Like This Wasn't Foreseeable When The Senate Confirmed Him

Mukasey Rejects Call for CIA Tape Details and Special Prosecutor

The Washington Post reports:

Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey today sharply rebuffed congressional demands for details about the Justice Department's inquiry into the destruction of CIA interrogation tapes, saying that providing such information would make it appear that the department was "subject to political influence."

In letters to the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee and others, Mukasey also reiterated his opposition to appointing a special prosecutor to the tapes investigation, saying he was "aware of no facts at present" that would require such a step.

"At my confirmation hearing, I testified that I would act independently, resist political pressure and ensure that politics plays no role in cases brought by the Department of Justice," Mukasey wrote. "Consistent with that testimony, the facts will be followed wherever they lead in this inquiry, and the relevant law applied."

Wouldn't you have loved to be a fly on Chuck Schumer's wall when he heard about Mukasey's response to the bipartisan inquiry by U.S. senators? And just when you think you've heard every conceivable weasel word and spinned excuse by the Bush administration's appointees for stalling, stonewalling, and not cooperating with Congress's Constitutionally-required role of oversight and investigation.

Senators Dianne Feinstein, Russ Feingold and Chuck Schumer (the senator who suggested that Bush nominate Mukasey for the job) confer during the Senate Judiciary Committee meeting to vote on sending Michael Mukasey's nomination as Attorney General to the floor of the Senate.

One letter was sent to Sens. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Similar correspondence was sent to Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and to House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) and other House Democrats.

The three letters represent an attempt by Mukasey to push back against growing pressure from lawmakers, primarily Democrats, who have showered the Justice Department with demands for investigations or information on topics ranging from the baseball steroids scandal to allegations of rape by a former military contractor employee.

The letters also are an assertive move by the new attorney general, who was confirmed last month with the lowest level of Senate support in the past half century because of his refusal to say whether a form of simulated drowning known as waterboarding amounts to torture under U.S. law.

Mukasey replaced former attorney general Alberto R. Gonzales, who left office in September after the furor over his handling of the firings of nine U.S. attorneys and allegations that he misled Congress in sworn testimony.

The CIA disclosed last week that it destroyed videotapes in 2005 depicting interrogation sessions for alleged al-Qaeda operatives Zayn al-Abidin Muhammed Hussein, commonly known as Abu Zubaida, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. Administration officials have said that lawyers at the Justice Department and the White House, including former counsel Harriet E. Miers, advised the CIA against destroying the tapes but that CIA lawyers ruled their preservation was not required.

The Justice Department announced Saturday it had joined the CIA's inspector general in launching a preliminary inquiry into the tape destruction, and prosecutors asked the CIA to preserve any related evidence.

Leahy and Specter asked Mukasey on Dec. 10 for "a complete account of the Justice Department's own knowledge of and involvement with" the tape destruction. The two senators included a list of 16 separate questions, including whether the Justice Department had offered legal advice to the CIA about the tapes or had communicated with the White House about the issue.

Durbin had sent a letter to Mukasey Dec. 7 asking whether an investigation into the tape destruction would be pursued. Conyers and three other House Democrats authored a similar letter on the same day.

Mukasey wrote to the lawmakers that Justice "has a long-standing policy of declining to provide non-public information about pending matters.

"This policy is based in part on our interest in avoiding any perception that our law enforcement decisions are subject to political influence," Mukasey wrote to Conyers and the others. "Accordingly, I will not at this time provide further information in response to your letter, but appreciate the Committee's interests in this matter."

The tape investigation is being led by Kenneth Wainstein, head of the Justice Department's National Security Division. Wainstein held his first substantive meeting on the case Wednesday with staffers at the CIA inspector general's office, according to a law enforcement official.

Several Democrats have raised questions about the propriety of having the inquiry run by the Justice Department, whose lawyers were involved in offering legal advice about the tapes, and the CIA inspector general, whose office reviewed the tapes before they were destroyed.

