Why bother with explanations from this guy? It'll be some other sleazy lie that he will backtrack on if any evidence surfaces to contradict it. Impeach him already.

Yeah, Gonzalez is quite good at giving direct answers to clarify things when he says stuff that turns out later to be easily proven false. I'm sure everything will be clear by noon tomorrow.

Yet another step in the Kabuki dance called "Run out the Clock"

Jeez folks, show him the door NOW

"Stop quoting the laws to us. We carry swords." - Pompey

It seems to me that when Gonzalez says this, he's distinguishing betweeen "the program the president confirmed" (in December of 2005) -- which he had claimed there was no controversey about -- and the program Comey refused to authorize. Of course both of these are the "TSP." But, when all those DOJ guys threatened to resign, they DID modify it to make Comey agree it was legal. So technically, the pre-modification (and evidently illegal) version of the TSP is what caused the controversy, and the post-modification (legal) version of the program did not. That's why, I think, Gonzales keeps trying to say it was "other activities."

Looks like an open and shut case. Congress should cite Gonzales for contempt of congress and then send it along to the US Attorney General to prosecute it.

Oh wait.

I would have had more respect for Gonzales if he had concluded his remarks by turning his back to the panel, bending over, and mooning them. (at least that way your average Republican would have finally understood the sum and substance of the Attorney General's testimony).

turns out the dates of all the TSP meetings were the subject of a memo from John Negroponte last year.

Powerline explains why the memo does not contradict Gonzales's testimony.

Link

"This the AP says ,"contradicts Gonzales's testimony," but of course it doesn't. The memo doesn't say that the only program discussed at the meeting was the TSP, nor does it say that the TSP was the one on which the Justice Department (Ashcroft and Comey) had suddenly changed its mind, leading to the famous hospital visit. The document, as described by the AP, confirms Gonzales's testimony that he met with Congressional leaders shortly before visiting the hospital; to the extent that the AP describes it, it does not contradict the Attorney General's testimony."
"It wouldn't be hard to figure out whether the program about which DOJ changed its mind was the international terrorist surveillance program, or something else. There is a paper trail of legal memos, etc., on the subject, and a considerable number of people know the answer to the question, including at least one unimpeachable source, John Ashcroft. Given those facts, it is hard to see why Gonzales, or anyone else, would lie about the identity of the program, as the AP accuses Gonzales of doing"

Ah, the mere fact that the subject of the meeting was given as "TSP" has no bearing on whether it was discussed. Powerline; blog of the year, 2004!

What a year. What a blog.

My mountain of cynicism has become an erupting volcano given the lies of the Azalea administration.

I wish the Democrats would stop trying to make nice with these criminals. It hasn't helped them politically, anyway.

Pursue the only correct legal remedy for abominations like Gonzales - impeachment. Then Cheney next and then Bush. The longer the Dems play pattycake with these assholes, the worse our Republic suffers.

I forget where I read this, but someone was making the case that Gonzo kept referring to the TSP as "the program the President has confirmed." Then he basically asserted that some of these discussions were about something "other than The Program The President Has Confirmed," the parsing being that whatever aspects of The Program that Ashcroft and Comey were against are something different, i.e. once Ashcroft and Comey would not validate some aspects of the program, they ceased to EVER be part of the program and became "other intelligence activities" outside "The Program The President Has Confirmed."

It's like for three years throwing an all-out Super Bowl party with nachos, cocaine and strippers, and then upon getting married continuing the tradition minus the strippers and then saying that the presence of strippers is something discussed that is not part of your Super Bowl party.

The thing I was referring to above was at Glenn Greenwald's.

I remember perfectly. The meeting started with a heated argument about the weather forecast. Gonzales was fuming and ended that portion of the discussion with "fine, I'll just ask the president to classify the national weather service's 5 day forecast and see how you like that". Through the rest of the meeting he kept interjecting to Rockefeller "It's going to snow, b*tch".

Gonzales is clearly just reiterating that they discussed the weather at the meeting.

Clara's right. Gonzales is parsing his words in such a way as to refer to pre-2005 activities, about which we know nothing--and which are clearly even worse than the program that finally got confirmed. Greenwald and Digby have been all over this; both had posts about it yesterday.

Warrantless garbage monitoring?

COME ON DEMS...surprise me...let's see some real follow-up on this...anybody wanna bet it goes NOWHERE!!! Can't impeach, can't prosecute for perjury, can't do NOTHING...sick of it!!!

Even if they don't want to discuss exactly what tactics were part of the Not-TSP intelligence programs, they should at least give the Not-TSP programs a code name. Program X, or whatnot.

I can understand why they might not want to divulge what those programs entailed, even if they are no longer operative. Wouldn't want the bad guys to know what we *weren't* doing to them, right? Of course, the fact that nobody has articulated this simple argument makes me doubt its validity.

The democrats have not done anything but piss themselves since being put in charge.

Too bad our WH is filled with dishonorable men (and Harriet Miers). An honorable man, not AGAG, would feel the embarrassment of such incompetence and deception. An honorable leader, not Mr. Bush, would have already worked to ameliorate for the American public the incompetence and deception by demanding AGAG's resignation or just out and out firing him.

But alas, we have no honor in the WH at this time, only authoritarians who what us to eat whatever they serve us, and quite frankly I'm tired of eating their shit! -Kevo

Looks like Gonzales has some 'splainin to do.

I hardly doubt it. To me it would appear that Democrats have played a dishonest game of "gotcha" that hasn't "gotten" anyone. Go ahead! Hold Gonzalez up to a standard that no Democrat could ever meet--Bush will simply pardon him and you'll be left by the side of a lonely road, holding a dusty bag of nothing to show for your efforts. Hey, liberals--why don't you end the war? Why don't you do something useful, besides raising taxes and handing out goodie bags? The minimum wage was kicked up for the umpteenth time and I had to give everyone who works on my property a raise. Thanks a lot! Glad to see what you'll do with power!

The President is not above the law--the President executes the law. And inherent in his execution of the law is the inherent power of the pardon. Deal with it! You can't keep refighting 2000 and 2004 over and over again. Your side did not prevail. Grow up and quit waiting for someone to hand you a bag of money and a badge with fifty cool points.

Gonzalez has gotten rid of the morons on his staff and is not trying to honestly correct the record. He has not been well served by his staff--and, believe me, that can lead to all sorts of issues.

Much ado about nothing, I'm afraid.

How the heck did Berty get where he is if he's physically incapable of fibbing effectively, uniformly, and consistently?

Gonzalez has gotten rid of the morons on his staff and is not trying to honestly correct the record.

the only accurate sentence in that rant.

Gonzales is liar, deal with it.

Once again I'm tired of responding to the ravings of a kool aid drinker like Normie. Whats the point? Some people will believe the worlds flat no matter how many times you show them it isn't.
Gonzalez is a criminal. The fact that he'd even try to obstruct the truth in this matter is a stinging indictment of why he shouldn't be the head of the dod.

Quoth Norman, "...The President is not above the law--the President executes the law..."

He certainly does execute the law. He's done this several times over. Firing squad, lethal injection, electrocution, hanging.

He'd try water-boarding the law, but needs to keep up the pretense that the US doesn't believe in torture.

Sorry I meant I meant the Justice dept. not dod.

Mr. Rogers it seems you have a very incomplete set of ideas about our Constitutional heritage. Our nation's tenets are not based on a Dem v. Rep dynamic. As a Republican, I am absolutely for removing this cancer to our democracy located at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave in DC. I would ask that you remove your ideological blinders and help our nation out of this crisis.

The personnel currently in the WH are thumbing their noses at the rule of law. Do you think yourself so safe in the brave new world of Bush rule that you too would take your eyes off the menace to our way of life this WH has been trying to force upon us all? Just want to know. -Kevo

Even if they don't want to discuss exactly what tactics were part of the Not-TSP intelligence programs, they should at least give the Not-TSP programs a code name. Program X, or whatnot.

Unless there has been a Fidelius Charm placed on the unknown program. Then Gonzales would be completely unable to name the program and answer questions. Leahy would have to question the secret keeper or we would have to wait until the secret keeper died.

Gonzo is a lying sack of sh*t. The fact that he has the full confidence of the President says a lot about this administration.

Normie: Bush can't pardon an impeachment. I'd like to see Gonzo behind bars, but it's imperative that we get him out of the AG office. So have your president execute that, eh?

Gonzo is a lying sack of sh*t. The fact that he has the full confidence of the President says a lot about this administration.

The fact that Senate Republicans would presumably not vote to remove him says a lot about the Republican Party in general.

The liberals and progressives with their vigorous support for illegal aliens have firmly established the principle that there are more important values than the rule of law, and we must live under these new principles and make judgements on a case by case analysis following the vagaries of the day.

If Gonzales advises breaking the laws on illegal wiretapping because national security concerns are more important, how does this differ from Ted Kennedy and John McCain supporting illegal infiltration? I don't get it.

This seems purely political theater. Liberals can break the law for higher values, but conservatives can't. LOL.

Does anyone want to start a pool on how long before the White House announces that DoJ will not accept referrals from Congress for perjury cases against members of the executive branch? This isn't just contempt, it's both lying under oath and making false statements to congress.

Three federal crimes in one hearing -- Gonzales hit the trifecta.

Clara's explanation of Gonzales' verbal gymnastics is exactly right. To bad he did not stick the dismount.

Norman said: "Hold Gonzalez up to a standard that no Democrat could ever meet--Bush will simply pardon him and you'll be left by the side of a lonely road, holding a dusty bag of nothing to show for your efforts." And I see Luther following suit.

Nice to see more Bush supporters that believe in following the rules. It's like little kids telling Mommy "Joey did it, why can't I?"

Isn't the Attorney General considered to be our nation's "top law enforcement official"? If true, that Gonzales continues to serve speaks volumes about the state of law enforcement in America today.

mhr lecturing anyone about "class" is like a prostitute lecturing on chastity.

Sorry about the 'to bad' above...of course it should be 'too bad'.

If you have not seen it, Marcy Wheeler has put together a timeline for a unified theory of the Duke Cunningham/Domestic Spying/US Attorney purge. It explains the desperation of the WH to stonewall the Congressional investigations into the USA purges, since Carol Lam's firing was obvious obstruction of investigations that lead right to Cheney.

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/07/cunningham-cifa.html

The Dems must respond to this. Gonzales' testimony was the second time Leahy was told to f*** himself.

Luther

If "infiltration" is illegal, then why do we allow so many to cross the border? Why do so many Republican businessmen hire these illegals? Why are businesses allowed to advertise in Mexico for workers? Why are the workers arrested in raids but not the employers?

Oh, right, those big liberal bullies Ted Kennedy and John McCain made them do it.

liberals who write in to the Washington Post and call Gonzalez a "cockroach."

What? That's outrageous. I certainly hope the Post apologizes to cockroaches everywhere.

I recall the days, very long ago, when it was rightwingers who were the racists

Not so long ago, my friend, but nice try.

That said, how is calling Gonzales on his lying and contempt for our system of government "racist"?

Still, it must really smart for MeatHead Republican to lose the coveted "deranged wingnut talking point of the day" contest to Luther and his "illegal infiltration, and have him undercut mhr's disavowal of Republican racism into the bargain.

Sometime ago I read the testimony of Karl Rove to the Texas legislature regarding some wrong doing by the thug extraordinnaire Mr. Rove himself. It was a masterpiece of obfuscation, deflection, and equivocation.

Gonzales has learnt from a great teacher. And learnt very well indeed.

Could we liberals stop the argument already that Gonzales really wasn't being shamefully deceptive, at bare minimum, when he testified before the Senate yesterday?

Yeah, he may have had in the recesses of his woolly mind that there was a distinction between TSP and the "other" intelligence activities he was trying to get approved by Ashcroft.

But he had a million bazillion opportunities to make it crystal clear to the Senate that that was what he did indeed mean by his statements, and he steadfastly refused to take that step. Really, how hard could that clarifying statement possibly be? He could simply have said that "When I use the term 'TSP', what I mean by it is the exact program that the President has confirmed. The 'other' activities were those that were NOT covered under the program that was confirmed. And when I say that I attended a briefing with the Congress about these other activities, I meant a briefing in which BOTH the TSP and the other activities were discussed. Perhaps members of Congress who were present are themselves unclear in their own minds on the distinction between the two sets of activities."

There was obvious confusion there was about this very issue and distinction amongst the Senators. How can anyone pretend that it represented anything other than an outrageous attempt at deception that Gonzales refused to offer such a simple explanation, if that is indeed what he had in mind?

And why are liberals trying to give him any cover here?

Luther and mhr your partisan blinders sadden me. This circumstance we are witnessing transcends your myopia. Please begin your studies of the Çonstitution and what the rule of law is all about. This Administration has begun an odyssey for us Åmericans that will surely lead to whim and caprice - not respect for the law. It has used signing statements to tell us it is above the signed legislation. It has thumbed its nose at FISA legislation. It has demoralized our fine men and women in uniform by gerry-rigging tours of duty in a conflict that produces more death and destruction than progress. It has advised its former aid and current CoS to defy a formal Congressional request to testify. And surely we have only witnessed the tip of its iceberg that is on a collision to sink our democratic ship of state.

What is it you are not getting here? Are our partisan blinders so large you too would gladly work to obstruct our finding out the truth? Both of your posts here smack more of ignorance than concern for our beloved republic. Get an education and get back to us when you fully understand what is actually going on before our eyes at this juncture of our national history. -Kevo

This seems purely political theater. Liberals can break the law for higher values, but conservatives can't. LOL. Posted by: Luther on July 26, 2007 at 10:49 AM

I would like to see a link or some factual basis for this rather all encompassing comment.

It seems that the more specific Democrats get about Bush and his antics, the more generalized Bush supporters have to get to cover his butt for him.

This is the ATTORNEY GENERAL lying his ass off in front of Congress, and not even making a half assed attempt to conceal it.

This is the man charged with prosecuting the laws of our land, who has REPEATEDLY, BLANTEDLY, LIED TO OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS, UNDER OATH.

The "President" stands by HIS man while the "liberal" press paints it as ho hum political theater.

Welcome to the death of America.

frankly0: Could we liberals stop the argument already that Gonzales really wasn't being shamefully deceptive, at bare minimum, when he testified before the Senate yesterday?

Yeah, he may have had in the recesses of his woolly mind that there was a distinction between TSP and the "other" intelligence activities he was trying to get approved by Ashcroft.

But he had a million bazillion opportunities to make it crystal clear to the Senate that that was what he did indeed mean by his statements, and he steadfastly refused to take that step. Really, how hard could that clarifying statement possibly be?

Pretty damned hard, if taking it will get you and your boss impeached.

I don't view our discussing the distinction as "giving Gonzales cover"--it's just the opposite. It's quite obvious that Gonzales is walking a linguistic tightwire, purposefully misleading if not outright lying, in an attempt to prevent the details of the "other activities" coming out. (And I am leaving aside for the moment the other outright falsehoods strewn throughout his testimony.)

Those details need to come out--pronto. Every time Abu opens his mouth, the evidence mounts that what the administration was already doing or proposed doing outside the confirmed program is many miles worse than the version that made it to the sunlight. And as we all agree, that version was more than bad enough.

Sorry I meant I meant the Justice dept. not dod.

Once again I'm tired of responding to the ravings of a kool aid drinker like Gandalf. Someone needs to put their Daddy's bathrobe back and get a subscription to a magazine that shows pictures of girls or something. How do you expect to enter the dating world with a handle like that? And, by the by, the Lord of the Rings is so yesterday. Kind of like the credibility of lunatical Democrats...

