We have to start pressuring Congress to cancel their August vacation ... if they want to get back in our good graces .. canceling the vacation to do the people's business is a good start

You know that feeling you have when you've survived a seemingly doomed plane ride? Heavy turbulence, lightning, rain, fog, delays, hydraulic problems, circling and waiting for landing clearance. You emerge through the exit doors longing for solid ground to throw yourself down on and kiss. The end of Bush's presidency will certainly bring about similar feelings in millions of citizens.

pine nut @ 5:

Is it really true about Rove? I haven't read that but this is the second time I have read this today.

Raw Story has it.

No wonder Gonzo leaves a paper trail.

He hasn't been paper trained yet.

Kewl.

I remember a year or so ago when it was rumoured that Rove was going to be charged in the CIA leak case.

I also remember when Rove...

Ahh, you should be able to fill in the rest by now.

Enjoy this political theatre while your economy goes down the toilet.

Just Me @ 6:

pine nut @ 5:

Is it really true about Rove? I haven't read that but this is the second time I have read this today.

Raw Story has it.

Got it, thanks.

Heh, heh, heh

This is gettin' fun

No feinting Demos, make it stick.

J

"...His instinct is not to tell the truth, but to dissemble and deceive.”

nothing is more dear to bush's 'heart' than a man that is an expert dissembler and deceiver.

Carmikl @ 13:

Gonzales can lie and get away with it because he knows that his old buddy George will pardoned him no matter what he says. He may look foolish, even cartoonish, but he knows what he's doing. It takes a lotta practice to look that dumb. That smug look on his face comes from the fact that he already has a get outta jail free card sitting on his desk.

Especially when you consider the history of the length of special prosecutions.

Bush WILL order Clement to ignore this.

It's all a stall, this will GRIND through the courts, cause the circuit courts are STACKED with Republic appointees, who will not want to rule on this, less it comes back to haunt them. It will wind it's way to the USSC, and THAT is a case I'm flying back to see.

If Alito and Roberts rule in Bush's favor, basically they have given Hillary or Obama, or ANY Democratic Prez virtually unchecked power?

Will they risk that, just to give Bush this, with the little time he has left?

I think it's delay, stall, while Cheney keeps the shredders going 24/7 till Bush leaves office.

The ONLY play Congress has is Inherent Contempt, throw them in the lock-up NOW!

I'm sending mail to Inslee, Cantwell and Murray (my congress critters) about it right now and I recommend everyone else do the same!

JoeKleinetc, I agree with you. This is the one August that Congress should not take off. They have some good irons in the fire right now which cannot be left unattended for an entire month. I'd like to see the Rove subpoena on a fast track through the courts too.

I don't understand why Congress is screwing around with Gonzo. Why haven't impeachment proceedings begun already? He's clearly acted in a manner that deserves impeachment and removal from office (nevermind Bush and Cheney, but that's another topic).

To answer my own question, I guess the answer is that there are too many republicans who would refuse to impeach for any reason. Party before country.

C @ 14:

No feinting Demos, make it stick.

J

It's going to get messy, so this ain't for the feinting sort.

Just be as glad as you can that Gonzalez never made it to the Supreme Court, as Bush had planned. Not to say that Bush's other two selections are any better. Any time Bush appoints or selects someone to a post, you can bet your sweet ass that he has NOTHING good on his mind and the selection should be viewed as suspect, to say the least.

pine nut @ 5:

Is it really true about Rove? I haven't read that but this is the second time I have read this today.

It's on Daily Kos.

Just Me @ 1:

Karl Rove has been subpoenaed.

Yeah and he'll ignore it too.

If you haven't seen it everyone should definitely check out the Daily Show's great coverage of the Alberto Gonzalez situation that aired last night:

VIDEO
http://beta.redlasso.com/Community/ClipPlayer.aspx?i=c77d717a-0e62-4f5e-...

still waiting for an August surprise. That'll get ALL of their
crimes off the radar. not that it matters much,
The country is ALREADY freking dead people.

Does Congress really need to conduct an investigation before impeaching Gonzales?

Has Limbaugh's head exploded yet? Is Hannity on suicide watch?

E in Md @ 32:

Just Me @ 1:

Karl Rove has been subpoenaed.

Yeah and he'll ignore it too.

Exactly!

WashStateBlue @ 41:

nitehawk @ 33:

On other sites the right-wingers are going ape. It's Clinton this and Clinton that. Just goes to show not a single one really believes that personal responsiblity crap they spew.

Yeah, but the problem for them is, they were SCREAMING about Clinton invoking Ex Privilege, and Clinton basically lost in court, or could see a loss coming, and his people testified under oath.

That's the trap, HALF this judiciary ruled AGAINST Clinton on Ex privilege when it came his people testifying..

If they flip now, this is CLEARLY just partisan bullshit..

John Yoo, for example, did a Op ed in the Wall street totally defending Bush on this..but he's ALSO all over the place on record decrying it when Clinton tried it...

The GOP is caught in the backwash of their own hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty.

Here we GO!!

CNN reporting that the ABC News building in Washington DC has been evacuated due to a strange package.

pwapvt @ 43:

...Alito and Roberts rule in Bush’s favor... Wouldn't you think they'd have to recuse themselves?

WHY? No reason to, they haven't been involved in a lower court rulling on this, their hands are clean.

Also, this is case THEY HAVE to hear, if the lower courts kick it up fast enough.

My take is, the lower courts, all controlled by Republic appointees, are all going to get the message to stall....

Expect LOTS of slow down from the Bush side...

The clock is ticking, and they want this to never reach the USCC.

Inherent Contempt, is the only way this ends....

Lock them up, throw away the key and stand strong, as the MSM will take it's cue from FAUX and call it all politics.

IF that happens, we need to write our congress critters DAILY and threaten them with mass desertion if they faulter.

This is not like Impeachment, which is a losing battle on our side.

THIS is one we can win, if we just get our congress critters to have the balls to push this all the way to the end.

How did Gonzales get this job in the first place? As near as I can tell from his resume, he never prosecuted or defended a criminal case, nor did he sit as a judge on a criminal case. He was only appointed to the Texas Supreme Court because Governor George Bush wanted to give his friend a cushy job before he left office. When George Bush found him he was practicing business law in Houston, Texas.

(Gonzales - on phone) Hi Paul.
(Paul Clement - solicitor general) Hi Al.
(Gonzales) So, uuh, we're just going to ummm, go ahead and ignore that special prosecutor request, Mmm'K?
(PC/SG) Sure thing. By the way - do you want the pink covers on the new TPS reports, or the same old blue ones?
(Gonzales) Let's just go ahead and use the new green ones, Mmm'K?
(PC/SG) Sure thing. Thanks for the memo on the new covers the other day.
(Gonzales) No problemo. So, when they like, come by, and expect a special prosecutor, what are you going to say?
(PC/SG) Oh, that the decision was made that there was no need. And when they ask about the decision, I'll blame it all on my assistant. Just like you did. Easy Peasey...
(Gonzales) Right. That sounds good. So, have a happy!
(PC/SG) later gator!

Slate.com ought to revive the Gonzales Retirement Watch. This ain't over yet. Gonzo is daring Congress to impeach him for perjury. I really think that they will take him out.

The thing is, if they remove Gonzo, then a whole lot of other WH scandals will be revealed. Gonzo has been the cover-up boy for Cheney and Rove for YEARS.

I don't think Congress is serious. I don't think its wise to wait for Congress anymore: They'll have more excuses. This is just a show. Taking impeachment off the table means the DNC and GOP have no legal tools to enforce any of their threats. John Perry thinks the States could do something.

Might as well subpoena Castro, Kim Jong Il and Elvis while they're at it.

Well, at least they let the cat out of the bag with this Rove Subponea.

All the cards are on the table, all along, this has been about getting to Rove.

And, he will NEVER testify, they will drag this out in court until Bush is gone. But, it will be the gift that keeps on giving during the campaign season. Unlike Scooter, whom nobody outside of poltical wars cared about, Rove is the big fish in this story.

lucid fiction @ 57:

Liberal AND Proud @ 46:

Here we GO!!

CNN reporting that the ABC News building in Washington DC has been evacuated due to a strange package.

Be afraid....be very afraid. Lions and tigers and bears "Oh My"
it will turn out to be absolutely nothing i'm sure.

My point is...when animals are trapped, they become more dangerous.

Well Folks... I think hell has just frozen over! The last bastion of rightwing nuttery... Redstate.org has called for Gonzo to go!

