it would not end the contraversy??? What the hell does that mean? The contraversy is him, that he is still on the job after having lied. The contraversy will end if he steps down.

That aside, Gonzales is an executive officer and the supreme court iterprets that to mean that he is under the direct authority of the executive branch, as much as congress may hate him, they cant fire him short of impeaching him. However from the point of vew of the executive having such a weak attorney general cant be good. Maybe Bush is so tired of being wrong so much that he finally decided to dig in on the one thing he still has power over, executive authority, but it only serves to weaken him. How much respect I wonder do the rest of the federal attorneys have for Gonzales? I dont know, but I will bet its not much.

I think when Tom Coburn calls for your resignation, you're rightly fucked.

I had a field day with this one back in January. Just thought I'd refresh everyone's memory on what kind of person you're dealing with before you watch the above clip.

Is it just me, or is there something very "Bush-y" about Gonzales' mannerisms?

I wonder if it's some form of mental disability that manifests as mild psychopathy.

Are none of the congressmen and women involved in these investigations stunned at the incompetency of the upper offices in this administrarion. Since when has "I don't recall" been good enough. They should be sacked for simply saying that.

I liked Arlen Specter's grilling as well.

"I have no recollection/memory... I can't recall"

Can we get our elected and administrative officials on gingko biloba or something? Get them some memory coaching - anything! It's tiring to here the same line since Reagan - Reagan, Clinton, Bush and the Neo-Cons. argh!

Our country needs an enema.

Let 'em eat jellybeans; let 'em eat cake -- let 'em eat shit; whatever it takes...

This is getting unbelievable.

And it's ony April...! This congress is gonna be some good two years! There is so much shit to clean out that they will going to have constant hearings. And they have only gotten to the most recent stuff. Enron, the war, Halliburton - there is still a huge load of work! Just simply impeach them, impeach them all.

If Gonzales resigned, at least the Republicans in the Senate would want to forget about this embarrassing scandal, but I don't think that the Democrats would want to put it behind them and they shouldn't put it behind them. This obviously goes up to Rove and the White House. The AG's boss is Bush, and it wasn't Gonzales who dreamed all this up.

Impeach, I agree. This is far worse than Watergate. This is completely horrifying. Bastards.

impeachment in the constitution is defined as high crimes and misdemeanors, unfortunately there is no c;ear definition what this means, but most constitutional scholars agree that to have an impeachment proceedings you need biparsisan support (ie it cant be purely political). The classical example is Nixon stepping down after a very large block or republicans and all the democrats was getting ready to impeach, and then that contrasted with the purely political impeachment of Clinton where not a single democrat voted for impeachment of Clinton.

I think that as bad as Bush is, it is very unlikely that he will be impeached. While it would take only a majority vote of the house to institute impeachment proceedings, it would take a 2/3 majority to actually convict, and its highly unilkely that republicans (or even democrats) are willing to impeach a president or high highest aides at a time of war. No impeachment will not happen. Perhaps he deserves to be impeached, but it will not happen.

He'll "resign", and bush will "be dissapointed", this is what happens every time in this administration. Do shitty stuff, when it all comes out, follow procedures, stand your ground, say nothing bad happend, take all the blame, and then resign in the end (i'm looking at you Brownie).

This way, they can keep taking rights and such, and get away with it. Al will be fine, he'll go work for some company in Dubai or something.

He'll "resign", and bush will "be dissapointed", this is what happens every time in this administration.

You forgot about the part where Bush pins the medal of freedom on Alberto the liar.

most constitutional scholars agree that to have an impeachment proceedings you need biparsisan support (ie it cant be purely political).

"most constitutional scholars agree that to have an impeachment proceedings you need biparsisan support (ie it cant be purely political)."

Sorry about the previous mis-post.

As a matter of political reality you need bi-partisan support, since even a single party with a 2/3 senate majority would probably have some defectors in many cases. But the impeachment of Andrew Johnson was about as close to purely political as you can get. He was impeached for defying laws governing appointees which laws were likely unconstitutional anyway. The impeachment was little more than Congress throwing its institutional weight around, and Johnson was saved by a single senator.

Today, no it's not possible for Congress to impeach any administration offical who is not clearly and demonstrably a serious criminal. But if Congress acted more like the "first branch", more like a parliament, the president would learn to be much less independent, and Congress might just impeach people in order to keep him in line.

"Impeach, I agree. This is far worse than Watergate. This is completely horrifying. Bastards."

And what does that mean. I mean, there's no real punishment outside losing the job (which is inevitable and imminent in any case) and the massve ego blow. I say put them in prison and fine them. There are aready many FAR less serious crimes that entail harsh punishment.