Posts

Mark Kleiman argues that the Democrats should see BushCo's refusal to turn over proof that they buried details about Pat Tillman's death as a godsend. This is the scandal, he argues, over which the Democrats should choose to confront Bush. This is a Godsend for the Democrats in Congress. The committeesshouldn't compromise at all; this is the case we want to go to warover, in the courts and the court of

I found this story on the National Review cruise over at Susie's place. It's the perfect comedy to accompany the Sunday shows--stories about what nuts Republicans when they presume they're alone. There's a lot that worth reading, not least the portrayal of the Podhoretz-Buckley feud (with Buckley almost--but not quite--disowning his conservative offspring).

We all know that Harriet was a no-show for her date with HJC on Thursday. We all know that Harriet refused to testify based on some new opinions issued by DOJ. But I've seen almost no discussion that explores why BushCo decided to take such an inflammatory approach with Harriet's testimony. It seems there are two likely answers to that question--or rather, questions that need to be answered:Why did Bush choose to

I'm just now catching up on the Sara Taylor non-testimony (the webcast is still available here). And I find her to be interestingly sharp--in that she backs off of some points that the Republicans would like to put in her mouth. There's an exchange with Arlen Specter, for example, in which he prods her to say that Tim Griffin was very qualified to replace Bud Cummins (this happens just before and

Back when Dow Jones and the AP renewed their bid to unseal the materials relating to Judy's and Cooper's subpoenas, they asserted--apparently based on self-serving public comments by Novak, Rove, and Armitage and on Victoria Toensing's self-declared omniscience in all things Plame--that Fitzgerald's pursuit of the journalists' testimony was unnecessary. Recently, the public learned that the Special Counsel's pursuit of those reporters was entirely unnecessary for him to determine who had leaked

If the hapless Democratic Congress ever gets around to an investigation through which they can ask Reggie to turn over the CIA Leak case grand jury materials. But for now, I'd say he's still cranky, wouldn't you?In commuting the defendant’sthirty-month term of incarceration, the President stated that thesentence imposed by this Court was “excessive” and that two years ofsupervised release and a $250,000 alone are a “harsh punishment” for anindividual convicted

The NYT reports that Sara Taylor will come before the SJC today and testify about some things. Sara Taylor, the former White House political director, has agreed toanswer some questions as a “willing and cooperative private citizen,”during testimony about the United States attorney firings last yearwhen she appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee later today. But, as a former presidential adviser, she will also honor thepresident’s invocation of executive privilege to keep quiet

So says Pete Domenici, when asked by Andrea Mitchell whether he would testify before Congress if asked. ThinkProgress points out that a conversation between Rove and Domenici closely preceded David Iglesias' firing. But I'll go further, and raise this report. In the spring of 2006, Domenici told Gonzales he wanted Iglesias out. Gonzales refused.

I've got just a few minutes before I've got to pack up for DC. But I wanted to point out a curious detail about the WaPo's story on NSLs: the centrality of PFIAB in it. The story, of course, reveals that Gonzales received reports of violations of National Security Letter procedures, and then went into Congress and said there had been no problems with the program.

Credit where it's due. Tom Maguire hits all the right notes about this Novak book excerpt, save one. He notes that Novak's story has a way of changing with the seasons. Interesting. This old post has the Novak version before he was willing to name Armitage; here is Novak (post-"Hubris") rebutting Armitage's version. There are subtle shifts in the story - now we are told that "Hementioned her first name, Valerie",