Durbin: Judge Misled Senate About Role In Forming Detainee Policy As WH Lawyer
Durbin: Judge Misled Senate About Role In Forming Detainee Policy As WH Lawyer
Last year, when Brett Kavanaugh, a former White House lawyer, was sworn-in as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, President Bush said he chose him because of “the strength of his character.” That character has now come into serious question.
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote a letter to Kavanaugh yesterday, accusing him of misleading the Senate about his role in formulating detainee policies as a lawyer in the Bush Administration.
Durbin says a recent Washington Post article contradicts Kavanaugh’s sworn testimony:
In [the Washington Post] article, you are reported to have participated in a “heated” White House meeting in 2002 about whether U.S. citizens who had been declared enemy combatants should be given access to lawyers. The information in this article was confirmed today by a report on National Public Radio.
These reports appear to contradict sworn testimony you gave to the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 9, 2006 at your nomination hearing. […]
I asked: “What did you know about Mr. Haynes’s role in crafting the Adminstration’s detention and interrogation policies?”
You testified: “Senator, I did not — I was not involved and am not involved in the questions about the rules governing detention of combatants — and so I do not have the involvement with that.”
In the Post article, which is part of a series on Vice President Dick Cheney, Kavanaugh is said to have argued that Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, for whom he had clerked, “would never accept absolute presidential discretion to declare a U.S. citizen an enemy and lock him up without giving him an opportunity to be represented and heard.”
A spokesman for Kavanaugh claimed his testimony was “accurate.”
Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation testimony was accurate, and Judge Kavanaugh will continue to carefully address recusal issues based on the law and the facts of each case.
Durbin requested that Kavanaugh “provide the Senate Judiciary Committee with an explanation for this apparent contradiction” as well as recuse himself from “all pending and subsequent cases involving detainees and enemy combatants.”
UPDATE: Jonathan Adler at National Review’s Bench Memos blog posts on the letter too, which is noteworthy for his lack of attempt to either defend Kavanaugh or dispel Durbin’s accusation.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
27 Responses to “Durbin: Judge Misled Senate About Role In Forming Detainee Policy As WH Lawyer”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Didn’t Griles just get 10 months in the federal pokey for lying to the Senate? This matter might be of interest to whoever prosecuted that case…
June 27th, 2007 at 2:56 pmThe meeting was “heated.” The room was warm. Radiators all on. That’s what the Post was reporting. Clear as day.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:58 pmGitmo should be moved to the U.S. mainland in order to house SO MANY LYING, CORRUPT (soon to be convicted) GOPers!
June 27th, 2007 at 2:58 pmWhy am I not surprised?
June 27th, 2007 at 3:00 pmCan he himself be rescinded from his appointment for misleading the Senate, or is that too much to ask? Using polite words for lying such as “misleading” is quaint. He knew exactly that he was involved he just didn’t think he would be called on it.
June 27th, 2007 at 3:02 pm“Using polite words for lying such as “misleading†is quaint. He knew exactly that he was involved he just didn’t think he would be called on it.
Comment by Bjobotts — June 27, 2007 @ 3:02 pm”
I just wonder what would happen to me if I lied, ummmm “mislead” a police officer or the courts????
Wait, I already know….. My a$$ would be sitting in jail faster than I could say SCREW BUSH!!!!
Why are there special treatments for these white collar criminals???
June 27th, 2007 at 3:04 pmPar for the course!!
Mislead, lied, distorted, omitted - what else. It’s the nature of the beast. Politicians and lying have gone hand in hand for ages.
Why should expect anything different here in the US?
We need to keep a healthy distrust of government - like the founders advised.
Some follow up reading:
“Politicians Lie? Say it ain’t so!”
June 27th, 2007 at 3:04 pmhttp://www.populistamerica.com/ politicians_lie___say_it_ain_t_so
Jeesh man what the hell is going on????
June 27th, 2007 at 3:18 pmNow let Kavanaugh face justice and let freedom ring: MOVE IN FOR THE KILL!
June 27th, 2007 at 3:19 pmFor Kavanaugh and even Gonzo, they have been shown to have lied under oath. Can’t they be disbarred for this and have to leave their positions no matter how much the President whines?
June 27th, 2007 at 3:24 pm” Can’t they be disbarred for this and have to leave their positions no matter how much the President whines?
Comment by dlet — June 27, 2007 @ 3:24 pm”
NOPE!
They MUST be IMPEACHED, or fired by the President!
June 27th, 2007 at 3:26 pmThey have killed justice. Crooked prosecuters, crooked judges, crooked USA’s, crooked legislators - next time I get on a jury for some poor schmuck I will vote not guilty regardless of the facts - if these lying sacks of s**t can get away with it there is no reason to punish anyone else.
June 27th, 2007 at 3:27 pmYou guys are missing something very important here. First of all, it wasn’t Kavanagh who made the statement quoted above…it was Berenson, another White House lawyer. And it’s unclear whether or not Kavanagh was actually at that “heated” meeting or was asked that question earlier, outside of a formal meeting or process. Re-read this section of the WAPO’s article on June 25th, and see what you think. Lastly, keep in mind that the issue being discussed was whether or not an AMERICAN CITIZEN could be declared an enemy and locked up without any access to legal rights. Read the Constitution…isn’t supposed to happen!! Seems to me that Olson, Berensen and Kavanagh were all arguing on avoiding violation of the Constitution/Bill of Rights, ..and Gonzales made his decision on behalf of an incipient dictatorship and in favor of Cheney.
His Client, the Vice President’
In the summer and fall of 2002, some of the Bush administration’s leading lawyers began to warn that Cheney and his Pentagon allies had set the government on a path for defeat in court. As the judicial branch took up challenges to the president’s assertion of wartime power, Justice Department lawyers increasingly found themselves defending what they believed to be losing positions — directed by the vice president and his staff. One of the uneasy lawyers was Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson , a conservative stalwart whose wife, Barbara, had died on Sept. 11, 2001 when the hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. Olson shared Cheney’s robust view of executive authority, but his job was to win cases. Two that particularly worried him involved U.S. citizens — Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi — who had been declared enemy combatants and denied access to lawyers.
Federal courts, Olson argued, would not go along with that. But the CIA and military interrogators opposed any outside contact, fearing relief from the isolation and dependence that they relied upon to break the will of suspected terrorists.
Flanigan said that Addington’s personal views leaned more toward Olson than against him, but that Addington beat back the proposal to grant detainees access to lawyers, “because that was the position of his client, the vice president.”
Decision time came in a heated meeting in Gonzales’s corner office on the West Wing’s second floor, according to four officials with direct knowledge, none of whom agreed to be quoted by name about confidential legal deliberations. Olson was backed by associate White House counsel Bradford A. Berenson , a former law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.
Berenson told colleagues that the court’s swing voter would never accept absolute presidential discretion to declare a U.S. citizen an enemy and lock him up without giving him an opportunity to be represented and heard. Another former Kennedy clerk, White House lawyer Brett Kavanaugh, had made the same argument earlier.
Addington accused Berenson of surrendering executive power on a fool’s prophecy about an inscrutable court. Berenson accused Addington of “know-nothingness.”
Gonzales listened quietly as the Justice Department and his own staff lined up against Addington. Then he decided in favor of Cheney’s lawyer.
June 27th, 2007 at 3:28 pmThey MUST be IMPEACHED, or fired by the President!
Comment by RemoveBush
So the Attorney General and a Federal Judge can retain their positions without being able to legally practice law? That seems kind of hoakey. Must look more into this. Not to say you are not right but it just seems weird.
June 27th, 2007 at 3:31 pmYes Sen. Durbin, but remember when you claimed that GOPers acted like Nazis, then Repubs attacked you, but instead of fighting back you cried and apologized to them. Kind of hard to get your manhood back now.
June 27th, 2007 at 3:35 pm“So the Attorney General and a Federal Judge can retain their positions without being able to legally practice law? That seems kind of hoakey. Must look more into this. Not to say you are not right but it just seems weird.
Comment by dlet — June 27, 2007 @ 3:31 pm”
You forget that a CIVIL SERVANT is in a different class of requirments…..
June 27th, 2007 at 3:48 pmThey may have different classes of requirements but a lawyer who is disbarred cannot practice law to represent others. Gonzo, I don’t believe could hold his post, but the question about a judge is interesting because he is supposed to decide on law, but he doesn’t represent anyone.
What happened in NC when the prosecutor was disbarred. He was fired before he quit, but he had been disbarred already, yet remained for several days.
Interesting legal question…any lawyers out there?
June 27th, 2007 at 3:54 pmThe problem with all these new revelations is that they are not new. At the time of the confirmation, folks said don’t confirm him and the response was well you don’t really have any proof. It’s the same shtick they’re running with Attorneygate. Got any proof, then go away.
Once someone is confirmed or elected, the inertia sets in. No one wants to upset the apple cart because they might be next.
The better play would have been to do what the GOP Senate is doing . . . refuse to let anything come to a vote. Then you wouldn’t have this idiot on the bench or the other 2 idiots ont he SCOTUS. Thanks for nothing, once again
June 27th, 2007 at 3:57 pmHe lied in order to become a U.S. Court of Appeals Judge. And now he is going to have the last word on hundreds of criminal cases, billion dollar civil suits, and all sorts of cases involving important constitutional questions. At what point does our government become illegitimate?
June 27th, 2007 at 4:25 pmOur government is already illegitimate.
The question is, when do they become relevant again? When do they work for the people, which is what they are supposed to do.
June 27th, 2007 at 4:30 pm“Recuse yourself”? Nay, resign sir!
June 27th, 2007 at 4:39 pmIt doesn’t sound like Kavanaugh was at the meeting:
Another former Kennedy clerk, White House lawyer Brett Kavanaugh, had made the same argument earlier.
It does sound like he fibbed to Congress though. If he was making “the same” argument “earlier” he was involved in discussions. Especially if he was being used as a sounding board for what Justice Kennedy would do.
June 27th, 2007 at 4:55 pmGitmo should be moved to the U.S. mainland in order to house SO MANY LYING, CORRUPT (soon to be convicted) GOPers!
Comment by Not Canadian — June 27, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
Yeah, the stuff they get away with is mindboggling.
June 27th, 2007 at 5:21 pmComment by po — June 27, 2007 @ 3:57 pm
The problem with all these new revelations is that they are not new. At the time of the confirmation, folks said don’t confirm him and the response was well you don’t really have any proof. It’s the same shtick they’re running with Attorneygate. Got any proof, then go away.
Proof of what? Proof of firing people that serve at the pleasure of the President and can be fired for virtually any reason whatsoever. “Proof” is not necessary to defend something that is not improper.
Just as the Clinton Administration did to 93 US attorneys.
June 27th, 2007 at 5:27 pmIt’s time to remove this guy fom the bench like # 11 above said why can’t this liar be disbarred.Folks lets all call our Senators & urge them to impeach this judge and thus remove him from the bench.
June 27th, 2007 at 7:58 pmOur democracy won’t work unless we the people call our Senators an tell em the way we feel.tis is our country and lying by a federal officer should be scorned.
So, we have another lying Republican sitting on the federal bench, who lied in his Senate confirmation hearing, just as Alito and Roberts lied in their Senate confirmation hearings. Why am I not surprised?
Which is why all the U.S. Attorneys who weren’t fired should be subpoenaed to appear before Congress, so they can be asked a whole of questions under oath…especially questions about any contact they’ve had with Karl Rove, or any “instructions” they may have received from Alberto Gonzales about “fixing” the November 2008 elections.
The pattern of blatant corruption in the Republican Party is quite apparent by now. They’ll lie, cheat and steal to force their crazed ideological agenda onto the rest of us, even subverting our Constitution in the process.
Our entire legal system has been assaulted, thus calling into question any action by any “culture of corruption” Republican attorney or judge taken anywhere across our country.
Kavanaugh lied. Kavanaugh shouldn’t just recuse himself, he should immediately resign. Otherwise, the circuit court bench on which his foul butt sits will continue to smell, calling into question the integrity of everyone sitting on the circuit court.
But we know Kavanaugh won’t do the honorable thing and resign. He was placed on the DC circuit court to try to block any criminal charges or accountability ever being brought against Republican officials in the most corrupt administration in American history. I’m certain that the Mafia would have loved to have had that capability.
June 27th, 2007 at 10:07 pmI’m certain that the Mafia would have loved to have had that capability.
Comment by The Oracle — June 27, 2007 @ 10:07 pm
Some would querry “What’s the difference?” I say they are worse than the mafia.
June 28th, 2007 at 1:16 am