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.And, what does Attorney General Michael Mukasey have to say about this?
Remember, kiddies: IOKIYAR (It's OK if you are Republican)[snip]
"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.
.
3 comments:
How much money and resources did the Justice Department spend on finding instances of (Democratic) voter fraud? They wanted to throw the book at people with the same name as their fathers, or who had moved since the last election and didn't know where their new polling place is.
John K: I told you, you were pursuing a dead end. Reason is simple, if you indict this justice dept., then you have to indict all the justice departments that did this in the past. Travelgate anyone?
You liberals seem to think you have never committed these actions.
John K says "if you indict this justice dept., then you have to indict all the justice departments "
Your logic is both flawed and wrong. The decision to indict should never be made in relation to other cases. A prosecutor should not be saying I can't indict joe for murder because what would that say about me not indicting jim three years earlier for murder.
Simple put, the decision to indict should be based on the case at hand. In this situation, it is the AG's call. It is questionable whether it would not serve everyone's interests better if the AG recused himself from the decision and had an independent counsel make the decision that was made here.
When I say everyone, I include mukasey and bush as well. Right now, the decision appears to be one that is politically motivated.
Post a Comment