On "No Transcripts!" for Rove and Miers:

[Lautremont]

They say "We don't want the appearance of a show trial, so no transcripts."

We say "So you prefer the appearance of people who don't want your exact words to be verifiable later?"

They say "We want to maintain the capability for presidents now and in the future to receive unvarnished advice from their staff and therefore don't want to compromise their confidentiality, so no transcripts."

We say "But Rove and Miers are already required by law to tell Congress the truth, and you're allowing anyone who's there to write it all down, so how is that already not just as 'compromised'?"

They say "Congress and all you suckers already have everything you need to get at the truth, what is what everybody wants, including us, so no transcripts."

We say "But you've been invoking CNN transcripts all morning while attempting to argue the consistency of Gonzo's statements on the 13th vs. the 14th., so surely you see the value. And notes can contradict one another. Why not just do it?"

They say "We don't want to put them under the klieg lights."

We say "We're way ahead of you. Energy-saving fluorescents have already been installed."

Shouldn't someone be making these sorts of points publicly? Like Democrats?

[Kagemusha]

1. Leahy's following congressional traditions by giving a fair chance.

Even if I wish he wasn't, I see why he is. It's "how it's done" with Congress. It's only when an administration is completely defiant that things proceed further.

By the way, this is also to look better for when it hits the courts.