Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Left Masthead
October 7, 2015
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

U.K. Accused of Rigging Market Against Renewables

Rad American Women A-Z

Truthdig Bazaar more items

Ear to the Ground
Print this item

Goodling’s Role in Gonzales’ Fall

Posted on Jul 28, 2008
AP photo / Lawrence Jackson

Smiling on the stand: Monica Goodling testifies before the House Judiciary Committee on May 23, 2007.

Last year, something was declared rotten in the Department of Justice and then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was sent packing amid a scandal over politicized hiring and firing practices within the DoJ. Now, an investigation has concluded that a top aide to Gonzales, Monica Goodling, was a key instrument of that abuse of power. The internal report was released Monday by the department.

The New York Times:

In her position as White House liaison for the Justice Department, Ms. Goodling was involved in hiring lawyers for both political appointments and non-political, career positions. Regardless of the type of position, the report said, Ms. Goodling would run through the same batch of questions, asking candidates about their political philosophies, why they wanted to serve President Bush, and who, aside from Mr. Bush, they admired as public servants. Sometimes, Ms. Goodling would ask: “Why are you a Republican?”

Such questioning was allowed for candidates to political appointments, but was clearly banned under both civil service law and the Justice Department’s own internal policies, the inspector general said. Ms. Goodling’s questioning also generated complaints from one senior official who believed it was improper, long before the issue became a public controversy following the firings of nine United States attorneys. The inspector general concluded that Ms. Goodling knew that questioning applicants to career positions about their political beliefs was improper.

In one case, for instance, Ms. Goodling slowed the hiring of a prosecutor in the United States attorney’s office in Washington, D.C., for a vacancy because she said she was concerned that he was a “liberal Democrat.” After the United States attorney, Jeffrey Taylor, complained to her supervisors, he was allowed to hire the candidate anyway.

Read more

More Below the Ad


Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By purplewolf, July 30, 2008 at 8:02 pm Link to this comment

Now, shouldn’t all those who were hired in the unjust way that they were selected for thoose positions of employment, loose those jobs they were awarded with since they were not the best qualified for those jobs?

And about the firing of the woman from Grand Rapids Michigan from the heresy that there was a lesbian affair between her and her higher-up in the department, by the same Monica Goodling, here’s hoping they sue them for everything they can get.

Report this

By jobart, July 29, 2008 at 12:24 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

There is something about her testimony that, I think, warrants a more in-depth analysis. Her testimony re: the ” screening criteria” she used included several intersting & disturbing uses of language and secretive oaths taken. I was particularly distubed by the use of “serving the President” and the taking of a “second oath” upon hiring. Here’s the link below (and BE SURE to read the comments all the way through). I’m sure that there are some of you, like-minded folks, that it may disturb as well.

Report this

By Thomas Billis, July 29, 2008 at 9:46 am Link to this comment

I hope when Bush is tried for War Crimes he uses only graduates from the Pat Robertson law school.If they are good enough to represent us why not him.

Report this

By C Quil, July 29, 2008 at 9:33 am Link to this comment

She has a complete lack of legal experience or ethics and cherry-picked the kinds of laws she was willing to uphold and those that she broke without the slightest hesitation.

She has the sweetest little-girl voice, blonde Aryan looks and her hair was just PERFECT for the cameras.

That’s all that matters, right?

Report this
Issywise's avatar

By Issywise, July 29, 2008 at 7:16 am Link to this comment

This woman’s background was all in partisan politics—negative research on opponents and the like. Who was surprised when she brought to her job a blindered focus on partisanship and partisan ideology.

The only failure in her duties she is guilty of, from the perspective of those who put her in it, was that the smell blew back into their noses.

But, in the end, in a democracy, we get what we deserve. We are the ultimate villains here: it is we who patronize a commercialized press and tolerate a bought-and-sold political system.

Report this

By Pacrat, July 29, 2008 at 7:09 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Gonzo’s kids were selected because they had no ethics - and Monica was no exception.

One Justice dummy hiring other dummies to comply with a White House dummy - sort of like Tinkers to Evers to Bush!