There is more howling going on over there than at a zoo's monkey house during mating season!

Excerpt:

It's Time To Take Fredo Out Fishing

No, Alberto Gonzales should not be offed. Let me repeat that: No one should kill, wound, or even try to temporarily inconvenience the life functions of the current Attorney General of the United States. But the man President Bush calls "Fredo"--was a Presidential nickname ever more apt?--should at long last be invited to spend more time with his family. Much more time. He should be a Soccer Dad, a Harry Potter Dad, a Couch Potato, Sleeping Late In The Morning The Better To Avoid Any Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings He Might Accidentally Stumble Into Dad, a Dad who doesn't leave the Gonzales family compound for any reason whatsoever without legions upon legions of intelligent adults accompanying him in a supervisory capacity.

Especially if he suddenly gets a hankering to serve his country once again. In which case, the legions upon legions of intelligent adults accompanying him in a supervisory capacity should move Heaven and Earth to convince Alberto Gonzales that "his country" is Kazakhstan. Or Portugal. Or Libya. Or Greece. Or [INSERT NAME OF ANY COUNTRY BUT THAT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA . . . OH, AND LEAVE OUT THE UNITED KINGDOM; WHAT WITH THE FLOODS, THEY HAVE THEIR OWN PROBLEMS. BESIDES, THEY STILL HAVE TO PUT UP WITH GEORGE GALLOWAY AND GOSH, CAN HE BE A PAIN . . .].

Sorry. Digressing. Anyway, convincing Alberto Gonzales that "his country" is Kazakhstan, or Portugal, or Libya, or Greece, or [INSERT NAME OF ANY COUNTRY BUT THAT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA . . . OH, AND LEAVE OUT THE UNITED KINGDOM; WHAT WITH THE FLOODS, THEY HAVE THEIR OWN PROBLEMS. BESIDES, THEY STILL HAVE TO PUT UP WITH GEORGE GALLOWAY AND GOSH, CAN HE BE A PAIN . . .] should only take about five minutes. Ten minutes tops.

Do you think I am even remotely done with the snark? Oh, mes amis, think again! More below . . .

I guess I could go on at length as to why I believe this, but Ed Morrissey does an excellent job demonstrating why the whole "I can handle things! I'm smart! Not like everybody says... like dumb... I'm smart and I want respect!" schtick from the Attorney General is about as comical as when it was delivered in the movies.

Of course, the problem is that once the Attorney General says his "Hail Mary," gets the fish and then gets casually disinvited from taking part in the governance of the United States of America, the way is opened to the Mother of All Confirmation Hearings, in which the next nominee for the position of Attorney General--poor sap, whoever he/she is--will become a tool for having the Senate investigate each and every aspect of the current Attorney General's tenure, including the firing of the 8 U.S. Attorneys. Now, whatever your view concerning just how scandalous this scandal is and no matter what your opinion may be on the proposition that the U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President (and I think there is something to be said for the correctness of that proposition), it is near indisputable that Alberto Gonzales has created an Everest of a political problem for the Bush Administration with his "handling" of this issue. (Not to mention potential legal problems for himself, but let's not discuss that for the moment.)

http://redstate.com/stories/the_white_house/euphemism_its_time_to_take_f...

I don't know if congress finds him in contempt or not, but obviously the redstaters do!

At long last it might finally be Bedtime for Gonzo.

Liberal AND Proud @ 63:

WashStateBlue @ 60:

Well, at least they let the cat out of the bag with this Rove Subponea.

All the cards are on the table, all along, this has been about getting to Rove.

And, he will NEVER testify, they will drag this out in court until Bush is gone. But, it will be the gift that keeps on giving during the campaign season. Unlike Scooter, whom nobody outside of poltical wars cared about, Rove is the big fish in this story.

Why do I have this image of Senator Reid with a peg leg and Nancy Pelosi sitting on his shoulder and he's screaming..."I must kill the great white whale"!!

From Hells heart, I stab at thee...For hates sake, I spit my last breath at thee...

Yeah, that's about how I feel about Turd-Blossom!

Lying under oath? I thought that all of Shrub's lackies were Good Christians? I'm shocked!

Let Shrub get carpal tunnel from all the pardons he has to issue to keep his Crew out of the slammer.

Rasputin, it will all come down to The Court. If they overturn the precedent set with Nixon, then there will be no three branches of government anymore.

Another irony, the wingnut pundits rant and rave over judicial activism...and it is judicial activism that may decide this. Of course, Mark Levin is already spinning that the subpoenas are "unconstitutional" and that the executive branch is GRANTED unlimited authority and immunity under the Constitution.

Swashbuckler @ 73:

Liberal AND Proud @ 72:

... that the executive branch is GRANTED unlimited authority and immunity under the Constitution.

When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal.

--- Richard Nixon

How'd that work out for him.

Liberal AND Proud @ 74:

Swashbuckler @ 73:

Liberal AND Proud @ 72:

... that the executive branch is GRANTED unlimited authority and immunity under the Constitution.

When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal.

--- Richard Nixon

How'd that work out for him.

You didn't get my point...

Liberal AND Proud @ 72:

Rasputin, it will all come down to The Court. If they overturn the precedent set with Nixon, then there will be no three branches of government anymore.

Another irony, the wingnut pundits rant and rave over judicial activism...and it is judicial activism that may decide this. Of course, Mark Levin is already spinning that the subpoenas are "unconstitutional" and that the executive branch is GRANTED unlimited authority and immunity under the Constitution.

Mark Levin can spin all he wants, but there are a huge body of Supreme Court rulings where Executive Privilege falls in the face of a criminal investigation:

The Supreme Court has affirmed Congressional power to investigate possible criminal or unlawful conduct of executive branch officials in McGrain v. Daugherty. In fact, Congressional investigative powers are at its peak when probing whether executive branch officials have committed criminal conduct. This probe is a type of "criminal proceeding" because Congress is investigating "suspected illegal conduct" or "alleged abuses of authority"

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=273&invol=...
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30240.pdf

Our system of justice is based on stare decisis and its not easily overturned because it is designed to prevent activist judges from arbitrary interpretations of the law... in short what you are suggesting might happen if it goes to SCOTUS:

In other words, stare decisis applies to the holding of a case, rather than to obiter dicta. As the U.S. Supreme Court has put it: "dicta may be followed if sufficiently persuasive but are not binding."[2]

The doctrine that holdings have binding precedential value is not valid within most civil law jurisdictions as it is argued that this principle interferes with the right of judges to interpret law and the right of the legislature to make law. Most such systems, however, recognize the concept of jurisprudence constante, which argues that even though judges are independent, they should rule in a predictable and non-chaotic manner. Therefore, judges' right to interpret law does not preclude the adoption of a small number of selected binding case laws.

It is by no means certain how SCOTUS may rule on this but despite recent conservative slanted rulings, they have also whacked at the Bush administration on several key cases and ruled against them, specifically in the Hamdhi and Hamden cases which involved detention of terrorist suspects and the military tribunals.

If SCOTUS Justices try to throw out stare decisis and jurisprudence constante as prinicples to rule in Bush's favor, they may themselves be subject to impeachment since our justice system is predicated upon it.

Swashbuckler @ 79:

Rasputin @ 78:

Our system of justice is based on stare decisis and its not easily overturned

Talking about SCOTUS decisions this past year, Justice Breyer wrote "It is not often in the law that so few have so quickly changed so much." In other words, the SCOTUS's conservative denizens don't give a rat's ass about stare decisis.

.... you got that right

whitehouse says congress is out of control. i say it's about time that congress isn't controlled by the whitehouse, like the 109th was.

WashStateBlue @ 81:

Arroyo @ 80:

Swashbuckler @ 79:

Rasputin @ 78:

Talking about SCOTUS decisions this past year, Justice Breyer wrote "It is not often in the law that so few have so quickly changed so much." In other words, the SCOTUS's conservative denizens don't give a rat's ass about stare decisis

Gee, that kind of contradicts what Roberts said in his confirmation hearings, don't it?

One more Alito on the court, and we are not only back to before FDR, we're marching all the back to before Oliver Wendell Holmes, when the court was basically just an enforcement arm of business....

No doubt that the Roberts Supreme Court has gone decidedly to the right in a series of recent rulings, but if you were to assume that they are rubber stamping the Bush administration’s desires… you’d be wrong.

Any experienced trial lawyer is going to tell you that no matter how strong you think your case is or how over-whelming your evidence… when you walk into a court room it is to a very large degree a crap shoot!

Below is an article from 2004 by John Dean and he identified the six pending cases before the SCOTUS that involved the limits of Presidential power. I would also add that Dean was pessimistic to a slight degree. I looked up the outcomes of the six cases and the score board is:

Defendants: 4
Bush Co.: 2

So the Supremes don’t always come down in favor of the President by a long shot and much depends on the type of case that is being heard. The ones below were specifically cited as tests of Executive Power.

Excerpts”

The U.S. Supreme Court and The Imperial Presidency
How President Bush Is Testing the Limits of His Presidential Powers
By JOHN W. DEAN

Will the Supreme Court Place Checks on the Bush Presidency?

Predicting Supreme Court rulings is a tricky business. Yet it is clear that the current Court is more center-to-conservative than the Court that checked Nixon's activity. And when members of the Court start thinking about leaving the high bench -- and several on this Court have been mulling that for some time -- they also think about who will be in the White House to select their successor.

Without dissecting the legal matters at issue in each of these cases -- all with their own complexes and nuances -- at this time, it is not possible to know how the Court will rule. Some pundits claim, however, that the recent ruling of the Court not to review the case of Center for National Security Studies v. Justice Department is a favorable omen for the Administration.

SNIP!

The Executive Power Cases the Court Will Hear Soon

As I noted at the start of this column, it has been three decades since the Court will have tackled such important presidential power questions -- with such potential political implications for a presidential race. For that reason, the five cases that raise these questions should be on the radar screen of all president -- and Supreme Court -- watchers.

The cases are:

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld:

In July 2003, the President designated Hamdan for trial by military commission, and in December 2003, Hamdan was given military counsel. In February 2004, Hamdan's attorneys filed an action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) asking that formal charges be made against Hamdan, and that he be given a speedy trial. The U.S. military, however, held that the UCMJ did not apply.
Next Hamdan's attorney filed a petition for habeas corpus in federal court, to test the legality of his detention. That petition made its way from the state of Washington, where it was filed, to Washington, DC.

Outcome: SCOTUS ruled in favor of Hamdan, upheld Habeas Corpus

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. This case raises the rights of an American citizen -- Yaser Hamdi -- who was captured overseas and held in the United States as an "enemy combatant." Hamdi was arrested in Afghanistan.

Outcome: SCOTUS ruled in favor of Hamdi.

Padilla v. Rumsfeld. This case involves Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen who is being held indefinitely, in a military prison, as an "enemy combatant." He was arrested when deplaning in Chicago. (Thus, his case may be treated differently from that of Hamdi, who was arrested abroad, in Afghanistan.) The Second Circuit, in a 2-1 ruling, held that Padilla's detention violated the Non-Detention Act of 1971, which asserts that no citizens may be held by the federal government "except pursuant to an act of Congress." The Government is appealing, claiming that the President has power to unilaterally cause such detentions to occur.

Outcome: SCOTUS sent it back to a lower court that over turned the verdict against Padilla and found that he had the right to a trial and could not be detained with out one.

Cheney v. Judicial Watch and Sierra Club. This case involves the right of the vice president (and, by implication, of the president) to refuse to turn over documents in a civil lawsuit. The suit seeks to determine if Cheney violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act (the law that forced First Lady Hillary Clinton to open up her sessions on health care).

Outcome: SCOTUS ruled in favor of Cheney and Executive Privilege.

Rasul v. Bush, and Al Odah v. United States.
These cases address the habeas corpus rights of aliens detained at the U.S. base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The government is maintaining that these aliens do not have the right to file habeas corpus petitions in U.S. federal courts.

Outcome: SCOTUS ruled in favor of Rasul

U.S. Supreme Court in Rasul v. Bush held on June 28, 2004, that foreign nationals imprisoned without charge at the Guantanamo Bay interrogation camps were entitled to bring legal action challenging their captivity in U.S. federal civilian courts.

Sealed Case.
A case so secret it does not appear on the Court's docket, and the Solicitor General simply refers to it as "this matter … that is required to be kept under seal." In fact, it is not all that secret. It involves Mohamed Kamel Baellahouel, who wants the Court to rule on whether he was improperly secretly jailed. The government want to argue its case in secret. But some twenty news organizations are opposing this extreme secrecy.

Outcome: SCOTUS ruled that the government can conduct some trials in secret.