« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Leahy to Mukasey: Can We Get Along?
Last month, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) had a simple message: the President's nominee for attorney general, Michael Mukasey, wasn't going anywhere until the administration finally handed over documents he'd long been seeking.
But now it appears that things are moving along, though it seems that the administration hasn't handed over anything.
In a letter this morning, Leahy listed roughly a dozen questions he wanted answers to -- all of them relating to whether Mukasey would lead the Justice Department differently from Alberto Gonzales (e.g. would he fire a large number of U.S. attorneys at the direction of White House political operatives?). We've posted that letter below.
Chief on that list, apparently, is whether Mukasey would work with Leahy in a way that Gonzales, who often ignored Leahy's queries, did not. Leahy writes:
With so much to do and so much damage that needs to be repaired, I had hoped that the White House would have taken advantage of the time since the resignations of Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Rove to work with us to fulfill longstanding requests for information so that we could all agree about what went so wrong at the Department of Justice and work together to restore it. Instead, they have left you to answer the unanswered questions and left longstanding disputes unresolved.
Leahy offered to meet with Mukasey October 16th as a prelude to a confirmation hearing.
Leahy's full letter:
October 2, 2007Hon. Michael B. Mukasey
Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP
1133 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036Dear Judge Mukasey:
I look forward to scheduling and chairing the confirmation hearing on your nomination to serve as the Attorney General of the United States. I also look forward to your response to the Judiciary Committee’s questionnaire, and we may have additional requests for background information that would be helpful to the Committee in preparation for the hearing.
As I told you when we met the day after your designation, I look forward to meeting with you and having a substantive discussion before the hearing. I propose that we meet on Tuesday, October 16, at 10 a.m., if that is convenient for you.
I also mentioned when we first met that I would provide you with some of the topics that concern me. 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.
We will need to explore with you how you would ensure the independence of federal law enforcement from political pressure, what steps you would take to restore morale at the Department and the public’s trust in the Department, and whether you would uphold constitutional checks on Executive power.
The mass firings of the U.S. Attorneys appointed by this President were unprecedented. I will inquire whether you share my view that the integrity and independence of federal law enforcement should not be compromised by political operatives from the White House. I will ask for your assurance that the Department of Justice and, in particular, our U.S. Attorneys, will not be employed in upcoming elections to seek to affect the outcome. The Department of Justice should be working to protect Americans’ right to vote and have their vote count, not seeking to swing close elections into a partisan column by leaking allegations of corruption or bringing last minute legal actions alleging voter fraud.
A related matter of significant concern to a number of Members of the Committee is the recent rewriting of the Department of Justice’s guidebook on “Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses.” It not only changed from the “red book” to the “green book,” but the traditional practice of not bringing last-minute investigations and actions was turned on its head. The traditional version of the protocol, part of which I read to former Department of Justice official Bradley Schlozman at our June 5 hearing, provided: “In investigating election fraud matters, the Justice Department must refrain from any conduct which has the possibility of affecting the election itself. . . Thus, most, if not all, investigation of an alleged election crime must await the end of the election to which the allegation relates.” As recently revised under the outgoing, discredited leadership group, it provides great latitude for the Department of Justice to influence the outcomes of elections. Will you reassure us that under your leadership that these guidelines will be changed back to the time-honored rules? That is a concrete step you can take at the outset to set a new tone.
Another aspect of this concern is your close association with a candidate for the Republican nomination for President. Given that longstanding relationship, what assurances can you give the Committee, the Senate and the American people, should he be the Republican nominee, that you will not improperly use your position? The White House press operation suggested last weekend that you would recuse yourself from matters involving Mr. Guiliani. Is that true, and would that recusal include the Republican presidential campaign if he is the Republican nominee?
From our earlier meeting I know that you knew and worked with Judge Harold Tyler. I have admired Judge Tyler. He, too, was faced with restoring the Department of Justice when he served as the Deputy Attorney General in 1975, following the Watergate scandal and the resignation of President Nixon. Likewise, I think we both view Attorney General Robert Jackson’s 1941 speech to U. S. Attorneys as striking the right chord on the role of the Department of Justice and the independence of federal prosecutors. If they, Elliot Richardson and Edward Levi are your models, I will look forward to working with you to restore the Department.
In that connection, I note that as the House Judiciary Committee was considering contempt citations for former White House officials this summer, a senior Administration official said that a U.S. Attorney “would not be permitted to bring contempt charges or convene a grand jury in an executive privilege case” and that a U.S. Attorney would not be “permitted to argue against the reasoned legal opinion that Department of Justice provided.”
Under applicable statutes and practices, contempt citations against Administration officials by the House and Senate would be certified to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia to bring before a grand jury for its action. If the House or Senate certified a contempt citation against current or former White House officials arising from the U.S. Attorney investigation, would you permit the U.S. Attorney to carry out the law and refer the matter to a grand jury as required by 2 U.S.C. § 194? If the White House sought to prevent the U.S. Attorney from bringing contempt charges to a grand jury as required by law, would you take any action to prevent the U.S. Attorney from doing so?
More generally, what would you do as Attorney General if you learned that a White House official had called a U.S. Attorney asking for information about an on-going criminal investigation? What would you do as Attorney General if you learned that a Member of Congress had called a U.S. Attorney asking for information about an on-going criminal investigation?
What will you do to ensure that legal advice from the Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) is independent and protected from political influence?
While you can set an example and a tone at the Department of Justice, you cannot effectively manage it by yourself. Who will be the members of your team to help turn the Department around?
Other key issues arise from this Administration’s abuse of secrecy and expansion of executive power. Policies enacted by this Administration have encouraged Department of Justice officers to withhold information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the bedrock statute that opens our government to its citizens. Will you commit to review and consider overturning these policies, and supporting legislation Senator Cornyn and I have sponsored to reform FOIA, so that the presumption of openness which is at the heart of FOIA is restored for the American people?
The Attorney General who recently resigned apparently believed that the President has a commander-in-chief override of the laws of this country, which contributed to his violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), his signing statement reservations, and other overreaching. We must explore those topics. For example, do you believe that the President has authority to override legal requirements and immunize acts of torture contrary to our treaty obligations and laws? Do you believe that before Congress amended the FISA this summer, the Authorization for the Use of Military Force passed in the days following September 11, or Article II of the Constitution gave this President authority to override the requirements of that law with respect to wiretapping Americans?
In connection with these matters the Judiciary Committee has been seeking the historical legal analysis of the Department of Justice and this Administration. We have made numerous requests and have even had to subpoena the FISA documents. I want to know whether you will work with us and provide those materials so that we can examine the legal justifications that have been utilized by this Administration to excuse its conduct.
Similarly, in light of the failure of the White House Counsel to provide even a privilege log to substantiate his blanket claim of executive privilege for all information relating to the U.S. Attorney firing scandal, we need to consider that matter together. I want to know your view of executive privilege. Do you view it as a communications privilege or something else? Do you think it extends to the actions and emails of political operatives in matters in which the President was not personally involved?
With so much to do and so much damage that needs to be repaired, I had hoped that the White House would have taken advantage of the time since the resignations of Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Rove to work with us to fulfill longstanding requests for information so that we could all agree about what went so wrong at the Department of Justice and work together to restore it. Instead, they have left you to answer the unanswered questions and left longstanding disputes unresolved.
Sincerely,
PATRICK LEAHY
Chairman
Comments (63)
citizensue wrote on October 3, 2007 12:23 PM:WTF? Why do we want to get along with any of these criminals? Question to Senator Leahy:
Michael C wrote on October 3, 2007 12:25 PM:What happened with those subpoenas you voted out in August? Is there any Democrat left who is not intimidated and cowed by these bastards?
Is there not one citizen patriot among them?
*crickets chirping*
Leahy.....all talk, no action. I greet your latest posturings with yet another disappointed yawn, Senator. Talk, talk, talk.
JimBob wrote on October 3, 2007 12:35 PM:I continue to marvel at how the Bush administration gets away with thumbing its nose at the rest of the world, and Congress in particular. Did the system previously rely so heavily on simple good will and an understanding that SOME cooperation benefits us all and preserves our way of life? Was everyone just good-mannered and Bush is not? Is it possible that, all this time, the checks and balances we felt kept us safe were really toothless, like Oz behind the curtain?
Brian M wrote on October 3, 2007 12:41 PM:I'm getting an ulcer.
I have to admit that at this time I really want to see the pictures that Rove, Inc. has on the Dems.
That's got to be it...right???!!!
ARG in Chicago wrote on October 3, 2007 12:42 PM:Cheeseheads Faking Crust!
Is that all ya got? C'mon.
-- ARG
bill l. wrote on October 3, 2007 12:49 PM:Someone get Webster on the phone, there's a new definition for "pussy."
John H. Farr wrote on October 3, 2007 12:50 PM:Never expected anything more from poor old Leahy or any other Democrats. The blogosphere should be urging everyone NOT TO VOTE NEXT YEAR, period. Voting for a few progressive Dems doesn't get the party's attention, but sitting out the election would.
JohnW1141 wrote on October 3, 2007 12:52 PM:Leahy is the biggest bloviator in the Democrat Senate. He's all talk and no action. A complete disappointment.
Craig in CT wrote on October 3, 2007 12:52 PM:When he was the minority ranking member
he was always outraged, now that he's the chairman all he does is babble.
Utterly useless.
Democrats should really be embarrassed by their actions. All of them! Those that have not backed down, if they exist, should be equally embarrassed because they have not stood up and confronted their colleagues. It is like a letter I recently received from my esteemed, and everyone's favorite Senator, Lieberman. I suggest no one should be granted immunity for breaking laws. He replies that we have not been attacked since 9-11 so he backs the law. Same thoughts ran through my mind, WTF. At least respond with an appropriate answer to my issue not change the subject. Leahy is just changing subject and forgetting the old one. It really makes those of us who just want truth and justice look like lap dogs.
Fred Dodsworth wrote on October 3, 2007 12:52 PM:What's the problem? This seems a most reasonable letter and tactic for Leahy to take at this time. The White House has decided there is no advantage to replacing the current Acting Attorney General, and no reason to comply with the Senate's requests for documents.
Larry A wrote on October 3, 2007 12:53 PM:The Senator is in the difficult position of attempting to replace our current venal, dishonest acting-Attorney General, a spawn of scum, with someone who appears to have a small modicum of integrity, rare in a Repugnican. Additionally, Leahy, in this letter, has been able to delineate exactly what is so morally and Constitutionally offensive about the White House and its band of hired thugs and lackeys, listing out the most essential criminal acts in great detail. If only we have an objective press, this would fill headlines for weeks. Unfortunately, we are ill-served by fawning presstitutes who who rather serve the pimps and gangsters who own America's media.
This is why Bush replaced the acting Attorney General with someone he knew the Democrats wouldn't like a lot less than the nominee. That didn't leave the Democrats with any great options.
Larry A wrote on October 3, 2007 12:53 PM:This is why Bush replaced the acting Attorney General with someone he knew the Democrats would like a lot less than the nominee. That didn't leave the Democrats with any great options.
bill wrote on October 3, 2007 12:54 PM:Can the bush admin really be this incompetent? Not likely. More likely what they do is by design. So far the results are rather impressive... If your goals are in line with Dick Cheney.
Can the democrats be this spineless? Every one of them? For 6 years? More likely they are more in line with the goals of Dick Cheney than your goals. After all, he's one of the elites and your not.
mac2151 wrote on October 3, 2007 12:56 PM:Shock & Awe does work, at least on destroying democracy. Give Wade & Ullman two free passes with the Palfrey hookers.
Yossarian wrote on October 3, 2007 12:58 PM:Please don't tell me that you guys really believed that fart head Leahy had balls? Cmon, the whole idea of being a dem is to have your balls removed first and then sent into congress. These guys would kick their mothers if the repukes told them to. Democrats in the congress are just a bunch of ball less tools. There I said it. Now take it to heart and kick them out of congress in the next election.
anonymouse wrote on October 3, 2007 12:58 PM:Well...
We are aware of another change in Congress.
It's pretty clear now that the major goal of our esteem leaders is not to further a democracy... not to stop a rogue administration... not to close our borders... not to pass legislation.
The goal of our esteem representatives (I know, they really aren't representing us anymore) is to............GRANDSTAND!!!
and they do it quite well, actually...
