Why Does This Guy Still Have a Job?

Why does Bradley Schlozman still have a job at the Justice Department? Why are taxpayers still funding his professional career despite a growing body of evidence that suggests he has brought nothing but shame and scandal and rank partisanship to the department? And if Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales can't bring himself to demand Schlozman's resignation, can he at least question his judgment?

It's just another example of the appalling lack of accountability, leadership and honor at the Justice Department.

This morning Carol D. Leonnig offered this in the Washington Post:

Karen Stevens, Tovah Calderon and Teresa Kwong had a lot in common. They had good performance ratings as career lawyers in the Justice Department's civil rights division. And they were minority women transferred out of their jobs two years ago -- over the objections of their immediate supervisors -- by Bradley Schlozman, then the acting assistant attorney general for civil rights.

Schlozman ordered supervisors to tell the women that they had performance problems or that the office was overstaffed. But one lawyer, Conor Dugan, told colleagues that the recent Bush appointee had confided that his real motive was to "make room for some good Americans" in that high-impact office, according to four lawyers who said they heard the account from Dugan.

If these women are right, then Schlozman was not truthful when he testified earlier this month before Congress.

Here's the ending to that article: "Schlozman was appointed interim U.S. attorney in Missouri in March 2006. But Congress subsequently started looking into why he was hired without any prosecution experience, and why he brought voter-fraud charges against a liberal voting organization five days before the election in a heated congressional race. Schlozman was reassigned this past March to a job in the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys."

So even as the prosecutor scandal has taken its toll at Justice (see below, for example), Schlozman, who has repeatedly shown terrible judgment (at best -- at worst, he has broken the law) and has made his bosses vulnerable to political and legal jeopardy, stays on.

Does this make sense to you? It sure doesn't make sense to me. Schlozman should be left to fend for himself in the private sector, where he can surround himself with "good Americans" and see how he does without the prestige and protection of the federal government. And every day he stays on the public dole is another day we can reasonably say that the attorney general is unwilling or incapable of performing even the most basic jobs of management.

Meanwhile, speaking of disgraced officials: Soon-to-be-former Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, the onetime golden child whose professional reputation has been forever tarnished by the U.S. attorney scandal, comes back to Capitol Hill this morning to explain away his earlier explanation about his role in last year's prosecutor purge. He also must convince lawmakers that former Justice Department official Monica Goodling got it all wrong when she threw him under the bus and accused him of being less than candid to the Congress. Good luck to him today-- and let's give him credit for at least knowing when to leave.

By Andrew Cohen |  June 21, 2007; 8:13 AM ET agag
Previous: This Just In: Jose Padilla Doesn't Eat Cheese | Next: The Vice President Wages 'Lawfare'

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Just to close the loop here, take a look at what tpmmuckraker has been writing about Schlozman:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003436.php
And why hasn't the Post been more aggressively pursuing this story? Hats off to Charlie Savage at the Boston Globe for taking the lead in documenting the improprieties occurring at Justice under this administration.
And what have DOJ's internal watchdogs, the Office of Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility been doing these many years while the Department has been decimated by the zealots running DOJ's reputation into the ground and ruining the careers of many dedicated public servants in the process?

Posted by: Erik Viking | June 21, 2007 10:45 AM

Just to close the loop here, take a look at what tpmmuckraker has been writing about Schlozman:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003436.php
And why hasn't the Post been more aggressively pursuing this story? Hats off to Charlie Savage at the Boston Globe for taking the lead in documenting the improprieties occurring at Justice under this administration.
And what have DOJ's internal watchdogs, the Office of Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility been doing these many years while the Department has been decimated by the zealots running DOJ's reputation into the ground and ruining the careers of many dedicated public servants in the process?

Posted by: Erik Viking | June 21, 2007 10:45 AM

Same question for the WP-

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003436.php
And why hasn't the Post been more aggressively pursuing this story? Hats off to Charlie Savage at the Boston Globe for taking the lead in documenting the improprieties occurring at Justice under this administration.
And what have DOJ's internal watchdogs, the Office of Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility been doing these many years while the Department has been decimated by the zealots running DOJ's reputation into the ground and ruining the careers of many dedicated public servants in the process?