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, July 29, 2008 at 4:03 am Link to this comment

30 years ago, Jerry Falwell and other “Christian” right-wing superstitious fascists, embarked on a campaign to subvert the United States of America by placing their adherents in any and all positions of public trust, whether elected or appointed.  They pushed into everything from school board elections in Bumf**k, Iowa, to senatorial elections in Virginia, Georgia, etc.  NO tactic was too dirty when doing “The Lord’s Work”—winning was everything.

Sinking fellow Born-Again Christian Jimmy Carter was a priority—after all, actually CARING about the poor and the sick and the future of the planet didn’t fit their agenda—do they actually READ Jesus’ words??? They’d call HIM a commie-pinko-hippie!

Ronald Reagan was the first step. He wasn’t religious enough for them, but did give them Scalia on the USSC—and lots of lower level judges.

But with the Chimpster they hit the jackpot—he put a fellow religious whacko as head of the DOJ, and promoted other whackos to run the AF Academy and the USAF in general.  But even THAT ran into problems because Ashcroft, who actually believes this stuff, was cursed with a fatal flaw—he actually has a conscience and saw that not EVERY power grab was God’s Will—some were just wrong.  Still, the damage was done.

So when Goodling came forward, the apologists rushed to say “No harm, no foul—US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President.”  No, they don’t. They are non-political appointments and using politics in their selection is A CRIME!

Report this

By Alejandro, July 28, 2008 at 10:32 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

All these allegations against Miss. Goodling and every other Administration offical have been very well documented. So what! The Democratic leadership has long since given up their mandate to defend the Constitution of the United States. Why,I don’t know? I suppose they are all just as dirty. That would explain why all they do is bloviate about their congressional duty and when it’s time to stand up and be counted, all except a hand full and most importantly the Demos. Leadership run for cover like the cockroaches that they are. As far as Miss Goodling is concerned, she should have known that she was being used as a disposable entity, so let her burn in hell with the rest of them or go to jail which ever comes first.

Report this

By purplewolf, July 28, 2008 at 9:11 pm Link to this comment

Isn’t this the same moron who had the statue of Lady Justice’s bosom covered as she was somewhat exposed and then seemed so proud that she was responsible for covering up the “obscene” statues. Another blonde, bible-thumping, bimbo boob. I don’t know who is worse, Ann Colter(it’s really a man, you know, check out that adam’s apple) or this burnt out brainless blonde bombshell.

So much for the EEOC being effective anymore.

Report this

By cyrena, July 28, 2008 at 9:08 pm Link to this comment

Well, Tony Fratto is right this time, there really isn’t anything ‘new’ on this. Ms. Goodling was busted back then, even admitting to asking one applicant if he’d ever cheated on his wife. She is also a graduate of Liberty University, an Evangelical institution founded by Jerry Falwell. It’s next to the last in the line of accredited Law Schools, but over 60% of the current admin’s people come from this school.

So this is what the fascists have wrought. And, it’s really permeated far more than just the justice department. Question is, now that we’ve had it reconfirmed that Goodling and her ilk severely violated all kinds of laws, what’s gonna happen to them? If they can’t be criminally punished, what else is there? Seems like being disbarred or losing one’s license to practice law isn’t much of a punishment. Hell, that happened to Slick Willey, (at least for practicing in a federal court) but it hasn’t stopped him from earning several millions of dollars since.

Report this

By KitCarson, July 28, 2008 at 8:04 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

When she tested before Congress this information was disclose. It was apparent that the DOJ was politicized in its hiring practices and has been since the 2000 elections. Not just for two years. . .we know that these people have an ability to twist the truth.  Do you really believe this was happening for a short period of time?

In her testimony and other testimony it is apparent that the hiring practice at the DOJ was changed from standard practice in the past. It went from having career attorneys interview and make selections to having a one person “filter”.

Do you really think that this happened only at the DOJ?  Do you think that it isn’t being done at all Federal Agencies? With the FISA wiretapping all Federal applicants can now be fully “vetted” to ensure we have a ‘Republican neocon’ government. Everyone. Every Federal Agency. 

Oh, and by the way, when do we begin to discuss voter caging? Voter disenfranchisement? Election fraud?

Gonzales did himself in. He even disparaged his father. What can you say?  Watch his testimony at comedy Central. Simple obstruction of justice.


Report this
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Like Truthdig on Facebook