The Democrats play not to lose, the Republicans play to win.

It's amazing to me that the Dems still don't get it. This administration doesn't care what anyone thinks of them. They have one constituency, the large corporations, and they are delivering the U.S. Treasury to them. That's their only job. Everything else is just Kabuki.

To beat them, the Dems will have to take chances, real chances, not just rhetorical ones. Considering they aren't stupid people, I am unclear why they don't realize that making speeches and rolling their eyes ain't worth a bucket of warm spit.

John Bolton will be appointed as the new head of the World Bank! Or perhaps Bernard Kerick or perhaps Michael Brown or perhaps Kyle Sampson. Will Alberto Gonzales get a Freedom medal? Will Scooter Libby be first pardoned and then appointed to fill the next Supreme Court vacancy if there is one. Nothing is too far out there for me to imagine with George W. Bush as the Commander Guy. Nothing.

mickster

In Thursday's testimony, Gonzales made it clear that he just doesn't care what anyone thinks. After all, if Democrats don't like it, what are they going to do?

Unless they can prove that he committed crimes, then they have to wait until 2008 and make an election issue of it. In every place where a respected attorney was fired, it's worth a few percent of the vote. Elsewhere, not so much.

Abu G's approach is to leave them THINKING that he is guilty rather than telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and letting everyone KNOW he is guilty. It is the least hazardous approach.

Charles has it exactly.

The contempt this administration and the GOP holds for the constitution, honesty, and the wellbeing of our nation as a whole is astonishing.

Gonzales actually had the unmitigated compunction to read almost exactly the same opening speech that he read the last time he testified - with almost the same delivery.

Keith Olbermann on MSNBC played large segments of April's speech side by side with May's speech and the two were disturbingly, robotically similar.

Reid and Pelosi may be decent politicians by 1980s standards (sharp, fairly successful and moderate legislative agenda) but are otherwise showing themselves incompetent to play hardball with the Republicans in the media where most things in politics are decided these days. The Republican slander machine is light-years ahead of the Democrats. The Dems are the majority, they're investigating the administration on numerous fronts for serious breaches of public faith and even outright crimes, and yet they are still on the defensive more often than not. It's pathetic.

First, the Republicans simply don't play by the rules (or at least not by the rules the Democrats have come to rely on). Second, the GOP excels at pandering to the average Attention Deficit Disorder voter. The GOP will say absolutely anything, true or not, to generate the best possible spin from any situation. And few members of the media ever call them on their misrepresentations, yet alone the blatant falsehoods.

The first step is for the Democrats to 'stop hitting themselvs'. Yeah, right.

Like many other Republican bright ideas, this notion of tearing up the institutional folkways may come back to bite them later. Gonzales will probably manage to stay on till Bush departs (whenever that is), and for now a lot of egregious conduct will remain relatively unpunished.

However once they lose the executive, the GOP will have nothing guaranteeing their decent treatment in the minority. During the Clinton era they were able to force Janet Reno to appoint special counsels, and they themselves pursued relentless investigations once they got the committee chairs. Given Republican conduct these past few years, they are likely to get a whole lot of nothing from the Dem leadership after 2008, and demographic shifts in the country may keep them out of power in either the legislative or executive branches for quite some while.

matthew, thank you once and for all for demonstrating that whatever surface mannerisms to the contrary, at the end of the day, you are an apologist for the right-wing. The fact that the bush white house has corrupted the justice department clearly means not one damn thing to you.

as for kevin's broader point, we need have no fear that if a democrat is elected president in 2008, the republican party will rediscover the value of traditions, and the media will rally round that rediscovery.

as for me, i'd say fine, impeach the clown. however, let's not lose track: as prof delong likes to say, the cossacks work for the czar. a president with a shred of integrity would have already fired gonzalez; instead, it is perfectly clear that bush is completely at ease with what went on.

and as long as the president is that obstinate, gonzalez is free to play these games: what does he care? he'll get an enormous payoff come 2009 one way or another and he doesn't give a good god-damn about anyone other than george bush and himself.

PS. To think that we've heard for years about what supreme court material gonzalez is.

This has been obvious to many of us for at least 5 years. On the one hand I admire them for showing it to everyone, on the other, they are wrecking the country.

But you know what? When the rules suddenly apply to you after all well... let's just say I hope Iraq submits a request for extradition for Bush and company.

I do wish the press corps would figure this out. My morning paper relates the hearing as part of Gonzales' "fight for his job".

He's not fighting for his job. He's sitting pretty and doesn't care what anyone thinks but President Bush, and Bush likes what he's doing. Lithwick gets it, but hardly anyone else.

How much longer is it going to take people to notice that all this is the result of the fact that the US Constitution -- which was designed by the Framers in the fond belief that political parties could and should be kept from ever coming into existence at all -- is totally inadequate as a means of protecting democracy for exactly that reason? It came within a hair of destroying the US for that reason as early as the election of 1800, requiring an emergency -- but only partial -- fix with the 12th Amendment; it required another major emergency fix in 1803 with "Marbury vs. Madison". Now it requires another major one, starting -- but only starting -- with the departisanization of the DoJ by requiring that the Attorney General be confirmed and periodically reconfirmed by a Congressional supermajority.

There's no reason that Congress couldn't impeach his obstinate ass. He's lied to them. That's a crime. Case closed.

It's time for Democrats to damn the torpedoes, and move full speed ahead by commencing impeachment proceedings against the Attorney General, thus daring congressional Republicans to publicly defend his blatant corruption with their votes.

Even if Democrats don't have the votes in the Senate to remove him, the Republicans will be firnmly on record as tolerant of this sort of behavior, and the greater point will be made to the majority of the American people who want this rogue administration neutered.

Dahlia's really got his number. He's not Bush's puppet, but a significant member of the Republican machine, Texas branch.

What a piece of work. No, not cuddly at all.

Wonder what Harriet Meyers will say on the stand?

Dahlia and Kevin have it exactly right - Gonzales doesn't give a good goddamn what Democrats think of him or his actions and won't ever apologize or admit guilt. That requires a conscience and neither he nor his boss have ever demonstrated that they own one.

Until the Democrats learn that they are dealing with sociopaths, they aren't going to get anywhere in bringing this rogue Administration to heel.

I'd say there's one reason to impeach Gonzales - his successor would have to be confirmed by the Senate - but Bush would just do a recess appointment of some hack, who would then be Constitutionally entitled to serve until the last 2.5 weeks of Bush's Presidency.

(Again with the traditions: it's only a tradition that a President makes only limited use of recess appointments. Bush would do it wholesale if necessary.)

I think the Dems should impeach Gonzales anyway. It would force GOP Congresscritters into voting for or against him, and if Bush recess-appointed a Gonzales equivalent as AG, it might even make the Broderists belatedly realize the nature of the man they'd enabled for all these years.

That's important, believe it or not. The Broderists are, in a way, Bush's true base right now. As long as this country's opinion-makers insist on pretending Bush hasn't done anything all that abnormal, Bush can keep functioning. Bush and his 32% support is dead meat if Timmeh and Tweety and Old Broder ever turn on him.

Gonzales will be impeached. He won't be the last one.

Of all of the posts of yours that I've read, this is by far the best.

You're right, Kevin. Some things are just tradition. Like only making charges if you have hard evidence. If there really was hard eveidence of half the stuff dmeocrats say, AGAG would be out of a job. But there is no proof, just accusation after accusation.

I think you and all the other liberals posters here sodomize goats. Go ahead, offer some "plausible alternative".

The Republicans are counting on the Democrats not starting impeachment proceedings. They figure they Democrats have other things to do in the run up to the 2008 election. For that reason there is nothing to be done about Gonzales.

It's about time the Democrats called their bluff. Start with Alberto.

You don't go after an elephant head on. You find their weak spot and then you latch on with your teeth and dangle like a pendulum from between their legs. Seems to me we have a crazy old guy from West Virginia we could sacrifice if need be.

Forget the rules.

The Dems time is coming to break with tradition too.

After all, if Democrats don't like it, what are they going to do? Roll their eyes at him?

Whatever was okay for nasty repugs, will soon be okay for Dems too.

US Supreme Court Justice David Souter said it was totally okay for Tom Delay to re-district Texas and I'm sure the Justice Souter in his nasty partisan way, thought that Repug control was here to stay, but now that it's legalto redistrict whenever, I see no reason why Dems in control can't redistict as well, now that it's US Supreme court precedent. All thanks to Souter's nasty partisan behavior, we need not suffer fools like Dubya ever again. If Repugs are never elected to office, because very soon, with the next Repug US Supreme court retirement, we'll never again have to worry that 5 justices will elect some brain dead maggot that would just ignore his intelligence briefs and let American be attacked on the home land and let thousands of Americans die.

If everything Bush has done was okay for those nasty paritsan Broders pundits and 5 paritsan justices, I don't want hear a peep out Repugs when Dems take up office and then use everyone of Bush nasty arsenals against Repugs.

If Repugs think there is nothing wrong with the way Gonzo has stacked the DOJ, indeed believing it's legal to make it to where no Dem could be elected, they better not squeal when Dems do it to Repugs.

Since it was okay for Bush, it should be fine for Dems too. Bush declare war against Dems, try everything in the book, or just made shit up, legal or otherwise to remove Dems from office.

Dems in office should take it personally, learn how to fight fire with fire, and make it where its impossible for Repugs to ever gain control again. After Bush most Americans won't have a problem with either.

Bravo, howard at 3:07 AM.

Don't you love the way Marler -- intentionally, no doubt -- misses the point by regurgitating the Republican talking point about crimes in repsonse ot Kevin noting, correctly, that the Bush/Rove politicization of the DoJ was so unprecedented no one thought to make it a crime.

Thanks for conceding that you have no defense to Kevin's point. Marler. And shame on you for continue to carry the GOP's water. Your laughable claim that your arguments are never destroyed aside, nothing you say is remotely persuasive. One wonders if you post your bleats here to mollify your own cognitive dissonance at shilling for a party of crooks, liars and fools.

I think the payoff to Gonzo is in 2 years when he hired for huge bucks by a big Repub law firm. All he has to do until then is put up with annoying Dems. He is at peace.

First time McCain has been right in a while with his statement that " Bush's numbers hurt GOP " I want to be the first to congragulate W on his fine performance and his approval rating of 28%, you alone Bush have destroyed the Republican party and I am also glad that finally someone like your dumb azz has come alone, been way over due.

How are we going to get to Rove's emails on the RNC server? We know Goodling & the other guy were installed as White House liasons to DOJ with new powers to hire & fire. We also have an email that implies Miers & co. were kept abreast of the Purge.

How do we get to the meat of the issue: Rove & Bush's complicity in the Purge.

Impeaching Gonzo won't get us any closer to Rove, nor will resolving the Gonzo injustice spur some conscionable IT worker to turn over the missing harddrive.

Thanks for making this point, Kevin. It surprises me how little play this angle gets. A lot of the strength of our institutions are bound up on their traditions and culture, and it seems those traditions have been fairly well obliterated over the past several years of Republican rule. Every time I hear the talking point repeated that no laws were broken in the case of the U.S. attorneys, I always have to wonder, is that the standard?

What Congressional Democrats need to do is make it clear to Gonzalez (and others) that you can thumb your nose at us now, but we're gonna put you in prison in 2009.

Calling All Bloggers, No Vacations for Anyone

If it is important for the Iraqi Parliament to remain at work and not take a vacation this summer, how about the U.S. Congress and the President? Why should anyone in America take a vacation while our boys and girls are giving their all with repeated tours, extended stays, and stop loss in Iraq?

If our troops can't take a vacation over there, then neither should we over here. Taking a vacation is a traitorous act. If you are planning on going to the beach or Disneyworld this summer, you are an agent for terrorist. Support the troops, stay home.

"Stay the course", don't desert, "surge" your work in the "new way forward" by not taking a vacation.

With U.S. policy in its last throes, there is no time for vacations. No vacations for anyone until the mission is over whether it is accomplished or not.

The Republican zombie slaves will not vote to impeach anyone, and Bush relies on that. About 90% of the Republicans would support Bush if he abolished the Constitution, and the quasi-independent Republicans look good only in contrast to the worst.

However, I think that the big story of the last 10-15 years is the jellification of the media. There aren't ten people in the major media who are capable of normal critical thought.

I's nice to see the voters and the Democrats begin to wake up, but we stil face an uphill battle. After yesterday I believe that Gonzales and Bush will succeed in defying Congress. A fanatical minority still supports them, and enough people just don't care to make impeachment impossible.

wschneid25,

If you are going to make ethnic slurs, get your terms in order.

We can disparage his IQ and his competence, but, what does his ethnicity have to do with anything?

Now, go back to your Archie Bunker glossary and recheck.

This administration does not accept the validity of a notion like 'public interest'. They believe only in private interests. Therefore, as night follows day, they could give a fig what the public thinks about anything. They are serving a very elite constituency--very well. The fact that, in many cases, the constituency is not even American, and has not the slightest interest in Americans beyond their role as consumers--has yet to fully dawn on the American Public. As long as the public remains hopelessly capable of being bamboozled over gay marriage, evolution, and abortion--they will be ruled by people who have nothing but contempt for them.

Impeaching Gonzo won't get us any closer to Rove, nor will resolving the Gonzo injustice spur some conscionable IT worker to turn over the missing harddrive.

maybe not. but, it would be incredibly satisfying.

Almost better if none of these clowns get impeached. Anyone impeached and convicted of criminal acts now will instantly be pardoned by the Criminal in Chief, no doubt to "let our nation heal." And by that sarcasm, I mean "let the criminals go underground for a few years until the whole thing has blown over, when they'll come back in some new criminal enterprise of the executive branch like arms for hostages or the unitary chimpanzee executive."
See, if these guys get investigated by a Dem DOJ in 2009, they'll all do real prison time. Hard time. No pardons. Meet your 400lb mate Mr Cheney.
Imagine if a guy had to be convicted before being pardoned. That would mean you couldn't preempt an investigation by pardoning. You'd have to wait until the investigation turned over every stone and found every rotting corpse before you could pardon. Then you'd have accountability. This should see floor time as a proposed Constitutional Amendment.

Oh, and Dahlia Lithwick rocks.

Of course if AG is not asked to resign by Bush, then, short of impeachment, he can stay on.

But it's just wrong to believe that there are no consequences to be paid. You see, there's a reason political leaders have adopted the tradition of dismissing disgraced underlings. It is because that disgrace undermines the clout and popularity of the political leader.

Every day that AG stays on the job, the scandals he has helped bring about stay in the news. The outrage over his continued involvement in our nation's justice system rises. The ongoing revelations as the entire sordid episode of Purgegate unfolds render his presence more of an abomination. Bush's stubborn refusal to fire him makes Bush look only more contemptible as a political leader.

In the larger scheme of things, the single most important thing that Democrats can do at this stage is to use every last opportunity to expose the full extent of the incompetence, fanaticism, rigidity, and sheer vileness of the Bush administration, and the Republican Party more generally. This is a lesson the American people need to have emblazoned in their minds and guts for a generation.

How can we be unhappy that the Bush WH has been so accommodating in rendering themselves so obviously despicable?

wschneid25's ethnic slur was both inappropriate and wrong. I would call Gonzales a Texan. After George W. Bush and Tom Delay that's insult enough. I have to say Gonzales is one smart Texan. The pinhead defense has all of them baffled.

Looters and con-men will be looters and con-men.

The normal means of enforcing unwritten rules, eg, that looters and con-men be tarred and feathered, is public opinion and public pressure. It's a social function. However, if the ones controlling society's awareness of the L&Cs drop the ball, the system fails.

I blame the media.

Kevin, your post makes it pretty clear that so long as we don't impeach him, he has carte blanch to do whatever he wants. So... why don't we impeach him?

At this point, what the remainder of Bush's term comes down to is whether Democrats can muster the balls for a showdown on any issue, anywhere. Every effort to hold Bush accountable is immediately shot down because "Bush won't budge", so we do. "Bush won't compromise", so we do. "Bush won't back down", so we do. Well, budge him, goddammit.

The Roman Republic was also made of traditions taken for granted ... until the Caesarian faction destroyed it.

OT (but you guys are gonna love this one):

Jeb Bush Joins the Tenet Gravy Train
By Brett Arends
Mutual Funds Columnist
5/9/2007 10:25 AM EDT

"A senior member of the Bush dynasty is about to get a large sum of money from a company with a history of ethical violations.

Stop me if you've heard this one before.

Jeb Bush, the president's brother and former governor of Florida, is up for election Thursday as a director of troubled hospital chain Tenet Healthcare (THC - Cramer's Take - Stockpickr - Rating). Assuming he's waved through, his pay in his first year would come to nearly $37,000 a day.

This is the same Tenet that had to pay $900 million to Uncle Sam last summer to settle charges that it had overbilled Medicare and Medicaid over many years.

Nine hundred million dollars.

The U.S. attorneys announcing the settlement accused the company of "fraud" and trying to "manipulate and cheat the system."

Mike Leavitt, the Health and Human Services Secretary appointed by Jeb's brother George, said the company had "fraudulently abused the Medicare program."

It's also the same Tenet that just paid $80 million to the IRS after an audit found it owed back taxes going back as far as 1995.

The company recently had to restate nearly five years of earnings statements after an investigation into its books.

And this is just the big stuff. Tenet's recent public filings read like a police blotter. One of its clinics in South Carolina performed 436 open heart operations without certification. The company is being sued in California by staff claiming they were systematically short-changed on pay and overtime, in breach of the state's labor code. "

[snip]

http://www.thestreet.com/funds/
followmoney/10355637.html

Until the Democrats learn that they are dealing with sociopaths, they aren't going to get anywhere in bringing this rogue Administration to heel.
Posted by: The Conservative Deflator

"George W. Bush has gathered around him...most frighteningly, psychotic personalities, or PPs, the medical term for smart, personable people who have no consciences." - Kurt Vonnegut

yes, yes, yes. Amazing that the people who are always screaming about the breakdown of society and its codes are the very ones who are busily breaking down society and its codes.

I must say that modern conservatives/Republicans have given me a clearer understanding of the psychological phenomenon of projection. Whatever they accuse anyone else of doing, that's what they need to be investigated for.

And Bush doesn't give a damn what Dems think either. He governs for and by his base. Period.

But I think they are unleashing more than they know. Nothing--not a war, not humiliating our country, not destroying our economy, not tearing up the Constitution--nothing infuriates people more than being ignored.

How about a law appointing a special prosecutor to investigate the politicization of DOJ? And wasn't Gonzales supposed to be on the Hill asking for money for DOJ in the last couple of months, but his appearance got waylaid by oversight hearings (as I recall)? How about selectively cutting appropriations for DOJ?
How about a law requiring US Attorneys to live and work in their districts? There's lots to do.

The key question missing from questioning AG - "What is it that you'd say you do around here?" - if no one needs to run justice because the career lawyers do all the work, why have an AG? It's all just so ridiculous, is there any decision he's made in the last 4 years more important than determining which USA's to eliminate? Why would anyone believe he's out of the loop. If he is, he's not doing his job (ok, I guess this is obvious to all).

He's been untruthful to congress and woefully incompetent. He should be impeached immediately.

Isn't it somewhat ironic that the party of traditional values is simply an visibly rejecting tradition, and our democratic values, wholesale?

the only action that is going to change the beavior of the president or any other member of the bush administration is

for americans to go into the streets, especially the strets of washington, repeatedly and in great numbers,

voicing thier strong opposition to the central role of public lying in this administration.

from the bush candidacy in 2000, to the attack on the world trade center, to the invasion of iraq, to the suppression of science, to the removal of u.s. attorneys for purposes of republican political gain,

americans have been told hundreds of public lies.

the democrats in congress simply don't have the political muscle to stop this suborning of our government.

the media have been neutered by a combinaton of whitehouse/rnc seduction and threat.

ordinary americans going into the streets is the 2x4 that will get the attention of the presidential mule and but a stop to this era of persistent, massive deceit.

Unless they can prove that he committed crimes, then they have to wait until 2008 and make an election issue of it.

In the sense of "crimes" as things prohibited by statute this is false. The Congress is not the Justice Department conducting a criminal prosecution. It's recourses against executive abuses, whether through changing the law, impeaching wrongdoers, or other exercise of Congress' Constitutional powers are not limited to violations of criminal statutes.

And the only body that Congress has to prove anything to in order to take such action is one or both—depending on which kind of action they seek to take—of the houses of which it is comprised.

Your bizarre idea that the Executive Branch is free to do whatever it wants with no Constitutional recourse by Congress unless a criminal statute is broken is completely wrong.

Heck, the only recourse Congress has that depends on criminal statute is seeking to have the Executive Branch prosecute wrongdoers, which doesn't seem particularly useful in this case even if there was clear and obvious criminality.

In 1998 the Republicans demonstrated their contempt for tradition by impeaching a President without any of that "hard evidence" I saw some idiot yammering on about upthread. In fact, the 90s were characterized by a complete breakdown of traditions regarding the Presidency - the notion that the Clinton Administration was scandal ridden is a joke. The only scandal was that the Republicans spent $100 Million on the greatest enemy America had - its twice duly elected President. Oddly, this is far more than they spent looking for Osama bin Laden during that time - even though he was already a known terrorist.

That example demonstrates all you need to know about the seriousness of the Republican Party when it comes to protecting the United States. And it explains why Gonzales feels free to mock, lie, and obstruct justice.

Oh, and ignore Marler, he thinks a felon walking past a gun store is enough to warrant the death penalty when we are talking about Saddam Hussein, but demonstrates here that the standard of evidence required to eliminate an Attorney General who has used the Justice Department as an extension of the RNC is "beyond all doubt." A standard under which the fact that you can't see the roundness of the earth means that it is flat.

Wow the paranoia just keeps getting deeper.

Kevin unintentionally raised the critical point here. After weeks of looking into this and poring over thousands of documents, we are still left with House Democrats (hardly an impartial source) and what they claim is the "only plausible explanation." Despite the hundreds if not thousands of staff hours trying to come up with any evidence of actual - you know - wrongdoing, the House Dems are no closer to actually establishing something wrong happened here than they were at the beginning.

Conyers is still out there talking about "impressions" and "Rove" but, if folks here are honest, no one has yet been able to lay out an actual case that these firings actual broke the rules. Until they do, Gonzales is under no obligation to entertain their when did you stop beating your wife" innuendo. He will rebut the House Democrat's accusations, when and if the Dems actual manage to offer a serious case for them.

In the meantime, the best Conyers could come up with, yesterday, is, "If we start following these breadcrumbs, it suggests there could be some connections between the discussions between yourself, Rove and Iglesias.� Oooh, it suggests there could be blah, blah, blah, Rove, blah. Well if this is the standard of evidence for impeachment, then I think that if we start following these hyperventilated accusations, it suggests there could be a lack of actual evidence of an actual wrongdoing and it is Conyers who should be relieved of his duties.

hacksaw, nice job playing the right-wing game.

there is nothing hyperventilated about drawing the only possible conclusion from the evidence: the attorneys were fired on political grounds and the administration has lied about it and attempted to hide the evidence through a combination of sitting on emails and keeping emails illegally off-record on the RNC email system.

what is hyper about this is your hyperstupidity, your hypernenabling, and your hyper willingness to ignore reality. this makes you an excellent graduate of propaganda u but a damn ignorant citizen who barely deserves the blessings of democracy.

Yes, hacksaw, because notions of wrongdoing are clearly just a matter of tradition, as well. If they can get away with trashing the Constitution, more power to 'em, right?

Somewhere around the mid-1980s, progressives and conservatives traded places, and the Repubs became covert radicals and Dems the party of caution and consideration. The left has to figure out a way to remarket itself as the people who care about how and when things are done in this country while learning to play hardball behind closed doors.

Essentially, the public has been sold rotten goods and the Dems are still in shock about it. So get moving, already, and say it out loud: these people are playing you for suckers!

Forget Gonzales and any others below W on the White House organizational chart. Gather the criminal evidence on Bush and Cheney, at the same time. Hold impeachment hearings and after they lose in those hearings, prosecute both.

If these two characters are not impeached, all US prisons should be emptied of their non-violent convicts.

Bush and Cheney's crimes include mass murder in Iraq resulting from their conspiracy to attack that country, grand larceny, conflicts of interest, war crimes.......

Next would be a very public trial, with the most tenacious prosecutors available.

Start at the top, not with Gonzalez.

there is nothing hyperventilated about drawing the only possible conclusion from the evidence: the attorneys were fired on political grounds and the administration has lied about it and attempted to hide the evidence through a combination of sitting on emails and keeping emails illegally off-record on the RNC email system.

Word. I might add that given what is already a matter of public record regarding the Administration's misconduct over the firings, the logical explanation over the Administration's continuing to stonewall -- its reluctance to have certain officials testify under oath, for example -- is that there is in fact a potentially criminal matter here. If evidence emerges that the Administration interfered in the prosecution of corrupt Republicans, we have obstruction of justice in the White House.

Start at the top, not with Gonzalez.

I disagree. Impeaching Gonzales makes perfect sense -- he's manifestly and admittedly incompetent to do his job, and he's probably pissed off enough Republicans that they'd break ranks and dump him, something they're not likely to do with Bush.

Cheney next -- how many Senators are really going to go to bat for him?

I have to add the obvious thing to this, which is context: Gonzo can do this because the SCLM aren't really interested. Whereas, if a Democratic Attorney General (or anyone else) were to behave like this, it would be the only story on all the talking heads shows until that person resigned.

Republics can do what they like for much, much longer, because they play in a world where it is somehow unseemly to attack or question them. But Democrats have to justify their every move.

Don't want to offend the Hispanic bloc.

It's not enabling anything to point out that, despite weeks of effort, the basic story on these firing hasn't progressed at all beyond the assertions that started it all.

Gregory's post tells it all: "a potentially criminal matter," "If evidence emerges." Howard's assertions are no different than Conyers, and since Kenji likes the 80s so much, I'll ask again "Where's the beef?"

Let me be the first to say that IF Gonzales broke the law, he should be removed. But unlike most folks here it seems, I'd like to see the case made before walking him up to the gibbet.

Oh and, as usual, what howard said.

Hacksaw: "Let me be the first to say that IF Gonzales broke the law, he should be removed. But unlike most folks here it seems, I'd like to see the case made before walking him up to the gibbet."

Tally up the number of times Gonzales told Congress, under oath, that he couldn't recall specific conversations he's on record as having had. Go ahead. We're well over 100 times at this point. You claim he's done nothing illegal, which means he's telling the truth when he says he doesn't recall these conversations. So it's not that he's dishonest. He's just borderline retarded.

Tells you everything you need to know about the administration & its defenders.

awful lot of the rules we take for granted are, in reality, just traditions.

Hang the code, and hang the rules. They're more like guidelines anyway.

Hacksaw wrote: the basic story on these firing hasn't progressed at all beyond the assertions that started it all

Well, yes, the basic framework remains that this Amdinistration, in an unprecedented move, appears to have fired USA for failing to undertake partisan prosecution or drop prosecutions of Republicans. Details have emerged about the White House's involvement, and about the greater extent of the White House's effort to politicize the DoJ, but to tools like Hacksaw and fools like Marler -- as howard pointed out -- this is just hunky-dory.

That Gonzales continues to consider himself the President's lawyer, of course, is now beyond debate and is conclusive grounds for impeachment -- a topic Hacskaw assiduously avoids, of course.

I would point out, though, that Hacksaw's disclaimer is worthless at best and disingenuous at worst -- the criminal acts I referred to wouldn't have been committed by Gonzales. (The term "accessory after the fact," tough, does have a certain ring.)

C-Span gave us a great several minutes when that magnificent liberal Democrat Maxine Waters interrogated Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez.

And it gave us several hours of Alberto Gonzalez. It's illustrative that mhr tries to defend this corrupt and incompetent AG with such a depserate distraction.

I'll sign onto the impeachment parade, if and ONLY IF, our Democratic-controlled Congress gets its act together and RESTORES HABEAS CORPUS.

If they don't, Ima email President Gore and suggest that he throw this entire administration into a federal prison to see who cracks first.
National Security, ya know.

Bush's stubborn refusal to fire him makes Bush look only more contemptible as a political leader.

Is that really even possible at this point?

MatthewRmarler: Unless they can prove that he committed crimes, then they have to wait until 2008 and make an election issue of it. In every place where a respected attorney was fired, it's worth a few percent of the vote. Elsewhere, not so much.

howard: matthew, thank you once and for all for demonstrating that whatever surface mannerisms to the contrary, at the end of the day, you are an apologist for the right-wing. The fact that the bush white house has corrupted the justice department clearly means not one damn thing to you.

Gregory: Don't you love the way Marler -- intentionally, no doubt -- misses the point by regurgitating the Republican talking point about crimes in repsonse ot Kevin noting, correctly, that the Bush/Rove politicization of the DoJ was so unprecedented no one thought to make it a crime.

In H.L. Mencken’s last published piece, in 1948, he discussed some people who had been arrested under a Cleveland ordinance that prohibited blacks and whites from playing tennis together at a municipal tennis court. His last line (from memory, so it may not be exact) was something like “I have heard it said that the participants were put up to it by the Communists, and for all I know that may be true, but even if it is true, the way to defeat the Communists in their imbecilities is not to fight them when they are right.�

It seems to me that MRM’s basic point is correct. I believe every bad thing that is said about Gonzalez and Bush on this blog, but that is not the same thing as believing it is possible to prove-- to the satisfaction either of a jury in a criminal trial or of the Senate in an impeachment trial--that Gonzalez committed crimes. Further, while people who read the Washington Monthly regularly care about such issues, most people in the country care much more about how much time Paris Hilton will end up doing than how much time Gonzalez will do.

As MRM said, “In every place where a respected attorney was fired, it's worth a few percent of the vote. Elsewhere, not so much.� More’s the pity, but it’s probably true.

Well I'm all about gaming what the rich bastards want. So I'm cool.

….IF Gonzales broke the law, he should be removed…..Hacksaw at 11:29 AM

I have never seen any previous administration in American history so blatantly and obsessively corrupt. There is not one single department of government untouched by corruption and perversion of its legislative duties. Not only is the Bush administration a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations entity, but so is the entire Republican party.

CIA forced her constituents to use so much of it. mhr at 11:40 AM

…“In every place where a respected attorney was fired, it's worth a few percent of the vote…Posted by: anandine on May 11, 2007 at 11:50 AM

People seem to be losing sight of a very important factor in the scandal that is Alberto Gonzales: it's not over. There are more documents to be "found". Precisely because the man is lying through his teeth, and because the facts contradict him, documents and people will keep coming forward to contradict him.

Really, don't we want to have AG to kick around as long as we can? If he's the face of political corruption under Bush, isn't it better to have it up on the Wanted poster as long as possible? This is how the Bush WH is best transformed from merely despicable to unforgettably despicable.

Hacksaw: ...I'll ask again "Where's the beef?"

Thanks, Hacksaw, for demonstrating that you are in the "anything goes, I see no evil" partisan vanguard of the conservative movement. Contrast your immoral attitude to these conservatives. From TIME, Apr. 16, 2007 (with emphasis):

The two-page letter, written on stationery of the American Freedom Agenda, a recently formed body designed to promote conservative legal principles, is blunt. Addressed to both Bush and Gonzales, it goes well beyond the U.S. attorneys controversy and details other alleged failings by Gonzales. "Mr. Gonzales has presided over an unprecedented crippling of the Constitution's time-honored checks and balances," it declares. "He has brought rule of law into disrepute, and debased honesty as the coin of the realm." Alluding to ongoing scandal, it notes: "He has engendered the suspicion that partisan politics trumps evenhanded law enforcement in the Department of Justice."

The letter concludes by saying, "Attorney General Gonzales has proven an unsuitable steward of the law and should resign for the good of the country... The President should accept the resignation, and set a standard to which the wise and honest might repair in nominating a successor..." It is the first public demand by a group of conservatives for Gonzales' firing. Signatories to the letter include Bruce Fein, a former senior official in the Reagan Justice Department, who has worked frequently with current Administration and the Republican National Committee to promote Bush's court nominees; David Keene, chairman of the influential American Conservative Union, one of the nation's oldest and largest grassroots conservative groups; Richard Viguerie, a well-known G.O.P. direct mail expert and fundraiser; and Bob Barr, the former Republican Congressman from Georgia and free speech advocate, as well as John Whitehead, head of the Rutherford Institute, a conservative non-profit active in fighting for what it calls religious freedoms.

Fein, speaking for the signatories, told TIME that Gonzales' planned testimony to Congress tomorrow, the text of which has been released by the Justice Department, was a "terrible disappointment" that left unanswered key questions on which his job may now depend. "Gonzales' testimony before the Judiciary Committee resorts to a truly Clintonesque defense of his own previous false statements," says Fein. "In fact," he says, "Gonzales' latest declarations really do call into question the forthrightness and honesty indispensable for America's chief law enforcement officer."...

...Signers of the letter says that it is also aimed at fellow Republicans — and especially G.O.P. members of Congress — whom they hope to encourage to call for the Attorney General's ouster, a step they argue is crucial to ending damage to the Department of Justice, as well as G.O.P. standing on Capitol Hill....

More from Bruce Fein in a Washington Times op/ed, Apr. 24, 2007, Incompetence personified:

[Gonzales'] testimony justifying the ambush-like firing of eight United States attorneys before the Senate Judiciary Committee last Thursday was proof beyond a reasonable doubt of staggering incompetence. The attorney general was AWOL when he should have been personally evaluating their legal and management skills and devotion to President Bush's law enforcement priorities. If Mr. Gonzales possesses a crumb of decency, he will resign. A worthy standard was set by Harriet Meirs when she withdrew her Supreme Court candidacy because of her shocking unfitness....

Heckuva job you're doing, Hacksaw!

No hard evidence of crime? I don't know, but I think obstruction, and perjury count as crimes. Don't believe me, ask Scooter Libby or Bill Clinton.

Gonzales couldn't survive an impeachment proceeding. The only question would be the outcome of the trial in the Senate.

Hacksaw the use of the words "alleged" or "suspected" by Democrats simply means we are respectful of the traditional belief that all Americans are all innocent until we are proven guilty in an appropriate forum. The forum of public opinion doesn't count. In the case of Gonzales there is already more than enough evidence to charge him with several crimes.

What ever would Edmund Burke think!

I have to add the obvious thing to this, which is context: Gonzo can do this because the SCLM aren't really interested. Whereas, if a Democratic Attorney General (or anyone else) were to behave like this, it would be the only story on all the talking heads shows until that person resigned. Republics can do what they like for much, much longer, because they play in a world where it is somehow unseemly to attack or question them. But Democrats have to justify their every move.

Absolutely. Imagine Gonzalez was a Democrat (I know, I know...). Matthews, Russert, Broder and the rest of the corporate media would be dropping dead with apoplexy during their foam-flecked demands that we lop off his head. But since he's a Republican, there's nary a peep.

Why don't the Democrats impeach him? They certainly have the votes in the House for articles of impeachment and probably would have the votes in the Senate to convict and remove him.

And unlike if they tried to go after Bush or Cheney, they could probably impeach Gonzalez with minimal political risk, since he's already been given multiple opportunities to explain himself to Congress and failed to do so. Maybe he'd take Congress a little more seriously if his job and reputation were actually on the line.

that is not the same thing as believing it is possible to prove-- to the satisfaction either of a jury in a criminal trial or of the Senate in an impeachment trial--that Gonzalez committed crimes

Again, the main crimes here were likely not committed by Gonzales, but rather by anyone who fired USAs because they were investigating Republicans.

As cmidcely has pointed out, proving criminal charges is not what impeachemnt need be about. If 60(?) Senators agree they're simply sick of Gonzales' malfeasance, out he goes.

But bying into Mearler's disingenuous focus on criminal charges again misses the point. The USA scandal is shocking and shameful based simply on what was known -- this Administration embarked on an unprecedented purge to politicize the DoJ. While I think it's quite likely criminal charges could emerge, and Gonzales sure stinks of accessory-after-the-fact, criminal charges are not necessary for this to be a scandal.

Donald from Hawaii was 100% correct in his comment. Impeachment hearings need to start. Let the Republicans try to defend Gonzales.

The Republicans have traditionally been viewed as the party for "law and order." Now is the opportunity to clearly demonstrate to the American public that this is a myth.

"Imagine if a guy had to be convicted before being pardoned... This should see floor time as a proposed Constitutional Amendment"

Thanks Govt Skeptic. Great idea.

I believe every bad thing that is said about Gonzalez and Bush on this blog, but that is not the same thing as believing it is possible to prove-- to the satisfaction either of a jury in a criminal trial or of the Senate in an impeachment trial--that Gonzalez committed crimes.

Congress in the context of an impeachment trial does not have to prove that Gonzalez committed a "crime" in the sense of a crime as defined in the federal criminal statutes. It merely has to prove that he committed "high crimes and misdemeanors," which may imply simply failing to perform his job or acting in an otherwise unprofessional, immoral, or unethical manner.

Put it this way: if Gonzalez testified that he spent eight hours a day napping at his desk he would have committed no crime. Congress, however, would surely be within its authority to impeach him for dereliction of duty.

Moreover, the standard of proof for an impeachment (and remember that impeachment is merely the equivalent of a criminal indictment, not a conviction) is far lower than the "beyond the reasonable doubt" of a criminal trial.

Why don't the Democrats impeach him? They certainly have the votes in the House for articles of impeachment and probably would have the votes in the Senate to convict and remove him.

For one thing, he's pretty clearly not the architect of the wrongdoing here, and the longer the investigation proceeds, the more the White House's fingerprints are all over it. And the more time Bush spends visibly standing behind Gonzales.

Impeachment of Gonzales is appropriate and warranted, but not necessarily the best way to hold those ultimately at fault responsible.

"Imagine if a guy had to be convicted before being pardoned... This should see floor time as a proposed Constitutional Amendment"

IIRC, many legal theorists hold this to be the case under the current Const, but it has not been tested.

Goodling granted immunity!

And the DOJ is not opposing, so it won't go up to Silberman and Sentelle at the DC Appeals Court.

Gregory: I certainly did not intend my comments on criminal behavior to be restrictive. If Gonzales were proven to be an accessory he should be removed from office as well.

Apollo 13: Great, you found a new bunch of people throwing out demands without any additional actual - you know - evidence. Moreover, I wouldn't take much issue with those arguing the incompetence line and hardly consider myself a fan of Gonzales. I am, however, a fan of expecting people to support their allegations. Something neither the House Dems or the folks you've cited have done.

Ron Byers wrote:

"Hacksaw the use of the words "alleged" or "suspected" by Democrats simply means we are respectful of the traditional belief that all Americans are all innocent until we are proven guilty in an appropriate forum."

Which is laughable since Dems, including practically everyone in these comments, are calling for Gonzales to be impeached now even though there has been absolutely NO movement towards establishing he is guilty of an impeachable offense.

Looks like a judge just approved Monica Goodling's immunity.

Where's your sense of fun, guys? Isn't having AG stay in place while being even further exposed by Monica and others the best time we can have here?

Must we suffer from premature defenestration?

Hacksaw, you gibbering idiot, it is at the trial that guilt is established. The House is not required to establish guilt before they can even charge him.

Btw, I love how when it comes to GOPers committing crimes, the tough-on-crime, take-away-habeas-and-torture-the-truth-out-of-them cretins all of a sudden make up a whole new set of civil liberties (like proving guilt before charging with a crime) that must be applied to Retardicans.

I am so beyond fed up with this shit, that my vote for POTUS will go to the first person who promises to declare the entire GWB admin "enemy combatants" and ship them off the Gitmo for "information extraction".

The future of US democracy demands nothing less.

Disputo,

Again, I was not discussing Gonzales' guilt in a technical sense (which as an aside would be a far easier tack for me to take). My point remains that despite weeks of effort, the Dems have been able to offer nothing that actual moves in the direction of building a case against him. I'm not asking for the Dems to prove Gonzales is guilty of anything but I am expecting them to offer some kind of fact-based argument for what he may be guilty of and why. Instead, all we get is "breadcrumbs" and the invariable invocation of the dreaded "Rove." And hordes of angry liberals demanding Gonzales be thrown out of office without offering a single, substantiated reason why.

i>Dems, including practically everyone in these comments, are calling for Gonzales to be impeached now even though there has been absolutely NO movement towards establishing he is guilty of an impeachable offense

And again, dimwit, Gonzales' own recent testimony, to say nothing of the established public record of the USA scandal -- you know, USAs fired for not pursuing bogus, politically-motivated charges to help Republicans win elections -- has already established, as Stefan pointed out, all the evidence anyone would need.

I remind you that several Republican Senators were disgusted by Gonzales' manifest contempt for Congressional oversight. (Whether they vote to remove him remains to be seen, of course.)

So yes, lackwit, when we refer to Gonzales' disualifications for office, we're referring to an established record, and no, we aren't going to reiterate it with every post just to assuage your mighty ignorance.

Tool.

Disput, you wrote:

"I am so beyond fed up with this shit, that my vote for POTUS will go to the first person who promises to declare the entire GWB admin "enemy combatants" and ship them off the Gitmo for "information extraction"."

I guess makes you, in your own words, a "take-away-habeas-and-torture-the-truth-out-of-them cretin."

Nice work.

My point remains that despite weeks of effort, the Dems have been able to offer nothing that actual moves in the direction of building a case against him.

And again, dope, they don't need to -- they have Gonzales' own recent testimony to establish his incompetence and bad faith.

Of course, the public record goes far beyond that.

Your feeble attempts to claim ignorance to pretned there's no case here would be laughable if they weren't so contemptibly in defense of a corrupt administration.

Which is laughable since Dems, including practically everyone in these comments, are calling for Gonzales to be impeached now even though there has been absolutely NO movement towards establishing he is guilty of an impeachable offense.

Hey, if you can hold hundreds of suspects in Guantanamo for years with NO movement towards establishing they are guilty of a criminal offense, why should impeaching Gonzalez be held to a higher standard? At least we're not proposing to waterboard him...yet.

And hordes of angry liberals demanding Gonzales be thrown out of office without offering a single, substantiated reason why.

So, you're backing out of one lie right into another? Good job. You make the cut.

(Btw, I love the Rovian phrase "guilt in a technical sense". You get extra points for that.)

I guess makes you, in your own words, a "take-away-habeas-and-torture-the-truth-out-of-them cretin."

If you weren't a complete idiot, you would know that the constitution allows for the suspension of habeas in times of rebellion or invasion, and the GWB admin fits both of those cases. And so do you.

I am completely beyond fed up with chuckleheads like you who continue to try to destroy my country. It is about time for you to be held accountable. Be a man and deal with it.

Hacksaw: Moreover, I wouldn't take much issue with those arguing the incompetence line...

That is evidence enough for his resignation (as was the case with Brownie) and since Gonzales refuses to resign, then impeachment is the remedy. Are you for keeping an incompetent AG in the Administration? Are you, Hacksaw?

Dahlia was right on. She did miss my favorite catch phrase though: when asked why he won't release documents or find out anything on his own: "Ahm recuuuused'.

I laugh to keep from weeping...

I've got to believe that what Congressional Dems are really planning to do is to investigate Purgegate until they get to the bottom of it, or until the Bush WH simply stonewalls on every remaining point.

THAT is the time at which impeachment proceedings against Gonzales should be seriously pressed. It makes no sense to do so at any earlier stage: when that impasse is reached, then, and only then, can Democrats make the strongest possible case for Gonzales' impeachment. Let's see at that time how many Republicans will find it politically tenable to vote against impeaching Gonzales.

Basic ruling maxim: don't shoot until you see the whites of their eyes.

IIRC, many legal theorists hold this to be the case under the current Const, but it has not been tested.

I don't think that's correct. Many legal theorists hold that an offense must have occurred before it can be pardoned (that are pardon cannot be prospective), but I don't think many argue that there must have been a conviction, as a matter of Constitutional law.

Gregory, you wrote:

"Gonzales' own recent testimony, to say nothing of the established public record of the USA scandal -- you know, USAs fired for not pursuing bogus, politically-motivated charges to help Republicans win elections -- has already established, as Stefan pointed out, all the evidence anyone would need."

Sefan only pointed out, correctly, that the standards of evidence needed for impeachment are lower than for those in a criminal trial. But even by those lower standards, the public record (to say nothing of Gonzales' testimony) hardly establish what you claim they do. Sure the Dems could initiate impeachment proceedings, but they would immediately be required to actual present articles of impeachment laying out why they think impeachment is warranted. The reality is that they have nothing more to add to this process now than they did weeks ago when the "issue" started. THAT is why they haven't impeached Gonzales.

Apollo 13 - I'm not a fan of Gonzales because I think he isn't a particularly good AG. I wouldn't be sorry to see him replaced. But that doesn't mean I have to buy into any of the impeachment madness that we are addressing.

Hacksaw, you didn't answer my question: Are you for keeping an incompetent AG in the Administration? Are you, Hacksaw?

"now that it's legal to redistrict whenever, I see no reason why Dems in control can't redistict as well"

Absof###inglutely right. Needs to be done asap in places like Illinois and New Jersey. Anywhere there are a bunch o congresspeople and Dem control of statehouse(-s) and governor.

Re General Gonzo, has anyone in Congress asked him just exactly WHO constitutes the "senior leadership of the department"? Then call each and every one and ask what their participation was in drawing up the list. When they all deny any role, General Gonzo can be impeached for lying to Congress.

I'm all in favor of impeaching somebody's ass in this God Offal Party administration, and getting rid of both the Little Idiot and DiK Tsheny (did you see that Iraqi marching poster?) is highly unlikely, I would think. Peeling off the necessary Republican't votes to put Speaker Pelosi in the White House is unimaginable.

So General Gonzo is as good a target as we can find, I think, and would allow all the torture stuff and getting rid of habeas corpus to be explored, too.

hacksaw, one of the ways we know you are a propagandistic hack is that you think calling this matter "incompetence" rather than either "unacceptable behavior by the attorney general" or "criminal" (or both).

the crimes at hand are: a.) lying to congress (indisputable) and b.) obstruction of justice (firing carol lam to stymie her investigation). We've also got pretty good evidence that people's jobs were threatened unless they brought unfounded criminal charges, which is bound to be a crime of some sort (a deeper legal expert than i will have to tell you which) and we may even be looking at Hatch Act violations.

In addition, it is a crime to use the RNC to hide business being done on the public payroll (the secret email accounts) and it's contempt to fail to comply with congressional subpoenas (as the justice department has done).

and that's just based on the evidence we actually have, which is nothing compared to the evidence that the bush administration is actively covering up.

to call all that "incompetence" is contempibly stupid.

Beyond everything else, there should, obviously, be a far, far lower bar for impeachment of the Attorney General than for other Cabinet members and officials.

In case Republicans forgot, the Attorney General bears a very high burden for impeccable behavior, precisely because he represents the administration of objective, unbiased justice. How absurd is it that only actual CRIMINAL behavior would suffice as a legitimate reason to impeach him? How can an Attorney General possibly perform his job with anything like the right moral authority if he has engaged in shameless deceits, even if technically not perjury?

Amusingly, Hack's standard for impeaching the Attorney General is higher than the standard the Republicans used for impeaching a President.

There are only two choices for AG - he is either a functional moron or he's been lying to Congress. Neither is acceptable and both are impeachable.

Howard - I think your list is a good one from the perspective of laying out the case. It remains to be seen what is actually "indisputable."

Apollo 13 - I wasn't siding with the folks calling Gonzales incompetent (which clearly would be grounds for replacing him) but was saying I could better understand their arguments. S