Nice job, Leahy... where's your next gig going to be?
TheraP wrote on October 3, 2007 12:59 PM:Fred Dodsworth calls it correctly. Yes, we wish we could piss and whine, but no we have to act like grown-ups. It's a reasonable letter. And if hearings dip into all the muck Leahy has outlined, that will help the cause.
Anonymous wrote on October 3, 2007 1:00 PM:Leahy = Specter.
Sigh.
GOPfather wrote on October 3, 2007 1:00 PM:This "Representative Democracy" called the United States of America has always been of the wealthy, by the wealthy, for the wealthy.
Do you people really think that the Democrats are going to restore any of the rights that the citizens have so freely surrendered?
Why is impeachment off the table again?
ed rappaport wrote on October 3, 2007 1:06 PM:Could we just make Jim Webb the chairman of all of the committees? He's the only one of the dems with any balls or toughness. We want combat with these guys - force is the only thing they respond to.
linda wrote on October 3, 2007 1:06 PM:They are laughing at us as they should be.
why? why are the democrats such utter goddamned cowards? is there ANYONE in this friggin party who is willing to step forward and LEAD. goddamn. i am so fucking sick of these spineless, craven assholes.
moondancer wrote on October 3, 2007 1:08 PM:Leahy bails on the people. Groundhog Day, again....
Clavis wrote on October 3, 2007 1:08 PM:I'm beginning to suspect that all the most elder Democratic Senators and Congresspersons have been compromised by the Republicans.
What I mean is, for example, Diane Feinstein -- she's clearly been in DC so long, and has so many connections and favors owed and long-standing relationships with lobbyists and industry reps, etc. -- let the Republican nominee go through. Why? Not because of blackmail or "dirt" or anything like that -- just that Feinstein gets that she'll be able to continue her beltway shenanigans much more easily if she "plays ball".
Similar for Leahy and the rest. They are all playing the Washington Game. The Republicans have enough compromised Democrats that the Democratic Party will never be able to show any solidarity.
It's not that the Dems are corrupt -- they're certainly less corrupt than the Republicans -- but they are in DC to play the DC Games, and one of those DC Games is "Go Along to Get Along".
So they do. Worthless pieces of sh*t that they are.
FlyNation wrote on October 3, 2007 1:09 PM:Seth Brundle:What's there to take? The disease has just revealed its purpose. We don't have to worry about contagion anymore... I know what the disease wants.
Ronnie: What does the disease want?
Seth Brundle: It wants to... turn me into something else. That's not too terrible is it? Most people would give anything to be turned into something else.
Ronnie: Turned into what?
Seth Brundle: Whaddaya think? A fly. Am I becoming a hundred-and-eighty-five-pound fly? No, I'm becoming something that never existed before. I'm becoming... Brundlefly. Don't you think that's worth a Nobel Prize or two?
Seth Brundle: You have to leave now, and never come back here. Have you ever heard of insect politics? Neither have I. Insects... don't have politics. They're very... brutal. No compassion, no compromise. We can't trust the insect. I'd like to become the first... insect politician. Y'see, I'd like to, but... I'm afraid, uh...
X wrote on October 3, 2007 1:09 PM:Ronnie: I don't know what you're trying to say.
Seth Brundle: I'm saying... I'm saying I - I'm an insect who dreamt he was a man and loved it. But now the dream is over... and the insect is awake.
Ronnie: No. no, Seth...
Seth Brundle: I'm saying... I'll hurt you if you stay.
This is why my wallet may stay shut to the DSCC and DCCC in 2008. If the Democrats aren't going to do anything with the power we gave them in 2006 then what's the point. I'll only be supporting individual candidates who have the guts to stand up to the Republicans and who understand how to wield power.
mpatterson wrote on October 3, 2007 1:09 PM:I just sent Leahy the following note. It seems reasonable to see what he says.
Senator Leahy:
Last month you averred that Michael Mukasey's nomination as Attorney General would not be confirmed unless the white house produced the documents you have demanded regarding the politicization of the Justice department. My question is simple: Does that condition still stand? I would appreciate a clear answer. Thank you.
lucifer wrote on October 3, 2007 1:11 PM:somebody is lying to someone and not playing straight with the people.
