I have certainly heard from folks about my reference to Attorney General Michael Mukasey’s explanation for not taking action in the political hiring scandal as the “Elmer Fudd defense”, click here. Mukasey stated that, once again, he would not take action in this matter, but suggested it was due to the fact that the culprits left the Justice Department before he could take action. The problem is that he has blocked action in matters involving clear crimes with officials still in office.
In his speech to the ABA, Mukasey stated that no action would be taken against those responsible for political hiring at the Justice Department, click here. The suggestion is that, if these varmints were not so fast, he could have done something despite his record on non-action in every other area of alleged criminality by Bush officials.
Mukasey explained further that reviewing those hired under the political litmus test would be unfair. This is clearly true with regard to line DOJ people, but Mukasey did not deal with the immigration judges who were hired for their political qualifications and are still handing down rulings.
He also told delegates to the American Bar Association annual meeting, “Not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime. In this instance, the two joint reports found only violations of the civil service laws.” The problem is that he is barring efforts to investigate clear crimes in the torture program and the unlawful surveillance programs, even after rulings from federal court clearly establishing the foundation for criminal investigations. One federal court has already ruled that the president’s domestic surveillance program was clearly unlawful.
29 thoughts on “Mukasey’s Elmer Fudd Defense”
I believe that Washington State Supreme Court Justice Richard B. Sanders was punished (blindsided actually – by a false op with Seattle Times) to make sure he wasn’t re-elected; because he shouted out the words “tyrant” more than once (during a Federalist Dinner in D.C.).
This man and his sidekick (Mr. Filip) were VERY well aware of the schenanigans Romney/Bain/ Goldman Sachs,/Paul Traub and the MNAT law firm were pulling; but they simply Did NOT care!
Update on Elmer! (from talkingpointsmemo)
HJC To Consider Contempt Citation for Mukasey Tomorrow
By Kate Klonick – September 9, 2008, 6:06PM
Finally! Congress is back from va-cay, and they’ve got lots of work to do before years end and House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) is wasting no time.
Tomorrow morning, the Committee is scheduled to consider a citation for contempt for Attorney General Michael Mukasey for his failure to supply documents in accordance with the subpoena issued in late June.
The meeting is set to start at 10:15 EST. We’ll be sure to keep you updated on what happens.
Jill and MQuinn,
That interview was very good. I would like to see a debate where the candidates would get to ask each other some questions and then then the moderator(s) would actually have their laptops turne on and would use them to verify the accuracty of the respective answers. It would be priceless to see McCain try to answer some tough questions on his large flips and then his response when the facts are displayed on the screen for all to see how wrong he is and how he was lyhing. I realize that neither party would accept this kind of “debate”, but it would make for great TV and McCain would nail his own coffin for all to see.
That interview is priceless!
Amen to that Gyges! I learn so much more from the long form interview on Terry Gross or even the shorter ones on Science Friday. A good questioner will ask difficult questions, not to trip the person up, but to have them explain their ideas in depth. I wish we didn’t have presidential debates either. In order to do a real debate you need one, or several, well informed questioners who will kick ass and take names on the debatees until they answer. Since this type of person is rarely allowed on any media outlet I think no debate forums are better.
You know I’ve actually been thinking that “Debate” on most news shows is over-rated. Ideally you end up with something like the debate one Christopher Hitchen’s and reverend Al Sharpton had shortly after Hitchen’s “God’s Not So Great” book came out, or the famous Frank Zappa\Candy Stroud debate. The problem is that you usually justget two people shouting slogans at each other. I personally think a better way to hear two different view points on a subject it a “separate interview” situation. That way the parties don’t get stuck on arguing a small point and you get a much better view of what each side is saying.
Here’s a link of JT on the O’Reilly show…
This man isn’t as cute as Elmer so maybe the Chinese will remove him from office. I can see why he’s the darling of the admistration though.
From McClatchy: “Mr. Mukasey said he expected criticism of the rules (to loosen restrictions on FBI’s national security and criminal investigations) becuase, ‘they expressly authorize the FBI to engage in intelligence collection inside the US’…”
Comments are closed.