Comments (42)

Anonymous wrote on April 18, 2007 11:40 AM:

There was no point in waiting. The Republicans only allegiance is to the Republican Party, a week won’t cause any that don’t have a conscience to obtain one.

Where I realize it was a loser today, they may have well have dispensed with it anyway, it will be a loser next week as well. This is just a stall to run out the clock, one week at a time.

Is immunity any more likely to make it through the senate committee? Senator Specter certainly talks the talk; it would be very difficult to defend a no vote on the TV. The Republicans didn’t even bother to invent a reason why she shouldn’t be compelled to testify today, they just used their most lame distractions yet.

Why don’t they call the change to the Patriot Act that propelled all this the Specter Amendment?

DF wrote on April 18, 2007 11:45 AM:

From what I could understand the delay was requested so that the committee could contact the justice department to determine if the granting of immunity would interfere with any future justice department investigations.

Translation, Karl’s having trouble coming up with a strategy. Give us a week.

Anonymous wrote on April 18, 2007 11:48 AM:

That's what they said, but they lie. It’s humiliating at this point to pretend we don’t know it.

Common sense dictates that DOJ isn’t investigating this in a meaningful way. And even assuming they were, how would more information interfere with a supposed investigation?

It's another stall.

Crust wrote on April 18, 2007 11:49 AM:

Can the House investigate Specter and his staff to understand how the special attorney provisions quietly got into the Patriot Act at the last minute? I assume the Senate can't/won't investigate its own, but what about the House?

Peter Duffy wrote on April 18, 2007 11:50 AM:

Guess Turd Blossom's Blackberry was down and he could not micro manage the GOP members.

Anonymous wrote on April 18, 2007 11:53 AM:

Funny, they had to think on their feet, but couldn’t come up with anything at all. They knew enough to know Papa Karl wouldn’t like this, but no one provided a real reason to oppose it. So they stall until next week, when, surprise, surprise, DOJ does claim it will interfere with their internal investigation, so they can’t vote to support immunity.

Come on Democrats, this is ridiculous.

bordersmuggler wrote on April 18, 2007 11:55 AM:

Withdraw the offer, subpoena her, have her claim the Fifth under oath, and if she trips toss her into the slammer. That will get the Little Princess to sing more than she would with the immunity grant.

Kathy wrote on April 18, 2007 11:57 AM:

Now Rove & Co. have a week to work on Goodling. I hope she doesn't commit suicide or get hit by a taxi... or something.

Rusty wrote on April 18, 2007 11:58 AM:

Yes, this just looks weak at this point. I can't think of a single advantage of delaying the investigation now. It just makes their position seem weaker. If the populace wasn't behind the investigation, it would be one thing, but there is a large majority behind it. Stop giving them time to prep, shred, and delete - if the Judiciary Coms are serious about this stuff, then lets see action not delay.

Arkansan wrote on April 18, 2007 12:01 PM:

If we all understand this, why did the committee fall for it?

wagonjak wrote on April 18, 2007 12:01 PM:

Those gosh durn Dems are so nice to their minority cousins in the House it warms the cockles of my heart...

I guess they forgot how the Republican majority treated them like vermin and scum when they were in power.

The sooner the Dems grow some cajones and start listening to the will of the American people and stop acting like nice-guy wimps, the sooner we will get to the bottom of this Administration's stinking garbage dump...

FMArouet wrote on April 18, 2007 12:07 PM:

Buying time. Just buying time. Look what happened this week in the intelligence funding bill. The White House directed Republican Senators to quash it out of "party loyalty." Smells like Cheney at work.

The Boys in the Bunker are in full Alamo mode. They will yield no incriminating documents or testimony of their own accord.

The Democrats need to start showing some focus and coherent leadership. So far, except for Senator Sheldon Whitehouse's effective questioning of Kyle Sampson, the Democrats have merely issued letters, pleas for information (which of course, ends up being filtered and redacted), and subpoenas that have been ignored.

Can't the Democrats do better than this? Let's hope that they don't let the well-rehearsed AG Gonzales "gum them to death" tomorrow. We are talking about obstruction of justice. This is not "just politics." It is "obstruction of justice." Is that so hard to say?

In the bogus, Kafkaesque prosecution of Georgia Thompson by U.S. Attorney Steven Biskupic in Wisconsin, it was outright malfeasance and perversion of justice at work.

