Posts

CREW Goes After Elston and McDonald’s Bar Memberships

/in /by

Remember when I complained that DOJ IG had concluded it could do nothing to punish Mike Elston and Esther McDonald? Well, CREW’s not satisied with that, so they’re lodging complaints in all the states in which the two alleged law-breakers have bar memberships.

Today, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed bar complaints against former Department of Justice officials Michael J. Elston and Esther Slater McDonald. CREW based its complaint on the report recently released by the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Office of Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility, An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring in the Department of Justice Honors Program and Summer Law Intern Program (DOJ Report).

According to the DOJ Report, Mr. Elston, formerly Chief of Staff and Counselor to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, and Ms. McDonald, formerly Counsel to Acting Associate Attorney General William Mercer, violated federal law and DOJ policy by making hiring decisions based on political and ideological affiliations. Both Ms. McDonald and Mr. Elston rejected applicants who they believed to be liberal or who had worked for Democrats.

Mr. Elston is a member of the Virginia, Kansas, Illinois and Missouri state bars and Ms. McDonald is a member of the District of Columbia and Virginia bars. CREW filed its complaints, with the DOJ Report attached, against Ms. McDonald in the District of Columbia and the complaint against Mr. Elston in Virginia, but sent copies to the other jurisdictions.

At the very least, one would hope this would embarrass the big corporate firms these two alleged law-breakers work for. After all, it appears that Alberto Gonzales still has only temporary employment. If all these hacks found themselves unemployable because of what they did, that’d be a start.

First DOJ IG Report on Politicization

/127 Comments/in /by

Is here.

It shows that not just Monica Goodling, but Mike Elston and Bill Mercer and others at DOJ "crossed the line" into illegal behavior, using political affiliation in the hiring for a summer intern and AG’s Honors programs.

I’ll update as I read.

The report names Robert Coughlin–of the Abramoff corruption ring–as one of the people who may have used political affiliation in hiring–but the report ultimately does not conclude that he did.

Three career employees told us they were concerned that on one occasion Deputy Chief of Staff Robert Coughlin, a political official on the hiring committee, may have taken into account candidates’ political or ideological affiliations. One career employee wondered whether Coughlin rejected one highly qualified candidate because of the candidate’s liberal affiliations. Two other career employees wondered whether Coughlin voted to accept a less qualified candidate because of the candidate’s conservative and Republican Party affiliations. The candidate with liberal affiliations was rated highly by the career employees who interviewed him, but he did not receive an offer. Conversely, the candidate with conservative and Republican Party affiliations was not rated highly by the career employees who interviewed him yet received an offer of employment.

The career employees also told us that when they questioned Coughlin about his ranking of candidates during the group meeting in which the candidates were ranked, Coughlin stated that he was basing his recommendation on his reactions to the candidates’ interview demeanor and interview skills.

In our interview of him, Coughlin told us he never considered political or ideological affiliations in evaluating Honors Programcandidates. While Coughlin said he did not recall any details concerning the specific candidate with liberal affiliations, he recalled that he recommended the candidate with conservative affiliations because the candidate had received a strong recommendation from a previous internship with the Criminal Division and not because of the
candidate’s ideological affiliations.

We reviewed the two candidates’ applications and determined both candidates had been ranked as having strong credentials, such as federal appellate clerkships or high grades that indicated the candidates were qualified. In addition, Coughlin’s stated reasons to his colleagues and to us for his decisions – the strength of the candidates’ performances in interviews and high recommendations from a previous internship with the Department – can be appropriate bases to choose between two otherwise qualified candidates. Read more →