Mukasey and the 'get out of jail free' card
By Steve Benen Thursday Feb 07, 2008 3:34pm
Attorney General Michael Mukasey has been kind enough to share some fascinating insights with the House Judiciary Committee on an administration that believes it can immunize itself from law breaking. Seriously.
Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) asked if Mukasey was prepared to prosecute admitted instances of administration-ordered torture. No, the AG said, because the Justice Department decided it was legal.
In the same hearing, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) pointed out that the president had authorized an unlawful warrantless wiretapping program, and inquired as to whether this was an example of the president breaking the law. Mukasey said it couldn't be against the law, because the Justice Department decided otherwise.
David Kurtz explains exactly what Mukasey argued before lawmakers today.
We have now the Attorney General of the United States telling Congress that it’s not against the law for the President to violate the law if his own Department of Justice says it’s not.
It is as brazen a defense of the unitary executive as anything put forward by the Administration in the last seven years, and it comes from an attorney general who was supposed to be not just a more professional, but a more moderate, version of Alberto Gonzales....
President Bush has now laid down his most aggressive challenge to the very constitutional authority of Congress. It is a naked assertion of executive power. The founders would have called it tyrannical. His cards are now all on the table. This is no bluff.
Quite right. I’d only add that this entirely accurate description of the administration’s breathtaking abuse of power is the natural conclusion of the Bush gang’s self-immunization philosophy.
Login or Register to post comments.
WTF?! Does this stuff just never quit????
It's rather complicated. Before saying anything, read this.
It's official.
We have become that "Crackpot Dictatorship" we are always struggling so hard to bring Democracy(tm) too!
I weep for my country....
Don't feel sorry for the Dem Senate one bit. They approved him, live with it.
Congress won't do damn thing except talk shit.
Pelosi and Reid must be replaced with someone who will do something.
At some point, the colonists realized the Red Coats weren't bulletproof.
#5:
Exactly right. They're going to ask him nicely to stop, and when he refuses they're going to agree to disagree.
How unpopular does the president have to be before congress feels emboldened to call him on this nonsense? What political repercussions are they so afraid of?
That was so awesome how the congress just let this guy slide by... I remember reading various places (maybe MSM... don't remember) how this guy was OK and was going to be WAY better than Gonzo... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
...
...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I COULD HAVE TOLD YOU THAT HE IS JUST GONZO II OR GONZO LITE.
JTM @ 2:
BULLSHIT
As to Benen's leader: please provide the exact quotes where Mukasey said that a positive opinion from the OLC on an issue implied that it "couldn't be against the law." By my recollection, Mukasey was never that clear, at least not on this point. Instead, Mukasey said that he couldn't prosecute anyone for doing something that the OLC opined was legal. That's a huge difference. Your way of saying it implies that the OLC could change something from illegal to legal. Mukasey never said anything like that. It's his assertion that an OLC opinion that something is legal means the entire DoJ will, from then on, say the same thing. Nothing was converted from illegal to legal; an opinion from the OLC implies that, at least for the DoJ, it was legal the whole time.
tjb @ 9:
Thanks for the intelligent discussion. Anyone else?
If the President does it, it's not illegal.
Thing is, we let him get away with it, and therefore we prove him right. If there's a law on the books but no one enforces it, it's not really a law.
Impeach or go home, Congress! Since you do neither, it's at the citizens' feet now.
When the president disbands the congress then just maybe traitor NANCY will find the time to make some room on the table.
He's not gonzo lite, he's the robo-AG 2000.
Unlike the sleazy little alzheimer's pretender who wheedled and whined and squirmed and outright lied, this one just tells it like it is.
"Are you going to prosecute wrongdoing?"
"No."
So there's not even a pretense of following the rule of law anymore.
It's the shrub co. brand justice dept. from now on and if you don't like it why don't you try bringing it to court? LOL! Hilarious.
What's his buddy Shumer say about this?
Jo @ 15:
Yes, I will be interested to hear what Schumer and DiFi say now.
12009
Oh my! Oh my! Everybody is up in arms. Everybody is full with indignation. Everybody is full with distress. So, who gives a rat's ass.
Nothing is going to happen. In my opinion, the reason nothing is going to happen is because if the Democrats take over this shitty Government we have now, they might apply the same procedures these mothefuckers are using right now. And in my book...my fellow Americans, that's fine and dandy.
Mukasey is a good little nazi.
So how much is your soul worth? Exactly one position in a failing administration. If only this asshole was around for Nixon. Impeachment why? The president declared it legal to spy on Democrats. Silly goose.
I have come to the conclusion that another tiresome rant about impeachment will only bring on Paul in LA to tell me, again (and endlessly), what a total waste of time it is and how NancyPants has so many better things to do and the senate will never convict anyway and it is divisive and will hurt dems in the fall, so I wont. Instead I will urge you all to send emails of congratulations to the Senators who voted to confirm another AG who believes that the preznit does not have to obey the law - attaboys all around! - And lets all send MizzNancy some nice lace hankies for her to twist when she explains, again, that she wont explain why, no matter the crime, impeachment is off the table (oh, and don’t forget a few head-covering hankies for brave Mr. Conyers, too).
JTM @ 16:
I'll take a wild guess:
"We are very disappointed by the attorney general's position and strongly urge him to reconsider."
Heh, does this really come as a surprise? Seriously, to anyone, especially any of the Democratic Senators who voted to confirm this guy
Here we see an illustration of that most difficult problem of a free country and good government: Who will police the police?
