Okay. I’m not kidding. The following paragraph really does appear in today’s New York Times:
In an interview, Mr. Specter described his relationship with Mr. Cheney as generally friendly and cordial. But he was clearly put out by the vice president’s handling of the issue and his failure to pull Mr. Specter aside as he made several trips to the buffet for tuna salad and hard-boiled egg, salad dressing and fruit.
In fact, Specter was so put out about Dick Cheney going behind his back to obstruct the Judiciary Committee’s investigation of illegal domestic surveillance of United States citizens that we wrote Dick a letter.
The lawmaker, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, accused Vice President Dick Cheney of meddling behind his back in the committee’s business, bringing into the open a conflict that has simmered for months.
In a letter to Mr. Cheney that the senator released to the news media, Mr. Specter said the vice president had cut him out of discussions with all the other Republicans on his own committee about oversight of the administration’s eavesdropping programs, a subject on which Mr. Specter has often been at odds with the White House.
The trigger for Mr. Specter’s anger was a deal made by Mr. Cheney with the other Republicans on the committee to block testimony from phone companies that reportedly cooperated in providing call records to the National Security Agency.
Mr. Specter, who had been considering issuing subpoenas to compel telephone company executives to testify, learned of Mr. Cheney’s actions only when he went into a closed meeting of the committee’s Republicans on Tuesday afternoon, shortly after encountering the vice president at a weekly luncheon of all Senate Republicans.
Mr. Specter’s tone in the letter was restrained, but he made no effort to hide his displeasure at having been outmaneuvered and, in his view, undermined, by Mr. Cheney.
“I was surprised, to say the least, that you sought to influence, really determine, the action of the committee without calling me first, or at least calling me at some point,” Mr. Specter wrote. “This was especially perplexing since we both attended the Republican senators caucus lunch yesterday and I walked directly in front of you on at least two occasions en route from the buffet to my table.”
There is nothing illegal in the Vice-President talking to Republican members of the Judiciary Committee behind the back of its chairman. But, considering the fact that the committee is in charge of the oversight of the executive as it pertains to obeying the law, this really amounts to an obstruction of justice. Sure, there is no statutory prohibition against the executive obstructing justice in this way, but that doesn’t change the fact that Cheney (and Josh Bolten) is obstructing the investigation. They don’t even deny it.
One Republican with close ties to the administration, who was granted anonymity to discuss the thinking at the White House, said Mr. Specter had been increasingly nettlesome to the administration with his persistent criticism, especially of the surveillance programs.
Noting that the White House was ultimately pleased with Mr. Specter’s help in securing the confirmations of Mr. Bush’s Supreme Court nominees, this Republican said, “All of that good will he’s built up has really been dissipated because he keeps smacking them around.”
A senior White House official, granted anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, said the president’s chief of staff, Joshua B. Bolten, had reached out to Mr. Specter on Friday to press the administration’s case for how to handle the phone companies.
The official described the conversation as “cordial but not productive.”
“That’s when we started reaching out to other members,” the official said. “It was not out of disrespect.”
The official went on, “The chairman’s position is well known, and he knows our position, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t work with other members who may be more open to our position.”
Everyone knows that the administration has committed an impeachable offense by illegally using the National Security Agency to datamine the emails, internet usage, and telephone calls of ordinary, entirely innocent American citizens, without probable cause and without a warrant. Specter knows it. And he intends to investigate it. And yet, the criminality is evidently so obvious, that they can’t even let Specter get started on an investigation, which would probably be a whitewash if at all possible. Instead, they are trying to undermine Specter by getting to his erstwhile allies on the committee.
There is no limit to the illegality that Cheney and this administration will stoop to get their way. They must be impeached. Cheney first. Then Bush.
There is something about Dick Cheney and hard boiled eggs that offends my sensibilities…
it has to be said…
i’m surprised they weren’t deviled eggs
the tuna fish isn’t helping either. Specter’s breath must be something.
Specter will never investigate this administration. This Kabuki dance is all about making him appear independent-minded to the idiots who re-elected him two years ago.
yes and no. Specter would be willing to whitewash the investigation, but not to hold no investigation at all. The problem is, its criminal on its face, and any investigation at all will lead directly to impeachment. Ergo, this problem.
The problem is … any investigation at all will lead directly to impeachment.
I’m unclear on the grounds for your confidence concerning this, criminality notwithstanding. Could you elaborate? Not understanding this, I don’t quite get your diagnosis of Specter’s problem, and I’m more inclined toward urizon’s view.
Well, it’s like this…
The administration hasn’t just been spying on Americans in violation of the law. They also concocted a limited hang-out to deal with the limited exposure. I.e., they told a big whopper of a lie to the American people about the size, scope, and targets of the NSA programs.
Therefore, they cannot allow the telcom execs to go testify. Specter is not willing to go THAT far in whitewashing an investigation. They tried to reason with him, but he wouldn’t listen to reason, so they took a different strategy.
They need this problem to go away. If it faces any scrutiny at all, their cover story is blown.
I don’t mean to be a stick-in-the-mud, but your reasoning as to why Specter will investigate, could just as easily be the reason why he won’t.
If Specter knows the administration will be severely damaged over this (as if they could be in much worse shape than they currently are), then he has them by the short ones. The administration knows this, so why piss him off? What’s the upside? I don’t see one.
However, this doesn’t mean that Specter will actually get off his ass and do something; all it means is that Bushco will have to, in some way, placate him.
I think we’ll have a subtle quid pro quo before we’ll have an investigation.
If Specter actually had an once of integrity in his whithered, desiccated flesh, then you’d be on to something.
Maybe integrity is the wrong way of thinking about it. Pride might be a better word. Loyalty to the institution he has served in for all these many years. A personal aversion to being lied to and disrespected might be a part of it.
And as head of the Judiciary committee he must convince himself on a daily basis that he cares about the rule of law (if not the rules of physics, as they apply to Dealey Plaza).
So, Specter will not want to destroy the Presidency over this, but he has been lied to. And that is not the right way to get Specter to play ball.
Ah yes, the old turf fight. You could be right. The human ego is a funny thing.
So, Specter will bluster, making himself appear the statesman; and then, when it actually looks like an investigation will happen, it’ll die a quiet death — on a Friday, more than likely.
It might be interesting to speculate (bless you, Peggy Noonan) as to what Specter might get out of this. Could be anything from a seat at the Carlyle table, to a plane trip to Minnesota, if you get my drift.
The problem with Specter: all hat, no cattle.
That’s one way of putting it. Using BooMan’s fight analogy, I would say that he always talks shit at the weigh-in but never shows up for the actual bout. Never thrown a punch in his life, that Specter.
What twists me up about Specter is when he’s called on his bullshit, like Feingold did to him a couple of weeks ago for holding a vote away from the media, he reacts with mock indignance as if he’s beyond critisism because he’s portrayed himself as some kind of Constitutional expert and defender of the Founding Father’s legacy. He’s a fake, and a hypocrit. And most importantly, he’s a Bush crimes collaborator.