Mukasey Refuses to Say Whether He Was Instructed Not to Enforce Subpoenas

/61 Comments/in , /by

This was stunning stuff. I’m going to hunt down a YouTube. But for now, understand that AG Muksey refused to answer Robert Wexler’s question of whether or not the AG had been instructed not to enforce the subpoenas of Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten. Here’s the liveblog excerpt:

Wexler: Failure to reply to Congressional subpoenas. Refusal of Bolten and Miers to even appear. Have you been instructed by POTUS to enforce or not to enforce subpoenas.

MM: I can’t say.

Wexler: Can you tell me the individual that Clinton instructed not to appear?

MM: Dellinger wrote an opinion.

Wexler: I didn’t ask opinions. I asked about the President instructing someone not to appear. Have you been instructed to enforce or not to enforce contempt citations.

MM: That’s privileged.

Wexler: Should Congress pass a contempt citation would you enforce it?

MM: If you’re talking about a contempt citation based on Bolten’s failure to appear–he can’t violate the President’s request.

Wexler: Are you the people’s lawyer or the President’s?

MM: AG of US.

Shouldn’t Mukasey be able to say, "it would be inappropriate for me to discuss these subpoenas with my superiors, Bush, Dick, and Addington"?

image_print
61 replies
  1. RevDeb says:

    Sums it up.

    Muke the puke is a disgrace to the legal profession. EVERYONE who thought he’d be good at this and wise and fair, etc. should be doing big time penance.

  2. TLinGA says:

    Question: If the Judiciary committee wanted to prosecute the AG for obstruction, would they be able to? Who would be the attorney?

  5. phred says:

    Is there a link to live streaming of the Mukasey hearing, I couldn’t find it on C-SPAN, but perhaps I didn’t look in the right place…

  8. BayStateLibrul says:

    Judiciary needs to push the suppoena issue, and have the courts
    render a desision on the merits.
    Stonewall shows they are guilty…
    No more fucking accomodation…

  10. LS says:

    There must be some kind of law on the books somewhere that trumps “reliance on an opinion in good faith” in order to justify repeatedly having broken the law. Also, there must be some kind of law that tells us how to prosecute the DOJ for not upholding their constitutional oaths to uphold the law.

    This is absurd.

    • IMbobo says:

      There must be some kind of law on the books somewhere that trumps “reliance on an opinion in good faith” in order to justify repeatedly having broken the law.

      it’s called, The Law.

      Also, there must be some kind of law that tells us how to prosecute the DOJ for not upholding their constitutional oaths to uphold the law.

      It’s called, impeachment.

      • LS says:

        Precisely which law…that is what I’m asking. And, yes he should be impeached immediately. He is disgraceful.

        • IMbobo says:

          It’s not a matter of some specific law saying “you must obey the law”. It’s the fundamental precept underlying the whole idea of rule of law. The law itself, the text, is the law. IMO, but I don’t think there’s much room to disagree.

          Hey officer, you can’t give me a speeding ticket. I got permission from my mother.”

  11. RevDeb says:

    Steve Cohen following up on Wexler—If you represent the US, do you represent Congress? If they voted to cite for contempt do you rep. them?

    Great Q. Cohen is one of the BEST frosh this cycle.

  12. JTMinIA says:

    Yes, it’s mind-blowing.

    Think about the implications of Mukasey’s idea:

    with a note from the OLC, Iran-Contra can’t be prosecuted…

    with a note from the OLC, Watergate can’t be prosecuted…

    with a note from the LOC, Clinton can’t be impeached for perjury…

    Wow!

    • cinnamonape says:

      He’s pretty much admitted that he won’t follow up on a contempt citation.

      Well…proof’s in the pudding, I say. If the Republicans think that this is “within the Presidents power” then they should have no fear in voting for the contempt citations.

      Let’s get it over with!

  14. perris says:

    marcy this is just stunning stuff and the tears are gathering in my eyes

    Wexler: Should Congress pass a contempt citation would you enforce it?

    MM: If you’re talking about a contempt citation based on Bolten’s failure to appear–he can’t violate the President’s request.

    where has my country gone?

  15. LS says:

    Impeach Mukasey for lying to Congress during his confirmation hearings. He needs to be replaced. He is absolutely the most arrogant *sshole…worse than Gonzo.

  17. pseudonymousinnc says:

    You start thinking that the man-sized safe in Dick’s office contains a device that transplants the mendacity of Gonzales into the brain of the incoming AG.

  19. RevDeb says:

    Fogive my quoting the whole thing but you have to read this here:

    Mark this Day

    Attorney General Michael Mukasey is back on the Hill today, testifying to the House Judiciary Committee. Paul Kiel is covering it at TPMmuckraker. So far, he’s dropped too big bombshells. DOJ will not be investigating: (1) whether the waterboarding, now admitted to by the White House, was a crime; or (2) whether the Administration’s warrantless wiretapping was illegal. His rationale? Both programs had been signed off on in advance as legal by the Justice Department. Cynics may argue that those aren’t bombshells at all, that the Bush Administration would never investigate itself in these matters. Perhaps so. But this is a case where cynicism is itself dangerous. 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 (Thanks to Democrats like Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer for caving on the Mukasey nomination.). 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.

    • perris says:

      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.

      it is indeed not a bluff, they know as a fact congress will not impeach, they can do whatever they want to do, they have impunity

  20. wkwf says:

    Muke getting algebraic: “‘N’ being a very large number”

    His attitude seems to be to try to act serious while delivering his ridiculous “opinions” and run out the clock.

  24. JohnLopresti says:

    offTopic but with a filament of linkage. In a 37pp ruling February 1 the DC bench denied the government’s request to cooperate in hiding evidence from foreign nationals in executive detention, essentially forcing the government to take yet another appeal to Scotus, adding the issue of secret evidence to Scotus’ current mulling of the constitutional problems with the prior Republican majority congress’ having attempted to curtail habeas for the same prisoner population. Although this is far from the issue of DoJ’s falling into contempt of congress when so instructed by the president, e.g., Miers,Rove,Bolten, it seems the underlying arguments are related to aumf. I think Congress could simplify the issues by revisiting the underpinnings the executive has employed and restating them, else Mukasey simply is going to respond like Gonzales, resembling more a subservient link in a chain than a department director.

    Interpretive comments on the DC circuit’s handing of that defeat to the government six days ago are presented at scotusblog and ReportersCommittee from disparate political vantages, but I think the current liveblog series with the congressional inputs are a valuable counterweight if legislators are going to help DoJ see its way out of the infallibility thicket.

  26. bmaz says:

    Just an innocent little question here; but why don’t they simply vote out a contempt citation on the spot? Maybe cboldt will come along and correct me, but there is no question but that the committee can vote a contempt; why do not do it on the spot? At least as to inherent contempt, it is my understanding that the vote need not even ever go to the full body, but may, in fact, be enforced by the committee itself. Perhaps there is some technical notice requirement I am forgetting; but, at a minimum, they should notice him up on the spot and if there is no notice problem just vote the fucker in contempt right here and now.

    • phred says:

      Because then it would have been a pending case, and not just a hypothetical. Either way, Mukasey can’t answer. See how handy that is?

      • RickMassimo says:

        Yeah, but then they could throw his ass in jail.

        Unfortunately, bmaz, there has been enough evidence over the years that I would bet a small amount of money that most of the senators on the committee don’t even know they can do that.

      • bmaz says:

        No, as to the contempt, it is not hypothetical in the least; it was ripe right on the spot. And he not only can answer; in my not so humble opinion, he is obligated to. See how handy that is? Heh heh.

        • phred says:

          Sorry bmaz, my last comment was intended as a joking reference to the way the WH always refuses to answer any questions about any pending legal cases v. our long line of AG and Supreme Court nominees who can never answer “hypothetical” questions when asked by Congressional committees.

          It’s way past time to hold every last member of the executive branch in contempt and impeach the lot of ‘em.

          • bmaz says:

            I know, pay no attention to me, I am just a little ticked off currently; quite frankly, almost more so at the Democratic leadersheep than the Goopers at this point. Almost…..

            • phred says:

              I’m with you bmaz. I’m so angry, I’m shaking. And I’m past “almost”. I am WAY MORE angry with the Demn Leadersheep than BushCo. The founders expected this kind of tyrrany from Presidents, they DID NOT expect obsequious deference to the Commander-in-Chief by Congress. Congress is supposed to represent US. There are supposed to restrain an out of control executive branch. They are NOT supposed to be the King’s courtiers. My wrath at this point is entirely directed at them.

  28. Loo Hoo. says:

    Schumer and DiFi ought to be leading the charge for impeachment of Mukasey. They brought him up, now they need to take him down.

  29. bmaz says:

    And furthermore, why do our pansy ass punk leadersheep keep bringing feather dusters to an automatic weapon fight??? Sorry for the invective, but I am really sick and tired of this; these Congresscritters, with their complete lackadaisical contempt for the Constitution of the United States of America, do not deserve to BE citizens of this country, much less REPRESENT the citizens of this country…..

  30. Hmmm says:

    I think Muckasey has screwed the FISA/PAA pooch here. Meaning the poison-pill amendments must have just picked up several votes. Hmmm.

      • Hmmm says:

        (Crossposted on next thread too, sorry:)

        I mean that by so outraging the conscience with his answers today, he seriously damaged the likelihood of Senators’ reliance on all of his assertions wrt the FISA/PAA bill amendments. And so likely has lost quite a few votes.

  31. DWDD says:

    Not much to say other than these people just make me sick. Truly.

    And Nanci Pelosi should be serving time in an adjacent cell.

  32. GulfCoastPirate says:

    How do you folks listen to this crap all the time like you do? I’m amazed. I usually just read you folks in the evening but don’t keep up in real time. This guy is frakking nuts.

  33. looseheadprop says:

    Michael Mukasey is throwing away an entire career’s worth of respect, and for what? A job he will only hold for another 9 months?

    This is not caretakering. This is wholesale adoption of the worst depredations of AGAG. Mukasey does not even have the ability to hide behind lack of intellect the was Gonzo could. Mukasey is a smart man, he knows just how evil a thing he is doing.

    • phred says:

      It appears Mukasey sincerely believes in the UE, in which case he is just doing his bit for the cause. For Mukasey to see his conduct is evil requires him to know that it is wrong. Given his performance today, I don’t see how one can draw that conclusion. His job, as he appears to define it, is to protect the President and all his henchmen… the Congress, Constitution, and Country be damned.

      • bmaz says:

        No intelligent attorney with the type of background that Mukasey has, and that is not consumed by nefarious motives, can rationally go where he has. You may believe in the ultimate goals, but you CANNOT legitimately and intelligently argue this shit.

        • MrWhy says:

          Does a legal opinion of the OLC have the weight of law? Or is it merely a legal opinion still subject to the law?

          • bmaz says:

            It is unquestionably the latter. It is analogous to a corporate general counsel giving a CEO of the corporation a legal opinion on some action. The CEO if called to answer for his act criminally or civilly, he can argue that he acted in good faith based upon the opinion; but it does not by itself establish law nor invitiate illegal activity. This argument by Mukasey and the Administration is pure BS.

    • KenMuldrew says:

      Having been “read into the program”, maybe he doesn’t think that the job will be ending in 9 months.

  34. Hmmm says:

    Welp, if we’re going in the tinfoil direction anyway: Suspending the election would be a pretty blunt instrument. Don’t forget other less disruptive-appearing possibilities, including the R convention “drafting” Dick to be either the Prez candidate or the VP candidate; and/or a rigged November election resulting in an R win; and/or a nasty October Surprise; and/or an arranged post-election death of the R Prez or VP, followed by appointment of Dick or W to the VP slot. Continuity could potentially take numerous forms.

  35. JohnLopresti says:

    /Democracy working US-style tag/They could try secret elections and a secret president, but that would get on the evening news; folks then would appear with petitions on clipboards outside the neighborhood markets and in malls, people would sign, that there would need to be a sole presidency. //close ‘Democracy working US-style tag’//

  36. brendanscalling says:

    Good old Senator Schumer

    Most important, Judge Mukasey has demonstrated his fidelity to the rule of law, saying that if he believed the president were violating the law he would resign.

    Should we reject Judge Mukasey, President Bush has said he would install an acting, caretaker attorney general who could serve for the rest of his term without the advice and consent of the Senate. To accept such an unaccountable attorney general, I believe, would be to surrender the department to the extreme ideology of Vice President Dick Cheney and his chief of staff, David Addington. All the work we did to pressure Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resign would be undone in a moment…

    Judge Mukasey’s refusal to state that waterboarding is illegal was unsatisfactory to me and many other members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. But Congress is now considering — and I hope we will soon pass — a law that would explicitly ban the use of waterboarding and other abusive interrogation techniques. And I am confident that Judge Mukasey would enforce that law.

    On Friday, he personally made clear to me that if the law were in place, the president would have no legal authority to ignore it — not even under some theory of inherent authority granted by Article II of the Constitution, as Vice President Cheney might argue. Nor would the president be able to evade a clear pronouncement on the subject from the courts. Judge Mukasey also pledged to enforce such a law.

    From a Bush nominee, this is no small commitment. In many aspects, Judge Mukasey reminds me of Jim Comey, a former deputy attorney general in the Bush administration who has been widely praised for his independence; he did not always agree with us on the issues, but was willing to fight administration officials when he thought they were wrong…

    Even without the proposed law in place, Judge Mukasey would be more likely than a caretaker attorney general to find on his own that waterboarding and other techniques are illegal. Indeed, his written answers to our questions have demonstrated more openness to ending the practices we abhor than either of this president’s previous attorney general nominees have had…

    To defeat him would be to abandon the hope of instituting the many reforms called for by our investigation. No one questions that Judge Mukasey would do much to remove the stench of politics from the Justice Department. I believe we should give him that chance.

    Charles Schumer, a Democrat, is a senator from New York.

    I swear, tons of peopel should fax him a copy of his editorial and demand that he print a retraction, an explanation for how he screwed this up, and a plan for how he’s going to fix this.

  37. maryo2 says:

    Not a lawyer, and as a citizen of the Kingdom of North America have very few rights and acknowledge that even typing on this website is grounds for my death by drowning, and that I have no legal authority to which I could take my plight should I become drowned at the hands of the US CIA …

    But didn’t Mukasey say today that “good reason” is enough to act illegally?

    And at 12:34 P.M. EST today MR. FRATTO said “the Attorney General is testifying on Capitol Hill right now. He answered this question and he said that to make — it would be foolish to speculate on what the law would say about the application of a particular technique in a particular circumstance; that he would need — he needs the facts that surround those circumstances before he can make a legal determination. That’s what the Attorney General said.

    http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/18usc23402340a2.htm

    December 30, 2004 – “There is no exception under the statute permitting torture to be used for a “good reason.” Thus, a defendant’s motive (to protect national security, for example) is not relevant to the question whether he has acted with the requisite specific intent under the statute.”

    DANIEL LEVIN
    Acting Assistant Attorney General
    Office of Legal Counsel

Comments are closed.