Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Michael Chertoff - New HomeLand Security Secretary per Fox News
crushelits | Jan. 11, 2004 | crushelits

Posted on 01/11/2005 6:41:46 AM PST by crushelits

Michael Chertnof - New HomeLand Security Secretary per Fox News

TOPICS: Breaking News; Government; US: New Jersey; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: chertnof; chertoff; dhs; fox; homeland; immigrantlist; michael; michaelchertoff; new; news; secretary; security; term2
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-188 next last

1 posted on 01/11/2005 6:41:46 AM PST by crushelits
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: crushelits

If he is the DC lawyer, we have tooooo many lawyers already.

2 posted on 01/11/2005 6:43:00 AM PST by cynicom (<p)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crushelits
Michael Chertoff

Nominated to: U.S Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Status of nomination: Confirmed 6/9/03

Michael Chertoff is currently the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division. He has had a long career in Republican legal circles and has been an active member of the Federalist Society for many years. Chertoff is known as a tough prosecutor and single-minded advocate whose demeanor has been described as "intimidating" by those who work with him. 1

Though Chertoff is a loyal Republican, he has refrained from aligning himself with the right wing of the party, particularly on social issues. He has not compiled a public record of pushing ideological extremes on issues such as abortion, school prayer or vouchers.

Michael Chertoff received a "well qualified" rating from the American Bar Association. There is little doubt that he is a talented attorney and an intelligent, committed public servant. Nevertheless, his behavior in the Whitewater investigation and his current role in the War Against Terrorism raise questions about his ethics and his belief in the civil liberties of all people. Senators should question him carefully on both these matters.

Brief Biography

source: Independent Judiciary
3 posted on 01/11/2005 6:47:39 AM PST by TomGuy (America: Best friend or worst enemy. Choose wisely.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crushelits

his resume. never heard his name before. dunno...

4 posted on 01/11/2005 6:47:48 AM PST by traviskicks (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crushelits

Libs wont like him. Saw an article called "Michael Chertnof, Ashcrofts Top Gremlin"


5 posted on 01/11/2005 6:48:06 AM PST by smith288 (I have posted over 10,000 times. The more I post, the more intelligent you become!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy

This guy got into Harvard at 16????

6 posted on 01/11/2005 6:52:57 AM PST by bubman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy

Whitewater investigation--that will go over really well with the 'Rats. teehee!

7 posted on 01/11/2005 6:54:10 AM PST by NautiNurse (Osama bin Laden has more tapes than Steely Dan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: crushelits

I remember him from the early days of the Whitewater investigations. I think he will make a very good Sec of HS. And after reading the following synopsis, I'm even more in favor of him.

8 posted on 01/11/2005 6:54:25 AM PST by SwatTeam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crushelits

I thought he was pretty good as the Republican council on D'Amato's Whitewater committee - especially when he asked Hubbel about Lippo and Lasater about Mena. That was as close as anybody got.

9 posted on 01/11/2005 6:54:58 AM PST by Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach; Mo1


This ought to be interesting, LOLOL

10 posted on 01/11/2005 6:55:40 AM PST by prairiebreeze (George W Bush: Spending well-earned political capital.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: bubman
This guy got into Harvard at 16????

Born in 1953, entered Harvard in 1971.

11 posted on 01/11/2005 6:56:06 AM PST by NautiNurse (Osama bin Laden has more tapes than Steely Dan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy; crushelits

That bio says he's nominated to the 3rd Circuit. Which is it: HS or 3rd Circuit?

12 posted on 01/11/2005 6:56:44 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: xzins


[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: xzins

He was our lawyer during the WhiteWater hearings.

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: All

Michael Chertoff

Birth: November 28, 1953 Elizabeth, New Jersey
Legal Residence:   New Jersey
Education: 1971 - 1975 Harvard University
    A.B. degree magna cum laude
  1975 - 1978 Harvard Law School
    J.D. degree magna cum laude
Bar Admittance: 1980 District of Columbia
  1987 New York
  1990 New Jersey
Experience: 1978 Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin
    Summer Associate
  1978 - 1979 Law Clerk to the Hon. Murray Gurfein
    United States Court of Appeals
    Second Circuit
  1979 - 1980 Law Clerk to the Hon. William J. Brennan, Jr.
    Supreme Court of the United States
  1980 - 1983 Latham & Watkins
  1983 - 1987 United States Attorney’s Office
    Southern District of New York
    Assistant United States Attorney
  1987 - 1994 United States Attorney’s Office
    District of New Jersey
    First Assistant United States Attorney, 1987-1990
    United States Attorney, 1990-1994
  1994 - 1996 United States Senate
    Special Counsel for Whitewater Committee
  1994 - 2001 Latham & Watkins
  2001 - present United States Department of Justice
    Assistant Attorney General
    Criminal Division

15 posted on 01/11/2005 7:00:21 AM PST by crushelits
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crushelits
Bush to Name Homeland Security Chief
Tuesday, January 11, 2005

WASHINGTON — President Bush on Tuesday will name federal appeals court judge Michael Chertoff (search) as his nominee to be the next homeland security secretary, FOX News has confirmed.

The announcement is expected to be made at 10 a.m. EST, the White House said. Chertoff will have to be confirmed by the Senate before he can take over for retiring Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge (search).

Bernard Kerik (search) — the former New York Police commissioner who was in charge during the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks — was the president's first pick for the job but Kerik withdrew his name from consideration after news surfaced that he had an illegal nanny, among other questionable dealings.

Ridge announced his resignation Nov. 30. He plans to remain in the job until Feb. 1, unless the Senate confirms his successor earlier.

Chertoff was a U.S. attorney in New Jersey before he became special counsel for the Whitewater Committee in the U.S. Senate. He was then a partner with the firm, Latham and Watkins, then joined the Justice Department as an assistant attorney general within the criminal division.

16 posted on 01/11/2005 7:00:29 AM PST by RobFromGa (Bush Needs to Stay Aggressive in Term 2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crushelits

Chertoff is a great pick! "The Killer" rocks!

17 posted on 01/11/2005 7:02:40 AM PST by The G Man (The Red States ... the world's only hope for survival.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crushelits
It's Chertoff.

Chertoff isn't just some DC lawyer. Those of us who watched the Watergate hearings remember Chertoff as the thin, balding, reedy-voiced side-kick to Alphonse D'Amato.

I think we were ill-served by D'Amato in those hearings, but Chertoff did a darned good job.

18 posted on 01/11/2005 7:03:32 AM PST by shhrubbery!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Michael Chertoff: Ashcroft's Top Gremlin

Spreading Mischief from DoJ to the Federal Bench


I have been watching John Ashcroft so long that it is getting to be a little boring. Promising to use all available means to "fight terrorism," prosecuting every violation of law "to the fullest extent of the law," desperately wanting the death penalty for every possible offense, and, according to his remarks last week before the Senate Judiciary committee, wanting laws changed to impose the death penalty for even more offenses. Ashcroft changes law and procedure by signing Executive Orders, and yes, he can get away with that unless a court stops him. So far, no court has. Some congressional members, damn few, express mild dismay at his tactics, such as locking up resident aliens after 9/11 and holding some of them for months without access to family or lawyers (or charges), then deporting many on the most technical visa violations (some of them the fault of INS, over which he has authority). It never ends-the Ashcroft watch. It only gets worse, and more frightening.

But now I have a new gremlin to watch, someone who is as intent on undermining the law and Constitution as Ashcroft. I am referring to the man behind the criminal prosecution of terrorists, Michael Chertoff. Chertoff, former chief of the Justice Department's criminal division, and a scary looking guy if ever there was one, has been elevated to the level of Court of Appeals judge--the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, whose jurisdiction includes Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. What's so scary about Michael? Well, besides having no judicial experience and being a right-ring radical who does not believe in the Constitution and wants to rewrite federal law and rules of procedure on an ad hoc, case by case basis, as it suits him, nothing I guess.

A good place to look for Chertoff's legal philosophy is in the prosecution of Zacarias Moussaoui , now taking place in the Eastern District of Virginia. Chertoff is not the prosecutor of course, Paul McNulty of the Eastern District is. But Chertoff is McNulty's boss and he is calling the shots. So Chertoff argued the government's case in the super secret hearing before the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals last week. The government is trying to block trial judge Leonie Brinkema's ruling that Moussaoui and his lawyers have access to the government's star witnesses against him. The government has refused and appealed. Judge Brinkema, who still believes in the Constitution, rightly ruled that to deny Moussaoui that access is a blatant violation of the Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses.

Brinkema indicates that she will not be a party to making exceptions to the Constitution on a case-by-case basis. She, in effect, suggests that maybe Justice better take Moussaoui to Guantanamo and try him there in secret, in the military tribunals they set up. Easy there to not only try him, but convict him, and execute him . So why is the government insisting on keeping him in federal court?

I have the answer, and it lies in Chertoff. Chertoff's goal, I believe, and the goal of Ashcroft and Bush in supporting this prosecution in federal court, is to subject federal trials, as they see fit, to ad hoc exemptions of whatever laws (be they constitutional, criminal code, or rules of procedure) that will suit their purposes. Their grand scheme is to ultimately cripple and dismantle the federal courts as we know them, one brick at a time.

Support for this theory of mine includes their prosecution of attorney Lynne Stewart, for, in effect, zealously representing her client; rules created by Ashcroft that subject attorneys and their clients to surveillance, be they under secret wiretaps issues by the secret FISA court or monitoring of all contacts in prison settings. These procedures came about by fiat from Ashcroft. They make any attorney who represents someone charged with an act of "terrorism" (and a terrorist crime is one defined by Bush and Ashcroft-that is an ad hoc determination, as well).

The Moussaoui case has many examples of legal changes. Moussaoui and even his attorneys (!) cannot receive all documents related to the case, because of "national security" interests. Witnesses may appear in court behind screens (!) so that they cannot be seen. And, the Fourth Circuit hearing last week was closed-closed-for the first time in history. Under Ashcroft we have had secret warrants (or no warrants), secret hearings denying bail, secret trials, and now secret appellate court arguments. Next, we can expect the Supreme Court to be closed, can't we?

The 4th Circuit hearing was close to all but those "screened" and approved by the Justice Department, the Defense Department, and the CIA. The judge presiding over the hearing told the "security" official to jump up if any attorney arguing the case said anything that would jeopardize national security-so that the room could be cleared! Then, as will happen in a trial, the government can proceed out of the presence of the defendant or his attorney. Oh, of course, Moussaoui was not allowed to be at the appellate hearing last week. How is that for a legal system.

Chertoff argued to the 4th Circuit that the Court could not order the government to produce its start witness against Moussaoui because (are you ready?) he, the witness, is out of the country at an undisclosed location. True, but the witness is in the custody of the federal government! The out-of-the country argument is a sham. This is similar to a ruling recently by the federal court that ruled that Guantanmo Bay prisoners had no access to federal courts for claims that they be charged or release because-they are out of the country!! Of course, in federal custody, but that does not matter.

The absurd arguments contrary to the letter and spirit of all that not only the Constitution, but current federal law provides, is appalling and shameful. Chertoff will be making those arguments for the government when they appear before his court (and if you think that appellate judges don't make arguments, you did not hear Supreme Court Chief Justice Rehnquist make Bush's arguments for his attorney, not Solicitor General Ted Olson. And you have not read the rulings of the Fourth Circuit when it denied an American citizen, Yasir Hamdi, the right to see a lawyer. He is locked up in some military brig. He has not been charged with a crime and has been in custody for close to a year. The opinion was a political treatise, not a legal argument. And the treatise-opinion supported the government's argument that courts step back and not conduct meaningful judicial review or, heaven forbid, overrule the government in a time of "war." And that treatise said that the "war" on terror will only be over when the President says it is over, and that the "front" of the war may change from time to time. When the "front" changes, then the government may tighten up surveillance and arrests on that "battleground," which could be Alexandria, Virginia or any city in the country.

This same court will rule on Moussaoui's right to have access to a witness who, by all counts, may help his case and hurt the government. If the 4th Circuit rules that the witness may not be produced, federal law, procedure, and the Constitution will have been violated to support the Bush-Ashcroft agenda. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved Michael Chertoff with hardly an argument (though they did conduct an "investigation" into charges that he engaged in some misconduct while at DOJ, which turned up nothing, or so we are told).

Keep your eye on Michael Chertoff. As bad for the law and Constitution as many of Bush's judicial appointees are, Chertoff has been the architect of prosecutions in the "war on terror." And he may have big changes in mind for you, me, the courts, and the Constitution.


19 posted on 01/11/2005 7:04:21 AM PST by crushelits
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobFromGa

This will really piss Hillary off...

National Review
June 6, 2003, 7:00 a.m.
Klayman vs. Chertoff

The head of Judicial Watch tries to stop a Bush judicial nominee.

For a while, it looked like smooth sailing for Michael Chertoff.

The Bush administration's nominee for a seat on the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Chertoff is by general agreement a first-rate candidate for the bench. He's been a Supreme Court clerk (for William Brennan), a mob-fighting prosecutor (U.S. attorney for New Jersey), and is now head of the Justice Department's Criminal Division.

Perhaps the only person who wouldn't be happy with his elevation to the court is Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D., N.Y.), who no doubt remembers Chertoff's days as counsel to the Senate Whitewater investigation.
But don't blame Mrs. Clinton for the snag that recently hit Chertoff's nomination. Blame Larry Klayman.

You remember Klayman. The head of Judicial Watch, he was a "Clinton antagonist" (in the words of the Washington Post) when he was filing lawsuit after lawsuit against the Clinton administration. Now that he is filing suits against the Bush administration, Klayman is a "watchdog" (in the words of the Washington Post).

Whatever the case, Klayman's latest target is Chertoff.

After breezing through his Judiciary Committee hearing, Chertoff was scheduled for a vote on May 22. Everything looked O.K. until the day before, when Klayman got in touch with some senators to say there were serious concerns about Chertoff's nomination.

The day of the vote, Klayman appeared at the committee meeting and distributed a letter marked "URGENT."

"We have important evidence concerning the misuse of organized crime operatives by the FBI and other government agencies" in New Jersey, the letter began. "During the period of this illegal activity...Michael Chertoff...was U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey." Klayman asked to meet with senators to "present this evidence."

Although Klayman gave no details, some Democrats who have opposed a number of Bush nominees pronounced themselves deeply concerned. They asked that the vote be delayed. Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R., Utah) wanted to go ahead. A compromise was reached when Hatch agreed to a "bipartisan evaluation" of Klayman's charges. The vote was held, and Chertoff was approved, but six deeply concerned Democrats voted "present."

Klayman's "evidence" apparently came from a Judicial Watch client named Peter Paul. Paul, a Hollywood businessman and convicted felon, is a former associate of Stan Lee, creator of Spider-Man and other comic book heroes. In 2001, Paul was charged with securities fraud in an alleged stock manipulation scheme involving the company, Stan Lee Media.

Paul has also been a big supporter of Bill Clinton. According to court papers filed by Judicial Watch, Paul wanted Clinton to work with Stan Lee Media after leaving the White House. Paul says he approached members of the Clinton circle and was told the best way he could build a relationship with Bill Clinton would be to contribute to Hillary Rodham Clinton's Senate campaign.

So in August 2000, Paul helped put on a huge Hollywood fundraiser for Mrs. Clinton. But the hoped-for business deal with Bill Clinton never materialized. In addition, Paul alleges, Mrs. Clinton concealed his donations from the Federal Election Commission.

So Paul, with help from Larry Klayman, sued the Clintons. "BILL AND HILLARY CLINTON INVOLVED IN MASSIVE ELECTION FINANCE FRAUD," read the Judicial Watch press release. The suit was dismissed, but Paul has appealed.

Judicial Watch also wanted the Justice Department to prosecute the Clintons. In 2001, Klayman met with Criminal Division head Chertoff, asking for immunity for Paul "in exchange for his cooperation with the Justice Department against Bill and Hillary Clinton," according to a letter Klayman wrote the department. Paul never got his deal.

That's how things stood until last week, when, on the eve of the Chertoff vote, Judicial Watch said Paul had incriminating information that might involve...Michael Chertoff. But after a little investigating, the "bipartisan evaluation" found nothing in Judicial Watch's charges. "It was all smoke," says one administration official. Chertoff's nomination will go forward.

The episode left some Republicans angry, and then amused. With no credible evidence, Klayman pulled the wool over Democrats who will grab any reason to stop a Bush nominee. But in their eagerness, they left themselves open to an embarrassing question: If Paul's allegation about Chertoff was credible enough to launch an investigation, then why not his charges against Bill and Hillary Clinton?

Note — This article originally appeared in The Hill newspaper, where Byron York writes a column. The day the article was published, Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Orrin Hatch and ranking Democrat Patrick Leahy released the following statement:

The Committee has completed its bi-partisan investigation into allegations raised by the interest group Judicial Watch concerning Michael Chertoff, a nominee for the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals recently reported favorably by the Committee to the full Senate. Consistent with Committee procedure, investigative staff of the Majority and Minority met with representatives of Judicial Watch last week and allowed them to present all relevant evidence relating to Mr. Chertoff. Subsequently, the investigative staff interviewed Mr. Chertoff regarding those allegations. Chairman Hatch and Ranking Democratic Member Leahy have determined that there is no credible evidence linking Mr. Chertoff with any of the wrongdoing alleged by Judicial Watch.

20 posted on 01/11/2005 7:04:29 AM PST by July 4th (A vacant lot cancelled out my vote for Bush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-188 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson