Monica Goodling, former Department of Justice (DOJ) White House liaison and Senior Counsel to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified before the House Judiciary Committee under the protection of a use immunity this past Wednesday. Former Deputy Attorney General (DAG) Paul McNulty bore the brunt of her freely flowing testimony. Goodling noted, referring to the DAG’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in February, “The Deputy’s public testimony was incomplete or inaccurate in a number of respects.” (McNulty could face a criminal investigation.)
But McNulty is not the only one that stands to catch fire from the former DOJ White House liaison’s testimony. While admitting that she may have used a political litmus test to screen career positions, as well as political appointees, she pointed a finger at the department’s Office of Legal Counsel, claiming that in 2005 Kyle Sampson told her “some years earlier” the office had said civil service rules (rules that bar politics from being weighed as a hiring factor for civil service employees) do not apply to immigration judges as they do to other career positions. The Office of Legal Counsel has fired back claiming the office never held such an opinion.
Among the 19 immigration judges hired since 2004: Francis Cramer, the former campaign treasurer for New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg; James Nugent, the former vice chairman of the Louisiana Republican Party; and Chris Brisack, a former Republican Party county chairman from Texas who had served on the state library commission under then-Gov. George W. Bush.
But the plot gets a little thicker. Goodling’s lawyer, John Dowd, released a response to the Office of Legal Counsel’s response. (And round and round we go.) Dowd wrote that Goodling realized there was no official order made by the Office of Legal Counsel and that Acting Assistant Attorney General Daniel Levin had made the suggestion. As TPM notes, this means it “came from the top.” Stay tuned.