Mukasey Expected to Get Quick Confirmation as Attorney General

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.

< Larry Craig Files Appeal from Denial of Guilty Plea Withdrawal | Rudy's 9/11 Radio Problem, Investigation Urged >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Ummm - let's wait on this: (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by scribe on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 04:08:52 PM EST
    Mukasey will only serve for about 15 months. Whoever is elected in 2009 will appoint a new Attorney General.

    Rudy gets elected, Mukasey keeps the job without a new confirmation hearing.

    Who better to be the AG in a Rudy admin, than his close friend and campaign's lawyer?

    Example - AG Richard Thornbugh (none / 0) (#5)
    by joejoejoe on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 05:14:31 PM EST
    George H.W. Bush kept Reagan's AG Dick Thornburgh when he was elected.

    Let's hope Jeralyn is psychic and knows a Dem will be elected in 11/08.


    I think (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 05:20:39 PM EST
    he'd be more likely to put Mukasey on the Supreme Court. Ted Olson, too. Maybe that's why both were judicial advisors to his campaign in the first place -- hoping for the spot in the event Rudy won.

    I'm not willing to trust any of them (none / 0) (#8)
    by scribe on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 05:37:43 PM EST
    anywhere near a position of responsibility or power.

    I would place a hold on the nomination and tell my senatorial colleagues to pound sand if they didn't like it.


    here's to encouraging Glenn Fine!!! (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Sumner on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 04:46:27 PM EST
    if we appear to have given up interest on following through with investigating Alberto Gonzales' many transgressions, then Mukasey will be likely to see that as license to behave as a similar bad actor, too.

    what changed? (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by selise on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 06:09:20 PM EST
    what happened to no nomination hearing until we get the info the administration owes us?

    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Sumner on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 04:11:30 PM EST
    ...and yet arguably, the vast majority of this nation's most serious crimes have been perpetrated by government

    If a Dem wins (none / 0) (#3)
    by RedHead on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 04:20:11 PM EST
    appoint Comey.

    He knows were all the bodies are buried.

    Who will she appoint as AG? (none / 0) (#7)
    by RedHead on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 05:27:33 PM EST
    Any idea which "centrist" Hillary will appoint?

    And the nominees are:  one of her free-trade, multi-national, Wall Street-fundraiser;  Lawrence Jacobs (Rupert "fundraiser" Murdoch's lawyer; Joe Lieberman; Mel Sembler (head of Libby defense fund).

    Think I'm joking?  Well, unfortunately, just a bit.

    Let's remember her current Iraq attack dog, Michael O'Hanlon is an original signatory to PNAC (Source).

    Here are some of the Clintons other "Centrist" appointments.  Yes, Clintons (two for the price of one, remember).

    1. his first CIA director was noted Neo-Con James Woolsey;

    2. his first choice for AG was Zoe Baird, who was general counsel of insurance giant Aetna and GE (munitions, nuclear power, meet the press, etc.);

    3. his economic guys were "free-traders" Robert Rubin and Roger Altman, and Lawrence Summers (women can't balance their checkbooks);

    4. he appointed Louis Freeh  (a registered republican) as FBI director;

    5. his Iraq policy adviser in 1992 was none other than Laurie Mylroie;

    6. his trade representatives were DC corporate lobbyists Mickey Kantor and Charlene Barshefsky;.

    So yes, if you invested any part of your soul
    in her campaign, expect Hillary/Keane/O'Hanlon/Free-Trade  darling ticket to break your heart.

    Neo-Con James Woolsey, you mean (none / 0) (#9)
    by scribe on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 05:41:11 PM EST
    the guy who's a board member of a think tank that (the other month) called on Bushie and Deadeye to just declare themselves president-for-life and vice-president-for-life and get on with the serious business of Empire by attacking Iran?

    Drawing comparisons between Bushie and Deadeye on the one hand and Caesar and Augustus on the other?

    Another reason I've been for Edwards all along.  HRC is just a NPR* corporatocrat.

    * "Nice Polite Republican(s)".

    Democratic Party supports Mukasey (none / 0) (#11)
    by Andreas on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 09:38:38 PM EST
    The Democratic Party has been complicit in every attack on democratic rights carried out by the Bush administration, from the Patriot Act through changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act passed last August. In their handling of the US attorney firing scandal and revelations regarding warrantless spying programs, Democrats have sought to obscure the fundamental issues of democratic rights involved.

    The Democrats' assurances that Mukasey will face no serious opposition from their side demonstrates that should the Democratic Party capture the White House in 2008, none of the police state measures implemented under Bush will be reversed.
    Democrats back Bush's new pick for attorney general
    By Joe Kay, 18 September 2007

    And as AG for the next 15 months (none / 0) (#12)
    by kovie on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 10:09:49 PM EST
    Mukasey will be able to effectively squelch any investigations into what took place during the previous 81. Which, more than anything else, will be his job. They've already accomplished most of what they set out to accomplish at and with Justice. He's just there to keep it all under wraps and do some mopping up before the next president takes over. No doubt all the file cabinets will have been cleared and all the hard drives will have been scrubbed well before then.

    Pat Leahy is yet one more Dem who has sorely disappointed me with his "fake left, run scared" behavior. Like so many Dems these days, he talks the good talk, but doesn't walk the good walk. Whether out of cowardice, complicity, cynicism, cluelessness or callowness, he's just not going to fight the fight. I sincerely hope that I'm wrong, and that he surprises us--with S.214 now allowing him to dismiss all interim USA's, it's still possible. But it's not looking good right now.

    It's a good thing our Dem leaders... (none / 0) (#13)
    by Red Shovel on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 12:32:28 PM EST
    Yes, it's surely a good thing that all of us "impeachniks" have been effectively sidelined by our wise, responsible, moderate, cooperative Democratic leadership in Congress.  After all, what we demand (enforcement of the law and the Constitution) is politically "unpossible," as Ralph Wiggum might say, so we need to focus on more "winnable" tactical battles.

    Like... retroactively immunizing the telcoms for breaking Federal laws for 6 years running? Legalizing the Resident's warrantless spying program(s)?  Rolling over for the new conservative AG appointment without so much as a peep of inquiry as to what the last occupant of that office might have done (or left undone)?

    And where is that famous de-funding of the Iraq war?  Wasn't that supposed to be the practical substitute for impeaching the Resident?  Haven't heard much about that lately, have we?

    Uhmmm... right.  With Democrats "winning" like this, who needs Republicans?