How many more cases like mine, of burrowed BushCo Civil Servants destroying/obstructing from within?

Thanks for your service, and for bringing this up! I’ve commented about this recently and I’ll repeat some it again.

It is not just the political appointees changing to burrowed Civil Servants, but the fact that over the course of the 8 years of the Bush/Cheney Administration, the people who got the best performance reviews and promotions were likely the people who drank the most Bush/Cheney Kool-Aid.

This is likely not only at the DOI (Department of Injustice), but everywhere throughout the Federal government.

Can we say Repug fifth column? Yes, I thought so!

The example I have probably abused is to say that if a court rules that, under the facts of someone passing by an obviously burning home they hear a crying baby and they then forcibly break into the home and grab the baby and take it from the burning home – if a court rules under those circumstances that it was justified for someone to break into the home and snatch the baby from it’s bedroom —- that is NOT THE SAME as saying that a court has ruled it is ok to break into houses and take babies. You can’t divorce the holding from the facts.

I (e.g. ethical, law abiding…) was run out of DOI for whistle-blowing. The principal culprits who tried to fire me and fired my wife (a temp. so not protected under civil service rules) are still with DOI. One is now The Bureau Director, another now an Area Office Manager, and another promoted to a regional office from the area office. Each is staunchly in the BushCo anti-government camp. Each was active in illegal/unethical actions as government executives. One is in charge of Bureau operations over the entire West (The Bureau Director), one in 3 states (the regional office) and one in 2 states (the area office).

Five former staff (Brave souls) at my grade or higher (GS12), in the same discipline, provided affidavits of experience similar to mine in being suppressed, harrassed, and bullied (e.g. forced) into illegal or unethical acts in their official duties.

How many more cases like mine, of burrowed BushCo Civil Servants destroying/obstructing from within?

12 – I hope that’s the case, but I sense Kabuki. Make it look like it was really hard to get her in, then have nothing happen, either by virtue of Holder not asking for OLC input on prosecution or by virtue of her reluctantly agreeing that no torturers should be pursued bc of the opinions, although bar action for the lawyers should be considered. I hope I’m wrong on all that, but I really do not get a sense that getting her into OLC is going to make any-much difference for what has been, although maybe for what will be.

This is the biggest battle you’ve never heard of!

The topic of approving Dawn Johnsen’s nomination to head the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel gets almost no press.

And yet, the Repugs are planning to filibuster this particular nominee!

Think of all the things that the Repugs hate about the Obama Administration and the Democratic majority in Congress (the budget, plans for withdrawal from Iraq, health care, the various bailouts to the auto and financial industries, etc.), and the Repugs are planning to filibuster this!

What does this say about the state of our governance?

It says that the Repugs take this particular subject more seriously than anything else!

And well they should!

Because the Repugs believe that if Dawn Johnsen is approved to head the OLC, it means that Repugs will go to jail! A lot of Repugs! A whole administration of Repugs!

The fact that the Repugs take this so seriously should be ringing alarm bells in all our ears!

We should be taking this seriously too!

There is a deafening silence in TradMed about this topic, with the whole thing evidently flying below their imaginary radar, and it should be ringing those alarm bells too!

I think 4 is a very legitimate and important question and I would think they should demand and get redlines on everything at every stage once the initial draft left OPR. I would also think they would want the OPR investigation to actually include all the info relating to Mukasey’s efforts to keep the OPR investigation on track or derail it, but that may be for another day.

That they get redlines not just for the draft given to Mukasey, but that they get redlines for any changes after the initial draft left OPR, so if there were some after Bradbury or OLC reviewed as well. Also that OPR should get or Durbin/Whitehouse should, discovery on all info relating to those drafts – the review of them and people’s input – so if there are handwritten notes by Mukasey on a copy that went to someone or there were emails, etc.

So Im’ not sure what you are addressing to me from that?

If you instead mean my reference to item 2, that I wouldn’t be surprised if there were precedent for allowing lawyers to look over the evidentiary items offered up after investigation before referral (which is what I take it from this: Usually in such cases the comments are allowed to be made in a much more restrictive manner, without laying out all the evidence or revealing the identities of those who may have blown the whistle on their actions) which “such cases” are you familiar with?

The few bar disciplinary actions I have been involved with outside of a gov setting (and that is what the OPR investigation involves – it is NOT a criminal investigation, but a prof ethics investigation) were situations where people did get pretty thorough abilities to review investigation results and make their cases – I’m thinking that here the OPR serves a bit in the function of a bar’s disciplinary commitee for the issuance of its finding (although it would have to then actually go on to a disciplinary committee for actual action).