« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Rumored AG Pick Likely to Get Opposition
Ted Olson is "leading the pack" as the administration's likely next attorney general, Roll Call reports (pdf).
Olson would be a tough sell. After all, most Democrats, including Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) opposed Olson when he came up for confirmation for solicitor general in 2001 (he passed 51-47). The memory of Olson's role as a lawyer for Bush in the 2000 recount imbroglio was fresh. And Olson's history as a member of The American Spectator's board of directors during the so-called "Arkansas Project" in the 90's, when the magazine, backed by millions from millionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, set to ending Clinton's presidency by scandal, also became a major issue. As Leahy put it, his concern was that Olson's "sharp partisanship over the last several years might not be something that he could leave behind." Given Democrats' expressed desire for a less partisan nominee to succeed Gonzales, it's hard to see how Leahy wouldn't have similar concerns today.
Roll Call reports on how Olson might play this time around:
At press time GOP and Democratic aides said it was unclear how receptive Democratic lawmakers will be to an Olson nomination. The Conference appears to be split between longtime Washington insiders who view Olson as a reliable member of their ranks and relative newcomers who see him as the principal architect of Bush’s successful legal campaign in the messy aftermath of the 2000 presidential race. While those familiar with Olson likely would confirm him, the Conference’s other faction seems to be in no mood to back him.The senior Democratic aide said that while positions will become clearer once a formal nomination has been made, at this point it is impossible to tell whether Olson could make it through the Senate. A veteran GOP aide agreed, saying, “I can’t get a good read” from Democrats.
Note: Olson has spent the last several years as a partner at his old firm, Gibson, Dunn, and Crutcher, where he continues to represent Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA), who's under federal investigation for appropriations funny business.
Comments (16)
drational wrote on September 10, 2007 12:03 PM:Speaking of Gonzales, Slate's second piece on Goldsmith published today has Goldsmith calling the controversy as being over the "Terrorist Surveillance Program".
C92 wrote on September 10, 2007 12:21 PM:This means Goldsmith is firmly in the "Gonzales lied to congress" camp.
Back during the Cheney energy task force debacle, Olson was a "fierce defender" of the Office of the Vice President's claims of executive priviliege.
Might be interesting to try and nail him down on whether the OVP is part of the Executive Branch or not.
http://www.asne.org/index.cfm?ID=5300
Richard L. Adlof wrote on September 10, 2007 12:36 PM:On the plus side, he was Superman's sidekick . . . Oh wait . . . That was JIMMY . . . Not Timmy.
Forget it . . . He is just another partisan hack.
Mary wrote on September 10, 2007 1:00 PM:Olson is a great pick for the President at this point, and would be a horrible acquiesence by Congress.
Backing up to before the 2000 election, Olson was the named defendant in the Morrison v. Olson case that was heavily featured in all the Fitzgerald/Libby brouhaha.
As head of the office of legal counsel under Reagan, he was involved with the withholding of documents by the EPA to the Congress. When Congress investigated, the HJC issued a report suggesting Olson at best misled them, and an independent counsel was appointed to investigate. As a result, Olson isn't a big fan of the independent counsel statute, which he attacked (and which has since expired) and doesn't seem to be much of a fan of any oversight of or criminal accountability within the Executive branch, including its lawyers (fka Dep of Justice).
Then there is the 2000 recount, the Arkansas project and also the mysterious incident of the Yang hiring by Gibson Dunn during her prosecution of the now stalled, seemingly about to be junked, Lewis investigation.
The "truthiness" of the Solic. General's office, when Clement went before the Sup Ct and gliby argued that the US never engages in torture or anything like torture - despite a full fledged torture initiative signed off on by Haynes at DOD in his memoranda (including the theory that soldiers could violate the Geneva Conventions and UCMJ with impunity as long as they claimed the Nuremberg defense) and despite black site prisons up and operating and Abu Grhaib and round ups and disappearances by the US of people everywhere from Macedonia to Iraq to Italy to ...
Either someone at the Solic Gen office did a horrible job of due diligence before making their arguments, or someone(s) lied to them, or the Sol Gen office knowingly lied to the Sup Ct bc they thought they had no business knowing what Bush and his facilitators of crime were doing - - which wouldn't be that far from (although much more extreme than) the positions taken when Olson was involved with the EPA document refusals.
But hey - the Democrats love that kind of thing. They get all the titallation of crime and torture without having to get their hands dirty with the commission, and they would never ever ever try to do anything to stand in the way of more crimes in the Bush White House.
And if they don't approve Olson, Clement will be the continuing acting, so the difference is?
Both parties are a pretty sorry mess and the DOJ is beyond redemption now and Congress is nothing more than a pretense. Republicans were rubber stamp, Democrats are worse in that they just hand their stamp over to the President with the air of helplessness assumed by a supermodel with a new nail job looking at a flat tire. Gosh, there aren't 67 of us in the Senate and if there were, 25-30 of them would need to vote as loyal Bushies anyway and we support and encourage that, so golly gee whiz, don't expect us to have the strength to say no to the big strong President until you elect 97 or so Dems to the Senate.
There's a reason to go vote.
dm wrote on September 10, 2007 1:28 PM:Mary is absolutely right about the vulnerability of Olson to questions of integrity. The last AG just got canned for misleading Congress. Olson was investigated by the independent counsel for (surprise) lying to Congress during the Reagan administration. Every law student in the country for the last 15 or so years has read the account of how Olson fought a subpoena related to that investigation and lost. Would his nomination really help the DoJ to regain its former glory?
moondancer wrote on September 10, 2007 2:10 PM:It's pretty simple. Shrub is NOT going to let anyone be AG who isn't a GOP soldier. He cant afford anyone in that office that will open the curtains at DOJ.
JohnW1141 wrote on September 10, 2007 2:34 PM:Independent AG= collapse of administration.
Didn't Olsen write a column for The American Spectator using a pseudonym where he listed the crimes Clinton could be charged with?
JohnW1141 wrote on September 10, 2007 2:38 PM:Did I forget to mention that Olson is a partisan sleazebag who will be nothing more than carbon copy of Gonzales?
RonK, Seattle wrote on September 10, 2007 2:43 PM:In his time off, T.O. has made scads of talking head appearances.
And he has said things ...
regular lurker wrote on September 10, 2007 2:51 PM:Olson = Another Harriet Miers. He even has the same bad hair. Next.
Anonymous wrote on September 10, 2007 3:06 PM:Ted Olson is the Godfather of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. The guy is a professional GOP dirty tricks operator. He is more partisan than Gonzales.
Dems overwhelmingly voted against him as solicitor general. Why would they confirm him for a higher position?
jeffgee wrote on September 10, 2007 5:43 PM:More partisan than Gonzales but probably more competent. He'd cover his tracks. Olson's been a VRWC soldier a lot longer than Gonzo was. A lawyer with only one client, Gonzo owed his entire career to George W. Bush.
Cal Damage wrote on September 10, 2007 8:30 PM:The timing is suspect.He 'lost his wife' exactly 6 years ago tomorrow, as Barbara Olson died when Flight 77 (supposedly) torpedoed the Pentagon. Check the wikipedia entry on her. Never think the RealUglyCons aren't using every lever they've got
Mimi Schaeffer wrote on September 10, 2007 9:41 PM:She was a looker, and as you can see, Ted is not. (Note: the only pics on the net of her are from a Larry King interview.) But they were soul-mates in Clinton hating and despising all things American and Constitutional. A real pair. Both fell in love as 'elves' working the Arkansas Project for Scaife.
I have a joke I sometimes use, in incredibly poor taste, about how Ted's life changed after she was removed by 9-11. But I'll leave for when he is nominated
Well...one thing that might be in Olson's favor is the fact that he was the one person Comey picked to gc to the hospital and be a witness during the bizzare hospital scene with Gonzo and Card, which means that although he's partisan, at least he's honest, maybe.
Donald from Hawaii wrote on September 11, 2007 12:46 AM:Cal Damage, AA77 did indeed crash into the Pentagon. Your alluding otherwise does nothing to advance the substantive arguments that Ted Olson should NEVER be confirmed as U.S. Attorney General.
hooks wrote on September 12, 2007 2:45 PM:I wonder how Lieberman would vote on such a nomination. Lord knows he wants everyone to get along, but would Olson's involvement in the 2000 election mess be to bitter a pill to swallow?