I Hate to Say I Told You So…
In May of last year, I questioned whether, after Monica Goodling won immunity, we’d get anything from giving her immunity.
And as today’s article explains, in that role she has done a number of things that clearly violate federal employment practices. She has denied promotions to people who appear to be Democrats, has asked partisan questions in interviews for career positions, and she asked one nice Republican if he had ever cheated on his wife.
We’re about to excuse Monica all of these actions–actions which span six years of efforts to politicize DOJ–and in so doing, ensure that the IG investigation into these activities may expose further illegalities, but no actionable way to hold Goodling accountable for them. And what are going to get in exchange? What higher up is she going to deliver us, with her immunized testimony?
And in August of last year, I pointed out that all of the people who had politicized our government had resigned from the Administration–and therefore given the Administration immunity for having turned our government into an instrument of the Republican party.
by The Washington Post, enlisting political appointees at every level of government in a permanent campaign that was an integral part of his strategy to establish Republican electoral dominance.
[snip]
Investigators, however, said the scale of Rove’s effort is far broader than previously revealed; they say that Rove’s team gave more than 100 such briefings during the seven years of the Bush administration. The political sessions touched nearly all of the Cabinet departments and a handful of smaller agencies that often had major roles in providing grants, such as the White House office of drug policy and the State Department’s Agency for International Development.
Well, so what? What are you going to do about it?
See, for the most part, we’re talking about civil Hatch Act violations. And the punishment for civil Hatch Act violations? To be fired from your job. Shall we review the names of those most involved in leading this process?
- Karl Rove
- Sara Taylor
- Scott Jennings
- Barry Jackson
- Ken Mehlman
- Susan Ralston
Rove, Taylor, Mehlman, and Ralston are gone, and Jackson is rumored to be leaving. Add in Monica Goodling, who only admitted to her massive Hatch Act violations after she resigned. So how are you going to hold the White House responsible for its massive Hatch Act violations, if the people involved have already mooted the only punishment available?
Today, Michael Mukasey announced no one would be charged for having politicized DOJ’s hiring process, not even Monica Goodling.
Former Justice Department officials will not face prosecution for letting improper political considerations drive hirings of prosecutors, immigration judges and other career government lawyers, Attorney General Michael Mukasey said Tuesday.
Mukasey used his sharpest words yet to criticize the senior leaders who took part in or failed to stop illegal hiring practices during the tenure of his predecessor, Alberto Gonzales.
But, he told delegates to the American Bar Association annual meeting, "not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime. In this instance, the two joint reports found only violations of the civil service laws."
Understand: Mukasey has turned into a terrible shill for the Administration. But it has been clear for over a year that the Administration would escape criminal charges for having committed massive violations of the Hatch Act. But that has more to do with the Hatch Act than with Michael Mukasey. Even a Democratic AG would have a hard time charging this stuff, given the stated penalties for civil Hatch Act violations.
The Hatch Act gives citizens no real recourse for the politicization of our government. And the loyal Bushies know this. After all, by all appearances, they’re still committing Hatch Act violations.
What kind of signal is Mukasey sending?
Unfuckingbelievable….
Pour me a drinky
I believe the signal is an extended second finger from a hand otherwise held in a fist.
Chuck Schumer – any thoughts?
Yeah, how about this? That if you want to complain, talk to Conyers, not Schumer. Schumer was already collecting evidence of Goodling’s work when Conyers offered her immunity. And we got nothing for that immunity.
True, but Chuckie gave us Mukasey in the first place. I would feel better about Mukasey’s handwringing over the ineffectiveness of the Hatch Act if he weren’t stonewalling everything else as well.
Schumer and Feinstein gave us Mukasey. During one of Mukasey’s testimony I thought Senator Whitehouse talked about Goodling and others losing their ability to practice Law (or the butchery of the law)?
Are these some of the butchers of the law that John Dean was referring to when he wrote that piece about the impeachment of lower level officials?
As Bay state liberal points out “unfuckingbelievable”
The fragment of faith in our justice system just took another dive. How low can the American people’s faith in congress, the executive branch and our Justice system go? The devil is smiling.
‘Chuck Schumer – any thoughts?’
Thank you. The Dems Should have left the AG post vacant rather accept Giuliani-groupie Mukasey – both to make a statement, and because it was obvious that the only nominees that Bush would agree to would be fascists.
Heartwarming, idn’t it, Senator Di?
He’s sending a signal that there need to be criminal penalties for Hatch Act violation. Even a Democratic AG would be unable to charge this stuff.
So, what about the false statements? Any AG could pursue that, maybe even against Goodling if you make out the argument that she voided her agreement, no?
I’m very skeptical anyone made false statements with the possible and significant exception of Mercer. And maybe Elston.
Monica said nothing until she had immunity, then she basically told us what Glenn Fine did.
Sampson admitted the immigration judges had been politicized. That’s all Fine tied him to directly (one might try to build a case on the difference between OLC’s insistence that they hadn’t told Sampson it was legal and Sampson’s contention they had–but that’s a tough case to make given you don’t have the evidence that Sampson did it intentionally.
I agree that false statements might be possible against Mercer (though fraught with the same evidentiary probs as with Sampson) and Elston, but I’m not sure the evidence is there.
None of the hooligans broke:
Title VII (Discrimination) with failure to comply with Federal Guidelines
on hiring?
OT – Plame lost. Cheney and all skate, not that we expected anything different. A taste of how abuses at Guantanamo are going to go down:
Sovereign immunity.
Oops. Bad link for Plame. Here http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200…..plame_dc_1
That is simply not a sane statement.
I was quoting the Yahoo story. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200…..plame_dc_1
Maybe this will be easily overturned?? I agree that it is not a sane statement: how did Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib get put in there? I am obviously not a lawyer.
Oh, I knew you were, sailmaker — I did find the corrected link and read the story. And I know — tossing GTMO into that decision was a jaw-dropper for me too.
It seems to me a problem on two scores: it is the Nuremberg defence, which I don’t think can stand up in international law; and then it seems to be saying that U.S. government employees may have official duties that are contrary to the law or to U.S. national security.
I mean, I guess we all know that some did, but affirming that in a court decision? To me, that takes us all right down the rabbit hole.
And Skdadl too – This will be next to impossible to overturn, this decision was pretty much a foregone conclusion considering the posture the case went to appeal from due to the plaintiff’s pleading of the case and Bates’ contorted framing of his opinion. I would be shocked if the SCOTUS even granted certiorari. This turkey is done, put a fork in it. And, also, the language everyone is so offended by (me too) is likely complete dicta.
‘language so offending us…complete dicta’
pray, say more?
Y’know, the ironies in that statement just keep on surfacing. In a sense, is the judge not saying that “there was no underlying crime”? Ok, Mr Fitzgerald and Judge Walton, there was obstruction and perjury, but there was no crime?
Cheney and Libby wasted their time doing the cover-up? Is that what we are to think?
also, the language everyone is so offended by (me too) is likely complete dicta.
Translation for us non-lawyers, please?
no kidding.
just how does committing an unlawful act not qualify as a crime? and how does doing something contrary to the national security not qualify as treason?
can i use this argument for the next time i’m pulled from the security line at the airport?
on a more serious note, this actually may get to the crux of the matter, however inadvertently.
while attempting to protect low-level government employees (which apparently means everyone but the prez and VP??), AND to protect the ability of leadership to manipulate those employees (to protect our national security? i smell a contradiction brewing), especially troops, we have to insure that those good soldiers will do what they’re told, no matter what the law is. if we remove any threat of prosecution of them, up to the highest reaches of leadership who are giving the official orders, then we lessen the likelihood of chaos among the ranks, but also lessen those lower ranks’ exercising anything like a conscience.
so, in order to maintain order by controlling all those in the rank and file (up-creep to the veep, evidently), and thereby national security, we must allow these rank and file (again, up-creep to the veep) to actually violate laws and threaten national security, on command.
i’m feeling all dizzily and fuzzily more safe and secure already. please pass the pablum.
Oh, it’s sane, it’s just a completely authoritarian conception of the state. Following orders is an excuse, if they’re American orders.
This is a disgraceful decision.
There’s that “official duties” again.
Hmmmm.
Weren’t these actions also considered to be “Official Duties?”
ABC Evening News for Friday, Feb 16, 1973
Headline: Cally Conviction
Abstract:
(Studio) Army review court upholds conviction Lieutenant William Cally.
REPORTER: Harry Reasoner
The My Lai Massacre
The incident prompted widespread outrage around the world. The massacre also reduced U.S. support at home for the Vietnam War. Three U.S. servicemen who made an effort to halt the massacre and protect the wounded were sharply critizised by US Congressmen, received hate mail, death threats and mutilated animals on their doorsteps.[5] Only 30 years after the event were their efforts honored.[6]
Maybe we should add Lurita Doan to the list of wolves who have left the chicken coop?
At what point does it become perfectly rational to conclude that “blackmail” is the most likely reason for the complicit behavior of the Democrats – and their failure to uphold their sworn constitutional obligations?
You do realize that they no longer have any power, right?
When things happen that are otherwise inexplicable, plug “blackmail” into the equation and see if that helps you figure out what’s really going on.
Marcy, you and my wife just love to tell me “I rtold you so …”
Incidentally, what no one seems to be talking about is whether John Nowacki has been fired. Last we heard, he is over in Iraq hiding out. But there’s definitely cause to fire him. So what’s up with that?
He’s in Iraq, he has immunity! Okay, seriously, no clue. I kind of differ, I think there are chargeable cases for false statements, maybe obstruction. Now that, of course, doesn’t reach the fact that there is no one to prosecute them.
I can’t believe that there was nothing about Sara Taylor’s testimony (especially re Tim Griffin and Bud Cummins) that can’t be followed up. I mean, there were two problems: first, what actually was done to Cummins, which is surely an offence (although maybe we’re waiting for the next IG report to talk about that topic?) and about which Taylor testified evasively; and second there were the shaky claims of privilege, which are maybe not her problem but they must be someone’s.
Mukasey’s statement relates only to the two IG reports we’ve seen so far. Sara Taylor’s name, above, is there in relation to her efforts to make sure govt resources went to advance Republican electoral chances.
In other words, everything in this post relates only to the Hatch Act violatoins. I agree, Taylor, Sampson, Elston, Mercer, and Oprison are not out of the woods on this.
Ok.
About Judge Sentelle’s decision, maybe I’m getting too worked up about this, and I’m NAL and NAA, but is there any activity that that decision doesn’t authorize? I mean, does that get Haynes off the hook, eg? Yoo? Isn’t that retroactive immunity for just about everybody? Did Congress need to bother passing the FISA amendments?
Ah, now I see. I was lumping more stuff in the equation than you were. Then I agree completely; there were never going to be Hatch Act prosecutions, the law just isn’t there. However, I think Mukasey is extrapolating this umbrella out to shield all the other associated things to; i.e. there won’t be any prosecutions of these folks on any of it. And that is what I take offense to.
So, why isn’t that Conspiracy to Defraud the United States in the sense of Taft’s Hammerschmidt opinion? (See #51 for full text.)
Does this mean that I am exonerated from following laws and that if caught I won’t be prosecuted?
This may have more repercussions on the rule of law (or whatever was left of it anyway) than the attack on habeas corpus.
Fear not. If this election results in losses for them, the Republics will once again champion law-and-order and disparage ‘activist judges’.
I know they will, but where are Democrats in all this?
Unfortunately for you, Mukasey’s words at a Bar Association confab are not precedential. So…good luck with that.
I don’t want the Hatch Act made tougher – at least, until after all the Republican/conservative deadwood is removed from government.
If I were appointed to OPM in an Obama administration I’d make sure there were special intensive reviews of the performance of every government employee hired or promoted since January 2001, with the presumption that they were violating the civil service laws. Since it would be an administrative decision, they would have to prove their innocence.
Then I’d create a list of everyone who promoted others, and determine who they promoted and who they denied promotion. Such a list would expose the worst offenders of politicizing the government. Those individuals would either be fired or transferred to Nome Alaska, soon to become the largest collection of (frozen) Republicans in the federal government. They could collect the tolls on the Bridge to nowhere.
Mukasey’s right. Two wrongs don’t make a Right. All they have to do to avoid investigations of incompetence and politicization of the civil service is to prove they are innocent. But the presumption is that anyone who was hired, fast-tracked to promotion or promoted more than once in the last seven years is that they are guilty of politicizing the civil service. Especially lawyers.
That is an interesting theory. i would still like to see a couple of the most egregious gone after, perhaps Mercer and Sampson (with a good look at Oprison, but I think he is probably an elusive, if culpable, target here). Beyond that, I like your suggestion if it can be exercised within the civil service framework, which I am not all that familiar with.
sheez. way too much work for my blood. i’d just fire each and every one of them and start from scratch. honestly, it appears that would be the most efficient way to do it. less time-consuming, and less risk of viruses and moles still lurking about.
One can hope for disbarment. I think she reneged on her part of the immunity agreement, and should be prosecuted but that’s in a real world not cheneysville.
disbarment
disbarment
disbarment
I wonder where the line is between these not-crimes and real crimes is? How close can you get up to the Line and not be considred having crossed it? I think he has just left alot of uncertainty of what is criminal and what isn’t. Mukasey can’t seem to see past the end of his nose as to what kind of consequences there will be with these kinds of decisions.
He probably didn’t want Goodling fingering Gonzo.
the Bush Administration has made a mockery of the Justice Department.AG Mukasey doesn’t work for the people of this country but for the Republican President and his Administration. How sad. Someone should have told the AG that he and his dept. work to protect the law not the law breakers.
The question is what kind of idiots are all of the Dems that confirmed him? I don’t think anyone had any doubts that Mukasey would just rubber-stamp WH orders.
Just want to be prepared…and thank you very much E.W for spitting in our bowl of righteousness soup. Damn. I wish you weren’t right so darn often.
So what’s the next fascist move coming down the bike?? My kids went back to school today and the aspens are turning…well, they will before too long.
Third week of September above 8,000′ = paradise
Well, the aspens turn in northern minnesota around the second week of sept.
So, it’s coming…and I heard that they are all connected at the roots : )
root of all evil that is.
The only real remedy is impeachment – and Pelosi already took that off the table.
Please, God, let Sheehan win the election over Pelosi….
Can’t someone else be elected Speaker? Meaning maybe we don’t have to have Sheehan bump Pelosi, but maybe get someone else to put impeachment (which I gather can be done after people left office but I could be wrong) back on the table?
by then Bush will be gone and it will be too late
I believe – but could be wrong – one can be impeached after one leaves office, so one never holds office again. Bush wouldn’t care, but a few of the minions might care if they got impeached.
It is important to bump Pelosi for the education of the rest of the Democrats in Congress.
Yeah all you Californians. Work to get Pelossi out of D.C. Anything is better.
She deserves a huge thanks from Bush for her support.
Correct–and we should have started that when Bush failed to fire Lurita Doan when she was caught violating the Hatch Act.
At this point I don’t know what hurts me more: the original crime or Mukasey’s refusal to prosecute it. It just stinks, stinks, stinks to high heaven.
And, I agree; it’s pretty damned hard to see how “official duties” can include outing a covert agent of the U.S. government to the press.
“official duties” under the Bush administration includes treason, immoral and illegal wars, torture , illegal wiretapping, politicizing the Justice system and so much more.
This is the twisted type of justice Mukasey supports
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..&NR=1
How low can we go?
And lack of prosecutions isn’t the only problem!! The next administration inherits a federal bureaucracy staffed at high and medium levels throughout with Bush TRUE BELIEVERS in protected civil service positions. Though they were hired in violation of federal hiring laws, it may be tough to get rid of them. They infest the workings of the government, able to thwart law and policy for years.
Compounding this is the studied neglect of agency budgets in the belief that less government is good and to fund the wars. Further, decent workers have been forced out. Those who ethically insisted on following the laws have been forced out on many trumped-up excuses.
Can citizens bring a Hatch Act violation action?
What if the next administration rehired all the fired (good) people? and made those rehires the department heads, etc?
Then they can wait for the Bushbots to make mistakes and fire with cause.
I’d also be willing to pay extra in taxes to cover any legal fines for the new DoJ’s firing the Bushbots without cause. Good riddance.
PW’s up at the mothership
“News That’s Being Shoved Aside for Yammerings about a Former Politician”
as if we’re surprised that ew told us so.
when ew talks, we listen.
Sophistry, not patriotism, is “the last refuge of scoundrels; the tyrant’s first resort”.
Under Mr. Mukasey, administering the policies of Cheney and Bush, the standard for service in the Department of Justice — in order to have the equitable and moral foundation to accuse and punish others — is not to be purer than Caesar’s wife. It is not to comply with the spirit as well as the letter of the law, or to temper it with mercy (or justice or practicality). It is not even to defend the Constitution, much of which, Mr. Mukasey needs reminding, deals with civil, not criminal relations — the freedoms of religion, speech and assembly, the right peaceably to petition one’s government and the right to the equal protection of the law.
No. The standard for service threefold: i) never to talk out of school; ii) never let an opportunity for private profit be lost attempting to pursue a public good; and iii) never commit a crime with such obviousness that it can’t be excused by shameless arguments or a Presidential pardon.
To paraphrase* another travesty of government: Mr. Mukasey, by sins of omission and commission, you have done more harm than any possible good, to your reputation, the Department of Justice and American law and government. In the name of God, go!
_____
* The original, by Oliver Cromwell in 1653, is worth reading for its uncanny description of today’s Georgian politics:
http://famous-speeches-and-spe…..iament.htm
(Spelling, punctuation, original; emphasis added.)
A shorter knockoff of Cromwell:
Pithy is good, pithier is better. Especially as Amery was a contemporary of Churchill and a longtime Conservative, where Churchill had crossed the aisle twice.
What a brilliant plan. Violate so many protocols, rules, laws, etc. in unpunishable ways that common decency will demand that protocols, rules, laws are made more stringent….then hand off the reins to your Democratic successor.
Conspiracy to “defraud” the United States is a federal felony. In Hammerschmidt, Chief Justice Taft, defined “defraud” as follows:
BRING ‘EM TO JUSTICE !!!
18 USC 241
It is possible this could be applicable to the conduct described in the report in that there was a clear conspiracy between two or more people (Monica and Sampson at a minimum, but there are many more) to deny job candidates for the various positions discussed the benefit of the civil service rules and regulations promulgated in both the USC and CFRs (those would, um, constitute “laws of the United States”). Now, it is my recollection that the caselaw has set some precedent in the way of interpretive restrictions on the conduct that applies, but assuming that could be distinguished appropriately (recollection is fuzzy, but I think it can; not positive) then in addition to the above discussion, this may be a viable path. The problem is that there is, again, no one to prosecute it.
I think I have mentioned this before myself…a conspiracy to commit a hatch act violation. Let’s get moving on that!!
I’m told that there are cases where it is a felonly to conspire to perpetrate a non-felony. Would conspiracy to violate the Hatch Act fall into that category?
If, as cautioned above, there is not a line of cases restricting the application here; then yes, I think it would apply even to non-crimes like discrimination on the basis of color, religious preference etc. The face of the statute is pretty inclusive. There are, however, a lot of hidden pitfalls in these type of conspiracy cases. But they do get used to prosecute things that really need to be, and otherwise are slipping through the cracks. For instance, there are instances in police beatings of minorities where sympathetic prosecutors and white juries inexplicably fail to bring justice to the perpetrator cops, and the DOJ comes in under this conspiracy statute to prosecute them for conspiracy to deny civil rights.
Ron Suskind doing a live chat now on WaPo, if anyone wants to pose a question.
Quote…”not every wrong or even every violation of the law is a crime” unquote! From the lips of Moocrazy. The law is only for Dems to obey…it’s the law!
Is this what Rove meant by “discernible reality?”
Russian Cameraman: CNN Aired Misleading Footage:
Broadcaster showed Georgian forces attacking South Ossetia, claimed it was Russians attacking Gori
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ru…..ge.htmlThe Georgian assault on Tskhinvali, described as an act of genocide and a war crime by Russian officials and other eyewitnesses, led to the slaughter of at least 2,000 civilians. The fact that Georgia, backed by the U.S. and Israel, were responsible for the provocation that led to the Russian response, has been buried by the majority of western corporate media.
D.C. Appeals Court Chief Judge David Sentelle:
Shorter Sentelle: “They were just following orders.”
Here you go:
Aha. Maybe that makes me calm down a bit. Should that make me calm down a bit?
If not that, then I recommend fine alcohol.
Thanks, bmaz. The remarks are still highly offensive, just not quite as alarming (due to not being legal reasoning relevant to the case, or precedent).
Sigh! And no way to fire the fools that they hired, either.
fascism?
Scott Horton’s take on this is word reading, as always.
Actually, I meant that it is worth reading. It’s probably word reading, too.
Part of this, it seems to me, is administration figures attempting to afford protection beyond the transition to a different administration. Regarding that future, in nonDOJ contexts, I have read the following two commentaries: Carol Rosenberg’s annotation of the plusses in Allred treatment of Hamdan at the end of the very recent trial, in an article she published yesterday; an extended review of Bolton’s path to his putative zenith in diplomatic circles, and the import of his intentions if appointed to a nonvetted post in some future Republican administration, written in Boston Review upon publication of his recent book, posted at Stanford’s CISAC webpage, the international security site, July 2008.
Mukasey’s accountability doctrine: “It is the system that failed; the perpetrators were just following orders.”
This bogus defense/excuse didn’t work very well for the Nazis at Nuremburg who claimed to be just “following orders.” I guess Bu$hCo just has the technique of being fascists down much better than Adolf and Hermann and the bois.
You are mixing apples and oranges here by conflating criminal war crime prosecutions with civil tort liability for damages actions by a citizen against their sovereign government. This is fallacious analogy, and should not be made. I am not very fond of the historical standards and thresholds that have been long set out for allowing the presumptive (qualified) immunity in these types of cases (that is a gross understatement; I have been gutted by them on multiple occasions), however, this decision is very predicable if you do know and understand the law and history in such actions. It would have been truly shocking if it went any other way.
But wasn’t Sentelle the person who invited the mixing of apples and oranges with that bizarre reference to GTMO? I understand your position re Plame’s civil suit, but I thought we’d agreed that Sentelle was editorializing wildly there. (Interesting career Sentelle has had, btw. Yes, I confess that I looked at the wiki.)
Yes, I suppose he did; it was a clumsy and extremely poor way to illustrate his point. But the way I read it, and I may of course be wrong, his point is much narrower and of a different character than you are considering it. I think. Sentelle is a very conservative, Silberman like guy. The real hell of this case is that,if the plaintiffs Plame-Wilson had been able to get discovery, I think they could have developed enough facts to meet the burden of establishing that Cheney, Libby, et al.’s actions were indeed outside of the course and scope. Once they were denied discovery, the case was pretty much done.
Jesus H. Christ, AG Mukluk…
“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.”
If you don’t think this bit of crapcover for BushCo hasn’t gotten certain folks’ attention, then you are stupid blind.
Welcome back, MarieRoget. Sorry it wasn’t for something more fun.
Good evening, Marie.
My manners, skdadl. Good evening. Always reading pogge as well.
Thanx, pdaly & skdadl. In ‘n out right now because of other things, but always reading here each day.
If it was good enough for the Nazis, it is good enough for the Bush Administration.
Godwin can bite me.
-G
Mukasey hasn’t “turned into” if you mean evolved anything.
Those of us who followed his dispicable behavior on the bench in the he SDNY know he has not changed a scintilla.
We criticized the stupidity of Schumer and Feinstedin vigorously when they endorsed him heartily and voted for him. I don’t know what they were smoking, but it was damn good stuff.
The only satisfaction you get as to Goodling is that she’s stuck with the mush brain she has. It’s not going to be transplanted in her lifetime.
As to the others, you have a balless Congress. If they had balls, Rove would have been incarcerated via inherent contempt.
Conyers and Waxman can write letters and hold hearings ’til the cows come home.
Mukasey probably is building a scrapbook out of the scores of letters he ignores from them or has someone draft a “fuck you” answer.
Thanks, EW–
Sounds to me like this is a case where the Hatch Act needs to be amended to provide for criminal penalties. It may be too late to nail this bunch of sad sacks, but it is not too late to send a strong signal to future DOJs that there’s more at stake here, and that violations will have severe consequences.
Bob in HI
A better amendment would be one to permit the firing of any person hired in a Hatch Act violation.
An excellent suggestion!
Bob in HI
Don’t necessarily disagree, but this is punishing the wrong person, the beneficiary, not the perpetrator.
I don’t understand how a violation of a law isn’t a crime.
Johnathan Turley will help you with that “concept” on KO.
Let me rephrase for Mukasey:
“Crimes committed by the Bush administration will go unpunished. They are part of the monarchy. You are part of the unwashed scum. Let you eat cake.”
And thank your gutless democrats who could have incarcerated Rove, Miers, and Bolten long ago.
Vote Cindy Sheehan against the Pelossi machine! Pelossi is scum from California.
Schumer to Mukasey ” I find these answers extremely disappointing”
Mukasey…silence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..re=related
Pelosi, Feinstein, Schumer have to go.
They never should have been. Schumer is a pompous windbag and Schumer is for whatever helps Schumer not the country.
Pelossi is a characature of herself. She is a walking Saturday Night Live skit and the country has the lack of democracy its apathy deserves in both of them.
Schumer is over 21 and he passed the NY bar. He knew damn well what Mukasey did on the SDNY bench when he rounded up scores of people who had done nothing as material witnesses. But he still lavished praise on him at SJC and backed him to the hilt. Now ask Schumer what he installed as AG and how it differs from Sylvio Dante from The Sopranos.Mukasey also made a fool of himself trying to diagnose blunt abdominal truama from the bench when he couldn’t tell his belly button from a Windows Start Button.
Part of the confusion is hearing the United State’s chief law enforcement officer excuse his own staff’s illegal behavior because they have only broken civil laws or petty criminal laws. That is, where they don’t commit rape, murder and pillage. He wants us to forget that his DOJ refuses to enforce laws against such uniformly condemned acts in Iraq, for example, where his DOJ has exclusive jurisdiction to enforce them.
Serious violations of social norms are dealt with in the criminal law. Where the state’s, ie, the public’s, interest in prohibiting or regulating the behavior is deemed so great that it punishes the behavior by taking away a transgressor’s money, liberty or life. Civil law violations sometimes involve the government – on behalf of the people (a representative capacity neocons ignore or disparage) – but more often involve disputes between individuals or groups, ie, non-state actors.
Murder endangers us all. A typhoid sufferer’s disregarding public health norms does too. As do robbery, dangerous driving, certain kinds of fraud, etc.
Mr. Mukasey comments do the DOJ and the rule of law an enormous disservice.
When you want to break the law, become an employee of DOJ.
DOJ will not prosecute you–they may fire you at the worst.
Under new Section 530B of title 28 of the United States Code (Section 530B or the McDade Act), effective April 19, 1999, all federal government lawyers will for the first time have to comply with the rules of professional conduct for the state(s) in which they practice.
While up to the last nanosecond, SJC had promised the DOJster lobbyists for which you pay millions in taxes, that this MdDade Act would be abolished in the retooling of the “Patriot Act” it still exists (they had the rug pulled from them by Laehy. However, no Bar Association will take action against them including the state of California.
That’s the best bunker from which to break the law in the US.
Despite the cluck clucking, neither Christy Hardin Smith nor LHP LHP LHP have been able to illustrate one single instance where a DOJster has had action taken against them by a state bar association, including West Virginia or New York, despite a law passed reafirming that this could happen at of all places the Patriot Act Reauthorization.
I have pinpointed this several times.
And aside from tax prosecutions or child molestation prosecutions, they don’t get prosecuted federally or state.
You haven’t seen any bar action against Goodling or Sampson have you?
CREW did file bar complaints against Esther Slater McDonald and Michael Elston, and not jack shit happened from their Bar Association.
July 7, 2008 CREW Files Bar Complaints Against Former DOJ Officials Esther Slater McDonald and Michael Elston–Not Jack Happens
Not diddly jack squat happened. Welcome to the State Bars of the USA when it comes to DOJ employees or former DOJ employees. It’s called looking the other way for special people.
Welcome to the Bannana Republic USA, Nancy Pelossi Speaker of the House ($10,000 on her mangy back at all times).
They fix their traffic tickets. And when they get stabbed to death or murdered in the middle of gambling debts/lewd women or both, it gets removed from MSM.
The federal law all state bars ignore as well as their own “rules or standards” and state laws:
TITLE 28 > PART II > CHAPTER 31 > § 530B § 530B. Ethical standards for attorneys for the Government
28 USC § 530B is enough of a cite.
Photography as a Weapon
Errol Morris NYT Blog Zoom
“Osama who?”
Welcome to the “Osama Who” phase of the globalist agenda. This is the part where Israeli and US mercenaries coerce Georgia’s military to commit genocide in Georgia in order to provoke an apparently “disproportionate attack.”
This is the part where the “news” cycle is overwhelmed by all manner of political, sexual and cultural distractions, ensuring once and for all the the 9/11 attacks, Osama Bin Laden and the Anthrax attacks are simply forgotten by a public that Karl Rove deems to be too lazy and too stupid to keep track of reality.
Karl Rove.
To argue the contrary case: Mukasy is truly opaque–in his style, his words, his deeds (or so I find them). To borrow a phrase of Edgar Allan Poe’s, “he doesn’t let himself be read”–least of all when he does enraging things (because they belong to a series of acts whose aim is not declared).
Supposing that this may be so, how can we be entirely sure that Mukasy isn’t devising a set of procedures and codes that will seal off the DoJ from the White House for the next 10,000 years (allowing that such a thing could be done in the space of six or seven months)?
I’m not a lawyer, and lawyers may know that this eventuality would be impossible on a purely technical level–in which case Mukasy’s opacity would hold no interest for them at all.
“WE ARE ALL GEORGIANS NOW!”
Translation:
“We are all war criminals now.”
The majority of the American public is with Cheney
“SO”
Just get those gas prices down so we can get to the mall.
And we wonder why some folks around the world fear and hate us
I think it makes sense only to have certain political activity limited for civil servants. Political activity after all is not a crime, and should not be totally unavailable to citizenry. Otherwise, for example, anti-war employees can be sacked from civil service. The real problem is societal, where a Goodling can hope for a career after resignation.
Didn’t the IG find that some of these cookies (Goodling is what I am thinking in particular, but I may well be misremembering) lied to IG investigators during the course of the investigation? I’m not sure what the timing would be on that and whether or not Goodlings statements to Congress would be necessary to demonstrate those fibs, but I thought that was were the possibility of further action was coming into play – the fibs to the investigators as opposed to the ones to Congress (and maybe specific incidents of partisan hiring not revealed to the Committee in detail)
84 & related – I’d really love to see some creative pleading to try to pull the claims into a state court setting. Maybe some kind of tort claim of wanton endangerment by the plan to reveal her status that would be pled as being all ultra vires actions of the defendants to dance around immunity. If nothing more than getting some good state court discovery with a State apparatus behind enforcement of subpoenas – probably no feasible, viable way to do it, but I think it you’re going to fight, you fight on all fronts and in particular you don’t rely on the enemy to man your catapults for you – right now the DOJ is postured as the enemy of anyone who believes in the rule of law and that the Executive is liable for the crimes they commit, including murder.
I usually filed these things in state court for that very reason and made them move for transfer to Federal court over my objection; hoping to get some discovery in the process even if it did eventually get removed. Only marginally successful, but was worth the effort. Problem here is that arguably most acts had their locus in DC, and if not had a combination of state (Virginia I think) and DC; which really supports Federal jurisdiction. This was a bad case for that play unfortunately.
The report of the OIG identifies several statements made by Goodling to investigators and others which varied from her statements to Congress. See 126/146 et seq. The statements seem material to me.
1653 had Cromwell
2008 has The Democratic Congress.
God help us.
I enjoy your historical references. They make me look up events I’d long forgotten and half or one-third learned.
Our country’s soul will burn in hell. Read this from the NYT and weep:
That level of medical care persists and is the norm in any DOJ facility. It doesn’t matter if it’s INS, ICE, or BOP. I know of hundreds of cases. The medical care is negative shit. And there isn’t a ground swell.
Congress could give a flying fuck. They’re into wearing $12 grand on their backs and when they have a serious medical problem they summon neurosurgeons from all over the country to convene and advise.
There have been 10-12 similar stories in the NYT alone on immigration facilities and they had one common demoninator. Any physician with minimal competence would have kept them from dying; they all died. Incompetent nurses, COs or whatever the fuck was supposed to check on them; douche bags for nurses or douche bags for doctors.
They all aggregate at BOP, ICE, INS, county jails, and many times a year in Manhatten alone they die.
Whether or not they’re supposed to be legally in the facilities is irrelevant because once in if they have a significant medical problem, the vast majority of them are going to get incompetent care.
If it’s an emergent problem like a CVA, MI, anaphylactic shock, acute blunt abdominal trauma with a serious GI bleed, they have an excellent chance of dying.
By the way, Mukasey the douche bag, while on the SDNY bench, who is doing good to pee during the day (that’s the extent of his medical sophistication) deigned to make a diagonosis of a prisoner who had significant blunt abdominal trauma by observing “he looks okay to me.”
Sometimes this intensifies, but in a useful sense:
Silence
Jan Garbarek,Egberto Gismonti,Charlie Haden
A little like Debussy, maybe. Should be atop this page.
Absolutely. A high level of professional care. Exactly the care Teddy Kennedy or Mukasey’s wife Susan gets.
It almost reads like the next installment of CJ Sansom’s wonderful Shardlake series:
[that’s a different Cromwell than earlier in the thread, fwiw]
Well, at least plumbing has progressed substantially since the 1500s.
bmaz, looks like David Niewert and the ACLU don’t think much of your Sheriff Joe.
Thanks, I went and read that. Arpaio is a mess. There isn’t enough time left in the universe to explain how much and how bad of a mess he is. And I agree about the statements of the various DOJ folks as being criminally problematic.
Jane Mayer on Stephen Colbert drilling down the “administration.”
Pete, love your comments (and answers to my stupid questions), but it’s driving me bananas that you put one too many n’s in banana.
Kisses,
Loo Hoo.
lying about a blowjob = threat to the union
lying about politicizing the Justice Department, not so much
repuglitard values on parade
I apologize Loo Hoo. I have consonant (one “n”) dyslexia sometimes, but I will be careful to spell banana correctly from now on and will forever be greatful you tweaked it for me. I also apologize for the numerous typos.
Your questions are prescient.
Best,
Pete
AOK, bud!
Is there any indication that, aside from the internal investigation, a special prosecutor as empowered by the Hatch Act would be prosecuting this issue administratively? Because while Goodling got criminal immunity (and as a side issue I did not hear her admit to anything like a criminal conspiracy in her testimony), that immunity would not protect her from the administrative penalties laid out in 5 USC 1215.
So is it even clear that Mukasey has blocked the administrative prosecution here? She would have to defend herself with sworn statements, so she might very well default. Still, it would put her misdeeds on record, and block, for a time, future employment. It would also short-circuit any attempt on her part to defend herself in a disbarment hearing, because full administrative process would have already taken place. Disbarring her would be more like a ministerial act.
I do not see, Hatch Act not withstanding, how Goodling cannot be prosecuted by the provision in 18USC 1001 for lying to a US agency. She clearly has lied to lawyers for DOJ in sn investigation, as well as to Congress, and this is prosecuted hundreds of times a week in the 94 US district courts.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 47 > § 1001Prev | Next § 1001. Statements or entries generally
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.
Ok – I looked it up. Our friend Scott Bloch at the OSC is in the mix – the OSC would appoint the special prosecutor who pursues the administrative prosecution (and am I right in reading that Goodling would face $1,000 civil fine per infraction?). That presents its own set of problems and opportunities, I guess.
So if I read this correctly, Mook-asey is off the hook. Unless the administrative proceedings lead to a criminal referral back to the DOJ, his hands are washed clean of this matter, and his statements to the ABA are not so fishy after all.
If I am wrong on this (at least a 49.5% possibility), please correct me.
Legislation should be drafted and drafted ASAP. The penalties should be quite strong…
Hmmm what could THOSE penalties be, penalties to make one think twice?
Well, if one commits the Hatch Act on a scale that leads our country to a type of one party rule and denies a fair exercise of a two party system, as well as a true enforcement of the Constitution and balance of powers, creating an environment that only allows for a unitary executive…
I would think that would be defined as “serious injury” to our sovereignty and an act to “overthrow” the Constitution…in other words, treason.
I know, crazy, but right now, that is how I see it.
And the way the Bush administration has been so successful at fixing the law around their criminal actions, can the Democrats do the same here? Apply new laws to past actions?
Don’t the unsuccessful job candidates have a civil action against Goodling and the rest? I mean against them personally, not against the US gov’t. As a civil servant, you have immunity from personal liability only for acts within the scope of your official duties; if you’re obviously breaking the law, you’re not immune from suit.
Well, I am now off in EPU territory, but the other nugget I have run across is that there seems to be no statute of limitations on Hatch Act violations.
So if a corrupt OSC chief (just suspend your disbelief for a moment here) wanted to sink an administrative investigation of Goodling and Sampson he would have to prosecute them with the full due process and throw the decision. No other way to foreclose administrative prosecution in the future, and since Bloch has been investigating for 15 months now, I doubt he will manage to pull off such a trick in the few months remaining in the Bush administration.
The text of the order granting Goodling immunity seems awfully narrow, just applying to criminal prosecution. Since the OSC can not pursue criminal prosecutions (those get referred back to the DOJ, it appears), I don’t see how the immunity deal protects her.
If indeed 5 USC 1215 is the correct code section for penalties of the Prohibited Personnel Practices that the OSC is empowered to investigate (I don’t know this area of the law beyond what is at the OSC website), Goodling could face civil penalties of $1000 per infraction. That is a lot of semolians when one considers how her role for two years was to break every damn Prohibited Personnel Practice on the books.
Maybe it is settled law that criminal immunity automatically covers administrative prosecutions, too. I have no idea, and no experience with this stuff. Anybody out there know about this?
To prevent a repeat of the behaviour of Goodling and others, consequences have to be real, enforceable, and punitive. Does that mean toughening the Hatch Act? Sounds like it.
Maybe it is just me, but a $500,000 fine and disbarment sound pretty punitive to me. But that may not be deriving from the Hatch Act – the way the code sections are put together I really can not tell.
The OSC website gives a nice list of criminal statutes that may apply to situations where Hatch Act violations are taking place. The DOJ internal report seems to neatly skip around the possibility of these criminal violations taking place. My favorite from page 121 of the report is this one:
As PetePierce notes, that is not just misconduct, but a crime in and of itself.