# Never mind the firings -- what did the other 85 USA's do to keep their jobs? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 20, 2007, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/never-mind-the-firings-what-did-the-other-85-usas-do-to-keep-their-jobs/400874 "2007-04-20T01:07:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/never-mind-the-firings-what-did-the-other-85-usas-do-to-keep-their-jobs/400874/1 "2007-04-20T01:07:49Z")
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:](http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16962753.htm) > [@](#): > > Since 2005, McClatchy Newspapers has found, Bush has appointed at least three U.S. attorneys who had worked in the Justice Department’s civil rights division when it was rolling back longstanding voting-rights policies aimed at protecting predominantly poor, minority voters. > > Another newly installed U.S. attorney, Tim Griffin in Little Rock, Ark., was accused of participating in efforts to suppress Democratic votes in Florida during the 2004 presidential election while he was a research director for the Republican National Committee. He’s denied any wrongdoing. > > \ > > Taken together, critics say, the replacement of the U.S. attorneys, the voter-fraud campaign and the changes in Justice Department voting rights policies suggest that the Bush administration may have been using its law enforcement powers for partisan political purposes. > > The Bush administration’s emphasis on voter fraud is drawing scrutiny from the Democratic Congress, which has begun investigating the firings of eight U.S. attorneys - two of whom say that their ousters may have been prompted by the Bush administration’s dissatisfaction with their investigations of alleged Democratic voter fraud. > \ > > Last April, while the Justice Department and the White House were planning the firings, Rove gave a speech in Washington to the Republican National Lawyers Association. He ticked off 11 states that he said could be pivotal in the 2008 elections. Bush has appointed new U.S. attorneys in nine of them since 2005: Florida, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Arkansas, Michigan, Nevada and New Mexico. U.S. attorneys in the latter four were among those fired. > > Rove thanked the audience for “all that you are doing in those hot spots around the country to ensure that the integrity of the ballot is protected.” He added, “A lot in American politics is up for grabs.” > > The department’s civil rights division, for example, supported a Georgia voter identification law that a court later said discriminated against poor, minority voters. It also declined to oppose an unusual Texas redistricting plan that helped expand the Republican majority in the House of Representatives. That plan was partially reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court. > > Frank DiMarino, a former federal prosecutor who served six U.S. attorneys in Florida and Georgia during an 18-year Justice Department career, said that too much emphasis on voter fraud investigations “smacks of trying to use prosecutorial power to investigate and potentially indict political enemies.” A [study](http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_03/010882.php) shows DOJ prosecutions for corruption under the Bush Admin broke down as follows up to 2006: > [@](#): > > In statewide and federal cases they found a total of 66 investigations. Here’s the breakdown: > Democrats: 36 > > Republicans: 30 > > This is roughly what you’d expect. Democrats are slightly overrepresented compared to their actual numbers, but only by a bit. There’s nothing fishy. But the numbers for local cases paint a very different story. They found 309 investigations, broken down as follows: > > Democrats: 262 > > Republicans: 37 > > Independents: 10 [The name of Wisconsin USA Stephen Biskupic was found on a list of USA’s marked down for firing, but he was spared.](http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003016.php) 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](http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington//17075348.htm) and [here.](http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=184248) One of the new replacements [has a history of working to disenfranchise minority voters:](http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3144/the_talented_mr_griffin/) > [@](#): > > The only thing worse than sacking an honest prosecutor is replacing one with a “criminal.” In this case, Timothy Griffin, who during the 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign worked as deputy research director for the Republican National Committee (RNC) conducting “oppo” (opposition) research. On Dec. 15, Bush named Griffin as the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas, replacing fired prosecutor Bud Cummins. > > I don’t use the term “criminal” lightly. In August 2004, while he was research director for the RNC, he sent a series of confidential e-mails to Republican Party chieftains. But instead of using the party honchos’ e-mail addresses at [GeorgeWBush.com](http://GeorgeWBush.com), he sent these notes to [GeorgeWBush.org](http://GeorgeWBush.org). That domain belongs to a brilliant jokester, John Wooden, who, suspecting he had something important in hand, forwarded them to BBC Television Newsnight, where I worked at the time. > > Griffin’s dozens of e-mails contained what he called “caging lists”—simple Excel spreadsheets with the names and addresses of voters. > > Sounds innocent enough. But once the addresses were plotted on maps—70,000 names in Florida alone—it became clear that virtually every name was in a minority-majority voting precinct. And most of the lists were made up of itinerant, vulnerable voters: students, the homeless and, notably, soldiers sent overseas. > > It was, according to Leon County, Fla., Elections Supervisor Ion Sancho, a “challenge” list—tens of thousands of voters who the Republicans intended to block from casting ballots. This was a variant of the scheme in 2000 when then-Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris removed thousands of black citizens from voter rolls on the claim they were “felons”—when their only crime was Voting While Black, or, in other words, likely to vote Democratic. In the 2004 campaign, Griffin had a new trick: challenging voters on the grounds that they did not live at their registration address. > > To “prove” these voters were committing fraud, the RNC sent first-class or registered letters to these voters, most of them black, to their address of registration, no forwarding allowed. Letters that came back as “undeliverable” were used as evidence to block the voter obtaining a ballot—or block an absentee voter from having their ballot counted. > > BBC called the homes of several “fraudulent” voters. The wife of one, Randall Prausa, admitted her husband did not reside at her address in Jacksonville anymore. He was a naval airman serving overseas. Of course, it is not illegal for a serviceman to vote absentee from their home address, even if he’s black. > > But it is quite illegal to target voters for challenge where race is a factor in the targeting. “That’s a crime,” Robert Kennedy Jr., an attorney expert in election law, told In These Times, “a violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.” And this crime was directed by the man who is now a U.S. attorney. 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:](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/21/AR2007032102713.html) > [@](#): > > She said a supervisor demanded that she and her trial team drop recommendations that tobacco executives be removed from their corporate positions as a possible penalty. He and two others instructed her to tell key witnesses to change their testimony. And they ordered Eubanks to read verbatim a closing argument they had rewritten for her, she said. > > “The political people were pushing the buttons and ordering us to say what we said,” Eubanks said. “And because of that, we failed to zealously represent the interests of the American public.” > > Eubanks, who served for 22 years as a lawyer at Justice, said three political appointees were responsible for the last-minute shifts in the government’s tobacco case in June 2005: then-Associate Attorney General Robert D. McCallum, then-Assistant Attorney General Peter Keisler and Keisler’s deputy at the time, Dan Meron. Issues for debate: 1. Is any of this, well, strictly speaking, illegal or unconstitutional? 2. In any case, is it impeachable? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/never-mind-the-firings-what-did-the-other-85-usas-do-to-keep-their-jobs/400874/2 "2007-04-20T01:31:43Z")
Related question – the DOJ has also been [screening applicants based on political affiliation.](http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003039.php) In particular, [preference seems to be given to those who are members of the Federalist Society.](http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/13/federalist-attorneys/) Does this [url=]violate the Hatch Act? ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/never-mind-the-firings-what-did-the-other-85-usas-do-to-keep-their-jobs/400874/3 "2007-04-20T01:50:10Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/never-mind-the-firings-what-did-the-other-85-usas-do-to-keep-their-jobs/400874/4 "2007-04-20T03:48:43Z")
[More on political screening of DOJ applicants at lower levels](http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/docs/doj_employees_letter.pdf) (pdf file). ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/never-mind-the-firings-what-did-the-other-85-usas-do-to-keep-their-jobs/400874/5 "2007-04-20T04:08:34Z")
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde] …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. [/QUOTE] 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… ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/never-mind-the-firings-what-did-the-other-85-usas-do-to-keep-their-jobs/400874/6 "2007-04-20T04:30:29Z")
> [@](#): > > Never mind the firings – what did the other 85 USA’s do to keep their jobs? Maybe they investigated more Democrats, especially during political campaigns. According to [Jonathon Chait in the _Los Angeles Times_](http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-chait19apr19,0,2446688.column?coll=la-opinion-rightrail) > [@](#): > > Communications professors Donald Shields and John Cragan have found that, since Bush took office, U.S. attorneys have investigated or indicted 298 Democratic officeholders and only 67 Republicans. This massive disparity, which I have not seen any Republican even try to explain, …This would seem to indicate that there are four times as many Democratic officeholders than Republican, or that Democrats or four times more likely to do something calling for an investigation, or something else. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/never-mind-the-firings-what-did-the-other-85-usas-do-to-keep-their-jobs/400874/7 "2007-04-20T04:58:22Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] 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… [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/never-mind-the-firings-what-did-the-other-85-usas-do-to-keep-their-jobs/400874/8 "2007-04-20T05:09:28Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/never-mind-the-firings-what-did-the-other-85-usas-do-to-keep-their-jobs/400874/9 "2007-04-20T05:17:28Z")
