senate judiciary committee preparing subpoenas. . .

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
U P D A T E D:
@4:31 p.m., e.d.t.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

i was hoping to have definitive
word on whether the subpoenas
might actually be placed for
service on or after monday,
april 9 [yet stayed -- held in
abeyance -- until it is known whether
alberto gonzales will comply with the
"48-hours prior to april 17"
deadline set forth in sen. leahy's
letter], all as contemplated by the
standing rules of the senate committee. . .

but, alas, i have no such word. . .

i will return to this post if,
and/or when, i do. . .

that is all.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
END UPDATE
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

the stakes have been raised
in the stand-off between alberto
gonzales’ office and the senate
judiciary committee — with democrats
canceling his appearance before another
committee of the senate, on april 12th
(he was to appear in a request for
more funding — not!), and demanding
he “clear the air” on purge-gate, before
he is even allowed to make a pitch for
any additional budget allocation.

now, that makes sense. . .

apparently, there are another almost 700
pages of documents not yet produced to the
judiciary committee — that committee in-
vestigators have been allowed to view,
but not copy. this won’t do. the subpoenas
may ultimately issue — if just to get the
entire, unredacted, truth out.

quoth this morning’s washington post:

. . .trust in Gonzales among Capitol Hill
Democrats has evaporated amid revelations
from the almost 4,000 pages of documents
the Justice Department has released to date,
some of which have contradicted a string of
statements from the attorney general about
the dismissals. Gonzales first told the
Judiciary Committee, during a hearing 11
weeks ago, that there was no intent to
avoid Senate confirmation for the
replacements of the fired prosecutors. . .

[ed. side note: d. kyle sampson said
otherwise, and wrote contemporaneous
e-mails to document this -- all as he
testified under oath last week, before
the senate judiciary committee. . .]

Democratic investigators were upset to
learn about the additional batch of records
in recent visits to the department, according
to a Senate aide who requested anonymity to
talk freely about the standoff. . .

. . .the Senate Judiciary Committee
“has lodged objections several times”
about not being given the new documents. . .
They were discovered over the past two weeks
as staff investigators for the House and
Senate judiciary panels, working in a special
office inside the Justice Department,
reviewed the censored portions of e-mails
and other records thathad already been
sent to Capitol Hill in redacted form,
according to Justice Department and Senate aides. . .

these latest developments have
greatly increased the chances for
a fairly-explosive show-down in
front of the judiciary committee
[to be broadcast by cspan] on april 17.

so — i’d schedule a sick-day to watch
this moment in history unfold — it will
be well-worth the time spent!

developing. . .

[go read the full article. . .
h/t firedoglake and
tpmuckraker!]

sen. leahy gets granular with gonzales, redux. . .

click on the image to read
salient excerpts from sen.
patrick leahy’s full-text
letter, sent today, detailing
the attorney general’s lack of
timely responses to senate
judiciary committee inquiries. . .

and, buckle up for the 17th!

gonzo’s senior counselor to invoke 5th before leahy. . .

the washington post is reporting
this afternoon that the attorney
general’s senior counselor has
informed sen. patrick leahy’s staff
that she will refuse to answer any
questions at the hearing of the
senate judiciary committee, scheduled
for this thursday.

quoth the. . .

“. . .The senior counselor to Attorney
General Alberto R. Gonzales will refuse
to testify before the Senate Judiciary
Committee in the unfolding U.S. attorneys
scandal, invoking her Fifth Amendment
right against self-incrimination, her
attorneys said today.

Monica M. Goodling — who is on an
indefinite leave of absence from Gonzales’s
office — also alleges in a sworn declar-
ation that a “senior Department of Justice
official” has admitted he was “not entirely
candid” in his Senate testimony and has
blamed Goodling and others for not
fully briefing him. . .”

that official is almost certainly either paul mcnulty, the deputy attorney general, or perhaps mr. gonzales, himself.

in stark contrast, d. kyle sampson, the AG’s former chief of staff, has indicated that he will speak, under oath, to the committee about various matters related to purge-gate. . .

we now know that mr. sampson will likely say, under oath,
that he did not mislead mr. gonzales.

tantalizingly, he may say quite a bit more.

we also now know that the other putative “fall-
person” for mr. gonzales, ms. goodling, will not go
quietly. her invocation of the fifth may possibly
be the precursor to an agreement under which she
will ultimately testify, in return for immunity.

it is an unusual sign — and not an encourag-
ing one — for the target, at least, when
one of the target’s lawyers — his senior
lawyer, in this case — decides to invoke
a fifth amendment privilege against self-
incriminantion.

i write this because it suggests, to me, that
the target, here mr. gonzales, is going to have
quite a bit of difficulty asserting that he
simply followed, in good faith, legal advice he
sought, and received, from his staff, related
to the dismissal of the eight u.s. attorneys.

we already know that various public documents
contradict mr. gonzales’ earlier claim that he “wasn’t
very involved” in the decision to ask for
the resignations of these eight u.s. attorneys.

all of this is shaping up rather badly for mr.
gonzales — but is quite predictably — almost
uncannily — providing much “noisy cover” and
a precious time-delay, for messrs. rove and cheney.

here endeth this lesson in rovian stall-politics.

senate judiciary committee votes subpoenas. . .

