Down To Just 3 Senators Who Refuse To Say If They Anonymously Killed Whistleblower Bill

from the counting-down dept

Wed, Mar 9th 2011 2:57pm — Mike Masnick

A few weeks ago, we noted that WNYC's On the Media's attempt to out the Senator who put an anonymous block on a bill to protect whistleblowers, had narrowed down the list to just five Senators. Since then, two of the five remaining Senators -- David Vitter and Mitch McConnell have both said that they did not put the secret hold on the bill. So that leaves just three Senators, each of whom have been contacted multiple times and refuse to say. Here's OTM's summary:

Jon Kyl (AZ)
730 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-4521
Jon Kyl Website Contact Page

Number of times contacted: 18

Notes: 3-2-2011 � Have yet to make contact with Senator Kyl�s Press Secretary Ryan Patmintra. Several messages have been left with the office. A caller spoke to a staffer named Nat on 1-18-2011 who didn�t think Sen. Kyl was responsible, but could not confirm. Since 2-17-2011, three constituents have received the following letter in reply to inquiries about his role in killing the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act: �Thank you for contacting me about the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (S.372) . The Senate passed S. 372 on Dec 14, 2010 and the House passed a different version of the legislation on Dec 22. With only hours left in the session, the Senate did not have sufficient time to review the House�s changes and reconcile the differences between the two bills. �

Jeff Sessions (AL)
335 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-4124

Jeff Sessions Website Contact Page

Number of times contacted: 15

Notes: 3-2-2011 � Jeff Sessions aide Caroline explained to caller on 1-19-2011 that anonymous holds are 'anonymous' and that he is 'very private.' Subsequent calls have gotten similar responses. Have yet to get a response or make contact with Press Secretary Sarah Haley.

James Risch (ID)
483 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-2752

James Risch Website Contact Page

Number of times contacted: 14

Notes: 3-2-2011 � Press Secretary Kyle Hines, as well as other staffers have repeatedly told callers that the Senator does not comment on Secret Holds. Hines has said "That's his policy - that's his right" "He just doesn't comment on them." He told caller he would follow up with the Senator on 2-22-2011, and got back to the caller to confirm that the Senator would not comment.

3-4-2011 - Senator Risch's office continues to refuse comment on the secret hold. Brad Hoaglun, Senator Risch's spokesman sent the following email: "Senator Risch's policy has been to not comment secret holds. Although the rules have changed for this Congress he is still holding firm to his policy as it pertains to the last Congress."

There are some claims that Senator Kyl indirectly admitted that he put the hold on the bill, but that may be reading too much into his statements. That's based on the statement (also included above) where he did suggest that there wasn't "sufficient time to review" the House's changes to the bill. Either way, supporters of the bill have pointed out that whether or not this is an admission, it's a completely bogus reason:

Senator Kyl's response to Arizonans, without further explanation, is woefully disingenuous, since the Senator had more than sufficient time to review the content of the bill. In fact, his office had approved the remaining legislation just weeks prior to this final vote.

No matter what, it appears that sooner or later it's going to be revealed who put the secret hold on the bill.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: james risch, jeff sessions, john kyl, protections, secret holds, senate, whistleblower

26 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2011 @ 3:03pm

Gosh, who could it be.

The one with the justification prepared and sent out or one of the other two?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2011 @ 3:14pm

I believe it must be down to 3 simply because no Senator would ever utter a false statement.

Isn't "why" more important than "who"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2011 @ 3:21pm

No matter what, it appears that sooner or later it's going to be revealed who put the secret hold on the bill.

And that will change what? Exactly, nothing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jay (profile), 9 Mar 2011 @ 3:34pm

I can't wait for the leak...

Think the Senator will get jailtime?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2011 @ 3:38pm

Re:
For what? It was perfectly legal for him to do so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
zegota (profile), 9 Mar 2011 @ 3:40pm

Certainly Jon Kyl. He's the biggest asshole in the Senate. Worse than McConnell, Graham or Sessions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Real Zano, 9 Mar 2011 @ 4:22pm

Do US Senators have a legal requirement to tell the truth about things like this when queried? It seems pretty silly to trust that the other 97 guys are telling the truth.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2011 @ 4:42pm

Re:
Do US Senators have a legal requirement to tell the truth

ROFLOL... US senators... truth... it will snow in hell before you get any real truth out of any of them
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TheStupidOne, 9 Mar 2011 @ 4:47pm

Re:
It is down to those three because a Senator would know that a lie told to constituents that can be proven to be a lie will come back to haunt them if the truth is ever revealed. Even if they consider such a lie to be minor or relatively unimportant, a political opponent would point out repeatedly that the liar is a scumbag who can be proven to have lied directly to voters and would prompt questions about what else he lied about. Even if the senators are otherwise idiots, they at least are politically talented and will avoid that situation if they can.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Trerro, 9 Mar 2011 @ 4:58pm

Why is this even possible?
The better question is, why are the senators of a republic allowed to hide things like this from the people that elected them?

