THE LEAHY LETTER
Largely lost amid the furor of yet another memo from an FBI agent
blasting headquarters was the letter sent last Friday to FBI
director Robert Mueller from Senate Judiciary
Committee chairman Patrick Leahy.
As reported over the Memorial Day weekend, parts of the Leahy
letter related to new charges that agents at FBI headquarters sat
on intelligence that might have led to some additional arrests of
U.S.-based al Qaeda terrorists planning the September 11
bombings.
But more interesting parts of the letter, which highlight
growing unhappiness with Mueller on Capitol Hill, fell through the
cracks. “It’s too soon to say that Mueller is in trouble, way too
soon,” says a Republican Senate Judiciary Committee staffer. “Bush
has made it abundantly clear that Mueller is his man, but the
Judiciary Committee has lost all confidence that it can deal with
Mueller and that Mueller will deal honorably with them.”
The focus of Leahy’s ire, and that of Republican Judiciary
Committee members Arlen Specter and
Charles Grassley, who signed on to the letter, was
Mueller’s demand that no written transcript of his or any other FBI
agent’s testimony be compiled at last week’s Judiciary Committee
hearing. That hearing focused in the so-called “Phoenix memo.”
Leahy and Mueller locked horns over the FBI director’s demand
that no transcript be kept, and finally, after a heated debate,
Specter stepped in and persuaded Leahy to go along, if only to get
the hearing moving.
“We prepared for that hearing for several weeks,” says a
Democratic Judiciary Committee staffer. “We spoke with Mueller’s
people. We negotiated the hearing time. At no point did they raise
the issue of the transcript. He sandbagged us and put us in an
embarrassing position. This is probably the first open hearing the
committee has held in years where there is no written record. And
it may be one of the most important hearings we’ve held in the past
ten years.”
Yet when Mueller and his crew finished their hearing with Senate
Judiciary, they next appeared at a Senate Select Intelligence
Committee hearing, where the “Phoenix memo” was discussed and
Mueller allowed a full transcript to be recorded.
Leahy’s letter demands that Mueller explain his reasoning for
barring one and allowing another transcript. “Until the Minneapolis
memo [charging FBI headquarters impeded the so called “20th
terrorist” investigation] popped up over the weekend, the
transcript issue was really what had made Leahy and Specter hot,”
says another Democratic Judiciary staffer. “Now, we have a lot more
to be hot about, like, why Mueller knowing about that letter didn’t
bring it to us before his hearing. Even [former FBI director Louis]
Freeh didn’t pull these kinds of stunts.”
SETTING UP SMITH
Senate Republicans were somewhat surprised that one of George
Bush’s nominees to the federal appeals bench, Judge D.
Brooks Smith, passed the Senate Judiciary Committee by a
12-7 vote. Three Democrats, including Joe Biden,
crossed over to put Smith before the full Senate.
Smith was in some ways a more controversial — some would say
questionable — nominee than Judge Charles
Pickering, who was turned back by the Democratic
controlled committee. Smith has had a large number of his cases
reversed on appeal by higher courts, and had to face financial
conflict of interest charges regarding work his wife performed
while he was hearing related court cases. Longtime liberal crybaby
and failed Democratic candidate Ralph Neas,
president of People for the American Way, which single-handedly
defeated Pickering, opposed Smith. So did the New York
Times in a lead editorial.
So why did Smith sail through? Democratic staffers on the
Judiciary committee cite several reasons. “First, we have to give
the administration some victories or else there is concern they
really will be able to use the lack of confirmations as a campaign
issue,” says one Judiciary aide. “The other reason is that Smith
and some of the others are probably worth bringing before the whole
Senate for a vote, if only to give other Senators a chance to weigh
in on his qualifications.”
The second reason strikes some as more plausible, if only
because some Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee are
said to have told the White House they expect Smith to be a tough
vote on the floor. “We don’t expect Biden, for example, to support
Smith on the full Senate vote,” says one staffer to Pennsylvania
Sen. Arlen Specter. “They just wanted Smith out so
they could say later that they gave him a full Senate vote, and to
give others a chance to sound off on Smith in front of the
cameras.”
Other Democratic leadership staffers interviewed denied there is
a concerted plan to bring more nominations to the floor just to
shoot them down. “If we feel a nominee shouldn’t be held up
further, and deserves a hearing by the full Senate, it’s up to the
chairmen. In the case of Smith, Senator Leahy felt this nominee
deserved it,” says a leadership staffer. “Republicans can’t
complain when we bring forth these nominees for a vote, when that’s
what they’ve been asking for. What’s the saying about be careful
for what you wish for?”
