Now I am the type of person that goes to blogs not only to read what the person blogging has to say but also to check out the source links. Well after reading through the report myself I have decided that more of Schlozman's asshat hijinks should be exposed. I really don't know how in this day and age that somebody can truly believe they will get away with emailing this kind of stuff and never get called on it. I mean I know the Bush Administration has created a culture where it appears that anything goes and nobody ever is held to account but even by those standards some of this stuff was pushing the envelope. Remember this cat Shlozman basically was affecting people's lives by trying to pack the divisions he oversaw with card carrying conservatives hardly taking into account if they were even competent to do the job. Check him out.
In contrast, we found that Schlozman inappropriately considered political and ideological affiliations in hiring experienced attorneys in the sections he supervised and entry-level attorneys throughout the Division for the Attorney General’s Honors Program.6 We also found that Schlozman considered political and ideological affiliations in transferring and assigning cases to career attorneys in the sections he supervised.
snip
Cutlar said that the applicants whose résumés she reviewed after they had been culled from the applicant pool by Schlozman or others in the front office typically reflected membership in conservative organizations. She also said the most striking thing she noticed about the résumés was that the applicants generally lacked relevant experience. She said Schlozman minimized the importance of prior civil rights or human rights work experience. On that subject, Schlozman told Cutlar on one occasion, in the context of the hiring of volunteer interns in the Division, that relevant experience was not always a plus. In a voice mail to Cutlar in February 2006, Schlozman stated:[W]hen we start asking about, "what is your commitment to civil rights?" . . . . [H]ow do you prove that? Usually by membership in some crazy liberal organization or by some participation in some crazy cause. . . . Look, look at my résumé – I didn’t have any demonstrated commitment, but I care about the issues. So, I mean, I just want to make sure we don’t start confining ourselves to, you know, politburo members because they happen to be a member of some, you know, psychopathic left-wing organization designed to overthrow the government.
snip
Cutlar said she vehemently objected to some of the candidates interviewed for the Special Litigation Section because she did not believe they were qualified, but said she was routinely overruled by Schlozman. For example, Cutlar said she objected to hiring a candidate who was the girlfriend of an attorney hired in the Division’s Educational Opportunities Section because the applicant was unqualified. The applicant, who was working as a contract paralegal at a law firm, was a member of both the Federalist Society and the Republican National Lawyers Association. Cutlar said she also noted a discrepancy in dates on the applicant’s résumé – specifically that during the period the applicant claimed to have been self-employed practicing law, she was not admitted to any state bar. When Cutlar sought an explanation from the applicant during the interview, Schlozman told her to “let it go.” Cutlar argued with Schlozman after the interview that the candidate had not been truthful and should not be hired. By the time she returned to her office, however, Cutlar had received an e-mail from Schlozman informing her that he was hiring the applicant.
snip
Several attorneys in the Division also told us that Schlozman was open about his disdain for and lack of trust in the attorney staff of the Division.13 Appellate Section Chief Diana Flynn told us that inconversations with her, Schlozman alternately referred to the Appellate Section lawyers hired during prior administrations as “Democrats” and “liberals,” and said they were “disloyal,” could not be trusted, and were not “on the team.” Flynn said Schlozman pledged to move as many of them out of the Division as he could to make room for the “real Americans” and “right-thinking Americans” he wanted to hire.
Accounts from numerous other Division employees and officials, including former AAG Wan Kim and Section Chiefs Cutlar and Flynn, as well as the context of Schlozman’s e-mails, indicate that his use of terms such as “real American,” “right-thinking American,” being “on the team,” and similar terms were Schlozman’s way of referring to politically conservative applicants and attorneys. For example, an e-mail dated July 17, 2006, from Schlozman to Monica Goodling, who at the time was Senior Counsel to the Attorney General and White House Liaison, sheds light on the meaning of Schlozman’s terms. In that e-mail, Schlozman recommended a friend who had interviewed with Goodling for a political position. Schlozman wrote, “I can assure you that [the applicant] is a good American. [The applicant] and Sheldon Bradshaw and I (and [one] other person) made up a four-member Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy at my former law firm.” In another e-mail sent to Goodling on December 4, 2006, in which Schlozman recommended a different friend for an Immigration Judge position, Schlozman wrote, “[D]on’t be dissuaded by his ACLU work on voting matters from years ago. This is a very different man, and particularly on immigration issues, he is a true member of the team.”
snip
Former AAG Kim said he recalled an instance while he was still a DAAG when a concern about improper hiring considerations by Schlozman was brought to his attention. Kim said that in about March 2004 he had received a telephone call “out of the blue” from Andrew Lelling, who at the time was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia. Lelling had previously worked in the Civil Rights Division front office as Counsel to AAG Boyd. Kim was not acquainted with Lelling, but knew of his prior association with the Division. Kim said the call was memorable. He said that Lelling told him of a telephone conversation Lelling had just had with Schlozman. According to Kim, Lelling said, “I want to call you because I just spoke with Brad [Schlozman] recently and something that he said bothered me.” Lelling told Kim that he had called Schlozman to recommend a colleague at the U.S. Attorney’s Office who was interested in a position in the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division. Lelling told Kim that Schlozman had asked Lelling, “Well, is this guy conservative?” or something to that effect. Lelling said he had replied, “I don’t know. I don’t think so. I’m not sure,” and Schlozman told him, “Then he probably won’t be hired.”
Kim said he recalled that Lelling next said, “I don’t agree with that. I just wanted to call you, I don’t want to go around Schlozman, I don’t want him to think I’m going around his back, but I just don’t think that’s fair.” Kim told us that at the time he thought, “This is crazy.”
snip
Further evidence that Schlozman considered political factors in hiring is found in other e-mails. For example, in November 2003, when a Department attorney forwarded to Schlozman the résumé of a recent law school graduate who was clerking for a federal judge and was interested in a position at the Department, Schlozman forwarded the résumé to a Counsel in the front office of the Civil Rights Division, commenting that “this has lib written all over it. let’s discuss[.]”18
On November 13, 2003, Principal DAAG Wiggins forwarded an e-mail to Schlozman containing a magistrate judge’s recommendation of his law clerk for a position in the Division. The magistrate judge described his clerk as “a very able lawyer” who would be “a good addition to your staff.” Wiggins noted to Schlozman, “We need to hire this guy[.]” In a one-word e-mail reply to Wiggins, Schlozman asked: “conservative?”
snip
In another e-mail to a Division front office Counsel dated January 12, 2004, Schlozman inquired about an attorney being referred as a candidate for a career civil service position by asking, “how does he view the world, if you know what I mean?” In the e-mail, Schlozman
added, “(and for God’s sake, don’t forward this email!).”
In a January 30, 2004, e-mail to Kim, Schlozman declined an invitation to join Kim for lunch, noting, “Unfortunately I have an interview at 1 with some lefty who we’ll never hire but I’m extending a courtesy interview as a favor.” In another e-mail, dated March 5, 2004, Schlozman wrote to a front office Counsel that a Criminal Section deputy “has recommended several other commies for permanent positions in [the section]. [Criminal Section Chief Moskowitz] probably would concur with his recommendations. But as long as I’m here, adherents of Mao’s little red book need not apply.” Schlozman wrote an e-mail to Kim, dated March 15, 2004, that stated:We need to start thinking about [Criminal Section] lateral hires. I fear that [Moskowitz] and his minions will be sorting through the résumés looking for [name of attorney] clones who are big libs and would enforce certain of our statutes only with great reluctance. In talking to Alex, he is of the view (as am I) that our new folks should be individuals with
a background in, or genuine commitment to prosecuting trafficking cases. Also, any candidate must profess his/her willingness to zealously prosecute both death penalty and PBA cases. I strongly suspect that we have plenty of former prosecutors in the batch, so I would prefer not to see a bunch of public defenders that think like Al. Thoughts?
snip
As part of the same e-mail exchange, on July 16, 2003, Schlozman wrote, “My tentative plans are to gerrymander all of those crazy libs rights out of the section.” In addition, while interim U.S. Attorney in the Western District of Missouri, Schlozman wrote an e-mail to a friend, dated June 15, 2006, contrasting his job as U.S. Attorney with his position in the Civil Rights Division. He wrote:It has been months since I felt the need to scream with a blood-curdling cry at some commie, partisan subordinate (i.e., most of the [Voting] section staff until recently). And I feel like the people I now work with are all complete professionals. What a weird change. Granted, these changes are nice in many respects, but bitchslapping a bunch of [Division] attorneys really did get the blood pumping and was even enjoyable once in a while. I think now it’s all Good Cop for folks there. I much preferred the role of Bad Cop. . . . But perhaps the Division will name an award for me or something. How about the Brad Schlozman Award for Most Effectively Breaking the Will of Liberal Partisan Bureaucrats. I would be happy to come back for the awards ceremony.
Now why is it that this isn't headlines on every news station? I swear I used to think people who railed against the mainstream media were just wack jobs who probably wore tin foil hats. Well I need to break out my tin foil kangol because the more you actually look beyond just what our media chooses to report on the more you realize what a dismal failure they are whether by intention or not. Thank God that information is now free to average people so we can see for ourselves what is really going on in the world.
Posts
