Schlozman Admits To ‘Boasting’ About The Number Of Republicans He Hired
Schlozman Admits To ‘Boasting’ About The Number Of Republicans He Hired
During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing yesterday, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) asked Justice Department official Bradley Schlozman about evidence that he hired officials for their conservative or Republican affiliations. Schlozman insisted that such qualities were “irrelevant to the hiring decision for a career position.”
But minutes later, Schumer asked Schlozman, “Did you ever boast to anyone that you hired a certain number of Republicans or conservatives for any division or section at the Justice Department?” Schlozman said he had. “I probably have made statements like that,” he said. Watch it:
Schumer noted the discrepancy in Schlozman’s statements. “If you said it was irrelevant at one point, now you’re boasting to people that, ‘Well, we hired Republicans.’ Is there a contradiction there? … It sure seems a contradiction to me,” said Schumer. Later in the hearing, Schlozman also “acknowledged ordering changes in the performance evaluations of some longtime lawyers who were not perceived to be Bush administration loyalists.”
Transcript:
SCHUMER: OK. Let me ask you this one: Did you ever suggest to anyone that an applicant for a position at the Justice Department should change his or her resume to hide a conservative or Republican affiliation or connection?
SCHLOZMAN: What I did do was — I mean, the answer to that is, it’s not a matter of hiding it, but I did encourage individuals to — on a couple of occasions, to take political background which was irrelevant to the hiring decision for a career position and did not include that in the resume that they submitted for a career position.
SCHUMER: Well, did you say — did you say, Don’t put something conservative or Republican so they won’t know your views or your affiliation ?
SCHLOZMAN: What I did do is, we — on a couple of occasions, we had, like, Republican National Lawyers Association. And I would, when I would get a resume — what would end up happening, Senator, is that I would get resumes from third parties, usually for people being considered for either a political or a career position in the division. We had both.
So if it was a career position — if it was a political position, I’d send it up to the Attorney General’s Office for the White House liaison. If it was a career position and there was some kind of — obviously, people in this city have both political and non-political resumes, and if I would see some sort of political background that was irrelevant to the hiring decision, I would encourage them not to include that.
SCHUMER: How many occasions did you do that?
SCHLOZMAN: I mean, perhaps a handful — I mean, three to four, I would assume.
SCHUMER: Can you name some of the people and what affiliations you told them to take off their resume?
SCHLOZMAN: Senator, I don’t remember specific names.
SCHUMER: But you did do it.
SCHLOZMAN: I — yes, I mean, I did do that. Yes.
SCHUMER: OK.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHLOZMAN: Well, one has come out — well, one has apparently come out and made the allegation. For one individual, it’s been in the press.
But I don’t — excuse me, I don’t remember any of the names of any specific individuals, no.
SCHUMER: But you did it on several occasions.
SCHLOZMAN: Probably, yes.
SCHUMER: And it wasn’t just Republican or conservative affiliations that they should do.
SCHLOZMAN: It was purely — if it was purely political background.
SCHUMER: Right.
SCHLOZMAN: The fact that there might have been some organization that’s perceived as political, that’s not what I was telling them to remove.
It would have been something like…
SCHUMER: You never told people for the purpose of hiding what your views are so you could get in, or whatever.
SCHLOZMAN: It wasn’t a matter of…
SCHUMER: Did you ever tell people that, yes or no?
SCHLOZMAN: As a matter of hiding it, no, I don’t recall making…
SCHUMER: Or something to that effect.
SCHLOZMAN: I don’t recall making any kind of comment like that.
SCHUMER: OK.
At any time did you receive recommendations for the hiring of career lawyers from the Republican National Lawyers Association?
SCHLOZMAN: I don’t recall getting any recommendations from the RNLA.
SCHUMER: Did Michael Thielen — he was head of it — refer candidates to you?
SCHLOZMAN: I don’t recall. I don’t even know Michael Thielen.
SCHUMER: OK.
So you have no recollection of that happening?
SCHLOZMAN: I have no recollection of that, no.
SCHUMER: OK.
Did you ever boast to anyone that you had hired a certain number of Republicans or conservatives for any division or section at the Department of Justice?
SCHLOZMAN: I mean, I don’t remember — what I probably, I mean, I have made statements, you know, that we have in one section brought more, perhaps, individuals who were more professional and…
SCHUMER: No, I didn’t ask professional. You’ve got to answer my question.
