Comments (30)

drits'n'dravy wrote on March 14, 2007 12:03 PM:

I am confused. Are the senators going to insist on public testimony under oath or not? Yesterday on NPR Leahy sounded determined to question the parties under oath and in public. Could anyone explain how this process might unfold?

DB wrote on March 14, 2007 12:04 PM:

No more casual meetings! Under oath, or not at all.

jeff wrote on March 14, 2007 12:04 PM:

I find it highly unlikely that they'll share any information that's damning to them...on a voluntary basis...

they are mixing the cement for the STONE WALL as we speak.

r€nato wrote on March 14, 2007 12:04 PM:

sweet, sweet schadenfreude.

One of the consequences of having a rubber-stamp Congress seems to be that the WH is unfamiliar with how to deal with a hostile Congress...

r€nato wrote on March 14, 2007 12:07 PM:

drits -

as far as I know, there's really no reason for Leahy to negotiate with the WH over the appearances.

Congress can compel testimony via subpoena. The 'invitation' is merely a courtesy. If Leahy has any spine on this matter - and it seems he does - there's nothing for the WH to negotiate. Either appear by invitation, or by subpoena. Take your pick.

JohnW wrote on March 14, 2007 12:08 PM:

Request first, subpoena second.

george wrote on March 14, 2007 12:08 PM:

Why does the Senate and House continue to act as if they need the Administrations permission to do it's job? For God's sake "we would like to work out a process," "voluntary," "convenient arrangement"?

For Pete's sake, drag their asses in front of a committee and make them testify UNDER OATH. Period. Then leave it up to Rove, et all whether they show up or thumb their nose at Congress.

This pretty please crap has got to stop NOW!

LauraB wrote on March 14, 2007 12:11 PM:

You know, if they do not require an oath and public testimony, I will have to conclude that the DC Madam and her list of johns is somehow involved.

Brooklynite wrote on March 14, 2007 12:13 PM:

George, have a little faith in Leahy. He's no Arlen Specter.

renato and JohnW are right. There is an appropriate process to follow. But either way, I fully expect the testimony to be under oath.

That clown Specter allowed these guys to crap all over him; Leahy will not.

r€nato wrote on March 14, 2007 12:14 PM:

settle down, people. It's customary to invite people to appear before Congress but there is nothing voluntary about it, given the alternative. All five of these will be dragging their asses over to Congress.

I think I'll be stocking up on popcorn, especially for Rove's appearance. That should be fascinating.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 14, 2007 12:14 PM:

Paul, Let Josh know that the WSJ op-ed he links to identifies John McKay, USA-Washignton, as a Democrat.

Mara wrote on March 14, 2007 12:19 PM:

If they are to issue subpoenas, don't they have to all vote on it and therefore have to appear cordial so as not ruffle the repubs feathers? Or is this just the normal chain of events that happen and we just aren't used to it after 12 years of republican control?

jerri wrote on March 14, 2007 12:33 PM:

I'm saving my popcorn for miers. If memmory serves me right, Harriet was not very convincing when one on one with a senator. How will she hold up in a big room with lots of senators, lights, cameras, and an audience listening to her every word. Do I smell "the weakess link"

Brantl wrote on March 14, 2007 12:43 PM:

Slightly OT: doesn't anybody have a picture of Leahy where he isn't holding his hands to the sides of his head, as though it's going to explode?

KY3 Democrat wrote on March 14, 2007 12:48 PM:

Hey George,

The niceties are in place to help preserve sensibilities, but Rove et al still feel the pressure. The niceties are just the velvet glove around the steel fist; they know they can be compelled at any time.

-- KY3 Democrat: "Please come when you can, or at least breathe hard"

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 14, 2007 12:49 PM:

If Leahy is requesting documents, he should request emails from the gwb43.com and georgewbush.com domains.

As Citizen92 pointed out here yesterday, J. Scott Jennings used sjennings@gwb43.com instead of the WH domain, who.eop.gov.

The gwb43.com issue has already been picked up in an AP story.

sholom wrote on March 14, 2007 12:53 PM:

I think the reason they are trying to work out "arrangements" is that there other issues (confidentiality, advisory, etc.) vis-a-vis WH staff. The guys at DOJ can be subpoened in the blink of an eye, but WH will present a different story.

That's not to say that Leahy won't eventually subpoena them . . . but I think Leahy is trying to avoid a big fight over this for all kinds of reasono -- not the least of which is that such a fight will be time consuming, and he doesn't want the momentum here to slow down.

So, first he starts with requests, and if they don't prove satisfactory he ups the ante.

(Tangent: as for a pic of Leahy, there's one here (http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=L000174) that is public domain that TPM could use -- although that's not a great pic of him either!)

elrapierwit wrote on March 14, 2007 1:28 PM:

thread corruption
Can anyone tell me why congressional hearings are no longer on C-span and only on this C-span3? I called my cable company, Comcast, and they do not even offer C-span3 as an option. What the heck is going on here?

I love to watch these hearings and am absolutely flabbergasted about not being able to. I was soooo loooking forward to seeing these ABU-Gonzogate, hearings.

No such luck.

I suspect these are going to be even better than the Condi NSA testimony and the Anita Hill hearings.

nofltwlt wrote on March 14, 2007 1:31 PM:

I would suggest that these perps be wiretapped to see if they are fabricating a story to tell at the hearing. Why not, Bush has been doing this to "high level officials".

Specter + Patriot wrote on March 14, 2007 1:32 PM:

"settle down, people. It's customary to invite people to appear before Congress but there is nothing voluntary about it, given the alternative. All five of these will be dragging their asses over to Congress."

Zactly. A courteous invitation is the norm, but it has teeth and can't be refused without looking very guilty, which then makes a subpoena all the more righteous and the subpoenaed appear guilty before they even arrive. There's a possibility this Admin has the hubris to try and dodge it, claim some infringement of the executive or some nonsense, but they'll just look all the more guilty if they do, and really dig their own grave.

The main thing is that it's under oath, whether voluntary or not.

Specter + Patriot wrote on March 14, 2007 1:37 PM:

"If Leahy is requesting documents, he should request emails from the gwb43.com and georgewbush.com domains."

I suspect he's making the broadest possible documents requests while also staying somewhat specific so as to avoid wiggle room or "misunderstandings."

It's a game in that whatever relevant documents they don't provide may turn up later, and then they'd have given false testimony of cooperation. The cover up and all...

gjdodger wrote on March 14, 2007 1:48 PM:

Incidentally...Fred Thompson, doing his Paul Harvey sub routine, closed the show with the USA controversy. He ridiculed it, said there's nothing wrong with dismissing attorneys, brought up the Janet Reno parallel, raised the voter fraud issue without any additional explanation, and acknowledged the current Justice Dept may have made a bit of a mess by trying to cover it up even though they didn't have to. He is definitely gunning for the "What's wrong with Dubya? He's doing a great job!" GOP nomination crowd.

marty wrote on March 14, 2007 2:07 PM:

My question is...whay in the hell NOT?

They are being paid by the taxpayers, aren't they? For supposely "public business", right?

Forget the niceties of "working out a suitable" arrangement!

SUBPOENA! SUBPOENA! SUBPOENA!

Legalize wrote on March 14, 2007 2:36 PM:

This "invitation" is only a formal courtesy to give the targets a chance to come in without being dragged in. Congress does it all the time. If Miers and Rove, et al decline, they will be subpoenaed - they better be. I don't care if they assert executive privilege; that'll make them look even more cowardly.

Ultimately, the documents will tell the story, and the Bushists will have to somehow answer for them - if not under oath, then in the court of public opinion. Either way, their credibility is absolutely, double plus totally shot.

LauraF wrote on March 14, 2007 4:05 PM:

How the provision, that senate confirmation was not needed for US attorneys, got into the patriot act seems to me to be a Justice department scandal in itself. The Justice department appears to have had Spector's staff slip it into the bill without his knowledge and then shortyly thereafter appointed the staffer to be a US attorney (a very young one at that). This doesn't seem to pass the stink factor. I find it scary that this man is now in charge of enforing the law.

winona wrote on March 14, 2007 5:09 PM:

elrapierwit, it's definitely not as satisfying as watching the hearings live, but they're usually replayed on CSPAN and CSPAN2 on the weekends.

elrapierwit wrote on March 14, 2007 5:18 PM:

Thanks Winona.

More thread corruption follows:

Like you I also prefer 'realtime' coverage... as by the weekend it is 'oldnews'.

My real issue is why have the hearings been moved to C-span3 and why are cable companies not carrying that channel?

Afterall, cable is a monopoly in communities, it is not as though I can go and get C-span3 from another cable provider.

So how the heck are they able to simply not carry that cable channel.

More importantly, Congressional hearings when folks are being subpeoned by US Congress is serious national news. So how can a cable company simply decline to carry the ONLY channel offering congressional hearings?

I know this is a whine, but geez, I am ready to start a campaign against Comcast over this.

black@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 12:13 PM:

hello

witney@gmail.com wrote on May 5, 2007 11:03 PM:

hello

suse@gmail.com wrote on May 7, 2007 12:55 AM:

hello