zed?

ReddHedd!

Madness, madness, madness.

Accountability!!!

Special Prosecutors!!!

Impeachment and Removal from Office!!!

Yes!!

press conference on CNN now

Barbara the ignorant here. Who appoints a special prosecutor?

Thanks to all at FDL

Plan to call my reps and the commitee members frequently during August.

More via MSNBC online:

Dems Call for Probe of Gonzales

so, how peturlant can the president get?

can he decline and simply site executive priviledge?

can he “pre pardon” or “sumarily pardon” abu torture’s testimony from scrutiny?

They needd to keep the heat turned up on Gonzo and cook his goose! No I have to run off and do some things, catch you all later.

And Christy, you and Peanut have a great day!!

And will someone set up an office where the Independent Special Counsel and Sen. Whitehouse can work together, because it’s going to take radar and a strong, hot wind to blow away the fog.

Followup: Would an Abu investigation mitigate against recess?

I don’t understand-who did they write the letter to? Surely not the DOJ. Do they seriously expect the DOJ or AGAG to appoint a SP to investigate themselves? Who are they kidding?

CNN actually went live to Schumer for a little while, before returning to the most crucial story of the day, whether Lindsey Lohan is a bad driver.

Barbara the ignorant here. Who appoints a special prosecutor?

Normally it’s the AG, given he and the DAG have to recuse, it falls to the Solicitor General (Paul Clements?)

Is a special counsel really the way to go? Won’t that just take forever and let them off the hook?

Of course the question arises, is AGAG the only person that can appoint, can he delegate to a subordinate or will the courts, somehow, step in to ensure a truly independent prosecutor, can Congress approve/disapprove and candidate. And of course, do we get to reauthorize the special prosecutor?

If it was not so darn serious these time would be very interesting just for historical/legal/constitutional edification.

Anyone know to whom this letter was sent?

Just edited my comment and (Opera) lost all the ‘edit this comment’ tags except for the one attached to the edited comment. Deleted entire cache and no change. Will exit and restart.

Barbara — In this case, because the AG is recused from this matter since he would be the one under investigation, it would be the Solicitor General. They discussed this a bit during the Gonzales hearing on Tuesday, actually, in response to a query from Arlen Specter about having one appointed to enforce contempt citations since the WH is trying to obstruct that from the DC USAtty.

Impeach Gonzo for high crimes of lying to Congress.

No pension, no wing-nut welfare, do not pass go, do not collect two hundred dollars. Disgraced.

And I doubt if the Senate would allow him to pull an Alcee Hastings and run for office after removal from office.

Schumer et. al. are requesting a Special Prosecutor from outside the Justice Department. Too bad that James Comey was at the meeting in question, and thus is a witness.

Nope. ‘edit this comment’ tags still gone.

Gromit at 17 — I’m working on it. I’ve got calls and e-mails out to a number of folks. Soon as I know more details, you guys will, too.

I know it’s not as crucial as Gonzales’ demonstration that he can tapdance and moon Congress simultaneously, but I’m concerned about a very basic issue. Can the independent special counsel do us all a favor and verify that the Attorney General of the United States graduated from an accredited law school? I find it as hard to believe as his testimony.

Accountability time! Who would have thought?

Have folks seen Cafferty refusing to do Lohan script.

Go Cafferty some Americans are tired of this Lindsey Lohan, Anna Nicole Smith, Paris Hilton horseshit!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..A&NR=1

To sell staying in session in August I would say that we have to do our part for the war & peace. If the soldiers can risk their lives in the desert we can certainly work in our beautiful capital. In addition note that it will “set a good example” for the Iraqi government.

Lastly I would report on the plan to ensure state people’s can petition their representatives with Town Hall live video hookups for meetings – and perhaps 4 day trips to their states on a rotation.

The part of this all that struck me the hardest was last night. David Shuster was on Countdown discussing the documents that contradict AGAG’s testimony. The phrase jumped out at me: “I’ve been talking with legal experts, and this is perjury; it’s NOT EVEN CLOSE.”

If he somehow manages to wriggle free of this, we’ll know for sure that our democracy is dead.

behindthefall at 22 — I have been told by a number of tech folks that Opera, for some reason, does not play well with WordPress and several other blog template softwares. No idea why — perhaps the more techy commenters out there know?

Christy Hardin Smith @ 19

Barbara — In this case, because the AG is recused from this matter since he would be the one under investigation, it would be the Solicitor General. They discussed this a bit during the Gonzales hearing on Tuesday, actually, in response to a query from Arlen Specter about having one appointed to enforce contempt citations since the WH is trying to obstruct that from the DC USAtty.

Thanks, Christy. Followup: What do we know about the SG? In the BushCo cauldron, too?

noen @ 16

Is a special counsel really the way to go? Won’t that just take forever and let them off the hook?

Yep.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 19

Barbara — In this case, because the AG is recused from this matter since he would be the one under investigation, it would be the Solicitor General. They discussed this a bit during the Gonzales hearing on Tuesday, actually, in response to a query from Arlen Specter about having one appointed to enforce contempt citations since the WH is trying to obstruct that from the DC USAtty.

And if the Solicitor General were to refuse?

I think we are getting close to a Saturday Night Massacre moment.

-GSD

perris @ 9

so, how peturlant can the president get?

can he decline and simply site executive priviledge?

can he “pre pardon” or “sumarily pardon” abu torture’s testimony from scrutiny?

He’ll just hold his breath until the Democrats stop being so mean.

I’m having a Casper Weinberger flash-back.

noen @ 16

Is a special counsel really the way to go? Won’t that just take forever and let them off the hook?

It depends on what they want to do, noen. Personally, I don’t the SP is the way to go. I think Abu should be cited by both houses for contempt of congress, and congress itself should hold the trial. After he’s convicted, they should throw his ass in the basement of the capitol and discard the key.

BC

think progress has this and it’s very telling…check out the part of what darth maggot did when traditionally he’s supposed to reach across both sides of aisle;

Leahy Explains Cheney’s F-Bomb Incident, Says Hayes’ ‘Puff Piece’ Got It Wrong
In his biography of the Vice President, Stephen Hayes recounts Dick Cheney version of why he dropped the f-bomb on Patrick Leahy on the Senate floor in 2004. Cheney asserts he told Leahy to “go f— yourself” because he was close to kissing him.

A congressional source who witnessed the incident disputed that account and told ThinkProgress that Cheney unloaded his expletive when Leahy attempted to cordially shake the Vice President’s hand.

Last night on MSNBC’s Countdown, Leahy — speaking publicly about the incident for the first time — explained that traditionally all Vice Presidents have reached out to both sides of the aisle when they come onto the Senate floor, but “Dick Cheney never does. He always stands on the Republican side.” Leahy continued:

So I walked over and thought maybe he was being shy. I said, Dick, come on over and talk to the Democrats too. We won’t bite you. He reacted as he has described he reacted.

The irony is that the Republican Senators who were there were the ones who told the press about it. I didn’t say anything to anyone about it. In fact, I think this is the first time I’ve publicly stated what happened.

Watch it:

Leahy criticized Hayes for failing to check Cheney’s version of events with others who witnessed the incident. “If Mr. Hayes had intended to write a serious story other than a puff piece about the Vice President,” Leahy said, “he would have actually picked up the phone and called me or called several of the senators standing there.”

As I was typing a comment on another thread (SufiLizard @ 195) suddenly this thread appears and it feeds right into what I was saying.

Forward a link to that video to everyone you know and ask them to forward it to everyone they know!

How much more clear can it get?

Is this action enough?

AP – Army Secretary Peter Geren is expected to recommend that a retired three-star general be demoted for his role in providing misleading information about the death of Army Ranger Pat Tillman, military officials say, in what would be a stinging and rare rebuke.

barbara @ 30

Christy Hardin Smith @ 19

Barbara — In this case, because the AG is recused from this matter since he would be the one under investigation, it would be the Solicitor General. They discussed this a bit during the Gonzales hearing on Tuesday, actually, in response to a query from Arlen Specter about having one appointed to enforce contempt citations since the WH is trying to obstruct that from the DC USAtty.

Thanks, Christy. Followup: What do we know about the SG? In the BushCo cauldron, too?

http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/about…..entbio.htm

The DOJ’s bio of Paul Clement…

1,589 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND..

Citizen Hardin Smith:

OK, no more “Mr. Niceguy”…I have been remiss in my duties of citizenship and I haven’t joined the roots project but I need to do so now. I want to get ahold of other FDL military veterans (of all conflicts but particularly Vietnam) and begin to organize for marches and demonstrations to connect with larger groups. Can you help me here, Sister Christy, to get ahold of Pachacutec and to maybe send out a reveille call to vets on FDL?

KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE MOTHERFUCKIN’ AMMUNITION…THERE’S WORK TA BE DONE!!

Great video!

nomolos @ 32

Christy Hardin Smith @ 19

Barbara — In this case, because the AG is recused from this matter since he would be the one under investigation, it would be the Solicitor General. They discussed this a bit during the Gonzales hearing on Tuesday, actually, in response to a query from Arlen Specter about having one appointed to enforce contempt citations since the WH is trying to obstruct that from the DC USAtty.

And if the Solicitor General were to refuse?

I’m just going to offer one blanket apology for all my naive questions.

(1) Would launching an investigation (or at least attempting to do so) prevent Congress from recessing in August?

(2) Given that the pimp is guarding the whorehouse, and given that “justice” seems to be in short supply (stand by for naivete 101), is there a kind of/equivalent to a class action suit/action that American people can file?

clem @ 25

I know it’s not as crucial as Gonzales’ demonstration that he can tapdance and moon Congress simultaneously, but I’m concerned about a very basic issue. Can the independent special counsel do us all a favor and verify that the Attorney General of the United States graduated from an accredited law school? I find it as hard to believe as his testimony.

2 years at Air Force Academy, finished at Rice, HARVARD law school, according to wiki. Now that’s a nice insult the next time you meet someone from Harvard Law: Oh you mean the school where AGAG got a degree?

I think a Special Prosecutor is a good idea.
What else can they do?
If the Prez steps in or if Repugs go crazy…
they will look like fucking idiots that they
are.
I’ve asked this question a million times:
The special investigation that the DOJ is
doing on Gonzo… can someone please ask them
when their expected date of delivery is?

Speaker Pelosi. Your moment has arrived. Are you up to the challenge? I don’t care about a conviction necessarily, though that could be the result of hearings. Impeachment hearings are crucial.

Am I correct in thinking that the SJC wants to farm this out so as not to be (spuriously) accused of political bias?

High Noon with the DOJ approaches.

eCAHNomics @ 31

noen @ 16

Is a special counsel really the way to go? Won’t that just take forever and let them off the hook?

Yep.

Yes. This is woefully inadequate. The special counsel would be selected by another Bush crony.

Impeachment of Gonzales is quite literally the only answer.

We need to demand Congress stay in session through August for impeachment hearings of Gonzales.

This will enable Congress to prevent recess appointments and begin to save our Constitution and the DOJ.

It really is that simple.

Why are they f*cking around by whimpering and begging and crying for a special prosecuter when the answer lies in their own Constitutional impeachment powers?

Asking for a special prosecuter looks weak because it is weak. It will lead nowhere and will waste precious time.

GSD @ 33

I think we are getting close to a Saturday Night Massacre moment.

-GSD

That is what I think. So let Bush instruct Clements to ignore the SJC letter.

THAT would be a clear obstruction of justice, and unequivocal grounds for impeachment, one that even the most politically illiterate could understand.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 39

Is this action enough?

AP – Army Secretary Peter Geren is expected to recommend that a retired three-star general be demoted for his role in providing misleading information about the death of Army Ranger Pat Tillman, military officials say, in what would be a stinging and rare rebuke.

Scapegoat anyone? It’s all to protect Rummy & W.

Bargain Countertenor @ 36

noen @ 16

Is a special counsel really the way to go? Won’t that just take forever and let them off the hook?

It depends on what they want to do, noen. Personally, I don’t the SP is the way to go. I think Abu should be cited by both houses for contempt of congress, and congress itself should hold the trial. After he’s convicted, they should throw his ass in the basement of the capitol and discard the key.

BC

That is what I would like to see happen. How likely is it that congress will forgo the special prosecutor and try Gonzales themselves? Because if they just turn the investigation over to a SP then I’d say Bush won.

dakine01 @ 21

Impeach Gonzo for high crimes of lying to Congress.

No pension, no wing-nut welfare, do not pass go, do not collect two hundred dollars. Disgraced.

And I doubt if the Senate would allow him to pull an Alcee Hastings and run for office after removal from office.

Hear, hear.

He’ll still collect Wingnut Welfare. Pulling an Alcee is a different matter. One of the penalties if one is convicted by the Senate is a lifetime ban on government positions.

Because the houses of Congress seat their membership, they would have to choose to enforce that provision if Abu won election to the House or Senate. They would enforce it by refusing to seat him, and Congress would limp by with one fewer member until the position was filled.

BC

Woodhall Hollow @ 49

GSD @ 33

I think we are getting close to a Saturday Night Massacre moment.

-GSD

That is what I think. So let Bush instruct Clements to ignore the SJC letter.

THAT would be a clear obstruction of justice, and unequivocal grounds for impeachment, one that even the most politically illiterate could understand.

That makes a lot of sense.

To whom is the letter written?

Oklahoma kiddo @ 39

Is this action enough?

AP – Army Secretary Peter Geren is expected to recommend that a retired three-star general be demoted for his role in providing misleading information about the death of Army Ranger Pat Tillman, military officials say, in what would be a stinging and rare rebuke.

If this goes through and a 3 star general is held to account, but BushCo refuses to do the same with a civilian attorney general, Bush’s favorite sites for giving speeches these day — military bases — may not be so friendly any more.

Schumer
Feingold
Feinstein
Whitehouse

Good for them!

Hey, why ain’t this guy in Congress? Oh sorry, he’d want to impeach Bush!

I got to say this is good stuff.

Impeachment of Gonzales is quite literally the only answer

They WILL NOT do it. Impeaching Abu would mean having to endure press criticism. Farming it out to a SP, they can wash their hands of the whole mess.

Thanks..GREAT video

I would feel a lot better about this if Specter or any Republican on the committee had added their name to it.

beth meacham @ 22

Schumer et. al. are requesting a Special Prosecutor from outside the Justice Department. Too bad that James Comey was at the meeting in question, and thus is a witness.

