Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Civil Rights Assistant Attorney General Loretta King explicitly ordered Justice Department hiring committees to disregard any applicant resume that did not include experience working for a liberal civil rights organization, the Muffled Oar has learned. This order was effectively an illegal litmus test to ensure that only partisan liberals were hired by the Justice Department. The order to throw out resumes by the then-acting political head of the Civil Rights Division appears to be an illegal act of political and ideological favoritism. The order by Loretta King comes at the same time the Civil Rights Division embarks on a campaign to hire large numbers of committed leftist ideologues, through facially nonpartisan but plainly pretextually partisan methods. These improper hiring tactics mirror the allegations of improper hiring which plagued the Bush Civil Rights Division and was the focus of a report by the Inspector General and multiple Congressional hearings...

King Orders Resumes of Non-Liberals Thrown Out

Loretta King is currently serving as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General. At the time she issued the order which effectively required hiring based on ideological requirements, she had been appointed by President Obama as the acting assistant attorney general, a political appointee under the law. She is the same Obama political appointee who told a crowd at the Justice Department she comes to work every morning and is "so glad that black men are now running the country.” She is also the same political appointee who was involved on the indefensible dismissal of the slam dunk voter intimidation case of the New Black Panther Party and who was sanctioned multiple times for her actions in litigation by Federal judges.

King, according to sources with direct knowledge of her statements, told the hiring committee members to disregard any resume which did not demonstrate previous employment with a liberal civil rights organization. King said she "wasn't interested in hiring anyone else." If you weren't a liberal, you weren't going to be hired. Some may rightfully ask, shouldn't previous employment in a “civil rights organization” be important? There are many reasons why this sort of illegal hiring criteria is irrelevant. First of all, even if employment at a civil rights organization may have exposed an applicant to some substantive civil rights laws, they are rarely the same set of civil rights laws that the applicants ultimately were hired to enforce. For example, someone who worked for a liberal civil rights group doing housing work was hired to do employment work. Instead, the order to trash resumes which failed the litmus test acted as an ideological filter instead of an objective asset to the applicant.

Second, King's litmus test would automatically exclude the hundreds of lawyers and law clerks who practice civil rights laws for defense firms. The practice of law is fungible. Former prosecutors routinely become criminal defense attorneys. Lawyers ethically change sides all the time and transfer expertise as a defense lawyer into a career as a plaintiff’s attorney. But King didn’t want these experts because they weren’t liberals. Most damaging for King, an employment law defense attorney is more qualified to bring employment cases for the Department than a liberal who worked for MALDEF doing immigration law.

Third, the most qualified attorneys are NOT attorneys who worked at liberal civil rights organizations. Such attorneys rarely have the litigation experience of attorneys from the private sector. Some civil rights organizations have not filed a case in years. Employment with a liberal civil rights organization can only ensure one thing about the attorney applicant: they have a liberal ideology and sympathy for the Democrat party. Finally, the order to throw out resumes of everyone except those who worked at civil rights organizations is a hypocritical and despicable action that gives truth to the lie that the Obama administration is “restoring” the civil rights division and bringing back principles of nonpartisan fairness. The Justice Department officials who read this report (we know you do) silently know this is the truth and are glad for it, but will publicly deny such policies exist...

...The behavior of the managers in the Civil Rights Division is illegal because it contradicts the letter and spirit of hiring policies articulated after the release of the Inspector General report. The written policies might purport to prohibit hiring for political or ideological reasons - but the practice, as implemented by Loretta King, is very very different. The written policies provide a smokescreen to the actual practices implemented by King and Karen Stevens. It is no answer to say that the Division has clearly articulated prohibitions against this behavior. So what? They aren't being followed. The outcome is precisely the opposite of those guidelines.


Political Purge and Stack of Hiring Committees

Loretta King and her liberal henchwoman Karen Stevens have stacked the Justice Department career hiring committees with partisan ideologues. The Muffled Oar has received information that all conservative leaning and non-ideological career attorneys have been removed from hiring committees. These committees cull the hundreds of resumes down to the finalists. All conservatives and non-ideological career attorneys on the committees have been replaced almost entirely by individuals with openly partisan and liberal activist backgrounds, such as former Democrat congressional staffers and partisan ideologues. For example, the approximately 45 members of the civil rights hiring committees gave thousands of dollars to Barack Obama and not a single dime to any republican candidate according to an individual familiar with the people on the hiring committees. One such partisan attorney is illegal immigrant activist and democrat partisan Je Yon Jung. Jung has a long partisan history. Thomas Perez has implemented a partisan hiring approach that ensures only liberals will be hired, even if the language of the hiring policies appear facially non-partisan to ill informed readers – and lapdog reporters like Carrie Johnson of the Washington Post and Charlie Savage of the swirling-the-drain Boston Globe.


