"The coordinated statements released late Friday afternoon by two Democratic senators [Schumer and Feinstein] that they would break ranks and support President Bush's attorney general nominee largely muted opposition from a Democratic base that has become increasingly frustrated with Congress, activist leaders said Monday"-- Manju Raju, The Hill.com 11/06/07
"Only a strong and independent attorney general can return the Justice Department to what it once was and should always be. Under this Administration, that nominee will certainly never share our views on issues like torture and wiretapping. The best we can hope for is someone who is independent, has integrity, will put rule of law first and, above all, will clean the stench of politicization out of the Justice Department. I believe Judge Mukasey will be that type of Attorney General." -- Senator Charles Schumer, web site
"Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey on Friday rejected referring the House's contempt citations against President Bush's chief of staff and former counsel to a federal grand jury. Mr. Mukasey said they had committed no crime.
Mr. Mukasey said the chief of staff, Joshua B. Bolten, and the former counsel, Harriet E. Miers, were right in refusing to provide Congress with White House documents or to testify about the firings of federal prosecutors.
"The department will not bring the Congressional contempt citations before a grand jury or take any other action to prosecute Mr. Bolten or Ms. Miers," Mr. Mukasey wrote to the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi."- NY Times
Dear Chuck and Diane:
He "will put the rule law first and, above all, will clean the stench of politicization out of the Justice Department"! Wait a minute, what's that smell? Are you shocked, shocked that a "strong and independent Attorney General," is thumbing his nose at majority votes in congress to place Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolten (and down the line Karl Rove) above the law? To think that it would come to this. Were you duped? Two smart cookies like you just never anticipated that the man who would not say whether water-boarding was torture, lest he put those who perpetrated it at risk of law, would simply decline to enforce the law when enforcing it was contrary to the wishes of his party?
Or, were your November 2007 statements disingenuous? Were there just bigger fish to fry, contributors to settle, people to protect than our poor, battered Constitution? Back in November, there was no need to confirm any Bush appointee, but you said Mukasey was better than nothing. I didn't get it. then, and I don't get it now. Is it better to now have the precedent of an attorney general can simply ignore a Congressional contempt citation because he has decided peremptorily that "no crime has been committed"--a decision apparently arrived at almost instantly, with no visible process of consultation, just Mukasey privileging his own executive branch judgment over a majority vote of the House of Representatives? I can see a downside--not only does the investigation run out the election season in the suspended animation of judicial process, but it ultimately gets decided by a court packed with administration apparachiks who are themselves the result of Senatorial consent without advice capitulations. There's an opportunity for truly lasting damage. Please explain to me why it's better than an empty post at a dysfunctional Department of Justice . Is it functioning now?
These are not rhetorical questions. This is urgent. I'm serious guys. I want an answer. Accountability starts at home. I'm waiting for your account. Were you just fooled is there something on your agenda you value more than the rule of law?