**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. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/never-mind-the-firings-what-did-the-other-85-usas-do-to-keep-their-jobs/400874/10 "2007-04-20T15:56:09Z")
Not the Hatch Act, but the [Civil Service Reform Act of 1978,](http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-orientation_parent_marital_political.html) 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.” ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/never-mind-the-firings-what-did-the-other-85-usas-do-to-keep-their-jobs/400874/11 "2007-04-20T16:50:10Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Not the Hatch Act, but the [Civil Service Reform Act of 1978,](http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-orientation_parent_marital_political.html) 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.” [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/never-mind-the-firings-what-did-the-other-85-usas-do-to-keep-their-jobs/400874/12 "2007-04-20T17:01:37Z")
[QUOTE=David Simmons] 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. [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/never-mind-the-firings-what-did-the-other-85-usas-do-to-keep-their-jobs/400874/13 "2007-04-20T17:19:56Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] 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. [/QUOTE] Like pretty much every other government agency, DoJ has a top few layers of political appointees, and the rest are Civil Service. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/never-mind-the-firings-what-did-the-other-85-usas-do-to-keep-their-jobs/400874/14 "2007-04-20T17:21:06Z")
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde] 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. [/QUOTE] Unless, of course, one uses that odd little clause in the amendment to the Patriot Act to simply [appoint the attorney “indefinitely” without confirmation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorney#Appointment)–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. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/never-mind-the-firings-what-did-the-other-85-usas-do-to-keep-their-jobs/400874/15 "2007-04-20T17:24:43Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] Unless, of course, one uses that odd little clause in the amendment to the Patriot Act to simply [appoint the attorney “indefinitely” without confirmation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorney#Appointment)–which appears to have been the point of the firing of the eight attorneys in the first pass at this scandal. [/QUOTE] That clause has been repealed since the story broke, has it not? And W didn’t even veto the repeal. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/never-mind-the-firings-what-did-the-other-85-usas-do-to-keep-their-jobs/400874/16 "2007-04-20T17:54:47Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] That clause has been repealed since the story broke, has it not? And W didn’t even veto the repeal. [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/never-mind-the-firings-what-did-the-other-85-usas-do-to-keep-their-jobs/400874/17 "2007-04-20T17:57:29Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] Like pretty much every other government agency, DoJ has a top few layers of political appointees, and the rest are Civil Service. [/QUOTE] Then vetting applicants for the lower-level jobs by party affiliation (or Federalist Society membership) would be illegal? ---
**Author:** ![BarnOwl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e95f7d/32.png) [@BarnOwl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BarnOwl)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/never-mind-the-firings-what-did-the-other-85-usas-do-to-keep-their-jobs/400874/18 "2007-04-20T18:19:46Z")
**BrainGlutton** , have you entertained the idea of working for [TalkingPointsMemo.com](http://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. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/never-mind-the-firings-what-did-the-other-85-usas-do-to-keep-their-jobs/400874/19 "2007-04-20T18:36:45Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] 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. [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/never-mind-the-firings-what-did-the-other-85-usas-do-to-keep-their-jobs/400874/20 "2007-04-20T18:38:57Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Then vetting applicants for the lower-level jobs by party affiliation (or Federalist Society membership) would be illegal? [/QUOTE] 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. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/never-mind-the-firings-what-did-the-other-85-usas-do-to-keep-their-jobs/400874.md?page=2)