Schlozman sought to hire ‘good Americans.’
By on Jun 15th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Schlozman sought to hire ‘good Americans.’
A December 2005 complaint against controversial senior Justice Dept. official Bradley Schlozman alleged that Schlozman was “systematically attempting to purge all Civil Rights appellate attorneys hired under Democratic administrations.”
[Schlozman] appeared to be “targeting minority women lawyers” in the Civil Rights Division and was replacing them with “white, invariably Christian men.” The lawyer also alleged that “Schlozman told one recently hired attorney that it was his intention to drive these attorneys out of the Appellate Section so that he could replace them with ‘good Americans.’”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Obviously this guy has absolutely no moral compass.
June 15th, 2007 at 1:00 pmRepublicans have occasionally pointed out how Clinton and Janet Reno fired everyone in the Justice Department when they first assumed control. Can someone tell me why that is ok, but not firing a dozen or so Democratic or liberal state attorneys?
June 15th, 2007 at 1:01 pmWhile this is obviously hearsay, isn’t there a discrimination law being violated if this is true?
June 15th, 2007 at 1:03 pmThe impact on this nation by the neoconmen (and neoconwomen) and their fundie flunkies has been so damaging to our constitution and long-standing values that to hear them define what is “American” makes me want to vomit.
Real Americans-who treasure and support our constitution-must resist these fools, or there won’t be a real America left.
June 15th, 2007 at 1:03 pmRoboTroll 3100 reports:
Clinton Did It Tooâ„¢
Pleasure of the Presidentâ„¢
Criminalization of Politicsâ„¢
Look over there! Dan Rather called Katie Couric a tart!
June 15th, 2007 at 1:06 pmI’m guessing these would be “good Americans,” as defined by Schlotzy? Cuz I’m pretty sure those attorneys already were “good Americans,” by the normal definition.
June 15th, 2007 at 1:07 pmAh, I see, only Superstious White Males are Good Americans….how come I did not see that before?
1, The Magical Invisible Fairie in the Sky does not exist, made up, not real, fiction.
2. Alot of the White Males I have met are not exactly GOOD Amercicans by any stretch of the term. (I am Native American)
3. This guy is a bigot.
IGNORE THE TROLLS – Debate good, Schlozman bad
June 15th, 2007 at 1:08 pm@world political forum,
Outside the usual replacement of the US Attys as a new adminstration comes in, can you provide a reference (or better, two) were it is reported that Clinton and Reno fired everyone at the DoJ?
June 15th, 2007 at 1:08 pmAnd look, Harry Reid called a General incompetent! Oh, the horror!
June 15th, 2007 at 1:09 pmMore obstruction of justice from the fascist party.
June 15th, 2007 at 1:09 pmSchlotzy…
Isn’t that the guy who’s facial hair resembles Daryl’s anus?
Kristol, LIEberman, any comment?
June 15th, 2007 at 1:10 pm“Republicans have occasionally pointed out how Clinton and Janet Reno fired everyone in the Justice Department when they first assumed control. Can someone tell me why that is ok, but not firing a dozen or so Democratic or liberal state attorneys?
Comment by world political forum — June 15, 2007 @ 1:01 pm”
Firing USA’s at the BEGINNING of a presidential term is NORMAL. Firing them in the MIDDLE of a term is NOT……
See the difference????
I challenge you to show me where USA’s were fired in masses like this before. Where the firings were not truely related to performance or criminal activity…
Stop with the same old crap, this has been addressed over and over again.
June 15th, 2007 at 1:10 pm“Good Americans” include people like him????
June 15th, 2007 at 1:12 pmGod help us all.
“Republicans have occasionally pointed out how Clinton and Janet Reno fired everyone in the Justice Department when they first assumed control. Can someone tell me why that is ok, but not firing a dozen or so Democratic or liberal state attorneys?”
Ok, for about the 100th time, here it is. Clinton fired all of the US attorneys at the start of his Administration as did George Bush when he took office. Clinton did not start firing US Attorneys after that who he thought were not “with the program” and were not loyal enough.
Also, this article is not about firing the US Attorneys, it is about firing long standing Justice Department attorneys working in the civil rights division.
