Bradley Schlozman, one time U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Missouri and pursuer of vote fraud cases after the previous U.S. Attorney, Todd Graves, was sacked is the subject of a report on politicization in the Department of Justice which was released yesterday.
The Department of Justice still has information about him up on a web site [retrieved today]:
Bradley J. Schlozman was appointed to serve as the United States Attorney for the Western District of Missouri under an Attorney General Appointment on March 23, 2006.
Prior to assuming his current post, Mr. Schlozman served as the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division at the United States Department of Justice. In this capacity, Mr. Schlozman supervised all activities of the Civil Rights Division, which is comprised of over 700 employees, including 356 attorneys. The Civil Rights Division is responsible for enforcing federal civil rights statutes, including those statutes that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, sex, disability, religion, and national origin in education, employment, credit, housing, public accommodations and facilities, voting, and certain federally funded and conducted programs.
Mr. Schlozman served for five months as the Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division. Before that, he had served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General since May 2003, directly supervising the Criminal, Voting, Employment, and Special Litigation Sections of the Civil Rights Division. Mr. Schlozman began his service in the Bush Administration as Counsel to then-Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson…
This is quite interesting – from the United States Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility (released January 13, 2009):
The particulars are an appalling indictment of dubya’s Justice Department. Near the beginning of the report:
…We were unable to interview several former Civil Rights Division officials no longer employed at the Department who declined our request for interviews. For example, Bradley Schlozman, who served as DAAG, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, and Acting AAG in the Division, declined our interview request through his counsel. In addition, J. Michael Wiggins, who also served as a Principal DAAG for the Civil Rights Division, and Hans von Spakovsky, former Counsel to the AAG, declined our requests to interview them as part of this investigation. Jason Torchinsky, former Counsel to the AAG, did not respond to our written request for an interview…
…In March 2006, Schlozman was appointed to serve as the U.S. Attorney in the Western District of Missouri on an interim basis. Rena Comisac succeeded Schlozman as the Division’s Principal DAAG.
Schlozman remained in the interim U.S. Attorney position for approximately 1 year, until the nomination and confirmation of a permanent U.S. Attorney (John F. Wood) in March 2007. Schlozman then returned to Washington and took a position in the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA). He resigned from the Department on August 17, 2007…
In a footnote the report quotes an e-mail:
…In addition, while interim U.S. Attorney in the Western District of Missouri, Schlozman wrote an e-mail to a friend, dated June 15, 2006, contrasting his job as U.S. Attorney with his position in the Civil Rights Division. He wrote:
It has been months since I felt the need to scream with a blood-curdling cry at some commie, partisan subordinate (i.e., most of the [Voting] section staff until recently). And I feel like the people I now work with are all complete professionals. What a weird change. Granted, these changes are nice in many respects, but bitchslapping a bunch of [Division] attorneys really did get the blood pumping and was even enjoyable once in a while. I think now it’s all Good Cop for folks there. I much preferred the role of Bad Cop. . . . But perhaps the Division will name an award for me or something. How about the Brad Schlozman Award for Most Effectively Breaking the Will of Liberal Partisan Bureaucrats. I would be happy to come back for the awards ceremony…
Apparently career attorneys were transferred based on improper criteria:
…Based on the results of our investigation, we concluded that Schlozman considered political and ideological affiliations in transferring three career attorneys out of the Appellate Section between June 2005 and December 2005.
We also found that Schlozman considered political and ideological affiliations in other personnel actions affecting career attorneys, such as case assignments and awards. Several section chiefs told us that Schlozman directed them not to assign important cases to attorneys he identified as liberal, and one section chief said he instructed her to nominate the conservative attorneys he had hired for awards…
…We concluded that Schlozman inappropriately considered political and ideological affiliations when he forced three career attorneys to transfer from the Appellate Section.
