Comments (181)

some dude named steevo wrote on May 16, 2007 12:30 PM:

I guess this is Alberto's way of saying "Go Fuck Yourself" to Senator Leahy...

yellowdogfox wrote on May 16, 2007 12:30 PM:

Maybe this is how things have to be done, but I would be embarrassed to write a "this time we really mean it" letter like that.

Ajay Kalra wrote on May 16, 2007 12:30 PM:

Subpoena doesnt seem to have any meaning. Why cant congress take action if subpoena is not honored. Condi did the same with Conyers. This administration doesnt care about subpoenas and will not do so unless there are some consequences.

Steve wrote on May 16, 2007 12:31 PM:

Oh, Arlen Specter is angry! Now there will be CONSEQUENCES! /snicker

goethean wrote on May 16, 2007 12:32 PM:

> The senators set a new deadline, this Friday at
> May 18, 10 AM.

wimps.

...and this time, you'll be grounded!

Rusty wrote on May 16, 2007 12:32 PM:

This why the Dems have a bad rep, and the approval of Congress is falling - the AG and DOJ completely ignore the subpeona (no explanation given), and what does the Judiciary Com do? They set another date. C'mon guys. How can you ever get past the weak liberal stereotype if you continually act as if it were true?

code: wound, as in the place where the party's spine should be.

Enoch Root wrote on May 16, 2007 12:32 PM:

Congress has no power other than the budget (which they already gave away) and impeachment.

So it's time to go with plan B.

Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 12:33 PM:

Another strongly worded letter. That will help. Really.

It's time to use some of Dan Burton's tactics employed during Clinton.

Andrew Card and Harriet Miers are both private citizens. Haul them in. Senate hearings are for show anyway.

Bearpaw wrote on May 16, 2007 12:34 PM:

I figure it's gonna come down to how much of this crap Congressional Committees will put up with until they start having people arrested.

At which point what's left of the Echo Chamber will go into massive hysteria over "political persecution".

I want the popcorn concession for that, baby.

jolie wrote on May 16, 2007 12:35 PM:

umm, well, OK ... but leahy is still "asking" gonzo to provide the requested docs.

what good is a subpoena if it's not enforced? if I were the target of such a subpoena and refused to respond how long before some official looking goons with guns would be showing up and knocking on my door?

where is the muscle, senator??

frankly0 wrote on May 16, 2007 12:35 PM:

I have the slightest feeling that the Senate investigation is finally getting at the real paydirt here, and that that is why no response has been forthcoming.

The WH I'm sure has known this day would come, when it was either stonewall to the bitter end or give up indisputable evidence of malfeasance. It should hardly be surprising that it would be on the matter of Rove's emails that that fateful decision would present itself.

Now politics will have to take over, and Democrats had better be prepared to make the most effective political case possible that the WH is simply covering up its own bad acts.

jolie wrote on May 16, 2007 12:36 PM:

umm, well, OK ... but leahy is still "asking" gonzo to provide the requested docs.

what good is a subpoena if it's not enforced? if I were the target of such a subpoena and refused to respond how long before some official looking goons with guns would be showing up and knocking on my door, hauling my ass to the committee?

where is the muscle, senator??

ricardo wrote on May 16, 2007 12:37 PM:

I can't decide what best decribes these people and their actions--Gonzales and the others -- fascist comes to mind, but so too does mafia.

Somewhere in the White House sits someone who decided the best course of action was to ignore the subpoena.

RockGolf wrote on May 16, 2007 12:37 PM:

Stop! Or I'll shout "Stop!" again!

Really, isn't there some form of teeth that Congress has to impel the subpeona? If I as a private citizen just ignored a subpeone, I'd be jailed.

gtash wrote on May 16, 2007 12:38 PM:

Congress can send enforcment officers to go get the stuff they want. So why don't they?

More time passes. More emails get hidden or erased.

The Senators may appear to be stern, but I think this is absolutely dumb. What's the expression: "nothing is off the table" ?

Send the law officers to raid the computers. It should have been done weeks ago.

Chesire11 wrote on May 16, 2007 12:38 PM:

Can we at least talk about impeaching Gonzales?

Seriously, what does this guy have to do to be held accountable? If I ignored a subpoena, I'd be held in contempt and be arrested. This guy basically tell the committee to go "Cheney" themselves andhe gets an extension???

I'm also kind of surprised that the Judiciary Committee's letter was so poorly written. It reads like it was written by one of the pages.

Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 12:38 PM:

One reason Democrats are perceived as weak on defense is that they have consistently displayed weakness vis-a-vis corruption by the Bush Administration. If they do not start showing some spine here, they will do poorly in 2008.

Both parties are in serious need of reform.

Kevin wrote on May 16, 2007 12:39 PM:

Maybe they want the proper substantiation for saying the AG is in contempt?

Michael Jones wrote on May 16, 2007 12:40 PM:

Defense lawyers all over the country are noting the DOJ,s new, casual attitude towards compliance with subpoenas.

Sojourner wrote on May 16, 2007 12:41 PM:

I agree with "yellowdogfox." It sounds too much like "you better do it before we tell the teacher." I want to think that the SJC is doing this right (and the testimony yesterday was sure intriguing), but this administration seems to know nothing but sheer brute force. It is time to get brutal and start an all-out effort to remove all of these thugs and crooks. Stop allowing them to control the media and the agendas.

This is OUR country -- it does not belong to these people who purport to be our leaders. I recall reading somewhere that when the rule of law fails, anarchy prevails. Something tells me that this is our last chance to stop what is happening.

The secrecy, the concern with security -- they simply cover up the actions of these thugs. It is time to shine light on all of it. Comey was brave enough to open a crack yesterday. I hope more will come forward now and spill the whole story so that we know how to proceed.

There is a big difference between the actions of honorable men who disagree, and dishonorable men who do what is expedient for themselves.

chisholm wrote on May 16, 2007 12:41 PM:

I don't get it--could a lawyer please explain to me what can happen now? I always thought subpoenas had to be complied with. If Gonzales says "I don't give a shite" then what happens? Are subpoenas really not that a big deal? Again--not a lawyer here.

supersaurus wrote on May 16, 2007 12:41 PM:

impeachment works for me. if convicted the accused can be barred from holding any federal office, either elected or appointed. as gerald ford said "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."

BushLips SinxShips wrote on May 16, 2007 12:42 PM:

It appears tedious, to be sure, but Gonzo is no ordinary mouse.

And Leahy is no ordinary cat either.

Kidding aside, I am genuinely concerned for Gonzo; his hide is about to turn tail in short order.

moon.

Rusty wrote on May 16, 2007 12:42 PM:

The thing that really pisses me off about this if the complete lack of an empathy for people like us. I mean these officials in our government are supposed to be subject to the same rules and regulations as the rest of the citizenry right? What would happen if I ignored a subpeona? I don't know exactly, but I can bet that the court would not reset the date when I was supposed to show up for it.

This just demostrates how out of touch the Dems are with the people who put them in power. First the slack-ass work on lobbying reform and now this. I swear, I hate Nader - but when stuff like this happens it makes his "two faces of the same broken system" theory make all the more sense.

Dammit. I'm calling my Senators - oh wait, they are Dole and Burr. Awesome.

jalbert wrote on May 16, 2007 12:42 PM:

Let's see, who enforces congressional subpeonas? Oh right, DOJ.

r€nato wrote on May 16, 2007 12:42 PM:

IMPEACH THE MOTHERFUCKERS ALREADY!

bjobotts wrote on May 16, 2007 12:45 PM:

What can congress do to make them comply? What law enforcement body can they use to confiscate files and documents from the DoJ? It's come down to this, our leaders are refusing to abide by the rule of law saying, "What are you gonna' do about it" to the legislative branch and after Bush attacks Iran it won't just stop with the DoJ. Our government has been taken over and there will not be an '08 election...What are you gonna DO about it?

r€nato wrote on May 16, 2007 12:45 PM:

where are the wingnuts crying, "RULE OF LAW! RULE OF LAW!"

I hate those bastards (hypocritical right wingnuts) with the intensity of a thousand white hot suns.

John S wrote on May 16, 2007 12:47 PM:

This is the set up for the hammer, but it's not that good of an idea. AG would have claimed "executive privledge" a long time ago but I suspect that the advice he is getting from Fielding and others makes it clear that this is a stretch.

My guess is that they have teams of people out there searching the legal literature. A call has gone over to the Federalist Society for assistance. Scalia is working overtime; the key is (was) to get them with their pants down before Scalia could provide them with some (amazing contorted) cover.

Mike Valentine wrote on May 16, 2007 12:48 PM:

Isn't this cause for impeachment of the A.G.?

Edog9 wrote on May 16, 2007 12:48 PM:

If I we Leahy, I would be ready with a Censure Motion this Friday at May 18, 10:01 AM, should these papers not arrive.

Gonzales actions in the Attorney Purge aside, his attitude with respect the legislative branch is an intolerable and un tenable assault on the constitution.

