« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
If Monica Goodling "crossed the line," as she famously admitted during congressional testimony last month, Bradley Schlozman appears to have flown over it.
The Washington Post focuses on Schlozman's handling of the appellate section when he was a senior political appointee at the Civil Rights Division, and finds that even being a Republican wasn't enough to assure Schlozman of a lawyer's abilities -- you had to be his kind of Republican:
Schlozman raised the question of partisan politics bluntly in the fall of 2004, they said, when asking appellate supervisors about the "loyalty" of division lawyer Angela Miller, who had once clerked for David. B. Sentelle, a conservative federal appeals judge. He told Miller's bosses that he learned that she voted for McCain in the 2004 Republican primary and asked, "Can we still trust her?"He also warned section chief Diana Flynn that he would be keeping an eye on the legal work of another career lawyer who "didn't even vote for Bush," according to colleagues who said they heard Flynn describe the exchange. Miller told several of the colleagues that she considered Schlozman's remarks a form of intimidation, and started looking for another job, the lawyers said.
Schlozman and several deputies also took an unusual interest in the assignment of office responsibility for appellate cases and, according to the lawyers and one of the supervisors, repeatedly ordered Flynn to take cases away from career lawyers with expertise and hand them to recent hires whose résumés listed membership in conservative groups, including the Federalist Society.
The Post also confirms something first reported by TPMmuckraker last week, that Schlozman had told a new hire in the appellate section that he was clearing out career lawyers in order to replace them with "good Americans."
Comments (8)
islandliberal wrote on June 22, 2007 9:59 AM:The Schloz. When are we going to see him perp-walked into Gitmo? Has our Constitution ever faced a more despicable unlawful enemy combatant than The Schloz, with his whinneying non-denial denials and laughable evasions?
islandliberal wrote on June 22, 2007 10:05 AM:The Schloz. When will we see him perp-walked into Gitmo? Has our Constitution ever faced a more despicable unlawful enemy combatant than the Schloz, with his whinneying non-denial denials and laughable evasions?
POed Lib wrote on June 22, 2007 11:15 AM:What is the statute of limitations on this kind of stuff? After the next election, presuming that a Democrat is elected, can we come back and indict these pieces of shit?
Salmo wrote on June 22, 2007 12:45 PM:Broader echos of Nixon. It appears that it's not illegal if the right kind of Republican does it. I do not understand why the powers of the Congress are not employed to stop this gross violation of our Constitution, laws, and sense of what our nation stands for.
JNagarya wrote on June 23, 2007 3:19 AM:Broader echos of Nixon. It appears that it's not illegal if the right kind of Republican does it. I do not understand why the powers of the Congress are not employed to stop this gross violation of our Constitution, laws, and sense of what our nation stands for.
Posted by: Salmo
Date: June 22, 2007 12:45 PM
Perhaps if explained to you often enough, you'll finally understand it:
The Democratic majority in the Senate is largely illusion; and in the House not sufficient to do as you demand, without the support of a sufficient Republicans.
The Democrats don't yet have that sufficient support. That is not the fault of the Democrats; it is the fault of the foot-dragging Republicans.
jeffs wrote on June 23, 2007 10:11 AM:What I want to know is this: Are Presidential pardons limited on the basis of quantity?
Could be a 2009 spin-off of 'The Grand Ole Docket:' A Who's Who-type directory of Bush admin. officials, with one section devoted to those pardoned, and another devoted to those not.
Robert Benjamin wrote on June 23, 2007 9:11 PM:Re JNagarya's comment" The Democrats don't yet have that sufficient support. That is not the fault of the Democrats; it is the fault of the foot-dragging Republicans."
I wish that it were so. From where I sit, the fault lies with those who voted for them, or were too lazy or cynical to get off their asses and vote against them.
I think we need to face the fact that our leadership problem is still dwarfed by our followership problem. Until more citizens act like citizens, the scum will continue to cover the pond.
dbl06 wrote on June 24, 2007 6:30 PM:The House needs to start impeachment proceedings against Gonzo. It would send a message to Admn Officials who are lying to Congress. After Gonzo is forced out the ensuing confirmation hearings should set a benchmark for the next AG to prosecute the ones who have lied including Gonzo.