Sigh. How many bloggers are going to get worked up about this before stopping to think that Mukasey is actually correct? Just because something is horrible and against the law doesn't make it a crime. Torts are not crimes. Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction was not a crime. And so on and so on.

This kind of faux outrage over an unremarkable statement is what Republicans do. It's beneath us.

The Attorney General says all my sins is warshed away, including that Piggly Wiggly I knocked over in Yazoo.

So what's the punishment 'skeptic'? job-loss for the offender? plus job-less for every single one of the sycophants she put into a position of power? dock her salary for her entire reign?

I tend to agree, although perhaps not as he might like.

I agree that this is not to be prosecuted. But it should have broad congressional hearings and there should be actions taken then to prevent this happening again.

Skeptic: I would have thought that deliberate and repeated violation of civil service hiring laws was, indeed, a crime, not a tort. But I'm open to correction if I'm wrong about that.

This may actually turn out to be good news. No halfhearted prosecution from the Bush justice department. No letters of immunity to the major players in this scandal. No presidential pardons.

Six months from now the trail will not have grown cold. The Obama Justice Department can vigorously prosecute those responsible for this national embarrassment, and restore our faith in the rule of law.

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

Oh really!
And will this new policy be retroactive, cause there are ~5 million inmates who are now very interested in this new position of the AG.

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

For example, if the president does it, it's not against the law.

Bush can anything he wants, nobody least of all Dems are going to make him accountable.

That is why Bush is going to gut the Endangered Species Act, because nobody will stop him. Not the Dems in congress, not the press or media.

Netroot might mildly rant but that is meaningless too. And don't even thing the netroots will care if Obama actually change as long as he wears the Liberal label - even he doesn't have to follow FISA, or torture laws or anything else.

I'm beginning to wonder if Obama will actually be any different than McCain.

If it's illegal, it's a crime.

Mukasey is as crooked as a dog's hind leg. His boss (the Resident-in-Thief) is one of the biggest crooks of all time, too.

The Congressmembers who approved Mukasey's nomination (Democrats & Republicans alike) are all crooks. The Speaker-of-the-House (Ms. "impeachment is off the table") is a HUGE crook.

The two main candidates for President (who support warrantless spying on U.S. citizens) are also crooks. About 99.9% of all politicians are crooks.

So stop voting for crooks -- vote for REAL CHANGE this time... vote for Barr or Nader.

This is silly. The statement is obviously true. If someone has evidence of a crime that he is allegedly not prosecuting, they should provide that evidence. Otherwise the comments here are either naive or childish.

No crime committed with the intent of furthering the rightwing cause is a crime! How could Kevin be so foolish.

KD--

Violating the civil service hiring laws may or may not be a crime -- that requires research to say for sure. I would imagine that Mukasey would not say it isn't a crime unless the conduct in this case is not a crime.

My problem is taking the quote out of context and then getting people like th above worked into a frenzy because they think "If it's illegal, it's a crime." Mukasey is right, not everything "illegal" is a crime.

As for what could happen, I expect (but do not know without doing the research) that the people turned down for jobs could sue DOJ, Goodling, Sampson, Gonzales and crew for violating their civil rights. All of those people would be fired if they hadn't already quit. But it's not automatically a crime just because it was wrong.

Kevin, you left off the rest of the quote...

Not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime....
if the perpetrator is a Republican.

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

Mr. Mukasey is absolutely correct, but he only thinks this way about Republican apparatchiks' crimes. Fucker.

It is clearly true that not every violation of the law is a crime. The civil service laws that the Justice Department violated were clearly civil in nature, from what I've heard, not criminal.

However, a vigorous and motivated prosecutor can easily find a crime in a situation like this. Was there a criminal conspiracy to cover up the unlawful (though not criminal) behavior? Did anyone line under oath about the behavior? Etc.

What Mukasey is saying is that he's not going to go that route either. The Bush admin was caught red handed breaking the law and their punishment is . . . nothing.

Excellent!

Since this isn't a crime, a Dem president can just gut the department and install his own political appointees.

Good news indeed.

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

Thank God! Next time I get pulled over I'll use this line.

Thank you Mr Schumer and Ms Feinstein for this outstanding AG. I hope people remember it when it is time to vote.

This kind of faux outrage...

Oh the outrage is very real my friend. And this is just another example of the unending parade of "violations of the law" of this criminal administration. Another example of a two-tiered justice system. Another example of Washington insiders being above the law. Come November, I'm hoping the voting public shows the GOP just how real the outrage is.

Funny, I thought perjury was a crime.

All of the perpetrators at Justice were lawyers. Even though they can expect no criminal prosecution for their crimes, the Bar should be investigating and then preventing them from ever practicing law again.

How are civil laws defined? I thought it had to do with who brought suit - in civil matters, individuals bring the suit, and in criminal matters, the government does it. Justice department officials politicizing our system of justice, thus enabling all manner of political persecution, is surely not a private matter. This isn't my neighbor cutting down my tree because he doesn't want it to shade his yard. It's my neighbor burning a cross on my front lawn.

When the government acts above the law, there is no law.

Violating the civil service hiring laws may or may not be a crime -- that requires research to say for sure.

In other words "Look at Me!!! Babble, babble, babble. I have no idea what I'm talking about. I just wanted to make some noise so you all would know how inferior you are to me."

Take a hike, big shot.

Funny, I thought perjury was a crime.

kelly, that ended with the Scooter Libby pardon. Where were you?

Brian: If someone has evidence of a crime that he is allegedly not prosecuting, they should provide that evidence.

You'd know it if you read the AG/DOJ report, which you obviously have not; a few excerpts:

...violated Department policy and federal law, and also constituted misconduct.

...violates federal law.

...violated both federal law and Department policy...

...violated Department policy or federal law.

...violated Department of Justice policy and federal law...

Sorry, correction: that should be "IG/DOJ report", not "AG/DOJ report".

Monica Goodling in particular is open to civil suits. And since every single one of the people she fucked over is an attorney, I think she can expect one. Or several. As they say at Liberty University Law School: She should probably say her prayers.

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

That's a really interesting point of view. Presumably Mukasey doesn't find obstruction of justice through dereliction of duty to be a violation of the law that rises to the level of being a crime. He'd better hope the next AG doesn't either, or he could be in BEEEG trouble.

In other words "Look at Me!!! Babble, babble, babble. I have no idea what I'm talking about. I just wanted to make some noise so you all would know how inferior you are to me."

Kevin, if you are still reading this thread -- this is exactly the danger of making these kinds of posts. The law is complicated, but you incite people to disdain anyone who doesn't spout off the top of their head. "Of course it's a crime!! How could anyone possibly say otherwise?!? This is exactly like torture!! If you say you don't know the answer and finding out the answer is a difficult thing to do, you are a jerk!"

Please don't toss jet fuel on the flames of our collective stupidity.

I have repeatedly e-mailed my retiring congressional representative, Bud Cramer (Blue DogD-Al) reminding him that he has violated his oath to support and defend the constitution. Bud is also an attorney and a former county prosecutor and I have reminded him that, as an officer of the court, his duty is to investigate and report the criminal acts of the Bush administration.

I'm glad to see that he is retiring and the betting is that the Dem candidate, Parker Griffith, will take the seat, but I don't expect much more from Griffith!

Please don't toss jet fuel on the flames of our collective stupidity.

skeptic, I think you may not understand why you're getting the reaction you've gotten.

What Mukasey basically said was, "Well, the law was violated, but there's no recourse. Too bad, so sad."

If he had said, "There's no criminal charges that we can bring, but we will be taking administrative steps X, Y and Z to rectify the situation," there wouldn't be this reaction. All he's offered is promises that it won't happen again, which won't do us a whole hell of a lot of good for the next decade as these bad hires screw up federal cases again and again.

If you have seen any indication by Mukasey whatsoever that he will take any steps to rectify the situation that was created by the law-breaking that occurred in his department, please point to it. Otherwise, how is our interpretation of Mukasey's statement as saying nothing will be done even though the law was broken incorrect?

I agree that not every technical violation of the law should be fully prosecuted as crimes. Society really couldn't function like that. But I am now looking forward to every Republican involved with the Clinton impeachment, particularly those still in Congress like Lindsay Graham, coming forward with formal apologies to the former non-criminal-in-chief for having wasted two years of the country's time and tens of millions of dollars over some wishy-washy answers in a deposition in the context of a civil lawsuit. If trying to subvert the operations of an entire branch of the government through illegally partisan hiring methods doesn't rise to the level of a prosecutable crime, Monica Goodling and her associates deserve no less than to be hounded by Congressional inquiries for several years and to rack up millions in legal fees having to defend themselves.

Anyone taking bets on how long before we see Goodling's name pop up as an associate at one of the great Wingnut Welfare outfits? Yeah, it's going to be real rough for her...

What Mukasey basically said was, "Well, the law was violated, but there's no recourse. Too bad, so sad."

Actually, that's not what he said. He said some violations of the law are not prosecutable as crimes. That's all. Kevin's post puts the statement in a false context that leads you to conclude that is what he is saying.

If you have seen any indication by Mukasey whatsoever that he will take any steps to rectify the situation that was created by the law-breaking that occurred in his department, please point to it.

At this point there is nothing he can do. The wrongdoers already quit. He can't revoke their law licenses. The remaining recourse -- lawsuits by the people who were illegally discriminated against due to their political views -- is something he can't help with because DOJ will be a defendant.

But again, your question demonstrates the point. What Mukasey said was true and unremarkable. Kevin tosses it out like red meat. You and others take it up as a symbol of everything evil about this administration rather than the banal observation that it is. Either the meaning was twisted, or ignorant people were reinforced in their wrongheaded belief that "violation of federal law" equals "crime."

skeptic -- Yes, the law may be complicated, but the IG/DOJ report is very clear: laws were violated, and in an egregious fashion with knowledge and forethought by the perpetrators.

The evidence and the conclusions are that of the IG/DOJ. The evidence is clearly documented, and the conclusions, and the rational for those conclusions, are clearly articulated in the reports.

Given that context Mukasey's statement is remarkable and offensive. If there is "collective stupidity" at work here, it is among the illiterate, willfully ignorant, or disingenuous.

August 12, 2008 at 8:16 PM comment was me.

Actually, that's not what he said. He said some violations of the law are not prosecutable as crimes. That's all. Kevin's post puts the statement in a false context that leads you to conclude that is what he is saying.

No, I read the article. That's what Mukasey said. Read down to the "two wrongs don't make a right" part to really get the full flavor.

At this point there is nothing he can do.

He can do evaluations of the work of the illegal hires and make sure they're up to the standards of the Department of Justice. If they're not, he can fire them. But apparently that's not even on the table -- those hires will be in the DOJ for as long as they please, screwing cases up for decades to come.

But, hey, if it doesn't bother you to see incompetents like Rachel Paulose promoted to positions above their abilities so they can drive out competent attorneys before finally getting fired, then that's great. Some of us care, though.

Still, it's kind of funny to take the Fifth Amendment if you don't think you've committed any crimes, isn't it?

An interesting point. If nothing else can be done, Goodling should be hauled back before Congress and required to answer every question she avoided answering in her previous testimony by invoking the 5th. At the very least, it would require her to publicly state, with cameras rolling and for the record, her role and the role of others in the perversion of the hiring process. Certainly we would learn some things that we won't learn from the internal investigation or anywhere else.

Skeptic up top (too conveniently poised to be just a random commenter with a critical put-down right off the block?), I think your point is crap. By definition, it's "a crime" if against "the law" (which I thought didn't mean other kinds of rules.) One standard dictionary definition is, "An act committed in violation of the law." Do you think there is a special technical definition of "law" or "crime" you are wrangling here?

Well, the following link
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/ct/crimtort.htm, (Crimes v. Torts
Peter Suber, Philosophy Department, Earlham College)
has a table about the differences. Look at this critical comparison:

form of law

crimes: statute (mostly)
torts: case law, common law (mostly)

So a statute means "crime" and I would think most of the relevant regulations were actual statutory law, not case law (which would be elaborations of opinion about more basic laws) nor common law (especially not the latter I'd think.)

Here's more:
availability, prior notice, promulgation of law:

Crime: always written; clarity and prior notice important
Tort: unwritten except as cases after the fact

So torts don't have to be clearly specified, I think civil service regs would be. (BTW - very important not to confuse "civil" in "civil service" with "civil" in "civil law" - are you trying to confuse people about that, "skeptic"?

Here's another juicy tidbit:

retroactivity of law:

Crimes: no ex post facto; usually no "common law crimes"
Torts: may be ex post facto

I'm surprised at the latter, but ... Maybe that means if we consider the DOJ issues as "torts" we can do more about it anyway ...

Still, it's kind of funny to take the Fifth Amendment if you don't think you've committed any crimes, isn't it?

No. The entire purpose behind the Fifth Amendment is that taking it cannot place upon an individual an assumption of guilt or wrongdoing. It's kind of disheartening to hear a supposed liberal, even a centrist one, taking the stance that invoking this basic right implies criminal guilt.

If nothing else can be done, Goodling should be hauled back before Congress and required to answer every question she avoided answering in her previous testimony by invoking the 5th. At the very least, it would require her to publicly state, with cameras rolling and for the record, her role and the role of others in the perversion of the hiring process. Certainly we would learn some things that we won't learn from the internal investigation or anywhere else.

No, we wouldn't. Because this time she'd invoke executive privilege, and the Justice Department has already indicated it has no intention of enforcing the legally-binding congressional subpoenas being issued in executive privilege cases.

skeptic is correct. I'll give you an example.

Violating equal opportunity or Title IX is illegal. It is a violation of the law. It is not, however, criminal, as no criminal penalty can ensue as a result of the violation. "Crime" means "criminal violation" which in turn means "violation for which a criminal penalty may be invoked (incarceration or other)". If found guilty of violating these laws, fines and civil penalties may result, but no one is going to jail, because while illegal, these violations were not "criminal".

So Jennifer I suppose technical definitions were at work here, not ordinary dictionary meanings. I am still skeptical since when did "crime" have to mean that jail time was a possible penalty, not just fines etc? Can you show a definition in which this is officially recognized? Just what is the official parsing of "criminal" penalties? I mean, even a "misdemeanor" is a "crime" - or is it, just not a serious crime, a *felony* right?

But even if you and Skeptic are right, it doesn't mean that the violations in this case were in fact all that lesser kind of transgression, and it still violates the "ordinary language" meaning of "crime" - which sounds like it has a propaganda purpose from the Mukester.

More: In Wikipedia, on misdemeanors:

A misdemeanor, or misdemeanour, in many common law legal systems, is a "lesser" criminal act. Misdemeanors are generally punished less severely than felonies, but theoretically more so than administrative infractions (also known as regulatory offenses). Many misdemeanors are punished with monetary fines. Usually only repeat misdemeanor offenders are punished by actual jail time.

So they are considered criminal acts even though jail time is not normally in order. Were you thinking of regulatory infraction? But I don't think that's what Mukie was talking about, or was it?

Since it is clear that Goodling and Co were violating laws and policies in their actions there is no reason that the US should bear the cost of their civil defense.

Oh yes, they should also be impeached so that they can never hold appointive office again.

Wikipedia notwithstanding, you'd be hard pressed to define every instance of law-breaking as a "crime". Is parking illegally a "crime"? Most people would say no.

Mukasey was using legal terminology to classify the nature of the violations that occured. In legalese, a "crime" is that for which a criminal penalty may be invoked. These were violations where civil penalties are the greatest that can be invoked.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06EED61239F937A15754C0A96E958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

>
Juice-Poisoning Case Brings Guilty Plea and a Huge Fine

In what Federal officials say is the first criminal conviction in a large-scale food-poisoning outbreak, Odwalla Inc. pleaded guilty today to violating Federal food safety laws and agreed to pay a $1.5 million fine for selling tainted apple juice that killed a 16-month-old girl and sickened 70 other people in several states in 1996.

It is rare for Federal officials to bring criminal charges in cases like this, but officials said today that as new kinds of dangerous bacteria spread through the nation's food supply, they were trying to expand the kinds of penalties and levers they could use to force companies to be more rigorous with safety practices.

...

The $1.5 million penalty is the largest criminal penalty in a food poisoning case, Federal officials said. Of that amount, $250,000 will go to a nonprofit food safety organization, Safe Tables Our Priority, and to food safety research centers at Pennsylvania State University and the University of Maryland.
>

Big fine for "criminal charges" called "criminal penalty" by Federal officials. "The company violated federal food safety laws, not like robbing a bank etc, and no one went to jail.
Seems similar to the DOJ cases to me, albeit some were maybe "infractions" etc. But my example suggests that Muke's phrasing is still wrong aside from that, internally.

*

These hiring practices were most definitely violations of federal law, Kevin. Specifically, Title 28, Chapter I, Section 42.1(a) , which prohibits hiring on the basis of “political affiliation”. I think you might also want to read page 136 of the DOJ investigation here , which concludes, “These [hiring practices] actions violated federal law and Department policy, and also constituted misconduct”.

My conclusion - Mukasey is a fucking criminal himself.

mhr - Perhaps one day we'll have an investigation on why it is that so many leftwingers on hired by universities and so few rightwingers

I can answer your question without further investigation: universities like to hire smart people. That isn't a viloation of civil rights so far.

mhr - Perhaps one day we'll have an investigation on why it is that so many leftwingers on hired by universities and so few rightwingers

I can answer your question without further investigation: universities like to hire smart people. That isn't a violation of civil rights so far.

There are federal laws that prevent discrimination based upon religion. Goodling's ideological test was a religious metric (i.e., only Republicans have so enmeshed themselves in Christian extremism). Goodling's questions were religious tests. She should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

And Skeptic--go back to your Heritage Foundation excuse generator. You sorry POS.

This whole thing is pretty damn sad. So much confusion over terminology, and even Kevin fell victim to oversimplification in his update. Let's make this very clear:

What Goodling et al did MAY or MAY NOT be a crime. It depends. Getting to the bottom of it is a very difficult task, not something that can be done with a Wikipedia search.

I invite you to note that the statute dealing with investigation and corrective action regarding prohibited personnel practices has different procedures for situations where a criminal violation is suspected. 5 U.S.C. sec. 1214(d)(1). You can safely assume that there might be some violations where there is no suspicion of criminal action.

Again, WE DON'T KNOW if a crime occurred, but the fact that Goodling repeatedly violated the civil service laws doesn't AUTOMATICALLY mean a crime occurred.

What your gut or your common sense tell you means nothing -- this is the law!

Still, it's kind of funny to take the Fifth Amendment if you don't think you've committed any crimes, isn't it?

Well, doggone that Evangelical Law Degree educational-type training. Perhaps instead of "tort" reform we should examine "smite" reform?

Feh.

this is the law!

Whoa! Talk about simplification. That's almost as good as "because I say so".

Is someone studying for their LSAT? Are we studying law in the prison library? Or are we just a natural pompous ass? Look that up in your next Lexis search. (BTW - it's not that hard to research, unless you're, well, you - obviously)

VOTE DIGBY-CLARK-2008---VOTE THE INTERNET why not hire some honest folks for once?

What Goodling et al did MAY or MAY NOT be a crime. It depends. Getting to the bottom of it is a very difficult task, not something that can be done with a Wikipedia search.

What she did was AGAINST THE LAW. Mukasey said so flat out. It may not be a prosecutable crime, but it was a crime.

Again, for someone who's so very concerned about The Law, you seem awfully complacent about having unqualified people running the US Attorney's office in civil service positions that they cannot be fired from.

Wow. Just wow.

Breaking a law for President Bush is a consecration, not a crime.

"Wow. Just wow." skeptic at 1:47 AM

Poor 'skeptic.' Does it hurt getting your ass handed to you? Is it awful having your tissue paper excuses for malificence shredded? Is 'oo discouraged that your cheap, shallow mendacity can be picked apart so easily? And is your final line of defense a puerile expression of faux dismay, or just an admission of how pathetically lame your 'arguments' really are?
You know that BushCo apologists have bottomed in their addled brain pans when they trot out the old "can't we all just get along" memes.

Jeez, Kevin, Mukasey already said he was "disturbed" about the whole thing. What do you want, for God's sake -- the man's blood?!?

I'm with skeptic, even though that seems to be the minority position. An act contrary to law is a crime only when the law provides for a punishment for the violation.

That doesn't make it right to violate the law.

In this case, I'm not sure there is even an actionable tort for the government deviating from its own rules; sovereign immunity may apply here also.

But the main sanction against the government and the leadership for something like this is (and should be) political rather than legal. All of the Bush-hate on this post suggests that indeed the political sanction for overstepping the boundaries of the law is being paid right now, and will continue to be paid through November.

Back off people. You're all way, way wrong. (Except for Skeptic.)

And that includes you, the normally intelligent Mnemosyne.

