Conservatives, how do you explain the political screening in justice department?

Justice played politics in hiring

quote:

---

WASHINGTON ” Justice Department officials illegally used "political or ideological" factors in elite recruiting programs in recent years, tapping law-school graduates with conservative credentials over more qualified candidates with liberal-sounding résumés, an internal report found Tuesday.

​

The report, prepared by the Justice Department's own inspector general and its ethics office, tells how senior department screeners weeded out candidates for career positions whom they considered "leftists," using Internet search engines to look for incriminating information or evidence of possible liberal bias.

​

One rejected candidate from Harvard Law School worked for Planned Parenthood. Another wrote opinion pieces critical of the USA Patriot Act and the nomination of Samuel Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court. A third applicant worked for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and posted an unflattering cartoon of President Bush on his MySpace page.

​

The report is the first to come after the department's controversial 2006 firings of nine U.S. attorneys, including Seattle's John McKay.

​

Investigators are also looking into whether those firings were prompted by partisan political reasons, whether former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and his aides misled Congress, and whether civil-rights and voting-rights cases were politicized. Those studies could be issued soon, according to lawyers following the issues.

​

Tuesday's report singled out Michael Elston, the former chief of staff to former Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, and Esther McDonald, a former department lawyer, as violating anti-discrimination and hiring laws.

​

While Inspector General Glenn Fine said he wasn't able to prove officials intentionally singled out applicants, he said his investigators had found enough of a pattern to indicate that political or ideological affiliations were being weighed in 2002 and 2006. As a result of actions by Elston and McDonald in 2006, "many qualified candidates" were weeded out, he said. Fine concluded that the pair had committed misconduct, but he didn't find any violation of criminal law. Attorneys for Elston and McDonald didn't immediately return calls requesting comment. Both resigned last year.

​

Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who replaced Gonzales last year, said Tuesday that using politics in hiring career lawyers was "impermissible and unacceptable" and that the department had taken steps to fix the problems. The report recommended further tightening of internal policies, which Mukasey said he would welcome.

​

Ideological and political factors can be used in hiring political appointees, but it is illegal to do so under federal service law and Justice Department guidelines in hiring career lawyers. The report, based on interviews with dozens of officials and a review of e-mail correspondence, found that "many qualified candidates" were rejected from two key recruiting programs ” the attorney general's honors program and the department's summer intern program ” because of what was perceived as their liberal bent.

​

For many years, the department used its honors program to attract top entry-level lawyers, luring them away from better-paying jobs in the private sector with the promise of influential careers in public service.

​

For most of that time, career lawyers in Justice Department divisions, like civil rights or antitrust, chose their own lawyers for the honors program. But in 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft gave his political aides final say over hundreds of applications in response to what some officials believed was a liberal tilt favoring Ivy League schools.

​

The effect was clear, the report found, with applicants with a Democratic affiliation rejected "at a significantly higher rate" than those with Republican, conservative or neutral credentials.

​

For instance, in 2002, all seven of the honors applicants with membership in the American Constitution Society, a liberal group, were rejected, while 27 of 29 applicants with ties to the Federalist Society, a bedrock conservative group, were accepted.

​

Similarly, 43 of 61 applicants with ties to the Democratic Party were rejected, while 41 of 46 applicants listed as Republicans were accepted. Many of those rejected were regarded as "highly qualified" based on the quality of their schools and other criteria.

​

Former Justice Department officials from both Democratic and Republican administrations said the study underscores the challenge for the next president.

​

"The Honors Program at DOJ [Department of Justice] has always been the 'A-list,' " said Nicholas Gess, a Justice official under President Clinton. "The next attorney general will be stuck with many from the B List."

---

I know we have quite a few ultra-conservatives here. How do you explain this? I was driving home yesterday when I heard this news on the radio. Almost popped a vein in my head.

---

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

Do you find the sound of silence deafening? Do you feel that a number of the more conservative members seem to play a double standard here, where abuses by the conservatives are met with silence, while lesser abuses by the democrats are screamed at.

When I first heard this news, my blood seriously started boiling. What makes me even angrier is how the conservatives are already downplaying this unfair and illegal practice. They've been using their political influence to place their own people in the justice department. Do I really need to remind people that just about every abusive political body in history, including the nazi, started out by placing their people in key positions of power? I mean, we're talking about the justice department here for chrissake. This alone should be enough to impeach and tar and feather the entire bush administration.

---

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

I will agree. I think there will be more than one head to roll over this.This administration has been the most corrupt in my lifetime, and probably a heck of a lot longerEdited by ramoss, : No reason given.

My worry is people will blindly vote for McCain just because he is white and then we'll just end up with more of this crap going on in the justice department for another 8 years.

---

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

What makes you think it would be different under Obama?I dont think, no matter who's elected, that anything will change. The next administration, democratic, republican or even Libertarian, will carry on this abuse. The Bush administration has opened the doors for this, so why wouldnt you just continue? It really does make your job as a politician alot easier if everyone with power agrees with you.Oh, and Obama is a secret muslim, McCain is Illuminati and Bob Barr is Babar.Edited by rbp, : spelling error

Well, for one thing, McCain is Bush II. I guess we won't know until we actually see Obama in office. I don't know what you are smoking, but this is fallacious in so many ways.

Although I think McCain would be a horrible president, I think he would at least be much more honest that Bush. I also think that race is not going to be as much of a factor as you think it might.The places that race would be a factor have been solidtly republican for years anyway.

Like I said before, I think in a few months we will see if this country is more racist or ageist. It used to be between sexist, racist, and ageist. But I guess we've settled on the sexist question.

---

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

It could be that age/sex,race has nothing to do with someone's choice.I did not choose Hillary, not because of her gender, but because of the choices she made about certain issues.It turns out I am rejecting McCain for the exact same issues.Age and gender have nothing to do with why I reject those candidate.

quote:

---

I don't know what you are smoking

---

Im currently smoking a joint with creamy indian black hashish and great european grown cannabis plant material.It has a heavy sweet aroma and taste.

quote:

---

but this is fallacious in so many ways.

---

How?Some of the stuff that has happened under Bush, would never have been allowed to happen just a couple of years ago.
Why wouldnt a new goverment use the same methods if they could get away with it?

Because the Democrats couldn't do anything wrong! Duh

Not quite.It is just that the Republicans were so assuming that the Democrats were going to be corrupted and putting them under the microscope so much that didn't happen.
The Democrats didn't assume corruption, because it is not so wide spread among them.

Because the Seattle Times said it. It must be true!Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.Edited by Artemis Entreri, : horrid misspelling

quote:

---

Because the Seattle Times said it. It must be true!

---

Are you aware of any facts showing that it's not true?Has the Administration denied any of it?

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat