April 30, 2007
"Remarkable"
Yes, that's one way to put it.
Hard to see how Gonzales survives. His failure to mention this in his Senate testimony may or may not constitute a crime; it depends on precisely what questions he was asked. But it certainly represents an intolerable deception.
I wonder what Goodling is going to say in her testimony? It's inconceivable that she and Sampson really had control over all SES hiring at DoJ; she must have been getting orders directly from the White House. If she seriously implicates Rove, and the Administration sticks by its claim of executive privilege as a bar to his testimony, I'd consider impeaching Rove. No one will be able to argue with a straight face that the President's advisers are Constitutionally immune from impeachment, or that the power to impeach doesn't include the power to compel testimony from the subject of the impeachment.
At this point, I think it's likely that wingnut message discipline is going to break. If Giuliani, for example, continues to defend Gonzales, it's going to start to cost him.
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
