RUSS FEINGOLD SMELLS THE COFFEE

By: Thomas McKelvey Cleaver

As the vote gets closer in the Senate for the first of the judicial re-nominees who were rejected by the Senate in the last Congress, with the danger escalating that this individual will get his seat on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Senator Russell Feingold has finally woken up and smelled the morning coffee.

The nominee is William G. Myers III, and the issue that has awakened the good Senator is perjury.

To me, the question is: how in hell did the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee miss this back on March 1, when they participated in the show hearings orchestrated by Committee Chairman Arlen Spector as part of his effort to rehabilitate himself to the far right and demonstrate he was indeed worthy of inheriting the committee chairmanship and not one of them questioned Mr. Myers - despite the fact that the information regarding his having perjured himself to the same committee a year ago in his original hearings had been common knowledge around Washington following a stinging critique of the Robbins Settlement issued nearly a month before the second confirmation hearing by Earl Devaney, the Inspector General of the Interior Department, which specifically mentioned the involvement of Myers in the settlement. Were the staffers asleep? What were the eight Democrats on the committee doing?

William G. Myers III was approved by the committee on a party-line vote, 10-8, with only a single question about the Robbins Settlement agreement and his role therein being asked, in answer to which he modified his previous statement by saying he had "brief conversations with Mr. Comer several times during the negotiations," but continuing to claim he had not had any role in approving the settlement. As I noted before, even Republican Senators are rumored to dislike nominees who lie to them under oath to their faces. Had Feingold made an issue of Myers and his previous lies, and questioned him about it to greater length at this second hearing, it is likely the vote would have been different with Myers getting a bipartisan rejection, and Feingold wouldn?t be forced to play catch-up ball now with the possibility of Myers' nomination coming to a vote on the Senate floor in the nest week or so.

Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the committee, is also said to be reviewing the information about Myers. Normally, Leahy and his staff are all over things like this, which leaves this observer scratching his head and wondering - were all the Democrats sound asleep that day?

So, what is that information? What perjury did Myers commit last year?

Specifically, he was asked in February 2004 if he had any knowledge about the Robbins Settlement, prior to reading about it in July 2003, and he answered that he had not had any involvement in negotiating or approving the settlement. (For information on what exactly the Robbins Settlement involves, go read my article The Coming Nuclear War In The United States Senate

Henry Robbins' lawyer Karen Budd-Falen, has made public a memo, including a fax, that "raises questions" about the accuracy of Mr. Myers' response. The fax - sent by Robert Comer, the Interior Department lawyer Myers had authorized to make the settlement, was sent to Myers, several other government officials, and Ms. Budd-Falen on November 13, 2002. In the cover letter of the 17-page proposed settlement, Comer asked the officials - including Myers - if they wanted to make "any other changes to the settlement agreement" that was attached.

Environmental groups opposed to the Robbins Settlement have obtained Myers' calendar records, which show that he and Comer discussed the proposed settlement on November 21, 2002, eight days after the faxed proposal was sent. According to Myers, the discussion was simply an opportunity for Comer to tell him he was "still negotiating" the settlement, which was signed six days later.

As Ms. Budd-Falen pointed out in releasing the memo, "Myers had full knowledge of the settlement agreement and all of its terms" before the agreement was finalized. This memo directly contradicts his statement during his original nomination hearings in February 2004.

So now the Republicans, in their war to put "good" judges in office, are supporting a perjurer. But then, to a "movement conservative," lying to support the cause is merely the act of a good soldier.