Gonzo set the Bar so low, they'll let this prick in after some minor grilling.

Remember, we're talking about professional Dems. They think it's their job to cave.

I don't understand why everyone is focusing solely on what he SAYS about the waterboarding issue (though it is of course important). What seems most important to me is what he actually DID as a judge, i.e, allow a US citizen (Padilla) to be locked up for 3 years in solitary confinement without charges, and he refuses to say it was a mistake. How could a man like that be Attorney General?

From Idaho, writing to ANY of our congressional delegation expecting ANY of them to do anything other than to follow the NEOFASCIST party line of GEORGE W. BUSH is a total waste of time....I do it anyway...but there is absolutely NO HOPE that it will do any good!

The only guideline georgie's concerned with is made of coke.

He snorts it through rolled up constitutions.

See The Big Picture @ 5:

OK, as much as I agree with the sentiment behind the post of the blogger here, let's step back. There's only so much fault that can be put on someone for not specifically saying something, and a lack of condemnation does not imply support. For example, Mukasey's letter does not explicitly state that he is opposed to kicking puppies; should we take that to mean he supports kicking puppies? Oh my Gods, call your Senators! Michael Mukasey hates puppies!!

What seems to me to be a much more salient issue is Mukasey's statement about FISA:

To the extent FISA may be (or become) inadequate to the task of responding to threats we confront, it is imperative that the branches work together to amend the statute. I am not of the view that the President's constitutional authority to conduct the foreign affairs of the United States and protect our national security is inevitably in tension with Congress's power to legislate in those same areas. To the contrary, if confirmed, I would be a strong advocate for a cooperative approach to Congress in this and other matters of national security.

The way I read this passage, what it sounds like is that Mukasey's view on FISA is that if the current law won't let the President do anything and everything he wants, then it is the law that should be changed, not the actions in question.

That seems to be a lot more dangerous to me than any "guilt by omission" of which Mukasey may or may not be guilty.

When taken in context with his past rulings it is reasonable to assume that he agrees with a unitary executive and that he considers National Security matters to trump established law.

You obfuscation not withstanding, he has already stated that he considers waterboarding to be within the Presidents right.

Time for the next applicant.

There is no indication that this administration even considers the Fourth Amendment to be a guideline.

bmw 528 @ 11:

Bit NOLA @ 2:

Gonzo set the Bar so low, they'll let this prick in after some minor grilling.

Remember, we're talking about professional Dems. They think it's their job to cave.

Don't bet on it.

Chris Dodd came out Monday with his public opposition to Mukasey's nomination. In response to Mukasey's legal "theory" that the president could stand above constitutional statutes, he said "That is about as basic as it gets. You must obey the law. Everyone must."

Within hours of his statement, Joe Biden, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, and Barack Obama also publically announced their opposition as well. Hopefully Dodd's principled stand will cause an avalanche of opposition to this Buscovite syncophant and bury him and their executive branch
power grab for good.

It's about time principled people had the courage to stand for something redemptive. If you think that's risky business, try selling our constitutional rights away.

You're not seeing the pattern yet?

First they cluck, then they cave.

Chris K @ 4:

I don't understand why everyone is focusing solely on what he SAYS about the waterboarding issue (though it is of course important). What seems most important to me is what he actually DID as a judge, i.e, allow a US citizen (Padilla) to be locked up for 3 years in solitary confinement without charges, and he refuses to say it was a mistake. How could a man like that be Attorney General?

He'll fit right in with the other crooks and liars. Gonzo's shoes fit, so he'll wear them.

the dems will cave on muky, it is what they do.

another thing to consider: rudy 'blood and guts and drag' giuliani says waterboarding is a-ok, that is, depending on who does it.

Shadowgm @ 13:

See The Big Picture @ 5:

The way I read this passage, what it sounds like is that Mukasey's view on FISA is that if the current law won't let the President do anything and everything he wants, then it is the law that should be changed, not the actions in question.

That seems to be a lot more dangerous to me than any "guilt by omission" of which Mukasey may or may not be guilty.

You've just asserted that if the law forbids torture, we should change the law to allow it.

*BZZZT* Thanks for playing.

What?!?! Please go back and read my comment, which clearly states that my reading of Mukasey's letter implies that he makes the assertion you are attributing to me, and that I find such an assertion dangerous.

