DOJ Catches Up to Schumer and emptywheel

by emptywheel

It was almost 5 weeks ago when I noted that Chuck Schumer seemed to be suggesting that Monica Goodling was administering loyalty oaths for Assistant USAs.

Chuck Schumer seems to have certain suspicions about what Monica Goodling did. In particular, it seems that he may have well-grounded suspicions that she was administering loyalty oaths to Assistant USAs, a career position. I wonder if that's one of the reasons she has gotten so quiet of late.

There was more evidence to support that allegation on April 8.

I hate to keep harping on this point. But it seems pretty damn likely that Monica Goodling was right at the center of the inappropriate politicization of career DOJ employees.

You see, I think it highly likely that one of the reasons Goodling is pleading the Fifth is because she caused Paul McNulty to commit perjury. But another reason--a much bigger one, given the centrality of the politicization of DOJ hiring to the scandal surrounding the USA purge, is because she committed regular violations of the laws in place to prevent the politicization of our career employees.

And then the suggestion, on April 17, that it wasn't just Goodling administering the loyalty oaths.

All of a sudden, DOJ's IG and OPR have discovered what I, an ordinary citizen with access only to CSPAN and highly redacted documents, discovered five weeks ago.

Justice spokesman Dean Boyd confirmed Wednesday that the department's inspector general and Office of Professional Responsibility were investigating Goodling's role in hiring career attorneys — an unusual responsibility for her to take.

Goodling "may have taken prohibited considerations into account during such review," Boyd told the AP. "Whether or not the allegation is true is currently the subject of the OIG/OPR investigation."

[snip]

The House Judiciary Committee has voted to give Goodling immunity for her testimony — an offer that is being reviewed by the Justice Department to make sure it does not interfere with any ongoing criminal investigations.

And these are the guys who are in charge of investigating all of the bad guys in this country, not just the ones down the hallway.

Now there are several possibilities on this. It's possible this investigation actually started when OPR started its omnibus investigation into Rove and other hyper-political abominations. It's possible it's just the AP, and not DOJ's investigative bodies, that is just catching on. Or it's possible--as many have already suggested--that this investigation may serve to impede Goodling's immunized testimony. After all, something else I learned by watching a Senate hearing is that DOJ has been playing games with their internal inevstigations in this matter already.

I'm most curious, incidentally, by the timing of this story, following as it does just two days after Murray's latest bombshell. I wonder whether, two days ago, the prospect of Goodling's immunized testimony wasn't that dangerous. But now that it's clear how central her role in this scandal really is, DOJ--and those that direct DOJ--are going to try to prevent Goodling from spilling her guts.

Comments

[Rayne]

They're actually rather slow. Somebody faxed and emailed them roughly 6 weeks ago and asked them to question the FUSA's and AUSA's who were interviewed but not accepted as to the rationale provided for not getting the USA slot.

[Lurcher]

"I, an ordinary citizen....". No Marcy, you, an extraordinary citizen!

[Alex (D - No)]

"Somebody faxed and emailed them roughly 6 weeks ago..."

Ted Stevens has been parking his dump truck on the tubes again.

[ab initio]

EW, You hit the nail on the head - "those that direct DOJ--are going to try to prevent Goodling from spilling her guts."

As Josh Marshall points out Bush cannot fire AbuG since that would open the floodgates with a real investigation into how the the DoJ became an arm of the Rove Republican party to further their corruption.

This is going to take a lot of persistence and courage on the part of the Congressional investigators to uncover the gross abuse of power. And of course a few good people in the DoJ who are what Comey said they were to provide the incriminating evidence.

One thing we know for certain the Rovians will kick up as much sand as possible that the umpire cannot discern.

[kim]

Fitz! EW!!

[bmaz]

I would feel better about an OIG/OPR investigation than one by Bloch/OSP, but frankly am wary of any internal probe. It is simply not possible that this doesn't have an enormous conflict appearance of impropriety. The revelation of this double super secret assignment document and arrangement places both Gonzales and Sampson directly within criminal perjury crosshairs; there simply is no longer any question but that a special/independent prosecutor is required. I said back when the immunity for Goodling was first announced that DOJ was going to bugger up the pie and not to get to excited. Kreskin I am not; this was easy to see. Special prosecutor with plenary powers now; if a stipulation cannot be reached immediately on a person for the job, impeachment proceedings on Gonzales begin.

[freepatriot]

can I give tokyo jodi the worm tongue her BIG FAT GO FUCK YOURSELF now ???

or do I got to wait until the actual immunity agreement spells it out in english

can I get a ruling on that ???

[marksb]

Well now EW, see, if you'd attended a major institution like Regent University you could be as quick on the uptake as these bozos are.

Why are we worried about the OSP "investigation" anyway? That's not going to stop the various congressional investigations from proceeding. Let the WH whine about internal investigations and how they can't release evidence to Congress. I'll just buy more popcorn for when Henry quietly explodes up there in the chairman's seat.

[bmaz]

EW, I have run hot and cold about whether immunity should be offered to Goodling, but consistently maintained that nothing more than use (testimonial) immunity should even be considered. I now finally convinced that Goodling has enough goods to be considered for immunity, maybe even a broader grant. However, there must be an awe inspiring proffer made, before anything goes further. The revelations of the last two days have placed a mass of exposure the weight of a small planet over her; it is time to turn up the pressure. I now think she can likely roll the whole bunch. I don't care if she has John Dowd in her corner or not; if she has a lick of common sense, she is completely soiling her drawers right about now. If I were her, I would also be a might concerned where Dowd's loyalties and priorities were as well. Dear Monica has become as much the "hub" of this conspiracy as Gonzales. Dear Monica has a problem.

[Jodi]

So, real honest to goodness graduated/bar accepted attorneys had their rights trampled on and these poor unknowing timid folk didn't know how to complain, to post the continuously alluded to, but strangely never shown loyality oaths they had to take in the dead of night in the cemetary under the full moon, and to sign in their blood as well.
These poor misinfomed barristers didn't know how to avail themselves of any legal aid? These poor put upon solicitors couldn't dial a number to the Times or mouse up a blogger?

I may yet be surprised and I will admit it when I am, but so far this is like the Rove Carrot dangled before the Democratic Donkey driving him forward pulling the Liberal Wagon of Hope on and on, faster and faster.

tokyo freepatriot/xxx the wormtongue the cards speak for themselves!

Show me the oaths. List the poor mistreated little shrinking violet attorneys! or just go sit in the corner and sulk.

[ab initio]

On Countdown today - Keith's guest Turley said that Congressional investigators should dig into their investigations before Goodling's immunized testimony. Or else she would pull a Ollie North.

I wonder what evidence Waxman, Conyers and Leahy already have stashed away and what else they need to connect all the dots. Maybe Monica's testimony should just be the icing on the cake? Anyway, what do I know - I am just a citizen that would like to see all this corruption and criminality fully exposed and our long nightmare come to an end.

[Jane S.]

It's always nice to know stuff, via reading EW, weeks before everyone else.

I don't trust the OIG/OPR investigation--I don't trust anyone in Justice, not even the mice living in the building--Rove probably has them working on voter fraud. I fear that they are throwing Monica under the bus to prevent her from talking to Congress. Congress better fight hard for her testimony. There was a NYT piece today (behind the firewall) talking about Rove's beginnings as a grunt for Nixon but how he looked up to Donald Segretti. And it was mentioned that at one time Rove was under scrutiny by the Watergate prosecutor but he was too small a fish so they dropped it. So I just kept thinking all day, what if Rove had been indicted back then, where would he be now? I liked the thought of him being a used car salesman...

Please James Comey, don't let us down tomorrow.

[Rayne]

Jodi - ever hear of the term "blacklisted"? Sure doesn't sound like you have. Unless there was a critical mass of USA's, FUSA's, AUSA's that came out, there would not be enough pressure to overcome the inevitable blacklisting that would follow.

Not to mention the beating from paid propagandists they would also take, casting aspersions on their reputations. I have a feeling you do understand this particular point operationally.

[JGabriel]

EW @ top: "I'm most curious, incidentally, by the timing of this story, following as it does just two days after Murray's latest bombshell. I wonder whether, two days ago, the prospect of Goodling's immunized testimony wasn't that dangerous. But now that it's clear how central her role in this scandal really is, DOJ--and those that direct DOJ--are going to try to prevent Goodling from spilling her guts."

Yep. This ties in directly to the secret order delegating hiring/firing authority to Goodling and Sampson over the non-civil service DoJ employees.

Most of the articles I've seen focus on the authority this gave Goodling/Sampson over political appointees. But the real story, I think, is in the ostensibly NON-political employees. For two reasons:

1) Assuming Goodling was asking prospective DoJ employees about their political affiliations, that's probably a violation of the Hatch Act and other civil rights and civil service statutes.

2) As these are non-political employees, it undercuts -- obliterates, actually -- the Republican talking point that the only employees affected were those who 'served at the pleasure of the President', and also negates the other talking point about 'appropriate politicization'.

The US Attorney scandal is a little complicated and subtle for people not following politics regularly to understand -- if they're 'political' appointees, what's wrong with hiring or firing them for 'political' reasons?

But once it becomes a story about hiring and firing NON-political employees for political reasons, well, that's something that everyone can understand is wrong, even without much explanation or interest in politics.

[desertwind]

Can't wait to start seeing written evidence implicating their puppet master(s). You know these "kids" didn't come up with this on their own.

(i) Daniel Metcalfe said these people are too stupid to realize that they don't know. They're incurious and, ultimately, they do not care that they don't know.

(ii) A professor who'd retired from teaching at Messiah College commented somewhere that the overarching characteristic of students at these type of colleges is not their religious devotion but their devotion to Authority.

PS - OT, sorta, but I wonder if David "I Am Robot" Addington is involved somewhre here.

[Neil]

Jodi posts from Missouri, the show me state, deep in the heart of the St Louis Zoo, from the Allen's Swamp Monkey cage, between hear-no-evil and speak-no-evil.

[Jane S.]

I'm going to namedrop but not really because I don't really know anyone important. Although the Queen is coming to Richmond, Va--where I live--tomorrow.

My husband works with a guy who knows Comey pretty well. So when my husband went off to work, I said if you should bump into "friend of Comey" in the hall just say to him, "Jane wants to know will Comey speak truth to power." My husband only just now thought to tell me this, despite teasing me about putting Comey's testimony on our family calendar.

The report of his colleague is Comey will tell it straight and he doesn't care who is asking the questions. So add these words to Looseheadprop's compelling portraits of Comey's utter perfection.

[emptywheel]

JGabriel

That's the point I've been making for weeks, but you say it so well. I wonder at which point the conversation about Monica moves away from one about immunity and to one of a plea?

desertwind

Addington's former deputy Courtney Elwood is now a counselor in DOJ--she shows up in some of the emails. Is that close enough for you?

[Neil]

The pressure builds...

NPR: Fired U.S. Prosecutors Slam Former Bosses
by Ari Shapiro
LINK">http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9966115">LINK to audio.

All Things Considered, May 2, 2007 · The U.S. attorneys fired by the Justice Department last year describe their former leaders at the Department of Justice and the White House as "selfish," "self-serving" and "inept" in written testimony to the House Judiciary Committee.

Their scathing chorus of opinion is especially striking when one considers that all of the federal prosecutors were appointed by President Bush.

[bmaz]

EW and JGabreil - They are not mutually exclusive; in fact, many of the immunity agreements I have been involved in were a combination of the two.

[bmaz]

As an addendum to the above post: For the life of me, I don't see how the DOJ can negotiate and execute any of the above at this point. They are so far past the point of appearance of impropriety/conflict now that it cannot even be seen in the rearview mirror. It is flat out inherent and direct conflict.

[Rayne]

bmaz 21:55 -- but I don't see how the DOJ cannot but try to negotiate and execute, if doing so will defer or derail this investigation from going any deeper and wider. There is at least one enormous monster in the deep here, already outlined in the posts by ePM's luaptifer and Todd Johnston on the gwb43.com server and related RNC infrastructure. They are going to engage in the "spaghetti defense" at this point, throwing anything at all at the wall to see if it sticks even up to and including obstruction. If they don't try it all to buy time, well, that monster out there could make Nixon's resignation look like a walk in the park.

[Jeff]

Now there are several possibilities on this.

Check it out, from the Post:">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/02/AR2007050201569_2.html?hpid=topnews">Post:

The allegation against Goodling was referred to investigators several weeks ago by U.S. Attorney Chuck Rosenberg of Alexandria, who was serving temporarily as Gonzales's chief of staff.

But also note that the Justice Department is being so open and happy to talk about this investigation of Goodling, it's enough to make you really suspicious.

Oh and also, the Post notes that Dowd said today that Goodlin would testify under the immunity agreement. But we don't know now what's going to happen with it. My previous understanding was that even if DoJ said immunity would interfere with an ongoing criminal probe, Congress could effectively override or sidestep that. But now I'm not sure.

Also, you have to figure that Goodling and DoJ are gaming it out where if she gets immunity, she basically just takes all and entire responsibility and blame for everything bad that happened.

[Rayne]

Jeff, you are spot on, Goodling and DoJ are gaming it out.

Next gambit is another internal investigation into hiring practices, according">http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/03/washington/03attorneys.html?hp">according to a new story out of NYT.

Must be trying to muddy the waters while tidying up all the loose ends at the same time...what's the next gambit we take on our side?

[wtlloyd]

Great work! Makes me wish for a 'Progressive's X-Prize' - what a hoot it would be if some wealthy radical lefty put up a million dollar prize for the blogger who digs up evidence that leads to impeachment or incarceration of Bush/Cheney or Rove.

One can only dream.....