Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And the Democrats always pick the best candidate and not the one that agrees with them. Right.
Read the piece, it is clear that IN FACT Liberals and Democrats got hired. The complaint is that not ENOUGH got hired. Meanwhile the claim that Conservatives were hired is that the few that applied did get jobs.
What a joke.
The Justice Department is supposed to hire on the basis of competency and qualifications, not political ideology. Making hiring decisions based on political ideology, which is what the Justice Department did, is not only illegal, but intentionally politicizes positions which should not be political. I would think even staunch Republicans would view this as problematic.
The Justice Department is supposed to hire on the basis of competency and qualifications, not political ideology. Making hiring decisions based on political ideology, which is what the Justice Department did, is not only illegal, but intentionally politicizes positions which should not be political. I would think even staunch Republicans would view this as problematic.
I suspect they would view this as problematic .... if a democrat did it. If Clinton had done it, it would have been one of the articles of impeachment.
And yet JUST because people stupid enough to announce they are this or that party looking for a NON partisan job don't get selected is NOT proof they were discriminated against.
The report issued Tuesday concluded that politics and ideology disqualified a significant number of newly graduated lawyers and summer interns seeking coveted Justice jobs in 2006.
We do not , in fact know how the Clinton admin hired and fired , well except he DID fire all the republican appointed attorneys when he took office.
Can you be more disingenuous?
From the original article...
20% of self-identified liberals received positions. 91.3% of self-identified conservatives received positions.
After all this, you are still maintaining that there is no proof that political ideology was illegally taken into account?
Now go back to the Clinton years and provide the SAME information. Then we will talk.
This is nothing more than the democrats trying to create problems where there are none. But prove me wrong, provide us the break down for the 8 years Clinton was in office.
You want me to prove to you that the Clinton administration didn't do the same thing? Give me a break.
I have never heard that the Clinton administration politicized the non-political positions within the Department of Justice. If you think they did, then you find the evidence (although since there was never an investigation of the Clinton administration for this, the evidence might not exist). It does not make the Bush administration's activities any less illegal.
You have become quite a shill.
By the way, US Attorneys (not Ass't USAs) are political appointees. The problem with the Bush administration's earlier dismissal is that it was alleged they were dismissed to influence pending cases or potential cases. However, generally speaking, they are political appointees and it would not be uncommon for a new president to pick new appointments.
These positions referenced in the article are not political appointments. They are to be merit-based civil service appointments. It is apples and oranges.
And there is absolutely no way, in my opinion, that Janet Reno did not do just what is alleged here but the other way round.
Explain again why someone seeking a NON Partisan position would identify themselves as Liberals to begin with?
Okay, now that you made the claim, I will ask you to back it up.
It is the Justice Department itself that says that political ideology was impermissibly taken into account. Why are you so reluctant to believe the Justice Department criticizing itself?
Why does it matter? Obviously both conservative and liberals do. Since it is an illegal criteria that shouldn't factor into hiring, what could it hurt?
Last I checked I do not, in fact have to PROVE anything. It is my OPINION. And I submit it is a reasonable opinion based on our Knowledge of the political games the appointees Clinton made, played.
You don't like my Opinion? To damn bad. You want me to change it? Prove me wrong. Provide information that would force me to change my opinion.
Last I checked I do not, in fact have to PROVE anything. It is my OPINION. And I submit it is a reasonable opinion based on our Knowledge of the political games the appointees Clinton made, played.
You don't like my Opinion? To damn bad. You want me to change it? Prove me wrong. Provide information that would force me to change my opinion.
Have we stumbled onto a new definition for a LIE?
