DOJ Shocker: Civil Rights Division Head Broke the Law

And yes, that title is intended to be sarcastic. The latest report by the DOJ's inspector general into the general lawless chaos of the place under Alberto Gonzales reveals that former DOJ civil former acting head of the civil rights division, broke the law, a lot.

WASHINGTON – Investigators say a former top Justice Department official made false statements to Congress and violated federal law in overseeing the agency's civil rights division....

The report says Schlozman politicized and mistreated his staff and tried to punish agency employees he believed were too liberal. The report cited an e-mail in which he noted it had been a while since he'd had to "scream with a bloodcurdling cry at some commie."

In the same 2003 missive, Schlozman used derogatory language to describe his pleasure in punishing career staffers, writing that "bitchslapping a bunch of (division) attorneys really did get the blood pumping and was even enjoyable once in a while."

At other times, the report said, Schlozman urged the hiring of "real Americans," by which he apparently meant conservatives, as opposed to liberals, whom he referred to as "libs" and "pinkos."

In another shocking development, covered by TPMMuckraker in some of their excellent work on this report, federal prosecutors decided it just wasn't worth prosecuting Schlozman for breaking the law. After all, prosecuting government officials for their crimes is so 20th century. Apparently 9/11 did change everything, including the definition of "illegal." Anyway, TPMMuckraker folllowed up on why prosecutors chose to let this one slide:

We got a bit more information on that question from Patricia Riley, special counsel to the US Attorney for the District of Columbia, which conducted the investigation.

Riley told TPMmuckraker that her office was only asked by the Inspector General's office to look into the possible perjury charges stemming from Schlozman's congressional testimony, rather than the underlying hiring decisions. She said that six career prosecutors, with between 10 and 21 years experience, conducted the investigation, reporting to Assistant US Attorney Channing Phillips (US Attorney Jeffrey Taylor recused himself from the probe).

The investigation continued until last Friday, said Riley, and included interviews with witnesses who were not contacted by the IG's report. Based on that investigation, a decision was made not to bring criminal charges.

Riley declined to say what specific information uncovered in that probe determined the decision.

It's possible that Congress could refer the case back the DC USA, having ample grounds, but the USA would then have to overturn its decision not to prosecute--a decision that was apparently made, according to what TPMMuckraker has been able to determine, without any consultation with the Senators who were lied to. This makes one of them, Judicary Chair Leahy, spitting mad:

I really wish that the current U.S. attorney's office appointed by this administration had prosecuted. I think that the only way you stop such blatant criminal violations by people who know better, people who are sworn to uphold the law, (unint.) that they know they'll go to jail for breaking the law. That's what should have been done. And just because they broke the law in the Bush administration and the Bush administration did not, or deemed not to prosecute, I think that raises real questions. Prosecution should be done no matter who breaks the law. I think about one of the people who testified that same investigation and said that, uh, "we swear an oath to President George Bush." I said, "no, you swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. That constitution is the constitution you're sworn to uphold and I'm sworn to uphold and it's the constitution that reflects all Americans."

...

And when somebody deliberately, purposely sets out to subvert the constitution of the United States, and then lies about it, lies about it, Mr. President, I find that a heinous crime. We will see some kid who steals a car, they'll be prosecuted as they probably should. But when you have a key member of the DoJ lie about it under oath, who subverts the consitution of the United States, all the more reason to prosecute that person. Mr. President what Mr. Schlozman did was reprehensible, it was disgusting, it was wrong, goes at the very core of America's principles. The distinguished presiding officer, like me, had the great opportunity to serve as a prosecutor, and I have every reason to believe that he did not show fear of favor when he brought prosecution, as I did, as I did not, I did not show fear of favor, most prosecutors do not. And when you have somebody who is part of the Justice Department lie under oath, and do it in a way to cover up subverting the laws that protect all of us, the civil rights laws protect all of us, white, black, brown, no matter what our race, our creed, it protects all of us. And what has marked this country since the time I was a young lawyer in the sixties, is our adherence to the civil rights laws. You can't go back to a time where they're enforced for some but not for others.

"Prosecution should be done no matter who breaks the law." Most certainly, including when those who break the law are the president and the vice president. The question is, what's the Senate Judiciary Committee going to do about any of this?

There's ongoing discussion of the report in MisterOpus1's diary.