Guess we'll just have to impeach the fucker, then. Thanks for the heads up, Jake.

It's high time to start impeachment hearings for Gonzales.

Chuck needs to quit waiting on Gonzo to resign or on the prez to fire this ass clown. Step up and convince Conyers to commence impeachment of this little repub ass-licking knob gobbling shithead immediately. That this man still heads DOJ is embarrassing and offensive. Anyone with any measure of respect and credibility would resign or refuse to work at the government approved and funded criminal enterprise known as the Department of Justice. A US Attorney making a pitch today to a jury is no different than Jeffrey Skilling and Ken Lay making a pitch to Enron employees to concentrate their 401k holdings in company stock back in 2000. US Attorneys might as well dress up as Bozo.

Daily Muck question: what is the significance of Specter reviewing Alito and Roberts Senate testimony on "precedence" and "stare decisis" - does anyone know?

Inherent contempt in the Senate is subject to filibuster. Theoretically, the house could do it, but they have recess awaiting, followed about debate on the criminal contempt motion (which we all know is doomed to immediate failure, or a long court process which will make it moot before it is decided).

What’s a little perjury when you’re positive your party is going to control the White House in two years anyway? Each side wants nothing more than to run out the clock, since they agree on that, what we think doesn’t matter.

That’s right folks, we’re screwed. This is entirely and completely a performance for your benefit, intended to accomplish nothing.

Don't forget who took impeachment "off the table." RUN, CINDY, RUN!!!

Wow!! A resident troll on TPMuckraker. Who woulda thunk it?

Let's see, who "investigates" perjury for the federal government? The U.S. Attorney and grand jury! LOL!

Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 26, 2007 9:42 AM

Typical. Under the law, perjury is a crime. To the vast majority of US citizens, perjury is a crime. To "Jake," it's funny, a joke, hilarious.

I don't know if calling you an ass, "Jake," is of sufficient size to accomodate how big an ass you are.

And on top of that, an anti-American shithead.

In the origins of Congress is the "General Court". Congress doesn't need eithr the DOJ or the Judicary to conduct trials -- which is a means by which subpoenas, as example, are enforced.

SC = crime. As in, "Jake" believes crimes, so long as committed by Republicans, are hilarious. And he couldn't care less how many US citizens are killed as direct result. His contempt for Constitution and rule of law, and the troops who are dying because of his lying fake military leader, is immeasurable.

regular lurker:

I don't think it's significant at all. It sounds good, but there's not much that anyone can do to sitting Supreme Court justices. Specter's blowing hot air to try and sound 'bipartisan' and action-forward while not actually having to do anyhing (like vote against the Iraq war) that might help the state of things.

Jakey.

Have some more coffee, you need better focus. Steve said nothing about where impeachment proceedings start.

TheraP:

It's been done in the past, but that doesn't make it an option. If we're talking on-the-table choices, impeachment would come into play light-years before a bill to change the SC makeup. There is (and there should be) collossal resistance to changing the playing field just because you don't like the game, and that's essentially what a change to the Court represents.

Also, keep in mind that it's Specter we're discussing. He's a Repub. He likes the court makeup exactly as it is.

I see the troll sobered up enough to come back and make a fool of himself. Please do not feed this sad pathetic old fool.

The historical magic number for the removal of a president is Nixon's unfavorable 67% rating. GWB is now at 66%. With this perjury scandal hanging over his Attorney General, Junior will very soon exclipse the Nixon standard.

Hang in there, Senor Torture.

Jake D says: Schumer has been in Washington 27 years and never has seen anything like this -- oh goodness, perhaps he was on vacation when President Clinton lied under oath -- I was "involved" in watching Gonzales's entire testimony, and I didn't catch any which was proven as untruthful. Nice try, though, Chuckie.

Jake D -- Granted, lying in any way, shape or form is not good, however, the truth is that just about every person, if they are totally honest, will admit they have "lied" at some point in their life.

The intention of Clinton's lie was to protect his wife and daughter. The intention of Bush's never-ending lies was to:

1. Subvert the Constitution.
2. Not protect and defend the Constitution that he has taken an Oath to protect and defend (when he entered the TX National Guard, and both times upon being sworn in as President).
3. Have literally bankrupted this country.
4. Has been the primary cause of the deaths of untold innocent civilians and US military personnel.
5. To enrich himself and his political hacks financially.

If you have a problem understanding the differences, then you have many serious cognitive problems that you should have evaluated by a competent psychiatrist.

Point well taken, Anna S. I don't see this happening right now. But down the road.... after the next election... (and I had overlooked "who" was asking)

Is it the perjury for Specter then? Will they try to clog things up by saying this one did it and so did that one, so why attack Gonzo-Lies?
.......

News Consumer: I believe the article talked about reductions as well as additions. YES!

Here's the link: http://www.nytimes.com/opinion/

CLICK ON: "Stacking the Court"

TheraP-A girl can dream, I suppose, but the reality is that nothing that matters will happen.

Perjury is funny to your average winger. It's not a real crime - except when Clinton did it.*

*Except that he didn't.

Thank you for your opinions on Specter.

I really don't know anything about law and procedure but something struck me about the story...that there's more to it than meets the eye and that it's not obvious what it is.

Then I also wondered if it had any relationship to Gonzales' May 2006 memo which gave Cheney's staff access to the Justice Department. Guess it's a wait and see.

Gonzales is toast though. They'll quietly announce his resignation some time in the middle of GWB's vacation. Lord knows what rock the next AG will crawl out from under though.

All,
I don't know why even the talented regulars on this site continue to respond to "Jake" and effectively allow him to dominate discussion. He has two purposes with his tortured pretzeling of logic, reason, facts and probably his own body:
1. To destroy this groups ability to do any serious work.
2. To suck his own D@#!

George W. Bush, a democratically elected fascist who has surrounded himself with incompetent flunkies like Gonzales and Miers. Worst president in my lifetime. Begin the perjury investigation immediately.

altoid:

If either the House or Senate use "inherent contempt" for this witch hunt, then President Bush should pardon Gonzales, etc.

Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 26, 2007 9:58 AM

If the investigation of Clinton's private sex life wasn't a witch hunt, then investigation of perjury by the top law enforcer in the country isn't a witch hunt.

In fact, of course, the assault on Clinton was a witchhunt. But investigating substantiated perjury is not a witch hunt.

-----------------------------

Inherent contempt in the Senate is subject to filibuster. Theoretically, the house could do it, but they have recess awaiting, followed about debate on the criminal contempt motion (which we all know is doomed to immediate failure, or a long court process which will make it moot before it is decided).

Any court cases arising from these mattrs will be expedited.

"What’s a little perjury when you’re positive your party is going to control the White House in two years anyway? Each side wants nothing more than to run out the clock, since they agree on that, what we think doesn’t matter."

Oh, great! Just what we need, and just when we needed it: You can read minds and predict the unknowable future!

"That’s right folks, we’re screwed. This is entirely and completely a performance for your benefit, intended to accomplish nothing."

You're an ass. But apparently you're such a whiner that you can't see beyond that to realize it.

Posted by: sdfg
Date: July 26, 2007 10:00 AM

TheraP:

Yes, the Congress can change the number of seats on the SC. In fact, Andrew Johnson was so unpopular that Congress reduced the number of seats so he wouldn't be able to appoint.

Posted by: JNagarya
Date: July 26, 2007 10:08 AM

Other than impeachment, Congress cannot try Alberto for crimes without involving the executive branch in bringing these charges and the judicial branch in hearing any charges brought, otherwise cCongress would be overstepping their Constitutional authority.

Winning at all costs does more harm than good and this blindly partisan approach has led us astray of the Constittuon, Therefore, it is imporotant for Congress to play by the Constitutuional rules.

Because BushCo has so rigged the DOJ/US Attorney and because BushCo hold the unlimited pardon power that awaits use on anyone Congress actually pushes to indictment, anything short of impeachment (i.e. indictments, contempt citations) is akin to bringing a knife to a gun fight.

He says perjury investigations "should" start today, but when will they? They are going on break now! It's too frustrating!

It appears the right wingers purposely stick their heads in the sand (or elsewhere) when it comes to any facts that would appear to out them as phonies, liars and deniers. They would like everyone to believe that there’s “nothing here, move along, move along”.
Well yes, there is something here. Gonzo was caught in a bald faced lie. When he told the committee previously, that there were no concerns about the NSA, turns out he lied. Comey and many high level staffers were ready to quit over this for Christ sakes. This is just one of many lies. Remember when testifying you are to tell not just the truth but the “whole truth” or you are lying through purposeful omission.
Republicans need to remember that they are Americans first. This means that you don’t make excuses for or ignore when someone is doing something that harms your country. This isn’t a football game where your for your team thick or thin. This is your country and you damn well better remember it.

"Actually everything Jake says seems pretty reasonable and good points. Is a troll defined as someone who has a different point of view than you?"

No, a troll is defined as someone who deliberately stirs up shit to get a reaction. By this definition, Jake is a classic troll.

As to your first sentence, it's so demonstrably untrue that I'm at a loss to determine how on earth you could possibly state it with a straight face.

The President could pardon criminal contempt. Inherent contempt, however, according to existing precedent, is quite likely beyond the scope of the Presidential pardon power, in that it is an offense against the Congress. At the very least, Bush would have to go to the Supreme Court to argue why he should have the power to pardon. Sadly, a Republican filibuster is a likely obstacle to the Senate charging inherent contempt.

The Department of Justice is not merely the Attorney General. There are ways to arrange prosecution of the AG for perjury, for example using the Inspector General of the DOJ. It would be quite a stretch for the President to argue that executive privilege covers testimony before Congress, so the prohibition against prosecution that he has applied to the contempt charges against Miers and Bolten doesn't apply.

biggerbox:

Bush would not have to go to the Supreme Court to argue why he should have the power to pardon "inherent contempt." It would be up to CONGRESS to defy the pardon, and if Congress still "arrested" someone so pardoned, that person would most likely file for habeas corpus relief. At that point, I'm sure DoJ would get involved to defend the pardon power. But, there's certainly no requirement that Bush seek permission from the Supreme Court beforehand (and neither would they grant such an advisory opinion).

You don't have my support for any impeachment.

Shit from the begining of this thread has run all the way down here. It must be thin and runny. Would somebody call Mitt and ask him to hose the shit off back of the thread.

I'll bet Karl is constipated this morning. Might be getting close to the time to let the little Mexican go. Put somebody in charge who has nothing to remember and claim ex priv for Gonzo.

Hurry up Karl, do something... even if it's legal.

To quote someone (not me) at 11:22 AM:

"When someone must resort to the ad hominem, it is always because they have nothing of substance with which to answer. It just waives the white flag, they’ve announced their loss."

When asked whether or not Bush sent him and Andy Card to Ashcroft's bedside, the AG simply refused to answer.

He did not invoke any privilege.

He just refused to answer.

He is a lying shit-weasel crony, and his arrogance fouls our entire democratic process.

I would like nothing better than to see Leahy, Schumer, and Specter beat him like a baby seal.

(Code word "mother". I will exercise uncommon restraint.)

There haven't been any ad-hominem attacks thus far in official investigation of the AG/US Attorney situation.

Those of us who are involved only as voters sometimes become frustrated by the arrogance of politically entrenched lawbreakers and can be a bit bellicose. That, of course, is our right (un