CommunityFDL Main Blog

Stimulating The Subpoenal Gland

Huge apology to all the dial up folks and the folks at work with rampant firewall video issues, but I had to post this.  Enormous H/T to reader Frank Probst for the find.  This is just brilliant. 

For all you Republican operatives and Bush Administration officials out there with memory lapses, this could be your answer…

(Thanks, Frank, best laugh I have had all day.  Mwahahahaha.)

The Muck has a great round-up on the DOJ alternate Monica bus maneuver:  it seems that the "I was told I could use political considerations for hiring immigration judges." excuse isn't on as firm a foundation as the King James version of Elle Woods would have us believe.  At least, according to the DOJ OIG anyway.   (While you are at it, mark June 7 on your calendars:  GSA chief Laurita Doan has been cordially invited for another chat with Rep. Waxman's committee.  I'm expecting tea and cookies, with plenty of punch to go around.)

Marty Lederman at Balkinization has a great run-down of the outstanding questions on the immigration judge (IJ) issue, and he's right that Goodling was well advised by Dowd to bring it up in order to get that on the record while appearing in a use immunity situation.  However, if the OIG and/or OPR already had independent evidence of her conduct such as, say, speaking with applicants who were asked directly about political affiliation, voting records, and loyalty to President Bush, among other things, then that immunity isn't exactly going to provide her with total cover from prosecution, now is it?  We live in interesting times…

Here is a bit from the LATimes article on the subject that I found illuminating on several levels:

The Justice Department said it could find no record to support claims by Goodling that taking politics into account to fill positions on the immigration bench had been approved by department officials.

Goodling is already under investigation on suspicion of violating federal civil service rules and department policy for considering political activity while she conducted reviews of candidates for career prosecutors.

She testified before the House Judiciary Committee under a grant of immunity from prosecution.

The internal Justice Department investigation, although focused on Goodling, could turn up embarrassing information about Gonzales' management practices and what, if anything, he knew about the role that politics played in hiring employees protected by civil service laws.

Gonzales' tenure has been shaken by revelations of lax procedures in the firings last year of eight U.S. attorneys, prosecutors who serve at the pleasure of the president and whose tenure is not covered by civil service rules….

They also denied Goodling's assertion that the hiring of immigration judges had been frozen after the department's civil division raised concerns about using a political litmus test.

"There is no disagreement within the department, including between the civil division and the Office of Legal Counsel, about whether the civil service laws apply to the appointment of immigration judges," said Dean Boyd, a Justice Department spokesman. "They do apply."

Under Goodling's immunity agreement, statements that she made to Congress cannot be used against her. But that does not prohibit the government from filing charges, as long as the evidence comes from other sources.

She also could be prosecuted for perjury if she intentionally made false statements to Congress.  (emphasis mine)

Is it just me, or is anyone else hearing the sounds of a bus engine warming up in the distance? But for whom? Ah…that IS the question, isn't it?  Here's the thing, the OIG's office and the OPR are run by political appointees, but they are both staffed by career folks for whom, at least in some measure for some of them there now anyway, the application of the rule of law and the evidence uncovered is paramount.  How these internal investigations proceed is going to be a very interesting bit to watch over the next few weeks, as much as there is any transparency allowed.  Here's to some good old-fashioned rock turning, a whole lot of sunshine, and a hefty dose of allowing the facts and the law chips to fall where they may.  You know, equal application of the law to achieve justice wherever it may lead.

A girl can dream, anyway…and, in the meantime, please let us know in the comments if you've got word of any other hearings we should make note of for next week.  My C-Span addiction overfloweth.

UPDATE:  Dang it — meant to link up the WaPo op-ed on Regent grads, Monica, and government service for the Lord.  It's an interesting read.  Coming from a family where my grandpa was a minister, and a VBS popsicle stick Noah's ark project photo somewhere in a photo album from the past, the shift from an emphasis on doing good work for others to increasing God's control over the political power structures raises a whole lot of questions.  It should for everyone, and is worth some discussion.  (H/T to twolf1 for the link.)

Previous post

Catching Up...

Next post

Nebraska Senate kills anti-discrimination bill

Christy Hardin Smith

Christy Hardin Smith

Christy is a "recovering" attorney, who earned her undergraduate degree at Smith College, in American Studies and Government, concentrating in American Foreign Policy. She then went on to graduate studies at the University of Pennsylvania in the field of political science and international relations/security studies, before attending law school at the College of Law at West Virginia University, where she was Associate Editor of the Law Review. Christy was a partner in her own firm for several years, where she practiced in a number of areas including criminal defense, child abuse and neglect representation, domestic law, civil litigation, and she was an attorney for a small municipality, before switching hats to become a state prosecutor. Christy has extensive trial experience, and has worked for years both in and out of the court system to improve the lives of at risk children.

Email: reddhedd AT firedoglake DOT com

119 Comments