TNR BLOGS

July 04, 2009 | 11:58 AM
July 04, 2009 | 11:32 AM
July 04, 2009 | 8:16 AM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
28.07.2008
Somehow, the Bush Administration Sinks Even Lower

I know, I know, you've heard it before--but this might set a new standard for Bush administration bureaucratic misconduct. There's another report (pdf) out today from the Justice Department's Inspector General concluding that the administration illegally screened applicants for career positions (not political appointees) based on partisan and ideological criteria. Monica Goodling, the White House liaison to the Justice Department and hyper-partisan Republican, asked questions such as the following to job applicants (p. 17):

-- Tell us about your political philosophy. There are different groups of conservatives, by way of example: Social Conservative, Fiscal Conservative, Law & Order Republican.

-- Why are you a Republican? 

-- Aside from the President, give us an example of someone currently or recently in public service who you admire.

-- [W]hat is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?

(I don't know, his dreamy eyes and love of animals?) When one applicant responded that he admired Condoleezza Rice, Goodling "frowned" and remarked, "But she's pro-choice." It's frankly hard to know where to begin here. Worrying that a career employee at the Department of Justice might not immediately condemn the abortion-rights views of the secretary of state of one particular administration? The breezy conflation of partisanship, ideology, and personal loyalty to the president? The fact that Goodling has acknowledged she knew she was breaking the law but says she "didn't mean to"? What's most depressing is that, in the words of the report (p. 59), "Even candidates personally offered positions by the Deputy Attorney General were required to be interviewed by and receive the approval of Goodling before they could begin their details." That is, a low-level political appointee who apparently has the IQ of a turtle, with no actual experience practicing law, was given veto power over the hiring of career officials throughout the entire Department of Justice. Has there ever been an administration with less interest in competently executing the day-to-day functions of the federal government?

Update: To answer several commenters' questions, Goodling (as I understand it) won't be prosecuted because she received immunity from the House Judiciary Committee in order to prevent her from taking the Fifth when she testified. One hopes that someone further up the food chain might have to face the music, but it's unclear what sort of evidence there is linking anyone else to her misconduct.

--Josh Patashnik 

Posted: Monday, July 28, 2008 4:37 PM with 21 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

ratnerstar said:

Given the record deficit, I guess they were screening out the fiscal conservatives.

July 28, 2008 4:48 PM

tec619 said:

The answer to your question: No.  Goodling's was a civil violation(s). correct? If criminal, she should be charged and prosecuted.

July 28, 2008 4:49 PM

ironyroad said:

I don't disagree with your basic message, Josh, but what on earth have turtles ever done to deserve that invidious comparison?

July 28, 2008 4:53 PM

Nari224 said:

Where is the follow up - if she has broken the law, who isn't pressing chargea?

July 28, 2008 4:56 PM

tomeg said:

I'd become depressed at this, but it's just one more business as usual in a line that extends to deep space.

July 28, 2008 5:02 PM

GSpinks said:

I would like to take a moment to personally thank every twit, moron, jackass and shill that voted for our Chimpanzee in Chief. I hope you enjoyed putting the Constitution and America at risk so you could have 8 years of an affable, ex-alcoholic moron and his cronyism.

July 28, 2008 5:03 PM

GSpinks said:

"if she has broken the law, who isn't pressing chargea?"

To quote Bush: "executive privilege".

July 28, 2008 5:04 PM

blackton said:

Nari224, not sure if it makes her exempt but she was granted immunity from prosecution when she testified from Congress, I am not sure if that means that what she said couldn't be used against her, or is a blanket immunity from any prosecution.

July 28, 2008 5:12 PM

Rhubarbs said:

GSpinks, you're being unfair. To alcoholics. Dubya was a drunk. Not everyone who drinks too much is an alcoholic. The fact that he was able to stop drinking at will, and take up drinking low-alcohol beer without apparent relapse, all in the absence of any serious therapeutic approach, is strongly indicative that Dubya is not a recovering alcoholic. He's just an ex-drunk.

July 28, 2008 5:16 PM

GSpinks said:

Rhubs, my apologies! As an ex-drunk, I should have been more aware of the nuance involved.

To all alcoholics, I do humbly apologize! (unless you voted for that excuse for a primate, in which case to hell with you)

July 28, 2008 5:30 PM

nolo93 said:

So maybe she can't be prosecuted, but she certainly can be disbarred.  Like yesterday, if it were up to me.

July 28, 2008 5:35 PM

AlanK said:

We have now insulted turtles, drunks and/or alcoholics, chimpanzees and/or all other primates and about half the population that voted. And it's only Monday. This is getting harsh.

July 28, 2008 5:49 PM

williedeford said:

Goodling's questions remind me of Colbert's interviews: "George W. Bush: Great president or THE GREATEST president?"

July 28, 2008 5:53 PM

drozenson said:

I just hope the Justice Department's Inspector General is satisfied when the terrorists win.

July 28, 2008 6:02 PM

GSpinks said:

The Great Lie: convincing America is was the MUSLIM extremists we had to fear...meanwhile, back at Evangelical HQ...

July 28, 2008 7:07 PM

AMVHuck said:

It's been suggested that Goodling lied to the committee under oath, which would (of course) vitiate the grant of immunity.

July 28, 2008 9:48 PM

cspencef said:

Just a semantic quibble; the administration was always down there.  We're still digging to find out how low "there" is.

July 28, 2008 10:39 PM

GSpinks said:

AlanK said: "We have now insulted turtles, drunks and/or alcoholics, chimpanzees and/or all other primates and about half the population that voted. And it's only Monday."

ROFL

July 29, 2008 12:08 AM

youngda44 said:

Josh,

You could be wrong about Goodling's immunity.  If you get "transactional" immunity in exchange for testimony, then you are indeed free from any prosecution.  However, if Goodling received only "use and derivative use" immunity, then she could still be prosecuted so long as the evidence she gave against herself was not used at trial.  Prosecutors usually accomplish that by locking away their evidence before the witness testifies, then unveiling it later.  This limited immunity is usually given to witnesses because they cannot refuse to testify if they face no danger of their testimony incriminating them directly.   Now, in this case Monica may have received transactional immunity, I don't know but as you are the reporter, maybe you could find that out.  If she didn't, she could in theory be prosecuted, though it may be a problem that the IG report mixes her statements with the evidence it found.  It would be of great interest to know what kind of immunity she received, and whether this accomplished legal scholar and graduate of the elite Regent U. Law school could even theoretically go to jail.  

July 29, 2008 6:51 PM

The Plank said:

While the House Judiciary Committee was voting this morning to hold Karl Rove in contempt of Congress

July 30, 2008 3:32 PM

The Plank said:

John McCain hit the "reform" theme hard in his speech last night, but I couldn't help but

September 5, 2008 1:57 PM