Comments (53)

Slim Pickin's wrote on July 26, 2007 12:33 PM:

Man, the republicans are such spineless whimps for not sighing off on that letter - then again, I'm not really surprised.

Anna S. wrote on July 26, 2007 12:38 PM:

The AP says Rove's been subpoenaed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070726/ap_on_go_co/congress_gonzales

There's a quote from Leahy that "We have now reached a point where the accumulated evidence shows that political considerations factored into the unprecedented firing of at least nine United States Attorneys last year," but it's not clear what exactly the Rove subpoena is based on.

AP's got it classified as a breaking story, so they'll be updating it, I assume.

Jake D. wrote on July 26, 2007 12:39 PM:

Last time I checked, Solicitor General Paul Clement, was still part of the EXECUTIVE branch. LOL!!! I can't believe you Dems are buying this. How much does Pelosi know, and why exactly did she take "impeachment off the table", huh?

Jake D. wrote on July 26, 2007 12:42 PM:

Clinton may have fired more than nine U.S. Attorneys during his second term too -- political considerations factored into those replacements even if they were voluntary -- why didn't Leaky Leahy investigate back then?

Anonymous wrote on July 26, 2007 12:42 PM:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070726/ap_on_go_co/congress_gonzales

Report of Karl Rove getting served is confirmed

TheraP wrote on July 26, 2007 12:43 PM:

Hot Dog!

Maybe there is a "silver" lining somewhere.

James' Conscience wrote on July 26, 2007 12:44 PM:

Please do not feed the senile old troll. He's just a lonely loser who doesn't get out much anymore and doesn't have any real friends.

Candyce wrote on July 26, 2007 12:47 PM:

Oh, Jakey Jakey Jakey. Don't you feel foolish defending a blatant liar? Why is it you are so afraid of the Constitution? Of the law? Of the duties and obligations of each branch of government? You'll be screaming for oversight when Hillary becomes president, so be careful of what precedents you support now.

Anonymous wrote on July 26, 2007 12:48 PM:

Looks like Congress realizes its powerless: Rather than moving on impeachment, they're asking for the unresponsive Gonzalez to be . . . responsive. Sounds like Congress is asking for help: "Who can help us be powerful against the President's AG?" Maybe if the Congress asks nicely, and apologizes for not asserting power, the States might issue arrest warrants and enforce them against the Attorney General.

Is Congress going to admit that it's powerless; or will the Congress swallow their pride, and grovel before We the People: "Please, help us to continue with our absurdity." Congress can get bet. They've brought this on themselves.
Time for the State AGs to accept what we have: An incompetent Congress attempting to challenge an incompetent tyrant. If the State AGs are serious about their oaths, they'll issue arrest warrants for the President, VP, and Members of Congress who have been complicit with this illegal activity since 2001.

There is no "supremacy clause" that says we have to remain loyal, and do nothing about and illegal dictatorship. The US government has no legal precedent for compelling anyone to remain silent, or not enforce the Constitution, even against the President, VP, and Members of Congress. Let's get on with the State AG's enforcing these arrest warrants against the President, VP, and Members of Congress.

Jake D. wrote on July 26, 2007 12:52 PM:

Yes, by all means, if my questions about Pelosi and Leahy hit too close to home, please don't "feed" me.

-- Seymour "Little Shop of Horrors"

Anna S. wrote on July 26, 2007 12:54 PM:

Okay, AP updated the article again. The most interesting part, to me, was the WH 'response' to the quote I gave from Leahy above:

"In response, White House spokesman Tony Fratto said, "Every day congressional Democrats prove that they're more interested in headlines than doing the business Americans want them to do. And Americans are now taking notice that this Congress, under Democratic leadership, is failing to tackle important issues," he said."
(from AP article)

Look at it. It's a standard talking point, it's almost bizarrely generalized. It doesn't apply at all to the actual events going on today. What if the headline of the article was "Senate declares shorter August recess" or "Senate discusses new bill on Iraq timelines"? The same quote would fit neatly into either of those articles. It's got nothing to do with perjury or the Rove subpoena.

Which makes me wonder if this one caught the WH unawares. Surely they expected the perjury (perhaps not so soon?), so one would expect that they'd have crafted talking points on it. The absense of any relation to the actual situation makes me wonder if Leahy managed to catch Bushco flatfooted.

Upstate New Yorker wrote on July 26, 2007 12:57 PM:

Slim's observations that: "Man, the republicans are such spineless whimps for not sighing off on that letter - then again, I'm not really surprised."

I don't see this as a spineless act, instead, they are simply continuing to refuse to uphold the their oath of office. We, the American people, are in this pickle because Rethuglicans simply refuse to act like adults and citizens by participating in their oversight duties. I still remember a comment by Leahy about how stunned he was that the White House telling the folks in Congress how to vote -- with Rove and Cheney holding sessions and telling them what to do...

These are bad times and it is time to either restore the American form of justice or declare that out republic is dead and call for a NEW constitutional convention.

Jack Flash wrote on July 26, 2007 12:57 PM:

The slow grinding of process is neither incompetence nor ineffectiveness. It's how democratic work gets done. The refusal to follow duly constituted process is what Bush's people are guilty of. If the Democrats were to set aside process themselves, and just directly, say, request the military to step in and help depose the dictator - how much different would they be at that point than the dictator's people, having themselves tossed due process aside?

Jake D. wrote on July 26, 2007 1:02 PM:

As if the U.S. military would ever help a bunch of spineless, yellow surrender-monkeys like the Demon-crats?!

Slim Pickin's wrote on July 26, 2007 1:03 PM:

Upstate New Yorker -

Good point. You know, Arlen Spector flew to Philly on Air Force one this morning with Der Bush. I wonder what kind of devious bulls**t they cooked-up en route.

Any TPMers want to speculate on that conversation?

Arlen: "George, I simply can't stonewall anymore, seems like some has been recording my outbursts!"

George: "Don't worry Arlen! I have Jake the Troll running interference up and down the liberal blogs!"

Dennis wrote on July 26, 2007 1:04 PM:

Clinton may have fired more than nine U.S. Attorneys during his second term too -- political considerations factored into those replacements even if they were voluntary -- why didn't Leaky Leahy investigate back then?

Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 26, 2007 12:42 PM
---------------------------
>The behavior of Clinton has nothing to do with the behavior of Bush.

>The biggest detriment to civil liberties in this country is people like "YOU", with their heads so far up their ass they don't see or can't admit what is happening in this country, although some conservatives have begun to wake up - but NOT you.

>So, you just keep in mind that whatever happens in this country to the civil liberties of liberals will happen to the civil liberties of conservatives as well. My family, your family. Some of us see it, and you don't.

>Also, you go right ahead and continue on here, or wherever you are, to make a fool of yourself. That doesn't seem to hard a thing for you to do. After all, it is still a free country.

>Or is it?

>You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

Jake D. wrote on July 26, 2007 1:06 PM:

That was the fake "Jake" again. I will have to congratulate you Dems on one thing: at least the Rove subpoena / call for Special Counsel re: Gonzales made the front page at CNN.com (the actual testimony never did ; )

Troll Patrol wrote on July 26, 2007 1:10 PM:

Public Service Announcement:

to scroll past troll posts, just use the "find" feature of your browser and "select all" - then skip on by....

Be at peace. Seek wisdom.

Jake D. wrote on July 26, 2007 1:12 PM:

>Dennis:

>I just want the SAME standard used in judging these U.S. Attorney replacements -- I never said when Clinton did it that it was wrong -- is that too much to ask for?

Michael wrote on July 26, 2007 1:12 PM:

If nothing else, this perjury action buys time for the Congress to also consider other routes to restore the rule of law. (Indeed, the comment that "Clinton did it, too" only underscores, not weakens, the argument that this specific form of political influence must come to an end.)

Though the IG be within / under the purview of the Administration, that does not translate to the IG not taking action. Let's remember that Fitz was a Bush appointee and that, with special regard to these particular instances, Comey et al were ready to resign in protest over illegality ... and none of them were exactly bastions of anti-Bush sentiment. The field of loyal Bushies continues to winnow.

Pelosi may have taken impeachment "off the table" but there is a realtive parallel with everyone's favorite jingle, underlying criminality. If indeed the pre-TSP activities -- whether they were modified to become the TSP, ceased to exist after the TSP or are still running concurrent to the TSP -- then any perjury investigation may well indeed raise inquiries into administration abuses of the Rule of Law vis-a-vis the Fourth Amendment.

And then you most certainly would have a case for impeachment.

This is speculation, but I think it's reasonable.

James' Conscience wrote on July 26, 2007 1:13 PM:

Hey troll, why do you hate America and the rule of law?

dukane wrote on July 26, 2007 1:15 PM:

Hey Jake D,

LOL? How does it feel to blindly support a criminal adminstration and its inept/sub-intelligent/corrupt chief law enforcement officer?

