PDA

View Full Version : BushCo official lies to Congress to coverup abuses...


jAZ
06-12-2007, 06:14 PM
The story isn't transparent unless you are following it closely, so here's the overview (see first paragraph in Wikipedia)...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Schlozman (http://)

Brad Schlozman's testimony before congress:


http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/07/schlozman-indictments/

Transcript:

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: I wanted to ask a few follow up questions on the ACORN indictments. Sen. Leahy asked you about them. As you know, the four workers voluntarily turned over evidence to investigators. And they were cooperating fully with the investigation. And yet you went ahead and shortly before that election, you brought these indictments. And on page 61 of this book, its rather clear that that is effectively a no no. Why did you do that?

BRADLEY SCHLOZMAN: Senator, I acted at the direction of the director of the Election Crimes branch in the Public Integrity section. We asked whether he wanted us to go forward, or delay until after the election, and he said go forward. In e-mail traffic.

FEINSTEIN: And who was that, that ordered you to go forward?

SCHLOZMAN: Craig Donsanto, the head of the Election Crimes branch.


His "clarification" from today:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/schlozman-clarification/

As required by Section 9-85.210 of the U.S. Attorney's Manual, at my direction, the Assistant United States Attorney assigned to the case consulted with the Election Crimes Branch prior to the filing of the indictments. I want to be clear that, while I relied on the consultation with, and suggestions of, the Election Crimes Branch in bringing the indictments when I did, I take full responsibility for the decision to move forward with the prosecutions related to ACORN while I was the interim U.S. Attorney.

penchief
06-13-2007, 05:49 PM
What a buncha' fuggers. I'm so tired of these pricks. It's so obvious that they don't care one iota about this country. All they care about is greed and their narrow right-wing agenda.

"Please, Lord.....inspire the people to wake up before it is too late for America (formerly known as, Land Of The Free). Please stir our hunger for truth, justice, and the American Way once again........Amen."

By the way, I saw Schlozman's testimony. It was a total disgrace. I can't believe that anybody who witnessed that sad display could have any feeling other than disgust for the pattern that nearly each and every representative of this administration has exhibited under oath. He was a real weasel who repeated the neocon 'memory loss techinique' ad nauseum.

Our country has become a joke when it comes to honest accountability and simple justice.

mlyonsd
06-13-2007, 05:57 PM
What a buncha' fuggers. I'm so tired of these pricks. It's so obvious that they don't care one iota about this country. All they care about is greed and their narrow right-wing agenda.

"Please, Lord.....inspire the people to wake up before it is too late for America (formerly known as, Land Of The Free). Please stir our hunger for truth, justice, and the American Way once again........Amen."

By the way, I saw Schlozman's testimony. It was a total disgrace. I can't believe that anybody who witnessed that sad display could have any feeling other than disgust for the pattern that nearly each and every representative of this administration has exhibited under oath. He was a real weasel who repeated the neocon 'memory loss techinique' ad nauseum.

You got your wish in 2006 wheh Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the muppets were voted into office. How's that working out for ya?

penchief
06-13-2007, 06:09 PM
You got your wish in 2006 wheh Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the muppets were voted into office. How's that working out for ya?

I don't know yet. I know 2006 hasn't done a thing to change the standard operating procedure or the fascist-like tendencies of this administration. I don't know yet whether it is out of collusion or out of not having a veto-proof majority. I have seen signs of both. Needless to say, I am somewhat disappointed.

Yet, change will not come until those republicans who are afraid to cross the line actually do cross that line. Unfortunately for all Americans, that is the sad truth. Republicans are playing the game of politics as much or more than dems on this one.

Republicans are the ones that keep holding out for the politically advantageous time to change course while accusing the dems of cowardly behavior for already coming to a conclusion that they will ultimately be forced to arrive at. They are the ones dragging their feet at the cost of our young men and women and at the expense of our eroding civil liberties.

go bowe
06-13-2007, 06:25 PM
I don't know yet. I know 2006 hasn't done a thing to change the standard operating procedure or the fascist-like tendencies of this administration... fascist-like tendencies?

you crack me up sometimes with your characterizations about the evil cheney bush rove troika...

you make good points, but it's way too easy for your oppostition to attack your point by castigating your hyperbole (is that the right term for going overboard with pejorative remarks?)...

penchief
06-13-2007, 06:35 PM
fascist-like tendencies?

you crack me up sometimes with your characterizations about the evil cheney bush rove troika...

you make good points, but it's way too easy for your oppostition to attack your point by castigating your hyperbole (is that the right term for going overboard with pejorative remarks?)...

If they're good points, they're good points. My hyperbole is reflective of my disillusionment with both our government and those who blindly defend the extremism currently taking place. This administration's tactics have been fascist-like. To me, that has been cut and dry. Maybe it's a little strong for those who are unwilling to acknowledge so, but the claim is historically accurate, IMO.

patteeu
06-13-2007, 06:36 PM
fascist-like tendencies?

you crack me up sometimes with your characterizations about the evil cheney bush rove troika...

you make good points, but it's way too easy for your oppostition to attack your point by castigating your hyperbole (is that the right term for going overboard with pejorative remarks?)...

That's a pretty good word for it, although I've been known to call it delusional. ;)

go bowe
06-13-2007, 06:52 PM
You got your wish in 2006 wheh Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the muppets were voted into office. How's that working out for ya?haven't house speakers been knocked out of office before (think newt)?

and, iirc, the majority leader in the house has been bounced before (trent lott, right?)...

so let's get the republicans started on beating pelosi and reid at the polls (think daschle)...

go bowe
06-13-2007, 06:56 PM
If they're good points, they're good points. My hyperbole is reflective of my disillusionment with both our government and those who blindly defend the extremism currently taking place. This administration's tactics have been fascist-like. To me, that has been cut and dry. Maybe it's a little strong for those who are unwilling to acknowledge so, but the claim is historically accurate, IMO. but but...

i was getting at how your use of such pejoratives tends to undercut your otherwise good point...

historically accurate?

we'll see, i guess, if we live long enough...

penchief
06-13-2007, 07:00 PM
haven't house speakers been knocked out of office before (think newt)?

and, iirc, the majority leader in the house has been bounced before (trent lott, right?)...

so let's get the republicans started on beating pelosi and reid at the polls (think daschle)...

IMO, Daschle was a good guy who became a target of the administration because of the down-to-earth manner in which he exposed their lip-service hypocricy.

penchief
06-13-2007, 07:14 PM
but but...

i was getting at how your use of such pejoratives tends to undercut your otherwise good point...

historically accurate?

we'll see, i guess, if we live long enough...

I know. You are a good guy trying to point out to me that I would go farther in making my point if I were to utilize a few less adjectives. The problem is that there is not enough adjectives to describe the damage being done to our livelihood and our country's socio-political traditions.

I appreciate the fact that you are willing to see through my colorful language while picking out the ideas that are important. I have every faith in the world that independent-minded and reasonable people, such as yourself, are able to put aside flowery language in favor of the gist.

The pejoratives are more for those who are unwilling to be objective about something so important as the future of our country or its vital political traditions.

Hydrae
06-13-2007, 07:22 PM
"Please, Lord.....inspire the people to wake up before it is too late for America (formerly known as, Land Of The Free). Please stir our hunger for truth, justice, and the American Way once again........Amen."


This reminds me of how I have found myself feeling listening to the end of our national anthem.

O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
Oer the land of the free and the home of the brave?

I always thought of that as a question of whether our flag was still flying (that we hadn't lost the war). Lately though my thoughts have been more along the line of whether this is still the land of the free that the flag is flying over. It saddens me that those thoughts even enter my mind when appreciating an otherwise uplifting, patriotic song.

go bowe
06-13-2007, 07:34 PM
I know. You are a good guy trying to point out to me that I would go farther in making my point if I were to utilize a few less adjectives. The problem is that there is not enough adjectives to describe the damage being done to our livelihood and our country's socio-political traditions.

I appreciate the fact that you are willing to see through my colorful language while picking out the ideas that are important. I have every faith in the world that independent-minded and reasonable people, such as yourself, are able to put aside flowery language in favor of the gist.

The pejoratives are more for those who are unwilling to be objective about something so important as the future of our country or its vital political traditions.ok...

btw, did you notice that you made a post without any of the usual perjoratives and still got your point across? :) :) :)

penchief
06-13-2007, 07:37 PM
ok...

btw, did you notice that you made a post without any of the usual perjoratives and still got your point across? :) :) :)

when?

go bowe
06-13-2007, 07:43 PM
This reminds me of how I have found myself feeling listening to the end of our national anthem.



I always thought of that as a question of whether our flag was still flying (that we hadn't lost the war). Lately though my thoughts have been more along the line of whether this is still the land of the free that the flag is flying over. It saddens me that those thoughts even enter my mind when appreciating an otherwise uplifting, patriotic song.not that it matters, but the flag still flying refers to the flag in an american fort (mchenry i think) that was under very heavy bombardment by the british fleet...

some pow on a prison ship was inspired by the battle and wrote the poem which became the national anthem...

francis somebody or the other...

(bonus points for posting his full name first, without googling...)

go bowe
06-13-2007, 07:45 PM
when?post 11...

Mr. Kotter
06-13-2007, 07:45 PM
not that it matters, but the flag still flying refers to the flag in an american fort (mchenry i think) that was under very heavy bombardment by the british fleet...

some pow on a prison ship was inspired by the battle and wrote the poem which became the national anthem...

francis somebody or the other...

(bonus points for posting his full name first, without googling...)

Francis Scott Key....

:)

penchief
06-13-2007, 07:48 PM
Francis Scott Key....

:)

A citizen of Baltimore?

Sat on the banks of Baltimore and wrote the words as the battle took place accross the water?

I think.

Hydrae
06-13-2007, 07:48 PM
not that it matters, but the flag still flying refers to the flag in an american fort (mchenry i think) that was under very heavy bombardment by the british fleet...

some pow on a prison ship was inspired by the battle and wrote the poem which became the national anthem...

francis somebody or the other...

(bonus points for posting his full name first, without googling...)


Oh, I know the background (Yes, Francis Scott key wrote the words that were later put to an English drinking song). But I think that as the anthem it still has relevance today that has nothing to do with him asking if the flag was there in the morning. I always took as a question for the future of whether the union we were fighting for had survived.

This was also written during the war of 1812 if I am not mistaken, not the Revolutionary war as many probably think.

penchief
06-13-2007, 07:49 PM
post 11...

Yep. I did.

Actually, I do that more than people think.

Hydrae
06-13-2007, 07:49 PM
A citizen of Baltimore?

Sat on the banks of Baltimore and wrote the words as the battle took place accross the water?

I think.


No, Go Bo was right in that he was being held on an English ship during the fight that night. By the time dawn broke the fort was out of ammo but never gave up. The British went away in digust that they couldn't take 'em out.

penchief
06-13-2007, 07:53 PM
Oh, I know the background (Yes, Francis Scott key wrote the words that were later put to an English drinking song). But I think that as the anthem it still has relevance today that has nothing to do with him asking if the flag was there in the morning. I always took as a question for the future of whether the union we were fighting for had survived.

This was also written during the war of 1812 if I am not mistaken, not the Revolutionary war as many probably think.

You're correct. During the War of 1812. That pretty much was his sentiment.

For what it's worth, I don't think that the American continent was capable of being tamed by the British or anyone during that era. That was probably the best thing we had going for us. The continent was too big and touched two oceans (worlds).

penchief
06-13-2007, 07:54 PM
No, Go Bo was right in that he was being held on an English ship during the fight that night. By the time dawn broke the fort was out of ammo but never gave up. The British went away in digust that they couldn't take 'em out.

Interesting. Why was he being held?

Hydrae
06-13-2007, 07:57 PM
Interesting. Why was he being held?


Oh, now that I would have to go look up. :)

Hydrae
06-13-2007, 07:59 PM
From wikipedia:

On September 3, 1814, Key and John S. Skinner, an American prisoner-exchange agent, set sail from Baltimore aboard the sloop HMS Minden flying a flag of truce on a mission approved by U.S. President James Madison. Their objective was to secure the release of Dr. William Beanes, the elderly and popular town physician of Upper Marlboro, a friend of Keys who had been captured in his home. Beanes was accused of aiding in the arrest of British soldiers. Key and Skinner boarded the British flagship, HMS Tonnant, on 7 September and spoke with Major General Robert Ross and Admiral Alexander Cochrane over dinner, while they discussed war plans. At first, Ross and Cochrane refused to release Beanes, but relented after Key and Skinner showed them letters written by wounded British prisoners praising Beanes and other Americans for their kind treatment.

Key and Skinner had heard details of the plans for the attack on Baltimore, they were held captive until after the battle, first aboard HMS Surprise, and later back on Minden. After the bombardment, certain British gunboats attempted to slip past the fort and effect a landing in a cove to the west of it, but they were turned away by fire from nearby Fort Covington, the city's last line of defense. During the rainy night, Key had witnessed the bombardment and observed that the forts smaller "storm flag" continued to fly, but once the shelling had stopped, he would not know how the battle had turned out until dawn. By then, the storm flag had been lowered, and the larger flag had been raised.

Adept Havelock
06-13-2007, 08:09 PM
It's a fantastic piece of poetry...but couldn't we do better than the tune of "To Anacreon in Heaven"?

Kind of like the rip off of "God Save the King/Queen". Hell, we should be able to come up with a tune or three on our own. [/rant]

jAZ
01-13-2009, 09:32 AM
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/report_schlozman_broke_the_law_then_tried_to_hide.php

Report: Schlozman Broke The Law, Then Tried To Hide It From Senate
By Zachary Roth - January 13, 2009, 10:39AM

Here's the key excerpt, finding that Schlozman broke the law by considering political affiliations in making hiring decisions, and made false statement about it to the Senate:

The evidence in our investigation showed that Schlozman, first as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General and subsequently as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Acting Assistant Attorney General, considered political and ideological affiliations in hiring career attorneys and in other personnel actions affecting career attorneys in the Civil Rights Division. In doing so, he violated federal law - the Civil Service Reform Act - and Department policy that prohibit discrimination in federal employment based on political and ideological affiliations, and committed misconduct. The evidence also showed that Division managers failed to exercise sufficient oversight to ensure that Schlozman did not engage in inappropriate hiring and personnel practices.

Moreover, Schlozman made false statements about whether he considered political and ideological affiliations when he gave sworn testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee and in his written responses to supplemental questions from the Committee. Schlozman is no longer employed by the Department and, therefore, is not subject to disciplinary action by the Department. We recommend, however, that, if criminal prosecution is declined these findings be considered if Schlozman seeks federal employment in the future. We believe that his violations of the merit system principles set forth in the Civil Service Reform Act, federal regulations, and Department policy, and his subsequent false statements to Congress render him unsuitable for federal service.

Calcountry
01-13-2009, 10:49 AM
Only 2 more weeks until Rove, now a member of the media establishment, gets indicted.

Garcia Bronco
01-13-2009, 11:27 AM
A citizen of Baltimore?

Sat on the banks of Baltimore and wrote the words as the battle took place accross the water?

I think.

and he has a decent mall in Fredrick, Maryland.

