Patterico's Pontifications

10/9/2005

Specter Should Subpoena Dobson and Rove

Filed under: Judiciary — Patterico @ 9:28 pm



Arlen Specter wants to ask James Dobson and Karl Rove what mysterious thing it is that Dobson claims to know about Harriet Miers:

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter said he wants to know whether presidential adviser Karl Rove privately assured a conservative activist of how Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers would rule on the court.

Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, said he will would look into a statement by James Dobson, president of the Colorado Springs, Colorado-based advocacy group Focus on the Family, that Dobson has had “conversations” with Rove about the woman nominated to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and knows things about Miers “that I probably shouldn’t know.”

“The Senate Judiciary Committee is entitled to know whatever the White House knew,” Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, said on ABC’s “This Week” program. “If Dr. Dobson knows something that he shouldn’t know or something that I ought to know, I’m going to find out.”

I sure as hell want to know what Dobson claims to know that he says he probably shouldn’t know. I sincerely doubt that Harriet Miers secretly assured Karl Rove that she would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, but that is one logical reading of Dobson’s mysterious suggestions.

Specter should look into this, and should subpoena Dobson and Rove if necessary. Either we’ll learn something really interesting, or (as I think is likely) we’ll learn it was really nothing — and that’d be interesting too, wouldn’t it?

UPDATE: I’m not understanding the negative reaction in the comments. I’m not suggesting that executive deliberations over Miers be revealed. But Dobson is not in the Bush Administration, and (as far as I know) he didn’t participate in the selection process. As I understand it, he was simply called once the selection was made, and told it was A-OK. Now, Dobson has made some dark suggestions that he knows things he shouldn’t know, based on those contacts occurring after the selection was made. Under these circumstances, we have a right to know what those things are. Rove should be asked only what he told Dobson, not what his discussions were with Administration insiders.

UPDATE: More here.

22 Responses to “Specter Should Subpoena Dobson and Rove”

  1. I think it would set a pretty dangerous precedent if Congress could subpoena people and force them to reveal the contents of private conversations they had with Whitehouse political personel that were working to drum up support for the president.

    And I suspect that in other circumstances you would consider it a dangerous precedent also, Patterico.

    Doc Rampage (b7bb1a)

  2. This idea is
    1. outrageous
    2. disgusting
    3. scary
    4. way beneath you, Patterico

    I personally hope Miers is never seated as a justice of the SC. But I hope even more fervently that the occasional insanities on this issue that are popping up here and there among conservatives are beaten down quickly and thoroughly.

    Levans (b59f16)

  3. Ok, both of you are throwing a fit that Patterico suggested that the Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena Dobson and Rove.

    Why?

    Is it because Rove is a key player in the political discussions occuring in the Executive branch, and his testimony would relate to such matters? If so, then I think that Rove does have a fairly strong (based on prior court precedent from the D.C. Circuit about executive privileges) claim to privilege from testifying about those matters.

    Dobson doesn’t- he holds no policymaking or advisory position in the Executive Branch, and cannot refuse testimony on the grounds that it is privileged.

    Maybe you don’t like the fact that this constrains the White House from going out and drumming up political support for its initiatives. However, there is no “political privilege” in the law, so I don’t see how that works.

    If either of you (or anyone else reading this) could clarify the reasons why this suggestion is “outrageous, disgusting, scary, [and] way beneath” Patterico, I’d appreciate it.

    Angry Clam (fa7fff)

  4. Privilege from testifying before Congress, I should say.

    It works differently before the courts.

    Angry Clam (fa7fff)

  5. Is Dobson an idiot, is he trying to derail the nomination, or is his ego just totally out of control? Certainly he realizes that he is a lightning rod, and this “Rove told me a secret” comment would explode into controversy.