Good stuff.

TheraP wrote on July 26, 2007 1:17 PM:

Anna S.

At a certain point, and maybe we're already there, the circle of chief conspirators is so small, the number who can "help" so few, and the amount of stuff hitting the fan so overwhelming, that they simply don't have the time or energy to formulate coherent lies anymore! We're into "generic lying." Sentences where they simply fill in the blank.

There is "hope."

Anonymous wrote on July 26, 2007 1:21 PM:

Posted by: Michael
Date: July 26, 2007 1:12 PM

Congress doesn't need time, they need a good lawyer. The entire crew has been complicit with this illegal activity: They refuse to shut off funding; and refuse to assert all lawful options to defend teh Constitution; and have "pre-voted" not to hold the President and VP to account.

Time for the State AGs to prosecute Members of Congress, President, VP: Arrest warrants from the States need to be enforced against US government officials. This has gone on too long.

Sweeney Todd wrote on July 26, 2007 1:22 PM:

I wonder if RNC has evaluated their troll activity reports yet?

In case you wonder why a troll keeps posting under the same name, it is for payroll accounting purposes.

Any smart geeks who can count the emails our troll gets from the RNC?

Michael wrote on July 26, 2007 1:24 PM:

Correction! My sentence should have read as follows:

"If indeed the pre-TSP activities -- whether they were modified to become the TSP, ceased to exist after the TSP or are still running concurrent to the TSP -- were somehow the subject of coversation, then any perjury investigation may well indeed raise inquiries into administration abuses of the Rule of Law vis-a-vis the Fourth Amendment."

Paranoid yet? wrote on July 26, 2007 1:25 PM:

Point of Concern.

Since just about everyone involved in this is "in bed" with DoJ, how can an independent investigation occur - without meddling by all the parties involved? (I'm thinking that flow-chart and all the parties able to peer into the workings of the DoJ.)

sailor wrote on July 26, 2007 1:27 PM:

Old "Jake D" is getting to be a real fucking bore!

Barry Champlain wrote on July 26, 2007 1:29 PM:

Anna S: very shrewd obsevations. You would have to have lived through The Nixon Years, however, in order to truly appreciate statements such as Fratto's.

Throughout the unfolding of what came to be known in shorthand as "Watergate", it was all "partisan"; ridiculous; laughable; not worthy of the attention of such a distinguished president, etc. etc. etc. The idea was to BELITTLE any challenge to the rampant criminality going on in the White House. It worked, too... for about 5 years.

I'm happy to report from the bowels of History, that, in the end... er, not so much. Bullshit is, always has been, and thus will eternally remain, bullshit. When most of this administration's participants some day in the near future find themselves incarcerated, I'm sure they'll be looking back and saying amongst themselves, "Geez, I can't believe we got away with all of our total bullshit, for so long!"

All it ever took was some gonads, on behalf of the Legislative Branch. And shame on them for waiting SIX years, in Bush's case, simply to call, "Bullshit!" on these Mayberry Machiavellis. Even now, the mainstream media still does its service to the Borg, and pulls its punches when necessary (reference CNN, deep-sixing all YouTube comments on impeachment!).

Douglas Watts wrote on July 26, 2007 1:31 PM:

Paranoid Yet -- you'll to figure that one out for youself. You might start with how it worked in Watergate.

Anonymous wrote on July 26, 2007 1:37 PM:

but aren't the problems highlighted by senator whitehouse's chart, in essence, distinctly post-watergate?

Barry Champlain wrote on July 26, 2007 2:06 PM:

Anonymous at 1:37: there is a great scene (I'm still trying to find the clip... help??) in the TV miniseries version of "Angels in America", in which a Federalist Society type in the early '80s is enthusiastically explaining to the fresh-faced Young Republican over dinner what life would be like under a Reagan Revolution.

To paraphrase (I do not do Tony Kushner's words justice): we get taken to court? BAM! "Our" judges decide in our favor! It goes to the appellate courts? BAM! There we are again! The Supreme Court? BAM! Packed with "our" people!

I assume that's what's bothering you about the "flow chart". And you have every reason to worry.

But do you really think that if you had an overwehelmingly anti-fascist and fearlessly confrontational progressive Democratic Congress, and a truly free media, that all the political time bombs in the world, planted by Bushco, could defeat an angry uprising by Americans?

