Never mind the firings -- what did the other 85 USA's do to keep their jobs?

The story here isn’t about a few government lawyers losing their jobs when they deserved to keep them. I’m sure that’s happened many times before. It’s about the White House drafting the Justice Department into its service for partisan political purposes directed at elections at all levels:

A study shows DOJ prosecutions for corruption under the Bush Admin broke down as follows up to 2006:

The name of Wisconsin USA Stephen Biskupic was found on a list of USA’s marked down for firing, but he was spared. Biskupic prosecuted a state Democratic official, Georgia Thompson, for corruption during last year’s governor’s race; an appeals court just threw out her conviction, saying the evidence was “beyond thin.” More on that story here and here.

One of the new replacements has a history of working to disenfranchise minority voters:

Not related to voters or candidates, but possibly to protecting Pub donors: A former Justice Department lawyer now says the Justice Department actively interfered in her civil suit against tobacco companies in 2005:

Issues for debate:

  1. Is any of this, well, strictly speaking, illegal or unconstitutional?

  2. In any case, is it impeachable?

Related question – the DOJ has also been screening applicants based on political affiliation. In particular, preference seems to be given to those who are members of the Federalist Society. Does this [url=]violate the Hatch Act?

I’ll address the thread topic first. Since there are 85 U.S. Attorneys that didn’t lose their jobs, it’s nearly impossible to generalize about what they’ve all done to keep their jobs. I’m sure a great many of them aren’t even on the White House’s radar whatsoever.

It also seems a bit repetitive that you quote two articles that focus heavily on Timothy Griffin. They aren’t two separate people, they’re the same U.S. Attorney, and the misuse of the term criminal (since to my knowledge he’s not been convicted or even charged with any crimes–at least relating to what the articles are talking about) makes me look suspiciously on the articles quoted as a whole.

  1. Is any of the stuff Timothy Griffin is responsible for doing illegal? Sure, maybe, who knows? He’d have to actually be tried for it for the issue to be settled definitively.

Is it illegal for the President to appoint someone to the role of U.S. Attorney who has a questionable moral or personal history? No, it isn’t. And since U.S. Attorneys have to be approved by Senate confirmation, the theory is these guys will be vetted somewhat. Even in the case when the Dems did not have a majority in the Senate, they could have easily spoken up if a bona fide “criminal” was being appointed to a U.S. Attorney position.

  1. Is it impeachable?

Of course. Anything is impeachable it doesn’t matter if it’s illegal or unconstitutional, impeachable just means, “Something a majority of the House of Representatives says is impeachable.”

  1. Is it a violation of the Hatch Act?

Is what a violation of the Hatch Act? The Hatch Act prohibits civil servants from using public funds to fund public works for electoral purposes and prohibits certain campaign activities for civil servants. It doesn’t make mention of hiring practices. Screening entry-level employees based on political affiliation is possibly in violation of another act, but I don’t see it as being particularly relevant to what the Hatch Act actually legislates.

It could even be argued (in the cases mentioned in the article you linked) that the removal of the applicants was in accordance with the Hatch Act, since the allegation is many of those who were denied applications had been involved in liberal campaign organizations and et cetera.

More on political screening of DOJ applicants at lower levels (pdf file).

With all due awe, huh?

As you rightly point out, the Hatch act only relates to current Federal employees etc. If applied to prospective employees, it might tear a hole in the fabric of the space-time continuum. And that would be bad…

Maybe they investigated more Democrats, especially during political campaigns.

According to Jonathon Chait in the Los Angeles Times

I’m not saying I agree with the argument. But I imagine it would go something like: “Well, we decided if they did this kind of stuff pre-employment…”

In any case, nothing in the Hatch Act suggests to me it prohibits the screening of low level Federal agency employees based on political affiliation. Considering all the reforms done to the Civil Service since the rampant abuses of the spoils system in the 19th century, I’d be somewhat shocked if there wasn’t legislation out there prohibiting this kind of thing. In fact, just speaking from my general historical knowledge based on several presidential histories wherein they moved the civil service to merit-based hiring, I’d almost bet money there is some legislation prohibiting screenings based on political affiliation.

But the Hatch Act isn’t that legislation, it bans political activities (certain types, you don’t completely lose your rights of political expression if you work for the Federal government) of current members but doesn’t say anything as to hiring practices.

