***BREAKING NEWS ***BREAKING NEWS ***BREAKING NEWS ***
MUST CREDIT RIGHT WING NUTHOUSE.
Actually, you should probably give a Hat Tip to The Prowler:
“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.
“The difference between then and now, is that they [Department of Justice] didn’t coordinate so openly with the White House,” says a former Clinton White House staffer. “Remember, we had our own separate database that we could cross check if we had names. Everybody today forgets about the databases we created inside the White House. It’s funny no one talks about that anymore. We were doing stuff far more aggressively than this White House or the Department of Justice did.”
“The difference between then and now, is that they [Department of Justice] didn’t coordinate so openly with the White House…” and that one Administration was a Democratic Administration and this one is Republican. There’s that difference, too. And another difference is that the Clinton Administration was much more competent – at least in covering up its abuses of power. We never heard about “renditions,” begun by the Clinton Administration, until poor KSM was in the evil clutches of the CIA and being whisked around the world, staying at something less than 1st class accommodations and treated worse than a customer at a Montreal restaurant being served by a French speaking waiter.
It doesn’t matter, of course. Why, in the comments of this very post, you will have at least a dozen Clinton apologists telling us HOW DIFFERENT WHAT BUSH IS DOING COMPARED TO WHAT CLINTON DID. After all, there was no one named Monica in the Clinton Administration…Er, at least no one named Monica who worked at DOJ. And no one in the Clinton Administration paid a bedside visit to a dying AG to seek his approval on continuing a top secret anti-terrorist program. All they did was use political criteria to hire, fire, promote, and demote employees.
Will the New York Times write scathing editorials about this? Will the Washington Post give the story front page coverage? Will the netnuts come down hard on Clinton for doing the same thing the Bush Administration is accused of doing, i.e. politicizing the Department of Justice?
Don’t hold your breath…
11:10 am
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…...
11:44 am
[...] MUST CREDIT RIGHT WING NUTHOUSE not because I was told to do so, but because the link is well worth the time you take to read the info!! “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.â€Â [...]
11:49 am
Sweet. Another great example of “Clinton did it too!” This is incredible news.
So, Clinton did it and didn’t get caught. Bush did it and did get caught. Now, what should we do about it?
I propose that we ignore it. We’ve got terrorists to fight “over there.” We don’t have time for accountability “over here.” The last thing we need to be concerned with is some “minor” politicization of the Justice Department of the United States.
I mean, Clinton did it too. Should we go back and try to get him impeached for a second time? Maybe. If my beloved republicans could get their heads out of their posteriors long enough to get some actual legitimate votes, we wouldn’t have lost the majority, and we wouldn’t have to worry about oversight and accountability. Plus, we seriously need to bomb Iran.
12:33 pm
I am not a huge fan of Clinton, in spite of being both Proudly Liberal and a Democrat. Thsoe two DO NOT always go hand in hand mind you, inspite of waht teh talking heads want you to believe.
Now, as I was saying, a disinterested and objective look at the two cases do show them to be different. Unfortunately you aren’t going to find individuals willing to take that look very often. If the point of this article is to tell us that gasp political decisions are made for political reason then welcome late to the party. As with all details it’s how you go about making those political decisions where in lies the Devil.
1:08 pm
Clinton. American Spectator. Anonymous source.
!
BANG
KABOOOOOMMMMMM
SHAZAAAAAM
!!
Woohoo
Cash money. Take it to the bank.
POW
You should hang out more in Ace’s basement.
2:38 pm
Well, that didn’t take long. Nothing to see here, folks, just business as usual. Don’t like the message? Shoot the messenger. That should take care of the problem, except for the stigma now surrounding “political” appointees, carried over to the next administration, and the next one, and the next one.
Go ahead, defenestrate the executive. That can’t possibly be a problem for future Democratic administrations, can it?
If you scream loudly enough, the legal picks up the appearance of the illegal, which makes it off-limits. I can’t see that being a problem in any way.
6:22 pm
[...] tip: Rick Moran Posted By: Sister Toldjah in: Law/Judiciary | EMail This Post | Print This Post | Trackback URI for this post:http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2007/05/29/the-next-doj-scandal/trackback/ » [...]
9:19 pm
Nicely done, Rick. I took it from you and put it on my blog.
11:27 am
Clinton did it too, that makes it OK! Bring on the interns! That’s also OK now using this logic. This is great, a new rally cry for the Republican party! “If Clinton did it we will too.†LOL.
1:28 pm
No words about what an incredible hypocrite you are for excusing what Clinton did while calling what Bush did illegal?
LOL! Indeed.
5:23 pm
Hmmm, let me read what I said again, no I don’t see any excuse for Clinton, and no mention of Bush and legality either. Oh I get it , you think I am a left winger, and are reading into what I said the talking points of the left. No, not so. My point was that you can’t justify the actions of Bush by the actions of Clinton, it is like saying Putin can justify his disbanding of opposition parties based on what Stalin did. Both presidents were well within their constitutional authority to appoint, fire, or move people around. That does not mean it is a good idea to use the Justice department as a political tool against the other party, that the “performance†of an attorney is to be judged on how many members of the other party are under indictment or investigation, or conversely how many members of your party are ignored for criminal behavior. Don’t worry I do not give the Democrats a free pass for deficit spending or earmarks because Republicans did it too.
5:26 pm
And where do you see me making excuses for Bush?
How do you like it when people put words in your mouth? Not very nice, huh.