The young lawyer who helped to drop the ax on seven US Attorneys in what was allegedly a purge of lawyers whose views were insufficiently conservative, or who held jobs coveted by political operatives suffers a rebuke five years later…
Monica Goodling, a key figure in the politicization of the Justice Department during the Bush administration, has received a public reprimand from the Virginia State Bar, Virginia Lawyers Weekly reports.
The state bar found that Goodling committed “a criminal or deliberately wrongful act” that reflected poorly on her “honesty, trustworthiness or fitness to practice law,” the publication reports. The decision was reached in March but was made public Thursday.
Goodling, a former opposition researcher for the Republican National Committee and graduate of Regent University School of Law, arrived at the Justice Department at the start of the Bush administration. Former colleagues said she believed that part of her job was to bring people with conservative and Christian values to DOJ. She admitted to “crossing the line” by running afoul of civil service rules governing hiring decisions.
She applied a political and religious litmus test for job applicants– lawyers who would be working for the American people. A Houston Chronicle editorial puts some color in the story…
The second in a series of reports by the Justice Department’s inspector general confirmed a shameful episode in the country’s judicial history. It focuses on the actions of Monica Goodling, [Attorney General Alberto]Gonzales’ senior counsel and White House liaison, and his chief of staff, Kyle Sampson. It details how Goodling developed methods of screening and interviewing both political and career applicants to select what she termed “a good American,” her euphemism for conservative Republicans with the right positions on “god, guns + gays.”
Gonzales’ lawyer says his client knew nothing of Goodling and Sampson’s wrongdoing. But if Gonzales didn’t know, he is guilty of letting his closest aides hijack the ostensibly apolitical department for partisan gain.
Not only did Goodling appoint unqualified candidates to important positions, derailing the careers of highly competent career prosecutors, she also turned away talented candidates who had graduated from the nation’s most prestigious law schools at the top of their class.
In one example cited in the report, Goodling stopped the appointment of an experienced anti-terrorism prosecutor to a position in Washington because his wife happened to be a Democrat. Instead, a candidate with no counterterrorism experience was hired in his place. When a job candidate responded to a query about respected leaders by naming Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Goodling responded, “but she’s pro-choice.”
Goodling also blocked the promotion of a veteran prosecutor because of a false rumor that the prosecutor had a lesbian relationship with a U.S. attorney. The U.S. attorney was among nine replaced in a controversial purge that is still under investigation.
Bud Cummins, a former US Attorney, speaks out about his firing in an interview for Salon.com…
The president had an absolute right to fire us. We served at his pleasure, and that meant we could be dismissed for any reason or for no reason. And we all accepted that fact without complaint. When challenged by Congress, the leaders of the Department of Justice could have refused to explain. Or, they could have explained the truth. But apparently the truth behind some or all of the firings was embarrassing. So, instead, they said it was because of “performance.” We didn’t accept that, because it wasn’t the truth.
In spite of statements and representations to the contrary, there was no credible performance review process prior to the firings — at least, not using the definition of “performance” known to most people. There is not one document to evidence such a review. The department’s leaders did not consult any of the reports or the people that could have provided information relevant to the performance of the U.S. attorneys they fired. In fact, in the case of my seven colleagues, they actually fired some pretty damn good U.S. attorneys — and knowledgeable people in those attorneys’ communities back home know that to be the truth. Nobody seems to believe the department’s explanations.
To this day, we don’t really know why we were singled out to be fired. I am not sure Department of Justice managers even know at this point. But you can read the newspapers and watch the congressional hearings and easily conclude that some of the motivations were likely … unattractive. This was hardly this administration’s brightest shining moment. It doesn’t appear any laws were broken, so it makes it even worse that there is such a reluctance on the administration’s part to simply admit the obvious and move on. It hurts their credibility.
Not only fired, but dishonestly with harm to his professional reputation.
Bud Cummins was interviewed on NPR in 2007 and I heard him as I drove around doing visits with the radio on.
I have been the hatchet woman, and I’ve gotten the ax, so I know from experience that losing your job can be devastating. You don’t feel so great either, when you fire someone. It’s not like a layoff, which you can survive with your pride intact.
Monica Goodling, young, blonde and sweet faced, seems to have done the dirty work with a sense of mission. “she believed that part of her job was to bring people with conservative and Christian values to DOJ.” She was a product of Regent University, founded by Pat Robertson to train up Christian conservatives for careers in law and government. The Bush administration hired many Regent grads. Goodling may not have been exposed to the liberal values of tolerance, fairness and acceptance of diverse views, or the liberal value of doubt. When you’re right, you never have to question.
Did she ever feel any pangs for the people whose careers she blocked or shattered, whose offense was insufficient orthodoxy, or failing to placate their congressman, or simply holding a position someone else wanted?
Attorney General Eric Holder is not pursuing charges. At the time we heard the phrase, ‘at the pleasure of the President’ a lot, and Homeland Security laws gave the Chief Executive more power, so no laws were broken. It was a deeply corrupt administration, and Monica Goodling has been found guilty by her peers, her fellow lawyers, of wrongdoing.
It’s a deeply corrupt setup. Pat Robertson, John Ashcroft, Jerry Fallwell– and others who have build successful careers mixing the religious, the political and the financial, are involved in a university whose mission is to train people to enter government and law. A president who won votes from the religious right finds loyal operatives and hires heavily from that university. Even when one of the young true believers fails to cover her tracks, the cover of Presidential power, increased since 9/11, keeps the whole episode within the law. But it’s wrong, and the corruption goes far beyond this one shameful episode. The undermining of the Justice Department will take a long time to remedy.
IRONICALLY… SeattlePI reminds us that Monica Goodling was involved in Attorney General John Ashcroft’s decorating decision to spend $8,000 of taxpayer money on curtains to hide a statue called, ‘Spirit of Justice’.
Kmareka.com 
Bill Clinton fired all US Attorneys as soon as he was sworn in.No politics there,right?
George W.Bush didn’t do the same.I recall he left Meg Curran in office until illness fored her to step down.
I believe the President has the right to decide whether to retain any US Attorney.
I personally believe Eric Holder is anti-American and racist,yet Obama seems happy with him.That alone is reason enough to vote against Obama,aside from the fact that I don’t think he’s a good President.
Re the attorney firings, any informed person knows that you are either being incredibly dishonest in your argument or know nothing of the history and facts and are just repeating right wing talking points you’ve heard(in other words, an idiot). No, I won’t explain why you are dishonest or just wrong because you don’t care. Educate yourself about a subject before you start giving advice about that subject and you won’t come off as dishonest and stupid.
Nick, welcome to our site. I want to say, though, that we have a policy of no name calling and we do want you to explain– that’s what discussion is about. I think we have a story here that the press won’t look at in depth, but even a net-trolling amateur like myself can connect the dots.
I don’t care about one thing for sure-anything you have to say.
Nancy-I know you can set the site policy,but personally I consider the source and being called names by that individual is inconsequential to me.
Being falsely acccused of something is an entirely different matter,but name calling?C’mon.I just consider the source.
The Virginia Bar Association is a bunch of flaming liberals? Who would have guessed?
I didn’t mention “liberal”at all.
She may have overstepped her bounds,but please don’t try to convnce me that hiring in DOJ is apolitical,particularly at the level of US Attorney.
Neither side has high ground there.
Unlike you,I spent over 20 years in DOJ because INS was part of that department and do you think I didn’t see what went on?
I think Meg Curran,who I know,respect,and disagree with on a number of issues is hardly conservative,yet she wasn’t fired.
The point about Clinton was simply that he exercised his prerogative as President.
I’ve worked with US Attorneys in at least seven states during my career and I found lots of politics at work in those offices.
Call me a liar but I know what I witnessed.
I guess Ms.Goodling just did a little too much of what’s normally part of the milieu.
I think you’re saying that we shouldn’t mind if the people trusted to administer justice to ‘we the people’ are hired and fired on political grounds because it’s been going on for a long time. Alberto Gonzales’ tenure as Attorney General has been called ‘scandal-ridden’.
Monica Goodling was just a tool, so she takes the fall. President Bush could have said that he wanted to bring new people into the Justice Department, but instead he did it sneaky and trashed the reputations of the people he fired. You think that wasn’t destructive?
Observer misses the point that the Bush firing justifications were hypocritical and nasty in that they damaged the reputations of those fired, instead of just saying it was the usual politics.
