https://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Logo-Web.png00emptywheelhttps://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Logo-Web.pngemptywheel2007-04-17 20:02:002007-04-17 20:02:00I Guess Monica Wasn't the Only One Issuing Loyalty Oaths
Anonymous says:
ew: The stuff DOJ is supposed to be protecting us from.
No, silly! Haven’t you been reading the news? The DOJ is supposed to protect us from POOR BLACK VOTER FRAUD. It’s rampant, don’t you know.
Anonymous says:
The organs of the State exist to serve the Party, because of its unique role as Vanguard of the Revolution.
Correct understanding of the proper place of the Party is the most important qualification in potential cadres seeking to serve the People.
We’re being ruled by frickin’ Maoists.
Anonymous says:
ouch
tokyo jodi the worm tongue just posted a talking point about the lack of complaints from people who were burned by lawyer goodling’s loyalty oaths
and here we are, discussing those loyalty oaths, and complaints about them
the worm tongue is psychic
kinda like cassandra, don’t ya think ???
Anonymous says:
I won’t mind at all if the next administration excludes for consideration any wack-jobs who believe they are doing â€God’s will.†In fact, that should be an automatic disqualifier for ALL jobs, except preaching.
Anonymous says:
The people who didn’t get interviewed presumably didn’t know why not, and ,ost of them got other jobs. Who is burned is the American people, who have second or third tier people going up against better attorneys representing corporations and certainly white collar criminal defendants. When government service was an honorable and relatively well-paid career choice, the gov’t got many of the best and brightest. Gonzales and the little Rovians have presided over the dismantling of this career corps, most of them probably having no idea that the DOJ is supposed to be non-partisan, at least the career staff.
Maoists indeed.
Anonymous says:
Yeah!!!! This is rich. Just the kind of thing that the commitee can sink their teeth into. Deliberate definable evidenced action that people can understand, and that is illegal as hell. Tune in to Rove radio where the hits keep on rolling!!! We’re getting juicy stuff almost daily at this point. What a fun week – ’cept for virginia – bummer – goes w/o saying.
Anonymous says:
Reminds me of a lady I met in China, Ms. Lu, who spent several years in a Red Guard camp recanting the â€revisionist roader†leanings of her misbegoten intellectual youth every night [after a day working in the rice paddies].
Anonymous says:
Maoists, I love it, so true and so sad. The whole frigging house of cards seems to be coming down. Slow motion train wreck. Couldn’t happen to a nicer group of people, ya’ know?
Anonymous says:
How does a Congressional inquiry proceed and find culpability? If they find out someone has broken the law – what happens next? Does the DoJ prosecute?
Anonymous says:
this is an easy one. Lots of people have heard stories about Elston. I mentioned one story whispered about his a couple of weeks ago on this blog
but this story is a frolic and detour about small timers throwing their weight around, in my view. DOJ was dented a little, maybe, by this stuff, but not transformed
Lam. Abramoff. â€Voter fraud†cases. My guess is that that stuff lies closer to the Rove central goals of getting control of the election process (skimming money to GOP, discouraging brown votes). My suspicion anyway. And if there is anything to that story, it must be pursued with a fury. Stay on target
Anonymous says:
Veritas78:I won’t mind at all if the next administration excludes for consideration any wack-jobs who believe they are doing â€God’s will.†In fact, that should be an automatic disqualifier for ALL jobs.
You wouldn’t need to go that far. Just make it a disqualifier for the right to vote.
Why are churches tax exempt?
Anonymous says:
What jwp said above… makes me thin of this comment over at the The Muck. (there was no handle, so can’t pass on the credit): http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/ar…..p#comments
â€Separate topic, but shouldn’t we add to the list of 8 (or some have indicated 9 if you include Taylor appointment) another one: Thomas M. DiBiagio USA Maryland.
He was let go in 2005. (refer to USA scandal timline) but he seems to have fallen through the cracks recently. The Times story of his dismissal reveals a pattern with regards to the other corruption investigating fired USA’s.
So by my count, these USA’s have been allegedly removed to head off corruption investigations: Lam (Abramoff investigation)
Leads me to wonder if Elston’s checklist overtly or otherwise include â€member of the USAG Native American Issues Subcommitteeâ€, â€Native American heritageâ€, or â€Native American constituency in districtâ€?
Or was that a criteria somebody else might have applied?
Anonymous says:
That should read â€potential member of USAG Native American Issues Subcommittee†— in other words, anybody who was sympathetic to Native Americans, by virtue of past experience or by birth. And if by birth, well, that’s discriminatory and illegal.
Anonymous says:
tokyo freepatriot the wormtongue,
sorry, I almost missed your post. I hadn’t posted in this site earlier, and didn’t know you missed me so much that you were talking about me behind my back.
ew: The stuff DOJ is supposed to be protecting us from.
No, silly! Haven’t you been reading the news? The DOJ is supposed to protect us from POOR BLACK VOTER FRAUD. It’s rampant, don’t you know.
