Mukasey: No prosecutions in Justice hiring scandal

[techs]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200..._st_pe/mukasey_lawyers

Attorney General Michael Mukasey on Tuesday said former Justice Department officials will not face prosecution for letting improper political considerations drive hirings of prosecutors, immigration judges and other career government lawyers.

Mukasey used his sharpest words yet to criticize the senior leaders who took part in or failed to stop illegal hiring practices during the tenure of his predecessor, Alberto Gonzales.

But, he told delegates to the American Bar Association annual meeting, "not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime. In this instance, the two joint reports found only violations of the civil service laws."

He also ruled out firing or reassigning those who were hired under the now-discarded evaluation process.

"Two wrongs do not make a right," he said. "People who were hired in an improper way didn't themselves do anything wrong."



So basically this guy is saying that the laws were BROKEN, but he is not going to prosecute.
And that since Republicans are already in these very critical jobs, he sees no reason not to keep them.
Is Republican justice an oxymoron?

And I hope the qualified applicants who were ILLEGALLY denied jobs sue for a whole lot of money, and get it.

 

[OrByte]

I do have a problem here with the message from the AG

From what I gather based upon this one article, "civil service laws" were violated. I don't know what those are...but it sounds bad!

And I don't like the AG of the US saying things like this:

"Not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime."

I know for a fact that when people around here defend illegal immigrants with the same rationale that the anti-illegal crowd throws conniption fits.

So everyone can agree that a violation of the law = crime. right?

The reasoning illustrated by the AG is very poor. he could have said something to the effect that the crimes committed carry the appropriate penalty measures up to and including losing one's job...at which point seeing as how most of those people that were involved have since stepped down...no further action would be taken against those found guilty of these "civil service laws" violations. And that would carry the appropriate message moving forward...that the AG's office is serious about penalizing people that carry through with these crimes...and its not worth losing one's job over.

I hope the media and others raise a stink about this...but I think for the most part this story has run its course... I hope I'm wrong.

 

[Lemon law]

Someone had to replace Gonzales and I am sure the American people could have done worse if GWB was able to get away with appointing one of his own.

But still, Mukasey has been a giant disappontment and I had grave doubts during his confirmation hearings.

But as a formerly retired Judge, it very much looks like Mukasey is bound and determined to make sure nothing disturbs his current retirement. Mukasey may not be a ring leader of abuse like Gonzales was, but instead of being any part of any solution for what ails the justice department, Mukasey is a good part of the problem.

Nero may have fiddled while Rome burned, but Mukasey is fiddling an entire year away.

Hang your head in shame Chuck Shumer, you peddled Mukasey to the nation, we needed a reformer and got an enabler.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Uhh....someone correct me if I am wrong, but isn't a "Violation of the law" the very definition of a crime?

An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it

I guess it is. Someone ought to tell the AG of this startling revelation.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Uhh....someone correct me if I am wrong, but isn't a "Violation of the law" the very definition of a crime?

An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it

I guess it is. Someone ought to tell the AG of this startling revelation.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a clear case of where RightIsWrong does not understand, because for the powerful,
WrongIsRight, if someone uses a gun to rob the bank, they need to be punished, but if some clever fellow use their position to embezzle the entire assets of the bank, you make them a Bank President. Silly Rabbit, punishment is only for the little people. Something Mukasey now understands.

 

[Robor]

I read about this earlier but was too busy to post it. It's sickening but given what we've seen lately what else is new? Maybe I can try the, 'Not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime' line next time I am in traffic court?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Uhh....someone correct me if I am wrong, but isn't a "Violation of the law" the very definition of a crime?

An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it

I guess it is. Someone ought to tell the AG of this startling revelation.

speeding isn't a crime. neither is failing to pay parking. they're both civil citations.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Uhh....someone correct me if I am wrong, but isn't a "Violation of the law" the very definition of a crime?

An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it

I guess it is. Someone ought to tell the AG of this startling revelation.

speeding isn't a crime. neither is failing to pay parking. they're both civil citations.

Can I speed or park in handicapped spots without fear of prosecution?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: OrByte
I do have a problem here with the message from the AG

From what I gather based upon this one article, "civil service laws" were violated. I don't know what those are...but it sounds bad!

And I don't like the AG of the US saying things like this:

"Not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime."

I know for a fact that when people around here defend illegal immigrants with the same rationale that the anti-illegal crowd throws conniption fits.

So everyone can agree that a violation of the law = crime. right?

-snip-

No, not every violation of the law is a crime.

I believe he's speaking as a lawyer, as he should particularly since he's addressing other lawyers with those remarks.

Since he's speaking of federal law (as opposed to state law - where most criminal acts are defined) I'll illustrate using that. The US (as do states) has any number of "laws", only a portion of which are criminal law.

E.g., Title 26 is tax law. 99.99% of it has nothing to do with any "crimes". If you *violate* the law and file your tax return late have you committed a "crime"? Of course not.

Then there are Titles 1-25, and the Titles after that (27 and so on). IIRC Title 18 is criminal law, the others are not.

So, you can violate any number of laws and it wouldn't be a "criminal" violation per se.

IOW, he's speaking technically to other lawyers and the AG violations are not violations of criminal statutes. Back when this story broke a few weeks ago, even Dan Abrams (no fan of this Admin) said it wasn't a "criminal" violation, but rather a civil service (employment with federal government) violation.

So:

So basically this guy is saying that the laws were BROKEN, but he is not going to prosecute.

Correct, because there is nothing to prosecute. Prosecuters are only involved when there is a "crime". Most lawsuits are between 2 parties because some law was violated - they sue each other - no prosecuter is ever involved.

Fern

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Fern

Fern

Ok sounds good. I knew that since the AG made the distinction of "civil service laws" that there was some reason for doing so and I stated earlier I didn't know what "civil service laws" meant. I think your explanation makes sense. And given that he was speaking as a lawyer to a bunch of lawyers it makes sense that he doesn't need to explain his comment earlier about how, "Not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime." When speaking directly about "civil service laws" his comment is factual, the rest of us dumb asses just need to figure it out I'm not a lawyer.

From day one this AG seemed to be a straight shooter so this comment did seem out of the ordinary to me. Given now that I understand more of what he said, it doesn't seem to be much of a big deal.

Thanks.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Repost - Merged with the original thread

Fern
AnandTech P&N Moderator


Just when you think you've heard every partisan abomination possible, we find this:
CNN story link

"But not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime," he said. He referenced a report from the department's inspector general and another from the Office of Professional Responsibility that he said indicate the officials had "deviated from the strict standards" set by the department for hirings.

I thought Clinton's parsing of the meaning of "is" was bad, but this is beyond belief. This, from the Attorney General of the United States?

 

[KGB]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
Just when you think you've heard every partisan abomination possible, we find this:
CNN story link

"But not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime," he said. He referenced a report from the department's inspector general and another from the Office of Professional Responsibility that he said indicate the officials had "deviated from the strict standards" set by the department for hirings.

I thought Clinton's parsing of the meaning of "is" was bad, but this is beyond belief. This, from the Attorney General of the United States?

Repost

Say it aint so, Joe.

 

[Woofmeister]

It's simply not a crime to base a hiring decision on political considerations. Unethical and offensive sure, but not a crime under the Federal Criminal Code.

Crimes are defined by code so if it isn't in the code, it's not a crime.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: KGBMAN
Repost
Say it aint so, Joe.

Missed the original thread somehow. Mea Maxima Culpa.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Woofmeister
It's simply not a crime to base a hiring decision on political considerations. Unethical and offensive sure, but not a crime under the Federal Criminal Code.

Crimes are defined by code so if it isn't in the code, it's not a crime.

It's not just unethical and offensive, it is illegal to hire based on political considerations. It's just not a criminal offense.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Woofmeister
It's simply not a crime to base a hiring decision on political considerations. Unethical and offensive sure, but not a crime under the Federal Criminal Code.

Crimes are defined by code so if it isn't in the code, it's not a crime.

If you violate the Civil Service LAW, its a crime.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Woofmeister
It's simply not a crime to base a hiring decision on political considerations. Unethical and offensive sure, but not a crime under the Federal Criminal Code.

Crimes are defined by code so if it isn't in the code, it's not a crime.

If you violate the Civil Service LAW, its a crime.

No, as said before in this thread there is civil and criminal law. A crime is something that is either a felony or a misdemeanor. Failing to comply with civil service law is neither. Sure you can (and should) lose your job, etc for it... but it's not a crime. You aren't going to go to jail for hiring someone for crappy reasons.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Uhh....someone correct me if I am wrong, but isn't a "Violation of the law" the very definition of a crime?

An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it

I guess it is. Someone ought to tell the AG of this startling revelation.

speeding isn't a crime. neither is failing to pay parking. they're both civil citations.

Can I speed or park in handicapped spots without fear of prosecution?

you'll get a ticket. if you don't pay the ticket then you can be prosecuted. tickets are civil citations, not criminal.

obviously you can reach criminal speeds on public roads. but the standard 5 to 10 over is just a citation.

 

[DealMonkey]

I say those on the receiving end of the Justice Department's widespread discrimination each file civil suits against the AG as well as the employees (former and current) who acted in a discriminatory manner. Apparently, lawsuits are the only thing that are going to send a strong message.

 

[Thump553]

Michael Mukasey could have been a great Attorney General and the Dept. of Justice was certainly in dire need of top notch leadership when he was appointed. He had great qualifications and the strong backing of an influential Dem senator from his state, New York.

It's sickening to see he has turned out to be exactly the type of Attorney General the DOJ doesn't need. He squashes investigations, repairs nothing, just claims all the damage is in the past, lets move forward. It's a shame he threw away his reputation in the twilight of his career just to become a do nothing party hack.

 

[lupi]

If there isn't an actual law that was broken, I'm thinking bringing charges against said nonexistent law may be somewhat difficult.

 

[KGB]

Well, it looks like Mukasey just appointed a Special Prosecutor to help unravel this clusterfvuck. Her name is Nora Dannehy.

Story Here.

My thoughts are that, although Mukasey wanted to keep the lid on this until after the administration leaves town, he might as well appoint a puppet before someone after him appointed a bulldog. I firmly believe real crimes were committed and looked forward to justice being served.

Techs, perhaps you should edit your thread title.

Just my $0.02

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: KGBMAN
Well, it looks like Mukasey just appointed a Special Prosecutor to help unravel this clusterfvuck. Her name is Nora Dannehy.

Story Here.

My thoughts are that, although Mukasey wanted to keep the lid on this until after the administration leaves town, he might as well appoint a puppet before someone after him appointed a bulldog. I firmly believe real crimes were committed and looked forward to justice being served.

Techs, perhaps you should edit your thread title.

Just my $0.02

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have to agree with KGBMan, at this very late date, Mukasey is a worthless lame duck, and anything he does now is written in silly putty. As good as gold as long as the sky is blue, the grass is green, and the calendar displays some date before 1/20/2009.

The original perps still dangle, slowly, slowly, in the wind.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: OrByte

So basically this guy is saying that the laws were BROKEN, but he is not going to prosecute.

Correct, because there is nothing to prosecute. Prosecuters are only involved when there is a "crime". Most lawsuits are between 2 parties because some law was violated - they sue each other - no prosecuter is ever involved.

Any highly-qualified liberal who was denied a well-paying job in the Justice department because of violations of the Civil Service law has a cause of action for a civil lawsuit seeking damages - both actual and punitive - against both the Justice Departement and the political appointees who violated the law. I sincerely hope such lawsuits are filed, and that everyone associated with this outrageous behavior is bankrupted.

Edit: By the way, I assume Mukasey will freely provide to all wronged parties full documentation of who did what to whom. Anything that will grease the skids in bringing the responsible right-wing assholes to justice (and financial ruin) is naturally to be expected of the head man at Justice.