Orrin Hatch in denial more than Clay Aiken

This is a clip from a pretty combative Utah Senator Orrin Hatch during his appearance on Meet the Press on Sunday morning.

I really wonder what it would take for Hatch to criticize the Bush Administration for anything. I really can't think of anything.

Of course, toward the end of the show on Sunday, we get our answer - evidently, Hatch has been pimping himself all over town as a possible replacement once current AG Alberto Gonzales resigns or is fired.

Notice in the clip above that Hatch makes sure to mention that Gonzo "is the first Hispanic to serve as AG." Yea, we know, Orrin - quit trying to score points with voters on that point. If this keeps up, he's also going to be the first Hispanic AG who has resigned under fire, or dismissed.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but I find it very curious to hear Hatch intone that the "atmosphere on the Senate Judiciary Committee is so poisoned." I don't suppose that would have anything to do with the Clinton witch hunts in the late 1990s, would it?

For those who think I'm wrong to bring up Clinton, spend a few hours watching Fox News on any given day, and you'll hear Bill or Hillary Clinton's name come up at least once, but most likely multiple times. Repubes can't have it both ways - you can't bring up Clinton in one breath, and then decry someone bringing up the Clinton witch hunts in the next breath.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy showed remarkable restraint this morning on the same show, which I thought admirable, since Hatch was functioning as President Bush and Alberto Gonzales' press secretary.

A few final points...

Hatch mentions that there are over 100,000 people working at the Justice Department, thereby implying that it's tough for an attorney general to know what's going on all of the time. But, this scandal isn't about 100,000 people at the justice department, it's about decisions being made about federal prosecutors at the highest levels of the justice department. A nice try by Hatch to minimize Gonzo's fallibility here, but no cigar.

Hatch ridiculously mentions that "[Gonzales] isn't capable of lying." Are you kidding me? Sure Hatch, we'll just take your word for it.

Finally, Hatch mentions that he "sees no evidence of criminal activity" on the part of AG Gonzales. How does he know until the matter is fully investigated? Then, in the next breath, he opines that the Judiciary Committee should let Gonzo tell his side of the story, and that no one should rush to judgment on his guilt. That's a pretty wild contradiction.

What's more, I don't think Hatch has been paying attention to the document dumps the Justice Department has been putting out to the press, because there's plenty of evidence that Gonzo was involved in the politically motivated dismissals. Gonzo has changed his story at least twice, and from some things I've read, maybe more.

There's plenty of reason, and precedent, to have not only Gonzo, but Harriet Miers and Karl Rove testify, under oath and in public, before Congress.

Only time will tell if this happens. If President Bush chooses to prevent subpoenaed members of his administration from testifying before Congress, we are going to have a Constitutional confrontation with far-reaching implications.

Subponea powers... ACTIVATE!

Shape of... impeachment!

You have to love a Wonder-Twins reference.

The Senate Judiciary Committee now has subpoena power, so it's just a matter of time until they use it. This is a bit dated, but Leahy appeared on Countdown With Keith Olbermann last Friday, and, as usual, he didn't mince words:

The reason I want to do it under oath..remember in the Valerie Plame thing, nobody had anything to do with this. Nobody outed her name. Nobody said she was a CIA operative, nobody at the White House did, until some of these people were under oath and then we find out, gosh, they did. It's amazing how that focuses ones attention.

A few things about this...

It's totally outrageous how Arlen Specter is trying to be almost apologetic for this administration. If you listen to Specter's words, he almost wants to back down in the face of Bush's bluster. That's exactly what Bush is hoping will happen. It seems to me that Specter would love it if this entire matter just died a quick death. Keep dreamin', Senator. Now keep your mouth closed, quit siding with the White House, and do your duty. You're in the Legislative Branch of the U.S. Government, and you sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee ~ it's your responsibility to look into these matters as thoroughly as possible.

I'm writing a longer piece tonight on Specter, so stay tuned for that - there have been some impeachable offenses (and by that, I mean with Specter AND President Bush) that have recently gone virtually unnoticed in the mainstream media.

I hate to play the Watergate card, but there are some things here, so far, that remind me of Watergate. I didn't live through it, but I've read about Watergate at length. It's one of my favorite political topics to read about. Anyway, during the Watergate hearings, when White House Assistant Alexander Butterfield confirmed that President Nixon taped everything in the Oval Office and other surrounding offices, it set off a legal tug of war between the Nixon White House and Congress, which eventually went all the way to the Supreme Court.

Once the Watergate tapes were revealed to exist, Nixon and his cadre of advisers and lawyers refused to turn over copies of the tapes. Then, they offered to turn over transcripts of the tapes, it what became known as The Stennis Compromise. When Archibald Cox, the Watergate Special Prosecutor, refused that offer, Nixon fired Cox.

There's a similar tug of war beginning on Capitol Hill between Congress and the White House. Instead of agreeing to his aides and cabinet members testifying under oath as other presidents have done, Bush has offered that they could testify privately, not under oath, and no transcript. What a load of b.s. and a non-starter. Thankfully, Leahy knows that, too, and he isn't budging. Nor should he.

It doesn't take a seasoned political analyst to understand Bush's offer. This is about accountability and transparency, and Bush is interested in neither one. Just like Nixon and his aides, who had plenty of reasons to want to conceal what was on those tapes, the Bush White House also has reason to not have cabinet members and advisers testify while under oath. If all of the testimony is in public, holes can be poked in it when other facts come to light.

This isn't the first time the Bush Administration has jerked around Congress, either. When the sham 9-11 Commission asked Bush and Dick Cheney to testify, they would only do so together, in private, and not under oath. There are a million jokes here that I'll resist the temptation to make, but, kidding aside, even Bush loyalists have to question why these two boobs would only testify together. I feel it's so they could keep their b.s. stories straight.

Also with the 9-11 Commission, anyone remember the saga that arose when Condi Rice was asked to testify? First she could, then she couldn't, then she could, but not under oath, then no, then finally, yes.

Again, if you don't have anything to hide, what's the big deal about testifying under oath before Congress?

It's a no-brainer. Congressional Democrats had better stick to their guns on this one - we must hear from Karl Rove, Harriet Miers and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales under oath, with a transcript, no exceptions.

I'll write later on tonight why I believe even sworn testimony by the three figures above won't be successful in getting to the bottom of the attorney purge scandal, but it's important for Democrats to do all they can anyway, to get their actions on record. Then, the American people can decide who deserves to take the brunt of the political fallout.