Minnesota Journalist Blogger Scores "Modest Scoop"

Remember the name Eric Black. He runs a website called Eric Black Ink. This is what he modestly says about himself.

After 30 years of scribbling for the Minneapolis Star Tribune, I acquired the right to refer to myself as a humble and obedient ink-stained wretch. Now I seek the wily and elusive prey called wisdom and truth. Fellow seekers are most welcome to join the hunt.

I am a participant in the Center for Independent Media New Journalism Pilot Program. However, all of the statements, opinions, policies, and views expressed on this site are solely mine. This web site is not a production of the Center, and the Center does not support or endorse any of the contents on this site.

This link will take you to what he calls a modest scoop.


I have been following Rachel Paulose's sad tale for a while now. I thought I knew the story and suspected Rachel was being investigated, but like everybody else I believed the top four career professionals in the Minneapolis AG office voluntarily resigned in protest. Eric reports that they jumped because Rachel was about to dump them.

More importantly he fleshes out Rachel's apparent short coming.

When Paulose took over the office, she told several of the career officials there that she demanded total personal loyalty. At least one replied that loyalty was owed to the Constitution, not to her. Many of the allegations raise the possibility that Paulose crossed the line while seeking to punish personal disloyalty.

Demand absolute personal loyalty. Punish personal disloyalty. Good governor, how does a person with that kind of personality find herself appointed to lead career professionals? Oh, I remember now, she was a Monica Goodling chum. Birds of a feather flock together and all that. Read Eric's entire post. It is more than a modest scoop. It is an example of what independent journalists can accomplish.

Oh, "good governor" is one of Rachel's favorite sayings. She is an evangelical so she really can't say "good God."

There's more: "Minnesota Journalist Blogger Scores "Modest Scoop"" >>

The Case of Guadalupe Gonzales or Why Monica Goodling Should Have Read Civil Service Law Before Awarding Immigration Judgeships To Loyal Bushies

On May 31 we reported on recent Immigration Judge hiring practices that seemed to give preference to loyal Bushies. June 11 The Washington Post confirmed that while Kyle Sampson and Monica Goodling were in charge only loyal Bushies needed to apply for the job of immigration judge. Monica Goodling has confirmed that she stepped over the line in favoring Republicans.

Today the El Paso Times has published the story of Guadalupe Gonzalez, chief counsel for Immigration and Customs Enforcement in El Paso, "a lawyer with more than 20 years of experience in immigration law and a stellar record." Since 2002 she has been passed over three times for an immigration judgeship in favor of Anglo men -- one with no immigration experience and the other two her subordinates. Gonzalez, 56, has sued the U.S. attorney general for discrimination on the basis of gender and national origin. The suit is pending in a court in Washington, D.C.

In her filings, Gonzalez claimed that since 2001, only two Hispanics were appointed nationwide for 40 immigration judgeships. The four immigration judges in El Paso are all Anglo men.

Bill Day, Gonzalez's lawyer in Washington, said that while his client does not allege that the department's selection of judges in her case was politically motivated, there is a common thread between the cases.

"The attitude of the (Department of Justice) was that the rules did not apply to them," Day said.

In Gonzalez's case, the department bypassed the competitive hiring process by using the attorney general's direct appointment authority.

In 2002, Gonzalez did apply for a posted immigration judge position, which went to Richard Ozmun, a retired U.S. Navy lawyer.

But in 2004, two other vacancies were never posted and Gonzalez was not contacted for an interview, even though she had previously expressed interest in becoming an immigration judge. These positions went to Robert Hough, assistant chief counsel at ICE, under the direct supervision of Gonzalez, and Thomas Roepke, a special assistant U.S. attorney for ICE.

The suit asks for Gonzalez to get an immigration judge position, back pay and compensatory damages. An immigration judge in El Paso makes between $112,633 and $148,031 a year, Gonzalez's lawyer said.

"In light of all the wrongdoing this case has uncovered, the Department of Justice should have settled this case a long time ago. Now it looks as though they'll have to pay the price at trial," Day said. "Being Mexican-American should not disqualify a talented and experienced lawyer from being an immigration judge."

I know what you are thinking, if she didn't apply for the 2004 positions how could she be discriminated against. The trial court has already ruled that issue in favor of Ms. Gonzales. Since the DoJ knew that she was interested in a judgeship, Monica and Kyle should have given her a chance to apply. Last year Judge Emmet G. Sullivan denied the governments motion saying that Ms Gonzales, "had identified a particular policy that has a discriminatory effect on a particular group -- (the attorney general's) direct appointment authority."

I would be surprised if Monica Goodling was concerned about Ms. Gonzales being a Mexican American. I would guess that Monica was concerned that Ms. Gonzales wasn't a loyal Bushie. After all Monica worked for Alberto Gonzales, and was involved in the selection of Rachel Paulose as US Attorney in Minneapolis. Maybe if Ms Gonzales had spent a little time and money proving she was the "right kind of Republican" she would have been selected.

