Leahy rejects White House criticism of AG confirmation process

[Lone_Star_Dem]

Source: The Hill

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) on Saturday rejected White House criticism that his panel was moving along too slowly the nomination of Michael Mukasey, whom President Bush tapped as the next attorney general.

“The Senate is evaluating this nomination fairly, thoroughly and responsibly in keeping with the way other major nominations are handled,” Leahy stated. “Judge Mukasey’s written responses to questions from Republicans and Democrats, responses which the Committee has not yet received, are critical in the consideration of his nomination.”

Leahy added that White House criticism regarding the speed of the confirmation process is unwarranted. Committee staff noted that two-day confirmation hearings are not unusual for major nominations and that the process in Mukasey’s case has, at times, even been expedited.

“Over the last six years, the White House has become accustomed to thinking that they run the Senate, but those days are over,” Leahy said. “This is a key position in a Justice Department that has become increasingly politicized, and it comes at a crucial juncture for the Department. In order to be able to make an informed judgment, the Senate will take the time that requires on this nomination – no more, and no less.”

Read more: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/leahy-rejects-white-house-criticism-of-ag-confirmation-process-2007-10-27.html

[YDogg]

1. booyah

[PSPS]

2. Well, Leahy is kind of slow, especially when it comes to his subpoenas being ignored.

I suppose this is just more theater when most of know that the fix is already in. Subpoenas are issued in one act, then ignored. Leahy "rejects criticism" from president twenty-four percent in act two, followed by a certain conformation in act three, likely by a virtual unanimous vote.

Will Obama be present for the vote? Will Hillary feel safe enough to vote "no" knowing that it won't make any difference?

Tune in for act four!

[cali]

3. What happens if the Senate votes down contempt

citations? And btw, inherenct contempt also take a vote.

[spotbird]

11. Right,

Both sides know that there is absolutely no question about the certainty of the confirmation. This is just a dance preformed for the entertainment of an audience who desperately wants the Democrats to preform their due diligence and Leahy to honor his promise to deny confirmation without the earlier subpoenaed documents.

In reality it is just another insult to those who trusted the Democrats. They drag this out to revive hope that they are doing something, inevitable disappointment ends the show.

[BlueJac]

4. Leahy is a joke...........

He hasn't done one thing he said he was going to do, he just threatens to do something. I have been waiting since November for one thing to happen, and I am still waiting.

He probably support immunity for the telecoms too! The real crime that happened prior to 9-11.

Blowhard away, it makes some people think you are actually doing something with your 30 second sound bite!

[dmosh42]

5. I second that.....

Now that Bush has spanked him a little, he'll do as he's told! Our typical Dem leadership!

[cali]

7. bullshit.

When did bush spank him? And Leahy's career in the Senate, belies your statement. Somehow I get the feeling, you know too little too comment knowledgeably.

[cali]

6. Why have you been waiting since November?

I disagree with you. Leahy's hearings are directly responsible for the departures of both Rove and Gonzales. He's the one that referred Gonzo to the IG for investigation, and due to that investigation Gonzo has hired a defense lawyer. Word is that Fine will recommend criminal prosecution.

Leahy wrote and sponsored the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act, and he wrote and sponsored the very tough War Profiteering Prevention Act. That the Habeas legislation didn't garer the votes to defeat filibuster, and that Reid has yet to bring the WPPA to the floor, shouldn't be laid at his feet. He's been instrumental in changing the law regarding the U.S. selling cluster bombs to Israel.

As I mentioned in another thread, for those who haven't bothered to do the research and simply prefer to be blowhards, contempt isn't something Leahy can do single handedly- it takes votes. And that includes inherent contempt.

That he hasn't succeeded in everything he's attempted to do, doesn't make him a blowhard.

you, on the hand.....

[april]

8. Leahy's one of the good ones!!!

[Inuca]

9. Absolutely

Leahy is one if the VERY good ones. It is demoralizing to see people making statements like the ones upthread, when they have no idea what they are talking about.

[cali]

10. Absolutely

if we've sunk this far, what democrat is decent?

[dmosh42]

17. Have to jump back in here......

Talk about blowhards and bullshitters! Leahy had not much to do with Gonzo departure, with all his unanswered subpoenas and threats. Gonzo left from his own obvious incompetence, which had the public clamoring for his departure. Take off the sunglasses, and see the light!

[cali]

18. have to call bullshit on that again

what the fuck do you think exposed Gonzo to the disinfectant light? The tooth fairy?

[dmosh42]

20. It surely wasn't your fucking bullshit leaders...

that you seem to lick up to!

[cali]

21. bwahahha

leahy has been one of the 10 most liberal/progressive and ACTIVIST Senators for 30 years. And that's not me saying it, he's rated that way by virtually every liberal organization.

[bluesmail]

19. and he was sent anthrax!!

[spotbird]

12. How is the nation benefited

by the departures of Rove and Gonzales? Their legacy of corruption continues unchecked, there are no foreseeable criminal consequences, much less correction of the politicization of the career professionals at the DOJ.

That is not to mention that there is simply no support for your ill informed claim that Rove left as a result of anything the Democrats did. It is far more likely he is working somewhere to insure he keeps his same office in the new administration.

You statement frankly demonstrates that aren't knowledgeable as to the effectiveness of the Democrats. You make unsupported leaps and draw illogical conclusions. You would be more convincing if you educated yourself before you insult others.

[cali]

13. bwahaha. I love it when someone provides no evidence and

accuses someone who does, of not doing so. First of all, it benefits the entire country to see a lying, corrupt AG, leave under pressure and in national disgrace. Don't think he did? You're delusional then. Secondly, there is indeed foreseeable consequences for Gonzo: Fine is expected to recommend criminal prosecution within the next few weeks. Even if Jeffrey Taylor (you do know who that is, right? Or do you have to run to Google?) doesn't prosecute, the recommendation in and of itself, is progress.

And what do you suggest that Leahy do? Draw his six shooter? The most he can do is urge Reid to bring contempt to a vote.

Rove may well be working via the phones and computer, but he did indeed leave under a cloud, and it's been widely acknowledged that pressure from the JC and other Congressional sources was instrumental in his departure. He said many times that he intended to stay throughout bush's entire admin.

If you're so much smarter than Leahy, Kennedy , Whitehouse and Feingold, please tell us, in detail, what you would have done to bring Gonzo and Rove to justice, and to depoliticize justice.

You're really are full of it.

[spotbird]

14. How has the nation benefited

from the resignation of Gonzales? How has the politicization of the careerists Justice Department been corrected? Have there been criminal prosecutions? Upon what to you base your faith that Rove left due to something the Democrats did?

Now, if you chose just to taunt and insult in reply it will be a satisfactory admission from you that you agree the fundamental problems at DOJ continue to fester without Gonzales. It will also mean that you agree you haven't even the faintest idea of what Rove is doing now or why he really quit.

Thanks for asking what I think the Democrats should do, although your suggestion of violence as a alternative is quite unsettling. I believe they should start in the House with impeachment proceedings against Gonzales. Yes, Gonzales. An official need not be serving to be impeached, and if convicted he could never serve in the federal government again. The impeachment would give congress enhanced subpoena powers and force revelation of crimes with an eye to a purge of improper hires at DOJ.

If you're really interested, I'll go on with meaningful actions Democrats could take. However, if past is prologue, you'll just reply with a string of incoherent insults, misleading characterizations peppered with ill informed shrieks. At that point, I'll give you the last word, which will further enable your conviction that the tactics of a bully win arguments.

[cali]

15. LOL.

you really crack me up. My mention of violence unsettled you? You mean my facetious suggestion that Leahy pull a six gun? Ooh, scary. Your suggestion of impeachment for Gonzales is not only impractical at this point, but not nearly as vital as having him criminally prosecuted. And of course, you're wrong about impeachment barring him from government. Does the name Alcee Hastings ring a bell. Not to mention that th odds of 17 repukes joining the dems to convict are slim to none, no matter how compelling the evidence.

[spotbird]

16. The constitutional restrictions on service

do not apply elected membership in the House and Senate.

The best you could come up with was a facetious suggestion of violence, but my alternative of impeachment is impractical? At least impeachment would lead to a real investigation, if the Congress utilized the enhanced powers. But gee, you've settled it, Congress is powerless. All they can do is capitulate.

At least, by your silence, you agree that nothing has been done to address the multi generational political corruption, implemented by Gonzales et. al., of the carreerist in DOJ and you agree that Rove left entirely of his own volition.


Stick with ad hominem, issues aren't your forté.