It's one thing to answer questions about their personal lives with a "none of your business", but these are laws, which by definition are both their job and everyone's business.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Duncan Yoyo, 9 Mar 2011 @ 5:04pm

Re: Why is this even possible?
Time to play Schrodinger's senator- If they put themselves into a box and refuse to comment they placed the hold.

Well at this point all three are equally guilty. If they won't come clean they have ALL claimed the blame and are officially Bastiches who deserve primary challenges.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
trilobug, 9 Mar 2011 @ 5:15pm

Re: Why?
Why? Because they are corrupt and this is a bill that protects whistleblowers. Now that we know why lets find out who.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2011 @ 6:59pm

Re: Why is this even possible?
Who's to say it wasn't someone who denied having anything to do with it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
6, 9 Mar 2011 @ 9:06pm

Guys, it was probably all 3 of these guys. If not all 3, then the first two. Sessions and Kyle. They're often associates on various issues.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
6, 9 Mar 2011 @ 9:06pm

"Who's to say it wasn't someone who denied having anything to do with it?"

Because the two most likely people to have done it are still on a very very short list.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2011 @ 9:13pm

At some point, you might actually come up with a reason why we should be upset that they delayed it to have a sober second thought.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pixelation, 9 Mar 2011 @ 10:30pm

Who was it?
I'm sorry senator but I don't recall...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PW (profile), 10 Mar 2011 @ 12:36am

I'm feeling it...getting the tar and feathers prepared for the big announcement :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Rhodes (profile), 10 Mar 2011 @ 7:41am

Re:
So protections for US citizens demand a "sober second thought" that requires a hold from an anonymous senator to kill the bill, but they haven't found time in 10 years to take a second look at the Patriot Act.

Funny how that works.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Almost Anonymous (profile), 10 Mar 2011 @ 8:45am

Re:
Well, if Fox News has a First Amendment right to lie, why wouldn't a Senator?

And no, I won't provide a citation, it's well documented.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2011 @ 12:28pm

Re:
Yet you're probably not upset in the least that healthcare reform was passed in the blink of an eye, despite the bill being thousands of pages long and none of the Congressmen having read it all the way through, let alone analyzed it. Am I right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gene Cavanaugh, 10 Mar 2011 @ 3:15pm

Whistleblowers
The person who did should be impeached or voted out of office.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Whistleblower Anonymous, 10 Mar 2011 @ 4:29pm

Or it could have been one of the 13 Senators who left office after the end of the last Congress in December. Who really cares who killed the bill? The sponsors and supporters of the bill are using this parlor game as a diversionary tactic. They won't tell you the bill would have weakened current law in important respects had it been passed. Instead of enhancing rights it took away rights. Blaming some cowardly Senators who put a hold on a "whistleblower" bill might be fun and diverts attention from how pitiful the bill really was. We should be thanking the cowards for killing the bill and working for strong whistleblower reform that does not weaken existing rights.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
autoglassidol, 25 Aug 2011 @ 11:34pm

great
Or it could have been one of the 13 Senators who left office after the end of the last Congress in December. Who really cares who killed the bill? The sponsors and supporters of the bill are using this parlor game as a diversionary tactic. They won't tell you the bill would have weakened current law in important respects had it been passed. Instead of enhancing rights it took away rights.windshield repair Newark
[ link to this | view in thread ]
school girl pictures, 26 Aug 2011 @ 7:39am

comm
The sponsors and supporters of the bill are using this parlor game as a diversionary tactic. They won't tell you the bill would have weakened current law in important respects had it been passed. Instead of enhancing rights it took away rights.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
vghfjhg, 18 Sep 2011 @ 10:18am

August 15, 2008, 10:28 AM � Proper use of Secure Socket Layer security is a mystery even to many virtual server administrators, but it seems to be mysterious even to the developers who build it into their products-whether they know it or not. Where To Find Coupons
[ link to this | view in thread ]