fish2xs
Member
I don't know if this story has been covered already on this forum or not
but I don't recall seeing any reference to it. This sort of amazes me
since I believe this HUGE. Granted, the gunmaker liability bill
was more relevent to this crowd, but is anyone else steamed about the
story of the Democratic memos unearthed by Manuel Miranda?
Whether he got them legally or not, it seems to be a massive story of
corruption and breach of trust. The only places I have ever read about
it are the Washington Times and CNS News. I firmly believe that if the
scandal involved Republican leaders and conservative groups, the lid would
have been blown wide open by now. I am stunned that this does not get
more coverage - even from more conservative news sources.
I've included a Washington Times link and text from CNSNews on this. Am I
alone in thinking this story is getting smothered?
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040318-112243-1833r.htm
Text from CNSNews.com:
Ex-GOP Lawyer Wants Judiciary Probe Focused on Democrat 'Corruption'
By Jeff Johnson
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
February 23, 2004
(Editor's Note: Clarifies that Miranda departed Sen. Bill Frist's office earlier this month, not
Judiciary Committee)
(CNSNews.com) - Democrats have compared Manuel Miranda to, perhaps, the most famous
political burglars in American history. But the former Senate Judiciary Committee GOP counsel
told CNSNews.com last week - in the first in-depth interview since his resignation - that he did
nothing wrong by reading Democrats' strategy memos, stored on a government computer shared
by Republicans. More importantly, he believes the focus of the investigation into the memos is
misplaced.
Miranda, who resigned from his job with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) earlier this
month, credits committee Democrats and their allied liberal special interest groups with "a very
clever move ... to create this impression that there was another 'Washington leak' investigation
when, in fact, there was no leak."
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is a liberal legal advocacy group that
"aims to counterbalance the conservative legal watchdog groups that made such a strong impact
over the past decade." It has asked the New York State Bar Association, of which Miranda is a
member, to disbar him.
"Mr. Miranda should be thanking his lucky stars that he has not been led off in handcuffs," said
Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW.
Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) compared Miranda reading the Democrats' strategy memos to
the infamous Watergate burglary.
"In those days, break-ins required a physical presence, burglar's tools, lookouts and getaway cars,"
Kennedy said. "Today, theft may only require a computer and the skills to use it and the will to
break in."
Kennedy also accused Miranda of taking the Senate and the Judiciary Committee to a new political
low.
"We know that dirty tricks have long been infecting the nation's politics, but they haven't infected
the Senate or our committee until now," Kennedy claimed.
Miranda seemed shocked by Kennedy's assertion.
"That statement defies credulity," Miranda responded. "To suggest that the Judiciary Committee is
anything but the most toxic, adversarial and possibly corrupt committee in the Senate is to treat the
American people as stupid."
Miranda believes the Democratic memos he read, some of which have been leaked to the media, are
evidence of that alleged corruption. He claimed he was only initially interested in the documents
because they contained schedules of which nominees would be brought up for hearings and when
those hearing would take place.
"What the Democrats would do is, they would let the outside left-wing groups know months ahead
of time so that they could prepare, do research, prepare their distortions," Miranda explained. "But
they would tell us about a week ahead of time. My interest, really, at the time, was determining
dates of hearings to come."
But, while looking for those hearing dates, Miranda discovered information that he believes is
motivating Democrats to attack him now, in an attempt to distract the public from the content of the
memos.
"There were many instances of situations where labor unions and other organizations were heavily
weighing in on nominees in a pattern that was more than mere offering by the public of its
opinions," Miranda said. "These were memos where staff was relating what senators were
discussing."
As CNSNews.com previously reported, Miranda accused lobbies for the abortion industry, trial
lawyers and unions of exerting undue influence over the judicial confirmation process. The
Democrats' memos seem to offer support for that accusation.
Under the subject line "Meetings with Groups on Judges," a June 4, 2002, Democratic staff memo
to Kennedy began, "As you know, the meeting with the groups to discuss the strategy on judicial
nominations is scheduled for tomorrow at 11:50."
The "groups" with representatives scheduled to attend that meeting were listed and included
NARAL Pro-Choice America (the group formerly known as the National Abortion Rights Action
League), People for the American Way (PFAW), the Alliance for Justice (AFJ), the American
Association of University Women (AAUW), the National Women's Law Center (NWLC), the
National Partnership for Women and Families (NPWF) and the Leadership Conference on Civil
Rights (LCCR).
An Oct. 15, 2001, memo to Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) complained about an upcoming
confirmation hearing for conservative Judge Charles Pickering: "The interest groups have two
objections: (1) in light of the terrorist attacks, it was their understanding that no controversial
judicial nominees would be moved this fall; and (2) they were given assurances that they would
receive plenty of notice to prepare for any controversial nominee."
Later in that same memo, the author wrote: "Recognizing that Thursday's (Oct. 18, 2001) hearing is
likely to go forward, the groups are asking that the Committee hold a second hearing on Pickering
in a few weeks, when they will have had adequate time to research him fully." That "second
hearing on Pickering" was held Feb. 7, 2002.
A Nov. 6, 2001, memo to Durbin stated: "The groups would like to postpone action on these
nominees until next year, when (presumably) the public will be more tolerant of partisan dissent."
One day later, another note to Durbin contained the explanation: "There's a reason we do what we
do - most of Bush's nominees are nazis [sic]."
A separate Nov. 7, 2001, memo to Durbin from another Democratic staffer on the Judiciary
Committee focused on several of President Bush's judicial nominees.
"The [special interest] groups singled out three - Jeffrey Sutton (6th Circuit); Priscilla Owen (5th
Circuit); and Caroline Kuhl (9th Circuit) - as a potential nominee for a contentious hearing early
next year, with a [sic] eye toward voting him or her down in Committee. They also identified
Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is
Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment. They
want to hold Estrada off as long as possible."
That memo also contained an assessment of the president's judicial nominees by the author: "Based
on input from the groups, I would place the appellate nominees in the categories below." The
categories were the "Good," "Bad" and "Ugly." Sutton, Owen, Kuhl and Estrada were listed as
"Ugly."
An April 17, 2002, memo to Kennedy informed the Massachusetts Democrat that: "Elaine Jones of
the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF) tried to call you today ... Elaine would like the Committee
to hold off on any 6th Circuit nominees until the University of Michigan case regarding the
constitutionality of affirmative action in higher education is decided by the en banc 6th Circuit ...
The thinking is that the current 6th Circuit will sustain the affirmative action program, but if a new
judge with conservative views is confirmed before the case is decided, that new judge will be able,
under 6th Circuit rules, to review the case and vote on it."
A June 5, 2002, memo, again to Durbin, stated: "Under pressure from Senator Hollings - who
apparently is backing [Dennis] Shedd because the trial lawyers want him off the district court
bench - Chairman Leahy is planning to hold a hearing in late June [2002]."
According to a June 12, 2002, memo to Kennedy: "Ultimately if [then-Judiciary Committee
Chairman Patrick] Leahy (D-Vt.) insists on having an August hearing, it appears that the groups
are willing to let [Timothy] Tymkovich go through (the core of the coalition made that decision last
night, but they are checking with the gay rights groups)."
On June 21, 2002, a memo addressed to Senators Kennedy, Durbin, Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)
and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) advised: "We agree with Senator Leahy that [Miguel] Estrada
should be scheduled for September 19th ... This will give the groups time to complete their
research..."
In a Sept. 27, 2002, memo to Kennedy, a Democratic staffer described how the Ohio Academy of
Trial Lawyers had written the committee warning that [Ohio State Supreme Court Justice Deborah]
Cook was "willing to disregard precedent, misinterpret legislative intent and ignore constitutional
mandates in an effort to achieve a result that favors businesses over consumers." The same memo
stated that: "AFL-CIO has weighed in ... about delaying Cook." It also contained the following
recommendation to Democrats on the Judiciary Committee: "Do not schedule a vote on [Michael]
McConnell and Estrada until after the election."
One Jan. 30, 2003, memo summarized the results of a meeting between Judiciary Committee
Democrats and Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.): "All in attendance agreed to
attempt to filibuster the nomination of Miguel Estrada." One of the stated reasons for the filibuster
was that, "Estrada is likely to be a Supreme Court nominee and it will be much harder to defeat him
in a Supreme Court setting if he is confirmed easily now." The memo also noted, "Everyone also
agreed to keep this matter confidential."
An undated document by Kennedy's staff entitled "Talking Points on Estrada for [the Democratic]
Caucus" stated that, "We must filibuster Miguel Estrada's nomination." Among the reasons listed
for the strategy was that "the D.C. Circuit is ... a feeder circuit for the Supreme Court. The White
House is almost telling us that they plan to nominate him to the Supreme Court. We can't repeat the
mistake we made with Clarence Thomas."
Miranda said he has seen some, but not all of the hundreds or thousands of other Democratic staff
memos and talking points documents currently in the possession of the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms,
William Pickle.
"I recall seeing memos that indicated that the vote for at least one nominee was being influenced by
the promise of campaign funding and campaign election support in the North Carolina and
Louisiana Senate races," Miranda said.
While some conservative activists have seemed almost giddy upon reading the memos, Miranda is
more reflective.
"Republicans have long argued that there was collusion. In a sense, there was some comfort that
we could take in the inability to prove it," Miranda said. "There is no comfort in knowing the actual
extent to which it is occurring."
Miranda said he did not leak the documents to the media, and denied that he violated any laws or
ethics rules by reading them. He has also called for an ethics investigation into the senators named
in the memos. Durbin called the request "an incredible development."
( Editor's Note: A story containing Manuel Miranda's explanation of why he believes his actions
were both legal and ethical, will be published Tuesday. )
but I don't recall seeing any reference to it. This sort of amazes me
since I believe this HUGE. Granted, the gunmaker liability bill
was more relevent to this crowd, but is anyone else steamed about the
story of the Democratic memos unearthed by Manuel Miranda?
Whether he got them legally or not, it seems to be a massive story of
corruption and breach of trust. The only places I have ever read about
it are the Washington Times and CNS News. I firmly believe that if the
scandal involved Republican leaders and conservative groups, the lid would
have been blown wide open by now. I am stunned that this does not get
more coverage - even from more conservative news sources.
I've included a Washington Times link and text from CNSNews on this. Am I
alone in thinking this story is getting smothered?
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040318-112243-1833r.htm
Text from CNSNews.com:
Ex-GOP Lawyer Wants Judiciary Probe Focused on Democrat 'Corruption'
By Jeff Johnson
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
February 23, 2004
(Editor's Note: Clarifies that Miranda departed Sen. Bill Frist's office earlier this month, not
Judiciary Committee)
(CNSNews.com) - Democrats have compared Manuel Miranda to, perhaps, the most famous
political burglars in American history. But the former Senate Judiciary Committee GOP counsel
told CNSNews.com last week - in the first in-depth interview since his resignation - that he did
nothing wrong by reading Democrats' strategy memos, stored on a government computer shared
by Republicans. More importantly, he believes the focus of the investigation into the memos is
misplaced.
Miranda, who resigned from his job with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) earlier this
month, credits committee Democrats and their allied liberal special interest groups with "a very
clever move ... to create this impression that there was another 'Washington leak' investigation
when, in fact, there was no leak."
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is a liberal legal advocacy group that
"aims to counterbalance the conservative legal watchdog groups that made such a strong impact
over the past decade." It has asked the New York State Bar Association, of which Miranda is a
member, to disbar him.
"Mr. Miranda should be thanking his lucky stars that he has not been led off in handcuffs," said
Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW.
Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) compared Miranda reading the Democrats' strategy memos to
the infamous Watergate burglary.
"In those days, break-ins required a physical presence, burglar's tools, lookouts and getaway cars,"
Kennedy said. "Today, theft may only require a computer and the skills to use it and the will to
break in."
Kennedy also accused Miranda of taking the Senate and the Judiciary Committee to a new political
low.
"We know that dirty tricks have long been infecting the nation's politics, but they haven't infected
the Senate or our committee until now," Kennedy claimed.
Miranda seemed shocked by Kennedy's assertion.
"That statement defies credulity," Miranda responded. "To suggest that the Judiciary Committee is
anything but the most toxic, adversarial and possibly corrupt committee in the Senate is to treat the
American people as stupid."
Miranda believes the Democratic memos he read, some of which have been leaked to the media, are
evidence of that alleged corruption. He claimed he was only initially interested in the documents
because they contained schedules of which nominees would be brought up for hearings and when
those hearing would take place.
"What the Democrats would do is, they would let the outside left-wing groups know months ahead
of time so that they could prepare, do research, prepare their distortions," Miranda explained. "But
they would tell us about a week ahead of time. My interest, really, at the time, was determining
dates of hearings to come."
But, while looking for those hearing dates, Miranda discovered information that he believes is
motivating Democrats to attack him now, in an attempt to distract the public from the content of the
memos.
"There were many instances of situations where labor unions and other organizations were heavily
weighing in on nominees in a pattern that was more than mere offering by the public of its
opinions," Miranda said. "These were memos where staff was relating what senators were
discussing."
As CNSNews.com previously reported, Miranda accused lobbies for the abortion industry, trial
lawyers and unions of exerting undue influence over the judicial confirmation process. The
Democrats' memos seem to offer support for that accusation.
Under the subject line "Meetings with Groups on Judges," a June 4, 2002, Democratic staff memo
to Kennedy began, "As you know, the meeting with the groups to discuss the strategy on judicial
nominations is scheduled for tomorrow at 11:50."
The "groups" with representatives scheduled to attend that meeting were listed and included
NARAL Pro-Choice America (the group formerly known as the National Abortion Rights Action
League), People for the American Way (PFAW), the Alliance for Justice (AFJ), the American
Association of University Women (AAUW), the National Women's Law Center (NWLC), the
National Partnership for Women and Families (NPWF) and the Leadership Conference on Civil
Rights (LCCR).
An Oct. 15, 2001, memo to Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) complained about an upcoming
confirmation hearing for conservative Judge Charles Pickering: "The interest groups have two
objections: (1) in light of the terrorist attacks, it was their understanding that no controversial
judicial nominees would be moved this fall; and (2) they were given assurances that they would
receive plenty of notice to prepare for any controversial nominee."
Later in that same memo, the author wrote: "Recognizing that Thursday's (Oct. 18, 2001) hearing is
likely to go forward, the groups are asking that the Committee hold a second hearing on Pickering
in a few weeks, when they will have had adequate time to research him fully." That "second
hearing on Pickering" was held Feb. 7, 2002.
A Nov. 6, 2001, memo to Durbin stated: "The groups would like to postpone action on these
nominees until next year, when (presumably) the public will be more tolerant of partisan dissent."
One day later, another note to Durbin contained the explanation: "There's a reason we do what we
do - most of Bush's nominees are nazis [sic]."
A separate Nov. 7, 2001, memo to Durbin from another Democratic staffer on the Judiciary
Committee focused on several of President Bush's judicial nominees.
"The [special interest] groups singled out three - Jeffrey Sutton (6th Circuit); Priscilla Owen (5th
Circuit); and Caroline Kuhl (9th Circuit) - as a potential nominee for a contentious hearing early
next year, with a [sic] eye toward voting him or her down in Committee. They also identified
Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is
Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment. They
want to hold Estrada off as long as possible."
