Attorney General tells ABA: Not every crime is a crime
It’s been about two weeks since the Justice Department’s inspector general released a report on the unprecedented politicization of employment practices at the Justice Department. The IG report concluded that disgraced officials such as Monica Goodling and former chief of staff D. Kyle Sampson “routinely broke the law” by applying political litmus tests, even when hiring prosecutors and immigration judges.
Since then, no one in the Bush administration has wanted to talk about the scandal. The good news is, Attorney General Michael Mukasey addressed the subject this morning in a speech to the American Bar Association. The bad news is, what he had to say was far from encouraging.
Initially, it seemed like Mukasey was, at long last, prepared to be candid and forthcoming.
“I want to stress that last point because there is no denying it: the system failed. The active wrong-doing detailed in the two joint reports was not systemic in that only a few people were directly implicated in it. But the failure was systemic in that the system – the institution – failed to check the behavior of those who did wrong. There was a failure of supervision by senior officials in the Department. And there was a failure on the part of some employees to cry foul when they were aware
, or should have been aware, of problems.”
Mukasey, of course, has the luxury of admonishing those who came before him, because he wasn’t in the building while Alberto Gonzales’ team was running the place into the ground.
The problem came when the nation’s chief law-enforcement officer addressed what he was prepared to do as a consequence of the DoJ’s rampant lawbreaking.
First, the AG said he’s going to keep all of those who met the standards of “loyal Bushies” who are now part of the Justice Department’s staff.
“[C]ritics have suggested that we should summarily fire or reassign all those people who were hired through the flawed processes described in the joint reports. But there is a principle of equity that we all learned in the schoolyard, and that remains as true today as when we first heard it: two wrongs do not make a right. As the Inspector General himself recently told the Senate Judiciary Committee, the people hired in an improper way did not, themselves, do anything wrong. It therefore would be unfair – and quite possibly illegal given their civil service protections – to fire them or to reassign them without individual cause.”
Second, Mukasey said he will not prosecute the DoJ employees who repeatedly and flagrantly violated the law.
Attorney General Michael Mukasey said Tuesday that the Department of Justice would not pursue criminal charges against former employees implicated in an internal investigation on politicized hiring practices.
“Where there is evidence of criminal wrongdoing, we vigorously investigate it,” Mukasey said in a speech at the American Bar Association. “And where there is enough evidence to charge someone with a crime, we vigorously prosecute. But not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime.”
Wait, not every violation of the law is a crime? Isn’t that the definition of a “crime”?
I realize that prosecutors may consider extenuating circumstances and prefer leniency, but this laissez faire attitude on the corruption of the Department of Justice is more than a little discouraging, especially from an attorney general. An entire team of people broke the law, violated the public trust, and got caught. The evidence is unambiguous.
But not every violation of the law is a crime. Here’s hoping someone puts that on a bumper sticker and sells it at the Republican National Convention — it seems to be a slogan that summarizes the GOP attitude on law-breaking.
OkieFromMuskogee
says:Mukasey should be impeached for this. But what are the odds of that?
The weasels in Bush’s Justice Department can always be prosecuted next year by the Obama Administration, unless Bush pardons them all on January 19.
Let’s start a pool: how many Bush pardons between the election and the inauguration?
Lance
says:“Wait, not every violation of the law is a crime? Isn’t that the definition of a “crime”?”
Intent.
Oh, and of course, it’s not a crime if a Republican’t does it.
Racer X
says:This is when it would be very handy to have real Democrats running our party, instead of Pelosi, Reid et al, who no doubt will “demand” answers then follow up those demands with… more demands.
There should be immediate action to defund the Justice Department until Mukasey resigns. There should be a deadline for all the “loyal Bushies” to resign by, and then they should be free to re-apply for their jobs.
But no…
Franklin
says:crime Audio Help (krīm) Pronunciation Key
n.
An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction.
Franklin
says:Wait … this one is better (emphasis mine):
Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary – Cite This Source – Share This
Crime
Crime\ (kr[imac]m), n.[F. crime, fr. L. crimen judicial decision, that which is subjected to such a decision, charge, fault, crime, fr. the root of cernere to decide judicially. See Certain.]
1. Any violation of law, either divine or human; an omission of a duty commanded, or the commission of an act forbidden by law.
Bernard HP Gilroy
says:Franklin @ 4:
Ah, that makes sense. Since in the Bush Administration no one gets punished, it must be that no one is committing any crimes…
Chris
says:…not every violation of the law is a crime.
Bushies create their own realities.
Come to think of it, that’s true for Republicans and so-called conservatives as well.
Racer X
says:Mukasey:
Well, that’s OK then. As long as the actve wrong doing wasn’t “systemic”. As long as only a few people were “directly implicated”, then I guess no one committed any crimes.
Got it.
OK, so let’s just reward the “wrong-doers” (who didn’t commit actual crimes) by leaving all those loyal Bushies in place. That won’t set any bad precedents, right?
Sweet Jebus please kill me now.
citizen_pain
says:Well if the AG says that breaking the law isn’t a crime, then I am going to walk into the local liqour store, help myself to a few half gallons of Maker’s Mark, go to the park, light up a big fatty and get drunk as hell.
After all, stealing, smoking pot, and getting drunk in public are against the law, but that doesn’t mean they’re a crime.
mikem
says:if they attempt to prosecute these people, they’ll start talking about their superiors and what they knew about what they were doing in order to plea down. Right?
Can’t have that!
Michael Seery
says:There must be repercussions. If you cannot punish Goodling and Schlozman, then you must punish someone in their chain of command.
Otherwise, what message does this send to future administrations?
syl
says:I guess I’m in the minority, but I dont’ think Mukasey should just outright fire anyone hired by Goodling et al. Some of those hires would have satisfied any legitimate requirement for the job. The fact that they also passed a second, illegal test is inconsequential.
For the crappy hires, they should be taken care of by whatever formal review process ordinarily informs all firing/reassignment decisions. If the process is working honestly (granted a big if, and something to pay attention to going foward) then all the truly bad hires will be eliminated normally.
How is firing someone for being a loyal Bushie any different from hiring someone for being a loyal Bushie?
amy
says:Speeding is a crime, sometimes.
Jaywalking is supposed to be a crime. Usually it isn’t, but sometimes it is.
Hiring illegal immigrants no matter how hard they work. No matter how genuinely nice or how much they want a better life for their children it is a crime to knowingly hire them.
Trading your Vicodin for your friend’s Viagra is a crime.
Drinking under age is a crime.
Hitting a cyclist with your car isn’t always a crime.
doubtful
says:Otherwise, what message does this send to future administrations? -Machael Seery
Simple. IOKIYAAR.
Ronald
says:I’m sure there are a lot of trial lawyers interested to know which laws, when violated, do not constitute a crime.
Shalimar
says:Mukasey needs to serve prison time as an accessory after the fact for every crime he helps Bush officials avoid punishment for.
Franklin
says:With all due respect, amy, all of those are indeed crimes (with the possible exception of hitting a cyclist which might depend on right-of-way or some other circumstance), with some of the them being selectively enforced.
If Mukasky had instead said, “not all laws are enforced,” he would have been correct. But that’s not what he said.
howard
says:syl, the problem is this: the people who got jobs under these circumstances didn’t satisfy the single most legitimate requirement for the job: by definition, we can’t know that they were the best person for the job because a potentially better candidate was excluded from consieration.
now, ok, if we were talking about the totality of the united states of america and correcting the multiple problems of equity that resulted from exclusion of blacks, jews, catholics, women, pick your own choice here, from the labor markets, ok, we wouldn’t throw everyone out of their job and start fresh.
but this is a very specific, limited body of people: by now, they have the advantage of experience on their job. they should have to reapply for the position in an open process: then we can determine whether they are the best available person for the job.
doubtful
says:How is firing someone for being a loyal Bushie any different from hiring someone for being a loyal Bushie? -syl
You’d not be firing them for their allegiances; you’d be firing them because they obtained the job illegally and unfairly. The position should be opened again and all applicants should have an equal opportunity to apply, and the most qualified candidates should be selected, regardless of affinity or affiliation.
The fact that they retain these positions without going through a legal hiring process is an affront to equal opportunity employment.
JoeW
says:If Mukasey is unwilling to do anything about the people who were hired illegally, the solution is simple. Next Jan, purge the entire DOJ of anyone hired in the past 8 years. Let them reapply if they want, but get rid of the infestation first.
thorin-1
says:I’ve said it before and I guess I’ll say it again. The only viable answer to the level and lawlessness inherent the Bush adminstration that sends the correct message and has a chance of disuading this type of behavior in the future is IMPEACHMENT. Period.
When Bush and his cronies walk out of office untouched and free to get lucrative jobs at various Republican think-tanks, lobbying firms and law offices the message to ALL future adminstrations (Republican and Democratic) will be loud and clear. The law does not apply to you so do whatever you want.
The last eight years will be recorded in history as the end of the US as a vialble constitutional government and the beginings of our descent into third world oligarchy.
RepublicanPointOfView
says:The goal was to put as many ‘good americans’ as possible into the career side of the DOJ. This goal has been met. We got rid of the liberals, the pinkos, the women, and the blacks and replaced them with good white americans.
It is great that the Civil Rights Division is now staffed primary with good americans who understand that voter fraud by blacks and poor whites is their main emphasis. To imply that these good white americans should be replaced, just because they are white, is unamerican.
It is even better when you understand that appointed U.S. Attorneys swear an oath of allegiance to the president and should be using their offices to stop voter fraud and to jail crooked democrats. Everyone knows that Christians are republican and democrats are perveyors of evil. I thank Jesus every night that President Bush is doing God’s will and fighting against the evil democrats.
JSG
says:And this is surprising… um… how?
Mukasey is just as Gonzo as his predecesor. His memory is just as flawed, his contempt for Congress, the American People, and the rule of law is just as deep as it is in the heart of every conservative.
Jim Strain
says:I’m not a lawyer, but I’m sure we must have some here who could clear this up for us. My sense is that Mukasey’s statement was basically true. Amy (at #13) pointed out some of the places where there’s a distinction. I do know that an “infraction” is not necessarily a crime. A violation of a rule, even if the rule is established by the legislature isn’t necessarily a crime.
zmulls
says:Quick question. All those recently appointed Republicans who believe that they swore an oath “to the President” (instead of to the Constitution).
When Obama takes office, will that oath still be binding? Or does their oath to Bush carry beyond the next President’s inauguration…?
EP
says:To join in on Okie’s “Pardon Pool” I will need a bit more information. How many people work for the Executive Branch?
SadOldVet
says:Before joining Okie’s ‘Pardon Pool’, I want to know if Bush can pardon himself.
Mike
says:The Democrats could have refused to confirm Mukasey. Six voted for him and four who said they would not vote for confirmation did not, in the end, even cast a vote. So these ten could have denied us the presence of this Bush apologist and mouthpiece.
They rationalized that “this is the best we will get from this administration”.
So all this whining and complaining by Democrats when Mukasey says, “not every violation of the law is a crime”, does not conjure up much sympathy from me. When you compromise your principles on a regular basis because you’re too scared to stand up then this is what you get. It was obvious from the start that Mukasey was nothing but an enabler and supporter of this administration’s lawlessness.
Next time, Democrats, show some balls and actually stand up for what you say you believe. Just another example of Democrats voluntarily handing over their testicles to George Bush. They shouldn’t act so surprised. When all you know how to do is capitulate and grovel then you get what you deserve. They’re all just a bunch of jellyfish.
Drew P
says:Although it may be hard to swallow, Syl’s position is more reasonable and practical.
The loyal Bushies hired by Goodling et. al. cannot be blamed for flaws in the process that hired them. As far as they knew, they were legally and properly hired; and they would probably have a right of action to sue for improper termination under the civil service laws if they were summarily terminated. (Besides, can’t it be said that there is always a more qualified candidate available for every job?)
If they really are incompetent, then the next set of political appointees can exercise their management skills and weed out the nonperformers. The government has enough trouble getting its work done in a timely manner; having to “start over” and fill all of these jobs again with 6 months left in this administration has numerous drawbacks. And if they really are loyal Bushies, won’t they be leaving vacancies for a Democratic administration to fill early next year anyway?
Franklin
says:Jim Strain #24 – Look at the definition of crime in #5 and my response to Amy in #17. I simply disagree that Mukasey’s statement is correct under any reasonable interpretation.
As for whether the illegally hired should be fired. Not directly. If they want to clean out the whole department and start over, fine by me.
Ashcroft, Gonzales, Mukasey. Gosh, what a bunch of losers. At least Ashcroft has shown some signs of a conscience at this point, there’s no hope for Gonzales.
Dudley
says:Everyone reading this blog should file a complaint against Goodling with the Virginia Bar Association:
http://vsbc.vipnet.org/
I also plan to file a complaint against Sampson with the Utah Bar Association. Filing a complaint in Utah is a lot more cumbersome, but I’d recommend joining me in that as well.
RandomKaos
says:RepublicanPointOfView said: ?????
Either you are a sock-puppet Troll masquerading as a repuglicun, or you really are one sick, twisted MF.
Jeebus!
William
says:Mucousy is simply a d#ck covered in sh#t. His boss tells him how to pound “law” and he’s doing his bosses bidding by Dog. So much for the “Justice Department”. I wonder if the legacy of lawlessness will continue with the Obama administration. Only 160 more days folks! Hang in there.
N.Wells
says:This could be turned into a real campaign winner for the Democrats. Bush has politicized his Department of Justice to the degree that even the Republican Attorney General admits that department wrongdoing has become system-wide, and is not just a matter of one or two misguided people acting independently. However, he doesn’t want to fire the loyal Republicans who got their jobs illegally, and he doesn’t want to prosecute the other loyal Republicans who did the illegal hirings. Why not? Because, he says, “not every violation of a law is a crime”. Apparently the result of looking at reality through loyal Republican eyes is that despite system-wide criminal corruption, he won’t punish the wrong-doers and he won’t fire the people who benefitted from the corruption. Clearly, the ONLY remaining solution is a clean-sweep removal of Republicans from public office.
Jasper
says:I wonder if “individual cause” might be a pattern of prosecution that for state and local officials targeted democrats around 80% of the time, republicans 15%. But of course, that’s what the partisans were hired to do, so maybe it’s unfair and perhaps illegal to fire a partisan hire for doing his/her job in a partisan way.
Another question for Mukasey might be how well it worked out for other Executive Branch employees who “cried foul” when they knew or should have known of wrongdoing? I think he might have said “failed to fall on their swords” when they recognized rampant corruption by appointed officials.
RepublicanPointOfView
says:RandomKaos said:
RepublicanPointOfView said: ?????
Either you are a sock-puppet Troll masquerading as a repuglicun, or you really are one sick, twisted MF.
——————————————————————————-
I would like to think that I am one sick, twisted MF. Thanks for the compliment! Of course, I could be making fun of republicans.
Dudley
says:If there are no repercussions, the Dems should use a strict litmus test for each and every hire made to DOJ once Obama’s elected. If that’s the way they want to play, let’s just go back to the spoils system.
zeitgeist
says:what Mukasey said was technically correct. a crime is a violation of a criminal law with the required level of criminal intent and in the absence of exculpating circumstances (an ambulance can break the speed limit, for example).
now, without doing the research, I suspect the Hatch Act has criminal provisions, which would mean that as to the specifics Mukasey may well be wrong, but in general I can violate any manner of civil laws, administrative regulations, etc and not have committed a crime; similarly I can inadvertently violate many criminal laws and not commit a crime because I lack the requisite intent.
this does not change the fact that Mukasey is all wrong on policy and is generally being an ass for the BushCo.
Michael Wells
says:I really hate to defend Mukasey but his statement is literally correct: not all violations of the law are crimes. Some laws, and they may include the laws governing the hiring process at the DOJ are civil laws for which there is no criminal penalty. There are penalties for violation of most civil laws (e.g., fines, suspension of or limitation on privileges) and to the extent that there are for what Goodling and Sampson did, those sanctions should be imposed.
doubtful
says:The loyal Bushies hired by Goodling et. al. cannot be blamed for flaws in the process that hired them. -Drew P
People who buy stolen goods cannot be blamed if they are unaware the good are stolen, either, but the goods are still confiscated.
…and they would probably have a right of action to sue for improper termination under the civil service laws if they were summarily terminated. -Drew P
Everyone who applied for and did not get one of those jobs can sue right now because those hiring for those positions admittedly broke the law, whether Mukasy considers it a crime or not.
(Besides, can’t it be said that there is always a more qualified candidate available for every job?) -Drew P
No, and that is beside the point. The point is fairness to all applicants and consistent application of the law.
Dee Loralei
says:I always read RepublicanPointofView as parody, and as such he/she is hillarious.
N.Wells@#34, I like what you said, that’d be a perfect soundbite.
timeoutofmind
says:blah blah blah whine whine whine — what exactly did you expect when Idiot in Chief appoints stooge to run justice …. stooge is too profoundly incompetent even for the non-existent standards of
idiot-in-chief … stooge replaced by second stooge.
and you expected stooge II to prosecute the miscreants under stooge I ?
heh.
Lance
says:thorin-1 said: “I’ve said it before and I guess I’ll say it again. The only viable answer to the level and lawlessness inherent the Bush adminstration that sends the correct message and has a chance of disuading this type of behavior in the future is IMPEACHMENT. Period.”
And the Republican’ts will be happy to agree with you. If Obama wins.
Crust
says:From the Oxford English Dictionary definition of “crime”:
” An act punishable by law, as being forbidden by
statute or injurious to the public welfare… Action of such kind viewed collectively or abstractly; violation of law.”
Max G. Swanson
says:I can’t categorically advocate for the firing of each of these new hires; however, the action of hiring on the basis of loyalty does not pass the “No intent, No crime” test.
The intent ws indeed to break with precedent and established hiring procedure; and how could Goodling, Schlosman, et al, have done the deed without knowing full well its origins and ramifications–especially the origins.
So whether it strays from the civil to the strictly criminal or not, each action in the loyalty-based hiring campaign flunks the Intent Test bigtime!
And now let’s all sit bak, relax, and watch Peter Boyle as Sen. McCarthy in “Tail Gunner Joe.”
Bruno
says:I thought pardons only work for people who have been prosecuted and have been convicted. So, I don’t think Bush could hand out pardons to people who haven’t been charged with a crime.
Although it would rather be interesting if he did, because that would mean the the Bush administration, for the first time, admits to wrongdoing.
Quatrain Gleam
says:Laws are for Democrats
DB
says:hell yeah!!! i can’t wait to hit the pipe now! it will only be illegal some of the time, because “not every violation of the law is a crime”
anon, too
says:If this was a systemic failure, then unbiased functioning of the whole personnel system is now suspect.
Congress can pass legislation that requires all career positions filled during the Bush administration to be reopened for hiring. [Who wants to be someone who people think could only get where they are because of wrong-doing on the part of the hiring department. I mean, can you imagine going for a job interview, and having the hiring partner nod sagely, and say, “Ah yes, you were appointed to your career position during that time at the DoJ. I see.”]
Look, the preferences and protections for career employees are not constitutional, they are statutory. So, Congress, amend the statute, so integrity can be restored to the DoJ hiring procedures, and thus to the personnel who make up DoJ.
Anyone currently employed in a career position who got there during the Bush administration gets to apply again, and anyone excluded from being considered by “wrong-doing” gets to apply, too, along with anybody else. Everyone starts on page one. This is not to punish anyone who got a career job. If they are the best person for the job, they will be rehired. I got a feeling that many would not reapply.
I know, it’ll never happen.
syl
says:doubtful,
1) I don’t find the stolen property analogy compelling. Who is the “true owner” of the job? The DOJ? The best candidate who applied for and did not recieve that specific job (assuming there’s an easy way to determine “best candidate”)? The best candidate who applied for and did not receive any DOJ job?
