Mukasey Rejects Call for CIA Tape Details

[IDemo]

Source: Washington Post

Friday, December 14, 2007; 2:27 PM

Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey today sharply rebuffed congressional demands for details about the Justice Department's inquiry into the destruction of CIA interrogation tapes, saying that providing such information would make it appear that the department was "subject to political influence."

In letters to the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee and others, Mukasey also reiterated his opposition to appointing a special prosecutor to the tapes investigation, saying he was "aware of no facts at present" that would require such a step.

"At my confirmation hearing, I testified that I would act independently, resist political pressure and ensure that politics plays no role in cases brought by the Department of Justice," Mukasey wrote. "Consistent with that testimony, the facts will be followed wherever they lead in this inquiry, and the relevant law applied."

One letter was sent to Sens. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Similar correspondence was sent to Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and to House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) and other House Democrats.

edit -- to correct content

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/14/AR2007121401269.html?hpid=topnews

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Way to smoke, Chuck!

[spotbird]

3. Chuck is no different than Lieberman,

he is just better at hiding it.

[Xipe Totec]

12. Where there's smoke, there's a pair of pants ablaze

Amazing that Mukasey didn't burst into flames in mid sentence.

[LakeSamish706]

2. And I will believe this when I see it... Independent my ass! n/t

[rox63]

9. * would never nominate someone who was truly independent n/t

[Peregrine Took]

4. Thanks, Chuckie. You've given us a real charmer. n/t

[babylonsister]

5. Chuck and DiFi, proud of yourselves now? nt

[Trillo]

6. Mukasey should have said

"subject to the people's oversight".

At least then, it would have been precisely accurate in plain speak.

[jonnyra]

7. The sooner we stop

thinking the democrats are working for we the people the sooner we the people can get on about the business of taking matters into our own hands and demanding an end to the fascist takeover of our nation and the trashing of our constitution. Until that happens the crimes will continue and the nation will soon lie in ruin. That is if it isnt too late.

Clearly the democrats are part of the problem not the solution.

[OKthatsIT]

21. TAXATION without REPRESENTATION

Is it time to pull the plug, folks?

Just let me know when you understand...this is OUR only means of impressing them all.

[DCKit]

8. Is it that "providing the information" or "the information"....

Would make the DOJ look like a political tool? HUGE distinction.

[seafan]

10. Isn't Chuck and Diane's "we need new leadership" choice just swell? n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

11. Thanks for nothing Harry and Chuck!

You stupid spineless corrupt idiots.

[tbyg52]

19. Don't forget Dianne. nt

[annabanana]

13. "make it APPEAR that the department was "subject to political influence."??

Sweet Jesus

[tabasco]

17. Yesiree!

Sure would hate anybody to get that idea.

[Sam Ervin jret]

14. what ever happened to doing something so as to stop any "appearance of wrong doing"

Remember when just the appearance of a conflict was enough to disqualify you for something? When the appearance of wrongdoing was enough to ask for a "look see"? Now? The brother of the watchdog is working on the board of the company he's charged with guarding. The whole thing is a sham and this Attn. Gen. is just the whip cream on the top of the sham banana split of an administration we are suffering through.

it's enough to make us all lactose intolerant, and sick to our stomach

[MasonJar]

15. Thanks, Chuck and Diane, for giving us yet another Bushista.

[ladjf]

16. Well, thats that. Mukasey said there is nothing there to warrant

any sort of Congressional investigation of special prosecutor. Move along folks. This is just another Bush administration crime cover up.

We are no better off with Mukasey than we were with Gonzo. This is very discouraging.

[L. Coyote]

18. MUKASEY, Torture, and a Special Prosecutor. A Conflict of Interest Conundrum.

Some are asking, "What did Bush know and when did he know it?"
Some are asking, "What did Pelosi know and when did she know it?"

I'm asking, "What did Mukasey know and when did he know it?"

Mukasey may have refused to answer the water torture question during his confirmation hearings because HIS OWN judgment was on the line.

Did Mukasey knowing use illegally obtained evidence in the Padilla ruling?
Had Mukasey already made the determination that water torture was just fine in his court?

Here is why this question arises. MrJJ's comment on TPM words this well:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004888.php

.... Mukasey may have a conflict of interest problem already, and may have to call upon a Special Prosecutor.

Jose Padilla’s lawyers argued before the Florida Federal Court that Abu Zubaydah was tortured into saying Padilla was an al Qaeda associate. The DOJ dismissed Padilla’s allegations as “meritless,” asserting Padilla’s legal team could not prove that Abu Zubaydah had been tortured. Well, it’s clear now that they certainly COULD have, if the tapes of the interrogations of Abu Zubaydah had been made available!

Now here is where Mukasey’s role comes into question. U.S. District Judge Mukasey, now attorney general, was the one who signed the warrant used by the FBI to arrest Padilla in May 2002. Court records show the warrant relied in part on information obtained from Abu Zubaydah’s interrogation. .....

The Attorney General can only issue a warrant based upon legally obtained evidence, and confessions under torture are certainly not “legally obtained”. So either Mukasey was misrepresented the evidence, and would be liable to be potentially a party in those who were presented with “perjured evidence”; or he knew that torture was used in obtaining the confession and ignored it.

In either case he is unsuitable to run an investigation, as it will, inevitably, involved himself. Thus a Special Prosecutor is necessary.

I'm also asking, "Are we back where we started, with an Attorney General who is guilty of politization of justice?"

I'm also asking, "Did George W. "Waterboard" Bush foist a co-conspirator on the U. S. Senate and the American People?"

This seems to be where inquiries will now, of necessity, need to focus first!
Deja Vu. We are back where we started all over again.

First, we need a Special Prosecutor to investigate the Junta's new Attorney General!

FROM: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2465527

[deacon]

20. Can you believe these IDIOTS got rid of gonzo only to give us this friggin' guy mukasey????

What a damn disgrace.