« I Smell a Subpoena Coming On | Main | My Wellstone Notes »

April 09, 2007


It is possible to reassign people, say to give them more trial experience. Civil service protections aren't what they once were after the Bushies, I suspect. Regent U grads could be assigned to less hospitable places to do bank robbery and drug cases, for example. I'm not minimizing the problem, but there are ways to make employment less palatable, particularly given federal salaries. Going to Heritage to do nothing for bigger bucks might seem attractive even to some of these zealots.

I also worry about the EPA (Gore could reinvent THAT Department!) and Interior. Good thing that we have tells on their resumes, like Messiah College and Regent U Law School.

Fellow Kossack Adam B. passed me an interesting suggestion: DEA.

Well, and thanks to Bush's changes in Executive oversight, immigration lawyers have almost zero power (Bush didn't want immigrants to have any recourse to review). I think that's why Chiara didn't want to become an immigration judge--basically it's now a rubberstamp position.

A chilling characterization. One thing is left out, however. Some number of the "sleeper agents" are guaranteed to be, not subversive ideologues, but rather supreme opportunists. Just like the MSM. They'll bend whichever way the promotion breeze is blowing.

The sticks may be few, but there are certainly carrots.

It's not just DOJ. It's everywhere.

For example, the EPA.

Stealth Bush placements in Justice are helped along by Kay Coles James.

From the Boston Globe:

Not long ago, it was rare for Regent graduates to join the federal government. But in 2001, the Bush administration picked the dean of Regent's government school, Kay Coles James , to be the director of the Office of Personnel Management -- essentially the head of human resources for the executive branch. The doors of opportunity for government jobs were thrown open to Regent alumni.

Some committee or other should invite every single Bush appointee to answer, under oath and penalty of perjury, whether or not they were asked partisan ideological questions in the course of their appointment. Those that answer in the affirmative were obviously appointed in an unlawful procedure and should resign and reapply for their positions, and if qualified, should be retained. Unfortunately, honesty has not been pandemic among Bush appointees.

If they want smaller government, give them smaller government. When the inevitable budget crunch cause by present overspending hits, use it as an opportunity to do a 20% across the board cut in personnel. Such purges are now the way deadwood are culled in the corporate world. No one gets fired, everyone gets laid off or downsized. Added bonus: you can make them eat their "small government" propaganda cold. These folks have the least seniority too. What is really lacking is the will to play rough.

we've got less than two years to make this right or we're going to be screwed repeatedly over many years to come...


You can take a look at this earlier piece to get a feel for how tight and incestuous the group handling appointments as well has hirings, etc. became under the Bush administration


One place where poltical doctrine trumping law and experience is even more apalling than in the Civil Rights division is the Office of Legal Counsel - OLC serves as a mini-in house Sup Ct and their positions are given deference by the whole of the DOJ. Over and over, even people like Lederman have said that actions taken with respect to what OLC has authorized or approved (even the unbelievable torture memo, which scored academia and 9th Cir appointments for Yoo and Bybee, respectively) would never be subject to later prosecution by DOJ.

It has really been planned out to make sure that those who make the worst of decisions are given great rewards and insulated from any accountability ever and those who seek accountability are faced with the choices of things like, with respect to torture and wiretaps, pursuing criminal actions against a whole slew of civil servants who were following orders of their superior officers who grinningly planned on no one being willing to use those servants as cannon fodder in criminal prosecutions; or in the case of things like purging the civil servant ranks and replacing competent career officials with "loyal Bushies" that no one would want to dismantle a whole systems of protections for civil servants to undo the worst of what has been done.

Make the alternatives unpleasant and poltiicians in general, Dems in particular, seem predictably unwilling to hold anyone to account.

And so it goes.

And then there are the goons Cheney installed in all facets of government ready and eager to do his evil bidding.

It's darn near approaching the point where I'm getting sick in the pit of my stomach over how utterly corrupt this BushCo dictatorship has been revealed to be.

That said, I'm shoveling metaphorical Immodium down my throat by the blister-pak full, and gripping the porcelain throne in expectation of glorious relief. We'll shit these shitters out of our system or die in the attempt.

Someone should ask Mr. Holy Joe Lieberman,Independent Idiot- Conn., what he thinks about these reports coming out of the Justice Department. I'm curious to know if he's ok with the politics and loyalty oaths that this bunch of crooks have administered. Intrepid reporters should ask the freaking candidates for President what they think too.

Manichurean candidates times thousands.

I used to be a federal civil servant and many in my family still are. I remember during the Reagan administration, the political appointees being set in charge of agencies in order to undermine the traditional goals of those agencies. (Watt in Interior comes to mind.) But those were only at the very top... most civil servants are regular folks just trying to get through their days, and they formed a core of continuity from administration to administration, party to party. How far have Bush cronies infiltrated that core of honest expertise?

I remember as a fed hating the Hatch Act because it limited our abilities as union employees ("union" meaning "a minority of employees with no real power to change anything") to support partisan candidates, to the point that we could not wear campaign buttons. I couldn't imagine at that time how very weak the Hatch Act would ultimately prove to prevent Bushie infestation.

Thanks Mary.

my thought is that we, the nation collectively, will need to

quarantine right-wing religious activists from public service,

that is, from either politics or civil service.

and not just members of this fifth column of hyper-religious fools.

we will also need to quarantine members of the "federalist society" and those associated with it, e.g., chief justice john roberts.

i emphasis treating this as a political matter.

given our constitutional guarantees and our general openness, it would inappropriate to use legal actions to keep these folks out of american government.

but it would be entirely appropriate, and i am beginning to believe,

essential to the survival of our 250 year old political culture

to carefully review the credentials of members of religious or legal fifth columns operating to take control of government policy or of government departments.

we have previously taken political action against white supremacist and against klu klux klan members.

this new group of true believers, however, follows a strategy of operating out of public sight and mind.

It's also in the Parks service. More snowmobiles in Yellowstone... No age given for the Grand Canyon... Drilling and mining, etc...

Pick a segment of the federal government and it is packed with hacks.

Sadly, it is the Republicans who have the Stalinist/Hitlerian training and ability to go through and root out these Fifth Columnists. We shall have to work to train Americans loyal to the Constitution that it is important for them to snitch whenever they encounter these Midwich Cuckoos.

Rove is an expert at innoculating a weakness as something to be trivialized or worse he sets it up to hammer someone (Rather anyone)

They also are famous for attacking the strength of an opponent. The nonstop calls of "overreach" for the congresses real strength will be unending. And they own the MSM. How much cash do think the players earn? Doesn't that make them Repugs by default?

Like the previous posters have said you have to play rough purge the sleeper cells. And don't let the spin stop you from playing your cards. They don't have any. They can only bluff and bluster. Bang the table when the facts are against you


Damn right, what bille and Mary said, and KagroX on the deliberateness of it. As I said on an earlier thread, undoing this is what the next President needs to be about first.

And one of those cards he or she will always have is well-applied brusqueness toward the spinsters, who are not the arbiters of our discourse or government.

I agree with John Casper on the point above with respect to the Federalist Society. It ought to be an instant disqualifier, just like 'Communist' was in my day.

Shhesh. Calm down, folks, it is not that bad. Most of government is pretty routine.

Moreover, the senior career ranks were ALREADY Republican from the many Republican years since 1968 -- plus, the totally distracted Clinton years. (Clinton crowd thought career politics was dull and beneath them.)

If the Dems win, and the Dem political appointees pay attention, the bureaucracy will respond.

The problem is more likely a few trouble spots -- like EPA and Civil Rights at DOJ.

But nothing irreversible.

Are you not giving Monica a lot of credit for intelligence for protecting McNulty? (Of course, she may be, probably is, guided by her attorney(s) (rather than a "higher power").)

Someone at FDL noted that Art. VI of the Constitution includes the following: "but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

IF Monica was imposing loyalty oaths that included a religious component.....

WHO has standing to bring the class action to remove everyone from Regent Law School from the DOJ?

Certainly hiring from Regent eliminated any need for a 'religion' test. Here's the motto from the front page of Regent's web site: " The nation's preeminent Christian university dedicated to combining quality education with biblical truths" Yikes.

And what high standards Regent has, also from their web site --- "Law School: Students admitted to the J.D. program on a provisional basis must register for a minimum of 10 credits the first semester and must receive a grade point average of 2.00 for the courses taken that term. If a student does not earn a grade point average or 2.00 or better for courses taken the first semester, the student will be placed on academic probation. All provisions of the Academic Probation and Dismissal policy will then apply. After completing a minimum of 14 credits with a cumulative grade point average of 2.00 or better the student will no longer be considered provisional."

On the same page it says that master's students in all other programs at Regents are required to keep a 3.0 average. Seems funny that they've lowered the bar for the JD program. Hmmmm. Needed more grads for Bush?

That Boston Globe article mentioned by AZmatt above went on to say that Bush and Co have put over 150 of there graduates on the payroll. That's astounding. I found on the Regent's site that the last entering class was 161 students, so they can't be graduating more than that, though they probably do graduate most of them with the low GPA requirement. Hell, I could pull a 2.0 in my major university engineering program without going to class but for reviews and test. I know, because I did it one semester on a bet. Let's suffice it to say you can graduate from Regent's without much effort if you have half a brain.

Finally as part of the application process your required letters of recommendation must include a "Clergy/Spiritual Life letter of recommendation"

Welcome to True Believer U.

Found another little gem on the Regent's site. "The admissions committee also places significant importance on the applicant's responses to the Regent-specific topics in the Personal Statement section of the admissions application. Such responses can provide the committee with insights into the applicant's motivation for studying law, his or her commitment to receiving a legal education that integrates Christian principles and ethics and knowledge of special skills and abilities developed through employment experiences. Additionally, the committee relies upon comments contained in the Clergy/Spiritual Life Recommendation Form to consider the applicant's mission in harmony with Regent University's mission.

