« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Congress to Press DoJ for Withheld Documents
Though the tide of documents from the Justice Department has stemmed for now, the Senate Judiciary Committee is determined that it not stop.
As we've pointed out before, the Justice Department has not turned over to Congress all the documents relevant to the U.S. attorney firings -- some of those documents are bound to be among the most interesting.
And in addition to the withheld documents, many of the documents provided to Congress have been heavily redacted. For instance, in the documents turned over to Congress, the Justice Department has redacted all information related to other U.S. attorneys they considered firing and all mentions of possible replacements for the canned prosecutors. That's crucial information. Congressional staff have been allowed to visit the department to examine unredacted versions, but are forbidden to make copies or take notes.
The Senate Judiciary Committee will wait no longer, The Washington Post reports. Next Thursday, the committee will issue subpoenas for the unredacted documents, as well as for all other documents the department has related to the firings.
Comments (24)
dasher wrote on April 6, 2007 9:52 AM:I'll believe they'll really issue subpoenas when they do. I've already heard enough hot air (i.e., weak-ass "compromises"), and not seen enough action.
Arkansan wrote on April 6, 2007 10:12 AM:"I'll believe they'll really issue subpoenas when they do. I've already heard enough hot air (i.e., weak-ass "compromises"), and not seen enough action."
I certainly understand your cynicism, but hope springs eternal.
Look at it this way, the Democrats aren’t doing this in the name of good government, they are doing it because they have no choice. As the Republicans learned last November, there still aren’t enough rigged elections to overcome the massive public disgust with the decline of America.
If things continue at this rate, the population at large will (gasp, dare I say it!)will become involved in the process and vote. That sort of tectonic shift would cause real job insecurity for all of them. So for now, they must pretend to care, and act accordingly.
Punchy wrote on April 6, 2007 10:27 AM:They're not getting these docs. Mark this post. There's zero chance the WH hands them over, as it would be akin to handing over an impeachment agreement. Lots and lots of dirty stuff therein.
We're dealing with 3-year olds. Remember that when trying to explain everything they do.
Johann wrote on April 6, 2007 10:31 AM:I'll believe the Democrats are serious when they begin a total filabuster and shut down the federal government until the documents are produced and everyone agrees to testify.
To paraphrase the Republicans: "What is the use of having power if you don't use it.
Since it only takes one Democrat to stop legislation, the party could disavow his/her action and say they are just following the rules rather than agreeing that a complete filabuster is the party line.
Does any Democrat have the courage to stand up and take the credit/blame for their beliefs?
landofthefree wrote on April 6, 2007 11:03 AM:Did you see this new AP article (link here from msnbc.com)? It needs to be fact checked - they claim the Democrats are postponing Gonzales' testimony and Leahy is making outlandish demands.
the truth will out wrote on April 6, 2007 11:23 AM:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17980180/
Let them give him time to talk at a press conference if they're so concerned!
CaseyL wrote on April 6, 2007 11:24 AM:The democrats are postponing Gonzales' testimony before the Budget Committee, not the JUdiciary Committee. They're postponing it because the DoJ hasn't complied with the document requests.
Basically: if the DoJ wants money for its budget, it better cough up those documents.
This is semi-hardball, and I approve.
"The delay came as Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., demanded that Gonzales produce "a full and complete account of the development of the plan to replace United States attorneys and all the specifics of your role in connection with that matter."
The records sought by Leahy include several hundred documents that Senate investigators have been allowed to view but not to obtain copies of or to take notes on, The Washington Post reported Friday, citing an unnamed Senate aide. The material concerns U.S. attorneys who were ousted and some who were retained and was withheld from previous releases for privacy reasons, according to an unnamed Justice official cited by the newspaper.
He also asked for the information at least two days before the hearing, but added that "nothing prevents you from providing" it earlier. And Leahy criticized Gonzales for failing to answer about 200 written questions following his January appearance before the committee. At the time, he was asked about the firings; a secret court's oversight of spying on suspected terrorists, and FBI leaks in corruption investigations."</i?
Woodhall Hollow wrote on April 6, 2007 11:48 AM:If the DOJ doesn't turn over subpoenaed docs, then I think that the Sargent of Arms can be sent over to just take them. I think something like this was threatened during Watergate.
Code word: tooth, as it is time to sink some teeth into these bastards.
wlgriffi wrote on April 6, 2007 12:15 PM:What's needed is for staffers with "total recall minds" So they the can go back and record their stored information. When the person summoned before the commitee challenges the recorded information,the committee can then tell the witness to prove his accusation that the information presented is in error by presenting the source material.
brenathome wrote on April 6, 2007 1:23 PM:Exactly! I was also thinking that they have to send over people with photographic memories. That'll work ...
ahem wrote on April 6, 2007 1:53 PM:Did Schumer get an answer from Mini-Rove Kyle Sampson on the names of the US Attorneys added to his Little List, but not fired? He dodged that one in committee but promised to inform the senator.
Amit Joshi wrote on April 6, 2007 3:22 PM:The Senate Judiciary Committee will wait no longer ... [n]ext Thursday, the committee will issue subpoenas...
Oh, the irony! Delicious!
jdw wrote on April 6, 2007 4:18 PM:One thing that should be hammered is the DOJ and Admin's claim that 3,000 documents is a significant number of documents, and in any way unprecedented. This is utter bullshit.
There are likely any number of prior instances of *far* greater number of documents being produced by an Executive Branch to Congress. Any major investigation into the DOD, a major weapons project and a questionable contractor would likely hit far more very quickly. As in the 100,000+ range of documents.
That it's a significant number is something that any reader of the boards who has worked litigation for a while would laugh at. 3000 documents is six reems of copy paper. It's not even a full copy box of ten reems. You could fit 3000 pages in a single file box if you wanted to make it a tight fit, or in no more than 1.5 boxes if you wanted to be more organized with it.
Any number of readers have crapped six reams of paper in the morning on a document production, and not even come close to the end of the documents that needed to be produced.
The assertion doesn't pass the laugh test.
Anonymous wrote on April 6, 2007 7:06 PM:They should have subpoenaed them when Gonzo first started lying to Congress. Somebody arrest these crooks from the Bush crime family.
sybelia wrote on April 8, 2007 2:55 PM:If the DOJ doesn't turn over subpoenaed docs, then I think that the Sargent of Arms can be sent over to just take them. I think something like this was threatened during Watergate.
Can the Sargeant-at-Arms be sent to arrest bush or his flunkies without going through the very corrupt Washington, DC US Attorney, Jeffrey Taylor, who Rove just placed in the position in Sept. 2006. If Taylor was an interim appointment, can the Congress remove Taylor?
share wrote on April 8, 2007 3:05 PM:I think Leahy and Schumer care. They look like they are in 7th Heaven. Leahy was able to speak a short angry line about the Anthrax sent to kill him when he refused to sign off on the Authorization to Use Military Force and Cheney said FU to Leahy when Leahy said "Why don't you just give Halliburton the keys to the US Treasury and tell them to turn out the lights when they are done."
Several Dems were demanding that DOJ and the FBI release the files to them on the supposed Anthrax investigation, then John Edwards received suspicious white powder.
When Jim Webb's assistant was in trouble for the firearm he was carrying Webb made some statements about his carrying a gun and that he knew how to protect himself and something about Congresspersons not having the Secret Service or other protection the President has.
Isn't it time that we make sure that our Congresspersons have very strong protection?
Angela Tolleris wrote on April 8, 2007 5:49 PM:I wish somebody would do an investgation of the U.S. Attorney here in New Jersey. Last name is CHRISTIE. He's been going after Democratic office holders at all levels since he took office. According to the Star Ledger and Trenton Times newspapers (owned by same company) he and his brother gave about $200,000 to Bush re-election campaign.....I thought that kind of money would get you at least an ambassadorship........
juddy@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 6:42 PM:hello
clar@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 7:12 AM:hello
witney@gmail.com wrote on May 5, 2007 5:36 PM:hello
witney@gmail.com wrote on May 5, 2007 5:37 PM:hello
kate@gmail.com wrote on May 6, 2007 7:17 PM:hello
kate@gmail.com wrote on May 6, 2007 7:17 PM:hello
urfactb zrvi wrote on September 7, 2007 8:10 AM:qyfdplr rydevzpb cwnzjdr bnxp jnyqoamdw voqf urtcn