Sigh

why is ANYONE surprised at this?

I'm sorry but what proof is offered in that article?

There are many accusations but I see no evidence whatsoever.

Disgusting. Not remotely surprising, but disgusting.

I'm not surprised to read this either.

proof, from the original article: "While the recruitment was once controlled largely by career officials in each section who would review applications, political officials in the department began to assume more control, rejecting candidates with liberal or Democratic affiliations “at a significantly higher rate” than those with Republican or conservative credentials, the report said."

further proof: "Applications that contained what were seen as “leftist commentary” or “buzz words” like environmental and social justice were often grounds for rejecting applicants, according to e-mails reviewed by the inspector general’s office."

even further proof: read the report - it's linked to the NYT article.

"I'm sorry but what proof is offered in that article?"

The article is making the allegations, it's just reporting on the findings of the report from the Justice Department's own inspector general.

And this is another news item that is shocking yet not surprising.

Sadly, this is not surprising. Its just really sad tht this administration valued partisianship over anything else.

making it more likely that Bush's legacy will include the politicalization of federal prosecution

Are you saying that conservative employees are more likely to politicize federal prosecution than liberal employees?

It doesn't sound like this practice - if it indeed occurred - was legal. Particularly if less qualified conservative candidates were hired over more qualified liberal candidates. But, I'm curious what constitutes "discrimination in hiring based on political or ideological affiliations". Would leaning toward the conservative candidate when experience and education are equal constitute discrimination? When you have similarly qualified candidates, you have to decide between them somehow. Is leaning toward the conservative candidate any different than leaning toward the funnier candidate or the more personable candidate or the one most likely to bring donuts in on Friday mornings, etc...?

I'm also curious if the people who are disgusted and shocked by this are similarly disgusted and shocked by the astounding dirth of conservatives in academia and entertainment.

Congrats GS! I just saw the picture!

I saw that too! Is that real?! Congrats

I guess I just don't buy into it, there's a lot of reasons that someone doesnt get hired, I'm going to use a healthy dose of skepticism here.

"Significantly higher"? Does that mean statistically significant?

"Buzzwords that include evironmental and social justice" Does that mean they weren't taking ANYONE who was a part of those organizations or just taking them at a lower rate? Would you want someone whose focus was closer to the scope of what they'd be actually doing?

I dunno. I just don't buy into the whole conspiracy thing.

I'm certainly not saying its not POSSIBLE though.

The report gives the numbers and comparisons of hiring data from yaer to year, and at about page 68 starts detailing the evidence.

They investigated to determine the facts behind the original conspiracy theory, when it appeared to Justice staff and others that something different was going on.

I am not surprised by this news either. If they fired the attorneys for being too liberal why would they hire anyone that they think are liberal? I am still in shock that the republicans have made the environment a liberal issue. It's like debating weather gravity exsits or not.

The shift began in 2002, when advisers to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft restructured the honors program in response to what some officials saw as a liberal tilt in recruiting young lawyers from elite law schools like Harvard and Yale.

So, restructuring the system to be more inclusive of other schools around the country is somehow politizing the system?

I didn't see that link on the side where you could read the full report. My bad.

And I'm too lazy to read it.

So ok, everyone is evil.

Carrie, the DOJ didn't just fire liberal attorneys, they basically fired anyone that didn't go with their policies, including conservative lawyers who refused to participate in illegal activities. There was a former DOJ (conservative) attorney on the Daily Show last week who was talking about this.

"Are you saying that conservative employees are more likely to politicize federal prosecution than liberal employees?"

It didn't sound like she said that to me at all. Bush's legacy will have to account for all of the mistakes that him and his administration have made. I don't understand where you took it as a judgement of a political group.

"I'm also curious if the people who are disgusted and shocked by this are similarly disgusted and shocked by the astounding dirth of conservatives in academia and entertainment"

I am sorry, but there is a HUGE MASSIVE difference between entertainment and our JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.

This report is very damning. It isn't just a "maybe" there was corruption...it was clearly there.

That's why I asked for clarification, Jillness. The first sentence is a little ambiguous.

Yes, there is a difference between entertainment and the Justice Department. But, is there such a big difference between the Department of Education and the Justice Department? I didn't just mention entertainment.

"astounding dirth of conservatives in academia and entertainment."
Can you offer legitimate factual support for this and for linking it to this story - can you offer legitimate support for suggesting that it is somehow a liberal hiring conspiracy ala the Justice Department?

"But, is there such a big difference between the Department of Education and the Justice Department? I didn't just mention entertainment."
If the Bush Education Dept is to blame for the dirth of conservatives in academia, then it should be investigated.

The big difference between the Dept of Education and the Dept of Justice is that the Dept of Justice puts people in jail. That is a very powerful thing to be used for partisan reasons.

And the Justice Department's own investigator said the practice (evidence of it included in the full report) violated the "civil service law that prohibit discrimination in hiring based on political or ideological affiliations."

Thats a little alarming to hear nica. Im too lazy to read the report but it would seem that if a significant number of people in the office are noticing a definite slant in the hiring practices there must be something to it.

I hope they get this straightened out, too many peoples lives depend on this for there not to be some objectivity.

I don't think it's an issue when you hire people more in line with your beliefs. Clinton fired many prosecutors when he came to office because of political ideology.

THE PROBLEM IS, you can't fire people when they begin prosecuting people who are your supporters to hamper an investigation. That's what happened. They didn't just arbitrarily fire because of ideology, they fired people because they were going to start hauling in republicans. (See: Randall "Duke" Cunningham)

I can understand the skepticism in this frigid political climate. However I would say to those skeptics that I doubt the Dept. of Justice Inspector General would release such a report unless evidence warrants such an investigation. Which brings me to my next point before anyone is found guilty of any unethical practices there must be a completed investigation is still open and they haven't even got to investigating the nine firings. At this point both sides have my benefit of the doubt and may the truth be told.

*this one is still...

Hypno, this story has been going on for year. Rove, Gonzalez, et al would only give testimony in private and not under oath (?). Without their testimony, it will be impossible to prove any wrong doing. The Administration's flaunting of due process in this matter is tantamount to a big guilty sign. I mean, if you're innocent, why can't you testify under oath? It's a perversion of justice that takes on biblical meaning.

Congrats GS!

Yes, it's real!! Thanks y'all!!! We are so excited!

Oh I agree Rac. that dumb and dumber (Ashcroft & Gonzalez) have perverted justice. Government however does not have the liberty of operating as liberally as our opinions and I am thankful for that. There is a process that must be followed and I am confident that the truth will come out sooner or later.

Rac: "I don't think it's an issue when you hire people more in line with your beliefs. Clinton fired many prosecutors when he came to office because of political ideology."
Isn't that the crux of the investigation here? Isn't the investigation into the "inappropriate hiring practices" based on political leanings?

Hey congratulations GS. I do admit I have a soft spot for children I can't watch a birthing scene on film without loosing my composure. We should throw a citizensugar baby shower and everyone can send GS a citizensugar gift. YAY!

Oh, hypno, how sweet! and I never really was moved by birthing scenes until I had my daughter. Before they were just scary or even funny (nine months). Now even ones that are supposed to be funny move me to tears. Birth is such a miracle and a gift. Something I am truly blessed to be able to do again. Wow, am I a sappy walking hormone right now. I am sitting here all weepy now. Hypno!