Mukasey rules out prosecutions from hiring scandal

[soonersn20xx]

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Former U.S. Justice Department officials who improperly used political criteria in hiring decisions for career lawyers and immigration judges will not be prosecuted, Attorney General Michael Mukasey said on Tuesday.

The department recently issued reports detailing misconduct in hiring practices mainly by top aides to former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who resigned last year. While there was wrongdoing and "a failure of supervision by senior officials in the department," the conduct was not criminal(http://forums.mystery-axiom.com/images/smilies/wtf.gif), Mukasey said in a speech.

"Where there is enough evidence to charge someone with a crime, we vigorously prosecutehttp://forums.mystery-axiom.com/images/smilies/confused7nt.gif," he told the American Bar Association annual meeting in New York. "But 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."

The Justice Department's internal investigation concluded that high-ranking officials injected politics into what should have been nonpartisan hiring decisions. Both department policy and federal law bar the use of politics in making decisions on hiring for career jobs.

Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine has previously told Congress he did not see a sufficient basis for prosecution of the former officials, saying the violations did not involve criminal laws.

Mukasey also said on Tuesday he disagreed with critics who have suggested that people hired through the flawed process should be fired or moved to different jobs.

"Two wrongs do not make a right," he said. He said it would be "unfair, and quite possibly illegal given their civil service protections, to fire them or to reassign them without individual cause."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080812/pl_nm/usa_justice_probe_dc_1

crime –noun
1. an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public
welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited.
2. criminal activity and those engaged in it: to fight crime.
3. the habitual or frequent commission of crimes: a life of crime.
4. any offense, serious wrongdoing, or sin.
5. a foolish, senseless, or shameful act: It's a crime to let that beautiful garden go to ruin.

[soonersn20xx]

http://forums.mystery-axiom.com/images/smilies/bump.gif

I was hoping some sooner law students could interject here, is this not a good case to bring back The Independent Counsel law when the atty general so grossly misinterprets what is and isn't a crime for political reasons?

[47straight]

Maybe you could start by identifing the crime that they should be charged with.

[47straight]

I'll give you a boost. Here's the law on crime, it may be more useful than the dictionary.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sup_01_18.html


While you're there, tell me if you find a crime or misdeamenor that we can impeach the president or Cheney with. ;)

[Oldnslo]

In order to successfully pursue a criminal conviction, the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crime charged. For example, for Burglary 1, you've got to show:

breaking
entering
an occupied
dwelling
with intent to commit a crime therein
by the defendant
in the proper venue

if you can't prove each element, perp walks.

Now, before we get there, the legislature has to define the activity as a crime. You can decide one morning to commit what you believe to be the crime of mopery. You can go downtown and mope to your heart's content.

But since the legislature hasn't defined mopery as a crime, you can't be convicted of anything. Sucks, huh?

Here, according to the article, there may have been violations of the civil service code, but it seems that such hasn't been defined as a "crime".

capiche?

* I didn't check the jury instructions on the elements of burg 1 prior to posting and it's been almost 20 years since I was a prosecutor, so I may have missed something, but I was merely hoping to illustrate a point.

[soonersn20xx]

http://forums.mystery-axiom.com/images/smilies/educate.gif I feel more educated now, thank you. :P

[Ike]

So lawyer peeps...clear me up on a point then. Because something in that article doesn't jive in my head.

The article states that Mukasey said: "But 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."

So, first: When is a violation of the law not a crime? Please provide a specific example to illustrate. I was thinking that perhaps jaywalking might be a good example. You will rarely get busted for it. But still, if I cross a street at a place other than a crosswalk, and some angrified cop decides to bust me, I will still have to pay the ticket. I could probably fight it, but given that I did not properly cross the road, it would probably be useless to do so. Now, I don't think I would be considered a "criminal" for jaywalking, but I seriously doubt that if I decided to take the ticket to court that the prosecutor would say "we've decided not to prosecute Mr. Ike".
Or maybe they would?

So, is that what Mr. Mukasey was saying? Did the people who used improper hiring practices to fill government offices do something akin to jaywalking?

Like I said before...I'm certainly not an expert on law. But some of the statements attributed to Mr. Mukasey don't seem to make a lot of sense to me. So any help clearing it up would be great.

TIA

[Jerk]

Is this another story about those big bad evil Republicans?

[47straight]

Ike,

The US Code is huge. HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE. Many many bookshelfs. There are laws about everything, to say nothing of the Constitution (which is just roughly a pamphlet, though.

"Breaking" these laws usually has the remedy of being stopped from breaking them. Suppose there's a law that says Post Offices are to be open on Sundays in February. Your post office isn't open; someone can sue in court to make the post office follow the law, but there hasn't been a crime. The law didn't provide a penalty. Or, for example, suppose you go to court and a trial court applies the law wrong; technically, they've "broken" the law, but they way it is fixed is that their decision is reversed on appeal. The judge doesn't go to jail, though. (arguably some should ;) )

A very small section of laws are criminal - that is, if you break these particular laws, there is a criminal penalty for breaking them. And the law has to specify with great detail what it is constitutes that crime and what the potential penalties are. For the US government, that's the section I quoted above. For reasons of procedural due process (a right everyone can agree is in the Constitution) it has to be clear what is and what isn't a crime.

[soonersn20xx]

Is this another story about those big bad evil Republicans?
I'm sure if a Democrat administration had done this, you would be singing a completely different tune. http://forums.mystery-axiom.com/images/smilies/5700365222.gif

[Frozen Sooner]

I'll give you a boost. Here's the law on crime, it may be more useful than the dictionary.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sup_01_18.html


While you're there, tell me if you find a crime or misdeamenor that we can impeach the president or Cheney with. ;)

Murder ;)

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Y2Uil4HML._SS500_.jpg

[Jerk]

I'm sure if a Democrat administration had done this, you would be singing a completely different tune. http://forums.mystery-axiom.com/images/smilies/5700365222.gif

Oh, like when Clinton took over in 1992 and fired ever single Federal Attorney and replaced them with his own ideological hacks?

btw- how old are you? 17?

[Jerk]

Here's my smiley response to your drivel:

http://dsrc.digiserv.net/forum/images/smilies/jerkit.gif

[soonersn20xx]

Oh, like when Clinton took over in 1992 and fired ever single Federal Attorney and replaced them with his own ideological hacks?

btw- how old are you? 17?
The inane ‘Clinton did it too’ defense, wasn't this hashed out already.......let's review.

The argument is premised on a mistaken understanding of how the process works. When a president takes office, he or she nominates federal prosecutors at the beginning of the first term. Under normal circumstances, these U.S. Attorneys serve until the next president is sworn in.

In 1993, Clinton replaced H.W. Bush’s prosecutors. In 2001, Bush replaced Clinton’s prosecutors. None of this is remotely unusual. Indeed, it’s how the process is designed and most incoming administrations have followed this model.

The difference with the current scandal is overwhelming. Bush replaced eight specific prosecutors in his second term, for purely political reasons that have been well documented. This is entirely unprecedented. For conservatives to argue, as many are now, that Clinton’s routine replacements for Bush 41 is any way similar is the height of intellectual dishonesty. They know better, but hope their audience is too uninformed to know the difference.

While there may not be a "crime" involved, it is definitely a moral line that has been crossed..........but I guess the only time morals mean anything is if it involves oral sex by a woman outside of your marriage and you happen to lie about it.:rolleyes:

[Blue]

I say we prosecute you for your gay *** smilie collection. :kelvin:

[tommieharris91]

Here's my smiley response to your drivel:

http://dsrc.digiserv.net/forum/images/smilies/jerkit.gif

Here's mine:
http://www.northsidebaseball.com/Forum/images/smilies/nutkick.gif

[Frozen Sooner]

Here's mine:
http://www.northsidebaseball.com/Forum/images/smilies/nutkick.gif

HORN LOVER!!!

[47straight]

Murder ;)



Heh, at least the theory corresponds to an actual penal code violation.