Very good question!

Posted by: searcher 272 | June 21, 2007 11:24 AM

Same question for the WP-

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003436.php
And why hasn't the Post been more aggressively pursuing this story? Hats off to Charlie Savage at the Boston Globe for taking the lead in documenting the improprieties occurring at Justice under this administration.
And what have DOJ's internal watchdogs, the Office of Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility been doing these many years while the Department has been decimated by the zealots running DOJ's reputation into the ground and ruining the careers of many dedicated public servants in the process?

Very good question!

Posted by: Angie Bull | June 21, 2007 11:25 AM

Speaking of McNulty, you don't even know the half of it, Cohen.

Wait until the truth comes out about the Moussaoui prosecutors, how they deceived and misled a federal judge, which McNulty not only participated in, but aided and abetted, as U.S. Attorney, soon to be DAG.

Remember Mike Elston-McNulty's Chief of Staff who strong-armed and threatened the fired US Attorney's? Elston is an alum from the thug syndicate known as the U.S. Attorney's Office, EDVa-he followed McNulty from the EDVa to work for him at Main DOJ.

Concepts like INTEGRITY, HONESTY, and not MISLEADING JUDGES AND JURIES are completely lost on these folks- the DOJ career prosecutors are running amok, because there is no supervision, except in how to keep their dirty laundry from being aired publicly-and on this last subject -hiding dirty laundry- the DOJ thugs have no peer.

Posted by: | June 21, 2007 11:46 AM

P.S. Searcher-very good question, and I think I can answer that.

OPR, which investigates DOJ misconduct matters, answers to who? The DAG-Paul McNulty, the misleader and concealer of information, who is testifying today that NO I DIDN'T!

OPR is not "separate" from the DOJ, as AG Gonzales once stated, not when all decisions for sanctions are made by the DAG. So that should tell you something right there.

As far as the DOJ IG, Glenn Fine? Interesting about him and his office. It would be fair to say that Mr. Fine can be, at times, let's say, DISINGENUOUS.

So if you can't trust a DOJ-IG to speak the truth, and not try to mislead the public, and the OPR answers to someone who is himself factually involved in matters before the office, who, indeed, do you turn to?

Congress. Those are the only people that can put the hammer on DOJ-and they ought to have been hammering away a LONG time ago.

Posted by: | June 21, 2007 11:58 AM

The Post may be asleep at the wheel, but at least Cohen here seems able to tell the difference between right and wrong - and tell it like it is.

If this Schlozman character absolutely insists on firing ethnic minorities from the DoJ, I can think of one whose sacking I wouldn't mourn.

Posted by: OD | June 21, 2007 11:59 AM

Why would we think for a moment that anything supposedly supervised by Gonzo The Inept would turn out to be other than a fiasco? The Bush administration has consistently provided textbook examples of how NOT to run a government...these people should all have been tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail long ago...we would be better served if Pee Wee Herman headed up the government (come to think of it, are we certain that he doesn't? Dumbya often seems to take his counsel from houseplants or the kitchen toaster)

Posted by: jerryvov | June 21, 2007 12:25 PM

The three legs of the Republican stool:
Murder, torture, and bigotry.

As Sinclair Lewis said:
When Fascism comes to America, it'll be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.

It's here, folks.

Posted by: 3 legged stool | June 21, 2007 01:04 PM

So, Bill, does this mean that you believe Ms Goodling?

Posted by: Fairfax | June 21, 2007 01:53 PM

Great quote from Sinclair.I would add cheery optimism to his list.

Posted by: | June 21, 2007 02:01 PM

Andrew, please be careful not to unduly conflate Paul McNulty's actions (and integrity) with those of his aide Mike Elston, who served him so poorly throughout. Paul's fatal misjudgment in relying on Elston aside, his integrity is beyond reasonable question.

Posted by: G. Hall | June 21, 2007 02:03 PM

McNulty's judgement is no longer beyond question. His testimony today suggests to my mind that he may have had some difficulty finding a post DOJ job, and that he's decided to play along in order to get along (with Team Bush)--who can undoubtedly help or hinder his search.

His statement yesterday sounded like it was written by Alberto Gonzales--complete with the verbal tick "I want to be clear" which is just another euphemism in Gonzolese for I am about to lie to your face again suckas.

As far as Schlozman goes, he is a fine specimen of the type of sh-thead that voted for sh-thead Bush in 2000 and 2004. Lowest common denominator democracy indeed. In terms of evaluating legal ability "did you vote for [insert any presidents name]" is about as stupid as evaluating a doctor on the basis of whether he or she prefers the color white to blue. Completely irrelevant.

Unless of course the test is designed to find sh-theads to replace experienced professionals, in which case Schlozman suceeded marvelously. Mission accomplished redux.

Posted by: JP2 | June 21, 2007 02:39 PM

The politicization of the civil rights division has been common knowledge within DC legal circles for years. It's not a question of whether Mr. Schlozman did these things. It's only a question of what can be proven, and whether anyone will do anything about it.

Posted by: steve | June 21, 2007 02:59 PM

Here is another example of GOP influence in the Justice Department:

On the morning of August 19, 2006, local developers trespassed on national park land [the "Perry Orchard" on School House Ridge - located on the western part of Harpers Ferry National Historical Park] to excavate and install sewer and water lines. They proceeded without the permits because they did not want to go through National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act reviews. This was a premeditated act. It was scheduled during the Niagara Movement Centennial when the Park's resources were fully committed to the commemoration.

It has been ten months since the violation. The Department of Justice has not pursued sanctions against the trespassers. The trespassers have begun to use the sewer lines. Paul Camilletti heads the Justice Department's investigation. Mr. Camilletti's brother, Dave, is a partner in the law firm that represents the developers.

The developers are leading Republican donors.

Posted by: Scot Faulkner | June 21, 2007 03:07 PM

Where does one go to report crimes committed by the Loyal Bushies against Americans? The Fredo Bandido? Hundreds of burglaries, repeated passport thefts, hundreds of thousands of dollars in security measures, etc. And when finally obtaining new papers in order to obtain a new passport, those are burglarized too. This is not only a Republicon racketeering issue, it has become a grave human rights issue. Year after year, they obstruct with impunity and I still can not replace my documents and other obstructed and looted business. Death threats and murder attempts sometimes directed at family members are routine operating practice for the cronies of this White House. The fact that they are not enforcing civil rights law has been obvious for years. The fact that they are actively participating in and turning a blind eye to organized crime is the bigger outrage. Congress needs to establish a new law enforcement division with exceptional powers to deal with those who dare mix cronyism and government - and those who dare mix organized crime and government. The murder of Boulis by powerful Bush campaign contributors in downtown Fort Lauderdale is a strong warning about the evil that has taken over the Republican Party and rigged the system to turn a blind eye to the most heinous abuses of power in American history.

Posted by: Former Senior Justice Department Official | June 21, 2007 03:13 PM

When the Independent Prosecuter Law died many Democrats sighed in relief. But I cringed.
After spending millions investigating a real estate deal, the last true Independent Prosecuter found that the President had lied about sex. Such abuse of prosecutorial discretion brought a true bi-partisan call to let the Law lapse. No one wanted to see another Ken Starr style witch hunt.
But I knew that such a law was still needed. Changed, perhaps, to prevent the kind of fishing expedition the Bush Administration complains of but has not come close to seeing.
If a non-partisan Independent Prosecuter, with the power to subpoena and indict was a real threat, I think we could have avoided the US Attorney scandals entirely.
The only thing Republican Administrations fear is the light. The darkness of secrecy far more often hides misdeeds and crimes than National Security.
Please, let us call for a new Independent Prosecuter Law before another President decides that he is above the law.