You know, you all ignore me at your peril.

Well Mr. Rogers, I am a Republican, and I am here. You, my dear sir, seem to need to board the Trolley and go back to your kiddy kingdom. -Kevo

Welcome to the death of America.

You know, Mr. Bill O'Reilly was asking loyal Americans to not buy into the hate sites, such as this one, DailyKos, CNN.com, etc., and he was asking us to report to the government when we see such degrading, hateful comments.

Consider yourself reported, sir. I'm merely doing my job as a loyal American.

Normie: Bush can't pardon an impeachment.

Wrong! He can ignore an impeachment. In the matter of whether the Executive Branch must comply with an Act of Congress, the answer is, most emphatically "no." The Congress does not have jurisdiction OVER the Executive. It is a co-equal branch. Co-equal. That means, they are both equal and the same. Case closed.

The President can pardon an impeached individual, COMMUTE the punishment that they were given, and can then use a RECESSS APPOINTMENT to put that person BACK in the position they were removed from.

I guarantee you--when he does it, and when liberals howl like babies, I will be sitting right here, laughing my fool head off.

Bwah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah!

That's a "gotcha!" if there ever was one!

kevo: [This administration] has used signing statements to tell us it is above the signed legislation. It has thumbed its nose at FISA legislation. . . . It has advised its former aid and current CoS to defy a formal Congressional request to testify.

And it has used the Justice Department like a handy tool to attain partisan ends.

In other words, it is working hard to turn the presidency into a battleship of power and secrecy that swamps the legislative and judicial branches--just in time to turn it over to a Democrat, who will probably have Democratic majorities in Congress.

When is it going to dawn on Republicans that this administration is in this for greed alone? They and their rich friends sucked as much money out of the system as they could, giving no thought to the future. What global warming? What peak oil? I've got health insurance; why should I care about somebody else? My kids go to private schools; why should I care about making public schools successful when my friends can make money from privatizing them? Americans are dying in Iraq; they're not my kids and look at the profits going to the corporations!

Obviously they don't really think Democrats are the worst thing that could happen to the United States. They'll have enough money to withstand or escape higher taxes. The money is all they care about.

They're going to leave the rest of you at the mercy of Democratic rule, with a Democratic president who can be more wilful and secretive than ever before, and they're not thinking twice about it.

Or maybe it has all been an elaborate conspiracy to discredit Republicans forever and install a permanent Democratic tyrant. If so, it looks like it will be a resounding success.

Mr. Rogers, Mr. Rogers: Please amend your last sentence to "I'm merely doing my job as a(n) ignorant loyal American." You can't, it seems, discern a rhetorical statement of concern from a declaratory statement.

Please become more learned before you open your mouth and cause people to realize you know nothing! -Kevo

….Much ado about nothing… Norman Rogers at 9:38 AM

By Amy Goldstein

House Democrats, preparing for a vote today on contempt citations against President Bush's chief of staff and former counsel, produced a report yesterday that for the first time alleges specific ways that several administration officials may have broken the law during the multiple firings of U.S. attorneys.
The report says that Congress's seven-month investigation into the firings raises "serious concerns" that senior White House and Justice Department aides involved in the removal of nine U.S. attorneys last year may have obstructed justice and violated federal statutes that protect civil service employees, prohibit political retaliation against government officials and cover presidential records…

At the beginnings of every investigation of Republicans, their loyal little bootlickers insisted there was no evidence of wrong doing: Watergate, Iran-Contra, GSA, Abramoff, all of them. It is such a tired old talking point and yet every RNC hack leaps to it as if they invented it.

Bwah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah!
Norman Rogers at 12:59 PM

Yo, Norm...Would that be the same Bill-O that Aravosis exposed as a terrorist sympathizer? I mean, what else would you call someone who leaves up comments on his website that advocate assassinating the Democratic frontrunner (who has Secret Service protection) and burnign down the capitol "Like Hitler did the Reichstag"? That fucking fascist-wannabe?

Back to braying jackass mode. By the way, the Secret Service is looking into some hate speech on O'Reilly.com

No doubt put there by liberals. Please understand one thing--Republicans don't hate people; liberals are the ones who have fear and hate embedded into their souls.

By the by, Mr. Mike--how are the Democrats doing on eradicating that killer bee issue? Are they protecting the Homeland? The last time I checked, they were trying to cut off funding for the troops and leave an American Army trapped in the Middle East.

The fact remains that Bill O huffed and puffed and maintained that he has a website, and content can be controlled and they take down all objectionable content. Yet right there on his site, terroristic threats. What is objectionable has a different meaning to Bill O and his ilk than it does to descent people. Maybe he doesn't consider political assassination objectionable?

The President can pardon an impeached individual

Not so. U.S. Const., Art II., S. 2 (emphasis added):

The President [...] shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

…eradicating that killer bee issue?….leave an American Army trapped in the Middle East.Norman Rogers at 1:12 PM

The President [...] shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

Ah, but if he pardons someone BEFORE they are impeached, they CANNOT be impeached for an offense for which they have been granted a pardon.

See: George HW Bush, Christmas Eve, 1992.

I recall the days, very long ago, when it was rightwingers who were the racists

Not so long ago, my friend, but nice try

Long ago? Hell, wasn't that just yesterday on Michelle Malkin's site? And O'Reilly's? And Limbaugh's? And...

Luther: If Gonzales advises breaking the laws on illegal wiretapping because national security concerns are more important, how does this differ from Ted Kennedy and John McCain supporting illegal infiltration?

Because they are not supporting illegal infiltration; they are simply trying to make the "infiltration" legal.

Advocating for the legalization of marijuana is not advocating illegal use of marijuana.

Of course, you know this, but you are either a liar or too dim to understand the distinction.

I don't get it.

Or, you are lying.

This seems purely political theater.

You wish.

Polls tell a different story.

Democrats continue to lead Republicans on the top 10 issues routinely measured by Rasmussen.

LOL.

Liberals can break the law for higher values, but conservatives can't.

Even if liberals were in fact advocating breaking the law by supporting fewer immigration restrictions and less harsh methods for dealing with illegal immigrants, that would not actually be breaking the law, so this statement is dishonest.

Not that we expect any less from you, Luther.

Neither McCain (who, btw, is not a liberal, you doofus) or Kennedy are breaking any laws with respect to immigration.

If you think they are, then cough up the evidence.

I'm still waiting for Mr. Rogers, mhr and Luther to respond to my observations. Is it a matter of the 13th Republican commandment? Gentlemen, I submit that you haven't a fraction of a clue as to what this Republican Adminstration has done to our bodypolitik.

We are in a fullfledged Constitutional crisis here in America, brought about primarily by the obstruction offered up by Mr. Fielding and his bosses in the WH. Do you not, Mr. Rogers, mhr and Luther, hold yourselves up as law abiding American citizens first, and party affiliates second? Would you rather see a one-party nation known as the United States of Republicans? Remember, these are rhetorical questions. But as a member of the Republican party for over the past 25 years, I must say uncategorically that this Administration has proven anathema to our cultural, national and Constitutional heritage. -Kevo

P.S. From your above posts I can only discern that you are either ignorant, or dishonest.

Ah, but if he pardons someone BEFORE they are impeached, they CANNOT be impeached for an offense for which they have been granted a pardon. See: George HW Bush, Christmas Eve, 1992. Posted by: Norman Rogers

I see Rogers's dumb-as-a-box-of-rocks personality is in charge today. Impeachment is a political, not criminal, action. The sanction is not criminal in nature -- the only thing that happens if you get convicted is removal from office. A pardon does not save you from impeachment.

Just to explain my post above regarding my recommendations for the Democrats to pursue the executive privilege issue.

There is an important point to the graduated approach (first, to insist that the Bush WH allow the US Attorney to prosecute contempt against Meiers and Bolten, then to move to inherent contempt if the Bush WH indicates it will refuse to allow the US Attorney to prosecute, then to impeachment if the Bush WH interferes with inherent contempt). Upping the stakes gradually allows the Bush WH to acknowledge that executive privilege does NOT trump all other concerns without taking more extreme measures. That acknowledgment is, of course, the precise issue most fundamentally at stake here.

On the other hand, if the Bush WH refuses at every step to cave in, then the impeachment proceeding will be fully justified from a Constitutional and political point of view. They will have been given every opportunity to acknowledge the legitimacy of Congressional oversight at a lower level, yet will have chosen to push it to the extreme of impeachment proceedings for resolution. The burden for that grave step will land entirely on them.

kevo: I'm still waiting for Mr. Rogers, mhr and Luther to respond to my observations.

Perhaps you will hear their terrified whimpers when the Bush administration abandons them to the bulletproof Democratic Presidency in 2009.

*blowing kisses* *waving extravagantly*
Bush: "G'bye to all you guys who kept voting against your own interests. I couldn't have done it without you. Be sure and drop in for a non-alcholic beer if you're ever in Paraguay. Thanks for all the money. Oh, and I didn't mean all those things about the terrorists coming to get you if the Democrats were in power. I just had to say that so we could keep making money by exerting political influence and twisting laws to favor our corporate friends. Stop looking so worried, ya nuts. Democrats LOVE this country. I don't get it, but they do."

FBI director contradicts Gonzales

By LAURIE KELLMAN and LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writers 21 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - FBI Director Robert S. Mueller said Thursday the government's terrorist surveillance program was the topic of a 2004 hospital room dispute between top Bush administration officials, contradicting Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' sworn Senate testimony...

Oops

Thanks cowalker for the musing. Yes, Paraguay sounds like the most likely destination for the fascist crowd in our WH! -Kevo

Norm, Norm. You do realize that the only reason people respond to your posts is to see what kind of an asshat answer you'll come up with next, don't you? You've really outdone yourself in terms of ignorance today. My congratulations, sir, as you've now shown yourself to be dumber than a breadbox.

By the way, check your sources next time you want to make a consititutional arguement. Try reading it once, ok?

Yes, Norm stopped being funny when it became clear that he really enjoys seeing our soldiers killed over there, and wants that to keep happening as long as it can, simply so it can infuriate people who still care -- the majority of Americans, as it happens, not that supercilious traitors like him care about such things.

Not to be neglected, SO -- the Founders intended for impeachment to be a power of the many elected legislators, as a branch of government, over the unelected officials of the executive and judiciary branches. It is deliberately not easy, and has only once been done for frivolous political reasons (Clinton). But it remains an essential power of "We, the People" through our elected representatives and Senators. It's not about the legislative branch, ultimately.

Sure, a judge is nominated by the executive and confirmed by the Senate, but the Founders provided impeachment (even of Justices) precisely to ensure that the ultimate authority stayed with "We, the People."

Likewise, the President is elected (along with his running mate), but they can NOT simply hire whoever the hell they want to run the government: Madison and George Mason made sure of it. For a very broad chunk of the top officials, working for the executive requires the advice and consent of the Senate. THOSE are the folks who can be not only impeached, but removed from office by the legislative branch.

Woe to America if a President ever decided to make a recess appointment of someone removed from office by impeachment. That's not only illegal, under a bunch of statutes; it is also a direct and blatant violation of the Constitution.

At this point, nothing the legislative branch can do would be too harsh for the Attorney General: there isn't a Founder who didn't foresee and fear this kind of abuse by the executive branch, which is why impeachment is in the Constitution -- and beyond the President's power of pardon or evasion.

I really don't understand why somebody like the fictitious Mr. Rogers imagines himself a patriot.

A must read on the administration's attempts to hide the content and scope of the non-approved portions of the TSP--and how Gonzales' verbal gymnastics are part of those attempts.