Leahy writes to AG nominee Mukasey with ‘concerns.’
Leahy writes to AG nominee Mukasey with ‘concerns.’
Yesterday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) wrote a letter to Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey, indicating that his nomination could hinge on his “willingness to answer questions the White House won’t about a litany of issues.” From his letter:
Regrettably, the White House has chosen not to clear the decks of past concerns and not to produce the information and material it should have and could have about the ongoing scandals that have shaken the Department of Justice and led to the exodus of its former leadership. Those matters now encumber your nomination and, if confirmed, your tenure.
Leahy also asks Mukasey to answer a series of questions to demonstrate his independence from the White House, such as whether he would “ensure that federal prosecutors will not be fired at the behest of the White House or for any political reasons.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
33 Responses to “Leahy writes to AG nominee Mukasey with ‘concerns.’”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Maybe Mukasey should retain a lawyer...
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:26 amMore letters, Pat, more letters.
That should get some action!
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:27 am/sarcasm
I wish I could think this letter was anything but bluster from Leahy.
All bark, no bite. Mukasey's confirmation is a done deal w/out him providing a damn thing except empty promises.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:31 amComment by Rory — October 3, 2007 @ 11:24 am
Textbook Jake. You really are transparent.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:31 amI'll believe it when Mukasey isn't confirmed.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:32 amWill Leahy make sure another President Clinton does not fire U.S. Attorneys for political reasons too?
Comment by Rory — October 3, 2007 @ 11:24 am
Um -- this isn't about President Clinton. It's about finding out if Mukasey will run the Department of Justice in a responsible manner or if he will merely be another lapdog for the Bush-Cheney cabal.
No federal prosecutors should be fired for political reasons, regardless of party. However, the practice of firing U.S. Attorneys appointed by your predecessor and appointing your own during your first year in office is likely to continue. Furthermore, the current batch are such Bush sycophants (and some of them are serving as "interim" appointees without Senate confirmation, due to a "little-known" provision in the Patriot Act), that I HOPE our next president sweeps them all out and starts fresh.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:33 amWill Leahy make sure another President Clinton does not fire U.S. Attorneys for political reasons too?
Comment by Rory — October 3, 2007 @ 11:24 am
Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:37 amKeep yapping away, Leahy, you've got 'em on the run. Oh wait. No, they're still ignoring you. Never mind.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:37 amPoor Pat...The writer's cramp this man must suffer...
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:39 amHow many Trolls does it take to complete a thought?
Fall is in the air & Trolls are in the sewer.
By the sewer they lived
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:40 amBy the sewer they died.
Some said murder,
But it was Sewercide!
Here's another great idea for the next A.G...
How about vowing to NOT HIRE based on some Federalist Society litmus test?
If you don't get the Republican activist extremists a job at the DOJ in the first place, then you don't have to fire them.
It's kinda like the presidency... if you don't put some whack job in office then you don't have to... well, you get the idea.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:41 am"Rory" sez:
Is that what you're calling the "ignore list" 2.0? I thought you had settled on "time-out", but "naughty chair" really underscores your childishness and pettiness. Well done!
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:44 amWill Mukasey be under oath during the nomination hearings?
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:45 amthe next president probably will not (much like clinton, bush 41, and reagan did not) sneak a last-minute provision into the patriot act eliminating the senate's role in the approval of potential a.g.'s. only the bush administration did that.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:46 amWhy the “ding�
Comment by Rory — October 3, 2007 @ 11:40 am
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:46 amreductio ad Clinton
TripMaster Monkey,
It makes no difference, Scooter was under oath.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:47 amYeah, "Rory", Clinton did it. We all know that already. Just keep chanting it to yourself. Be sure to cover your eyes and ears, though. You wouldn't want reality to get through to you, lest it fry the circuits in your pea brain.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:48 am"Will Leahy make sure another President Clinton does not fire U.S. Attorneys for political reasons too?"
so if you're not implying that bill did it, why use the word 'another.' grow a pair.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:53 am"... will not be fired at the behest of the White House ..."
Actually, the president can fire the US attorneys that he wants to, whenever he wants to...the issue at hand is re: the scandal is *why* they were fired--the ones at the center of the scandal appear to have been fired because of political purity: either a lack of it in themselves, or a desire to hire someone else with more.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:53 amI was referring to a possible President HILLARY Clinton in the future, not Bill in the past. Catch up, why don’t you?
Comment by Rory — October 3, 2007 @ 11:50 am
Nice try. You said "another" and "too". Your comment clearly referred to the first Clinton, and clearly repeated the FALSE claim that Bush's political firings were of the same type as Clinton's PERFECTLY NORMAL changing of the guard at the beginning of his administration.
Your intellectual dishonesty shines on that one, fool.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:54 amAll presidents fire the US AGs for political reason you fu*king piece of sh!t troll.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:55 amCandyce:
I was referring to a possible President HILLARY Clinton in the future, not Bill in the past. Catch up, why don’t you?
Comment by Rory — October 3, 2007 @ 11:50 am
You could have said "will Leahy ensure that all future presidents do not fire U.S. Attorneys for political reasons." Why only a Clinton?
And don't be coy. It's not attractive in old men.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:55 amAn independent Department of Justice is not a bad thing.
Regardless of what the Bush stooges say or think.
The Attorney General is beholden to the people and their Constitution, not the President.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:59 amCandyce sez:
Ha! That's brilliant!
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:02 pmthere's a scandal when there's a plan in place to install, without any senate input/confirmation, underqualified cronies who happen to announce bogus indictments in swing states shortly before a federal election with the intent of influencing voters. there are a bunch of emails (and people pleading the 5th) which suggest there were meetings about such a plan.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:10 pm"BTW: I’m female."
Is this for the record?
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:11 pmFormer Bush Lawyer On Spy Program:
"The Biggest Legal Mess I Had Ever Encountered"
Professor Goldsmith told the Judiciary Committee that chances to create a legally justified program were undercut by senior White House officials who were averse to any restraint on presidential power and devoted to extreme secrecy.
Do you believe the Bush Administration has set new precedence for future Presidents, as no one has successfully challenged White House position? -----------------> http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=630
.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:17 pmI wish I could get excited about the possibility of the Democrats actually doing more than just blustering and posturing about oversight....
I feel like I've been had at least a dozen times, and frankly, at this point, I feel like Leahy's just crying "wolf!!" again.
*sigh*
C'mon, Dems - put up or just roll over and shut up.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:25 pmI think if I am reading missmolly right, Leahy will NOT hold the next President (assuming he or she is a Democrat) to that same bar.
Comment by Rory — October 3, 2007 @ 11:40 am
Actually, I didn't say that at all. The new president (Dem or Repub) will appoint a new AG upon taking office, so that really doesn't have anything to do with Mukasey.
But I would hope that Leahy (and all senators and representatives) would apply the same standard to all presidents. It's customary for a new president to replace all U.S. Attorneys appointed by their predecessor, particularly when that predecessor was from the opposing party. Clinton did this, but so did Reagan. And so did Dubya, when he first entered office. There's nothing wrong with this.
It's when a president fires his OWN appointees in the middle of his term for blatantly political reasons that eyebrows go up. Especially when the replacements are "interim" appointees to serve indefinitely without Senate confirmation. And that applies to the standard Leahy is trying to set.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:34 pmmissmolly sez:
Wow..."Rory" completely mischaracterized your position...quelle suprise.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:48 pmIt is when and how he fired them you stupid piece of sh!t.
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:00 pmIs that when you are Rory or Jake or both. Is Jake the Baptist or the Catholic or is the Rory.
Fu*k it, we will just call you troll #2346-b.
JADFT
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:30 pmI hope Leahy has the cajones to "stay the course" and, at last, to get some ground truth out of the Department of inJustice.
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:25 pm