SUN EDITORIAL:

Falling short of justice

Partisan federal employees who subverted hiring practices go scot-free

Monday, Aug. 18, 2008 | 2:05 a.m.

The Justice Department has not yet concluded its investigation into the 2006 firings of nine U.S. attorneys, firings that are suspected of being largely motivated by partisan politics.

But the department has finished its investigation into another internal scandal that is just as notorious — the hiring of dozens of prosecutors, immigration judges, interns and other staff members based on their political and social views.

Both the U.S. attorney firings and the hiring fiascos took place after Alberto Gonzales became attorney general in February 2005. Gonzales, an ally of President Bush’s dating back to his days as Texas governor, resigned in disgrace a year ago.

Last week the Justice Department’s inspector general’s office released its 140-page report about the illegally conducted hirings. Prominently mentioned were D. Kyle Sampson, formerly Gonzales’ chief of staff, and Monica Goodling, a political appointee first assigned to duties in the department’s press office who rose rapidly to become the department’s liaison to the White House.

The report found that Sampson, Goodling and their deputies politicized the hiring of immigration judges, who have the power to deport people, as well as the hiring of other civil service employees. Their power over hiring was all but absolute, and they would consistently choose Republicans whose views on the issues matched the Bush administration’s over other candidates whom they perceived as being liberal.

This was simply outrageous conduct, as federal hiring rules clearly prohibit such discrimination. The inspector general’s report concluded that Sampson and Goodling, who both resigned last year, and others broke federal civil service laws as well as department policy.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey, a former federal judge who succeeded Gonzales, acknowledged that “the system failed.” But he said no criminal charges — or any discipline — would be pursued against Sampson, Goodling and five others found to be complicit in the illegal hirings.

He said the publicity attendant to their actions has been punishment enough. We disagree. The careers of many people were harmed because they blithely chose to subvert civil service laws. They should be held accountable.

Discussion: 6 comments so far…

By neiman1

8/18/08 at 7:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

Amazing. We pretend the partisan spoils system was invented this last term. Do you remember Hillary firing the entire travel office when her husband was elected? She didn't even have a title, just wife of the boss. She replaced them with campaign aides. Do you remember her former law partner at the Rose Law Firm being laid out from his illegal unethical practices while in the top of the Justice Department. With an administration that thought lying to a grand jury was OK because it was just about sex we forget the Clinton White House wasn't so white.
By Judy

8/18/08 at 8:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Neiman - big difference in partisan hiring for travel office staff and FEDERAL JUDGES! Hiring or firing of federal Justice Department judges and staff in the manner that has gone on in this past 8 year administration tears down the Constitution of the United States. Hillary just got better rates on flights with her new staff.
By jfnance32

8/18/08 at 9:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

I think people are drinking a ton of kool-aid if they think that Presidential offices do not hire their own kind for top level non-political positions.

Do you really think that Clinton managers would hire top level Republican Conservative lawyers in the top level non-political appointment positions? Oh please.......

They hand out those jobs like candy. And they do not give candy out to their enemies or friends of their enemies.

Grow up. Stop pouring the kool-aid.
By JohnF

8/18/08 at 11:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

Quit trying to justify unethical, illegal conduct by saying someone else did it, too. Especially when the someone else didn't do it.

Was FEMA staffed with political hacks during the Clinton Administration?

Was the Justice Department staffed with political hacks during the Clinton Administration?

Federal prosecutors were fired because they would not pursue politically motivated prosecutions. People were denied jobs in the Justice Department because their wives were of the wrong political party. The civil rights division was effectively gutted.

From Harper's:
"The first priority of the Justice Department, of course...was helping Republicans at the polls at election time. One of the ways the department would accomplish this was by restaffing the branch primarily responsible for making sure Americans are allowed access to the ballot box--the Civil Rights Division--so that it would work actively to prevent minorities from voting. The staff then in place would fight such a subversion with considerable institutional wile, which was why they had to be replaced..."

Patronage jobs are those like Whote House chef, travel office personnel, and minor ambassadorships. They serve as rewards for services rendered. The politicization of the Justice Department is another thing altogether, and we shouldn't tolerate it. I wonder what you all will say if a President Obama comes in and directs that Justice Department prosecutors pursue convictions of people simply because it will help Democrats win elections.
By jfnance32

8/18/08 at 11:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Ever heard of TravelGate?
By JohnF

8/18/08 at 1:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yep. How many travel office employees were told to initiate targeted prosecutions in order to further the interests of Republican candidates? How many were fired because they refused to do so?

Anyway, let's assume for a moment that what went on during TravelGate was illegal, even though in 1998 Kenneth Starr exonerated President Bill Clinton of any involvement in the matter (In 2000 Independent Counsel Robert Ray issued his final report on Travelgate, stating that Hillary Clinton had made factually false statements but saying there was insufficient evidence to prosecute her). How does that excuse President Bush's conduct? Unethical is unethical and criminal is criminal.