More corruption in the politicized Department of Justice

It seems that U.S. Attorneys and their assistants were not the only jobs in the Department of Justice (DoJ) that Gonzales, Rove(?) and company were politicizing. They were also placing unqualified people into the job of Immigration Judge. It got bad enough that so that they shut down appointments as Immigration Judge last December and the DoJ Inspector General opened an investigation of the procedures used for choosing new Immigration Judges.

The reasons and final outcome are not yet known, but we know a lot more than a short time ago. Go read EmptyWheel for more details.

Goodling gave us the crime. Caging. Who will take it from here?

Greg Palast has pointed out that Monica Goodling gave up the real crime at the core of Department of Justice antics. (See Bradblog.) The key is "Caging." The following is from a letter from Greg Palast published in Bradblog:

Goodling testified that Gonzales' Chief of Staff, Kyle Sampson, perjured himself, lying to the committee in earlier testimony. The lie: Sampson denied Monica had told him about Tim Griffin's "involvement in 'caging' voters" in 2004.

Huh?? Tim Griffin? "Caging"??? [Snip]

...what's 'caging' and why is it such a dreadful secret that lawyer Sampson put his license to practice and his freedom on the line to cover Tim Griffin's involvement in it? Because it's a felony. And a big one.

Here's how caging worked, and along with Griffin's thoughtful emails themselves you'll understand it all in no time.

The Bush-Cheney operatives sent hundreds of thousands of letters marked "Do not forward" to voters' homes. Letters returned ("caged") were used as evidence to block these voters' right to cast a ballot on grounds they were registered at phony addresses. Who were the evil fakers? Homeless men, students on vacation and --- you got to love this --- American soldiers. Oh yeah: most of them are Black voters.

Why weren't these African-American voters home when the Republican letters arrived? The homeless men were on park benches, the students were on vacation --- and the soldiers were overseas. Go to Baghdad, lose your vote. Mission Accomplished.

How do I know? I have the caging lists...

I have them because they are attached to the emails Rove insists can't be found. I have the emails. 500 of them --- sent to our team at BBC after the Rove-bots accidentally sent them to a web domain owned by our friend John Wooden.

Here's what you need to know --- and the Committee would have discovered, if only they'd asked:

1. 'Caging' voters is a crime, a go-to-jail felony.
2. Griffin wasn't "involved" in the caging, Ms. Goodling. Griffin, Rove's right-hand man (right-hand claw), was directing the illegal purge and challenge campaign. How do I know? It's in the email I got. Thanks. And it's posted below. [Note: go to Bradblog for this. Editor, PPS.]
3. On December 7, 2006, the ragin', cagin' Griffin was named, on Rove's personal demand, US Attorney for Arkansas. Perpetrator became prosecutor.

The committee was perplexed about Monica's panicked admission and accusations about the caging list because the US press never covered it. That's because, as Griffin wrote to Goodling in yet another email (dated February 6 of this year, and also posted below), their caging operation only made the news on BBC London: busted open, Griffin bitched, by that "British reporter," Greg Palast.

This is the next step in opening up the "caging" issue. It's not over by a long shot.

But why have the American media not picked up on it? Too complicated for them?

---

Prior related posts.

• "Caging" in Republican practice
  May 24, 2007


• "Caging" - an explanation of the term
  May 23, 2007

The Monica Goodling testimony as reported by FDL

As is becoming usual, we have gotten liveblogging of the Monica Goodling testimony through the good graces of Firedoglake.

• Monica Goodling testimony, Part XIX
  by EmptyWheel.


• Monica Goodling testimony, Part VIII
  EmptyWheel


• Monica Goodling testimony, Part VII
  EmptyWheel


• Monica Goodling testimony, Part VI
  EmptyWheel


• Monica Goodling testimony, Part V
  EmptyWheel


• Monica Goodling testimony, Part IV
  Christy Hardin Smith


• Monica Goodling testimony, Part III
  Christy Hardin Smith


• Monica Goodling testimony, Part II
  Christy Hardin Smith


• Monica Goodling testimony, Part I
  Christy Hardin Smith

"Caging" - an explanation of the term

Monica Goodling used the term "caging" in her testimony this morning, and at one site I read the term was described as committing a crime. Monica was probably not using the term in its criminal sense.

"Caging" has two meanings. First, it is a term used in direct mail operations to describe the process of opening, sorting, and coding donor mail and correspondence. The coding creates a "caging list" which is the organized data that is then given to the organization using the services of the direct mail contractor. That processed information is used to update the customer's lists.