LOCOChief
01-13-2009, 12:05 PM
not that it matters, but the flag still flying refers to the flag in an american fort (mchenry i think) that was under very heavy bombardment by the british fleet...

some pow on a prison ship was inspired by the battle and wrote the poem which became the national anthem...


francis somebody or the other...

(bonus points for posting his full name first, without googling...)


francis scott kies sp??

VAChief
01-13-2009, 03:24 PM
He looks a little like the beast from Hellraiser in this pic.

84711

jAZ
01-13-2009, 06:38 PM
Well put.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/01/yep_it_does_seem_a_little_odd.php

01.13.09 -- 8:11PM // link | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (9)

Yep, It Does Seem A Little Odd
From TPM Reader D(K) ...

Doesn't it seem a little odd that when you have a ball player (Roger Clemens) who lies to Congress about steroid use in baseball, the U.S. Attorney for DC convenes a grand jury to consider a perjury indictment, but when an official of the Justice Department (Bradley Schlozman) lies to Congress about trying to politicize the civil service within DOJ, the U.S. Attorney fo DC passes on further investigation or prosecution? Which really seems like the more significant problem for the country?--Josh Marshall

Velvet_Jones
01-13-2009, 10:22 PM
11 days to keep blaming bush - then you will be on the defensive jIZ. Go luck with that you dipsh!t.

penchief
01-14-2009, 07:21 AM
11 days to keep blaming bush - then you will be on the defensive jIZ. Go luck with that you dipsh!t.

Bush has gotten off scott free for the bullshit he's done to this country. Most of it shit that he did intentionally in the name of ideology and greed. I for one will be counting my blessings knowing that a beligerent and arrogantly oblivious person such as George Bush will no longer demean the values and traditions of the Untited States of America. He may be the worst president this country has ever seen simply because of all the shit he screwed up, most of it was by design and done maliciously in order to fulfill an ideological agenda.

You should also be thankful that he's leaving instead of deriding those who had enough sense to speak out against his abomination of a presidency.

patteeu
01-14-2009, 08:27 AM
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/report_schlozman_broke_the_law_then_tried_to_hide.php

Report: Schlozman Broke The Law, Then Tried To Hide It From Senate
By Zachary Roth - January 13, 2009, 10:39AM

Here's the key excerpt, finding that Schlozman broke the law by considering political affiliations in making hiring decisions, and made false statement about it to the Senate:

The evidence in our investigation showed that Schlozman, first as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General and subsequently as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Acting Assistant Attorney General, considered political and ideological affiliations in hiring career attorneys and in other personnel actions affecting career attorneys in the Civil Rights Division. In doing so, he violated federal law - the Civil Service Reform Act - and Department policy that prohibit discrimination in federal employment based on political and ideological affiliations, and committed misconduct. The evidence also showed that Division managers failed to exercise sufficient oversight to ensure that Schlozman did not engage in inappropriate hiring and personnel practices.

Moreover, Schlozman made false statements about whether he considered political and ideological affiliations when he gave sworn testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee and in his written responses to supplemental questions from the Committee. Schlozman is no longer employed by the Department and, therefore, is not subject to disciplinary action by the Department. We recommend, however, that, if criminal prosecution is declined these findings be considered if Schlozman seeks federal employment in the future. We believe that his violations of the merit system principles set forth in the Civil Service Reform Act, federal regulations, and Department policy, and his subsequent false statements to Congress render him unsuitable for federal service.

Who says? Based on what? Sounds more like a political hit job than a serious report to me.

Edit: OK, it looks like this comes from an internal justice department report. I stand corrected on the "political hit job" theory. I'd still like to know what the findings are based on though.

orange
01-14-2009, 08:58 AM
Who says? Based on what? Sounds more like a political hit job than a serious report to me.

Edit: OK, it looks like this comes from an internal justice department report. I stand corrected on the "political hit job" theory. I'd still like to know what the findings are based on though.

Here's a more detailed article (including a pdf of the full report at the bottom):

DEVLIN BARRETT | January 13, 2009 04:45 PM EST | AP

WASHINGTON A former top Justice Department official made false statements to Congress and violated federal law in overseeing the agency's civil rights division, investigators say.

The accusations against Bradley Schlozman, the former acting head of the civil rights division, are included in a new report by the department's inspector general, Glenn Fine.

Tuesday's report is the latest of several inquiries that found senior Justice Department officials violated civil service laws under the tenure of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Gonzales has denied knowledge of the conduct by his deputies, but the series of reports paints a disturbing portrait of the nation's top law enforcement agency being pulled in a sharply political direction during the Bush administration.

The report says Schlozman politicized and mistreated his staff and tried to punish agency employees he believed were too liberal. The report cited an e-mail in which Schlozman noted it had been awhile since he'd had to "scream with a bloodcurdling cry at some commie."

In the same 2003 missive, Schlozman used derogatory language to describe his pleasure in punishing career staffers, writing that "bitchslapping a bunch of (division) attorneys really did get the blood pumping and was even enjoyable once in a while."

At other times, the report said, Schlozman urged the hiring of "real Americans," apparently meaning conservatives, as opposed to liberals, whom he referred to as "libs" and "pinkos."

Schlozman resigned from the Justice Department in 2007 and is now an attorney in private practice in Wichita, Kan.

The report also faults the managers above Schlozman who, it said, received warning signs of inappropriate conduct but did not stop him or rein him in.

Investigators referred the case to federal prosecutors last spring, but they decided last week not to file charges against Schlozman.

Patricia Riley, special counsel to the U.S. Attorney for Washington, said the office conducted "a thorough and exhaustive review of the issue" of whether Schlozman lied to Congress. She declined to say exactly why the office chose not to file charges, but added the inquiry was conducted by six veteran prosecutors.

Investigators said Schlozman should not be considered suitable for government employment in the future, and they are forwarding the findings to the relevant bar associations.

Schlozman's lawyer, William Jordan, denied the allegations, saying his client had passed a lie-detector test.

"The report released today is inaccurate, incomplete, biased, unsupported by the law, and contrary to the facts," said Jordan, who accused the investigators themselves of "extraordinary bias and lack of ethical and legal standards."

The investigation, conducted with the agency's Office of Professional Responsibility, found that Schlozman did not tell the truth to Congress when he told Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., in a June 2007 hearing that he did not consider political affiliations in hiring.

Citing the "troubling conduct" described in the report, Justice Department spokesman Peter Carr said the agency has since reformed its hiring practices. "We are confident that the institutional problems identified in today's report no longer exist and will not recur," Carr said.

The Justice Department controversies _ in particular the firing of nine U.S. attorneys _ led to Gonzales' resignation in 2007 amid charges that White House officials under President George W. Bush had influenced decisions at the normally independent Justice Department.

Earlier inquiries by Fine's office concluded that top Gonzales advisers discriminated against applicants for career jobs who weren't Republican or conservative loyalists.

The federal government makes a distinction between "career" and "political" appointees, and it is a violation of civil service laws and Justice Department policy to hire career employees on the basis of political affiliation or allegiance.

Yet Monica Goodling, who served as Gonzales' counselor and White House liaison, routinely asked career job applicants about their politics, a previous report concluded.

Investigators also concluded that the White House political affairs office recommended a majority of the immigration judge candidates whom the department considered hiring, including one name forwarded by then-top Bush adviser Karl Rove.

___

On the Net:

Justice Department IG's report: http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0901/final.pdf

orange
01-14-2009, 09:03 AM
That article was from yesterday. Today's Los Angeles Times offers this:

Bush appointee saw Justice lawyers as 'commies,' 'crazy libs,' report says
Bradley Schlozman, who supervised civil rights and voting rights lawyers, broke the law by considering political affiliations in deciding who can serve, an inspector general's report says.