Ideological Outreach Campaign

A partisan-driven outreach campaign to hire based on ideological criteria has also been launched. Liberal Section chiefs, front office political appointees and other managers have contacted a wide range of known liberal ideologues around the country, and even around the world, and encouraged them to apply for jobs in the Civil Rights Division. No such overtures have been made to any non-liberals or straightforward law enforcement professionals. Indeed, it has been reported to the Muffled Oar than many experienced litigators, some with many years of experience litigating in other Justice Department Divisions, have been passed over for Civil Rights Division jobs. Instead, these jobs have gone to nonprofit sector employees with impeccable democrat partisan or liberal credentials. The liberal front office staff and various section chiefs have been contacting some of the most unabashedly left wing attorneys outside of government and encouraging them to apply for these positions. They have also contacted extreme liberals in academia - primarily in the specialty of the section chief - whether voting rights or employment discrimination - and enlisted their help to spread the word about the positions to only liberals. When contacted by the Muffled Oar, a leading conservative civil rights figure reports no such overture was made to him by any member of the civil rights division in the last 12 months.


Leftist Job Distribution List

The Muffled Oar has also learned that the political appointees in the Civil Right Division use an email distribution list comprised exclusively of extreme leftist nonprofits such as the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, ACORN and the George Soros funded Project Vote. The vast universe of left wing organizations are notified of employment opportunities the moment they become available, and sometimes even sooner. The purpose of this list is to ensure that most of the applicants, and therefore all of the hires, are committed left wingers. No such counterpart exists for non-partisan or conservative groups as they are simply excluded from the list. The Muffled Oar encourages newspapers to submit freedom of information requests to the Department of Justice seeking copies of these emails. There are hundreds.

dbackjon wrote:

Question - where was the right wing outrage when the Bush DOJ was doing similar purity tests on hirings?

dbackjon wrote:If she is doing what you are saying, then she should be fired.


Question - where was the right wing outrage when the Bush DOJ was doing similar purity tests on hirings?

dbackjon wrote:If she is doing what you are saying, then she should be fired.


Question - where was the right wing outrage when the Bush DOJ was doing similar purity tests on hirings?

OSBF wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

Question - where was the right wing outrage when the Bush DOJ was doing similar purity tests on hirings?

jesus it got quiet in here all of a sudden

SeattleGriz wrote:

OSBF wrote:
jesus it got quiet in here all of a sudden

If I knew what dback was talking about I would say something, but I got nothing and am too lazy to bone up on it just to hijack the thread.

dbackjon wrote:If she is doing what you are saying, then she should be fired.


Question - where was the right wing outrage when the Bush DOJ was doing similar purity tests on hirings?

From the beginning of the New Black Panther Party scandal, the Obama Justice Department insisted that the decision to dismiss a case of egregious voter intimidation was made by career attorneys. Now we are learning that there was significant involvement by political appointees, including the attorney general himself. In a prepared testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which opened its hearing today, Rep. Frank Wolf explained:

“According to the Appellate Division memos first disclosed in the Times article, Appellate Chief Diana K. Flynn said that ‘the appropriate action was to pursue the default judgment’ and that Justice had made a ‘reasonable argument in favor of default relief against all defendants.’

Flynn’s opinion was shared by a second Appellate Division official, Marie K. McElderry, who stated, ‘The government’s predominant interest is preventing intimidation, threats and coercion against voters or persons urging or aiding persons to vote or attempt to vote.’

Given these troubling disclosures, I have repeatedly called on the attorney general to re-file this civil suit and allow a ruling from the judge based on the merits of the case, not political expediency. The career trial team should be allowed to bring the case again – per the guidance I obtained from the Congressional Research Service’s American Law Division in its July 30 memo – to allow our nation’s justice system to work as it was intended: impartially and without bias.

Sources within the department stated that Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, a political appointee, in conjunction with the acting assistant attorney general for civil rights, Ms. Loretta King, and her deputy, Mr. Steve Rosenbaum, overruled the career attorneys in the Voting Rights section. Earlier this week, the department finally acknowledged that the Attorney General was made aware – on multiple occasions – of the steps being taken to dismiss this case.”

Wolf may be referring to the Justice Department’s supplemental response to an interrogation from the Commission, a copy of which I have received. The Department confirms, “The Attorney General was generally made aware by the then-Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights and the Associate’s staff that the Civil Rights Division was considering the appropriate actions to take in the New Black Panther Party litigation case.” The response states that Holder was “likely provided a brief update” but “did not make the decisions regarding any aspect” of the case. Did he weigh in? Did he advocate a position? Did his underlings? We don’t know.

But one thing is certain: if the case was significant enough to brief the attorney general on, you can bet that the decisions were approved if not instigated by political appointees. The veil is beginning to be lifted. Now it is time to put Holder and Perrelli under oath and find out what they knew and when they knew it. And then we can determine whether the Justice Department has been covering up the politicization of the enforcement of civil rights.

dbackjon wrote:If she is doing what you are saying, then she should be fired.


Question - where was the right wing outrage when the Bush DOJ was doing similar purity tests on hirings?

native wrote:

dbackjon wrote:If she is doing what you are saying, then she should be fired.


Question - where was the right wing outrage when the Bush DOJ was doing similar purity tests on hirings?

Answer: When did you stop molesting children, Jon?

death dealer wrote:Now. I am still waiting for the "change" in washington that was promised to all of us. So far all I see is the same old shit. Saying that the other guys did it too is the old way this shit has always been addressed. But this time around was supposed to be different. And I was so ready to eat crow and admit that this time they really meant it. I was really hoping that they would live up to their word.

death dealer wrote:

native wrote:
Answer: When did you stop molesting children, Jon?

Whoa!! That is an uncalled for accusation there dude!! Jon is a good guy, and that kind of shit can really get out of control really fast! I am sure you are just fucking around trying to be cute and all, but them there is some serious words. You need to retract that shit!

death dealer wrote:

death dealer wrote:Now. I am still waiting for the "change" in washington that was promised to all of us. So far all I see is the same old ****. Saying that the other guys did it too is the old way this **** has always been addressed. But this time around was supposed to be different. And I was so ready to eat crow and admit that this time they really meant it. I was really hoping that they would live up to their word.

Seriously, as silly as the libtard party can be at times, I've always at least thought of it as the place for the "nice guys" to take the lead. This new brand of "mean ass" liberal is just a real turn-off to an independent like me. When I have voted for a democrat, it's been because I believed in the person and their politics. That they were right and a good guy. If I'm gonna have no choice either way except to vote for an ******* or bitch, I might as well vote for the one that is going to put more money in my wallet.

native wrote:

dbackjon wrote:If she is doing what you are saying, then she should be fired.


Question - where was the right wing outrage when the Bush DOJ was doing similar purity tests on hirings?

Answer: When did you stop molesting children, Jon?

Col Hogan wrote:

native wrote:
Answer: When did you stop molesting children, Jon?

If asked as a rhetorical question, I understand native's point...say as asking someone "have you stopped beating your wife?"...once the question is out, the deflection is successful...

But it is a little over the top...

jon's question is almost as much over the top because it's meant as a deflection...you guys did it, so what's the issue with us doing it...

ITS WRONG...

kalm wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:
If asked as a rhetorical question, I understand native's point...say as asking someone "have you stopped beating your wife?"...once the question is out, the deflection is successful...

But it is a little over the top...

jon's question is almost as much over the top because it's meant as a deflection...you guys did it, so what's the issue with us doing it...

ITS WRONG...

Except Jon first admitted it was wrong. He's raising a valid point with the second argument.

Col Hogan wrote:

kalm wrote:
Except Jon first admitted it was wrong. He's raising a valid point with the second argument.

If jon admitted it was wrong and stopped...no deflection...But he had to toss in the "It's wrong, but you guys did it too...

That's not a valid point...it's a deflection...

kalm wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:

If jon admitted it was wrong and stopped...no deflection...But he had to toss in the "It's wrong, but you guys did it too...

That's not a valid point...it's a deflection...

So in your book, the fact that Republicans do it too is irrelevant. Got it.

kalm wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:

If jon admitted it was wrong and stopped...no deflection...But he had to toss in the "It's wrong, but you guys did it too...

That's not a valid point...it's a deflection...

So in your book, the fact that Republicans do it too is irrelevant. Got it.

kalm wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:

If jon admitted it was wrong and stopped...no deflection...But he had to toss in the "It's wrong, but you guys did it too...

That's not a valid point...it's a deflection...

So in your book, the fact that Republicans do it too is irrelevant. Got it.