    Shredstar (532850)

  6. I think this idea of making a private citizen testify before some powerful politican about a private conversation is outrageous. If Rove expressed an opinion to me or anyone else it should remain between us or for us to reveal as we choose. Trust is important in human relationships. And, unless some illegal activity or conspiracy is involved, it’s none of anbody’s business, especially some government asshole’s. I think you guys, however much I generally agree with you, are letting your own strong feeling about Miers distort your views in this particular circumstance. The idea of questioning Dobson here really feels like it borders on the totalitarian.

    Milan (9f1df7)

  7. Well, Milan, how do you feel about subpoenas to appear as witnesses in court?

    The Congress, both the House and the Senate, has the constitutional power and duty to conduct factual investigations, not only of nominees, but also generally concerning the laws and the state of the country. That’s why there’s so many congressional hearings on stuff- it isn’t simply political showboating, even when that’s what it descends too.

    Keep in mind too that your “private conversations” are not private at all- you can be forced to testify on those matters at court all day long, or be faced with going to jail for contempt.

    Angry Clam (fa7fff)

  8. Dobson doesn’t have privilege? What about the right to be secure in his person and not have Congress use the threat of force to coerce him to reveal the contents of a private conversation because they want to go on a politically motivated fishing expedition?

    Dobson said nothing that would raise reasonable suspicion that any crime has been committed or that anything else happened that is so unusual as to justify marching someone into the Capitol under gunpoint to testify. That’s what a Congressional subpoena is, you know. Just because most people prefer to come under their own power than surrender their dignity to being arrested, that doesn’t mean that subpoenas are not violent instruments. It would be an abuse of power for political purposes.

    Can’t you see what a chilling effect this would have? It could easily create a situtation where no one is willing to talk to anyone from the Whitehouse for fear that some enemy of the Whitehouse in Congress will subpoena them and force them to talk about the conversation.

    Doc Rampage (47be8d)

  9. What about the right to be secure in his person and not have Congress use the threat of force to coerce him to reveal the contents of a private conversation because they want to go on a politically motivated fishing expedition?

    Where do you find that right? And it’s not a politically motivated fishing expedition. Specter will vote for her. He just wants to know what Dobson supposedly knows.

    Patterico (4e4b70)

  10. Congressional subpoenas aren’t limited to criminal conduct, you know.

    And, as Patterico points out, this is far from a fishing expedition, like some discovery request like “give us all your phone logs for the last ten years.”

    This is a specific response to a specific claim about a specific conversation that one of the participants in explicitly said lead him to “know things [he] probably shouldn’t know.” That’s an entirely appropriate and non-abusive situation in which to use the subpoena power.

    Angry Clam (fa7fff)

  11. Patterico and Clam, you are both dodging the issue. This isn’t about the law, it’s about right and wrong (Patterico: I find that right in my moral judgment). It’s about the government abusing its power. Spectre doesn’t have the right to subpoena someone just because he wants to know something.

    I suspect that as laywers you two just do not understand how much of a personal violation a subpoena is. It’s not a toy and it’s not a political tool for embarrasing the president.

    And neither of you has addressed the consequences of living in a world where everyone is afraid to talk to anyone from the Whitehouse and where political personel in the Whitehouse are afraid to talk to anyone who doesn’t have privilege.

    Doc Rampage (47be8d)

  12. I suspect that as laywers you two just do not understand how much of a personal violation a subpoena is. It’s not a toy and it’s not a political tool for embarrasing the president.

    It’s a tool for obtaining relevant evidence in a proceeding. Sounds like Dobson may have some, and if Specter can’t get it without a subpoena, he can get it with one.

    Patterico (4e4b70)

  13. And neither of you has addressed the consequences of living in a world where everyone is afraid to talk to anyone from the Whitehouse and where political personel in the Whitehouse are afraid to talk to anyone who doesn’t have privilege.

    Shouldn’t that mean that we should abolish subpoenas in the court system as well? The world’s kept on spinnin’, and people have kept on talkin’ for hundreds of years.

    Also, I disagree with your statement that the subpoena is intended to embarass the president. As Patterico says, and it bears repeating:

    It’s a tool for obtaining relevant evidence in a proceeding. Sounds like Dobson may have some, and if Specter can’t get it without a subpoena, he can get it with one.

    Angry Clam (fa7fff)

  14. Gotta say I agree with Doc. It’s an issue about a legalistic perspective versus a moral one. Both are valid. Clam and Patterico are absolutely correct about the power to compel testimony. But where do you draw the line between appropriate uses of power versus abusive ones. And you know the old saw about how power corrupts.

    Milan (9f1df7)

  15. Doc, I don’t think anyone can accuse me of being unfair to Harriet Miers, but I agree with Patterico on this one. We already know what James Dobson doesn’t know, which is when/how to keep his mouth shut. But if there’s something material to Miers’s appointment that he does know, I want the American people to know it, too, preferably before the confirmation hearings, and certainly before anyone votes to confirm.

    Xrlq (5ffe06)

  16. How is whatever Rove said to Dobson relevant to the nomination? I don’t see it.

    Dobson could be talking out his a$$, as he seems to do from time to time. Rove could have been shining him on to get the endorsement. What could Rove possibly know about Miers that Miers doesn’t know (and she’ll be at the hearings under oath)?

    And what difference does it make anyway? What is Rove likely to have said to Dobson?

    Rove: “I absolutely promise you, she is dead set against abortion, and if she doesn’t vote to overturn Roe I’ll give you my first born child.”

    So what? I agree with Doc. This doesn’t make any sense, its destructive. We’ve already got guys about to be indicted for gossiping about well known Washington dinner circuit luminaries, now were going to subpoena folks over simple telephone conversations involving no criminal activity?

    Dwilkers (a1687a)

  17. lawyers and perspective

    And now, Xrlq, yet another lawyer, agrees with those two. All three of these guys are strong on other personal rights such as those embodied in the first and second amendments, but they just don’t see a subpoena as a serious form of coercion.

    Doc Rampage (59ce3a)

  18. Seems to me that a subpoena for Dobson would be warranted if Miers herself spoke to him about how she might rule or her opinions on issues. If he got that information second-hand, I think it is out of bounds.

    This isn’t an inquisition, it is a confirmation hearing. What if one of us dug up some document from somewere and had exclusive insight into Miers character and bragged about it on a blog. Should we then be subject to subpoena? It would be a severe overreach, IMHO. Same for Dobson, unless he got his information from the horse’s mouth.

    I think the Senate should be probing for facts, not second-hand opinions. If Miers had conversations with Dobson or anyone else about how she might rule on an issue, I’d consider that improper and the Senate has a right to know. But they don’t need to drag someone before a committee to find that out – they could simply send them an inquiry. If the person refused to answer, then they could issue a subpoena.

    Glenn (09f78f)

  19. Funny how Arlen the A-Hole never asked for the liberal scum running the ACLU, PFAW, and other leftie/liberal parasite groups to come in and explain their collective connection to the party of the seditious & sleazy

    russ (346341)

  20. When would he have had the power or the need to do so, Russ? Senator Hatch was Judiciary Chair under the Clintons, and I don’t think that Specter was in the senate under Carter.

    Now, keep in mind that I hate Specter, gave money to Pat Toomey, and was pissed at Bush for supporting him and not denying him the committee chair. But I don’t think that you’re correctly characterizing what he’s doing here.

    Angry Clam (fa7fff)

  21. This isn’t an inquisition, it is a confirmation hearing. What if one of us dug up some document from somewere and had exclusive insight into Miers character and bragged about it on a blog. Should we then be subject to subpoena?

    No, because the document would be the evidence, not secret assurances you got from the White House.

    Patterico (4e4b70)

  22. Well, Patterico, then you get a subpoena duces tecum for the documents if they weren’t turned over by request.

    Angry Clam (fa7fff)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0822 secs.