There's more: "The Case of Guadalupe Gonzales or Why Monica Goodling Should Have Read Civil Service Law Before Awarding Immigration Judgeships To Loyal Bushies" >>

High Noon At The House Judiciary Committee

Paul J. McNulty, the former number 2 at the DoJ will be the only witness appearing before the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law later today. The hearing is scheduled to start at 12:00 PM. You can find the live webcast here.

You might recall that Monica Goodling essentially called McNulty a liar during her testimony last month. If he sticks to his prepared remarks, McNulty has apparently decided not to hit back.

I hope they ask him probing questions like why did they really fire the Gonzales 8? You know questions that the DoJ has never truthfully answered. In his remarks McNulty says

It is important for this Committee and the public to know that when it comes to enforcing the law, Justice Department employees are blind to partisan politics. It plays no role in the Department’s actions.

I believe he has stated how the DoJ is supposed to operate, but after Bradley Schlozman's testimony about the Acorn 4 and all the rest can anyone really believe that is the way the DoJ has been run by Karl Rove, er Alberto Gonzales.

Pardon the Acorn 4.

There's more: "High Noon At The House Judiciary Committee" >>

You Know How I Said Your Situation Could Be Worse?

Today I am busy fighting for truth, justice and the American way, but last night I noticed something in last night's document dump that bears further investigation.

On Saturday December 16, 2007, there was a brief email exchange between Monica Goodling and Rachel Paulose discussing the trials of Tim Griffin.

Monica--Subject Re: My Friday Afternoon --

"You know how I said your situation could be worse? Welcome to Tim's world. (BTW this was an interim AG appointment, just like yours [redaction]Tim, mind you, is an Oxford grad with prosecution exp. Will send you his release."

Rachel--Subject Re: My Friday Afternoon --

"good governor. Thank you for the reminder to count my blessings. I on my way to kickboxing class. Are you in the office late afternoon?"

I know what you are thinking. This is just Monica letting off steam. It is office talk among gal pals, and nothing more. Think about it a little. Monica was sharing her thoughts with Rachel about the trials of Tim Griffin. Rachel might have something to tell congressional investigators. At the very least, the exchange would suggest a telephone call, or an examination of their emails.

At the very least I would like to know what was redacted. It is taken right out of the middle of the relevant part of the Goodling email. I don't think it was a brownie recipe. The redaction is without doubt obstruction.

There's more: "You Know How I Said Your Situation Could Be Worse?" >>

Monica Was Up To No Goodling When Appointing Immigration Judges

This morning Amy Goldstein and Dan Eggen of the Washington Post confirm what we concluded on May 31. "If you are well connected within the Republican party, have a law license and are a loyal Bushie, you can be an immigration judge."

According to the Post's detailed examination of the backgrounds of the 37 immigration judges approved by Alberto Gonzales or John Ashcroft.

At least one-third of the immigration judges appointed by the Justice Department since 2004 have had Republican connections or have been administration insiders, and half lacked experience in immigration law, Justice Department, immigration court and other records show.

Two newly appointed immigration judges were failed candidates for the U.S. Tax Court nominated by President Bush; one fudged his taxes and the other was deemed unqualified to be a tax judge by the nation's largest association of lawyers. Both were Republican loyalists.

Justice officials also gave immigration judgeships to a New Jersey election law specialist who represented GOP candidates, a former treasurer of the Louisiana Republican Party, a White House domestic policy adviser and a conservative crusader against pornography.

At the center of the controversial appointments are D. Kyle Sampson and Monica Goodling. Both claim they didn't know they couldn't consider politics when selecting immigration judges, but according to the Post article, the justice department has confirmed that immigration judges are civil service employees who may not be chosen on the basis of politics. Senior Bush Department of Justice lawyers who didn't know the basic law directly related to their jobs? By this time we shouldn't be surprised.

There's more: "Monica Was Up To No Goodling When Appointing Immigration Judges" >>

I Am Afraid Monica's Freudian Slip Is Showing or How Rachel Paulose Can't Catch A Break.

God I love this job. I have been following the really brain dead public relations campaign to rehabilitate the fading career of Rachel Poulose. Rachel is a young Republican with a wonderful resume. She seems to have some problem with the "little people." Shortly after she took the job of US Attorney in Minneapolis, four of her top aides got so fed up with her imperious ways they took demotions rather than spend time working with her directly. Instead of learning the obvious life lessons from that early debacle, she apparently has decided to fight back. As near as I can tell she has surrounded herself with a truly clueless PR posse that has done an absolutely crappy job. For example, last monday she tried to reintroduce herself just days before Monica Goodling was going to testify. That reintroduction didn't go very well. Neither did Katherine Kersten's followup whine.