Posted by: Shannon | June 21, 2007 03:58 PM

So if we have all these folks who passed a political/religious test to get a job at DOJ (Monica's kids) are we stuck with them for life or is there some way to weed out the hyperRepubs?

Is there any reason to suspect the Monicaization of hiring practices was confined to only Justice?

Posted by: WOW | June 21, 2007 04:44 PM

"McNulty's judgement is no longer beyond question."

I echo JP2's sentiments-well done JP2, and I raise you one.

"His statement yesterday sounded like it was written by Alberto Gonzales--complete with the verbal tick "I want to be clear" which is just another euphemism in Gonzolese for I am about to lie to your face again suckas."

You get an A+ from me JP2-and if you knew what ELSE was at stake here, like the OPR investigation into HIS prosecutors in the EDVA, then you'd understand why he's clearly concealing a LOT of information about THAT.

Unfortunately for G. Hall, he ABSOLUTELY does not know whereof he speaks when he talks about McNulty's so-called "integrity"- "integrity" and "thugs" G. Hall, are mutually exclusive terms.

And G. Hall, don't blame it all on Elston, by god, don't try that pass the blame game on to somebody else-THAT IS CLASSIC MCNULTY.

Posted by: | June 21, 2007 05:04 PM

It is time for REAL change in this country before it's too late. Some suggestions: a third political party; a total ban on campaign funding (free access to the airwaves for all registered candidates); abolishment of the 'lobbying' (payola) system; reversal of the concentration of ownership of the media; absolute wall between church and state; new dedication to supporting and defending the consitution. Folks, the people in our political system are too often scummy, criminal hoods like the Bush family and their ilk. Use your voices, your wallets and yes, your weapons, if necessary.

Posted by: Stevejbons | June 21, 2007 05:46 PM

To answer your question as to why he still has a job, the answer is the same for this whole crew from the President on down -- they have failed at everything else they've ever done, everything they touch turns to garbage (including now the United States government), and they are used to being bailed out by others, or at least being able to blame others when the problems get to be too much to be ignored.

Why does he still have a job? To paraphrase from Richard Gere's character in "An Officer and a Gentleman"-"Because he's got nowhere else to go."

Posted by: David Rakowski | June 21, 2007 05:53 PM

McNulty erased one question today: is he an honorable exception.
He ain't. His memory loss and snakey answers could only have come from the guilty.

As guilty as Libby.

Posted by: wrb | June 21, 2007 05:54 PM

"...Mike Elston, who served him so poorly throughout. Paul's fatal misjudgment in relying on Elston aside, his integrity is beyond reasonable question."

Glad you think so. I see him as a "skip a generation" successor to me. Just 35 years and one floor removed.

It's called Plausible Deniability - Designed to layoff the blame onto subordinates everytime while you are squeaky clean and above the fray.

Good work boys! You make me proud!

Mitchell Morsel #1: You need to make sure that there's no Martha or Monica around when you set this up.

Posted by: The Ghost of John Mitchell | June 21, 2007 06:14 PM

WHAT is this "Former Senior Justice Official" talking about? Sounds wild eyed on the face of it. Evidence, please?

Posted by: Tim | June 21, 2007 06:24 PM

Tim

I guess this is part of it. I was unaware of this story

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/27/AR2005092700980.html

Posted by: wrb | June 21, 2007 06:44 PM

Thanks for the link, wrb. Very strange. Kidan hired two of the men, if they were the killers? Suspicious. Abramoff seems to be staying clear of it. The main administration can of course claim to have no knowledge of this matter.

Posted by: Tim | June 21, 2007 09:02 PM

"Former" "Senior" "Justice Department Official" is just that. A bogus title.

The very idea of establishing a "new law enforcement division with exceptional powers to deal with those who dare mix cronyism and government" is exactly the kind of idea that has gotten us into this mess--especially with the U.S. Attorneys.

Increased centralization is a symptom of the problem--especially as it relates to local prosecutor offices. It is not the cure. The fix is to get professionals in at the political level who have a track record worthy of respect. The people at the political level at Justice now are the problem. Replace compromised partisans with professionals and you'll get a higher quality product. Unfortunately, that end is unlikely to come about short of impeachment given that Bush is averse to the kind of leadership that actually produces meritorious results.

As far as Boulis goes this relates to the Abramoff scandal and the SunCruz Casino venture--way out in left field. But in this current environment conspiracies will abound. One trust is lost, it's hard to recover--especially when you have guys like Chris Cannon and John Coryn licking Gonzo's boots.

Posted by: JP2 | June 21, 2007 10:26 PM

"It's called Plausible Deniability - Designed to layoff the blame onto subordinates everytime while you are squeaky clean and above the fray."

"Good work boys! You make me proud!"

So VERY VERY TRUE, Ghost. This IS Mr. Christian Man McNulty-a real slick snake in the grass.

Well, believe me, Mr. McNulty has gots some more "issues" coming his way...no one's going to let HIM off the hook, rest assured!

Posted by: | June 22, 2007 06:53 AM

JP2: Given the possibility of what you say about the inadvisability of making a centralized law-enforcement division, "Former Senior official" (probably shoudn't dismiss a point or guess intention from the handle someone uses) is making a claim that the administration is turning a blind eye to or even encouraging organized crime, and about "looted business, death threats, and murder."

Don't know what they are talking about(other than the ongoing Boulis murder investigation), and sounds pretty way out, but the claims are serious.

Posted by: Tim | June 22, 2007 11:40 AM

The US Justice Dept has changed it name to the "Just Us" Dept.

Posted by: Tired of it all | June 22, 2007 12:57 PM

It is time for REAL change in this country before it's too late. Some suggestions: a third political party; a total ban on campaign funding (free access to the airwaves for all registered candidates); abolishment of the 'lobbying' (payola) system; reversal of the concentration of ownership of the media; absolute wall between church and state; new dedication to supporting and defending the consitution. Folks, the people in our political system are too often scummy, criminal hoods like the Bush family and their ilk. Use your voices, your wallets and yes, your weapons, if necessary.

Posted by: Stevejbons | June 21, 2007 05:46 PM


Stevejbons, Very good! I have been telling people for years we need to outlaw lobbying all together - make it a felony! I agree - allow no campaign funding at all. Just give equal time on all stations for each candidate to talk about the issues and how they want to resolve them. And maybe have one debate. Stop with the signs and posters on every corner trashing up the neiborhoods too. I hate it around election time - it looks trashy! Keeping the distinction between church and state separate is a must!

Now there are two us who share these beliefs. Maybe there are more!

Posted by: Jnt | June 22, 2007 03:46 PM

As citizens we should all file complaints with the State Bar of Texas and the federal bar and see if we can get Gonzo's law license yanked. He did lie to congress. Thats one way to rid the DOJ of this scum.

Posted by: Angry Texan | June 22, 2007 04:47 PM

Where is the normal right wing claptrap that we see in this thread, telling us all of the reasons why this information is just a figment of the imagination of the "biased liberal media"?

Posted by: John D in Houston | June 22, 2007 05:02 PM

Jnt there ARE more, but why hasn't it been seriously considered before? What are the obstacles?

Posted by: | June 22, 2007 05:19 PM

What's the matter, Andrew? Don't like it when someone calls you on your game? (smile)

Posted by: | June 23, 2007 04:08 PM

anon 4:08 , what are you basing on that he "doesn't like it"? And how is his game being called on really? Don't see how what Andrew says is so contradictory to any points about Mcnulty cmonte said?

Posted by: Sam | June 25, 2007 12:59 PM

Even though I anticipated the presidents action, it still left me with a nauseous feeling. Is there any hope for this country with this gang in charge.

Posted by: don olson | July 3, 2007 03:09 PM

Hi

Looks good! Very useful, good stuff. Good resources here. Thanks much!


Bye


Posted by: rofovnifo | July 4, 2007 03:54 AM

Hello

Looks good! Very useful, good stuff. Good resources here. Thanks much!

G'night





Posted by: govokinolij | July 10, 2007 06:31 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2007 The Washington Post Company