That memo also contained an assessment of the president's judicial nominees by the author: "Based
on input from the groups, I would place the appellate nominees in the categories below." The
categories were the "Good," "Bad" and "Ugly." Sutton, Owen, Kuhl and Estrada were listed as
"Ugly."
An April 17, 2002, memo to Kennedy informed the Massachusetts Democrat that: "Elaine Jones of
the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF) tried to call you today ... Elaine would like the Committee
to hold off on any 6th Circuit nominees until the University of Michigan case regarding the
constitutionality of affirmative action in higher education is decided by the en banc 6th Circuit ...
The thinking is that the current 6th Circuit will sustain the affirmative action program, but if a new
judge with conservative views is confirmed before the case is decided, that new judge will be able,
under 6th Circuit rules, to review the case and vote on it."
A June 5, 2002, memo, again to Durbin, stated: "Under pressure from Senator Hollings - who
apparently is backing [Dennis] Shedd because the trial lawyers want him off the district court
bench - Chairman Leahy is planning to hold a hearing in late June [2002]."
According to a June 12, 2002, memo to Kennedy: "Ultimately if [then-Judiciary Committee
Chairman Patrick] Leahy (D-Vt.) insists on having an August hearing, it appears that the groups
are willing to let [Timothy] Tymkovich go through (the core of the coalition made that decision last
night, but they are checking with the gay rights groups)."
On June 21, 2002, a memo addressed to Senators Kennedy, Durbin, Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)
and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) advised: "We agree with Senator Leahy that [Miguel] Estrada
should be scheduled for September 19th ... This will give the groups time to complete their
research..."
In a Sept. 27, 2002, memo to Kennedy, a Democratic staffer described how the Ohio Academy of
Trial Lawyers had written the committee warning that [Ohio State Supreme Court Justice Deborah]
Cook was "willing to disregard precedent, misinterpret legislative intent and ignore constitutional
mandates in an effort to achieve a result that favors businesses over consumers." The same memo
stated that: "AFL-CIO has weighed in ... about delaying Cook." It also contained the following
recommendation to Democrats on the Judiciary Committee: "Do not schedule a vote on [Michael]
McConnell and Estrada until after the election."
One Jan. 30, 2003, memo summarized the results of a meeting between Judiciary Committee
Democrats and Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.): "All in attendance agreed to
attempt to filibuster the nomination of Miguel Estrada." One of the stated reasons for the filibuster
was that, "Estrada is likely to be a Supreme Court nominee and it will be much harder to defeat him
in a Supreme Court setting if he is confirmed easily now." The memo also noted, "Everyone also
agreed to keep this matter confidential."
An undated document by Kennedy's staff entitled "Talking Points on Estrada for [the Democratic]
Caucus" stated that, "We must filibuster Miguel Estrada's nomination." Among the reasons listed
for the strategy was that "the D.C. Circuit is ... a feeder circuit for the Supreme Court. The White
House is almost telling us that they plan to nominate him to the Supreme Court. We can't repeat the
mistake we made with Clarence Thomas."
Miranda said he has seen some, but not all of the hundreds or thousands of other Democratic staff
memos and talking points documents currently in the possession of the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms,
William Pickle.
"I recall seeing memos that indicated that the vote for at least one nominee was being influenced by
the promise of campaign funding and campaign election support in the North Carolina and
Louisiana Senate races," Miranda said.
While some conservative activists have seemed almost giddy upon reading the memos, Miranda is
more reflective.
"Republicans have long argued that there was collusion. In a sense, there was some comfort that
we could take in the inability to prove it," Miranda said. "There is no comfort in knowing the actual
extent to which it is occurring."
Miranda said he did not leak the documents to the media, and denied that he violated any laws or
ethics rules by reading them. He has also called for an ethics investigation into the senators named
in the memos. Durbin called the request "an incredible development."
( Editor's Note: A story containing Manuel Miranda's explanation of why he believes his actions
were both legal and ethical, will be published Tuesday. )