Andrew Zajac
House Judiciary Committee Republicans complained loudly today that they weren’t consulted about the majority Democrats’ decision to set up a web site to collect intel about reported politicization of the Justice Department.
The Democrats’ response?
First they said ‘we’ll look into it.’ Later this afternoon, Judiciary Committee chair John Conyers, D-Michigan, issued a more substantive reply.
First, the GOP case as made in a press release:
Judiciary Dems: Send us your innuendo, your heresy, your conjecture. We’ll investigate.
NOTE: The Democrat Majority on the Judiciary Committee today created a website to solicit rumors, gossip, and stories from former and current Department of Justice employees about political influence at the Department – looking for information only after 2001. The minority party was not consulted or notified, and this website may violate the House Rule that says that all Members should have access to Committee records.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE | JUNE 21st, 2007
Democrats Fishing the Net for Oxygen to Keep a Pointless Investigation Afloat
WASHINGTON DC – The Democrat Majority on the Judiciary Committee today created a website to solicit rumors, gossip, and stories from former and current Department of Justice employees about political influence at the Department.
The minority party was not notified, and this website may violate the House Rule that says that all Members should have access to Committee records.
To make matters worse, the Majority website makes clear that only allegations, rumors, or gossip about politicization of the Department of Justice after 2001 would be investigated, and then, only by majority staff.
Upon learning of this, Congressman Chris Cannon (R-Utah) released the following statement: “Political influence neither began nor will it end with the Bush Administration. The creation of a secret website to collect gossip and rumors only accessible by the majority party, and only about the Bush Administration, is blatant partisanship. If tens of thousand of pages of documents, dozens of interviews, and witness testimony under oath has not uncovered corruption or interference in ongoing investigations, then it is time for the committee to move on.”
More Top Picks Photophobia In Children When To See A Doctor
Cannon continued, “Taxpayers are ponying up $250,000 for a DC lawyer to investigate this matter. Again, we ask, what are taxpayers getting? Does the lack of progress in this investigation indicate that the Democrats are trying to get their money’s worth by having a $250,000 lawyer spend his day reading gossip emails?”
Chris Cannon is the ranking member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, overseeing the investigation into the US Attorney firings.
###
And Conyers’ rebuttal:
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) released the following statement in response to charges made in a press release issued by Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT), Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law:
“When there is an ongoing internal nonpartisan Justice Department investigation, the former Republican Deputy Attorney General James Comey testifies to the Committee that these allegations are serious, and Republican Senators call for the Attorney General to step down over his conduct in these matters, I am disappointed some of my colleagues want to bury their heads in the sand and claim this is pointless.
“In an ongoing effort to create a sideshow and a distraction from these serious matters, some have raised allegations about a webpage that was designed to give Department whistleblowers a mechanism to securely communicate with the Committee. The webpage was launched prematurely, but the content of it represented a good faith interpretation of House rules. Within three hours of learning about a different interpretation of the Rules and to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, the website was edited – removing one word – and is now, under any interpretation, in full compliance with the rules. I am saddened that the serious allegations that decisions about prosecutors and prosecution have been tainted by politics are apparently of no interest to some of my colleagues and, they instead want to talk about websites and lawyers.
“I am also astounded that one of my dear friends on the Republican side who I was counting on to expand upon the emerging bipartisanship on the Committee is now carelessly launching ad hominem attacks against all Committee Democrats, including me.”