Mukasey Will Not Commit to Restoring Election Law Manual

/in /by

One of the sub-scandals that came out as part of the USA purge is that DOJ recently revised the manual on Election Offenses. Gonzales’ DOJ basically removed the language restricting indictments just prior to elections–precisely the restriction that Hans Von Spakovsky violated when he brought indictments against former ACORN workers just before the 2006 elections. As a result, it will be easier for USAs to bring indictments leading up to the 2008 election.

In his hearing, Mukasey did not answer whether he would return the manual to its former state. So Ted Kennedy asked for a firm commitment that he would do so.

Mukasey would not make that firm commitment.

In your testimony, you were clear that "partisan politics plays no part in either the bringing of charges or the timing of charges," but you never specifically addressed the changes made to this manual. Restoring the 1995 guidelines is an obvious reform that would go a long way toward restoring public trust in the Department. Will you commit to restoring the 1995 version of the "The [sic] Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses" manual?

  • If you will not commit to this, do you agree that the changes recently made to the manual were dangerous and inappropriate?
  • Do you think it’s appropriate that under the new guidelines, prosecutors and investigators are given so much freedom to influence election outcomes?

ANSWER: As I testified partisan politics can play no part in either the bringing of timing of charges. Although I have not reviewed either the 1995 or current versions of "The Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses" manual specifically, I fully appreciate that the closer to an election, the higher the standard that must be met for charges to be brought.

It’s the same tactic he used with many of the national security questions: by saying he hadn’t reviewed the document in question, he avoided answering any question and–more specifically–committing to diverging from Gonzales’ troubling policies.

Only in this case, the documents are all available in the public record. Which suggests Mukasey’s refusal to answer the question ought to be taken as answer enough.

image_print
  1. sojourner says:

    Judge Mukasey may personally be a very nice individual. I don’t know what is driving him to avoid directly answering the questions, except that I guess he just has a case of ambition and would like to add â€Attorney General of the United States†to his resume. He knows that if he answers directly, he is toast, but he should be toast anyway because of the fact that he is bound and determined not to commit to anything straightforward.

    We do not need anyone as Attorney General who is going to qualify everything he says so that we have to guess what he stands for.

    This should be a no-brainer for every sitting senator…

  2. Marie Roget says:

    Mukasey’s answers are circumscribed by his confabs w/the lawyer who helms Cheney’s operation, initials D.A. Anyone who saw the PBS Frontline from two wks. back knows how powerful & dangerous to the Constitution is that individual & his boss’ world view.

    CheneyCo (implemented by Addington & his minions) believes that our current form of government should be replaced by an autocracy. They work toward that goal everyday they are still in power…

  3. phred says:

    sojourner — I think Mukasey’s resume would have to be amended to read:
    Judge
    Cheney’s Sock Puppet formerly known as Attorney General of the United States

    Thanks for pointing this particular reply out for us EW. It appears Mukasey won’t be fixing the politicization of DoJ afterall. So remind me, what exactly will improve under Mukasey’s tenure?

  4. regular reader says:

    I’m wondering, could a return to the pre-revised rules on pre-election indictments wind up biting the Dems in the ass at this point? I mean, would it play into Republican hands by stalling or prohibiting anything like a contempt of Congress or obstruction investigation from reaching indictment stage before Nov. 2008?

  5. Anonymous says:

    It’s bad enough that administration officials try to weasel out of testimony in investigations by claiming â€I don’t know anything about that, let me get back to you.†But won’t one of our senators point out that a confirmation hearing is in part a job interview, and saying â€I won’t know anything about that part of my job until after you hire me†shouldn’t get anyone hired?

    Especially when the questions are about points of law or law enforcement procedure, and the guy is a judge!

  6. P J Evans says:

    We can do without an AG for another 14 months.
    It beats having an AG who seems to be clueless on what the job actually involves … or knows, and won’t admit it in public.

    Georgie is having a hissy fit about this – it’s his AG choice or else, because we’re at war and can’t possibly do without one. (Yes, that doesn’t follow, but that’s George. See the LA Times story.)

  7. regular reader says:

    continuing from my thinking at 17:08,
    I guess I’m worried about a repeat of the Republican impeachment strategery. They brought a weak impeachment proceeding against Clinton, and now the received wisdom is that the country has no taste for impeachment. Could it be that by focusing our attention on sham pre-election indictments for so long, through the USA scandals, the Republicans have effectively tied the opposition’s hands as regards legitimate pre-election indictments?

  9. masaccio says:

    It’s a hissy fit, all right. I watched him poke out his lip on tv and huff and puff, and it looked just like that brat at the store whose momma won’t buy him the sack of candy he wants. I was reduced to shouting at the tv. When he comes on at the gym, I have to watch myself or I do it there.