Probably less a matter of action than location. A legal Bushbot in a “swing” state is of more potential value, skullduggery wise, than a Bushbot in a decided district, red or blue.

One side issue about this caught my attention: the policy emphasizing the importance of prosecutions for pornography. Of all the serious shit that a USA might be called upon to investigate and prosecute…drugs, terrorism, corruption… I simply cannot fathom why scarce resources be squandered because somebody might jerk off in front of their TV.

A policy that sends USAs haring after the mirage of “voter fraud” at least make some sense in the light of bald cynicism, could be *some *payoff. But porno? Makes no damn sense at all.

MH
Which is fine. Really not all that important if a criminal case can, or cannot, be brought. The important thing is that the public at large be aware of the facts, and we may surmise motives as we see fit. A bit like the jury system but writ large. That’s far, far more important than whether some Pubbie apparatchik spends six months learning basket weaving at a Club Fed.

Daylight is the best disinfectant.

Not the Hatch Act, but the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, makes it illegal to discriminate against applicants or employees “on the bases of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, disability, marital status or political affiliation and from discriminating against an applicant or employee on the basis of conduct which does not adversely affect the performance of the applicant or employee.”

i wouldn’t put it past the spinners of this administration to argue that the wrong political affiliation interferes with an employees diligence in carrying out the instruction of the political bosses of an agency.

Of course, the CSRA presumably would apply only to civil-service jobs. Are DOJ lawyers – not United States Attorneys, but the lower-level functionaries who are being screened for political affiliation – civil service, or political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the POTUS? I don’t know – does anybody? Presumably this is the kind of thing that would be clearly defined in law and/or federal regulation and there would be no room for debate.

Like pretty much every other government agency, DoJ has a top few layers of political appointees, and the rest are Civil Service.

Unless, of course, one uses that odd little clause in the amendment to the Patriot Act to simply appoint the attorney “indefinitely” without confirmation–which appears to have been the point of the firing of the eight attorneys in the first pass at this scandal.

The confirmation runaround was signed into law in March, 2006 and Griffin was appointed in December, 2006–without confirmation.

That clause has been repealed since the story broke, has it not? And W didn’t even veto the repeal.

I had not heard that the House had voted on it, yet. I’d be surprised if Bush actually opposed it, since it is not the sort of trick with which one easily gets away more than once and he would probably get overridden–it was simply an unnecessary action even as proposed.

In any event, the no-confirmation clause was in effect when Griffin was appointed, so he was clearly ensconced without oversight.

Then vetting applicants for the lower-level jobs by party affiliation (or Federalist Society membership) would be illegal?

BrainGlutton, have you entertained the idea of working for TalkingPointsMemo.com? As you undoubtedly know, they’re hiring.

That you’re a wonderful researcher/reporter is a given. And with your political leaning and considerable computer skills, you could probably do the TPM job at home, no matter where the company base is. They could use a guy like you.

I sincerely hope you consider this.

Thank you for all your enlightening posts.

I don’t know the exact answer as to what organizational level is civil service but I do know that all government lawyers aren’t political appointees. A guy I grew up with was a lawyer in the FBI and he was civil service. He later went on to be the chief investigator for the Senate Armed Services Investigative Subcommittee which was definitely a political job.

To repeat what I noted in a related Pit thread:

The Civil Service rules are written to prohibit exclusion based on any non-pertinent, discriminatory test. Given sufficient numbers of applicants with sufficiently high grades or test scores, Civil Service does not, as far as I know, insist that some arbitrary percent of the top candidates be selected based solely on scores. Thus, the recruiters do not “discriminate against” the people with the wrong religion or politics, they simply “select for” the like minded applicants.

(It is very similar to age discrimination in hiring: no one “excludes” the 57 year old applicant, they simply look at a pool of three people over 50, five people from 40 - 50, and a dozen people under 30 and consistently “choose” the 28-year-old. No law gets violated and the geezers remain out of work.)

And while the selection of “Pat Robertson” pro-theocracy lawyers or neo-con ideologues is troubling, I really doubt that that process differs much when the administration is Democrat or Moderate Republican (back when there were Moderate Republicans in office). As with any employment, these sorts of jobs require a decent “fit” among co-workers, superiors, and subordinates. We have simply gotten stuck for a brief period with zealots running the zoo and, perhaps, we can make better choices in the future.