The Political Chase

Bishop: No Communion for Giuliani

Roman Catholic Archbishop Raymond Burke denied John Kerry the sacraments of the church during his presidential bid in 2004 and intends to do the same with Rudy Giuliani.

Burke, the Archbishop of St. Louis, was asked by The St. Louis Post-Dispatch if he would deny Communion to Giuliani if the former New York mayor approached him for the sacrament.

“If the question is about a Catholic who is publicly espousing positions contrary to the moral law, and I know that person knows it, yes I would,” the paper quoted the archbishop as responding.

Burke has said of Giuliani: “I can’t imagine that as a Catholic he doesn’t know that his stance on the protection of human life is wrong. If someone is publicly sinning, they should not approach to receive Holy Communion.”

Rudy’s response:

Archbishops have a right to their opinion, you know. There’s freedom of religion in this country. There’s no established religion, and archbishop have a right to their opinion. Everybody has a right to their opinion.

The St. Louis based Archbishop’s authority does not extend beyond his diocese, therefore, his punitive measures against Giuliani are limited, unless other bishops take the same action within their respective dioceses. Given Giuliani’s response, one might assume Giuliani remains in good standing with the bishop presiding over his home diocese, presumably New York.

What might be informative to know is if the bishop presiding over the Diocese of New York blessed Rudy’s third marriage. I would be surprised if he did. Even still, the bishop not blessing his marriage does not by default — to the best of my knowledge — mean Giuliani would be denied Holy Eucharist. As those who are members of liturgical/hierarchical churches know (e.g. Roman Catholic, Episcopalian/Anglican), being denied participation in the Eucharist is about as punitive a step as the church can take. Not much left except for excommunication.

Political Lunch - Greetings from Hillary

Today on The Lunch, Will and Rob tell tales of journalists led astray, our letter from Hillary, shifting polls, and the johnsons for Thompson.

Click To Play

Mukasey’s Confirmation Questionnaire Response

Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey has submitted his responses to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s questionnaire for confirmation. The document is available here (pdf).

Leahy Reiterates Concerns to Mukasey

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) seems to be frustrated over the lack of response or communication from Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey. Leahy made it clear when President Bush nominated Mukasey that he wanted specific answers to address outstanding issues and concerns, and that Mukasey’s confirmation was contingent upon Mukasey’s and the White House’s cooperation. Apparently, Leahy’s initial request has gone unanswered — like everything else he has sent the Bush-Cheney administration — based on a letter he sent (html, pdf) Mukasey today.

Leahy’s questions and concerns are valid and appropriate. He wants to know who Mukasey’s master will be, George Bush or the Constitution.

I have emphasized most of the salient points of Leahy’s letter below.

October 2, 2007

Hon. Michael B. Mukasey
Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP
1133 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036

Dear Judge Mukasey:

I look forward to scheduling and chairing the confirmation hearing on your nomination to serve as the Attorney General of the United States. I also look forward to your response to the Judiciary Committee’s questionnaire, and we may have additional requests for background information that would be helpful to the Committee in preparation for the hearing.

As I told you when we met the day after your designation, I look forward to meeting with you and having a substantive discussion before the hearing. I propose that we meet on Tuesday, October 16, at 10 a.m., if that is convenient for you.

I also mentioned when we first met that I would provide you with some of the topics that concern me. Regrettably the White House has chosen not to clear the decks of past concerns and not to produce the information and material it should have and could have about the ongoing scandals that have shaken the Department of Justice and led to the exodus of its former leadership. Those matters now encumber your nomination and, if confirmed, your tenure.

We will need to explore with you how you would ensure the independence of federal law enforcement from political pressure, what steps you would take to restore morale at the Department and the public’s trust in the Department, and whether you would uphold constitutional checks on Executive power.

The mass firings of the U.S. Attorneys appointed by this President were unprecedented. I will inquire whether you share my view that the integrity and independence of federal law enforcement should not be compromised by political operatives from the White House. I will ask for your assurance that the Department of Justice and, in particular, our U.S. Attorneys, will not be employed in upcoming elections to seek to affect the outcome. The Department of Justice should be working to protect Americans’ right to vote and have their vote count, not seeking to swing close elections into a partisan column by leaking allegations of corruption or bringing last minute legal actions alleging voter fraud.

A related matter of significant concern to a number of Members of the Committee is the recent rewriting of the Department of Justice’s guidebook on “Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses.” It not only changed from the “red book” to the “green book,” but the traditional practice of not bringing last-minute investigations and actions was turned on its head. The traditional version of the protocol, part of which I read to former Department of Justice official Bradley Schlozman at our June 5 hearing, provided: “In investigating election fraud matters, the Justice Department must refrain from any conduct which has the possibility of affecting the election itself. . . Thus, most, if not all, investigation of an alleged election crime must await the end of the election to which the allegation relates.” As recently revised under the outgoing, discredited leadership group, it provides great latitude for the Department of Justice to influence the outcomes of elections. Will you reassure us that under your leadership that these guidelines will be changed back to the time-honored rules? That is a concrete step you can take at the outset to set a new tone.

Another aspect of this concern is your close association with a candidate for the Republican nomination for President. Given that longstanding relationship, what assurances can you give the Committee, the Senate and the American people, should he be the Republican nominee, that you will not improperly use your position? The White House press operation suggested last weekend that you would recuse yourself from matters involving Mr. Guiliani. Is that true, and would that recusal include the Republican presidential campaign if he is the Republican nominee?

From our earlier meeting I know that you knew and worked with Judge Harold Tyler. I have admired Judge Tyler. He, too, was faced with restoring the Department of Justice when he served as the Deputy Attorney General in 1975, following the Watergate scandal and the resignation of President Nixon. Likewise, I think we both view Attorney General Robert Jackson’s 1941 speech to U. S. Attorneys as striking the right chord on the role of the Department of Justice and the independence of federal prosecutors. If they, Elliot Richardson and Edward Levi are your models, I will look forward to working with you to restore the Department.

In that connection, I note that as the House Judiciary Committee was considering contempt citations for former White House officials this summer, a senior Administration official said that a U.S. Attorney “would not be permitted to bring contempt charges or convene a grand jury in an executive privilege case” and that a U.S. Attorney would not be “permitted to argue against the reasoned legal opinion that Department of Justice provided.”

Under applicable statutes and practices, contempt citations against Administration officials by the House and Senate would be certified to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia to bring before a grand jury for its action. If the House or Senate certified a contempt citation against current or former White House officials arising from the U.S. Attorney investigation, would you permit the U.S. Attorney to carry out the law and refer the matter to a grand jury as required by 2 U.S.C. § 194? If the White House sought to prevent the U.S. Attorney from bringing contempt charges to a grand jury as required by law, would you take any action to prevent the U.S. Attorney from doing so?

More generally, what would you do as Attorney General if you learned that a White House official had called a U.S. Attorney asking for information about an on-going criminal investigation? What would you do as Attorney General if you learned that a Member of Congress had called a U.S. Attorney asking for information about an on-going criminal investigation?

What will you do to ensure that legal advice from the Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) is independent and protected from political influence?

While you can set an example and a tone at the Department of Justice, you cannot effectively manage it by yourself. Who will be the members of your team to help turn the Department around?

Other key issues arise from this Administration’s abuse of secrecy and expansion of executive power. Policies enacted by this Administration have encouraged Department of Justice officers to withhold information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the bedrock statute that opens our government to its citizens. Will you commit to review and consider overturning these policies, and supporting legislation Senator Cornyn and I have sponsored to reform FOIA, so that the presumption of openness which is at the heart of FOIA is restored for the American people?

The Attorney General who recently resigned apparently believed that the President has a commander-in-chief override of the laws of this country, which contributed to his violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), his signing statement reservations, and other overreaching. We must explore those topics. For example, do you believe that the President has authority to override legal requirements and immunize acts of torture contrary to our treaty obligations and laws? Do you believe that before Congress amended the FISA this summer, the Authorization for the Use of Military Force passed in the days following September 11, or Article II of the Constitution gave this President authority to override the requirements of that law with respect to wiretapping Americans?

In connection with these matters the Judiciary Committee has been seeking the historical legal analysis of the Department of Justice and this Administration. We have made numerous requests and have even had to subpoena the FISA documents. I want to know whether you will work with us and provide those materials so that we can examine the legal justifications that have been utilized by this Administration to excuse its conduct.

Similarly, in light of the failure of the White House Counsel to provide even a privilege log to substantiate his blanket claim of executive privilege for all information relating to the U.S. Attorney firing scandal, we need to consider that matter together. I want to know your view of executive privilege. Do you view it as a communications privilege or something else? Do you think it extends to the actions and emails of political operatives in matters in which the President was not personally involved?

With so much to do and so much damage that needs to be repaired, I had hoped that the White House would have taken advantage of the time since the resignations of Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Rove to work with us to fulfill longstanding requests for information so that we could all agree about what went so wrong at the Department of Justice and work together to restore it. Instead, they have left you to answer the unanswered questions and left longstanding disputes unresolved.

Sincerely,

PATRICK LEAHY
Chairman

North Korea to disable nukes

North Korea has agreed to “disable key nuclear facilities by the end of the year and start disclosing details of its nuclear programs,” but is this just another promise they will break?

Bush Vetoes SCHIP Bill

President Bush continued to obstruct Congress from carry out the will of the majority of Americans by vetoing the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) today. There are enough votes in Senate to override his veto, but not in the House of Representatives, unless some Representatives change their original votes.

Coultergeist Strikes Again

Ann Coulter was on MSNBC’s  “Morning Joe” this morning to promote her new book, If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans — what a way to start the day.

As usual, the Coultergeist spewed her venom radical neocon views.

On Rush Limbaugh notorious statement about phoney soldiers, she said Limbaugh was taken out of context. On Bill O’Reily’s racist remarks, she said “the surprise part was inserted by people interpreting it.” She declared George Bush’s strategy on the “preeminent issue of our time” made him a great president, and starting the war in Iraq, and said women having the right to vote would be a “continuing problem.”

It’s all in the video.

Click To Play