Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why Dems Liked Mukasey Better Than Holder

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
davidswanson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-28-09 10:46 PM
Original message
Why Dems Liked Mukasey Better Than Holder
Edited on Sat Feb-28-09 11:13 PM by davidswanson
Democrats in Congress respected former Attorney General Michael Mukasey beyond any measure he appeared to have earned, and to the extent of fully expecting him to perform his duties even in the most difficult circumstances. In contrast, the same Congress members do not believe Attorney General Eric Holder is up to the job.

As exhibit 1 in a demonstration of the above claims, let me offer a letter that 56 Democratic members of Congress mailed to Mukasey on June 6, 2008. They got right to the point with a difficult request that would require the highest loyalty to the rule of law and willingness to challenge one's political benefactor:

"We are writing to request that you appoint a special counsel to investigate whether the Bush Administration's policies regarding the interrogation of detainees have violated federal criminal laws. There is mounting evidence that the Bush Administration has sanctioned enhanced interrogation techniques against detainees under the control of the United States that warrant an investigation.


These 56 Democrats went on to helpfully share with Mukasey some of the evidence they were aware of to support a charge of authorizing torture. They pointed out for him the laws violated and urged him to act. And this was before the Senate Armed Services Committee's report was released, before the Robert Jackson Steering Committee's report, and before Bush and Cheney went on television and confessed to authorizing torture.

Shockingly, these trusting and admiring Congress members were bitterly disappointed. Mukasey let them down and did not do the job they expected him to do. Two Congress members, John Conyers and Jerrold Nadler wrote to him again in December to fill him in on various other crimes of the Bush-Cheney gang, certain -- apparently -- that he would finally take action. Alas, he let them down again.

And then came Eric Holder. Holder took over the same job Mukasey had been employed in, with the same duties, but unable to fill the shoes of his predecessor or even to give the impression of being able to do so. The same crimes had still not been prosecuted. More evidence had accumulated. The only difference was that now the Attorney General was someone whom Democrats in Congress apparently believed incapable of performing his duties and not worth even the trouble of asking him to try.

Either that or the Democrats in Congress never expected Mukasey to act and asked him for precisely that reason as a PR stunt. But that would be crazy, almost like suggesting that they talked up impeachment in 2005 and 2006 in order to win elections, not in order to impeach. Or it would be like claiming the Democrats kept the war in Iraq going during 2007 and 2008 in order to run against it in yet another election. Crazy. Sheer lunacy. Like claiming they prefer having the filibuster as an excuse to the prospect of having 60 senators but no more excuses. Who believes such tales?

Our elected officials surely know better than we do and understand that Holder is just not competent. Therefore there would be no point in asking your Congress member to ask Holder to appoint a special prosecutor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
terisan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-28-09 10:49 PM
Response to Original message
1. I believe you to be justifiably cynical. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tandalayo_Scheisskopf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-28-09 10:50 PM
Response to Original message
2. David:
Holder has been in office a matter of only weeks. Don't you think it is a bit precipitous to be calling him incompetent at this early date?

Consider the last Very Important Job you had and think about the time it took for you to get fully, and I mean fully, up to flank speed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidswanson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-28-09 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. had hoped
it might be possible to communicate through satire

plesase reread and try really hard to imagine I'm making fun of Democrats who will not ask Holder to do anything because he's a Democrat
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-01-09 02:02 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. You need Satire 101 training. The emoticons here have made people lazy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tandalayo_Scheisskopf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-01-09 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #6
14. Thanks for the tip.
I will forever hold it close to my heart. :eyes: <--==Look! Laziness in action!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-28-09 10:55 PM
Response to Original message
3. You are twisted in your logic. I loved it! Holder, appoint a special prosecutor!
I was about to mention he's been in his position only a few weeks, but there is no time like the present.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
caseymoz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-28-09 11:30 PM
Response to Original message
5. Shouldn't you at least wait until he has his staff in place?

Entrusting an investigation to Holder right now would be handing it over mostly to a Justice Department made loyal to Bush from years of political favoritism.

It is only one reason why Democrats going to Mukassey of all people to start an investigation on Bush looks, on its surface, to either be the dumbest idea or a way to sabotage the whole investigation. I prefer to think it's the former.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-01-09 02:04 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Sarcasm before DU is like pearls thrown before....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PuraVidaDreamin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-01-09 02:20 AM
Response to Original message
8. Good stuff David
It's time to call Delahunt again!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-01-09 02:37 AM
Response to Original message
9. One reason to move SOONER than later is because of the issues of statutes of limitation
that apply to some of these crimes.

AG Holder has time to run around the country dropping bombs about our national cowardice streak toward race discussions, yet he can't find time to pull his staff together and appoint a special prosecutor to investigate BushCo. Hmmmm.

Recommend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HCE SuiGeneris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-01-09 04:00 AM
Response to Original message
10. Subtle?
Ah, we shall see.

K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-01-09 06:11 AM
Response to Original message
11. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-01-09 08:20 AM
Response to Original message
12. I think you have this wrong. There's no need for a special prosecutor b/c no conflict of interest
Edited on Sun Mar-01-09 08:21 AM by HamdenRice
I usually agree with your analysis, but unless your sarcasm is going over my head, I don't think this is right.

The DoJ appoints a special prosecutor or independent counsel usually when it has to investigate its own administration. It's a way of preventing a conflict of interest or appearance of conflict of interest -- both of which were rampant in Bush's politicized DoJ.

Because Holder is part of a new administration that is, moreover, the other party, there is no need for a special prosecutor. This is something the DoJ can do from the criminal division. The congressional Democrats should push Holder to investigate, but not necessarily to appoint a special prosecutor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GeorgeGist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-01-09 08:37 AM
Response to Original message
13. Lest you forget ...
the Democrats and Republicans are still playing the same game.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-01-09 12:00 PM
Response to Original message
15. BTW: Here are The DEMOCRATIC Reps who signed the letter:
Jan Schakowsky
John Conyers
Jerrold Nadler
Barney Frank
Jim Oberstar
Sheila Jackson Lee
Carolyn Maloney
Peter DeFazio
Ed Markey
Maurice Hinchey
Jim McGovern
Lynn Woolsey
Jim McDermott
Bob Filner
Tammy Baldwin
Keith Ellison
Steve Cohen
John Olver
Betty McCollum
Sam Farr
Jim Moran
Betty Sutton
Bobby Scott
Dennis Kucinich
Lois Capps
Jose Serrano
William Jefferson
Michael Capuano
Pete Stark
Lucille Roybal-Allard
John Tierney
George Miller
Luis Gutierrez
Steven Rothman
Rush Holt
David Wu
Paul Hodes
Andre Carson
Robert Wexler
Lloyd Doggett
Diana DeGette
Raul Grijalva
John Larson
Rick Boucher
Hilda Solis
Linda Sanchez
Danny Davis
Rosa DeLauro
Mike Honda
Eleanor Holmes Norton
Peter Welch
Tim Ryan
Barbara Lee
Zoe Lofgren
Chaka Fattah
David Price

You may want to remember this list when deciding who to support in future elections, and who needs a Primary challenger.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5154416


If your favorite Democrat is NOT on this list, you may want to ask them, "Why Not?"

K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 05:02 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC