Comments (61)

Anonymous wrote on May 7, 2007 7:15 PM:

We're big-time now...

Senator Leahy, Congressman Conyers, don't stop until you get to the bottom of the shenanigans in CRT!!!

Security Code - bent, as in what DOJ is.

profmarcus wrote on May 7, 2007 7:18 PM:

just watched it... high time this is hitting the national cable news channels... hooray...

http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/

CJ wrote on May 7, 2007 7:39 PM:

Hey guys! I can't get the link to the CNN story. I've tried both Opera and IE and both are a blank.

Rebel wrote on May 7, 2007 7:42 PM:

Senator Leahy is unstopable IMHO. He will be like a bull dozer moving through a weed patch and there won't be much left of the Republican party by next year.

If the GOP thinks they fought rejection by the public in 2006 election, just wait for 2008.

Youffraita wrote on May 7, 2007 8:15 PM:

About damn time! Muckraker posted a link showing that something like 3/4 of Justice investigations were against Democrats. And I seem to recall some stuff from the various document dumps about "loyal Bushies."

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002420.php

steambomb wrote on May 7, 2007 8:23 PM:

I dont give a fuck what their conviction rate is. They can cook the numbers however they like. The bottom line is that if they broke the law and there is evidence that they broke the law then they should be tried and punished under a non partisan, non biased law.

ROTTEN wrote on May 7, 2007 8:24 PM:

I was reading and wasn't going to post but I happened to scroll down and security code is SNAKE. LMAO! No commentary required.

Keep digging Dems!

libra wrote on May 7, 2007 8:25 PM:

Of course they have the highest, ever, rate of convictions. Not difficult, if you you bring up only once case, and that for reverse discrimination.

steambomb wrote on May 7, 2007 8:28 PM:

If the GOP thinks they fought rejection by the public in 2006 election, just wait for 2008.

Posted by: Rebel

Thats the money quote. You are spot on and this is, believe it or not, very troublesome to me. The GOP cowards need to rise up and take their party back. If they dont do something to that end, we will be with a one party system for a very long time. That is not good for the country. It makes me want to put my foot (code word) in someones ass!

me wrote on May 7, 2007 8:32 PM:

I hate these guys so much.

Security Code: Unamerican scumbags. All of them.

shipwreckedcrew wrote on May 7, 2007 8:36 PM:

Lets see -- here's what CNN said about Scholzman:

He told a guy to take OUT of his resume the fact that he was a Republican.

Since political considerations are not to be considered, what should Scholzman have done?

Since political affiliation isn't a criterion for hiring, the resume of the applicant shouldn't contain any reference. Scholzman told the guy to take out the inappropriate content.

Or, do the wingnuts here think that once the applicant included the fact that he was a Republican on his resume that he was disqualified from seeking employment with DOJ, and Scholzman should have tossed the resume in the trash.

Is it the view of this site that only Dems need apply to work at the Civil Rights Division?

Just because an applicant is a member of a conservative legal group like the Federalist Society, does that disqualify them from working at DOJ? Are some divisions of DOJ reserved only for liberals? Shoule Civil Rights be limited to hiring card-carrying members of the ACLU, or persons who have contributed to People for the American Way?

pol wrote on May 7, 2007 8:37 PM:

The GOP cowards need to rise up and take their party back.

It's nice to hear Republicans called cowards, for once.

Michael Markman wrote on May 7, 2007 8:42 PM:

98% conviction rate suggests that they only prosecuted cases that were (to borrow a phrase) slam dunks--cases where the offense was so egregious that even a Republican might notice it.

me wrote on May 7, 2007 8:44 PM:

Are you naive enough to think, shipwreckedcrew, that this was Bradley dotting "I"s and crossing "T"s?

Or are you just being dishonest to all of us?

Tell you what.

Let them open the records and send it to congress.. I trust Lehey and Co. to come back with an honest verdict.

Which is more I can say about _any_ member of this corrupt cess pool of an administration.

Spencer's Mom wrote on May 7, 2007 8:45 PM:

So what if they have an alleged conviction rate of 98%? The REAL question is what cases have they pursued?

If you ignore specific cases, for partisan reasons, your "conviction rate" is illrelavant!!!

And the walls...come crumblin' down!

PEACE

kailuacaton wrote on May 7, 2007 8:46 PM:

Kieth Olberman had Scholzman story on too.

GHB wrote on May 7, 2007 8:49 PM:

Just two points shy of Stalin's conviction rate.

steambomb wrote on May 7, 2007 8:51 PM:

Or, do the wingnuts here think that once the applicant included the fact that he was a Republican on his resume that he was disqualified from seeking employment with DOJ, and Scholzman should have tossed the resume in the trash.

