Reid cites FBI file on Judicial Nominee

[Bonnie]

By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Minority Leader Harry Reid strayed from his prepared remarks on the Senate floor yesterday and promised to continue opposing one of President Bush's judicial nominees based on "a problem" he said is in the nominee's "confidential report from the FBI."
Those highly confidential reports are filed on all judicial nominees, and severe sanctions apply to anyone who discloses their contents. Less clear is whether a senator could face sanctions for characterizing the content of such files.

more..
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050513-122042-3194r.htm

 

[archangel]

I'm amazed that Harry strayed from his usual canned responses....He is becomming a "Lame Duck" Senator in Nevada for sure...Both the GOP and DNC are paying close attention to "Harry's" diatribe's of late...even rumors of a "Re-call"

 

[Bonnie]

I'm amazed that Harry strayed from his usual canned responses....He is becomming a "Lame Duck" Senator in Nevada for sure...Both the GOP and DNC are paying close attention to "Harry's" diatribe's of late...even rumors of a "Re-call"

This situation to me comes close to being a dangerous thing.

 

[wolverine]

Less clear is whether a senator could face sanctions for characterizing the content of such files.

Good luck on anything being done about it.

 

[Hobbit]

Eh, Dingy Harry is at it again. I wish he's just shut up.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Eh, Dingy Harry is at it again. I wish he's just shut up.

I suppose we can chalk it up to more liberal temper tantrum...Dingy doesn't like his offers being rejected...

 

[SmarterThanYou]

I guess I should wonder why I'm not very surprised that nobody cares that theres questionable information in an FBI file on a nominee that they want on the federal appeals court.

 

[5stringJeff]

I guess I should wonder why I'm not very surprised that nobody cares that theres questionable information in an FBI file on a nominee that they want on the federal appeals court.

Since we don't know what the info is, it's hard to make a call on that.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Since we don't know what the info is, it's hard to make a call on that.

that sounds like a 'don't know, don't care' statement.

 

[5stringJeff]

that sounds like a 'don't know, don't care' statement.

Yeah, sort of. The flip side of your question is: How many nominees in the last 10-20 years have been approved with a "problem" in their FBI files, and how many times did that bite the Senate in their collective ass?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Yeah, sort of. The flip side of your question is: How many nominees in the last 10-20 years have been approved with a "problem" in their FBI files, and how many times did that bite the Senate in their collective ass?

should we know? I think we should, especially if we're talking about lifetime appointments in very influential positions such as federal appeals and district courts. I've yet to see one confirmed appointee bite any senate in the ass.

 

[5stringJeff]

I've yet to see one confirmed appointee bite any senate in the ass.

Which makes me wonder why we should care. Obviously a (super-)majority of Senators was OK with that information.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Which makes me wonder why we should care. Obviously a (super-)majority of Senators was OK with that information.

question, do all 100 senators get to go through these files or just the ones on the judiciary committee?

 

[5stringJeff]

question, do all 100 senators get to go through these files or just the ones on the judiciary committee?

Dunno. I would imagine all 100, if Harry Reid (not on the judiciary committee) is complaining.

 

[Bonnie]

question, do all 100 senators get to go through these files or just the ones on the judiciary committee?

It was my understanding that only the chairman of the committees get to see the info as it is considered priviledged information, but now im wondering.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

question, do all 100 senators get to go through these files or just the ones on the judiciary committee?

No, supposedly it's just those Senators on the judiciary committee and the Senators of the nominee's home state.

So how did Harry Reid who is not on the judicial committee get into the FBI file of Saad from Michigan? Even Saad himself can't get into his own FBI file to fight the allegation! Are you allowed to look into your FBI file? That's why this is so despicable of Reid - Saad can't even defend himself!

FBI background reports — even descriptions of FBI background reports — are supposed to be confidential. In the early 1990s, the Judiciary Committee agreed to severely limit access to FBI background checks after the first President Bush, angry at leaks during the Clarence Thomas confirmation fight, refused to give FBI information to the Senate. Since then, the reports have been made available only to members of the Judiciary Committee and a nominee's home-state senators, who in the case of Saad are Levin and Stabenow.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200505130859.asp

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Before the vote, on June 3, 2004, Sen. Patrick Leahy, who was angry that then-chairman Orrin Hatch was pushing the Saad nomination through the committee, and who had access to FBI material on Saad in his role as ranking Democrat on the committee, made a public reference to Saad's background check, saying it contained allegations of a "very serious nature." Leahy did not elaborate.

that would be how.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

that would be how.

True. Substitute Leahy as the original Dimwit. Reid is just a nasty copycat.

I don't think they should leak allegations and not substantiate them.

 

[Bonnie]

No, supposedly it's just those Senators on the judiciary committee and the Senators of the nominee's home state.

So how did Harry Reid who is not on the judicial committee get into the FBI file of Saad from Michigan? Even Saad himself can't get into his own FBI file to fight the allegation! Are you allowed to look into your FBI file? That's why this is so despicable of Reid - Saad can't even defend himself!

That really is the question isn't it?

 

[wolverine]

..his role as ranking Democrat on the committee..

Is that the media's way of saying "the ones not in charge?"