I know you may associate Republican or conservative with professional, but that’s not my question.
SCHLOZMAN: Senator, I mean, I may have made statements…
SCHUMER: But this is a — I’m asking these questions, you know, for a reason.
SCHLOZMAN: Yes.
SCHUMER: OK?
Did you ever boast to anyone that you hired a certain number of Republicans or conservatives for any division or section at the Justice Department?
SCHLOZMAN: I mean, I probably have made statements like that.
And I’ll pursue this in the second round if we’re going to have one, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
LEAHY: Thank you, Senator Schumer.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
50 Responses to “Schlozman Admits To ‘Boasting’ About The Number Of Republicans He Hired”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
He might as well boast about it, because the Democrats just seem to talk big and do nothing about it.
June 6th, 2007 at 9:53 amThis story was posted yesterday.
Could you please post some actual news?
June 6th, 2007 at 9:55 amFlagrant violation of the law and nobody is doing anything about it! Granted, the corruption in the GOP is such a deep miasma of wrongdoing and darkness that it may take years to sift through all of the detritus of this administration. Nevertheless, this does not allow the Dems off the proverbial “hook” which they are on following the mandate of the people. Work extra hours if need be, folks because we’ve placed our faith and trust in you do rid this country of the liars and crooks so plentiful these days in the highest places of this government. Unless/until you make this herculean attempt, you will also be labeled by the people as a “do nothing congress”. Get with the program dems or the people will soon turn on you as well.
June 6th, 2007 at 9:58 amI have never seen Sen. Schumer do anything but talk. Talk is cheap, but actions mean everything. Impeach Gonzales or shut up and resign.
June 6th, 2007 at 9:59 amDoesn’t Bush boast about his own wrongdoing and lapses in judgment by awarding those who have lied to the people and have engaged in incompetence medals of honor?? That’s the very same thing as “boasting” about how he’s done something wrong and is getting away with it. Wake up, people! This democracy is sinking rapidly and even the very best Democratic president may not be able to right this sinking ship soon.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:00 amWhat is up with this guy’s voice? He SOUNDS like a weasel. Certainly looks and acts like one.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:00 amWith all of the evidence of wrong doing in DoJ, if the impeachments don’t begin soon, it is evidence that the dems are ALL talk. If that is the case, why vote at all. So far the 2006 vote has made absolutely no difference in action outcomes. We have seen hearings that keep leading no where and immunity granting that produced nothing more than would have been said without the immunity. Since the dems really show no fight for any principles, they really aren’t going to win much of anything in 08.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:01 amSchlozman also “acknowledged ordering changes in the performance evaluations of some longtime lawyers who were not perceived to be Bush administration loyalists.â€
What Scholzman ordered violates Civil Service law, rules, and regulations. He should have been investigated and administratively punished (up to removal from office) for his violations.
He is also liable for civil suits for damages by those who were subject to his illegal actions.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:02 amThis guy is as effeminate as his boss Alberto VO5.
AlbertoV05…does he or doesn’t he smoke cock?
…Only his hairdresser knows for sure!
June 6th, 2007 at 10:05 amTypical wingnut doublethink.
Realizing political affiliation is supposed to be “irrelevant to the hiring decision for a career position”, yet acknowledging fokking over those “not perceived to be Bush loyalists”.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:05 am#6 — He sounds Fredo on helium.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:09 amWhen Pres. Bill Clinton lied under oath about not having sex with Monica, the GOPers were tripping over each other to have him impeached. The Bush Regime is filled with criminals, but the Democrats in DC act passive and cowardly.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:09 amNot all Democrats are passive cowards.
Some of them are kicking ass and taking names.
But this is worrying me…are the Dems going to be Repuke Lite and keep the same destructive policies going?
After all, they are beholden to the same corporate interests.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:12 amNothing will change in Washington, DC, untill all the cowards are removed and replaced with people who are patriots and have guts to stand up to criminals.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:14 amWith all of the evidence of wrong doing in DoJ, if the impeachments don’t begin soon, it is evidence that the dems are ALL talk. If that is the case, why vote at all. So far the 2006 vote has made absolutely no difference in action outcomes.
Comment by BearCountry — June 6, 2007 @ 10:01 am
Personally, I’d like to see how deep this rabbit hole actually goes before the House starts filing orders of impeachment for low-level DOJ officers.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:17 amTom3 > there are a few Democrats that are not cowards, like Kucinich, Conyers, Waters, Waxman, etc., but Reid and Pelosi are cowards. Oh they do talk big, but then run off and hide.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:17 amtalk is cheap until you hire a lawyer…
June 6th, 2007 at 10:21 am“I probably have made statements like thatâ€
What Schumer should have said:
No, no f*cking probably. Either you did or you didn’t. Now which one is it you lying sack of sh*t.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:23 amYou’re right about Pelosi and Reid, Jay. Jeez what wussies.
Not only are there cowards, but outright party traitors.
Any Democrat who supported Loserman after he lost the primary is a party traitor. Party rules prohibit supporting any opponent of the party nominee.
My senator Salazar (DINO-CO) is a party traitor. There are others.
And as for Loserman? The Dems should dump him. Kick him out of caucus and kick him off all committees. Kick him to the curb.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:23 amTom3 > I agree with your post 19. I have faxed Pelosi and Reid untill I turned blue, but they are just cowards and nothing can be done to give them courage on anything. Traitor Joe LIEberman must be forced to retire or resign from the Senate in disgrace.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:30 amThe Bush administration…….
The most corrupt administration EVER!
June 6th, 2007 at 10:30 amI love listening to this guy. It’s so apparant that Bush has his balls (man, what else would make a man sound like that??)
I hope this guy winds up like Tim Griffin…jobless and unemployable. Alas, there’s always some corporate giant needing a dishonorable, unethical, lying lawyer (boy, the jokes are going through my mind at warp speed).
Spin it Brad…and here’s to hoping it wraps around your rotten neck!
June 6th, 2007 at 10:30 amThere weren’t even enough votes to get an override of a veto. Do you honestly think there is a chance in hell of impeachment??
June 6th, 2007 at 10:32 amMsJoanne > Maybe Bush requires that all males in his administration be surgically castrated, except him and Cheney, so they are all just eunichs.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:34 amMsJoanne > impeachment does not have to be successful to damage Bush. Remember that Clinton was not removed from office, but after the attempted impeachment he was humiliated and lost prestige nationwide.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:38 amI hate to make light but is that really his voice? I just could not listen any more.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:39 am“we don’t have the votes” the mating call of gallus domesticus pelosii…the common congressional chicken.
i’ve been writing, calling and emailing congress for weeks…the silence is deafening!
June 6th, 2007 at 10:39 ami’ve taken to calling lieberman “tailgunner” after the jackass who hijacked congress and most of the nation back in the ’50s.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:43 amJay Randal sez:
Two problems with applying that line of reasoning to Chimpy, Jay:
1) For someone to be humiliated, it is necessary that they have at least a nominal amount of shame. Chimpy has repeatedly demonstrated that he has none. Zero.
2) As for “losing prestige”, he has already lost prestige everywhere but in his core supporters, who will no doubt look upon an impeachment (especially a failed one) as some sort of bizzare badge of honor…a crown of thorns for their Chimpy Messiah.
No, a failed impeachment won’t even slow Chimpy down….in fact, it will give him added strength.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:43 am#13 Comment by Tom3 — June 6, 2007 @ 10:12 am
But this is worrying me…are the Dems going to be Repuke Lite and keep the same destructive policies going?
After all, they are beholden to the same corporate interests.
It is a guarantee if Hillary is elected. Not necessarily if someone else is.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:49 amTripMaster > a failed impeachment of Bush is better than none at all. Heck the one against Clinton was dragged out for at least a year. Do the same to Bush: hold hearings for months in the House and Senate till the end of his term. Better than the Reid and Pelosi plan of caving to George daily.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:52 amThe part of the equation missing in the discussion of impeachment bringing charges etc… is the media. No matter what the right says about the slant of the media it is decidedly conservative. Impeachment and criminal charges are not as easy to bring up as one would think. You do need public opinion on your side in order to get some if this done. Without the media supporting you it is difficult to sway public opinion. Take for instance the whole Libby affair, had the CIA not pressed justice, no investigation would never have occurred. Now that the cover-up has been partially exposed and someone is going to jail for it there is still a fairly large portion of the media that claims there was no underlying crime therefore the perjury charge is irrelevant. Publications such as the Wall Street Journal are still widely respected in spite of their heavy handed republican bias, they write pieces calling for Libby to be freed because he nor anyone else was not convicted of the underlying crime therefore no crime occurred. The public reads it or hears about it and agrees, totally ignoring the notion that the perjury helped hide the underlying crime. My point in all this is that they need to sway the public with the media. Sure a fairly large portion of the public wants these goon south of office and in jail, however as soon as the machinery started to move in that direction, the media would absolutely cloud the issue with claims of political witch hunts etc… Heck look at the never-ending political witch hunt that occurred in the 1990’s Did any of the media call it that? Not that I can think of, yet even now I hear the media discussing the current situation and them cautioning the dems not to go in that direction. The media should just report and if they advocate anything they need to advocate congress doing what is right.
That being said, who knows maybe the dems are saving it up for next year and lookign to get that 2/3 majority on both houses.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:52 amI get Cspan-1 and Cspan-2, but I still don’t get coverage of the hearings. The msm doesn’t cover them. Is it any wonder we are so ill-informed.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:55 amMark > the corporate press gets paid to back the Bush Regime. Democrats would be wise to buy out CNN, so they have a network to counter FOX.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:58 ami’m not sure about that added strength TripMaster. chimpy’s core supporters have a better than is healthy dose of paranoia and, well, maybe i’m being delusional, but i’m beginning to sense some microcracks in their worship of the chimp messiah that are beginning to widen.
June 6th, 2007 at 11:02 am#15 Comment by toasterhead — June 6, 2007 @ 10:17 am
Personally, I’d like to see how deep this rabbit hole actually goes before the House starts filing orders of impeachment for low-level DOJ officers.
I agree.
The strong demands being voiced for “action” don’t square with reality. 2006 was the first good step toward ridding the country of the neocons and corrupt or do nothing Congressmen. It should be noted that in 2006 only one third of the senators were up for election. The election results there were beyond expectations, and truly effective control will only come after the 2008 election. I believe ‘08 will reverse the 1994 event in Congress.
On the house side, although the numbers indicate “control” the devil is in the details. Democrats are not all the same. The party has been controlled by the right of center DLC people since the 80’s. This change only began in ‘03 or so. The power is shifting away from the DLC, those who believe in apeasement of the right wing agenda, triangulation and a pro “war” belief.
The frustrations we feel in not having everything we want now, must be tempered by a pragmatic approach. Put tremendous pressure on Congress but be realistic about the results that can be achieved with the present configuration and numbers. There is a bit of dead wood in the party that needs to be cleared in the ‘08 primaries. With the DLC ideology in dwindling numbers after ‘08 and a Democratic President, I believe we will see our goals reached.
For me the position is vigilence, pressure and patience; all in the face of my anger and frustration.
June 6th, 2007 at 11:13 amMsJoanne > impeachment does not have to be successful to damage Bush. Remember that Clinton was not removed from office, but after the attempted impeachment he was humiliated and lost prestige nationwide.
Comment by Jay Randal
I’m with you. At least make him go through the process. Even if a criminal is found not guilty they still have to go through the discomfort of a trial. And just saying they tried to impeach Bush, Cheney, Gonzo etal. is better than nothing.
June 6th, 2007 at 11:13 amNo, a failed impeachment won’t even slow Chimpy down….in fact, it will give him added strength.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — June 6, 2007 @ 10:43 am
Exactly my feelings. It’s the final bit of martyrdom he needs to complete his Jesification. There will never be enough votes in the Senate to convict, so the impeachment is doomed to failure. It may be cathartic for us, but ultimately it’s a victory for conservatives.
June 6th, 2007 at 11:14 amMarie - try http://www.c-span.org. They stream live video of the hearings. If you want to know when the hearings are scheduled go to http://www.capitolhearings.org.
June 6th, 2007 at 11:17 amI get Cspan-1 and Cspan-2, but I still don’t get coverage of the hearings. The msm doesn’t cover them. Is it any wonder we are so ill-informed.
Comment by Marie
Marie,
If you have a decent connection you can watch them online at C-Span’s website.
June 6th, 2007 at 11:18 amIf I was a guy in a position where I really didn’t know what the heck I was doing, other than politics, I’d keep my mouth shut.
That’s how a lot of criminals get caught, they can’t keep their mouths shut.
June 6th, 2007 at 11:19 amChimpy’s core Repuke supporters in Congress would never, ever Chimpeach him or impeach Cheney.
Even if Chimpy and Cheney raped Cub Scouts on live TV.
June 6th, 2007 at 11:27 amJay if it were that easy they probably would have done it already. I think corporate America, which the mainstream media is a part of, has its self too closely identified with the republican party. Thus they take what the republicans say and pass it along with much less scrutiny than they would if the democrats say something. Take for instance the last presidential campaign and the one before it. The media passed along outrageous statements and ideas that seriously affected the democrat candidates with seemingly little investigative effort…examples being the Claim that Al Gore claimed to invent the internet or the swift boating of John Kerry. Both were major media news fodder for the entire campaign. Yet the purple heart band aids and George Bush’s record were not given anywhere close to the attention that the stories affecting the dems received. So I think it is not merely the notion of owning a station or not owning one it is much deeper and it all goes back to money.
For some reason, the republicans have sold themselves as the party that knows how to handle money. They are branded as the fiscally smart party looking out for the interests of business growth and individual income taxes while limiting the scope of wasteful spending in the federal government. In my lifetime not one single republican administration has been fiscally responsible yet they still have this branding. The media helps them with this, but why? I say because they benefit financially from republican policy, the rest of us suffer, but corporate America generally does OK. I think it is why the religious right is so heavily behind them too. Not because any republican policy reflects Christ in any way shape or form, but more because the big religious right leaders gain financially so they push their flocks to the right using various social issues such as gays or abortion. It all comes to money and how MY money is being used. The religious right and the media absolutely backed this war from the outset, however if they knew day one that pumping $100 billion into the poor regions of he Mideast would end terror and not cost any lives, those same people who support the $400 billion dollar war would rise up in anger about giving away our tax dollars, and why shouldn’t those people do it themselves etc…It’s all about the money and the perceived use of it. Religion has very little to do with the religious rights support of the republicans and as to the media they percive that the conservative cause leads to more wealth for them, so they pump it regardless of who owns them.
June 6th, 2007 at 11:30 amshane > better to try than to do nothing at all. Democrats must start the impeachment, then try to persuade Republicans to join the quest.
June 6th, 2007 at 11:31 am#38 Comment by toasterhead — June 6, 2007 @ 11:14 am
No, a failed impeachment won’t even slow Chimpy down….in fact, it will give him added strength.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — June 6, 2007 @ 10:43 am
Exactly my feelings. It’s the final bit of martyrdom he needs to complete his Jesification. There will never be enough votes in the Senate to convict, so the impeachment is doomed to failure. It may be cathartic for us, but ultimately it’s a victory for conservatives.
Absolutely correct! Win the battle with our frustrations and our impatience, and lose the war with BushCo.
As Mark in #32 notes:
“The part of the equation missing… is the media. You do need public opinion on your side in order to get this done. Without the media supporting you it is difficult to sway public opinion.”
June 6th, 2007 at 11:31 amI watched a good bit of the Schlozman testimony on C-span. This guy makes Gonzo look like a real professional. The following appearance by Gates, really contrasted a strong leader who answered questions very directly, against the weaselly, accommodating suck-up, Schlozman, who was like a deer caught in the headlights. His high pitched voice fit his profile admirably. He sounded like a ten year old boy trying to cover up the fact that he stole the candy. As odd as it sounds, the only feeling I had at the time was embarrassment. If I performed that badly, I don’t think I would ever want to appear in public again.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:11 pmAs odd as it sounds, the only feeling I had at the time was embarrassment. If I performed that badly, I don’t think I would ever want to appear in public again.
Comment by Merlin — June 6, 2007 @ 12:11 pm
Yup - it was truly a stellar performance by Spongebob Noneck. Academy-Award caliber. He needed to look like a complete nincompoop in order to protect the real string-pullers above him. And he, if I may blatantly rip off John Oliver, “NAILED IT!“
June 6th, 2007 at 12:39 pmWow. There sure are some really tough dudes here–calling the Democrats cowards, and worse.
Assuming these folks are not Republicans trying to weaken us, here is the proper way to call a Democrat a coward:
1) Pick a specific Democrat. (May I suggest John Murtha or one of the Viet Nam veterans?)
2) Call him a coward to his face.
3) Observe results.
I’ll bet not one of the dudes calling the Democrats cowards have the balls to do this.
June 6th, 2007 at 1:06 pmWhen do we indict the SOB?
June 6th, 2007 at 4:54 pmWhat do you mean, the Dems are doing nothing about it? Don’t they need to hold a hearing first before they can do anything else? Isn’t that what they’re doing now?
Jeebus, I think some of you must be trolls.
June 6th, 2007 at 5:38 pm