Leahy Retreats
Patrick Leahy has capitulated on scheduling confirmation hearings for Michael Mukasey's nomination as Attorney General. Originally, Leahy wanted to hold Mukasey hostage to his demands for internal memos from the White House. However, the Bush administration has apparently proven too tenacious for Leahy:
Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) signaled yesterday that he will move ahead with confirmation hearings for a new attorney general later this month without reaching a deal on documents that he hoped to obtain from the White House.But Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, also said that nominee Michael B. Mukasey will be confronted with a range of questions related to ongoing conflicts between Democrats and the Bush administration, including whether Mukasey would allow prosecution of White House aides for ignoring congressional subpoenas.
In a letter to the nominee released yesterday, Leahy complained that "the White House has chosen not to clear the decks of past concerns," including Democratic demands for documents and testimony about the firing of nine U.S. attorneys. ...
The remarks indicated an end to Leahy's attempt to use the Mukasey nomination to pry loose sensitive information from the White House about the prosecutor firings, the government's warrantless surveillance program and other issues. Leahy's office has been in intensive negotiations with White House counsel Fred F. Fielding since President Bush named Mukasey as the nominee three weeks ago, but no agreement has been reached.
Leahy has yet to announce a date for Mukasey's confirmation hearing, though Senate aides have said it is likely to be held in the third or fourth week of this month. In his letter, Leahy invited Mukasey to a one-on-one meeting Oct. 16, suggesting that a public hearing would be held soon afterward.
The resignation of Alberto Gonzales has taken the wind out of Leahy's sails. The Democratic caucus has lost enthusiasm for the pseudoscandal now that they have a Bush crony's scalp on the wall. The nomination of Mukasey has also dulled their appetite, especially since he comes pre-endorsed by Chuck Schumer.
That leaves Leahy with little leverage to use against the White House. The memos he demanded have always been understood to be protected by executive privilege. The same is true for the subpoenas against the political advisors to the President. The Bush administration won't budge on either, mostly to protect the privilege for succeeding administrations. Leahy finally figured out that Bush doesn't get intimidated by Congressional committees, regardless of which party runs them.
For that reason, Leahy will probably get a disappointing answer to his question about subpoena enforcement against political advisors. In the first place, Leahy is wrong on the law. Congress cannot direct the Justice Department to enforce any law; law enforcement is an executive branch responsibility, not a Congressional prerogative. Congress has to enforce its own subpoenas.
In the second place, the Justice Department cannot interfere with a legitimate exercise of executive privilege, and it's not up to them to determine the legitimacy. The proper process is for Congress to sue for its enforcement, and to allow the federal courts to settle the dispute between the two branches of government. Congress has not done that in this case, probably because Leahy knows that he will lose. Instead, Leahy is more interested in grandstanding and acting unconstitutionally by ordering the DoJ to follow Congress' orders.
It is essentially a stupid and pointless argument. If Leahy wants to continue making it, he will be known as a stupid and pointless Senator. I'd guess that Leahy will give it one last half-hearted try, and then get through the Mukasey nomination as quickly and quietly as possible.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on October 4, 2007 6:45 AM | Comments (13) | TrackBacks (0)
Comments (13)
Posted by Jazz | October 4, 2007 7:17 AM
Who serves out the rest of this term as AG seems to be a non-issue to me. The real mystery is how anyone could be talked into taking the job at this point.
The real damage, IMO, has already been done. The AG's office has long since ceased to function as a supreme authority of law enforcement matters and has become a political tool, controlled by whoever is doing the appointments that season. This is one of the greatest disservices done to us under the Bush administration, though it started during Clinton II as I read things.
The fact that GOP supporters, including the Captain, continue to justify the stance taken on executive prveledge (in that the executive branch can not, in effect, ever be questioned or pressured to provide any information which might not reflect on them favorably) will come back to bite us all in the ass. Trust me... I don't know which party will win the 2008 presidential election, but neither party will hold the White House forever. And when a Democrat is sitting there and thumbing their nose at Congessional demands for documentation on how they got all that money from Mr. Hsu, saying it's "protected information", you're not going to be happy. Not happy at all. Every power, protection and immunity you heap upon George W. Bush will be inherited by his successor.
Not looking ahead is sometimes as dangerous as failing to heed lessons of the past.
Posted by Lazarus Long | October 4, 2007 7:29 AM
Saint Patrick IS known as a stupid and pointless senator.
"Pat Leahy: Never met a subpoena he didn't like."
Posted by Immolate | October 4, 2007 8:08 AM
Jazz, are you aware of a legitimate remedy that Congress can pursue when the executive claims executive priveledge? If there is one, then why isn't Congress using it? Ed's point, and it seems fair, is that Congress can turn to the courts to attempt to override executive priveledge, but hasn't attempted to do it. Ed believes that is because Congress knows they can't win that battle because their case is lacking. What is your opinion?
Posted by Anthony (Los Angeles) | October 4, 2007 8:12 AM
If Leahy wants to continue making it, he will be known as a stupid and pointless Senator.
You mean he isn't already?
It's fitting that this comes up soon after the entry regarding Metzenbaum: he and Leahy have been two of the most hyper-partisan senators of the last 20 years.
Posted by dad29 | October 4, 2007 8:19 AM
If Leahy wants to continue making it, he will be known as a stupid and pointless Senator
I suggest that your use of the future tense in that clause is erroneous.
It should be the present tense.
Posted by RD | October 4, 2007 8:29 AM
Off topic but a reminder: your cell phone number is being released to telemarketers-to prevent this call 888-382-1222 (you must call from the cell phone number you want blocked) There is also a web site but I don't have that. And yes, Leahy is a louse looking for some kind of validation. He just looks clueless.
Posted by bio mom | October 4, 2007 8:55 AM
The attorney's controversy is abating but the New York Times is doing its best to resurrect it and keep it on life support with this morning's front page epic about secret judicial opinions allowing all manner of awful torture techniques by those sadists trying to protect the country. The Times will never stop.
Posted by Sue | October 4, 2007 9:53 AM
All I can think about, as I sit with my head down, is that is a tinfoil hatted leftist loon wins the presidency, it'll be like this for the next 11-12 years....OMG!!!!
Posted by David M | October 4, 2007 10:31 AM
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 10/04/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
Posted by skeptical | October 4, 2007 3:11 PM
Yep, if we wait long enough, we'll be able to read all the memos Leahy wants in the papers.
Hey, Captain, any opinion on whether the Pentagon's uniformed lawyers or the White House, Gonzales, Addington, Yoo, and now Bradbury are right about our previous stand on the aggressive interrogation techniques that look suspiciously like torture? I know a lot of folks support torturing terrorists for intelligence-gathering purposes, but what do you think about the techniques, their legality, and their morality?
Posted by RD | October 4, 2007 3:37 PM
What a gullible idjit I am for passing along an e-mail (I thought since it came to the museum district it was valid) which is not creditable. Cell phone numbers are not being released by the government-so please accept my apologies.
Posted by Xango Annie | October 4, 2007 5:23 PM
Stupid and pointless. how about we add traitor to that..remember he leaked classified intelligence. and at least one agent was murdered because of that..Bloody Leahy!!!!!!!!!
Posted by ERNurse | October 6, 2007 4:20 AM
Jazz wrote: "The AG's office has long since ceased to function as a supreme authority of law enforcement matters and has become a political tool, controlled by whoever is doing the appointments that season."
I agree. Ever since Clinton appointed that goose-stepping she-male Janet Reno, and the whole Waco "mishap", not to mention that little episode involving storm troopers ripping a scared little boy out of the arms of a relative to ship him back to Cuba...
Yep. The position of AG has been spoiled forever.