Blumenthal at Salon quotes this:

A White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, acknowledged that the U.S. attorneys’ dismissals were preceded by a conversation between President Bush and Gonzales last October in which Bush complained that some prosecutors were not pursuing voter fraud investigations. These were, in fact, cases that Rove thought were especially important to Republicans.

Rove was the conduit for Republican political grievances about the U.S. attorneys. He was the fulcrum and the lever. He was the collector of information and the magnet of power. He was the originator, formulator and director.

While Snow, as quoted by TPM tries to get us to believe Senators, like Domenici, were talking “generalities” instead of the one pain in the ass prosecutor who wouldn’t publicly skewer a Dem in New Mexico.

Somebody comes to the president and says, “I’ve got concerns” you hear a number of people with concerns about a general class of cases; the president says, “I hear that there are some concerns about this.” That’s it. No directive, no attempt to say, go after these people. I mean, we’ve made it clear, and I think I was pretty crystal-clear about this when I talked to you yesterday, the day before: no specific individuals, no specific cases.

I think the overall problem here is that the GOP political hacks, like Rove, think the American people are as dumb as your average Congress person, who, as a group are dumb as a box of rocks.

It is way down the page in my “State of the Union” posting for Jan 23.

-

mr. bush has gone on record as saying that his people obstructing justice, quashing federal investigations of their operatives during investigations and during trials. He is apparently, by his own admission, approving of this criminal behavior

what more do you in the house need to start the impeachment hearings? we are not interested in waiting any longer. you had best get up off your backsides and start walking. you may choose to walk down to impeach, or you can begin the preparations to walk home, as you will not be re elected.

Don’t tell us; tell your Representative.

Bob

dmac—

Am from Ohio and am so happy to hear the new governor is great!

I heard somewhere it’s only possible to post something once a thread, re your wanting to post it over and over. Does anyone know about that, am just going on gossip here.

A toast to a true progressive governor!! Hip hip hooray!!!!

yeah, i remember you commenting about your mum being here in ohio, almost commented, but didn’t…..and i was only going to post in a little bit aggravating way, once a post, for a day’s cycle, so everybody can know that it can happen, change that is……not to be annoying, but to know that the hard work of people pays off..and this was a hard fought battle for ted strickland to win in this state….that’s all….it’s going to affect a lot of people…..not from any one class, but everyone, which is what it’s about….

scarecrow @ 118

Scenario: Congress subpoenas records of any conversations between Bush and Gonzales re the appointments.

Bush claims Exec privilege.

Congress sues to enforce subpoenas.

Question: does the discussion by Bush of this matter in Mexico constitute a waiver?

Interesting idea. I am trying to remeber back to Nixon, did he discuss the matters he later tried to claim privledge for.

If you make the analogy to attorney/client, doctor/patient, priest/penitant privledge then,yes, talking about it could waive the privledge.

With Watergate, they didn’t need his testimony before Congress. They had him, Halderman, Ehrlichman, and Mitchell on tape and thye hung themselves on those tapes. They were suicidal! (Makes a very, very interesting read!) OTOH, they have gone back to the Clinton era for evidence of bringing the president’s “hatchlings” before Congress. GOP should pay for their overreaching.

Morris Sheppard @ 43

The idea that Bush would ever appear before Congress is absurd. He would claim executive privilege and take it to the Supreme court, where….

Oh, I forgot. These are the guys who put him in office in the first place. Never mind.

Constitutional crises? What Constitution would that be? With impeachment “off the table” there is nothing that can be done to rein in Bush or stop his abuses. Nothing. Not us. Not Congress. Certainly not the “Democrats.” Not the media. Not public opinion. Not the outrage of the civilized world. Nothing.

it has to be impeachment or nothing. The Supreme Court can’t touch impeachment. Anything short of that, they can overturn, but not impeachment. (IANAL but I read a lot)

Congress can impeach ANY Executive Office Holder or their appointees. Just as Bush has the “right” to fire at will…that these Attorneys “serrve at his behest” he should be reminded that the CONGRESS also has rthe power and right to impeach Federal Officers and remove them from office if the President will not act. And he also needs to be reminded that the PRESIDENT serves at the will OF THE PEOPLE, and can be removed, as well.

New Hamsher

IE7 breaks the ability to edit your own comments
(Firefox works fine)
As for the linkies, IE7 introduces a new security prompt unobtrusivly at the top of your browser window which asks if you want to allow the interaction.
To use the link button you must:
Click on the link
Reply yest to temporarily allow the scripting
Click on the link again