Get PJ Media on your Apple

Every Single One’ Fallout: Justice Dept. in Turmoil From PJMedia Series

What’s happened up until now, and what internal leaks say about what’s coming. Hint: jobs may now be at stake. (This is the twelfth of a series of articles about the Justice Department's hiring practices since President Obama took office. Read parts one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, and eleven.)

by
David Steinberg

Bio

September 26, 2011 - 12:00 am

113 and Oh.

Following the Justice Department’s long-delayed compliance with a Freedom of Information Act request, PJMedia recently published content from the resumes of each career attorney hired to the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division under Attorney General Eric Holder. The articles were written by two former Civil Rights Division attorneys — J. Christian Adams and Hans von Spakovsky — and PJMedia Editor Richard Pollock.

The Justice Department is forbidden by federal law from hiring employees based on political affiliation. Yet the resumes revealed the following ideological breakdown among the new hires:

Leftist lawyers: 113

Moderate, non-ideological, or conservative lawyers: 0.

That represents the basest headline for the series, the matter-of-fact evidence that should lead any reasonable observer to believe the DOJ has employed an illegal political litmus test during the interview process. But the “Every Single One” series has provided additional benefits: the results present the inherent flaw in leftism’s perversion of the term “civil rights,” while providing a real world example of the flawed belief actualized. Additionally, the “Every Single One” series presents ramifications that reach far beyond the individuals most directly affected by DOJ activity.

We hope not to understate it: this perversion of “civil rights“ is the beating heart of leftism itself.

Only one definition of “civil rights” could ever logically exist: that of equal protection under the law, the law defined as the codified protection of an individual’s life, liberty, and property. Yet Eric Holder, Loretta King, Thomas Perez, the 113 hires — they claim that civil rights, and the Division established to enforce them, reside in racial, gender, disability, and even sexuality preferences presiding above the law, in the hands of an elite few trusted by an elite public class to establish some breed of “fair lawlessness.”

The flaw is obvious: when the law is not equally applied, a citizen’s actions are no longer their own.

Their fates are no longer tied to their personal adherence to life, liberty, and property, but to an unelected bureaucrat’s whim, an individual who believes both that he is qualified to make such judgments of other men and that our country’s laws allow him to do so. They claim that civil rights are not the individual’s, but somehow theirs, a definition incompatible with itself!

This is, as we know, the post-Marxist brand of tyranny — a “well-meaning” lawlessness. But prior to this series, we did not know that since 2008 the Civil Rights Division has been populated entirely according to this ideology, behavior which represents the perfect antithesis of civil rights.

The Way-Backstory: Strom’s (D-SC) Segregation-athon

The DOJ Civil Rights Division is a product of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the first — and largely unsuccessful — of several legislative attempts to secure voting rights for blacks. The bill passed by a large margin, though passage was ardently opposed by Democratic Senator Strom Thurmond, who marked the occasion with the longest single-person filibuster in the Senate’s history: 24 hours, 18 minutes. (Please note: Democratic Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC) was, at the time, a Democrat.)

The Act’s passage created the office of Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. This office is currently held by Obama appointee Thomas Perez, and he oversees a Division that now encompasses 11 sections: the Appellate Section, Criminal Section, Disability Rights Section, Educational Opportunities Section, Employment Litigation Section, Federal Coordination and Compliance, Housing and Civil Enforcement Section, Office of Special Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair Employment Practices, Policy and Strategy Section, Special Litigation Section, and the Voting Section.

 “Insufficient Evidence to Prosecute … ”

“Every Single One” presented key information from the resumes of each of the 113 career attorneys hired to serve within 10 of these 11 sections since the appointment of Eric Holder. The key information presented provided substantial evidence of the political leanings of each hire. In each case, enough evidence was available for a reasonable observer to determine that the hire was neither a conservative, moderate, nor apolitical.

The hiring practices within the Division should be of primary interest to the American citizen for several reasons; this series concerned itself with three. First, and inherently most urgent: employing a political litmus test during the applicant screening process is illegal under the Civil Service Reform Act. (This Act dates back to Chester Arthur, and was intended to ensure nothing other than that government hiring be merit-based.)

A political litmus for hiring is also contrary to the DOJ’s Reasonable Accommodation Statement:

The U.S. Department of Justice is an Equal Opportunity/Reasonable Accommodation Employer. Except where otherwise provided by law, there will be no discrimination because of color, race, religion, national origin, political affiliation, marital status, disability (physical or mental), age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, genetic information, status as a parent, membership or non-membership in an employee organization, on the basis of personal favoritism, or any non-merit factor.

Our second concern: a political litmus test — in this case, a “no exceptions” political litmus test — for employment within the Civil Rights Division raises the possibility of a significant number of Americans simply not being protected by the civil rights statutes the Division was created to enforce. Indeed, this is the singular purpose of creating a politically blind hiring process, and in practice — the discrimination statute now violated under Eric Holder — the political litmus test has unimpeachably resulted in the occurrence of this concern. See the New Black Panther case dismissal, or the 2010 military voting rights scandal.

The third concern: the difference in federal treatment of the Bush DOJ and the Obama DOJ constitutes an uneven enforcement of the ban on a political litmus test.

On July 30, 2008, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice Glenn Fine testified before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. His statement was titled: “Politicized Hiring at the Department of Justice.” From his introduction:

Our investigation found that [DOJ White House Liaison Monica] Goodling, Kyle Sampson (the former Chief of Staff to the Attorney General), and other staff in the Office of the Attorney General improperly considered political or ideological affiliations in screening candidates for certain career positions at the Department, in violation of federal law and Department policy.

And from his conclusion:

[T]he Department must ensure that the serious problems and misconduct we found in our reports about politicized hiring for career positions in the Department do not recur in the future.

The testimony was accompanied by a 70-page report, which primarily attacked Assistant Attorney General Brad Schlozman — the position now held by Thomas Perez. Six months later, on January 22, 2009, Spakovsky eviscerated the report and defended Schlozman in the Weekly Standard (the report had not been made public until the week prior, on January 13).

The result of all of this investigation: Schlozman resigned. Kyle Sampson resigned. Monica Goodling resigned. (She was later reprimanded by the Virginia State Bar following the report. Four years later. Strange.)

However, and most telling: none were prosecuted. Further investigation concluded that there was not sufficient evidence of law being violated by anyone involved.

Glenn Fine was still IG until January 2011: his earlier concern about the “serious problems and misconduct” inherent in politicized hiring — which resulted in several unnecessary resignations — had faded when Eric Holder took over the Department under his watch. Fine’s enforcement was blatantly uneven, and overlaps with our second concern: a significant number of Americans are neither protected by our civil rights laws nor by the appointed Department watchman.

Where’s Our Pulitzer?

A fourth concern, unrelated to the law yet perhaps as relevant to the American citizen, is the hypocrisy with which this “no exceptions” political litmus test has been examined by left-leaning media outlets and establishments.

The most notable findings by the press resided in the work of the Boston Globe’s Charlie Savage: Due in no small part to his investigation of Bush DOJ hiring practices, Savage was the recipient of a 2007 Pulitzer!

Savage submitted a series of eight articles to the Pulitzer committee; the series resulted in his win. One of the eight articles, published on July 23, 2006, was titled: “Civil Rights Hiring Shifted in Bush Era: Conservative leanings stressed.” From the piece:

The Bush administration is quietly remaking the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, filling the permanent ranks with lawyers who have strong conservative credentials but little experience in civil rights, according to job application materials obtained by the Globe.

The documents show that only 42 percent of the lawyers hired since 2003, after the administration changed the rules to give political appointees more influence in the hiring process, have civil rights experience. In the two years before the change, 77 percent of those who were hired had civil rights backgrounds.

The profile of the lawyers being hired has since changed dramatically, according to the resumes of successful applicants to the voting rights, employment litigation, and appellate sections. Under the Freedom of Information Act, the Globe obtained the resumes among hundreds of pages of hiring data from 2001 to 2006.

Hires with traditional civil rights backgrounds — either civil rights litigators or members of civil rights groups — have plunged. Only 19 of the 45 lawyers hired since 2003 in those three sections were experienced in civil rights law, and of those, nine gained their experience either by defending employers against discrimination lawsuits or by fighting against race-conscious policies.

Meanwhile, conservative credentials have risen sharply. Since 2003 the three sections have hired 11 lawyers who said they were members of the conservative Federalist Society. Seven hires in the three sections are listed as members of the Republican National Lawyers Association, including two who volunteered for Bush-Cheney campaigns.

Several new hires worked for prominent conservatives, including former Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth Starr, former attorney general Edwin Meese, Mississippi Senator Trent Lott, and Judge Charles Pickering. And six listed Christian organizations that promote socially conservative views.

The changes in those three sections are echoed to varying degrees throughout the Civil Rights Division, according to current and former staffers.

Note that Savage only announced results for three sections. Our investigation took ten of the eleven sections into account.

And note his statistics: 42 percent from 77 percent, 19 out of 45. These differ in severity from our one statistic: 113 to 0. His data, later found to be part of a package of evidence found to be not worth prosecuting — and indeed representing an example of politically blind hiring rather than the opposite — helped him win a Pulitzer.

Another comparison between Savage’s work and ours deserves your attention: how was Savage able to gather the data for his Pulitzer-winning investigation? It doesn’t appear that he had to work terribly hard.

Presented with a Freedom of Information Act request, the Bush DOJ turned over the resumes plus hundreds of pages of hiring data to the Boston Globe within a few weeks, significantly ahead of the statutory FOIA deadline. The Bush DOJ redacted absolutely nothing, except the hires’ contact information.

During the Obama administration, FOIAs have proven to be notoriously — criminally? — hard to extract if the filer appears to be ideologically opposed to the administration. (But not so for fellow leftist travelers — PJMedia covered this very topic. Also see an interview with Adams on this.) Unlike Savage, PJMedia had to fight an almost year-long legal battle with the Most Transparent Administration in History to obtain the Civil Rights Division resumes of attorneys hired under Eric Holder:

In spring of 2010, PJ Media requested the exact same information from the DOJ that Charlie Savage requested in 2006 — except for hires made in the Obama DOJ. Recall the Bush administration turned over all the resumes of attorneys as fast as they could, and well before the statutory FOIA deadline.

PJM’s request was ignored. Then on October 13, 2010, the request was renewed by certified mail. Still, no response as required by law.

So on January 18, 2011, the case of PJ Media v. United States Department of Justice was filed in the United States District Court in D.C.

We finally received materials on May 13, 2011. But not everything – it included redactions and some material was missing. The FOIA was not fully complied with until July.

Has Charlie Savage, so terribly concerned with violations of the Civil Service Reform Act while George W. Bush was president, shown any interest in the hiring practices of the Eric Holder Civil Rights Division? Actually, he has — and he reported on it in a manner that only a delusional observer or one tasked with defending the DOJ from prosecution might.

On December 31, 2010, Christian Adams offered Savage some advice on this front:

Savage could bolster his credibility by making the same inquiries of this Justice Department as he did to the Bush DOJ. For starters, he could examine the preposterous hiring practices in the Civil Rights Division since Obama’s inauguration. The more time that passes without an inquiry from Savage and the New York Times, the more partisan his badgering of the Bush DOJ appears.

We cannot know for sure if Charlie Savage read Adams’ above recommendation, but he followed through on May 31, 2011, with an article covering the resumes of the new hires. Interestingly, the National Law Journal took Adams’ plea for an investigation to heart, and they performed one as well! They published a report on the resumes on May 30, 2011.

Two reports in two days. Savage mentioned the following in his piece:

The New York Times analyzed the résumés — obtained via the Freedom of Information Act — of successful applicants to the division’s voting rights, employment discrimination, and appellate sections.

You’ve likely already noticed what stinks to heaven about this, but for the sake of placing it in writing: we filed our FOIA in Spring 2010, and it was not even partially complied with until early May 2011. But little did we know — at the same time we were fighting a legal battle — that both the New York Times and the National Law Journal had made the exact same FOIA requests! Which were also complied with in … May 2011.

Two possibilities:

1) Both left-leaning organizations caught wind of our FOIA, and decided to file the exact same FOIA to get to the bottom of this rumored lefty hiring spree. Perhaps they fought the same almost year-long battle for compliance. (Note: I call this a “possibility” in that the standard model of particle physics would not prevent it from occurring.)

2) The FOIA referred to in Savage’s article above was actually our FOIA. The DOJ voluntarily released the resumes to the New York Times and the National Law Journal at the same time they were released to us so that the two left-leaning organizations could offer an opposing viewpoint to our investigation.

But this possibility only holds water if the two organizations actually were shameless enough to report that all was well after viewing the left-wing resumes. Did that happen? Hit it, Charlie:

In Shift, Justice Department is Hiring Lawyers With Civil Rights Backgrounds

Under the Obama administration, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division has reversed a pattern of systematically hiring conservative lawyers with little experience in civil rights, the practice that caused a scandal over politicization during the Bush administration.

Instead, newly disclosed documents show, the lawyers hired over the past two years at the division have been far more likely to have civil rights backgrounds — and to have ties to traditional civil rights organizations with liberal reputations, like the American Civil Liberties Union or the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

The release of the documents came as a House Judiciary subcommittee prepared to hold its first oversight hearing, on Wednesday, on the Civil Rights Division since Republicans regained the House. It also comes against the backdrop of efforts by conservative activists and media outlets to throw back at the Obama administration the charges of politicizing the Justice Department that were made against the Bush administration.

Which conservative media outlets? Tell us!

Savage and the National Law Journal actually did manage to spin a clear and severe violation of the Civil Service Reform Act into the Carville-ian: “Bravo for hiring lawyers with a civil-rights background.” (Note: the same defense later employed by the DOJ itself. Keep reading).

So we know what Savage and the National Law Journal think. Forgive us for feeling slighted, but we want to know about everyone else: What do the Boston Globe, the rest of the MSM that breathlessly parroted the findings of Savage’s original article, and the Pulitzer committee think of our objectively superior, unimpeachable work?

PJMedia readers will get that answer. Stay tuned.

The Spin, the Turmoil, and the Even Bigger Reveal

Our investigation has not yet resulted in an inspector general investigation, group resignations, or a Little League trophy to show at the White House Correspondents Dinner, but we are getting results.

As a direct follow-up to “Every Single One,” Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) submitted a letter to Eric Holder on August 10 demanding answers regarding our published proof of an ideological litmus test. Grassley did not go ignored: Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich responded on September 8. The key passage:

Your letter questions whether the Division has nonetheless considered the actual or perceived political or ideological affiliations of applicants for career positions and thereby reverted to the politicized approach in hiring that was documented in the 2008 Report. We can assure you unequivocally that it has not done so. The Division does not take into account actual or perceived political or ideological affiliations in the career hiring process — much less inquire into applicants’ political or ideological affiliations as occurred during the period examined in the 2008 Report and documented in the Report. The blog postings referenced in your letter posit that working at certain organizations, belonging to certain groups, participating in certain activities in law school, or even having a certain sexual orientation necessarily reflects a particular political or ideological affiliation, and therefore establishes that hiring decisions were made based on that perceived affiliation. That is not the case. As would any responsible employer, the Division places a high value on an applicant’s relevant experience in the field, as well as demonstrated commitment to full and fair enforcement of civil rights laws, when making hiring decisions. The examples of prior employment cited in these blog posts and your letter — noting, for example, that numerous new hires for the Civil Rights Division had previously worked for civil rights organizations — reflect nothing more than that. (Emphasis added)

The two defenses as laid out in this paragraph from Weich are important, as they define the tactics which the DOJ has selected to defend themselves publicly, and — perhaps eventually — legally. They are: 1) Despite appearances, we did not inquire about political affiliation. 2) The 113 lawyers hired happen to be leftists because only leftists care about civil rights. Charlie Savage agrees.

These two arguments noted in this paragraph were parroted by Main Justice, a site run by Mary Jacoby that bills itself as “an independent news organization and not part of the U.S. government,” and which exists to cover insider news about the DOJ. In reality, Main Justice has appeared closer to being a DOJ mouthpiece.

Following the money leads to some circumstantial evidence: Eric Holder’s former law firm Covington & Burling buys advertising on the site. And a DOJ employee who wishes to remain anonymous tells PJMedia: “When Jacoby is reporting it, Jacoby is hearing it from a DOJ official.”

Main Justice’s role as mouthpiece is evident in the article “Behind Grassley’s Attack on Civil Right Division Hiring, Some Familiar Faces”:

Their series is entitled, “Every Single One,” as in “every single one” of the new hires is a liberal. Their research found the new lawyers have worked for organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union. It apparently formed the basis of Grassley’s assertion in a congressional hearing earlier this week that the Civil Rights Division in the Obama era “has hired 96 liberals and zero conservatives.”

The punch line here is, of course, that Adams and Von Spakovsky are the ones connected to improperly politicized hiring inside the division.

Heritage Foundation fellow Von Spakovsky was a political appointee in the division when it ran amok during the Bush administration hiring career attorneys based on their conservative ideology, and driving out veteran lawyers perceived to be too liberal.

The stumbling block for Grassley (and Adams and Von Spakovsky) is that the historical mission of the Civil Rights Division — ensuring full voting, housing and other rights for minorities who have faced documented discrimination — is inherently a liberal mission.

Jacoby’s reporting is notable for two reasons: First, according to Christian Adams, Main Justice has previously published an article claiming Adams was “associated with the improper hiring” of the Bush DOJ. Adams contacted her, explaining he was nowhere named in the 2008 inspector general report, and insisted she retract the line. She did.

Now, she publishes the exact same falsehood again!

Further, Jacoby got it wrong on Hans von Spakovsky, too: this leads us to believe she either did not check the 2008 inspector general report to see what it actually said about him, or she chose to report a falsehood. Von Spakovsky was a career lawyer in the Division, not a “political appointee” as Jacoby mistakenly claims. Von Spakovsky also tells PJMedia that he was interviewed by Jacoby several years ago, and that during the interview he informed her of this. The IG report itself makes no claim whatsoever that von Spakovsky was involved in any politicized hiring.

Second, Jacoby’s piece includes a confession regarding DOJ hiring practices: “The historical mission of the Civil Rights Division … is inherently a liberal mission.” You should take this as nothing less than a “guilty, and proud” admission, and having read Weich’s response, be reasonably assured that this is a DOJ position.

The best I can manage for summarizing this argument: “Civil rights” in fact means preferences, therefore preferences in our own hiring is in accordance. We didn’t break the law, but we don’t agree with the law. And further, the Bush DOJ did break the law when they used preferences, which we do not do, but we agree with.

The argument is lawless, and illogical: “It counts as civil rights when we do it.”

It’s leftism’s beating heart of identity preferences, which always and forever ends in a statement defining tyranny. It’s a lie, and you should be angry in shouting it down.

There are plenty of conservative lawyers who take on the mission of defending civil rights, defending the only possible definition: equal protection of the individual’s life, liberty, and property. Two of these lawyers are named Christian Adams and Hans von Spakovsky.

Further, the response from Weich dropped a nasty, underhanded lie directly intended to defame PJMedia: that we determined political affiliation from any of the hirees’ sexual orientations.

No. We did not. This is a nasty, nasty line designed to paint us as homophobes.

First: this was not possible, for goodness’ sake! No one puts their sexual orientation on their resume! Show us where this information sits on any of the 113 resumes — we certainly do not see it; perhaps it lies in the areas you redacted?

In many cases, we drew conclusions regarding the political ideologies of the hirees from the political affiliations and behavior of the organizations they belonged to.

The only people drawing conclusions of political ideology based on sexuality are the liars who cooked up that smear. They can get further information regarding their ignorance from the members of GOProud, and they can learn more about PJMedia’s track record from CEO Roger Simon, who announced his personal boycott of CPAC within moments of hearing they had banned GOProud from attending.

This smear is the tyranny talking; it’s what happens when a group believes the impossible, that they “own” civil rights.

Second: this nasty lie secondarily expressed the point that we had gotten something wrong. That in using sexual orientation, which we did not, we got someone’s political ideology incorrect.

DOJ and Main Justice: let us know where you think we are mistaken. Who among the 113 is actually conservative?

Internal Panic?

Weich’s public response belied a more nervous tone brewing within the Civil Rights Division. A confidential source within DOJ leaked the following memo to PJMedia, written by Thomas Perez two weeks ago and circulated throughout the Division:

From: Perez, Thomas E (CRT)
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 04:13 PM
To: CRT Users
Subject: Civil Rights Division Success
To all Division Staff:

This morning I had the opportunity to testify before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary about the remarkable work of the Division.  It was a great honor to discuss some of our recent accomplishments, and to show that, despite the difficult budget situation, the Civil Rights Division staff are among the best this government has to offer.

As I told the Committee, when I returned to the Civil Rights Division in 2009, I promised to restore and transform the Division.  Thanks to all of you, our efforts have yielded great success.  I am attaching a copy of my full statement, as well as the oral statement I delivered today, for your review.

I discussed the many ways in which our work has transformed communities for the better, and provided access to opportunity.  It was incredibly satisfying to discuss the largest ever Title III ADA settlement, the largest ever settlement involving claims of rental discrimination, the largest ever monetary settlement for identified victims in a fair lending case, the largest ever settlement in a case alleging discrimination in hiring based on immigration or citizenship status.  I discussed the successful prosecution of the New Orleans Police Department officers involved in the shootings on the Danziger Bridge in the wake of Hurricane Katrina that left two civilians dead and four wounded.  I mentioned our trip to Puerto Rico to release the findings of a comprehensive, extensive investigation of the police department there.  It was an honor to discuss the guilty pleas in the first case charged under the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act, bringing some measure of justice for the incident’s victim – a young man of Navajo descent who had developmental disabilities.  I discussed our renewed efforts to ensure language access in courts nationwide, and our ramped up efforts to protect servicemembers from employment discrimination when they return from service.  I discussed our first efforts in nearly a decade to protect students from harassment in school because they fail to conform to gender stereotypes.  And I discussed the Voting Section’s incredible efforts to respond to the influx of redistricting plans submitted for administrative review, all while defending the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and handling the most robust case docket in a decade.

Your work on behalf of the American people is critical and priceless.  Your ability to maintain a high level of enthusiasm and dedication even during difficult and uncertain times is admirable, and I want to thank each of you for your hard work on behalf of the Division and the nation.

Recently, we received an inquiry from Senator Grassley about the Division’s hiring practices, and I have attached to this email our response to the Senator’s inquiry.  As you all know, one of my first priorities was to return integrity to the Division’s career hiring process.  As a career attorney in the Division, I had the privilege of serving on the selection committee for the Honors Program in the administrations of President George H.W. Bush and President Clinton.  Under both administrations, the instruction we received was identical: hire the best qualified candidates, plain and simple.

In the last two years, the process has been returned to career staff, and the hiring policies, available on our website, ensure integrity and transparency in hiring, and prohibit the consideration of any political affiliation or ideology.  We hire, based on merit, individuals who have the knowledge, experience and qualifications necessary to do the demanding work of the Division.  I want to thank those who have served on the hiring committees for their adherence to these principles, and for taking the time out of their already very busy work schedules to participate in this important process.  I have been consistently impressed by the new lawyers that were brought on in the career staff-led hiring processes of the past two years.  As noted in our letter in response to Senator Grassley, the integrity and quality of our hiring process should be judged by the quality of the Division’s work – and I can say with great confidence that our collective work product is among the best the Division has ever produced.

Our success is a product of the talent, experience and dedication of all of the Division’s employees – both those who have been here for years or decades, and those who have joined us during the current administration.  I could not be more proud of our work, and I consider it a great honor to be a part of an organization filled with so many dedicated, passionate individuals who have made a commitment to public service.  I thank each of you for your continued dedication to the critical mission of the Civil Rights Division.

Tom

Sounds like what we heard from Main Justice, no?

In any event, we know the memo was an attempt to shore up flagging morale within the Division, a concern directly brought on by “Every Single One.” A confidential source within the Division tells PJMedia:

Perez gets to sit and watch the bloody carnage inside each time a new “Every Single One” story comes out.

Bombshell Number One

We know that the DOJ employees behind the interview desk are nervous about a legal investigation brought on by “Every Single One,” but more immediately, we now know that the new hires themselves should be desperately concerned about the source of their next paycheck.

A source inside DOJ tells PJMedia (paraphrased):

During last week’s Senate CJS meeting, several million in funding for all DOJ litigating components were cut  — including the Civil Rights Division. The amount cut was what used to hire about 100 of the new attorneys.

In other words, it may well be that they have to get rid of many of their new hires.

This really should be a big story.

DOJ hired these new attorneys knowing they didn’t have the money now and probably wouldn’t be getting it. These new lawyers probably all make more than $100,000 in salary, plus benefits. They spend maybe 20 million dollars they didn’t have. They did it specifically to fill the Division with leftists.

Now they are trying to cover it by offering early retirement/buyouts.

Bombshell Number Two, and the Big Reveal

Why might DOJ be so panicked? While the resumes speak for themselves, prosecution within a federal agency generally requires a smoking gun, and perhaps DOJ fears that it has already been found. They should be.

As Christian Adams has previously written in “Every Single One”:

Loretta King, while serving as the acting assistant attorney general for civil rights at the outset of the Obama administration, ordered the resumes of highly qualified applicants to be rejected only because they didn’t have political or left-wing civil rights experience. Multiple DOJ sources with direct knowledge of hiring committee practices have confirmed this to me.

We have proof of this.

Which takes us to the Big Reveal: all that we have presented up to this point should upset you as a citizen, a taxpayer, but we are not close to having completed publication of all that we have uncovered. The Department of Justice has done much further abuse to your liberty and property, committed significantly more acts of lawlessness on your dime. Additional articles will be forthcoming on PJMedia within a week or so.

Further, we have a much more extensive treasure trove of information we’d love to publish for you this very minute!

But copyright law requires that we wait until October 4. Preorder here!

David Steinberg is the New York City Editor of PJ Media. Follow his tweets at @DavidSPJM.
Click here to view the 73 legacy comments

Comments are closed.