webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

Mukasey Michael B

Mukasey was the chief advisor to Rudy Giuliani

 oops see hon

RULE OF LAW? TARIFFS?

---

AN 6 25

Countless Democrats are vehemently critical of the steep tariffs that President Donald Trump is imposing on the United States' trading partners, warning that a variety of imported goods are going to get a lot more expensive in the months ahead. But criticism is coming from parts of the right as well, including some conservative and libertarian legal scholars.

According to New York Times legal reporter Adam Liptak, a friend-of-the-court brief submitted back in April laid out right-wing concerns about Trump's trade policy.

Those who signed the brief, which was filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade, included, among others, Steven G. Calabresi, who was a founder of the Federalist Society in the early 1980s; former U.S. Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey; and Richard Epstein, a libertarian legal scholar at New York University. The brief, Liptak reports, was prepared by Michael W. McConnell, who now teaches at Stanford Law School in California and is an ex-federal appeals court judge appointed by former President George W. Bush.

READ MORE: 'This is MAGA': Outrage as Joni Ernst turns 'we're all going to die' non-apology into a twofer

Epstein told the Times, "You have to understand that the conservative movement is now, as an intellectual movement, consistently anti-Trump on most issues."

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

Some liberals and progressives, according to Liptak, signed the brief as well, including Yale University law professor Harold Koh. But much of the participation came from the right.

Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University in Virginia, told the Times, "The brief unites big-name constitutional law scholars across the political spectrum in a way I have rarely seen. I never would have expected to see Richard Epstein, Steve Calabresi and Harold Koh all on the same brief on a major issue. But here they are, together, opposing 'taxation by proclamation.' Donald Trump brought them together."

One of the brief's main criticisms of Trump's trade policy is that he carrying it out by executive order and failing to get Congress' input.

READ MORE:'It has no spine': Reagan official blasts Congress for enabling Trump's abuse of power

The brief read, "The powers to tax, to regulate commerce and to shape the nation's economic course must remain with Congress. They cannot drift silently into the hands of the president through inertia, inattention or creative readings of statutes never meant to grant such authority. That conviction is not partisan. It is constitutional. And it strikes at the heart of this case."

READ MORE:Three lawsuits confirm that Kansas Republicans concocted menacing attacks on civil rights

*Read Adam Liptak's full New York Times article at this link (subscription required).

---

an 5 24

special counsel Jack Smith's federal Mar-a-Lago documents case against former President Donald Trump has run into a long list of obstacles.

Judge Aileen Cannon has repeatedly delayed the case — which is on hold indefinitely and appears unlikely to go to trial before the November election. And the Florida-based Trump appointee has forcefully rejected Smith's request to impose a limited gag order against Trump, unlike Judge Tanya Chutkan in Smith's election interference case.

One of the arguments that some of Trump's allies have been making is that Smith's appointment as special counsel was illegally made by U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland — a claim Smith has slammed as nonsense. And former Attorney General Michael Mukasey is now expressing his views on the matter in the Mar-a-Lago documents case.

READ MORE: **'Hangable offense': MAGA fans inspired by Trump’s 'rhetoric' call for judges to be 'executed'**

Law & Crime's Matt Naham reports, "U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, on Wednesday, (May 29), granted an unopposed motion to add Michael Mukasey, the 81st U.S. attorney general who served during George W. Bush's presidency, as an amicus curiae. In a Tuesday motion for leave to join a group of existing amici, Mukasey asserted his time and experience as attorney general will aid Cannon as she considers the former president's motion to dismiss the Espionage Act case on unlawful appointment grounds."

Naham notes that some of Trump's supporters are claiming that Smith should have been confirmed by the U.S. Senate before he could act as a special counsel for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). And Smith has countered that the same argument was used against former special counsel Robert Mueller during the Russia probe and rejected.

"Trump's lawyers have argued, as Hunter Biden's separately have, that the special counsel was unlawfully appointed and funded, claiming that Smith is a 'principal officer' whose appointment by U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland required confirmation by the U.S. Senate," the Law & Crime reporter explains. "But these same arguments were raised during Mueller's Russia investigation and lost time and again, as courts ruled the special counsel is an 'inferior officer' who doesn’t need to be confirmed by the Senate and still answers to the U.S. attorney general."

Smith has noted that "under governing authority," a DOJ special counsel is an "inferior officer" who may be appointed by an attorney general and is "subject to supervision and oversight" by that person.

READ MORE:['Mother Theresa could not beat these charges': Trump not confident about jury deliberations

*Read Law & Crime's full report at this link.

---

trump scotus immunity amicus

DAILY BEAST no lnx $

TRUMPLANDsubvertical orientation badge

The Unhinged Arguments the Supreme Court Is Fielding on Trump Immunity

BUNKER MENTALITY

“Friend of the court” arguments are coming from across the political spectrum—and are showing the potential consequences of siding with Trump on immunity.

Jose Pagliery

Political Investigations Reporter

Published Mar. 30, 2024

Retired American generals vehemently say that no, Donald Trump cannot deploy SEAL Team 6 to kill a political rival. Gun groups howl that the United States is turning into Communist China. And a convicted Jan. 6 rioter warns that President Joe Biden could someday get sued over the death of a jogger in Georgia.

These are among the 18 various groups that shared their wisdom with the Supreme Court earlier this month, filing amicus briefs on the same day that Trump told the high court why he should be able to dodge a federal prosecution for trying to overturn the 2020 election on false pretenses.

Department of Justice Special Counsel Jack Smith’s election interference case against Trump has finally reached the nation’s highest judicial authority, which will determine whether the business tycoon can be put on trial. The timing of the nine justices’ eventual decision will determine if the presumptive 2024 Republican presidential nominee is to face trial in court before Election Day in November.

But ahead of oral arguments next month, the Supreme Court is already getting inundated with all kinds of opinions about the main question in the case: whether a former president enjoys immunity for actions made while at the White House.

The Daily Beast reviewed the litany of uninvited legal arguments spanning 599 pages, ranging from breathless reiterations of Trump’s claims to head-turning warnings. Yet all bear the signs of a historic case that could determine the fate of the election, if not American democracy.

The most unusual and unexpected amicus brief comes from three former high-ranking military leaders: Retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, who served as Trump’s own acting national security adviser; Robert Wilkie, who served as Trump’s Veterans Affairs Department secretary; and retired Lt. Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin, who once led the Army’s elite commandos in Delta Force and Green Berets.

The three former military men felt it necessary to join together and address—in public and at the national level—one of the crazier Trump legal arguments: that Trump’s immunity from criminal prosecution is so beyond question that it would allow him to order the assassination of his political enemies.

“No—the president cannot order SEAL Team Six to assassinate his political rival and have the military carry out such an order,” they clarified, marking the first time former military leadership has ever had to utter such a phrase in court.

The trio went further, pointing out that a Reagan-era executive order already prohibits anyone acting on behalf of the United States government from taking part in an assassination. They dedicated a significant portion of their 18-page court filing to making clear that military officers would be legally justified in refusing to even carry out an official order from their commander-in-chief, an assertion rarely made by military brass—and one that underlies just how stark their concerns are at this point.

“That a person is a political rival of the president is neither a justification nor an excuse for an unlawful killing. And deliberately carrying out an order to murder such a person would be acting upon a premeditated design to kill or an intent to kill. Therefore, any officer engaged in murder on the orders of a president would be subject to the death penalty or life in prison—and the officer would know it,” they wrote.

Meanwhile, the vast majority of the other amici curiae—the so-called “friends of the court” who weighed in to give the Supreme Court their two cents—largely sided with Trump.

The right-wing nonprofit America’s Future—which screened a bonkers QAnon Hollywood conspiracy “documentary” at Mar-a-Lago earlier this week—joined forces with Gun Owners of America and similar firearms associations to warn the high court that Smith’s prosecution was making the United States look more like China, Russia, or Zimbabwe.

“The prosecution of President Trump by the Biden Administration has a parallel to a recent event in Communist China,” they wrote, recalling the way former Chinese President Hu Jintao has vanished from public view ever since he was mysteriously escorted out of a public ceremony where he had been sitting next to his successor, Xi Jinping.

The United States is heading down that same route, they warned, lamenting “the explosion of lawfare” aimed at Trump for doing what they deemed totally sensible political speech—an argument that rests, in part, on the gun-toting petitioners’ continued rejection of the 2020 election results. They referenced Trump’s “supposed” defeat in Arizona and Georgia.

The real danger here, though, is that while Trump is currently polling strong, the gun groups concede that “the effect of a conviction may be very different and could determine the outcome of the election.”

But it wasn’t the conglomeration of Second Amendment enthusiasts that made a veiled threat over the high court decision. That came from an Alabama electrical engineer who’s become a political financier.

In his court filing, Shaun McCutcheon describes himself as “a successful, self-made American businessman and constitutional patriot.” And he warned Supreme Court justices that the country’s MAGA loyalists aren’t going to suddenly start trusting the U.S. court system to select fair-minded jurors.

“The former President’s tens of millions of supporters cannot reasonably be expected to accept the typical legal fictions of voir dire under such extreme circumstances,” his lawyer wrote.

McCutcheon assigns malicious intent to the Special Counsel’s decision to indict Trump in the largely liberal District of Columbia—never mind that the U.S. Constitution’s Sixth Amendment ensures that a person will be subjected to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury drawn from the district where his alleged crime was committed, which in this case was the White House.

“A prosecutor appointed by a partisan presidential appointee of the opposing political party may prosecute a former president in a hand-picked venue deeply hostile to that former president, his beliefs, political expression, and legacy,” his lawyer wrote.

While the Supreme Court received various interpretations of presidential immunity that cast the Special Counsel’s investigations as a severe threat to the functions of the commander-in-chief’s job, the sharpest example came from someone who knows a thing or two about Trump’s insurrection.

In his brief, Treniss Evans argued that if Trump can be put on trial for allegedly masterminding a months-long and multi-pronged attack on U.S. democracy, then President Biden could be held personally responsible for the death in February of Georgia nursing student Laken Riley, given that an allegedly undocumented Venezuelan man was arrested for her killing.

“If a President doesn’t have immunity from prosecution for his actions, what prevents Georgia murder victim Laken Riley’s family from suing Joe Biden for allowing her illegal migrant murderer into the USA? Or what if hundreds of families all sued, seriatim?” his lawyer wrote, using the Latin phrase that means “one-by-one.”

Evans made the filing through his “legal advocacy group,” which bears the emotionally charged name Condemned USA. He trivialized Trump’s 2020 election fraud claims, but then went on to assert that Trump and his followers can’t possibly be accused of trying to stop certification of the election with a violent riot because technically Jan. 6, 2021, was just the official counting of the already certified votes before Congress.

The Supreme Court justices will get the sense that this topic is deeply personal for Evans. After all, his brief says right up top that “Mr. Evans has been investigating and reporting events of January 6th since January 6th, 2021. He was present at the Capitol on that day.”

In reality, he was in the violent crowd, held a bullhorn, and entered the Capitol—only to be identified by a Facebook tipster, arrested in Texas two months after the insurrection, and eventually sentenced to three years’ probation. To convince the federal judge to go easy on him, his other lawyer wrote that “Mr. Evans is quite self-reproving, sincerely remorseful, and duly contrite. He is embarrassed of this criminal conduct and the shame he has brought upon himself and his family. He has entered his plea of guilty voluntarily.”

But his March 19 brief before the Supreme Court doesn’t exactly hint at that remorse, nor does it morph into any critique of the man who called on him and others to show up that day and march on the Capitol Building.

Yet another legal advocacy firm asked the Supreme Court to give even more deference to Trump for the actions that led up to the disaster at the tail end of his presidency. The Christian Family Coalition Florida, a conservative Miami group that recently lent its support to Gov. Ron DeSantis’ crackdown on transgender kids in girls’ sports teams, reduced Trump’s election interference efforts to merely “core political speech.” And it would give future politicians carte blanche to lie—and follow through with those lies—regardless of their claim’s merit.

“For the sake of the presidency and the nation, criminal liability cannot turn on a mere factual dispute over whether an ex-president’s communications in challenging an election were ‘knowingly false,’” a lawyer for the group wrote.

In this Trump case, justices also heard from a favorite villain of the American progressive movement: Citizens United, the nonprofit behind the Supreme Court’s 2010 landmark decision that opened the door to having corporations spend unlimited funds on elections.

The group joined with two former U.S. Attorneys General: the Reagan administration’s Edwin Meese III, and the George W. Bush administration’s Michael B. Mukasey. Together, they tried to strip the current team of federal prosecutors going after Trump from any legitimacy.

They argued that Smith “wields tremendous power, effectively answerable to no one, by design.” And they contend that’s something he can’t do without the Senate’s confirmation. Instead, they say, AG Merrick Garland should have taken the same approach he did with the separate Hunter Biden investigation and tap an existing, Senate-confirmed federal prosecutor in charge of a regional office, like Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss.

The two conservative former AGs and the nonprofit also claim that most cabinet officials have the authority to appoint officers—minus the Justice Department, a proposition that would give the heads of Agriculture, Education and Homeland Security departments more leeway than the nation’s attorney general. And they warn that Garland’s actions could “create by regulation an entire shadow Department of Justice.”

But leave it to a consortium of 18 state attorneys general—all pro-Trump Republicans led by Alabama AG Steve Marshall—to make the one point everyone can probably agree on.

“If he had not been president, none of this would be happening,” they wrote.

Political Investigations Reporter

@Jose_Pagliery

jose.pagliery@thedailybeast.com

---

May 18, 2016

Steve Milloy was a signatory to a full page color advertisement in The New York Times titled “Abuse of Power” (PDF) sponsored by The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). The ad serves as an open letter from 43 signatories including organizations and individuals in response to New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker, and the coalition of Attorneys General investigating groups denying man-made climate change.[38],[39]

“Attempts to intimidate CEI and our allies and silence our policy research are unconstitutional,” said CEI president Kent Lassman. “The First Amendment protects us and everyone has a duty to respect it – even state attorneys general. CEI will continue to fight for all Americans to support the causes in which they believe.” [38]

The Competitive Enterprise Institute received a subpoena from AG Walker on April 7, 2016. On April 20, CEI filed an objection to the subpoena calling it “offensive,” “un-American,” and “unlawful,” and are contending that AG Walker is “violating CEI’s First Amendment rights.” [38]

The “freedom of speech” argument was echoed by ExxonMobil's legal team, as well as numerous other conservative groups including the Pacific Legal Foundation, and Heritage Foundation and the recently-formed Free Speech in Science Project, a group created by the same lawyers who defended the Competitive Enterprise Institute in the past. [40]

The CEI letter lists the following signatories:

September 1, 2015

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Michael_Mukasey

Michael B. Mukasey was nominated September 17, 2007, by President George W. Bush to be Attorney General of the United States.[1] He was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on November 8, 2007, to replace Alberto R. Gonzales, who resigned August 27, 2007.[2][3]

Mukasey, then chief judge for the Southern District of New York, re-joined his former law firm, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler, as a senior partner in September 2006.[4]

Mukasey, who was nominated by President Ronald Reagan in 1987 to the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York, "presided over the trial of the terrorist known as 'the Blind Sheikh,' and his co-defendants in the conspiracy to destroy prominent New York City landmarks, including bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993."[1]

