Comments (59)

wagonjak wrote on August 15, 2007 12:11 PM:

When are the Democratic Politicians who insist on reaching out to the White House going to learn that you often pull your arm back with a bloody stump?

How many times have Congressional leaders who tried to compromise with the WH been betrayed?

When will the Dem leaders learn that there is NO COMPROMISING with this White House...

The Republican right has been waging all-out war on the Dems for years while the wimpy Dems have been trying to get along. Get real guys--and start fighting back with every fiber of your being! It's called survival of the fittest, and the Republicans have been winning the war for decades...

wagonjak wrote on August 15, 2007 12:12 PM:

When are the Democratic Politicians who insist on reaching out to the White House going to learn that you often pull your arm back with a bloody stump?

How many times have Congressional leaders who tried to compromise with the WH been betrayed?

When will the Dem leaders learn that there is NO COMPROMISING with this White House...

The Republican right has been waging all-out war on the Dems for years while the wimpy Deams have been trying to get along. Get real guys--and start fighting back with every fiber of your being! It's called survival of the fittest, and the Republicans have been winning the war for decades...

johnnydoughey wrote on August 15, 2007 12:31 PM:

Wasn't Leahy a prosecuter in his former life?

I guess that is where he learned the fine points of prosecution... after gathering evidence, you sit down and chat with the suspect and work everything out... no need for anyone to actually get in trouble. Afterall, the crime has been committed... it's over... everyone just needs to get back to their lives and put this little episode in the past... or

it's one mob boss sitting down with another mob boss, explaining that there's plenty of cash to go around for both of them. They just need to agree how to split up the turf so both mobs can stay out of each other's way...

If any of you out there can come up with an actual patriotic motive (one which may actually benefit our democracy and the 300 million of us who DO NOT work for the administration, Congress, or the Senate) for these two "chatting" please let me know. I have a difficult time believing that ANYTHING these guys do is for our welfare...

johnW1141 wrote on August 15, 2007 12:35 PM:

Regarding the Bush gang I have no confidence in Leahy. I'm starting to see him as a bloviator wind bag. He's like Arlen Specter, all talk no action

Julie McCormick wrote on August 15, 2007 12:36 PM:

"evidence" "citations for contempt of Congress"
I prefer to see this as the slow, deliberate process necessary to convince the country that the measures to come are justified. The R's are still crying "no evidence, no evidence," now the SJC is about to lay it on the table.

mo2 wrote on August 15, 2007 12:39 PM:

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/07/contempt-of-con.html

"a house of Congress can order the sergeant-at-arms to take recalcitrant witnesses into custody and have them held until they agree to cooperate -- i.e., an order of civil contempt. Technically, the witness could be imprisoned somewhere in the bowels of the Capitol, but historically the sergeant-at-arms has turned defendants over to the custody of the warden of the D.C. jail.
...
Congress could take into its own custody defiant administration officials who refuse to cooperate with legitimate inquiries into executive malfeasance. Those targets would have the right to seek writs of habeas corpus from the federal courts, but as long as Congress could show a legitimate need for the information it was seeking pursuant to its legislative oversight functions, it would be standing on solid legal ground."

Mike Conwell wrote on August 15, 2007 12:40 PM:

Caption This Photo:
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2007/08/13/PH2007081301174.html

Bush: "You had to go after Carol Lam, didn't ya."

OCPatriot wrote on August 15, 2007 12:45 PM:

Time to replace Leahy. Compromise and sit down and chatter and get the same stupid result. Can't he learn that you don't deal with Bush as if he's a rational, common politician. He's a "true believer" and the truth means nothing to him; he can't experience it. I view this as a macho thing by Leahy: "I can't convince this guy Bush to be reasonable." Well, that's proven to be irrational. So vote him out and get someone decent to replace Leahy. Time, by the way, to replace Reid and Pelosi with people who are willing to take action. I've said it before, the only thing Bush understands is a metaphorical whack to the side of the head with a 2x4.

OCPatriot wrote on August 15, 2007 12:47 PM:

Time to replace Leahy. Compromise and sit down and chatter and get the same stupid result. Can't he learn that you don't deal with Bush as if he's a rational, common politician. He's a "true believer" and the truth means nothing to him; he can't experience it. I view this as a macho thing by Leahy: "I can convince this guy Bush to be reasonable." Well, that's proven to be irrational. So vote him out and get someone decent to replace Leahy. Time, by the way, to replace Reid and Pelosi with people who are willing to take action. I've said it before, the only thing Bush understands is a metaphorical whack to the side of the head with a 2x4.

Austin Cooper wrote on August 15, 2007 12:47 PM:

He's going to just 'work it out' with Bush. Right.

What, exactly, has Leahy been smoking???

.

lewis wrote on August 15, 2007 12:55 PM:

Leahy is always going to do something, yet he manages to always do nothing.

parrot wrote on August 15, 2007 1:07 PM:

If the President refuses to sit down and chat with a Senator, who happens to head the Judiciary Committee, about an investigation into the conduct of law enforcement in this country...

wagonjak wrote on August 15, 2007 1:12 PM:

When are the Democratic Politicians who insist on reaching out to the White House going to learn that you often pull your arm back with a bloody stump?

How many times have Congressional leaders who tried to compromise with the WH been betrayed?

When will the Dem leaders learn that there is NO COMPROMISING with this White House...

The Republican right has been waging all-out war on the Dems for years while the wimpy Deams have been trying to get along. Get real guys--and start fighting back with every fiber of your being! It's called survival of the fittest, and the Republicans have been winning the war for decades...

Rulp wrote on August 15, 2007 1:20 PM:

Pardon me, but this IS "doing something." I understand the frustration people feel at the lack of "action," but rhetoric is the SUBSTANCE of politics. Yes, it is often empty (as it always is with Specter), but in this case I agree with Julie McCormick: Leahy is taking the next step (and yes, it shouldn't be the last one).

Whenever I hear the complaint that politics is "nothing but talk, talk, talk" and no "action" (this line always goes over big with the conservative lizard-brains, by the way), I want to ask, "how do you think congress works?" Talk--when it is clear, sincere, and persistent--IS action, in political terms. The Watergate hearings were "talk." FDR's fireside chats were "talk." MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech was "talk."

What's Leahy supposed to do, shoot somebody in the face?

Mafalda Hopkirk wrote on August 15, 2007 1:29 PM:

Fear not!

This will be looked into by the "Improper Use of Magic Office" at the "Ministry of Magic."

mo2 wrote on August 15, 2007 1:30 PM:

Surely you comprehend that to act illegally makes us no better than Bush. Let Leahy work this out legally under the US Constitution.

Leahy is moving this away from US Supreme Court territory so that Democrats can better control it.

Bush wants to force the Supreme Court to rule on executive privilege, and Leahy is telling him that Congress can jail Rove, Miers, Jennings, Taylor,..., without arguing executive privilege.

chabuka wrote on August 15, 2007 1:34 PM:

Will Patrick Leahy make a "secret deal" with Bush and Cheney..similiar to the one Reid made....you know..we'll give you permission to spy (openly) if you promise to make no "recess appointment" while we take another vacation...? Democracy has become a joke, the "peoples lobbyists", our representatives..sell us out at every turn..talk about a "don't ask, don't tell" policy ("we don't want to hear anything from you people") ..thats our representatives doing the "peoples work"

wagonjak wrote on August 15, 2007 1:39 PM:

Sorry about the multiple postings of the same comment here...your whole system was frozen this morning and I hit post button more then once and nothing seemed to happen...

zk0sm0 wrote on August 15, 2007 1:41 PM:

don't be so dense people. leahy wrote the letter at the request of specter. this is politics. leahy is giving specter something so that specter will give leahy something. if leahy can get specter's full support, leahy can quash all of the bs accusations of partisan witch-hunting. and THAT is the key stumbling block to seeing anything real getting done here.

Tomg wrote on August 15, 2007 1:43 PM:

I have to admit that I'm frustrated with Leahy and the Dem leadership, but they are building a legitimate case that will stick. Not some hot head reactions the other side is so famous for.

