Judiciary Panel Hears Testimony
From Inspector General
About Politicized Hirings At Department Of Justice
WASHINGTON (Wednesday, July 30,
2008) – Department of Justice Inspector General Glenn A. Fine
testified this morning before the Senate Judiciary Committee
about a report
released by his office Monday about politicized hirings at
the Department of Justice. Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)
scheduled the hearing in advance of the report’s release.
The report examined allegations of
politicized hiring at the Department by former senior staff
members, as well as White House influence at the Department. It
is the second in a series of reports that follow an
investigation by the Senate Judiciary Committee, as well as
other congressional committees, into the hiring and firing of
United States Attorneys, and the politicization of the
Department of Justice. Leahy has led the Senate panel’s
investigation that led the Committee to
approve contempt citations in December for former White
House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove and White House Chief of
Staff Joshua Bolten after they failed to comply with
Committee-issued
subpoenas in connection with the investigation.
Leahy’s prepared statement
follows. Watch the hearing live and read the Inspector
General’s prepared testimony
online.
Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy
(D-Vt.),
Chairman, Senate Judiciary
Committee,
At
Hearing On “Politicized
Hiring At The Department Of Justice”
July 30, 2008
Today, the Committee welcomes
Glenn Fine, the Inspector General of the Department of Justice,
to discuss the findings of his office’s investigation into the
hiring of attorneys for key career positions throughout the
Department. I look forward to hearing Mr. Fine’s testimony, and
thank him and his office, again, for their important work. That
work is unfinished, however, with the investigations into
several other aspects of the political scandals at the
Department of Justice yet to be concluded.
The report the Inspector General
released this week, along with a previous report released last
month, shines much needed light on hiring decisions at the
Department. For years, those decisions have been shrouded in a
shadow cast by the Bush White House. These reports confirm what
I and others have suspected all along – that senior officials
within the Department of Justice used illegal political and
ideological loyalty tests in making hiring decisions for career
positions that, by law and the Department’s own rules, are
non-partisan. They broke the law. They did so as political
partisans and cronies.
Since this report was released on
Monday, a number of papers around the country including
The San Francisco Chronicle,
USA Today,
The New York Times
and even The Washington Post
have editorialized against the partisanship of the Ashcroft and
Gonzales regimes, and called upon the current Attorney General
to take action in response to these alarming reports and hold
people accountable. That is something that has been sorely
lacking over the last eight years. Yesterday, a respected
former Deputy Attorney General, Jamie Gorelick, explained why
the Justice Department must be and be seen as non partisan. She
wrote:
“In a long career counseling
individuals being investigated by the Justice Department, I have
had to explain to sometimes cynical citizens that politics are
prohibited from influencing such inquiries. My ability to give
that assurance has hinged on both the public perception – and
reality – that the career assistant U.S. attorneys, line
prosecutors and lawyers who work at the Department are picked on
their merits and proceed without regard to politics. Until
now.”
When I resumed the chairmanship of
this Committee at the beginning of last year, we began our
oversight efforts and conducted a bipartisan investigation into
the unprecedented firing of U.S. Attorneys who had been
appointed by President Bush for partisan political reasons.
What we uncovered reminded me of the dark days of the Watergate
scandals. Now I am convinced that the U.S. Attorney firings,
their cover-up, and the widespread, illegal hiring practices
within the Justice Department that have been revealed, represent
the most serious threat to the effectiveness, professionalism
and independence of the Department since Watergate.
We learned through the course of
our investigation of the firings of the U.S. Attorneys that only
“loyal Bushies” would ultimately keep their jobs. Last month we
saw that political functionaries under Mr. Ashcroft and Mr.
Gonzales corrupted the honors program for the best and the
brightest coming out of law schools, turning it into a gauntlet
for all but the most demonstrably loyal conservative
Republicans. Now we see in the reports of the Inspector General
that our worst fears are also realized in the Department’s
hiring and assignment practices for nonpartisan attorney
positions, those of immigration judges and prosecutors. We have
laws against such practices. Those laws were broken. As a
former prosecutor, I would hope that the Department of Justice
would take its responsibilities seriously now, and hold people
accountable. Only then will the Department have moved forward
to help ensure that this never happens again. But I have yet to
see any such response from the current leadership of the
Department. One of my questions to Mr. Fine today is whether
the Inspector General has made referrals to the prosecuting arms
of the Department for further investigations and possible
prosecutions.
One of the many excuses we heard
from the administration’s political allies last year as the
truth about the U.S. Attorney firings began to come out was that
the firings of U.S. Attorneys did not matter because the real
work of law enforcement was carried out by the dedicated,
non-partisan career staff. Now we know the truth that we have
long suspected and feared – that even the ranks of professional
career prosecutors were being subverted by partisan politics.
The Inspector General’s reports
confirm that senior officials who report to the office holders
at the highest levels at the Justice Department and who
interacted with the White House sacrificed the independence of
law enforcement and the rule of law in allegiance to the current
administration. The key question should be whether the
applicant is qualified for the job. However, according to the
report, the key question from Monica Goodling, the Department’s
White House Liaison, and others, was: “What is it about George
W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?” Federal prosecutors
and immigration judges take an oath of office, but that oath is
to the Constitution. They are to serve justice and the American
people. This administration has had it wrong from the outset,
and all of us and our institutions of government have been the
victims.
The revelations in these reports
pain those of us who care about law enforcement, respect law
enforcement and who understand the role of law enforcement. It
is troublesome to see a Department of Justice turned into just
another agency this administration has manipulated into a
partisan arm of the White House and made into a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Republican party. .
There are chilling examples in
this week’s report that show the danger of putting loyalty to a
certain office holder above the duty to enforce the law. The
report documents one incident where: “[A]an experienced career
terrorism prosecutor was rejected by Goodling for a detail to
[the] Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA) to work on
counterterrorism issues because of his wife’s political
affiliations. Instead, EOUSA had to select a much more junior
attorney who lacked any experience in counterterrorism issues
and who EOUSA officials believed was not qualified for the
position.” It is as if we have hit the replay button on the
tragic aftermath of Katrina, where cronyism was valued over
competence.
It is a dark day for this country
when the administration charged with keeping America safe
willingly sacrifices merit and qualifications to political and
ideological tests. For those who rail against affirmative
action, for those who have been held back by racial
discrimination and gender bias, I offer up this example of
affirmative action of the worst kind. Rather than strengthening
our national security, the Department of Justice appears to have
bowed to the partisan practices of political operatives like
Karl Rove.
According to the report, the
system put in place by the chief of staff of then-Attorney
General Alberto Gonzales for selecting immigration judges,
appointments that by law are non-political, was the most
“systemic use of political or ideological affiliations in
screening candidates for career positions [that] occurred.” The
Department’s practice not only subverted the law and placed
political loyalty above fairness -- it caused serious delays in
filling immigration judge positions just as the workload and
importance of those judges was increasing. Further, the report
reveals that the “principal source” for politically vetted
candidates considered for these important positions was the
White House—demonstrating the extent of the political reach of
the Bush White House into the Department’s career ranks.
There can be no remaining question
that this administration encouraged politics to infect the
Department and law enforcement. The question is what will
Attorney General Mukasey and the President do about it to
provide accountability? In our oversight hearing earlier this
month, Attorney General Mukasey essentially dismissed the
findings of last month’s report as the actions of just a few bad
apples. This reminds me of the administration’s ongoing attempt
to place the blame for the actions at Abu Ghraib solely on the
shoulders of a few soldiers there, rather than see those
excesses as a consequence of the policies and practices put into
place by the President, the Pentagon, and the Department of
Justice.
This week’s report, like the one
that preceded it, makes clear that the problems of injecting
politics into the hiring decisions of the Department are rooted
deeper than just the actions of a handful of individuals. It is
now clear that these politically-rooted actions were widespread,
and could not have been done without at least the tacit approval
of senior Department officials who allowed the subversion of the
Department’s mission.
Even with blanket claims of
privilege and immunity from the White House in their effort to
try to cover up the truth, we continue to learn about the
unprecedented and improper reach of politics into the
Department’s professional ranks. By infusing politics into the
hiring of career Assistant U.S. Attorney positions, senior
career attorney positions, Main Justice detailees, young career
attorneys, and Immigration Judges, this administration and its
operatives have done serious damage. The American people look
forward to a serious response from the current leadership of the
Department of Justice.
# # # # #