Leahy's cowardice?

[cali]

Sometimes there are no viable good options for Congressional dems.

A case in point is Leahy and the Mukasey/Keisler situation.

Leahy said that he wouldn't hold a confirmation hearing until he got certain subpoenaed material. Evidently he's changed his mind.

I realize few here will agree with me, but let me lay it out as I see it.

I never thought that Leahy should have said he wouldn't hold a confirmation hearing until he got certain subpoenaed information, and I posted to that effect contemporaneous to his comments. Why? Because it was clear to me that the admin would be happy as a pig in shit to never comply and never have hearings. They prefer Keisler or another bush crony/insider to Mukasey, who has no insider status with the admin. In addition, it became clear, very quickly, that Leahy wasn't going to get any reinforcement on his position from any dem, either on the Committee or not. And he didn't. In fact, Schumer and Reid undercut him, and no one- not Feingold or Kennedy or anyone else- backed him up.

I always thought holding a hearing and asking if Mukasey would order Jeff Taylor to enforce outstanding subpoenas and any contempt citations, as well as asking him to support IG Fein's investigation and appoint an Independent Prosecutor, was a better route to take. At least it would draw the public eye back to the malfeasance of the Justice Department and the administration.

The bottom line is this: The longer Keisler or another bush toady heads the Justice Dept., the more critical evidence will be destroyed or buried, and the more time there will be for collusion with the White House. Keisler truly is the worst of the worst.

Will Mukasey be better? He certainly couldn't be worse, and again, he's not a bush crony/insider. Should he be confirmed? Hard to say without seeing what he has to say on the record.

Should Keisler be allowed to continue running Justice? Hell, no.


edited to change title thread to something more attention grabbing.

[cali]

1. shameless kick

[KAZ]

2. The only part of your argument I disagree with...

... is the "I realize few here will agree with me" line.

Very well put, Cali.

[cali]

3. Thanks, KAZ. n/t

[murielm99]

4. This thread is too reasonable

to get much response in DU's current climate.

[cali]

5. Maybe. But I'd like to hear a reasonable argument as to

why I'm wrong.

[ljm2002]

7. Hard to disagree with one part of your post...

...the part about Mukasey vs. Keisler. Yikes!

But you do make clear the reason our party remains weak, namely, they don't have each other's backs: "In addition, it became clear, very quickly, that Leahy wasn't going to get any reinforcement on his position from any dem, either on the Committee or not. And he didn't. In fact, Schumer and Reid undercut him, and no one- not Feingold or Kennedy or anyone else- backed him up."

And right there is why no one in our party can stand up to the rabid right wing juggernaut, even when we have the supposed majority in both houses of Congress.

[cali]

8. Yeah, that was disappointing

though as I stated, I think Leahy's comments about holding off until he got the subpoenaed material, were none too wise. I mean like that's any pressure on bushco?

[candymarl]

6. Good thread

I also agree with your view. It makes both common and political sense.

[cali]

9. Hmm. Where all the people who've

been slamming Leahy without any analysis of the situation at hand?

[LeftCoast]

10. Off looking for more anti-dem talking points I suppose

:shrug:

[cali]

11. That and they really don't have a rational argument in

opposition to the points I made.

[endarkenment]

15. I have no ant-dem talking points.

I am opposed to the War Party. I am opposed to nominal Democratic leaders who support the War Party.

[Breeze54]

12. I'm just catching up on this Cali. Thanks for posting it.

I got this today from American Progress:

Clearing the Decks for Mukasey

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/progressreport/

OCTOBER 4, 2007

JUSTICE


Two weeks ago, President Bush nominated retired federal judge Michael Mukasey to replace Alberto Gonzales as the nation's Attorney General. While no date has been set for his confirmation hearing, the process has moved forward with concerted talks between the White House and congressional leaders "to lay the groundwork for a hearing on the nomination." On Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee received a 45-page questionnaire from Mukasey, "providing important information necessary to begin a complete review of his record." In a press briefing yesterday, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino urged the Committee to "schedule a hearing soon and get the AG confirmed as soon as possible." But a hearing will not occur before Oct. 16, when Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) meets with Mukasey for a second time to discuss his nomination. In a letter to Mukasey yesterday, Leahy indicated that while he will schedule a hearing soon enough, Mukasey's nomination could hinge on his "willingness to answer questions the White House won't about a litany of issues." "The White House has chosen not to clear the decks of past concerns. ... hose matters now encumber your nomination and, if confirmed, your tenure," wrote Leahy.

VITAL QUESTIONS:

In his letter yesterday, Leahy laid out a series of issues on which Mukasey would need to put himself on the record, ranging from his views on executive privilege to whom he will bring in to staff the Justice Department. Regarding executive privilege, Leahy wants to find out if Mukasey thinks "it extends to the actions and emails of political operatives in matters in which the President was not personally involved." Leahy also wants to know if, in Mukasey's view, "the President has authority to override legal requirements and immunize acts of torture." The question of torture is especially salient at the moment in light of revelations in The New York Times today that former Gonzales "approved" a secret "legal memorandum" that was "an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency." Mukasey has signaled to conservatives that he supports Bush's torture policy. Hoping to head off the excesses of Gonzales's tenure, Leahy also wants assurances that Mukasey will "ensure that legal advice from the Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) is independent and protected from political influence." The OLC under Bush has taken on an unprecedented "advocacy role" for the administration's legal positions.

CONSERVATIVE BACKLASH:

Though Mukasey is "expected to draw few objections" in the Senate, his nomination has engendered some backlash from movement conservatives. Claiming that Bush "unwisely" sought a consensus nominee, conservative columnist Robert Novak eviscerated Mukasey in a recent article, writing that he is "not well qualified to be attorney general by any rational standard." Unsure of his position on the issue, anti-abortion groups and activists have been the most vocal in questioning Mukasey's nomination. "President Bush has blown another chance to energize the discouraged, disheartened, and disillusioned base," conservative activist Richard Viguerie told the Associated Press. "What we are doing is reserving judgment and emphasizing caution," said Brian Burch, president of the Catholic-based advocate group Fidelis, who is wary of Mukasey's relationship with Rudy Giuliani, who is pro-choice. In the Senate, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) is concerned about one of Mukasey's former clients, a "dial-a-porn" service. "I want to know what his attitude is toward prosecuting pornography," said Brownback. Brownback also intends to ask Mukasey "his views on the legal debate surrounding abortion."

THE NEED FOR INDEPENDENCE:

Though Mukasey appears to be a better pick than other potential Bush nominees, the Senate must determine whether he would assert true independence as Attorney General. Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Mark Agrast writes, "The Senate must consider carefully whether, if confirmed, Judge Mukasey will carry out his duties with the independence and integrity that eluded his predecessor." Before being confirmed, Mukasey should be put on the record about how he will approach the legal overreaches of his predecessor. Would Mukasey have said no to warrantless wiretapping? Would he have signed off on torture? Or refused to allow the White House to intercede in the Justice Department's affairs? In his letter, Leahy also sought to ascertain whether Mukasey would "improperly use" his "position" to benefit his longtime friend, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who is running for President. The White House has said that Mukasey will recuse himself in cases where Giuliani is concerned, but Leahy wants assurances from Mukasey himself. In his answers submitted to the Judiciary Committee, Mukasey indicated a solid record of recusing himself when conflicts of interests could be perceived.

I have to read more about it but I think Leahy is an honorable guy and will do the right thing.

[cali]

13. Thanks for posting that Breeze.

One thing's certain; leaving Keisler in, is a very, very bad idea.

[endarkenment]

14. "asking if Mukasey would order "

yeah that is a much better strategy.

Leahy: will you order Jeff Taylor to enforce outstanding subpoenasand contempt citations?
Mukasey: mumble mumble no.

Leahy: will you support IG Fein's investigation?
Mukasey: mumble mumble no.

Leahy: will you appoint an Independent Prosecutor?
Mukasey: mumble mumble no.

Leahy: All in favor of this appointment say aye.

Yes indeed that will be far more effective.

We don't even try. Yes of course there are risks. We don't even try.

[cali]

16. That's not an argument.

It addresses none of the points I made. It's absurd to say that Leahy and Conyers and Waxman aren't trying to hold the criminals to account.
And again, should Leahy have just held out, knowing damn well that the admin will not supply the subpoenaed material, and leaving Keisler in power to destroy evidence and cover for the admin? By all accounts Keisler is far worse than Mukasey.

[Beetwasher]

17. I Would Never Judge Leahy In That Manner

I think he's one of the best we've got and I'm sure he's got good reasons for doing what he's doing. Am I disappointed as hell? You betchya, but I'd never judge him a coward and I never have. The truth is there is so much going on behind the scenes that we are not and may never be privy to that all we are doing is speculating on the best available evidence whever we try to understand what the hell is going on in the halls of power these days. And these days, through the looking glass as we are, anything is possible and the pressures must be extraordinary especially for someone like Leahy.

[cali]

18. It's so true that we aren't privy

to what's going on behind the scenes. I urge you not to be disappointed because leaving Keisler in power is the worst idea of all.

[Beetwasher]

19. You Don't Know That For Sure Either

You have no idea yet what Mukasey would be like. Does he SEEM more reasonable? Sure, but looks can be deceiving.

I'm disappointed, but it doesn't mean I'm throwing up my hands in disgust or labeling Dems cowards for making what they think are the best decisions in situations we probably can't begin to comprehend fully.

[cali]

20. Yes, I do know that for sure. Mukasey is not a bush insider.

Read around the net. There's a pretty broad concensus that Keisler really is the worst of the worst.

[Beetwasher]

21. Just Because He's Not An Insider

Doesn't mean he's not or can't be compromised or can't be made to do their bidding. I've read plenty about him and realize he's not considered and insider, but that's not necessarily comforting. If you "know for sure" he'd be better, then your claiming some sort of knowledge that I don't think it's possible for you to have. I just think your certainty is based on "evidence" that's pretty flimsy; you've read he's not an insider. We probably couldn't do much WORSE than Keisler, but would Mukasey necessarily be better? I'm not as certain as you, but I sure as hell hope you're right.

[endarkenment]

22. Your faith in the current wisdom and washington consensus remains unshaken. nt.

[cali]

25. Wrong. But my faith in Senator Leahy

is based in years of observation, meeting with him on several occasions, and knowledge of his record.

[Marrah_G]

23. I respect and trust Sen Leahy

I agree with your post. I think the knee-jerk reactions to everything need to stop and we need to have faith in those who have always represented us well in the past.

[cali]

24. never gonna happen with the

loud, simple and shrill crowd, but thanks, Marrah.