Feds say Rockford native violated law as Justice Department official
June 26th, 2008 at 08:12am Pat Cunningham
A REPORT released Wednesday says Michael Elston, a 1987 graduate of Auburn High School in Rockford who later served as a senior official in the U.S. Justice Department, violated federal law by using political considerations in screening candidates for coveted entry-level positions in the department.
The report was prepared by the Justice Department’s inspector general and the Office of Professional Responsibility.
The Washington Post SAID Elston won’t likely face legal sanctions, because he resigned from the Justice Department last year amid questions about his role in the firing of nine federal prosecutors.
Several of the fired prosecutors said they received intimidating phone calls from Elston warning them against making a fuss over their dismissals.
Elston, who now works for a private law firm, did not respond Wednesday to calls from various news media.
There’s more on all of this HERE.
Entry Filed under: Michael Elston
13 Comments Add your own
1. Menlo Bob | June 26th, 2008 at 8:29 am
I love it the way the left blows up a teeny story. Anyone actually read the report? Here’s the synopsis; The study was an an examination of political bias of a intern program at the Department of Justice, and dealt with the years 2002 to 2006. It found some evidence of bias in ‘02 and ‘06 but none in the others. A three member panel was set up to screen applications with no instructions on what to look for. One of the members highlighted evidence of bias in the applicant–some of those were perceived to be left of center. Her review alone did not cause that person to be given an internship. Mr. Elson is charged not charged with bias, merely with not giving proper oversight to the panel. Meanwhile no one asks why the DOJ has an overwhelmingly liberal orientation.
2. Craig Knauss | June 26th, 2008 at 8:41 am
“Meanwhile no one asks why the DOJ has an overwhelmingly liberal orientation.”
What was that based on, documented facts or personal opinion? If you have references state them. If it is your personal opinion, say so. I haven’t seen any evidence that DOJ is liberal. Especially with their lack of enforcing Constitutional protections against illegal wiretaps, illegal searches, waterboarding, etc.
3. Menlo Bob | June 26th, 2008 at 8:58 am
I wasn’t referring to the administration apointees that will leave at the end of any presidential administration. I was referring to the permanent DOJ employees. Can I produce evidence? No. I’m relying on reports from those who work there, who themselves may be biased.
Consider this from the report mentioned in the story about bias in the internship program and ask yourself why this didn’t make it into newspaper articles;
On pp. 20-21, we find the numbers that establish that the DoJ career staff in 2002 nominated twice as many identifiable liberals as identifiable conservatives for the Honors track program: 100 vs. 46.
And on page 27, we read that the DoJ bureaucracy advanced nearly three times as many identifiable liberals as conservatives for summer internships that year, 81 vs. 29.
If anything, the ideological bias of the DoJ bureaucracy seems to have become more entrenched with time. In 2006, it nominated five times as many liberals as conservatives for Honors track positions, 150 v. 28, and more three times as many liberals as conservatives for summer internships, 68 v. 16. (See p. 41 and p. 54.)
4. Henry | June 26th, 2008 at 9:10 am
Got a link to the report, I’d like to see that.
5. Menlo Bob | June 26th, 2008 at 9:24 am
The DOJ report here.
6. redrover | June 26th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Here’s the important part of this story, in my opinion:
“Prior to 2002, career employees within each Department component decided which applicants to interview and select for both the Honors Program and SLIP. However, under a new system implemented by the Attorney General in 2002, a Screening Committee, generally comprised of politically appointed employees from the Department’s leadership offices, had to approve all Honors Program and SLIP candidates for interviews by the components. In addition, the political appointees in each Department component were encouraged to become move involved in the hiring process to select these candidates.”
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/06/watchdogs_whack_doj_for_cronyi.html
This kind of system, where DOJ staff attorneys and/or DOJ political appointees can select or deselect candidates at will and for whatever reasons they wish, is just simply unavoidably corruptible no matter who, “conservative” or “liberal”, does the selecting / screening.
These positions ought to be filled based on some sort civil service like exam and/or evaluation of the candidate’s legal qualifications that is blinded to his/her political affiliations. Period.
I hope that will be what the good that comes out of this dishonorable mess.
7. Craig Knauss | June 26th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
“On pp. 20-21, we find the numbers that establish that the DoJ career staff in 2002 nominated twice as many identifiable liberals as identifiable conservatives for the Honors track program: 100 vs. 46.
And on page 27, we read that the DoJ bureaucracy advanced nearly three times as many identifiable liberals as conservatives for summer internships that year, 81 vs. 29.”
Really? Does it say that on their name tags? Were they forced to wear big red letter “Ls” and “Cs”? Some people think anyone to the left of Heinrich Himmler was liberal, while others think anyone to the right of Mao Tsi Tung was conservative. I worked for the DoD from 1975 to 1986 and don’t remember any labeling like that back then. Times must have really changed!
8. Menlo Bob | June 26th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Craig–are you now saying you don’t trust the report, or are you saying that no one can read an application and draw inferences from statements and affiliations?
9. Henry | June 26th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Any idea where one could take a look at the application?
10. Menlo Bob | June 27th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Henry–Have you considered a career in journalism. They too have difficulty with anything other that what someone points them to. Go here–lazy boy.
11. Henry | June 28th, 2008 at 6:27 am
I’m many things, but lazy is not one of them. I checked out your link and the application is not available right now (applications will be accepted starting July 25th). I agree with Craig’s post, and I would like to see the application. Are there ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ check boxes? My guess would be no. What if a candidate does not list any political activity, or service to an obviously right or left wing organization? Then what? Is the applicant then liberal or conservative? This whole thing doesn’t add up. Finally, if this is such a liberal biased process, why did the Republican administration adopt it, and why haven’t they corrected the ‘problem’?
You really should read the links before you post it. The DOJ site wasn’t any more help to your argument than was the one about polar bears.
12. Craig Knauss | June 29th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
When I was with the government, we had something called the Hatch Act. Accept for outright patronage employees, any work-related politcal activities were expressly prohibited. And there were no check boxes for political affiliation. That’s why it wasn’t any easier to determine one’s political orientation than it was to determine one’s religion. And that’s the way it should be. I suspect the “data” was speculative, at best.
13. Craig Knauss | June 29th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Ouch! “Accept” should be “Except”. Born here and I still don’t know the language.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed