Senate to hold no confidence vote on Gonazales.

[Lemon law]

For what its worth, the Senate is likely to hold a no confidence vote on Gonzales Monday.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...K5uQ4GK2M4WqQrcpCyFz4D

Although the measure may get 55 or more votes, GWB is already saying he will not fire Gonzales according to Tony Snow who was making various talk show today. The big question is how many Republican will desert GWB on the Gonzales issue?

But I somewhat disagree that this resolution will be the last Democratic effort to oust Gonazles
if GWB is still unmoved. Gonzales is likely to play a prominent role in as of yet undiscovered old scandals and new outrages.---and as such, Alberto will be a marked man---and somewhat like Bobby Knight at IU, is somewhat sure to run into some other scandal that will prove to be the final straw. And in such a likely future event, the Gonzales critics will be ready to awaken and start screaming for his scalp.

 

[Moonbeam]

Bush thinks he's Elian Gonzales.

 

[Genx87]

Democratic congress, tackling the issues that matter most!

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Democratic congress, tackling the issues that matter most!

A corrupt, incompetent AG? There are few better ways from Congress to spend their time.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Originally posted by: Genx87
Democratic congress, tackling the issues that matter most!

A corrupt, incompetent AG? There are few better ways from Congress to spend their time.

Yes there is, I can name just a few off the top of my head.

1.immigration reform
2.Prescription drug reform
3. SS reform
4. Medicaid\Medicare reform
5. Income tax reform

Passing a meaningless no confidence vote against the executive branch for a right granted to them via the constitution is, well, meaningless and a waste o time.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Originally posted by: Genx87
Democratic congress, tackling the issues that matter most!

A corrupt, incompetent AG? There are few better ways from Congress to spend their time.

Yes there is, I can name just a few off the top of my head.

1.immigration reform
2.Prescription drug reform
3. SS reform
4. Medicaid\Medicare reform
5. Income tax reform

Passing a meaningless no confidence vote against the executive branch for a right granted to them via the constitution is, well, meaningless and a waste o time.

It makes more sense than going after a president who was getting a hummer from an intern.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Originally posted by: Genx87
Democratic congress, tackling the issues that matter most!

A corrupt, incompetent AG? There are few better ways from Congress to spend their time.

Yes there is, I can name just a few off the top of my head.

1.immigration reform
2.Prescription drug reform
3. SS reform
4. Medicaid\Medicare reform
5. Income tax reform

Passing a meaningless no confidence vote against the executive branch for a right granted to them via the constitution is, well, meaningless and a waste o time.

It makes more sense than going after a president who was getting a hummer from an intern.

Hey look, a conservative didnt bring up Clinton first!

 

[nageov3t]

what does it even mean... it's not like they're impeaching the AG. it seems like a meaningless political maneuver to force republicans to go on the record about the issue (which, before partisan bickering starts, is a tactic that every political party in the history of human culture has done and will continue to do until it kills us all)

Originally posted by: Genx87

Hey look, a conservative didnt bring up Clinton first!

:laugh:

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Originally posted by: Genx87
Democratic congress, tackling the issues that matter most!

A corrupt, incompetent AG? There are few better ways from Congress to spend their time.

Yes there is, I can name just a few off the top of my head.

1.immigration reform
2.Prescription drug reform
3. SS reform
4. Medicaid\Medicare reform
5. Income tax reform

Passing a meaningless no confidence vote against the executive branch for a right granted to them via the constitution is, well, meaningless and a waste o time.

So, in your infinite wisdom, you believe that it is a waste of congress' time to go after a man so corrupt that he is willing and able to destroy the foundation that 1/3 of our government is based on?

Please do explain why this is something that should be ignored.

 

[palehorse]

what a waste of time.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Originally posted by: Genx87
Democratic congress, tackling the issues that matter most!

A corrupt, incompetent AG? There are few better ways from Congress to spend their time.

Yes there is, I can name just a few off the top of my head.

1.immigration reform
2.Prescription drug reform
3. SS reform
4. Medicaid\Medicare reform
5. Income tax reform

Passing a meaningless no confidence vote against the executive branch for a right granted to them via the constitution is, well, meaningless and a waste o time.

So, in your infinite wisdom, you believe that it is a waste of congress' time to go after a man so corrupt that he is willing and able to destroy the foundation that 1/3 of our government is based on?

Please do explain why this is something that should be ignored.

The fact you actually believe firing 8 AGs which is within the right of the executive branch, even if political, will destroy one of our branches is true, is sad. Equally sad the idea you think one of the other branches can somehow save said branch and want to grant them the privledge to do so.

Then there is the fact you apparently missed where this is a "no confidence" vote. Which has legal standing where? When passed it does what?

Like I said a giant waste of time.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Originally posted by: Genx87
Democratic congress, tackling the issues that matter most!

A corrupt, incompetent AG? There are few better ways from Congress to spend their time.

Yes there is, I can name just a few off the top of my head.

1.immigration reform
2.Prescription drug reform
3. SS reform
4. Medicaid\Medicare reform
5. Income tax reform

Passing a meaningless no confidence vote against the executive branch for a right granted to them via the constitution is, well, meaningless and a waste o time.

So, in your infinite wisdom, you believe that it is a waste of congress' time to go after a man so corrupt that he is willing and able to destroy the foundation that 1/3 of our government is based on?

Please do explain why this is something that should be ignored.

Not that it should be ignored; but what will it accomplish.
There is a Separation of powers; Congress can not force Bush to do anything about the AG.

Genx87 may be indicating that Congress could better use it's time tackling critical issues rather than looking to score political points.

/edit Spelling

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Originally posted by: Genx87
Democratic congress, tackling the issues that matter most!

A corrupt, incompetent AG? There are few better ways from Congress to spend their time.

Yes there is, I can name just a few off the top of my head.

1.immigration reform
2.Prescription drug reform
3. SS reform
4. Medicaid\Medicare reform
5. Income tax reform

Passing a meaningless no confidence vote against the executive branch for a right granted to them via the constitution is, well, meaningless and a waste o time.

So, in your infinite wisdom, you believe that it is a waste of congress' time to go after a man so corrupt that he is willing and able to destroy the foundation that 1/3 of our government is based on?

Please do explain why this is something that should be ignored.

The fact you actually believe firing 8 AGs which is within the right of the executive branch, even if political, will destroy one of our branches is true, is sad. Equally sad the idea you think one of the other branches can somehow save said branch and want to grant them the privledge to do so.

Then there is the fact you apparently missed where this is a "no confidence" vote. Which has legal standing where? When passed it does what?

Like I said a giant waste of time.

Nice strawman. Now back to reality.

I don't believe that the firing of 8 AGs is not in the right of the Exec or will destroy one of the branches.

If you had any critical thinking skills beyond what you are hearing from the right wing pundints and the administration though....you would be able to equate firing 8 because they will not do everything in their power to ensure that you or your party will have a grasp on power to continue doing whatever it is that you want without any real oversight to actually destroying one of the three branches.

The fact that this administration is blatantly willing to do that after so many other perceived violations to the constitution of this country (all of which were either approved by AG AG or recommended by WH Atty AG) is shocking.

Now, add in the latest news about AG AG from this morning's news:

At least one-third of the immigration judges appointed by the Justice Department since 2004 have had Republican connections or have been administration insiders, and half lacked experience in immigration law, Justice Department, immigration court and other records show.

Two newly appointed immigration judges were failed candidates for the U.S. Tax Court nominated by President Bush; one fudged his taxes and the other was deemed unqualified to be a tax judge by the nation's largest association of lawyers. Both were Republican loyalists.

Justice officials also gave immigration judgeships to a New Jersey election law specialist who represented GOP candidates, a former treasurer of the Louisiana Republican Party, a White House domestic policy adviser and a conservative crusader against pornography.

These appointments, all made by the attorney general, have begun to reshape a system of courts in which judges, ruling alone, exercise broad powers -- deporting each year nearly a quarter-million immigrants, who have limited rights to appeal and no right to an attorney. The judges do not serve fixed terms.

Department officials say they changed their hiring practices in April but defend their selections. Still, the injection of political considerations into the selection of immigration judges has attracted congressional attention in the wake of controversy over the Bush administration's dismissal last year of nine U.S. attorneys.

The Post analysis is the first systematic examination of the people appointed to immigration courts, the relationships that led to their selection and the experience they brought to their position. The review, based on Justice records and research into the judges' backgrounds, encompassed the 37 current judges approved by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales or his predecessor, John D. Ashcroft, starting in 2004.

The fact that you still defend this man and this administration is appalling. If it takes a no confidence vote for Bush to finally feel enough pressure to get rid of him, so be it. If Bush is still stupid enough (and we all know that he is) to keep him on even after this, then maybe even more of the ~26% will come around to realizing that this president has no morals or sense and demand change.

 

[Genx87]

Nice strawman. Now back to reality.

I don't believe that the firing of 8 AGs is not in the right of the Exec or will destroy one of the branches.

Eh?

you believe that it is a waste of congress' time to go after a man so corrupt that he is willing and able to destroy the foundation that 1/3 of our government is based on?

Please explain what this means if it isnt implying the destruction of the executive branch?

If you had any critical thinking skills beyond what you are hearing from the right wing pundints and the administration though....you would be able to equate firing 8 because they will not do everything in their power to ensure that you or your party will have a grasp on power to continue doing whatever it is that you want without any real oversight to actually destroying one of the three branches.

I called this media born story bunk well before any right winged pundits or the administration addressed it.

And speaking about critical thinking and listening to what you want to hear. Regurgitating what the NYT's editorial page on a msgboard doesnt make you a critical thinker.

The fact that this administration is blatantly willing to do that after so many other perceived violations to the constitution of this country (all of which were either approved by AG AG or recommended by WH Atty AG) is shocking.

Now, add in the latest news about AG AG from this morning's news:

Ill take the word "percieved" as wishful thinking with little to no substance. Becasue if there was any substance congress would be on it so fast it would make your head spin. Not passing meaningless no confidence votes.

The fact that you still defend this man and this administration is appalling. If it takes a no confidence vote for Bush to finally feel enough pressure to get rid of him, so be it. If Bush is still stupid enough (and we all know that he is) to keep him on even after this, then maybe even more of the ~26% will come around to realizing that this president has no morals or sense and demand change.

Where am I defending Bush on this? I am defending our system which has been fine for the past ~230 years.

As for your article these are political appointments why does this surprise you that they have republican connections?!?!?!?!?!? Go look back to all appointments through every president and Ill bet they all have connections to the party or person who appointed them, I know shocking, a person will appoint somebody they know or like. Welcome to politics 101.

As for Bush's approval rating, one thing I dont understand that hasnt got through liberals thick heads is, Bush doesnt care about those obviously. What does he care if he has a 26% approval rating? The guy isnt running for office anymore and will retire with full benefits.

Once you can get past that silly situation maybe we as a nation can move on as well.

 

[nageov3t]

this has really moved beyond the firing of the 8 lawyers... Gonzales lied to congress (or it's very likely that he did... at the end of the day, he's either a liar or completely incompetent; in either case the no confidence vote seems justified, even if it is all bark and no bite).

if he had said from the start "yeah, I fired them for political reasons. cry more." would this even be an issue anymore? I doubt it.

edit: incentally, I thought the NYC (I know, I know, lolliberalmedia) had an editorial this morning that was a pretty good read on the subject.

A Test of the Senate

The Senate has scheduled a no-confidence vote today on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. No one who has followed the news needs to be told why it is necessary. Mr. Gonzales is the Michael Brown of the Justice Department, smilingly presiding over incompetence, chaos and malfeasance, while President Bush insists that he is doing a heck of a job. Today?s vote should get the support not only of Democrats, but of every Republican senator concerned about the American justice system.

The list of Mr. Gonzales?s misdeeds is long and serious. The Justice Department has enormous power to put people in jail, destroy reputations and affect the outcomes of elections. It must enforce the law impartially, but Mr. Gonzales has allowed political partisanship to drive his department.

He appointed underqualified, ethically challenged ideologues, and let them run amok. Monica Goodling, a former top Gonzales aide, admitted that she crossed the line ? and most likely federal law ? by hiring lawyers for nonpolitical jobs based on their politics. The purge of nine United States attorneys last year was also clearly politically motivated. Talented, respected prosecutors were fired because they didn?t do the Republican Party?s bidding.

