• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Bar Associations Begin Endorsing Candidates for Superior Court Chief Judge | Main | Working Mother Magazine Recognizes D.C. Firms »

August 12, 2008




Wow, still got some Clinton in your eye? What a shame.

No career attorney at the DoJ will back up your claims. The strict absence of ideological litmus tests for career DoJ employees used to be a hallmark of the Department, and the root of its legitimacy under Presidents of both parties.

Careerists do what they're told, regardless of their own convictions. This has been shown--even under this regime--as AAG's ultimately have the final say on which actions are pursued and which are not. That's the leash. That system exists precisely to prevent politically motivated careerists from "taking it a step further," to use your fortuitous phrase.

The reason the Bush/Ashcroft/Gonzales administration undertook this move, and the reason Mukasey is throwing up a smokescreen to protect it, is so that the DoJ will continue to function (like the courts) as a conservative agency even in the absence of a conservative administration. To essentially alter the architecture of the DoJ so that it isn't a tool to be used by the Executive -- no matter his or her party -- but rather to function independently as a conservative sea-anchor under Dems and a neo-con booster under Repubs.

Now, either you recognize this and, as a neo-con, admire it for what it is but wish to keep up the flaccid and patently untrue defense of "Clinton did it so it's ok," or you're a hopelessly naive kool-aid drinker mouthing Rovian talking points with no concept of their implications.

To preserve your dignity, may I suggest you choose option "A."



Every administrations have done it in the past including the Clinton's. Why don't we open up an investigation on that? Now having said that, it is only fair to say that we all hire people that will be following our vision and direction and to take it a step further, why would anyone hire a group of people that will disagree with everything they were asked to do. I know it is hard for you DEMO to think, but try....


Jim's correct; it's complete crap. Here's a cut 'n paste from what I wrote:

Two points, from the ol' TwoPutter:

1 - It's a good thing the AG is recognizing the problem, but:


Say, Mukasey? Remember a girl named Valerie? Valerie Plame? What did this misAdministration do, when hubby stood tall and told the truth??!?

The Plunderers in the misAdministration put people's lives at risk 'cause hubby blew the whistle - what makes anyone think that career Justice Dep't employees didn't take note, and wonder what THEIR fate might be?

Sorry - the ol' TwoPutter ain't buyin' this Thema Culpa by Gonzo's stand-in.

Ladies and Gentlemen, you shouldn't either.

If Mukasey was serious about career employees standin' up, he'd have announced a program to cover their back when they did. He didn't; he isn't.


What horseshit. The system didn't fail--it was intentionally subverted. It was wrecked at the direction of the same people who nominated this clown. To say anything short of that is disingenuous in the extreme.

And this crying of crocodile tears -- in the real sense of weeping while devouring your prey -- is an embarrassment to the bar.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad