Fired Seattle U.S. Attorney John McKay spoke at a bar association meeting Friday and said he thinks it's quite possible the Inspector General conducting the probe of the U.S. attorney firings will refer Alberto Gonzales and others for criminal prosecution, possibly as early as next month.

McKay said he was summoned to Washington, D.C., in June and questioned for eight hours about possible reasons for his firing by investigators with the Office of Inspector General, who will forward their final report to Congress.

“My best guess is it will be released sometime next month,’’ and likely will include recommendations for criminal prosecutions of Gonzales and maybe others, McKay said.

McKay believes the principal reason he was fired was for not opening a voter fraud investigation into Gov. Chris Gregoire’s marginal victory over Republican Dino Rossi in 2004.

He noted the White House was unhappy with San Diego U.S. Attorney Carol Lam's conduct regarding Randy "Duke" Cunningham and with New Mexico U.S. Attorney David Yglesia's refusal to indict a Democratic candidate right before the November election.

McKay says Gonazles lied to Congress about the reasons for the firings.

More...

Adam Liptak provides a lucid explanation of President Bush's decision to nominate Michael Mukasey to replace Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General:

[I]n his two days of testimony this week, it became clear that Mr. Mukasey believes presidential power to be robust, expansive and sometimes beyond the power of Congress to control. That is perfectly aligned with the Bush administration’s views, and if Mr. Mukasey was initially a refreshing presence to the Senate Judiciary Committee, it was only because he justified in plain terms what other administration lawyers have said in secret memorandums often cloaked in obfuscation. ...

He indicated, for instance, that he favored a narrow reading of the Supreme Court’s sweeping 2006 decision, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, striking down the administration’s initial plan for military commissions to try prisoners at Guantánamo.

Is Mukasey just a smarter version of Gonzales--better able to defend the administration's indefensible positions? Liptak explains why Mukasey's reading of precedent to authorize expansive executive power in defiance of legislation is strained, at best.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is holding its confirmation hearing this morning on Michael Mukasey's nomination for Attorney General.

There's very little suspense involved as there is no real opposition to him.

If you're interested in the hearing, you can watch it on C-Span. Here's the Committee webpage with the witness list. There's a panel with Chuck Schumer and Joe Lieberman and another with former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District, Mary Jo White. That ought to be enough to tell you its a shoe-in.

Arianna at Huffington Post interviewed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday.

Speaker Pelosi made three promises in the interview:

• that the House will not take up a war appropriations bill this year
• that there will be no war appropriations bill next year that doesn't include a fixed date for bringing the troops home
• that House Democrats will put up a major fight over the Bush administration's desire to make permanent the FISA law passed in August, particularly over the issue of retroactive immunity that the Senate has already given in on.

Huffpo has videos up of the interview.

While the AP is reporting on questions Attorney General Nominee Michael Mukasey will be asked at his confirmation hearing Wednesday pertaining to detentions, material witness warrants and the like, don't be fooled.

He's headed to a quick confirmation.

Retired federal judge Michael Mukasey is a Republican with a conservative judicial record, yet he appears to have enough support in a Democrat-controlled Congress to assure relatively quick confirmation as attorney general.

Congress watchers, former attorneys general and politicians say Mukasey’s unusual bipartisan appeal stems from his combination of real-world experience, his distance from Washington politics and his independence, making the New York Republican more acceptable to Democrats than higher-profile, conventional conservatives who were considered for the job.

Mukasey will only serve for about 15 months. Whoever is elected in 2009 will appoint a new Attorney General.

Bump and Update: Craig has filed his appeal. It's four pages but doesn't go into the grounds. And don't expect a ruling anytime soon:

Craig's lawyers must first order and file a transcript of his Sept. 26 hearing. Once that has been filed, his lawyers have 60 days to file a brief outlining his appeal. Then, prosecutors have 45 days to file their response to his appeal. Once those are filed, the court sets a date for oral arguments -- which often occurs about six to eight months later. Ninety days after the oral arguments, the judge issue a decision.

****

Original Post: Larry Craig Slams Romney, Will Appeal Conviction

Sen. Larry Craig is making the tv rounds. Sunday, he vowed to appeal the denial of the motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

More...

*********

Graeme Frost two weeks ago gave the Democrat's response to the President's radio address. You will remember that his family is middle class, and he had public health insurance that saved his family from financial ruin after he and his sister were grievously injured in a car wreck, both needing physical therapy. But, the Neo-con attack dogs immediately and shamelessly Swiftboated him.

I cannot say it better than Paul Krugman did in Sliming Graeme Frost in the NY Times.  Countdown has video here.

On Monday evening, Master Frost will be on Countdown.

More...

At the elite colleges - dim White kids
By Peter Schmidt

September 28, 2007

AUTUMN AND a new academic year are upon us, which means that selective colleges are engaged in the annual ritual of singing the praises of their new freshman classes.

Surf the websites of such institutions and you will find press releases boasting that they have increased their black and Hispanic enrollments, admitted bumper crops of National Merit scholars or became the destination of choice for hordes of high school valedictorians. Many are bragging about the large share of applicants they rejected, as a way of conveying to the world just how popular and selective they are.

What they almost never say is that many of the applicants who were rejected were far more qualified than those accepted. Moreover, contrary to popular belief, it was not the black and Hispanic beneficiaries of affirmative action, but the rich white kids with cash and connections who elbowed most of the worthier applicants aside.

White Man's Burden.

Bad news for Sen. Larry Craig. The court has denied his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

“Because the defendant’s plea was accurate, voluntary and intelligent, and because the conviction is supported by the evidence ... the Defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea is denied,” Hennepin County Judge Charles Porter wrote.

Here's the Order (pdf).

The question now: Will Craig appeal?

Update: Craig will not resign before the end of his term.

After President Bush vetoed S-CHIP, White House spokeperson Dana Perino said:

"They made their political point, and what the president said is, 'Look, send me the bill, I will veto it, and then we will get about the business of trying to find some common ground and reach an agreement on a way forward,'" Perino said.

My suggestion to the Democratic leaders of Congress is send him the same bill. The policy and politics on this issue, as I believe they are on the Iraq issue, all point to this as being the best move. A Democracy Corps poll supports my view:

As President Bush vetoed the bipartisan S-CHIP bill that would have dramatically expanded children's health insurance, a memo by Democracy Corps and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner shows health care emerging as a top economic concern and voters rejecting the President’s veto by almost a two-to-one margin, preferring the expansion of S-CHIP.

Via John Cole, the Weekly Standard leads the Right predictably defending Limbaugh's outrageous and offensive attack on the troops.

IOKIYAR. For the record, I condemned the Move On ad as I condemn Limbaugh's comments:

What I must condemn is the use of the phrase "General Betrayus" by Move On in its ad today in the New York Times. This inexcusable use of the detestable Republican tactic of labelling those who disagree with you as "traitors" is something I have long objected to and I must, in good conscience, strongly condemn Move On's use of this deplorable tactic

Update [2007-9-28 14:2:12 by Big Tent Democrat]: White House Condemns Limbaugh's Remarks

Via rjmac at daily kos, Bruce [Springsteen, for those not in the know] goes political, early, because it's late for our country:

This is a song called Livin' In the Future. But it's really about what's happening now. Right now. It's kind of about how the things we love about America, cheeseburgers, French fries, the Yankees battlin' Boston... the Bill of Rights [holds up microphone, urging crowd to cheer] ... v-twin motorcycles... Tim Russert's haircut, trans-fats and the Jersey Shore... we love those things the way womenfolk love Matt Lauer.

But over the past six years we've had to add to the American picture: rendition, illegal wiretapping, voter suppression, no habeus corpus, the neglect of that great city New Orleans and its people, an attack on the Constitution. And the loss of our best men and women in a tragic war.

This is a song about things that shouldn't happen here happening here.

So right now we plan to do something about it, we plan to sing about it. I know it's early, but it's late. So come and join us.

You can watch it here.