Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee Morning Session - Continuation of Executive Nomination of Michael Mukasey to be Attorney General of the U.S.

Interview

Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee Morning Session - Continuation of Executive Nomination of Michael Mukasey to be Attorney General of the United States

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D-NY): Thank you, Madame Chairperson. Thank you again, Judge Mukasey.

Now, I know you care as much as anyone about rooting out public corruption. In fact, I note that when you were at the U.S. attorney's office, you ultimately headed up the official corruption unit for a few years. Both you and I know that sometimes the mechanism for pursuing public corruption can itself become corrupted. And you and I both know that when political considerations get enmeshed in political cases, the public suffers and justice suffers.

You've already given comforting answers about some things you'd do in the future about making sure political actors and elected officials do not themselves corrupt investigations of corruption. So I want to ask you a few more questions along those lines.

First, how would you react if it came to your attention that the White House director of Political Affairs or a similar official had pushed a United States attorney to pursue a case against a Democratic official?

MR. MUKASEY: How would I react?

SEN. SCHUMER: Yeah.

MR. MUKASEY: I think --

SEN. SCHUMER: Well, I should be more --

MR. MUKASEY: A euphemistic description would be negatively.

SEN. SCHUMER: Okay.

MR. MUKASEY: I think I would --

SEN. SCHUMER: I'll be specific here. Would you confront the White House official?

MR. MUKASEY: I would first have a conversation with the United States attorney involved and find out what it was that had been said or not said, and what pressure had been brought or not brought. And if I thought that pressure was being brought, I would have a conversation with the White House official and, if necessary, with the president.

SEN. SCHUMER: Right. That was my next question, would you inform the president of the behavior, and you've answered that. What would you do to rectify the situation?

MR. MUKASEY: I would make absolutely certain that whatever the effect was of the pressure was undone. And how to do that obviously is going to vary on a case-by-case basis. But one way might very well be to take over that investigation with someone from main Justice who was not subject to that pressure. But that's a hypothetical; I recognize that, and I don't want to -- I'd rather confront -- I'd rather not confront the issue. But if I have to confront it, I'd rather confront the facts and not just --

SEN. SCHUMER: Sure. Understood.

MR. MUKASEY: -- the hypothetical.

SEN. SCHUMER: Well, let me go to a specific fact case, because there are troubling allegations from several quarters that such behavior did actually occur in the past. And so I want to talk not only prospectively but retroactively -- retrospectively.

In Alabama, there was a recent prosecution of a former Democratic governor named Don Siegelman. Although he was ultimately convicted of several counts, there are serious allegations that his case was politically motivated and selectively prosecuted. A Republican lawyer from Alabama, Jim -- Jill Simpson, has apparently sworn under oath that an Alabama political figure told her that Karl Rove pushed the Justice Department to bring political corruption charges against Mr. Siegelman.

She also testified that the son of Alabama's current governor told her that a Republican judge would, quote, "hang Don Siegelman," unquote. It's also been suggested that when the case against Mr. Siegelman was faltering, this political pressure caused people at the department to demand prosecutors, quote, "take another look at everything," unquote.

And there are other troubling allegations that are a matter of public record. And given what we've seen in the Justice Department, again no smoking gun but a series of these types of issues -- I've read about this; I don't know the specific facts, but it greatly troubles me. It greatly troubles me that perhaps, perhaps, perhaps this case was politically brought. My chief counsel, who was a prosecutor in the U.S. attorney's office, the same one you served in, said, well, he was convicted, but that doesn't really answer the question per se.

So I'm not accusing anyone of anything and I don't know all the fact but I'd like you to learn the fact and report back. And so I'm asking you, you know, you've demonstrated you're a no-nonsense public servant. As good as your intentions are, we can't have a proper housecleaning without resolving lingering issues and doubts. In the spirit of making a fresh start and restoring public confidence that politics has been removed from the department, I would ask you to personally look into the Siegelman matter and just report back to us what you find. Would you be willing to do that?

MR. MUKASEY: Well, I don't know what stage the Siegelman case is at.

SEN. SCHUMER: It's -- he's convicted; he's in prison.

MR. MUKASEY: I understand that. Is it -- is the case on appeal?

SEN. SCHUMER: I don't believe it is. Yes, it still may be.

MR. MUKASEY: Then --

SEN. SCHUMER: But as you know, under federal rules, he's serving time in prison right now.

MR. MUKASEY: I understand that but I think that it may very well be that the first cut at the facts that you've described and suggested ought to be had by the court. And it is not unheard of for there to be a motion in an appellate court to remand when facts come to the attention of lawyers, after a case is tried, that warrant hearing by the court that tried him. I --

SEN. SCHUMER: Yeah, not to interrupt you, I don't know the details of this.

MR. MUKASEY: Me neither, and I'm --

SEN. SCHUMER: But I think many of these facts came out after the trial and conviction at the district level, and might not be admissible before the court of appeals.

MR. MUKASEY: And what I'm suggesting is, maybe there ought to be a remander or a request for a remander. The reason I'm hesitant to say, well, I'm going to get into it and do something is when a case is in the process, as this one is, I --

SEN. SCHUMER: Let me rephrase the question. Would you take a look at it? If there is a possibility, and the case is ongoing because of appeal, would you be willing if, after the appeal is completed, particularly if there's no remand or it's not admissible -- these new facts are not admissible, determined by that court -- would you be willing to take a look at this?

MR. MUKASEY: I would certainly be willing to take a look at that.

SEN. SCHUMER: Okay. Thank you.

I have a brief amount of time left. I just have a couple of questions here about, again, disproportionate prosecution of Democrats. I'm going to be quick here because my time is running out.

Donald Shields from the University of Missouri and John Cragan from Illinois State University did a study of prosecutions. Again, we see this in the backdrop of what we've seen over the last few months and what we've learned through the chairman's leadership on this investigation. The two professors of communication compiled a database of 375 investigations and indictments of candidates and elected officials by U.S. attorneys. The preliminary findings suggest that Democratic office holders and office seekers are investigated seven times as often as Republican ones. Obviously, there may be the situation where there was seven times as much corruption brought to the attention of the U.S. attorney among Democrats, but if you believe sort of bad people are sort of sprinkled throughout the political system rather evenly, that is not one that goes down easy or well.

I'd ask you to take a personal look at the study, see what you think, and if you thought it had some merit, undertake a study of your own to determine whether there is not improper or uneven treatment going on.

MR. MUKASEY: I will take a look at the study, and I also can tell you I believe that neither party has monopoly on either virtue or vice.

SEN. SCHUMER: I'd be interested, should you become attorney general -- and as you know, I hope you will be -- that you report back to us in some way or another your view of that study.

My time's expired.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source