« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
SJC Wants WH, DOJ's Own "Family Jewels"
The CIA's declassification of its "family jewels" -- decades-old files on scandals past -- may have attracted a ton of attention, but the Senate Judiciary Committee this afternoon subpoenaed the Bush administration's family jewels: information on the origin and execution of President Bush's warrantless surveillance program. Circle July 18 on your calendars -- that's the compliance deadline. If it's not met, the committee will seek explanatory testimony from White House chief of staff Josh Bolton, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Cheney chief of staff David Addington, and National Security Counsel executive director V. Philip Lago.
The committee wants a ton of material: all documents from September 11, 2001 on the program's legality; the administration's filings to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court; deals reached between the administration and "telecommunications companies, internet service providers, equipment manufacturers, or data processors" on potential liability to these companies for complying with the program; everything from the now-famous Comey episode; and more. If the administration wants to assert privilege over any of the subpoenaed material or testimony, it must specify the basis of that assertion "in sufficient detail to ascertain the validity of the claim," rather than relying on blanket claims of congressional impertinence.
Here's an excerpt from Chairman Pat Leahy's letter to White House counsel Fred Fielding:
“Over the past 18 months, this Committee has made no fewer than nine formal requests to the Department of Justice and to the White House, seeking information and documents about the authorization of and legal justification for this program,” Chairman Leahy wrote in letters accompanying the subpoenas to Bush Administration officials. “All requests have been rebuffed. Our attempts to obtain information through testimony of Administration witnesses have been met with a consistent pattern of evasion and misdirection.”“There is no legitimate argument for withholding the requested materials from this Committee,” Leahy wrote. “The Administration cannot thwart the Congress’s conduct of its constitutional duties with sweeping assertions of secrecy and privilege. The Committee seeks no intimate operational facts and we are willing to accommodate legitimate redactions of the documents we seek to eliminate reference to these details.”
Update: This post initially stated, erroneously, that the Senate Judiciary Committee was subpoenaing testimony from Bolton, Gonzales, Addington and Lago. In fact, the subpoenas are just for the documents. If those officials don't provide the documents sought by the committee by July 18, then the committee will seek testimony. I regret the error.
Comments (87)
Cranky wrote on June 27, 2007 2:25 PM:Both Bush and Cheney will have retired to some undisclosed bunker in South America before this ever gets to court. Nice try and I applaud Leahy for trying, but it's too litle too late unless the next Pres. is will to instruct his new Atty. Gen. to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate and try both Bush and Cheney, et al in to the crimes they have committed while in office. Those crimes have been numerous and well documented. I don't have to name them, I'm sure everyone can tick off at least ten without even trying.
j wrote on June 27, 2007 2:32 PM:Wow, could this be the last waltz for this bunch? I mean the Bush administration has danced around all that has been played to them for some time now, could this be the time in which we will finally see how dangerous this bunch really has been? I hope so....
cynicalgirl wrote on June 27, 2007 2:34 PM:What happens after they refuse to comply? You know they will.
johnnydoughey wrote on June 27, 2007 2:41 PM:"If the administration wants to assert privilege over any of the subpoenaed material or testimony, it must specify the basis of that assertion "in sufficient detail to ascertain the validity of the claim"
"We appreciate your interest, but the basis of that assertion is privileged information."
Sincerely,
David S., North Hollywd., CA wrote on June 27, 2007 2:44 PM:George and Dick
I think it would be helpful for citizens to make known their appreciation to Congress for finally exercising its oversight responsibility here; and to make known to the White House that we're watching and expect the people's servants to comply with the law and the legitimate investigative function of the Congress. Which is what I intend to do, tout de suite.
gregor wrote on June 27, 2007 2:51 PM:It's quite difficult to be excited about this, qiven all the historical data that strongly suggests that the Democrats will back down when push comes to shove. I want them not to, but there is nothing in the recent history that gives me any confidence that they won't.
goldberry wrote on June 27, 2007 2:55 PM:Ummmm, equipment manufacturers? Like maybe Dell or Apple? Or maybe Intel?
Dennis wrote on June 27, 2007 2:56 PM:Could they be planting spyware or spy firmware?
Whatever, Whoever is in the next administration, Republican or Democrat, this affair will be over. The excuses will be;
1)that it will take too much of the governments time
2)"national secrets"
3)all laws broken were in the best interests of the country given the cirucmstances of the times
4)partisan politics
5)no laws were broken
6)it will split the country
7)dah dah, dah dah, dah dah
But nothing is going to happen, no one will be held accountable for any wrong doing and no one will go to jail....
You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
Anonymous wrote on June 27, 2007 2:57 PM:More sound and fury from our Democractric leaders.
However we know the clock will run out long before any court based result; and there's no way in hell Alberto Gonzales is going to process these subpeonas- so they're basically fancy TP at this point.
The continual impotence of our congressional majority status is starting to fray my nerves.
brendancalling wrote on June 27, 2007 2:57 PM:What happens after they refuse to comply? You know they will.
Posted by: cynicalgirl
A strongly worded letter will be issued. That's about it.
code word "safe", as in "the adminsitration is safe from consequences because the democrats refuse to exercise their power".
EH wrote on June 27, 2007 2:59 PM:Even if this goes to court, outlasts the administration, or anything like that, the fact that this is an ongoing investigation is going to be a cloud that hangs over the elections next year. Kudos for Leahy for doing what he can.
Clavis wrote on June 27, 2007 3:01 PM:The contempt President Cheney (and his court jester, Bushy) has for the Constitution and the rule of law is matched only by his contempt for the American people who (sort of) elected him.
Bugs wrote on June 27, 2007 3:01 PM:Giuliani Goes After Clinton on Terrorism
Vote:
Billy Pilgrim wrote on June 27, 2007 3:06 PM:http://tinyurl.com/2k5cr8
During the Watergate episode, Americans were privileged to witness towering Congressional giants in action: Sam Ervin, Barbara Jordan, Peter Rodino, Father Robert Drinan. In this current nadir of our history, we are privileged to have our own giants: Patrick Leahy, Henry Waxman, John Conyers. These heroes are truly America's greatest assets.
Mike_in_NY wrote on June 27, 2007 3:06 PM:"If the administration wants to assert privilege over any of the subpoenaed material or testimony, it must specify the basis of that assertion "in sufficient detail to ascertain the validity of the claim"
"We appreciate your interest, but the basis of that assertion is privileged information."
Sincerely,
George and Dick
That's one version but the more likely version would read:
Hello from Dick (and George)
Go f*ck youselves.
Sincerely
Dick
Anonymous wrote on June 27, 2007 3:08 PM:Speaking of ignored subpoenas, I have lost track of the tiemt able for Rice...when was she supposed to respond, and did she?
Mike_in_NY wrote on June 27, 2007 3:10 PM:anyone got that info?
"If the administration wants to assert privilege over any of the subpoenaed material or testimony, it must specify the basis of that assertion "in sufficient detail to ascertain the validity of the claim"
"We appreciate your interest, but the basis of that assertion is privileged information."
Sincerely,
George and Dick
That's one version but more likely
From: Dick (and George)
Go f*ck yourselves
Sincerely,
Dick
Anonymous wrote on June 27, 2007 3:13 PM:speaking of subpeonas, I lost track of Rice's due date.
Anonymous wrote on June 27, 2007 3:13 PM:anyone know if she responded and/or is shceduled to meet with Committee?
speaking of subpeonas, I lost track of Rice's due date.
AmIDreaming wrote on June 27, 2007 3:18 PM:anyone know if she responded and/or is shceduled to meet with Committee?
Isn't this less like hunting and more like chess?
When you hunt, you take aim. Either you hit or you miss.
In chess, you fan out the potential outcomes and decide where to go next based on an array of possibilities.
Averaged over the possible outcomes, this subpoena strategy predicts a positive gain and a low cost. It might not be the magic bullet but it makes sense as a long-haul policy.
OCPatriot wrote on June 27, 2007 3:21 PM:If they refuse to comply, the Committee needs to send an armed marshall to get the documents. This would be the correct procedure in the case of anyone else. The President, and Vice President, aren't above the law that everyone must follow. When a subpoena is issued, I believe this is what ordinarily happens. If the Committee blinks, then it is all over and we need to elect people who are fearless in protecting the rights of all citizens.
ql-white haired wrote on June 27, 2007 3:22 PM:They're doing what they can. I applaud them.
dhs wrote on June 27, 2007 3:26 PM:Thanks, Senator Leahy. Keep on it.
speedtats wrote on June 27, 2007 3:28 PM:I'm not sure these guys can be prosecuted after leaving office for anything they did IN office. However, they CAN and SHOULD be tied around the neck of any Republican Senator and/or Congressperson who declined to ask the hard questions and hold their feet to the fire about pi$$ing on the Constitution, as well as used as justification for ensuring such nonsense never happens again. But of course, that would take a type of will and political courage that the Dems sadly do not possess, and more importantly, it would take an American populace with an attention span longer than a season of American F*cking Idol. BushCo remembered Nixon; the rest of us seemingly forgot. Sheesh.
VJB wrote on June 27, 2007 3:37 PM:May we provisionally set January 21, 2009, as 'Indictment Day'? It might be prudent to put off justice till there is no likelihood of a pardon for Bush and Cheney and Gonzales and Rove and..........(insert list here).
tbhull wrote on June 27, 2007 3:45 PM:It appears Leahy and the SJC limited the subpoena to docs from 9/11/2001 and after. Why limit it to 9/11/2001 and after? It would be just as juicy or juicer a forbidden fruit if the administration conducted this activity prior to 9/11/2001.
AngryAmerican wrote on June 27, 2007 3:47 PM:goldberry,
I think they are looking for information regarding the companies that manufacture routers and switches. I think it is very likely that the bush adminstration has been trying to strongarm (maybe not successfully) router and switch manufacturers to create hardware that makes data mining easier. They obviously want the information from telco's because they are the ones that take those routers and switches (as well as servers and storage) and sweep our information onto disk.
krog wrote on June 27, 2007 3:48 PM:"This is evidence of more Democratic nitpicking and bullying."
" "Confrontation" by those darn' Democrats."
That's how the White House and their coconspirators will counter the subpoenas.
And the Dems have three choices:
1) Do nothing or little
2) Go to Court --- see 1)
3) Cut off funding for Pres and VP staffs. Also, the Secret Service will be placed under the control of Congress, and search for paper and electronic documents will be made under the aegis of the Secret Service.
I argue for the last: If Bush's staff will not obey the law or cooperate with Congress, then they can do without being on the public payroll. If they are unemployed, they would not be in a position to oppose Congressional subpoenas. The Secret Service can carry out searches for Executive documents that the Congress needs for its investigations, under this proposal.
We can only imagine what the next President will do with the expanded powers that Bush and Cheney have brought to the White House.
This is a constitutional issue. The Dems can push in Congress for 3) above. If the Repubs refuse to curb Bush's actions, then the Dems have their campaign issue: THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE WILL HAVE AS HIS OR HER FIRST PRIORITY THE ASSURANCE THAT THE DEM PRESIDENCY WILL BE PREVENTED FROM THE OUTRAGES THAT HAVE DAMAGED OUR CONSTITUTION AND OUR DEMOCRACY.