Interesting coincidence: the BlackBerry servers run by Research In Motion were down last night. Several posters here at MSM have noted that RIM would be a good place to look for backups of some of those RNC e-mails. Is Karl Rove trying to get to them before the Congressional investigators can? Here is a link to the story on the RIM outage:

http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSN1822488020070418?src=041807_1137_DOUBLEFEATURE_

mayan wrote on April 18, 2007 12:09 PM:

As thirsty as I am for insti-justice, it ain't gonna happen if you don't have the votes. I have no idea what's going on in the backrooms but if a week buys the Dems the votes, I have no problem with it...particularly because one of the main acts is -hopefully- going on tomorrow.

I trust Conyers to know his business and the business of bringing the porkers down. At this point, I'm not sure we have a choice. These Congressionals are the last games in town.

While I want to see these guys before the Hague, five years ago...one does not turn around the Queen Mary in a bathtub. It's slow and methodical. Still in all...we have to "push" - appropriately the security code.

kis wrote on April 18, 2007 12:10 PM:

Didn't this come up a few weeks ago - that the committee rules allow for any member to ask for a one-week extension of certain votes? ie, I'm not sure Conyers had a choice...

Dan D wrote on April 18, 2007 12:10 PM:

It's very simple really. They wanted this vote to come after Gonzoles' testimony, which was originally going to be Tuesday and got bumped after the shootings.

So now Conyers is amenable to moving it back a week and blaming it on the Republicans.

Question is: What information are they hoping comes out of the hearing with Gonzo that will affect whether they actually grant Goodling immunity?

My gut feeling is that they just want to see if his appearance sends Gonzo into ruin, and negates the need to grant goodling immunity at all. If they don't "get" him on Thursday, then they'll want to grant her immunity to keep the fire burning.

Otherwise I don't really see why Conyers suddenly is so concerned with the feelings of the minority on the committee.

Dan D wrote on April 18, 2007 12:12 PM:

kis,

That's true for the Senate Committee. The Senate committees generally give more powers to the minority side. In the House the Minority has absolutely no powers on their own.

Just the extension of the House and Senate Cultures regarding treatment of the minority members.

Anonymous wrote on April 18, 2007 12:15 PM:

"As thirsty as I am for insti-justice, it ain't gonna happen if you don't have the votes. I have no idea what's going on in the backrooms but if a week buys the Dems the votes, I have no problem with it...particularly because one of the main acts is -hopefully- going on tomorrow. "

If there were the slightes bit of hope that some Republicans will vote with the Democrats next week you'd be right, but there is no hope for that at all.

Experience should teach. Fool me once shame on you, fool me 54,608,784,903 times….

Anonymous wrote on April 18, 2007 12:15 PM:

This was a big mistake- the republicans are clearly off balance and on the defensive; why give them a week to 'get' to Goodling, or get their story straight?

It looks like our Democratic leaders in this House 'battle' have forfeited the high ground to the 'enemy'; and we'll all get to pay the price.

Code Word: Brain

As in 'get your Brain in gear House Democrats and ignore the republican 5th column'!

Dump Doolittle wrote on April 18, 2007 12:18 PM:

Doesn't this one week delay give those defending Goodling more time to shift through those 'lost' e-mails to see how potentially serious that evidence against her may be?

code: sharp

mbbsdphil wrote on April 18, 2007 12:28 PM:

Mr. Conyers knows the minority will be no more cooperative next week than they are now. So, what's the game plan?

Meanwhile, his Senate colleagues dawdle about issuing subpoenas and allow potentially incriminating evidence to disappear like a button man stealing from Tony Soprano.

If the Dems don't want to scrape defeat from the jaws of victory in 2008, they had better decide whether this contest in DC is between two bulls or two steers. If the latter, let's just go right to the barbecue; the beer will still be cold.

thill wrote on April 18, 2007 12:53 PM:

Issuance of an immunity grant requires a two-thirds vote of the committee. No Republican support, no Goodling testimony. It's that simple. So let's chill out on the "put-the-hammer-down-now" talk, ok?

Anonymous wrote on April 18, 2007 1:01 PM:

Thill,

What makes you think a week is going to make any difference in the inevitable 'No' vote from the republicans for an offer of immunity?

This delay isn't going to simmer the pot, but instead will just give the rabbit a greater chance to hop out.

