More Politicized Justice
Lot of feedback about this post on the Department of Justice.
A couple of the folks mentioned in the piece have accused it of being inaccurate, but they've not cited any inaccuracies.* One made the accusation on this list, (you can scroll through and find the various posts), another did so in a private email. I asked the latter to actually identify any inaccuracies, but though he took the time to respond again, he chose not to identify any. Another person makes the odd critique that the former DOJ employees listed in the post are "at the bottom of the list" for "ideological fervor" among those at Justice - I'm not sure that that proves what he thinks it proves.
Meanwhile, this guy is freaking out. Some are mad that I list contributions by one former DOJ official who has never been publicly critical of the agency since leaving.** But I don't attack that individual or any other. I merely point out that there are a lot more politics going on at Justice than some like to admit. It doesn't matter that the person may not have worked on the case at issue - indeed, I avoid saying that any particular case (or indeed any case) was based on politics. I'm just saying that the claims of some that DOJ career civil servants are somehow above politics and therefore their critiques are entitled to unique credibility is itself suspect.
All of these guys responding say how amusing they find the post, but if you ask me they seem less amused than outraged. I think their outrage is misplaced but you can read their posts and judge for yourself.
*I have noted that one person mentioned, Joe Rich, claims that the FEC database showing him contributing to the group Americans Coming Together is inaccurate (he does not claim that the Lonely Centrist cited it incorrectly).
**Does this show the problem with mandatory disclosure of campaign contributions? Or does it show that it is a good thing? Is my use of disclosure what it was intended to be used for? Does it have anything to do with preventing corruption of political candidates, or fostering political equality? It always comes back to campaign finance, doesn't it?
A couple of the folks mentioned in the piece have accused it of being inaccurate, but they've not cited any inaccuracies.* One made the accusation on this list, (you can scroll through and find the various posts), another did so in a private email. I asked the latter to actually identify any inaccuracies, but though he took the time to respond again, he chose not to identify any. Another person makes the odd critique that the former DOJ employees listed in the post are "at the bottom of the list" for "ideological fervor" among those at Justice - I'm not sure that that proves what he thinks it proves.
Meanwhile, this guy is freaking out. Some are mad that I list contributions by one former DOJ official who has never been publicly critical of the agency since leaving.** But I don't attack that individual or any other. I merely point out that there are a lot more politics going on at Justice than some like to admit. It doesn't matter that the person may not have worked on the case at issue - indeed, I avoid saying that any particular case (or indeed any case) was based on politics. I'm just saying that the claims of some that DOJ career civil servants are somehow above politics and therefore their critiques are entitled to unique credibility is itself suspect.
All of these guys responding say how amusing they find the post, but if you ask me they seem less amused than outraged. I think their outrage is misplaced but you can read their posts and judge for yourself.
*I have noted that one person mentioned, Joe Rich, claims that the FEC database showing him contributing to the group Americans Coming Together is inaccurate (he does not claim that the Lonely Centrist cited it incorrectly).
**Does this show the problem with mandatory disclosure of campaign contributions? Or does it show that it is a good thing? Is my use of disclosure what it was intended to be used for? Does it have anything to do with preventing corruption of political candidates, or fostering political equality? It always comes back to campaign finance, doesn't it?
posted by The Centerman | 7:31 PM
<< Home