Illegal hiring practices at the Justice department

P

Playboypenguin

Moderator
I am curious as to home the righties are going to be spinning this report.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/washington/24cnd-justice.html

This is just sleazy. It is blatant violation of keeping political agendas out of the legal side of the government. This is one of the most blatant attempts at stacking courts with the faithful instead of the fair.

I do not notice that you can find the story everywhere but for some reason Fox News changes the word "concludes" to "accuses" and Blitzer changed to work "concludes" to "alleges." The report did not allege anything, it came to conclusions after an intense investigation.

At least they seem to have found a suitable fall "guy" to take the blame.
 
It says "Liberal" vs. "Conservative" yet they give no indication of what they mean. Like if "Liberal" means socialist-interpret-the-constitution-the-way-Marx-would (read destroy) and "Conservative" means preserve-American-culture-from-late-18th-century-seclusionistic-views.
 
If you read the report it very clearly defines what it means and discloses the types of questions asked (like "What is it about Pres. Bush that makes you want to serve him?" and "What makes you a good republican?") and the key-words that would get applications rejected.
 
Dang it, why couldn't they have kept this under their hats for another two years? By the time I graduate lawschool they probably won't be giving preferential treatment to right-wing whackos anymore. Too bad, I would have been a perfect applicant.:)

Federalist Society Rulez!
 
Dang it, why couldn't they have kept this under their hats for another two years? By the time I graduate lawschool they probably won't be giving preferential treatment to right-wing whackos anymore. Too bad, I would have been a perfect applicant.
Click to expand...
Don't worry...there will always be a place for right wing wackos in the legal system. Nothing wrong with it either...as long as there are an equal number of left wing loonies for them to counter balance. :)
 
The NY Times? Why don't you just cite World Net Daily? It would have more credibility.:p

NY Times article said:
Applications that contained what were seen as “leftist commentary” or “buzz words” like environmental and social justice were often grounds for rejecting applicants, according to e-mails reviewed by the inspector general’s office. Membership in liberal organizations like the American Constitution Society, Greenpeace, or the Poverty and Race Research Action Council were also seen as negative marks.
Click to expand...

What does that mean? If someone writes on their resume 'I entered into the legal profession, because I was concerned about social and environmental justice' they should be rejected and referred for psychiatric evaluation.:)
 
The good thing about Clinton was once they hired you, your life expectancy was cut in half, which was great, if you are a Libertarian...;)
 
The difference is when Clinton came in, he fired every Republican appointee at Justice. Bush made the mistake of only firing the worst of the lot of Clinton appointees. The leftist bias in hiring AUSA's during the Clinton years was legendary.
 
I think the bigger news is really the fact that Pelosi is going to be content to let this and other DOJ abuses slide by much the same way that they are with Carl Rove and his being in Contempt of Congress.

Clearly Pelosi has more concern for her party than the country.
 
The same allegations were made about Clinton. Both sides do it, and it does not surprise me.
Click to expand...
Why is this news? SOP in DC.
Click to expand...
Really, please show me where the justice department was investigated for this under Clinton? ...or any other President?

That is hardly a defense.
I think the bigger news is really the fact that Pelosi is going to be content to let this and other DOJ abuses slide by much the same way that they are with Carl Rove and his being in Contempt of Congress.
Click to expand...
Of curse she will do nothing. She has as much to hide as any of them do. It is such a "if you tell on me I will tell on you" system.
 
What does that mean? If someone writes on their resume 'I entered into the legal profession, because I was concerned about social and environmental justice' they should be rejected and referred for psychiatric evaluation
Click to expand...
No, it means if your resume contained that statement you would be rejected without consideration regardless of credentials.
 
social and environmental justice
Click to expand...

No, I meant what does that mean? What is it? What does it have to do with jurisprudence? Is it code for using the court to institute leftist policies that could never get through a legislature?
 
The right picks attorneys that will concentrate on issues important to the right- like abortion, guns, religion, etc

So does the left.

That is the way it works, and always has.
 
The right picks attorneys that will concentrate on issues important to the right- like abortion, guns, religion, etc

So does the left.

That is the way it works, and always has.
Click to expand...
The president is not supposed to be selecting general staffing of the justice department nor are they supposed to be enforcing political litmus tests to applicants. This is a violation of the law...not just politics.
 
Its all about politics:

One side wanted staff willing to procede with immigration law, and one side didn't.

The "doeses," the right side (no pun intended), went about the process incorrectly. They should have known better, because the ends do not justify the means. Besides, you lose the moral high ground in attacking your opponents when you adopt their tactics. The "does nots," the wrong side, well, they whistle blew, conveniently forgetting their own litmus test isseus and tactics.

Is it better to break the law in the name of enforcing it than to break the law in the name of not enforcing it? Answer: Neither tacts are acceptable. Do not break the law.
 
Bill Clinton fired all 43 of the attorneys, replaced with loyalists (marxists). Also fired the White House travel office (travelgate), and accused the head of the office of theft when there was objection to having nonpartisan job terminated. Just to give the travel contract to leftist friends. Also got the FBI files on Republican background checks (filegate). Hillary seems to have been the mechanism to drain a S&L that cost taxpayers $60M, but the billing records were not turned over for the supoena....they were probably tampered with and found years later in the Clinton bedroom...surprise. Underreported is IRS-Gate where Hillary's best marxist friend from college was put in charge of the IRS. The IRS then conducted "political" audits on enemies of the democrats like the NRA, Judicial Watch and several women accusing Bill of rape or sexual harrassment. The impeachment trial was about abuse of power. The side thing about Monica only happened because Bill lied during the other hearings, saying he did not cheat on his wife so the rape allogations could not be true. The Republicans were too meek to impeach and remove Bill, even though the other charges could not be explained away. I could go on about donations from Indonesia to drop complaints about human rights violations or donations from the president of TRW in exchange for approval for sale of missile guidance technology to China. The impeachment proceedings were not about Monica no matter how often Pravda-Media-USA claims this. This does not even cover the cash paid for pardons to the Clinton Crime Family.
 
Last edited:
That's what I didn't get. As a general rule, when a new DA comes in, he hires his friends, etc. firing all but the oldest, most experienced folks he may not be able to replace.

When the Republicans came in, their failing was not firing everyone just like Clinton did. I remembering thinking it was the most absurd media twist I'd ever heard, of, ever, since only 8 folks were let got, and the demorats were crying about that one.:rolleyes:

Besides, why the heck are we talking about this now? That was what, two years ago???

You can REALLY tell who controls the press in this nation...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top