‘Meet the Press’ transcript for July 1, 2007

MR. RUSSERT:  Foreign Intelligence Surveillance ACT, FISA.

SEN. LEAHY:  Yes.  And, and, and moot to that, I mean, everybody wants us to get somebody who wants to strike at the United States.

MR. RUSSERT:  So you have no problem with the plan of eavesdropping as such?

SEN. LEAHY:  Provided it follows the law.  What I don’t want is this open-ended idea that they had at the White House, until the press found out about it, which would allow, for example, if they didn’t like some comment that you made on NBC, they could then go without any warrant, wiretap your phone, check out your bank account, surveil you.  Well, we don’t want that in America.

MR. RUSSERT:  Even if I had no contact with someone overseas?

SEN. LEAHY:  Even if you had no contact with someone overseas under the broad way that they were talking about.  So what, what we’ve asked is, what was their legal justification for it?  Their answers, as we’ve asked these questions, as the press has asked these questions, has changed so many times, some of it in testimony under oath, we’d kind of like to find out what is the basic reason for it.  And we will work with them.  I’ve talked to Senator Rockefeller, who’s a chairman of the Intelligence Committee.  We will work with whatever changes are needed in the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act, so there’d be no question you can go after potential terrorists with wiretaps and all.  But we’ll do it with a check and balance.  I don’t want us to ever go back to the situation that we had 30 years ago when we put into place this FISA court, as you called it, where they were wiretapping somebody who disagreed with the government on the Vietnam war.  In this case, somebody disagrees with the administration on the Iraq war, under their broad views, you could just go in and wiretap them.  This, this is America.  This is not a, this is not a dictatorship.

MR. RUSSERT:  Let me ask you about two words that you used on a statement you put out on Thursday.  I’m “even more disappointed now by this Nixonian stonewalling.” What is Nixonian stonewalling?

SEN. LEAHY:  They have taken the attitude at the, at the White House that somehow they’re above the law.  They—if they make a decision that there’s something they want to do, nobody should question them on it.  The vice president’s even been quoted as saying, “The courts can’t question it.  The Congress can’t question it.” That’s a Nixonian attitude, and it’s wrong.

In America, no one is above the law.  The president and the vice president are not above the law any more than you and I are.  And it is unfortunate they’ve taken this attitude because what it does it taints everything else.  Look at the Department of Justice, look what has happened here.  You have as an attorney general somebody—nobody has confidence in him.  Republicans don’t; Democrats don’t.  Most of the key members of the Department of Justice are resigning.  In fact, just about a week ago one resigned rather than come and have to testify under oath.  And I begin to wonder is it going to be a case of last person out of the building turn the lights off?

MR. RUSSERT:  You have asked the White House and others to respond to your subpoenas.  They are now invoking executive privilege, and you said this:  “We will take the necessary steps to enforce our subpoenas backed by the full force of law so that Congress and the public can get to the truth behind this matter.” What does that mean, full force of the law?  Is—are we headed to a constitutional crisis?

SEN. LEAHY:  I would hope not.  That’s why I say, they—they’ve chosen confrontation rather than compromise or cooperation.  The other administration—in fact, I’ve been here with six administrations, Democratic and Republican, they’ve always found a way to, to work out and get the information Congress is entitled to.  They say executive privilege.  That means something that the president has said.  The president has already said publicly he’s not involved in this, the things that we’re looking at.  So I don’t know where the executive privilege claim comes in.  Does it come in for Monica Goodling, a political operative in Karl Rove’s office?  Does it come in for those people who decided to send a U.S.  attorney into—an acting U.S. attorney into Missouri to try to influence the outcome of a federal election? I don’t think there’s any executive privilege...

MR. RUSSERT:  Are you...

SEN. LEAHY:  ...for that sort of thing.

MR. RUSSERT:  Are you prepared to hold the Bush White House, the vice president, the attorney general and his office under contempt of Congress?

SEN. LEAHY:  That is something that the whole Congress has to vote on.  In our case, in the Senate, we’d have to vote on it; in the House, they would have to vote on it.  I can’t...

MR. RUSSERT:  Would you go that far?

SEN. LEAHY:  If they don’t cooperate, yes, I’d go that far.  I mean, this is very important to the American people.  If you’re going to have—for example, the, the bottom line on this, the U.S.  attorneys investigation, is that we had people manipulation law enforcement.  You—law enforcement has, can’t be partisan.  Law enforcement can’t decide, “Well, we’ll arrest this person because they’re a Democrat but not this person because they’re Republican” or the other way around.  And that is why I think you’ve found so many Republicans and Democrats who have been so critical and, and many of those, the most critical, are, like myself, former prosecutors.

MR. RUSSERT:  Fred Fielding, the White House counsel, has written you a letter, and he says the following:  “At the president’s direction, we proposed and offered to provide you with documents containing communications between the White House and Department of Justice regarding the request for the resignation of the U.S.  attorneys in question, as well as documents containing communications on the same subject between the White House staff and third parties, including Congress.  We also offered to make available for interviews the President’s former counsel, current deputy chief of staff and senior advisor, deputy counsel, former director of political affairs, and a special assistant to the president in the Office of Political Affairs.

“The president’s offer reflected his desire to cooperate and accommodate.” Why not take him up on their offer?

SEN. LEAHY:  Well this is a, Mr. Fielding is a very competent, very clever lawyer.  He spent time in the Nixon White House.  He knows how to say these things.  But the fact is, the fact is, let’s—this is what the offer was.  He said he could have some members of the president’s staff meet with a limited number of members of Congress behind closed doors on their agenda with a guarantee that there would be no oath, there would be no transcripts, and nobody would know definitively what was said, and we would have to agree never to issue a subpoena for a follow-up.  Well, I said to him, I said, “Mr. Fielding.  I would be guilty of legislative malpractice if I accepted it.” And nobody is accepting that.  No Republican has said that’s a good idea; no Democrats said that.

MR. RUSSERT:  How about if they went in this meeting, agreed to a transcript and to go under oath.  Would that be acceptable?

SEN. LEAHY:  That would be a very good start, and—but I, but I want to be able to do the follow-up if necessary.  I think—I’m not doing this as chairman just for myself.  I want to make sure the Republicans on my committee and the Democrats on my committee have a chance to hear what is said, but, more importantly, that the American people know what happened.  This can be done.

MR. RUSSERT:  But Orrin, Orrin Hatch...

SEN. LEAHY:  The—what the—let me...

MR. RUSSERT:  Orrin, Orrin Hatch, the Republican on your committee said, “We would be much farther ahead in finding out whether there’s any real impropriety here or not if we would sit down and talk to these people.”

SEN. LEAHY:  Well, and I have talked with Mr. Fielding several times, but they still say, “We have a take it or leave it offer.” And it’s not an offer if you have no way of telling anybody exactly what was said.  Let me tell you the sort of things that go on at the White House.  We, we told them that we understand that the—some of their key members there were using a Republican National Committee e-mail account, and, and that had a lot of e-mails about how we’re going to manipulate these prosecutors around the country.  They came back and said, “Well, we’ve, we’ve erased those.  Sorry.” I said, “No, no. You can’t erase e-mails.  They’re, they’re in a server somewhere.” The—one of the assistant White House press secretaries said, “What’s he talking about? Is he pretending to be a, you know, an IT specialist?” The fact is now they’ve found them.  Of course, they were there.  And they have these.  So I said, “OK, where are they?” “Well, we’re looking at them.” The White House hasn’t given us anything.  Now, what we have been able to get has been some things, a lot of it erased or, or blanked out from the Department of Justice.  I’m not playing to play gotcha.  In fact, I’ll give you an example of what I’m willing to do.  The attorney general is coming to testify this month before the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Now, the last time he came there, he said 60 or 70 times, “I don’t remember.  I don’t know.  I can’t answer.” So this time what I’m, what I’m proposing to do that we send them a number of key questions from both the Democrats and the Republicans at least a week in advance.  We’re giving them the questions.  We’re not trying to play gotcha.  Here are the questions so there’ll be no excuse to come in and say...

MR. RUSSERT:  An open book exam.

SEN. LEAHY:  An open book exam so you won’t—we won’t have 70 times, it won’t be on the—all the—you know, on Comedy Central the next night saying, “I don’t remember.  I don’t remember.  I don’t remember” with the little clock going click, click, click.

MR. RUSSERT:  What happens if the White House just does not respond to these subpoenas?  They invoke executive privilege, it’s take it or leave it.  What do you do?

SEN. LEAHY:  Well, then, then, of course, you have to go to the next step, determine whether they have a legitimate claim of executive privilege.  Based on the court cases, it appears they do not.  We’ve asked them further questions what they base it on in case there’s something that’s been overlooked.  I’m trying to be totally fair to them.  But if they do not have a basis for it, then you have a vote on a, on a contempt citation, and it goes to the U.S.  attorney for prosecution.  I would hope that’s not necessary.  I would hope they would do what President Clinton...

MR. RUSSERT:  Are you sure...

SEN. LEAHY:  ...President Reagan...

MR. RUSSERT:  Are you sure...

SEN. LEAHY:  ...President Bush...

MR. RUSSERT:  Are you sure the U.S.  attorney would prosecute?

SEN. LEAHY:  Well, I think it’d be very difficult for him not to, and—but every single—since Richard Nixon, since the debacle of the Nixon time and even in President’s Nixon’s presidency, every single president, rather than do that, Republican or Democratic, has worked out a way to get this information. Again, I’m not trying to play gotcha.  I’m just trying to get the facts out so that whoever the next president is, Republican or Democratic, they will never be tempted to try to play with law enforcement this way, will never try to make law enforcement partisan because that, that hurts everybody all the way down to the cop on the beat.

MR. RUSSERT:  Before you go, you voted to confirm John Roberts as chief justice of the United States Supreme Court.

SEN. LEAHY:  I did.

MR. RUSSERT:  Are you still pleased with that vote?

SEN. LEAHY:  I voted for him because I did not want the chief justice of the United States to be confirmed on a party line vote.  I was hoping that this—he would understand that many of us wanted to see him make the Supreme Court less divisive, have more unanimous opinion.  I am extraordinarily disappointed when I find that, in, in almost a cavalier way, they’ve thrown aside Brown vs. Board of Education.  What does that say to minorities in our country?  I think it’s a slap in their face.  I am, I am concerned about things like, for example, a person on death row, they say, “Well, we can’t hear your appeal.  You didn’t get it in on time,” even though the judge below it told you he was in on time.’

MR. RUSSERT:  Do you regret, do you regret your vote?

SEN. LEAHY:  To that extent, no, I regret the nomination.  I, I think that I have a great deal of admiration for the chief justice’s legal ability.  I do wish he could reflect more the plurality of our, of our country.  Because if he doesn’t, we’re all hurt.

MR. RUSSERT:  Chairman Patrick Leahy of the Senate Judiciary Committee, we thank you for joining us and sharing your views.

SEN. LEAHY:  Thank you.  Good to be with you.

MR. RUSSERT:  We’ll see you in the “Batman” movie, right?

SEN. LEAHY:  Well, yeah.  My, my part of that is going to be so short.  But it does help out a small children’s library in Montpelier, Vermont, and that’s why I was willing to do it.

MR. RUSSERT:  That’s a confirmation.

SEN. LEAHY:  Thank you.

MR. RUSSERT:  Coming next, our political roundtable with David Brody and the Christian Broadcasting Network, Tavis Smiley of PBS, Chuck Todd of NBC, Judy Woodruff of PBS.  They are all here next, coming up only on MEET THE PRESS.

(Announcements)

MR. RUSSERT:  The race for the White House 2008, our political roundtable after this station break.

(Announcements)

MR. RUSSERT:  And we’re back.

Welcome, all.  Good to be here.  Immigration—George W. Bush admitted defeat, saying it didn’t happen.  Only three weeks ago, different tune.  Let’s listen.

(Videotape, June 11, 2007)

PRES. BUSH:  I’m going to work with those who are focused on getting an immigration bill done, start taking some steps forward again.  I believe we can get it done.  I’ll see you at the bill signing.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT:  No bill signing, Judy.

MS. JUDY WOODRUFF:  No bill signing, Tim.  And it’s a devastating defeat for this president.  And on top—a year on top of Iraq, other domestic defeats in Social Security, tax reform.  And the president, ironically, Tim, did everything right.  He, he had a position, he stuck to his principle, he worked with the Democrats.  He worked with Teddy Kennedy.  He, he, he delegated authority to his Cabinet.  He lobbied.  The problem is he is a weak president, a lame duck, unpopular, and it didn’t happen.  And, you know, you look at the polls, Tim, most Americans support most parts of this immigration bill.  But the people who don’t like it are very active, very vocal, and that’s what killed it.

MR. TAVIS SMILEY:  I’m not, I’m not so sure it’s as much a defeat—I think Judy’s right about the fact it clearly is a defeat for the president, Tim. But I’m not so sure it’s, it’s as much a defeat for him as it is for his party.  After all, he isn’t on the ballot anymore.  But those Republicans who have to run, come a couple years, come, come next year, how they run and pick up votes in the Hispanic community, which they picked up votes, as you know, last time in that community, how they run now and say to the Hispanic community, “We have your best interest at heart, that we’re pushing an agenda that considers your interests,” how the party does that with the Hispanic vote, I don’t know.  So the president certainly lost, but the larger question, I think, for me, is how much did the party lose here.

MORE FROM MEET THE PRESS

Meet the Press Section Front

Nov. 8: Casey, Barbour, Rendell, roundtable, Brokaw Nov. 1: Tim Geithner, David Plouffe, roundtable Oct. 25: Cornyn, Schumer, Burnett, Sorkin, roundtable Oct. 18: Jarrett, Dodd, Kyl, Shriver, Podesta Oct. 11: Levin, Graham, McCaffrey, Myers, roundtable Oct. 4: Ambassador Susan Rice, roundtable Sept. 27: Bill Clinton, Paterson, Kyl, Webb Sept. 20: President Obama, Sen. Graham, Rep. Boehner, roundtable Sept. 13: Durbin, Cornyn, Dean, Gingrich, roundtable Sept. 6: Axelrod, roundtable Meet the Press Section Front   Add Meet the Press headlines to your news reader: