What I’d seriously like to know is what’s preventing the whole spool of yarn that is this administratration from completely unravelling. Gonzales has been a train wreck from day one. Couple him with Bush, Rove, Cheney and the rest of the true-believers within the Bush administration with all the never-ending scandals, corruption and lies, not to mention an illegal war and uncountable, unnessesary deaths, and you have an unmittigated disaster of literally global proportions.
When the Hell is someone going to step up to the plate and impeach these freaks?
It’s kind of pointless for the House to impeach unless they’re reasonably sure 2/3 of the Senate would vote to convict; which is doubtful in view of the latter’s current partisan composition – 51 Dems, 49 Pubs.
I respectfully disagree. If this administration and this president are not worthy of impeachment then none are, in my opinion. One would hope for a conviction, and my desire is the fervent goal of those who would initiate impeachment proceedings is conviction, but not having a guarantee of a conviction should not negate the necessity of an impeachment. The felonious Bush administration needs to be stopped so dead and cold in its tracks that it can do no further harm to the nation and the world. Who knows what that idiot Bush and his cadre of crazies will do with another year+ to play with unchecked?
If the offenses are clear enough that the public accepts their validity and seriousness, then impeachment sans conviction serves to highlight which party is obstructing justice in the larger and less technical sense.
Congress should first demand a special prosecutor to look into the issue, since our AG can’t investigate his own potential (a) gaming of the US Atty positions for political gain, and (b) perjury, in an impartial manner. If Gonzales refuses to appoint one, the House should impeach him.
Has Karl Rove ever, in all his life, testified under oath?
Can he do so without bursting into flames?
You know, it just occurred to me that every one of those 262 Dems now can use this story to challenge their prosecutions/indictments as politically motivated.
Meaning, some who really are dirty might wriggle free.
As the credibility, legitimacy and effectiveness of the U.S. Justice Department continue to erode . . .
The best awful thing about sharks is that they sadly underestimate sharkish behaviour, understandably, who wants to get eaten, butHere it comes, with tearing teeth:
It’s one thing to handle political matters in the status quo operandi, but this firing is shaking it all to the bones. We should all be very alarmed by this.
I read that quote today, Squink, but I’m not holding my breath. Specter is one of my senators (he used to be the “good” senator, if only in relative terms next to Santorum), and he has a long history, like Chuck Hagel, of talking a good spiel but falling neatly back into the party line when it comes time to vote. I really hope that this whole USA thing has shaken him up enough to make him vote conscience instead of party, but I’m not optimistic.
I’m most interested, as I’m sure everyone is, in the USA’s who “played ball.” Given the reports (true or not) that Bush wanted to fire all the USA’s after the Republicans lost the mid-term elections, and that Gonzales or someone talked him out of it, I’m interested in the arguments used to save the jobs of 85% of the USA’s. In other words, if the ones who got fired are the ones who refused to bow to political pressure, I want to know about the ones who did bow to political pressure. But I’m sure we’ll never know…
Take a look at New Jersey just prior to the elections in November.
Now, I don’t want to try to paint Menendez as some beleaguered saint, because the accusations aren’t completely baseless, but the timing of the prosecution is very suspect. This case is one that keeps getting mentioned in the liberal blogs when the question of “Which USAs DID play ball?” comes up.
CNN.com today has photos of all the fired U.S. attorneys, excerpts from the DoJ’s congressional testimony as to the putative reasons why they were fired, and excerpts from their 2005 performance evaluations. A bit of a disconnect there, to put it mildly.
Campion, I thought that Harriet Miers et al. proposed firing all U.S. attorneys en masse in late 2004, after Bush won reelection, and not after the 2006 midterm elections.
Now John Conyers wants Karl Rove to testify under oath about his role in this business!