HOW will the Attorney scandal bring down ANY of them?

[shield20]

I see all these threads speculating what now, seeing a battle over subpoenas, how great it is, road to impeachment, freeper meltdown, etc., but I still don't see the END GAME...

WHAT or HOW will this help bring any of those idiots down? Are ANY indictments possible? For what? Resignations? Possible - OK.

What AM I missing?

[ClassWarrior]

1. You're missing the fact that it's all connected.

Once one card falls... the whole house is inevitable.

NGU.

[AlinPA]

12. All of this seems to take a long time. Two years? Plus the Supreme Court is in

Bush**'s camp, so nothing can be gained there. It seems Rove, et al can just say 'shove it" to congress. Since Rove-Bush** control "Justice" it seems impossible to get anything resolved. For sure it won't look good for Bush**, but the media can twist it to make it look like the Democrats are losers in the matter.

[shield20]

20. GREAT point - how long to resolve subpoena issue???

2 years??? Shit!

[AlinPA]

22. I don't know, but the courts are slow. For something like this, with the courts

controlled by Bush**-Rove, it looks like they can run out the clock.

[napi21]

2. First,the attorney firings indicate Obstruction of Justice charges.

People go to jail for that, and it looks like Rove, Meirs, and Gonzo's COS are directly involved. It's possible, through more investigation, many more were involved...including Shrub.

That would bethe FIRST card to fall, which in turn would cause the rest to come crashing down!

[shield20]

3. So they have to show firings, otherwise legal, would be/are obstruction so are ILLEGAL.

Thanks!

[MGKrebs]

6. I see a different route.

Yes, obstruction is at the heart of it, and that is why Rove et al cannot testify. Therefore, they will defy the subpoenas, but well before any court can rule on that, Congress will take the refusal to testify as a test of their authority and even some 'Pubs will start making noises about the 'I' word. At that point, the whole ball will unravel.

[pampango]

4. ClassWarrior is right about what will happen if one card falls.

The subpoena battle is inevitable. My worry is that Bush has chosen the Attorney issue to fight it over.

If the SC ends up looking for a fig leaf to hide behind to protect "executive privilege", I think it will be easier for them in a case like this, where no one argues that Bush does not have the right to dismiss the attorneys, just that he is doing it for evil motives. It is unfortunate the the subpoena battle could not have been over access to testimony and documents relating to the (manufactured) intelligence leading up to the war. This would put much more pressure on the SC not to look for an "out" to let the administration off the hook.

[shield20]

5. Aaah - great point!

Can the USSC rule on a narrow...front(?), by saying IN THIS CASE, there is not enough at stake to overturn privilege, without affecting future cases where it WOULD be necessary?

[Marnieworld]

11. I disagree

I think they are foolish to fight subpoenas in this case claiming executive privledge. The issue at hand does not involve National Security and concerns information already in the public sector. The only reason they want to avoid testifying is to avoid the political fallout for telling the truth or the criminal fallout of perjury.

If it was about the NSA warrantless wiretaps for instance they might have a shot at restricting National Security testimony. In this case there is no legitimate fact to be shielded by the privledge. Also considering the very recent precedent involving President Clinton himself they don't have much to stand on.

But with Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, and Alito we have to hold our breaths.

[cascadiance]

15. Supreme Court justices can be impeached too! This might be a DAMN GOOD time to do it!

If they try to pull this partisan crap again! We can also remind the Republican senators who are up for reelection in 2008 that if they go against what the people believe is right, that they stand to lose this battle too.

[pampango]

19. I hope you are right and I am wrong.

I suppose it comes down to whether the SC is more likely to give the administration the benefit of the doubt in a "big" case or a "small" case, in terms of the perceived public interest in the case.

It was my understanding, perhaps erroneous, that one reason the SC ruled against Nixon was the perceived public interest in the outcome.

[On the Road]

7. If the People Who are Subpoenaed Come Clean

and simply admit that the firings were political, they may not be guilty of a crime. However, Bush's approval ratings may justly take a hit.

If they do NOT come clean, however, obstruction of justice is possible, and more scandals may emerge from the woodwork.

[pampango]

14. I think they will be happy to admit that the firings were political.

They will contend that these attorneys are political appointees. The harder point would be to get them to admit that the firings were criminal - to short circuit investigations and obstruct justice.

We can win this subpoena battle over the firing of the attorneys, but I think we would have had a better, more powerful case if the battle was over access to intelligence that led up to the war in Iraq.

[MissMillie]

8. It is against the law to fire the prosecutors

if the firing has the affect of corrupting an on-going investigation.

[onenote]

18. proving that will be difficult

absent some smoking gun directing new appointees not to pursue specific cases/investigations started under the predecessor's watch.

[Sir Jeffrey]

9. Here is how...

1. If Bush or his aides are implicated in firing US attorneys in order to stop investigations into Republicans, that is obstruction of justice and it is a criminal offense.

2. If Bush's aides gave/give false testimony to a congressional committee, they can be charged with perjury and that is also a criminal offense.

3. If during the course of the investigation the Congress uncovers further evidence of unrelated criminal acts, they can pursue those matters as well.

[Marie26]

10. Bush thinks it could

That's why he had that panic attack of a press conference. They're terrified - of what, I'm still not sure. But they obviously think that the truth about the DOJ firings could bring them down.

[gkhouston]

13. Bush had to authorize the firing, so it's ultimately his ass on the line.

Also, it's a no-no to hire, fire, or rate the performance of a civil servant based on their political beliefs. Sampson's three-tier rating system, where the top tier is reserved for those "loyal to Bush", hints that there might be some emails somewhere that nakedly state the problem with these attorneys is that they weren't partisan enough. That's my wild-ass guess du jour.

[Pacifist Patriot]

16. Two battles: PR & Legal

Firing for political reasons stinks in the public consciousness.

Firing to impede an investigation is obstruction of justice. In this case, indictments are possible, most likely for perjury if a paper trail were to contradict statements made under oath.

This could get interesting because it may be practically impossible to get everyone on to the same story and have it gel with what actually transpired. Someone's going to slip up somewhere. They really aren't as smart as people have given them credit for being.

Edited for typos.

[shield20]

17. I'm all for ANYTHING that shows these SOBs in their true light!

Definitely see the advantage in getting it ALL out there!

[Pacifist Patriot]

21. Oh and that domino effect?

When the questioning starts it's not just about how the decisions were made to fire the attorneys and by what criteria. If it is determined they were fired because of cases they were working on....exactly what is the content of those cases and who is being protected by the removal of the prosecutor, hmmmm?

[Bake]

23. Don't forget that Gonzo arguably already committed perjury

By testifying to Congress that the attorneys were fired for performance reasons. That's reason enough to subpoena the others, i.e., to investigate the possibility that Gonzo perjured himself.

Bake

[AlinPA]

24. How can anything be done legally to make progress? Seems like a block to me.

A. Bush**-Rove controls the "Justice" Department.
B. Bush**-Rove controls the Supreme Court.