Contents [hide]

Positions and record

Federal judgeship

Mukasey was appointed by President Ronald Reagan as a judge for the U.S. District Court in Manhattan and served on the bench from 1987 - 2006. He was chief judge from 2000 - 2006.[5] He presided over the trial and conviction of 10 militant Muslims who for plotting to blow up the United Nations building and other New York City landmarks in 1995.[6]

Allowed detention of U.S. citizen without criminal charges

Mukasey was the first judge to rule on the case of Jose Padilla after his arrest.[7] The government accused Padilla researching a scheme to build a "dirty bomb" (a conventional explosive that spreads radioactive matter) in Pakistan and then stealing radioactive material in the U.S. to build it. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said that the government's primary interest in detaining Padilla was to gain information to prevent terrorist attacks.[8]

Support for torture policies

As a judge, in October 2001 Mukasey "dismissed concerns by a 21-year old Jordanian immigrant that he had been beaten while in U.S. custody, leaving bruises that were hidden beneath his orange prison jumpsuit."[9] "'As far as the claim that he was beaten, I will tell you that he looks fine to me,' said Judge Mukasey."[10]

Newsweek's Michael Isikoff reported in the October 1, 2007, issue that three sources said that Mukasey, in "a series of private meetings arranged by chief of staff Josh Bolten prior to the nomination... reassured top  [conservative ] hard-liners, such as Federalist Society executive Leonard Leo and former A.G. Edwin Meese" that he supported Bush administration's War on Terror policies:

"Mukasey said that he saw 'significant problems' with shutting down Guantánamo Bay and that he understood the need for the CIA to use some 'enhanced' interrogation techniques against Qaeda suspects. Mukasey also signaled reluctance with naming a special prosecutor to investigate Bush-administration misconduct, according to one participant."[11]

"Terror trials hurt the nation even when they lead to convictions."

In an August 22, 2007, Wall Street Journal op-ed, Mukasey[12] "argues that 'Terror trials hurt the nation even when they lead to convictions'," ArgusRun wrote inThe Daily Kos.[13] "Not because they involve detainees who have been tortured or mistreated, or secret information not available to the defense. No, this respected jurist does not care about the damage done to the rule of law or our constitutional protections. Rather, he is terrified that the trials give valuable information to the terrorists."

"Mukasey is obviously just what the Justice Department needs to restore Americans' confidence in their legal system: A judge who does not have confidence in our legal system," Argus Run commented.[13]

Defended Patriot Act

In a 2004 speech, Mukasey defended the USA PATRIOT Act:

"I think one would have to concede that the USA Patriot Act has an awkward, even Orwellian, name, which is one of those Washington acronyms derived by calling the law 'Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Interrupt and Obstruct Terrorism.' You get the impression they started with the acronym first, and then offered a $50 savings bond to whoever could come up with a name to fit. Without offering my view on any case or controversy, current or future, I think that that awkward name may very well be the worst thing about the statute."[14]

Close ties to Giuliani

Defense of Giuliani's tough tactics used in Mafia trials

Michael Mukasey was "an assistant U.S. attorney and head of the official corruption unit" when Rudolph W. Giuliani was U.S. Attorney in New York. "To prepare for trials, Giuliani practiced his cross-examinations on Mukasey, who would portray the witness."[15]

In 1985, when Mukasey was U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Giuliani "was coming under intense criticism for his aggressive tactics in prosecuting organized crime, including his use of mass trials, his habit of holding defendants without bail and his practice of subpoenaing defense lawyers to testify at their clients' grand jury hearings, which lawyers argued was a violation of client confidentiality.

"Springing to Giuliani's defense was a former colleague, Michael B. Mukasey, who argued in a strongly worded opinion piece that Giuliani's tough tactics were justified to defeat an enemy that, he said, was far more dangerous and powerful than Giuliani's critics were willing to acknowledge," Alec MacGillis reported September 18, 2007, in the Washington Post.[16]

Swore Giuliani in as NYC Mayor

On January 2, 1994, Judge Michael Mukasy swore in now Republican 2008 presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani as Mayor of New York City.[17]

"When Giuliani was elected mayor of New York in 1993 and 1997, Judge Mukasey presided at his friend's swearing-in. In fact, one of the ceremonies was held at Mukasey's own Manhattan apartment."[15]

Mukasey and son affiliated with Giuliani campaign

Both Mukasey and his son, Marc L. Mukasey, were named on July 16, 2007, as members of Giuliani's 2008 campaign Justice Advisory Committee.[18]

Son in Giuliani's Firm which defends Verizon; Possible Conflict of Interest on FISA

Marc Mukasey is a partner in Giuliani's law firm, Bracewell & Giuliani (as of November 2007).[19] According to the Village Voice, October 30th 2007 "Verizon is a prime client of Bracewell & Giuliani"[20]. This has also been mentioned on Keith Olbermann's Countdown [21]

Political campaign donations

In 2007, Mukasey has made political campaign donations to only one candidate: Rudy Giuliani.[22]

Mukasey's involvement with tobacco

This article is part of theTobacco portal on Sourcewatch funded from 2006 - 2009 by theAmerican Legacy Foundation. Help expose the truth about thetobacco industry.

Cite error: tags exist, but notag was found

Cite error:  tags exist, but no  tag was found

On April 8, 1996, "U.S. District Judge Michael Mukasey reversed his earlier dismissal of a suit brought againstPhilip Morris Companies, Inc. by disgruntled stockholders. Plaintiffs produced new evidence concerning the cigarette manufacturer's knowledge of nicotine's addictive properties to persuade Mukasey to issue the new Opinion and Order."[23]

According to a motion filed in the above mentioned shareholder suits arguing that Judge Mukasey should recuse himself from the case, "In a status conference on May 9, 1994, the Honorable Michael B . Mukasey informed plaintiffs' and defendants' counsel that in his previous work as a private attorney he represented tobacco companies in defense of smoker litigation."[24]

Mukasey's nomination for Attorney General

Refusal to condemn waterboarding

In response to a question from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) of whether waterboarding was constitutional, Mukasey answered, ""If waterboarding is torture... torture is not Constitutional." When pressed on whether waterboarding was torture, Mukasey only answered, "If it amounts to torture, then it is not Constitutional." (video)[25]

Schumer and Feinstein finally showed support for Mukasey

Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) announced on November 2, 2007, that they decided to side with the White House in voting to send the nomination of Mukasey as attorney general to the Senate floor. “I believe that Judge Mukasey is the best we will get and voting him down would only perpetuate acting and recess appointments, allowing the administration to avoid the transparency that confirmation hearings provide and diminish effective oversight by Congress,” said Feinstein. While Schumer was torn on the nomination after recommending Mukasey, five committee Democrats, including all four senators seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and other Democrats, due to his stand on a waterboarding ban, put Mukasey’s nomination in jeopardy. But with the support of Schumer and Feinstein, along with the nine Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, Mukasey will more than likely have enough votes for his nomination to be sent to the floor as well as backing for confirmation. [26]

Nomination approved by Senate

With the approval of six democrats, one independent, and a united Republican caucus, the senate confirmed Michael Mukasey as attorney general with a 53-40 vote. A hot-button issue in determining this vote, which was predicted to endure a filibuster or a delay till Thanksgiving recess, was the waterboarding issue and whether or not Mukasey thought that it constitutes illegal torture under U.S. laws. Many questioned his capabilities as the attorney general if he could not come up with a clear legal answer for this issue. However, he argued that he had not been briefed on the specifics of CIA interrogation techniques. “After the longest confirmation process in nearly 20 years, the Senate has finally voted to confirm Judge Mukasey as attorney general,” said Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), who chairs the Senate GOP Conference. “The Department of Justice has a vital role to play in the war against Islamic terrorists, and it is critically important that it have a leader who can ensure that it fulfills its mission. Judge Mukasey is this kind of leader.” [27]