Let's have the House and Senate have strong Democratic majorities WITH a Dem President.
IF the Dem Pres does not establish a NEW COMPACT with America by 2010, then voters must throw the Dems (and Repubs) out and found new parties that will express the wills of all the people.
Massachusetts wrote on June 27, 2007 3:49 PM:speedtats,
Your comments cover everything as to how OUR country got to this point. Its worth repeating.
"But of course, that would take a type of will and political courage that the Dems sadly do not possess, and more importantly, it would take an American populace with an attention span longer than a season of American F*cking Idol."
OCPatriot wrote on June 27, 2007 4:05 PM:No ... no ... NO! Everything I hear is "Go to Court", "Let the Supreme Court decide ultimately." The proper way to handle this is to believe you are right and then, using legal force as would be done with any ordinary citizen, with an armed marshal, show the world (the Press would be there in force) that the President and the V.P. are breaking the law. Let the President go to court; let him and the V.P. try that angle; no way should the Committee back down at this point.
Me_again wrote on June 27, 2007 4:07 PM:Why does the CIA call this the "Family Jewels" instead of what everyone else would call it.
Which of course is “airing your dirty laundry” or “exposing the skeletons in the closet”.
I mean, what is it with this; “we tried to assassinate and kill people and it was shining moment for the CIA" and "here is the documentation of all the wonderful things we did here in the CIA".
Comparing premeditated assassination to a gem???
Me_again wrote on June 27, 2007 4:13 PM:Why does the CIA call this the "Family Jewels" instead of what everyone would call it.
Which of course is “airing your dirty laundry” or “exposing the skeletons in closet”.
I mean, what is with this; “we tried to assassinate and we killed people and it was a shining moment for those of us in the CIA"? Oh, and "here is the documentation on the wonderful things we, CIA people did that would probably shock most Americans.
Comparing premeditated assassination to a gem???
Me_again wrote on June 27, 2007 4:15 PM:Why does the CIA call this the "Family Jewels" instead of what everyone would call it.
Which of course is “airing your dirty laundry” or “exposing the skeletons in closet”.
I mean, what is with this; “we tried to assassinate and we killed people and it was a shining moment for those of us in the CIA"? Oh, and "here is the documentation on the wonderful things we, CIA people did that would probably shock most Americans.
Comparing premeditated assassination to a gem???
lysias wrote on June 27, 2007 4:16 PM:So, of the nine Republicans on this highly partisan committee, three -- Specter, Hatch (!), and Grassley -- voted for the subpoenas, three voted against them, and three did not vote.
Looks like support for the administration among Senate Republicans is collapsing
Me_again wrote on June 27, 2007 4:16 PM:Oops, sorry for the double post - this new firewall I have is such a major pain in the neck.
Austin Cooper wrote on June 27, 2007 4:17 PM:THE OFFICE OF THE PRESTIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES
The Horronable Richard B. Cheney
Dear Pat:
My office has received an envelope from the Judiciary Committe via messenger this afternoon. They weren't actually allowed in, as they could not provide the required six levels of identification necessary to enter my offices.
And, we won't open the envelope, anyway. It was unsolicited -- and all mail I or my staff do not request to receive goes in the burn bag, along with Publisher's Clear Sweepstakes notifications and those menus for Vietnamese restaurants in Georgetown that keep piling up.
I thought I would take a moment to advise you that the so-called subpoena you are allegedly trying to serve on the Executive Branch is already mooted.
My offices have, since an undisclosed date, acted as a separate branch of the government of the United States from the Legislative, Judiciary, and Executive branches. This was accomplished through modification of a central document -- which one, the details of its contents, and the roles and responsibilities of my office are classified; and you don't have the required clearances, Pat.
In brief, you can go me yourself.
Regards,
Richard B. Cheney
tekel wrote on June 27, 2007 4:22 PM:Pestilentident
Hunting? Chess? I think it's more like trying to kill an ant colony. First you stomp on all the little monsters that have made it into your house, lock up all the goodies in glass jars or in the freezer, and then seal the doors and windows. That's Abramoff, Cunningham, DeLay.
Next you find the source of the problem (Rove/Cheney). And then maybe you spend some time stomping on the ones running around outside the hole, just to vent frustration or make the next part easier (Lurita Doan, Griles, Libby, Safavian, Foggo, Rummy, Sampson, Goodling, Easton, Ralston, Feith, Bork, Yoo, Card, Addington, Moschella... damn, that's actually a pretty long list isn't it? And there are clearly lots more).
Then you have a choice. You can get a shovel, dig it up, and have little arthropod automatons with jaws and stingers running all over the place-- or you can put out some poison bait and wait for the workers to bring it inside and feed it to the queen.
If you dig it up, it's messy and you might even get hurt badly, but it might also be over with in a matter of minutes. Dig, drop the whole thing in a plastic bag, tie the top off, voila. If you go with the poison, less chance that you'll get hurt but if it doesn't work fast enough you might have to chase them out of your house again.
I think Henry doesn't want to get bit until he knows that he'll get the queen for sure. So he was perfectly happy to spend a good long time stomping on the ones outside, and maybe he even put out some poison bait already...
But Pat just showed up with the shovel, and stuck it in the ground, and now there is no going back.
tekel wrote on June 27, 2007 4:25 PM:Hunting? Chess? I think it's more like trying to kill an ant colony. First you stomp on all the little monsters that have made it into your house, lock up all the goodies in glass jars or in the freezer, and then seal the doors and windows. That's Abramoff, Cunningham, DeLay.
