Captain's Quarters -

I think Hillary is whispering in Shumer's ear, what with all the possible Hsu investigations.

from the article you linked to:

"For decades, Judge Mukasey has been a close friend of Mayor Giuliani. He worked beneath Mr. Giuliani both at Patterson Belknap and at the U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan. It was Mr. Mukasey who swore in Mayor-elect Giuliani in 1994 and 1998. Along with Mr. Olson, Judge Mukasey currently advises the Giuliani campaign on judicial matters. Judge Mukasey's son, Marc, is a partner in the New York office of Mr. Giuliani's law firm, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP.

Given his close ties to Mr. Giuliani, Judge Mukasey has faced teasing from friends who have told him not to get too comfortable back at his firm given the prospect of a Giuliani presidency, a source said."

I just hope people on the right do not try to ruin the man. I expect that kind of thing from the likes of Schumer, but it is distressing to watch conservatives eat their own..time and again.

Captain Ed:

Why are you surprised that Schumer has changed his mind. Did you really think that the Democrats went after Gonzales for the good the Justice Department and the good of the Government?
Why can't Republicans ever learn that Democrats are only interested in the pursuit of power for its own sake and not for the sake the American people.

Lucy pulled the football away from Charlie Brown again.

Ditto, Terrye!

Republicans should be solidly supportive of this AG choice of one of the short-listed candidates. We should watch Schumer squirm as we pass the popcorn.

Judge Mukasey has some very strong Conservative supporters who are familiar with the jurist's strengths re the defeat of terrorism's perpetrators.

Chuck Schumer has been caught out by his own prideful machinations. His backpedaling paints him as the fool we know him to be.

Looks like Schumer has received his orders from Moveon and the KozKidz.

As I said before in the last post on this subject:

Mukasey=Olsen and Schumer opposes Olsen but not Mukasey? Nope. Can't happen. Schumer,and the rest of the Democrats,will FIND ways to oppose Mukasey for one reason...Bush appointed him.

If it were possible for Bush to have appointed Jesus Christ,the Democrats would have opposed His confirmation just because Bush appointed Him. It's a BDS thing.

So-- would any of us feel better if Schumer had embraced Mukasey?

With Mukasey at the head of Justice, odds would improve that Norman's Hsu's confederates would be tracked down and brought to justice.

Manchurian snacks, anyone?

I think this is more of a case of the NYT trying to gin up controversy. You left out the first part of Schumer's statement which reads in full:

Subject: SCHUMER STATEMENT ON REPORTS THAT MUKASEY WILL BE NAMED NEXT ATTORNEY GENERAL

U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer released the following statement Sunday night regarding news reports that the White House will nominate former U.S. District Judge Michael B. Mukasey of New York to be the next Attorney General of the United States:

"While he is certainly conservative, Judge Mukasey seems to be the kind of nominee who would put rule of law first and show independence from the White House, our most important criteria. For sure we'd want to ascertain his approach on such important and sensitive issues as wiretapping and the appointment of US attorneys, but he's a lot better than some of the other names mentioned and he has the potential to become a consensus nominee. "

—U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer

K-Lo was bemoaning how Schumer's endorsement of Mukasey was going to make it harder on Conservatives to like him this morning on the Corner.

Sounds to me like Dems like this guy just fine. Ball is your court now Cap. Let's see the Conservatives do a Harriet Miers on him.

Great point, quickjustice!

With Guiliani's ties to Mukasey and America's mayor's willingness to take on Hillary Clinton head on, we may get to the bottom of the Hsu chop suey as a bonus.

The Democrats are marionettes, with strings pulled by beady eyed rodents who can't burrow their way out of their mom's basements.

Senator Schumer obviously should have waited until MoveOnYouSmellyLunaticYouDisgustMe.org before he opened his mouth.

What difference does it make though? The DNC's major media mouthpieces certainly will not make a story out of the unethical dope Schumer's partisan flip flop.

Anyone silly and ignorant enough to vote for a Democrat, any Democrat next fall deserves what they get.

The rest of us certainly do not.

Oh sure, all Schumer wants is an AG who will violate the constitution by being "independent" of the President. How reasonable. Ball's in OUR court!

First, all of you are wildly miscontruing Schumer's words which seem pretty supportive to me. In fact, if they were any nicer, conservatives would be screaming that if Schumer likes him he is an unacceptable choice. What do you want Schumer to say, "Oh, what the heck, let's just skip the confirmation hearings and go ahead and install the guy!"

Second, please remember when a Dem is president, all these comments you have made about how the president should get to do whatever he/she wants with no oversight. I seem to remember Republicans holding hearings on everything under the sun (including 170 hours of hearings on the White House Christmas Card list) when Bill Clinton was in office.

Ed, you should have just stuck to decaf this morning. Your screed about Sen. Schumer's rather mild comment on Mukasey's nomination to be AG is waay over the top. Maybe you feel obliged to do it given the "retarded" emails you've been getting, but really, you shouldn't.

Joseph Goldstein, New York Sun: In a statement issued last night, the senator was somewhat guarded. "For sure we'd want to ascertain his approach on such important and sensitive issues as wiretapping and the appointment of US attorneys, but he's a lot better than some of the other names mentioned and he has the potential to become a consensus nominee," the statement said.

Hmmm... Due diligence is part of the "advise and consent" function of the Senate; I expect them to investigate the professional qualifications and views of a nominee in the interest of avoiding putting idiots in charge of federal departments. However, I fully expect that greaseball Trashcan Chuckie to suddenly discover "troubling" aspects of Mukasey's career or philosophy or something he said over drinks at a frat party when he was in college. After all, he's the guy who publicly announced that Bush didn't have a right to have his nominees be confirmed.

" What do you want Schumer to say, "Oh, what the heck, let's just skip the confirmation hearings and go ahead and install the guy!"

YES. He's got nothing to complain about, so he offers probable support while he works to invent something.

We have only one excuse for how we treated William Jefferson Clinton: he was guilty as Hell.

"Your screed about Sen. Schumer's rather mild comment on Mukasey's nomination to be AG is waay over the top."

Yes it was mild for Schumer. He didn't actually call Mukasey a liar. He must still be searching the judge's garbage for credit card receipts.

Clearly some of you are rather naive about how Washington works. If Schumer came out and said that Mulasky was his bestest bud and secret crush, you people would act like savages and tear the judge apart. Everyone from Glenn Greenwald to Ruth Marcus on the Left has said this guy is OK and no one seems to have any real concerns about him on the Left. That is usually the kiss of death for conservatives who will now accuse him of being a secret lefty.

And, Yell, what exactly was Clinton guilty of except for lying about a BJ? I don't recall anyone ever convicting him for any other crimes despite the Republicans accusing him of everything from being a rapist to killing Vince Foster. When you people talk about "Bush Derangement Syndrome," it is as if you have complete memory loss about the fools you made of yourselves during the Clinton years.

Teresa: ... what exactly was Clinton guilty of except for lying about a BJ?

Well, not to get technical, but his "lying about a BJ" constituted perjury. You know: the felonious act of lying under oath? Is there a clause in the law that allows lying under oath about "little things" that I don't know about?

The irony, of course, is that libs screech about "Bush Lied!"(TM) with no evidence to support their contentions (I don't count the testimony of the voices in their heads as credible evidence), while they just sort of shrug off the fact that Clinton was found guilty of lying and disbarred because of it.

Yet, somehow, DocJim, Scooter Libby being convicted of committing perjury after being prosecuted by a Republican prosecuter and a Republican judge is somehow no big deal to conservatives. Give me a break.

Ever wonder why so many just don't get it?

Clinton used the Office of the President to obstruct justice. The "lies" about his activities with Monica were a mere germ of the total package. He perjured himself on several occasions while under oath. The crux of it all was his willing and concerted effort to deny the civil rights of at least five women who had filed civil cases naming Clinton. It isn't and wasn't about innovative cigar humidors, but being the simplistic lot most Americans have been bred to be, the fallacy of why the GOP "went after" Clinton still borders on urban myth.

As for Schumer...would YOU trust him with Your wallet? He will do anything at anytime under any circumstances to: a) stay elected [it is the ONLY career he has ever held]; b) to propel himself and stay among the king makers of the Democrat Party; c) deride Bush, disable the Administration and cut the GOP off at the knees by any means possible.

He sole interest is the power he holds in Congress, nothing less.

So...you want Libby to get more time for the same crime than Clinton got? Or the same free pass? Or you want them both in Angola Federal Penitentiary?

Clinton used the Office of the President to obstruct justice.

Not true. Clinton never asked others on his staff or otherwise used his powers as President to obstruct justice. That Clinton personally lied under oath about his relationship with Lewinsky while President is true, but that's it. The real crime is how Linda Tripp's information that she gained from Lewinsky prior to Clinton's testimony was deliberately used to set a perjury trap for him by Ken Starr. If you read what Tripp said with Starr's line of questioning, it's as clear as can be how Starr wasn't only interested in the relationship but wanted to set Clinton up to lie. Not that it excuses Clinton of course, but it makes it clear that the intent of the proceedings wasn't to do justice, but to get Clinton.

Scooter Libby's lies on the other hand were, as Patrick Fitzgerald said, done to kick sand in the eyes of the investigation regarding who outed Valerie Plame's status as a covert CIA agent. That was a clear abuse of Libby's office and why Libby was found guilty by the jury. That Bush commuted Libby's sentence absolutely stinks of a deal that was made as part of a genuine obstruction of justice.

The Yell asks, "So...you want Libby to get more time for the same crime than Clinton got? Or the same free pass? Or you want them both in Angola Federal Penitentiary?"

---------------------

No, I just want people to stop being so hypocritical. It's always "no big deal" when your guy does something and a huge deal when the other guy does. Some consistency would be nice.

And, for the record, I don't think either of them should go to jail, but both deserve to lose their law licences.

Mukasey must know, that given the political atmosphere in DC, that an appointment to AG is a dead end. He should say goodbye to any hopes of going on SCOTUS.

"Not true. Clinton never asked others on his staff or otherwise used his powers as President to obstruct justice."

Yes he did, he called one of his staff in and "reviewed" her testimony with her. He filed executive privilege claims to prevent any witnesses from testifying--that is, observing Lewinsky's visits was a matter of government and therefore covered under Executive privilege.

"The real crime is how Linda Tripp's information that she gained from Lewinsky prior to Clinton's testimony was deliberately used to set a perjury trap for him by Ken Starr. If you read what Tripp said with Starr's line of questioning, it's as clear as can be how Starr wasn't only interested in the relationship but wanted to set Clinton up to lie. Not that it excuses Clinton of course, but it makes it clear that the intent of the proceedings wasn't to do justice, but to get Clinton."

Clinton was lying to win a lawsuit. "Getting him" WAS justice. The "trap" posed no problem for an honest man.

"Scooter Libby's lies on the other hand were, as Patrick Fitzgerald said, done to kick sand in the eyes of the investigation regarding who outed Valerie Plame's status as a covert CIA agent."

Says the guy who already, from sources outside government, knew the answer.

"That was a clear abuse of Libby's office"

It did not involve his office at all.

"That Bush commuted Libby's sentence absolutely stinks of a deal that was made as part of a genuine obstruction of justice."

Nonsense. Fitzgerald already announced he had no further to go.

Libby never came out and said "Indeed I did deliberately mislead..." Clinton has.

Teresa,

As it happens, I have maintained from the beginning that the jury has spoken about Libby, and that unless and until his sentence is overturned on appeal, he should take the punishment assigned by the court in accordance with the RULE OF LAW. I know that I am in rather a minority among conservatives, who feel (with some justification) that Libby was railroaded. However, I regard lying under oath as a serious crime and am not inclined to let ANYBODY off the hook for it. Obviously, you don't feel that way; I guess some pigs are more equal than others in your world.

Oh, well: double standards exist on both sides of the political fence. What a shame.

The hanging judge, that evil old man in scarlet robe and horse-hair wig, whom nothing short of dynamite will ever teach what century he is living in, but who will at any rate interpret the law according to the books and will in no circumstances take a money bribe...

George Orwell
The Lion and the Unicorn

It appears the fight will be over procedure rather than person.

Leahy announced today that no nomination will move forward unless the DOJ provides all documentation on the attorney firings... material that Gonzales has withheld for months.

So... now what?

Unless, of course, some kind of deal has been cut... give the Dems a nominee they can live with and their demand for documents will go away.

Leahy sounds pertty strident on this issue, though.

Hey, watch it with the Up-Chuck business, will ya?

;-P

;)

Doc -- How do you get from my comment that Libby & Clinton deserved the exact same punishment for perjury (disbarment), that I don't feel like perjury is a big deal? I do. And I think Libby & Clinton had the same motive: saving themselves political embarrasment. And, maybe for Libby, some other folks political embarrasment. Now do I think it is the worse crime in the world? No. Or at least if it wasn't done to cover up a violent crime or some such.

SF Dude:

I see that your knowledge of the Libby case is about as extensive as your knowledge of Middle East studies.

You say "...Scooter Libby's lies on the other hand were, as Patrick Fitzgerald said, done to kick sand in the eyes of the investigation regarding who outed Valerie Plame's status as a covert CIA agent..."

Fitzgerald already knew who "outed" Plame. Richard Armitage was the leaker and Fitzgerald granted him immunity. We still really don't know why Fitz went after Libby. My guess remains payback for Libby's role in the corrupt Mark Rich Presidential Pardon.

Maybe they just want to do a Kerik check on another of Rudy's friends. Republican's surely wouldn't mind a little vetting, right?

Yell, President Clinton invoked executive privilege in the spring of 1998 regarding his private conversations with Bruce R. Lindsey, communications adviser Sidney Blumenthal and other top WH officials about his strategy for dealing with the accusations against him. It was subsequently denied by a federal judge and Starr was able to question them. I have no idea where your particular version of events comes from.

As far as the charges against Clinton were concerned, they took second place in Starr's effort to trap Clinton in a lie about Lewinsky. That was always the overall goal of those who spent years trying to get Clinton on something, anything, to score partisan points against him.

Regarding Libby, I defer to the jury who heard the case and found him guilty as charged on most of the counts brought by Fitzgerald. I also find it a travesty how President Bush later commuted Libby's sentence, given the White House's involvement in the case of Valerie Plame's outing as a covert CIA agent.

He was for the nomination before he was against it.

SF Dude:

Once again you show your ignorance. Bush did not commute Libby's sentence. He held it abeyance pending appeal. He may commute it or he may pardon Libby in the future but he has not done so yet.

Once again I must remind you that the White House did not initially reveal Plame’s identity, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage did. Furthermore, when Armitage wanted to go to fess up to the White House that he talked out of school both Colin Powell and Patrick Fitzgerald kept him from doing so.

I think that impeaching Clinton came back on the Republicans and I still do not think it was a good idea.

However, my biggest problem with Clinton was that he was more concerned with his personal soap opera than he was with dealing with AlQaida or Saddam or a myriad of other problems. He just kicked them down the road for the next poor sap to deal with.

Today people try to say that Clinton did not support the war, but he did support the invasion what is more he did say that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. He was the president responsible for the Iraqi Liberation Act and he had to know that the Food for Oil program was a scam and yet he did nothing to clean it up.

In spite of all that Democrats have refused to take any responsibility for any errors in regards to intelligence or anything else. They have proved themselves to be completely opportunistic when it comes to matters of national security.

Conservatives on the other hand are far too willing to throw their own under any bus available. I saw over at Sister Toldjah that Malkin was linking to conservatives who were opposed to Mukasey. Powerline did a post complaining that Bush did not pick the best.

Now, conservatives have to know that Democrats control this process and yet they complain, as if Bush is supposed to pick their guy rather than make his own decision, votes or no votes.

Ridiculous.

Teresa,

Sorry; when you wrote "what exactly was Clinton guilty of except for lying about a BJ?" that smacked to me of the tired liberal mantra, "It's ONLY about sex!" Libs have made quite an industry out of shrugging off Slick Willie's lies as no big deal; we should all "move on".

Again: Clinton did not just "lie about a BJ"; he committed perjury.

When you write "No, I just want people to stop being so hypocritical. It's always 'no big deal' when your guy does something and a huge deal when the other guy does. Some consistency would be nice", please keep in mind that there are those of us on this side who feel exactly the same way: "Man, the same people who want us to 'move on' from Slick Willie's perjury now want Scooter Libby drawn and quartered for the same crime. Hypocrites!"

I am, however, glad to know that we agree that perjury is a serious crime. I also agree that it is not the worst crime in the world, though I will say that I think that the punishment for perjury should be significant, even severe: our legal system depends in large part on people being honest while under oath. I think that this is especially true of public officials in whom great power and trust are vested; if they abuse or betray that trust, they should pay a heavy price.

bill clinton is a rapist--he raped juanita broaddrick. he basically escaped charges because the statue of limitations had expired. Even NOW said her story was credible.

to even suggest that bill clinton is not a rapist and a misogynist because statues expired or married women with families refuse to testify about his serial date raping is pathetic partisan pandering. even remotely excusing his seducing or allowing an intern to seduce him is a clear indication of a moral lassitude in your own character.

the fact that 50% of this nation is willing to make that Faustian bargain speaks volumes. let's put aside the fact that he shamed his own daughter. i feel nothing for hillary because she had known all along. they were and continue to be a white trash couple from arkansas.

jerry, your recall of recent events seems to be somewhat affected by that boulder perched on your shoulder:

Bush Commutes Libby's Prison Sentence

By Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 3, 2007; Page A01

President Bush commuted the sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby yesterday, sparing Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff 2 1/2 years in prison after a federal appeals court had refused to let Libby remain free while he appeals his conviction for lying to federal investigators.

Perhaps you do not fully understand the meaning of the word "hearing", Mr. Morrissey. While you might be forgiven for thinking otherwise after the past 6 years, a hearing is not a public ass-kissing session in which the nominee has his praises sung by a body of men wielding rubber stamps.

On the contrary, a hearing is a session in which- ideally- a nominee for a position is asked dozens of questions- perhaps even hundreds, both friendly and hostile- with the expectation that he will give thorough and completely honest answers. Afterward, those who like the nominee's answers and trust him vote for him. Those who do not- do not.

That is the way a real hearing is supposed to go, and Sen. Schumer is to be commended for finally realizing that after allowing through possibly the worst Attorney General in US history back in 2004. The fact that the man whom he is promising to grill now is a man whom he has considered a good potential choice in the past has no bearing on it. Had Mukasey been nominated for a Supreme Court position, Sen. Schumer would have conducted a nomination hearing then, too. And it is entirely possible that Schumer might have learned something then, or might learn something now, that will cause him to change his mind and want to choose someone else.

That is not backpedalling. That is making damn sure you've got the right man for the job. Remember, also, that Schumer did not put forth Mukasey's name because he thought he was the best choice, but because he thought of him as the best choice that would be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans. Mukasey was never going to be Schumer's ideal condidate, merely one whom he might be prepared to tolerate in an environment in which he had no better choice available. There are going to be lots of things the Democrats and Mr. Mukasey disagree on, and a hearing will make it plain exactly what those things are-

and whether we can live with them for the next 16 months.

patrick:

I am not a big fan of Bill Clinton's but he was never convicted of rape, so calling him a rapist without proof the crime ever took place is not really fair.

starfleet:

What has Libby got to do with this? and besides considering the fact that Clinton was able to give full pardons to all sorts of nefarious characters without so much as a kiss my behind from the left, don't you think the moralizing is a tad misplaced?

"Yell, President Clinton invoked executive privilege in the spring of 1998 regarding his private conversations with Bruce R. Lindsey, communications adviser Sidney Blumenthal and other top WH officials about his strategy for dealing with the accusations against him. It was subsequently denied by a federal judge and Starr was able to question them. I have no idea where your particular version of events comes from."

He also fought to keep Secret Service agents from testifying as to who entered the oval office and when. I know there were so many phony assertions of Executive Privilege over the "private life" of a President, I'm not suprised you forgot a few.

"As far as the charges against Clinton were concerned, they took second place in Starr's effort to trap Clinton in a lie about Lewinsky. That was always the overall goal of those who spent years trying to get Clinton on something, anything, to score partisan points against him."

I wouldn't say "effort". Digging ditches is effort. Having William Jefferson Clinton lie in his own interest is about as taxing as growing a beard. Does it bear mentioning that Paula Jones and Kenneth Starr would not have collaborated but for Clinton's crimes?

"Remember, also, that Schumer did not put forth Mukasey's name because he thought he was the best choice, but because he thought of him as the best choice that would be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans. Mukasey was never going to be Schumer's ideal condidate, merely one whom he might be prepared to tolerate in an environment in which he had no better choice available."

It is entirely possible that he put forward Mukasey's name as filler on the necessary "List of Safely Unplausible Picks With Which I'll Slam Your Nominee"
Funny how us unreasonable kneejerk wingers predicted WHAT Schumer would do, from the worst of motives, isn't it?

"There are going to be lots of things the Democrats and Mr. Mukasey disagree on, and a hearing will make it plain exactly what those things are-and whether we can live with them for the next 16 months."

It is already apparent that obedience to this President is "just one of those things" Democrats can't live with.