Live Blog Mothership - SJC: Mukasey Confirmation Hearing Day Two

12:30 p.m. update - The committee is in recess and will return at 2 p.m., but please recommend this diary to keep the mothership afloat.  Thanks much!

GO TO PART II

Welcome to Day Two of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the confirmation of Michael Mukasey as Attorney General.

PLEASE RECOMMEND THIS DIARY.  It is the mothership for this hearing.  UID Liveblog is already committed to covering the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on rendition and torture scheduled for this afternoon.

NOTICE OF FULL COMMITTEE HEARING

The Senate Committee on the Judiciary has scheduled a hearing on the nomination of Michael B. Mukasey to be Attorney General of the United States for Wednesday, October 17, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 216 of the Senate Hart Office Building.

By order of the Chairman

Witness List

Hearing before the
Senate Judiciary Committee
on
"Executive Nomination"

Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Hart Senate Office Building Room 216
10:00 a.m.

Panel I:

The Honorable Charles E. Schumer
United States Senator [D-NY]

The Honorable Joseph Lieberman
United States Senator [ID-CT]

Panel II:

Michael B. Mukasey to be Attorney General of the United States

Panel III:

Dick Thornburgh
Of Counsel
K&L Gates
Washington, DC

Chuck Canterbury
National President
Fraternal Order of Police
Washington, D.C

Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, JAGC, USN (Ret.)
President and Dean
Franklin Pierce Law Center
Concord, NH

Dawn Johnsen
Professor
Indiana University School of Law
Bloomington, IN

Theodore M. Shaw
Director-Counsel and President
NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc.
New York, NY

Mary Jo White
Partner
Debevoise & Plimpton LLP
New York, NY

Wiki bio on Mukasey

Link to watch on C-SPAN3

Link to SJC Webcast

Da rules:

 Recommend this diary.  It is the mothership for this hearing.

    No pictures - not a one and yes, this includes YOU.

    Please reply to the first comment only with transcriptions.

    The second diary will be posted when comments reach ~150.  Subsequent diaries usually pop up at around 200 comments.  

If you are so kind as to volunteer a diary:  

a) thank you!

b) there is no required format, just please do provide the C-SPAN link and broadcast time.  some people, for continuity's sake, like to just copy the previous diary, but don't feel like you have to - if you want to have fun with it, knock yourself out.

: p

c) while there is no required format per se, do please, purty please help us standardize things somewhat by including the list of admonitions* and preserving the transcription section format, as demonstrated in comments #1 and #2.  

Today's liveblog volunteers:

1. lurks a lot/mothership (you are here)

2. kfred

3. SallyCat

4. kimoconnor

5. astoundedstill

•  Tips and 'Scripts!

  Please post transcriptions as replies to this comment.  

  by lurks a lot on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 06:50:40 AM PDT

  •  Leahy opening remarks/questions:

    {repeats his no disturbance admonishments from yesterday}

    L: Yesterday you said that Congress could only refer a contempt citation if claims of exec priv were "reasonable".  I have a problem with that.  If Congress referred citation - and there is a real possibility there will be - are you saying DOJ would undertake its own evaluation of the validity of the contempt claim?

    M: If WH (ie., Bush) exercises exec. priv. based on advice given by DOJ, it would not be appropriate for DOJ to then act on contempt charges.
    There are 2 OLC opinions on exec priv, one by Ted Olsen, one by (he can't remember) outlining what is covered under exec priv.

    L: But how can you justify when someone exerts exec priv AFTER the fact?

    M: I would think the WH would seek the opinion of DOJ before claiming ex priv.  It would seem unusual to me for someone not to.  I think ex priv covers communications beyond just to/from POTUS.

    L: What if POTUS broke the law and claimed ex priv to keep people from investigating?

    M: (gibberishy answer)

    L: Last year we were told that USA would not be permitted to bring contempt charges to a grand jury.  What is your opinion about that?

    M: When person (POTUS) is asserting privilege based on DOJ opinion it is not appropriate for the same dept. to pursue contempt.  Have not read the statute recently, don't think it requires taking it to a grand jury.

    L: Wants M's position on this in writing.  Legislation clearly states what must be done;  if POTUS operates outside the law, would taht be legal?

    M: Depends, comes down to Pres's ability to defend the country.  (!!!)

    L: Well, what if the FBI decides to break into someone's home just because they feel like it?

    M: "just because" isn't a good reason.

    L: Can the President authorize illegal conduct, put someone above the law?

    M: If by illegal you mean contrary to a statute, but in order to defend the country, then that is not above the law.

    by lurks a lot on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:19:45 AM PDT

  •  Leahy / Mukasey

    L: you have a bit of a problem here because some of these claims are extremely broad... pres never asked me any quest, but I'm claiming exec privilege

    M: as you describe it it sounds broad but i think it covers communic w/ the pres..

