Friday editorial: Hack Justice
Add illegal hiring practices to the list of messes that will need cleaning up after the Bush administration departs Washington.
This long-running scandal involves the Justice Department and the heavy-handed abuse of the civil service system by highly placed partisan appointees. One of the many worrisome aspects of this is how many lawyers, who have a professional duty to report misconduct, looked the other way.
The Justice Department’s inspector general and the Office of Professional Responsibility this week reported details about how political appointees violated federal law and agency policy in their hiring practices. Their main offense was to advance or reject candidates for career positions and assignments based on party loyalty and political ideology. Some of them also lied about what they had done.
Understand: The jobs in question were not political jobs, the kind that traditionally go to supporters of the party in power. These were civil service jobs that by law are to be filled on merit, not ideology and connections — the very kinds of jobs that civil service reforms were enacted to protect.
The department’s most active offender, Monica Goodling, served as the agency’s White House liaison under Attorney General Alberto Gonzales from April 2006 through April 2007. A graduate of Regent Law School, which was founded by televangelist Pat Robertson, she worked as a political researcher for the Republican National Committee for three years. She had been out of law school for only seven years when she was appointed White House liaison, a senior position that gave her broad authority over a wide variety of employment applications at the agency.
In May, Ms. Goodling told Congress — only after extracting a grant of immunity — about many of the improper practices in which she engaged. This week’s report put meat on the bones of her admissions.
It revealed how, in case after case, partisan affiliation, positions on political issues and even perceived sexual orientation determined who got hired and what jobs they got. It described how a merit system for selecting and promoting immigration judges was corrupted. The department’s hiring system became, in effect, an arm of the White House patronage office.
Under the law, the administration was permitted to fill numerous Justice Department jobs with political and ideological appointees. It did so, and some of the appointees were well qualified. But the partisan operatives in charge of Mr. Gonzales’ Justice Department were intent on packing the ranks of career professionals with their pals, too.
The cadre of young lawyers running the Justice Department job shop were not subtle. They were explicit in the pursuit of their mission. Their memos and e-mails were littered with references to hiring “good Americans” — code for candidates with Republican credentials. In vetting candidates, Ms. Goodling and her minions conducted online searches that included “religious” and “homosexual” among the search terms.
That would be discrimination in any business. But this was the United States Department of Justice, an agency dedicated to upholding the law. As officers of the court, lawyers have a duty to report professional misconduct to the organizations that issue licenses to practice law and oversee their use in the various states and the District of Columbia.
The rules couldn’t be more explicit and are expressed in the profession’s model code:
“A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer . . . shall inform the appropriate professional authority.”
Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey, appointed to clean up the mess that Mr. Gonzales left behind, pledged to restore America’s “confidence in the propriety of what we do and how we do it.” With the new report now in hand, he should examine closely why so many lawyers stood mute for so long.
(Pictured: Michael Mukasey raises his right hand as he is sworn in before testifying at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill October 17, 2007 in Washington DC. to become Attorney General of the United States. Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)


I agree. These guys did something they shouldn’t have and should be punished if it was against the law.
But aren’t you guys the ones against people profiting from the way they vote if they are Republican legislators. SHouldn’t you then ban all public “servants” from voting for more jobs for public “service.”
Just imagine, if Obama is elected, what other dead bodies will be dug up, and what other hideous skeletons will be pulled from the closets of the Criminal Bush Regime. It’s going to be a 4 year CSI episode.
Here is the irony — many of these blatant politically “vetted” employees are now protected by the Civil Service code they circumvented. However, their performance reviews should be conducted much more thoroughly and with greater frequency than the regular hires. Those who actually turn out to be good in their job won’t have to worry. Those whose qulaifications are similar to those of Michael Brown’s (remember “Good job Brownie” FEMA?), well, let’s say their contracts should be terminated for lying on their applications.
If anybody can locate link to P-D/Eric Mink’s outrage at:
- Travelgate scandal and Billy Dale prosecution
- People’s Republic of China/Clinton campaign finance scandal and Charlie Tree, Johnny Chung, John Huang & James Riady
- Filegate & Craig Livingstone
… please post it. Eric’s a fair and balanced guy so it’s gotta’ be out there.
(and to think HE used to make fun of Dan Quayle)
BobZ -
Haven’t you heard, Dan Quayle might be on “Celebrity Dance Off”, or is it “Dance Your Pants Off” or some such “reality show”. You still want to stand by your comment of making fun of Dan Quayle?
Hmmm… I guess “immediately declined” means RHarnack is today’s winner of an I HEART Eric Mink t-shirt.
http://www.accesshollywood.com/article/10610/?__source=rss%7Cah_Latest
If it’s illegal, punish them. What I don’t understand is, why was it ok for President Clinton to fire them all, and replace them with friends, but this is illegal? Serious, can someone explain the difference here?
Nick,
Some positions are political appointments, others are not. Those postions that were not political appointments are where these ones behaved unlawfully. Very concerning that such a politically involved person such as yourself cannot understand or see the differance or see how disgustingly unethical, immoral and unlawful this administration behaved and interferred in the everyday operation and justice within our Justice Department. This type of behavior should never be tolerated by anyone and certainly not our Congress.
Nick -
The firings you are probably remembering were the White House travel office firings. Here is the irony, if you work in the White House or the Congress, the federal employment rules do not necessarily apply. Howevr, if you work for the federal bureaucracy, civil service and fair employment rules do apply.