This will not stop Leahy. The Dems will subpoena her anyway. If they get her on the stand and she asserts her right not to self-inciminate, they will be able to use that soundbite to bring down Gonzales in the political battle to come.

Stay Tuned

RR

So, the same justice system that she administers for everyone else shouldn’t be applied to her? I don’t see you crying in your beer over Bud Cummins, Carol Lam or John McKay, marlowe! What of their stalled careers , financial ruin and wrecked lives? Is it now permissable to worry more about the wrongdoer than the innocent people who were smeared without justification because of Monica and friends?????

The firings came straight out of the blue, they were given no reason, even though they were ranked at the top in prosecutions. They played the game the way it is supposed to be played- the way we raise our kids to play it- like straight arrows. They are the ones I feel badly for, and for the future of our justice system. How many USA’s are going to take from this that they should prosecute more vigorously than they judge is warranted so as not to piss off some bigwig in their party???

Your deflection was weak, and carries no water when it concerns the law in this country, so shut up with the sad excuses, and deflection tactics that a growing portion of the GOP won’t even try to use.

Pitiful

Maybe in a show of good faith, Shumer should recuse himself from the hearings. Or maybe we need another bipartisan commission of old codgers to show us the way back to integrity. What are Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton doing this spring???

For that reaston, especially, I hope the Senate hearings lead to a clarification of what iare acceptable and unacceptable reasons for firing the prosecutors. Also, for that reason, I hope the Dems don’t politicize it, but use this as a guidepost for all future administrations.

It’s kind of shocking to think that we should be asking these questions at this late date in our history.

For that matter, it’s not at all clear where the president’s right to appoint department heads cross over into making all arms of the governement into arms of the president’s party.

I’d like to see some guidelines that both parties have to adhere to.
Bit, I’m living in dreamland, no?

Ralph Reed…

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ralph+reed+lobbyist

I see it as a separation of powers issue- Congress needs to fight back against the “Unitary Executive” who has repeatedly shown his disdain for its powers. Also, we should all, whether liberal or conservative, want to avoid the use of Justice to hunt down political enemies- that just increases partisanship unnecessarily. It also makes us more like the banana republics that we rightfully abhor. Wouldn’t we risk encouraging a rash of political corruption by the party in power if it no longer fears prosecution because of political ties? What would it have been like if the GOP had retained their majority? I think this winner take all mentality is really dangerous.

With so many things going wrong, I just wish we could address what the wrong-no-matter-who-does-it yardstick is.

You are right, of course. I shouldn’t let myself get caught up in these inane arguments. But I do, as point of fact, see a huge difference-one was a one time lapse of judgment-the other a systemic attempt to capitalize on a little known clause in the Patriot Act, and use the DOJ as a political arm of this WH. No one accused Carter or Clinton of anything like that. Ms. Goodling’s decision only makes it appear that there is a lot more to this than we know about. I certainly am not aware of any precedent for trying to put in loyalists who will put the narrow and partisan interests of the president ahead of their duties to be impartial under the law.

I’ll just wait patiently and see what develops.

We are here, in a mess abroad and at home.
I’m not sure what all will come out in the investigation of the DOJ firings, but I have every intention of evaluating the results on their own merits, not on the basis of G. Washington’s politics.

We are all accountable for our actions and words, more so if we hold a position of public trust. The one agency that should never have been politicized was DOJ. Goodling knew what she was doing, and if she didn’t agree with it, could have resigned. Since we do live by rule of law, those that we trust to administer that law should be above reproach, and not try to circumvent it when held accountable. The USA’s were upholding their oath of office as it was intended to function—political interference with that is unjustified, as is lying about the motivation afterwards. You can’t commit an offense for political reasons and then refuse to testify because those holding the hearing are “overly political”. The Senate is still basically 50-50- even though they hold subppoena power, so Goodling would not be overwhelmed by political opponents of Bush.

BTW, lying to Congress is not a political offense, but an actual crime punishable by 5 years in jail. I see no reason for Congress to withhold its oversight role, just because this person doesn’t have Libby’s resources. It seems pretty obvious she has something to hide- or why take the extended leave?