Don't forget Laura and Barney.

Can someone please tell me why Harriet Miers should not testify under oath? She doesn't work in the WH anymore. What am I missing?

So he didn't deliberately lie.

But did he half-assedly lie? Did he indiscriminately lie? Did he lie with qualifications?

Ignorance of law does not allow impunity. If you break a law, even if you didn't know there was a law there, then you're accountable.

I would like to thank all the TPM has done to bring this latest administrations highjacking of the constitution to the forefront and to continue to keep it there.

It shows what the grassroots movement is all about.

What I would like to know is what will it take to energize the people out there to convince the Democratic leadership that taking impeachment off the table was the wrong thing to do and that the first place to start with impeachment is with Gonzales.

Once the administration see's that happening then this whole game that there are playing with who can testitify, who and where will fall like a stack cards.

IMPEACHMENT NOW!

JW1141 asks why Miers is being kept from testifying now that she no longer works for the White House. Note well that Gonzales' number 2, Sampson, has "resigned", but he still works for the Justice department in a different capacity -- I'm sure for exactly that reason.

Thad

One of the reasons Rumsfeld didn't get fired during the Nixon administration was that during the final months before Nixon's resignation, Rumsfeld was one of the only Republicans who would publically support Nixon.

Yes, pol. "Straightforward and honest" with Republicans = lying to everyone else in order to protect one's hide.

How appropriate that my security code word for this post is "snake."

Just watched Sen. Specter on Meet The Press. Transcript not yet available, but I'm sure I heard a variation of the following. Specter responded to a question regarding the USA purge by revealing that he spoke with AG Gonzales "yesterday." A little later, in response to a question about his confidence in the AG's ability to lead the Justice Department, he said that there were questions he needed to answer in order to earn Specter's confidence. My question is-- if he met with Gonzales yesterday, why the hell didn't he ask him those questions? It seems to me if you have doubts about a man's credibility and you have the opportunity meet with him, you would logically ask those questions in order to ease your worried mind. What does Specter know that he refuses to reveal?

Security Code: shame

No one has denied the presidential authority to replace AGs. Regardless of political party, it is unfortunate that they are customarily replaced with each new electorate - especially when they are doing a good job.

The big deal about this current replacement round is that fact that it was done with the intention of deliberately establishing AGs as a "political base" to be used for political purposes.

A lot of correspondence, emails and letters, have shown this to be the truth behind the matter of replacing certain AGs.

Moreso, it shows a contempt for the law not only by those who are behind the replacements, but contempt for the law by the proposed AGs who would accept such assignments under the disclosed circumstances.

All of these people should be disbarred.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

Senators Specter, Hatch and Graham's appearance on the this week's Sunday talk shows just reaffirms what they really are. Administration "Butt Boys" willing to sell their souls for the sake of the Republican parties latest talking points of the week.

thanks oldtree - you just answered my question about Specter - he's a potential target if not already being targeted. I think this goes back to the few Senators that were briefed on the true and real content of the NSA spying.

Mr. Bush, like a leaner and more fit McKinley, has always "governed" only for the people that voted for and make cash contributions to his coffers. So, it's no surprise that Mr. Gonzales might have told Sen. Hatch the truth. He fits into that category. (How do these men distribute their talking points and stay on "message", if none of them use e-mail?)

Nor is it surprising that Sen. Hatch should be so astoundingly hypocritical, and attempt to mislead the citizens of his state and this country by blatantly misstating the obligations of those who run our government. What would be surprising is if anyone believed him.

Dab, My question exactly!

"If USAs serve at the pleasure of the President, then I would think the President would make the ultimate decision on hiring and firings and would have official papers with his signature on the hirings and firings."

IF the USAs serve at the PLEASURE of the President, then you would think the only person that they could DISPLEASE would be the president, who then would replace them.

The battle cry from the dark-side reminds us that Clinton replaced all 94 (note: not replaced by Clinton's people but, CLINTON).

Durbin said it best on MTP.
It is not the fired 8 that we wish to question Rove about, but the other prosecutors that bent to his will to be "loyal bushies" that we now question their oath's and abilities to objectively meter out investigations and prosecutorial powers.
We (the people) want Rove, and we want him under oath, in front of Congress and with transcript.
And since when can ANYONE in government stop someone who the tax payers of this country pay from testifying. I can see Dumya saying that Kristol could not testofy or the oil company execs not testify for energy policy, and we have no ability to expect them to testify because we do not pay them, but we DO PAY ROVE. So get yer ass up the hill and testify, along with ANYONE else we pay.

Security code is crush.

Bret Tolman? Interesting connection. From Utah? As was Kyle Sampson, right? There seems to be an unusual amount of Utah connections in this scandal?

The above poster is correct: Neither Specter or Hatch can be trusted on this issue.

Check out this link:
http://search.isp.netscape.com/nsisp/boomframe.jsp?query=US+Attorney+appointments+in+Utah&page=1&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3D1b57bf6489c08595%26clickedItemRank%3D15%26userQuery%3DUS%2BAttorney%2Bappointments%2Bin%2BUtah%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.realcities.com%252Fmld%252Fkrwashington%252Fnews%252Fnation%252F16555903.htm%253Ftemplate%253DcontentModules%252Fprintstory.jsp%26invocationType%3D-%26fromPage%3DNSISPTop%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.realcities.com%2Fmld%2Fkrwashington%2Fnews%2Fnation%2F16555903.htm%253Ftemplate%253DcontentModules%2Fprintstory.jsp

Since last March, the administration has named at least nine U.S. attorneys with administration ties. None would agree to an interview. They include:

-Tim Griffin, 37, the U.S. attorney for Arkansas, who was an aide to White House political adviser Karl Rove and a spokesman for the Republican National Committee.

-Rachel Paulose, 33, the U.S. attorney for Minnesota, who served briefly as a counselor to the deputy attorney general and who, according to a former boss, has been a member of the secretive, ideologically conservative Federalist Society.

-Jeff Taylor, 42, the U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., who was an aide to Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch and worked as a counselor to Gonzales and to former Attorney General John Ashcroft.

-John Wood, U.S. attorney in Kansas City, who's the husband of Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security Julie Myers and an ex-deputy general counsel of the White House Office of Management and Budget.

-Deborah Rhodes, 47, the U.S. attorney in Mobile, Ala., who was a Justice Department counselor.

-Alexander Acosta, 37, the U.S. attorney in Miami, who was an assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's civil rights division and a protege of conservative Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.

-John Richter, 43, the U.S. attorney in Oklahoma City, who was the chief of staff for the Justice Department's criminal division and acting assistant attorney general.

-Edward McNally, the U.S. attorney in southern Illinois, who was a senior associate counsel to President Bush.

-Matt Dummermuth, the U.S. attorney in Iowa, who was a Justice Department civil rights lawyer.

========================================

I see that one of the USA's appointed was a "senior associate counsel" to President Bush? Can Bush continue to pretend ignorance of the scandal and continue to distance himself from this mess?

@ March 25, 2007 02:20 PM

Re: Jeff Taylor

From a 1/4/02 Robert Novak column:

"NEARLY THREE years ago,career federal prosecutor Charles LaBella became a hero for Republicans, martyred by the Clinton administration's politicized Justice Department. Because he sought independent prosecution of Clinton-Gore campaign abuses, LaBella was denied promotion to be U.S. attorney in San Diego. But now that Republicans are in power, why has he not been named to the post he still wants to fill?...

White House staffers, uninterested in the women, really wanted Jeff Taylor -- a Justice Department lawyer who has been working in the office of Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. Kyle Sampson, a former Hatch aide who now works in the White House, along with Berenson has kept the LaBella nomination from getting to the president's desk.

Hatch himself, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, denied to me that he is supporting Taylor or blocking LaBella. But he has told others that Justice Department professional staffers report that LaBella is not a team
player. Hatch has also suggested in private that a solution might be making LaBella the U.S. attorney in San Francisco, perhaps on the theory that team
players are less needed there..."

Carol Lam got the job that Kyle Sampson and Orrin Hatch wanted for Jeff Taylor.

I would guess Jeff Taylor is the USA in charge of prosecuting Jack Abramoff and investigating Curt Weldon.

We already know Taylor covered up the Steve Griles investigation. Jack Abramoff wasn't the only one paying off Griles's girlfriend, Italia Federici, based on 990s filed by her organization, the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy. Presumably, anyone else paying off Federici was doing it to gain access to Griles and Norton.

Given that Sampson worked for Hatch before the Gonzo job--as does the current U.S. Attorney for D.C.--a guy who was appointed on September 29th, 2006 under the new Patriot Act provision was another Hatch protege--I am not surprised at his stance.

Hatch's hands may be more than a little dirty in this scandal as well.

Hatch, dependable Republican lapdog for all seasons, proves once again why he is indispensable to American fascism.

Oh, and my "code" to enter this comment into thread is "shame".

Some coincidences are just eerie, you know?

Hatch is hilarious. I feel his Pain. Maybe DW can get his approval ratings above 35% when he fires the Mexican.

From Hatch:"So, unless there is clear evidence that the attorney general deliberately lied or misled Congress,....."

Why is there this new republican mantra of lies now being "misspeaking" or "deliberately lieing" rather than just "lie"? If you know you had a meeting for over an hour to discuss the plan of firing these attorneys and then you say you had no discussions nor saw any plans.. I would say that is a deliberate lie or lie or baldfaced lie or any other word for lie when you know you did the opposite of what you are stating?
First lies become misspeakings.
Now lies have to be deliberate to count.
Do republicans ever hold themselves accountable for anything they do or say without playing word games?

I can't conceive that Miers hasn't retained counsel yet. I'm sure that WH lawyers are attempting to maintain contact with her and possibly engage her in some kind of dialog. Harriet Miers is a very smart lawyer and, whether you chose to believe it or not, she's honest. Rove is a proven lier, and if they depose him without counsel, he'll wind up in the slammer. If they ever get Harriet on the stand, with or without counsel, Shrub is finished.

Berkley: A lot of liberals are too quick to generalize the politics of Utah and (especially) of its residents. In plenty of cases, the stereotypes are true. But our largest city has voted in Democratic mayors since the 1970s, including the very liberal current mayor (see, among other things, his growing campaign to impeach Bush).

The direct influence of the LDS Church on Utah politics is debatable, and I can't say too much, considering I'm no insider. But it's certainly wrong to generalize Mormons as... well, as we're often characterized. Based on my years here, including two at the LDS Church's university in Provo, plenty of us "minions" are not blind followers of the Republican party.

Utahliberal: I was born and raised in Utah. I still have family there and I still have family who are Mormon (though not repub). I actually have a great deal of affection for the state, and I visit about once a year. BUT . . . . even though the mayor of SLC is a liberal dem, I also know that the LDS Church has an inordinate influence on local politics and not for the best.

And it sounds to me like Hatch should just take up an outright defense of honest graft.

Orrin Hatch is simply defending the GOP and th administration. He will continue to do so until hard evidence appears of wrongdoing. So far, the only crime that the available evidence supports is that Gonzales and other Justice Department offials committed perjury in their testimony to Congress. However, the available evidence certainly implies that much more serious crimes such as obstruction of justice have occurred. Time will tell.

I am curious as to why there hasn't been more of a todo over the accusations that former U.S. Attorney Sharon Eubanks made regarding interference in the Tobacco Case. There was an article about this in the Washington Post article last week. Does anyone know why this issue hasn't been more of an issue?

I still argue the Hatch was crap load saner a decade plus or so ago. What the crap happened?

Delia: I honestly can't say I know the extent to which the LDS Church influences politics. Plenty, I'm sure. I also think SOME of it can be attributed to the fact that so many state and local officials are members of the church. It seems that many are quick to blame the church for the actions of LDS legislators. And while I can't say that it doesn't happen, I also don't think it's fair to automatically assume that they're acting on behalf of the church.

And like I said and like you acknowledged, SLC's mayor is quite liberal. And when he was voted into office, it was against ANOTHER Democrat. If the church really has such an "inordinate" influence in state politics, why isn't it doing something about the capital city mayor?

I'll also note that publicly, the LDS church does not endorse candidates or parties. It's pretty rare that the church publicly speaks out on political issues. It seems that whenever Mormon Republicans do something, people attribute it to their religion. When Mormon Democrats do something, it is in spite of their religion. So why does the church only get "credit" for their Republicans?

Somebody should remind Hatch about the Marston Affair, when Jimmy Carter fired a US Attorney for political reasons.

The Justice Department probers promptly announced that Bell and Carter were cleared of any charge of obstruction of justice in the affair. But the Republican partisans on Capitol Hill had no intention of letting the Administration off so easily. Thundered Utah's Orrin Hatch: "That two-day whitewash [the Justice Department's inquiry] isn't going to satisfy anybody!"

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,945941-3,00.html

Hatch is a repub butt-boy and always has been. He's almost sickening in his kissing up to them. It doesn't matter if they're convicted murderers, if they're repubs, Hatch will stick up for them. I find it amazing he gets relected every time. I guess it says a lot about those Mormons in Utah. Hatch is more of a puppet than bush is, when it comes to following the leaders.

Orrin Hatch has been and remains one of the penultimate GOP hypocrites of all time.
He will defend the Admin. every time, no matter how grevious or undemocratic their misdeeds.
He and a few other Repugnants were responsible for amending Joseph Wilson's record of testimony before the Senate to imply it was not credible, and cast Mr. Wilson as a liar, when Hatch, in fact was doing the deceiving. And wasn't it Mr. Hatch who went out of his way to slander Anita Hill to save Clarence Thomas. I've always considered Hatch an extremist hypocrite who is very representative of what the Repugnant party has become in recent decades.
IMPEACH Gonalez first, for lying to Congress and the american people. Then just move up the line.
There are ample crimes and plenty of evidence.
Congress, do your job, remove the liars and criminals.
Charles M. King

What role of the Forex in the modern world?
http://free.hostultra.com/~mummy21/

What role of the Forex in the modern world?
http://free.hostultra.com/~mummy21/