« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Leahy to White House: A-HEM
Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT), following up an angry letter last night to Alberto Gonzales, wrote White House counsel Fred Fielding today to warn that if the White House did not stop stonewalling the committee's U.S. attorney firings investigation, then "I will have no choice but to issue subpoenas to try to get to the truth in this matter."
Leahy first requested interviews with Karl Rove and other White House staff two months ago. Leahy's request was met with a White House offer to have Rove and others interviewed privately with no oath and no transcript. Efforts by Leahy and others, including ranking member Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), to get the White House to moderate its offer have been unsuccessful.
During those two months, the Senate and House judiciary committees have been steadily accumulating evidence of White House involvement in the firings. And so Leahy's writing again. You can read the letter here.
Some excerpts below the fold.
From Leahy's letter:
To date the White House has not produced a single document or allowed even one White House official involved in these matters to be interviewed....It appears from the evidence gathered by the Committee in five hearings, eight interviews with current and former officials from the Department of Justice, and review of the limited documents produced by that Department that White House officials played a significant role in developing and implementing the plan for the dismissals. Indeed, the plan seems to have originated in the White House and was formulated by and with coordination of the White House political operation....
The White House cannot have it both ways—it cannot withhold the documents and witnesses and thereby stonewall the investigation and, at the same time, claim that it knows of nothing improper. The involvement of Mr. Rove was initially denied but must now be conceded, as it was by the Attorney General and by the Attorney General’s former chief of staff during their Senate Judiciary Committee testimony....
[Gonzales' tesimony before the Senate, in which he claimed to have forgotten many of the events connected to the firings,] appeared to be part of an effort to minimize admissions of the involvement of and direction received from the White House. There is evidence that White House officials were deeply involved in what appears to be an effort to impose political influence on federal law enforcement. If the White House continues its refusal to provide information to the Senate Judiciary Committee on a voluntary basis, I will have no choice but to issue subpoenas to try to get to the truth in this matter.
Comments (53)
Mike Conwell wrote on May 16, 2007 2:59 PM:I'm trying my best to be patient. The Senate has these steps to go through, and I won't criticize, but I can't help but think of this....
From "3rd Rock From the Sun"
Judith: After reviewing all the testimony, the disciplinary committee unanimously votes to admonish Dr. Solomon.
Dick: What does that mean?
Judith: You're officially admonished.
Dick: Does that come with a pay cut?
Judith: No, but if there's another violation, you will be censured.
Dick: Does that come with a pay cut?
Judith: No, but if that fails to stop you, you will be sanctioned, which means a thirty day suspension.
Dick: With pay?
Judith: Yes, with pay.
Dick: Well, that sounds pretty good. Could I be sanctioned right now?
Judith: No, we're adjourned. (edit)
kis wrote on May 16, 2007 3:05 PM:Security code: Weight. Hmmm... must be "Wait"
It appears as if the WH strategy to simply run out the clock is going to work.
Has Leahy not looked at the poll numbers? Let this be a constitutional crisis. The public is begging for the democrats to show some balls for a change...
profmarcus wrote on May 16, 2007 3:08 PM:c'mon, congress, stop stalling... let's get the constitutional crisis underway... every day you delay is another day bushco continues to trash the foundations of our republic... get your respective congressional asses in gear, please... the time for explanations, assessments, objections and privileges is long past...
GET WITH THE PROGRAM, CONGRESS...!
http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/
Wiggins wrote on May 16, 2007 3:08 PM:Typo in the first paragraph? (see image of original)
Impressive.
jolly ranchero wrote on May 16, 2007 3:10 PM:Oh no! Not another subpoena! I bet the one lining AG's trash can and the one coaster-ing Rice's latest beverage must feel lonely.
Democratic motto--when made to feel the fool, don't fight back....just hand them more paper.
darling blather wrote on May 16, 2007 3:12 PM:procedures, procedures... What makes Lahey think the WH isn't going to flout and ignore any subpoena he files against them the way Gonzo and Condi Rice have? It's time to go for the jugular, enough of the dance - Time is running out!!! Where's the Sergant(s) at Arms when you need them most?
Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 3:12 PM:I can't take it anymore. Leahy says they've made him really mad and if they don't play nice he's gonna....issue more subpoenas which the White House will no doubt ignore like they have all the others. Note to Leahy:
Steve Garrett wrote on May 16, 2007 3:13 PM:If you don't back up your threats with action you look like a pathetic joke.
So where are the teeth in a supoena? Am I to understand that someone doesn't abide by a supoena then Congress's only recourse is to beg and plead. Perhaps they should hold their breath until they turn blue.
Seriouly, someone please tell me whats the next course of action. Can congress press chages against the offenders?
JL wrote on May 16, 2007 3:20 PM:Procedures...hmph
The problem is that democrats actually play by some "rules."
Code wrod: "salt" as in, rubbed in our wounds
dogjudge wrote on May 16, 2007 3:20 PM:Hey folks, one step at a time.
I'd like this brought to a confrontation stage as soon as possible. At the same time we don't want this to boomerang on us and turn out to be like the Republicans impeaching Clinton.
The more that the Democrats do things this way, the more that they strengthen their position and weaken the administration's position.
What would you rather have? Do it now with a 60 percent chance of success? Get more of your ducks in a row and have a 90 percent chance of success?
I want the odds of getting these crooks as much as possible in our favor.
ecoast wrote on May 16, 2007 3:20 PM:In his letter to Gonzo, Leahy should have copied it to House Judiciary Committee chairman.
Cheb Ornek wrote on May 16, 2007 3:22 PM:Gonzo would have gotten the hint.
Is it too much to ask that the Democrats get their sh*t together and start implementing those tactics which are at their constitutional disposal, in order to get to the frigg'n bottom of this Bush/Cheney cesspool - for once and for all?
Start throwing some thunderbolts, instead of sitting across the aisle, barking at ankles.
ReggaeBass wrote on May 16, 2007 3:23 PM:10 Friday people. They are still an equal branch of govt. They have power. They are just not telling the world at large what they are going to do. If you want to know what is going to happen just wait until 10 on Friday. Actauly in reality it might be 11:00 on Friday before we hear about it but I digress.
Sholom wrote on May 16, 2007 3:23 PM:Don't belittle procedures, folks. If this ends up in a federal court, the easiest way to get it dismissed before you could say "wha' happened?" is to mess up on a procedural issue, or skip a procedural step.
Mike Valentine wrote on May 16, 2007 3:25 PM:Sen. Leahy has been more than fair. Now is the time to work the law. You go dog.
Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 3:26 PM:I find it odd that Leahy completely ignores the Lam-corruption connections.
But I suppose this is what he is really angling for with this letter.
"I continue to await an answer to my April 5, 2007, letter to you asking for the "reviews by White House staff" that led the President to conclude as of March 20, 2007, that there was no wrongdoing, including any information that has led the President to discount the mounting evidence of impropriety revealed as the investigation continues."
Like Bush has actual documentation supporting this assertion.
Would this be part of Leahy's strategy to undermine the executive privledge claim? You said nothing was improper...but you've produced nothing to the court that supports this conclusion.
Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 3:26 PM:"If the White House continues its refusal to provide information to the Senate Judiciary Committee on a voluntary basis, I will have no choice but to issue subpoenas to try to get to the truth in this matter."
Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 3:28 PM:Notice that use of the word "try" near the end. I get the feeling even Leahy doesn't expect to get to the bottom of this anymore. If he's gonna insist on treating the White House with kid gloves, and he acts as if he's terrified of a showdown, he's going to get nowhere. Oh well, just wrap this shit up and move on. No more talk of these stupid fucking subpoenas with no teeth behind them. You're wasting everyone's time Leahy. You're all talk.
dogjudge,
I'm with you on the 90% is better than 60%, annd I have been patiently waiting - the problem is I was the one who was telling people to be patient back in Febuary, then March.
Does anyone really think that Fielding gives a damn about the subpeona? I mean, if the DOJ can ignore one - and get little or no consequence from it, why would the White House behave any dfferently? This is why you have enforce the law with uniformity. The is why the ball is being so badly dropped by letting the AG ignore the DOJ subpeona.
Anyone who is subpeonaed should have to respond to it or face the consequences. Just like you or I would face the consequences if we ignored one.
