« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Specter: Let's Get What We Can Get
So what does Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, have to say about the White House's invocation of executive privilege?
Sen. Specter has supported the Democrats' rejection of the White House's offer -- private testimony by aides with no oath and no transcript -- saying that such interviews should only be conducted with a transcript.
At a press conference today, he still insisted on a transcript, but softened his stance a little, reasoning that a court battle over the White House's claim of executive privilege would drag on for years. And given that "this investigation is lagging very, very badly," he said,
I think we ought to give consideration to bringing in those individuals and finding out what we can under the president's terms. It doesn't preclude us from compulsory process and proceeding with the subpoenas at a later time.
So Specter's plan is to conduct the informal interviews offered by the White House and then get tough if need be. The thing is, the White House's offer was very clear on this point. From White House counsel Fred Fielding's letter to the House and Senate judiciary committees back in March:
Such interviews would be private and conducted without the need for an oath, transcript, subsequent testimony, or the subsequent issuance of subpoenas.
The White House has made it very clear it's all or nothing with their offer -- on their terms, exclusively on their terms, or not at all. Maybe Specter thinks they'll be able to strike a deal, and given that he speaks relatively frequently with Fielding, maybe he has good reason to think so. But the White House's actions so far don't give good reason for optimism.
An extended excerpt from Specter's remarks today are below.
From today's press conference:
Now, the president has now invoked executive privilege on the efforts by the judiciary committee to secure the testimony of Harriet Miers and Sara Taylor. And we had been in discussions. The president had made an offer which some of us had responded to -- nothing formally -- to agree with a number of the conditions which he imposed, one of which not to be under oath. And while I'd prefer it under oath, I'm prepared to accept it not under oath since a false official system under 18 of the U.S. Code 1001 has a five-year penalty. And I would be prepared not to have him come before both committees with the lengthy process, but to have representatives of both the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, Democrats and Republicans alike, handle it. I'd also be willing to agree with the president's term that it not be public. I prefer it public, but it doesn't have to be public. But the one condition which I talked about which I thought had to be imposed is the provision of a transcript so we know what was said without people walking out of the room and, in good faith, having a disagreement.Now that the president has invoked executive privilege on the issue, I think we ought to give consideration to bringing in those individuals and finding out what we can under the president's terms. It doesn't preclude us from compulsory process and proceeding with the subpoenas at a later time.
We had tried to get the testimony of Sara Taylor who has a key official, Harriet Miers, Karl Rove, and I think they and others could provide useful information.
This investigation is lagging very, very badly. We've been at it now for months. The president made his offer last February. And while the investigation is lagging, Attorney General Gonzales continues to serve.
It may be that when we finish this investigation, we will have sufficient backing to provide the impetus for a new attorney general. But as long as he continues to serve, the department is in disarray, just total disarray. The deputy is on his way out. Other officials have left.
…I talked to Fred Fielding yesterday about the transcript point. Is the transcript point still negotiable? And the answer was that the president's unwilling to have a transcript. Well, I think the president's wrong about that point.As I've said, I'm willing to concede on a number of the other items -- not the full committees, not an oath, not public. But I think we ought to take what information we can get now, try to see if we can't wind this up. If we go more than two years in litigation, it doesn't have a whole lot of point. You won't have Alberto Gonzales as attorney general in two years. Be very surprised if a new president would appoint him.
(LAUGHTER)
That's a laugh line.
Comments (50)
Anonymous wrote on June 28, 2007 5:48 PM:"...this investigation is lagging very, very badly..."
Kinda like the war in Iraq, eh Arlen?
I don't recall us having any hearings under oath on that lately, either.
No, I'd say the remedy is not to forego the oath, transcripts and on the record comments. Just the opposite.
Seitz wrote on June 28, 2007 5:52 PM:I agree. The investigation has been lagging. That's why they should go to the homes of the people they want to interview, abduct them, and torture them. I hear that's legal now.
mk wrote on June 28, 2007 5:54 PM:More and more, this guy reminds me of Uriah Heep.
Dennis wrote on June 28, 2007 6:00 PM:So grovelling, so humble, such a concern troll.
