
I just finished reading the Government Report An Investigation of Allegations of
Politicized Hiring by Monica Goodling and Other Staff in the Office of the
Attorney General. After reading this report, I have no doubt that Monica Goodling was hired to politicize the Department of Justice. Her title was White House Liaison and Senior Counsel to the Attorney General. She was responsible for interviewing and processing candidates for political positions. “In that job, she also interviewed and was involved in the selection of career attorneys who were candidates for temporary details to various Department offices, and candidates for immigration judge and Board of Immigration Appeals positions.”
What was her training for such an important job?
Goodling graduated from Messiah College in 1995 and received a law degree from the Regent University School of Law in 1999. From 1999 to February 2002, she worked for the Republican National Committee (RNC) where she held the positions of research analyst, senior analyst, and deputy director for research and strategic planning. Among her duties was what she described on her résumé as “a broad range of political research.”
Goodling, who never practiced as a lawyer, was responsible for hiring career attorneys and immigration appeals attorneys. I wonder how she knew what questions to ask a prospective employee?

Here is a list of questions that Goodling asked candidates, even ones who were hired for non-political positions.
The list included the following:
Tell us about your political philosophy. There are different
groups of conservatives, by way of example: Social
Conservative, Fiscal Conservative, Law & Order Republican.
[W]hat is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to
serve him?
Aside from the President, give us an example of someone
currently or recently in public service who you admire.
We found that this last question often took the form of asking the candidate to identify his or her most admired President, Supreme Court Justice, or legislator. Some candidates were asked to identify a person for all three categories. Williamson told us that sometimes Goodling asked candidates: “Why are you a Republican?”
If that doesn’t make you sick, check out this zealous behavior:
Several candidates interviewed by Goodling told us they believed that her question about identifying their favorite Supreme Court Justice, President, or legislator was an attempt to determine the candidates’ political beliefs. For example, one candidate reported that after he stated he admired Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Goodling “frowned” and commented, “but she’s pro-choice.” Another candidate commented that when Goodling asked him to name his favorite judge, it seemed to him that she was trying to “get at my political views.”
Of course, candidates were questioned about gay marriage and abortion:
Willamson (a co-worker) said that she and Goodling took notes during candidate interviews, which were maintained in folders for the candidates.14 We also found that many of Goodling’s and Williamson’s interview notes reflected that the topics of abortion and gay marriage were discussed during interviews. It appeared that these topics were discussed as a result of the question seeking information about how the applicant would characterize the type of conservative they were. We received information from our survey that 34 persons interviewed by Goodling or Williamson said they discussed abortion, and 21 said they discussed gay marriage.
One person informed Goodling’s boss - Kyle Sampson - that she was asking illegal questions about abortion, but the boss doesn’t recall that conversation. He does recall a conversation about the need for more training. Yea, right.
Goodling conducted extensive internet "research" on job candidates. It appears that her research experience and ability was related to simply typing people's names into search engines on the internet and seeing if any dirt (e.g, a link to democratic party) came up.
Goodling used an Internet search string in her hiring research that she had received from Jan Williams, her predecessor as the Department’s White House Liaison. At some time during the year Williams served as White House Liaison, she had attended a seminar at the White House Office of Presidential Personnel and received a document entitled “The Thorough Process of Investigation.” The document described methods for screening candidates for political positions and recommended using www.tray.com and www.opensecrets.org to find information about contributions to political candidates and parties. The document also explained how to find voter registration information. In addition, the document explained how to conduct searches on www.nexis.com, and included an example of a search string that contained political terms such as “republican,” “Bush or Cheney,” “Karl Rove,” “Howard Dean,” “democrat!,” “liberal,” “abortion or pro-choice,” as well as generic terms such as “arrest!” and “bankrupt!”
And here is her Lexus-Nexus internet search string:
[First name of a candidate]! and pre/2 [last name of a candidate] w/7 bush or gore or republican! or democrat! or charg! or accus! or criticiz! or blam! or defend! or iran contra or clinton or spotted owl or florida recount or sex! or controvers! or racis! or fraud! or investigat! or bankrupt! or layoff! or downsiz! or PNTR or NAFTA or outsourc! or indict! or enron or kerry or iraq or wmd! or arrest! or intox! or fired or sex! or racis! or intox! or slur! or arrest! or fired or controvers! or abortion! or gay! or homosexual! or gun! or firearm!
In addition, Williams provided to Goodling the White House document described above entitled, “The Thorough Process of Investigation.”
The Thorough Process of Investigation? Wow. How long will it take the country to recover from this kind of partisan destruction. It appears that competency had nothing to do with the hiring process. Goodling has limited immunity from prosecution. If she lied during her testimony, she could be prosecuted. But then Bush would pardon her because she did such a great job.
It's time for change.

Recent Comments