Luckily for Rachel, Monica didn't have a lot to say about her, and it was mostly good. Monica did make some unfortunate comments about Rachel's predecessor, Tom Heffelfinger. Heffelfinger was the very model of a loyal Republican US Attorney right up to last week. All through the US Attorney scandal, even after he was found to be on the list of attorneys to be fired, he insisted that his resignation was entirely voluntary.

As has been typical of the Gonzales Justice Department, Monica found a way to really anger the former US Attorney. She criticized his professional work. As will be revealed below, the Clucking Stool thinks she might have suffered what we used to call a Freudian slip.

In response to a question from Representative Keith Ellison, Monica said, "There were some concerns that he (Heffelfinger) spent an extraordinary amount of time as the leader of the Native American subcommittee of the AGAC (Attorney General's Advisory Committee)."

Heffelfinger replied by telling KARE11 News he was "extraordinarily outraged" to hear his work criticized. Heffelfinger was proud of his work with Native Americans. He told the AP, again quoting KARE11,

"I did spent a lot of time on it," Heffelfinger said of the American Indian issue. "That's what I was instructed to do" by then-Attorney General John Ashcroft. Given the higher rates of violence suffered by American Indians, Heffelfinger said, the time was warranted, but it didn't take away from other priorities.

"I had to work hard, but I was comfortable with the mix of my local responsibilities and my Native American responsibilities," said Heffelfinger, who oversaw his office's investigation into the 2005 shooting that claimed 10 lives on the Red Lake Indian Reservation in far northern Minnesota.

Throughout the US Attorney scandal there is a common theme, a theme most of the loyal Bushies like Sampson, Goodling and their boss have yet to figure out--you just don't tell a proud professional that the work he is proudest of is crap, not unless you really want to have your hat handed to you.

This morning the LA Times carried a story by Tom Hamburger, Times Staff Writer, and former Minnesota native, tying Heffelfinger's good work on behalf of Native Americans to another overarching theme of the Gonzales justice department--the ongoing Republican campaign to suppress the minority vote. Yep, Heffelfinger refused to take part in a campaign to suppress the Native American vote, a campaign that involves two of our old favorites, Brad Schlozman and Hans von Spakovsky.

As you will recall Von Spakovsky and Schlozman are voting suppression specialists linked to Republican voter suppression campaigns in Missouri and Georgia. Since most poor people of color are Democrats, from the point of view of Brad and Hans suppressing the vote of poor people of color is a good thing.

The basic Republican voter suppression plan, as advanced in Missouri and Georgia, is for local Republicans to plant the frightening image in the minds of the local media and the general public of thousands of poor black people showing up at the polls to vote Democratic dozens of times.

For a lot of technical reasons the kind of "voter fraud" that concerns Republicans is virtually non-existent. That doesn't stop the patented Republican voter suppression campaign. The Republican solution to the terrible, but non-existant, problem of "voter fraud" is to require each voter to present a special and expensive voter ID card at the polling place on election day. Republican legislatures eagerly enact such laws. Members of the local media write puff pieces singing the praises of Republicans who have solved a truly frightening problem.

Since poor people can't afford to pay a lot for their voter or state ID, or they might not realize they need one until the last minute, voter suppression of the poor Democratic minority is almost a sure thing.

Ordinarily, the United States Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division is all over such state statutes. After all poll taxes and the like are illegal under Federal law, and have been since Jim Crow days. Enter Schlozman and Von Spakovsky. Their job was to overrule or otherwise defang the career professionals in the civil rights division. Theirs was the most successful part of the Republican voter suppression campaign in the last couple of elections. In both, the Civil Rights Division, now largely manned by loyal Bushies, was essentially neutered. Fortunately, opponents didn't need DoJ help to convince the courts that the Missouri and Georgia laws were illegal.

There are 32,000 Native Americans living in the Saint Paul area alone. The ID they use in their daily lives is the ID card issued by their tribe. It is widely thought that a lot of those Native Americans vote for Democrats.

According to LA Times:

Citing requirements in a new state election law, Republican Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer directed that tribal ID cards could not be used for voter identification by Native Americans living off reservations. Heffelfinger and his staff feared that the ruling could result in discrimination against Indian voters. Many do not have driver's licenses or forms of identification other than the tribes' photo IDs.

Heffelfinger had one of his staff e-mail the Civil Rights Division. It was made clear that Heffelfinger was very concerned about Kiffmeyer's directive and believed something needed to be done. The Times article continues

About three months after Heffelfinger's office raised the issue of tribal ID cards and nonreservation Indians in an October 2004 memo, his name appeared on a list of U.S. attorneys singled out for possible firing.

"I have come to the conclusion that his expressed concern for Indian voting rights is at least part of the reason that Tom Heffelfinger was placed on the list to be fired," said Joseph D. Rich, former head of the voting section of the Justice Department's civil rights division. Rich, who retired in 2005 after 37 years as a career department lawyer — 24 of them in Republican administrations — was closely involved in the Minnesota ID issue

Rich is the lawyer who received the e-mails from a member of Heffelfinger's staff. Rich started working the case. According to Rich Schlozman and Von Spakovsky promptly placed impossible conditions on the conduct of the investigation effectively squelching it.

According to the Star Tribune, one of Rachel Paulose's first acts after appointment was "to remove Lewis, who had written the 2004 e-mails to Washington expressing concern about American Indian voting rights." I wonder if that's when her management problems began?

UPDATE: I just remembered Hans Von Spakosky has a confirmation hearing scheduled for June 13. With this story breaking right now, maybe he is the guy who can't catch a break?

There's more: "I Am Afraid Monica's Freudian Slip Is Showing or How Rachel Paulose Can't Catch A Break." >>

Loyal Bushies As Immigration Judges -- What A Concept

We have heard a lot lately about immigration judges. According to the Legal Times America's 226 immigration judges handle about 300,000 immigration cases each year. They rarely issue written opinions while deciding cases ranging from the status of asylum seekers to the rights of immigrants marrying U.S. citizens. My niece and her husband who have been living abroad for the last several years will without doubt encounter one of our immigration judges when they return to the US with the little Chinese girl they recently adopted.

Starting at about $115,000 per year, plus full benefits, the pay is reasonably good. Immigration judges are considered civil service employees. When the Bush administration leaves Bush appointees won't have to find work. As mentioned immigration judges don't have to write much, so for most lawyers the work is relatively easy. All in all, the job of immigration judge is highly coveted.

According to the Legal Times

Historically, those hired for the positions were vetted by the Executive Office of Immigration Review and its recommendations were forwarded to the Office of the Deputy Attorney General — where they were almost uniformly approved. Sometimes this process took place without public advertisements for the posts and without competing candidates.

In recent years somebody realized that the job of "immigration judge" was a wonderful patronage opportunity. The Attorney General has the power to override the EOIR process and directly appoint whoever he wants. Again from the Legal Times.

The shift in the method of hiring immigration judges began late in Ashcroft’s tenure. At some point members of his staff realized that EOIR had long been appointing at least some immigration judges without open competition. Hearing of this, Susan Richmond Johnson, one of Ashcroft’s closest advisers, remembers thinking, “Why are we not using it? It’s an authority of the attorney general.”

This change led directly to the raw politicization of the appointment process revealed last week by Monica Goodling. If you are well connected within the Republican party, have a law license and are a loyal Bushie, you can be an immigration judge.

One of the judges appointed by the attorney general is Garry Malphrus. According to TPMMuckraker his story is pretty typical.

A former Republican aide on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Malphrus also worked on the White House's Domestic Policy Council before becoming a judge. But he really showed his stripes in 2000, when Malphrus joined other Republicans in making a ruckus (chanting, pounding on windows and doors) outside the Miami-Dade Elections Department -- the so-called "Brooks Brothers Riot" -- during the Bush-Gore recount.

Malphrus, of course, had no immigration experience when he got the job, McLure reports. He had that in common with a number of his peers, who had similar backgrounds:

Among the 19 immigration judges hired since 2004: Francis Cramer, the former campaign treasurer for New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg; James Nugent, the former vice chairman of the Louisiana Republican Party; and Chris Brisack, a former Republican Party county chairman from Texas who had served on the state library commission under then-Gov. George W. Bush.

It is pretty clear that treating the job of immigration judge as a patronage plumb didn't start with Goodling. Malphrus was hired before Goodling ever became involved in the process. According to Goodling's written testimony.

Around the time I became White House Liaison in April 2005, Mr. Sampson told me that the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) had provided guidance some years earlier indicating that Immigration Judge appointments were not subject to the civil service rules applicable to other career positions.

The DoJ maintains that "recent appointees have been well-qualified and that the department draws on candidates from 'diverse legal backgrounds' and 'considers applicants based on the totality of their professional records.'"

We can almost hear the Republican defense. Politicians love patronage jobs. After all patronage is how they keep their friends and supporters happy. Patronage is a key to maintaining political power. Bush gets to appoint some of his political staff to good paying jobs between campaigns. So what? If Democrats win, they can appoint their own campaign workers. Go win the next election.

Why is it important that we appoint seasoned and highly qualified people to be immigration judges?

An answer to that question might be found this morning's New York Times. Julia Preston reports on a study of 140,000 asylum cases--cases decided by our immigration judges and concludes that "asylum seekers in the United States face broad disparities in the nation’s 54 immigration courts, with the outcome of cases influenced by things like the location of the court and the sex and professional background of judges."

The variation from court to court is startling. An asylum seeker in Atlanta has a 12% chance of winning his case. An asylum seeker in San Francisco wins 54% of the time.

Even more shocking is the variation from judge to judge. In Miami one judge awards asylum to Colombians 5% of the time. Another judge just down the hall awards Colombians asylum 88% of the time. Read the entire article. It is shocking.

