[Ninong]

He's Baaaaaaack!

Gonzo the Magnificent makes another appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow!

To make things a little easier for Gonzo, Sen. Leahy sent him written questions last week so that he could study them and refresh his memory before his appearance tomorrow.

Most of the questions are about answers Gonzo gave to the same questions previously. Sen. Leahy must think that Gonzo's memory has improved in the past few weeks. I doubt it.

This is going to be like watching summer reruns. If you've seen Gonzo in action before, you know what to expect. The only excitement will be in counting the number of times he says "I don't recall." His personal best is 74 times in a single hearing, which is the current world record.

[Ninong]

Gonzo has been recalled by the Senate Judiciary Committee.



No hablo ingles.

[Ninong]

Gonzo is mumbling and bumbling his way through his testimony today. Orrin Hatch is presently doing his best to come to Gonzo's defense.

Live video is available at the Senate Judiciary Committee's website.

Leahy is now ripping Gonzo.

Feinstein is now telling Gonzo that he doesn't know what's happening in the Department of Justice. She also says he's not answering any of the questions.

Gonzo is lying, as expected.

Gonzo just referred to Andy Card as "Secretary Card." Moron!

Feinstein is now trying to get Gonzo to tell her who put the US Attorneys' names on the list.

Gonzo says, "I ultimately approved the names that were submitted to me."

Gonzo can't remember how many names he approved to be fired.

Feinstein: "You don't know after all the hearings we have been hearing how many names you approved?"

Gonzo: "I'm not aware of how many US Attorneys were asked to leave. Some may have been asked to leave for misconduct."

Gonzo: "None of the fired US Attorneys (the seven plus Cummings), were fired for misconduct."

Feinstein destroyed him.

Kyl just praised the way Gitmo has been operated and Gonzo agreed, saying that other countries have praised us for our operation of Gitmo. Gitmo is awesome!

Now Kyl is asking about sports gambling and internet gambling. Kyl's worried about the recent NBA scandal. Kyl is worried that the public view of major sports will be affected by internet gambling.

Kyl wants to talk about criminal aliens, terrorism, Gitmo, internet gambling, etc. There's a pattern developing here: Democrats want to ask Gonzo about conflicting previous statements and the US Attorneys firing scandal and Republicans want to talk about anything but that.

Here we go again. Another Democrat is pointing out to Gonzo that he didn't answer Feinstein's questions about who put the various US Attorneys' names on the firing list. (Nobody in the Department of Justice put any names on that list but Gonzo remembers that he was the one who ultimately approved it, even if he can't remember when he approved it.)

Gonzo: "I did not put the names on the list. I accepted the recommendations."

Gonzo: Just admitted he doesn't know who put the names on the list. He has no idea how the names got on the list. Gonzo has reminded the Democratic Senator that the Senate Judiciary Committee has now interviewed everybody who is anybody at DoJ and they still don't know who put the names on the list, so how could Gonzo know. He said he's trying to find out that information.

Gonzo to Democratic Senator: "I do understand your frustration."

The committee is taking a short recess. This is an extremely boring hearing. Nothing new. Gonzo is not answering any of the questions about statements from Monica Goodling, Sara Taylor and other Justice Department officials that contradicted his own previous testimony.

The most amazing statement of all, by far, is Gonzo's continued assertion that no one at Justice, including himself, knows who put any of the names on the list of US Attorneys to be fired. No one at all in the entire Justice Department knows who did that. You might remember that Kyle Sampson said the names got on the list as the result of the consensus opinion of senior management at Justice but in speaking to every member of "senior management," including the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General, not a single one of them admits to suggesting any names for that list.

Gonzo assured the committee that there is an internal investigation under way at Justice to see if they can find out who put those names on the list. And President Bush wanted to know who in his administration leaked Valerie Plame Wilson's identity so that he could "take care of them."

[Ninong]

Here we go again. Another Democrat (Sen. Whitehouse) wants to ask Gonzo again about his visit to Ashcroft in the intensive care unit of the hospital.

Gonzo: "The facts are complicated. I believe everyone acted in good faith here. I want to be fair here. It's complicated. There are others in involved here and I want to be fair to them."

Chairman Leahy: "Why not just be fair to the truth and answer the questions!!!"

Gonzo: "I can't get into the details because I want to be fair to Gen. Ashcroft."

Whitehouse: "When you went into the Attorney General's hospital room, what document did you have in your hand."

Gonzo: "I had the document to renew the program. It's a White House document."

Gonzo is not familiar with FBI Director Mueller's comments or Deputy AG Comey's comments. He doesn't know why they said what they have been reported to have said about that visit to the hospital.

Whitehouse is grilling Gonzo on FBI Director Mueller's comments that he didn't trust Gonzo to be alone with Ashcroft in the hospital. Gonzo says he doesn't know if Mueller made those statements, but if he did, he has no idea why Mueller would say something like that.

Now it's Sen. Sessions' turn and he's worried about illegal aliens. The Republicans are worried about terrorism and illegal aliens. This is hilarious. Sessions is now quoting Our Lady of the Concentration Camps, Michelle Malkin! I can't believe this chit! Michelle Malkin is now considered a reliable source.

Sessions is worried about all the "foreign-born inmates" in our prisons and jails and wants to know what Gonzo intends to do about this serious problem. Sessions says this is "a major issue here."

Sessions is concerned about prosecution of criminal illegal immigration cases. He thinks Justice should prosecute more criminal illegal immigration cases.

Now Sessions wants to know about the penalty differences between crack and powder cocaine. Sessions wants to know why crack cocaine penalties are higher than powder cocaine penalties.

[Ninong]

Chuck Schumer is now interrogating Gonzo about his previous testimony about wiretapping.

Gonzo previously said there was "no serious dissent."

Deputy AG Jim Comey later said there was serious dissent.

Schumer: "How can you say that you didn't deceive the committee."

Gonzo: "I would like to look at what I said."

Schumer: "We're going to give you your previous statements right now."

Gonzo: "I did misspeak but I went back and clarified it with the reporter two days later."

Schumer: "Was there one program that the president confirmed?"

Gonzo: "There was one program."

Jim Comey testified that there was significant dissent within the Justice Department.

Gonzo now says that Comey was talking about some other program.

Schumer reminded Gonzo that he just said there was only one program.

Gonzo: "I clarified my statement two days later with the reporter."

Schumer: "What did you say to the reporter."

Gonzo: "I didn't speak directly to the reporter."

Schumer: "What?!?"

Gonzo: "It was a Justice spokesperson who spoke to the reporter."

Gonzo doesn't know what the spokesperson said to the reporter. He knows the spokesperson clarified his previous statements but he doesn't know what was said.

Gonzo: "The disagreement Mr. Comey testified about was about intelligence programs other than the one you're asking about."

Gonzo: "My statement at the press conference was not accurate but I later clarified that."

Leahy: "There is a discrepancy here in sworn testimony between you and Mr. Comey and we're going to have to investigate this to determine who is telling the truth."

[Ninong]

Sen. Durbin wants to talk about torture.

Gonzo is refusing to get into "a public discussion about interrogation techniques." Gonzo refuses to say whether we continue to use five interrogation techniques that all five of the service Judge Advocates General have stated in writing are prohibited by Common Article 3 (Geneva Conventions).

He is refusing to agree with the statement of all five service Judge Advocates General who stated that stress positions, forced nudity, waterboarding, mock executions and use of threatening dogs are a violation of Common Article 3. (The Senate Judiciary Committee asked for an received official written declarations from each of the Judge Advocates General. They were unanimous in declaring that stress positions, forced nudity, waterboarding, mock executions and use of threatening dogs violated the Geneva Conventions and U.S. law.)

Gonzo refuses to say whether it would be illegal for foreign governments to subject American citizens to the same five specific interrogation techniques that Gonzo refuses to say whether we use or not.

Durbin wants to know why there hasn't been a single conviction of any of the Gitmo detainees a full five years after we started detaining them.

Feingold is now ripping Gonzo. So far, all of the Democrats are trashing him and all of the Republicans (except for Arlen Specter) are trying to change the topic.

Feingold is now accusing Gonzo of intentionally misleading Congress again and again.

Gonzo says he tried to not mislead Congress but sometimes it just came out that way.

Gonzo: "There have been instances when I have not met that standard but I have tried to correct that later."

Gonzo is studdering like crazy. He keeps saying he doesn't understand the question.

Feingold was tough on Gonzo.

Now it's Ted Kennedy's turn.

Did Justice review the Executive Order just published on torture?

Gonzo can't say if Justice provided any analysis of the Executive Order.

Kennedy wants to know why waterboarding, stress positions, mock executions, use of threatening dogs, etc., are not specifically listed as prohibited.

Gonzo: "The President said we're not going to torture."

Gonzo won't say if those certain techniques (stress positions, waterboarding, etc.) are off the table. (It is important to remember here that in a previous secret executive order signed by the president, stress positions, sleep deprivation, loud noises, forced nudity, cold or hot air, cold water, threatening dogs, mock executions, waterboarding, diet manipulation, etc., are all classified as not constituting torture. Torture is something equal to "organ failure or death." And if you die, it's considered "an accident.")

In effect, Gonzo is saying that stress positions and waterboarding (which all of the Judge Advocates General say are criminal) may be used under certain circumstances. By refusing to answer whether they are considered torture, he is admitting that they are still in use. He won't say either way. He simply says he's not going to talk about that in public.

P.S. -- Sources inside the intelligence community say that waterboarding has been used on only a handful of "high-value" detainees. The president brags that a certain high-value detainee gave up important information after robust interrogation. According to the FBI, that high-value detainee gave up that information while he was in their custody, before the CIA took over and started waterboarding him. There is serious disagreement between the FBI and the CIA over the best methods of interrogation. The FBI insists that torture is counterproductive, the CIA thinks it's useful.

[Ninong]

Leahy: "Monica Goodling testified under oath that she crossed the line hiring for career positions."

Gonzo says he was not aware of that: "I don't recall being aware of that. That would have been troubling to me."

Gonzo says that at some point he may have become aware that Monica Goodling had asked inappropriate questions of potential career employees.

Gonzo says that it appears that, based on the testimony, Ms. Goodling may have crossed the line.

Gonzo doesn't know whether he has communicated with the White House about that.

Leahy told him that it might be a good idea for Gonzo to explain that to the White House.

Gonzo says his converstion with Goodling in his office was an attempt to console and reassure an emotionally distraught woman.

Gonzo says his conversation with her was simply an attempt "to console an extremely distraught woman."

Gonzo said his conversation with Goodling "was not to shape her testimony."

(Goodling previously testified that Gonzo reviewed with her what his recollection would be and asked her if her recollection was similar to his.)

[Ninong]

Specter: "Does the Solicitor General have the authority to appoint a Special Prosecutor since you and the Deputy AG have recused yourselves."

Gonzo: "Yes."

Specter is setting this up for something he and Leahy are planning. Gonzo and other Justice officials have been using the White House as the excuse for why they can't answer certain questions. Anything that may have involved the White House, they say they can't answer due to executive privilege. They will answer questions involving the White House if the answer helps them and the White House but they won't answer questions if the answer would implicate the White House in improper conduct. Selective answering. Kinda like the selective intelligence that was used to get us into Iraq.

Specter just told Gonzo that he doesn't find his testimony credible. He's accusing Gonzo of lying about why he went to Ashcroft's hospital room.

Specter said it's obvious they were dealing with the "terror surveillance program." Gonzo has said it was about a different intelligence program.

Gonzo has "no specific recolletion" about a case Specter is asking him about. It's about the fact that the witnesses against Jose Rios were all drug addicts. Specter is upset with Gonzo for not knowing what's going on in this particular federal death penalty case.

Specter wants Gonzo to review all the death penalty cases where the US Attorneys have recommended against the death penalty but Gonzo has ignored their advice.

Now Specter wants to know about OxyContin abuse. He's asking about "intent to mislead." Why did Justice enter into a plea agreement for a fine with NO jail time? (Trivia: Fred Thompson represented the makers of OxyContin in this investigation.)

Gonzo thinks the $30 million in fines that the principals are paying is sufficient. (I think the company was fined $600 million, too.)

Specter is ripping Gonzo on this OxyContin thing. Cool! Hopefully the MSM will bring up the fact that the OxyContin makers have been defended by Fred Thompson. Fred Thompson was a very highly-paid lobbyist for nearly two decades. The OxyContin boys were typical of his clients. He also worked for a pro-abortion group.

P.S. -- I forgot to mention that the most interesting exchange was between Chuck Schumer and Gonzales concerning the questions about who ordered Gonzales and Andrew Card to go to Ashcroft's hospital room. Gonzo kept repeating the same answer to every question: "We were there on behalf of the President of the United States." He used that exact same phrase when Schumer asked him if he was ordered to go to the hospital by the president and again when he was asked if it was the vice president who had ordered him to do so. When he was asked if he discussed going to the hospital with either the president or the vice president in advance of going there, it was the exact same response.

Finally, Schumer asked Gonzales directly to explain to the committee why he was refusing to answer the question of whether the president or the vice president instructed him to go to the hospital to see Ashcroft and Gonzales replied that he could not tell the committee why he was refusing to answer those questions because they involved the White House. The latest defense seems to be that anything that was discussed with anyone in the Executive Office of the President (EOP) or the Office of the Vice President (OVP) is considered protected by "executive privilege," notwithstanding the assertion by the Vice President that he is not part of the Executive Branch.

Gonzo not only refused to explain why he was refusing to answer the question of who sent him to the hospital, he refused to say whether he discussed this in advance with anyone at all in the White House while at the same time using the defense that the White House was involved and therefore he was not allowed to discuss it.

[Ninong]

Another Democrat is accusing Gonzo of lying about his hospital visit to Ashcroft.

OK, I give up. Nothing to see here.

Gonzo: "I'm sorry, Senator. I don't understand your question."

Gonzo thinks the Senator is trying to lead him to the White House as the source of where improper influence comes from.

The Democrats are hitting him with White House Counsel influence on DoJ.

They want to know why the OVP (Office of the Vice President) should be involved in criminal and civil matters pending with the Justice Department.

Gonzo: "That's a very good question." (Laughter in the room.)

Gonzo says he is "troubled by this." That is, that the Office of the Vice President and his staff and the entire Office of Management and Budget has been included as being authorized to have contacts with DoJ on pending cases.

Gonzo says he has taken steps to clean up the mess he has made. This is pathetic. He doesn't know why he wrote something in a memo -- a memo that he signed. He says maybe they will have to "re-think that."

The Senator just told Gonzo that "it is very difficult to take your promises seriously." "I don't understand how you can say that you can solve the problem. You, sir, are the problem!"

Gonzo says he is working as hard as he can to work with this committee to improve the Department of Justice. He's focused on doing the people's business. He wants to protect us from terrorism and keep our children safe on the Internet.

I give up. Again. This is going nowhere. Gonzo is pathetic. Expecting Gonzo to tell the truth is about as hopeless as expecting Lindsay Lohan to turn down another drink.

[Ninong]

Hey, check this out:

Fox Noise did it again. Looks like they weren't too pleased with Sen. Specter's treatment of Gonzo the Magnificent today so they made him an honorary DEMOCRAT!!!




Reminds me of when they made Mark Foley a Democrat:



And when they report poll results that they don't like, they simply reverse the political party affiliation to make it look like the Republican is ahead:



When Scooter Libby was convicted of FOUR of the five counts against him, they reported as BREAKING NEWS that he was found NOT GUILTY. He was found not guilty of one count and GUILTY OF FOUR COUNTS, including perjury and obstruction of justice.


Faux News is a parody of a television news program. Some of their stuff could go straight to Saturday Night Live.

[zhenya]

The Senator just told Gonzo that "it is very difficult to take your promises seriously." "I don't understand how you can say that you can solve the problem. You, sir, are the problem!"

And after all that.., what's next? Impeachment?

It;s so abvious that the man is a liar (lying to protect someone) it's not even funny anymore. I could only stomac his lying for 10 minutes and had to turn it off because it's frustrating to watch or listen to.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by zhenya

And after all that.., what's next? Impeachment?

Impeachment of the attorney general is a possibility but I don't think it's likely at this time.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by zhenya

And after all that.., what's next? Impeachment?

Things are heating up faster than I anticipated. The House Judiciary Committee has voted -- along party lines -- to hold both Joshua Bolten and Harriet Miers in contempt. This will have to be approved by the full House. It probably won't be brought up for a vote until after Labor Day.

