Ace of Spades HQ

« Giving the Finger, Too Late | Main | Memo To Karl Rove: Illegal Aliens Aren't Supposed To Vote, And They're Not Going To Vote For You Anyway »

May 13, 2005

Harry Reid Smears Judicial Nominee With FBI-File Insinuation

Imagine if a Republican did this.

Harry Reid seems to have broken Senate rules by alluding to a confidential FBI file on Bush nominee on the Senate floor:

Minority Leader Harry Reid strayed from his prepared remarks on the Senate floor yesterday and promised to continue opposing one of President Bush's judicial nominees based on "a problem" he said is in the nominee's "confidential report from the FBI."
Those highly confidential reports are filed on all judicial nominees, and severe sanctions apply to anyone who discloses their contents. Less clear is whether a senator could face sanctions for characterizing the content of such files.

"Henry Saad would have been filibustered anyway," Mr. Reid said on the floor yesterday, about the Michigan Appeals Court judge who is nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.

"All you need to do is have a member go upstairs and look at his confidential report from the FBI, and I think we would all agree that there is a problem there," Mr. Reid continued.

...

"Can you think of a better way to trash someone's reputation?" Sean Rushton of the conservative Committee for Justice asked after seeing a transcript of the remarks. "Say that there is bad stuff from an FBI investigation in a file somewhere and leave that hanging. This is character assassination of the lowest order and completely improper."

...

Republican aides pointed to Standing Rule of the Senate 29, Section 5: "Any Senator, officer, or employee of the Senate who shall disclose the secret or confidential business or proceedings of the Senate, including the business and proceedings of the committees, subcommittees, and offices of the Senate, shall be liable, if a Senator, to suffer expulsion from the body; and if an officer or employee, to dismissal from the service of the Senate, and to punishment for contempt."

Furthermore, a "Memorandum of Understanding" covering the use of FBI background reports limits access to committee members and the nominee's home-state senators. Mr. Reid would fall into neither category.

And of course such smears work; now I'm wondering what's in that file, and wondering if Reid has good reason to oppose Saad. Despite the fact that there's nothing at all on the record to suggest he should not be confirmed.

Reid can't be held legally accountable for any of this, as the Constitution immunizes Congressmen from legal consequences from any statement made in Congress. But I'd sure like someone to bait Reid into repeating his remarks outside of Congress.

It's time to go nuclear. I know nothing about Saad, and of course I know even less about what dirt the FBI may have dug up on him, but it is clear that the Democrats have made the judiciary their last redoubt. It's well past time to drain that swamp.

PoliPundit's Smoking But Not Quite on Fire Yet Update: Lorie wants to know: what's in Ted Kennedy's FBI file, and why doesn't someone allude to that on the Senate floor?

posted by Ace at 10:48 AM

Comments

Saad is an arab american from Dearborn. I'd like to know also if there is something in the FBI report, but what if there isn't anything and Dingy reid and was pulling a CBS on the senate, you know making shit up !

Posted by: River Rat on May 13, 2005 10:57 AM

If all the Republicans do is play another race card (which has had zero effect), they are missing a good opportunity to smack the Minority Leader.

But I have yet to see one R show he's got the stones to stop taking this crap and stop letting the Dems frame the debate.

I think they need some Pure Herbal Viagra. Emergency, life-sustaining dosages.

Posted by: Dave in Texas on May 13, 2005 11:14 AM

The worries about Saad's background check are long-standing. The same WashTimes writer mentioned them a year ago.

Though several Republicans noted privately that the routine check had been completed more than six months ago and that no questions had arisen, Mr. Hatch acquiesced and removed the public and reporters to hold a meeting. During that meeting, Judge Saad's hopes of getting out of committee faded.

Posted by: Bob on May 13, 2005 11:44 AM

So, if the same Times journalist wrote about a problem with Saad's background check a year ago why the hubbub about Reid mentioning something that appears to be public knowledge?

Posted by: Bob on May 13, 2005 11:48 AM

Someone over at NR noted a while back that it's been more than 30 years since a conservative judicial nomination was able to clear the Senate without playing identity politics, partly because ethnicitiy is seen as a protection against filibusters. I'm betting the Dems try to use a filibuster to torpedo Bolton's nomination on the Senate floor.

It is long, long past time for the Republicans to insist that nominations (not legislation) pass or fail on a simple majority vote, not a sleazebag maneuver that creates an unconstitutional requirement for a two-thirds majority to pass everything and everybody. "Turn your keys, sirs! Sirs, I insist that you turn your keys!"

Posted by: utron on May 13, 2005 11:58 AM

"It's time to go nuclear..... It's well past time to drain that swamp."

... Or pehaps to "Hoist the Black Flag"

Posted by: USCitizen on May 13, 2005 12:56 PM

Now there's an ethics violation worth throwing out a Senator over - pretty inconceivable - but getting rid of Reid would be the best thing that could happen to the Senate right now ...

Posted by: MC on May 13, 2005 02:05 PM

So, if the same Times journalist wrote about a problem with Saad's background check a year ago why the hubbub about Reid mentioning something that appears to be public knowledge?

Because WaTimes is pretty sure its readers aren't paying attention or are too stupid to care.

Posted by: mantis on May 13, 2005 03:23 PM

I agree that it's time to "go nuclear," although I hate that nomenclature. There's nothing nuclear about up-or-down votes. It's a procedural change. Very few Americans will view the "nuclear option" as anything close to the magnitude of a nuclear blast.

I have some background on Saad here, with commentary on this whole sordid situation:

http://www.willisms.com/archives/2005/05/the_racist_assa.html

Posted by: Will Franklin on May 13, 2005 06:02 PM

Oops: Clickable link here.

Posted by: Will Franklin on May 13, 2005 06:04 PM

"Bob" asks why there's concern and offense as to Reid's statements given that the issue was earlier mentioned in WAPO, and, so:

Reid's sworn to ethical behaviors by the office he holds, specific ethics as a member of the U.S. Senate -- the WAPO writer hasn't been, isn't under the same oath of office as is Reid and other Senators.

Seems rather obvious to me -- but on the other hand, if Reid was a citizen who hadn't taken an oath of office as a Senator, then a comparison between the two individual behaviors might be reasonable. But, otherwise, there's a non issue there (that a WAPO reporter mentioned the information a while ago and now again, while Reid has just recently publicly, thus the question why Reid's actions are noteworthy and cause of concern).

Posted by: -S- on May 13, 2005 10:59 PM

Umm, Utron, its not 2/3rds anymore, its 60.

It did use to be 2/3rds, but Senator Byrd in his heyday adjusted the rules to lower the requirement to stop a filibuster with a procedure change in the Senate, so now the rule is 60 to stop (instead of 66).

Hmm, that sounds familiar, apparantly we missed the first nuke destroying our democracy (years ago), but this one will completely end... um...

The Constitutionality of the same action this time is... er...

This time the ploy is being used for Political... hmm... well...

Umm... BUSH IS HITLER. hehe

Posted by: Gekkobear on May 14, 2005 11:45 AM