Back in April I wrote how leftists were alarmed that Bush had nominated Allen Weinstein ? the man who committed the unpardonable crime of outing Soviet spy Alger Hiss.

Now, while Sandy Berger still pauses to scratch and puzzle innocently over why his jockey shorts are itching him today (someone really needed to tell the man that the principle of “CYA” wasn’t supposed to be taken literally), Senate Democrats are grilling Weinstein over his commitment to openness, since he waited until after the lawsuit to release all his papers on Alger Hiss. A key strength of the nominee, however, is his commitment to openness; The Chronicle of Higher Education reported April 21 “Weinstein helped persuade the Church of Christ, Scientist, to release records on its founder, Mary Baker Eddy,” arguing that openness was the key to the library having “intellectual legitimacy.”

Today, the Chronicle (subscriber site) reports on just what a show of indignation the Democrats are making:

quote
——————————-
At Thursday’s hearing and in written remarks, Mr. Weinstein defended his decision to retain the Hiss documents, saying he kept the papers in the face of a now-resolved lawsuit and “continued assaults” in the news media. He acknowledged, however, that he “probably should have released them sooner.”

As for the Soviet book, Mr. Weinstein explained that he was working under restrictions imposed by the retired KGB agents his publisher had paid for access to the Russian archives. He vehemently denied that he had personally paid for the records.

“I did not write a check to the KGB,” Mr. Weinstein said, adding that he plans to soon donate the notes for both texts to Stanford University’s Hoover Institution on War, Resolution and Peace.

But Democrats on the committee were not appeased by his answers. They asked Mr. Weinstein whether he planned to uphold a 2001 executive order that would give the administration a larger say over whether, and when, presidential records are released. … Weinstein said that while the current President Bush’s order “conflicts with my impulse to ensure access,” he would, as archivist, defend the order against legal attack.

Democrats on the panel also questioned whether Mr. Weinstein’s nomination was driven by politics …
——————————-