Network evening newscasts ignore IG report finding politicization of hiring practices in DOJ honors program
SUMMARY: Continuing a pattern of ignoring developments in the ongoing investigation into the firing of several U.S. attorneys, none of the broadcast networks' June 24 or 25 evening newscasts reported on the Justice Department Inspector General's findings of politicization of hiring practices in several of the department's recruiting programs.
Continuing a pattern of ignoring developments in the ongoing investigation into the firing of several U.S. attorneys, none of the broadcast networks' June 24 or 25 evening newscasts reported on the Justice Department Inspector General's findings of politicization of hiring practices in several of the department's recruiting programs.
As The New York Times reported, the report, released June 24, "is the first in a series of internal reviews growing out of last year's controversy over the dismissals of nine United States attorneys," and, according to the Times, found that "Justice Department officials illegally used 'political or ideological' factors in elite recruiting programs in recent years, tapping law school graduates with Federalist Society membership or other conservative credentials over more qualified candidates with liberal-sounding résumés." The report focused on the hiring practices associated with the Justice Department's Honors Program, which it described as "the exclusive means by which the Department hires recent law school graduates and judicial law clerks who do not have prior legal experience," and the Summer Law Intern Program, which "is the Department's hiring program for paid summer interns." The report stated that "beginning in 2002, a Screening Committee composed primarily of politically appointed employees from the Department's leadership offices had to approve all Honors Program and SLIP candidates for interviews by the [department's] components." As the Times reported, the report "found that 'many qualified candidates' were rejected" by the Screening Committee "from two key recruiting programs ... because of what was perceived as their liberal bent." From the Times:
Ideological and political factors can be used in hiring political appointees, but it is illegal to do so under federal civil service law and Justice Department guidelines in hiring career lawyers. Victims can sue, but offenders cannot generally be prosecuted under criminal law.
The report, based on interviews with dozens of officials and a review of e-mail correspondence, found that "many qualified candidates" were rejected from two key recruiting programs -- the attorney general's honors program and the department's summer intern program -- because of what was perceived as their liberal bent.
Those practices, the report concluded, "constituted misconduct and also violated the department's policies and civil service law that prohibit discrimination in hiring based on political or ideological affiliations."
[...]
The effect was clear, the report found, with applicants with a Democratic affiliation rejected "at a significantly higher rate" than those with Republican, conservative or neutral credentials.
For instance, in 2002, all seven of the honors applicants with membership in the American Constitution Society, a liberal group, were rejected, while 27 of 29 applicants with ties to the Federalist Society, a bedrock conservative group, were accepted [for an interview].
Similarly, 43 of 61 applicants with ties to the Democratic Party were rejected, while 41 of 46 applicants listed as Republicans were accepted [for an interview]. Many of those rejected were regarded as "highly qualified" based on the quality of their schools and other criteria.
As Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, the broadcast networks' evening newscasts -- ABC's World News, NBC's Nightly News, and the CBS Evening News -- initially were slow to report on the controversy surrounding the dismissal of several U.S. attorneys and have a history of ignoring developments relating to the controversy. For instance, the CBS Evening News did not cover former Justice official Monica Goodling's May 23, 2007, testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, in which Goodling admitted she "crossed the line" and "may have gone too far" by taking "inappropriate political considerations into account" in hiring career Justice officials, potentially a violation of the law. A review* of CBS Evening News transcripts found that, to date, Evening News still has not reported on Goodling's testimony. According to The New York Times, "[a]nother aspect of the [Inspector General] review will look at the work of Monica M. Goodling."
* A Nexis search of CBS transcripts for terms "show:(Evening News) and (Monica w/5 Goodling)" yielded these results.
It's probably better they DID ignore it, because that's what would happen: the networks would bring up the phony Clinton thing as "balance" to this DOJ story.
They do that all the time to obviate right-wing shenanigans.
"It's probably better they DID ignore it, because that's what would happen: the networks would bring up the phony Clinton thing as "balance" to this DOJ story.
They do that all the time to obviate right-wing shenanigans."
They do that, and/or they also attack the people and/or the groups that are speaking out against the Bush administration in this story.
Makes you wonder when the conservative news media is going to attack and/or smear the woman fingering Karl Goebbels Rove as having his fingerprints on the politically motivated prosecution of Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman between 5 and 6 years ago.
Many of those rejected were regarded as "highly qualified" based on the quality of their schools and other criteria.
Not to say there isn't anything fishy going on, but this article leaves much to be determined. First off - since when does the quality of the school mean that you are qualified for a position? The school may be quality, but your grades may not be. And what exactly is "other criteria"? Does that mean they could have been class leaders of the bowling club?
I just dont see enough detailed information on the applicatants to make any type of justification either way.
Notice I havent defended the administration on this. I just asked for applicant details before I make a decision as to why they were rejected.
Only two questions I asked:
1. Since when does the school you went to have merit over the grades you received there?
2. What exactly is "other criteria"?
This is another bull**** argument from the king of the bs'ers.
Read the report. It discusses the criteria that was used. They identified students that attended a top 20 law school or were in the top 20% of their class who had never gotten a C or lower.40% of those students with liberal leanings were rejected.
Only 6% of conservative students were rejected.
13% of students with no affiliations were rejected.
The evidence is undeniable.
Read the report.
In case you missed it, here are some nuggets from the report(pdf) itself regarding the qualification of applicants:
page 22 of the report
"This is the criteria the investigators used to determine qualifications. It is based on what the Bush administration working group at the DOJ claimed they were using:
We considered candidates to be highly qualified if they met each of the
four criteria that the Working Group had discussed in evaluating
applicants:
• Attended a top 20 ranked law school,[21]
• Was in the top 20 percent of the class,
• Had a federal judicial clerkship, and
• Was a member of the law review.
[21]We used the top 20 law schools in 2002 as ranked by U.S. News and World Report: Yale, Stanford, Harvard, Columbia, New York University, University of Chicago, University of Michigan, University of California at Berkeley, Duke, University of Pennsylvania, Northwestern, Cornell, Georgetown, University of Texas, University of California at Los Angeles, Vanderbilt, University of Iowa, University of Minnesota, University of Southern California, and Washington and Lee.
...
page 23 of the report
"The data indicates that the candidates [meeting all of the above qualifications] with liberal affiliations were deselected at a much higher rate (15 out of 18) than candidates with conservative affiliations (0 out of 5) or candidates with neutral affiliations (11 out of 48), even though all candidates met the same criteria."
Did you read the story, Science?
Science doesn't read anything that doesn't include pictures. He's still working his way through Bush's favorite, "My Pet Goat". :-)
Science, you have to read the story.
The DOJ's own investigative unit concluded that the DOJ broke the law here.
They passed over people who were tangibly and quantitatively more qualified, in preference to applicants who were preferred for illegal political considerations as to beliefs and experiences.
Some had even been polled for their beliefs, which is a violation of federal law.
They passed over people who were tangibly and quantitatively more qualified
I see the part of being passed over for political direction, and I agree that its wrong and should be addressed. However, I still do not see any real information to back up the claim that they were "tangibly and quantitatively more qualified".
"I see the part of being passed over for political direction, and I agree that its wrong and should be addressed. However, I still do not see any real information to back up the claim that they were "tangibly and quantitatively more qualified"."
Scinece, most of Liar Bush's partisan Republican Bush-lings had very little experience in trying cases, or had no experience trying cases at all.
Also, if someone got a law degree from "Andy's Elite Law School" that was located in a mini-mall, do you think any graduates from such a law school should be hired at the Justice Department, or anywhere else, for that matter?
Some examples of the candidates that were deselected by Elston are in the report cited above:
We asked Elston about a deselected SLIP candidate who was a student at Harvard Law School, graduated in the top 5 percent of his undergraduate class from the University of California, Berkeley, was an editor on Harvard’s human rights journal, had interned with a city attorney’s office and a state court judge, and had worked for 5 years in marketing before entering law school....
****
We discussed with Elston appeals of specific candidates. For example, we asked Elston why he denied the appeals of two candidates by the Civil Division. One candidate was a student at Harvard Law School, had an undergraduate degree from Princeton University, had worked for Planned Parenthood and a Democratic Senator, and had received high praise for her work during a SLIP internship the previous summer...
Another candidate had graduated sixth in his law school class from the University of Alabama, had been a member of the law review, had interned for the Public Defender Service, currently was clerking for a federal judge...
Elston could not explain why he accepted other candidates appealed by the Civil Division but denied these two candidates. He noted that his appeal decision e-mail to the Civil Division was sent late at night and added, “I didn’t spend a lot of time thinking about them.”
****
We asked Elston why he denied the request of U.S. Attorney Carol Lam to interview a candidate who graduated in the top third of her class at Stanford Law School, was summa cum laude with an undergraduate degree from George Washington University, was clerking for a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit...
****
We asked Elston why he denied the appeal of a SLIP candidate who was a student at Yale Law School, a member of the Yale Law Journal, a Rhodes Scholar, a Truman Scholar, graduated summa cum laude from Yale College, interned with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, had researched national security and terrorism issues for Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman...AAG Keisler had sent Elston an e-mail indicating that this candidate was the top priority among all those SLIP candidates that the Civil Division was appealing. Elston said that this candidate “looks like a perfectly outstanding candidate, although she doesn’t say much in terms of essay that would give us a view as to why she’s interested in public service.”
*****
We also asked Elston about a SLIP candidate who was a third year student at Yale Law School, had secured a clerkship on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for the fall of 2007, had a master’s degree in history from Harvard University, graduated cum laude from Yale College, had successfully served as a SLIP with the Department, and had a security clearance. ...
We asked Elston why he denied the appeal of a SLIP candidate who was a student at Stanford Law School, an editor on the Stanford Journal of International Law, President of the Stanford International Human Rights Association, and had graduated summa cum laude from Northwestern University. ...
No, but I fail to see how they are a better choice than someone who got into an ivy league (or any other top) school because of their parents/family contributional wealth, and skated by with C's. As most claim on here that Bush graduated from Yale with a C average, it goes to show that your choice of school is irrelevant.
I'm gonna type this slowly, Science101/Columbus1492, since you seem to have such a problem with reading comprehension.
According to the article, there were four criteria used to select candidates for the DOJ program:
• Attended a top 20 ranked law school
• Was in the top 20 percent of the class
• Had a federal judicial clerkship
• Was a member of the law review.
The last three criteria would knock any C students like Pretzelboy out of the running right off the bat. School choice was only PART of the equation - what a student did while he or she was there was far more important. In short, they were looking for the best law students from the best law schools.
And rejecting those with liberal tendencies.
Which is illegal.
The effect was clear, the report found, with applicants with a Democratic affiliation rejected "at a significantly higher rate" than those with Republican, conservative or neutral credentials.
Personally, I also think the highest number of accepted applicants should be of the neutral position.
The DOJ unit found that incriminating e-mails proved that candidates were rejected for use of supposedly liberal code words in papers and essays.
The DOJ was nailed by their own people.
Liberal Media? Bullsh*t.
Absolutely, Nerzog.
This corporatist conservative Republican Party controlled news media is working overtime to cover up all of Bush's criminality and all of the scandals in his administration.
The corporatist conservative Republican Party controlled news media threw more lifelines to Bush when he was coming apart in 2005 than all of the airings of "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire."
1. The politicized Bush IN-Justice Department in many cases engaged in politically motivated investigations and/or prosecutions of Democrats.
2. The politicized Bush IN-Justice Department in many other cases also engaged in the politically motivated torpedoing of investigations and/or possible prosecutions of Republicans and/or corporatist conservative Republican Party contributors and/or corporatist conservative Republican-owned multi-million dollar corporations.
3. The politicized Bush IN-Justice Department in many other cases launched and/or is still launching investigations and/or wiretaps and/or surveillence of persons and/or groups and/or alternative media sources that either speak out against ALL of the Bush administration policies, and/or speak out against other Republican politicians, and/or speak out against the Republican Party, and/or speak out against and/or directly oppose conservative special interest groups, and/or speak out against the right wing conservative hate merchants and/or the right wing conservative talk radio supporters of both Bush and the Republican Party.
Oh please. What do you expect? This is what happens. Republicans hire Republicans and Democrats hire Democrats.
You should really read the items before commenting. Not that you care about looking like an idiot, it's an anonymous website, but maybe you have a shred of self-respect left.
Oh. wait, you're a Republican. Never mind.
...And your evidence is...?...?...?
This is what kills me about you conservatives. This shouldn't be a partisan issue. It's the freakin Justice Department! You know the people that interpret the law!!! Why should Democrats hiring Democrats and Republicans hiring Republicans be accepted by the department that interprets the law?!? We're not talking about aides. This would be egregious if it were Democrats doing it. Do you think before you post things. I mean seriously, I want the best person for the job. I may not vote for a republican, but if he/she is the best person for the job I'm not going to mind. George W. Bush is the worst president ever!!! I don't even blame him because he truly is the manchurian candidate. He's not even calling the shots. Just being used like a puppet and signing his name to everything unpatriotic and unconstitutional. I actually feel for the guy, because he will be shunned post-presidency.
Our current media has turned journalism into propagandism. These are some pretty grim times for our country's respectability globally.
And before I get any G.I. Joe telling me I'm unpatriotic, I love my country. Just don't like what it's becoming.
A couple things:
Since the Justice Department is the Executive Branch they are charged with ENFORCING the law not interpreting it. That would be the Judicial Branch. As human nature instructs political leanings would tend to make human beings toward different types of crimes. I;m sure liberals would have no problem with liberals pursuing their various agendas from a law enforcement standpoint.
Second: If you truly want the BEST PERSON for the job, then I give you Robert Bork. He was by far the most-qualified judge to sit on the Supreme Court at the time and he was destroyed over political and ideological disagreements by the left-wing. The comservatives are simply playing by the rules laid down by the liberals.
I mean seriously, I want the best person for the job. I may not vote for a republican, but if he/she is the best person for the job I'm not going to mind.-me
Did you understand my post? You corrected my mistake over interpretation of the law, but you missed my larger point. Pay attention. You cited one example of someone you think was best for the job who got attacked for their political belief by liberals. One example. And for every one example you give me I can name 5 cronnies this Administration has favored over qualified people. Easily. But then that would be getting into the whole partisan thing that got this country where it is. You say Republicans are just following the model the democrats layed down. Well lets hope you are with us in November to eliminate this trend. Somehow I doubt it.
Apples and Oranges. The Senate has a Constitutional Advise and Consent role regarding Judicial appointees. There is no precedent for what the Bush Administration has done here. The investigative report even goes so far as to describe the activity as illegal.
NLT,
I would have a serious problem if liberals started picking only liberals for positions in a politically-neutral department of the Federal Government. When it comes to the justice department, I want the most qualified individuals regardless of affiliation. Period.
Your analogy about Justice Bork falls short because, as the other poster said, the Senate is involved in an advise and consent capacity. In the justice department, there is no such guide.
What Bush and his cronies have done to the Justice Department is absolutely criminal.
You say Bork was the most qualified? Bork, who thinks that the Ninth Amendment is an "indecipherable inkblot" and has no meaning? The man who openly wanted to roll back civil rights legislation? A man who advocates executive branch supremacy (remember the Saturday Night Massacre)? A man who wants to rewrite the Constitution so that "supermajorities" in Congress can overturn Supreme Court rulings? He is certainly intelligent, and certainly a radically Conservative judge, and I'm betting it is only his Conservatism that matters to you.
You tell me when an entire department of government was essentially off limits to new consevative/republican hires. Then an example of equal imprtance to the Dept of Justice.
I'll continue respirating while you make an honest effort to educate me.
It's APPALLING the amount of serious news that goes unreported or under reported , simply appalling how COMPLICIT the U.S. " NEWS " media is .
Not only this , the unreported U.S. backed war on Somalia by Ethiopia, accused of many killings of civilians and rapes .
21 die in Gaza by Israeli aggression in just one day and it's a fast moving banner at the bottom of screen on CNN .
FISA , forget about it , Katie Couric is too busy with the next soccer mom story or how people are riding the train more , because of high gas prices, DUH .
Then there is always daily reminder that there is a flood somewhere .