Secret donors funded Feingold questions to judicial nominee; Washington Post involved.
(Page 3 of 5)
But who paid for this? Who paid for the extensive research that became that memo which Feingold used to question a nominee for the federal judiciary?
That would be right: George Soros.
As the Capital Research Center later would discover, the Community Rights Counsel received a $50,000 grant from the Soros Open Society Institute that was used in 2002 when the CRC “unsuccessfully attempted to block President Bush’s selection of federal judge Brooks Smith to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals by erroneously charging Smith with unethical conduct.” Which is to say, Soros money apparently paid for the AFJ-CRC strategy memo, which in turn was used by Feingold to grill Smith.
Feingold wasn’t alone in this secret either, although he appeared to be singularly dependent on the Soros-group for his work. A law clerk of the Judge’s took his own time to carefully start matching inquiries from Democrats on the Committee to the Soros-funded memo. A March 5, 2002 letter from Feingold to the nominee had follow-up questions containing the identical wording from the CRC text. The leaked secret memo was also found to have been used in questions to Judge Smith from Senators Patrick Leahy, the Judiciary Committee Chairman; then-Committee member Senator Maria Cantwell, the Democrat from Washington state.
Senator Ted Kennedy had three of his five questions supplied by the group; and then-Senator Joe Biden — the man now making accusations about secret donor money coming from foreigners — used four questions supplied by Secret Donor Money.
Oh yes. Alliance for Justice lobbyist Nan Aron was in the hearing room that day. She informed one person — personally — that her task was to walk back and forth in the back of the room to send a signal to Feingold and other Democratic Senators and their staff of just how interested the Soros-funded group was in the Smith nomination. All of which meant that not only were Feingold’s questions supplied by Soros, but he was apparently taking signals from a Soros-funded lobbyist through her physical movements in the hearing room.
2. Biden on the Committee: One of the people present for this hearing — in fact the Senator who received the lion’s share of the news the next day for tangling with the nominee — was Delaware Senator Joe Biden. To his credit, he later — after considerable pressure from all manner of Western Pennsylvania lawyers and his then-Republican colleague Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter — was one of three key Committee votes that won the Committee battle for Smith and sent him to the Senate where he was finally confirmed. But Biden, who had reason to know about the role of Secret Donor Money because he used four questions supplied by that money, never said a word about the subject at the time.
3. The Washington Post and the Chief Justice: After the confirmation, another interesting document was obtained. This one a July 17, 2000 memo to then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist from the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Leonidas Ralph Mecham. It’s explosive topic? It was headed:
SUBJECT: Apparent Partnership of Washington Post and Community Rights Counsel on Judges Travel and Recusal issues.
In this memo, Mecham informs his boss the Chief Justice that the Court’s Deputy Assistant Director for Public Affairs, David Sellers, had sent a letter to then-Washington Post Ombudsman E.R. Shipp…
…pointing out that the Washington Post appears to have been used by the Community Rights Counsel which seeks to advance the Counsel’s ideological goals. David Sellers is a professional newsman himself and, as you [the Chief Justice] can see, he raises ethical questions to the Washington Post Ombudsman.
The single-spaced memo, three pages in length, focused on stories run in the Post over a three-year period — including a story featured on Page One of the Post — discussing the issue of judicial seminars sponsored by free-market “issues” groups. The memo to the Chief Justice specifically says that its reporter Joe Stephens — who co-wrote the stories with reporter Ruth Marcus — admitted to Sellers that “the Community Rights Counsel…has done much if not all the research for him.” Not once, the memo notes, had the Post disclosed to its readers that the Community Rights Counsel had done its research. Nor had the paper noted the research it used came from a group “ideologically opposed” to the host of the judicial seminars.
The memo asks specifically, “How does CRC receive its funding?”
The answer, of course, is that the Washington Post was using research supplied by George Soros — and never said a word about it to its readers. The e-mail from Sellers to the Post Ombudsman, provided directly to Chief Justice Rehnquist, concluded by saying:
This form of journalism is highly unprofessional and adds to the perception that the reporter and the source have established a working relationship that goes beyond the norm.…there appears to be a disturbing relationship that has developed between a special interest lobby and a Washington Post reporter.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
H/T to National Review Online