If the full House votes to cite Bolten and Miers for contempt, then the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia would be asked to prosecute them. The White House has already announced that the President will instruct the U.S. Attorney to ignore any requests from Congress to prosecute any current or former members of his staff or even any officials of the Republican National Committee for refusing to honor congressional subpoenas.

Congress has asked for certain documents from the White House and from the RNC. The President has directed the RNC to ignore this request for documents (e.g., Karl Rove's phone records). He has also directed his Chief of Staff, Josh Bolten, to ignore congressional subpoenas to appear before Congress. He has given similar instructions to former White House Counsel and Supreme Court wannabe, Harriet Miers.

The House Judiciary Committee has now voted to hold both Bolten and Miers in Contempt of Congress. Assuming the full House votes to cite them for contempt, and assuming that the President instructs the U.S. Attorney to ignore any congressional referrals for prosecution, then the next possibility would be for the Congress of the United States, a co-equal branch of government, to order the Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest Bolten and Miers and bring them physically to the chamber for trial on inherent contempt.

Both the House and the Senate have the constitutional authority to imprison anyone charged by either chamber with contempt. Imprisonment in the House can last only as long as the current session of Congress. I didn't bother to look up the Senate's rules. Imprisonment is usually used as a means to force cooperation of the reluctant witness.

Between 1795 and 1934 the House and Senate utilized the inherent contempt power over 85 times, in most instances to obtain (successfully) testimony and/or documents. The inherent contempt power has not been exercised by either House in over 70 years.

The problem we are faced with right now is that the President and Vice President are asserting powers that have never been claimed before in the history of the nation. The President claims that his constitutional duty to defend the nation in time of war gives him unlimited power to decide which laws he should obey and which laws he can ignore simply because in his opinion they restrict his ability to defend the nation. He has used this outrageous interpretation to justify all sorts of illegal activities, from warrantless spying on American citizens to ordering the detention of American citizens without recourse to a court or even allowing them to see the evidence against them. He has asserted the power to declare anyone, including American citizens, an enemy combatant and he has declared that enemy combatants have virtually no legal rights whatsoever other than those he chooses to grant them.

The President has stretched the bounds of Executive Privilege far beyond anything ever done by any previous administrations. The idea that Executive Privilege extends to the phone records and email records held by the Republican National Committee is absurd. Another example of just how absurd Bush's idea of Executive Privilege is was Alberto Gonzales' statement yesterday to Senator Schumer that he would have to check with the White House to see if he has permission to explain to the Senate why he thinks that he is not allowed to answer the question of who ordered him to visit Ashcroft in the hospital. The Attorney General of the United States, the chief law enforcement officer of the country, does NOT have to request permission from the President of the United States before answering questions from the United States Senate. That's absurd on its face!

The Vice President's claims of extraordinary immunity -- I believe he called it "absolute immunity" -- are also unprecedented. Cheney claims that he is immune from any lawsuits because he is the Vice President. He claimed that his immunity was absolute and similar to the President's. That came up in the response to Valerie Plame Wilson's civil suit against Cheney, Libby, Armitage, Rove, et al., for revealing her identity as a covert CIA operative.

The Constitution has no provision that allows a President to avoid investigation for possible crimes by ordering his staff to keep their mouths shut. On the contrary, the founding fathers were quite clear in saying that the President may not prevent the Congress from investigating his own wrongdoing and that if he did anything to prevent their discovery of such wrongdoing, it would amount to obstruction of justice. Basically, the President cannot prevent his possible impeachment by refusing to cooperate with congressional inquiry into his own misdeeds. If the President takes any action -- including the exercise of his pardon power -- that is part of a plan to prevent the Congress from discovering presidential wrongdoing, such action on the part of the President constitutes obstruction of justice, which is an impeachable offense, especially if it involves sex in the Oval Office. BTW, that's a good example of why the presidential pardon power is not really absolute, as some GOP talking heads like to claim. The President cannot pardon someone as part of a scheme to conceal his own wrongdoing. In other words, if it can be proved that Bush pardoned Libby in exchange for Libby keeping quiet about Bush's involvement in the Plame affair, then Bush would be guilty of obstruction of justice. I believe President Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich was investigated by at least two or three different Republican-controlled congressional committees after he left office with the goal of discovering if any criminal wrongdoing had occurred -- none was found.

P.S. -- I was just reminded by Sen. Leahy (on Countdown) that when he originally asked the RNC to turn over the records of emails and phone calls made by Karl Rove and other White House staffers on RNC accounts, he was told by the White House that those emails had all been erased. Sen. Leahy informed the White House that it is impossible to completely destroy all records of emails because they are stored in too many different places, some of which are beyond the control of the sender or the receiver. A couple of weeks later, the White House finally admitted that Sen. Leahy was correct and they had discovered that all of those tens of thousands of emails (66,000 by one person) were stored elsewhere but that the President had ordered the RNC to not turn them over in compliance with congressional subpeonas because the President had now extended "executive privilege" over these communications.

This assertion of executive privilege is absurd. First of all, it they were official business, then it was a violation of the Official Records Act for them not to be preserved on White House accounts. If they were not official business, then there is no way that executive privilege could apply since they couldn't possibly involve official White House conversations with the President himself. It is an obvious criminal act that the senior White House staff routinely used RNC email and phone accounts for official business that they did not want to have preserved as part of the official record as required by law.

[Ninong]

Josh Marshall has put together a 7-minute video clip of excerpts from Gonzo the Magnificent's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday. It's hilarious and sad at the same time.

Check it out here. Alberto Gonzales: Lying Liar Edition

Notice that he is being called a liar to his face by both Democrats and Republicans. Specter told him his testimony was "not credible" and Leahy told him "I don't trust you." At one point Schumer interrupts his questioning of Gonzo to tell Leahy that they will have to "look at this" further -- a reference to perjury.

[Ninong]

Sen. Leahy was telling Keith Olbermann on Countdown this evening that every time Gonzales appears before his committee, they allow him a few days afterward to review the written transcript of what he actually said so that he can "revise" his answers should he discover that something he said was actually incorrect. Leahy said that every time Gonzo appears, a few days later he sends them a lenghty letter revising and clarifying his testimony.

In yesterday's testimony, there was one particular moment when Sen. Schumer pretty much came out and accused Gonzales of perjury. He asked Gonzales if he was sticking by that answer and Gonzo insisted that he was. Schumer asked him the same question three or four different ways and told Gonzales outright that his answers were not credible.

Now it turns out that Schumer was correct. The AP has discovered a May 2006 memo from John Negroponte that directly contradicts what Gonzo said was the topic of discussion of a March 2004 meeting with congressional leaders. All of the Democrats present at that March 2004 meeting are accusing Gonzo of perjury and the Republicans who were present are saying that their recollection doesn't quite match Gonzo's recollection. There were only four Democrats and four Republicans present -- the so-called "gang of eight."

Gonzo will now have a few days to retract his "incorrect" testimony or leave himself open to a perjury charge. Either that or he has to take on former national intelligence director John Negroponte and the entire "gang of eight" and accuse them of being mistaken.

It must be difficult being Gonzo -- so much to remember, so little time.

[Ninong]

The Senate Judiciary Committee has issued subpoenas to Karl Rove and his deputy, Scott Jennings. The deadline for testimony and documents is August 2 at 10 a.m. It is expected that President Bush will order them to ignore the subpoena. At that point, it's up to the Senate Judiciary Committee whether to seek contempt citations.

The Justice Department has officially responded to the House Judiciary Committee's call for contempt citations against Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten. The DoJ has informed the House Judiciary Committee that it is the position of the Bush Justice Department that "the criminal contempt of Congress statute does not apply to the President or presidential subordinates who assert executive privilege." This, of course, is absurd!

Assuming the full House votes to hold Miers and Bolten in contempt, then they will have to try them on their own in the House if the US Attorney for the District of Columbia refuses to prosecute. Should the Senate vote to hold Rove and Jennings in contempt, they would have to be tried in the Senate should the US Attorney, following orders from the Bush Justice Department, refuse to prosecute.

I don't think there is anything the Supreme Court could, or would, do to prevent this from happening should either the House or the Senate choose to go forward with an inherent contempt trial. I suspect that should the Bush Administration try to take this issue to the Supreme Court, the Court would decline to accept it. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens if it comes to that.

In the meantime, the decision by the President to refuse to allow his subordinates to testify before Congress could be added as a charge in a bill of impeachment, should Nancy Pelosi finally realize that she has a duty to the Constitution to put impeachment back on the table where it rightfully belongs.

