WASHINGTON, June 24, 2008
Audit: DOJ Weeded Out Liberals, Dems
Dept. Of Justice A Victim Of Bush Administration Screening Of Applicants With Liberal Ties, Report Says
-
(CBS/AP)
-
Who's Who Firings Firestorm Justice Department at center of controversy over firing of eight U.S. attorneys.
In one case, a Harvard Law student was passed over after criticizing the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. In another, a Georgetown University student who had previously worked for a Democratic senator and congressman didn't make the cut.
Even senior Justice Department officials flinched at what appeared to be hiring decisions based - improperly and illegally - on politics, according to the internal report.
"Individuals at the department were rejecting any of our candidates who could be construed as left-wing or who were perceived, based on their appearances and resumes and so forth, as being more liberal," Kevin Ohlson, deputy director of the department's executive office of immigration review, complained to Justice investigators.
The report marked the culmination of a yearlong investigation by Justice's inspector general and Office of Professional Responsibility into whether Republican politics were driving hiring polices at the once fiercely independent department.
The investigation is one of several that examine accusations of White House political meddling within the Justice Department. Those accusations were initially driven by the firings of nine U.S. attorneys in late 2006 and culminated with the ouster of Alberto Gonzales as attorney general last September.
In 2006, under Gonzales' watch, political party and ideology were the chief criteria for getting highly-coveted entry-level jobs in the department, reports CBS' Stephanie Lambidakis. Two former top officials, Mike Elston and Esther Slater McDonald, are accused of outright misconduct for violating civil service laws that ban discrimination, according to the audit.
Elston and McDonald scoured Google and MySpace to screen top Harvard, Yale and Stanford graduates for their political leanings.
For example, Lambidakis points out, three candidates were rejected as "leftists" because they belonged to Greenpeace and anti-poverty groups and a top Harvard law school graduate was flagged for being a member of the Council on American Islamic Relations. One Justice Department official even wondered in an e-mail whether striking another highly qualified Harvard graduate who worked for Planned Parenthood "could be perceived as politically motivated."
The report issued Tuesday concluded that politics and ideology disqualified a significant number of newly graduated lawyers and summer interns seeking coveted Justice jobs in 2006.
As early as 2002, career Justice employees complained to internal watchdogs that Bush administration political appointees had largely taken over the hiring process for summer interns and so-called Honors Program jobs for newly graduated law students. For years, job applicants have been judged on their grades, the quality of their law schools, their legal clerkships and other experiences.
But in 2002, many applicants who identified themselves as Democrats or were members of liberal-leaning organizations were rejected while GOP loyalists with fewer legal skills were hired, the report found. Of 911 students who applied for full-time Honors jobs that year, 100 were identified as liberal - and 80 were rejected. By comparison, 46 were identified as conservative, and only four didn't get a job offer.
The political filtering of applicants ebbed for the three years between 2003 and 2005, the inquiry found, then resumed by 2006.
Of 602 Honors candidates that year, 150 were identified as liberal - including 83 who were cut. Five of 28 self-described conservatives were rejected.
Investigators blamed two political appointees on a three-person screening committee for the preferential treatment. It also singled out one of them, former deputy attorney general staff chief, Elston, for failing to make sure the hirings were proper - and giving evasive and misleading answers about why they were not.
An attorney for Elston, who is now in private practice, did not immediately return a message seeking comment.
Although federal law prohibits discriminating against government job applicants based on their politics, it's unlikely that any of those involved in the hiring process will be penalized since they no longer work at the department. A Justice official said the department is not considering pressing criminal charges or taking or civil actions against them.
Democrats quickly seized on the report to bludgeon the Bush administration for playing politics with a department sworn to uphold the law fairly.
"This is the first smoking gun," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee. "We believe there will be more to come. This report shows clearly that politics and ideology replaced merit as the hiring criteria at one of our most prized civil service departments."
Gonzales' successor, Attorney General Michael Mukasey, said he agrees with all the audit's recommendations to prevent politics from influencing the screening process and has already moved on them.
"I have also made clear, and will continue to make clear, that the consideration of political affiliations in the hiring of career department employees is impermissible and unacceptable," Mukasey said in a statement.
© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
More From U.S.
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 20
- next
See all 381 Commentsnow question is..do you need oil? "
Posted by libsluv2spit
We have gas at 4.14 a gallon.now and the gas was 1.35 befoe the war. I guess the war wasn''t successful in its desired effect.
Posted by bobnjersey
Well said!
There is plenty of blame to spread on both sides. We can''t undo what has already been done. What we have to do is acknowledge and learn from past mistakes. That''s why McCain''s strategy is flawed...it refuses to learn from Bush administration mistakes, particularly in trying to wage wars without funding them. If a war is worth fighting, the President and Congress need to make the case to the public for funding--that means increased taxes or war bonds. Selling our debt to our enemies is such an obvious mistake that it''s unbelievable that our leaders could even contemplate such treason.
We the people need to take responsibility for knowing what is being done in our names and holding the people we elected continually accountable, rather than doing a two, four, or six-year assessment. This administration proved the dangers of blind trust.
Don''t opt out. Cynicism admits and allows defeat.
[Posted by libsluv2spit at 10:10 PM : Jun 24, 2008]
what a load of cr@p this is ... what about the marine baracks in lebanon during reagan''s admin ... where he ultimately packed up and left town? what about the ''93 wtc attack ... which occured two months into clinton''s term ... was this planned and executed once he was elected ... or was it initiated during bush sr''s admin?
your argument has a few holes in it, no?
[Posted by clovisbuford at 12:02 AM : Jun 25, 2008]
people like this fit all the tenants of an ''authoritarian follower''. rationality is not one of their strong points.
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
OBAMA ''08
Posted by libsluv2spit
Human rights have been an interest of the US for years. But i guess oil interests trump human life. So in other words the war was about oil.
Posted by libsluv2spit
I believe we invaded Iraq based upon UN sanctions. So much for "jurisdictional" issues.
al franken heads the Homeland Security
and Cindy Sheehan is the attorney general.."
Posted by libsluv2spit
Al franken is funny and i would like to see him in the senate. I would like to see cindy Sheehan home with her mouth muzzled.
everytime famous liberal icon bono and geldof do thier famous live concert..who do you think gets the benefits???
regime''''s debts are being forgiven meaning more money for arms..meaning more people oppressed..meaning more arms to point at UN rescue troops..
how long has been since the liberals had the "famous we are the world" concert?? any progress??
btw..where are the liberals and the UN and the EU on Burma..any success any movement?? getting a lot more "FU" and middle fingers from the regime??
IMCOMPETENCE AND WEAKENESS"
Posted by libsluv2spit
So the liberals are weak and incompetent because we did not audit "we are the world" concert. I guess I got to get out more if that is the definition.
As I remember taht for the last 7 and 1/2 years the conservative bush has been dealing with burma and nothing has happened. so according to you taht makes him incompetent and weak. That is a big thing for a conservative to admit.
"i dont think the africans are laughing at your joke..they are still trying to figure out how to get the liberals out of africa.. "
Posted by libsluv2spit
I did not know taht liberals in africa was a problem. I thought it was dictators, genocide, drought, hunger, war and aids. my mistake.
What do you mean by place or party wher it is pure competence? I don''t understand your question
lets start with family values and morals.."
Posted by libsluv2spit
That was a rhetorical question.
by the time you guys are done..you would have a football field full of new laws and MORE CRIMINALS "
Posted by libsluv2spit
Perhaps we should have people of competence rather than a political philosphy do the job of "implement ing" the law. Who says I am a liberal.
Posted by libsluv2spit
wow waht a stretch in logic. Is there anything that you can not blame the liberals for.
Posted by libsluv2spit
I guess that was the problem. The incompetence of you and your conservative civil servants do not know waht is criminality.
Posted by libsluv2spit
And what we got was incompetence and criminality for the price of one. That was conservatives wasn''t it.
Posted by libsluv2spit
That is a surprise, I thought the nobel committee in sweden gave out nobel prizes. Silly me, never thought i was liberals. ;)
do you want a terrorist/criminal loving liberal in any law enforcement agency? "
Posted by libsluv2spit
Question really is whether we want competent people to handle the legal issues of our country. Bush decided he wanted yes men/women rather than competence.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 20
- next
See all 381 Comments