Congress should take his voice away, make him irrelevant, and send the President an committee letter that Gonzales has been non-responsive, so that W. is really in a bind when he looks at the cameras and says “I think the Attorney General provided a lot of answers today”

bill175 wrote on May 16, 2007 12:49 PM:

Is this a joke? Throw the motherf*cker in jail if he fails to comply with the subpoena.

Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 12:50 PM:

Of course the Senate is getting very close to the fire so the White House and DOJ are stalling and stonewalling. Isn't this clear as a summer day in Maine? The Repugs are going to do everything they can to run down the clock, while also getting the media to keep attacking the Democrats as being "too partisan" or endangering themselves with "the American people" or investigating too much, in order to make it appear as though these legitimate and necessary inquiries are a "witch hunt." It's clear how the GOP operates, so why should we consider they're doing anything but what's routine for them? Lie, obfuscate, attack, smear, betray, and then lie some more.

P J Evans wrote on May 16, 2007 12:50 PM:

IANAL, but I thought the proper followup to the non-production the subpoena'd papers was to subpoena Gonzo et al to personally show up and explain why the papers can't be handed over.

After that, it's time for the sergeant-at-arms to send out a collection crew, if the papers aren't produced, or if Gonzo and co don't appear.

But every time I start thinking the Democrats finally are getting a handle on being the majority party, they wimp out again.

midwest wrote on May 16, 2007 12:50 PM:

And if you don't comply, then....then....we'll ask again.

gah wrote on May 16, 2007 12:51 PM:

"inherent contempt" ...

rackNruin wrote on May 16, 2007 12:51 PM:

Enlarge the tumbrels to include both the gangsters and their enablers, the democrats then grease up the axles and get 'em on the road.

Don wrote on May 16, 2007 12:51 PM:

Oh, Arlen Specter is angry! Now there will be CONSEQUENCES! /snicker

Yes, he will probably slip a provision in some bill exempting the Justice Dept from Subpoena compliance retroactive to January 2001,....or simply removing congresses Subpoena power a together.

linda wrote on May 16, 2007 12:52 PM:

sorry, not at all impressed. considering the gravity the bushco's criminality, the friggin deadline should have been noon today. if abu ignores the subpeona again, send federal marshalls and haul his ass up to the hill (in handcuffs).

enough is enough.

Chesire11 wrote on May 16, 2007 12:52 PM:

Sometimes I swear taht these guys could commit rape and murder in front of a network film crew and still not be held accountable. Come to think of it, they already have repeatedly - it's called Iraq!

Impeach them NOW!

BushLips SinxShips wrote on May 16, 2007 12:54 PM:

What are the consequences of being charged with contempt of Congress again?

profit

sid from replubican rehab wrote on May 16, 2007 12:54 PM:

Code: The check is in the mail !!!

aznew wrote on May 16, 2007 12:54 PM:

Un oh. Sounds like the Judiciary committee might have put the DOJ on double-secret probation.

Richard Blair wrote on May 16, 2007 12:55 PM:

If I was subpoenaed for anything (traffic ticket, whatever) and didn't comply, I'd have a bench warrant out for my ass.

But the Bush regime knows they have the game rigged, because a Bushie is the U.S. Attorney in DC who any enforcement would have to be referred to.

Ergo, congress is toothless.

Code word: SNAKE - as in, the entire bushel of snakes running this country. (You can't make this stuff up.)

Jeff Kilburn wrote on May 16, 2007 12:56 PM:

From Wikipedia, Subpoenas and Contempt of Congress:
Inherent Contempt
Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited for contempt is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subject to punishment that the House may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from the contempt citation.)

Concerned with the time-consuming nature of a contempt proceeding and the inability to extend punishment further than the session of the Congress concerned (under Supreme Court rulings), Congress created a statutory process in 1857. While Congress retains its "inherent contempt" authority and may exercise it at any time, this inherent contempt process has not been exercised by either House in over 70 years.

Arrest Fredo and bring him to the Senate investigation floor in chains! What a wet dream!

plane wrote on May 16, 2007 12:56 PM:

I'm no lawyer but what a bunch of pussies! If you don't respond to our subpoena you need to explain yourselves??? WTF? How about if you don't respond you'll find yourselves in jail!!!

Mike Valentine wrote on May 16, 2007 12:58 PM:

By the way could Gonzales be on drugs to claim him down in front of these committees? From his grinning performances he must be.

bohdi wrote on May 16, 2007 12:59 PM:

What a joke. K. Rove, world's most skilled fatman since the retirement of Charles Barkley wins easily again. People still don't get it. We do not live in a 'democracy'. Not certainly since Dec 00' when power was concentrated in just a few hands. Rove can barely contain his amusement and deservedly so. If you have no will to seriously check him and no power whatsoever to back your will then you become ridiculous. The Democrats are clowns. They are pussies in pink tuttus and they are lost before they even began the fight. Hats off once again to the master Moriarty himself, K. Rove.

The best the disgruntled and flabbergasted can do is come out of denial and accept that all notions of checks and balances and a 4th Estate are certifiable fiction only.

Windowdog wrote on May 16, 2007 1:01 PM:

Well they can't really arrest people for ignoring the first deadline. And it takes time to fuck with dept's budgets, especially in a time of eternal "war."

But you don't fuck with Senate Chairmen and have a nice career. Leahy is not in fact a pussy, he knows how the game is paid and more than a pound of flesh will be extracted this session.

At least that's my belief. The coervice power of the senate is best used away from the public view honestly. Otherwise they end up having to explain why the randomly defunded positions etc.

Jeremius wrote on May 16, 2007 1:01 PM:

Why congress doesn't set up a congressional office whose sole responsibility is the enforcement of congressional subpoenas and congressional ethics probes. That way, they don't have to rely on a "unitary executive" department of justice to enforce their constitutional powers and prerogatives. Also, having an independent agency charged with congressional ethics probes might be a better setup than the "Ethics Committee" process they currently have established.

MLS wrote on May 16, 2007 1:01 PM:

For those who are asking about Congress's enforcement power: You need to understand that notwithstanding the existence of the subpoena power, Congress does not have any really practical options with respect to direct enforcement of a subpoena against the executive branch. This was just as true of Dan Burton as it is today. That is why when Burton subpoenaed AG Reno to provide the campaign finance memos and she failed to do so, he was not able to compel her.

Then as now, there can be a contempt citation against an executive officer (by vote of the committee and House/Senate) but the criminal prosecution would have to be brought by the Justice Department (ie, the US Atty for DC). So you see the problem.

This is nothing new. That is why no executive branch official has ever been prosecuted for, much less convicted of, contempt of Congress.

LittlePig wrote on May 16, 2007 1:01 PM:

Congress can request the Sergeant-At-Arms to get the Capitol Police and pay a visit to the Attorney General.

As noted above, that will probably require more spine than Democrats have been willing to produce so far.

Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 1:04 PM:

Someone PLEASE save my sanity and answer one simple question.

Why not impeach?

Steve wrote on May 16, 2007 1:05 PM:

Geez folks, chill a little.

Congress does not have the power to just up and throw people in jail on its own authority (thank God, when you remember 2000-2006), even to punish contempt. That's what that provision of the Constitution forbidding "bills of attainder" means.

Instead, my recollection is that they have to refer the matter D.C. U.S. Attorney for prosecution. And, yeah, that prospect represents so many strange and interesting possibilities, the mind boggles.

Also, last time I checked the Constitution, impeachment still takes a 2/3 vote in the Senate. And last time I checked, the Republicans still held more than 1/3 of the seats. Again, thank God, for anyone who can remember back to 1998.

jimBOB wrote on May 16, 2007 1:05 PM:

The dirty little secret about impeachment is that it requires a 2/3 senate majority which they won't get due to there being too many GOP collaborators. Enforcing the subpoenas is also impossible as it requires the cooperation of the now-compromised DOJ.

The U.S. government has been seized by a criminal faction, AKA the Republican Party. They may be voted out in 2008 (we hope) and they may agree to leave then (we also hope, but I'm not betting). If they don't agree to leave then, then we are in a very ugly situation, even uglier than we already are.

Sargon wrote on May 16, 2007 1:05 PM:

Supreme Court, here we come.

Expected arrival time: September 2008, at the earliest! (Maybe the Democrats will have appointed some new justices before arrival :-)

The easiest short cut is to find somebody, anybody, inside the DoJ wiping a disk after the first subpoena, which offers little scope for appeal.

pva wrote on May 16, 2007 1:06 PM:

Go forth and arrest the AG

mfw13 wrote on May 16, 2007 1:06 PM:

Which is why it's time for the Senate to begin impeachment proceedings against Gonzalez.

oddjob wrote on May 16, 2007 1:07 PM:

It may indeed require more spine than they're able to muster, but they still should do it. It would create a spectacle that would splatter all across the news media and force the president into the more submissive posture he should have been in from the moment he was first sworn in.

