Department of Injustice Part 2

Ms. Goodling had authority over hiring for both political positions and non-political positions and there are important distinctions in how those two hiring tracks are handled. Some background on the hiring process from the IG report:

It is not improper to consider political affiliations when hiring for
political positions. However, both Department policy and federal law
prohibit discrimination in hiring for Department career positions on the
basis of political affiliations.
The Department’s policy on non-discrimination is contained in the
Code of Federal Regulations, Section 42.1(a) of 28 C.F.R. Part 42,
Subpart A, which states:
It is the policy of the Department of Justice to seek to
eliminate discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion,
sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status,
political affiliation, age, or physical or mental handicap in
employment within the Department and to assure equal
employment opportunity for all employees and applicants for
employment (emphasis added).

The report goes on to say:

Our investigation demonstrated that Goodling sometimes used for
career applicants the same political screening techniques she employed
in considering applicants for political positions. In addition, she used for
candidates who were interested in any position, whether career or
political, the same political screening she used for applicants who
applied solely for political positions, and some of these candidates were
placed in career positions.

And how did dear Ms. Goodling do this? The IG report quotes her aide, Angela Williamson, who said of Goodling:

Williamson typed from memory the list of
questions Goodling asked as a guide for future interviews. Among other
questions, the list included the following:
Tell us about your political philosophy. There are different
groups of conservatives, by way of example: Social
Conservative, Fiscal Conservative, Law & Order Republican.
[W]hat is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to
serve him?
Aside from the President, give us an example of someone
currently or recently in public service who you admire.
We found that this last question often took the form of asking the
candidate to identify his or her most admired President, Supreme Court
Justice, or legislator. Some candidates were asked to identify a person
for all three categories. Williamson told us that sometimes Goodling
asked candidates: “Why are you a Republican?”

Sounds rather political, don't you think? But there is more.

Several candidates interviewed by Goodling told us they believed
that her question about identifying their favorite Supreme Court Justice,
President, or legislator was an attempt to determine the candidates’
political beliefs. For example, one candidate reported that after he stated
he admired Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Goodling “frowned” and
commented, “but she’s pro-choice.” Another candidate commented that
when Goodling asked him to name his favorite judge, it seemed to him
that she was trying to “get at my political views.”

Nor could Ms. Goodling claim that she was unaware of the prohibition of using political criteria for non-political jobs:

The evidence also indicates that Goodling knew she should not ask
applicants for career positions the same questions she asked of
applicants for political positions. For example, an AUSA who interviewed
with Goodling in September 2006 for a possible position in the ODAG
said that Goodling told her there were two types of positions potentially
available, political and non-political. Goodling told the candidate that if
she was interested in a political position, she would ask her separate
questions, which included questions about political activities and voting
history.

Ms. Goodling was very,very thorough in her vetting of candidates.

We found that Goodling’s Internet research on candidates for
Department positions was extensive and designed to obtain their political
and ideological affiliations.16 We determined that while working in the
OAG, Goodling conducted computer searches on candidates for career as
well as political Department positions. Goodling used an Internet search
string in her hiring research that she had received from Jan Williams,
her predecessor as the Department’s White House Liaison. At some time
during the year Williams served as White House Liaison, she had
attended a seminar at the White House Office of Presidential Personnel
and received a document entitled “The Thorough Process of
Investigation.” The document described methods for screening
candidates for political positions and recommended using www.tray.com
and www.opensecrets.org to find information about contributions to
political candidates and parties. The document also explained how to
find voter registration information. In addition, the document explained
how to conduct searches on www.nexis.com, and included an example of
a search string that contained political terms such as “republican,”
“Bush or Cheney,” “Karl Rove,” “Howard Dean,” “democrat!,” “liberal,”
“abortion or pro-choice,” as well as generic terms such as “arrest!” and
“bankrupt!”

When Williams left the Department in April 2006, she sent an email
to Goodling containing an Internet search string and explained:

“This is the lexis nexis search string that I use for AG appointments.”
The string reads as follows:
[First name of a candidate]! and pre/2 [last name of a
candidate] w/7 bush or gore or republican! or democrat! or
charg! or accus! or criticiz! or blam! or defend! or iran contra
or clinton or spotted owl or florida recount or sex! or
controvers! or racis! or fraud! or investigat! or bankrupt! or
layoff! or downsiz! or PNTR or NAFTA or outsourc! or indict!
or enron or kerry or iraq or wmd! or arrest! or intox! or fired
or sex! or racis! or intox! or slur! or arrest! or fired or
controvers! or abortion! or gay! or homosexual! or gun! or
firearm!



SEE PART 3