About damn time.

I think it would be helpful if you explain what happens next. It gets sent for a vote but what type of majority do they need? Etc

And yes

About damn time.

Let's all heave a collective So What.

Hagel and Specter both jumped the line? Then was the missing vote a Dem? Did that person miss the meeting, or abstain?

I believe that under Senate rules this is not subject to a fillabuster, so that the Democrats do not need 60 votes.

The next step will be Mukasey sitting on it or rejecting it outright. Anything further will require the 60 votes, so it will die there.

Reminds me when my second grade teacher used to send me home with a sad note when i misbehaved in school.

Good.
Now let's see them hauled into the Capitol to answer the questions they've been ducking.
And then the impeachments can begin.

Does inherent comtempt require a 60 vote majority? In the event Mukasey refuses to prosecute, would that be a logical next step?

I wish I could believe it will be a different outcome this time from SJC. I really wish that, but previous performance would dictate...

Specter in on the ground floor on this so he can undermine it later.

Leahy will watch him do it.

AND be really annoyed.

Correction: Specter and GRASSLEY . . . not Hagel.

Same effect. To GOoPers crossed the line and did the right thing.

Love all the naysayers and pessimists here. No good deed goes unpunished, and I guess if there isn't impeachment and castration then it's all for naught.

Why not admit that either your intelligence or imagination is lacking and that this could actually be seen as a good - if nuanced - development. Let me guess that some have been saying "where's contempt?" Yet when that comes down it's just not enough. Well, thanks for nothing.

I wonder how long it would take the Senate Democrats to do something if Bush just declared the Constitution null and void and installed himself as President for life? Would they say that without 60 votes their hands were tied? How many months would it take for them to strongly condemn, and look seriously into citing the President for something as a result?

Wimps.

EH,I agree. Its hard for folks to see some things in Washington as a clumsy, slow progress, but the contempt citations are far from that. Now, its certainly possible that this dies on the floor. If it does not, though, and there is any failure to appear by Rove or Bolten, you will have a genuine Constitutional crisis on your hands. That is hardly bad work by the SJC.

John G states that this vote is not subject to filibuster. Anyone agree with that? I'd sure like to know.

nrglaw

EH, I suspect that such cynical comments sport more names than people behind them. It's irrelevant to the substance of my comments below, except whether my referring to them in plural is applicable!

Who are you people and what have you done with the TPMM comments sections? It's as if we haven't learned this, from the previous comments on the hundred-ish TPMM stories on Democratic attempts to reign in Bush Administration's illegalities, that:

Yes, we get it, there are a handful of Democrats who don't get it and who aren't on board with officially censuring members of the Bush Administration. OK!

One could simply drone on about how annoyed one is with such Democrats (never seems to hurt to simply implicate all "Democrats" instead of "a few" or "some" (or better yet, name them)), OR instead, one could suggest methods of persuading or sidelining such Democrats. I'm waiting! Call your representatives, as I have, and tell them you support all methods of censure (in the general sense), the stronger the better. Organize a march, start yelling more, whatever it takes.

I mean, it's great to see that Republican Senators who have and would attempt to block any and all censure/contempt proceedings are off the hook! Republican Senators are apparently exempt here from being castigated for ignoring facts and creating their own reality, that the Bush Administration has done nothing outrageously illegal. The Bush Administration apparently is exempt from following any sane interpretation of laws and the Constitution.

There's certainly no requirement on anyone's part to mention obstructionist Republicans' hands in these affairs at all, but I thought I'd note some people's omissions.

Don't you see

The power does not reside in civility

The power resides in the law

Be uncivil goddamn it, and stick up for those laws

Or the republicans will shout you down every time

Oh My Gawd......Specter actually voted on something that he had previously considered criminal. Usually he pontificates and says how serious somthing may be and that he is very "Concerned" about what is going on and then he votes the party line. Of course in this case he may have voted as he did knowing that the Repbs are going to tie this up anyway so no harm no foul so to speak. Now he gets to blubber on about how he tried to hold them accountable but his republican pals wouldn't let it go through. Oh well thanks for small mercies I suppose.

Hey, is anybody else noticing that it's tomorrow and we're missing a dollar?