« Conyers Hearing on Libby Commutation | Main | Why Lefty Bloggers Should Always Get to Fly First Class »

July 10, 2007


impeachable offense? If so, let the inquiry begin.

Answer, if needed, from DC.

Fly safely. Your are precious resource.


Third and (from my cubie) fourth. It's enough, though we'll surely find more.

Supposed to be thunderstorms here [in DC] tomorrow -- and that's OUTSIDE the hearing room. But they would be welcome: it's seriously oppressive here [weather-wise & otherwise] now. Supposed to cool off [via the storms] Thursday.

Any place we can "meet up" while you're here, marcy?

i have no idea where impeachment is going,

or even whether it will go.

but i do know that the impeachment discussion is seriously in need of some strategic focus.

and i do know, and have said before,

the perfect target for a successful impeachment,

though probably not conviction (by 67 senators) is gonzales.

an impeachment,

even without a following conviction (in the senate),

would be another extremely damaging blow to the bush admin's public credibility.

as i've also noted before, if you are going to impeach any bush admin officials,

including the president himself, start with the most vulnerable first.

that would be abu g.

I emailed my congressman Tom Udall (D-NM;3rd)last week saying "impeach already" in light of the prima facie case of obstruction arising out of Libby's commutation and I mentioned illegal wiretapping for good measure. I have heard nothing back.

I was pointing my finger at W but really the proper strategy in my view is to roll up the ladder: Gonzo, Cheney, then W. Let's get on with it.

Impeachment will change the subject

so why does Nancy Pelosi have her head stuck in her asshole on this one

does ANYBODY in congress care about the Constitution ???


We're pushing to get everyone else to notice. It's all we can do from here, short of pitchforks-and-torches.

I feel a bit like someone in one of the 'correspondence committees' in 1774.
I know what the possibilities are, I know which one I prefer, but I don't have any say at the level where the decisions are made.
I know that whatever happens, it's going to make a big difference to my future.
And I really don't want it to go to bloodshed, but if that's the way it must be, then that's how it will be done.
(It wasn't nearly this bad with Watergate.)

Maybe it is time for pitchforks, torches and tar and feathers.
A great American tradition.

I have become addicted to EW's suggestion that the House commence an Impeachment Inquiry. The hell with the votes; document the record. Apart from the disinfectant quality of sunshine, and the benefit of training Congress Critters in letting it into the mouldy rooms they've kept closed for years, an II may stop more or greater crimes and deceptions and encourage whistelblowers to start blowing, or to keep their files for a less rainy day. All of that would be good; some of it may also help federal prosecutors in the next administration.

As for Roehrkasse's claim, it echoes Gonzales' and exhibits a Rovian level of deception. He and Gonzales claim that they know of no actual violations. They get there only by elliding that the DOJ has abundant probable cause - admissions even - that such crimes did take place, but that they've not investigated it. They refuse even to admit except silently that the probable cause exists. Most damningly, they seem intent on not stopping this illegal conduct, and as equally intent on misusing the data they illegally collect.

You know I quite agree with the impeachment discussion. However given all of the "politics" involved it would be a much simpler move to file state bar complaints against Gonzo in Texas and the District of Columbia. The hearing would take place much quicker than impeachment and if he were to lose his bar card he could not be AG. Also I do beleive this would be a pardon proof discipline action. So anyone in Texas or DC please please file a bar complaint against Gonzo. Please file the bar complaint regardless of the impeachment process.

"I have become addicted to EW's suggestion that the House commence an Impeachment Inquiry. The hell with the votes; document the record. Apart from the disinfectant quality of sunshine, and the benefit of training Congress Critters in letting it into the mouldy rooms they've kept closed for years, an II may stop more or greater crimes and deceptions and encourage whistelblowers to start blowing, or to keep their files for a less rainy day."

Completely agree.
IMVHO, the MSM will also cover the II and that will give it momentum, per Sara regarding Watergate.

But Roehrkasse said the fact that a violation is reported to the board "does not mean that a USA Patriot violation exists or that an individual's civil liberties have been abused."

It probably makes more sense to lawyers than it does to me.

I think that if a violation has been reported then you should investigate it and find out what happened. Then you can actually answer the questions, instead of weaselling out of them (no offense to weasels intended).


Blame what?

As the amorphous image of a Fourth Branch of government makes a transit, a filament of a prior thread reappeared OffTopically yesterday in the matter of politics as the filter of science for the current administration. Perhaps these links will serve as diversion enroute to more serious proceedings in the capitol.

Our usually underspoken US House rep.MThompson has made news this week in two related areas, the 2002 Klamath fishkill of 68,000 ten lb. salmon, and the current effort by CA's scriptreading governor to export N CA water to S CA. On the former subject, Rep. Rahall D-W.VA, Natural Resources committee chair has announced a fact finding hearing date to be announced. And the second topic, rep.MThompson addressed adroitly in a hearing recently, in the hustings, not DC, at which event a government Department of Interior official cited data showing how innocuous it is to export increasingly larger volumes of N CA water to LA region; rep.MThompson audaciously asked whether the DoI official could swear the scientific data about delta fish kills was uninfluenced by political revisionists who might have altered the actual science reports; the DoI official admitted the data may be from the political official not purely of scientific origin. There is a linkage between these two water newsitems; but the simple appearance of both in this week's news is refreshing; they even incorporate Fourth Branch, and a scriptreading would be protege of the Fourth Branch machine which likely hopes to survive 2008 elections.