Code Word: public

As in, 'The Public's right to know'.

scavok wrote on April 18, 2007 1:09 PM:

I think Dan D has it right. They want the immunity vote to come after Gonzales appears to put a little more pressure on Abu, since he will not know whether Monica is going to squeal.

That hearing got bumped, so they bumped their vote back a week.

Conyers is also expecting things to come out of the AG testimony that will have a direct bearing on whether Goodling should even be offered a deal.

It keeps the pressure on both parties.

powkat wrote on April 18, 2007 1:53 PM:

I hate that they have to wait, but find it admirable that Conyers, having been treated horribly by the Republican majority, is not responding in kind, but following the rules of courtesy that have traditionally part of the Congress.

Unlike the Republican senator who placed a secret hold on legislation. Yet another reason to never, ever vote Republican

mrgavel wrote on April 18, 2007 2:40 PM:

It could also be that the Republican minority wants to see how Gonzales does tomorrow at the hearings. If he doesn't do well, they might very well side with the Dems. We shouldn't always assume that Dems who serve in Congress don't know what they are doing.

Anonymous wrote on April 18, 2007 2:46 PM:

"Issuance of an immunity grant requires a two-thirds vote of the committee. No Republican support, no Goodling testimony. It's that simple. So let's chill out on the "put-the-hammer-down-now" talk, ok? "

There will NEVER BE REPUBLICAN SUPPORT. All that is left is to subpoena her, and watch her invoke her right on Teevee. The delay is a joke, it assumes good faith on the part of the Republicans, a characteristic which is unknown to them. The Democrats should play this card and move on to the only thing left to them, impeachment.

Anonymous wrote on April 18, 2007 2:57 PM:

I'm with the preceding poster on this one. I'd be dumbfounded if they could get enough committee Republicans to go against the Chimpster to grant immunity. The only circumstance in which I can imagine that happening is if they first bring her before the committee and the spectacle of the little Jesus Camper invoking the fifth for two hours generates enough public revulsion to bring sufficient pressure on the Republicans to do the right thing. I have no idea why Conyers is letting the Republicans off on this one, without making them vote "no" on immunity and actively implicate themselves in the cover-up.

bp wrote on April 18, 2007 2:59 PM:

Perhaps Conyers is allowing the Republicans time while Gonzo does his thing before the SJC. The Republicans pushed the Democrats around for years. Conyers will have to take a tough line. Rolling over for the Republicans is a waste of time. They have no shame. There is no requirement for a unanimous vote. It is time to get on with the business at hand and leave the tap dancing to the Repubs.

otob wrote on April 18, 2007 3:19 PM:

until they prove otherwise, they have given up. they've cried wolf too many times. this is just garbage. does this democracy even work any more?

Nuncamas21 wrote on April 18, 2007 3:33 PM:

the republicans will have to decide which looks worse, her taking the fifth or spilling under an immunity deal. either way it looks bad. my main concern is, as others have said, whether whitehouse will be given enough time to question her properly and whether the others will abstain from their usual grandstanding.

same thing for tomorrow's abu hearing.

Michael Stevens wrote on April 18, 2007 3:49 PM:

The Republican Senators have no choice, they *will* vote in favor of immunity and they won't be able to delay this much longer. This "reasonable" one-week stall is about all they'll dare.

Were Republican Senators to refuse Goodling immunity, it could make them appear complicit in the DOJ cover-up. An immunity refusal would also pour another thousand gallons of gasoline on the fire. We must also consider that many top Republicans never liked Gonzo and like him less now. Add to this the conventional wisdom that the sooner Gonzo is gone, the sooner this scandal will die. The Senators are not blind to the damage the attorney scandal has already done to Pete Domenici's career. And if all those reasons weren't enough, few Senators of either party would expend an ounce of political capital for someone they consider to be a dead man walking.

If the Democratic Senators truly want this vote, Goodling's immunity is all but Guaranteed to pass.

RandyR wrote on April 18, 2007 3:56 PM:

I suspect there is a deal in the offing. What will it take to drop the DOJ investigation? Depending on the testimony of the AG, the president may offer 2 or 3 firings to avoid further inquiry. This may seem attractive on the face but you don't know what type of scum you will get to replace them.

