Did Bush Re-Nominate Bradbury to Control Mukasey?
Mind you, I’m sure Bush re-nominated Steven Bradbury, the second incarnation of John Yoo, because Bradbury has dutifully shredded the Constitution on demand, and Bush would like to reward him. But the National Journal’s coverage of the Bradbury re-nomination raises an interesting point. It notes, as does everyone else, that Bradbury’s nomination is a big "Cheney yourself" to the Democrats who have refused to approve Bradbury’s nomination in the past.
In the latest example of the continuing partisan rifts over CIA interrogation techniques, Bush renominated lawyer Steven Bradbury to a senior post at the Department of Justice yesterday, despite years of Democratic resistance to his nomination.
[snip]
Bush’s previous attempts to install Bradbury permanently as head of the OLC stalled during the confirmation process, when the DOJ refused to provide senators with copies of Bradbury’s legal opinions on terrorism issues. His previous nominations have expired, and last year Democrats pressed Bush to withdraw Bradbury’s candidacy for the post. But the administration refuses to yield, claiming that Bradbury’s opinions on interrogation techniques do not contradict the law.
But then it points out that Mukasey promised to review the existing OLC opinions to make sure they don’t shred the Constitution.
During his own confirmation hearings last fall, Attorney General Michael Mukasey pledged to review the controversial OLC opinions and "change them" if need be.
Now, I have no idea whether Bush re-appointed Bradbury with Mukasey’s approval; John Ashcroft was able to scuttle John Yoo’s appointment to the OLC, which led to the appointment of Jack Goldsmith. But I imagine Bush (and more importantly, Cheney) wasn’t too happy with the way that worked out.
Certainly, when Mukasey visits the Senate Judciary next week, they ought to ask him whether Bush consulted with him before he re-appointed Bradbury.
Whether Mukasey approved that re-appointment or not, though, the re-appointment guarantees that Bradbury can continue to act as OLC head through the end of Bush’s term. It ensures that Dick and Addington have their stool (in both senses of the word, I suspect) in the heart of DOJ, preventing any real roll-back of Dick’s Constitutional atrocities.
No matter what Mukasey’s intentions, it seems, Bush and Dick now have their insurance that Mukasey can only do so much to fix this Administration’s shredding of the Constitution.
What if Mukasey just took a screw you attitude, and kept Bradbury out of the loop? Can Bush fire Mukasey without Congressonal approval? How does Bradbury have this kind of power over his boss?
I’m not sure about whether Mukasey has approved of Bradbury or not, remember. But yes, Bush can fire Mukasey if he wants. And I don’t THINK Mukasey can fire Bradbury, though I’m unclear on that.
In any case, the AG signs off on OLC opinions, but I think he has to rely on OLC opinions.
Heh heh, first smile on my face today. Either your memory is as good for dark comedy as it is for critical facts, or you have been prowling the old threads.
i am not sure that Mukasey could fire him either; kind of doesn’t matter though, because no way he ever would fire a direct appointee.
A sign of what our day portends? The Google add currently displaying on my screen reads:
We are currently in the middle of the future fantasia of George Orwell and Ray Bradbury right now.
Shit (heh heh). Did you make that stool joke in a prior thread? If so, I must have subconsciously stolen it.
Tee hee, what’s mine is always yours….
Should have known it was yours, as stinky as it is.
Can they also ask Mukasey about the status of the Waxman letter…
I hope Waxy sent it certified mail…
“When a man looks for things that aren’t there and finds them, we call him a detective.” — Perry Mason
Bradbury’s abhorrent opinion on torture was CLASSIFIED – painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures.
Will Mukasey report on his review of OLC opinions? …respond to the SJC letter about whether interogatting with a waterboard is torture?
Durbin just said something to the effect of agreeing with me here–connecting the re-nomination of Bradbury with his OLC opinions and Mukasaey’s promise to review them.
Ha-ha!! And he referred to Cheney’s speech!
Maybe Senator Durbin can take out an ad.
FISA overhaul bill debate in the Seante … on C-SPAN 2.
Will BushCo get imunity for
the telecommsBushCo? Will John Edwards challenge Clinton and Obama to return to Washington to engage on this issue? Will Dodd and Feingold lead the Senate to filibuster this bill?Did Scottish Haggis just execute that verbal jujitsu whereby he convincingly argues against a provision, in this case
telecommBuschCo immunity, and then explain why, in the end, he’s going to vote for it?Yup.
Followed the lead of Jello Jay and Bill Nelson, there, who already did the same.
Yup.
Tip Your Hat
By: emptywheel Tuesday January 8, 2008 7:55 am
Jack Balkin gets at something I was trying to address the other day: the collapse of Reagan’s three-legged stool and its benefits for the Democratic party.
#37 bmaz January 8th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Well, speaking of stools, here is a good one coming out of a “Good Republican” rear. State Senator Jack Harper, lauded as one of the best and brightest up and coming GOP stars in Arizona, has proposed to modify primary politics in the state:
#39 TheraP January 8th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
speaking of stools
Ummm…. what kind?
That kind of strategy comes from the gutter!
#40 bmaz January 8th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
In response to TheraP @ 39
Ahem. Think of the kind of stool a doctor might take a sample of….
You archive your “stools” for posterity?
I think I’ve read it all now.
I don’t archive, I just backup…. Seriously, it is amazing what teh Google will find.
EW @14 – Quite the goddess that can turn shit into Shinola!
Ah, but you didn’t manage the same level of double entendre there, now did you? I’ve improved on your stool. So there.
The Federalist Society and Dick Cheney, two peas in a pod. Is David Addington a member?
EW says:
They should also ask whether Mukasey has personally seen, read and analyzed the OLC torture opinions. They might be too secret for him. In which case, Addington remains the real Attorney General.
The Bradbury re-nomination to OLC keeps the lid on Cheney’s secrets until the last document/hard drive shredder leaves the VP’s Naval Observatory perch. It leaves a mole in the burrow of an admittedly weak reformer. It keeps the Senate off kilter, eroding its already limited ability to oversee the administration. It avoids searching for and finding another Mukasey or Comey, a committed conservative who might retain an ounce of integrity – as if Cheney would hire one or any would accept his offer. And it distracts from the immunity battle.
Immunity is the key. It would slam shut inquiry into years of illegal domestic spying – including who authorized it, who has access to the info, and what they do with it. It is the linchpin of their legal strategy to avoid liability for illegal spying, and indirectly, for torture and their other excesses. It is the price Cheney’s network and corporate America expect to be paid for staying in his corner.
Which makes Reid and Rockefeller corrupt referees who’ve already thrown the match.
I see your comment already answers my #24 supposition.
Chambliss is arguing the telecomms actions were lawful, except for 60 days during which President’s counsel certified the program, and yet argues that immunity is necessary.
Main reason for supporting the SIC bill, not the SJC bill (Leahy): Will grant immunity to telecomms for their cooperation in the past so they will cooperate in the future.
So long as they get paid, I guess they will cooperate
If this debate were about national security. If it were about obtaining help from corporations reluctant to put cooperating with their government ahead of their formal duties to operate within the law and in the best interests of their shareholders. If it were about anything but a coerced protection racket, then these bills would include multiple conditions, quid pro quos, you do this and I’ll do that, you don’t do that and you risk me doing this.
Those conditions would include full cooperation by telecoms in government investigations of past and future illegal activity, including misuse of properly authorized taps. It would include limitations on what the government could do with the info, how long it could be kept, and tight restrictions on the use of info obtained by private non-governmental parties.
All those conditions are about the rights and security – broadly defined – of private Americans. They ought to be the heart and soul of any negotiations among Congress, the administration and private parties on this topic. These bills include none of them.
In part, that’s because this government wants no limits on how much info it collects or what it does with it. Which includes selling or making it available to private parties who can then use it for their own, unrestricted purposes. And in part, because this bill is about protecting Cheney and his network and the next generation of Cheney-like power brokers. Which, presumably include the next generation of Jello Jays and Harry Reids. Protecting Americans? Not so much.
Shorter Hatch, these new FISA rules are COMPLICATED and our Intelligence personnel are not that bright, we should eliminate the sunset provision so they don’t have to learn the law so often.
Hatch is trying to match Dodd for passion.
As far as EW’s question, would Bradbury be there to be part of OVP’s stool loop .
Oh, gee. I was enjoying the musical interlude. Mind you, I’m always happy to listen to Kennedy reminding us of basic democratic principle. Brings back my misspent youth.
Neil, I’m never going to forgive you for getting me hooked on this. I’m supposed to be working and doing accounts. I wish I could stop watching, but it is simply so mesmerizing to watch and listen to people who know very well what they are doing, know how disastrous it may be, but who keep on keeping on. Amazin’.
Ah, a CSPAN junkie in the making.
The CSPANA group meets on Tuesday nights, if you’re interested.
Can I get there from Toronto and still be asleep by 10 p.m.?
Some of us are trying to figure out whether we could turn our pallid CPAC (Canadian parliamentary channel) into the same, ah, utensil (I’m trying not to say weapon) that you have in C-SPAN. If I spent more time tracking CPAC than C-SPAN, I’d probably be more useful on that score, but really, you guys are fascinating. We have one outrage after another tumbling out here right now, and yet we still watch … you-all. Y’all are powerful, and that is hard to ignore. (Plus some of you are very cute.)
sorry skdadl, it’s really interesting when you’ve spent time beforehand learning the issues …good for practicing critical hearing skills and honing the bullshit detector.
jello jay up to slap down SJC bill
And Leahy up to slap down Jello Jay.
But my CSPAN just crapped out (staying with the theme of the thread).
Agh, I need more than one TV/monitor, EPA moron on CSPAN1, FISA slap fighting on CSPAN2.
What’s on CSPAN3?
I highly recommend more than one monitor and a software product called UltraMon for sharing the screens.
Having read work product from both, Bradbury is a better writer who clouds the ideology over law and decency better.
OT – but since I know EW has been following the never-quite-forthcoming Senate Intel report, from the TPM Muckraker roundup:
The reports in the Guardian yesterday and today seem to be opening up again the issues before the Hutton inquiry into David Kelly’s death. I’m trying to follow along, but I don’t entirely grasp what’s going on.
Replying to bmaz @47
My take too. Addington and Cheney would rather not risk a reincarnation of Goldsmith.
The original BBC report for which the BBC got hung out to dry linked the term ’sexing up the dossier’ to the guy who purportedly committed suicide. What is revealing in the first of the Guardian articles you link to is what a Downing Street press officer’s em had to say:
“We also need to think, once we have John’s further draft tomorrow, how we prepare the ground for the launch of the text to get expectations in the right place“.
My bold.
Motion to table the Judiciary Committee’s version of the FISA reauthorization law?
Who made the motion? How many votes do they need?
I think it was Kit Bond and I think Reid agreed to only 51 votes to table, between JoLie and Jello Jay and all their weasley pals, this will likely be tabled. Then we depend on Dodd’s filibuster.
thx phred.
you’d think Dems could get a 60 vote standard from Reid since the minority has been given the 60 vote standard CONSISTENTLY since 2006.
You’re just confused because you thought Reid was a Democrat. Oops! ; ) I trust you read Greenwald yesterday and today…
i did yesterday . today, i’m completely disgusted and i don’t have the stomach for it.
Bradbury – isn’t there some rule about him continuing to serve as acting if his nomination has been approved after a period of time? Renominating doesn’t get around that time frame, does it? No time to look, but since I’m guessing they wouldn’t want to take a chance of flying naked with illegal OLC opinions issued by someone who can’t legally serve, I must be wrong on that.
Reid is now trying to join in the kabuki of being against amnesty, but the truth is that he, Rockefeller and a whole assortment are lining up to screw the pooch on this one. At least Romney only tied his to the top of a car.
5 USC § 3346. Time limitation
Since Bradbury’s second nomination will not be rejected immediately, it basically means he will serve until he is confirmed or Bush leaves office and a new Administration boots him.
lol.
And didn’t Romney only put the pooch on the top of his car, because he didn’t want the diarrhea it was producing to land inside the car?
The SJC challenged that last Fall. I’m not convinced in the explanation, btu the idea is he can’t serve as acting after 210 days after he’s been rejected. So by re-appointing him over and over, even if the Dems reject him, he still gets 210 days. Though if they rejected him today, we’d have about 70 days when he couldn’t be acting AAG.
I do appreciate how CSPAN captioned what was happening “The Senate is voting on tabling (killing) the Judiciary Cmte. version…” so that n00bs can actuall grok what’s happening.
Blunt, too, as in force trauma to the head.
Recently I read an institutional exam of what the courts do when congress gets vague about what maltreatment is, an old opinion, really, Rasul v Myers. It seems the three judges unanimously said all the torture was legal so the mere federal employees who conducted the s+m were sticking to best practices as defined by the likes of Bradbury.
Is the Dodd-Rockefeller offering new? I’m afraid I can’t keep up with this like I should, too many confusing parliamentary bits posted in other threads about this.
emptywheel,
“Now, I have no idea …”
Well, finally something I can really agree with.
It has been a long while.
I must compliment you on your stupendous persistence to misleading obfuscation to the point of irrelevance.
What? Did you subscribe to one of those build your vocabulary emails.
I was willing to give Shit Stain Jodi the benefit of the doubt but not now, now I know she’s an asshole.
Crossed the line with me. That’s a pointed attempt to insult the blog owner, not just the usual effort to annoy the commentors.
I think Neil’s language was atrocious also. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
People should be nicer.
That is the statement of somebody that doesn’t understand the dynamics around here regarding the house troll known as JodiDog. Considering the insolence of the troll, people are inexplicably amicable. This is not a row you probably want to wade into.
Neil,
don’t rend your clothes and put on ashes and act like this is the first time you have been out of sorts.
But still, out of politeness, maybe I should slow down a little and explain more, for you might have been left behind again.
Usually emptywheel like most here is always assuming too much, and taking a remark out of context making a mountain out of a molehill.
You then jump from that false mountain top to the next false peak, and really someone that is not very informed assumes that you are on solid ground and proving all sorts of things while you are really walking on the thinnest clouds of assumption, wishful thinking, and vivid imagination.
Witness the whole Valerie Plame incident as well as all this email hype.
And when you get called on it, you fall back to calling people names.
Get Real! Be more adult.
Misquoting again, here’s the original:
and in the context of this thread, I’d say stool is the discharge from JodiDog’s orifice.
By my count this is the 4th time that Bradbury’s nomination has been sent up. I think it is just Cheney sending a “Go Cheney yourself” message to the Congress. I don’t think there is any implied restriction on Mukasey who during his confirmation hearings signed off on all aspects of Bush/Cheney extra-Consititutional power grabs.
Hugh – That was my question and thought, but I could only find that this was the second nomination to this specific position; is it really the fourth?
EW, Hugh or whoever – What is the current status of Peter Keisler at DOJ and isn’t his
nominationsecond nomination to the DC Ciircuit Court of Appeals still pending?Thanks bmaz & Hugh – so is he going up for the second count, or for a third or fourth or do we know?
41 – hehehe Well, one thing that they are getting at is that early on, supposedly long before there was any intelligence committee report on the Iraq threat and analysis/recommendations, there had been another report done on the Iraq “threat” for Blairco. That report, the “Williams Draft” wasn’t really drafted by someone in intel. Or with Iraq info. Or someone with diplomatic insider info. That report was put out by:
Yep – early on they recruited an ex-Daily Mirror journo to put together a dossier for the possible invasion. In connection with later allegations that Blairco “sexed up” the final dossier version, which SUPPOSEDLY was SOLELY the work product of the Intel Committee, there was the specific allegation about the “bombs reaching UK in 45 minutes” but there was also a desire to have the “Williams Draft” produced so that they could compare with the Intel dossier (which was supposedly indpendently compiled and only from true intel) in connection with suppositions that it was perhpams more a dossier compiled to flesh out what an ex-Daily Mirror Journo thought would be a good way to sell the war from a propaganda standpoint.
Blairco dug in heels and said that while it was indisputable that the final dossier was not “sexed up” and was a clean and washed behind the ears, solely intel analysis product, and did not pull from or rely on or flesh out info in the Williams draft, no one wanted to provide the Williams draft to show how clearly different the two were.
Now, apparently there has been review that Hutton didn’t get and there seems to be a consensus that the Williams journo sales pitch draft should get a looksee in connection with analyzing the final intel dossier.
Hmmmmmmm. Will be interesting.
51 – Well, we can’t be too kind to Mitt. I think the dog’s diarrhea was likely related to its terror and physical condition as it went heading down the highway, strapped aloft with not even a windbreak in front. Apparently this is the only way he travelled with the dog – whether it had the runs or not. I think, though, the reason the story got some press play at first was that one of Mitt’s rapt admirers thought is showed wonderful, excellent sense and unflappability that, when the dog excrement began running down windows, Mitt just pulled into a gas station, got out their hose, and hosed down the (sick scared) dog and the car.
Apparently, they thought this was the kind of executive decisionmaking – taking the bull by the horns and addressing the problems mentality that would impress the electorate with Mitt’s presidential-ness.
Which says most of what needs to be said about Mitt’s admirers. Although I do always enjoy hearing Mitt say that Cofer Black, who is likely in line for jail if anyone ever did examine the illegal torture and “extraordinary” renditions at CIA, gives him his Nat Sec info and why would anyone suspect any ulterior motives to Black’s strong support of immunity, torture, etc? It’s not like he has a vested interest. Maybe a three piece suit interest?
perhpams – that’s how we spell “perhaps” in Kentucky. Even before the bourbon balls.
Bush Opens Wiretap Documents to House
This is a guaranteed crock of manure. When the same thing was announced as to the Senate committees, the fine print clearly indicated that NOT ALL documents and opinions were produced. They will not be here either. Neither the House nor the Senate should give one iota of credibility to these disclosures without a signed certification from the DOJ and the White House that the full, complete and accurate document set is being produce; otherwise it MUST be assumed that they are incomplete and disingenuous. This is another dishonest ruse by the Bush Administration serving as fraudulent inducement for the grant of immunity. DO NOT FALL FOR THIS.
bmaz, is this what CPAN meant when they announced the House of Representatives is on a ‘retreat’ today?
If the war aspect of retreat was the intended meaning, I get it now.
No they literally apparently have scheduled right around now one of those goofball team spirit retreats where they make smores and sing kumbayah around the campfire or whatever.
Just to remind others, what’s aimed at here is not the timely release of information essential to Congressional action. It is getting the president’s purported concession on the nightly news. Fratto and Purina will no doubt claim by morning that the Shrubster has “fully cooperated” and delays “threatening our national security” are Congress’ fault.
This is also a classic squeeze play. Even if all info were released under rules that allowed it to be read in full and digested, little of that would be possible before Congress votes. As bmaz says, it’s not likely that the info will be provided in full or that the rules for reading and note taking will make it useful.
That is exactly right; although even more than the nightly news watchers, the intended dupes on this are the Congressmembers. Most cannot participate in this “release”; and many of those who actually could will not do the actual work of going down and doing so, but most of the lemmings will believe “hey, he released it all, it must all be on the up and up”. It is not.
Mary, that description is pretty damning of Mitt and his admirers.
I didn’t remember that the roof was the dog’s usual seat during the family trips. Horrible.
Now if only there were some way to cover today’s proceedings with the same stench of roof top ’spillage’. Let’s pull out the firehouse and wash them all down.
house is my way to spell hose.
totally OT, but relevant to the war, at least — Gareth Porter on lack of evidence for Iranian/Hezb. involvement in bombing of Argentinian Jewish community center:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/M…..5Ak02.html
Imagine You being the person with a corner on the truth.
Crikey, would everybody please quit ginning up the mindless troll?
I’m ashamed of our troll. I think we deserve more than this mental weakling.
me too.
64 – The SJC challenged that last Fall
Gotcha. If they made a legal challenge that he couldn’t get more than two nomination 210 day periods and lost that before a judge, then I guess that’s that. I had no idea how many times he was nominated and the statute seems pretty clear to limit to two nominations, so the opinion would be interesting. But lost is lost.
Hi Jodi-bot (waving madly)
In a previous iteration, you bought ANATOMY OF DECEIT and were reading it at “Grandma’s.” Please let me know any page you found something you didn’t agree with or couldn’t understand. If I don’t hear from you, I’ll just assume you agreed with everything.
Thanks to everyone, except Jodi, for a great thread.