MN USA wrote on October 3, 2007 1:13 PM:either the repigs have told the deom leadership that things are not what they seem and are keeping it from us or the dems have been thouroughly compromised
They just don't get it. Maybe we should ask them who they're afraid of before we send them money or vote for them.
Doofus wrote on October 3, 2007 1:13 PM:Wow, what a surprise!
nellieh wrote on October 3, 2007 1:16 PM:Lucy pulls the ball away from Charlie Brown again! I bet Leahy sent money to Nigeria waiting for his inheiritance. We have Demopublicans is Congress. I don't know who postures more, he or Specter. Do es anyone think DeLay, Gingrich, Frist or ANY Republican would cave as the Democrats do? Pitiful. When you think our Democrats have reached the bottom in feebleness they reach inside themselves and pull out more guts when you think they are completly gutless. Are some too old to fight? Hell, it isn't physical, they are getting beat mentally through parliamental procedures and letting the administration dictate their interpretation of law.
P J Evans wrote on October 3, 2007 1:18 PM:Not Webb.
Feingold.
All the others have been bought.
And it would be really, really nice, not to mention helpful, if the Dems would actually notice what 70 percent of the people in this country want.
linda wrote on October 3, 2007 1:23 PM:clavis @ 108 is the winner. from today's nyt editorial:
Appointed to a temporary F.E.C. seat last year by President Bush, Mr. Spakovsky is now up for a full six-year term. His confirmation would be in serious doubt if only his appointment were put to a fair vote. But with four commission nominees pending — Republicans and Democrats — leaders from both parties are reported ready to scratch each other’s backs and vote on the group. This would amount to smuggling Mr. Spakovsky to a full term under cover of the three less controversial nominees.
Anonymous wrote on October 3, 2007 1:27 PM:It's not clear to me that Leahy's position is changed by this letter. It may well be, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case, but I just don't think this letter makes that clear.
Clueless wrote on October 3, 2007 1:28 PM:Lack of a spine has nothing to do with the Democrats' actions.
Collusion is more accurate.
Ever hear of "good cop, bad cop"?
All average Americans are now treated as suspects and criminals. You think the Constitution will protect you? That "goddamn piece of paper"?
Right.
letigre wrote on October 3, 2007 1:30 PM:I'm speechless. truly
chisholm wrote on October 3, 2007 1:31 PM:This doesn't freak me out. Bush played this one brilliantly: putting corrupt party apparatchik Clement in there for the time being while dangling the seemingly not-bad Mukasey out there as his ultimate replacement. It was great strategy, and Leahy, when he stopped and thought about it, realized that he had no tangible incentive to stop Mukasey.
Well played, Mr. Bush, well played.
Again, I pose the question: can anyone name a SINGLE Democrat who thinks strategically? One. Just one.
Patrick wrote on October 3, 2007 1:34 PM:Perhaps Senator Leahy simply recalls, and is now following, the kindly advice offered by his good friend, the Vice-President, to-wit: Go F*** Yourself.
Henk wrote on October 3, 2007 1:41 PM:Hey, Leahy just wants to be liked and at the end of the day isn't that what we all want?
Sure he's an ineffectual leader. Of course he lets the Bushies run rough shod over the constitution. And yes people are dieing, and will continue to die, because of his ineptitude.
But when he leaves office everyone will be able to say what a nice guy he was. After all isn't that whats important?
Legalize wrote on October 3, 2007 1:45 PM:Yup, this is all just good-cop, bad-cop. The Dems can't wait to get their hands on the executive powers they gave to W, and they can't wait to have a pliant, submissive Congress, so that the will of the public can be forever ignored. Lobbyists are their only constituency.
They should all be hung for treason.
SeeDee wrote on October 3, 2007 1:55 PM:Yeah, Patrick, (previous post) maybe Leahy IS open to following the V-P's crude command to "G F Y"...
And I've come to the reluctant conclusion that ALL Democrats who value a co-equal legislative branch in our national government should join Cheney in his order to Leahy.
Go F..k yourself, Senator Leahy.
moondancer wrote on October 3, 2007 2:15 PM:Probably the biggest lie I've swallowed following politics is that we have a two party system. Looks like one big circle jerk to me.
Yossarian wrote on October 3, 2007 2:21 PM:I think all the Dems in congress should follow DICK's advice and GFY!
asdf wrote on October 3, 2007 2:49 PM:Why would anyone who wants change vote for a Democrat next year?
K Ols wrote on October 3, 2007 2:54 PM:Well now. Isn't it great that Leahy just outlined all the questions the nominee will be asked so he has plenty of time to construct his lies.
I suppose the letter doesn't really indicate that Leahy will cave on getting the documents from the WH, but it sure appears he has or will go forward without the documents.
Leahy sounds and acts just like Specter; talk tough and then do the exact opposite.
featherfamily wrote on October 3, 2007 2:57 PM:In the larger holistic vision, the anger we are seeing in these comments is NOT mis-placed.
Yet here I have to agree with the minority, this letter is not a cave-in, it is a prosecutor's very correct and very polite cross of swords with a very dangerous opponent.
It doesn't guarantee that the result will be in our favor, but this letter is not that defeat.
The energy spent be-wailing the sell-out (which many have justifiably come to expect) would be better used in this case dialing 202-224-3121, asking for Sen. Leahy of VT when they answer, and leaving a polite but firm message to the effect that you expect him to NOT fold, to insist on the documents, to insist on accountability, and asking him to not allow Mukasey to be confirmed if the documents are not released and Mukasey clearly promises Constitutional behavior. (Doesn't mean Mukasey'll fulfill that promise, but it sets the stage for future action).
Crunch time would still be difficult even if we had a House full of Woolsey's and Kucinich's and a Senate full of Wellstone's and Feingold's.
foggylady wrote on October 3, 2007 3:16 PM:remember High School?
The bully, always picking on the nerdy types.
same thing with the Neo-cons and Dems.
Watch any of the Oversight hearings..esp. the Gonzo ones, and the Blacwater ones. The Repubs came out swinging, attacking points they even thought might be made, and one guy even attempted to adjourn the hearing..did you catch that?
In the hearings, on the Senate and House floor, on the newsy talk shows ( used to be news, now mostly talk-opinion ) the Repubs loudly practice overkill, resort to name calling, are obnoxious and rude.
All bullying tactics.
And the Dems hesitate, with typical victim mentality trying to talk common sense into the bullies. to appeal to conscience, to appease.
Never works, tho. Never will.
Actions ALWAYS speak louder than words.
Richterscale wrote on October 3, 2007 4:20 PM:And just what happened to all the bluster and subpoenas from this summer? Not a peep from the Dems who sent all those scathing letters months ago.
OleHippieChick wrote on October 3, 2007 4:27 PM:How many more knives will Dems bring to the gunfight?
The overbearing weight of the bad bad malo karma of all these ineffectual doings is making me ill. I'm crypto-weepy all the damn time. Is there not a Dem lawyer on the committees who knows his/her stuff? K-reist.
sandy wrote on October 3, 2007 4:35 PM:I wondered how long before Leahy screamed "Uncle". I am convinced more with each passing day that the Democratic leadership is too old, too tired, and not tough enough to fight these people and need to be sent to retirement. We need younger, tougher smarter leadership. Period.
jakebob wrote on October 3, 2007 6:22 PM:I'm inclined to agree w/ featherfamily.
jakebob wrote on October 3, 2007 6:24 PM:Mr Leahy is a prosecutor's prosecutor, and is POLITELY showing the nominee the butt-end of what's tucked in his waistband.
All these good folks crying "sellout!" serve their purpose (the good guys' 'bad cops') too. However, at the end of the play, I think you're going to find the buut-end of what's in Leahy's waistband sticking out of Mr Cheney's um, orifice.
Let's give Leahy et al all the support & love we can... we're in this with the Dems we got, not (all) the ones we wish we had.
I'm inclined to agree w/ featherfamily.
Sully18 wrote on October 3, 2007 7:34 PM:Mr Leahy is a prosecutor's prosecutor, and is POLITELY showing the nominee the butt-end of what's tucked in his waistband.
All these good folks crying "sellout!" serve their purpose (the good guys' 'bad cops') too. However, at the end of the play, I think you're going to find the buut-end of what's in Leahy's waistband sticking out of Mr Cheney's um, orifice.
Let's give Leahy et al all the support & love we can... we're in this with the Dems we got, not (all) the ones we wish we had.
I`m tired of being patient on this and all the other Bush/Cheney misdeeds,but then I`m not a Senator who got a letter full of anthrax in 2001.
impartial wrote on October 3, 2007 7:43 PM:Sure it may look like he`s going to cave,but he is dealing with very dangerous people,and what featherfamily posted has merit.I`m going to back Leahy to the max.I believe that truth and honor eventually triumphs.That`s why this country`s been so fucked up for the last seven years--no truth,no honor.It`s time will come.
With guys like these we can almost count on another GOP controlled cogress comming soon to a theatre near you
db wrote on October 3, 2007 8:45 PM:As the crimes and atrocities keep piling up, my 13 year old daughter keep asked the other day, "Dad, why don't we just overthrow the gov't like Jefferson said....?
Good question
Anonymous wrote on October 3, 2007 8:47 PM:As the crimes and atrocities keep piling up, my 13 year old daughter asked the other day, "Dad, why don't we just overthrow the gov't like Jefferson said....?
I wanted to tell her that there are good reasons for resolving things within the system. I'm not so sure that's a credible answer any longer.
Al in Austex wrote on October 3, 2007 9:20 PM:Okay time for a gut check & quick history lesson. First remember it took a good long while for Nixon to finally resign . Now the gut check -my belief is that if Sam Ervin & Barbara Jordan were operating in the 24 hr x seven days a week blogosphere- that they too would have been heavily critcized for taking too long to get Nixon gone etc.
wordvarc wrote on October 4, 2007 12:17 AM:The full weight of the investigations
are going to need more time to be brought to bear on these miscreants. Jakebob is right we need to back up lEAHEY fully in this confrontation . lEAHEY will do us proud in the end -All the Democrats will do us proud - we must support them period. Sully18 is also right BushCo is a magnitude more dangerous then Nixon and the Plumbers. We do need to recall the unsolved anthrax attacks on not only lEAHEY but also dignitaries such as then Senate Majority Leader Daschle. These attacks also killed several people.
We must ignore the Trolls . We must remember in the end the Democrats must prevail.
Perhaps our Howard Baker will emerge soon - Keep your eye on Grassley -the good Senator from Iowa is already pissed off at Bush about many things ..
But again most importantly keep the faith -
"We must all hang togather or we will all hang separately "
Benjamin Franklin
This is Leahy's style. He's working hard to demonstrate a willingness to work together with someone who might be reasonable.
Let's see what he does next if rejected or ignored.
A real issue exists as well with the need for GOP votes in the Senate for any thing to be accomplished.
The GOP is becoming the WFP:
The War & Filibuster Party!
.
melior wrote on October 4, 2007 1:49 AM:I share the frustration, but Leahy is laying the right groundwork here.
Mukasey can't run from Democratic approval. Let's see whether the process can be used to force some of the scabs to come loose.
bmaz wrote on October 4, 2007 5:05 AM:I too am as frustrated and pissed off as any in this comment thread at the lethargic and lame manner the Democratic Leadersheep have been pursuing the various investigations; especially their subpoena enforcement (which does NOT require the DOJ and US Atty-DC, they have inherent contempt available). However, I don't necessarily view this letter from Leahy in the same light as most.
I am convinced that BushCo does not care whether Mukasey is confirmed or not; in fact, I think that if it appears he will be confirmed, there is a very good chance they will have a couple of stalking horses like Kyl, Cornyn, Coburn and/or Hatch torpedo the nomination from behind the scenes. Leahy has phrased this letter in a manner, on all of the issues therein, that if Mukasey is the man he is held out to be, and that he holds himself out to be, he must effectively agree with every proposition Leahy makes. I am hoping, and see a pretty good chance, that Leahy is not caving at all, but trolling for extremely good leverage.
Whatever Leahy's intent in writing the letter, it would behoove each and every one of us to contact Leahy and let him know, in no uncertain terms, what OUR intent is.
