Comments on: Michael Mukasey, the Shortest Honeymoon Ever

By: bmaz

bmaz — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 01:52:28 +0000

Fair enough. Of course, if we end Manny, Moe, Jack, or any of the other Rethug candidates; we got bigger problems than Mukasey…..

By: MrWhy

MrWhy — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 01:45:41 +0000

Not. Going. To. Happen.

The working assumption here is that the Democratic nominee will win the WH. If by some chance the Republicans win (hey, they won the last two somehow) you might reconsider wanting Mukasey gone. Assuming he works out OK over the next year or so.

By: Starbuck

Starbuck — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 00:35:52 +0000

Hmmm, I jumped the Zed crap on FDL, and now it’s gone.

Perhaps it will disappear here also.

When I see it, I don’t even bother to read further. I’m inclined not to read another thread!

My partner pointed me to post 13, so I had to say something.

By: Neil

Neil — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:01:11 +0000

I agree. I like the ZED and Fitz! on FDL but not so much here on Emptywheel.

By: bmaz

bmaz — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 20:39:29 +0000

Yes, I am really that confident. Why? For all of the reasons we have been discussing here over the last year. If there is to be some “bi-partisan” use of Republicans in any new Democratic administration, it sure as hell will NOT be as Attorney General.

By: emptywheel

emptywheel — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 20:32:23 +0000

No on both counts, specifically.

Mukasey said in responses to Senators that he could not use DOJ to pursue contempt bc DOJ has already told them they would not be held in contempt.

And he has said he doesn’t think a Special Prosecutor is necessary, that they can do it in house.

That doesn’t mean there wasn’t a deal, but it wasn’t either of these things.

By: joanneleon

joanneleon — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 20:26:48 +0000

I still wonder whether any deal was made for the Mukasey confirmation. Did he agree to appoint a special prosecutor? Biden just announced that he wants a special counsel for the tapes case. And as we know, the precedent is there from the Nixon days:

In fact, that is exactly what happened in 1973, in a Watergate precedent that closely parallels the Mukasey nomination today: Attorney General Richard Kleindeinst had resigned under a cloud. President Nixon, faced with a hostile, Democratically controlled Senate, proposed a “consensus” candidate, Elliot Richardson, for Attorney General. Like Mukasey, Richardson was a respected figure whose qualifications were not seriously questioned.

Nonetheless, the Senate Judiciary Committee advised Richardson that he would not be confirmed unless he agreed to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate alleged Watergate crimes. That condition did not impugn the nominee’s credentials in any way. Richardson agreed and appointed Archibald Cox to the position, whose investigations and summary dismissal ultimately resulted in the House Judiciary Committee voting to impeach President Nixon, forcing his resignation.
Richardson’s Confirmation, a Guide for Mukasey’s

Or is it possible that a deal was made in which Mukasey agreed to try contempt of Congress cases where the executive branch is still refusing to comply with subpoenas?

If the democrats confirmed Mukasey and got nothing in return, that would be a huge mistake and would be surprising, even for this Senate.

By: randiego

randiego — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 20:09:05 +0000

OT curmudgeon alert:

Would it be possible to dispense with the “ZED!”’s and the “FITZ!”’s… please? For the love of Mike there’s enough to sort through and read!

By: billinturkey

billinturkey — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 20:03:39 +0000

Shouldn’t happen – certainly. Not going to – are you reaaly that confident? and why?

By: bmaz

bmaz — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:59:39 +0000

Not. Going. To. Happen. The DOJ is in need of wholesale decontamination; there is no way in hell Mukasey will be left in charge.