« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Voting Chief Defends Overrulling Staff to Approve Georgia Voter ID Law
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) kicked off the questioning today by asking John Tanner about his involvement in forcing through an approval of the infamous 2005 Georgia voter ID law (here's the whole sorry story). Tanner overruled the recommendation from Civil Rights Division staff attorneys to reject the law and then made the unprecedented move of silencing their opposition. After Tanner recommended approval of the law (one day after the staff recommended against that), a federal appeals court judge later barred implementation of the law, comparing it to a Jim Crow-era poll tax.
Under questioning today, Tanner avoided discussing his clash with his own staff, who had made their recommendation in a forcefully worded memo. Instead, he put the emphasis on the fact that he'd "made the decision." When Nadler pushed, Tanner replied, " I can't discuss internal deliberations," and made reference to the "confidence of our clients." This apparent invocation of attorney-client privilege seemed to catch Nadler off guard. But isn't that public information? he asked. Tanner declined to elaborate, instead emphasizing again that the decision was his based on "careful analysis."
In the Georgia ID memo, Tanner also made the questionable move of reversing the usual Justice Department practice of including his own contrary opinion when he disagreed with the staff recommendation. Instead of forwarding on his staff's recommendation alongside his own to the Department leadership, Tanner simply removed the staff's dissent. When Nadler asked him if he'd abandoned this "longstanding practice," Tanner replied, "That has not been the uniform practice." But was that the general practice? Nadler countered. "Prior to that time, it had not been done," Tanner admitted.
Comments (14)
The Obnox wrote on October 30, 2007 12:16 PM:His clients? WTF? What clients? Surely, he works for the people of the United States. What is this fresh malarkey? How did Nadler fall for this crap?
Brantl wrote on October 30, 2007 12:21 PM:So, he'll finally tell the truth when someone who already knows it, forces him to tell it.
SeeDee wrote on October 30, 2007 12:25 PM:In 'hearing after hearing', on whatever bamboozlement some sorry-ass little GOP pol has pulled, the Democratic Congressional questioners just simply do not seem to be up to the fight.
Maybe we need a whole new 'team'.
The Confidence Man wrote on October 30, 2007 12:30 PM:I'm with The Obnox -- WTF is going on with Tanner's invocation of "clients"? Is he admitting that there are entities outside the government that are *paying* him for his services as a government agent?
Orwell's Intuition wrote on October 30, 2007 12:41 PM:Even if he invokes attorney-client privilege, I don't believe that extends to actually identifying his clients. This pinhead may have opened up a whole new can of worms to investigate exactly whom he is protecting with this assertion. FWIW, I think he's blowing smoke. But, still ...
Jim from Chicago wrote on October 30, 2007 12:45 PM:House Judiciary needs to borrow Bruce Braley (D-IA) from the House Oversight Committee. He could dissect Tanner the same way he did Lurita Doan.
Aunty Em Ericann wrote on October 30, 2007 12:53 PM:So many moving targets; so few sharpshooters.
With all my love,
Jesse wrote on October 30, 2007 1:20 PM:Aunty Em
It was a dumb reference to "clients." The more appropriate invocation would have probably been executive privilege, though it's questionable whether that would apply here.
Utopia wrote on October 30, 2007 3:47 PM:The only thing missing from his testimony was "I don't recall". Who prepped this guy? How could they overlook the standard Bushie response?
U
jrcj wrote on October 30, 2007 5:54 PM:hmm. didn't expect him to emphasize how HE made the decision, and then invoke some version of attorney-client privilege.
not that it's surprising that someone's pulling his strings on this. just would be interesting to have him admit who.
Phoenix Rising wrote on October 30, 2007 7:28 PM:So it's not "uniform practice", but it's always been done that way before he changed it?
There's some stellar logic for you.
Y wrote on October 30, 2007 8:28 PM:Just a tale from the Voting Section to highlight the character, or lack thereof, of Acting Deputy Chief of Section 5, YVETTE RIVERA. A black staffer noticed that her toaster was missing. She sent around an email to the Section, asking if anyone had seen it. Some staffers consequently learned that an intern took the toaster, after being told by RIVERA that he could, even though it was not hers to give. Now when the email went around asking for the toaster, and when a note was placed on the bulletin board, a normal, moral person would send an email to the staffer saying "oh, I'm so sorry I did not realize that belonged to you, and I gave an intern permission to take it. Let me know how much it cost, and I will be happy to replace it." That is what I would do, and what I assume you all reading would do as well. But no, not RIVERA. She clearly read the email, has seen the bulletin board, yet weeks continue to pass, and she remains silent...Yvette, we know you read these, and we want you to know that WE KNOW you are behind this! And you want us to respect you when you lie and hide little mistakes like this? Now how can we respect you when you tell lie after lie, ask staff to spy on each other, and treat black staff SO differently than non-black staff?
Bobby Seals wrote on October 30, 2007 9:25 PM:When Tanner said "clients" he was referring to the right-wing pimps he prostitued himself to, in order to be in charge of the Voting Section. The whole Georgia ID fiasco will be the singular, defining moment of his whole tumultous and destructive "reign" over the Voting Section. People that right-wingers don't want at the voting booth in GA will be turned away and he says it's justified under the false pretenses that they are trying to protect against voter fraud. Poppycock.
modmom wrote on October 31, 2007 10:06 PM:I wished they had focused on what Tanner allowed to happen in Ohio in 2004 rather than a comment (although offensive, not as bad as his actions in disenfranchising Af Am voters.