Goodling has become a focus of congressional investigators because she played a central role in identifying eight U.S. attorneys who were fired last year. The latest disclosure that she also was involved in the hiring of assistant U.S. attorneys shed new light on her clout at the Justice Department and raised more questions about how the agency has operated under Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales.

"This is a troubling assertion that, if true, suggests politics infected the most basic operations at the Justice Department," said Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. "This only underscores our commitment to hear directly from Ms. Goodling about her role in this process, and at the Justice Department, to establish who should be held accountable."

The department's investigation, however, could delay the date when lawmakers hear from Goodling. Conyers' panel is trying to win a grant of immunity from prosecution for Goodling, who has said through her lawyer that she would assert her right against self-incrimination if called to testify.

But the Justice Department is unlikely to support immunity while its own probe is pending. The issue of immunity is ultimately decided by a federal judge. Justice Department officials are supposed to weigh in with a recommendation next week.

Department spokesman Dean Boyd declined to provide details about the investigation of Goodling, beyond a three-paragraph statement.

Goodling, the department said, is being investigated in connection with helping review candidates for career positions in certain U.S. attorneys' offices around the country.

The agency declined to say what "prohibited considerations" Goodling might have taken into account, but said that it is against policy and possibly federal law to consider "party affiliation" in deciding whether to hire a career lawyer.

According to people familiar with the investigation, who requested anonymity because the probe is ongoing, Goodling allegedly sought information about party affiliation while vetting applicants for assistant U.S. attorney positions.

Goodling has become a focus of the scandal because she was part of a group of young White House and Justice Department politicos with little or no prosecutorial experience who acted as gatekeepers for U.S. attorney positions. She had also worked in the department's public affairs office, and the office that oversees U.S. attorneys.

Her lawyer, John Dowd, declined to comment Wednesday.

Goodling's activities, the department said, were confined to offices that were headed by interim or acting U.S. attorneys.

The Justice Department has been criticized for using a little-known federal law to appoint interim U.S. attorneys, who do not require Senate confirmation. The practice has triggered allegations from Democrats that the administration is trying to circumvent long-standing checks and balances.

Interim and acting U.S. attorneys do not usually have the authority to hire personnel, the theory being that career prosecutors often outlast their political bosses, and should be selected only when the U.S. attorneys have been Senate-confirmed.

The Justice Department statement Wednesday indicated that the department had granted waivers to a number of those offices so they could hire personnel. But it declined to provide specifics.

Also Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee issued new subpoenas to Gonzales, seeking e-mails in the possession of the department involving presidential advisor Karl Rove.

White House officials said little about the subpoena except to reiterate their previous offer that Rove answer questions behind closed doors without a transcript.

"I know they like to get headlines more than they like to get the facts," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto. "But if there's still any interest in the facts up there, the easiest way is to simply accept our offer to have Karl and others in for interviews."

Though most claims were dismissed by the judge, the families still intend to pursue claims left standing.

Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton on Wednesday pledged to conduct an internal investigation to determine if police violated policy by using force to quell pro-immigration protesters.

Bratton said he had seen news footage showing a number of officers in riot gear striking protesters and some members of the media to the ground with batons, and others firing foam bullets into the crowd.

The incidents happened during a Tuesday rally in downtown Los Angeles.

"I regret and am, as are all of you, disturbed by the events so vividly depicted in the various news videos," Bratton told a press conference at the city hall.

"Police use of force in any context is always visibly and emotionally upsetting, even when necessary and lawful," the chief said.

"Our challenge in reviewing and investigating the actions of the police department ... and that of the public is to determine if that use of force was an appropriate response to the level of threat, disturbance and danger that they are encountering."

However, he is determined to meet the challenges, Bratton said.

The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) will create an "after-action report" to evaluate its handling of the event, and conduct a use-of-force investigation to determine if officers responded appropriately, he added.

Tuesday's rally by thousands of people calling for a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants was peaceful until about about 6 p.m., when police tried to disperse some demonstrators who had moved off the sidewalk into Alvarado Street in the downtown area.

Some demonstrators responded by throwing plastic bottles and rocks at officers, police said. Several dozen riot police, wearing helmets and carrying batons, fired a few dozen volleys of foam bullets into the crowd.

The clashes injured 15 police officers and at least 10 demonstrators.

The Radio and Television News Association (RTNA) said earlier that "there is evidence that officers knocked reporters to the ground, used batons on photographers and damaged cameras, possibly motivated by anger over journalists photographing efforts by officers to control the movements of marchers."

An early version of the March order had authorized the officials to act without even having to consult the Attorney General, but the wording of the instrument was later revised at the urging of the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel, which was concerned about the constitutionality of such broad-brush delegation of power. An unnamed "senior executive branch official" quoted by the National Journal said of the order that it was "an attempt to make the department more responsive to the political side of the White House and to do it in such a way that people would not know it was going on." Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) expressed similar concern over the root strategy apparently reflected in the order, saying in a statement Monday:

This development is highly troubling in what it seems to reveal about White House politicization of key appointees in the Department of Justice. The mass firing of U.S. attorneys appeared to be part of a systematic scheme to inject political influence into the hiring and firing decisions of key justice employees. This secret order would seem to be evidence of an effort to hardwire control over law enforcement by White House political operatives.

Leahy called for the order and its supporting materials to be formally turned over to the Senate and House Judiciary committees looking into the US Attorney firings.

In papers filed in support of obtaining the injunction, the government alleged that Olympic deposited almost $28 million of customer funds into accounts that OBS maintained in its own name at commercial banks. Olympic allegedly used the funds to pays customers’ bills and expenses while promising to leave no paper trail.

Judge Lasnik’s order held that Arant “is or should be aware that courts have repeatedly held that warehouse banks are tax evasion schemes.” A California federal court in 2004 permanently closed a similar warehouse bank. Details about that case are available at http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/txdv04785.htm. In 2005 a federal court in Oregon sentenced operators of a warehouse bank to prison, after their criminal convictions. Details are available at http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/txdv05070.htm.

WWW.USDOJ.GOV

The statements Friday, during a private interview with investigators from the House and Senate Judiciary committees, make McNulty the latest senior Justice official to assert that he did not identify any of the U.S. attorneys to be fired and that his role was minimal.

Gonzales, former chief of staff D. Kyle Sampson and William E. Moschella, the principal associate deputy attorney general, also told Congress they did not choose who was fired.

"If the top folks at DOJ weren't the key decision-makers, it's less likely that lower-down people at DOJ were, and much more likely that people in the White House were making the major decisions," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.).

Moschella was also interviewed last week. He told investigators he was solely responsible for a provision in the USA Patriot Act reauthorization law that gave Gonzales the authority to appoint U.S. attorneys for an indefinite time, a congressional aide said.

Moschella also said that, when the provision was drawn up in November 2005, he was not aware of a dispute over the appointment of a U.S. attorney in South Dakota, the aide said. Justice officials have pointed to that case as a key justification for the provision, which Congress has since repealed.

Democrats criticized Gonzales yesterday for giving Sampson and his White House liaison in March 2006 the authority to hire and fire certain employees. "It is disturbing to learn that the attorney general was granting extraordinary and sweeping authority to the same political operatives who were plotting with the White House to dilute our system of checks and balances in the confirmation of U.S. attorneys," said Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.).

Administration officials said Gonzales's order, published in the Federal Register and first reported yesterday by the National Journal on its Web site, codifies a process that is standard for agencies throughout the government in dealing with political appointees. "The notion that the White House shouldn't be involved in presidential appointments is bizarre," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto.