Attorney General Michael Mukasey on Tuesday rejected the idea of criminally prosecuting former Justice Department employees who improperly used political litmus tests in hiring decisions, saying he had already taken strong internal steps in response to a “painful” episode.I'd be curious to know what "pain" Mukasey is feeling? How exactly will this hurt you, Mike?
Two recent reports from the Justice Department inspector general and its internal ethics office have found that about a half-dozen officials at the Justice Department — all but one now gone — systematically rejected candidates with perceived “liberal” backgrounds for what were supposed to be non-political jobs and sought out conservative Republicans.Yeah, who would want a multi-million dollar job with some K Street lobby group? Isn't that where most former conservative Republicans miscreants go?
In a speech Tuesday morning to the American Bar Association in New York, Mr. Mukasey acknowledged that some critics and commentators have called on the Justice Department to take what he called “more drastic steps” in dealing with the scandal, including prosecuting those at fault and firing those hired through flawed procedures.
“Where there is enough evidence to charge someone with a crime, we vigorously prosecute,” he said. “But not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime,” he said. As the inspector general’s report acknowledged, the hiring violations were such a case, because the wrongdoing violated federal civil service law, but not criminal law, he said.
“That does not mean, as some people have suggested, that those officials who were found by the joint reports to have committed misconduct have suffered no consequences,” Mr. Mukasey said. “Far from it. The officials most directly implicated in the misconduct left the Department to the accompaniment of substantial negative publicity.
“Their misconduct has now been laid bare by the Justice Department for all to see,” he continued. “As a general matter in such cases, where disciplinary referrals are appropriate, they are made. To put it in concrete terms, I doubt that anyone in this room would want to trade places with any of those people.”
Mr. Mukasey also said it would be unfair, and possibly illegal, for the department to go back and reassign or dismiss those lawyers and other employees who were hired in part because they were seen as trusted conservatives. “Two wrongs do not make a right,” he said.So let me get this straight ... it's okay to fire nine United States attorneys and replace them with hand-picked conservative Republicans, but to reverse the process would be "possibly illegal." Then how can the actions of the staff you refuse to prosecute not be illegal, and how can something illegal not be a crime?
All this makes my head spin ... could someone please get me a dramamine?
.
4 comments:
Who could have predicted that a person investigating the bad guys and hired by the bad guys would not see something the bad guys were doing?
Go figure.
Ah, that silly rule of law. That musty old constitution.
Whatever!
(What a disgrace we've become.)
How did that Mukaskey guy get confirmed again?
hi--
I found your blog through Mary Ellen's Bad Habit----
thanx for this information. it will come in handy the next time I overrun the parking meter at the beach.
when I get a ticket and have to go to court, I'll just take along this article. how can the judge fine me if I show him or her this? :)
Post a Comment