Rove is leaving in tears, coincidence I think not. Leahy sending a letter makes good sense expecting that it going to reach Bush is not the point.

Perhaps among the many issues the jailing and possible railroading of political opponents has finally got them
http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=FB0A1FFD3F540C758CDDA10894DF404482

After all the republicans looking at 2008 must be thinking as the tables turn unchecked Whitehouse power is about to bit them back.

zk0sm0 wrote on August 15, 2007 1:46 PM:

don't be so dense people. leahy wrote the letter at the request of specter. this is politics. leahy is giving specter something so that specter will give leahy something. if leahy can get specter's full support, leahy can quash all of the bs accusations of partisan witch-hunting. and THAT is the key stumbling block to seeing anything real getting done here.

Pilgrim wrote on August 15, 2007 1:58 PM:

If memory serves, the last time Leahy asserted leadership - questioning the Patriot Act - he got a letter......filled with anthrax. Why wouldn't he proceed cautiously.

moondancer wrote on August 15, 2007 1:59 PM:

I can hear shrub now, "help Mr wizard, I dont wanna be president anymore"...

johnnydoughey wrote on August 15, 2007 2:21 PM:

"Bush wants to force the Supreme Court to rule on executive privilege, and Leahy is telling him that Congress can jail Rove, Miers, Jennings, Taylor,..., without arguing executive privilege."

If Bush wanted the Supreme court to make a ruling, couldn't he have one or two of his 30,000 attorneys write up a request? He has had numerous cases now to have them consider this.

He has no desire to have ANYONE, including the Supreme court, question his authority... IMHO

" Leahy is telling him that Congress can jail Rove, Miers, Jennings, Taylor,..., without arguing executive privilege"

.... but... "We have no desire to follow the rule of law and actually give them what they deserve, Mr. President. We would rather just sit down with you and work things out without actually doing what the American public hired us to do. Afterall, Mr. President, we BOTH know this is all just politics, now, don't we?"

Mafalda Hopkirk wrote on August 15, 2007 2:25 PM:

moondancer:

Would that we could assist.

AlphaLiberal wrote on August 15, 2007 2:31 PM:

God Bless Senator Leahy!

Bush has corrupted our nation's law enforcement agencies, acting like the President of some banana Republic where opposition politicians are jailed.

Let's face it, Bush is head banana for America's Banana Republicans. ALL the Banana Republicans care about is their party's hold on political power. Their coveru up is wearing thin and the American people are learning the truth.

Bear down Senator Leahy! Turn up the heat!

p.s. To the whiners up above, Leahy has to put his case together carefully, he has to ratchet this up in a deliberate and methodical to build an airtight case. He also has to bring along the slow- and dull-witted news media stenographers (real "journalists" are an endangered species in the modern news media ecosystem). So get off his case.

TheraP wrote on August 15, 2007 2:57 PM:

I'm counting on him. Yes, I've been called naive, even right here. But I'll keep on hoping. Why not hope? Why not trust? We need to be patient. And keep up the pressure through our elected representatives.

Just Asking wrote on August 15, 2007 3:29 PM:

This is posturing by Leahy, so he comes off looking like the reasonable one.

"Look, I offered to sit down and work it out, but Bush was the one who wouldn't cooperate..."

When I say posturing - I mean that in a good way. He's setting Bush up if Bush doesn't respond.

don de drain wrote on August 15, 2007 3:45 PM:

Yes, Leahy was a prosecutor. Very often prosecutors do sit down and talk to the target of an investigation (usually through the target's attorney) before they issue an indictment. Assuming the the target is not a flight risk, this happens all the time if the prosecutor cuts square corners. Of course, we know that Bush, Cheney, Rove, et al. do not cut square corners. Thus, the temptation is to stoop to their level when dealing with them. That is a dangerous game, which can quickly backfire and can degenerate into a wholesale disregard of laws and rules by both sides.

