Comments (23)

Tom Betz wrote on March 8, 2007 1:42 PM:

Great. They'll work out a "compromise" that hides the facts.

Cowards.

oldtree wrote on March 8, 2007 1:43 PM:

well, the moment of truth is upon us?
nope, they won't put him under oath again.

neither party can afford to do so because they are so scared they will wet themselves. Why not subpoena and demand Abu comes down and swears in?

how shall I say it, pessimistic?

Cranky Observer wrote on March 8, 2007 1:44 PM:

I have a hard time understanding how the process of "meeting" with Gonzales would work - if the situation is as the hearings suggested, Gonzales is quite possibly guilty of lying to Congress under oath. Now he gets to negotiate the terms of the investigation?

Cranky

LTO wrote on March 8, 2007 1:47 PM:

Harriet Miers, anyone... ???

gah wrote on March 8, 2007 1:53 PM:

Why any Dem in congress would agree to talk to any Bush/Cheney minion who is not under oath is beyond me.

EH wrote on March 8, 2007 1:54 PM:

Maybe the lesson we are about to learn is that the law is just a matter of policy and criminals are merely those who are members of the wrong group.

JohnW wrote on March 8, 2007 1:56 PM:

I agree with gah.

The results of this meeting will be telling. Leahy is holding 4 aces, lets see if Gonzales wins by restricting the questions Leahy can ask the witnesses.

Xaymaca9 wrote on March 8, 2007 2:08 PM:

Arrogance of Power, knows no compromise. The AG, has played the congress through his entire reign. These people are not, above the law. Basta

tom wrote on March 8, 2007 2:08 PM:

Under oath may not be enough. This Admin, & gonzales especially, are a tribut to the dictum of George Costanza: "it isn't a lie if you believe it"

Stu Levitan wrote on March 8, 2007 2:17 PM:

I trust Pat Leahy to do the right thing in the right way. If he wants to have a meeting before issuing the subpoenas, what's the harm? Do people actually think Leahy and committee colleague Russ Feingold are going to go easy on Gonzales? Get a grip. I think we'll sooner see an impeachment resolution of AG2 than Leahy and Feingold rolling over on this.

Chesire11 wrote on March 8, 2007 2:21 PM:

Just because they may not be subpoenaed doesn't mean that any DoJ officials who testify before the Judiciary Committee won't be under oath. All it means is that their appearances will not have been coerced, that's all. I fully expect that when they do appear, they will be under oath.

no half measures this time wrote on March 8, 2007 2:23 PM:

They better not go soft on this. Not this time. Not this blatant and well planned an act of malfeasance.

This is an outrage. The mysterious PATRIOT act provision from Specter, which made all this possible, is an outrage. specter stonewalling to cover his ass is an outrage. The executive politicization of the DoJ, esp with so many scandal cases pending, is an outrage.

I'm all for finding compromise where possible with Republicans to find a moderate middle ground.

But there is no moderate middle ground on corruption.

There is no happy middle to this steaming pile of shit, where Specter is slipping groundwork provisions into the PATRIOT act to remove a critical check and balance, where Senators are leaning on prosecutors and then firing them and then lying about it, where a senior member of an ethics committee is leaning on a prosecutor breaking his own ethics rules, and then too stupid to even realize or lie about it.

There is no middle ground here. Either Schumer and Leahy are others press hard to end this corruption now, or they're fostering it. I expect to see any decent Democrat and Republican from across the board all expressing outrage and pushing for further investigation.

Everyone has, or should have, a stake in basic constitutional separation of powers, ethics, independence of the DoJ, and the kind of mom and apple pie issues involved here.

The crime and damage is done already. There has to be some retribution.

Robin Boener wrote on March 8, 2007 2:29 PM:

Chuck Schumer's office told me this is the number one issue that the are getting calls on...though that was before the Walter Reed scandal broke. Schumer's office put it this way:

"If we let Bush's DOJ run amok, appointing the USA's with NO oversight for the rest of his term, what would JUSTICE look like in this country?"

Probably alot like it does right now, only on steroids....

The Democrats are much too pissed at the Repigs trying to fiddle with the USA's to get them the way Bush tried. A whole new level of depravity in dirty politics. I doubt they let Gonzales just say "let's cut a deal" and walk away. I wouldn't put it past dimwit Gonzales to try it though.

zhoward wrote on March 8, 2007 2:35 PM:

I'd still prefer it to be a meeting in public. AGAG will use the administration tactic of bullying.

Anonymous wrote on March 8, 2007 2:41 PM:

" I fully expect that when they do appear, they will be under oath. "

They damn well better be!

It's hard to imagine what could make this travesty of justice any worse than a coordinated attack by the executive and congressmen on the independence on the DoJ and offices of the USA, during a time of rampant corruption... But bungling this investigation, and failing to get people under oath, yeah that would do it.

What really boggles the mind:

The lack of MSM attention on Specter for the PATRIOT act provision, which made this whole thing possible in the first place. Talk about a conflict of interest!

And he's still a prominent voting member of the committee investigating it!

Un-believe-able.

What more proof do people need of the rampant corruption and low ethical standards, not only in government but at the highest levels of the News industry and the conglomerates which run them while maintaining huge lobby shops in Washington, which rely on exactly this type of lax ethics enforcement.

Arknansan wrote on March 8, 2007 2:47 PM:

Will someone help me out here? There are a couple points I don’t understand.

1. Why hasn’t the requirement for senate confirmation been included in legislation the president must sign already? That should be the first priority. If the Republicans filibuster, the Democrats should simply call their bluff.

2. Since the administration’s public comments are uniformly dismissive and insulting to those who view the firings as a problem, why is the senate entering into discussion with Gonzales as if there were a foundation of trust between the parties?

chris miller wrote on March 8, 2007 2:49 PM:

Obstruction of justice

Abuse of power

Failure to inform Congress

Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

Chesire11 wrote on March 8, 2007 2:50 PM:

Honestly, I'm not surprised that Specter is managing to keep a low profile. The fact that he is the one who enabled the whole thing is inconsistent with the media's characterization of him as a principled Senator willing to challenge the administration when it exceeds its authority. They ignore the fact that Specter chronically showboats then caves-in to administration pressure, showboats and caves...

For the media to report on his role in this scandal, would defy years of image-building in favor of cold hard facts.

focus on Specter and PATRIOT wrote on March 8, 2007 3:05 PM:

SPECTER! PATRIOT ACT!

TPM and all blogs, please, focus on the backstory of Specter and the PATRIOT act now, and call his impartiality directly into question, so he stops stonewalling!

He's the embodiment of 'conflict of interest.' He's essentially investigating himself as his PATRIOT provision was the corner stone of this whole scandal, intentional or not.

He's clearly attempting to downplay/stonewall the scandal, as he did Iglacias, to cover his own ass.

This needs immediate media attention before the media forgets or investigators lose their nerve and let Specter and everyone else off the hook.

Focus on the backstory of Specter and the PATRIOT act now, and call his impartiality directly into question, so he stops stonewalling!

Englischlehrer wrote on March 8, 2007 3:11 PM:

get them under oath, period. If we can only get them on lying about important things, we'll take them down one at a time until someone sings.

I'm a 32-year old American thinking of the comfort this gross injustice never infringes on and it's easy to let it slide and enjoy life as best you can. After awhile, the more you read, it gets harder to believe that the word politics or politician should become the 8th word that will be outlawed to say after fuck cock cunt motherfucker cocksucker shit and one more I don't know.

I can't believe that the Bush administration is being so haywire with corruption that the past six years there was probably not one oversight meeting if it involved anything republican. I wanna say to them, "Politics you!"

drew wrote on March 8, 2007 3:20 PM:

focus on Specter and PATRIOT is correct. Good write-up of this at www.rawstory.com - I'd call it a "must read". The title is "Law prof: Patriot Act provision possibly tied to attorney firings didn't 'come out of head of Zeus'" Very prescient. I hope that calls and emails about this matter are posted as an action item everywhere. I'm sad to see the "meeting" AG will not be a public one - we have a right to know.

Chesire11 wrote on March 8, 2007 3:26 PM:

Sadly, cheap consumer goods, not religion, is the true opiate of the masses.

Now where did I put that iPod...

Com-n-sense wrote on March 11, 2007 3:24 PM:

Of course! That's the ticket! Just be satisfied with what a lying, torture enabling, bush lackey, Constitutionally ignoring, piece-of-shit has to say and put off any subpoenas you were going to issue.

Of course I don't know what the point is anyway, torture-boy already said he was too busy to pay attention to them anyway.