With the failure of this modified limited hangout, he'll twist slowly, slowly in the wind. I love it!

Bad news gets less prominence if released Friday afternoon.

I predict he will resign on March 23rd. That's a week from Friday.

Remember, the 'puglies will keep bringing up Reno/Clinton's layoff of all (93 then too I think) US Atty's in '93. But what made the Cheney/Rove/Bush Misadmin's actions so reprehensible was the lying about it being "performance", right? I mean, really, they do have the right to do it in principle, and it has been done before.

Any news on the 87 US Attorneys who bent the law to suit partisan purposes often enough to satisfy Karl Rove?

All these emails show is that whiny liberals will grasp at the flimsiest of straws. Have fun investigating all the red herrings while we hightail it to Saudi Arabia with your billions, losers.

While I am not averse to seeing Karl Rove go to jail, I think this may not be as big a deal as everyone may think. After all, US Attorneys have traditionally served four year terms. Many of them would have served four year terms by then (or close to it) and so it wouldn't be as perposterous to fire them. After all, both Clinton and Reagan fired them all at the start of their terms (one big difference: all the Attorneys fired were appointed by the previous President). Plus, if they all would have been fired, they would have been subject to Senate confirmation. So perhaps this isn't as significant as it seems. Please someone tell me that Im wrong.

Did they get that email from Dan Rather?

I once knew this Indonesian prostitute (male) who later started a successful business in email forgery. He was incredibly skilled and could do the most amazing things. He was pretty good at forging email too.

Kevin, I know it's your style to be conservative in your expectations.

You are witnessing the scandal achieve critical mass. By the time it's done Bush will be out of office.

Obstruction of justice is a crime. Too many of these actions had to be signed-off by "the Decider".

If there's justice the RICO Act will be invoked to convict people in the Bush administration, the RNC and Congress.

I haven't seen the new e-mails yet, but the e-mails that have already been released seem to imply that "Karl's shop" had yet to be informed as of November 15, 2006.

(Page 15 of this e-mail set)

It's also more evidence that Rove's West Wing "policy" job is and always was a sham.

He's still just a political slime dog for the GOP. And now he's dragging the U.S. Attorney General along (albeit willingly).

What I like is that WH personnel are sending e-mail on what purports to be official business via non-goverment servers. In fact, via Republican National Committee servers. Dan Froomkin at WaPo has the best set of questions about it. I say it's either a gross security violation or illegally conducting political operations from goverment computers or both.

Check the email headers (as reported by Josh Marshall).

They're using outside email servers to get around the reporting and data retention laws too. VERY smarmy. And possibly very illegal.

Yes, David, I think you get at what will be perhaps the most imporatnt thing to come out of this whole mess—using the apparatus of government at every turn for purely political purpose—and then crying executive privilege and all that other shit even when they are caught doing in-party business privately.

Even when they are not technically breaking the law, they are trampling public ethics all day every day. I wonder if, in six years, they ever did a single thing purely for the good of the country.

GOP Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon calls on Gonzales to resign:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/03/second_republic.html

"....The latest e-mails show that Gonzales and Rove were both involved in the discussion, and neither rejected it out of hand." - drum

This is hysterical. Another made up "scandal" by the demented left. oooooh the evil the Rove is involved!!!!!!

US Attorneys serve at the discretion of the President and can be dismissed at ANYTIME!!!!!

In fact Clinton fired all 94 of them, no big deal.

Oh and Kevin, not one of them was black, so not a good candidate for President, right?

Do you guys ever grow tired of being drama queens?

well, this actually protects Rove. (someone up the thread kind of got this.)

but anyway, no one's going to jail for this (except for the possibility that Gonzalez committed perjury)...the President has the right to fire U.S. attorneys for political reasons.

Remember, the 'puglies will keep bringing up Reno/Clinton's layoff of all (93 then too I think) US Atty's in '93. . . Posted by: Neil B

As I posted in the previous "Purgegate" thread below, it is a matter of course that most if not all federal prosecutors are replaced when an administration goes from one party to the other, as the position is a political appointee. In other words, the house cleaning is normal at the beginning of a new administration. Clinton and Reno were replacing Reagan and Bush the elder appointees. And Shrub replaced most if not all of Clinton's appointees.

Cleaning house when the presidency changes parties is normal. Firing your own appointees because they won't do your dirty work is the issue here.

As I surmised a couple days ago, it appears that the attempt to lay the blame at Miers feet for originating the idea of firing the USAttys was an attempt to save Rove's ass. Miers never struck me as having much initiative.

The thing about a Gonzales resignation is that it takes to focus off the problems and the energy to pursue other problems decreases. I'm sure there is much more that we don't know these people are doing, but the momentum and political capital to purse these "known unknowns" and "unknown unknowns" goes down with a Gonzales replacement. I'd like to get to the bottom of everything this administration did poorly so that we know how not to govern. This gives us the chance to understand how to better regulate the presidency.

Both Reagan and Clinton served two terms. They fired the US attorneys when they took office, but did not fire the people they appointed after four years. So no, Rove's plan still would have been unprecedented (firing everyone).

Nevertheless, had Bush just fired everyone after four years, while it would have stunk, it wouldn't have stunk as much as selectively firing those who didn't play ball.

Agreed with gq. I don't want the admin to cut off its gangrenous Gonzo limb; I want the entire body to rot.

I thought when your representatives took control of the House and the Senate (kind of), that you would back off of your maniacal obsession with Bush and focus on the "enlightened" policies that they would begin to put in place. Like:

1. UHC

2. Ending the tax cuts

3. Pulling out of Iraq

4. Rebuilding NO

5. Addressing Darfur

But I guess your representatives have other intentions then what you elected them for.

What a bitch. So it's back to Bush.

Next time get better representatives.

I thought you all might enjoy the following comments:

Speaking at the National Press Club in 2005, my good friendHarry Reid the Majority Leader himself said this: "As for setting a timeline, as we learned in the Balkans, that's not a wise decision, because it only empowers those who don't want us there, and it doesn't work well to do that."

Six months after that, the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Joe Biden, said this: "A deadline for pulling out . will only encourage our enemies to wait us out" . it would be "a Lebanon in 1985. And God knows where it goes from there." That was our friend, Joe Biden, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

And three months later, Senator Clinton made the same point when she said, "I don't believe it's smart to set a date for withdrawal," said Senator Clinton. "I don't think you should ever telegraph your intentions to the enemy so they can await you."

Now, what is the new, new, new plan for Iraq?

So then Kevin, will Gonzales resign and this whole thing blow over before grrlfriend Ann Althouse ever had a chance to comment on any of it?

It's very complex, and she needs extra time.

This was well said, from the article:

"Two independent sources in a position to know have described the contents of the e-mail exchange, which could be released as early as Friday. They put Rove at the epicenter of the imbroglio and raise questions about Gonzales' explanations of the matter."

LMAO @ Jay. The wingnuts have apparently run plumb out of talking points on this issue.

Salon had a piece up this morning "All Roads Lead to Rove". Catchy title aside, Sidney Blumenthal does a pretty comprehensive job of pinning the tail on good ole Karl.

Btw, the withholding of these emails until now needs to be added to the list of things congress needs to investigate in this mess.

Hillary Clinton: "As I've said before, I've long been for beginning a phased redeployment from Iraq as soon as possible, and I have cosponsored legislation to that effect last year. I think we should begin to get U.S. troops out of Iraq as soon as we can and would urge the administration to do so as expeditiously as possible. I think it is the responsibility of this president to resolve our presence in Iraq before he leaves office."

Not "date" certain, just "administration" certain.

Maybe I missed it but I didn't see where she indicated that victory might be possible. Oh, that's right, victory is not part of her plan.

Remember, the 'puglies will keep bringing up Reno/Clinton's layoff of all (93 then too I think) US Atty's in '93. But what made the Cheney/Rove/Bush Misadmin's actions so reprehensible was the lying about it being "performance", right? I mean, really, they do have the right to do it in principle, and it has been done before.

Posted by: Neil B. on March 15, 2007 at 6:24 PM

There are two huge differences, the first being that Clinton and Reno were firing Bush I appointees who refused to submit resignation letters as was the custom when administrations change. But that is a relatively minor point. The more important point, that seems to be getting lost here, is that all this was an attempt to appoint a cadre of USAs who would escape Senate confirmations. No oversight whatsoever. From an administration that has raised cronyism to heights heretofor undreamed of. Imagine 93 US Attorney's Offices filled with the Michael Browns.

I think everyone should be clear that if the administration were talking about firing all 93 USAs and replacing them with new USAs that would be vetted by the Senate, while there would certainly be some criticism leveled at the WH and DOJ, there would be no scandal. As Duh Bya is so fond of pointing out, the USAs serve at the pleasure of the POTUS. He can fire them whenever he sees fit. But that doesn't mean that there won't be some political consequences, especially if he fires them for political reasons. And if he takes advantage of a little legal loophole, inserted into a large bill to provide a little flexibility for emergency situations, for purely partisan reasons, to shortcircuit any possibility of Congressional oversight? Scandal. He doesn't have Frist burying his dead cats for him anymore.

