Comments (75)

Jake D. wrote on July 26, 2007 9:42 AM:

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

Steve Pordon wrote on July 26, 2007 9:50 AM:

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

altoid wrote on July 26, 2007 9:51 AM:

Don't forget "inherent contempt." It's a different animal. No need to involve the Justice Department.

Crust wrote on July 26, 2007 9:51 AM:

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

Jake D. wrote on July 26, 2007 9:52 AM:

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.

tbhull wrote on July 26, 2007 9:54 AM:

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.

Jake D. wrote on July 26, 2007 9:55 AM:

No problem, Steve. Too bad the Senate doesn't "start" impeachment proceedings.

regular lurker wrote on July 26, 2007 9:58 AM:

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

Jake D. wrote on July 26, 2007 9:58 AM:

altoid:

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

sdfg wrote on July 26, 2007 10:00 AM:

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.

altoid wrote on July 26, 2007 10:03 AM:

Nice try, Jake-off. You didn't hear him lie? That's because a lie doesn't stand out in a sea of prevarication. Remember, this is the smarmy SOB who has condoned government torture, who has assisted in making the Justice Department a subsidiary of Karl Rove, Inc., who has aided in maintaining an evesdropping program that violates the rights of thousands of U.S. citizens daily, and who has been a party to suggesting that the Executive is somehow above the law and unanswerable to anyone. He must go.

Jake D. wrote on July 26, 2007 10:04 AM:

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

RM wrote on July 26, 2007 10:05 AM:

Jake, I think you are right, Gonzales didn't lie. He did out a new program, but what the heck. CIA we can out them, and who cares if the President is running an illegal program?

mayan wrote on July 26, 2007 10:05 AM:

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

Troll Patrol wrote on July 26, 2007 10:05 AM:

Public Service announcement - to skip troll posts:

Use your "find" function in your browser (look under edit or tools). Plug in the name of any troll - and click "highlight all" or "find all" - then, simply skip all the "lightening rod" tactics of our resident troll.

Be at peace. Seek wisdom.

JNagarya wrote on July 26, 2007 10:08 AM:

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.

Anonymous wrote on July 26, 2007 10:10 AM:

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

To support his future comment that after careful review, he is convinced that their original testimony was truthful. It’s entirely bluster, no doubt about it. He has never, not even once, walked his talk.

Anna S. wrote on July 26, 2007 10:10 AM:

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.

TheraP wrote on July 26, 2007 10:12 AM:

regular lurker:

I'm not sure I have the answer to your question. But here's an intriguing lead. Today's NYTimes has an op-ed discussing how Congress can pass a law to change the number of justices on the supreme court. This has been done in the past. And it works to prevent politicization of the court. I'm putting your question together with that info. I'm thinking that maybe they are laying the groundwork for such legislation. If they can show that current justices are acting contrary to sworn statements and also acting against precedent, then perhaps it would give more weight to passing such legislation?

petewsh61 wrote on July 26, 2007 10:14 AM:

Jakey.

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

Harriet Mired wrote on July 26, 2007 10:18 AM:

he likes "Jakey-Poo" - that's what you call a 'resident'

If you must address him, use the proper nickname.

Barbara wrote on July 26, 2007 10:19 AM:

A President lying about his sexual infidelities is a LOT different than an entire administration lying about the reasons for going to war, thir spying on Americans (just think what they can learn that might help them in their take over of the country), and their total indifference to the Constitution and the law. In spite of my vow not to respond to Jake D, I'm afraid I had to say this, though I know it is pointless to respond to his idiocy.

Anna S. wrote on July 26, 2007 10:19 AM:

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.

James' Conscience wrote on July 26, 2007 10:19 AM:

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.

News Consumer wrote on July 26, 2007 10:21 AM:

TheraP

Can the Congress *reduce* the number of justices? And if so, who would pick which ones to keep/can?

Billy Pilgrim wrote on July 26, 2007 10:23 AM:

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.

Helen Rainier wrote on July 26, 2007 10:27 AM:

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. Have 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 checked up by a competent psychiatrist.

Helen Rainier wrote on July 26, 2007 10:28 AM:

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.

Billy Pilgrim wrote on July 26, 2007 10:29 AM:

regular lurker

Could Specter's apparent change of heart have anything to do with Pennsylvanian's demanding his resignation for his Patriot Act criminality?