The laws in DC are the same as everywhere else when last I checked.
P J Evans wrote on May 16, 2007 3:29 PM:I'd like the various committee chairpeople to talk to each other and figure out how many subpoenas have to be ignored before they realize that Bush and Cheney are going to ignore all of them (right up until the handcuffs are snapped closed on Shrub and Cheney has a fatal heart attack on live TV).
Node of Evil wrote on May 16, 2007 3:30 PM:Seriously, Bush and Cheney believe that they are the law, and Congressional subpoenas are going to be turned into mulch, until Congress puts teeth into the 'requests' and sends the Sergeant-at-arms and guys with the power to back him up.
I don't think it's Leahy's fault, but rather the Republicans who're stalling on subpoenas. There aren't large enough majorities in both houses for Democrats to act unilaterally. Especially if the main stick congress has is impeachment (barring getting the Justice Department to enforce subpoenas). What good is it to issue threats you can't back with action? I know that's the same thing as issuing subpoenas, but until we have 66% majorities in both houses of congress there will have to be some Republicans on board. I hope that will happen; but for all we know they're stalling too.
security code: "Rice" (I believe she flatly refused to appear when asked a couple of weeks ago)
Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 3:33 PM:Maybe I'm just dense, but hasn't the new Congress been in office for just over 4 months? I wouldn't expect a criminal enterprise that's been in office for 7 years +, and many more in the making, to be overturned and thrown in the slammer in that short a time. I think there are a few more 'necessary forms' that Congress has to go through before they can take off their coats, drag the micreants into the light of day and put them on trial. Make sure it's totally obvious to all but the dedicated few, not just you and me, that GWB and company are crooks.
bordersmuggler wrote on May 16, 2007 3:34 PM:Although the pace of the proceedings seems painfully slow to some, Leahy is following the rule of law, unlike his adversaries. Much has been uncovered already, and the information flow both in terms of documentation and personal relevation, is continuing. Leahy is systematically working to build a solid case, chipping away one chunk at a time.
Node of Evil wrote on May 16, 2007 3:34 PM:...Basically, it comes down to this. We all know the administration will _not_ honor these subpoenas, or any others for that matter. As I see it, we're two impeachments away from President Pelosi; that's logically where the discovery process ends. I'm pretty sure the Republicans realize that too. Until enough of them realize that's the best thing for the country, we're stuck.
Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 3:35 PM:What would you rather have? Do it now with a 60 percent chance of success? Get more of your ducks in a row and have a 90 percent chance of success?
I want the odds of getting these crooks as much as possible in our favor.
Posted by: dogjudge
Did you see the last hearing with Gonzo? Do you honestly think the Dems had their "ducks in a row" at that hearing. More like the gang that couldn't shoot straight- Dems spending their precious time talking about jails in Houston, NSLs, a Cuban terrorist. Somehow, I don't think they got Conyers memo that the point was to get to the truth regarding the fired attorneys. Sorry, I'm just very, very disappointed in Leahy today.
tgr wrote on May 16, 2007 3:36 PM:I agree with dogjudge.
My knee-jerk reaction was "subpoena my ass" -- they're using subpoenas to wallpaper Fred Fielding's bathroom!
But Leahy and the Dems are sandbagging; you know -- making sure there's a good sturdy wall of sandbags to withstand the coming flood.
If this bunch of fascist thugs want to play cavalier with the law, we've got 200 years of legal precedent to bite them in that aforementioned anatomical region.
Edog9 wrote on May 16, 2007 3:44 PM:Relax folks, this is about to get hot and heavy. It sounds stupid, but Leahy's latest letter to the Whitehouse is real smack down.
Sure its only a letter, but he is indicating there are only so more boxes to check subpoenas, then were are in the wild west, and things will get funky - think censure!
bordersmuggler wrote on May 16, 2007 3:45 PM:Leahy knows that he's just one Deep Throat away from having this bust wide open.
Calling Deep Throat...
TheraP wrote on May 16, 2007 3:45 PM:Think of this whole oversight enterprise as like laying a dragnet. A huge ocean dragnet takes time to be put into place.
So let's be patient. The fish are not going anywhere - but the net is being laid - slowly, patiently, with the expertise that comes from 6 long years of watching .... and waiting.
Yelling and impatience will not help the crew laying the net. Or hauling it in ..... very s l o w l y...
Desider wrote on May 16, 2007 3:54 PM:It's not like Leahy and others aren't getting more and more information out. Death by a thousand cuts is quite sufficient. The Libby trial, DoJ attorney firings and the voting fraud fraud, civil rights division, first steps on investigating movements up to the war, building the consensus on opposing the war, political influence on global warming, etc., etc. 4 months and people are impatient? How many resignations and indictments in the last 4 months? Pretty heady times.
Salmon Dave wrote on May 16, 2007 3:56 PM:Why doesn't the congress agree to the white house offer to interview Rove and his gang, and have someone wear a wire...to make a transcript. Fight fire with fire.
edog9 wrote on May 16, 2007 3:58 PM:they will find deepthroat - someone who is too small to stand the heat is going to be caught redhanded. They will name names. Monica is but a start, but it is a start.
Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 4:03 PM:And according to Gonzales, the burden of proof is on Congress.
jhickey wrote on May 16, 2007 4:05 PM:This Bush/Cheney/Rove White House Don't worry about no steenkin subpeona.Unless the Dems come up with something other they threats the polls will continue to deteriorate.Why don't they get some help from guys like John Dean with Waterhouse know how. Thats where the WH got Fielding.
mo2 wrote on May 16, 2007 4:06 PM:Was membership in the Federalist Society a lytmus test for USAs? What about for Supreme Court nominees? Perino (liar extraordinaire) never said "No" and Roberts only said that he did not pay his membership dues. He never said "No" either.
(from Washington Post)
"Over the weekend, The Post obtained a copy of the Federalist Society Lawyers' Division Leadership Directory, 1997-1998. It lists Roberts, then a partner at the law firm Hogan & Hartson, as a member of the steering committee of the organization's Washington chapter and includes his firm's address and telephone number.
Yesterday, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Roberts "has no recollection of being a member of the Federalist Society, or its steering committee." Roberts has acknowledged taking part in some Federalist Society activities, Perino said."
mo2 wrote on May 16, 2007 4:06 PM:Was membership in the Federalist Society a lytmus test for USAs? What about for Supreme Court nominees? Perino (liar extraordinaire) never said "No" and Roberts only said that he did not pay his membership dues. He never said "No" either.
(from Washington Post)
"Over the weekend, The Post obtained a copy of the Federalist Society Lawyers' Division Leadership Directory, 1997-1998. It lists Roberts, then a partner at the law firm Hogan & Hartson, as a member of the steering committee of the organization's Washington chapter and includes his firm's address and telephone number.
Yesterday, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Roberts "has no recollection of being a member of the Federalist Society, or its steering committee." Roberts has acknowledged taking part in some Federalist Society activities, Perino said."
Everett Volk wrote on May 16, 2007 4:49 PM:For those of you decrying Leahy's focus on process, I would point you to the following report by the Congressional Research Service:
http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL31836.pdf
It discusses all the various aspects of Congress' subpoena power and its ability to bring contempt proceedings. Just because the Bushians claim executive privilege doesn't mean there isn't such a thing (in some cases). Leahy knows this and I suspect he doesn't want to blow his wad on a final showdown. If he is, in fact, unlikely to win the fight, then it's in his best interest to prolong it as long as possible...
Donald from Hawaii wrote on May 16, 2007 5:15 PM:Excuse me, but this isn't "Law & Order", where everything gets wrapped up in an hour. The legislative process, much like the legal system, is meant to be both deliberate and deliberative. The wheels of justice might grind too slowly for some, but they grind on, nonetheless -- and the attorney general has his pants leg caught in the teeth.
parrot wrote on May 16, 2007 5:24 PM:Correction #1 page one, paragraph one:
I started reading the letter but there seems to be a tense error in the last sentence of the first paragraph: 'interviews' should be 'interviewed'.
Correction #2 page 4, : several errors around the date, including a hanging phrase.
dweb wrote on May 16, 2007 5:27 PM:Congress....
They allowed torture and you did nothing
They allowed domestic spying and you did nothing
They took away Habeas Corpus and you did nothing
They allowed expanded wiretapping and data mining and nothing
They lied to you and you have done nothing
You ordered them to appear before you and they refused and you have done nothing
They slipped in a late night provision that erased the ability of Senators to advise and conset on US Attorney nominations and you did nothing
They claimed the president can ignore any law you create any time he wants to and you did nothing.
How much are we paying you.....and why? Sue the bastards, subponea them and impeach them.
DON'T JUST SIT THERE! THEY ARE DESTROYING THE CONSTITUTION, OUR MILITARY AND OUR COUNTRY AND YOU ARE DOING NOTHING!!!!!!!
Security Code: meat
parrot wrote on May 16, 2007 5:41 PM:Correction 1 page one, paragraph one:
I started reading the letter but there seems to be a tense error in the last sentence of the first paragraph: 'interviews' should be 'interviewed'.
Correction 2 page 4, 2nd to last bullet item: several errors around the date, including a hanging phrase.
parrot wrote on May 16, 2007 5:42 PM:Heh. That should read "correction #2, page 4:"
wrb wrote on May 16, 2007 6:03 PM:Steve Garrett:
Re next Step
http://grassley.senate.gov/releases/2006/071820061.pdf
The breadth of a jurisdictional committee’s investigative authority may be seen in the
two seminal Supreme Court decisions emanating from the Teapot Dome inquiries of the mid- 1920’s. As part of its investigation, the Senate select committee issued a subpoena for the testimony of Mally S. Daugherty, the brother of the Attorney General. After Daugherty failed to respond to the subpoena, the Senate sent its Deputy Sergeant at Arms to take him into custody and bring him before the Senate. Daugherty petitioned in federal court for a writ of habeas corpus arguing that the Senate in its investigation had exceeded its constitutional powers. The case ultimately reached the Supreme Court, where, in a landmark decision, McGrain v. Daugherty,8 the Court upheld the Senate’s authority to investigate these charges
concerning the Department:
"[T]he subject to be investigated was the administration of the
Department of Justice - whether its functions were being properly discharged or were being neglected or misdirected, and particularly mwhether the Attorney General and his assistants were performing or neglecting their duties in respect of the institution and prosecution of proceedings to punish crimes and enforce appropriate remedies against the wrongdoers - specific instances of alleged neglect being recited.
Plainly the subject was one on which legislation could be had and would be materially aided by the information which the investigation was calculated to elicit. This becomes manifest when it is reflected that the functions of the Department of Justice, the powers and duties of the Attorney General and the duties of his assistants, are all subject to congressional legislation, and that the department is maintained and itsactivities are carried on under such appropriations as in the judgment ofCongress are needed from year to year."
The Court thus underlined that the Department of Justice, like all other executivedepartments and agencies, is a creature of the Congress and subject to its plenary legislativeand oversight authority.
snip
Illustrative Instances of Congressional Committees Obtaining Prosecutorial
Deliberative Materials and the Testimony of Line Personnel
continues
wrb wrote on May 16, 2007 6:03 PM:Steve Garrett:
Re next Step
http://grassley.senate.gov/releases/2006/071820061.pdf
The breadth of a jurisdictional committee’s investigative authority may be seen in the
two seminal Supreme Court decisions emanating from the Teapot Dome inquiries of the mid- 1920’s. As part of its investigation, the Senate select committee issued a subpoena for the testimony of Mally S. Daugherty, the brother of the Attorney General. After Daugherty failed to respond to the subpoena, the Senate sent its Deputy Sergeant at Arms to take him into custody and bring him before the Senate. Daugherty petitioned in federal court for a writ of habeas corpus arguing that the Senate in its investigation had exceeded its constitutional powers. The case ultimately reached the Supreme Court, where, in a landmark decision, McGrain v. Daugherty,8 the Court upheld the Senate’s authority to investigate these charges
concerning the Department:
"[T]he subject to be investigated was the administration of the
Department of Justice - whether its functions were being properly discharged or were being neglected or misdirected, and particularly mwhether the Attorney General and his assistants were performing or neglecting their duties in respect of the institution and prosecution of proceedings to punish crimes and enforce appropriate remedies against the wrongdoers - specific instances of alleged neglect being recited.
Plainly the subject was one on which legislation could be had and would be materially aided by the information which the investigation was calculated to elicit. This becomes manifest when it is reflected that the functions of the Department of Justice, the powers and duties of the Attorney General and the duties of his assistants, are all subject to congressional legislation, and that the department is maintained and itsactivities are carried on under such appropriations as in the judgment ofCongress are needed from year to year."
The Court thus underlined that the Department of Justice, like all other executivedepartments and agencies, is a creature of the Congress and subject to its plenary legislativeand oversight authority.
snip
Illustrative Instances of Congressional Committees Obtaining Prosecutorial
Deliberative Materials and the Testimony of Line Personnel
continues
Charles wrote on May 16, 2007 6:52 PM:I can hear Rove right now: "How many divisions does Leahy have?"
These guys are gonna use their control of DoJ and the courts to shut down the investigation. The future is in the hands of the career government employees and the non-professional political staff at the RNC. If they love their country more than they love their jobs and bennies, we have a chance.
wmholt wrote on May 16, 2007 9:54 PM:I hope that Monica Goodling's testimony next week will be a tipping point.
Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 10:13 PM:I hope that Monica Goodling's testimony next week will be a tipping point.
Posted by: wmholt
I do too. Without her being honest I don't think this is going to go anywhere. Wednesday is key.
JNagarya wrote on May 17, 2007 1:26 PM:"Hey folks, one step at a time.
"I'd like this brought to a confrontation stage as soon as possible. At the same time we don't want this to boomerang on us and turn out to be like the Republicans impeaching Clinton.
"The more that the Democrats do things this way, the more that they strengthen their position and weaken the administration's position.
"What would you rather have? Do it now with a 60 percent chance of success? Get more of your ducks in a row and have a 90 percent chance of success?
"I want the odds of getting these crooks as much as possible in our favor.
"Posted by: dogjudge
Date: May 16, 2007 03:20 PM"
Exactly right.
What's diisturbing is the hypocrisy: those most foaming-at-the-mouth against the violations by Bush, et al., want to do exactly the same: trash the rules.
Why do they not look at themselves? Why do they not ask themselves what happens when the prosecution violates the rules in evidence gathering, and procedures, in order to build a case, when they finally get it into court? It is _DISMISSED_ as result of the improprieties.
We the people, Congress -- etc. -- have no greater "right" to violate the law than does the Executive.
SC = collar. As in, when will the impatient pro-Bushit hypocrites grab themselves by the collar and instruct themselves: "Stop being an ass!"?
JNagarya wrote on May 17, 2007 1:33 PM:"I find it odd that Leahy completely ignores the Lam-corruption connections."
"Posted by:
Date: May 16, 2007 03:26 PM"
How do you know he's "ignoring" it? Are you privy to the closed-session deliberations of the Committee?
No, you are not. SC = adjust. As in, adjust your thinking to include the fact that you have no evidence upon which to base your conclusion.
JNagarya wrote on May 17, 2007 1:41 PM:"dogjudge,
"I'm with you on the 90% is better than 60%, annd I have been patiently waiting - the problem is I was the one who was telling people to be patient back in Febuary, then March."
I've been patient since 12/12/2000. And yet I realize one doesn't prove oneself not an ass by acting like an ass.
"Does anyone really think that Fielding gives a damn about the subpeona? I mean, if the DOJ can ignore one - and get little or no consequence from it, why would the White House behave any dfferently? This is why you have enforce the law with uniformity. The is why the ball is being so badly dropped by letting the AG ignore the DOJ subpeona."
The ignoring of subpoena by DOJ is not being ignored. Gonzo is only the slammed door in the wall. By presenting Comey as they did, however, the Committee rendered him both less effective and credible, and less relevant. We know he is obstructing justice in effort to protect those "behind" him. Do you want Gonzo? Or do you want them all?
The real question is not of Leahy and the Committee but of We the people: When will sufficient of We the people who want Gonzo, et al., impeached and removed _repeatedly COMMUNICATE_ to their Senator and Representative that they _DEMAND IMPEACHMENT_?
