In one of the most ridiculous pieces yet on the Congressional inquiry into the firing of US Attorneys, the Washington Post "reports":

After leaving her post as White House political director in May out of what she says was a search for normalcy, she now finds herself part of the unending congressional probe into the dismissal of nine U.S. attorneys.

(Emphasis supplied.)Unending? Umm. Has the investigation even reached its first Friedman Unit? Nice "reporting." More.

The Senate Judiciary Committee hearing has begun on the U.S. Attorney Firings.

TPM has Sara Taylor's written statement.

She's going to walk the line of deciding which questions she can answer as a private citizen and which she won't answer because Fred Fielding says they would impact privileged staff communications.

"While I may be unable to answer certain questions today, I will answer those questions if the courts rule that this committee's need for the information outweighs the president's assertion of executive privilege...

I look forward to answering those questions not covered by the President's assertion of executive privilege."

Firedoglake is live-blogging the hearing. (Part One and Two, so far.) TPMuckraker also is following the hearings.

The hearing is steaming live here.

I am not comfortable with this line of reasoning from Avedon Carol and Matt Yglesias:

Avedon Carol wonders if it shouldn't "concern us that Republicans are constantly talking about how people will all wise up when the next terrorist attack at home comes?" After all, they seem to really be "looking forward to it, and they take great delight in the thought that, by God, people will see things differently when it happens."

I detest it when Wingnuts accuse Democrats of "wanting the terrorists to win" when Dems speak the truth about Iraq. I think this is only marginally better than that -- a veiled insinuation that Wingnuts want terrorists to successfully attack us.

Can everybody, Wingnuts and DFHs, just drop this line of thinking? I guess I know Republicans and Wingnuts will not so is this a case of sauce for the gander? Perhaps, but I still do not like it.

Digby points out what we should all know by now; the Radical Religious Right is intolerant of religious beliefs not in lockstep with their own:

Liberal faith . . . ultimately morphs into societal and self-improvement efforts and jettisons the life-changing message of salvation, forgiveness of sins and a transformed life.

If the newspaper story is accurate, this is where Clinton is on her faith: "In a brief quiz about her theological views, Mrs. Clinton said she believed in the resurrection of Jesus, though she described herself as less sure of the doctrine that being a Christian is the only way to salvation."

This is a politician speaking, not a person who believes in the central tenets of Christianity. . . . Clinton is entitled to whatever faith she wants to practice, but when she uses it as an election tactic, she should not be allowed to alter classic Christian theology.

If it is "classic Christian theology" that Cal Thomas is looking for, how about the Spanish Inquisition? It always makes me smile when Southern Baptists speak in this fashion. Cuz in the "classic Christian theology" - ole Cal Thomas is a heretic. I also wonder when ole Cal is gonna dissect Mitt Romney's Christianity.

Karl Rove was in Aspen this weekend for the Aspen Ideas Festival. He spoke and answered questions about a range of issues from Iraq to Guantanamo and the leak of former CIA Agent Valerie Plame's identity. His role as Bush's water-carrier continues.

On Gitmo:

"It may not be Gitmo," Rove said about where the prisoners might go. "But it's going to be the brig in Charleston, South Carolina. Or it's going to be the Pitkin County Jail. Or the Florence, Colorado maximum-security facility. We've got to hold them somewhere. These are bad people. These are people who threatened the United States of America."

As Rove tells it, the biggest problem at Guantanamo is weight gain.

On his role in the CIA leak:

Cheney's personal favorability rating according to NYTimes polling.

Honestly, I am skeptical. That number seems impossibly low.

In any event, if that is not exciting enough, watch me take on the Beltway Elite (not really, it's our friend Conn Carroll of the Blogometer) on all things Netroots, Iraq and politics.

Scott Lemieux:

Another upshot of this is that debates about impeachment are purely about the politics -- obviously there's no chance of 2/3 of the Senate voting to convict anyone. And here I also agree with Ezra that here McArdle is considerably more persuasive. It's hard to see how serious impeachment proceedings (as opposed to stepping up use of Congress' oversight powers in general) would strengthen the Democrats' political position.

And Ezra:

Incidentally, I actually agree that impeachment proceedings would be a Bad Idea . . .

But this part of Ezra's post really interests me:

The Democrats were elected on one of the clearest agendas in modern times: Drawing down the Iraq War, passing anti-corruption legislation, and instituting a series of popular, if small, pieces of economic populism (increase in the minimum wage, Medicare bargaining, etc). Bush has stymied every one. . .

On Iraq, it is the Democrats who can stymie Bush, if they will use their Constitutional authority. Will no one join me in urging the Congress to stymie Bush on Iraq?

Today, President Bush invoked executive privilege in answer to congressional subpoenas related to the US Attorney purge:

President Bush invoked executive privilege Monday to deny requests by Congress for testimony from two former aides about the firings of federal prosecutors. . . . In a letter to the heads of the House and Senate Judiciary panels, White House counsel Fred Fielding insisted that Bush was acting in good faith and refused lawmakers' demand that the president explain the basis for invoking the privilege.

At some point, if the Congress acts to enforce its subpoenas, the President will have to explain himself.

Retorted House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers[,] "Contrary what the White House may believe, it is the Congress and the courts that will decide whether an invocation of executive privilege is valid, not the White House unilaterally,"

The courts mentions Conyers. Presumably that means that Conyers is not considering either impeachment or inherent contempt proceedings at this time. This seems wise to me.

This nugget pleased me:

The privilege claim on testimony by former aides won't necessarily prevent them from appearing under oath this week, as scheduled. Leahy said that Taylor, Bush's former political director, may testify as scheduled before the Senate panel on Wednesday.

Very good Senator Leahy. Let the White House rush to court to quash the Taylor subpoena. And let Fielding see if he can NOT tell a court the basis of the President's claim of privilege.

Matt Yglesias writes:

With sentiment on the question of impeaching Bush running at a pretty strong 39 percent for giving him the boot (with 49 percent opposed), I think this needs to enter the mainstream conversation. . . . The fact remains, however, that impeaching and convicting Bush means, in practice, only that Dick Cheney becomes President. . . . Removing Bush doesn't accomplish anything. I suppose you could impeach Cheney, and then impeach Bush before confirming a new vice president, and then Nancy Pelosi becomes president. And that, of course, is going to get 67 votes in the Senate sometime after they establish congressional representation for flying pigs.

So it's never going to happen. But Yglesias says:

You're still left with the problem that this is only getting the requisite votes in fantasyland, but I think it's a perfectly cogent political agenda.

This confuses me. How is a political agenda whose chance for success resides in fantasyland be cogent? More.

Contrary to what some in the Left blogs seem to think, the Constitution provides and contemplates methods for the Legislative Branch to check an out of control Executive short of impeachment and removal. And that is a good thing. For in the history of the Republic, only one President would likely have been removed from office, Richard M. Nixon, had he not resigned (it is why he resigned actually.)

President George W. Bush is no exception. He will never be removed from office. Therefore, progressives who actually care about checking this out of control Executive would be doing a much greater service for the Nation if they would urge the Congress to exercise those powers the Constitution provides it to check the power of the Executive. To instead urge futile efforts to remove the President from office may make those who urge it feel good, but it does not urge a course of action that will actually do any good for the Nation. More.

Dave Johnson writes:

No Choice But Impeachment
The Democrats in Congress have been trying to avoid having to face what we are dealing with in this country at this time. . . .

Some Left blogs are trying to avoid having to face what we are dealing with when it comes to impeachment - that it has no chance of removing the President. 17 Republican Senators will NEVER EVER vote to remove President Bush no matter what.

So let's discuss impeachment realistically - as a symbolic gesture. Does it help? Harm? I'll give you my view on the flip.

Now that Scooter is a free man, I think the next step is obvious - he should be called to testify on the myriad of scandals that he was intimately involved with.

Technically he can invoke the 5th Amendment, but either Fitzgerald or Congress can grant him immunity - heck, he ain't going to jail anyway. Let him testify about what Cheney has done, especially with regard to Valerie Plame.

Will the President invoke Executive Privilege? Will Libby lie under oath (would not be a shock now would it)? Perhaps. But there are many questions to ask.