The second meaning of "caging" is a form of voter suppression. It is a term that describes the process of challenging the validity of the voter registration of a voter so that they are required to prove they are registered before their vote will be counted. Wikipedia offers this description of the use of "caging" to suppress voter turnout:

Voters targeted by caging are often the most vulnerable: those who are unfamiliar with their rights under the law, and those who cannot spare the time, effort, and expense of proving that their registration is valid. Ultimately, caging works by dissuading a voter from casting a ballot, or by ensuring that they cast a provisional ballot, which is less likely to be counted.

With one type of caging, a political party sends registered mail to addresses of registered voters. If the mail is returned as undeliverable - because, for example, the voter refuses to sign for it, the voter isn't present for delivery, or the voter is homeless - the party uses that fact to challenge the registration, arguing that because the voter could not be reached at the address, the registration is fraudulent. It is this use of direct mail caging techniques to target voters which probably resulted in the application of the name to the political tactic.

On the day of the election, when the voter arrives at the poll and requests a ballot, an operative of the party challenges the validity of their registration.

While the challenge process is prescribed by law, the use of broad, partisan challenges is controversial. For example, in the United States Presidential Election of 2004, the Republican Party employed this process to challenge the validity of tens of thousands of voter registrations in contested states like Florida, Nevada, Ohio, and Wisconsin. The Republican Party argued that the challenges were necessary to combat widespread voter fraud. The Democratic Party countered that the challenges were tantamount to voter suppression, and further argued that the Republican Party had targeted voter registrations on the basis of the race of the voter, in violation of federal law.

This form of voter suppression obviously works a lot better on people who do not routinely carry a variety of forms of ID and who find it difficult to get time off from work to take care of personal matters, so the Republicans tend to use it to reduce Democratic voter turnout.

I seriously doubt that Monica Goodling was using the term "caging" in its second meaning as she was testifying before the House Committee this morning.

Goodling to testify - immunity approved

Monica Goodling has received the immunity her attorneys were requesting before she would testify before Congress about the firing of the U.S. Attorneys.

Congress agreed to the deal, Justice Department investigators reluctantly agreed not to not oppose it and U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan gave it final approval Friday.

"Monica Goodling may not refuse to testify," Hogan began his brief order, which said that Goodling could not be prosecuted for anything other than perjury in connection with her testimony.

Lawmakers want to question Goodling as part of an inquiry into whether the Justice Department played politics with the hiring and firing of department officials.

Goodling, as liaison between the White House and the Department of Justice, is in a unique position to know whether Rove was involved in the firings and if so, to what extent.

This should be interesting.

Fired US attys say criminal cases will result from the firings.

David Iglesias, fired U.S. Attorney from New Mexico, and John McKay, fired U.S. Attorney for Western Washington, tell the Seattle Times that there may be criminal charges resulting from the Pearl Harbor Day Massacre of U.S. Attorneys. They also said that:

...they believe White House political operative Karl Rove and his aides instigated the dismissals and ultimately decided who among the nation's 93 U.S. attorneys should be fired.

This is a story that has a long way left to go.

My opinion - Attorney General Gonzales may well not be much of a manager. Lawyers often aren't. But contrary to the impression he left in his Senate testimony, he is a very intelligent man. He is, in fact, both intelligent enough and well-enough trained as a lawyer that he could plausibly present a story to the Senate in which the White House was totally unconnected to the real hand Rove and his staff had in the U.S. Attorney Purge. All Alberto G. had to do to present such a story was to appear to be a totally detached figurehead playing as leader while simply not understanding what was really going on. This would be play-acting worthy of an Oscar at the least, but Alberto is fully capable of such a performance.

If that is what is going on, it will only last as long as every knowledgeable person closely involved sticks to the pre-planned story. That is the real significance of Monica Goodling. She is quite young, not really old enough to realize the risks she was running. She is just now becoming aware that her entire future many be sacrificed so that the principle individuals she is being asked to protect can keep their power.She has got to be asking herself if it is worth the candle, and the people depending on her to stick to the story have to be feeling highly uncertain about her. The pressures on her from both sides have to be tremendous.

If, as Mckay and Iglesias say, this moves on the criminal cases, the pressure on Monica Goodling will get even greater, which is why her attorneys are trying to get immunity for her from Congress.

As I say, this story has a way to go.

Catch up on the investigations inside the Department of Justice

Emptywheel and Chuck Schumer spotted these details weeks ago. Monica Goodling was illegally administering loyalty oaths for Assistant US Attorneys. Want a job as an Assistant USA? She has been asking who you voted for as President in 2000 and 2004, and checking which party you donated money to. Democrats need not apply. Since AUSAs are federal civil servants, this is as flagrant a violation of law as -- well, as so many other things the Bush administration has been doing for the last six years.

The article in the Next Hurrah brings everything up to date.

Enjoy the Schadenfreude. It is even more pleasant when you think how very, very little Monica Goodling is enjoying it.

Murray Waas - Gonzales delegated US atty firings to Sampson, Goodling

I wondered what Murray Waas was doing since "Scooter" Libby was convicted. Now we know.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales signed a highly confidential order in March 2006 delegating to two of his top aides ... extraordinary authority over the hiring and firing of most non-civil-service employees of the Justice Department. [Snip]

In the order, Gonzales delegated to his then-chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson, and his White House liaison "the authority, with the approval of the Attorney General, to take final action in matters pertaining to the appointment, employment, pay, separation, and general administration" of virtually all non-civil-service employees of the Justice Department, including all of the department's political appointees who do not require Senate confirmation. Monica Goodling became White House liaison in April 2006, the month after Gonzales signed the order.

The existence of the order suggests that a broad effort was under way by the White House to place politically and ideologically loyal appointees throughout the Justice Department, not just at the U.S.-attorney level. Department records show that the personnel authority was delegated to the two aides at about the same time they were working with the White House in planning the firings of a dozen U.S. attorneys, eight of whom were, in fact, later dismissed. [Snip]

An original draft of Gonzales's delegation of authority to Sampson and Goodling was so broad that it did not even require the two aides to obtain the final approval of the attorney general before moving to dismiss other department officials [From Murray Waas, published April 30, 2007 in the National Journal.]

This explains Gonzales' total lack of understanding of the process by which the U.S. Attorneys were fired on Pearl Harbor Day of 2006. Gonzales was establishing plausible deniability for himself. Then when he appeared before the Senate, he allowed himself to look like a total doofus rather than point to this letter delagating the authority to Sampson and Goodling. Looking like an idiot or an incompetent must have been easier than explaining why he signed this document.

The choices for Gonzales at the Senate testimony have been to

• Look like an idiot and incompetent, (he's not)
• appear to be a total failure as a manager, (possible) or
• protect the White House involvement in the firings and the politicization of the Department of Justice. (My bet.)

This also explains why the emails [See the January 9, 2006 email from Kyle Sampson to Harriet Miers. Presumably the process of politicizing the Department of Justice preceded the effort at covering it up.] discussing the firings went from Sampson to the White House Counsel, Harriet Miers, without even a Cc to Gonzales. Miers, of course, worked closely with Karl Rove and President Bush. Neither of them wanted to be addressed in such documents, so their only contact would have been verbal. Again, plausible deniability.

Harriet Miers, Kyle Sampson and Monica Goodling have all resigned from the government, Sampson and Goodling over the U.S. Attorney firings and Miers for "personal reasons."

More to come on this I am sure.

David Iglesias filed Hatch Act complaint April 3rd.

The discussion of the U.S. Attorney Purge has begun to include reports of an investigation of violations of the Hatch Act recently. Now Think Progress has published a report of an interview with fired U.S. Attorney for New Mexico, David Iglesias. Mr. Iglesias says he filed a complaint against Gonzales, McNulty, Sampson and Goodling on april 3, 2007 and has spoken to the Office of Special Counsel’s (OSC)chief Scott Bloch who has begun the investigation.

Mr. Iglesias' complaint is that he was fired from a Hatch Act protected job for refusing to conduct politically-motivated investigations. Mr. Iglesias believes that his complaint may be what has led the OSC to look at the actions of Karl Rove.

Iglesias also said that while evidence of Rove’s potential illegal actions is currently only circumstantial, “I believe if OSC digs in, they can get direct evidence.”

[T]he Justice Department papers everything. I mean, the most minute issue has an incredible researched and memoed product. There has to be a paper trail. I haven’t seen it yet. If it’s not at the Justice Department, it has got to be at the White House.

Finally, Iglesias said he believes that Monica Goodling — former counsel to Alberto Gonzales and the Justice Department’s liaison to the White House — holds the “keys to the kingdom” in terms of uncovering the roots of the U.S. Attorney purge, since she can describe the communication that took place between the White House and the Justice Department.