CIA Director Michael V. Hayden said last week that the inspector general's office examined the tapes in 2003 "as part of its look at the Agency's detention and interrogation practices."

Also yesterday, the beleaguered head of the Justice Department's Voting Rights Section disclosed in a letter to employees that he was being transferred to another job in the agency.

John K. Tanner said he was moving to the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices after nearly 32 years in the Civil Rights Division.

Tanner had come under fire for making a series of racially charged statements earlier this year, including a suggestion that black voters are not hurt as much as whites by voter identification laws because "they die first."

Tanner apologized for the "tone" of his remarks in House testimony, but stuck with his overall argument that demographic differences temper the impact of identification laws on minorities. Tanner also was criticized by Democrats for approving a Georgia voter identification law in 2005 that was struck down by a federal court as discriminatory.

Tanner is the subject of an investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility into his travel records and trips he approved for a subordinate, officials have said.

The move to shift Tanner out of civil rights could be seen as a move by Mukasey to tamp down criticism of the department's recent record. But Justice also filed a friend-of-the-court brief earlier this week siding with an Indiana identification law, which has been criticized by liberal groups and many voting experts.

Meanwhile, John Cook at Radar Online reports:

Behold, the Bush Administration in chart form: Federal spending on paper shredding has increased more than 600 percent since George W. Bush took office. This chart, generated by usaspending.gov, the U.S. government's brand spanking new database of federal expenditures, shows spending on "contracts for paper shredding services" going back to 2000. Click here for the full, heartbreaking breakdown. In 2000, the feds spent $452,807 to make unpleasant truths go away; by 2006, the "Cheney Effect" had bumped that number up to $2.9 million. And by halfway through 2007, the feds almost matched that number, with $2.7 million and counting. Pretty much says it all.

HELL BENT ON DESTRUCTION Shredding contracts during Bush/Cheney

Leahy Says, "I Can't Vote For Mukasey"

The Associated Press reports:

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, says he won't support President Bush's nominee to be attorney general.

And that could be enough to derail Mukasey's confirmation.

Democrats are concerned that the nominee hasn't taken a full enough stand against torture. He hasn't said whether he believes the practice of waterboarding amounts to torture.

Leahy thinks that's unacceptable. He says, "No American should need a classified briefing to determine whether waterboarding is torture."

Four other Democrats on Leahy's panel have already said they won't support him. The committee decides Tuesday whether to approve the confirmation.

It's presumed that all of the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee will vote to send the Mukasey nomination out of committee and to the floor of the Senate for a full vote. All then that would be needed is one yes vote on the Democrat's side of the committee. It's now all up to Chuck Schumer (who recommended Mukasey as a good bipartisan choice for Attorney General to Bush) and Dianne Feinstein (two Democrats on the committee who consistently have had trouble working on behalf of the people who elected them), Russ Feingold (who said today that he was undecided, that Mukasey "may be the best nominee we can get from this administration," and "a marked improvement over former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales"), Herb Kohl and Ben Cardin.

On the issue of torture, Schumer is, himself, 'tortured':

Schumer, who has remained uncharacteristically quiet throughout the furor, said in an interview yesterday that he is now "wrestling" with whether to vote against a nomination that he was instrumental in bringing about. He compared the controversy to the 2005 nomination battle over Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

"From this administration, we will never get somebody who agrees with us on issues like torture and wiretapping," Schumer said at one point, suggesting an argument in favor of Mukasey, who faces a Senate Judiciary Committee vote on Tuesday. "The best thing we can hope for is someone who will depoliticize the Justice Department and put rule of law first."

But Schumer said minutes later that his mind is not made up: "He's the best we can get, but that doesn't necessarily ensure a yes vote. I thought John Roberts was the best we could get, but I voted no."

Mukasey may not be the only one who needs to be pressed for his opinion on waterboarding as torture, or if torture has any place at all in U.S. policy and practice. A little over three years ago, Schumer was a defender of its use:

"...I'd like to interject a note of balance here. There are times when we all get in high dudgeon. We ought to be reasonable about this. I think there are probably very few people in this room or in America who would say that torture should never, ever be used, particularly if thousands of lives are at stake.

