I know that many of you have expressed concern about the "Goodlingization" of DOJ and the lasting effect that her politically motivated hires into career positions at DOJ might have on the fairness and integrity of that agency going forward. We have had reports of some political appointees taking voluntary demotions in career positions as part of process known as "burrowing in".
Some have suggested an old Soviet era style political purge. I disagree.
First, I disagree because it is unfair to those people Goodling hired. She didn’t tell them she was passing over more qualified candidates in order to hire the ideologically pure (or the Regent Law School alum). The people thought they were qualified, or they would not have wasted their time applying in the first place. And, who knows? Maybe some of them turned out to be good at their jobs.
Firing someone based on faults in the hiring process, as long as the person hired was not knowingly gaming the system, seems just as much a threat to integrity as the faulty hiring process itself. Also, think about the devastating effect on morale.
Secondly, those individuals who may have come to push an extreme right wing agenda are going to self select out of DOJ once it goes back to its pre-Bushco culture. Believe me, long hours at not a huge salary where virtue is its own reward and where you cannot abuse your position to benefit your friends or injure your enemies is NOT going to be fun for the mendacious among them. They will be bolting for the doors.
Lastly, the disrepute into which DOJ has fallen during the Bush Administration, and especially since the revelations about Monica Goodling and Brad Schlozman’s hiring practices, have worn away some of the luster that the DOJ experience once gave to a young lawyer’s resume. Consequently, and perhaps related to chronic underfunding issues during the Bush administration, DOJ has been largely hollowed out.
When you take the already depleted ranks and add on the mass exodus expected between now and Inauguration Day, followed by the people who will find a newly reinvigorated culture of integrity WAYYYY too stultifying (as opposed to me who would find it bliss) and leaving when they find out they can no longer get away with the kind of shenanigans they were used to, whatever few Goodlingites remain will likely be too diluted in number and location to cause much damage.
No, with all the vacancies already in existence at DOJ and likely to occur in the near future, my bigger concern is that there may not be anyone left to turn out the lights.
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
How about 1) rechecking their resumes for any discrepancies? and firing those that do; and 2) removing civil service protection (I’m assuming they have it)?
My obvious question is , do you see Obama cleaning house as seems to have been common place for an incoming President to do, or do you see Republican screamers waiting to start foaming at the mouth and hindering the transition, or, frankly, both?
If Goodling approved their hiring, isn’t that a guarantee that their leanings are toward the right?
Why not assume that ALL of Goodling’s hires were political, and start over? It may not have been the employee’s fault that they were hired under wrongful standards, but it is a fact. were it not for her preconditions, they would not likely have been hired in the first place. Isn’t justice supposed to be blind/impartial/apolitical? Isn’t THAT the most important job qualification?
Hit reset.
lhp, is it possible or realistic for Obama’s AG to hire back some of the good people we lost over the eight years
of Bush/Rove selling DOJ to the highest bidder?Also, who are your top three picks for AG?
I know this was a concern with the Senate was grilling Mukasey, would there even be anyone there at DoJ, that so many people left, cases were not getting prosecuted.
Much as it pains me, I agree that we can’t simply fire career employees even if they were obviously chosen for their political loyalities. If they’re incompetent, eventually they’ll be let go.
The political appointee’s actually responsable will be gone with the administration change.
Boxturtle (Obama’s a lawyer, I bet he can fill those DOJ positions from his rolodex)
If you are talking about normal civli service, General Scale (GS), employees, rather than political appointees, they would serve a probationary period of one year. After that, they could be terminated with cause, either some violation, or after documented unsatisfactory performance, following a period of warning, improvement plans, etc.. Otherwise, in recent years, many government agencies have contracted out previous civil service positions to private contractors. Those can be released without cause, if that practice has been applied at all to the DOJ.
I agree with you that any purge of permanent civil service employees would be counter OPM rules put in place to insure fairness and prevent political influence. Civil Service employees engaged in activities counter to the Hatch Act are subject o discipline up to firing, depending on the violation.
looseheadprop, let’s hope that’s the way it goes, I am pretty cortain the ag can influence that kind of activity with a few projects
lhp,
as always, I so appreciate your insight in to this. I didn’t have toobz when you wrote your Hollowed Out piece.
why am I not surprised they starved DOJ ?? at a time when they were slashing Community Policing by 60% – oh yeah, The Law and Order Party
thanks Prof!
I’ve been wondering if there is some way to ask everyone in DOJ to undergo some minimal sort of competency test to retain their jobs going forward. Like passing something along the lines of a federal version of the bar exam. Let the chips and bad hires fall where they may, regardless of when they were hired and by whom.
They will be bolting
forthe doors.That’s a terribly silly argument. We should keep incompetents on the job because they didn’t realize they were incompetent and unqualified?
“Life isn’t fair, highness. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something.”
Too bad it’s unfair: this is too important an issue to matter. I’m all for a purge myself. If we want to dress it up by having a “review of qualifications” or some other theater, that’s fine. But seeing as the wingnuts will screech no matter what is done, we might as well cut to the chase and just escort people out of their DOJ offices with their belongings in boxes. The quicker the better.