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
U P D A T E D:

march 22, 2007
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
the senate’s judiciary committee, by
voice vote, without dissent, has
followed yesterday’s lead of the house
judiciary committee, and voted to
authorize the issuance of subpoenas
compelling the appearance and testi-
mony of karl rove and others related
to the dismissal of eight a.u.s.a.’s. . .

“I do not take lightly a take-it-or-
leave-it so-called offer from the White
House,” said Mr. Leahy, alluding to the
administration’s offer to make current
and former aides available for private
interviews, as opposed to public test-
imony. “I believe in the prerogatives
of the United States Senate. . .”

UPDATED AGENDA

Senate Judiciary Committee

Senate Dirksen Office Building Room 226

Thursday, March 22, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. E.D.T.

I. Authorization of Subpoenas in
Connection with Investigation into
Replacement of U.S. Attorneys

Chair: Senator Patrick Leahy(D: VT)

so — by this time tomorrow,
there will very likely be
authority for two supoenas,
each naming one mr. karl rove,
among others. . .

batter up.

house judiciary committee votes to authorize subpoenas

representative conyers’ committee, the
judiciary committee of the house of
representatives, just voted to
authorize the issuance of subpoenas
to the white house in the dismissed
u.s. attorneys matter. . .

the march toward a collision
between the executive and
legislative brances has
suddenly begun in earnest.

perhaps as importantly, the
outcome of this dispute will directly
affect conyers’ strategy in the yet-to-
come cheney-plamegate hearings. . .

of historic, and constitutional, proportions

we, as a nation, are arriving at a
turning point this week.

so, let us compare and contrast, shall we:

“. . .I’m not going to let anybody come down
at night like Nicodemus and whisper something
in my ear that no one else can hear. That is
not executive privilege; it is poppycock. . .”

– senator sam ervin, then the
chair of the senate select committee
investigating the watergate scandal

“Watergate and a lot of the things around
Watergate and Vietnam during the 1970s, served,
I think, to erode the authority I think the
president needs to be effective. . .”

– vice president cheney, december 2005

[it is easy to recognize the rotting
fruit that fell from the above tree today. . .]

the current, narrow, dispute concerns whether the
president will voluntarily comply with a request
for public, sworn testimony before congress — this
time, about the circumstances surrounding the
dismissal of eight assistant united states
attorneys. however, all agree that at stake is a
much broader idea.

at stake — being decided anew, for this
generation — is the continued vitality of
the idea that a transparent and accountable
presidency is part of the constitutional fabric
of our nation. that fabric was quite notoriously
tattered by president nixon during the watergate
break-in, and subsequent cover-up. the fabric
was only later mended by a bevy of legislative
reforms in the middle- to late-1970s.

today, the president attempted to dictate the terms under which his office would comply with requests for testimony before congress. his offer was unsworn, private interviews of karl rove and other white house staff members — with no transcripts.

senator patrick
leahy has been
clear: he wants
public, and sworn,
testimony on the record, before
his committee, from all of
those involved at the white
house in the decision to fire the
assistant united states attorneys.

[i note that the narrative on tomorrow morning's
new york times opinion page, written by one of the
dismissed assistant united states attorneys, alleges
improper -- perhaps unlawful -- attempts to accelerate
sealed corruption proceedings for election-day
advantage, by incumbent republican conressmen. if
well-founded -- and there would be little reason to
fabricate such a claim, especially given that the
attorney's home phone records likely show the calls
alleged -- the gravamen of this narrow dispute grows
exponentionally -- perhaps, even, to watergate-
era significance, or beyond. . .]

the president, somewhat disingenuously, it seems, has
asserted, without much logical foundation, that he
will be unable to obtain good advice if his people
may ultimately have to tell the truth about what
they said, after the fact. . . frankly, i don’t
get it — how is public veracity antithetical to
sound advice-giving and -receiving? [i assume, of
course, that mr. bush would not seek advice on the
pursuit of unlawful, but otherwise undetectable,
courses of action. perhaps that is my problem.]

“poppycock” seems apt, no?

this dispute will directly inform representative
conyers’ ability to command public, sworn testimony
from vice president cheney (and karl rove), when he
gets around to it — about the role each played in
directing/ordering/master-minding scooter libby
about, throughout the valerie plame wilson outing,
and the subsequent cover-up of said outing.

so. . . pop up a bag of popcorn, and stay tuned.