From the lowest municipal court deciding speeding tickets to the United States Supreme Court, every organized court strives for consistency. The rule of law insists upon the fair and uniform application of the law to the facts regardless of who is deciding those facts or applying the law. At the same time organized courts recognize that every judge is different. Every judge brings his or her experiences to the job. For that reason appellate courts review decisions, providing consistent supervision to subordinate courts. For that reason judges spend lots of time going to seminars. They talk among themselves. They look over each other's shoulders. New judges are most often drawn from the ranks of experienced lawyers practicing in the field, often in the same court. Consistency of decision is key to the perception that a litigant is getting a fair shake. It is a key component of the Rule of Law.

I don't know if the inconsistency among our immigration courts and judges started with the Bush administration, or if the problem has only been made worse by the AG's use of the job as a patronage plum. It is pretty clear that this is an issue that needs additional reporting.

There's more: "Loyal Bushies As Immigration Judges -- What A Concept" >>

Katherine Kersten Whines Some More About Rachel Paulose

If you want an object lesson in how not to improve your public image, look no further than Katherine Kersten's whine on behalf of Rachel Paulose. Listening to the segment on the David Storm Show is painful. Maybe if Rachel would tell Kersten to just shut the f**k up, and spent the next 524 days working her ass off doing a bang up job as US Attorney in Minneapolis, she might be able to salvage her career. If she allows her PR team to continue with their pathetic campaign, Rachel won't be able to find work as a municipal clerk in a small Minnesota town.

Let us review. In the last week her Public Relations Team scheduled a press conference right in the middle of the runup to Monica Goodling's testimony. Of course, questions were asked Monica about Rachel's appointment. The morons at Powerline jumped in to attack the press for using the poorly timed presser to ask obvious questions related to her appointment. Now Paulose's chief apologist gives a whiny interview on a friendly talk show. She comes off looking whiny.

Earth to Rachel, earth to Rachel. The more your people talk, the worse you look. The best advice anybody could give you is shut up, become friends with the people who work in your office, and do your job to the best of your ability for as long as you are US Attorney. Take it.

There's more: "Katherine Kersten Whines Some More About Rachel Paulose" >>

Goodling White House Contact Leaves Administration

During last week's hearing Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) asked Monica Goodling what Karl Rove knew about the firing of the US Attorneys. She responded that

There was an e-mail that Mr. Sampson forwarded to me, I think, on December 4, if I'm remembering correctly, that said that it had been circulated to different offices within the White House and that they had all signed off. I think it said that White House political had signed off. Political is actually headed by Sara Taylor but does report to Mr. Rove, so I don't know for sure.

Michael Roston reports that Sara Taylor has cleaned out her office and is said to be heading to the private sector. Taylor is on the short list of White House people facing a subpoena.

The blog Born at the Crest of the Empire speculates that Taylor may have resigned over Goodling's testimony concerning Tim Griffin and "caging."

Think Progess describes "caging" as an illegal voter suppression technique. The particular "caging" activity associated with Taylor and Griffin was aimed as suppressing the votes of African American service members living in Florida during the 2004 election.

"Voter suppression?" Hummmm. Where I have we heard that term lately?

I guess the holiday is over. Back to the Gonzales 9.

There's more: "Goodling White House Contact Leaves Administration" >>

As Goodling As It Gets -- Jon Stewart's Take.

I have thought about spending a little time this weekend unpacking Monica Goodling's appearance before the house judiciary committee. I am particularly interested in her Todd Graves and Rachel Paulose comments. Since my wife wants me to take some time off, here is this evening's funny focusing on Monica's testimony.



Oh, what Alberto calls comforting, most lawyers might call suborning perjury. It is generally considered a crime.

There's more: "As Goodling As It Gets -- Jon Stewart's Take." >>

Integrity Counts

I spent the last several minutes thinking about what to write this morning. There are a lot of topics out there. The Simpsons 400th episode trashes Fox News. (I might save that one for later). Jimmy Carter had a lot to say about George Bush and Tony Blair, none of it good. Voter suppression mastermind Mark "Thor" Hearne, a name known here in Missouri, has been featured in Slate and not in a good way.

All those stories are pretty obvious. I mean that Fox News doesn't do news, isn't news. Anybody who cares to look realizes it is Republican infotainment intended to keep the white masses content in their self-loathing and justified in their racial bigotry. Jimmy Carter has been assailed for his comments about Blair and Bush, but darned if I can see why. He simply told the truth. Mark Hearne, Brad Schlozman, Hans von Spakovsky are simply bit players carrying out Karl Rove's version of Nixon's old Southern strategy. Stop the blacks from voting and white Republicans win.

Then I saw a story of hope. David Iglesias is building a new life. I thought about it for a minute. Do you know who the winners are in the US Attorney scandal? The winners are the fired attorneys. Their lives have all been carefully examined by the media, and they have all been certified to be professional lawyers striving to achieve the highest ethical standards. Long after the many US Attorneys who knuckled under to Karl Rove are forgotten in their suburban practices the Gonzales 8 will be held up as models of how US Attorneys should act. Long after Kyle Sampson and Monica Goodling are utterly forgotten, their careers in tatters, people like Carol Lam, Bud Cummins and John McKay will be building their futures and fully living their lives. Hell, who knows, one of those fired US Attorneys might run for senator, maybe in New Mexico.

James Comey has emerged as a hero in the Department of Justice scandal because he stood for what was right. So have all the people who stood with him. Even John Ashcroft, who doesn't even mention the episode in his book, looks better, so much better that Blue Girl had to remind us of just who we are talking about. I know who John Ashcroft is and what he has done, but darn if the image of him saying "NO" Alberto Gonzales and Andy Card hasn't forced me to give him a higher mark.

Today I choose to remember that integrity counts. People who display courage in the face of adversity are often rewarded. Good guys can finish first.

There's more: "Integrity Counts" >>

Don't You Love It When A Plan Comes Together

On December 19, 2006, Kyle Sampson sent an email to Monica Goodling entitled "Another Griffin Article" concerning the status of Tim Griffin as US Attorney in the Eastern District of Arkansas. Apparently the press was raising questions concerning Griffin's status as United States Attorney. Was he an interim appointment or was he an appointment under the then existing Patriot Act? Sampson really didn't want to answer the question directly. He thought it best to "gum this to death" by first asking the Arkansas senators to give Tim a chance. If after delaying as long as possible the senators said, "no never", Sampson's plan was to run out the clock, taking their good sweet time to advertise for, find and nominate a replacement. He also indicated that he didn't mind Griffin being referred to as "interim US Attorney" in talking points with the understanding that he was appointed by the AG and hasn't gone through the normal confirmation process. Of course, the normal time limits for dealing with interim appointments would not apply since Griffin really was permanent.

So Sampson hatched a plan. Griffin was appointed under the Patriot Act. He could stay as long as Bush remained in office. To keep the natives happy the DoJ would pretend he was just another temporary Attorney General appointment. It would work with the local yokel senators, but it wouldn't work too hard. It would run out the clock finding a replacement. All in "good faith," of course.

The plan was apparently repudiated on January 18, 2007, when Alberto Gonzales testified "Let me publicly sort of pre-empt perhaps a question you're going to ask me, and that is, I am fully committed, as the administration's fully committed, to ensure that, with respect to every United States attorney position in this country, we will have a providentially appointed, Senate confirmed United States attorney.... I think a United States attorney,... as the law enforcement leader, my representative in the community;... has greater imprimatur of authority, if in fact that person's been confirmed by the Senate." On May 10, 2007, Murray Waas of the National Journal reported

A senior Justice Department official said that the (above) statement was truthful because by then Gonzales had abandoned the idea of using the PATRIOT Act to permanently install Griffin, and he was speaking about future appointments.

The dogged emptywheel has been working the Tim Griffin angle hard. So far she has uncovered nothing to indicate that Tim Griffin won't be the US Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas through the end of President Bush's term. According to emptywheel, Griffin's normal term as an interim would have expired on April 20, 2007. He's still working as US Attorney, and nobody has any idea when that will end.

Both Goodling and Sampson may have left the Department of Justice, but apparently Sampson's plan lives on. The DoJ is gumming the Griffin problem. Don't you just love it when a plan comes together.

Hats way off to emptywheel.

There's more: "Don't You Love It When A Plan Comes Together" >>

Remember Paul McNulty--According To Alberto Gonzales It's All His Fault

ThinkProgress has just put up the C-Span Video of Alberto Gonzales throwing Paul McNulty under the bus this morning at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.. Simply amazing video. Here is a partial transcript

GONZALES: The Deputy Attorney General has a unique position at the DOJ. Most of the operational authority and decisions are made by the Deputy Attorney General. He is the chief operating officer — that’s the way I’ve structured the Department. And so he occupies a very central place in the work of the Department.

[…]

GONZALES: Mr. Sampson provided the recommendations. The one person I would care about would be the views of the Deputy Attorney General because the Deputy Attorney General as a direct supervisor of the United States Attorneys and in this particular case Mr. McNulty was a former colleague of all of these United States Attorneys and so he would probably know better than anyone else about the performance and qualifications of our United States Attorney community. So at the end of the day my understanding was that Mr. Sampson’s recommendations reflected the consensus view of the senior leadership of the Department — in particular the Deputy Attorney General. And the day of Mr. Sampson’s testimony, I had a conversation with the deputy as I testified where I went back to the Deputy Attorney General and I asked Paul did he still stand by the recommendations and he said yes. And so — for me that is the most important — his views would be the most important.

[…]

QUESTION: It seems clear that two relatively inexperienced Justice Department appointees Kyle Sampson and Monica Goodling were intimately involved in these personnel issues. Why were such that young and unexperienced people put in charge of such matters?

GONZALES: Well again you have to remember at the end of the day, the recommendations reflected the views of the Deputy Attorney General. He signed off on the names and he would know better than anyone else, anyone else in this room. Again, the Deputy Attorney General would know best about the qualifications and experiences of the minds it’s a community and he signed off on the names.

What does Gonzales do all day?

There's more: "Remember Paul McNulty--According To Alberto Gonzales It's All His Fault" >>

Deputy AG McNulty quits Department of Justice

Dan Egan of the Washinton Post is reporting that Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty has announced resignation "saying he is leaving the Justice Department later this summer to enter the private sector, officials said. . . . McNulty is the latest senior Justice official to announce his departure amid the swirl of controversy over the firings last year of nine U.S. attorneys. Three other top aides to Gonzales have quit in recent months." In addition to Monica Goodling and all the other familiar names in the US Attorney firing scandal, McNulty is professionally linked to Rachel Paulose, the embattled US Attorney in Minneapolis.

There's more: "Deputy AG McNulty quits Department of Justice" >>

Monica Is In A World Of Hurt

I have run hot and cold about whether immunity should be offered to Monica Goodling, but have consistently maintained that nothing more than use (testimonial) immunity should even be considered. It is now quite clear that Goodling has enough goods to be considered for immunity, maybe even a broader grant than originally contemplated. However, there must be an awe inspiring proffer (avowal as to what she can testify to) made before anything goes further. The revelations of the last two days have placed a mass of exposure the equivalent of a small planet directly over Ms. Goodling's head; it is time for the Congressional inquisitors to turn up the pressure. With the latest disclosures it seems Goodling can likely roll the whole bunch of malefactors right up to Rove and Harriet Miers, which means up to Bush himself. I don't care if Monica has John Dowd as a lawyer 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 Ms. Goodling, I would also be a might concerned where Dowd's loyalties and priorities actually reside as well, since it is unlikely that Goodling and/or her family are paying Dowd's fees. Dear Monica has become as much the "hub" of this conspiracy as Gonzales. Dear Monica has a problem. Big problem.

There's more: "Monica Is In A World Of Hurt" >>

Monica Goodling Under Investigation

Remember Monica Goodling, the girl from Regent Law School who was given sweeping authority. The AP reports that:

The Justice Department is investigating whether its former White House liaison used political affiliation in deciding who to hire as entry-level prosecutors in U.S. attorneys' offices around the country, The Associated Press has learned.

Doing so is a violation of federal law.

The inquiry involving Monica Goodling, the former counsel and White House liaison for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, raises new concerns that politics might have cast a shadow over the independence of trial prosecutors who enforce U.S. laws.

Over at TPMMuckracker there is a lot of speculation as to the meaning of the probe. One comment struck me as being worth a further look. According to commenter jlc

Title 5 USC Section 2302(c) states:
(c) The head of each agency shall be responsible for the prevention of prohibited personnel pratices, for the compliance with and enforcement of applicable civil service laws, rules, and regulations, and other aspects of personnel management, and for ensuring (in consultation with the Office of Special Counsel) that agency employees are informed of the rights and remedies available to them under this chapter and chapter 12 of this title. Any individual to whom the head of an agency delegates authority for personnel management, or for any aspect thereof, shall be similarly responsible within the limits of the delegation.

He then suggests that "this would seem to make Alberto responsible for actions he delegated to Ms. Goodling." Any thoughts?

There's more: "Monica Goodling Under Investigation" >>

Monica Goodling and JiffyLaw

OK, you now know what site I was looking at this morning. Crooks and Liars has also posted Jon Stewart's take on Monica Goodling and Regent Law School. Again I don't know how to post the video so follow the link. Here is a link to an older Bill Maher take on Regent University.

There's more: "Monica Goodling and JiffyLaw" >>

The Justice Department Investigations Must Not Be Portrayed As Us Versus Them

There has been much written and discussed of late on the roiling scandals permeating the US Department of Justice. Much of it, and rightfully so, is being driven by the Democratic left. Our own Corpus Juris has been both eloquent and dogged on these issues, and deserves our commendation and thanks. Although I have seen absolutely no evidence of this from CJ, or any other contributor here, there are many of our brothers and sisters out there among the political activists and blogosphere that are, unfortunately, viewing this set of issues as but another political battle to be played for maximum advantage against the Republicans. Such a view cannot, and must not, be our tact.

The cracking of the Justice Department scandals must be a goal of justice and the rule of law, not a political goal. Quite frankly, adherence to steadfast political goals, albeit it on the other side, is what got us to this point in the first place. The actions of the investigating Congressional committees should not be to advance political goals, they should be to advance the principle of justice irrespective of whether the benefit inures to the Democratic or Republican side. To act otherwise puts the result above the process; the foundation of American law, and indeed American democracy itself, is the primacy of a fair and impartial process not the guarantee of any particular result or goal.