Shadowgm @ 15:

BTW, I wrote Dianne Feinstein when Elmer Fudd Michael Hayden was nominated. I wrote her when Torquemada Alberto Gonzales was nominated. And so on.

Each time, she's chosen to confirm these idiots and blather about how the president deserves counsel he can trust, instead of counsel that will capably serve the American people.

And then, of course, she's shocked, shocked! to find that these fine, fine candidates did things like fire attorneys and write memos approving torture. (With Hayden, she even made a nice little speech about the importance of the Fourth Amendment, then voted for the twerp anyway.)

So the next communication to Dianne Feinstein will be in the form of a vote for her opponent (hopefully a third-party candidate) or a write-in like "Thomas Jefferson".

This reminds me that I did enjoy when that Assistant AG Monica whats-her-name from Liberty Law School was testifying and she told Patrick Leahy that she had taken an oath of loyalty to Bush and Leahy interrupted her and told her, no, she had taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. The look on her face was priceless. I don't think she'd ever heard that concept.

See The Big Picture @ 20:

Shadowgm @ 13:

See The Big Picture @ 5:

The way I read this passage, what it sounds like is that Mukasey's view on FISA is that if the current law won't let the President do anything and everything he wants, then it is the law that should be changed, not the actions in question.

That seems to be a lot more dangerous to me than any "guilt by omission" of which Mukasey may or may not be guilty.

You've just asserted that if the law forbids torture, we should change the law to allow it.

*BZZZT* Thanks for playing.

What?!?! Please go back and read my comment, which clearly states that my reading of Mukasey's letter implies that he makes the assertion you are attributing to me, and that I find such an assertion dangerous.

My apologies. For a moment, I thought you were excusing Mukasey's views on torture and supporting the 'change the law to allow the crime' game.

It's really very simple. I borrow an argument from Jack Vance in "Araminta Station":

George Bush has been elected to an office which derives from the Constitution, with duties and responsibilities defined by the Constitution, including unqualified defense of the Constitution against all enemies, incursions, or circumventions. He swore a holy oath to do that very thing. If Bush demeans, diminishes, or otherwise claims that any portion of the Constitution does not apply to his office or that he is entitled to extra-Constitutional powers, he is no longer protected by the Constitution and has removed himself from office and would now no more be President than any other citizen as a result.

Or so the logic seems to go...

The flaw is the assertion that Bush as "unqualified" powers. No, he has ministerial duties, including the obligation to comply with all treaties, laws, and rules Congress passes.

Smade @ 26:

It's really very simple. I borrow an argument from Jack Vance in "Araminta Station":

George Bush has been elected to an office which derives from the Constitution, with duties and responsibilities defined by the Constitution, including unqualified defense of the Constitution against all enemies, incursions, or circumventions. He swore a holy oath to do that very thing. If Bush demeans, diminishes, or otherwise claims that any portion of the Constitution does not apply to his office or that he is entitled to extra-Constitutional powers, he is no longer protected by the Constitution and has removed himself from office and would now no more be President than any other citizen as a result.

Or so the logic seems to go...

Bush cannot claim he has "Constitutional" power, but ignore the Constitution in asserting that power. If Power is linked from the Constitutional delegation, then that power must be Constitutionally used. Once he departs from the Constitution in the methods he uses, he departs from the Constitutional protections for him as an individual, and he as a President.

There is a reasonable basis to impeach the President; if Congress refuses to impeach, the State AGs may lawfully prosecute a sitting president.

What Is the Legislature's Legal Position On Issues Raised In Letter?

This letter is prolmeatic: It was issued without Congressional legal counsel providing some commentary, background, and legal analysis. The letter amounts to an assertion -- indirectly by the President -- of what the law is. The President is not a judicial officer. Time for the Congress to step up, and provide its "check" on this assertion of "what the law is"; and provide some balance.

Or is that off the table as well? If so, then let's discuss what will remedy this failed "checks and balance" system which appears to have been lost on this US Government. We the People are not compelled to assent to Congressional-Presidential complicity in violating the US Constitution, Geneva, or the Supreme laws.

I recently learned that Pete Sessions forwards emails he doesn't like, to the FBI.

I guess I'm on the no-fly list now.

so it goes like this.If he isn't confirmed there is someone worse in the wings and it will only get worse until congress confirms not the worst possible person in waiting. Congress owes us a A.G. who supports the constitution and George can go straight to hell. Congress' job is to provide us with a person who will uphold the law.If junior doesn't know anyone who fits this decription maybe,just maybe, he should look to the congress for a clue as to who loves our constitution more than him.

bmw 528 @ 35:

Agreed that we have seen far too many examples of good intentions without delivering---we'll see if they stand their ground or not. And concerted actions by people like us can make all the difference. The Buscovite Junta prays to their god of hubris and deceit every day that we will do nothing.

It's the tried-and-true tactics of a bully - that you lack the means or ability to effect change, so you simply keep your head down and hope the bully will go away.

Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away
We better stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

bmw 528 @ 11:

Bit NOLA @ 2:

Gonzo set the Bar so low, they'll let this prick in after some minor grilling.

Remember, we're talking about professional Dems. They think it's their job to cave.

Don't bet on it.

Chris Dodd came out Monday with his public opposition to Mukasey's nomination. In response to Mukasey's legal "theory" that the president could stand above constitutional statutes, he said "That is about as basic as it gets. You must obey the law. Everyone must."

Within hours of his statement, Joe Biden, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, and Barack Obama also publically announced their opposition as well. Hopefully Dodd's principled stand will cause an avalanche of opposition to this Buscovite syncophant and bury him and their executive branch
power grab for good.

It's about time principled people had the courage to stand for something redemptive. If you think that's risky business, try selling our constitutional rights away.

I find it ironic that the very people who, in the causes of public morality, safety and national security, are willing to sacrifice the 1st Amendment (separation of church and state, exercise of free speech and assembly, a free – that is “watchdog” -- press), the 4th Amendment (warrantless searches and seizures), the 5th Amendment (habeas corpus), the 6th Amendment (the right to trial and legal defense) and the 8th Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment), are generally the same people who most emphatically defend their rights under the 2nd Amendment. Do they honestly believe that a government willing to subvert the rest of the Bill of Rights won’t also come after their guns? And soon? Do they believe that a government that arrogantly criticizes free speech as “unpatriotic”; that blatantly and illegally snoops on its own citizens; that kidnaps, indefinitely imprisons and brutally tortures people without any fear of consequence; that habitually engages in the most bald-faced of deceptions to further its agendas; that does all of this with impunity because it is abetted by its own propaganda “news” outlets – in short, a government that cannot and will not tolerate the most basic freedoms encoded in the Bill of Rights – could possibly allow its citizenry to remain armed? Wake up, people! Look alive, NRA. Once this administration has successfully emasculated individual speech and legal rights, your guns will be next.

See The Big Picture @ 5:

OK, as much as I agree with the sentiment behind the post of the blogger here, let's step back. There's only so much fault that can be put on someone for not specifically saying something, and a lack of condemnation does not imply support. For example, Mukasey's letter does not explicitly state that he is opposed to kicking puppies; should we take that to mean he supports kicking puppies? Oh my Gods, call your Senators! Michael Mukasey hates puppies!!

Would be true if the committee hadn't explicitly asked for clarification on the judge's opinion vis a vis waterboarding. Its just more executive branch contempt for congress, which, if it were prosecuted, would amount to contempt of congress.

nemo @ 41:

But now? When it is affecting liberal interests? Now people who should have been raising holy Hell when their neighbors were the recipients of the draconian drug law enforcement that the erosion of the Fourth allowed? Now they are are whining and crying?

Sounds like someone needs to increase their Soma, ... er, Prozac dose.

Is the Federal Income TAX Law just a guide line?

Speed limits are also just a guideline...

Chip @ 47:

Why is it that anything that any amendements or laws that protect us from these bat shit crazy imperialists is a fucking guidline.

I keep saying this but nobody listens, we should all stop paying our taxes at the same time. Then they'll go bankpupt TODAY and ask for our forgiveness tomorrow! We need to turn these "well to do" pricks into our bitches...

and no offense to bat's or bitches...

Dr. Acula @ 49:

The country's well on its way to bankruptcy, Chip.

And selling our values cheap didn't help. Maybe a bake sale ...?

democrats have been demonstrating the same "understanding" of the constitution as the repugs, the last 7 years.

This is the letter I sent:

"Senator xxxxxx,

I have followed the confirmation hearings for the new AG with some interest. I am disturbed by the answers that Mr. Mukasey has given to many of the questions. Given his refusal to take a firm stand against torture or answers he has given that appear to support the notion of a unitary executive, I have become convinced that he, like Alberto Gonzoles before him, holds the rule of law and the Constitution of these United States of America in very shabby regard. He is, in my opinion, unfit not only for the office of Attorney General, but also for any position of influence or authority.

I, like you, am a Vietnam era veteran. And, as one who has done duty to our precious Constitution, I am sick to the depths of my being at the outright warfare that the Bush administration has been successfully waging against the Constitution since the day Mr. Bush took office. Bush and Company are destroying this nation with every successful attack they direct upon our founding principles and protections. Through inaction, capitulation or active complicity, all too often during Mr. Bush's administration, the Congress has assisted the administration as it has gone about its business of eviscerating the soul of America. At each Bush administration success, precedent is established which makes eventual reversal and return to sanity and integrity all the more difficult.

This cannot go on.

It is obvious that Mr.Mukasey is only going to serve as an enabler of further Bush administration criminality. And, since Congress - starting in the House of Representatives - refuses to fulfill its duty under the Constitution to impeach Bush for his numerous and well-documented high crimes and misdemeanors, the People will - as a consequence of Congress's ongoing deriliction in that regard - be subjected to yet further victimization at the hands of this criminal and lawless administration. Thus, Mr. Bush is still going to be in office to continue his lawlessness and criminality. That being so, WE the People do not need yet another yes man enabler occupying the AG's office, who will use that office only to invent ever-more absurd excuses for Mr.Bush's lawlessness or use that office to obstruct the legislative or judicial branches from obtaining executive accountability.

What WE the People need, what our embattled Constitution needs is somebody who is going to take their oath of office seriously. We need someone who is going to defend the Constitution and Rule of Law.

Sen.xxxxxxx, you may disagree with me, but as I see it, this nation is in a civil war. That no combat or civil strife has taken place is irrelevent to the fact that civil war is nonetheless ongoing. Instead of open strife, it is being fought through a slow process of countless, incremental steps, each step a single, deliberate act of subversion and corruption committed against our laws, our Constitution and our institutions. It is a bloodless coup that began in the Nixon administration and is now moving into the initial stages of its endgame.

It is clear, if you read the writings typical of their school of thought(for example - Leo Strauss), that the people who conceived, planned and instigated this civil war desire to engineer the end of liberal democracy in America, the extinction of a right to govern which derives solely from the Sovereign Will of the People and the lasting end of government of, by and for the People. They would replace these precious things with rule by a highly privileged elite few who would institute a totalitarian government of ubiquitous, repressive law enforcement, wherein the "law" is the rule of a man and not the Rule of Law, wherein the People are no longer free citizens but are mere subjects whose obedience is mandatory and wherein the only rights the People would be garunteed are the rights to consume, do what they are told and die at the appointed times. That system would be characterized by a respect for the rights of property over human rights, of privilege over merit, of wealth over need, and most of all, of power above all other concerns. Government by applied sociopathy. Their system would exist as a cynical and self-serving negation of human potential, human dignity and human worth. They dream a dark dream, but are committed to making that dream a reality. George Bush is the titular head of those who would see this happen to America. I am convinced from his answers, non-answers and equivocation that Mr. Mukasey is sympathetic to their goals.

For that reason, it is my assessment that Mr. Mukasey is unfit for the trust to which he has been nominated. It is better to have that office left empty and wanting than to have it entrusted to such a man. Have we learned nothing from the example of Mr. Gonzoles?

Please, vote not to confirm. More, do so as many times as Mr. Bush offers a fox to gaurd the henhouse. It's getting too late in the sequence and progress of unfolding of events to do otherwise. This is not, and never was as far as the Bush administration is concerned, about the mere nomination and confirmation of an attorney general.

Thanks for your time and thoughtful consideration."

We'll see.

Paul @ 54 -- what an articulate letter - you've really nailed it! Hats off to you.

kaT @ 19:

My senator is Dick Durbin who has lost all credibility with me. All the man cares about is appeasing the powers that be so he can hold onto his power. I doubt very much he would care about some AG violating the law. He doesn't care about corporations doing the same if it benefits his campaign.

The Majority Whip of the Senate, Durbin voted AGAINST the Iraq Resolution, and is one of the primary reasons why the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve has not been plundered by Bushco.

He is also quite famous for having said this, two years ago:

If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners."

Most importantly, Sen. Durbin is heavily favored in next year's election regardless of your dissatisfaction. So maybe you should work at getting his ear and expressing your displeasure in some appropriate (mature) way. I would be OVERJOYED to have Senator Durbin instead of Senator Feinstein representing me.

Senator Durbin has not been a rubberstamp on judicial nominations. But as Whip he does have to vote the caucus, and that means that he may not vote our way in every case. I certainly hope that he will vote against Mukasey -- and I hope you work toward that goal, instead of being disenfranchized as we are here in California with one of our Senators (Feinstain).

Dr. Acula @ 39:

bmw 528 @ 35:

Bit NOLA @ 17:

I appreciate Dodd's leadership, and really hope that it comes to something. Reid in particular is depressing in his disappearing act as a leader.

But I know most of these clowns are predisposed to fold. They're sheep. Well paid, graft-laden sheep.

When you contact one of your own senators on an issue that you're authoritative about, and that he's disposed to agree upon, and he sends you a form response and gets in line with the others, even though it's the wrong thing to do, then why would he listen to you on any other issue?

Keep trying? They don't even care about polls that demonstrate where we stand in majority numbers. They didn't care about the message in the last midterm elections. We just have to have better, more responsive people in office.

Netroots people are the only hope.

Agreed that we have seen far too many examples of good intentions without delivering---we'll see if they stand their ground or not. And concerted actions by people like us can make all the difference. The Buscovite Junta prays to their god of hubris and deceit every day that we will do nothing.

Even when people DO demonstrate, you find nary a mention of it in the press. Weren't there many thousands of people protesting in the streets last Saturday as part of the impeachbush.org rallies??? The censorship comes from the highest levels.

Good point, as there are many examples of the MSM complicity in promoting the Bushcovite political agenda.

MCMetal @ 29:

I'm not wasting my time writing or calling anyone anymore ; rather , I'm going to start working on getting others elected and ousting this "same ole , same ole" group of cretins........

WHO is your first target/replacement pair?

If you are just starting to work in opposition to incumbents, you are about three years late for the 2008 election cycle. But if you actually intend to do some work even now, WHO have you selected to support instead of whom?

bmw 528 @ 60 "Weren't there many thousands of people protesting in the streets last Saturday as part of the impeachbush.org rallies???"

Those rallies were organized by the coalition United for Peace and Justice, not just ANSWER, or ANSWER's impeachment effort.

United for Peace and Justice is a coalition of more than 1300 local and national groups throughout the United States who have joined together to protest the immoral and disastrous Iraq War and oppose our government's policy of permanent warfare and empire-building.

http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?list=type&type=16

Last week's House Budget Committee hearing with the CBO analyst (and several excellent professors) was quite informative, as the Congress continues to bring together the data on the scope of Bushco's ME disaster.

The budget analysis itself is, as we all know, stark. Basically, and committee members were saying as much, the Bushco wars are the social security 'solution' of the rightwing. Add to the usual cost analysis:

• Veteran's payments, SS benefits: +$400 billion
• Military 'reset' payments: +$200 billion (does not include costs to the states, such as National Guard resetting costs, which are as yet untabulated, but huge)

But these facts, brought out (from Prof. Bilmes' report) mainly by Rep. Chet Edwards (TX-17), were far more somber:

• 1.5 million soldiers have served in these wars.
• 60,000 non-mortal casualties, a rate of 14 per 1 combat death.
• 720,000 have been discharged and are now veterans.
• 220,000 (34%) already treated by VA.
• 95,000 treated for mental health care problems.
• 45,000 (of those) with full-blown Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
• 13,000 severely wounded veterans who could not continue their military careers.
• Medical costs at VA estimated at $200-300 Billion.
• In 20% of families with a significantly disabled vet from the Bushco wars, the earner has had to leave their job in order to care for the veteran.

Ex-Canuck @ 59:

To use a sports analogy - the "fix" is in. ...Congress - both the House and Senate portions - is impotent.

I presume by 'fix,' you mean that the Senate will approve Mukasey.

Why do you then say that the House is impotent? The House is not the problem, the Senate is the problem. The House is doing excellent work -- NO supplementals are coming, and the main budget bills are NOT coming forward either.

Sounds like the fix in your mindset is WAY in.

Paul in LA @ 58:

kaT @ 19:

My senator is Dick Durbin who has lost all credibility with me. All the man cares about is appeasing the powers that be so he can hold onto his power. I doubt very much he would care about some AG violating the law. He doesn't care about corporations doing the same if it benefits his campaign.

The Majority Whip of the Senate, Durbin voted AGAINST the Iraq Resolution, and is one of the primary reasons why the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve has not been plundered by Bushco.

He is also quite famous for having said this, two years ago:

If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners."

Most importantly, Sen. Durbin is heavily favored in next year's election regardless of your dissatisfaction. So maybe you should work at getting his ear and expressing your displeasure in some appropriate (mature) way. I would be OVERJOYED to have Senator Durbin instead of Senator Feinstein representing me.

Senator Durbin has not been a rubberstamp on judicial nominations. But as Whip he does have to vote the caucus, and that means that he may not vote our way in every case. I certainly hope that he will vote against Mukasey -- and I hope you work toward that goal, instead of being disenfranchized as we are here in California with one of our Senators (Feinstain).

If I remember correctly Durbin was "made" to apoligize to the Senate for these remarks a few days later.

The Fix is In With Mukasey

The nomination of Mukasey is utterly transparent in its attempts to enshrine the crony crooks and criminals forever. One only has to do a brief inquiry in Wikipedia or Politicalfriendster.com to see how enmeshed he is in the Rovian machine.

The fix is in as is shown by his recusal from ANY case involving Rudy Ghouliani (ala election theft). His ties are so deep with Rudy it's obvious what he is being planted for. He's going to be Rudy's Alberto for sure. Mukasey's ties to Rudy and his son indicate nothing other than his total allegiance to corporate criminals, the oligharcy and their 'defense'. Speculate further and you can see that his nomination is a shameless attempt at 'protecting' the corporate crooks that Bush has allowed to run rampant, and when the election derails, his recusal from any involvement because of buddy boy Rudy.

You gotta hand it to the republican rovian machine, they create, manipulate and look ahead at the reality so far and so fast its enough to make your head spin off. Just wait till you see the fiasco of 2008 elections when all the appointed and enlisted christianized minions of Bush/Cheney martial all their efforts with 8 years of preparation with our tax dollars. Good thing Rudy gets in, Bush/Cheney ad nauseaum will need all the experts in white-collar criminal defense they can muster.

Mukasey's also in it up to his eyeballs with the cover up of pre-Iraq invasion peace efforts by Iraq, and is guilty of the war crime of imprisoning and drugging a patriot. He's just their man.

"Mukasey's son, Marc L. Mukasey, leads the white-collar criminal defense practice in the New York office of Bracewell & Giuliani.[16] The Mukaseys have a professional relationship with Rudy Giuliani; Mukasey and son are also justice advisers to Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign.[17] Mukasey swore in Mayor-elect Giuliani in 1994 and 1998.[17]'

Tony Fratto, a presidential spokesman affirmed that Mukasey has a close friendship with former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani. He also said that Mukasey will recuse himself from any case involving Giuliani. Newspaper reports assumed that Mukasey will further recuse himself from cases involving Bernard Kerik, a former New York City police commissioner under Giuliani. (Kerik is under federal investigation for bribery and other offenses.) Neither Mukasey nor the presidential press secretary returned New York Times reporters' requests for confirmation of potential recusal from the Kerik case.' Wikipedia

"Two court-appointed doctors determined Susan Lindauer's fate according to a ruling last fall by Judge Michael Mukasey and they had her locked away and drugged in Texas though she's never been a resident of the state of Texas." politicalfrienster.com

"She acted with the knowledge of the CIA in the past in attempting to be a bridge between two cultures whose relationship is one of misunderstanding and mistrust. My understanding is she carried a communication from the Iraq government to the White House. Her cousin Andy Card was chief of staff at the White House. The message from Iraq was that inspections could resume with out any substantial conditions from the Iraq government." americanheldwotrial.blogspot.com

Many speculate that the motivations behind NY Judge Mukasey's sentence for journalist Susan Lindauer to be jailed and drugged in a Texas psychiatriac facility have more to do with her knowledge of prewar diplomatic efforts to avoid war than her mental state. Duh.

Mukasey received his Bachelor of Laws Degree in 1967 at Yale Law School the same time GW was there, pretty much assuring he was a nazi bonesman brother of GW. End of Story. He sucks.

Dr. Acula @ 56,

Thanks. One of my senators will wipe his butt with it and then send me a mannerly but condescending letter politely telling me to go fuck myself. The other will read it and maybe do some thinking. We'll see.