Rove to be supoenaed, Gonzalez purjered himself?

[Prope]

Link here. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6807446,00.html)

``It has become apparent that the attorney general has provided at a minimum half-truths and misleading statements,'' four Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee wrote in a letter to Solicitor General Paul Clement.

They dispatched the letter shortly before Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., announced the subpoena of Rove, the president's top political strategist, in remarks on the Senate floor. The White House has claimed executive privilege to block Congress from receiving documents or testimony by current and former presidential aides.

[SABRSox]

How much longer before we just impeach all of them?

[Prope]

How much longer before we just impeach all of them?
Well if Rove goes away, how bad does the administration actually look? He is the top guy for Bush. That is a big piece of the pie to take away.

[Longshot7]

How much longer before we just impeach all of them?

Wish we could, but I don't think it will help.

[maurice]

They asked Gonzalez something like (paraphrasing): "If we find you in contempt of Congress, it's the AG's job to prosecute. Would you allow your office to prosecute you, or would you obstruct the prosecution."

He refused to answer. Guess he's keeping all of his obstruction options open.

[CaptainBallz]

he's been crapping himself up there.

his "bullshit chip" Rove implanted must be on the fritz..

[maurice]

Another exchange (paraphrased):

Q. Are there any other US Atty firings we should know about, besides the ones we're investigating?
A. No, not really . . . well, there were some others, but they were merit firings.
Q. So what you're saying is that the ones we are investigating were NOT merit firings.
A. Well, I, um . . . I'm saying that these other ones were for misconduct.
Q. What kind of misconduct?
A. Well, examples of misconduct could be things like lying or cheating or stealing.
Q. So are you claiming that anybody was fired for lying or cheating or stealing.
A. Er . . . no.

[Erik The Red]

Well if Rove goes away, how bad does the administration actually look? He is the top guy for Bush. That is a big piece of the pie to take away.

In more ways than one. Anyone else reminded of Jabba the Hutt when looking at him?

[Prope]

I remember Pizza the Hut

[CaptainBallz]

Another exchange (paraphrased):

Q. Are there any other US Atty firings we should know about, besides the ones we're investigating?
A. No, not really . . . well, there were some others, but they were merit firings.
Q. So what you're saying is that the ones we are investigating were NOT merit firings.
A. Well, I, um . . . I'm saying that these other ones were for misconduct.
Q. What kind of misconduct?
A. Well, examples of misconduct could be things like lying or cheating or stealing.
Q. So are you claiming that anybody was fired for lying or cheating or stealing.
A. Er . . . no.

classic... they're all just ripping on him too for being such a pecker. Arlen Specter prefaced one of his questions with something to the effect of "not like you're credible enough for us to believe your answer, but..."

[Prope]

classic... they're all just ripping on him too for being such a pecker. Arlen Specter prefaced one of his questions with something to the effect of "not like you're credible enough for us to believe your answer, but..."
Schumer held him over the coals as well.

[MSquad]

I've studiously avoided this particular issue, because the state of the union depresses me greatly. I dislike Bush, detest the Democrats. Before I go off on a tangent, and get lectured about what a great President Dennis Kucinich or Joe Stalin would be I have a question. What's the deal with the prosecutor firings anyway? Maybe they're morally wrong, or stupid or both, but I'm uncertain about what business it is of the Congress anyway. These are political jobs, aren't they? Don't these people get hired and fired according to their politics? Aren't the Dems when they take over in 09 (I think they will) going to hire and fire their own prosecutors, and not give a shit what anyone says? There's only so many hours in the day, and like I said, I've avoided this subject, but what gives here?

[maurice]

^
I agree with this and wish that Congress would do something more important.
However, these guys look like real douchebags twisting in the wind.
Often the cover up is much worse than the actual crime.

[SABRSox]

You guys need to read the Constitution. Congress has oversight responsibilities over the executive branch. Just because the Republicans who ran Congress for the last six years decided not to do as they are charged to under the Constitution, that doesn't mean the Democrats who are in charge now should do the same.

[Prope]

:Skripisright:

Although my guess is that Maurice has seen the Constitution once or twice.

[maurice]

Just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should be doing it. Congress should be using that oversight authority on more important things, like Halliburton, GITMO, torture, wiretapping, extraordinary rendition, compliance with the 9/11 Commission recommendations, the circle-jerk that is the DHS, etc. The attorney firings are a mote compared to those planks, no matter what the media think.

Normally, it doesn't bother me when Congress wastes time investigating relatively insignificant crap. It keeps them from spending time and money on BS legislation. However, there is real work to be done here. They can start by using the power of the purse to end the war in Iraq.

[CaptainBallz]

^ I do believe those investigations are in various preliminary stages... or at least some of them are. The Alberto Gonzales hearing specifically ties in directly with the issues of state sanctioned torture ("quaint" Geneva conventions anyone?) and the warrantless wiretapping, which is why they're questioning him on the "bedside chat" with Ashcroft.

Sorry folks, but this IS important. This is shedding SERIOUS light on the unfettered corruption and lack of accountibility and responsibility that defines this administration. It's an abomination that needs to be watched very closely.

Actually, I'm kinda surprised that you guys see this as theater. These things do take a lot of time. I mean, Scooter Libby just got his sentence commuted by Captain Buttfuck after going through an entire trial, conviction, and sentencing for something that transpired back in '02. There's a lot of Beltway crap to weed through to fix this mess...

[1951Campbell]

Sorry folks, but this IS important. This is shedding SERIOUS light on the unfettered corruption and lack of accountibility and responsibility that defines this administration. It's an abomination that needs to be watched very closely.

Actually, I'm kinda surprised that you guys see this as theater.

That there is lack of accountability, responsibility, and corruption in this administration--hell, any adiminstration--shouldn't be news to anyone.

Maurice's laundry list of things that are infinitely more important is spot-on. Out of all that, what does Congress do? Hassle the AG's office for firing people who serve at the will of the President anyway. Waste. Of. Time.

The only good that can possibly come of this is a minor re-definition of Congress' power in relation to the executive branch.

[MSquad]

Hassle the AG's office for firing people who serve at the will of the President anyway. Waste. Of. Time.

That's exactly my point. "Firing people who serve at the will of the President". It doesn't matter how stupid, short sighted or unfair these firings are. Billy Dale anyone? Presidents have these prerogatives. So the Dems get some style points on CNN. Big effin deal. Why not draw some real distinctions between your party and this thoroughly Keystone Kop incompetent administration? Oh well, Mickey Mouse would look good contrasted to this Presidency right now. The Dems will probably be in big time come Jan 2009. Then they're going to fire someone(s) that will offend the sensibilities of the opposition, and we'll have a reversal of this silly little passion play going on now. And you wonder why more and more of us have absolute contempt for the two monopoly parties?

[CaptainBallz]

That there is lack of accountability, responsibility, and corruption in this administration--hell, any adiminstration--shouldn't be news to anyone.

Maurice's laundry list of things that are infinitely more important is spot-on. Out of all that, what does Congress do? Hassle the AG's office for firing people who serve at the will of the President anyway. Waste. Of. Time.

The only good that can possibly come of this is a minor re-definition of Congress' power in relation to the executive branch.

Way to ignore the first part of my post. Those things ARE being investigated as we speak, some (wiretapping, torture) at the same time as these firings..

[Prope]

No matter if these hearings are good or not, we can all agree that Gonzalez has to go. Right??

[CaptainBallz]

Dems attempt to explain the investigation... Sounds like they're using this invesigation to get further into the administrations vault of "privileged info" regarding numerous things and focusing on *SHOCKER* Karl Rove

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/24/AR2007072402311.html

and the memo

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/contempt_memo_072407.pdf

[maurice]

Again, the attorney firings themselves are a non-issue. The only possible issue of any consequence here is the cover up.

If Gonzalez just admitted everything from Day 1, my response would be :shrug:

That the Congress is focusing on the attorney non-issue at all detracts from other more important issues: both investigation and (more importantly) legislation. By all means, parade this administration's corruption for the media / American people to see, but focus on the meaningful corruption . . . the stuff with consequences. Immediately introduce legislation to rollback all of the crap they've pulled. Keep forcing vetoes and filibusters. Worried about over-classification? Pass a Bill restricting it. Nobody seriously doubts that it's used for BS reasons.

To the extent that they're focusing on this attorney shit and things like the immigration bill disaster, they can't reasonably say that they haven't had enough time to do more to address pressing civil liberties issues, etc.

I suspect that the Dems are doing this on purpose, because they already made up their minds that the other things make them look soft on terrorism or whatever, and it's starting to piss me off. They clearly decided that they have no intention of stopping the war in Iraq any time soon.

[SABRSox]

I think the idea is to tear down the "executive privilege" defense the Bush administration is hiding behind, and the attorney firings are where they have built the most solid case to do so.

It has to start somewhere, and while I'd prefer Congress to press hard on illegal wiretapping, or just straight out impeach these bums, if this is the strongest case, then so be it.

[CaptainBallz]

[B]The only possible issue of any consequence here is the cover up.

Right. So the administration/Gonzo release the stink bomb by obstructing the investigation and the Judiciary Committee has to follow the scent. Is this another Rovian trick?

I suspect that the Dems are doing this on purpose, because they already made up their minds that the other things make them look soft on terrorism or whatever, and it's starting to piss me off. They clearly decided that they have no intention of stopping the war in Iraq any time soon.

How are the candidates supposed to run on the war if this Congress actually ends it?
I'll put money on this type of party before policy tomfoolery...

[maurice]

I think the idea is to tear down the "executive privilege" defense the Bush administration is hiding behind, and the attorney firings are where they have built the most solid case to do so.

If that's their conclusion, then I disagree with them. This is going to be a L O N G , drawn-out process, lasting well beyond 2008. Under these conditions, W will continue to assert privilege until the USSC tells him that he can't, which will take several years if it happens at all. The administration already has said that the AG's office will refuse to prosecute Contempt of Congress re. claims of executive privilege.

The best way to tear down the defense is to pass legislation limiting executive privilege and classification powers. W will still put up a fight, but he'll be fighting on one leg.

Is this another Rovian trick?

Everything this administration does has been thoroughly vetted by Rove.

How are the candidates supposed to run on the war if this Congress actually ends it? I'll put money on this type of party before policy tomfoolery...

Agreed. It makes me sick to my stomach to even think about it.

- - -

BTW, the Constitution does NOT explicitly grant Congress the contempt power or power to investigate the Executive branch. The USSC made that up, because they felt it was necessary to perform Congress's explicit powers. Also, the way contempt cases are handled is purely a statutory issue. Congress is free to amend the statute and handle contempt cases differently, for example by removing the AG or even the federal courts from the process.

[CaptainBallz]

House Dems are supposedly introducing a bill to begin the impeachment investigation of Gonzo tomorrow... :nana:

Fuck it, just copy and paste the text and change the names to Bush/ Cheney and let's get this nightmare over with.