Plus he was a witness to or participant in a lot of what has happened.

tommy yum @ 54

Woodhall Hollow @ 49

That is what I think. So let Bush instruct Clements to ignore the SJC letter.

THAT would be a clear obstruction of justice, and unequivocal grounds for impeachment, one that even the most politically illiterate could understand.

That makes a lot of sense.

But what if Clements just appoints a Bush crony to run out the clock and twiddle his thumbs?

This is by far the most likely outcome.

Christ on a raft!

Clements clerked for the infamous Judge Silberman, and get this–Antonin Scalia.

SP appointed anytime soon? Hardly likely. Or if one is appointed, it will be someone who will be willing to take his or her marching orders from Cheney & Addington, who, as we learned yesterday, now have the right to meddle in criminal and civil investigations.

eCAHNomics @ 49

Scapegoat anyone? It’s all to protect Rummy & W.

Aren’t you forgetting someone?

sunny @ 56

Impeachment of Gonzales is quite literally the only answer

They WILL NOT do it. Impeaching Abu would mean having to endure press criticism. Farming it out to a SP, they can wash their hands of the whole mess.

Yep.

1,589 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND..

Citizen Hardin Smith and Firepup Patriots:

I believe that the fascist strategy from the White House is to force impeachment…if the Democrats don’t have the balls then they’ll play it out ’til ‘09. If the Democrats threaten to bring a Bill of Impeachment then the Chimpenfuhrer will pardon EVERYONE in his administration (a la Jerry Ford) and then abdicate…leavin the country in a real fuckin mess.

The fuckers have this all gamed out, honey, and the jackles ain’t done rapin’ us and stealin our pensions.

KEEP THE FAITH AND DO IT TO THEM BEFORE THEY DO ANYMORE TO US!!!

sunny @ 58

Impeachment of Gonzales is quite literally the only answer

They WILL NOT do it. Impeaching Abu would mean having to endure press criticism. Farming it out to a SP, they can wash their hands of the whole mess.

Unless we in the netroots pressure them to do otherwise. Yes, it will take serious pressure, but we’ve done things like this before.

Maybe Kenny Boy Starr can be called back into action?
How about ex-supremo O’Connors?

Aren’t you forgetting someone?

I must be. Tell me who.

Where’s Waxman?

barbara @ 30

Christy Hardin Smith @ 19

Barbara — In this case, because the AG is recused from this matter since he would be the one under investigation, it would be the Solicitor General. They discussed this a bit during the Gonzales hearing on Tuesday, actually, in response to a query from Arlen Specter about having one appointed to enforce contempt citations since the WH is trying to obstruct that from the DC USAtty.

Thanks, Christy. Followup: What do we know about the SG? In the BushCo cauldron, too?

The Solicitor General is Paul Clement who wrote the recent AG opinion upholding Executive Privilege for Miers and Bolten. He’s a strict constructionist in the Scalia style and will not likely go along with any call for Special Prosecutor.

So what if the WH shuts down any solicitor general investigation which I think is likely?

Impeachment of Gonzo is all you’ve got left.

eCAHNomics @ 66

Aren’t you forgetting someone?

I must be. Tell me who.

Richard Bruce Cheney

I can’t comment or respond to anyone, they don’t come throuh…

Sorry to point out this minor D incompetence, but there they go, introducing a new product in August.

We need a statement from Pelosi

Kevster @ 71

So what if the WH shuts down any solicitor general investigation which I think is likely?

Impeachment of Gonzo is all you’ve got left.

Clement is going to appoint a do-nothing special prosecutor to run out the clock. There won’t be any need for the WH to shut anything down. By asking for a special prosecutor, the Democrats are effectively agreeing to shut things down themselves.

eCAHNomics @ 72

Sorry to point out this minor D incompetence, but there they go, introducing a new product in August.

I see your point, but don’t care. This MUST be done, it’s not just a PR battle.

It’s time to get the ball rolling.

Call and thank

”We do not make this request lightly.” wrote Sens. Charles E. Schumer of New York, Dianne Feinstein of California, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island in a letter to Solicitor General Paul Clement.

Woodhall Hollow @ 49

GSD @ 33

I think we are getting close to a Saturday Night Massacre moment.

-GSD

That is what I think. So let Bush instruct Clements to ignore the SJC letter.

THAT would be a clear obstruction of justice, and unequivocal grounds for impeachment, one that even the most politically illiterate could understand.

There is some multi-level chess being played here, and I don’t have a clue what is going on. But if Whitehouse, DiFi, Schumer, and Feingold take some action, you can be pretty sure some thought has gone into it.

NorskeFlamethrower @ 41

1,589 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND..

Citizen Hardin Smith:

OK, no more “Mr. Niceguy”…I have been remiss in my duties of citizenship and I haven’t joined the roots project but I need to do so now. I want to get ahold of other FDL military veterans (of all conflicts but particularly Vietnam) and begin to organize for marches and demonstrations to connect with larger groups. Can you help me here, Sister Christy, to get ahold of Pachacutec and to maybe send out a reveille call to vets on FDL?

KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE MOTHERFUCKIN’ AMMUNITION…THERE’S WORK TA BE DONE!!

NorskeFlamethrower — Jonathan, here. Served in the Nam 15 Sep 71 – 14 Sep 72. Military intelligence officer with the 525 MI Group. III Corps – mainly Tay Ninh, Bien Hoa and Saigon. Let me know if and how I might be of help.

nomolos @ 70

eCAHNomics @ 66

I must be. Tell me who.

Richard Bruce Cheney

That’s who I thought you meant, but Tillman is one of the few times I don’t see his finger prints. As I remember the timeline, it went up to Rummy pretty quickly, and then W gave that very public testimonial. Any participation of Vice is inconsequential, in this particular case, I think.

OT: Max Blumenthal is at it again! LOL.

Let’s see how Miss Piggy Rover is going to spin this latest ctriminal activity by the Bushies……
I say that one day we will see Rover behind bars on multiple criminal charges.
Someone will eventually come forward who will refuse to take it for Rover and the Bushies and just rat’em’all’out!

*xyz @ 73

Kevster @ 71

So what if the WH shuts down any solicitor general investigation which I think is likely?

Impeachment of Gonzo is all you’ve got left.

Clement is going to appoint a do-nothing special prosecutor to run out the clock. There won’t be any need for the WH to shut anything down. By asking for a special prosecutor, the Democrats are effectively agreeing to shut things down themselves.

So it really is a mobius moment. Can’t get justice without a DOJ appointment, which isn’t possible because the DOJ is corrupt . . .

And so I ask again what instrument is available to American citizens, long before the ballot box.

Gonzo? Lie?

Kathleen @ 77

Call and thank

”We do not make this request lightly.” wrote Sens. Charles E. Schumer of New York, Dianne Feinstein of California, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island in a letter to Solicitor General Paul Clement.

Schumer translation: “Please Mr. Bush Crony Clement, please please appoint another Bush crony to conduct a whitewash “investigation” of Gonzales that will run out the clock until Bush is out of office. We don’t want to have to use our own powers of oversight and would prefer that you police yourselves.”

oddmommy @ 1

zed?

what is the point of all this? Isn’t this what happened with Scooter Libby? If Gonzo is convicted, the president commutes and the taxpayer gets no justice-the only way is to impeach-you have to cut off the head to kill the monster.

Unless we in the netroots pressure them to do otherwise. Yes, it will take serious pressure, but we’ve done things like this before.

I guess I missed it-when has the Dem party responded to netroots pressure? If you ask me, when the blogsophere pushes for action, the Dems take the opposite approach, like embracing Lieberman and giving him a standing O, despite being his despised and deeply distrusted by a majority of the base. Can you give examples of when this pressure produced a win? Please don’t say Lamont in the primaries, that was entirely a victory for CT. voters.

noen @ 51

Bargain Countertenor @ 36

It depends on what they want to do, noen. Personally, I don’t the SP is the way to go. I think Abu should be cited by both houses for contempt of congress, and congress itself should hold the trial. After he’s convicted, they should throw his ass in the basement of the capitol and discard the key.

BC

That is what I would like to see happen. How likely is it that congress will forgo the special prosecutor and try Gonzales themselves? Because if they just turn the investigation over to a SP then I’d say Bush won.

I think they are betting that Bush will go ballistic and refuse any SP, and that by over-reaching he puts Gonzales in politically impeachable range. Problem with that approach is that Rove can see through it, and will do the four-corners defence, which is unbeatable unless they can keep getting Gonzo down in front of Whitehouse and company once a week, to keep bringing out more dirt on him.

Does anyone else think this is being done just to elicit a refusal by Bush?

That would really highlight his ongoing flaunting of the Constitution, wouldn’t it?

Peterr @ 55

Oklahoma kiddo @ 39

Is this action enough?

AP – Army Secretary Peter Geren is expected to recommend that a retired three-star general be demoted for his role in providing misleading information about the death of Army Ranger Pat Tillman, military officials say, in what would be a stinging and rare rebuke.

If this goes through and a 3 star general is held to account, but BushCo refuses to do the same with a civilian attorney general, Bush’s favorite sites for giving speeches these day — military bases — may not be so friendly any more.

Schumer
Feingold
Feinstein
Whitehouse

Good for them!

Wonder why Leahy is not on this list? Is there some strategy as to who submits such a letter?

Special prosecutor is the wrong way to go. It’s a delaying tactic to allow the SJC to take their August break and say they’ve done something about the problem. Abu’s perjury (lawbreaking) occurred during the SJC hearing, is on tape, and was seen by all. There’s hardly a better case for impeachment.

AnnieW @ 77
Yeah, I know. The sooner the better. Mine was just a snark.

I notice that Spector didn’t sign the letter.

MayDaze @ 89

Does anyone else think this is being done just to elicit a refusal by Bush?

That would really highlight his ongoing flaunting of the Constitution, wouldn’t it?

Bush doesn’t have to refuse anything because Clement can simply appoint a Bush crony to conduct a fake investigation and run out the clock until the end of Bush’s term in office.

TeddySanFran @ 88

Special prosecutor is the wrong way to go. It’s a delaying tactic to allow the SJC to take their August break and say they’ve done something about the problem. Abu’s perjury (lawbreaking) occurred during the SJC hearing, is on tape, and was seen by all. There’s hardly a better case for impeachment.

Maybe the Dems want Bush to refuse or throw a tantrum. Then they can say their only choice is to impeach. I suspect that there’s a whole other thing going on backstage.

What an amazing video. Thanks Christy (& Solai & Matt)

Impeachment of Gonzales seems inescapable now – the only way to avoid it is to actively refuse to look at the evidence revealed so far. Once Gonzales is underway, it’s hard to see how the rest of the White House doesn’t get dragged in. There are too many documented contradictions and connections already.

A danger is that somehow proceedings against Gonzales will turn up things about Bush, Cheney, Rove, et. al that will then not be admissable in proceedings against them. It would be just like Gonzales to ‘reveal’ things in such a way that that would happen. Assuming conviction on anything – he then does a Libby. I don’t what the likelihood of this is, but I can see it happening, just like the revelations from Armitage interfered with indiciting anyone directly for outing Valerie Plame. You have to know something is thinking about this in the White House – that’s why they’ve all been lawyering up.

What will Tony Snowjob “political theater”
“pathetic”

*xyz @ 84

Kathleen @ 77

Call and thank

”We do not make this request lightly.” wrote Sens. Charles E. Schumer of New York, Dianne Feinstein of California, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island in a letter to Solicitor General Paul Clement.

Schumer translation: “Please Mr. Bush Crony Clement, please please appoint another Bush crony to conduct a whitewash “investigation” of Gonzales that will run out the clock until Bush is out of office. We don’t want to have to use our own powers of oversight and would prefer that you police yourselves.”

Interesting

here’s a script the democrats should follow;

“we have here a spokesperson for the president who had the nerve to look at this man’s testimony and actually say “he wasn’t touched”

a spokesperson who has the nerve to say our obligation administering oversite is “pathetic”

we can obviously see the president will obstruct all of our inquirey’s, he’s made that brutally clear and it’s time he understands he is not the person that overseas his behavior, congress is”

Twain @ 96

TeddySanFran @ 88

Special prosecutor is the wrong way to go. It’s a delaying tactic to allow the SJC to take their August break and say they’ve done something about the problem. Abu’s perjury (lawbreaking) occurred during the SJC hearing, is on tape, and was seen by all. There’s hardly a better case for impeachment.

Maybe the Dems want Bush to refuse or throw a tantrum. Then they can say their only choice is to impeach. I suspect that there’s a whole other thing going on backstage.

There had better be much more going on backstage. Because the way things stand now, Bush doesn’t have to refuse anything because Clement can simply appoint a Bush crony to conduct a fake investigation and run out the clock until the end of Bush’s term in office.

VERY well done vid. This guy needs to do ALL Dem campaign AND political vids for impeachment and/or indictment.

How amusing. Hold on, I call for all green Jell-O to immediately turn yellow. Yellow is a much more ‘optimistic’ color, don’t ‘cha think? These guys are a riot, a riot I tell ya.

So, if Clements refuses, they’re gonna get him too, won’t they, for obstruction of justice, after all, perjury is a “crime”.

Breaking News:

Leahy to subpoena Rove. Check CNN.

Bargain Countertenor @ 51

dakine01 @ 21

Impeach Gonzo for high crimes of lying to Congress.

No pension, no wing-nut welfare, do not pass go, do not collect two hundred dollars. Disgraced.

And I doubt if the Senate would allow him to pull an Alcee Hastings and run for office after removal from office.

Hear, hear.

He’ll still collect Wingnut Welfare. Pulling an Alcee is a different matter. One of the penalties if one is convicted by the Senate is a lifetime ban on government positions.

Because the houses of Congress seat their membership, they would have to choose to enforce that provision if Abu won election to the House or Senate. They would enforce it by refusing to seat him, and Congress would limp by with one fewer member until the position was filled.

BC

In order to be blocked from future running for office, it has to be specified in the order of removal iirc. With Hastings, the Senate did not so specify so he was free to run and get elected.

I just read Leahy was on the floor of the senate saying he is going to supeona Rover and Jennings….I would say …NO RECESS and GAME …SET

boxer @ 106

Breaking News:

Leahy to subpoena Rove. Check CNN.

That is more like it.

OT, but the Times has an op-ed on how to unstack the Supreme Court.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07…..smith.html

So eyz are you saying that these four invidivuals do not want a Special Prosecutor to get to the bottom of this or the illegal wiretaping program?

Did these four send this letter as representatives of the whole committee?

boxer @ 106

Breaking News:

Leahy to subpoena Rove. Check CNN.

ooo this’ll be good

“Bout damn time. Hope is career is FINALLY FINISHED.
Is the nightmare over YET????

And, if he is found to have committed perjury, what is his punishment? Oh, I forgot, he’ll get pardoned whatever it is.

Knut Wicksell @ 86

I think they are betting that Bush will go ballistic and refuse any SP, and that by over-reaching he puts Gonzales in politically impeachable range. Problem with that approach is that Rove can see through it, and will do the four-corners defence, which is unbeatable unless they can keep getting Gonzo down in front of Whitehouse and company once a week, to keep bringing out more dirt on him.

That is a dangerous ploy. If Bush, I mean Rove accepts and then finds a suitable crony to drag his feet, then Bush and Gonzo are out and free. Special prosecutions take YEARS. We don’t have years.

boxer @ 104

Breaking News:

Leahy to subpoena Rove. Check CNN.

Holy shit Hallelujah a frog march still possible

Sally @ 107

OT, but the Times has an op-ed on how to unstack the Supreme Court.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07…..smith.html

wasn’t it spector that suggested they might be considering impeaching roberts and Alito?

not directly but insinuating they were going to look at testimony vs their decisions

we can’t trust spector for anything but lip service but it was very interesting

All roads lead to Rover…plain and simple….he is the one that will break faster and easier than anyone…he is a chickensh*t and a bully….they always fall faster……..I’m still angry Fitz didn’t get him and he was allowed to screw around with the GJ…now we know he probably had access to all the info from the DOJ…….Rover is the weakest link…I justt wish that they would see that and move on him.

Rove being subpoenaed too.

I just turned on CSpan2. Robt Byrd talking about trade tarriffs or something.

Kathleen @ 110

So eyz are you saying that these four invidivuals do not want a Special Prosecutor to get to the bottom of this or the illegal wiretaping program?

Did these four send this letter as representatives of the whole committee?

I was being a bit facetitious because I don’t know what Schumer’s motivations are. I don’t really believe that Schumer wants to enable a whitewash of Gonzales. But I do think that Schumer will end up with a whitewash if he goes down this path. I hope he has something else up his sleeve because what I see here is a recipe for failure.

Whitehouse and Schumer & co. examining Rove under oath? Please don’t tease me God.

Go Leahy!

boxer @ 102

Breaking News:

Leahy to subpoena Rove. Check CNN.

Holy crap!

pardon my language.

Woodhall Hollow @ 62

Christ on a raft!

Clements clerked for the infamous Judge Silberman, and get this–Antonin Scalia.

SP appointed anytime soon? Hardly likely. Or if one is appointed, it will be someone who will be willing to take his or her marching orders from Cheney & Addington, who, as we learned yesterday, now have the right to meddle in criminal and civil investigations.

this is why i don’t see how calling for a special prosecutor is a good idea.

well, unless the goal of the SJC is to delay having to actually confront the problem head on.

i hope someone can explain why i shouldn’t be pissed at my senators for ducking their responsibility again… please tell me i’m looking at this the wrong way.

dakine01 @ 106

In order to be blocked from future running for office, it has to be specified in the order of removal iirc. With Hastings, the Senate did not so specify so he was free to run and get elected.

I think you’re right. I thought the Constitution specified the penalty as removal from office, loss of all emoluments, and banning from future office.

I was wrong, the constitution itself only specifies removal from office:

Article II, Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

BC

TexB @ 115

I just turned on CSpan2. Robt Byrd talking about trade tarriffs or something.

there needs to be tarriffs on all countries that we import who do not allow collective bargainng for their workforce

no unequeal playing fields

boxer @ 105

Breaking News:

Leahy to subpoena Rove. Check CNN.

This is fucking great! I’m investing in popcorn shares.

Folks, the Max Blumenthal video is a must-see. Esp the part wherein Joe Lieberman makes an appearance, compares Pastor Hagey to Moses and calls Rick Santorum a hero. No joke.

jim o’connor @ 119

Whitehouse and Schumer & co. examining Rove under oath? Please don’t tease me God.

Don’e hold your breath.

jim o’connor @ 118

Whitehouse and Schumer & co. examining Rove under oath? Please don’t tease me God.

chills

*xyz @ 119

Kathleen @ 110

So eyz are you saying that these four invidivuals do not want a Special Prosecutor to get to the bottom of this or the illegal wiretaping program?

Did these four send this letter as representatives of the whole committee?

I was being a bit facetitious because I don’t know what Schumer’s motivations are. I don’t really believe that Schumer wants to enable a whitewash of Gonzales. But I do think that Schumer will end up with a whitewash if he goes down this path. I hope he has something else up his sleeve because what I see here is a recipe for failure.

“Whitehouse of Gonzales”…I think Schumer has Whitehouse up his sleeve.

Wow, all hell is breaking loose. No one can say the Democrats haven’t been patient with the thugs and given them every chance to mend their ways. A late birthday gift for Ms. Hamsher.

Rove will pull a Harriet and not show up…

I hope they are thinking “inherent contempt” and Harriet’s skinny ass is thrown in jail…

perris @ 122

TexB @ 115

I just turned on CSpan2. Robt Byrd talking about trade tarriffs or something.

there needs to be tarriffs on all countries that we import who do not allow collective bargainng for their workforce

no unequeal playing fields

Yes but I was hoping to see something about Gonzo or Rove.

Is there ANY CHANCE IN HELL that Patrick Fitzgerald will be appointed Special Counsel?

(And no hurry with the answer to that one, I’m going outside and come back later, so I can have a little time to enjoy that dream…)

BTW, I’m baaaaaaaaaaaack!! A week unplugged, no news, no computer, and it finally dawned on me how there can still be a few people who support George Bush – the world is soooo much less stressful when you have NO IDEA what the HELL is going on in the world!

You know, I’m not ready to discount the possibility the it was Rove who sent Gonzo pitter-pattering off to Ashcroft’s hospital room.

mc @ 126

boxer @ 105

Breaking News:

Leahy to subpoena Rove. Check CNN.

This is fucking great! I’m investing in popcorn shares.

firedoglake brand

AnnieW @ 117

Go Leahy!

I expect there some Repugs on the Hill this morning feeling a bit queasy and maybe looking for a way out. They are firmly tied to this bunch of thugs and the Dems should say so at every opportunity.

I just read the NYT article about adding members to the Supreme Court to change the balance. Music to my ears. Starting to feel hopeful.

noen @ 120

boxer @ 102

Breaking News:

Leahy to subpoena Rove. Check CNN.

Holy crap!

pardon my language.

What makes anyone think he’ll show up?

LS @ 130

*xyz @ 119

I was being a bit facetitious because I don’t know what Schumer’s motivations are. I don’t really believe that Schumer wants to enable a whitewash of Gonzales. But I do think that Schumer will end up with a whitewash if he goes down this path. I hope he has something else up his sleeve because what I see here is a recipe for failure.

“Whitehouse of Gonzales”…I think Schumer has Whitehouse up his sleeve.

I hope you’re right.

Elliott @ 133:

Firedoglake Brand popcorn! hahahaha!

Fern @ 135

You know, I’m not ready to discount the possibility the it was Rove who sent Gonzo pitter-pattering off to Ashcroft’s hospital room.

You may be reading Leahy’s mind.

OldCoastie @ 129

Rove will pull a Harriet and not show up…

I hope they are thinking “inherent contempt” and Harriet’s skinny ass is thrown in jail…

they know beyond doubt this will happen and they obviously want it to happen

they have something in store for the event if it happens

if they don’t have something planned then they are fools

hows the old lawyer saying go?

don’t ask any questions you don’t know the answer to?

that applies here, they know he won’t appear

now on the other hand, rove might think he can out smart congress and he might actually show up

that’s his image to the president anyway, he might actually be forced to show up to prove he is “the architect”, “the brain”

[munching teh pop corn]

I personally can’t wait to see the new word snow uses in place of “pathetiic”

james @ 139

noen @ 120

Holy crap!

pardon my language.

What makes anyone think he’ll show up?

Oh, he definitely won’t show up. I don’t want him to show up. I want him to be as contemptuous as possible, so they can nail him.

Sally @ 128

Wow, all hell is breaking loose. No one can say the Democrats haven’t been patient with the thugs and given them every chance to mend their ways. A late birthday gift for Ms. Hamsher.

Yes and to all Americans

I say use inherent contempt on Miss Piggy Rover….Imagine watching Rover frogmarched while leaving his home by the Sgt of arms with that sh*t eating grin on his face, you remember the one when the press was waiting outside his house expecting Fitz to indict the criminal!….
Well I can dream can’t I?

mc @ 142

Fern @ 135

You know, I’m not ready to discount the possibility the it was Rove who sent Gonzo pitter-pattering off to Ashcroft’s hospital room.

You may be reading Leahy’s mind.

Couldn’t it have been Libby? He was also Assistant to the President. Spying is Cheney’s gig.

Are the judicial contempt citations just an interim step? So they exhaust each possibility?

I wonder if Leahy thinks the House has the votes for inherent contempt for Miers and Bolton? That seems like the only threat weighty enough to compell Rove to testify in the senate. Just a thought.

james @ 139

noen @ 120

Holy crap!

pardon my language.

What makes anyone think he’ll show up?

Doesn’t matter. I just like the fact that Leahy keeps upping the ante.

Nancy, isn’t there something you want to put back on the table?

*xyz — Or: they are following the proper parliamentary procedure. If the DOJ declines to appoint a special prosecutor, then that clears the deck for Senate inherent contempt, prosecution, and/or impeachment.

Maybe we should all stop being so damned impatient and realize that they take these steps for legitimate, legal reasons. How about that?

or they are fools

Still a strong possibility, I think.

LS @ 147

mc @ 142

You may be reading Leahy’s mind.

Couldn’t it have been Libby? He was also Assistant to the President. Spying is Cheney’s gig.

Or is he being subpoened because of the DOJ/WH stuff? I guess I jumped the gun. Anyway, maybe they can find a way to subpoena Libby in all of this too.

Perris, Specter did say he was going to look into Roberts and Alito saying at their confirmation hearings they would do one thing and then doing another once they were seated. I considered the source since Specter says one thing and does another. It’s in the Republics’ DNA.

OldCoastie @ 130

Rove will pull a Harriet and not show up…

I hope they are thinking “inherent contempt” and Harriet’s skinny ass is thrown in jail…

Won’t happen. If inherent contempt contempt is voted out of the House, A Fed Judge and/or SCOTUS would grant habeas or declare the practice un-constitutional.

mc @ 139

Fern @ 135

You know, I’m not ready to discount the possibility the it was Rove who sent Gonzo pitter-pattering off to Ashcroft’s hospital room.

You may be reading Leahy’s mind.

And is is possible the Dems win whether or not Rove shows. If he doesn’t show it reinforces the contempt of congress thingie, but takes it another couple of rungs up the food chain. If he shows he will doubtless perjure himself. Or give something away. Or both.

mc @ 147

james @ 139

What makes anyone think he’ll show up?

Doesn’t matter. I just like the fact that Leahy keeps upping the ante.

Nancy, isn’t there something you want to put back on the table?

I don’t think it was ever off the table.

Fern @ 134

You know, I’m not ready to discount the possibility the it was Rove who sent Gonzo pitter-pattering off to Ashcroft’s hospital room.

The call from the WH requesting that Card & Abu be allowed in had to come from someone with real clout. To me, that means Bush or Cheney.

Sally @ 110

OT, but the Times has an op-ed on how to unstack the Supreme Court.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07…..smith.html

Yes!!

Regarding impeachment. Can those called to testify be ‘forced’ answer?

Boy, it’s sure looking like conspiracy to obstruct justice…with Gonzo perjury thrown in for good spice. They’ve got some leverage now.

Steve-AR @ 156

OldCoastie @ 130

Rove will pull a Harriet and not show up…

I hope they are thinking “inherent contempt” and Harriet’s skinny ass is thrown in jail…

Won’t happen. If inherent contempt contempt is voted out of the House, A Fed Judge and/or SCOTUS would grant habeas or declare the practice un-constitutional.

They CAN’T declare it un-constitutional. It was the NORM for most of the first 2/3s of the country’s existence. It is VERY constitutional.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 152

*xyz — Or: they are following the proper parliamentary procedure. If the DOJ declines to appoint a special prosecutor, then that clears the deck for Senate inherent contempt, prosecution, and/or impeachment.

Maybe we should all stop being so damned impatient and realize that they take these steps for legitimate, legal reasons. How about that?

Legitimate legal steps….which take time…also play out against the backdrop of the Iraq war, which will pressure GOP senators to break from Bush. Without a miracle in Iraq, Bush will not be able to hold GOP unity through the end of the year.

perris @ 115

Sally @ 107

OT, but the Times has an op-ed on how to unstack the Supreme Court.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07…..smith.html

wasn’t it spector that suggested they might be considering impeaching roberts and Alito?

not directly but insinuating they were going to look at testimony vs their decisions

we can’t trust spector for anything but lip service but it was very interesting

In the wake of impeachment, or at least in the wake of all this scandal, I think a Democratic President should publicly ask Alito to resign and Roberts to step down as Chief Justice, the former for explicitly subscribing to the “unitary executive” theory now exposed as subversion of the Constitution.

I must say there is one major improvement for me in this situation versus Watergate. Now I have a whole group of intelligent people to obsess and worry and brainstorm with. Back then I was all alone. No one I knew paid much attention-until it got to impeachment.

See what happens when you eat your Wheaties? Reid got his vitamins!

Kathleen @ 145, Amen…a gift to every right-thinking American.

Christy keeps telling us to be patient!

Christy Hardin Smith @ 147

*xyz — Or: they are following the proper parliamentary procedure. If the DOJ declines to appoint a special prosecutor, then that clears the deck for Senate inherent contempt, prosecution, and/or impeachment.

Maybe we should all stop being so damned impatient and realize that they take these steps for legitimate, legal reasons. How about that?

I do so hate clear thinking

Oklahoma kiddo @ 156

Regarding impeachment. Can those called to testify be ‘forced’ answer?

Not answering (or not appearing) leaves one vulnerable to a charge of contempt of congress.

Steve-AR @ 152

Please explain.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 148

*xyz — Or: they are following the proper parliamentary procedure. If the DOJ declines to appoint a special prosecutor, then that clears the deck for Senate inherent contempt, prosecution, and/or impeachment.

Maybe we should all stop being so damned impatient and realize that they take these steps for legitimate, legal reasons. How about that?

I agree. I’m seeing measured, careful, logical steps being taken towards some goal.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 150

*xyz — Or: they are following the proper parliamentary procedure. If the DOJ declines to appoint a special prosecutor, then that clears the deck for Senate inherent contempt, prosecution, and/or impeachment.

Maybe we should all stop being so damned impatient and realize that they take these steps for legitimate, legal reasons. How about that?

I thought we were trying not to be testy.

xaxnar @ 96

Impeachment of Gonzales seems inescapable now – the only way to avoid it is to actively refuse to look at the evidence revealed so far. Once Gonzales is underway, it’s hard to see how the rest of the White House doesn’t get dragged in. There are too many documented contradictions and connections already.

A danger is that somehow proceedings against Gonzales will turn up things about Bush, Cheney, Rove, et. al that will then not be admissable in proceedings against them. It would be just like Gonzales to ‘reveal’ things in such a way that that would happen. Assuming conviction on anything – he then does a Libby. I don’t what the likelihood of this is, but I can see it happening, just like the revelations from Armitage interfered with indiciting anyone directly for outing Valerie Plame. You have to know something is thinking about this in the White House – that’s why they’ve all been lawyering up.

If Abu is impeached, then Bush’s pardon power is null and void. After all, doesn’t the Constitution state that the power of pardon is absolute except in cases of impeachment?

Christy Hardin Smith @ 151

*xyz — Or: they are following the proper parliamentary procedure. If the DOJ declines to appoint a special prosecutor, then that clears the deck for Senate inherent contempt, prosecution, and/or impeachment.

Maybe we should all stop being so damned impatient and realize that they take these steps for legitimate, legal reasons. How about that?

My concern is who would be appointed as a special prosecutor. It seems to me that the DOJ can help Bush without actually declining to appoint a special prosecutor. Instead, the DOJ can just appoint a Bush crony and run out the clock with a whitewash investigation.

Does that scenario seem farfetched to you? Believe me, I hope I am wrong about this and I fully recognize that you have much greater expertise in these matters than me. Thanks!

Solai @ 155

Fern @ 134

You know, I’m not ready to discount the possibility the it was Rove who sent Gonzo pitter-pattering off to Ashcroft’s hospital room.

The call from the WH requesting that Card & Abu be allowed in had to come from someone with real clout. To me, that means Bush or Cheney.

That’s true.

Rove gets subpoena

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/….._0726.html

why do I get the feeling that Abu is just DARING the SJC to do something?

Stick out your tongue, flip up your middle finger, double-dog dare…

Sorry if I am linking something folks have all ready seen.

House votes to ban permanent bases
http://www.crooksandliars.com/…..ent-bases/

Kathleen @26

Cafferty says house PASSES Bush’s
Redefined Treatment ot Detainees Torture
B.S. and ‘hidden … within … Bush pardons
himself and others …’

WHY WOULD THE DEMS DO THAT?!!!

I’ve updated the post above to include links to the video of some of the press conference and to a PDF of the full letter. It was sent to Paul Clement.

Steve-AR @ 153

OldCoastie @ 130

Rove will pull a Harriet and not show up…

I hope they are thinking “inherent contempt” and Harriet’s skinny ass is thrown in jail…

Won’t happen. If inherent contempt contempt is voted out of the House, A Fed Judge and/or SCOTUS would grant habeas or declare the practice un-constitutional.

Forget where I saw it yesteday but someone on a blog speculated that it was a warning shot by Spector at Roberts that he’d best damn pay attention to the Constitution and stare decsis on EP and other things.

Solai at 173 — Making an effort — but helping Rove along by falling for his divide and conquer tactics doesn’t lighten my mood.

Kathleen @ 177

Sorry if I am linking something folks have all ready seen.

House votes to ban permanent bases
http://www.crooksandliars.com/…..ent-bases/

I heard the ‘out’ on this is that the U.S. claims there are no permanent bases anywhere, because we always need the host country’s permission. So it’s meaningless.

nomolos @ 164

Christy Hardin Smith @ 147

*xyz — Or: they are following the proper parliamentary procedure. If the DOJ declines to appoint a special prosecutor, then that clears the deck for Senate inherent contempt, prosecution, and/or impeachment.

Maybe we should all stop being so damned impatient and realize that they take these steps for legitimate, legal reasons. How about that?

I do so hate clear thinking

It is hard to think clearly and to be patient when your country is falling down around you.

Here in Hawaii, I haven’t even got my first cuppa coffee yet, so thanks, Christy, for getting my day off to a great start with this wonderful news!

Aloha,
Bob in HI

eCAHNomics @ 178

Kathleen @ 177

Sorry if I am linking something folks have all ready seen.

House votes to ban permanent bases
http://www.crooksandliars.com/…..ent-bases/

I heard the ‘out’ on this is that the U.S. claims there are no permanent bases anywhere, because we always need the host country’s permission. So it’s meaningless.

Nothing is every meaningless when you get it on the record. The Dems need to leave a trail of everything they have done or tried to do.

dakine01 @ 182

Steve-AR @ 153

Won’t happen. If inherent contempt contempt is voted out of the House, A Fed Judge and/or SCOTUS would grant habeas or declare the practice un-constitutional.

Forget where I saw it yesteday but someone on a blog speculated that it was a warning shot by Spector at Roberts that he’d best damn pay attention to the Constitution and stare decsis on EP and other things.

I want to know what got into Specter all of the sudden .. did he get struck by lightning?

*xyz @ 95

MayDaze @ 89

Does anyone else think this is being done just to elicit a refusal by Bush?

That would really highlight his ongoing flaunting of the Constitution, wouldn’t it?

Bush doesn’t have to refuse anything because Clement can simply appoint a Bush crony to conduct a fake investigation and run out the clock until the end of Bush’s term in office.

Of course that’s true, but are you misunderestimating Bush’s petulance? *g*

brendan @ 164, Roberts and Alito need to bow out but they’ll be as adhesive in the Court as Gonzales is in the Justice Department.

Video of the Schumer, Feinstein, Feingold, Whitehouse press conference at TPM.

N=1 @ 163

See what happens when you eat your Wheaties? Reid got his vitamins!

Shall we send him a 2nd box?

Christy Hardin Smith @ 181

I’ve updated the post above to include links to the video of some of the press conference and to a PDF of the full letter. It was sent to Paul Clement.

Anyone know the deal on Clement? What’s his reputation like?

Christy @ 183……could you expand on that statement about Rove?
Thanks

Well, I have to say that this is unfolding perfectly for impeachment. I was worried about inherent contempt and them just going to arrest Meirs and then she would look somewhat pathetic and not so dangerous. I love that Bolton and Rove and whoever else they may now call will go down with her. It’s perfect. One, two and three. There’s a pattern, a conspiracy if you will. It’s very obvious to the american people at this point.

I like it. I am with Christy we need to sit back and watch them do their work. I think, for the first time in a long time, that the dems know exactly what they are doing. Or they got lucky…but whatever the case. This seems a perfect way to get to where we want to go.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 149

*xyz — Or: they are following the proper parliamentary procedure. If the DOJ declines to appoint a special prosecutor, then that clears the deck for Senate inherent contempt, prosecution, and/or impeachment.

Maybe we should all stop being so damned impatient and realize that they take these steps for legitimate, legal reasons. How about that?

There aren’t 60 votes in the Senate but the House could do it after some Blue Dogs got their balls twisted. None of these individual steps is going anywhere. Maybe it’s Reid going back to his boxing days, no knock out, but multiple body blows to wear them down.

As walls come down does anyone think that they will ever get to the bottom of the illegal wiretaping program?

If a SP is appointed, is it not all but certain this would drag on after the Bush administration is out of office?

noen @ 114

Special prosecutions take YEARS. We don’t have years.

They don’t have to take years. These guys are so drunk with power that they don’t lie well and forget there’s evidence against them.

Holy freaking Hallelujiah!

Up at the beginning of the thread … where was Leahy indeed? Why … why … why … he’s on the floor “bringing it” to Rove. Go Leahy. Evidence of thinking and planning and sublime strategy!

Hit them from all four corners. Make them spin.

Bush will go ballistic and refuse to endorse ANY rule of law even in these simplest of cases. How can that be bad for us?

Thanks Christy!

Sally @ 110

OT, but the Times has an op-ed on how to unstack the Supreme Court.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07…..smith.html

I think I’ll send this to my congresspeople.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 149

*xyz — Or: they are following the proper parliamentary procedure. If the DOJ declines to appoint a special prosecutor, then that clears the deck for Senate inherent contempt, prosecution, and/or impeachment.

Maybe we should all stop being so damned impatient and realize that they take these steps for legitimate, legal reasons. How about that?

but i’d expect the DOJ to appoint a special prosecutor who’s job is to apply whitewash. then what does the SJC do? from my admittedly ignorant perspective, it does look more like delaying than persuing.

i just don’t understand what the “legitimate, legal reasons” could be.

noen @ 185

nomolos @ 164

I do so hate clear thinking

It is hard to think clearly and to be patient when your country is falling down around you.

CHS’s response doesn’t address the other possibility: that they agree to the request.

As a layman here, I’m curious about how inevitable “running out the clock” would be in that case.

Tithonia @ 146

Are the judicial contempt citations just an interim step? So they exhaust each possibility?

That’s my read on the situation. I think the Dems are trying to show that they are following the rules to the letter, which will make the Mal-Administration look even worse.

Called my Rep and asked her to sponsor a resolution to form an impeachment inquiry WRT Gonzo’s perjury. Also called Pelosi, left comment asking for same.

Helpless Dancer @ 174

If Abu is impeached, then Bush’s pardon power is null and void. After all, doesn’t the Constitution state that the power of pardon is absolute except in cases of impeachment?

Article II, Section 2. The President shall … have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. (Emphasis added).

Stock market ( – 290 )

Joe Klein’s conscience @ 193

Christy Hardin Smith @ 181

I’ve updated the post above to include links to the video of some of the press conference and to a PDF of the full letter. It was sent to Paul Clement.

Anyone know the deal on Clement? What’s his reputation like?

emptywheel wrote multiple posts a few weeks back on Clement, I believe.

Solai @ 158

Fern @ 134

You know, I’m not ready to discount the possibility the it was Rove who sent Gonzo pitter-pattering off to Ashcroft’s hospital room.

The call from the WH requesting that Card & Abu be allowed in had to come from someone with real clout. To me, that means Bush or Cheney.

The repeated phrase “on behalf of the President” sticks in my mind…Leahy wants to ask Rove if it was he who sent Abu to the hospital. Either way he answers, the WH is screwed. And if he doesn’t show, the WH is screwed also.

The White House has been checked, let’s see what their next move will be.

As much as Reid frequently pisses me off, I don’t think he’s a coward or given to acting rashly.

Most concede Reid was a great behind the scenes player, though that doesn’t always translate into a good leader in the spotlight.

They both have their strengths and I’m beginning to think there has been alot going on behind the scenes.

I hope he proves some of the naysayers wrong.

All roads lead to the Speaker.

Praedor Atrebates @ 160

Steve-AR @ 156

Won’t happen. If inherent contempt contempt is voted out of the House, A Fed Judge and/or SCOTUS would grant habeas or declare the practice un-constitutional.

They CAN’T declare it un-constitutional. It was the NORM for most of the first 2/3s of the country’s existence. It is VERY constitutional.

My answer to that is, remember Brown v. Board? Precedent means nothing to the Roberts five now. Scalia will reverse his opinion in Young v. US.

eCAHNomics @ 31

noen @ 16

Is a special counsel really the way to go? Won’t that just take forever and let them off the hook?

Yep.

Impeachment and criminal prosecution are not mutually exclusive, in fact, they could go hand in had very nicely but the House has to initiate it and they weren’t the ones lied to in this instance. (I keep pointing to this today)

Stock market (-312)

Sally @ 190

brendan @ 164, Roberts and Alito need to bow out but they’ll be as adhesive in the Court as Gonzales is in the Justice Department.

Impeach the bastards. Justice Chase was impeached, but not convicted. And he behaved himself after impeachment.

Even if the Senate declines to convict them, the trial should marvelously help focus their thought processes.

BC

Steve at #196:

That would make the Republican strategy “rope-a-dope”.

Sally @ 155

Perris, Specter did say he was going to look into Roberts and Alito saying at their confirmation hearings they would do one thing and then doing another once they were seated. I considered the source since Specter says one thing and does another. It’s in the Republics’ DNA.

Yeah .. but impeaching Supremes? How does one do that? What is the process for that? Either Specter is serious .. or a lot of people are gonna think he’s craizer than Jim Bunning

Steve-AR @ 153

Won’t happen. If inherent contempt contempt is voted out of the House, A Fed Judge and/or SCOTUS would grant habeas or declare the practice un-constitutional.

Ah, correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the Patriot Act suspend habeas? Or is that only for detainees?

TexB @ 192

N=1 @ 163

See what happens when you eat your Wheaties? Reid got his vitamins!

Shall we send him a 2nd box?

OH I’m thinking at LEAST an 18-month supply!!!

selise @ 202

but i’d expect the DOJ to appoint a special prosecutor who’s job is to apply whitewash.

Haven’t read many of the comments so might’ve missed something, but isn’t it clear from the quote in the article that this wouldn’t be a concern if granted?

”We ask that you immediately appoint an independent special counsel from outside the Department of Justice to determine whether Attorney General Gonzales may have misled Congress or perjured himself in testimony before Congress,” four Democratic senators wrote in a letter Wednesday, according to a draft obtained by The Associated Press.

‘Outside’ being the operative word.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 183

Solai at 173 — Making an effort — but helping Rove along by falling for his divide and conquer tactics doesn’t lighten my mood.

Could you explain why helping Rove?

LS @ 210

Stock market (-312)

do you know why?

Christy Hardin Smith @ 183

Solai at 173 — Making an effort — but helping Rove along by falling for his divide and conquer tactics doesn’t lighten my mood.

oh riiiight….
unka karl made me do it!

I swear Leahy looks like god. He sure acts like the god I want to run into. Well Helen Thomas fits the part too!

The full story on Cheney’s FU response and so much more
http://www.crooksandliars.com/…..ouse-lies/

Stock market (-selise @ 221

LS @ 210

Stock market (-312)

do you know why?

Subprime and bad, new home sales.

Franco at 194 — Yes. We sit here day in and day out and try and push the Democrats into taking bolder moves on the issues we think are important. In the last couple of weeks, theyhave actually done so — the Reid 30 hour debate in the Senate, which opened up a lot more discussion on the failure that is Iraq; the contempt citations for Miers and Bolten that have actually been voted through the HJC; the hearing on Tuesday with Gonzales where he was pinned down on the record and under oath on his prior inconsistent statements, which then opened the door for a potential perjury investigation and prosecution. All of this — and a lot more work, just in the last couple of weeks — moves the public dialogue forward and shoves the bad actions of the Bush Administration in the public’s face.

And what do people do? Nitpick about the details instead of looking at the whole picture. And that nitpicking is exactly what Rove wants. So long as we all stand around on our own little islands and rant at each other about how our own individual issue is more important than anyone else’s, so long as we stand around and nitpick at how things ought to be done our way right now — so long as we are not all standing up together in one, strong, unified voice and saying “enough,” Rove’s divide and conquer strategy of picking groups that ought to stand together apart at the tiniest of seams…he wins.

We are strong when we stand together and stand behind elected leadership when they are trying to move things forward. And we want them to do so in accordance with the rule of law — otherwise, we are asking them to be no better than the Bushies.

They are trying to do so. And we need to have their backs so long as they are still trying. They need to know we want them to keep going forward, as much as we need to know they will do so. We have to start standing together better. Governing is really, really difficult — the Dem caucuses don’t walk in lockstep like the GOP, it’s like herding cats. And the more we pressure them to do the right thing TOGETHER, without picking them apart at the small level when they are doing the right thing, the more the ones who are doing the work have leverage to pressure the wavering folks to get their asses in gear.

That’s what I mean.

bonkers @ 219

selise @ 202

but i’d expect the DOJ to appoint a special prosecutor who’s job is to apply whitewash.

Haven’t read many of the comments so might’ve missed something, but isn’t it clear from the quote in the article that this wouldn’t be a concern if granted?

”We ask that you immediately appoint an independent special counsel from outside the Department of Justice to determine whether Attorney General Gonzales may have misled Congress or perjured himself in testimony before Congress,” four Democratic senators wrote in a letter Wednesday, according to a draft obtained by The Associated Press.

‘Outside’ being the operative word.

There are plenty of Bush cronies ‘outside’ of the DOJ.

Oh…Oh….I’m on the verge of beliving in G*d! Please, please, let the spine hold up! PLEASE!

Joe Klein’s conscience @ 216

Sally @ 155

Perris, Specter did say he was going to look into Roberts and Alito saying at their confirmation hearings they would do one thing and then doing another once they were seated. I considered the source since Specter says one thing and does another. It’s in the Republics’ DNA.

Yeah .. but impeaching Supremes? How does one do that? What is the process for that? Either Specter is serious .. or a lot of people are gonna think he’s craizer than Jim Bunning

It’s exactly the same as impeaching the President, or any other officer of the government. The House brings a bill of Impeachment. The case is tried in the Senate. Conviction on 2/3rd majority.

brendan @ 197

CHS’s response doesn’t address the other possibility: that they agree to the request.

As a layman here, I’m curious about how inevitable “running out the clock” would be in that case.

Maybe, and I am just guessing, but maybe they don’t care that much about Gonzales? Rove is a much bigger fish. Leap over Gonzales to get to Rove, let the SP take his time getting to Gonzales. When the Dems take full control in 09 we toss out the Bush appointed SP and replace him. Then Gonzo goes to jail and does not get out for a while.

Would Jim Comey (as special prosecutor) have a conflict of interest? :)

How about Bud Cummins…..

LS @ 224

Stock market (-selise @ 221

do you know why?

Subprime and bad, new home sales.

I am sure that Larry Kudlow will say it is the new minimum wage.

-GSD

bonkers @ 216

selise @ 202

but i’d expect the DOJ to appoint a special prosecutor who’s job is to apply whitewash.

Haven’t read many of the comments so might’ve missed something, but isn’t it clear from the quote in the article that this wouldn’t be a concern if granted?

”We ask that you immediately appoint an independent special counsel from outside the Department of Justice to determine whether Attorney General Gonzales may have misled Congress or perjured himself in testimony before Congress,” four Democratic senators wrote in a letter Wednesday, according to a draft obtained by The Associated Press.

‘Outside’ being the operative word.

‘cuz they have allies outside the DOJ? some federalist society hack? i wouldn’t expect clement to appoint someone who he didn’t trust…

i mean, it’s clement – not someone like comey.

Bargain Countertenor @ 204

Helpless Dancer @ 174

If Abu is impeached, then Bush’s pardon power is null and void. After all, doesn’t the Constitution state that the power of pardon is absolute except in cases of impeachment?

Article II, Section 2. The President shall … have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. (Emphasis added).

Thanks

Christy @ 225: Beautiful.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 224

Franco at 194 — Yes. We sit here day in and day out and try and push the Democrats into taking bolder moves on the issues we think are important. In the last couple of weeks, theyhave actually done so — the Reid 30 hour debate in the Senate, which opened up a lot more discussion on the failure that is Iraq; the contempt citations for Miers and Bolten that have actually been voted through the HJC; the hearing on Tuesday with Gonzales where he was pinned down on the record and under oath on his prior inconsistent statements, which then opened the door for a potential perjury investigation and prosecution. All of this — and a lot more work, just in the last couple of weeks — moves the public dialogue forward and shoves the bad actions of the Bush Administration in the public’s face.

And what do people do? Nitpick about the details instead of looking at the whole picture. And that nitpicking is exactly what Rove wants. So long as we all stand around on our own little islands and rant at each other about how our own individual issue is more important than anyone else’s, so long as we stand around and nitpick at how things ought to be done our way right now — so long as we are not all standing up together in one, strong, unified voice and saying “enough,” Rove’s divide and conquer strategy of picking groups that ought to stand together apart at the tiniest of seams…he wins.

We are strong when we stand together and stand behind elected leadership when they are trying to move things forward. And we want them to do so in accordance with the rule of law — otherwise, we are asking them to be no better than the Bushies.

They are trying to do so. And we need to have their backs so long as they are still trying. They need to know we want them to keep going forward, as much as we need to know they will do so. We have to start standing together better. Governing is really, really difficult — the Dem caucuses don’t walk in lockstep like the GOP, it’s like herding cats. And the more we pressure them to do the right thing TOGETHER, without picking them apart at the small level when they are doing the right thing, the more the ones who are doing the work have leverage to pressure the wavering folks to get their asses in gear.

That’s what I mean.

Christy-you are awesome, and right.

selise @ 222

LS @ 210

Stock market (-312)

do you know why?

Because the housing crash is finally being acknowledged. The subprime mortgages are worthless and the banks and funds that own them are taking a huge hit.

Even the boat builders say that consumers can’t buy their product because the credit isn’t available.

Translation, the credit industry realizes that the average American is stretched too thin and their equity in their homes is not going to bail them out.

*xyz @ 226

There are plenty of Bush cronies ‘outside’ of the DOJ.

Ah yes. Spoke too soon and after reading a little more, realized it’s Clement’s decision from within the DOJ. Ken Starr was from outside the DOJ, wasn’t he?

Joe Klein’s conscience @ 215

Sally @ 155

Perris, Specter did say he was going to look into Roberts and Alito saying at their confirmation hearings they would do one thing and then doing another once they were seated. I considered the source since Specter says one thing and does another. It’s in the Republics’ DNA.

Yeah .. but impeaching Supremes? How does one do that? What is the process for that? Either Specter is serious .. or a lot of people are gonna think he’s craizer than Jim Bunning

Right, did you notice that his signature was not on the letter calling for a special prosecutor? He made lots of noise about it at the hearing but…

Wordsmith@226

I feel what you are feeling. I want so much to believe that good will triumph over evil. I try to make my calls and send letters to help it along. But I’m afraid to trust anything until the last move is made.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 183

Solai at 173 — Making an effort — but helping Rove along by falling for his divide and conquer tactics doesn’t lighten my mood.

What an inappropriate response. You should learn to brook disagreement.

selise @ 222

LS @ 210

Stock market (-312)

do you know why?

Don’t know if this is still the operative reason, but 5 hours ago (8am, NYC), I heard that the banks that were financing the $12 billion Chrysler deal were having a hard time pawning it off to spread the risk, raising general concerns about a credit crunch.

AnnieW @ 229

selise @ 222

do you know why?

Because the housing crash is finally being acknowledged. The subprime mortgages are worthless and the banks and funds that own them are taking a huge hit.

Even the boat builders say that consumers can’t buy their product because the credit isn’t available.

Translation, the credit industry realizes that the average American is stretched too thin and their equity in their homes is not going to bail them out.

Home sales down 6.2% this morning.

Christy@225

Thank you….I totally agree….I myself can get impatient about so small detail, but when I take a step back I realize, although my passions are justified, it is the big picture that is important.

great comment!

Hey, I have a T-shirt just like the one the guy in the video is wearing.

brendan at 240 — I’ll work on it if you do, too.

I think it’s safe to say, Speaker, that “the eyes of Texas (Crawford) are upon you”

amazing video!!!!

eCAHNomics @ 240

selise @ 222

do you know why?

Don’t know if this is still the operative reason, but 5 hours ago (8am, NYC), I heard that the banks that were financing the $12 billion Chrysler deal were having a hard time pawning it off to spread the risk, raising general concerns about a credit crunch.

Could it have anything to do with the Murdoch takeover of the Dow? Or, is it off?

Bargain Countertenor @ 201

Helpless Dancer @ 174

If Abu is impeached, then Bush’s pardon power is null and void. After all, doesn’t the Constitution state that the power of pardon is absolute except in cases of impeachment?

Article II, Section 2. The President shall … have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. (Emphasis added).

Just to get straight in my own mind, impeachment does not preclude criminal charges?

Sparkles the Iguana @ 230

Would Jim Comey (as special prosecutor) have a conflict of interest? :)

How about Bud Cummins…..

Comey is a witness to the Ashcroft bedside visit. He can’t be the special prosecutor.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 224

Franco at 194 — Yes. We sit here day in and day out and try and push the Democrats into taking bolder moves on the issues we think are important. In the last couple of weeks, theyhave actually done so — the Reid 30 hour debate in the Senate, which opened up a lot more discussion on the failure that is Iraq; the contempt citations for Miers and Bolten that have actually been voted through the HJC; the hearing on Tuesday with Gonzales where he was pinned down on the record and under oath on his prior inconsistent statements, which then opened the door for a potential perjury investigation and prosecution. All of this — and a lot more work, just in the last couple of weeks — moves the public dialogue forward and shoves the bad actions of the Bush Administration in the public’s face.

And what do people do? Nitpick about the details instead of looking at the whole picture. And that nitpicking is exactly what Rove wants. So long as we all stand around on our own little islands and rant at each other about how our own individual issue is more important than anyone else’s, so long as we stand around and nitpick at how things ought to be done our way right now — so long as we are not all standing up together in one, strong, unified voice and saying “enough,” Rove’s divide and conquer strategy of picking groups that ought to stand together apart at the tiniest of seams…he wins.

We are strong when we stand together and stand behind elected leadership when they are trying to move things forward. And we want them to do so in accordance with the rule of law — otherwise, we are asking them to be no better than the Bushies.

They are trying to do so. And we need to have their backs so long as they are still trying. They need to know we want them to keep going forward, as much as we need to know they will do so. We have to start standing together better. Governing is really, really difficult — the Dem caucuses don’t walk in lockstep like the GOP, it’s like herding cats. And the more we pressure them to do the right thing TOGETHER, without picking them apart at the small level when they are doing the right thing, the more the ones who are doing the work have leverage to pressure the wavering folks to get their asses in gear.

That’s what I mean.

Nit picking is one thing, asking logical and rational questions is another.

brendan @ 233

Christy Hardin Smith @ 183

Solai at 173 — Making an effort — but helping Rove along by falling for his divide and conquer tactics doesn’t lighten my mood.

What an inappropriate response. You should learn to brook disagreement.

Brendan Get a life and stop being so rude.

CNBC headline…Are DEMS anti-business?…and it’s not even Kudlow, GSD.

Next up, How Hillary Clinton’s campaign is killing the “Bush boom”.

CHS @ 225
Rove’s divide and conquer strategy of picking groups that ought to stand together apart at the tiniest of seams…he wins.

You give @$$hat Rove waaaay too much credit.

Maybe we’re fighting on many fronts.
Maybe discourse about best strategies is constructive.
Maybe spontaneity has the powerful effect of authenticity.

Yes, I think that’s it.

Did anyone else hear a quote by Spector yesterday saying something about having a jail in the basement of this building (referring to the capitol)?

That’s interesting.

I think we may be living through a period that will be heavily featured in the history books (assuming of course Bush Inc. doesn’t get to write the history — in which case it will be in coloring books).

Joe Klein’s conscience @ 213

Yeah .. but impeaching Supremes? How does one do that? What is the process for that? Either Specter is serious .. or a lot of people are gonna think he’s craizer than Jim Bunning

Same way you impeach a President — there is no variance in the procedure. It starts in the House with an impeachment inquiry, if that produces grounds to impeach, the House votes to do so — and the trial is held in the Senate.

Maybe you’re not old enough to remember people demanding that Chief Justice Earl Warren be impeached…

Hey, my sarcasm quotes aren’t there one the Hillary comment at 253….

Unless there really is another intelligence program that no one else at the meeting seems to be able to remember, it seems apparent that the AG is going to be claiming that he is referring to a component or sub-part of the overall terrorist surveillance program. Note the language being used already describing the program as very complex and the emphasis on the suggestion that the president has only acknowledged a part or portion of the program.

It’s all going to boil down to semantics and some kind of technical analysis of how the program is actually organized and then the MSM will lose interest and Gonzales will weasel and dissemble his way out of another seemingly obvious case of perjury.

This show is getting old.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 245

brendan at 240 — I’ll work on it if you do, too.

xyz and selise and noen aren’t “nitpickers” (much less Rovian) and I’m probably not the only one interested in hearing how the two different scenarios might play out from people far more expert than myself.

Could it have anything to do with the Murdoch takeover of the Dow? Or, is it off?

Seems unlikely. Wall Streeters wouldn’t care if Murdoch owned the world. As for where the deal stands, I’ve lost track. There was an alternative las minute bid from another source, but don’t know the outcome. Off to google.

1,589 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND..

Citizen Hardin Smith:

“We are strong when we stand together and stand behind elected leadership when they are trying to move things forward. And we want them to do so in accordance with the rule of law…”

You go girl!! You are once again right on….I would jest remind you that, in this as in most cases, the “rule of law” means nothing outside political will and action. The “rule of law” is dependant on the consensus agreement of procedure forged in the contest of politics…and it’s POLITICS that’s gunna bring these motherfuckers down. I jest hope that the “rule of law” is not manipulated to obfuscate or get them off the hook.

KEEP THE FAITH AND HIT ‘EM AGAIN THEY’RE STILL BREATHIN’!!!

IMPEACH THEM ALL

brendan @ 240

Christy Hardin Smith @ 183

Solai at 173 — Making an effort — but helping Rove along by falling for his divide and conquer tactics doesn’t lighten my mood.

What an inappropriate response. You should learn to brook disagreement.

Brendan, I sincerely hope that was just failed snark, and not what you really meant.

brendan @ 239

Christy Hardin Smith @ 183

Solai at 173 — Making an effort — but helping Rove along by falling for his divide and conquer tactics doesn’t lighten my mood.

What an inappropriate response. You should learn to brook disagreement.

Your brave. I agree asking legitimate questions does not help Rove, that is over the top.

brendan @ 215

Steve at #196:

That would make the Republican strategy “rope-a-dope”.

I need to weigh-in on all this boxing strategy talk. Last week I posted that we were winning and Bush was playing defense. This too was from a boxing strategy viewpoint. Bush and his team only fight one way, they come straight ahead, that’s why they’re always in your face. To beat someone like this, you must side-step and counter, side-step and counter, until you’ve worn them down and/or they get tired and sloppy. Now here’s the magic part. Once this happens, you start hitting them with everything you’ve got and they will start to give ground. At this point they begin collapsing, nothing they do works, THEY CAN”T PLAY DEFENSE, they are confused and their confidence shatters. Next thing, their looking up from the canvas.

brendan @ 258

Christy Hardin Smith @ 245

brendan at 240 — I’ll work on it if you do, too.

xyz and selise and noen aren’t “nitpickers” (much less Rovian) and I’m probably not the only one interested in hearing how the two different scenarios might play out from people far more expert than myself.

hear! hear!

Helpless Dancer @ 245

Bargain Countertenor @ 201

Article II, Section 2. The President shall … have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. (Emphasis added).

Just to get straight in my own mind, impeachment does not preclude criminal charges?

No. All impeachment does is remove from office. Criminal proceedings are still open at that point

Helpless Dancer @ 249

Bargain Countertenor @ 201

Article II, Section 2. The President shall … have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. (Emphasis added).

Just to get straight in my own mind, impeachment does not preclude criminal charges?

Absolutely not. Impeachment’s only prescribed penalty is removal from office. Once removed, the subject is as vulnerable to criminal prosecution as anyone else.

Not that I would expect the Dim Son’s DOJ to pursue any criminal charges.

BC

Let me just chime in and say that the heightened emotions are a good thing. The nation is reaching the boiling point.

We have been getting shit shoved down our throats for so long and the gag reflex is kicking in, finally.

If the economy is shuddering now, the last refuge of the fascists is melting away.

What good are authoritarians if they can’t even keep the wolf from the door.

The military, the far right and most of America is finally catching up to where we have been for YEARS.

This is a good thing.

Bush is getting backed into a corner and he doesn’t have any goodwill left, so if he behaves stupidly, which history shows us is his only behavior it will be seen by all.

Everyone, gird yourselves, times are getting tough, but there is sunlight coming after the storm.

-GSD

boxer @ 263

brendan @ 215

Steve at #196:

That would make the Republican strategy “rope-a-dope”.

I need to weigh-in on all this boxing strategy talk. Last week I posted that we were winning and Bush was playing defense. This too was from a boxing strategy viewpoint. Bush and his team only fight one way, they come straight ahead, that’s why they’re always in your face. To beat someone like this, you must side-step and counter, side-step and counter, until you’ve worn them down and/or they get tired and sloppy. Now here’s the magic part. Once this happens, you start hitting them with everything you’ve got and they will start to give ground. At this point they begin collapsing, nothing they do works, THEY CAN”T PLAY DEFENSE, they are confused and their confidence shatters. Next thing, their looking up from the canvas.

Wrong move. They just gave Bush all he needs to run the clock out. Clements may appoint a Special Prosecutor but it will be a rabid, Republican who will sit on the charges and “investigate” for a year, run up a budget of millions of dollars, and then shrug his shoulders and clear Abu of all charges. And of course everyone involved will have the handy, “on-going investigation”, excuse to refuse to talk about it.

The Senate has all it needs right now to request impeachment by the House.

Christy @ 225

Thank you for drawing a picture like that.

My consciousness has really been raised by spending time here at FDL. I know we are affected in these ways but it’s really hard to see it until the veil is lifted. I’m seeing things much more clearly these days and it is a great relief. Much less confusing!

When I catch myself having been bamboozled I really wonder if they are putting the koolaid in the tap water these days.

Go Christy!

who takes a summer vacation while their house is burning down?

good.
grief.

Joe Klein’s conscience @ 193

Christy Hardin Smith @ 181

I’ve updated the post above to include links to the video of some of the press conference and to a PDF of the full letter. It was sent to Paul Clement.

Anyone know the deal on Clement? What’s his reputation like?

Marcy says he has a conflict of interest

Very interesting and detailed diary by a lawyer-type over at Kos on the wisdom of the Conyers Committee report voted on yesterday. I feel better after having read it. And am thinking that it puts Spector’s saber-rattling re Roberts and Alito into perspective; he may be warning them not to go to far wrt any notions of Unitary Executive Power.

Fern @ 261

brendan @ 240

What an inappropriate response. You should learn to brook disagreement.

I sincerely hope that was just failed snark, and not what you really meant.

What is the problem with asking legitimate and sincere questions about Christy’s statements?

Outrage is good–directed against BushCo, not against other FDLers.

Logical questions and comments are good. Ranting is not.

GSD @ 268

Let me just chime in and say that the heightened emotions are a good thing. The nation is reaching the boiling point.

srsly. It’s not impatience.
It’s motivation.
It’s self- (and Constitional) preservation.
That’s a good thing.

Helpless Dancer @ 244

Bargain Countertenor @ 201

Article II, Section 2. The President shall … have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. (Emphasis added).

Just to get straight in my own mind, impeachment does not preclude criminal charges?

No, the two processes can move along parallel tracks.

ineedalife @ 271

Wrong move. They just gave Bush all he needs to run the clock out. Clements may appoint a Special Prosecutor but it will be a rabid, Republican who will sit on the charges and “investigate” for a year, run up a budget of millions of dollars, and then shrug his shoulders and clear Abu of all charges. And of course everyone involved will have the handy, “on-going investigation”, excuse to refuse to talk about it.

The Senate has all it needs right now to request impeachment by the House.

which confirms my deepest fears that it’s all a charade while they quibble behind the scenes on who gets what from iran.
somebody.please.prove.me.wrong.

Kathleen @ 268

Fern @ 261

I sincerely hope that was just failed snark, and not what you really meant.

What is the problem with asking legitimate and sincere questions about Christy’s statements?

No problem but all questions can be asked with respect and not sniping.

Christy, you are right on. One question: Does the Senate have anything to say about who the special prosecutor is? Do they get a chance to approve or disapprove of who is chosen?

Warning to self (and others paying attention):

Do NOT under any circumstances get CHS, JH, and the other Ladies of the Lake p*ss’d at me. It is done with peril.

Brisingamen @ 256

Joe Klein’s conscience @ 213

Yeah .. but impeaching Supremes? How does one do that? What is the process for that? Either Specter is serious .. or a lot of people are gonna think he’s craizer than Jim Bunning

Same way you impeach a President — there is no variance in the procedure. It starts in the House with an impeachment inquiry, if that produces grounds to impeach, the House votes to do so — and the trial is held in the Senate.

Maybe you’re not old enough to remember people demanding that Chief Justice Earl Warren be impeached…

Different in at least one respect: President can only be impeached for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution says that judges, including justices of the SCOTUS, serve “during good behavior.” This is considered to be a lower standard, according to the partisans who defended the Earl Warran/Arthur Goldberg impeachments but who opposed the Nixon impeachment. And if you can’t trust Republicans, who can you trust?

Christy @ 222: You’ve obviously never been inside a GOP caucus. Heerding cats? More like herding unwieldy falcons….everyone flying off their own direction.

Woodhall Hollow @ 268

Very interesting and detailed diary by a lawyer-type over at Kos on the wisdom of the Conyers Committee report voted on yesterday. I feel better after having read it. And am thinking that it puts Spector’s saber-rattling re Roberts and Alito into perspective; he may be warning them not to go to far wrt any notions of Unitary Executive Power.

Yes I read that one too and it helped my mood a lot. I recommend it.

Maybe there could be a bickering thread elsewhere….Gabbly?

Senate dems urge perjury probe of Gonzo.

TribeScribe @ 264

brendan @ 258

xyz and selise and noen aren’t “nitpickers” (much less Rovian) and I’m probably not the only one interested in hearing how the two different scenarios might play out from people far more expert than myself.

hear! hear!

Yes and it is O.K to question with respect even here at FDL. Thanks Christy and all FDL participants! I think we are all on the same page ultimately, justice, accountability, truth, and peace. How we get closer is the question.

CNBC is saying that tempers are frayed everywhere, floor traders screaming at one another, people calling in yelling.

It does feel like sh*t is happening today…maybe not just here.

TexB @ 286

Senate dems urge perjury probe of Gonzo.

Is this like the probe Bush had last week?

Helpless Dancer @ 246

Just to get straight in my own mind, impeachment does not preclude criminal charges?

Impeachment does not affect criminal charges, BUT Bush can pardon criminal offenses — there’s not a damn thing he can do for someone who is impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate.

The articles of conviction may preclude the Impeached from collecting any benefits (i.e., pension) and from holding any government position in the future.

Twain @ 274

Kathleen @ 268

What is the problem with asking legitimate and sincere questions about Christy’s statements?

No problem but all questions can be asked with respect and not sniping.

It matters how one asks. Everyone’s nerves are frazzled.

boxer @ 264

That’s how I see it too!

Balrog @ 289

TexB @ 286

Senate dems urge perjury probe of Gonzo.

Is this like the probe Bush had last week?

Uh huh. Only no anesthetic.

Bush won’t be able to commute Gonzo’s perjury sentence because the Special Prosecutor won’t take him to court until 2010. Right?

AnnieW @ 288

CNBC is saying that tempers are frayed everywhere, floor traders screaming at one another, people calling in yelling.

It does feel like sh*t is happening today…maybe not just here.

Gilles Deleuze: “Desire is like a wave of shit that disrupts the socius.”

Oh My just how is the Washington Press going to file “cough ” stories if all their sources have just gotten subpoenaed for lying?
Will their editors get some stones and tell the reporters, No you can’t file a story if your source for the story is indicted for lying.
What will David Brooks and David Broder do? What will all the MSM talking heads say on TV if Karl isn’t there to give them today’s talking points.
Seriously will the press admit just how many stories of their’s relied on Karl now indicted as a source? This could become a Judy Miller style outing of the the entire Washington Press! Baahahaha!

I ask again, why did the Democrats sign off on on Bush’s ‘new’ torture law. Especially
in light of war-crimes article in WaPo. Did any of you hear what Cafferty said?

If we don’t impeach George Bush for the things he has done what will future presidents think?

Now that Specter has spoken very publicly about Roberts and Alito saying one thing and doing another, he just may have to do something about it.

Has Abu been awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom yet? Can he get that whilst still in office, or is that strictly upon retirement (or imprisonment)?

LS @ 248
Dow Jones expects to have an answer by Monday on Murdoch takeover. Here’s the alternative I alluded to:

Internet entrepreneur Brad Greenspan has offered to lend the Bancrofts $400 million to $600 million to buy out relatives who want to sell, in exchange for two board seats on Dow Jones, which owns Dow Jones Newswires, the Barron’s investor newspaper and the Factiva online news archive.

Greenspan also has proposed to load up Dow Jones with debt to fund digital expansion, and would start a third business news channel to compete with General Electric’s CNBC and Murdoch’s own Fox business channel, due to start in October.

Elefante, who also did not return a telephone call seeking comment, told reporters in Boston on Monday that the family meeting was productive and said the Bancrofts now had all the information they needed to “make a good decision on the News Corp offer.”

Full story here http://www.cnbc.com/id/19946019/

Fern @ 293

Balrog @ 289

Is this like the probe Bush had last week?

Uh huh. Only no anesthetic.

Nor KY, for that matter.

Up at the beginning of the thread … where was Leahy indeed? Why … why … why … he’s on the floor “bringing it” to Rove. Go Leahy. Evidence of thinking and planning and sublime strategy!

”We ask that you immediately appoint an independent special counsel from outside the Department of Justice to determine whether Attorney General Gonzales may have misled Congress or perjured himself in testimony before Congress,” four Democratic senators wrote in a letter Wednesday, according to a draft obtained by The Associated Press. (CU: my bold)

‘Outside’ being the operative word.

Jaw dropping events.

GeorgeSimian @ 294

Bush won’t be able to commute Gonzo’s perjury sentence because the Special Prosecutor won’t take him to court until 2010. Right?

Now that is an interesting thought.

Frato (Dep. WH Press Sec.) released a statement saying the “Congress is out of control!”

Brisingamen @ 217

Steve-AR @ 153

Won’t happen. If inherent contempt contempt is voted out of the House, A Fed Judge and/or SCOTUS would grant habeas or declare the practice un-constitutional.

Ah, correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the Patriot Act suspend habeas? Or is that only for detainees?

The “Law” is ineedalife @ 270

Wrong move. They just gave Bush all he needs to run the clock out. Clements may appoint a Special Prosecutor but it will be a rabid, Republican who will sit on the charges and “investigate” for a year, run up a budget of millions of dollars, and then shrug his shoulders and clear Abu of all charges. And of course everyone involved will have the handy, “on-going investigation”, excuse to refuse to talk about it.

The Senate has all it needs right now to request impeachment by the House.

I am sure that the statute of limitations for most of the felonies that the Republicans have committed are longer than 18 months and there is no limit on War Crimes. Hopefully a good result of all of the lying and obstruction of justice is to give the Dems the will to prosecute the thousands who have committed crimes.

GeorgeSimian @ 290

Bush won’t be able to commute Gonzo’s perjury sentence because the Special Prosecutor won’t take him to court until 2010. Right?

Bush can issue a blanket pardon anytime he feels like it. That can be during an investigation, when charges are filed (if they are) or whenever.

Sally @ 295

Now that Specter has spoken very publicly about Roberts and Alito saying one thing and doing another, he just may have to do something about it.

nah – he never does… just talks big.

eCAHNomics @ 150

or they are fools

Still a strong possibility, I think.

Second

I also want to reiterate something that I said over and over before the elections.

If Rove were such a genius his prized possession, George W. Bush wouldn’t be at 26% in the polls, loathed domestically and internationally, saddled with two losing wars and a faltering economy.

Rove is one of THE most inept men on this planet.

He has taken Bush from 90% in the polls, where the French were saying in newspapers “We are American!” and where Iranians were holding candlelight vigils in support of America to the pits, the bottom, OJ Simpson levels.

Stop thinking that he has everything gamed out with his brilliance. The facts don’t bare that out.

-GSD

NSFY @ 258

Unless there really is another intelligence program that no one else at the meeting seems to be able to remember, it seems apparent that the AG is going to be claiming that he is referring to a component or sub-part of the overall terrorist surveillance program. Note the language being used already describing the program as very complex and the emphasis on the suggestion that the president has only acknowledged a part or portion of the program.

It’s all going to boil down to semantics and some kind of technical analysis of how the program is actually organized and then the MSM will lose interest and Gonzales will weasel and dissemble his way out of another seemingly obvious case of perjury.

This show is getting old.

I agree with your analysis of the program(s). Spedifically, the parts that were objected to by Comey were not within the TSP “that the President confirmed.” They were “other intelligence activities.” This is the language that Gonzo has consistently used.

But is this show getting old? I don’t agree. Gonzo’s defense is weak; it as akin to Clinton saying that oral sex is not “sexual relations.” I don’t think that Gonzo’s defense will stand up. There are some very persuasive people in Congress and Gonzo may have a technical/linguistic defense, but he tried to mislead them.

things come undone @ 290

Oh My just how is the Washington Press going to file “cough ” stories if all their sources have just gotten subpoenaed for lying?
Will their editors get some stones and tell the reporters, No you can’t file a story if your source for the story is indicted for lying.
What will David Brooks and David Broder do? What will all the MSM talking heads say on TV if Karl isn’t there to give them today’s talking points.
Seriously will the press admit just how many stories of their’s relied on Karl now indicted as a source? This could become a Judy Miller style outing of the the entire Washington Press! Baahahaha!

That’s an interesting take, I hadn’t thought of that. Of course, they could just make shit up, shouldn’t be too hard for them.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 294

If we don’t impeach George Bush for the things he has done what will future presidents think?

That has been my argument all along. Even if we don’t have the votes for removal, we should be impeaching.

carolyn urban @ 303

Up at the beginning of the thread … where was Leahy indeed? Why … why … why … he’s on the floor “bringing it” to Rove. Go Leahy. Evidence of thinking and planning and sublime strategy!

”We ask that you immediately appoint an independent special counsel from outside the Department of Justice to determine whether Attorney General Gonzales may have misled Congress or perjured himself in testimony before Congress,” four Democratic senators wrote in a letter Wednesday, according to a draft obtained by The Associated Press. (CU: my bold)

‘Outside’ being the operative word.

Jaw dropping events.

Would any current USAs be considered to be inside the DOJ?

Sally @ 292

Now that Specter has spoken very publicly about Roberts and Alito saying one thing and doing another, he just may have to do something about it.

Specter usually mutters about things he can back away from but that was really the most interesting thing he has done in a very long time. He didn’t even have to bring it up, it came out of the blue, and I am wondering if it was a real warning and what he intends to do.

carolyn urban @ 305

Up at the beginning of the thread … where was Leahy indeed? Why … why … why … he’s on the floor “bringing it” to Rove. Go Leahy. Evidence of thinking and planning and sublime strategy!

”We ask that you immediately appoint an independent special counsel from outside the Department of Justice to determine whether Attorney General Gonzales may have misled Congress or perjured himself in testimony before Congress,” four Democratic senators wrote in a letter Wednesday, according to a draft obtained by The Associated Press. (CU: my bold)

‘Outside’ being the operative word.

Jaw dropping events.

Saturday Night Massacre II draws nigh.

AnnieW @ 289

CNBC is saying that tempers are frayed everywhere, floor traders screaming at one another, people calling in yelling.

It does feel like sh*t is happening today…maybe not just here.

I second that. Mark this date in your diary to go back & see if it was a turning point, either up or down.

In honour of this occasion: The clash.

GeorgeSimian @ 295

Bush won’t be able to commute Gonzo’s perjury sentence because the Special Prosecutor won’t take him to court until 2010. Right?

Bush can pardon him anytime can’t he?

Sparkles the Iguana @ 294

Has Abu been awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom yet? Can he get that whilst still in office, or is that strictly upon retirement (or imprisonment)?

Bush can always hand it to him. I’m sure that he can reach through the bars of his adjoining cell and give it to Gonzo. Then he can go to the other side and give one to Rove.

dakine01 @ 182

Steve-AR @ 153

Won’t happen. If inherent contempt contempt is voted out of the House, A Fed Judge and/or SCOTUS would grant habeas or declare the practice un-constitutional.

Forget where I saw it yesteday but someone on a blog speculated that it was a warning shot by Spector at Roberts that he’d best damn pay attention to the Constitution and stare decsis on EP and other things.

I don’t think they will get 5 votes in SCOTUS to overturn inherent contempt, 4 yes, but not 5. Let’s hope!

Woodhall Hollow @ 309

GeorgeSimian @ 290

Bush won’t be able to commute Gonzo’s perjury sentence because the Special Prosecutor won’t take him to court until 2010. Right?

Bush can issue a blanket pardon anytime he feels like it. That can be during an investigation, when charges are filed (if they are) or whenever.

This is true. Bush can indemnify in advance anyone he chooses from any crimes not yet charged.

I’ll tell you this: Tony Snow did not look like a suave cool determined man yesterday.

Like all the gutter rats he stammered himself right into one of Vitter’s dirty diapers.

Have a laugh
http://www.crooksandliars.com/

Did anyone see the actual Conyers Contempt of Congress memo up today? Lengthy, but fascinating reading!

http://judiciary.house.gov/

Oklahoma kiddo @ 300

If we don’t impeach George Bush for the things he has done what will future presidents think?

It’s not what they’ll think. It’s what they’ll do. Extreme moral hazard (reward for bad behavior) if W is not impeached.

It’s been so long since I’ve done the “happy Snoopy dance,” I might have to go take remedial lessons!!!

Well worth the effort, though. Gee-haw!

OldCoastie @ 307

Frato (Dep. WH Press Sec.) released a statement saying the “Congress is out of control!”

GO CONGRESS!

Sally @ 295

Now that Specter has spoken very publicly about Roberts and Alito saying one thing and doing another, he just may have to do something about it.

I don’t think he intends to do anything about it. Rather, he is warning them to remember their duty to the constitution rather than Bush. Spector does not want to see impeachment, of Gonzo or anyone else get any traction. And he would be happy to see Gonzo go down and take the fall so that we he, as he repeatedly says, put this whole matter behind him. I think he is also willing to see Bolton and Miers be held in contempt as well. Spector may be a snake, but he is not a stupid one, and he realizes that what is afoot now could have very negative consequences as the rethugs are about to be eclipsed for an indeterminate period of time in the election cycle of ‘08. Some of those precedents can come back to bite, real hard. Esp. if there is a tough-minded Clinton in the White House who will not be caught with a cigar in the Oval Office. And will have the power to order the Secret Service to keep real good tabs on the First Husband.

Over at The Next Hurrah, it’s been suggested that Bruce Fein be the SP. Republican, lawyer, apparently honest (although I can’t say that I agree with some of his arguments).

Well, needless to say, it’d take me all day to get thru more than 300 comments. Has anyone mentioned a potential special prosecutor yet? I was wondering if Swift is out of the service and in private practice now. Could he serve?

The orange prison color has got to go!

SufiLizard @ 255

Did anyone else hear a quote by Spector yesterday saying something about having a jail in the basement of this building (referring to the capitol)?

That’s interesting.

I think we may be living through a period that will be heavily featured in the history books (assuming of course Bush Inc. doesn’t get to write the history — in which case it will be in coloring books).

A jail in the basement of the Capitol….

And I’m thinking a bit along the lines of the PX we had in Erlangen, Germany. It once was the horse stable for horses of the SS.

mauimom @ 329

It’s been so long since I’ve done the “happy Snoopy dance,” I might have to go take remedial lessons!!!

Well worth the effort, though. Gee-haw!

Mauimom, snoopy dance

GSD @ 312

I also want to reiterate something that I said over and over before the elections.

If Rove were such a genius his prized possession, George W. Bush wouldn’t be at 26% in the polls, loathed domestically and internationally, saddled with two losing wars and a faltering economy.

Rove is one of THE most inept men on this planet.

He has taken Bush from 90% in the polls, where the French were saying in newspapers “We are American!” and where Iranians were holding candlelight vigils in support of America to the pits, the bottom, OJ Simpson levels.

Stop thinking that he has everything gamed out with his brilliance. The facts don’t bare that out.

-GSD

Rove is no great mind and he has 2 significant problems:

1) Bush is an inferior, failed product.
2) Rove does not understand the law.

Fresh thread from Jane — if everyone could move up, the servers would REALLY appreciate it. Thanks!

Rawstory has a headline up with no link: Specter on perjury 1:45. I guess that means he’s doing a presser?

In honour of this occasion: The clash.

most excellent. Thank you.

Great post, great comments. What more can I add? IMPEACH NOW.

I am old enough to remember the days leading up to Nixon’s resignation, and the gnawing fear that it wasn’t going to happen. Such elation and relief when it finally did! It feels so intolerable to have this degree of angst, not knowing if Congress will have the strength to do what is right.

I have written an e-mail to Bush, telling him I believe he needs to resign. While I am not naieve enough to believe he gives a shit about what I think, I urge everyone to do the same. It’s time we all stand up for what’s right.

Maybe its time for an extreme act, like a national work stoppage that doesn’t end until Bush and Cheney are gone? Anyone up for it?

xyz@ 76:

Clement is going to appoint a do-nothing special prosecutor to run out the clock.

I hear Monica Goodling is available.

Fern @ 316

Would any current USAs be considered to be inside the DOJ?

Yes the US Attorneys work for the DOJ.

When they say outside DOJ (Executive Branch) they are asking that someone from the Judicial Branch be appointed to do the job.

Usually this would mean a Federal Judge who has the respect of both parties…

noen @ 314

things come undone @ 290

Oh My just how is the Washington Press going to file “cough ” stories if all their sources have just gotten subpoenaed for lying?
Will their editors get some stones and tell the reporters, No you can’t file a story if your source for the story is indicted for lying.
What will David Brooks and David Broder do? What will all the MSM talking heads say on TV if Karl isn’t there to give them today’s talking points.
Seriously will the press admit just how many stories of their’s relied on Karl now indicted as a source? This could become a Judy Miller style outing of the the entire Washington Press! Baahahaha!

That’s an interesting take, I hadn’t thought of that. Of course, they could just make shit up, shouldn’t be too hard for them.

Their strength has always been that on everynews channel every differnt MSM talking head is always saying Karl’s talking points….you couldn’t escape them or their repetition of the message.
I do wonder what they will say. I can’t wait for them to start contradicting each other then I will know that Karl’s gone!

GSD @ 312

I also want to reiterate something that I said over and over before the elections.

If Rove were such a genius his prized possession, George W. Bush wouldn’t be at 26% in the polls, loathed domestically and internationally, saddled with two losing wars and a faltering economy.

Rove is one of THE most inept men on this planet.

He has taken Bush from 90% in the polls, where the French were saying in newspapers “We are American!” and where Iranians were holding candlelight vigils in support of America to the pits, the bottom, OJ Simpson levels.

Stop thinking that he has everything gamed out with his brilliance. The facts don’t bare that out.

-GSD

Public opinion is not what he cares about anymore. They’re there now, and they have alot of work to before they have to leave the WH. It’s all about stacking the Supreme Court, destroying checks and balances, especially in the procurement department in order to steal from the Fed Treasury and enrich friends, and keep sheeple of America thinking that things like NAFTA are actually good for them.

Rove’s extremely dangerous. He got a monkey selected Prez for cryin out loud. I just think he’s redirected his energies. He couldn’t care less where Shrub is polling anymore. Plus, he knows his friends that own the Conglomerate Media will keep the message machine humming.

P J Evans @ 332

Over at The Next Hurrah, it’s been suggested that Bruce Fein be the SP. Republican, lawyer, apparently honest (although I can’t say that I agree with some of his arguments).

I can’t see how that would happen. He’s written too many anti-Bush administration op-eds.

Fern @ 60

beth meacham @ 22

Schumer et. al. are requesting a Special Prosecutor from outside the Justice Department. Too bad that James Comey was at the meeting in question, and thus is a witness.

Plus he was a witness to or participant in a lot of what has happened.

So does that mean Pat Fitzgerald is ineligible as a DOJ hire? Or how about Gov Eliot Spitzer? IN other words, from what ranks is an appointment made?

Both of the impeachment processes I’ve witnessed involved special prosecutor investigations before impeachment proceedings were introduced. Do the names Archibald Cox, Leon Jaworski, and (sorry to say) Ken Starr ring a bell? I really don’t see any case of timidity or cowardice on teh part of congress. Of course it would have been nicer if the electorate had put in Dem majorities for last 6 years.

Who do you call in Texas we have NO representation, they ONLY vote party line and what they are told to vote. Great piece.

perris @ 9

so, how peturlant can the president get?

can he decline and simply site executive priviledge?

can he “pre pardon” or “sumarily pardon” abu torture’s testimony from scrutiny?

The President cannot exercise the power of the pardon in cases of impeachment, so if the case of perjury is related to an impeachment inquiry (an impeachment of Gonzales), he cannot be pre-pardoned to prevent impeachment. He could be preemptively pardoned to forestall a criminal convition on perjury charges, but not if the perjury charge is an article of impeachment. Simple, eh?

redX @ 27

To sell staying in session in August I would say that we have to do our part for the war & peace. If the soldiers can risk their lives in the desert we can certainly work in our beautiful capital. In addition note that it will “set a good example” for the Iraqi government.

Lastly I would report on the plan to ensure state people’s can petition their representatives with Town Hall live video hookups for meetings – and perhaps 4 day trips to their states on a rotation.

dealing with all these investigations during August would also eliminate the Republican talking point about the getting-nothing-done Democratic Congress. After all, they would have been on vacation instead!

*xyz @ 48

eCAHNomics @ 31

Yep.

Yes. This is woefully inadequate. The special counsel would be selected by another Bush crony.

Impeachment of Gonzales is quite literally the only answer.

We need to demand Congress stay in session through August for impeachment hearings of Gonzales.

This will enable Congress to prevent recess appointments and begin to save our Constitution and the DOJ.

It really is that simple.

Why are they f*cking around by whimpering and begging and crying for a special prosecuter when the answer lies in their own Constitutional impeachment powers?

Asking for a special prosecuter looks weak because it is weak. It will lead nowhere and will waste precious time.

nevertheless, the step must be taken. no shortcuts. no justification for calls of partisan politics. patience is a virtue (just ask a virtuous woman).

Here’s the problem though. He’s a big fat liar, but perjury cases are difficult to prove. He’s been setting up his defense since his first appearance.

Mr. Gonzales will argue that he did not lie. He’s obviously been carving himself as awkwardly as possible the following defense: The program that the president acknowledged, and that everyone ELSE i.e., the general public, the Senate, and any logical person refers to as the terrorist surveillance program, is in fact several component programs. That is to say, monitoring of american emails is called the Enduring Carnivore Program. The monitoring of certain phone calls is called the Kill Katz program, and other phone calls are monitored under the Linda Tripp Lives Program. Now, if you go back and listen to the President’s acknowledgent of a program (which Gonzo did to come up with this ridiculous position), the President only talks about facts relating to the Linda Tripp Lives program. And at every one of these hearings, Gonzo has been careful to state that he’s only talking about the component program that the President acknowledged. I.e., it all depends on what your definition of terrorist surveillance program is. So you see, because Gonzo can claim he was not hovering over a sedated Attorney General like a vampire hoping he could just grab his hand and make him sign the authorization for the Linda Tripp portion of the program without that frigging Comey guy getting his panties in a bunch about the Constitution and stuff, then Gonzo can say he was not lying when he said the hospital visit was not about that program which the President acknowledged.

Mwahahaha. I am Gonzo the Great!

dude @ 347

Fern @ 60

Plus he was a witness to or participant in a lot of what has happened.

So does that mean Pat Fitzgerald is ineligible as a DOJ hire? Or how about Gov Eliot Spitzer? IN other words, from what ranks is an appointment made?

Well, Fitz is eligible, but radioactive. Don’t know if Spitzer is eligible, but he couldn’t do it and be CEO of New York state at the same time.

Great message, but that audio loop nearly drove me insane. Gotta be careful with those audio clips and with how you mix the music with the rest of the audio. Please.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 245

brendan at 240 — I’ll work on it if you do, too.

damn, Redd, you are just too nice sometimes. you could at least have made Brendan write it on the blackboard a hundred times.

Brisingamen @ 292

Helpless Dancer @ 246

Just to get straight in my own mind, impeachment does not preclude criminal charges?

Impeachment does not affect criminal charges, BUT Bush can pardon criminal offenses — there’s not a damn thing he can do for someone who is impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate.

The articles of conviction may preclude the Impeached from collecting any benefits (i.e., pension) and from holding any government position in the future.

just wanted to add before this thread closes – someone who is impeached and removed from office can’t very well pardon anyone after that.

OldCoastie @ 307

Frato (Dep. WH Press Sec.) released a statement saying the “Congress is out of control!”

wow. they really are worried.

Already posted?

AP reporting FBI’s Mueller has come out contradicting Gonzales testimony on the hospital visit to Ashcroft.

Bargain Countertenor @ 36

noen @ 16

Is a special counsel really the way to go? Won’t that just take forever and let them off the hook?

It depends on what they want to do, noen. Personally, I don’t the SP is the way to go. I think Abu should be cited by both houses for contempt of congress, and congress itself should hold the trial. After he’s convicted, they should throw his ass in the basement of the capitol and discard the key.

BC

Why is the Senate even thinking about losing control over the perjury investigation of Gonzales?

The Solicitor General is a Republican appointee, a Republican appointed by Bush. We already know Bush’s criteria for hiring lawyers — loyalty to Bush-Chaney above all.

If Bush’s Solicitor General has to appoint a special prosecutor, who will he choose, a Patrick Fitzgerald? Not on your life. He will appoint a Ken Starr, a political crony of the Bush-Chaney administration who will consume millions of dollars exonerating Gonzales. It wouldn’t surprise me if the special prosecutor would turn the investigation on its head and bring charges against Leahy and Schumer for insulting Gonzales’s reputation.

The Senate must retain control of the investigation and prosecution of Gonzales or it will be an exercise in obfuscation.

Gonzales can and must be tried in an inherent contempt proceeding by Congress for refusing to answer questions and for lying.

Thanks, FDL friends, for helping me to interpret this complex legal fecal matter (ordinarily not of interest). Is this just a distraction that’ll be brushed aside by WH appointing some partisan ReThug hack? Many of you above make a convincing argument.
Ordinarily I despise DiFi, an authoritarian far-right DINO (she wants them wonderful ICE agents who shot that Mexcun pot smuggler pardoned and released– brown people have no rights) BUT upon first hearing this I was tempted to call her ofc. tomorrow and thank her (I am a Californian) Would that be stupid?
What do fellow firepups think?

mc @ 235

Christy Hardin Smith @ 224

. . . . .
That’s what I mean.

Christy-you are awesome, and right.

While I heartily applaud CHS’ post, please folks, let’s NOT forget what GOT us to this point and GOT us to the loss of our Republic and a Unitary Executive-we fell asleel and LET them do it.

So, while I heartily applaud the red white and blueness of Christy’s upbraiding of criticizing those who may actually be working for us, I gotta add one thing:

QUESTION AUTHORITY!!!

It’s a LACK of american’s taking an active interest and QUESTIONING AUTHORITY that led us to this mess.

Now is NO time, to squelch ANY view or perspective.

To come together is admirable, but not at the extent of the ‘coming together’ being just another sheepherding social experiment NOT IN OUR BEST INTERESTS>

So, I close with, they BOTH gotta get done.

We pull together and get louder, but man, NO ONE, NO ONE loses a voice or place to criticize and Say, HEY, THAT’S BS!!! Especially when it may very well be . . .

The Coming Together will neuter many other valid issues, and they will get swept under for a ‘common good’ which history has proven before, is NOT a good thing.

There’s room for everyoone on this bus. Including the marginal whacked out conspiricists. And the pseudo lib’s posing as Shilary. Plenty of room on the bus.

Let’s make sure we don’t start booting folks off the bus just cuz they don’t agree with the mainstream movement . . . cuz that’s as authoritarian and Unitarily Executively Privilaged as what’s been crammed down our gullets while we were feeding and sleeping the decades away.

Now, on with The Cleansing!!!

*G*

AnnieW @ 236

selise @ 222

do you know why?

Because the housing crash is finally being acknowledged. The subprime mortgages are worthless and the banks and funds that own them are taking a huge hit.

Even the boat builders say that consumers can’t buy their product because the credit isn’t available.

Translation, the credit industry realizes that the average American is stretched too thin and their equity in their homes is not going to bail them out.

Any econ’s out there wanna edjukate this Larue on what’s up with trillions of worth of junk bonds about to be written off? How’s that gonna hit the stock markets? Value of dollar internationally?

‘Specially in a bad housing market and all the overreach in general this house of cards is based on?

And Iran told Japan to pay in Euro’s (or was it yen?) instead of Real AmeriKan Dollars?

And there’s more econ news like that but I forget who and where and when lately . .

Russia was broken in Afghan by overextension and MONEY issues . . .

How close ARE we, the USA, from being broken economically?

Just askin . . . . there IS some talk ‘out there’ about these issues . . . . I’m thinking, these isues may be a HECK of a lot more immediate than anyone wants to let on . . .

The Cleansing can’t help THOSE econ issues, not now, anyways . . . but I’m not an econ. *G*

Twain @ 242

. . . .

Home sales down 6.2% this morning.

Yeah, but foreclosures are up at a 20 year or more high in CA!!!!!!!!

SOMEONE’S making out on this . . .

joyous @ 15

Barbara the ignorant here. Who appoints a special prosecutor?

Normally it’s the AG, given he and the DAG have to recuse, it falls to the Solicitor General (Paul Clements?)

Paul Clements signed the “legal opinion” attached to Fred Fieldings “Executive Privilege is Universal” letter. That’s a clear conflict of interest on this issue.

Another danger is that they will appoint a Special Prosecutor of their own choice during the “recess”. And that would essentially prevent any “advise and consent” function.

Bargain Countertenor @ 125

dakine01 @ 106

In order to be blocked from future running for office, it has to be specified in the order of removal iirc. With Hastings, the Senate did not so specify so he was free to run and get elected.

I think you’re right. I thought the Constitution specified the penalty as removal from office, loss of all emoluments, and banning from future office.

I was wrong, the constitution itself only specifies removal from office:

Article II, Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

BC

It’s in Article I Sec 3…elucidating the powers of the Senate in regards to impeachment.

“The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.”

The power to prohibit further officeholding is specifically stated.

The power to prohibit any emoluments of office is based on the “disqualification to hold and ENJOY any office of honor, trust or profit”.

That could even be interpreted to prevent that individual from receiving government grants or loans, contracts, subsidies, land grants, etc. The use of the symbols and titles of previous office could be stripped, especially in areas where that person was involved in making money…for example, speeches. Franking privileges and Secret Service protection could be stripped…as that it something that requires Federal expenditure and is an “enjoyment” accorded to former Presidents. A disgraced former President might be compelled to hire his own security.

No official Presidential Library. No ability to fundraise as the “former President”. No pension. No use of the Presidential seal or “Hail To The Chief”. There would be an embargo against using his advice in Federal decisionmaking by Congress or the Executive.

More importantly, his Presidential papers would be embargoed and he could not use his Executive privilege to block access to them under the George Bush I (revised by GWB) Executive Order.

If Congress cannot muster the votes to impeach NOW, then there is STILL PLENTIFUL: REASONS to impeach after he has left office…to prevent a perpetual coverup.

Biodun @ 277

Outrage is good–directed against BushCo, not against other FDLers.

Logical questions and comments are good. Ranting is not.

Ranting is an essential freedom.
As was said, freeform insanity leads to idea generation and unconsidered platforms with which to jump off of into unchartered waters that MIGHT hide the keys and clues to some serious problems.

A whack up the side of the head.

Brainstorming.

All them corpspeak phrasings you hear in meetings when the leader of the group uses them, but don’t really want anyone really DOING it.

Harumph. *G*

dakine01 @ 283

Warning to self (and others paying attention):

Do NOT under any circumstances get CHS, JH, and the other Ladies of the Lake p*ss’d at me. It is done with peril.

Huh, too funny. Yer on yer own hoss!!! lol

We the people just can’t save someone who won’t save themself’s!!! ;-)

noen @ 286

Woodhall Hollow @ 268

Very interesting and detailed diary by a lawyer-type over at Kos on the wisdom of the Conyers Committee report voted on yesterday. I feel better after having read it. And am thinking that it puts Spector’s saber-rattling re Roberts and Alito into perspective; he may be warning them not to go to far wrt any notions of Unitary Executive Power.

Yes I read that one too and it helped my mood a lot. I recommend it.

SAYYYYY! That IS a good read!!! Thanks to the original linker of it, and thanks Neon for bringing it up again . .

I gotta say, some of this constitutionalist and lawyering stuff is SO over my head at times, but, man this place sure does put it out there, and explain it . . . it’s like taking a masters level course at times . . . . and I HATE school. ;-) But, I KNOW it’s good for me, like Cod Liver Oil!!! lol

Thanks to all . . . even the ones I don’t agree with!!!!! lol

GSD @ 312

I also want to reiterate something that I said over and over before the elections.

If Rove were such a genius his prized possession, George W. Bush wouldn’t be at 26% in the polls, loathed domestically and internationally, saddled with two losing wars and a faltering economy.

Rove is one of THE most inept men on this planet.

He has taken Bush from 90% in the polls, where the French were saying in newspapers “We are American!” and where Iranians were holding candlelight vigils in support of America to the pits, the bottom, OJ Simpson levels.

Stop thinking that he has everything gamed out with his brilliance. The facts don’t bare that out.

-GSD

This is one of the most UPLIFTING postings I’ve ever read.

Please make this a banner, a war cry, a rally point, a pep talk, WHATEVUH!!

I SO needed to hear that put into perspective.

Despite all the challenges we still face, and our deepest fears of the WORST things could get, morale wise your post was the equivalent of ‘they put their pants on one leg at a time, just like we do’ . . . it’s a lousy analogy, maybe Ernie Banks and ‘Let’s Play Two’ is worse . . .

But it keeps me in the fight, and makes my heard sing.

Thanks so much, GSD. That was pretty bitchen for THIS Larue.

*G*