When Scandals Collide: Ty Clevenger, DOJ Politicization, and Monica Goodling’s Alma Mater
Department of Justice official Brad Schlozman — who currently serves as Associate Counsel to the Director, in the Executive Office for United States Attorneys — is about to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. His testimony is part of a panel entitled “Preserving Prosecutorial Independence: Is the Department of Justice Politicizing the Hiring and Firing of U.S. Attorneys?”
Maybe we’ll tune in, at least for a few minutes; but we don’t expect to watch the entire proceedings. Brad Schlozman is no Monica Goodling. And we can barely pronounce his last name.
On Friday night, in preparation for today’s session, the DOJ’s Office of Legislative Affairs (OLA) sent the Republican members of the committee a list of proposed “softball” or friendly questions for Schlozman. This question caught our eye:
Clevenger, you may recall, has raised allegations about the politicization of hiring at Main Justice. But he may be best known to ATL readers as a source for stories about that delicious DOJ diva, Shanetta Cutlar (about whom we’ve heard nothing new, sadly).
By the way, in case you’re wondering, question #5 wasn’t well-received by GOP staffers on Capitol Hill. We hear that the Republican staffers “are offended that DOJ expects them to do its political dirty work.”
(14) Comments
Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!
Finally! The Regent Law Review gets the respect it deserves. Alas, my prayers are answered.
Whoever authored these questions should be terminated. Immediately. How is taxpayer money going to fund a political attack?
This is all so stupid. Of course hiring of the US attorneys is politicized. Every new president cans all the old ones and puts in his cronies. This has been happening since Jefferson and Adam's bitch fight created our two party system. I am getting so sick of hearing about this. Deal with, everybody else has for the past 200 years. The US attorney spoils go to the elected victors.
Yes, it's true that every new president cans all the old U.S. attorneys at the start of his term. What makes this situation different and pretty much one of a kind is that Bush canned eight of *his own* U.S. attorneys in the middle of his second term. That, in and of itself, raises questions.
3:08 - why? Why is it ok for the president to make a political move at the beginning of his term but not ok in the middle? I don't get the distinction.
Spill the beans, Lat! What's OLA up to?
This is about the hiring of _Assistant_ United States Attorneys. It is illegal to take political affiliation into account for all but top government positions involving policy making authority. The line attorneys may not be hired or fired baesd on politics.
Apparently the Republicans cared so little for the questions that they decided not to show up. It appears to be all Democrats at the hearing today.
3:45 -
Procedurally, firing USAs midterm is okay. But it does raise questions as to the propriety of the motive.
In this case, there may be problems, given that it appears the motive of some of the firings was to throw a wrench into ongoing prosecutions or because the USAs in question refused to bring bogus voter fraud cases immediately prior to elections -- both of which are improper and likely illegal.
3:08, so when you said that the timing "in and of itself, raises questions," you actually meant that the timing PLUS the motive rumors, raise questions, right?
ATLANTA...... Seattle is so 90s. Can we get some love?
Come on, Lat -- give us the whole list of DOJ-suggested questions. We want to see who just repeated their White House talking points verbatim!
Parenthetically, the only reason Ty had to publish in the Regent Law Review (I mean them no disrespect - I'm sure they are a fine journal) was because our pinko commie law school pulled the plug on his article at the 11th hour, if memory serves. To my recollection, the article was supposed to be published in the Stanford Law & Policy Review, a journal on which Ty was an editor (I believe of some seniority, again if memory serves -- he was a year ahead of me). So much for free speech at my lovely alma mater.
As a libertarian, I often disagreed with Ty on social policy issues, but I can well vouch for his integrity, as well as his commitment to the Republican Party (don't know about after all of this - I'd sure be pissed), which is all the more reason that this scandal is particularly troubling. From what I've heard, "diva" would be a truly kind description of Ms. Cutlar...
3:45 -
No, I meant what I originally said. Even before we started hearing rumors of the motives -- e.g., before Iglesias began speaking to the press -- there were questions as to why eight attorneys had been fired mid-term. The later leaks about the motives and the DOJ document dumps provided some possible answers and further questions, but the timing of the situation itself got the ball rolling.