Janester!

Impeach ABu and his bosses!

Yes.

EPU’d
Congress needs to open an impeachment inquiry on Gonzales. It doesn’t matter if there aren’t enough votes to convict today. The conviction vote is not today. I’m tired of this “boo-hoo, there aren’t enough votes” BS. They need to start the inquiry, not because it’s do-able, but because it is their duty. You are either one of the three co-equal branches, or you’re not. You are either for the Constitution, Congress, or you’re not. If you’re not, then quit picking on Gonzales.

That picture of Shrub and Abu is priceless. Another good one of Abu today (EPU’d from last thread) is at the NY Times. Just look at that line-up of aids behind him–are these really the people Abu really relies on? And is one of them Bradley of the helium voice, or is it simply that Regent University alumni all look the same?

God, that picture is perfect.

I want my party to pull out all stops. And I sure as hell need no lectures about the idea there is nothing we can do.

Oh, and

I for one feel my ass quite chapped from sitting so long on dry powder mountain.

is a goddamned work of genius. Genius!

Go with a Special Prosecuter now. I think Fitz is available.

Who added the Counsel of the Vice President to memo Whitehouse had up? Probably Addington as Marcy suggests, and if that is so then a possible Obstruction of Justice investigation needs to happen right now.

This hearing was about the USA firings. Whitehouse proves Cheney access to DOJ investigations. Lam investigated Cunningham who received bribes from Wade/MZM. MZM’s first contract was with Cheney for some kind of security/surveillance service ($140,000). Documents in the Cunningham investigation, I think, say that Wade had said “Dick” (Cheney) was in his “pocket”.

Lam gets targeted and fired.

Bada Bing.

I know that this is a drastic step, and that it if taken will cause some additional harm to the DOJ, but is it time to ask the Assistant USA’s to stand with the constitution and resign?

It would elevate the issue with the public and force the WH to take the position that the AUSA’s are all wrong, or get rid of Abu?

I am not a lawyer and don’t know any on the prosecutorial side of things, so I am asking those who are, will this work?

Oklahoma kiddo @ 7

I want my party to pull out all stops. And I sure as hell need no lectures about the idea there is nothing we can do.

I agree. Bust out all the obscure Constitutional weapons. Use inherent contempt. Go full metal Sam Ervin on his ass! Go!

AZ Matt @ 9

Go with a Special Prosecuter now. I think Fitz is available.

Who added the Counsel of the Vice President to memo Whitehouse had up? Probably Addington as Marcy suggests, and if that is so then a possible Obstruction of Justice investigation needs to happen right now.

But the point is, and I wish that Whitehouse had hammered Abu on this a bit more, that Abu SIGNED the damn thing? Doesn’t he read what the children in the DoJ give him to sign? Or does he just do what they say–the VP wants this signed, and he just does it? I was really disappointed that Whitehouse did not grill him as to what he was thinking when he put his name on that document.

Though, massive kudos to Whitehouse for finding it and blindsiding the AGAG with it.

Thank you, bmaz. This is EXACTLY my thought.

What we need is an action that will open up hearings that will clearly demonstrate to the American people what this Administration is all about. Unfortunately there are so MANY crimes, and there is so MUCH subterfuge that is not adequately reported, and the average American thinks it’s just some whining Democrats wanting the Republicans to ‘play fair’.

Of course, since the MSM is doing nothing to expose this Administration, it is a tough uphill battle. The Dems in Congress MUST be firm and tough on these issues. Censure is a good start, but Impeachment is even better, because the story & the evidence gets out to the public eye.

Unfortunately this Administration has stacked the deck and has been so arrogant about its crimes that it will take drastic, dramatic action to bring the crimes to light, stop the damage to our democracy, and hold them responsible for their actions.

This is the difficult course that our Congresspeople MUST embark on to save the democracy. They must not worry about their personal political futures - them MUST get the truth exposed.

Woodhall Hollow @ 13

AZ Matt @ 9

Go with a Special Prosecuter now. I think Fitz is available.

Who added the Counsel of the Vice President to memo Whitehouse had up? Probably Addington as Marcy suggests, and if that is so then a possible Obstruction of Justice investigation needs to happen right now.

But the point is, and I wish that Whitehouse had hammered Abu on this a bit more, that Abu SIGNED the damn thing? Doesn’t he read what the children in the DoJ give him to sign? Or does he just do what they say–the VP wants this signed, and he just does it? I was really disappointed that Whitehouse did not grill him as to what he was thinking when he put his name on that document.

Though, massive kudos to Whitehouse for finding it and blindsiding the AGAG with it.

It could easily have been autopenned, since other documents were apparently signed that way in the doc dumps.

(enters cringingly) er…what’s a dry powder mountain?

And BTW, IMPEACH, IMPEACH, IMMMMMPEEAAAAACCCHHH!

Man, that picture. Their adorable matching ties!

“Uh, I, uh, love you too, Alberto. Ya queer!”

spurious @ 6

God, that picture is perfect.

It draws up images of Richard Montalban and Herve Villechaize as, ‘Tattoo’ I can’t even imagine where the fine, Corinthian leather is involved.

The powder can stay dry for a finite period and then it becomes unusable. The MSM will make certain of it. All the Democrat’s dry powder may as well be going up Lindsay’s nose. It is… isn’t it?

A thousand yessses

Doesn’t Congress get that Bush is trying to portray them as useless? If they impeached Gonzales, they would doing something.

Bush vetoes their bills and blames them. He stonewalls investigations, then says they have no evidence and says they should do something else.

Do something, Congress. Impeach Gonzales. You know you want to! Bush is shitting on you! Do something about it! Don’t you have any respect?

LS @ 15

Woodhall Hollow @ 13

But the point is, and I wish that Whitehouse had hammered Abu on this a bit more, that Abu SIGNED the damn thing? Doesn’t he read what the children in the DoJ give him to sign? Or does he just do what they say–the VP wants this signed, and he just does it? I was really disappointed that Whitehouse did not grill him as to what he was thinking when he put his name on that document.

Though, massive kudos to Whitehouse for finding it and blindsiding the AGAG with it.

It could easily have been autopenned, since other documents were apparently signed that way in the doc dumps.

Autopenned? What the hell is that? Are robots signing orders in the executive branch now?

johnSwifty@18

Perfect! The White House is Fantasy Island indeed!

Been awhile since I delurked. Just wanted to say thanks to FDL for live blogging the hearings today. Even if there are not enough votes in the Senate to remove these people from office I have come to the conclusion that it is the responsibility of our elected officials to start proceedings immediately lest we lose our republic forever.

I think the career lawyers at the DOJ could be a key to resolving this whole mess. Just how much more of this can they take before there is open rebellion?
Should there be a walkout or a legitimate threat of mass resignations, this nightmare might be over rather quickly.

Oh god, how I wish there was grainy video of Abu doin’ some blow with Lindsey Lohan. Then maybe we’d get somewhere.

Woodhall Hollow @ 22

LS @ 15

It could easily have been autopenned, since other documents were apparently signed that way in the doc dumps.

Autopenned? What the hell is that? Are robots signing orders in the executive branch now?

Autopenned - stamped with Gonzo’s signature, but not his actual “free hand” signature. Any number of people could have such a stamp.

Concerning the memo produced by Whitehouse at today’s hearing.

From the Raw Story: LINK

…

Memo granted Cheney clemency discussions authority

In addition to granting the staff of the Office of the Vice President the ability to communicate with the Justice Department on civil and criminal matters, Gonzales’ May 2006 memo gave Cheney’s staff the ability to raise another issue with the Justice Department: ‘Presidential Clemency Matters.’

Whether or not Cheney’s office has intervened in discussions relating to presidential clemency has been of interest to Congress in recent weeks.
…

I for one feel my ass quite chapped from sitting so long on dry powder mountain.

Well said. And I’m afraid we’ve waited so long the dry powder may have gotten stolen right behind our backs.

I was just listening to the Ed Schultz Show in my car while I drove my daughter to the train station. Steney Hoyer was on. Ed asked him why, since the American people are so overwhelmingly in favor of opening an impeachment inquiry on Bush, Cheney, et al., the “leadership” wouldn’t go there.

Steney’s response was that the “Dems had so many other issues to pursue” and then listed off health care, etc. Also said he thought impeachment would be “not a good use of their time.”

When I first tuned in, I didn’t know it was Steney who was being interviewed. I thought it was some “old time Southern Democrat” . [Please excuse any perceived slurs. I’m an old timer and recall these old Southern Dems.]

Thus I wasn’t too surprised to hear what I thought was an “old Southern Democrat” taking this line. When I realized it was Steney, I thought “oh yeah.”

What crummy, disillusioned “leaders” these are. Do they really think the American public is going to parse the “leadership’s” comments [quoting Steney again] that they’re trying to deal with all these important issues on the Hill, but they’re being blocked by the Repubs. [Ooop, almost typed “repus.”]

The American people can much more clearly see the value in a party that pursues an inquiry into misdeeds that may or may not lead to a bill of impeachment, than they can twist through these byzantine “nice arguments” made by Hoyer.

I’m ashamed.

It’ll be a lot easier with some help from the right.

itwasntme @ 23

johnSwifty@18

Perfect! The White House is Fantasy Island indeed!

“Eh, boss…da Blame, da Blame! Everyone wants me to take da blame!”

bmaz gets it exactly right, as usual.

LS @ 27

Woodhall Hollow @ 22

Autopenned? What the hell is that? Are robots signing orders in the executive branch now?

Autopenned - stamped with Gonzo’s signature, but not his actual “free hand” signature. Any number of people could have such a stamp.

Madness. That is no way to run anything.

The facts and extent of harm must be fleshed out in a formal investigation, the public must be allowed to understand the full nature and extent of what has occurred, and those responsible must be held to account. If not, the ugly beast continues to raise it’s ugly head with impunity in the future.

I agree; but the key is what you say doesn’t cut it. We have got to have to take over the machinery of government and we need at least 60 Senate votes.

The most likely outcome of the ‘08 election will be Dem President and increased House and Senate Seats but less that 60. The result will be obstruction of the restoration of the rule of law by the Repubs in the Senate and obstruction by the Federal Courts and SCOTUS of prosecutions and Constitutional restoration. If there are 60 Dem votes in the Senate there is a huge club over the SCOTUS; court expansion.

Impeach Abu Already

I wonder what Arlen Specter thinks about that?

johnSwifty @ 18

spurious @ 6

God, that picture is perfect.

It draws up images of Richard Montalban and Herve Villechaize as, ‘Tattoo’ I can’t even imagine where the fine, Corinthian leather is involved.

Alberto’s lips pursed ever so slightly — just like every time he kisses George’s, Dick’s, and Karl’s hineys.

Dang perfect picture.

cleter @ 17

“Uh, I, uh, love you too, Alberto. Ya queer!”

Not funny

LS @ 15
Oh jeebus. We have to ban the use of autopens for signing documents? (Actually, we should. Just say, not valid for legal documents, because they aren’t actually signatures. IANAL, but if I have to actually sign documents to make them legal, then so should government officials.)
—
For the love of Ghu, impeach Gonzales, and Cheney too. I know Darth will be much more difficult to impeach, but that’s why we need to start, like, yesterday.

Dear Steney:
FU. You work for us. Your job is to protect the Constitution. Do your damned job. If you don’t want to, then leave.
Thank you

It’s quite simple:

Dear Mr. Gonzalez Josh Bolten Fielding,

You have 3 choices:
a. AG AG MUST resign
b. DAG MUST appoint special prosecutor
c. We begin Impeachment Hearings

THERE IS NO ‘d.’
We need your answer by 5pm Friday.

Woodhall Hollow @ 34

LS @ 27

Autopenned - stamped with Gonzo’s signature, but not his actual “free hand” signature. Any number of people could have such a stamp.

Madness. That is no way to run anything.

Especially, if Addington is the shadow AG (with access to such a stamp), and Cheney is the shadow POTUS.

It is lunacy to sit on a pile of powder when in the midst of a monsoon of Republican power consolidation.

hackworth @ 19

The powder can stay dry for a finite period and then it becomes unusable. The MSM will make certain of it. All the Democrat’s dry powder may as well be going up Lindsay’s nose. It is… isn’t it?

Yes, can we all agree now to this immenently fair proposal: Death penalty to the first Republican who says, “This has been investigated fully in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Attorney General has answered every question put to him, and no wrong-doing has been found. This is just old news.”

I’m sick of belonging to the Stockholm Syndrome party.

Woodhall Hollow @ 34

LS @ 27

Autopenned - stamped with Gonzo’s signature, but not his actual “free hand” signature. Any number of people could have such a stamp.

Madness. That is no way to run anything.

Especially, if Addington is the shadow AG (with access to such a stamp), and Cheney is the shadow POTUS.P J Evans @ 38

LS @ 15
Oh jeebus. We have to ban the use of autopens for signing documents? (Actually, we should. Just say, not valid for legal documents, because they aren’t actually signatures. IANAL, but if I have to actually sign documents to make them legal, then so should government officials.)
—
For the love of Ghu, impeach Gonzales, and Cheney too. I know Darth will be much more difficult to impeach, but that’s why we need to start, like, yesterday.

When I was a title examiner years ago, the signature on a deed had to be an actual signature (notorized) and match precisely with the representation of the names on the documents. The documents enabling Goodling and Sampson to hire/fire, were clearly autopenned.
Gonzo can claim no knowledge of such documents.

GeorgeSimian @ 21

Doesn’t Congress get that Bush is trying to portray them as useless? If they impeached Gonzales, they would doing something.

Bush vetoes their bills and blames them. He stonewalls investigations, then says they have no evidence and says they should do something else.

Do something, Congress. Impeach Gonzales. You know you want to! Bush is shitting on you! Do something about it! Don’t you have any respect?

George, you said much more clearly what I was trying to say above: DO something, Dems!!

Autopen = a machine most Senate & House offices have. It has a pen that’s programmed to reproduce the Congresscritter’s signature. You put a letter in, the autopen signs the signature, so it appears that the Congress critter signed the letter [to a constituent].

nomolos @ 38

cleter @ 17

“Uh, I, uh, love you too, Alberto. Ya queer!”

Not funny

Well, no. I imagine Bush is something of a homophobe and would respond in a derogatory manner to male affection.

Dang perfect picture.

Good doggie Berto! Sit! Roll over! Fetch! Goooood doggie….!

I can’t take it anymore. I guess they’re going to put contempt charges on Miers and Roberts and see what happens. That’s something.

The minute they impeach Gonzo, the press will be covering Congress and it will look like they are actually doing something.

When the circumstance arises that your good cause does not necessarily have the votes, then you take it to the people directly. Perhaps my party needs to consider this option. If the polls are to be belleved, obviously the Democrats have been failing in this endeavor. Miserably.

It is not the votes we have today. It’s the votes we will have after the hearings. We need impeachment hearings not to get the ball rolling. However, Abu should not be the target. He’s just a bright shiny object to distract us from bush and Cheney.
My new slogan

SEPTEMBER==IMPEACHMENT

(After all you don’t launch a new product in August, right?)

GeorgeSimian @ 50

I can’t take it anymore. I guess they’re going to put contempt charges on Miers and Roberts and see what happens. That’s something.

The minute they impeach Gonzo, the press will be covering Congress and it will look like they are actually doing something.

Exactly. Like when they forced the Republicans to filibuster.

The public likes backbone and they hate Bush and his administration. Thus, they like it when Democrats stand up to Bush and make him eat it.

It is pretty simple really.

Why does it seem like Sessions has about 45 minutes to “ask questions” [sic] and Whitehouse seems to get about 1-1/2 minutes?

Someone needs to ask Gonzo who is authorized to sign for him.

Fuck not having the votes. Fuck Hoyer and Pelosi and whoever else. The popular support is there, and the Constitution demands it.

Let me get this straight. In the 6 years since the attack on 9/11 the Al Qaeda homebase threat has grown from only Afghanistan to Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq.

That’s progress?

-GSD

nomolos @ 38

cleter @ 17

“Uh, I, uh, love you too, Alberto. Ya queer!”

Not funny

I agree, nomolos.

spurious @ 6

God, that picture is perfect.

‘Xactly the way Hill looks at Bill.

Dry Powder Mountain

:-)

“Where ya’ goin’ dad?”

“There’s a mountain out there son. And I aim to torch it down.”

it’s ugly head

should be

its ugly head

*xyz @ 43

It is lunacy to sit on a pile of powder when in the midst of a monsoon of Republican power consolidation.

Exactly correct. The monsoon will blow away all the powder. What happened to Harriet Miers. The five days was up and her atty wrote a letter that explained (again) that she did not have to testify before congress. What happens now?

Can’t congress throw some contemptuous individual in the dungeon, just once real soon?

Is that the picture from their civil union ceremony?

I heard Leahy say that he was going to go back over the transcripts again.
I think they have Abu nailed and want it to be airtight.
I also think Cheney is going to be getting an appointment for one of those colonoscopy’s soon. His hemmoroids just met his polyps on the way to his throat after that memo came out.

Aynsley @ 40

It’s quite simple:

Dear Mr. Gonzalez Josh Bolten Fielding,

You have 3 choices:
a. AG AG MUST resign
b. DAG MUST appoint special prosecutor
c. We begin Impeachment Hearings

THERE IS NO ‘d.’
We need your answer by 5pm Friday.

correction
We need your answer by 5pm Friday 3pm Monday. Got to hit the news cycle.

I don’t know about my spelling here of sycophant but the photo simply says ‘fawning sycophant’ to me.

Bustednuckles @ 64

I heard Leahy say that he was going to go back over the transcripts again.
I think they have Abu nailed and want it to be airtight.
I also think Cheney is going to be getting an appointment for one of those colonoscopy’s soon. His hemmoroids just met his polyps on the way to his throat after that memo came out.

Memo?

mauimom @ 54

Why does it seem like Sessions has about 45 minutes to “ask questions” [sic] and Whitehouse seems to get about 1-1/2 minutes?

Probably because he was allowed to use the time of the rethugs who did not have the stomach to show up.

eCAHNomics @ 59

spurious @ 6

God, that picture is perfect.

‘Xactly the way Hill looks at Bill.

o/t

This is the way she looked at Obama at the first debate, but someone obviously coached her not to do that at the YouTube debare.

tommy yum @ 45

I’m sick of belonging to the Stockholm Syndrome party.

Some in my party can be a disgraceful bunch of willing hostages.

realworld @ 51

…However, Abu should not be the target. He’s just a bright shiny object to distract us from bush and Cheney.

Hey now, don’t be takin’ nothin’ off the table. There’s hell to pay when you start takin’ shit off the table!

I think the next step is to go ahead and get Fitz in there to testify. The stuff Whitehouse has brought out today is just gold. The MSM and Snowjob spinners can have their way with it, but it is what it is. The OVP is all over this thing and is now shown to be compromised. Conversations with Fitz will now have a very directed point of reference (thanks Tattoo), and the natural proceedings should show collusion between the DOJ and OVP. It might be a twofer!

mauimom @ 30

What crummy, disillusioned “leaders” these are. Do they really think the American public is going to parse the “leadership’s” comments [quoting Steney again] that they’re trying to deal with all these important issues on the Hill, but they’re being blocked by the Repubs. [Ooop, almost typed “repus.”]

I heard a CNN cut-in today on the radio and they played a clip of Mitch McConnell talking about how the Dems aren’t doing anything except a witchhunt, and it would be nice if they actually put forth some proposals. COMPLETELY unchallenged in the report.

Ironic I hear that on the day when the Federal minimum wage goes up. Oh, and the Dems made major concessions (I say caved) to get it signed by Shrub.

But NOOOoooo…despite this case and many others, the Dems are portrayed as losers in the press. HELLO?!?

Dem “leaders”: When working with Repubes and the Conglomerate Media, it has been clear for many years that you’re damned if you do, damned if don’t. How hard is this to understand? Get the crooks out and restore the Constitution already! Jeezus, it’s all so obvious now, makes you wonder if some of them are “in on it,” doesn’t it…

tommy yum @ 56

Fuck not having the votes. Fuck Hoyer and Pelosi and whoever else. The popular support is there, and the Constitution demands it.

I think the votes are there in the House to vote articles of impeachment against Gonzales and they should do it. They will never be the votes in the Senate for a conviction. In reading blog comments there seems to be the confusion about the articles and being removed from office.

The one saying OVP had oversight of DOJ just like EOP.
The one Whitehouse came out with.

spurious @ 6

God, that picture is perfect.

looks like magilla gorilla, no?

Bustednuckles @ 74

The one saying OVP had oversight of DOJ just like EOP.
The one Whitehouse came out with.

Thanks, haven’t been keeping up.

Re: autopen

One of the (many) scenes in “Sicko” that got to me was the doctor who seemed so blase that other people were using his (stamped) signature to deny people insurance coverage for medical procedures.

Maybe I’m just an old-fashioned Old Fart, but no way in hell would I rent out my signature for other people to use and abuse as they see fit.

“This shows clar as can be that you are not being straightforward to this committee. You are deceiving us.” Chuck Shumer.

The Dems won’t even deal properly with Lieberman. Do we think they’ll confront Cheney, Rove and Bush?

Something needs to be done other than more hearings. Spector is starting to show some life. Do SOMETHING other than these mundane hearings. I know the wheels of justice turn slowly, but continously bringing the Bushies before Congress and subjecting them to these hearings plays into their hands: the do-nothing but hate Bush Congress is at it again. Show some backbone.

hackworth @ 62

*xyz @ 43

It is lunacy to sit on a pile of powder when in the midst of a monsoon of Republican power consolidation.

Exactly correct. The monsoon will blow away all the powder. What happened to Harriet Miers. The five days was up and her atty wrote a letter that explained (again) that she did not have to testify before congress. What happens now?

Can’t congress throw some contemptuous individual in the dungeon, just once real soon?

Hackworth - the House Judiciary Committee is voting tomorrow at 10:15 am about whether to hold Miers and Bolten in cintempt. I do not know what happens (as opposed to can or should happen) after that.

Sparkles the Iguana @ 60

it’s ugly head

should be

its ugly head

Oh, Sparkles, I love you.

And I love your wonderful name as well.

boxer @ 75

Bustednuckles @ 74

The one saying OVP had oversight of DOJ just like EOP.
The one Whitehouse came out with.

Thanks, haven’t been keeping up.

Go here to catch up on the Cheney thingy:

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/

Steve-AR @ 72

tommy yum @ 56

Fuck not having the votes. Fuck Hoyer and Pelosi and whoever else. The popular support is there, and the Constitution demands it.

I think the votes are there in the House to vote articles of impeachment against Gonzales and they should do it. They will never be the votes in the Senate for a conviction. In reading blog comments there seems to be the confusion about the articles and being removed from office.

Any R senator up for reelection would have to vote for it. Once all the bad stuff is put together and played live on cable news, the public, the majority of which already favors impeachment, will be enraged. That gets you pretty close to the # needed, I think.

Ok those googgly eyes in that photo is really creepy.

bonkers @ 71

… makes you wonder if some of them are “in on it,” doesn’t it…

Nope, I don’t wonder anymore. The Lady of the Lake, her fine self, brought up The New World Order…I’m not saying, I’m just saying…

boxer @ 76

Bustednuckles @ 74

The one saying OVP had oversight of DOJ just like EOP.
The one Whitehouse came out with.

Thanks, haven’t been keeping up.

Here’s the letter

I am watching shumer eviscerate abu.

It looks like ABU is smirking.

Holy shit. this is the money shot.

perris @ 75

spurious @ 6

God, that picture is perfect.

looks like magilla gorilla, no?

I vote yes on both of the ape-like humanoids.

cleter @ 17

Man, that picture. Their adorable matching ties!

“Uh, I, uh, love you too, Alberto. Ya queer!”

FUCK YOU

Steve-AR @ 73

tommy yum @ 56

Fuck not having the votes. Fuck Hoyer and Pelosi and whoever else. The popular support is there, and the Constitution demands it.

I think the votes are there in the House to vote articles of impeachment against Gonzales and they should do it. They will never be the votes in the Senate for a conviction. In reading blog comments there seems to be the confusion about the articles and being removed from office.

There is no confusion on that with this group. You may be new to FDL but this has been very well discussed.

What you may not understand if that the impeachment process involves detailed hearings in which evidence is presented and which can be used to educate the American people. That is the key. If there is enough public pressure for conviction, when the time for that comes, the votes will be there. If they are not, it will just be more obvious who is standing in the way of the weight of public opinion.

It is shirking duty to avoid the hearings because the votes aren’t there today.

Steve-AR @ 35

The facts and extent of harm must be fleshed out in a formal investigation, the public must be allowed to understand the full nature and extent of what has occurred, and those responsible must be held to account. If not, the ugly beast continues to raise it’s ugly head with impunity in the future.

I agree; but the key is what you say doesn’t cut it. We have got to have to take over the machinery of government and we need at least 60 Senate votes.

The most likely outcome of the ‘08 election will be Dem President and increased House and Senate Seats but less that 60. The result will be obstruction of the restoration of the rule of law by the Repubs in the Senate and obstruction by the Federal Courts and SCOTUS of prosecutions and Constitutional restoration. If there are 60 Dem votes in the Senate there is a huge club over the SCOTUS; court expansion.

Court packing will just make the next Republican iteration that much worse. Democrats have to have an impeachment inquiry and hearings and publicize this as long and as loudly as the MSM will permit. The incoming Democratic president should then declare the principle of the “unitary executive” antithetical to rule of law under the Constitution (the phrase sounds like something from Mussolini or Franco) and anyone who has endorsed it unfit to hold judicial office. This President should publicly ask Alito to resign and Roberts to step down as chief Justice. The court will be sabotaging any Democratic administration anyway, so it’s best to preemptively call its legitimacy into question.

Hackworth - the House Judiciary Committee is voting tomorrow at 10:15 am about whether to hold Miers and Bolten in cintempt. I do not know what happens (as opposed to can or should happen) after that.

Good article on inherent contempt.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....01802.html

Did Gonzo commit to letting Fitz testify?

“Electrode Al” is a smirking little punk with no regard for laws or Constitutional norms.

In that regard he’s a lot like the smirking little punk that brought him along. Both of them need to have that smirk smacked off their faces.

mauimom @ 82

Sparkles the Iguana @ 60

it’s ugly head

should be

its ugly head

Oh, Sparkles, I love you.

And I love your wonderful name as well.

Thanks…..iguanas are sticklers for correct punctuation.

albert fall @ 93

Did Gonzo commit to letting Fitz testify?

He recused himself.

BMAZ,
We are finally there…been a long slog has’nt it? Claus

albert fall @ 93

Did Gonzo commit to letting Fitz testify?

Said it wasn’t his decision to make iirc.

eCAHNomics @ 59

spurious @ 6

God, that picture is perfect.

‘Xactly the way Hill looks at Bill.

Reminds me of how Nancy would look at Ronny from a step and one-half behind him. We called her “the beamer” back then.

albert fall @ 93

Did Gonzo commit to letting Fitz testify?

He claims he, ‘was recused.’ Which is interesting, because I thought that was something one needed to do to oneself. Hmmmm….

eCAHNomics @ 84

Steve-AR @ 72

I think the votes are there in the House to vote articles of impeachment against Gonzales and they should do it. They will never be the votes in the Senate for a conviction. In reading blog comments there seems to be the confusion about the articles and being removed from office.

Any R senator up for reelection would have to vote for it. Once all the bad stuff is put together and played live on cable news, the public, the majority of which already favors impeachment, will be enraged. That gets you pretty close to the # needed, I think.

I support impeaching Gonzales if they determine that it can be done politicaly. That is, if they have the votes. Failing to impeach him would to too horrible to contemplate though so if it is decided they can’t go forward I would understand.

Woodhall Hollow @ 13

AZ Matt @ 9

Go with a Special Prosecuter now. I think Fitz is available.

Who added the Counsel of the Vice President to memo Whitehouse had up? Probably Addington as Marcy suggests, and if that is so then a possible Obstruction of Justice investigation needs to happen right now.

But the point is, and I wish that Whitehouse had hammered Abu on this a bit more, that Abu SIGNED the damn thing? Doesn’t he read what the children in the DoJ give him to sign? Or does he just do what they say–the VP wants this signed, and he just does it? I was really disappointed that Whitehouse did not grill him as to what he was thinking when he put his name on that document.

Though, massive kudos to Whitehouse for finding it and blindsiding the AGAG with it.

Did anyone catch the date of this document?

Unbelievable.

“Do you want to be Attorney General? … I’ve never heard anything like this.”

re: His statement at the press conference. He says he corrected it.
“Who did you talk to?”
A: “I didn’t talk to anyone.”
“Who did your spokesman talk to?”
[gets answer from zombie behind him]
“What did he say?”
“I don’t know.”
“Did you clarify the discrepency with the leadership of this committee?”I don’t think I was innacurate in my testimony.”

The crime was committed in the Judiciary Hearing Room, with the lips, by Mr, Syncophant (sp).

I sure hope that Keith Olbermann’s folk are watching this. There’s a pile of quote-worth material here for his show.

And Abu deserves today’s Worst Person in the World.

Bush “anguished” over the Libby verdict for “days” and weeks. Gonzales spent 5 minutes tossing around the merits of some death penalty cases.

Talk about elitist thugs.

-GSD

johnSwifty @ 101

albert fall @ 93

Did Gonzo commit to letting Fitz testify?

He claims he, ‘was recused.’ Which is interesting, because I thought that was something one needed to do to oneself. Hmmmm….

It is a reflexive answer. (a grammarian joke)

GSD @ 107

Bush “anguished” over the Libby verdict for “days” and weeks. Gonzales spent 5 minutes tossing around the merits of some death penalty cases.

Talk about elitist thugs.

-GSD

hey you know, a death, a breath, a comma, a momma………..

Steve-AR @ 72

I think the votes are there in the House to vote articles of impeachment against Gonzales and they should do it. They will never be the votes in the Senate for a conviction. In reading blog comments there seems to be the confusion about the articles and being removed from office.

I think this confusion is common.

I admit I’m torn about impeachment of any of the impeachable parties, given how unlikely it is that the Senate would convict. If you can’t actually go the whole way and remove them from office, will they care? Will the public care?

On the other hand, I feel like (a) the course of investigations may reveal additional crap and that crap just might erode what’s left of the base far enough that Repubs Senators just might decide that their political survival depends on supporting conviction. And (b) it’s worth doing the right thing even when there’s little or no hope of getting the ideal final result.

Sparkles the Iguana @ 96

mauimom @ 82

Oh, Sparkles, I love you.

And I love your wonderful name as well.

Thanks…..iguanas are sticklers for correct punctuation.

yeah, thanks. That its/it’s thing has been driving this poor old English major crazy for some time now……

Tithonia @ 97

albert fall @ 93

Did Gonzo commit to letting Fitz testify?

He recused himself.

But Marcy said he f*cked up. He said it was Deputy Attorney General McNulty who would make the decision, but Marcy says that decision is Margolis’s. What a freaking dingbat he is. As far as I am concerned he should be impeached just for being recused on so many matters.

mauimom @ 105

I sure hope that Keith Olbermann’s folk are watching this. There’s a pile of quote-worth material here for his show.

And Abu deserves today’s Worst Person in the World.

Daily Show tomorrow night will be the best. Probably too late to get it in tonight’s DS.

Impeachment is going exactly nowhere so long as John Conyers (whether on orders of Nancy Pelosi or otherwise) refuses to entertain the idea (despite his meaningless and misleading soundbites apparently designed to keep the heat off himself). Thanks to Sheehan, McGovern, and Yearwood et al, we finally have the truth about Conyers’s present position, from the horse’s mouth. I don’t know if this information has been mentioned yet today - it was in an overnight diary at DailyKos:

John Conyers was very receptive to me when he heard that I’d run against Darrell Issa. He told me that he was meeting with Cindy Sheehan on Monday and he seemed sincerely pleased with the idea. I called my friend Barbara in Washington to reassure her that the meeting on Monday was going to be positive…

But I was wrong. Just released from jail, Rev. Yearwood told me on the phone that the decision to arrest the 50 people in Conyer’s office after their disappointing meeting with him, came from Conyers himself. Close to 400 people had been crowding the hall outside his office and it was learned that six members of Congress had requested that the Capitol police disburse them. “We can’t rely on the politicians,” Yearwood said, sounding weary. “But today I saw the people rising up.”

So what are we supposed to make of it when someone we held in such high esteem, who is probably the only one in a position to put the brakes on this out-of-control administration, betrays us?

During her birthday celebration at Camp Casey two weeks ago, Cindy Sheehan told us that Conyers personally told her that it was more important to get a Democrat in office in 2008 than to end the war in Iraq. Today, according to Barbara Cummings, he said, “So I’m supposed to risk my reputation for Cindy and this CIA guy?” (reference to Ray McGovern).

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo.....233412/895

And from David Swanson’s site (David was also arrested yesterday I believe):

The three, together with several hundred other impeachment activists who packed the fourth floor hallway outside Rep. Conyers’ office, had come to press Conyers to take action on impeachment, and specifically to start action on H.Res. 333, the bill submitted nearly three months ago by Rep. Dennis Kucinich calling for the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney.

After nearly an hour of talking with Conyers, a clearly angry Sheehan emerged together with Yearwood and McGovern, and announced to the waiting throng in the hall that Conyers had told them “impeachment isn’t going to happen because we don’t have the votes.” Sheehan said Conyers had insisted that the best thing was for Democrats to focus on “winning big in 2008.”

This reporter subsequently called Conyers’ press office for an explanation of Conyers’ true position on impeachment. Only a few days earlier the congressman, visiting a San Diego meeting on health care reform, had told members of Progressive Democrats of America that it was time to “take these two guys (Bush and Cheney) out” and had promised that if just “a few more” members of the House signed on to the Kucinich bill (it already has 14 co-sponsors), he would move it forward for consideration in his Judiciary Committee. Asked how that statement squared with what he had told the group of activists in his office, the spokesman said Conyers’ “must have been misunderstood” in San Diego. He said that in view of Conyers’ statement to Sheehan and the others today, the Kucinich bill was “not going to go anywhere.”

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/25015

I am stunned and find it difficult to process this behavior and attitude from John Conyers, after his actions last year. Et tu, Brute?

GSD @ 107

Bush “anguished” over the Libby verdict for “days” and weeks. Gonzales spent 5 minutes tossing around the merits of some death penalty cases.

Talk about elitist thugs.

-GSD

Cheney had a pistol to Bush’s head.

albert fall @ 94

Did Gonzo commit to letting Fitz testify?

No, he fobbed it off on McNulty (he is recused from everything, you see) even though EW says that it would be a decision to be made by Clement. One wonders if, given the fact that Abu is recused, and McNulty’s own testimony in this matter is inconsistent, McNulty would/should also be recused.

The point is that the DoJ is in a complete shambles and no one is really in charge–the only thing the leadership can do is to scramble as best they can to cover their own asses, as well as those of the POTUS and the OVP.

eCAHNomics @ 93

Hackworth - the House Judiciary Committee is voting tomorrow at 10:15 am about whether to hold Miers and Bolton in cintempt. I do not know what happens (as opposed to can or should happen) after that.

Good article on inherent contempt.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....01802.html

however I keep hearing that the Dems are “not seriously considering” inherent contempt. WTF???

Loo Hoo. @ 103

Woodhall Hollow @ 13

But the point is, and I wish that Whitehouse had hammered Abu on this a bit more, that Abu SIGNED the damn thing? Doesn’t he read what the children in the DoJ give him to sign? Or does he just do what they say–the VP wants this signed, and he just does it? I was really disappointed that Whitehouse did not grill him as to what he was thinking when he put his name on that document.

Though, massive kudos to Whitehouse for finding it and blindsiding the AGAG with it.

Did anyone catch the date of this document?

Whitehouse said it was written sometime in May 2006.

GSD @ 106

Bush “anguished” over the Libby verdict for “days” and weeks. Gonzales spent 5 minutes tossing around the merits of some death penalty cases.

Talk about elitist thugs.

-GSD

That’s giving thugs a bad name. At least they did their own dirty work in the service of Kali. This group delegates everything.

Loo Hoo. @ 103

Woodhall Hollow @ 13

But the point is, and I wish that Whitehouse had hammered Abu on this a bit more, that Abu SIGNED the damn thing? Doesn’t he read what the children in the DoJ give him to sign? Or does he just do what they say–the VP wants this signed, and he just does it? I was really disappointed that Whitehouse did not grill him as to what he was thinking when he put his name on that document.

Though, massive kudos to Whitehouse for finding it and blindsiding the AGAG with it.

Did anyone catch the date of this document?

Loo Hoo - see me at 87 for the link to the letter. The date is May 4, 2006

Is there betting on who will be “Worst Person in the World”? I know where my money is.

Looking at the signature on today’s “Cheney” document and having really looked at the authorization for Goodling and Sampson to hire when that was released, I’m pretty sure the signature is identical…autopenned - but by whom.

pow wow @ 114

Impeachment is going exactly nowhere so long as John Conyers (whether on orders of Nancy Pelosi or otherwise) refuses to entertain the idea (despite his meaningless and misleading soundbites apparently designed to keep the heat off himself). Thanks to Sheehan, McGovern, and Yearwood et al, we finally have the truth about Conyers’s present position, from the horse’s mouth. I don’t know if this information has been mentioned yet today - it was in an overnight diary at DailyKos:

John Conyers was very receptive to me when he heard that I’d run against Darrell Issa. He told me that he was meeting with Cindy Sheehan on Monday and he seemed sincerely pleased with the idea. I called my friend Barbara in Washington to reassure her that the meeting on Monday was going to be positive…

But I was wrong. Just released from jail, Rev. Yearwood told me on the phone that the decision to arrest the 50 people in Conyer’s office after their disappointing meeting with him, came from Conyers himself. Close to 400 people had been crowding the hall outside his office and it was learned that six members of Congress had requested that the Capitol police disburse them. “We can’t rely on the politicians,” Yearwood said, sounding weary. “But today I saw the people rising up.”

So what are we supposed to make of it when someone we held in such high esteem, who is probably the only one in a position to put the brakes on this out-of-control administration, betrays us?

During her birthday celebration at Camp Casey two weeks ago, Cindy Sheehan told us that Conyers personally told her that it was more important to get a Democrat in office in 2008 than to end the war in Iraq. Today, according to Barbara Cummings, he said, “So I’m supposed to risk my reputation for Cindy and this CIA guy?” (reference to Ray McGovern).

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo.....233412/895

And from David Swanson’s site (David was also arrested yesterday I believe):

The three, together with several hundred other impeachment activists who packed the fourth floor hallway outside Rep. Conyers’ office, had come to press Conyers to take action on impeachment, and specifically to start action on H.Res. 333, the bill submitted nearly three months ago by Rep. Dennis Kucinich calling for the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney.

After nearly an hour of talking with Conyers, a clearly angry Sheehan emerged together with Yearwood and McGovern, and announced to the waiting throng in the hall that Conyers had told them “impeachment isn’t going to happen because we don’t have the votes.” Sheehan said Conyers had insisted that the best thing was for Democrats to focus on “winning big in 2008.”

This reporter subsequently called Conyers’ press office for an explanation of Conyers’ true position on impeachment. Only a few days earlier the congressman, visiting a San Diego meeting on health care reform, had told members of Progressive Democrats of America that it was time to “take these two guys (Bush and Cheney) out” and had promised that if just “a few more” members of the House signed on to the Kucinich bill (it already has 14 co-sponsors), he would move it forward for consideration in his Judiciary Committee. Asked how that statement squared with what he had told the group of activists in his office, the spokesman said Conyers’ “must have been misunderstood” in San Diego. He said that in view of Conyers’ statement to Sheehan and the others today, the Kucinich bill was “not going to go anywhere.”

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/25015

I am stunned and find it difficult to process this behavior and attitude from John Conyers, after his actions last year. Et tu, Brute?

Conyers, in Farenheit 9/11, when asked why he signed on to the Patriot Act: “Son (to Michael Moore, one of his constituents in the East side of Michigan) we don’t actually read the bills.”

I’m really glad to know that the AG is so helpful with ‘emotionally anguished women.’

Perhaps he can give Cindy Sheehan a call.

pow wow @ 114

Impeachment is going exactly nowhere so long as John Conyers (whether on orders of Nancy Pelosi or otherwise) refuses to entertain the idea (despite his meaningless and misleading soundbites apparently designed to keep the heat off himself). Thanks to Sheehan, McGovern, and Yearwood et al, we finally have the truth about Conyers’s present position, from the horse’s mouth. I don’t know if this information has been mentioned yet today - it was in an overnight diary at DailyKos:

John Conyers was very receptive to me when he heard that I’d run against Darrell Issa. [Mod:snip]

During her birthday celebration at Camp Casey two weeks ago, Cindy Sheehan told us that Conyers personally told her that it was more important to get a Democrat in office in 2008 than to end the war in Iraq. Today, according to Barbara Cummings, he said, “So I’m supposed to risk my reputation for Cindy and this CIA guy?” (reference to Ray McGovern).

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo.....233412/895

And from David Swanson’s site (David was also arrested yesterday I believe):

The three, together with several hundred other impeachment activists who packed the fourth floor hallway outside Rep. Conyers’ office, had come to press Conyers to take action on impeachment [Mod:snip]

He said that in view of Conyers’ statement to Sheehan and the others today, the Kucinich bill was “not going to go anywhere.”

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/25015

I am stunned and find it difficult to process this behavior and attitude from John Conyers, after his actions last year. Et tu, Brute?

Conyers has been an enormous dissapointment. One can only surmise that he hasn’t cleaned his own closet out in a very long time, and is afraid of going “too far.” I liked him better when he was younger and fresher and had no fear.

BigMitch @ 107

It is a reflexive answer. (a grammarian joke)

Heee!

pow wow @114:

Brutus was one of the ones trying to save the Republic.

Helen @ 118

Loo Hoo. @ 103

Did anyone catch the date of this document?

Loo Hoo - see me at 87 for the link to the letter. The date is May 4, 2006

What was happening then??? When did they first tell Lam she was going to be fired?

There is no confusion on that with this group. You may be new to FDL but this has been very well discussed.

I have been here since it was just Jane..but that is irrelevant. I guess my point is that most of the Republican Senators are so deep into the criminality that the usual election pressures are secondary. Rove could order the DOJ to go after any Repub. who get out of line. Jail time is a lot worse than loosing an election.

Y’know, Leahy’s a tough ole guy. He really smacked Abu around on his [Abu’s] blowing off [when he was WH counsel] of legislation proposed by Leahy, Durbin, Spector & others FIVE YEARS AGO about torture.

Helen @ 111

Tithonia @ 97

He recused himself.

But Marcy said he f*cked up. He said it was Deputy Attorney General McNulty who would make the decision, but Marcy says that decision is Margolis’s. What a freaking dingbat he is. As far as I am concerned he should be impeached just for being recused on so many matters.

He should be impeached “just for being” in my opinion.

oddmommy @ 117

eCAHNomics @ 93

Good article on inherent contempt.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....01802.html

however I keep hearing that the Dems are “not seriously considering” inherent contempt. WTF???

I think it is peing considered. They just want to go through all other options, first. Regular contempt charges, first. Then Pres. blocks AG from referring the case to USA Taylor. Then inherent contempt. They don’t want to give away their playbook, IMO.

however I keep hearing that the Dems are “not seriously considering” inherent contempt. WTF???

Somebody help me with a p*ker (I don’t play it) analogy here. That would be like folding with a royal flush. Plz correct if required.

pow wow @ 114

Impeachment is going exactly nowhere so long as John Conyers (whether on orders of Nancy Pelosi or otherwise) refuses to entertain the idea (despite his meaningless and misleading soundbites apparently designed to keep the heat off himself). Thanks to Sheehan, McGovern, and Yearwood et al, we finally have the truth about Conyers’s present position, from the horse’s mouth. I don’t know if this information has been mentioned yet today - it was in an overnight diary at DailyKos:

Impeachment is going nowhere because it cannot happen.

Cindy Sheehan was arrested because she chose to act in such a manner that it warranted her being arrested. Getting arrested was her goal going there is the first place. It was her choice.

Cindy Sheehan was arrested because she chose to act in such a manner that it warranted her being arrested. Getting arrested was her goal going there is the first place. It was her choice.

Cindy Sheehan’s goal is to stop a war so no other mother’s have to go what she isgoing through.

CHECK out the dates folks!!

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c.....013023.php

“Below I noted this paragraph in tonight’s article from McClatchy …

In an e-mail dated May 11, 2006, Sampson urged the White House counsel’s office to call him regarding “the real problem we have right now with Carol Lam,” who then the U.S. attorney for southern California. Earlier that morning, the Los Angeles Times reported that Lam’s corruption investigation of former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, R-Calif., had expanded to include another California Republican, Rep Jerry Lewis.

The timing is well worth noting. But the Lewis investigation wasn’t the only trouble Lam was making. Look what else was happening in the couple weeks before May 11th …

April 28th, 2006 — Cunningham-Wilkes-Foggo “Hookergate” scandal breaks open. Probe grows out of San Diego US Attorney’s Office’s Cunningham investigation. CIA Director Goss denies involvement.

April 29th, 2006 — Washington Post reports that Hookergate’s Shirlington Limo Service had $21 million contract with Department of Homeland Security.

May 2nd, 2006 — Kyle “Dusty” Foggo confirms attendence at Wilkes/Cunningham Hookergate parties.

May 4th, 2006 — Watergate Hotel subpoenaed in San Diego/Cunningham/Hookergate probe.

May 5th, 2006 — WSJ reports that Kyle “Dusty” Foggo, who Goss installed as #3 at CIA, is under criminal investigation as part of the San Diego/Cunningham investigation.

May 5th, 2006 — Porter Goss resigns as Director of Central Intelligence.

May 6th, 2006 — WaPo reports on questionable DHS contract awarded to Shirlington Limo, the ‘hookergate’ Limo service under scrutiny as part of the San Diego/Cunningham investigation. Similar report in the Times.

May 7th, 2006 — House Committee to investigate DHS contract with Hookergate’s Shirlington Limo.

May 8th, 2006 — Lyle “Dusty” Foggo resigns at CIA.

May 11th, 2006 — LA Times reports that Cunningham investigation has expanded into the dealings of Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA), House Appropriations Committee Chairman.”

Re: Inherent Contempt v. Regular Contempt. We are all assuming that they will try regular contempt first so that Taylor has to refuse the case. Makes it look as though the Congress had no other option but Inherent. Here’s my fear: That they will go the Regular Contempt route, and then Taylor will present a bullshit case to the Grand Jury and they will not indict. GJ testimony is secret. How will we ever know what Taylor presented?

Re the smoking shooter memo, does anyone know which docu-dump it came in? I’m just wondering how long it’s been out there. It was obviously a surprise to gonzo …

Brendan sez:
Court packing will just make the next Republican iteration that much worse. Democrats have to have an impeachment inquiry and hearings and publicize this as long and as loudly as the MSM will permit. The incoming Democratic president should then declare the principle of the “unitary executive” antithetical to rule of law under the Constitution (the phrase sounds like something from Mussolini or Franco) and anyone who has endorsed it unfit to hold judicial office. This President should publicly ask Alito to resign and Roberts to step down as chief Justice. The court will be sabotaging any Democratic administration anyway, so it’s best to preemptively call its legitimacy into question.

A brilliant plan. Ironic that the Bushco Yoonitary Executive is really a puppet show. The yoonitary eggseck thinks he’s in charge but the binary president is the true yoonitary chief with Dubya acting as an omnipotent simpleton unit. Dubya is a firewall to Cheney.

brendan @ 125

pow wow @114:

Brutus was one of the ones trying to save the Republic.

Yes, well, you get the idea, brendan. It’s the betrayal. And Ray McGovern says it much better than I can:

How about just Bush and Cheney, we suggested.

Conyers protested that he would need 218 votes in the House and complained that the votes are not there.

There was no getting through to Conyers, who seemed astonished at the direct questions we were posing.

[snip]

Toward the end of the meeting, Conyers showed uncommon chutzpah in referring to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. That was too much for me.

You’re no Martin Luther King, I found myself wanting to say. Instead, I quoted a portion of Dr. King’s famous address at Riverside Church almost 40 years ago:

“We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak….there is such a thing as being too late….Life often leaves us standing bare, naked, and dejected with lost opportunity….Over the bleached bones of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words: ‘Too late.’”

I used that quote in a letter I left with Conyers’ aides on Monday, in which I tried to express why my colleagues in Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity feel it is URGENT to find some way to apply the Constitution to restrain a run-away Executive.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/25027

[There’s more at the home page link at that site, including what appears to be the dreadful news that the Iraqi parliament just passed the hydrocarbon bill into law…]

NO AUGUST RECESS FOR THE CONGRESS!

continue investigations
prevent Bush from making recess appointments
keep pressure on for Impeachment to begin
convey the message that Congress is serious in
restoring Constitutional Government.

Steve-AR @ 128

There is no confusion on that with this group. You may be new to FDL but this has been very well discussed.

Once there was a vote to convict there would be nothing Rove could do. He would be having to worry too much about his own butt.

Bearpaw @ 110

Steve-AR @ 72

I think the votes are there in the House to vote articles of impeachment against Gonzales and they should do it. They will never be the votes in the Senate for a conviction. In reading blog comments there seems to be the confusion about the articles and being removed from office.

I think this confusion is common.

I admit I’m torn about impeachment of any of the impeachable parties, given how unlikely it is that the Senate would convict. If you can’t actually go the whole way and remove them from office, will they care? Will the public care?

On the other hand, I feel like (a) the course of investigations may reveal additional crap and that crap just might erode what’s left of the base far enough that Repubs Senators just might decide that their political survival depends on supporting conviction. And (b) it’s worth doing the right thing even when there’s little or no hope of getting the ideal final result.

My feelings also..except I don’t think the Senate votes will ever be there during this Congress. The KagroX argument that the House has to resist the Unitary Exec by initiating impeachment has turned me to favor it even if conviction if highly unlikely.

Woodhall Hollow @ 117

Loo Hoo. @ 103

Did anyone catch the date of this document?

Whitehouse said it was written sometime in May 2007.

Gonzo Document Link

Mabel’s Wig Shack @ 134

Cindy Sheehan was arrested because she chose to act in such a manner that it warranted her being arrested. Getting arrested was her goal going there is the first place. It was her choice.

Cindy Sheehan’s goal is to stop a war so no other mother’s have to go what she isgoing through.

Exactly. I can’t imagine walking in her shoes. I support Cindy wholeheartedly.

Mabel’s Wig Shack @ 134

Cindy Sheehan was arrested because she chose to act in such a manner that it warranted her being arrested. Getting arrested was her goal going there is the first place. It was her choice.

Cindy Sheehan’s goal is to stop a war so no other mother’s have to go what she isgoing through.

Then she should support those who are doing the best they can given the current situation and not undermine them by pulling stunts like getting arrested. She hurt her cause, she did not help it.

noen @ 131

Impeachment is going nowhere because it cannot happen.

As LHP has made the case — a good one which I whole heartedly endorse — it is still of utmost import to go through the motions. There is the possibility of bringing more information to light over the course of the proceedings and more opinion may be swayed thereby. Also, as has been recently discussed, there is a legal concept of ratification by acceptance and apathy, turning a blind eye, towards events as they unfold. These circumstances must not be allowed to go unchallenged even if the challenge is unsuccessful, it is at least registered. THAT is important.

Cozumel @ 36

Impeach Abu Already

I wonder what Arlen Specter thinks about that?

it’d make a great speech for him, but then he’d vote against himself …

AZ Matt @ 141

Woodhall Hollow @ 117

Whitehouse said it was written sometime in May 2007.

Gonzo Document Link

2006

eCAHNomics @ 113

mauimom @ 105

I sure hope that Keith Olbermann’s folk are watching this. There’s a pile of quote-worth material here for his show.

And Abu deserves today’s Worst Person in the World.

Daily Show tomorrow night will be the best. Probably too late to get it in tonight’s DS.

I’m pretty sure they tape it in late afternoon

brendan @ 127

pow wow @114:

Brutus was one of the ones trying to save the Republic.

Antony: “This was the noblest Roman of them all. All the conspirators save only he Did that they did in envy of great Caesar; He, only in a general honest thought And common good to all, made one of them. His life was gentle, and the elements So mixed in him that Nature might stand up And say to all the world, “This was a man!”"

Procuratio frutex delenda est.

AZ Matt @ 143

Woodhall Hollow @ 117

Whitehouse said it was written sometime in May 2007.

Gonzo Document Link

I meant to type May 2006.

I was pissed that Whitehouse did not hammer Abu more about the doc, but now that I see the Carol Lam and Kyle Sampson email connection, it appears that Whitehouse was being a very good investigator/prosecutor and was keeping his powder dry. I retract my earlier statement, as I am certain that the committee members are well aware of the implications of that memo vis a vis the Carol Lam - Duke Cunningham investigations. Which also explains why Spector is so pissed off…this scandal is just getting going and it puts him between a rock and a hard place politically, unless he takes on the role of Howard Baker of Watergate fame.

cozumel @ 147
I think you’re right, but they have to write it first. Don’t know how that takes, but it surely isn’t quick. Daily Show is well put together & rehearsed.

johnSwifty @ 146

noen @ 131

Impeachment is going nowhere because it cannot happen.

As LHP has made the case — a good one which I whole heartedly endorse — it is still of utmost import to go through the motions. There is the possibility of bringing more information to light over the course of the proceedings and more opinion may be swayed thereby. Also, as has been recently discussed, there is a legal concept of ratification by acceptance and apathy, turning a blind eye, towards events as they unfold. These circumstances must not be allowed to go unchallenged even if the challenge is unsuccessful, it is at least registered. THAT is important.

Sure it’s important but a failed impeachment would destroy the Dems and destroy what little respect for the constitution is left.

Is that what you want? Do you want to give the GOP the next election through a failed impeachment hearing? Because that is what would happen, there is no doubt in my mind about that.

Impeaching Gonzalez also has another benefit: It forces the word “impeach” into the public mind and shatters the ban on mentioning same word in the major media.

Then she should support those who are doing the best they can given the current situation and not undermine them by pulling stunts like getting arrested. She hurt her cause, she did not help it.

but Conyers telephoned the police to arrest her and Ray McGovern and others re: pow wow @ 140. Their point was to communicate using peaceful protesting.

Civil disobediance is not a ’stunt.’

April 28, 2006: Cunningham-Wilkes-Foggo scandal breaks.

Gonzales Policy memo dated May 4, 2006.

Hmmmm……

Overdid the bold a bit @ 140 (had already used my one edit for this thread). But you get the idea.

eCAHNomics @ 153

cozumel @ 147
I think you’re right, but they have to write it first. Don’t know how that takes, but it surely isn’t quick. Daily Show is well put together & rehearsed.

But, they’ve got about 80 people that work on the show from what I’ve read ; )

Sure it’s important but a failed impeachment would destroy the Dems

Like the failed impeachment destroyed the Rs?

noen @ 145

Mabel’s Wig Shack @ 134

Cindy Sheehan was arrested because she chose to act in such a manner that it warranted her being arrested. Getting arrested was her goal going there is the first place. It was her choice.

Cindy Sheehan’s goal is to stop a war so no other mother’s have to go what she isgoing through.

Then she should support those who are doing the best they can given the current situation and not undermine them by pulling stunts like getting arrested. She hurt her cause, she did not help it.

I agree to a point. I greatly admire Cindy’s conviction and heart, but that does not equate to good judgment.

noen @ 152

Is that what you want? Do you want to give the GOP the next election through a failed impeachment hearing? Because that is what would happen, there is no doubt in my mind about that.

Then we simply disagree, because there is every doubt in my mind about it. The Clinton impeachment was a true farce, but it did not give away the Republican majority.

No one really knew how many votes were there for Clinton either. Congress (the House) just has to start, and proceed with the process.
I mean, who hurt the country and trust more- Gonzales and Bush, or Clinton? And congress then found the votes for Clinton- given he did much LESS damage, if any at all to the law, and to trust in the Constitution. Why the fear on the number of votes Pelosi? Conyers?

noen @ 145

Mabel’s Wig Shack @ 134

Cindy Sheehan’s goal is to stop a war so no other mother’s have to go what she isgoing through.

Then she should support those who are doing the best they can given the current situation and not undermine them by pulling stunts like getting arrested. She hurt her cause, she did not help it.

You know, it wouldn’t surprise me if Conyers’ office okayed this. (Unofficially, of course.)

But maybe I’m just being too Byzantine.

EPU’d, but still funny, ha ha!

Coach Noen of the 1980 USA Olympic Hockey Team:

“Don’t even try to shoot on net, guys. Those Russians are huge, they’re fast, they’re unified, they’re gonna crush you like they did the NFL all-star team last year, and you’re just a bunch of of plumbers and carpenters and college guys.

Those Russians are like cyborgs, they’re pros, thats all they do, they’re invincible, they’re juiced up on some mad-scientist shit thats illegal in the civilized world, your only chance is to keep your powder dry and all try to huddle behind your own net, that way they won’t hurt you.

Then in 2012, we’ll have had time to study what they did, judicioulsy, if you will, and we will try again, and maybe eke out a tie. So go out there, and try not to let your knees quiver too much!”

Of course the analogy is off, because the underdog Team USA wanted to win, whereas most of team (D) does not want to help save the Constitution they took an oath to defend, and those few that do have been disincentivized somehow in ways that are not clear to anyone.

P.S. Mr Shrum, is that you?

noen @ 154

johnSwifty @ 146

As LHP has made the case — a good one which I whole heartedly endorse — it is still of utmost import to go through the motions. There is the possibility of bringing more information to light over the course of the proceedings and more opinion may be swayed thereby. Also, as has been recently discussed, there is a legal concept of ratification by acceptance and apathy, turning a blind eye, towards events as they unfold. These circumstances must not be allowed to go unchallenged even if the challenge is unsuccessful, it is at least registered. THAT is important.

Sure it’s important but a failed impeachment would destroy the Dems and destroy what little respect for the constitution is left.

Is that what you want? Do you want to give the GOP the next election through a failed impeachment hearing? Because that is what would happen, there is no doubt in my mind about that.

An impeachment would only fail if the rethugs obstructed justice. In the meantime, impeachment hearings would enable congress to get its hands on a LOT more information and would shine some badly needed light on the multiple high crimes and misdemeanors of this Junta. Bush cannot claim executive privilege in the context of impeachment proceedings–this is a very important point.

Mabel’s Wig Shack @ 156

Then she should support those who are doing the best they can given the current situation and not undermine them by pulling stunts like getting arrested. She hurt her cause, she did not help it.

but Conyers telephoned the police to arrest her and Ray McGovern and others re: pow wow @ 140. Their point was to communicate using peaceful protesting.

Civil disobediance is not a ’stunt.’

Cindy chose to be arrested, that was her choice. She knew what she was doing this time just as she knew what she was doing the last time she was arrested. She chose to be arrested that time and said so. There is nothing wrong with protesting per se.

I am really troubled by the presence of Ray McGovern, I don’t trust him.

So Conyers is basically the equivalent of our very own Specter..

Cindy and Conyers meeting should have ended in a pep rally yesterday.. Thanks to Cindy and 400 others we now know Conyers is a lying part of the problem..

Thank you Cindy.

I find all this agonizing over Code Pink & Cindy Sheehan a waste of time. Nothing we say here will influence their behaviors, so why bother bloviating about it?

FWIW, I believe in civil disobedience and also think there’s (almost) no such thing as bad publicity.

Is it just me or does Gonzo seem surprised that Congress knows all this stuff? His office I assume checked the documents Congress got so why isn’t he better prepared for these questions?
Also while we haven’t gotten a smoking gun document yet, I am surprised Gonzo let Congress get as much as it did. With the documents we got Gonzo has to pretend he doesn’t remeber way to often. Why isn’t he better prepared, unless somebody at Dept of Justice slipped a few documents in that a loyal Bushie would not have. Might we have friends in Justice?

hard for me to imagine impeachment failing. If it did, it would require some crazy-ass Republicans saying shit in public that would make a horse blush.

The Dems are not destroyed by kick-starting the impeachment process. The Dems are destroyed by holding back and allowing crimes to go unpunished.

a failed impeachment would NOT destroy the dems it would enable them

just as the failed impeachment of clinton enabled the repukes

I sure hope I’m wrong but I’m willing to wager a new AG (Addington?) gets put in during a recess appointment.

Even if There are no formal recesses, they will do it anyway.

I have never imagined that the leaders of our country would be so cavalier about breaking the law.

things come undone @ 168

…Might we have friends in Justice?

Perhaps there was, accidentally, still a sense of justice at Justice.

Lighten up on Conyers. Recall the story of Balaam’s Ass.

BigMitch @ 172

hard for me to imagine impeachment failing. If it did, it would require some crazy-ass Republicans saying shit in public that would make a horse blush.

You mean, like at the hearings this morning?

Woodhall Hollow @ 166

An impeachment would only fail if the rethugs obstructed justice. In the meantime, impeachment hearings would enable congress to get its hands on a LOT more information and would shine some badly needed light on the multiple high crimes and misdemeanors of this Junta. Bush cannot claim executive privilege in the context of impeachment proceedings–this is a very important point.

Wrong, it would fail because there are not enough votes.

well, I won’t say anything more about cindy sheehan now but she strikes me as a woman howling at the moon in pain. howling at the madmen who killed her son who took her little boy who butchered and maimed and profited and sit at night eating steaks and drinking fine sherry.

i admire her in an almost archetypal way.

she is the real deal.

these other guys. the senators and congressmen. they have nice cufflinks.

There is nothing worthwhile the Dems could pass that Bush won’t veto. So don’t give us the “more pressing” matters excuse.

If the votes aren’t there for conviction (I believe they are there for impeachment), then let’s see that show of hands. I’d like those clips for the campaign ads in the next election.

CHARLESTON, S.C. - President Bush on Tuesday lashed out at critics who say that al-Qaida’s operation in Iraq is distinct from terrorists who attacked the United States on Sept. 11, 2001.

“The merger between al-Qaida and its Iraqi affiliate is an alliance of killers and that is why the finest military in the world is on their trail,” Bush said.

noen @ 165

I am really troubled by the presence of Ray McGovern, I don’t trust him.

Why not?

BigMitch @ 171

hard for me to imagine impeachment failing. If it did, it would require some crazy-ass Republicans saying shit in public that would make a horse blush.

That wouldn’t exactly require a major change of tactics on their part.

I mean, have you been listening at all?

BigMitch @ 172

hard for me to imagine impeachment failing. If it did, it would require some crazy-ass Republicans saying shit in public that would make a horse blush.

I have to agree. The reason they don’t have the votes is that they don’t have the evidence. The reason they don’t have the evidence is that the WH is stalling. The reason the WH is stalling is that the House hasn’t started the impeachment inquiry, which would force the WH to give it up!

noblejoanie @ 181

There is nothing worthwhile the Dems could pass that Bush won’t veto. So don’t give us the “more pressing” matters
excuse.

wow…excellant point, obvious once told but not realized until spoken

well done

There it is again. The phrase “not enough votes.”

It doesn’t matter. Let the train roll down the tracks and we’ll see where it arrives later.

I have never imagined that the leaders of our country would be so cavalier about breaking the law.

I think they’re just getting started. I expect they will become even more brazen. This gang is going to have to be taken out in handcuffs. There is no way they’ll willingly let go of any of the power they’ve stolen.

eCAHNomics @ 160

Sure it’s important but a failed impeachment would destroy the Dems

Like the failed impeachment destroyed the Rs?

There can’t be anymore defensive political thinking by the Dems..this has got to be an all or nothing fight to the death. Over the past two weeks, the new declarations of Exec powers is essentially a dictatorship. (I would really like to know the names of the people calling the shots, it’s not Bush and probably not Cheney. Cheney is ruthless but not smart enough.) If this Republican Party is not destroyed as a national party, then this country is screwed.

A glimmer of hope (it wasn’t the privatization bill that passed):

By Reuters

BAGHDAD - Iraq’s parliament on Tuesday approved a draft law that opens the way for foreign companies to build and operate oil refineries in the country.

According to the law, regional governments and provincial authorities will be able to deal individually with foreign companies, sign contracts and award licences for the construction of refineries.

The Law on Investing and Refining Crude Oil is separate from a draft hydrocarbons law that will govern overall exploration and production and which is seen as crucial to bridging the deep sectarian divide in
Iraq.

The draft hydrocarbon law has been submitted to parliament but has yet to be debated by the full legislature. Iraqi television showed parliamentarians approving the refining law.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/25039

And do read Ray McGovern’s full statement linked @ 140. It is extremely damning to John Conyers (if you respect McGovern as much as I do).

johnSwifty @ 163

noen @ 152

Is that what you want? Do you want to give the GOP the next election through a failed impeachment hearing? Because that is what would happen, there is no doubt in my mind about that.

Then we simply disagree, because there is every doubt in my mind about it. The Clinton impeachment was a true farce, but it did not give away the Republican majority.

This fear is premised on the wrong notion that the public aren’t capable of distinguishing between matters of substance and a tawdry charade. Amazingly, they are. That Republicans were punished at the polls in 1998 has no relevance to the crisis we’re in today. If you believe it does you’re buying into an notion of “impeachment” as an abstraction depreciated by Republicans and the pundit class.

sporkovat @ 165

EPU’d, but still funny, ha ha!

Coach Noen of the 1980 USA Olympic Hockey Team:

This is not a game where success is dependent on individual skill.

noen @ 192

sporkovat @ 165

EPU’d, but still funny, ha ha!

Coach Noen of the 1980 USA Olympic Hockey Team:

This is not a game where success is dependent on individual skill.

Nope, it’s a team game; much like ice hockey.

We, who have not lost a child in this despicable war, have no right to judge the actions in fighting against it of those who have.

Steve-AR @ 189

eCAHNomics @ 160

Like the failed impeachment destroyed the Rs?

There can’t be anymore defensive political thinking by the Dems..this has got to be an all or nothing fight to the death. Over the past two weeks, the new declarations of Exec powers is essentially a dictatorship. (I would really like to know the names of the people calling the shots, it’s not Bush and probably not Cheney. Cheney is ruthless but not smart enough.) If this Republican Party is not destroyed as a national party, then this country is screwed.

Amen. To continue the Caesar analogy, the Rubicon was crossed a long time ago.

pow wow @ 190

And do read Ray McGovern’s full statement linked @ 140. It is extremely damning to John Conyers (if you respect McGovern as much as I do).

noen @ 165 seems to disagree with you about McGovern. I’d like to know why. Things of his that I’ve read have made sense to me.

I wonder if the arrest orders under martial law would be auto-penned…?

If I were Abu, I would be Very Afraid to be in a closed room with Leahy away from cameras. Leahy, a polished politician, can barely contain his contempt for Abu. It’s clear he’d like to squash him like a bug.

Leahy’s got a long history of working as a “real” lawyer, and it’s clear that Gonzo’s “pretend lawyer” number, complete with the “I don’t recall” and “let me put that in context” and “the reason we haven’t approved the claims under the Hometown Heroes Act is that we have to be sure we have the right regulations in place,” makes him want to throttle this turkey.

BigMitch @ 171

hard for me to imagine impeachment failing. If it did, it would require some crazy-ass Republicans saying shit in public that would make a horse blush.

The elephant in the room here is the MSM and their corporate masters. They loved them some Clinton impeachment and the low-level sex scandal.

OTOH, the MSM has been complicit in the dissemination of warmongering propaganda for Cheneyco; they have coddled and protected Bushco at every turn; they have embraced and promoted right-wing issues like for-profit health care and tax cuts for the rich; they have excused insurance co. and big pharma rip-offs; they buried the Katrina story; they buried 911 truths; and etc.

The MSM is at least gonna be a tough sell on the impeachment of their boys.

Could the House just be to lazy? We all have that ‘been-lied-to’ and ’sick-of-the-cover-up’ fatigue. That’s what BushCo is counting on in their rope-a-dope tactics. (as other FDL reader mentioned) If anyone in the House doesn’t feel like doing their oversight duty they should resign. The Constitution made no mention of impeach- only if you think you have the votes.

Helen @ 185

BigMitch @ 172

hard for me to imagine impeachment failing. If it did, it would require some crazy-ass Republicans saying shit in public that would make a horse blush.

I have to agree. The reason they don’t have the votes is that they don’t have the evidence. The reason they don’t have the evidence is that the WH is stalling. The reason the WH is stalling is that the House hasn’t started the impeachment inquiry, which would force the WH to give it up!

Wrong, evidence has nothing to do with it, party loyalty does. Show me the 17 who will break party ranks and vote to impeach? They don’t exist and no amount of evidence will change that, ever.

That is the current political reality. Impeachment will not happen because it cannot happen. End of story.

The notion that the Republicans were “punished” at the polls because of the impeachment is more fantasy. They maintained congressional majorities right through until 2006. They also were strong enough to tie the 2000 election and win the 2002, and 2004 elections.

This notion of the terrible backlash against the Republican Party is folk legend meant to push the wholly legal and necessary use of impeachment into a dark corner where it won’t be used until the Republican Party decides to derail another Democratic president.

-GSD

The MSM is at least gonna be a tough sell on the impeachment of their boys.

I wouldn’t worry about that. Impeachment will go right over MSM heads directly to the public. Cable news channels would have to play it live.

@200- Too lazy

But Marcy said he f*cked up. He said it was Deputy Attorney General McNulty who would make the decision, but Marcy says that decision is Margolis’s.

Not necessarily. This is one of those things I keep saying I’d like to have someone on one of the Judiciary Committees specifically ask Margolis and McNulty.

Walton seemed to take the position that, after Comey delegated to Margolis, when a new Dep AG came in, that new Dep AG could withdraw the delegation and resume the status Comey had had as acting AG for this matter.

IIRC, some of Walton’s language in the order on the initial inferior officer skirmish seemed to indicate that the office of DAG was back handling the supervision.

It would be very easy to clear up - if only Congress would do it.

eCAHNomics @ 161

Sure it’s important but a failed impeachment would destroy the Dems

Like the failed impeachment destroyed the Rs?

Amen, again. Thank you.

They NEVER got the votes to impeach Clinton and they did it ANYWAY!

they’ve already been impeached.

it’s only the actualization that now needs to follow.

mauimom @ 198

If I were Abu, I would be Very Afraid to be in a closed room with Leahy away from cameras. Leahy, a polished politician, can barely contain his contempt for Abu. It’s clear he’d like to squash him like a bug.

Leahy’s got a long history of working as a “real” lawyer, and it’s clear that Gonzo’s “pretend lawyer” number, complete with the “I don’t recall” and “let me put that in context” and “the reason we haven’t approved the claims under the Hometown Heroes Act is that we have to be sure we have the right regulations in place,” makes him want to throttle this turkey.

I thought that there were several Senators who would like to throttle Gonzo, or at least give him a good slap upside the head. Feingold was twitching with suppressed fury, Schumer looked like he was going to lunge across his desk; Whitehouse was breathing heavily trying to keep control. Barely suppressed Fury sums it up.

Noen,

You are running with an air of certainty that is unwarranted.

You do not know what will happen in the future any more than I do.

The further into a corner the Republicans go the more likely there are to be those who will bail out on Bush and company. In the name of Party loyalty even.

-GSD

Show me the 17 who will break party ranks and vote to impeach?

12, I think, are up for reelection in 08.

noen, why don’t you trust Ray McGovern?

Did anyone else get the feeling that Specter proposed a special investigator because he knew it would run out the clock?

hackworth @ 199

The elephant in the room here is the MSM and their corporate masters. They loved them some Clinton impeachment and the low-level sex scandal.

OTOH, the MSM has been complicit in the dissemination of warmongering propaganda for Cheneyco; they have coddled and protected Bushco at every turn; they have embraced and promoted right-wing issues like for-profit health care and tax cuts for the rich; they have excused insurance co. and big pharma rip-offs; they buried the Katrina story; they buried 911 truths; and etc.

The MSM is at least gonna be a tough sell on the impeachment of their boys.

Exactly. We would be fighting the media which would ridicule us at every turn. Worse, we would lose, period. If we try to impeach we will lose.

Could Congress freeze Gonzolas’ salary, and that of his staff, all the Higher-Ups?

JPL @ 211

Did anyone else get the feeling that Specter proposed a special investigator because he knew it would run out the clock?

the special investigator travelled at a downward angle from the book depository window striking first a fir tree then looping around venus & following that circling an elk 4 times - once for each direction of the wind and finally lodging in al capone’s secret vault.

Noen, I would be curious as to what your predictions on the 2006 elections were?

-GSD

JPL @ 211

Did anyone else get the feeling that Specter proposed a special investigator because he knew it would run out the clock?

yes — that seemed to be exactly where he was trying to head …

noblejoanie @ 181

There is nothing worthwhile the Dems could pass that Bush won’t veto. So don’t give us the “more pressing” matters excuse.

If the votes aren’t there for conviction (I believe they are there for impeachment), then let’s see that show of hands. I’d like those clips for the campaign ads in the next election.

Hear, Hear!

There weren’t enough Republican votes to impeach Nixon when the investigation initially began. Republicans only came over after his crimes were revealed during the hearings.

Let me first say 1) America has seen many bad/bad times in its past and I believe it will survive the Bush criminal enterprise, 2) that we will not give up, nor will some of the great people we have working for us on all levels, BUT

I am not convinced that all dems in the House would vote impeachment. they would have to be so strong on a personal level that they could defend themselves (because each and every member would be attacked mercilessly) and be able to point to the Constitution and cite instances of criminal behavior for (whichever one we impeach first). I am not convinced that many house (and Senate) members have the stomach for that fight and are still looking at the money coming in and think that by sitting back they can take the whole shebang over in 2008.

I am NOT convinced of that last statement. Fear in the MSM and fear in our Congress dem members can be smelled all the way here in Minnesota.

GSD @ 202

The notion that the Republicans were “punished” at the polls because of the impeachment is more fantasy. They maintained congressional majorities right through until 2006. They also were strong enough to tie the 2000 election and win the 2002, and 2004 elections.

This notion of the terrible backlash against the Republican Party is folk legend meant to push the wholly legal and necessary use of impeachment into a dark corner where it won’t be used until the Republican Party decides to derail another Democratic president.

-GSD

They were really thinking two steps ahead with that “folk legend”.

The Senate stayed the same but Democrats gained 5 in the House. These results were a shock to Republicans because six-year midterms had historically overwhelmingly favored the party not holding the presidency. I very clearly remember the punditry forecasting huge losses for the Democrats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.....ions,_1998

Neon, you seem to have all the answers, suddenly. Why don’t you trust Ray McGovern. He is a very knowledgeable resource. The reason the votes are not there is because Pelosi is saying so. She is holding impeachment hostage. As long as she says the votes are not there, they won’t be there. She is holding our country hostage to her career, and it makes me sick. She is my Rep, and she is in big trouble in SF.

One thing for sure, there will be NO impeachment unless it is begun!

The MSM can’t ignore, overlook impeachment proceedings,and once the American people get a GOOD look at what has been going on, our demands for impeachment will be so loud, the Reps & Senators against it now, will speedily change their mind.

One doesnt play a game ONLY if one is sure of winning!

Just Do It!

noen @ 201

Helen @ 185

I have to agree. The reason they don’t have the votes is that they don’t have the evidence. The reason they don’t have the evidence is that the WH is stalling. The reason the WH is stalling is that the House hasn’t started the impeachment inquiry, which would force the WH to give it up!

Wrong, evidence has nothing to do with it, party loyalty does. Show me the 17 who will break party ranks and vote to impeach? They don’t exist and no amount of evidence will change that, ever.

That is the current political reality. Impeachment will not happen because it cannot happen. End of story.

sorry, these are rats and maggots, they have no “loyalty”, they only have their disire to remain in power, their “party loyalty” is the method and tool they use to help each other get re elected

the evidence will force them to vote impeachment if they want re election

that’s what I think you are missing here

GSD @ 209

Noen,

You are running with an air of certainty that is unwarranted.

You do not know what will happen in the future any more than I do.

The further into a corner the Republicans go the more likely there are to be those who will bail out on Bush and company. In the name of Party loyalty even.

-GSD

But I do know the future. I know the sun will rise in the morning and I also know that there are not enough votes.

Maybe those votes will be there if the people want impeachment badly enough or if the media demanded it (like that’s gonna happen). But I am not sure that even if there were millions protesting in the streets that these senators would change their votes. I think they are that firm. They will follow Bush to the bitter end.

BTW, I don’t trust Ray McGovern because he is former CIA. I just don’t trust him.

Brendan, that really makes my point. The punditocracy was calling for a Democratic rout…yet the it was essentially a status quo election.

Loss of 5 seats is hardly “punishment”. It shifted nothing whatsoever.

The “folk legend” is how it has been interpreted since. The pundits said the Democrats would get socked, barely a thing changed and suddenly it is presented as a huge loss for Republicans, an admonishment, a rebuke.

Yep, such a rebuke that the R’s continued with congressional majorities for another 8 years.

-GSD

Fozzetti @ 222

One thing for sure, there will be NO impeachment unless it is begun!

The MSM can’t ignore, overlook impeachment proceedings,and once the American people get a GOOD look at what has been going on, our demands for impeachment will be so loud, the Reps & Senators against it now, will speedily change their mind.

One doesnt play a game ONLY if one is sure of winning!

Just Do It!

bingo

the preceeding will HAVE TO BE COVERED BY CORPORATE MEDIA

and that is all we need to know

bing, reason enough to proceed

it is impossible for a viking ship to reach north america.
it is impossible for a blind, deaf and mute person to read and write.
it is impossible to fly.

it is impossible to impeach.

it is impossible to create moveable type.
it is impossible for movies to become mass entertainment.
it is impossible to vaccinate against polio.

it is impossible to impeach.

Might Gonzales have told the truth for the very first time when he said he didn’t know how “Cheney and Company” were included in the 2006 letter? Might skullduggery with an autopen by Cheney’s thugs be the answer?

Jane,
From EPU-land, I wanted to add my Amen! to your post. We need to turn up the heat!

Yesterday’s post by Christy “On Duty” needs to be read every day.

Thanks,
Bob back in HI

Whatever ire Specter displayed against Gonzales today, it should not be taken at face value. He consistently fails to put his votes where his mouth is; he is, in fact, one of Mr. Bush’s staunch supporters. His ire is best regarded as a release valve, to reduce pressure for real action.

Impeaching Gonzales would be the most effective way to document Bush/Cheney’s most egregious behavior - and expose the corruption in the single most important department in the US Govt. It would make it harder for those who support the president or Mr. Bush to claim that that such an accountability moment is solely about political disagreement with the president’s policies. It’s not. It’s corruption that has infiltrated into virtually every department. It also keeps the focus where it should be: the administration’s incompetence, especially in Iraq. With the focus so squarely on the administration, it should be harder to use the doldrums of August or November to attack Iran.

In any case, diehard supporters like Hatch and Cornyn will never be moved. And no matter the votes in Congress or at the polls, Cheney will never give in. Change requires political force, which must come from Congress.

Impeach Fredo. Demonstrate his incompetence, and the Don will suddenly have a lot more people wanting a piece ovda action.

The Founders worried about (a) allocating too much power to the federal government — away from the people and the states, and (b) concentrating too much of the power allocated to the federal government in the executive.

The Founders’ idea was of a federal government with just sufficient power relative to the states and just sufficient power to fend off foreign adversaries.

Since 1865, amendments to the constitution and decisions by the supreme court have allocated much more power to the federal government than the constitution originally granted.

Almost all of this added power has been given to the executive branch (in the form of its ability to use federal courts and agencies to impose federal law on states, businesses and individuals).

In the Founder’s scheme, the primary check upon the executive branch lay in the House of Representatives, the legislaative body supposedly (because of the every-2-year elections) most responsive to the people.

The power allocated to the House that was intended to serve as a check on the executive branch lay chiefly in 3 areas: 1) the power over taxes, 2) the spending power, and 3) the power to impeach.

Fast forward to today: What’s broken is the House. It has the power to check George Bush and a popular mandate to do so (the November 2006 elections). The House, however, is not today appropriately responsive to the people.

Reason in my opinion: House members have figured out that to get the money needed to crush opponents, they can and must largely disregard the will of the people. The proof here lies in the House re-election rates (greater than those of the Soviet Politburo) and the polls (two-thirds or more want out of Iraq, a majority favor impeaching Cheney).

The Founder’s scheme isn’t working. Not because Bush has asserted a lot of dangerous power, much more power than granted to the president. But because the House is incapable of or unwilling to check him.

But Cindy Sheehan gives me hope.

Two more takes on the protest and meeting yesterday - first from David Swanson (who makes clear that Americans were flooding Conyers’s office by phone, fax, and e-mail), and then from Cindy Sheehan:

They’d gone in to speak with Conyers, but it would take him quite a while to show up.

The staffer was annoyed and complained to his colleague “It’s bad enough they shut the office down with phone calls.” Another staffer, this one rather pleased about it (the police, too, were on our side and three of them quietly accepted Impeach Bush and Cheney shirts), told me they were getting a pro-impeachment phone call every 30 seconds. They were also flooded with Emails and with thousands of faxes yesterday. But the message was not getting through to the Congressman.

He and several staffers met with Sheehan, McGovern, and Yearwood. It was a heated discussion.

[snip]

I kid you not. The Democratic Chairman of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee is basing his decisions on whether a Republican cable TV station would approve. As Cindy Sheehan told me outside the jail last night: “If I based my decisions on Fox, I would never do anything.”

As long as Conyers is working for Fox, maybe our next sit-in needs to be in their studios.

But Conyers expressed another concern as well. He’s concerned about his legacy. I wish there were a kind way to tell him that he is about to flush it down the toilet.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/25021

This was my third meeting with Congressman Conyers about impeachment. I hold a special place in my heart for him and I revere him for his decades long service to this nation but for the life of me, I cannot understand why he will not go forward with impeachment now.

[snip]

It’s about partisan politics, pure and simple. The Congressman claims that there is absolutely no way that impeachment can go forward and when I was nearing the end of my hope I cried out: “So, if the people’s house won’t help us then we the people have no recourse against the executive branch.”

[snip]

It is up to us.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/25020

the internet is impossible.

perris sez:
sorry, these are rats and maggots, they have no “loyalty”, they only have their disire to remain in power, their “party loyalty” is the method and tool they use to help each other get re elected

the evidence will force them to vote impeachment if they want re election

that’s what I think you are missing here

Joe Lieberman comes to mind. Of course, he was a democrat - a DINO, really, but he did what he had to do to get elected. Christ, the dems did not stand up for their party then, did they?

Has anyone seen Lil Bush? It tells it like it is. There is more truth in Lil Bush than there is on CNN.

SeamusD @ 221

Neon, you seem to have all the answers, suddenly. Why don’t you trust Ray McGovern. He is a very knowledgeable resource. The reason the votes are not there is because Pelosi is saying so. She is holding impeachment hostage. As long as she says the votes are not there, they won’t be there. She is holding our country hostage to her career, and it makes me sick. She is my Rep, and she is in big trouble in SF.

No, I don’t have all the answers, I have one answer. We don’t have the votes to impeach.

Nancy has nothing to do with how the GOP members of the senate vote. She can’t tell them how to vote. That you seem to think that she can tells me you know nothing about how our government works. You are not serious if you think that.

Perris said:

the evidence will force them to vote impeachment if they want re election

No, they won’t. They will not vote to impeach even in the face of the evidence. You are basing everything on your belief that the GOP members of the senate will “Do the right thing” That is naive at best in my opinion. Do you really want to bet everything on trusting Republicans to do what is right for the country?

I don’t. And I don’t think it is unreasonable to think they will do no such thing.

Incandescent chaos & life energy has a way of finding form.

‘If you build it they will come.’

Mabel’s Wig Shack @ 227

it is impossible for a viking ship to reach north america.
it is impossible for a blind, deaf and mute person to read and write.
it is impossible to fly.

it is impossible to impeach.

If I wish hard enough, a pony will magically appear. Why doesn’t Nancy Pelosi want me to have a pony?

We live in a real world and in that world we don’t always get what we want. Wishing doesn’t make it so.

Fredo does come off as a bumbling liar, somebody who would take the gold teeth out of your skull while giving you benediction. But at this point, that must be about all that’s keeping him out of jail. If he did what he’s done, but came across as competently and knowledgably in charge, he would be writing his own indictment for perjury, obstruction and lying to Congress.

And if Fredo were competent and had properly advised his client, and his client acted as it has done, that would amount to an indictment of his client, too. Wouldn’t it?

The commenters on here are like a swarm of squiddies in the Matrix:Revolutions!

Every argument against impeachment that is put up is just instantly shredded, demolished, and all thats left is a little smudge.

Bald, smug assertions like “If we try to impeach we will lose.” make me think we are honored to have a Beltway Pundit amongst us!

who is it, Broder?, Shrum? Joe Klein?

Try knocking down just one squiddie, out of the thousands, with reasoned arguments, rather than pompous crystal ball gazing.

“We don’t have the votes”

answer - they didn’t have the votes against Nixon, but they did it anyway, and they won.

“It’ll cause the (D)’s to lose in 08!” Bush is under 30% approval rating…next!

“It’ll distract from all the vital business Congress is doing” Anything they did do different from the repug congress, Bush would veto.

oi I could go on, but I am only one of a great swarm…

perris @ 223 comes at it from a new angle, snags the feeble baseless assertion with one tentacle, and flings it scornfully against the wall:

sorry, these are rats and maggots, they have no “loyalty”, they only have their disire to remain in power, their “party loyalty” is the method and tool they use to help each other get re elected

the evidence will force them to vote impeachment if they want re election

They are already refusing to appear with Bush, be photographed with him, erasing him from their websites, positioning themselves as moderates…plenty of ratty behavior already. Plus, the retaliatory power of the capo de tutti capos mostly disappears when everyone sees he’s on the ropes.

If I wish hard enough, a pony will magically appear. Why doesn’t Nancy Pelosi want me to have a pony?

We live in a real world and in that world we don’t always get what we want. Wishing doesn’t make it so.

you’re right. I’m sorry. Impeachment is out of the question. Everything is proceeding as smoothly as possible. Jail Cindy Sheehan.

sporkovat says

The commenters on here are like a swarm of squiddies in the Matrix:Revolutions!

I do not live on a movie set in fantasy land. I live in a real world where you don’t always get what you want.

Bald, smug assertions like “If we try to impeach we will lose.” make me think we are honored to have a Beltway Pundit amongst us!

Don’t flatter yourself. I’m just an ordinary person, rather poor actually, posting from my apt. I just have a different opinion than you do.

“We don’t have the votes”

We don’t. This is not the seventies. The situation is not the same.

They are already refusing to appear with Bush, be photographed with him, erasing him from their websites, positioning themselves as moderates

But those votes have not moved and I doubt they will. I would be overjoyed if, through continued pressure, those votes were to change. I don’t see that happening though.

Mabel’s Wig Shack @ 241

If I wish hard enough, a pony will magically appear. Why doesn’t Nancy Pelosi want me to have a pony?

We live in a real world and in that world we don’t always get what we want. Wishing doesn’t make it so.

you’re right. I’m sorry. Impeachment is out of the question. Everything is proceeding as smoothly as possible.

I’m glad you understand that childish tantrums will not get you what you want.

Jail Cindy Sheehan.

No, Cindy chose to have herself jailed. It was what she wanted.

noen @ 155

johnSwifty @ 146

As LHP has made the case — a good one which I whole heartedly endorse — it is still of utmost import to go through the motions. There is the possibility of bringing more information to light over the course of the proceedings and more opinion may be swayed thereby. Also, as has been recently discussed, there is a legal concept of ratification by acceptance and apathy, turning a blind eye, towards events as they unfold. These circumstances must not be allowed to go unchallenged even if the challenge is unsuccessful, it is at least registered. THAT is important.

Sure it’s important but a failed impeachment would destroy the Dems and destroy what little respect for the constitution is left.

Is that what you want? Do you want to give the GOP the next election through a failed impeachment hearing? Because that is what would happen, there is no doubt in my mind about that.

Failure to pursue impeachment will destroy the Dems. You have this exactly backwards.

Heh. BMAZ is my lawyer! Literally! (See why?)

Cozumel @ 36

Impeach Abu Already

I wonder what Arlen Specter thinks about that?

Whatever Arlen Specter said today, he is a charter member of the coup that took this country in this direction back in 1963. He has enabled when necessary with his tough talk and Kool-Aid drinking votes along party lines.

I wouldn’t trust him to do the right thing if his own life depended on it let alone the life of this country and its constitution.

I don’t know what more proof the Democrats need or others who think impeachment is not a viable option. As others here have said, impeachment is THE remedy the framers left us with. If we don’t use it now, we are toast.

noen @ 238

Mabel’s Wig Shack @ 227

it is impossible for a viking ship to reach north america.
it is impossible for a blind, deaf and mute person to read and write.
it is impossible to fly.

it is impossible to impeach.

If I wish hard enough, a pony will magically appear. Why doesn’t Nancy Pelosi want me to have a pony?

We live in a real world and in that world we don’t always get what we want. Wishing doesn’t make it so.

The better argument for impeachment — and I bet it’s one the majority of people on FDL would make — is that the inquiry is an end in itself.

brendan @ 247

noen @ 238

If I wish hard enough, a pony will magically appear. Why doesn’t Nancy Pelosi want me to have a pony?

We live in a real world and in that world we don’t always get what we want. Wishing doesn’t make it so.

The better argument for impeachment — and I bet it’s one the majority of people on FDL would make — is that the inquiry is an end in itself.

EXACTLY!!!!

first off, thanks for the civil reply - I was getting a bit florid.

French Press Coffee!

noen

We don’t. This is not the seventies. The situation is not the same.

many people are raising this point because the comparison is useful/illustrative of a similar situation, with the abscence today of a functional press being an important difference.

and of course, a lack of will to win or loyalty to anything other than narrow self interest on the part of DeeCee (D)’s, but we were talking about reasons not to impeach, which, fairly stated, we can all have different opinions on.

to paraphrase john lennon:

Impeachment is a concept
by which we measure
our pain

phred @ 244

Failure to impeach will destroy the Dems. You have this exactly backwards.

I understand that some people will seek to punish the Dems. All they will succeed in doing is helping the GOP. Is that what you want?

Phred, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

-GSD

phred @ 244

noen @ 155

Sure it’s important but a failed impeachment would destroy the Dems and destroy what little respect for the constitution is left.

Is that what you want? Do you want to give the GOP the next election through a failed impeachment hearing? Because that is what would happen, there is no doubt in my mind about that.

Failure to pursue impeachment will destroy the Dems. You have this exactly backwards.

Noen is catching hell, but I think his argument has merit with respect to Bush. I do however, think Cheney and Gonzo are a different story and there are minimal risks in impeaching them.

Very well said, Jonathan @ 232.

Reason in my opinion: House members have figured out that to get the money needed to crush opponents, they can and must largely disregard the will of the people. The proof here lies in the House re-election rates (greater than those of the Soviet Politburo) and the polls (two-thirds or more want out of Iraq, a majority favor impeaching Cheney).

Think of it.

[I consider the Two-and-ONLY-Two Party System to be one in which two colors of the rainbow - say yellow and orange - are selected as “appropriate” for public discussion. All our choices at the ballot box are different shades of yellow and orange, and the media and the politicians, in their public discourse and platform positions, pretend that there are no other colors out there and that yellow and orange cover all the bases. Small wonder that fully one-half of eligible American voters can’t be bothered to pretend that different shades of yellow and orange are in fact green, or blue, or red.

Same with television: CNN-ex-newsman Aaron Brown recently proclaimed TV to be the truest form of democracy; viewers can choose their content with the click of a button. What Brown unbelievably overlooks (or refuses to acknowledge) is that, again, the “appropriate” TV content has been pre-selected for us by those who only wish to sell yellow and orange, while they actively ignore, suppress and prevent us from watching the rest of the color spectrum. So sure, within the colors yellow and orange - TV “democracy” reigns. Some “democracy,” that.

Meanwhile, in the world of reality where we all live, and where every color of the rainbow sparkles, a black curtain of censorship and denial (controlled by the media’s owners and the two political parties and their campaign funders) is lowered in front of the American people, when it comes to our choices in elected representatives and in nationally-broadcast TV news content.]

Noen,

There hasn’t been a vote for impeachment so you have no idea who will or won’t vote for impeachment.

You have no idea what information may come forward.

You have no idea what the mood of the nation will be if the stock market continues to have days like today.

You have no idea what the outcome will be.

Stop it with the concern troll style remarks about “do you want the Republicans to win”.

-GSD

brendan @ 247

The better argument for impeachment — and I bet it’s one the majority of people on FDL would make — is that the inquiry is an end in itself.

I’m sympathetic to this argument, I really am. But you have to consider the consequences of a failed impeachment. We would be held to a different standard than the GOP was with Clinton. Also, failure would only strengthen Bush’s unitary presidency policy and I’m sure you don’t want that either.

There are no good options, but the worst is without a doubt to attempt to impeach and fail.

My arguments are for impeaching Gonzales.

-GSD

Tithonia @ 158

April 28, 2006: Cunningham-Wilkes-Foggo scandal breaks.

Gonzales Policy memo dated May 4, 2006.

Hmmmm……

Scandalicious….

Money always leaves a trail.

Noen, again. What exactly were the horrible consequences for the Republicans attempted impeachment of Clinton?

-GSD

IMPEACH already!
Hooray for Code Pink for getting out there and showing what we in the nation (not the political elite) think.
Don’t give in to trolls like “noen” who say resumption of the rule of law or accountability are “Impossible” before we’ve even taken one step down that path.
I just called Pelosi’s & my Rep’s (Stark, Calif.) office. I don’t have much hope it’ll make a difference, but it’s better than doing nothing, waiting for the DHS crew to come take me away to a camp for ThoughtCrime.

GSD @ 255

Noen,

There hasn’t been a vote for impeachment so you have no idea who will or won’t vote for impeachment.

You have no idea what information may come forward.

You have no idea what the mood of the nation will be if the stock market continues to have days like today.

You have no idea what the outcome will be.

Actually, I do have a very good idea what the vote would be. So does everyone one else who is a political realist. The votes are not there.

Stop it with the concern troll style remarks about “do you want the Republicans to win”.

-GSD

I’m not a concern troll, I’ve been posting on and off on FDL for a long time. I am arguing for a legitimate position. One that is overwhelmingly supported by the facts.

BTW, I am a woman, not a man.

Friday is only a few days away! Who will resign by then?

Gonzo- Maybe
Bush - Never
Cheney - Maybe/not!
Gosh, the list is so long…

But lets wait until Friday or not!

For Noen and any other the other straggler doubters, but mostly Noen:

It does not appear as if you understand the impeachment process very well. There are very discreet steps involved. The initial step is opening an impeachment investigation, which is really the only way the american people and their Congress have at this point to obtain the information needed for a vast array of decisions and oversight matters. This is what I demand be done immediately.

You keep bleating about “we don’t have enough votes”. There are votes enough to open the investigation if the chairman of the committee will allow it. Beyond that, depending on where the investigation and information resulting therefrom leads, there can be a vote on the adoption of impeachment articles that could then be tried by the Senate. The fact that there may not be sufficient votes in the Senate for a conviction on the articles before you even conduct an investigation is no reason not to determine the facts; especially when due to the dishonesty and obstruction by the Administration, that is the only possible avenue you have to access the information.

A wonderful lady is raped and demoralized; but it has just happened and we don’t know if the twelve men and women that will ultimately sit on the jury will convict yet or not. Under your theory, we shouldn’t even investigate the crime. This is a useless viewpoint. If you don’t have the moral fortitude and guts to defend the Constitution with the very tools that the founding fathers insisted on including in it for exactly this type of time and situation, just stay hidden in your little apartment and those of us who care more about this country, it’s Constitution and the rule of law will do the heavy lifting.

Noen,

Can you point to where I referred to your gender?

-GSD

P.S. I said “concern troll style” remarks. I know you have been around here for a long time and I respect that you have your own opinion, but you are stating facts about the future that you have no idea about.

SeamusD @ 221

Neon, you seem to have all the answers, suddenly. Why don’t you trust Ray McGovern. He is a very knowledgeable resource. The reason the votes are not there is because Pelosi is saying so. She is holding impeachment hostage. As long as she says the votes are not there, they won’t be there. She is holding our country hostage to her career, and it makes me sick. She is my Rep, and she is in big trouble in SF.

Thank you, Seamus D. Who cares if noen “trusts” Ray McGovern? Did McGovern ask him/her for her bank acct.? To sit in a room w/ McG holding a loaded gun? McGovern’s the man who faced down Rumsfeld about his lies about the omnipresence of WMD’s in Iraq about 2 yrs. back in front of a booing crowd and humiliated that lying turd. Yes, having worked for the CIA’s pretty unsavory, but some of those people develop a conscience (Plame, others) at some pt., and McGovern has walked the walk (something noen’s negative posts ask us all not to do)
I hope you’re right about Pelosi being in trouble in SF! Care to expand on that? How can SF voters support her protection of ChimpCo from any accountability, ct’d funding of the war, etc.
(I live in the E.Bay but would consider a move to SF if I thought we could oust Pelosi for Sheehan, or someone who really gives a damn about real priorities)

noen:
I’m not a concern troll, I’ve been posting on and off on FDL for a long time. I am arguing for a legitimate position. One that is overwhelmingly supported by the facts.

there’s this saying from (i think) the ‘transformational community’ which also applies to modern physics:

If you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change.

bearing this in mind, ‘facts’ are not so-set-in-stone as one might think.

If we try to impeach we will lose.

What do we ‘win’ by not trying to impeach?

I’m going out for the night now but if I could afford it even minimally I would move to calif. and work free for cindy sheehan 24 hrs a day.

bmaz @ 263

For Noen and any other the other straggler doubters, but mostly Noen:

It does not appear as if you understand the impeachment process very well. There are very discreet steps involved. The initial step is opening an impeachment investigation, which is really the only way the american people and their Congress have at this point to obtain the information needed for a vast array of decisions and oversight matters. This is what I demand be done immediately.

You keep bleating about “we don’t have enough votes”. There are votes enough to open the investigation if the chairman of the committee will allow it. Beyond that, depending on where the investigation and information resulting therefrom leads, there can be a vote on the adoption of impeachment articles that could then be tried by the Senate. The fact that there may not be sufficient votes in the Senate for a conviction on the articles before you even conduct an investigation is no reason not to determine the facts; especially when due to the dishonesty and obstruction by the Administration, that is the only possible avenue you have to access the information.

A wonderful lady is raped and demoralized; but it has just happened and we don’t know if the twelve men and women that will ultimately sit on the jury will convict yet or not. Under your theory, we shouldn’t even investigate the crime. This is a useless viewpoint. If you don’t have the moral fortitude and guts to defend the Constitution with the very tools that the founding fathers insisted on including in it for exactly this type of time and situation, just stay hidden in your little apartment and those of us who care more about this country, it’s Constitution and the rule of law will do the heavy lifting.

Does an impeachment investigation give Congress any more powers than it already has? If the Executive Branch refuses to cooperate then what? Isn’t this a circle?

GSD @ 259

Noen, again. What exactly were the horrible consequences for the Republicans attempted impeachment of Clinton?

-GSD

Do you really believe that the media would pull out all the stops and support us in impeaching Bush? Do you think that all the talk show hosts would fairly and uncritically back the Dems? Do you think the editorial pages would accurately reflect what happens?

Or do you think as I do that there would be a shit storm of opposition from FOX and CNN and the Washington Post and dozens of others. Do you not believe that every Dem would be lambasted in almost every media outlet there is?

Top that off with the simple fact that Bush would obstruct. I am convinced that he would refuse to cooperate with an impeachment hearing. And I’m even further convinced that the SCOTUS would back him up. We would fail and the unitary executive would be realized. It is exactly what he wants us to do.

Mabel’s Wig Shack @ 268

I’m going out for the night now but if I could afford it even minimally I would move to calif. and work free for cindy sheehan 24 hrs a day.

Cindy Sheehan has suffered the worst tragedy a parent could endure. My worst fear is that I outlive my child. Nothing in these to statements mean she or I could do a better job than Nancy Pelosi

If I was in the House of Representatives right now, I wouldn’t come out in favor of impeachment, either. Why? Because no investigation and report has yet been done in a comprehensive manner and presented in the form of an impeachment article(s) to the House Impeachment Committee, never mind to the House as a whole. That, however (as bmaz clearly explains @ 263), is irrelevant and beside the point at this moment in time. What matters now, and the only votes needed now are the majority Judiciary Committee votes to open an INQUIRY INTO IMPEACHMENT.

So if I was a member of the House, concerned with doing my duty under the Constitution, I absolutely would be urging every member of the Judiciary Committee, every time I passed one in the hall, to open an inquiry in contemplation of a potential future article of impeachment, focusing on one or more of the seemingly-obvious Constitutional transgressions of this Executive Branch. To see if, and whether or not, impeachment is warranted. You can’t “fail” to win an investigation. [John Conyers, I’m sure, knows full well that the evidence that would be unearthed would be so overwhelming that the House and Senate would be forced to proceed, but again, right now that is beside the point.] The investigation inquiry is Step One, and precedes any proposal for a vote to impeach, in both the Committee and the House as a whole.

Time to bypass Conyers, and start focusing on all the other Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee. We need to get them on board with opening an inquiry and with pressuring Conyers to proceed. I think Bill Delahunt, for one, may be of assistance here.

bmaz @ 263

For Noen and any other the other straggler doubters, but mostly Noen:

It does not appear as if you understand the impeachment process very well. There are very discreet steps involved. The initial step is opening an impeachment investigation, which is really the only way the american people and their Congress have at this point to obtain the information needed for a vast array of decisions and oversight matters. This is what I demand be done immediately.

You keep bleating about “we don’t have enough votes”. There are votes enough to open the investigation if the chairman of the committee will allow it. Beyond that, depending on where the investigation and information resulting therefrom leads, there can be a vote on the adoption of impeachment articles that could then be tried by the Senate. The fact that there may not be sufficient votes in the Senate for a conviction on the articles before you even conduct an investigation is no reason not to determine the facts; especially when due to the dishonesty and obstruction by the Administration, that is the only possible avenue you have to access the information.

A wonderful lady is raped and demoralized; but it has just happened and we don’t know if the twelve men and women that will ultimately sit on the jury will convict yet or not. Under your theory, we shouldn’t even investigate the crime. This is a useless viewpoint. If you don’t have the moral fortitude and guts to defend the Constitution with the very tools that the founding fathers insisted on including in it for exactly this type of time and situation, just stay hidden in your little apartment and those of us who care more about this country, it’s Constitution and the rule of law will do the heavy lifting.

I understand the process very well. I also understand something that you apparently do not. Impeachment is not a criminal procedure, it is inherently political. I understand the need to expose the lies and the criminality of this administration. I want those things to happen and I think the course that Conyers is on will get us there. I hope so, I really do.

Sometimes you can predict the outcome of a jury. This shouldn’t be hard… Lets say the woman is white, the defendants are black, the jury is white and we are in a small town in the deep south. What is your guess?

But at the end of the day if the votes are not there then we will go down in flames and I think that would be a horrible thing both for the Dems and for our country.

I am a Democrat, I am not a troll. I just have a different opinion on a hot topic.

Boxer - As you might have noticed, I am hit and run today. In fact a posted an innocuous comment and flew out the door to meet with some feds on a burglary matter. I return after being called by a friend and told to look, and lo and behold, my little comment caught fire. I have to leave again to go to the local courthouse, but in answer to your question, yes. The powers are heightened under the impeachment process to a great degree. For one, almost all executive privilege assertions do not apply. Secondly, it allows for the appointment of impeachment managers and impeachment investigators and counsel that work on the issue full time. I don’t know DKos very well, but I know that Kagro X has done some excellent posts there on this topic, and there have been some excellent discussions at The Next Hurrah as well. Quite frankly, now that I think about it, I think LooseHeadProp did a post on it here within the last month or so. John Nichols has an excellent book out on it as well. Sorry, but have to go now…..

Noen, that fear is the fear of incapacitation.

The Democrats were able to win a landslide in 2006 with much of the media and the Bush machine screaming about a win for the Democrats is a win for Al Qaeda.

Alberto Gonzales must be held to account. Our democracy demands it.

If it fails and if Bush cements his rule, so be it. To not do what is right over fear of losing is as cowardly an act as there is.

-GSD

noen @ 251

phred @ 244

Failure to impeach will destroy the Dems. You have this exactly backwards.

I understand that some people will seek to punish the Dems. All they will succeed in doing is helping the GOP. Is that what you want?

Let me be clear on this point, not just “some” people, a vague little statement at best, but I will state here categorically that I (as in me, myself, and I) will not support them. As an independent, I suspect I am not alone. I for one, put country above party. And if the Dems fail to grasp the Constitutional threat we are facing and do not do their d*mn duty as they SWORE to do in their oath of office, then I see no reason to support them either with my money or my vote.

There was a reason that at the end of I Claudius, Claudius allows himself to be poisoned and lets Nero ascend the throne. The empire was rotten, and he hoped Nero would bring it down, presumably in the hopes that another Republic would rise from its ashes.

Forgive me, if I do not support a Dem controlled empire any more than I support a Rethug one. “Permanent Majority” indeed. I will not bow to any king, neither Dem nor Rethug.

There, I hope that clears up my position for you.

GSD @ 275

Noen, that fear is the fear of incapacitation.

The Democrats were able to win a landslide in 2006 with much of the media and the Bush machine screaming about a win for the Democrats is a win for Al Qaeda.

Alberto Gonzales must be held to account. Our democracy demands it.

If it fails and if Bush cements his rule, so be it. To not do what is right over fear of losing is as cowardly an act as there is.

-GSD

I am in favor of impeaching Gonzales and I have said so. I’m not for impeaching Bush for reasons already given.

noen - I never said you were a troll; I know better than that. As I said to Boxer above, I am happy to defend my position, just can’t right now, I have to run. I think pow wow above explains what I would say pretty clearly though; and quite well (as always from pow wow).

bmaz @ 263

For Noen and any other the other straggler doubters, but mostly Noen:

It does not appear as if you understand the impeachment process very well. There are very discreet steps involved. The initial step is opening an impeachment investigation, which is really the only way the american people and their Congress have at this point to obtain the information needed for a vast array of decisions and oversight matters. This is what I demand be done immediately.

You keep bleating about “we don’t have enough votes”. There are votes enough to open the investigation if the chairman of the committee will allow it. Beyond that, depending on where the investigation and information resulting therefrom leads, there can be a vote on the adoption of impeachment articles that could then be tried by the Senate. The fact that there may not be sufficient votes in the Senate for a conviction on the articles before you even conduct an investigation is no reason not to determine the facts; especially when due to the dishonesty and obstruction by the Administration, that is the only possible avenue you have to access the information.

A wonderful lady is raped and demoralized; but it has just happened and we don’t know if the twelve men and women that will ultimately sit on the jury will convict yet or not. Under your theory, we shouldn’t even investigate the crime. This is a useless viewpoint. If you don’t have the moral fortitude and guts to defend the Constitution with the very tools that the founding fathers insisted on including in it for exactly this type of time and situation, just stay hidden in your little apartment and those of us who care more about this country, it’s Constitution and the rule of law will do the heavy lifting.

Thanks bmaz, have been in and out today and unable to do my share of the heavy lifting, but I’ll be back to pulling my weight soon ;)

Noen, I also believe that Bush is so damaged and so lost that there is going to be a moment in the future where the Republicans will be lining up to pull to stick the metaphorical shivs in his back.

The more he continues to support this kanve Gonzales, the more they continue to attack the 70% of Americans who have bailed on his, his war the weaker he gets.

Karl Rove’s magic hasn’t worked for well over 2 years now.

The time to be afraid is long gone, the time to do something to stop this affront to human dignity is nigh.

-GSD

Noen, I am also now only calling for an impeachment of Alberto Gonzales.

Just to be very clear.

-GSD

phred @ 276

noen @ 251

I understand that some people will seek to punish the Dems. All they will succeed in doing is helping the GOP. Is that what you want?

Let me be clear on this point, not just “some” people, a vague little statement at best, but I will state here categorically that I (as in me, myself, and I) will not support them. As an independent, I suspect I am not alone. I for one, put country above party. And if the Dems fail to grasp the Constitutional threat we are facing and do not do their d*mn duty as they SWORE to do in their oath of office, then I see no reason to support them either with my money or my vote.

There was a reason that at the end of I Claudius, Claudius allows himself to be poisoned and lets Nero ascend the throne. The empire was rotten, and he hoped Nero would bring it down, presumably in the hopes that another Republic would rise from its ashes.

Forgive me, if I do not support a Dem controlled empire any more than I support a Rethug one. “Permanent Majority” indeed. I will not bow to any king, neither Dem nor Rethug.

There, I hope that clears up my position for you.

So then you are in favor of GOP rule? Because those are the consequences of your position. How does throwing your temper tantrum help the country? How does not voting help anyone or advance anything that you want at all? All you would do is enable the very thing you claim to abhor.

I live in a limited universe and I have limited power. I do not always get what I want. Sometimes I get things I don’t want and there is nothing that I can do about it. That is just the way it is sometimes. I am willing to accept that and to work within what is possible to achieve limited goals. It’s all you and I have.

Noen,

Peace out. We must agree to disagree.

-GSD

GSD @ 283

Noen,

Peace out. We must agree to disagree.

-GSD

I don’t hold any grudges here. I am just arguing for my position to the best of my ability. I try hard but I am always open to discussion. My mind can be changed and has been recently especially regarding impeachment.

ttfn

noen @ 282

phred @ 276

Let me be clear on this point, not just “some” people, a vague little statement at best, but I will state here categorically that I (as in me, myself, and I) will not support them. As an independent, I suspect I am not alone. I for one, put country above party. And if the Dems fail to grasp the Constitutional threat we are facing and do not do their d*mn duty as they SWORE to do in their oath of office, then I see no reason to support them either with my money or my vote.

There was a reason that at the end of I Claudius, Claudius allows himself to be poisoned and lets Nero ascend the throne. The empire was rotten, and he hoped Nero would bring it down, presumably in the hopes that another Republic would rise from its ashes.

Forgive me, if I do not support a Dem controlled empire any more than I support a Rethug one. “Permanent Majority” indeed. I will not bow to any king, neither Dem nor Rethug.

There, I hope that clears up my position for you.

So then you are in favor of GOP rule? Because those are the consequences of your position. How does throwing your temper tantrum help the country? How does not voting help anyone or advance anything that you want at all? All you would do is enable the very thing you claim to abhor.

I live in a limited universe and I have limited power. I do not always get what I want. Sometimes I get things I don’t want and there is nothing that I can do about it. That is just the way it is sometimes. I am willing to accept that and to work within what is possible to achieve limited goals. It’s all you and I have.

Bullshit. You don’t have a crystal ball any more than I do.

And I never said I wouldn’t vote. I ALWAYS vote, even under discouraging odds. What I WILL NOT do is vote for any Dem incumbent. There are plenty of alternatives either progressive challengers, or third parties if that’s what it takes. But, I will not give the incumbent Dems a pass on this.

What you call a tantrum, I call passion. And you’ve been around here long enough to have read the reasonable arguments, you just prefer to ignore them. That’s your choice. But I won’t give you a pass either on repeating the meme that impeachment is hopeless. And I want to make very very clear that the landslide the Dems are taking for granted in 2008 may not materialize if they do not act.

It seems to me the Dems think all they need to do is embarrass the Rethugs from now until election day to win. That is not enough. They need to act. They need to impeach because that is the only avenue we are left with to end the criminal overreach of this administration.

phred @ 244:

Failure to pursue impeachment will destroy the Dems.

Phred, i agree completely.

mauimom @ 286

phred @ 244:

Failure to pursue impeachment will destroy the Dems.

Phred, i agree completely.

Thanks mauimom :) Now if we can just get more of the House Dems to see it that way…

So then you are in favor of GOP rule? Because those are the consequences of your position.

Noen, if I had a crystal ball that was as unfailingly accurate as the one you seem to be looking in, I’d head straight for the Lotto office.

I’ve been around, and around politics, for a LONG time. [Used to work in a Congressional office — during the Watergate years.]

The only thing I’d ever say was “certain” about politics is that it’s uncertain.

Obviously you have the right to your own POV and prognostications, but they’d be a lot easier to take here if you presented them as “I believe . . .” or “I fear that . . ” as opposed to the unquestioned truth.

Just sayin’. .

phred @ 287

mauimom @ 286

phred @ 244:

Phred, i agree completely.

Thanks mauimom :) Now if we can just get more of the House Dems to see it that way…

And I agree with yours @ 285 as well.

Woodhall Hollow @ 34

LS @ 27

Autopenned - stamped with Gonzo’s signature, but not his actual “free hand” signature. Any number of people could have such a stamp.

Madness. That is no way to run anything.

Seems to me like it oughta be a felony. Can somebody check on that?

Done without permission would be called forgery I believe.