Mr. Gonzales?s response has been shockingly deficient. He claimed that he was not in the loop on the firings. That would have been extreme dereliction of duty, since the fired attorneys were nearly 10 percent of his top state-level prosecutors. But it now seems clear that he was not telling the truth when he said it, which does not make him look any better.

The Justice Department is in shambles. Top officials have left under a cloud and have not been replaced. Morale is said to be terrible. And the department?s credibility is shot. The public has every reason to suspect that if a United States attorney brings an indictment with political overtones ? or fails to indict ? the reason is politics, not the law.

Senator Charles Schumer, the New York Democrat who pushed for today?s resolution, rightly says that if senators voted their conscience, it would be unanimous. The vote is a test, in particular, for Republican senators who call themselves independent ? like Arlen Specter, Norm Coleman, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe ? and who will have to choose between the president and the public interest.

James Comey, a respected former deputy attorney general, testified that if prosecutors have been hired based on politics under Mr. Gonzales, ?I don?t know that there?s any window you can go to to get the department?s reputation back.? A strong majority of the Senate voting no confidence in Mr. Gonzales is an important place to start.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/11/opinion/11mon2.html

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: loki8481
this has really moved beyond the firing of the 8 lawyers... Gonzales lied to congress (or it's very likely that he did... at the end of the day, he's either a liar or completely incompetent; in either case the no confidence vote seems justified, even if it is all bark and no bite).

if he had said from the start "yeah, I fired them for political reasons. cry more." would this even be an issue anymore? I doubt it.

This I agree with you 100%, this administration has been atrocious in their PR dept.

 

[OrByte]

The timing couldn't be better.

We should all be thanking this congress for putting the breaks on what was a runaway- constitution-demolishing-freight-train of an AG.

Thank you Congress!!!

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Nice strawman. Now back to reality.

I don't believe that the firing of 8 AGs is not in the right of the Exec or will destroy one of the branches.

Eh?

you believe that it is a waste of congress' time to go after a man so corrupt that he is willing and able to destroy the foundation that 1/3 of our government is based on?

Please explain what this means if it isnt implying the destruction of the executive branch?

If you had any critical thinking skills beyond what you are hearing from the right wing pundints and the administration though....you would be able to equate firing 8 because they will not do everything in their power to ensure that you or your party will have a grasp on power to continue doing whatever it is that you want without any real oversight to actually destroying one of the three branches.

I called this media born story bunk well before any right winged pundits or the administration addressed it.

And speaking about critical thinking and listening to what you want to hear. Regurgitating what the NYT's editorial page on a msgboard doesnt make you a critical thinker.

The fact that this administration is blatantly willing to do that after so many other perceived violations to the constitution of this country (all of which were either approved by AG AG or recommended by WH Atty AG) is shocking.

Now, add in the latest news about AG AG from this morning's news:

Ill take the word "percieved" as wishful thinking with little to no substance. Becasue if there was any substance congress would be on it so fast it would make your head spin. Not passing meaningless no confidence votes.

The fact that you still defend this man and this administration is appalling. If it takes a no confidence vote for Bush to finally feel enough pressure to get rid of him, so be it. If Bush is still stupid enough (and we all know that he is) to keep him on even after this, then maybe even more of the ~26% will come around to realizing that this president has no morals or sense and demand change.

Where am I defending Bush on this? I am defending our system which has been fine for the past ~230 years.

As for your article these are political appointments why does this surprise you that they have republican connections?!?!?!?!?!? Go look back to all appointments through every president and Ill bet they all have connections to the party or person who appointed them, I know shocking, a person will appoint somebody they know or like. Welcome to politics 101.

As for Bush's approval rating, one thing I dont understand that hasnt got through liberals thick heads is, Bush doesnt care about those obviously. What does he care if he has a 26% approval rating? The guy isnt running for office anymore and will retire with full benefits.

Once you can get past that silly situation maybe we as a nation can move on as well.

I'll address your responses in chronological order.

1. You do realize that the Judicial is part of those three branches? As much as you like to try to make everything seem like it is only about the executive...a la Cheney and AG himself...the judicial plays just as big of a party. The fact that they are willing to stack the deck WRT career spots with those that are nothing but loyal to them and their ideology will destroy that branch.

2. Did the media really create this story or just uncover it? It would appear that you are absolving the administration of any role in this. I don't think that there would have been a story if it weren't for all of the unethical decisions and shady circumstances that went into the firing and those that were put in as replacements. And for the record, I have never read the NYT editorial pages or any other. I like to form my own opinions based on whatever information I am able to dig up.

3. You should take the word "perceived" as such not based on my wishes or desires.....but because the administration has declared everything short of their shopping lists as a presidential record or a matter of national security. It's kinda hard to make a case stick when those that are being investigated control the information to determine whether or not they have actually done what is "perceived".

4. If you were truly "defending our system" you would be calling for the administration to stop stonewalling every committee that has approached them for information. You would be calling for them to testify under oath instead of "off-the record" with no transcripts allowed.

5. The fact that you believe that others doing wrong makes it fine for someone else to do wrong is truly telling of your character.

6. I know Bush doesn't care about approval ratings. I think that it is for an entirely different reason than you do however. I think that he is too stubborn and stupid to admit that he is ever wrong and thinks that the other ~74% of Americans are the ones that need to wake up. Unfortunately for him....he is as he has always been....wrong again.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Not that it should be ignored; but what will it accomplish.
There is a Seperation of powers; congress can not force Bush to do anything abouit the AG.

Genx87 may be indicating that Congress could better use it's time tackling critical issues rather than looking to score political points.

They can force the AG out, and they should. I think they should immediately impeach Gonzales and that its one of the most important things they could do. I don't know if they would have the votes to convict, but if you look at his testimony and the testimony of others to congress on this matter it is nearly certain that Gonzales deliberately and repeatedly lied under oath to the Senate. If congress lets members of the executive lie to them with impunity, then they will never be able to effectively conduct their constitutionally mandated oversight duties. Gonzo has been caught in the same crap that got Reagan, and got Clinton. Firing attorneys to put in your political cronies is scummy and irresponsible, but not illegal. Just like screwing an intern in the oval office is scummy, but not illegal. Then they lied... and lied... and lied. Then they lied under oath. In Gonzo's case he lied under oath to congress. I cannot see how any reasonable person should not want this man immediately removed from office. The person in charge of enforcing the law has been deliberately breaking the law.

I find it strange that people always call investigating the executive branch "scoring political points". While congress certainly can investigate things for political reasons (what isn't in the end?) you know that congress is supposed to be investigating the executive branch all the time, right? That's oversight.

 

[Genx87]

1. You do realize that the Judicial is part of those three branches? As much as you like to try to make everything seem like it is only about the executive...a la Cheney and AG himself...the judicial plays just as big of a party. The fact that they are willing to stack the deck WRT career spots with those that are nothing but loyal to them and their ideology will destroy that branch.

And again ill say this is what has happened since the ratification of our constitution. Why suddenly is it a big deal when Bush stacks the deck? And you were clearly not talking about the judicial branch on these AG firings as AGs fall under the executive branch. But keep back peddling.

Did the media really create this story or just uncover it? It would appear that you are absolving the administration of any role in this. I don't think that there would have been a story if it weren't for all of the unethical decisions and shady circumstances that went into the firing and those that were put in as replacements. And for the record, I have never read the NYT editorial pages or any other. I like to form my own opinions based on whatever information I am able to dig up.

Yes the media created a story. What would you do if the NYTs ran a story about how terrible it is the congress passed a law yesterday? This is a function of the executive branch, what is the story?

You should take the word "perceived" as such not based on my wishes or desires.....but because the administration has declared everything short of their shopping lists as a presidential record or a matter of national security. It's kinda hard to make a case stick when those that are being investigated control the information to determine whether or not they have actually done what is "perceived".

So you are relying on the Fox Mulder defense. I cant prove it because the shadow govt has covered it up, but more importantly you cant disprove me either.

If you were truly "defending our system" you would be calling for the administration to stop stonewalling every committee that has approached them for information. You would be calling for them to testify under oath instead of "off-the record" with no transcripts allowed.

Seperation of powers, the executive branch come on down and tell the congress who to run their branch? Do they come on down and ask questions on a witch hunt?

They learned from Libby that going under oath about situations from years or months past and not recollecting correctly about a non-crime can land you in jail.

I know Bush doesn't care about approval ratings. I think that it is for an entirely different reason than you do however. I think that he is too stubborn and stupid to admit that he is ever wrong and thinks that the other ~74% of Americans are the ones that need to wake up. Unfortunately for him....he is as he has always been....wrong again.

And he doesnt care so can we move on?

 

[Moonbeam]

There are a number of Republicans with some integrity that want that asshole gone.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Not that it should be ignored; but what will it accomplish.
There is a Separation of powers; congress can not force Bush to do anything about the AG.

Genx87 may be indicating that Congress could better use it's time tackling critical issues rather than looking to score political points.

They can force the AG out, and they should. I think they should immediately impeach Gonzales and that its one of the most important things they could do. I don't know if they would have the votes to convict, but if you look at his testimony and the testimony of others to congress on this matter it is nearly certain that Gonzales deliberately and repeatedly lied under oath to the Senate. If congress lets members of the executive lie to them with impunity, then they will never be able to effectively conduct their constitutionally mandated oversight duties. Gonzo has been caught in the same crap that got Reagan, and got Clinton. Firing attorneys to put in your political cronies is scummy and irresponsible, but not illegal. Just like screwing an intern in the oval office is scummy, but not illegal. Then they lied... and lied... and lied. Then they lied under oath. In Gonzo's case he lied under oath to congress. I cannot see how any reasonable person should not want this man immediately removed from office. The person in charge of enforcing the law has been deliberately breaking the law.

I find it strange that people always call investigating the executive branch "scoring political points". While congress certainly can investigate things for political reasons (what isn't in the end?) you know that congress is supposed to be investigating the executive branch all the time, right? That's oversight.

1) Can the AG be impeached and then forced out by Congress?

2) Why is it that people feel that it is OK that Congress can put the reins on the Executive branch; but when the Executive branch attempts to reciprocate, it is considered to be unfair?

3) Given all the amount of "evidence" that has been flouted around; would you wonder why the Congressional hot heads have not been able to impeach anyone?

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

1) Can the AG be impeached and then forced out by Congress?

I'm pretty sure that he can be impeached.

3) Given all the amount of "evidence" that has been flouted around; would you wonder why the Congressional hot heads have not been able to impeach anyone?

Gonzales used the Hillary defense. it's hard proving that someone's lying about not remembering something (though in this case, if Gonzales really doesn't remember any of it, it really speaks to his total incompetence, imo)

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper


1) Can the AG be impeached and then forced out by Congress?

2) Why is it that people feel that it is OK that Congress can put the reins on the Executive branch; but when the Executive branch attempts to reciprocate, it is considered to be unfair?

3) Given all the amount of "evidence" that has been flouted around; would you wonder why the Congressional hot heads have not been able to impeach anyone?

1.) Yes. Congress can impeach and remove any official that the senate's confirmation is required to appoint, along with all judges, the president, and the vice president. Pretty much congress has the final say on who serves in all branches of the government.

2.) Are you referring to something in particular? Simply put though, the answer to your question is 'because that's how the constitution sets things up'. The executive branch acts, and the legislative branch regulates and oversees it. Reigning in the executive is one of the primary functions of the congress.

3.) Because impeachment is as much a political act as a criminal one. (maybe even more so?) The democrats are probably wary of getting burned in a prolonged impeachment situation like the republicans did back in 1998. They are also not certain that they could get the 2/3rds necessary to convict... as only about 5 or 6 republican senators have come out and called for the AG's resignation.

I wasn't saying that the AG would be successfully convicted if impeached, what I was saying was that if the congress cares about the legitimacy of their institution they should make it abundantly clear to the executive that deliberately lying to them is unacceptable.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

investigate, far easier than to legislate.

look at the bright side, through their idiocy we have a do nothing Congress, hopefully they'll do lots of nothing when it comes to spending increases!