May 29, 2007

The Next Scandal At Justice?

The Prowler at the American Spectator reports that the next scandal at the Department of Justice may reflect very poorly on the White House -- the Clinton White House. While the Democrats rant over Monica Goodling's unsurprising revelation that the DoJ considered political connections for political appointments, the Prowler reports that the Janet Reno-led DoJ did the exact same thing:

"We knew the political affiliation of every lawyer and political appointee we hired at the Department of Justice from January 1993 to the end of the Administration," says a former Clinton Department of Justice political appointee. "We kept charts and used them when it came time for new U.S. Attorney nominations, detailee assignments, and other hiring decisions. If you didn't vote Democrat, you weren't going anywhere with us. It was that simple."

In fact, according to this source, at least 25 career DOJ lawyers who were identified as Republicans were shifted away from jobs in offices they held prior to January 1993 and were given new "assignments" which were deemed "noncritical" or "nonpolitically influential." When these jobs shifts came to light in 1993, neither the House nor Senate Judiciary committees chose to pursue an investigation.

This is the same issue that has caused a wave of criticism from the Democrats in Congress during this session. It's what makes this part of the so-called "scandal" so laughable. Of course political appointments get political vetting. Of course affiliations matter in these positions. While I don't think making lower-level assignments dependent on those affiliations is a good practice, it was naive to think that this administration differed from the last in that aspect.

This reminds us that the real scandal at Justice isn't that anyone broke the law in firing the prosecutors, although Goodling thinks she broke the law in her personnel practices. The scandal is the incompetent manner in which all of this was handled, and the absentee-manager performance of Alberto Gonzales. By pushing a non-existent legal case against the Bush White House, the Democrats overplayed their hand and made themselves look foolish by raising expectations of a Monichristmas for the netroots.

UPDATE: I forgot that I "must credit" Right Wing Nut House for the incredible scoop that Reno's DoJ also played politics with hiring and assignment decisions!

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/cq082307.cgi/10091

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Next Scandal At Justice?:

» The next DOJ scandal from Sister Toldjah
Well, whadda ya know … political affiliations played a BIG role in judicial nominations/appointments - the CLINTON administration, that is: For all of the posturing by Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee during the testimony of former Depa... [Read More]

Comments (15)

Posted by patrick neid | May 29, 2007 12:02 PM

without the press ginning up the story there is no possibility of accountability in scandal coverage. this latest story being a case in point. almost all committee hearings are the result of prior news coverage. very rarely does congress self generate. instead they read newspapers like poll data and react accordingly.

i continue to be amazed that repubs have been electing presidents, 28 of the last 40 years, despite living with a belligerent press.

Posted by dave rywall | May 29, 2007 12:45 PM

So, during all those years under Clinton, no Republican thought it worthwhile to scrutinize the hiring practices of the then Attorney General? My, how unobservant. Or is it incompetent.

Sounds like sour grapes and an attempt to cloud the issue - the Republicans got caught today but 14 years ago the Dems didn't, the only reason being that Repubs weren't paying attention.

The "they did it too" complaint would have a lot more weight to it if the Repubs had been doing their job of oversight a decade and a half ago.

Posted by Captain Ed | May 29, 2007 12:47 PM

Who controlled Congress in 1993?

Posted by burt | May 29, 2007 12:56 PM

I believe both Goodling and the Reno raconteur indicated that politics strongly influenced non political jobs. That may verge on the illegal.

Posted by dave rywall | May 29, 2007 1:47 PM

I dunno who controlled congress in 93. I do know anybody can bitch about anything anytime if they want to, though. Doesn't appear that that happened when, perhaps, it should have. To complain about it now in May of 2007 is pretty lame.

Posted by rbj | May 29, 2007 1:52 PM

Jeez, davey, how can you be so ignorant of who controlled Congress in '93? I'll give you a hint, the first letter of the party is D.E.M.O.C.R.A.T.I.C.

No surprise they didn't investigate.

I suspect that both parties have been doing this for a long time, it's just now that one party has decided to play "pure and innocent."

Posted by Charles | May 29, 2007 1:56 PM

An anonymous source? Why? It can't be that the source is afraid that the Democratically-controlled executive branch will exact revenge for whistle-blowing.

This is just another example where people are willing to believe any evidence, no matter how suspect, that agrees with their own beliefs.

A while ago there was a retiring member of the DoJ who said that the Reno DoJ was the least political in his experience. And he wrote under his own name, you can look it up. It was, of course, poo-pooed by the likes of some on this blog. We have the sworn testimony of Goodling, about which Captain Ed has been utterly silent (how about that, CE? Admitted and apparent illegal activities going on under AGAG's watch -- this is beyond incompetence, it's criminal negligence on the part of the AG). Now we may have someone who refuses to divulge his name so we can judge his provenance, and it's truth is taken for granted.

