PDA

View Full Version : U.S. attorney's firing may be connected to CIA corruption probe


alkemical
03-19-2007, 03:45 PM
U.S. attorney's firing may be connected to CIA corruption probe (http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/16931334.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_nation)


U.S. attorney's firing may be connected to CIA corruption probe

By Margaret Talev and Marisa Taylor
McClatchy Newspapers


WASHINGTON - Fired San Diego U.S. attorney Carol Lam notified the Justice Department that she intended to execute search warrants on a high-ranking CIA official as part of a corruption probe the day before a Justice Department official sent an e-mail that said Lam needed to be fired, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Sunday.


Feinstein, D-Calif., said the timing of the e-mail suggested that Lam's dismissal may have been connected to the corruption probe.


Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse denied in an e-mail that there was any link.


"We have stated numerous times that no U.S. attorney was removed to retaliate against or inappropriately interfere with any public corruption investigation or prosecution," he wrote. "This remains the case and there is no evidence that indicates otherwise."


But the revelation is sure to heighten demands in Congress for a full investigation into whether something other than job performance was behind the Justice Department's dismissals late last year of eight U.S. attorneys, including Lam.


On Sunday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said he intends to force President Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, to testify and will insist that the testimony be under oath. Leahy, who appeared on ABC's "This Week," said he is "sick and tired" of the administration's changing rationale for the firings.


Justice Department officials originally told Congress that the U.S. attorneys had been dismissed for poor performance. But since it's become known that most of the attorneys received positive job evaluations.


Last week, the Justice Department released e-mails showing that loyalty to President Bush and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was among the criteria used to judge U.S. attorneys' performance and that Rove and former White House counsel Harriet Miers were deeply involved in discussions leading up to the dismissals.


Roehrkasse said the Justice Department would provide additional e-mails to Congress on Monday. The documents were to have been surrendered last week, but Justice officials delayed the delivery, saying they needed more time to prepare them.


In an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation," Feinstein said she'd not yet decided what motivated Lam's dismissal.


"There were clearly U.S. attorneys that were thorns in the side for one reason or another of the Justice Department," Feinstein said. "The attorney general has said he did not know what was going on ... that is very difficult for me to believe."


Feinstein said Lam notified the Justice Department on May 10, 2006, that she planned to serve search warrants on Kyle Dustin "Dusty" Foggo, who'd resigned two days earlier as the No. 3 official at the CIA.


On May 11, 2006, Kyle Sampson, then Gonzales' chief of staff, sent an e-mail to deputy White House counsel William Kelley, asking Kelley to call to discuss "the real problem we have right now with Carol Lam that leads me to conclude that we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day her 4-year term expires."


The e-mail did not spell out what the "real problem" was, and it was unclear whether Kelley and Sampson talked later.


Until now, lawmakers have focused on two of Lam's other inquiries into Republicans as possible ways in which she may have chafed the administration.


Lam oversaw the investigation that led to the corruption conviction of then-Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., who pleaded guilty in late 2005 to accepting $2.4 million in bribes. He was sentenced in March 2006 to eight years and four months in prison.


On the same day last year as the Sampson e-mail, the Los Angeles Times reported that the Cunningham probe was being expanded to look at the actions of another California Republican, then-House Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis.


Feinstein did not say how she learned that Lam had notified the Justice Department about her plans to serve search warrants on Foggo, who on May 8 had resigned as the executive director of the CIA. FBI agents seized records from Foggo's CIA offices and his suburban Vienna, Va., home on May 12.


Who Lam notified about her plans was unknown. Ordinarily, information about search warrants in high-profile cases would be passed to the U.S. attorney executive office in Washington. At the time, that office was headed by Michael Battle. Battle, who notified the dismissed U.S. attorneys they were being replaced in December, resigned March 5.


Sampson, who resigned last week, declined comment through his lawyer. Feinstein's office also declined interview requests.


Sampson's May 11 e-mail was released as part of a congressional investigation into the firings last year of Lam and seven other U.S. attorneys, and the Bush administration's changing explanations as to what role politics or performance played.


Democrats say they will investigate whether independent prosecutors were forced out for going after Republican corruption or ignoring pressure to prosecute Democrats in order to sway elections and are expected to seek testimony from Sampson and Kelley as well as Rove and Miers. The White House is scheduled to tell Congress on Tuesday whether it will allow the testimony or invoke executive privilege.


Also this week, the House and Senate are scheduled to vote to undo a law quietly passed last year that stripped the Senate's power to reject interim U.S. attorneys the administration might pick to replace ousted prosecutors.




Meanwhile, the controversy over the firings dominated the Sunday morning political talk shows as lawmakers geared up for more developments in the week ahead.


Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., predicted on NBC's "Meet the Press" that Gonzales would be forced from his job within a week. Schumer also proposed a short list of three Republican replacements.


Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the top Republican on the panel, said Congress should consider writing legislation to require the Justice Department to show cause if the administration wants to remove one of its U.S. attorneys.


"Congress has the constitutional authority to set some parameters and guidelines," Specter said on "Fox News Sunday." "We don't really want to interfere with the president's basic right to set policy. If he wants immigration cases emphasized, his U.S. attorneys ought to do that. Whatever classifications he wants ought to be followed. But we're learning from this experience. If we find there's a way to better regulate this kind of a situation, Congress ought to act."


The three lawyers Schumer suggested Democrats might support to replace Gonzales are:


-Michael B. Mukasey, who returned last year to the private sector after serving as chief U.S. district court judge of the southern district of New York. Mukasey, a Reagan administration nominee, presided over the terrorism trial of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 11 co-defendants.


-Larry Thompson, left the Justice Department in 2003 after serving as deputy attorney general under John Ashcroft. Thompson focused on terrorism and corporate crime, including a role in going after Enron Corp.


-James Comey, left the Justice Department in 2005 after serving as Thompson's replacement. Comey is trusted by some Democrats because of his perceived discomfort with some of the administration's terrorism surveillance policies and because he named U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald as special prosecutor in the CIA leak case that ended with the conviction of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

Dudeskey
03-19-2007, 03:53 PM
Gonzo's friggin' toast, man

alkemical
03-19-2007, 04:32 PM
I'd like to hope so.

Bronco Bob
03-19-2007, 06:05 PM
I'm waiting for the Bushies to pipe in with their "but, but, but Clinton" response.

Spider
03-19-2007, 06:08 PM
I'm waiting for the Bushies to pipe in with their "but, but, but Clinton" response.

Lets just hope these guys are not smokers hey ................but if they are , prefect punishment would be them having to listen to you carry on about the evils of smoking .............

Bronco Bob
03-19-2007, 06:12 PM
Lets just hope these guys are not smokers hey ................but if they are , prefect punishment would be them having to listen to you carry on about the evils of smoking .............

You seem rather obsessed with defending smoking. Why is that?

Spider
03-19-2007, 06:14 PM
You seem rather obsessed with defending smoking. Why is that?

jeeez I try and get you a job and this is the thanks I get ?

gunns
03-19-2007, 10:29 PM
Gonzo's friggin' toast, man

He's yet another scape goat in a long line of the Bush administrations scape goats.

Bronco Bob
03-19-2007, 11:04 PM
jeeez I try and get you a job and this is the thanks I get ?

So basically I get a W*gs type response?

So let's try this again. You seem rather obsessed with defending smoking.
You seem to regard it all as a big joke. Why is that?

Spider
03-20-2007, 12:32 AM
So basically I get a W*gs type response?

So let's try this again. You seem rather obsessed with defending smoking.
You seem to regard it all as a big joke. Why is that?

I am a non smoker , but I dont feel the need to try and save everyones life , specially when we all die ......... you do your thing , I do mine ........I got enough running my own life , I dont need to try and run youres also , and frankly I dont want you to run mine ........ in other words , but out ..........

Dudeskey
03-20-2007, 03:31 PM
He's yet another scape goat in a long line of the Bush administrations scape goats.

Unfortunately yes, but there is a supposed connection to the Duke Cunningham thing and Dick Cheney... If this becomes mainstrem news Cheney may get dragged down as well

Dudeskey
03-20-2007, 03:40 PM
This is in a nutshell whats coming out of the lefty blogs... Implying that essentially Cunningham's boat was paid for by Cheney by way of Wade. We'll see if any of this hits mainstream soon I suppose

http://blog.radioleft.com/blog/_archives/2007/3/19/2819136.html

Think Progress
Referring to the Bush administration’s purge of former San Diego-based U.S. attorney Carol Lam, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) questioned recently on the Senate floor whether she was let go because she was “about to investigate other people who were politically powerful.”

The media reports this morning that among Lam’s politically powerful targets were former CIA official Kyle “Dusty” Foggo and then-House Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis (R-CA). But there is evidence to believe that the White House may also have been on Lam’s target list. Here are the connections:

– Washington D.C. defense contractor Mitchell Wade pled guilty last February to paying then-California Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham more than $1 million in bribes.

– Wade’s company MZM Inc. received its first federal contract from the White House. The contract, which ran from July 15 to August 15, 2002, stipulated that Wade be paid $140,000 to “provide office furniture and computers for Vice President Dick Cheney.”

– Two weeks later, on August 30, 2002, Wade purchased a yacht for $140,000 for Duke Cunningham. The boat’s name was later changed to the “Duke-Stir.” Said one party to the sale: “I knew then that somebody was going to go to jail for that…Duke looked at the boat, and Wade bought it — all in one day. Then they got on the boat and floated away.”

– According to Cunningham’s sentencing memorandum, the purchase price of the boat had been negotiated through a third-party earlier that summer, around the same time the White House contract was signed.

To recap, the White House awarded a one-month, $140,000 contract to an individual who never held a federal contract. Two weeks after he got paid, that same contractor used a cashier’s check for exactly that amount to buy a boat for a now-imprisoned congressman at a price that the congressman had pre-negotiated.

That should raise questions about the White House’s involvement.

UPDATE: Perhaps this was the “real problem” Sampson was referring to:
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/sampsonconfi.gif

alkemical
03-22-2007, 03:11 PM
Gap in Justice, White House e-mails raises questions (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/21/attorneys.email.gap/index.html?eref=rss_politics)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A 16-day gap in e-mail records between the Justice Department and the White House concerning the firing of U.S. attorneys last year has attracted the attention of congressional investigators.

In an investigation into whether seven U.S. attorneys were fired for political rather than professional reasons, the Justice Department on Monday handed over 3,000 pages of documents to the House and Senate Judiciary committees.

But the documents included no correspondence about the firings in the critical time period between November 15, 2006, and December 2, 2006, right before the attorneys were asked for their resignations.

TailgateNut
03-22-2007, 03:16 PM
Gap in Justice, White House e-mails raises questions (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/21/attorneys.email.gap/index.html?eref=rss_politics)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A 16-day gap in e-mail records between the Justice Department and the White House concerning the firing of U.S. attorneys last year has attracted the attention of congressional investigators.

In an investigation into whether seven U.S. attorneys were fired for political rather than professional reasons, the Justice Department on Monday handed over 3,000 pages of documents to the House and Senate Judiciary committees.

But the documents included no correspondence about the firings in the critical time period between November 15, 2006, and December 2, 2006, right before the attorneys were asked for their resignations.


That only means that during that time period no e-mails were sent.Hilarious!
As we all know this IS one of the most honest admins ever to rule the US!Hilarious!

Stormontheplains
03-22-2007, 03:32 PM
Bill O'Reilly just ran an investigation and found one wouldn't prosecute Illegals, one wouldn't prosecute pot seizures under 500 lbs on the border, one Diane fienstein wanted gone in the san fran district, the reasons go on and on, But please continue with the conspiracy theories, I like it alot.

alkemical
03-22-2007, 03:34 PM
Unfortunately yes, but there is a supposed connection to the Duke Cunningham thing and Dick Cheney... If this becomes mainstrem news Cheney may get dragged down as well

Ya, it's called "abramoff".....

Garcia Bronco
03-22-2007, 03:38 PM
Bill O'Reilly just ran an investigation and found one wouldn't prosecute Illegals, one wouldn't prosecute pot seizures under 500 lbs on the border, one Diane fienstein wanted gone in the san fran district, the reasons go on and on, But please continue with the conspiracy theories, I like it alot.

You're kidding? If that is the case the are lucky to just get fired.

Stormontheplains
03-22-2007, 04:09 PM
Not kidding, I was listening in on the radio factor, he has the dirt on all of them. Will give the rest of what he has tonight on the show

bendog
03-22-2007, 05:19 PM
You guys need to turn off faux. The illegals thing was the attorney didn't want to prosecute the small timers, and the decision was ok'd by justice. If the pot thing was that the feds refused to bust people using medicinal pot under calif law, good - but I can see that that would be unpopular with the admin. But the question should be, are the admin's reasons "smoke?" You guys seem desperate to buy any story to hang your hat on just so there's no investigation.

And O'Rielly "doing an investigation" would be like me giving birth. Not biologically possible

TailgateNut
03-22-2007, 05:23 PM
And O'Rielly "doing an investigation" would be like me giving birth. Not biologically possible


^5

bendog
03-22-2007, 05:29 PM
btw, I have an open mind. What Wilson and Dominci did was wrong. They shouldn't have contacted the attorney directly. But maybe the prosecutor wasn't aggressive enough. IF they thought there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the dems had done voter fraud, then asking Justice to look further is fine. What would be interesting is to see whether Justice actually reviewed the evidence before firing the guy.

Garcia Bronco
03-22-2007, 06:34 PM
You guys need to turn off faux. The illegals thing was the attorney didn't want to prosecute the small timers, and the decision was ok'd by justice. If the pot thing was that the feds refused to bust people using medicinal pot under calif law, good - but I can see that that would be unpopular with the admin. But the question should be, are the admin's reasons "smoke?" You guys seem desperate to buy any story to hang your hat on just so there's no investigation.

And O'Rielly "doing an investigation" would be like me giving birth. Not biologically possible

Well...they should have gone after the illegals and the pot. It's their job. The DOJ has been after judges for not following sentencing guidelines....they should expect the same from their employees to do their jobs as well.


I agree with you are the senators contacting the att in New Mexico.

Dudeskey
03-24-2007, 11:37 AM
Not kidding, I was listening in on the radio factor

A real beacon of truth there... just like he was trying to convince his listeners that Bush's "proposal" of Rove testifying w/o an oath or transcripts would be transcripted... :rofl:

Spider
03-24-2007, 12:16 PM
Hilarious!
Lets see Bill O investigate this ROFL!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17763780/
NBC News and news services
Updated: 24 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - President Bush is standing firmly behind his embattled attorney general despite Justice Department documents that show Alberto Gonzales was more involved in the decisions to fire U.S. attorneys than he previously indicated.

Gonzales said last week he was not involved in any discussions about the impending dismissals of federal prosecutors. On Friday night, however, the department disclosed Gonzales’ participation in a Nov. 27 meeting where such plans were discussed.

That e-mail only added to the calls for Gonzales’ ouster.
Story continues below

Barry Ramey
03-24-2007, 12:58 PM
You guys need to turn off faux. The illegals thing was the attorney didn't want to prosecute the small timers, and the decision was ok'd by justice. If the pot thing was that the feds refused to bust people using medicinal pot under calif law, good - but I can see that that would be unpopular with the admin. But the question should be, are the admin's reasons "smoke?" You guys seem desperate to buy any story to hang your hat on just so there's no investigation.

And O'Rielly "doing an investigation" would be like me giving birth. Not biologically possible


Yeah, they should watch CNN and the major networks to get their news since it's been so proven they are so much more objective. Just ignore the ratings that has Fox way out in front. Most of the country isn't as smart as these liberals who know the truth about everything because they say so Hilarious!

Spider
03-24-2007, 01:21 PM
Yeah, they should watch CNN and the major networks to get their news since it's been so proven they are so much more objective. Just ignore the ratings that has Fox way out in front. Most of the country isn't as smart as these liberals who know the truth about everything because they say so Hilarious!

LOL you know whats realy funny is you , you dont have a leg to stand on , everyone knows you are full of Shít , and the only way you can answer me is with Family smack ............ Hilarious!
you are squirming like a worm on a hook ............ cue family smack in 5,4,3,........

cutthemdown
03-24-2007, 02:10 PM
i had a thread a while back saying gonzo needs to go. This dude has stunk as an ATTY GEN.

alkemical
10-26-2007, 12:32 AM
Mukasey Endorses Expansive Presidential Authority (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/101807S.shtml)

Mukasey Endorses Expansive Presidential Authority
By Dan Eggen and Paul Kane
The Washington Post

Thursday 18 October 2007

Nominee says Bush entitled to ignore federal surveillance law.

Attorney general nominee Michael B. Mukasey suggested today that the president could ignore federal surveillance law if it infringes on his constitutional authority as commander in chief.

Under sharp questioning about the Bush administration's warrantless eavesdropping program, Mukasey said there may be occasions when the president's wartime powers would supersede legal requirements to obtain a warrant to conduct wiretaps.

In such a case, Mukasey said, "the president is not putting somebody above the law; the president is putting somebody within the law.... The president doesn't stand above the law. But the law emphatically includes the Constitution."

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he was "troubled by your answer. I see a loophole big enough to drive a truck through."

During a second day of hearings on his nomination, Mukasey defended several of the Bush administration's most controversial legal policies, prompting a drop in temperature in his previously warm relations with Democrats on the committee.

Mukasey, for example, endorsed the administration's views of expansive presidential authority in the use of executive privilege, saying it would be inappropriate for a U.S. attorney to press for contempt charges against a White House official protected by a claim of executive privilege.

Mukasey also demurred when he was repeatedly asked whether a simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding constitutes unlawful torture. Mukasey had strongly condemned the use of harsh interrogation tactics yesterday and said that the president could not order treatment that violated constitutional prohibitions.

But Mukasey said he could not elaborate on what techniques might be allowed, and specifically refused to answer questions from Democrats about whether waterboarding specifically was unconstitutional, saying he did know enough about what the technique entailed.

"If it is torture as defined by the Constitution, or defined by constitutional standards, it can't be authorized," Mukasey said.

Mukasey's remarks stood in sharp contrast to his comments during his first day of testimony yesterday, when he stopped short of embracing the Bush administration's legal views on several important topics and criticized its policies or legal reasoning in several areas.

The apparent shift prompted criticism from several committee Democrats, who largely showered Mukasey with praise yesterday and have predicted that he will be easily confirmed to replace former attorney general Alberto R. Gonzales.

During a break in testimony, Leahy told reporters that he was concerned about a "sudden change" in Mukasey's answers regarding the limits of presidential power.

"There were far clearer answers yesterday than there were today," Leahy said.

Yesterday, Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) pressed Mukasey on the limits of federal surveillance law with little success. Today, after Mukasey more clearly embraced the argument that such a law might infringe on presidential authority, Feingold complained that Mukasey had gone from being "agnostic" to holding a "disturbing view."

"You suggest that I've gone overnight from being an agnostic to being a heretic; I haven't," Mukasey responded, though he did not elaborate.

Mukasey also amplified his opposition to a proposed federal shield law for journalists, which has been approved by the Judiciary Committee in the wake of several high-profile cases in which reporters were jailed or threatened with contempt charges for refusing to divulge sources. Mukasey said that the current system has worked "passably well" and that any problems could likely be solved by changes to internal Justice Department rules.

Mukasey, who worked briefly as a wire service reporter and later represented media organizations as an attorney in private practice, echoed Bush administration arguments that such a law could be used to protect journalists who also are acting as spies or terrorists.

Yesterday, Mukasey said that he would chart an independent path for the Justice Department after Gonzales's tumultuous tenure, testifying that he would not be afraid to disagree with the president and would resign rather than implement policies that he believed violated the Constitution.

Mukasey also said the president cannot use his powers as commander in chief to override prohibitions against using torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading conduct in the interrogation of prisoners.

"Are you prepared to resign if the president were to violate your advice and in your view violate the Constitution?" asked Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.). Mukasey responded: "That would present me with a difficult but not a complex problem. I could either try to talk him out of it or leave."

These and other strongly worded remarks reflected the former federal judge and prosecutor's desire to position himself as an independent legal thinker who, unlike Gonzales, has no long-standing ties to the current White House. "I'm not a bashful person, and I'm not going to become a bashful person if I'm confirmed," Mukasey said late in the day.

But Mukasey also declined to directly answer some questions related to controversial surveillance, detention and interrogation issues, and he suggested that in some policy areas his views might differ little from those of his predecessor.

During a sparring session with Feingold, for example, Mukasey declined to say whether the president could order a violation of federal surveillance law.

Mukasey said he could not provide an informed analysis without being briefed on the classified program but noted that some lawyers think the law does not entirely limit the president.

"I find your equivocation here somewhat troubling," Feingold responded.

Mukasey also expressed conservative views on social issues as divergent as obscenity and immigration, saying he would consider more robust prosecution of those caught being in the country illegally.

Most of the committee's Democrats, including Leahy, yesterday nonetheless repeated earlier predictions that Mukasey will be confirmed easily and with strong bipartisan support. "I'm encouraged by the answers," Leahy told reporters.

Yesterday's session was interrupted for several hours by a congressional ceremony for the Dalai Lama.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who had recommended that the White House nominate Mukasey, said Mukasey needs to rescue the Justice Department from its "greatest crisis since Watergate."

Much of the praise for Mukasey was accompanied by barely disguised swipes at Gonzales. "I think it's time for a steady hand, for a professional," said Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.). Schumer was more critical, saying Gonzales "was not much more than a potted plant" as attorney general.

Gonzales, a longtime friend and confidant of President Bush, resigned in August amid allegations that he bowed to White House demands in the firing of nine U.S. attorneys and on controversial national security policies, and then misrepresented his role during testimony on Capitol Hill.

Gonzales, who has hired a private defense attorney, is under investigation by the Justice Department over whether he lied to Congress or improperly tried to influence a congressional witness.

Democrats had earlier threatened to hold up the Mukasey hearings until they received more documents from the White House related to congressional investigations of the prosecutor firings and other issues. Those demands were put on hold, but Democrats say they will not abandon their probes.

Mukasey avoided a question about whether he would allow a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges against the White House if it refused to hand over the documents at issue, as Justice Department procedures provide.

Mukasey, 66, was calm and soft-spoken during much of his testimony, witnessed in the hearing room by family members and friends, including former FBI director Louis J. Freeh. Leahy and other lawmakers described Mukasey as candid and direct compared with Gonzales, who was widely accused of giving vague and evasive testimony.

When questioned about a Justice Department legal opinion issued early in the Bush administration, and since rescinded, that narrowly defined the acts that constitute torture, Mukasey replied differently than Gonzales had at his own confirmation hearing in early 2005.

Although Gonzales had repudiated that document, he repeatedly declined to directly answer questions about the limits of executive branch legal authority to undertake harsh interrogation methods that could be used on terrorism suspects. Mukasey said flatly that the president's commander-in-chief powers do not give him the authority to order torture or cruel treatment, which are prohibited by U.S. laws and international treaties.

At the same time, Mukasey essentially agreed with Gonzales's contention that a president can find a law unconstitutional.

While Gonzales had strongly defended the detention of terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Mukasey called it a "black eye" for the United States because "we are detaining people apparently without end." He also suggested that it would be difficult to close Guantanamo Bay soon and defended an earlier comment that prisoners there were treated better than many U.S. citizens.

Under questioning from Leahy, Mukasey promised to recuse himself from any investigations that might touch on the GOP presidential campaign of former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, a longtime friend and political ally. Mukasey also vowed to limit contact between Justice Department officials and "political figures," and to discourage bringing charges close to an election.

In response to questions about rising crime rates, Mukasey said he would consider reallocating resources for anti-gang programs and other efforts. The Justice Department has diverted funds and personnel from crime-fighting to focus on counterterrorism and immigration cases, shortchanging anti-gang and anti-crime efforts.

"We can't turn our society into something not worth preserving in order to preserve it," he said.

Garcia Bronco
10-26-2007, 12:47 AM
"Attorney general nominee Michael B. Mukasey suggested today that the president could ignore federal surveillance law if it infringes on his constitutional authority as commander in chief."


Wrong

alkemical
10-26-2007, 12:48 AM
if a tree falls in a forest......