|
 enate
Judiciary Committee chairman Orrin Hatch has decided to move forward
and possibly force a showdown
with Democrats over the disputed nomination of Theodore Olson to
be Solicitor General. That showdown could come Thursday morning,
at the committee's regular business meeting, when Hatch intends
to force a vote on the Olson matter.
In a letter today to ranking Democrat Patrick Leahy, Hatch said
he has "closely reviewed" Olson's testimony before the committee
regarding the so-called "Arkansas Project," an enterprise in which
conservative philanthropist Richard Mellon Scaife financed some
of The American Spectator magazine's investigations of president
Bill Clinton's past. Olson, who served on the magazine's board of
directors from 1996 until 1999, testified that he was "not involved
in the project in its origin or its management." Leahy and committee
Democrats, relying on information supplied by former Spectator
writer David Brock, have questioned whether Olson told the truth.
Hatch said the evidence supports Olson. "Based upon this careful
review," he wrote to Leahy, "I do not see any issues surrounding
the responsiveness of Mr. Olson's answers to questions posed by
the Committee and see no reason to further delay consideration of
his nomination."
Hatch also said that Olson's testimony is "clearly supported" by
the special review of the Arkansas Project that was conducted by
former Justice Department official Michael Shaheen, who investigated
allegations that Scaife and the Spectator were sources of
payments to Whitewater witness David Hale. Hatch revealed that a
representative of the Whitewater independent counsel came to the
Senate Judiciary Committee's offices on Wednesday, May 2, and showed
a redacted version of the Shaheen report to staffers for both Leahy
and Hatch. Leahy has said he was denied the chance to see the report;
Hatch called the Democrat's statement "mistaken."
"If you believe there is any specific evidence in the portions of
the report you have reviewed which contradicts any of Mr. Olson's
testimony before the Committee, which, given my review of the record,
I do not believe exists," Hatch wrote to Leahy, "I am willing to
consider such material, and if warranted make a specific inquiry
on the matter to the Office of Independent Counsel. However, I respectfully
ask that any such alleged evidence be brought to my or my staff's
attention immediately and no later than 5:00 p.m. Tuesday, so that
we may address the matter in a timely manner prior to the Committee's
executive meeting on Thursday."
The question now is how Democrats will respond to Hatch's letter.
The Judiciary Committee is evenly split, with nine Republicans and
nine Democrats. The rules require that ten senators be present for
a vote to be held; therefore, it will be impossible for Hatch to
have a vote on the Olson nomination without the assent of at least
one Democrat.
Democrats have several options. They might appear at the meeting
and take part in a vote. If all nine Democrats voted against Olson
— and all nine Republicans voted in favor — Hatch could
use a special procedure to take the nomination to the full Senate
for a vote. Of course, that would not be necessary if even one Democrat
votes for Olson. On the other hand, Democrats might walk out of
the meeting, as they did two weeks ago, effectively preventing Hatch
from acting. Or they might engage in a campaign to talk the nomination
to death, or at least into further delay.
A spokesman for Leahy says Leahy has not yet responded to Hatch's
letter. The spokesman points out that Hatch's letter is itself a
response to a May 13 letter from Leahy to Hatch, which Hatch responded
to on May 15. Leahy might decide to take a day or two to respond
to Hatch. In any event, the spokesman says committee Democrats have
not yet discussed the issue among themselves and thus have not decided
which path they will take on Thursday.
|
