Press Conference With Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) Subject: President Bush's Nomination of Michael Mukasey for U.S. Attorney General
Interview
PRESS CONFERENCE WITH SENATOR CHARLES SCHUMER (D-NY)
SUBJECT: PRESIDENT BUSH'S NOMINATION OF MICHAEL MUKASEY FOR U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Copyright ©2007 by Federal News Service, Inc., Ste. 500, 1000 Vermont Ave, Washington, DC 20005 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service at www.fednews.com, please email Jack Graeme at jack@fednews.com or call 1-800-211-4020.
SEN. SCHUMER: Okay, good morning. Good morning, everybody. And okay -- I'll have a statement and then I'll take some questions.
Well, first, I wish you all good morning. Welcome back. And I want to say a few words about the nomination of Judge Michael Mukasey for attorney general. While perhaps Judge Mukasey is not the person we would have chosen, selecting the next attorney general is not our choice to make. The president is a conservative, and any pick, naturally, would be a conservative. Most of the other names that were reportedly under consideration would have represented more of the same from the White House; more obstinacy, more opaqueness, more politicization of the uppermost echelons of our nation's law enforcement.
This selection has meaning beyond the resume of the man selected. For once, the president did not choose the path of most resistance. It gives hope that the final year-and-a-half of this Bush administration may bring less of a go-it-alone attitude than the first six.
There are questions we will have for Judge Mukasey to make sure he is the right captain for a ship that has taken on way too much water under the leadership of Alberto Gonzales. We will, of course, all have to do our homework and learn a few things about him. But here is what we know right now. Judge Mukasey is not a crony of the president, he is not a White House insider. That's a good sign. Second, he has a reputation for being a smart and careful lawyer and for putting the law first. That is also a good sign. Third, Judge Mukasey has a reputation for integrity and that is the most important thing right now.
Make no mistake about it. I and my colleagues will have tough questions for him, especially when it comes to his views on warrantless wiretapping, on what kind of cooperation we can expect on the U.S. attorney investigation, on how to improve the situation in the civil rights division, and many other issues. But we should all remember that Judge Mukasey is better than many of the other names who were considered top contenders just last week.
With respect to the turmoil that has been all too common at the Justice Department of late, I hope that this nomination is a sign that the White House will quickly reach agreement on providing documents and witnesses in connection with our investigation.
I urge Fred Fielding to sit down immediately with Chairman Leahy and work that out; the sooner, the better. That is what would be best for the investigation and it would assure a much less bumpy confirmation process. I also want to say that I have spoken with Judge Mukasey this morning. As a fellow New Yorker, I congratulated him on the honor of the nomination. I told him personally that I plan to ask him some tough questions and that I'd like to see the White House satisfy Chairman Leahy's requests for documents and that I look forward to better understanding his views on issues such as wiretapping, the appointments of U.S. attorneys and the boundaries of executive power. It is my hope that Judge Mukasey's responses to the concerns that my colleagues and I have will make him the consensus choice of the Senate.
Ready for your questions.
Q (Off mike.) Does the White House's providing documents or reaching agreements -- (inaudible) -- preconditions for the Senate moving --
SEN. SCHUMER: Well, let me say this; Chairman Leahy has concerns shared by all the members of the Judiciary Committee that we get these documents.
The White House has stonewalled and stonewalled and stonewalled when it comes to documents that we're entitled to, but the nomination of Judge Mukasey certainly shows a new attitude in the White House. Instead of simply throwing down the gauntlet, they're trying to meet us part of the way in choosing someone, who by reputation and in his career, has shown fidelity to rule of law above conservative politics. And, therefore, it's my hope that the White House change in attitude will continue in the area of documents.
Last night, when Fred Fielding called me up and told me it would be Judge Mukasey, I suggested to him that he quickly sit down with Senator Leahy -- with Chairman Leahy, and try to satisfy Chairman Leahy's concerns.
And I'm hopeful that will happen and that we can move forward on the process.
Q Senator, has the goodwill been restored enough to inspire the Democrats perhaps to meet the White House halfway? In other words, by -- (off mike) -- easing up on some of your demands -- (off mike) --
SEN. SCHUMER: Well, you know, I said this all along when it came to the investigation, that if there's a new attorney general, obviously things are different. For instance, I called for a special counsel to look into whether Judge Gonzales committed perjury. Now, that's when he was attorney general. There'd be a conflict if you didn't have a special counsel, but now he is no longer attorney general.
We have a nominee who, again, has shown fidelity to rule of law. We have an inspector-general that is proceeding along who is independent and no longer has the subject of his investigation officially on -- you know, up his chain of command. And so I'm hopeful that all of this can change and happen.
But yes, of course, we know that Judge Mukasey doesn't agree with our views on a whole lot of different issues. We know that, and that is not a gamestopper. And obviously, you know, we'll want to question him, because rule of law is important regardless of political considerations, regardless of the balance of security and liberty. But yeah, I think this is -- here's how I would put the attitude of my colleagues and I on the Democratic side, on the Judiciary Committee. We're open-minded and we're hopeful, but there's going to be a lot that has to happen.
Okay you're -- one, two.
Q Is there some concern whether -- obviously Majority Leader Reid put the statement out about Ted Olson last week. This is a different type of nominee.
You seem to be impressed with what the White House has done to a degree here. Is there concern, though, when the committee and Pat Leahy and others push on documents regarding domestic spying and U.S. attorneys and so on, that Democrats could overplay their hand on this?
SEN. SCHUMER: Well, again, you know, the new attitude of the White House shown by the Mukasey nomination means that confrontation should not be in the front of anybody's mind right now. Obviously -- I mean, there are legitimate concerns about these documents. I've had them; Chairman Leahy has led the charge on them, and we're not dropping those concerns. But hopefully, yes, there can be a sit-down where an agreement is reached, maybe as part and parcel, to the Mukasey confirmation, because they are all related because he's going to be in charge. And we're hopeful, as I said.
Q Would you be willing, though, to meet privately with some of the people to see, like Karl Rove and others --
SEN. SCHUMER: You know, I'm not going to get into the negotiating -- the negotiations specifically right here. I am saying that at least in the nomination of attorney general, hardly a trifling matter, the White House has shown a new and different attitude.
I mean, until a few days ago, I thought they'd nominate Ted Olson. And Ted Olson is a bright man. He's a smart man. But he in a Justice Department that had become perhaps the most political ever, certainly since John Mitchell -- they were appointing someone who was leading the charge on all those political battles. That would have been a sign of bad faith.
This is a sign of good faith. It doesn't mean we're there yet, and there's a lot that has to be played out. But as I said, hopeful, open-minded.
Yeah.
Q But Senator, if they're not more accommodating, are you prepared to make scheduling a nomination hearing contingent on release of documents?
SEN. SCHUMER: Okay. Let me just say again, I think that to hasten an attitude of confrontation, when the White House has taken a step forward, would be a mistake, and I don't think Chairman Leahy or any member of the committee has that attitude. We'd like them to meet our legitimate concerns.
And as I suggested to Counsel Fielding last night -- he sit down with Chairman Leahy and try to work that out as quickly as possible, and hopefully, that can happen.
Q Senator, two quick questions. Do you see this confirmation hearing, though, as a forum for Democrats to shine a light on some of the policies in the Department of Justice that you simply don't like? And secondly, if you look on the conservative blogs -- (off mike) -- conservatives, the very first reaction was, oh, my gosh, the only thing we can find when we Google the judge's name is praise from Chuck Schumer. And that --
SEN. SCHUMER: Well, then, they're not very good Googlers if that's all they can find.
Q I mean, what does that say to you about --
SEN. SCHUMER: Okay, two things. I would say this.
First on your second question, I would just hope that people would look at Judge Mukasey on the merits; that's what I intend to do, that's what I know the colleagues I have spoken to this morning and over the weekend intend to do. And this should be something on the merits, not this person's for him, this person's against him.
How these work -- and, you know, again, I've only been in the Senate nine years, but I've been through a bunch of these -- most senators make up their minds by their reaction and interrelationship with the nominee, whether it's the court, whether it's attorney general or other Cabinet positions, not just their individual reaction -- interreaction, but reading the history, reading the writings and all of that.
So, you know, I mean, the conservative movement should judge -- judge Mukasey on the merits, not on who his friends and who his enemies are, because that's not really how you should conduct a hearing.
Your first question, Dana, was?
Q Was about whether or not you'll use his confirmation hearing as a forum.
SEN. SCHUMER: No. Okay. Our goal is to get an attorney general in office how puts rule of law first, who is -- will show the necessary independence that every attorney general has had to show at times, particularly in a White House that seems to want to control the Justice Department in an undue way. And that's the goal here. I would say all of us want to look forward to straightening up things in the Justice Department and restoring rule of law in that very important department rather than look back. That doesn't mean that the -- finding out what happened isn't important. It is. But that's not going to be the goal here.
Q Senator Schumer, do you think that Senator Reid's comments last week and the comments of yourself and other Democrats about your trepidation about a prospective Olson nomination came changed the thinking at the White House? I mean, how much do you think the Democrats influenced the nomination?
SEN. SCHUMER: Well, you know, look, the White House for six years had an attitude of almost complete confrontation. They reveled in it. They sort of stood up on Mount Olympus and threw the thunderbolt down, particularly on many of these issues that affected the Justice Department. The very nomination of Judge Mukasey, wherever it comes down at the end of the day, shows a change in attitude, and I think that is very, very good for the country and I think it is very, very good for the 90,000 men and women who work in the Justice Department. And let's hope it reflects itself beyond just this issue and into many, many others.
Q (Off mike) -- confirmations has said that the average length of time the Senate takes is about there weeks. Given the fact that the top three positions are now -- (off mike) -- don't have Senate confirmation, do you think that it's important that the Senate moves with that kind of speed?
SEN. SCHUMER: You know, again, I think I heard Senator Specter, who you probably were here for before, and he said it would be a bad idea to set a timetable. Obviously, the White House always wants to move things as quickly as possible. I think that delay for its own sake makes no sense, but to have a thorough hearing and find out all the facts, that's a part of our job. And that should come first, not a timetable, you know, that might be artificial.
Okay, last one.
Q How obliged do you feel to personally push his nomination, given that you floated his name and have -- (off mike).
SEN. SCHUMER: Okay. Right.
I floated his name, among others, in the past, as somebody who would put rule of law first, albeit someone who's conservative.
Now we're up to the next stage. He's been nominated. And so my obligation, as well as those of my 99 other colleagues, is to now learn his specific views on a whole lot of different issues. And I intend to do that. Judge Mukasey called me this morning, and I told him. I said to him, "I'm going to ask you a lot of specific questions." And he said that's fair and he would try to do it as soon as possible.
Q Will you support him, though? I mean, if you --
SEN. SCHUMER: Well, I have to -- I -- as I said, I think I am open-minded and hopeful that he will satisfy the concerns that I have and other Democrats have, and he will become a consensus nominee. That's certainly within the ballpark, but it's not a done deal yet by any stretch of the imagination.
Thank you, everybody.
Source