Comments (90)

regular lurker wrote on April 18, 2007 2:29 PM:

Ah, the rise of mediocrity.

dithered wrote on April 18, 2007 2:32 PM:

Goodling is lucky that spelling errors on the Internet didn't count against her.

mayan wrote on April 18, 2007 2:33 PM:

One of the things keeping me somewhat sane over the past two weeks was knowing that there were "interviews" being conducted by Congressional investigators behind closed doors. I know that Sampson was interviewed. I had thought that Elston was also interviewed. Does anyone know whether others have also been interviewed? Moschella? McNulty?

r€nato wrote on April 18, 2007 2:35 PM:

Sounds like DoJ is looking for more people to do a heckuva job.

Security code: goat, as in My Pet Goat.

RandyR wrote on April 18, 2007 2:36 PM:

Again where is the Congressional Black Caucus? This is an outragous assault on voting rights and where are the representives that are from those districts that need Civil Rights and Voting Rights defence from Justice? It's time to call these guys and scream out where are you!!!!

Security Code: Smell OOOOO that smell can't you smell that smell the smell of corruption is all around you

sagrilarus wrote on April 18, 2007 2:38 PM:

I had hoped the ship of state would stop sinking when it got to the bottom of the ocean, but it appears they brought a shovel with them.

mbbsdphil wrote on April 18, 2007 2:39 PM:

The Civil Rights Division is a microcosm of the way Mr. Bush's team hires throughout the federal government.

Career appointees from among the Faithful have union protections, except where Mr. Bush has prohibited federal unions altogether. What better way to perpetuate a revolution, and create an artificial breeding ground of candidates for mid-level and senior-level appointments, including the Alitos and Scalias.

Actually, I would call this breeding so much as genetic modification.

MonkeyBoy wrote on April 18, 2007 2:41 PM:

Maybe they hired so many Regent University grads is that they have problems finding rabidly right wing candidates at higher tier law schools.

bordersmuggler wrote on April 18, 2007 2:41 PM:

The key phrase:

"According to a group of anonymous Justice Department employees who've penned a letter to the House and Senate judiciary committees"

That is precisely what Conyers and Leahy are waiting for.

They will soon need to increase their staffs to keep up with the upcoming flow of information.

Eddie B wrote on April 18, 2007 2:41 PM:

I'd settle for mediocrity at this point.

Tulkinghorn wrote on April 18, 2007 2:42 PM:

Clerked for a democratic judge?

So a republican who is so insufficiently doctrinaire that they would accept employment from a Democrat is not going to be considered?

frank logan wrote on April 18, 2007 2:43 PM:

There's an up side to DOJ's hiring practices, relying on Regent University as they do; mediocre minds do a mediocre job of covering up, stone walling, making their stories agree with one another, and amusingly, even being self-consistent.

Vulture Breath wrote on April 18, 2007 2:44 PM:

You know there was a low level staffer under McNulty or Goodling whose job it was to create fake slanderous webpages and comments about the Dem applicants......

jonas wrote on April 18, 2007 2:44 PM:

Well, I guess they figured that that vetting approach had worked so well staffing the CPA in Iraq, why not try it for DOJ?

rdf wrote on April 18, 2007 2:45 PM:

Is it time to start talking about reform of the civil service yet?

The abuses in the past are what led to the modern civil service design, but the increase in the number of political appointees has undermined the way things are supposed to work.

I tried bring this up a couple of weeks ago, but got little response:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/30/121828/302

Tennessean wrote on April 18, 2007 2:46 PM:

Is it fascism yet?

JEP wrote on April 18, 2007 2:46 PM:

"spelling errors on applications"

While they would never want me in the first place, Despite the fact I was once a spelling champion. They may lose some seriously well-qualified candidates with this little exclusionary practice.
True confessiona: I once intentionally misspelled (SP?) "proofreader" as "profreader" on an application, and someone at the human services office where it went just simply corrected it for me and put it in her file. But she did let me know what a kick she and her crew got out of it. These guys are real a-holes, it will be a 'black' day for America when you can judge a person's real character and qualities by their typo's!!!

On the Clock wrote on April 18, 2007 2:47 PM:

Particularly because of Regent U.'s hire of John Ashcroft in 2005, I'm wondering whether some sort of formal arrangement was struck between the DOJ and Regent for the university's services in vetting administration legal appointments. Perhaps there's an MOU out there, or a nebulously worded contract for hire.

I also have to wonder whether Goodling's 5th Amendment plea relates to a dodgy Regent/DOJ relationship.

wnsrfr wrote on April 18, 2007 2:49 PM:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Youth

They only want people of their own kind...to march in-step.

E-dog9 wrote on April 18, 2007 2:49 PM:

It comes down to competence. This Tammany-Totalitarianism breeds incompetence. Lest we forget Katrina?

Hmmmm... I wonder how many mobsters recruit their lawyers from Regents University?

JEP wrote on April 18, 2007 2:50 PM:

"Summa cum laude"

Did they spell that correctly?

There's an "army" of people who could never spell it right in the first place.

ohiomeister wrote on April 18, 2007 2:50 PM:

Sad that we have such a transparent bunch of liars in such important positions in government.

Dr. Wu wrote on April 18, 2007 2:50 PM:

From the Department of Justice to the Department of Jesus in six short years. Harvard and Yale are so pre-9/11. Jesus Camp is where it's at!

Explosive Logorrhea wrote on April 18, 2007 2:57 PM:

Bordersmuggler: Yes, I agree, that's the key phrase.

As egregious as this administration's hiring policies have been, to the tune of selecting the mediocre for their party fealty over actual competency, we're bound to hear of many, many more folks - likely no small number who identify as Republicans - coming forward now that they know they've got an ear in this Congress.

Hell, they should just go ahead and set up a 1-800 tip number now...

sagrilarus wrote on April 18, 2007 3:05 PM:

"- likely no small number who identify as Republicans -"

EL -- I think this is the heart and soul of it. This isn't a republican problem. This is a Bush Administration problem. The thing I have wondered about through all of this is, "When are the real republicans going to speak up and ask for their party back?"

Virginia Dem wrote on April 18, 2007 3:10 PM:

Regent University started by the man who prays the hurricanes away, Pat Robertson. Yeah, he claims he prayed and saved Hampton Roads from a hurricane. You can see the CBN headquarters right next to Regent when you drive by. I wonder if he was in the CBN building when he prayed to god to divert the hurricane or if he had flown out of town on his plane and prayed from a distance.

Security word = tail. As in what Pat makes sure is covered first, his own that it.

The Educated Bullet wrote on April 18, 2007 3:10 PM:

Sheeze. I hope the EEOC and whoever applied for a position but was denied because of party affiliation sues the hell out of the DoJ. I bet there's a lot of student loans out there that would get paid off.

Chris Fasoldt wrote on April 18, 2007 3:11 PM:

Isn't there something about the key words

'Scum'...and...'top'?

Crust wrote on April 18, 2007 3:12 PM:

RandyR asks "where is the Congressional Black Caucus?" I guess they're too busy trying to arrange debates hosted by Fox News.

Anonymous wrote on April 18, 2007 3:23 PM:

I'm surprised that anyone is surprised about all this.

For crying out loud, those people Big Lied this nation into unleashing war.

Anonymous wrote on April 18, 2007 3:27 PM:

Denied a job because of pary affiliation, or suspected "leanings"?

Welcome to your new Communist Party, same as the old Communist Party.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on April 18, 2007 3:27 PM:

Fascist plutocracy means all the justice you can pay for . . . Oooooo . . . Do they get uniforms? Do they march about the square? Were can I sign up?

tmb wrote on April 18, 2007 3:27 PM:

As a former prosecutor 20 years ago I can tell you that what has happened is unbelievable . . . however, I noticed sometime ago that more and more prosecutor's offices are staffed by fundamentalist christians (xtians) and mormons who have an "agenda" and no compassion for defendants (spelled generally "poor" people - - mostly in on drug charges and petty stuff - - lots of stacking of charges on people to force pleas etc.). Most judges these days are former prosecutors, the same type people (who will max a defendant out, sentence wise where there is no guidelines top such as in Florida, who dares go to trial and lose), who never tried a defense criminal case in private practice much less a civil case about which they are completely clueless, and who run their courtrooms like tyrants due to their inadequacies and world authoritarian outlook, they only care about "moving" cases . . . the public is clueless and most lawyers are too busy attempting to curry favor with the bench and fear reprisals from same to tell people the truth of what our system of "justice" looks like in the courtroom . . .aberrations like the "OJ" case etc. are used to silence the truth of the fact that if you are targeted in a criminal case and innocent you will still probably cop a plea to a lesser to avoid the "possibility" of getting put away forever on the stacked charges and if, somehow, you try your case having found a competent attorney with defense trial experience you will come out the otherside bankrupt . . . ask around anyone thru the "system" and see if they disagree . . . as Attorney Gerry Spence's book's title says it "And Justice For None" . . . (I would add excepting the Bush family, retainers, and "friends" . . . ).

Mark F. wrote on April 18, 2007 3:27 PM:

Does this come as a surprise to anyone? When the Republicans are in power, I think we should always expect a purge of Democrats and liberals. Republicans aren't really interested in democracy--they just want to run things. The goal is to completely rid our government of all but loyal cons.

whizkid wrote on April 18, 2007 3:32 PM:

Also sad to note that they bring this same Hitler Youth approach to Corporate America with them. While talented "others" are shunned and purged, real turds get hired and promoted, just cause they like Rush too.

Anna S. wrote on April 18, 2007 3:36 PM:

If it's true, this would be a bigger scandal than the USA shindig, because while those were political appointees, these are NOT (or at least, these *were* not. Now it looks like the DoJ is entirely about the politics).

They named Harvard and Yale in particular as schools from which summa candidates were rejected. An enterprising journalist could check out a list of Harvard/Yale law schools' recent summa grads (that list shouldn't be too long) and their career histories. The schools' alumni offices should have those. The grads you're looking for have interned for Hill democrats, or clerked a liberal judge, and may currently be in lower-paying jobs than might be expected (civil service work rarely pays well, and if these people were applying DoJ they were clearly willing to take a pay cut in order to work in civil service). That should narrow the list more, though perhaps not by too much, Harv/Yale summas have pretty much their pick of what jobs they want, so a plum clerk spot should be easy. A short list of who applied to the DoJ might be interesting to have, because a)those people might want to bring suit if more evidence like this emerges (imagine the stuff that could come to light during fact-gathering for those trials!) and b) it would be interesting to hear exactly *how* they were rejected. Did the DoJ give an excuse at the time to those applicants?

Citizen 92 wrote on April 18, 2007 3:37 PM:

Reposting from Daily Muck...

On politicization of hiring at DOJ...

There is a pretty solid body of evidence now that final point of signoff for all career hires at DOJ (and many other agencies) now rests with the Bush political appointees instead of the career executives. This is a major departure from past practice. Prior to Bush, the axiom was that career staff would choose the most qualified career staff - since careerists serve regardless of whatever President is in office.

Once someone serves in a politically appointed position for a period of time, he/she becomes elegible to receive hiring preferences in the federal civil service. This is known as the Ramspect provision or, informally, "burrowing in." Effectively, this provision gives these job seekers preference over the general public competing for these jobs. Other preferences that figure in is Veterans' status, disabled status, or prior career government service. On Ramspect, Congress used to ask GAO to report on these "non-competative appointments" all the time, especially under Clinton. Schedule C political appointees become elegible for the preference after, I belive, 1 year. White House staffers have tougher requirements - I think it's 3 years.

Now that there's pretty widespread information out there that the Bush Administration has moved the hiring decisionmaking for career jobs away from career staff and now require political appointees' final signoff, it becomes more sinister.

Only one report has been issued since Bush took office, and it is interesting. It appears as though there have been a lot of "burrowers in" early and consistently throughout the Bush Administration (usually they come at the end of an Administration when appointees would otherwise be out of a job).

Here's the GAO report:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06381.pdf

Citizen 92 wrote on April 18, 2007 3:38 PM:

(continued):

It's necessary to get in the weeds and look at the individual conversions. And there are a lot at DOJ - in my mind particularly suspect are the ones from US Attorney (a political position) to Assistant US Attorney (a career position, and most definitely a step down). Why would a US Attorney want to become an AUSA? Usually the USA slots are stepping stones to bigger things.

Also ask you to consider the case of Gary Malphrus. He was a young White House policy aide who used his preference and became a career immigration judge, doubling his salary. He had no immigration experience. And, as the GAO report says, they found it impossible to determine if his hiring was proper. With political appointees signing off on career hires, you really have to wonder.

Bush appointee job:
Associate Director
Domestic Policy Council
The White House
3 U.S.C. 105
AD-0301-00/00
salary per year -- $61,000
end of job term -- 01/21/2009

After the obscure preference appointment:
Immigration Judge
Executive Office for
Immigration Review
IJ-0905-00/01
salary per year -- $113,904
end of job term -- never; it's a career job

Here's a law.com article on Gary and his appointment: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1150794314407

Interestingly, he was also part of the so-called "Brooks Brothers riot" in Florida in 2000: http://www.democrats.com/joel-kaplan

Citizen 92 wrote on April 18, 2007 3:41 PM:

Keep in mind another player here is Kay Cole James. Kay was the Director of the Office of Personnel Management. That's the Nation's TOP HR person, responsible for hiring tens of thousands of career employees and setting government-wide HR standards, programs, etc.

Before coming to the Bush Administration, Ms. James was the Dean of Regent School of Government.

Don't tell me that the Bush Administration's questionable HR practices are disconnected with her tenure!

(BTW, after she left government, she went to work for felon Mitchell Wade's MZM).

whoahman wrote on April 18, 2007 3:50 PM:

lurker

These bozos have given mediocrity a bad rap.

code: I- am - wo-man - hear - me - roar da da dah

Les Ismore wrote on April 18, 2007 3:50 PM:

So, what do we do now? Can this stuff be undone when the next Democratic administration comes into office in January 09? Can she/he just summarily fire everyone hired by Bush and his hacks? Where do we begin? We simply cant roll over and let this stand!

MarkP wrote on April 18, 2007 3:57 PM:

So a republican who is so insufficiently doctrinaire that they would accept employment from a Democrat is not going to be considered?
Posted by: Tulkinghorn

Yes, they might have been infected...

Dabb wrote on April 18, 2007 4:05 PM:

What the Bushie's are doing is setting up the DOJ to be as Republican as possible so that nothing will be done if there's a Democrat elected. Sounds like a Rove trick to me.

Anonymous wrote on April 18, 2007 4:06 PM:

Attention Democratic Federal job seekers (at DOJ and elsewhere)... Begin filing your Civil Rights claims now. You have been descriminated against by the Federal government for your political beliefs.

Foggylady wrote on April 18, 2007 4:11 PM:

To Tennesean:

It's about a quarter PAST Fascism

14 POINTS OF FASCISM

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism

From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights

The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause

The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people�s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice�relentless propaganda and disinformation�were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite �spontaneous� acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and �terrorists.� Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism

Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

5. Rampant sexism

Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

6. A controlled mass media

Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes� excesses.

7. Obsession with national security

Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting �national security,� and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together

Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite�s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the �godless.� A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

9. Power of corporations protected

Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of �have-not� citizens.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated

Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts

Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment

Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. �Normal� and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or �traitors� was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption

Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

14. Fraudulent elections

Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

NOTE: The above 14 Points was written in 2004 by Dr. Laurence Britt, a political scientist. Dr. Britt studied the fascist regimes of: Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile).

Barbara wrote on April 18, 2007 4:19 PM:

I hope someone answers Les Ismore's question. It is one I've been wondering about. Does burrowed in mean in to stay? I think it does. When I worked for the federal government, it was only those at the top who changed when a new administration came in--of course there were a lot of us who left voluntarily during the Regan Administration since those at the top made it next to impossible for us to do our jobs--but these people may stick it out and do as much damage as possible now that they are on the inside.

Vindicated wrote on April 18, 2007 4:21 PM:

For what it's worth, I feel somewhat better about myself now. I am currently a student at a top law school (let's just say it's one of the 2 mentioned in the letter), have excellent grades, moot court, etc. and a strong resume otherwise, including public service. I applied to work at DOJ for the summer in the Summer Law Internship Program. When I didn't even get an interview, I guessed it was because of my Democratic activities (I worked on the Hill for a few years). While the Civil Rights Divison mess was inexcusable enough, at least that was a division whose nature lends itself to being more politicized than others. It's really discouraging and speaks to the utter politicization of parts of DOJ that until now have been enitrely apolitical on the career side.

Vindicated wrote on April 18, 2007 4:23 PM:

Just realized my last sentence made no sense. What I meant to say was:

It's really discouraging and speaks to the utter politicization of this administration that they've injected partisanship into parts of DOJ that until now have been enitrely apolitical on the career side.

Sue in KY wrote on April 18, 2007 4:34 PM:

I wonder why anyone should be at all surprised by such behavior on the part of the Bush administration. Since January 2001, haven't they proved -- by communicating only with GOP congressfolk until the Dems took over this year, or by filtering speech audiences (even during the 2004 campaign) to keep out Dems -- that they simply do not consider Democrats worthy of breathing the same air they do?

It's the most surreal national political I've observed in all my years -- and I've been observing since the mid-1940s.

Mooser wrote on April 18, 2007 4:39 PM:

I also have to wonder whether Goodling's 5th Amendment plea relates to a dodgy Regent/DOJ relationship.

That would be a 'sticky' situation, if found out.
But it sure does seem like Goodling wants to avoid even showing her face in public. I wonder if she's not 'double-dipping' in some way.

jdw wrote on April 18, 2007 5:02 PM:

Glad to see people digging on this. There were a number of us saying that the US Attorneys were the tip of the iceburg. Then when pointing to Rich's piece on the Civil Rights Division in the DOJ as an example of more, the point also was made that even the Civil Right Division was just more of the tip. This runs so deeply in the Administration's hiring and "push out the door" practices that it's touched on *every* Department and Agency.

One of the positives of the USA story, and how it's spreading, is that more careerists in other Departments and Agenecies will be stepping forward over the next few years.

Kate Henry wrote on April 18, 2007 5:06 PM:

This administration takes the term partisan to a much higher level. There isn't anything they do that is not partisan. It's like all those "qualified" young people they hired to run the Coliation Provisional Authority (remember handling billions of dollars) whose only qualification was that they were Bush loyalists. I can't imagine how much of our tax dollars has been wasted because of the incompetents that Bush hires.

Impeach Bush, Chaney and Gonzales NOW while we still have some semblance of a government that we can regain!

jdw wrote on April 18, 2007 5:20 PM:

"I hope someone answers Les Ismore's question. It is one I've been wondering about. Does burrowed in mean in to stay? I think it does. When I worked for the federal government, it was only those at the top who changed when a new administration came in--of course there were a lot of us who left voluntarily during the Regan Administration since those at the top made it next to impossible for us to do our jobs--but these people may stick it out and do as much damage as possible now that they are on the inside."

-------------------

This is a topic that's been brought up in several threads over the past weeks.

I don't see the majority of the hacks and "Pat Robertson U" types sticking around once they become members of a Democratic Administration that doesn't allow them to push their agenda. I don't see these people acting as sleeper cells. If the next admin doesn't let them run rampant on phony "Voter Fraud" charges, the majority will look for employment outside of the Executive. They're true believers, but their belief is on action and $$$. If they are frustrated in their ability to take action inside the Executive Branch, they'll go looking for gigs that pay better in operations set up by the likes of Grover, Karl or Tim Griffin.

The GOP, the Religous Right, the Wingnut Conservatives aren't going to cease to exist after the 2008 election. If they lose, and lose hard, it will just allow them to preach harder to the Base while passing around the hat for donations. The line of donars will be long, too.

I just don't see many people sticking around like Rich did in the Civil Right Division for *five* years while watching everything he worked for 30 years get trashed by the Bushies. Six to twelve months of seeing that, and a "burrowed" Bushie will pick up stake to go work in a Grass Roots organization.

GWN wrote on April 18, 2007 6:18 PM:

Where have the lawyers and judges that are either interested in the rule of law or sympathetic to the Democrats been for the last couple of years. These people gossip as much as anyone and it is hard to believe that this hasn't been a topic of converstation for a long time.

Certainly there must have been judges who noticed that none of their interns were being accepted into Govt. jobs. Likewise centre left law firms.

regardless.... glad to see this finally coming out and that it will quickly be stopped.

GWN wrote on April 18, 2007 6:19 PM:

Where have the lawyers and judges that are either interested in the rule of law or sympathetic to the Democrats been for the last couple of years. These people gossip as much as anyone and it is hard to believe that this hasn't been a topic of converstation for some time.

Certainly there must have been judges who noticed that none of their interns were being accepted into Govt. jobs. Likewise centre left law firms.

regardless.... glad to see this finally coming out and that it will quickly be stopped.

Harriett wrote on April 18, 2007 7:02 PM:

And the hits just keep on comin'! The DOJ needs to be purged of these asshats quickly. Now the Dems have proof, I hope more courageous folks come forward. Bless you, A Group of Concerned DOJ Employees!!!

Clancy J. wrote on April 18, 2007 7:07 PM:

At this point, shock doesn't register, surprise doesn't happen. It's as bad as I thought it was, and if it's worse it's because new day-on-day revelations point the camera at the worm, exposing its depthless burrowing. I mean, did I pay attention to U.S. Attys at all, what they were about, what they did, ever in my life? No. Not until scandal #454 rolled around. Or scandal #632. I forget what the count is now, to be honest.

It's funny...a friend continually berates me for being neck-deep in Bushian minutae, always asking, "How does it help your life? What does it do for you that's positive? What can you possibly do about it?" The hardest damn thing in the world (apparently) is telegraphing to someone who's not submerged in the muck 'n grime of Bushworld™ that it's equal parts astonishment ("They did WHAT?!?!?"), fear ("Holy shite we are doomed!") and addiction to the theatrical - or, it's some of the best entertainment out there, watching these bastards do their thing. It's a rueful entertainment, of course, but does any administration compare to Bush's never-a-dull-moment version? I sure ain't seen nothing like it. It's always the same: I think I've seen it all, I'm feeling spent, I'm burnt to my core, I just don't want to roll my eyeaballs in it anymore. Then the f*ckers scale their own hill of atrocities, tear down the flag that's up there and plant another one, higher up. On the sidelines, wondrously horrified, I watch as the bastards win again.

I can't quit smoking because of these mothers; yeah, that's weak, but it's true, I tell you. While everyone I know pays no attention whatsoever, I feel compelled to pay hyper-attention, to ships right off of Iran's coast and habeas corpus suspended and Dominionism taking baby steps and torture used routinely and Guantanamo and Iraq, Iraq, Iraq...and I try not to go frigging mad, but that's where the cigarettes come in. They're fabulous madness-dispellers.

Conyers, Kucinich, Waxman, please do your thing, help me quit the sticks already! Impeach the sh*tf*cks!

MEG wrote on April 18, 2007 7:17 PM:

I’m anticipating this phrase being revealed in the near future…

“After further review it appears that Impeachment has found its way to the table!”

Let’s all have a seat and dig in!

starwheel wrote on April 18, 2007 7:23 PM:

Is there a "B-b-b-ut Clinton did it, too" anywhere in this scenario?

Just Joe wrote on April 18, 2007 7:53 PM:

This is illegal under Section 2302 of Title 5 of the US Code.

Per the EEOC web site:

"Generally stated, § 2302(b) provides that a federal employee authorized to take, direct others to take, recommend or approve any personnel action may not:

(1) discriminate against an employee or applicant based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicapping condition, marital status, or political affiliation..."

wahooky wrote on April 18, 2007 8:57 PM:

This stuff is exactly what Republican gov Ernie Fletcher was indicted for...a total politicization of the merit system. My conclusion is that Ernie's advisors and the DOJ managers learned their craft at the same place..

foggylady wrote on April 18, 2007 9:04 PM:

To Clancy J..

Irish gift o' gab and all that, but damn. I feel the same way,...very well put.
had the same horrified fascination as I watched Watergate, and I cannot beleive we are now neck deep in the big muddy...again !
This is sooo much worse....

The Oracle wrote on April 18, 2007 9:05 PM:

ENOUGH of these behind closed doors interrogations of Republican scumbags.

Drag them all before televised congressional committee hearings so we can watch them squirm as they lie, lie, lie or take the 5th.

Either way, Democrats win.

People will remember, come the next election, that the "culture of corruption and contempt for our democracy" Republicans are, well, corrupt and contemptible.

Get these Republican creeps before a camera, under oath, and a vast majority of sane U.S. citizens will never vote for a Republican again...even for dog catcher.

Jonathan wrote on April 18, 2007 9:20 PM:

Unfortunately, all I could find about the penalties for this sort of behavior indicates they aren't terribly stiff. According to the Office of Special Counsel, the Merit Systems Board may impose the following penalties:

REMOVAL, REDUCTION IN GRADE, SUSPENSION, OR REPRIMAND

DEBARMENT FROM FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT (UP TO FIVE YEARS)

CIVIL PENALTY (UP TO $1,100)

Of course, I would imagine rejected applicants could file other civil suits for such blatant violations of the law.

adsosletter wrote on April 18, 2007 9:34 PM:

man-o-man,
Clinton got a blowjob of dubious value, lied about it, and the whole operation of government came to a practical halt while the inquistion took its seat.

After all of what we know SO FAR I don't ever want to hear anybody question the patriotism of those who refuse to buy into the Bushco "plan for America"...

Just Joe wrote on April 18, 2007 9:42 PM:

"a blowjob of dubious value"

Seems the "value" was reasonable as the blue dress indicated satisfaction was achieved.

adsosletter wrote on April 18, 2007 9:45 PM:

come to think of it...

maybe those e-mails the WhiteHouse is demanding the RNC turn over before allowing access to Leahy/Conyers are WAY more damning then we have even suspected.

hmmmmm...

How many balls of disinformation/obfuscation can the current administration juggle at one time? Seems like we are daily seeing new ones thrown into the loop...

I really hope Senator Leahy is able to take Gonzales balls tomorrow and squeeze 'em...HARD!

Spill your guts Mr. AG; give some light to whatever voice of decency is struggling to get a hearing in that conscience of yours.

aravella wrote on April 18, 2007 9:53 PM:

It feels like Christmas Eve, I'll have a difficult time falling asleep tonight
for sure.
The Blue State will be Live
Blogging During the Gonzales Hearing.
Alberto Gonzales' sworn testimony before Congress will on Thursday
morning at 10 AM ET/7 AM PT.  Join our team for this live blogging
event.  Watch history and comment as it happens!

DF wrote on April 18, 2007 9:57 PM:

Tomorrow is like groundhogs day. Gonzales is being pulled from his burrow and depending on his performance there will either be six more weeks of hearings or resignation is just around the corner.

Here come da judge…here come da judge…

You tell em Flip.

Code word: Smile

barrelhse wrote on April 18, 2007 10:18 PM:

The real problems facing our democracy all stem from the GOP's attempt to co-opt the three branches of government. Their depth of success is frightening; their total disregard for our country astounding.

steambomb wrote on April 18, 2007 10:57 PM:

Ever see the movie 'Boys from Brazil'? Thats what this reminds me of. It's like the invasion of the body snatchers!

SocraticGadfly wrote on April 18, 2007 11:46 PM:

So, if you graduated Regent but worked for a Democrat, they hire you as a part-timer?

Blue Patriot wrote on April 19, 2007 10:08 AM:

The reason they can't find enough rabid right-wing partisans to hire from top-tiered law schools is that those individuals are far too greedy to pass up the top paying private sector jobs. So, Bushy lawyers get their training in the Fox News Channel of Law Schools. They actually come out of Regent more ignorant of the law than they went in. Who are these people? It's as un-American as it gets.

Mr.Murder wrote on April 19, 2007 10:22 AM:

There is another Bush appartchik in OPM who handles transition for Senior positions, related to the eprson AWOL has a small business with(Kerry debate reference).

Will someone please review Mr.Riddle's policy directing Senior staff applicants at OPM?

wmc418 wrote on April 19, 2007 10:50 AM:

I can only hope that on Jan 21, 2009 there will be a mass termination of all Judicial Branch lawyers and high placed administrative staff for anyone who was hired between Jan 20 2001 and Jan 19 2009.

Then a review of those personnel should be conducted as to who should be re-hired and those who should be investigated and those who merely are sent packing.

chuck wrote on April 19, 2007 11:16 AM:

The appointment of the mediocre to the permanent bureaucracy should hardly come as any surprise to anyone who has listened to the largely GOP fulminations of the last forty years against government. What is a surprise is that there is any competency left in Government career ranks after having been treated as the enemy for so many years. "Good government", and "best and brightest", are hardly the hallmarks of this or most GOP administrations since Eisenhower.

Frankly, I would hazard a guess that the stated qualificatios of many of current appointees would not withstand a cursory "sniff" test as to their accuracy. Take for example USA Griffin's "extensive" prosecutorial experience from the military. This appears to have primarily having been in the same room or office with others who were actually practicing law, or to have been involved in accepting simple plea bargains. How great a leap is it from simple inflation of the experience to outright lies?

Even for political appointees where standards are much more forgiving as to qualifications, it is still an offense to lie on n application for Federal employment with significant fines and debarment from Government employment as the consequences.

It would be interesting to see how many of these newly employed hacks "gilded" their experience in resumes and applications in order to meet minimum standards and qualifications. It would be interesting to see if any pressure was applied to OPM's examiners to be less than rigorous in judging applications for certain appointments where political sponsorship and interests might have been at stake.

For those suggesting that revision of the Civil Service is in order if not n overhaul of the Pendleton Act, rather, I suggest that the fault, again, lies with the lack of oversight of the Congress in judging the performance of this administration for the last six years, and the tolerance the Senate has had for appointments by this administration of dubious quality, character, and qualifications for heads of departments and for the director of the OPM.

What's need here is a good, investigatory kick in the a**, based on existing law and sound public policy. It is one thing to appoint one's friends and supporters but it is quite another to turn the entire government into a political party's sinecure.

If anything, the "dumbing down" of the government for partisan purposes and the diminishment of the career service will be the thing with which we live and from which we will suffer the longest after this thoroughly incompetent administration is assigned its appropriate place in the dustbin of history.

tom wrote on April 19, 2007 11:18 AM:

wow, I guess I should not be surprised anymore, yet I am daily

sophy@hotmail.com wrote on April 26, 2007 7:09 AM:

disease of the penis

tom cady wrote on April 29, 2007 8:32 AM:

signpost:
it looked so easy, our heritage beckoned
the nation was, after all, christian
and so they began their crusade marching toward theocracy
and as they plodded the children wailed “are we there yet?”
and god whispered back “you're going the wrong way”

larra@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 1:16 AM:

hello

michael@gmail.com wrote on May 6, 2007 12:48 PM:

hello

kilka wrote on July 31, 2007 12:51 PM:

gmc trucks here www.gmctruck.fora.pl
gmc from america www.gmctruck.fora.pl
real gmc www.gmctruck.fora.pl

and www.emeraldring.fora.pl rings

vidas wrote on September 14, 2007 6:16 AM:

Hello! http://teens.xanaxidea.cn/horny-russian-teens.html horny russian teens [url=http://teens.xanaxidea.cn/horny-russian-teens.html]horny russian teens[/url] ass http://teens.xanaxidea.cn/nude-pre-teen.html nude pre teen nude pre teen [url=http://teens.xanaxidea.cn/nude-pre-teen.html nude pre teen]nude pre teen[/url] teens http://teens.xanaxidea.cn/trixie-teen-nude.html trixie teen nude trixie teen nude [url=http://teens.xanaxidea.cn/trixie-teen-nude.html trixie teen nude]trixie teen nude[/url]
http://teens.xanaxidea.cn/teen-models-nude.html teen models nude teen models nude [url=http://teens.xanaxidea.cn/teen-models-nude.html teen models nude]teen models nude[/url]
http://teens.xanaxidea.cn/teen-fashion-models.html teen fashion models teen fashion models [url=http://teens.xanaxidea.cn/teen-fashion-models.html teen fashion models]teen fashion models[/url]
http://teens.xanaxidea.cn/teen-people-magazine.html teen people magazine [url=http://teens.xanaxidea.cn/teen-people-magazine.html]teen people magazine[/url]

Meanser wrote on September 28, 2007 7:53 PM:

Hi, nice page.!
look on my pages:
associate complaint international profit

ok.. bitte

Petr wrote on September 29, 2007 7:51 PM:

Hi, nice page.!
look on my pages:
advisor associate international international profit tax

ok.. bitte

Petr wrote on September 29, 2007 7:52 PM:

Hi, nice page.!
look on my pages:
advisor associate international international profit tax

ok.. bitte

Pollis wrote on October 2, 2007 12:10 AM:

Hi, nice page.!
look on my pages:
associate international profit sbrb

ok.. bitte

Pollis wrote on October 2, 2007 12:10 AM:

Hi, nice page.!
look on my pages:
associate international profit sbrb

ok.. bitte

test wrote on November 5, 2007 7:41 AM:

test

test wrote on November 9, 2007 3:42 AM:

test