Ex-GOP Lawyer Wants Judiciary Probe Focused on Democrat 'Corruption'
By Jeff Johnson
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
February 23, 2004
(Editor's Note: Clarifies that Miranda departed Sen. Bill Frist's office earlier this month, not Judiciary Committee)
(CNSNews.com) - Democrats have compared Manuel Miranda to, perhaps, the most famous political burglars in American history. But the former Senate Judiciary Committee GOP counsel told CNSNews.com last week - in the first in-depth interview since his resignation - that he did nothing wrong by reading Democrats' strategy memos, stored on a government computer shared by Republicans. More importantly, he believes the focus of the investigation into the memos is misplaced.
Miranda, who resigned from his job with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) earlier this month, credits committee Democrats and their allied liberal special interest groups with "a very clever move ... to create this impression that there was another 'Washington leak' investigation when, in fact, there was no leak."
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is a liberal legal advocacy group that "aims to counterbalance the conservative legal watchdog groups that made such a strong impact over the past decade." It has asked the New York State Bar Association, of which Miranda is a member, to disbar him.
"Mr. Miranda should be thanking his lucky stars that he has not been led off in handcuffs," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW.
Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) compared Miranda reading the Democrats' strategy memos to the infamous Watergate burglary.
"In those days, break-ins required a physical presence, burglar's tools, lookouts and getaway cars," Kennedy said. "Today, theft may only require a computer and the skills to use it and the will to break in."
Kennedy also accused Miranda of taking the Senate and the Judiciary Committee to a new political low.
"We know that dirty tricks have long been infecting the nation's politics, but they haven't infected the Senate or our committee until now," Kennedy claimed.
Miranda seemed shocked by Kennedy's assertion.
"That statement defies credulity," Miranda responded. "To suggest that the Judiciary Committee is anything but the most toxic, adversarial and possibly corrupt committee in the Senate is to treat the American people as stupid."
Miranda believes the Democratic memos he read, some of which have been leaked to the media, are evidence of that alleged corruption. He claimed he was only initially interested in the documents because they contained schedules of which nominees would be brought up for hearings and when those hearing would take place.
"What the Democrats would do is, they would let the outside left-wing groups know months ahead of time so that they could prepare, do research, prepare their distortions," Miranda explained. "But they would tell us about a week ahead of time. My interest, really, at the time, was determining dates of hearings to come."
But, while looking for those hearing dates, Miranda discovered information that he believes is motivating Democrats to attack him now, in an attempt to distract the public from the content of the memos.
"There were many instances of situations where labor unions and other organizations were heavily weighing in on nominees in a pattern that was more than mere offering by the public of its opinions," Miranda said. "These were memos where staff was relating what senators were discussing."
As CNSNews.com previously reported, Miranda accused lobbies for the abortion industry, trial lawyers and unions of exerting undue influence over the judicial confirmation process. The Democrats' memos seem to offer support for that accusation.
Under the subject line "Meetings with Groups on Judges," a June 4, 2002, Democratic staff memo to Kennedy began, "As you know, the meeting with the groups to discuss the strategy on judicial nominations is scheduled for tomorrow at 11:50."
The "groups" with representatives scheduled to attend that meeting were listed and included NARAL Pro-Choice America (the group formerly known as the National Abortion Rights Action League), People for the American Way (PFAW), the Alliance for Justice (AFJ), the American Association of University Women (AAUW), the National Women's Law Center (NWLC), the National Partnership for Women and Families (NPWF) and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR).
An Oct. 15, 2001, memo to Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) complained about an upcoming confirmation hearing for conservative Judge Charles Pickering: "The interest groups have two objections: (1) in light of the terrorist attacks, it was their understanding that no controversial judicial nominees would be moved this fall; and (2) they were given assurances that they would receive plenty of notice to prepare for any controversial nominee."
Later in that same memo, the author wrote: "Recognizing that Thursday's (Oct. 18, 2001) hearing is likely to go forward, the groups are asking that the Committee hold a second hearing on Pickering in a few weeks, when they will have had adequate time to research him fully." That "second hearing on Pickering" was held Feb. 7, 2002.
A Nov. 6, 2001, memo to Durbin stated: "The groups would like to postpone action on these nominees until next year, when (presumably) the public will be more tolerant of partisan dissent."
One day later, another note to Durbin contained the explanation: "There's a reason we do what we do - most of Bush's nominees are nazis [sic]."
A separate Nov. 7, 2001, memo to Durbin from another Democratic staffer on the Judiciary Committee focused on several of President Bush's judicial nominees.
"The [special interest] groups singled out three - Jeffrey Sutton (6th Circuit); Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit); and Caroline Kuhl (9th Circuit) - as a potential nominee for a contentious hearing early next year, with a [sic] eye toward voting him or her down in Committee. They also identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment. They want to hold Estrada off as long as possible."
That memo also contained an assessment of the president's judicial nominees by the author: "Based on input from the groups, I would place the appellate nominees in the categories below." The categories were the "Good," "Bad" and "Ugly." Sutton, Owen, Kuhl and Estrada were listed as "Ugly."
An April 17, 2002, memo to Kennedy informed the Massachusetts Democrat that: "Elaine Jones of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF) tried to call you today ... Elaine would like the Committee to hold off on any 6th Circuit nominees until the University of Michigan case regarding the constitutionality of affirmative action in higher education is decided by the en banc 6th Circuit ... The thinking is that the current 6th Circuit will sustain the affirmative action program, but if a new judge with conservative views is confirmed before the case is decided, that new judge will be able, under 6th Circuit rules, to review the case and vote on it."
A June 5, 2002, memo, again to Durbin, stated: "Under pressure from Senator Hollings - who apparently is backing [Dennis] Shedd because the trial lawyers want him off the district court bench - Chairman Leahy is planning to hold a hearing in late June [2002]."
According to a June 12, 2002, memo to Kennedy: "Ultimately if [then-Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick] Leahy (D-Vt.) insists on having an August hearing, it appears that the groups are willing to let [Timothy] Tymkovich go through (the core of the coalition made that decision last night, but they are checking with the gay rights groups)."
On June 21, 2002, a memo addressed to Senators Kennedy, Durbin, Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) advised: "We agree with Senator Leahy that [Miguel] Estrada should be scheduled for September 19th ... This will give the groups time to complete their research..."
In a Sept. 27, 2002, memo to Kennedy, a Democratic staffer described how the Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers had written the committee warning that [Ohio State Supreme Court Justice Deborah] Cook was "willing to disregard precedent, misinterpret legislative intent and ignore constitutional mandates in an effort to achieve a result that favors businesses over consumers." The same memo stated that: "AFL-CIO has weighed in ... about delaying Cook." It also contained the following recommendation to Democrats on the Judiciary Committee: "Do not schedule a vote on [Michael] McConnell and Estrada until after the election."
One Jan. 30, 2003, memo summarized the results of a meeting between Judiciary Committee Democrats and Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.): "All in attendance agreed to attempt to filibuster the nomination of Miguel Estrada." One of the stated reasons for the filibuster was that, "Estrada is likely to be a Supreme Court nominee and it will be much harder to defeat him in a Supreme Court setting if he is confirmed easily now." The memo also noted, "Everyone also agreed to keep this matter confidential."
An undated document by Kennedy's staff entitled "Talking Points on Estrada for [the Democratic] Caucus" stated that, "We must filibuster Miguel Estrada's nomination." Among the reasons listed for the strategy was that "the D.C. Circuit is ... a feeder circuit for the Supreme Court. The White House is almost telling us that they plan to nominate him to the Supreme Court. We can't repeat the mistake we made with Clarence Thomas."
Miranda said he has seen some, but not all of the hundreds or thousands of other Democratic staff memos and talking points documents currently in the possession of the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms, William Pickle.
"I recall seeing memos that indicated that the vote for at least one nominee was being influenced by the promise of campaign funding and campaign election support in the North Carolina and Louisiana Senate races," Miranda said.
While some conservative activists have seemed almost giddy upon reading the memos, Miranda is more reflective.
"Republicans have long argued that there was collusion. In a sense, there was some comfort that we could take in the inability to prove it," Miranda said. "There is no comfort in knowing the actual extent to which it is occurring."
Miranda said he did not leak the documents to the media, and denied that he violated any laws or ethics rules by reading them. He has also called for an ethics investigation into the senators named in the memos. Durbin called the request "an incredible development."
