Mukasey Refuses Probe of Bush Aides

WASHINGTON — Attorney General Michael Mukasey refused Friday to refer the House's contempt citations against two of President Bush's top aides to a federal grand jury. Mukasey said White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former presidential counsel Harriet Miers committed no crime.

As promised, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that she has given the Judiciary Committee authority to file a lawsuit against Bolten and Miers in federal court.

"The House shall do so promptly," she said in a statement.

Mukasey said Bolten and Miers were right in ignoring subpoenas to provide Congress with White House documents or testify about the firings of federal prosecutors.

"The department will not bring the congressional contempt citations before a grand jury or take any other action to prosecute Mr. Bolten or Ms. Miers," Mukasey wrote Pelosi.

Pelosi shot back that the aides can expect a lawsuit.

"The American people demand that we uphold the law," Pelosi said. "As public officials, we take an oath to uphold the Constitution and protect our system of checks and balances and our civil lawsuit seeks to do just that."

The suit had a political purpose too. Democrats have urged that the filing occur swiftly so that a judge might rule before the November elections, when all 435 House seats and a third of the Senate are up for grabs. Criticism of Bush's use of executive power is a key tenet of the Democrats' platform, from the presidential race on down.

Story continues below

The House voted two weeks ago to cite Bolten and Miers for contempt of Congress and seek a grand jury investigation. Most Republicans boycotted the vote.

Pelosi requested the grand jury investigation on Thursday and gave Mukasey a week to reply. She said the House would file a civil suit seeking enforcement of the contempt citations if federal prosecutors declined to seek misdemeanor charges against Bolten and Miers. The plaintiffs would be the entire Judiciary Committee, who would be represented by the House's lawyers, according to aides to Pelosi and committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich.

Mukasey took only a day to get back to her. But he had earlier joined his predecessor, Alberto Gonzales, in telling lawmakers they would refuse to refer any contempt citations to prosecutors because Bolten and Miers were acting at Bush's instruction.

A civil suit would drag out a slow-motion crawl to a constitutional struggle between a Democratic-run Congress and a Republican White House that has been simmering for more than a year.

Democrats say Bush's instructions to Miers and Bolten to ignore the House Judiciary Committee's subpoenas was an abuse of power and an effort to block an effort to find out whether the White House directed the firing of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006 for political reasons.

Republicans call the whole affair a political game and walked out of the House vote on the contempt citations in protest.

The 223-32 House vote on a resolution approving the contempt citations Feb. 14 was the first of its type in 25 years. The White House pointed out that it was the first time that such action had been taken against top White House officials who had been instructed by the president to remain silent to preserve executive privilege.

In his letter, received by the House early Friday evening, Mukasey pointed out that not only was Miers directed not to testify, she also was immune from congressional subpoenas and was right to not show up to the hearing to which she had been summoned.

"The contempt of Congress statute was not intended to apply and could not constitutionally be applied to an executive branch official who asserts the president's claim of executive privilege," Mukasey wrote, quoting Justice policy.

"Accordingly," Mukasey concluded, "the department has determined that the noncompliance by Mr. Bolten and Ms. Miers with the Judiciary Committee subpoenas did not constitute a crime."

Though they were not surprised, Democrats reacted to Mukasey's letter with outrage.

"Today's decision to shelve the contempt process, in violation of a federal statute, shows that the White House will go to any lengths to keep its role in the U.S. attorney firings hidden," said Conyers. "In the face of such extraordinary actions, we have no choice but to proceed with a lawsuit to enforce the committee's subpoenas."

Comments

[Maxbyte]

Judge Mukasey has turned out to be the same trash we thought we threw out the window in the form of Gonzo. I do not recall another period during the past four decades in which members of the judiciary have demonstrated so little regard for the laws they are expected to uphold.

The Republican Party should be banned. It is hard for a political party to become more corrupt than the Democratic Party has been at several key points in its history, but Republicans have successfully risen to the challenge.

Politically active judges are unfit to perform their duties. Mukasey is a sad example of a judge who lacks every single quality a judicial officer must have.

[realpolitic]

I guess Judge Mukasey views all these laws as partisan.

[TimN]

In response to the poor comments of 'realpolitic'

North Korea - During the Clinton administrion we obliged ourselves to providing the DPRK nuclear reactors in response to them shutting down nuclear reactors. Sounds dumb doesn't it. It was. Instead of complete compliance the North Koreans kept their plutonium while they were cutting underground deals to get Uranium - in addition to the Uranium we were to provide. And you're saying we've returned to that? Really? You've obviously no clue as to the history of North Korea or the current situation and how the six party talks have put North Korea into a situation to where they must comply. Some South Koreans for the first time are starting to believe that reunification can begin within ten years.

Libya - The nation that brought us the Lockerbie sky bombing has renounced terrorism and their WMD programs. These programs consisted of 23 tons of mustard gas plus a sizeable medium range ballistic missile aresenal..

Iran - You want to parse reality on Iran and invent neocon schemes. Fine, I can't stop your delusions, but you still fail to address why in 2003 Iran stopped its ongoing technical program to create nuclear weapons.

Iraq - The sanctions were not developed by the Clinton administration? Get your facts straight. They were begun by the UN even before Desert Shield in 1990. If Bush would let the inspectors finish their job? WTF? The inspectors had twelve years to complete their job. At every step they were thrwarted by the Saddam which prompted UN Resoluton after UN Resoluton. If we hadn't gone in we'd still think Saddam had a program.

Afghanistan - You're doubting my facts and saying that the Taliban has control of more than 10% of the country. You're doubting that now there is a democracy when before there was none? No instead you launch into a bullshit line where we're begging for help. Not at all. We're telling NATO to finally step up and do their fair share. So far Americans, the Brits, the Canadians, and the Dutch are the only ones to send combat troops into the area. Western Europe is getting a free ride and we're calling them out on this.

Pakistan - You're blaming Bhutto's death on the US? Tell me did the CIA pull Bhutto out of her armored vehicle just to make her a target? Is that how desperate your position has become.

As for Geldoff's quotes read the article: He has nothing but praise for a guy he feels is completely misunderstood. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1717934-1,00.html

[realpolitic]

"The Bush administration's approach to North Korea was once quite consistent with its overall foreign policy. There was name-calling, a preference for regime change, and an emphasis on military solutions. Not surprisingly, the relationship between the U.S. and North Korea, like so many other tense standoffs, deteriorated over the years....North Korea upped the ante by exploding a nuclear device....

Chastened by military failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, anxious about the vulnerability of the Republican party on foreign policy issues in 2008, and accused of having North Korea to "go nuclear" on its watch, the Bush administration reversed the policy..and agreed to meet face to face when necessary.

Many conservatives were aghast that the Bush administration, after six years of ABC (anything but Clinton), were essentially exhuming the Clinton administration engagement policies toward North Korea. From their standpoint, the six party talks were only supposed to be a holding pattern until the regime in Pyongyang finally collapsed through a combination of outside pressure and internal weakness. When a breakthrough occured, former United States ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton denied any achievemment and declared "I think the six party talks failed."

source: Foreign Poliy In Focus, "Hardliners Target Detente With North Korea" Feb. 11, 2008
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4951

Under Clinton we had a "trust but verify policy" with North Korea. We locked up their nuclear reactors and installed cameras so the North could not unlock them. When Bush entered office and broke off negotiations, while speaking belligerently, the North unplugged our cameras and broke the the locks off the doors, began to enriched uranium, and exploded a nuclear bomb.

