AP sources: Dawn Johnsen withdraws as nominee to head Justice Dept. Office of Legal Counsel

[cal04]

Source: Associated Press

Updated
President Barack Obama's nominee to head the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel has withdrawn her bid for confirmation, after several Republicans objected to her criticism of the Bush administration's terrorist interrogation policies.

Dawn Johnsen's withdrawal — a setback for the Obama administration — was announced late Friday by the White House on a day the capital's legal and political elites were absorbed in the news that Justice John Paul Stevens would retire from the Supreme Court.

The Senate Judiciary Committee had recommended Johnsen's confirmation on party-line votes. But several Republicans objected to her sharp criticisms of terrorist interrogation policies under President George W. Bush, and the full Senate never voted on her nomination.

(snip)
"Restoring OLC to its best nonpartisan traditions was my primary objective for my anticipated service in this administration," Johnsen said in a statement. "Unfortunately, my nomination has met with lengthy delays and political opposition that threaten that objective and prevent OLC from functioning at full strength."

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100409/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_johnsen_legal_counsel_3

---

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/dawn-johnsen-withdrawing-nomination-after-long-battle.php

[babylonsister]

1. Shit! They're driving out all the good ones. nt

[pscot]

6. The Prez should have made a recess

appointment months ago, when it became apparent she would not be confirmed. I can't inderstand why all these departmental appointees require the Senate's consent. The whole process is in stasis.

[Mithreal]

8. Why didn't he?

[jgraz]

30. Cuz he never wanted her in the first place?

Once it became clear that she was actually serious about holding Yoo, et al. accountable, Obama had no interest in seeing her confirmed.

[Mithreal]

34. Maybe if there is another Fox interview we'll find out

[No Elephants]

52. Consider the view of a Democratic legal scholar, whom I quoted in Reply #51.

[Solly Mack]

2. k/r

[alstephenson]

3. Crap.

[fasttense]

4. How dare she criticize how the bushes tortured POWs.

How dare she think we should not torture. How dare she criticize a war criminal.

[CoffeeCat]

5. Even with majorities in the House and Senate...

...we still can't get good, Progressive candidates through the nomination process?

I think that clearly tells you that the majority of Democrats are right-wing hacks
who are more loyal to the corporations and to the neocon mentality--than they are
to our party platform.

It really stinks.

[Qutzupalotl]

7. I think it speaks more to the lockstep opposition

bent on filibustering. It doesn't take a RW Dem to lose a filibuster vote 41-59.

[Mithreal]

9. I think it speaks to impotence.

[Qutzupalotl]

10. 59 macho ballcrushers couldn't overcome a 41-vote filibuster by pink tutu'd sissies.

It's simple math. Potency has nothing to do with it.

[Mithreal]

13. Help me then, why not recess appointed?

[Qutzupalotl]

15. Because she withdrew.

But she'd make a fine SC justice, as others have hinted. Maybe that's her aim.

On edit: to better answer your question, I don't think Obama expected her to withdraw suddenly, unless the SC vacancy is the reason.

[depakid]

18. The administration's already had several opportunities for a recess appointment!

Bottom line- they're not interested in her services.

[Mithreal]

19. I agree with depakid, Qu

[No Elephants]

61. I agree with Mithreal's agreeent with DepaKid.

[Mithreal]

62. .

:hi:

[Qutzupalotl]

21. Why would they nominate her if they weren't interested in her services?

Your conclusion makes no sense.

[depakid]

23. Ever thought about hiring someone and changed your mind?

In this instance, it's become rather clear that she's

A. Not worth the effort (conflicts); and

B. She doesn't fit in with the direction that the administration's going.

Makes perfect sense from a business perspective.

[Qutzupalotl]

25. Her record and positions have been public for a long time.

I think a better explanation is they didn't forsee the filibuster holding, and planned to make another recess appointment later. It's important to note that she withdrew; the admin didn't withdraw the nomination.

[depakid]

27. "It's important to note that she withdrew"

That's generally how it works.

Face saving on both sides- look back on other nominations and appointments over the years that didn't pan out.

As to foreseeability- that angle was clear as a whistle from the outset to anyone with eyes and ears.

[Qutzupalotl]

31. In other words, you've determined that Obama asked her to withdraw

based on your own preconceived notions.

[harkadog]

32. Anyone who knows anything about Washington politics

knows that nominees do not "withdraw" on their own. They are told to withdraw.

[depakid]

33. Who can say?

All we know is what we can glean from the evidence- and what we can reasonably surmise from informed observation .

The evidence is - as already stated, that there have been passed opportunities to make the appointment, and the Obama Justice Department's actions and omissions don't comport with Ms. Johnsen's attitudes, beliefs and values as we can read on the record..

[No Elephants]

60. What DepaKid said.

[mvd]

22. Agree. Recess appointment should have been made.

This is an important spot: Yoo used to be there!

[No Elephants]

45. No, she withdrew when AFTER she was not among the recess appointments that Obama did make.

[robinblue]

36. the White House chose not to appoint Johnsen during Senate recess,.............

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/09/dawn-johnsen-key-obama-ju_n_532445.html


...............The withdrawal represents a major blow to progressive groups and civil liberties advocates who had pushed for Johnsen to end up in the office that previously housed, among others, John Yoo, the author of the infamous torture memos under George W. Bush.

But the votes, apparently, weren't there. Johnsen had the support of Sen Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) but was regarded skeptically by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) -- primarily for her positions on torture and the investigation of previous administration actions. A filibuster, in the end, was likely sustainable. Faced with this calculus, the White House chose not to appoint Johnsen during Senate recess, which would have circumvented a likely filibuster but would have kept her in the position for less than two years.

[No Elephants]

50. According to Greenwald, they had the votes to confirm Johnsen.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/09/stevens

You know, a fillibuster is not the end of the world. They could have at least TRIED to get a vote on Johnsen. They never tried. And, they could have made a recess appointment, but they didn't.

I'm inclined to buy Greenwald's version.

[No Elephants]

53. In 1 sentence, you've managed to insult women, gays AND ballerinas.

Kudos on your efficient use of words. Thumbs down on stereotypes.

[annabanana]

24. They will do this REGARDLESS of who the nominee is...

Why not get the best?

[Mithreal]

28. +1

[Qutzupalotl]

39. The nominee was excellent.

A 2-year appointment might not have been enough leverage, though.

[No Elephants]

57. Please see Reply #51,

[No Elephants]

44. So? Make them fillibuster. REALLY fillibuster. See how long those farts last.

[No Elephants]

43. Please consider Reply # 30.

[Blue_Tires]

65. +1

[24601]

68. The House has nothing to do with it. The only tine they confirm any

nominee is when it's to fill a VP vacancy. This is strictly a Senate fiasco - Thanks Harry!

[eShirl]

11. good - now he can nominate her to the Supreme Court

dare I hope

[No Elephants]

59. Hope probably won't hurt anything in this instance.. Disappointment, however, can be a bear!

[NorthCarolina]

12. Perhaps she withdrew to be available for appointment to the Supreme Court. eom

[peoli]

14. He was so good in Miami Vice.

[Vattel]

16. well, at least Obama is trying to get good people in DOJ.

[depakid]

17. Probably a wise move

Obama's Justice Department has been a disgrace, and isn't looking like it's going to improve much in the coming years.

[Mithreal]

20. +1

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[No Elephants]

48. As Solicitor General, Kagan supervises litigation involving the federal government. Just sayin.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[robinblue]

35. The votes were not there. Perhaps the WH asked her to withdraw??...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/09/dawn-johnsen-key-obama-ju_n_532445.html


...............The withdrawal represents a major blow to progressive groups and civil liberties advocates who had pushed for Johnsen to end up in the office that previously housed, among others, John Yoo, the author of the infamous torture memos under George W. Bush.

But the votes, apparently, weren't there. Johnsen had the support of Sen Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) but was regarded skeptically by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) -- primarily for her positions on torture and the investigation of previous administration actions. A filibuster, in the end, was likely sustainable. Faced with this calculus, the White House chose not to appoint Johnsen during Senate recess, which would have circumvented a likely filibuster but would have kept her in the position for less than two years.

[Mithreal]

37. Recess appointment avoids that entirely.

[robinblue]

40. for a while onlyl

[Mithreal]

46. A lot of folks are only there for a while

[No Elephants]

58. SO? That is true of all recess appointment, yet Presidents, incl. Obama, make them.

[robinblue]

64. that is true. but it is up to the Pres to proceed. seems he chose not to.

[Qutzupalotl]

38. Recess appointment "would have kept her in the position for less than two years."

Probably not quite long enough to build a case, prosecute, and convict everybody involved. Maybe Obama wants someone duly approved by the Senate for such a task, so he or she can see it to completion without them questioning her authority to do so.

I'm not saying he's going to prosecute or not, but if he is, he'd have to use a stealth nominee, not someone who says, "Hey, I'm going to prosecute your guys if I get in."

Things were different when we had 60 votes.

[Mithreal]

47. Once in. Why look for weakness.

[No Elephants]

49. Per Greenwald, the votes WERE there. Of course, so was ability to make a recess appointment.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/09/stevens

[seafan]

41. The handwriting was on the wall for this nominee since Day 1.

Now Dawn Johnsen joins the ranks of Elizabeth Warren: those who are too smart and too principled for the cesspool that is Washington, DC.

[Doctor_J]

42. Once again Dems cower and run

when is the last time the party actually fought for something? Anything?

[No Elephants]

54. Please see Reply #51.

I do not share the view that Democrats are dumb or ineffective or cowardly.

Picture that you are a member of PETA and are watching your friend, who has a gun (not Cheney though).

At some distance away, a tin can sits atop a post. The guy aims. As a shot rings out, you You swing your eyes over to the can to see how your friend did. The can doesn't move. You walk over to the tin can and examine it. It's in mint condition, You conclude he missed and is probably a lousy shot.

Meanwhile, your friend's left the scene with the dead quail he really wanted and intended to shoot all along.

Would you conclude your friend didn't want to fight with the tin can? Or that your friend was a lousy shot?

Or would you conclude that your friend did not want to deal with your reaction to his killing the quail?

Okay. Now, in this story, your friend is a Democratic politician and you are a Democratic voter. Hiting he tin can is the kind of action you would like Democrats to take. Hitting the quail is a Democratic politician doing exactly what he aimed to do.

[No Elephants]

55. Self Delete Dupe.

[No Elephants]

51. ......

"UPDATE: Like clockwork, it is now reported, by The Huffington Post, that Kagan "is rapidly emerging as a frontrunner."

Meanwhile, in very related news, Dawn Johnsen has now withdrawn as nominee to head the Office of Legal Counsel. Despite there being 60 and then 59 Democratic votes in the Senate -- plus the support of GOP Sen. Richard Lugar (though with the opposition of Sen. Nelson) -- Johnsen's nomination has sat without a vote since January, 2009. It is hard to believe, to put it mildly, that the White House would have been unable to secure her confirmation had it wanted to (even if by recess appointment if nothing else). Johnsen was one of the best Obama nominees to an important post, if not the best, and her treatment reflects many of the points I made above."


http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/09/stevens

[IndianaGreen]

56. The Death of Dawn Johnsen's Nomination

Published on Saturday, April 10, 2010 by Salon.com

The Death of Dawn Johnsen's Nomination

by Glenn Greenwald

After waiting 14 months for a confirmation vote that never came, Dawn Johnsen withdrew (Friday) as President Obama's nominee to head the Office of Legal Counsel. As I documented at length when the nomination was first announced in January, 2009, Johnsen was an absolutely superb pick to head an office that plays as vital a role as any in determining the President's record on civil liberties and adherence to the rule of law. With 59 and then 60 Democratic votes in the Senate all year long (which included the support of GOP Sen. Richard Lugar, though the opposition of Dem. Sen. Ben Nelson and shifting positions from Arlen Specter), it's difficult to understand why the White House -- if it really wanted to -- could not have had Johnsen confirmed (or why she at least wasn't included in the spate of recently announced recess appointments).

I don't know the real story behind what happened here -- I had an email exchange with Johnsen this afternoon but she was only willing to provide me her official, pro forma, wholly uninformative statement -- but here's what I do know: virtually everything that Dawn Johnsen said about executive power, secrecy, the rule of law and accountability for past crimes made her an excellent fit for what Candidate Obama said he would do, but an awful fit for what President Obama has done. To see how true that is, one can see the post I wrote last January detailing and praising her past writings, but all one really has to do is to read the last paragraph of her March, 2008 Slate article -- entitled "Restoring Our Nation's Honor" -- in which she outlines what the next President must do in the wake of Bush lawlessness:

The question how we restore our nation's honor takes on new urgency and promise as we approach the end of this administration. We must resist Bush administration efforts to hide evidence of its wrongdoing through demands for retroactive immunity, assertions of state privilege, and implausible claims that openness will empower terrorists. . . .

Here is a partial answer to my own question of how should we behave, directed especially to the next president and members of his or her administration but also to all of use who will be relieved by the change: We must avoid any temptation simply to move on. We must instead be honest with ourselves and the world as we condemn our nation's past transgressions and reject Bush's corruption of our American ideals. Our constitutional democracy cannot survive with a government shrouded in secrecy, nor can our nation's honor be restored without full disclosure.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/04/10-0

One lesson we have learned for the past 14 months is that candidate Obama is not the same person as President Obama. :-(

[Doctor_J]

63. an excellent fit for Candidate Obama, but an awful fit for President Obama

nice turn of phrase by Greenwald

[wordpix]

66. note to O admin: stop caving in to the repukes!

We voted for CHANGE, remember? Not for pussyfooting around the torture criminals.

[Bolo Boffin]

67. A big hope: Johnsen is writing the mother of all terrorist interrogation takedowns

Everything she couldn't say while waiting for confirmation.