There has been a long and slow degradation of the understanding of this fundamental premise by both the American public and their elected leaders. When either side decides that "political goals" are primary, that inherently places results above the process. I have practiced law in the governmental misconduct and criminal areas for twenty years, and the phenomenon I describe is quite evident in the halls of justice. A lot of the circumstances and problems we are focused on today are the festering mature result of the primordial decisions of one party, the Republicans, to serve "political goals" by declaring themselves the "law and order party" and spreading fear of isolated and ultimately inconsequential, yet publically hyped and discussed, results in criminal cases. If a particular criminal defendant went free because the police or prosecution had substantially violated fundamental Constitutional protections, they screamed and bellowed "Hide the women and children, those liberals have freed this heinous criminal on a technicality to roam your streets and rob, rape and murder again".

So it began with characterizing hideous and substantive Fourth Amendment violations of fundamental search and seizure law as "mere technicalities". Soon judges and prosecutors, usually being elected officials themselves, started shading their duties and principles under the law to find creative ways around Constitutional protections in order to avoid results that would be unpopular. Then the officials ran again for election proudly proclaiming how they had protected the "law and order for the citizens" by "clamping down on criminals" and "elimianting the criminal's use of technicalities". The more they talked the talk, the more they walked the walk.

The sad result over time is the situation we now find ourselves in where technicalities (read: the Constitution) be damned, the government and justice system is to be used as just another partisan tool. The Attorney General of the United States dismissively brands the Genevea Conventions as "quaint" and inconsequential. The President of the United States belligerently ignores the Constitution screaming that "it's just a damn piece of paper". The Executive Branch acts, and thinks, like Article II of the Constitution (the one delineating and defining the Executive Branch) is the only portion that exists. This is what happens when political goals (the results) trump adherence to the principles of the system (the process). There is no way to excise politics completely because it is inherent in the process at hand; however, it must not be the guiding intent. If the fundamental process can be restored and borne out, our victory will flow therefrom automatically.

There's more: "The Justice Department Investigations Must Not Be Portrayed As Us Versus Them" >>

Monica Goodling's BFF In Over Her Head in Minnesota

The current US Attorney in Minneapolis is Rachel Paulose. At 33 Paulose is currently the youngest US Attorney and is easily the least experienced. A former special assistant to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Paulose worked as a senior counsel for deputy attorney general Paul McNulty and is best friends with Monica Goodling – the assistant U.S. Attorney and liaison between Karl Rove's shop and Alberto Gonzales, who recently took the Fifth rather than testify before Congress. You might recall that Monica Goodling was the known as the "buzz saw" driving the US Attorney selection process.

Sometimes appointing your best friend forever to a job just doesn't work out. Especially if her only qualification is that she is a Loyal Bushie. Is seems she has so completely pissed off the professionals in Minnesota that, according to MyFox9

four of her top staff voluntarily demoted themselves Thursday, fed up with Paulose, who, after just months on the job, has earned a reputation for quoting Bible verses and dressing down underlings.

Deputy U.S. Attorney John Marty is just one of the people dropping themselves in rank to simply a U.S. Attorney position. Also making the move are the heads of Paulose’s criminal and civil divisions and the top administrative officer.

The Minnesota Star Tribune is reporting that

The job changes followed a visit to the office by a representative from the Executive Office of the U.S. Attorney in Washington, D.C. . . .

"It's just absolutely extraordinary that these three top managers would voluntarily demote themselves," said one defense attorney knowledgeable about the office. "I mean, it's a rank cut. ... And then it would be a salary cut, too."

A source familiar with the office said Thursday's resignations were more about management style and communication than politics. But they take on added significance because they follow a number of other managers who have voluntarily stepped aside since Paulose took over.

Apparently Paulose is a bible thumping dictator with few people skills. You might say she is the very definition of a modern Loyal Bushie.

Can anybody say "Heck of A Job, Rachel."

I wonder if Alberto is going to have to talk about her during his coming Congressional performance.

UPDATE: Paulose's resume is part of the famous document dump at part 2 page 11. There is a wonderful background piece about Paulose at Minnesota Campaign Report titled The Curious Case of Rachel Paulose.

There's more: "Monica Goodling's BFF In Over Her Head in Minnesota" >>

Goodling to the House Committee -- Go F**k Yourself

Attorney's for Monica Goodling, the lynch pin between Alberto Gonzales and Karl Rove's political shop have sent a polite four page letter to the House Judiciary Committee essentially repeating that Monica, invoking her 5th and 6th Amendment rights, will not provide any information about the firings of the Gonzales 8 to the committee and again asking that she be excused from public questioning as a matter of courtesy. In other words, if I tell you to "Go F**K yourself, would you mind opening the door for me to walk away." If Chairman John Conyers stands for this I am going to seriously worry about his level of testosterone.

There's more: "Goodling to the House Committee -- Go F**k Yourself" >>