Yesterday the House Judiciary Committee voted to grant immunity to Monica Goodling, which prevents her from taking the Fifth Amendment to avoid testifying for fear that she would be convicted for her testimony.

The OSC "Hatch Act" investigation is one more front on which the White House has to defend itself. There are so very many fronts now. I am sure that Dick Cheney is having a lengthy "deja vu" experience returning to feelings he must have had in the embattled Nixon White House before Nixon resigned.

Wisconsin US attorney rammed through fake corruption case of Democrat before last Governor's election.

The US attorneys who were fired for being ethical and not bringing unfounded charges against Democrats may have been exceptions among the Republican US attorneys. Here is an example of what one US attorney did to manipulate a state election:

In a stunning reversal, a federal court of appeals struck down a state worker's fraud conviction that Wisconsin Republicans used in efforts to paint Gov. Jim Doyle's administration as corrupt.

Attorneys on both sides of the case said the three-judge panel likely overruled the trial jury's conviction of former state purchasing officer Georgia Thompson within hours of oral arguments due to a simple lack of evidence. [Snip]

During oral arguments Thursday, one of the members the three-judge panel said the charges against Thompson were unfounded.

"I have to say it strikes me that your evidence is beyond thin," federal Appeals Judge Diane Wood told prosecutors. "I'm not sure what your actual theory in this case is." [Snip]

[Her attorney, Stephen Hurley of Madison] ... noted that the appeals court acquitted Thompson rather than sending her case back to a trial court.

Federal prosecutors could appeal the decision - the acquittal was stayed for 14 days to allow them to ask for a rehearing - but said they probably would not do so.

"It's extraordinary for a U.S. Court of Appeals to issue a decision on the day of oral arguments without a written opinion," Hurley said. "What they're saying is, 'There's no evidence, she's acquitted.'" [Editor - underlining mine.]

As Paul Kiel at TPM Muckraker points out, this case answers the question about the rest of the Bush US attorneys, the ones who weren't fired for being ethical and not bringing weak or fake charges against Democrats to sway local elections. They are out there, but their cases are not as clear as the situation of the US attorney purge for US attorneys who refused to bring such unethical charges against Democrats in order to flip local elections.

US attorney Steve Biscupic in Milwaukee, Wisconsin is a Republican hack with a total absence of ethics to have brought this case at all. But, unlike the US attorney of New Mexico, or San Diego, or Oregon he kept his job - so far. I wonder how many others like this we will find?

Steve Benen of the Carpetbagger Report lists some of the more recent suspicious prosecutions by US attorneys who stayed off Kyle Sampson's firing list and kept their jobs:

I recently started a list.

* Paul Krugman noted a couple of weeks ago, for example, that Chris Christie, the former Bush “Pioneer” who is now the U.S. attorney for New Jersey, issued subpoenas as part of an investigation against Sen. Bob Menendez (D) shortly before last year’s election.

* In New Hampshire, Democrats want Congress to investigate whether prosecution of a Republican phone-jamming scheme on Election Day 2002 was intentionally delayed until after the presidential election two years later.

* Did the U.S. Attorney’s office in Pennsylvania intentionally target Bob Casey allies to undermine his Senate campaign against Rick Santorum?

* Why was the career U.S. Attorney in Guam removed in 2002 after he started investigating disgraced GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff?

* Why has Western Pennsylvania’s U.S. attorney, Mary Beth Buchanan, spent a disproportionate amount of her time launching public-corruption investigations against Democrats, while overlooking Republicans?

* In July 2005, the U.S. Attorney in Denver decided not to pursue a matter in which bouncers at a Bush event impersonated Secret Service agents to throw out three law-abiding ticket-holders because of their bumper sticker (the Denver Three controversy). Did politics dictate the decision?

Even if every one of those US attorneys operated completely ethically and honesty, the current Department of Justice has trashed the reputation of these very central law enforcement officers.

Then we have the 33-year old US attorney for Minnesota, Rachal Paulose, who has had her four top deputies take demotions back to the job of Assistant U.S. Attorney as protest against her complete incompetence.

The Rule of Law requires that the law enforcement officers both be, and appear to be, above politics. The Gonzales Department of Justice now appears to be right down in the middle of the worst of the political muck, working hard to replace the Rule of Law with instead the Rule by Law.

Monica Goodling - an article in Law.com

Law.com has an interesting article on the young "Xtian" lawyer that the Social Conservatives were using to politicize the Department of Justice. She clearly had a lot to do with the firing of the eight U.S. attorneys. Read the article to see why.