So, Mr. Troll, please show me where Clinton started firing long-standing Justice Department attorneys working under the US Attorneys because of their political affiliations. I’m willing to bet the farm that you can’t find any proof of this ever happining.
June 15th, 2007 at 1:13 pmSo, Mr. Troll, please show me where Clinton started firing long-standing Justice Department attorneys working under the US Attorneys because of their political affiliations. I’m willing to bet the farm that you can’t find any proof of this ever happining.
Comment by Katie
Wingnut trolls are not programmed for this sort of logic. All they’re capable of is repeating long-discredited and irrelevant claims over and over as though they were fresh, interesting and true. And “Clinton did it!!!!”
Some of them are clearly so stupid they cannot distinguish between US Attorneys and lawyers in the Civil Rights Division of the DoJ.
June 15th, 2007 at 1:17 pmPseudo-Professor Mark Colby, your presence is wanted at the
June 15th, 2007 at 1:17 pm“Colbert makes the case for Holsinger” thread.
Sounds very much like a German political party the world once knew.
But don’t dare invoke the party name (not the least of which because that is “forbidden” now) because every patriotic American would tell you that there is NO WAY the USA could ever be compared with such an evil empire whose worst sins still haunt us all:
- Genocide of the Jews (not at all like genocide of Iraqis and Arabs)
- Torture and human rights atrocities (not at all like Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, torture flights, renditions, illegal detentions)
- Offensive Military aggression against sovereign nations (not at all like Iraq or, God forbid, Iran)
- Oppression of its own and foreign peoples (not at all like warrantless searches of the suspension of Habeas Corpus)
Yes, any sane person can see that there is absolutely no similarities between that evil aggressor whose name we are not allowed to speak and the USA. To think otherwise would be an affront to the fatherland and not at all the actions of a “good American”.
June 15th, 2007 at 1:18 pmComment by RemoveBush — June 15, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
I would add that it’s not ok to fire the USAs for POLITICAL reasons mid-term. If they turn out to be a bad apple, they can be fired for cause.
June 15th, 2007 at 1:19 pmDamn….Another Friday filled with junk to keep our head’s busy while bushco keep’s on killing over there and raid’s the coffer’s, removes our right’s and tries to kill us over here…..All it accomplishes is time and lives waisted for the support of the industrial war complex…Make’s me tired and fed up with the entire mess…Blessings
June 15th, 2007 at 1:19 pmThe gal. “Good Americans” in the Republican book means lying swindlers and cheats.
Man, that ticks me off.
June 15th, 2007 at 1:20 pmWas it a “good American” that inserted the provision into the Patriot Act, buried into the legal jargon the night before the signing, that started this whole mess? no.
Was it a “good American” that acted upon the hidden provision? no.
Schlozman is not a good American. Good Americans stand up to injustice and stand behind the Constitution. Good Americans don’t spread fear.
This would be a good place to go on a rant about what true good Americans do and don’t stand for so I’ll stop.
June 15th, 2007 at 1:22 pmTo piggyback on RemoveBush’s comments from #12,
President Clinton did remove the United States Attorneys at the beginning of his term, which is customary for an incoming administration. The issue in this thread has nothing to do with the practice of firing United States Attorneys though. This is about them firing the non-political positions, the career attorneys and others within the department to establish a completely partisan Justice Department in order to ensure a permanent Republican majority in this country. In other words, they wanted (and still want) a one party state on a par with Soviet Russia, North Korea, and many other places that we have deemed as enemies. These criminal fools are emulating our alleged enemies and yet, you foolish trolls still support them. What does that say about them and you?
June 15th, 2007 at 1:22 pmThe guy was in the wrong department. He should have cleaned out the State Department and CIA of Democrats and Al Qaeda operatives like Plame.
He was wasting his time at Justice.
June 15th, 2007 at 1:22 pm“I would add that it’s not ok to fire the USAs for POLITICAL reasons mid-term. If they turn out to be a bad apple, they can be fired for cause.
Comment by Zooey — June 15, 2007 @ 1:19 pm”
That’s correct!
June 15th, 2007 at 1:23 pmWell, more diversity was needed in that sector. A homogeneous population doesn’t look like America. Right libetrolls?
June 15th, 2007 at 1:24 pmThe Trolls are at it again. However, they have extended the usual misleading allegation concerning Clinton and Reno. It is not only that the all of the US Attorneys were fired, but also that all of the employees of the Justice Department were fired.
1. Other posts have responded to the rarity of firing existing US Attorneys.
2. Note, serving at the will of the President does not exempt his use of discretion from review by the legislative branch. Republicans are essentially amoral. They believe that anything that can be done should be done. Thus, the President should be able to fire a US Attorney for any reason without question or review.
June 15th, 2007 at 1:26 pmWelcome to the New World Order! If you are a white Christian man that is. Thank Jeebus I am two of those, and the other I can lie about, and no one will know – hehehehehehehe.
June 15th, 2007 at 1:28 pm#22 Green917 -
Don’t waste your time trying to cover this material any more. The trolls don’t like the truth so they continue to ignore it.
Best let them continue their drooling and mouth-breathing while waiting for their next talking point from PudgeBoy Rove channeled through the Rusher.
June 15th, 2007 at 1:29 pm#2 – I wish you trolls could read, then I would not be so embarrassed for you when you came on these sites trying to distract, argue, or obfiscate and end-up showing your utter lack of education.
Clinton fired 91 when he took office, then BUSH, W, S**THEAD fired 89 when he took office, then he did the unprecedented firing of 9 US Attorneys in the middle of their 6th year.
You did add a bit of new random wingnuttery though. You said they were liberals. Once again, you have demonstarted that you are an incorrigible moron. They were all loyal Republicans (or we would have heard about this much sooner), and drew the line when they were asked to break the law. If more people in your party could follow that simple rule, you might actually effect your fascist agenda.
“Good Americans” That’s just digusting. I though we had chased these vile people into the darkest corners on the lowliest red states back in the early 80’s.
June 15th, 2007 at 1:30 pmSo Schlozman fired women and minorities because they’re not good Americans? I do believe they have grounds for a lawsuit.
June 15th, 2007 at 1:32 pmI’m waiting for February of ‘09 and the fake uproar the wingnuts are going to throw up when Hillary (or Obama or Gore or maybe, just maybe Wes Clark…) dismisses the bulk of the BushCo USAs.
I can hear it now: “Waaaaaaaah! They fired USAs for politcial reasons! Even the ones Bush installed running end-around Senate confirmation! Waaaaaaah!”
June 15th, 2007 at 1:40 pmi suggest using the word “schlozman” in place of the word “douchebag” from now on.
June 15th, 2007 at 1:46 pmi suggest using the word “schlozman†in place of the word “douchebag†from now on.
Comment by ron — June 15, 2007 @ 1:46 pm
I’d agree, ron, but “douchebag” is so much more fun to say.
June 15th, 2007 at 1:59 pmWell, more diversity was needed in that sector. A homogeneous population doesn’t look like America. Right libetrolls?
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1
You’re right, CT. We need bad Americans as well as good Americans in those USA positions.
*eyes rolling*
June 15th, 2007 at 2:06 pm#23 spews:
“The guy was in the wrong department. He should have cleaned out the State Department and CIA of Democrats and Al Qaeda operatives like Plame.
He was wasting his time at Justice.”
Comment by Frank J — June 15, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
Hey Frank — I know you wingnuts have a real hard time with novel concepts like truth and reality — but bottom line is Valerie Plame was a covert NOC working on stopping the proliferation of WMD’s — u know — the bad things that could be used to blow up your fascist, goose-stepping ass? Moron.
June 15th, 2007 at 2:06 pm#2 Give it up, RNC representative. That is the deadest talking point ever.
June 15th, 2007 at 2:16 pmI read and laugh when a GOPer says something like “Ya, but Clinton did it…” I’m nearly 50 yrs old I cannot recall ever hearing a President constantly compared to or measured by the actions of another President. Why not compare him against his daddy, which seems far more plausable, or against Kennedy, or Polk, or Washington for Christ’s sake. Is Clinton the high water mark of Presidents? Did time suddenly stop with Clinton or what?
No matter what the topic for some reason Bush and Bush supporters fall back on the sandbox excuse of pointing at the kid sitting next to them and saying “Ya, but Johnny did it first…” When i hear this it only reinforces my impression that this is the most immature crowd to ever hold power in this country and they are supported by the most immature folks in our population.