Take the hypothetical: If we knew that there was a nuclear bomb hidden in an American city and we believed that some kind of torture, fairly severe maybe, would give us a chance of finding that bomb before it went off, my guess is most Americans and most senators, maybe all, would say, "Do what you have to do."

So it's easy to sit back in the armchair and say that torture can never be used. But when you're in the foxhole, it's a very different deal.

And I respect -- I think we all respect the fact that the president's in the foxhole every day. So he can hardly be blamed for asking you or his White House counsel or the Department of Defense to figure out when it comes to torture, what the law allows and when the law allows it and what there is permission to do..."

~Senator Chuck Schumer to witness Attorney General John Ashcroft at Senate Judiciary Committee hearing about the Bush administration's anti-terror policy, June 8, 2004.

Patrick Leahy: "Intel Committee About to 'Cave' on Surveillance & Telecom Immunity"

The Hill reports:

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) on Thursday condemned Intelligence Committee Democrats for brokering a deal with the White House that would provide retroactive immunity for telephone companies that assisted the Bush administration’s controversial warrantless wiretapping program.

At the second day of confirmation hearings for President Bush’s Attorney General-nominee Michael Mukasey, Leahy warned that “the Intelligence Committee is about to cave on this,” citing pressure from the White House and press reports suggesting the administration had gotten its way.

“[Administration officials] know that it was illegal conduct and that there is no saving grace for the president to say, ‘Well, I was acting with authority,’ ” said Leahy. “Otherwise there wouldn't be so much pressure on us to immunize illegal conduct by either people acting within our government or within the private industry.”

Leahy’s remarks signal that a bipartisan accord to overhaul the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), reached Wednesday by the Intelligence panel’s leaders and the White House, could divide Democrats and hit a roadblock on his panel as well. The Intelligence Committee marks up the bill Thursday afternoon, after which it will be referred to Judiciary, where more Democrats have openly opposed retroactive immunity language.

His comments also come as House Democratic efforts to overhaul the law are falling into disarray, after House Republicans used parliamentary maneuvers to force leaders to pull the Democrats’ FISA rewrite from the floor late Wednesday.

Attempting to resolve a central point of contention, Senate Intelligence panel Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) reportedly reached a deal Wednesday with Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell to give full retroactive immunity to telephone companies if they can demonstrate they were cooperating lawfully with the secret wiretapping program when suits were levied against them.

Not all Democrats on the Judiciary Committee appeared to share Leahy’s concerns. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who sits on both the Judiciary and Intelligence panels, signaled she was likely to support the bipartisan approach.

“At this stage, it is a bipartisan bill,” Feinstein said. “I’m absolutely convinced that the only way we can legislate on this is on a bipartisan basis. This bill so far is bipartisan — that’s good news.”

When Dianne Feinstein says, "It's a bipartisan bill," she means that DINOs are in agreement with it, and not that it reflects any Democratic values, which happen to be the values of the majority of people in the state that elected her. Unfortunately, Feinstein isn't up for reelection until 2012 (should she choose to run again at age 79), so constituents only recourse is to flood her offices with mail and phone calls pressuring her to represent the people of California as they wish to be represented.

During the hearing, Democrats launched fresh criticism at Mukasey’s interpretation of FISA. After the nominee indicated that Bush was not acting illegally by going beyond that statute in authorizing eavesdropping without court warrants, Leahy called that argument “a loophole big enough to drive a truck [through].”

Whether the president is acting illegally “would have to depend on whether what goes outside the statute nonetheless lies within the authority of the president to defend the country,” Mukasey said.

And all we hear is Mukasey is a shoo-in to replace Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General.

Gonzales Uses U.S. Attorney Appointment Power That Congress Banned . . . .

. . . . . And Democrats are about to blow another opportunity.