Really?
The radical politization of the Justice Department is far too important to just “let it go” — and hope for the best.
In fact what has been done to Justice has made a mockery of the very word. The concept itself is now alien to the Department, and under the circumstances, it may be best just to abolish the whole Department and start over.
I have to respectfully disagree lhp. First time ever, I might add. There’s a “loyalty” factor that I worry about. I wonder if the left overs wouldn’t report to whoever from the Bu$h Crime Family and if that could impede certain goings on in the Department. I’m not being vindictive when I say that I would prefer that each and every person who EVER worked for Bu$h in any capacity anywhere be removed ASAP. And then reexamined if and when charges begin to be filed, if accountability happens. WHICH IT BETTER, or we’ll all be right back there again in the clutches of an illegal government.
I think Jane put it once, “a criminal administration with it’s hands around the nation’s neck” or some such thing…….
Get em out! and do it ASAP. a total purge.
but that’s just me.
We don’t know they’re incompetent. We don’t even know that they are political hacks. Much as it pains me to admit it, there are some bright committed people working on the Right.
If they behave like political hacks (you shall know them by their actions), then terminate them. If they work and play well with others, leave them be.
Will there be enough left to fit Karl for his orange jump suit?
Why do you suppose they weren’t told of the litmus test?
This clique of Regent’s grads seem to believe in only doing what is right ( according to them ) That would include tacit if not overt understanding of where one stood with them.
This also applies to the thought they would bolt for money when the new admin comes in. They are doing gods work remember.
The only way to undo the damage is to make the very large leap that all hired the last 8 years are suspect. Using that as a basis, go through the files of where they are and how they got there. If at any time Goodling, and company was the sign off for promotion or position somewhere like civil rights or voting, then they are identified for jettison. Promote them immediately and make them in charge of nothing and ask for status reports. Make it clear its time to go. Be nice about it, but bye bye time is here.
bille
The career civil service employees are valuated each year. If they are found incompetent, they can be fired after warnings/remedial chances. Any use of political influence on their part would be a basis for discipline/firing. Any “purge” of them, without documentation of unsatisfactory performance or some violation of the law by them, would be a violation of the law and would subject the purger to discipline/dismissal.
The political appointments can, and most likely will, be replaced. Remember Bill Clinton’s replacement of almost all U.S. Attorneys at one time. That’s normal for a new administration.
That is not what the post said.
This does not mean all the Goodling hires are competent or incompetent. It just means their competence has yet to be determined. When it is determined, and incompetence can be proved within the layers of the Civil Service rules, then the incompetent employees are let go.
We are supposed to be better than the other guys. Why would you desire to lower yourself and follow their standards of operating?
That’s a good thought Jim, but competency may not be the problem with many of those people. It’s the ideology “break” from tradition at the Department/reality. And I don’t think I ever heard of an “ideology test” unless someone administers accepted psych evals on everyone, which seems “Naziesque” to me. Just get rid of em. All of em.
Just do it, clean it out and start over.
s
Sorry but Goodling and her ilk were hired for one reason and one reason only and that’s because they are good little cristian soldiers who can be counted on to break the law because Bush waves a bible in their face and Alberto commands them to do so.
Fuck them.
If I was Obama the FIRST thing I would do is appoint a top AG then review every single hiring that took place during the last 8 years and fire ANYONE that was hired during that time. Please don’t give me this “oh that’s not fair” bullshit. Those people were hired based on their political affiliation not to mention that they came from 4th tier schools.
I say PURGE them and hire the best legal minds in the country. I don’t care about their politics, just give me experts on the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the RULE OF LAW!
Remember, some appointees have been converted to civil (?) service by Bushco to keep wingnut agenda alive, if dormant, at the DoJ!
Let’s pretend for a second, as a thought exercise, that the DOJ is a business with a production facility in which workers are required to have specific levels of training and pass certain tests at a benchmark level, because what they do could be dangerous to themselves, their co-workers and the community if they are unable to operate at a baseline level from day one on the job. (Chemical companies, for example, may have pretty rigid levels of acceptable minimum education, training and experience for production jobs.)
And then let’s pretend their hiring process abruptly aborted the process without notification, permitting anybody that met fairly arbitrary but undocumented standards to be hired.
What would you expect a new CEO to do if this had been discovered before the new CEO came on board?
Sorry, but I think EVERY single hire from 2001-2008 needs to be reevaluated. There may be many that can be kept on, but there are too many reasons why some of these folks would not “self-select” themselves out of a job, not the least of which is the economy and the disarray of the right-wing, for them to continue to hang on as long as they can in their roles.
And every single appointee needs to be replaced. Period. This is the president’s prerogative; it’s important because the appointees set the tone and pace for the department/function.
I’m aware of Federal Regulations on how to evaluate and rate employees, how to review conduct and impose discipline, and how to conduc a Reduction in Force (RIF). I’m not aware of any which authorize or specify how to conduct a purge.
wingnut sleeper cells.
The problem for the most part will solve itself at DOJ. One good leader will do it. There will be no insentive for anyone to stay if they have any sort of agenda. That is the way I hope it goes.
