Comments (39)

Crust wrote on March 15, 2007 11:19 AM:

Why did they postpone for a week the decision whether to subpoena Rove and Miers? Seems like a no-brainer to me.

If the shoe were on the other foot, the Republicans wouldn't hesitate on issue subpoenas. Further, they or at least their proxies in the press would be loudly calling for impeachment of the AG and prosecution for perjury, obstruction of justice, etc.

Old 33 wrote on March 15, 2007 11:20 AM:

That seems reasonable. It allows the Committee to learn what it can from the DOJ, and then the pressure will seriously mount about input from the White House.

It also keeps the story alive for at least another week.

Crust wrote on March 15, 2007 11:22 AM:

Maybe you're right, Old 33. It may be a gambit to make it harder to stonewall. then again, I would have thought we already knew more than enough to bring in the big guys.

gcs wrote on March 15, 2007 11:29 AM:

This worries me. It's Libby and Katrina all over again.

If Congress keeps the focus on Justice, which this timid list of subpoenas clearly does, then the WH gets another free pass. It allows Gonzales to fall on his sword and take all the blame. By next week the involvement of Miers and Rove will be gone right down the memory hole.

Just like Bush's declaration that he was going to "bring accountability back to Washington." I guess he didn't mean himself. Naturally.

cal1942 wrote on March 15, 2007 11:31 AM:

I agree with Old33 and Crust. If enough damaging info comes out of testimony from DOJ people, it would make it difficult for the White House to resist.

oldtree wrote on March 15, 2007 11:35 AM:

It is fascinating how timid congress is. We have grounds for impeachment that have never been seen before in the history of this country. We have watched one party destroy the constitution to control every aspect of life, selling control of same to the highest bidder.
the crimes keep mounting, but congress acts as though they don't know what to do other than just soil themselves in fear. We all ready know the entire white house staff, everyone, has been involved in obstruction of justice conspiracy to out hundreds of CIA agents and contacts, destroy all intelligence gathering in the middle east on purpose, to use the justice system to manipulate voter disenfranchisement across the country with systematic precision. What other crimes have we uncovered? who knows? Congress is just like the exu, they don't think that We, the people, have any right to know what they are, and are not doing in our name. Patrick Fitzgerald is begging Congress to subpoena him, or appoint him special prosecutor for this matter. He as told them he won't appear to offer opinion. What more do folks need to see from Mr. F? he is telling them he has the goods, put him in a position again that he can bring them to justice.

think we will ever have a rational president and congress again? I suggest we get one more chance. If this one isn't it, there is no more world. It is that time. ignoring reality is commonplace now, but if there any sane folks left, they had best speak up.

unpoetaloco wrote on March 15, 2007 11:36 AM:

What a crock! Leahy blinked.

tom wrote on March 15, 2007 11:37 AM:

I think it's a pretty good political tach to take because it extends the arc of this story past the next round of hearings. It will also increase the drumbeat to force the WH to permit Rove to testify. If Rove is subpoenaed now, the WH will invoke privilege and the court case will permit the issue to be buried. The DOJ testimony may just smoke Rove out.

Tom wrote on March 15, 2007 11:38 AM:

Or what Old 33 said.

kailuacaton wrote on March 15, 2007 11:45 AM:

comitee rules allow for for just one member to delay sopoenas for one week. Its a GOPer

EH wrote on March 15, 2007 11:45 AM:

Holy crap, how cynical. A story arc?

MikeSNJ wrote on March 15, 2007 11:46 AM:

Saw it another thread here somewheres -

The addition of new WH names at the last minute means any member of the committee could call for the week's delay.

Don't be so impatient!

Bobo wrote on March 15, 2007 11:47 AM:

The Senate rules are such that any member of the committee may ask for a 1 week postponement of a supeona. That rule is both sinister and political.

Joe Buck wrote on March 15, 2007 11:47 AM:

It's too early to say whether there was blinking involved. If the committee plans to hear from the Justice Dept. people first and the White House next, then it's fine to do things in this order, especially if the Justice people testify about White House interference. But they must follow up.

Wellstone wrote on March 15, 2007 11:48 AM:

I like it.

The longer we can stretch this out and continue to lay siege to the White House's crumbling "Executive Privilege" and "State Secrets" defenses, the better.

Let's not lose sight of the ultimate goal: TO restore balance to the balance of powers.

Bush is, as Hugo Chavez hilariously remarked, a "Political Cadaver". Now, we have to make the walking deatth spread as far as possible into his Administration.

KCinDC wrote on March 15, 2007 11:48 AM:

My initial reaction was like Crust's, but I'm coming around to Old 33's point of view. Gathering more information and extending the period of media attention is a good thing. With the media's well-known habit of being distracted by the latest shiny object (like KSM's confession to the Lindbergh kidnapping), having more news coming out next week is better.

nffcnnr wrote on March 15, 2007 11:48 AM:

i think it's a good move for the Senate to hold off on authorizing subpeonas to WH staff. Whether it's timidity or a slow-roll strategy is a fun point to theorize about. If i had to bet, it's the former. Sorry, but i'm not confident that the Dems can think 1 or 2 moves ahead. Either way, this important story has staying power, and i'm glad the Dems will hold some feet to the fire. Gonzo-gate continues...

oofda wrote on March 15, 2007 11:49 AM:

They have to wait a week if there is an objection, since they didn't put the White House names on the list in a timely manner. At this point, it is procedural.

pj wrote on March 15, 2007 11:51 AM:

It's an issue of timing, because the media is currently carrying Bushco's water by hyping the Pentagon's exceedingly well-timed release of the testimony of KSM to show how wondrous has been the WH on protecting us from terrorists (except...you know...for Bin Laden and those other guys over on the Afgan/Pakistan border, but that's not a problem right?). Once everyone sees that BU__SH___ for what it is, they will issue the WH subpoenas.

SeeDee wrote on March 15, 2007 11:55 AM:

No...we do not need this matter in the hands of P. Fitzgerald (who did a fairly reasonable job of prosecuting an open and shut case in the matter of Libby..although a lesser of all evils case) or any other Repub investigator.

We need a dyed-in-the-wool, persistent, immune from intimidation DEMOCRATIC prosecutor to get to the bottom of this DOJ mess...and it needs to be on the fast track with no passes for the WH.

chimpeach wrote on March 15, 2007 12:11 PM:

unpoetaloco: "What a crock! Leahy blinked."

Leahy didn't blink. If it were entirely up to him, Rove and Miers would have been subpoenaed already. He's not about to take any more crap from the White House. But, since those names were added to the list later, any member of the committee had the option of delaying the vote on them by a week.

I'd be willing to bet it was either Kyl or Graham. They've both been providing a lot of cover for the White House lately.

lip11 wrote on March 15, 2007 12:15 PM:

Why doesn't congress appoint a Special Prosecutor?
The republicans would have appointed one on Nov 26.
He would need a huge staff to investigate this criminal administration.

Anonymous wrote on March 15, 2007 12:20 PM:

Was Specter subpoenaed?

Dennis wrote on March 15, 2007 12:22 PM:

Leaving the White House out, is this just strategy or afraid to take the White House on?

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

aarrgghh wrote on March 15, 2007 12:24 PM:

without knowing more, it's hard to tell if this is good or bad.

if, after the week runs out, the subpoenas be further postponed, then that's bad. it will be very bad if they can be postponed indefinitely.

but if the republicans can't introduce any more procedural delays, then it's not so bad.

in any case, this keeps the white house busy for another week parading out terror suspects, instead of doing what they do best, wrecking the planet. maybe it's time for another international junket ...

kentuck wrote on March 15, 2007 12:24 PM:

One step at a time. This is the proper way to approach this investigation. The threat of jail and testifying under oath can open the eyes of even the most "partisan" sycophants. It gets very difficult to keep all the stories and lies together when under oath. The White House is already attempting to minimize this but this snowball is already rolling down the hill. It is impossible to stop at this time, in my opinion.

The truth shall set us free. However, we must sometimes struggle to get the truth. Otherwise. we will remain in bondage forever.

jill wrote on March 15, 2007 12:28 PM:

Why does Leahy need the Reps to vote for the subpoenas? I thought the majority decides who gets subpoenas.

stephen wrote on March 15, 2007 1:33 PM:

Pussies! Get Rove into the docket NOW!

Anonymous wrote on March 15, 2007 1:44 PM:

If I'm not mistaken, issuing subpoenas to White House staffers is a thornier issue b/c the committees don't necessarily have oversight over WH staffers and therefore, I'm not sure they can compel a guy like Rove to come appear. My guess is that the WH wants to avoid having to invoke exec. privilege for Miers and Kelley and could argue (although it wouldn't look good, it might be defensible) that Rove can't be compelled to testify. Obviously, it would look terrible politically, but short of doing that, they want to weigh options. Also, with the document production requested, WH attys. (I am sure) are going to look through each release very carefully and decide whether they want to assert a privilege over each and every document.

All that said, I think a lot is going to be produced, and much of it will be highly embarrasing (although I guess we're beyond that point?) to W and the crew.

stephen wrote on March 15, 2007 1:45 PM:

HOw they voted for Gonzalez when they could have stopped this train wreck:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00003

andrew wrote on March 15, 2007 1:52 PM:

seems like loyalty is a one way street. ouch.

Keith Smith wrote on March 15, 2007 1:52 PM:

The only option left for Gonzales & Bush is to "Surge," and fire more prosecutors.

Mark F. wrote on March 15, 2007 2:53 PM:

"Why did the committee hold off on subpoenas to the White House? Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) says 'It is regrettable that members of the minority blocked subpoenas for some of the White House players. They should be joining in our efforts to get to the bottom of this.'"

Arlen Specter, for one thing. That guy needs to go to hell at his earliest possible convenience.

pj wrote on March 15, 2007 3:06 PM:

On this USA scandal Specter has been so good at the game in front of the cameras that it is hard to outright call him a snake, but if one had to make a call on his record over the last 6 years it would have to be that the R after his name stands for reptile.

Mike in LA wrote on March 15, 2007 3:28 PM:

I think it's time for special prosecutors. We probably need one to look into Gonzo's lies and the USA firings and another to follow up on the Cunningham/Foggo/Wilkes etc trail. We certainly know that the DOJ won't be following up on either of these matters.

Muzzy wrote on March 15, 2007 3:50 PM:

Leahy is giving Rove a chance to volunteer his testimony. If he balks, that alone speaks volumes. Let him balk, then subpoena.

elrapierwit wrote on March 15, 2007 4:59 PM:

This hold up on subpoena's is not good.
Basically, by next week this time Gonzales will have resigned and taken the fall for all those folks not being subpoened.

The story ends there.

With new guy appointed we are all suppose to believe the problem is solved.

Schumer is already calling for Gonzo's resignation and that is more than likely the bargaining chip to forestall the subpoena's.

Give up Gonzo and no subpoena's.

Mark F. wrote on March 15, 2007 5:18 PM:

"This hold up on subpoena's is not good. Basically, by next week this time Gonzales will have resigned and taken the fall for all those folks not being subpoened."

Probably true. But fans of the "screw the Iraq resolution--let's just throw the whole lot of them in jail" approach can take heart in the fact that the Bush Administration is probably a veritable candy store of impeachability. And the Democrats are shopping... *:o)

Duckman GR wrote on March 16, 2007 1:39 AM:

Just because Heinrich Gonzales resigns won't make this go away.

And the other issue that Chuck Schumer did raise is what does this all speak of the remaining 85 USA's? How much do they all suck up to Bush, since we've got that recent data about 90 p[ercent of the political investigations done by the USA's since BushCo took over have been against Democrats.

We jsut need to keep reminding the Democrats on the committee to keep digging even if Abu Gonzales and McNulty resign. Hell, they both perjured themselves before the committee, that's a crime worthy of investigation regardless of one's employment status.