Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 47

Thread: Anti-liberal bias found in Justice programs

  1. #1

    Anti-liberal bias found in Justice programs

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Justice Department officials blocked liberals and people with Democratic Party ties from a highly selective program that funneled young lawyers into government jobs, according to an internal investigation released Tuesday.
    A bias against liberals existed in a Justice program meant to hire young lawyers, an investigation found.

    Esther Slater McDonald, a political appointee at the Justice Department, "wrote disparaging statements about the candidates' liberal and Democratic Party affiliations on the applications she reviewed and ... she voted to deselect candidates on that basis," said the report by Inspector General Glenn Fine. McDonald, who has left the department, refused to be interviewed for the investigation.

    The report, the first official investigation to document politicization of the Justice Department during the Bush administration, is an offshoot of the larger investigation of Justice Department politics triggered by the furor over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys.

    It found two of three members of a screening committee considered political views and experience when choosing new lawyers for the Justice Department Honors Program and Summer Law Intern Program.

    The report found that McDonald and Michael Elston, the chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, engaged in misconduct, an administrative violation. The third member of the screening committee, career lawyer Dan Fridman, was cleared of any involvement in the politicization of the process.

    Elston was interviewed by the investigators, who asked him about the role of former Justice Department official Monica Goodling in politicizing the selection process.

    Elston told investigators he could not recall Goodling telling him to select lawyers who appeared to share Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' philosophy. Goodling testified before a House panel last year that she had told Elston he should identify such candidates.

    Goodling directed Elston to lead the selection committee in 2006. She and Elston have both left the Justice Department. She refused to be interviewed for the inspector general's report.

    As a result of the controversy, the hiring process was changed in 2007 to insulate hiring decisions from political considerations.

    Both Justice Department policy and federal law prohibit discrimination in hiring for career positions on the basis of political affiliations.

    The report did not find clear evidence that an earlier screening committee took political considerations into account. It says data from 2002 shows a disparity in the hiring of liberal and conservative candidates, but there were no complaints about the committee's work from 2003 to 2006, when Goodling put Elston in charge of the process.

    The report Tuesday is the first of perhaps several to be issued as the broad-ranging investigation into the role partisan politics has played in the Justice Department during the Bush administration.

    Goodling is expected to be a central figure in later inspector general reports examining efforts to increase the influence of conservatives in the department.

    The Justice Department Office of Professional Responsibility, a separate watchdog office that monitors prosecutorial conduct, joined in the inspector general's investigation.
    Last edited by treehorn; 06-24-2008 at 09:57 PM.

  2. #2
    hardly surprising...

    this nation has been hijacked.

  3. #3
    I know many will read this and say eh, this happens under every administration. The answer to that is no it does not. The Justice Dept. Honors program has the tradition of hiring the best and the brightest from our nation's law schools. Many top Conservative lawyers got their start in this program, and were hired by Democratic administrations.

    The Justice Dept has always prided itself in being above the politcal fray. Yes, there were political appointees but the career positions were filled in a non-discriminatory way.

    What happened here is even illegal. That's why Monica Gooding had to get immunity before testifying before Congress.

    Laws were broken here, but I am sure that will still not stop some from saying eh.

  4. #4
    [quote=Queens Jet Fan;2600472]I know many will read this and say eh, this happens under every administration. The answer to that is no it does not. The Justice Dept. Honors program has the tradition of hiring the best and the brightest from our nation's law schools. Many top Conservative lawyers got their start in this program, and were hired by Democratic administrations.

    The Justice Dept has always prided itself in being above the politcal fray. Yes, there were political appointees but the career positions were filled in a non-discriminatory way.

    What happened here is even illegal. That's why Monica Gooding had to get immunity before testifying before Congress.

