« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Meet the (Temporary) New Attorney General
Paul Clement, the solicitor-general of the United States, will step in as acting attorney general when Alberto Gonzales finishes boxing up his memories on September 17. (You know, the ones he told the Senate he didn't have.) Clement isn't likely to stay in office very long, as President Bush intends to appoint a permanent replacement for Gonzales, but for an unspecified amount of time, Clement will be the nation's chief law enforcement official. (The acting attorney general can remain in office for up to 210 days starting from the departure of his Senate-confirmed predecessor, Mike Allen reports; but this is, to say the least, unlikely.) So that raises the question: Who is Paul Clement, anyway?
You might say he's... a conservative. Primarily a legal scholar an attorney in private practice, Clement clerked for two of the most conservative judges in the country, Lawrence Silberman of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. He came to the solicitor-general's office in 2001 as the deputy SG on the strength of serving on John Aschroft's Senate staff, and for helping construct the winning argument in Bush v. Gore. It was something of a consolation prize: Ashcroft unsuccessfully tried to make Clement chief of the Office of Legal Counsel, but was blocked when the White House backed Jay Bybee for the position.
According to a 2004 Legal Times profile, Clement's consistent conservatism hasn't stopped him from winning the respect of his ideological opposites:
Indeed, in D.C.'s clubby Supreme Court Bar, where reputations are built over a lifetime, Clement seems to have achieved remarkably early success."He's one of the best I've ever seen," says O'Melveny & Myers partner Walter Dellinger, who served as acting solicitor general from 1996 to 1997.
"Whenever I think of an argument from Paul, the one word that springs to mind is clarity," Dellinger adds. "He has an extremely precise and clear intellect. Paul is never murky in thought or expression."
Indeed, at his Senate confirmation hearing in 2005 to become solicitor general, Clement received high praise from leading Bush-administration inquistor Russ Feingold (D-WI) for his "superb" 2003 defense of Feingold's campaign-finance reform before the Supreme Court. Feingold vouched for Clement's "professionalism and integrity" even when the two men disagreed.
One area where Feingold and Clement apparently diverge is on executive power. Clement's views of the president's wartime powers appear to be broad. He's argued that the administration can hold American citizens as enemy combatants, without guarantees of trial. (When asked by hyper-conservative Judge J. Michael Luttig if he really was prepared to say the U.S. is a "battlefield" in the war on terrorism, Clement replied, "I can say that, and I can say it boldly.") However, it's unclear whether he was assenting to such perspectives or merely representing his client, and his ex-colleagues haven't come to a consensus. Clement was understandably cagey in addressing the question in his Legal Times interview:
"If you've got a statute to defend, it doesn't much matter how you would have voted on the statute if you were a congressman. You're not," Clement says. "Your job is to marshal the best argument for the defense of the statute or the policy that gets the job done."
That means it's hard to know whether Clement would be inclined to stand up to President Bush in the event of a seeming abuse of power, as did a previous conservative acting AG, James Comey. Depending on how fast Bush can move his nominee through the confirmation process, Clement might not be around long enough to cast much of a shadow in the Justice Department. But with the Attorney General now given the power to, for instance, order up surveillance on foreign-to-domestic communications with a minimum of judicial oversight -- and with the Senate looking for clear signs that the Gonzales Era at DOJ is over -- Clement's independence, or lack thereof, may very well become his legacy, however abbreviated.
Comments (40)
Jake D. wrote on August 27, 2007 2:49 PM:Go Clement!!!
davis13 wrote on August 27, 2007 3:00 PM:The rightwing troll speaks first. Again.
Anonymous wrote on August 27, 2007 3:01 PM:"He's argued that the administration can hold American citizens as enemy combatants, without guarantees of trial."
"He has an extremely precise and clear intellect. Paul is never murky in thought or expression."
...apparently he's just murky on defending the Constitution.
chisholm wrote on August 27, 2007 3:18 PM:I don't think Bush would allow him to be acting AG if he weren't a loyalist. There's no way in hell he'd ever allow any scrutiny of either the DOJ or the White House.
Jake D. wrote on August 27, 2007 3:24 PM:Or, apparently he understands that we are at war (unless you think Benedict Arnold could not have been held "as an enemy combatant, without guarantees of trial" as well?).
P J Evans wrote on August 27, 2007 3:29 PM:Arnold was a traitor.
