›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Appearantly, breaking the law isn't a crime.

GreatTeacherMacRossGreatTeacherMacRoss
edited August 2008 in Politics
Does it bother anyone else that the highest lawyer in our land says things like violating the law isn't necessarily a crime? Go go republican justice.

link

Comments

  • Li_AkahiLi_Akahi
    I really have nothing to say. This left me speechless.
  • KilarneyKilarney
    edited August 2008
    Well, if you actually took the time to set aside your politics and digest the article, you would have read:

    As last month’s report from the inspector general acknowledged, the hiring abuses by former Justice Department officials represented a violation of federal Civil Service law, but not of criminal law, he said.

    Legal experts interviewed Tuesday agreed with Mr. Mukasey’s assessment that a violation of Civil Service law could not generally be treated as a criminal matter.

    Perhaps you should read up on the difference between civil and criminal laws. What the AG said is entirely correct. If this bothers you, it's time to look in the mirror and see that you're wearing political blinders.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • GreatTeacherMacRossGreatTeacherMacRoss
    First of all, my problem is with this:
    Most of the Justice Department lawyers implicated in the hiring abuses are now working in private practice at Washington law firms. They cannot be disciplined by the Justice Department because they no longer work there, but officials said they could face disciplinary action from their local bars over accusations of misconduct.
    Essentially, NOTHING HAPPENED to the assholes breaking laws. They just left the department for other high-paying jobs in the private sector. Boo hoo.

    And second, I agree with this:
    That did not go far enough for some lawmakers. Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, said he would introduce legislation seeking to make it a crime to use political factors in hiring for career positions.
    “Even if it is true they didn’t commit a crime, it would be appropriate to make what they did a misdemeanor so that in the future, those who violate the Civil Service laws cannot escape unscathed,” Mr. Schumer said.
    If you're trying intentionally to bias the law of a country by loading the department with people sypmpathetic to only our adgenda, you're not really interested in the law at all. Period. Personally, I think anyone involved in this type of highly dubious shinenigans should be disbarred. They're obviosuly not interested in upholding the law as opposed to bending laws to their political whims.
  • KilarneyKilarney
    edited August 2008
    Essentially, NOTHING HAPPENED to the assholes breaking laws. They just left the department for other high-paying jobs in the private sector. Boo hoo.
    You're making no sense. You blamed this on "republican justice." You agree that there was no crime. You state that they should be disbarred - which is the role of the local bar. Do you have any evidence that the local bar associations are controlled by Republicans, or are you just letting your politics control your argument?

    If you want to complain that nothing has happened, that's fine. But your unfounded political assertion significantly reduces any credibility your argument might have had. It won't kill you to admit that the AG did the right thing. If the legal experts agree, so should you. So leave him and your politics out of this.

    As a moderate, it's this kind of stuff that drives me absolutely nuts.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited August 2008
    Well, here's the thing: Mukasey admitted that there were violations. He said that they weren't crimes, but this is the same guy who can't say that waterboarding is torture, so I'm not so sure I'm persuaded by his statement that the violations were not crimes.

    I'm not so sure about these experts either. Maybe if some of them were actually named, their collective opinion woul be more persuasive.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • KilarneyKilarney
    edited August 2008
    Uh... yeah... You're right Joe. The New York Times is definitely going to pick experts that are favorable to the Republican administration.

    Sorry, but the burden of proof is on you.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited August 2008
    Uh... yeah... You're right Joe.The New York Times is definitely going to pick experts that are favorable to the Republican administration.

    Sorry, but the burden of proof is on you.
    It's not that at all. The experts don't have names. If they said, "John Turley from George Washington University agreed with Mukasey", that would be one thing. Saying that "experts agreed with Mukasey" isn't persuasive, not because of any suspected bias, but simply because they're not named. If the writer actually interviewed some experts, why didn't he name them?

    No, I think the burden of proof is on the person who wants to use the experts. How many times have you won in court by saying, "Experts have determined that such and such . . . " without actually producing an expert? I had a probable cause hearing today. I had an expert witness. How far would I have gotten if I said, "I have an expert and he agrees with my position, but I don't have a name for him (or her). And oh yeah, he or she is not here to testify."?
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • KilarneyKilarney
    edited August 2008
    Right now the evidence is that "legal experts" agree with the AG - whether or not they are named. Unless you have proof that the reporter is a hack, then the burden of proof is on you.

    If you are going to allege that a crime was committed, it's up to you to produce the crime.

    Keep in mind, there are two more reports coming. It is still possible that charges will be filed. Currently, however, the facts do not establish that a crime was committed. We shall see what facts arise from the additional reports.

    "The internal investigators are planning on issuing two more reports this year assessing politicization in the Justice Department's civil rights division and the U.S. attorney firings. Mukasey didn't address the possibility of prosecutions arising from those probes. "
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    Right now the evidence is that "legal experts" agree with the AG - whether or not they are named. Unless you have proof that the reporter is a hack, then the burden of proof is on you.
    Okay. I've just interviewed a group of legal experts that say that Eric Lichtblau, the author of the article is a hack. So now the evidence is that legal experts agree that Eric Lichtblau is a hack. The burden of proof is on you now to prove that he's not a hack.

    See how that works? Unnamed experts just don't persuade me very much.
  • KilarneyKilarney
    edited August 2008
    Okay. I've just interviewed a group of legal experts that say that Eric Lichtblau, the author of the article is a hack.
    The difference is that you're a guy who posts on a forum. The New York Times reporter is a professional governed by ethical standards. See the difference?
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited August 2008
    If you are going to allege that a crime was committed, it's up to you to produce the crime.
    I'm not alleging that a crime was committed. I'm just saying that I don't find unnamed experts persuasive.

    I don't think that we should be bound to believe this guy is one hundred percent correct just because he is a reporter for the NYT. I don't ascribe any bad motive to him. All I'm saying is that I'm not persuaded by his "experts" whether he is a professional governed by ethical standards or not.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • KilarneyKilarney
    You aren't bound to believe him. However, you have produced zero evidence to the contrary. Looking at all of the evidence (whether or not the experts are named), a reasonable person would believe that no crime was committed. You can spin it any way you want, but the only evidence so far is that no crime was committed. Maybe it's weak for you, but the scales are still tipped towards "no crime."

    Since I can't produce a law that does not exist, it's up to you to produce a criminal law that you believe was broken.
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    Since I can't produce a law that does not exist, it's up to you to produce a criminal law that you believe was broken.
    It's not up to me. It was supposed to be up to Mukasey. I think it should have been up to a Special Prosecutor.

    If a person can't find a crime in all those shenanigans when part of their full time job was to look for a crime, they must not have been trying too hard. Then again, this is a guy who can't decide whether waterboarding is torture. I guess that's what I'm saying in the end. I can't trust a prosecutor who can't decide whether waterboarding is torture.
  • KilarneyKilarney
    edited August 2008
    If a person can't find a crime in all those shenanigans when part of their full time job was to look for a crime, they must not have been trying too hard.
    This is such a logical fallacy it's absurd. Believe it or not, it's possible that no crime was committed. Your statement neglects to take that into account.

    As for waterboarding - look at all of the people that disagree. Don't you find it interesting that there is uniform agreement with his decision that no crime was committed? Hmm... Your example actually serves to prove my point. (Note: Some politicians think it should be a crime, but nobody has actually said that is is a crime.)

    I'm a moderate. I've got no stake in this argument. I'm just able to look at the evidence without letting my politics influence me.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    If a person can't find a crime in all those shenanigans when part of their full time job was to look for a crime, they must not have been trying too hard.
    This is such a logical fallacy it's absurd. Believe it or not, it's possible that no crime was committed. Your statement neglects to take that into account.

    As for waterboarding - look at all of the people that disagree. Don't you find it interesting that there is uniform agreement with his decision that no crime was committed? Hmm... Your example actually serves to prove my point. (Note: Some politicians think itshouldbe a crime, but nobody has actually said that is is a crime.)
    Okay . . . so anything I say is a logical fallacy while you defend Mukasey by saying that many people agree with him on there not being a crime and many people disagree that waterboarding is torture. I seem to remember something about argument ad populum, or maybe it was appeal to authority . . .
    I'm a moderate. I've got no stake in this argument. I'm just able to look at the evidence without letting my politics influence me.
    I'm not letting my politics influence me either. Waterboarding goes beyond politics. A prosecutor who can't decide whether waterboarding is torture is inherently broken, no matter if he's neo-con, republican, democtrat, or socialist. This is a meta-political objection that I have with Mukasey and the main reason that I simply can't find him credible. That's not a fallacy. That's not politics. That's humanity.
  • KilarneyKilarney
    edited August 2008
    A prosecutor who can't decide whether waterboarding is torture is inherently broken, no matter if he's neo-con, republican, democtrat, or socialist.
    Uhh... fine, but waterboarding has nothing to do with the original topic. I'm against waterboarding, but it doesn't mean that the AG is wrong about everything. Like I said, if legal experts agree with him, I'm not so arrogant to think that I know better. We can definitely disagree as to what weight that evidence should be given, but the reality is that, as of now, you've produced ZERO evidence that the AG was wrong on this matter, whereas the Times article has produced evidence that he was right.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
Sign In or Register to comment.