IG report: Former USA Bradley Schlozman made false statement to the Senate committee in USA firing probe.

Remember Bradley? Who can forget. The Justice Department's Inspector General has just released a report on politicized hiring at the Civil Rights division, focused on Bradley Schlozman. An excerpt from IG report:

During the June 5, 2007, hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Schlozman stated in response to questions from Senator Charles Schumer:
Senator Schumer: Mr. Schlozman, is the policy against considering political and ideological affiliations in the hiring of career department employees formal or informal?
Mr. Schlozman: I think it is pursuant to a civil service statute for career employees -- the Hatch Act.
Senator Schumer: So it’s formal
Mr. Schlozman: Yeah.
Senator Schumer: Yeah. Did you ever violate it?
Mr. Schlozman: I did not.
Senator Schumer: Did you ever, quote, “cross the line,” as Ms. Goodling has admitted doing?
Mr. Schlozman: I did not.

Schlozman’s answers show that he was aware that consideration of political and ideological affiliations was prohibited in hiring attorneys for career civil service positions at the Department. As discussed above, then-DAAG Wan Kim had also warned him about engaging in such practices. Kim said he told Schlozman around March 2004 that it was unlawful and impermissible to make hiring decisions for career positions based on political affiliations.41


According to Kim, he brought this prohibition to Schlozman’s attention because of a telephone call Kim had received from Andrew Lelling, who had previously worked in the front office of the Civil Rights Division as Counsel to AAG Ralph F. Boyd, Jr.

In the telephone call, Lelling complained to Kim that Schlozman was considering political or ideological affiliations when making hiring decisions. Kim said Lelling told him that Schlozman had asked Lelling whether a colleague whom Lelling was recommending for a position in the Division’s Criminal Section was conservative. When Lelling indicated that he did not think his colleague was conservative, Schlozman said he would not be hired.

IG report is here.

What is the DOJ's response to the IG report? They are not going to bring criminal charges against Schlozman.

TPM:

Given that the DOJ Inspector General's report found that Bradley Schlozman broke the law in making politicized hiring decisions, and lied about it to Congress, why and how did the US Attorney's office make the decision to decline to bring criminal charges?

We got a bit more information on that question from Patricia Riley, special counsel to the US Attorney for the District of Columbia, which conducted the investigation.

Riley told TPMmuckraker that her office was only asked by the Inspector General's office to look into the possible perjury charges stemming from Schlozman's congressional testimony, rather than the underlying hiring decisions.

She said that six career prosecutors, with between 10 and 21 years experience, conducted the investigation, reporting to Assistant US Attorney Channing Phillips (US Attorney Jeffrey Taylor recused himself from the probe).

The investigation continued until last Friday, said Riley, and included interviews with witnesses who were not contacted by the IG's report. Based on that investigation, a decision was made not to bring criminal charges.

Riley declined to say what specific information uncovered in that probe determined the decision.

And here is a racist tactic by Schlozman in an email exchange between Voter Section Chief John Tanner and himself from the Schlozman report:

In that incident in August 2004, Voting Section Chief John Tanner sent an e-mail to Schlozman asking Schlozman to bring coffee for him to a meeting both were scheduled to attend. Schlozman replied asking Tanner how he liked his coffee. Tanner's response was, "Mary Frances Berry style - black and bitter."

Berry is an African-American who was the Chairperson of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights from November 1993 until late 2004. Schlozman forwarded the e-mail chain to several Department officials (including Principal DAAG Bradshaw) but not Acosta, with the comment, "Y'all will appreciate Tanner's response." Acosta said that when he was made aware of the incident, he required Schlozman to make a written apology to him for his role in forwarding the e-mail and that Schlozman did so.

Tanner was the guy who left the voting-rights section [testified in front of the House committee] soon after saying that voter ID laws discriminate against the elderly, and therefore not against African-Americans, because African-Americans die younger.

And where is Brad now? Schlozman lands at private firm.