Date: January 11, 2006
Senator: Various - Specter\Kennedy
Topic:
Contents
SPECTER: We have made some inquiries about the issue which Senator Kennedy has raised about the Concerned Alumni of Princeton. As to the letter, I am advised by my chief of staff, Michael O'Neill, that he first saw a computer letter, and that he believes later a letter was delivered to the Judiciary Committee headquarters, apparently near Christmas, perhaps on Christmas Eve. And our custom is to log letters in, and the letter was never logged in.
But I repeat and confirm that I have never seen this letter until I saw a computer printout of it about an hour ago. Mr. O'Neill did talk to me about it over the break between Christmas and New Year's. I traveled to Iraq. That's the first time on the Judiciary Committee schedule I could find a few days to get away.
And Mr. O'Neill reminds me that we talked about it on the phone and I thought the matter was unmeritorious, not worthy of the time of the commission based on all that I knew about it.
SPECTER: Very brief conversation. And we get so many requests and there are so many items that are largely staff driven, not that staff-driven matters aren't important, but if something is of significance, you customarily expect a member to tell you about it.
Senator Kennedy and I frequent the gym at the same time and talk all the time, and never mentioned it to me, nor did he take it to the ranking member.
I make it a point that Senator Leahy's calls are the first ones I return, and I have a fair number, but I return all calls from members very, very promptly. And had this matter been presented to me, I would have given it more attention than I did on that telephone call that I have referred to.
So much for matters which are not quite as relevant as what I'm about to come to.
The New York Times published a story about this on November 26th, and my chief of staff, William Reynolds, talked to David Kirkpatrick, who said he had gone through all of the records. And as the story in the public domain has stated, these are the records that the Library of Congress, the Rusher records, those records and others at the library at Princeton give no indication that Judge Alito was among the group's major donors. He was not an active leader of the group.
SPECTER: And two of his classmates who were involved and Mr. Rusher said they did not remember his playing a role.
Well, the obvious thing to do is to call Mr. Rusher, which Mr. O'Neill did over the lunch hour. And Mr. Rusher said he'd be glad to have us look at his records and that he'd received a request from Congressional Research Service, but it was from an unnamed requester, and he declined.
But he said, had he received a request from Senator Kennedy or some member of this committee, he would have made the records available.
So, in Senator Kennedy's absence, I asked a staffer to tell him that we had moved ahead with it; I didn't want waste any time.
And Mr. O'Neill has contacted Senator Kennedy's staffers and they are en route or at the Library of Congress to look at these records so that we can confirm what the New York Times' David Kirkpatrick has had to say.
I am just a little puzzled at the issue being raised in this manner. We talk all the time. And I'm just a little surprised that Senator Kennedy hadn't talked to Senator Leahy or hadn't talked to me before he made a request for access to the Rusher records, talks about a subpoena, talks about a ruling of the chair, talks about overruling the chair -- just a little tussle.
But the substantive matters are being attended to.
SPECTER: And I share Senator Kennedy's concern that we have all the facts, all the facts, all the facts. And this is a lifetime appointment, it's a matter of tremendous importance, and I wouldn't want to find on some occasion that something comes to light which would bear on this nomination that we could have found out had we had been more vigilant.
Senator Kennedy?
KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I welcome the fact that we're going to have the access to those records.
The fact remains, I didn't anticipate -- I thought that since this was a major issue on the 1985 application of the nominee for a new job, this membership with the Federalist Society and the CAP organization, I thought as a matter of routine that we'd have access to those records.
And it was a letter to you, as we would do, with follow up with the staff, which is the usual procedure here. I regret I haven't been down in the gym since before Christmas...
(LAUGHTER)
... so I missed you down there.
But the important fact is we're going to get that information. I think that's what's extremely important.
And, quite frankly, if we had been able to get what I think were more responsive answers by the nominee during the course of the exchange today, I don't think probably it would have even been necessary.
But I don't think you'll be able to look through transcript of the exchanges that we had with the nominee and not feel that we have an important responsibility to follow up.
So I'm grateful we will have that chance to follow up. And look forward to the further considerations of evaluation of the material and further considerations of the hearing.
SPECTER: Enough said.
Senator Leahy, you have a unanimous consent request?
LEAHY: Yes.
Mr. Chairman, as I had understood, we'll be going back to another round. So if I misunderstood, you'll be sure to correct me.
But as I understood Judge Alito, he saw no connection between his unified executive theory and the use of presidential signing statements. In fact, the Wall Street Journal reports the president has cited the unitary executive 103 times in presidential signing statements. So I'd like to put that article, some articles from the Post and the Globe relevant.
In fact, the Defense bill, McCain torture amendment he specifically employed and I'd like to make that part of the record.
SPECTER: Without objection, those documents will be made a part of the record.
Contents
Prev
Next
Last
