first

So much poop in this hat. So much.

Vomit!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7kZqFiXADxg

ROFL!

Eh, are we ever going to get anything on the Alston & Bird firings? I heard 4 let go in Charlotte, more in Atlanta and that they are looking for reasons to get out of making all their summer class offers.

LOL @

"coreyalan23 (3 months ago) Show Hide
+2 Poor comment Good comment
Marked as spam
Reply | Spam
One more thing Bill -- The difference between going to a T1 school and a T4 school is not intelligence or work ethic, as reflected in a GPA or a chosen curriculum. It is based on a standardized test-- you know, those evil tests you liberals are supposed to hate. Problem with those tests is they assume people are the same on any given day. Anyone familiar with sports knows what a joke that is. What if Jordan was judged on a 18 point game? And profs at all law schools are upper tier,lookitup "

5, that was awesome.

I hope they give Goodling the electric chair

Who cares?

We need more firing and/or SA info!

Thank you, 10:09, you made my Monday!

tl;dr

What's in the 10:09 video? I don't want to open it for obvious reasons.

Bill Maher ranting about Regent Law School

10:34 - it's a video clip of Bill Maher making fun of Regent LS and Monica Goodling - it's from last year. Totally safe for work! Necessary, almost.

Here's a nice window into what the White House candidates were like (p.94):

"This was the only time we found that EOIR resisted any OAG candidate. In an e-mail dated December 7, 2005, Ohlson advised Williams that the candidate’s
conduct during his EOIR interview “causes us to question whether he possesses the appropriate judicial temperament and demeanor to serve
as an immigration judge.” Ohlson related that the candidate used profanity during the interview, acted abrasively, and when asked what his greatest weakness was, responded “Blondes.” Ohlson offered
Williams an alternate candidate who was supported by ODAG staff. The OAG did not insist on the White House’s candidate, and the alternative candidate was selected."

The Lexis search inquiry used to screen candidates;

[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!
In addition, Williams

It's extremely repetitious. I couldn't read more than 30 pages without resisting the urge to stop or skip ahead. Long story short, she dismissed or accepted many candidates on transparently ideological grounds. I'm surprised that it took so long for a scandal to emerge.

The only gem was, and I paraphrase, when someone told her that Rice was an idol, and she frowned and said, "But she's pro-choice."

"Our investigation found that Goodling improperly subjected candidates for certain career positions to the same politically based evaluation she used on candidates for political positions, in violation of
federal law and Department policy."

"The evidence also showed that Goodling considered political or ideological affiliations when recommending and selecting candidates for other permanent career positions, including a career SES position in the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA) and AUSA positions. These actions violated federal law and Department policy, and also constituted misconduct."

"In addition, we determined that Goodling often used political or ideological affiliations to select or reject career attorney candidates for temporary details to Department offices, including positions in EOUSA
that had not been filled by political appointees. Goodling’s use of political considerations in connection with these details was particularly
damaging to the Department because it resulted in high-quality candidates for important details being rejected in favor of less-qualified candidates. For example, an experienced career terrorism prosecutor
was rejected by Goodling for a detail to 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."

"In sum, the evidence showed that Sampson, Williams, and Goodling violated federal law and Department policy, and Sampson and Goodling committed misconduct, by considering political and ideological affiliations in soliciting and selecting IJs, which are career positions protected by the civil service laws."

and.....who cares.

"Because Goodling, Sampson, and Williams have resigned from the Department, they are no longer subject to discipline by the Department for their actions described in this report. Nevertheless, we recommend that the Department consider the findings in this report should they apply in the future for another position with the Department."

I'm going to post this very long excerpt because it's so shocking, and I thought I had lost the capacity to be shocked:

On September 6, 2006, EOUSA notified all USAOs that it was
seeking a detailee to work on counterterrorism issues. The notice stated
that applicants must have counterterrorism prosecution experience, and
that 5 years of criminal prosecution experience was preferred.
On September 19, 2006, an AUSA sent Voris his application for the
counterterrorism detail. EOUSA Director Battle’s calendar shows that
the AUSA was interviewed by video-teleconference on September 29,
2006.
The candidate had been an AUSA since 1987. He was an
experienced terrorism prosecutor and had successfully prosecuted a
high-profile terrorism case for which he received the Attorney General’s
Award for Exceptional Service. He had also litigated several other
terrorism cases and prosecuted major criminal cases. The candidate
also served as chief of the anti-terrorism unit in his USAO, working with
two joint terrorism task forces containing multiple agencies and agents,
and he had communicated frequently with senior Department leadership
with responsibility for terrorism issues.
Battle stated that Voris told him that the candidate was head and
shoulders above the other candidates who had applied for the
counterterrorism detail. Battle agreed with that assessment, stating that
the candidate was the best applicant for the detail. John Kelly, the
EOUSA Deputy Director and Chief of Staff, stated that he and Battle
wanted to hire the candidate because he was one of the leading terrorism
prosecutors in the country and a very talented attorney.
The candidate’s wife was a prominent local Democrat elected
official and vice-chairman of a local Democratic Party. She also ran
several Democratic congressional campaigns. The candidate was at
times a registered Independent and at other times a registered Democrat.
Notwithstanding the candidate’s outstanding qualifications and
EOUSA senior management’s desire to hire him, Goodling refused to
approve the detail.
Battle, Kelly, and EOUSA Deputy Director Nowacki all told us that
Goodling refused to allow the candidate to be detailed to EOUSA solely
on the basis of his wife’s political party affiliation. Battle said he was
very upset that Goodling opposed the detail because of political reasons.
Nowacki told us that Goodling informed him that the candidate’s wife
was a Democrat, and Nowacki believed that Goodling refused to allow the
detail because of this fact. Similarly, Kelly told us that Goodling refused
to allow EOUSA to hire the candidate because his wife was active in
Democratic politics.
Battle said that he and Voris went to Goodling several times to
argue that EOUSA should be allowed to hire the candidate, but they were
not successful. Battle told us he did not appeal Goodling’s refusal to
allow the candidate to be detailed to EOUSA because he did not think it
would be successful given that Goodling worked in the OAG.
The candidate was never informed that he did not get the
counterterrorism detail.
Because EOUSA had been unable to fill the counterterrorism detail
after Goodling vetoed this candidate, a current EOUSA detailee was
asked to assume EOUSA’s counterterrorism portfolio. This replacement
detailee had been an AUSA since September 2004, after having served as
an assistant district attorney for 3 years. He had been detailed to
EOUSA in 2006. He had no counterterrorism experience and had less
than the minimum of 5 years of federal criminal prosecution experience
required by the EOUSA job announcement. Battle, Nowacki, Kelly, and
Voris all said they thought that he was not qualified for the position,
since he had no counterterrorism experience. The replacement
50
candidate was a registered Republican who Goodling had interviewed
and approved before he was selected for his EOUSA detail.
In sum, we concluded that Goodling prevented EOUSA from
selecting an experienced career AUSA to handle counterterrorism issues
because of his and his wife’s political affiliation. As a result, a much less
experienced, but politically acceptable, attorney was assigned this
important responsibility.

Finally, vindication for the Harvard Law Avenger

Yawn. As 11:04 said.

Who cares?

The people involved are no longer at DoJ and so no action can or will be taken against them.

As for the people that lost out on jobs, their damages are measured as squat.

As civil servants they might have been expecting peanuts in pay but IF they were good enough to be hired at DoJ they could have been hired at some biglaw shop where they would have been paid more. Thus they either did work in biglaw and received more than they would have at DoJ or they didn't get jobs at biglaw and didn't mitigate their damages as needed to collect.

Fucking hell 20. That should be in bold and sent to all right wingers

What motivated Goodling during these hires? It's not as if she was commended for skewing the ideological balances in the department.

Shocking that Lat hasn't had the time to read the report yet. One would think he'd be all over it, he's been Goodling's biggest cheerleader. Oh wait, the report tears her to shreds. I wonder if that has anything to do with it? Nah, couldn't be.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

"he's been Goodling's biggest cheerleader. "

What exactly is commendable or even redeeming about this person?

