Retired Federal Bureau of Investigation agents do not like to see the actions of special agents become political fodder, but that’s just what happened with the politicization of the handling of alleged Christmas day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

A comment last week from Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell, who said that “Larry King would have a more thorough interrogation of one of his [guests] than the Christmas bomber had by the Justice Department,” seems to have upset former FBI officials, according to Politico.

“It’s not just Mr. McConnell — these things go on on both sides, and it has for some time, and agents find this kind of behavior to be detestable, really,” Craig Dotlo, a retired FBI agent and the spokesman for the Society of Former Special Agents of the FBI, told Politico. “When these things are said or happen, agents just roll their eyes.”

“The members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, like to pretend they do everything right and they’re trying to protect the American people from these bumbling idiots” who work for the FBI, he told Politico.

But, said Dotlo, McConnell may have raised some good questions about the FBI’s handling of the suspect that should be answered. He questioned whether the best agents available conducted the interview and whether 50 minutes was a long enough period of time to get all the necessary information.

Dotlo believes that the FBI is capable of conducting interviews with terror suspects, though he told Politico he would rather the FBI conduct interviews in the context of military tribunals.

A House subcommittee will hold a hearing Feb. 4 on the proposed Comcast-NBC deal, the same day as a Senate antitrust subcommittee hearing on the deal, according to a notice about the hearing.

Brian Roberts, the chairman and CEO of Comcast, and Jeff Zucker, the president and CEO of NBC Universal, are both scheduled to testify in front of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee in the morning, and the Senate Judiciary panel in the afternoon.

The House subcommittee on communications, technology, and the Internet will hold a hearing at 9:30, called “An Examination of the Proposed Combination of Comcast and NBC Universal.”

The subcommittee is chaired by Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.)

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) who chairs the full Energy and Commerce panel, said the proposed merger raised “questions regarding diversity, competition, and the future of the production and distribution of video content across broadcasting, cable, online, and mobile platforms.”

“It is imperative that the FCC, the Justice Department, and the FTC rigorously assess whether this transaction is in the public interest,” Waxman said when the deal was announced.

The Senate hearing, set for 2:30 pm, will be chaired by Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights Subcommittee Chairman Herb Kohl (D-Wis.)

The merger is expected to undergo two more hearings on Capitol Hill. As was reported two weeks ago, the Justice Department is reviewing the deal for antitrust concerns, and the Federal Communications Commission will assess if the deal is in the public interest.

While Rep. Lloyd Doggett, the leader of Texas’s House Democratic delegation, has already forwarded his three U.S. Attorney recommendations for the Western District of Texas to President Obama, the state’s Republican senators continue to press on.

John Cornyn

The screening committee formed by Republican Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn will be interviewing six candidates today for the Western District position, reports the Austin American-Statesman.  We reported last month on the senators’ efforts to stay involved in the selection process by forming their own bi-partisan advisory commitee.  You can also read our interview with Doggett regarding the screening committee here.

The six candidates will be interviewed by the 31-member screening committee in the San Antonio offices of the Bracewell & Giuliani law firm.  The committee has already conducted interviews in Texas’s other three districts, the American-Statesman reports.  While none of the names have been released publicly, the paper has confirmed the six candidates through people involved in the search process.

The candidates to be interviewed are:

• David Escamilla, head of the Travis County attorney’s office
• San Antonio City Attorney Michael Bernard
• Michael McCrum, former chief of the major crimes unit in the San Antonio division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District
• U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert Pitman, a former Deputy Chief U.S. Attorney under former U.S. Attorney for the Western District Johnny Sutton, and acting U.S. attorney during a vacancy in 2001
• John Murphy, who took over as Acting U.S. Attorney for the Western District when Sutton stepped down, and previously First Assistant U.S. Attorney for 15 years
• James William Blagg, former U.S. Attorney for the Western District in the Clinton administration.

The paper has learned through its sources that Escamilla, Bernard, and McCrum were the three candidates recommended by Doggett to Obama, with Escamilla leading the pack.  Pitman, Murphy, and Blagg all submitted applications to Hutchison and Cornyn.

The committee will rank the candidates from 1 to 6.  Then the senators will decide which candidates to interview, according to the committee’s chairman Daniel Hedges.

To learn more about the search committee, read our previous report here.  You can also find our interview with Doggett here.

Yesterday, Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne wrote a post on the paper’s PostPartisan blog about how “logic pointed to choosing [Solicitor General] Elena Kagan” for the Supreme Court and that Kagan was “the obvious choice.”  His argument starts off based on the premise that Obama’s next pick is likely to be a non-latina woman, meaning that Kagan is best-fit for the job because she has already been confirmed with 61 votes for the position of Solicitor General.  Dionne concluded his post:

Courtesy: Washington Post

We will soon learn how good my logic is.

Well, why wait until the nomination?  While we don’t dispute the fact that Kagan would be a great nominee, she won’t help President Obama in “avoiding a major battle,” as Dionne claims.  Almost two weeks ago, we wrote about why she isn’t guaranteed a smooth confirmation:

The former Harvard Law School dean received only six Republican votes for her March 19 confirmation as Solicitor General, from Sens. Judd Gregg (NH), Susan Collins (Maine), Olympia Snowe (Maine),Tom Coburn (Okla.), Jon Kyl (Ariz.) and Orrin Hatch (Utah). Thirty one Republicans voted against her – including Sen. Arlen Specter, who is now a Democrat. Conservative groups have alreadycirculated a memo against Kagan and other potential Obama nominees. If she goes before the Senate as a nominee for the Supreme Court, she could lose at least one GOP vote – Kyl’s.

The Arizona Republican said on the Senate floor he supported her nomination because of the written recommendations from promiment conservatives including former Acting Attorney General Peter Keisler, attorney Miguel Estrada and former Solicitors General Ted Olson, Paul Clement and Greg Garre. Kyl emphasized that his vote for Kagan as Solicitor General was for that position only, however, and that he wouldn’t automatically support her for the Supreme Court.

“My decision whether to support or oppose her would be strongly influenced by the decisions made by her as Solicitor General,” Kyl said on the floor. He added, “If she approaches her job as Solicitor General ideologically or argues inappropriate positions, I will not hesitate to oppose her nomination.”

Coburn, a staunch conservative, did not speak about Kagan’s nomination on the floor. He gave few hints behind his decision to support her nomination when he told the Ada Evening News: “I voted for her because she was qualified.”

Kagan could also have difficulty picking up now-Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), who opposed her nomination for Solicitor General. When he was a Republican, he said he was unable to learn enough about Kagan during the discussions he had with her.

“I’ve gone to some length to try to find out more about Dean Kagan,” Specter said on the floor. “But in the absence of being able to do so and really have a judgment on her qualifications, I’m constrained to vote no.”

Specter also complained that Kagan wasn’t familiar with a lawsuit by victims of the 9/11 attacks against Saudi Arabian officials and business people who were alleged to have helped finance terrorism. Said Specter on the Senate floor: “There has been a lot of information in the public domain that Saudi charities were involved. Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. People were murdered. There are claims pending in court. The question is whether the Supreme Court is going to take the case. Well, I wish to know what the nominee for the position of Solicitor General thinks about it.”

Conservatives were upset by Kagan’s opposition to the Solomon Amendment, which required universities receiving federal funds to allow military recruiters on campus. Kagan opposed the amendment because of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy on gay service members. Kagan’s position on the amendment was the chief reason Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) voted against her. “I believe her record shows a lack of judgment and experience,” Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), said on the Senate floor during debate on her nomination to be Solicitor General.

Here’s the vote tally on Kagan’s March 19 confirmation:

YEAs —61
Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Begich (D-AK) Bennet (D-CO) Bingaman (D-NM) Brown (D-OH) Burris (D-IL) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Coburn (R-OK) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Dodd (D-CT) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA)	Gillibrand (D-NY) Gregg (R-NH) Hagan (D-NC) Harkin (D-IA) Hatch (R-UT) Inouye (D-HI) Johnson (D-SD) Kaufman (D-DE) Kerry (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Kyl (R-AZ) Landrieu (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (ID-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lugar (R-IN) McCaskill (D-MO) Menendez (D-NJ) Merkley (D-OR)	Mikulski (D-MD) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Shaheen (D-NH) Snowe (R-ME) Stabenow (D-MI) Tester (D-MT) Udall (D-CO) Udall (D-NM) Warner (D-VA) Webb (D-VA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs —31
Alexander (R-TN) Barrasso (R-WY) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burr (R-NC) Chambliss (R-GA) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX) Crapo (R-ID)	DeMint (R-SC) Enzi (R-WY) Grassley (R-IA) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Johanns (R-NE) Martinez (R-FL) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Murkowski (R-AK)	Risch (R-ID) Roberts (R-KS) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Specter (R-PA) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA) Voinovich (R-OH) Wicker (R-MS)

Not Voting – 7
Boxer (D-CA) Cochran (R-MS) Ensign (R-NV)	Graham (R-SC) Kennedy (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN)	Murray (D-WA)

Over the weekend, Rep. James Moran (D-Va.) wrote an article in the Washington Post about the dilemna of relocating prisoners once they are removed from Guanatanamo Bay.  While many senators and representatives have balked at the idea of prisoners being relocated to their states and districts, Moran offered a more conciliatory response stating that “[b]y and large, Alexandrians are civic-minded people and are ready to do their duty if it serves the greater good.”  While Moran did not outright say “bring ‘em over,” he made it clear that he would air no objection in the event that President Obama decided to relocate Guantanamo detainees to the Albert V. Bryan U.S. Courthouse and Detention Center in Alexandria, concluding:

Let there be no mistake: I’m not advocating for this burden. If there are more suitable locations in which to try the detainees, it would be a relief to all in this area. But should President Obama determine that Alexandria needs to play a reasonably limited role in a nationwide effort to bring justice to the Guantanamo detainees and close this unfortunate chapter of American history, I am confident that Alexandrians will stand strong as they always have.

The Obama administration is required to present a detailed plan by October 1 on how it intends to relocate the Guantanamo Bay detainees.

The BLT reports today that Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) says he didn’t know until late last night that the Senate Democratic leaders had decided to strip Sen. Arlen Specter of his seniority on committees. Leahy had previously been working to create a new subcommittee on Judiciary for Specter to head, after the Pennsylvania senator abandoned the Republican party last week for the Democrats.

The Washington Post’s Paul Kane writes that the Senate approved a resolution by voice vote last night that stripped party-switching Sen. Arlen Specter of seniority on all committees. Specter, who became a Democrat last week in a bid to stave off likely defeat in next year’s Pennsylvania Republican Senate primary, had been the most senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Now he’ll be the last panel member to ask questions of the President Obama’s nominee to replace retiring Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court, Kane notes. Ouch!

It’s not yet clear what happened. Last week Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Specter would retain his seniority. Perhaps the promise was made when Democrats were euphoric about coming within a hair (theoretically, at least) of a 60-vote filibuster-proof majority.  But Specter quickly began to disappoint his new party colleagues.  At a news conference announcing his party switch last week, Specter said in a response to a question from Main Justice’s Andrew Ramonas that he opposed Obama’s Office of Legal Counsel nominee Dawn Johnsen. Then he joked that he hoped Republican Norm Coleman would prevail over Democrat Al Franken in the disputed Minnesota Senate race, so there would be at least one Jewish Republican in the Senate. (Specter is Jewish). Guess this means Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) won’t be creating a new subcommittee for Specter to chair after all.

Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) remains undecided on Dawn Johnsen’s nomination to head the Office of Legal Counsel. Unlike fellow conservative Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska — who is opposed to Johnsen’s confirmation because of her past work for abortion rights, but who will vote with the Democratic party on a procedural motion to end debate on her nomination — Pryor hasn’t made up his mind on either point. This doesn’t bode well for Democrats, who are struggling mightly to muster the 60 votes needed to end a likely Republican-led filibuster.

Dawn Johnsen

Pryor’s spokeswoman, Lisa Ackerman, told Main Justice that Pryor met last week with a group of constituents about the Johnsen nomination. Ackerman declined to name the group or say whether its members were opposed or in support of Johnsen. Being from Arkansas myself, I feel safe in saying the group was probably opposed. Arkansas is a solidly Democratic state, but very conservative, with many Christian evangelicals active in politics. Arkansas voters chose John McCain over Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election. Johnsen’s past work as a lawyer for the abortion rights group now known as NARAL Pro-Choice America makes her a difficult sell in Arkansas.

UPDATE 5/5/09: Arkansas’s other conservative Democratic senator, Blanche Lincoln, told Main Justice’s Andrew Ramonas today, “I haven’t really looked into it.” Asked if she will vote for cloture on Johnsen, Lincoln said, “I feel confident I will.” Lincoln is up for re-election next year.

Meanwhile, the only Republican to come out in favor of the liberal Indiana University professor, Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, is under fire at home from anti-abortion groups for his support of his fellow Hoosier.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) will replace Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) as the new ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, The Hill reports this morning.

The Hill says:

Sessions and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) reached the deal that will allow the Alabama Republican to take over for Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), whose departure from the GOP last week left the committee without a ranking member.

Under terms of the deal, Sessions will serve as ranking member until the 112th Congress, when he will take over the ranking member post on the Senate Budget Committee. Current Budget Committee ranking member Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) is retiring at the end of the 111th Congress.

Grassley, the top Republican on the Finance Committee, will then become ranking member on the Judiciary Committee.

Last week, Grassley had enlisted the help of Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) in positioning himself for the top slot on the committee. Under the deal floated then, Hatch would have taken over Judiciary for the remainder of the 111th, with Grassley taking the helm once his tenure on Finance expired.

The Hill goes on to say that Judiciary Republicans will vote on  Sessions early this week, and then he will move on to the full Republican Conference for a vote.

UPDATE: The BLT notes the irony of Sessions leading the Republican side of a committee that in 1986 rejected his nomination for a federal judgeship because of his past controversial statements on race. Also, the deal with Sessions is apparently only through 2010, with Grassley taking over after then.

We are chagrined to say we missed this, but the Senate confirmed Ron Weich to head the DOJ’s Office of Legislative Affairs yesterday. But it was easy to miss: the nomination was approved by unanimous consent, with no drama.

Here is the statement Weich’s now-former boss, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), gave on the Senate floor after the nomination was confirmed:

Mr. REID. Mr. President, before I turn this over to Senator Durbin to close, I want to say a word or two about this nomination we just completed. That is the nomination of Ron Weich.

   I know Ron has waited with his family for a long time to get this done, but I have tremendously mixed emotions. A part of me was saying: I wish maybe

   He is going to lead the Justice Department regarding legislative affairs. He has had prosecutorial experience and Government experience. I know and respect all he has done to strengthen our national security, forward the cause of justice, and raise the ethics standards of our Government and in the whole country. In fact, Ron took a lead role in the last Congress, as we passed the most sweeping ethics and lobbying reforms in the history of our Congress and our country.

   Those who know and work with Ron value not only his extensive experience but just the person he is. I express my appreciation to Ron Weich for his sound judgment, his collegiality, his honesty, and loyalty to me. Eric Holder will find the same there.

   While many of his colleagues from Columbia University and Yale Law School, where he was educated, are out in the private sector making a lot of money, Ron has spent most of his life in public service. He came back to the Senate after having been in a renowned law firm downtown. But he came back because this is what he wants to do. He is able to make enough money to raise his family. He is not interested in how much money he makes. He is interested in what good he can do for our country.

   Our Nation benefits immensely when people as good at what they do as Ron is–and as good to others as Ron is–choose to make a difference.

   As I have indicated, I am sad to see him leave this Capitol complex. I am comforted by knowing that Ron will play an important role in rebuilding Attorney General Holder’s Justice Department to a place where all are once again equal under the law, protected by the law, and no one is above the law.