From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (Harel Barzilai)
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive
Subject: Zoe Baird
Date: 24 Jan 93 05:22:01 GMT
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Organization: ?
Originator: daemon@pencil.cs.missouri.edu


[Although this is "behind us" now (this submission was sent to an
account I check into infrequently), it is useful to know this
information (summarized in excerpt at top), the maintream nooz and
maintream backbones-less Democrats having focused on the child-care issues
--Harel]

Return-Path: <essential!essential.org!charles@uunet.UU.NET>
From: charles@essential.org (Charles Bennington)
Subject: Letter to Senate Judiciary Committe
To: hbar@pencil.cs.missouri.edu ( Mr. "MAP" )
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 93 16:35:19 EST
Reply-To: ei@essential.org (Essential Information)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL10]

Harel,

Could you please post this to MAP?

Thanks, and "happy new-president" to you.
-- 
Charles Bennington		|
Essential Information		|	charles@essential.org

============================= included file ===================================


The following letter was sent to the Senate Judiciary Committe.  Please
contact the members of the Senate Judicary Committee and let them know
your opinion on Attorney General designee Baird.

Capitol Switch Board: 202-224-3121

Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee:

Joseph Biden (202) 224-5042
Edward Kennedy (202) 224-4543
Howard Metzenbaum (202) 224-2315
Dennis DeConcini (202) 224-4521
Patrick Leahy (202) 224-4242
Howell Heflin (202) 224-4124
Paul Simon (202) 224-2152
Herbert Kohl (202) 224-5653
Diane Feinstein (202) 224-3841
Carol Mosely Braun (202) 224-2854
Orrin Hatch (202) 224-5251
Alan Simpson (202) 224-3424
Charles Grassley (202) 224-3744
Arlen Specter (202) 224-4254
Hank Brown (202) 224-5941
Larry Pressler (202) 224-5842
William Cohen (202) 224-2523


----------------------------------------------------------------

January 17, 1992


Honorable Joseph Biden
Chairman
Judiciary Committee
U.S. Senate
Washington, DC  20510

Dear Senator Biden,

     The undersigned organizations and individuals write to strongly urge
you to postpone for at least one week the confirmation hearings and vote
on Zoe Baird, nominated to become U.S. Attorney General.

     Recent news reports have raised extremely troubling questions about
Ms. Baird's judgment and suitability to become the nation's foremost law
enforcement official.  In particular, she has admitted to violating
federal tax and immigration laws (and pertinent state laws), and has been
forced to pay back taxes to the Internal Revenue Service, and a civil fine
to the Immigration and Naturalization Service.  While we understand there
is a great interest in having the top officials of the government in place
early in the administration, this interest must not take precedence over
the necessity of thoroughly evaluating Ms. Baird's past conduct.  We
believe her violations of law need further examination, and moreover, that
this illegal conduct may be probative of other instances of bad judgment
that need exploration.

     We also understand that some members of the Judiciary Committee only
received Ms. Baird's FBI report on Friday, the day before a busy three day
weekend, and that other documents requested by Committee members have not
been made available.  This course of events adds to our concern that Ms.
Baird's nomination will not receive adequate review and oversight unless
the Judiciary Committee and the public are given more time.

     In addition, Ms. Baird's stance on many critical public policy issues
appear to be in direct contradiction to positions that President-elect
Clinton took during his campaign.  For example, reports have suggested
that she has actively lobbied against corporate taxpayer accountability
and anti-fraud laws on behalf of the defense industry; that she supports
the agenda of restrictions on legal rights initiated by Vice President Dan
Quayle and large corporate wrongdoers, polluters, manufacturers of
dangerous products, and the insurance industry; and that she is opposed to
having the government enact national health care reform.  This raises
questions as to whether President-elect Clinton's campaign positions will
be carried out if Ms. Baird becomes the Attorney General.  These questions
must also be thoroughly explored during the confirmation process.

     Many citizens, including some members of the Senate Judiciary
Committee who have yet to make their final judgment, want more information
about Ms. Baird's positions and actions before they can make their
decision.  What we strongly oppose is the apparent effort to rush the
confirmation process through to completion without adequate public
scrutiny.  By scheduling the confirmation hearings and vote on the day
before, and perhaps the day after, the Inauguration, and in the midst of
the inaugural activities, the Committee would guarantee that it will not
have before it the full record of the nominee, and that the American
public and other members of the Senate will not have the opportunity to
participate in the democratic confirmation process required by the
Constitution.

     The American people have shown increasing indignation over the past
twelve years of nearly constant reports of impropriety, dealmaking,
self-aggrandizement and conflict of interest among the highest officials
in our government.  President-elect Clinton ran for office pledging to put
an end to such politics-as-usual in Washington.  Furthermore, the people
of our country have the right to be assured that the person who occupies
the office of Attorney General be an individual of unassailable integrity
and proven commitment to the cause of justice and vigorous enforcement of
the laws.  Certainly, with the memory of the Clarence Thomas hearings
still fresh in our minds, the last thing either the U.S. Senate or the
American people would want to see is a process in which the Senate
Judiciary Committee rushes to judgment while highly disturbing reports
about a Presidential nominee are swept under the fancy rugs of the
Inaugural Ball.  The Washington Post and the New York Times have raised
similar concerns in recent editorials ("The Law and Zoe Baird",
_Washington Post_, Friday, January 15, 1993, p. A22 ; "Needed: Answers
>From Ms. Baird", _New York Times_, Friday, January 15, 1993, p. A28).

     Given the challenges currently facing the Department of Justice, many
of which were elaborated on in a Washington Post series this past week, it
is critical that the American people have complete faith and confidence in
the next Attorney General.  We believe that it would be in the best
interest of the country if the committee were to reschedule the
confirmation hearings and vote so that all questions about Ms. Baird's
suitability to be Attorney General can be adequately answered before she
is confirmed for the highest law enforcement position in the nation.

Sincerely,


Scott Armstrong, Taxpayers Against Fraud (affiliation for identification
purposes only.)
Robert C. Fellmeth, Director, Center for Public Interest Law   
Price Public Interest Professor of Law, University of San Diego Law School
 (affiliation for identification purposes only.)
Lois Gibbs, Citizens' Clearinghouse for Hazardous Waste
Pamela Gilbert, Director, Public Citizen's Congress Watch
Rick Hind, Greenpeace (affiliation for identification purposes only.)
J. Robert Hunter, President, National Insurance Consumer Organization
Ralph Nader
Harvey Rosenfield, Chair, Voter Revolt
Quentin Young, Physicians for a National Health Program  

cc: Senate Judiciary Committee