Justice Department passes of Dems and Liberals

Touched a nerve...or maybe an artery?

Sure thing you ignorant dip shit. So from now on, I am free to call any of your opinions or anyone else's a lie? That is what you have claimed in this thread after all.

I guess you better stop posting all together since all you post is opinion and by your own definition you are a lying sack of shit. But Hey "Thanks for playing" TM 2008 RGS
 
Sure thing you ignorant dip shit. So from now on, I am free to call any of your opinions or anyone else's a lie?

Well, there are two kinds of opinion, one amenable to proof and evidence and one which is not.

"I like the color blue." - No arguing with that.

"I don't think the holocaust really happened." - That can be argued against and disproved.

When you take a position on a proposition amenable to facts, prepare to have it challenged.
 
Well, there are two kinds of opinion, one amenable to proof and evidence and one which is not.

"I like the color blue." - No arguing with that.

"I don't think the holocaust really happened." - That can be argued against and disproved.

When you take a position on a proposition amenable to facts, prepare to have it challenged.

All you have to do IS provide those facts. That you can not and will not is really all I need to know.
 
All you have to do IS provide those facts. That you can not and will not is really all I need to know.

Well, you made the claim... I don't even if there is published evidence to either prove it or disprove it. However, even if there is evidence, since you made the claim, I kind of feel it is incumbent on you to provide the evidence. Otherwise, I will accept your opinion for all that I feel it is worth.

What kind of message board would this be where each of us makes claims and insists that the other party back up our claims?
 
Well, you made the claim... I don't even if there is published evidence to either prove it or disprove it. However, even if there is evidence, since you made the claim, I kind of feel it is incumbent on you to provide the evidence. Otherwise, I will accept your opinion for all that I feel it is worth.

What kind of message board would this be where each of us makes claims and insists that the other party back up our claims?

I do not have to provide "evidence" for an opinion. As I recall you argued that, for example, the numerous leftoids on this board that have argued it was their opinion Bush lied did not have to provide any evidence since after all it was just their opinion. Yet that canard has been destroyed every time it has been posted.

But hey play that tune all you want. It is established historical fact that Clinton appointees distorted and stretched all the rules while they were in office. We have the travel office fiasco, the Vince Foster "suicide" , the 900 plus FBI files fiasco, Tyson foods, Waco Texas, that 5 year old in Florida, Clinton lying to a Judge under oath, Reno being forced on several occasions to do her job by pressure. But ya that was just such an ethical and well run administration.
 
I do not have to provide "evidence" for an opinion. As I recall you argued that, for example, the numerous leftoids on this board that have argued it was their opinion Bush lied did not have to provide any evidence since after all it was just their opinion. Yet that canard has been destroyed every time it has been posted.

But hey play that tune all you want. It is established historical fact that Clinton appointees distorted and stretched all the rules while they were in office. We have the travel office fiasco, the Vince Foster "suicide" , the 900 plus FBI files fiasco, Tyson foods, Waco Texas, that 5 year old in Florida, Clinton lying to a Judge under oath, Reno being forced on several occasions to do her job by pressure. But ya that was just such an ethical and well run administration.

I make no claims that the Clinton administration was particularly well run. However, that doesn't mean that it illegally used political ideology as a basis for hiring civil servants in the Justice Department. You say that you believe they did. I question whether you have any evidence (other than evidence that the Clinton administration did other unrelated things wrong) to support this claim. Do you have such evidence?

If you don't have such evidence, just say so.
 
I make no claims that the Clinton administration was particularly well run. However, that doesn't mean that it illegally used political ideology as a basis for hiring civil servants in the Justice Department. You say that you believe they did. I question whether you have any evidence (other than evidence that the Clinton administration did other unrelated things wrong) to support this claim. Do you have such evidence?

If you don't have such evidence, just say so.

Never said I had evidence, I said I believe they did so based on their actions across the board. Which is CLEAR from my first post on the matter. Thus why it would be MY OPINION. And the other actions are hardly unrelated. They establish a base line for what was acceptable from the President on down in that Administration.
 
As a side note, it doesn't seem to me particularly relevant what other administrations (Republican or Democrat) have done in this regard. The action complained of is illegal and wrong regardless of whether it has been done in the past by others. I will be happy if you just concede this point.
 
Never said I had evidence, I said I believe they did so based on their actions across the board. Which is CLEAR from my first post on the matter. Thus why it would be MY OPINION. And the other actions are hardly unrelated. They establish a base line for what was acceptable from the President on down in that Administration.

So you have an opinion for which you have no evidence. Fine.

Can we agree that the action complained of is wrong?
 
So you have an opinion for which you have no evidence. Fine.

Can we agree that the action complained of is wrong?

No, we can not. The fact is the process is political, other wise why would a 3 person panel with political appointees be given the power to hire and fire? Further as I read this, it is about summer interns, not actual employees of the Department of Justice. Temporary positions not permanent.

And then we have the fact that the article is misleading as hell. It implies that no democrats got hired at all and that all the positions were filled with Republicans. That is simply not true. There is in fact no compelling evidence that the people that did not get hired, did not get hired because they said they were democrats or liberals.
 
No, we can not. The fact is the process is political, other wise why would a 3 person panel with political appointees be given the power to hire and fire? Further as I read this, it is about summer interns, not actual employees of the Department of Justice. Temporary positions not permanent.

And then we have the fact that the article is misleading as hell. It implies that no democrats got hired at all and that all the positions were filled with Republicans. That is simply not true. There is in fact no compelling evidence that the people that did not get hired, did not get hired because they said they were democrats or liberals.


You are right. The process was political. It just isn't supposed to be.

As for the positions, these are positions that are given to the top law school graduates in the country as an avenue to become Asst. US Attorneys. Under the normal hiring process, you have to have practiced for a couple of years before you can apply to become a AUSA. These are coveted positions from which students can go directly from law school to the Justice Department.

So, your position is that you don't think this is wrong or illegal because a three person panel made the decisions? How do you explain the fact that the Justice Department investigators who looked deeply into the matter found that the actions violated the law?

The report by the Justice Department inspector general and the Office of Professional Responsibility concluded that a pair of high-ranking political appointees who are no longer with the department had violated department policy and the Civil Service Reform Act by using ideological reasons to scuttle the candidacy of lawyers who applied to the elite honors and summer intern programs.
washingtonpost.com

I kind of feel that this is a new low for you. You are disagreeing (on what basis I am not sure) with the Justice Department investigation when it criticizes (and classifies as illegal) its own conduct.

You my friend would clearly qualify as a partisan hack.
 
You are right. The process was political. It just isn't supposed to be.

As for the positions, these are positions that are given to the top law school graduates in the country as an avenue to become Asst. US Attorneys. Under the normal hiring process, you have to have practiced for a couple of years before you can apply to become a AUSA. These are coveted positions from which students can go directly from law school to the Justice Department.

So, your position is that you don't think this is wrong or illegal because a three person panel made the decisions? How do you explain the fact that the Justice Department investigators who looked deeply into the matter found that the actions violated the law?


washingtonpost.com

I kind of feel that this is a new low for you. You are disagreeing (on what basis I am not sure) with the Justice Department investigation when it criticizes (and classifies as illegal) its own conduct.

You my friend would clearly qualify as a partisan hack.

Wrong again, there is no compelling evidence cited in the story other than the "committee's view" And of course we know those boards and committees are fair and balanced now don't we? Since it is a fact , even born out by the lposted hiring practices you decry, that a majority of those hired are always democrats and liberals.
 
Wrong again, there is no compelling evidence cited in the story other than the "committee's view" And of course we know those boards and committees are fair and balanced now don't we? Since it is a fact , even born out by the lposted hiring practices you decry, that a majority of those hired are always democrats and liberals.

Well, I guess I have to applaud you for taking a stand against the Bush administration. When the administration's DOJ says "Wait, we fucked up and broke the law," only you have the courage to vigorously disagree. Well done Sir.
 
Well, I guess I have to applaud you for taking a stand against the Bush administration. When the administration's DOJ says "Wait, we fucked up and broke the law," only you have the courage to vigorously disagree. Well done Sir.

You can try and twist it anyway you want. The reality is there is a reason the "decision" did not occur until 2008. And it is not because it took them 6 years to figure it out.

Further, the very premise is retarded. These two appointees were brazen enough to do it in 2002 but then chickened out in 2003, 2004 and 2005 just to finally get enough balls to do it again in 2006.

This is much to do about nothing.
 
You can try and twist it anyway you want. The reality is there is a reason the "decision" did not occur until 2008. And it is not because it took them 6 years to figure it out.

Further, the very premise is retarded. These two appointees were brazen enough to do it in 2002 but then chickened out in 2003, 2004 and 2005 just to finally get enough balls to do it again in 2006.

This is much to do about nothing.

I see. Since the illegal action wasn't continuous over 4 years, it isn't really wrong.

By the way, here are some juicy excerpts from the DOJ IG report itself.

The evidence in our investigation – including the documentary evidence, the testimony of witnesses, and the analysis of the applications of candidates who were selected for interviews and who were deselected by the 2006 Screening Committee – supports the conclusion that political or ideological affiliations were used to deselect candidates from the Honors Program and SLIP.
As discussed below, we concluded that while Fridman did not use political or ideological affiliations in his evaluation of candidates, the evidence indicates that both McDonald and Elston did. As a result,many qualified candidates were deselected by the Screening Committee because of their perceived political or ideological affiliations.

As explained below, we concluded that Elston violated federal law and Department policy by deselecting candidates based on their liberal affiliations. First, the data analysis indicates that highly qualified candidates with liberal or Democratic Party affiliations were deselected at a much higher rate than highly qualified candidates with conservative or Republican Party affiliations. Second, Elston admitted that he may have deselected candidates in a few instances due to their affiliations with certain liberal causes. Elston also was unable in specific cases to give a credible reason as to why highly qualified candidates with liberal or Democratic Party affiliations were deselected.
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0806/final.pdf
 
Here is some more.

The documentary evidence and witness interviews also support the conclusion that two members of the 2006 Screening Committee, Esther Slater McDonald and Michael Elston, took political or ideological affiliations into account in deselecting candidates in violation of Department policy and federal law. For example, the evidence showed that McDonald wrote disparaging statements about candidates’ liberal and Democratic Party affiliations on the applications she reviewed and that she voted to deselect candidates on that basis.
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0806/final.pdf
 
No one is really surprised the administration took these illegal actions. I couldn't argue that there wasn't pandering under the Clinton adminstration, as noted by RGS, but nothing as blatant as to receive such a stinging rebuke as this. That is a fact.

I am wondering if the committee with judicial oversight will pursue this further.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top