I Guess Monica Wasn't the Only One Issuing Loyalty Oaths

by emptywheel

Because it looks like Michael Elston was doing so too. From the Politico via Laura Rozen:

..."A Group of Concerned Department of Justice Employees," ... have penned an anonymous letter to the House and Senate Judiciary committees asking them to look into "the politicization of the non-political ranks of Justice employees, offices which are consistently and methodically being eroded by partisan politics."

[snip]

[R]ecently, a number of divisions' requests to interview certain applicants were turned down, and the career employees started to wonder why. They were told that the interview approval now must be made by the office of Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, and "when the list of potential interviewees was returned this year, it was cut dramatically."

These career employees got a meeting with Michael Elston, McNulty's chief of staff and a central figure in the prosecutor purge.

[snip]

"Claiming that the entire group had not 'done their jobs' in reviewing applicants, (Elston) said that he had a 'screening panel' to go over the list and research these candidates on the Internet; he refused to give the names of those on his 'panel,'" the career employees wrote. "Mr. (Elston) said that people were struck from the list for three reasons: grades, spelling errors on applications and inappropriate information about them on the Internet."

So, in their own words, the career employees did some checking of their own. They reportedly detected a "common denominator" for "most of those" struck from the interview list: They had "interned for a Hill Democrat, clerked for a Democratic judge, worked for a 'liberal cause' or otherwise appeared to have 'liberal' leanings. Summa cum laude graduates at both Yale and Harvard were rejected for interviews."

I guess liberalism is now considered "inappropriate information," just like pedophilia or embarrassing hobbies. And let me emphasize (for those who believed Monica Goodling's loyalty oaths of AUSAs were acceptable), these are for non-political positions. Such partisan tests are illegal.

You know. Illegal. The stuff DOJ is supposed to be protecting us from.

Comments

[tekel]

ew: The stuff DOJ is supposed to be protecting us from.

No, silly! Haven't you been reading the news? The DOJ is supposed to protect us from POOR BLACK VOTER FRAUD. It's rampant, don't you know.

[Davis. X. Machina]

The organs of the State exist to serve the Party, because of its unique role as Vanguard of the Revolution.

Correct understanding of the proper place of the Party is the most important qualification in potential cadres seeking to serve the People.

We're being ruled by frickin' Maoists.

[freepatriot]

ouch

tokyo jodi the worm tongue just posted a talking point about the lack of complaints from people who were burned by lawyer goodling's loyalty oaths

and here we are, discussing those loyalty oaths, and complaints about them

the worm tongue is psychic

kinda like cassandra, don't ya think ???

[Veritas78]

I won't mind at all if the next administration excludes for consideration any wack-jobs who believe they are doing "God's will." In fact, that should be an automatic disqualifier for ALL jobs, except preaching.

[Mimikatz]

The people who didn't get interviewed presumably didn't know why not, and ,ost of them got other jobs. Who is burned is the American people, who have second or third tier people going up against better attorneys representing corporations and certainly white collar criminal defendants. When government service was an honorable and relatively well-paid career choice, the gov't got many of the best and brightest. Gonzales and the little Rovians have presided over the dismantling of this career corps, most of them probably having no idea that the DOJ is supposed to be non-partisan, at least the career staff.

Maoists indeed.

[Dismayed]

Yeah!!!! This is rich. Just the kind of thing that the commitee can sink their teeth into. Deliberate definable evidenced action that people can understand, and that is illegal as hell. Tune in to Rove radio where the hits keep on rolling!!! We're getting juicy stuff almost daily at this point. What a fun week - 'cept for virginia - bummer - goes w/o saying.

[Mickey]

Reminds me of a lady I met in China, Ms. Lu, who spent several years in a Red Guard camp recanting the "revisionist roader" leanings of her misbegoten intellectual youth every night [after a day working in the rice paddies].

[marksb]

Maoists, I love it, so true and so sad.
The whole frigging house of cards seems to be coming down. Slow motion train wreck. Couldn't happen to a nicer group of people, ya' know?

[ab initio]

How does a Congressional inquiry proceed and find culpability? If they find out someone has broken the law - what happens next? Does the DoJ prosecute?

[jwp]

this is an easy one. Lots of people have heard stories about Elston. I mentioned one story whispered about his a couple of weeks ago on this blog

but this story is a frolic and detour about small timers throwing their weight around, in my view. DOJ was dented a little, maybe, by this stuff, but not transformed

Lam. Abramoff. "Voter fraud" cases. My guess is that that stuff lies closer to the Rove central goals of getting control of the election process (skimming money to GOP, discouraging brown votes). My suspicion anyway. And if there is anything to that story, it must be pursued with a fury. Stay on target

[tekel]

Veritas78: I won't mind at all if the next administration excludes for consideration any wack-jobs who believe they are doing "God's will." In fact, that should be an automatic disqualifier for ALL jobs.

You wouldn't need to go that far. Just make it a disqualifier for the right to vote.

Why are churches tax exempt?

[Uppity Gal]

What jwp said above... makes me thin of this comment over at the The Muck. (there was no handle, so can't pass on the credit):
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003032.php#comments

"Separate topic, but shouldn't we add to the list of 8 (or some have indicated 9 if you include Taylor appointment) another one: Thomas M. DiBiagio USA Maryland.

He was let go in 2005. (refer to USA scandal timline) but he seems to have fallen through the cracks recently. The Times story of his dismissal reveals a pattern with regards to the other corruption investigating fired USA's.

So by my count, these USA's have been allegedly removed to head off corruption investigations:
Lam
(Abramoff investigation)

Cummins
(MA Gov. investigation??)

Black
(Abramoff investigation)

DiBiagio
(investigating Republican governor associates)

Debra Wong Yang
(USA LA) (Abramoff investigation) (Hired away by Law firm that was representing Rep. J. Lewis)

Chiara (corruption investigation)

Did I miss anyone else that has left/fired?

Posted by:
Date: April 17, 2007 03:40 PM"

The piece by Silverstein at Harper's that it links through to is pretty good too.

[desertwind]

What 'Veritas78 | April 17, 2007 at 20:40' said.

God's Army has been training for years and I really recommend Hanna Rosin's June 27, 2005 New Yorker piece, "God and Country". Creepy.

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/06/27/050627fa_fact

[Rayne]

Leads me to wonder if Elston's checklist overtly or otherwise include "member of the USAG Native American Issues Subcommittee", "Native American heritage", or "Native American constituency in district"?

Or was that a criteria somebody else might have applied?

[Rayne]

That should read "potential member of USAG Native American Issues Subcommittee" --- in other words, anybody who was sympathetic to Native Americans, by virtue of past experience or by birth. And if by birth, well, that's discriminatory and illegal.

[Jodi]

tokyo freepatriot the wormtongue,

sorry, I almost missed your post. I hadn't posted in this site earlier, and didn't know you missed me so much that you were talking about me behind my back.

Anyway, I will try to stay more alert.