The organs of the State exist to serve the Party, because of its unique role as Vanguard of the Revolution.
Correct understanding of the proper place of the Party is the most important qualification in potential cadres seeking to serve the People.
We’re being ruled by frickin’ Maoists.
ouch
tokyo jodi the worm tongue just posted a talking point about the lack of complaints from people who were burned by lawyer goodling’s loyalty oaths
and here we are, discussing those loyalty oaths, and complaints about them
the worm tongue is psychic
kinda like cassandra, don’t ya think ???
I won’t mind at all if the next administration excludes for consideration any wack-jobs who believe they are doing â€God’s will.†In fact, that should be an automatic disqualifier for ALL jobs, except preaching.
The people who didn’t get interviewed presumably didn’t know why not, and ,ost of them got other jobs. Who is burned is the American people, who have second or third tier people going up against better attorneys representing corporations and certainly white collar criminal defendants. When government service was an honorable and relatively well-paid career choice, the gov’t got many of the best and brightest. Gonzales and the little Rovians have presided over the dismantling of this career corps, most of them probably having no idea that the DOJ is supposed to be non-partisan, at least the career staff.
Maoists indeed.
Yeah!!!! This is rich. Just the kind of thing that the commitee can sink their teeth into. Deliberate definable evidenced action that people can understand, and that is illegal as hell. Tune in to Rove radio where the hits keep on rolling!!! We’re getting juicy stuff almost daily at this point. What a fun week – ’cept for virginia – bummer – goes w/o saying.
Reminds me of a lady I met in China, Ms. Lu, who spent several years in a Red Guard camp recanting the â€revisionist roader†leanings of her misbegoten intellectual youth every night [after a day working in the rice paddies].
Maoists, I love it, so true and so sad.
The whole frigging house of cards seems to be coming down. Slow motion train wreck. Couldn’t happen to a nicer group of people, ya’ know?
How does a Congressional inquiry proceed and find culpability? If they find out someone has broken the law – what happens next? Does the DoJ prosecute?
this is an easy one. Lots of people have heard stories about Elston. I mentioned one story whispered about his a couple of weeks ago on this blog
but this story is a frolic and detour about small timers throwing their weight around, in my view. DOJ was dented a little, maybe, by this stuff, but not transformed
Lam. Abramoff. â€Voter fraud†cases. My guess is that that stuff lies closer to the Rove central goals of getting control of the election process (skimming money to GOP, discouraging brown votes). My suspicion anyway. And if there is anything to that story, it must be pursued with a fury. Stay on target
Veritas78: I won’t mind at all if the next administration excludes for consideration any wack-jobs who believe they are doing â€God’s will.†In fact, that should be an automatic disqualifier for ALL jobs.
You wouldn’t need to go that far. Just make it a disqualifier for the right to vote.
Why are churches tax exempt?
What jwp said above… makes me thin of this comment over at the The Muck. (there was no handle, so can’t pass on the credit):
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/ar…..p#comments
â€Separate topic, but shouldn’t we add to the list of 8 (or some have indicated 9 if you include Taylor appointment) another one: Thomas M. DiBiagio USA Maryland.
He was let go in 2005. (refer to USA scandal timline) but he seems to have fallen through the cracks recently. The Times story of his dismissal reveals a pattern with regards to the other corruption investigating fired USA’s.
So by my count, these USA’s have been allegedly removed to head off corruption investigations:
Lam
(Abramoff investigation)
Cummins
(MA Gov. investigation??)
Black
(Abramoff investigation)
DiBiagio
(investigating Republican governor associates)
Debra Wong Yang
(USA LA) (Abramoff investigation) (Hired away by Law firm that was representing Rep. J. Lewis)
Chiara (corruption investigation)
Did I miss anyone else that has left/fired?
Posted by:
Date: April 17, 2007 03:40 PMâ€
The piece by Silverstein at Harper’s that it links through to is pretty good too.
What ’Veritas78 | April 17, 2007 at 20:40’ said.
God’s Army has been training for years and I really recommend Hanna Rosin’s June 27, 2005 New Yorker piece, â€God and Countryâ€. Creepy.
http://www.newyorker.com/archi…..627fa_fact
Leads me to wonder if Elston’s checklist overtly or otherwise include â€member of the USAG Native American Issues Subcommitteeâ€, â€Native American heritageâ€, or â€Native American constituency in districtâ€?
Or was that a criteria somebody else might have applied?
That should read â€potential member of USAG Native American Issues Subcommittee†— in other words, anybody who was sympathetic to Native Americans, by virtue of past experience or by birth. And if by birth, well, that’s discriminatory and illegal.
tokyo freepatriot the wormtongue,
sorry, I almost missed your post. I hadn’t posted in this site earlier, and didn’t know you missed me so much that you were talking about me behind my back.
Anyway, I will try to stay more alert.