But then liars seem to come with the turf in DC.
Friday | January 26, 2001 |
| Ashcroft testimony
disputed
Groups say he shows job bias against gays 01/26/2001 By Michelle Mittelstadt / The Dallas Morning News WASHINGTON – Attorney General-designate John Ashcroft was not truthful during his sworn testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding gay issues, the nation's first openly gay ambassador charged Thursday in a statement echoed by a second man. At a Capitol Hill news conference, James Hormel charged that Mr. Ashcroft used a "strategy of evasion" in downplaying sexual orientation as the reason for opposing his candidacy as ambassador to Luxembourg. That contention was disputed Thursday by the Bush administration, which said that Mr. Ashcroft evaluated Mr. Hormel based on his record. Separately, a Georgetown University professor came forward to challenge Mr. Ashcroft's statement to the Judiciary Committee that he had never used sexual orientation in making hiring decisions, saying that he has direct knowledge to the contrary. Testifying under oath last week, Mr. Ashcroft denied a suggestion from Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., that his opposition to Mr. Hormel was rooted in the nominee's homosexuality. The former Missouri senator said he did so based on the "totality of the record." "Frankly, I had known Mr. Hormel for a long time," he said. "He had recruited me when I was a student in college to go to the University of Chicago Law School." Mr. Hormel, who was dean of students at the law school, says he did not recruit Mr. Ashcroft and can recall no dealings with him – certainly none after Mr. Ashcroft's 1967 graduation. "I cannot recall ever in my life having a conversation with Mr. Ashcroft," Mr. Hormel said Thursday, surrounded by leaders of civil-rights and women's organizations who are mounting an all-out assault on the Ashcroft nomination. "There is simply no truth in Mr. Ashcroft's statement that he had any objective basis or personal knowledge upon which to vote against my nomination." Mr. Hormel, whose nomination languished for two years until President Bill Clinton bypassed the Senate and made him ambassador with a recess appointment, said he can only conclude that Mr. Ashcroft voted against him "solely because I am a gay man." Turning Mr. Ashcroft's own words against him, Mr. Hormel said: "His fitness to serve as attorney general should be judged based upon the totality of his record." Mr. Ashcroft stands by his Senate testimony, a Bush administration spokeswoman said Thursday. "All I can do is say that Senator Ashcroft addressed this in front of the committee and that is his answer," said Mindy Tucker. "And whether or not Hormel accepts that or not, that's his own decision. But that is exactly the reason that Senator Ashcroft made this decision: on the totality of his record." Beyond the Hormel controversy, civil-rights groups and some Senate Democrats also have questioned Mr. Ashcroft's recent explanations for his opposition to black judicial nominee Ronnie White and to a court-approved St. Louis school desegregation plan. 'Honorable man' Mr. Ashcroft is held out as a man of unblemished integrity by his defenders, who charge that the fierce opposition to his candidacy stems from his conservative ideology and deeply held religious views. "I don't know of one senator in the whole United States Senate who would disagree with the statement that this is an honorable man of integrity," Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said at the conclusion of the often-contentious hearing. Critics are probing for chinks in Mr. Ashcroft's armor, saying they are convinced that a man who spent 25 years compiling a staunchly anti-abortion, pro-gun record cannot possibly live up to his commitment to enforce the laws he vigorously battled. Democrats blocked a Judiciary Committee vote on the nomination Wednesday, saying they need more time to pore over Mr. Ashcroft's record and his written replies to additional questions they submitted in writing. Although Ashcroft foes are waging what they call an unprecedented battle against a presidential nominee, all sides concede he is expected to be confirmed. All 50 Senate Republicans are united behind him, according to Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss. And at least three Democrats have committed to support him in a vote that could come next week. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who on Wednesday became the seventh Democrat to announce her opposition, said she was troubled by what she views as conflicts in Mr. Ashcroft's past and current statements. "The old John Ashcroft, in stating his reasons for voting against James Hormel ... stated that Hormel had 'actively supported the gay lifestyle' and that a person's sexual conduct is 'within what could be considered and what is eligible for consideration' for ambassadorial nominees,''' the California Democrat said. "Yet the new John Ashcroft promises never to discriminate against gays or lesbians for employment and said the reason for voting against Ambassador Hormel was because he knew him personally." Professor's questions Also questioning Mr. Ashcroft's veracity was Georgetown University professor Paul Offner. At a separate news conference Thursday, Mr. Offner said that then-Gov. Ashcroft asked him about his sexual orientation during a 1985 interview for the job as Missouri human services director. "He said to me, 'My first question, Mr. Offner, do you have the same sexual preference as most men?' And I said that I thought I did," said Mr. Offner, a former Democratic state legislator from Ohio who later headed the District of Columbia's health care finance department. Mr. Ashcroft has no recollection of the meeting, Ms. Tucker said. "He cannot imagine starting a meeting off with that question," she said. "He made it clear to the committee when they asked about this particular issue that sexual orientation has never been something that he has used in hiring in any of the offices that he has held and will not be a consideration at the Department of Justice." The Republican National Committee circulated a memo noting that Mr. Offner made $1,900 in contributions to Democratic candidates over the last five years. Mr. Offner denied any political intent in coming forward now, saying he felt compelled to do so after watching Mr. Ashcroft testify. "I bear no animus to Mr. Ashcroft," he said. "I stepped forward only because he said something which in my case I knew was not true." |
-- Anonymous, January 26, 2001