By David G. Savage
January 14, 2009

Reporting from Washington -- To Bradley Schlozman, they were "mold spores," "commies" and "crazy libs."

He was referring to the career lawyers in the Justice Department's civil rights and voting rights divisions. From 2003 to 2006, Schlozman was a Bush appointee who supervised them. Along with several others, he came to symbolize the midlevel political appointees who brought a hard-edged ideology to the day-to-day workings of the Justice Department.


"My tentative plans are to gerrymander all of those crazy libs right out of the section," he said in an e-mail in 2003. "I too get to work with mold spores, but here in Civil Rights, we call them Voting Section attorneys," he confided to another friend.

He hoped to get rid of the "Democrats" and "liberals" because they were "disloyal" and replace them with "real Americans" and "right-thinking Americans."

He appears to have succeeded by his standards, according to an inspector general's report released Tuesday. Among the newly hired lawyers whose political or ideological views could be discerned, 63 of 65 lawyers hired under Schlozman had Republican or conservative credentials, the report said.


Slapping down "a bunch of . . . attorneys really did get the blood pumping and was even enjoyable once in a while," Schlozman wrote three years later when he left to become the U.S. attorney in Kansas City, Mo.

Schlozman surrounded himself with like-minded officials at the Department of Justice. When he was due to meet in 2004 with John Tanner, then chief of the voting section, he asked how Tanner liked his coffee.

"Mary Frances Berry style -- black and bitter," Tanner replied by e-mail, referring to the African American woman who chaired the U.S. Civil Rights Commission from 1993 to 2004. Schlozman circulated the e-mail. "Y'all will appreciate Tanner's response," he wrote.

The inspector general concluded Schlozman violated the civil services laws while at the Justice Department. While the president's appointees are entitled to run the department and set policy, they are prohibited from considering "political affiliations" in deciding on who serves in career positions in the federal government.

"We found that Schlozman inappropriately considered political and ideological affiliations in hiring career attorneys," said the report issued jointly by Inspector General Glenn A. Fine and H. Marshall Jarrett, who heads the Office of Professional Responsibility. The report cited the abusive language as evidence of the harsh political tone.

Peter Carr, a Justice Department spokesman, said it "describes troubling conduct" from the recent past, but added, "We are confident that the institutional problems identified in today's report no longer exist and will not occur."

Separately, the U.S. attorney's office in Washington announced it will not seek to prosecute Schlozman for giving false testimony to Congress. Patricia Riley, a spokeswoman for that office, said acting U.S. Atty. Jeffrey A. Taylor stepped aside, and six career prosecutors looked into the case against Schlozman.

Joseph D. Rich, the former chief of the voting rights section, said the report "confirms the disdain and vitriol they had for career civil rights attorneys. He called us 'mold spores.' That kind of epitomizes his view. He was probably the most miserable person I ever worked for," said Rich, who retired in 2007 after a 37-year career at the Justice Department.

david.savage@latimes.com

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-justice14-2009jan14,0,3129787.story?track=rss

LOCOChief
01-14-2009, 11:58 AM
Bush has gotten off scott free for the bullshit he's done to this country. Most of it shit that he did intentionally in the name of ideology and greed. I for one will be counting my blessings knowing that a beligerent and arrogantly oblivious person such as George Bush will no longer demean the values and traditions of the Untited States of America. He may be the worst president this country has ever seen simply because of all the shit he screwed up, most of it was by design and done maliciously in order to fulfill an ideological agenda.

You should also be thankful that he's leaving instead of deriding those who had enough sense to speak out against his abomination of a presidency.

Bush worse than Carter? Not hardly. Unfortunatly for all of us, you'll soon eat those words. If Bush had done anything out of sheer malice you and your lib friends would have proof and an indictment....you don't right?

It's crazy that there are people out there that actually think that President Bush didn't have Americas best interests at heart.

penchief
01-14-2009, 01:10 PM
Bush worse than Carter? Not hardly. Unfortunatly for all of us, you'll soon eat those words. If Bush had done anything out of sheer malice you and your lib friends would have proof and an indictment....you don't right?

It's crazy that there are people out there that actually think that President Bush didn't have Americas best interests at heart.

That's not true. When transparent government is undermined by those perpetrating the crimes, when evidence is conveniently deleted or shredded, and when government power is used to thwart accountability and oversight it is difficult to "prove" anything.

Just because the left is not as willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater ,ala Kenneth Starr, doesn't mean this administration hasn't crossed the line. The Bush Administration has repeatedly and defiantly crossed the line without remorse.

penchief
01-14-2009, 01:12 PM
It's crazy that there are people out there that actually think that President Bush didn't have Americas best interests at heart.

The Taliban thinks it has Afghanistan's best interests at heart, too. That's the problem with ideologues and fundamentalists. That's where the arrogance, obliviousness, and beligerence comes in.

Calcountry
01-14-2009, 02:32 PM
The Taliban thinks it has Afghanistan's best interests at heart, too. That's the problem with ideologues and fundamentalists. That's where the arrogance, obliviousness, and beligerence comes in.You fundamentalist.

Velvet_Jones
01-14-2009, 08:43 PM
Bush has gotten off scott free for the bullshit he's done to this country. Most of it shit that he did intentionally in the name of ideology and greed. I for one will be counting my blessings knowing that a beligerent and arrogantly oblivious person such as George Bush will no longer demean the values and traditions of the Untited States of America. He may be the worst president this country has ever seen simply because of all the shit he screwed up, most of it was by design and done maliciously in order to fulfill an ideological agenda.

You should also be thankful that he's leaving instead of deriding those who had enough sense to speak out against his abomination of a presidency.

I call BS. You have only BS theories to back that up. 10 days now - get over it. You people that beleave that Bush is the devil are complete idiots. What a bunch of retards.

Velvet_Jones
01-14-2009, 08:55 PM
George Bush will no longer demean the values and traditions of the Untited States of America.

I thought about commenting on this but you are too much of an idiot for me to waste my time. When Obama does the same thing that you are bitching about - I'm going to beat you like a rented mule with it. And I will remind you of your statement. And you will justify Obama's reasons for doing this. And I will tell you to go fvck yourself. Your are a true tool.

You have no clue what the traditions of America are. Geeze.

banyon
01-14-2009, 09:30 PM
I thought about commenting on this but you are too much of an idiot for me to waste my time. When Obama does the same thing that you are bitching about - I'm going to beat you like a rented mule with it. And I will remind you of your statement. And you will justify Obama's reasons for doing this. And I will tell you to go fvck yourself. Your are a true tool.

You have no clue what the traditions of America are. Geeze.

How did you generate these delusions of yourself as some kind of savvy internet smack talking savant who completely dominates every political debate he participates in?

Mr. Kotter
01-14-2009, 09:49 PM
The Taliban thinks it has Afghanistan's best interests at heart, too. That's the problem with ideologues and fundamentalists. That's where the arrogance, obliviousness, and beligerence comes in.

Some on the far right are, indeed, idealogues. You should know. You see one of the best examples of an idealogue I could ever envision every time you look in the mirror.

stevieray
01-15-2009, 06:24 AM
ROFL at penchief,,,duuuuude...when you end up alone and bitter, remember this thread...

ROFL

On a serious note, I really hope you haven't exposed your kid to these repetitive irrelevant rants.

Jenson71
01-15-2009, 06:44 AM
penchief - correct. Good comments.

patteeu
01-15-2009, 07:13 AM
Move over penchief. Jenson71 wants to soak up some of those rays of deluded leftist poppycock too.

penchief
01-15-2009, 07:36 AM
I thought about commenting on this but you are too much of an idiot for me to waste my time. When Obama does the same thing that you are bitching about - I'm going to beat you like a rented mule with it. And I will remind you of your statement. And you will justify Obama's reasons for doing this. And I will tell you to go fvck yourself. Your are a true tool.