It is the executive branch that is in charge of enforcing the laws. It is a good thing that Congress is not itself allowed to enforce the laws it writes. Separation of powers is a good thing. A great thing. And for an executive branch to have discretion about refusing to enforce laws in certain instances is a good thing too. But, oh, what do to when it is the executive branch itself that is breaking the law?
The framers had an answer: Impeachment. It's part of the checks and balances that makes the separation of powers viable. When the executive branch itself is so clearly violating the law, the legislature does get to enforce the law against it.
When the legislature refuses to do this -- either for political expediency, or because the Senate will effectively practice jury nullification to protect a party member -- the government is broken. It marks a Constitutional crisis.
That's what the last 7 years have been: One long Constitutional crisis. A Court told a state to stop its vote counting. The president that ascended as a result claims unitary authority to do whatever the hell he wants. And Congress refuses to do anything about it but whine.
HDon @ 6:
Bears reposting...
Happy Chinese New Year of the Rat! This is good read all the way to the end of the story.
A woman walks into a curio shop in San Francisco. Looking around at the exotica, she notices a very life-like, life-sized bronze statue of a rat. It has no price tag, but is so striking she decides she must have it. She takes it to the owner:
"How much for the bronze rat?"
"12 dollars for the rat, a hundred dollars for the story," says the owner.
The woman gives the shop-owner 12 dollars.
"I'll just take the rat, you can keep the story."
As she walks down the street carrying the bronze rat, she notices that a few real rats have crawled out of alleys and sewers, and begun following her down the street. This is a bit disconcerting, so she begins walking a little faster. Within a couple blocks, the group of rats behind her grows to over a hundred, and they begin squealing. She starts to trot toward the Bay.
She takes a nervous look around and sees that the rats now number in the thousands -- maybe millions -- and they are all squealing and coming toward her faster and faster. Terrified, she runs to the edge of the Bay, and throws the bronze rat as far out into the Bay as she can.
Amazingly, the millions of rats all jump into the Bay after it, and are all drowned.
The woman walks back to the curio shop.
"Ah ha," says the owner, "I'll bet you have come back for the story?"
"No," said the woman, "I came back to see if you have a bronze Republican."
JTM @ 11:
Yes - permit me to bloviate a bit:
There seem to be two arguments in play here - one is that it even if it is unlawful, you can't prosecute someone for doing it because you told them it was. The other is that, even if you could, there is the barrier of "reasonable reliance on lawful authority".
As to the first - it seems to be a variation of the classic legal ethics problem involving the attorney-client relationship. I would argue that, at the point that you allow someone to engage in conduct that a "reasonable person", standing in the shoes of the advice giver, would know is unlawful, you have ceased acting in a legal capacity and have instead become a co-conspirator in a criminal scheme. An AG should not be able to "self-immunize" simply by weilding the shield of his office.
As to the second, it sounds like a variation on the "I was just following orders" defense.
Didn't another "George" in 1776 try to get away with similar antics? Maybe it's something about the name.
Circle jerk I call it.
If it's OK for a President to actually pardon a convicted criminal, for offenses committed FOR the same President, well, see no difference here.
We've come back to know Law Breaking time and again and nobody (who can do anything about it) gives a shit.
Will Obama/Clinton have the guts to send Bu$co and Cheney and their ilk down to Gitmo for a little "alternative" interrogation before they declare waterboarding off limits and close the entire Cuban base down?
There is one recourse: impeachment. Maybe, since there is little stomach for the real target- Bush/Cheney they should start with Mukasey. But to let yesterdays testimony stand unchallenged is to put an imprimatur on the new imperial presidency. This should be bipartisan. The stakes are so high that maybe the two parties can just concentrate on the task of conserving our democracy. If they impeach Mukasey, then warn Bush that he's next, maybe it will be enough.
WTF is it going to take for Congress to DO THEIR FUCKING JOBS??????
Are we gonna have to wait for the shrub to declare martial law before something is done with this out of control administration?
Sooo...
If Bush goes to someone in the DoJ and asks, "Can I murder someone?" And the flunky says, yes sir, of course you can! And then Bush goes out in public, pulls a gun and shoots someone, in front of the cameras, the Secret Service, and God, he can't be prosecuted?! Because someone at DoJ told him so?
So then, it's the DoJ making our laws, not Congress, not the people, and not the courts interpreting them.
Well, I'm glad we got that settled.
This is getting out of hand. Bush can nullify any law Congress passes with a signing statement, and he's using the Justice Department to interpret what is and is not lawful. Maybe getting out of handisn't strong enough terminology. Any suggestions?
JTM:
On the issue of actual prosecutions of someone at the CIA, I agree that it's complicated. The notion that bothers me is the manner in which the exec wants to rebuff prosectutions. They want the all descisions to be made by the exec. The legislature doesn't write the laws, they selectively do via signing statements. Courts don't interpret the law, the DOJ does. I just see no check on executive power right now.
garcia @ 18:
Be careful what you ask for.
When the president disbands the congress then just maybe traitor NANCY will find the time to make some room on the table.
It would appear that he already has and we now have a Monarchy ( but with not even a Parliament). How on Earth did we allow this to happen to our Country and how do we apologize to our kids?
There's at least a third argument, which is what Lederman says Mukasey is using.
You first have to accept that whether or not waterboarding is legal is an open question, or, at a minimum, that some people believe this. If you can't even wrap your head around that idea -- and I, too, have problems -- then move on to the next post. If it helps, I'll refer to waterbaording as W from now on.
OK, so there's a question of whether W is legal. So someone asks the OLC. The OLC says it's OK. That means that the entire DoJ says it's OK. That means the DoJ can't investigate anyone for doing W, because it's illegal to investigate someone for doing something that is legal. Ergo, as Mukasey said yesterday, he cannot investigate the CIA for waterboarding in 2002 and 2003.
What's screwed up here is having an OLC inside the DoJ. That's a breach of Separation. If the OLC never does anything stupid, you don't notice this problem, but the current Admin not only got the OLC to be stupid, but to be brazenly outrageously stupid.
So basically he is bush's lawyer, judge and jury. I thought the title was Attorney General of the United States. They need to change the title.
I have a bad case of anger fatigue today.
Proud2bHumble @ 24:
I loved it too.
It never ceases to amaze me that people actually expect the Bush/Cheney crime family to obey the law!
What else would you expect from a group of people who have done nothing BUT break the law ever since they illegally invaded and occupied the White House.
The greatest proof of their criminal actions is the fact that since invading Afghanistan that country has hard record opium production. If you can't fight a war on drugs with a full-on real life army, then you ain't tryin'.
Bush the Liar @ 5:
Not to worry everything will be fine. Patrick Leahy is going to write another stern letter!
If the American Bar Association doesn't move to disbar Mukasey, they're not doing their jobs either.
What say we write them a letter?
IM...peachment anyone?
he's probably scared.
That defense didn't work too well at Nuremberg.
When Bush disbands Congress and suspends the constitution, that'll be legal too so long as he gets a memo from the DOJ.
Is there a jail big enough to hold every criminal in the Bush regime? Maybe it would be easier to just build a prison wall around the White House?
This so far off topic that it just fits perfectly.
Scy @ 4:
Unfortunately we all have to live with it, Scy.
Pelosi and Reid deserve to rot in hell for enabling this bullshit.
If this administration had followed the law, they couldn't have screwed us in the many ways they have. If a dem. wins in November, they can pretty much do whatever they want, following bush's lead. Wait till they sign a signing statement and listen for the right to go crazy and raise hell. The same hell I guess we should have raised if we had damned elected officials who listened to us.
The outrage of congressional democrats at this overturn of the rule of law is awe inspiring. Theirs is the party of courage, of vision, and, above all, the party of the Constitution. I thank God I lived to see this day.
So all Bill Clinton had to do was request his OLC to rule that lying in a deposition in a civil lawsuit was legal. Then we wouldn't have had any of this impeachment nonsense back in 1998.
Or John Mitchell's OLC to rule that breaking and entering into the Democratic Party HQ at the watergate hotel was legal.
missmarple @ 36:
Fear and complacency. Enough people got so frightened by 9/11 that they were willing to do that which Ben Franklin so eloquently warned against -- give up liberty for safety. The real threat was, and always will be, too much authoritarian government.
More importantly, though, most people are complacent. Government and politics is just too far removed from daily life. It just doesn't affect us. Not in any real way. Or so most people think. Americans live in a giant Cabaret from which they are only now starting to emerge. I hope it's not too late.
As for apologizing to future generations, I would recommend a couple things. The first is to actively work for comprehensive electoral reform. If we can change the the mechanisms by which we elect our representatives, a lot of Congressional inaction will change. Our system is archaic, and fosters the kind of broken government free from any choice of candidates that will do anything about it.
Next, we need to add (re-introduce) comprehensive study of the Constitution and civics in our public education systems. You shouldn't be allowed to graduate high school without a fundamental understanding of how the Constitution works -- all of its blessings and all of its faults. Most people are woefully ignorant of Constitutional law. (And too many are willing to chuck the Constitution when it doesn't say what they'd like it to. That's not just the crazy Bushies. It's the so-called strict constructionist judges who avoid the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. It's the progressives who don't like the limits on the federal government. It's the conservatives who also don't like the limits on the federal government, but for very different reasons. Etc. Etc.)
Without these two things, I personally don't see much hope for the country at the moment.
lorelei23 @ 32:
That's correct. We no longer need the congress, or the courts. DoJ will tell us what the law is. It may change from day to day.
bob Says@35
Thats why impeachment is essential. If there is no judicial recourse because the AG is conspiring with the president, then there has to be a repudiation. Hypothetical: Clinton gets elected, conservative senators want discovery on some fresh scandal. She's going to A) comply with their fishing expedition or B) Classify every piece of paper in the White House and order every person there to ignore subpoenas. Just cite bush v world and go from there.
We have to reject the bush/cheney imperial presidency.
lorelei23 @ 42:
Worth a shot.
If Mukasey told congress that next time he was coming that THEY would be waterboarded, they'd all show up in their bathing suits.
What's the point of even voting democrat. I really hope Obama's different if he gets elected, but I'd be none surprised if we just kept getting all of the same nonsense.
Can't you just hear them now?:
"Yeah, it would be GREAT to restore Habeas Corpus or stop the war, but we need to think about the FUTURE. Here's the DNC's plan: If we can get ALL democrats for 2012 - president, both houses, a bunch of Supreme Court justices drop dead, ,all of the governerships, 80% all mayors and we get Dennis Miller back - THEN we'll actually stand up and talk very, very sternly to republicans. When all that happens, they WILL hear us, and then I'm sure they'll note our complaints."
Such winners.
steve @ 34:
Exactly.
By "Mukasey" logic, the OLC (Judicial Branch inside DoJ which is under the Executive) can give binding legal opinions. By historical precedent, signing statements (legislative actions by the Executive) can alter the law. Ergo, by a combination of Mukasey Logic and signign statements, you have the unitary executive.
People bitching "why doesn't congress do something" need to know what Congress should do. If you impeach this guy, you have not fixed the problem of the unitary executive; you have simply removed this one. You need Congress to challenge signing statements as unConstitutional. You need Congress to submit Mukasey Logic to the SCOTUS, as well. Otherwise, this problem will remain in the background.
Mukasey doesn't need the bar to be AG.
lorelei23 @ 42:
What are you talking about? Given the logic of his position, Mukasey is due a raise.
All the Mukasey that's fit to print at TPMmuckraker.
Everybody knew this asshole was just another Bush Ass Kisser and corrupt criminal.
You might as well light a match to the Constitution.
This administration has completely corrupted the checks and balances of power, and they could not have done it without the Congress and the Courts allowing them to get away with it.
Signing statements, torture, missing documents, using the justice department as their personal law firm, spying on Americans, illegal detention, illegal wars... (go ahead add to the list).
The saddest thing is; this is now precedent for future administrations.
What is the difference between Mukasey's tortured logic and "I was only following orders"? In seven years Bush has broken the army, looted the treasury, ruined the economy and shredded the Constitution. If we're lucky we'll get a country back - but historians had better write this as a warning to all - a determined bunch of conscience-less, power hungry criminals can take over this country in a very short time.
Obama is saying that he will restore Habeas Corpus. Just had to get that in for the record. I haven't heard Hillary say it, but that doesn't mean she hasn't, just that I haven't heard it.
JTM @ 58:
And thats an issue too. The primary reason for Alito and Roberts being bush picks is they are strong proponents of the unabridged power of the president. In fact so is Mukasey and EVERY person hired in a legal position.
Truth B Told @ 39:
Somebody added to my standard French Revolution suggestion last nite:
"Freedom's got an AK"
lol
Spotts1701 @ 26:
Well put!
.
Another possibility is terminating the war powers act. I dont know how that would work, but that would take the fig leaf away from the multiple war crimes.
It is only an abuse of Executive power because Kurtz and some spineless Democrat dim-bulbs say so?
Guess what? Fuck you!
President Bush has done what he God damn well pleased for the past six & 1/2 years and will continue to do so for the next (18) months. Get over it already.
Good for President Bush. Whether you love or hate 'W' he has done the job and no one has told him what to do or when to do it. His own man, our greatest President ever. When Bush said he was the decider he meant it. When Bush said he preferred being dictator he become one. When Bush wanted war he started two. When Bush set out to rob the treasury he was brazen in a broad daylight heist...
and to the Courts and the American people... piss off!!!
George W. Bush, the Greatest President Ever!
Acting Patriotic @ 61:
Note how Durbin is not even trying to fight "Mukasey Logic," maybe because, like Lederman, he admits it is logical. Instead, Durbin is going after the OLC lawyers. If you can show that they did not give an honest opinion, then they can be taken down. Sadly, it leaves the people who did the torturing free, but I doubt any method will get to them.
To JTM: Its not that complicated. The next (Democratic) administration should prosecute one of the torturers. I'm guessing he would tell everything he knows, and just like any other criminal conspiricy it could be traced back to its source. They do it with drug dealers, why not with the criminals in the DOJ and the White House?
This administration has completely corrupted the checks and balances of power, and they could not have done it without the Congress and the Courts allowing them to get away with it.
We kept electing the same bunch that were willing accomplices, so we bear some of the responsibility.
moondancer @ 69:
Has nothing to do with this. You need to find the legislation that created the OLC inside the DoJ.
JTM @ 60:
And this guy was a judge?
I swear before heaven, in fifty years when all these guys have died, hell is going to be absolutely full.
Powkat @ 72:
Prosecute him or her for what? He or she was doing something that the person he or she was supposed to ask "if this legal?" said was legal. You would have to first show that (a) the OLC's opinion was patently false and (b) that the torturer knew this. Good luck.
Let's all send a big Valentines thank you to Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer for bringing us Alberto Gonzalez-the sequel.
JYM:
"People bitching “why doesn’t congress do something” need to know what Congress should do. If you impeach this guy, you have not fixed the problem of the unitary executive; you have simply removed this one. You need Congress to challenge signing statements as unConstitutional. You need Congress to submit Mukasey Logic to the SCOTUS, as well. Otherwise, this problem will remain in the background."
I agree. But they do nothing! The whole impeachment thing is laughable. They won't enforce a friggin subpoena, but next is impeachment. I'd settle for anything at this point.
I wonder how much $$$ the Carlyle group will make off the new "budget"
Oh I get it, the DOJ advised that torture was AOK. Then the torture was carried out and when the torturers can't be prosecuted because they are simply the recipients of bad legal advice from the DOJ. So you see, nobody is accountable.
This reminds me of something...
Oh yeah, the president was advised there were WMDs and a huge mess of a war began. People died, the US gained a nasty reputation, billions in tax dollars were handed over to haliburton and it is not the fault of 'the decider' because he was simply the victim of bad intelligence.
Someday I want to be a high ranking government official and become immune to being responsible for my actions.
moondancer @ 69:
Terminating the war powers act would give Bush all the power that he wants. The war powers act requires the president to seek retroactive authority from Congress upon sending the military somewhere. All presidents since its enactment -- including Clinton -- have complained that the law unconstitutionally infringes upon the powers of the Commander in Chief.
It was designed to balance out the separation of war powers in the Constitution, or at least give the separation some meaningful order. Only the president can command the armed forces to do something, but only Congress can declare war. There is a lack of clarity over what happens when the president acts militarily without an official declaration of war. It can't always be illegal. The president has to have the power to protect us, and make spur of the moment decisions.
Just getting rid of the war powers act would essentially mean that the president could venture off onto wars without officially calling them "wars."
If we really want to fix this, we need to amend the Constitution to clarify the war powers. We need to define what a war actually is, and give Congress the explicit power to end military action by declaring it to be over.
lorelei23 @ 75:
This man was "THE" Judge that signed the arrest warrant for one Jose Padilla, based on an erased video testimony given under torture.
And we wonder why he won't comment on waterboarding? He's not only protecting those who performed it and ordered it's use, he's also protecting himself.
A side note:
Jose Padilla was NEVER convicted on the original charges stemming from that arrest warrant... Hummmmmmmmmmmm...
.
What do you expect when the Bush Admin knows 'impeachment is off the table?"
Thousands of people tried to tell the Senators that this man should never be confirmed as Attorney General because of his refusal to state that waterboarding is torture. It is and has been considered torture since the middle ages and has been successfully prosecuted by the US and other countries. There is no discussion or question that waterboarding is torture.
Now, the Senate must do something, impeach Mukasey if necessary, to correct their horrible mistake.
Mukasey is nothing more than an enabler and protector of this criminal administration that stole the White House from the American people. They must be stopped before our Constitution is a mere memory to any of us.
Impeach these felons immediately!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pelosi and Reid are Co-Conspiritors in Bush's little game; What Bush can do then so can Democrats when they take the Whitehouse.
"We have now the Attorney General of the United States telling Congress that it’s not against the law for the President to violate the law if his own Department of Justice says it’s not."
Why does this sound familiar? Oh yes.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
Humpty-Dumpty, in Alice Through The Looking Glass.
I hope somebody's due for a fall.
Max-1 @ 82:
Mukasey is AG because he strongly subscribes to cheneys view of the executive. I think many of us missed the theme of bushco lawyers. We were caught up in the christofascism, the assault on civil rights, etc and missed THE common denominator. Strong belief in unfettered executive beholding to the other branches for nothing except budget.
Even as the Republicans are solidifying the powers of the unitary president, states like Ohio and California are outlawing hackable voting machines ... But you have got to be kidding yourself if you think the neo-cons are going to allow a free and fair election that could hand their carefully constructed unitary executive power to the Democrats. If they aren't convinced they can steal yet another election, they won't allow it to be held.
Congress has one option to derail the unitary executive - which is a euphemism for dictatorship - and that is impeachment. Without impeachment, there won't be a real election.
No one in DC gives a shit about the constitution. And we will see if bush leaves in a year or not...
GMAFB!
How stupid and arrogant is that. Basically, mukasey is saying, "Go fuck yourself."
his argument is totally unbelievable. We are suppose to believe that chimpy's justice dept. broke the law but really didn't because the lawbreakers say so?
GTFOOH! MFs!
Once a piece of the Constitution is broken, all of it is broken. Look how the game is played, rigged ballot boxes, big votes, little votes etc.
The media making like the repugs have an ounce of common sense.
With all the bs going on with repugs side is strickly elephant shit. they can't stand the dems getting the momentum started, the good feelings all in side us and the unity.
The Internet is the people's newspaper. Thank goodness.
repugs are crumb snatchers
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iydeOyggFYPXd5hlLVAwwd7ruGMA
It's too late to whine about Mukasey, especially when the Senate leadership knew there weren't enough votes to break a filibuster. Everybody knew what they were getting with this guy.
If we cannot bring the people who are trying to destroy our country to justice, maybe we should ask the world court to do it for us. I am talking about GWB & Co. also Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid. What is the penalty? If our AG cannot do the job, then we need someone else who is honest to do it. When GWB, DC or the other criminals get off the plane in a foreign country, let them be picked up. Enough is enough.
john in california @ 21:
Yes, you have all of the parts of the argument, without any actual alternative.
• Mukasey is a hardcore Bushovic, and that has been obvious all along.
However, it is better to have an actual AG instead of what we would have had otherwise, which is a series of asst. AG's none of which can be put in front of Congressional committees.
rcca @ 92:
The ICC has absolutely NO power over the United States -- its charter does NOT allow it involve itself, and only the ignorant would think so.
I hate to invoke Godwin but isn't this the "Nuremburg Defense?"
Anyone who engaged in torture can say "I was just following orders!"
Blue Mark @ 88:
"Impeachment" will not change anything in November -- only CONVICTION would.
You and I don't have enough votes for conviction, so you might as well move your argument forward.
Nevermind that the 'unitary executive' is toast, Bushco's power is ruined, and the AG coming to Congress and refusing to do anything is a sure sign of that. They can only stonewall; and stonewalling is not power building -- it is defensive, not offensive.
Donaldd @ 85:
Scapegoating is the lowest form of political discourse. The suggestion that the Democrats want Bushco's 'unitary powers' is completely unsubstantiated mallarky, suitable for school children.
Tom Belt @ 84:
It's an interesting form of ignorance, this idea that 'impeachment' will solve all the problems of a COUP.
No COUP in world history has EVER been removed by 'impeachment.' No AG in the history of the US has ever been impeached, and there are not enough votes for such a conviction EITHER.
Mukasey is a place-holder, assented to because it is better to have an AG, any AG (under these circumstances), than an empty chair.
Couldn't you imagine former Saddam Hussein arguing that his war crimes were not, in fact, war crimes, because HIS justice minister told him it wasn't?
Pete @ 49:
The House has NOTHING to do with advice and consent on executive nominees. ZERO.
There is no 'hell.' And blaming the Speaker for the actions of the other body is absurd.
Call it what it is: we live in a police state.
Maybe violence is the answer.
Mukasey: "I'm sure that we can talk about possible additional discussion of what is in the letters between the department and members of this committee."
Well, thanks a hell of a lot, Michael. That's very generous of you. The opinions by the OLC are simultaneously the basis for immunity for everyone in the executive branch and they are not available for perusal, even by congress. We are all Jose Padilla now.
Epinoia @ 99:
Yep. In fact, I think he did.
missmarple @ 36:
They don't have the power to 'disband' Congress -- they can murder everyone in it, but that's hardly the same thing.
Blaming Pelosi for Bush's coup (abetted by the entire R party) is classic. Keep it up! You empower your enemies every time you decide to scapegoat the Speaker for the actions of the OTHER party, the collapse of the legal system, the Bushco violent coup, and the complicit media.
It's all her fault! Let's put DLC Steny Hoyer into the Speaker's chair, and lose the Progressive agenda! Let's go BACKWARDS.
Paul in LA @ 97:
"Mallarky"? Are you sure it isn't "hogwash" or "jibber-jabber?"
Was Mukasey asked about the congressional subpoenas?
this is the same crap that started the french revolution and why we have a
constitution of the United States. these fuckers need to have their heads
removed......they don't use them to follow the laws....so they don't need them.
Old Billy @ 101:
We DO NOT live in a police state.
Violence is NOT the answer.
You really ought to study what a police state is. Bushco does NOT have the allegiance of the police agencies in the country. What you do by calling it a police state is make it 'reasonable' for ignorant people to attack local cops thinking they are fighting 'the Man.'
I have personally stopped, with other nonviolent protesters, attempted rioting by stupid anarchists who STUPIDLY think that fighting with the local cops is somehow striking back at Bushco.
When you use that language, Chicken Little, you empower stupid violence that accomplishes NOTHING other than alienating the police and removing would-be protesters from the street (and into PRISON).
dadams @ 105:
Sorry- don't take my out of context quote as an insult, but as far as the French Revolution goes, "It's the economy, stupid."
dadams @ 105:
That didn't work out so well, as you may recall.
This is not the 1700s. Bushco CANNOT WAIT for you to give them a training exercise on their microwave weapons, their sound weapons, their laser rifles, their sticky foam, their TASERs, their drones with advanced riot gases, and every other MODERN evil in the arsenal.
This is not the age of flintlocks. Get real.
JTM @ 2:
It's not that complicated nor hard to understand. All repugs are crooks especially anyone associated with chimpy.
I say unto you, repug article! repug article!
Taken right from chimpy's DoJ and the Godfather playbooks. Just as James Bond had immunity to English law.
chimpy owns law.
The only reason Bush waterboards is because another 9-11 would affect stock prices....
Old Billy @ 104:
Basically. He refused special prosecutors, he refused process. This is all known already, that he would do this. That he DID do this is important, but not in the way the Henny Penny's here think.
Mukasey is in for a rough year. The stonewall is a sign of weakness, and the Congress has just begun to wear him down over it.
I hope Pelosi chokes on her own words when she said impeachment was off the table. The Chimp has the emotional maturity of a child and the only way to make a bad child behave is to punish or threaten to punish him or her. By removing impeachment, Pelosi basically told the boy-king he would not be punished but he still better behave.
Epinoia @ 99:
Exactly!
mukasey knows damn well if the shoe was on the other foot, he would prosecute all dems. He's so full of elephant shit. The stupid bitch wants to play the "Who's on First" bullshit.
"VIDEO: Mukasey Testifies He Will Not Enforce Contempt Citations Against Administration Officials
Stonewalls Wexler's Questions in [House] Judiciary Committee Hearings
ALSO: 'Conyers Says He's On Edge of Impeachment Hearings,' According to Report by David Swanson..."
(bradblog has the video)
Soulcore @ 3:
I weep with you. We are now officially a banana republic with nukes. We believe there was no crime because we are paid very well to do so. Bush, Musharref, what's the difference? Break the laws we want, imprison who we please because "we are the puppet masters".
People, it's not America any more.
Frybread @ 112:
That's nonsense. By blocking a guaranteed to fail process, she gave the Congress time to recover from 12 years of Republican rape of the institution, which wasn't a huge success, but it was a reasoned strategy.
For all the two years I worked my ass of for impeachment (2002-2004), I nevertheless understood that conviction was not on its way. Unless you come to terms with that FACT, you cannot claim to a rational view of the situation. Speaker Pelosi did the hard thing, not the easy thing.
Had she really been what most of you think, she would have allowed the impeachment votes, and crashed the Congress into the partisan wall. It would have been over a year ago, and Bushco would be growing today. Instead, Bushco is in shambles, and we likely will have a transition of power in 2009.
Old Billy @ 104, 114 was in response to your question.
Paul in LA @ 116:
Buscho in shambles is much more dangerous than an impeached Buscho. And I would have liked to have seen them at least try than tuck their tale between their legs like they did.
Thanks again Di-Fi and Schmooster! Assholes!
Oh, and screw you too Nancy!
BushCo may not have police agencies, but they have Blackwater and other mercenaries. I'm sure they will be happy to round up and/or murder their fellow citizens for the right price.
Conyers will just ask where and how he is supposed to kiss bush's ass. I can't believe the spinless democrats let by this one, who was supposed to hold republicans responsible. You almost think he is in cohoots with them.
Paul in LA @ 116:
She failed to defend the constitution! That is her first sworn duty!
They broke the law. Repeatedly, and with malice of forethought. If the sheeple had this brought to their attention, Bush and Cheney would be cooked.
And Bush would never rebound like Clinton did. The American people know the difference between a blow job, and a liar who has murdered and bankrupted the American people for his own gain.
Frybread @ 118:
That's flatly untrue.
A FAILED CONVICTION would have given Bushco a MANDATE.
Your desire for a 'beautiful failed effort' to make you feel better was not credited.
NoGWBpolicyleftinplace @ 122:
She upheld her duty by REFUSING to send a guaranteed-to-fail process forward.
You go find the successes of executive impeachment in US history (NONE), and then grasp the concept of a COUP, an illegal gov't put in place by votefraud and conspiracy, which has the view, supported by a 5-4 Supreme Court, that warmaking gives the C-in-C absolute powers.
Or, you can scapegoat, and be happy in your ignorance.
NoGWBpolicyleftinplace @ 122:
'Sheeple' is a derogatory bit of bigotry.
The People have no particular power over a coup.
Marge @ 121:
Slanders in search of an argument or any factual data.
Chairman Conyers is far more of a hero than you, Marge. Go ahead and name the various things YOU have done which outweigh Conyers' FORTY years of working for change, daily.
I don't think your list will compare with his. Cahoots that.
To Paul in LA #94
You miss the point. They need to stand trial for their war crimes. We expect other countries to obey our laws and international law. These bastards feel they are above the law. Looks like the AG’s office says they are above the law. What do you do? Wait for the treason charges? Then what? We expect the people of the United States to obey the laws of our land. We have people arrested for drug usage spends years in Jail while GWB is free? How about a reservist or military peeople that went AWOL while GWB is free? People arrested for spying on other people/companies? Jails are full of people for possession of marijuana. How many members of congress or the senate tried the drug, and inhaled? I am sure GWB his friends passed around a few. He admitted to his drinking and use of drugs.
What if you have a corrupt AG who decides what is legal? Where would Richard Nixon or Spiro Agnew be? Bill Clinton is impeached for a crime where nobody was killed while GWB & Co. kills thousands of people on a war based on lies. Where is the equality in Justice there? Who will bring the rule of law back to our leaders? Do we need outside help, or do we wait for another puppet to be the AG? You tell me.
At one time we looked good to the world. We brought our scandals out for the world to see. I am not talking about Britney or O.J., but Nixon. What has happened to our country? What has happened to the office of the president? What has happened to the people who represent us? That is why we need a third party to go from them or us to what is right and wrong. The political parties have way too much power. They have become religions to some. But that is for another time.
This guy was a freakin' Federal Judge! The ultimate middle management martinet. Someone should have asked him, "Judge, if a Assistant U.S. Attorney walked into court and said, 'I decided to that what this guy did was legal, so I dropped the charges.' What would you have done? Wouldn't you have told the prosecutor that his job is to enforce the law and your job, the job of the guys in the M-F in' dresses is to interpret the law?"
What a fuckin' putz.
Prof.
enor @ 63:
rcca @ 127 "They need to stand trial for their war crimes."
Without a doubt. Too bad we don't have a legal system in the country to do that.
"These bastards feel they are above the law."
Currently, they are, restrained in part by politics, and to a significant degree by the Congress, and at this point, the Joint Chiefs and DoD sec.
"...What has happened to our country? What has happened to the office of the president?
We have had a COUP. It's really quite simple so far as that goes. The only real question is whether there will be a transition of power in 2009. By failing to convict, the odds of that would have gone DOWN, not up.
We MUST find either Republicans to file (or co-sponsor) a bill of impeachment, and/or we MUST find Republicans in the public to pressure their representatives to support. Absent either of those, conviction was NEVER coming.
I do now believe we should work hard to impeach Cheney, even though we likely won't be able to convict (remove) him. That might play into their hands (he could resign, and they might transition a VP, even perhaps McCain), but it would at this point give the Senate something to do other than fold on important legislation.
tHeGaMeOfLiFe @ 129:
What a repugnant and idiotic inclusion of racism in the debate.
[Anyhow, I'm going out protesting. I'll come back later, if anyone actually wants to reply to the points I'm making.]
Fienstien and Schummer..........they are responsible for this guy being appointed....they said...
They tought in the interest of fairness and to give the guy a fair chance.....they were pro Mucasey.
Don't forget their names.
Get Rid of them asap!
sorry for the bad spelling.....................
This administation is certainly not behaving like an administration that is on its way out..
IMPEACH THE MOTHERFUCKER ALREADY!!!!!!!!!
Frodo II.
These Issues Belong In Court, Article III
1. Illegal Assertion of Article III powers
The DOJ AG/DoJ policy statements are merely advisory for the President, and are not decisions. The Article II entities -- Executive Branch, the President, and Attorney General -- have no Article III judicial power to decide whether something is or isn't lawful. An assertion of Article III powers by the AG's office is only possible if both the Article I legislature and Article III Judiciary assent to that illegal assertion of power; and if We the People do not lawfully challenge this abuse of power through grand juries in re oath of office enforcement.
2. Article III Powers in Judicial Branch, not AG's office
DoJ AG never heard of the Judicial Branch? Where's he been? Oh, that's right, he used to be an alleged rubber stamping judge. DoJ has no legal basis to assert that something is or isn't legal; it can argue that before the court. However, it's up to the court, not the DOJ AG or for the DoJ to decide whether something is legal or not.
3. Enforcement Required
Let's recognize DoJ AG is simply asserting his power as the AG to dissuade Congress from taking this matter to the Courts. Not that the courts are there to act as a referee between the President and Congress. Rather, it's the role of the DOJ AG to either recuse himself and let an investigation occur; for him to give way to other prosecutors who will enforce the laws of war; or, by implication, accept his statement as policy: There is no plan for the US to enforce the laws of war, therefore, the ICC needs to take the lead.
