3
3
3
Cross Posted at Legal Schnauzer
Former U.S. Justice Department official Monica Goodling has received a public reprimand from the Virginia State Bar for her role in unlawfully mixing political considerations and hiring decisions in the George W. Bush administration.
What should the public take from this farcical outcome? We can think of at least two key points:
* President Barack Obama might have secured a sense of justice regarding Osama bin Laden, but Americans should be deeply concerned about the administration's efforts to provide cover for Bush-era bad actors.
* State bar associations, in too many cases, are incapable of policing rogue lawyers--and the public should have little, if any, confidence in these organizations. Can state bars be inconsistent? We are aware of a case in Alabama, which we soon will be covering in depth, where a lawyer received a one-year suspension for making statements in court documents that proved to be . . . absolutely true. In fact, the opposing party admitted the statements were true, but the lawyer still faces a one-year suspension. And Monica Goodling gets a public reprimand for helping to befoul our federal justice department? Do legal watchdogs expect to be taken seriously?
Why did a subcommittee of the Virginia State Bar even bother to slap Goodling on the wrist? Legal Times reports:
The subcommittee found that Goodling violated a bar rule against misconduct when she "improperly utilized political affiliation and other political considerations when making hiring decisions for career positions." Goodling admitted to doing so while testifying before the House Judiciary Committee under oath in May 2007, the order says.
"I crossed the line of the civil service rules," she said then, according to the order. "I believe I crossed the lines. But I didn't mean to."
She didn't mean to? This from a woman whose interview questions, put to candidates for career, non-political jobs, included, "Why are you a Republican?"
By the way, Goodling made the above admission only after asserting her Fifth Amendment rights before Congress and agreeing to testify under a grant of immunity. How did the Justice Department handle this "public servant" who admitted to crossing legal boundaries? Reports Virginia Lawyers Weekly:
After her testimony, the Justice Department conducted an investigation of her conduct and other allegations of improper political considerations in the department. The Office of Professional Responsibility and the Office of the Inspector General issued a lengthy joint report in July 2008 that did not refer her conduct for criminal investigation.
Because she had resigned her position before the administrative investigation was concluded, the department took no disciplinary action against her.
That came under the Bush DOJ, which apparently had a doctrine that went something like this: "You can commit all kinds of wrongdoing, but if you resign when you're under fire, everything will be OK." Has the Obama DOJ been any better? Nope. It has made no move to reopen the case against Monica Goodling.
1 | 2