Likely, some criticism of Leahy is warranted for lack of sufficient "savviness" in using the rules that are available to him. But asking for a face to face meeting with Bush before you use your inherent contempt powers and have the sergeant at arms go arrest Bush's minions is a good idea, particularly if Specter has agreed to stand behind the use of the inherent contempt procedures in return for Leahy sending what we all hope is a "last chance" letter.

don de drain wrote on August 15, 2007 3:48 PM:

Yes, Leahy was a prosecutor. Very often prosecutors do sit down and talk to the target of an investigation (usually through the target's attorney) before they issue an indictment. Assuming the the target is not a flight risk, this happens all the time if the prosecutor cuts square corners. Of course, we know that Bush, Cheney, Rove, et al. do not cut square corners. Thus, the temptation is to stoop to their level when dealing with them. That is a dangerous game, which can quickly backfire and can degenerate into a wholesale disregard of laws and rules by both sides.

Likely, some criticism of Leahy is warranted for lack of sufficient "savviness" in using the rules that are available to him. But asking for a face to face meeting with Bush before you use your inherent contempt powers and have the sergeant at arms go arrest Bush's minions is a good idea, particularly if Specter has agreed to stand behind the use of the inherent contempt procedures in return for Leahy sending what we all hope is a "last chance" letter.

Bob's not Right wrote on August 15, 2007 3:54 PM:

The Democrats are in the weaker position here and Leahy is doing what he can. The continued claims of Executive Privilege that seem so outrageous would most likely prevail in a court decision (IMHO).

Ironically President Clinton, who lost most of his court cases against Attorney-Client privilege did win a rather earth shattering decision. The DC court in the Espy case rules that Executive Privilege not only involves the President directly but expanded that to basically include most of his subordinates. Clinton thought that the legislative branch was more of a threat than the judicial and won a wide claim of privileges.

Since there are very few cases that define Executive Privilege going back to Marbury v Madison almost any court would rely heavily on Espy and it is no sure thing that any of the claims of privilege would be stripped.

Leahy does not want to feed into the already super steroid powers of the President by forcing a court ruling that he has a low probability of winning. So he keeps working the edges, keeps the pressure on and looks for possible criminal areas to pursue.

All this is of course my take on this…feel free to cast stones if you like.

markg8 wrote on August 15, 2007 4:11 PM:

When Bush rebuffs him Leahy should hold a press conference and ask rhetorically, "Mr. President why are you afraid of Karl Rove putting his hand on a bible and swearing to God he'll tell the truth to our committee?"

moondancer wrote on August 15, 2007 5:34 PM:

Executive privilege as shrub sees it, should not stand up in court. But there is real chance with this SC that he knows Roberts is gonna work with him. So he loses all the up to the SC and suprise another of those landmark rulings. (probably one of those, this is so ridiculous, that our ruling only applies to this case and cannot be used anywhere else)

security code: please (as in say it aint so)

kilo wrote on August 15, 2007 5:54 PM:

nevermind about my comment a few days ago, it looks like Leahy IS going to go kick the white house doors down. Give'em hell, Leahy!

Jim wrote on August 15, 2007 7:55 PM:

Leahy should just block the Justice Appropriations Bill until Bush leaves office. Make them run on a continuing resolution, refuse to appprove any of his nominations and filibuster anything the Republicans put up for a vote. Once Democrats bring the wheels of legislation to a screeching halt, they might get a better response to their subpoenas.

trank wrote on August 15, 2007 9:15 PM:

if rove is on vacation in another state when congress comes back is it harder for the seargent at arms to bring him in?

Carol Lam wrote on August 15, 2007 9:19 PM:

Rove makes a fiery exit
===

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0807/5392_Page2.html

“Somebody else will come and do my job — or several people will do my job,” he said. “But I’m a cog. I’ve served a useful purpose, I think. I know I have. I’m not the president. Once again, people are misunderestimating him. He’s going to use every bit of influence that he has in that office, every lever of power that he’s got — and there are a lot of them — right up to the time that he leaves office.”