I suggest that everyone wait until the source behind this is divulged before getting all excited.

Posted by dave rywall | May 29, 2007 2:39 PM

There was nothing preventing the Repubs from raising holy hell if they were so upset about the hiring practices, regardless of who controlled congress. They weren't upset, they didn't act and now it's 14 years later. Now the Repubs are getting nailed for something they could have easily have taken action on against the Dems a decade and a half ago.The Repubs got caught and should take their lumps.

It's the old YEAH BUT defense: like the younger brother getting caught for coming home drunk at 15 and, in his defense, saying yeah but his older brother did the same thing 14 years ago. Ridiculous.

Posted by jr565 | May 29, 2007 4:05 PM

Dave,
I don't think they bothered raising holy hell, because I think they figured it was a given that a president would hire attorneys who were in line with his policies, and that there would be some political connections involved. They didn't therefore raise a stink because, on this issue, unlike the democrats, they are not demagoging hypocrites.

With the amount of umbrage your side has raised about a complete non story and the attempt to try it in the media as if it were the second coming of watergate, don't you think it should be noted that stulff like this was swept under the rug when Clinton and co. did it. They're supposedly the opposite side of the coin to the evil republicans after all.

If lumps should be taken though for stuff like this, your side should at least acknowledge that your guys should have taken the lumps but didn't because your side swept it under th rug like the hypocritical demagoging crooks that they are.

This doesn't speak ill of the conservatives in the past it speaks ill of you and your side, because it points out a) that this is a complete non scandal that is being drummed up by your side completely for political purposes, and that your faux outrage is only as deep as your partisanship.

Posted by Angry Dumbo | May 29, 2007 5:14 PM

Sadly, Captain, Democrats don't lose here. The DOJ firings were part of the Chucky and Rahm show to throw a bone to their "truther" base, who believes the DOJ firings are part of the much more sinister Bush/Cheney plan behind Iraqi intelligence reports.

Chucky and Rahm are playing their Soros/Truther base like fiddles. So far it is working to raise load of money and activate folks to their cause. However, these people will get wise to this game after a while and expect Chuck and Rahm to walk the walk.

Just ask Mother Sheehan.

Posted by Major O | May 29, 2007 6:03 PM

And that's it exactly jr565:


  1. The Republicans have maintained that this a non-scandal because they believe that Administrations have the RIGHT to "be political" when it comes to these appointees. Therefore, when it was done by Democrats in '93, no Republicans complained because they didn't see it as wrong. In this, they are being utterly consistent.

  2. The Democrats are now claiming that this kind of political calculation in hiring is unethical and illegal. Therefore, it's totally apropos to point out that if they truly believed that, then their silence back in '93 when one of their own was in power shows that they are hypocrites and that their current outrage is not based on principle but on politics.

  3. It's important to note that many of the folks crowing over this supposed "scandal" were elected officials when the Clinton Administration did the same thing in '93. The fact that some of these SAME people have now changed their tune is critical to showing what is REALLY going on here, so no, it isn't just a "Oh YEAH? Well THEY did it too!" cop out as some on this thread maintain.

Posted by Major O | May 29, 2007 6:06 PM

And that's it exactly jr565:


  1. The Republicans have maintained that this a non-scandal because they believe that Administrations have the RIGHT to "be political" when it comes to these appointees. Therefore, when it was done by Democrats in '93, no Republicans complained because they didn't see it as wrong. In this, they are being utterly consistent.

  2. The Democrats are now claiming that this kind of political calculation in hiring is unethical and illegal. Therefore, it's totally apropos to point out that if they truly believed that, then their silence back in '93 when one of their own was in power shows that they are hypocrites and that their current outrage is not based on principle but on politics.

  3. It's important to note that many of the folks crowing over this supposed "scandal" were elected officials when the Clinton Administration did the same thing in '93. The fact that some of these SAME people have now changed their tune is critical to showing what is REALLY going on here, so no, it isn't just a "Oh YEAH? Well THEY did it too!" cop out as some on this thread maintain.

Posted by Ryoushi | May 29, 2007 6:15 PM

Old news. Republicans have got to get past whining about the Clinton Administration.

The real damage here is how dismally the Bush appointees have performed in the aftermath. Who hired these people?


Posted by pilsener | May 29, 2007 8:56 PM

PLEASE!

Someone tell me with a straight face that they don't believe that politics goes on everywhere in Washington.

Just like professional wrestling, it's impossible for just part of it to be "fake". The air, the water, the stones, the office furniture, every part of the federal government is suffused with political considerations. So to look at any agency at any time and find politics going on is a great deal less than shocking.

Posted by MarkW | May 30, 2007 6:20 AM

In 1993, the Senate was still in the hands of the Democrats.

Is it any wonder that a Democratic congress decided that a Democratic president could do no wrong?