Jake D. wrote on August 27, 2007 3:36 PM:So was Jose Padilla.
Anonymous wrote on August 27, 2007 3:42 PM:And Arnold was tried.
perplexed wrote on August 27, 2007 3:42 PM:So then, who steps in as solictor-general? Or is he both?
hmmm...
Molly Ivins wrote on August 27, 2007 3:45 PM:leave the troll alone, unless you can provide as much entertainment as he does. . .
SteveW wrote on August 27, 2007 3:54 PM:Well, he looks like a loyal bushie to me, so he may be the recess appointment Josh has been talking about.
Whomever the loyal bushie is just below Clement in rank will likely simply move up, because as we know, competency for the job doesn't matter to this W.
What's more amazing about today is how CNN and MSNBC (you expect it from Fake News Channel) were making Fredo out to be a victim (victimized) by the Dems. As if the man was simply being put the ringer simply because he's a Republican who happens to be Attorney General. The bimbo (female and male) meter was off the hook crazy today on cable news.
It's clear these "news" people don't even understand the news, nor grasp the case of Fredo they're reporting on. I believe, if it's possible, CNN and MSNBC hit new lows today, even at their very low standards. The only person on MSNBC worthy of actually reporting news is Keith Olberman.
asdf wrote on August 27, 2007 3:58 PM:04.09.07 -- 2:30PMBy Paul Kiel
Since the U.S. attorney scandal implicates practically the whole of the Justice Department's leadership, the reins have been passed to Paul Clement, the Solicitor General, who's now in charge of how the department handles things.
So it was apparently his call to keep Monica Goodling on the payroll even after she'd pleaded the Fifth. That's a good start.
----------------
U.S. Attorney Investigation: Meet The New Boss
By Paul Kiel - April 9, 2007, 2:22 PM
Who's in charge of how the Justice Department handles the investigations into the U.S. attorney firings? Alberto Gonzales, we know, is holed up rehearsing his version of the story. And the Justice Department wrote last week to assure Democrats that Gonzales and his deputy, Paul McNulty, had nothing to do with the investigations relating to the U.S. attorneys purge.
Following the rules of succession at the Justice Department, according to the letter from Assistant Attorney General Richard Hertling, the guy in charge of all that is Solicitor General Paul Clement. That means Clement was in charge of personnel decisions relating to Monica Goodling (in other words, it was his call to make her the first ever DoJ official to stay on the payroll after pleading the Fifth), he's supervising the Department's joint investigation into the firings by the Office of Professional Responsibility and Inspector General, and he's in charge of which documents are doled over to Congress and which aren't. So who is Clement? Since 2005, as Solicitor General, he's been the administration's face before the Supreme Court. Legal Times profiled him earlier this year. Can you guess which Supreme Court justice he used to work
----------
totallynext wrote on August 27, 2007 4:26 PM:What happened to the truth at TPM Muckraker? Who do you think you're fooling? We know what Celment is because you told us.
LEast you forget - James Comey - felt good enough to have the solicitor general present when Gonzales and Card were doing their little stunt with Ashcroft in the Hospital.
Ducky wrote on August 27, 2007 4:35 PM:He looks exactly like all the others... the master race. sickening.
brantl wrote on August 27, 2007 4:38 PM:He also had the FBI director, Mueller there as well, so I wouldn't take that as a big endorsement of Clement. And the evidence on Padilla was "skant, at best".
brantl wrote on August 27, 2007 4:40 PM:Besides, I seem to remember that Clement is another Federalist pinhead.
Mary wrote on August 27, 2007 4:59 PM:Or, apparently he understands that we are at war
Yeah - with whistleblowers like Vance.
slb wrote on August 27, 2007 5:03 PM:Geez, another loyal Bushie that looks like he could be Waffen SS.
From what Salon.com's War Room has to say about Clement, sounds like we're in for more of the same:
"Clement has served as acting attorney general in a limited way before, overseeing the Justice Department's responses to congressional investigations into the firing of U.S. attorneys and other matters after Gonzales and Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty both were forced to recuse themselves. In that role, Clement has helped arm the White House with the legal arguments it has been using to stonewall Congress on documents it wants to see and witnesses it wants to question."
Hah! The security code is "memory". How appropriate!
Jake D. wrote on August 27, 2007 5:03 PM:I don't recall that Benedict Arnold was ever tried and convicted -- he escaped and died in England IIRC -- as for Paul Clement, yes indeed, he's a member of the Federalist Society and former chief counsel for the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism and Property Rights:
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=1167
JEP wrote on August 27, 2007 5:41 PM:IF clement is "approved" it is doubtful he can survice until Bush is out, we will see a parade of AG's now, a constant shuffling of the deck to keep the real investigations out of Bush's hands and wait until the Pardoner in Chief no longer weilds his pardon power.
The sooner they try and convict some of these resigners, the more likely Bush can save their asses form leavenworth.
So any work the "next" attorney general and tohse following afterwards do needs to be scrutinized for its expediency.
They may just be hastening some convictions so Bush can hasten his pardons.
Anonymous wrote on August 27, 2007 5:43 PM:Um, why would Feingold and Dellinger make glowing remarks about a Nazi pinhead?
Leslir wrote on August 27, 2007 5:55 PM:Question...
Since Clements is to over see the DOJ, temporary, what about the letter that the Senate Judicial committee send asking "him" to look into Gonzales activities in the firing of the attorney's and the politicization of other Dept's? Is this going to be "full steam a head" or "flushed down the toilet?"
Leahy, Connors and Waxman have out standing information still regarding Gonzales and their requests for documents/information. What now?
Anonymous wrote on August 27, 2007 6:06 PM:Um, why would Feingold and Dellinger make glowing remarks about a Nazi pinhead?
They trot Feingold out all the time now to sell shit to the base. He had a grain of credibiliby, it's gone, but he's all they have. Feingold, like all Democrats, only want to run out the clock, not make waves.
Me_again wrote on August 27, 2007 7:28 PM:Another severe case of Bushism. Clement is sick with Bushie cryonism.
Let's hope Paul Clement's leaves the same way Gonzales did. In total ruin.
trank wrote on August 27, 2007 7:41 PM:"He has an extremely precise and clear intellect. Paul is never murky in thought or expression."
great, another certainty freak, living in a black and white fantasy world without uncertainty.
TheSavage wrote on August 27, 2007 8:47 PM:ref. Benedict Arnold
Kropotkin wrote on August 27, 2007 10:59 PM:Not sure why you brought him in this conversation being as he was never caught,or in prisoned by the revolutionary forces. So your point really is? -- Savage
Clement is brilliant and defended McCain-Feingold, so he has won some allegiance from Russ. However we should remember that Feingold voted to confirm Ashcroft and essentially said that the pick was wholly the President's prerogative. Raging ideology would not be a disqualifying factor. Clement has faithfully served clerkships for two of the most extreme ideologues, Lawrence Silberman, who helped engineer some of the worse character assassinations of the past and Alito.
steambomb wrote on August 27, 2007 11:12 PM:I have but one question for the nominee. Are you going to persue government corruption and misuse of taxpayers resources to the utmost of the DOJs ability to do so, even when those investigations might involve the administration you are a part of? Now before you answer this question I want you to know that there is only one answer that can get you confirmed and failure to comply with that answer once you are appointed will result in impeachment. What say you?
williamf wrote on August 27, 2007 11:24 PM:Can he say rule of law...can he inspire confidence in the people that ALL of the crooks in the White House, Congress, and contractor agencies will get what they deserve? Nah, forget it, I still believe in the tooth fairy.
Jake D. wrote on August 28, 2007 12:33 AM:TheSavage:
It was a hypothetical, but perhaps you need to convince Anonymous at 3:42 PM who posted that Gen. Arnold WAS not only caught and imprisoned, but also tried (by whom, I'm not sure yet ; )
Nathanael Nerode wrote on August 28, 2007 3:16 AM:"(unless you think Benedict Arnold could not have been held "as an enemy combatant, without guarantees of trial" as well?)."
In actual fact, Arnold escaped to the British, and was never bothered by the US again (they made no claims for his extradition); he was clearly considered a lawful combatant. His co-conspirator, the spy Major John Andre, was given an ordinary (speedy and public) military trial under the then conventional laws of war, and found guilty of spying.
Crucially, Washington treated Andre humanely and gave him a chance to defend himself at trial.
All in Wikipedia.
Peter Duffy wrote on August 28, 2007 7:54 AM:Homer Simpson for AG.
Peter Duffy wrote on August 28, 2007 7:55 AM:The Senate confirmation hearings would be lively.
Homer Simpson for AG.
PJ White wrote on August 28, 2007 8:19 AM:The Senate confirmation hearings would be lively.
Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
lysias wrote on August 28, 2007 10:37 AM:I heard with my own ears Clement assure the justices of the Supreme Court that the administration would never be guilty of anything like torture. That was in the Padilla oral argument, earlier in the day on the evening of which CBS broadcast the Abu Ghraib photos.
adsf wrote on August 28, 2007 11:07 AM:Pete Williams is reporting that Clement is a consideration for the nomination. Surprise, surprise. Even TPMMuckraker agrees he's a great guy, the confirmation will be a formality.
Just once, one time, I wish they wouldn't disappoint me and assume I’m a fool.
I'm going to throw up now.
Roberta wrote on August 28, 2007 1:22 PM:I don't see that TPM is agreeing that Clement is a "great guy." I don't think that Feingold said anything that gives the opinion Clement is a "great guy."
Someone can be smart, competent, and effective in their profession and be utterly reprehensible personally. I have no idea if Clement is a dreadful person, but he is clearly no legal hack. And I think that's all Feingold and TPM are saying about him.
Please, try and stay away from arguments that are so general that they become meaningless. Ad hominems are a sure way to avoid thoughtful analysis.
I object to Clement's views on executive power, which indicate that he is likely as much a "Bushie" as any of the others. But he's no Regent-type lawyer.
None of us--unless we know the man--can know how he truly views the world (The ability to frame a strong legal argument doesn't necessitate that someone sees the world only in "black and white.") and what he truly believes.
I'm not saying that I'd want him in a position of power--any more power than he's already had--but I can't fault the man for being a good lawyer. I only know what ideology he follows. And I don't agree with the ideology.
asdf wrote on August 28, 2007 1:59 PM:"Someone can be smart, competent, and effective in their profession and be utterly reprehensible personally. I have no idea if Clement is a dreadful person, but he is clearly no legal hack. And I think that's all Feingold and TPM are saying about him."
An utterly reprehensible person should not be Attorney General. Regardless of whether he is smart and carries a great resume. It isn’t complicated, but as simple as it sounds, it is missed.
Clement is has implemented the obstruction of justice at DOJ. It might also be true that he did it at the behest of his bosses, but it disqualifies him to be AG. Glossing over Clements complicity with accolades about his support by Democrats at his confirmation is the functional equivalent of calling him a "great guy."
It reminds me of the Robert’s and Alito train wrecks. They may be well-educated zealots, but their history should disqualify them. It’s hopeless, I know, but it should be said.
Roberta wrote on August 28, 2007 11:08 PM:asdf,
I disagree with nothing you've said. I don't want Clement as Attorney General any more than I wanted Gonzales, Ashcroft, Meese, or Richardson.
But nothing you have said counters what I wrote about your assertion that TPM was acknowledging anything but his competence in the legal profession. You read too much into it.
Anonymous wrote on August 29, 2007 10:54 PM:Jake, I'm the original anonymous poster to whom you replied with the Benedict Arnold bullshit. Somebody else mentioned to you that he was tried.
I know you're an old stupid fuck, but really... how do you "not recall" that he was tried?
Benedict Arnold was acquitted by Congress when he demanded investigations into his alleged "extravagance" and found not guilty in a court martial. Later, after his treason, he escaped on the Vulture. Because he was a military commander and Gen Washington was a honorable man (unlike the current dickhead-in-chief), you can be sure Arnold would have been court-martialed just as his British "handler", Major John André, was court-martialed before he was hung as a spy.
Jose Padilla, an American citizen arrested on American soil, deserves his GOD GIVEN rights to habeas corpus and a fair, expedient trial in civilian courts. This "war" you speak of is just another extra-constitutional, global police action and electioneering slogan. You and I can agree that Padilla is dirty scum bag, but you're a complete fascist fuckward for not demanding that an American citizen be allowed his GOD GIVEN rights. I'm a former-Republican - God save us when a dictatorial Democrat comes to power and tries to utilize Bush's "unitary executive" precedents. Personally, I wouldn't cry when they hang your dumb ass without a trial, but I will fucking stand up, armed to the teeth, for your rights if that time ever came.