The greater issue is the pervasive prosecution of Democrats and the destruction of the Civil Rights division. I think that the DOJ scandal has gotten to the point that only the loss of the presidency will stop it.

Here in Missouri I've found 2 instances of apparent misuse of DOJ powers with switching prosecuters to continue or end prosecuters. What suprises me is that Democratic representives and senator have been silent on the issue.

And again where is the Congressional Black Caucas on the destruction of the Civil Rights Division.

Michael Stevens wrote on April 18, 2007 4:22 PM:

RandyR

You're off base.

The Democrats are *not* looking for a deal with the White House. Firstly because the Democrats have no reason to deal, secondly because this White House repeatedly refuses to deal.

It's ok to be jaded by government, but your skepticism needs to be tempered with realism.

Perhaps if Bush were a pragmatic kind of guy, a deal "might" work. Bush is not that guy. He won't even allow Fred Fielding to negotiate with Congress regarding the testimony of Rove and Meyers. Let me repeated that, Bush Won't Even Let Him Negotiate.

The Democrats have not gotten anywhere near the bottom of this and already have the administration on the run. They have officials deleting emails, violating the presidential records act and pleading the 5th. Congressional careers have already been ruined. And now, there is a paper trail leading this scandal all the way to the Office of the President.

Bush would have to trade the farm, ten farms to get out of this, and Bush isn't willing to trade a single chicken.

freepatriot wrote on April 18, 2007 4:52 PM:

so lawyer goodling gets to twist in the wind for another week, assuring that this just grew more legs, and it will be in the news next week, gnawing away at repuglican credibility

the repuglicans get a favor from the Democrats that amounts to NADA, NOTHING, NOT A FUCKING THING

abu is still balanced on the razor, waiting to play whack-a-mole with the SJC

lawyer goodling is still hanging around abu's neck like a dead chicken

and george is trying to bluff his way to executive privilige on the r n c documents

and we move a week closer to November of 2008

the noose is tightening around the repuglicans in the Senate, and in Congress as a whole

and the Democrats just loaned the repuglicans a knife, by planting it in the repuglicans' back

Steve Elliott wrote on April 18, 2007 6:17 PM:

I just don`t get it. The Republicans are given a one week pass but they give no reason for the delay. Please remember that Bush is quite capable of bombing Iran at any moment with the help from Israel. Then everything is buried. All these investigations will crumble into dust.

seedyrum wrote on April 18, 2007 6:19 PM:

Yes, the country gone to hell. The Republicans Congress felt loyalty to Bush was more important than their loyalty to the country and its citizens. Bush "protecting" us from terrorism while the borders remain unsecured. Bush allowing border patrols to be locked up while known drug traffickers are given immunity, Drug traffickers allowed to bring in Drugs to get the whole country stoned out of their minds, Bush allowing illegal immigrants to enter the country so his friends can exploit them and "dummying" down the wages of Americans, load the judicial system with Republicans Bushies so if any Republican Bushies got caught the case would be dropped.
citizens, Bush allowing the trade deficit with China as China poison the USA citizens, We are the "richest" country in the world but yet Bush borrows money from China to wage his war of choice Iraq War. Impeach already what more does Bush has to do to get impeached? The next President will try these same stunts and have Bush fiasco as precedent "why he/she cant be impeached?
Consider other memebers of this administration who aren't getting the headlines, would you trust them? They know what is going and but choosing to remain silent. What about the firms who will hire these folks, would you trust the judgement of these firms??

On another note the DOJ, would you trust that department to do the right thing? Do they know what is right? Those attorneys who are left are they ethical, honest, and law abiding? I think not as some of them knew or know what is going on and choosing to remain silent. Isnt that complicity to the fact and after the fact?
Those attorneys, when they leave the public sector and go into private practice, are they trust worthy? What you want them as your attorney? What about the firm that hires them? The firm knows the attorney history or should know the history before hiring, would you trust the judgement of the firm??

Bush and his administration needs to be IMPEACHED NOW RATHER THAN LATER.

djcrow22 wrote on April 18, 2007 6:21 PM:

Giving a week to Rove is never a good thing. But Conyers has been around the block. He has spent the last 6 years pining for impeachment and waiting for the opportunity. Remember the repubs have that club called "overreaching" which the MSM will gladly wield for them. The dems have good cards here. Immunity is just one tool and Conyers would like to snag Goodling as well instead of immunizing her. Perception is everything to the Bushies. Gonzo will get shredded. That looks bad. If the repubs won't vote for immunity, that looks really bad. Goodling taking the 5th on national tv looks awful. None of this helps repubs and as long as Conyers is patient and focused, this thing should be a complete disaster for the Bushies. I hope...

Steve Hendricks wrote on April 18, 2007 6:54 PM:

Ditto to djcrow22. Conyers doesn't yet have a 2/3 majority, but he's likely to get it after Gonzo's testimony. And if he doesn't he can always force Goodling to take the fifth repeatedly in public for the evening news. I suspect the Pubs are hoping desperately that Gonzo will resign or be fired after his testimony tomorrow and that will defuse the situation. Not likely on either count. Meanwhile, it's just another Republican scandal to hang around their necks in 2008.

Anonymous wrote on April 18, 2007 7:26 PM:

Let's take a look at the big picture for a minute. Democratic takeover of congress has neutralized Bush, Cheney, & Rove... that's a huge win. Goal until next election should be to keep them neutralized and get out of Iraq. Then we begin to heal from this mess.

In the big scheme of things, who truly cares if Monica Goodling gets immunity or if Rove & Cheney "run out the clock"? I'm happy to keep them bogged down plotting legal maneuvers instead of invasions.

Lots of folks are lusting for impeachment for these thugs, and while they deserve that (at a minimum) it's important to consider the consequences of what we wish for. The level of narcissism in these guys is simply staggering and if they were backed into a corner they might invent another war as a self serving diversion.

What we are now observing is a boxing dance that will last the next 20 months or so. Dems are just going to keep jabbing and the administration is going to duck and cover.

Will Gonzalez go down? Sure...but he's a TOTAL nobody with a big title.

There isn't going to be any knockout punch here unless George, Dick and Karl do it to themselves and in spite of how much we don't like it...that may be best.

FMArouet wrote on April 18, 2007 7:46 PM:

What if Gen. Michael Hayden at CIA were granted immunity in return for his full testimony on the warrantless wiretapping program that he implemented at NSA, as well as on the renditions, secret prisons, and torture techniques ("alternative procedures") now under his management at CIA? Gen. Hayden was taking his "orders" from higher up, and such actions have violated multiple U.S. statutes and international conventions ratified by the U.S.

My guess is that Gen. Hayden's testimony alone could take down the whole White House cabal.

Gen. Hayden may even have some worthwhile insights on the fabrications and pretexts used by the White House to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Greg wrote on April 18, 2007 8:10 PM:

What freepatriot & Michael Stevens said. "so lawyer goodling gets to twist in the wind for another week, assuring that this just grew more legs, and it will be in the news next week, gnawing away at repuglican credibility…and the Democrats just loaned the repuglicans a knife, by planting it in the repuglicans' back." The Dems have done a huge amount in just 3 months--the 100 hours' agenda passed the House, the Dems are winning the battle over Iraq in both houses and the public eye, and we've got the administration enmeshed in a major Constitutional scandal. Conyers is a smart, *smart* guy--he knows what he's doing. Gonzales' testimony ain't gonna help none of the Repubs, and when it doesn't, there'll be significantly more pressure on Repubs to grant her immunity. And hey, if they don't, we can make her take the fifth and watch her squirm.

E-mail's very hard to get rid of. Rove isn't magic. He can't destroy all the evidence. There's too much out there.

Oh yeah, and Doolittle's going down.

Al in Austex wrote on April 19, 2007 5:04 AM:

Here's one "what if " to consider -what if Conyers ,Leahy & Possee already have the goods on the Admininstration for all criminal wrong doings.Its highly probably - according to the open source MSM "nuggets"(see Olberman's Countdown any night ) that the Democratic Investigators have in hand e-mails etc that do incriminate the NeoThugs. Its likely many dis- affected career employees of all the Federal Authorites -especially the DOJ -have told the Investigators all they know. Plus with so many entrees into the RNC / Whitehouse digital archives ( forensic IT recovery now is a science) that Conyers may already have all the answers he needs. And the Goodling immmunity controversy is just political kaubuki at this point.
Right about now the Impeachment train is well underway- it probably left the station whem Abramoff started spelling his little K Street blackberry emails some while back.." I hear that train a coming -its acoming down the track >>"