i am out of the loop.. when did bush or? finally decide that gonzalas had to go? or did gonzalas finally realize how inept he was and decided to retire? i missed it all in the news.. thanks for anyone who can fill in the blank for me.

We have a potential nausea situation here. From Bush’s announcement of Mukasey’s nomination:

When [Mukasey] takes his place at the Department of Justice, he will succeed another fine judge, Alberto Gonzales. From his days as a Supreme Court Justice in Texas, to his years as White House Counsel and as Attorney General of the United States, this honorable and decent man has served with distinction. I’ve known Al and his family for more than a decade. He’s a dear friend and a trusted advisor. I will miss him and I wish Al and Becky all the best.

This is a tactical move, and one that I think was unplanned.

As between Mukasey and Clement, Democrats might prefer Clement. As between Mukasey and Keisler, there is a clear preference for Mukasey. Keisler, having tendered his resignation a month ago, is more â€disposable†as a political pawn. Methinks he’ll stay on as long as it takes to have an AG confirmed.

There may be another dynamic in play, I haven’t checked this one, where Clement’s temporary replacement lacked the conviction (or background) that Clement has on the detainee cases soon to come before SCOTUS.

IMO this is just another in a long line of the Little Emperor’s temper tantrums, â€This is what I want and I want it now. Now, Now, Now, NOW!â€. Thus far his ability to whip everyone in Congress into a frenzy has worked flawlessly to get him what he wants (USA PATRIOT Act, Military Commissions Act, Protect America Act, etc.). He’s just sticking with what works. Just watch, Congress will work itself into such a tizzy, it will collapse in a fit of the vapors, just as King George wants, again.

– We’ve been rooked (chess switcheroo) –

Except President Bush could have named Keisler or anybody else as â€acting,†up front, without much to suffer i the way of substantive political fallout.

I don’t read much into the switch, at any rate. I think it was just an opportunity that wasn’t clear a month ago, Keisler having tendered his resignation, timing of Gonzales resignation and identity of replacement nominee being uncertain and all — just easier to put a current â€non-resigned†official in as â€acting†at first, then sort through the players, feel them out, etc. as the field for nominee is narrowed.

In other words, not much thought was put into â€who’s going to be acting?†in the first place.

There rarely is much thought of the big picture with this group of reactionary loons.

It sounds rather like a child and his ball and the highway and the choice being offered to the team. until you give me this second rate hack, I will force this 4th rate crony on you. It is not believable that the mucous nominated can possibly be on the level. How would this admin nominate anyone that would begin by indicting them?
Leahy is right. No one until we sort out the departing criminal’s actions. First things first, there are answers, documents, and sworn testimony that come first. Why would anyone consider the alternative with a justice department that is so bad that the acting AG didn’t buckle down today and was replaced by someone who has all ready quit?
please, this is making it hard to write political jokes.

Here’s what Lederman says:

â€Full disclosure: Peter is an old friend; indeed, he was one of my note editors back in the mid-1980s. It will come as no surprise that we do not agree on a great range of political and jurisprudential questions — and, of course, I have taken issue with arguments in several briefs that Peter has signed as head of the Civil Division. But notwithstanding all that, I can vouch that Peter is an attorney of great skill, judgment, integrity and fair-mindedness; I am confident he will make a superlative Acting Attorney General.â€

Lederman thinks a hell of a lot more of keisler than I do. No way, Keisler is exactly what he has been made out to be here. By the way; of note:
Wilkes Will See Sealed Plea of Vacationing Tommy K (Michael too it appears)

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004200.php

A bit of context on Keisler.

Whether Lederman likes him or not, bc of his position at DOJ he’s been pointman (or bagman, depending on your take) for most of the state secrets cases (like the ATT/Hepting) He’s also been the go to guy for all the GITMO detainee policies. Arguing against right to counsel, right to confront evidence, against right to not be sold to the US and held in blackhole abuse forever, etc.

If you haven’t noticed, he’s hit some courts who aren’t as sympathetic as they once were. Not only that, he’s hit those courts with an incredible dearth of credibiity. Judge Kessler has asked in open court why the court should believe representations from a DOJ atty and the detention cases are replete with misrepresentations to the courts and out and out bad faith. Like the Kurnaz case, where the 200 pages of â€classified†evidence – the ONLY evidence – was all EXCULPATORY when the court got it. And where Keisler’s DOJ crew argued to the court that the defense lawyers should not be able to argue any of the exculpatory evidence (which was the only evidence) because it was classified.

Or where a Dist Ct had to rule that there was not one shred of reason for the Chinese Uighur habeas plaintiffs in that case to have been called enemy combatants and Gov (and the military tribunals) were totally disingenuous before the court – – but the court had the Kafka-esque position of not being able to order their release.

So Keisler and his dept have shot crediblity as some of the most important cases are going up. Including the â€right now†disputes http://www.scotusblog.com/mova…..t_det.html
that might result in a court order requiring production and which might result in document destruction, war crimes cover up, etc. at DOJ rather than actual compliance. Certainly, the Padilla video requested by his defense team disappeared fast from military and government custody when it was ordered to be produced.

And there has been an all out press, with affidavits from everywhere, by DOJ to get the court to not make it show its evidence for â€state secrets†and national security reasons. Mukasey will, with his adverse experiences, put the best face on that argument that they could put.

BC the truth is, once they start having to produce the human trafficking records, the exculpatory evidence, the nonsensical ’evidence’ etc. – the war crimes issue is right there, qued up with the Goldsmith draft memo. Protected persons, bought or otherwise illegally taken and transported out of their countries and into abuse. If that evidence is produced, after having been sat on for so long, it will undercut that much more any credibility in DOJ and the Presidency.

And it will prove what the courts of old said repeatedly – back when courts were courts: that our leaders won’t always be good men and you can’t assume under the law that they are.

Mukasey is coming on board IMO to try to put valid arguments and a good face on the state secrets and national security arguments that are taking hits. Mukasey, for his part, has seen some bad things and probably has some actual real world rationale for why he thinks some things should be handled with more circumspection – and he appears without the taint of his own active participation in promoting war crimes. Keisler will be running things bc his ’things’ are the hot button items right now for the criminal aspects of the current adminstration. IMO.

Mukasey will be coming on to try to salvage the secrecy with a credible claim for it other than covering up criminal acts and malfeasance. IMO

bmaz, so what you are saying is that Bush wants Keisler to oversee the Wilks Kat. case? Maybe the decider thinks Clement would focus too closely on this?

cboldt – after ketchup on your comment, â€As long as he’s on his way out, let’s attach a bunch of bad stuff to him first.â€

I think we are thinking on the same lines – if Keisler’s nomination was stalled in 06, then it is that much more so now.

But I do think they all believe in the salvagablity of Clement. Whic isn’t going to remain intact if he keeps signing off on letters turning down Congressional document production requests.

– Mukasey will be coming on to try to salvage the secrecy with a credible claim for it other than covering up criminal acts and malfeasance. –

I’ll be surprised if there is a DC Circuit en banc rehearing, and triply surprised if the result is reversal of the Boumediene â€call for production of evidence.†I don’t think the Circuit Court is open to pure â€trust us†persuasion, regardless of the face that pleads â€trust me.†In order to rule in the fairness of the process, it needs to see the wheels turning. The Circuit knows the case will be appealed to SCOTUS. May as well wait to handle it on the rebound.

My impression is that the facts that underlie the cases (grounds for indefinite detention, CSRT process, etc.) are old and not amenable to repair. Hence my â€die have been cast and are waiting to come to rest†remark.

I don’t see the administration giving Mukasey much more room to â€back off†on the bottom line of secrecy, than it gave Gonzales. One difference will be the skill of presentation, another may be the dumping of some of the weaker arguments.

I have no idea how the individual cases will turn out, but I’m sure the process needs to improve, and I doubt the Courts are ready to rubberstamp.

The issues involved are bigger than any individual player.

– But I do think they all believe in the salvagablity of Clement. –

I hadn’t thought of that â€gravy†in the shift, and agree that SG is a much safer place, under the circumstances.

you folks are all pretty sophistaced. so sophistaced that answering my question at the top seems beneath ya’ll perhaps. anyone around who could answer it, i would appreciate it.

scroll down on this page to archives on right side of page,click on August, scroll down to the 27th article my Mimikatz.
this might help answer your question.

Maybe Clement pulled a â€Comey†and wouldn’t sign off on some absurdity.

Mary — Your comment lays out the advantages of the Clement/Keisler/Mukasey arrangement pretty clearly from Bush’s point of view. But I’m curious what the up-side would be for Mukasey. It seems his reputation could only be tarnished by a close association with this administration, limiting his own future prospects and ambitions. Why would he agree to do it? Obviously, it’s a speculative question, but if you envision Clement is potentially being saved from this mess, what do you envision for Mukasey?

Mukasey is of retirement/consultant age and has never been in the Bush-appointee mold for higher judicial office. I think he has true and sincere concerns about how terrorism should be addressed (I don’t buy into all he frames but I understand his framing) So my guess is that he gets a shot at adding AG to his list of accomplishments which is nice, but more than that IMO he really thinks he may get a shot at trying to go to work with the WH and COngress to set up a legislative/domestic trials approach to address some of the real issues of security v. the real threats to the Constitution.

That may be naive, but I think he may have thoughts along those lines. I think he does see where Bush policies have put the FBI and CIA and Dep fka Justice lawyers and he may think he can do better.

I probably won’t support much of what he does to get there – but I actually think that he is on board at least partly for that. His history is of being the kind of Republican/Conservative that is sentient and aware of broader reprucussions – not a Goldsmith or Yoo. jmo fwiw