Wow. At Last.
The Times just published an article about this Report.
Justice Department officials over the last six years illegally used "political or ideological" factors to hire new lawyers into an elite recruitment program, tapping law school graduates with conservative credentials over those with liberal-sounding resumes, a new report found Tuesday.
The blistering report, prepared by the Justice Department’s inspector general, is the first in what will be a series of investigations growing out of last year’s scandal over the firings of nine United States attorneys. It appeared to confirm for the first time in an official examination many of the allegations from critics who charged that the Justice Department had become overly politicized during the Bush administration.
"Many qualified candidates" were rejected for the department’s honors program because of what was perceived as a liberal bias, the report found. Those practices, the report concluded, "constituted misconduct and also violated the department’s policies and civil service law that prohibit discrimination in hiring based on political or ideological affiliations."
The report says that in 2002, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft's advisors fiddled with the "honors program" to favor credentialed conservatives. Instead of career Justice officials selecting candidates, the political officials began selecting conservatives and Republicans as part of their six year effort to "reshape" the Department.
It got even worse in 2006 with Gonzales and two of his aides, Michael Elston and Esther Slater McDonald whose job it was to block any prospective hires who happened to be liberals, no matter what law school they came from, especiall from the civil rights division which the administration has succeeded in eviscerating.
Applicants who talked about the environment or "social justice" were apparently automatically rejected!!
Member of the neocon Federalist Society, "Hey, Welcome, Friends!"
Outraged? Yes. Still.
UPDATED:
Must hate wolves...
...members of a screening committee were asked to weed out "wackos" and ideological "extremists" who sought work in a competitive honors program for entry-level attorneys or as summer interns.
It said the committee rejected applicants with liberal or Democratic affiliations at a much higher rate than those with Republican, conservative or politically neutral backgrounds.
One candidate, a Harvard student fluent in Arabic who was at the top of his class, was put in a "questionable" category evidently because of his membership in the Council on American Islamic Relations civil-rights group.
Another candidate was described by a U.S. attorney who was asked for input as someone who "appears to favor a reintroduction of wolves" on federal lands.
Every year this "honors program," puts around 150 law school graduates "with top credentials" into
Justice jobs.
Critics in the department had argued that hundreds of high-quality applicants had been rejected because of their ties to left-leaning nonprofit groups or clerkships with Democratic judges and lawmakers, according to correspondence at the time. One Harvard Law School graduate said that when he applied for the honors program a few years ago he was warned by professors and fellow students to remove any liberal affiliations from his résumé.
Other forthcoming reports concern (1) prosecutor firings, (2) problems in the civil rights division and (3) statements by former attorney general Alberto R. Gonzales. On referall has already been made to a grand jury.
Last week the Justice Committee chaired by Conyers had a hearing with the civil rights division and it was hair-raising to say the least.
Justice was prejudiced!
"Many qualified candidates were deselected by the screening committee because of their perceived political or ideological affiliations" in 2006, the audit concludes.
It found that such disqualifications "constituted misconduct and also violated the department's policies and civil service law that prohibit discrimination in hiring based on political or ideological affiliation."
Meanwhile, a lawsuit was been filed yesterday:
.... three-hour court hearing, telling U.S. District Judge John D. Bates that he should force former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers to testify and White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten to turn over documents.
While expressing skepticism at White House claims that the aides enjoy "absolute immunity" from compliance with the subpoena, Bates peppered House lawyers with questions about whether he even has the authority to intervene in the dispute. Judges typically have allowed the president and Congress to work out such differences themselves.
"Whether I rule for the executive branch or I rule for the legislative branch, I'm going to disrupt the balance" of power, Bates said.
The lawsuit is the first filed by either chamber of Congress seeking to force the executive branch to comply with a subpoena, according to both sides.
Note: Since this was written hurriedly, I added additional information since there was no other diary on the matter.