    L: what if the pres broke the law and somebody wants to look into it.. and he claims exec privil

    M: content has to be considered.. there's a weighing process that goes on

    L: last july when HJC was considering contempt citation somebody in admin said they wouldn't be permitted to bring contempt charges... now the law req him to bring contempt to grand jury, WH says you can't

    M: i fall back on two things.. walter dellinger.. say that when the person asserting the priv, when a pres in the assertion of priv is relying on the DOJ opinion that it simply can't be appropriate...

    L: but if the US atty doesn't follow the statute, how does the claim of priv get evaluated

    M: i have not read the text of the statute recently but think it requires grand jury.. i don't want to start parsing words

    L: judge, i'll spell this out a little more clearly with you but i would like your answer in writing before the nomin is brought before the committee, and lastly where congr has clearly legislated, like FISA law, various admins, stated very clearly what must be done, if you operate outside of that wouldn't that be illegal

    M: that would have to depend on what goes outside the statute nonetheless lies within the pres auth

    L: where does the pres get the auth if it's very clearly enunciated what he can and can't do.. if says i'm gonna get the fbi to go in and raid.. no urgency but we'd just kinda like to do that

    M: we kinda like to do that is not any kind of legit assertion of auth.. but the statute regardless of its clarity can't change the constitution

    L: can a pres auth illegal conduct.. can a pres put someone above the law

    M: the only way for me to respond in the abstract is.. if by illegal you mean against a statute but within his auth.. pres can put someone within the law...

    L: we'll go back to this.. i'm troubled by your answer because i see a loophole big enough to drive a truck through

    by joanneleon on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:22:48 AM PDT

  •  Specter / Mukasey

    S: Can the pres authorize torture?

    M: pres can't auth torture because it's barred both by statute and by the constitution

    S: where is it barred in the constitution

    M: barred by 5th, 4th and the 8th amendment... conduct that shocks the conscience...

    by joanneleon on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:23:29 AM PDT

  •  Specter:

    S: Does Pres have ability to authorize torture?

    M: no, not permitted by law and by Constitution.

    S: Where in Constitution?

    M: 8th, 5th, and 14th amendments, treatment that "shocks the conscience".

    S: Was President's violation of FISA (TSP) authorized/justified by Article II?

    M: My understanding is that Pres thought that multiple statutes applied, actions were covered by AUMF.

    S: Well, that's not what AUMF was intended for.

    by lurks a lot on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:24:37 AM PDT

  •  More Specter:

    S: Re reporters' privilege, numerous recent cases where reporters have gone to jail for refusal to reveal sources, most famous is Judy Miller for refusing to reveal info re Valerie Flame (sic!).  Legislation being written includes exception for info w/ national security interest.  I'd like to hear your views on this subject.

    M: I have a history of representing reporters, as you put it, it sounds innocuous, but I have some anxiety when it comes to nat sec issues.  Not always possible to show outcome resulting from disclosure of confidential info (cites release of unindicted co-conspirators in 1993 WTC bombing and another case).  Release of info resulted in suspects shutting down, loss of intelligence.  Results are an imponderable.  In many cases mistakes based on best judgment can be remedied, but not in security/intelligence areas.  I don't want this to be a situation where a bad case makes hard law.

    S: I'd like you to help us find a way to address the concerns you state, but retain a shield for reporters.

    by lurks a lot on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:33:23 AM PDT

  •  Specter / Mukasey

    S: some senators are calling for bradbury's resignation...acts on mr bradbury's part have been carrying out the pres orders... in june/july there was consid discussion about telephone companies... vp cheney intervened and talked to members of the comm on rep side without talking to me... my letter in june 2006 and his response.. following those letters mr bradbury and staff and i had conversations about putting TSP under FISA court.. i found him to be very competent... led to meeting with pres bush who agreed.. i thought bradbury was A+ and ought to be confirmed..

    S: onto issues of reporters privilege.. have been many subp issued.. many celebrated cases where people went to jail.. barry bonds.. number one case with judith miller who went to jail for reasons i don't understand... valerie flame (yes he said flame, twice).. she was kept in jail.. this matter will be coming up, we're pushing it for floor action.. there's an exception for national security.. judge decides whether public disclosure outweighs national security.. up to fed judges to decide highly tech matters.. want to hear your views on that.. whether it's a sensible accomod.. news gathering which has ... abuse.. we intend to push this and reach an accomod that satisfies the admin on the nat sec issue

    M: ny shield law.. as you put it, it sounds almost innocuous but i have some anxiety when it comes to nat sec cases because altho fed judges (and i was one and have high regard for them) first of all it's not always poss to show the outcome of disclosure.. example piece of testimony given before judge duffy re: someone having delivered a cell phone battery.. that disclosed to AQ that a line of communic had been discovered.. that line of communic shut down within days of that testim.. no way to know what we lost.. secondly when it comes to fed judges.. they don't have the training and resources that the DNI has avail to him to weigh issues like that.. often even a showing of what the danger would be is as bad as the disclosure or worse.. so for those reasons i've got misgivings about it.. the case you described.. there's an old saying that hard cases make bad law but opp may be true

    s: just an assertion of nat sec ends the matter, that's just too much auth.. ask that you help us search for a way.. but at same time give shield to reporter unless there's a good reason not to

    by joanneleon on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:33:50 AM PDT

  •  Leahy / Mukasey

    L: constit has a pretty clear prov on search and seizure

    M: 4th amendm says we're all protected against unreas searches and goes on to define causes

    L: probable causes

    M: [nods] those are two sep clauses.. we all for ex go to the airport and we're searched without a warrant

    L: we have a choice there, don't have to get on the plane, i'm talking about searching my emails.. ignored a specific law.. how can the pres say well that's nat sec so i'll auth you to clearly viol a statute.. why couldn't he do the same on torture

    M: think we have to distinguish carefully betw monitoring tel content and tel records.. records have never been protected by 4th

    L: conversations are and conv could be taken improperly, lives ruined, jobs lost... we'll come back to this judge.. don't think you can say that pres can suddenly auth others to break the law.. we find out now that they have broken the torture law supposedly having been told by the WH that they could do it

    by joanneleon on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:37:56 AM PDT

  •  Feinstein / Mukasey

    F: FISA.. took some time to read the church report.. it outlines a major historic trend in our 200 yr history to take for intel and exploit a loophole.. example after example thru dem and rep admins which points out a real need for a FISA that we can say to the amer people is the exclusive authority.. sen feingold followed up.. in the area betw where that statute left off.. judge bell.. in terms of legisl intent, there is not scant evidence.. every effort was made in 1978 to provide that that elec surveill was under law.. about AUMF don't believe there was any intent to allow the pres to wiretap outside of the law.. i sent last night part of page 101 report on fisa bill.. will read and ask you to comment.. [she reads] goes on that despite any inherent power of the pres to auth surveill in the absense of legisl, congress will legislate.. fisa court, 11 judges, 24/7, prohibit the pres from viol.. they repealed that section, expressly repealed.. fisa does not simply leave pres powers where it finds them.. [complicated and quickly spoken - do check real transcripts because what she is saying is important]

    F: ... use as auth to go outside of fisa.. he didn't have to go outside fisa.. subseq that became clear.. what bothers me is you sustain that gap

    M:  i share your hope and i share the view that if the pres can act w/in fisa then that's where he has to act.  based on the history you read.. i don't want to look for areas of disagreement, and I was told not to look for areas of disagr.. but the only thing i see is that .. restricting the auth of the pres under the constit.. we ackn that the pres might have auth the goes beyond the statute.. if however it was always poss for the pres to act w/in fisa then there's no need for that auth.. understand there are things for the pres to use w/out having to go for every indiv warrant and that's the way i want to go

    F: they went and did it, and that's the reason fisa needed.. because it's all hidden action.. 4th amend comes into play.. when you listed the AUMF I think the history counters the AUMF

    by joanneleon on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:47:35 AM PDT

    •  I would never vote for this dude...

        He has said over and over that the President has authority over and above any limitations that Congress may place on his powers in regards to national security. He will carry the water for Bush/Cheney even better than Gonzales because he will not look like a "deer in the headlights" when challenged by Comgress. No limits to the President's power.
         Feingold will call him on this again. No more an agnostic. He is another unitarian.

      by NC Dem on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 08:00:01 AM PDT

  •  Leahy

    pressure on intel committee

    trying to immunize illegal conduct because they know it was illegal conduct

    by joanneleon on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:48:30 AM PDT

  •  Kyl / Mukasey

    K: wrt the retroactive liability there could be a very chilling effect on telecom coop with the govt if we don't protect them.. it's not that the admin knew it was illegal, in fact i think that's a very uncharitable... wrt the shield law, i would like to correct the record just wrt one thing sen specter said in a moment, from the doj own report, decrease in seeking confid source in recent years, this is hardly a situation in which... almost no cases where reporter went to jail.. since the legisl has come out of judiciary, be important to have your insight, your willingness to work with us

    M: i agree and think it bears some mention that there are w/in the dept procedures before anyone is able to subp a reporter.. there are many levels of approval that have to be gotten in main justice not just the USA's office.. one thing about internal proced is that if you need to change them they are rel easy to change.. becomes much harder when it's etched in stone in the form of legisl and that's part of the reason for my unease

    K: would be interesting just to get back to the doj mission statement.. your job is to enforce the law.. ensure pub safety.. fed leadership.. seek just punishment... fair and impartial admin of justice to all americans.. what your job is .. i found it interesting that people who have worked with you in those areas have been impressed with the way you have exec your resp, suggesting you'd carry that same experience to AG job.. important to note that your reputation fits in very tightly with your resp as AG and pleased you have that kind of support from the people with whom you've worked.. you're extremely well suited.. do you have any insights wrt how you view your job.. last year of an admin, there's been some tumult [ :) ] tell the amer people how you can take that exper and represent them

    M: job that would humble someone with twice my resp.. the people in the dept are the people who carry that resp.. my job is to make sure they have as little problems as possible.. there are thousands of them, that's what allows me to sleep at night when i say yes to wanting to do this job.  yes it's an awesome resp but look at the people i have helping me

    by joanneleon on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:58:12 AM PDT

  •  Feingold / Mukasey

    F: sounds that overnight you've gone from being agnostic... pres article 2 auth.. are you telling us that anytime the pres is acting to safeguard against a terr threat..

    M: you've suggested that i've gone from being an agnostic.. i haven't

    F: explain how you haven't

    M: justice jackson's approach.. but i recog that each branch has it's own sphere of auth.. example, you have the exclusive auth to vote me up or down for any reason or no reason.. if i am displeased i could not validly go down the street and file a lawsuit that i've been denied a right.. the auth belongs only to you.. there are areas of pres auth.  i also said that we are not dealing nec with areas of black and white which is why it's very important that push not come to shove on these questions

    F: judge i'll take your example, youngstown people did have the right to go to court and they did it and they won.. renders what you said meaningless.. and i have great respect for you.. you have an opport to change the tenor of this admin.. repairing has to be done.. this notion of ever expanding exec power..  wrt death penalty, AG criticiz for not being involved in a case.. how pers involved would you be in cases seeking death pen

    M: i am going to be pers involved in every one.. take it very seriously.. there is obv no penalty analogous to the death pen and that means that i'm going to reveiw every such case in excruciating detail.. proced is in place which the dept has tried to assure that the decision on whether to seek death pen depends only on facts of case, acts involved, cruelty..

    F: will you refuse to speak to a USatty who wants to discuss it with you

    M: that's a diff quest to answer.. may very well be that that defendant's crime, background is no better than backgr of .. jurisdiction where they are more accustomed to that penalty..

    F: why wouldn't you speak to the USA about this

    M: i would want to have that USA's views made known to me.. don't want to be in situation of succumbing to a plea of a USA who doesn't want for good and conscious reasons does not want to seek, when same case may be getting diff treatment in another jurisd

    ...

    by joanneleon on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 08:06:57 AM PDT

  •  Feingold:

    F: Like to associate myself w/ Sen. Feinstein's characterization of FISA limitations.  But it sounds to me like you've gone overnight from being "agnostic" to a position that I find alarming.  Are you telling us that any time the Pres is acting in response to a national security threat that he is above the law?

    M: I recognize Justice Jackson's 3-step approach, but each branch also has its own exclusive authorities.  Ex: you have the exclusive authority to vote for my confirmation or not.  Even if I didn't like the result, I have no recourse under the law.  The authority belongs to you.  There are also areas of Presidential authority.  Not all are black and white, necessary that push not come to shove, results could be disastrous.

    F: Re Youngstown and Judge Jackson, your responses have rendered the 3-part test essentially moot.  This area is most important to repair, get away from limitless Article II power.

    moving on to Gonzo and USA firings....how involved would you be in determining death penalty prosecutions?

    M: Obviously no penalty is analagous to death penalty.  I will review each death penalty case in excrutiating detail.  Procedure put into place by Janet Reno for reviewing facts of case.

    F: Would you refuse to speak w/ a USA who disagrees w/ you?

    M: Difficult ? to answer.  Same circumstances may be treated differently in different USA jurisdictions.

    F: But would you at least discuss it w/ them?

    M: Yes.  But treatment of d.p. cases should be equal across jurisdictions.

    F: Many glbt citizens serving honorably in DOJ.  Ashcroft and Gonzales do not recognize them, allow glbt recruiting, etc.  Will you stop the unequal treatment of glbt citizens if you are head of DOJ?

    M: I don't understand the disparate treatment, it would stop under me.

    by lurks a lot on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 08:07:38 AM PDT

    •  Lurks-Call for Volunteers

      somewhere in the comments.  Top or Bottom.

      by donnamarie on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 08:12:16 AM PDT

  •  Schumer / Mukasey

    Schumer

    S: now i know you care about rooting out corruption.. both you and i know that sometimes the mech for dealing with corruption can itself suffer from corruption... few more quest along those lines.. how would you react if you heard that someone pushed a case against a democratic description

    M: a euphemistic way to say it, negatively

    S: what would you do to rectify

    M: would make certain it was undone.. one way might be to take over that investig.. hypothetical..

    S: specific fact case, troubling alleg that such behav did occur in past.. in alabama there was a prosec of gov don siegelman.. serious alleg that case was pol motiv and prosec.. simpson has sworn under oath that she was told karl rove pushed to get charges.. told her that a rep judge would quote hang don siegelman.. there are other troubling alleg matter of public record... i've read about this.. greatly troubles me that perhaps perhaps perhaps this case was politically brought.. i'm not accusing anyone of anything and don't know all the facts but would like you to find the facts.. we can't have proper housecleaning without.. ask you to pers look into this matter and report back

    M: i don't know what stage the siegelman.. is case under appeal

    S: he's serving time right now

    M: may be that the first cut at the facts ought to be had by the court.. not unheard of for appel court to remand..

    S: don't know details but many of these facts came out after trial and convict and might not be admiss to court of appeals

    M: maybe there ought to be a remand or req for remand... hesitant

    S: rephrase.. would you take a look at .. be willing after appeal is completed.. take a look

    M: certainly willing to take a look

    S: couple of quest about disproport prosec of dems.. illinois state univ study.. two professors of commun compiled DB of investigt and indict of officials.. prelim results that dems prosec seven times as much as republicans.. if you believe that bad people are sprinkled throughout the system fairly evenly.. would you look at this study

    M: i will look at the study and will tell you that i believe neither party has a monopoly on virture or vice

    by joanneleon on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 08:23:16 AM PDT

•  Sandbox fun starts below!

  And if you can volunteer a diary, please reply to this comment.  Thanks in advance!  :)

  by lurks a lot on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 06:51:31 AM PDT

  •  I can post a diary but not follow too much

    or I can do 3rd position.  I'll get a draft set-up to take the second or third diary!

    by SallyCat on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 08:19:19 AM PDT

    •  Great! Thanks so much.

      I'll put you down for #2.

      by lurks a lot on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 08:22:17 AM PDT

    •  SALLYCAT!!!

      kfred has published diary #2 already so I moved you to #3.

      by lurks a lot on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 08:38:57 AM PDT

      •  Got it....no problem! Thanks

        by SallyCat on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 08:39:45 AM PDT

•  Good day! Another winger in the wings and here

  we are to call them on all their BS again.  Ahhhh, what a wonderful way to waste time.  ;-)

  by funluvn1 on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 06:54:03 AM PDT

  •  Speaking of calling them on their BS,

    Sheldon Whitehouse on C-Span this morning was terrific.  He explained clearly and honestly what's gone wrong with DOJ.  Even heard a couple of Repubs call in to thank him!  
    We just need 49 more like him, and this country will be in safe hands.  

    by sherlyle on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:00:49 AM PDT

    •  Mr. Whitehouse is quite the speaker.

      I wish he would be the only Senator to interview these guys sometimes.  He always seems to get right to the point and hammer it home.

      by funluvn1 on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:03:16 AM PDT

      •  Whitehouse is consistently at the top

        when it comes to questioning.  I recall that before his election there were some dismissive comments in the media suggesting he was a lightweight, but he certainly proved them wrong, and continues to do so every time.  Very impressive guy.

        by trivium on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 08:56:57 AM PDT

    •  Drat, I missed it.

      Not that I watch C-SPAN that often in the morning, but I'll catch it when they post it on their website.  Whitehouse is great!

      by lurks a lot on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:04:32 AM PDT

•  Perfect, Lurks a lot

  You did great here!

  Please Rec this diary everyone.  It's the Mothership!

  by donnamarie on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 06:55:41 AM PDT

  •  Thanks donna!

    I had the first two comments done before I published the diary, but somehow they got lost and I had to add them again.  But other than that, all is well!  :)

    by lurks a lot on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 06:58:32 AM PDT

    •  Yea

      sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't.  What has happened to me before is that it says it's unable to publish.  I keep hitting publish and eventually it will publish.  Nerve racking though.

      by donnamarie on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:01:16 AM PDT

•  Thanks very much, all the livebloggers!

  Don't know if you realize how appreciative some of us out here are - we wouldn't know anything about these hearings except what MSM is willing to tell us without you.  THANKS!

  by sherlyle on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 06:55:51 AM PDT

•  C-SPAN feed is up.

  It looks like only Grassley is there right now, so it'll prolly be a few minutes before they start.

  by lurks a lot on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:02:01 AM PDT

•  OK - here we go! n/t

  by lurks a lot on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:07:02 AM PDT

•  Here we go, a few words from Leahy

  Says he's going to be careful not to be too mean today.  Specter to go after Leahy finishes.

  by vigilant meerkat on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:08:04 AM PDT

•  One question:

  Why are we supposed to believe Mukasey when he says things like he'd quit if Bush asked him to do something he thought was wrong? Hasn't every nominee that Bush put forth claimed that they would not be a yes man (or woman), only to fold like a lawn chair when the moment of truth came?

  Why in the world are we supposed to buy this tripe?

  by Omen on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:11:42 AM PDT

  •  The questions are:

    Does he believe torture is ALWAYS wrong ?

    How does he define torture?

    For Dan,
    Heather

    by Chacounne on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:18:05 AM PDT

    •  his definition of torture

      will be whatever Bush and Cheney says. He'll say just enough today to give people false hope.

      by Omen on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:33:41 AM PDT

•  Mukasey outlines what happens

  when president asserts a privilege against the production of documents under subpoena.  The basis of the assertion must be evaluated.  WH would seek the view of the DoJ before making the assertion, or so Mukasey thinks.

  by vigilant meerkat on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:12:44 AM PDT

  •  From lurks a lot's transcript

    M: If by illegal you mean contrary to a statute, but in order to defend the country, then that is not above the law.

    "...contrary to a statute (law)" is not contrary to the law. When the President does it, that means it is legal.

    Got it.

    by MyBrainWorks on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 09:33:07 AM PDT

•  Wow

  This diary is falling really fast.  I think everyone decided to post a diary between 10:00 and 10:15.
  Again, Please Recommend it, gang.

  by donnamarie on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:13:01 AM PDT

•  Thinks Exec Priv covers whole range of things

  Not just things relating to presidency.

  by vigilant meerkat on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:13:19 AM PDT

•  What about when Pres breaks the law

  and then asserts the privilege to block investigation asks Leahy.  What if WH says you can't take it to a grand jury.  Mukasey is mushy here.  Avoiding a straight answer.  Legal speak.  Equivocation.

  by vigilant meerkat on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:15:27 AM PDT

  •  Uh oh. Not good news there.

    Are they pressing him on this?

    by sherlyle on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:16:30 AM PDT

    •  They seem slightly perplexed

      I can't tell if this is something they weren't expecting.  Lots of consternation.

      by vigilant meerkat on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:27:24 AM PDT

      •  The color commentary

        is really important, too.  It's one thing to read the words but it's really helpful to know the 'mood' of the moment.  Thanks, VM.

        by donnamarie on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:29:39 AM PDT

        •  I can't understand the apparent lack of interest

          this morning.  Where is everyone?  This is important.  Damn.

          by vigilant meerkat on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:32:56 AM PDT

          •  I know

            We may have to go to plan B and abandon the Mothership concept.

            by donnamarie on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:33:48 AM PDT

          •  one theory:

            most people are probably saving their energy for the SCHIP vote. I know personally I didn't think Mukasey was gonna get a second day, but I'me glad I found you guys.

            by Omen on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:39:24 AM PDT

            •  SCHIP Vote

              Do you know if the Reps will be giving speeches prior to the vote?

              UID Liveblog will be Live Blogging the House FAC on rendition and torture at 2:00. Maher Arar is testifying. From Canada.

              by donnamarie on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:42:54 AM PDT

              •  not sure about speeches, but

                the dems would be follish not to say something to get those much-needed votes. I'm gonna try and keep an eye out.

                by Omen on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:45:53 AM PDT

                •  Thanks, Omen

                  Post a Live Blog if you want.  A Mothership one would be good.  You know the routine ;-).

                  by donnamarie on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:48:06 AM PDT

    •  I think they will.