As for saying Holder is “anti-American and racist” that is offensive as there is no justification given.
I think Obama is probably the best president of my adult lifetime. He has pretty much successfully reversed the economic skid he inherited, saved the auto industry, invested in infrastructure, education, alternate energy, at least partially reformed health care, curbed financial abuses, helped women and gays fight discrimination in the workplace, defended reproductive freedom, and tried to get along with (most of) the rest of the world. He has promoted civil discourse in fave of virulent opposition. His big mistake is Afghanistan.
Nasty in a personal way. Anyone who’s ever been let go, or even quit a job– you wonder why. I heard Bud Cummins interview, and a link is in the post. He was blindsided by his firing. Monica Goodling was allowed to believe and behave as if firing, and denying promotions to deserving workers, and denying job candidates in favor of less qualified ones for religion and politics was not dishonest and personally destructive. The Bar Association thought otherwise.
Nancy-I didn’t approve of the political crap that went on in DOJ or INS,but I was a small cog just trying to get my job done.
I have no visions of being a world saver or being able to effect change in a bureaucratic monolith.
You still seem to be idealistic.It won’t do any good.
Barry-Holder has instituted a policy at DOJ which essentially excuses people like the New Black panther party(please don’t confuse them with the Black Panthers of the 60’s-70’s-these people are plain bigots.
Holder doesn’t seem to believe White males can have their civil rights violated.Nothing will ever convince me Holder has any real attachment to this country although he is a native born citizen.
Obama is not the worst President in my lifetime,but close.
Jimmy Carter was worse.He created many of our seemingly insoluble problemns that we face today-Iran;Afghanistan;immigration chaos;and a willingness to see this country humiliated.
Obama is smart,but had a woeful lack of useful experience and no experience at all of making decisions that had wide impact.
He,unlike Bill Clinton,seems to be personally moral and decent,but that’s hardly enough to be an effective President.
Nothing could make me vote for him.
If Trump was ever(God forbid)nominated,I’d probably stay home.
Here’s a few more thoughts on Holder:
(1)Immediately after being sworn in he said he would like to re-institute the “assault weapons ban”,a failed policy of the Cinton era which did nothing to make streets safer
(2)A criminal investigation of CIA officers for aggressive interrogation techniques which were within DOJ guidelines at the time they were employed.
They weren’t questioning drug dealers or bank robbers-these people were mass murderers and engaged in fighting a terrorist war against the US.The enemy’s techniques went a little beyond “waterboarding”such as beheading.But we’re supposed to threat them humanely?
(3)A follow on to the above is Holder’s frankly insane scheme to try KSM and other enemy combatants in civilian courts in NYC no less.
Holder,who is himself from NYC must have a lot of hatred in him to plan on putting his hometown through such a charade of evil mockery.
Funny thing is he attended Stuyvesant HS -arguably the best school in the city-which would have been demolished with the students in it had the towers toppled instead of telescoping down.
There is something about this man that reeks of anger at the society he grew up in and he was hardly a victim-he had a privileged existence in his educational experience.
Holder virtually ran DOJ when Reno was the figurehead.Reno was not sober on a regular basis.I got this from people who had first hand knowledge.
Holder engineered the pardons of the FALN,unrepentant terrorists who were sentenced to life by a Federal judge in Chicago who lamented he couldn’t impose th death penalty.
these are the people Holder loosed on the world and we haven’t even mentioned Marc Rich,the modern Basil Zaharoff.
So,specific enough,Barry?
I don’t get ANY “talking points”from right wing pundits.
I know you didn’t claim that-it was someone else on this thread,but I come to my conclusions on my own.I’m not asking anyone to like them.
Eric Holder’s justice dept concluded that Monica Goodling could not be charged with a crime. She pleaded the fifth. If he was as biased as you think, would he have decided not to pursue charges on actions that the bar association calls ‘criminal’? He respects the law.
Look,Nancy we’re not going to agree on Eric Holder and I really like debating with you without bitterness,so I’ll withdraw on this argument.
I just don’t back down on what I feel viscerally.But we can butt heads on another issue.I hope you had a nice Mother’s Day.
We attended my mom’s day at assisted living and she really enjoyed her great grandaughter being there.
thanks, and best wishes to you and your family.