I suspec6t he's "down" with the Israel-first, dual national neocon types like Wolfowitz, Dov Zakheim, Richard Perle et al.; he is in any case an Orthodox Jew. No, I don't see being Jewish, or Orthodox, as a disqualification, but we don't need more high-level federal officials who believe American foreign policy should be dictated by the Israeli extreme right. His views on those matters ought to be questioned.
He certainly has a reputation as a "hanging judge" in criminal matters.
I -- a civil attorney -- tried one matter before him. He has a first-rate intellect, undeniably, but is also arrogant as all hell, and utterly convinced of his own rectitude, if not his infallibility.
He is also one of the most humorless men I have ever met in my life.
But there is much more to be concerned about this man becoming the next legal beagle, BuZh apologist for the White House, "stuff" that is incredibly hard to find out as it is buried on the internet under compilations of urls on the Jose Padillo case, a case that it appeared he would do the right thing, and then capitulated after being seen PRIVATELY by US officials, without Padillo's legal person being present. There went civil rights (and never forget that Jose Padillo is an American citizen ..)
So here comes the latest for the Daily Kos in its entirety ...
Now if this allegation below (no reason to think it isn't) is TRUE, it could well be an additional reasoon that Mukasey is the pick .. being PRO Labor racketerring (he covered it up) which is USEFUL if the North American Union comes into being!!! He is accused of helping CONGRESS cover up dirty money ... (which could explain why Congress would let him in AND further the NWO agenda at the same time ...
QUESTION FOR EXAMINATION Did the Mukasey Panel by and through their Summary Order 03-3117 filed January 14, 2004 (attached) continue a systematic pattern to hide documented Judicial Fraud and Extra Judicial Acts of Misconduct committed by District Judge Janet C. Hall – doing so by intentionally avoiding the procedural process of a 28 U.S.C. 455 affidavit and motion (the premise of the appeal) in order to circumvent the standard of review fora 28 U.S.C. 455 motion, that being: "Impartiality might reasonably be questioned"?"
And this is from a blog, facts about his son .... interesting CONNECTION. BINGO!!
Marc Mukasey - Partner at Bracewell & Giuliani where he "focuses on the defense of white collar criminal and regulatory cases." The firm also states: "Recently, Mr. Mukasey has been successful in persuading Department of Justice prosecutors to close an antitrust investigation against a major corporation without the filing of charges, and to drop securities fraud and mail fraud investigations of his business clients. He also successfully argued a downward departure motion that secured a favorable outcome for his client in the face of vigorous opposition by the Department of Justice." Marc's father, Michael Mukasey, former chief judge of the Southern District of New York, is also a member of Giuliani's Justice Advisory Committee.
And this is a great OpEd showing how Mukasey's brand of justice shown in the Padilla case will totally decimate the US Bill of Rights ..
Now I believe that there is FAR more to be seen about Mukasey. I will not stand corrected if I am wrong; for I know I am correct in this. The other four nominees were bandied about hoping we would be lead off the 'scent' .. and we were. This is massive political trojan horse project in the making on the part of the Administration. At best, it is simply a stall tactic . . . just as the announcement that Gonegonzales was delayed to give anyone the satisfaction of knowing that Alberto made a poor showing before Congress. The decision was made but took a month to be announced. Karl Rove's dirty paws seemed to be involved in the TACTIC. We can expect, eventually, that this will be as wildly unpopular as putting in Harriet Myers turned out to be.
Virginia Simson is a spiritual journalista/activist who runs a visionary planetary tutorial blogspot, www.ladybroadoak.blogspot.com as well as a blog on the uranium industry and depleted uranium at www.lowlevelradiation.blogspot.com. She feels that we must educate the young as to the real issues of the day - economics, clean energy, a drug free lifestyle, friendship and concern for the environment. We must plan for seven generations in the future. She unconditionally supports impeachment and a war crimes tribunal of the current DC administration - including CONgress.
Mukasey May Draw Scrutiny For Role in Secret Detentions
By JOSH GERSTEIN Staff Reporter of the Sun September 17, 2007
The widely expected nomination of a former judge, Michael Mukasey, as attorney general could draw fresh scrutiny of his role in authorizing the secret detention of an unknown number of men without criminal charges following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
The American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch denounced the detentions as "Kafkaesque. " The groups said prosecutors abused the material witness provisions to detain at least 70 men, often when they were suspected of crimes but evidence was lacking. Almost half were never bought before a court or grand jury to testify.
"I'm appalled at the choice," a lawyer involved in one material witness case before Judge Mukasey, Randall Hamud, told The New York Sun yesterday. "In a sealed courtroom that has since been publicized, he kicked my co-counsel out of court. I told him my client had been beat up. He told me, 'Your client looks okay. File a lawsuit in a couple of years.'"
Mr. Hamud said senators considering Judge Mukasey's nomination should seek out the details of the hearings held behind closed doors in 2001. "The secrecy basically allowed him to run amok," Mr. Hamud said. "They should review every one of those sealed proceeding transcripts and see what this man was doing from the bench. These weren't criminal defendants. They were just witnesses."
The precise number of material witness detentions Judge Mukasey authorized is not publicly known because nearly all court records related to the cases were sealed on order from the judge, who said secrecy was required because the witnesses were to be called before grand juries. "As far as he is concerned . they will remain sealed, forever," Judge Mukasey's secretary told the Washington Post in October 2001.
by
ladybroadoak (37 articles, 20 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 390 comments)
on Thursday, September 20, 2007 at 5:09:34 AM
PATRICKJ. LEAHY, VERMONT, CHAIRMAN EDWARD M. KENNEDY, MASSACHUSETTS ARLEN SPECTER,PENNSYLVANIA JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., DELAWARE ORRIN G. HATCH, UTAH HERB KOHL, WISCONSIN CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, IOWA DIANNE FEINSTEIN, CALIFORNIA JON KYL, ARIZONA RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, WISCONSIN JEFF SESSIONS, ALABAMA CHARLES E. SCHUMER, NEW YORK LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, SOUTH CAROLINA RICHARDJ. DURBIN, ILLINOIS JOHN CORNYN, TEXAS BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, MARYLAND SAM BROWNBACK, KANSAS SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, RHODE ISLAND TOM COBURN, OKLAHOMA BRUCEA. COHEN,
Chief Counsel and Staff Director MICHAELO'NEIll, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director
May 21, 2007 The Honorable Alberto Gonzales Attorney General of the United States U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 Dear Attorney General Gonzalez:
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY WASHINGTON, DC 20510-6275 Last week we heard dramatic and deeply troubling testimony from former Deputyttorney General Corney. He testified that in March 2004, when he was Acting Attorneyeneral, he informed the White House that the Department of Justice had concluded an ongoing classified surveillance program had "no legal basis" and would not certify it. He then described how you, then Counsel to the President, and former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card arrived at the hospital bedside of an extremely ill Attorney General Ashcroft and attempted to persuade him to certify the program. When you failed, because Mr. Ashcroft refused, Mr. Corney testified that the program was nonetheless certified over the objections of the Department of Justice. That apparently prompted a number of high-ranking Justice officials to consider resigning en masse. This incident obviously raises very serious questions about your personal behavior and commitment to the rule oflaw. Mr. Corney's testimony also demonstrates vividly how essential it is that this Committee understands the legal underpinnings of the surveillance program that was the subject of that incident, and how the legal justification evolved over time. The stonewalling by you and the Administration must end. The Committee on the Judiciary is charged with overseeing and legislating on constitutional protections, civil and criminal justice, civil liberties, and the Judiciary, all subjects that this matter impacts. We intend to do our job. This Committee has made no fewer than eight formal requests over the past 18 months - to the White House, the Attorney General, or other Department of Justice officials seeking documents and information related to this surveillance program. These requests have sought the Executive Branch legal analysis of this program and documents reflecting its authorization by the President. You have rebuffed all requests for documents and your answers to our questions have been wholly inadequate and, at times, misleading. We note also that the Administration has offered a legislative proposal that it contends seeks to "modernize" the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). As you know, the Judiciary Committee has historically overseen changes to FISA and it is this committee's responsibility to review the Administration's proposal with great care. The draft legislation would make dramatic and far-reaching changes to a critical national security authority. Before we can even begin to consider any such legislative proposal,we must be given appropriate access to the information necessary to carry out our oversight and legislative duties. This Administration has asserted that it established its program of warrantless wiretapping by the NSA because it deemed FISA's requirements to be incompatible with the needs of the intelligence community in fighting terrorism. You testified in January that the warrantless wiretapping program had been terminated and that henceforth surveillance would be conducted pursuant to authorization from the FISA Court. To consider any changes to FISA, it is critical that this Committee understand how the Department and the FISA Court have interpreted FISA and the perceived flaws that led the Administration to operate a warrantless surveillance program outside of FISA's provisions for over five years. Your consistent stonewalling and misdirection have prevented this Committee from carrying out its constitutional oversight and legislative duties for far too long. We understand that much ofthe information we seek may currently be classified, but that can be no excuse for failing to provide relevant information to all members of this Committee and select, cleared staff. We will, of course, handle it with the greatest care and consistent with security requirements. Therefore, we reiterate our requests for the following documents and ask that you provide them to this Committee no later than June 5, 2007: 1) Please provide all documents that reflect the President's authorization and reauthorization of the warrantless electronic surveillance program that you have called the Terrorist Surveillance Program, including any predecessor programs, from 2001 to the present; 2) Please provide all memoranda or other documents containing analysis or opinions from the Department of Justice, the National Security Agency, the Department of Defense, the White House, or any other entity within the Executive Branch on legality of or legal basis for the warrantless electronic surveillance program, including documents that describe why the desired surveillance would not or could not take place consistent with the requirements and procedures of FISA from 2001 to the present; 3) Please provide all documents reflecting communications with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) about the warrantless electronic surveillance program or the types of surveillance that previously were conducted as part of that program, that contain legal analysis, arguments, or decisions concerning the interpretation of FISA, the Fourth Amendment, the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, or the President's authority under Article II of the Constitution, including the January 2007 FISC orders to which you refer in your January 17, 2007 letter to us and all other opinions or orders of the FISA court with respect to this surveillance; 4) If you do not consider the surveillance program that was the subject of discussion during the hospital visit and other events that former Deputy Attorney General James Corney described in his May 15,2007 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee to be covered by the requests made above, please provide all documents described in those requests relevant to that program, as well. We emphasize that we are seeking the legal justifications and analysis underlying these matters and not the specific operational details or information obtained by the surveillance.
by
ladybroadoak (37 articles, 20 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 390 comments)
on Thursday, September 20, 2007 at 5:42:01 AM
I agree Mukasey will continue the slide toward a totalitarian state. Your comment about Israel dictating American foreign policy befits "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion."Do you really think Olmert wants to arm and create another terrorist state on the West Bank? The Bushes are forcing him, not the other way around.
by
philip rosen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 87 comments)
on Thursday, September 20, 2007 at 10:31:16 PM
I want to ensure that ALL the issues come up before this man becomes head of the the US (stress on USofA) federal legal system.
In this article I am not discussing my feelings about Israel in anyway, except to note why he probably got fingered for the job. Much more is at work here than any of us will ever know, all we can do is identify ISSUES and TACTICS, really. What tail wags the dog in the Israel/US relationship is beyond me; I think he actually hs more to do with defense contractors selling their wares to all and sundry myself and thus having the ultimate control.
There are NO prosecutions on international arms trafficking, dealing, profiteering or any of that, but what Mukasey has done on allowing the transnationals to achieve during this adminstration is highly important to look at as so much MORE damage can be done in the 500 or so days left in the Adminstration.
He would have more clout than any of us even dare imagine .. he's not a BuZh toadie, like gonganezales, no, but it may prove to be something far worse.
by
ladybroadoak (37 articles, 20 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 390 comments)
on Friday, September 21, 2007 at 2:37:49 AM