You must not read much. He told them to take the republican shit out and then RESUBMIT them. Shortly after that they were highered. Mr Schlozman has also been quoted as asking someone when they submitted suggestions of personell "are they one of us?" You can take your talking points and try and run them by someone else. Schlozman is in deep trouble. The congress will ferret out the rest of the Bush reich. We need a debushification. Where have a heard that before? Oh nevermind.

Pinson wrote on May 7, 2007 8:51 PM:

How do we know the GOP is in complete disarray? They're sending their 3rd string trolls like shipwreckedcrew over here to post now. Sad. Dude, there are now multiple documented instances of bad behavior on the part of Schlozman. Seen in isolation, yeah, this might sound like a minor incident. Seen in light of the fact that this is the same Schlozman who a) bullied several career Civil Rights Division employess into quitting; b) filed trumped up voter fraud indictments against liberal registration workers the week before the fall elections - against department policy - and heck, just go read Josh's rundown from yesterday.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/014000.php

Then come back and post some more of your silly wingnut talking points so we can taunt you a second time.

WingNut1 wrote on May 7, 2007 9:04 PM:

shipwreckedcrew asked "Since political considerations are not to be considered, what should Scholzman have done?" Wrong question. The issue here is that the events as described fit into a growing pattern of evidence suggesting use of public office for one party's benefit. In this case, bias is illegal. More smoke in a very smoky room, I would say.

jeffgee wrote on May 7, 2007 9:15 PM:

Telling the applicants to take the Republican affiliation out of their reumesis like a lawyer saying something out of line in a trial, then, when chastised, saying "strike that". Stricken from the record or not the bell has been rung; the jury heard it.
Schlozman found out what he wanted to know. The resubmission of the resumes was to have no record of the partisan requirements.
Schlozman sounds like a name from the old Mad Magazine "Lighter Side of..." cartoons.

uncel vester wrote on May 7, 2007 9:15 PM:

What's the present status of Schlozzie's timely indictments against the ACORN people? Have the charges been dropped yet?

Stuart Shaffer wrote on May 7, 2007 9:16 PM:

I assume the CNN segment on the DOJ was followed by a piece on the vapidity and worthlessness of political blogs.

uncle vester wrote on May 7, 2007 9:16 PM:

can't even spell my own handle right

damn

Richard in Jax wrote on May 7, 2007 9:23 PM:

Lets see now...shipwreckedcrew Sez:
"He told a guy to take OUT of his resume the fact that he was a Republican" ..emphasis his on 'OUT'. Ya see Schlozman was ticked by the partisan angle and wanted it all gone. Just one problem: what was the GOP reference there in the first place? Did the applicant feel it was important?
And the finale :
"Just because an applicant is a member of a conservative legal group like the Federalist Society, does that disqualify them from working at DOJ? Are some divisions of DOJ reserved only for liberals? Shoule Civil Rights be limited to hiring card-carrying members of the ACLU, or persons who have contributed to People for the American Way?"

Wow what a cool turn around! Well except no one is talking about what disqualifies someone from working at DOJ, just what became a defacto QUALIFICATION to get a job there and that damn sure was not an ACLU card. I think the analogy is poor unless our buddy can document Schlozman's ever hiring an ACLU'er or People for the American Way'er.
Nice try but it smells of winger desperation.

JamesRobert wrote on May 7, 2007 9:27 PM:

If the Prez can tap folks of like political mind to the Supreme Court, a lifetime appointment, what's the big deal about an administration doing the same at the DOJ? Isn't this why they fire the whole lot when a new president comes in?

uncle vester wrote on May 7, 2007 9:28 PM:

never mind- reread the relevant post and had my question answered

Mcboo wrote on May 7, 2007 9:41 PM:

Shipwreckedcrew:

I think you are missing the point. Or perhaps you are not and are simply trying to twist it. Here's the thing...politics should not be a part of this process and we all "seem" to agree on that. Everyone also seems to agree that PEOPLE have their own political beliefs and many have a political party. Now that's two things we can all civilly agree to. Here's where our agreement appears to hit a snag: Having that information on your resume is disclosure and is honest. Hiding it is the opposite of that. And to initiate an action that is directly related to a persons politics makes that very initiative political in and of itself.

So saying you are a Republican or Democrat is not being political. Hiding that information so that no one knows that you are hiring only people from within your own party is.

