zed?

LooseHeadProp!

Single digits, Friday, Christy!

Leahy is playing hardball, softly.

Yeah! Leahey’s goin’ all Churchill on the WH.

Leahy is great, he is like a well-fed cat playing with a live mouse. No real urge to kill it, just having some fun at its expense. An old Vermont tradition.

“There is a cloud over this White House and a gathering storm.

A gathering storm is for damn sure!

Loo Hoo. @ 7

“There is a cloud over this White House and a gathering storm.

A gathering storm is for damn sure!

Maybe that cloud is Fitzzz!

The Sunday Morning Gabfests should be interesting for a change. For what they don’t say, as much as for what they do.

Don’t make me google — it’s been a long day. Wasn’t Sen Leahy one of the a**th**x recepients?

nonplussed @ 9

The Sunday Morning Gabfests should be interesting for a change. For what they don’t say, as much as for what they do.

Do you think anyone ever hears what they don’t say?

nonplussed @ 9

The Sunday Morning Gabfests should be interesting for a change. For what they don’t say, as much as for what they do.

They’re ALWAYS more interesting for what they don’t say.

Eugene Robinson weighs in:

Gonzo has managed to do something no one else in Washington has managed in years: create a spirit of true bipartisanship.

Bedtime for Gonzo

I hope the gathering storm turns into the perfect storm and sweeps bush and cheney straight the hell away.

Loo Hoo. @ 7

“There is a cloud over this White House and a gathering storm.

A gathering storm is for damn sure!

Did I just see a flash of lightening? It looked like this:

T I L L M A N

Good move on Sen. Leahy’s part, and Abu would have to be a moron not to understand the implication here. I suspect, although I haven’t seen a poll, that even more Americans favor impeachment (or some form of sanction) for Abu than for Cheney.

Ed*ard Teller @ 12

nonplussed @ 9

The Sunday Morning Gabfests should be interesting for a change. For what they don’t say, as much as for what they do.

They’re ALWAYS more interesting for what they don’t say.

kind of like “Kremlin watching”, only different ……..

it’s good to be back home!

How many last chances are they gonna get?

I’ll believe it when I see some actions taken, serious actions.

Empty Wheel has a great post on the HJC report up at her place in which she hones in on a cute little tidbit in the report:

It is now well established that, in the opening days of President Bush’s second term, Senior Presidential Advisor Karl Rove raised the idea with officials in the White House Counsel’s office of replacing some or all U.S. Attorneys. At this point, however, it is not known why Mr. Rove was interested in this issue, although he was at that time under investigation by a sitting U.S. Attorney and had testified twice [sic] before a federal grand jury in the matter.

She also has a link to the full report, which is well worth taking the time to read.

retirin’ in five @ 10

Don’t make me google — it’s been a long day. Wasn’t Sen Leahy one of the a**th**x recepients?

Ayup.

LS @ 8

Loo Hoo. @ 7

“There is a cloud over this White House and a gathering storm.

A gathering storm is for damn sure!

Maybe that cloud is Fitzzz!

And Leahy is riding that cloud and he looks like god! Both compassionate and stern. How many fucking chances do you need Alberto?

I suspect not much will be visible to us mortals but August should be a very interesting month. The Dems may be planning a product launch for Sept.

I’m wondering if Gonzo’s going to claim he can’t change, add to, or expand on his testimony because it will be a violation of Executive Privilege.

Couldn’t somebody remind Abu that a pardon is null and void in cases of impeachment? Impeach first, then arrest, try and convict. An aside, he can be impeached even after he leaves office. (Not that the Dems would have the nerve to do this.)

Tanx, Woodhall.

The question that should be posed to each and every presidential candidate is what is their own personal definition of ‘unitary executive’ and will they or won’t they embrace such a philosophy when they assume the office… all of the NSA wiretapping, disregard for the Geneva Conventions, extraordinary renditions, detainee torture, stripping habeaus corpus from enemy combatants, deleting thousands upon thousand of emails pertaining to official business, muzzling the EPA & surgeon general, the USA scandal, outing Valeria Plame, ETC… ALL OF THESE ISSUES COME BACK TO THE IDEA OF UNITARY EXECUTIVE AND HOW THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION VIEWS THAT PHILOSOPHY AND HAS PUT IT INTO ACTION… why isn’t the MSM asking that question?

I’m going to go out on a limb here, and say the direct reference to Richard Nixon is some type of coded language.

On the Clock @ 27

I’m going to go out on a limb here, and say the direct reference to Richard Nixon is some type of coded language.

I would say that you are out on a pretty safe limb.

Program X. From TPMmuckraker last night:

There’s a lot of evidence to suggest that Gonzales’s careful, repeated phrasing to the Senate that he will only discuss the program that “the president described” was deliberate, part of a concerted administration-wide strategy to conceal from the public the very broad scope of that initial program. When, for the first time, Program X (as we’ll call it, for convenience’s sake) became known to senior Justice Department officials who were not its original architects, those officials — James Comey and Jack Goldsmith, principally — balked at its continuation. They did not back down until the program had undergone as-yet-unspecified but apparently significant revisions. But when President Bush announced what he would call the “Terrorist Surveillance Program’ in December 2005, he left the clear impression that the program had always functioned the same way since its 2001 inception.

The administration’s consistent refusal to discuss any aspect of the program — current or former — aside from what President Bush disclosed in December 2005 appears to be intended, specifically, to gloss over Comey and Goldsmith’s objections. If that’s the case, it could mean that the public has been presented with an inaccurate picture of the origins and scope of Program X. The Bush administration is currently contesting a Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena for documentation establishing Program X’s history — in essence, trying to ensure that the public never learns more about the program and the internal deliberations over it than what President Bush chooses to reveal.

On the Clock @ 27

I’m going to go out on a limb here, and say the direct reference to Richard Nixon is some type of coded language.

Do you think they have “tapes”…???

Seems like some hard working bloggers and their call to action last fall seeded those clouds that are gathering.

Ethan @ 26

The question that should be posed to each and every presidential candidate is what is their own personal definition of ‘unitary executive’ and will they or won’t they embrace such a philosophy when they assume the office… all of the NSA wiretapping, disregard for the Geneva Conventions, extraordinary renditions, detainee torture, stripping habeaus corpus from enemy combatants, deleting thousands upon thousand of emails pertaining to official business, muzzling the EPA & surgeon general, the USA scandal, outing Valeria Plame, ETC… ALL OF THESE ISSUES COME BACK TO THE IDEA OF UNITARY EXECUTIVE AND HOW THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION VIEWS THAT PHILOSOPHY AND HAS PUT IT INTO ACTION… why isn’t the MSM asking that question?

Maybe these questions should be asked by a melting snowman for maximum effect.

A little OT, as the thunder rumbles outside my window:

As much as Pat Tillman did for us in his life – and he did a lot – he is doing far, far more in death.

Thanks, Christy!
I am SO glad for Democrats with backbones!
I am SO glad for Democrats who care about our Constitution, the bill of rights, and the balance of powers!

Those things should be taken as givens, but unfortunately, they’re not. The public seems to have forgotten what the Constitution is, and the extent to which the American way of life depends on it. To many Democrats, their oath of office seems to be a mere formalism devoid of importance.

That’s why I love some Christy in the morning with a reminder of what is at stake!

Bob in HI

retirin’ in five @ 10

Don’t make me google — it’s been a long day. Wasn’t Sen Leahy one of the a**th**x recepients?

Dunno, but I was thinking along the same lines. Every time I see his photo and read what he’s doing, I want to warn him to watch his back (front, sides, top, bottom, whatever). Truth tellers are never rewarded by BushCo. Take, for example, Paul Wellstone. (”Oh, man, you trotting out that old conspiracy theory again?” Answer: Yes.)

“Not since the darkest days of the Nixon Administration have we seen efforts to corrupt federal law enforcement for partisan political gain and such efforts to avoid accountability.”

“There is a cloud over this White House and a gathering storm. I hope they will reconsider their course and end their cover up”

Hmmm…Maybe they’ve been TSP’d themselves.

nonplussed @ 9

The Sunday Morning Gabfests should be interesting for a change. For what they don’t say, as much as for what they do.

I’m hoping we get some action tomorrow morning too.

“a cloud and a gathering storm”…man that is nice, a warning to the administration there is a host of information about to unfold

I remmeber when he said he slept fine in the wake of his failure in Iraq

I wonder how Bush sleeps nowadays, now that it is obvious doors of justice are closing in

Voter Fraud and Voter Suppression need to be brought up more and more as deadlines for being able to clean up messes before November, 2008 loom. The keys:
1) restore voting rights to voters illegally purged from voter lists in the Southeast and elsewhere – probably 250,00 voters, 3/4 or more of whom will vote Dem.
2) no paper trail, no electronic voting machine – period – NATIONWIDE, by Federal law.
3) voter and party access to data on how voter information is transferred from precinct to final tally, at every step of the way. No claims of private contractors’ personal property on that information allowed.
4) Nationwide standards on number of machines per precinct.
5) Class A or B felony for mailing or phone calling or other transmission of knowingly false information on any aspect of voting places, times, etc. Subject to RICO, if party orgs involved.

sonate @ 24

Couldn’t somebody remind Abu that a pardon is null and void in cases of impeachment? Impeach first, then arrest, try and convict. An aside, he can be impeached even after he leaves office. (Not that the Dems would have the nerve to do this.)

The impeachment limitation on the plenary pardon power is that once an officer is impeached, tried, convicted, and removed from office with disabilities the conviction in the senate and the consequences cannot be undone with a pardon. In a subsequent criminal prosecution, pardons are available. Scholars are not in agreement on the question of whether or not impeachment of an officer who has left office is possible.

LS @ 30

On the Clock @ 27

I’m going to go out on a limb here, and say the direct reference to Richard Nixon is some type of coded language.

Do you think they have “tapes”…???

Or a deep throat or two or three? It is worth noting, in the footnotes of the HJC committee report, including a couple who are without a name. Eg. “a woman” .

hey if folks do not mind and they like this idea. On the last post Yellowsnapdragon suggessted that Cindy Sheehan visit VP Cheney’s hospital room while he was all doped up and get him to sign troop redeployment papers. I have called Codepinks pink house in Washington D.C. to see if they would be willing to pull off such a theatrical piece 202-290-1301. Or contact codepink via e-mail to see if they can contact Cindy and see if she would be willing

http://www.codepink4peace.org/

I think it is a great idea Yellowsnapdragon

yellowsnapdragon says:

July 27th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Arca @ 127

Just in, Cheney’s going to have his pacemaker battery replaced tomorrow.
Pray for whatever outcome you feel is best.

Quick! Get Cindy Sheehan to the hospital to make him sign troop redeployment orders while he’s still doped up.

Not since the darkest days of the Nixon Administration have we seen efforts to corrupt federal law enforcement for partisan political gain and such efforts to avoid accountability.”

I was a kid when Nixon resigned. But these guys seem worse than Nixon to me. Especially because there are so few Republicans willing to put our country’s interests ahead of their party’s, now.

grill ‘em, Pat.

barbara @ 35

retirin’ in five @ 10

Don’t make me google — it’s been a long day. Wasn’t Sen Leahy one of the a**th**x recepients?

Dunno, but I was thinking along the same lines. Every time I see his photo and read what he’s doing, I want to warn him to watch his back (front, sides, top, bottom, whatever). Truth tellers are never rewarded by BushCo. Take, for example, Paul Wellstone. (”Oh, man, you trotting out that old conspiracy theory again?” Answer: Yes.)

Well then, there’s two of us.

IMHO, Bush’s treatment of convicted felon Scooter Libby gives Congress yet ANOTHER reason to go for impeachment of Abu. Congressional Democrats are already being accused of being “out of control” and “on a Gonzales crusade”. We know “executive privilege” is being used to run out the clock. Any reason at this point NOT to go for broke?

“We’re impeaching him because we don’t want to waste time and taxpayer’s money on a perjury trial when we know how this White House treats those who are convicted of perjury.”

I could get used to hearing that.

ifthethunderdontgetya @ 42

Not since the darkest days of the Nixon Administration have we seen efforts to corrupt federal law enforcement for partisan political gain and such efforts to avoid accountability.”

I was a kid when Nixon resigned. But these guys seem worse than Nixon to me. Especially because there are so few Republicans willing to put our country’s interests ahead of their party’s, now.

I see it as simply a continuation of the Trickster. I was probably too involved with LBJ and Nixon to be clear headed .

ifthethunderdontgetya @ 42

Not since the darkest days of the Nixon Administration have we seen efforts to corrupt federal law enforcement for partisan political gain and such efforts to avoid accountability.”

I was a kid when Nixon resigned. But these guys seem worse than Nixon to me. Especially because there are so few Republicans willing to put our country’s interests ahead of their party’s, now.

These guys are much worse than Nixon, but it is worth mentioning that some of them — like Fielding (who worked under John Dean in the Nixon WH) and Cheney — got their start during that period. They have been hunting down the ring of power ever since.

Ed*ard Teller @ 38

4) Nationwide standards on number of machines per precinct.

Amend that to read “number of operational machines”. I seem to recall an incident or two where, for inexplicable reasons, the darn things just weren’t working very well in certain precincts.

This probably implies some sort of standard for reliability, including testing for same.

Kathleen @ 21

LS @ 8

Maybe that cloud is Fitzzz!

And Leahy is riding that cloud and he looks like god! Both compassionate and stern. How many fucking chances do you need Alberto?

Is it me, or does it sound like we might get impeachment hearings sooner rather than later(for AGAG at least)?

Woodhall Hollow @ 40

LS @ 30

Do you think they have “tapes”…???

Or a deep throat or two or three? It is worth noting, in the footnotes of the HJC committee report, including a couple who are without a name. Eg. “a woman” .

Now, that is interesting isn’t it. Why would they describe the gender? Is that normal?

retirin’ in five @ 10

Don’t make me google — it’s been a long day. Wasn’t Sen Leahy one of the a**th**x recepients?

I googled.

Answer is Leahy and Daschle, both Ds.

- 125

Cujo359 @ 48

Ed*ard Teller @ 38

4) Nationwide standards on number of machines per precinct.

Amend that to read “number of operational machines”. I seem to recall an incident or two where, for inexplicable reasons, the darn things just weren’t working very well in certain precincts.

This probably implies some sort of standard for reliability, including testing for same.

I meant to say that – thanks!

ifthethunderdontgetya @ 42

Not since the darkest days of the Nixon Administration have we seen efforts to corrupt federal law enforcement for partisan political gain and such efforts to avoid accountability.”

I was a kid when Nixon resigned. But these guys seem worse than Nixon to me. Especially because there are so few Republicans willing to put our country’s interests ahead of their party’s, now.

Some would say, Nixon got us out of Viet Nam and opened the door to China. Bush — how shall I put this — doesn’t have any comparable foreign policy successes. Nixon, his protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, was a crook, who sought power, but had a vision of what was right and persued it by corrupt means. Bush don’t give a fuck.

During Nixon days the country was much more sharply divided, and much more active, in part because of the draft. During Nixon days American soldiers fired live ammunition at American students. Tiennemann is Chinese for Kent State.

Digby, at Salon.com:

I would guess that it will be very difficult to make a persuasive case that Gonzales committed perjury. We all knew they were saying “the program the president has disclosed” was crafty lawyerspeak and we all knew that it meant there was something else they weren’t “describing.” (They do those things specifically to avoid being accused of perjury.)
…
We have a right to know what that earlier, full program entailed. Until this is cleared up, the country will continue to lose faith in its government and the rule of law, something that I’m sure many on the right welcome, but that isn’t actually a good idea. As Glenn Greenwald explained earlier in the week, that is what’s really at issue here: Just what in the world were they doing before Comey, Jack Goldsmith and others pulled the plug?

OT-This was Timmy’s quote last month on the Dem decision not to debate on FoxNews:

Russert then falsely suggested that Democrats were scared to participate, as opposed to refusing on principle. “It’s a TV show. If you can’t handle TV questions, how you gonna stand up to Iran and North Korea and the rest of the world?”

Will he say anything about the repub decision to duck CNN/You-Tube?

BigMitch @ 54

ifthethunderdontgetya @ 42

Not since the darkest days of the Nixon Administration have we seen efforts to corrupt federal law enforcement for partisan political gain and such efforts to avoid accountability.”

I was a kid when Nixon resigned. But these guys seem worse than Nixon to me. Especially because there are so few Republicans willing to put our country’s interests ahead of their party’s, now.

Some would say, Nixon got us out of Viet Nam and opened the door to China. Bush — how shall I put this — doesn’t have any comparable foreign policy successes. Nixon, his protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, was a crook, who sought power, but had a vision of what was right and persued it by corrupt means. Bush don’t give a fuck.

During Nixon days the country was much more sharply divided, and much more active, in part because of the draft. During Nixon days American soldiers fired live ammunition at American students. Tiennemann is Chinese for Kent State.

And Jackson State.

Christy:

Your learned opinion requested.

What’s the chess game that Leahy and HJC are playing? Do they actually believe Rove and Jennings and Miers will appear? Is there a Fred Fielding motive to today’s statement–what is it?

punaise @ 55

Digby, at Salon.com:

I would guess that it will be very difficult to make a persuasive case that Gonzales committed perjury. We all knew they were saying “the program the president has disclosed” was crafty lawyerspeak and we all knew that it meant there was something else they weren’t “describing.” (They do those things specifically to avoid being accused of perjury.)
…
We have a right to know what that earlier, full program entailed. Until this is cleared up, the country will continue to lose faith in its government and the rule of law, something that I’m sure many on the right welcome, but that isn’t actually a good idea. As Glenn Greenwald explained earlier in the week, that is what’s really at issue here: Just what in the world were they doing before Comey, Jack Goldsmith and others pulled the plug?

My thought is that they do not call it the “Terrorist Surveilence Program” so when asked if the conversation was about the TSP, they say “no,” since they call it “Fred,” or something.

raven @ 57

BigMitch @ 54

Some would say, Nixon got us out of Viet Nam and opened the door to China. Bush — how shall I put this — doesn’t have any comparable foreign policy successes. Nixon, his protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, was a crook, who sought power, but had a vision of what was right and persued it by corrupt means. Bush don’t give a fuck.

During Nixon days the country was much more sharply divided, and much more active, in part because of the draft. During Nixon days American soldiers fired live ammunition at American students. Tiennemann is Chinese for Kent State.

And Jackson State.

yep!

For those in need,

Jackson State killings

punaise @ 55

Digby, at Salon.com:

I would guess that it will be very difficult to make a persuasive case that Gonzales committed perjury. We all knew they were saying “the program the president has disclosed” was crafty lawyerspeak and we all knew that it meant there was something else they weren’t “describing.” (They do those things specifically to avoid being accused of perjury.)
…
We have a right to know what that earlier, full program entailed. Until this is cleared up, the country will continue to lose faith in its government and the rule of law, something that I’m sure many on the right welcome, but that isn’t actually a good idea. As Glenn Greenwald explained earlier in the week, that is what’s really at issue here: Just what in the world were they doing before Comey, Jack Goldsmith and others pulled the plug?

A statement which is literally true cannot support a conviction, even if it is misleading. United States v. Cook, 489 F.2d 286, 287 (9th Cir.1973).

Fe at 58 — I think TommyYum’s theory that I talked about earlier is part of it. And I think there are certain things which must occur to trigger the next steps, both procedurally and legally — and they are working their way through the steps for challenge in court and in the court of public opinion.

They are laying all the groundwork before moving up to the next level of pressure — which may include potential impeachment proceedings for AG Gonzales, I should think, as a distinct possibility after this week. None of the Republicans on the SJC are standing up for him at all — their silence speaks volumes.

Solai @ 56

OT-This was Timmy’s quote last month on the Dem decision not to debate on FoxNews:

Russert then falsely suggested that Democrats were scared to participate, as opposed to refusing on principle. “It’s a TV show. If you can’t handle TV questions, how you gonna stand up to Iran and North Korea and the rest of the world?”

Will he say anything about the repub decision to duck CNN/You-Tube?

Real people that you don’t already know are on your side are scary.

Let’s not forget that Bush wouldn’t even throw out a baseball on Opening Day this year.

Government of the gated community, by the gated community, for the gated community….

BigMitch @ 39

sonate @ 24

Couldn’t somebody remind Abu that a pardon is null and void in cases of impeachment? Impeach first, then arrest, try and convict. An aside, he can be impeached even after he leaves office. (Not that the Dems would have the nerve to do this.)

The impeachment limitation on the plenary pardon power is that once an officer is impeached, tried, convicted, and removed from office with disabilities the conviction in the senate and the consequences cannot be undone with a pardon. In a subsequent criminal prosecution, pardons are available. Scholars are not in agreement on the question of whether or not impeachment of an officer who has left office is possible.

And THIS gets to another thing I want to see: an Amendment to the Constitution that “clarifies” the Presidential pardon power. I want a simple Amendment that bars any President from pardoning (or commuting sentences) anyone with whom they have had a personal, financial, or professional relationship. Outside of such individuals, the power to pardon is “plenary”. THAT is what I want to see.

I have to tell you, I do not believe in their wildest imagination these guys thought a loss in congress would bring this scrutiny to their acts and deeds.

BigMitch @ circa 39:
My Con law is rusty, but I’m sure that William Belknap (Grant’s Secretary of War?) was impeached after he resigned from office. I do not believe that a court overturned this action. Of course, resignation and end-of-term are different reasons for vacating office, but I don’t know why the method of leaving office would make a difference. (However, I’ll defer to your expertise on this.)

Nixon’s Boys

John Newton Mitchell (September 15, 1913 – November 9, 1988) was the first United States Attorney General ever to be convicted of illegal activities and imprisoned. He also served as campaign director for the Committee to Re-elect the President, which engineered the Watergate first break-in and employed Watergate burglar James W. McCord, Jr. in a “security” capacity.

Caspar Weinberger

Following his resignation as Secretary of Defense, Weinberger was placed under indictment by Independent Counsel Lawrence E. Walsh. The formal indictment charged Weinberger with several felony counts of lying to the Iran-Contra independent counsel during its investigation. Weinberger received a Presidential pardon from President George H.W. Bush on December 24, 1992, after Bush had failed to win a second term.

Watergate 7

Charles Colson pleaded guilty to charges concerning the Ellsberg case; in exchange, the indictment against him for covering up the activities of CRP was dropped, as it was against Strachan. The remaining five members of the Watergate Seven indicted in March went on trial in October 1974, and on January 1, 1975, all but Parkinson were found guilty. In 1976, the U.S. Court of Appeals ordered a new trial for Mardian; subsequently, all charges against him were dropped. Haldeman, Ehrlichman, and Mitchell exhausted their appeals in 1977. Ehrlichman entered prison in 1976, followed by the other two in 1977.

Ed*ard Teller @ 38

Voter Fraud and Voter Suppression need to be brought up more and more as deadlines for being able to clean up messes before November, 2008 loom. The keys:
1) restore voting rights to voters illegally purged from voter lists in the Southeast and elsewhere – probably 250,00 voters, 3/4 or more of whom will vote Dem.
2) no paper trail, no electronic voting machine – period – NATIONWIDE, by Federal law.
3) voter and party access to data on how voter information is transferred from precinct to final tally, at every step of the way. No claims of private contractors’ personal property on that information allowed.
4) Nationwide standards on number of machines per precinct.
5) Class A or B felony for mailing or phone calling or other transmission of knowingly false information on any aspect of voting places, times, etc. Subject to RICO, if party orgs involved.

I especially like (5). One or two successful prosecutions with real time (one or two years) and big fines would put the fear of God in to the Rovelings. This is doable. Keep that checklist!

Maybe we should start giving them back their line about ‘if you haven’t done anything wrong, then you don’t have anything to be afraid of’. (Something else that should come back and bite them in the *ss, preferably at every possible opportunity, especially in public with cameras running.)

perris at 66 — I think they did. Which is why they tried so desperately to cheat — this USAtty mess was born out of that need to keep just this sort of oversight from happening, among a whole lotof other very craven reasons.

Knut Wicksell @ 69

Ed*ard Teller @ 38

Voter Fraud and Voter Suppression need to be brought up more and more as deadlines for being able to clean up messes before November, 2008 loom. The keys:
1) restore voting rights to voters illegally purged from voter lists in the Southeast and elsewhere – probably 250,00 voters, 3/4 or more of whom will vote Dem.
2) no paper trail, no electronic voting machine – period – NATIONWIDE, by Federal law.
…

I especially like (5). One or two successful prosecutions with real time (one or two years) and big fines would put the fear of God in to the Rovelings. This is doable. Keep that checklist!

Add another: FULL access to working voting machine software SOURCE CODE for audit by independent 3rd party. NO EXCEPTIONS.

P J Evans @ 70

Maybe we should start giving them back their line about ‘if you haven’t done anything wrong, then you don’t have anything to be afraid of’. (Something else that should come back and bite them in the *ss, preferably at every possible opportunity, especially in public with cameras running.)

uhyup…that would be great ironic snark

Here’s my humble opinion about what Gonzo is doing and why I do not think perjury is gonna stick on this “was there disagreement?” question.

March 2004 – The Ascroft bedside visit happens. There’s a big stink by Goldmsith, Comey, et.al.

That night (or the next day) Bush signs. (That this is illegal is another story).

Two weeks later – the WH modifies the program so that everyone at DOJ is satisfied.

December 2005 – Bush “confirms” that the TSP exists in response to the leak in the NYT. He is talking about the TSP after it has been modified after the hospital visit. Big deal there; that word “confirm”. Every time Gonzo is asked if there was disagreement he responds “not about the program the president confirmed.”

So, technically, Gonzo is telling the truth. The disagreement was about the program that existed before modification. The president confirmed the program that existed after modification. Viola’ no disagreement.

What am I missing?

ET @ 38

Use the Nevada Gaming Commission’s rules for certifying slot (and other) machines as an example of How It Should Be Done with voting machines.

Praedor Atrebates @ 65

BigMitch @ 39
And THIS gets to another thing I want to see: an Amendment to the Constitution that “clarifies” the Presidential pardon power. I want a simple Amendment that bars any President from pardoning (or commuting sentences) anyone with whom they have had a personal, financial, or professional relationship. Outside of such individuals, the power to pardon is “plenary”. THAT is what I want to see.

There will not likely ever be any constitutional amendment to rein in the pardon/commutation power. The only recourse will remain impeachment for abusing it. The president has the power to summarily order the bombing Canada, or Luxembourg, or _________________ on whatever gossamer pretext he deems exigent. That doesn’t make it right. Same thing with Scooter. Given the glaring conflict of interest, he should have rightfully recused himself and abstained from the commutation. He abused the power in an obvious attempt to obstruct justice. That he won’t be impeached, convicted, and removed for doing so simply compounds the travesty, and nullifies the utility of the impeachment clause.

Helen @ 74

Here’s my humble opinion about what Gonzo is doing and why I do not think perjury is gonna stick on this “was there disagreement?” question.

March 2004 – The Ascroft bedside visit happens. There’s a big stink by Goldmsith, Comey, et.al.

That night (or the next day) Bush signs. (That this is illegal is another story).

Two weeks later – the WH modifies the program so that everyone at DOJ is satisfied.

December 2005 – Bush “confirms” that the TSP exists in response to the leak in the NYT. He is talking about the TSP after it has been modified after the hospital visit. Big deal there; that word “confirm”. Every time Gonzo is asked if there was disagreement he responds “not about the program the president confirmed.”

So, technically, Gonzo is telling the truth. The disagreement was about the program that existed before modification. The president confirmed the program that existed after modification. Viola’ no disagreement.

What am I missing?

I believe that this is the gist of the TPM Muckraker article cited above…

perris @ 66

I have to tell you, I do not believe in their wildest imagination these guys thought a loss in congress would bring this scrutiny to their acts and deeds.

I keep thinking of GHWB breaking down and crying. He knew. And, he also must have known about all the nefarious deeds.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 63

Fe at 58 — I think TommyYum’s theory that I talked about earlier is part of it. And I think there are certain things which must occur to trigger the next steps, both procedurally and legally — and they are working their way through the steps for challenge in court and in the court of public opinion.

They are laying all the groundwork before moving up to the next level of pressure — which may include potential impeachment proceedings for AG Gonzales, I should think, as a distinct possibility after this week. None of the Republicans on the SJC are standing up for him at all — their silence speaks volumes.

One thing I’m certain of is that there will have to be an overwhelming majority of Americans in favor of impeachment before Congress will act. By “overwhelming majority” I mean even some of the thirty percenters get it. We can argues the chicken/egg relationship all day, but I think that’s the order it will have to happen, unfortunately. The Republicans won’t budge until then, and many Democrats will continue to think it’s not worth the time until they do.

This is a step toward building that majority.

You can indeed impeach a federal official after he is out of office; although at that point, the punishments for conviction are pretty much limited to removing residual vestiges of office such as the pension and benefits, and ordering that the person be barred from holding any office in the future.

On another note, from a criminal lawyer’s standpoint, I have always been perplexed by the habit of these committees in issuing these letters asking for any corrections by the subject having given testimony. To my knowledge there is no statutory “free correction” period for such testimony as there is in most grand jury settings. So, in essence, if a subject has perjured themselves, correcting it may just be more evidence against them.

Some one said that it would be better not to impeach Gonzo but rather keep him as a hood ornament on the vehicle of Republican governance. In that way he serves as a symbol of why the Republican Party should suffer electoral euthanasia. Also, if he resigns during the Congressional recess Bush will likely make a recess appointment of someone who is as big a toady. Who know’s maybe even Harriet Meirs.

Kathleen @ 41

hey if folks do not mind and they like this idea. On the last post Yellowsnapdragon suggessted that Cindy Sheehan visit VP Cheney’s hospital room while he was all doped up and get him to sign troop redeployment papers. I have called Codepinks pink house in Washington D.C. to see if they would be willing to pull off such a theatrical piece 202-290-1301. Or contact codepink via e-mail to see if they can contact Cindy and see if she would be willing

Actually, I was just joking.

P J Evans @ 75

ET @ 38

Use the Nevada Gaming Commission’s rules for certifying slot (and other) machines as an example of How It Should Be Done with voting machines.

there can’t be electronic voting at all

even with paper trail, most people don’t know their vote was flipped, the don’t check or they think they made the mistake themselves and they don’t want to admit it

votes can always be flipped with electronic voting, there is no reason on the planet these votes aren’t counted from a paper ballot

it is a sinch to have a machine punch your paper ballot so that it’s perfectly perferated

that’s the technology that needs to be developed and we need to get away from thse electronic recoreds

yellowsnapdragon @ 82

Kathleen @ 41

hey if folks do not mind and they like this idea. On the last post Yellowsnapdragon suggessted that Cindy Sheehan visit VP Cheney’s hospital room while he was all doped up and get him to sign troop

redeployment papers. I have called Codepinks pink house in Washington D.C. to see if they would be willing to pull off such a theatrical piece 202-290-1301. Or contact codepink via e-mail to see if they can contact Cindy and see if she would be willing

Actually, I was just joking.

still a great idea

Praedor Atrebates @ 72

Knut Wicksell @ 69

Add another: FULL access to working voting machine software SOURCE CODE for audit by independent 3rd party. NO EXCEPTIONS.

Many of us, African Americans especially, have been sorely disappointed in the lack of interest by white Dem leaders in pushing for investigations of systematic suppression of African American voters in Florida, Georgia, North and South Carolina and Ohio, in several elections, but most notably the 2000 and 2004 national contests. The John Conyers basement hearings were oh so long ago, and to my knowledge there haven’t been anything like that since the Dems took control.

Why is the white Dem leadership afraid of either publicizing their support of African American voting rights, or of fixing this longstanding, terribly egregious problem? Blaming people like Ralph Nader for 2000 is convenient, but erroneous, and shows total disregard for what happened then in Florida. In my mind, people who accuse Nader of 2000 are either racist, dumb or both.

Praedor Atrebates @ 65

BigMitch @ 39

The impeachment limitation on the plenary pardon power is that once an officer is impeached, tried, convicted, and removed from office with disabilities the conviction in the senate and the consequences cannot be undone with a pardon. In a subsequent criminal prosecution, pardons are available. Scholars are not in agreement on the question of whether or not impeachment of an officer who has left office is possible.

And THIS gets to another thing I want to see: an Amendment to the Constitution that “clarifies” the Presidential pardon power. I want a simple Amendment that bars any President from pardoning (or commuting sentences) anyone with whom they have had a personal, financial, or professional relationship. Outside of such individuals, the power to pardon is “plenary”. THAT is what I want to see.

I think the question whether President can pardon the the results of a judicial conviction for the same crimes that a person was impeached for is very much an open question. The fact is, this has never been tested and the record is far from clear. The language that would have clearly allowed such pardons was rejected by the framers and the phrase “cases of impeachments” could be understood as referring to the crimes, and not the consequences of impeachment. Thus, the clause could be read as, “except for the crimes for which a person is impeached.” I have an amature piece on this up on my blog. Would be interesting to see a real scholar take a crack at it.

BobbyG @ 76

Praedor Atrebates @ 65

BigMitch @ 39
And THIS gets to another thing I want to see: an Amendment to the Constitution that “clarifies” the Presidential pardon power. I want a simple Amendment that bars any President from pardoning (or commuting sentences) anyone with whom they have had a personal, financial, or professional relationship. Outside of such individuals, the power to pardon is “plenary”. THAT is what I want to see.

There will not likely ever be any constitutional amendment to rein in the pardon/commutation power. The only recourse will remain impeachment for abusing it. The president has the power to summarily order the bombing Canada, or Luxembourg, or _________________ on whatever gossamer pretext he deems exigent. That doesn’t make it right. Same thing with Scooter. Given the glaring conflict of interest, he should have rightfully recused himself and abstained from the commutation. He abused the power in an obvious attempt to obstruct justice. That he won’t be impeached, convicted, and removed for doing so simply compounds the travesty, and nullifies the utility of the impeachment clause.

But it doesn’t have to be the way you describe…and counting on impeachment is a loser. Look at Congress wrt all the valid and truly impeachable offenses of the current criminal organization in the White House. I want the candy taken away from ALL Presidents. There is NO valid reason for a Ford to be able to pardon a Nixon. For a Bush to pardon a Scooter (it’s coming) or a Cheney (post impeachment – fingers crossed). ALL Presidents, particularly in recent history, have abused that power. They ALL leave office with a string of crony pardons meaning that there is “justice” for the little people (full sentences) and a different “justice” for the rich and powerful…or friends of the rich and powerful. This is unacceptable.

A President must be prevented from pardoning ANYONE with whom they have had a relationship. No more cronyism. Only pardons for those unknown to the Prez. I, for one, as President (first day in office) would sign a blanket pardon for ALL people in prison for non-violent drug offenses, particularly those in for marijuana charges…and I haven’t even ever smoked it (or even eaten the special brownies).

sonate @ 67

BigMitch @ circa 39:
My Con law is rusty, but I’m sure that William Belknap (Grant’s Secretary of War?) was impeached after he resigned from office. I do not believe that a court overturned this action. Of course, resignation and end-of-term are different reasons for vacating office, but I don’t know why the method of leaving office would make a difference. (However, I’ll defer to your expertise on this.)

well, there was a discussion after Nixon resigned about whether or not the impeachment could go forward, IIRC. I don’t believe it was resolved, and that is why I made the comment I did.

Kathleen @ 84

yellowsnapdragon @ 82

Actually, I was just joking.

still a great idea

Whatever works, I guess.

Speaking of accountability.

MOSCOW – Former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev criticized the United States, and President Bush in particular, on Friday for sowing disorder across the world by seeking to build an empire.

Helen @ 13

Eugene Robinson weighs in:

Gonzo has managed to do something no one else in Washington has managed in years: create a spirit of true bipartisanship.

Bedtime for Gonzo

Hey, he said he would be a uniter, not a divider, didn’t he? I guess he meant, “In the long term — after I leave office.”

Joe Klein’s conscience @ 49

Kathleen @ 21

And Leahy is riding that cloud and he looks like god! Both compassionate and stern. How many fucking chances do you need Alberto?

Is it me, or does it sound like we might get impeachment hearings sooner rather than later(for AGAG at least)?

If the Dems would just show some ordinary common sense (that’s how I see it) and cancel the August recess. Sheesh! At the very least, take steps fo block the regime from making recess appointments while they’re out. Several weeks ago I remember reading about how Reid was planning to reconvene every three days, in order to prevent recess appointments. Is this still planned? If so, would he need a quorum?

bmaz @ 80

You can indeed impeach a federal official after he is out of office; although at that point, the punishments for conviction are pretty much limited to removing residual vestiges of office such as the pension and benefits, and ordering that the person be barred from holding any office in the future.

There is an added benefit. If you were to impeach, say, Bush AND/OR Cheney even after they left office, you would place that right next to their names for the rest of history AND you would have officially repudiated everything they did and stood for, discrediting it henceforth, making it so much harder for that Unitary Executive crap to rear its head again in the future.

Solai @ 56

OT-This was Timmy’s quote last month on the Dem decision not to debate on FoxNews:

Russert then falsely suggested that Democrats were scared to participate, as opposed to refusing on principle. “It’s a TV show. If you can’t handle TV questions, how you gonna stand up to Iran and North Korea and the rest of the world?”