Even Richard Nixon made no attempt to prevent his White House Counsel, John Dean, from testifying before the Senate's Watergate investigation committee. The committee was investigating possible criminal wrongdoing on the part of the President and John Dean's testimony blew Watergate wide open. Both the House and the Senate are investigating potential wrongdoing on the part of President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Attorney General Gonzales, and any attempts by the President to impede this investigation could be the basis for an obstruction of justice charge against him.

Impeachment of both Bush and Cheney is a very real possibility. Several prominent Republican conservatives who served in the Reagan and Bush the Elder administrations have been demanding it for the past several weeks now. I don't think we're at that point yet but we could be there in another six months or so. If public support for impeachment reaches 60%, the Democrats might be forced to consider it in spite of their apparent belief that keeping Cheney and Bush in office helps their chances of picking up more seats in the House and Senate in addition to the presidency in November 2008.

The principle argument for impeachment being put forth by Republican conservatives is that if Bush and Cheney are not impeached, then their abuse of power and blatant disregard for the Constitution will set a terribly dangerous precedent for future presidents.

[Ninong]

Another rising GOP star caught with his pants down, or something:

OK, so I was trying to check out the latest rumors that have Larry Flynt about to name a member of the Ohio congressional delegation as the latest hooker aficionado when I came across this item about the former head of the Michigan Young Republicans pleading out on approximately 12 rape counts.

I guess it googled up because the YR's held their national convention in Cleveland! Cleveland? Jeez! Is that the best they could do?

Anyway, this 32-year-old YR (are you still considered a "Young Republican" at 32?) attorney allegedly took advantage of a stone drunk YR chick at their national convention. She supposedly awoke to discover him performing unwelcome sex acts upon her person.

Excerpt:

[Michael] Flory (aka "the defendant") gained some notoriety at age 18 when he gave a televised speech to the Republican National Convention in the Houston Astrodome in 1992. The Michigan Young Republicans' Web site once hailed him as "one of the rising stars of GOP politics in America" and declared that "Mike has earned a great name for himself." (Yeah, right! Rapist!)

Flory, the victim and other members of Michigan's delegation to the national Young Republicans convention were partying in the Warehouse District last July 6, police and prosecutors said. The victim became so intoxicated that she headed back to her hotel room. Flory escorted her.

But when she lay down to sleep, he "violently forced several sex acts upon her," Skutnik said.

Never trust a Young Republican lawyer, they're sneaky.


So who will Larry Flynt out as the next D.C. Madam patron?

I'm pulling for House Minority Leader John Boehner. Stay tuned.



P.S. -- I hope it's not Bob Ney. He's already in jail anyway. That would be no fun at all. It needs to be somebody who is known for his good Christian family values, somebody like David "Diaperman" Vitter. Boehner would fit that bill perfectly. And he's the highest ranking Republican in the House. Just think, they wouldn't be facing a problem like this if they had let Denny Hastert make David Dreier the Minority Leader like he wanted to do when little Tom DeLay "stepped down temporarily."

[Ninong]

FBI Director Robert Mueller's testimony today before the House Judiciary Committee contradicts Attorney General Gonzales' testimony of Tuesday!

White House Press Secretary Snow said that Mueller's testimony did not contradict Gonzo's testimony but he can't explain why because that's classified information.

I think the most damning testimony against Gonzo came from his former deputy, Jim Comey, who accused Gonzo of trying to take advantage of a sick man when he and Andy Card made that late night run to the hospital to try to strong arm Ashcroft. That's when Ashcroft told Gonzo and Card to go to hell because he had already turned over all of the powers of his office to Comey and they knew it. So did President Cheney and Deputy President Bush.

None of this really matters because Gonzo is protected by Bush, who can't fire him because any replacement approved by the Senate wouldn't be as protective of the president as Gonzo the Magnificent has been. A new attorney general that is confirmable by the Democratic Senate might not be as willing to cover up Bush's wrongdoing as Piñata Boy.

Here.

[Ninong]

Here is a brief video clip of the exchange between Sen. Schumer and Gonzo the Magnificent where Piñata Boy refuses to say if either the president or the vice president asked him to go to the hospital to see Ashcroft.