TheraP wrote on July 26, 2007 10:30 AM:

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"

Matt wrote on July 26, 2007 10:30 AM:

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?
For example, is it possible to prove that Gonzales lied? Seeing what a weasel he is, it could be very difficult!
Is it likely that Bush would pardon Gonzales? Absolutely!

1. Let's see, who "investigates" perjury for the federal government? The U.S. Attorney and grand jury! LOL!
2. I was "involved" in watching Gonzales's entire testimony, and I didn't catch any which was proven as untruthful.
3. If either the House or Senate use "inherent contempt" for this witch hunt, then President Bush should pardon Gonzales, etc.

Anonymous wrote on July 26, 2007 10:32 AM:

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

TheraP wrote on July 26, 2007 10:36 AM:

Helen Rainier:

There's an old diagnostic saw: Patients tend to sort by diagnosis. Thus if you have a bunch of people, the schizophrenics will hang out, the sociopaths hang out, etc.

I think you can read between the lines.

Word is "screw" - how fitting!

Legalize wrote on July 26, 2007 10:37 AM:

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

*Except that he didn't.

JNagarya wrote on July 26, 2007 10:38 AM:

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.

Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 26, 2007 9:52 AM

Clinton "lied" about a non-illegal irrelevancy -- but thanks for yet again dragging in an effort to distract and smear.

That Gonzales lied is substantiated by the Negropnte letter. But it doesn't surprise that a constant liar against truth and country like you wouldn't recognize a lie as being a lie.

Your hatred of Constitution and rule of law notwithstanding, as concerns Gonzales and whether he lied under oath: checkmate.

regular lurker wrote on July 26, 2007 10:38 AM:

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.

Xman wrote on July 26, 2007 10:40 AM:

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@#!

Xman wrote on July 26, 2007 10:41 AM:

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@#!

lonesomerobot wrote on July 26, 2007 10:41 AM:

guess what, jake! you're wrong! specter himself said they can appoint a special prosecutor...OOOOPS!

guess that cuts the 'loyal bushie' quotient outta the equation! LOL!

and you clearly don't understand inherent contempt. bush doesn't have the power to pardon someone out of that, LOL! anyone found inherently contempt is merely jailed until they feel like testifying (insert juvenile exclamation here)!

Numero Uno McLean Stevenson/Hello Larry Fan wrote on July 26, 2007 10:42 AM:

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.

Whispers wrote on July 26, 2007 10:45 AM:

It is really precious that Jake thinks it's funny that, if the AG commits perjury on Capitol Hill, the person in charge of investigating the perjury is the AG himself!

Nixon thought that kind of thinking was "funny" too. He even sought to fire the man in charge of investigating him, and then fired two DoJ officials who refused to play along with his nonsense.

Jake thinks this is funny. LOL!

Most of us think it is simply abuse of power.

And if you mention Clinton again, I'll send you back to your third-grade teacher, who will re-instruct you in the notion that the bad behavior of others doesn't justify your own bad behavior.

LOL!

JNagarya wrote on July 26, 2007 10:48 AM:

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

Paranoid yet? wrote on July 26, 2007 10:49 AM:

regular lurker:

Can anyone really doubt that there is no daylight between some of the supremes and the executive branch?

You are right. Everything needs to be looked at very, very carefully.

Too much is intertwined. And none of it looks good.

JNagarya wrote on July 26, 2007 10:51 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.

Quackers wrote on July 26, 2007 10:52 AM:

JakeD said: 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.

Is that supposed to be a benchmark for the truth that YOU didn't catch any lies? I'm sure Capone saw nothing wrong with his tax returns.

tbhull wrote on July 26, 2007 10:54 AM:

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.

Paranoid yet? wrote on July 26, 2007 10:55 AM:

GWB - "democratically elected?"

I seem to recall the supreme court ignored the constitution!

And the second go-round.... well, more and more we know there was a lot of illegal stuff happening in ohio.

GWB - fascist failure. not democratically elected.

Foo wrote on July 26, 2007 10:57 AM:

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

TheraP wrote on July 26, 2007 11:01 AM:

Xman:

I've given a lot of thought to this.

None of us has access to bush - or we'd surely give him a piece of our mind. And it would not be pretty.

bush, of course, avoids any situations where he might actually come in contact with reality and thinking voters.

Thus bush sends "doppelgangers" in his place. People willing to take abuse - and parrot nonsense.

It makes sense that people's anger gets the better of them at times. And they lash out at the nearest puppet that parrots bush.

It's irritating. It's frustrating. I'm trying to keep a zen-like mind - and simply attend to the folks and the topics that matter.

bill57 wrote on July 26, 2007 11:06 AM:

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.

kenga wrote on July 26, 2007 11:19 AM:

Anna - I was going to comment that yes, there are things that can in fact be done to sitting Supreme Court justices, then you go and specifically mention impeachment as being in play light-years prior to legislation changing the number of justices.

Certainly, it's Specter who has brought the topic up, but he's not the only member of the Judiciary Committee.

I've long felt that the SC is the place to start the impeachments - they don' got no stinking executive privilege claims to stand on.
And it IS a matter of grave concern if a Chief or Associate Justice has played fast and loose with the truth.
And whaddya know - the two Bush appointees, whose testimony before Congress is freshest, are also the youngest members of the Court. Drag that out to the end of the next Congress and there's no time for a new appointee to be confirmed.
Leaving how many vacant seats, come January 21, 2009?

PaulB wrote on July 26, 2007 11:21 AM:

"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.

Anonymous wrote on July 26, 2007 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.

biggerbox wrote on July 26, 2007 11:24 AM:

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.

Douglas Watts wrote on July 26, 2007 11:25 AM:

Watergate was just a third rate burglary. It is very stupid and diversionary for it to be investigated. Nixon would have been out of office in 1976 anyways.

Jake D. wrote on July 26, 2007 11:30 AM:

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).

Steve Pordon wrote on July 26, 2007 11:34 AM:

"No problem, Steve. Too bad the Senate doesn't 'start' impeachment proceedings.
Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 26, 2007 9:55 AM"

Thanks for the civics refresher, Jake. I did some checking, and it looks like the senate sure "finishes" them.

Glad we have your support on this. Have you written your congressman yet?

Jake D. wrote on July 26, 2007 11:38 AM:

You don't have my support for any impeachment.

Anonymous wrote on July 26, 2007 11:42 AM:

Congress must not recess. This nation cannot handle any more of shrubs recess appointments. Urge your congress member and senators not to take a full recess.

Steve5117 wrote on July 26, 2007 11:43 AM:

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.

Xman wrote on July 26, 2007 11:47 AM:

TheraP,
Agreed. Venting is good.
I just think it is below most of the serious posters on this site to engage "Jake", who is obviously Jerry Springer "guest" material.

Jake D. wrote on July 26, 2007 11:48 AM:

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."

Xman wrote on July 26, 2007 11:49 AM:

TheraP,
Agreed. Venting is good.
I just think it is below most of the serious posters on this site to engage "Jake", who is obviously Jerry Springer "guest" material.

bwindrip wrote on July 26, 2007 11:58 AM:

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.)

GDKZen wrote on July 26, 2007 11:58 AM:

The numbers for impeachment are changing. I would agree that at our current point in time, it would be impossible - but this may change.

The continued illegal tactics employed by the Bush/Cheney administration is making it very difficult to be a member of the GOP and run a successful re-election campaign. If anything happens, it will be because there own friends turn on them.

GDKZen wrote on July 26, 2007 12:31 PM:

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 (until Gonzo, Shrub, and the Big Dick get rid of that one too).

Dee Illuminati wrote on July 26, 2007 12:56 PM:

What I find interesting is that John Ashcroft is one of the few credible GOP members left standing as a consequence of the Democrats re visiting this issue. I'm wondering if he will run for office and run on the platform more similar to Spitzer? The irony of course was that John Ashcroft was imagined to be the most maleable appointee of the Bush administration and it seems that history however re-paints this man in such a manner that his simple slogan, "I can be trusted to do the right thing" with a religous right following can be formidable in the Bible Belt.. I could see Bubba buying it.

kenga wrote on July 26, 2007 12:58 PM:

"It just waives the white flag, they’ve announced their loss."

In re: waiving the white flag.
Bruce Springsteen has a song that mentions such
I think the refrain is something like:
"No retreat, baby, no surrender."

In the case of some people, it's ad homynym, not ad hominem.

neck wrote on July 26, 2007 1:30 PM:

Posted by: bill57
Date: July 26, 2007 11:06 AM

I think you best sum it up when you say, "Republicans need to remember that they are Americans first."

The question that the Dems in congress should ask the repug's is:
"Does you're loyalties to the GOP come before America? You're actions show where your TRUE loyalties lie! Where do you stand! With the GOP or America"

pocket wrote on July 26, 2007 1:39 PM:

More Specter BS.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/specter-plays-broad-street-bully/

PHILADELPHIA — Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania is known as something of a talker. And he hasn’t pulled his punches when it has come to the administration, especially Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. This has not always endeared him to the White House.
But there he was, right on the Air Force One guest manifest this morning for President Bush’s trip to this great cradle of American democracy, where the president gave a speech to conservative state lawmakers.
The question immediately came to mind: Would he be like all of the other guests on Air Force One, who are flattered enough by the invitation to smile and wave but otherwise keep their mouths shut? Nope.
John D. McKinnon of the Wall Street Journal, the pool reporter for the president’s trip today, reports that the senator visited the press cabin before takeoff to hold court with reporters.
The senator from Pennsylvania let it rip.
According to Mr. McKinnon’s pool report, Mr. Specter said he didn’t think the White House wanted a court fight over executive privilege because “they don’t want to test it.”
And, writes McKinnon:
“Specter was highly critical of Gonzales, but saw no indication of any change in Gonzales’s status. He attributed that to ‘personal loyalty’ on POTUS’s part. ‘Our hearing two days ago was devastating,’ he said. ‘But so was the hearing before that, and so was the hearing before that.’’’
The White House press office reports that Mr. Specter was, however, not dis-invited from the return trip to Washington.

Would have been pretty funny if they ditched Spector in Philly! I could see King George making the suggestion to his boss Dick.

JNagarya wrote on July 26, 2007 1:41 PM:

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."

Congress can enforce its subpoenas, and can try its contempts.

"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."

No shit, Dick Tracy. I'm a legal professional and have been saying that, and more, for months.

"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."

Cute, but inapt: this isn't a game or a football game or a contest akin to a gunfight.

Posted by: tbhull
Date: July 26, 2007 10:54 AM

Impeachment is an indictment.

The three branches are co-equal. If the Executive has an absolute power, then so does Congress.

tbhull wrote on July 26, 2007 2:01 PM:

Posted by: JNagarya
Date: July 26, 2007 1:41 PM

"Impeachment is an indictment.", yes but it is tried in the Senarte unlike any other actions you mention enforcing the Congrressional subpoenas and the dishonest responses to the same. Of course, "inherent contempt" stands as an exception, only to find an easy undo with a swift pardon issued by Bush.

Impeachment initially removes a president, VP and/or an atty general. Impeachment may result in a conviction that a later president may pardon. However, with respect to the current prez, reomval of office via impeachment is about as free from executive influence as any other avenue. Anything else is subject to rotting on the vine or a presidential pardon.

You can bitch and moan all you want, but this is a political pissing match of the highest order and if Congress wants to continue to see their peckers getting smacked and whacked or their pussies paddled in defeat on the public stage then they will take your advice and seek remedies short of impeachment. If justice and results matters, impeachment is the only sustainable route at this point in the game.

melior wrote on July 26, 2007 2:02 PM:

"The criminal contempt statute, 2 U.S.C. § 194, provides that if a House of Congress certifies a contempt citation, the United States Attorney to whom it is sent has a “duty” and “shall” “bring it before the grand jury for its action.”"

I knew it! Proof that Jake never reads the posts before he comments.

tbhull wrote on July 26, 2007 2:06 PM:

Posted by: melior
Date: July 26, 2007 2:02 PM

BushCo does not care what the law days. so it says "shall". So what "shall" Congress do when the US Attorney repeats the familiar refrain of "F^%#%%$" You!"?

Steve Pordon wrote on July 27, 2007 4:54 AM:

"You don't have my support for any impeachment.
Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 26, 2007 11:38 AM"

Don't be so modest, good buddy! You're the one who gave me the idea, after all.

Now stand and take a bow.