The Mukasey nomination in jeopardy, Pt. II; Update: Schumer, Feinstein to vote yes

By Michelle Malkin  •  November 2, 2007 03:48 PM

Update: Well, whaddya know: Schumer and Feinstein to vote for Mukasey.

More:

Sens. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) announced this afternoon that they will vote in favor of confirming Michael B. Mukasey as attorney general, effectively ending a growing revolt by fellow Democrats that had threatened Mukasey’s confirmation.

By announcing their support, the two Democrats virtually guarantee that Mukasey, with support from the nine Republicans, will be narrowly approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., right, talks with Attorney General-designate Michael Mukasey on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Oct. 18, 2007, following Mukasey’s second day of testifying before the committee’s hearing on his nomination. Mukasey’s nomination for attorney general runs into new trouble with Senate Democrats after President Bush accuses them of being unfair in questioning the former judge about waterboarding, the interrogation technique that simulates drowning.

Five Democrats on the panel have said they would oppose Mukasey because of the nominee’s refusal to say whether an interrogation technique known as waterboarding amounts to torture. Three others are undecided.

Placing bets on how long it will be before Schumer runs away from his decision, claiming he was “hoodwinked.” Remember?

***

I told you the Mukasey attorney general nomination was in jeopardy yesterday. More signs of trouble today:

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Friday he won’t support Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey, further undercutting his chances for a quick confirmation, because Mukasey hasn’t taken a firm enough stand against torture.

“No American should need a classified briefing to determine whether waterboarding is torture,” said U.S. Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt. He planned an afternoon news conference to make the announcement in Burlington.

Sliding support among Democrats on the panel, which will vote on the nomination Tuesday, makes it somewhat less likely the full Senate will send Mukasey to a Justice Department that has been leaderless for weeks.

Leahy became the firth of the panel’s 10 Democrats so far to say they will not support him.

Once viewed as a sure thing, Mukasey’s nomination was threatened during hearings last month in which he repeatedly refused to say whether he considers the simulated drowning interrogation technique known as waterboarding to be a form of torture.

Safe bet, huh? Nothing to worry about, right?

President Bush today again urged the Senate to approve Mukasey. I’m afraid that appealing to the Democrats’ sense of fairness and urgency over national security is going to fall on deaf ears:

“He’s a good man, he’s a fair man, he’s an independent man, and he’s plenty qualified to be the attorney general,” Mr. Bush said at the airport here. “And I strongly urge the United States Senate to confirm this man, so that I can have an attorney general to work with to protect the United States of America from further attack.”

Here is Leahy’s statement released this afternoon at a press conference in Burlington, VT. The phony waterboarding pretext has proved quite useful to partisan Dems who were searching for any excuse to obstruct this nomination. Leahy gets extra bonus nutroots points for the Abu Ghraib reference:

Nothing is more fundamental to our constitutional democracy than our basic tenet that no one is above the law.

This Administration has undercut that precept time and time again. We have seen this Administration promote immunity over accountability, secrecy over responsiveness to congressional oversight, and unilateral power over the checks and balances that have defined this Nation and protected Americans’ rights and freedom for more than two centuries.

This Administration’s corrosive view that the President is above the law and may override the law as he chooses is about as extreme a view of executive power as I have witnessed. That not only is dead wrong in constitutional terms, but it is extremely dangerous to our republic. The cost to American liberty, to our standing in the world and to the security of our soldiers and citizens is staggering — even more than the trillion dollar cost of the war in Iraq. The Administration has compounded its lawlessness by cloaking its policies and miscalculations under a veil of secrecy, leaving Congress, the courts and the American people in the dark about what they are doing.

It is the duty of the Attorney General to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law — not to try to bend the law to a President’s agenda. When the infamous Bybee Memo came to light, even this Administration had to formally withdraw it. Yet I am concerned that the defining down of torture, of the rule of law and of American values continues in this Administration.

The United States and its Attorney General must stand for the rule of law – and stand in the breach, if need be. There is no question in my mind that waterboarding is torture and is illegal under our laws and treaty obligations.

This issue is not new. It was an important factor in my vote against the previous nomination of Alberto Gonzales. At that time I noted that when we came into Iraqi prisons and found torture, America’s standing to object was sorely compromised. This week we hear reports of the militia of Muqtada al-Sadr showcasing torture victims. The searing photographs from Abu Ghraib have made it harder to create and maintain the alliances we need to prevail against those who threaten us. Those abuses serve as recruiting posters for the terrorists. When the United States cannot declare clearly that waterboarding is torture, that it is illegal, and that it will not be tolerated, what does that mean to other governments, and what comfort does that provide the world’s most repressive regimes?

To be true to America’s purpose and values, we need a government that leads the way in upholding human rights — not one secretly developing legalistic rationalizations for circumventing them.

…The America I grew up in has been a beacon to the world, standing for human rights and calling out the tyrants and despots who abuse them. Like Americans across the land, when we were growing up, Vermonters knew instinctively that it is hard to defend the moral high ground by taking the low road.

I am eager to restore strong leadership and independence to the Department of Justice. I like Michael Mukasey. I wish that I could support his nomination. But I cannot. America needs to be certain and confident of the bedrock principle – deeply embedded in our laws and our values – that no one, not even the President, is above the law.

Accordingly, when the Judiciary Committee considers this nomination on Tuesday, I must vote no on this nomination.

Yesterday, Charles Schumer, whose initially encouraging words about Mukasey persuaded the White House to go the appeasement route, was “agitated” by the turn of events. Now, he “wrestling” with whether to vote for him.

“Wrestling?” Try “squirming.” “Sweating.” Or, come on, let’s be honest and pardon my language: Crapping. In. His. Pants:

As Democratic opposition builds over attorney general nominee Michael B. Mukasey, no Democratic lawmaker has found himself in a tighter spot than Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), who had eagerly recommended the former federal judge as a consensus candidate.

After Mukasey refused to say whether an interrogation technique called waterboarding amounts to illegal torture, Schumer has watched a growing number of his colleagues announce their opposition to the judge.

Schumer, who has remained uncharacteristically quiet throughout the furor, said in an interview yesterday that he is now “wrestling” with whether to vote against a nomination that he was instrumental in bringing about.

Posted in: GOP
Printer Friendly
comments (43)   trackbacks (5)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

  1. Michelle Malkin readers rejoice! « Cowardly political musings…
  2. Sister Toldjah
  3. Old War Dogs
  4. Michelle Malkin » California Democrat meltdown over Feinstein censure attempt
  5. Michelle Malkin dominates the ladies on The View « Olive Spin

Trackback URL

Comments


  1. #161790
    On November 2nd, 2007 at 3:50 pm, ajmontana said:

    michelle small typo on firth for fifth. not to nit pic. :)

  2. #161797
    On November 2nd, 2007 at 3:55 pm, nbarry said:

    The difference between Mukasey and Ted Olsen is that Olsen would have been branded as a reincarnation of John Mitchell, Ed Meese and John Ashcroft and the Democrats would have pronounced the nomination dead on arrival. Here on the other hand, they look especially inept and rigidly ideological. Score this one for Bush.

  3. #161801
    On November 2nd, 2007 at 3:58 pm, Michelle Malkin said:

    firth

    It’s the AP’s mistake, not mine. Guess it slipped through their layers and layers of editorial oversight…

  4. #161802
    On November 2nd, 2007 at 4:00 pm, lgm said:

    MM writes:

    The phony waterboarding pretext…

    Why does she think waterboarding is not an important issue? Why does she think it is not the motivating issue for many people? Is it because she is comfortable with waterboarding? Is it because she understands liberals better than they understand themselves?

    As Leahy’s statment shows, there are other issues. One is the power of the executive. The very broad view Mukasey expressed is far outside even what Reagan asserted.

  5. #161807
    On November 2nd, 2007 at 4:02 pm, steveegg said:

    It’s the AP’s mistake,

    I’m shocked, SHOCKED that the AP would make a mistake.