Now with the argument TimN uses about South Korea approaching the North he is being disingenuous, in the extreme, and knows it. The South has wanted to reunite with the North for a long time and has used very measured language toward them. The South has asked the Bush administration many times to tone down its heated rhetoric toward the North, as it was poisonig their relationship with the North. Even former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Bolton did everything he could to sabotage the nuclear agreement we made with the North and sabotage relations between North and South. We have gotten in the South's way toward its goal of a rapprochement with the North more than we have helped it. They have asked Bush to dampen down his heated rhetoric on many occasions.

Bush's policy toward Iran has been another disaster. President Admadinejad has little real power there. He is unpopular with his people who want liberalization. Americans are very popular with the Iranian people most of whom are too young even to remember the hostage crisis. The one thing that could unite Iran in opposition to America is another attempted regime change, which Bush and Co. has salivatd for. Bush contiinued lying about Iran's capabilities even after the recent NIE was published saying Iran had abandoned its pursuit of nuclear weapons. The only thing that could unite Iran is an American military invasion. Again, TimN knows this, but is hoping that his audience is uninformed, an old Fox News trick.

Again, he lies about Saddam. Weapons inspectors were quickly discovering Saddam had no WMD capapbiliies. They were going unannounced to supposed weapon's site after weapon's site and finding nothing. Bush then told them to get out of Iraq. Inspectors did not want to leave Iraq. TImN knows this and hopes his audience does not.

Afghanistan is a large scale failure. Again, President Karzai has no influence outside Kabul. (If there is democracy, it does not extend outside the capital city.) The Taliban still influences how people dress and destroys schools across the country. The United States has asked its NATO partners for additional troops which none will provide, most probably in opposition to our fiasco in Iraq. TheTaliban and al Qaeda do have very large bases of operation in Northwest Pakistan. The Afghan resistance has begun effectively using tactics taken form Iraq like IEDs. TiMn Knows this and hopes you do not.

Pakistan is a haven for terrorists and does little to catch them. Bhutto did contact Rice on several occasions to ask that Mushareff provide additional security to no avail. Many of the lower level military leaders were once trained in Ameica and were friendly to us, but we discontinued that policy. The military leaders under General Musharraf and their loyalties are largely unknown to us. Again, TimN knows this, but dissent is disloyalty.

I do not have to read Geldoff's quotes. You already quoted a large part of what he said of Bush's rendition, torture, and wiretapping policies that disrespect the constitution and give us a bad name in the world.

TimN would like people to believe that up is down and down is up, but we know it is not.

Bush belongs in jail. His firing of assistant attorney generals for prosecuting Republicans or, in other cases, for not bringing voter fraud charges against Democrats when the assistant AG's own investigations revealed no voter fraud, is an impeachable offense and an offense to the constitution. TimN may not known this, as he points to historical constitutional blunders to cover for Bush.

[TimN]

Foreign Policy In Focus??? You reference a Left wing think tank with an agenda and expect anyone to take you seriously? (see note) What next Globalresearch.com?

North Korea - Bush's Axis of evil speech included North Korea 2002, but only because he was aware by then that Clinton's 1994 plan had failed. The North Koreans admitted in 2002 to illegally enriching uranium. Intelligence reports insisted that North Korea received Nuclear weapons technology from Pakistan. As for the Six Party talks. The six party talks began when North Korea publicly withdrew from Clinton's failed treaty and have been the mainstay of Bush policy since 2003. Also, Bolton's statements about the six party talks are not policy and should not be regarded as such. Instead that statement should be regarded as a threat to the six nations involved. In your sad attempt to obfuscate the history and effects of both the Clinton and Bush plans you tip toe around the only two things that matter. The Clinton plan was ill conceived and failed on its own and the Bush plan is having dramatic success.