If you want to make an argument pro or con about the actions of Mr. Bush, please, please, try to do so by only using the name of Mr. Bush. Does this man ever stand on his own?
June 15th, 2007 at 2:27 pmComment by Zooey
You might have your head screwed on a little too tight.
June 15th, 2007 at 3:05 pm“Good Americans” 2005 = “Good Germans” 1939.
June 15th, 2007 at 3:09 pmThe guy was in the wrong department. He should have cleaned out the State Department and CIA of Democrats and Al Qaeda operatives like Plame.
He was wasting his time at Justice.
Comment by Frank J
Actually, appointed ANOTHER TRAITOR, Porter Goss, to do JUST THAT, get rid of the non-TRAITOR/Bushies…
When the Democrats take over the White House in 2009,
EVERY ONE of the people appointed or hired by Goodling, Taylor, Rove, Gonzales, etc. needs to be FIRED, PURGED, EXCRETED….
Because EVERY ONE of them hired by these TRAITORS is one also…
June 15th, 2007 at 3:19 pmAnother fascist nazi type in the bushit administration…what else is new? Hang them all as in Nuremberg. Begin with Chaney. “Good Germans”.
June 15th, 2007 at 3:39 pmPerhaps Bradley wanted everyone in his department to speak like Alvin the Chipmunk so that callers would never know whether or not they were talking to Mr. Schlozman.
Strikes me that his behavior was unusual and almost certainly illegal. A thorough investigation should establish whether he should be dismissed or indicted and whether the “ethics” of his behavior justifies the suspension or removal of his license to practice law.
As with Mr. Libby’s behavior, the best cure for the Schlozman’s and von Spakovsky’s of this world is sunlight and a demonstration that the law applies to them, just as it enforces the rights of those they would trample on.
June 15th, 2007 at 3:59 pmThat Schlongman… what a guy!
June 15th, 2007 at 5:10 pmsuggest using the word “schlozman†in place of the word “douchebag†from now on.
Comment by ron
It’s spelled “Schlongman”…
June 15th, 2007 at 5:11 pmGood get rid of all the AA hires abd abal sex liberal freaks
June 15th, 2007 at 7:00 pmKeep telling yourself that Mr. Scholzman. Maybe one day you will actually believe that.
June 16th, 2007 at 3:57 amSoooo. You have an interesting blog here.
I listen to Savage for about 15 minutes every night as I drive home from work.
He’s an absolute “nutter”.
But I have to wonder why his audience, well, IS his audience.
June 16th, 2007 at 8:39 amSchlozman – So what is he, a racist? (Snark for those who can’t read my mind)
June 17th, 2007 at 7:19 amRepublicans have occasionally pointed out how Clinton and Janet Reno fired everyone in the Justice Department when they first assumed control. Can someone tell me why that is ok, but not firing a dozen or so Democratic or liberal state attorneys?
As explained by others here already, these appointments are traditionally (with, at least the prior 3 administrations) done at the beginning of a President’s first term. So, when a President comes in, the attorneys are asked to tender resignations and new appointments are made. When re-elected, a President will generally not ask for resignations but, instead, keep these attorneys on. Until now, if an attorney was removed, it was due to job performance or some legal/ethical problem with that person, thus why they tried to say these firings were based on job performance. When it came out that these attorneys were rated high in their performance, the next step was to create the ridiculous talking point you repeated here (while also conveniently ignoring that a Republican president had set this precedent and had done so without the same level of political game-playing and didn’t do something as stupid as firing people without cause. This is particularly stupid in the age of email and digital information that is not easily “lost”.)
The second point is that these were not “a dozen or so Democratic or liberal state attorneys”. These were Republican appointees. The sad part is that they were fired for actually doing their jobs in prosecuting corruption where they found it (unfortunately, for some, it was Republicans they found doing it) or not bringing forth charges against Democrats based on flimsy evidence. These people were neither Democrats nor liberals. They were originally selected (supposedly) because they were both Republican and qualified for their jobs. But, because they were U.S. Attorneys, first, and Republicans, second, they were taken out and replaced with people who the administration felt would be good lap dogs, regardless of qualifications and regardless of what the laws say.
June 18th, 2007 at 1:15 pm