If people like us populated Congress, we wouldn't WAIT for a showdown over any one area of their criminality... we'd INITIATE the showdown! Time after hardball time. Polls have shown that the rank-and-file overwhelmingly support an aggressive, take-no-prisoners Congress. Admittedly, we ain't there yet (but funny noises ARE beginning to happen...).

If there were all-out war with the Bush administration, and it came down to the bottom line... Bush and company calling out the troops to restore the "unitary presidency"... there'd be no troops responding.

THEY'D LOSE.

Now... the question is: how do we get Congress and the media to launch an all-out war on this administration?

We may not have the machinery to do that, at present, but please please PLEASE!! Let's not internalize the Tony Fratto/Tony Snow-type smirking dismissals that this is all laughable, meaningless piffle. Do NOT fall prey to the conventional (and Rove-generated) wisdom that total Bush domination of our formerly Constitutional system of government is "inevitable".

Admittedly, it's tough to fight. We're not appropriately equipped to do so, yet. But dammit, THEY can't fight 350 million Americans who are hep to the jive, and win. They just can't. And I don't care what they've done to depth-charge the System. They can't beat the People, united to save their Constitution.

(And when enough of the People actually understand that their Constitution is swirling down the shitter... oh, believe me..!!)

JNagarya wrote on July 26, 2007 2:33 PM:

>Dennis:

>I just want the SAME standard used in judging these U.S. Attorney replacements -- I never said when Clinton did it that it was wrong -- is that too much to ask for?

Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 26, 2007 1:12 PM

The same standard can't be applied, Mr. Nihilist, because the circumstances are different. Clinton didn't illegally politicize the DOJ or any other element of gov't, and did not fire AGs for refusing to violate the law. Bushit did do those things.

Your desparation is showing, hack. And you''ll b going ballistic as the fuller facts of the fraudulent prosecution of Siegelman begin to come out.

RBS wrote on July 26, 2007 2:40 PM:

I've posted this on another thread, but it applies to almost any given TPM Comments section at any given time:

Jake D's unrelenting attempts at hijacking the discussion are, unfortunately, successful--the thread always ends up being about him and his inane diversions (which is exactly what he wants) rather than about the subject matter at issue--and I, for one (or two or three), am ready to forego TPM's comments entirely rather than having to slog through such massive amounts of troll shit.

Legitimate expressions of "other" viewpoints are fine, but when Jake's "expressions" disproportionately and egregiously hog the bandwidth, with the intent to disrupt the actual thread of the conversation and prevent real discussion of the issues, there's no reason for TPM to put up with it (the First Amendment only restricts the government from censoring expression, Jake) and legitimate reasons not to put up with it (losing readership).

Enough is enough.

If there's a TPM moderator, please get rid of this guy; he adds nothing and only disrupts the true flow of the commentary. Too many people "bite" and feed this guy, which is understandable, but the tipping point has been reached.

Could others who feel the same way pleeeeeeeeeeeeeease let TPM know how you feel?

Thanks.

(We now resume our regularly hijacked programming . . . )

RBS

Jane wrote on July 26, 2007 2:47 PM:

A third rate burglary ..... looks minor in comparison.

Granted that the rethugs on this committee were hand picked by the Rethug hierarchy -- Spector!-- had to fight for the post, they don't seem to have caught on to the fact that the voters are catching on to their act.

Congress has low poll ratings because the People want them to do more of what the Democrats are tryng to do. MSM seems to be trying to suppress the truth. Is it possible to get a count of how many times MSM has used Republican and filibuster in the same sentence when the Rethugs are making filibuster threats at a record pace?

DancingBear wrote on July 26, 2007 2:51 PM:

"Clinton may have fired more than nine U.S. Attorneys during his second term too -- political considerations factored into those replacements even if they were voluntary -- why didn't Leaky Leahy investigate back then?"

Posted by: Jake D.
_______________________

Jake, over in that other thread you offered to give the list of the US Attys Clinton replaced during his term (instead of the list of the replacement US Attys you have posted repeatedly). Still waiting for that list. Of course, the only two I made the effort to track down so far (working from the replacement list)turned out to have been nominated by Clinton to the Federal bench, not fired.

Sagrilarus wrote on July 26, 2007 2:52 PM:

At some point the mainstream GOP -- the GOP of my father's generation -- is going to have to have their "Temporary Insanity" moment. This is the moment when Republican leaders not directly associated with President Bush's administration state that what has happened in the last eight years was not Republican, but Bush.

My guess is that happens either shortly before the 2008 election, or shortly after. In the meantime, all the Republican Congressmen and Senators will have to grit their teeth and rub the back of their neck.

al75 wrote on July 26, 2007 2:56 PM:

Man, am I proud of my Senator today!

Yes there are problems with Congress. Congress ALWAYS polls lower than the President (except during times of true Presidential meltdown) because it by definition embodies many conflicting points of view.

But Schumer/Lehey/Spector are proving that there are still some limits to what criminals in and out of office can get away with in the US.

Trolls out there: this is not a "Blue vs. Red" issue. This is an American issue. The false controversy, the stoking of hot-button issues to get honest Americans to hate each other, is what these criminals have done to generate an environment in which their corruption and corrosion of the governmental process can survive.

Fortunately there are still Americans of all parties and ideological stripes who are willing to fight to preserve the constitution, and to enforce a minimal standard of observance of the law.

Jake D. wrote on July 26, 2007 3:02 PM:

What you silly Democrats don't understand is you can't win.

Look, President Bush controls the Executive Branch. As we can all agree, if you control the Executive Branch, you control the country, period. This isn't really about what's "constitutional" it's about what keeps us all safe.

Daniel wrote on July 26, 2007 3:04 PM:

I haven't seen any mention of the following conflict and revelation.

This exchange occurred during the most recent hearings:

SCHUMER: OK. Now, you kept referring to this meeting of the gang of eight. Did any member of the gang of eight direct you to go to Ashcroft's hospital bed?
GONZALES: Oh, no. In fact...

SCHUMER: Was there any discussion...

GONZALES: No. I'm not sure that they knew that we went.

SCHUMER: So they had no knowledge you were doing that?

GONZALES: I'll put it this way. I did not tell them that we are going to do it.

Yet, here's what Bill Frist's subsequent statement said about that March 10 meeting:

"I recall being briefed with the others about the program and it was stated that Gonzales would visit with Ashcroft in the hospital"

First, this means that likely one of the two men is lying. But perhaps even more interestingly, if Frist is correct, the other seven members of the Gang of Eight also knew ahead of time that Gonzales was going to visit Ashcroft in the hospital. Those other members were Porter Goss, Dennis Hastert, Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosi, Jane Harman, Pat Roberts, and Jay Rockefeller.

Daniel wrote on July 26, 2007 3:05 PM:

I haven't seen any mention of the following conflict and revelation.

This exchange occurred during the most recent hearings:

SCHUMER: OK. Now, you kept referring to this meeting of the gang of eight. Did any member of the gang of eight direct you to go to Ashcroft's hospital bed?
GONZALES: Oh, no. In fact...

SCHUMER: Was there any discussion...

GONZALES: No. I'm not sure that they knew that we went.

SCHUMER: So they had no knowledge you were doing that?

GONZALES: I'll put it this way. I did not tell them that we are going to do it.

Yet, here's what Bill Frist's subsequent statement said about that March 10 meeting:

"I recall being briefed with the others about the program and it was stated that Gonzales would visit with Ashcroft in the hospital"

First, this means that likely one of the two men is lying. But perhaps even more interestingly, if Frist is correct, the other seven members of the Gang of Eight also knew ahead of time that Gonzales was going to visit Ashcroft in the hospital. Those other members were Porter Goss, Dennis Hastert, Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosi, Jane Harman, Pat Roberts, and Jay Rockefeller.

Daniel wrote on July 26, 2007 3:07 PM:

Sorry for duplicate post; moderator, please delete one copy.

Dennis wrote on July 26, 2007 3:17 PM:

>Dennis:I just want the SAME standard used in judging these U.S. Attorney replacements -- I never said when Clinton did it that it was wrong -- is that too much to ask for?
Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 26, 2007 1:12 PM

Well, Jake, it wasn't Clinton who changed the standards and bypassed the accepted political process. It was your boy, Bush and friends, who wanted all replacements to be "our kind of Republicans."

And, to be quite honest, it was just in case a corrupt situation might pop up so that these AGs would protect the Bush administrations ass - much in the same manner, and for the same reason that Gonzales can't resign because he's the guy in the DOJ who refuses to investigate any wrong doings by Bush/Cheney and whoever else - including access to the White House by such people as Abramhoff (but not limited to him).

