The Ridiculous LexisNexis Search that the Justice Department Used

jamie writes "The politicization of Bush's Justice Department, which this week was officially determined to be illegal, has a funny side too. Sometime in 2005-2006, White House Liaison Jan Williams attended a seminar on LexisNexis searches, and wrote one herself. When she left, she passed it on to her successor Monica Goodling in an email. Justin Mason, author of SpamAssassin, is skeptical about its accuracy:

[First name of a candidate]! and pre/2 [last name of a candidate] w/7 bush or gore or republican! or democrat! or charg! or accus! or criticiz! or blam! or defend! or iran contra or clinton or spotted owl or florida recount or sex! or controvers! or racis! or fraud! or investigat! or bankrupt! or layoff! or downsiz! or PNTR or NAFTA or outsourc! or indict! or enron or kerry or iraq or wmd! or arrest! or intox! or fired or sex! or racis! or intox! or slur! or arrest! or fired or controvers! or abortion! or gay! or homosexual! or gun! or firearm!

Needless to say, when asked about it, Williams first said she didn't remember ever seeing it, then said she'd used an edited version just once. LexisNexis records show she used it, as shown, 25 times." Note that 'sex!' appears twice in the query. Must be VERY important.

Comments

TFS Blows, TFA Is About Hiring Practices

[rsmith-mac]

For those of you wondering what that query is about and what it's being used for, here's TFA:

Via b1ff.org, here's the Nexis search that US Department of Justice White House liaisons ran on job candidates to determine their political leanings:[Emphasis mine]

So there you go. The Justice Department was using a screwy LexisNexis query to try to determine the political leanings and affiliations of people they were looking to hire, because they were illegally filtering out applications people (non-repubs/conservatives) based on their political affiliations.

You really should drink more coffee in the morning before you start posting, Taco.

Re:Yes, you hate George Bush ...

[spun]

Why would you bother writing such an inane and senseless post? Why does the fact that Bush will be gone in six months mean we have to stop talking about the crimes he and his administration committed? There is a reason we hate him, and it isn't just because he's a stupid, self obsessed, spoiled frat boy who somehow fooled the nation into voting for him twice. We hate him because he has tried to take away our rights.

You know, defending the man at this point is pretty much an admission that not only did you vote for him, twice, but you are too proud to admit you screwed up.

Re:I don't understand...

[Oh no, it's Dixie]

This is the Department of Justice. It's supposed to be a neutral, non-partisan organization. Any overt partisan involvement should be a cause for alarm.

Re:I don't understand...

[jamie]

Are you seriously going to sit there and tell me with a straight face that President Clinton's administration didn't weed out conservatives from executive branch jobs?

Yes, of course -- since it is illegal to take political views into consideration for certain kinds of career non-political jobs. Federal law is very clear on this. Read the PDF linked in the story for more information.

Re:You seem to lack perspective here

[mcmonkey]

Yes, the House and Senate are somewhat complicit

Is that like being somewhat pregnant?

Re:Yes, you hate George Bush ...

[eln]

I dislike this argument not only because it's used in virtually every political discussion on Slashdot, but also because it appears to be designed to encourage complicity. Sure, the argument states that change is just as simple as deciding to vote for some third party, but all of the existing third parties tend to only appeal to a very limited fringe group, so that's really no solution at all.

So, dismissing the idea that simply voting for a third party will change everything as realistically unfeasible, we're left with the central part of the argument, which is that both parties suck, so you might as well just throw up your hands and do whatever you've been doing. Neither party will ever change anything, the argument goes, so just vote for whoever you've always voted for and go on with life. Of course, this argument is designed to assure the current party in power stays in power.

However, it contradicts actual reality. It's possible, given their complicity in GWB's antics, even probable, that the Democrats would not be any better if they took power. However, the evidence we currently have is that while Bush has actively sought to come up with new ideas to destroy the country, the Democrats are responsible only for allowing it to happen. Yes, passively allowing someone else to screw everything up is a bad thing, but is it really just as bad as actively screwing things up? Isn't it at least possible that the Democrats might screw things up less if allowed to implement their own ideas rather than just being content to allow someone else to implement his ideas?

In reality, what we have now is the fact that Bush and his cronies have done a monumentally shitty job. We also have a theory that the Democrats would do an equally shitty job. You seem to be content to stay with the people in power because a shitty job will be done either way. I, on the other hand, would rather not reward a shitty job with more time in power, and would instead rather give the other party a chance to prove they are capable of doing a less shitty job.

An individual's best bet for political change these days remains to pick the party that most closely aligns with them and attempt to change it from the inside (a difficult and time-consuming task to be sure). Simply voting for the Loony Toon Party, knowing that it will never get more than 3% of the vote, is just not a practical solution.

Re:You seem to lack perspective here

[spun]

Even if all those stories are true, which they aren't, you can't excuse corruption by pointing to corruption. This isn't a game, son, this is our country and our rights. And blanket cynicism is even more pointless and harmful to our nation.

You seem to want everyone to believe that all politicians are equally corrupt. This is a disservice to your country, and a transparent attempt to excuse great crimes by pointing to petty misdemeanors.

Re:You seem to lack perspective here

[spun]

I don't really know, but anytime I bring up the heinous acts of the current administration, some idiot has to pipe up about how both sides are corrupt, as if that negates my complaint. And they never point out the crimes of both sides as you imply, reread those posts. They only pick on Democrats, as if that means there is no difference.

Maybe excuse isn't always the right word. Some times, they are just trying to make everyone feel so cynical that no one feels that anything can be done. Its as if they are saying, "all politicians are corrupt, there's nothing you can do about it, so shut up about Bush."

Re:You seem to lack perspective here

[spun]

Oh please. The 'big mean government is coercing me with guns' argument is so old and tired. If you don't like it, go some place else. There's plenty of uninhabited land in the world where you can set up a homestead and no one will ever even know. No one is holding a gun to your head and making you participate in society. You do so because you benefit more by doing so than by leaving, and you know it.

The thing that gets me about you libertarian types is how hypocritical you all are about coercion. It's perfectly okay to use coercion to enforce your unilateral ideas about property and take away MY rights to go wherever my legs will take me. That's okay, but using 'coercion' to ensure that everyone has enough to eat before allowing anyone to profit outrageously from the hard work of other people is communism.

You people do not believe in individual responsibility. You simply support the individual's right to amass power and use it against others with less power. You hate any method such as democracy or rule of law that the less powerful can use to band together to protect themselves against the more powerful. You see yourselves as superior to the rest of us, and the right you want protected is your right to prey on us.