Than meets the eye's been going on at justice. If they're asking these questions, then we're not just looking at Attorneys. We're looking at staffers, accountants, admins, everyone.

The whole thing reeks. anyone smell the largest class action lawsuit in history coming up?

Can we make him the AG?

Not even Dubya is that stupid.

Asking conservatives about their "position" is taking on a whole new meaning these days. It almost has to be qualified with "we're not asking about your secret sex life ..."

No surprise here. Same questions that applicants for positions in post-war Iraq reconstruction were asked. With the right views on abortion and the Supreme Court, you too can obtain a high level position--no knowledge, experience or relavent education required.

they'll ask these questions of personnel for the last 4 or 5 administrations?

I think they could nail a lot more people that way.

In order to be truly effective in depoliticizing these vital bureaucracies, we need a merciless wholesale purge. Hopefully this sweeps out only a few of the good, the majority of the bad and all of the ugly.

Goodbye to brainwashed zealots. Remove the unqualified or incompetent. Separate the Church from the State.

Everyone hired in the last 7 years needs to go. Bring back key people that retired in the past 8 years to screen the new applicants. One would hope these old hands can identify those that might uphold the Constitution.

The purged may reapply and if they pass muster, get rehired; but the stench of religious filth and overzealous party polarization needs to be swept out of the system. Anyone with even a whiff of Liberty University or that ilk needs to be cleansed out.

That the top jobs at Justice are currently empty indicates some of the trouble we are in. That so many good people have quit in disgust, integrity needs to be brought back. This goes for many agencies, not just Justice.

Bush on more occasions than one, but mostly turning into another disaster caused by ineptnes and or stupidity. Now the Justice Department, why is anybody surprised? Gonzos appointment said it all.

. . .but don't you think that the people who actually passed muster and were hired would NOT 'fess up? I mean, if I as a liberal were hired (after obviously lying about my political persuasion), I would have been upset by these questions. But it seems to me that all the people who were hired thought it was A-OK.

The only people who'd be upset by this type of questioning either weren't hired, or they were already at the DOJ.

They forgot to ask about these things:

your position on torture

your position on checks and balances

your position on division of powers

your position on unitary executive theory

your position on the politicization of the judiciary

He said that the Dems were reluctant to talk about Craig's misdeeds because of the CLINTONS?

What do former PRESIDENT Clinton's infidelities have to do with SENATOR Clinton...except that we feel sorry that her husband was cheating on her.....?

What am I missing?

Susan McGee

This doesn't appear to be a fishing expedition. One applicant, for instance, before Monica spoke to Congress, said that he was asked if he had ever commited adultery. Monica was asked about that. She contended that was an isolated instance and not reflective of what she normally would have asked.

I believe that the IG already knows what questions were asked. What he's trying to find out (because these are discrimination/Hatch Act situations) is exactly which interviewers were asking what questions and how often those questions were asked.

This situation is much more serious than War Room appears to think it is.