And in the final analysis, so gutless.
How many times and how much more is Specter going to keep trying to cover the butts of Bush/Cheney and all of their wrong doings.
Here Specter is again, singing the same verse of the saame song he usually sings when the Bush/Cheney administration is close to being caught in their own rope.
Give it up, Specter!
You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
Skippy Jones wrote on June 28, 2007 6:00 PM:Oh that's winning logic from stealth Specter. A court battle could drag on for years SO let's play BS with the White House for another three to six months and drag it into two and a half maybe three years! Actually, maybe it we hem and haw for another three months something else will have come along that kills the investigation altogether! This is from the man WHO DIDN'T PUT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL UNDER OATH. Specter is NOT a friend, folks. He's a snake.
No oath, not in public and no transcripts. Are you FUJ%&%^#ing kidding me? Ridiculous to even debate, ridiculous. Like having someone PUNCH YOU IN THE FACE AND BLOODY YOUR NOSE and then try to negotiate to be friends. Game Over. Constitutional Crisis folks. This is a band of criminals, and they will effectively destroy the Republican Party. FULL SPEED AHEAD DEMS.
Skippy Jones wrote on June 28, 2007 6:01 PM:Oh that's winning logic from stealth Specter. A court battle could drag on for years SO let's play BS with the White House for another three to six months and drag it into two and a half maybe three years! Actually, maybe it we hem and haw for another three months something else will have come along that kills the investigation altogether! This is from the man WHO DIDN'T PUT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL UNDER OATH. Specter is NOT a friend, folks. He's a snake.
No oath, not in public and no transcripts. Are you FUJ%&%^#ing kidding me? Ridiculous to even debate, ridiculous. Like having someone PUNCH YOU IN THE FACE AND BLOODY YOUR NOSE and then try to negotiate to be friends. Game Over. Constitutional Crisis folks. This is a band of criminals, and they will effectively destroy the Republican Party. FULL SPEED AHEAD DEMS.
gcs wrote on June 28, 2007 6:04 PM:"...this investigation is lagging very, very badly..."
So better to do a half-assed investigation as long as it's done quickly, is that what I'm to understand?
C'mon Arlen, you're better than that. Aren't you?
JMOHR wrote on June 28, 2007 6:08 PM:Why not have Bush put his naked ass in our faces and say "May I please kiss it?" This is exactly how democracy is lost. It would only take one time for the Republicans in Congress to stand up and with a substantial majority of the party members back compulsory process to bring Bush's reign of terror to an end. However, that would require Patriotism on the part of Republicans such as shown when Nixon was impeached. THE REPUBLICANS LEARNED THE WRONG LESSON. THEY LEARNED TO PUT THEIR OWN SMALL, SELFISH INTEREST AHEAD OF THOSE OF THIS NATION.
Damian wrote on June 28, 2007 6:08 PM:Typical Specter behavior. Talk a good game, appear bipartisan, and when the chips are down, fold. Why doesn't someone subpoena his ass and his staffer's ass about how that little USAJ provision got snuck into the Patriot Act in the dark of night? And yes, I want a transcript.
vox clamantis in red state wrote on June 28, 2007 6:10 PM:Get them down to Gitmo for a little waterboarding. I mean we need to know what sort of terrism is coming next from this maladministration. It sure isn't the kind that's serving any one in the American electorate except the oligarchs of oil. Secrecy is not ok, for Cheney, for Bush, for the DOJ, for anyone except those who need to be afraid, very afraid.
Ed wrote on June 28, 2007 6:15 PM:Let's just execute the entire administration and start anew. Should act as a sharp warning to future arrogant politicians.
SqueakyRat wrote on June 28, 2007 6:19 PM:Shorter Specter: Let's cave now. We'll still get our names in the paper!
EH wrote on June 28, 2007 6:39 PM:"I'm willing to concede..." pretty much sums up his entire attitude, no?
tulip wrote on June 28, 2007 6:43 PM:Ah, brings back the days of the Gang of 14. The group represented mostly by Lieberman, Collins and Graham who were instrumental in getting Alito confirmed. Only filibuster if absolutely unavoidable, remember? compromise compromise surrender rollover give up go down. Hurray, chipping away at abortion. BOOyah, there goes Brown v. Board of Ed. Hallelujah, goodbye campaign finance reform.
I'll believe one of Arlen Specter's "compromises" is sincere the day after he leaves office.
Mark F. wrote on June 28, 2007 6:43 PM:I can't decide: Is Arlen Specter a spineless dolt or toadying, feckless pussy? It's so hard to tell sometimes...
tekel wrote on June 28, 2007 6:51 PM:so how about this: Congress says, "sure, no transcripts, no oath, no subpoenas... whatever you say." And then when the bushco lackeys show up, swear them in anyhow, and tape everything.
"Yeah, I know we said no transcripts. We were lying. Kinda like you were lying when you said the wiretapping program was legal, or "we don't torture," or that politics had nothing to do with the disaster at DOJ, or when you said that Iraq had WMDs. You're on our turf now. Oh, and if you try to walk out, you're getting instant contempt of Congress and we're going to have you handcuffed and dragged out on live television."
mo2 wrote on June 28, 2007 7:03 PM:There are so many subpeonas being ignored it is hard to keep track, but this concerns Miers and Taylor, so this is about who put the names of US Attorneys on the list to be fired.
Since many of these firings occurred using the revised Patriot Act, and since the revisions came from Specter's office, he needs to STFU. He is carrying water for the GOP and not serving the public interest.
We don't care if Bush/Cheney/Gonzales are impeached for refusing to give over the documents or if they are impeached for what the documents will reveal. So, no thank you, Mr. Specter.
IMPEACH SCALIA 2009
Anonymous wrote on June 28, 2007 7:13 PM:Since when is the GOP concerned that things "might drag on" for years? It's dragged on since 2001.
Arguing over whether there will or wll not be a court battle is a red herring. Reject the WH terms. And compel the witness to appear under threat of arrest.
No reason to agree to any WH terms. This is the guy who has lied, ignored the law, and defied is solemn oath. There's no basis to believe this President's promises.
Anonymous wrote on June 28, 2007 7:15 PM:What's amazing is TPM covers him as if he matters.
The guy is in the MINORITY. Who cares whether he's unhappy. He's in the GOP and should be unhappy: POTUS is trashing his party.
Anonymous wrote on June 28, 2007 7:24 PM:Screw specter. He was in Charge of Judiciary, and did squat.
No reason to listen to him now. He's too late. He had his chance to do "his" hearings "his" way: Look what it got us: More recklessness.
What pressure in Specter on to voice "moderation" by the criminals in the White House Counsel's office? No rason to trust Specter.
Strangely Enough wrote on June 28, 2007 7:46 PM:"Is Arlen Specter a spineless dolt or toadying, feckless pussy?"
You say that like they are mutually exclusive...
theswan wrote on June 28, 2007 7:56 PM:Subpeona is the only language! Get on with it. Or as the republicans want they win.
theswan wrote on June 28, 2007 7:57 PM:Subpeona is the only language! Get on with it. Or as the republicans want, they win.
starwheel wrote on June 28, 2007 8:05 PM:Take what we can get?
We've been taking what we can get for six years now, Senator.
It's damned time we started demanding what we want.
Prosecute these bastards if they don't comply.
yellowdogfox wrote on June 28, 2007 8:25 PM:At this point I don't much care if the self-described strict constructionist Supremes rule in favor of El Prexy: I want this issue confronted in the full light of day so that history sees that we were willing to fight for our principles. And if they do come up with another disgraceful decision like Bush v. Gore, well, I'm more comfortable living with that prospect -- history will correct it -- than with trying to make a deal with dishonest corrupt weaselish criminals.
Enforce those subpoenas! There are lots of us who are wondering if it's time for the pitchforks.
Anonymous wrote on June 28, 2007 8:25 PM:That's all I can say is, security code is "crime." Really, it is. How randomly accurate a security code.
Mike Valentine wrote on June 28, 2007 8:27 PM:We all have time.
1970cs wrote on June 28, 2007 8:53 PM:It's a really tired act Specter, been there done that way too many times.
Dawn wrote on June 28, 2007 8:57 PM:Extreme measures are required. I love the idea of agreeing to the WH terms, then having Shumer and Leahy wear a wire to the interviews like FBI agents and posting the audio on the internet.
Dawn wrote on June 28, 2007 8:57 PM:Extreme measures are required. I love the idea of agreeing to the WH terms, then having Shumer and Leahy wear a wire to the interviews like FBI agents and posting the audio on the internet. Could be a great episode of TPMTv
sailor wrote on June 28, 2007 9:01 PM:The Dems should just shut Bush down in congress. Don't give him a damn thing he wants until he starts to co-operate! It'll take balls, all they have to do is find them!
The Oracle wrote on June 28, 2007 9:05 PM:Simply put, Arlen Specter is aiding and abetting the criminals in the Bush administration, thus making him an accessory to their ongoing criminal activity.
Our democracy hangs in the balance, Arlen. The rule of law is in tatters. The worst (and most corrupt) administration in American history is busy turning our republic into a Banana Republic, with the help of complicit Banana Republicans like you, Arlen.
Arlen (and all your fellow Banana Republicans), when did you all decide that fascism is preferable to our democratic form of government? When did you decide that kowtowing to the fascist neo-con Republicans in the White House is in the supposed best interests of our nation? When will you, Arlen, and your fellow Banana Republicans, grow a spine and defend our nation and our Constitution from the most evil administration anyone in our country has ever seen.
Sure, Arlen, you and your pals, can run out the clock in hopes of letting Bush and fascist neo-con pals to escape, but following the November 2008 elections, many of your fellow Banana Republicans in Congress will be out of a job. Then, and only then, can a new Congress (and probable Democratic Party president) start to undo the horrific damage you and your Banana Republican cohorts have done to our precious nation.
Jim Coughlin wrote on June 28, 2007 9:07 PM:Why are you surprised? Spector would not swear in
nofltwlt wrote on June 28, 2007 9:08 PM:Bush's butt boy Alberto. Warner, Lugar,Lieberman they all act wise and statesmanlike and cave when it comes to doing anything for the country. Their main interest is covering their own ass or in the case of Lieberman taking care of Israel. With a Senate like this we have little hope of the people getting any kind of a break. Support the troops? These guys don't give a shit, what's a few more dead peasants? September will come, Bush will still be staying the course, these clowns will back him. The Democrats had better get some spine or they will not win in 2008, they'll get their ass handed to them.
Specter is likely to soften his stance, then soften his stance again and again until he gives this corrupt administration more than it asked for.
Clovis wrote on June 28, 2007 10:35 PM:Reading this article I became angrier and angrier. Is it just me or does anyone else feel the same way? The Democratic party has the majority on this committee so why is it that Specter sounds like he is making the decisions?! If the Dems cave in on this then there is no difference in the parties and so our votes don't really count; what's the use? Vote your principles, Dems!!!! Personally, I believe that impeachment will be the only thing that will get the attention of the Bush Crime Syndicate. Lock 'em up and throw the keys away.
Arabiflora wrote on June 28, 2007 10:37 PM:Specter is a tool, we all know it so let's move on. It's clear that Bu$hCo is playing for time,hoping that passage of the '08 elections will signal their finish line. I imagine the various crimnals large and small among them unpacking their crates of chits, favors, and cash sometime in January, '09. This should not happen, and certainly shouldn't be taken as a fait accompli by the impeachment naysayers out there.
All crimes committed by Bu$hCo should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Leahy and Waxman should make VERY clear that November, '08 has no special significance in the legal calendar: prosecutions initiated now (or even later) can and will be pursued after those thugs leave office.
I'm guessing that the clear prospect of prosecution beyond '08 would help some of the underlings re-evaluate their present positions of loyalty.
Scott L wrote on June 28, 2007 10:58 PM:Who said the Nazis lost??? Seems they are alive and well and now have their own army- NSA own justice- AG and their own court- Supreme
Matt wrote on June 28, 2007 11:06 PM:I am not sure if this article and the associated comments are fair.
sailmaker wrote on June 28, 2007 11:07 PM:After all, Specter did vote for the subpoenas, as the Democrats advocated.
He is not saying that he won't continue to side with the Democrats, he is just saying that he would like to hear from these guys.
So I am not sure it is so bad what he said.
Specter is sorry he didn't slip any denial of remedies into the reauthorization of the Patriot Act. After he caused the problem by slipping in the negation of Senate approval for the U.S.A.s, he neglected to follow through with more verbage saying that any disputes would be solved behind closed doors, no oaths, no transcripts.
Congress - go to the mat and impeach both Abu and Cheney. The legal explorations will wake up the American people/press, so they will be ready for a conviction.
Ron Genise wrote on June 28, 2007 11:07 PM:Let's give Arlene what she deserves, a one-way ticket back to PA.
I'm tired of people cowering to a coward. What does Bush have on these people? Are there none in Congress with integrity?
Jonathan Holtz wrote on June 29, 2007 12:12 AM:if the WH staffers showed up and conducted private off record interviews, (no oath, no consequence)would they have then abandoned any pretnese of executive privledge?
and if after their interviews any discrepency w fact is noticed or new development in the process unfold, could not Congress then subpeona the staffers and be free from the argument of executive privledge.
sailmaker wrote on June 29, 2007 12:52 AM:Jonathan at 12:12 am
The White House is offering what they are offering with 'no subsequent subpoenas, no subsequent testimony'. I don't pretend to understand this non offer offer, this take it or leave it stuff, however, it seems like they can lie, they can tell the truth, and neither will matter, because it will be hearsay evidence that can't be used for anything, positive or negative. IANAL, it also seems that even if all the Senators agreed that they heard something that constituted perjury, the perjuryer would end up in court taking the 5th. So the Senators might as well just go straight to court to get the subpoenas honored, or go straight to impeachment, and not screw with this WH non offer offer. My $.02.
Mike Valentine wrote on June 29, 2007 1:48 AM:Unless the Republicans turn and go after Bush like they did Nixon in 73, then these turds will hit the dust bin of history. 23% does not a party make.
Code word every: Every body who doesn't endorse impeachment for the Butcher Bush and his war will get defeated in the next election.
Goldspinner wrote on June 29, 2007 6:24 AM:Thanks, Tulip. Some of us are still fuming about the Gang of Fourteen coup d'etat. Don't forget folks: this was a bipartisan power ploy that we will be paying for for decades.
Billy Pilgrim wrote on June 29, 2007 8:58 AM:Ron Genise @June 28, 2007 11:07 PM
Writing from PA, thanks but no thanks. He is a disgrace the our state and no one wants him back. All we want is for him to STFU, but he doesn't seem to get it.
Why not a one-way ticket to Baghdad instead?
zkbodecxle wrote on June 29, 2007 9:55 AM:8 test submit
jimbo92107 wrote on June 29, 2007 1:56 PM:The best thing to do with Arlen Specter is to completely ignore him. He's an apologizer, an enabler and an appeaser. Political and moral weakness radiates from him like green kryptonite.
KCinDC wrote on June 29, 2007 2:18 PM:If we go more than two years in litigation, it doesn't have a whole lot of point.
Of course it has a point. We can't just let these scum run out the clock and leave for the cushy lobbying and consulting jobs their allies have lined up for them to pay them back for the vast profits they've made from looting the US treasury. The Bush administration has to be held accountable, even if that accountability doesn't happen until after they've left office.
Billy Pilgrim wrote on June 29, 2007 2:41 PM:jimbo92107
An even better thing to do would be for PA voters to find a way to force him out of office for his criminal conduct related to the slipping in of the secret provision in the Patriot Act after the debate was closed. A state-wide petition to have him removed from office seems justified.
Anonymous wrote on June 30, 2007 7:52 PM:Posted by: Clovis
Date: June 28, 2007 10:35 PM
Clovis, I agree. Looks like the GOP's Specter is out of line. They're slightly short of a full load. Specter had his chance as Chairman, and blew it. NOt clear why the media is quoting him as if he were the "decider".