A chart below that shows that you could be admitted to Regent's law with a 2.0 undergrad GPA if you score over 160 on the LSAT. I've got no problem with that personally, but will mention that one must have a 3.0 in undergrad at the University of Texas (and every other state school I know of) to even apply (without a waiver from the dean) no matter how high your GMAT score may be.

It'd be interesting to know if they lowered the bar (no pun intended) for JD students at some time during the last 8 years. I'd be willing to bet they did.

reffering to the 3.0 to apply to texas above - that is for any grad program.

Finally. Great, great post, Kargo.

God, this sounds like the classic conspiracy theory doesn't it? I don't usually go for those kinds of things, but this one has me sweating. Once they are appointed there is no going back. You can't kick em out because that would be political. So, we've got a year and a half to get them out before its locked in. That's a lot of ground to cover, I don't know if they are up to the task.

Is there any legal avenue to treating the removal of Bush (by election if not by impeachment) as an annulment?

Rather than focus on the time and effort and wasted lives and opportunities required to remove the illegitimate regime, what if we focus on the illegitimacy--the stolen 2000 election and the lawless mayhem and plunder that followed?

If these sleeper hires owe their positions to an illegitimate and corrupt regime, it becomes necessary to question the legitimacy of every appointment and hire and to revisit the process and the qualifications of every person put in place by the maladministration.

If that doesn't work, it will be incumbent on the next administration to transfer all "loyal Bushies" to the dirty work of reversing nearly 8 years of crackpot criminality. Evaluate them regularly on their performance, and fire them if they don't dismantle the Bush "legacy" toot sweet.

Now that the bloom is off the rose of political prosecutions, Mr. Rove's Plan B is to demolish the US Attorneys as a group. What better way to ensure that once you leave office, the hounds won't be able to follow your scent, no matter how much it smells like a dead cat on the front porch.


There are only 93 US attorneys. It shouldn't be too difficult to get that many qualified replacements, perhaps including others who have held the job before. Heck, it happens at the beginning of every change of administration anyway. The problem will be to get qualified AUSAs. But if you publish a set of higher standards, including giving weight to the tier of the law school as well as the GPA, then go out and recruit from the better places (in the manner which people doing affirmative action already are trained to do) I'd be willing to bet that not only will the AUSA ranks be rapidly filled with qualified attorneys, but a set of strict standards on productivity and effectiveness which are carefully documented will weed out the poor ones quite quickly. Certainly if the loyalist cadres recognize that they are not going to get any promotions, any merit raises, and are going to be carefully scrutinized as they get handed the worst jobs, they are going to move on rapidly. There will be some who are qualified and pass these tests. So they get kept.

That's a lot of work for the managers. Managers normally hate doing performance reviews and don't do them well, but if the managers are civil service protected Bushies, failure to do those jobs is cause for firing. Someone simply has to document the assignments given and the results returned. The fact is it isn't all that difficult to fire someone from civil service if they don't perform. It's just that managers don't like to do those jobs because there is no basis for advancement in such monitoring and replacing of people. That problem is easy to remedy. Make cleaning up and improving the civil service effectiveness the top priority and promote from those who do that job well.

Someone above mentioned transferring someone you don't want to keep to West Bumfuck, North Dakota or the equivalent so that they will quit. That works, too, but it is usually using a hammer to kill a mosquito. Usually all you have to do is tell someone that you are "Documenting their file" for a personnel action (never done for a good personnel action) and then don't mention their inappropriate use of the government xerox machine for resumes and excessive use of leave (called abuse of personal time) but document it to add to the file and get out of their way as they search for other jobs.

It's not as hard as the impatient types who don't like government to begin with think it is to get rid of a civil servant. It does require managers to actually work for a living (sadly rare everywhere in America), to know the rules, and to know what they are doing as well as why.

If I were to go into a Democratic administration as a political appointee, I would look for a position in Human Resources and establish a government-wide program of performance evaluations for the specific purpose of getting the most qualified people into the jobs where they are really needed, and providing additional training to those who are capable, motivated but not that well trained. It would not be a purge of Bush loyalists, but it would be a purge of unqualified civil servants. Theonly marginally qualified Bushies would soon recognize that those who got the additional training got promoted, and those who didn't get the training were going nowhere fast. FEMA, DoJ and the entire Department of Homeland Security are all places that clearly need such a program even now.

It would be combined with an overall reevaluation of the purposes, methods and effectiveness of every department. This is what DHS has beeb trying to do since it was created, and still has a long way to go. Not trying to implement right-wing ideology would make that job a lot easier. [Not easy, but easier.]

Non-government people would call that a strategic reevaluation of government organizations and a realignment of strategy and structure. It is also what Al Gore was doing for Clinton as Veep.

Al just had better human Resources to work with in those days. Today the human resources will be a major weakness in any plan to make government more effective and efficient. (Effective is always first. Who needs ~efficient~ steam locomotives when everyone else runs diesel-electrics?)

It is a big job, but there are a lot of people out here who could do it.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad