By now most Missourians who are even remotely tuned into state politics have heard that Lt. Governor Peter Kinder was contending that his $86,000 salary was not enough to stave off penury. His proposed solution: a per diem allowance of $103 for each day he spends in Jefferson city doing – wait for it – essentially nothing. But, hey, who can blame him? His cohorts in the legislature not only get that exact per diem allowance, but make out like bandits with gobs of lobbyist swag that likely doesn’t come his way that often.  

Unfortunately for Kinder’s endangered quality of life, it seems his peers in the legislature either didn’t take his situation seriously or were unwilling to risk the ire of constituents who are managing to eke out a living on considerably less than $86,000.  There’ll be no per diem for Lt. Governor Kinder. As a consequence, I surmise that he might be in a bad mood. He’s facing abject poverty, after all.

And bad mood might be the only way to explain his latest news-making move. The Lt. Governor has decided to weigh in on the topic of racism and the Ferguson uproar. And what he had to say either demonstrates the type of displaced anger that leaves one making ill-considered remarks that one regrets later when emotional and mental equilibrium are restored, or it’s just racist, dim-witted dribble. Judge for yourself:

The lieutenant governor of Missouri says “there is more racism in the Justice Department” than in the St. Louis area, pointing the finger at President Obama and the Justice Department who, he says, often incited “the mob” in the wake of the shooting of Michael Brown back in August of 2014.

“The whole blow up of this protest movement was based on the lie that never happened of ‘hands up don’t shoot,'” Peter Kinder, the Lt. governor told NewsMaxTV’s Steve Malzberg Show Monday. “But it’s bad enough the protestors were behaving that way but we have a right to expect more from the attorney general, the head of the Justice Department of the United States, and the president of the United States. And instead what we got too often from them was incitement of the mob, and, uh, encouraging disorder in Ferguson and distributing the peaceable going-about of our lives in the greater St. Louis region.”

Kinder added President Obama and Eric Holder “took one side” following the death of Michael Brown. Asked why, he said the Justice Department was “staffed with radical, hard-left radical, leftists lawyers.”

He called the Justice Department under Holder, “not like any Justice Department in American history” and “Eric Holder is unlike any previous attorney general.”

“Many of them have spent most of their careers defending Black Panthers and other violent radicals,” he added. “

So the entire “blow up” was the result of a “lie”? Evidently, Kinder didn’t read or lacks the capacity to process the Department of Justice (DoJ) report on Ferguson policing and justice systems. Nor does he seem to understand what a mere spark can do to a field that’s ready to burn. But, just as the mayor of Ferguson claimed that the thorough DoJ investigative report doesn’t constitute “proof” of racial misbehavior, Kinder thinks that we can disregard the well-substantiated facts recounted in the report because “Eric Holder is “unlike any previous attorney general” – which is to say, he’s black and, hence, ipso facto, in cahoots with radicals whose legal careers have been limited to “defending Black Panthers and other violent radicals.”

Is this resentment feeding on resentment? A sad, resentful man appealing in turn to the white resentment that fuels so much of the right wing? Do you think maybe Kinder wants a little appreciation from the types who think that the state of race relations leans a little too much toward those damned “takers.” Do you think he might be trying to erase the memory of the ridicule he excited the last time he stuck his head up into the light and demanded poverty relief?

I wonder, though, do you think that if people had to supply supporting evidence for such absurd claims before anyone would report on it, they’d think twice about what they had to say? What is the correct label for someone who puts ugly, unsubstantiated libels into the public record? And fails to take it back, apologise, explain that he was in a funk, had a headache, whatever, when he’s called on it (not too stringently, admittedly) by the media?

I recollect the efforts of St. Louis Post-Dispatch writer Tony Messenger to avoid, in his own words, contributing to “this state’s political problems, rather than elevating the discourse” after the dust-up about hateful political rhetoric that occurred in the wake of Tom Schweich’s recent suicide. Specifically, he apologised for calling a State Senator Kurt Schaeffer a fool when, he said, it would have sufficed to point out that one of Schaeffer’s legislative efforts was foolish. His mea culpa, no matter how admirable, bothered me – I hope to have more to say about it in the future – because if discourse is to be elevated, all the participants have to agree about the height of the plane on which they are going to get together and discuss. Otherwise, those who insist on going alone to the most elevated level will have nothing do do except shout into the wind.

Peter Kinder has revealed himself as one of those people who experience uncontrollable vertigo when confronted with the ladder that leads to that higher space. They confuse ideological labels with facts, the expedient with the good, their own good with that of everyone. Such people can do lots of harm – and are doing so daily in the Republican-dominated U.S. Congress and statehouses across the country. Such behavior is demonstrably foolish. And we call those who act foolishly fools, among other things. The correct label for Peter Kinder is fool, among other things. No apology will be offered.    

The Obama Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel released Bush era legal memoranda [all are pdf]:

Memorandum Regarding Status of Certain OLC Opinions Issued in the Aftermath of the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 (01-15-2009)

Memorandum Regarding Constitutionality of Amending Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to Change the “Purpose” Standard for Searches (09-25-2001)

Memorandum Regarding Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities within the United States (10-23-2001)

Memorandum Regarding Authority of the President to Suspend Certain Provisions of the ABM Treaty (11-15-2001)

Memorandum Regarding the President’s Power as Commander in Chief to Transfer Captured Terrorists to the Control and Custody of Foreign Nations (03-13-2002)

Memorandum Regarding Swift Justice Authorization Act (04-08-2002)

Memorandum Regarding Determination of Enemy Belligerency and Military Detention (06-08-2002)

Memorandum Regarding Applicability of 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a) to Military Detention of United States Citizens (06-27-2002)

Memorandum Regarding October 23, 2001 OLC Opinion Addressing the Domestic Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities (10-06-2008)

Due to public interest in this matter, the Department of Justice is releasing these documents in an inaccessible format. Accessible versions will be posted as soon as possible. If you have a disability and the format of any material on the site interferes with your ability to access some information, please email the Department of Justice webmaster at webmaster@usdoj.gov. To enable us to respond in a manner that will be of most help to you, please indicate the nature of the accessibility problem, your preferred format (electronic format (ASCII, etc.), standard print, large print, etc.), the web address of the requested material, and your full contact information so we can reach you if questions arise while fulfilling your request…

Pass the popcorn.

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

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):

An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring and Other Improper Personnel Actions in the Civil Rights Division [pdf]

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…

[emphasis added]

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…”

[emphasis added]

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.

[emphasis added]

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.