by Michael Muskal

With the Justice Department filing suit against Arizona's new law on immigration on Tuesday, the latest poll shows that Americans remain divided on whether the government should focus on halting the flow of illegal immigrants into the country or developing a plan to deal with those who are already in the U.S.

The Justice Department filed suit in Arizona, arguing that the law violates the federal government's authority to establish policy on immigration. Technically, the federal government is seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent Arizona from enforcing the law when it goes into effect July 29.

The suit, which had been expected, comes as the latest USA Today/Gallup poll shows that Americans are divided on which part of the immigration issue to stress. Half of Americans say they favor halting the flow of immigrants into the U.S., while 45% said they would focus on dealing with the estimated 12 million undocumented workers already in the country.

The poll was taken June 11-13 before President Obama's recent speech about immigration. He called for dealing with both issues, those entering illegally and those already here, at the same time.

Continue reading over at D.C. Now

by Michael Muskal

The United States has arrested more than 400 additional suspects -- for a total of 2,200 over 22 months -- as part of its crackdown on illegal drugs coming from Mexico, Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. announced Thursday morning.

The latest arrests come as the Obama administration has stepped up efforts to deal with security along the U.S.-Mexican border, promising to send 1,200 National Guard troops to the region to deal with the smuggling of drugs and people. Obama also pledged to beef up security when he met recently with Mexico President Felipe Calderon.

In announcing the latest arrests, Holder praised Project Deliverance, the name of the overall operation that has targeted the Mexican drug cartels and the smuggling of drugs, weapons and cash across the border.

"This inter-agency, cross-border operation has been our most extensive, and most successful, law enforcement effort to date targeting these deadly cartels," Holder said. "Our aim was to target not just cartel operations, but the networks of individuals across the United States the cartels tap to distribute drugs in our country and smuggle cash and guns out of it."

Read more at D.C. Now

by Frank James

Democrat Roland Burris should be seated by the Democratic-controlled Senate, says the highly regarded lawyer Walter Dellinger, who headed the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in the Clinton Administration.

He makes the same logical case many others have. It boils down to the law is the law. An excerpt from his New York Times op-ed:

The Constitution's text is simple enough: "Each house shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members." Since no one disputes that Mr. Burris, a former Illinois attorney general, possesses the constitutional qualifications of age, residency and citizenship, the remaining issue is whether the Senate can adjudge Mr. Burris not to have been properly appointed. Although federal prosecutors are seeking a corruption indictment of Mr. Blagojevich, he is in fact still the governor. The charges that he sought bribes to appoint certain candidates to the Senate do not automatically render illegal other official acts of his office like signing laws or pardoning criminals. And because there is no evidence that a bribe was solicited from, or proffered by, Mr. Burris, his appointment is presumptively lawful.

Postponing the decision until Mr. Blagojevich's removal and replacement by the lieutenant governor is not a clean solution either. Mr. Burris will argue that if his appointment was valid, Illinois law entitles him to the seat until the 2010 election. In his view, there would be no vacancy for the new governor to fill. Having two rivals, one appointed by each governor, disputing who is the rightful senator might be the worst possible outcome.

by Frank James

Bernard Madoff, the Wall Street bigwig arrested Thursday on an alleged massive securities fraud prosecutors call a "Ponzi scheme" was a major Democratic donor.

For instance, in the most recent election cycle, according to OpenSecrets.org, he contributed $50,000 in two $25,000 donations to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee chaired by Sen. Charles Schumer, the New York Democrat.

He also often frequent contributions over the years to New York area Democrats, including Sens. Hillary Clinton and Frank Lautenberg. Expect to hear Republican demands that Democrats return the money.

by Frank James

Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. held a Capitol Hill press conference to assert that he didn't participate in Gov. Rod Blagojevich's alleged scheme to sell the Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama.

Jackson, who's been openly interested in the seat, said he had no idea Blagojevich didn't plan on choosing Obama's replacement based on credentials but rather on what federal prosecutors allege was Blagojevich's desire to essentially auction the seat to the highest bidder.

Jackson has been identified as "Senate Candidate Five" in the criminal complaint against Blagojevich and his top aide John Harris. The complaint has Blagojevich saying that SC5 promised to raise $1 million for Blagojevich if he was named to the open Senate seat.

Jackson said:

I did not initiate or authorize anyone at any time to promise anything to Governor Blagojevich on my behalf. I never sent a message or an emissary to the governor to make an offer, to plead my case or to propose a deal about a U.S. Senate seat, period.

Clearly, I was badly mistaken. I did not know that the process had been corrupted. I did not know that credentials, that qualifications, that a record of service meant nothing to the governor. I did not know that the governor and his cronies were attempting to use the process to extort money and favors in a brazen pay-to-play scheme.

by Josh Meyer

The prolonged federal investigation into corruption in the office of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich was run almost entirely out of Chicago, with little input or guidance from officials at Justice Department headquarters in Washington, according to several current and former department officials familiar with the case and with U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald.

They said that while Main Justice has a very active Public Integrity Section that sends prosecutors around the country to work on cases, it has traditionally allowed a handful of large U.S. Attorney's Offices around the country to maintain almost complete autonomy over their cases, even significant political corruption cases involving sitting governors and other lawmakers, the current and former officials said. All of them spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of such matters and the ongoing investigation.

The officials said the Chicago office is particularly autonomous, in part given its long history of aggressively--and successfully--prosecuting public corruption cases there, including one that led to the conviction of Blagojevich's predecessor, Gov. George H. Ryan in 2006. That autonomy is also due to the respect for Fitzgerald, a veteran prosecutor who has maintained good and close relations with the top leadership of the Justice Department and FBI in Washington.

Peter Carr, the Justice Department spokesman, said he could not discuss specific cases, but Fitzgerald himself suggested that he and his team in Chicago worked the case independently and kept Washington informed of their progress.

``It was very closely held, '' one senior Justice Department official said of the new wrinkles in the long-running Chicago investigation.

By Andrew Zajac

Most of the attention paid to the Justice Department these days focuses on its future in a new administration, presumably under the leadership of Eric Holder, President-elect Obama's pick for Attorney General to replace caretaker AG Michael Mukasey.

Holder will have his plate full restoring morale in the 110,000-employee agency plagued by scandal, including the unprecedented firings of nine U.S. attorneys and politicized hiring for civil service posts.

He also may inherit an unpleasant reminder of the partisan handiwork he'll be trying to undo.

by Mark Silva

It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas around the Justice Department, with word that President Bush has offered clemency to several convicts, as presidents are wont to do near the ends of their terms.

Yet, this president has been exceptionally sparing with his pardon power, and the list rolled out by Justice this week looks a lot like previous George W. Bush-clemency lists: Generally low-grade offenders.

There is no Lewis "Scooter'' Libby, the vice president's former chief of staff, in this lineup, though Bush already has commuted his prison sentence for obstruction of justice in the CIA leak investigation - no full pardon here. There is no Michael Milken, the junk-bond financier who did jail time for financial wrongdoing and has been seeking a pardon to clear his name for some time now.

There are a lot of relatively petty crimes behind this new crop - though P.S Ruckman Jr., an expert in presidential pardons at Rock Valley College in Rockford, Ill., says that one of the 16 to whom the president granted clemency was on his "Pardon watch:'' John Forte, whose sentence for possession with intent to distribute cocaine has been commuted. Bush granted pardons to 14 and commutations of sentence to two this week.

There are three Texans on the outgoing president's clemency list - and Ruckman previously has noted that the president's home state has topped this White House's pardon roster for some time now.

Before this round, the president had signed just 157 pardons and six commutations of sentences.

Requests for pardons and commutations have piled up at Justice, with a few thousand pending. But in modern times, only Bush's father, former President George H.W. Bush, has offered less clemency - 74 pardons and three commutations

Here's the read-out on the latest list from the Justice Department:

by Frank James (updated at 12:36 pm with Mukasey statement)

Good news this morning on Attorney General Michael Mukasey. He's reportedly alert and communicating after having what at first sounded like a stroke Thursday evening while giving a speech to a conservative lawyers group at a Washington hotel.

The Justice Department's Pete Carr, acting public affairs director, issued the following statement.

"At the conclusion of his remarks before the Federalist Society Annual Dinner in Washington, D.C., Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey collapsed.

"We will update the public when we have additional information."

Caroline Kennedy and Eric Holder on Capitol Hill in Washington in June 2008 during their time as President-elect Barack Obama's vice presidential selection team. (Photo: TIM SLOAN/AFP/Getty Images.

by Frank James

President-elect Barack Obama has picked Eric Holder to be his attorney general, Newsweek's Michael Isikoff is reporting.

Holder is another former Clinton Administration official so he's sure to draw complaints from those who say that Obama's choices of members of the last Democratic administration don't exactly look like "change we can believe in." Holder was deputy attorney general to Janet Reno who headed the Clinton Justice Department.

But Holder is well-known to Obama. A former federal judge, Holder helped to vet those on Obama's vice presidential shortlist. If confirmed, he would be the first African-American to lead Justice.

He doesn't come without controversy, however, which is likely to be raised at his confirmation hearings. Holder was responsible for vetting the pardons at the end of the Clinton Administration, including the controversial one for Marc Rich, the fugitive fundraiser, whose ex-wife had made a large donation to Clinton.

by James Gerstenzang

Mentioning neither William Ayres and the Weather Underground nor the Keating Five, the two hot topics du jour of the presidential campaign, President Bush managed nevertheless to quietly slip himself into the campaign on Monday by delving into a secondary issue: What standards a president should apply when picking judges.

Bush did not have to say about whom he was speaking. He never said "Obama" or "McCain," "Democrat" or "Republican."

But speaking to a conservative legal gathering in Cincinnati, he injected the subject of judicial appointments -- from the district court level up to the Supreme Court -- into the debate, and made it clear that in considering election choices, the president's role in nominating jurists must not be overlooked.

But the president was using a double-edged sword. It is a topic that can energize activists in both parties, (as our colleague Jim Gerstenzang notes of Bush's judicial comments in Countdown to Crawford).

"The lesson should be clear to every American, and that is: Judges matter," he said. (If anyone doubted that, he offered this statistic: He has nominated more than one-third of the judges now holding lifetime appointments on the federal bench.)

No surprise in his instructions: Find judges who will "interpret the Constitution and not use courts to invent laws or dictate social policy."

And no surprise that they fit nicely with John McCain's approach.

As for the process of nominating judges and confirming them in the Senate, it's "broken," Bush said. Lawyers are declining nominations out of concerns about the delays they might face in gaining a vote in the Senate -- and the "ruthlessness" of the confirmation process.

by Mark Silva

President George W. Bush, who hasn't pardoned many criminals in his time, will have a chance to spare legions before leaving office in January.

Requests for presidential pardons and commutations of prison sentences are piling up at the Justice Department, with more than 3,000 pending. And, if history serves as any guide, the height of pardon season arrives in the final December of any president's term.

Bush has proven to be exceptionally sparing with his pardon power. In modern times, only his father offered less clemency for the convicted. President George H.W. Bush, with only one term in which to act, signed just 74 pardons and three commutations--a fraction of what many recent presidents have allowed.

Near the end of his second term, the younger Bush has signed just 157 pardons and six commutations. He has drawn widespread attention for only one: the commutation of Lewis "Scooter" Libby's prison time after the former chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney was convicted of obstruction of justice.

But Bush will have plenty of opportunities before leaving office in January. Nearly 1,000 petitions for pardons and more than 2,000 bids for commutations of sentences are pending.

Marion Jones, the world-champion sprinter serving 6 months in jail for lying about her use of performance-enhancing drugs, is among those seeking clemency.

So is Michael Milken, the junk-bond financier who went to prison for insider trading and is free now but seeking a pardon. President Bill Clinton turned him down.

Former Democratic Gov. Edwin Edwards of Louisiana, serving a 10-year prison sentence for racketeering, is seeking a commutation of his sentence. So are former Republican Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham of California, sentenced to 8 years for conspiracy to commit bribery, wire fraud and tax evasion, and John Walker Lindh , the American who served the Taliban and was captured during the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, serving a 20-year prison term.

But this president's pardons have tended toward lower-profile wrong-doers.

See the rest of the story iabout presidential pardons in today's Tribune and see some additional comments in the story below::

And see the records of presidents since Harry Truman here: PARDONS_ GRAPHIC.pdf

by Andrew Zajac

Monica Goodling and D. Kyle Sampson (pictured at right), key aides to former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, violated federal law and departmental policy by considering political affiliation and other improper factors in Justice Department hiring decisions, according to another devastating report from DOJ's Inspector General and the department's Office of Professional Responsibility, issued this morning.

Today's report offers a much fuller and grimmer picture of hyper-partisanship with DOJ than a report ">report last month harshly critical of politicized appointments in the Attorney General's honors and summer legal intern programs, both elite training grounds for young lawyers.

It describes Goodling (pictured at right), who had several jobs at DOJ, including as its liaison to the White House, frequently assessing applicants for assistant U.S. attorneys slots -- which are civil service posts to be filled without regard to political affiliation -- for Democratic and/or liberal leanings.

Here's a summary of findings: Goodling.doc

by Aamer Madhani

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court ruling last month that detainees at Guantanamo Bay have a constitutional right to challenge their detention in federal court, Attorney General Michael Mukasey today called on Congress to spell out how the so-called habeas corpus proceedings should be conducted.

Mukasey said the legislation should clearly spell out that the detainees will not be allowed in the United States for their habeas corpus hearings and that detainees who successfully challenge their detention should not be released in the United States.

The attorney general also said that Congress needs to make certain that in affording the Guantanamo detainees their constitutional rights that U.S. national security is not made vulnerable.

"One could say, I suppose, that these questions should be left to the courts to resolve through litigation, but I do not think that is the most prudent course," Mukasey said in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative Washington think tank. "Unless Congress acts, the lower federal courts will determine the specific procedural rules that govern themore than 200 cases that are now pending. With so many cases, there is a serious risk of inconsistent rulings and considerable uncertainty."

Mukasey's call for legislation comes after the high court ruled 5-4 last month that Guantanamo detainees were denied their constitutional right to challenge their incarceration before a federal judge.

Mukasey expressed concern that the Boumediene v. Bush leaves many questions open that Congress needs to address.

Will a detainee be able to subpoena a soldier to return from combat duty in Afghanistan or Iraq to testify? How will the courts deal with classified information during the proceedings? Can a detainee call on another detainee to testify?

by Andrew Zajac

The cavernous National Building Museum was filled with G-men and G-women today as the Federal Bureau of Investigation marked its 100th anniversary with speeches and ceremony headlined by Director Robert Mueller and Attorney General Michael Mukasey.

Other guests included former directors William Webster, William Sessions and Louis Freeh.

Master of ceremonies John Pistole, the bureau's deputy director, also singled out Walter Walsh, a 101 year-old retired special agent, who brought a direct connection to the bureau's salad days in the 1930s, having worked on the Ma Barker and Baby Face Nelson cases.

Mueller spoke on a dais in front of a blue and gold backdrop with the message "A Century of Fidelity, Bravery and Integrity" -- the latter three words comprising the bureau's motto and the theme of his speech.
.

by Andrew Zajac

Toronto's Globe and Mail this morning posted video of an interrogation of Omar Khadr, a 21-year-old Canadian citizen who was detained in Afghanistan in 2002 and is how held at the Guantanamo Bay naval base.

Khadr was questioned by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service at Guantanamo in 2003 when he was 16. The redacted, 10-minute video was released after a court battle by Khadr's defense team which hopes to pressure the Canadian government to call for his repatriation.

It's apparently the first time Guantanamo interrogation footage has been made public.

Khadr is accused of throwing a grenade that killed a U.S. soldier.

The video and companion article explaining how the tape of Khadr has come to public light can be viewed at theglobeandmail.com.

by Andrew Zajac

Chicago U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald has been lauded as the ultimate call'em-as-I-see'em prosecutor for his relentless pursuit of political corruption in Illinois and, on the national stage, for his investigation of the CIA leak case, which resulted in the perjury conviction of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, Scooter Libby.

But Attorney General Michael Mukasey (pictured right) didn't sound like a member of the Fitzgerald fan club yesterday when he was asked by Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Specter about the jailing of former New York Times reporter Judith Miller for refusing to cough up her sources to Fitzgerald during the leak investigation.

While Mukasey didn't directly criticize Fitzgerald, he certainly managed to avoid defending the hard line the prosecutor took on Miller's unwillingness to cooperate.

Here's yesterday's exchange between Mukasey and Specter. (The legislation referred to is for a federal shield law that would sharply limit the circumstances under which the government could force reporters to give up information on confidential sources. It is opposed by the Justice Department.)

by Andrew Zajac

Steve Schmidt, the new man in day-to-day charge of the McCain presidential campaign, stoutly defended his lobbying and PR firm's hiring of Tim Griffin, a former prosecutor who figured in the U.S. attorneys firing scandal.

Griffin, a protégé of Karl Rove, went to work for Mercury Public Affairs after quitting as interim U.S. attorney in Little Rock, Ark. in June 2007 when it was disclosed that his predecessor, Bud Cummins, had been fired to create an opening for Griffin (pictured at right).

While U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, they typically have not been removed except for ethical or legal lapses.

The removal of Cummins and the dismissal of eight other prosecutors in 2006 may have violated this unwritten rule and triggered an ongoing investigation by the Justice Department's inspector general into inappropriate politicization of DOJ employment. The uproar over the sackings also was a major factor in the downfall of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Ralph Cioffi, left, and Matthew Tannin are escorted to federal court in the Brooklyn borough of New York, U.S., on Thursday, June 19, 2008. Photographer: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg News.

by Frank James

The federal government's regulators may not have done as much as they could have to stop the mortgage crisis from happening in the first place but federal cops are evidently doing what they can to clean up the mess that's left, at least the part of it that has to do with alleged illegality.

In New York, federal prosecutors announced the arrests and indictment of two former Bear Stearns hedge-fund managers, Ralph Cioffi and Matthew Tannin, who were charged with securities fraud for allegedly hiding their concerns about their fund's investments in subprime mortgage from investors.

Meanwhile, in Washington, the Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation announced the arrests of more than 400 people since March suspected of mortgage fraud.

Justice officials acknowledged they had packaged a lot of on-going cases to make a bigger splash, to add to the "deterrent factor."

Here's a snippet of what FBI Director Robert Mueller said:

And part of the reason they're bringing it together is the deterrent factor, to make persons understand, wherever they are around the country, whichever of these schemes that they become participants in, that we will get reports, generally through suspicious activity reports; we will follow up; we will investigate; and we will prosecute; and justice will be done.

by Mark Silva

The Supreme Court is not on the ballot in November.

But it may as well be.

On any number of critical issues, the inclinations of Republican Sen. John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama on the appointments of Supreme Court justices could turn a divided high court in one direction or another over the coming years.

The question of government detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is only one of those matters. The Supreme Court ruled this week - by a vote of 5-4 - that the nearly 300 detainees still held in the Bush administration's "war on terror'' have a right to take their cases for release to federal courts.

McCain, campaigning at one of his signature "town-hall'' rallies in Pemberton, N.J., yesterday, called the court's ruling "one of the worst decisions in history. It opens up a whole new chapter and interpretation of our Constitution.'' President Bush also decried the ruling, placing McCain squarely in the president's camp on this one.

Obama, who has campaigned with a promise that "I will restore habeas corpus'' to detainees, suggested that the court's ruling had undercut Bush's assertions of executive power, raised questions about McCain's judgment and is "an important step toward "reestablishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus'' (the writ enabling a prisoner to petition a judge to challenge a jailor's authority to hold him.)

McCain comes at this particular question as a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, held and tortured by the North Vietnamese for five and a half years. Obama, an attorney who has taught constitutional law, comes at it from a legal perspective.

McCain had helped craft the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which created a military system of trials as an alternative to civilian courts and prevented federal courts from considering the habeas corpus petitions of detainees at Guantanamo. Obama voted against the act. The court said a portion of the law stands in violation of the Constitution.

But more broadly, the philosophical differences and personal predilections of the two candidates point to how the next president might tilt the balance of a court precariously split on this and many other issues. McCain supports a reversal of Roe v. Wade, for instance. Obama supports abortion rights.

The next president will serve four, or perhaps eight, years. Justices serve for life. There's pretty good chance the next president will get a few picks.

Of the five justices who voted in the majority to allow detainees at Guantanamo access to federal courts, Justice John Paul Stevens is 88, Ruth Bader Ginsburg 75, and David Souter and Stephen Breyer are each 69. Justice Anthony Kennedy, author of the Guantanamo opinion, is 71.

The dissenters are generally younger: Chief Justice John Roberts, 53, Justices Samuel Alito, 55, Clarence Thomas, 59 and Antonin Scalia, 72.

by Andrew Zajac

The FBI takes it on the chin from the Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine today for "serious deficiencies that have resulted in large backlogs and questions about the reliability of the resulting information" on citizen and immigration application name checks.

The IG report says the FBI generally does a good job checking fingerprints, but falls down on the job of checking the names of people who want to become U.S. citizens or live here legally against investigative files.

The backlog has been a big issue for years now as enhanced, post-9-11 security measures have blended with government inefficiency to form an especially intractable bureaucratic problem.

In a summary of findings, the IG "found that the FBI's name check program processes about 86 percent of the name check requests it receives within 60 days. However, name check requests for the remaining 14 percent can take anywhere from several months to over a year to complete, with some name checks pending for as long as 3 years. As of March 2008 the FBI had over 327,000 pending USCIS name check requests. Backlogged name checks can hamper timely (Department of Homeland Security) adjudication of immigration applications, thereby impeding applicants' access to U.S. citizenship and permanent residency (green card)."

Here's a brief summary of some of the difficulties on the DHS side of things from an AP story earlier this year.

The IG report notes that the FBI has complained of inadequate funding to upgrade its name check technology but points out that the bureau has given lucrative private businesses like Major League Baseball and the National Football League a free ride in handling name check services for special events.

In its response to the IG's overall findings, the FBI mostly blames 9-11 for overwhelming its name checking capabilities.

You can read a redacted version of the entire report here. (Click on top item on the list.)

by Andrew Zajac

Finally a bit of good news for a beleaguered Bush Administration beset by an unpopular war, record gas prices and a sputtering economy. Violent crime is down.

We don't even have to crack the file on the FBI's preliminary annual report on the subject.

The Justice Department was quick to issue a comment this morning pointing out the drop before the Swamp could click through the G-men's report. Give DOJ credit, though, they weren't chasing the spotlight, just making an even-handed observation and acknowledging that the drop is not evenly spread:

"The latest numbers from the FBI are very encouraging, though still preliminary and could change when the final numbers are released later this year," said spokesman Peter Carr.

"The report suggests that violent crime is decreasing and remains near historic low levels, which is a credit to increased cooperation among federal, state and local law enforcement. Some communities, however, continue to face localized violent crime challenges. While these challenges may be unique to each community, the Department is committed to providing targeted assistance wherever needed."

Here's AP's early take on the report.

by Mark Silva

Caroline Kennedy's name certainly made some headlines today, with her appointment to a small team assigned by Barack Obama's campaign to help him find a running mate.

But perhaps even more notable is the name of Eric Holder, former deputy attorney general and in some peoples' minds, candidate for attorney general in an Obama White House.

Holder graces the cover of The American Lawyer this month, with the bold headline, "Is he the next AG?"' our colleagues at The BLT, the Blog of Legal Times, note today.

"The Covington & Burling partner and former deputy attorney general is a national co-chairman of Sen. Barack Obama's campaign,'' they write. "His impressive credentials certainly make him qualified for attorney general....

"But if Obama wins the presidency, would Holder really accept the top spot at Justice? In the Am Law article, much is made of Holder's wife's objections to him rejoining the public sector. And in a past interview with Legal Times, Holder said his wife "was almost a single parent" while he was in government in the 1990s.

"Yesterday, though, Holder was even more frank when asked by Legal Times if he would, indeed, accept the AG spot: "That ain't gonna happen," he said.

Andrew Zajac

Attorney General Michael Mukasey offered a flattering assessment of the history of the agency formerly known as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms at dedication ceremonies last week for ATF's new fortress-like headquarters building at 99 New York Ave. NE here in the district.

Mukasey's prepared remarks cite the agency's high-profile role in battling Prohibition bootleggers and aiding in the convictions of the first World Trade Center bombers.

Given the ceremonial nature of the occasion, perhaps its understandable that Mukasey left out unhappier recent chapters of ATF history.

Under color of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, ATF switched bureaucratic addresses, moving from the Treasury Department to the Justice Department. The word "explosives" was added to its name, as in Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, though the identifying acronym remained ATF.

The addition of the word made explicit ATF's long involvement with investigating bombings and other explosives-related crimes and reflected some new responsibilities connected to domestic terrorism.

Mukasey's speech includes a mention of a smooth incorporation of the agency into DOJ. Maybe that's true on the bureaucratic side of things, but the ATF's historically cool relations with the FBI, its new sister agency within Justice, have yet to warm.

Forced to work together more closely because of a new, post-9-11 emphasis on thwarting terrorism, the FBI and ATF have engaged in a series of as yet unresolved turf battles, as this recent Washington Post story details.

In his remarks, ATF Acting Director Michael Sullivan extolled the new building's role in the redevelopment of a shabby and neglected corner of the capital, though it's hard to imagine a structure less friendly to the street than walled, block-long compound.

The building itself is perhaps a symbol of the gulf between the two agencies. Despite getting folded into DOJ, ATF's building is a mile or so from Main Justice and the FBI, which occupy buildings on either side of Pennsylvania Avenue at 10th St.

The new headquarters may also be viewed as an example of the fiscal inefficiency that has accompanied much of the massive build-up of the national security apparatus prompted by 9-11.

by Mark Silva

The House Judiciary Committee wants to talk to Karl Rove, and it isn't asking any more. Rove's lawyer appears a little concerned that the committee chairman has a, well, butt-kicking, in store for his client, "a free agent.''

Rove wasn't willing to have an on-the-record public talk with congressional investigators. So the House Judiciary Committee today subpoenaed the former deputy chief of staff for President Bush and ex-chief of White House political affairs - who has gone on to appearances on cable news shows and a newsmagazine column of his own, as well as opening up a Washington consulting firm.

The subpoena is part of a continuing probe of the White House's involvement in the Justice Department's firing of several federal prosecutors.

The subpoena orders Rove to appear on July 10 and face expected questions about the White House's role in the firing of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006 as well as the prosecution of former Gov. Don Siegelman of Alabama, a Democrat. Rove has denied playing any role in the Siegelman affair.

House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers had negotiated with Rove's attorneys for more than a year about testifying voluntarily.

"It is unfortunate that Mr. Rove has failed to cooperate with our requests," Conyers (D-Mich.) said in a statement today. "Although he does not seem the least bit hesitant to discuss these very issues weekly on cable television and in the print news media, Mr. Rove and his attorney have apparently concluded that a public hearing room would not be appropriate."

"Unfortunately, I have no choice today but to compel his testimony on these very important matters," Conyers said.

In light of Conyer's reported remarks for the need for "someone'' to "kick his ass,'' Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, wrote to the chairman this week, he is "not the least bit confused about the committee's motives or intentions.''

"I confess, however, that I do not understand why the committee is threatening a subpena to Mr. Rove for information related to the alleged "politicization of the Justice Department... I do not understand why the committee insists on provoking a gratuitous confrontation ... or why the committee refuses to consider a reasonable accommodation.''

See Luskin's words: Luskin's letter to Conyers.pdf

See the chairman's words: Conyers letter to Rove's attorney.pdf

See the subp0ena for Rove: Rove subpena.pdf

by Andrew Zajac

Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine identifies both sins of commission and omission in the FBI's involvement with detainee interrogations in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, but the missteps and oversights either weren't frequent enough or big enough to warrant coming down hard on the bureau, according to a report released Tuesday morning.

Fine launched his investigation into FBI interactions with detainees following reports, some from bureau personnel, about abusive tactics employed on people picked up in the war on terror.

The U.S. government's treatment of detainees has been a source of raging controversy in this country, among U.S. allies and within the Muslim world, where most of the detainees come from.

Since it's freshly released and 370 pages long, The Swamp hasn't had a chance to read the report completely, but here's a link to the redacted, unclassified version of the document.

The tortured title of the report -- A Review of the FBI's Involvement in and Observations of Detainee Interrogations in Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan, and Iraq -- suggests a certain amount of hairsplitting and eggshell-walking.

Among the new findings, Fine identified a renegade FBI effort to subject harsh treatment for Muhammad al Qatani, who allegedly was supposed to serve as an additional hijacker on Sept. 11, 2001:

by Steven Schmadeke

John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia, U.S. Supreme Court justices from opposite ends of the ideological spectrum, were in Chicago Monday and spoke about something on which they apparently agree - how good Scalia's new book is.

The two senior jurists spoke to several hundred attorneys and judges gathered in the 7th floor ballroom of the Intercontinental Hotel for the Seventh Circuit Bar Association's annual dinner.

Scalia's speech kept the attorneys and judges, who had just finished adinner of filet mignon with thyme-roasted fingerling potatoes, in stitches. He spoke at length, tongue-in-cheek, about the importance of choosing the right colored cover to contain a filing and the importance of footnotes.

"It takes a real lawyer...to write a text that is entirely meaningless or banal unless the reader consults the footnotes," Scalia said to laughter. "It is also essential to legal English that one write as pompously as possible, using words and formulas that have long since disappeared from intelligent English discourse."

Stevens scored some laughs of his own with a joke that seemed very funny to the legal eagles in the room, apparently because it was so self-evident.

"The other very important and interesting feature of the book is its recommendation that whenever you have a case involving statutory construction be sure to prepare yourself on the legislative hi story,"

Said Stevens to much laughter. "That's very sound advice."

Scalia, seated next to the podium, shouted back a reply.

"You're out of order," Stevens said to laughter and applause.

Even Frank Easterbrook, chief judge of the U.S. District Court of Appeals, flogged the book, called "Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges."

"I'm going to put in a plug for the book just as Justice Stevens did," said Easterbrook, who plopped the book on the podium. "For entirely selfish reasons, the more people who read it and follow its advice the better my life will be."

Mildred and Richard Loving, January 26, 1965. (AP Photo)

by Frank James

On this day when people in Indiana and North Carolina are choosing between the Democratic candidates for president, one of whom is the offspring of an interracial union, it's mind-boggling to think that just over 40 years ago, marriages like that which produced Sen. Barack Obama were illegal in many states, including North Carolina where voters are going to the polls.

But all that was changed in 1967 because of two quiet and courageous people who fought for their love by fighting an unjust law, Richard and Mildred Loving of Virginia. Their desire to have their marriage recognized in the eyes of the law in native state led them all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court which struck down all anti-miscegenation laws in the nation.

Mildred Jeter Loving, an African-American, died at 68 last week. Her husband was killed in 1975 by a drunken driver. But she and he will forever have a place in history as the Loving family in ironically perfect legal citation Loving v. Virginia.

A humble woman by all accounts, Loving didn't see herself as a hero akin to Rosa Parks. But she and her husband started something that hasn't ended, for champions of same-sex marriage view the Lovings as a model.

by Andrew Zajac

The turnover in the Justice Department's executive suites continues. This afternoon it's Alice Fisher, head of the criminal division, who announced she's leaving, effective May 23.

Departures are expected in the waning days of a lame duck administration, but they began earlier and have been more frequent in the Bush 43 Justice Department, thanks to last year's federal prosecutors firing uproar and mounting discontent on Capitol Hill over DOJ's role in crafting post-9-11 counter-terror policies on surveillance and treatment of detainees.

Fisher, 41, had the kind of political credentials common in the upper reaches of the administration's legal apparatus: Federalist Society, deputy counsel in the Senate Whitewater investigation and the national steering committee of Women for Bush/Cheney, 2004.

But she managed to avoid getting dragged into the contentious Congressional hearings that so badly damaged former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and several other top Justice officials.

Fisher, who served two different stints in the criminal division, oversaw the unit's response to the 9-11 attacks, including advising on the prosecutions of John Walker Lindh, Zacharias Moussaoui and Richard Reid, and she had a hand in carrying out provisions of the Patriot Act.

Here's DOJ's announcement of Fisher's pending departure:

by Andrew Zajac

Downstate Illinois Republican powerbroker Robert Kjellander stoutly denies going to the White House to try to get Chicago federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald fired. But former Sen. Peter Fitzgerald, who recommended Patrick Fitzgerald for his Chicago post in 2001, said there's no doubt in his mind that top White House political operative Karl Rove knew of his long-time pal Kjellander's unhappiness with the prosecutor.

According to Peter Fitzgerald, Rove, in late 2003, told him that "Kjellander felt that I was out to get him through my U.S. attorney appointments."

Fitzgerald said he's baffled by that perception. "What would any law abiding person have to worry about from a U.S. attorney?" he said.

Yes, but was Peter Fitzgerald using his prosecutorial picks to get fellow Republican Kjellander? Peter Fitzgerald said that's a 'when did you stop beating your wife' question and declined to answer directly. "I brought in U.S. attorneys who I thought would be independent and aggressive...and would be the best possible U.S. attorneys in Chicago and elsewhere in Illinois," he said.

by Mark Silva and Andrew Zajac

Karl Rove, the president's former political "architect,'' did not have designs for the removal of Chicago-based U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, Rove's lawyer said today.

Prosecutors in the trial of Antoin "Tony' Rezko in Chicago suggest differently - telling the judge this morning that they want to call to the stand Ali Ata, a former member of the Blagojevich administration who pled guilty to corruption. Assistant U.S. Att'y Carrie Hamilton said she believes that Ata will testify to conversations with Rezko about trying to stop the criminal investigation of him in 2004.

"He (Ata) had conversations with Mr. Rezko about the fact that Mr. (Bob) Kjellander was working with Karl Rove to have Mr. Fitzgerald removed," Hamilton told U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve today. Kjellander, Republican superlobbyist, is a longtime Republican National Committeeman from Illinois who was an occasional business associate of Stuart Levine, who has pled guilty to conspiring with Rezko to rig state boards for contracts.

Ata would testify about trying to have Fitzgerald replaced by someone else, Hamilton said, "so individuals who have been cooperating in this investigation will be dealt with differently."

The judge did not issue a ruling on whether Ata will testify.

But Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, today issued an unequivocal statement about all of this to the Tribune on behalf of Rove, former deputy chief of staff to President Bush, architect of Bush's presidential campaigns and a private consultant in Washington now.

"Karl has known Kjellander for many years,'' Luskin said, "but does not recall him or anyone else arguing for Fitzgerald's removal. And he (Rove) is very certain that he didn't take any steps to do that, or have any conversations with anyone in the White House -- or in the Justice Department -- about doing anything like that.''

There were stirrings at the Justice Department, however, and Kjellander's possible involvement is consistent with earlier revelations.

by Andrew Zajac

Alberto Gonzales stepped down as Attorney General more than seven months ago, but controversies from his troubled stewardship of the Justice Department still reverberate.

Former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, who was convicted of influence-peddling, recently was released from prison pending appeal of his case. Siegelman claims that his prosecution was politically motivated and that former White House advisor Karl Rove had a hand in it.

Siegelman would be much easier to dismiss as an embittered partisan pol if the Justice Department on Gonzales' watch hadn't been tainted by politics in a variety of decisions including the dismissal of nine U.S. attorneys, and by a lack of candor from the attorney general on subjects ranging from warrantless domestic wiretapping to the circumstances surrounding the prosecutors' departures.

(Don Siegelman addressed the media after release on an appeal bond from federal prison on March 28 AP Photo by Butch Dill)

Andrew Zajac

A day after indicted Louisiana Rep. William Jefferson won a victory when the Supreme Court decided not to review a lower court decision limiting evidence seized from his House office, Jefferson's brother, Mose, was indicted for bribery.

Mose Jefferson, 65, of New Orleans, is accused of paying off an Orleans Parish school board member to support and approve educational software contracts with the district.

Andrew Zajac

Earlier today, the FBI press operation unveiled a link to publicity materials in anticipation of the bureau's 100th birthday in July.

Admire them or despise them, G-men have a rich history and much of it's laid out in various stories, archived press releases, photos and old case files on the new web site.

The selection of material underscores the bureau's conflicted view of itself.

Andrew Zajac

Chicago U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, the nearest the feds come to a celebrity prosecutor, gets the profile treatment in the alumni magazine of his alma mater, Amherst College.

As with nearly all such efforts to draw a portrait of Fitzgerald, most of the information comes from carefully spooned out anecdotes from Fitzgerald himself or from a handful of friends, so there's not a lot new in the piece.

Slightly more revealing is Fitzgerald's speech last May at Amherst's commencement, where he was awarded an honorary doctor of laws degree.

(U.S. Att'y Patrick Fitzgerald. Chicago Tribune photo by Candice C. Cusic)

Andrew Zajac

It's the last year of a lame duck presidency, high season for sitting on the president's judicial nominees, the better to give a new commander-in-chief (presumably) of the opposing party a chance to fill more slots.

The idea, as demonstrated by a missive today from Senate Judiciary Committee chair Patrick Leahy, D-VT. (pictured right), is to make the case that the panel is efforting mightily to confirm nominees, could do better with just a little more cooperation from the administration, and in any case, is doing far more than it did when roles were reversed and a Republican congress passed judgment on a Democratic president's picks.

Who is on the federal bench has been a huge deal during the Bush years, particularly for post-9-11 maneuvering on issues like torture, warrantless surveillance and detention of enemy combatants.

The conservative leanings of the DC Circuit and Richmond-based 4th circuits have made them venues of choice for the current administration. The 2nd Circuit, headquartered in Manhattan, and the 9th Circuit, in San Francisco, not so much.

The case of Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri, the Qatari man who is the only enemy combatant still held in the U.S., is illustrative.

(Photo of Al-Marri, right, by Reuters / Peoria County Sheriff's Office)

Andrew Zajac

FBI Director Robert Mueller was on Capitol Hill this morning for an oversight hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee and made news, telling lawmakers that breaches of privacy in counter-terror investigations, which were known to have occurred from 2003 through 2005, also occurred in 2006.

Mueller said a pending report will detail the FBI's continued misuse of national security letters -- administrative subpoenas that require banks, telecoms, Internet service providers and other businesses to produce records in suspected espionage and terror cases without court orders.

by James Oliphant

Sen. Dick Durbin, the Senate majority whip, will prevent the nomination of Chicago federal judge Mark Filip as the Justice Department's No. 2 official from reaching the Senate floor for an up-and-down vote until the department satisfies Democrats on a number of fronts.

The Senate Judiciary Committee, of which Durbin is a member, is scheduled to vote on Filip's nomination this afternoon, and he is expected to win approval. But Durbin (with the blessing of majority leader Harry Reid) will prevent Filip's nomination from a final floor vote.

Wednesday, a number of Senate Democrats on the Judicary Committee were unhappy with responses given by Atty. Gen. Michael Mukasey on the legality of the interrogation technique known as waterboarding. Mukasey essentially punted during his testimony, saying he wouldn't declare the practice illegal because the Central Intelligence Agency isn't currently employing it.

At his confirmation hearing, Filip, too, demurred, saying he would defer to Mukasey on the issue.

The deputy attorney general is a key position at Main Justice. His office functions essentially as the nerve center for the sprawling agency. The job has been vacant since the resignation of Paul McNulty last summer. Filip was Mukasey's hand-picked choice.

Members of the Judiciary Committee are also pressing for responses from Mukasey on a variery of oversight requests, including information about the department's investigation into videotapes destroyed by the CIA of interrogations of suspected high-risk terrorists.

by James Oliphant

We’ve noted earlier the pro-Ohio bias at Swamp HQ, even as we noted the difficult year the Ohio State University endured at the hands of the Southeastern Conference.

Today, one man stood up for Ohio State. Indeed, one man stood up for the entire state of Ohio – and he even isn’t from the Buckeye State. He’s from Arkansas, and he gets this correspondent’s vote for Courageous Legislator of the Year.

The House of Representatives Tuesday entertained a resolution congratulating Louisiana State University for its 38-24 trashing of Ohio State Jan. 7. The measure passed 409 to 1. Who was that one lonely voice? Rep. Marion Berry, a 1965 graduate of the University of Arkansas.

We don’t know, exactly, why Rep. Berry took his Braveheartian stand, but we can guess that, as a graduate of a fierce SEC rival in a border state, he wasn’t about to grant LSU anything. Well done, Rep. Berry.

(The image above comes courtesy of fans of LSU -- obviously.)

Andrew Zajac

Attorney General Michael Mukasey is stoutly conservative in the mold preferred by the Bush Administration, but he has a better knack for explaining himself than did his predecessor, Alberto Gonzales, or at least for accepting responsibility for the positions he's taking, however unsatisfying they might be.

That's the impression Mukasey left in his first on-the-record press briefing last Friday, and in the advance copy of testimony he is slated to deliver Wednesday to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Here's a copy of his remarks: Download file

Andrew Zajac

More evidence that new Attorney General Michael Mukasey is running a more transparent and inclusive shop than his predecessors John Ashcroft and, especially, Alberto Gonzales:

Mukasey announced today that he's appointing Chicago federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to the Attorney General's advisory committee of U.S. attorneys.

Fitzgerald was on the committee from 2001 until 2005, but his appointment to it preceded his service as special prosecutor in the Valerie Plame CIA leak investigation.

by Frank James

It's not quite the outside-the-government special prosecutor some congressional Democrats have demanded, but today Attorney General Michael Mukasey said he asked the Federal Bureau of Investigation to launch a criminal investigation into the Central Intelligence Agency's destruction of video tapes of the harsh interrogations of two high-value al Qaeda detainees.

The probe will be headed by John Durham, First Assistant U.S. Attorney in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Connecticut. Normally, the U.S. Attorney for Northern Virginia would handle a CIA case of this sort.

But an "abundance of caution," led the abundantly cautious Mukasey to look to New England for a senior government lawyer to oversee the investigation. Lessens the chances for any real or apparent conflict of interest.

The widely held suspicion is that the CIA got rid of the tapes because they showed the detainees being waterboarded, the torture technique that simulates drowning.

And this was despite some CIA officials being told by the then-director, Porter Goss, that in Washington, it was usually a very bad idea to destroy tapes, a lesson everyone was supposed to have learned after the Watergate scandal.

Did the tapes' destruction amount to obstruction of justice, that's the question the probe will seek to answer.

Here's Mukasey's statement:

“Following a preliminary inquiry into the destruction by CIA personnel of videotapes of detainee interrogations, the Department’s National Security Division has recommended, and I have concluded, that there is a basis for initiating a criminal investigation of this matter, and I have taken steps to begin that investigation as outlined below.

Ashcroft once insisted on a coverup for "Minnie Lou," the Art Deco sculpture in the Great Hall of the Department of Justice, seen here at Atty Gen'l Michael Mukasey's swearing in. AFP photo.

by Andrew Zajac

It's been a busy month for former Attorney General John Ashcroft.

On Nov. 5, an op ed under his name in the New York Times argued that telecoms, including his client, AT&T, should be immunized from liability for cooperating with government intelligence operations.

Andrew Zajac

Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is fond of saying that he has lived the American Dream.

Now more than ever, perhaps.

Forced to quit his office by the uproar over the dismissal of nine federal prosecutors plus other alleged missteps relating to surveillance and the treatment of detainees, Gonzales now commands a cool $40,000 on the speakers circuit, according to recent news accounts.

by Frank James

When the Federal Bureau of Investigation issued its hate-crimes report this morning, a document which indicated a nearly eight percent increase in 2006 in such crimes compared with the year before, more than a few suspicions were aroused.

Why did the agency wait until the Monday morning of Thanksgiving week to issue the report and not do it last week when Congress was still in town, as were thousands of mostly African American marchers led by Rev. Al Sharpton marched around the Justice Department to demand more federal action against hate crimes?

Was the FBI trying to keep from further riling up the demonstrators who visited Washington on Friday to express their anger at the Jena 6 and other racial incidents?

Absolutely not, said FBI spokesman John Miller. Here's what he said at length.

Rev. Al Sharpton (C) and Martin Luther King III (C-R) march around the Justice Department in Washington, D.C. to protest hate crimes, November 16, 2007 (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

by Frank James

New Attorney General Michael Mukasey, just a week into the job, got a visit from a welcome wagon committee of a few thousand people led by his fellow New Yorker, civil-rights activist Rev. Al Sharpton.

Sharpton was in Washington to lead a protest march that was essentially a continuation of the march that occurred in Jena, La. last month to protest the harsh sentences meted out to six young African American men who beat a white youth in retaliation for anti-black acts that took place during a period of escalating racial tensions in Jena.

It's unclear how many protesters showed up for today's demonstration which was publicized on popular black radio shows like those hosted by Tom Joyner and Steve Harvey. The organizers said they had 100 busloads. Suffice it to say it was enough people to leave an impression.

The marchers called for stronger hate-crime enforcement against acts like noose-hangings, a spate of which has caught the attention of the media whose focus is likely spurring some copycat attention.

Stronger federal-hate crime enforcement probably wouldn't have accomplished much in Jena, however, since the nooses were hung by juveniles who were too young to be susceptible to federal law anyway.

by James Oliphant and Andrew Zajac

The White House has nominated a Chicago federal judge to take the No. 2 post at the Justice Department under new Atty Gen. Michael Mukasey.

If confirmed, Mark Filip, who has been on the bench since 2004, would become the deputy attorney general, a critical postion that typically acts as the “nerve center” for the sprawling agency. Prior to his judgeship, Filip served as a prosecutor in the Chicago U.S. attorney’s office for five years and then joined the megafirm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in Chicago. The Harvard Law graduate also clerked for conservative Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, who swore him in as a judge in 2004.

Interestingly, however, Filip recused himself in 2004 from a challenge brought by independent candidate Ralph Nader to get on the Illinois ballot, because Filip said he signed a nominating petition for Nader while attending a Cubs game.

by Mark Silva

President Bush complains that, "inside the Beltway,''' too many people have interpreted the Senate's constitutional authority of advise and consent in the confirmation of federal judges as the power to "search and destroy.''

The president will deliver this message tonight to the Federalist Society, meeting in Washington. In prepared remarks for tonight's address, Bush complains that judicial nominees are being asked to "guarantee specific outcomes of cases that might come before the court.'' When they fail to comply, he complains, their nominations often end up "in limbo.''

And conversely, Bush will complain, "activist judges'' who have taken it upon themselves to write law rather than interpret it have posed as much of a threat to the constitutional balance of the branches of government as senators holding nominees to unfair standards. "Such judicial lawlessness is a threat to our democracy,'' he will say, "and it needs to stop.''

Bush, who has faced tough fights over many of his judicial nominees, still has 23 appointees -- for 14 federal district seats and nine federal circuit seats -- awaiting confirmation.

"President Bush's Federalist Society speech tonight sets new standards for hypocrisy on the judicial nominations wars that he has needlessly and deliberately provoked for political reasons,'' says Glenn Sugameli, senior legislative counsel for Earthjustice

"All too often, President Bush’s previous and current nominees for lifetime federal judgeships have been chosen precisely because their extreme records will reignite ideological battles, ensuring they will not be confirmed at all or without a major fight,'' says Sugameli , calling the speech "gasoline on the simmering embers of the judicial nomination wars.''

Attorney General Michael Mukasey (l) speaks at his official swearing in as Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, Susan Mukasey and President Bush listen. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

by Mark Silva

“We do law, but the result is justice,’’ Michael Mukasey said at his swearing-in today as the 81st attorney general of the United States.

Now he can be "read into'' the full practices of the government, as President Bush put it during some of the controversy over Mukasey's confirmation, in which he refrained from making any legal judgment about "waterboarding'' carried out in the interrogation of suspected terrorists.

Bush, voicing full confidence in his new appointee to restore order to a Justice Department shaken by political infighting, also praised his past appointee, Alberto Gonzales, “a fine man and a fine American,’’ who was not here for Mukasey’s swearing in by another Bush appointee, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., in the Great Hall of the Justice Department.

“Judge Michael Mukasey is the right man to take on these vital challenges,’’ Bush said. “Michael understands the law from both sides of the bench. He served for more than 18 years as a U.S. District Court Judge in New York, including six years as the Chief Judge. He was a lawyer in private practice. He has served an Assistant United States Attorney in Manhattan, where he headed the Official Corruption Unit.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey on Sept. 17, 2007. (MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images)

by James Oliphant

Michael Mukasey was confirmed by the Senate last night as attorney general, just in time for your late local news. The vote was a squeaker, 53-40, with Democrats pounding the former federal judge for refusing to brand “waterboarding” as illegal torture.

Here is some reaction to the vote:

President Bush released a statement last night from his ranch in Crawford, Tex, which read:

Judge Mukasey’s confirmation comes at a critical moment for the Justice Department and for our Nation. As Attorney General, Judge Mukasey will lead the Justice Department as it works to protect the American people – whether from drug traffickers and other criminals on our streets or from terrorists who seek to attack our homeland.

Now that Judge Mukasey has been confirmed, I look forward to working with the Senate to fill the other senior leadership positions at the Justice Department so that America has the strongest, most capable national security team during this time of war.

by James Oliphant, and updated

Tonight, the Senate is going into overtime to debate the nomination of Michael Mukasey as attorney general.

Mukasey passed the Senate Judiciary Committee in a narrow vote Tuesday, setting the stage for a contentious floor debate, one that has had little to do with Mukasey's qualifications for the post. Instead, the Bush administration's attitude toward abusive interrogation has been central to the conflict. Mukasey has drawn the ire of many Democrats by refusing to declare the practice of "waterboarding" as illegal torture under U.S. law. He has pledged to enforce any prohibition passed by Congress.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), one of two Democrats on the Judiciary Committee to support Mukasey's nomination, tonight made an impassioned plea for his confirmation, arguing that the retired Manhattan federal judge is the best Democrats could hope for as a choice to succeed Alberto Gonzales. Feinstein contended that if Mukasey isn't confirmed, the White House would allow the Justice Department to be run by an interim official for the remained of the administration. "This is the only chance we have," Feinstein said.

She also noted that Mukasey had nothing to do with crafting the interrogation policies at issue.

"How can this man be the standard bearer for torture?" Feinstein said. "He isn't. Why is he being treated as such?"

Following Feinstein's speech, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) rose to oppose Mukasey's confirmation, questioning whether he truly would be independent from the White House. "I hope I am wrong about Judge Mukasey," he said.

Update: In a late Thursday vote, Mukasey was confirmed by a 53-40 tally.

Senate Judiciary Committee members (l to r) Senators. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Arlen Specter (R-PA), Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Edward Kennedy (D-MA) on November 6, 2007. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

by James Oliphant

The Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday approved the nomination of Michael Mukasey as the next attorney general of the United States, likely ensuring his confirmation by the full Senate.

The vote was tight, 11-8, with two Democratic senators, Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) and Charles Schumer (N.Y.) crossing party lines to join Republicans in endorsing Mukasey.

Last month, at his hearing before the committee, Mukasey's confirmation appeared secure, as senators from both parties praised his qualifications – he spent 18 years as a Manhattan federal judge – and his independence from the White House political apparatus.

But Mukasey, 66, courted a firestorm when he refused to declare that the interrogation technique called "waterboarding" constituted illegal torture under U.S. law. Mukasey cited an unfamiliarity with the practice and a reluctance to provide a legal opinion without more information as the primary reason.

That led, last week, to several Democrats, including the chairman of the committee, Sen. Patrick Leahy (Vt.) and the frontrunner for the presidential nomination, Sen. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) to oppose Mukasey's nomination. At the committee meeting Tuesday, Leahy said the administration – and Mukasey – had put Americans abroad at risk by not condemning waterboarding, saying they were now vulnerable to the practice.

"The U.S. government is basically saying to American citizens, if you go abroad, you are on your own," Leahy said.

But the impending showdown was defused when Schumer and Feinstein broke ranks. For Schumer, the choice couldn't have been easy. As Mukasey's home state senator, he was a steadfast patron of the former judge, even introducing him to the committee. For Feinstein, it marks the second time in as many months that she has defied her Democratic colleagues on the committee. Last month, she supported the nomination of federal appeals judge Leslie Southwick, earning the ire of civil rights groups. Those groups are even less happy with Feinstein today.

CodePink members mock Senate Judiciary Committee member Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and President Bush on November 6, 2007 (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

by Mark Silva

President Bush, pressing for Senate confirmation of Michael Mukasey as attorney general, portrays it as a matter of national security.

"In a time of war, it is vital for the president to have a full national security team in place,'' the president says in his weekly radio address today.

Everything the president does, of course, is taking place in a time of war. Yet he hasn't portrayed the passage of a children's health care bill as a question of national security.

Today's address could be symbolic, of course. A couple of Democrats on the Senate Judicary Committee have indicated they will vote for Mukasey (pictured right) next week, even if the chairman of the committee won't. So the president should have his attorney general.

Critics remain concerned that Mukasey will not directly confront some of the tactics which the government is employing in this time of war -- in particular, the waterboarding of suspected terrorists. But Mukasey, a former federal judge, is seasoned in questions of terrorism.

"This is the kind of leader American needs to head the Department of Justice at this imporment moment in our history,'' the president says today.

A moment of war.

Senate Judiciary Committee member Sen. Charles Schumer, with balled fists, talks with Michael Mukasey during the latter's Oct. 17, 2007 confirmation hearing. (AP Photos/Susan Walsh)

by James Oliphant

The Michael Mukasey watch appears to be over: Chuck Schumer is staying on board.

The controversy over the attorney general nominee had placed Schumer in a hard place. The New York senator had recommended Mukasey to the White House, saying the former federal judge was a by-the-book conservative jurist who would restore order to the Justice Department. Schumer went as far as to introduce Mukasey to the Senate Judicary Committee.

So he had to be watching with dismay as his fellow Democrats began lining up against Mukasey this week over the nominee's refusal to brand "waterboarding" as illegal torture. Earlier today, judiciary committee chair Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said he wouldn't support Mukasey, meaning the half of the Democrats on the panel were now formally against him.

But Schumer ended the speculation that he would abandon Mukasey in a statement late Friday afternoon, saying:

I have spent the last nine months doing everything I can to get new leadership at the Department of Justice and I believe the job will not be finished until we get a strong and independent Attorney General. I believe Judge Mukasey is that type of person. Should we reject him, it is almost certain that an acting, caretaker Attorney General will take office without the advice and consent of the Senate. Inevitably, that would enable those in this administration, who do not believe in the rule of law, and have done things that caused even former Attorney General Ashcroft to threaten resignation, to have the complete upper hand.

A vote against Mukasey would undoubtedly have been unpopular in Schumer's home base of New York City, where Mukasey is a respected member of the legal community.

Along with Schumer, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) also announced she would support the nominee. Presuming that most if not all Republicans on the panel vote that way as well, it appears Mukasey's nomination will be sent to the floor, where he is expected to draw enough support to overcome a filibuster and win confirmation.

The move would ostensibly prevent White House from using the episode to batter Democrats on national security, as President Bush has attempted to do in recent days.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy announces in Burlington, Vt., Nov. 2, 2007, that he won't support the nomination of Michael Mukasey for Attorney General (AP Photo/Alden Pellett)

by Frank James

A day after President Bush demanded that the Senate approve Michael Mukasey, his nominee to be the nation's new attorney general, Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, threw down a gauntlet of his own, saying he would not vote to approve the former federal judge.

It doesn't mean Mukasey won't be attorney general. The Judiciary committee could still approve his nomination and have it reach the floor for a full Senate vote. All it would take would be one of the ten Democrats to vote with the panel's nine Republicans to send Mukasey's nomination to the full Senate. A few Democrats voting with Republicans there would get Mukasey over the top.

But it's very important symbolically that the committee's chairman is saying he won't vote to approve the nomination because of Mukasey's failure to pronounce that waterboarding is torture.

Mukasey has refused to make such a judgment because he has not been fully briefed on classified information that spells out all the aggressive interrogation techniques used by the Bush administration.

Leahy's announcement today that Mukasey is a nominee no grata follows by a day Sen. Edward Kennedy's statement that he too would be voting against Mukasey.

What this amounts to is an intensification of the battle between the president and Congress. Yesterday, the president gave a war on terror speech that sounded a lot like a war on Democrats speech. Today, Leahy returns the favor.

Here's how Bloomberg News is reporting the story:

By James Rowley

Nov. 2 (Bloomberg) - Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy announced he will oppose the confirmation of Michael B. Mukasey to be President George W. Bush's next attorney general.

Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, in a statement issued in advance of a news conference in Burlington today, said he was disturbed by Mukasey's refusal to say whether an interrogation technique that simulates drowning, known as waterboarding, is illegal torture.

President Bush at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, Nov. 1, 2007. (Credit: MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images)

by Mark Silva

President Bush insists that senators are asking “unfair’’ questions of Michael Mukasey, his nominee for attorney general, about a terrorist interrogation program that the former federal judge hasn’t been fully briefed about yet – “He’s not been read into a program,’’ Bush said. Mukasey, he said, doesn't know what techniques are being used.

Bush made his remarks in an unusual question-and-answer session with reporters before his speech on the war at the Heritage Foundation today. He wanted to preview his speech, he said, but he also wanted to make a point about the confirmation process Mukasey is facing. And Bush was pressed to voice his own view about water-boarding.

"I'm not going to talk about techniques,'' the president said. "There is an enemy out there.''

Mukasey started off with a bang in his confirmation hearings – calling torture “a sin.’’ But since then, his refusal to address specific questions such as the legality of “water-boarding,’’ the simulated drownings which suspected terrorists are said to face in a secrecy-veiled program of interrogation run by the U.S. government and also carried out in the rendition of suspects to interrogation by allied nations abroad.
.
“A key member of the national security team -- a key member of the team that works to protect the American people -- is the attorney general,’’ the president said in his Oval Office meeting with reporters. “I've submitted a highly competent, smart, independent nominee in Judge Mukasey to the Senate. I am disappointed that the process is taking so long to get his name to the floor.

“I believe that the questions he's been asked are unfair,’’ Bush said. “He's not been read into a program -- he has been asked to give opinions of a program or techniques of a program on which he has not been briefed.''

Sen. Charles Schumer, a Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said today that the questions were not unfair.

"I do not think he is being treated unfairly at all," he told reporters. Schumer, from New York, had helped to introduce the retired judge from Manhattan around Capitol Hill. Today, he said he did not know how he would vote on his confirmation.

"I am weighing this very carefully," Schumer said. "Obviously, there are strong considerations on both sides."

by James Oliphant

The refusal of Michael Mukasey, the nominee for attorney general, to explicitly declare as illegal an interrogation technique known as "waterboarding" has placed his once-seemingly certain confirmation in some jeopardy.

Mukasey sent a letter this week to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) in which he would not go as far as Leahy and other Democrats want in condemning waterboarding as torture. As a result, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said he could not support Mukasey's nomination, as did presidential candidate Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), a senior member of the committee.

Durbin told the Senate late Wednesday that Mukasey is "an extraordinarily able and talented jurist," but added that his position, or lack of one, on waterboarding and torture had cost him the senator's support.

"Sadly, if the Senate confirms Judge Mukasey, it will tell the world that the American attorney general hasn't made up his mind about a form of torture that has been repudiated for centuries," Durbin said.

See the rest of the story in the Tribune today:

Andrew Zajac

Attention dog lovers, especially aficionados of the maligned aggregate of breeds collectively known as pit bulls.

The court-appointed special master overseeing the fate of roughly 49 of the former denizens of Bad Newz Kennels has just issued an application for animal rescue organizations to adopt one or more of the canines.

Dogs have been divided into 4 categories depending on level of aggression and adoption is open to non-profit animal rescue operations with a minimum of three years experience handling animals, according to guidelines established by Rebecca Huss, the Valparaiso University law prof serving as special master.

by James Oliphant

Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee are getting a few last licks in before they vote on the confirmation of Atty. Gen, nominee Michael Mukasey.

The ranking member, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), today sent a batch of questions to the retired federal judge, who testified before the committee last week.

Specter is primarily concerned with Mukasey's answers concerning the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires a warrant for secret wiretaps. Mukasey indicated he believed that the president may have powers beyond the scope of the act to put in place an alternative program for eavesdropping, perhaps similar to the now defunct National Security Agency effort that sparked turmoil when it was revealed in 2005.

"If you believe the President can act outside the law," Specter wrote, "how do you square that belief with your statement at the hearing that “The President doesn't stand above the law[?]” How do you deal with the public concern that the rule of law is supreme and the President at times appears to put himself above the law?"

Andrew Zajac

Drug Enforcement Administration administrator Karen Tandy announced her retirement today to take a senior position with Motorola.

As DEA head, Tandy was a key chieftain in the war on drugs (remember that?). Post-9-11, her agency was shoved out of the headlines by the war on terror, despite strong efforts to highlight linkage between the two.

In 2003, the DEA assembled a traveling exhibit titled Target America: Traffickers, Terrorists, and You -- funded in part by Motorola.

In a press release announcing the opening of the exhibit, Tandy declared that,"Drug money is the slush fund of mass murder."

DEA has boasted of racking up big numbers in drug eradication in Afghanistan, though recent UN reports indicate the trade in opium and heroin is thriving.

Attorney General-nominee Michael Mukasey Photo takes oath before Senate. Photo credit. Andrew Councill/MCT

by James Oliphant

Attorney General nominee Michael B. Mukasey provided some reassurance today to critics of the Bush administration's anti-terror policies, but by and large avoided taking hard-and-fast stances about some of its most controversial practices.

Testifying before the Senate Judicary Committee this morning, Mukasey, a retired New York federal judge, explicitly disavowed the position taken on abusive interrogation practices backed by his predecessor, Alberto Gonzales.

Referring to a 2002 Justice Department memo that endorsed the legality of using such techniques on suspected terrorists, Mukasey said, "it was worse than a sin. It was a mistake."

Mukasey, 66, noted that the United States was bound by its own laws and treaty obligations to prohibit torture, but he went further, saying, "We don’t torture, not simply because its not against this or that law or this or that treaty. Soldiers of this country liberated concentration camps and photographed what they saw there as a record of the barbarism they opposed."

Donald Washington, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Louisiana, testifies before House Judiciary Committee on Jena 6 case. Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images.

by Howard Witt

Under pointed questioning from Democratic House members who decried the lack of federal intervention in the racially-charged Jena 6 case, U.S. Justice Department officials revealed Tuesday that they are now weighing an investigation into allegations of systemic racial bias in the administration of justice in the small, mostly white Louisiana town.

U.S. Attorney Donald Washington also said for the first time that the hanging of nooses from a shade tree in the Jena High School courtyard in September, 2006, by three white students—a warning to stay away from the tree directed at black students that triggered months of interracial fights in the town—constituted a federal hate crime, but that federal authorities opted not to prosecute the case because of the ages of the white youths involved.

Jena school officials dismissed the noose incident as a youthful prank and issued brief suspensions to the white students involved, angering black residents of the town.

“Yes, hanging a noose under these circumstances is a hate crime,” Washington, the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Louisiana, told a House Judiciary Committee hearing convened to examine the Jena case. “If these acts had been committed by others who were not juveniles, this would have been a federal hate crime, and we would have moved forward.”

by Mark Silva

The House today is acting on what's widely known as a "shield law,'' protecting journalists from having to testify in federal court about information provided by confidential sources.

The White House doesn't like it.

A White House spokesman refused to comment on the policy, deferring to a written statement issued just now by the Office of Management and Budget: "The administration believes strongly in the importance and rights of a free press; however, based on the overriding imperative to protect national security, the administration strongly opposes H.R. 2102.

"The bill would provide a broad privilege to a large class of 'covered persons' that could severely frustrate – and in some cases completely eviscerate – the federal government’s ability to investigate acts of terrorism and other threats to national security,'' the White House states.

"Accordingly, if H.R. 2102 were presented to the President in its current form, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.''

by James Oliphant

On the eve of hearings on the president’s nominee for attorney general, Michael Mukasey, three influential senators on the Judiciary Committee are asking the White House to pull a candidate for another high-level post at the Justice Department because of his involvement in secret memos authorizing torture.

Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin (Ill.), Russ Feingold (Wis.) and Edward Kennedy (Mass.) sent a letter to President Bush today requesting that he withdraw the nomination of Steven Bradbury to the Office of Legal Counsel. The obscure but critically important office has been responsible for crafting some of the administration’s most contentious anti-terror policies.

Bradbury has been serving in the post on an interim basis since 2005. In that role, according to a story earlier this month in The New York Times, he reportedly signed off on two memos that authorized the Central Intelligence Agency to use abusive interrogation techniques on suspected terrorists. The memos came just months after the department had disavowed the so-called “Bybee memo” that had earlier authorized similar abusive techniques.

The Times reported that upon taking office, then-Atty. Gen Alberto Gonzales signed off on one Bradbury’s memos, secretly re-authorizing the interrogation policy.

by James Oliphant

Senate Democrats will want some hard promises from attorney general nominee Michael Mukasey when he appears before them this week. Whether Mukasey is willing to make them may spell the difference between a smooth path toward confirmation and yet another debate over the administration's most contentious practices.

Mukasey, 66, is the retired New York federal judge who is being asked to take on a daunting task: restore the morale of a Justice Department shattered by allegations of political favoritism and clandestine policymaking.

But before he sets about that rebuilding job, he has to clear the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will convene Wednesday to consider his nomination.

"The issue is whether the Senate can extract various and sundry commitments from Mukasey," said Nicholas Gess, a former senior Justice Department official under Janet Reno.

If Mukasey says and does the right things, he could enjoy the same kid-gloves treatment given Robert Gates, who replaced Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense to rave reviews. But if he chooses to endorse administration positions on the use of torture in the interrogations of suspected terrorists, on the laws authorizing warrantless wiretaps and on a sweeping view of presidential power, things could become combative in a hurry.

See the rest of the story in today's Tribune:

by Andrew Zajac

A federal judge overseeing the case of the pit bulls in the Michael Vick dogfighting case has appointed Rebecca Huss, a law professor at Valparaiso University, as special master to look after the canine's interests.

Authorities have so far euthanized one of the 49 dogs currently in federal care in the case.

by Frank James

These are good days to be a white-collar criminal or a corrupt public official, apparently.

According to an analysis of Justice Department data, federal prosecutions of white collar criminals are down significantly since the period before President Bush took office, as are prosecutions of corrupt public officials.

A non-partisan research organization with an ungainly name, the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse which is associated with Syracuse University, looked at the numbers and found that prosecutions of white-collar criminals have fallen 27 percent between fiscal year 2000 and 2007.

Meanwhile, public corruption prosecutions have fallen 14 percent in that same time period.

It’s possible that there’s less white-collar crime and public corruption in the nation which would explain the drop but that’s rather unlikely.

Andrew Zajac

The Justice Department filed notice yesterday that it will appeal last month's ruling that portions of the USA Patriot Act pertaining to surveillance of U.S. citizens are unconstitutional.

The ruling came in a suit by Brandon Mayfield, the Portland, Oregon attorney wrongly linked to the March 2004 Madrid train bombing after the FBI misidentified a fingerprint in the investigation.

by James Oliphant

By his own admission, the crime was savage. Jose Medellin and five other gang members were drinking, brawling, swaggering, talking smack and hanging out by the railroad tracks near a Houston apartment complex on a warm night in June 1993. Along came two girls, Jennifer Ertman, 14, and Elizabeth Pena, 16, taking a shortcut home from a friend's house.

Medellin stopped Pena. When she tried to run, he threw her to the ground. Ertman ran to help her but also was shoved to the ground. They were gang-raped and beaten. Even as the girls begged for their lives, they were dragged to nearby woods and strangled, one with her own shoelace, the other with a belt and then by a shoe pressed on her windpipe. Their bodies were found four days later.

Medellin had no regrets. He bragged about the crime to his cousin and gave one of the girl's rings to his girlfriend. His brother kept Ertman's Disney-brand Goofy watch as a trophy.

It didn't take long for police to catch Medellin. Once they did, he confessed. Nor did it take long for the jury to return a verdict: Guilty. And Texas-style justice means death for a crime like his.

For the past 13 years, Medellin has been on Death Row in Texas. Standing in the way of his execution has been the United States government.

Texas has taken the U.S. to court to allow it to execute Medellin. This week the case will be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court.

"It's a crime even among capital crimes that stands out for its gruesomeness and its barbarity," said R. Ted Cruz, the Texas solicitor general.

The case might be the ultimate test of states' rights versus the power of the federal government. Indeed, 28 states have signed on in support of Texas. But it also indicates the extent to which states are bound by international law and the United States' treaty obligations.

The government of Mexico forced the U.S. stance. After Medellin was convicted, Mexico brought suit in the International Court of Justice, the judicial body of the United Nations, charging that the U.S. had violated the Vienna Convention. That treaty requires that foreign nationals arrested in a signatory country be allowed to meet with a consular official from their home country. It's a tool treasured by diplomats, American and otherwise, worldwide.

See the rest of the story in today's Tribune:

Andrew Zajac

You've heard all about the missteps of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and much of the rest of the political layer atop the Justice Department.

But the vast apparatus of the federal justice system has chugged along thanks to the efforts of tens of thousands of DOJ employees who steer clear of the bungling and partisan politicking that tripped up their bosses in recent months.

This afternoon, 191 of them, plus 26 others from outside agencies get a moment in the sun with recognition at the department's 55th annual awards ceremony at Constitution Hall in Washington.

Andrew Zajac

An examination of 49 dogs seized in the Michael Vick dogfighting case has found that only one canine is an immediate candidate for euthanasia.

Working under contract with the Department of Agriculture, a team of veterinarians assembled by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals conducted "individualized behavior testing" last month to gauge each dog's behavior toward other animals and humans.

According to a court filing Download file from earlier
today, the ASPCA team found that 48 dogs "appear to have some potential for placement with specific condition" ranging from foster care with continued observation to sanctuary in a kennel experienced in handling pit bulldogs.

Sen. Barack Obama joined hands with Charlene Drew Jarvis, left, and Howard University President H. Patrick Swygert, during his visit as keynote speaker at convocation today. Photo by Chuck Kennedy/MCT

by Mike Dorning

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama promised today to right "glaring inequities" in the U.S. justice system that he said were exposed by local prosecutors' handling of a racially charged fight among high school students in Jena, La.

"We know these inequities are there," Obama said in a speech at the historically black Howard University in Washington, D.C. " We know they’re wrong. And yet they go largely unnoticed."

The Illinois senator has been accused by some black activists, most notably the Rev. Jesse Jackson, of insufficient passion in his response to the Jena 6 incident. Jackson told a South Carolina newspaper that Obama was "acting like he's white" as he criticized Obama for not participating in the protest march in Jena, La. Jackson later said the remark was taken out of context.

Six black high school students in Jena were charged with attempted murder for a fight with white students after white students hung nooses in a schoolyard tree. The students who hung the nooses—which appeared after black students tried to sit under a shade tree that previously had been used only by white students--were not charged with a crime or expelled from school.

With his speech at Howard, Obama turned to the Jena incident as an object lesson to assert broad structural disparities in the way the criminal justice system treats members of minority groups and offered his vision for addressing them.

by Mark Silva, and updated

Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho entered a men’s room at the Minneapolis airport in June, his attorney said today, with "no purpose other than to go to the bathroom.’’

That’s the basis for the case that laywers for the Idaho Republican are making for withdrawal of the guilty plea for disorderly conduct that Craig made in Minnesota in August, following his arrest in the airport men’s room in June. The arresting officer, conducting a sting operation in the next stall, maintained that Craig’s behavior – toe-tapping and running a hand beneath the stalls – indicated a sexual advance.

Craig, saying that he had wanted to make the whole case “go away,’’ has maintained that he made a mistake in pleading guilty. He paid a fine for the misdemeanor.

The recent revelation of that conviction led to Craig’s announcement, under pressure from Republican leaders, that he would resign from the Senate on Sept. 30 – though now that he is attempting to clear his name Craig says he will hold off on that Sunday resignation.

"The court has not issued a ruling,'' he said after the hearing in Minnesota. "For now, I will continue my work in the United States Senate from Idaho.''

If the judge will withdraw the plea, Craig’s lawyer said, the senator stands ready to face trial on charges that he was soliciting sex in the airport men’s room. He will plead not guilty.

“What he did was not a crime,’’ Craig’s lawyer, Billy Martin, said after a court hearing in Minneapolis today. “Sen. Larry Craig denies that he went into that restroom for anything other than to go to the restroom…. He had no purpose other than to go to the bathroom.’’

(Sen. Larry Craig, above, leaving his Yacht Club residence in Washington today. The prosecutor in Minnesota said that Craig had had plenty of time at his "apartment on the Potomac'' earlier this year to think about the plea he entered. AP Photo by Caleb Jones)