Does Specter Know Something Specific (for a Change)?

by emptywheel

I've come up a with a new nickname for Arlen Specter: Scottish Haggis. So I don't want you to think that I believe Specter has any authority when he says that Gonzales is likely to step down before a no confidence vote.

SCHIEFFER: Do you, in fact, think Republicans, a sizable number, will join with Democrats on that? And what do you think the impact is going to be on the Attorney General?

SPECTER: Well, I think so. You already have six Republicans calling for his resignation. I have a sense, Bob, that before the vote is taken that Attorney General Gonzales may step down.

SCHIEFFER: Really?

SPECTER: Well, it is a very forceful, historical statement. Votes of no confidence are very rare. More than a century ago one was leveled against a sitting president. I think historically that is something which Attorney General Gonzales would like to avoid. The most important thing, though, is the inability of the department now to function. I was about to say that U.S. Attorneys met in San Antonio this past week and there was a lot of criticism and a lot of dissension. That department is very, very important, functioning for the welfare of our country. […]

SCHIEFFER: What leads you, senator, to the conclusion that he will probably step down before such a vote is taken?

SPECTER: Because of the likelihood, a very substantial vote of no confidence. I think that if and when he sees that coming, that he would prefer to avoid that kind of an historical black mark. [my emphasis]

Rather, I suspect that Specter is speaking from the position of someone who has been in negotiations on such a topic. There are several elements that make me believe that Specter is sending Gonzales a next to last ultimatum here, rather than just blabbing like he normally does.

First, there's the mention of the USA Attorneys' meeting. The WaPo reported that none of the USAs mentioned Gonzales' resignation when they berated him on Wednesday (though the multiple leaks of the meeting itself didn't get published until Saturday). That just feels rather orchestrated to me.

Then, there's the repetition on Specter's part: "a very substantial vote of no confidence." While it is not Specter's job to count votes, I suspect he has a sense of where the vote is right now. And with Wayne Allard--a right winger's right winger--still undecided, there is certainly the room for plenty of no confidence votes.

Mostly, though, there's the feeling that this has been very carefully orchestrated, going back to Monday when McNulty resigned. McNulty's resignation guaranteed BushCo a high profile nomination hearing, no matter what. Schumer made a damaging case against Gonzales on Tuesday. And with Salazar telling Gonzales to go late in the week, the case has certainly been carefully crafted. The issue now, IMO, probably relates to the details of the thing, not least who would be named as the next AG.

But I do believe Specter actually might not be talking outtahisarse this time.

Comments

[Carolyn in Baltimore]

Hmmm..... AGAG resigns just as Senators are flying away for Memorial Day - meaning they don't have time to plan to NOT recess. Bush has replacement at the ready to appoint when the cat is away. Nasty but nothing they can do - unless it is foreseen and the recess doesn't happen.

[Mimikatz]

I think, per your "bad week" post, that there is some orchestration going on, an effort by the Dems to box Bush in and by Specter to push him out one of the few remaining doors. But the problem is, Bush isn't going to dump Gonzo without a palatable replacement lined up and the Senate isn't going to accept (I hope) another AG who is going to enable Cheney and keep BushCo's secrets. Hatch simply isn't acceptable. What's Ashcroft doing these days? Maybe his image has been rehabilitated sufficiently.

The end game is getting very difficult to scope out. Bush/Cheney think they learned from Clinton that you can just tough these things out. But Clinton's problems were personal; he could always govern. He wasn't faced with disintegration of a significant cabinet department, a losing and unpopular war, a coterie of incompetentas and crooks surrounding him etc.

The problem for Bush is that Congress really could hold up appointments and money until he gives in--hold back the entire DOJ budget, for example. It isn't just the Iraq Supplemental.

Specter must see that this is a possibility and is trying to give them a way out, but until there is agreement on a successor--and how could there be--Gonzo stays no matter how paralyzed DOJ gets.

I hope that Reid has his 2 Senators lined up for Memorial Day. Mikulsi is close enough, or Cardin and Webb don't have to be out politicking. Schumer would probably relish a day or two alternating with someone else.

[bmaz]

I have been looking at the Senate Rules. The specifics surrounding "recess" are pretty thin. It may be as simple as Reid declaring that there is no recess and leaving a skeleton crew. It may require a quorum. Sara, last night, was thinking two senators may be enough. Anybody have a true bead on this? The question is starting to become pertinent and it is driving me nuts.

[undecided]

Mimikatz,

What we've seen is the disintegration of multiple significant cabinet departments with the DOJ currently the most prominent example. It seems as if the entire federal government is collapsing, with the exception of the White House. What really is the end game here?

No one has yet satisfactorily answered what would make the Bush Administration so desperate to have all of these spying programs in place. It's got to be about something more than terrorism, and more than eavesdropping on political opponents. It's about the entire infrastructure that's been put into place.

[emptywheel]

Mimikatz

Bush/Cheney think they learned from Clinton that you can just tough these things out. But Clinton's problems were personal; he could always govern.

Good point. Then again, BushCO doesn't care about governance, Clinton did.

[Mimikatz]

Maybe they were spying on political opponents and friends. Maybe it connects back to the intercepts Bolton wanted. Who knows. Maybe they are planning war with Iran, although I think now that at least some of the military wouldn't go along with it, enough to blow the whistle before the fact. In any event, they can't be both incompetent and all-powerful, not really. The Dems need to take a clue from Comey and stand up to Bush/Cheney.

I still think they will fall before Jan 2009.

[bmaz]

Undecided - I think it is just neocon meglomania coupled with the realization that they have already made such a hash of everything that the only way to have a chance of retaining a Republican in the White House in 2008 is to seriously rig the levers of power. They have been running roughshod from the get go, but did it with impunity because they truly thought they had established a permanent GOP grip on all three branches. The closeness of the 2004 election and the trends heading to the 2006 mid-terms made them realize they were in trouble. An honest Dem in the White House will reverse and expose their perfidy in an unprecedented ugly way. They are terrified of this. Bush entered an order sealing Presidential records for a very long time. Once that is reversed and records are exposed, their derelict actions, dating back to their ignorant refusal to heed warnings about 9/11, will be exposed in very graphic detail. Instead of creating a permanent GOP grip, it likely could kill the party and literally result in imprisonment for more than a few. I don't necessarily believe this will happen, but I think it is a legitimate fear on their part.

[Mimikatz]

The point isn't that BUSH doesn't care about governance, but that other people do. The GOPers who have to run again. The people who rely on government. The financial people who need a modicum of stability. What I meant is that Bush/Cheney toughing it out imperils us all in a way that Clinton didn't come even close to doing. Maybe people will begin to take things into their hands in a good way. But I think this sense of it all falling apart accounts for a great deal of the pessimism out there. We are one crisis short of disaster, and most people realize that. In a sense, it is a race against time.

[Jim DeRosa]

Maybe Specter knows what was in the envelope Gonzales brought to the hospital room. Must be something pretty damn evil.

[bmaz]

Mimikatz - It is a race against time. I have watched this type of damage on various entities before, from governmental (obviusly on a much smaller scale except for Watergate, and that was not as pervasive), to large businesses to criminal cartels I represented some player in. Much of the surface damage that most people out there would be concerned about can be reversed and corrected rather quickly if things go right. But the fractures and fissures in the foundations, and the proletariat perception of normalcy in that state, is reaching critical mass across the whole spectrum of our government. The additional such subsurface damage from just "toughing it out" for another nearly two years may be catastrophic. I think this is what you are saying; it is most certainly what I am saying.

[bmaz]

Mimikatz - It is a race against time. I have watched this type of damage on various entities before, from governmental (obviusly on a much smaller scale except for Watergate, and that was not as pervasive), to large businesses to criminal cartels I represented some player in. Much of the surface damage that most people out there would be concerned about can be reversed and corrected rather quickly if things go right. But the fractures and fissures in the foundations, and the proletariat perception of normalcy in that state, is reaching critical mass across the whole spectrum of our government. The additional such subsurface damage from just "toughing it out" for another nearly two years may be catastrophic. I think this is what you are saying; it is most certainly what I am saying.

[SaltinWound]

Did Specter just go from Scottish Law to Scottish Haggis? I have a slight preference for Law. I was just thinking this morning about how much I like the nicknames you slip in. Year of Iran was a highlight of the Libby blogging.

[bmaz]

Jeepers! Sorry, it was typepad not me.

[Katie Jensen]

I have to agree with the posts that reflect the attitude that the Bush administration is hiding something bigger than what has been tipped off. Perhaps it's the sheer magnitude of the plan but I think that there is a bigger uncovered truth.

It might be as simple as the fact that Bush is drinking again. Shame has a way of making this a catastrophe.

But I can't figure out what kind of pull Bush has to make the likes of leiberlouse go republican, and McCain give up on torture bills, and keeps the right wing in line while sex scandal after sex scandal goes unnoticed and remains unremarkable to this crew. What is it that makes them all look the other way?

Bad scruples yes, but are there really so many without any moral compass??? Or does the Bushite house have some kind of power beyond the pale? I think it has to do with Saudi.

I think that there is more. Why does Clinton (Bill) even seem to bow to this pressure?? I think it has something to do with the Saudi's /China and oil. Perhaps it is fear about what will happen to us, if Saudi makes some move. Perhaps our little war in Iraq is keeping Saudi from some action of which we are unaware?

Something...there is something else, that makes all these broken laws worth it...money alone, pure right wing idealogue doesn't cut it for my gut. Whatever it is was worth sacrificing our democracy and our constitution (to somebody).

[emptywheel]

Saltin

I think Haggis is just a statement of my frustration with his increasing cowardice. If he can rid me of Gonzales by the end of the week--and ensure we get through the recess without Silberman getting appointed--I'll revert to Law.

[earlofhuntingdon]

If Arlen is haggis, it's without the oatmeal, just the offal.

[Dismayed]

It could be that Gonzo will step down if Congress agreeded to leave town for a few day, but I can't believe Specter and Co. would be so stupid as to do such a thing. Why let the evil empire off the hook? And why on Earth trust Bush to make any sort of recess appointment. I don't see this happening.

Sure would be fun if Congress agreed to leave town, Gonzo resigned then no recess happened after all. Man, that would be awesome! Okay, I know I'm just daydreaming, but it's a fun thought.

EW, I just can't swallow your theory here. I think Specter is leveling a threat, I just can't see a compromise coming together here that would work toward Democratic (in both senses of the word) interest. For Bush to be allowed a recess appointment that works for him would be shameful. And I can't see Bush letting Gonzo go under circumstances that move us toward justice.

I say keep their feet in the fire. Gonzo steps down unconditionally or no deals.

[earlofhuntingdon]

I agree wholeheartedly that it is the foundations of the federal govt's most important depts and agencies that are under water and beginning to crack. I believe part of that is purposeful, though perhaps not the timing. The strategy seems to be either pervert the agency to partisan-only purposes, or run it badly or not at all. Not just Justice, but any agency with enforcement powers, such as EPA, the IRS, SEC.

Apart from putting these agencies off the scent - as if you needed a good hound dog to follow the trail of a buffalo herd - it gives the Republicans a chance to blame the resultant dysfunction on Democrats, and distracts the Dems who must stop and rebuild and re-fund agencies that are in shambles. Like Sherman strolling from Atlanta to the beach.

[Jodi]

Well, what I needed to know about Government, I learned from West Wing.

I think a quorum is required.

[bmaz]

I can see an argument for that Jodi; I can also see the thought that Reid could declare there is no recess and have a committee working during the applicable time. The rules on what constitutes a functional committee are a lot less and two senators may, indeed be enough. I have not gotten that far yet, but this is actually a pretty interesting question eh?

[obsessed]

Reed's plan for putting an end to recess appointments:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/20/reids-plan-to-block-bushs-recess-appointments/

Now, if he could just do the same with signing statements!

[Dismayed]

Prefering not to rely on The West Wing -- Here is an authoritative paper on the matter.

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/50801.pdf

Pages 11 and 12 seem to get to the meat of the matter.

Bottom line - It's a grey area. Recess apointments have been done in the modern era during 10 day recesses, though 3 day recesses have generally been considered taboo. Everyone who thinks GWB would care, raise their hand.

What constitures recess is also somewhat vague though it has been defined. A quarum is not specifically required. It seems to be focused up satisfying the question "Is the Senate open for business?"

I'll leave it to you more detail oriented types to parse, but not declaring recess and leaving a few key folks around it seems would make it hard for GWB to get by with an appointment, especially during a 'recess' this short in duration.

[orionATL]

re: dismayed's and other fine comments

point 1:

george bush has learned the lesson of j.p morgan, cornelius vqnderbuilt, john d rockefeller, the james brothers, charles ponzi, and many other americans successful on a large or a small scale:

walk thru the world, do what you damned-well please, take what you want

and let those coming behind you criticize, clean up the mess, and deal with it.

specifically,

why wouldn't bush make a recess appointment with even a one-day recess.

is the sergeant-at-arms going to go over to 17th and constitution and arrest the new ag as he walks in the door?

if the congress protests and challenges a recess appointment in court, the matter says in litigation - unless the court system will grant it high priority. which they just might.

in any event,

taking action and leaving the rest of the world to react always gives a great advantage to the action-taker.

Point 2:

george bush has that distinct "fuck you " style that many of us males of our species have (we're talking figuratively here, remember).

but the rest of us are not president of the united states,

fortunately.

i can say "fuck you" to my neighbor who doesn't like my grass being high, though that's not a great way to live in the world.

but a president of the united states whose entire managerial style is one long "fuck you" - to the untied nations, the european allies, the u.s. congress, the u.s. courts - is a real anomaly.

bush is such an anomaly.

i can't see bush moved by anything but superior force.

[Amos Anan]

I read posts like this and I get a little sick, which isn't easy since the political situation in America has been sickening for a long time and I've developed a tolerance for the depths Republicans continue to take America to. The vote of no confidence is pure political theater. It has no significance. Certainly nothing beyond the level of AbuGonzu's recent Congressional hearings where his performance has been little other than "Yeah! So what! What's ya gonna do ya lameO's?" But this is the Republican game of political theater and it's finally being played against them and they're scared shitless. This might actually get on the nightly news or the front pages. Ads might be run showing their vote supporting AbuGeeNotMee.

What's with the Democrats and their fear of playing political hardball? It's got to the point where I no longer see it as fear but as complicity. I'll go off topic from the original post but it relates to the idea of political theater being so significant in these times and seeming to be the only effective method in dealing with Republicans. Consider the problem Democrats claim to be facing with wanting to require benchmarks for funding the Iraq fiasco. The great fear is that Bush and his flunkies will and have claimed that Democrats are refusing to fund the troops. Why don't they put together some real benchmark bill and then take it to the White House (in a group of leading Senate and House Democrats) as a gigantic check labeled "No Troops Left Behind!" The "Pay to the Order Of" line, in bold type, should be "THE TROOPS!" The amount, also in gigundo bold font, should list the billions provided. All Democrat's hands should be pointing to the blank line that Bush refuses to sign. A second "Bonus" check should be for the added funding for the combat troops and vets that Bush refuses to allow. Again, use a giant check and have Democratic Party politician hands pointing to the blank signature line that Bush refuses to sign. Do this daily in front of the cameras and weekly in front of the White House. Make the point that it's Bush that refuses to fund the troops and refuses to allow benchmarks that he and Republicans seem to think are so obviously essential for things like quality education. WHY ARE REPUBLICANS LEAVING THE TROOPS BEHIND?

Democrats refuse to play hardball except when it comes to killing any real liberal traditional Democratic values and programs (see the recent, still secret new "free trade" bill). It's like most of them are versions of Liberman who haven't been outed yet.

Speaking of political theater, much has been made of the farces that the Republican debates have been. Our political selection process has become so corrupted that choosing candidates seems more like a WWE trash talk run up to a choreographed "cage match." The candidates, and it applies to the Democrats as well though not as bluntly, never project anything real. Ron Paul is frightening to this staging because he seems real. "Principles and values" are backdrop wallpaper with as much substance. America is in deep doo.

[The Real Sporer]

Specter is the least grateful man in an ungrateful town.

However, it would be cool to dump AlGonzo and recess appoint Orin Hatch, since he isn't going to the Supreme Court.

We could get a younger guy in the Senate to hold the seat for 30 years.

[Jeff]

Wow, that's some incredibly dumb political analysis from The Real Sporer, as s/he tries to salvage some partisan point worth scoring from the disaster that is Alberto Gonzales. Are you really worried about a Democrat taking Hatch's seat when he retires?

[obsessed]

2ND NOTICE: no more recess appointments possible

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/20/reids-plan-to-block-bushs-recess-appointments/

the key is that with the dems now controlling the senate, they can - and are going to - control the schedule such that the smirking one can't squeeze in a recess appointment. Unless the above article has it wrong, the recess has to be for more than 10 days.

[P J Evans]

bmaz
your comment on the foundations reminds me that I described this situation as 'the tip of the iceberg, and we have no clue how big the iceberg is'. Like the man who decided to dig up the small rock in his field, and he dug and he dug, and finally gave up when the exposed part of the rock was bigger than his barn.

[Dismayed]

Obsessed - you may want to look at my above post and take a look at the referenced paper. There is a bit more to it than 10 days. A look at pages 11 on will be most expidient. There is precident for Recess Apointments when the recess was only a matter of hours. Nedless to say, it didn't go over well, but there is wiggle room under 10 days. This very president has done it on the 7th day of a 10 day recess.

Interested in your input on this other data point.

[TiredFed]

according to the Congressional Research Service (Jan 2007), recess appointments may be made during recess periods as brief as 4 days. However, recess appointments have been made by previous Presidents during a 1-day recess, and Bush could make that the precedent (or establish his own - he's like that).

"How Long Must the Senate Be in Recess Before a President
May Make a Recess Appointment?
The Constitution does not specify the length of time that the Senate must be in recess
before the President may make a recess appointment. Over the last century, as shorter
recesses have become more commonplace, Attorneys General and the Office of Legal
Counsel have offered differing views on this issue. Most recently, in 1993, a Department
of Justice brief implied that the President may make a recess appointment during a recess
of more than three days.7 Appointments made during short recesses (less than 30 days),
however, have sometimes aroused controversy, and they may involve a political cost for
the President. Controversy has been particularly acute in instances where Senators
perceive that the President is using the recess appointment process to circumvent the
confirmation process for a nominee who is opposed in the Senate."

[Dismayed]

Looks like tiredfed is quoting a later edition of this same paper from 2005, or quoting a paper that quotes from this 2005 paper.

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/50801.pdf

Bear in mind, Bush will do whatever he can 'argue' is 'not illegal'. Unless this has been adjudicated since 2005 I have my doubts about the stated Reid strategy.

[dotsright]

You have a much better opinion of Arlen Specter than I do. My nickname for him is Lucy Van Pelt, after the old "Peanuts" cartoon character. Remember how she used to pull the football away from Charlie Brown at the last second? That's Arlen Specter.

He plays this little charade all the time. Pretending that he is actually incensed by something the White House has done and that he(Specter) is actually going to do something about it. The democrats rest easy thinking that Specter will carry their water for them only, of course, Arlen never comes through.

Remember just before the elections when the Military tribunal thing was coming up in the Senate? Wasn't that Specter, Warner, and McCain? The democrats breathed a sigh of relief thinking they wouldn't have to come out against some of the provisions because the Republicans were going to do it for them. Oh oh. Charlie Browned again and by the time they realized it, it was too late to do anything about it. They fall for this ploy far too often.

I don't know what Specter is up to here but it's probably no good. It would actually not surprise me to see Bush appoint Arlen as the AG. He has the same upside as Hatch (the Senate treats one of its own a little better during confirmation hearings) plus he has an unwarranted (as far as I'm concerned) reputation as being concerned about constitutional matters and proper form.

Here's a man that's been covering up things since at least the Warren Commission. He'd probably be a lot better at it than Gonzalez because he'd be a lot sneakier about it. You wouldn't necessarily notice the stalls and stonewalling.

[jazz]

Maybe a few of the readers who are also attorneys can help out here. Gonzo is licensed to practice law in Texas. How about the District of Columbia? Either way it seems to me Gonzo has breached either the ethics code for TX and or DC. Who then can file a formal complaint against him at the state bar association? Is this even possible? Help from anyone on this?

[John Casper]

Thanks emptywheel. OfT and only if you have time, I was very interested in your take on the fact that no one has leaked anything about Monica Goodling's upcoming testimony. The WH isn't calling her a nutcase, so I[m thinking that they must really be afraid of what she could say.

OT, any chance in your opinion that she could shed some sunlight on the Comstock lode?

[bmaz]

Jazz - You are probably correct in that analysis. Gonzales is a member of the Texas Bar, and through some mechanism is undoubtedly subject to the jurisdiction of the DC Bar. Most states allow anyone to file an ethics complaint, but a complaint has greater credence on it's face if made by a client or other party involved with the offending subject attorney and, to a lesser extent, by a resident of that state or jurisdiction. But in answer to your question, anyone anywhere can file. The websites for the pertinent jurisdictions have step by step directions for the process.