You have no clue what the traditions of America are. Geeze.

When Obama undercuts America's traditions by conducting torture and aggressively suspending human rights you can remind me.

penchief
01-15-2009, 07:38 AM
I call BS. You have only BS theories to back that up. 10 days now - get over it. You people that beleave that Bush is the devil are complete idiots. What a bunch of retards.

I don't believe Bush is the devil. I'm just sick and tired of the damage he's done to this country. And I'm sick that most of it was intentionally done as a means of advancing an ideological agenda. You should be, too.

penchief
01-15-2009, 07:46 AM
ROFL at penchief,,,duuuuude...when you end up alone and bitter, remember this thread...

ROFL

I see that stevieray is back doing what he does best; taking personal shots at other posters from the cheap seats.

You can take comfort in the fact that I am and will always be content with my life. Just because I believe that our government has taken a severe right turn into fascism under Bush doesn't mean that I can't separate that from my personal life. Ironically, it appears that you can't separate the two. Otherwise, you would spend more time addressing the gist of other people's comments instead of trying to insult them.

penchief
01-15-2009, 07:54 AM
Some on the far right are, indeed, idealogues. You should know. You see one of the best examples of an idealogue I could ever envision every time you look in the mirror.

Why? Because I can see through your "non-partisan" charade?

My positions are much more middle of the road than you or other right-leaning people on this board would want to admit. In the same way that the act of pointing out class warfare in action (trickle down) does not equate to the act of class warfare, ranting about ideological extremism on the right doesn't make me an ideologue on the left.

donkhater
01-15-2009, 09:29 AM
And the wheel keeps turning. We heard the same stories when Clinton left office and will likely hear the same stories when Obama leaves office.

When will people realize that party doesn't matter when it comes to greed and corruption? They are all Republicrats.

penchief
01-15-2009, 10:26 AM
And the wheel keeps turning. We heard the same stories when Clinton left office and will likely hear the same stories when Obama leaves office.

When will people realize that party doesn't matter when it comes to greed and corruption? They are all Republicrats.

I don't recall Clinton trying to turn the Justice Department into an ideological political party apparatus.

patteeu
01-15-2009, 10:31 AM
I don't recall Clinton trying to turn the Justice Department into an ideological political party apparatus.

They were too busy burning people alive and abducting children at gunpoint to worry about politics. The IRS was their political bulldog.

jAZ
01-15-2009, 10:55 AM
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/holder_i_will_review_that_determination_not_to_pro.php

Holder: "I Will Review That Determination" Not To Prosecute Schlozman
By Zachary Roth - January 15, 2009, 12:19PM

Not that it's likely, but Brad Schlozman may want to hope that Eric Holder's confirmation somehow gets derailed.

That's because Holder just told the Senate Judiciary committee that he wants to reconsider the Bush Justice Department's curious decision not to bring criminal charges against Schlozman, a former top department official who was found by a DOJ investigation to have politicized hiring decisions, then lied about it to Congress in an effort to cover it up.

Asked about the issue moments ago by Sen. Dianne Feinstein -- one of the lawmakers to whom Schlozman was found to have given an untruthful answer during testimony -- Holder declared: "I want to know why the determination was made not to pursue charges."

Here's his answer in full:


I understand that prosecutors in the US attorney's office in DC -- again, just based on the press reports, actually reviewed the report and then made a prosecutive determination.

If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will indicate to you that I will review that determination. I don't know all the facts of the case, but given the findings in the Inspector General's report that are consistent with what you have said, I want to know why the determination was made not to pursue charges, criminal charges.

Asked by Feinstein about the report's findings more broadly, Holder responded:


I have not had a chance to read the report, Senator, and yet I have read the news accounts of it. What's contained in the report is very disturbing. The notion that the Justice Department would ever take into account a person's political affiliation or political beliefs in making hiring decisions is antithetical to everything the department stands for and everything I'm familiar with.

I served very proudly in the Justice Department, under Republican Attorneys General, Democratic Attorneys General, and it was never a thought given to what your party affiliation was, what your political beliefs were in hiring, in promotion decisions. What we have seen in that report I think is aberrant, but is also I think one of the major tasks the next Attorney General is going to have to do. You have to reverse that.

So we may not have seen the last word on this.

penchief
01-15-2009, 11:14 AM
They were too busy burning people alive and abducting children at gunpoint to worry about politics. The IRS was their political bulldog.

Nice deflection.

Baby Lee
01-15-2009, 11:41 AM
Nice deflection.

No, you are absolutely right, point penchief, the Clinton regime didn't display their greed and corruption in the PRECISE same manner as the Bush regime.

penchief
01-15-2009, 03:52 PM
No, you are absolutely right, point penchief, the Clinton regime didn't display their greed and corruption in the PRECISE same manner as the Bush regime.

What about Waco or Elian is remotely the same thing as demanding ideological loyalty within the halls of justice (ala the nazi and communist parties)?

stevieray
01-15-2009, 04:34 PM
I see that stevieray is back doing what he does best; taking personal shots at other posters from the cheap seats.

You can take comfort in the fact that I am and will always be content with my life. Just because I believe that our government has taken a severe right turn into fascism under Bush doesn't mean that I can't separate that from my personal life. Ironically, it appears that you can't separate the two. Otherwise, you would spend more time addressing the gist of other people's comments instead of trying to insult them.

At least I confront you head on, instead of going after those who can't defend themselves for five years running...wow you are such a rebel...

the gistS of your posts? that's rich...95% of your posts are nothing but the same BS mantra...you want to blame Bush and the Republicans when in fact it's us...Democrats and Republicans...all of us...the greed...the lack of values..all of it...is on us...

We the poeple, not I the President...

"Ask not what your country can do for you...."

penchief
01-15-2009, 05:05 PM
At least I confront you head on, instead of going after those who can't defend themselves for five years running...wow you are such a rebel...

the gistS of your posts? that's rich...95% of your posts are nothing but the same BS mantra...you want to blame Bush and the Republicans when in fact it's us...Democrats and Republicans...all of us...the greed...the lack of values..all of it...is on us...

We the poeple, not I the President...

"Ask not what your country can do for you...."

You don't confront anything head on. You take personal pot shots. What do my later years, my personal happiness, or my kids have to do with my belief that the Bush presidency has been horrible for our country and it's traditional values?

The answer is nothing. You always attack a person's charachter. That's always been your mode of operation. That's not confronting issues head on. That's the cheap way out. And for someone who claims to be a Christian, it's hypocritical.

By the way, are you saying that because Bush is not here to defend himself I don't have a right to express my opinion about the job he has done or the way he has conducted himself while representing me?

I'm specifically addressing the excessive corruption and extreme measures that this administration has taken beyond what has been the norm.

stevieray
01-15-2009, 05:19 PM
You don't confront anything head on. You take personal pot shots. What do my later years, my personal happiness, or my kids have to do with my belief that the Bush presidency has been horrible for our country and it's traditional values?

The answer is nothing. You always attack a person's charachter. That's always been your mode of operation. That's not confronting issues head on. That's the cheap way out. And for someone who claims to be a Christian, it's hypocritical.

By the way, are you saying that because Bush is not here to defend himself I don't have a right to express my opinion about the job he has done or the way he has conducted himself while representing me?

I'm specifically addressing the excessive corruption and extreme measures that this administration has taken beyond what has been the norm.


ROFL....says the guy who is doing nothing but the same thing he is accusing me of...nobody said you can't express your opinion....problem is your opinion has only one angle...and I disagree with it.


I have no doubt that you are consumed by it all....i think h'es just a scapegoat for you..notice how you claim there is no response and then when you get a response, you don't reply to it....shocking.

penchief
01-15-2009, 05:32 PM
ROFL....says the guy who is doing nothing but the same thing he is accusing me of...nobody said you can't express your opinion....problem is you your opinion has only one angle...and i disagree with it.


I have no doubt that you are consumed by it all....i think h'es just a scapegoat for you..notice how you claim there is no response and then when you get a response, you don't reply to it....shocking.

I don't think it's true that I have a pattern of attacking other posters personally like you do. Just saying it doesn't make it true. Just like it isn't true that everybody before him has done the same things Bush has done and to the same degree. The "everbody does the same thing" argument is just a way of justifying bad behavior and deflecting from the differences that actually exist.

stevieray
01-15-2009, 05:39 PM
I don't think it's true that I have a pattern of attacking other posters personally like you do. Just saying it doesn't make it true. Just like it isn't true that everybody before him has done the same things Bush has done and to the same degree. The "everbody does the same thing" argument is just a way of justifying bad behavior and deflecting from the differences that actually exist.
can't help yourself, can you? I was refering to your reply.


I didn't say everybody does it...I said we are all responsible for the state of our country...as long as you continue to look to others to solve your(our) woes...you're going to be sorely disappointed...

even though neither of us had anything to do with slavery, we have to own and wear that coat....it's part of us whether we like it or not...

penchief
01-15-2009, 05:49 PM
can't help yourself, can you? I was refering to your reply.

I don't consider pointing out that you have a pattern of attacking other posters personally as being a personal attack in itself. IMO, it's more like constructive criticism.


I didn't say everybody does it...I said we are all responsible for the state of our country...as long as you continue to look to others to solve your(our) woes...you're going to be sorely disappointed...

Which is exactly why I am exercising my right to free speech, among other things. The free exchange of ideas is the keystone of any democracy.

Baby Lee
01-15-2009, 05:56 PM
Pick a top, pick a bottom, flip a coin for all I care and just consumate already.

stevieray
01-15-2009, 06:01 PM
dude. stop pretending that you aren't just as guilty... I give it as good as I get it.

ROFL

there is a difference in expressing your opinion and thinking if you say it enough it must be true...

stevieray
01-15-2009, 06:03 PM
Pick a top, pick a bottom, flip a coin for all I care and just consumate already.

consummate?

penchief
01-15-2009, 06:12 PM
dude. stop pretending that you aren't just as guilty... I give it as good as I get it.

ROFL

there is a difference in expressing your opinion and thinking if you say it enough it must be true...

When was the last time I took pot shots at your personal life or your family life? You don't think twice about doing so. Sorry, but there is a difference in the way you and I operate.

stevieray
01-15-2009, 06:22 PM
When was the last time I took pot shots at your personal life or your family life? You don't think twice about doing so. Sorry, but there is a difference in the way you and I operate.


...if you make character assisinations on people, whether they are here or not, opens you up to the same attacks...that being said...point taken..nonwithstanding the comment about Chritianity...I've never claimed to be a Christian in this forum.

penchief
01-15-2009, 06:39 PM
...if you make character assisinations on people, whether they are here or not, opens you up to the same attacks...that being said...point taken..nonwithstanding the comment about Chritianity...I've never claimed to be a Christian in this forum.

Again, how is expressing my opinions about the job Bush has done while representing me and the manner in which he has done that job in my name equal to character assassination?

Character assassination is more akin to the politics of personal destruction. In other words, destroying the messenger through irrelevant personal attacks instead of addressing the message. Pretty much what we just witnessed from the right wing smear machine during the presidential campaign.

stevieray
01-15-2009, 06:42 PM
Again, how is expressing my opinions about the job Bush has done while representing me and the manner in which he has done that job in my name equal to character assassination?

Character assassination is more akin to the politics of personal destruction. In other words, destroying the messenger through irrelevant personal attacks instead of addressing the message. Pretty much what we just witnessed from the right wing smear machine during the presidential campaign.


OMG...ROFL

penchief
01-15-2009, 06:48 PM
OMG...ROFL

What's so funny? Is calling someone's behavior arrogant or beligerent the same thing as falsely accusing someone of having terrorist associations?

Well, is it?

stevieray
01-15-2009, 06:56 PM
judging is judging....

...isn't it?

patteeu
01-16-2009, 05:48 AM
What about Waco or Elian is remotely the same thing as demanding ideological loyalty within the halls of justice (ala the nazi and communist parties)?

The Nazis used ovens to incinerate the remains of some of their holocaust victims but admittedly they didn't burn people alive.

BTW, my post didn't suggest a similarity (although there may well have been one). Instead it suggested that the Clintons corrupted the IRS with politics as opposed to their Justice Department. Not that I accept the premise of a corrupt Bush Justice Department to begin with, of course.

Jenson71
01-16-2009, 08:24 AM
At least I confront you head on, instead of going after those who can't defend themselves for five years running...wow you are such a rebel...

the gistS of your posts? that's rich...95% of your posts are nothing but the same BS mantra...you want to blame Bush and the Republicans when in fact it's us...Democrats and Republicans...all of us...the greed...the lack of values..all of it...is on us...

We the poeple, not I the President...

"Ask not what your country can do for you...."

That's right stevieray! This president has had no real effect on this country. And if he did, and it was bad, it was our fault! So suck it up and quit complaining!

penchief
01-16-2009, 02:45 PM
The Nazis used ovens to incinerate the remains of some of their holocaust victims but admittedly they didn't burn people alive.

BTW, my post didn't suggest a similarity (although there may well have been one). Instead it suggested that the Clintons corrupted the IRS with politics as opposed to their Justice Department. Not that I accept the premise of a corrupt Bush Justice Department to begin with, of course.

I never said that the Bush Administration systematically incinerated people. It is a giant stretch for you to make that correlation for whatever reason you chose to do so. However, the demanding of party loyalty or the imposing of an ideological litmus test is very much akin to the way both the nazi and communist parties operated.

Just because I pointed out that both the communist and nazi parties also demanded party/ideological loyalty while purging government of those who didn't pass the litmus test doesn't mean I'm accusing Bush of committing a holocaust. Nice try, though.

Even so, any undesirable behavior similar to the conduct of both the nazi party and the communist party (such as ideological purging) should at least be a giant red flag warning us that we are entering dangerous territory.

JMO.

patteeu
01-16-2009, 03:23 PM
I never said that the Bush Administration systematically incinerated people. It is a giant stretch for you to make that correlation for whatever reason you chose to do so. However, the demanding of party loyalty or the imposing of an ideological litmus test is very much akin to the way both the nazi and communist parties operated.

Just because I pointed out that both the communist and nazi parties also demanded party/ideological loyalty while purging government of those who didn't pass the litmus test doesn't mean I'm accusing Bush of committing a holocaust. Nice try, though.

Even so, any undesirable behavior similar to the conduct of both the nazi party and the communist party (such as ideological purging) should at least be a giant red flag warning us that we are entering dangerous territory.

JMO.

I think a better rule of thumb is that we should laugh our asses off when people feel the need to suggest that the behavior of the Bush administration is similar in any damning way to that of the nazi and communist parties.

Baby Lee
01-16-2009, 03:29 PM
I think a better rule of thumb is that we should laugh our asses off when people feel the need to suggest that the behavior of the Bush administration is similar in any damning way to that of the nazi and communist parties.

I have seen with my own eyes over the past eight years as they inhaled atmosphere and respired CO2, just like Adolph Hitler at his worst.

penchief
01-16-2009, 06:09 PM
I think a better rule of thumb is that we should laugh our asses off when people feel the need to suggest that the behavior of the Bush administration is similar in any damning way to that of the nazi and communist parties.

In this specific area the Bush Administration's conduct within the justice department is evidence that contradicts your claim.

Mr. Kotter
01-17-2009, 09:03 AM
...demanding of party loyalty or the imposing of an ideological litmus test....

Sounds pretty much like most political parties in the history of the universe? :rolleyes:

Both Democrats and Republicans have done what you are suggesting to varying degrees over recent history. To suggest that one is worse than the other is more evidence of your partisan myopia and ideological dogma.

The only time they don't...is when they've been clearly reduced to a minority party status--a situation in which they can't afford to be choosy. Yes, Republicans were seemingly there during the late 90s. Now it appears to be the Democrats turn--again.

petegz28
01-17-2009, 09:31 AM
I never said that the Bush Administration systematically incinerated people. It is a giant stretch for you to make that correlation for whatever reason you chose to do so. However, the demanding of party loyalty or the imposing of an ideological litmus test is very much akin to the way both the nazi and communist parties operated.

Just because I pointed out that both the communist and nazi parties also demanded party/ideological loyalty while purging government of those who didn't pass the litmus test doesn't mean I'm accusing Bush of committing a holocaust. Nice try, though.

Even so, any undesirable behavior similar to the conduct of both the nazi party and the communist party (such as ideological purging) should at least be a giant red flag warning us that we are entering dangerous territory.

JMO.

By party loyalty and litmus test do you mean being pro-choice for Judges and Anti-Iraq for party members?

Sure seems a lot of Dems were against Bush nominees cause they were not personally pro-choice and they more or less tried to 86 Lieberman cause of his stance on Iraq.

penchief
01-17-2009, 09:31 AM
Sounds pretty much like most political parties in the history of the universe? :rolleyes:

Both Democrats and Republicans have done what you are suggesting to varying degrees over recent history. To suggest that one is worse than the other is more evidence of your partisan myopia and ideological dogma.

The only time they don't...is when they've been clearly reduced to a minority party status--a situation in which they can't afford to be choosy. Yes, Republicans were seemingly there during the late 90s. Now it appears to be the Democrats turn--again.

Do you have an example of the same type of ideolgoical corruption taking place in the Justice Department as took place under Gonzalez?

petegz28
01-17-2009, 09:34 AM
Do you have an example of the same type of ideolgoical corruption taking place in the Justice Department as took place under Gonzalez?

Corruption in the Justice Dept? How about both sides turning a blind eye to illegal immigration? :hmmm:

Does the Justice Dept have no say in the fact that we have people in both parties all over this country ignoring our laws?

penchief
01-17-2009, 09:36 AM
By party loyalty and litmus test do you mean being pro-choice for Judges and Anti-Iraq for party members?

Sure seems a lot of Dems were against Bush nominees cause they were not personally pro-choice and they more or less tried to 86 Lieberman cause of his stance on Iraq.

I'm talking about the politicization of justice. Justice is supposed to be blind. When the Gonzalez Justice Department hired and fired based on ideological compliance, ideology became the end goal, not equal justice.

penchief
01-17-2009, 09:37 AM
Corruption in the Justice Dept? How about both sides turning a blind eye to illegal immigration? :hmmm:

Does the Justice Dept have no say in the fact that we have people in both parties all over this country ignoring our laws?

Well, I agree with you on the problem of illegal immigration but that is a deflection away from the specific actions addressed by this thread.

petegz28
01-17-2009, 09:37 AM
I'm talking about the politicization of justice. Justice is supposed to be blind. When the Gonzalez Justice Department hired and fired based on ideological compliance, ideology loyalty became the end goal, not equal justice.

Dude, go back and read what I said. Both parties ahve turned a blind eye to illegal immigration for their own political purposes. Nevermind the Justice Dept is ignoring the fact that we have elected officials as proponents of law breaking in this case. :harumph:

penchief
01-17-2009, 09:43 AM
Dude, go back and read what I said. Both parties ahve turned a blind eye to illegal immigration for their own political purposes. Nevermind the Justice Dept is ignoring the fact that we have elected officials as proponents of law breaking in this case. :harumph:

Dude, I don't need to go back and read what you said. I'm not discussing illegal immigration now. I'm addressing the hiring and firing of justice officials based on a purely partisan ideological litmus test as a means of imposing ideology via the legal system, thereby, trumping the meaning of justice.

petegz28
01-17-2009, 09:54 AM
Dude, I don't need to go back and read what you said. I'm not discussing illegal immigration now. I'm addressing the hiring and firing of justice officials based on a purely partisan ideological litmus test as a means of imposing ideology via the legal system, thereby, trumping the meaning of justice.

Liek the Dems using Abortion as a litmus test for judicial nominees....I know...you will ignor that.

jettio
01-17-2009, 11:29 AM
Man, anybody that would argue in favor of this Schlozman guy has to be a goofball.

You ought to listen to his testimony or any other public speaking he has done.

He has the most candy-azzed lispy voice of any lawyer or politician ever. Not only is he inappropriately ideological, he sounds like a bigger candy azzed p*zzy, as a man, than Karl Rove.

The log cabin republicans probably would not even let Schlozman in because his voice is so unmanly.

patteeu
01-18-2009, 07:21 AM
I'm talking about the politicization of justice. Justice is supposed to be blind. When the Gonzalez Justice Department hired and fired based on ideological compliance, ideology became the end goal, not equal justice.

That's not really true. Even if the Justice Department had adopted a blanket policy of hiring ONLY Republicans to be US Attorneys, that fact alone wouldn't demonstrate that there was any lack of equal justice. Whether you believe it or not, Republicans are just as capable of administering equal justice as democrats.

patteeu
01-18-2009, 07:23 AM
Man, anybody that would argue in favor of this Schlozman guy has to be a goofball.

You ought to listen to his testimony or any other public speaking he has done.

He has the most candy-azzed lispy voice of any lawyer or politician ever. Not only is he inappropriately ideological, he sounds like a bigger candy azzed p*zzy, as a man, than Karl Rove.

The log cabin republicans probably would not even let Schlozman in because his voice is so unmanly.

Oh no! He might be gay!! How can anyone defend him?

Nice argument. :rolleyes:

penchief
01-18-2009, 10:30 AM
That's not really true. Even if the Justice Department had adopted a blanket policy of hiring ONLY Republicans to be US Attorneys, that fact alone wouldn't demonstrate that there was any lack of equal justice. Whether you believe it or not, Republicans are just as capable of administering equal justice as democrats.

I agree. Republicans are absolutely just as capable. However, right wing ideologues are more concerned with imposing their will than they are justice. When party loyalty trumps justice you end up with things like the trumped up voter fraud scheme, which was designed to mask a coordinated effort to indiscreetly purge voter rolls and suppress voter turnout.

Firing employees because they will not prosecute bogus cases is a clear example of crossing that line. And so is hiring people because they will place ideology and party loyalty above justice. Which is what the Gonzalez Justice Department was all about.

patteeu
01-18-2009, 11:14 AM
I agree. Republicans are absolutely just as capable. However, right wing ideologues are more concerned with imposing their will than they are justice. When party loyalty trumps justice you end up with things like the trumped up voter fraud scheme, which was designed to mask a coordinated effort to indiscreetly purge voter rolls and suppress voter turnout.

Firing employees because they will not prosecute bogus cases is a clear example of crossing that line. And so is hiring people because they will place ideology and party loyalty above justice. Which is what the Gonzalez Justice Department was all about.

There's nothing wrong with firing prosecutors who refuse to follow policy set by the chief executive while administering justice equally. If the president wants to put emphasis on the prosecution of one type of crime over that of another (e.g. terrorism over mail fraud), he ought to be able to do that as long as he isn't ordering something that violates equal protection concepts (e.g. prosecute democrat tax evasion but not Republican tax evasion). Choosing to focus on the efforts to register illegal voters as a matter of policy ought not be a problem for anyone who isn't trying to register illegal voters.

To the extent that Congress has tried to tie the hands of the POTUS in this regard, I personally believe it would be a violation of the separation of powers defined in the constitution.

penchief
01-18-2009, 11:56 AM
There's nothing wrong with firing prosecutors who refuse to follow policy set by the chief executive while administering justice equally. If the president wants to put emphasis on the prosecution of one type of crime over that of another (e.g. terrorism over mail fraud), he ought to be able to do that as long as he isn't ordering something that violates equal protection concepts (e.g. prosecute democrat tax evasion but not Republican tax evasion). Choosing to focus on the efforts to register illegal voters as a matter of policy ought not be a problem for anyone who isn't trying to register illegal voters.

I mostly agree. But it wasn't the fact that they didn't want to follow policy. It was the fact that they weren't willing to prosecute bogus cases for politically partisan reasons. Even though the majority of the department went along with the trumped up voter fraud campaign how many cases ended with convictions?

The hiring of republicans or people that believe the same as the administration is not the issue. The hiring of unqualified ideological yes-men as a means of imposing one's political will via the justice system is a clear cut case of corruption of justice, IMO.

Velvet_Jones
01-18-2009, 06:12 PM
How did you generate these delusions of yourself as some kind of savvy internet smack talking savant who completely dominates every political debate he participates in?

Hehehe - We have a history Banyon - you are an ideolog - I am not. You are a pipe dreamer - I am not. You want use the word savant - I do not. - Anything else?

Velvet_Jones
01-18-2009, 06:14 PM
Feinstein
You are the only that is not laughing about this.

Velvet_Jones
01-18-2009, 06:16 PM
When Obama undercuts America's traditions by conducting torture and aggressively suspending human rights you can remind me.

Please - you are being a dramatic flaming victim. Act lick you have a pair.

penchief
01-18-2009, 07:15 PM
Please - you are being a dramatic flaming victim. Act lick you have a pair.

Sheepishly turning a blind eye to misconduct equals having a pair?

I think you've got it backwards, bro.

Uncle_Ted
01-18-2009, 07:55 PM
That's not really true. Even if the Justice Department had adopted a blanket policy of hiring ONLY Republicans to be US Attorneys, that fact alone wouldn't demonstrate that there was any lack of equal justice.

In theory yes, but in practice no. You could have each NFL team use the same set of refs for each home game, let the GM of each team have the power to hire and fire "their" refs, have those refs be paid directly by their respective NFL teams, and allow all NFL teams to each have a blanket policy of only hiring refs who are lifelong fans of their team.

In theory they could still be impartial, but in reality they often wouldn't be -- and even when they are, no one would believe it. The appearance of impropriety would drastically erode confidence in and respect for officiating, making the entire NFL a joke.

Velvet_Jones
01-18-2009, 08:27 PM
Sheepishly turning a blind eye to misconduct equals having a pair?

I think you've got it backwards, bro.

The problem is that you boy is going to do the same thing. The big issue is how you have made this an issue, such as wire tapping, into an issue that you will now have to to defend. You keep forgetting the part that the call must be from or to a number that is under suspicion or from a know country or provence that is has knowing been supporting or funding terrorism.

Your vagina is starting to show.

Frazod
01-18-2009, 08:32 PM
Please - you are being a dramatic flaming victim. Act lick you have a pair.

Careful, penchief. I think Velvet might want to lick your balls.

penchief
01-18-2009, 08:36 PM
The problem is that you boy is going to do the same thing. The big issue is how you have made this an issue, such as wire tapping, into an issue that you will now have to to defend. You keep forgetting the part that the call must be from or to a number that is under suspicion or from a know country or provence that is has knowing been supporting or funding terrorism.

Your vagina is starting to show.

You're pretty poor at talking smack. Resorting to the vagina card inappropriately is the sign of a hurting pussy. Bush was colossal failure. Obama is the anti-Bush. So get over your sore vagina and move on.

penchief
01-18-2009, 08:37 PM
Careful, penchief. I think Velvet might want to lick your balls.

I know. I saw that and laughed pretty hard. I knew what he meant so I rolled with it.

patteeu
01-19-2009, 06:06 AM
When Obama undercuts America's traditions by conducting torture and aggressively suspending human rights you can remind me.

OK, as requested, here you go. (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=200581)

patteeu
01-19-2009, 06:09 AM
You're pretty poor at talking smack. Resorting to the vagina card inappropriately is the sign of a hurting pussy. Bush was colossal failure. Obama is the anti-Bush. So get over your sore vagina and move on.

What do you mean by "inappropriately"? Just so I don't make a mistake along these lines, what are the vagina card rules?

penchief
01-19-2009, 09:01 AM
What do you mean by "inappropriately"? Just so I don't make a mistake along these lines, what are the vagina card rules?

Well, one actually has to be whining. I have nothing to whine about. Obama won. All I'm doing is pointing out what I see to be gross abuses by our government. I'm calling for transparency and accountability in order to deter similar abuses in the future. Whether they be by republicans or democrats.

What hurt vagina_Jones is doing by forgoing substance in favor of insults is a classic example of sour grapes. His whining is causing him to project his sore vagina onto others.

Velvet_Jones
01-28-2009, 10:39 PM
Well, one actually has to be whining. I have nothing to whine about. Obama won. All I'm doing is pointing out what I see to be gross abuses by our government. I'm calling for transparency and accountability in order to deter similar abuses in the future. Whether they be by republicans or democrats.

What hurt vagina_Jones is doing by forgoing substance in favor of insults is a classic example of sour grapes. His whining is causing him to project his sore vagina onto others.

I like that - vagina_jones - maybe I should change my sig. But back to my point - you really don't want transparency because if you did, you would already be pissed at Obama. And if you don't recognize this - and if he signs this stimulus bill - with all the pork - then you are exactly what I already think you are - a minion.

What kills me is that I went ice fishing for 7 days and you are still talking about my vagina. You are obsessed with my vagina. Whatever - get a life or are you a stalker like fraz?

penchief
01-29-2009, 06:55 AM
I like that - vagina_jones - maybe I should change my sig. But back to my point - you really don't want transparency because if you did, you would already be pissed at Obama. And if you don't recognize this - and if he signs this stimulus bill - with all the pork - then you are exactly what I already think you are - a minion.

What kills me is that I went ice fishing for 7 days and you are still talking about my vagina. You are obsessed with my vagina. Whatever - get a life or are you a stalker like fraz?

What kills me is that you would respond to a post that is ten days old after ice fishing for seven days and accuse others of having obsessions. You must really be obsessed with that sore vagina of yours. You probably sat out there on the ice thinking, "I wonder how those fools are responding to that primo smack I laid down."

You probably couldn't wait to get back to check it out. And in your haste to throw down some more clever smack you didn't bother to check the date and time on the last post to see that I spent one whole post responding immediately to your idiocy. Sounds like you have stalker tendenies. Maybe you should try a hobby like ice fishing or something to get your mind off of your obsessions.

***SPRAYER
01-29-2009, 07:41 AM
Army suicide rate higher than ever:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090129/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/army_suicides

Didn't they know that hope and change was coming?

Cheater5
01-29-2009, 08:06 AM
Army suicide rate higher than ever:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090129/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/army_suicides

Didn't they know that hope and change was coming?


Completely unrelated. I don't think you wanted to go there with this angle.