Did “Clinton do it too?”

Politicization at DOJ

For all of the posturing by Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee during the testimony of former Department of Justice political appointee Monica Goodling, they and their Democrat colleagues in the Clinton administration went to far greater lengths to identify and track the political activities of career and politically appointed lawyers in the Department of Justice and elsewhere.

“We knew the political affiliation of every lawyer and political appointee we hired at the Department of Justice from January 1993 to the end of the Administration,” says a former Clinton Department of Justice political appointee. “We kept charts and used them when it came time for new U.S. Attorney nominations, detailee assignments, and other hiring decisions. If you didn’t vote Democrat, you weren’t going anywhere with us. It was that simple.”

Here it is, right from the American Spectator. It seems to be based on one (or maybe two) anonymous sources. And, it’s also unclear whether the source is referring to “political” jobs, where it’s expected to hire on party line basis, or if the source is referring to supposedly apolitical career positions. The source does claim that, based on party affiliation, career people were given new assignments, no mention of hiring or firing on that basis.

One that point, I’m reminded of NYC real estate ads. If they don’t say it; it isn’t there. They put forward the very strongest case. An ad for an apartment that mentions “some light” means the window opens up onto an airshaft. “Good light” means you can see some corner of the sky without craning your neck. “Open views” means you can look at least 50 yars to the next building. “Sweeping views” means you can see a lot of sky, nearly down to the horizon somewhere. “Park views” and “water views” are similar; if they aren’t mentioned you don’t get them.

So, I guess, if Am Spec had the goods on political hiring for career positions, they would say so.

Comments

  1. Rick Moran wrote:

    “If you didn’t vote Democrat, you weren’t going anywhere with us. It was that simple.”

    Isn’t that pretty straightforward? I see your point but that would seem to be a pretty strong statement.

    Posted 29 May 2007 at 6:36 pm

  2. commissar wrote:

    Rick,

    I think you know, but perhaps not, the “political” positions are the higher-level jobs. The “career” jobs are the lower-level jobs of the “doers.”

    Lotsa career guys weren’t going anywhere anyway.

    So, that strikes me as a carefully worded report. Kinda like the real estate ads.

    Rick, I’m allergic to the “Clinton did it” excuse. Before I just accept the Am Spec’s story, I’d like to read more.

    Posted 29 May 2007 at 7:11 pm

  3. Rick Moran wrote:

    Not “excusing” anybody, for anything, at anytime.

    The point is hypocrisy - pure and simple.

    Posted 29 May 2007 at 10:38 pm

« “Things are getting better”
Enhanced Interrogation Techniques »