« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Complaint: Schlozman Aimed to Replace Lawyers with "Good Americans"
During a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, Bradley Schlozman, the controversial former senior political appointee in the Civil Rights Division, was battered with questions about his efforts to politicize the division.
A number of those questions from senators centered on Schlozman's efforts to purge the appellate section of the Civil Rights Division -- the small, but important section that handles civil rights cases in the court of appeals. What were they getting at? An anonymous complaint against Schlozman sent to the Justice Department's inspector general in December of 2005 spelled out the allegations. The complaint, obtained by TPMmuckraker, was filed by a former Department lawyer. You can read it here.
"Bradley J. Schlozman is systematically attempting to purge all Civil Rights appellate attorneys hired under Democratic administrations," the lawyer wrote, saying that he appeared to be "targeting minority women lawyers" in the section and was replacing them with "white, invariably Christian men." The lawyer also alleged that "Schlozman told one recently hired attorney that it was his intention to drive these attorneys out of the Appellate Section so that he could replace them with 'good Americans.'"
The anonymous complaint named three female, minority lawyers whom Schlozman had transferred out of the appellate section (of African-American, Jewish, and Chinese ethnicity, respectively) for no apparent reason. And in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this week in response to questions from senators, the Justice Department confirmed that all three had been transferred out by Schlozman -- and then transferred back in after Schlozman had left the Division.
Schlozman's boast about stuffing the appellate section with "good Americans" would not have been out of character, as even he admitted during questioning last week:
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY): Did you ever boast to anyone that you hired a certain number of Republicans or conservatives for any division or section at the Justice Department?Schlozman: I mean, I probably have made statements like that.
Despite such an admission, Schlozman insisted at the hearing that he had never -- as former Department aide Monica Goodling had admitted she had -- "crossed the line" and hired attorneys because of their political affiliation.
It's unclear if the Department's inspector general ever pursued the allegations from the December, 2005 letter at the time. But the office certainly is now. In a letter to the judiciary committee chairmen last month, Glenn Fine and Office of Professional Responsibility counsel Marshall Jarrett announced that their joint probe into the U.S. attorney firings had been expanded to include hiring practices in the Civil Rights Division. Schlozman has been accused of recruiting Republicans for career spots and then asking them to scrub mentions of their GOP bona fides from their resumes.
Comments (133)
drational wrote on June 15, 2007 12:48 PM:The guy is a weasel. And this was going on since 2005? Was this investigated by OIG or not? Be great to get ahold of that report or the memo related to why these allegations were not pursued.
Anonymous wrote on June 15, 2007 12:49 PM:Please explain why the House has not started impeachment proceedings against Gonzales? None of the “official” excuses makes a wit of sense, so I’m desperate to learn the real reason. To me, this Gonzo situation is reminiscent of the build up for the war in Iraq. Nothing anyone says passes a snuff test, but the real reason is not apparent.
With the war I eventually discovered the neocon imperialistic plans, learning about their deranged purpose at least provided context, here there is none.
dk wrote on June 15, 2007 12:54 PM:Funny, I thought being a Good American meant not being a Useless Racist Fifth-column Douchebag.
ploeg wrote on June 15, 2007 12:54 PM:Please explain why the House has not started impeachment proceedings against Gonzales?
Probably because it is clear that the Senate as currently constituted will not convict. But regardless, there is often value in chucking your spear at the city gates, even if you can't break in.
Sacanagem wrote on June 15, 2007 12:55 PM:Please explain why the House has not started impeachment proceedings against Gonzales?
Easy. They don't have the votes to impeach. The "no confidence" vote last week was the litmus test, and they couldn't get the 60 votes needed for impeachment conviction in the Senate. Sucks, but that seems to me what the vote last week was for.
Security word: "front", as in "Mr. Schlozman made valiant efforts to convert the DOJ's Civil Rights division into a branch of the National Front."
jri wrote on June 15, 2007 1:01 PM:Did he actually say "good americans"? I don't see anything that substantiates the inference that he mouthed those precise words. It looks like the "good american' quote is from the person who was removed and seems to be his/her opinion of his motivation for the personnel shuffle.
gregor wrote on June 15, 2007 1:03 PM:This guy will be the architect of electoral victory for and behind the scenes advisor to President Jenna Bush in 2040.
Anonymous wrote on June 15, 2007 1:03 PM:Security Code hope, as in hope not.
That lame argument that there is no point in pursuing their sworn duty because they might not win is the sorriest dodge of representative responsibility in modern American history.
If they were as angry as they should be about this, they’d have acted already, so there is only one conclusion left. The real reason there is no action is that they don’t mind what’s happened, so meaningless gestures meant to placate the base are all that they think is necessary.
jri wrote on June 15, 2007 1:04 PM:OK. Rereading the quote indicates that there is some hearsay evidence that S made that statement. It still seems somewhat less than iron clad that he actually said what is being attributed to him.
DrBB wrote on June 15, 2007 1:04 PM:Please explain why the House has not started impeachment proceedings against Gonzales? None of the “official” excuses makes a wit of sense, so I’m desperate to learn the real reason.
Impeachment is fundamentally a political process, not a legal one per se. In light of that, see the past week's failure to pass even a toothless "no confidence" by a sufficient number. That's the reason. Unless something cracks the Bushists loose from Dear Leader, it ain't gonna happen.
Candyce wrote on June 15, 2007 1:14 PM:What on earth is the holdup on getting an independent counsel after these guys? I have no idea what the process is, but after several hearings, several instances of untruthfulness under oath, what are they waiting for? Can anyone tell me what the next step is when a committee discovers wrongdoing? I really don't understand why this is dragging out.
Oh, and I try not brag about my security code too often, but I had to share this one: crime
gcs wrote on June 15, 2007 1:15 PM:Just when I think these criminals can't sink any lower, they manage to outdo themselves. Have any of these sons of bitches even READ the goddamned Constitution?!
P J Evans wrote on June 15, 2007 1:23 PM:Re impeachment: the impeachment is in the House.
The Senate is where the votes are not. We need to talk to our senators and explain to them that if they aren't going to do their jobs, they'll need to find new ones. (I'm not sure they'd even be good as dogcatchers.)
Englischlehrer wrote on June 15, 2007 1:27 PM:how does a special prosecutor get appointed? It seemed so easy against Clinton and Libby, now what?
JL Clark wrote on June 15, 2007 1:27 PM:Just impeach the worthless son of a bitch. Even if the Senate doesn't convict, they'll still have to hold a trial and who knows what would come out of that.
J Clark, Atlanta
Tom Simon wrote on June 15, 2007 1:28 PM:Not meaning to sound preachy, but there seems an inordinate amount of profanity here - also terms like "Douchebag" display a bit of sexist mentality...
As an observation, TPM comments will not be appropriate to have my congressman read if the language is so crude...
shrimplate wrote on June 15, 2007 1:30 PM:Sooner or later we're just going to run out of rocks to overturn.
Anonymous wrote on June 15, 2007 1:32 PM:"Just impeach the worthless son of a bitch. Even if the Senate doesn't convict, they'll still have to hold a trial and who knows what would come out of that."
AMEN!!!! IT'S ABOUT THE TRIAL!
gcs wrote on June 15, 2007 1:35 PM:Sorry Tom, but when the Vice President of the United States can tell a sitting Senator to "go fuck himself" on the floor of the Senate and the Right Wing media kisses his ass for it, I think we're well past the point where anyone in Washington can dare feign a delicate sensibility. The fact is, this administration is stuffed with creeps, low-lifes, weasels, bastards, sons of bitches, and yes, douchebags.
As Thomas Jefferson responded when he was rebuked for calling George III a tyrant in the Declaration of Independence, "The king is a tyrant. We might as well say so."
owlbear1 wrote on June 15, 2007 1:36 PM:Oh no HARSH LANGUAGE whines again?
nikto wrote on June 15, 2007 1:38 PM:Tom, if "Douchebag" throws your "congressman" into such a frightful tizzy that he can no longer function, you are voting for the WRONG person...
If Schlozman doesn't qualify as an enemy of American rights and freedom, then let's not be so hard on Bin Laden, shall we?
The "enemy within" is always in a position to do more damage than distant enemies.
We may be screwed already.
shadow wrote on June 15, 2007 1:39 PM:Tom Simon
Point well taken, but it's sometimes difficult to maintain a sense of civility when the revelations of corruption become so revolting.
mo2 wrote on June 15, 2007 1:44 PM:I read that there is a reason to not assign a special prosecutor quite yet. Handing it over to a special prosecutor would take it out of the hands of Congress while there are certain questions that still need to be answered in the public domain.
Security code: when. Not if, but when.
KarenJG wrote on June 15, 2007 1:45 PM:Tom, I agree that "douchebag" should not be used to refer to these people--it gives them too much credit. At least a douchebag is good for *something*!
goldberry wrote on June 15, 2007 1:49 PM:Jeez, when discrimination happens to you based on gender, ethnicity, religion or political affiliation, who the hell are you supposed to turn to? The lawyers can't even protect themselves.
goldberry wrote on June 15, 2007 1:50 PM:Jeez, when discrimination happens to you based on gender, ethnicity, religion or political affiliation, who the hell are you supposed to turn to? The civil rights lawyers can't even protect themselves.
Anonymous wrote on June 15, 2007 1:54 PM:The creep deserves to be dropped off on a street corner in South Central wearing a Klan outfit and chained to a sign reading "I HATE N*****S.'
citizen Able wrote on June 15, 2007 1:54 PM:Imus lost his job for less and he wasn't tasked with guarding our civil rights.
Can we get Sharpton on this?
goldberry wrote on June 15, 2007 1:58 PM:Jeez, when discrimination happens to you based on gender, ethnicity, religion or political affiliation, who the hell are you supposed to turn to? The civil rights lawyers can't even protect themselves.
osage wrote on June 15, 2007 1:58 PM:Like unfaithful spouses caught in the act of adultery, their only option, reasonable or not, is to deny, deny, deny their immoral, and in this case, illegal actions. Bush/Rove/Cheney have criminally politicized the DOJ, the Pentagon, NASA and nearly every agency in the Executive Branch of government to the point that "everyone" knows they've done so, but can't yet penetrate the layers of cover-up to obtain the probative evidence necessary to hold them legally accountable for their crimes. As long as Gonzales is the Attorney General, they can continue to suppress that evidence, which is why Bush can't afford to allow him to be ousted. Without Gonzales, the Bush White House of cards will crumble beneath the weight of top heavy corruption and criminal abuse. I pray that day will come.
neil wrote on June 15, 2007 1:59 PM:Good Americans are white, Christian, Republican men, huh? Go figure.
Security code, appropriately: woman
jdw wrote on June 15, 2007 2:01 PM:Easy. They don't have the votes to impeach. The "no confidence" vote last week was the litmus test, and they couldn't get the 60 votes needed for impeachment conviction in the Senate. Sucks, but that seems to me what the vote last week was for.
Posted by: Sacanagem
Date: June 15, 2007 12:55 PM
-----------
If the case is strong enough, they probably will have the votes to "impeach". It only needs a simply majority of the House to impeach, which the Dems may be able to pull together.
Conviction in the Senate, needing a 2/3rds majority, is at the moment impossible. There simply aren't enough Republicans willing to break away to get to 67 (or whatever the current majority is given illness and death). Factoring in one Dem is out with the illness while Lying Lieb isn't even a Dem and will toady for the Bush Admin on this one, it means a *lot* of Repubs would need to jump over.
There would need to be a much larger smoking gun that would turn even Repubs. If that happened, Gonzo would resign before it got out of the House. It would be similar to Miers where enough of the Republicans told Bush that he was up the creeks that they knew they were going to lose.
Is there going to be such a smoking gun? I doubt it. Gonzo is a hack lacky of the President, and a delegator of all the real work. What we'll find is almost certainly more of the same. While to any reasonable person it's grounds for giving him the boot, the President, the Admin and the overwhelming majority of Republican Senators aren't reasonable on this subject. Contempt of Congress? Obstruction of Justice? Something tells me that Trent and the Boyz in the Senate will find reasons to vote no on impeachment while calling it all a witch hunt.
Xenos wrote on June 15, 2007 2:01 PM:"good americans" sheesh- DOJ has been Hannitized!
Anonymous wrote on June 15, 2007 2:04 PM:"Handing it over to a special prosecutor would take it out of the hands of Congress while there are certain questions that still need to be answered in the public domain. "
Probably some truth to that BUT I would think that if SP's were initiated against, for example, Gonzo, Doan, Schloz, McNulty, & Sampson, other Bushie Loyalists [tm] waiting in the wings might have more serious thoughts about actually telling the truth. As it stands now most of them feel invincible and sense that they can get away with it. (Which, so far, they have).
Anonymous wrote on June 15, 2007 2:08 PM:It isn’t about winning; it’s about the process, the trial, and the record. So what if the Democrats lose? It doesn’t matter; there is now incontrovertible evidence of at least perjury and obstruction. It is their responsibility to impeach. It is a vile statement about their loyalty to the nation and the rule of law that they dodge this duty.
Fozzetti wrote on June 15, 2007 2:10 PM:I believe it is Congress' JOB, sworn duty as a commenter above said, to begin impeachment proceedings. You don't play a game ONLY if you know you'll win!
goldberry wrote on June 15, 2007 2:10 PM:Whoops, sorry for the multiple postings. The page didn't update.
Stephen Johnson wrote on June 15, 2007 2:11 PM:It nice to see people thinking one move ahead, such as impeach the so and so. My real concern is all the people in the various departments that were hired under these illegal methods. After the Republicans in power are gone, the "good Americans" hired will still be there for decades. Is it time to ask these people "are you now or have you ever been a good American"? You can all see where this goes. How do you purge people hired over the last 6 year without running afoul of accusations of a Republican purge of government? Which is what the Republicans have really been doing the last 6 years. Purging Demcrats. The Republicans know there will be no purge of Republicans hired under false process so they will just stay. Dems play fair if they are in power for the next 4 to 8 years and then a Republican gets in and starts the Democratic purge all over again. Over time the number of neutral, fair people in government will be such a samll percentage there will be nothing to be done. You have to look at both the long and short term plans and results.
mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari wrote on June 15, 2007 2:15 PM:60 votes? wasn't that the number needed to put Alito and Roberts on the Supreme Court? my my my, how the math changes once the TweedleDems take control of the upper chamber.
theWalrus wrote on June 15, 2007 2:17 PM:"Over time the number of neutral, fair people in government will be such a samll percentage there will be nothing to be done."
We have that right now.
THere are two ways to correct the mess we are in today. Campaign finance reform and scrap the two-party system.
Anonymous wrote on June 15, 2007 2:19 PM:Schlozman is a piece of human garbage who has repeatedly thumbed his nose at Leahy. Nothing's going to happen to him. Sure, he is a corrupt piece of shit but NOTHING IS GOING TO HAPPEN. The Republicans have succeeded in gutting departments of good employees and replacing them with fanatics. TPM readers are aware of their plan and their successes- but I'm afraid our Democratic representatives are not- for them it's just business as usual. It's all a game, just politics. For the rightwing Republicans it's not a game, it's life or death. That's the difference. They're hardcore, ideologically driven lunatics while the Dems on Capitol Hill are playing softball.
eugene wrote on June 15, 2007 2:25 PM:what! were all the good germans gone?
eugene wrote on June 15, 2007 2:27 PM:what! were all the good germans gone?
eugene wrote on June 15, 2007 2:27 PM:what! were all the good germans gone?
eugene wrote on June 15, 2007 2:27 PM:what! were all the good germans gone?
eugene wrote on June 15, 2007 2:27 PM:what! were all the good germans gone?
eugene wrote on June 15, 2007 2:27 PM:what! were all the good germans gone?
eugene wrote on June 15, 2007 2:27 PM:what! were all the good germans gone?
eugene wrote on June 15, 2007 2:27 PM:what! were all the good germans gone?
eugene wrote on June 15, 2007 2:27 PM:what! were all the good germans gone?
eugene wrote on June 15, 2007 2:27 PM:what! were all the good germans gone?
eugene wrote on June 15, 2007 2:27 PM:what! were all the good germans gone?
Steve5117 wrote on June 15, 2007 2:30 PM:I just rewatched last nights Daily Show. Jon has a clip of Tony Snow saying, several months ago, that the USA's were fired for performance reasons. Then he shows a clip of a few days ago with Tony denying he or the WH ever said the USA's were fired for peformance reasons. When you watch the clip notice how much lighter Tony's hair is.
Worry does that doesn't it? But what could Tony or his boss possibly have to worry about. I mean why would the WH need all those new lawyers?
I expect our President to be honest with us.
I expect to win the Lotto soon too, and the odds of me winning are better than the odds of W telling the truth anytime soon.
George Bush is a non-president, the null set, and he really doesn't deserve anybody's respect. Not mine, not your's, and especially not our soilders in Iraq.
If this administration had been a corporate marketing plan, any sane company would have canceled it and reverted to their previous position. Remember New Coke?
Do you think throwing rolls of toilet paper onto the WH lawn will send the message that there ius too much shit coming from there?
TGIF
Paul Dirks wrote on June 15, 2007 2:32 PM:"Despite such an admission, Schlozman insisted at the hearing that he had never -- as former Department aide Monica Goodling had admitted she had -- "crossed the line" and hired attorneys because of their political affiliation."
No - he just hired them because of their ethnicity and religion then let the chips fall where they may.
Anonymous wrote on June 15, 2007 2:36 PM:Snow Was recently diagnosed with recurrent colon cancer. He likely is back in some treatment which may age him.
One would have to have a conscience to allow their lies to show. Tony should be worried about his immortal soul, but since he has no soul he only worries about his own mortality.
draftedin68 wrote on June 15, 2007 2:41 PM:.
Sounds like Brad doesn't need to worry about future employment.
Since he "was replacing them with 'white, invariably Christian men.'", he's certainly well suited for a position on Romney's team.
.
Anonymous wrote on June 15, 2007 2:45 PM:"They're hardcore, ideologically driven lunatics while the Dems on Capitol Hill are playing softball."
And the public is sick of it! The Democrats were given a mandate in '06 and are doing nothing with it. The approval rating of Congress is now lower than Bush's miserable 29%.
Reid and Pelosi are not up to the job. For the good of the party they to both need to step aside and let two other people with spine take the helm.
Anon wrote on June 15, 2007 2:45 PM:I'm not sure that the Christian religion aspect of any new employees is all that pertinent, given the small number of hirees. It's difficult to believe that Schlozman is himself Christian. If he is a Christian and he targets people of other religions it would be a massive denial of his own ethnicity and close relatives. "Self-hating..." and all that.
Shep wrote on June 15, 2007 2:47 PM:QUOTE:
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY): Did you ever boast to anyone that you hired a certain number of Republicans or conservatives for any division or section at the Justice Department?
Schlozman: I mean, I probably have made statements like that.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Another fabulous compound question. So based on this answer we know that Schlozman EITHER:
A. Boasted about hiring Republicans (not good)
OR
B. Boasted about hiring Conservatives (which, as tasteless as it sounds, is not a violation of anything).
So Schumer's big "gotcha" turns out to be totally ambiguous as to what Schlozman did or didn't do.
Steve5117 wrote on June 15, 2007 2:48 PM:Click on my name for a link to the youtube clik from last night's Daily Show.
Big Mitch wrote on June 15, 2007 2:51 PM:I noticed the change in Tony Snow-job's hair also. I attributed it to his cancer.
Please visit the Schapira blog, "What we know so far ..."
... and tell 'em Big Mitch sent ya!
JR wrote on June 15, 2007 2:51 PM:What's up, you guys didn't get the invite to Schlozman's Sausage Fest?
mo2 wrote on June 15, 2007 2:54 PM:Not "Christian" but "identify themselves as Christian." Two different things. Schlozman hired people who are so stuck in self-import that they would actually identify their religion and political party in a job interview and not think that that is poor ethics. He sought people of low personal moral ethics for hire and promotion.
Captain Nemo wrote on June 15, 2007 2:57 PM:Leahy has consistently spoken out about the abuses of the Constitution, Abu Grahib, habeus corpus, etc. over the last several years -- since well before the elections of 2006. Leahy is a true patriot, and no doubt he is working day and night for a way to resolve the present circumstances facing the DOJ, which are extremely worrisome.
Impeachment of Gonzales would be highly political; and that makes it abolutely imperative that an iron-clad case of criminal actions be developed before impeachment proceedings against him are begun.
This may be wishful thinking, but it might be a mistake to count Leahy out now. Open Congressional hearings may be counterproductive; and the real work may be going on behind the scenes. We may have to be content with watching the submarine races and keeping our fingers crossed.
Allsburg wrote on June 15, 2007 2:58 PM:Hey--where's that anonymous guy who leaves long, nonsensical posts ranting about how it's all the fault of lawyers failing to police their own? This seems like his kind of room.
candymarl wrote on June 15, 2007 3:00 PM:Ah yes, spear chuckers at the the gate. Well we know who THEY are.
Anonymous wrote on June 15, 2007 3:09 PM:They have enough on the record to impeach today. They are not going to get a confession.
Leahey may or may not be a patriot, it doesn’t matter, althoug I do believe he is one of the few who is sincere, if wrong. It’s past time for more than impassioned rhetoric about constitutional abuses, it's time for impeachment of Gonzales.
Mrs Panstreppon wrote on June 15, 2007 3:09 PM:Bradley Schlozman's battle against human trafficking girdled the globe!
Schlozman Junket #1 - Cambodia, 1/05,
Schlozamn Junket #2 - India, Sometime before 8/05
Schlozman Junket #3 - Tanzania, 1/06
Schlozman Junket #4 - Germany, Sometime after his appointment as USA-WDMO
Information about Schlozman's globetrotting ways was obtained from DOJ Anti-Trafficking News Bulletins (link below). All articles about Schlozman's trips are accompanied by photos.
Why didn't Bradley Schlozman, world-renowned anti-trafficking expert, return to fighting the good fight against human traffickers after he was canned from his USA job? Inquiring minds want to know!
eugene wrote on June 15, 2007 3:10 PM:sorry about all the repeats folks
sailmaker wrote on June 15, 2007 3:10 PM:I hope African American Sharon Eubanks (USA who litigated the tobacco case to a $130 billion settlement that the DOJ reduced to $10 billion) is one of the plaintifs. She says she resigned when the DoJ refused to give her an annual review thereby making her inelegible for a bonus. They wrecked a 22 year career employee's record. (WaPo 12/1/2005)
bjobotts wrote on June 15, 2007 3:11 PM:It's all been said many times and many of us are at the point of wanting to choke impeachment out of the senate.
Herb wrote on June 15, 2007 3:19 PM:Sometimes one video with sound is all it takes to see the inherent corruption because it's so obvious.
For instance, watching Gonzales say "I don't recall".
One clip of Schlozman and you know he's guilty.
The condescending, authoritarian narrative of Spakovski indicts him as being far removed from fairness or equality which should keep him from being approved for a seat on FEC.
Put all three together and you wonder how the hell these people ever worked for the DoJ and then it hits you...Bush. Impeachment hardly seems adequate enough much less uncalled for. Seems congress is waiting till it's no longer possible to impeach because the right has been removed and not just off the table.
THIS GUY'S IN THE SAME CATEGORY AS DICK CHENEY & KARL ROVE... EVIL. ALLOWING CRIMES AGAINST BLACKS? LETTING YOUR GOOD OL' BOY, REPUBLICAN FRIENDS OFF? POLITICAL TRIALS?
...EVIL! THE JUSTICE DEPT. IS KINDA LIKE THE K.K.K., NOW, I GUESS. HUH?
IT'S THE G.O.P. DEPT. OF JUSTICE.
Dave wrote on June 15, 2007 3:22 PM:On the language here:
One is reminded of what Cromwell ostensibly said when Charles I accused him of 'impertinence': "Your Majesty, such issues go beyond good manners."
On appointing 'good Christians': As the recent Bill Moyers piece indicated, this Administration has not only been violating the Constitution by applying religous tests to public office; but has been appointing particular types of 'christians', from one particular university: Regent University, now headed up by Ashbrook. Want to lay odds on where these illegally-appointed folks received their 'education'?
On a special prosecutor: the gross criminality and uncontitutional personnel actions at the DOJ requires a SP encharged to look at ALL personnel actions these past several years, and to bring charges where appropriate (in, or out of, office). But, when someone at DOJ directly violates the Constitution - such as applying religous tests (and worse) - EXACTLY what is the recourse?
ecoast wrote on June 15, 2007 3:25 PM:Good American? I think it should be "Great American" as Hannity calls his callers.
jeffgee wrote on June 15, 2007 3:26 PM:Apparently his Bushiness trumps his Jewishness, if he's Jewish.
Other Michael wrote on June 15, 2007 3:28 PM:Hard to tell from a quick Google search.
Someone should look at the non-lawyer hiring at DOJ also. Policy is made not just by lawyers, and filling up a department with political hacks in career positions is pursued outside of the lawyer ranks as well
Rodney wrote on June 15, 2007 3:41 PM:The Dems should start declaring that they will follow the precident set by the Bush administration, and still supported by most GOP Congressmen, to purge all goverment workers that have donated to the GOP, have an NRA membership, attend a Born-Again Christain or Catholic Church, watch Fox News, or any other ties to conservative organizations, and will use the Patriot Act and wire taps to root them out. They serve at the pleasure of the President...
itwasntme wrote on June 15, 2007 3:45 PM:Tom, I'm a woman, and douchbag doesn't bother me. I don't consider it a sexist reference. Insults come in all sexes, and calling some woman a "b*tch" doesn't bother me either: they call men "b*stards", so it's a wash as far as I'm concerned.
Rdoney wrote on June 15, 2007 3:48 PM:better yet, the Dems can say that they will use the Patriot Act and wire taps to expose all the GOP and Christain leaders that engage in activities like extra-marital affiars, closet homosexuality, secret abortions, gambling, drug use, porn use, business dealings, etc., in the name of National Security because they are likely targets of blackmail by terrorists.
super390 wrote on June 15, 2007 3:54 PM:I worry that the general public believes that the federal bureaucracy is indeed supposed to serve the president as though he were a monarch. I don't think they ever really got far enough in civics class to know that the president adminsters the bureaucracy under the edicts of the legislature. So few Republicans will ever mind the radical partisanization of the bureaucracy under one of their presidents, and most Democrats have no basis for understanding why it is wrong.
And there is still a basic asymmetry of the public understanding of corruption, which I think was exemplified by Nixon's first and second terms in office. As long as he kept Vietnam going, as long as he described all his actions in terms of national security, it didn't matter how many of his abuses were uncovered by the media. But in 1972, our ground forces were officially out, the protestors had given up, and Nixon was negotiating detente. Only months after an overwhelming majority voted him back in, they began to turn against his abuses. Somehow, people now were willing to see Nixon's crimes as self-serving, rather as necessary dirty work to defeat the hippie-pinko threat against their own interests.
So as long as crimes are seen as essentially patriotic in intent, most citizens will not push the system to work properly. And patriotic will always be defined in a way biased towards greater power for "good Americans" to harm "bad Americans". Liberals are comfortable with being vague about who good Americans are, which is an aspect of tolerance. You know what the other side is like.
Mrs P wrote on June 15, 2007 4:00 PM:Why would a DOJ lawyer in the appellant section of the civil rights division be loaned to Senator Schumer's office?
Just curious.
jimbo92107 wrote on June 15, 2007 4:14 PM:We already know that impeachments won't succeed, because (duh) Democrats don't have a sufficient majority. But that's not the point. We elected as many Democrats as we could so that they could show us they were willing to TRY to impeach.
It's not just a matter of "chucking your spear at the city gates" (ploeg). Attempting to impeach Cheney and Bush and the rest of that miserable gang of crooks is also a way of exposing the people who are still propping them up.
That's what the 2008 elections are going to be about: Removing the rest of the BushCo syndicate's enablers. Even with Bush gone, his supporters in Congress will continue their campaign to destroy America, and we must stop them.
Code: tight. Yeah, baby!
JNagarya wrote on June 15, 2007 4:31 PM:Did he actually say "good americans"? I don't see anything that substantiates the inference that he mouthed those precise words. It looks like the "good american' quote is from the person who was removed and seems to be his/her opinion of his motivation for the personnel shuffle.
Posted by: jri
Date: June 15, 2007 01:01 PM
The records of Schlozman, Hearne, and von Szkovsky speak for themselves: they are racist to the core working to advance a white supremacist agenda. And now we learn -- unsurprisingly -- that they are also anti-Semites. It might not rise to Neo-Nazi, but they would be fellow travellers therewith.
JNagarya wrote on June 15, 2007 4:55 PM:Did he actually say "good americans"? I don't see anything that substantiates the inference that he mouthed those precise words. It looks like the "good american' quote is from the person who was removed and seems to be his/her opinion of his motivation for the personnel shuffle.
Posted by: jri
Date: June 15, 2007 01:01 PM
The records of Schlozman, Hearne, and von Szkovsky speak for themselves: they are racist to the core working to advance a white supremacist agenda. And now we learn -- unsurprisingly -- that they are also anti-Semites. It might not rise to Neo-Nazi, but they would be fellow travellers therewith.
JNagarya wrote on June 15, 2007 5:02 PM:"That lame argument that there is no point in pursuing their sworn duty because they might not win is the sorriest dodge of representative responsibility in modern American history."
So you gve them two options:
1. They succeed in making concrete gains, and you bash them because it isn't the impossible you demand.
But you don't bash the Republican foot-dreggers who prevented greater gains.
What does that tell us about you? Pro-Bushit troll.
2. They attempt to do that you demand, and when they fail, you bash them for being "inept" or "incompetent" or whatever mud you can come up with to sling.
In short: no matter what the Democrats do, facts be damned, you will bash them because a pro-Bushit troll who lacks the manhood to even identify yourself.
"If they were as angry as they should be about this, they’d have acted already, so there is only one conclusion left. The real reason there is no action is that they don’t mind what’s happened, so meaningless gestures meant to placate the base are all that they think is necessary."
There is on "one conclusion left" to those who refuse to accpt the obvious facts which are right in front of your face. To, tht is, pro-Bushit trolls.
Take it to Free Republic -- they love ignorant bigots who reject reality and reason such as you.
"Posted by:
JNagarya wrote on June 15, 2007 5:06 PM:Date: June 15, 2007 01:03 PM"
OK. Rereading the quote indicates that there is some hearsay evidence that S made that statement. It still seems somewhat less than iron clad that he actually said what is being attributed to him.
Posted by: jri
Date: June 15, 2007 01:04 PM
Perhaps you should detail for us why you doubt it, even with not only cricumstantial evidence that he said it, but also with his established track record as being a racist bigot.
Steve5117 wrote on June 15, 2007 5:11 PM:JNagarya
Date: June 15, 2007 05:02 PM
It was 4 hours since the troll last posted. Will your post wake the sleepy troll or has he gone to a party meeting?
Are TPM bloggers on the way home? Or to work? Out to lunch or having brunch.
Nobody is talking, where is everybody?
So, JNagarya, how are you today?
JNagarya wrote on June 15, 2007 5:21 PM:"What on earth is the holdup on getting an independent counsel after these guys? I have no idea what the process is, but after several hearings, several instances of untruthfulness under oath, what are they waiting for?"
You have no idea -- but that desn't stop you making assumptions on which to base pointless bashings of Democrats.
1. The "independent counsel" statute was allowed to lapse _years ago_.
2. It would take a majority to appoint an independent counsel. Did you sleep during the last several weeks concerning the no-confidence vote?
"Can anyone tell me what the next step is when a committee discovers wrongdoing?"
They investigate, which is exactly what they are doing, and have been doing for three of their first SIX months as slim-majority in the Congress. They have neutralized Gonzales; they have caused several major resignations. In addition to DOJ, they are investigating DOT, GSA, and Interior (and quite possibly more).
They are gathering evidence -- engaged in "discovery" -- a significant amount of which would be necessary to embarrass the Republican foot-draggers into supporting appointment of an independent counsel.
In short, you are seeing in action _democracy_ -- not Bushit rush to judgment.
"I really don't understand why this is dragging out."
And yet you're whining because you've already concluded that it shouldn't "drag out". Bushit doesn't like that it's "dragging out" either.
It is "dragging out" because Gonzales, and Bushit, et al., are stonewalling -- doing everything they can to make it "drag out". In addition, INVESTIGATION TAKES TIME.
One fact should be sufficient to you learn some of the adult realities of politics in a democracy: As long as Gonazles stays right where he is, he continues to keep the issues alive and front-and center, and to damage Bushit, et al., and the Republicans.
The latter is the most that can be done on that point -- not counting the continuing investigation -- at present. And it's fine in and of itself.
"Posted by: Candyce
Date: June 15, 2007 01:14 PM"
You've been comotose all this time? Your favorite TeeVee show get cancelled?
Steve5117 wrote on June 15, 2007 5:21 PM:It appears the troll moved to the new thread.
JNagarya wrote on June 15, 2007 5:28 PM:Re impeachment: the impeachment is in the House.
The Senate is where the votes are not. We need to talk to our senators and explain to them that if they aren't going to do their jobs, they'll need to find new ones. (I'm not sure they'd even be good as dogcatchers.)
Posted by: P J Evans
Date: June 15, 2007 01:23 PM
The House Democrats do not yet have sufficient votes to impeach. One cannot do "anyway" that which cannot at present be done.
Nor do the Democrats in the Senate have sufficient votes, at present, to even vote to accept Articles of Impeachment were the House able to produce them.
Work to make impeachment possible instead of bashing the Democrats because it isn't at this point possible.
And that is done not by focusing exclusively on the Democracts -- even if one is contructive about it, instead of continuing the unproductive and destructive "feel good" bashing -- but also putting pressure on the Republican foot-draggers. EVEN IF ALL THE DEMOCRATS WERE FOR IMPEACHMENT, THE WOULD NEED THE VOTES OF SUFFICIENT REPUBLICANS IN ORDER TO ACOMPLISH THAT.
paul wrote on June 15, 2007 5:30 PM:We can't have an independent counsel because the Twelve Whiny Lawyers have declared that independent counsels are unconstitutional. Their brief didn't save Scooter, but I'm sure that Gonzo and his cronies will rely on it to explain why they just have to sit on their hands in the face of blatant criminal activity.
JNagarya wrote on June 15, 2007 5:36 PM:QUOTE:
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY): Did you ever boast to anyone that you hired a certain number of Republicans or conservatives for any division or section at the Justice Department?
Schlozman: I mean, I probably have made statements like that.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Another fabulous compound question. So based on this answer we know that Schlozman EITHER:
A. Boasted about hiring Republicans (not good)
OR
B. Boasted about hiring Conservatives (which, as tasteless as it sounds, is not a violation of anything).
So Schumer's big "gotcha" turns out to be totally ambiguous as to what Schlozman did or didn't do.
Posted by: Shep
Date: June 15, 2007 02:47 PM
It's a "sleeper" question. Broad enough that it gets Schlozman on the record that he hired based oupon political considerations. That's the point, isn't it?
That fact being established, further questions focus on whether it was Republicans -- a no-no -- or "conservatives" -- also a no-no.
But there are far greater violations by Schlozman than that: subverting the law to the opposite of its intents, and filing fraudulent "vote fraud" compalints in court. Such abuse of process can get one sanctioned, and worse.
And the subversion of the civil rights laws to their opposite intent constitutes deliberate violation of those statutes by doing exactly that which they prohibit.
Scholzman is in trouble for much more than politicizing the DOJ.
Molly, NYC wrote on June 15, 2007 5:52 PM:Most soi-disant conservatives are attracted to what they imagine to be the normative quality of conservativism--like it'll compensate for their own shortcomings and insecurities.
I mention this because it seems Schlozman appears to be such a prime example of it. "Self-hating" is right.
Austin Cooper wrote on June 15, 2007 5:59 PM:Either, Schmeezer: In my personal opinion, The Schlozz is a bloated pig-dog with a funny Van Dyke beard, trimmed so that it approximates a chin, and prevents people from immediately noticing that the one he has slumps directly into his neck.
-- Oh; and (again, just my opinion), he's a liar, and has potentially violated Federal law, which may mean he's an attorney who is a criminal. I mention this just so no one feels this is an ad homenum attack, or anything.
Code = Silver, as in Cross Brad's Hand With Thirty Pieces Of It, And He'll Sell The Constitution and Bill Of Rights As If They Were Charmin Extra Soft.
Eli Rabett wrote on June 15, 2007 6:33 PM:Didn't either Scholzman or the guy who testified yesterday Hans v S. say they only passed on staff recommendations. If that is the case why does the memo say that the staff were instructed not to offer opinions on any cases
Trooper wrote on June 15, 2007 6:38 PM:You know, his nickname back in elementary school was "Bradley Smurf". But it's good to see that his voice has dropped several octaves since he was a kid.
You know, the shit we pulled on him at Boy Scout camp probably caused him to turn neo-con. If only we could do those same things to him today.....
moondancer wrote on June 15, 2007 6:48 PM:After reading that anon letter, I want that castralto squealing for his dinner in max security. Nobody can tell me that all this crap at DOJ,GAO,OSHA,NOAH,Interior started anywhere but in a round office with KR,gonzo,dead-eye plotting and ordering w/shrub nodding like he had a clue. None of these people have a pair lge enough to do ANYTHING without explicit instructions from the above plotters.
The other thing: has anyone ever seen the phrase "well regarded in his field" used about anyone in this administration??
Woodhall Hollow wrote on June 15, 2007 7:20 PM:What a great comment thread.
Regarding "douchbag." As any *real* woman knows, douchbags are a relic, totally unnessary and more than that, harmful to one's vaginal health,since they "clean out" useful vaginal bacteria and disrupt the PH balance. For that reason, I (as a healthy woman) have no problem calling these useless men douchbags, since they have distoryed the internal health of the DoJ.
Waiting 4 Justice wrote on June 15, 2007 7:28 PM:Ok, if those three minority women who got transferred out of the appellate section by scholzman got to come back after he left, WHEN THE HELL IS BOB BERMAN GETTING TRANSFERRED BACK TO THE VOTING SECTION?? Do you hear me, Congress. Enough with the hearings, take some ACTION! The Section 5 Unit is in CRISIS under the "leadership" of YVETTE RIVERA...
TruthSeeker wrote on June 15, 2007 7:35 PM:Posted by: eugene
Date: June 15, 2007 02:27 PM
Eugene, you have got to be kidding me! Even if your comment was profound, I still couldn't see posting it that many times!
TruthSeeker wrote on June 15, 2007 7:37 PM:Someone mentioned that Schlozman’s voice actually dropped a few octaves. Oh, really? I was watching his testimony on C-SPAN the other day and I had to keep looking up at the TV because I could have sworn it was 12-year girl speaking every time he opened his mouth. I’m not quite sure why he was ever employed by the DOJ because it is clear that he is an incompetent liar. When they asked him how many cases he tried before getting his cushy senior-level government job, of course the answer was NONE! I wonder how much longer we’re going to have to put up with this crap!
I’m not making this up. My Security Code word really is: screw. Enough said...
Posted by: eugene
Date: June 15, 2007 02:27 PM
Eugene, you have got to be kidding me! Even if your comment was profound, I still couldn't see posting it that many times!
Scooby Doo wrote on June 15, 2007 7:42 PM:Someone mentioned that Schlozman’s voice actually dropped a few octaves. Oh, really? I was watching his testimony on C-SPAN the other day and I had to keep looking up at the TV because I could have sworn it was 12-year girl speaking every time he opened his mouth. I’m not quite sure why he was ever employed by the DOJ because it is clear that he is an incompetent liar. When they asked him how many cases he tried before getting his cushy senior-level government job, of course the answer was NONE! I wonder how much longer we’re going to have to put up with this crap!
I’m not making this up. My Security Code word really is: screw. Enough said...
OK Eugene, I owe you an apology. I posted my comment which included a criticism of how many times your comment was posted only to see mine appear twice, so far. I guess there is a problem with the system. My sincerest apologies for the sarcasm.
TruthSeeker wrote on June 15, 2007 7:56 PM:OK, I'm going to try this apology to Eugene again because I don't know what happened to the first one. I apologize for my sarcasm. I posted a comment that contained criticism of your numerous posts of the same comment only to find mine posted twice. There must be a problem with the system. My sincerest apologies...
thepeoplechoose wrote on June 15, 2007 8:00 PM:The inability to impeach because the votes aren't there means there aren't enough republicans who truly honor our nation, our constitution and freedom for all. Numerically, the ten votes translates to not even twenty percent of republican senators care about our country. That's it. Plain, simple and objective.
These same people impeached Clinton for something that was purely a civil legal matter and then do nothing when the law has clearly been violated and is within the scope of their legal jurisdiction. These are not honorable men and should all be in jail until the end of their days. They have an explicit and individually sworn duty under law. Our laws effectively require them to correct this. Not doing so makes them party to the commission of the very criminal acts they are supposed to seek redress for on behalf of the American people. No matter how you slice it, any senator who chooses to allow our AG to remain in office endorses the criminal behavior we have all witnessed revealed in the senate hearings.
Molly, NYC wrote on June 15, 2007 8:07 PM:You know, the shit we pulled on him at Boy Scout camp probably caused him to turn neo-con. If only we could do those same things to him today.....
chuck wrote on June 15, 2007 8:33 PM:Trooper - It'll be his cellie's turn now.
Tom, there is nothing sexist about the word douchebag. There are plenty of men who use douches (see Schlozman, Bradley), and it would only stand to reason that they'd need a bag for them.
Or are you opposed to good hygiene and in objectively pro-(bio)terrorist?
dadefreese wrote on June 15, 2007 9:28 PM:Keeping the powder dry. It's possible, though unlikely, that the Dems might have bigger fish to fry so impeachment is likely the very last option. If we had a Dem Congress initiate multiple impeachments against multiple Bush figures, the public would quickly weary of the drama...no matter how justified
lgr wrote on June 15, 2007 10:07 PM:Why can't this man serve jail time?
lgr wrote on June 15, 2007 10:08 PM:Why can't this man serve jail time?
steambomb wrote on June 15, 2007 11:05 PM:I am beginning to see the common thread here. It appears in every case. They are stacking our government with white christian - Arian nation minded people. This is sick.
modmom wrote on June 16, 2007 12:02 AM:I feel the same disgust in my gut as after witnessing the election theft on the east side of Columbus, Ohio in '04, and then realizing my party or the msm weren't going to do anything about it.
They are so blatantly racist. We need integrity in our elections and a voting system that can be verified so that we can rid this country of this cancer.
One just has to look at the Bush family history to understand the roots of this cancer.
JEP wrote on June 16, 2007 12:15 AM:Helium addicts do strange things...
Em wrote on June 16, 2007 6:24 AM:Shame on Bradley Scholzman's supervisor in the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys. Schlozman should be fired IMMEDIATELY for his admitted improper conduct as a DOJ employee while in the Civil Rights Division and for not being fully truthful while testifying at the Congressional hearing. Why is it that Schlozman, Gonzo, and the rest of them, somehow have acquired "job protections", when good, talented employees such as the woman in the Civil Rights Division had none? Schlozman should be held to a higher standard because he not only could not perform his job in the Civil Rights Division to fairly enforce civil rights laws, he committed civil rights violations himself against minority employees. Everyday that Schlozman remains a DOJ employee, the standard of acceptable conduct is lowered as to how much wrong-doing the (now broken) Department of Justice will tolerate from its employees. Schlozman should be prosecuted for civil rights violations in the work place.
markmywords wrote on June 16, 2007 7:26 AM:SCUM and SLIME
Friends, lets stop using biological terms for these assholes please. Pond scum is typically a mess of algae and pollen and slime, as in slime mold, is also a living thing. These Repugs/Rethugs, in their destructive-of-the-Constitution and of human lives behavior are evil and corrupt, not innocent biologica just going about its business. Though I believe in compassion, the harm these people have caused to the fired attorneys, to minorities denied their electoral rights, to maliciously targetted Dems demands prosecution and jail time. In some ways it makes sense to go slow. If they are indicted and convicted prior to the end of the Decider's term, they will be pardoned. If it drags on and their convictions happen after the Idiot's term ends, maybe they will get their due.
Code word Snake--please don't call these people snakes weasals sharks either. Lets call a spade a spade: they are heartless, corrupt criminals who belong behind bars.
nofltwlt wrote on June 16, 2007 8:54 AM:Would someone just slap the ever-lovin shit out of this weenie?
John Anthony Santomasso wrote on June 16, 2007 10:24 AM:Please tell me;
Steve5117 wrote on June 16, 2007 10:53 AM:Why is it that in trying to "Right the Wrongs", of this snake, of an Administration, we continually swipe at the tail. I understand the impulse, I just don't understand the reasoning.
Getting rid of Gonzales would be no problem, if there was no GWB as a sitting President to back him up. With all that has been done, by this criminal administration, how is it that Impeachment proceedings are not on going. Hell, they chastised Clinton for a blow-job. Certainly,
an Illegally prosecuted war is more criminal than that,no? What the hell is going on, in this world, whereby hundreds of thousands of peoples of the world have been killed at the hands of this government, and yet we are still ruminating as to what to do about it.
I am so disgusted by it all, I can't hardly stand it.
John Anthony Santomasso
We are doing what we can do at this point, slowly chipping away at the structure this administration has tried to build. Once enough of the supporting players are gone the administration will implode.
Right now it is important to keep exposing the illegal activities that have transpired and work to prevent new efforts to tilt the scales of justice.
Falcon of the Adirondacks wrote on June 16, 2007 12:47 PM:
Jimbo wrote on June 16, 2007 1:57 PM:Cocksucker! Indict this piece of shit! And send him to the gallows after he's convicted!
This is completely off the radar of the average American. No one even knows this is going on, and they don't want to.
The Republic is at stake here, and we're losing it.
Tennessean wrote on June 16, 2007 5:12 PM:I despair for my country Speaker Pelosi!
The "table" creaks under the weight of the crimes being committed by the Justice Department, the White House, the Office of the Vice President and the Attorney General. Why do you continue to refuse our pleas for redress under the Constitution of the United States?
Impeachment must be brought back to the table, under the US Constitution. Impeach Atty Gen. Alberto Gonzales. Impeach Vice President Dick Cheney. Impeach President George W. Bush.
We demand our Constitutional process be restored.
Shep wrote on June 16, 2007 5:48 PM:QUOTE:
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY): Did you ever boast to anyone that you hired a certain number of Republicans or conservatives for any division or section at the Justice Department?
Schlozman: I mean, I probably have made statements like that.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Another fabulous compound question. So based on this answer we know that Schlozman EITHER:
A. Boasted about hiring Republicans (not good)
OR
B. Boasted about hiring Conservatives (which, as tasteless as it sounds, is not a violation of anything).
So Schumer's big "gotcha" turns out to be totally ambiguous as to what Schlozman did or didn't do.
Posted by: Shep
Date: June 15, 2007 02:47 PM
It's a "sleeper" question. Broad enough that it gets Schlozman on the record that he hired based oupon political considerations. That's the point, isn't it?
That fact being established, further questions focus on whether it was Republicans -- a no-no -- or "conservatives" -- also a no-no.
But there are far greater violations by Schlozman than that: subverting the law to the opposite of its intents, and filing fraudulent "vote fraud" compalints in court. Such abuse of process can get one sanctioned, and worse.
[snip]
Posted by: JNagarya
Date: June 15, 2007 05:36 PM
I think you're wrong. The question is compound and in fact, it doesn't nail Schlozman with enough precision to stick. First, hiring based on political *party affiliation* is not a hard-crime in any sense -- it is a violation of civil service rules and can get you fired, but we're not talking about jail time for it.
Second, hiring based on political *ideology* (i.e. conservative vs liberal) is not forbidden by civil service rules or otherwise. So getting Schlozman on record that he EITHER boasted about hiring based on political party affiliation OR ideology doesn't do much because it allows him to argue that he wasn't referring to the forbidden practice of hiring based on ideological bent.
Finally, I'm not sure what "fraudulent 'vote fraud' complaints" you're talking about. The 4 indicted folks in the ACORN case all plead guilty. The timing of the indictments may be suspect, but the substance of it wasn't.
Also, note that the Georgia State Supreme Court on Monday unanimously upheld the Voter ID law there, reversing the lower court. To date, no court Federal or State, has reversed the DOJs finding that the law passed muster under the Voting Rights Act.
Joseph Conrad wrote on June 16, 2007 5:51 PM:Schlozman's actions and persona reminds me of Mark Antony's insinuations about 'honorable men' in Shakespeare's 'Julius Caesar'. His words and deeds as a Justice Department 'minion' cast in the same light as Cassius or Brutus as an
'assassin of professional integrity and dignity'.
Dante will has a special place for him...
Joseph Conrad wrote on June 16, 2007 5:52 PM:Schlozman's actions and persona reminds me of Mark Antony's insinuations about 'honorable men' in Shakespeare's 'Julius Caesar'. His words and deeds as a Justice Department 'minion' cast him in the same light as Cassius or Brutus - as an
'assassin of integrity'.
Dante will have a special place for him...
Anonymous wrote on June 16, 2007 6:48 PM:This opens old wounds for moi. Just reading this makes my blood boil.
I'm a 3rd generation American with an Hispanic surname, top-12 university grad years before affirmative action. My father came from Europe; my mother was a 2nd generation American.
In the early late 1950s and early 1960s, interviewers thought nothing of asking you if your family was "American" or "Spaniards," or "Mexican."
I never did get hired and some were government jobs. Never did punch somebody in the nose, but came awfully close. It's a wonder so many African Americans put up with this crap.
Goodbye Mister Chips wrote on June 16, 2007 9:41 PM:VOTE LIBERAL
VOTE OFTEN
THE DEMS ARE OUR BEST CHANCE TO TAKE BACK THE WHITEHOUSE---- BACK ANY AND EVERY CANDIDATE...
WE CAN DECIDE HOW TO DIVIDE THE SPOILS WHEN WE GET SPOILS--- DON'T LET THE CONSERVATIVES FOOL YOU INTO SPLINTERING YOUR VOTES (THE ONLY PEOPLE CELEBRATING RALPH NADER WERE THE GOP)
liz wrote on June 17, 2007 6:52 AM:And I will soon be calling attention to the ADA section.....
RacerX wrote on June 18, 2007 12:04 PM:Disabled Americans are being left out too. The ADA Section is probably totally dismantled....
godfather05 wrote on June 18, 2007 2:55 PM:What do you expect?
Every one in the bush admin. is tainted for the rest of their lives.
Doesn't this guy look like someone you would see on that msnbc show, To catch a predator w/ Chris Hansen?
He's a loser, just like the rest
RacerX
Does this shock anyone who read this article. The Bush Administration is filled with racist judges and attorneys. They say one thing, appoint a couple of uncle toms and then refer to them anytime the truth comes out about their true colors. This doesn't stop it just look at the US Supreme Court. Remove the black robe and put a sheet on 5 of them and you would have a true representative of the highest court in the land. If you think I am wrong prove it. I am still waiting.
mcnldkri cjbgvyron wrote on July 9, 2007 6:27 PM:orvwl omyrxd nehszl fhjvod upmkvyl ubnxmhzk tzbn
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
kilka wrote on July 31, 2007 12:51 PM:and www.emeraldring.fora.pl rings
gmc trucks here www.gmctruck.fora.pl
gmc from america www.gmctruck.fora.pl
real gmc www.gmctruck.fora.pl
Asya wrote on October 2, 2007 9:33 AM:and www.emeraldring.fora.pl rings
Hi, nice page.!
look on my pages:
conservation dedicated organization profit
ok.. bitte
Asya wrote on October 2, 2007 9:34 AM:Hi, nice page.!
look on my pages:
conservation dedicated organization profit
ok.. bitte