Next you find the source of the problem (Rove/Cheney). And then maybe you spend some time stomping on the ones running around outside the hole, just to vent frustration or make the next part easier (Lurita Doan, Griles, Libby, Safavian, Foggo, Rummy, Sampson, Goodling, Easton, Ralston, Feith, Bork, Yoo, Card, Addington, Moschella... damn, that's actually a pretty long list isn't it? And there are clearly lots more).
Then you have a choice. You can get a shovel, dig it up, and have little arthropod automatons with jaws and stingers running all over the place-- or you can put out some poison bait and wait for the workers to bring it inside and feed it to the queen.
If you dig it up, it's messy and you might even get hurt badly, but it might also be over with in a matter of minutes. Dig, drop the whole thing in a plastic bag, tie the top off, voila. If you go with the poison, less chance that you'll get hurt but if it doesn't work fast enough you might have to chase them out of your house again.
I think Henry doesn't want to get bit until he knows that he'll get the queen for sure. So he was perfectly happy to spend a good long time stomping on the ones outside, and maybe he even put out some poison bait already...
But Pat just showed up with the shovel, and stuck it in the ground, and now there is no going back.
Tom in Dallas wrote on June 27, 2007 4:35 PM:How much of what the CIA disclosed was in the Church Report 35 years ago? It seems to me that the old stuff is...old, and the new stuff never should have happened if David S. Addington was up on the Church Committee. Everything Cheney has pulled, has been pulled before, albeit to a lesser extent, by Eisenhower, Nixon, Colby and J Edgar Hoover.
rockyroad wrote on June 27, 2007 4:47 PM:When the alien VP, Gonzalez and DoJ refuse to comply based upon executive privilege, etc., perhaps the Honarable Mr. Waxman would do well to end-run the louts by simply subpoenaing the Halliburton, electronic evesdropping contractors,oil companies and their lobbyists. None of these interests can claim executive privilege. In fact, where commuications between privileged parties and nonprivileged parties occurs, the privilege is lost (isn't it?). Which raises the prospect of the NRC e-mails. Surely, at some point, the strategy behind setting up the NRC e-mails was discussed with the NRC. If obstruction was the aim, some disgruntaled repug might want to share.
Billy Pilgrim wrote on June 27, 2007 4:50 PM:Brilliant, tekel. With Pat manning the shovel and Henry the poision, the outlook for the quarry does not look promising.
parrot wrote on June 27, 2007 4:54 PM:Fear that the "two party" system will not last must be growing in Washington daily.
Bloomberg has signaled he will split the two parties wide open for 2008. If Bloomberg is lining up Congressional candidates to run, there has got to be some serious worries in the calculators at GOP and Dem party HQ this evening as to what the outcome will be in many districts currently up for grabs. This is helping get to the bottom of the creepy-crawly things that the Bush gang have done to our nation. For this, I thank Bloomberg the Act, if not Bloomberg the Man.
parrot wrote on June 27, 2007 5:01 PM:There has got to be some worried politicians in Washington to explain what is currently happening.
I'm blaming Bloomberg and the fear that his candidacy is throwing into the election calculator brains of the two parties election think-tankers. If they don't move to show that a two party system actually works effectively, all bets are off in this next election.
If things do get worse for the two parties, let's hope that statesmen in both parties get our troops home before political upheaval bigger than just one party taking control over another in an election begins. Because, it would suck to be stuck in Iraq if you felt your vote wasn't even counted...and the person in charge ordering you around feared you because they had had to ignore your vote to get into power.
Frederick wrote on June 27, 2007 5:01 PM:Basically, Leahy is just pissed off at the stonewalling by
John Bertsch wrote on June 27, 2007 5:16 PM:these creeps. Pitbull Waxman has got his teeth in these
guys asses, also. They deserve some straight answers,
god only hopes they get it. Cheney and Bush know this
won't be over when they leave office, that's why they are trying to close the door to future investigations and
buying land in South America.
If this gets to the Su'premies, I'll wager a grand's grand that there will be NO 5-4 vote in favor of the White House this time.
MRyerson wrote on June 27, 2007 5:17 PM:President Bush today responded to the subpoenas issued by Senator Leahey's Senate judiciary Committee seeking testimony on the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program from White House chief of staff Josh Bolton, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Cheney chief of staff David Addington, and National Security Counsel executive director V. Philip Lago. Speaking at an impromptu Rose Garden news conference, Bush said, "What's the point, really? When will these knuckleheads get it through their thick skulls I don't recognise their supposed 'authority'? I'm the decider, I'm the commander-in-chief guy, I'm the wartime-president-holding-all-the-cards guy. I doubt we'll even open all their envelopes. Unless they're willing to take a deep breath and impeach me and impeach Dick Cheney and impeach Fredo and cut off funding to the Iraq war, I'll just keep ignoring them and finding one career minded general after another to take his turn in the barrel. It ain't hard, the military's full of 'em. So they issued some subpoenas. So what?"
John Bertsch wrote on June 27, 2007 5:18 PM:If this gets to the Su'premies, I'll wager a grand's grand that there will be NO 5-4 vote in favor of the White House this time.
osama_been_forgotten wrote on June 27, 2007 5:28 PM:They will not comply. You all know it. If there is one thing these individuals have been consistent at, it is chutzpah.
I'll even bet that if congress does choose to really fight (and they won't, for reasons enumerated above), that even after impeachment, they'll continue to assert they're in control, and it would end in a bloody shootout, George and Dick holed up in the oval office behind the overturned desk, George, weeping and shaking, handing Dick ammunition, while the bodies of secret service men, and capitol police lay bleeding around them.
