The Olson Showdown
The Senate Judiciary Committee gets ready to fight.

May 15, 2001 4:55 p.m.

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.