As noted above, Schlozman frequently criticized the attorney staff in the Appellate Section and talked of his plan, when he “came into power,” to move certain attorneys from the section to make room for “real Americans.” Based on our interviews and our review of numerous e-mails, we found that Schlozman used the term “real Americans” to refer to individuals with conservative political views. Appellate Section Chief Flynn also told us that Schlozman named Appellate Section Attorneys A, B, and C as among several in the section whom he considered to be “disloyal,” “not one of us,” “against us,” “not on the team,” or “treacherous” and whom he wanted to move out of the section. In particular, Schlozman told Flynn that he viewed Attorney A as a “political opponent” because she had worked in the front office of the Division during the Clinton administration. Flynn said Schlozman “[o]ften brought up Attorney A – and politics. Said when he obtained power, he would get her out…”
Several others in the Justice Department are cited in the report:
…We concluded that Acosta and Kim did not sufficiently supervise Schlozman. In light of indications they had about Schlozman’s conduct and judgment, they failed to ensure that Schlozman’s hiring and personnel decisions were based on proper considerations. In addition, Bradshaw and Wiggins both had knowledge of Schlozman’s improper consideration of political and ideological affiliations in hiring, and they also failed to take action to ensure that Schlozman’s hiring decisions were consistent with the law and Department policy…
The conclusion of the report is blunt (reproduced in its entirety here):
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Our investigation examined whether:
(1) the Civil Rights Division improperly used political or ideological affiliations in assessing applicants for career attorney positions, including hiring for both experienced attorneys and entry-level attorneys through the Honors Program;
(2) political or ideological affiliations resulted in other personnel actions that affected career attorneys in the Division, such as attorney transfers and attorney case assignments;
(3) the Division’s senior management exercised appropriate oversight of Schlozman’s actions in the hiring and treatment of career attorneys; and
(4) Schlozman made false statements in his testimony to Congress about these matters.
The evidence in our investigation showed that Schlozman, first as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General and subsequently as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Acting Assistant Attorney General, considered political and ideological affiliations in hiring career attorneys and in other personnel actions affecting career attorneys in the Civil Rights Division. In doing so, he violated federal law – the Civil Service Reform Act – and Department policy that prohibit discrimination in federal employment based on political and ideological affiliations, and committed misconduct. The evidence also showed that Division managers failed to exercise sufficient oversight to ensure that Schlozman did not engage in inappropriate hiring and personnel practices. Moreover, Schlozman made false statements about whether he considered political and ideological affiliations when he gave sworn testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee and in his written responses to supplemental questions from the Committee.
Schlozman is no longer employed by the Department and, therefore, is not subject to disciplinary action by the Department. We recommend, however, that, if criminal prosecution is declined these findings be considered if Schlozman seeks federal employment in the future. We believe that his violations of the merit system principles set forth in the Civil Service Reform Act, federal regulations, and Department policy, and his subsequent false statements to Congress render him unsuitable for federal service.
We also recommend that the Department consider taking additional action in light of the findings in this report. According to a March 2008 memorandum from the Attorney General, beginning in the summer of 2007, new political employees at the Department are briefed on “Merit System Principles and Prohibited Personnel Practices” as part of their orientation process. In the memorandum, the Attorney General expressed a commitment to “ensur[e] that all serving political appointees are provided the same information” and that they must acknowledge that they understand the principles.
In addition to these positive steps already taken, we recommend that the Department regularly provide training on merit system principles and prohibited personnel practices in the Civil Service Reform Act, federal regulations, and Department policies to personnel with a role in hiring or supervising career employees. Most of the Department attorneys we interviewed who had a role in the hiring process told us they received no such training on the applicable laws, regulations, and Department policies regarding the consideration of political and ideological affiliations or other impermissible factors. Most also said they only had a general sense of what considerations were prohibited. We believe that training should be provided to employees when they enter supervisory positions and when they assume any hiring responsibilities. The Department should also provide periodic refresher training reinforcing the law regarding impermissible factors in hiring and personnel actions.
We also recommend that the Department consider issuing periodic statements to all employees about what constitutes prohibited personnel practices under federal law, regulations, and Department policy. These statements should affirm that the Department, as an employer, is committed to compliance with all laws, regulations, and policies. The Department should provide information to employees about how they can report violations and where they can seek redress.
In sum, our report found that Schlozman considered political and ideological affiliations when hiring and taking other personnel actions relating to career attorneys, in violation of Department policy and federal law, and his actions also constitute misconduct. We also believe he made false statements to Congress about his actions.
We believe that the Department should take action, including implementing our recommendations, to help ensure that such conduct does not occur in the future.
Wow, just wow. Go. Read the whole thing.
Maybe this is the start of the accountability moments that will be emanating from the last eight years of insanity.
Pass the popcorn.