Sometimes I am left to scratch my head and ponder whether there is any adult supervision left in Washington, D.C. these days. The latest incident giving me pause is the disclosure that Senate Democrats have designated John W. Dean III as a potential witness today during Judge John Roberts‘ confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Now, most of us older bloggers know all about John Dean, but younger folks might not. Mr. Dean is the convicted felon who somehow crafted his legacy of breaching the attorney-client privilege and testifying to Congress against his client (former President Richard M. Nixon) during the Watergate Scandal in the early 1970’s into a job as an “expert” legal commentator for FindLaw.com. An example of his “scholarship” is this article in which he took the dubious position that Senator John Kerry would have a pretty good defamation claim against Swift Boat veteran John O’Neill, who is a longtime and well-regarded Houston attorney.
Recently, Mr. Dean has been writing articles on FindLaw.com opposing the confirmation of Judge Roberts and contending that the White House should release Mr. Roberts’ documents from his time in the Solicitor General’s office during the 1980’s. Unfortunately for Mr. Dean, every Soliciter General in recent memory has taken the position publicly that such documents are covered by the attorney-client privilege and should remain confidential.
So, rather than rely on the advice of previous Solicitor Generals, the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee tap a convicted felon who violated the attorney-client privilege during the Watergate hearings to testify that the privilege should be violated again with regard to Judge Roberts’ work on behalf of the Solicitor General.
What on earth are these people thinking?
Houston's Clear Thinkers
Longtime Houston attorney Tom Kirkendall's observations on developments in law, business, medicine, culture, sports, and other matters of general interest to the Houston business, professional, and academic communities.
One of them (Biden) is running for President and must curry favor with the Left, who will decide the primary.
One of them (Kennedy) IS a member of the Left.
It does signal a problem with the far Left, I would suggest, but more and more that’s the face of the party.
Biden and Kennedy certainly have not come off looking like reasonable gentlemen with their lecturing and interrupting Judge Roberts. Roberts, though, has comported himself well, which is kind of funny when compared to the blustering bullies. His combination of intellect AND social skills put him in a league of his own. Wow.
I’ve been reading Stephen Ambrose’s “To America,” with its biographical sketches of important Americans, and listening to the confirmation hearings on the drive home. It seems to me that Mr. Roberts is the only person in Washington who measures up to them.
As a non-lawyer, I probably miss most of the nuance but catch enough to realize that Roberts would be a great asset to the US. It would be a tragedy for the United States if the political hacks denied the American people the service of such a great mind and decent man.
a) I was never aware that John Dean was such a favorite of the far left. Then again, sometimes I misplace my own membership card.
b) Would that Chuck Colson’s testimony be called by the GOP to testify, the same sense of outrage be applied?
Greg, I don’t know how Dean has become a darling of the left, but he sure appears to be traveling in those circles.
As for Colson, there is a big difference between him and Dean — Colson did not violate the attorney-client privilege in connection with his testimony before the Congressional committees investigating the Watergate scandal. Moreover, if Colson were to be called during Judge Roberts’ confirmation hearing (I don’t know if he was listed as a potential witness, but let’s assume he was), he would not testify on the issue of whether the attorney-client privilege should be waived with regard to Judge Roberts’ work on behalf of the Solicitor General. The problem with Dean’s testimony is that he has no credibility on the issue for which he would be opining. Colson would not make that mistake.