"Fine's office is empowered to refer matters for criminal prosecution if warranted."

Uhh, criminal prosecution by whom? Is Gonzales supposed to prosecute himself? I have a feeling he would decline.

I know that technically trying to shape testimony is illegal, but....prior to Abu G's testimony, he spent weeks practicing, getting his story straight with others presumably....that just seems like normal practice prior to testimony to me....

This might be more important as just another straw added to the burden on that particular camel's back, but in and of itself, it seems more a case of Goodling trying to shift the blame again

shit... how much evidence is needed to demonstrate conclusively that the attorney general of the united states is a liar and does not deserve to retain his office...?

http://takeitpersonally.bl

Could this be another charade?
Who knows? Da Shadow do.

When I listened to Monica's Senate testimony on CSPAN I thought to myself that the explanation of her feelings about the A.G.'s questions sounded more like a child describing unwanted sexual touching than testimony from lawyer who had been high up in the Administration. It's apparent that the AG lied but I'm also sure that Monica's innocent, little girl act was itself a big fat lie. A few weeks earlier this "frightened little girl" had been throwing her weight around and enjoying her part in turning the DoJ into a Republican tool to control rather than protect the public.

Can Gonzalez take an "Administrative 5th" for an investigation -- "I'm sorry I can't let my department look into this matter because the investigation might turn up something I did wrong . . ."

Ahh, he'd probably just call the investigation a partisan witch hunt and deep six it.

What will it take for the AG to go down?

There is indeed a marked difference between Glenn Fine's office and Marshall Jarrett's office here, even though Marshall came into the Department with former deputy atorney general Eric Holder under Janet Reno. But the fact that they might be seen as "tied at the hip" on this is good, and Marshall deserves the benefit of any doubt on something such as this. One should wonder, though, to whom OPR officially reports now on this? The solicitor general?

This is rapidly becoming a total farce. Not only has Bush and "his government" short-circuited the rule of law in this country, but they've gone and made satire redundant so we can't even laugh about it.

There is indeed a marked difference between Glenn Fine's office and Marshall Jarrett's office here, even though Marshall came into the Department with former deputy atorney general Eric Holder under Janet Reno. But the fact that they might be seen as "tied at the hip" on this is good, and Marshall deserves the benefit of any doubt on something such as this. One should wonder, though, to whom OPR officially reports now on this? The solicitor general?

There is indeed a marked difference between Glenn Fine's office and Marshall Jarrett's office here, even though Marshall came into the Department with former deputy atorney general Eric Holder under Janet Reno. But the fact that they might be seen as "tied at the hip" on this is good, and Marshall deserves the benefit of any doubt on something such as this. One should wonder, though, to whom OPR officially reports now on this? The solicitor general?

If Paul thinks of doing that, watch for senior attorneys in office threaten to walk. OSG is like the Civil Rights Division, even more so.

Glenn is neither a hack nor a GOP apparatchik; he is a career appointee, both by statute and by temperment. And yes, he is credible -- all the more so by dint of his institutional independence.

Yeah, the Executive Branch is going to do something against Abu G.

Will Gonzales state that he "looks forward" to the investigation?

Probably so. He apparently can't fire the investigators, but I am certain he and all the rest can make life (and career) a misery for them.

I'd say, if I were in that kind of a hot seat, I'd think of the potential personal consequences. Some folks within this mess are clearly taking a stand for our nation. They are the heroes that deserve our praise and protection. Perhaps these investigators are among this class? I'd like to think so.

How far outside of the law can and will Gonzales and the rest of them walk? We've already seen a clear demonstration that obstruction of justice, meddling in elections, and lying are A-OK. Never mind the spying, kidnapping, illegal imprisonment, and torture.

There's not much left on the list, suggesting to me that Gonzo and some of his current and former underlings may talk like pansies, but have capabilities that the exterior does not reveal.

It takes some real scroat to come up against this much irresponsibly-wielded power.

If the theory is wrong, then as usual the DOJ is just pulling another cover job. The risk is - if they don't go after Gonzo and the rest - what little confidence is left in them will evaporate.

And after that?

How long will it take for republicans in general realise that it's in their own self interest to to cut their ties to this most corrupt administration in American history, perform their sworn constitutional duties, and salvage whar little self respect they can before their party implodes before their very eyes as a public spectacle of disgrace.

Jon

Maybe no whitewash,but Idont see this going anywhere. Do you really think dems could keep quiet if they had the "goods"? Somebody would be "backgrounding" the MSM. And speaking of them, the main difference between this lil constitutional scandal and Watergate? This one is worse but doesnt have any MSM keeping it in the headlines to force the hand of nitwits in DC. Imagine this all going down in 72, why it'd be bigger than paris and michael jackson rolled into one

"The vastmajority of US citizens will tolerate so much..." JNagarya gives me hope. I pray that you are right, but life experience tells me different

Is it possible that the Justice Dept. is close to being treasonous or simply way over the line? Who prosecutes treason, the Justice Dept? So is impeachment the ONLY answer?

Somebody go edit Wikipedia to have the "conflict of interest" page to just forward to here.

This investigation would be more meaningful if all of the people appointed by Bush and hired by Gonzales were more qualified to hold his/her position.

Posted by: parfait royale
Date: June 14, 2007 04:30 PM

Treason: "Is it possible that the Justice Dept. is close to being treasonous or simply way over the line? Requires an advocacy for foreign involvement in a military conflict; with active support for that external enemy. Treason not relevant when the issue is an internal matter, as is the case here. Now, if someone were to say, "Hay, we really should have X, Y, Z person invade; and I'm going to spend money to support the overthrow" -- that wold be treason _if_ there were steps taken to transfer money; and there were specific actions to wage war against the US. That isn't happening here.

"Who prosecutes treason, the Justice Dept?" Yes, and if the DOJ refuses, other prosecutors can; as can Grand Juries -- outside the prosecution -- who can independently review an issue, and do something the Prosecutor doesn't want them to do.

"So is impeachment the ONLY answer?" No, there are other options: A sitting President can be lawfully prosecuted outside impeachment through a Grand Jury, or through the States Attorney Generals. Inaction by Congress is not the show stopper; rather, inaction could be evidence of Member of Congress war crimes, if the refusal to impeach is linked with Member of congress inaction on Geneva issues, war crimes, or other things that should be enforced through impeachment. If law and order break down, and the Congress assents to war crimes, the other option -- not advocating this -- is for other nations to work with the UN General Assembly, and impose economic sanctions on the US, shut down shipping, and wage war against the US. This happened against Japan and Germany during WWII, and is behind the efforts of China, Russia, Iran, an Venezuela to discuss the US illegal activity in Iraq.

If the US Congress, legal community, and public refuse to end this illegal activity, other nations may lawfully use deadly force to destroy the District of Columbia -- an option the NSC well knows is on the table, and is being discussed. Not advocating it, just saying what could happen if the Congress, legal community, and US population may face if the illegal activity continues, spreads: The world is not required to remain silent; and Congressional inaction is not the final say-so.

Posted by: malcontent
Date: June 14, 2007 04:53 PM

"Seriously, how much of this do we have to take?" For some, the limit has been crossed. Feel free to forward evidence to war crimes prosecutors who are working with grand juries. Some have faith in Congress; others have faith in grand juries and war crimes prosecutors.

"How long do we have to sit back and watch these usurpers of power continue to make a mockery of our nation?" We don't have to sit; we can discuss new forms of government; and we can create a new system that ensures this abuse of power does not occur again. The Constitution -- and way the government is organized, and how power is divided -- can be reformed to ensure that regardless who controls power, the Constitution is protected. there is a way. The issue is whether the legal community wants to lead to reform the problems; or whether the public has to impose this solution on the legal community.

"Just because they have a sympathetic corporate media does that mean that we have to let them continue to get away with their crimes?" No; and it's not correct to pretend that the way that people get away with crimes is sympathy in the media. Time for the corporate boards allegedly complicity with war crimes and illegal activity to be lawfully targeted for prosecution: Providing material support for war crimes; then reviewing the agreements/contracts they have that illegally immunize them from supporting war crimes. These contracts are not for a lawful purpose: Hiding evidence of war crimes, illegal activity, and violations of the securities laws, which is supposed to enforced under the Securities Laws, but isn't well regulated, as evidenced by meaningless financial recoveries for corporate fraud.

This is illegal: "At what point do we mobilize a rebellion?" H however, it is lawful to discuss how to create language that lawfully permits American citizens -- when all legal options have been exhausted -- to remind the leadership that the law permits non-judicial options. Currently this is not lawful, but it is possible to have a discussion about legalizing these options. Until it is legalized, we cannot actually do it; but we can _believe_ that this option should be on the table, and work peacefully to legalize this option.

"At what point do we demand justice?" Already did: It's the Constitution. Justice comes when Congress does its job. If they refuse to impeach, they could be prosecuted. Time has run out. Just comes when grand juries, prosecutors, or others present evidence; and these issues are litigated. Right now, only Congress and the President are stonewalling; for the most part, the courts have been fairly good -- not all of them -- at going after the President with some fine decisions upholding the Constitution, Geneva, and rule of law.

