It appears that the DoJ was politicized. Can someone find out and print the names of all those career attorneys and immigration judges and others hired with Monica, "I crossed the line," Goodling's blessing? Please remember, Alberto, "I can't recall remembering," Gonzales gave Monica and Kyle Sampson secret special powers to hire, fire, etc. Then they did what they were told to do: they CROSSED THE LINE. It seems only fair, then, that the names of those hired under this corrupt, tainted, hidden system be cleansed by the sunshine of truth and public knowledge. Let every one of them be known by name!

You know how far we've fallen when John Ashcroft is the sympathetic character in a story. Fascist thugs, that's what the Bushistas are, plain and simple. Especially simple in Georgie's case. As in simpleton.

who responded to my comments.

And if any of you could intercede with Glenn on my behalf, I would appreciate it.

And get a load of, oh wait, no links, so click my name.

Our political process is so degraded, and our media so degenerated, that impeachment of both the Pres. and Vice Pres. may not staunch the rot.

Not that it isn't well-deserved.

Nice summation of the impeachment pitfalls. But I think beginning with the immediate impeachment of the Attorney General is the wisest and most practical course. Bush is going to hold on to him as long as possible, so force his hand.

Apparently so does the Senate, hence the confidence vote on Gonzales. As I said, the Democratic House can vote to impeach whenever they want, but without the votes to convict in the Senate it is an empty gesture. Pelosi will have no problem with calling for the impeachment of Gonzales since there is no conflict of interest involved. Besides, it will be a good warmup for the main event and every so often the Democrats need to pick up some small crappy little Attorney General and throw it against the wall, just to show the Republicans they mean business.

The video of Comey's testimony is shocking even knowing what we already knew about the "character" of the Bush Inc. goon squad.

If it were not real I would have sworn I was watching an episode of "The Sopranos."

Though I suppose many will have a tad of grudging respect for Comey and Ashcroft as there was a line that even these hardcore, dyed-in-the-wool ideologues would not cross, they did not start singing then and there, and Comey had to have his feet held to the fire before we heard his song.

These men are not patriots. Like George Tenet and Colin Powell before them, they prioritized their loyalty to the Neocon orthodoxy and the movement "conservatism" above their loyalty to our country and our constitution.

They are perhaps not as guilty as the rest of the Bush Inc. scoundrels, but they are plenty guilty nonetheless. If he were a patriot, Comey would have volunteered this testimony three years ago, instead he waited to be compelled only last week - like a mob stoolie trying to save his own skin and stay out of the joint. He must live the rest of his life in a cloud of shame for not coming forward in March 2004.

James Comey is just another rat jumping the sinking ship.

Nice summation of the impeachment pitfalls. But I think beginning with the immediate impeachment of the Attorney General is the wisest and most practical course. Bush is going to hold on to him as long as possible, so force his hand.

As someone else in this thread pointed out (too far back to go searching), revelations in those proceedings could provide ammunition for impeachment of his superiors.

One more blushing switch at the hacks ass.

A good horsey may pick up the pace. As a arse approaches the creek, he should be careful he don't slip on the green moss stones. Thanks. You make me wish to share what's in the lame mare's saddlebag. Sugar and spice and everything that's nice. After this long journey we may bang banjo's? I hope. No grow further apart, okay.

Let's not slip into foolishness. Let's not get a rash on our arse. To love courage and not love learning from each other is to invite disasters. To love is to know we can be wild, and tame our "silly" self. To love sincerity but not love learning from each other is to encounter harm.

Let's not slip into vagaries. Let's be wise/fools and you know you make me blush like a defected, lady bug bitten, blueberry...Shame on the Pluto's scat. They are the politically lost. You know when I am not here I think of yule, and when I'm here, I ___You. thanks.

Beautiful words, and as always packed with meaning.

Here's wishing you a bounteous and joyous blueberry crop.

1- I gentleman and lady should keep their Mind.

2- When looking, be mindful of clarity.

3- When listening, be mindful of acuity.

4- For facial expressions, be mindful of geniality.

5- For deameanor, be mindful of deference.

6- When speaking, be mindful of sincerity.

7- When acting, be mindful of reverence.

8- When confused (not corn-fussy), be mindful of inquiring.

9- When angry, be mindful of the consequences.

And when seeing the chance for change and gain, be mindful of doing and saying what is true and right. Be considerate while loitered around today and everyday. There is much work to be done. And let's enjoy starting to do something and have holy joyful fun. Yes. Thanks.

I'm glad to see that even shooter is onboard with impeachment:

Here's a suggestion.....You got a problem? See you in court.

This is in response to Glenn's question "So now what?" to which shooter (for once, astutely) replies "If you have to ask that question, you've got bupkis," and continues that the obvious next step is to take it to court.

The only problem is that impeachment is not a legal process (despite the trappings) but is a political one. And politics is not the art of the obvious, but rather the art of the possible.

As then Representative Gerald Ford observed in 1970,

An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.

So it doesn't really matter what the crimes are, it is a question of whether a majority of the House of Representatives will vote to impeach. And impeachment is just the first step. It is like an indictment handed up by a grand jury. After the House impeaches, the Senate has to convict before removal can take place. And while it takes a simple majority for the House to impeach, it takes a two-thirds majority for the Senate to convict.

So if there is sufficient discipline in the Democratic-controlled House, impeachment could be voted at any time. But without 67 votes (actually, it is two thirds of the members present, so the number needed for conviction could be lower) in the Senate to convict, it is a pointless gesture (unless the purpose is to bring the government to a standstill as the Republicans did in 1998-99).

In addition, voting impeachment simply because they can is not a good move on the part of House Democrats because the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 USC § 19) makes the Speaker of the House second in line for the presidency. Since impeachment proceedings have to begin in the House, any move by the Speaker to call for impeachment, especially, as is necessary in this case, of both the President and the Vice-President, would immediately be slimed as an attempted coup d'état. This is why Pelosi cannot be seen to call for impeachment. It is a conflict of interest that seems to be built into the succession act. The drive for impeachment has to come from elsewhere than the Speaker of the House, preferably from public outcry or from a state legislature.

For the time being, the best course is to continue oversight hearings, with the appointment of special prosecutors as fresh abuses come to light (as they surely will), until the public insistence on impeachment becomes irresistible.