Extremely Lame

For the past week, the Attorney General has been berated up and down Pennsylvania Avenue for uttering the following with regard to the current scandal of the Bush Administration’s politicization of judicial hirings and appointments. Basically, Monica Goodling and Kyle Sampson spent time under then Attorney General Alberto Gonzales passing over candidates for positions for “not being Republican enough” and determining this through questions that sound more like those that Stephen Colbert would utter. Things like, “Aside from the President, give us an example of someone currently or recently in public service who you admire,” and, “What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?” Can’t you just imagine Monica Goodling asking an interviewee, “George W. Bush: great President, or greatest President?”

Forgive me, that’s just a little bit of back story. While it was determined that asking such questions to potential appointees is highly unethical, the Attorney General is declining to prosecute Goodling and Co. His spectacularly blundered explanation amounted to this:

“Where there is evidence of criminal wrongdoing, we vigorously investigate it,” Mukasey said in a speech at the American Bar Association. “And where there is enough evidence to charge someone with a crime, we vigorously prosecute. But not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime.” (emphasis mine)

That quote has been pretty much put on a loop for the past few days, and the blogosphere has been foaming at the mouth over it ever since. I’m not a lawyer, but I think Mukasey’s quote is legally correct, even if he’s not in the right. Allow me to explain.

First off, Mukasey is getting all philosophical by refraining from dealing in specifics and engaging in broad generalities (as opposed to making generalizations about broads). Furthermore, he’s using definitions of words that have very specific, but different meanings, in different contexts. It’s a very Clintonian move, up there with defining “is.” He’s not talking about the Department of Justice’s hiring practices. He’s simply saying that there are situations where a violation of the law is not a criminal offense. And you know what? He’s right. Technically.

Not all laws are criminal laws, thus violation of said laws are not technically crimes by the legal definition.  Which is good, because it would really suck to be thrown in PMITA prison for letting a parking meter expire. A parking violation, while a violation of law, is not a crime; it’s a citation.

Excepting that, you also have the difference between criminal law and civil law. Criminal law is like murder, theft, fraud, etc., whereas things like violations of one’s civil rights warrant a civil complaint.

I’m not trying to say that the Department of Justice was right by engaging in these unfair hiring practices, and I’m definitely not letting Mukasey off the hook for declining to bring up a civil case against Goodling, Sampson, and anyone who engaged in these practices. I’m just saying that if you’re going to bellow and complain about it, at least get your facts right, so you and those whose ideas you agree with don’t come off looking like a bunch of idiots.