Mr Blifil wrote on May 16, 2007 1:07 PM:

Well, if they are so angry, where's the hastily arranged press conference detailing the AG's transgressions? Merely pushing back the deadline, when there hasn't even been a response to the first deadline, from the HIGHEST LAW OFFICER in the land I might point out, is a disservice to the American public.

stephen bates wrote on May 16, 2007 1:08 PM:

Congress Subpoenas a wit, subpoena is refused, Congress appeals to the courts, Courts say you have a remedy(s) - arrest until compliance or impeachment. Then they (supremes) have a say in the issue at hand - defining it.

So right now, in this fight Bush is going to go all the way. What he wants to happen is to have the Supreme Court redefine his power. So when high level staff like Rove refuse to honor Congressional subpoenas regarding this new - or really any of the old scandals and Congress seeks redress in the Courts, then 5 justices will change everything about what affects the Executive branch regarding Constitutionality.

notKeith wrote on May 16, 2007 1:10 PM:

This nation ceased being a democracy the second the Supremes gave the 2000 election to Bush.

All this subpoena crap is frosting on the cake. The White House appears to have no respect for Congress or the rule of law because (surprise, surprise) they DON'T.

And any Representative or Senator that does not move to impeach, convict and remove these traitors have themselves violated their own oath of office. It's that simple.

Tomazulob wrote on May 16, 2007 1:10 PM:

Why doesn't Congress go "William Jefferson" on Rove's office, on Gonzo's office, and on the RNC, and confiscate all servers? If the WH can descend on Jefferson's office like a flock of vultures, why can't Congress return the favor?

rjf wrote on May 16, 2007 1:11 PM:

http://www.senate.gov/reference/office/sergeant_at_arms.htm

says
The Sergeant at Arms is authorized to arrest and detain any person violating Senate rules, including the President of the United States.

Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 1:13 PM:

So much for co-equal branches of government.

We now can reasonably state that America is governed by an Imperial Presidency. So we might as well call Bush Imperator.

NativeIntelligence wrote on May 16, 2007 1:16 PM:

Why....if you don't answer this subpoena we'll hold our breath until we turn blue!!! And we'll stomp our feet!! And pout.

I know I sure am scared of those big tough guys in the Senate.

JNagarya wrote on May 16, 2007 1:16 PM:

"One reason Democrats are perceived as weak on defense is that they have consistently displayed weakness vis-a-vis corruption by the Bush Administration. If they do not start showing some spine here, they will do poorly in 2008.

"Both parties are in serious need of reform.

"Posted by:
Date: May 16, 2007 12:38 PM"

The reason Democrats are perceived as weak is because those who perceive them as being that are CLUELESS.

Smarten up. _THINK_, damn it. Have you never heard of _aboveboard_ investigation -- making sure the public _knows_ there is no "rush to judgment"?

Ever hear the word _strategy_? Leave the lynching-without-a-trial rejection of the rule of law to the Republican'ts, okay? Stop being assses demanding the Democrats do exactly that Bush, et al., do.

I can't _believe_ how stupid the attitude you and those like you express. As dumb as attacking Pelosi for saying "impeachment is off the table" -- which is the SMART thing to do -- which is exactly why you jerks don't "get" it.

Do the math:

Third in line for the presidency is Speaker of the House. If Bush and Cheney are impeached and removed, PELOSI gets the job.

Is it simply over your heads that Pelosi is exactly the WRONG person to be pushing for impeachment!?

Were you people born circa noon _yesterday_!?

asdf wrote on May 16, 2007 1:17 PM:

So make the Republicans in the Senate go on the record in support for this criminal enterprise. I guarantee that a vote against impeachment of Gonzales will be more costly in two years than a vote for the invasion of Iraq.

Call their bluff. Take names. This is not a blow job, it’s the future of the constitutional system of government. How can they not understand what is at stake? HOW?

Bush LIPS sink ships. wrote on May 16, 2007 1:18 PM:

This reminds me of when the ABS failed on my vehicle, and I started skidding forward, on wet pavement, into a collision.

It wasn't supposed to happen.

lock.

OxyCon wrote on May 16, 2007 1:20 PM:

Gone-zo has been incorporating President Bush's smirk alot lately.
I wonder if this pleases President Bush, since after all Gone-zo serves for the personal pleasure of President Bush.

asdf wrote on May 16, 2007 1:23 PM:

The math for impeachment isn’t all that unfavorable. Shoot the Blue Dogs might already be on board, Gonzo spit in their eyes too, particularly Pryor. A few Republican senators are already in a position where they couldn’t vote no.

We’d need another 10 or so, doable if the facts are public. Since the press couldn’t ignore an impeachment proceeding, impeachment could give the scandal the attention it deserves. No one in the Senate is carrying the WH water anymore, not one regurgitates the talking points on this. Even Snow is an unconvincing shrill in his defense.

It is possible, and not because it is the only choice.

Eric wrote on May 16, 2007 1:24 PM:

I suggest we start a bumper-sticker campaign. And if that doesn'e work, we hit them hard with a T-shirt campaign.

JNagarya wrote on May 16, 2007 1:26 PM:

"This just demostrates how out of touch the Dems are with the people who put them in power.

"Posted by: Rusty
Date: May 16, 2007 12:42 PM"

It is _YOU_ who are out of touch. Why don't you READ some law -- like what is meant by "due process of law". What is meant by _ABOVEBOARD INVESTIGATION_. What is meant by basing a case on _EVIDENCE_.

Why those TRULY concerned with rule of law -- and thus with _JUSTICE -- DO NOT _rush to judgment_.

Or do you want the Democrats to act precipitously, prematurely, and thus be accused of partisanship?

GAD get your head on straight: your _rush to judgment_ attitude is exactly the same as Bush, et al.'s. WE DON'T DO LYNCHING-WTHOUT-A-TRIAL! AND WE DON'T DO TRIALS WITHOUT INCONTROVERTABLE EVIDENCE!

security code = sugar. Keep the public on one's side by behaving sweetly.

topsight wrote on May 16, 2007 1:27 PM:

I'm sure it's just a simple misunderstanding brought on by not having any subordinates left to delegate the response to.

Long Memory wrote on May 16, 2007 1:29 PM:

The administration WANTS everything to be a confrontation, and the reasoning is two-fold.

1) If Congress doesn't push hard enough, the administration can run out the clock.

2) If Congress goes after them, the administration can say "We're trying to do the people's work, but all these partisan investigations are keeping us from doing that."

(Not that they'll ever admit that W is distracted, but I guess he's probably not. He's busy doing nothing in the White House.)

Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 1:29 PM:

Yet another example of this administration's stunning contempt for democracy. The king and his minions are not subject to the same rules as the rest of us feeble citizens. Executive privilege my ass. This is out and out abuse of "royal perogative."

parrot wrote on May 16, 2007 1:29 PM:

Summon the Sargent at Arms forthwith! What an outrage. And, Mr. Leahy, you guys are handling what is a very simple thing with kids gloves. Get the House and the Speaker on the phone!

Also, I would point out here that what has been happening in the corporate media up til now is a dampening of the whole situation so that the average, independent voter will be left scratching their head and confused, rather than supporting the Congress. We haven't seen half the crap that the Bushites will pull should this get legally serious. McNutly under the bus is just not even a beginning.

Also, where is the censor from the Congress over the Pentagon limiting testimony before the People? The list of malfeasance is very long and points to a contempt of the Congress and the Constitution that is troublingly deep. When will the hemorrhaging of the faith in the Constitution begin?

Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 1:29 PM:

Yet another example of this administration's stunning contempt for democracy. The king and his minions are not subject to the same rules as the rest of us feeble citizens. Executive privilege my ass. This is out and out abuse of "royal perogative."

Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 1:31 PM:

"DO NOT _rush to judgment_. "

JNagarya- Don’t worry your beautiful mind about that possibility, that "rushing" ship sailed years ago. We’re currently in danger of plodding to judgment. Or more accurately, ignoring flagrant criminal behavior.

Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 1:32 PM:

"So make the Republicans in the Senate go on the record in support for this criminal enterprise. I guarantee that a vote against impeachment of Gonzales will be more costly in two years than a vote for the invasion of Iraq."

Posted by: asdf
Date: May 16, 2007 01:17 PM

I agree!
That would be a _very_ difficult position for an incumbent Republican to talk his way out of with actual conservative republicans (not to be confused with partisan idiots).

They may be ok with the war, but a 'true' conservative values the RULE OF LAW.

I think that the dems are stirring up the pot more for the '08 congressional elections than for getting rid of BushCo. Yeah, there pissed, but they have their own long careers to worry about.

OT, can a Presidential pardon be rendered null and void by Congress or a future president?

Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 1:32 PM:

What's the Senate going to do for failing to comply with a subpoena: Impeach and convict anyone of a crime?

HA HA HA HA HA

Nothing is going to happen. The lazy Senate is a paper tiger, DoJ staff knows this, and the GOP Rebpuclians have agreed to ignore any evidence and refuse to enforce the law through the impeachment-removal process.

America's government is in, effect, illegitimate. They've taken impeachment off the table: There's no reason for anyone in the Executive Branch to take the Congress seriously. The Senate is ineffective, weak, powerless, and has shown it will not do anything.

This letter, as is the Constitution, is just a piece of paper, not enforceable, and the Senate has no plans to assert its power to make itself legitimate. It might as well stay home.

Sam Sara wrote on May 16, 2007 1:33 PM:

John S is Right,

This reminds me of the delaying tactics in the House Judiciary Committee over issuing the Goodling subpoena. They are taking some extra time to get their lies in order. Let’s hope they come up with something better than the “Immunity would let Goodling off the hook just like Oliver North” argument.

Lets see:

Honoring the Subpoena would interfere with Scott Bloch’s investigation.
Were claiming executive privilege, I don’t care what the law says.
Sorry, we lostem.

Now who would be shameless enough to make these arguments to the United States Congress?

That's called job security.

Typical Wingnut wrote on May 16, 2007 1:33 PM:

Rule of law! Rule of law! Rule of law!

Never mind.

JNagarya wrote on May 16, 2007 1:33 PM:

"This is the set up for the hammer, but it's not that good of an idea. AG would have claimed "executive privledge" a long time ago but I suspect that the advice he is getting from Fielding and others makes it clear that this is a stretch.

"Posted by: John S
Date: May 16, 2007 12:47 PM"

Leahy and his committee already have Gonzo on the record agreeing that the DOJ isn't covered by Executive Privilege.

Yesterday was major testimony, major revelations. There is orgnization of the new evidence, and planning the next steps. Why do you assume that intelligence and patience are "weakness"? Because Republicans tell you to think that?

Clue: Congress knows what it is doing. You don't know what Congress is doing. That isn't Congress' fault. Stop blaming Congresss for your failure to learn what you need to know.

SC = wrong -- as in: you're wrong.

mayan wrote on May 16, 2007 1:34 PM:

While I hate the idea of a "I'm going to count to three...one...two...two and a half...two and three-quarters, two and four-fifths" etc. etc. letter, I hold out hope that they are using this as leverage in an upcoming obstruction of justice case...or impeachment matter. Perhaps, just perhaps, they want to be in a position to say "we took extraordinary efforts to obtain documents that should have been turned over as a matter of law. We gave them every opportunity. We went beyond giving them every opportunity...and they still withheld the evidence. This can only, at this point, be seen as a criminal enterprise."

Larry wrote on May 16, 2007 1:34 PM:

Why is there no discussion, or mention, of impeaching Gonzales? Why would a man in charge of enforcing the law in a lawless administration be expected to obey a legal order to begin with? Is everyone in Washington trying to pretend that "nothing has changed" under this administration? That they are dealing with honest, upright, not corrupt men of integrity?

bobh wrote on May 16, 2007 1:35 PM:

Ladies and gentlemen we always have a way to depose a government that is not of the people for the people and by the people...revolution. If you don't think it can happen again...think again. I am girding myself for the possibility if the political process fails and George is 'crowned' in violation of all that is American. You should do the same and pray the Democrats manage to get rid of the Bushco people by bits and pieces, otherwise we have but one alternative.

cfaller96 wrote on May 16, 2007 1:36 PM:

Too often commenters get a little cute with the "what's next?" or "why don't they raid the office?" type of questions. You just don't get it.

At the most basic level, Congress doesn't have any guns. The President and the Attorney General do. So, again at the most basic level, no "enforcement" will happen unless guys with guns show up on Alberto's doorstep.

Yes, folks, we've been reduced to that. Welcome to the Homeland of Amerika.

ReggaeBass wrote on May 16, 2007 1:36 PM:

Think about it this way. The people commenting on this page are the ones in the know. If you want to know how important this story is just count the number of comments. I know some of you are frustrated but if you were sitting on the Senate Juticary commite and you were contemplating sending the Sargent at arms to get the Atorney General of the United States of America, the nations top law enforcement officer and bringing him before you essentialy in chains for contempt of congress the last thing you want to be accused of is doing it off the cuff. Keep an eye to Friday at 10. The hammer is about to fall.

DDC wrote on May 16, 2007 1:36 PM:

So, does this mean that the average citizens of this country can now ignore subpoena??

DDC wrote on May 16, 2007 1:36 PM:

So, does this mean that the average citizens of this country can now ignore a subpoena??

DDC wrote on May 16, 2007 1:36 PM:

So, does this mean that the average citizens of this country can now ignore a subpoena??

Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 1:40 PM:

rackNruin

I love it -- the sound of tumbrels!

Sharpen the guillotine blade.
Summon the knitters.

M wrote on May 16, 2007 1:40 PM:

I believe the best way and probably only way to get action on this subpoena would be to get the Sargeant at Arms to start detaining the most senior DOJ staff they can find on Congressional grounds.

cfaller96 wrote on May 16, 2007 1:40 PM:

Larry, click on my homepage, and you'll see in my Daily Update that I often bring up the topic of impeachment. I probably mention it once or twice a week.

Come join our party. The US Attorney Daily Update, weekdays at 5 PM EDT (ish)...

(/shameless plug)

MisterOpus1 wrote on May 16, 2007 1:41 PM:

Cross this line, we're gonna get Angry.

Okay, cross this line again, we'll show you our Angry Face.

Okay, cross this line again, we're gonna show you Angry Face, and then you'll hear our Angry Voice.

Okay, cross this line again, and we're gonna show you Angry Face, let you hear Angry Voice, and then you'll have to read our Angry Writing.

Okay, cross this line again, you'll see Angry Face, hear Angry Voice, read Angry Writing, and then you'll observe our Angry Stomping.

Okay, cross this line again, you'll see Angry Face, hear Angry Voice, read Angry Writing, observe Angry Stomping, and then we'll show you our Angry Faces again.

Okay, cross this line, for Christ's sakes, Congress, what the hell good are you? We didn't vote you in November just to put on a damn show. Find your freakin' backbone and put some substance behind your words for once in your life.

Long Memory wrote on May 16, 2007 1:41 PM:

I wonder if Sen. Specter looks in the mirror in the mornings and thinks "What if I'd stood up to the White House when I was running that committee, rather than rolling over letting them scratch our collective belly?"

He and Colin Powell have to be the two Republicans most soiled by their contact with the Bushies over the last 8 years. But it's what they signed up for, and when they write their books a la George Tenet, we shouldn't let them gloss over the details.

EvilPoet wrote on May 16, 2007 1:46 PM:

Security code: screw. As in screwing around.

Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 1:46 PM:

Leahy- you look like a ABSOLUTE FUCKING JOKE!!!!!!!
You're gonna huff and puff and you ain't gonna do shit. Fuck me. "This time we REALLY mean it...won't you at least give us some bullshit written excuse....PRETTY PLEASE." This has turned into a complete fucking nightmare. Just wrap the shit up Leahy. My disgust is through the fucking roof. If you can't take a massive shit on these criminals just get off the pot. FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!

fuzz wrote on May 16, 2007 1:47 PM:

senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov
http://specter.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactInfo.Home

Sir,

With all due respect, the people of the United States have had quite enough of Alberto Gonzales. Please do not give him even one more day to defy your subpoena. It sets a bad example for the rule of law. Why would I bother to show up if someone subpoenaed me? I am quite sure I wouldn't get a letter from the judge asking that I at least explain why I'm not showing up by Friday. No, I'd be locked up in jail for a few days, then dragged in front of the court in shackles.

Please do not let him continue to make a mockery of our government. Have him arrested immediately.

Sincerely,

Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 1:52 PM:

Subpoena doesnt seem to have any meaning. Why cant congress take action if subpoena is not honored. Condi did the same with Conyers. This administration doesnt care about subpoenas and will not do so unless there are some consequences.
Posted by: Ajay Kalra

Agree, these subpoenas seem to have absolutely no meaning whatsoever. What's the point of issuing them? Even a low level guy like B-Rad Schlozman has bitch slapped Leahy and told him to fuck off. Simply pathetic.

ignoreland wrote on May 16, 2007 1:52 PM:

This is going on your permanent record!

JNagarya wrote on May 16, 2007 1:54 PM:

"DO NOT _rush to judgment_."

"JNagarya- Don’t worry your beautiful mind about that possibility, that "rushing" ship sailed years ago. We’re currently in danger of plodding to judgment. Or more accurately, ignoring flagrant criminal behavior.

"Posted by:
Date: May 16, 2007 01:31 PM"

I have an education in law. You refuse to put your lip-service support of the Constitution into action. You refuse to learn. You refuse to listen. You refuse to pay attention. You refuse to think. You refuse to inform yourself.

Due process _takes time_ -- like it or not. You could actually _learn_ about impeachment, and related processes and requirements, including those specific to House and Senate, without spending a dime: materials are available online, including several pages on impeachment at the Library of Congress (loc.gov). Why don't you do the research and inform yourself? Too much effort?

And you accuse others of being whimps!?

Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 1:57 PM:

Put Gonzo in shackles and a orange jumpsuit and drag his ass into the hearing on a leash. Enough. ENOUGH! I'm tired of the silly fucking games. I wan't some fucking truth. Just give us some truth! And while you're at it bring 'em some of these oil execs and make them testify under oath. People are getting royally screwed and want some TRUTH! The Dems are doing a hell of a job of squandering any goodwill they had.

ReggaeBass wrote on May 16, 2007 2:01 PM:

One more thing. Has anyone thought about the Friday deadline that if they do send the Sgt@arms to get Gonzon and he does not produce the e-mails by 5 to 6 on Friday then he gets to spend the whole weekend in detention with no chance of reprive. Remember nothing is more important to these guys then their time off.

Joe wrote on May 16, 2007 2:01 PM:

Simple. Send the Senate Sergeant at Arms to arrest the AG for contempt of Congress and agree to release him when the subpoena is honored. Show him that you really mean business.

Jillian wrote on May 16, 2007 2:02 PM:

Why not get a court order?

powkat wrote on May 16, 2007 2:08 PM:

Now can we impeach the commander guy? And all his evil minions. If not now when?

ITMFA!

buster wrote on May 16, 2007 2:10 PM:

"Sub poena" means "under pain," as in, "If you don't comply, there will be negative consequences." If, in fact, there are no consequences, it isn't a "subpoena" at all!

Dr. Wu wrote on May 16, 2007 2:10 PM:

Leahy isn't a complete idiot. Bear in mind that pressure for Gonzo's resignation will never come from above (Cheney/Rove/Bush), but it's already starting to come from below. I believe there are still a lot more Comeys and Fitzgeralds than McNultys and Goodlings in the DOJ rank-and-file. With each week it becomes more and more obvious that Gonzo simply doesn't give a shit about subpoenas or the rule of law, and believe me, that pisses off most Federal prosecutors even more than it pisses off the rest of us. There's already no realistic chance of Gonzo accomplishing anything again as AG--maybe his name will stay on the door and maybe it won't, but with his top criminal co-conspirators (McNulty and Goodling) gone and the vast majority of his subordinates regarding him with a combination of fury and contempt, he's effectively been taken off the political map.

tofubo wrote on May 16, 2007 2:11 PM:

and this line in the sand, if you cross it

d'oh

then this line in the sand, if you cross it

d'oh

then ... what ?? no teevee for a week ??

withhold funding, independent prosecutor, contact the post office for change of address forms for bushco forwarding the mail to guantánamo, i hear they have ways of making people talk

Dr. Wu wrote on May 16, 2007 2:12 PM:

Leahy isn't a complete idiot. Bear in mind that pressure for Gonzo's resignation will never come from above (Cheney/Rove/Bush), but it's already starting to come from below. I believe there are still a lot more Comeys and Fitzgeralds than McNultys and Goodlings in the DOJ rank-and-file. With each week it becomes more and more obvious that Gonzo simply doesn't give a shit about subpoenas or the rule of law, and believe me, that pisses off most Federal prosecutors even more than it pisses off the rest of us. There's already no realistic chance of Gonzo accomplishing anything again as AG--maybe his name will stay on the door and maybe it won't, but with his top criminal co-conspirators (McNulty and Goodling) gone and the vast majority of his subordinates regarding him with a combination of fury and contempt, he's effectively been taken off the political map.

tofubo wrote on May 16, 2007 2:12 PM:

and this line in the sand, if you cross it

d'oh

then this line in the sand, if you cross it

d'oh

then ... what ?? no teevee for a week ??

withhold funding, independent prosecutor, contact the post office for change of address forms for bushco forwarding the mail to guantánamo, i hear they have ways of making people talk

aaron l. wrote on May 16, 2007 2:15 PM:

Subpoena power? What subpoena power? The democrats are just too timid.

aaron l. wrote on May 16, 2007 2:15 PM:

Subpoena power? What subpoena power? The democrats are just too timid.

aaron l. wrote on May 16, 2007 2:15 PM:

Subpoena power? What subpoena power? The democrats are just too timid.

puddin' tane wrote on May 16, 2007 2:20 PM:

Patience, people. The Dems are building a steady pressure, and kepping it centered ONLY on the DOJ, for now. Leahy's subpeonas were targeted to the DOJ's emails, not WH internal emails. Abu is on record admitting there is no exec priv. for DOJ documents. This non compliance is just another issue that allows leahy the moral high ground to keep hauling people up to testify - and each time that happens, the DOJ comes off as corrupt, but perhaps more importanly, the ENTIRE GOP comes off as corrupt. Look at the lapdogs who softball Abu. They are a laughing stock, and every time they open their mouths to say "all is well, we heart abu" their '08 dem oppponet gets a free campaign ad clip to BEAT THEM SENSLESS with.

The real gravy will come when the DOJ looks like a half dead chicken flopping around in the road - and everyone in america recognizes it - sees it for what it is, and the investigation is suddenly "surprised" to learn it leads straight to the WH, and they are the puppet masters. The dems have a strategy, and this is either it, or it should be. Move everyone up to the edge of the arena forst, so we can all have a good seat when BUSH HIMSELF is shown as the corrupt offical in charge here. (FORGET ROVE - he is a SIDESHOW. ) Bush fired people for corrupt reasons - you and I know that. It's just going to take time to let everyone else know it too. Does that mean frog marching for anyone? Probably not, so quit calling for it. GOP talking point = no forg amrch, no foul.

Yes, Bushco should be jailed. But first, let's make sure they drag every damn re-thuglican senator and congressman down the drain with them.

SC - same, same shit, different day. Patience, people.

Ian wrote on May 16, 2007 2:21 PM:

Inherent Contempt. That's the solution. They simply direct the Capitol Police to drag the offender out of their office in shackles. Well that's the Extreme Makeover: Congress Loses Its Patience Edition.

nuncamas wrote on May 16, 2007 2:23 PM:

Senator Leahy's letter lays an airtight paper trail for an eventual contempt citation. By giving him until Friday a written second chance, my hope is that he will have the contempt motion in play by 11:00 am. I watched Sen. Reid in his closing speech at the end of the legislative day, I think it was Monday, when he talked about full schedules, weekend sessions, maybe scratching the Memorial Day recess. I think something big is up. He warned members not to make unrefundable airline reservations.

Made me go, "hmmmmmm..."

ebmck wrote on May 16, 2007 2:24 PM:

I remember a number of years ago, the Washington Post did a run-down of the top ten worst jobs in DC. Number 2 was taking urine samples at the DC jail, number 1 was working for Arlen Spector. Maybe the Senator needs a new mailboy -- what a perfect punishment of they ignore the new deadline.

pre ameriKKKan wrote on May 16, 2007 2:29 PM:

this is the usual so why the surprise.

when you have $$ and power, you have super-justice, when you do not have $$ and power, you get jail.

nothing new here and you wonder why there is less and less respect for the "law".

ahem wrote on May 16, 2007 2:30 PM:

Haul the fuckers in. Take the servers and the backup tapes.

Because, as others have said, the Rove shop is shit-scared about this, and thinks that if it bitch-slaps the Congress enough, it'll go away.

nascardaughter wrote on May 16, 2007 2:30 PM:

They're trying to run out the clock.

Duckman GR wrote on May 16, 2007 2:30 PM:

May 18th??? Friday???

Start impeachment proceedings immediately if no cooperation is forthcoming on the 18th.

And start defunding WH departments or offices.

fozzetti wrote on May 16, 2007 2:38 PM:

Congress to Gonzales: "Don't make me COUNT TO THREE!"

Pompano Pete Jr wrote on May 16, 2007 2:38 PM:

So, Congress is weak and powerless? Less than 10 years ago it impeached the President over lying about a blowjob.

Now, have the rules changed? Not to my knowledge.

Was the process orderly and convincing? No fucking way. By the time the House voted, the public knew it was a bullshit attack and it had little public support.

If The Dems moved promptly forward with the impeachment process, what would be the response right now? The media and the entire right wing attack machine would scream "partisan attacks" "payback for Clinton" "no basis, no laws were broken" and it would completely drown out the truth. And it might succeed, thereby crippling every other Congressional investigation taking place.

Has the public's outrage been kindled? They're learning what a collection of scum has collected in the White House, but it's not as important as we here think it is.

Does Leahy know what he's doing? Well, from his biography, "He served for eight years as State's Attorney in Chittenden County. He gained a national reputation for his law enforcement activities and was selected (1974) as one of three outstanding prosecutors in the United States." Seems like he knows more about criminal procedure than most of the commenters here. Oh, he ranks 7th in the Senate in terms of seniority which might also tell you a bit about his powers.