      Leahy said in his opening remarks that executive privilege would be one of the subjects of today's questioning.

      by lurks a lot on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:36:51 AM PDT

•  Mukasey to provide answer to committee

  Can't seem to provide one right now.  Not good.  Not good.

  by vigilant meerkat on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:16:28 AM PDT

•  Mukasey is really stumbling around here

  Trying to be careful not to say anything rethugs would find offensive.  Where are the straight answers?  We have been down this road too many times.  He is not our friend.

  by vigilant meerkat on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:18:33 AM PDT

•  Leahy is troubled by Mukasey's answer

  "A loophole you could drive a truck through."

  by vigilant meerkat on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:19:22 AM PDT

•  An aircraft carrier imho. n/t

  by funluvn1 on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:20:06 AM PDT

•  Specter raises the spectre of torture

  Mukasey says the pres cannot authorize torture.  Barred by 5th, 14th amendments (and the 8th?).  Shocks the conscience.

  by vigilant meerkat on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:20:30 AM PDT

  •  Can the president decide what is torture?

    All this "shocking" stuff is worthless if he can.

    by sherlyle on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:21:54 AM PDT

    •  Apparently so

      He says we do not torture, even though we all know we are.  It's that kind of world into which this nominee is stepping.  Does he know that?  I think he does, at least to a certain extent.  He's still stuck in his judicial role, trying to stay neutral and unbiased even though he must know he was nominated based on his ability to be biased toward the Unitary Executive.

      by vigilant meerkat on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:30:04 AM PDT

      •  Sounds so far like he understands

        that his job is to agree with Bush/Cheney's imperial rule.  No, no we don't torture, if by torture you mean.....  Oh, and the Prez can label anything at all a matter of national security, and so go through with whatever lawbreaking his little black heart desires.  
        This guy is Gonzo, just smarter.  
        Are we going to survive another 15 months of this?

        by sherlyle on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:44:05 AM PDT

      •  another diaper carrier for the urinary executive

        that's all

        by mollyd on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 08:48:22 AM PDT

    •  That IS the crux of the issue.

      The President has redefined torture, so he can say "America doesn't torture" while carrying on torturing people as we speak. Too many people believe him.

            For Dan,
            Heather

      by Chacounne on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:32:57 AM PDT

•  Why is Specter "moving on"

  to more important issues?  

  by vigilant meerkat on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:22:58 AM PDT

  •  There ARE no more important issues!

       For Dan,
       Heather

    by Chacounne on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:30:07 AM PDT

    •  Exactly

      by vigilant meerkat on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:31:32 AM PDT

•  Feinstein up

  (sorry, late to the game here)

  She's convinced bipartisan support of FISA is the only way the bill will make it out.  She's (fili)blustering about how she read the Church report eons ago.

  by kfred on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:38:39 AM PDT

  •  Not filibuster, a setup.

    She's now reading verbatim how the FISA law expressly forbids the Pres to wiretap outside of what the law says he's allowed to.  And AUMF did not permit him to go outside of FISA.

    by lurks a lot on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:44:11 AM PDT

    •  Apparently Mukasey agrees with Bush

      that AUMF does give him that authority.  Oh no.  

      by sherlyle on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:45:53 AM PDT

    •  Yours is better

      She takes so long to get to the point - you did much better.

      He agrees with her - her point is that Bush didn't even TRY to work with Congress or FISA.  The 4th ammendment to come into play.

      She wants to say history counters the AUMF.

      Lahey comes back about howt he Senate is caving on the immunity issue.  He says the WhiteHouse recognizes they broke the law, hence the pressure.

      by kfred on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:48:05 AM PDT

      •  Heh - I try to separate wheat and chaff.

        My Specter transcript above was GREATLY abbreviated.  ;)

        by lurks a lot on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:51:13 AM PDT

  •  She gets a nod from Mukasey

    When she says Bush did not have to go outside of FISA.  He shares the view that if the pres can act within FISA, that is where he has to act.  He seems pleased with this discussion.  He doesn't think they disagree.

    by vigilant meerkat on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:44:59 AM PDT

•  I will say this

  At least he doesn't smirk.  He looks properly judicial, you know, slightly annoyed and impatient.  I suspect that is his usual demeanor.  How refreshing.  But not enough.

  by vigilant meerkat on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:42:37 AM PDT

•  DiFi sounds real serious

  she obviously wants Mukasey to be clear as to where he stands.

  by Omen on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:43:01 AM PDT

  •  The problem is that DIFi wants

      bipartisan agreement to move forward. If it is bipartisan, then it is illegal and unconstitutional. The Repubs will never agree with the President following the law if it means being strong on national security.

    by NC Dem on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 08:14:23 AM PDT

•  I'm just reading

  but this doesn't sound like yesterday's Love Fest.  Are they being tougher on him today?

  by donnamarie on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:44:09 AM PDT

  •  Seems so to me.

    A refreshing lack of gushiness compared to yesterday.

    by lurks a lot on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:45:43 AM PDT

  •  They seem more sober

    He seems to be opening the door for more thorough discussion of this particular topic.  It would seem to indicate that this is an area of concern for him as well.

    by vigilant meerkat on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:46:46 AM PDT

  •  yeah, and it's overdue

    the Bush Administration is hostile and dimissive to everyone who doesn't bow to their feet. But whenever Democrats flex their muscles they get accused of being partisan and political (duh; it's politics!)

    They should have started this hearing as bad cop and set the tone that the days of bullshitting Congress are over.

    by Omen on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:48:28 AM PDT

•  Must watch TV show "24"

  To understand how the Unitary President, which is what the nominee sounds like he is supporting, can be accepted.

  This program has two presidents, one strong and one weak.  Only the strong president ignores and disdains due process for getting the job done.  One of the techniques is torture, always efficient, always done reluctantly by the hero, Jack Bauer.

  And their CIA is omniscient and technically perfect.  They always have perfect knowledge of the danger, except what they need from the one resistant enemy, thus imposing pain gives the key to save a city.

  Someone should ask the nominee whether he has ever seen the program, and his observations about it.

  by arodb on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:46:15 AM PDT

•  We FINALLY made the Rec List

  That was a close one!!!

  by donnamarie on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:46:37 AM PDT

  •  Cool! Thanks for keeping tabs on that. :) nt

    by lurks a lot on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:48:12 AM PDT

    •  2 tabs

      and constantly refreshing the front page lol.

      by donnamarie on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:50:05 AM PDT

  •  Yahoo!

    Now we need to keep it up there.  This is a critical hearing, unless you assume he is a done deal, then I guess it would not be as interesting.

    by vigilant meerkat on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:48:57 AM PDT

    •  After yesterday's smoochfest...

      I'm guessing that a lot of people thought today would be more of the same.  I know I did.  Good to see that it's not.

      by lurks a lot on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:55:43 AM PDT

•  I am at work and have therefore missed

  some of the testimony, however what I have been hearing it sounds like Mukasey is backtracking (in a bad way) from his testimony yesterday.  Am I getting the jist of this or am I out of line?

  by KatHart on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:49:37 AM PDT

  •  Not based on the FISA/Feinstein discussion n/.t

    by kfred on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:51:05 AM PDT

  •  Just reading along here, but seems you

    have it right.  If anyone actually watching this disagrees, we'd love to hear it.

    by sherlyle on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:52:00 AM PDT

  •  I'm not sure yet

    I need to hear some Q&A with some rethugs first.

    by vigilant meerkat on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:55:41 AM PDT

•  John Kyl - R - AZ is up

  He's on to the reporter's shield law, crap and then the sound cut out.  He'll ask the question later.

  by kfred on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:50:05 AM PDT

  •  Mukasey not comfortable

    with Shield Law having been legistlated because there is no flexibility in making changes unlike an internal procedure.  He says the process inside the DoJ is multi-layered and well-thought out. (paraphrase)

    by kfred on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:53:44 AM PDT

    •  The ego of that angers me more than I can say. nt

      by KatHart on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:56:48 AM PDT

      •  What is he saying? Is he saying he doesn't

        like it when Congress legislates??  That it's better to have DOJ do it?  The DOJ that takes orders directly from the WH?  

        by sherlyle on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:59:19 AM PDT

        •  That is what I thought he was saying.

          Take the power away from the people and into the hands of one man.  As far as I am concerned, exactly the wrong way to go.

          by KatHart on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 08:02:06 AM PDT

          •  Amen to that! Thanks, KatHart. nt

            by sherlyle on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 08:05:20 AM PDT

•  Just a quick shout out to the incredibly good

  transcripts above.  Thank you so much for the hard work I was able to catch up on what I missed.

  by KatHart on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:53:17 AM PDT

  •  Bless you for giving us a picture

    of what's happening to go along with the words.  

    by sherlyle on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 08:02:53 AM PDT

    •  Dang. Sorry, KatHart, I meant comment

      above to reply to vigilant meerkat below.  Sorry.

      by sherlyle on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 08:03:42 AM PDT

•  Feingold is really riled

  by the apparent backtracking.  Arms folded, indicating he is not open to what he is hearing from Mukasey.  He states he is troubled by M's position.

  by vigilant meerkat on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 08:00:48 AM PDT

  •  He should be riled. It seems to me

    based on the testimony of yesterday someone got to Mukasey and told him where he should be on the issues.

    by KatHart on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 08:04:36 AM PDT

    •  EXACTLY, KatHart n/t

      by donnamarie on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 08:05:25 AM PDT

    •  That's what I'm getting as well

      He's being "handled" and has received some instruction in how to answer.  This is in the same vein as his earlier comment that he was told not to look for areas of disagreement.

      by vigilant meerkat on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 08:29:17 AM PDT

  </