The Political Chase

Will Mukasey be confirmed?

I’ve heard a few comments made by the Washington Pundit Elite that the Senate is so pleased Alberto Gonzales is gone that they will readily confirm Judge Michael Mukasey as Attorney General in spite of controversial answers he gave in his confirmation hearing last week.

I’ll not dare question their collective infinite wisdom, but at least for now, some members of the Judiciary panel are pushing back or at least demanding clarification on Mukasey’s controversial responses.

Sen. Patrick Leahy and the remaining nine other Democrats on the panel sent a letter to Mukasey Tuesday pressing him on his twisted response regarding waterboarding. In the letter they said they found it "“surprising that you are unfamiliar with waterboarding since it has been the subject of much public discussion” and asserted that “your unwillingness to state that waterboarding is illegal may place Americans at risk of being subject to this abusive technique.”

Although Mukasey’s response in the hearing was little more than a semantic hedge, their was no ambiguity in the 10 Democrat’s redirect. In the letter they asked, “Please respond to the following question: Is the use of waterboarding, or inducing the misperception of drowning, as an interrogation technique illegal under U.S. law, including treaty obligations?”

The Committee’s Ranking Member Arlen Specter (R-PA) joined the Democrat’s  by posing a few questions of his own in a letter sent to Mukasey yesterday. From my perspective, Specter addressed the most significant issue — the president’s claim of absolute power.

A question has been raised on your response to whether the President may legally authorize wiretaps which violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, when you stated: “That would have to depend on whether what goes on outside the statute nonetheless lies within the authority of the President to defend the country.”

Would you please specify your views on the scope of the President’s Article II powers to disregard an explicit statutory requirement. If you believe the President can act outside the law, how do you square that belief with your statement at the hearing that “The President doesn’t stand above the law[?]” How do you deal with the public concern that the rule of law is supreme and the President at times appears to put himself above the law?

The panel simply must not allow Mukasey to slip by with semantic twists or ambiguous answers, however the White House is already posturing Mukasey for an ambiguous answer on the torture issue.

Mukasey contended last week he did not know what the interrogation techniques were because he had not been read into the program yet — an all too easy hedge for Mukasey. Yesterday, the White House reiterated Mukasey "has not been read into classified intelligence programs, and he won’t be read in until he is confirmed as attorney general."

Another Bush demand of give me what I want but I’m not going to provide you any detail information about what I want.