Maybe he wants to go first. Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.

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.”

Wait, so we can violate the law whenever we want and it’s not a crime unless Mukasey says so?  Or is that one of those side benefits that comes along with registering as a Republican?

Not all violations of the law are crimes.  At its simplest, if a violation of the law doesn’t provide for a criminal penalty (where the government sues you seeking to impose a prison term, forfeiture, or arguably a fine), then the violation of the law isn’t a crime.  For example, many states have laws against libel and slander, but there’s no criminal penalty for violating those laws, just a civil action by the person who’s harmed.  I don’t think most people would consider violations of those laws crimes.

In the context of a government agents, there are many cases where they can violate laws but there’s no criminal penalty attached to those violations.  For example, if under current law, the FDA ordered a cigarette manufacturer to lower the nicotine in their cigarettes or be fined, the FDA clearly would be violating the law, but the FDA commissioners and attorneys would not face jail time or fines, just a court order prohibiting their actions.  Or if Congress passed a law requiring the EPA to regulate some carcinogen to make sure it wasn’t a hazard, and the EPA failed to do so, it could be sued by someone with standing for violating the law; the EPA officials would not be subject to any prison time or fines, but rather a court decision ordering them to comply with the law.

Coming to Mukasey’s statement, it basically boils down to whether there are criminal penalties attached to whatever civil service laws were violated.  If there are not, then those violations aren’t crimes.  If there are potential criminal penalties to violating those civil services, then violating them is a crime.  Of course, even if there are criminal penalties, there’s always the issue of proving all the elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

The thing is, the civil service laws were by far not the only laws violated. The corrupt sleazebags in question have also committed such crimes as perjury, lying to congress (a crime even if not under oath), obstruction, criminal contempt of congress and conspiracy. Since Mukasey has also lied to congress repeatedly (the statute covers materially misleading as well as straight counterfactual statements) he’s more in the way of a co-conspirator or an accessory than an honest prosecutor at this point.

I think February would be a good time to appoint a special prosecutor.

Boy, I’m really looking forward to Obama being elected, so the media can start trumpeting the Bush administration as the most honest, most popular presidency in history, which would never let whole cities drown, start illegal and unwinnable wars in the Middle East, or torture people for fun. OMG, have you heard about that awful Patriot Act that Obama passed?!

Uh I am so outraged…not…

How in the world is firing these worthless sacks of crap any sort of outrage? They’re mostly corrupt and worthless some are outright traitors to the American Citizen and their oaths of office examples provided:

US Attorney: DIANE J. HUMETEWA This one won’t prosecute drug dealers unless they are caught with more than 500 lbs of drugs.

US Attorney Johnny Sutton: gives illegal alien drug dealers immunity and border crossing cards and allows the drug dealer to transport thousands of pounds of drugs into the US while under immunity.

What do I care if they fire them all? They are worthless anyway, good riddance to as many of these vermin as they can round up and can. I’m sure there are plenty of ambulances to chase and gangbangers to help.

Oh yes and on Justice Department outrage:

Where are the morally outraged calls for Johnny “Haircut” Edwards to be investigated by the DOJ for his many violations of campaign finance laws? Word has it on the news that he’s funneled 8 million $$ to his Ho’bag and her handlers as hush money.

Oh that’s right the LA Times forbids anyone to blog about Haircut Edwards, father of the year and all I suppose…

I read Calderon as saying that it depends on whether or not there are criminal penalties attached to proving that a person broke a law. You can get pretty philosophical about what the law “really” is (is it a crime if there are penalties that are never enforced? That are written down but could not be enforced?) but that’s a fairly straightforward approach to explaining how something can be against the law but not a crime.

In this case, there are criminal penalties attached to their conduct, unless there’s some reason not to charge them under the “theft of honest services” provision of the mail fraud statute that escapes me. In other words, Mukasey is a crony-covering tool.

I am curious about his remark that firing all the people hired by the violators may be illegal. I’m completely in the dark about why that would be the case.

I thought for awhile, wondering what this reminded me of. This is what I finally remembered:

The press of the Spoon River Clarion was wrecked,
And I was tarred and feathered,
For publishing this on the day the
Anarchists were hanged in Chicago:
“l saw a beautiful woman with bandaged eyes
Standing on the steps of a marble temple.
Great multitudes passed in front of her,
Lifting their faces to her imploringly.
In her left hand she held a sword.
She was brandishing the sword,
Sometimes striking a child, again a laborer,
Again a slinking woman, again a lunatic.
In her right hand she held a scale;
Into the scale pieces of gold were tossed
By those who dodged the strokes of the sword.
A man in a black gown read from a manuscript:
“She is no respecter of persons.”
Then a youth wearing a red cap
Leaped to her side and snatched away the bandage.
And lo, the lashes had been eaten away
From the oozy eye-lids;
The eye-balls were seared with a milky mucus;
The madness of a dying soul
Was written on her face—
But the multitude saw why she wore the bandage.”

Oh, c’mon, people. You didn’t really expect Mukasey to do anything about this, did you?

Oh, don’t worry.  SPQR_US is just pissed because all that kind bud got let into the country, and he still only scored shwag.  And it was expensive shwag, too!

Much as I hate to side with someone you seem to think is a troll, Calderon is essentially right.  The criminal laws of the United States are set forth in Title 18 of the US Code.  I do not know what Title 18 contains, but it seems perfectly plausible that the laws that were violated were in other parts of the US Code (which means, basically, they aren’t criminal violations) or more likely the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) or even just some sort of departmentsl policies.  I’m not a federal prosecutor; I don’t know one way or another ... but it’s plausible.  So Monica Goodling might be subject to dismissal or some other internal DOJ procedure, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that, however absrurd her conduct, she’s subject to criminal prosecution.  This is not to say that I believe Mukasey, or that I think he’d prosecute if a crime had been comitted; it’s just to say that his assertion is plausible.  A federal prosecutor would have to chime in on the question whether there’s anything criminal involved (I acknowledge that perjury and obstruction might have occurred, but it’s also possible that these crimes set too high a bar with respect to the weaselly conduct that occurred.  Don’t really remember the heyday of Gonzo’s testimony at this point to say one way or another.)

“Illegal” and “criminal” are not necessarily the same thing.  There are laws against breaching contracts; this means that at some level it’s “illegal” to breach a contract but it’s still a wholly civil matter ... thankfully, breaching contracts is not a criminal offense or an awful lot of people would be at the mercy of the marshals and the prosecutors. 

Anyhow, I don’t mean to defend any louse in the administration, just trying to clarify.

We’re splitting hairs over the definition of the word “criminal,” as in criminal conduct, and “unlawful,” which is any violation of a code, statute, regulation, or administrative rule, which is what the Bushies did.

Frankly, my dears, I don’t give a damn whether there are criminal penalties for violations of civil service laws, or if the only relief an aggrieved party can get is injunctive relief (an order for them to stop breaking the law) or a civil penalty (monetary damages), or an administrative/regulatory remedy (a fine, paid to an agency).  It makes not one shit in the final analysis of things, which is that rules were broken, and the wrongdoers deserve to be held accountable for their actions.  The fact that the AG isn’t bringing criminal charges is, of course, disgraceful, if there are, in fact criminal penalties involved.  If not, an administrative/regulatory fine should be pursued.

But to basically say, “Oh, we know rules were broken, we just choose not to do anything about it” is a rules violation in and of itself.  That’s what Amanda was trying to get at in the discussion of defining who is a criminal vs. who is a ‘not criminal,’ which is basically what the AG does whenever he makes these kinds of statements.  Just because you’re not a criminal doesn’t mean you didn’t do wrong and don’t deserve to be punished for your wrongdoing.

I completely agree with Mezosub above. absolutely right my friend

“OMG, have you heard about that awful Patriot Act that Obama passed?! “

I think that the single strongest thing that Obama could do - messy beyond measure though it would be, would be during his opening 30 or so days to hold a press conference or national speech reminding people of all the things that are now “legal” for the White House to do, and assuring the country that he will use those powers responsibly, and that we don’t need to worry about things like oversight or reporting, such as wiretapping anybody he wants, detaining and holding people without charges, issuing signing statements exempting himself from laws, and such. And that he feels perfectly free to do all of those things until and unless the laws get changed. Then wait a beat and ask Congress to get on it.

Hooey, would those laws get repealed fast.

It isn’t racist to discuss illegal aliens by their internationally and US legal definition. That is just a matter of law. The problem isn’t with them or the DOJ in this case per se it is the rule of law.

You can’t have the rule of law where laws exist and some people follow them and some don’t and there is no consequence for violation. If you allow that to happen the fabric of our society starts to unravel and we end up in upheaval or something like the thrid world level of coruption.

On this blog we can disagree or agree and our right to free speech is protected. What if the US didn’t protect Free speech by Law or what if we had “Free Speech” laws like many leftist countries: Free Speech in Cuba or Russia means free to speak in line with the Governement and dissent is punished and violators jailed. In China people who speak out are imprisoned, enslaved and eventually their organs are parted out.

In our country now we have illegal aliens swarming across or borders and they rape pillage and murder. Additionally they steal the ID’s of Americans and which ruins the life of the American victim and is a FELONY. Why in the world then should anyone care about any law or especially what happens to the US Attorney? It is the job of the US Attorney to protect American Citizens and they aren’t doing that. Whether it is illegal aliens felons, or criminal corporations like the central valley growers, American Apparel, or the hospitality industry. I’m paying higher taxes to support al these free loaders with 100% free medical, dental, housing, and education. Of course the prisons in California are now more than 36% filled with illegal alien gangbangers and other illegal alien criminals.

So why in the world should anyone care if some prancing worthless US Attorney gets canned? Gavin Newsom was running a gangbanger air charter service illegally out of San Francisco and even after a whole family got gunned down the worthless slug US Attorney there has done NOTHING.

What is racist is that certain people who are illegal aliens are able to commit crimes and kill Americans of any race with impunity and if this is questioned scream that race is a factor in their being asked to follow the rule of law.

All I ask is that at some point that you at least consider what you value about the rule of law and what it might be protecting you from. As in the case of Free Speech, the ones riding high in the saddle one day demanding it’s curtailment may find themselves the next under its hooves…

I prefer a free and open society and the guarantee of the rule of law and free speech. Jusitce for all or Justice for none.

MikeEss—what I’m saying is there not all violations of the law are crimes, whether a violation of the law is a crime depends on whether the statutory law provides criminal penalties for its violation, and so Mukasey’s statement that not all violations of the law are crimes is correct.  Of course, that leaves open various questions about this particular case, including whether the civil service laws the joint report found were violated provides for criminal penalties.  I’m sure some legal bloggers will let us know, or at least make arguments about, whether there are criminal penalties for violating those laws.

For Mezosub’s point, the next question becomes are there ANY penalties attached to violating these civil service laws.  For all I know, and all anyone has said, the answer may very well be no.  In that case, there’s not much Mukasey could do besides going to court to get an injunction that the Justice Department follow those laws.  That would seem awfully damn strange for the head of a department to ask a court to order him to do something, and in any case would not provide punishment for those who previously broke the laws.

Also,“But to basically say, “Oh, we know rules were broken, we just choose not to do anything about it” is a rules violation in and of itself,” is wrong unless you’re talking about the “rules” you think ought to govern instead of those that actually exist.  Prosecutors have discretion under the American system of law, and don’t violate any rule by deciding not to bring a case for whatever reason, whether lack of evidence, a decision that there are mitigating factors, or any reason at all (and nothing requires them to give a reason for not bringing a case).

You can’t have the rule of law where laws exist and some people follow them and some don’t and there is no consequence for violation.

Right.
Exactly.
Now, apply that statement equally to US citizens, illegal immigrants, and members of the Justice Department, and we’ll have us a serious conversation here.

MikeEss—Amanda’s post (and others I’ve seen responding to Mukasey’s speech) all criticize the not all legal violations are crimes line.  If what these bloggers mean to say, or what you think they ought to say, is that there should be criminal punishments for violating these laws, great, then let’s talk about that.  Let’s talk about how much the penalties should be, and precisely what conduct should be criminalized.

But if (and as I said before, that’s a big if) there were no criminal penalties attached to their conduct before, then trying to prosecute them now would (guess what) violate the law, specifically the ex post facto clause (though a prosecutor’s violation of that constitutional provision would not be criminal).  Seems odd to criticize Mukasey for not prosecuting people who did not commit a crime, unless (again) there’s some argument to be made that there are criminal penalties for the alleged civil service law violations, which I haven’t yet seen anyone make.

It isn’t racist to discuss illegal aliens by their internationally and US legal definition.

The legal term is “undocumented workers”, jackass.