Mike Murphy wrote on June 27, 2007 5:42 PM:Was it worth waiting to get Specter, Hatch, and Grassley to vote in favor, for 13-3 approval or these subpoenas? That may limit the impact of the "Democrat nitpicking cheap shot" accusations. After all, Nixon stood fast til senior Republican Senators told him the game was over.
rockyroad wrote on June 27, 2007 5:50 PM:With all of the damning information that has come to light re: Cheney, Rumsfield, Gonzalez, Bush, Abramhoff, Griles, Norton, etc. ad nauseum . . . why haven't the demns slammed down the gauntlet? Waxman's done well . . . Pelosi belly flopped when she pledged "no impeachments" . . . a question I hate to raise, but in light of the utter failure of results . . . why are the dems so reluctant to fight tooth and nail . . . call out Cheney, Bush and Gonzales to an all out showdown? If there are skels in the dem closet, so be it. It is time to clean house. Cliche, but we must burn the house to save the country. Call out every corrupt pol regardless of their affiliation. We've got war dead, war graft and profiteering by out VP et al, environmental destruction, thousands abandoned and murdered on the gulf coast while W's spening billions on a principality in Baghdad . . . no health ins., etc. All of this corruption could not have happened without dems' complicity. Sad but true. Expect better. Demand it.
Joanne wrote on June 27, 2007 6:04 PM:Since the SCOTUS has been bought and paid for, it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Why do I think our country and our citizens are going to lose this battle?
Basharov wrote on June 27, 2007 6:08 PM:If this gets to the Su'premies, I'll wager a grand's grand that there will be NO 5-4 vote in favor of the White House this time.
If I had a grand's grand, I'd take that bet. After Bush v. Gore, and after all the 5-4 decisions of the last month in which the 5 conservatives always came down on the side of power and authoritarianism, is there any doubt which way they'll go in a battle between Democrats in Congress and the Cheney Administration?
bakho wrote on June 27, 2007 6:24 PM:The next president needs to do a data dump on these guys. They should make public EVERYTHING that Bush was trying to hide, including those docs from Papa Bush and Reagan that Bush reclassified. They should make them widely distributed so they cannot be recalled.
What a project that would be.
Jimmy J wrote on June 27, 2007 6:34 PM:You anin't seen nothin' yet. The Chimp'n'Cheney crew are about to give new meaning to the word "stonewalling".
Say isn't that first round of subpoenas coming due tomorrow?
Flamethrower wrote on June 27, 2007 6:51 PM:If those officials don't provide the documents sought by the committee by July 18
You mean, "As if...."
jroyale wrote on June 27, 2007 6:54 PM:"I regret the error" What? I don't understand what you are saying. I think you meant to say "Mistake were made"
Kari wrote on June 27, 2007 7:19 PM:While a data dump might- MIGHT, put the nail in the rethugs' coffin for a very long while, don't you doubt that there will be one shred of documentation to dump? All butts have been covered, thus far and the amnesia epidemic is in full swing.
Mark F. wrote on June 27, 2007 7:36 PM:Sadly, on one hand, I fear that this will lead nowhere.
At the same time, things seem to be ramping up as they never have before.
Either way, I fear that the American people will be the losers here. Dick & George & all their flying monkeys (including the SCOTUS) should have been hauled away in shackles several years
back.
:popcorn:
The Democrats are weak as hell. It's really annoying to watch this pathetic crap going down. When will the Democrats finally come to terms with the fact that without the imminent threat of criminal prosecution and impeachment, the White House is going to do NOTHING in response to these subpoenas? The Democrats really need to grow some spines and quit acting like a bunch of old grannies. It's embarrassing to watch.
Sama wrote on June 27, 2007 8:18 PM:This bunch has been operating on Rove's assurance that the Repukes would be in power for the foreseeable future...didn't happen. Now they have to fight every rearguard action the Dems throw at them until 2009. It's going to be interesting to see what revolting things they've been doing in the belief they would never have to account for any of it. Something tells me we don't have any idea how bad the stink will get.
melior wrote on June 27, 2007 8:45 PM:Ummmm, equipment manufacturers? Like maybe Dell or Apple? Or maybe Intel?
Could they be planting spyware or spy firmware?
Posted by: goldberry
Date: June 27, 2007 2:55 PM
---
*cough* Cisco *cough* AT&T *cough*
vandrop wrote on June 27, 2007 8:59 PM:Hey Cranky - Bush's South American location is not undisclosed - he bought that ranch in Paraguay, 'member?
JNagarya wrote on June 27, 2007 9:14 PM:"It's quite difficult to be excited about this, qiven all the historical data that strongly suggests that the Democrats will back down when push comes to shove."
Asshole: the Democrats have not backed down in any instance. What you are seeing is that you profess to want: restoration, and application of, due process of law.
What is it with you twits that you hate the Republicans because uncivil, but then bash the Democrats for not being uncivil?
And what is it with you twits that you demand the rule of law prevail, but then when it does you bash those who are accomplishing that?
"I want them not to, but there is nothing in the recent history that gives me any confidence that they won't."
Asshole: there is everything in the "recent history" which demonstrates the exact opposite. There have been umerous bashings from the self-righteous peanut gallery mocking the Democrats for sending letters, and then sending follow-up letters. The contrary reality is that 100 per cent of law is conducted by means of written documents, and 97 per cent of those are letters.
Do you want a restoration of civility in our political discourse -- or do you want to continue the hate-speech which substitutes for thought and intellegience? If the latter, then continue to gratuitously bash Democrats -- but not the foot-dragging Republicans.
Posted by: gregor
JNagarya wrote on June 27, 2007 9:17 PM:Date: June 27, 2007 2:51 PM
Whatever, Whoever is in the next administration, Republican or Democrat, this affair will be over. The excuses will be;
1)that it will take too much of the governments time
2)"national secrets"
3)all laws broken were in the best interests of the country given the cirucmstances of the times
4)partisan politics
5)no laws were broken
6)it will split the country
7)dah dah, dah dah, dah dah
But nothing is going to happen, no one will be held accountable for any wrong doing and no one will go to jail....
You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
Posted by: Dennis
Date: June 27, 2007 2:56 PM
Gee, you're so smart. I wish the rest of us could predict the _UNKNOWABLE_ future.
JNagarya wrote on June 27, 2007 9:23 PM:More sound and fury from our Democractric leaders.
However we know the clock will run out long before any court based result; and there's no way in hell Alberto Gonzales is going to process these subpeonas- so they're basically fancy TP at this point.
The continual impotence of our congressional majority status is starting to fray my nerves.
Posted by:
Date: June 27, 2007 2:57 PM
You are fraying your own nerves by being a smugly self-righteous asshole. Congress is functioning as required, in accordance with due process of law, and is making solid progress -- and faster than should be expected (1) in so short a time, and (2) with such an essentially illusory "majority" in the Senate.
The central question of the moment is whether the foot-dragging Republicans -- you instead bash the Democrats, pro-Bushit troll -- wake up before you do, or you wake up before they: 21 Republican Senators are facing re-election; and if the voters wake up to the fact that democracy is not instant gratification for the unrealistic thumb-suckers, then they'll ensure there is a veto-proof Democratic majority in both houses. If not, because like you -- know it all -- then they may fulfill your prophecy by continuing to be stupid.
As for your predictions of the future: bullshit.
JNagarya wrote on June 27, 2007 9:28 PM:What happens after they refuse to comply? You know they will.
Posted by: cynicalgirl
A strongly worded letter will be issued. That's about it.
code word "safe", as in "the adminsitration is safe from consequences because the democrats refuse to exercise their power".
Posted by: brendancalling
Date: June 27, 2007 2:57 PM
Okay, I'll bite: tell us all what "power" the Democrats have that they are not exercising? (Do you know anything at all about the proper functioning of Congress? About proper due process of law?)
And leave out the irrelevance of their essentially non-existent "majority" in the Senate, and the non-veto-proof "majority" in the House.
But, for a change, don't leave out the reality of the _FOOT-DRAGGING REPUBLICANS_.
JNagarya wrote on June 27, 2007 9:41 PM:Isn't this less like hunting and more like chess?
When you hunt, you take aim. Either you hit or you miss.
In chess, you fan out the potential outcomes and decide where to go next based on an array of possibilities.
Averaged over the possible outcomes, this subpoena strategy predicts a positive gain and a low cost. It might not be the magic bullet but it makes sense as a long-haul policy.
Posted by: AmIDreaming
Date: June 27, 2007 3:18 PM
Yes. In addition to which, the investigation is multi-pronged; it consists of several investigations, from several different directions, all of which lead to Bushit, et al.
Time is actually on Congress' side. Gonzales is neutralized, and a continuing high-profile embarrassment -- it doesn't matter whether Bushit, et al., have the capacity to be embarrassed -- and Cheney has had his bluff called publicly, and his lawyer and chief of staff blinked. Congress has done its homework -- they now know the releative nature and scope of the corruption, and have a growing accumulation of evidence conserning the various aspects of that, and has laid the groundwork, and has now escalated to aim directly at Bushit, Cheney, and (in the background) Rove.
And what has Rove said about the allegations out of AL? "No comment." "No comment" isn't a denial. And, according to Scott Horton, there are some six AGs who have written to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees to look into the AL/Siegelman issue. In addition to Rove, and Gonzales and DOJ, there is more Abramoff there.
Wasman some weeks ago announced an expansion of the investigation of the ties between the WH and Abramoff.
Assume Congress knows, and has substantiated, more than it has revealed. And that definitely includes the "caging" issue.
That the Democrats aren't rude or mean-spirited does not mean they lack spine. Or that they aren't doing anything.
flex wrote on June 27, 2007 9:47 PM:Fact, Cheney and Bush are so evil and deranged that they will start a war with Iran and declare Marshall Law rather than comply with subpoenas that would put them behind bars.
JNagarya wrote on June 27, 2007 9:54 PM:I'm not sure these guys can be prosecuted after leaving office for anything they did IN office. However, they CAN and SHOULD be tied around the neck of any Republican Senator and/or Congressperson who declined to ask the hard questions and hold their feet to the fire about pi$$ing on the Constitution, as well as used as justification for ensuring such nonsense never happens again. But of course, that would take a type of will and political courage that the Dems sadly do not possess, . . . ."
Actually, in fact, the Democrats do have the political courage you claim they don't have. Obviously, you wouldn't recognize political courage if it punched you in the face. In your zeal to bash Democrats for horsehsit "reasons," your narrow and limited attention span leaves out the _FOOT-DRAGGING REPUBLICANS_.
Posted by: speedtats
Date: June 27, 2007 3:28 PM
------
It appears Leahy and the SJC limited the subpoena to docs from 9/11/2001 and after. Why limit it to 9/11/2001 and after? It would be just as juicy or juicer a forbidden fruit if the administration conducted this activity prior to 9/11/2001.
Because one doesn't go after that which is arguably outside the scope of the immediate question. That is not a bar to going after such later.
Why do you twits view every move by the Congress to be the last, the final, the only one left?
Posted by: tbhull
JNagarya wrote on June 27, 2007 10:06 PM:Date: June 27, 2007 3:45 PM
""This is evidence of more Democratic nitpicking and bullying."
""Confrontation" by those darn' Democrats."
"That's how the White House and their coconspirators will counter the subpoenas."
Have they done that before now? No. Why? Because they don't want their stonewalling to become a public issue of discussion. The noose is closing around them, regardless the clueless assholes who knee-jerk bash everything Democratic because they can't find the political courage to bash the foot-dragging Republicans.
"And the Dems have three choices:
1) Do nothing or little
2) Go to Court --- see 1)
3) Cut off funding for Pres and VP staffs. Also, the Secret Service will be placed under the control of Congress, and search for paper and electronic documents will be made under the aegis of the Secret Service."
The Congress is not "the Dems"; it also includes Republicans, with which the Democrats -- but not those who bash the Democrats -- must contend. As well, Congress is not limited to football game/sports analysts' limitations of imagination and tools. This isn't a fucking football game to be second-guessed by politically-ignorant jocks.
"I argue for the last: If Bush's staff will not obey the law or cooperate with Congress, then they can do without being on the public payroll."
There are more tools in Congress' bag than those to which you limit them.
"If they are unemployed, they would not be in a position to oppose Congressional subpoenas. The Secret Service can carry out searches for Executive documents that the Congress needs for its investigations, under this proposal."
According to whom?
"We can only imagine what the next President will do with the expanded powers that Bush and Cheney have brought to the White House."
It should go without saying that we can "only imagine" the future. I suspect that if the next president is a Democrat, the abuses of power will be eliminated, and Constitutional limits and rule of law restored.
Posted by: krog
Date: June 27, 2007 3:48 PM
I love it when pundits speak only in terms of what Congress can't do, and the limits of Congress' power; that leaves as surprises the opposite realities.
JNagarya wrote on June 27, 2007 10:11 PM:So, of the nine Republicans on this highly partisan committee, three -- Specter, Hatch (!), and Grassley -- voted for the subpoenas, three voted against them, and three did not vote.
Looks like support for the administration among Senate Republicans is collapsing
Posted by: lysias
Date: June 27, 2007 4:16 PM
1. They realize there are elections coming up, and that 21 Republican Senators are facing re-election, while the Republican poll numbers are in the tank.
2. Senator Lugar's breaking with Bushit is major. More junior Senators will take that as permission to do the same.
3. Grassley is actually something of a Waxman, on the Republican side.
G.W. Bush wrote on June 27, 2007 10:12 PM:I don't c whut all the fuss is about. Dickster told me we can do what we want. I worked hard to be the desisinatur. I'm a war time president and disky is a war time conci, consilir.....wartime rules maker. See, people dont understand that GOD wanted me to lead this great country. What do they call that, divine birth or somthin like that. Anyway, what I do is my business. I mean it's my country. I get to do what I want and so do my friends. So there!
John wrote on June 27, 2007 10:15 PM:I'm sick of the cynicism. Let's roll up our sleeves and clean this sullied White House.
JNagarya wrote on June 27, 2007 10:17 PM:I think Henry doesn't want to get bit until he knows that he'll get the queen for sure. So he was perfectly happy to spend a good long time stomping on the ones outside, and maybe he even put out some poison bait already...
But Pat just showed up with the shovel, and stuck it in the ground, and now there is no going back.
Posted by: tekel
Date: June 27, 2007 4:22 PM
You left out that all the "preliminaries," as you depict them, resulted in the gathering of substantial substantive evidence from the "less important" about the "more important" on which is built the next round. When they begin to go after Cheney, it means they have sufficient evidence to justify doing so.
Gonazles is essentially irrlevant at this point, though it is helpful -- to the good -- that he remains where he is.
Rove is the one being slow roasted on the barbie.
1Watt wrote on June 27, 2007 11:40 PM:You all reading the expose on Robert Gates?
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IF27Ak01.html
eyeball wrote on June 28, 2007 12:33 AM:40 years of blowback.
short of a blast of the magnitude of nixon's secret taping system or a true patriotic whistleblower who just outs all the illegal stuff under oath, we wont see this criminal evidence till long after j. edgars bush and cheney are fully reclined. so, who's going to be the step-up guy ? the john dean/alexander butterfield?
Anonymous wrote on June 28, 2007 12:34 AM:short of a blast of the magnitude of nixon's secret taping system or a true patriotic whistleblower who just outs all the illegal stuff under oath, we wont see this criminal evidence till long after j. edgars bush and cheney are fully reclined. so, who's going to be the step-up guy ? the john dean/alexander butterfield?
xargaw wrote on June 28, 2007 12:49 AM:I hope that they do not sit around and give them all the time in the world as they have done in the past. Give them a few weeks and if they fail to comply, start court proceedings. The American people have run out of patience with this Administration AND with Congress.
irina wrote on June 28, 2007 1:11 AM:None of Cheneys estimated 88 employees is accessible to a reporter for a question (unless one happens to be leaking the identity of an undercover CIA agent). Asked
who works in the OVP, a Cheney press secretary said, We just dont give out that kind of information. No one can know who they are or what they do.
.................
First thing that comes to mind: "Now I know where the bzillions the Pentagon lost went!!!" Second:
"There is a war over WHO will be ultimate dictator!"
_This is an orchestrated leak campaign, from Laura and Barbara being quotedas telling Bush that Gitmo is bad for America's image, to the disclosure that Cheney stopped preserving papers in 2003, and his assertion that the VP's office is not part of the Executive Branch, to Colin Powell's recent disclosure that the torture/detention policy came by fiat from Cheney.
Something is coming. Some bombshell. And they are trying to get Bush out of the way.
Possibly related to Gen. Taguba's disclosures in the New Yorker (top brass including Rumsfeld involved in torture, Taguba prevented from investigating them, feeling threatened, feeling like the Pentagon had become the mafia). Rumsfeld and Cheney thick as thieves since the 1980s. Whatever Rumsfeld's into, Cheney's into, and vice versa. What were they torturing people FOR? (Anybody believe that it was to "keep us safe"?) Another possibility: 'Plamegate.'
And another (my new theory): that Cheney and Rumsfeld were trying to oust Bush and install Cheney as Prez, for full on Nazification of our government and attack on Iran. Not the sort of thing that is likely to be exposed--no bombshell likely--but could be what is behind all this: Rumsfeld out (with no change of policy in Iraq), and now Cheney under serious establishment fire aimed at EXONERATING Bush.
Best guess: torture and murder for profit
Winni the Pooh wrote on June 28, 2007 3:45 AM:Hmmmm.....the Dickmeister almost shot a guy's face off...and the guy apologized for all the trouble it caused the VP.
Was there coersion? Threats? Gonna get the secret service to finish the guy? We'll never know. My little pinky tells me that he was scared of the consequences to himself or his family.
The reason that the democrats might back down is because they are scared for their well being too.
Al in Austex wrote on June 28, 2007 4:32 AM:Isn't this the same VP who thinks what happened in those prison's was OK? BTW, have you seen some of the graphic bloody pictures not published except in australia? I'm going out on a limb, but Cheney is "feverish with war"-Colin Powell's words "unbalanced", paranoid. He needs serious help. He acts in a kind of sociopathic manner. His coldness comes across even through the TV set. There are other Republicans that are far more "normal" "sane" that could be representing us right now, it's a shame.
Leahy ,Waxman , & Grassley have got the goods on BushCo,the subpoeneas prove that the Dems are "loaded for Bear" - Its my faith & belief in our Civic 101 class -back in junior high -that leads me to the conclusion that BUSHCO is now in its final days & months. And to the Republicant Trolls on this thread - be advised that there are many more streams of "discovery " coming in on the criminals in this Administration.Be also advised that career employees of many of our fine federal Departments (EPA , DOD , CIA ) are even as we speak ratting out the NeoCons.
Phedup wrote on June 28, 2007 7:31 AM:And the Moderate Republicans who need to preserve their respective seats will give us the majority need for Conviction in the Senate- we already have enough votes in Congress to Impeach BushCo .And as a "sidebar " Pelosi never really had tabled impeachment of POTUS & The VEEP - but as the Democratic Leader she had to say it was off the table so as not to appear to be politicising the High Crimes this bunch has committed.
Gee it looks like TurdBlossom & Grover won't get to drown our Constitution in their neo con bath water after all.
Finally - how much of the discovery spade work that the Committees are doing now -will find its way into civil court proceedings -such as when the Native Americans try to get back the money (plus damages ) that Grover ,Ralph , and Abramoff fraudently stole from them .
Do the Democrats know what and who they are dealing with. The Administration and the Republican Party have become nothing more than a criminal conspiracy. They have to approach their investigations with this in mind. The Republicans do what they do not for the benefit of the nation but for the benefit of their Party and it's corporate backers. Republicans have attempted a coup in which Party and State become one and the same. It's the same tactic used by the Nazi's in Germany and the Communists in the Soviet Union
thepeoplechoose wrote on June 28, 2007 7:35 AM:The key point in all of this is that government must abide by the framework of laws that we have. Those laws are there fore the dual purpose of protecting citizens both from persons who would seek to commit crimes against the nation and also to assure that government itself does not violate the rights of citizens or conduct itself in ways not in accordance with the best interests of the American people. Government and the people in it are no different than any other entity that would be inclined to commit abuses of power unless they are restricted from doing so. It’s an automatic no call reality that without such restrictions abuses will occur. I don’t care who may argue otherwise the WH (or government in general) should never be allowed to conduct itself in an unregulated way.
We know empirically what the outcome of not having standards of accountability will be. Human nature is an absolute and impassable roadblock to the argument of the WH and the administration. Anyone who may try to sell a different version of this is either a fool or dishonest to the core. And they certainly don’t belong in a position of authority.
flex wrote on June 28, 2007 10:20 PM:the White House isn't worried about stinkin subpoeneas, they've got a world war to start...
imntacrook wrote on June 28, 2007 11:48 PM:http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/28/hersh-bush-iran/
I wouldn't give Leaky Leahy the time of day. If they want any documents just have Sandy Burglar pick them up sometime after midnight.
Anonymous wrote on July 18, 2007 1:01 PM:CORRECTION RETRACTED: The Washington Post copy of the pdf of the Senate Judiciary subpoena to Addington June 27, 2007 definitely states he is to appear and testify, but the committee website today July 18, a few hours before the appointed time in the subpoena, shows no hearing publicly scheduled. Maybe it is a secret hearing.
JohnLopresti wrote on July 18, 2007 1:03 PM:CORRECTION RETRACTED: The Washington Post copy of the pdf of the Senate Judiciary subpoena to Addington June 27, 2007 definitely states he is to appear and testify, but the committee website today July 18, a few hours before the appointed time in the subpoena, shows no hearing publicly scheduled. Maybe it is a secret hearing.
JohnLopresti wrote on July 18, 2007 1:06 PM:Evidently, this site filters html links; here is the subpoena document location at WaPo:
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/senate_judiciary_subpoena_to_cheney_26.pdf