Comments (147)

Anonymous wrote on March 30, 2007 9:30 AM:

bad enough the cheney's of the world keep info under wraps!

now the dems are doing it too!

questions and answers under wraps.

the only advantage is that the witnesses won't know what others said.

Concerned wrote on March 30, 2007 9:30 AM:

Will they be under oath?

security code word: story. Exactly what I'm concerned these officials will give.

Anonymous wrote on March 30, 2007 9:31 AM:

or will they "find out" from someone?

likely they will....

bill p wrote on March 30, 2007 9:32 AM:

So, our officials, who are paid by us, and work for us, will not testify in front of us. Why?

ice weasel wrote on March 30, 2007 9:34 AM:

This is a sad commentary on the house dems and Conyers.

Oh, and where is karl rove's name?

That's what I thought.

Why capitulate to caligua now?

cervantes wrote on March 30, 2007 9:34 AM:

Well, these are small fish. It's probably worth skipping the C-Span show to get them on the record. It advances the investigation and accomplishes what needs to be accomplished. Seems good to me, keeps it moving.

Dem-agog wrote on March 30, 2007 9:35 AM:

Oh well. Conyers caved. I hope Leahy doesn't folow suit. This is not a good move.

Jan Hammer wrote on March 30, 2007 9:35 AM:

There is little about this arangement I find commendable. Government leaders seem to forget that it's our government. If we are owed anything it is truth and transparency. It stinks and I'm angry about it.

Anonymous wrote on March 30, 2007 9:37 AM:

"...but false statements are prosecutable."

This is the only consolation I can take from this.

Where's Rove, Miers? I don't know about this.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 30, 2007 9:40 AM:

Will Rep. Conyers ask why Monica Goodling was prosecuting low-level criminal cases out of the USA's office in Alexandria in the fall of 2004?
I posted the details of some of her cases at the TPM Cafe. A passport fraud case took all of a month to end in a plea bargain.

I also posted a link to today's Washington Post story about Goodling. No surprise, Goodling graduated from Regent U. in 1999 and went to work for the GOP as an oppo researcher. Goodling probably worked for Tim Griffin.

The WP refers to Goolding's six-month stint at the USA's office in Alexandria but does not provide dates. I'm almost certain it was in the fall of 2004. McNulty would know why Goodling was prosecuting low-level criminal cases because he was the USA at the time.

Why would Goodling want to pad her resume with routine low-level criminal cases in the fall of 2004? Was she was in line for a USA position?

If Goodling was in line for a USA slot, the scheme to replace the USAs was in place before the fall of 2004 and replacements had already been selected.

I find it hard to believe that even Karl Rove would consider placing Goodling in a USA slot but someone has to ask why Goodling, a high-level DOJ official, was prosecuting those low-level criminal cases in the fall of 2004.

Should've shown them no quarter Conyers wrote on March 30, 2007 9:40 AM:

Gotta say, I'm VERY disappointed in Conyers. I thought he was better than this. Not good, not good.

Tulkinghorn wrote on March 30, 2007 9:41 AM:

Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) and the other leaders have agreed that "investigators would keep the content of the interviews confidential pending consultation with Department officials."

Anybody else read this as "we will keep them confidential for as long as we please"? If it gives a fig leaf for those testifying to avoid immediate retaliation by the White House, it sounds good to me. Then leak them, and refer them to a grand jury. When the hack USA in charge of DC does not convene a grand jury, push for independent prosecutor.

As long as move things along, you can push the legal and political agenda in a pincer movement.

Rusty wrote on March 30, 2007 9:41 AM:

Very disappointing. In general, it is bad to cave when you know your opponent's hand and it sucks. I agree that there is no reason for our public servants who are paid with our dollars to testify in private. Nothing in a democracy should be private except security related issues. I see none here. BTW, are these the, "...if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear guys?"

Let's hope Leahy has more spine than Conyers on this.

malcontent wrote on March 30, 2007 9:41 AM:

Seriously, this sucks. Where do we live, in Soviet Russia or in the United States of America? It's becoming harder and harder to tell the difference.

Code word: kill fascists

(kidding)

Grome wrote on March 30, 2007 9:41 AM:

Still wondering why Karl was dancing his ass off the other night ?

Slideguy wrote on March 30, 2007 9:42 AM:

The point of the exercise is to get these people on record without taking the issue of executive priviledge before a Supreme Court that's been stacked with authoritarians. They already made the the guy president. They could very make him unaccountable.

Richard wrote on March 30, 2007 9:42 AM:

Fancy that!

Peter Kohan wrote on March 30, 2007 9:42 AM:

I don't see why Dems are caving here. No oaths??? No public hearings??? Is this because Conyers is beginning to feel this issue has no legs? Because if that's not the case, then he is not only doing the American public a disservice, but it wastes a huge opportunity to rally the base on the left.

The Sampson testimony yesterday showed us how weasel-y these political appointees are. The American public needs to continue to see this. Why? So they can feast their eyes on the types of junior execs our "CEO President" has been installing in key positions. It's time we really played up the incompetence of these folks and their underlying philosophy - "government isn't good for anything except getting my party the spoils. Screw public service. Screw the common man and woman. Government is about cementing Republican elites." Get that message out and we win big in 2008.

jhpearman wrote on March 30, 2007 9:42 AM:

http://www.freenewmexican.com/

jhpearman wrote on March 30, 2007 9:43 AM:

http://www.freenewmexican.com/

bp wrote on March 30, 2007 9:43 AM:

I would hold off on making an assessment just now. This could be setting the stage for going after bigger fish. For now I am inclined to give Rep Conyers the benefit of the doubt. He is an experienced rep. But like my fellow posters I want this out in the open. Nothing like fresh air and kleig lights to get the truth.

wasabi wrote on March 30, 2007 9:44 AM:

This is the only way that info is going to get out to reach critical mass. The House needs to gather more information and eventually they will have the goods on the big fish. I don't view this as caving at all.

rs wrote on March 30, 2007 9:44 AM:

I'm guessing that since Kyle Sampson escaped unscathed, the others figure it's safe to jump into the water, especially since they'll be spared the pressure of testifying in public.

Adam wrote on March 30, 2007 9:46 AM:

Absent more details, I don't see that this is nearly as big a problem as everyone is making it out to be. Sure, it would be great if these people were trotted out on C-SPAN, but Monica Goodling is not the prize. If this moves the investigation forward, good.

mbbsdphil wrote on March 30, 2007 9:47 AM:

Acceptable only if this is the first of many encounters, and only so long as there are no limits on what Congress can do with the materials, including pursuing further investigations and publishing verbatim transcripts.

bcf wrote on March 30, 2007 9:49 AM:

Just because the witnesses aren't publicly testifying now, doesn't mean they never will.

In the event they do publicly testify, the questioners will have a huge advantage if they know in advance what the answers to the questions will be.

We won't know right away what they say in these interviews, but best of all, neither will Bush.

Put me down on the side of "Good move House Dems."

Dave wrote on March 30, 2007 9:51 AM:

This is bullshit.

Jan Hammer wrote on March 30, 2007 9:51 AM:

You may email the committee with your views here:

http://judiciary.house.gov/Contact.aspx

I don't ike it.

D.W.G. wrote on March 30, 2007 9:52 AM:

Calm down folks, this is step one in the investigation: Get the underlings to talk on the record, but not publicly, so that you can get the goods on people higher up in the foodchain.

Conyers is after bigger fish than Monica Goodling or even McNulty.

Judy Solomon wrote on March 30, 2007 9:58 AM:

Conyers knows what he is doing. Give him some credit. Let the committee get more information quickly withou the circus atmosphere and Republican (and Democratic) posturing for cameras. When they have more information they'll have a better idea how to proceed against Gonzales and the President's office.

osage wrote on March 30, 2007 9:58 AM:

This is BULLSHIT! Exactly what the Bush cabal wants. Why in hell are the Democrats such panty-wastes? We know we can't trust Bush Republicans. How do we know we can trust Democrats if behind-closed-door testimony is ACCEPTABLE to them. As I said, this is BULLSHIT! If Sampson had to do it, ALL those involved should have to do it. GOD, PLEASE SAVE AMERICA FROM LILLY LIVERED PUBLIC SERVANTS WHO HAVE NO REVERENCE FOR THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO KNOW. SECRECY IN GOVERNMENT BREEDS AND PERPETUATES DISHONESTY AND CORRUPTION. THIS IS NOT A NATIONAL SECURITY MATTER!

Rusty wrote on March 30, 2007 9:58 AM:

Wrong. They do not have to go to court to get testamony from anyone at DOJ. That fight comes with executive privilage. There is no excuse to take this behind closed doors. Do you not think that one of the bootlicking toadies in Congress will tell Bush exactly what is said? C'mon. This just takes the spotlight OFF the testamony, allows much more spin, and denies the public the moment when they go... "Gee, that guys sure has forgotten a lot of stuff since last December." I'm in PR, and this is not the way to kee this is the newspaper and the public eye where it belongs.

Jan Hammer - I am a huge huge fan.

Alex wrote on March 30, 2007 9:59 AM:

Somewhat disappointing, because I love C-Span as much as the next guy, but it makes sense. The statements, if false, can be subject to prosecution. Transcripts will be kept. The C'tee has apparently made no binding agreement that they'll keep the material secret long-term. The really big fish are not subject to the compromise. And the Senate is not involved, so they can follow up in public if desired. And as bcf said, this gives the C'tee power to essentially depose the witnesses so they can be much more precise in a later, open, proceeding.

Let's face it folks -- Bush has no legal authority to keep these folks from testifying, but when has that stopped him before? This moves the investigation forward, does not bind the Congress's hands for the future, and does not run the risk that Bush will simply say no and then the courts will fail to enforce the subpoenas based on the political question doctrine.

Rick B wrote on March 30, 2007 10:01 AM:

Cervantes,

You have it right. This advances the investigation and if it helps the crooks, it helps only the low-level crooks. This puts the ones at the top into the cross-hairs, and it does it in my lifetime.

We need to expose the crooks and criminals at the top, not spend a lot of time and engergy on sturm und drang (That's an old Texas phrase) that provides colorful excitement but leads nowhere.

mayan wrote on March 30, 2007 10:04 AM:

My primary concern, at this point, is that I will be deprived of the schadenfreudic fix I was counting on were these hearings to be public.

Still, however...I trust Conyers implicitly and I think it more important to get these guys on the record and to have seven transcripts than to be litigating the issue for the next two years.
This is all about garnering information and cross-checking stories. Laying a foundation, so to speak.

I note that lying to Congress is a felony...whether it's at a public hearing or a private one. Under oath or not. I see nothing in the story to suggest that hearings will not ultimately result from these initial "depositions."

And besides, there's always Waxman.

db wrote on March 30, 2007 10:10 AM:

"So, our officials, who are paid by us, and work for us, will not testify in front of us. Why?"

Because republicans under rove/gwb believe in small govt. So small no one can see anything they're doing.

I agree people should hold their fire and see what the dems do. So far, they are handling this well and are doing a decent job. It is not in dems interest to have this side-lined into a court battle over EP. Better to get as much evidence as possible now, one step at a time, and as the hearings unfold. They still have the option to force the public testimony of these witnesses should the WH or the witnesses play games. And the battle over EP can easily be re-invoked at any time.

I agree, though, that eventually, everything has to be made public, and any caving in by dems agreeing to keep stuff secret that is not otherwise classified cannot be tolerated. But at this point, my read is that the dems have the upper hand here and the WH is in retreat.

Dennis wrote on March 30, 2007 10:10 AM:

"Behind closed doors", what good is that; "he said, she said, they said."

From what seemed to have been a good beginning, the dem's have now caved.

My code word to post here is "loss", and it certainly is a loss for the American people.

It's congressional business as usual.

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

Jacob Davies wrote on March 30, 2007 10:10 AM:

My strictly amateur take is to believe that Conyers is a smart enough guy that if he thinks he can get somewhere with this approach, I'm willing to wait and see. I mean, it's not like so far he's been weak on this.

Still, it is quite offensive that on a matter where there is no apparent need for secrecy except this claim of executive privilege - in particular no national security implications - a deal can be struck whereby Congress & the White House can know something but the public cannot. If executive privilege genuinely applies then they should not be able to talk to Congress at all; if it does not, they should be able to testify in public and under oath. Seems straightforward to me.

TJ wrote on March 30, 2007 10:11 AM:

"investigators would keep the content of the interviews confidential pending consultation with Department officials."

As I suggested on another site, this is the beginning of the prisoner's dilemma. You have 2 prisoners, question them seperately, and tell each that the other has confessed, but placed most of the blame on the other.

If the content of the interviews is "kept confidential", then no matter what Monica or the others say, publicly or privately, can be met with conyer's saying, "we said we'd keep that information confidential." Then Conyers calls for more hearings, and the people testifying have no idea what the comittee's hole card is.

DrBB wrote on March 30, 2007 10:12 AM:

I'll try to keep my mind open to the perspective voiced by cervantes, bp and others here: that it's about getting the small fish on record. The fact that none of the big fish are named looks like the result of a "getting to yes" negotiation: focusing on the few things they can agree on and leaving the big deal-breaker stuff for a later round.

On the other hand it reeks so bad of the same feckless caving-in behavior they succumbed to with the 9/11 commission and whatnot that it's hard not to feel like they just can't kick the habit, even when they're holding all the cards.

Tulkinghorn wrote on March 30, 2007 10:12 AM:

As long as there is a transcript, there can be a replay of my favorite "Yes, Minister" episode where the unreleased white paper is left on the restaurant table...

swoosh wrote on March 30, 2007 10:13 AM:

If there's a transcript containing juicy tidbits, these interviews won't stay "confidential" for long.

Conyers' shop will leak just about as much as Ken Starr's.

Rebel wrote on March 30, 2007 10:14 AM:

D.W.G. is exactly right. Many underlings were deposed before the GSA hearing in which Lurita Doan made a fool of herself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VePqzIrR-ao&mode=related&search=

Have no fears. There is plenty more to come out. Imagine where we will be in the next few months after all of this in just a few weeks.

Just sit back and enjoy the ride.

JohnW1141 wrote on March 30, 2007 10:14 AM:

I wonder why the Democrats allowed this. It stinks and it makes it seem the Dems caved in to the Repubs once again.

I'm disappointed in Conyers.

Ron Byers wrote on March 30, 2007 10:16 AM:

After reading the thread, I have to say that I agree with Conyers on this one. It is always best to quietly depose the small fry first. Find out what they are willing to tell. Find out where the holes are in your case. Then when the matter gets to the jury of public opinion, the big fish are fried.

Harriett wrote on March 30, 2007 10:18 AM:

This is completely unacceptable. Dems have the majority of the populace behind them, so why are they caving? Americans are disgusted with the continual secrets and lies. Ms. Goodling ESPECIALLY needs to either testify under oath, or GO TO JAIL!!!

yellowdogD wrote on March 30, 2007 10:18 AM:

OT, in yesterday's hearing Samson admitted to prosecuting only one case in his whole career, a federal weapons case in South Florida (probably a slam dunk). This man wanted the Utah USA spot,and probably would have gotten it had they not had to pay back for Patriot Act shenanigans.

burro wrote on March 30, 2007 10:21 AM:

All in all, more bricks in the wall. Please make it a very tight fit Rep. Conyer's with the mortar applied just right.

DrBB wrote on March 30, 2007 10:21 AM:

NYT Editorial today: "It is no wonder that the White House is trying to stop Congress from questioning Mr. Rove, Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel, and other top officials in public, under oath and with a transcript. The more the administration tries to spin the prosecutor purge, the worse it looks."

Even the Times gets it. If Conyers traded away Rove and Miers in return for getting some underlings to go on record, albeit unsworn, behind closed doors, and that's it, then these guys really are the feckless bozos they looked like they were when they were in the minority.

I'm trying to stay hopeful but the pattern is a little too familiar for comfort.

Buck wrote on March 30, 2007 10:21 AM:

I believe this is a good thing. Proper sequestration of the witnesses should be the key.

anon wrote on March 30, 2007 10:23 AM:

...the witnesses won't know what others said...

That's an assumption I wouldn't make. Remember this little incident:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/22/infiltration_of_files_seen_as_extensive/

...Republican staff members of the US Senate Judiciary Commitee infiltrated opposition computer files for a year, monitoring secret strategy memos and periodically passing on copies to the media, Senate officials told The Globe...

And, as far as I know, Manuel Miranda still has a job.

Security code: snake, as in "Sen. Hatch hired Manuel Miranda, a snake, and Miranda hacked the Dems Judiciary Committee memos and passed them on to Robert Novak, another snake."

sdougherty wrote on March 30, 2007 10:23 AM:

What if the whole firing-of-eight-attorneys
was originally concocted just to get rid of Lam?

What if Rove, Miers, and Gonzales originally decreed seven other US Attorneys be placed on a list simply in order to give a plausible cover to Lam's dismissal? If a bundle of eight attorneys were replaced, with a "performance" rationale for so doing, Lam's dismissal would stick out less like a sore thumb.

In the course of compiling this "smokescreen list," Rove, Miers, and Gonzales detected other targets for dismissal for political reasons, and added their names.

What do you think? This may be the reason why Miers originally suggested dismissing all 93 Bush appointees in 2005, an idea simply too cUmbersome to implement as a cover for the outing of one bad apple.

Anonymous wrote on March 30, 2007 10:24 AM:

monica goodling may not be the "prize" - but she is being set up as part of the "future" of the repub cabal

she apparently worked day and night - and weekends on tiny prosecutions from time to time - and she either led a nunlike existence - going from yearbook type research to anti-dem research to liason of "just us" and "l'etat c'est moi"

or she's not a nun - but that is deep under wraps

but it's clear from the WaPo article and mrs. panstreppon's dogged sniffing - that the woman bears watching.... is she practically in a witness protection program? or did she learn from her "researching" endeavors how to bury info?

monica watch - we need it!

Bruce Webb wrote on March 30, 2007 10:26 AM:

"investigators would keep the content of the interviews confidential pending consultation with Department officials."

Well a lot depends on how they define "confidential". Does that include not having lunch with your counterpart at Senate Judiciary?

That's the nice thing about being able to investigate from both sides of the Capitol. You have all kinds of opportunity to play Good Cop/Bad Cop.

Conyers wasn't born yesterday.

BinGA wrote on March 30, 2007 10:26 AM:

I would love to hear what these folks have to say when the possibility of perjury charges are hanging over their heads. I guess Karl and Harriett and George and Dick would, too.

Considering reports of all the finger-pointing going on over at DoJ, I doubt that anyone in the White House can trust any of the underlings at DoJ anymore.

So I'm not too unhappy that WH personnel will be left out of the loop on this round. I think they are having trouble deciding whether it's better for Karl and Harriett to have been in the decision making process on the removal of 8 USAs, or whether it would have been better for them to be out of it.

They've all been weaseling around so much, I think it's probably a good idea to take them one at a time, behind closed doors. Any parent with multiple children who comes home to a trashed house knows that.

JoeD wrote on March 30, 2007 10:28 AM:

How does a guy like Sampson graduate from Law School and pass the Bar Exam with such a poor memory. I lost count of the "I don't remember"s at 75

Anonymous wrote on March 30, 2007 10:28 AM:

buck

"proper sequestration" of witnesses, you say, is the key

but where?

there's no possibility the whole capital has been bugged, is there?

no paranoia is enough here!

Bucky wrote on March 30, 2007 10:30 AM:

I sure hope this is meant to be a crow bar intending to pry out information that can show the committee where to hunt next. The nightmare scenario comes in two flavors. Either the committee stops because off-record DoJ officials are freed to stonewall the inquiry or one or more Republicans on the committee will serve as a conduit of critical information back to the White House, warning Cheney & Rove of where the investigation might be heading next and who from DoJ might be ratting them out.

I hate to say this, but with the lockstep and secretive ways that Republicans have be conducting themselves for the last ten years, having any Republicans on this committee seems equivalent to ensuring that any police investigation into organized crime have at least one Mafia representative in the DA's office.

Ferruge wrote on March 30, 2007 10:30 AM:

I am stunned to see so many in this thread showing the kind of short-term strategic thinking that generally is absent on most all other threads on this site. There is so much disappointment and near-despondency about Conyers agreeing to private meetings with these small fry, but apparently ignoring one of the biggest accomplishments - transcripts.

Of course, that alone doesn't guarantee success in prosecuting even these small-time jokers. But I don't understand so many here throwing their hands in the air just because a bunch of no-names won't immediately be paraded in front of committee hearings. I guess for real hard-core political junkies these things seem monumental, but until you really get the big names in your target sites, these people don't amount to much. But getting some testimony transcribed and in private I think has the potential to really nail the people who deserve it - much higher up, much bigger names.

Patience. We've waited this long, I think we can spare another several weeks.

Jonny at the Cape wrote on March 30, 2007 10:32 AM:

Slideguy said: "The point of the exercise is to get these people on record without taking the issue of executive priviledge before a Supreme Court..."

Point taken. There's no doubt in my mind that escalating this to his allies on the SCOTUS is exactly what W wants, and would be risky, as you say. However, this agreement seems to be ceding the issue altogether.

I can't see how the Dems can make any kind of case for getting Rove and Miers under oath in public now. That is, if they defer to the claim of executive priviledge for these mid-level DOJ functionaries, how can they credibly justify more strict requirements for WH advisers that counsel Bush directly?

I think this is bad, even if only because it makes the good guys look weak. If they can't stand toe-to-toe with even a corrupt president with approval ratings in the low 30s (or lower), we might as well just hang it up.

PTF wrote on March 30, 2007 10:34 AM:

I agree with Mrs. P - Goodling has a lot more to reveal than she has.

What we still don't know is who her (powerful) political patron was.

Was it Ashcroft? Did he have an affair with her?

Was is Kay Cole James? She was the Regent University government Dean (one of Monica's degrees) before she went on to be the Director of OPM for Bush... (and then did a stint at MZM, government contracting business of felon Mitch Wade)...

Monica is not married, but she is 33. Is she a lesbian? Is she trying to hide that?

And certainly having worked for Tim Griffin, she'd know where all the bodies are buried from 2000 -- and might have also been involved in the vote-caging campaign involving military and blacks.

There's a lot more to know here.

bobh wrote on March 30, 2007 10:36 AM:

Or....

It could mean that someone has ALREADY agreed to spill beans and does not want to do it in public for fear of being killed.

So they interview eight in private.

Kinda like firing 8 attorneys when you want to really fire one.

Maybe this is a signal conyers wants someone higher up.

Jonny at the Cape wrote on March 30, 2007 10:38 AM:

The thing with Goodling is that her claim of the Fifth is weak. The letter her lawyer sent to Congress basically said she couldn't testify because the Democrats are meanies and might ask her loaded questions. That doesn't meet the constitutional standard.

I wonder why they just don't offer her immunity from prosecution. Who cares about her anyway? Take away any chance that she could incriminate herself, and you take away any basis for claiming her Fifth Amendment rights.

monicawatch wrote on March 30, 2007 10:42 AM:

monicawatch -

the one "exposed" place she's been is her first year of law school in DC.

after that she transferred to regent.

anyone know anyone who was in lawschool with her that 1st year?

she truly has the look of someone who would be married with 5 kids - all wearing gingham dresses down to their ankles. so WHY is she not married?

Important question. (an affair - or a lesbian - or both?)

Anonymous wrote on March 30, 2007 10:43 AM:

From Wikipedia: "Conyers is the last remaining member of the House Judiciary Committee who had voted on the Articles of Impeachment against Nixon in July 1974."

Give this guy the benefit of the doubt. Conyers is an old-line liberal warrior, one of the few we have left. If Conyers sees fit to get some of these shrimp deposed behind closed doors, it's because he has other fish to grill.

Keep in mind, both in House and Senate, we have razor-thin majorities. The Repubs can still derail things by procedural actions (eg, the threatened Repub "kabosh" yesterday in the Senate). This is a knife fight in a telephone booth. It is vital to allow Conyers and other good warriors to fight this war on ground they can stand on.

The show is coming, folks.. It's already here. Congress is slowly bringing Bush to heel. It won't happen in a blaze of light, but Bush's box is becoming noticably smaller..

KY3 Democrat: "Force and prudence...are the might of all the governments that ever have been..."

Kurt wrote on March 30, 2007 10:43 AM:

I think the analogy here might be to a confidential Grand Jury Investigation - work the underling to set up the higher ups. Initially I was appalled, but I think Conyers knows how to get this done...

"Truth is stranger than Fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain

georgia wrote on March 30, 2007 10:44 AM:

I like it, but I certainly hope that, in an effort to maintain confidentiality, the individuals are questioned individually.

PTF wrote on March 30, 2007 10:49 AM:

monicawatch:

theory on the school change is this. regent was founded in 1990 but not fully accredited as a law school until 1996. non-accredited schools' students cannot receive federal financial aid.

my guess is that monica went to AU first, but when regent cleared up the accreditation thing, she switched.

to maintain a student body through the non-accredited years, regent would have had to spent a lot of its own money on financial aid for students. once the school was fully accredited, they now could spend that money on additional scholarships while other students could now come in with their financial aid.

and monica probably got some of that financial aid.

au/wash college of law was a tier two or three back in 1996 (not in the top 100 like it is today) so monica's average student status was consistent.

Jonny at the Cape wrote on March 30, 2007 10:53 AM:

I agree that Conyers is one of our best and most savvy Reps. He must know what he's doing. I just hope it works out.

There are so many craven Dems in both houses of Congress who would probably prefer to cave than to risk looking "partisan" to the Chris Matthews' of the world or to risk the ire of their corporate paymasters who LOVE W. It's amazing to me how they work on the inside of the Dem caucus to enable the criminals.

SocraticGadfly wrote on March 30, 2007 10:58 AM:

Uhh, don't see guys named Rove or Gonzales on that list... all smaller fish.

jayackroyd wrote on March 30, 2007 10:59 AM:

This is a good thing. The committee needs information. All they're gonna get in open hearings is stonewall. I hope, as in all good interrogations, that these sessions will be one at a time, so that versions of events can be compared across witnesses.

monicawatch wrote on March 30, 2007 11:01 AM:

PTF

Yes, I follow your theory. But likely all those fundie places will keep her under wraps.

So maybe someone at AU recalls her from that year. Also her time in France bears investigating.

She knows how the repubs do research on people. So she likely knows how to conceal herself. Thus my question about that year in DC at AU. (is AU still affilliated with religion somehow? it once was)

this woman did yearbooks. was student body prez. knows how to bootlick.

with her long blond locks and gingham dress demeanor she likely overheard a lot

Security word: news. yes, we need more news of monica

Sally wrote on March 30, 2007 11:01 AM:

Who represents the people?

Did Speaker Pelosi sign off on this?

osage wrote on March 30, 2007 11:04 AM:

Having to place "trust" in any politician IS NOT something we should accept. I don't want to be in the position of "needing" to trust others to interpret what I want to witness and judge for myself. I'm sick and tired of all the BAD information and BAD conclusions Americans reach based on distortion, hearsay and lies. The only judgement we should trust is our own. I am opposed to ALL SECRECY IN WHAT OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS DO, and I'm even leery of trusting them in claiming secrecy due to matters of national security or presidential privilege. I want near total open government, checks and balances, oversight and accountability. We shouldn't have to "trust" that what we are told is truthful when our forefather's design for our system of government eliminated our need to do so. We need to go back to what they so wisely intended.

Sagrilarus wrote on March 30, 2007 11:08 AM:

There are two ways to crack a safe -- with dynamite, or peel back the metal layer by layer. I think this is a very savvy move that drives a wedge between the White House offices and the Justice Department. Now they won't be so eager to coordinate their stories with each other.

Jonny at the Cape wrote on March 30, 2007 11:09 AM:

Osage,

Hear hear! Well stated, and exactly right on all counts!

AWB wrote on March 30, 2007 11:11 AM:

Just trust Conyers on this one. He knows what he's doing, he's giving up nothing and he's moving the investigation forward.
He's getting a lot and giving up nothing for the future. He can always call them back in public hearing under oath.
This is basic discovery here. Calm down everyone.

PTF wrote on March 30, 2007 11:13 AM:

Monica's zeal for the cause will be quickly zapped when she realizes that all of the bootlicking she did for the Party is tossed aside as Karl and others scramble to cover themselves.

And she becomes the next Craig Livingstone.

Dan D wrote on March 30, 2007 11:13 AM:

This testimony will be subject to prosecution under the provisions commonly known as "lying to congress"

For the House Judiciary committee, the key is the transcript. Oaths are nice, but not required for lying to them to be illegal.

As long as two members of the committee are present for a quorum, and a transcript is taken, testimony given to them is considered speaking "to congress" for the purposes of the law.

Conyers knows what he is doing legally at least. The secrecy is bothersome for other reasons, but let's also remember the Administration won't know for sure what was said either. It will play off their fears of people breaking in private, or tipping off Conyers for just who to subpoena or what questions to ask.

Check my URL for a DKos diary I wrote about the legal issues involved here. The Senate committee needs oaths or the testimony doesn't count, but the House can dispense with oaths.

Cufford wrote on March 30, 2007 11:15 AM:

Par for the course.

A few days ago I predicted in comments here on another thread that: the Dems will ultimately back down, never actually issue subpenas on Rove or Meirs, and would capitulate to whatever the White House was willing to offer. Because that would be par for the course.

The Dems won't actually stand tough on anything of any REAL significance on any of the MAJOR players. Yeah, they'll talk tough in front of the cameras with with few little guys that the administration will throw under the bus -- like Sampson -- but will stop short of taking any real action that would truly result in holding the administration to justice in any meaningful way.

Par for the course.

Cufford
Fresno, CA

Anonymous wrote on March 30, 2007 11:16 AM:

monicawatch

AU was founded as a school to teach public administration, but was never religiously affiliated. They did buy a divinity school as part of their expansion but the school was closed at that point. Maybe you're thinking of Wesley Theological Seminary which backs up to AU but is not affiliated?

As for WCL, look for graduates of that institution between 1999 and 2000 and see if any of them are media figures... Maybe they'd talk? Most lawyers post their CV's on their firms websites too (along with e-mail) so another route if you're digging.

cars wrote on March 30, 2007 11:19 AM:

This is a deal with the DOJ, not the White House. That's why you don't see Rove's name here, etc. The White House doesn't seem to be negotiating right now.

These interviews are conducted by congressional staff. That's good. The transcripts will be used. Open hearings with all or some of the DOJ officials are possible. If these guys don't point at each other, they will point at the White House, like Sampson ultimately did. That's not bad. That's moving forward.

One issue the DOJ hasn't agreed to is to re-release the documents without so many apparently key redactions.

mayan wrote on March 30, 2007 11:20 AM:

Here's a link to the DOJ letter. I got it from RawStory so, if this doesn't work...that's where to go.

http://tinyurl.com/2r94o2

At any rate, I note that this is NOT just for Conyers but appears to also apply to Leahy's committee. There's a bunch of other information -and conditions- in the letter. Interesting read.

SqueakyRat wrote on March 30, 2007 11:21 AM:

All this blathering about "sequestering the witnesses" and the "Prisoner's Dilemma" is dunderheaded. These witnesses are not in jail. Nothing in what we know of this agreement prohibits them from communicating with each other or being de-briefed by the White House as soon as they walk out of the committee room. Even if that were prohibited they would do it anyway. The only way to keep the later ones from knowing what the committee asked the earlier ones would be to interview them all separately but simultaneously. And that would hamper the questioning.

Jack Potts wrote on March 30, 2007 11:25 AM:

I'm not sure how the deal works, but if Congress keeps the individual transcripts confidential FROM the White House and the Justice Department until after all the interviews are completed, it's a perfect way to trip up the Bush Administration so they CAN'T coordinate their stories.

We all know what Sampson said yesterday, and so does the White House. Now they can coordinate their spin, and selectively release information and e-mails to counteract whatever Sampson might have done to Gonzales, Rove and Miers.

However, when Congress obtains incriminating information during these transcribed interviews, they can use it as a wedge to go after the people they really want.

I don't like the secrecy, but as long as the White House can't review the testimony, I think this could work.

TQTGA wrote on March 30, 2007 11:35 AM:

I hope Conyers is playing this right (and if not, maybe Leahy will). If Conyers ever tries to call Rove or Miers in the future, Bush will have a relatively strong claim for executive privilege (Miers and Rove advise him directly). It would go to the Supreme Court, which could either side with Bush or put the matter on ice for many months. If Conyers had not made this deal, Bush would have been stuck with a much weaker executive privilege claim on the whole lot of them. "Aah need to receive confidential advice from these ten people--eight of whom I have barely met." Even this authoritarian Supreme Court couldn't rubber-stamp that.

BinGA wrote on March 30, 2007 11:35 AM:

I hope that Conyers will also get an on the record interview from San Diego FBI chief Dan Dzwilewski, who's just tendered his resignation effective 4/30/07, after being told by higher-ups that his comments about the Lam removal being political and would impede ongoing investigations were out of line and he should keep quiet. He was the FBI guy who was responsible for the Cunnimgham investigation.

Is anybody in San Diego watching Ron Nehring?

Code=wind

rmadilo wrote on March 30, 2007 11:36 AM:

SqueakyRat:

I think you got it. The point is that these are like depositions, or discovery, whatever. By keeping them private, nobody can coordinate their story exactly, or at least be aware of what to play dumb about. If anyone spills the beans, even a little, all hell could break loose in open hearings.

This is very good news for Dems, additionally it allows more focused public testimony. Instead of a public looking fishing trip, or excess flogging of public, and maybe innocent, public officials, hearings will be more explosive.

JEP wrote on March 30, 2007 11:37 AM:

Having transcripted testimony should make this palatable to everyone, while it is not the public event we shuld be able to expect for our tax dollars, at least there will be a chain of testimony to dissect.

Does anyone really doubt that this testimony will reeach the media and the blogs? Give the Dems time to dig up the dirt, they've got the tools now and they are using them.

Give Conyers some credit for his accomplishments, and stop forgetting that for the last 6 years, we have had NO OVERSIGHT!!!!

Our frustration simply can not accelerate the process, the wheels of justice turn slowly in a bi-partisan world.

Don't turn on our own protectors, they have made startling, unprecedented and historic headway in this frustrating battle for truth and justice.

JEP wrote on March 30, 2007 11:40 AM:

It is great to see Gibbons under scrutiny, and now that CREW has leaned into Issa's complicity in teh whole sordid Cunningham scandal, we may see some more of the worst elements in our government ejected or disempowered by their own misdeeds.

db wrote on March 30, 2007 11:41 AM:

I'm not sure how the deal works, but if Congress keeps the individual transcripts confidential FROM the White House and the Justice Department until after all the interviews are completed, it's a perfect way to trip up the Bush Administration so they CAN'T coordinate their stories.

The WH will know what was said same day most likely. The witnesses' attorneys will likely pass on what was said, one way or another.

Anonymous wrote on March 30, 2007 11:42 AM:

Opps...not html. the 1st paragraph above is quoted from another post above.

donviti wrote on March 30, 2007 11:44 AM:

ho hum, little fish baiting for the big fish. They want Rove and they aren't going to get him

unfortunately. But at the least maybe we do a little purging of some of these unqualified shitbags.

Dan D wrote on March 30, 2007 11:45 AM:

SqueakyRat:

We're talking about scumbags here who lie routinely. Just because they'll meet to discuss their testilying doesn't mean they'll be wholly honest with each other. They are all looking out for #1 first, and if any of them thinks they'll get a better deal from congress by outing the other rats, they'll do it and lie to their cohorts about having done it.

And even if none of them do, they won't know for sure, and it breeds mistrust among them.

Some prisoners do think of such things before getting caught and coordinate their stories in advance, but the police are still often able to break them.

rmadilo wrote on March 30, 2007 11:45 AM:

One other consideration:

Congress is out of town for two weeks!

Most likely the staff will be conducting the questioning. All rules apply, you can't lie to staff either.

So why the congressmen go off to raise money, etc., the senate and house staff get to grill the folks who can't afford high priced lawyers.

tbhull wrote on March 30, 2007 11:45 AM:

Fuck closed and secret government! Someone needs to immediately draft up a FOIA request on this. This type of inside the beltway bullshit is dangerous and must be stopped.

Propagandee wrote on March 30, 2007 11:49 AM:

Sure it stinks.

But if it pulls the lid off the larger Rovian plot to make Republican the permanent majority party, identifying the specific mechanisms being used to accomplish it, so be it.

A democratic republic simply can't survive the complete politicization of its legal system.

Dan D wrote on March 30, 2007 11:50 AM:

Cufford,

So you came here to say "I told you so"? Thanks dude, cause if there's anything we need, it's a good dose of defeatism.

As numerous people have noted, including me, there is plenty of room for this manouvre to work out quite well for the Democrats, and to actually obtain more information than would be obtained from public hearings.

But you're too busy using ever data point to "prove" your assertion the Democrats will just back down and let this slide.

If that was the plan, they could have done it weeks ago. Leahy seems quite pissed and now even Specter was getting feisty in how he took on Sampson.

Waxman is all over the GSA business and provides another angle at Rove.

You have given up before the fight was well and truly began. Begone.

aqualung wrote on March 30, 2007 11:52 AM:

This is OK. It takes the cudgel away from the GOP that the Dems in Congress are zealots who are overstepping their bounds (a lie of course, but it sells with the Reich)and are unwilling to compromise; that all they are doing is engaging in "SHOW TRIALS". I think Conyers knows exactly what he is doing. Also, as noted above, keeping the testimony private hinders (doesn't make impossible, but hinders) collusion on the part of future witnesses.

Stephennnn wrote on March 30, 2007 11:53 AM:

Good Cop, Bad Cop. If that's the strategy between the House and the Senate then I believe it has a good chance for success. I am not ready to condemn Conyers. In my opinion he's been around a long enough time to anticipate the realities of these unfolding events. He's a fox who's smart enough not to confront directly, but instead to circle around and look for vulnerabilities. Go for it Conyers.

Legalize wrote on March 30, 2007 12:02 PM:

For now, I have to assume that Conyers knows what he's doing here. The good-cop bad-cop angle seems plausible, as does a straight-forward divide and conquor scheme. If these guys testify in private, whatever they say can be used as leverage against them, and probably against the higher-ups.

One of the problems I've seen with this matter is that when everything is made public, the major players can adjust their statements to seemingly inject some plausibility into their own contradictions - in a very legalistic way. This might be a good way of just getting the straight truth, rather than some qualified version of "the truth," as hedged against publicly disclosed statements, because these statements won't be reviewable until the players are confronted with them - hopefully under oath.

Code: "wheel," as in this thing just keeps going round and round.

Mike H wrote on March 30, 2007 12:03 PM:

I think the Dems know they will be lied to even behind closed doors. They will have transcripts and will be able to expose any inconsistancies betwenn the transcripts and the documentation they have. Then the Dems can insist on public sworn testimony and the Repubs have no way to refuse that has any traction.

Anonymous wrote on March 30, 2007 12:03 PM:

Note an important timeline in the original story. Elston is being interviewed TODAY ..this thing is moving, and quickly. I think everyone needs to take a deep breath, step away from the keyboard before complaining that this isn't being done in public, and realize that not only is Conyers an old school investigative sort, but majority staff is stocked with qualified attorneys who (I would guess) have spent nothing but the last 2 weeks or so getting questions ready. All these DOJ folks are themselves lawyers, so they are obviously going to be mindful that while they may "get away" with more falsehoods (if everyone squares their story) the risk of getting caught (and all the attendant consequences) is a far greater risk, so they have every incentive to be honest. They would rather be exposed as incompetent and poltically motivated than risk being prosecuted.

Rich wrote on March 30, 2007 12:03 PM:

I expect lots of leaks.

Legalize wrote on March 30, 2007 12:05 PM:

Edit: this appears to me to be more like a civil deposition, which is subject to review and objections from the parties, anyway. People tend to feel more comfortable to talk when they are in a closed conference room with their attorneys, simply answering questions and going through documents - well more so than being grilled before legislative committees in any event.

That doesn't mean that their answers and the questioning won't become part of the public record eventually; in fact, they probably will.

aed wrote on March 30, 2007 12:06 PM:

Wasn't it Schumer or Leahy or someone like that who said something about potentially getting the information through other sources, i.e. not just Sampson, but others at DOJ? Maybe this is part of that 'game'. This seems like a chess game and it has to be one move at a time.

Cufford wrote on March 30, 2007 12:07 PM:

Dan D,

If you're going to disagree with other people's perspectives, that's fine.

But being condescending, insulting them and asking them to leave because you don't agree is childish, arrogant and only lowers the discourse on such a great site.

That's a major problem online these days. Anonymous posting brings out the worst in many people. They have a word for it, in fact. "Flaming".

Have a nice day.

get smart wrote on March 30, 2007 12:07 PM:

What are people complaining about?

Any testimony to congress must be truthful or it's a prosecutable crime, oath or no oath. The oath is a formality often used to emphasize the gravity of testimony of important people, but it's technically unnecessary.

TV would be good, and is important for major players, but for small fish like these people, the important thing is for them to testify with transcription.

This is evidence gathering to see if the Admin can tell the same lie consistently and find a way to weasel out, or to see how deep they'll dig their grave.

The main event is getting Rove and other top officials to perjure themselves or confess and resign.

Bob B wrote on March 30, 2007 12:13 PM:

As long as these interviews are recorded, this may be a better way to move the investigation ahead. The bigger fish don't see/hear all the testimony, and the witnesses may be more open in a non-public setting. At this point, the Dems have to be careful how much "public" time they use on this investigation -- better to figure out where the skeletons are, in private interviews, and then haul them out when they're ready.

djcrow22 wrote on March 30, 2007 12:14 PM:

We have been so starved for oversight and accountability that I think we are overreacting a bit here. Just this week we have been treated to both Sampson and Lorita Doan under oath in public in two very important and separate scandals. In regards to the purge scandal, I think public testimony should rightly be used for the big players. There are so many interviews to be done, and as others posters have pointed out,private questioning does provide the judicial committees an edge. During the Doan hearing, testimony of other GSA employees gathered in private interviews was very effective in refuting Doans selective memory of whether she, at the end of the Jennings presentation, asked in effect,"what can we at the GSA do to help our republican candidates?" Doan was reduced to a shell of paranoid partisanship. Democrats must also not appear as vengeful by trotting out every player in public,televised hearings. Republicans are not used to this public embarrassment, clearly evident by yesterdays temporary suspension of the hearings and various temper tantrums of the minority republican members on both judiciary committees. The more the dems can do to keep this process appearing as a witch hunt,the better. So as Speaker Pelosi told the Chimp,lets all take a deep breath and be patient. It is going to take some time to investigate 12 years of republican malfeasance. We all want these people to pay for what has been done to our democracy. We have the tools to hold their feet to the fire. TPM is one of the best examples of this power. AS long as we keep the pressure on, things will happen. Hang in there...

get smart wrote on March 30, 2007 12:16 PM:

"Good Cop, Bad Cop. If that's the strategy between the House and the Senate then I believe it has a good chance for success. "

I think it's more like little fish, big fish. Conyers is gathering evidence from the little fish. Not the kind of people who'll make the evening news. That testimony, combined with other evidence such as emails leads to the big media testimonies before the Senate committee.

Are there a lot of Republican trolls here since TPM started getting attention from this story, or what? I'm always leery of these twits who use any and every excuse to bash Democrats. Not that Dems are perfect, or close, but the only people who consistently spout RNC talking points about them are Republicans and Naderites.

Camus57 wrote on March 30, 2007 12:17 PM:

Just sent to staff of Houe Judiciary Committee:

"Testimony not under oath in private! Might as well be Gitmo!"

get smart wrote on March 30, 2007 12:20 PM:

"I think public testimony should rightly be used for the big players."

Exactly. TV would be nice in some ways, and is more important for major players, but in this instance I think private, so long as it's on the record, is good.

djcrow22 wrote on March 30, 2007 12:20 PM:

Poor proofreading on my part, "the more the dems can keep this process FROM appearing as a witch hunt, the better."

Anonymous wrote on March 30, 2007 12:21 PM:

Camus

That's bush's favorite author right? lol

Subterra wrote on March 30, 2007 12:22 PM:

I think it's significant that Rove and Miers are not on this list. Conyers may be angling to subpeona them at a later time, when he's got more evidence and thus more reason to put them under oath. At least, that is my hope.

At this point, there isn't much congress could do to force Rove to testify under oath. There just isn't. Best case scenario: the seargeant at arms marches over to the White House to arrest Rove, and WH security tells him to fuck off. Then we get nowhere, and provoke a constitutional crises with us on the losing side.

TQTGA wrote on March 30, 2007 12:25 PM:

Thanks to mayan upthread for providing the link to the letter of agreement from DOJ
http://tinyurl.com/2r94o2

It is indeed addressed to both Conyers and Leahy (and your are right, that
would imply that Leahy is in on the same deal).

Bottom of page 2
"Except as described above, questions about their knowledge of other matters, such
as the judicial-nominee selection process, the Department's deliberations on responding to
congressional and media inquiries on this matter, and pending law enforcement investigations
and litigation, would be beyond the scope of these interviews."

Hmmm ... "the Department's deliberations on responding to congressional and media inquiries"
are outside the scope of questioning. Didn't McNulty tell Schumer that certain people
(likely including Goodling) had given him (McNulty) incomplete preparation (omissions)
which led him to make misstatementsto Schumer in a congressional inquiry? So the "scope"
prevents McNulty and Goodling from being asked about that
(not that Ms. Taking the Fifth Goodling would answer anyway).

rlogan wrote on March 30, 2007 12:34 PM:

No oversight for six years?

Then why were millions of us capable of seeing through the WMD propaganda, were appalled by the Office of Special Plans, and are even now trying to get the attack on Iran thwarted in spite of democratic duplicity? You don't need a majority to do your damned job.

The one thing we can say for sure is that many dems have turned their power into spinach subsidies and the like - so I would be pretty cautious about this either way.

On the one hand it gives these committe members powerful information. Whether that results in swiss bank accounts or the demise of this criminal gangster government remains to be seen.

Dan D wrote on March 30, 2007 12:35 PM:

Cufford,

Fair enough. I apologize for the begone bit, my frustration with defeatism bubbled through.

No hard feelings I hope.

djcrow22 wrote on March 30, 2007 12:38 PM:

After watching Karl "the rapper" Rove the other night, you would think the guy hasn't a care in the world. Maybe he doesn't. Lets say Rove eventually testifies, perjures himself,is indicted and convicted al la Scooter Libby. Can Bush just pardon him? Can Bush pardon all of these criminals? My hope is that there will be a snowball effect from scandal after scandal that will push public opinion to the point where Pelosi et. al cannot continue to say impeachment is off the table. The litany of failures attributed to this administration with the attendant criminal activity is already enough to impeach these people. Impeaching Bush seems to be the only way from keeping him from pardoning all of these "Bushies." Can someone comment on limits to pardons, if any?

eyesonthestreet wrote on March 30, 2007 12:44 PM:

Wait a minute. The Senate interviewed Samson yesterday, now the House is interviewing others from DOJ? What then, will the Senate do as a follow up?

stephen miller wrote on March 30, 2007 12:46 PM:

Let's hope Conyers knows what he's doing and not simply caving. Some posters have offered suggestions as to what Conyers' strategy might be.
I'm hoping they're right.

Mike Valentine wrote on March 30, 2007 12:47 PM:

Who saz that Bush doont beleve in dievesity? We gots sooo many scandell that thez cants kep up, and the suped republicnas cant kare becuz them homos is getten marred and burnin flags.

After all, it's about keeping people who have no business voting republican in the dark.

pt bridgeport wrote on March 30, 2007 12:49 PM:

I trust Conyers, period.

At this point, the investigators are doing spadework, softening up the ground. Quite apart from issues of how easily the witnesses can coordinate their stories, they'll be more at their ease in general, certainly more comfortable with a little whistleblowing (which they don'th have to report back when they debrief their superiors afterward). The existence of a recorded transcript makes it unlikely that they will be any more comfortable lying than they already would have been.

They might also be more comfortable sharing concrete details of how specific politically edged past cases were handled. That may shake some worthwhile tidbits loose from the tree, especially with regard to no longer "pending" bogus voting fraud allegations.

Finally, the more Conyers' people know before they plunge into the public testimony, the better political theater they can make of it. I'm prepared to bank the fires of my political junkie lust for a while, to improve the chances of that kind of payoff.

noodler wrote on March 30, 2007 12:52 PM:

RE: "Why in hell are the Democrats such panty-wastes?"

None of this would be happening if the Dems had fiibustered 'torture-memo' Gonzalas's nomination. Does ANYBODY have a memory anymore? The blogs and progressive sites were screaming for a filibuster. People were writing letters and calling their representatives to not let the nomination go through. The Dems did nothing.

Mike Valentine wrote on March 30, 2007 12:56 PM:

Oh, ya, this could speed Scooters pardon. Better to pardon thousands than to face the music. Bush does not need to be re-elected but the rest of the republican party does.

This far out the candidates for the republican party have to face and answer questions about executive excess and are going to have to demand investigations or forget everyone but the party kool aid drinkers and you can't win an election that way.

Unless you've got some way to rig elections.

melior wrote on March 30, 2007 1:01 PM:

I have full faith in Sen. Conyers -- no matter what conclusions commenters here are jumping to, he's definitely on our side on this one.

In fact I think it's a safe bet that no one, except perhaps Pat Leahy, wants to get to the chewy truthy center of this scandal more than Conyers does.

Let's give him a chance to see if he can use the lack of cameras to flip one of these peons to the side of truth and justice, and use their testimony to hook one of the big fish crooks.

s moore wrote on March 30, 2007 1:13 PM:

SqueakyRat:

I think you got it. The point is that these are like depositions, or discovery, whatever. By keeping them private, nobody can coordinate their story exactly, or at least be aware of what to play dumb about. If anyone spills the beans, even a little, all hell could break loose in open hearings.

This is very good news for Dems, additionally it allows more focused public testimony. Instead of a public looking fishing trip, or excess flogging of public, and maybe innocent, public officials, hearings will be more explosive.

Just sit back and enjoy the show folks, instead of getting riled up to no end. Excellent move by Conyers. Those who were questioned can TELL each other what they told the committee, but no one is trusting no one in these circles these days. Can you imagine the pressure and anxiety to ACTUALLY know what your fellow past or present DOJer said to congress, especially maybe even about you. Paranoia is setting in big time. Anyone can sell out anyone with a buffer to secure themselves financially and otherwise (until the transcripts become public). This is excellent folks! Why waste the public spectacle drama on the small fish. Set up the big fish, because the small fish can SAY the towed the line, but even second hand assurances from a sympathetic repub in attendance cannot be fully trusted. Do you get it folks. Didn't someone say good cop, bad cop. They used to do it sooo good on NYPD blue, Smits and Franz. Sit tight people.

Smoore

Big M wrote on March 30, 2007 1:14 PM:

What did all of you Democratic-voting people expect? Did you actually read that bullshit "timetable" that Pelosi was serving up? Did you, now? The Democratic Party has been onboard for every plank in this fascist, police-state agenda for the entire time that Bush's fascist ass has been in office.

If there were any real difference between these "two" parties, the Dems would be demanding the repeal of the PATRIOT Act, the Military Tribunals Act, etc., etc., ad nauseam. Oh, but they voted for all of that, now, didn't they? Including voting for every single funding bill for these war crimes, right?

Conyers is a sell-out. Anybody who hasn't figured that out by now is just a stupid dumbass. And Pelosi is an AIPAC whore. Just wanted to clear that up.

scavok wrote on March 30, 2007 1:15 PM:

I am looking at this like grand jury testimony or witness deposition. Get them all in, one by one, telling their stories on the record. Doing it in private makes it much more likely that something important will slip out. One or more of them might even be willing to cut a deal behind closed doors where the minders at the DOJ and White House aren't watching.

Then start going after the inconsistencies publicly.

There will be plenty of hearings and plenty of scandals to investigate. Look how much progress we have already made in two months. By Summer, we should have gotten rid of Gonzales and, possibly, Rove.

Ben Rosengart wrote on March 30, 2007 1:36 PM:

I think this is smart. The Dems will have the testimony in hand, and can use it as a bargaining chip in future negotiations.

Pompano Pete wrote on March 30, 2007 1:43 PM:

Why is everyone sooooo incensed about public testimony under oath? You guys want hearings on C-Span, I prefer indictments!

An indictment on a criminal charge destroys any use of executive privilege and eliminates some long drawn out process about its use in the courts.

Here's what I want - private for the small fish with the threat of indictment - indictments for Rove, Miers, Gonzo, etc. - impeachment for the Prez.

And I truly believe Conyers wants it too. He's been batshit over Bush's actions since 2002. We were begging him to start an impeachment investigation in 2003, but he seems to know that this will be the crowning achievement of his long and distinguished career. He's not going to cave, sell out, or screw this up.

Give him your support to investigate this mess his way, and you will be rewarded with an impeachment. So, chill and enjoy how a very seasoned prosecutor with an experienced staff goes about destroying a criminal administration.

KY3 Democrat wrote on March 30, 2007 2:00 PM:

Aqualung says, "...keeping the testimony private hinders...collusion on the part of future witnesses."

I totally agree, for two reasons:

First, while the witnesses may certainly discuss among themselves the questions that were asked by Congress, could they do this in a timeframe useful for their own defense? I do not think so.. This could also lead to accusations of conspiracy among the witnesses, not exactly what they are looking for!

Questions asked by Congress could change over time, or be tailored for each witness. Witnesses would have to reconstruct this focussing and evolution in order to manipulate it, not easy to do.

Second, when witnesses lawyer up, they begin to think of themselves as individuals culpable before the law, not party players. Their lawyers advise them to STFU, stay silent, for good reason. If they blab and misspeak, they may anger and frighten their co-conspirators, leading to cross accusations. Imagine a game of "You're Not Going to Throw ME Under the Bus to Save Your Own Hide", never ending.

Also, blabbing witnesses hurt their ability to trade testimony for immunity. Prosecutors do pick and choose to whom they grant immunity; it's a market in which witnesses compete. Blabbing and colluding witnesses are making a bad trade: their own freedom versus the safety of the group. Among these honorable people, would you make that trade?

KY3 Democrat: "Get your immunity, fresh and hot! First come, first served!"

Jan Hammer wrote on March 30, 2007 2:03 PM:

It seems some on this blog are confusing me with the gifted muscian by the same name. I AM NOT HE.
I enjoy his work but I'm just an old political lefty. That we share the same name is a coincidence. Full disclosure requires that I post this.

rewinn wrote on March 30, 2007 2:26 PM:

18 USC 1001 makes it a crime if a witness "falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; [or] makes any materially false, fictitious, or
fraudulent statement or representation;"

http://www.rewinn.com/18usc1001.html

In some ways s1001 is broader than "mere perjury" since it covers tricky language. For example, the "16 words" may have been literally true, but it was a materially fraudulent statement.

tomg802 wrote on March 30, 2007 2:33 PM:

I think we really should support Leahy and Conyers. This is great news. In the end getting indictments not only of those in power but those that put them there. Dismantling the system that allows and promotes corruption is much more important then impeachment. With the short term and forgiving nature of the American Voter the closer to 2008 election the better for the snowballs to become an avalanche.

The more clearly the connections to corruption and the bigger the splash the more likely the MSM media will have no option to trivialize it.

It would be wonderful if indictments come down with such timing that Bush is unable to pardon those responsible. There are many on both sides of the isle that don’t have an interest to see this grow to large. Leahy is one of the few in congress that is not dirty. That’s scary to those that eat there own to save themselves.

Mark wrote on March 30, 2007 2:56 PM:

This is good, not bad. It is an investigation, not a "show trial", no need to give the traitorous WH any ammunition on that spin front.

This thing was so widespread and all-encompassing as a political strategy that there will need to be many of these sorts of interviews. They can't all be on TV.

It's a shame we can't watch it all live, but this really is the right way to go about it, IMO.

Darin Barrows wrote on March 30, 2007 3:23 PM:

This is why the 2 party system in this country, we
the people's country, is totally bogus. Whichever
party is in control and whatever they say is nothing
but bulls**t! Talk is cheap, and that's all they do,
and then they bend over and get it you know where.
And who else gets screwed, we do! Well let's not be
in that position anymore people! It doesn't seem to
matter anymore what we think and want done. We want
the troops home, the occupiers of Iraq out, money
wasted fighting the bogus "war on terror" spent on
programs here at home, and what happens? We get
more war(s), more propaganda, DUHbya the dictator
declaring you're either with us or against us, and
more and more parroting of the cabal by the so
called mainstream media. Secret testimony is just
that, SECRET from we the people, what a joke! And
Conyers is a snake. He talked all big and bad when
the Repubs were in control about how he would look
hard into 9/11 if the Dems got control, what a
pile of crap! So far not a peep about it. Both
parties are corrupt, criminal blowhards, period!
If this leads to another illegal war for oil in
Iran, this should be the beginning of the end for
the cabal and the secret government. We the people
need to stand as one, the millions and millions of
us and demonstrate nationwide for the sake of all,
here and abroad!

Jack P wrote on March 30, 2007 3:31 PM:

The last Post is 100% correct. Unfortunately it took segregationist Governor Wallace to reveal the truth that "there's not a dime's worth of difference between" Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats willingly went along with the War in Iraq, suspension of Habeas Corpus, detaining protesters, opening mail, banning books like "America Deceived' from Amazon, stealing private lands (Kelo decision), warrant-less wiretapping and refusing to investigate 9/11 properly. They are both guilty of treason.
Last link (before Google Books bends to gov't Will and drops the title):
http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-38523-0

Vulture Breath wrote on March 30, 2007 3:49 PM:

Why is it acceptable to have to wait until April 17th to hear from Gonzales? What, the guy can't clear his calendar to publicly address the biggest scandal to hit DOJ since Nixon?

chris wrote on March 30, 2007 3:53 PM:

To those who may be suffering apoplexy or panic from Rep. Conyers' approach: Please take some time during this evidentiary phase to read about Conyers' consistently progressive approach in similar matters. Whether in the majority or minority, he has always been an aggressive protagonist against such government corruption. This methodical fact-gathering and well-timed display of cards makes a lot of sense, legally and politically. (Lets not bash each other whenever a step in the process does not match the precise step we would have taken. Turning on each other only turns the momentum to the Bushies.)

ahem wrote on March 30, 2007 4:44 PM:

Honey, not vinegar. I'm not opposed to this, because it gives less room for sickening displays like that of Orrin Hatch to his little charge yesterday.

Conyers isn't dumb, people.

ChrisO wrote on March 30, 2007 4:59 PM:

I can't believe the panic I'm seeing, not to mention the knee jerk condemnation of Conyers, who has carried the ball for a long time, oftentimes being the point of ridicule for the Republicans. I don't think people realize that the Dems hold relatively narrow leads in both houses. As giddy as we all were last Novemeber, they can't just make the Republicans do whatever they want. It's not a matter of backing down, it's a matter of using power wisely and setting attainable goals.

This is the death by a thousand cuts. If Conyers draws a line in the sand and yells "no compromise," the White House repsonse will be "Fuck you, see you in court." Instread, Conyers demonstrates a willingness to give a little. I'm sure the Republicans are sick of seeing their people sweat in front of the cameras. So Conyers throws them that bone and takes it off camera. They still can't lie to Congress even without being under oath; the transcripts will no doubt leak very quickly; and he's developing a record of testimony.

Remember all of the evidence in Watergate didn't come out in the first pass. Slowly, as different people testify, little pieces emerged. Who thought that Alexander Butterfield's testimony would be important, until he responded to a question by saying that Nixon taped everything?

Think of how many different batches of e-mails have had to come out on the current scandal, and we're still piecing together the story.

I'm not too worried about people coordinating their stories. I'm sure Conyers expects them to have their stories coordinated. But to use the example of Butterfield again, he decided that if he was asked a direct question he would have to testify about the taping system. He was asked a direct question by the Republican counsel (how'd you like to be that guy?) and responded with the truth. The moral? It's not always about deviousness or coordinated stories. Sometimes people are just smart enough to know that it's not worth taking a perjury rap. And the lower down the ladder they are, the more likely they are to have that attitude.

As far as this strengthening Bush's claim of executive privilege with Miers and Rove, I hardly think that's an issue. It would be a fight to the finish before the Congress would be allowed to question the President's counsel and his chief aide. This whole investigation could be concluded in the time it would take the Supreme Court to rule on that question. But gather enough evidence, get an indepenedent counsel, and bring indictments. Then we're in court and it's a whole different story.

Zach Edwards wrote on March 30, 2007 8:08 PM:

The Justice Department officials who were selected to be interviewed hit merely the tip of this iceberg. It is extremely important that the House and Senate Judiciary Committee's interview John Nowacki, Principal Deputy Director as well as the Acting Counsel to the Director in the Executive Office of the Justice Department, in order to establish the links between the Justice Department officials, the US Attorney's in the field, and the political operatives who helped remove the targeted US Attorney's. I have gathered and organized every document released so far from the Justice Department relating to John Nowacki as well as background information on his relationship with the Federalist Society. You will be shocked at how many key pieces of information he gives to Paul McNulty, William Moschella, Michael Elston, William Mercer, Monica Goodling, and former employees Michael Battle and Kyle Sampson.
This story on John Nowacki, including updates, can be found at: http://misterapologist.blogspot.com/

jawbone wrote on March 30, 2007 9:04 PM:

How does a guy like Sampson graduate from Law School and pass the Bar Exam with such a poor memory. I lost count of the "I don't remember"s at 75
Posted by: JoeD
Date: March 30, 2007 10:28 AM

Early Onset Alzheimer's? In which case, he may be helping himself by helping to elect a Dem president and large Dem Senate majority. They'll pass universal health insurance, which he'll sorely need.

OK, snarky. But, his memory (or ethics perhaps) clearly has problems and he did not seem too quick on his feet (albeit sitting down). I mean, Hatch had to almost spell out to him that he was giving him good cover stories. Sheesh.

AdamT wrote on March 30, 2007 9:36 PM:

No one will be subpoenaed, no one will be under oath, and no transcripts with "sensitive" information will be released to the public. The Dems are covering up the Repugs crimes and keeping them from the people. 9/11 is the mother of them all. Inside Job all the way. The ENTIRE Congress needs to go to prison for treason of the highest level. Traitor bastards.

Al in Austex wrote on April 2, 2007 5:22 AM:

To Adam T. & Big M,
Gentlemen" you doth protest too much". You both make blanket statements that are full of heat but no truth. Do either of you know about or remember Nixon's fall from power? The Democrats are not AIPAC whores, nor are they stupid . The BushCo cartel will in the next two years be brought to its collective knees,this is just the beginning of the end.
And Cufford go pop some more popcorn and settle in for the "big show" . Schumer likely already has answers to the very question that was asked to Sampson. My bet is that Elston recently ratted out the whole bunch of Busheviks at DOJ .