    I’ll take my winnings in the usual place :-)

  6. #161808
    On November 2nd, 2007 at 4:03 pm, AlohaGuy said:

    It’s all bs. There is no Bush nominee for whom Democrats would vote. They just need to dress up the rejection.

  7. #161809
    On November 2nd, 2007 at 4:03 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

    Oh for goodness sakes Mr. President. No matter who you nominate the dimocraps are going to protest and use “waterboarding our kids”. Grow some gum balls. Nominate someone completely conservative that promises to overturn Roe v Wade and tick them all off! That is the President I voted for – a Texan.

  8. #161811
    On November 2nd, 2007 at 4:04 pm, swj719AWG said:

    Why does she think waterboarding is not an important issue? Why does she think it is not the motivating issue for many people? Is it because she is comfortable with waterboarding? Is it because she understands liberals better than they understand themselves?

    You know, she’s right there. You can, you know, talk TO her, and not ABOUT her.

    For my part, I have no issues with waterboarding. It’s not like we’re shoving bamboo shoots under fingernails, or dousing them in water and hittin’ ‘em with jolts from a car battery.

    Seriously, sac up a little lgm. I have no issue with any act that protects American Lives. Period.

    And if there are “other issues”, why does he single out waterboarding? For the soundbite? I’d wager yes. It’s an easy “Oh, but this is sooooo horrid” item, and it makes it so easy to avoid supporting anyone the President would pick.

  9. #161812
    On November 2nd, 2007 at 4:05 pm, ajmontana said:

    Leahys statements,
    You have got to be Shi___ng me!

    If an American was captured and waterboarded, would we consider it torture and want to raise bloody hell about it?

    Is this guy from Mars?
    They Butcher our troops!

    When the United States cannot declare clearly that waterboarding is torture, that it is illegal, and that it will not be tolerated, what does that mean to other governments, and what comfort does that provide the world’s most repressive regimes?

    Were dealing with terrorists! not Governments. His entire statement is Bullcrap. TB x 10

  10. #161813
    On November 2nd, 2007 at 4:07 pm, ajmontana said:

    Leahy became the firth of the panel’s 10 Democrats

    Sorry, :(

  11. #161814
    On November 2nd, 2007 at 4:09 pm, swj719AWG said:

    If an American was captured and waterboarded, would we consider it torture and want to raise bloody hell about it?

    Were it me?

    I’d be thankful they didn’t videotape my beheading and post it on the internet.

    But I’m not exactly normal…

  12. #161815
    On November 2nd, 2007 at 4:12 pm, bear1909 said:

    At that time I noted that when we came into Iraqi prisons and found torture, America’s standing to object was sorely compromised. This week we hear reports of the militia of Muqtada al-Sadr showcasing torture victims. The searing photographs from Abu Ghraib have made it harder to create and maintain the alliances we need to prevail against those who threaten us.

    Showcase a waterboarded terrorist. Take a picture of him. Compare them to Mookie’s highlights. Apples meet oranges.

    Torture as a verb in this war has lost all of its meaning because of the media’s perpetrations over Abu Ghraib.

    Panties on their heads? Snarling dogs that didn’t bite them?

    Where was the outrage when we played rock music to drive Noriega out of his hacienda?

    Leahy is a senile incompetent pork broker from the most porkified state in the US.

    Snarc on: Oh! I just CANT vote for Mukasey even though I really really like him. I am just such a man of conscience. Snarc off.

    Dipstick.

  13. #161816
    On November 2nd, 2007 at 4:13 pm, Gothguy said:

    Yes, Sen. Leahy, just like the way the terrorists care about the welfare of our troops when they have been captured.

    Abu Ghraib was NOT torture, but humiliation, and pretty mild at that. I received worse during my ‘Shell Back’ initiation while in the Navy!

  14. #161817
    On November 2nd, 2007 at 4:13 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

    Waterboarding:

    We should talk to them.

    Obama

  15. #161818
    On November 2nd, 2007 at 4:14 pm, bear1909 said:

    We should be about killing Mookie Al Sadr to send a message to Maliki that we mean business. Shoulda happened as soon as Maliki closed those checkpoints when we were searching for the kidnapped GIs. Wastrels all.

  16. #161820
    On November 2nd, 2007 at 4:15 pm, John Ansell said:

    O.k. I got hit with the stupid stick today. I’m confused. Markasy doesn’t give a direct answer on waterboarding so he’s not qualified. Hillary does not give a direct answer on a yes and no question, and she’s their nominee?

  17. #161824
    On November 2nd, 2007 at 4:19 pm, conservativesRus said:

    Nothing is more fundamental to our constitutional democracy than our basic tenet that no one is above the law.

    And exactly what law is he referring to?

  18. #161841
    On November 2nd, 2007 at 4:27 pm, conservativesRus said:

    #16 JA – very good observation. But like I’ve pointed out before – in Liberal land – ALL events are distinct from all other events. So how on earth can you draw a comparison?

  19. #161848
    On November 2nd, 2007 at 4:32 pm, Marshall Russ said:

    This is only about appeasing the loons on the left. This was to try to “bash Bush” because they have been unable to do much else. The President needs to appoint Ted Olsen as interim and let them scream until the end of his presidency. I would say talking to my wife on a cell phone while the terrorists were flying the plane she was flying in into the Pentagon is torture!

  20. #161854
    On November 2nd, 2007 at 4:37 pm, trinitytim said:

    I’m for waterboarding all the dimocraps who have come out against this nominee.

    I mean really???? What’s the big deal about this technique. They’re not killed, maimed, or even injured. It’s just a way to get information to protect us, remember us. You’d better remember us because we’re the ones who will take care of business if you can’t, and that time is fast approaching.

  21. #161865
    On November 2nd, 2007 at 4:43 pm, John Ansell said:

    Marshall Russ #19, Great idea. I’d love to see that played out in the media.

  22. #161878
    On November 2nd, 2007 at 4:54 pm, purplepeep said:

    ajmontana said:
    michelle small typo on firth for fifth. not to nit pic.

    That should be “nitpick”, aj. ;)

  23. #161879
    On November 2nd, 2007 at 4:54 pm, Jim M. said:

    water boarding is not torture in my mind – far from it. Those of us who have been through survival, escape and evasion training have been through worse. Pilots and Special Ops forces get the full dose, and I believe water boarding is still part of that training.

    As for our elected representatives, my earlier comments:

    Water boarding should be the least of anyone’s worries. Frankly, I am getting sick and tired of hearing the same whine about the humanity of it all.

    For some inexplicable reason, our elected officials decided to unilaterally expand the Geneva Conventions, and to parties that are not even signatories, no less.

    As they stand, the Geneva Conventions protect soldiers of a country when fighting in the uniform of that country. Those engaged in armed conflict who are not part of a particular nation’s armed forces are not covered. Those engaged in armed conflict who are not wearing the designated uniform of that country are not covered.

    The “detainees” or prisoners we are pulling out of combat are neither fighting for a country nor in any uniform of a country. In short, they can be treated as spies and saboteurs, which have no rights under the Conventions. They can be summarily executed, or subjected to any available interrogation techniques.

    As to what the rest of the world thinks, why should we care? The rest of the world is not the prime target in a global war. And as to the argument that we need to use caution due to the potential abuses our servicemen may be subjected to, that way of thinking borders on insane. Look at what our military and civilians are subject to now. The torture and mutilation of those soldiers captured during raids, decapitations and desecration of their corpses. I am sure our personnel would have been happy to have been boarded than sliced piece by piece while still alive.

    While I do appreciate Senator McCain’s personal views on this, we are not talking about the type of torture (and it was torture) used on him.

    I am all for humanely treating human beings. But these zealots we are facing bear not the remotest resemblance to anything human. Beheading others just because they are “infidels”. Blowing up civilians in the name of religion. Sitting down with a family to convince them to support your cause, and to emphasize the benefits, unveiling the special dish you have brought for the family – their cooked child on a plate.

    We are facing an inhuman foe here. And in their culture and in their thoughts, every “humane” thing we do is viewed as a sign of weakness. Which only further emboldens them to engage in more heinous tactics.

    Congress had the opportunity to declare techniques like water boarding as off limits. They refused to do so. And rightly so. Now, they are looking to offload their cowardice on someone who is only there to interpret the law, not make it. If they really cared about what the rest of the world thought, they should be red with embarrassment; because they look like the biggest bunch of cowardly, hypocritical fools to ever walk the earth.

  24. #161882
    On November 2nd, 2007 at 4:58 pm, Ron C said:

    UPDATE: Clinton has signed onto the nomination, as has Leahy – hence it’s a done deal.

  25. #161883
    On November 2nd, 2007 at 4:59 pm, purplepeep said:

    bear1909 said:
    Panties on their heads? Snarling dogs that didn’t bite them?

    Pretty much describes most Saturday nights at any given frat house, doesn’t it?

    I’d be steamed if the US wasn’t doing WIT (whatever it takes) to get info out of terrorists.

  26. #161885
    On November 2nd, 2007 at 5:04 pm, J S Ragman said:

    #23 Jim M.

    Excellent points. And let’s not forget the imagination and ingenuity of the CIA. Should one technique be specifically outlawed, I’m confident they can come up with something new that is just as effective.

  27. #161891
    On November 2nd, 2007 at 5:09 pm, granite said:

    #23 Jim M.:

    Amen.

  28. #161893
    On November 2nd, 2007 at 5:11 pm, swj719AWG said:

    That’s good news, Ron.

  29. #161903
    On November 2nd, 2007 at 5:19 pm, walterc said:

    Actually, compared to sitting through a confirmation hearing listening to a bunch of blowhard wind bags spout their own rightousness, water boarding is a walk in the park. Just hearing the soundbites of these idiots is torture.

  30. #161908
    On November 2nd, 2007 at 5:27 pm, Jonathan said:

    Torture…ridiculous! Isn’t “surfing” waterboarding?…I think we should take some Democrats “waterboarding”; Namely, Leahy, Pelosi, Kennedy, and the rest of their clan. Many folks who “waterboard” notice a change in attitude their first time out.

  31. #161919
    On November 2nd, 2007 at 5:48 pm, bear1909 said:

    So Mukasey is in? What a buncha putzes.
    Toothless dumb bunnies if you ask me.

  32. #161924
    On November 2nd, 2007 at 5:51 pm, bear1909 said:

    Was it vetoing the watery pork bill? Did someone doctor the kool-aid?

    Wha happa, Lucy? :)

  33. #161925
    On November 2nd, 2007 at 5:52 pm, ThackerAgency said:

    I don’t think the question of torture is one that our elected officials should consider. Every time they bring it up it makes America look bad. It is as though they want people to think that America TORTURES people.

    Go to the tower of London and do some research on TORTURE. What we do is NOT torture. We bend over backwards to NOT torture. Any discussion about whether or not America TORTURES should be held in private and secret because any discussion of it does out country no good.

    This is just another ‘gotcha’ moment by the increasingly childish Congress that can’t do anything if it makes the president look like a president capable of making executive decisions for this nation.

    That said, I can NOT look at this blog and see the picture of those pigs in swimming hats without laughing my behind off.

  34. #161931
    On November 2nd, 2007 at 5:58 pm, Chard402003 said:

    Leahy and his kind are much more interested in furthering their political agenda and the comfort of terrorists than they are about securing the safety of Americans.

  35. #161937
    On November 2nd, 2007 at 6:06 pm, ajmontana said:

    Breaking News from ABCNEWS.com:

    KEY DEMOCRATS, SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER, D-N.Y., AND SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, D-CALIF., CROSS PARTY LINES TO PLEDGE SUPPORT FOR BUSH ATTORNEY GENERAL NOMINEE, CLEARING WAY FOR CONFIRMATION

    This is not a Faux News Alert

  36. #161939
    On November 2nd, 2007 at 6:09 pm, purplepeep said:

    Jonathan said:
    Torture…ridiculous! Isn’t “surfing” waterboarding?…I think we should take some Democrats “waterboarding”; Namely, Leahy, Pelosi, Kennedy, and the rest of their clan. Many folks who “waterboard” notice a change in attitude their first time out.

    Wouldn’t work to change their minds, Jonathan. You have to remember these people believe it’s “torture” or “American terrorism” if Al Qaeda mass murderers at Gitmo are served Honey Glazed Chicken more than once in one week. The Democrat bar for what is “torture” is located at approx 5000 ft below sea level.

  37. #161940
    On November 2nd, 2007 at 6:09 pm, ajmontana said:

    Well bunch my britches and slap my cow, Feinstein did a solid.

  38. #161943
    On November 2nd, 2007 at 6:17 pm, tmkeith said:

    So it’s all going along to the Dems’ script. Their virtually hand-picked candidate will go through, so they don’t lose face. In the meantime, they can have a few of their own (Leahy, Kennedy…) throw some more jabs at the administration.

    Is this even news?

  39. #161947
    On November 2nd, 2007 at 6:25 pm, Marshall Russ said:

    Business as usual in La La land.

  40. #161965
    On November 2nd, 2007 at 7:03 pm, blues said:

    A Democrat talking about no one being above tha law–precious,no priceless.Sandy,pull your pants up.Hillary put your Hsus on.
    I like the guy,but can’t vote for him because he doesn’t condemn waterboarding.Amazing how Democrats will use one issue just to try to make Republicans look bad.As others here have said–waterboarding is no big deal,especially considering the way the jihadis treat their captives.
    Nice to seee Charlie Schumer caught betwee a rock and a hard place though.I guess he decided to support Mukasey because he couldn’t stand being “uncharacteristically quiet” for long.

  41. #162044
    On November 2nd, 2007 at 8:21 pm, almeehan said:

    I think the CIA should employ a new tact for obtaining information and breaking down terrorist who threaten us. Since the D controlled committees feel it is ok to hold inquisitions on any Republican nominee, how about putting a terrorist alone in a room with Schumer, Biden, Kennedy, Leahy, Turbin, Boxer (oops maybe no females) and have them discuss the merits of liberalism for 5 hours with no breaks. I’m sure this would yield all the information we would ever want, especially if they were threatened with 5 more hours alone with these “patriots.” I do believe after Bush’s veiled threats along with a lot of pushback from the public, they had to yield on this confirmation.

  42. #162053
    On November 2nd, 2007 at 8:31 pm, trinitytim said:

    Well, I’ll admit I’m shocked. Thrilled but shocked.

    I would have bet a “Recess Appointment” was the only way we would have had an AG. Imagine that. First time I’ve been wrong all year. NOT!! Just ask my wife. She’ll verify that I am wrong quite often.

  43. #164107
    On November 6th, 2007 at 5:19 am, Jake D. said:

    I’m glad Mukasey will be confirmed, but the moonbats are still not giving up — Larry C. Johnson (and gang) have a couple interesting posts over here:

    http://noquarterusa.net/

    He also says “We don’t care if you agree or disagree with us. We only care that you think about what we write.” However, they banned me for simply writing about the doubt that lesser forms of waterboarding are “torture” — now that Michelle has open registration, her site is even better than that — I assume we would gladly debate someone here even if they were against all forms of waterboarding, as long as they remained civil, right?

You must be logged in to post a comment.



Mudville Gazette

» The five-year plan

NewsBusters.org

» Oprah To Do Primetime Christmas Special With The Obamas

Riehl World View

» Dowd: Dem Elites Displeased With Obama As Palin Rises

Stop The ACLU

» SEALs Charged With Assault for Arresting Top Terrorist

Gay Patriot

» The O So Hip Obama

Legal Insurrection

» Is "Finish the Job" the New "Peace With Honor"?

Weekly Standard

» DVR Alert: Oprah, Obama, Primetime, Christmas

JustOneMinute

» Getting Ready For The Turkey
Follow me on Twitter Follow me on Facebook