"How do we hold the junta accountable for the crimes it has perpetrated against us?" war crimes prosecutions; internal war crimes. The other way is to share with your friends: We outnumber them; the GOP is on the run; people can help by gathering evidence; and refusing to be silent if anyone attempts to issue with an illegal order to remain silent bout unlawful conduct through an employment contract or other agreement. Remind the legal profession that they can be disbarred and, if convicted of war crimes, lawfully executed.

"I for one am ready to put it all on the line to make these thugs pay." -- Maybe you should talk to the JTTF and inform them of any travel plans you have. Just kidding. I agree: Time to make the GOP pay -- if it's too much, remember the Germans after WWI -- they used the "unjust" punishment as a basis to rally more support and mobilize for WWII. Sometimes too much justice can backfire, as it did, as evidenced by the Rise of Hitler. The worst thing would be to impose justice on the GOP and them getting sympathy to create the very system which appears to have been well entrenched prior to 2006. However, the key is to remember this: Our system of justice separate judicial oversight from the Congress and President, and means that the court, jury, and grand jury -- not the voters, Congress, or president -- decides what is or is not just. If they screw it up, they too cold be prosecuted. The point being: The benefit of removing the method of imposing sanctions that we imposed pm n the Germans away from the executive and legislature is that if the system is just, then a just settlement should resolve the issue. Unfortunately, as we've seen with Iraq and Palestine, justice for one can be at a great expense.

Today's issues with the GOP and Constitution are a little different: Justice means ensuring the GOP realizes in no uncertain terms that this is not an attempt by the DNC to punish the GOP; but its a lawful effort by the US government -- working on behalf of We the People -- to defend the Constitution against the GOP. All that's needed is for the speaker and Senate Majority leader to say this. Whether the GOP believes this is meaningless: Once convicted, their whining has less force. Politics can have their role in impeachment; but when impeachment is not used, time to take the gloves off and go after Members of Congress, VP, and President, and members of the legal community with indictments. They've screwed this up. Time for We the People to remind them: You cannot put yourselves before the law, and expect We the People to not notice. Do your job, or you're going to jail, 5 USC 3331.

In the end, if the GOP, legal community, Congress, President, and US government refuses to wake up to what happened -- that a faction illegally ignored the Constitution; and the Constitution was not enforced -- then We the people need to discuss -- outside Congress -- reforms to this Constitution, and create a New One that will ensure this does not happen again. Otherwise, we're going to be looking at the same mess next time: Clear laws ignored; no enforcement; and illegal efforts to retaliate against prosecutors and the public who dare attempt to do the right thing -- enforce the law, speak out about illegal warfare, refuse to participate in unlawful warfare, and gather evidence of illegal activity. Time for Americans to decide if they want their government and the power to self-govern; or whether Americans are going to eventually have to accept they cannot government and must be governed from without. This is an issue of sovereignty, and Members of Congress do not appear to e willing to bit the bullet and accept that they continue to conduct themselves in a manner which raises serious doubts whether the US can exercise sovereignty. At issues is whether we should believe the US will or will not prosecute war crimes. German war crimes prosecutors and courts, for apparent partisan reasons, defer to the US; it does not appear the US population is willing to organize itself. It is not acceptable for Congress -- this one -- to defer to the President and let him have a vote on whether he will or will not enforce the law. It is a requirement: any effort of Congress to declare "victory" at the "habeas Restoration" act, or the "US Attorney Independence" act misses the point: Habeas cannot be taken away; and the President must follow the law on appointments. He has no legal power to vote or not vote to not agree.

On the table: Impeachment, prosecutions of Members of Congress/legal community/VP/President, and a New Constitution. If there is no legal action to enforce, then a New Constitution becomes a requirement.

If Congress attempts to block enforcement, and will not assent to requirement to enforce the law -- the world could conclude that law and order has collapsed in the US, then foreign powers have the right under Geneva to engage in deadly force to restore order. Congress has no legal power to defend what is illegal, reckless, or defies the Constitution: Lawlessness, inaction, and refusals to fully enforce the oath. these combat operations may not be soon, but recall the lesson of WWII: It took time for the US to mobilize. Today, unlike Germany and Japan, the US is more isolated, has not mobilized, and is in a weaker position. The only thing keeping the US government from being overthrown by outside military forces is the relative weakness of other powers. That is not an eternal truism which the US population should believe will remain static. The issues Congress refuses to day relate to whether the District of Columbia will be transformed through legal options; or could ultimately be transformed through combat operations. Things are changing. Whether Congress, the President, or legal community understand this change is less relevant than We the People understanding there is nothing the President, Congress, and legal community can do to stop what is inevitable: The rule of law shall prevail, even if imposed against Members of Congress, legal community, and VP through 5 USC 3331 prosecutions.

Posted by: Sharon A
Date: June 14, 2007 06:28 PM

"The consequences of breaking many laws are no more burdensome than those for breaking one law because of the limitations of a man's life. A person can only serve one life sentence, for instance, even if his deeds called for multiple life sentences."

This assumes that the court does not impose the ultimate penalty: Death by lethal injection. Once imposed, pardons become irrelevant. DoJ Staff counsel has been linked with unlawful war crimes planning: There's no statute of limitations; universal jurisdiction; and it only takes one line of evidence to turn against the DOJ Staff counsel. Once one goes down, more go with them.

The DoJ Staff counsel well knew the legal implications for war crimes and have apparently ignored them. They may not have much more time to think about their errors if they are lawfully executed after being convicted of war crimes. They wished this..

When does a pardon of a White House poobah by the president, become obstruction of justice?

It is still possible that the Scoot, once that steal door slams, may magically regain his memory and start singing like a canary.

Also, if one accepts a pardon, it is an admission of guilt, in which case, he should never be allowed to work in D.C. again.

Does eye wash smell?

Rats guarding the cheese.

What a joke.

So, Libby is going to jail and has been given some time to put his affairs in order before going to the Big House.

In the meantime, he might prepare himself for life on the inside, which is why I suggest he think about getting some TATTOOS...so he'll fit in.

Suggestions for a Libby jail-house tattoo?

How about one honoring the person most responsible for his getting sent up, the person Libby has been protecting by perjuring himself and lying to federal prosecutors?

A tattoo on Libby's chest, maybe, of a heart with the words "I LOVE DICK_cheney" or just a basic tattoo stating "I"D DO ANYTHING FOR DICK_cheney," including going to jail with these tattoos on oneself.

Aw, c'mon, Scooter. You'll need tattoos where you're going, just to identify to which gang you belong. In your case, the DICK_cheney gang.

Raburta? Can I call you Raburta?

Is not the content enough?

Hmmmm... What will do; name, rank and serial number? Maybe a photo is required?

"The vastmajority of US citizens will tolerate so much..." JNagarya gives me hope. I pray that you are right, but life experience tells me different

"Posted by: moondancer
Date: June 14, 2007 04:12 PM"

You have little "life experience".

Those conducting the internal DOJ investigation are known by name -- they can't shift responsibility; and if they lie, we will know their names.

Congress is also overseeing that investigation. The DOJ is not within the scope of Executive Privilege, so DOJ cannot win at stonewalling for long: they would lose in court, and they won't go there if they can avoid it. Gonzales can be impeached and removed, regardless Bushit's view of the issue. I happen to think it's preferable to leave Gonzales where he is -- keeping the issue alive, front-and-center, and continuing to damage Bushit and the Republicans.

Both Pelosi and Waxman said it: It's only a matter of time. Beginning September, Republicans will begin falling all over themselves to get on the side of the line opposite Bushit. 21 Republican Senators are up for re-election; they have a decision to make: support Gonzales/Bushit, or have a chance of being re-elected.

I don't know why these facts have to be spelled out over and over and over again, yet they are ignored by those who won't settle for less than perfection and instant gratification, or not getting that they will bash the Democrats and call them names. Such individuals are a waste of skin: "Democracy is RESPONSIBILITY." -- Justice Louis Brandeis

Go to youtube.com and do a search on alberto gonzales. Watch the lengthy questionings of him by the Democrats. Indeed, watch the sharp questioning even by Specter. I am fed up with those who don't watch what's going on bashing the Democrats for "not doing anything" -- only because those who are doing the bashing aren't paying attention; they are simply assholes proving they are overfull of shit.

Keep up the pressure for impeachment. But stop wasting air and throwing static by name-calling -- bashing the Democrats. That is stupid and counterproductive. The foot-draggers are the Republicans -- go after _them_.

But don't adopt the hate-speech used by the wingnuts one claims to hate. Want to see an end to that sort of destructiveness? Begin the ending of it with oneself.

That Gonzales is being investigated by the DOJ is the latest (in this thread) in a serious of good news realities. Check out what's happening with Tim Griffin. Check out what's happening with GSA, Interior, and DOT.

Check out what's happening re. the Republican lawyer in AL who filed an affidavit allegeging that Rove saw to it that the DOJ went after an AL Democrat in order to take him out of politics in behlaf of the Republican candidate and party.

Those and the other scandals -- growing, and new -- are all result of the Democrats doing that which Congress is to do: oversight; and when necessary, investigation. They're doing a good job. In this is progressing faster than one should expect.

I'm all for impeaching Gonzales. But not too soon. Let's get Bushit in a box so if he then attempts to pardon his fellow gangsters it will be clear that it is obstruction of justice.

Meanwhile, Hearne, like Griffin, is desperately trying to outrun his history. It won't work in his case either.