And then there's Specter's penchant for being "different" as when he famously cited Scottish law to render a verdict of "not proven" on President Clinton's impeachment (his vote was recorded as "not guilty" in the Senate records).
So how did the man who declared Gonzales' explanations to date as "strained and unrealistic" and said the he believed that Bush violated the FISA law conduct the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearings yesterday?
On the one hand Specter did not have Gonzales sworn in and as Slate put it:
No witnesses other than Gonzales. No new details of the National Security Agency spying program that the committee was supposed to be inquiring about. No request for the Justice Department's internal legal memorandums about the legality of the NSA program.On the other hand, Specter responded to Gonzales' prevarications by making such statements as:
"That's false on it's face"Specter closed by suggesting that Bush submit the entire NSA program to FISA's secret court for review.
"That defies logic and plain English."
Mr. Gonzales responded that "we are happy to listen to your ideas."
Anyone want to hazard a guess as to whether this administration will actually do more than "listen" to ideas?
Anyone want to hazard a guess as to whether when push comes to shove, Specter will let them weasel out of any real oversight?