NMRon @ 136:
It's not going to happen. Say what you want, Bush does whatever he wants when he wants and tells the Dems to go fuck themselves… and they do... time after time.
Blaming Bush who has never been held accountable in his whole life, a person who doesn’t have the word consequences in his vocabulary… is doing just what he has always done.
The Democrats are JUST as responsible for not doing their job in this “check and balance” democracy… they have let this country down, again time after time. There are no excuses for why the Democrats have not impeached Bush and Cheney.
We’ll elect a Democratic president and the Republicans will tie him up with investigations and trumped up accusations just as they did with Clinton. My hats off to them… they play the incompetent Democrats like a fiddle.
Consider the Congress subpeonas them to testify, they refuse, flip Congress the bird and the Congress does NOTHING! What a sorry bunch of whimps.
Paul in LA @ 106:
But we're getting pretty damn close. I lived in Chicago the night the Iraq War started. Thousands of people went to the streets, and thousands got shunted off Michigan Avenue, and hundreds were arrested. I don't think anyone was ever fined or convicted, but the cops sure shut down the protest in fine order!
How many people have the local cops and the Secret Service arrested in the last seven years for having different opinions -- and being too close to Bush/Cheney. At least during the '60s Vietnam protests it was all out in the open, now it's all under the radar. And none of us would know without the Net -- it would all be just "local" stories. The MSM ignores it completely, they censor themselves, willingly.
Thank god for the ACLU. Time to send them some money again.
This is why we need to elect a Democrat, ANY DEMOCRAT, in the fall. If we elect a Republican this law breaking will become a part of who we are. If we elect a Democrat ... it will PROBABLY not become a part of who we are. Seriously, where do the candidates stand on this? Or are they too busy boycotting TV stations to deal with this issue.
I find it interesting that when Nixon and his "plumbers" got into a sticky situation at the Watergate, one thing led to another and the first place action happened was a SENATE Committee Hearing!!! After that big brou-ha-ha it moved to the full House where THEY voted that the House Judiciary Committee should draw up articles of Impeachment!
We've been led to believe that John Conyers and Nancy Pelosi are God on the issue of Impeachment. Please check out the way things went down with Nixon:
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/nixon.htm
Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Gonzalez and now Mukasey have down FAR worse than Nixon. Why not repeat the same steps with them as The Senate Committee did with Nixon?
And here's the latest back and forth between Rep. Wexler and Mukasey:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7M9sjRLCtQ
No way have they assembled this much executive power just to give it over to the Dems in '09. Think about it.
No way they're giving up power, and what are we going to do about it?
Gee, I never saw this coming. When those nice senators were giving this nice man the grilling process and then just flew him right past approval, I never would have known that he would stand up for Bush. Those senators must feel really bad. In fact, I think they should resign in shame. And then we can get back to waterboarding and all that other stuff we never used to do in the USA until Cheney took over the world.
Robert Wexler is doing what is needed--building a case that can't be overturned. Please support him and encourage him and ask him and all constitutional experts in the house and senate to meet with Pelosi and Reid and demand that they uphold their responsibilities. This story has gotten far too little attention in the midst of the very compelling primary races. But it is time to demand it be covered. They'll suspend Shuster and ignore the end of the constitution. They'll follow Britney and ignore creeping fascism. How do we stop this?
O.K. then, Bush decides that the election of 2008 is not valid and he will remain the President. Mukasey gins up some horseshit decision that Bush is correct and viola, we have a third Bush term. Makes as much sense as the crap Mukasey is pulling on every other issue so why not really go for the whole enchilada. Every citizen in this country lives by laws or goes to jail except for Bush and his merry men (and Condi too whatever she may be). We are so close to being a dictatorship that it isn't even funny and we can thank two people for that, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid. They had the chance and honestly the duty to bring these criminals to justice and they did nothing. Either they're being blackmailed or else they're being cut in on the take and at this point I'm not sure which one it may be.
Every citizen in this country should be sweating these last months out. When 1/20/2009 arrives and we see BushCo headed off for the Crawford pig farm then and only then can we breathe a sigh of relief. Up until that time who knows what these pricks might pull, just because they feel they're above the law and like to prove it at every opportunity. In my 49 years on this planet I would have never thought that people like this would ascend to power in the United States. Any bunch that makes Nixon look like a choirboy has to 100% pure evil.
If they do indeed leave we have to be on the watch for the loyal Bushie burrowers. Political appointee hacks who burrow over in to permanent government positions without going through the normal channels. They're high up enough to continue to wreak havoc by continuing the neo-con agenda so we can't let our guard down. And I wonder why I don't drink, seems like the logical way to deal with this don't you think?
lorelei23 @ 140:
The attempt to generalize that kind of repression FAILED. For the record, I faced off on eight men (individually) who wanted fist fights on that night. None of them landed a punch, except for one guy who was drunk -- they're hard to control. The police gave up trying to keep us off the streets as soon as a few lawsuits developed -- which is proof it isn't a police state.
Pursang @ 146:
They don't have that kind of power left. Absent a terrorist attack of some major scope, absent a nuclear war, they do not have the ability to just announce they are staying. The AG is NOT an official with that power, and neither can the Supreme Court make it so.
enough @ 145:
Wexler's case is important because it MAY sway some R to come along with the effort. Absent R support of some sort, it isn't Speaker Pelosi (or Reid) who is in the way.
Nohobear @ 77:
Alberto Gonzalez during a hangover.
Login or Register to post comments.