FRD: Blame the worsening situation in Afghanistan, the resurgence of the Taliban and increased opium production, I suppose.

And I'm thoroughly behind the Impeach Alfredo movement as step 1. Document his lies, make him recuse himself from any management of DOJ and ability to advise Bush on subpoena etc. And get all the documents. Much quicker than going to court on subpoenas.

They are no spinning Gonzo's testimony as being "not in the context" of the report on abuses.

At this point, I am sure that they recognize that 60% of the country does not beleive that this administration makes honest mistakes, but they just don't care.

Chalking up the lack of explication about the IOB and the PFIAB to EW's need to pack, I tried to find more information about the two boards. Here's the relevant excerpt from the executive order creating the Oversight Board:

Executive Order 12334--President's Intelligence Oversight Board (December 4, 1981)

...in order to enhance the security of the United States by assuring the legality of activities of the Intelligence Community...There is hereby established within the White House Office, Executive Office of the President, the President's
Intelligence Oversight Board, which shall be composed of three members. One member, appointed from among the membership of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, shall be designated by the President as Chairman.
Members of the Board shall serve at the pleasure of the President and shall be appointed by the President from among trustworthy and distinguished citizens outside the Government who are qualified on the basis of achievement, experience and independence. The Board shall utilize such full-time staff and consultants as authorized by the President.

So the two boards were fairly closely tied together from the very beginning of the IOB.

Under Bush the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board has become even more of a patronage board and less of a source of expertise than it already was under previous administrations.

This passage from the report of the Clinton-era 'National Performance Review' / 'Reinventing Government' organism recommends abolishing the IOB and replacing it with a standing committee of the PFIAB.

Hm. Seems that recommendation was taken in 1997, according to the Sourcewatch entry on the Intelligence Oversight Board. The impetus for the creation of the body that later became the IOB was the Church committee's revelations in 1975 of CIA abuses.

When there's time, the post could benefit from some of these links, to help out readers who aren't familiar with what the two boards are, and who's on them.

Still can't find a source on who's chair of the current IOB, but one of the two members appointed in February 2006 is Arthur B. Culvahouse, Jr., whose background includes this highly relevant experience in seeing no evil:

From March 1987 through January 1989, Mr. Culvahouse served as Counsel to the President of the United States. As White House Counsel, Mr. Culvahouse advised President Ronald Reagan on matters ranging from the Iran-Contra investigations, to the Supreme Court nominations of Robert Bork and Anthony Kennedy, to the legal aspects of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty; and he chaired the inter-agency lawyers Committee on War Powers and the President's Committee on Federal Judicial Nominations.

Last note: This is the first overall worthwhile John Solomon story in a long time; it almost commits journalism.

This is just a tribute post to Marcy's consistently excellent work - and a big prodding (encouragement) to do more VIDEO Commentary, as you did for Scooter's Trial. You are someone who can penetrate the mainstream audience -- and we need to do mcuh more of that.

If you have a moment, please watch this 3.5 minute VIDEO DIARY which I just posted at DailyKos today... In it I illustrate the value of what Marcy does on camera, and Josh Marshall similarly. thanks! (you can click my name-link for the video)


Gonzo ought to be removed from office in a way that presages Bush's own fall - through a demonstration that Duty to the Rule of Law is greater than Political Loyalty to the Moral-less Occupier of the Oval Office.

At the least, Gonzo is guilty of Criminal Negligence in the (non)-performance of his job - effectively blocking any proper and timely legal assessment of BushCo's questionable actions - but, it's far more likely that he's a criminal co-conspirator - Lying to Congress - in it up to his neck with Bush and Cheney.

Every day Gonzo holds the office of Attorney General of the United States is a mockery of the very principles that have steered us through our first 230 years together.

May Justice prevail!

Dear Marcy; on behalf of those who do read a lot of progressive blogs but who suffer from ADD (Acronym Deficit Disorder), I urge you follow your first reference to an acronym with the full name to which it refers as I have just done (betcha can't guess I'm an English Major....). I had to read halfway through the comments to figure out what PFIAB was. If I'm having this problem, just think of how it affects (or even disaffects) new readers.

I just want to say to argonaut...I had the same experience today and have had it several times when reading blogs on my favorite site.

I just skip em if I don't know what they are and google it after if I can. Sometimes I figure it out and sometimes I don't. It reminds me of those personalized plates. I will actually speed up trying to make sure I am reading it correctly. I have also had to slam on the brakes because I got myself so wrapped up in trying to figure it out that I wasn't paying attention to the road.

I have the same experience here with acronyms.

Sometimes I get em and sometimes I don't.

I figure it's still worth the price of admission. Also when I figure out one of the acronyms or "insider terms" I feel so smart and smug it's almost worth it.

Good suggestion...but if it's the difference between getting the blog posted and not getting it posted...post the blog and leave the acronym unexplained.


you're not alone.

Argonaut, having previously made the same request, I have to support your POV. But just be careful not to ask for PDB to be spelled out. (AFAIK, I was the only reader who did not know that one. LOL :)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad