Now it’s getting ugly. Here is a teaser about a story about to break in Time magazine:

Gotta love the quote about Bush’s “adolescent petulance”. Sums him up well.

My daughter commented on my post yesterday and mentioned the canard being used by the “Bushies” vis the US Attorney scandal. Notably that the US Attorneys “serve at the President’s will” so he can hire and fire whenever and whomever he wants. That’s right they do so serve. BUT. When asked what the reason for the firings is no one is supposed to lie to Congress. Lying to Congress is a distinct no no. It’s against the law. Not only that but you aren’t supposed to avoid questions, hide papers, delete e-mails or any other thing that could be construed as obstruction of justice. That’s against the law too. These are very naughty things to do since the Constitutional duty of the Congress is to keep an eye on the Executive [i.e. the President and his appointees] to make sure they are acting in the nation’s interests. If Congress cannot exert oversight the whole concept of checks and balances goes out the window and the country starts to slip into an authortarian mode. America is not a Parliamentary system where the ministers are actually part of the legislating body and thus can be thrown out at any time [there is no question that Bush would have been tossed out by now were he Prime Minister in Britain for instance]. The British Parliamentary system evolved after the American Constitution was written and so the Founding Fathers landed on a different, and somewhat heavy handed alternative, way to stop the nation’s leaders becoming dictators: they made sure that America had several “seats of power” each able to check the other. At its heart that’s what this scandal is all about: Congress is exerting its oversight power and by so doing is turning up a variety of ethically challenged if not downright illegal activities over in the Executive branch.

This is basic civics 101 folks. It’s why good old America is supposed to be the “Land of the Free”!

Now. Bush can fire any of the US Attorneys he wants to. He just can’t do it for purely “political” reasons. He cannot, for instance, fire an Attorney who has not done enough to interfere in an election [Inglesias]; nor can he fire an Attorney who is getting too close to indicting some powerful Republican party figures [Lam]; and it looks distinctly odd that he decided to replace the Arkansas district’s US Attorney with a Karl Rove operative who has little or no legal experience [remember these attoneys are the centerpiece of our legal system] but is a good and experienced muck raker. [Guess which state Hilary Clinton hails from]. When all these firings began to be made public a lot of folks raised their eyebrows: it’s highly unusual for a president to fire any of his US Attorneys mid-term, let alone fire eight of them at once. So folks began to ask questions about why he did it. That’s called oversight.

And that’s when it appears the lying started.

This could get ugly. Too many people have crossed the line: Rove, Gonzales, Domenici, Wilson, Goodling, McNulty, Sampson etc are all trying to avoid testifying openly and honsetly. That only raises the question as to why? If there’s nothing to hide why not go and cooperate with Congress as it goes about its Constitutional duty?

So it’s a distraction to talk simply about the Attorneys “serving at the President’s will”. Obstruction of justice cannot be tolerated in an open and free society. All Leahy and the rest of Congress are trying to do is get at the facts: why were these attorneys fired? That’s all. No big deal.

Or is it?

Anyone who says this is not a big deal does not care about the constitution. It’s as simple as that.

Yes it is a big deal.

Lest anyone out there thinks that nothing is wrong with the Department of Justice take a look at Senator Leahy’s latest letter to Gonzales: The TPM DOCUMENT COLLECTION – Letter from Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales about Upcoming Testimony

For those following the scandal so far, you will recall that only last week Gonzales complained about having to wait until April 17th for a hearing in front of the Judiciary Committee. Turns out he suggested that date himself. What a bozo!

And do I detect a hint of annoyance in Leahy’s tone? He is pointing out that prior requests for information, both to the DoJ and to the FBI have been largely, or totally, ignored. As he concludes: “That is not conducive to effective oversight.”

Precisely. The Bush regime does not like the notion that anyone can question them in any way. They think that they can do anything at anytime to anyone. So they particularly detest pesky Leahy asking all these annoying questions about the firings of those US Attorneys.

They detest it so much that they lie and obfuscate, and when called on their lying at least one of them resorts to taking the 5th [even though her lawyer says she did nothing wrong!].

