The Office of Special Counsel, unlike the old Office of the Independent Counsel, is part of the Justice Department, therefore under Gonzalez who is under Bush. If it “doesn’t find wrongdoing,” Congress can scrutinize, certainly – and then the responsible officials can be ordered not to respond to subpoenas based on an executive-privilege claim, and then the responsible committee can issue contempt citations and refer them to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia . . . One sees the problem?
Without trying to put words in his mouth, I think Ravenman sees the problem, but doesn’t regard it as being nearly so likely as we do.
Despite disagreeing with him, I think he’s argued his side honestly and well, and I doubt that there’s anything left that he can say to convince us, or that we can say to convince him. I think we’ve reached the point where debate’s accomplished all that it can, and we’ll find out in the coming months who had the better crystal ball.
A problem that does not exist because all of these breakdowns in the investigation (and possible prosecution) simply have not occurred.
This reminds me a lot about the thread a few months ago regarding whether Bush should be impeached before he invades Iran. Only now it is whether Congress should impeach Rove before the ongoing investigation hits a roadblock.
The measure of his investigation will be its results, not whether or not I trust him.
I understood it was because a GSA official blew the whistle on the meetings. I don’t think Congress had anything to do with it until the story hit the newspapers, so perhaps you could cough up some cites about how White House staffers didn’t realize they couldn’t trust Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to sit on their dirty laundry. The more I think about that claim, the more preposterous it is.
The White House also said it doesn’t have to enforce thousands of laws passed by Congress, but so far as anyone can tell, those laws are generally being enforced. I think the White House is in an extremely weak position and those statements are basically posturing. This isn’t a dead end, it’s barely the beginning.
You’re right, thank you very much and I complement you as well, and I agree… with one caveat.
Thinking about this a little further, if Rove did indeed violate the Hatch Act, then it is overwhelmingly likely that all those who received the briefings did as well. Perhaps you should set your sights on impeachment en masse of what seems like the entire upper tier of the Executive Branch! 
And if it produces no results, pro or con, for a good long while: how long is too long?
Why? My point was that it didn’t indicate a likelihood of future White House cooperation. Seems this supports my point far better than a WH staffer briefly forgetting he wasn’t dealing with Hastert and Frist anymore.
But presumably the WH isn’t violating random laws.
I don’t see that at all. As long as impeachment is ‘off the table,’ there’s no lever that can make the White House comply with a single subpoena, AFAICT. (Depending on whether the House and Senate Sergeants-at-Arms can travel off the Capitol grounds to arrest and forcibly bring back persons held in inherent contempt of Congress. In that case, that works. If not, it doesn’t.) And on January 19, 2009, Bush can give a blanket pardon to every Administration political appointee, and they all skate.
Not so sure about the McCain Detainee Amendment. (How would we know?)
Exciting, but doubtful. They wuz just following orders. (See this thread.)