![[Iowa map]](http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2005/12/05/GR2005120501681.gif)
Mukasey, Leahy Have 'Meat Locker' Hearing
So much for the warm feelings that abounded throughout yesterday's confirmation hearing for Attorney General nominee Michael B. Mukasey.
About 90 minutes into this morning's tense round of questioning, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) looked around at his staff and complained the room felt like a "meat locker."
"I'm glad someone else noticed," retorted Mukasey, almost shaking his shoulders as if to shiver in the chilly room.
Perhaps no one on the dais or at the witness table noticed the chill in the air yesterday because Leahy and other Democrats were pleased with with Mukasey's answers.
But the relations between senators and the nominee became as cool as the air after today's morning round of questions, which visibly upset Leahy. While no one would say Mukasey was in any danger of not getting confirmed, Leahy told reporters after the morning round that he was concerned with the "sudden change" in Mukasey's answers on the limits of presidential power.
Even the chairman's reading material suggested a certain cool state of being at today's testimony. Set just to Leahy's left during the questioning were two books that are not exactly best-sellers inside the West Wing: "Takeover: Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy" by Charlie Savage, who won the Pulitzer Prize for his stories about President Bush using "signing statements" to subvert congressional intent on laws; and "The Terror Presidency", an inside account of the legal thinking behind some of the Justice Department's most controversial anti-terror rulings by ex-Justice official Jack Goldsmith.
Mukasey's answers today are not necessarily a flip-flop from yesterday's hearing, but they are more explicit than they were yesterday, as Dan Eggen and I reported.
The clearest example is on contempt of Congress charges. Several contempt charges have been approved by the House Judiciary Committee against current and former White House officials related to their refusal to testify in the ongoing probes of the firing last year of nine U.S. attorneys, and Leahy suggested a "real probability" more were on the way. Yesterday, in discussing Bush's assertion of executive privilege over staffers' testimony, Mukasey indicated there was some merit to the White House claim that the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia could not bring contempt charges against someone who refused to testify to Congress.
"It simply can't be appropriate for the same department that offered the opinion then to turn around and prosecute somebody who followed it," Mukasey said.
Yesterday he had left himself a little more wiggle room: "I hope and pray for a lot of things. One of them is that I don't ever have to make that decision. But when I make it, I'm going to make it in line with the principles I've just discussed."
Leahy was not alone in his criticism. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) complained that Mukasey was being "contradictory" in his answers on presidential powers related to anti-terror measures, and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) complained about the prosecution of journalists for not revealing their sources and promoted a new shield law for reporters -- a position that Mukasey, a former reporter with the UPI, did not support for national security concerns. He pointed to the jailing of former New York Times reporter Judith Miller, in the CIA leak probe earlier this decade, as something that might have been a "bad case" but that it could also lead to a "bad law."
When Leahy finally broke for a lunch break, he said the hearing would resume at 2 p.m. -- which it did for about 30 minutes more of similar questioning. But then Leahy expressed hope for the afternoon round: "We'll try to get the place warmed up before then."
By Paul Kane |
October 18, 2007; 4:01 PM ET
Hearing Watch
Previous: Mukasey Hearing Getting Good Karma |
Next: Obama: DOJ Official Must Be Fired
Posted by: Klem | October 18, 2007 5:09 PM
Throughout 200 plus years of American history, ordinary Americans have always been taught that the Constitution protected them from an authoritarian dictatorial government.
Little did anyone realize that America's freedom could be summarily taken away by the rise of a single ideologically driven dictatorial political party that deliberately legalized violations of that Constitution.
Our great grandchildren will be reading an epic non-fiction book titled, "The Rise and Fall of the American Nation".
Posted by: DF in FL | October 18, 2007 6:02 PM
Disgusting. His testimony is a mirror image of Gonzales's. I can only hope this article and others are wrong about the confirmation vote. The man openly approves of fascist activities and congress puts him at the head of DOJ?
Posted by: RetCombatVet | October 18, 2007 6:39 PM
He sold out before he even got the job.
ABU-GONZALES #2 COMING UP!
WHO IN THE WHITEHOUSE THREATENED MUKASEY?
Posted by: JBE | October 18, 2007 7:16 PM
Give me a break! You guys are more concerned about so-called loss of rights that another terror attack? This country is at war, so get real here. Your definition of torture must include missing milk and cookies. Following your line of thought, our grandchildren will live under Taliban rule.
Posted by: DK | October 18, 2007 8:23 PM
I think Mukasey didn't fully elaborate on his ideas in his first hearing, because he wanted to keep it near the fence so that both sides would confirm him, but then since everyone seemed ok with his ideas in the first hearing he gain confidence and decided to elaborate and expand them, which may have even changed some of them around. I don't think he did it on purpose, but as a strategy to gain confirmation.
Posted by: colorado_skiier | October 18, 2007 9:22 PM
"You guys are more concerned about so-called loss of rights that another terror attack?"
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."-Benjamin Franklin
I for one AM far more concerned about our loss of rights than another terror attack. To allow the incompetents in this administration to operate "out of sight" is the height of folly. As they have proven.
FYI, more American combat troops have died in the so called "war on terror" than all the people that died in the WTC attack.
FYI, 6 years after 911 and DHS's minions can at best detect only 25% of bomb smuggling test attempts at airports, and there is still no rational integrated watch list, and still no integration between Immigration and anyone else. 6 f-in years!
All Bush and his pals have done is waterboard people, get GI's killed and scratch their balls. And attempt a bloodless coup here at home.
One thing is sure, if Bush had been "the decider" in WWII we would all be speaking German or Japanese.
This is no time for Mukasey's semantic games, and as far as I am concerned today he just demonstrated why he must be rejected.
Right now the state of intelligence is in crisis because of all the false leads these dopes that Bush and Rumsfeld installed have produced with their ham handed "methods". And thanks to them All of the very skilled interrogators we did have were forced out, begining even before 911.
When the history of this dark period is finally exposed, everyone is going to puke when they find out the sorts of idiot mistakes the moron in thgis administration have made.
Wait until you find out how many fluent Arabic and Persian analysts CIA and FBI have. It will blow your mind.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 18, 2007 11:08 PM
The White House nominated him; why is anyone surprised?
Posted by: DJ (Seattle) | October 18, 2007 11:09 PM
Another typical lacky for the administration; however, the public and congress has approved of these idiots for years now -- must be what you want or you're too damned ignorant to see what is happening. One or the other, and I believe it is clearly the latter.
Posted by: dpb | October 19, 2007 12:32 AM
It is disheartening that Mukasey's answers seem to leave the Senators more annoyed than outraged. Why isn't this nomination already dead? For that matter, why does Post columnist Paul Kane seem more interested in discussion of the room temperature than the unwillingness of Mukasey to state whether or not waterboarding is torture? How sick have we become?
Posted by: Anonymous | October 19, 2007 6:04 AM
there is no way this bushco lawyer/judge be installed. his answers were attorneyspeak for "i'm going to do what i have to do."
no way he can be a shoe-in, ridiculous loss of our rights as citizens under this "regime" make him anathema to us as so-called "free" citizens.
Posted by: preAmerikkkan | October 19, 2007 2:55 PM
Before you confirm this clown, think long and hard about what 75 years of one-party rule in the form of PRI did to Mexico...
Posted by: braultrl | October 19, 2007 9:33 PM
What baffles me about Bush and his trashing of civil liberties, our moral authority, trashing of our commitment to the Geneva convention and acceptance of torture is that hundreds of thousands of American military have given their lives for this country to be what it is pre 9/11. They died fighting bigger and scarier enemies such as Japanese Imperialism, Nazism and Stalinism/Cold war... But Bush discounts that sacrifice because its expedient for him and the Neo Cons who have serious Empire building plans. I would rather die free than in fear and have our Democracy trashed... We have to be a beacon for liberty and rights of man if we want to change the world for the better but this ego manic Bush (doesn't he even read hiis own bible about pride?)is blinded by his own self righteousness. He has allowed Al Queda to become a bigger threat than it is. Success in Iraq is now determined by beating Al Queda there when it never existed until he started this war. I'd love to hear that conversation when Bush gets to the pearly gates...
Posted by: keith California | October 19, 2007 11:24 PM
DK "Give me a break! You guys are more concerned about so-called loss of rights that(sic)another terror attack?"
Yes, absolutely. Being held indefinitely without charges, access to lawyers, or any of the rights and freedoms afforded to us by the Constitution is a far more terrifying fate than being blown up by some freak zealot. To suggest otherwise is an affront to the thousands of Americans who sacrificed their lives to protect the Constitution and the rights enshrined within it. Only a coward would choose to give up his freedoms to avoid having to fight for them. Wouldn't you be willing to lay down your life to protect the freedoms of our country, DK? Or are you too scared by the distant possibility of a bomb in your breakfast cereal?
Posted by: Patrick Huss | October 20, 2007 10:38 AM
One thing Hitler knew is that what the middle class demanded was security, rights be damned.
The problem we are now facing, because we've enjoyed over 200 years of homeland security is how to reconcile security with the Constitution.
The Constitution must always come first.
Posted by: Martin Bernstein | October 22, 2007 12:08 PM
Sounds like Cheney took Mukasey to the woodshed during the overnight recess.
Posted by: J Dumas | October 22, 2007 4:25 PM
Can any one explain to me what rights we have lost? I could care less if we tortured
TERRORISTS. Whooooo cares. They torture and behead our soldiers and we do it even if all we did was put up our prisoners in the Hilton and gave them roomservice three times a day. Unbelievable
Posted by: Andy | October 24, 2007 4:44 PM
insert they'd for we end of third line
Posted by: Andy | October 24, 2007 4:47 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
Bush tortures in y/our name,
and Mukasey plans on continuing to allow the "unitary executive" to do so.
He didn't know is waterboarding is torture--what a liar.
The last thing we need is Mukasey nurturing the neocon criminality at DOJ.