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

JakeD wrote on July 26, 2007 3:39 PM:

I am a blind and ignorant conservative. I agree and follow anything that Bushco says or does because I have drank gallons of Kool Aid. The Kool Aid does not allow you to think or act for yourself. It makes you follow FOX in a hypnotic state agreeing with all they say and do. I am unable to question authority and enjoy pissing on the constitution every morning. I do own a gun, however, so beware. Now, knowing this, please do not take me seriously. Please ignore me. I am only here to get a check from the Rover.

dark1p wrote on July 26, 2007 3:42 PM:

That which diminishes our character and rights as Americans, by definition, makes us less safe, and makes terrorists more successful.

We now have to worry about anti-American radicals from without and within. They simply attack us in different ways.

The inside group is actually worse. They demoralize and suck the Constitutional life out of the country. They do what all the bin Ladens of the world can't.

Patrick Henry said, 'Give me liberty or give me death.' 'Live free or die' is another Revolutionary-era slogan.

Only the 30-percenters have forgotten what being an American is all about. They are cowards who would rather live under a de facto dictatorship in order to keep breathing. They're the only ones who think the external terrorists can really beat us.

They're a pretty pathetic bunch.

StephenH wrote on July 26, 2007 4:19 PM:

Great speech and it's about damn time. We are Gonzales' employers, and we also elected the Congress to be our representatives in overseeing the government. By shamelessly lying to Congress under oath, Gonzales is also lying to the American people and betraying the very foundation of our democratic form of government. As such, Alberto Gonzales should be treated like any other criminal and traitor to his country.

Shane wrote on July 26, 2007 5:05 PM:

Thank you, Senator Schumer! I look forward to Gonzales' perjury trial. I shudder to think what would happen if Gonzales is convicted and Bush decides to commute his long time buddy? Would that, finally, be enough to begin impeachment?

Austin Cooper wrote on July 26, 2007 5:31 PM:

There needs to be an understanding in the minds of a large number of Americans of what the stakes are re: impeachment. I mean, this isn't about parsing a phrase in a deposition. It isn't about a blow job.

It's about turning the Constitution into toilet paper. That's correct -- it's about Our Saninted War Leader wiping his ass with the ideas which constitute government in this country. That's much more serious.

All bad language aside, I don't think all of this has penetrated the 'mind of the electorate' yet, not to mention the corporate media (BTW, wouldn't a media with a left-agenda be trumpeting for the poor peevish Dullard's ouster by now?) .

Someone else observed a while ago that, even at a 26% approval rating, Bush could be filmed killing puppies with a shovel on the South Lawn of the White House, and it seems people *still* wouldn't understand that these creatures need to be dragged out of their holes, exposed, impeached, and removed from office.

Code = rain, As In A Hard One's Gonna Fall

Uncle_Meat wrote on July 26, 2007 7:57 PM:

WOOHOO!!!!

Anonymous wrote on July 26, 2007 10:04 PM:

Dems "want" a Special Counsel like they want bad news: The DNC and GOP are both complicit. They don't really "want" anything: They're asking for somethign that they hope the President _rejects_.

If the DNC were _serious_ about "wanting" an investigation, they'd _start_ one: An impeachment; then turn over the _evidence_ to the US Atty _after_ the Congress completes their review.

rlogan wrote on July 26, 2007 10:29 PM:

If anyone thinks nixon was bad firing Archibald Cox as special prosecutor, just wait.

As this gets closer to the bone, Bush is going to be acting like a god damned butcher with a cleaver.

JNagarya wrote on July 27, 2007 12:09 AM:

Dems "want" a Special Counsel like they want bad news: The DNC and GOP are both complicit. They don't really "want" anything: They're asking for somethign that they hope the President _rejects_.

If the DNC were _serious_ about "wanting" an investigation, they'd _start_ one: An impeachment; then turn over the _evidence_ to the US Atty _after_ the Congress completes their review.

Posted by:
Date: July 26, 2007 10:04 PM

Not only are you full of shit, but the Congress is not the DNC.

As concerns impeachment: the Democrats don't (yet) have sufficient votes to even debate the issue. Moreover, to which US Atty would they run over the evidence -- especially in view of the fact that that isn't how impeachment works?

How about getting the actual facts, instead of making up horseshit as excuse to bash Democrats because Republicans are foot-dragging and obstructing, and you don't know even the basics.

john crandell wrote on July 27, 2007 12:57 AM:

wouldn't it be a kick if JakeD was Shrub
in real life....