Mukasey is a lawyer. He was making a statement the way a lawyer would make it...using legal terminology. Civil service laws, by and large, do not have criminal penalties. Ergo, violating them is not a crime. Some civil laws have criminal penalties. Some do not. (Do you really want to criminalize every possible infraction? Like Department of Health violations? Screwing up paperwork?) This one apparently doesn't. So, yeah, it's perfectly possible that the only legal response is: "Too bad." The offenders quit their jobs. It happens.

I hate to say this (not really), but this is why non-lawyers shouldn't comment on legal matters. We went through law school for a reason. So back off.

More to the point, Transplanted, the Hatch Act, as amended, provides for administrative process and penalties through the Office of Special Counsel. That office is now completely inactive, due to its own legal problems, but it started an investigation back in May, 2007.

The law allows civil fines of $1,000. How many hundreds of interviews did Monica conduct, how many hundreds of political reviews of current employees did she make?

Please note the immunity order protects her from criminal prosecution, not civil prosecution or fines.

Skeptic is absolutely right, even if those angry at the result want to tar and feather him for it.

Most states have a penal or criminal code, as well as Family Code, Health and Safety, Vehicle codes, ect. Violations of these other provisions (and indeed, parts of the penal code) will often not be a criminal matter, but a civil one.

For example, there is generally a duty to full disclosure in regards to sales of real property. This is a law. However, if someone violates it, they are not subject to prosecution – they are subject to civil remedies.

I think the phrase, while technically correct, was a poor choice for general consumption– but then again, the speech was being made to the American Bar Association, a group of lawyers.

And, as someone else pointed out, I’m sure a creative prosecutor could come up with something criminal. That said, it’s not merely enough to creatively force the issue into a criminal violation – you still need enough evidence to reasonably bring the prosecution (and usually prosecutors have a legal duty not to bring cases they feel they can’t win, or bring them for improper purposes).

As has been pointed out, there are steps which can be done to rectify this situation - they just do not include criminal proceedings.

Civil service laws, by and large, do not have criminal penalties.

No shit, mr big lawyer mans. The main point is Mukasey's shoulder shrug and default legalese mumbo jumbo. And you have little finger-wagging "skeptic" rushing to defend the Bushies. A tort is STILL a violation of the obligations of the law. And Mukasey's "no big whoop" response is infuriating, to say the least. Not exactly a good time for a kumbaya moment. Or for a know-it-all asshat to decide what we should talk about.

I hate to say this (not really), but this is why non-lawyers shouldn't comment on legal matters. We went through law school for a reason. So back off.

"First, let's kill all the lawyers".

Go back to running up your sucker client's billable hours. We're not in a court-room right now and the law doesn't require you to suspend common sense, you arrogant schmuck.

If Mr. Mukasey had included his desire to free all political prisoners being held for drug possession with his statement, he could become a great American. But he did not, and will not, demonstrating he is just another draconian American who thinks punitive incarceration is justice, as long as the people being punished are not White Republican operatives.

Back off people.

People like Ms. Goodling and Mr. Gonzales should be disbarred for their conduct at Justice. It should be up to members of the bar, like Transplanted Lawyer and Another Lawyer, to police their ranks and purge unethical lawyers from the markets, but they, and the rest of their guild, don't seem to be up to the task. What needs to be done is the certification to practice law must be removed from the Bar and replaced with a greater ethical-centric organization overseen by the public. There are too many unethical lawyers allowed to practice law, and part of the reason is the lack of oversite by the lawyers guild, which is more interested in keeping lawyers employed than ensuring those who practice law are ethical and impartial.

I hate to say this (not really), but this is why non-lawyers shouldn't comment on legal matters. We went through law school for a reason. So back off.

Haw! Good one, Swan!

And you have little finger-wagging "skeptic" rushing to defend the Bushies.

I am NOT defending what Goodling and crew did. I think they should suffer to the maximum extent the law allows. I think they should be hounded until their careers and finances are ruined forever.

But that doesn't mean what they did is a crime. To borrow a line, it's like some of you guys take pride in being ignorant.

Disbar the Bar.

At this point there is nothing he [Mukasey] can do.

Quite demonstrably false. At the very least he can institute criminal proceedings against several of the perpetrators for perjury, evidence tampering, and obstruction of justice.

No, we wouldn't. Because this time [Goodling would] invoke executive privilege, and the Justice Department has already indicated it has no intention of enforcing the legally-binding congressional subpoenas being issued in executive privilege cases.

Funny thing about this executive privilege claim -- the White House has repeatedly said that Bush himself had no role whatsoever in the DOJ firings and hirings and wasn't consulted. However, executive privilege only covers communications with the President. So if, as the Bush regime claims, the President was never involved, how can a claim of executive privilege apply?

So. Did anyone ask what parameters we used in composing the report in question?
Was the phrase, "investigate, identify and report any and all possible avenues of prosecution for any violations of law identified." included?
Or, perhaps, was there wording suggesting the opposite?

Mukasey parsed his words very carefully.
Is it unreasonable to believe that the investigators and authors may have also done just that, with their instructions?
I mean, if you aren't told to elucidate the appearance or substance of, say, conspiracy, I don't think it's accurate for anyone to make statements about criminality in the events simply because you didn't bring it up in your report.
I wouldn't have a hard time believing there was a very narrow brief, and it was suggested it would be good to stick strictly to it.

From AnotherLawyer "I hate to say this (not really), but this is why non-lawyers shouldn't comment on legal matters. We went through law school for a reason. So back off."

As a doctor, I wish to God you lawyers would apply that agrument to medicine.

Funny to see all the lawyers wring their respective hands. Almost all of this civil service law advice was pure bullshit. Their are criminal sanctions and penalties listed on every civil service application. There are civil rights laws and other criminal laws that can and should be used for the violations in the hiring and application process. In this way, civil service is no different than any other business. What Goodling and Gonzo did went far beyond simple ethical lapses. Mukasey had a solemn duty to punish them for their obstruction of justice, criminal conspiracies, discrimination and perjury.
But Skeptic, you go on talking about lack of criminality. When there is an institutional ethical collapse of this magnitude, criminality is manifest. But it is also simply untrue that there are no criminal sanctions against discrimination in the workplace. You could define that as a hate crime.

Conspricay to circumvent Title VII of the federal EEO law is pretty clear cut--and even though Title VII itself would only allow an avenue to monetarily redress grievances, there is clear evidence that Goodling and company conspired to circumvent the law, and knowingly exposed the government to monetary damages by their abusive hiring practices. They should have been held to account for fraud, and criminal conspiracy--themselves civil servants, they knowingly violated the laws governing their authority.

"Employers may not treat employees or applicants more or less favorably because of their religious beliefs or practices - except to the extent a religious accommodation is warranted. For example, an employer may not refuse to hire individuals of a certain religion, may not impose stricter promotion requirements for persons of a certain religion, and may not impose more or different work requirements on an employee because of that employee's religious beliefs or practices."

Goodling and the GOP were using religion as the ultimate test of employment worthiness. And of course, it was also political discrimination. Their conspiracy exposed the taxpayers of the United States to untold amounts of remedial payments. High crime--with severe consequences to the treasury.

Even after reading many of these posts, I'm amazed that the highest law enforcement official in the land would say such a thing. There are a lot of Clinton-esque posts here. Parsing when an illegal act is or is not a "crime?" Yes, it is.

But for argument's sake let's say it isn't. This line is coming from one of the leaders of a Christian-dominated political movement that bombards us with preachy moralistic right and wrong dichotomies. If it isn't a crime by Black's definition, isn't it still wrong?

But for argument's sake let's say it isn't. This line is coming from one of the leaders of a Christian-dominated political movement that bombards us with preachy moralistic right and wrong dichotomies. If it isn't a crime by Black's definition, isn't it still wrong?

I don’t know that Skeptic or others have suggested what was done was not morally ‘wrong’. In fact, Skeptic never even said that what was done wasn’t illegal (he said he wasn’t sure, it required research). All Skeptic (correctly) noted was that Mukasey’s statement was not wrong – not all violations of the law is criminal act. Many are not.

People harping on the ‘technical’ parsing are missing the point. Firstly, it’s not parsing. Believe me, nobody wants any violation of a law to be automatically criminal. There’s an important reason for the distinction. Secondly, the Law is technical – very technical, so when lawyers focus in on technicalities, that’s because it is the nature of the law.

It’s not Clinton-esque, it’s reality.