This just gets more and more interesting. The House already authorized the issuing of subpoenas to Rove and the gang, and now the Senate committee has done the same. What’s most interesting, though, is that it appears to be a severe majority opinion, and the debate is getting firey.

Most Republicans argued that it would be better to negotiate with the White House before engaging the White House in a protacted court battle but agreed with the majority Democrats that any interview of White House staffers should be in public and under oath (or at least transcribed).

Democrats pointed out that Bush, either as a tactic or a matter or truth, said there would be no negotiaton.

And that’s the thing. I don’t want anyone to be subpoenaed. If this can be settled without them, I’m just fine with that. What I am not fine with, however, is Bush’s insistence that nothing be on the record, nothing be public, nothing be transcribed, and nothing be followed up on. If they’re willing to go on the record, under oath, and allow things to be verified, plus open themselves up for later questioning, then there’s no need for subpoenas.

The thing is, if they’re just telling the truth about everything, what’s the problem? This logic also amuses me.

Some Republicans argued issuing subpoenas could set a constitutional crisis in motion.

“Not only is the authorization of the subpoena now unnecessary but I think it might ultimately prove counterproductive,” said Senator Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. “We need to think about the damage to the relationship between the [White House and Congress].”

Jon Kyl was a senator during the Clinton trial, and for those curious here’s what he had to say about the acquittal.

What is striking about this case is the President’s persistent, sustained, carefully calculated, deliberate and callous manipulation of the judicial process for over a year. . . .

An acquittal in this case will make it much harder to deal properly with similar conduct in the future. We will be hard pressed to perpetuate a double standard, so the lowest common denominator of conduct will be established as the permissible norm. And this cannot help but weaken the ability of courts to enforce truth-telling and prevent obstruction of justice.

The precedent set by this case may not change the law overnight, but this unforgettable episode is now part of the institutional life of our country. The chief magistrate perverted justice and remained in power. The lesson is corrosive. Like water dripping on a rock, it eventually makes a deep hollow in the American justice system.

So it’s safe to say Jon Kyl didn’t mind it back when the republican-led Congress was attacking Bill Clinton nonstop. But just asking questions to White House staff members to see if something was illegal? Why, that would cause a constitutional crisis!

Please.