Comments (13)

Node of Evil wrote on June 5, 2007 6:48 PM:

I think the absolutely stark contrast between Graves and Schlozman tells you everything you need to know about what's wrong in the Justice Department. Graves was smart, he knew specifics about events and proceedures and codes of conduct... More importantly, he had common sense and didn't rely on the OPI to tell him when things weren't kosher. Why anyone with an ounce of intelligence as a manager would replace Graves with Schlozman is entirely beyond me. The fact that they'd make that decision in the first place is an indictment of their judgement and competence

EH wrote on June 5, 2007 6:51 PM:

Smart people make dumb people look bad.

Sharon A wrote on June 5, 2007 8:00 PM:

Okay, Monica Goodling, the greenest grasshopper in the patch, actually believed she could win a smackdown with Graves, an experienced United States Attorney?

I'm all astonishment.

Ron Byers wrote on June 5, 2007 8:37 PM:

Node of Evil has it just about right. Graves, and the other fired US Attorneys are smart, and polished. They were obviously the kind of people who are placed in charge. Schlozman and the rest are nothing of the sort. They are green, naive followers either unfit or unprepared for command.

Schlozman came across as the classic "yes" man, or maybe the better term is henchman.

Paul Rosenberg wrote on June 5, 2007 10:25 PM:

ANOTHER LIE TO HUNT DOWN

Not only did Graves repeat that he was "pushed out to make room for someone else." Schlozman said that he only found out about the opening AFTER Graves was sacked. (One day later, I believe he said.)

So, we know there's at least one more lie out there.

I do wish they had asked more detailed questions about how much courtroom experience Graves had. And when Schlozman said--in his own defense--that not all USAs had courtroom experience, they should have asked him for figures on that.

I mean, I'm hardly surprised they do things that way under Bush 28%. I just want to know how many courtroom virgins served as USAs BEFORE 9/11 changed everything.

Ron Byers wrote on June 6, 2007 12:04 AM:

Paul

Graves has plenty of courtroom experience. He was a prosecutor in a suburban county before he became a USA. My guess is that for years he had a new case to try every Monday.

JNagarya wrote on June 6, 2007 4:28 AM:

It's interesting how direct are the fired AGs, and how equivocating and "uncertain" about facts those who replaced them. How "uncertain" the "loyal Bushies".

Anonymous wrote on June 6, 2007 8:02 AM:

1. Will someone please decipher Schlozman's canned opening statement for everyone? In a string of Republican talking points, he boasted about his tremendous success with "gun crimes" and "human trafficking." What is "human trafficking" -- alien smuggling, prostitution, both or neither? What makes a "street crime" that is normally prosecuted by local authorities a federal "gun crime" and was Schlozman simply piggybacking, claiming credit for or duplicating local enforcement efforts? Recall in this connection that the Republican line on Lamm is that she didn't prosecute enered) or immigration crimes (she said she just went after masterminds as opposed to the lowlevels). Is "human trafficking" code for immigration?

2. Anyone besides me wonder about Schlozman's mysterious references to some broad national voter fraud investigation he can't talk about? Is that the key to this whole scandal? Is that the "vast right wing conspiracy?" And was the common thread among the attorneys who were let go by Karl Rove's people that they could not be relied on to cooperate in this broad investigation?

3. I think it is useful to see this from Schlozman's point of view for a moment. Democrats do not have to worry about politically vetting jobseekers in the Office of Civil Rights. Applicants self select. In a Democratic administration, no self respecting Republican has the least interest in applying for a job there. And you get a kind of natural, organically occurring "politicization." Even a Republican administration will have trouble getting employees in there who are minimally supportive of its agenda. As Schlozman's testimony amply shows, the administration got kind of desperate about this, and ultimately found itself unable to achieve a legitimate objective through legitimate means. Desperate, illegitimate means were resorted to.

4. Am I correct in understanding Schlozman to have communicated that he saw his mission at DOJ as protecting everybody's voting rights so long as they were not Black, Hispanic or Native American? He toiled on behalf of Asian Americans, Filipinos and people in nursing homes -- truly scraping the bottom for "victims" who might not be Democrats!

Anonymous wrote on June 6, 2007 8:04 AM:

1. Will someone please decipher Schlozman's canned opening statement for everyone? In a string of Republican talking points, he boasted about his tremendous success with "gun crimes" and "human trafficking." What is "human trafficking" -- alien smuggling, prostitution, both or neither? What makes a "street crime" that is normally prosecuted by local authorities a federal "gun crime" and was Schlozman simply piggybacking, claiming credit for or duplicating local enforcement efforts? Recall in this connection that the Republican line on Lamm is that she didn't prosecute enered) or immigration crimes (she said she just went after masterminds as opposed to the lowlevels). Is "human trafficking" code for immigration?

2. Anyone besides me wonder about Schlozman's mysterious references to some broad national voter fraud investigation he can't talk about? Is that the key to this whole scandal? Is that the "vast right wing conspiracy?" And was the common thread among the attorneys who were let go by Karl Rove's people that they could not be relied on to cooperate in this broad investigation?

3. I think it is useful to see this from Schlozman's point of view for a moment. Democrats do not have to worry about politically vetting jobseekers in the Office of Civil Rights. Applicants self select. In a Democratic administration, no self respecting Republican has the least interest in applying for a job there. And you get a kind of natural, organically occurring "politicization." Even a Republican administration will have trouble getting employees in there who are minimally supportive of its agenda. As Schlozman's testimony amply shows, the administration got kind of desperate about this, and ultimately found itself unable to achieve a legitimate objective through legitimate means. Desperate, illegitimate means were resorted to.

4. Am I correct in understanding Schlozman to have communicated that he saw his mission at DOJ as protecting everybody's voting rights so long as they were not Black, Hispanic or Native American? He toiled on behalf of Asian Americans, Filipinos and people in nursing homes -- truly scraping the bottom for "victims" who might not be Democrats!

irina wrote on June 6, 2007 8:11 AM:

2. Anyone besides me wonder about Schlozman's mysterious references to some broad national voter fraud investigation he can't talk about? Is that the key to this whole scandal? Is that the "vast right wing conspiracy?" And was the common thread among the attorneys who were let go by Karl Rove's people that they could not be relied on to cooperate in this broad investigation

Good catch, very interesting question.

I don't know the answer but would be interested in speculation about this new possible channel of Rove's attempts to steal our votes.

Steve5117 wrote on June 6, 2007 8:39 AM:

irina:

I think the tactic was, by saying it was an on-going investigation, he has a reason not to be able to say anything about it thereby deflecting any questions. Technically, any other voter fraud investigation in any other state would make it "national".

Richard L. Adlof wrote on June 6, 2007 10:45 AM:

Node o' Evil,

It is not the intelligence of the manager that requires questioning . . . It is the intention. We of the Sane and Sober Left operate from a significant number of premises quite divergent from the Insane Right.

Some of these guys are brillant beyond belief . . . They are also jack-booted thugs willingly destroying our democratic republic with the express intent of creating a fascist plutocracy. Underestimating their visciousness by labeling it imcompetence or stupidity gave us the problems we face today.

We are owned by foreign investments in our debt. Our Commons are parceled off and sold to the lw bidder. Corporations own our voting system, our health care and we all live in databases.

No. Replacing Graves with the fanatic with the mouth-target beard had nada, zip, nothing to with the intelligence of the jackhole who did it. It was a policy decission - A policy you and I think is ludicrous . . . But they were wiley about it and it woulda gone unreported if the power shift in the Congress had not enacted by the pesky voters.

Node of Evil wrote on June 6, 2007 3:20 PM:

Richard L. Adlof said:

'It was a policy decission - A policy you and I think is ludicrous'

There is rampant resume-padding afoot in the Bush Administration. That, ostensibly, is the reason behind many questionable appointments and personnel changes. And I think that one purpose of this policy is to get credentials for folks who either won't work to get the legitimately or who couldn't get them any other way. However, there's another, larger trend that I see.

There's been a wide-scale "softening" of the beauracracy. What I mean by this is competent and apolitical professionals have been replaced by incompetent political hacks. They have a form of government service but lack the power thereof; if they have experience it isn't in the trenches, but in middle management. Why? Why would you want a "soft" beauraucracy? One obvious answer is a "soft" beauraucracy is easier to mold. Another is that a soft beauracracy is a better transmitter. Schlozman was always contacting his "superiors" about this or that; I think it was by design. It guarantees that those further down the chain have to rely on the judgement of those on top, like a gigantic game of telephone. So I agree that his superiors are smart, but being smart and having good judgement are not one and the same.

It is poor judgement to want a "soft" beauraucracy, especially if you're concerned about building a successful organization. You have no talent who can manage and innovate except at the top. This means the top-level guys are under enormous amounts of stress, not to mention all of their bad decisions are greatly amplified. They have more control, though, so if that is what they're after then this is the kind of organization they'll create. But having control is a temporary victory because an organization like this will die before too long. Which is odd, because if Karl Rove really wanted a Republican majority far into the future, this is exactly the wrong way to do it. Which makes me wonder, what does he really want?