It appears to me that all the Republican bluster over this scandal (and many of the others actually) all boils down to trust... the Republicans PROMISE us that they would NEVER do anything wrong and are extremely agitated that ANYONE (especially those liberal Democrats) would ever dare to question that. But at this point trusting a Republican promise would be tantamount to saying Neville Chamberlain was a gifted visionary...

Sec. code: judge (and gavel and bars oh my!)

TheraP wrote on May 7, 2007 9:46 PM:

The blogger's prayer:

You can change some of the people some of the time.

And trolls will never change.

And the wisdom to know the difference.

"good"

sholom wrote on May 7, 2007 9:48 PM:

1. "Shipwreckedcrew" has a point -- in a way. The fact that Schlozman asked somebody to remove his affiliation doesn't amount to a whole lot. There *is* a whole lot of evidence (from testimony of folks who quit) that Dems were screened out, and *that's* what will make this case run.

2. "JamesRobert" asks the following question that needs to be answered:

"If the Prez can tap folks of like political mind to the Supreme Court, a lifetime appointment, what's the big deal about an administration doing the same at the DOJ? Isn't this why they fire the whole lot when a new president comes in?"

The answer is this: there are certain top level jobs which are called "political appointees", and the Admin can indeed fill those with politicos. But for the "career track" employees, it is a felony to discriminate on the grounds of political affiliation.

Taking a broader view: DOJ is the place you'd _least_ want political shenanigans going on. Respect of law is a cornerstone of a well-functioning democracy.

Anonymous wrote on May 7, 2007 9:49 PM:

On CNN the quote from justice was a 98 percent conviction rate - did somebody check that out?. From earlier information it appears that they only tried to reduce Civil rights cases and it is probably a lie or a stretch of the truth. - like charges fell to virtually zero and we won one that was against Democrat voting rights

jmano wrote on May 7, 2007 9:52 PM:

Someone should check this out with Jay Carney at Swampland to make sure there is a story here. In perilous times like this, we need a cautious, Carney-like hand at the helm of the good ship Reportage.

Ian wrote on May 7, 2007 10:03 PM:

Folks understand rigging the justice system is wrong, if not illegal. Its not a Republican or Democratic Party issue, its an issue of fairness--in both hiring and prosecution. It really is THAT simple. What is amazing to me is that it has taken the Media this long to cotton on to that fact.

dhs wrote on May 7, 2007 10:04 PM:

Koodos to TPM for a job well done. Keep up the good work.
This is good for the country.

My own opinion is that the DOJ is so corrupted that Congressional hearings alone cannot set it right. Ultimately the House and Senate Judiciary committees will have to turn the matter over to a special prosecutor (Patrick Fitzgerald?) to clean the mess up. As I said before, no one, including Miss Monica Goodling, should be given immunity. All should be subject to criminal prosecution. All should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, including maximum fines and prison terms.

Perverting the Justice Department to engage in actions to violate voting rights of minorities is disgusting. We are dealing with a Fascist takeover of the country by the Republicans.

Mark wrote on May 7, 2007 10:15 PM:

I noticed the 98% conviction rate comment too. So what? No atty concerned about his/her record wants to dump a case.

I thought the core issue was a change in the type, location, and quantity of cases brought that might indicate the use of the office for something other than intended.

EH wrote on May 7, 2007 10:15 PM:

Who puts their political affiliation on their resume?!

Anybody who is hoping for a (re) transformation of the DoJ better hope for more people like Ty Clevenger, people who speak up even though they benefitted from partisan hiring policies.

Beck wrote on May 7, 2007 10:21 PM:

In response to "JamesRobert", keep in mind that a Supreme Court nominee has to at least be confirmed by Congress. Not so when hiring at the DOJ. And consider that these politically motivated hirings can/will have almost daily ramifications to our justice system/democracy. Their goal is to influence elections thru restricting minority voting and increasing the number of investigations against DEMS. They have to keep the power no matter what!!

absent observer wrote on May 7, 2007 10:29 PM:

reporter---> "Remember: It's illegal to... but that's exactly what Democrats suspect that Bradley Scholzman... did."

Corporate Media. They reduce everything to a "he said, she said" gossip column. There is no "Democrats suspect." Try instead: Rational fucking people suspect, regardless of their party affiliation or lack thereof.

MWGallaher wrote on May 7, 2007 10:35 PM:

Weird...CNN in their botched reporting gave the Shloz cover. If I'm Everyday Joe watching, I see: "Political affiliation is not an appropriate criteria for hiring." "Shloz told them to delete Republican credentials from their applications." To me, Everyday Joe, it sounds like he was just making sure their politics *weren't* factors...meanwhile, the story is portrayed as if they were. Major disconnect.

opuspa wrote on May 7, 2007 10:37 PM:

WOW !! a 98% conviction rate for the Civil Rights Division. That's a bogus figure because all prosecutors -- especially within the U.S. Justice Dept. -- have the ability to cherry pick the cases they want to pursue. A more meaningful measure of performance would be to compare reported civil rights complaints to cases filed, and cases filed to case outcomes.

opuspa wrote on May 7, 2007 10:38 PM:

WOW !! a 98% conviction rate for the Civil Rights Division. That's a bogus figure because all prosecutors -- especially within the U.S. Justice Dept. -- have the ability to cherry pick the cases they want to pursue. A more meaningful measure of performance would be to compare reported civil rights complaints to cases filed, and cases filed to case outcomes.

chuck wrote on May 7, 2007 10:38 PM:

I hate to be a concern troll (for the Republicans), but I'm very concerned that if they continue their present course, they will lose many seats in Congress in 2008, not to mention the White House.

As a remedy, I would counsel the Republicans to embrace universal health care, advocate withdrawal from Iraq, increase the minimum wage and ratify the ERA.

Only because I'm concerned about Republicans losing elections in 2008. Very concerned.

LOL! That felt good! LOL

Code word: "Poison," as in what the right wing blowhards have done to our civic discourse.

Anonymous wrote on May 7, 2007 10:47 PM:

Can someone name *something* that these fuckups *haven't* turned to lead???

cal1942 wrote on May 7, 2007 11:00 PM:

Excuse me Steambomb but the Democratic party had both houses of Congress and the White House for 20 years (for 2 years during that period the GOP had Congress but lost control in the '48 elections). For the next 16 years the White House was 8 years GOP 8 years Democratic and Congress was 14 years under Democratic contriol and 2 years GOP.

That era, once the fuzz wore off, was the golden age of the Republic.

The Democratic party has always been very diverse, that is, a party that encompassed a wide range of belief and opinion on public policy.

The single party rule we've experienced in the past 6 years was from a GOP with a single ideological viewpoint on public policy.

When it comes to single party rule I'll take the Democratic party version.

Insofar as mixed rule is concerned; at various points in our history (specifically from 01/53 to 01/61) was acceptable because there was a general concensus, a vital center.

Today that doesn't exist because of the highly ideological GOP.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 7, 2007 11:28 PM:

Help! I'm looking for the four cases of voter fraud filed by Schlozman in Missouri in November 2006 in Lexis-Nexis and PACER.

I found one case, USA vs Stephanie Davis, which I think was the one where the indictment had the wrong name on it because Schlozman's office was in such a rush. The case was dropped 11/20/06.

A blog listed Caren Davis as one of the defendants but her name is not in PACER.

I'm interested in the status of the four cases. Any ideas?

Big Al wrote on May 7, 2007 11:43 PM:

Hey folks, if Rove and his gang of thugs manage to "cage" votes in 2008, it won't make a dime's worth of diffence between the outcomes of 2000 and 2006. They'll elect one of their turkeys and we'll have another Bush II in the White House.
There's enough Dems to control the House, Senate and Executive for decades, but it won't happen if we allow Rove & Co to do their vote rigging again.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 7, 2007 11:56 PM:

@May 7, 2007 11:28 PM

In my previous comment, I said I couldn't find the four cases of votr registration fraud brought by Schlozman on or around 11/1/06.

The USA-WDMO press release index is missing the press release about the four indictments along with Schlozman's statement (link below).

Plus I can't find any reference to the four indictments in Lexis-Nexis News.

What am I missing here?

jeffgee wrote on May 8, 2007 12:19 AM:

Is there only ONE photo of Monica Goodling in existence? It seems so. Every story about this travesty shows the same photo of her in the Regent U t-shirt.
Maybe she's afraid photos will steal her soul.

Monica Watch! wrote on May 8, 2007 12:30 AM:

Better photo of Monica here:

http://www.law.com/jsp/dc/PubArticleDC.jsp?id=1174912588726

ShorelineCT wrote on May 8, 2007 1:01 AM:

"If the GOP thinks they fought rejection by the public in 2006 election, just wait for 2008."

Rebel

The way the White House keeps foot draggin' out the lies and such, it's almost certain that many trials and convictions will line up nicely with the 2008 election cycle. No need for the Dem's to point out "Culture of Corruption" as there will be a littany of R's in jail or on trial and heading there.