In sum, Monica Goodling is a liar, a felon, and made this country less safe. May God have mercy on her soul, if it isn't already spoken for.

"he's been Goodling's biggest cheerleader."

Wow. It's amazing to me that even after years of exposure to the Daily Show, the Colbert Report, and the rest, people still cannot identify satire.

22 - sharp analysis except of course for the fact that this isn't really about a civil suit where mitigation is an issue. Its kinda about the fact that the report concludes that she violated federal law. And you think because she no longer works at DoJ she can't be prosecuted for violating federal law while at DoJ?

You're pretty sharp.

Surely at least she'll lose her license to practice law. Is this what they're teaching them at "Christian" law school - how to lie and commit felonies?? Or is that just the Neocon in her?

BARRRR REVIEW?
BAR REVIEW!!!!!!!

...
BAR.....association :(

ETHICS REVIEW? ETHICS REVIEW!!!!

30: who's going to prosecute her, silly? The DoJ?!

33: Lawl. . . so what you're saying is that the DOJ doesn't need a scapegoat?

33 & 34: Not too bright, loyal, followed every administration dictate, now powerful, and not wealthy? She seems like the perfect Bush administration fall gal.

33 - who prosecuted Scooter Libby? Who just issued the blistering report detailing multiple felonies?

at 29- yeah this was not satire. LAT is just a desperate desperate man willing to forgive anything for a blond in a skirt. Go read the archives.

I completely misread that as, "We hear that our favorite DOJ diva, Monica Goodling, will be coming out later today -- in fact, later this morning. Perhaps within 15 minutes or so, give or take...."

In response to post #5:

Bill Maher is a stupid retard.

He's just bitter that he got rejected from EVERY law school. Yes, even got rejected from the Tier 4 law schools.

Maher thinks that just b/c he has a BA from Cornell University, that gives him the right to be an elitist douchebag.

Hey Bill Maher, by your logic, if Monica Goodling's character is a reflection of Regent Law, why don't you bash Harvard Law school? After all, Alberto Gonzales graduated from Harvard Law and he's the guy that's behind this DOJ hiring scandal. Alberto also clearly lied under oath. Shouldn't you be bashing Harvard based on the CRIMINAL acts of Alberto Gonzales?

What about Eliot Spitzer? Spitzer graduated from Harvard Law and he's involved in numerous scandals. Isn't this a reflection of Harvard Law? Does that mean Harvard Law also produces lawyers who are involved in prostitution scandals?

Oh, but wait, just b/c Monica Goodling graduated from Regent Law and did some unethical and admittedly criminal acts, that means Regent Law must suck as a law school.

Bill Maher is a stupid moron.

39 - in a post in which you mention Bill Maher, Eliot Spitzer, Monica Goodling and Alberto Gonzalez, you call Maher the "stupid moron."

Interesting. Very interesting.

To post #40:

Yes, i called Bill Maher a stupid moron (that's not to say that Gonzales, Spitzer, Goodling, etc. are not stupid morons) b/c he's basically bashing Regent Law on the basis of Monica Goodling having graduated from there.

Yes, Monica Goodling did some bad things. Yes, I hope she gets prosecuted. But it's absolutely retarded that what Goodling does is a reflection of Regent Law. If what Bill Maher says is true, then we should be bashing Harvard Law b/c they produced some of the worst lawyers in Alberto Gonzales and Eliot Spitzer.

And I hope that when (NOT if) Alberto Gonzales gets prosecuted, everybody (including Bill Maher) would actually have the cajones to bash Harvard Law like the way we're bashing Regent law.

HTH

Regent law doesn't need help bashing itself.

Spitzer and Gonzales are great lawyers. Spitzer has problems at home, and Gonzales' ideology is questionable. But they're certainly capable.

How many Republicans is the Obama Justice Department going to hire?

Exactly, that's why this "scandal" is yawntastic.

43

Spitzer is capable. Gonzales is not. Why do you think Gonzo is basically unemployable, even among all the Republican-leaning firms?

He committed perjury, repeatedly, and his best defense was basically that he was an idiot who refused to manage any of his subordinates or know what was going on in his office.

This is acceptable, let alone capable?

Hope_Winters, If you click on your own username you will see all of your vitriolic abovethelaw comments collected on one page. You seem like the sort of person with whom it's best not to make eye contact.

Face it. Regent Law School is a joke, and that's why Maher can bash on it. It had no academically redeeming qualifications. It was only able to move people up and down the Bush administration due to Robertson's political weight and appeasement to the religious rights. Monica Goodling did not have the qualifications that one would normally expect from someone in her positions. Her trial experience consisted of traffic tickets on the NoVa highways. If she went to another TTT like NYLS, no one except for the autoadmit crowd would have cared - as we all can point out, the people who graduate from NYLS and made it to the top are people who were capable of out performing their law school rankings. Regent embodies hackery to the fullest. That, in addition to having no academic merit whatsoever, puts it below the wastelands of law schools (and I include that Mass law school that thinktanking impeachment of Bush).

44,

When it comes to career hires, just like every other administration, his DOJ will hire those best suited for the job.

It is illegal to take politics into account for career hires. Get with the program.

US Atty--Okay to consider politics.
Assistant USA--Not okay.

Another reason it makes sense to attribute Goodling's failure to that school is that it is meant to increase the power of Christians in politics. A certain type of Christian, that is, conservative theologically and republican politically.

If Harvard were trying to churn out pro-prostitution lawyers or yes men, you might have a point. But that doesn't seem to be on the curriculum.

Goodling did exactly what her alma mater wanted. Problem is, she wasn't subtle and she got caught.

LOL Hope,

This must be gender discrimination! That's the only way you could challenge someone with impeccable Messiah-Regent credentials.

Okay, 12:48, you put that "Federalist Society" on your resume, and see how many callbacks you're getting for the Obama DOJ civil rights division.

As a former AUSA, I saw how things worked.

52 comments in and no one's said it yet: I don't do republicans, but I'd make an exception for this one. Hot!

39 and 41, the phrase 'stupid retard' is a bit jarring on a site that is mostly read by (at minimum) college graduates. At least, from schools other than Regent.

Post 55,

Too bad if the phrase "stupid retard" is a bit jarring for you losers on this site.

You losers seem more preoccupied on bashing other people you consider "beneath you" or attended schools "less prestigious" to you.

one thing I DO know: Harvard Law churns out some of the BIGGEST JERKS I have ever had to DEAL WITH AS LAWYERS.

Yes, Harvard Law churns our pompous, arrogant windbag jerks with a self-entitlement attitude. They think that just b/c they went to Harvard Law they are entitled to any job they want and that being a Harvard law (or a T14 law school) graduate gives them the right to be arrogant jerks and pricks.

Hey, if you don't like the phrase stupid retards, why don't I call all those who bash Monica Goodling on the basis of the school she attended arrogant pricks instead.

Harvard law graduates are arrogant pricks and self-entitled jerks who don't pull their weight and make TTT grads do all the work for them.

Does that sound better?

56 = still bitter about those rejection letters.

I agree with #6. What the heck is going on with A&B? Let's hear the rumors and rampant speculation please.

55, you find it jarring?? You must be new here. "Stupid retard" is one of the nicer things ATL commenters post....

59, well, I admit, guys I went to high school with did use the phrase 'stupid retard' all the time and it was no big deal.

Post 56,

Nah.

Just annoyed (and frankly, pi$$ed off that losers have nothing better to do with their miserable lives than to put others down). It's always jarring to me to see elitist pricks put others down b/c they are not as elite as them. If these people are so elite, why do they feel the need to put others down?

Not condoing Monica Goodling, but I can't stand Harvard Law grads who act like their s*it don't stink. And of course, I met a lot of great grads from T14 who are fantastic attorneys, but it just seems that the jerkoffs from T14 schools make the most noise.

39,41,56 -

I actually agree with what you are saying in principle, but that spite you speak with does not reflect well on your education (likely from Regent or a similar institution not thought of highly by the T10 crowd).

All law schools graduate jerks, as this is usually the type of person attracted to the law.

I think the point about Regent made by several posters is that as an institution, politics and religion are more important than education. This will no doubt produce legal practitioners with little skill.

Post 62,

Well, pretty much EVERY school not in the T14 (and even Georgetown Law is questionable) is not thought of highly by the T10 crowd so i'm screwed either way.

I did go to a Tier 1 (top 50) school. But I forgot, to you guys, ANY school below T14 (and maybe even Georgetown) equals TTT.

So even if I went to Vanderbilt or UCLA or Texas, I'm a TTT graduate.

of course, i can turn your argument around and that the vindicative, mean-spirited comments by T14 graduates does not speak well of their education either. I guess T14 graduates spend time fellating themselves and each other over their prestige. I suppose T14 graduates also enjoy gay orgies while bashing TTT graduates.

I have no dog in this fight, but I can't believe someone on here is trying to compare Harvard to Regent.

So when is she getting disbarred?

Post 64,

I'm not trying to compare Regent to Harvard. Obviously, not even Regent grads would be that delusional (or admittedly plain stupid).

I'm just saying that Harvard (or T14 graduates for that matter) should spend less time bashing law schools and instead try to better themselves or prove that they are worth the money.

Or if they can't even do that, let's bash the individual based on his character. If we can bash Monica Goodling based on her going to Regent, if we can bash Harriet Miers b/c she went to SMU, we ought to bash Alberto Gonzales b/c he went to Harvard. We ought to bash Eliot Spitzer b/c he went to Harvard.

I guess what I'm saying is that we should be bashing EVERY school, not just the TTTs. Let's be an equal opportunity basher. The same people who would have orgasms over bashing TTTs because of Harriet miers and monica Goodling would get into total hissy fits when I bash Harvard Law based on guys like Alberto Gonzales.

So I guess the twisted logic of T14 grads is this: if a TTT graduate lawyer is bad, it's because he went to a TTT. But if a T14 lawyer is bad, it has no reflection on the T14 school. Or in the alternative, there are so many good grads from the T14 school that it's okay to have an "occassional" bad lawyer from the T14 so the badd T14 lawyer doesn't make the T14 school look bad.

Whatever.

The "twist" in the logic is that the school doesn't make the student; the students make the school.

66 - What you don't understand is that Harriet Miers and Monica Goodling are the best that their respective schools have to offer and Alberto Gonzales and Elliot Spitzer are the worst. Furthermore, ask who you'd rather have representing you. Miers and Goodling on their best days or Spitzer and Gonzales on their worst. Exactly.

yea 63 has totally taken the bait .. that was quite the soft ball .. any takers?

Forget disbarring her. Is there anyone who honestly thinks that she wasn't acting at the behest of someone higher up? When is Gonzales getting disbarred? He's the supervising attorney who sanctioned the unethical / illegal conduct.

66,

64 here. What you are ignoring (purposefully, I assume) is that Bill Maher's point was that Regent Law is the story, not Goodling. The school had a pipeline into the White House. 150 graduates... that is an incredible number for ANY law school, much less one that has consistently been ranked among the nations worst.

Maher was pointing out what everyone else already knows -- the Regent grads got the jobs for political reasons, many times in spite of their weak qualifications. Yes, Goodling is Exhibit A, but there are dozens and dozens more.

By the way, just so there are no misunderstandings, from the Regent Law School web site (http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/admissions/home.cfm):

"Regent Law seeks men and women who are dedicated to becoming Christian leaders who will change the world for Christ."

To say nothing of the fact that when you select dumbass policy makers you get dumbass policies.

20 is right -- that passage is the uber-shocker. But Goodling is being conveniently scapegoated -- this was and is the entire Administration's m.o.