Iran - One of the myths generated by the Left is that the US has no diplomatic exchange with Iran. Publicly acknowledged talks have been continuous throughout the entire Bush administration. Despite your insinuations (and unlike Bill Clinton's 1998 proclamation on Saddam) there has been no call for regime change in Iran. Nor has the US entertained serious plans for an attack. The US has engaged Iran specifically on Iraq security and engaged the UN successfully on Iran's nuclear programs. As a result Iran dropped its weapons program and now the Iranian clerics are beginning to back away from Ahmadinejad and his hard line rhetoric:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jsz9LRIuz_NRZdE6yylApdqKJvvg

As for Iran's capabilities please read the following from a 17 February, 2008 interview of Director of NI Mike McConnell:
"I am saying that. And I believe that the path they were on to achieve nuclear weapons has not been significantly changed because they terminated this technical design feature. They can turn it on. Remember, it was secret. They've never admitted it. They could have turned it back on now and we wouldn't necessarily know. We'll try to know, but we're not 100 percent sure of that. MCCONNELL: We've done an estimate in 2001, 2005 and 2007, and each time it says the same thing. They could do it by 2009 — unlikely. The range is 2010 to 2015. And the best guess is about the middle range there for having a nuclear weapon."

Obviously, Bush's post-NIE statements are accurate and though our work in Iran is having amazing progress it is yet unfinished.

Afghanistan - Do you know anything about the North Atlantic Treaty Organization? Why it was established - its charter? Don't you think that, as a matter of treaty, if one nation is attacked the other nations should defend? If they don't like how the US is handling it, they can take a vote and put someone else in charge. Instead, as usual, the US has to take the lead - and we're getting tired of it.

Pakistan - Quit doing the Liberal-limbo and answer the question - Did either the US department of State of Musharaff cause Bhutto to stand up and expose herself from the security of her armored vehicle? Remember she assassinated in Rawalpindi. This is the same city Pakistan's first PM, Liaquat Ali Khan, was assassinated in 1951. Do you really think the US should have provided security? That's a bizarre statement. There is no precedent. When have we ever done that for a foreign political candidate?

President Bush - George Bush has done wonderful work in Africa and Bob Geldoff is eternally grateful. Unlike the bulk of the righteously indignant latte sippers in the US and Western Europe - represented by you, Geldoff is actually out there doing some good and as such has perspective. I'll give the same advice to you as I did 'w&cheneysuck'. It is time to come to grips with reality and grow up. Bush will not be impeached.

To summarize:
- Clinton’s 1994 North Korean treaty failed even before the ink was dry.
- Bush’s six party talks are having demonstrably far greater success.
- Iran stopped their nuclear weapons program in 2003 because – because of Bush’s policy
- Libya – I take it you concede on their WMD program so I won’t rub it in.
- Afghanistan – Most of our NATO allies are failing to live up to their treaty obligations
- is ultimately responsible for her own assassination.
- Geldoff actually likes Bush.
- Bush isn’t going to get impeached.

Note: Don't go to the far Left websites. They will mislead you every time and if you reference them you'll just look dumb.

[gcallaghan]

How is this related to the issues in realpolitc's post? Brush up on your reading comprehension and try again.

[TimN]

realpolitic,
Do you want to inform this tool or should I?

[realpolitic]

In response to the response of my 'poor' comments:

North Korea- As I said regarding the South Korean rapprochement with the North, Bush has done more to hurt their dialogue of reunification than help with his bellicose rhetoric about the North. South Korean leaders have asked Bush to tone down his rhetoric on several occasions, fearing that it would escalate tensions between the North and South.

Critics accused the Bush arms deal as being very much like the Clinton deal, whereby the North agreed to dismantle their reactor in return for fuel aid. Additionally, the North Koreans exploded a nuclear device under the Bush administration's watch. They now have this weapon as a guarantee against regime change. Now they feel they can negotiate with the U.S. as equals. Conservatives critics have said the Bush nuclear arm's deal with the North shows weakness and Democrats say that, due to the Bush aministration's poor diplomacy, the North has developed a nuclear device.

Libya- In 2004, The Pakistani scientist, A. Q. Khan, who suppied the nuclear technology and material to the Libyans, North Koreans and Iranians, confessed. Therefore, the Libya nuclear program would have been exposed anyway without our invasion of Iraq. With the international furor that would have resulted with the knowledge of Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi having a nuclear weapons program, the U.N. would have instituted Draconian sanctions, which would have likely led to Libya giving up their program anyway, without our unnecessary incursion into Iraq, which has to date cost almost a trillion dollars.

Iran- Iran stopped their nuclear program for whatever reasons they had at the time. As I said, because event x preceeded event y does not mean x caused y. Otherwise, the fact that the northern states won the American Civil War is the reason I am wearing blue today. Understand my logic? Also, even if there was a cause-effect here, it was not worth it. A trillion dollar unnecessary war and countless dead can not be justified by pointing to a few residual benefits. As I said regarding Libya, knowledge of their program would have come out anyway with the later confession of Pakistani nuclear scientist A. Q. Khan.

Iraq- Intelligence analysts never believed Iraq had a nuclear program. That was Bush administration spin. Most analysts likely believed Saddam had some legacy chemical and biological weapons from the 1980's when America cheerlead their war with Iran. Bush minions invented the whole 'mushroom cloud' scenario. Analysts knew Saddam did not send operatives to Niger to purchase uranium and that the aluminum tubes Saddam purchased were not of the correct specifications for use in a nuclear device, contrary to Bush administration spin.

Bush did get weapons inspectors out before they could complete their jobs. At site after site, after each unexpected and unannounced visit inspectors found nothing and left cameras to monitor activites at the site. In fact, Bush wanted to avoid a finding of Iraq having no WMD more than anything. That reason was his only justification for removing inspectors. Even the IAEA, the nuclear energy experts with the UN, said Saddam had no nuclear weapons program. In return, Bush tried to have IAEA Director General ElBaradei, head of the U.N program, fired.

Afghanistan- Afghanistan is in chaos. Farmers are almost doubling poopy growth from year to year there which feeds the world's heroin supply. Heroin prices are down significantly all over the wold and the supply is purer. The profits from the poppy trade feeds al Qaeda and the Taliban coffers, which are used to buy weapons. If there is democracy there as you say, it is only found in the capital city of Kabul. In many villages, NATO troops may have influence during the day, but at night the Taliban has influence. This development was what we saw in Vietnam. Taliban and al Qaeda forces use their safe havens in Northwest Pakistan to launch attacks and harass NATO forces. They have introduced the destructive IED's brought from Iraq to the battle.

NATO will not even provide the additional 3,00 or 4,000 troops Bush asks for because of our invasion of Iraq. The NATO leaders and countries are extremely angry with America and do not trust Bush. Their participation in Afghanistan has lagged for this reason and will likely pick up when a Democratic president wins office with the next election.

Pakistan- Musharraf does liitle to break up the Taliban and al Qaeda bases in northwest Pakistan, a tribal area called Waziristan. Rice did urge Bhutto to return to Pakistan. Bhutto complained she did not have adequate protection as demonstrated when she arrived in Pakistan and a bomb exploded near her caravan. Bhutto's was Rice's hope of democracy in Pakistan. The CIA did not want her dead, but did little to prevent it. Rice's judgement there was the same as when she urged elections in the Gaza strip and then was incredibly surprised when the religious fundamentalist faction, Hamas, won. The unexpected Hamas win was said to even interrupt her morning exercise session. She then proceeded to arm Fatah for a civil war with Hamas. How is that for escalation of a volatile process? The Bush crowd believes in democracy as long as the right parties win the election. Fortunately, this crew was not around for the Blackhawk down adventure in Somalia, or far worse, the Cuban missile crisis. If Bush was in office then, evangelicals would have then gotten their hoped for armageddon.

Geldoff- Geldoff said that Bush has wrecked our democracy through torture, rendition, Quantanamo and that he is divisive, as well. Concerning Bush, this statement was probably the kindest Geldoff could think of at the moment.

[realpolitic]

A previous long dialogue on Bush's wreckless policies I had with TimN seemed to have vanished into thin air. I do not know what Karl Rovian process managed to negate this long dialogue, but I hope that the Huffington Post editors may be cognizant of some potential sabotage here. I do not like to let pro-Bush propaganda stand unanswered. Bush revisionists, such as TimN, will now attempt to explain how wise Bush was when we know his policies are a disaster. He must think we are children who can be led by 'authority figures.' I feel that TimN was roundly defeated in our 'debate.' I hope this thread of dialogue does not disappear, as well. Thanks!

[vippy]

Well, then wait until the DEMS are getting into the White House. Do not do it now and then they will never be prosecuted. Wait until we have a chance. But this is just wishful thinking because the DEMS only do this to dupe us again, make us believe we actually have two parties.

[charlietuna11]

i hope schumer and difi A RE HAPPY THEY PUSHED THAT IDIOT FOR A.G. I CAN'T IMAGINE ANY ONE WITH A GRAIN OF INTEGRETY OR HONESTY THAT WOULD WANT TO BE PART OF THE MOST CORRUPT ADMINISTRATION IN MY 75 YEARS. I'M TOLD THAT AT ONE TIME ,HE WAS REGARDED AS HONEST AND RESPECTABLE,I FIND THAT HARD TO BELIEVE.

[w&cheneysuck]

"Arm Chair Quarterbacking" going on here...Bush and Cheney are criminals plain and simple:

Ten Reasons to Impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney

I ask Congress to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney for the following reasons:
1. Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal "War of Aggression" against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization, and subjecting our military personnel to unnecessary harm, debilitating injuries, and deaths.

2. Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

3. Violating the Constitution by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel.

4. Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm.

5. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant.

6. Violating the Constitution by using "signing statements" to defy hundreds of laws passed by Congress.

7. Violating U.S. and state law by obstructing honest elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006.

8. Violating U.S. law by using paid propaganda and disinformation, selectively and misleadingly leaking classified information, and exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative working on sensitive WMD proliferation for political retribution.

9. Subverting the Constitution and abusing Presidential power by asserting a "Unitary Executive Theory" giving unlimited powers to the President, by obstructing efforts by Congress and the Courts to review and restrict Presidential actions, and by promoting and signing legislation negating the Bill of Rights and the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

10. Gross negligence in failing to assist New Orleans residents after Hurricane Katrina, in ignoring urgent warnings of an Al Qaeda attack prior to Sept. 11, 2001, and in increasing air pollution causing global warming.

[realpolitic]

Excellent! Excellent! Excellent! Yes. and your analysis does not even touch on the assistant attorney general firing's scandal, which is another grounds for impeachment.

[TimN]

Woah really? Bush did all that?

Like we all haven't seen this same old crap over and over and over again.

News Flash - Bush ain't gonna get impeached. Time to grow up don't you think? mmmhh?

[kevinabt]

Yes Bush did all that (except the last part of 10 about air pollution). And yes every single one of those things are impeachable offenses. A very large number of people feel they are serious enough to remove the two from office and denounce the actions as totally unacceptable. If congress had respect for the constitution or for the will of the people or the rule of law they would have impeached them long ago. You are right that they won't be impeached, but that just shows that the whole government is corrupted and party to the crimes.

[realpolitic]

I am afriad TimN is a sorry Bush apologist. One of the unenlightened 30% who do not mind assaults against our constitution, phony wars on false premises, ignoring Katrina victims. negating checks and balances, torture memos giving Bush any authority he cares to take, energy policy written by energy company executives, defamation of the Justice Department and its mission, etc., etc., etc.

Bush is a singular President with almost no record of accomplishment, only myriad criminality and the shredding of our civil liberties for our "protection." With any more such "protection," one may longer be able to exercise first amendment rights of free speech, be able to talk on the phone without government interference, or be able to dissent from government policy.

Welcome to the new America brought to us by George Bush that TimN cheerleads. A president who does not read and can barely form a single coherent sentence. Oh, did I mention torture, rendition, Quantanamo Bay, secret prisons. illegal wiretaps.

[Tankan]

Well now, there's a suprise!

[doinaheckofajob]

So many criminals and incompetent fools in the Bush administration, there is not enough time to try them all. Fortunately the worst administration in US history will be history in 11 months thank God. If it were up to me all of the repiglican administrators would be in jail right now. Too bad that won't happen. But we can elect a Democratic majority and get the bastards retroactively.

[BlueBoomer]

Don't I recall from the first time this came up that John Conyers can start "inherent contempt" proceedings, which do NOT require the involvement of the Justice (sic) Dept.?

Are you listening, John?

[Birdman]

It would appear in the article they are persueing them in civil court this is all they can do based on the fact that the Justice department refuses to even investigate. This is what happens when the AG is friends with the whitehouse. I think it is long since past that we no longer should allow the Preznit to appoint the AG it should be done in congress. This is th eonly way to stop this power grab by GW. BTW since when is it legla to declare executive privlidge when there is a potential for crimminal activity. Didn't work for Nixon and it should not work for Bush either.

[Steamboater]

We can thank Schumer and Feinstein for this.

[Elitnaurista]

Right on! The bastard wouldn't there but for those two caving.

[WilliePilgrim]

Of course he won't prosecute. Who'd want their dicks bitten off?

[mediamarv]

Then impeach the bastard. Are you listening Nancy???

[paixa3]

I agree, start IMPEACHMENT proceedings as the first order of business, PERIOD.

[Billar]

Keep in mind that Senator Chuck Schumer, D-NY and Diane Feinstein, D-Calf. sold the dems on that puke Mukasey for the job. Yes and some talkers enable it by saying that Mukasey was the only choice. Its time the people of New York and California get rid of these ass hats.

[procrustes]

Duh.

Who besides our New York and California Democratic senators saw this outcome as certain? I'm guessing just about everyone who has a modicum of political sentience.

Hmmm. Now what special interest do those two senators have in common? I know, I know, I know, it's tough, but pay the price of a nanosecond of agonizing contemplation and I'm sure it'll come to you.

I'm beyond cynical emerging into dismallity. Obama can write and turn a creative phrase--for once, just once, can't we have someone with a creative streak in the White House? What the hell? He might just think of something original.

[kellygrrrl]

My 14 y/o daughter said "I don't care if Obama is a purple hermaphrodite, I want to vote for him when I'm 18."

made me chuckle

[knowhelpnow]

Bush does not have the authority or the executive privilege to have people not conform to laws. He believes what he says is the law without precedent. He is wrong and his leftest administration has commented treason. I can't with a clear conscience believe any neocon's stretch of the truth a moment longer. Bring them all to justice, rid our government of the Corporatism.

[research]

The only way to contest what the president claims is to start the impeachment trial.

[syllepsis]

The Dems have enough votes in the House to start the the impeachment trial.
I know that Republican Senators wouldn't vote to impeach Bush if he were Hannibal Lecter.
But it says "two-thirds" of the Senate is required for conviction. The Repubs are not only criminal, they are crybabies. Boehner and his band of toddlers stormed out of the House when the Dems finally choked out a contempt notice on Miers and Bolten- who knows how many Repub Senators have the emotional maturity to deal with Dems presiding over an actual impeachment? Would enough Repubs stalk out to get the shaky Reid to secure a conviction.? Who knows!
In their infantile world, Republicans are the only ones who get to jail their opponents and impeach Presidents. They can't imagine it any other way,

[breakfast]

Tell us, Nancy. Is the impeachment of Mukasey off the table as well?

[larmarch5]

Mr. Mukasey, you're no Elliot Richardson.