Impeach Gonzales

The headline expresses my sentiment only, it does not necessarily reflect the views of other contributors or Jeralyn

From tomorrow's NYTimes Editorial:

Democratic lawmakers are asking for a special prosecutor to look into Mr. Gonzales’s words and deeds. Solicitor General Paul Clement has a last chance to show that the Justice Department is still minimally functional by fulfilling that request.

If that does not happen, Congress should impeach Mr. Gonzales.

< NewSpeak: Bush's FISA Proposal | CA Vehicle Seizure Ordinances Struck Down >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    A show worth watching. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 09:41:56 PM EST

    et al (1.00 / 2) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 10:48:17 PM EST
    In case you missed it, the same NYT reported that Gonzales did not lie.

    Of course that was in the news section and not on the editorial page.

    So perhaps before everyone speaks of impeachment, perhaps you might think of some crime he has committed.

    Impeachment??? (1.00 / 1) (#10)
    by LiberalsAreSuperDuper on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 02:22:27 AM EST
    The public wouldn't support an impeachment of Gonzales, particularly since he's gone in 18 months anyway. Democrats need to keep their eye on the ball, which is the '08 election. Stevens and Ginsburg aren't going to be around for too much longer and one more conservative on the court means bye-bye to a lot of important civil/human rights. Let the history books punish Bush and the gang.    

    The public would support impeaching him in a (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 07:18:05 AM EST
    minute!  It needs to be done.  I don't care if he leaves in 18 months, if we have the goods to do it I want him very busy these last 18 months before he does something else illegal to someone else!  It would probably keep his boss equally busy too worrying about it, beats him having all sorts of free time trying to burn down his ranch while he plots nuking the world.

    Tracy (1.00 / 1) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 08:06:40 AM EST
    The problem is you don't have the goods.

    You still figure (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 08:17:51 AM EST
    denial helps you?

    When hope is all you have (none / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 02:16:19 PM EST
    you must cling to it tenaciously.

    Who you going to believe? (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 09:09:00 AM EST
    Your lying eyes or Jim's gibbersh explanation?

    Most people Jim try to float a theory that fits all the known facts. That way it doesn't get shot down.


    Where do you hang out? (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 11:40:02 AM EST
    The public wouldn't support an impeachment of Gonzales,

    You must hang out in a different "public" than I do.

    With your vote against impeachment, that makes it everybody-to-one in favor.


    Uh, no. I'm not in the Bay area. (1.00 / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 03:11:20 PM EST
    MB (1.00 / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 03:12:39 PM EST
    To repeat

    If you're gonna impeach, impeach, Don't talk.


    Yeah, what the hell. (none / 0) (#11)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 03:28:05 AM EST
    Give him a pass. He's only conspired to commit war crimes, and can't remember doing it. It's not like he ran a red light intentionally or anything.

    If he was innocent it would make better sense to execute him.


    Cheney and conviction (none / 0) (#2)
    by RedHead on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 10:01:02 PM EST
    I find it funny that someone has corrupt as cheney would be the preside over the proceedings.

    on serious note, in the late 80s, a democratic house and senate impeached and convicted two federal judges appointed by democratic presidents (alcee hastings and walter nixon).  But what are the odds that the current crop of republicans in the senate would put the public ahead of party politics (like the dems did) and remove gonzo.

    side note: Hastings was removed even though he was aquitted in a jury trial (what do the "conservatives" say, pardon libby because there underlying criminal charge).  Nixon was removed for perjury.    

    The odds are somewhere... (none / 0) (#3)
    by DawnG on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 10:11:53 PM EST
    ...between slim and none.

    I don't know how they think they can keep their seats when they don't even serve their voters.  They do not swear and oath to the GOP dammit!


    farewell tour (none / 0) (#4)
    by RedHead on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 10:20:12 PM EST
    a bunch of them are about to begin their farewell tour (judging by the crowds in purple states like Iowa and NH).  only 15 months until E-Day.  they better start updating their resumes.

    Nixon was never removed (none / 0) (#8)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 11:35:45 PM EST
    He resigned first (minor quibble).

    Different Nixon (none / 0) (#9)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 11:56:31 PM EST
    walter nixon

    Crimes ala Gonzo (none / 0) (#7)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 11:33:59 PM EST
    18 USC 606
    18 USC 1505
    18 USC 1512
    18 USC 242
    50 USC 1809

    putting Clement on the spot, I like (none / 0) (#12)
    by AlanDownunder on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:58:21 AM EST
    Unqualified unlimited hangout is the new game. Impeachment is the old remedy.