Dodd Sets Pace on Dunking Mukasey

Kudos to Chris Dodd whose third-tier-nothing-to-lose presidential campaign has sprouted him a robust pair of cojones. Dodd became the most prominent Democrat, and the first among
the presidential candidates, to declare he will vote against Bush nominee Michael Mukasey's confirmation as Attorney General.

Angered by Mukasey's Senate testimony last week in which the former federal judge and prosecutor floated a legal "theory" that the President of the United States could, indeed, stand above constitutional statutes, Dodd declared on Monday:

"That is about as basic as it gets," Dodd said. "You must obey the law. Everyone must."

Dodd, along with a slew of other legal and political observers were also dismayed when Mukasey dodged Senators' questions last week about whether or not so-called waterboarding was, in fact, a form of torture. After eluding any straight answer, Mukasey wound up making the incredulous statement that he wasn't quite sure what was meant by the term.

Over the weekend, some leading Senate Democrats ranging from Dianne Feinstein of California to Carl Levin of Michigan engaged in their own form of equivocation, warning they might vote against Mukasey if he doesn't properly clarify his views when he responds to written questions from the Senate later this week.

But Dodd's bold stepping-out on this issue, rejecting any mulligan for a nominee who refuses to call torture by its proper name, seems like it might force the hand of fellow Democrats who might start looking rather silly if they don't turn thumbs down on the newly proposed AG. Within hours of Dodd's statement, fellow candidate and Delaware Senator Joe Biden also said he had made up his mind to vote nay. Campaign spokesmen for John Edwards and Bill Richardson also joined the chorus. And by late Monday night, the campaign of Barack Obama piled on, telling The New York Sun:

"Judge Mukasey has failed to send a clear signal that he understands the legal and moral issues that are at stake for our country, and so I cannot support him." Mr. Obama said even a clarification from Judge Mukasey would be insufficient. "No nominee for attorney general should need a second chance to oppose torture and the unnecessary violation of civil liberties," he said.

After this barrage, Mukasey's nomination might be dead in the water -- if you'll excuse the pun.

Comments

[JWakkaJane]

11:03 PM on 10/30/2007

The AG's JOB is to arrest indict & prosecute those in violation of any U.S. laws..."

HellooOOOO!

"Mr. Obama said even a clarification from Judge Mukasey would be insufficient."

Damn Straight. If Hilary doesn't shitcan this hack Mukasey there is no way in HELL I'll ever vote for her again.

[NATIONALSECURITY4US]

01:25 AM on 10/31/2007

BY NO WAY AM I SAYING I ENDORSE THIS CLOWN...

I WAS ONLY STATING WHAT A U.S.A.G. DUTY IS 2 THE

PEOPLE OF THE U.S -- IF HE OR ANYONE ELSE 4 THAT

MATTER SITS IN ON A MEETING LIKE GONZO HAS IN THE

PAST & THE DISCUSSION IS ALONG THE LINES OF THEM

VIOLATING U.S. LAWS / CONSTITUTION = THE DUTY OF

THAT U.S.A.G. WOULD BE TO ARREST / INDICT & TO

PROSECUTE ALL THOSE WHO WANTED TO VIOLATE THE LAWS

OF THE LAND...

DOESN'T MATTER IF IT'S HIM / POPE / SANTA CLAUS /

EASTER BUNNY / TOOTH FAIRY OR MAN FROM MARS...

THE SWORN OATH / DUTY OF USAG WOULD BE 2 PROSECUTE

NOT RESIGN FROM YOUR POST BECAUSE YOU COULD NOT

CHANGE SOMEONES' MIND...


WRONG ANSWER 4 MUKASEY 2 GIVE = DISQUALIFICATION

WHO'S THE NEXT ONE 2 GRILL - THANY YOU VERY MUCH..

[JWakkaJane]

03:03 AM on 10/31/2007

"NO WAY AM I SAYING I ENDORSE THIS CLOWN..."

I know! That was as in hello Senators, America, anybody not clear on that.

Haven't we been right in the middle of a situation in which the Department of Justice has been mixed up with the Administration in a lot of shady stuff that only the Department of Justice could appropriately and effectively pursue prosecution of, so of course THAT hasn't been happening? Sure as hell ain't ever gonna happen if Mukasey replaces Gonzales.

[Counterglow]

03:50 AM on 11/01/2007

Is this the American way?

SAY IT BIGGER!!!!!

SAY IT LONGER!!!!!

CONTENT BE DAMNED!!!!!!!

Do you really believe that your observations are so cogent that they deserve to be (in a metaphorical sense) screamed in everybody's face?

You must be a real pain at a house party.

[cj ett]

10:04 PM on 10/30/2007

"That is about as basic as it gets," Dodd said. "You must obey the law. Everyone must."

What does the law say? If the democrat congress wants to make it against the law, then pass a law.

They are just using it for political grandstanding, so they have an issue to beat on Bush with. When push comes to shove, the democrats will go with the republicans on this.

[Corpania]

10:01 PM on 10/30/2007

-----
ALTERNATE ENDING:

DEMOCRAT#2:
Ok. If you got an authenticated videotape of
suspected terrorists being systematically
gang-raped while in US custody would you stop it?
Would you prosecute the rapists?

MUKASEY:
I won't comment on hypotheticals.

DEMOCRAT#2:
Well you answered DEMOCRAT#1's hypothetical!
Why won't you answer mine?
Because you have some reason to believe that this
is actually happening and you don't want to
comment on something that may come before you? So
you're calling the military gang-rapists? I won't
stand for that implication. Now answer this
extreme hypothetical or have you no capacity for
critical thinking? I will keep repeating this
question for the duration of my time. You must
answer. Again, If you got an authenticated
videotape of suspected terrorists being
systematically gang-raped while in US custody
would you stop it? Would you prosecute the
rapists?

MUKASEY:
I would have to research that.

DEMOCRAT#2:
Ok, you have a day to come up with an answer of
if you would prosecute or not. That is
fundamentally your job as the AG. if you can't
answer that question you're admitting your
incompetent. It is a "yes or no" question. There
is no hedge. If you refuse to definitively say
you would prosecute the rapists then we will have
no other conclusion to draw than that you approve
of gang-rape of prisoners & detainees.
And if your daughter or wife or college friend
were erroneously designated an "enemy combatant"
that you would be ok with that woman being
gang-raped. It's that serious.
You're either pro-gang-rape or your against
gang-rape.
I didn't understand your muttering. What was that?
Another semantic hedge with conditional
statements?
Ok, let it be known to all...Mr. Mukasey supports
gang rape!

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

[cj ett]

10:30 PM on 10/30/2007

So when did you stop beating your wife?

Same argument. If democrats want waterboarding to be illegal, pass a law.

[NATIONALSECURITY4US]

01:33 AM on 10/31/2007

I LOVE THESE SIMPLE YES OR NO QUESTIONS & ALL OF THE SPIN THEY GENERATE EVADING THE QUESTION...

THEN A SENATE MEMBER HAS TO REMIND THEM THAT IT'S A SIMPLE YES OR NO ANSWER...

THEN THEIR INFLATED SUPER EGO INTELLIGENCE STILL
FIGHTS TO EVADE A SIMPLE YES OR NO QUESTION...

AND THESE PEOPLE CLAIM TO BE SOME OF THE BEST & BRIGHTEST LEARNED MINDS WE HAVE TO OFFER IN THIS NATION...

DELIBERATE EVASION SHOWS THEIR SHEER STUPIDITY...

MEMBERS OF CONGRESS HAVE GOT TO GET OFF THIS TYPE
OF FAVORITISM MINDSET & GRILL THEM JUST LIKE OUR MILITARY INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS GRILL THE CAPTURED
TERRORISTS = NO LENIENCY / NO MERCY AT ALL WHATSOEVER -- PERIOD...

[Corpania]

10:01 PM on 10/30/2007

If the Democrats are so spineless & mentally
paralized that they don't know how to take on
Mukasey here's the script:

(FIRST THE SET-UP)

DEMOCRAT#1:
Let's turn to illegal narcotics.
If a previously-reliable, confidential informant
notified your staff that he saw an illegal alien
transporting cocaine into the US. And then upon
investigation this proved to be accurate would you
prosecute the illegal alien?

MUKASEY:
Of course. You don't have to be a citizen to break the law.

DEMOCRAT#1:
How did you determine it was worth prosecuting?

MUKASEY:
(Any answer here is virtually irrelevant.)

(Setting him up with DEMOCRAT#1's hypothetical is key here.
If he won't answer that one either then
we paint him as pro-drug smuggling.
Now for the spike.)

DEMOCRAT#2:
You say you're against torture.

MUKASEY:
America can not and does not torture.

DEMOCRAT#2:
Is waterboarding torture?

MUKASEY:
If it's torture then we won't do it

DEMOCRAT#2:
Ok. If you got an authenticated videotape of
suspected terrorists being systematically
gang-raped while in US custody would you stop it?
Would you prosecute the rapists?

MUKASEY:
Yes, of course.

DEMOCRAT#2:
Ok, now we're making progress. How could you make
that assessment? Why would you prosecute this as
torture? What criteria are you using? By what
measure?

MUKASEY:
I know torture when I see it from my
understanding of the law.

DEMOCRAT#2:
Ok, let's calibrate that understanding. We know
you at least acknowledge rape to be torture. What
about holding someone upsidedown with a hood on
while you pour water to simulate the experience
of drowning? Would you prosecute that? Why or why
not?
(((((Then proceed to drill down on the "prosecute
or not?" question with a dozen other hypothetical
torture techniques))))

[Gonzalez]

09:41 PM on 10/30/2007

Dump this Bushie.

[dr4Will]

09:11 PM on 10/30/2007

Dodd is a man of courage and ethics---a real leader!!!

[Observer1]

09:17 PM on 10/30/2007

These are simple issues that the Dems can use to bury GOP politics.

Forget the waterboarding question. Mukasey states that POTUS is above the law. End of story. REJECT!!!!!!!!!!!!!Well said, Dodd.

And here is something that finally someone like Dennis Kucinich has the guts to say:

“I seriously believe we have to start asking questions about his mental health," the Ohio congressman told the Philadelphia Inquirer. "There's something wrong. He does not seem to understand his words have real impact."

[NATIONALSECURITY4US]

09:01 PM on 10/30/2007

MUKASEYS' OWN WORDS SHOULD CONDEMN HIS CHANCES

OF BEING CONFIRMED THE NEXT U.S.A.G. = HOW...


MUKASEY HAS SAID THIS MORE THEN ONCE = "THAT IF
HE WAS ASKED 2 PARTICIPATE IN SOMETHING KNOWN 2
HIM 2 BE A VIOLATION OF THE LAW & HE COULD NOT CHANGE THE MIND OF THOSE PROMOTING WHATEVER IT IS - HE'D RESIGN INSTEAD OF PARTICIPATING IN SOMETHING BEING A VIOLATION OF LAW"

WRONG ANSWER...

AS THE U.S.A.G. IT WOULD BE YOUR JOB TO ARREST

INDICT & PROSECUTE THOSE IN VIOLATION OF ANY

U.S. LAWS NOT BY CUTTING & RUNNING BY RESIGNING

YOUR POST - THAT IN & OF ITSELF IS CRIMINAL...


ENOUGH SAID = DISMISS & DISBAR HIM FROM FUTURE

CONFIRMATION HEARINGS - NEXT ONE PLEASE OR JUST
LEAVE THE PERSON ACTING AS USAG THERE 4 NOW...

[Ephemera]

09:42 PM on 10/30/2007

"As the U.S.A.G. it would be your job to arrest indict & prosecute those in violation of any U.S. laws..."

VERY WELL SAID.

[lentinelia]

08:52 PM on 10/30/2007

Calling Dodd's campaign "third tier" is stupid and insulting. You state that he is saying something courageous (you use a disgusting reference to male genitalia to denote this) because he has "nothing to lose".

Why can't you just praise the man for having the quality of integrity so lacking in those whom the media designate as the "frontrunners".

[charlestonpaul]

07:53 PM on 10/30/2007

We simply need an honest AG. One that would be willing to imprison Bush and Cheney for their violations of the Geneva Conference and blatant murderous actions.
So there!

[cj ett]

10:01 PM on 10/30/2007

What is the Geneva conference?

[KeysDan]

07:48 PM on 10/30/2007

The nomination of a guy like Mukasey underscores the mistake made by Speaker Pelosi and the House Judiciary Committe by not initiating, at least, an impeachment inquiry into the wrongdoings of Alberto Gonzales. Even if this inquiry did not culminate in articles of impeachment and conviction by the Senate, the process would have had a teaching, and maybe, a learning effect on future nominees and appointees. As it stands, a chilling effect (i.e., disincentives to breaking the law) do not exist and we move on to a new name with the same criminal mindset.

[eugenegerard]

07:25 PM on 10/30/2007

DUMP this FASCIST.

[The 13 Colonies]

07:55 PM on 10/30/2007

He sounds as stupid as GONZO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mediamarv]

07:12 PM on 10/30/2007

Marc Cooper???

Of Scooter fame? Has he been rehabilitated??? Is this the only place he can find work????

Memory fails at the moment but I thought he came out of that affair with no credibility....

[aznurse]

06:56 PM on 10/30/2007

I watched the situation room today, Bill Benette (sp?) was on and he said "they shouldnt condemn or hold up a confirmation until the Senate rules on if waterboarding is torture." He is so skeavy!

[aznurse]

06:49 PM on 10/30/2007

I sent a donation to his campagin. I dont know if he'll win, but at least he tried to do the right thing. the only thing they respond to is money. I suggest making a donation too, at least have a voice.

[nomobull]

06:43 PM on 10/30/2007

VOTING RECORDS AND ISSUES SHOULD DETERMINE THE OUTCOME OF THE PRSIDENTIAL RACE. AND THE FAT LADY HAS NOT SUNG DESPITE THE MSM AND SO CALLED POLLS.