Speaking of Althouse, she notes that the two of you have a special anniversary coming up. Congrats!

"The wingnuts have apparently run plumb out of talking points on this issue." - dis-combobulated

There is NO ISSUE, just more drama from the QUEENS.

And it's hysterical to watch.

It was only a matter of time before Jay blamed it on the gays....

I know this is a rant but how many years do we have to wait until we can stop appending the word "gate" to the end of every scandal that comes out of Washington? 50? 100?

The funny thing about it is that it makes no sense when applied to the original scandal. Watergate had nothing to do with water.

Ok, I'm done. Carry on.

There is NO ISSUE, just more drama from the QUEENS.

That's it, Jay, clap louder. "There is no issue" hasn't been a talking point since the beginning of March.

"...added to the list of things congress needs to investigate in this mess." - disputo

What needs to be investigated is the fact that leading Senate Democrats are advocating a policy which they have previously admitted to be dangerous to the national security of the United States. There are only two possibilities. Either the Democrats can articulate some objective conditions that have changed so drastically in the last few months that what was formerly unwise and dangerous has now become necessary, or else they are deliberately trying to undermine our security in exchange for political gain.

Who knows what the special prosecutor law says? If you fire all the USA, then you would fire Fitzgerald, wouldn't you? Would there be any impact on his position as special prosecutor?

The inquiry by Miers appears to have been on behalf of someone else, someone who is not an attorney. In other words, a question driven by politics.

Q: Who?
A: Nothing happens unless fat boy says so.

Hopefully, this will gather steam and slowly become a huge tsunami.

We should avoid prosecuting these scum until Hillary wins the presidency.

That way, after we convict Karl of obstruction of justice and about 60 other crimes, no one in the WH will be able to grant him clemancy.

Goog Gawd, even Bob Barr is calling for Gonzo to go.

Gordon Smith also added his name to the list.

Who knows what the special prosecutor law says? If you fire all the USA, then you would fire Fitzgerald, wouldn't you? Would there be any impact on his position as special prosecutor?

The inquiry by Miers appears to have been on behalf of someone else, someone who is not an attorney. In other words, a question driven by politics.

Q: Who?
A: Nothing happens unless fat boy says so.

"That's it, Jay, clap louder. "There is no issue" hasn't been a talking point since the beginning of March." - constantine (were you on American Idol?)

Consto, what is it about the following sentence you don't understand?

US Attorneys serve at the discretion of the President and can be dismissed at ANYTIME!!!!!

Even for, yes, political reasons.

Period. End of story. Next.

Jay-

I really enjoy reading your whines about the Democrats. This is exactly what Republicans losing forever sounds like....

This is all a joke, but, it is a (pretty) good one ...

http://otherstuffkaliddid.blogspot.com/

Please pass this email along to as many other people as you can. It is up to all Americans to discover the “truth� ...

WWKSMD ???

Maybe I missed it but I didn't see where she indicated that victory might be possible. Oh, that's right, victory is not part of her plan.

Bush has said that we're not leaving Iraq as long as he's president, so apparently, victory isn't part of his plan, either.

Who knows what the special prosecutor law says? If you fire all the USA, then you would fire Fitzgerald, wouldn't you? Would there be any impact on his position as special prosecutor?

It's my belief that the USAtty purge was prompted by Rove's desire to get rid of Fitz. Somewhere along the way they figured that they couldn't get away with that, so settled for Lam and a few other lesser "traitors".

They would have been in so much better shape had they fired all the US attorneys. They could have painted it as invigorating the DoJ, bringing in new blood, etc.

Of course, the drawback to that plan is it doesn't instill fear in prosecutors who aren't willing to pay ball with the White House.

There was a really funny piece on CNN of all places about the 'Mistakes were made' bit.

A reporter finally got Abu G to say 'I made a mistake.' But actually it was more like 'I, uh,mm-made a mm-mistake.' The shock to his system made him gasp and stutter. It was amazing.

The reporter was congratulated for getting Abu G to actually utter a sentence 'where the word mistake and the first person pronoun both occurred'. CNN!

Clap louder.

Even for, yes, political reasons. Period. End of story. Next.

Yes, because everything that's not a crime is ok. I hope you'll be that understanding when one of your employees sleeps with your wife.

If you're such a mindless Republican partisan that you don't see why it's a problem when it turns out that Karl Rove was using USAs to serve as arms of the Republican mid-term election campaign and then have the justice department officials lie before congress about it, then there's not much I can do for you.

constantine (were you on American Idol?)

No, but I have gotten hits on my web page from people search on google for pages about him.

Jay is a mindless right wing drone.

If Bush admitted to raping, killing, and cannibalizing his daughters, Jay would both (1) praise Bush, and (2) blame it on Clinton.

This is fun. Much better than Fitzmas - sort of like Festivus on X. Party on!!

Gone by Easter.

"Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing." - Helen Keller

I didn't know you were gay.
Posted by: Jay

But this is the same Jay who repeatedly impugned my masculinity, too. Wasn't deterred when I pointed out I'm female either. Global will vouch for me on this. I am a woman.

Clowns. Clueless.

Clap louder. aWol's pet AG is now a figure of ridicule on CNN. It will go viral. The clip will be seen by millions. They'll laugh. Put a fork in him.

Josh has the email that implicates Rove.

My fav quote is from Sampson:

Although they serve at the pleasure of the President, it would be weird to ask them to leave before completing at least a 4-year term.

He also goes on to explain that he would like to fire 15-20% of the "underperforming" US Attys, but emphasizes that the vast majority are "loyal Bushies".

...
US Attorneys serve at the discretion of the President and can be dismissed at ANYTIME!!!!!

Even for, yes, political reasons.

Period. End of story. Next.
Posted by: Jay on March 15, 2007 at 7:29 PM |

Jay, why does your ostrich act have to be *so extreme* ? I can't imagine you didn't even notice that the issues here are more than just firing the US Attorneys: The lying that they did bad jobs, the sneaky provisions designed to circumvent Sentate confirmation, the interfering phone calls and threats, the threats against complaining later they were falsely accused of incompetence, the use (pending confirmation) of non-Government servers to hide email, etc. Quite a few Republicans like Senator Sununu have called for "Abu Gonzales" to resign (Sununu's IQ of 180 cannot be a coincidence here....)
How in the world can you say "Period. End of story. Next."? Are you a parody? It's not even funny anymore. And I don't even get the loyalty, since BushCo isn't even serving conservative interests. Michael Savage has been very tart lately.

So what law was broken?

Oh, that's right. Thanks to the provision slipped into the renewal of the Patriot Act by Senator Arlen Specter, no law was broken.

But what's hilarious is to see liberals licking their chops over the prospect of "getting" Karl Rove.

Remember Fitzmas? Remember the blogger Jason Leopold, who swore up and down that Rove was going to be indicted?

Never happened.

You'll never get Rove. He is too smart for all of you.

Rove is bullet-proof and the Democrats don't have the balls to do what should be done - cut the head off the snake, by impeaching Bush. Handled properly, they would all fall in quick succession - Gonzalez, Rove, Cheney. You ain't gonna see it with this lily-livered bunch in Congress. Pelosi has already made it politically impossible.

Always remember - it is the victors who write the history books in their favor.

..the President has the right to fire U.S. attorneys for political reasons.
Posted by: Nathan on March 15, 2007 at 6:57 PM | PERMALINK

Just as Nixon had the right to fire a certain prosecutor - purely political reasons, that. Right?

"The lying that they did bad jobs, the sneaky provisions designed to circumvent Sentate confirmation, the interfering phone calls and threats, the threats against complaining later they were falsely accused of incompetence, the use (pending confirmation) of non-Government servers to hide email, etc. Quite a few Republicans like Senator Sununu have called for "Abu Gonzales" to resign (Sununu's IQ of 180 cannot be a coincidence here....)" - Neil

They can be dismissed at anytime for any reason. Any President has that discretion and does not need anyones approval. Period.

As for Gonzalez, I am not a big fan, I couldn't care less if he resigns.

Why aren't you concerned with the bigger issues?

Iraq, NSA, UHC, Tax cuts, etc........

These are pretty small potatos compared to aforementioned issues. Have you lost your focus? Or do you care about those anymore, I mean now that you control Congress, where's the beef?

While Jay reminds me of the Kevin Bacon character in Animal House "ALL IS WELL!!!1! REMAIN CAAAAALLMMM!!"

I'd like to say I agree with him that the Democrats, in addition to providing the oversight of this criminal administration (which WAS a major issue in the 06 campaign, but some people are stupid on purpose), SHOULD take on the New Orleans travesty. Since the GOP can't possibly give a shit about the city, as it's been shown, it's high time someone on the federal level started doing something about it.

Excuse me!
Ahem!

Can we stop using the term "fired"?
As in 'You're fucking fired!'

Most or all of the USAs mentioned thus far, including Reagan's, were "asked to resign".
Particularly those whose boss had just vacated the White House; in fact, that's SOP. If you're asked to resign, you're not being fired. Pretty simple.
I've heard of two of Clinton's who may have actually been fired, the reporter-choker and the dancer-biter, and that's all.

So make it a point to slap anyone down who uses the term in the context of this issue. Please?

"Since the GOP can't possibly give a shit about the city, as it's been shown, it's high time someone on the federal level started doing something about it." - notlf

I've not heard one word from the compassionate left re: NO. Strange.

As for Gonzalez, I am not a big fan, I couldn't care less if he resigns.

Turncoat.

The Attorney General is a good man, who is going to be hounded out of office by liberals who are looking for their Fitzmas fix.

No matter--Attorney General Santorum will be the stick in their eye until January 2009.

[a hint to you Mr. Jay--stand up for the conservative cause once in a while and stop looking like a rube, would you please?]

As for the rest, I appreciate Jay's touching concern that the Democrats aren't addressing their constitutent's issues -- of course they've had two months to unfuck the FUBAR administration. This kind of massive overhaul takes time.

A related Quote of the Day from the Politico via Altercation: "We've only had subpoena power for the last six weeks and every tree that we've barked up so far has had a cat in it," said a senior Democrat who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak publicly. "Imagine where we'll be after six months."

There's no end to the corruption, ineptitude and failure of the GOP. It's complete and total.

A lot was going on in early 2005. In April, James Comey, announced that he was leaving to spend more time with his family. He was the trouble maker who wouldn't sign off on the wire tapping and ended up appointing and defining the authority of Fitzgerald for the Plame leak.

There ought to be some email correspondence about that one at the RNC.

"Attorney General Santorum" - Norman

I would love that. Rick's a good man. I don't like the AG's tepid stance on immigration, for that matter, I am not in love with Bush's either.

Furthermore, I am more conservative than republican. From AZ but not a big fan of McCain.

Deflator;
I agree, that the Democrats have grossly miscalculated by not fighting for impeachment. (and they will pay dearly for it in 2008 if they don't do something soon).

However - I don't think that's a done-deal either. There is so much shit flying out of the white house now, something's gotta stick. Most of the things Bush is accused of is impeachable by 1998 standards.

Norman Rogers >"...You'll never get Rove. He is too smart for all of you."

No one has to "get" him, he will destroy himself. He is well on the way. All it takes is "enough rope".

Just sit back, be quiet and watch.

"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact....Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth." - newshog@gmail.com

"We've only had subpoena power for the last six weeks and every tree that we've barked up so far has had a cat in it,"

A Democrat? More concerned about finding pussy than doing what's right for the United States of America?

No! I'm shocked! Absolutely shocked!

While Jay reminds me of the Kevin Bacon character in Animal House "ALL IS WELL!!!1! REMAIN CAAAAALLMMM!!" - noltf

Reminds me more of Richard Dreyfus in 'Down and Out in Beverly Hills', 'Call 911! Call 911!' as he leaps, clueless and panic stricken, into the pool to rescue Nick Nolte.

"...of course they've had two months to unfuck the FUBAR administration. This kind of massive overhaul takes time." - notlf

OK, name one thing that they've done that's non-binding. It seems to me they're all more interested in running for POTUS now.

(and don't mention ehtics, hell every congress passes something to that effect every year and then they all ignore it)

Kevin,

The intrade gonzales resignation contract for mar07 is over 50% and looking to head higher.

The farther out you go the more certain the contract gets for his resignation/removal.

You can still get in as it goes to 70% and over.

The Cheney resignation contract is on at 5% by contrast.

Can found in
www.intrade.com
Current Events- White House

Washington Note readers should hop into the action.

How bout it Al or whatever alias you are posting under these days? (lol)

Steven B at boomantribune says it well: let’s not forget that Karl Rove’s candidates have a history of benefiting from conveniently timed federal investigations. Last year Molly Ivins reminded her readers of a curious pattern during Mr. Rove’s time in Texas: “In election years, there always seemed to be an F.B.I. investigation of some sitting Democrat either announced or leaked to the press. After the election was over, the allegations often vanished.�

the Democrats have grossly miscalculated by not fighting for impeachment.

I disagree with your presumption. What you see now is the Dems impeachment and removal strategy unfolding. Their plan is to uncover enough dirt on the admin so that the public will beg for it. That's the only way it can happen.

Pssst, Norman. I'm pretty sure that while the AG is nominated by the President he or she has to be confirmed by Congress. How much juice does this crippled president of yours have to get an abortion like Santorum confirmed?

It won't happen. Ever.

Can someone explain to me where all these emails are coming from? Are they being leaked by someone, or is the WH intentionally releasing them? If it is intentional, isn't it unusual for this WH to release info that hurts them? I don't get it.

. How much juice does this crippled president of yours have to get an abortion like Santorum confirmed?

It won't happen. Ever.

Just ask Mr. Negroponte, Justice Alito, Secretary Gates, Director Hayden and Chief Justice Roberts how tough it is to get confirmed by the Senate.

Senator Santorum will sail through, picking up a doze Democratic votes just by shaking hands. You liberals know nothing of how the Senate works. They turn on outsiders only rarely; they never turn on one of their own unless that person is guilty of monstrous abuses and crimes, and Santorum was actually well liked in the Senate, but don't take my word for it. Even Senator Clinton was chummy with him on more than one occasion.

Gonzales' Galbraith sccore is already at least one.

(JK Galbraith famously maintained “Anyone who says four times that he won’t resign, will.')

"Their plan is to uncover enough dirt on the admin so that the public will beg for it. That's the only way it can happen." - disputo

So you admit it. They're more interested in gaining power than solving concerning issues.

Who leaked Plames name? That's vital to NS, remember?

When will you roll back tax cuts? Middle America is suffering, remember?

When will you end the NSA program? Our rights are being trampled and the heart of the constitution is at jeopardy, remember?

When will we get out of Iraq? We've lost, remember?

When will we stop global warming? We only have ten years left, remember?

[Jay, do you have anything to contribute, or are you simply here to try and start a flame war? People here want to discuss the issues, please get with the program.]

Time for a terror threat level increase.

Time for martial law.

You expect us to investigate Purgegate while the sh-T is hitting the fan?

Trust me, the administration is ready to deflect this story WAY into the back burner with a nicely timed "event."

Say it (won't be) isn't so.

The track record is flawless, complete with trying to have the 9-11 mastermind take the media by storm.

Coincidence?

With the peace marches on 3/17 the administration will be DEFLECTING our attention, somehow, someway.

This I know.

Can someone explain to me where all these emails are coming from? Are they being leaked by someone, or is the WH intentionally releasing them? If it is intentional, isn't it unusual for this WH to release info that hurts them? I don't get it.

Isn't it obvious? Libby still has some friends in the WH.

Can't we have a little fun with this before its all over. When and where will the party be for the outgong AG?

Ah, Keith Olbermann's wonderful sarcasm...I look forward to his show at 8 pm.
Big story, as it was all day long--all roads do indeed lead to ROve. The plot to purge those not subservient to the white house. Tipping the scales--the emails showing ROve's extensive involvement. If Karl things there will be political will to do so, then so do I," said GOnzales' assistant Kyle Samson.
Can the white house prevent ROve from testifying?
Gonxales was still white house counsel when he discussed the firings then--and says he cannot recollect that...did he not say he would never make a change for political reasons. Collusion is pounding at the door. Tony Snow is one stumbling man today--emails show Gonzales considered options on prosecutors in 1/05.
The list ultimately compiled by Samson was obvious--looking for compliant attorneys. Mr. Iglesius is a good interview for this. Carol Lam was considered a real problem now as she expanded her investigation into republicans, according the Samson. Making room for one of ROve's assistant--Griffin."We have a senator problem/a confirmation problem." Samson had a real plot to get this guy in.
To shut out congress...one of the mails said that!
This scandal will stick around for a long time.

Rove is caught, hook, line and sinker, in a political disaster. It was said the white house was not involved--so here goes their credibility, here are lies exposed. Expect more emails

It took the GOP six years of unfettered, no-veto rule, to fuck up the country. I'll be happy to see the Democrats fix it in two, but I think it'll take quite awhile longer. One very good place to start is to rebuild the institutions the administration has gutted. The DoJ seems like a good enough place to start as any.

And Norm, I had NO IDEA that those Justices were subject to nomination under a Democratic Congress. They wouldn't pass the Judiciary Committee now. Really. It's how politics works.

Norman Rogers: The Attorney General is a good man

In the same sense as the late Manuel? (BTW, any relation between Alberto and Manuel - I understand those people have big families).

Okay, Jay - I will attempt to engage you in dialogue. Your assertion is correct - under the Constitution, the President has been vested the authority to appoint Agents to fill positions within the Executive Branch. Certain positions are subject to the constitutional provision that the Senate must be consulted. The issue of the amendment to the Patriot Act taking away the appointment by judges of replacement USAs is not an issue before us at this time.

As a citizen of the USA, I would look at the White House's decision to fire the sitting USAs in two parts: (1) was it legal, and (2) was it appropriate. With respect to the actions of Gonzalez, Rove and his crew, the answer appears to be most likely - yes, it was legal. There is no hard evidence that the White House was trying to prevent the prosecutiong of certain Republican bigwigs, which could, could, could lead to criminal liability for interfering with an investigation and/or prosecution. According to your posts, this is where you want to stop the analysis. That's fine if you are the completely uninquisitive partisan type who is more loyal to the Republican Party than he is to the United States of America.

Why do I say that? Because if you are a more loyal to the country than you are to the party, then you need to consider the second question - was it appropriate? Now, this is where all of the conflagration is playing out. Quite simply, WHY were these 8 USAs fired? For example, during the Clinton administration, I believe that 2 USAs were asked to resign during the 8 year office for reasons of personal misconduct (I think one USA bit someone and the other did something lewd). In either case, the "why of it?" was pretty transparent and people could accept the necessity of the two USAs being forced out.

In our current situation, the "why of it?" is much more murky. There are allegations that Lam was proving to be TOO effective pursuing the corruption of certain powerful Republicans. McKay and Iglesias were forced out under circumstance that include improper contacts by the Legislative Branch to bring out about prosecutions. If true, this is a damning assertion. There was a recent study conducted that tabulated investigations by the currents USAs from around the country who were conducting investigations of local politicians, and approximately 290 or so of those were against Democrats and 60 or so were against Republicans. Does that mean anything dispositive? NO. But it is a STRONG indicator that something may not be right based upon the simple fact that the % of elected officials is more within the 50-50 range +-10%. Certainly not 5 to 1. Combine the inference that can be drawn from that study with the colloquial evidence of these 8 specific USAs, and the conclusion that is becoming clear is that the Bush White House is CRIMINALIZING party affiliation, as well as demonstrating the desire to use the POWER of the Executive Branch to sway or win elections. Now THAT is a huge deal. Say what you will about Democrats (and I see from above that you like to use the rather pedestrian neolithic allusion to homosexuality as a form of insult - very droll of you. I believe that the common thought is that people who make those insults in earnest are often repressing certain impulses.), there will come a time that a Democratic candidate will win the Presidency. Unless you intend to end the world before then, I wonder how you will enjoy politicians sharing your thoughts on policy being forced from office by eager USAs wanting to prove themselves as loyal lapdogs of the President as opposed to defenders of our rules and laws, or attempting to circumvent closely-contested elections by starting bogus grand jury "investigations" of election fraud.

In other words, the second question you should be asking here is critical because the answer that seems to be getting clearer with every disclosure of emails from the White House shows that Rove et al. are once again striking at the very heart of our democracy in a self interested and self defeating attempt to hold onto power. That's why this is important - not because we are "drama queens," but because many of us believe that the rule of law, the ideals and the foundations of this democracy are more important than the party in power.

cwa: Wait! You mean they had any credibility left to lose?

Coulda fooled me.

I should have previewed my post!

Jay - avoiding the point again and again. You have no principles. As for the repetitive questions, about why don't we or whoever care about real issues, well we do. Can't someone think of more than one thing at a time, talk and chew gum, etc? Anyway, the relatively ethincal conduct of government *is* and issue!
PS, the link to the WaPo editorial about email abuse is at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html
Kevin, please post on this!

Jay's posts make my crotch get all warm and tingly.

[Jay, do you have anything to contribute, or are you simply here to try and start a flame war? People here want to discuss the issues, please get with the program.]

So that's moderation? Goodness. I thought one could express themselves and debate the issues but, apparently, we need to stick to the Democratic Party's guidelines if we want to contribute here.

Not that Jay has anything to offer--he should be banned as a turncoat.

But the heat must really be on...

Jay -

You can go back to Clinton's use of force in Bosnia and Kosovo and read the Republicans make the same arguments against those actions as Democrats are making today against Iraq.

Question: so what's your point? All politicians, no matter what their stripe, talk out of their ass. It's their job.

FYI: your boy General Petraeus just said that Iraq couldn't be won with military action.

Comment?

"...then you need to consider the second question - was it appropriate?" - Jacek

According to a memo from Attorney General Gonzales' aide, the goal was to remove "weak U.S. Attorneys who have been ineffectual managers and prosecutors, chafed against Administration initiatives, etc." The Post points to no evidence (and I've seen none) that any of the "gang of eight" didn't have either performance-related problems or issues relating to failure to pursue administration initiatives. The Post points to no evidence (and I've seen none) that the initiatives in question were illegitimate. They appear to consist of prosecuting voter fraud or prosecuting crimes associated with ilegal immigration. Surely, any administration has the right to remove its appointed prosecutors (who serve at the president's pleasure) if they aren't aggressive in pursuing types of criminal activity the president considers significant.

This is what needs to be investigated. And that is Harry Reids dangerous attempt to undermine NS as he ONCE Proclaimed was dangerous:

Speaking at the National Press Club in 2005, Harry Reid, the current Majority Leader himself said this: "As for setting a timeline, as we learned in the Balkans, that's not a wise decision, because it only empowers those who don't want us there, and it doesn't work well to do that."

Yet, now he's doing this:

"Harry Reid's resolution, which called for the withdrawal of all but a limited number of U.S. forces from Iraq by March 31, 2008, has failed. The Senate rejected it by a vote of 50-48."

Let the investigations begin.

And Norm, I had NO IDEA that those Justices were subject to nomination under a Democratic Congress. They wouldn't pass the Judiciary Committee now. Really. It's how politics works.

Get out of committee?

Goodness, what a fool you are.

The Democratic Party in the US Senate could have stopped each and every one of Bush's nominations with a simple filibuster. You remember how they stopped John Bolton?

So why stop him and not Justice Alito? Secretary Gates?

Courage, is your answer. Today, the US Senate could have started the process of ending the Iraq war. Because a triumvirate of Democrats had no courage, that resolution failed utterly today.

And you think you know how things work?

Balderdash.

Norman: "But the heat must really be on..."

Yes, but you don't feel it. The thing is, I don't remember the frog in the pot of boiling water chortling so gleefully about his own demise. You'll be crying "victory" with your last breath, won't you?

OT:

It appears that Jay has been given a time-out for his potty mouth.

It never ceases to amuse me how right wingers eventually pull out the "you are gay" card, no matter what the topic. I figure they all have some serious issues. I haven't been concerned about my sexuality since I entered puberty. Calling me "gay" has the same effect on me as calling me "short" (I'm 6 foot), or "fat" (I'm 175), yet those wingnuts think it is some arch insult. Truly puzzling.

"FYI: your boy General Petraeus just said that Iraq couldn't be won with military action." - NSA

I agree. Diplomacy and, hopefully, the final lack of tolerance towards the murderers by the decent, peaceful people of Iraq will eventually end the war. The insurgents do not stand a snowballs chance in hell against our military, but they do know they can beat us politically by fear. So far, many on the left are playing right to their hand.

Balderdash?! Where's a calmative when you need one, gramps?

First, filabustering may have been warrented, but they reached a deal and the Democrats (stupidly) stuck to it. Speaks well for them as people, but not partisans.

Second, especially when it comes to a matter of war, the Democrats only have 49 votes. Lieberman is a warmongering independent. So, 96% of the Senate Democrats voted the way they were elected to do. The solution? Elect more Democrats in 2008. Make it a filabuster proof majority.

And yes, stud, Alito wouldn't make it through committee. Believe it or don't. Better yet, try sending Santorum up there after the Gonzalez debacle. See if I'm right.

Democrats only have 49 votes

And Johnson cannot (yet) vote.

According to McClatchy News:
In an interview Wednesday, "Bud"Cummins (former U.S. attorney forced out to make room for a minion of Rove) questioned whether the Justice Department seriously evaluated any of the other U.S. attorneys who they insisted were removed for performance reasons.

"If they had serious questions, where are the memos proving there was a real performance review?" he asked. "They released all of these embarrassing memos, don't you think they would have released the paper trail?"

Cummins also said that e-mails released by the White House earlier this week demonstrated that performance wasn't the issue. "It's clear that, in at least some instances, politics played a significant part," he said.

The Top 10 Reasons Gonzales Must Go:
1. Lying Under Oath
2. Purging Prosecutors
3. Misusing the Patriot Act's National Security Letters
4. Authorizing Illegal NSA Domestic Surveillance
5. Enabling John Yoo and Unchecked Presidential War Powers
6. Rendering the Geneva Conventions "Quaint"
7. Supporting Military Commissions and the End of Habeas Corpus
8. Blessing Unprecedented Expansion of Presidential Signing Statements
9. Facilitating a CIA Leak Cover-Up
10. Gutting Minority Voting Rights

For the latest news, hearings, legal filings and other essential documents on the Bush DOJ prosecutor firings, see:
"The U.S. Attorney Scandal Documents."

To follow-up on this question:

Can someone explain to me where all these emails are coming from?

Today, Schumer said:

One of the reasons everything is getting out here is that there are people, particularly in the Justice Department, who have been so disgusted with what’s happening that information is getting out.

Why aren't any of you concerned about Reids hypocrisy and his attempt to put the US in a dangerous predicament all for political gain?

thinkprogress.org has a good one: Gonzales testifying under oath (and no wonder he seems so nervous these days...)

GONZALES: And so let me publicly sort of preempt perhaps a question you’re going to ask me, and that is: I am fully committed, as the administration’s fully committed, to ensure that, with respect to every United States attorney position in this country, we will have a presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed United States attorney.

I think a United States attorney who I view as the leader, law enforcement leader, my representative in the community — I think he has greater imprimatur of authority, if in fact that person’s been confirmed by the Senate."

But in mid-December, an e-mail by Gonzales’s chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson (who resigned yesterday), showed that the Justice Department clearly intended to skirt the Senate altogether and use the Patriot Act provision to appoint U.S. attorneys that would serve until the end of Bush’s term:

There is some risk that we’ll lose the authority, but if we don’t ever exercise it then what’s the point of having it?

Gonzales also told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Justice Department was “working with home state senators to get U.S. attorneys nominated.� But as the Washington Post notes, e-mails show that “as early as last August,� Justice officials “discussed bypassing the two Democratic senators in Arkansas, who normally would have had input into the appointment.�

UPDATE: Also on Jan. 18, Gonzales stated, “I think I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney for political reasons or if it would in any way jeopardize an ongoing serious investigation. I just would not do it.�

Filed under: Ethics, Administration

Second, especially when it comes to a matter of war, the Democrats only have 49 votes.

No, if they were correct on the issue, they'd have at least a dozen Republican votes--enough to break any filibuster. If they were correct on the issue, there are plenty of Republicans who would join them--this has been true countless times.

Did you forget that there are a few "endangered" Republicans like Coleman, Smith and (gasp) Warner who need to appear more moderate?

Why so bitter about old Joe? Why not threaten him and keep him line?

Oh, that's right. The feckless Democrats can't even get a one car parade against the war up and running.

Can we please stop getting incompetents in the administration fired? If we keep getting competent people in like Gates for example, who the heck are we going to point at? I think we need to walk a fine line where someone is on the edge but not fired. That way we can just shoot limbs of the guy while waiting for the full takedown in 2008. Cheney and Gonzales are good examples for this practice. Of course, that is as long as they aren't really making important policy..i.e. the Bushman isn't listening to them too hard, and I think Cheney is now in that category.

As for the rest, I appreciate Jay's touching concern that the Democrats aren't addressing their constitutent's issues -- of course they've had two months to unfuck the FUBAR administration. This kind of massive overhaul takes time.

A related Quote of the Day from the Politico via Altercation: "We've only had subpoena power for the last six weeks and every tree that we've barked up so far has had a cat in it," said a senior Democrat who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak publicly. "Imagine where we'll be after six months."

This makes sense if you assume that the only function of the Democratic Party is to destroy the Bush Administration. Basically, you're proving Jay's point.

It's mathematically provable that Jay's points are unprovable.

Global will vouch for me on this. I am a woman.

Consider yourself vouched, Sister.

Global will vouch for me on this. I am a woman.

Fabulous. Hormones everywhere...

Who are the three closest people to Bush?

Rove, Miers, Gonzalez

Citizens for responsiblity and ethics in government:
Submitted by CREW on 13 March 2007 - 12:38pm. Alberto Gonzales | US Attorneys
CREW wants the immediate appointment of a Special Prosecutor to investigate potential criminal violations related to the recent dismissals of eight U.S. Attorneys. Recent revelations indicate that a top-ranking Department of Justice official knew that statements made by top Department officials were not true. Clearly, the Department of Justice cannot investigate itself and prosecute the misconduct of DOJ officials. CREW also asked the Department of Justice’s Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility to investigate the situation.

Melanie Sloan:
Given the murky nature of this situation and the unresolved questions of what top level Justice officials knew, when they knew it and whether they deliberately withheld information from Congress, Attorney General Gonzales should immediately appoint a Special Prosecutor. Both Congress and the American people deserve a full accounting of the truth behind the firings of the U.S. Attorneys. If the attorney general doesn’t want to see the truth come out, perhaps the Inspector General will.

In an attempt to move this process forward, CREW sent a letter today to Attorney General Gonzales asking for the immediate appointment of a Special Prosecutor to investigate the potential criminal violations.

The firing of the U.S. Attorneys now appears to have implicated wrongdoing in the Executive Branch. Three members of Congress have already become enmeshed in the scandal for improperly contacting sitting U.S. Attorneys about pending cases. CREW has already sought ethics investigations of Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), Representative Heather Wilson (R-NM) and Representative Doc Hasting (R-WA) in this same matter.

In the past few months, Department of Justice (DOJ) officials have testified before Congress that the U.S. Attorneys were asked to resign for performance related reasons, that the White House was minimally involved in the firings and that the Department was in no way attempting to evade the confirmation process for new U.S. Attorneys.

Documents provided by the DOJ to Congress suggest that at least one high-ranking official, D. Kyle Sampson, knew that the statements made to Congress were untrue. If, as it appears, a Department of Justice official allowed other officials to provide inaccurate information to Congress, federal crimes may have been committed. Because DOJ obviously cannot investigate and prosecute the misconduct of its own officials, CREW has called on the attorney general to appoint a Special Prosecutor to handle this matter.

It is clear that at least two officials, former White House Legal Counsel Harriet Miers and Sampson, schemed to fire prosecutors for political reasons. According to press reports, Sampson has acknowledged that he did not tell DOJ officials about the extent of his communications with the White House regarding the firings. Justice officials who testified before Congress, including the attorney general, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty and Principal Associate Attorney General William Moschella, all told Congress that the White House, though consulted, was not deeply involved in the firing decisions.

Federal law provides that if Sampson knew that he was causing DOJ officials to make inaccurate statements to Congress, he can be prosecuted for the federal crime of lying to Congress even though he did not personally make any statements to Congress. The Special Prosecutor should investigate not only Mr. Sampson’s conduct but whether anyone else was involved in formulating the incomplete and erroneous congressional testimony or whether the officials who testified were aware that they were providing imperfect information to Congress.

Norman and Global Citizen.

Who are the three closest people to Bush?

Jesus, his wife, and his dog Barney.

[morons...]

I'm only in it for the dog food.

cld: Norman and Global Citizen.

Wow, Global really is a red head.

Norman!
You need to pay more attention, buddy.
We know why Karl wasn't indicted, but it was a neeeee-ar thing!
If Viveca Novak hadn't been so talkative, Karl wouldn't have "remembered" something that made his previous testimony untruthful, and he wouldn't have been able to rush to fix it.
Lucky break, huh?

Do try to keep up.

I enjoyed the picture, but please note that I am FAR too intelligent to have served in the military. During the Vietnam War, people like myself were needed here, on the home front, keeping our economy running.

... and keeping the war widows pregnant...

Gonzalez, like Clarence "Uncle Tom" Thomas, had no previous experience in Constitutional law and is dumber than a stump. Both are token, lickspitle lackeys, put into positions for which they are wholly unqualified, merely to do their master's bidding.

That is a really cool graphic. Looks just like me. And...When you least expect it, expect it.

:):):)

Funny, I really don't mind Norman. He says some goofy stuff, but he is clever and seemingly harmless. No?

Been trying to slip that picture in for ages.

And. . . you know. . .

that's the future!

Clarence "Uncle Tom" Thomas,

cancel the racism.

merely to do their master's bidding

a Supreme Court justice doesn't have any masters.

He's high camp and parody. I learned long ago not to bring coffee to the desk when he is about.

Right down to the Red Cross on her sleeve! I looked quite fetching in a flightsuit in my 20's...

"According to a memo from Attorney General Gonzales' aide, the goal was to remove "weak U.S. Attorneys who have been ineffectual managers and prosecutors, chafed against Administration initiatives, etc." The Post points to no evidence (and I've seen none) that any of the "gang of eight" didn't have either performance-related problems or issues relating to failure to pursue administration initiatives. The Post points to no evidence (and I've seen none) that the initiatives in question were illegitimate. They appear to consist of prosecuting voter fraud or prosecuting crimes associated with ilegal immigration. Surely, any administration has the right to remove its appointed prosecutors (who serve at the president's pleasure) if they aren't aggressive in pursuing types of criminal activity the president considers significant."

Okay, so now we are getting somewhere, and this is an objective rebuttal. The second part of the post was immaterial as it was not pertinent to the issue that we are discussing. As for your discussion of the Post article, there have been several articles therein over the past couple of days. The evidence that exists NOW (as of this day and the past day) are the emails that the White House is beginning to produce. Those emails contradict the statements (not testimony) that were made by Alberto and the other Justice officials concerning the why and how these 8 USAs were fired. Again, I reiterate the point that the firing itself was not illegal, but the purpose of the firings may be a dangerous precedent by the Executive Branch. You may elect to approach this "scandal" as a juror would in a trial, innocent until proven guilty. However, certain facts are manifest: Alberto said that he wasn't aware of the particulars why these 8 USAs were fired. An email has to come light that indicates that Alberto discussed the plan to fire the USAs with Rove when he was White House counsel. At best, Alberto has made an inaccurate statement to Congress. At worst, he did so knowingly, which is a lie, and a criminal offense, btw.

That being said, there still remains untouched the question, "Why were these USAs fired?" Your response - "any administration has the right to remove its appointed prosecutors (who serve at the president's pleasure) if they aren't aggressive in pursuing types of criminal activity the president considers significant." Well, yes and no. That statement is not completely correct, but fairly accurate. However, that is not the contention which is raising all of the alarms. The issue that is is that Rove wants to remove USAs for (i) purely political reasons to give Republican operatives a chance at a plum assignment that beefs up their resumes (which, by itself, although somewhat lame because you are talking about the justice and its prosecution, this is a reason that would have been acceptable - it would have caused grumbling but not more than that.), or (ii) being a Democratic politician makes you more likely to be investigated by the USA for reasons related to elections, e.g. the New Mexico event, where Re. Wilson and Sen. Domenici in an oblique manner put the USA under pressure to issue indictments against a Dem. politician, all to the benefit of Wilson. When that USA refused, he was ummarily terminated. That is an abuse of power, and it harms all of us, Republicans, Democrats and everyone else.

I hope the Judicary
Committee investigates whether other US Attorneys who were not fired got political imput from Rove or other Republician Senators or Representatives.

...at the pleasure of the president.

What don't you understand about that?

I hope the Judicary Committee investigates whether other US Attorneys who were not fired got political imput from Rove or other Republician Senators or Representatives.

Yes, that is the huge problem lying beneath the surface -- to what extent has the entire USAtty system been compromised.

Ironically, the simplest approach may be to fire them all after-all, and let the Dem Senate carefully vet their replacements (once the secret provision to the PA is reversed).

...at the pleasure of the president. What don't you understand about that?

You wingnuts certainly didn't respect presidential pleasure when Clinton was in office....

What don't you understand about that?

Um... How about the many and various contradictory accounts of why it was done?

Or... How about the subversion of justice to partisan politics?

I am sick of this "at the pleasure of the President" shit.

Look I live in an at will state. I can fire my employees for no reason at all. They serve at my pleasure. But I can't fire them for illegal reasons. Unless you believe that the President is above the law, neither can the President. If, for example, they fired Carol Lam to thwart an ongoing investigation of political corruption, they, all of they, can be charged and tried, either in a court of law, or in the cases of the President and the AG, in the Congress of the United States (or both) for obstruction of justice. There is more than a whiff that Lam was fired to shut down on going investigations.

Here in MN, on NPR yesterday, they mentioned a visiting lecturer at University of St.Thomas, Dr. John Cragan, who has been doing some research on US Attorneys investigating Dems and Repubs. According to the article he's pulled up a ratio of 7:1, Dems:Repubs.

I couldn't find his work on line at St. Thomas or generally so I can't say how he gathered his information or diagnosed the numbers.

For what it's worth.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/03/13/usatty_politics

Since 2001.

I think this is interesting:

The Gregg Amendment, which says that Congress should not eliminate or reduce funds for troops in the field, has passed 82–16. The Murray Amendment, which also calls for Congress to provide funds for training, equipment and other support for troops in the field, has passed 96-2.

Now I know why you're all talking about the US Attorneys.

Sorry about that.

"Or... How about the subversion of justice to partisan politics?" - obscure

How do you feel about this obscure?

In a 95-page affidavit used to obtain a warrant for the office search, investigators stated that an August 2005 search of Democratic Rep. William Jefferson's home turned up the cash sum in a freezer......Agents told a judge the money was part of a $100,000 payment that had been delivered by an informant in the bribery probe, which already has led to guilty pleas by a Kentucky businessman and a former Jefferson aide.

Eight months after Louisiana Rep. William Jefferson was ousted from the powerful House Ways and Means Committee for allegedly chilling stacks of dubious cash in his freezer, his Democratic colleagues voted to give him a seat on the Homeland Security Committee.

Here you go, if any interested.

http://www.epluribusmedia.org/columns/2007/20070212_political_profiling.html

"You wingnuts certainly didn't respect presidential pleasure when Clinton was in office...."

Posted by: Disputo on March 15, 2007 at 10:32 PM:

Can conservatives ever get through the day without saying "Clinton did it?"

Jay--Dennie Hastert is still in office and he ignored the pedephilia scandal in the house of representatives as a Florida congressman Marky Making His Mark persisted for years in stalking and grooming male pages. Where did that story go? How quickly the wingnuts forget their own.

Jay --

It's a measure of your maturity that you think the steady loss of blood in Iraq can be judged against one or two house votes.

Though I trust that their conscience is uppermost for the majority of representatives and senators, the same cannot be said for the administration and their lickspittles who support the war with a mixture of cynicism, narrow self-interest, corruption and doctrinaire policy.

I know that you will never be haunted by the loss of life that has accrued to their pernicious decision making, but you can trust you do not have my best wishes.

Fat, angry, and stupid is no way to go through life, Jay.

Why don't you sign up to go to Iraq and actually fight for what you believe? Oh right, you're an impotent pussy. So you spend all your time "fighting" on some Democratic blog where you're a constant punchline.
Even Norman doesn't respect you, and he's a fucking idiot.

There is more than a whiff that Lam was fired to shut down on going investigations.

Posted by: Ron Byers on March 15, 2007 at 10:37

Agree--evidently Duke Cunningham was wired, and the tape recorder full. This was as he went from his state to D.C. and all over the place, from what I had read

Please don't ruin the thread with personal attacks

Let the little fellow named Mr. Jay down off the roof. He has no intention of jumping.

This is why it is best to leave the commenting to people like myself who can best explain why the Republican Party is sure to enjoy a massive victory, what with the inability of the Congress to accomplish anything.

We work best in the minority, as some of you may already know.

Looks like potty-mouth Jay needs another time-out.

"We work best in the minority, as some of you may already know."
Norman Rogers

And so it shall be.

Gonzales could resign but I have to wonder how that would help Bush?

Karl is still trashing people who don't kiss Bush's royal ass. It won't stop, people don't like Bush, Broder is good and being wrong and radical goof ball.

It's a only down from here.

Impeachment is only answer to Bush's nasty administration.

Uh-oh, another Repug ask Alberto to go bye-bye.

WASHINGTON, March 15 (UPI) -- Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., has joined a growing list of Republicans calling for the ouster of U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

"Even for Republicans this is a warning sign ... saying there needs to be a change," Rohrabacher told CBS News. "Maybe the president should have an attorney general who is less a personal friend and more professional in his approach."

Sens. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., and John Sununu, R-N.H., have also called for Gonzales to lose his job over the way the Justice Department handled the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys.

But lets face it, Bush and Dick Cheney are real nasties at the top of it all.

We're inching closer to impeachment day by day.

It's Rummy, it's libby, it's Gonzales - next up it's little Bushie.

Can't wait till they bring William Moschella back to the hill.

In an interview Wednesday, William Moschella, principal associate deputy attorney general, said that he pursued the changes on his own, without the knowledge or coordination of his superiors at the Justice Department or anyone at the White House.

Moschella maintained his intent was not to strip the Senate of the power to reject U.S. attorneys that might be objectionable. Justice Department officials noted that 16 U.S. attorneys nominations have been sent to the Senate since the passage of the law in March 2006.

"I did not intend nor was it the department position that this provision be used to circumvent the Senate's confirmation's role," Moschella said.

But neither Moschella nor other department officials disclosed at what point Moschella or anyone else at Justice realized the provision could be used as part of the wider strategy of replacing U.S. attorneys.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/special_packages/usattorneys/16904559.htm

In an interview Wednesday, William Moschella...pursued the changes on his own, without the knowledge or coordination of his superiors at the Justice Department or anyone at the White House....

Can't possibly be stupid enought to have said that, is he. It goes against what we already know from already revealed e-mails, etc., and would be unbelievable in itself.

Sort of brings up a vision of the White House and AG's office being so confused that acolytes are running in all directions throwing themselves on their swords to save their sacred leaders.

Who's sending these emails out? Certainly seem to be catching the white house off guard. Am I missing something.

toast >"Who's sending these emails out? Certainly seem to be catching the white house off guard. Am I missing something."

Upthread someone posted that the (senior) Senator from NY suggests that some folks over at DoJ seem to have reached their breaking point.

I certainly hope it catches on.

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - H. L. Mencken

More on serving at the pleasure of the president.

Btw, is it just my imagination, or does Gonzo have the same shit-eating grin that Dubya is always sporting?

Jay keep it coming. I love the smell of whining & desperation in the morning.

Gonzales, Gonzales, ....

Hmmm...

Didn't he used to be Attorney General?

Jacek: "...When that USA refused, he was ummarily terminated."

So even his wife turned against him, eh?

How do you feel about this obscure?

Jay, you're awfully desperate to change the subject, aren't you?

Poor dear.

From Jan. 2005 NY Times editorial, right on the mark:

...The attorney general does not merely head up the Justice Department. He is responsible for ensuring that America is a nation in which justice prevails. Mr. Gonzales's record makes him unqualified to take on this role or to represent the American justice system to the rest of the world. The Senate should reject his nomination.

The biggest strike against Mr. Gonzales is the now repudiated memo that gave a disturbingly narrow definition of torture, limiting it to physical abuse that produced pain of the kind associated with organ failure or death.

Mr. Gonzales's attempts to distance himself from the memo have been unconvincing, especially since it turns out he was the one who requested that it be written.

Earlier the same year, Mr. Gonzales himself sent President Bush a letter telling him that the war on terror made the Geneva Conventions' strict limitations on the questioning of enemy prisoners "obsolete...
Other parts of Mr. Gonzales's record are also troubling. As counsel to George Bush when he was governor of Texas, Mr. Gonzales did a shockingly poor job of laying out the legal issues raised by the clemency petitions from prisoners on death row...

#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#**#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#

Multiply this by the congressional subpoenas coming related to the abrupt firing of the attorneys, and the calls for resignation should exponentially grow.
And Karl Rove is really becoming the butt of jokes. After watching a clip of Rove speaking, Don Imus on his morning broadcast asked why Rove can't just show up at one of Chris Hanson's "catch a predator" houses.

He's not going to resign--Bush won't admit defeat and they will brazen it out and stonewall. Take it to the bank, he will not resign or be fired

I'm going with April Fool's Day.

My preference for the replacement is a widely respected Republican appointee, Patrick Fitzgerald, but I think his integrity scares Bush.

With little Alberto, after failing at the Air Force Academy, graduating from Harvard Law, Bill O'Reilly from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and Shrub from Harvard's MBA program, Harvard University should be brought up on fraud for overcharging incoming students who believe they are attending a "Real" University.

Did not know that Harvard runs a massive New England School of Auto Mechanics as well, but labels their graduates under other titles.

Liberal elitism, Riiiiight!

Nathan, [Click name for original post]

Legally the President can fire any of the prosecutors at any time. That was true when Nixon fired Archibald Cox, too. The public outcry at that time was a major element in bringing Nixon down. Sometimes the fact that an action is not against a written law merely means that political penalties are necessary. Like impeachment.

I thihk the purpose of firing all seven US attorneys at once was a cover for the fact that they wanted to get Carol Lam, and she gave a strong hint of that when she indicted Brent Wilkes days before leaving office.

Another investigation that was growing was that of Rep. Jerry Lewis by Los Angeles US attorney Debra Wong Yang. USA Yang was hired by (ta da) the law firm representing Jerry Lewis on November 10, thus allowing here to miss the gang - firing the following December 7th. Yang was 47 and a single mother of three young children who had always worked for the government, so was vulnerable to such an offer. (See War and Piece. Laura Rozens source was the Metropolitan News from LA.)

Firing all the other USA's at the same time was primarily a cover fro getting Carol Lam from Sandiego, without setting off the kind of political firestorm that Nixon caused with the Saturday Night Massacre of Archibald Cox.

It worked.

I started to get a vibe that they would even fight showing up for hearings if subpoenaed.
They present themselves as so entitled.
I thought the attorney general seemed unnerved Tuesday, though, when admitting mistakes were made in firings, in his weak mea culpa....
Karl Rove is similarly culpable in the scandal. This coming on the heels of the outing of a CIA agent, no less, and a guilty conviction of a higher up in the white house. And the civil suit of the Wilsons developing. And the attorney general's chief of staff Kyle Samson resigning.

Oh, we will be following this story forever...and I saw a great political cartoon--
The tv is on, hubby and wife are watching, the words "I made some mistakes" come from the tv--She asks, "Is he talking about the U.S. attorney purge, the FBI Power Abuse Mess, the Walter Reed foul-up, the Libby disaster, wiretapping, going to war..."

I agree. Diplomacy and, hopefully, the final lack of tolerance towards the murderers by the decent, peaceful people of Iraq will eventually end the war. The insurgents do not stand a snowballs chance in hell against our military, but they do know they can beat us politically by fear. So far, many on the left are playing right to their hand.

Well, then I guess you have no problem with pulling out the troops ASAP and allowing the Iraqis to govern themselves. They've had almost four years to practice...

Several people have brought up Archibald Cox, the Saturday Night Massacre and the Nixon administration's shock at the firestorm that followed. I am deriving much amusement from watching Fred Fielding, former member of the White House counsel's office under Nixon, scramble around threatening to invoke executive privilege in the case of someone from the WH being subpoenaed.

Has John Dean, who wrote in Blind Faith that he was very close to Fielding and used him as a confidante during Watergate, commented on this? I believe I'll have a little look-round.

Paul, you can't let Yale off the hook. They awarded this know-nothing a degree in history. And how 'bout that fancy prep school, Andover was it?

n the past, a current account deficit anywhere near the dimensions our country has run under the Bush administration has always led to a currency crisis – when everybody begins to move out of the currency running the deficits, forcing the home country to sharply raise interest rates even if it stalls out the economy. So what is the Bush administration doing to head off such a crisis for all of us? They’re cutting more taxes (mainly for high-income people, naturally), which will only force us to borrow even more from abroad by further reducing our national saving rate. By any reasonable measure, this administration’s stewardship of our country’s global economic interests has now moved from careless to reckless.
Rob Shapiro, March 15 2006 http://www.ndnblog.org/archives/001579.html

Sam(p)son never should have let his hair be cut.

All that power going down the drain.

"degree in History from Yale"

Yeah, but he almost blew the final - Could not seem to remember "Lord have mercy on such as we" - Well, it was really the we part, but he did handle "Baa, baa, baa" with aplomb.

Loyal Bushies.

That rolls off the tongue nicely.

But it leaves a bitter after taste.

If the DoJ thinks/believes ALL federal prosecutors should be loyal bushies, than we are witnessing a complete meltdown of our government designed on checks and balances. It's clear that the executive branch is the decider.

Congress? Bring 'em on.

This latest unveiling of our administration is only the tip of the iceberg.

Time to go to a level red terrorist threat level.

Man your battle stations.

Don't misunderestimate me, those who aren't with us are with the terrorists. (that's why the prosecutors were fired!)

mhr,

Guess that explains Superboy.

shortstop--I commented the other day on the interview Keith Olbermann had with John Dean on the subject--I found it again on the countdown website.
Dean called our current government a form of government representing conservative republicans, with 6 years now with no oversight, and now all that oversight is coming with the democratic congress.
Noting the mails exposed now by Gonzales' chief of staff Kyle Samson, Dean noted the white house would like for Samson to take the fall, if it has it's way. However, they have really been pushing to politicizing the Dept. of Justice. But the Attorney General is the face of the DOJ. And you really hurt that department by politicizing it.

He further said that there are two types of attorney generals--1) yes men and 2) yes or no men, depending upon what the law says.
Gonzales, Dean states, was clearly sent to the white house to protect the president, there is likely more to come out about this scandal, and Gonzales may be in jeopardy. Dean did not actually call him a yes man, but it was clearly implied, as I recall.
Then Dean said he feels Gonzales has been in over his head, he came to Washington without much experience, and Washington is not a good place for on the job training.
Says genuine accountability of the white house may come from the subpoena power of the congress. Feels this isn't the end of it--there are multiple scandals facing this white house.

Thanks, cwa; I'll take a look. I'm curious whether Dean has commented specifically on Fielding, who used to report to Dean in the Nixon WH.

"I do have confidence in Atty. Gen. Al Gonzales," Bush told reporters in Mexico. "I talked to him this morning, and we talked about his need to go up to Capitol Hill and make it very clear … why the Justice Department made the decisions it made….

"And he's right: Mistakes were made. And I'm frankly not happy about it, because there is a lot of confusion over what really has been a customary practice by the presidents" of replacing U.S. attorneys.

Gonzales gets rare rebuke from Bush

If the U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, I'm surprised that Bush isn't a bit more disturbed that his loyal Bushies (Rove, Gonzales, Sampson) were using his pleasure principle behind his back for political purposes. They conspired to use the president's power to fire and hire to threaten U.S. Attorneys in order to get Republicans elected. Since the president is dedicated to the destruction of the Republican party, he cannot be happy about this. Clearly he was unaware of their actions.

This blog had some nice entries:

http://smintheusblog.blogspot.com/2007/03/investigation-of-us-attorneys-now-turns.html

Paul, you can't let Yale off the hook. They awarded this know-nothing a degree in history.

Yale has George W. Bush. Harvard has Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy. One of these schools is not like the other....

Stefan on March 16, 2007 at 12:19 PM:

Yale has George W. Bush.

Dubya has a degree from Yale...Cripes.

Has any other Yale graduate asked for a refund on their diploma after finding this out?

Sadly, no, grapey, but a number of them did refuse to go to the White House for a special class reunion hosted by The Underachiever.

Do I feel insecure about the fact that I graduated from Princeton? As opposed to a school such as Yale or Harvard? Of course not! These distinctions only matter to people who do not have class or money. While most of you liberals are secretly envious of everything that George W Bush has accomplished, few if any of you could match his ability to make quick decisions and solve problems while holding steadfastly to his convictions.

I pity all of you; your hero is Bill Clinton and, while a smart man and highly educated, he did have a sweet tooth for hinky looking broads, did he not? Perhaps an honorary degree from this year's hottest party school is more in line?

I often thought conservatives were jealous of the charming, handsome, articulate Bill Clinton and resented the fact the he attracted women.
It was always the Shakespearean "me thinks thou dost protest too much" element of your complaints. That may be why you mention they had lesser looks than he.
I almost fell off my chair in physical admiration when I saw him walk at his inauguration for his first term. You conservative bastards, including and especially Kenneth Starr, aged that beautiful man, but he is still as gregarious and adorable as ever! He and Jimmy Carter are adorable men.
His affair with an intern was a private matter. You guys were out of line.

Yale has George W. Bush. Harvard has Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy.

Yale has:
Taft, Ford, Clinton, and Bush (both)

Harvard has:
Adams (both), Hayes, Roosevelt (both), Kennedy, and Bush (the Younger)

I almost fell off my chair in physical admiration when I saw him walk at his inauguration for his first term.

You have a thing for hillbillies with pear-shaped asses? Can we get a ruling from the judges on that, please?

he did have a sweet tooth for hinky looking broads, did he not?

Rightwingers invariably resent heterosexual men.

Rightwingers invariably resent heterosexual men.

Leftwingers invariably try to castrate heterosexual men like myself and try to take our power away. Sorry, I am a red-blooded American male and I will never surrender and never give up.

Rightwingers invariably resent heterosexual men.

That was a fairly anti-gay remark. It is true, though, that right-wingers seem to resent the fact that progressive men get and provide hotter sex than they could ever dream of.

I think the democrats are quite frustrated with the entitled ways of administration staff, and with their lying ways. And they took no crap today.
The house democrats were conducting the CIA Leak Investigation most of the day; Valerie Plame Wilson testified this morning. It was amazing/repulsive to hear republican talking points specialist Victoria Toensing from the administration try to filibuster her way through the hearing, and they were not letting her get away with it. She wanted to orate and chew up the precious time of the representatives, and they did not letting her accomplish that.
Toensing was testifying in a most disingenuous way. Henry Waxman said her statements may not at all be accurate, and he will hold the record to check her facts and insert the facts to follow her statements. It was great to watch on cspan. I saw it all.
It was uncovered today in the hearing that the white house never conducted an investigation into the CIA leak! That is very telling.

Tony Snow, major apologist, in his live presser:
Rather intense and rat-tat-tat in his tone.
Being asked of course about the fired attorneys. Using a strawman article "If someone disagrees with something, that is something for review..."
meaning, they reserved the right to put attorneys under the microscope.
He is picky with what questions he will respond to. Is defending but I can tell by the look on his face he is getting kind of like Scott McClellan--kept in the dark and fed bullshit?
I get the impression Gonzales will be removed.
I think he will resign, just based on Snow's rather inconsistent and hesitant response to a question. He won't be fired. Ooops--he just said the president intends to keep him in the position. Now I do look for a resignation by Gonzales.

http://stubbornfacts.us/politics/partisanship/appointment_terms_for_u_s_attorneys

Apparently, they all served past the ends of their appointments.

It is true, though, that right-wingers seem to resent the fact that progressive men get and provide hotter sex than they could ever dream of.

So says you!

The fact of the matter is, the accumulation of wealth leaves me little time to enjoy the pleasures of life. I am a red-blooded lover of the hot variety. I do not look down my nose at the gays at all. There isn't anythign wrong, per se, with the gays at all. Many Republicans I know are not above engaging in what the Greeks called the highest form of human love, given the right opportunity, lack of feminine contact and terms of employment for their domestic help.

The best way to put it is, "a man's got to do what a man's got to do."

The best way to put it is, "a man's got to do what a man's got to do."

He does. And now we know why Manuel suddenly got an urge to serve his country by enlisting in the middle of a war.

And now we know why Manuel suddenly got an urge to serve his country by enlisting in the middle of a war.

You didn't hear? He was awarded the Silver Star for bravery. Apparently, he was riding around on top of vehicle or something and al Qaeda blew it up! Manuel saved everyone in the vehicle and they gave him the medal. When I found out, I was very proud of him.

As his employer, I get to wear the medal. It's red, white, and blue, and the gals just love it when I pin it to the lapel of a double-breasted blue suit.

What?! He came back to your employ after his tour? Was there some time remaining in his indenture?

>>>Who's sending these emails out? Certainly seem to be catching the white house off guard

It was payback by some DOJ people after Rove did a doc dump the night before so he could insulate himself and the WH. Tony Snow knew it there will be more coming shortly so he backtracked today.

Clearly, some DOJ lawyers had enough of Rove and his antics. Watch for more news this evening and next week after Mr Schrumer calls on Rove to testity.

Jay wroteth:

"Consto, what is it about the following sentence you don't understand?

US Attorneys serve at the discretion of the President and can be dismissed at ANYTIME!!!!!"

And I respondeth:

Well, for one thing, I don't understand why you used five (5) exclamation points when one (1) would suffice. When you write letters by hand, do you put little hearts above your "i" and "j". When you write mommy from camp to send your teddy bear, do you put in multiple question marks?

More substantively, I don't understand why you think it's dispositive in this case that USAs serve at the pleasure of the President. We all accept that fact, but it's not what is at issue. What's at issue is the fact that the pleasure of the President involves 1) slipping in amendments to the USA Patriot act to remove the Senate from the confirmation process, 2) firing USAs who are unwilling to abuse the power of their office, and 3) retaining an AG who lies under oath.

Perhaps you could address those issues (minus the exclamation points!!!!111).

That was a fairly anti-gay remark.

I didn't intend it to be anti-gay. Rightwingers also resent homosexual men.

Rightwingers also resent homosexual men.

Nonsense. I kick their asses if they get in the way of what I want. I am fairly ruthless. Sex is a weakness for the other guy to worry about. As long as I have money and power, I have all the aphrodisiac I need to live a meaningful life.

The memory defense again???? It didn't work for Scooter Libby and
it won't work for the Attorney General.
This hurts Gonzales--from npr.org

"In early January 2005, Sampson was at the Justice Department and Gonzales was still the top lawyer at the White House, before being named attorney general. A message he wrote at that time begins, "Judge and I discussed briefly a couple weeks ago."

"Judge" is the affectionate nickname people use with Gonzales. The subject he discussed with Sampson was firing U.S. attorneys who were not, in Sampson's words, "loyal Bushies." The e-mail talks about firing 15 to 20 percent of the U.S. attorneys.

Justice Department spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos sent out a statement: "The Attorney General has no recollection of any plan or discussion to replace U.S. Attorneys while he was still White House Counsel." Scolinos said the e-mails refer to a period of time when Gonzales was preparing for his confirmation hearing to be attorney general..."

And, interestingly enough, David Gregory on MSNBC is interviewing Sen. Mark Pryor, (D) Arkansas, who alleges that the attorney general lied to him, lied to Congress, and he should go. Pryor says he was "the senator problem" referred to, and
the lie was uttered during telephone calls, where the AG said he was going to send (Rove's minion) Tim Griffin through normal process, instead, the AG had no intention of doing it this way, had planned to bypass the process and muscle him through, via a plan to side step the senator. The emails show that, and, ironically, it seemed the AG was actually reading from that email during the phone conversation.
Pryor is pushing for the AG's dismissal, and called what he said a lie.
This story has legs, long legs, in motion.