Why did Justice Department officials attended at least a dozen political briefings at the White House since?

Question

2001, including some meetings led by Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political adviser, and others that were focused on election trends prior to the 2006 midterm contest, according to documents released yesterday.While Internal guidelines forbid partisan meetings at the Justice Department and sharply restrict the ability of employees to participate directly in election campaigns or other political activities?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/03/AR2007080302238.html?nav=rss_politics
What does this mean?

Answer 1

"Internal guidelines forbid partisan meetings at the Justice Department" -- which is why they were held at the White House.

It's long established that Bush and Cheney and Rove have been engaged in political maneuvering using govt resources, to a degree rarely seen since Nixon.

That itself is just a minor violation of federal laws -- not significant compared to all the others.

Answer 2

The head of the Justice Department is the Attorney General, a cabinet member. He, or one of his lower officials, is present for almost every meeting. This is how it has been since 1870.

There is nothing new or controversial about this whatsoever. The Democrats are running out of political scandals and are trying to manufacture new ones.

The Attorney General and the other DAs are all political appointees who serve the wishes of the President. In case you missed it, President Clinton fired every single one when he came into office.

This topic is really starting to become a bore.

Answer 3

nothing at this point, you apparently didnt read the entire article. the meetings were held at the white house not the justice dept. and the content at this point does not appear to violate any other DOJ regulations. They may well have been discussing voting irregularities surrounding the election which would fall under the pervue of the DOJ. Something more might come of this, but I doubt it. The washington post has a history of grabbing the wrong end of the stick and beating the bushes with it.