Comments (88)

Anonymous wrote on May 9, 2007 4:58 PM:

http://www.rawstory.com/images/other/AGtestimonyrawstory.pdf

yes is will get worst.... :)

Anonymous wrote on May 9, 2007 5:02 PM:

they lied. they stole. they lied. they stole. they lied. they stole.

Impeachment is the only way the outcome will be fixed! end of story!

C 92 wrote on May 9, 2007 5:09 PM:

@4:58

I appreciate that "Oversight of the Department of Justice" is in QUOTES.

Almost a challenge, it seems!

Anonymous wrote on May 9, 2007 5:11 PM:

The American people MUST seek the impeachment of both Bush and Cheney. The amount of lying and manipulating that has gone on in this administration is horrific. Everything about this administration has been false from the start, including the fact that they suppressed votes in FL in order to steal the first election.

dhs wrote on May 9, 2007 5:17 PM:

It is incumbent on the Democrats to impeach Bush and Cheney. There is no way out. Bush and Cheney lied to get the country into the war in Iraq. They not only failed to defend and protect the Constitution, but in fact deliberately violated it. By sanctioning torture in Abu Graibh and Gitmo, they committed war crimes. They have sabotaged the DOJ. They sabotaged Homeland Security and FEMA.

bobh wrote on May 9, 2007 5:18 PM:

Thats a pretty stunning indictment of AGAG.

We all work for the Whitehouse , say it with me.

Allan in CT wrote on May 9, 2007 5:18 PM:

If there are crimes, who will be the prosecutor? The USA of the District of Columbia? Really? We will have to wait until after the present regime is replaced (if they will go voluntarily) and hope the statute of limitations has not run.

Anonymous wrote on May 9, 2007 5:19 PM:

dhs...

They put their plague in every federal and state department that they could! There is not enough RAID to exterminate the cockroach's.

Anonymous wrote on May 9, 2007 5:21 PM:

Any prosecution would have to be done by a special prosecutor. Don't be in too big of a hurry, though. As soon as a special prosecutor is appointed, congress will have to stop its investigation so as not to taint the SP's case.

Anonymous wrote on May 9, 2007 5:21 PM:

Allan in CT...

I think the prosecutor is the AMERICAN PEOPLE! There may not be a single person who could do this job! Impeachment is the only way to get rid of the damage!

AS wrote on May 9, 2007 5:27 PM:

Seems like a good TPM/blog network task: is there a copy of Gonzalez' speech out there, the one that raised McKay's eyebrows?

Probably would be a pretty interesting read at this point. Too bad the committee won't have it tomorrow. But they've got plenty, of course.

Anonymous wrote on May 9, 2007 5:30 PM:

Impeachment. Not until the scandals include a "sexy" angle that the MSM can run with to spike their ratings.

Think BushCo AG #1/Regis U. Johnny/Monica.

Anonymous wrote on May 9, 2007 5:34 PM:

AS...

I have not seen a response to the Seattle piece, but Gonzales put this out today,

http://www.rawstory.com/images/other/AGtestimonyrawstory.pdf

its his opening line for tomorrow, its the same thing but longer!

Sara wrote on May 9, 2007 5:35 PM:

I suspect a clear cut case for Obstruction of Justice and Lying to Congress is almost ripe -- and if they believe the votes are there, Impeach Gonzales ought to be the tune of the day. It is two thirds of the counts against Nixon -- and not really all that complex. It would take Gonzales out of office, and he could still be prosecuted criminally in the future. Question is are there 17 votes on the Republican Side in the Senate for a very surgical removal? So forget the special prosecutor -- Conyers should call for study and then hearings on Gonzales's impeachment on just these counts.

Impeachment is not reviewable by the courts, and the House Committee has great powers in compelling production of evidence. I suspect they could even require that Karl Rove produce himself and his papers.

Orwell's Intuition wrote on May 9, 2007 5:36 PM:

I remember when that speech of Gonzales was in the news. It was a jawdropper.

We can all thank Josh for being the catalyst of all these investigations; he and that reporter whose name I have forgotten. *This* is journalism.

Code word: screw, as in I so hope Gonzales and Rove are screwed

Anonymous wrote on May 9, 2007 5:37 PM:

Sara...

Good information! In my view, this is the road the House may take after tomorrow!!

I can only hope!

Anonymous wrote on May 9, 2007 5:38 PM:

The astonishing thing about the anti-impeachment crowd is their assertion impeachment would interfere in "their" (Bush administration's) work.

Well no shit.

That's the reason for impeachment. Not the reason for letting them continue on as criminal gangsters in charge of government.

minnesotamark wrote on May 9, 2007 5:38 PM:

I predict that no criminal charges will result. Only if Monica Goodling has chapter and verse, and only if she spills, will this go criminal. My guess is that she could put the jacket onto Rove, but that she won't do it. If the missing e-mails turned up, that might make it more interesting.

Mark F. wrote on May 9, 2007 5:45 PM:

I can't imagine why anyone would be "stunned" at Gonzales' remarks. The guy's a nincompoop and a toady--like everyone else in Bush's administration. As David Frum put it: "The president doesn't hire people because of their talent or intelligence. He hires them for their loyalty."

This was all bound to happen from the outset. That's what we get for letting trailer trash Republicans vote.

mo2 wrote on May 9, 2007 5:46 PM:

House Judiciary Committee schedule says 10:00 a.m. hearings and 2:30 p.m. closed door hearings tomorrow. The 10:00 a.m. hearing should be on one of the CSPANs.

Omar wrote on May 9, 2007 5:48 PM:

I'll believe it when I see it.
Even then I won't.

Just who will do the prosecuting?

Who's the potter and who the pot? The hammer and the nail?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Speak, you lawyers out there who understand how this would work.
I don't want to kill all the lawyers. I just want to jail the bad ones.

Anonymous wrote on May 9, 2007 5:49 PM:

code: wind

Is the wind shifting? Hope so. Get these creeps out now.

CrunchyFrog wrote on May 9, 2007 5:56 PM:

McKay: "We were stunned at what he was saying."
Orwell's Intuition: "I remember when that speech of Gonzales was in the news. It was a jawdropper."

Who did report it at the time? Any cites available?

Mary Lou wrote on May 9, 2007 5:58 PM:

Thanks to all the "lawyer people" out there who have the expertise to add insight to this situation. Keep it coming! I really appreciate what you think could and should happen.

Hank Essay wrote on May 9, 2007 5:58 PM:

I guess the whole "honor and dignity" being returned to the White House isn't going as well as planned.

RonG wrote on May 9, 2007 6:02 PM:

The question of the day is, has the threat of a jail term been presented to Monica in order to intimidate her into spilling the beans? That's what was done to John Dean, and his testimony not only kept him out of jail; it made him a media star to this very day. My guess is, as I expressed in a post a few days ago, that Monica is the John Dean of the Bushies.

John Bertsch wrote on May 9, 2007 6:17 PM:

Yes, bring charges against Alberto and his team of cohorts. This will give the DOJ some practice in preparing for an "easy" case.

foggylady wrote on May 9, 2007 6:21 PM:

"is there a copy of Gonzalez' speech out there, the one that raised McKay's eyebrows?"

Here is link to the speech, which has many amusing passages, now seen in the light of recent events..
but..
does not contain the comment that McKay quoted.
Maybe Gonzo made that comment off record...?
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2005/042105usattorneysconference.htm

Mike Valentine wrote on May 9, 2007 6:34 PM:

It's about time for martial law and order Republican style. Whining press and Congress.

We didn't have these problems in the last Congress. It's the Democrat Congress' fault. Uppity little people who pay taxes.

Code word; Sticky.... too easy.

mo2 wrote on May 9, 2007 6:40 PM:

From Gonzales' speech:
"Finally, I want to remind you that we are not here to play little ball, we are here to play big ball, to go for the big inning. President Bush often notes that we are "here to make a difference, not to mark time.to confront problems directly and forcefully, not pass them on to future generations."

"This is our charge. We cannot stand idly by and allow this opportunity to pass. We must use this second term and exercise bold leadership..."
...
"September 11th, 2001, the collective mission of the federal government was instantly transformed. At that moment, the top priority of the United States government became - and remains today - to protect our citizens against terrorism."

Question - What does Gonzales think the collective mission of the federal government was before Sept 11? And why does he think that the mission should change for ANY reason?

Sharon A wrote on May 9, 2007 6:49 PM:

Impeach Bush/Cheney NOW. Let President Nancy Pelosi appoint someone like Fitzgerald to clean up the DOJ.

Steve5117 wrote on May 9, 2007 6:52 PM:

Mike Valentine

It's Wednesday night, how come you are not at church. Pray for Gonzo...judgement day is near!

vox clamantis in red state wrote on May 9, 2007 7:03 PM:

Rumsfeld told it like it was, is and always will be, until this maladministration has been flushed into the black hole of American history:
You get the (army) you go to (war) with..
DOJ seek justice FEMA to do the job

Texlib wrote on May 9, 2007 7:27 PM:

Then, Woodward & Bernstein and Watergate

Now, TPM & USA scandal

Thanks TPM

Time to clean the mess up.

cuewhiffle wrote on May 9, 2007 7:35 PM:

I agree that the speech (at least the transcript) isn't quite the "jawdropper" McKay says, but it certainly reads as a speech to the loyal Bush troops. Of course there's nothing about independence.

jdberkley wrote on May 9, 2007 7:38 PM:

Here's what I don't understand about this whole mess. It's clear, from Gonzales' testimonies, that he's intent on misleading Congress. He's had several key portions of his own accounts refuted by other testimony and by documentary evidence. His Department of Justice has attempted to stonewall this investigation by withholding key documents. Why hasn't this man been cited for contempt of Congress? Congress has the inherent authority not simply to cite him, but to arrest him, bring him before Congress, and order him jailed for refusing to comply fully with a Congressional investigation. With the lack of support for Gonzales on the hill, I'd have to think Democrats would have the votes in both houses of Congress. In the past, even the threat of such an action has been enough to bring obstreperous administration officials of both parties to heel. It seems long past time that this option for dealing with uncooperative Bush administration officials was given serious thought.

On the Clock wrote on May 9, 2007 7:48 PM:

C'mon people. Relax. It's only our system of laws at stake.

Code word: Sound. At the bottom of which McKay and Iglesias would be, if Bush thought he could get away with it.

sailmaker wrote on May 9, 2007 7:54 PM:

Wanna bet Abu gets up in front of Congress and says,

"There is absolutely nothing wrong with the statement 'I work for the White House, you work for the White House. We all serve at the President's pleasure, he signs our pay checks."

And then Abu will look as if butter won't melt in his mouth, because he will have invented his own nouveau nillegal defense. He will then (unless impeached) have obliterated for eternity the independence of the Judiciary.

TheraP wrote on May 9, 2007 8:12 PM:

My favorite line from gonzo's speech:

"You represent the Attorney General in your district."

I wonder how many USA's now want to be viewed in this way....Yes, as a USA, you will be viewed as just another bozo like gonzo.

I also wonder if they appreciated being enlisted to explain and promote the reauthorization of the Patriot Act. (seems a little like mixing up the branches of government - but then IANAL)

Nancy Davies wrote on May 9, 2007 8:13 PM:

What of many scandals or crimes will finally bring down Bush? Corruption and incompetence permeate through his administration everywhere I turn -- from Iraq to the DOJ. No one and no department or agency are immune. It's everywhere.

I just hope McKay's and Iglesias' predictions of criminal prosecutions come true. I also hope the American public finally pays attention to the dark, subculture of the Bush administration, and wakes up to what it has has wreaked on us.

The U.S. attorneys scandal is just the tip of the iceberg. If the "fired" U.S. attorneys truly care about this country, they should speak up (something Colin Powell and George Tenent didn't do)and tell the American people what's really going on in the Bush administration.

We the People need their candor and integrity.

theswan wrote on May 9, 2007 8:17 PM:

I think the important thing for everyone to remember is to "support John Mckay" for his courage. I can only imagine what the next year of his life will entail.

Mooser wrote on May 9, 2007 8:25 PM:

Please remember this: The prosecuters who were removed were let go because they wouldn't pervert justice enough, not because they wouldn't pervert it at all!
Don't make heroes out of them, they simply reached the limits of what they felt would be attainable, or could be mitigated if discovered.
The strict limits of ethics and legality they left behind long ago, else they could not have worked for Bush as long as they did, if at all.
Don't trust them. Assume they are at all times covering their own posterior first of all.

Nancy Davies wrote on May 9, 2007 8:29 PM:

Any fired U.S. attorney (much less, any whistleblower in the Bush administration) will get my full support.

I wonder if McKay and Iglesias know how many millions of Americans are behind them. If they publicize their stories, they'd be surprised with the support they'd get from the American people. But as attorneys and faithful Republicans, I'm sure they're naturally conservative and holding back. They don't fully realize the value of presenting their cases before the American people.

We GET it.

Donald from Hawaii wrote on May 9, 2007 8:35 PM:

Mooser: "The strict limits of ethics and legality they left behind long ago, else they could not have worked for Bush as long as they did, if at all."

Not everybody who received an appointment from this administration is a right-wing stooge or tool -- most of them, perhaps, but not all. People like John McKay, Carol Lam and David Iglesia may be Republican, but they should be commended for having a strong ethical base. They don't deserve your groundless insinuation of corrpution on their part.

canuk wrote on May 9, 2007 8:46 PM:

All the Bushies have to do is keep the litigators away from the President.
At the eleventh hour all Bushie convicts will be pardoned. It is written. It is done. How did that song go... "you can't touch this".
So let us not think for a moment that real justice will prevail. The most we can hope for is removal of some of the senior Bushies. No one seems to have the stomach to go for the President himself. Ironically, if the Dems and Republicans could change places the Republicans would have already impeached the President. The Dems apparently prefer execution by a thousand committies.

bcf wrote on May 9, 2007 8:57 PM:

"They don't deserve your groundless insinuation of corrpution on their part."

Well, I followed the news pretty closely in San Diego and I think Mooser has a point. Carol Lam certainly seemed on board when pursuing newly elected Democratic City Council members only in "strippergate" a few years back.

Duke Cunningham didn't get busted because of Carol Lam. He got busted because a San Diego Union Tribune reporter discovered a recorded bribe and made it pretty much impossible to ignore. Without that, I doubt if Cunningham would have ever been convicted.

Brad wrote on May 9, 2007 8:58 PM:

Per Oliver North, the most effective defense is for Goodling to admit sole responsibility for all kinds of criminal conduct with a grant of immunity, taking the criminal conduct of others off the table. It must be made clear to Goodling that her immunity grant doesn't encompass subsequent perjurious testimony, and that there will be thorough cross checking of her testimony

bcg wrote on May 9, 2007 9:08 PM:

My guess of the moment is that Goodling and Sampson were set up to be the fall guys for this scandal.
While they were given the authority to decide on hires and fires, there's strong evedence that they made no significant decisions without close supervision (like Mier's 'inquiry' about getting rid of the USA in LA, or Iglesias' being added to the list after complaints were made to the president.)
Gonzales delegation of authority didn't necessarily cut him out of the decision making process; but, it did give him a cover story, exactly the cover story he gave to the Senate when he testified on April 19. That story was that he wasn't closely involved, that he'd delegated authority, that he'd misplaced trust. It might prove bad judgment; but, that's not an indictable offence. On these grounds, I'm guessing there're indictable offences behind this cover up.
Now Gonzales has shifted to directly blaming Sampson for the mess. This still stays with the script: Sampson is still the fall guy as he was probably meant to be all along.
As additional support for this theory, I'm relying on the reports of Sampson and Goodling's melt downs at the beginning of March. What I'm suggesting is that these were brought on by the realization that, for all the self-importance they'd gained when they accepted Gonzales' charge, they'd done so while setting themselves up for indictments and disbarring.
If Goodling's attorney was always angling for use immunity, this might offer an explanation for why Goodling would want to pursue it and would be willing to testify.
The loose screw here is what made the office's investigating Goodling within the DoJ willing to allow her testimony.

JustAmazed wrote on May 9, 2007 9:10 PM:

Questions relating the Presidential pardon for all scenario:

1. Is there any limit on the number of pardons that can be made or the scope/type of crime involved?

2. Can the President pardon himself?

3. Would initiation of Presidential impeachment proceedings block Presidential pardons until the matter is resolved?

4. Would a Presidential pardon have any effect on prospects for international prosecution of the pardoned individual for war crimes? (Or does the U.S. refusal to acknowledge international juristiction preclude that?)

Just asking.....

Tomm wrote on May 9, 2007 9:29 PM:

What is needed and wanted FIRST is not punishment and empisonment, not even a trial to expose the endless filth. What is necessary NOW is that Abu Gonzales be removed immediately. One route may be impeachment-- don't know whether his position is subject to such a thing-- but at the very least, after tomorrow's blatant nose-thumbing, he should be charged with Contempt of Congress, with the understanding that jail time will be demanded. And THEN the get him for Obstruction. All of which sets up Beloved Leader for demonstrable High Crimes charges for putting Gonzo and Wolfie ahead of their sworn duty to the sovereign People of the United States.

Denise wrote on May 9, 2007 9:34 PM:

I just saw McKay, Iglesias and Charlton at Seattle U. They gave a talk on the role of the US Attorney -- which included their "stories". I came away thinking that these three of the eight, at least, were men of integrity who believe in the rule of law in their bones. Very impressive. McKay made a point of saying that loyalty seems to trump everything in the Gonzales AG's office. But they also made the point that Bush -- not Gonzales -- is ultimately the "decider" who fired them.

The Oracle wrote on May 9, 2007 9:37 PM:

Alberto Gonzales and Karl Rove (and so many other neo-con Republicans) have never been able to park their partisanship at the door and do what's right for our country.

In the meeting that McKay mentions, Alberto Gonzales literally told the assembled U.S. Attorneys that their oath to the U.S. Constitution and the "rule of law" no longer mattered, they were now owned by Bush and by extension by Bush's former personal attorney, Alberto Gonzales.

In other words, Alberto Gonzales committed an act of treason and is nothing more than a traitor to our Constitution and the "rule of law." Alberto Gonzales committed "high crimes and misdemeanors" and should pay the price for his treachery. Just as all his co-conspirators who also committed treachery should pay the price.

And based on Gonzales' own religious beliefs, as well as his co-conspirators, one can only presume that Satan was behind their treachery, selling out our great nation and subverting our democracy for thirty pieces of blood-stained Republican, evangelical silver.

Steve5117 wrote on May 9, 2007 9:38 PM:

Denise

What media were there?

Mike wrote on May 9, 2007 9:41 PM:

So, when the lawyers in the room looked at each other in stunned disbelief did they decide to do anything about Gonzales then? Or did they wait until they got fired?

Tomm wrote on May 9, 2007 9:43 PM:

IMprisonment. Note also: What is going on is that from the beginning Turd Blossom has devoted himself full time to corrupting the fundamental nature of the US system of government to ensure BY EVERY CONCEIVABLE MEANS that the Bush party will maintain power forever. He has organized efforts to drive Democratic voters from the polls, bar them from the polls, discount their votes when they go to the polls. He has stacked the DoJ and the courts with apparatchik ideologues and ideologue apparatchiks. He has worked overtime to thwart minority voting, to make sure non-approved candidates were smeared that power-generating graft (as with the oddly disappeared Guam-Abramoff scandal) was protected and promoted, and that voting machines were manipulated even as the polls were purged. For six years he has attempted to overthrow the established order by mau-mauing the media, concentrating economic power, even promoting creative new means to take over The Internets. Abu Gonzales is step one. He must go loudly and at once because that is the only way the Justice Department, the Police arm of the United States, can begin returning to neutral. And then Rove must do a perp walk into the nearest oubliette so that his ONGOING and Defiant holy war against allowing the will of the people, his persistent, determined, dedicated and sinister campaign against the will of the people and the very founding principles of this once great Republica can be brought to a halt right now, as far as possible from the next election.

Denise wrote on May 9, 2007 10:25 PM:

Steve5117

I am not absolutely sure what media were there. The seminar was a paid CLE event (Continuing Legal Education)and there was a separate media event afterward. The only media I saw in the auditorium were photographers. There were trucks from KOMO7 and KIRO7 in the parking lot as I was leaving. They are local Seattle stations.

Vulture Breath wrote on May 9, 2007 10:38 PM:

Have you noticed how all the fired prosecutors are so much better looking than their loyal Bushie replacements?

SeeDee wrote on May 9, 2007 10:41 PM:

All this talk about impeachment...all the blather about 'timelines' and 'benchmarks' for ending the Iraq debacle'...all the brave new world promised by democrats last November...

It appears that the democrats simply do not have the balls to get anything meaningful done in any endeavor toward punishing the criminal Neo-Cons and getting the 'Ship of State' off the shoals Bush & cohorts have navigated us onto.

Pelosi, Hoyer, Reid...can't we find SOMEONE with a little more fire and brimstone for the likes of Rove, Gonzo, 'W', and the arch-villain, Cheney?

whizkid wrote on May 9, 2007 11:06 PM:

If former US attorneys don't know a criminal case when they see one, I don't know who does.
I'm sure Waxman is fully aware, but let these folks carry the torches and pitchforks we the people have been too blase so far not to.
I think its called "open and shut".
Or maybe the more contemporary phrase is "slam dunk".

Richard L. Adlof wrote on May 9, 2007 11:15 PM:

I still think that being methodical is far more important than cathartic. Impeachment is secondary to documentation.

This is about rooting out and destorying any potential of Fascist Plutocracy ever rearing its ugly head again. One would hope that the echoes of John Adams and the Aliens and Sedition Acts (1798) would of been enough.

This needs to end forever . . . Not just make us feel better that a group of assholes get smacked around.

sailmaker wrote on May 9, 2007 11:20 PM:

My question for Gonzales tomorrow____

"Did you, as White House Counsel, see any lists suggesting that Fred Black be fired, and if so, who supplied those lists?"

Bill P wrote on May 10, 2007 12:52 AM:

They shouldn't have oughta tried to stuff those real prosecutors. Now it is like the Mayberry Fire team trying to fight against real, tough, prosecutors. Delicious irony that these are Bush's own picks :)

I say we appoint Iglesias as the special prosecutor LOL

security code: please, as in pretty please

drj6666 wrote on May 10, 2007 1:09 AM:

He deserves our contempt. In fact, the Contempt of Congress. As in Inherent...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

Go ahead. Don't produce the documents. It's as simple as a majority vote. We don't need no stinkin impeachment nor the USA from D.C. Just the Sargent-in-arms and a cozy cell.

PJ White wrote on May 10, 2007 1:39 AM:

Who is going to prosecute anyone who is indicted? Who is going to indict? It is important to remember that the DoJ has been perverted through and through. There is no one left but loyal Bushies. The USA for DC is a thorough-going scum bucket, and definitely one of THEM. Neither Iglesias nor McCay or any of the other fired USAs could be named as special prosecutor because they all are involved and have an obvious conflict of interest. I don't favor Fitzgerald because he definitely pulled his punches in the Libby matter. He, again, is one of THEM. We need a truly INDEPENDENT prosecutor, one that is not a part of the DoJ, which is corrupted, to proceed with this matter once Congress has overturned enough rocks and found enough evidence to indict. Please, is there just one Republican out there who is truly patriotic, who doesn't just worship the Great God Mammon, who will stand up and defend his/her COUNTRY and Constitution, rather than the Republican party? I wait for it day by day.

And to the poster who said that the House does not have the balls to bring impeachment charges: It's not that they don't have the balls, they don't have the VOTES. Once again, the Repugnicans put party and president ahead of country and constitution. What a bunch of traitors! They won't vote for a conviction in an impeachment trial until their own careers are threatened. Which, in my opinion, they are.

Stephen Taufen wrote on May 10, 2007 2:02 AM:

Mr. McKay - please keep in mind when I served you a courtesy copy of pur WRIT OF MANDAMUS - Larry Davison & Taufen vs. US DOCommerce/NOAA Fisheries/NPFMC, in January of 2004 re perjury at Adak Island - Ted Stevens and Ben Stevens' multimillion dollar playground. We believe that then Alaska USAG Timothy Burgess must be brought before the Congress to answer for why 44 counts went unprosecuted, but he was advanced to a judgeship. A New York court/magistrate just upheld the related record NOAA Fisheries fine of $3.44 million against Icicle Seafoods/Adak Fisheries/AFDF. Ben Stevens is jointly and severally liable for the fine, as well. Ted's rider in Appropriations 2004 gave Adak Fisheries access to pollock rights through the Aleut Corporation. Ted's brother in law's lawfirm represented them etc. Corruption is piled high here.

Sorry to see you no longer in charge of the Seattle office. Best to you in the future.

Stephen Taufen, pro se Petitioner
Adak Power and Electric privatizer (2002)
& founder of Groundswell Fisheries Movement

shoephone wrote on May 10, 2007 4:48 AM:

I, too, attended the CLE seminar at Seattle University. Denise is right, the three USAs really exemplify integrity and dedication. In addition to the TV crews, the P.I. and the Times were both there. I covered the event as well, on our blog, Evergreen Politics.

http://www.evergreenpolitics.com/ep/2007/05/us_attorneys_ro.html

LongTom wrote on May 10, 2007 8:04 AM:

Like the charge of knowingly and maliciously revealing the identity of a covert agent in a manner that harms US security, the perjury and obstruction charges listed in the article are going to be very difficult to prove. Personally, I think Gonzalez is most vulnerable to perjury charges for material mis-statements of fact, such as when he said he was not invlolved in this decision-making.

This is not to say that charges shouldn't be brought. Like Wolfie in his World Bank imbroglio, these peole fear the truth so much they lie reflexively, even when they don't have to. It's pathological by now.

Of course virtually every major member of the Bush administration richly merits a prison term of at least 5 to 7 years--Rumsfeld, Wolfie, Feith, Rice, and Powell, for starters--not just Cheney and Bush.

Wretched Refuse wrote on May 10, 2007 8:50 AM:

Seems like a good TPM/blog network task: is there a copy of Gonzalez' speech out there, the one that raised McKay's eyebrows?

Probably would be a pretty interesting read at this point. Too bad the committee won't have it tomorrow. But they've got plenty, of course.
Posted by: AS
Date: May 9, 2007 05:27 PM

http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2005/042105usattorneysconference.htm

No mention of Whitehouse, the discussion from the podium is probably what Kay is meaning. Too bad. AG the scumbag, needs to hang.

Wretched Refuse wrote on May 10, 2007 8:57 AM:

IMprisonment. Note also: What is going on is that from the beginning Turd Blossom has devoted himself full time to corrupting the fundamental nature of the US system of government to ensure BY EVERY CONCEIVABLE MEANS that the Bush party will maintain power forever. He has organized efforts to drive Democratic voters from the polls, bar them from the polls, discount their votes when they go to the polls. He has stacked the DoJ and the courts with apparatchik ideologues and ideologue apparatchiks. He has worked overtime to thwart minority voting, to make sure non-approved candidates were smeared that power-generating graft (as with the oddly disappeared Guam-Abramoff scandal) was protected and promoted, and that voting machines were manipulated even as the polls were purged. For six years he has attempted to overthrow the established order by mau-mauing the media, concentrating economic power, even promoting creative new means to take over The Internets. Abu Gonzales is step one. He must go loudly and at once because that is the only way the Justice Department, the Police arm of the United States, can begin returning to neutral. And then Rove must do a perp walk into the nearest oubliette so that his ONGOING and Defiant holy war against allowing the will of the people, his persistent, determined, dedicated and sinister campaign against the will of the people and the very founding principles of this once great Republica can be brought to a halt right now, as far as possible from the next election.
Posted by: Tomm
Date: May 9, 2007 09:43 PM

CORRECT!

IF Rove were to all of sudden be taken out of the picture, the whole house of cards would crumble in about 5 days.

The question remains: "When will Rove be RAPTURED?"

Code word = crime

Ken wrote on May 10, 2007 9:52 AM:

I am flabbergasted at the extent of damage the Bush administration has done to the people of America. This firing of attorneys episode should be the last straw. I am surprised thatpeople just go on talking. DO SOMETHING!

JNagarya wrote on May 10, 2007 10:00 AM:

It was a week or so ago that I read a statement by a law professor, so I don't recall the third; but he said perjury is also obstruction of justice -- two charges.

(I honestly don't recall, because I'm not the Attorney General of the United States.)

ARG in Chicago wrote on May 10, 2007 11:18 AM:

Re: Impeachment and Pardons

My copy of the Constitution says (Article 2, Section 2) that "The President... shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offesnes against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." I think this means that as long as he is president, he can pardon crimes, but he cannot pardon impeachments (of other people).

Another reading could mean that once impeached, he no longer has the power to pardon. But that is not my interpretation. (Any Constitutional lawyers or scholars out there?)

Section 4 says "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

So my reading (and I'm no lawyer) is that Gonzales could be impeached and removed from office, and the President couldn't do anything about that. However, if criminal charges were brought against Gonzo, the President could pardon him for those charges.

I also think this means that the President, while himself undergoing impeachment, could pardon any and all others, up to the moment that he would be convicted by the Senate.

This could create an interesting political situation. If, prior to a vote on impeachment, the President issued wholesale pardons of co-conspirators, it would virtually guarantee the President's conviction by the Senate. So, if he were holding out hope of an acquittal, he would have to hold off issuing the pardons (until after his acquittal). It would become a high-stakes poker type of gamble.

-- ARG

malcontent wrote on May 10, 2007 1:03 PM:

Nothing less than execution for every one of these thugs. If I had my druthers I'd wipe any evidence of their DNA off the face of the planet, even it it meant hunting down every one of their relatives and giving them a complimentary dirt-nap, too.

These guys are pure evil and they relish the misery they bring to so many.

Indict, try, convict, and execute.

GRU wrote on May 11, 2007 1:18 AM:

Who's ST work for? Try Federalnaya Slushbaya Contrazvyedkii. Sleeper deactivated at end of cold war.

Phil Ball wrote on May 12, 2007 9:43 PM:

Has anyone yet made the connection between the DOJ-USA scandal and the DC Madam sex scandal? Is Cheney on the list of Johns?
This from Wayne Madsen Report...

US District Judge for the District of Columbia Gladys Kessler, a Clinton appointee, has re-issued an order prohibiting DC Madam Deborah Jeane Palfrey from releasing any more phone lists of her Pamela Martin & Associates customers. Secrecy of the phone records has been a priority for DC Assistant US Attorney William Cowden. Palfrey released her 10 years of customer phone records to ABC's "20/20" before Kessler's March order prohibiting such a release took effect. As WMR reported, ABC and Disney, under pressure from the Bush White House, killed the story and stated that there were no "newsworthy" names on the Madam's list. WMR has been informed by three well-placed sources that Vice President Dick Cheney, while a part-time resident of McLean, Virginia and while serving as Halliburton's CEO, was a customer of the DC Madam.

The focus on the DC Hookergate story has now moved to Baltimore, and the firing by the Justice Department in December 2004 of the US Attorney for Maryland, Thomas DiBiagio. DiBiagio was fired, along with a number of other US attorneys, after George W. Bush's re-election for political reasons. One of DiBiagio's public corruption targets was the staff of then-Republican Maryland Governor Bob Ehrlich, some of whom had engaged the services of Madam Palfrey's escorts. The US Attorney's office in Baltimore first became involved in the investigation of the prostitution ring after the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) office and IRS agent Troy Burrus in Baltimore made a criminal referral to the US Attorney's office in Baltimore. Subsequently, an asset seizure warrant for Palfrey's assets was issued. Palfrey and her employees used two telephones in Maryland for their escort business, 301 231-5800 in Rockville, near some of the "mansions" in Potomac, Maryland and Great Falls, Virginia described by "20/20" as the locations in DC where Pamela Martin escorts would pay calls, and 410 244-1818 in Baltimore.

After Ehrlich complained to then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey about the aggressiveness of DiBiagio, the Baltimore-based US Attorney was placed on the firing list in the wake of the 2004 election. David Margolis, an Associate Deputy Attorney General, claimed he did not know about any investigations of Ehrlich's staff by DiBiagio when he informed the number one Justice Department official in Baltimore that the Justice Department had lost confidence in his abilities.

DiBiagio had already witnessed the brutal murder of his Assistant US Attorney Jonathan Luna in December 2003. A husband and father of two, Luna had departed in his vehicle, strangely leaving his cell phone on his desk at his office, and drove a circuitous route through Delaware, New Jersey, and then Pennsylvania before he was found in a creek near the Pennsylvania Turnpike in Denver, PA stabbed to death 36 times, supposedly with his own pen knife. Federal authorities leaned toward a suicide but local investigators treated the death as a homicide. In 2004, DiBiagio claimed he was being pressured to stop his investigation of Ehrlich's staff for links to gambling (particularly the gambling interests of jailed Maryland/DC GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff), prostitution, and other corruption and filed a threat report with the FBI. The Washington Post and Washington Times then reported that Luna was fearful that DiBiagio was going to fire him, which led to Luna's "suicide." It is a charge DiBiagio strongly denied. DiBiagio told the New York Times that the pressure from Ehrlich's office and the Justice Department served "to intimidate my office and shut down the investigations." Maryland Democratic Senator Ben Cardin has asked for an investigation of DiBiagio's firing.

Luna's death on December 4, 2003 was followed a few days later, on December 10, 2003, by the indictment of Maryland State Police Superintendent Ed Norris for using his Executive Protective Unit (EPU), the unit that protects the Governor of Maryland and other state VIPs, to transport prostitutes to various locations, including posh Baltimore and New York City hotels, including the Baltimore Hyatt. Like Palfrey, Norris also came under investigation for tax evasion by the Baltimore IRS office. ABC's 20/20 reported that Madam Palfrey's escorts were also driven to expensive Washington hotels, including the Hay-Adams. Palfrey, herself, has suggested that some of her escorts may have been linked to the case of jailed California Republican Congressman Duke Cunningham, Mitchell Wade's MZM, Inc., and Shirlington Limousine. The limousine service was, according to investigators, involved in transporting escorts to the Watergate and Capitol Hill's Westin Grand Hotel for "poker parties" with top Republican congressmen and CIA officials.

Hookergate expands: Cheney (l.), fired US Attorney Thomas DiBiagio (c.), who charged he was fired because of pressure from DOJ and Maryland GOP Governor, and Maryland Governor Bob Ehrlich (r.), whose staff was linked to a prostitution ring.

The murder of Luna and the firing of DiBiagio eliminated the threat that the well-heeled customers of the DC/Baltimore prostitution ring, many of them GOP stalwarts, would be exposed prior to the December 2004 presidential election. The attempt by Justice prosecutors and Judge Kessler to limit the criminal case to Palfrey continues the effort to punish the DC Madam and her employees and divert attention away from the customers. In May 2004, at the same time Norris and his chief of staff agreed to a plea deal in the prostitution case and received light semtences, Palfrey came under intense federal investigation. Palfrey claims that she is being scapegoated by the very same people who were her customers.

This past January, after being exposed by the media as running an escort, Brandy Britton, a PhD and former Associate Professor at the University of Maryland Baltimore Campus was found hanging in her home in Ellicott City, Maryland, a suburb of Baltimore. Britton's home had been foreclosed after she was charged with running a prostitution service using the name "Alexis" and has since been identified from Palfrey's phone lists as one of the Pamela Martin & Associates escorts. Palfrey used the name "Julia." The Bush administration, clearly concerned about a sex scandal that will bring down more than just former Assistant Secretary of State Randall Tobias, is hoping to keep the focus on "Julia" and her employees, and not on "Backseat."

Patrick Dolan wrote on May 15, 2007 10:45 AM:

Watched Mr. McKay on CSPAN last night at a Town Meeting type of format and was impressed with his candor and level of integrity.It gave me a great sense of relief to know we have Guy's like that serving our nation. Then I was taken aback when I realized/remembered that they FIRED this Guy!(Among others who have displayed Honor and Integrity).For the likes of Kyle Sampson? My feelings of relief and hope turned to anger and shame that this Administration could put the Public at the top of thier Hit-List.
When we lose people of quality such as Mr. McKay for Political reasons and they are replaced with inexperienced Party Loyalists we all lose.
I just want to say thankyou to Mr.McKay and all the other Dismissed US Attorneys for having the Courage and Honor of thier convictions.
Somthing we havent seen much of in the past 6 years.

kilka wrote on July 31, 2007 12:51 PM:

gmc trucks here www.gmctruck.fora.pl
gmc from america www.gmctruck.fora.pl
real gmc www.gmctruck.fora.pl

and www.emeraldring.fora.pl rings

kilka wrote on July 31, 2007 12:51 PM:

gmc trucks here www.gmctruck.fora.pl
gmc from america www.gmctruck.fora.pl
real gmc www.gmctruck.fora.pl

and www.emeraldring.fora.pl rings

mgfwydlhu loxudyfew wrote on September 2, 2007 11:08 AM:

pbcg narelk etlo woyqdcl fvtul yxircj jzipwbta

hmust qnxuealj wrote on September 2, 2007 11:09 AM:

akxv hnlvuo yvofbul jwyzmvedc rdtajpoe kqeomg jgncepiq http://www.eiql.tjpbl.com

hmust qnxuealj wrote on September 2, 2007 11:11 AM:

akxv hnlvuo yvofbul jwyzmvedc rdtajpoe kqeomg jgncepiq http://www.eiql.tjpbl.com

hmust qnxuealj wrote on September 2, 2007 11:11 AM:

akxv hnlvuo yvofbul jwyzmvedc rdtajpoe kqeomg jgncepiq http://www.eiql.tjpbl.com

bzolc uoxlykjth wrote on September 2, 2007 11:12 AM:

cvfk shaiu yamvktip smeut neydrbctk idrmh prmcxenb rzpja fuqx

njuf reytbwj wrote on September 2, 2007 11:14 AM:

usbtacgz luafrdb pvtr yazohiru bwem brsjhkdi ageqsmwc [URL]http://www.xawqzv.hqaz.com[/URL] pbfjuatlk mwzsyj

njuf reytbwj wrote on September 2, 2007 11:15 AM:

usbtacgz luafrdb pvtr yazohiru bwem brsjhkdi ageqsmwc [URL]http://www.xawqzv.hqaz.com[/URL] pbfjuatlk mwzsyj

Max wrote on September 28, 2007 2:29 PM:

Hi, nice page.!
look on my pages:
dedicated organization policy profit public

ok.. bitte

Demens wrote on September 29, 2007 4:42 AM:

Hi, nice page.!
look on my pages:
dedicated organization policy profit public

ok.. bitte

Demens wrote on September 29, 2007 4:43 AM:

Hi, nice page.!
look on my pages:
dedicated organization policy profit public

ok.. bitte