In their ongoing quest to find just the right Attorney General, President Bush has offered up his latest sacrificial lamb, retired federal judge Michael B. Mukasey. Mukasey is eminently qualified, with years on the bench and an outstanding career as a prosecutor, yet the appointment may face problems for reasons having nothing to do with Mukasey's qualifications or suitability for the job.
He's a perfect choice for Bush because he's hard on terrorism, supports the PATRIOT Act and has written in defense of the Military Commissions Act. He's attractive to mainline Republicans because he's closely linked to primary frontrunner Rudy Giuliani, having worked under him as a prosecutor and because his son is a partner in Giuliani's law firm. Despite all this he's also got the stamp of approval of major Democrats including New York Senator Charles Schumer who put him on a list of recommended candidates submitted to President Bush and has endorsed him as a good choice for the job. He also has a real reputation for fairness, and has issued rulings which some democrats see as positive, including ruling that Jose Padilla was entitled to a defense attorney. He is also seen as more independent of Bush than former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was. Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) commented that he was “pleased that President Bush put aside his old habits and picked an outside professional to nominate as attorney general, rather than a member of his own circle.”
Obviously the Justice Department, which has foundered for years with some pretty weak leadership, could use a firm hand. There are actual criminals and terrorists out there who are in desperate need of some justice. It certainly looks like Mukasey might be the one to provide that justice and solve some long-standing problems, including pushing the administration to resolve the situation with the terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay. However, there's a catch. The Democrats control Congress and the Judiciary Committee and they can hold up the appointment on a whim if they choose to.
The man with the whim is arch-partisan Witchfinder General, Patrick Leahy (D-VT) who is determined not to move forward to better government until he gets his pound of flesh from Alberto Gonzales. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Leahy is in a position to delay hearings and stall the appointment if he so chooses, and he has declared that he won't move forward until the White House provides him with documents relating to Gonzales' "conduct, on torture and warrantless wiretapping."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Lumpy
I'm surprised I haven't seen an article on here about the Hsu scandal. You guys are falling down on the job.
2 - troll
...isn't it the job of congressional politicians to cynically use such appointments to gain as much power as possible over administrations - ?
3 - bliffle
Hmmm. Interesting question, troll. There was a fellow around here who once proposed that the proper roles of congress and executive was an ongoing struggle for supremacy. Perhaps his name was nalle, or somesuch.
4 - Dave Nalle
Based on their behavior you'd certainly have to draw that conclusion, trollo. But I'm pretty sure that's not what it says in the Constitutuion.
And yes, we do need a Hsu article, but I had sort of assumed one of our more rabid Republicans would leap on the opportunity. If no one does then I'll write it as a straight news article soon.
Dave
5 - Baronius
Dave, another solid article. I hadn't heard about Leahy's plan. The thing is, no White House would turn over such documents and set a bad precedent with regard to executive privilege. And Leahy's got to know that. So this plan doesn't even have the dignity of a game of chicken. It's only for embarrassment and delay.
6 - moonraven
Good for Leahy!
Who gives a fuck if he stalls until the next president is inaugurated?
After all, the Justice Department got along for all these past years without anyone heading it up.
(Speedy G had HIS head up Bush's asshole.)
7 - Nancy
If anyone can be found who has a rep for fairness & honesty, regardless of party, then all congressmaggots should get behind such a person & see they get confirmed. The more so as this would be about the first time ever that this particular president has bothered to tap someone who might actually have some credentials as well as credibility - something Bush himself lacks - instead of one of his usual suck-up cronies. Maybe some of the less venal (?) Dems can and will talk Leahy out of this crap. Unlikely, but maybe. It certainly won't do the Dems any good to hold it up: just reinforce their already unfortunate reputation for stalling & doing nothing.
8 - moonraven
Nonsense, Nancy.
Bush would NEVER nominate someone who was not going to follow the party line.
Why else were all those prosecutors canned?
The depth of gullibility on the part of folks in the US is unfathomable.
9 - Dave Nalle
MR's mistake is in assuming that there's something wrong with the 'party line' when it comes to things like justice.
I heard an interesting tidbit relating to justice today. It seems that the Bureau of Labor Standards has been remarkably successful in prosecuting corrupt labor leaders with over 100 indicted in a year for crimes like stealing from pension funds, a real accomplishment for the administration which the media has completely ignored, of course.
Well, the irony is that union lobbyists have prevailed on the usual democrat suspects in congress to cut funding to the agency so that they won't be able to pursue further prosecutions.
Dave
10 - Dr Dreadful
I surmise that the reason no-one has penned a Hsu article is that the affair is an atmospheric disturbance in a small china receptacle for heated beverages made from infused dried aromatic leaves.
In other words, you'd better hurry up, Dave, or it won't even be news.
11 - moonraven
100% bullshit, Nalle.
As always.
And I am the fucking Tooth Fairy.
The party line is always wrong because the parties in the US do not have the interests of the people at heart--only their own oppostunities to score some pork.
Here, piggie piggie piggie.
12 - moonraven
PS: moonraven NEVER makes mistakes.
Mistakes are the actions and comments of redneck trailer trash.
13 - Dave Nalle
Dr. D., you think something exactly like the Abramoff scandal, but involving MORE people won't stick around. If you're right, then the only difference will be the fact that this scandal involves democrats rather than republicans and seems to be getting overlooked by the partisan media in a way which Abramoff was not.
Dave
14 - gonzo marx
apples and oranges..Hsu is a scumbag who raised campaign funds...but NO quid pro quo has been even alleged...the records on just what Abramhoff has plead guilty to show definitive corruption
bad choice...
as for the article itself...well, those who remember Giuliani's time as Mayor, and pay attention to some of the folks his law firm have done business with might have objections to ANYONE from that firm having anything to do with government...much less as AG...
we will just look at the point of Leahy holding up the confirmation until he gets documents from the WH that were under supeona for quite some time and which have not been forthcoming
now, defenders of the WH cry "executive privilege" all they like..please sho wme that law...and you also have to show, to a court, the reasoning for invoking it in each circumstance...none of thta has been done
a case could be made that holding up appointments/budgets is the ONLY leverage the Congress has over this "unitary executive" in the WH...so they play the only cards in their hand
just a Thought...
Excelsior?
15 - Dave Nalle
apples and oranges..Hsu is a scumbag who raised campaign funds...but NO quid pro quo has been even alleged...the records on just what Abramhoff has plead guilty to show definitive corruption
Oh come on, gonzo. You're never this ridiculously naive when the accusation is against Republicans. There is ALWAYS a quid pro quo implied with large campaign contributions. What Hsu was engaged in was 'bundling' which has even more of a lobbying character than individuall contributions do. And also, like Abramoff, the main crime is not the donations, but the receipt of funds by fraud and under false pretenses.
s for the article itself...well, those who remember Giuliani's time as Mayor, and pay attention to some of the folks his law firm have done business with might have objections to ANYONE from that firm having anything to do with government...much less as AG...
Mukasey is not from Giuliani's firm, his son is. And as I pointed out in the article, he worked with Giuliani not when he was mayor, but when he was prosecutor for the federal district of NY, a job which pretty much everyone agrees Giuliani did damned well.
we will just look at the point of Leahy holding up the confirmation until he gets documents from the WH that were under supeona for quite some time and which have not been forthcoming
When has a subpoena sent to the White House meant spit? Ever heard of the constitution? Ever heard of the idea of three EQUAL branches of government?
Dave
16 - moonraven
Not EQUAL.
Just three branches.
All of which are completely fucked.
17 - Baronius
Interesting about the union leaders. I thought it was only evil Republican CEO's who stole pensions...
18 - moonraven
I suppose you are waaaaaaay too fucking young to remember a mobster called Jimmy Hoffa....
Or his cement boots.
The folks who become bigtime union leaders do so to take bribes (and give them) and steal the union pension funds.
Not just in the ole fucking USA either--here in Mexico and further south in clavos' favorite place, Chile [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor], it's a traditional practice.
19 - bliffle
Erroneous Baronius sez:
"Interesting about the union leaders. I thought it was only evil Republican CEO's who stole pensions..."
Both steal, but, under this administration, only union guys get prosecuted.
Wasn't that, after all, the point of Gonzales' machinations? That qualified US Attorneys were not eager enough prosecuting dem supporters?
What's the record of this administration prosecuting company executives who steal from pension funds?
20 - gonzo marx
"What Hsu was engaged in was 'bundling' which has even more of a lobbying character than individuall contributions do. And also, like Abramoff, the main crime is not the donations, but the receipt of funds by fraud and under false pretenses."
you miss the point, Hsu is a scumbag...and bundling (perfected in 2000 by the Bush Pioneers) should indeed be banned due to flagrant abuse...and Hillary should be taken to the woodshed for it...
it's your false comparison of Abramhoff and Hsu i pointed out...and ask again...where the quid pro quo? until you show that, your comparison is pure bullshit, by definition, imo
"Mukasey is not from Giuliani's firm, his son is."
point taken, i stand corrected on my error of memory
"When has a subpoena sent to the White House meant spit? Ever heard of the constitution? Ever heard of the idea of three EQUAL branches of government?"
ok..you appear to also advocate the "unitary executive" principle championed by Cheney et al...
so let me ask you... ever heart of oversight?
how about checks and balances?
if the WH doesn't comply with Congress doing their oversight, then Congress has 2 choices, cut off money or hold up the WH on anything and everything until some accommodation is reached...you KNOW that, and i find your protestation disingenuous at best
Excelsior?
21 - Lumpy
Wow, bliffle. You really walked into it. It's been under this administration that we've seen some of the highest profile corporate prosecutions in history. Tyco? Adelphia? Enron? Ever heard of them?
So I'm very glad they are balancing things out by going after big labor too. About time.
22 - Clavos
"All of which are completely fucked."
But, equally so.
23 - Dave Nalle
and Hillary should be taken to the woodshed for it...
If only. I have no confidence anything will be done.
it's your false comparison of Abramhoff and Hsu i pointed out...and ask again...where the quid pro quo? until you show that, your comparison is pure bullshit, by definition, imo
I don't get why you think it's a false comparison. In both cases money was acquired illegally and donated illegally in the expectation of wielding political influence.
"When has a subpoena sent to the White House meant spit? Ever heard of the constitution? Ever heard of the idea of three EQUAL branches of government?"
ok..you appear to also advocate the "unitary executive" principle championed by Cheney et al...
How does that follow from my statement that the three branches of government are equal?
so let me ask you... ever heart of oversight?
how about checks and balances?
Absolutely. That's what I'm talking about. Leahy is refusing to perform his oversight function and upsetting the checks and balances.
if the WH doesn't comply with Congress doing their oversight, then Congress has 2 choices, cut off money or hold up the WH on anything and everything until some accommodation is reached...you KNOW that, and i find your protestation disingenuous at best
The problem with your (and Leahy's) reasoning here is that there isn't anything to perform oversight on. Leahy is just trying to score political points, because it's not possible for there to be anything illegal in the prosecutor firings, as they were employed at will and their hiring and firing is not subject to congressional oversight.
Leahy is attempting to expand his powers in the same way you've complained about Bush trying to expand his.
Dave
24 - gonzo marx
"In both cases money was acquired illegally and donated illegally in the expectation of wielding political influence."
fucking prove it..not defending Hsu in any way...but Abramhoff has been found guilty of all of that and more..Hsu has not even been CHARGED with any such thing..so show the illegality please, and while you are at it...show the quid pro quo..you still have not done so, or even addressed it since i brought it up
"Absolutely. That's what I'm talking about. Leahy is refusing to perform his oversight function and upsetting the checks and balances."
ummm..bullshit...what Leahy is attempting to do is actually perform his oversight duties..and he is attempting to actually function as part of the checks and balances...you know, finding out the facts and holding folks accountable..that kind of checks and balances
"The problem with your (and Leahy's) reasoning here is that there isn't anything to perform oversight on. Leahy is just trying to score political points, because it's not possible for there to be anything illegal in the prosecutor firings, as they were employed at will and their hiring and firing is not subject to congressional oversight."
and right there shows the flaw in your logic...it ain't about the firings, it's about lying to Congress concerning those firings...it's about perjury and obstruction...i bet a lot of folks would like it to just go away using the same rationalization you just did
but the Fact is that it's about lying, and obstruction...and that IS something that the oversight function of the checks and balances are supposed to be doing...flip the script and see if you wouldn't say the same
i just take that position all the time, no matter which side has fucked yup and which tries to nail them for it...
your mileage may vary
Excelsior?
25 - gonzo marx
whoops...update found here which shoots down just about every gripe in the original article
from the Jurist
glad ta share...
Excelsior?