What should we be doing? JMVHO, but a call to his office telling him we support his efforts never hurts. And in our conversations with others, we should emphasize that he's bending over backwards to give these criminals a chance to explain, but it also looks like he's giving them enough rops to hang them all.

Now, quit moaning and get out there and support our side and the rule of law.

mikey wrote on May 16, 2007 2:40 PM:

WIMPS. This is a weak response to blatant, arrogant stonewalling and delay. The time to play nice is over, the only thing that will make progress is hardball.
Are you listening Dems? Stop trying to be "gentlemanly and fair", because you are not being treated in kind nor will you be...

NBachers wrote on May 16, 2007 2:41 PM:

Issue an arrest warrant.

Rusty wrote on May 16, 2007 2:44 PM:

JNagarya - you imbecile. I'm not rushing to judgement. The guy ignored a Congressional Subpeona. So, there's nothing to interpret asshat. Either they are serious about the rule of law or they are not -and they actions say they are not.

I miss the good old days when fools like you were posting elsewhere.

code: door, as in some one should show it to you.

ReggaeBass wrote on May 16, 2007 2:48 PM:

Pompano Pete Jr has it right. We need to relax people. I'll say it again. Look to Friday. Ask yourself these questions. Why was yesterdays deadline 2pm but Fridays is 10am. When do you recall congress doing anything before 10 am. I think never. Right now Gonzo is out of compliance with the law. They gave him until the start of business Friday to get back in to compliance. What do you think they are going to do on Friday if he does not comply? To be honest I don't really know what they are going to do but I bet they do. I promise you Leahey has a plan. Keep your eyes peeled. It all goes down on Friday.

Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 2:49 PM:

nothing new here and you wonder why there is less and less respect for the "law".
Posted by: pre ameriKKKan

It's like Billy Bragg sang, "This ain't a court of justice son, this is a court of law." The powerful get one type of justice and the majority get fucked.

Pompano Pete Jr wrote on May 16, 2007 2:49 PM:

Oh, and as for the "running out the clock" bullshit constantly being cited. If a criminal procedure is underway, it doesn't matter whether the defendant is still in the job he/she held when the crime was committed.

So, it seems that you're upset that the public's attention will be re-directed to the new administration. I for one am more concerned about putting these criminals in jail and asserting the rule of law than I am about media coverage. Just call me old fashioned.

NBachers wrote on May 16, 2007 2:51 PM:

Maybe we can have an "OJ in the Bronco" moment with Abu Gonezales

Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 2:58 PM:

It all goes down on Friday.
Posted by: ReggaeBass

I REALLY hope you're right. But what if it doesn't? What if Gonzo merely sends them YET ANOTHER stalling "fuck you" letter? At what point do you think Leahy should start holding these lying scumbags accountable and make them follow the laws of this country. He's even let Schlozman get away with sending him a "fuck you" letter. I'm afraid Leahy has been far too accomodating to these creeps. The time has long since past to take action and get tough.

David wrote on May 16, 2007 3:03 PM:

What IS the Senate Committee's recourse?

fredfillis wrote on May 16, 2007 3:05 PM:

Man, that is sweet.

It's also pretty cool that Leahy used the TPM logo on the committee letterhead ;)

AngryAmerican wrote on May 16, 2007 3:16 PM:

I'm officially done with the Dems. Well, I guess I was done about 8 years ago when I started registering Green, but now they are on a level with the repiglicans. I think my head is going to explode if I get one more form letter from the useless Nancy Pelosi about how she can't answer my questions about impeachment, or if I see one more of these "you didn't comply with the law, so were asking you again to comply with the law" kind of things.

There is absolutely no reason that the Dems should wait another day to introduce a resolution of inquiry and get the impeachment process started. I don't know about you, but I think there is plenty of smoke around wiretapping to get it rolling, and I know it would hit paydirt.

Mooser wrote on May 16, 2007 3:17 PM:

If they impeach, the Dems will be doing the Republican's the biggest favor they can.
1) They solve all the Republican party's problems for them! And they won't thank you for it.
2) Oh, please, do it quick! That'll give the electorate enough time to forget Bush, not enough time (if the universe contains enough) to work out how Republican policies led to the disaster, and by 2008, they'll be all ready to chase the Republican pony again.

Kool-Aid is the only politics an entire generation knows. They'll go right back to it, unless, maybe, they are suffering under its lash at the time.

Steve5117 wrote on May 16, 2007 3:21 PM:

Too many people sound like they want to turn to the last page of the book and read that Bush< Chaney and Co. were now in jail.

That would spoil reading the book. Take time and savor the chapters as they are now being written.

Someday, when another scandal hits town, you can tell your grandchildren about this one.

I'm looking forward to watching people hem and haw and sweat under the collar.

Are there any Toastmasters to evaluate the speakers we will hear over the coming days, weeks, month? Count their ers and ums and pregnant pauses and watch the show!

Austin Cooper wrote on May 16, 2007 3:22 PM:

Whenever this clique of criminals continues to play out their run-out-the-clock / delay / harrass / stalling strategy... the images that keep playing in my head are of, uh, certain people in Berlin, circa late spring, 1945, burning papers by the ton and digging trenches in the streets.

The end, for them, wasn't far off. Something tells me that this metaphor isn't that far off. They can stall all they'd like -- but it *feels* as if *something* is building to a critical mass.

Some new revelation, possibly around the wiretap/surveillance issue, that will leave us breathless with the sheer arrogance and stupidity of it all.

Might not be a bad thing to keep all that past speculation around Christiane Amanpour's cellphone conversations in mind.

(I got dibs on putting the flag on the top of Reichstag, by the way.)

edward ripple wrote on May 16, 2007 3:24 PM:

Isn't there a jail in the cellar of the Capital?
And the next time Gonzo goes into Congress to give his smarmy responses wouldn't you love to see Leahy have the sargent at arms grab Gonzo and throw him in it?

MM wrote on May 16, 2007 3:29 PM:

I am going to kick Leahy in the fucking balls... even if he is my own senator. Real democracies don't stand for this kind of BULLSHIT! I am sick and fucking tired of reading about these PUSSY politicians. I am twenty fucking four years old and I am about to have a heart attack! FUCK!!!!!!!

justaworkinstiff wrote on May 16, 2007 3:30 PM:

People as much as I'm eager for this process to go faster JNagarya is correct, the Democrats are slowly putting piecies together that can, and I believe will, lead to impeachment of possibly several individuals in this administration.

It's fine to vent our frustration here but please be mindful that this process, by our own laws, must be precise. JNagarya I believe stated even earlier in this thread that it is the warrantless wiretapping that will be the ulitmate crime here. IT will take time to complie the pieces that constitute proof to a LEGAL level not just supposition.

We all want this administrations deeds brought out into the sunlight, it will take time to do it so it sticks. If the Democrats rush this and miss an important piece then it blows up and the Far Right wins and the thought of more than the eight years of this we're stuck with scares me greatly.

Support the people trying to find the truth. Push them, yes indeed, but only enough to keep them moving forward not so much they push back at us.

This is OUR country, 2008 is coming, they Dems are working on making this once again a country whre laws work the same for everyone and it is imperative we support that effort

noshrub wrote on May 16, 2007 3:44 PM:

Why don't they go after Gonzo's license? Lawyers really shouldn't blow off subpoenas if ya know what I mean.

Spud1 wrote on May 16, 2007 3:47 PM:

The Senate does have a Seargent at Arms for just this reason.

gcc burger wrote on May 16, 2007 3:53 PM:

By now I'm sure you've all heard of the concept of nut-picking. These posts seem to indicate possible nut-planting

Posted by:
Date: May 16, 2007 01:46 PM

Posted by:
Date: May 16, 2007 01:32 PM

Posted by:
Date: May 16, 2007 01:57 PM

Also, the outright screaming about what the Dems should be doing RIGHT THIS VERY SECOND really do reveal lack of knowledge about the workings of congress. Aren't we supposed to be the ones who take a well reasoned approach to things rather than hysterically demanding red meat?

Arlen Specter wrote on May 16, 2007 3:55 PM:

Gonzo... you better watch out. I mean it this time.

I'm really, really mad this time Gonzo. I mean *really* mad. I might just actually raise my voice and make a speech on the Senate floor if you don't behave. I might even fail to yield the floor for 12 seconds if you don't comply with our subpoena. That will show you.

Did you see me last night on Frontline with the whole FISA thing-a-ma-jig? That is how mad I might get. Spittle flying from my mouth, rage in my heart... the whole works Gonzo. I'll make a speech like THAT if you don't at least tell us why you won't return our calls.

Don't mess with me again Gonzo or else I'll get really, really, really mad.

p.s. if you call my bluff, I'll fold like a house of cards, but don't tell anyone okay...like off the record.

EdNSted wrote on May 16, 2007 3:56 PM:

I'm trying to imagine where I'd be today had I ignored a subpoena whose deadline was yesterday... Hmmm, I wonder.... on vacation maybe? At a Red Sox game? At the Copacabana?

Aaaargh wrote on May 16, 2007 4:06 PM:

"I will shake my finger vigorously in your general direction!"

---The Senate

Matt wrote on May 16, 2007 4:07 PM:

Does this remind anyone else of this exchange (from Team America):

Hans Brix: "I'm sorry, but the U.N. must be firm with you. Let me see your whole palace or else."

Kim Jong Il: "Or else what?"

Hans: "Or else we will be very, very angry with you. And we will write you a letter telling you how angry we are."

I guess it's just about time for KJI, er uh W, to feed the Senators to the sharks.

gcc burger wrote on May 16, 2007 4:08 PM:

Posted by: MM
Date: May 16, 2007 03:29 PM

Wow, all of 24 years old, and you have it all figured out. It's a good thing this guy came along to straighten us all out. Yeah, that's the ticket.

I appreciate the sentiment, really, but if Leahy acted as you and others have suggested, then he'd come off as, oh, I don't know, a stark raving mad 24 year old blog commenter?

SC: round, as in ground round.

Pompano Pete Jr wrote on May 16, 2007 4:09 PM:

MM, I couldn't help thinking about that joke about the old bull and the young bull. The two are standing atop a hill and spot a group of young heifers grazing below. The young bull snorts, becomes aroused and says, "Let's run down there and fuck a heifer, now!" The old bull gazes at the heifers for a bit and says, "Why not walk down and fuck them all?"

Being twenty four speaks volumes about your ability to get in a position to "fuck them all".

liberal wrote on May 16, 2007 4:18 PM:

MLS wrote, "Then as now, there can be a contempt citation against an executive officer (by vote of the committee and House/Senate) but the criminal prosecution would have to be brought by the Justice Department (ie, the US Atty for DC). So you see the problem."

I don't have time to research this, but I thought this is what special prosecutors are for. And I also thought that, the recent expiration of the special prosecutor statute notwithstanding, the Constitution empowers Congress to appoint such prosecutors.

Maybe I'm wrong about all that.

sms wrote on May 16, 2007 4:38 PM:

The key here is public outrage.

The democrats need to realize the immense power they hold to explain what has happened here in the strongest and loudest possible terms. With a public outcry and mobilization, amazing things can happen.

A surprisingly large majority of Americans--when prodded--still like to believe we are a nation of laws.

jdw wrote on May 16, 2007 4:40 PM:

"Also, last time I checked the Constitution, impeachment still takes a 2/3 vote in the Senate. And last time I checked, the Republicans still held more than 1/3 of the seats. Again, thank God, for anyone who can remember back to 1998."

Clinton *was* Impeached.

It takes a simply majority of the House to impeach.

It then takes 2/3rds of the Senate to Convict.

Is conviction likely? No. That's 67 at a time when there aren't even 50 Democrats if we leave out Lieb (who would never vote to convict) and a certain ill Dem who's still recovering.

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

Working back in the other direction, one could perhaps set up Gonzo and a variety of officials for Contempt of Congress charges. Perhaps they're in the process of doing that.

To chase them in the courts (i.e. actually get the documents), that is going to need the DOJ's help.

On the other hand, one wonders if the House could move in this direction:

(a) the House Committee finding Gonzo/Etc. in contempt.

(b) the Full House finding Gonzo/Etc. in contempt

(c) use the Gerald Ford definition of Impeachment:

"An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."

In other words, the House Impeaching Gonzo on the crimes of "Contempt of Congress" and "bringing disrepute to the federal justice system".

Harry E. Claiborne got impeached for Tax Evasion and "bringing disrepute to the federal judiciary".

Is it a stretch that the Top Legal Official In The USA *refusing* to order his DOJ to turn over subpoenaed documents to Congress under its oversight rights is not both a crime of Contempt and also makes a mockery out of the US Legal System (i.e. disrepute)?

Now it's unlikely that they would get 67 folks in the Senate to convict Gonzo (or other Administration officials pulling the same stunt). But it also makes all of them stand up and vote on a corruption matter.

This doesn't look like something that would take as long as Clinton's investigation dragging on forever. Simply find him and the DOJ in contempt, and then move to the next stage.

John

DCB wrote on May 16, 2007 4:41 PM:

Seems to me there is a little cell below the well of the House. Why don't they send the Capitol Police up for a "rendition" of Abu Gonzo and throw him in that cell until he comes clean.

code word: small, as in small little sniveling bastard

epistemology wrote on May 16, 2007 4:42 PM:

Only impeachment will cleanse us now.

Rocking Road wrote on May 16, 2007 4:43 PM:

Arrogance is inferior to humiliity. Its time for real justice. A swift pipe to their shins will enlighten their behavior.

Senators who say Ni wrote on May 16, 2007 4:44 PM:

and if you do not respond to my subpoena this time we will say 'Ni' yet again!

paul lukasiak wrote on May 16, 2007 5:04 PM:

While everyone else is assuming that Leahy is being a wimp, I'd like to suggest an alternative explanation:

Specter has promised Leahy his full support on whatever steps need to be taken if the White House does not respond, and wanted time to let the White House know that he (Specter) had run out of patience, and that compliance was necessary.

randron wrote on May 16, 2007 5:10 PM:

GREAT! I no longer have to drive the speed limit, serve on jury duty, pay my taxes, tell the truth, be competent in my job, or be accountable to anyone for anything! I'M FREE! Free from responsibility; free from the need to know anything; free to say and to do whatever I want, whenever I want, wherever I want for whatever reason I want! If I get caught doing something wrong, I'll just lie and deny or I "won't recall!" Look out neighbor ... I'm coming to get your TV, your car, your house ... and while I'm at it, I think I'll take your wife, too! Why not? It's what I want ... and what I want is all that matters! LAW??? I DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' LAW!" The law is for chumps! Honesty is for chumps! Morality is for chumps! Remembering is for chumps! Hail to the Chimp!

DWC wrote on May 16, 2007 5:19 PM:

Seems one solution would be to charge Gonzo and co. under the “Patriot Act” as “enemy combatants”? In less than 24 hrs via waterboarding we could have the truth!

Charles Bowman wrote on May 16, 2007 5:28 PM:

Hagel today calls for Gonzales resignation. One by one the two thirds needed is coming on board. Most Democratic Senators would vote for impeachment, and as this scandal continues more Republicans will join the cause. When two thirds majority is achieved in the Senate, then the House Judiciary Committee will begin the impeachment proceedings. I think that all in all the Democrats are handling this situation very well. Senator Leahy, Senator Schumer, and Congressman Conyer deserve our salute and our cooperation. I think that more Republicans will soon come aboard! The pressure that has brought this to the attention of the American people must be maintained by all freedom loving Americans. Now is not the time to quit our day jobs to more directly participate in the process.

Charles Bowman wrote on May 16, 2007 5:28 PM:

Hagel today calls for Gonzales resignation. One by one the two thirds needed is coming on board. Most Democratic Senators would vote for impeachment, and as this scandal continues more Republicans will join the cause. When two thirds majority is achieved in the Senate, then the House Judiciary Committee will begin the impeachment proceedings. I think that all in all the Democrats are handling this situation very well. Senator Leahy, Senator Schumer, and Congressman Conyer deserve our salute and our cooperation. I think that more Republicans will soon come aboard! The pressure that has brought this to the attention of the American people must be maintained by all freedom loving Americans. Now is not the time to quit our day jobs to more directly participate in the process.

Charles Bowman wrote on May 16, 2007 5:28 PM:

Hagel today calls for Gonzales resignation. One by one the two thirds needed is coming on board. Most Democratic Senators would vote for impeachment, and as this scandal continues more Republicans will join the cause. When two thirds majority is achieved in the Senate, then the House Judiciary Committee will begin the impeachment proceedings. I think that all in all the Democrats are handling this situation very well. Senator Leahy, Senator Schumer, and Congressman Conyer deserve our salute and our cooperation. I think that more Republicans will soon come aboard! The pressure that has brought this to the attention of the American people must be maintained by all freedom loving Americans. Now is not the time to quit our day jobs to more directly participate in the process.

shannon wrote on May 16, 2007 5:57 PM:

i thought i read somewhere that if a subpoena was not met that they then have the power to order them arrested?

i guess i'm wrong?

jrw wrote on May 16, 2007 6:07 PM:

Okay, Alberto, that's it...no dessert for the rest of your life!

Donna wrote on May 16, 2007 7:34 PM:

I suspect that Gonzo is stonewalling for the purpose of frustrating the other side to the point whereby the other side might start making short-circuit mistakes. Mistakes in procedure could count in Gonzo's favor way down the line [say, if Gonzo was someday to be criminally prosecuted]. Just read the many reactions here of persons who are very frustrated with the given pace of Leahy's steady, full, but slow and careful investigation/legal procedure.