Raw Story reports:

In a Senate Judiciary Committee business meeting Thursday morning, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) revealed that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales once again used an interim appointment authority at the heart of the US Attorneys controversy that Congress banned in a bill sent to the President for signature on June 4.

"Senator Feinstein’s U.S. Attorney bill....repeals that portion of the Patriot Act Reauthorization that had allowed the Attorney General to circumvent advice and consent with respect to U.S. Attorneys. That bill, the Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007, has been on the President’s desk since June 4. It seems he just cannot bring himself to sign it. Instead, we were informed yesterday through the Justice Department that the Attorney General has used the power that we have voted to repeal, again," said Senator Leahy, the committee's chairman.

Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for Senator Leahy, clarified the situation in an e-mail to RAW STORY.

"It just so happens the committee got notice yesterday, that on June 16, George Cardona's 210 days as Acting U.S. Attorney in the Central District of California will have run out and the Attorney General will appoint him as an interim U.S. Attorney at that time. (i.e. still using the end-run authority because Bush has slow-walked signing the bill)," she wrote.

RAW STORY could not reach the Justice Department for comment at press time.

On June 4, the Congress sent S. 214, the Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007, to President George W. Bush. The bill overturned a measure stealthily passed by the Republican-led Congress in 2006 that allowed the Attorney General to indefinitely appoint US Attorneys on an interim basis. Critics said the provision was intended to do an end-run around the standard Senate confirmation process for US Attorneys.

The bill passed the Senate by a 94-2 margin on March 20, and also cleared the House of Representatives by a 306-114 vote on May 22. The President has yet to sign or veto the bill.

Pocket veto.

Once legislation reaches the president's desk, he (or she) must sign it or veto it within ten days (not including Sundays) while Congress is in session, or it automatically becomes law. The one exception (if Congress adjourns before the ten days are up) does not apply here because Congress has been in session since it passed this legislation.

So if Bush doesn't act, exactly when does this bill become law? Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution:

"...If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law."

It hit Bush’s desk on Monday, June 4, and there has been one Sunday (June 10). The tenth day is tomorrow, Friday, June 15. After 10 days without a signature or veto, it becomes law. That means it becomes law on Saturday, June 16.

According to all news reports at the time this little known provision in the Patriot Act came to light, Bush’s and Gonzales’ statements have been that the administration never intended to use the little known slip-in to the Patriot Act to avoid Senate confirmation, and would, of course, cooperate with Congress in removing the provision.

If Raw Story’s report is accurate, what pisses me off about the Democrats is how low-key they are in exposing the lies and corruption of the Bush administration. If Leahy is right and Gonzales intends to use the provision to get around Senate confirmation (and what other reason could there be for Bush not having signed this legislation by now?), Democrats ought to be taking to microphones all over the Capitol and hold this up as “Just one more example….”

It’s because of Democrats’ failure to play hardball with Republicans, by making use of the many examples of Bush-Cheney corruption that come to light that the Rush Limbaughs and Hannitys can lie to audiences, and why we are forever playing defense, trying to convince that 29% who still love Bush and vote Republican that it’s us who are the good guys.

To Bush-Cheney, Republican-Loyalty Is A One-Way Street . . . .

. . . . All Republicans are to bow, scrape and cave-in to the Neo-Cons.

The Bush administration won't oppose rescinding U.S. attorney hiring changes slipped into the Patriot Act Reauthorization bill passed last year, but first the legislation has to reach his desk, and certain Senate Republicans are blocking the way.

On Wednesday's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Alison Stewart talks with George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley about yet another crisis the Bush administration has created in government. Turley had some choice words about the provision that enabled Bush to bypass oversight and our elected officials who let them get away with it:

The AP's report:

The Bush administration, bowing to an uproar over its firing of eight federal prosecutors, won't oppose legislation changing the rules for replacing them, senators said Thursday.

"The administration would not object to the bill," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., referring to legislation to remove the administration's power to fill the vacancies without Senate confirmation. He spoke with reporters after a meeting involving Judiciary Committee senators and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Schumer, Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, the panel's senior Republican, said Gonzales also agreed to let five of his top aides involved in the firings talk with the committee.

