I’m not so much surprised that Scottish Haggis Specter has urged Pat Leahy to ask for a meeting with the White House to negotiate testimony of White House officials.
For the last several months, I have been seeking the voluntary cooperation of the White House with the efforts of the Senate Judiciary Committee to get to the bottom of the scandal surrounding the firing of so many of the United States Attorneys you had appointed.Â
I have sent numerous letters to your White House counsel to no avail.Â For example, in a May 16 letter to Fred Fielding I outlined some of the indications of Karl Roveâ€™s involvement.Â Yet, all of my good faith efforts have been rebuffed.Â The stonewalling leaves me and the Senate Judiciary Committee with few options other than considering citations for contempt of Congress against those who have refused to provide relevant testimony and documents to the Congress.Â
Senator Specter has urged me to write to you directly and suggest that we sit down together to work out our differences with respect to this matter.Â That is the purpose of this letter.
I’m just more intrigued by the timing. Leahy sent this one August 14, just one day after the Turdblossom wilted. The only known person the Senate Judiciary Committee has subpoenaed who refused to show up at all was that same Turdblossom (Sara Taylor and Scott Jennings showed up and answered only the questions that put the White House in good light; Harriet Miers was subpoenaed by the House Judiciary Committee). And Leahy names Rove specifically in this letter. While I’m not convinced that Specter was the "leading Republican" Novak invokes who had it in for Rove (Specter is weak enough, Novak would have felt free to name him, for example), I do find the suggestion that Specter used that opportunity to push Leahy to seek conciliation with the White House rather curious.