Resources

Related SourceWatch articles

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 "President Bush Announces Judge Michael Mukasey as Nominee for Attorney General," Office of the White House Press Secretary, September 17, 2007.
  2. ↑ "Mukasey Confirmed As Attorney General" by Laurie Kellman. Associated Press. Nov. 9, 2007.
  3. ↑ Gonzales' resignation letter dated August 26, 2007, posted by TPMmuckraker, August 27, 2007.
  4. ↑ Peter Lattman, "Judge Michael Mukasey to Join Patterson Belknap," Wall Street Journal, July 21, 2006.
  5. ↑ "Judges of the United States Courts," Federal Justice Center.
  6. ↑ "And the Next A.G. Will Be...," The Peacetrain, August 30, 2007.
  7. ↑ "And the Next A.G. Will Be...," The Peacetrain, August 30, 2007.
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 Phil Hirschkorn, "U.S. can hold 'dirty bomb' suspect. Judge allows attorney access for Padilla," CNN, December 10, 2002. See also Bernard Hibbitts, "'Dirty bomber' access to counsel ruling," Jurist, March 11, 2003; "'Dirty bomb' suspect to get lawyer," BBC News, March 11, 2003.
  9. ↑ *Think Fast*, Think Progress, September 24, 2007.
  10. ↑ Philip Shenon, "Post-9/11 Cases Fuel Criticism for Nominee," New York Times, September 24, 2007.
  11. ↑ Michael Isikoff, "Justice: Grilling a Bush Pick," Newsweek, October 1, 2007 (issue) and "Mukasey signals support for torture," Think Progress, September 24, 2007.
  12. ↑ Michael B. Mukasey, "Jose Padilla Makes Bad Law. Terror trials hurt the nation even when they lead to convictions," OpinionJournal, August 22, 2007.
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 ArgusRun, "Who is Michael Mukasey?" The Daily Kos, September 15, 2007.
  14. ↑ Peter Lattman, "Seven Things to Know About Michael Mukasey," Wall Street Journal, September 17, 2007.
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 Jennifer O'Shea, "10 Things You Didn't Know About Michael Mukasey," US News & World Report, September 17, 2007.
  16. ↑ Alec MacGillis, "Giuliani-Mukasey Ties Go Back Decades," Washington Post, September 18, 2007.
  17. ↑ Associated Press photo by Mark Lennihan, Netscape.
  18. ↑ "Rudy Giuliani Campaign Unveils Justice Advisory Committee," JoinRudy2008.com, July 16, 2007.
  19. ↑ Profile: Marc L. Mukasey, Bracewell & Giuliani.
  20. ↑ http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0744,barrett,78212,6.html/2
  21. ↑ http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/01/31/countdown-special-comment-on-fisa-and-telecom-immunity/
  22. ↑ Judiciary Political Donations: Michael Mukasey, NewsMeat.
  23. ↑ "Disgruntled Shareholders Given Go-Ahead to Sue," CourtTV.com Legal Documents.
  24. ↑ [http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/cco76c00 William Steiner, Plaintiff, Against Philip Morris Companies, Inc., Defendants, 94 CIV 2372 (MBM). Jerry King, Plaintiff. Plaintiff's memorandum of law in support of their motion for recusal of United States District Judge Michael B. Mukasey, June 23, 1994, Smith JG, Starr Z, Zola NL.
  25. ↑ Paul Kiel, "Is Waterboarding Torture? Mukasey: Yes, if It's Torture," TPMMuckraker.com, Oct. 18, 2007.
  26. ↑ Manu Raju, "Schumer and Feinstein to side with White House on Mukasey," The Hill, November 2, 2007.
  27. ↑ Manu Raju, "Senate approves Mukasey nomination," The Hill, November 9, 2007.

Profiles

External articles

1997-2003
2007

Categories: 

Attachments