The committee was prepared to authorize subpoenas for the officials.
Six of the eight ousted prosecutors told House and Senate committees on Tuesday they were dismissed without explanation. Some said the dismissals followed calls from members of Congress concerning sensitive political corruption investigations.

Others said they feared the Justice Department would retaliate against them for talking with reporters and giving lawmakers information about their dismissals.

The meeting with Gonzales occurred a few hours after Leahy's committee agreed to postpone a vote on subpoenas that would have compelled five of Gonzales' aides who were involved in the firings to testify about the details, publicly and under oath.

Tuesday's eight hours of hearings by the Senate panel and the House Judiciary Committee turned into a display of mudslinging. The fired prosecutors insisted they had stellar records and didn't deserve the Justice Department saying most of them were replaced for poor performance.

At the House hearing, a Justice Department official recited before TV cameras the shortcomings of each of the ousted U.S. attorneys.

Gonzales came under harsh criticism during Thursday's Senate committee meeting, even from senators of his own party. Specter suggested Gonzales might suffer a similar professional fate as the fired prosecutors.

"One day there will be a new attorney general, maybe sooner rather than later," Specter said.

In private, Specter offered Gonzales some stiff advice: Acknowledge that the matter is serious.

"And that he take the next step and realize that there is a significant blemish on the records of these individuals," Specter told reporters, referring to the prosecutors. Further, "That he acknowledge that the problem arose because he failed to state the reasons why these people were asked to resign."

Gonzales refused to comment as he exited the private meeting.

Democrats felt the administration had taken advantage of a change in the Patriot Act that took effect a year ago, which lets the attorney general appoint federal prosecutors indefinitely, without Senate confirmation.

Gonzales has denied that was his intent and said he will submit the names of all appointees to the Senate approval process.

Nonetheless, he told senators at Thursday's meeting that the administration would not try to block legislation designed to reverse the change in the law. Sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the bill would impose a 120-day deadline on attorneys general for the nomination and Senate confirmation of appointees to any of the nation's 94 federal prosecutors' posts. After 120 days, appointment authority would go to federal district courts.

Previously, the administration said 120 was an unreasonably short time.

Apparently, it's not as done a deal as the AP is reporting.

The Washington Post reports:

Under the previous system, the local federal district court would appoint a temporary replacement until a permanent candidate was named and confirmed by the Senate.

Democrats and some Republicans said they were concerned the Justice Department was attempting to use the new provision to appoint political cronies without Senate oversight and that the firings were a means to that end. Gonzales and other Justice officials have argued that the old replacement system was inefficient and unconstitutional.

Democrats have attempted to attach to several pieces of legislation language to remove the provision, but they have been blocked repeatedly by Kyl. Senate aides cautioned that Gonzales's assertion that the administration will stand down did not guarantee passage, as Senate Republicans could still block the measure.

But after their meeting, Leahy said Gonzales assured him Bush will sign the bill if it reaches his desk. "My understanding is the president would," Leahy said.

For the next two years of the Bush administration and the upcoming elections, we can expect all Republicans to fight tooth-and-nail against everything and anything that they think could be perceived as favoring Democrats. Republicans have been successful at getting everything that they've gone after by overreaching and never backing down. By wearing down all opposition, which hasn't been all that much when it's been from the Democrats, who play by Queensbury rules.

Democrats have got to push for the rescission of the entire Patriot Act, and every last anti-populist piece of legislation that Bush and the GOP has gotten passed these last years. Canada has rescinded their version of the Patriot Act, enacted in the days after 9/11/01, but our abominable assault on civil rights and our Constitution remains. Democrats enable Bush and Republicans to remain in power when they allow the fear-mongering that has paralyzed Americans' good sense. Democrats have got to learn 21st century street-fighting, how to stir more than one pot at a time, and start putting in more than 3 days a week working.