Well, the question should be “what are these people who Goodling hired still doing, and what is their position with in the department?”
In my view, they could “leak” to GOP, and make the department look and misuse there knowledge against the DOJ for the new administration.
Yes, it may seem unfair to those Goodling hired…but one must look deeper than just the surface of her hiring practices which set off a “domino” effect with in that agency.
The New AG is critical in navigating the internal activities and making the morale with in the department and excel because most have suffered enough for the last 8 years! And maybe, things will be more professional and focused on the rule of law, because no one is “above the law.”
Thanks, LHP!
In other words… no purges…no nothing. Just fairness. I know it’s a foreign concept.
You said: Too bad it’s unfair:
But, see that’s the difference between Dems and Repubs.
The difference between being moral and immoral.
We’ve had a country governed by that philosophy for far too long. It’s why we have a new president starting a job next year.
Too Bad doesn’t work for my heart. It doesn’t work in a positive way for the citizens of our country.
But, I acknowledge your frustration.
I think LHP’s article is marvelous because it’s fair.
If we can’t be fair and tolerant, then we might as well just go back to sleep.
AS a retired federal civil service personnel director, I can tell you that the DOJ people hired for political considerations knew full well why there were being hired!
Hiring, reassigning, and promoting federal career civil service personnel for political considerations has been a prohibited persponnel practice under federal civil service law since 1978. Persons so hired, ressigned and promoted are subject to appropriate disciplinary action, as are the people who contributed to this activity. You can bet that career DOJ employees will be blowing-the-whistles on these people beginning the morning of January 21, 2009.
Oh please! Enough of this idea of being kind to Liberty University graduates who almost certainly aren’t qualified for these jobs. Let’s get back to the meritocracy concept asap so we can save the country.
One last note, if those she hired are afraid of the new administration’s actions and policy’s, most will quit!
But one must be cautioned on the human behavior of the “yes” person in order to save face..or others!
They can be used for something. What would it be?
What’s the likelihood that lobbyist, telecom immunity proponent and one-time senior Clinton DOJ lawyer Jamie Gorelick will find herself replacing Bush’s Tom Hagen, Mikey Mukasey?
I ask because to me, that would be an undesirably strong a signal of “business as usual”. It would be a missed, once-in-an-administration opportunity to bring to national prominence talented new people who have the background and experience needed to address today’s problems, not Clinton’s.
Janet Napolitano, for example, has the first-rate political, administrative and legal experience needed to lead and rebuild the DOJ, whereas Gorelick has the legal and lobbying experience, but not the administrative or political experience. She brings badly needed, outside-the-beltway experience, connections and loyalties that Gorelick does not.
Gorelick is also badly tainted by her support for telecom amnesty, which suggests that she shares the “sweep it under the carpet before the guests see what it is” attitude the Village admires, but which has earned Congress its lowest-ever ratings.
I wait with patience!!!!
We are supposed to be better than the other guys. Why would you desire to lower yourself and follow their standards of operating?
Why I love your comments.
It’s what I was trying to say, but you said it better.
Are you calling Billy Joe Bob Bible and Lawyerin’ College 4th Tier? These gradjuates learned their ciperin’ and prayin’ and even readin’. They ain’t got no librul nooances and leegul preseedents that have made Amurika Gawdless. The only lawbook we need is the Old Testamint.
Yes they will. That is the way it will work.
How would you prove they knew they were being hired for political reasons. Have you ever seen a form or questionaire which asks someone’s political party? Are you aware of any employment interviews which were taped or recorded? I spent 36 years as a civil servant, the fact that political favoritism was involved in a personnel action would be about as difficult as proving that sex, age, or any other prohibited consideration was a factor, maybe more so.
Yes, we ARE better than them. This is the chance to prove it.
Are you new here? Can’t remember seeing your handle.
Yes, some people come here to lay down a rant.
Some people aren’t that way.
But, welcome, anyway.
I get that there are a lot of angry people out there. Oh, I do.
He may have been talking about the political appointees.
YEA!!! Maybe we will get REAL legal interns – top of the law grads from respectable universities and colleges.
If so, the new administration will most likely replace them all anyway, in due course. The only reason it became questionable under Bush was that he was firing a batch of his own appointments for inlikely reasons which they challenged.
You can bet staff in the DOJ offices of the Inspector General and the Professional Responsibility are already taking names for the upcoming ass-kicking. The offenders will be called in called in and offered the opportunity to resign or face being fired (the later a professional death sentence).
Difficult to prove but they why they were appointed. They will slink away. Or retire. Whatever.
Agreed. 1000 percent.
They were hired for their politics, not their competence. If they were competent, they would have been aware that some of the litmus test questions asked them were illegal. Do we really want them as sleeper cells in the DOJ?
this is one of the problems that bushco has left us – no one is going to trust the actions of the doj unless there is some transparent process to bring justice back to the doj. i don’t know what that process should be – but there needs to be something, this can’t just be ignored if you want a doj that has legitimacy in the eyes of the public.
i understand why someone on the inside will rightly be concerned about the fairness of the process to the people on the inside – but as someone on the outside, i’m more concerned about the fairness of the process to the public. indeed, as public servants i think the doj’s primary responsibility is to the public at large.
Love is stronger than hate.
People can say that it was the economic down turn (ha ha) that pushed people to vote for Obama. Could be, but also, I have a strong feeling that we as citizens are tired of the lies and don’t buy the Negative anymore.
I loved it when during her interview with Obama, Rachel was pushing him to be more negative, and he said, well, we’re up in the polls, so we must be doing something right.
Love may not be as easy to live minute by minute as hate…but, in the end, it’s all we’ve got. And, it is a Winner!
It isn’t the Goldling piss ants, it is the moles Chaney has put in probably all departments that are the problem.
Once the thugs get a whif of the bama direction they will cut bait. It will not be fun for them.
I just came up with that without seeing yours. You first. What beverage may I get you that would delight you?
Wait, wait. I know the tradition, but I would personally love to buy you each one of your choice.
Hadn’t read this when I said the same in 48. I owe you a beverage of your choice too. What are you having?
Funny thing, my daughter grads in the up coming spring…She works for the VA in records, but her major is audiology..I have suggested to her to just wait until the end of Jan. 09 to see what can happen because she wants to go to grad school…
The tension is not just in the DOJ, but VA, EPA,DOT,DOE,DHS,SSA,gosh this list is so long, but the regular civil servant just plugs along until the moral issue gets addressed.
OT – our very own professor foland has the inside story on the problems larry summers had at harvard (summers’ name is being floated as a possible treasury secretary in the new obama administration so this is an especially timely diary).
Yes, that’s right, “too bad it’s unfair.”
It’s a matter of priorities.
I am content to be “unfair” to a bunch of political hacks in the DOJ in order to secure “justice” for the entire nation.
Should progressives be “better than” wingnuts? Yes.
Does that mean we should naively expose the nation to injustice for the sake of fairness? No. We have a responsibility to justice that far exceeds being fair.
If we can be fair AND secure justice? Then fine, do that. But do that will all due speed, because the politicization of the Justice Department has crippled one of the three branches of our government, and that cannot be tolerated.
Hate has had a great run these last 8 years. I’m not so sure Palin’s real americans are willing to give it up just yet. Americans are the least educated on the planet. Only when their pocketbook is damaged is it cause for concern. Nevermind invading/occupying/killing.
What a great way to put it!!!
BOTH of ya!
And you KNOW how those Christian’s are about that kind of thing, all waitin’ for Christ and the “doing Christ’s work” bs, hell!
they’d stay sleeping as long as they had to “knowing” they’re all waiting for the return of dumbya, or whatever they believe.
it’s corrupted. route it out down to bare nothings and rebuild it in the founder’s vision!
Sleeper cells. EXACTLY!
indeed!
1,822 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
Citizen looseheadprop and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:
“…long hours at not a huge salary where virtue is it’s own reward and where you can not abuse your position to benefit your friends or injure your enemies is NOT going to be fun for the mendacious among them.”
But for those who aren’t capable of cuttin’ it in the “real world” that guaranteed salary WITH health and pension benefits looks very good…not to mention the possibility of leveraging their position into the private sector for “services rendered” or information that could turn millions in civil actions.
No dear, the civil service folks are gunna hafta clean house quickly and review all appointments and hires in the last eight years and cut those who shouldn’t have been hired in the first place if there were better qualified candidates in the beginning.
I’m disappointed that you would be willin’ ta tolerate slow-growing cancers and stealth sabatoeurs in the DOJ civil service …do ya remember Linda Tripp fer Christ’s sake??!!
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, AND NO MERCY AND NO QUARTER!!
Watch. They will leave in droves. No one has to lift a finger.
There is a lot of anger. But, this is the time for moderation.
The individuals who were hired this way got their career civil service jobs because they listed their political connection. Further, the personnel office and the career staff know who was hired this way and why they were hired since the career professional DOJ staff that used to screen career type hires were by-passed during the Bush years.
The people hired to excepted service positions (Schedule A and C) are not typically covered by civil service law, unles they violate the prohibited personnel practice provisions of that law.
I agree. I also agree that civil service rules need to be respected, strengthened and enforced. The grapevine in DC is better than any jungle drums or bamboo telegraph. Wannabees tailored their resumes and experience to Bush’s priorities. Those who didn’t didn’t get hired. Stints with the GOP in Florida were dredged up, memberships in the Federalist Society were quickly established and paid up, as were church memberships, just as past “liberal mistakes” (e.g., voting for another Republican than Bush, e-mails favorable to unions, the environment or civil rights) were expunged or downgraded.
Those hired quickly assessed the lay of the land; many bought into it, some, like Goodling and Sampson, without restraint. The latter may not be the first to go; they may treat the Obama DOJ experience like a Mormon prosyletizing the heathen. Plus, the moles will not be at the top. They will be junior or mid-level. They will obstruct surreptitiously; otherwise they become vulnerable to routine discipline and firing. Those who stay will work to a longterm plan; they are most likely to be useful by leaking, harder to catch (though in many cases, more readily justifying firing), and the Hatches and Kyl’s are likely to protect their secrecy.
The best thing Obama’s new leadership team at the DOJ and across the federal bureaucracy can do is to move aggressively, lead by example, and make their top people keep up. They will also need to provide the resources and the juice for their people to get their jobs done.
Thank you, sir. May I have another?
Just enforce the Hatch Act…and remind them of their rights when lead down to the court to face their maker!
Just who do you think should have been retained in Nazi Germany’s high offices and government? I don’t recall seeing that having happened. Keep the good people? I don’t think they even gave THAT the first thought.
The DOJ never went so far as Hitler’s SS and buds, but they sure seemed to me to be headed in that direction!
Hey, interns are not the problem. Interns come and go over short time spans.
Nor are political appointments the problem. They’ll be changed ASAP.
The potential problems are the civil service hires, at least at the GS grades, maybe the SES medium-sized dogs, too. But they have to be dealt with strictly according to the rules. The end (a depoliticized DOJ) does not justify the means (a political witch hunt, even if we know for sure there are witches.)
sounds great. i’m in the mood for a cup of hot chocolate right now.
Well, I hope so. But GS-14 and GS-15 jobs aren’t to bad for a lot of attorneys. Almost more hopeful is the fact that, supervised by political appointees who are intent on conducting the duties of the DOJ in accordance with the Consitition, the remaining underlings can’t do much but comply.
I like it Earl.
Citizen Albatross:
Right on, Citizen, if Obama’s folks don’t excise the cancer his term will expire in less than four years…especially if the stupid Democratic leadership keeps Likuderman in charge of Homeland Security!!!
You don’t get civil service tenure until you have completed 3 years. So more recent hires would not have that protection
Patience my friend.
Sorry. I’ve got PTSD from this presidential campaign I think.
Only when their pocketbook is damaged is it cause for concern.
Right. I’ve learned Follow The Money works every time.
I do agree with you, I think, that a lot of votes went to Obama because we citizens have taken it up the…you know what.
Not the most noble reason for voting in our new President.
But, I think we will all benefit. It couldn’t be woice.
As long as it is cold; Revenge is best served that way!
fine piece of thinking on the topic of protecting our future, norske.
I agree with regard to excepted service positions, if that’s all we’re talking about. But you must acknowledge that no one hired under competitive civil service rules could be successfully fired, based solely on the fact that they were hired by Monica Goodling or one of the others.
I do think that for public jobs, illegally awarded, there has to be consequences for the illegal award. IMO, that means you have to re-open the positions. You don’t bar the current holders from applying, but I don’t see how you make the laws regarding these public interest jobs, paid for by taxpayers and required to be awarded under certain standards, mean anything unless you take some kind of action. To me, you re-open the positions illegally awarded and then let everyone, including current holders, apply.
I’m not really sure about your second point – that the loyal Bushies will be self-selecting out. Right now there are all kinds of “career” folk at DOJ who have lots of years under their belt. Absent Obama appointing the likes of an Ashcroft or Gonzales, who will be inserting the WH political interests into every decision, I think there are plenty of people who will have the ability to mentor their picks and pricks and hold a fair amount of authority to set up people for internal advancement and case assignment to build resumes etc. And they don’t have to worry so much about virtue as its own reward if they have some highly placed mentors – DOJ has landed all kinds of pro-torture lawyers into all kinds of postitions of prominence and pretty well-paying slots. With Obama bending over backwards to be bipartisan and not “interfere” in the dept, I think there’s been way too many years of slotting for people to pull out. And the fact is – they know that they have been surrounded by the non-ideologues who still sat silent through it all. If someone sits silent through 6 years of torture, I don’t think the pro-torture crew have to worry that much about suddenly having a lot of pushback. They will be the guys and gals with all the “experience” “fighting” “terrorism” and Obama just isn’t much of a beacon on that particular front. The reports are that he’s already playing around with the concept of secret courts for GITMO detainee trials and no courts for US torturers. The reports are also that he’s keeping Mueller (along with Bernanke and Mullen) and it wouldn’t shock me much to see him keep Hayden.
I guess the biggest thing is that I just don’t understand how you see there being a “a newly reinvigorated culture of integrity” just bc Obama comes into office. For example, torture and massive felony violations and DOJ stage orchestrated press conferences to put out lies to the American people were de rigueur while people like Comey, who you have touted for AG, were pretty much running the store (OLC and DAG). If what is being offered up is more of that, from whence will come this new culture of integrity?
Or more to the point – how does an institution with hundreds of thousands of employees, 99.9999999999% of which have silently or vocally supported, by act or omission, torture and destruction of evidence of Executive crimes and abuse of process to attack political enemies of the Executive – how does that institution with those people ever have the capacity to even recognize, much less invigorate, integrity?
I don’t know what would be the sadder outcome – empty seats with no one to prosecute and oversee legitmate cases, or seats that continue to be filled with all those who said nothing for 6+ years of Executive felonies and torture and even killings and disappearances of children.
Are Liberty & Regents accredited?
Me too. It’s cold. And, that’s rare here. Pinky Swear it was 100 degrees last week. Had the heater on this morning. Bought some wood for the fireplace.
It sure is a Change In Seasons.
New weather.
New president.
New names at the lake.
Woot!!!!!
My top 3 picks for AG?
Jim Comey–b/c he understands exactly what the mess is, has thought long and hard how to fix it, I’ve heard his plan, and I think he can hit the ground running and git it done.
Also because he has demonstrated that he has the spine to stand up to a president when he has too.
Pat Fitzgerald–cause I think he can do anything he puts his mind to.
Michelle Hirshman–who was the brains (and sometimes the braun) behind Spitzter’s successes as NYS AG. She too, knows how to get it done.
Sheldon Whitehouse–who I adore–did not make this list because he cannot be spared from SJC. And that is the ONLY reason he did not make this list.
Yes, people who quit in disgust can be hired back and I believe–based on the odd comment or two over a beer or on the phone , that many are hoping to be asked
I know for a fact that solid cases are not getting prosecuted b/c there are not enough bodies to d the work.
Citizen Californiarealitycheck:
“…this is the time for moderation.”
With all due respect, that is complete bullshit…FDR was “moderate” in his first term and it almost cost the country it’s democracy (Huey Long’s assination might have saved the New Deal.) The circumstances today are politically even more dangerous than 1933, the fascists have the Clinton experience in the tank and have cadres all over DC and in the security apparatus and institutions. No this is NOT a time for moderation.
Good point. If they are then the accrediting process/agency should be scrutinized. Who does this btw?
The Hatch Act would not apply to these people unless they were involved in overt or covert prohibited political activites. This is why the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 provided for prohibited personnel practices.
Jim would be the obvious choice. I’m not sure of Pat’s management ability. I am sure of Jim.
B/C Godling spent a great deal of time doing these elaborate Google searches on them, rather than asking them to their faces about their polictical backgrounds or leanings. She did it behind the backs of the applicants.
Just a thought…I wonder if those who are keeping the GOP faith are shredding material or bearing the material deep into the bowels of boxes or cleaning hard drives (what Rep. Coners) has repeatedly asked for?
Now, I ask this with out any knowledge…because Chaney had a company come to his personal residence a few years ago to pick up his shredding material.
Now, if they did…that is a violation of their job.
Just a question!
Yes, Yes, and hell Yes !!!!
worry about all that Lockheed money, but there is that boy scout streak in him – you know, that that would find it difficult not to serve his country when asked
Sorry, we disagree. It’s okay.
Pat Fitzgerald – no losses on appeal, no leaks !!!
It appears Liberty has an asterisk indicating provisional accreditation by the ABA but Regent is in the clear.
There will be no incentive for anyone to stay if they have any sort of agenda. That is the way I hope it goes.
>
That’s what I was trying to say in my “secondly” section
Yes, it will be no fun anymore. I’m with ya.
Citizen californiarealitycheck:
I don’t think Comey would leave what must certainly be a seven figure nest in the private sector unless his buddy Fitz put the moves on ‘im…and I wouldn’t want Comey unless Fitz was there as a special prosecutor or IG…could they craft an Asst. AG position for Fitz to oversee the US Attny’s?
If it’s Gorelick, I’m gonna have a full time job just writing about screw ups at DOJ.
Please HJC, no Jamie!!!
whatever happened to those pricks who gagged the Fed lawyer’s closing arguments in the tobacco suit – are they still there ???
The fact that Monica Goodling hired, reassigned or promoted them(career civil service employees)is irrelevant; what is relevant is if they were hired, reassigned or promoted for any one or more of a number of reasons prohibited under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (political considerations is one of the prohibited reasons). Check the law, it is quite clear (I also was a labor arbitrator for nearly 20 years after I retired from the federal civil service).
Uh, that’s SJC not HJC. Can’t type worth spit
I don’t think Comey will either. Just imagine the dream team of Comey/fitz.
I believe we will have to settle for mere mortals.
Thank you
She dint! But, that’s like, kinda cheating.
But, yes. Cheating is Easier!
That’s why we have to Not Cheat. Do It Right.
That’s a wonderful thought. But will they have the goods? What might these career civil servants have on the goodlingites?
hmmmmm, thanks! got anything in a good CA zinfandel (Amador County)?
Thanks for the link. I just left a long comment.
What Bargain said
Yes, we need to do it “the old fashoned way. Earn it.”
New Christy upstairs on GOP hypocrisy
Just came by so it might have been pointed out by others.
Does anyone seriously believe this? If you are a product of Regents and you know your friends are finding it easy to get jobs at the DOJ, are you going to say, “Well, I don’t know. Maybe I’m no sufficiently qualified” or are you going to say, “Gee, X was a total idiot and if he got a job there then I can too”?
Second to Bargain.
I don’t know who does accredidation & not interested enough to look it up. I typed the comment because I thought I had heard one wasn’t at some point in the past. Figure those who feel more strongly than I do will follow up.
Yes, Hugh, in their heart they know.
why yes, i do believe we have some in the wine cellar. let me check. *pads quietly down the stairs into the wine cellar* ah, yes, my friend, coming right up, just smell that bouquet. does it suit your fancy?