John Casper - She sure could. Question is whether she will and, even if she will, whether the right and properly sequenced questions will be posed by the committee members to elicit said testimony. If they were smart, the committee would appoint a single, or pair, of representative counsels that are professional cross-examiners to handle the task. The "if they were smart" clause is probably not operative here.

[John Casper]

Thanks bmaz.

[Albert Fall]

No leak on Goodling means the staff who interviewed her are being professional and her side doesn't see any advantage to leaking.

During Watergate, the existence of the White House taping system was known to committee staff from pre-testimony interviews with the guy who installed it (can't recall his name just now), but the excitement got generated when the information was revealed during the hearings.

[obsessed]

Dismayed: ugh ... I stand corrected ... now I'm dismayed ... good thing I'm not the Senate Majority leader.

A few HOURS?

Maybe they could setup a hospital bed in the Senate Chambers and park Sen. Johnson and his nursing staff in there.

Has it really come to this? I think the most defining quality of Bush's Administration is a total lack of class. He's turned the US into a cynical joke both inside and outside of the country. (I guess you guys probably already knew that thought).

[John Casper]

Thanks Albert.

[obsessed]

Does the AG have to be a licensed attorney? In other words, if Abu were disbarred would he have to resign his Attorney Generalship as well?

[obsessed]

Also, are there any signs that the Senate Judiciary Committee may also get a crack at Monica? I sure like to see them turn Sheldon Whitehouse loose on her.

[Jodi]

Casper and Albert Fall,

I think no comment by the White House means that they don't know of anything bad coming from Monica. (That doesn't mean it won't, but why antagonize someone who can give ammunition to your enemy with just her impressions, and sense of nuanced meanings from the WH people.

Likewise nothing leaked from the interview staff could mean there is nothing.

I don't presume to know how it will go except that she will try to paint herself as innocent as possible having just made some inadvertent errors of judgement and mispeaks.

Example, asking if that guy had cheated on his wife, only meant she was interested in the guy. (i.e. hitting on him) or it meant that she wanted to see how he acted under stress. (i.e., there was no correct answer just how he handled himself. I have had interviews like that.)

[Dismayed]

"Maybe they could setup a hospital bed in the Senate Chambers and park Sen. Johnson and his nursing staff in there."

Okay Obsessed, That was funny - I feel so very very twisted for laughing, but damn that was funny.

[obsessed]

If you were Monica's lawyer, and assuming you were only representing her (and not also the Administration, as Dowd may be), how would you advise her?

Also, in general, if you've been given immunity, isn't it to your advantage to volunteer every crime or possible crime you've ever committed? In other words, doesn't Monica need have to try "paint herself" guilty? She might try to take it all on herself and firewall off Karl and Gonzo, but it still seems likely that she'll give fairly detailed self-incriminating testimony, no? And if so, that should give smart cross examiners a lot of material to trip her into putting herself in a position where she has to choose between perjuring herself and covering Karl's fat pasty ass. And if she's such a righteously chaste little church girl, I doubt that J. Edgar Rover has much to blackmail her with. She must also know that he's a atheist, which might not sit well with her judgmental side.

My unlikely little fantasy is that she breaks down under the klieg lights and tearfully blubbers out everything, saying she didn't know it was a crime to use the DOJ to influence elections and she was only trying to be a good Christian and protect the world from gays and abortionists. "All I ever wanted to do was serve this president, and everything just unraveled!"

[obsessed]

"Maybe they could setup a hospital bed in the Senate Chambers and park Sen. Johnson and his nursing staff in there."

It would get them more media coverage than Comey's, Sampson's and Abu's testimonies combined. A partisan stunt that actually accomplishes something.

[MarkC]

dotsright -- Lucy van Pelt is a good choice.

katie jensen -- You know, not being a big conspiracy person I nevertheless have a very similar feeling. Still wanting to deny the likelihood of NSA-blackmail theories, I tend to think that there are multiple areas in which things were just barely papered over -- from the shadow intelligence network reporting to the VP that manufactured pretexts for war to the role of lobbyists foreign and domestic in drafting energy legislation. Each of these is a rotting hole in the foundation and the people in the building above are increasingly conscious that any sudden move might bring the ediface down.

[Sailmaker]

Short answer - NOPE. He always talks a good talk. And on wiretapping I kind of think he believes what he says (hates it). However. He always goes back to the money source for advice and direction right before a vote. Caves. On. Everything. Military Commissions. Torture. Denied that he knew his staff member put the decertification of the Senate in the the reauthorization of the Patriot Act. Even if he 'knows' something it is at the service and direction of someone else, someone else with money. Don't pay any attention to Spector.

[pseudonymous in nc]

On Goodling: heck, everyone wants to see what she looks like. That there was apparently no official DOJ head shot is another mystery here.

[hauksdottir]

Hmm... no recent photos and desire to avoid appearing before a televised committee hearing... is she a candidate for the Witness Protection Program? Or afraid that she'll be recognized (I still wonder if she worked as an escort!) Somebody who covers up statues has a serious problem.

Back to recess: if the Senate only needs to be moderately functional (open for business), then having 2 senators to make and second motions, and a handful of clerks and secretaries to deal with paperwork is enough (it might also affect security and janitors). The Republicans would certainly keep a Senator on hand just to be sure the Democrats weren't being sneaky, so there'd be 3 on the floor. With 3 people, you are guaranteed a debate. Giving notice ahead of time is necessary for the staff members who would normally be planning vacations

As I said before, it would be a great time to catch up on reading bills (nice fresh copy, marking pen, coffee) before voting. During summer, perhaps they could deal with those monstrous appropriations bills.

However, if there is precedent for using a single day off as an excuse for a recess appointment, then Bush will push the issue. He simply can not be trusted... especially if he thinks he is being thwarted.

[njr]

cheating here... reading ahead to Marcy's next post...

but Monica is going to be very interesting, bu she doesn't really need to be innocent or guilty... she just needs to name names.
"All I ever wanted to do was serve this president, and everything just unraveled!"
The committee needs REASONS to continue their work, her contacts, will lead to calls for future witnesses.
Monica needs to say "I called Karl's assistant Ms Ralston" and then the committee can call Ms Ralston to testify. If Monica says "I called Karl..." the committee goes directly to call Karl.
How she saw her job (what she did and didn't do) will be interesting, but her co workers will likewise be interesting.

[JayAckroyd]

Rather, I suspect that Specter is speaking from the position of someone who has been in negotiations on such a topic. There are several elements that make me believe that Specter is sending Gonzales a next to last ultimatum here, rather than just blabbing like he normally does.

First, there's the mention of the USA Attorneys' meeting. The WaPo reported that none of the USAs mentioned Gonzales' resignation when they berated him on Wednesday (though the multiple leaks of the meeting itself didn't get published until Saturday). That just feels rather orchestrated to me.

Then, there's the repetition on Specter's part: "a very substantial vote of no confidence." While it is not Specter's job to count votes, I suspect he has a sense of where the vote is right now. And with Wayne Allard--a right winger's right winger--still undecided, there is certainly the room for plenty of no confidence votes.

Mostly, though, there's the feeling that this has been very carefully orchestrated, going back to Monday when McNulty resigned. McNulty's resignation guaranteed BushCo a high profile nomination hearing, no matter what.

If you're right, this could be the dam breaking. But I'm not nearly so sanguine. First, they don't have to replace McNulty. They've already been avoiding filling slots by handing people two hats. They can just leave the slot vacant. Since they don't really care about the DOJ's actual function, there's no need to fill the slot.

Second, they don't have to respond to a vote of no confidence. They really would have to fill the AG slot, and if they did so after a no confidence vote, they probably wouldn't be able to jam Ted Olson or another loyalist in there. Nobody like Comey or Fitz would be offered the job (and I would like to echo Glenn's post over the weekend that what's shocking about the ICU invasion is that it went beyond the pale for rock-ribbed Republicans like Comey and Ashcroft, who had stood still for plenty). So a resignation could well mean stalemate.

It is just hard to figure these things out when you have someone as self-centered and incompetent in the Oval Office. And, I dunno, maybe really stupid. Stupid and stubborn has worked for him up to now, after a fashion. He's still in office, still the decider, still has the media serving his purposes. He doesn't care about what he's doing to the party, and the party has yet to stand up to him, on anything.

[BustyBoots]

I don’t want to wait till the end of Summer :( , I want it now. Who with me?
save your time and join me. ;)