The real smart way to handle being frustrated with the slowness of effective process is to 'frame' the delays as 'oh, good, now we have additional time to uncover even more facts' to make our full sweep case'.

RICHARD wrote on May 16, 2007 7:48 PM:

might be that moment when the riechestag goes up in flames

Sharon A wrote on May 16, 2007 8:16 PM:

I think Gonzo is running out of "Cards" to play too many more rounds with Leahy and Spector. What a pity.

MLS wrote on May 17, 2007 8:55 AM:

Liberal- Even under the independent counsel statute (which, as you note, has lapsed), in which Congress could take certain actions that required the executive branch to consider the appointment of the independent counsel, the appointment was not made by the Congress and could not be made without the acquiescence of the executive. Under current law, the Attorney General can appoint a special prosecutor (eg, Patrick Fitzgerald). But if the executive branch refuses to provide information to Congress on the grounds of executive privilege, it is not going to appoint a special prosecutor to second guess its decision.

Others- As for inherent contempt, Congress has this power (although it has not used it since 1936). But there is a reason that it has never been used against the executive branch. (It will not surprise you, I am sure, that the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel has long taken the position that it would be unconstitutional to do so). Sure, the Senate or House could send the Sergeant at Arms to arrest the Attorney General. But what happens when the Attorney General's security detail demurs? Do you want the dispute settled by who is better armed?

In our history there have been thousands of disputes between the executive and legislative branches over the latter's access to information. Before confidently asserting that Congress should do this or that, you might want to consider whether there is a reason that it has never been done before.

This is not even the first dispute that has arisen over the same subject. During the Grover Cleveland administration, the Senate demanded that the Attorney General produce all papers relating to the removal of a US attorney. When the Attorney General refused, the Senate fumed for a while and then passed a resolution condemning the refusal. But it didn't get the papers.

Anonymous wrote on May 17, 2007 10:12 AM:

"Specter has promised Leahy his full support on whatever steps need to be taken if the White House does not respond, and wanted time to let the White House know that he (Specter) had run out of patience, and that compliance was necessary.

Posted by: paul lukasiak
Date: May 16, 2007 05:04 PM "

Paul- Any plan the Democrats my have which relies on the integrity of Specter is fatally flawed from the inception.

tomg wrote on May 17, 2007 10:40 AM:

Thanks for theinsightful history MLS, I guess some of the checks and balances we all assume is only good if the check doesn't check back

JMR wrote on May 17, 2007 11:35 AM:

Thing is, folks, the "average" citizen is what you see in the Tonight Show's Jaywalking segments. If you haven't seen it, you really must.

As in college seniors who live in Los Angeles and cannot name the ocean they can see from their dorm rooms and high school teachers who cannot name the Vice President.

The dumbing down of America began in earnest with Ronald Reagan and has been a smashing success. Joe Sixpack wasn't a joke, it was a propaganda machine. Dumb is cool. And deadly to our governmental process.

We now have what we have in government because the people no longer have the intellectual curiosity to even CONSIDER history, much less be concerned with what's happening in Washington,D.C. (Which I suspect most people think is that state where the Seahawks play football.)

Good luck with getting them interested and informed enough to get pissed about the Bushies and Alberto et al.

The better bet is on an electorate with an intense and ongoing focus on bling and Bud Light.

Nobody's getting impeached. Get used to it.

JNagarya wrote on May 18, 2007 6:20 PM:

"I am going to kick Leahy in the fucking balls... even if he is my own senator. Real democracies don't stand for this kind of BULLSHIT! I am sick and fucking tired of reading about these PUSSY politicians. I am twenty fucking four years old and I am about to have a heart attack! FUCK!!!!!!!

"Posted by: MM
Date: May 16, 2007 03:29 PM"

I was 23-24 during Watergate, and yet I knew not only to have patience, but also not to be a self-important ass.

I support the rule of law because the alternative is unacceptable. Democracy and lawful due process take longer than criminality and immediate gratification.

JNagarya wrote on May 18, 2007 6:30 PM:

"So make the Republicans in the Senate go on the record in support for this criminal enterprise. I guarantee that a vote against impeachment of Gonzales will be more costly in two years than a vote for the invasion of Iraq.

"Call their bluff. Take names. This is not a blow job, it’s the future of the constitutional system of government. How can they not understand what is at stake? HOW?

"Posted by: asdf
Date: May 16, 2007 01:17 PM"

That is one of the purposes of the no-confidence: it puts the Republican'ts on the spot: shit or get off the pot: are you for Gonzales' public, broad-daylight violations of law? -- there's an election coming -- are are you against them? -- there's an election coming.

It is also a guaging "sense of the Senate" -- how many votes for no-confidence, how many against? Should the vote for no-confidence be sufficient, next might be a vote for contempt. That's ever-closer to appointment of a Special Prosecutor. But matters have actually been moving rather fast, so there may not need to be a Special Prosecutor? -- is it really necessary to prove with harder evidence than the tapes of Gonzales' public, under oath lying?

The Comey testimony got the attention of many who until now haven't been paying much attention. The Goodling testimony (presented close to the no-confidence vote) should raise the ante even more -- especially if, as Iglasias says, she holds the keys to the kingdom. If she does, and tells the truth, it will be a bigger bombshell than Comey's testimony, and matters will speed up even more.

SC = fear. As in, there's plenty of fear to go around. Let's donate ours for the personal use of Bush, et al.

JNagarya wrote on May 18, 2007 6:51 PM:

"Leahy isn't a complete idiot. Bear in mind that pressure for Gonzo's resignation will never come from above (Cheney/Rove/Bush), but it's already starting to come from below. I believe there are still a lot more Comeys and Fitzgeralds than McNultys and Goodlings in the DOJ rank-and-file. With each week it becomes more and more obvious that Gonzo simply doesn't give a shit about subpoenas or the rule of law, and believe me, that pisses off most Federal prosecutors even more than it pisses off the rest of us. There's already no realistic chance of Gonzo accomplishing anything again as AG--maybe his name will stay on the door and maybe it won't, but with his top criminal co-conspirators (McNulty and Goodling) gone and the vast majority of his subordinates regarding him with a combination of fury and contempt, he's effectively been taken off the political map.

"Posted by: Dr. Wu
Date: May 16, 2007 02:12 PM"

Well said. There are career prosecutors at DOJ who don't like what's been happening, or what is happening. And now that most of the Bushit enforcers are out, they can begin their purge of the corruption from the inside.

There has been a significant amount of leaking of documents which at every turn has refuted Gonzo's public lies.

Nixon knew it: Leaks are the life of democracy.

JNagarya wrote on May 18, 2007 7:05 PM:

"JNagarya - you imbecile."

I have an education in law. You'd don't. Nor do you give a damn about the rule of law; you only care about having it your way. Let me guess: your surname is "Bush".

"I'm not rushing to judgement. The guy ignored a Congressional Subpeona."

Yes, you are. Do you want only Gonzales? Or do you want the entire gang? Your demand is at present a long-shot, and if successful only gets Gonzales.

"So, there's nothing to interpret asshat."

I said nothing about "interpret"ation of anything. I said it takes time to build a case. And to sell that case to the public.

"Either they are serious about the rule of law or they are not -and they actions say they are not."

To which "they" do you refer?

"I miss the good old days when fools like you were posting elsewhere."

You miss the "good old days" when hot-heads like you were able to trample reason under foot without challenge.

"code: door, as in some one should show it to you."

Shouldn't you require I be afforded due process first, beginning with presumption of innocence? Nah: you're part of Bush's posse of lynchers. "We don' nee no steenking evidence."

"Posted by: Rusty
Date: May 16, 2007 02:44 PM"

You want actual justice -- not the bullying Bushit you urge? Then be the first to _do_ justice.

SC = sharp. As in, You aren't.

JNagarya wrote on May 18, 2007 7:18 PM:

"The key here is public outrage.

"The democrats need to realize the immense power they hold to explain what has happened here in the strongest and loudest possible terms. With a public outcry and mobilization, amazing things can happen.

"A surprisingly large majority of Americans--when prodded--still like to believe we are a nation of laws.

"Posted by: sms
Date: May 16, 2007 04:38 PM"

Exactly: public outrage is key. (There is much truth in the old saw that Congress doesn't lead, it follows the lead of We the people.) But the outrage at the Democrats is misplaced.

Impeachment must begin with We the people. And that demand must be communicated to Congress. But bashing those one wants to act is stupid, self-defeating.

And I can't believe the bashing of Pelosi for not initiating impeachment continues despite the fact it would be blatantly self-serving in the view of Bushit supporters for her to do so.

MissingAmerica wrote on May 22, 2007 4:18 PM:

Meanwhile, not a word about this in the New York Times or the Washington Post. Nothing happening here, folks, move along.

aqtc vwgeqtk wrote on August 19, 2007 6:15 PM:

oerhq dxvo czhlts zfwtc zxmokn dnagis ngeoryc