Well now. If there’s nothing to hide why not just go answer whatever questions leahy has? If there’s no wrongdoing just tell the truth.

That’s eactly what I thought too. These guys have a lot to hide, and the thread runs all the way into the White House. They are beginning to panic as Leahy simply exerts his constitutional rights.

Now that’s a thought! Adhering to the Constitution. Maybe Bush should give it a try!

I can’t stop laughing: one of the more prominent US Attorneys fired during the “purge” now being investigated by Congress was David Inglesias in New Mexico. The truth seems to be that he was kicked out because Senator Domenici and Congresswoman Wilson, both Republicans, complained that he was not doing enough to prosecute Wilson’s Democratic challenger [and Democrats generally] in last year’s election. Apparently Domenici took his complaints directly to George Bush who passed on the problem to Attorney General Gonzales for an apprpriate resolution. Now to fire a US attorney at the urging of a Senator for purely political reasons is decidedly unethical, if not illegal. So the DoJ cooked up another reason: he was an “absentee manager”. This reason looked much better because Inglesias was indeed absent quite a bit over the past two years and his office had to manage without him. They thought they were in the clear!

Not so fast! The reason Inglesias was absent turns out to be that he’s an officer in the Naval Reserve, so he was fulfilling his national service requirement. It is illegal for an employer to fire someone who is absent while on duty in the Reserves becasue of absenteeism. Duh! So now the DoJ is under investigation by the Office of the Special Counsel for illegal firing.

How twisted is that? They are so totally screwed up that even their lies get them into hot water with the law. This is all too funny for words. Bush’s rat’s nest of incompetent idiots is too stupid to pick a lie that is not even more illegal than the truth they are trying to avoid telling in the first place.

On second thoughts this isn’t funny. These bozos are still running the country.

Gonzales is a jackass of the first order. Let’s hope there is someone at the DoJ who can pick up the pieces and get our legal system in order before the damage is permanent.

This is so much fun. Monica Goodling, who is at the center of the Senate’s investigation of the US Attorney purge publicly stated [through her own lawyer] that she would invoke the 5th amendment if asked questions by the Judiciary Committee. The speculation has been rife ever since about what it is she would prefer not to say since the only reason anyone can invoke their 5th amendment rights is to prevent prosecution for perjury with respect to prior statements. Goodling’s attorney seems to have been fishing for an offer of immunity. But my new hero Patrick Leahy isn’t having any of it. Instead he has sent this nice letter to Ms Goodling’s lawyer: The TPM DOCUMENT COLLECTION – Letter from Senators Leahy and Whitehouse of the Judiciary Committee to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales

How delicious is that!

We have entered new consitutional territory: Leahy says he’d normally seek advice from the Justice Department about how to proceed against soemone invoking the 5th, but in this instance he notes: “The office of the Attorney General appears to hopelessly conflicted.” He then wonder whether Goodling is cooperating with the Attorney general’s internal investigation [that Gonzales started in an attempt to appease Leahy et al], because if she is she has probably compromised her 5th amendment rights.

There’s a big “gotcha!” there.

But there’s more: Leahy also points out his concern that despite Goodling’s lack of cooperation with the Senate she remains on the DoJ payroll.

That’s another “gotcha!”

As I said this is fun. I had never heard of Goodling before this scandal, but what I have subsequently found out really ticks me off: she has no legal experience, she is a ideologue, she is in a position of huge influence, and she is a religious zealot. Strange that someone reportedly so devout and pious doesn’t want to do something simple like help the legal process get at the truth.

But it gets even better!

The House committee is on her trail too! They sent a letter today asking that she appear before them. This is where you can read their letter: House Democrats Letter to Goodling’s Lawyer. The best part of this is the following: “The alleged concern that she may be prosecuted for perjury by the Department of Justice for fully truthful testimony is not only an unjustified basis for invoking the privilege and without reasonable foundation in this case but also so far as we know an unwarranted aspersion against her employer.”

That’s called putting the knife in.

Maybe she is worried about talking because she’s been told they’ll prosecute her if she does?

Hold on people this one’s big, and it’s getting better.