Skip to main content

View Diary: Max Baucus' Mistress' Interesting Past (279 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  A curious situation (0+ / 0-)

    I think that, had this been a one-time lapse, and had she come forward with it herself during the confirmation process, and offered an apology, it might not have derailed her confirmation.

    However, since as you say there is a repeated pattern here, that would make it much more unlikely.

    As for her motivation, to speculate on that I would need to know how much time elapsed between his nomination of her and her withdrawal, and whether she knew about it in advance. (Normally, that second question would not come up, but given their involvement, Baucus might have meant it as a surprise for her.)

    The point is that, particularly as a former prosecutor, she ought to have been aware in advance that any derogatory information in her past would definitely come to light in a Senate confirmation hearing, which then leads to the question of why she allowed it to go forward at all.

    A curious situation, as I said.

    However, I don't think it rises to the level of an ethics investigation. Powerful people put forward names of friends, associates and lovers all the time, and the NY Times article about the affair is written so as to suggest there was no marital impropriety by either party. (Whether or not that is credible is a legitimate question, but no longer relevant, since both parties are now divorced from their former spouses.) When Bob Dole was Senate majority leader, his wife was HHS secretary, for example.

    I say this because a post which requires Senate confirmation, such as USA, requires a public hiring process far less susceptible to improper influence or pressure than a non-confirmatory post in government. Had he hired her as his secretary, for example, that would raise a different and much redder flag. And there does not at present appear to be any evidence that Baucus used his position to get her her current job at DOJ. That, if shown, would be grounds for the ethics committee to step in.

    Republicans can't accept that they've lost. Democrats can't accept that they've won.

    by DanK Is Back on Sat Dec 05, 2009 at 01:05:35 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site