Congress will interview Rove and Miers . . . but not under oath.

My earlier sarcastic comment about being the US attorney to handle it aside, I have no doubt that there are sufficient professionals in the Department of Justice who would handle the request to enforce a subpoena duly and properly authorized by Congress. If the administration interfered with their functioning (think Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre), I have no doubt that Congress would be quick to consider impeachment to protect their power of investigation, if nothing else.

IANAL, but what exactly is the administration’s constitutional position? Executive Priviledge can’t cover… EVERYTHING they do or that they don’t want to tell you and if you don’t like it, eat doody.

[

'Cause we all know that demanding show trials is a bad thing. :dubious:

And that partisan rhetoric is especially bad.

[

And I have no doubt that Gonzalez is being being kept on for the sole purpose of running interference if this happens.

Flames maybe not. I’m betting that great clouds of sulfur would be released as he touched the Bible, setting off the smoke alarms and sprinklers. For the good of the Capitol Building, we can’t risk that!

This whole idea of being interviewed with no record, no transcript, no oath, and no penalty for lying is ridiculous and shows just how deranged Bush is for offering it up as if it was a reasonable compromise. I think Congress should employ all those “non-torture” techniques that Gonzalez approved for the Gitmo detainees.

Which federal judges?

Link to information about judges and by whom the were appointed (sorry, Wiki)

Circular references - money to Republicans, appointments sent back down the line:

Been stacking the deck a while, perhaps. Not in anticipation of this, but to further the One Nation, Under God and One Party ideal.

Funny - I started getting flashbacks as soon as AG channeled Tricky Dick by uttering the famous words, “Mistakes were made.”

I’m sure your masters in the Government of Reason would like that very much. wouldn’t they?

No, “Mistakes were made” was Reagan.

OTOH, this part from yesterday reminded me very much of Nixon’s claim that he wasn’t concerned about himself, but was concerned about how a weakened Executive privilege might hamper future Presidents:

When I read this, my first thought was, “Doesn’t that describe a lot of what the Republicans did to Clinton during his administration?” Oh, yes. Clinton committed adultery, therefore he isn’t honorable. Presumably, if we don’t give Rove and Meiers the chance to lie under oath they will be honorable until proven dishonorable.

Which is ironic, because if he HAS been getting good advice at any point in the last six years, he sure wasn’t listening to it…

Beat me to it. If he thinks he’s getting good advice now, I’d hate to see how much worse he could do without it.

This just in: The House Sub-Committee just approved getting subpeonas.

Did anyone catch John Bolton on the Daily Show last night? He attempted reinforcing every one of the President’s talking points from yesterday and Jon Stewart neatly skewered him and served him up. Actually laughed in the man’s face when he started talking about “accountability for actions.”

Ironically, isn’t that JUST what the admin did to the original USA’s in question? :dubious:

I guess giving him a blowjob is out of the question then…

Would anyone give that poor man a blowjob and put him out of his misery?

Linky please

Here’s the CNN.

Here’s the AP one

Vielen Dank