ahh yes ole Jamie Gorelick ( I'll forgo making fun of her name) making 25 million from fannie mae, who knew justice was that profitable.
They forgot to add Duke Cunningham as well, but I think the point is made.......
Asking someone what they would like about serving Bush, yes reprehensible indeed.




Scandalous Justice
July 31, 2008; Page A14
So, let's see: The Bush Justice Department this week indicted a prominent Republican Senator for corruption less than 100 days before he's up for re-election. But we are supposed to believe that Bush Justice is corruptly politicized because some of its dimmer bulbs asked job-seekers about their ideological leanings.

Oh, and this is the same Department that in February indicted Republican Arizona Congressman Rick Renzi. Ohio Republican Bob Ney also pleaded guilty to federal corruption charges in 2006, and the GOP lost his House seat, and, well, we could go on.

Measured against these indictments, the story line from Capitol Hill and the media this week looks like the real "politicization." The Democratic braying concerns the latest report by Justice's Inspector General, Glenn Fine, that former Justice officials asked inappropriate questions of job applicants and even -- hide the children -- used politically loaded search terms to vet applicants on search engines.

Some of the report's excerpts are fodder for the late-night shows, as when former White House Liaison Monica Goodling asked a candidate, "What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?" Ms. Goodling will not win any Mensa awards for political IQ, but her sin here is College Republican zealotry, not corruption.

U.S. civil service laws are intended not to bar the consideration of ideology or background in hiring, but to prevent political patronage. The point is to shield federal employees from partisan pressure. The problem with the Inspector General's report is that it often conflates the two. The IG report says Ms. Goodling "regularly considered a candidate's political or ideological affiliations." But while the former does smell of political hackery, the latter can provide insight about a candidate's legal views.

This sort of vetting goes on in every Administration, albeit in more subtle fashion. Anyone who thinks that a Federalist Society membership was an asset in getting a job in the Clinton Justice Department was sleeping during the 1990s. And speaking of Clinton Justice, we could only smile at Jamie Gorelick's op-ed in the Washington Post this week deploring politicization at Justice.

Ms. Gorelick was Deputy Attorney General under the hapless Janet Reno, serving as Hillary Clinton's eyes and ears at what truly was the most political Justice Department since Richard Nixon's. We recall that Ms. Gorelick attended a meeting where officials leaned on special counsel Don Smaltz to curb his probe. After her departure, Clinton Justice maintained a running feud with FBI Director Louis Freeh over investigating the campaign finance scandals of 1996, among other things. Having since made $26.5 million over five years at Fannie Mae, Ms. Gorelick is apparently now campaigning to be Barack Obama's Attorney General.

This IG exercise is best understood as an election-year attempt by Democrats on Capitol Hill to scare up anti-Bush headlines. Inspectors General are creatures of Congress dropped into the executive branch to criticize Administrations on demand. The real test of politics at Justice is whether prosecutors are allowed to pursue cases on the merits, wherever they lead. Ask Ted Stevens.

Scandalous Justice - WSJ.com

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."