Patterico has an interesting post on this E.J. Dionne column where E.J. can only find hypocrisy from the right.
The senator vigorously rejected the president’s claim of executive privilege. "I find this extraordinary and troublesome," he said, "and I think it will ultimately be damaging to the president...This is an attempt to stonewall our committee, and the public will be outraged."
Doesn’t that sound like one of those tough statements by Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York, the Democratic point man on the U.S. attorney scandal? The speaker was actually the Republican whom Schumer defeated nine years ago, Alfonse D’Amato, discussing Bill Clinton’s invocation of executive privilege in the Whitewater investigation. Nice to see Chuck and Al agree on something.
The problem is, Alfonse D'Amato is no longer in the Senate. As Patterico points out, if Dionne really wanted to see hypocrisy in action, he could have written this instead:
The senator vigorously defended the president’s claim of executive privilege. "I do not believe we should be issuing subpoenas to the Justice Department unless that step is absolutely necessary," he said. "I would also like to discuss with the Chairman about following the model we used in the Ruby Ridge hearings. As I recall, to ensure the bipartisan nature of the investigation, the Subcommittee Chairman issued subpoenas only with the consent of the Ranking Member."
Doesn’t that sound like one of those defensive statements by Sen. Orrin Hatch, the staunch defender of the Administration on the U.S. attorney scandal? The speaker was actually the man who was the ranking member eight years ago, Pat Leahy, discussing Bill Clinton’s invocation of executive privilege in the investigation of questionable pardons. Nice to see Pat and Orrin agree on something.
Patterico discusses the origins of that quote here. But don't hold your breath waiting for Dionne to use it.
|