November 2nd, 2007
02:09 PM ET
11 years ago

Source: Leahy to vote 'no' on Mukasey

WASHINGTON (CNN) - Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont will vote against the nomination of Michael Mukasey as attorney general, a source close to the senator told CNN Friday.

 Full story

Related video: Leahy won't vote for Mukasey 

Related: Bush plays the 9/11 card

Filed under: Michael Mukasey • Patrick Leahy
soundoff (34 Responses)
  1. lava, North Pole

    And who is "we" jw, canadian,ok? Canadians you mean? Give me your break.

    November 2, 2007 06:17 pm at 6:17 pm |
  2. sean metamora,IL

    Good. Derail this creep. Anyone that can't decide if waterboarding is torture has no business being Attorney General of
    the U.S.

    Posted By Steve, Lyons, CO : November 2, 2007 3:07 pm

    But someone that changes positions on driver's licenses for illegals within a two minute span should be our president?

    Glad to see you're on board there buddy.
    Posted By Chip Celina OH : November 2, 2007 5:17 pm

    it's not one or the other,
    it's time the people woke up and took our democracy from the both sides,

    the whole if you dont blindly support one side you have to blindly support the other is complete lunacy

    the idea that we are all subjects of the federal government should be viewed as treason, we have the power not the 2 gangs of criminals that want us to be their serfs and slaves

    November 2, 2007 07:25 pm at 7:25 pm |
  3. Ray, Rochester


    Guess who controls the House and Senate??? Democrats! If they want to ban waterboarding they can do it. If they really have issues with waterboarding, why don't they just say so with a ban???

    Answer that one Wynter.

    I have to laugh when you and the other concerned libs fret about our troops being subjected to waterboarding if we allow it.

    News Flash!!! Terrorists who capture our people don't waterboard them..THEY CUT THEIR HEADS OFF. Remember Danny Pearl??? Guess who cut his head off??? KSM. The same guy we captured and who spilled the beans on at least three plans after he was waterboarded.

    Of course if we followed your logic, we would still be scratching our heads trying to figure out why he won't tell us anything.

    Again, any President will tell the CIA to do whatever they need to do to get info if our lives are at stake. No President wants to go on TV and say we had the person(s) with knowledge in our hands but did not want to subject them to "torture" so thousands of lives were lost.

    Once you nominate Hillary, you can sit back and watch her get slaughtered in the election.

    Just tellin it like it is.

    November 2, 2007 08:01 pm at 8:01 pm |
  4. Ray, Rochester

    To correct my previous post, I know KSM did not behead Danny Pearl. It was that loon who we killed in Iraq.

    As an aside for you Dems out there...

    Hillary's negatives are so bad that she polls below 49% in a head to head against RON PAUL!!! for god's sake! Ron Paul!

    She will get slaughtered and we are all looking forward to it. Maybe then, once and for all, she will go back to Arkansas.

    I predict a divorce from Slick Willy, the nation's adulterer, when she loses because he will be of no more use to her.

    November 2, 2007 08:08 pm at 8:08 pm |
  5. Mike, Cleveland, OH

    Ray, Rochester

    In 1947, the United States prosecuted a Japanese military officer, Yukio Asano, for carrying out a form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian during World War II. Yukio Asano received a sentence of 15 years of hard labor. The charges of Violation of the Laws and Customs of War against Asano also included "beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward."

    In its 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the U.S. Department of State formally recognized
    "submersion of the head in water" as torture in its examination of Tunisia's poor human rights record, and critics of waterboarding draw parallels between the two techniques, citing the similar usage of water on the subject.

    On September 6, 2006, the United States Department of Defense released a revised Army Field Manual entitled Human Intelligence Collector Operations that prohibits the use of waterboarding by U.S. military personnel. The department adopted the manual amid widespread criticism of U.S. handling of prisoners in the War on Terrorism, and prohibits other practices in addition to waterboarding. The revised manual applies only to U.S. military personnel, and as such does not apply to the practices of the CIA. However, under international law, violators of the laws of war are criminally liable under the command responsibility, and could still be prosecuted for war crimes.

    November 2, 2007 08:42 pm at 8:42 pm |
  6. Mike, Cleveland, OH

    john williams san diego, ca

    Rush Limbaugh designated him "Leaky Leahy" after Leahy disclosed a top secret communications intercept during a 1985 television interview. The information released by Leahy was not classified and it was determined there was no ethical or criminal violation

    John Chicago

    Democratic senators used the filibuster to block 10 of Bush's 229 first-term judicial nominees. At the same time, the Republican-controlled Senate blocked up-or-down votes on 60 Clinton nominees and in most cases, even denied them hearings and committee votes.


    November 2, 2007 09:13 pm at 9:13 pm |
  7. erika morgan black dimond wa

    Thank You Leahy, finally some reason prevailing in DC.

    Now we need you to take your conviction to your colleagues and convince them, that if a guy can't decide what side of the water-board the USAG needs to be on, and just where the USAG needs to stand on who must conduct himself within the "Law", there can be no place for him in government period. Then please call up the DECIDER and let him know that you need a candidate post haste who will have zero ambiguity about these matters of settled law.

    November 2, 2007 11:45 pm at 11:45 pm |
  8. Robb, New York


    Sorry for the delay. Haven't been on since my last post on this topic. I understand where you're coming from, but let's face it– Mukasey is the closest thing to the kind of nominee the far-left Democrats in the Senate want. Somebody mentioned it in an earlier comment to this blog– if Mukasey's nomination is not approved, it would open the door for another backdoor nomination, possibly during the Christmas break. And if that happens, we'll be stuck with another neocon crony in the Justice Department who will DEFINITELY do Bush's bidding. He did it with John Bolton in the UN, and I wouldn't doubt it for a second that he would repeat that little endaround.

    You may not like Mukasey's responses to the questioning, but responses to questions posed by the Judiciary Committee alone shouldn't be the be-all end-all for an AG nominee. Mukasey, as Chuck Schumer said, has a reputation that he puts "the rule of law first." I don't think that's going to change.

    Ashcroft was a neocon crony. Gonzales was a definite neocon crony. There's not much in Mukasey's record that suggests that he would follow in his predecessor's footsteps. So let's give him the benefit of the doubt and confirm him. As I stated before, he won't be in power for long anyway. On January 20, 2009, the country will get a new AG and a fresh start... hopefully.

    November 3, 2007 08:48 pm at 8:48 pm |


    November 6, 2007 03:44 pm at 3:44 pm |
1 2