"Anyone who is subpeonaed should have to respond to it or face the consequences. Just like you or I would face the consequences if we ignored one."
Has any time limits on the effectiveness of the subpoena run? I thought not.
"The laws in DC are the same as everywhere else when last I checked.
"Posted by:
Date: May 16, 2007 03:28 PM"
They are? When did you last check? And where?
SC = snake. As in, the not-so-White House is a sanke farm.
JNagarya wrote on May 17, 2007 1:50 PM:"Maybe I'm just dense, but hasn't the new Congress been in office for just over 4 months? I wouldn't expect a criminal enterprise that's been in office for 7 years +, and many more in the making, to be overturned and thrown in the slammer in that short a time. I think there are a few more 'necessary forms' that Congress has to go through before they can take off their coats, drag the micreants into the light of day and put them on trial. Make sure it's totally obvious to all but the dedicated few, not just you and me, that GWB and company are crooks.
"Posted by:
Date: May 16, 2007 03:33 PM"
Well said. We -- but not all -- know that Bush, et al., view themselves as exempt from the rule of law, and that they've consistently shown that contempt, publicly and in their actions.
The additional problem is that many among We the people are exactly the same in their own lives. Those who attack Leahy, et al., as "whimps" and the like, also don't believe in the rule of law, thus want Congress to act exactly as, and Bush, et al., do.
The latter talk a good game of rule of law and due process; but they don't actually concern themselves with being consistent between their word and deed.
SC = goat. As in: the SC should be "hypocrites".
JNagarya wrote on May 17, 2007 1:57 PM:"Why doesn't the congress agree to the white house offer to interview Rove and his gang, and have someone wear a wire...to make a transcript. Fight fire with fire.
"Posted by: Salmon Dave
Date: May 16, 2007 03:56 PM"
You mean why doesn't Congress be as underhanded and sleazy as Bush, et al.?
Why don't you apply for a job from Bush, et al.: you have the "right" attitude for them.
SC = much. As in, demanding that Congress be as slimy as Bush, et al., is too much.
JNagarya wrote on May 17, 2007 2:04 PM:"This Bush/Cheney/Rove White House Don't worry about no steenkin subpeona.Unless the Dems come up with something other they threats the polls will continue to deteriorate.Why don't they get some help from guys like John Dean with Waterhouse know how. Thats where the WH got Fielding.
"Posted by: jhickey
Date: May 16, 2007 04:05 PM"
The polls will continue to deteriorate so long as those among We the people who are clueless -- those who actually have no problem with Bush, et al.'s contempt for the rule of law, except that the "wrong" party is doing it -- refuse to tolerate the proper functioning of Congress in accordance with the rule of law.
I, for one, believe in the rule of law because the alternative is unacceptable. I offer in evidence both Bush, et al., and those who attack Congress for not also throwing aside the rule of law in order to "take out" the lawless Bush gang.
JNagarya wrote on May 17, 2007 2:25 PM:"For those of you decrying Leahy's focus on process, I would point you to the following report by the Congressional Research Service:
"http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL31836.pdf
"It discusses all the various aspects of Congress' subpoena power and its ability to bring contempt proceedings. Just because the Bushians claim executive privilege doesn't mean there isn't such a thing (in some cases). Leahy knows this and I suspect he doesn't want to blow his wad on a final showdown. If he is, in fact, unlikely to win the fight, then it's in his best interest to prolong it as long as possible...
"Posted by: Everett Volk
Date: May 16, 2007 04:49 PM"
Excellent. Thank you. One of the terrifici things about the House Watergate hearings was that Chairman Rodino detailed, in plain English, for We the people, the meaning of whatever might be "arcane". It was beautifully aboveboard. And awesome in its functioning: It showed that th Constitution works.
(And the most powerful speeches were made by, in particular, the late Congresswoman Barbara Jordan.)
For those who haven't followed up on this: the 95-464A "document" is the House Judiciary Committee webpage, so its extension in HTML.
The other PDFs listed in the above PDF are also on point.
SC = Summer. As in, Because of political global warming, this is going to be an unusually hot Summer for Bush, et al.