?

Further, even if such communication took place, Bush could waive his right to claim the privilege. The media should be asking these two questions: on what basis is Bush claiming executive privilege and why won't he waive the privilege? Instead the reporters are going around just repeating what the Bush administration is saying and what the Congressional Democrats are saying with no follow up questions.

Why Bush Won't Let Advisers Testify Under Oath

If you click on the link in this entry's title, you can read the Washington Post article covering Bush's statements that he won't let Rove, Meirs, and apparently Gonzales, testify about the firing of the U.S. Attorneys under oath and in public. He is spinning this as a stand on principle, claiming that he is defending "executive privilege." He's not. There is a one word reason why he doesn't want his advisers under oath and it is spelled L-I-B-B-Y.

Libby was brought down because he lied to a Federal Grand Jury under oath. Republicans are stressing that a person can be charged with a crime for misleading Congress even if not under oath. That is technically true, but given that Bush controls the Justice Department, that is not likely to happen unless there is a public push for a special prosecutor. That won't happen unless the testimony is seen by the public and it can be fact-checked by websites such as www.talkingpointsmemo.com.

The Bush Administration just got a vivid lesson in the power of a special prosecutor. The Bushies don't want to go through that again. Hence, Bush will not agree to his advisers being under oath and testifying in public. Before that happens old Alberto will realize that he needs to return to Texas to gaze at the cattle grazing and the oil wells pumping.

Who's Dumber: Washington Beltway Media Commentators or Matt Drudge?

If you click on the link in this entry's title, you can read a report from www.mediamatters.org outlining the "reputable" media commentators who repeated Matt Drudge's line about how Bush firing eight U.S. Attorneys was similar to Janet Reno firing all 93 U.S. Attorneys when Bill Clinton took office. To make this comparison you have to ignore the following facts:

1. Clinton's actions were at the start of his first term, Bush's actions were in the middle of his second term;

2. Clinton got rid of U.S. Attorneys appointed by a Republican President, Bush got rid of U.S. Attorneys appointed by himself; and

3. It is customary for an incoming administration to get rid of a prior administration's U.S. Attorneys, even when the incoming administration is of the same political party as George H.W. Bush did in 1989 when he took over from Reagan, it is unprecedented to can your own appointees.

Now such lack of analytical ability is not surprising coming from Matt Drudge. Drudge is a political hack, a partisan Republican hatchet-man who doesn't pretend to be a reputable journalist. The media commentators quoted in the article by Media Matters, however, are a whole another story, especially Mara Liasson from N.P.R. Are we supposed to be contributing to NPR stations like WKSU and WCPN so N.P.R. can hire idiots like Liasson? Oh, and by the way, the answer to the question in this entry's title is Washington Beltway Media Commentators. They actually think they are "objective."

Justice Department Official Reportedly Told Fired U.S. Attorney not to Talk to Media

The shoes just keep dropping on the fired U.S. Attorneys story. Now it is being reported that a Justice Department official told one of the fired U.S. Attorneys that if they talked to the media more information about them would be released publicly. Although that U.S. Attorney didn't regard the tone as threatening, another one of the fired U.S. Attorneys, when told of the conversation, regarded it as a threat. That Attorney believed that the implication was that if the fired U.S. Attorneys talked to the media, damaging information on them or their families would be released.

One thing that should be kept in mind when considering this aspect of the story is that all U.S. Attorneys go through background checks by the F.B.I. when being considered for appointment. These background checks are known to be very thorough. The fired U.S. Attorneys would know that somewhere in the Justice Department was a file with their name on it. They would also know that it might contain information that they wouldn't want publicly released. An Administration that "outed" a covert CIA agent who was working on weapons of mass destruction to get back at her husband while this nation is at war wouldn't hesitate to destroy the personal and professional reputations of six or seven fired U.S. Attorneys.