anatomy of a twerp…

Posted on Saturday 8 September 2007


 

In written answers to questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee, Bradley Schlozman, the former Justice Department official and U.S. attorney who’s been at the center of the firings controversy, admitted that he’d once urged hiring certain prosecutors for his office based on their political affiliation. It’s against civil service laws to do so.

But he had a reason, he explains (how good a reason, you can decide for yourself). When serving as the interim U.S. attorney for Kansas City, Schlozman had been unable to hire assistant U.S. attorneys on his own, as Senate-confirmed U.S. attorneys are able to do. For that, he had to go through the central office, or in this case, Monica Goodling, the Department’s White House liaison. He’d "heard rumors," he writes,"that Ms. Goodling considered political affiliation in approving hiring decisions for career positions." Goodling, of course, admitted in testimony to Congress that she’d made sure that only Republicans were hired for certain non-political positions.

And so, Schlozman explains, in order to "maximize the chances" of being able to hire his desired candidate, he "once noted the likely political leanings of several applicants" in a conversation with Department officials.
This, and other articles addressing Brad Schlozman’s written responses cherry pick for content. It’s not the content that’s so infuriating, not the words – it’s the music. You have to read it to hear what I’m talking about. There’s a "how dare you question anything I did" refrain with a bass crescendo of, "my decisions are beyond reproach." Of all the arrogant , self-important pricks paraded before us, he’s the most obnoxious of the lot. Paralleling his winning ways, he was also one of the most dangerous. His voter fraud case, filed in election season, filed according to him with the blessing of his oft-touted "public integrity section" was the most blatant example of an attempt to use the justice department to adversely effect an election. But his best showing is this explanation about why he asked a potential hire about his political affiliations.

And so it goes, question after question – absurd rationalizations for blatant partisanship. It’s hard to imagine his doing very well in the private sector unless he becomes an ambulance chaser. He’s the kind of attorney that would drive warring spouses back together just to avoid having to go back to the lawyer’s office…
  1.  
    joyhollywood
    September 9, 2007 | 6:38 AM
     

    Wasn’t he tweety bird? The word twerp is so apropos in describing Schlozman.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.