« Huckabee says evolution is not an issue | Main | Chamber of Commerce Prepares for Waxman »

May 07, 2007


Won't hire minorities unless they're members of the Federalist Society it seems. Diversity does not seem to be a strong point in DOJ at the moment.
This article might be of interest because this seems to have gotten Conyers attention:


"Story: Some of the most notorious crimes committed in America - police brutality..cross burnings..violence at abortion clinics..modern day slavery - all federal crimes - are prosecuted by The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice.

But our investigation has found that the Justice Department is missing a key component in its mission to protect civil rights - DIVERSITY � diversity in the attorney ranks to prosecute cases.

Congressman John Conyers: "They need someone to investigate them."

The I-Team has learned that since 2003...the criminal section within the Civil Rights Division has not hired a single black attorney to replace those who have left. Not one.

As a result, the current face of civil rights prosecutions looks like this: Out of fifty attorneys in the Criminal Section - only two are black. The same number the criminal section had in 1978 - even though the size of the staff has more than doubled.

Congressman John Conyers - Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee - was amazed to learn the Civil Rights Division has so few black attorneys trying criminal cases.

Congressman John Conyers: "They don�t have the diversity that we�re saying is required in the country in businesses and of course in the Department of Justice itself."

We obtained Justice Dept. internal records showing very few black or Hispanic attorneys hired in the last few years.

Congressman John Conyers: "Zeros, zeros zeros, point seven percent. They�re incredibly low."

For more than a decade, Richard Ugelow was a supervisor at the Civil Rights section that sues government employers for discrimination in hiring and promotion.

Richard Ugelow: "You can't operate like that. We�re hypocrites." Professor Ugelow now teaches law at American University. We showed him the Justice Department's statistics on minority hiring.

Richard Ugelow: "We would sue employers for having numbers like that."



OT: Are you still thinking about going to D.C. for the hearing? I never saw any info about where to send a donation to help with the cost. I know there are many of us who would be honored to help you out with expenses. Thank you for all your work.


Yeah, I was sorta surprised you ignored so many of your fans offering to send you to D.C. for the hearing....

But unpack the logic a little bit. Two distinct questions: is it true? And, what's the motive for the leak of the information?

Is it true? If I'm not mistaken, this directly contradicts previous reports that the investigation of Goodling was prompted by Margolis' complaints, no? Regardless, if it's true, and if Taylor is not trustworthy, he has an obvious motive in doing it, to make giving immunity to Goodling considerably more difficult and to take the investigation out of the hands of Congress to the degree possible.

What's the motive for the leak? At the same time, whether true or not, it's easy to imagine government officials leaking this information to make it seem to Goodling that the camp to which Taylor belongs has turned on her and is scapegoating her, don't you think?

Oops! Scratch that first point, maybe, since I gather DoJ is after all not objecting to HJC granting use immunity to Goodling.

But so to serve her president, doesn't she just take all the blame for herself now and have done with it?

Two questions:

(1)Is it at all clear at what stage Goodling would have seen the applications and have had an opportunity to "block the hiring?" In previous articles, there has been reference to her "reveiwing applications" and resumes, but that sounds different than what is mentioned here. Was she a gate keeper early in the hiring process or only after the interim USA has picked who he wants to hire? The former would be easier to pull off, but less direct. The latter could cause some tough fights and be more obvious. Thoughts??

(2) When did Taylor make this complaint? His timing might have a lot to say about his motivations. It could also explain why Goodling left when she did.

Thanks, Marcy!!

lolo and Sandy

I really wasn't ignoring that outpouring. I just didn't have time between the events I was attending this weekend to make it happen. Plus, since I was out of town, I couldn't really put it together.


My first guess (and right now I'm just operating with skepticism BECAUSE it's Isikoff, so I'm not sure whom the leak would be from) is that you'd do it to recuperate Jeff Taylor, IMO one of the most suspect USAs, and to leave the impression that DOJ can investigate itself, bc Taylor launched the investigation rather than a lower level whistleblower or someone who didn't get a AUSA job.

It would fit in with DOJ's apparent attempts to do harmless, confidential investigations by siting them with OPR rather than OIG. THat is, the more credibility you can give DOJ's ability to investigate itself, the better you'll retain some of teh REpublicans you need to keep Gonzales in office and the sooner COngress might give up its investigation.


Any thoughts on my questions? I ask only because I'm not sure I buy your "recuperate Jeff Taylor" theory, as it depends on (1) and (2) above.

so we're "suspicious" of michael isikoff ???

when did this come about ???

and is the "Marcy to DC" project off ??

what about "Oversight House" ???

Oh, IP, you and I posted at the same time.

I don't think we know the answer to either of those. We know that Mike Elston intervened on summer interns after the departments had submitted their wish list of people they wanted to hire, which would be somewhat equivalent to this.

We know that Monica was on the team for judicial replacements early on at DOJ, adn that she had weekly meetings with the WH on judicial hiring, and that she solicited people for specific hires internally (one of the emails asks some select USAs for names of AUSAs that would make good internal hires. There was no mention of political affiliation, but she might not need to say anything, as we've seen that Debra Wong Yang certainly knew the criteria when she mentioned Federalist to Sampson in the area of hiring. And we know taht Monica asked specifically political questions in interviews for political appointees.

Which is, I guess, a way of saying we've seen the clique involved in defining the jobs, recruiting candidates for them, interviewing them, and vetting them post-selection (though some of these have been reported WRT political, rather than merit, employees). So it may well be anything.

Ditto the Jeff Taylor answer--this is the first mention of Taylor, AFAIK. So we don't know when he complained. We know the inevstigation has been going on 6-sih weeks, Schumer went public with his concerns 5ish weeks ago.

One more thing--Schumer asked about Monica asking political questions of merit employees in interviews, which seems to be different than what Taylor has complained of.

Isikoff is just one of a number of sleazy reporters who once worked for that Washington Start right wing rag that folded. Its progeny would be the Moonie times. There were a large alumni class from that rag. Maureen Dowd, Howie Kurtz, Izzie, Broder, Fred Barnes, Mort Kondrakke, the list is truly remarkable when it compares with the Starr crap along with Bush water carrying.

Thanks BillE

I guess that would make him a suspect

you might say "one of the usual suspects"

I can't keep these minions of Herr Gerbelles straight without a scorecard


I can think of few Isikoff stories from the last 10 years that have been unmotivated--that is, based on leaks from someone with a clear agenda. The one exception I can think of is the Gitmo Koran story. Otherwise, though, he has been useful of late for Rove to pre-empt some more damaging story. Also note how useful he was for seeding the meme "Armitage is Novak's primary source."

Thanks, EW.

But I'm not convinced that the internal DOJ investigation (allegedly sparked by Taylor) has been going on for six-ish weeks. There may have been some hints that she was considering political qualifications earlier, which Schumer caught wind of, but none of the reporting I've seen about the OIG/OPR investigation give a date. In fact, from Goodling's lawyer's statement, it seems she didn't learn of it until the story hit the press.

The timing matters for a few reasons, not least of which is why NOW?

I just saw an Isikoff article that was kinda harsh on the repuglicans (can't remember why right now)

I guess the lesson is that even the stories that trash repuglicans are part of the repuglican spin

poor old kkkarl really does have some shit to deal with lately, don't he

when your business is spinning shit, you can't help but start a few shit storms

and you're bound to get some on you

soon even the repuglicans will realize that george isn't "the naked emperor"

he isn't naked, he's covered with SHIT

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad