Comments (166)

jane wrote on March 22, 2007 6:38 PM:

What happens if the White House refuses?

noshrub wrote on March 22, 2007 6:41 PM:

Nice piece on Josh & the TPM gang on NPR tonight...keep it up guys. You are incredible!

Mark F. wrote on March 22, 2007 6:44 PM:

A lovely letter. Threatening yet cordial. These wolves are circling, circling...

profmarcus wrote on March 22, 2007 6:45 PM:

conyers and sanchez are playing a very tight game, one very careful step at a time... the key is going to be making sure you have the cards and, when you're called, that it's a winning hand... if congress folds, there's not going to be another game...

http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/

EasyRider wrote on March 22, 2007 6:47 PM:

How about all those that are defined by your March 9 letter? Are they a free fire zone?

owenz wrote on March 22, 2007 6:47 PM:

The White House is a caged animal right now. There is so much law breaking to be uncovered...so much scandal and ugliness...all they can do is make nutty constitutional arguments. Rove knows that once it starts - once the Dems penetrate these arguments and start pushing through subpoenas - it will only get worse. So they'll refuse to play ball until they are forced. It's the only play they have left.

JohnnyG wrote on March 22, 2007 6:47 PM:

The fact that they'll let Rove talk to Congress at all seems to negate the whole exec privilege argument, no?

Dennis wrote on March 22, 2007 6:48 PM:

"Let's talk"?!

After all of the White House stalling and lying that has taken place?!

As far as I'm concerned, the democrats just caved in.

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

Hedley Lamarr wrote on March 22, 2007 6:48 PM:

Hope the team is not going wobbly on us.

Uncle Don wrote on March 22, 2007 6:54 PM:

The fact that they'll let Rove talk to Congress at all seems to negate the whole exec privilege argument, no?
Posted by: JohnnyG

You are correct. Bush cannot assert "executive privilege" after he already has abandoned it.

[The security code for this post, appropriately, is "fear."]

Cranky Observer wrote on March 22, 2007 6:56 PM:

> How about all those that are [not] defined by your
> March 9 letter? Are they a free fire zone?

(I added "not" because that appeared to be your intent based on the rest of the paragraph).

That is why I would always add the words 'including, but not limited to, those defined by...'.

Cranky

global yokel wrote on March 22, 2007 6:59 PM:

My bet is that the Bushniks will take the risk of refusing to answer the subpoenas and force a constitutional crisis. For all practical purposes, the GOP political agenda is dead in the water; there is no way that any Republican priorities are going to be advanced in Congress, so there is really nothing else for them to do other than hunker down and fight like hyenas.

draftedin68 wrote on March 22, 2007 7:08 PM:

.

Turd Blossom and AG AG have convinced Duhhbya that he's got 4 SCOTUS votes wired and shouldn't have any problem getting another in the bag by the time they get the case.

That, or Duhhbya's just a shithead.

Or both.

.

tlsintx wrote on March 22, 2007 7:09 PM:

Just heard a terrific story on NPR about TPM and the great job this blog and it's citizen readers/writers are doing - especially on this issue. Kudos, and keep it up. You are the reason it's no longer corruption as usual for bushco.

barrelhse wrote on March 22, 2007 7:10 PM:

I can picture a traffic-jam as all these criminals from the WH head to Dulles with suitcases full of cash.
Probably gonna clear brush in Paraguay.

code: when

Mark F. wrote on March 22, 2007 7:11 PM:

Here's what I think. I think both Bush and Cheney are impeachable and probably indictable. And I think they know it. And I suspect they're trying to figure out the best way to stay in office and out of jail right now. And they both know that this is an extremely delicate balancing act. If they push Congress hard enough, they could get what they want. On the other hand, if they push too hard, the gloves come off and people start going for broke. That's what I think. And in that spirit, I hope Bush digs in and really acts like a jackass.

I'll be happy when he's out of office, but I'd be much happier of Nancy Pelosi became America's first woman president.

Anonymous wrote on March 22, 2007 7:16 PM:

"As far as I'm concerned, the democrats just caved in."
Have some faith, Conyers and Sanchez are about the last two congressmen you can expect to cave in. This is their battle.

Madame Lefarge wrote on March 22, 2007 7:18 PM:

So much criminality, so many malefactors, but only one guillotine.
Ahh! I wish I knew how to knit.
But I could fake it, I suppose.
Who's selling tickets?

Mark F. wrote on March 22, 2007 7:19 PM:

By the way, let's keep in mind that for at least several years now, Chairman Conyers has been seriously looking into the possibility of impeachment. Anyone who doesn't believe he's carving his knife right now hasn't been paying attention to what he's been saying for the past few years.

Mimikatz wrote on March 22, 2007 7:27 PM:

What about under oath at a public hearing but not televised. Then it can;t be called a "show trial."

Mark F. wrote on March 22, 2007 7:31 PM:

"What about under oath at a public hearing but not televised."

How about in Las Vegas, in a boxing ring? I think that'd be a lot more to my liking.

epv wrote on March 22, 2007 7:38 PM:

Congressional Democrats are behaving like children terrified of their Republican parents in the White House. This is absurd.

Of course, Congress has the full right of oversight of the White House, despite what Herr Tony Snow vomits (that Congress has no oversight) on behalf of George "Hitler" Bush and Karl "Joseph Goebbles" Rove.

The U.S. Constitution provides provisions for such oversight-- as they are given the power to impeach the president. Executive privilege is not designed to let the president behave as a dictator- i.e. Bush cannot break the law with impunity; nor can he legally cover-up crimes committed by his toadies; and, he cannot act outwith the laws passed by Congress.

Rove, Gonzales and their mouth-pieces are enables the dim-wit in the Oval Office to defy our system of checks-and-balances.

Encourage your congress-persons to demand that the subpoenas be issued to Rove, Miers, Gonzales, et. al. and that all hearings be conducted under oath and in public with proper transcripts (not the ludicrous behind closed-doors, no transcript, no oath, and no follow-up)-- and, if they are found to have lied or being lying, that they be prosecuted for treason.

It's time to call the bluff of these neo-con bully-boys... They are despicable and the entire Bush cabal deserves to be impeached!

Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rove, Gonzales, et. al. are traitors.

Marky wrote on March 22, 2007 7:39 PM:

Some are worried that a court fight over subpoenas might not come up a winner. It seems to me that so much information is coming out already that a resolute but not too fast push forward with what Congress can get without a court fight will cause the political will to oppose subpoenas to die.

linda wrote on March 22, 2007 7:41 PM:

re the dems and 'let's talk'.

being generous, i can make the case that the democrats can't do anything to appear unyielding and unreasonable -- at least at this stage. so they offer fielding another opportunity to negotiate; the white house is on notice that subpeonas are next. the dems appear to be doing what they can to avoid the confrontation by going the extra step to encourage dialogue.

notice that much of the press chatter is starting to pick up the rnc meme of democrats overreaching. they're portrayed as licking their chops at the opportunity to get at the white house -- it's political payback. that's why the above cautious approach in the beginning is important.

JohnnyG wrote on March 22, 2007 7:42 PM:

Let's hope Conyers and Sanchez are giving them just enough rope to hang themselves.

Ken Riley wrote on March 22, 2007 7:45 PM:

The Democrats are playing from a position of great strength here. All they have to do is threaten to impeach Gonzales if Rove and Miers won't testify in public and under oath. Either the WH agrees and we get the testimony or they don't and at least Rove would be compelled to testify under oath during the impeachment proceedings. (Miers has a strong attorney-client privilege claim that would probably make it impossible to force her to testify.)

Cheryl wrote on March 22, 2007 7:46 PM:

What a sweet little letter to Mr. Fielding.

Bush has basically said "*uck you" to the Dems, thus Dems are responding by saying "now Bush, don't get upset, we're sorry".

House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers is acting as if, with a little Bush stroking, he get what under-the-table favor he's seeking. Conyers is like Charlie Rangle pushing the draft bill, there something really ugly about his toying with the subpeona powers.

Conyers is playing a political game with Bush, thus making Bush right, this is political - it's wasn't a game to the fired attorneys but now Conyers is going use their misery to further his own private, nasty agenda, whatever it is.

You don't play around with threats of subpoenas, unless your a nasty, unethical congress member, playing political games for favors.

Jeff wrote on March 22, 2007 7:48 PM:

Folks...

As much as I hate the Bush Administration, and would love to see them brought down hard and fast, in this case it really does behoove the Congress to move carefully and deliberately.

One issue that a lot of people seem to be missing here is that despite what we think of it, the President (via the AG) has the right to appoint (and request the resignation of) US Attorneys at his discretion and for any reason. Under the law, that can include political ones or the fact he doesn't like the tie they wore on the telly. That may not be fair but it IS the law.

(The issue regarding confirmation of appointments is a seperate one in this case)

Despite being handled as abysmally as every other cockup this admin has touched, in this case, there does not appear to be an impeachable offense on the part of the President (as to other members of the admin, notably the AGs office, I will hold my decision on that until the facts are in).

Clearly, the Democrats and some republicans would like to get more transparency on this matter, however IN THIS CASE, the club of impeachment is not one that can be wielded.

Now, if they cannot reach an agreement that at least involves transcripted testimony under oath, I would love to see the Congress use a weapon it does have, namely start defunding Administration offices one by one.. For example, lets say reducing the budget for the 'Office of the Vice President' to $1.

djcrow22 wrote on March 22, 2007 7:49 PM:

Mark F. in regards to your hope for Pres. Pelosi, please explain her instantly caving to demands from AIPAC to drop the language for congressional approval for invading Iran from recent legislation.
I understand compromise is necessary but she really caved on this...

Anonymous wrote on March 22, 2007 7:51 PM:

Jeff, one problem with your argument is that on the face of it, the firings appear to have been made without Bush's knowledge, let along approval.
There are emails which talk about whether to inform Bush of the firings, and there are no notes from the WH showing Bush knew.
It's unclear what this means. My take is that the WH is neglecting their legal obligation to keep written records: Bush knew, but only in a Monica way (orally).

OhSnap! wrote on March 22, 2007 7:54 PM:

Jeff -- awesome regarding, "Now, if they cannot reach an agreement that at least involves transcripted testimony under oath, I would love to see the Congress use a weapon it does have, namely start defunding Administration offices one by one.. For example, lets say reducing the budget for the 'Office of the Vice President' to $1."

Darth Shooter would short circuit if that happened.

I am not sure about this Admin not committing impeachable offenses. I agree that the "case" is much more in the gray area than anything else because NO ONE of relevance in that Admin testifies under oath.

No oath = no "lying" = shaky grounds for impeachment.

OhSnap!

Cheryl wrote on March 22, 2007 7:54 PM:

The way to do this is first to subpeona the Bush aids - THAN see if Bush wants to negotiate, but threatening a subpeona - know full well that Bush isn't going to compromise in least, is the Dems biggest stupidest Achilles heel – it’ll give Bush another time to convince the public that Dems really were just acting politically.

Andrew Foland wrote on March 22, 2007 8:02 PM:

Several people are complaining about the "let's talk" aspect of this.

In U.S. v. Nixon laying out the limits of executive privilege, one of the requirements is that the two branches have made a good-faith effort to come to an agreement.

Conyers is ticking off the box so he'll win the court battle. Don't worry that he's going wobbly.

cjop wrote on March 22, 2007 8:04 PM:

A question; not a comment. How about cutting funding for some of their pet projects/corporate breaks? Congress still has the power of the purse doesn't it? Starve them out.

pointus wrote on March 22, 2007 8:07 PM:

I recall the rabid repug response & the quashing of the Conyers report of January 5, 2005 -- http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/010605Y.shtml -- which challenged the results of the 2004 Ohio election. Conyers knows full well that turdblossom was behind the mass disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of voters in Democratic-leaning & minority precincts which handed kept the white house in bushco's grubby hands. I would be very surprised if Congressman Conyers just rolls over for these traitors occupying the white house.

cjop wrote on March 22, 2007 8:08 PM:

Sorry Jeff. Should have read down the page.

EH wrote on March 22, 2007 8:15 PM:

Come on Jeff, give up on the "pleasure of the President" garbage. That bit is so dead it's not even funny. The firings wouldn't even be an issue anymore if that was still the controlling rationale. Rove and Miers wouldn't be the subject of a compromise and there wouldn't be subpoenas in the offing. It's just ridiculous at this point to even assert that this is just a matter of Presidential privilege. The pleasure of the President isn't absolute and is eminently out the window if the USAs were fired with the goal of obstructing investigations, about which there is enough smoke to be looking for fire.

oppositionradio wrote on March 22, 2007 8:15 PM:

what a surprise to catch my first destination for up to the minute news - TPM on NPR this afternoon - excellent job.

Now lets get to the bottom of the San Diego business and Duncan Hunters involvement with Wade, Mitchell, Lewis, Cunningham, MZM and Foggo ... Hunter is hiding in the haze of the battle over Lam with Issa running the smear campaign on Lam.

Mark wrote on March 22, 2007 8:18 PM:

To all those who are claiming that Democrats are moving too fast:

The issue isn't that it was illegal for the president to completely turn the justice department into another extension of the right wing party. Obviously it is terrible, but most of the followers of this case realize it is legal.

What the subpoenas are necessary for, but can not yet be uttered by congressional officials since they will be called partisan witch hunters is:

1. They almost certainly lied to congress about the reasons for firings. Almost, all of the administration's explanations for the firings came after the scandal erupted and they were playing catch up. If you are following the e-mails, some of the USA's performance wasn't even reviewed prior to the purge. Lying to congress is a felony lest we forget.

2. The reasons for the firings was to either punish USA's that weren't prosecuting trumped up charges against Dems (Iglesias) or for investigating corruptions that would go too deep (Lam). This is obstruction of justice and is also a felony. The White House almost certainly played a role in the firings (16 day gap)and my guess is the missing puzzle piece almost certainly rests within this gap.

3. It forces Bush to admit that he played a role in the firings, which he has thus far denied. If he did, then he was lying but he could assert executive privilege. If he didn't have a role, there can be no assertion of executive privilege since there wasn't advice being given.

Right now the "smoking gun" doesn't exist in public, but the administration knows it exists in what they are hiding. That is why they are refusing to allow Rove and Miers to testify. It is either Perjury, impeachment, or both if they do. Subpoenas are the only way to get to the truth.

Unless there is, at the very least, an oath and a transcript, there is no accountability and Bush knows it. Public perception will be irrelevant once the truth emerges and Bush is shown for what he is. That is why Democrats must fight with all they have. Some press members are catching on (Ed Henry). Just because the rest of the MSM hasn't caught on yet, doesn't mean they won't eventually. I may only be 22 but I am sure there was initial skepticism when Watergate initially broke. The good fight must be fought.

Steve Gibson wrote on March 22, 2007 8:21 PM:

As stated on Countdown last night, testimony without a transcript isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

FatKat wrote on March 22, 2007 8:39 PM:

There is a bigger question here...
Bear with me on this, there is a relationship between the wire tapping reversal, and the US attorneys being fired which needs to be addressed.

1. Judges that Bush put in the Supreme Court, they too have the "company man" train of thought, who over sees their views? and what if any, if they are involved in the overturning of cases that are in favor of the WH? What if any, can be done, if their hand is in the cookie jar, also?

I am concerned about what influence, if any, these judges may have, if any, and not a loyal oath to the US Constitution, versus protecting the WH?

I again, state this question because if the show down regarding the subpoenas with Rove, etc the whole thing may end up at the Superior Court with the same judges that Bush put in place. A part of a larger game plan.

Any thoughts?

Birch Bayh wrote on March 22, 2007 8:42 PM:

"Let's talk"?!

"After all of the White House stalling and lying that has taken place?!

As far as I'm concerned, the democrats just caved in.

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

I would suggest ceasing the hyperventilation. Conyers and Sanchez are operating from a position of strength. They know full well that the administration does not want to act in good faith, and do not want to concede ground in the battle of public perception over subponeas. The White House wants to appear as if it were acting reasonably, offering what it has been requested of it, while offering nothing substantive. Congressional Democrats would be silly to react in a way that would be perceived as vindictive and angry. Democrats want the subpoenas to be the end result of a boring, emotionless, and inevitable process. They have to offer a "deal" to the President before issuing the actual subponas. This "deal" would be the equivalent of that the President just offered to Congress: Screw you, this is on our terms. But beneath the genteel courtesy of public statements issued by congressional leaders lies the reality of who possesses the higher ground. Quite simply, congressional Democrats hold the nuts, and the Bush administration are holding rags. Rove et. al. know this, and are stalling for time. Don't ever think old school stalwarts like Conyers have forgotten how the GOP treated them when they were in power. Again, Democrats are in a position of strength, there is no reason to appear angry or punitive. You don't want to give the conservative media thermostat an emotional argument for defending the administration.

r flanagan wrote on March 22, 2007 8:50 PM:

Don't get mad , get even. That's what Conyers - and Leahy- are doing.

epv wrote on March 22, 2007 8:55 PM:

Birch Bayh (March 22, 2007 08:42 PM)

You make excellent points. But, one issue which the MSM has not reported, and is not being discussed concerns me:--

The Bushies keep repeating that the U.S. Attorneys "serve at the pleasure of the president". Even Bush has said that he had the right to fire the U.S. Attorneys & put new ones to replace them... But, and this is my question:-- Bush did not follow standard practice, i.e. after replacing them, the new appointees should have been submitted to the Senate for confirmation. Instead, Bush and Gonzales used the "Patriot Act"-- which is designed to be used in emergency situations, in cases of national security. Where was the emergency situation or national security scare herein?

Moreover, having lied repeatedly on the reasons for firing the existing U.S. Attorneys (which appears to be because they either prosecuted Republican criminals like Duke Cunningham and/or refused to make public sealed-indictments in the case of David Iglesias), then there is a question of stepping over-the-line on interferring with the justice system in a manner which is unethical, if not illegal.

The point about circumventing the Senate confirmation process seems to be entirely ignored, and this seems relevant, since it demonstrates a wanton abuse of power.

J. Thomason wrote on March 22, 2007 8:55 PM:

Remember the email refer to a "plan" to fire the USAs. We still don't know what the plan was. It surely involved an understanding on the now repealed Patriot Act provision.

CaseyL wrote on March 22, 2007 8:55 PM:

Why do people here think Conyers and Leahy caved?

Fielding is the White House guy; his letter is the White House position. And the Dems said no, very clearly. They voted for subpeonas.

Now they're saying, in effect, that's a nice little bargaining position you have there, Bush; it'd be a real shame if anything happened to it. Like, if we had to actually subpeona everyone's ass.

midwestblue wrote on March 22, 2007 9:12 PM:

I believe Democrats are going to have Kyle Sampson under oath next Thursday. As more and more people step forward and testify, Bush's case will look weaker and weaker. Meanwhile, Conyers and Leahy have some nicely folded subpoenas in their pockets, and from what Leahy said on t.v. tonight, some surprises waiting in the wings.

SteveMcGarrett wrote on March 22, 2007 9:24 PM:

Conyers is not caving. I'm waiting to hear what Gonzales' former chief of staff Kyle Sampson will have to say. When he talks, the pressure will mount for Rove and Miers to testify.

Birch Bayh wrote on March 22, 2007 9:35 PM:

Re: epv

You are precisely right about the importance of the provision quietly inserted into the Patriot Act renewal. I'm personally curious to know if the missing email correspondence within the "gap" relates to that very provision. Right now the line is that some aide or staffer inserted it without anybody noticing. It's going to be very interesting who made that happen if the provision is found to be closely tied to the firings. But all that comes out after the careful and correctly conducted matter of issuing subpoenas and boxing in the administration officials in sworn testimony.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on March 22, 2007 9:38 PM:

Like eighteen wheelers, furnances and industrial document/media shredders haven't been permanent fixtures at the White House since early November 2006.

draftedin68 wrote on March 22, 2007 9:42 PM:

.

Leahy is wobbly like a fox.

He was just on KO's Countdown and I'm betting that he's got some good shit just waiting in the wings.

I think Duhhbya, Dick, AG AG and Karl know that Leahy's got some (all?) of the goods on them and they're as nervous as a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs.

It takes a good two feet to make a proper hangman's knowt - Leahy's just feeding them some rope.

.

kozmik wrote on March 22, 2007 10:03 PM:

The way I see it, good move by Conyers. Either the Admin buckles tomorrow or it's subpoena time. I had hoped they'd move quicker, but I do see the need for caution and do see them closing in...

I guess we'll know how well they did by the results in the end. Frankly, they better do well.

They can't let the admin stonewall and slow-walk too much, enabling cover up, but he also has to give them a little rope to hang themselves, allow a chance to cooperate to make refusal all the more damning.

They need the high ground if Bush decides to make this into a constitutional fight, which seems increasingly likely.

Still, the Bush admin has delayed for a week now. Times up. Subpoena if they don't cooperate by tomorrow, and with all the delaying the Admin better be especially cooperative.

Anonymous wrote on March 22, 2007 10:08 PM:

"Why do people here think Conyers and Leahy caved?"

It's either trolling from the far right or some on the left who have especially high expectations. Some people always say that.

joby wrote on March 22, 2007 10:14 PM:

Jeff- the crime is Obstruction of Justice; the White House intervened to affect the outcome of legal proceedings to the detriment of the People (see page A1 of the WashPo today - lovely little story about how Justice intervened to lower a landmark settlement against Big Tobacco from 230BN to 10BN. I'd say that's somewhat detrimental to the People, wouldn't you?)

Not to mention stalling in the N.H. phone jamming scandal; interrupting Carol Lam's investigation that looked like it was leading to the OVP, etc...

Richard L. Adlof wrote on March 22, 2007 10:24 PM:

Justice takes time. Winning in the court of public opinion while enacting justice requires grace and civility; planning and forethought.

This is not just about fucking these bastards into the dirt . . . It is about the death of Republican Party ideology as well as delivering punishment. SO kick and enjoy the drama unfold.

michael wrote on March 22, 2007 10:47 PM:

Conyers did not cave, neither did Leahy. I just hope we can at least stop this criminal Junta, unfortunatley I fear it's too late. No matter, better to go down fighting than to be extinguised without a peep.

Josh and staff, thank you so much for TPM. I first stumbled upon your site when reading bartcop.com and have been a loyal reader for over 3 years.

I have your google gadget on my custom home page. My co workers and friens wonder why I alwys days ahead on real news. My secret TPM. THE NYT and Seattle Times now line my cat's litter box.

bob wrote on March 22, 2007 10:48 PM:

I'd rather just fuck them into the dirt, my prefernce really.

my word is 'glove'

Mark Richards wrote on March 22, 2007 10:53 PM:

A nice letter.

Should I commit, say, a crime, I do hope that - rather than a nocturnal visit by the sheriff with a pair of leg irons - one of these arrives instead.

"We'd like to come to an agreement", it would say, "where everyone will come out a winner".

Of course, what Conyers and others are going for right now is the small stuff. All the tough talk - subpoenas - which would have to be (insert laugh track here) enforced by the "justice" department, is just a prelude for the very good stuff soon to follow.

Once in the hot seat - and the mal-administration well knows this - they are fair game for everything else. It matters not which road Conyers takes. The destinations are all to the same place - a place wreaking in crime and corruption, and ending in a jail cell.

Come into my lair, said the spider to the fly. The fly would come if it were as innocent and upright as this mal-administration claims.

This mal-administration resists not for principle, but to keep itself from being ripped apart by truth. It's a true joy, every day, to watch as the truth of their incompetence and corruption, little by little, catches up with the whole stinking lot of them. And what better treat than to finally see their bullshit claim of "we will make our own reality" crumble.

I am clearly not alone in wanting Conyers to blow the dust off his famous impeachment case and get on with it. All in good time. He's building the case right now.

mayan wrote on March 22, 2007 11:00 PM:

"team is caving in"...Pat Leahy, speaking to Arlen Specter, did not look like a dude that was "caving in." I would not want to face that guy (and be named Dick Cheney).

Legalize wrote on March 22, 2007 11:03 PM:

"You are correct. Bush cannot assert "executive privilege" after he already has abandoned it."

Forgive me if this has already been addressed; this is a long thread and I am tired.

I don't think that permitting ROve and Miers to "talk" to the committees, without being sworn, would waive the privilege. By permitting Rove and Miers to speak to Congress WITHOUT being under oath, he has not waived the executive privilege, because in order to waive any privilege one must do so by action of law, i.e. submitting some sort of sworn testimony or document, or other evidentiary matter, because absent that, said matter is not admissible as evidence - that is the whole point of not permitting Rove and Miers to be sworn.

Example: the attorney/client privilege is not waived if the attorney accidentally submits otherwise privleged material to the other side in the discovery process. HOWEVER, once that material has been brought to the attention of the attorney, she must immediately assert the privilege or it is forever lost vis that material, because absent that, the material instantly becomes a part of the record and may be submitted as evidence, if it otherwise qualifies as such, i.e. it is relevant to the proceedings.

I think here if Bush permitted Rove to take a sworn deposition or to submit an affidavit, the privilege would be then waived relative to that matter. In other words, it would not necessarily be lost relative to OTHER matters.

The judicary committees are all represented by counsel - good counsel. They know full well that they better have something on Rove, Meirs, et al if they want to make a viable legal case when this thing gets kicked around in federal court - which it will. The White House has the benefit of counsel, Mr. Fielding. He knows this as well, and he would be a fool to permit Rove and Meirs to trot up to the Hill and be sworn; he knows the committees have information that will be damning to his clients, but the only way for that information could be effective is if it is presented to impeach the sworn statements of the witnesses.

The White House knows that its only play here is to draw out the process and hope that (a) the president's term expires before the issue is settled (which I don't think will happen, but it's possible); or (b) the federal courts will see it their way when the time comes (which I also don't think will happen, in light of precedent).

My guess is that the subpeonas drop on Rove and Miers; they will be refused; they will be held in contempt of Congress, thereby sparking the process in federal court; GOnzales will resign shortly thereafter, along with McNulty and whomever else is necessary to effectively make the issue moot - one of those people being Rove himself.

The Committees will then back off.

Of course, new information could come to light that throws this whole thing in another direction, or which accelerates the process. Either way, the best the WH can hope for is that the clock runs out.

Richsul wrote on March 22, 2007 11:03 PM:

Impeach Gonzo then all exec privilage arguments go out the window. Impeachement is a constitutional encroachment into any idea of executive prilvage.

John Steinberg wrote on March 22, 2007 11:11 PM:

One of the most interesting things about this snafu is the fact that some of the key emails that have surfaced used non-WH email addresses. Like this one between Sampson and Jennings where both parties are using GWB43.com email accounts.

Why doesn't Conyers subpoena the GWB43.com servers? I'd love to read the brief arguing for executive privilege for emails between two staffers (that is, communications that do not involve the President) using non-governmental email accounts.

TPM is driving a huge story, and you guys deserve all the kudos you are getting. Keep on keepin' on.

Kathy wrote on March 22, 2007 11:13 PM:

I read as much of this blog as I could stand. So much suspicion and hatred. It's like reading the exact same words regurgitated by dozens of people. Creepy. Not many posts disagreeing with the idea that there's a smoking gun somewhere that we don't know about yet. Isn't transparency the latest talking point? If there is a smoking gun, they should have exposed it by now. I don't think they have a smoking gun, they just want to publicly grill these people into forgeting or confusing some little detail so they can indict them for obstruction. They've lost all credibility, as far as I'm concerned... Unless...of course, that's it! We're not smart enough to understand what's going on. So, for our own good, they'll just SAY one exists so we can go back to our puny, insignificant lives satisfied that we've been informed.

(Bull spit!) This is a witch hunt, pure and simple.

Mooser wrote on March 22, 2007 11:15 PM:

Nice to know that TPM got a positive mention on NPR. When I heard "All Things Considered" this morning, the only thing NPR was considering was the WH line, as explained by the WH crew. "It's all a partisan witch-hunt" seemed to be the line NPR was pushing.

Legalize wrote on March 22, 2007 11:30 PM:

Kathy, I know you've absorbed all of the right wing talking points floating around the ether and you have regurgitated them marginally competently. Kudos for that. The big problem with your "argument," i.e. the apparant lack of a "smoking gun," thereby rendering the investigation a "witch hunt," is entirely misplaced and disingenuous, as "smoking guns" don't just materialize WITHOUT AN INVESTIGATION.

The argument that there is no evidence because it hasn't been discovered is the silliest of all of the fallacies I've heard to date. "Evidence" is obtained through discovery and investigation. This is the most fundamental element of our legal process, and has been since Merry old England.

If you think our time-honored and well-established legal process rises to the level of a "witch hunt," you are more than welcome to move to any number of backward states that permit the legal process to be infiltrated and corrupted by unchecked executive authority, and be a party to actual "witch hunts" first-hand.

Jim wrote on March 22, 2007 11:38 PM:

THE NEXT DOJ SCANDAL is Brewing. The DOJ is trying to get Abramoff*s sentence reduced on the ruse that he was a great help in the investigation of others. How can we believe that the DOJ was not instrcuted to get Abramoff out by the Political wing of the GOP ?????

phil james wrote on March 23, 2007 12:11 AM:

Jim

Exactly. The entire Justice Department will be suspect until Jan 2009 (or until certain persons within unprecedented, let's call them imperial, prerogatives get run out of town on a rail).

Dennis wrote on March 23, 2007 12:17 AM:

Posted by Kathy; "Isn't transparency the latest talking point?"

Transparency is always a talking point.

Unfortunately, nothing in the Bush administration has been transparent for the length of the Bush White House which has brought us to where we are today.

Things are so bad that even Republicans who once supported Bush no longer do so.

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

Robert L wrote on March 23, 2007 12:34 AM:

Jeff:
You're a little too cautious about saying there's no impeachable offense in the matter of the US attorneys. If anyone in the WH had took part in trying to influence, pressure, or threaten a US attorney with regard to their actions in a case, then they committed the crime of misprision of felony, that felony being obstruction of justice. This is about the most serious offense, short of treason, that one could commit, because it strikes at the most fundamental requirement of governance- to uphold the rule of law. This is so serious, that any involvement, be it conspiring to commit or abetting this crime, or even having knowledge of it, is prosecutable as a felony. If it is proved the president even knew about, much less participated in the firing of these US attorneys, or in suborning them to undertake prosecutions for political ends, he's done, and it'll happen so fast it'll make Nixon's exit look like a marathon dance contest.

dboza wrote on March 23, 2007 1:15 AM:

Hey what's with the period of missing transmissions? Are they hiring staff from the "Rosemary Wood's Secretarial School" ?

chuck wrote on March 23, 2007 1:23 AM:

I hope Bush digs in and really acts like a jackass.

Always a safe bet . . .

chuck wrote on March 23, 2007 1:28 AM:

Yes, the president has the right to appoint federal prosecutors, but no, the president does NOT have a right to obstruct justice, nor do any of his appointees - that's what it comes down to.

Obstructing justice by . . . firing prosecutors who are prosecuting cases politically damaging to him, having subordinates go in front of Congress and change their story with each visit, etc. It's really not all that hard.

authority_stealing wrote on March 23, 2007 1:44 AM:

OMG, if this is the issue that does the trick on impeachment, Marshall and Fitz oughta run for the Whitehouse in 2008.

Either that, or start a new network with Stewart, Colbert, Olbermann and the firedog crew!!!

Check out the page 1 article in WaPo tomorrow, dearies. Very timely.

Douglas Watts wrote on March 23, 2007 1:45 AM:

Jeff, among the thousands of problems with your stated argument, one of them is it is wrong. You seem to think that laws are guidelines, suggestions and recommendations. Good luck with that.

Kathryn wrote on March 23, 2007 1:55 AM:

How can Bush claim "executive privilege" when he supposedly wasn't involved in the firings? Karl & Harriet spoke to other people, not Bush. Or did they?

Paul S. wrote on March 23, 2007 3:41 AM:

Once upon a time a wise old bull was grazing quietly on a hillside when a young bull ran up to him. "Hey, Pops," said the young bull. "You see those heifers down there? Well, I'm gonna run down and shag me one of them."

"Okay," said the old bull. "If that's what you want to do, go ahead."

"What's the matter?" asked the young bull. "Ain't you gonna do that, or are you not up to it?"

"No, son," said the old bull. "I'm gonna *walk* down there, and shag all of them."

John Conyers is a very wise old bull, and he's
walkin'.

Michael wrote on March 23, 2007 9:39 AM:

Folks,

Be prepared for a deluge of Kathy's and freeps. The best thing to do is to completley ignore the wingnuttery. I've seen this on numerous boards. TPM will get more wingnuts, all we can do is ignore 'em. They are trolling and if you respond, they win. They win by your engagment in their game.
Just don't play. I know it's tough and it will get tougher. They are doing all they can to push emotional buttons. Kathys "post" is a perefect example.
I know for a fact that PR firms hire trolls as I'm sure some of you folks in DC know this.

Never argue with a fool.

RWN wrote on March 23, 2007 10:38 AM:

Missing the bigger points. Overnight I received word that is now discussed on the cable news that committees have intelligence from life time staffers at Justice and US Attorney's offices about abjunct abuse and possible obstruction in pending cases. The committees are playing from a position of strength and know and want more testimony on the record regarding the political systemic trail that leads to the Oval Office.

This is no parlor game I am told. This goes to a great many offices and in DC as how political the AG and USAttorney's were run.

Furthermore there is a conflict in that on testimony is the basis that Bush himself was not briefed on the specifics of the firings (or actions alluded above) the same defense Nixon and Reagan used, so exec privalege does not hold water as that there is no advice and counsel.

The cover up is where it begins as usual. Look for a stormy spring and explosive summer. As this goes forward watch the GOP Senators get picked off one by one as they see the abjunct corruption of the government.

Drits'n'Dravy wrote on March 23, 2007 10:46 AM:

I see in an article in The Hill today that no action on the subpoenas is expected until after the Easter recess (ends April 13).

I suspect that behind the scenes, members of the judiciary committees are hearing from people who don't necessarily want to be identified in the press but who want to help.

What do folks think may be happening?

AngryAmerican wrote on March 23, 2007 11:29 AM:

I only saw a few comments that I think are in the right ballpark here. I was wondering why the subpeonas for Rove and others were not being delivered right away until I saw what Leahy had to say last night on Olbermann.

He basically made the point that it is in the administration's best interest that Karl and Miers testify early on in the process before a lot of the story is flushed out by other testimony. So it is actually a very smart thing that they hold the subpeonas in their back pocket, pull up Sampson and Gonzo, and start getting some of the story out on the record (of course we all know Gonzo already commited purgery a couple weeks ago, and it's bound to get even better this time). The pressure will build as time goes on and more information comes out. It's also very interresting to me that both Schumer and Leahy have made comments in both of the past two days about "information dripping out of DOJ" as this drags out. It certainly makes one wonder just what they know, or suspect will happen once sworn testimony starts to accumulate.

Pompano Pete wrote on March 23, 2007 12:23 PM:

We know what this is all about. The American people don't, yet. What is happening is a very important civics lesson, and we need the public to see that our position is fair, reasonable, legal and necessary. Bush's is using the only, and I mean only, defense he's got - scream witch hunt, partisanship, political posturing. And based upon how our government has operated these past 12 disgusting years, many people will believe it.

We must show them that this investigation is none of those things, and do so in a way that even the Fox News audience understands.

Jeff wrote on March 23, 2007 12:44 PM:

Havent read all the way down yet, so if someone already responded..

If Bush simply said to Gonzalez Attorneys are your problem, handle it, that is sufficient under the law... Other than that, he'll just be handed stuff to sign and in most cases won't really look at it. Scary, but legally sound.

Re: "Jeff, one problem with your argument is that on the face of it, the firings appear to have been made without Bush's knowledge, let along approval.
There are emails which talk about whether to inform Bush of the firings, and there are no notes from the WH showing Bush knew."

Jeff wrote on March 23, 2007 1:01 PM:

A few notes and one reply..

Regarding the several persons who indicated Obstruction of Justice.

I agree this is certainly a possibility. Maybe even likely. And if provable to a reasonable level certainly bears further investigation. But as several people have alluded to, we have smoke, no fire. Not one of the USA's has come out point blank and said that The President or someone directly reportable to him (i.e. the AG) has interfered, and that interference seems to have come from members of Congress and other echelons of the DoJ. This is certainly reasonable grounds to subpoena those individuals and their aides and information gained from that may certainly lead further up the food chain.

But from a legal standpoint, you don't go into a pitched court battle unless you are pretty sure you have the ammo to win, and everything I've seen does not point to a slam dunk win here. And the dangers of losing are too great to take that chance. AngryAmerican pegged it, I think, have the subpoenas available but don't pull out the cannon till ya run out of smaller arms, which might just increase the potency of said cannon.

Remember the core issue here is not that the attorney's were asked to resign. Under the law, again, the Executive Branch may ask so at any time for any reason. That CANNOT be made a legal argument in favor of subpoenas. ONLY corroboratible proof of a concurrent offense would really be of use in a court battle. Personally, I think we'll find it, but we haven't yet.

Now as to "Jeff, among the thousands of problems with your stated argument, one of them is it is wrong. You seem to think that laws are guidelines, suggestions and recommendations. Good luck with that."

Which law do you think I feel is a guideline. I addressed one area of law, the one that deals with the appointment and resignation of attorneys and that is exactly as I stated above, namely (pre-patriot act, which is a whole nother issue), Congress had the power of advice and consent on appointments but NOT resignations...

Dab wrote on March 23, 2007 1:04 PM:

Libby can't remember. Bush can't remember. Gonzales can't remember. Must be something in the water at the executive branch.

Dab wrote on March 23, 2007 1:08 PM:

Posting at the same time Jeff.

"But from a legal standpoint, you don't go into a pitched court battle unless you are pretty sure you have the ammo to win, and everything I've seen does not point to a slam dunk win here."

Great point and one that's been going over and over in my mind. Congress has got to be prepared.

larra@gmail.com wrote on April 29, 2007 11:42 AM:

Generic Viagra. Buy Generic Viagra

monyka@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 3:41 PM:

hello

larra@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 4:21 AM:

hello

tonny@gmail.com wrote on May 7, 2007 5:30 AM:

hello

tonny@gmail.com wrote on May 7, 2007 5:31 AM:

hello

Jonglly wrote on May 13, 2007 10:16 PM:

Before buying generic viagra read this.
I've got new info about [url=http://us-viagra.us]generic viagra[/url] and share with you.

how to last longer in sex wrote on June 5, 2007 10:45 AM:

herbals@drugs.com

how to make sex last longer wrote on June 5, 2007 12:36 PM:

herbals@drugs.com

last longer at sex wrote on June 5, 2007 2:45 PM:

herbals@drugs.com

last longer sex wrote on June 5, 2007 4:24 PM:

herbals@drugs.com

last longer wrote on June 5, 2007 6:36 PM:

herbals@drugs.com

ways to last longer in bed wrote on June 5, 2007 8:53 PM:

herbals@drugs.com

best penis enlargement wrote on June 5, 2007 10:25 PM:

herbals@drugs.com

free penis enlargement wrote on June 6, 2007 2:20 AM:

herbals@drugs.com

penis enlargement pills wrote on June 6, 2007 4:35 AM:

herbals@drugs.com

penis enlargement pump wrote on June 6, 2007 6:05 AM:

herbals@drugs.com

penis enlargement wrote on June 6, 2007 7:29 AM:

herbals@drugs.com

real penis enlargement wrote on June 6, 2007 8:56 AM:

herbals@drugs.com

alternative viagra wrote on June 6, 2007 10:38 AM:

herbals@drugs.com

herbal alternative viagra wrote on June 6, 2007 12:25 PM:

herbals@drugs.com

herbal viagra alternative wrote on June 6, 2007 2:16 PM:

herbals@drugs.com

herbal viagra wrote on June 6, 2007 3:56 PM:

herbals@drugs.com

natural alternative to viagra wrote on June 6, 2007 5:42 PM:

herbals@drugs.com

alternative cialis wrote on June 6, 2007 7:47 PM:

herbals@drugs.com

how can men last longer during sex wrote on June 6, 2007 11:27 PM:

herbals@drugs.com

how to last longer at sex wrote on June 7, 2007 1:11 AM:

herbals@drugs.com

how to last longer in bed wrote on June 7, 2007 2:53 AM:

herbals@drugs.com

how to last longer in sex wrote on June 7, 2007 4:18 AM:

herbals@drugs.com

how to make sex last longer wrote on June 7, 2007 5:50 AM:

herbals@drugs.com

last longer at sex wrote on June 7, 2007 7:26 AM:

herbals@drugs.com

last longer sex wrote on June 7, 2007 9:11 AM:

herbals@drugs.com

last longer wrote on June 7, 2007 11:03 AM:

herbals@drugs.com

ways to last longer in bed wrote on June 7, 2007 1:24 PM:

herbals@drugs.com

best penis enlargement wrote on June 7, 2007 3:10 PM:

herbals@drugs.com

free penis enlargement exercises wrote on June 7, 2007 4:46 PM:

herbals@drugs.com

free penis enlargement wrote on June 7, 2007 6:32 PM:

herbals@drugs.com

penis enlargement pills wrote on June 7, 2007 8:27 PM:

herbals@drugs.com

penis enlargement pump wrote on June 7, 2007 10:02 PM:

herbals@drugs.com

penis enlargement wrote on June 7, 2007 11:42 PM:

herbals@drugs.com

real penis enlargement wrote on June 8, 2007 1:40 AM:

herbals@drugs.com

alternative viagra wrote on June 8, 2007 3:25 AM:

herbals@drugs.com

best herbal viagra wrote on June 8, 2007 4:55 AM:

herbals@drugs.com

herbal alternative viagra wrote on June 8, 2007 6:32 AM:

herbals@drugs.com

buy levitra wrote on June 14, 2007 1:03 PM:

sale@drugs.com

cheap viagra wrote on June 14, 2007 8:53 PM:

sale@drugs.com

cheap cialis wrote on June 15, 2007 3:56 AM:

sale@drugs.com

cheap levitra wrote on June 15, 2007 9:50 AM:

sale@drugs.com

order viagra wrote on June 15, 2007 6:14 PM:

sale@drugs.com

order cialis wrote on June 16, 2007 12:43 AM:

sale@drugs.com

generic viagra wrote on June 16, 2007 1:04 PM:

sale@drugs.com

discount cialis wrote on June 17, 2007 3:16 PM:

sale@drugs.com

cheapest viagra wrote on June 17, 2007 10:41 PM:

sale@drugs.com

soft viagra wrote on June 18, 2007 5:57 AM:

sale@drugs.com

viagra generic wrote on June 19, 2007 4:14 AM:

sale@drugs.com

cialis generic wrote on June 19, 2007 10:00 AM:

sale@drugs.com

viagra price wrote on June 19, 2007 5:41 PM:

sale@drugs.com

viagra soft wrote on June 19, 2007 11:56 PM:

sale@drugs.com

diltdt wrote on June 25, 2007 6:01 AM:

Strip Poker

wpvdjp wrote on June 25, 2007 7:01 AM:

Adult Poker

ojkxhf wrote on June 26, 2007 7:42 PM:

Levitra

ojkxhf wrote on June 26, 2007 7:43 PM:

Levitra

aqamfa wrote on June 30, 2007 12:49 PM:

Buy Viagra

bzorvm wrote on June 30, 2007 2:25 PM:

Buy Viagra

trojmi wrote on July 1, 2007 4:56 AM:

Poker Game

hsikga wrote on July 1, 2007 7:30 PM:

Strip Game

uwlcmf wrote on July 5, 2007 10:19 PM:

Buy Levitra

uwlcmf wrote on July 5, 2007 10:20 PM:

Buy Levitra

uwlcmf wrote on July 5, 2007 10:21 PM:

Buy Levitra

uwlcmf wrote on July 5, 2007 10:21 PM:

Buy Levitra

otrcxh wrote on July 6, 2007 8:44 AM:

Generic Viagra

otrcxh wrote on July 6, 2007 8:44 AM:

Generic Viagra

cjzkfh tcpm wrote on July 6, 2007 8:58 AM:

gnbksfuc ubkanr oyahpfwl nxjwt bwzmg fnmiwxpqr lbpmgkwe

cjzkfh tcpm wrote on July 6, 2007 8:59 AM:

gnbksfuc ubkanr oyahpfwl nxjwt bwzmg fnmiwxpqr lbpmgkwe

Anonymous wrote on September 18, 2007 3:30 PM:

stags arbor temple,problematical toss bungles - Tons of interesdting stuff!!!

free ipod music downloads wrote on September 26, 2007 9:47 AM:

Hi boys!026b201e85f85b730a73a351e13feb6d

foto negri che wrote on October 3, 2007 7:19 PM:

Good job. I loved youre site, keep it up.

tre gole wrote on October 9, 2007 12:05 PM:

Good job. I loved youre site, keep it up.

madrus mpeg cum animl wrote on October 10, 2007 4:22 PM:

Good job. I loved youre site, keep it up.

gonne collant wrote on October 11, 2007 9:05 PM:

Good job. I loved youre site, keep it up.

sesso polacche wrote on October 15, 2007 9:33 PM:

Good job. I loved youre site, keep it up.

sexi vip wrote on October 16, 2007 9:06 AM:

Good job. I loved youre site, keep it up.