Constitutional Law

Senators Hear Testimony On Reports Finding Politicized Hiring At DOJ

The Senate Judiciary Committee conducted a hearing this morning on recent government reports over the politicization of hiring at the Department of Justice during former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ tenure. A July 28 report by the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) and Office of Inspector General (OIG) found that Gonzales aide Monica Goodling used political criteria in seeking to fill non-political positions within the Justice Department. According to the report, a highly qualified prosecutor applying for a counterterrorism position was rejected because his wife was active in Democratic politics. The report follows one issued by the offices on June 24 about the use of political considerations in hiring career attorneys and interns.  

In his opening statement, Leahy said the report from OPR/OIG confirmed “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.”   

The hearing featured testimony from Glenn Fine, the Justice Department’s Inspector General. Before answering questions, Fine reviewed the findings of both the July 28 and June 24 reports from OPR/OIG. The June 24 report concluded that in 2002 and 2006, candidates for nonpolitical jobs in the Justice Department were rejected because of their affiliations with progressive organizations, including the American Constitution Society.

In a response to a question from Leahy about whether politicization of hiring at the Justice Department was the result of a “few bad apples” or a systemic problem, Fine said “I think this was a serious problem that had implications throughout the Department of Justice.”

“The ones who committed the wrongdoing,” he continued, “we identify in our report, both in the Honors program report as well as our report on Monica Goodling and others. It had a significant effect throughout the department. I think one of the significant things was people not objecting, people not standing up. A few did, but most didn’t. Another significant problem that I think is important to note is the lack of oversight of these people. These were inexperienced, junior people to some extent – they rose to high level positions and they were allowed to implement these actions and changes, unchecked, without adequate supervision, without adequate oversight and it resulted in very serious damage to the Department of Justice.”

Full post as published by ACS Blog on July 30, 2008 (boomark / email).