    Laws were broken here, but I am sure that will still not stop some from saying eh.[/quote]

    There's no "eh" to be found here. That's just flat out ridiculous

  5. #5
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan;2600472]I know many will read this and say eh, this happens under every administration. The answer to that is no it does not. The Justice Dept. Honors program has the tradition of hiring the best and the brightest from our nation's law schools. Many top Conservative lawyers got their start in this program, and were hired by Democratic administrations.

    The Justice Dept has always prided itself in being above the politcal fray. Yes, there were political appointees but the career positions were filled in a non-discriminatory way.

    What happened here is even illegal. That's why Monica Gooding had to get immunity before testifying before Congress.

    Laws were broken here, but I am sure that will still not stop some from saying eh.[/QUOTE]

    I saw some crazy statistics like 90% with Democratic ties, 8% with Republican ties, and 16% undecided, were denied. Anyone who was involved in any environmental programs were considered liberal and denied. That's absurd. And you're right, this is illegal.

  6. #6
    [QUOTE=Press_Coverage;2600256]hardly surprising...

    this nation has been hijacked.[/QUOTE]


    still gay

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=SanAntonio_JetFan;2601063]still gay[/QUOTE]

    Nice. But, that's odd. Because, your mom still seems pleased.
    Last edited by Press_Coverage; 06-25-2008 at 03:01 PM.

  8. #8
    Didja also notice the part about how the one Federal Prosecutor that tried to raise a stink about this illegal vetting process got put on the "firing list" that caused the dust-up a few months back? Where are all the Conservatives who said this was all much ado about nothing? Once again the crazy, pointed headed conspiracy theorists prove to be more correct than the conventional wisdom when it comes to the Bush crowd.

  9. #9
    [QUOTE]The report, the first official investigation to document politicization of the Justice Department during the Bush administration, is an offshoot of the larger investigation of Justice Department politics triggered by the furor over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys.

    It found two of three members of a screening committee considered political views and experience when choosing new lawyers for the Justice Department Honors Program and Summer Law Intern Program.

    The report found that McDonald and Michael Elston, the chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, engaged in misconduct, an administrative violation.

    As a result of the controversy, the hiring process was changed in 2007 to insulate hiring decisions from political considerations.

    Both Justice Department policy and federal law prohibit discrimination in hiring for career positions on the basis of political affiliations.[/QUOTE]

    It seems the investigation and review process worked. The wrong doings were caught. If Laws were broken (and it certainly seems they were) then the appropriate legal actions should be taken/charges filed.

    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan;2600472]I know many will read this and say eh, this happens under every administration. The answer to that is no it does not.[/QUOTE]

    I certainly am not syaing "eh". But I do believe you are either naive, or simply too biased to be objective, if you truly think this has never happened before (albeit in perhaps a more subtle fashion).

  10. #10
    [QUOTE=Press_Coverage;2600256]hardly surprising...

    this nation has been hijacked.[/QUOTE]
    Right. It should be the liberals doing that.

    Let "eh" ring and echo from coast to coast.

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=sackdance;2601154]Right. [B]It should be the liberals doing that. [/B]

    Let "eh" ring and echo from coast to coast.[/QUOTE]

    I didn't say that... So please don't be farting in my direction and pretending I'm the one who has the flatulence.

  12. #12
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2601136]It seems the investigation and review process worked. The wrong doings were caught. If Laws were broken (and it certainly seems they were) then the appropriate legal actions should be taken/charges filed.



    I certainly am not syaing "eh". But I do believe you are either naive, or simply too biased to be objective, if you truly think this has never happened before (albeit in perhaps a more subtle fashion).[/QUOTE]

    The "everybody does it" defense? First off, life-time officials in the Justice Department from both parties have been saying for months that everybody does not do it and this is unprecedented. One or two hires? Sure. But a wholesale policy combined with the other corruptions we've seen -- no way. Second, you say the wrong doers where caught? Really? To what effect? When anyone is criminally charged or at minimum disbarred for this I'll begin to believe there was accountability. I suspect we'l get the "Muckasey Shuffle" and nothing will happen to any key figures.

    Obama should begin his Presidency by reviewing every hire made in the last 8 years at Justice (and all through the Federal Burocracy) and being sure to remove at minimum one half of the Bush people. If he doesn't there will be unwanted leaks coming from every corner of his administration -- that's what these people were put in place to do.

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2601136]It seems the investigation and review process worked. The wrong doings were caught. If Laws were broken (and it certainly seems they were) then the appropriate legal actions should be taken/charges filed.



    I certainly am not syaing "eh". But I do believe you are either naive, or simply too biased to be objective, if you truly think this has never happened before (albeit in perhaps a more subtle fashion).[/QUOTE]

    Each presidency since Nixon has been, to a greater degree than the one that preceeded it, a permanent campaign. (The two one termers --Carter and Bush-- are possible exceptions, which, sadly, may have a lot to do with why they were one termers.)

    Bush has politicized every branch of his administration to an unprecedented degree. The same could have been said of Clinton before him, and Reagan before him, of course. But the fact is Bush has upped the ante on the politicization of government.

    Perhaps the backlash that ensues will persuade Obama or McCain to take a different approach.

    I'm pretty sure, in any event, that we will not see political hacks running FEMA or Justice in the future, at least. The evident political damage that can result from incompetence in those posts will be an effective cautionary tale going forward I think.

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=fukushimajin;2601179]Obama should begin his Presidency by reviewing every hire made in the last 8 years at Justice (and all through the Federal Burocracy) and being sure to remove at minimum one half of the Bush people. If he doesn't there will be unwanted leaks coming from every corner of his administration -- that's what these people were put in place to do.[/QUOTE]

    Lol. Follow one illegal act with another, eh?

    And as for unwanted leaks....really, lol, lol, lol. As if the Bush Administration hasn't had to deal with that very thing since day 1. Half the Govt. under him has been all but working AGAINST him from day 1.

    The hypocricy is stunning....well, no, actually, it's 100% expected.

    "Damn those Bushies for trying to get their evil conservative guys into Govt. service. How dare they! Don't they know Govt is supposed to be all Liberal! Hey Obama, you better fire all the Conservatives when you get into office, and return Govt. service to the Liberal Panacea it once was, and alwsys should be!"

    Let me guess, you think an "Obama reveiw of every hire of the last 8 years" would be completely unbaised and fair, right? Really?

    Lol, lol, lol........you guys really make me giggle sometimes. I'm suprised you can even write some of these things without breaking down with laughter yourselves.:rolleyes:

  15. #15
    [QUOTE=Press_Coverage;2601171]I didn't say that... So please don't be farting in my direction and pretending I'm the one who has the flatulence.[/QUOTE]
    Yuck.

  16. #16
    Someone care to show me another Administration that had a 34 year old re-born Christian the #3 person at DOJ? This WH said a big FU to our country with the BS they have been doing up until the current AG. Very sad.

  17. #17
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2601216]As if the Bush Administration hasn't had to deal with that very thing since day 1. Half the Govt. under him has been all but working AGAINST him from day 1.

    I'm suprised you can even write some of these things without breaking down with laughter yourselves.:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

    Words fail me.

  18. #18
    [QUOTE=cr726;2601222]Someone care to show me another Administration that had a 34 year old re-born Christian the #3 person at DOJ?[/QUOTE]

    So which part of the two facts you mention makes him unqualified?

    The fact that was is 34.

    Or the fact that he was a "Born Again" Christian?

    Since you don't list any OTHER concerns, I can only assume these two (that you mentioned) are your primary rationale for taking umbrage.

    [QUOTE=Aten;2601223]Words fail me.[/QUOTE]

    Funny, they almost never fail me.

  19. #19
    a conservative from trinity law school is better than a liberal from harvard.

    duh.

  20. #20
    He was a she. Monica Goodling. Look her up. At 34 she must of had a ton of experience right? She was the #3. You get it?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us