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.