Actually, I WILL look it up. There is a story here. Thanks.
Got to say that I find it surprising coming from some in this group of DFH’s that you are recommending a blanket firing of all Bush Civil
Service appointments to the DOJ.
Wouldn’t an Obama administration by doing this be doing the exact thing that we accused Bush of; politicizing the DOJ? Let this happen every 4 or 8 years with every change of administration and soon DOJ would find it very difficult to attract good talent. Overall that would be a real loser.
They will be replacing political appointees. I think these people are going to be able to work within the system to weed out. Believe me, there are ways.
1,822 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
Citizen looseheadprop and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:
Mrs. Norske and I saw the movie “W” yesterday and I encourage every Firepup patriot to see it…not because it is a great film but because it exposes so many of the threads of corruption and how easily and how quickly they were woven into the fabric of our government. This is especially important to remember with regard to this specific topic but also generally with regard to the argument over whether or not Obama should go “moderately”. Obama and his adminstration can be careful but also decisive and far reaching…after all that’s Obama’s strength.
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION… DON’T WHIMP OUT NOW FOLKS!!!
Wow…just think what Meril Linch is thinking now after being bailed out? :)
This could be a logistical nightmare, but is conceptually doable. It has an element of fairrness to it, though I would hate to be the person who tried to do such an enormous undertaking.
Also, there is the effect on moral. These people get paig a flat salary and work tremendous amoutns of overtime. you have to be enthusiatic to work your 11th straght day of 7 am to midnight.
Goodling solicited most of these applicants from Regent, etc., and I understand that they were told to list their Federalist Society/ conservative credentials. Goodling had to use google or other search engines to look up the political leanings of those who who applied and did not have the desired conservative credentials listed. They were then non-selected because of political considerations. This is why the career professional staff was not allowed to review the records of and select from among career positions applicants (as they had done for at least 50 years). Mulkasey did put this reveiew and selection process back into the hands of DOJ career professional staff. But he did nothing about the improper hires!
sixty,
You are correct.
I do hope that Mulkasey is shaking in his “boots.” He is just a bad as the other two patsies.
This is not space engineering; the career people always know who the political hacks are and why they were appointed.
I understand that with regard to excepted service positions, but there could be no approved employement form for competitive civil service positions which documents political party, since that would be a violation in itself. Absent that, I don’t know what you would use to prove that anyone was hired into a competitive civil service position based on their political affilitation, or that they new that was a factor, even if it was. Moreover, while it would be counter to the law to hire someone on that basis, it would be interesting to see the phrasing of a law which could make it illegal to be hired based on that factor. I participated in a lot of decisions which had to find a way to make whole someone not selected ased on discrimination. In no instance, was the guiltless party selected in their place removed. Rather, some additional position had to be created to accommodate the injured person. Any discipline only involved the selecting official.
ML is history. They are one of my clients. Might be ten years.
Is that two of us? *g*
He is not a notch better?
Re: Pat’s management ability, he seems to come out well inthe EARS process. NDIL appears from outside to be a well run, happy shop. He also ran one of the most bang for the buck special proescutors gigs we have ever seen. The bulk of the costs for that? 1) attribution of a percentage of salries )so gov’t had no net out of pocket) 2) plane travel and per diems. Even his office space was not a big item, so I’m guess they worked in cramped quarters.
I’m not worried about his management ability. Yes, Comey is a proven product
I defer to you on this issue.
LHP,
Thanks for an excellent post!
Mary,
Thanks for responding to LHP. Your cynicism balances LHP’s optimism. I think we need both.
A lot will depend on who the new leadership is, and what kind of example they set. Their appointments will be closely watched, as will their first major decisions.
However, Obama might go the ’stealth’ route. He still has a delicate dance to do between now and inauguration day: Bush is playing nice right now, but he’s still president. If Obama were to appoint someone with a big Clean House! profile, the atmospherics would change, and the Bush-Cheney regime would adopt a defensive posture. I predict Obama will nominate an AG who takes a low profile until Obama is inaugurated.
Bob in HI
Norske, darlin’ Comey has been mwearing his heart on his sleeve with regard to DOJ ever since his “I love the Daprtment” moment when he was testifying. Furhter has has been going all over the country speechafying about his plan to reform DOJ.
He has been publicly jonesing for the job
I wonder if you’re too just for your own good LHP. Still, I admire someone like you, and hopefully you’re right that they’ll leave.
LHP,
Thanks for dropping into the Comments– I’ve been looking forward to your responses to some of the comments.
I’ve heard that “some guy from Massachussetts” is being touted for AG. Do you have any idea who that might be?
I like your top 3, but I also like bmaz’s nomination of Janet Napolitano over at the Wheel House. What’s your evaluation of her?
Also, how tainted is Jamie Gorelick? Is there a good place near the top level for her, or is she too tainted now to be a good nominee?
Aloha!
Bob in HI
He came off during his confirmation hearings as a “really great honest rule of law” AG, as for the other two were just playing the script given to them from Rums and Chaney..as M goes, he just sold congress a bill of sale and produced no goods!
He is a player, but his temperament and style is different from the other two.
The DOJ has suffered enough over the last 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 years!!!
As Bush says “smoke’em out”
A new AG that knows, understands, and fully upholds the Constitution is a good place to start. From there, place supervisors of like mind and all the Goodling underlings will be presided over by their moral, ethical, and political betters. They won’t be able to do much harm and wont be able to tolerate the new environment.
Oops, OK, LHP, I see your answer @99 to my Q. I thought so.
Thanks!
Bob in HI
Jamie Gorelick is the genius behind the “Wall” that did not allow the FBI counter intelligence people to talk to the criminal division people about Al Queda. There was no law that required this, she decisded to go WAY WAY beyond what the law required to avoid fruit of thepoisonoius tree problems and just made up this dumb rule.
The people I know that did counter intelligence work all make the same grimaced face, as if they would like to throw up, when her name is mentioned.
Then she accepted a spot on the 9-11 Commission despite her obvious and accute conflict of itnerest and turned the Commission into a paper tiger b/c they felt like they had to cover up for her.
It would not be a logistical nightmare: you just need a personnel director with some smarts and guts and a small investigative team to review personnel records and conduct interviews.I got rid of a number of illegal hires this way (inherited fronm the Nixon and Reagan Administrations), including some Schedule Cs in the 197os and 1980s.
Obviously not LHP but I believe the ’some guy in Massachusetts’ would be a reference to Gov. Deval Patrick.
Gorelick was a pusher of the Telecom amnesty and part of the 9/11 ‘committee’ mishegas and those two items alone should be enough to say no way no how no Gorelick.
“They are known by their fruits;” their employment applications would contain most of the evidence. And you also take a look at the hiring or promotion registers. The career staff personnel staff too would know who they are. This is not space science. You call them in, tell them that they were hired in violation of civil service law and offer them a choice: resign or face removal charges for participating in a prohibited personnel practice. No attorney wants a crime conviction on their records.
Obama understands the Constitution and will make sure (I hope)that he has a “on hands” approach in each agency and deals with Bush’s signing statements and goes through Cheneys office and files with a microscope!
In other words, you find them guilty and punish them without a trial.
i really appreciate your being on this thread. wouldn’t it be nice to have you come out of retirement for a couple of years to oversee some of this. would that be interesting for you?
Tom you are clearly not afraid of the sysiphean stables.
This has been a living nightmare…and in some strange way what happen on Nov. 4 showed them that they are no longer valid, but after this honeymoon has settled, part of me wants “revenge”! is that wrong I just want to feel again…:)apart of my government!
I have heard the Gov. patrick was on some people’s short lists. I know NOTHING about the man. Zero, zilch and therefore have nothing upon which to base an opinion
as much as i respect LHP, enough folks have already called BS on this post. NEW DOJ bosses need to do a full review of BUSHCO hiring policies and then use what they have discovered review and place on probation or fire all the GOODLING AND OTHER FUNDY APPROVED hirings.
142 et pre – I think you have a few people like Monica with immunity deals who might be required to continue to provide cooperation, with respect to the who-s and how-s of her efforts to stack DOJ. Also, I think the immigration judges have a lot of info already spelled out on how those were handled. In any event, I think if that immunity deal had teeth, Monica could be forced to ante up info to clarify slots that could and should be re-opened. You might not catch evertyhing that way, but you’d at least do something.
148 – Patrick, Holder and Napolitano are the ones that I’ve heard most frequently, but that’s just a quantitative take.
92 – “there is that boy scout streak in him” go ask Maher Arar’s little girl about that boy scout streak. I’m betting she’d have a very hard time finding it – is there a special badge you get for covering up for Larry Thompson and John Ashcroft and George Bush and filing a “state secrets” affidavit to cover up a man’s DOJ initiated torture? I guess he must have the same boy scout streak that Haynes took with him to Chevron – what with Comey bending over backwards to try to get Haynes and his torture portfolio onto the 4th Circuit. Higazy, Padilla – the boy scouts of today must be very different from what I remember.
LHP,
I suspect that you have your Greek examples mixed up!
The Stables you have in mind, I think, are the Augean ones
However, sysiphean might be a nice Freudian slip in this regard!
Sisyphus was the poor dude whose eternal challenge was to roll the rock up to the top of the hill, but whenever he got it up that far, it would roll down the hill and he’d have to set to work rolling it back up the hill.
Let’s hope that the DOJ problem is finite, and not infinite!
Bob in HI
You are right, mixed greek metaphors–word salad for Prop today. :-)
No, You find the evidence, confront them with it and offer them the oportunity to resign or face administrative action leading to removal. They can then appeal that administrative action to the Merit System Protection Board for its review and decision.
Look, I would volunteer to do this job for per diem expenses (which would be few) since I already live in the D. C. area. The heavy lifting part — identifying and removing from the federal civil service rolls the attorneys hired in violation of law — of this could be done in less than three months by three competent people. The appeals, if any, could last for a year or more. I doubt that we are talking about mnore than 400-500 attorney hires. The non-attorney hires might be more numerous.
They know where the bodies are buried.