TPM ROCKS!

PJ White wrote on May 8, 2007 1:31 AM:

I expect Schlozman to soon discover an overwhelming need to spend more time with his family. He's such a party loyalist, he'll probably JUMP under the bus to protect his Dear Leader. That should not stop Congress from investigating. We need an independent prosecutor (NOT Patrick Fitzgerald who pulled his punches in l'affaire Libby) to make sure these dung heap rats pay their DEBT to society. Keep little Scooter company in the Big House.
SC= debt

Robert Earle wrote on May 8, 2007 3:16 AM:

reporter---> "Remember: It's illegal to... but that's exactly what Democrats suspect that Bradley Scholzman... did."

She goes out her way to say "Democrats suspect...".

Well, that's because a couple of REPUBLICANS from the DOJ told them that's what's going on!!

paul lukasiak wrote on May 8, 2007 4:47 AM:

I'm wondering if the accusation that Schlozman told applicants with GOP backgrounds to remove the GOP references might explain the gaps found in two other winger resumes.

Both Tim Griffin and Matt Dummermuth have four month gaps (January-April, 2005) in their public resumes. Could they have been attending some kind of GOP training camp during that time?

sigrid wrote on May 8, 2007 8:05 AM:

If they have 1000 complaints and pursue 100 of them, winning 98 cases, they have a 98% conviction rate. Very impressive. I wonder what their follow up percentage was in Ohio, Florida and New Mexico after the elections.

JM wrote on May 8, 2007 8:31 AM:

This reminds me of a Seinfeld episode wherein Elaine discovers that her boyfriend makes $100K a year.

"Does that matter?" he says.
"Oh, no," says Elaine. " . . . but it's very nice to know!"

noshrub wrote on May 8, 2007 10:12 AM:

What a bullshit story. 98% conviction rate. Oh, and Gonzales wasn't present for any discussions on firing, either. CNN has a long way to go on this. Keep educatin' cuz they are way behind.

Yajnavalkya wrote on May 9, 2007 12:33 AM:

Given that these pod-people were able to 'salt the mine' of the DOJ with what I believe is 125+ 'luminaries'--graduiates of that fourth rate law school that is the Regent University School of Law--and on the additional assumption that for each slot thus filled with loyal Bushie clonewood/deadwood, numerous better qualified applicants from demonstrably superior (i.e., not fourth tier)law schools must have been turned down. With this many obviously gored oxen running around and the generally litigious nature of the profession--that is what they train for, right?--I am surprised that no one has filed an individual or class action lawsuit. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me there must be some cause of action in there somewhere. In short, more than one well qualified applicant has surely been deprived of something without due process.

Anonymous wrote on May 9, 2007 12:37 AM:

(Edited version of above post.)

It is known that these pod-people were able to be 125+ 'luminaries'--graduates of that fourth rate law school that is the Regent University School of Law. It is also reasonable to assume that, for each slot thus filled with loyal Bushie clonewood/deadwood, one or more better qualified applicants from demonstrably superior (i.e., not fourth tier)law schools must have been turned down. With this many obviously 'gored oxen' running around and in the context of the generally litigious nature of the profession--that is what they train for, right?--I am surprised that no one has filed an individual or class action lawsuit. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me there must be some cause of action in there somewhere. In short, more than one well qualified applicant has surely been deprived of something without due process.

yajnavalkya wrote on May 9, 2007 12:40 AM:

(The Third time is the charm. Let's see if I can get it right this time.)

It is known that these pod-people were able to hard wire the hire of 125+ 'luminaries'--graduates of that fourth rate law school that is the Regent University School of Law. It is also reasonable to assume that, for each slot thus filled with loyal Bushie clonewood/deadwood, one or more better qualified applicants from demonstrably superior (i.e., not fourth tier)law schools must have been turned down. With this many obviously 'gored oxen' running around and in the context of the generally litigious nature of the profession--that is what they train for, right?--I am surprised that no one has filed an individual or class action lawsuit. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me there must be some cause of action in there somewhere. In short, more than one well qualified applicant has surely been deprived of something without due process.

auel wrote on May 9, 2007 4:48 AM:

What happened to the vid? Has CNN pulled it already?

auel wrote on May 9, 2007 5:00 AM:

vid finally showed up.

Special Prosecutor needed by not Fitzgerald, who took a dive - where is the indictment and conviction of cheney/rove who outed Valerie Plame.

See also the very strange goings-on in fitz's handling of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. He was working with Chertoff.

someone needs to investigate Patrick Fitzgerald IMO.