Attorney General
Two Newspapers, Two Different Views of Michael Mukasey
Posted Mar 31, 2008, 09:57 am CDT
By Debra Cassens Weiss
Two very different views of Attorney General Michael Mukasey emerged in recent editorials by the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times.
The Wall Street Journal calls the former judge, who is experienced in terrorism trials, “an attorney general worthy of the current moment.” Mukasey is backing legislation that would authorize continued warrantless surveillance of overseas terrorism suspects.
Mukasey said in a recent speech that a wiretap could have revealed more information about a call placed from a safe house in Afghanistan to the United States before the Sept. 11 attacks. “We've got 3,000 people who went to work that day, and didn't come home, to show for that," he said.
Mukasey said he has learned through national security briefings that the terrorist threat is real. “It is way beyond—way beyond anything that I knew or believed,” he said. “So, if I was picked for the level of my knowledge … that was a massive piece of false advertising."
The Journal editorial says critics may dismiss Mukasey’s talk as “fear-mongering, but most Americans will want to make sure we don't miss the next terror call.”
The New York Times, on the other hand, said Mukasey’s decision to disband a public corruption unit in Los Angeles “looks like business as usual.” Among the politicians under investigation by the office was U.S. Rep. Jerry Lewis, a Republican. Lewis, once the chairman of the appropriations committee, was being investigated for ties to a lobbying firm and earmarks to its clients. Lewis has denied wrongdoing.
The Times editorial says questions are being raised, and rightly so, about whether politics influenced the decision to disband the unit in the U.S. Attorney's office.
In the speech last week, Mukasey said “disbanded” is the wrong word to describe the changes in the prosecution office, the Recorder (sub. req.) reports. Lawyers in the public corruption unit will be moved to the office’s major fraud and organized crime sections. Mukasey said better words to describe the change are “energize" or "reorganize."
Related Stories
- N.Y. Gov Signs New Pension Law to Rein In Renegade Gov’t Legal Advisers
Oct 13, 2008, 05:59 pm CDT - Bomb Scare at Lieff Cabraser
Oct 13, 2008, 04:56 pm CDT - Law Students Pursue Securities Cases for Small Investors
Oct 13, 2008, 02:04 pm CDT - Trial Delay Sought for Non-Lawyer Who Allegedly ‘Practiced’ for a Decade
Oct 13, 2008, 01:39 pm CDT
Related Topics
Commenting has expired on this post.
Comments
Posted by David - 6 months, 2 weeks, 3 hours, 43 minutes ago
The Times has got the wrong spin on Mukasey and the “disbanded” public corruption unit in Los Angeles. The Times has always been in bed with the moneyed interests with which their own corporate interests are align, i.e. certain hedge funds, certain law firms, and their relations. The truth is that the LA “public corruption” unit has done nothing to fight corruption, and in fact was engaged in efforts to silence and suppress whistle-blowers in a number of obvious instances of organized crime involving law firms and current and alumni attorneys at the DOJ. http://fraud-corruption-mnat.blogtownhall.com/
The remaining questions are whether the DOJ will be willing to prosecute their own current and alumni lawyers as they pursue crimes involving Oaktree Capital and law firms such as Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnel (MNAT). Another question is if the full force of the RICO laws will be used.