DC Native wrote on October 4, 2007 8:48 AM:Same S**t, Different Day. It is just business as usual in Congress: "good cop-bad cop", collusion, etc. Leahy's letter - while nutless - is actually a good move. If those questions don't get asked, MAYBE he can do something with it. It's certainly a logical first step.
JimBob, in the order that you posed your questions:
Yes: that is the spirit of compromise.
YES: though they often disagreed, even Reagan had Democrats he listened to. Bush is the most divisive president we have ever had. Also apparently the least literate.
YES: somewhere along the way, greed completely took over. It's beyond 'elitism' and encroaches on 'fascism'; at a minimum it's Authoritarianism. Once they bought the media, we became a nation of propaganda. Hell, they even changed the educational system so we no longer teach critical thinking skills: instead, 'the childrens' are taught to memorize. (The better to hear you, my dear!)
Sorry about your ulcer, JimBob.
I am convinced that we need to elect a Democrat and while they attempt to straighten up the mess we're in, we - the voters - start to clean house.
FINALLY get rid of "business as usual" in DC. After this Administration, no Republican is trustworthy and I question most Democrats. When you get down to it, neither party seems to satisfy: too extremist on both sides. In my day, the Moral Majority was NEITHER and we've joked about the Dems being weak, bought or extorted for too long. I am SO disgusted with both sides of the aisle that I've started researching "post-partisan politics." Good stuff.
Pablobigasso wrote on October 4, 2007 12:54 PM:Well, I can't say I agree with Jakebob. Leahy may be a prosecutor, but he is also a long time senator, and he is moving with glacial slowness on a issue that demands faster action to be effective.
By avoiding or not pushing harder on issues that brush up against impeachment, Leahy is effectively letting a statute of limitations run out on this administration.
If he does not get the documents til a Dem administration takes power - will he prosecute them then? What recourse will he or we have against a former president and V-P? Against lower former officials?
What the Senate as a whole does not seem to realize is that by not cracking down on this administration and their policies, they are leaving the door open down the road for new abuses that build on the current set.
Senator Leahy, may I introduce you to Senator Cicero?
billing wrote on October 11, 2007 7:23 AM:Song of Deborah
...They chose new gods; then was war in the gates... Awake, awake, Deborah: awake, awake, utter a song... the LORD made you have dominion over the mighty... Curse ye Meroz, said the angel of the LORD, curse ye bitterly the inhabitants thereof; because they came not to the help of the LORD, to the help of Justice against the mighty... Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? So let all thine enemies perish, O LORD: but let them that love him be as the sun when he goeth forth in his might. And the land rest forty years. Judges 5.
Deborah Palfrey deserves the Pemberton Award for Clean Governance.
Palfrey list is like the Black Book of 1918.
That Trial of the century is deleted from all books.
The list there had 47000 names.
The list here has 46000 phone bills.
The listed are not womenizers, machos or ordinary sinners.
They are power brokers, gay lutheran whock n awe blitzkrieg agitators of all wars and all panics.
These wretches are one dirty cover to the real pimps deep undercover.
A curse on the kingpins, Justice Charles Darling then and Judge Adolph Kramer Kessler now.
Noel Pemberton-Billing
Trial of the Century 1918
billing wrote on October 11, 2007 7:24 AM:Song of Deborah
...They chose new gods; then was war in the gates... Awake, awake, Deborah: awake, awake, utter a song... the LORD made you have dominion over the mighty... Curse ye Meroz, said the angel of the LORD, curse ye bitterly the inhabitants thereof; because they came not to the help of the LORD, to the help of Justice against the mighty... Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? So let all thine enemies perish, O LORD: but let them that love him be as the sun when he goeth forth in his might. And the land rest forty years. Judges 5.
Deborah Palfrey deserves the Pemberton Award for Clean Governance.
Palfrey list is like the Black Book of 1918.
That Trial of the century is deleted from all books.
The list there had 47000 names.
The list here has 46000 phone bills.
The listed are not womenizers, machos or ordinary sinners.
They are power brokers, gay lutheran shock n awe blitzkrieg agitators of all wars and all panics.
These wretches are one dirty cover to the real pimps deep undercover.
A curse on the kingpins, Justice Charles Darling then and Judge Adolph Kramer Kessler now.
Noel Pemberton-Billing
Trial of the Century 1918