Dear 66, 61, etc.,

We that went to Harvard simply are better than the rest of you (unless you went to Yale or Stanford, in which case we all pretend to be better than each other but really just mock the rest of the world in private). I know that it is hard for you to admit that a mere piece of paper forces you to be a second class citizen for the rest of your life but the reality is that it does. We learned the "law" from intellectual giants. Not the actual law as your plebs deal with it, but the true law that can only be known and understood by ones such as us. Once we were accepted at Harvard the competition was over and we had won.

Law firms will always pay us more because of it. We will always be assumed to be smarter than you, and probably are. We don't have to try as hard as you because of this (and also because we know if anything goes wrong we can just call one of our alumni buddies and get everything taken care of). In the end, if we turn in a "bad" work product the judge (or partner) will just assume that they were wrong since we went to Harvard after all.

Now I'm sorry that this upsets you, I really am. But you just need to accept it and move on.

Cheers,
Your Friends from HLS

Oh come on. Regent Law School? Really? Is this a debate worth having? The administration nominates people like Harriet Myers, Bernard Kerik, and Alberto Gonzales for one reason: as the son of a President, Bush spent much of his life as a middling student/professional mixing amongst the elite. He has compensated for that by telling himself that he is just as good as them, that those successful elites he spent his life feeling inferior to are not that special. By nominating people like Myers, Kerik, and Gonzales, Bush is trying to validate his own mediocrity, to show that you don't need to perform well at Yale or run a successful business in order to be a Supreme Court justice or the Attorney General. Why is he so obsessed with derogatory nicknames? It is a habit he started at Yale to compensate for his own feelings of inferiority -- a way to take back some power from his bettors. Bush is a schmuck and I hate all of you.

There are surely some above average lawyers who will come out of Regent but the odds are against the applicant in front of you being one of them. No offense, Pat Robertson.

74 is aching for a good donkey punch.

The problem is putting people in charge of the country's legal policies when they're hardly fit to defend drunks at the county courthouse. "Your Honor, my client has accepted Jesus Christ into his life."

Look, Regent has never been anything other than a 4th tier school. That means that it sucks, period. You don't have to go to a T14 school to get a quality education, but if you go to a 4th tier school, your school sucks. By definition. End of story.

Looks like Bill was right: You only need to read one book to succeed a Regent Law.

See their law review criteria via Wikipedia

Law students publish the Regent Law Review, established in 1991. The journal describes itself as "committed to a jurisprudence based upon a Higher Law; that is, law based upon the Law of God, yet remains open to publishing opposing viewpoints in certain contexts."

Miss Goodling chose to attend a law school founded and run by a man who tells us he is a holy prophet of God, a patriot and a descendent of royalty, and who tells his gullible followers what his angry God is thinking, planning, and saying, and who his angry God is smiting and punishing with storms and terrorist attacks. The founder of Regent tells his viewers who God wants them to send their money to -- him. This hate-filled man tells his viewers to touch the tv screen for a miracle. Robertson told his followers to stock up on bottled water and candles in preparation for the Y2K disaster and he warns whole communities that God is lifting His veil of protection over them because of their sins. Pat Robertson even claims to be able to legpress more weight than any other human has ever lifted - 2,000 pounds.
No one should be surprised that this graduate of Regent Law would operate as though she is above the law.

It dumbfounds me that any intelligent and responsible person would associate with Pat Robertson or anyone who is a participant in his exploits. The man is such a glaring hypocrite, an obvious con artist and an embarrassment to Christians.

Check out Virginia Beach's online newspaper - The Pilot - read their report today on Goodling and Regent and do not miss the commentary.

How the hell does someone with these credentials get "shot caller" status? That is what bothers me the most. This is like Harriet Miers on steroids.

I personally hope she goes to the joint. Has anyone ever let people down more than GWB? Came in as an alleged conservative, leaves as an obvious boob socialist who seemingly only cares to please his wife's pastor.

Memo to Pres. Shrub - since when did the GOP stand for promoting protestant fundamentalism as job one? That stupid choice is why the GOP may not even exist in 20 years.