Will he say anything about the repub decision to duck CNN/You-Tube?

The Republican candidates cannot handle unscripted questions from You Tube liberals. The republican machine demands that sound byte answers be given to properly loaded questions. Internet progressives are too dangerous to Rethug candidates. The rethugs have no real answers for real questions. Everything must be staged when you are promoting lies.

Ron Paul can answer questions off the cuff because he refutes the lies about the GWOT and 9ll.

Paul is a bad candidate b/c his efforts to weaken the federal government would open the door for corporations to further bankrupt the country.

That’s a Libertarian Party problem – their sincere small-government ideals align with the Republican Party’s insincere grandstanding about smaller government (which repugs use as a ruse to rape the treasury).

Praedor Atrebates @ 77

Helen @ 74

Here’s my humble opinion about what Gonzo is doing and why I do not think perjury is gonna stick on this “was there disagreement?” question.

March 2004 – The Ascroft bedside visit happens. There’s a big stink by Goldmsith, Comey, et.al.

That night (or the next day) Bush signs. (That this is illegal is another story).

Two weeks later – the WH modifies the program so that everyone at DOJ is satisfied.

December 2005 – Bush “confirms” that the TSP exists in response to the leak in the NYT. He is talking about the TSP after it has been modified after the hospital visit. Big deal there; that word “confirm”. Every time Gonzo is asked if there was disagreement he responds “not about the program the president confirmed.”

So, technically, Gonzo is telling the truth. The disagreement was about the program that existed before modification. The president confirmed the program that existed after modification. Viola’ no disagreement.

What am I missing?

I believe that this is the gist of the TPM Muckraker article cited above…

I have been saying this for some time, and as I just posted a true, but misleading statement is not perjury, even if the declarant thinks it is. (For those who were here yesterday, there is actually a case on this point which discusses Lady Eldon’s French lace.)

So, incredible though it may seem, Gonzo may have outwitted Shumer, Leahy, et al.

Praedor Atrebates @ 77

Helen @ 74

Here’s my humble opinion about what Gonzo is doing and why I do not think perjury is gonna stick on this “was there disagreement?” question.

March 2004 – The Ascroft bedside visit happens. There’s a big stink by Goldmsith, Comey, et.al.

That night (or the next day) Bush signs. (That this is illegal is another story).

Two weeks later – the WH modifies the program so that everyone at DOJ is satisfied.

December 2005 – Bush “confirms” that the TSP exists in response to the leak in the NYT. He is talking about the TSP after it has been modified after the hospital visit. Big deal there; that word “confirm”. Every time Gonzo is asked if there was disagreement he responds “not about the program the president confirmed.”

So, technically, Gonzo is telling the truth. The disagreement was about the program that existed before modification. The president confirmed the program that existed after modification. Viola’ no disagreement.

What am I missing?

I believe that this is the gist of the TPM Muckraker article cited above…

I don’t think it is that easy. Do you know that date that he testified that there was no disagreement? Was it before or after the modifications? Anyone know?

check this out from think progress;

Escalation architect ret. Gen. Jack Keane and Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) tag-teamed in an effort to downplay the diminished strength of the military. Keane said calling the Army broken “is one of the most offensive statements we can make.”

Hunter, ignorant of the views of numerous national security experts, said to Korb, “I don’t think that any of those people you’ve quoted — did Gen. McCaffrey ever say, ‘the Army is broken?’” Korb responded, “I will give you the exact quote, ‘The ground combat capability of the U.S. forces is shot.’” Watch it:

my bold

my answer to these chicken hawks would be;

I am TRYING to be offensive…and the object of the my offence are the military morons that proposed the very fiasco that broke our armed forces”

btw

think progress goes on to quote a host of generals that also say the army is broke

Praedor Atrebates @ 87

BobbyG @ 76

There will not likely ever be any constitutional amendment to rein in the pardon/commutation power. The only recourse will remain impeachment for abusing it. The president has the power to summarily order the bombing Canada, or Luxembourg, or _________________ on whatever gossamer pretext he deems exigent. That doesn’t make it right. Same thing with Scooter. Given the glaring conflict of interest, he should have rightfully recused himself and abstained from the commutation. He abused the power in an obvious attempt to obstruct justice. That he won’t be impeached, convicted, and removed for doing so simply compounds the travesty, and nullifies the utility of the impeachment clause.

But it doesn’t have to be the way you describe…and counting on impeachment is a loser. Look at Congress wrt all the valid and truly impeachable offenses of the current criminal organization in the White House. I want the candy taken away from ALL Presidents. There is NO valid reason for a Ford to be able to pardon a Nixon. For a Bush to pardon a Scooter (it’s coming) or a Cheney (post impeachment – fingers crossed). ALL Presidents, particularly in recent history, have abused that power. They ALL leave office with a string of crony pardons meaning that there is “justice” for the little people (full sentences) and a different “justice” for the rich and powerful…or friends of the rich and powerful. This is unacceptable.

A President must be prevented from pardoning ANYONE with whom they have had a relationship. No more cronyism. Only pardons for those unknown to the Prez. I, for one, as President (first day in office) would sign a blanket pardon for ALL people in prison for non-violent drug offenses, particularly those in for marijuana charges…and I haven’t even ever smoked it (or even eaten the special brownies).

Look, I agree, but it would take a constitutional amendment to codify that restraint, and in ain’t gonna happen. You’re certainly not gonna see its case law equivalent anytime soon either. The judicial precedents thus far all say the power is plenary (even for charges not yet even filed), with the sole exception of pardoning impeachment.

I’m certainly not “counting on” impeachment of Bu’ush/Cheney, either, BTW.

yellowsnapdragon @ 82

Kathleen @ 41

hey if folks do not mind and they like this idea. On the last post Yellowsnapdragon suggessted that Cindy Sheehan visit VP Cheney’s hospital room while he was all doped up and get him to sign troop redeployment papers. I have called Codepinks pink house in Washington D.C. to see if they would be willing to pull off such a theatrical piece 202-290-1301. Or contact codepink via e-mail to see if they can contact Cindy and see if she would be willing

Actually, I was just joking.

Alberto Gonzales and Andrew Card were not joking and I don’t think Cindy Sheehan would be joking either

Ethan @ 26

unitary executive… ALL OF THESE ISSUES COME BACK TO THE IDEA OF UNITARY EXECUTIVE?

I think this whole unitary exec thing is just more cover. What it all really comes back to is a simple consequences-be-darned power grab. They have it. They want to keep it. They want more of it. Nixon wanted the same thing, no matter what fancy legal terms may be used then and now to give a naked power play legitimacy.

The perfect storm?

You gotta love Helen Thomas… to Snowjob,
“You’re really not speaking English.” (Gonzo’s
contradictions)

realworld @ 95

Praedor Atrebates @ 77

I believe that this is the gist of the TPM Muckraker article cited above…

I don’t think it is that easy. Do you know that date that he testified that there was no disagreement? Was it before or after the modifications? Anyone know?

I think it was April 2006. It was replayed the other night on CSPAN3.

Bay State Librul @ 100

The perfect storm?

You gotta love Helen Thomas… to Snowjob,
“You’re really not speaking English.” (Gonzo’s
contradictions)

Gore/Helen Thomas

perris @ 96

check this out from think progress;

Escalation architect ret. Gen. Jack Keane and Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) tag-teamed in an effort to downplay the diminished strength of the military. Keane said calling the Army broken “is one of the most offensive statements we can make.”

Hunter, ignorant of the views of numerous national security experts, said to Korb, “I don’t think that any of those people you’ve quoted — did Gen. McCaffrey ever say, ‘the Army is broken?’” Korb responded, “I will give you the exact quote, ‘The ground combat capability of the U.S. forces is shot.’” Watch it:

my bold

my answer to these chicken hawks would be;

I am TRYING to be offensive…and the object of the my offence are the military morons that proposed the very fiasco that broke our armed forces”

btw

think progress goes on to quote a host of generals that also say the army is broke

I in no way supoport this moron Hunter but as far a chickenhawks he doesn’t quite fit the bill:

Hunter was born in Riverside, California to Lola L. Young and Robert Olin Hunter.[2] He briefly attended the University of Montana and the University of California, Santa Barbara before enlisting in the United States Army. He served in the Vietnam War in the 173rd Airborne Brigade and the 75th Ranger Regiment.

As far as Keane:
He . . .attended Army War College and the Command and General Staff College.[1]

Keane served in the Vietnam War as a paratrooper.

Great.
The proverbial shit hitting the fan is coming next week and I am going to be on vacation with no toobz.
Might just have to go visit my Pop, regularly.

bmaz at 80 — Don’t think of it in criminal law perspective (I would have LOVED to get that for my clients when I was doing defense work. ) but more as an institutional tradition perspective. As in, how business is done on the Hill, and how it has always been done. No idea where it began, but I’m trying to wrap my mind around the fact that they are going to do this pretty much as a matter of course, it seems.

Snap Crackle Pop

They do not want folks to know whether Baghdad has electricity or not.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003802.php

martial law doc surface stateside –

i personally contacted Senator Leahys staff – To his credit he checked the sources – does that photo above look like it?

as i said to his staff, he’s a stand up guy

martial law doc surfaces to put troops on us soil

quote:

The media, print and broadcast (radio, television and the Internet), play a vital role in societies involved in a counterinsurgency. Members of the media have a significant influence and shaping impact on political direction, national security objectives, and policy and national will. The media is a factor in military operations. It is their right and obligation to report to their respective audiences on the use of military force. They demand logistic support and access to military operations while refusing to be controlled. Their desire for immediate footage and on-the-spot coverage of events, and the increasing contact with units and Soldiers (for example, with embedded reporters) require commanders and public affairs officers to provide guidance to leaders and Soldiers on media relations. However, military planners must provide and enforce ground rules to the media to ensure operations security. Public affairs offices plan for daily briefings and a special briefing after each significant event because the media affect and influence each potential target audience external and internal to the AO. Speaking with the media in a forward-deployed area is an opportunity to explain what our organizations and efforts have accomplished.

Continuous PSYOP are mounted to—

· Counter the effects of insurgent propaganda.

· Relate controls to the security and well-being of the population.

· Portray a favorable governmental image.

.Control measures must—

· Be authorized by national laws and regulations (counterparts should be trained not to improvise unauthorized measures).

· Be tailored to fit the situation (apply the minimum force required to achieve the de-sired result).

· Be supported by effective local intelligence.

· Be instituted in as wide an area as possible to prevent bypass or evasion.

· Be supported by good communications.

· Be enforceable.

· Be lifted as the need diminishes.

· Be compatible, where possible, with local customs and traditions.

· Establish and maintain credibility of local government.

A control program may be developed in five phases:

· Securing and defending the area internally and externally.

· Organizing for law enforcement.

· Executing cordon and search operations.

· Screening and documenting the population (performing a detailed census).

· Performing public administration, to include resource control.

Support to the judiciary may be limited to providing security to the existing courts or may lead to more comprehensive actions to build local, regional, and national courts and the required support apparatus. To avoid overcrowding in police jails, the courts must have an efficient and timely magistrate capability, ideally co-located with police stations and police jails, to review cases for trial.

to see link:

http://www.tbrnews.org

look left, see ‘archive’ click link

scroll down to July 16, then click link: ‘green zone follies’

Christy Hardin Smith @ 105

bmaz at 80 — Don’t think of it in criminal law perspective (I would have LOVED to get that for my clients when I was doing defense work. ) but more as an institutional tradition perspective. As in, how business is done on the Hill, and how it has always been done. No idea where it began, but I’m trying to wrap my mind around the fact that they are going to do this pretty much as a matter of course, it seems.

Oh, I agree with that. From a technical perspective, however, if I were representing a subject in this position it would freak me out. If I were sure that my client had perjured himself, I doubt I would have him prove it without some reassurance he would not be tagged for doing so.

Helen @ 74

Here’s my humble opinion about what Gonzo is doing and why I do not think perjury is gonna stick on this “was there disagreement?” question.

March 2004 – The Ascroft bedside visit happens. There’s a big stink by Goldmsith, Comey, et.al.

That night (or the next day) Bush signs. (That this is illegal is another story).

Two weeks later – the WH modifies the program so that everyone at DOJ is satisfied.

December 2005 – Bush “confirms” that the TSP exists in response to the leak in the NYT. He is talking about the TSP after it has been modified after the hospital visit. Big deal there; that word “confirm”. Every time Gonzo is asked if there was disagreement he responds “not about the program the president confirmed.”

So, technically, Gonzo is telling the truth. The disagreement was about the program that existed before modification. The president confirmed the program that existed after modification. Viola’ no disagreement.

What am I missing?

A modified surveillance program is still the same surveillance program. If I take my son for a haircut, have I brought back a different son when we get home? If I take a nap, is it still Christmas when I wake up?

Q: Did you throw weapons into the Mississippi River on three different occasions?

A: No.
(Aside) “It’s never the same river twice.”

Someone leaked the TSP program to the NYT originally. Could it be that Leahey got some extra information from that source?

Something that I would like to see emphasized more is this:

Are the standards set by Alberto Gonzales testimony, the same standards that you want appled to all witnesses, defendants, et al in the Federal court system?

If not, then you must support removing him from office.

everytime i see that picture of Sen. Leahy looking sternly at assumingly Gonzo, i can’t help to compare him to the bald eagle of the muppet show fighting with Gonzos antics … and i still can’t decide if that’s a funny thought or not.

Kathleen @ 106

Snap Crackle Pop

They do not want folks to know whether Baghdad has electricity or not.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003802.php

I must cut and paste from tpm cause those that don’t click will miss too much

sorry for the long paste, go there and every paragraph is referenced…great stuff here;

Just how many different ways has the Bush Administration tried to hide once-public information sources from the public record? Help us count the ways.

On Friday, Justin discovered that the Department of Defense has suddenly classified the numbers of attacks in Iraq for September through November of this year — after providing the figures for every month since the war began. Why classify the information now? If there’s a good explanation, we don’t know it, and the Pentagon isn’t returning our calls.

As others have noted, it’s far from the first time that the administration has tried to deep-six data that was unhelpful to its goals. Over the years, they’ve discontinued annual reports, classified normally public data, de-funded studies, quieted underlings, and generally done whatever was necessary to keep bad information under wraps.

Wouldn’t it be great to have all those examples in one place? Thankfully, Steve Benen at the Carpetbagger Report has started us off on that goal. But we’re pretty confident there are more examples, so please use the comments to make suggestions, and we’ll update the list as we verify the specifics. Please, include links where possible.

Here’s Steve’s list:

* In March, the administration announced it would no longer produce the Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation, which identifies which programs best assist low-income families, while also tracking health insurance coverage and child support.
* In 2005, after a government report showed an increase in terrorism around the world, the administration announced it would stop publishing its annual report on international terrorism….

[CHS notes: Please don’t post entire articles from other sites. Do a snippet and a link. Even if you think it’s the most important thing you have ever seen in your whole life, it’s still nice and polite to (a) give the other site the traffic for doing the work and (b) not violate copyright laws and (c) not take up huge amounts of server space with long comments. Thanks!]

Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now’s guests include Cindy Sheehan who is making a clear case for impeachment of Cheney. Cindy says John Conyers stated to her that winning the 2008 election was more important than impeachment proceedings. Dan Gerstein disagrees. Ray McGovern joining the discussion. For west coast firepups Democracy Now is repeated at 6 PM.

Helen @ 74

Here’s my humble opinion about what Gonzo is doing and why I do not think perjury is gonna stick on this “was there disagreement?” question.

March 2004 – The Ascroft bedside visit happens. There’s a big stink by Goldmsith, Comey, et.al.

That night (or the next day) Bush signs. (That this is illegal is another story).

Two weeks later – the WH modifies the program so that everyone at DOJ is satisfied.

December 2005 – Bush “confirms” that the TSP exists in response to the leak in the NYT. He is talking about the TSP after it has been modified after the hospital visit. Big deal there; that word “confirm”. Every time Gonzo is asked if there was disagreement he responds “not about the program the president confirmed.”

So, technically, Gonzo is telling the truth. The disagreement was about the program that existed before modification. The president confirmed the program that existed after modification. Viola’ no disagreement.

What am I missing?

That makes sense. But is it legal to play these sorts of word games? Is that the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Loo Hoo. @ 115

Helen @ 74

Here’s my humble opinion about what Gonzo is doing and why I do not think perjury is gonna stick on this “was there disagreement?” question.

March 2004 – The Ascroft bedside visit happens. There’s a big stink by Goldmsith, Comey, et.al.

That night (or the next day) Bush signs. (That this is illegal is another story).

Two weeks later – the WH modifies the program so that everyone at DOJ is satisfied.

December 2005 – Bush “confirms” that the TSP exists in response to the leak in the NYT. He is talking about the TSP after it has been modified after the hospital visit. Big deal there; that word “confirm”. Every time Gonzo is asked if there was disagreement he responds “not about the program the president confirmed.”

So, technically, Gonzo is telling the truth. The disagreement was about the program that existed before modification. The president confirmed the program that existed after modification. Viola’ no disagreement.

What am I missing?

That makes sense. But is it legal to play these sorts of word games? Is that the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

A statement which is literally true cannot support a conviction, even if it is misleading. United States v. Cook, 489 F.2d 286, 287 (9th Cir.1973). See, comment 62, supra.

john mister @ 107

martial law doc surface stateside –

i personally contacted Senator Leahys staff – To his credit he checked the sources – does that photo above look like it?

as i said to his staff, he’s a stand up guy

martial law doc surfaces to put troops on us soil

quote:

The media, print and broadcast (radio, television and the Internet), play a vital role in societies involved in a counterinsurgency. Members of the media have a significant influence and shaping impact on political direction, national security objectives, and policy and national will. The media is a factor in military operations. It is their right and obligation to report to their respective audiences on the use of military force. They demand logistic support and access to military operations while refusing to be controlled. Their desire for immediate footage and on-the-spot coverage of events, and the increasing contact with units and Soldiers (for example, with embedded reporters) require commanders and public affairs officers to provide guidance to leaders and Soldiers on media relations. However, military planners must provide and enforce ground rules to the media to ensure operations security. Public affairs offices plan for daily briefings and a special briefing after each significant event because the media affect and influence each potential target audience external and internal to the AO. Speaking with the media in a forward-deployed area is an opportunity to explain what our organizations and efforts have accomplished.

Support to the judiciary may be limited to providing security to the existing courts or may lead to more comprehensive actions to build local, regional, and national courts and the required support apparatus. To avoid overcrowding in police jails, the courts must have an efficient and timely magistrate capability, ideally co-located with police stations and police jails, to review cases for trial.

to see link:

http://www.tbrnews.org

look left, see ‘archive’ click link

scroll down to July 16, then click link: ‘green zone follies’

Good lord. I followed that trail (direct link: http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a2720.htm#004) and found this:

This publication uses the term insurgent to describe those taking part in any activity designed to undermine or to overthrow the established authorities…

How am I supposed to know when I am undermining something? On second thought, it doesn’t matter, because there will be no avenue of appeal, no matter how strong my defense might be.

BigMitch @ 116

Loo Hoo. @ 115

That makes sense. But is it legal to play these sorts of word games? Is that the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

A statement which is literally true cannot support a conviction, even if it is misleading. United States v. Cook, 489 F.2d 286, 287 (9th Cir.1973). See, comment 62, supra.

unless of course the crime is “misleading congress”

I don’t know if that’s a crime but if it is you cannot fall back on this president

Mitch at 116 — Technically, a 9th Cir. case is good for the circuit, but isn’t dispositive everywhere — although there are a lot of factors and elements which have to be proved for a perjury case and it isn’t clear whether all of them are met for Gonzales. Which is exactly why an investigation and not immediate charges is appropriate.

In case anyone missed it:
ACORN charged in voter registration fraud in Seattle.

Metroactive article about Tillman
http://www.metroactive.com/met…..-0721.html

BigMitch @ 94

Praedor Atrebates @ 77

Helen @ 74

I believe that this is the gist of the TPM Muckraker article cited above…

I have been saying this for some time, and as I just posted a true, but misleading statement is not perjury, even if the declarant thinks it is. (For those who were here yesterday, there is actually a case on this point which discusses Lady Eldon’s French lace.)

So, incredible though it may seem, Gonzo may have outwitted Shumer, Leahy, et al.

Like I said a couple days ago, it’s just been too easy, which is why I smelled a trap. If Gonzo walks on perjury, the administration talking point of an out-of-control Congress is seemingly proved, and bang goes 20% of the popular support. The clock is run, the impeachment window’s over.

But Leahy is not dumb. I read the perjury fork as the rabble-rousing part of the strategy. When outrage peaks, it’s time to strike with the Gonzo impeachment. Then the unprovable character of the perjury fork becomes moot.

Might well work, but I gotta say it’s a bit slimy. To what degree ought we allow ourselves to be reduced to allowing ends to justify means? I mean that as an honest question, not a challenge.

Does Gonzo know he’s lying?
.
To be a brilliant lawyer, or a brilliant mind requires parsing nuances in an intricate web of logic, sort of like a chess player seeing several moves ahead.
I frankly don’t think Gonzo has this kind of mind.
Also, if he ever did have abundant perspicacity, imagine the effect of spending years around the W’ who eschews acutely competent aides and reduces complex planet consequential events to aw shucks and ayups.
Also, like Scooter, Gonzo has spent years now around the likes of W’, Rove and Cheney where truth has been reduced to a discussion point anathematical by its nature to their causes. If these guys had consciences and knew when they were lying, they would all probably have developed spastic tics by now.
I’d say “God help them, they know not what they do” but then children would stare and shun me to see my ears twirl and hear low exorcistical moaning erupting from my ethics’ core.
–”cognitorex”–

Take it from a guy in the 9th Circuit, most other places don’t like our precedents; we’re too librul you know.

Albertoad Gonzales may have been slick enough to not be convictable on perjury; that is exactly what impeachment is for; let’s get going.

BigMitch @ 116

A statement which is literally true cannot support a conviction, even if it is misleading. United States v. Cook, 489 F.2d 286, 287 (9th Cir.1973). See, comment 62, supra.

unless of course the crime is “misleading congress”

I don’t know if that’s a crime but if it is you cannot fall back on this president

OT:

GOP using same campaign message as ‘06:

Romney says Americans won’t elect a Democrat for President

The whole measuring the drapes message again!

Oooooh, is that desperation I smell?

White House Runs Conference Call On Executive Privilege With Right-Wing Bloggers

exerpt:

The White House official was also asked about the possibility of impeachment, and apparently dismissed any danger.

“The Speaker has ruled that out, and the senior official hopes they see the futility of that path,” Morrisey wrote.

****

Nancy Pelosi – We understand why you once declared impeachment “off the table” – but are you listening now?

Praedor Atrebates @ 92

bmaz @ 80

You can indeed impeach a federal official after he is out of office; although at that point, the punishments for conviction are pretty much limited to removing residual vestiges of office such as the pension and benefits, and ordering that the person be barred from holding any office in the future.

There is an added benefit. If you were to impeach, say, Bush AND/OR Cheney even after they left office, you would place that right next to their names for the rest of history AND you would have officially repudiated everything they did and stood for, discrediting it henceforth, making it so much harder for that Unitary Executive crap to rear its head again in the future.

Amen! and Amen! But sooner is better than later.

Bob in HI

Christy Hardin Smith @ 119

Mitch at 116 — Technically, a 9th Cir. case is good for the circuit, but isn’t dispositive everywhere — although there are a lot of factors and elements which have to be proved for a perjury case and it isn’t clear whether all of them are met for Gonzales. Which is exactly why an investigation and not immediate charges is appropriate.

The beauty of the special prosecutor is that he/she can nail down all the misstatements that Gonzo has made-and there are many. Let’s start with: “I had no involvement in coming up with the list of USA’s to be fired”.

Why isn’t the intel committee more involved in the illegal wiretap lawlessness?

And, BTW where is part 2 of the prewar intel report?

Jay? Jay?

(crickets)

Knut Wicksell @ 69

Ed*ard Teller @ 38

Voter Fraud and Voter Suppression need to be brought up more and more as deadlines for being able to clean up messes before November, 2008 loom. The keys:
1) restore voting rights to voters illegally purged from voter lists in the Southeast and elsewhere – probably 250,00 voters, 3/4 or more of whom will vote Dem.
2) no paper trail, no electronic voting machine – period – NATIONWIDE, by Federal law.
3) voter and party access to data on how voter information is transferred from precinct to final tally, at every step of the way. No claims of private contractors’ personal property on that information allowed.
4) Nationwide standards on number of machines per precinct.
5) Class A or B felony for mailing or phone calling or other transmission of knowingly false information on any aspect of voting places, times, etc. Subject to RICO, if party orgs involved.

I especially like (5). One or two successful prosecutions with real time (one or two years) and big fines would put the fear of God in to the Rovelings. This is doable. Keep that checklist!

If you have not seen “How Ohio Pulled it off” about the 2004 election, this film is worth the buy.

Trailer at You Tube about the documentary on
“How Ohio pulled it off” Really worth the time
http://youtube.com/watch?v=uzeuIKWKuZQ

http://howohiopulleditoff.com/

Also Bob Fitkaris, Harvey Wasserman, and Cliff Arnebeck have been working their buns off on the voting fraud issue in Ohio
http://freepress.org/index2.php

Bob fitkaris book about voter fraud in Ohio
http://freepress.org/dispatches/2005/display/191

KestrelBrighteyes @ 119

Oooooh, is that desperation I smell?

White House Runs Conference Call On Executive Privilege With Right-Wing Bloggers

exerpt:

The White House official was also asked about the possibility of impeachment, and apparently dismissed any danger.

“The Speaker has ruled that out, and the senior official hopes they see the futility of that path,” Morrisey wrote.

****

Nancy Pelosi – We understand why you once declared impeachment “off the table” – but are you listening now?

I wonder if these fascists sit around with cigars, in their cushy chairs and say things like;

“man, this were a democrat pulling what we got cought doing the republicans would have hauled us out in chains”

I wonder if they have conversations like that

Bob Schacht @ 128

Praedor Atrebates @ 92

There is an added benefit. If you were to impeach, say, Bush AND/OR Cheney even after they left office, you would place that right next to their names for the rest of history AND you would have officially repudiated everything they did and stood for, discrediting it henceforth, making it so much harder for that Unitary Executive crap to rear its head again in the future.

Amen! and Amen! But sooner is better than later.

Bob in HI

There is a whole pack of liars, killers and traitors to impeach, Libby, Wolfowitz, Rove, Feith, Gonzales, Perle, Where is Ari Fleisher? The list is long. These are all folks that I hope we never see again in future administrations.

LEGAL EXPERTS: GONZALES GUILTY OF ‘TUI’ — TESTIFYING UNDER THE INFLUENCE

Hardball with Bruce Fein on Gonzales

http://www.crooksandliars.com/…..ate-redux/

BigMitch @ 54

ifthethunderdontgetya @ 42

Not since the darkest days of the Nixon Administration have we seen efforts to corrupt federal law enforcement for partisan political gain and such efforts to avoid accountability.”

I was a kid when Nixon resigned. But these guys seem worse than Nixon to me. Especially because there are so few Republicans willing to put our country’s interests ahead of their party’s, now.

Some would say, Nixon got us out of Viet Nam and opened the door to China. Bush — how shall I put this — doesn’t have any comparable foreign policy successes. Nixon, his protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, was a crook, who sought power, but had a vision of what was right and persued it by corrupt means. Bush don’t give a fuck.

During Nixon days the country was much more sharply divided, and much more active, in part because of the draft. During Nixon days American soldiers fired live ammunition at American students. Tiennemann is Chinese for Kent State.

Nixon extended the war through the Neutrality Act violation of using Henry Kissinger to send messages to the South Vietnamese via Anna Chennault that they were going to be sold out by the Dems if they were elected and therefore, the Vietnamese should not deal with the Johnson administration when it came to peace talks.

Kind of like the Neutrality Act violations that Poppy Bush, Bob Gates, and Mumbles Casey engaged in with the Iranians in Paris in 1980 to extend the period of captivity of the American hostages in Iran until after the inauguration of Reagan.

Thirty thousand more American troops were killed in Vietnam during Nixon’s time in office and an untold number of Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians, not to forget South Korean ROK Marines, Australian forces, and New Zealand troops.

Richard Nixon getting us out of Vietnam is analogous to Ronald Reagan ending the Soviet Union, neither of these assertions is true.

Kathleen @ 134

Hardball with Bruce Fein on Gonzales

http://www.crooksandliars.com/…..ate-redux/

This clip is worth the time

Woodhall Hollow @ 40

LS @ 30

Do you think they have “tapes”…???

Or a deep throat or two or three? It is worth noting, in the footnotes of the HJC committee report, including a couple who are without a name. Eg. “a woman” .

The new report? I just went through all the footnotes and I’m not seeing what you are seeing. Footnote #’s ?

realworld @ 86

Praedor Atrebates @ 65

And THIS gets to another thing I want to see: an Amendment to the Constitution that “clarifies” the Presidential pardon power. I want a simple Amendment that bars any President from pardoning (or commuting sentences) anyone with whom they have had a personal, financial, or professional relationship. Outside of such individuals, the power to pardon is “plenary”. THAT is what I want to see.

I think the question whether President can pardon the the results of a judicial conviction for the same crimes that a person was impeached for is very much an open question. The fact is, this has never been tested and the record is far from clear. The language that would have clearly allowed such pardons was rejected by the framers and the phrase “cases of impeachments” could be understood as referring to the crimes, and not the consequences of impeachment. Thus, the clause could be read as, “except for the crimes for which a person is impeached.” I have an amature piece on this up on my blog. Would be interesting to see a real scholar take a crack at it.

Let’s look at this very simply. I’ve read your links and I have the debates in my library. I think you are wrong in thinking that the wording during the debates extends the pardon impediment as it relates to impeachment to subsequent criminal proceedings for one very simple reason.

The Framers put the pardon clause in the Constitution for one purpose and one purpose only – to remove the sovereign immunity that attaches to the executive and other officers liable for impeachment so that they may be dealt with by the relevant criminal machinery for whatever crimes they have committed which brought about the impeachment. That is evident since the crimes for which they can be impeached aren’t restricted to onerous felonies, but apply as well to misdemeanors.

The idea that the Framers would allow someone who had been impeached to escape punishment other than impeachment and removal from office by precluding prosecution for underlying crimes just isn’t tenable.

Cujo359 @ 79

Christy Hardin Smith @ 63

Fe at 58 — I think TommyYum’s theory that I talked about earlier is part of it. And I think there are certain things which must occur to trigger the next steps, both procedurally and legally — and they are working their way through the steps for challenge in court and in the court of public opinion.

They are laying all the groundwork before moving up to the next level of pressure — which may include potential impeachment proceedings for AG Gonzales, I should think, as a distinct possibility after this week. None of the Republicans on the SJC are standing up for him at all — their silence speaks volumes.

One thing I’m certain of is that there will have to be an overwhelming majority of Americans in favor of impeachment before Congress will act. By “overwhelming majority” I mean even some of the thirty percenters get it. We can argues the chicken/egg relationship all day, but I think that’s the order it will have to happen, unfortunately. The Republicans won’t budge until then, and many Democrats will continue to think it’s not worth the time until they do.

This is a step toward building that majority.

I think more of the thrity percenters get it than we know of because they are all too arrogant and proud to admit that the rest of us, you know, us DFHs were right all along from the Florida recount straight to the empty chair at Meirs’ no show.

False pride will kill you and do untold damage to others around you.

I feel like I’ve been reading the same thing for months now. It’s very hard to visit left leaning sites and see all the posters get excited about another subpeona, or to talk about censure, or to get worked up about a special prosecutor. It’s time everyone wake up and get on the same page. Nothing is left in the old toolbox except impeachment. There is not a discussion about anything in this country, from global warming, to getting out of Iraq, to preventing a mess in Iran that will go anywhere without going to the ultimate end; impeachment. There is not a single issue left except for impeachment that doesn’t wind up as a futile exercise of linguistic masterbation. There is only one conversation we should all be having; impeachment, and how to force our foot dragging, duty shirking Congress to do the right thing. Think I’m wrong? Pick a topic, and try to come up with a solution that doesn’t involve impeachment. You’ll be wasting your time, but knock yourselves out. The sooner everyone comes to see the light the better the chances are that this country can be saved (or restored).

John Conyers thinks it is more important for dems. to get in ‘08 than stopping the criminals running this country. He needs to be shown the pasture. People are dying for politics.

Nixon, his protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, was a crook, who sought power, but had a vision of what was right and persued it by corrupt means.

nixon had a vision of what was right?
I’ve never seen evidence that points to that.

And guys, who pays for Cheney’s new battery?
THE GOVERNMENT!!!!
and they subpoena Michael Moore-oh the hypocracy….

OT but important

David Iglesias will be on “Now” tonight on PBS and will be talking about voter caging. It comes on @ 8:30 in the NYC market and then will be repeated. Unfortunately not all PBS markets carry this show (not a surprise) but it sounds like a good one. The PBS website has the schedule via zip code input.

Bill Moyers follows tonight with “why are we really fighting in Iraq”.

LS @ 110

Someone leaked the TSP program to the NYT originally. Could it be that Leahey got some extra information from that source?

And didn’t this leaking happen BEFORE the 2004 election, and the NYT sat on it until after?

molly @ 141

John Conyers thinks it is more important for dems. to get in ‘08 than stopping the criminals running this country. He needs to be shown the pasture. People are dying for politics.

I heard Steney Hoyer make the same argument on Ed Schultz’s show the other day. [Must be a DC Dems/”leadership” talking point.]

What Steney & Conyers seem to forget is that all actions [or inactions] by Democrats between now & Nov. 08 also create a picture in voters’ minds of Democrats. For a party [Dems] struggling with a lingering image as “do-nothing” and “weak,” Dems need to get it together & “do something,” rather than hanging back and attempting to read the polls.

tweety having two of the fired US attorneys coming up (supposedly next).

mauimom @ 146

molly @ 141

John Conyers thinks it is more important for dems. to get in ‘08 than stopping the criminals running this country. He needs to be shown the pasture. People are dying for politics.

I heard Steney Hoyer make the same argument on Ed Schultz’s show the other day. [Must be a DC Dems/”leadership” talking point.]

What Steney & Conyers seem to forget is that all actions [or inactions] by Democrats between now & Nov. 08 also create a picture in voters’ minds of Democrats. For a party [Dems] struggling with a lingering image as “do-nothing” and “weak,” Dems need to get it together & “do something,” rather than hanging back and attempting to read the polls.

The problem, as was pointed out in a recent diary on DailyKos, I think, is that if the Dems do not contest BushCo.’s executive over-reaches, then those practices, even if not entirely legal, become part of “accepted practice,” and become harder to get rid of. We must NOT allow the shredding of the Constitution to go unchallenged.

Bob in HI

Kathleen @ 134

Hardball with Bruce Fein on Gonzales

http://www.crooksandliars.com/…..ate-redux/

Fein said the I word!

If Congress holds the “no shows” in comtempt and asks the Inspector General to investigate Gonzo and the White House blocks any action, then is there a next step or is it all over and the White House wins? What recourse, outside of impeachment do the American people have?

Froomkin rocks!

Voter Fraud and Voter Suppression need to be brought up more and more as deadlines for being able to clean up messes before November, 2008 loom. The keys:
1) restore voting rights to voters illegally purged from voter lists in the Southeast and elsewhere – probably 250,00 voters, 3/4 or more of whom will vote Dem.
2) no paper trail, no electronic voting machine – period – NATIONWIDE, by Federal law. etc

Good suggestions:
I saw that the paper trail legislation may pass the House but stalled in the Senate. Need to start urging Senators to get it passed

BigMitch @ 39

sonate @ 24

Couldn’t somebody remind Abu that a pardon is null and void in cases of impeachment? Impeach first, then arrest, try and convict. An aside, he can be impeached even after he leaves office. (Not that the Dems would have the nerve to do this.)

The impeachment limitation on the plenary pardon power is that once an officer is impeached, tried, convicted, and removed from office with disabilities the conviction in the senate and the consequences cannot be undone with a pardon. In a subsequent criminal prosecution, pardons are available. Scholars are not in agreement on the question of whether or not impeachment of an officer who has left office is possible.

Big Mitch…it has happened.

William W. Belknap, Secretary of War was impeached AFTER his resignation. He was impeached by a UNANIMOUS vote of the House of Representatives shortly AFTER he had resigned for allegedly having received money in return for post tradership appointments. Speaker of the House Michael C. Kerr wrote to the Senate that Belknap resigned “with intent to evade the proceedings of impeachment against him.” Belknap was then tried by the Senate, which ruled by a vote of 37-29 that it HAD JURISDICTION despite Belknap’s prior resignation. The vote on conviction fell short of the two-thirds required, with 35 to 37 votes for each article and 25 votes against each. Two of those voting for conviction, 22 of those voting for acquital, and one who declined to vote said they felt that the Senate did not have jurisdiction due to Belknap’s resignation.

So a majority of both Houses of Congress have held that they have jurisdiction over the impeachment of an already resigned individual. This authority is clear because impeachment not only removes an individual from their office, but also is intended to disqualify a convicted individual from FUTURE OFFICE or emoluments that provide “honor, trust, and profit” of the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_W._Belknap