NY Times calls for Attorney General's dismissal.

[FlaSoxxJim]

If anything was going to take down Rove or Cheney, I think their behavior in the Plame matter was more deserving of scorn than in this case. Or in anything they did dealing with Iraq of course.

 

Well, maybe that's what Kap is getting at - that it might not be the Attorney sacking that takes Rove down, but that he'll be the next in the Austin Gang to fall in the wake of something else.

 

As for Cheney, I'm 99% sure the only way he's leaving office before the end of his term is if they carry him out with a sheet over his head after his bum ticker finally gives out.

Edited March 17, 2007 by FlaSoxxJim

[Texsox]

A new head coach comes in a requests that all the assistant coaches resign. Seems nornal to me. Same guy 5 or 6 years later fires the guys he's hired? Seems like someone is trying to fix some mistakes they made.

[Balta1701]

Now this is just funny.

 

A month before Duke Cunningham agreed to plead guilty on corruption and bribery charges, a group of 19 Republicans in Congress sent a letter to the DOJ complaining about the fact that Carol Lam, the U.S. Attorney prosecuting the Cunningham case, was being too lax on bringing immigration-related charges against people.

 

One of those 19 signatories? You guessed it. Duke Cunningham. (gigantic document dump last night. We should have days worth of fun on this one)

 

Also this morning, the Senate passed a bill that will overturn the Patriot Act provision that allowed the White House to replace these attorneys with political hacks without having to go through the Senate.

Edited March 20, 2007 by Balta1701

[Balta1701]

Well, Mr. Bush just gave a very angry and defiant press conference on this matter. Earlier today, the White House offered to have Mr. Rove and other White House officials talk to the Senate committee investigating this matter...with the testimony not under oath in a private talk with no transcript recorded.

 

Obviously, Mr. Leahy has rejected that offer, considering it pretty much wasn't an offer at all.

 

Mr. Bush is saying his administration will go to court to fight any subpoena which is issued in this case.

 

However you wanna look at it...here we go. Either you can say "the Dems are willing to go to a huge fight over an issue like this where there seems to have been no crime committed by anyone but Gonzalez", or you can say "the White House is refusing to let their people testify under oath despite the fact that such testimony was common in previous administrations, including under Clinton". Either way, there appears to be a major fight brewing here.

 

Edit: Oh, and 1 more note. The penalty for refusing to testify following a subpoena from Congress is to be held in contempt of Congress. Who prosecutes those cases? You guessed it. Frank Stallone The U.S. Attorney's office.

Edited March 21, 2007 by Balta1701

[Balance]

Bush's offer of testimony without a transcript, not under oath, is a complete farcical joke. It is yet another in a long series of evasions of accountability. The offer will be, correctly, rejected and subpoenas for Karl Rove and Harriet Meiers should issue immediately.

[kapkomet]

INVESTIGATE! CHARGE! IMPEACH!

[Texsox]

INVESTIGATE! CHARGE! IMPEACH!

 

Little over the top, don't you think?

[kapkomet]

Little over the top, don't you think?

Yes, actually. Those nasty Dems!

 

Of course (my post) is over the top. After all, I only have straw man's arguements.

[Texsox]

Yes, actually. Those nasty Dems!

 

Of course (my post) is over the top. After all, I only have straw man's arguements.

 

Between you and me, no one else can use green or caps

[Rex Kickass]

Kap, for once, you're raising a great possibility. I think the idea of impeachment is rapidly coming to the table and may have a fighting chance based on seeds planted in this fight. If there ends up being enough political will for an impeachment, it may come from this attitude of a lack of accountability to Congress or the American people from the White House.

 

The way the case lays out right now is this:

Several US Attorneys were fired. The stated reason is "performance related," the real reason appears to be political in nature. This is not an illegal act. It is a shady one and when questioned before Congress, the Attorney General flat out said that the firings were not political in nature. Recently several emails have leaked out related to this affair that directly contradict what the AG says. There now appears to be the possibility that the Attorney General lied under oath to Congress.

 

Apparently there are several documents now missing from the recent dump surrounding the time frame when the firings occurred. And the White House refuses to let Karl Rove and other persons in the employment of the White House testify under oath and without any written notes being taken.

 

So if nothing unforward or illegal happened, why isn't the White House allowing a transcript of the interview to take place? I understand not testifying under oath, but I have a hard time accepting the "off the record" status of an interview.

 

Apparently, so does Congress. Subpoenas look like they will be issued.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8...;show_article=1

[FlaSoxxJim]

[Jon] Stewart also poked fun at the more than 3,000 emails released by the Justice Department in relation to the firings, by quoting from mock versions.

 

One mock email read, "Let's fire U.S. attorneys for purely political reasons and make sure we keep all the emails. PS: I am cheating on my wife with an underage boy. PPS: Seriously, Don't delete this."

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Kap, for once, you're raising a great possibility. I think the idea of impeachment is rapidly coming to the table and may have a fighting chance based on seeds planted in this fight. If there ends up being enough political will for an impeachment, it may come from this attitude of a lack of accountability to Congress or the American people from the White House.

 

The way the case lays out right now is this:

Several US Attorneys were fired. The stated reason is "performance related," the real reason appears to be political in nature. This is not an illegal act. It is a shady one and when questioned before Congress, the Attorney General flat out said that the firings were not political in nature. Recently several emails have leaked out related to this affair that directly contradict what the AG says. There now appears to be the possibility that the Attorney General lied under oath to Congress.

 

Apparently there are several documents now missing from the recent dump surrounding the time frame when the firings occurred. And the White House refuses to let Karl Rove and other persons in the employment of the White House testify under oath and without any written notes being taken.

 

So if nothing unforward or illegal happened, why isn't the White House allowing a transcript of the interview to take place? I understand not testifying under oath, but I have a hard time accepting the "off the record" status of an interview.

 

Apparently, so does Congress. Subpoenas look like they will be issued.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8...;show_article=1

Sort of bizarre, how this works. BushCo has done some many things that have made it a failed, terrible administration... so many things worth being really angry about... and yet here this impeachment might occur over something much less relevant than so many dozens of other things they've done.

[Balta1701]

Sort of bizarre, how this works. BushCo has done some many things that have made it a failed, terrible administration... so many things worth being really angry about... and yet here this impeachment might occur over something much less relevant than so many dozens of other things they've done.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see how any single thing they've done could qualify for impeachment here, under the high crimes and misdemeanors standard. Even if we assume the very worst...give you an example...we assume that it's not a coincidence that the White House arranged for the guy who bribed Duke Cunningham to be sent $140,000 to "Buy furniture for Cheney's office" about a week before he bought a $140,000 yacht for Duke Cunningham and then the White House fired Carol Lam in order to keep her from investigating that...I just can't see that hitting the top level. Maybe Rove, but I just can't see anythign that would hit the Pres.

 

I just can't imagine how President Bush could be directly involved in any of the things they might have been trying to cover up by firing these guys, there just wasn't anything big enough. If Fitz was fired, ok, but he wasn't. And even if these guys were fired to totally stop investigations into Republicans...no matter how inappropriate that might be, there's no law saying they can't do it. Yet. There damn well better be one soon.

[Rex Kickass]

Well, remember impeachment trials are basically political ones - not criminal ones. Someone impeached and convicted does not go to jail. He is simply removed from office. The idea of a death by 1000 papercuts wouldn't go unnoticed here. A deliberate attempt to subvert, obstruct and lie about its dealings regarding issues varying from Patriot Act to Iraq War to Gitmo/Abu Ghraib to these political firings could be argued show a preponderance of evidence of a lack of regard for the rule of law as it applies to the Federal Government.

 

I'm not saying its a good argument. But it is an argument nonetheless. And because successful impeachment movements start from the grassroots (one of the reasons why Nixon's was successful and Clinton's wasn't), it may often be the very worst arguments for impeachment that light the biggest and best fire for removal from office.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Well, I think that a deeper investigation into whether or not the firing of prosecutors working on cases targeting GOPers loyal to the president and/or cases that were beginning to focus on individuals within the White House might potentially lead to enough evidence that impeachment based on an obstruction of justice charge would be viable. [similarly, I think that the President halting the NSA wiretap investigation in its tracks simply by not granting investigators the security clearances they needed could possibly be elevated to obstruction if all the details could ever be known.]

 

I don't think that's very likely, though.

 

If it comes to light through emails or other testimony that Abu G knowingly gave false sworn testimony, that's clearly perjury and initiating Impeachment proceedings against him would be appropriate.

 

As for the President, if the White House refuses to respond to the lawful and reasonable subpoenas that will likely be issued tomorrow, then it potentially leads to two things:

 

1) The constitutional showdown that the White House is spoiling for by failing to recognize the fundamental right of congress to act as a check on Executive power. When that ends up before the Supreme Court hopefully even the Conservative stacked Court will uphold the right of Congress to function the way it was intended in regard to oversight of the Executive.

 

2) Possible justification for pursuing impeachment of the President for obstructing justice, along the lines of Nixon's impeachment.

 

Excerpted from Article 3 of Nixon's articles of impeachment:

 

In refusing to produce these papers and things Richard M. Nixon, substituting his judgment as to what materials were necessary for the inquiry, interposed the powers of the Presidency against the the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, thereby assuming to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives.

 

The claim will, of course, be executive privilege. Then again Tony Snow Job sure didn't do George any favors on that score today.

 

Tony Snow explained that the standoff between the Executive Branch and Congress revolves around Bush’s right to “privileged communications with close staff members.” But he also stated that “the president has no recollection” of conversations about the attorney firings being raised with him. That means, as CNN’s Ed Henry noted, that the White House is now claiming executive privilege over conversations that never existed. Snow’s response to this dilemma? “That falls into the intriguing question category,” he said.

 

 

And note how Tony did not suggest a right to privileged communications among White House staff, only between the President and his staff. Clearly Tony hasn't internalized the Cheney view of the near-limitless claim of executive power and privilege or that statement would have been with and among the President and/or close staff members.

 

Not that anything he says means anything anyway, I know. At least Scotty was sort of likable and you felt sorry for him sometimes when he had to bluff his way through the pressers. Snow is just a jagbag.

 

Executive privilege over conversations that never existed?

“That falls into the intriguing question category”

 

The 18-day email gap??

"I’ve Been Led To Believe There’s A Good Response For It"

 

Any sort of plan for Iraq whatsoever?!?

"Zip It!"

 

Real Smooth, Tony.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm sorry, but I just don't see how any single thing they've done could qualify for impeachment here, under the high crimes and misdemeanors standard. Even if we assume the very worst...give you an example...we assume that it's not a coincidence that the White House arranged for the guy who bribed Duke Cunningham to be sent $140,000 to "Buy furniture for Cheney's office" about a week before he bought a $140,000 yacht for Duke Cunningham and then the White House fired Carol Lam in order to keep her from investigating that...I just can't see that hitting the top level. Maybe Rove, but I just can't see anythign that would hit the Pres.

 

I just can't imagine how President Bush could be directly involved in any of the things they might have been trying to cover up by firing these guys, there just wasn't anything big enough. If Fitz was fired, ok, but he wasn't. And even if these guys were fired to totally stop investigations into Republicans...no matter how inappropriate that might be, there's no law saying they can't do it. Yet. There damn well better be one soon.

I wasn't saying impeachment necessarily for any particular act. I was just pointing out that they've done any number of slimy, stupid things, but the thing that causes them the most trouble may end up being something much smaller.

[southsider2k5]

So nothing illegal happened to trigger an investigation, and they want to impeach/prosecute for what happened during the investigation... LMAO. If you can't beat em, join em!

[Texsox]

So nothing illegal happened to trigger an investigation, and they want to impeach/prosecute for what happened during the investigation... LMAO. If you can't beat em, join em!

 

Exactly. Next, let's find out who Bush has been sleeping with and finally get even.

[Balta1701]

So nothing illegal happened to trigger an investigation, and they want to impeach/prosecute for what happened during the investigation... LMAO. If you can't beat em, join em!

Well, the Attorney General seems to have lied to Congress, that is fairly illegal.

[southsider2k5]

Well, the Attorney General seems to have lied to Congress, that is fairly illegal.

 

Nah, it was just a firing.

[Rex Kickass]

Umm, no. The issue is whether or not the AG lied to Congress. There are a number of emails and testimony that could put some meat behind this argument.

 

Regardless, the White House is gonna fight Congress about subpoenas now. The Senate is going to issue them, the White House is going to court about them, with the argument, we offered them voluntary testimony without an oath or a written transcript.

 

The White House argument is looking more and more like they're saying they have the right to lie to Congress.

[Balta1701]

You know how you can tell that the U.S. attorneys are really pissed about how this went down? They're leaking like a sieve.

The leader of the Justice Department team that prosecuted a landmark lawsuit against tobacco companies said yesterday that Bush administration political appointees repeatedly ordered her to take steps that weakened the government's racketeering case.

 

Sharon Y. Eubanks said Bush loyalists in Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales's office began micromanaging the team's strategy in the final weeks of the 2005 trial, to the detriment of the government's claim that the industry had conspired to lie to U.S. smokers.

 

She said a supervisor demanded that she and her trial team drop recommendations that tobacco executives be removed from their corporate positions as a possible penalty. He and two others instructed her to tell key witnesses to change their testimony. And they ordered Eubanks to read verbatim a closing argument they had rewritten for her, she said.

 

"The political people were pushing the buttons and ordering us to say what we said," Eubanks said. "And because of that, we failed to zealously represent the interests of the American public."

 

Eubanks, who served for 22 years as a lawyer at Justice, said three political appointees were responsible for the last-minute shifts in the government's tobacco case in June 2005: then-Associate Attorney General Robert D. McCallum, then-Assistant Attorney General Peter Keisler and Keisler's deputy at the time, Dan Meron.

 

News reports on the strategy changes at the time caused an uproar in Congress and sparked an inquiry by the Justice Department. Government witnesses said they had been asked to change testimony, and one expert withdrew from the case. Government lawyers also announced that they were scaling back a proposed penalty against the industry from $130 billion to $10 billion.

 

High-ranking Justice Department officials said there was no political meddling in the case, and the department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) concurred after an investigation.

 

Yesterday was the first time that any of the government lawyers on the case spoke at length publicly about what they considered high-level interference by Justice officials.

 

Eubanks, who retired from Justice in December 2005, said she is coming forward now because she is concerned about what she called the "overwhelming politicization" of the department demonstrated by the controversy over the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. Lawyers from Justice's civil rights division have made similar claims about being overruled by supervisors in the past.

 

Eubanks said Congress should not limit its investigation to the dismissal of the U.S. attorneys.

 

"Political interference is happening at Justice across the department," she said. "When decisions are made now in the Bush attorney general's office, politics is the primary consideration. . . . The rule of law goes out the window."

[southsider2k5]

Umm, no. The issue is whether or not the AG lied to Congress. There are a number of emails and testimony that could put some meat behind this argument.

 

Regardless, the White House is gonna fight Congress about subpoenas now. The Senate is going to issue them, the White House is going to court about them, with the argument, we offered them voluntary testimony without an oath or a written transcript.

 

The White House argument is looking more and more like they're saying they have the right to lie to Congress.

 

AG lied and nobody died?

 

This is so similar to the Clinton impeachment its not even funny. The shoes are now on the other foot, and both sides are uber-outraged for the cameras. Its rather humerous actually.

 

There is one funny thing about those supenas that Lehey is threatening everyone with... guess who enforces them?

 

The Attorney General.

 

Personally I feel that if Gonzalez, or anyone else lied to Congress, they should be prosecuted, not that it amounts to much. But then again I also felt Bill Clinton should have been convicted of the same types of crimes (perjury, obstruction etc), but what do I know?

[Balta1701]

There is one funny thing about those supenas that Lehey is threatening everyone with... guess who enforces them?

 

The Attorney General.

If the AG and the U.S. attorney for Washington D.C. (who I believe is the guy most directly responsible for enforcing contempt of Congress) refuses to enforce the subpoenas or charge with contempt of Congress if the subpoenas are refused, there is 1 more step that Congress can take. I'm not exactly sure how it works, and I think it's only been done once before in like 1935, but Congress itself has the ability somehow to hold a person who refuses to testify in contempt.

[Balta1701]

The executive branch is under no compulsion to testify to Congress, because Congress in fact doesn't have oversight ability. So what we’ve said is we’re going to reach out to you – we’ll give you every communication between the White House, the Justice Department, the Congress, anybody on the outside, any kind of communication that would indicate any kind of activity outside, and at the same time, we’ll make available to you any of the officiels you want to talk to …knowing full well that anything they said is still subject to legal scrutiny, and the members of Congress know that.

Tony Snow this morning, declaring that Congress doesn't exist.

 

Tony Snow, repeating that statement in this morning's Gaggle:

Q If it's behind closed doors, what's the problem?

 

MR. SNOW: The thing that we have said all along is, we think that you ought to have the ability for members of Congress to get information in a way that also does not create precedence, and is going to have a chilling effect for presidential advisors to be able to give their full and fair advice to the President of the United States. We think that the compromise we shaped enables us to fulfill that obligation to the President, and to the public in terms of first-rate advice from the White House and the people working in the White House, and at the same time, allows Congress to do what it has to do, which is conduct oversight. There is nothing that says Congress has to have television; it says that Congress does have oversight responsibilities and needs to get at the facts.

 

Furthermore, the people who are first and foremost in the decision loop here, the folks at the Department of Justice, they aren't going to be out. I mean, they're going to be out, they're going to be testifying, they're offering all their documentation, as well.

 

Q They get to be in public, but you want your guys behind closed doors.

 

MR. SNOW: There are -- in this particular case, the Department of Justice -- the Congress does have legitimate oversight responsibility for the Department of Justice. It created the Department of Justice. It does not have constitutional oversight responsibility over the White House, which is why by our reaching out, we're doing something that we're not compelled to do by the Constitution, but we think common sense suggests that we ought to get the whole story out, which is what we're doing.

Edited March 22, 2007 by Balta1701