Transcript for February 5

SEN. SPECTER: Well, let’s start out with Senator Schumer’s statement that the hearings won’t show anything. I think he’s wrong. He’ll have a question—he’ll have an opportunity to question the attorney general at length, and we’ll—we’ll go into that. Will I consider a subpoena? Yeah, I’d consider it, depending on whether we need it. Let’s hear from the attorney general as to what he has to say before we jump to conclusions and start to demand a—a subpoena. And Senator Schumer knows that when you deal with legal advice and memoranda within the Department of Justice, that you want to have the lawyers there express themselves openly and candidly, and there’s always been a rule against disclosing those internal memoranda out of concern about having a chilling effect.

Now we’re not—we’re not we dealing here with the confirmation of Chief Justice Roberts, where Senator Schumer wanted to have his internal memoranda, giving us some insights into his thinking as to what he’d do as a justice, we’re talking about legal analysis. And Senators Schumer and Arlen Specter can undertake that legal analysis as well as anybody else. We’re talking about the law and an interpretation of statutes and cases. But listen, if we come to it and we need it, I’ll be open about it. I was willing to call for these hearings in a very difficult climate, and if the necessity arises, I won’t be timid.

MR. RUSSERT: For asking for a subpoena?

SEN. SPECTER: Right.

Mr. RUSSERT: Let me turn to an article I read in Newsweek magazine, headlined “Spying: Bush vs. Lawyers.” And it goes as follows: “In March 2004, Attorney General John Ashcroft was in the hospital with a serious pancreatic condition. At Justice, Deputy Attorney General James Comey, Ashcroft’s number 2, was acting attorney general. Assistant Attorney General Jack Goldsmith raised with Comey serious questions about the secret eavesdropping program, according to two sources familiar with the episode. He was joined by a former Office of Legal Counsel lawyer Patrick Philbin, who had become national security aide to the deputy attorney general. Comey backed them up. The White House was told no reauthorization of the program. A high-level delegation—White House Counsel then Gonzales and Chief of Staff Andy Card—visited Ashcroft in the hospital to appeal Comey’s refusal. In pain and on medication, Ashcroft stood by his number 2.”

Now, this is John Ashcroft, James Comey, Jack Goldsmith, Mr. Philbin—Patrick Philbin, all former workers at, lawyers at the Justice Department, all Bush appointees, but no longer there. Will you bring them before your committee and ask them why they opposed this program?

SEN. SPECTER: I’m considering it, and I’ve already initiated discussions in—in that direction. There’s no doubt that Attorney General Ashcroft was involved in the process, as was his deputy, James Comey. I do think they have relevant information, and, and we’re pursuing it.

MR. RUSSERT: Speaking of subpoenas, this article also captured my attention: CIA Director Porter Goss said, quote, “It is my aim, it is my hope that we will witness a grand jury investigation with reporters present, being asked to reveal who is leaking this information.” Do you believe it’s a good idea to subpoena reporters and ask them where they got information which they published about this eavesdropping program?

SEN. SPECTER: Tim, I think that has to be approached very circumspectly. We have had hearings in the Judiciary Committee on the jailing of New York Times reporter Judith Miller. And I think if you move into an area of really serious national security issues, that there may be a justification for it. I’m not prepared to commit on that, but if you’re in an area of showing obstruction of justice, which is what—what we ended up with on the jailing of The New York Times reporter, I don’t think so. I think that you have to be involved in something very serious on a national security line, and that’s something that I think ought to be considered if that threshold standard is met.

MR. RUSSERT: Before you go, the day after you were elected back—re-elected back in ‘04, you talked about the Supreme Court and Roe v. Wade and said this, “When you talk about judges who would change the right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe v. Wade, I think it is unlikely” that they would be selected for the Court, in effect. You voted for Judge Samuel Alito to become Justice Alito. Are you absolutely certain, absolutely convinced that he will not vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?

SEN. SPECTER: You didn’t quote me quite accurately, Tim. I said I thought the President would have to be mindful of that issue in selecting Supreme Court nominees. Am I certain that Justice Alito will not vote to overturn Roe? No. Listen, guarantees don’t come with Supreme Court nominations. Guarantees, as I’ve said before, are for used cars and washing machines. I questioned Justice Alito for about 20 minutes on the issue of Roe vs. Wade, and I thought that he addressed it as far as he could go. He talked about his respect for the precedence for Roe, for the follow-up case on Casey vs. Planned Parenthood, about reliance and about what is embedded in the culture of our community. And he had—we had judges who know him very well from the court of appeals who worked with him for years. He said he had no agenda and no preconceptions. And I concluded that he’d give that question a fair hearing and a fair determination. But no guarantees, Tim.

MR. RUSSERT: Will you be disappointed if he does vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?

SEN. SPECTER: Well, Tim, I’ll tell you. I have great respect for separation of powers. President’s got his job, I’ve got mine and the Supreme Court has theirs. My own view is that Roe vs. Wade is secure in the culture of our country. So I’m going to do my job and take my chances.

MR. RUSSERT: And I bet you hope the Pittsburgh Steelers do their job today.

SEN. SPECTER: I’m rooting for the Steelers. My only regret, Tim, is that this hearing was set on 9:30 tomorrow morning, and the earliest I could get back from Detroit was about 3 a.m., so I’ll be watching it on television.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Specter, thanks very much. And we’ll be covering that hearing tomorrow.

SEN. SPECTER: Thank you for the invitation. Thank you.

MR. RUSSERT: And we’ll be right back.

(Announcements)

MR. RUSSERT: And we are back.

Gentlemen, let me show you the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll on domestic wiretap program sponsored by the President. Fifty-one approve, 46 disapprove. Ron Brownstein, has the President turned the corner on that?

MR. BROWNSTEIN: I think as the issue is now defined, the polls have been very consistent from the very beginning. That’s one of about five or six polls that have shown a narrow plurality of majority supporting it. And I don’t think the Judiciary Committee hearing at least as it’s structured is likely to change that. If the debate is over whether the President has this authority or not, I think that the evidence is from the polling slightly more Americans say yes then no. What might change it is evidence about how the program was actually implemented and used and whether it caught more Americans in its net than the administration has suggested, as suggested in a story by The Washington Post today. Those are the kind of questions that might move public opinion I think more than what the Judiciary Committee is likely to debate.

MR. RUSSERT: John Harwood, the administration is going to say the President has this power, Article 2, and the authorization that Congress passed after September 11^th involving Afghanistan and worldwide—not just Iraq as I said in the previous segment—segment. It was after September 11^th. Is that going to fly, or is it—does it all hinge on what the Supreme Court decides? If the Supreme Court ever came down and said, “Mr. President, you violated the Constitution,” what happens?

MR. HARWOOD: Well they’d have big problems at that point, and that’s where the effort legislatively to give him the authority would get serious. I think the interesting near-term question from these hearings is whether or not there is any serious push by Specter or by Democrats with Specter’s support, we’ll see, to try to legislate this authority for the President. The White House doesn’t want that to happen, but I think they’re in a more difficult position if Congress says, “You say you’ve got the authority; we want to make it explicit,” and he says, “No, thanks.”

MR. BROWNSTEIN: You know, given the strategy of the Republicans in Congress and their relationship with Bush over these five years, it really does feel that if this is going to be resolved it’s going to have to be at the Supreme Court. It’s hard for me to see how this Republican-majority Senate engineers a full-scale confrontation with the President over this.

MR. RUSSERT: U.S. troops in Iraq: maintain current levels 28; reduce the number, 66. The exact poll I showed Congressman Boehner. He was very candid. Status quo exists in Iraq. On Novem—in November of this year a problem for his members.

MR. HARWOOD: No doubt about it, and I think one of the fascinating things we saw in our poll, Tim, was the results of the President’s offensive in November and December on Iraq. Our pollsters, Peter Hart and Bill McInturff, said they thought all those victory signs appearing behind the President at those speeches may have had the opposite effect the President intended. That is to say, not “We’re winning, therefore we should stay there,” but “We’re winning, now it’s time to get out.” And we’re seeing this number climb. It’s a big problem for Republicans, and they’re not eager to have a big debate on this $90 billion supplemental spending for Iraq at the same time the President’s coming out with an ag—with a budget proposal next week that’s going to cut Medicare and many other programs.

MR. RUSSERT: Another big problem: lobbying. Jack Abramoff, scandals.

Ron Brownstein, which party’s more influenced by special interests and lobbyists. People say Republicans, 36; Democrats, 22. Considerable change from some nine years ago when the Democrats had the edge on that, if you will. But look at this question. Lobbying reform: Will new laws make a difference? Sixty-five percent of the American people say no.

MR. BROWNSTEIN: And, in fact, you know, if there is a iron rule of ethics or reform, it’s that reform always disappoints. I mean, you go back all the way through American history. We can make incremental progress, but separating money and power is something that simply is—I mean, a century ago there was a senator during the progressive era who said the purification of politics is an iridescent dream, and it is. I think the American people recognize that there’s always going to be ways for people with interests to influence legislators. The question is, how does that private interest get balanced against the public interest? And there ultimately is something that voters, I think more than courts or prosecutors, have to judge. I mean, if there is an answer to the sense that Washington is overrun by special interests, it’s voters holding accountable individual legislators who they feel have—have crossed that line. That is going to change behavior on Capitol Hill, I think, much more than any kind of ethics reform.

MR. BROWNSTEIN: And we certainly see that in the priority rankings of Americans. Ethics and lobbying don’t rank very high; however, they’re contributing to the souring of this mood, as you saw from some of the quotes that you read from—from Republican members. That’s a problem for Republicans as Democrats have built this lead in the generic vote.

MR. RUSSERT: And...

MR. BROWNSTEIN: And that’s—oh excuse me, Tim—I think that’s the real danger for Republicans. It’s not so much that Democrats are going to be able to say, “We’re clean; they’re dirty.” When you look at polling there’s--70 percent of the country consistently says both parties are equally prone to problems. What you’ve got, though, is a sense that Washington isn’t working, it isn’t solving or dealing with the problems of ordinary people, and that is producing a very strong sense of disapproval of Congress; 35 percent approval rating, or lower, in polling 60 percent of the country saying we’re on the wrong track. Democrats aren’t winning any popularity contests either, but as the party in power, holding all the branches of government, Republicans clearly have the most to fear from that kind of tide.

MR. RUSSERT: But Democrats get hopping mad if anyone suggests that this is anything more than a Republican scandal.

MR. HARWOOD: Well, the Abramoff scandal is fundamentally a Republican scandal, but the issue of lobbying and the relationship between lobbyists and members of Congress, that’s very bipartisan. So it’s a question of which scandal you’re talking about. I think one of the most interesting things from your interview with Congressman Boehner is the idea that earmark reform, which in our poll ranked among—by voters as the most important thing that they thought could be done, I think he may be serious, and the Republican conference may be serious, about injecting more transparency, and that would, that would affect the number of these earmarks to get into bills.

MR. RUSSERT: Energy. The President stood before the country and the world and offered this promise at the State of the Union message:

(Videotape, State of the Union Address, Tuesday)

PRES. BUSH: Breakthroughs on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: But this was a news story that appeared on almost every paper in the country. Here’s the Philadelphia Inquirer the next day: “One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America’s dependence on Middle East oil his energy secretary and national economic adviser said the President didn’t mean it literally. What the President meant, they said was that alternative fuels could displace an amount of oil imports equivalent to most of what America is expected to import from the Middle East in 2025. But America would still import oil from the Middle East because that’s where the greatest oil supplies are.” His secretary of energy said this was just an example of what could be.

MR. BROWNSTEIN: Well, oil is fungible, so in the sense that it’s going to come from somewhere. The real question, though, here, I think, is, is this goal ambitious enough? Middle Eastern oil only provides 11 percent through the first 10 months of 200--11 months of 2005 of our total oil consumption. And the real issue with the President’s plan is, is there anything here in the near term that will affect the way Americans consume and use oil? Put a lot of money—he’s proposing to put a lot of money in environmentally-friendly technologies for the long run: more solar, more wind, clean coal, next-generation cars. But what’s missing is any kind of mechanisms in the plan to move these ideas from the lab to the marketplace in any kind of near term. He consistently rejects the idea of any kind of federal nudge on the market: tougher fuel economy standards, requirements for utilities to generate a certain amount of their power from renewable energies.

MR. RUSSERT: Government fleet.

MR. BROWNSTEIN: Government fleet. He does not—there’s nothing here that will sort of bring this in the near term. It sort of seems to me like, if you have a house, your house—your energy bills are too high, you can either say, “I’m going to start saving so that in 10 years I can buy a better house,” or you could money into your—windows and your insulation today. He chose the first course here, and I think some of the debate will be “Can we do better in any kind of intermediate term?”

MR. HARWOOD: Tim, I don’t know if you’ve cued up the previous statements by the President in earlier State of the Unions about reducing dependence on foreign oil, but he’s said it every single time he’s gone before the Congress. So I think members of Congress don’t take too seriously the idea that this is a fundamental shift in policy. But Republicans on the Hill, they want a fewer—a little less of throwing the long bomb and a little more Jerome Bettis up the middle.

MR. RUSSERT: Mm-hmm.

MR. HARWOOD: So their idea is that—focusing on health care, on education, on competitiveness, on energy, while trying to exploit the President’s advantages on national security, pressing his Iraq policy, which he was most passionate about, and pressing that—the definition of the NSA wiretap issue, that’s what they want as a prescription for trying to recover a little bit politically.

MR. RUSSERT: Is it worse for Republicans, with a congressman I quoted from Wisconsin in the first segment, was that, if this is a referendum in November of ‘06 on Iraq and corruption, there’s trouble?

MR. BROWNSTEIN: Absolutely. I mean, I think the Republican—the President’s State of the Union was probably a good indicator of where the Republican psyche is at this point, as John said. There was a real contrast on—on Iraq, national security, bright lines, tough, the President confident, that we’ve seen in the five years, wanting to draw a big contrast to the Democrats. Very cautious and chasten on domestic policy. A year ago, he wanted to remake Social Security, now he wanted to restudy it. It’s a sign that they’ve been forced to lower their sights somewhat, trim their sails, at a lower approval rating going into the election year.

MR. HARWOOD: And he wants to unplug some of the electricity to the polarization in Washington, that’s why you saw a lot of outreach to Democrats. That’s not helping the Republicans, they’re trying to put the temperature down just a little bit.

MR. RUSSERT: John Harwood, Ron Brownstein, thank you. To be continued. We’ll be right back.

(Announcements)

MR. RUSSERT: That’s all for today. We’ll be back next week. If it’s Sunday, it’s MEET THE PRESS.

MR. TIM RUSSERT: Our issues this Sunday: for nearly three years, this Republican from Texas, Tom "The Hammer" Delay, was the leader of House Republicans. He has now stepped aside. This Republican from Ohio is the new majority leader of the House of Representatives. Our guest, in his first live Sunday morning interview, Congressman John Boehner. Then, on Monday, Senate hearings on whether President Bush has the authority to authorize eavesdropping on domestic calls without a warrant. With us, the man in charge of those hearings, Judiciary Hearing Chairman Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. And in our political roundtable, insights and analysis from Ron Brownstein of The Los Angeles Times and John Harwood of The Wall Street Journal.

But first, on Thursday, Republicans elected their new majority leader. His name is John Boehner of the state of Ohio, and he is here with us this morning.

Mr. Leader, welcome.

REP. JOHN BOEHNER, (R-Ohio): Good to be back, Tim.

MR. RUSSERT: Are the Republicans in trouble?

REP. BOEHNER: I think that we need to restore our--the trust between the Congress and the American people. And clearly for Republicans, I think we need to get back on offense and deal with the big issues the American people sent us here to deal with. And to the extent that they see us dealing with the anxieties that they're feeling in their own lives, if they see us dealing with those issues over the course of this year, I think we'll be fine.

MR. RUSSERT: It was interesting reading some of the speeches that were given in the conference during your election. This was Congressman Paul Ryan from the Frist district of Wisconsin, "Friends, we're in trouble. A poll was done last weekend in our 25 most vulnerable districts, and trust me it doesn't look good." And then this from Congressman Mark Souder from Indiana, "Duke Cunningham, Jack Abramoff and the ongoing and disgusting saga of abuse of power and public trust are not made up by the Democrats. We were put in power to be different. What has happened to us? Our entire philosophy is at risk because the American people, and even a large percent of our own supporters, think we have been corrupted as a party. Our re-election numbers are now lower than the Democrats' were in '94. When voters in swing districts were asked, the two things they associated with our Republican Congress were Iraq and corruption."

Let me ask first about Iraq. John Warner, Republican, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, made this observation. He "said that widespread corruption and criminality were `pushing Iraq down into a morass.'" He said "corruption in Iraq was increasing. `The corruption, the payoffs, the graft--all this is just, in a sense, overlaying the courageous work of coalition forces.' Warner painted a grim picture of American forces increasingly diverted from battling insurgents in Iraq so they could deal with corruption-linked violence."

Today The New York Times reports that 40 to 50 percent of the--of money skimmed illegally from oil sales in Iraq is now going to the insurgents. So we liberated a country and the oil sales, a portion of them, is being used to finance an insurrection to kill our own troops.

REP. BOEHNER: Tim, we--we are in Iraq for the right reasons, to help bring democracy to a part of the world that's never known it. Now, we've seen this increasingly instable, or lack of stability, in the Middle East. And if we can build this democracy in Iraq, it will clearly spread. This is a long-term commitment. And helping the Iraqi people learn to govern themselves is not easy. But the effort here is meaningful, worthwhile, and it may not benefit our generation, but for our kids and theirs, this may be the greatest gift that we give them.

MR. RUSSERT: But as majority leader of your party, you have to see these numbers. The Wall Street Journal/NBC poll. We asked people all across the country: maintain current troop level, 28 percent; reduce the number of U.S. troops, 66 percent. A majority of conservatives say reduce the number of troops. And then this question: Will the war in Iraq come to a successful conclusion? Yes, 36; no, 53. Are your members concerned about that pessimism?

REP. BOEHNER: I think they are. But I think that the administration is on the right path. I think the raining--the training of Iraqi forces continues to go well. And if it continues to go well and if the--the--the amount of violence continues to go down, I think we'll be able to see some reductions in troops next year. But winning is more important than--than bringing our boys and girls home early. We've got a big investment here, and I think the American people want us to see through on this investment, to help us succeed, because it's our kids and grandkids who will be the big beneficiaries.

MR. RUSSERT: If the situation in Iraq in November of this year is like it is today, will Republicans pay a price at the polls?

REP. BOEHNER: I think we will.

MR. RUSSERT: Iran: Is the United States prepared to take military action against Iran if they continue to insist on building nuclear weapons?

REP. BOEHNER: I don't think that's necessary. We've been involved in diplomatic efforts over the last several years to bring Iran into the world community. And I think the U.N. has stepped up, and I'm, frankly, surprised and--and happy about the fact that the U.N. has taken forceful steps, and looks clear this morning that Iran is--is beginning to--to accede to the demands of the U.N.

MR. RUSSERT: But, if need be, you think we're capable of having the war in Iraq and also having military action against Iran?

REP. BOEHNER: I think that's premature. I think the diplomatic efforts have gone well, and I hope they continue to go well.

MORE FROM MEET THE PRESS

Meet the Press Section Front

Remembering Tim Russert July 13: Carly Fiorina, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), politcal roundtable June 29: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA), Gov. Dave Freudenthal (D-WY), Gov. Bill Ritter (D-CO), Chuck Todd June 22: Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), political roundtable June 15 transcript, video NBC's Tom Brokaw to moderate 'Meet the Press' through election   Images: The life of the political journalist   Slideshow: A look back at 60 years of 'Meet the Press' Find ‘Meet the Press’ in your area Sign up for our e-mail newsletter Meet the Press Section Front   Add Meet the Press headlines to your news reader: