DELETING my "hue and cry" US AG's post here

[WilliamPitt]

Because a lot of smart folks clarified things for me excellently. Many many thanks.

[trumad]

1. I think it's more about the 2008 election more than anything

Rove thought he could work the 2006 elections but that didn't work out... So---he's simply prepping for the 2008 election.

Ya gotta wonder why he put one of his henchmen at the post in Arkansas? More Whitewater shit on Hillary--- hey, who knows?

[merh]

58. Don't forget New Mexico USA was replaced too

and USA's from a couple of almost red states and almost blue states.

The red/blue electorial college map was interesting once you looked at the USAs that were forced out.

[rocktivity]

2. The line that comes to my mind: "All in all, you're just another brick in the wall."

What Plame, NSA taps, no WMD, the OSP, the WHIG, the DSM, Halliburton and AG have in common is the lawless, corrupt, unaccountable, self-serving monarchy which gave birth to them. It's just another symptom of Bush's disease.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Cha]

14. gonza lied about

WHY they were fired. And, getting rid of these bush appointed republicon USAttorneys, who aren't sucking hard enough, to put in bushits' toadies can make for a smoother "martial law" transition and other traitorous actions.

Maybe it wasn't the deed it was lying about it?

[rocktivity]

67. DING DING DING! Zidzi, you're our grand prize winner!

Maybe it wasn't the deed it was lying about it?
Yep, and that's something they just can't seem to learn: It's not the crime, it's the coverup!

:headbang:
rocknation

[Ghost in the Machine]

66. you get it... you really really get it!

"What Plame, NSA taps, no WMD, the OSP, the WHIG, the DSM, Halliburton and AG have in common is the lawless, corrupt, unaccountable, self-serving monarchy which gave birth to them. It's just another symptom of Bush's disease."


How much simpler can it get? We, as a Country, as a Nation, have been infected by a self replicating, soul eating cancer that feeds on anything that gets in it's way. Sunlight and exposure are starting to slow this disease down a little, which has given us some hope. Our Democratic leaders need to keep pumping the sunshine, and we can eradicate this cancer soon.

:headbang:

Ghost

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

3. Will,

I too think the real culprit in all of this mess is the giant, corporate MSM. My question is, what can be done about it? We can go to Truthout, come here, read the Daily Howler eetc, but how are we going to hold the MSM accountable? :shrug:

[LisaM]

4. It has to do with a new provision in the Patriot Act

Before, apparently, Bush would have needed Senate confirmation for anything more than a 120-day interim appointment. Now, he does not need that.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0308/p01s01-uspo.html

[WilliamPitt]

11. OK

I get that. I also see words like "unprecedented" used to describe these firings.

But where is the broken law(s)? I can't grasp investigating the Bushies for being bastards within the law on this, while avoiding the galaxy of areas where laws were broken, folded, spindled and mutilated.

[w13rd0]

31. Some of those fired...

...were involved in ongoing prosecutions/investigations, thus it looks like Bush was basically firing people to cover up misdeeds of himself and friends. When you clean house going in, that's one thing, but when you bring in ringers to help hide the bodies, that's something else entirely.

[cascadiance]

50. It's kind of like "where are the broken laws" not having habeus corpus in Guantanamo, etc. too!

The way this administration has manipulated legislation like the Patriot Act to achieve ends that some might say "are legal" and yet violate some of the fundamental Democratic principles of checks and balances and human rights is what is really the problem. Habeus Corpus has been with civilization since the times of kings and queens, and yet we're ready to say that it no longer has to be considered a "legal right" people have. The whole principle of the bill of rights that Jefferson had as a "limit" on one's inherent rights rather than something "specifying" our rights is being violated with habeus corpus as interpreted by Gonzales.

The same is happening with this Patriot Act provision that even the person who's office is responsible for adding in in stealth mode at the last minute wants to blame one of his staffers rather than taking ownership himself of adding that change and explaining it to us (Specter). This is purely a power grab that is happening, as is the other things like signing statements, etc. that this administration has been doing and circumventing the checks and balances that we all believe is necessary for our Democratic system to work.

Campaign finance laws have the same problem. Of course there is so much that the K-Street guys have been doing that has been called "legal", but many of which a lot of us take issue with in terms of the way the laws have been rewritten to favor institutionalized bribery which sells out our government to special interests instead of them representing our citizenry as a democracy is supposed to.

This is probably why impeachment doesn't require "breaking laws" to be used to get rid of certain government officials, since the legal system itself may have been warped in such a way that their actions, which may be deemed inappropriate, but not deemed illegal.

And many of course would say that though the firing of these attorneys isn't illegal, and the hiring of other new ones that are questionably qualified with the new laws isn't illegal either. But as many have noted here, firing those that are involved in investigations to obstruct justice IS illegal! And that is likely why they don't want to testify under oath. And who is responsible for those decisions could go all the way up to the top.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. If it's nothing unusual...

Why'd Gonzales lie to congress about it?

[WilliamPitt]

19. Because his lips were moving?

These guys say water is wet and I get in the shower to make sure. This is nothing new, and compared to the other stuff, kinda small by comparison.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

28. Doesn't really answer the question, does it?

If Gonzales lied to congress, then there's one crime. A big one too.

Secondly, why did Bush fire the attornies? Clinton only fired one U.S.A. midterm. Likewise for Carter, and Reagan. Presumably they had valid reasons.

What were Bush's reasons? Because if his reasons were for political/cover up purposes, then you've got an abuse of power. Which last I checked, is a crime. A big one too.

[JDPriestly]

47. It is an abuse of a legitimate power for partisan political purposes

to replace U.S. attorneys because they are not "loyal" enough to the administration in office. Your father was appointed as a U.S. attorney with the consent of the Senate and, I believe, customarily after the sitting president conferred with the senators in the state in which he was appointed. It is normal for a new president to replace all or most of the U.S. attorneys when he takes office. The problem with what Bush did is that the attorneys he replaced were fired in spite of high job performance ratings. There is an appearance of corruption because Bush fired the U.S. attorneys that were or were not investigating political corruption in the way that Bush wanted. Bush is entitled to demand that U.S. attorneys adhere in their work to his policy objectives to some extent. But the U.S> attorneys are not a political arm of the president. There is a huge difference. Lam is the most important example of an attorney who investigated Republican corruption and appears to have been fired to end or slow the investigations.

The most interesting case in my view is the Los Angeles attorney who was investigating Republican corruption by Lewis (I believe) and who was lured away by an excellent offer from Gibson, Dunn. We need to verify the information we have, but based on what I have heard, Gibson, Dunn is defending Lewis, and the L.A. attorney was offered an enormous amount of money. Looks like possible bribery in my view. The facts need to be checked. I am not in a position to check them. If you are, please do. I believe that the information on the L.A. attorney came from Diane Feinstein. I don't know how garbled my version of it is.

[Bonobo]

6. Man, are you ever wrong... In a big, big way.

I am probably not the best to do this, but *SWAAAAATT* to the back of the head!

"Plame, NSA taps, no WMD, the OSP, the WHIG, the DSM, Halliburton...and this AG thing? I can't get the song out of my head: "One of these things is not like the other, one of these things does not belong..."

Will, do you not realize that this meddling with the autonomy of the depatment of justice at the the fed and state level is designed to give him insurance that will protect him from any meedline, intrustion or prosectution in the case of the larger issues you posted about? Those who did not do his meddling or shower even the hint of not being on the Bush Team were axed and replaced with cronies "mid-stream",
But, even more troubling, is what did the remaining AGs have to do to keep their jobs? How much funny stuff did they do or at least turn a blind eye to.

This AG scandal is like looking at the frame of a giant skyscraper. It lays bare the nuts and bolts of how the BFEE gets things done. That's how I see it. Keep following this story and it will eventually lead into ALL these stories.

[WilliamPitt]

15. "it will eventually lead into ALL these stories"

If I had a nickel for every time I've heard that... ;)

The autonomy of the Justice Department? I may be wrong, but I am mortally sure Justice is an arm of the administration. Each and every federal prosecutor, from Gonzales down to these AGs, was and is a political appointment by the administration. There isn't any autonomy.

[Duer 157099]

26. Are the Supremes also political appointees?

and would it be illegal for the Executive Branch to micromanage or otherwise direct the actions of the SCOTUS?

Of course, not comparable since in one case the appointments cannot be repealed...

[Duer 157099]

7. Because Repubs are the victims here, so there's some hope of

this not appearing to be completely partisan, ironically.

And because many Rs in Congress and elsewhere didn't like how this went down -- since it could be *them* next time, you see...

It's true there are many battles to fight, but this one might actually have a chance, given that the Rs are also affected (note the 94-2 vote yesterday to repeal the legislation that allows Fredo to bypass Congressional approval of his USAtty replacements)

Plus, there are more nuances that I'm sure will be posted as well (eg, obstruction of justice, etc)

[crappyjazz]

8. Maybe it's the "last straw"?

Maybe it's the lying ... maybe it's the thing in the patriot act that allowed them to do this without any confirmation process ... it just smells and I think people are tired of all the smell and hoping something, even just this will finally stick. Maybe they just need to find the end of the thread sticking out that they can pull and start the whole thing unravelling.

I honestly believe that NOTHING would have come of this if they hadn't lied. They had every right to fire any USA they wanted to. Problem is they lied which leads to wondering: if they had the right do this, why make up stuff about.

My humbly offered simplistic view :)

[Zensea]

9. Those were about policy

This is not about policy.
That's the short answer.

NSA, WMD, OSP etc have all been able to be argued away because they relate to policy, in particular foreign policy.
On the other hand, this is about an attempt (if the charges prove true) to muck around with prosecutorial independence and is not about policy.

So you are right, it is not the same.

Remember that what brought Nixon down was not his bombing of Cambodia or his continuing the Vietnam War long after public sentiment had turned from that, but his obstruction of justice.

I agree that in the grand scheme of things, this is relatively mild, but the larger stuff such as invading countries rarely gets treated in the investigative venue. What is going on here is that there is finally something that Congress can get their hooks into.

I imagine Leahy might have a better answer than I do. You should ask him next time you get a chance.

[LSK]

10. I got two words for you: Carol Lam

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070121/news_1n21lam.html

Yes Clinton fired prosecutors when he got in office. WHEN HE GOT IN OFFICE, not his own guys 6 years later who had stellar reviews.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Lam

[trumad]

16. Exactly

these guys got fired because they didn't play Karls game when Karl wanted it played.

[WilliamPitt]

17. But where is the broken law?

[LSK]

18. we dont know because she wasnt allowed to continue investigations

I see your point about technically no law was broken, but this is politics.

[dweller]

38. isn't obstruction of justice breaking a law?

stopping the investigation before it reached high level Repug admin officials, etc?

and for you Will, :spank:


dp

[berni_mccoy]

30. The law was broken by Gonzales... he lied under oath

When he said the firings were for performance reasons.

[JackRiddler]

44. Did Nixon break a law in the Saturday Night Massacre...

when he fired Cox and Richardson?

Carol Lam.

[opihimoimoi]

12. Ya missed it....usually ya don't ....but this time, ya missed it

The American Peeps wanna know if their CiC is a CROOK....

Tired of BS from Bush....we wanna know if there was hanky panky going on....only them 2 ...Rove and Meirs can tell us...as a start...others may follow....

Someday soon, we will find out the TRUTH...and we will be HORRIFIED

[jmowreader]

13. The REASON they were canned is striking

The Bushies made four lists:

Good attorney, good fealty to Bush
Good attorney, poor fealty to Bush
Not-so-good attorney, good fealty to Bush
Not-so-good attorney, poor fealty to Bush

They then slotted each of the 93 United States Attorneys into one of these four baskets.

The attorneys who were canned were from the "good attorney, poor fealty" file. I can see getting rid of the deadwood, but they seem to have kept those attorneys (presumably there weren't that many of them--they would have been weeded out at the start) and got rid of the good attorneys who didn't kiss Bush's ass enough. And then they claimed they were bad attorneys even though they had good performance reviews.

Will, this is a half-ass scandal to be sure, but I'll take quarter-ass if it takes down the administration.

[trumad]

20. Also--- saying that Pat Fitzgerald was a "middling" prosecutor...

if that don't make you go hmmmm...nothing will.

[WilliamPitt]

22. That's my main worry.

I think this thing doesn't stand a snowball's chance in Hades of taking anything down. One needs to break a law to be prosecuted, and I'm not seeing that. This, I fear, is the image of a big deal without the substance, and therefore is merely fodder for chatter while the big stuff gets ignored.

[JDPriestly]

51. It does not necessarily bring anyone down, but it scares the

Republican as well as Democratic senators and representatives to think that Bush is doing this. If Bush would wield a corruption investigation as a weapon against political foes or as a shield to political friends, he becomes a threat to anyone and everyone who disagrees however slightly with his political interests. He is turning the attorney's office into an American equivalent of the NAZI SS or into the Russian secret police in which loyalty to the leader, not to the Constitution, determines who works and who does not.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

21. The legs were cut out from underneath of investigations

into criminal wrongdoing by Republicans.

From Cheney down.

The cover-up, however, goes all the way to the top.

[WilliamPitt]

23. Ah

Thank you. Obstruction. I can hang my hat on that.

Do you have a good link that gets into this aspect?

[Shakespeare]

34. Josh Marshall has covered this from the beginning.

The LA Times gave him credit this weekend (finally) for being the single driving force behind getting the story out. If you've got 30-45 minutes to spare, go back do mid to late December on TPM and follow the posts. It's great reading, and I think you'll come away with a better feeling for why it is (and should be) such a big deal.

[WilliamPitt]

35. Many thanks again

and I am not at all surprised that Marshall lays it out best. On my way...

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

41. All over the fucking place.

TPM
DU
FDL
C&L
NYT
WP
LAT
ABC
NBC
CBS
PBS
Local channel 6
Mortie, the political grocer
...



ad infinitum





Maybe even truthout

[loudsue]

57. There's a whole lot more, Will.

I'm simply astonished that so many DUers have replied to this thread, and don't seem to grasp WHY this is so significant.

Of the republicans who were dismissed, the one who has/had the most dirt on the bush gang is Carol Lam from California. She prosecuted Duke Cunningham, and had already begun the process to bring charges against other highly placed republicans, who were implicated in the Duke Cunningham case.

The politicos in the white house & justice department had to STOP Lam in her tracks, because the scandal went right to the white house steps. They couldn't just fire HER (as per e-mails released), because it would be too apparent that they were doing it just to stop her investigations, so the powers that be decided to fire a hand full of them.

Then, the justice department LIED to congress about why they were fired. One of the attorneys that was let go was the one who decided NOT to push "voter fraud" in the gubernatorial race in Washington State (which he didn't do "because", the attorney said, "there just wasn't any evidence that voter fraud had occurred"), when the Gregoire won the governorship.

In looking into it, congress also found out that, in 2002, in Guam, the bush white house (Karl Rove, to be exact) fired another attorney to stop him from looking into the Jack Abramoff case.

It appears that the Gonzo justice department AND some people in the white house (who were probably about to get exposed) singled out the 8 attorneys who did get fired for similar reasons.

The Dem congress is persuing this because it APPEARS that OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE was involved in the firings. The republicans didn't like republicans going after republican criminals; they wanted them to go after DEMOCRATS, and told them so in the e-mails.

I can't believe how many DUers aren't getting this!!!! Aaaackkkkk!!


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=449534


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=454031


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=468177


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=450493

That should give you enough reading to catch up on for a while. I hope the other DUers on this thread read these links, too. This is a MUCH more serious issue than the mainstream media is letting you think it is. Republicans have been thwarting investigations of criminal activity by republicans (which we all knew here! ) for YEARS!

:kick::kick::kick:

[Cha]

64. Thanks, sue..I learn

here and there and this is something I may have read but it didn't sink in as much as it should have.

Gold!

[mudesi]

The straw that (finally) broke the camels back

And what a strong back this camel had.

[ourbluenation]

24. one problem for me is the wh emails on rnc server n/t

[Sal Minella]

56. Yes. The gwb43 e-mail file might be far more interesting reading than what we've already got.

[htuttle]

25. Bush had the same 'legal' (aka statutory) right to fire them as Nixon had to fire Cox...

Archibald Cox was hired by Nixon's AG, and thus worked in the Executive Branch 'at the pleasure of the President'.

HOWEVER, in both cases, I believe that the issue was one of Obstruction of Justice. Nixon wanted Cox fired to stop an investigation. Bush appears to have wanted some of the Judges fired for the same reasons.

[LSK]

27. the other big deal is that this means is Gonzo could be gone

And that means Bush has to appoint someone more moderate to get it through the Leahy Judiciary Cmte. And Leahy has been pretty damn pissed off lately.

Now if Bush has a not as friendly (non yesman) AG, this new AG might be launching some more investigations into the Bushies.

[WilliamPitt]

33. A Bush AG investigating Bush?

You, my friend, have a bottomless resevoir of optimism. I think I might see my cat playing Motzart on a Baby Grand before I see anything like that.

But here's to a good thought. :toast:

[LSK]

37. heres a little dose of optimism

[LSK]

42. did you see this?

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00081

A bill to amend chapter 35 of title 28, United States Code, to preserve the independence of United States attorneys.

YEAs 94
NAYs 2

This basically strips out that provision in the Patriot Act that Bush can appoint US Attorneys without Congress's approval.

[Faygo Kid]

29. U.S. attorneys are supposed to serve justice, not Karl Rove

Wholesale replacement of U.S. attorneys at the beginning of an administration is expected. Cherry picking attorneys to be fired over six years into an administration is not, most especially if those attorneys were fired because they would not do the political bidding of the administration. The people have a right to know why these attorneys were fired. If they were fired because they got too close to nailing Republicans, failed to use their office to go on witch hunts after Dems, or to allow the appointment of those like Karl Rove's aide, it's a clear abuse of presidential power. This is especially dangerous because it goes to the heart of our Constitution and system of justice - U.S. attorneys are an integral part of that system. In addition, don't forget how the provision allowing the appointment of U.S. attorneys without Senatorial consent was slipped into the Patriot Act by this administration. They knew what they were doing, and what they had planned for us. Finally, look at how angry Bush is about this. The jig is up, and he doesn't like it at all. Where there's that much smoke, there is fire. Let the investigations go forward. If our suspicions about this attempt to subvert and obstruct justice prove true, we will have one or more powerful articles of impeachment to add to a growing list.

[treestar]

54. Could they have a case for wrongful termination?

With the good performance reviews - unless there is some type of "national security" exception, this could fall under the EEOC or at least a civil tort of wrongful termination.

[BridgeTheGap]

32. It wasn't just a bad idea, it may have been against the law - op ed

Read this op-ed published in the NY Times (by Adam Cohen)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/19/opinion/19mon4.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[Neecy]

36. Only one law was broken...

Alberto and a handful of DOJ officials committed perjury when they told Congresss the White House wasn't involved. I would hope that the senior law enforcement official in our government would at least be honest when he testifies - don't you?

[loudsue]

62. No, Neecy, it was OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

That's WHY gonzo lied about it.

:kick:

[rosesaylavee]

39. Will - I won't whack you on the head but ask you this:

Would it have been ok for your dad to choose which cases he pursued depending on who belonged to which party?

Would it have been ok for your dad to take direction from the Clinton WH to prosecute Republicans only?

Would he have refused to yield to pressure from DEM politicians to the wrap up prosecutions of Republicans right before an election?

That's what appears to have happened. That's why all the hubbub. *co has of course floated so many reasons for why they fired the 8 that the water is understandably muddy at this point.

The 8 had received high ratings in their last reviews, were known for being square shooters - and one at least was pursuing leads that led to (gasp - sit down now as you just won't believe it) Dick Cheney (see Lamm links above).

It all stinks to high heaven and the general feeling on both sides of the aisle that if the rule of law is politicized in this way, they may as well just all go home and allow that *co has successfully turned this into a dictatorship.

Just my two cents.

:hi:

[louis-t]

40. Too many things for MSM to ignore.

Just in the US attorneys alone we have:

Productive, Republican attorneys fired for not going after Dems hard enough. Congress people making threatening calls. I smell obstruction of justice.

Productive, Republican attorneys punished for going after Republicans.

Harriet Miers thrown under bus.

Harriet Miers pulled out from under bus at the last minute.

WH can't keep its lies straight.

AG lies under oath.

WH won't take chance on others lying under oath.

Tony Snow backtracks, stutters, stumbles for words.

Will, the sun is out, Spring is in the air. Walk outside, take a deep breath, and marvel at the universe.

edit: I almost forgot 18 min...I mean 18 missing days in e-mail transcripts!

[youngdem]

43. I suspect a few main causes.

1. This is a proxy for hating on the Bush administration for what each voter dislikes about Bush (Iraq War, Patriot Act, Supreme Court appointments, suspension of habeas corpus, etc), but can point to this as a non-partisan issue that hasn't yet been polarized with which to bludgeon the administration to show their disgust. Sort of like Watergate was a proxy issue for public anxiety about the Vietnam War, I suspect.

2. Republicans I think are nervous because there is I suspect a much deeper conspiracy being hidden by the Carol Lam firing. I suspect that the bribe that Cunningham received through Cheney's furniture bid and the resulting boat may represent a MUCH deeper scandal enveloping the Veep in a bribe cover-up involving federal contracts being turned into bribes for Congressmen.

3. The folks that want at Rove have as good a chance here as any to nail him to the wall for something. Bonus: you get to kick Harriet Miers around the hearing room.

4. Moderates and REAL conservatives, some of whom represent the very last shreds of the President's remaining support, don't like this at all. Real conservatives and uninformed 'moderates' don't like abuse of power and intimidation of law enforcement to cover up political shenanigans.

5. Realist Republicans probably realize that they cannot condone such tactics because they are likely staring down the barrel of a run of Democratic control at the federal level, and they wouldn't want these tactics used against them.

6. I think this issue resonates with people. Most people feel a chill down their spine when they think of a Soviet style legal system where it is a tool of the administration (even more than it is now) and prosecutions are conveniently timed and partisan. That is a horrid turn for this country, and I think MANY, MANY people know it.

7. Lesson: Don't screw with a bunch of career prosecutors by destroying their careers and reputations. Bad idea. You destroy their reputation and ability to earn a living and they will have little choice but to turn on you, defend themselves and sink your battleship. It's what they do.

8. Finally, the administration is making it fun. They are such BAD liars, such obvious frauds. Tony Snow perpetually looks like he has eaten a canary. They are BUSTED and are forced to rely on the specious argument of privilege to hide behind (which Tony Snow may well have indicated was a false claim when he said the president wasn't advised of the plan). It is just good, clean fun to kick the former bully around the yard when the bully doesn't yet realize he isn't the big dog in the yard anymore.


A perfect storm. Everyone is on board, and the administration is isolated with shitty choices for self-defense. Let the flopping begin!

[Ron Green]

45. Capone was finally put away for tax evasion, right?

Whatever it takes.

[EST]

46. All the above and more.

All the items you mentioned are, indeed, important. The unfortunate fact with them is that there is no way, as a congress, to get a toehold on them.
So many of the current republicker pack were seriously involved in all those actions, from direct involvement to knowing about them and keeping quiet, and, let's face it, for there to be any meaningful action against the bush administration our majorities are too small.

Most of the democrats and some of the republickers know that the * administration is deep into illegal activities and the scope of those activities is world wide. Finding an issue that would enlist some "Rs" and would promote some action-like the current document dump-was important.

Their firing of even republicker USAs who are doing a good job and actually going after the crooks-in this case pukes-amounts to obstruction of justice-a nasty crime by any measure, plus the public confidence in the rule of law has been severely undermined and a lawless public, in a panic, with all the pitchforks and 50 caliber machine guns that have been allowed to become private property is not a pretty image.

As an additional point, ol' Speedy Gonz-all ass has lied under oath and not under oath to the congress. They know it and we know it, but how do you prove it when the whitehouse gang backs him up? This stuff can be proven so it's important to stop the criminals with whatever you have.
Since some of the republickers are highly pissed that the ccc gang has pulled this trick, now's the time to start bringing some oversight and correction. They promised.

[Disturbed]

49. Obstruction of Justice.

This is the case. This is why Busholini is fighting to keep Rove and Miers from testifying Under Oath and in public.

[EST]

59. You got it--all up and down the line. n/t

[bigtree]

48. It puts pressure and focus on an autocratic administration's grab for power

I don't understand the new tendency to only focus on things which are illegal and ignore the political abuses which our legislators are charged with investigating and holding the administration to account for. That's going to be the nub of any impeachment proceeding where the ones at the top of the heap will be mostly insulated from 'crimes' and will be prosecuted (if at all) over ethical lapses and abuses rather than sticking to some due process of law. That's what the Clinton impeachment boiled down to.

I really don't understand the notion that Democrats are myopic, focused on just one issue at a time. The Conyers subpoenas, issued in the midst of debate over Katrina and in the shadow of the Iraq funding legislation, is evidence and example enough of work taking place behind the scenes which will explode in the media just like any other revelation and have as much impact as the work they put into them. With just over 7 weeks into their term, this Democratic majority is asserting themselves just fine. Just because those efforts aren't highlighted in the media, or here, doesn't mean they won't get the rocket ride this latest outrage has gotten.

Perhaps it's just a reflection of the appetite in the media for a Bush scandal. I have to admit, it looked like the attorney issue would reach all the way to Bush, with all of the folks 'serving at the president's pleasure'. I still think it might . . .

[stevedeshazer]

52. You have to go where the smoke is in order to find the fire.

Legality be damned, this is something that resonates with the American public. It's so simple, any child over about eight years old can understand it.

They are hiding something. They are covering up lies.

When you strip all the hubbub down to the bare metal, even the fawning press now understands that Bush is like a little kid who stole something and is stomping his little feet in indignation, denying fault while even he on some level knows he's been caught and is about to be exposed to all that he is a liar. That's something liars can't stand, because once exposed, they can't get away with it anymore. This is the very essence of Bush.

Yeah, he may not have broken any laws yet, but his bare red ass is flying high and it's only a matter of time before he fucks up and is shown to have made even more egregious lies in trying to cover his tracks.

I'm sure many are sick of the comparisons of Bush and Iraq and corruption versus Nixon and Viet Nam and corruption, but I've seen this before and I must tell you, it is eerie how much it feels the same.

Watergate helped end a tragic war; this just might do the same. The rest will follow.

That's my two cents.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

53. Oooh, ooh, let me try.

First, yes, you are no doubt correct that this stuff is small potatoes, considering the pile of crimes next to which it stands.

But here's the deal, Will. It's fresh, and it's punishable. Every other issue has a meme and a frame. This one does not. And the Congress has this subpoena power thingy. So this seems to be a decent exercise of that power. It's not rehashing the "same old thing." In fact, look at what the war-hard-on-in-chief rolled out last night in his defense: a fishing expedition. What happens if they go after one of the other many crimes? This refrain is played over and over again, and it's already been "investigated" by the Senate. So this thing is fresh and new and MAYBE has some legs.

But I imagine is only two real legs (legal, non-political-wound legs): 1) that there is an obstruction of justice case in there somewhere; 2) that the Lam case is really, REALLY stinky--that, in fact, it does go to the heart of Washington (wishful think is the VP's office). Other than that, it's an embarrassment, will maybe make for some resignations, etc.

The worst thing this administration did was fight it so resolutely. It really makes me think there's something there--either REALLY embarrassing, politically harmful, or perhaps illegal.

[Jacobin]

55. As odd as this may sound

I lived through Viet Nam and Nixon's re-election and clearly remember that a big point in all his speeches was his secret plan to end Viet Nam.

Instead he escalated.

Watergate, yeah, it was not a good thing. But, believe me when I say this. He was impeached for Viet Nam. they just found something else easy they could stick him with.

History repeats. firing AG's? Yeah, its bad, but pales in comparison to the other crap he's done.

Bush is going to get the shit kicked out of him during the next 2 years, not for IraqNam per se, but that will be the real reason.

I know nobody agrees with this. I think its subconscious.

[merh]

60. This op ed piece may help

(the only thing he left out was the conspiracy and/or the illegal enterprise to perpetrate fraud:

Adam Cohen, a lawyer, writes in a NYT Op Ed today how B*sh Admin officials may have broken the law and under what statutes a special prosecutor might seek indictments.


Some crimes that a special prosecutor might one day look at:

1. Misrepresentations to Congress. The relevant provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1505, is very broad. It is illegal to lie to Congress, and also to “impede” it in getting information. Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty indicated to Congress that the White House’s involvement in firing the United States attorneys was minimal, something that Justice Department e-mail messages suggest to be untrue.

<snip>

2. Calling the Prosecutors. As part of the Sarbanes-Oxley reforms, Congress passed an extremely broad obstruction of justice provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (c), which applies to anyone who corruptly “obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,” including U.S. attorney investigations.

<snip>

3. Witness Tampering. 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (b) makes it illegal to intimidate Congressional witnesses. Michael Elston, Mr. McNulty’s chief of staff, contacted one of the fired attorneys, H. E. Cummins, and suggested, according to Mr. Cummins, that if he kept speaking out, there would be retaliation. Mr. Cummins took the call as a threat, and sent an e-mail message to other fired prosecutors warning them of it. Several of them told Congress that if Mr. Elston had placed a similar call to one of their witnesses in a criminal case, they would have opened an investigation of it.

<snip>

4. Firing the Attorneys. United States attorneys can be fired whenever a president wants, but not, as § 1512 (c) puts it, to corruptly obstruct, influence, or impede an official proceeding.

http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/19/opinion/19mon4.html&OQ=_rQ3D3Q26thQ26emcQ3DthQ26orefQ3DsloginQ26orefQ3Dslogin&OP=11787d48Q2FQ2BrQ3EQ5EQ2BFNQ5CzuNNdAQ2BAVVQ2FQ2BV5Q2B.Q20Q2BNBYPYNPQ2B.Q20INPQ7BKDdIi

Also read Geiger's blog http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/ - the topic of political profiling has some interesting notations.

[Klukie]

61. For what it's worth

I don't think it started as a matter of law but it may just uncover some lawbreakers in the end. Quite frankly it stinks just like everything else you mentioned above. Their hubris is astounding and they have taken dirty politics to a level that isn't even acceptable to those who deal in them. They have turned on their own. As the house of cards falls it will be easier to get to the Iraq issue.

[ProgressiveFool]

63. Aside from all of the other considerations and scandals,

all the Democrats are doing is performing a primary duty of Congress, which has been completely absent for the last six years: Oversight.

It's the tip of the iceberg of checks and balances that the Bush administration has finally drunkenly sailed their ship into.

edit: Doh, put it back! It was well-written and still a good read, and it did serve to really stimulate discussion on the many reasons why this issue is about much more than "partisanship".

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

65. It takes an enlightened and open mind to change an opinion this way

It requires a willingness to listen to all sides. It's a rare quality, especially in these days. Congratulations.

[trumad]

68. Yeah---- but he's still a stinkin Pats fan.