Conyers Ready to Kick Rove's As*

Do you suppose we'll ever have the pleasure of watching Karl Rove do the perp walk?

Via Politico's The Crypt:

Just off the House floor today, the Crypt overheard House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers tell two other people: "We're closing in on Rove. Someone's got to kick his ass."

Asked a few minutes later for a more official explanation, Conyers told us that Rove has a week to appear before his committee. If he doesn't, said Conyers, "We'll do what any self-respecting committee would do. We'd hold him in contempt. Either that or go and have him arrested."

The bolded option would be a satisfying outcome.

< The Dubious Indictment of Lori Drew | Diary Rescue and Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Oh it would be so much fun! (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:15:59 PM EST
    But impeaching a whole bunch of them would still be "funner".

    If They Actually Follow Through, It Would (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:23:46 PM EST
    help reduce my disappointment in the Democratic Party.

    I think we went over this about (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by andgarden on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:26:15 PM EST
    a year ago. IIRC, the House can vote to hold him in inherent contempt and instruct the Sergeant at Arms to pick him up.

    AGs (none / 0) (#38)
    by jedimom on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:26:56 PM EST
    yes with the AGs panels and Harriet Meirs not coming in correct? and nothing happened after that?

    Who would arrest him? (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by joanneleon on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:27:51 PM EST
    Wouldn't Bush tell the USA in DC not to carry it out again?

    (Unless they are ready to carry out the inherent contempt thing with the Sergeant at Arms, Capitol jail and all that)

    Oh, I bet they got a big chuckle out of that (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by Anne on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:28:50 PM EST
    at the White House, don't you think?

    The quote might as well have been: "Conyers told us that Rove has a week to appear before his committee. If he doesn't, said Conyers, "We'll huff and we'll puff and we'll blow his house down," for all the muscle there is behind the threat.

    How many of these people have been threatened since January of 2007?  And how many have complied?

    Not that I want them to give up, or stop investigating, but for crying out loud, is there anyone who thinks Rove's a$$ is in any danger?

    Oh, poo (none / 0) (#25)
    by angie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:56:02 PM EST
    we can dream can't we?

    Oh, angie - I wish I could still hold onto (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Anne on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:06:35 PM EST
    that dream, I really do.

    I blame the whole "impeachment is off the table" thing from Pelosi; that's when the dream died for me.


    Me too. (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:46:58 PM EST
    I cannot believe they are letting Bush and Cheney and Rove and Rumsfeld and Rice get away with their crimes. The ONLY WAY to stop the war in Iraq was impeachment, and Kucinich even got it to the committee, and they STILL did nothing!

    They are so afraid of losing in 2008. They don't get it. We don't WANT post-partisanship - we want justice. We want strong and principled leadership.

    They are just being cowards trying to hold on to their cushy jobs.


    Like father like Iran-Contra (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Kathy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:58:18 PM EST
    Reagan, Oliver North and Bush Sr should still be in Levenworth right now (and, yeah, I know Reagan is dead, but they should have kept him there just to serve as an example).

    Treason is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose.  Dixie Chicks: treasonous b*tches who should be sent to Afghanistan to be gang-raped by the Taliban.  Scooter Libby: a fine, upstanding America who should be judged on his entire record of service to this great country.

    Shut up and vote.


    yeah, they arrest him (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Kathy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:31:00 PM EST
    and then he shows them some op on Obama and they let him go.

    Ten bucks.  Any takers?

    ahhh (none / 0) (#12)
    by CanadianDem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:32:37 PM EST
    keep it on topic.

    It is on topic (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Kathy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:36:15 PM EST
    the dems will not arrest Rove, let alone convict him, because he has too much dirt on all of them.  He specializes in this kind of crap even more than Hoover.  I think it's a very likely scenario that he'll offer up info on the dem with the biggest target on his back.  You're foolish to think that's not a possibility.

    I'm (none / 0) (#28)
    by CanadianDem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:58:39 PM EST
    foolish as much as I think you're delusional and conspiratorial.

    Rove will be pardoned. (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by pie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:06:05 PM EST
    So this is just a silly dance that someone thinks will benefit Obama.

    Congress has been dragging its feet for years on this stuff.  Worst administration ever.  9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan, New Orleans, the economy, education, the courts...

    Stunning.  They've gotten away with it all,  because of our fabulously inept Congress.

    What a pathetic bunch of representatives they are.

    The voters sure can pick'em.


    the voters DID pick them! (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by cpinva on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:11:01 AM EST
    The voters sure can pick'em.

    it's not like they filled out an application for the house and senate describing, in 500 words or less, why they should be a representative or senator, and the best essays got picked.

    "we get the government we deserve."

    can't remember who said it, but it wasn't me.

    impeachment didn't seem to adversely affect the republicans in 2000 & 2004. maybe they know their audience: the american people were more disgusted by a BJ in the oval office, than they are by thousands of unnecessary dead and wounded.

    go figure.


    Old enough to remember J. Edgar Hoover? (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:03:30 PM EST
    Blackmail is not a new political strategy.

    all righty then. Whatever you say. (none / 0) (#41)
    by Kathy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:29:13 PM EST
    for whatever it is worth (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by bjorn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:32:49 PM EST
    we will probably see what Rove has on Obama in Sept or Oct, if not sooner, so you will be proven correct Kathy!

    No, we will never see (none / 0) (#47)
    by lambertstrether on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:34:56 PM EST
    because the leverage will bend him.

    41 was for 28 (none / 0) (#42)
    by Kathy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:30:00 PM EST
    Indeed it is on topic (none / 0) (#50)
    by lambertstrether on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:36:16 PM EST
    Let's remember that the NSA really is storing all digital data, including cell. Naturally, none of that information would ever be used for political purposes -- although oddly, or not, Bush does not use email at all, ever.

    I call it (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:38:27 PM EST
    the Democrat Surveillance Program.

    Do we really think Bush's warrantless wiretapping is to catch terraists? Remember, he was doing it before 9/11.

    Somehow the program failed to stop the attacks. How curious.


    The first thing I thought (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Kathy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:43:23 PM EST
    during the atty firing stuff was: okay, so that means the ones who didn't get fired were actively seeking dems to prosecute.  The repubs got Siegelman and Spitzer and now just about everyone in Chicago from the governor on down.  Many folks have said that Rove's cloven hoof prints are all over these witch-hunts.  When they couldn't sink Siegelman with the truth, they found someone with a coke habit to flip on him and invent some.  Chicago politics is dirty as the day is long.  Obama may have managed to stay above it all, but that didn't stop Rove in AL.

    Again, it is foolhardy not to think something is in the pipeline.  Rove will not go to prison.  He will not even go to jail for a few hours.  If Rove doesn't have something on Obama, he's got something on other dems.  Even without that, Bush will pardon him before the cuffs are tightened.  This isn't tin-foil hat stuff; it's logical reasoning based on past experiences.


    I'm usually swayed by (none / 0) (#48)
    by mg7505 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:35:12 PM EST
    conspiracy theory, but this one is a puzzler. I won't say it's unlikely, but it's too predictable for Rove. The man is a (evil) genius. Frightens me for the GE... but that's off-topic.

    have't we been down this trail before? (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by hellothere on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:33:16 PM EST
    and then nothing!

    exactly (none / 0) (#15)
    by CanadianDem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:35:20 PM EST

    Ooh! (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Davidson on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:36:20 PM EST
    Rove must be running scared!

    Please.  The Democratic Party is a disgrace, deserving of ridicule.  After hearing today that 4 more superdelegates are choosing Obama ($$$!), proving what profiles in cowardice they are, I'm sick and tired of them playing this game of political tease.

    I (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by sas on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:39:26 PM EST
    don't care what the Democrats do to Rove anymore.

    I can't get excited about a group I don't respect.

    A pox on all their houses.

    That was kind of my reaction. And his antics (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Teresa on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:44:42 PM EST
    led me to Talkleft several years ago. Now, who cares. I think I need counseling.

    This really made me laugh out loud (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Lil on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:25:58 PM EST
    When I read this I was thinking too little. too late, but the administration should still be held a little accountable...I think...I need counseling about all this too.

    That's not a reflection on TChris' posts. I (none / 0) (#21)
    by Teresa on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:46:06 PM EST
    always read them, appreciate them and learn something from them.

    Talk, talk, threat, threat . . . (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by reality based on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:42:34 PM EST
    I double dog dare him or any of the rest of the tutu Democrats in Congress to do it-- or even try.  The Congressional approval rate would finally shoot up past the putative President's. Then they would have to follow that up with some real oversight or at least some meaningful political theater.  Maybe I could stop cringing whenever a D's turn came to ask a question (lol) at a Congressional committee hearing. Democratic Congresscritters and Senators have embarrassed the nation with their inept, cowardly, and downright stupid "opposition." (I grant an exception to Senator Sheldon Whitehouse.) Why am I so cynical?

    Sheldon Whitehouse definitely rocks! (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:06:40 PM EST
    Whitehouse is awesome. (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by eleanora on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:15:51 PM EST
    Jon Tester and Jim Webb were pretty feisty on Veteran's Affairs during the Walter Reed hearings and Hillary has given Petraeus some grief. And I usually appreciate Biden for his sharp, pointed remarks on almost everything. IMO, what we're lacking most is the follow through after the tough talk, and that requires the leadership to muscle things through.

    Oh, sure. (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by pie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:49:17 PM EST
    After all this time and a Bush pardon waiting.

    Thanks for nothing.

    I will believe it when I see it. (5.00 / 7) (#27)
    by jere on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:57:35 PM EST
    The Democratic "leadership" puffing up again.  Right.  Please.  This is not working anymore.  These people have no credibility at all.  

    They will do nothing again. (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by kenosharick on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:02:18 PM EST
    The same leadership who is so afraid to be called names that they are throwing away the pesidency in 2008, are going to actually go after big bad scary Karl?

    When did the spine transplant happen? (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by LHinSeattle on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:07:28 PM EST
    Talk is cheap.

    misleading title (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by miguelito on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:24:11 PM EST
    of course it's not Conyers ready to kick Rove's.. the quote is "someone's got to". Perfect slogan for these guys.  This is another Conyers pipe dream.  

    donna brazile said it was against the rules. (5.00 / 5) (#40)
    by hellothere on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:29:07 PM EST

    ROTFLOL (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by bjorn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:31:24 PM EST
    Darn! (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:07:38 PM EST
    I spit bourbon all over my keyboard again...

    I think this is a dumb idea (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by dissenter on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:38:42 PM EST
    They've done nothing about the govt wiretapping our phones, the destruction of the constitution, a war on a lie, mortgage foreclosures, credit card interest rates, soaring energy costs, inflation, Wall Street abuses and a host of other issues that Americans care about.

    Now they have time and energy to arrest Rove? I mean seriously, this might be comical but if I am sitting a home crying over the fact I am about to lose my house I am not going to be cheering. I am gonna be pissed off that this is what they are spending their time on.

    It will just reinforce the perception that they are as clueless and crass as the republicans.

    Uh..... don't look now but (1.00 / 0) (#88)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:57:26 PM EST
    the Demos have been 100% in charge since 1/07 and all they have done is waste time and energy on trying to withdraw support for the troops and hamper our ability to track terrorists.....worry about baseball players taking steroids and how many AGs Bush had fired...

    Since then gasoline has gone up about $1.50, unemplopyment is up and people are losing their homes.

    Why won't Pelosi and Reid do something about this??

    Gasoline prices would drop about .90 cents immediately if the Demos would just support drilling in ANWAR and off shore.

    Why don't the Demos want people to buy food, medicine and clothing rather give the money to big oil and the speculators?

    Why? Why? I have no doubt that right now some elderly person is trying to decide between a tank of gas or a months supply of blood pressure medicine!


    Somehow I Suspect (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by The Maven on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:06:08 PM EST
    that Conyers would take this no further than he did with the contempt suit brought against Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten, which was filed in District Court just over two months ago.

    Since then, the Judiciary Committee moved for partial summary judgment, and last week the defendants cross-moved to dismiss, primarily on the grounds that the Judiciary Committee, acting alone (that is to say, without the U.S. Attorney), simply doesn't have standing to bring the lawsuit at all.  Their memorandum of law begins,

    This lawsuit and the relief it seeks are unprecedented. Never in American history has a federal court ordered an Executive Branch official to testify before Congress, and never in American history has the Executive Branch been required by court order to produce documents or a privilege log to Congress. For over two hundred years, when disputes have arisen between the political branches concerning the testimony of Executive Branch witnesses before Congress, or the production of Executive Branch documents to Congress, the branches have engaged in negotiation and compromise and, when necessary, have exercised the panoply of political tools at their disposal to resolve their differences through mutual accommodations.
    (Apologies for not having a direct link for this, as I got the document off of PACER.)

    Precedent setting decisions (none / 0) (#78)
    by eleanora on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:09:44 PM EST
    always get referred to the SC, don't they? So even if the District Court rules against Miers and Bolton, Roberts et al will probably shut Conyers down.

    Ultimately (none / 0) (#80)
    by The Maven on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:21:52 PM EST
    it would be likely to appealed all the way there, regardless of which side comes out the victor at the district court, but the court of appeals lies in between.  Realistically, the earliest this could get before the Supreme Court would be by year's end, and that would merely be for the issue of whether the Court would be willing to hear the appeal at all.  If SCOTUS did take the case, any decision would be no sooner than the very end of the Court's term in late June 2009.  And I'd bet it would probably be a year or so after that.

    Not to mention the very real possibility that after the next president is inaugurated, there's a lot of pressure to simply let the case drop and turn the page, rather than dwelling on the past.  It's certainly not what I would wish for, but I'd say that's more likely than not.

    In other words, I'm not exactly holding my breath.


    Tough crowd. (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by oculus on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:33:43 PM EST

    cynicism and skepticism (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:38:37 PM EST
    run rampant after ages of waiting only to have it maybe possibly happen now.

    A sort of May Surprise if you will.


    Karl Rove (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by facta non verba on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:02:53 AM EST
    was on Greta Van Susteren's show last night.

    Here's a clip:

    Karl Rove On The Record

    Um, Yeah (1.00 / 1) (#35)
    by jarober on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:25:01 PM EST
    Because criminalizing policy differences is such a good idea.  Eventually, political tides will turn, and Democrats like you will be stunned when this precedent is turned on a Democrat.

    HA HA HA. The only policy (5.00 / 6) (#44)
    by MarkL on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:32:07 PM EST
    difference is whether Rove and the Republicans obey the rule of law.
    Nixon's hoary defense should not be resurrected.

    I vote for the ARREST... (none / 0) (#3)
    by Angel on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:24:38 PM EST
    than the rest of his life spent in jail.

    Conyers for president (none / 0) (#7)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:27:51 PM EST
    I went to hear Zinn speak here in detroit, and he talked about Conyers for a good 15 minutes. Such an amazing politician (though the funniest you tube moment this year is an 8th grader telling his wife not to call people names)

    I don't admire Conyers as much (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by LHinSeattle on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:51:24 PM EST
    It's not the Clinton wing (none / 0) (#24)
    by pie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:53:06 PM EST
    that needs to go.  It's the rest of the entrenched male party.  Losers.  Every single one of them.

    You're (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:38:46 PM EST
    right about that. A complete party purge in Nov. I'm sick of these losers too. They stand for absolutely nothing. And Obama wants to give these jokers more power? Ugh, that's a failed administration from the start in the unlikely event that he even makes it to the WH.

    Purge like a runway model (none / 0) (#57)
    by Kathy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:46:13 PM EST
    I am so with you on that, sister.  Let's get in some dems with spines who celebrate dem values instead of running from them.  Let's demand they remember that the working class is the backbone of America.

    You (none / 0) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:09:39 PM EST
    should join the women's insurrection we're having. We're all writing the DNC and telling them that we will not vote for Obama. We're tired of being called "racists", "low information voters" and idiots.

    A talk radio station in PA is also doing it.


    People's insurrection (none / 0) (#67)
    by LHinSeattle on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:26:17 PM EST
    everyone who is sick of being taken for granted and of being told to get in line to support a loser.

    They're always talking about "the will of the people" but their illogical delegate system, and disenfranchising caucus system resulting in this presumptious (sic) nominee makes me sick.


    I already joined (none / 0) (#85)
    by Kathy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:17:53 AM EST
    and already called.  I am a fairly consistent big donor.  I had a direct phone number and everything.

    They really, truly believe that us women folk are just a little hot-headed right now but will come back and do what we're supposed to do if Obama is the nominee.



    So (none / 0) (#86)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:24:06 AM EST
    the response you got was what? Assumption that you'll come around? In my case they are dead wrong. It's the same arrogant assumption that Obama has.

    Conyers, (none / 0) (#26)
    by pie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:56:25 PM EST
    an Obama supporter, finally getting "tough on crime."

    It would be funny if it didn't mean more of the same for the rest of us.


    He was a big talker (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:26:46 PM EST
    when they were out of power.  When voters gave them power, they did nothing.

    Now, they're showboating.  Maybe if they rally around Rove, this will "unify" Democrats.



    That "for president" thing (none / 0) (#69)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:36:35 PM EST
    gets bandied about far too often.

    What did he do to be (none / 0) (#5)
    by Leisa on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:26:20 PM EST

    WOW... Intrigue, subterfuge and plotting... sounds like a good movie...

    What would the title be??

    Make sure there's a JPEG to send to Leahy! (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ellie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:29:30 PM EST
    That's how it's done, folks!

    Has he emerged from his home or is the float festooned with rosettes made from ignored suppoena still roaring up and down his street?

    thanks (none / 0) (#11)
    by CanadianDem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:31:33 PM EST
    again TChris for keeping the focus alive.  Forest and trees etc etc.

    the (none / 0) (#14)
    by CanadianDem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:34:38 PM EST
    evidence mounts against him, but really, do you not think that given his/Bush's sway on the machinations lo these last few years that he is most likely insulated from direct prosecution?

    Doesn't realy matter, Presidential pardon. (none / 0) (#33)
    by Radix on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:14:10 PM EST
    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah


    Yeah Sure Whatever (none / 0) (#46)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:34:44 PM EST
    The Plame incident is what led me to start blogging. During the whole drama I was up to 4 posts a day waiting for the "frog-marching" of Karl Rove.

    Didn't happen then and it ain't gonna happen now.  Democrats have NO backbone and are afraid to fight.  Don't expect nothing from the "impeachment is off the table crowd."

    The only Democrats I know that fight and stand their ground are, of course, Hillary and Bill Clinton.

    yep (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by rooge04 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:37:35 PM EST
    all that kossack nonsense about "merry Fitzmas", too  bad it amounted to the political equivalent of coal in their stockings

    Yeah (none / 0) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:41:12 PM EST
    just like Obama's going to be coal in the stocking too.

    There's something about that site that picks lots of losers.


    Oh Conyers, my Conyers... (none / 0) (#49)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:35:40 PM EST
    where have you been for a year and a half?

    Rove is smirking and laughing at this empty threat.

    Plame Incident? (none / 0) (#58)
    by jarober on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:46:43 PM EST
    You mean the leak from Armitage (self admitted) which Rove had nothing to do with?

    There's delusional, and then there's immunity to facts

    Exhibit A. (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:48:49 PM EST
    Your immunity to facts will be (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by MarkL on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:00:54 PM EST
    severely tested if you stay at TL.

    That's more like it (none / 0) (#60)
    by scarshapedstar on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:47:57 PM EST
    F*ck him. Ruin him. You hear me? F*ck him like no one has ever f*cked him before!

    Don't Hold Your Breath (none / 0) (#66)
    by CDN Ctzn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:14:12 PM EST
    Did anyone else notice how vague and nebulous Obama's statement was a few weeks ago when he was asked if he would seek prosecution of this administration if he became president?
    There were alot of "ifs" and "maybes"; "If there were crimes committed...", etc. And yet the bloggers jumped on it like he was guarenteeing action in elected and was sure to punish this administration.
    One question: "What colour is the sky where you live?"
    Do we really believe the Dems will do anything to these felons?

    Not "grave" enough (none / 0) (#70)
    by LHinSeattle on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:36:53 PM EST
    None of what's happened is bad enough for Obama to consider impeachment.
    Obama, a Harvard law school graduate and former lecturer on constitutional law at the University of Chicago, said impeachment should not be used as a standard political tool.

    "I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breaches, and intentional breaches of the president's authority," he said.

    Tells me something about what his presidential judgment would be.


    Please Let Me Be Wrong (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by CDN Ctzn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:48:42 PM EST
    It's not just his judgement I worry about. Gore Vidal said something to the effect that "Power acquired is seldom relinquished."
    My fear is that Obama is rubbing his hands in anticipation of unrestrained executive power along with a complicit legeslative branch.

    How many Iraqis (none / 0) (#73)
    by mg7505 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:56:19 PM EST
    must one murder before being impeached? Better yet, how many American soldiers? How much greenhouse gas emissions? How much ... oh forget it.

    Conyer's Tough Talk (none / 0) (#74)
    by santarita on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:58:21 PM EST
    is cheap thrills.  It's the end of the Bush Reign of Terror and Conyers thinks that Obama is going to bring in a lot of Democrats into Congress.  Talking about going after Rove placates the "progressives" who want accountability and there is nothing to lose politically for Conyers,  If Obama brings in a lot of Democrats then Conyers doesn't have to place nice with the Republicans any more.  He can aggravate them and placate the progressives.  Going after Rove this late in the Session guarantees legal challenges by Rove until the next Congress, at which time Pres. Obama will pardon Rove, Miers and any other Republican in the name of post=partisanship.  That's assuming that Bush doesn't do an end of the term round of pardons.  The reason no one is pursuing true accountability is that they are all invested in maintaining the status quo.  They just want to be the party in power of the status quo.

    Looks like Rove got the cheese! (none / 0) (#83)
    by diplomatic on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:16:34 AM EST

    The real question is whether ... (none / 0) (#87)
    by robrecht on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:11:27 AM EST
    Bush will dare pardon Rove or anyone else if they have not yet been indicted?