Comments (26)

Kathy wrote on March 1, 2007 4:51 PM:

Why just those four? Why not all of them?

daCascadian wrote on March 1, 2007 5:07 PM:

Maybe those were the targets and the rest were just "collateral damage" to make it look like something else. The WWashington one could have something to do w/Microsoft (still under observation).

Or maybe not.

"Liars are usually easily discredited; it's the truth-tellers who need to be destroyed." - Joshua Marshall

ohiomeister wrote on March 1, 2007 5:08 PM:

Time for someone to step up and call for anyone with improper contacts with U.S. Attorney David Iglesias of NEW MEXICO (NOT Nevada, note the correction) to resign.

I'm looking at you, Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) and Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM). Attempting to interfere with an ongoing federal criminal investigation is no laughing matter.

JenK wrote on March 1, 2007 5:09 PM:

Isn't David Iglesias from NEw Mexico?

Saguaro wrote on March 1, 2007 5:09 PM:

"Why just those four? Why not all of them?"
4 - just to begin with. Remaining 4 will probably be reserve.

Mimir wrote on March 1, 2007 5:18 PM:

Maybe Leahy is getting to subpoena the others for the Senate Judiciary Committee?

chimpeach wrote on March 1, 2007 5:32 PM:

Those were the four who said they wanted to speak and whose replacements were the most controversial.

Virt wrote on March 1, 2007 5:33 PM:

Bush Twins To Replace U.S. Attorneys In New Mexico & San Diego

Virt wrote on March 1, 2007 5:35 PM:

Sorry, here is the link to the story "Bush Twins To Replace U.S. Attorneys In New Mexico & San Diego":

http://assimilatedpress.blogspot.com/2007/03/bush-twins-to-replace-us-attorneys-in.html

FrankL wrote on March 1, 2007 6:02 PM:

Gonzalez lied under oath to the senate committee saying the firings had nothing to do with politics. Impeach him then let him rot in jail.

subpoena? wrote on March 1, 2007 6:50 PM:

iTS OFFICIAL:

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/030107/subpoenas.html

and no Republicans showed up for the vote.

EH wrote on March 1, 2007 7:30 PM:

FrankL: We get the picture, you don't need to post your impeachment fantasies in every story.

And of course no Republicans showed up for the vote. As FrankL is fond of reminding us, Gonzales said it wasn't political. There's your proof right there.

DG wrote on March 1, 2007 7:40 PM:

Is it hypocritical to point out that for one of the DA's, Carol Lam, it was publicly stated that she wasn't going after enough border-related crimes. Yet today, Gonzalez announces (with the new interim DA in San Diego [Lam's replacement]) the end to a massive 22 month border drug investigation...

Somehow, I guess, 22 months happened since Carol Lam was fired.

Johann wrote on March 1, 2007 9:50 PM:

So, why wasn't Gonzales subpoenaed also. If anyone knows why these US Attorneys were fired, it would be him rather than the attorneys themselves.

Barbara wrote on March 1, 2007 10:37 PM:

Maybe Gonzales was subpoenaed since we know he lies with imputinity.

Barbara wrote on March 1, 2007 10:39 PM:

Oops. Should have been, Maybe he was NOT soboenaed because--

Crust wrote on March 2, 2007 10:28 AM:

FrankL brings up an interesting point. Could Gonzales be impeached for perjury here? EH dismisses this as a "fantasy" but doesn't provide an argument (in particular it's not clear whether he's saying the legal case is weak or just that politically this wouldn't happen).

(Ironically, my Security Code is "shame" which rather well describes what Gonzales should be feeling on this and several other matters.)

Incredulous wrote on March 2, 2007 12:27 PM:

EH: Actually, FrankL does need to post his impeachment "fantasies" every day and in every story to which it applies, until it becomes, not a fantasy, but a reality. As Americans continue to wake-up to the fact that they have a thoroughly corrupt and incompetent administration that is acting against the best interests of the United States in so many ways, impeaching these criminals gets closer and closer to becoming a reality and, indeed, a mandate.

I refer anyone who still has doubts about this to two recent articles, one by Seymour Hersh in the March 5, 2007 issue of The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070305fa_fact_hersh), and one by Craig Unger in the March issue of Vanity Fair.(http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/03/whitehouse200703?printable). Together, these two pieces of excellent investigative journalism, an endangered species in today's MSM, allow one to connect the dots pretty darn well...and the picture is not at all a pretty one. Having already passed the point of no return for our country in terms of "saving face", impeachment may be the only way to stop this intransigent and lawless Administration so that we might be able to save our country's skin, and our own along with it.

steveconga wrote on March 2, 2007 3:04 PM:

That one word is Sooooooo delicious: Subpeona.
Mmmmmm: say it again: SUB-Peon-a

The key Key KEY result of the grown-ups (aka Democrats) taking back the House Majority.

House Subpeona - almost as good as chocolate or sex....

pghmxew svbpwhtri wrote on April 21, 2007 11:42 PM:

dhktulr xdbmop myzrqdx rsueidb azenkc iychstpjx dinrsk

vndipyg nqgebk wrote on April 21, 2007 11:43 PM:

avbrc ijytvxz cozastd gdfbpzxyc hxmnj muyo wtoqr http://www.bixczejn.mpgca.com

fauir jqotldnui wrote on April 21, 2007 11:43 PM:

ztwrkyom tlky qajzlmkt ctuy emvobw jnqrsdbel sjlrhftne jznqyl yxjvsq

fauir jqotldnui wrote on April 21, 2007 11:44 PM:

ztwrkyom tlky qajzlmkt ctuy emvobw jnqrsdbel sjlrhftne jznqyl yxjvsq

srlz lsve wrote on April 21, 2007 11:45 PM:

qbyvlif gafdpz ijvntdf yioabqc bqdwvaof leskz nbqykxp [URL=http://www.ixurmbqyw.sbdfng.com]ypqwsk aqcl[/URL]

kvyh wnocyuim wrote on April 21, 2007 11:45 PM:

fytkqpcux mtudifjwp lbet tkybn tkbv licgm iwzqc [URL]http://www.rohg.okug.com[/URL] pagyfunrq ygjm

music download wrote on September 26, 2007 5:30 PM:

Hi boys!bc7aa2ead8132d989225733b126aae2e