Many rightwingers on this site (Politico)who do not understand the attorney firing and who repeat talking points about Leahy and the other courageous democrats. Really take time to help the brainwashed understand the truth if you want the good guys to win, simplify the message and post on neutral or rw sites so that people have a chance at understanding the truth about who is really destroying America.

bunny99 wrote on August 15, 2007 9:42 PM:

Jeez, this is pathetic. The Dems still treat this administration as if they're bona fide. These guys aren't people of integrity.
Bush already used that letter to pooper scoop.
Bush=take no prisoners.
Leahy=that's not fair

Al in Austex wrote on August 15, 2007 9:50 PM:

Leahey is planning his prosecution & prosecuting his plan -plain and simple. I have been saying all along that these prosecutors -including Waxman Schumer et al have already got most of these asked qustions already answered ! There are just way too many recovered e-mails , fired g-13 debriefing Hill Staffers--from various federal agencies for these asked questions not to be alreadu answered - And don't forget the FITZGERALD GRAND JURY is still verrry active - In short come Sept /Oct the Democrats will be kicking butts & taking names . What this is about now is giving the moderate Republicans a reason to join in the conviction of all the Bushites -either in impeachment proceedings or on criminal court cases after 2009 -when lIL Boots can't pardon anyone of these thugs ...And children for those of you to young to remember it wasn't really Watergate that took down Nixon -it was the failed war in Indo China...
And did any one notice that Olbermann reported tonight that it is the WhiteHouse writing the iRAQI Progress Report & NOT General Petraues.
And Austin Cooper Leahey is not smoking anything -particularly that which me and another Austin Cooper used to toke on back in 1971 - at the University of Houston -(Of course he and me QUIT such bad habits back in the 80's -way back when ! )
Be very patience for another six to eight weeks childern -then the Real Showdown with BushCo will commence .., I promise even the "nattering nabobs" of the MSM will be in this fight -on the side upholding of OUR Constitution -

Richard L. Adlof wrote on August 15, 2007 10:07 PM:

Just another brick in the wall . . .

Leahy is doing this right. There has been six years of crap flushed down America's throat. The rooter has gotta work slow and steady to avoid bursting the pipes or burning out the bit.

justme wrote on August 15, 2007 11:11 PM:

Dearest Senator Leahy,

As much as I respect your devotion to comity and civil discourse, the time for "respectfully" is unfortunately past. Your ability to turn cheek after cheek is admirable to say the least, but it is time to take a firm hand with the Executive.

Any and everybody committing contempt of Congress, and they are at this point legion, needs to be interred under the inherent contempt provisions. If they are intent upon having the nation wait out the rest of this administration, they should be compelled to at least do the same.

johnnydoughey wrote on August 16, 2007 12:24 AM:

So...
Are all these finer points of politics and maneuvering to finally bring justice upon the Bush administration... are they going to come to fruition a month, or six months after Bush attacks Iran? I guess we, as democrats will have one up on the republicans, then, won't we?

The only time I ever believe in what Bush is saying is when he says he doen't pay attention to polls or those who believe we should not be fighting in Iraq. This guy is a fanatic. He has not changed his mind one iota since he attacked. This has nothing to do with history, his reputation, or anything else. His sole purpose these past few years is to go after Al-Qaeda, and, now that he is declaring the Kuds to be terrorists, he WILL attack Iran because they ARE the axis of evil.

I'm sure impeaching him then will be a blessing for all the folks who will have died because those in charge failed to try and stop him sooner... IMHO

Kate Henry wrote on August 16, 2007 1:06 AM:

Patrick Leahy will go down in history as the Senates most prolific letter writer. I am sick to death with his letter writing. It's time we replace him with someone who will do something. Someone who will stand up to Bully Boy Bush and not try to play nice.

Stephen Pitt wrote on August 16, 2007 10:32 AM:

It's almost time to call witnesses and present evidence for the prosecution. Of course Bush won't budge. His dictatorship must maintain the blockade and push the broader coup to completion. It's a dangerous time for the Republic.

http://www.light-to-dark.com/gonzos_leahy.html

It's time to re-establish the rule of law and begin punishing the dictatorship for crimes against the country.

.

theswan wrote on August 16, 2007 11:53 AM:

Where is the contempt of congress citation? Forget the nice talk. And if you have to get Spectors urging to talk, forget it.
Issue the conteempt citation. We are waiting today, not for the coming of the election cycle.

Sharp wrote on August 16, 2007 2:36 PM:

The purpose for stonewalling is for advantage. For example, why stone wall regarding pulling troops out of Iraq? If the Democratic Party is NOT successful in pulling troops out of Iraq their base will be pissed, not vote, and historically a low voter turnout helps the Republicans. Tell me the Republicons aren't THAT diabolical? What is the advantage to stonewalling here? The next administration will say lets move on...nothing to see here...and the MSM will acquiesce.

Freedem wrote on August 17, 2007 12:16 AM:

Let me get this straight.

If Congress arrests Alberto Gonzales for contempt of Congress, would that mean that Bush would File Habeas Corpus to get him free? The irony gives me headaches just to think about it.

JG in MD near DC wrote on August 17, 2007 10:45 AM:

You're both right.

Leahy is laying out his case, with agonizing slowness. Yes, it is time for action. But we don't always get what we want.

I'd rather have a case that sticks than a conflagration that ends in failure (although I've always been fond of fireworks . . .)

deedee wrote on August 17, 2007 1:45 PM:

I'm from upper state N.Y., right near Vermont. My Grandmother god bless her soul was a Vermonter. I know these people let me tell you their strong ,practical and know what their doing. Oh, did I fail to tell you their stubborn. These people like up state New Yorkers have to survive 30 below weather, and unbelievable snow storms. Yes, Senator Leahy will weather this storm in Washington and the people will win one for Democracy. I don't believe there is another Senator that stands a chance against Bush.

deedee wrote on August 17, 2007 1:46 PM:

I'm from upper state N.Y., right near Vermont. My Grandmother god bless her soul was a Vermonter. I know these people let me tell you their strong ,practical and know what their doing. Oh, did I fail to tell you their stubborn. These people like up state New Yorkers have to survive 30 below weather, and unbelievable snow storms. Yes, Senator Leahy will weather this storm in Washington and the people will win one for Democracy. I don't believe there is another Senator that stands a chance against Bush.

chuck wrote on August 17, 2007 5:15 PM:

If Leahy were to talk to Cheney, it should be two words. f**k yourself. Wait, one more word. IMPEACH.

chuck wrote on August 17, 2007 5:16 PM:

If Leahy were to talk to Cheney, it should be two words. f**k yourself. Wait, one more word. IMPEACH.

Roy wrote on August 17, 2007 10:12 PM:

Query: Is the Democratic Party
any use to anybody outside
Congress?

KEVIN SCHMIDT, STERLING VA wrote on August 18, 2007 3:39 AM:

For some strange reason, this all seems like just another fake studio wrestling rant & rave scene.

You do know the show our government puts on for us is all fake just like studio wrestling is fake and the high prices of diamonds is fake. You did know all that is all fake, right?

Just know that WE THE PEOPLE are the real government and we can fire those fakers at any time we want.

How ironic that my security code to post this comment is the word "false."

cheryl wrote on August 18, 2007 10:22 AM:

What's the point of this letter? They're probably just going to use it to wipe their behinds in the White House. Just issue the Contempt charges and drag all those crooks into Congress. Throw them in jail!!!!! Show some balls!!! These Dems need to take the bull by the horns and not be so wishy washy!!!!!

fubar wrote on August 18, 2007 7:02 PM:

"Those targets would have the right to seek writs of habeas corpus from the federal courts"

You forget 'mo2' there is no more habeas corpus thanks to the cowardly dems helping to hand the Military Commissions Act to Der Kommisar

MikeGermain wrote on August 18, 2007 7:14 PM:

Talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk.

Does Leahy or any other Democratic "Leader" know how to DO anything?

Oh yeah, they're Democrats.

Ian wrote on August 18, 2007 8:46 PM:

He might actually come back with a piece of paper proclaiming "Cuccumber Sandwiches in our time!".

Malgoska wrote on August 18, 2007 10:01 PM:

The HONORABLE George? The honorable? He calls this crooked bastard "honorable? I can't believe my eyes.