2) Even assuming those people could sue, that in and of itself is no reason to create an entire new class of aggrieved people.
As to fairness, there are all kinds of special cases to consider. What about a candidate who Goodling didn’t ask political questions because (A)she forgot, or because (B) she knew or assumed him to be a loyal bushie? What if she made a mistake and (C) incorrectly assumed someone was a loyal Bushie? A was not subject to a political test. Should he be fired because others were subject to such a test? B was subject to a political test but may not have known it. Should he lose his job? Why? C didn’t know he was subject to a test, and, in fact, if he looked at his coworkers he would assume he wasn’t subject to a political test because he beleived different things than everyone else.
joey (bjobotts)
says:“…two wrongs do not make a right….”
Is he an idiot or what? O course two wrongs don’t make a right…they make two wrongs…each one needing to be righted. You don’t add the wrongs together. It’s wrong that they did it and wrong that you’re not doing anything about it.
Next he’ll be telling us (according to my friend Nick) that “3 rights on a red make a left turn”…for as much sense as he makes at trying to bring Justice to the situation.
Mukasey goes out of his way to protect this administration to the point of being ludicrous to say violations of the law don’t mean it’s a crime. This from our chief prosecutor? He continues the tactic of “gumming it to death” till there is a regime change. This is not a man who stands for the rule of law or for justice but for Justification to protect the corruption of the Bush/Cheney regime. There can be no doubt that MuKasey acts like an attorney for a crime family and not the People’s representative. He makes a mockery of justice knowing there is nothing anyone can do about it. Only impeachment could have brought out the corruption of this regime. This is the last election if Obama loses. The consolidation of power through the SC appointments and DoJ politicization will end our democracy. Armed revolution will be our only recourse and though it would fail there is always this…”Armed revolution cannot defeat the US military…but it can efficiently remove it’s political leaders”-Anonymous.
One only has to look at MuKasey to see the future if republicans retain power. Just pathetic
RICHARD JAGIELSKI
says:WE WILL HAVE TO WAIT TIL CONGRESS COMES BACK AND SEE WHAT MUKASEY DOES ABOUT THE CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS ISSUES STILOL TO BE RESOLVED . WHEN THIS ADMINISTRATION IS OVER I AM SURE HE AND A LOT OF OTHERS WILL BE LOOKING AT JAIL TIME FOR NOT UPHOLDING THEIR OATHS OF OFFICE AND ACTUALLY VIOLATING THEM. IF WE JUST HAVE THE STRENGTH TO DO SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE AND NOT SWEEP IT UNDER THE RUG AS USUAL.BOTH CANDIDATES SHOULD COMMIT TO UPHOLD THE LAW AND CONSTITUTION WHEN IT APPLIES TO THESE AND OTHER CRIMES.
skeptic
says:I hope CB takes note of what #38 said and updates this post. It is absolutely true that not every violation of law is a crime. One enormous area, of course, is tort law. You can violate the law and be liable for millions of dollars without committing a crime — think defamation or medical malpractice. I suspect that #38 is also correct that there are some criminal provisions of the Hatch Act, but it is possible that nothing criminal happened here.
What CB and the rest of you are missing is the fact that just because something isn’t a crime doesn’t mean you can’t be punished for it by the law. If Goodling hadn’t already quit, she would be fired. She will probably be disbarred. She will probably be sued — as will the DOJ — by the job applicants who were weeded out illegally for violation of their civil rights.
Try not to get so outraged until you’re sure about what you’re saying. Not every attorney general is an ignorant d-bag like Alberto Gonzales.
joey (bjobotts)
says:btw- Goodling was not ‘qualified’ to have her job…therefore she was not qualified to be hiring others. Certainly everyone she hired should be reviewed and replaced it the determining criteria was being a loyal Bushie. They should be allowed to re apply along with all others who originally applied with determination based on qualifications and not loyalty to the party. That is fairness. It might result in some being replaced and it might not but it certainly beats what Goodling and others have done.
To do absolutely nothing is to avoid undoing the illegal damage done allowing the perpetrators to get away with it. That is being complicit in the crime… and discrimination is a crime.
Sergio
says:The corruption and disregard for the rule of law in this administration puts this country on an even (moral) ground has any other “Banana Republic”. What is the difference between the conservatives twisted legal reality and the abuses of any other third world, ($$$) power grabbing institutions we try so hard to “convert” to a democratic law abiding society?
SickofBushMcCainLiebermann
says:#22 You sir or madam, are a complete ass.
Shalimar
says:28.On August 12th, 2008 at 2:54 pm, Mike said:
Just another example of Democrats voluntarily handing over their testicles to George Bush.
How do you know it was voluntary? Bush and Cheney gave themselves virtually unlimited surveillance power even before 9/11. Do we really think some sense of decency, honor or respect for the law would prevent them from digging for blackmail material on anyone and everyone, including members of Congress and the federal judiciary?
melior
says:All but one of the officials cited in the reports for misconduct have already left the Justice Department, so they are no longer subject to any form of internal discipline.
Our hands are tied — those devious criminals resigned before we could pardon them!
Steve
says:No one will ever see a day in jail via the socio-fecal status-quo that ekes from the bodily orifices of the current regime; Bush will issue pardons on a wholesale level. The question should be as to whether this causes us to begin the Constitutional debate weighing of the power and validity of a presidential pardon.
Clearly, the Founders never imagined a criminal having unfettered access to this power; they viewed Impeachment as the proper countermeasure. But with a DoJ that won’t prosecute, and enough members in the GOP side of the Senate to quell any legislative effort, the only remaining recourse is to either (1) pursue the overall issue of “pardon legitimacy” through the courts, or (2) pursue the overt adoption of a national counterinsurgency—a “Second Revolution,” if you will.
However—and this is a big however, because I don’t Think Obama would go for it—just as Mukasey can ignore the law in favor of his master’s bidding, one could always wonder as to whether a future administration—and, in like manner, that future administration’s DoJ—would be “duty-bound” to honor any pardon, signing statement, or executive order issued by George W. Bush.
It is thus that the “ideological corporatization” of the United States Government into a bureaucratic arm of the Bush/McCain cartel—the “New Order of Neoconservatism”—is brought from its lofty pedestal to its well-deserved conclusion….
Goldilocks
says:Bruno #46:
— as in: I don’t think Bush could invade a country that hadn’t presented a threat?
Preemptive war ~ Preemptive pardon …
wayland rogers
says:“Not every violation of the law is a crime.” Where is Gilbert and Sullivan when we need really them?!
libra
says:I never expected much from Mukasey, so I’m neither surprised nor disappointed. But, I’d dearly love to have a few minutes, in private, with Schmuck Chummer, after which I’d send the senior Senator (D, NY) out to *grovel*, in public, for his lack of judgment and for his — heartfelt — endorsement of the current Prick General.
mim
says:OK, Sen. Schumer, this is the man you supported. I hope some smart, unadulterous progressive runs against you in the primaries next time.
(: Tom :)
says:1. On August 12th, 2008 at 3:40 pm, Dee Loralei said:
I always read RepublicanPointofView as parody, and as such he/she is hillarious.
Personally, RPOV sounds like a bad mother shut your mouth!
The problem to me seems to be that satire and parody are being outpaced by the physical activities of those who serve as an inspiration for satirical content. And, as such, parodies of trolls can no longer be easily identified when compared to the real thing.
Also – seriously: if the frelling Attorney General of the Frelling Ewe Ess of Eh? actually says – out loud – that not every crime (violation of the law) is a crime, that frelling AG should be Gitmotized until the gubmint can get around to impeaching his a$$.
olo
says:“But not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime.”
KEWL
I’m gonna dump this wisdom on the judge in my upcoming Speeding trial.
I got a chicken-shit ticket from a chicken-shit CHP for going 75 in a 65 on a California Freeway ! What a putz.
With that reasoning I’ve got a lock on an acquital.