digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Alberto Gonzales impeachment inquiry to be introduced tomorrow.

thinkprogress.org — Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) is introducing legislation that would require the House Judiciary Committee and the House of Representatives to begin an impeachment investigation into Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, in the wake of his damaging testimony last week.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • JCSaint, on 10/10/2007, -8/+37I doubt it'll go through. But we can still hope.
    • zybch, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3My uncle had a dick, but when I think about it I have these blackouts.
    • TheTaoOfBill, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Isn't it funny how the congress has time to impeach Gonzales but not Bush or Cheney.
      • Pfhreak, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1It's not a matter of time, it's a matter of their being enough (public) evidence of corruption for their to be a realistic chance that at least 17 Republican Senators will buck their own party to vote to remove him from office. The only member of the Senate Judiciary Committee that still seems friendly to Gonzo is Hatch, but there's still plenty of Republican Senators still backing Bush and Cheney.
        • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Dugg down for your idiotic misuse of the word "their."
    • phlux, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Here is my submission to Nancy Pelosi through her contact form located here: http://speaker.gov/contact/


      "Rep. Pelosi (and staff)

      According to this article:

      http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/30/inslee-to-introduce-gonzales-impeachment-tomorrow/

      Alberto Gonzales will be sought after in an impeachment case.

      Mrs. Pelosi, If you do not support this action, I and others of the community whom you claim to represent will come to your office in person and demand your personal resignation as you will have failed us.

      Just as you failed the American people with your support of war profiteering by the Bechtel corporation among others.

      This country is out of hand right now, and in case you are too blind to realize it; the American people are now standing up and holding you and all other so-called representatives personally responsible. This, in fact, is the meaning of representation. A concept which appears to be lost upon you and all your colleagues in Congress.

      The time to act is now. Please do the right thing and stand up for what was once a free nation.

      I expect a response, in action.

      Sincerely,

      A concerned citizen.

      Phlux (real name goes here)"
  • otheruser, on 10/10/2007, -5/+46Actually, it has a pretty strong chance of going through.

    There's a great deal of bipartisan support for Gonzales's removal.
    • moin1097, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6They aren't talking about removal. They're talking about TALKING about removal.
      In other words, they're jerking you off-AGAIN.
  • janeuner, on 10/10/2007, -3/+33Can such an impeachment inquiry be hindered by Executive Privledge? Please link references!
    • Rsardinia, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5exactly what I was thinking. Can executive privilege stop this from happening?
      • ForkySpoony, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Not by the constitution I think. I think it rather clearly states that the executive branch could not interfere with an impeachment, at least by the presidential pardon clause.
        "and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."
        • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9Well we all know what ***** good the Constitution does us with this administration in office...
        • JB449, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1The what?
      • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3It could be hindered, but not outright blocked.

        Besides, claiming executive privilege could work against the Administration.
    • art42, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9The inquiry cannot be stopped, but the WH will at least try to use EP to hinder witness testimony. Look at how it's been used so far.
      The WH will probably do everything in it's power to hinder the iinquest.
      • jroyale, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2No doubt... but the normal rules of trial don't have to apply either... there is no constitutional protection for the defendant. I mean, he can take the fifth to protect himself against future criminal prosecution, but Congress can simply use that against him during his impeachment. Same with everything else. Congress gets to be judge, jury and executioner and can convict him for the high crime of being a runny nose puke if have the votes. And there is nothing that the Executive Branch or the Judicial Branch can do, there are no appeals or reappointments. Gonzales clearly serves at the pleasure of the Congress and if they've got the votes, he's gone for good.The only feedback against this tremendous power is that of the voters. If Congress goes too far, the people will let them know via the ballot box.

        Now I suspect that there are a lot of wingnuts out there really concerned that Gonzales gets a "fair" trial. But impeachment doesn't work like that. Just like Bush can fire any US Attorney for any reason, fair or not, Congress, if they have the votes, can do the same.

        Tho' I also suspect that the Dems will give Gonzo a very fair trial and they no reason not to. Gonzo clearly lied and clearly is unfit to be AG.
        • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Gonzales clearly serves at the pleasure of the Congress and if they've got the votes, he's gone for good.The only feedback against this tremendous power is that of the voters.

          The important other angle is that they approve or reject his replacement, but cannot choose.
    • EntropyMan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+35According to the Founding Fathers (Madison especially), a President who protects an underling from impeachment (or other criminal prosecution) becomes immediately impeachable. The logic is simple. If a President could ask an underling to break the law on his behalf and then pardon him or protect him, there would be no accountability and no point of having an impeachment clause at all.

      If the President protects Gonzales from the ramifications of his perjury, it's as if the President committed the perjury.

      I say: bring it on.

      References? From the FP: http://www.digg.com/politics/Flashback_to_1974_Constitutional_Grounds_for_Impeachment
      • spucky, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1Hey Kevin Rose, give me the power to digg 10 times (or do it yourself). I won't use the power for evil. I promise...
  • queso74, on 10/10/2007, -5/+26LONG overdue!
  • Malarie, on 10/10/2007, -4/+63Congratulations Guys,

    -Canadian
  • johnlandes, on 10/10/2007, -4/+54Any dem who votes against this should be turfed
    • spyd3rweb, on 10/10/2007, -1/+32anyone that votes against it should be turfed.
    • Ajajadude, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18How about ANYBODY who votes against this should be deported. To deep space.
      • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Tsk tsk, let us not lower ourselves to their level unless it means significant advances in space technology.
        • Tippis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1...they'd make a nice ICBM shield -- that's kind of close to a significant spacetech advance, right?
    • kamilmarkowicz, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4ANYONE who votes against it should be...
    • UtopiaInTheSky, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Which means the impeachment will succeed.
    • PopcornDave, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2How about just turfing them all? Start fresh and maybe things will be better.
  • shawnfassett, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15Doing WA proud (Cantwell I'm shaking my finger at you!!!)
    • ktchpmn, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1yeah seriously. she needs to pick up some slack. at least patty murray isn't letting us down
  • Stevanoski, on 10/10/2007, -34/+3Demoncrazi's hate minorities who are powerful, good lesson for any minorities out there.
    • Ajajadude, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7For the love of...don't you have any different material?

      And are you so partisan that you can't see how badly Gonzo is serving this country?

      I got it, just pretend Gonzo was a Democrat for a moment, look at everything he's done (and not done), and then realize you're an idiot.
    • art42, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4What's that make the Republicans and Independents that support it?
    • spucky, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2You have a very fascinating mindset. I would like to write a paper on how you manage to get by throughout the day.

      Can I have a sample of your brain?
  • MarkusGarvey, on 10/10/2007, -5/+141 down....2 to go>>>>
  • link5280, on 10/10/2007, -6/+5He has repeatably lied to congress and been contradicted by others testimony. It should be a slam dunk case, unfortunately congress has lost its since of duty a long time ago. Nothing will happen to Gonzales.
    • mwolfzorn, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Note: the US Govt no longer believes in the phrase "Slam Dunk" ask Mr. George Tenet and the CIA.
      • link5280, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Yea, poor choice of words on my part. How about this... Its obvious he lied, even a third grader could demonstrate the inconsistencies with his testimony.
        • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1No, a poor choice of words would be using the word "since" instead of "sense," you ***** moron.

          Thanks for showing the world how dumb the average American is.
  • aaronjgoodrich, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3And it won't happen. This administration won't allow it.

    You don't get it...

    You gotta vote the son's of hoar's OUT OF OFFICE!

    Impeachment just adds to the confusion.

    Start a vote.That's how you get them ALL removed.
  • Stevanoski, on 10/10/2007, -22/+6 The party that didn't care about Bill Clinton's perjury is now up in arms over Alberto Gonzales, who did not perjure himself. Wallace asked Feingold if he has any evidence, and the senator had to admit that he has zip, zero, nada.
    • ejm508, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11b-b-b-but clinton???!!1!!!1

      Seriously, shut up, Clinton has been out of office for 7 years
      • Me1000, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Lets not forget it was all over a BJ!
        and dont give me the "he lied about it" crap, because he should of NEVER been put in the position to lie about it!
        What happens in a man's bedroom has no business in court, as long as both parties consent!
        • moin1097, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5It's klintoons fault he lied. It's.....who again?
        • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7"HAVE," THE ***** WORD IS "HAVE." IF I READ ONE MORE GODDAMN RETARD WRITE THE WORDS "SHOULD OF," I SWEAR I'M GOING TO START KILLING PEOPLE.

          If you want to type like you speak, at least use the goddamn contraction "should've" lest the entire world think you're a complete ***** moron.
          • Plinkotic, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Thank you. It's not a big deal to everyone, but lately I've been noticing people use that phrasing a lot, and... wow. It takes restraint to not shout at someone right there.

            "THE ***** IS WRONG WITH YOU? WERE YOU HOMESCHOOLED BY CLETUS SPUCKLER?!"
            /'I teach the big'uns, the big'uns teach the little'uns, but no one taught me which makes it an exercise in futility."
          • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5The only reason it bothers me so much is that I know people are getting stupider as I get older and they type that way, not out of laziness, but because they think that's what is actually coming out of people's mouths. And they are too stupid to realize how retardedly nonsensical "should of" is.
        • bufmike, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2no, it was over sexual harassment in the workplace, or did you convieniently forget???
        • Me1000, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2^ did you forget sex 101?
          it take 2 people!
          both were willing...

          no harassment at all!
          it was a cheap stab at his personal life!
      • soot, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3He did perjure himself. I don't know what you're talking about.
        • jroyale, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Technically, Clinton didn't perjure himself and he certainly wasn't convicted of such a crime. That's what the whole "depends on the what the meaning of 'is' is", was about. It was a weasel move on his part and I condemn him for trying to skate by by being slick.
    • mikelieman, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12Gonzales said that he misspoke when he said at a press conference in June that he and former deputy attorney general James Comey were referring to the same warrantless wiretapping program.

      “I clarified my statement two days later with the reporter,” Gonzales told Schumer.

      “What did you say to the reporter?” Schumer asked.

      “I did not speak directly to the reporter,” replied Gonzales.

      “Ok,” Schumer continued, “what did your spokesperson say to the reporter?”

      “I don’t know,” offered Gonzales lamely.
  • Stevanoski, on 10/10/2007, -14/+2The Breck Girl had a meltdown on the campaign trail. He thinks he's been Swift-boated with all the attention paid to haircuts. And the "true story" from Esquire on how John Edwards discovered Elizabeth's recurrence of cancer. It's something we don't need to know.

    falls under catagory: rough sex
  • Hegemon05, on 10/10/2007, -10/+11Good lord, all these troglodytes think about is impeachment...it would nice if Democrats maybe did something like...oh I don't know...legislate.
    • bufmike, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2yeah that would be nice!!
    • Darel99, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3HI Hegemon,

      As a gop member I must say I'm sick of the left/right issues... Aren't you? I sure am! We need to focus on the issues.... Did you watch the first heariings where he never gave a firm answer and said I don't recall, I don't recall over and over?

      Lets face it Alberto is a lier and he has done our party great harm. May you and I and others from the GOP face the facts and help convicit others who do our nation harm? I have expressed my support with my congresman here in Va and think it's in our best interst to impeach alberto and cheney.... I doubt you voted for the neocon plans and neither did i.
    • koko775, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2In other words, you'd rather Democrats introduce legislation and fail because of deadlock or filibuster than to hold corrupt officials accountable?

      Allow me to frame this in a way you might understand. Albert Gonzales, as AG of the United States, is supposed to be impartial, but is figuratively "sucking Bush's *****" - he's clearly under Bush's political command rather than acting independently. Does that help? Think he should be impeached now?
  • chicoer2001, on 10/10/2007, -6/+15Republicans have a tradition is lying before Congress. Look at Oliver North. He's even on Fox now.
    • link5280, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4A traitor rewarded!
    • mikelieman, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3You misspelled A'li North.

    • eclectro, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Yes. but unlike Oli' North, Gonzales does not have a uniform he can wear to the hearings. Very unpatriotic if you are stuck with a suit.
      Maybe he can cut a deal and bring down Cheney. In which case I'd let him go scott free.
  • byrdgang, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1Really, what are the chances he'll be impeached? Let's be realistic. The people who try to impeach him will be dismissed as far-left radicals. (By the way, this is coming from a conservative!).
    • jroyale, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4He will be impeached by the House as all that is needed is a majority votes and the Dems have the votes. Will he be convicted in the Senate? Hard to say. Conviction requires a 2/3 votes, so 17 Republicans Senators would have to vote to convict. Of course, if they don't vote to convict, they've clearly tied themselves to BushCo and I suspect those 22 up for reelection in 2008 might really suffer for it.
  • Me1000, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3GOD DAMNIT!
    what happen to bush?

    • HippyInASuit, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4I don't understand these people who think Bush has changed. I think they're trying to convince themselves that they didn't vote for the worst President in American history... twice. The truth of the matter is that they certainly did, at least once. The funny thing is they voted him in the second time after he stole the first election, allowed 9/11 to happen despite a mountain in intelligence information. If you voted for Bush you did the country a disservice, deal with it.
      • Me1000, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2I am disgusted that you think I voted for bush! AT ALL!

        I have never voted for that pig!
      • HippyInASuit, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Sorry I made that assumption incorrectly. My beliefs about Bush supporters (former or current) still stand, but I'm glad to hear you didn't vote for him.
    • AnimZero, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1At least this is a start, Me1000.
  • MercedRocks, on 10/10/2007, -12/+3Just lame. While Rome burns these idiot have a hard on for Gonzales. No matter who that idiot Bush picks the DEMs will hate him, and in the meantime our prisons are overfilled, the inner cities burn, educational system is crumbling, and prescription drug prices soar.

    How about focusing on improving the infrastructure with which to increase the production capacity of armored Humvees and ammunition in this country congressman?

    I guess Gonzalez is an easier target. Oh well, Im sure we can wait and let the real problems fester while you get him Rep. Islee.
    • zeebo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I didn't see the republicans doing much to address those problems when they were in power. Even the part about increasing production of armored humvees.

      If you really want anything to change, you'll vote for the party that will fix the prison overcrowding problem with amnesty and legalization for non-violent drug offenders, remove the draconian federal 'no child left behind' rules, and open up the medication market to actual market forces for a change.

      As for inner cities burning, I don't really recall much of that happening recently, however taking the drug market away from gangs, and allowing companies to create opportunities here instead of in Mexico or China would also be a healthy step.
      • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1zeebo: ***** you, idiot. If you had any clue, you wouldn't ask people to vote for "a party." Bipartisan politics is 90% of the nations problems. "Voting for a party" will not fix anything. OUR COUNTRY'S PROBLEMS ARE NOT A MATTER OF REPUBLICAN VERSUS DEMOCRAT, and until you ***** moron voters figure this out, we're all going to continue suffering for it. ***** you and everyone like you for thinking that a party is a solution to our problems.
  • cha5e, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6I'm very much for Gonzales being impeached, but I'm afraid that if that happens, congress will think the people's appetite for impeachment has been whetted, and then won't go after the bigger fish, who frankly deserve impeachment much more. And frankly, if we can only have one of these guys impeached, it should be Cheney.
    • HippyInASuit, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2It is our job as citizens to make sure congress understands this is just an appetizer, not the main course. Write and call your representatives and senators. We need to make sure the historic record shows that this kind of crap doesn't fly in America and try to save some face with the rest of the world.
      • moin1097, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Read this slowly so that you understand what I'm saying.
        ***** the rest of the world.
        They owe us far too much for us to care what they have to say. If it weren't for the US they would still be eating their own children.
        If this is too much for you to handle, then go live with the "rest of the world".
        And before you start with your unearned smug, pompous attitudes, I have been around the world 7 times. And the one thing that stands out is that the majority of it smells like piss.
        • Chester12, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Oh, I don't know where to begin in breaking down the nonsense I just read. For now let me just say Pics or it never happened.
  • moin1097, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2Are the dems going to ever start doing the peoples work? There are plenty of important things that need to be done that take priority over witch hunts. And that's just what it is, a witch hunt. Only the most stupid of our society would see it otherwise.
    • soot, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4A witch hunt! Political theater! A partisan fishing expedition!
      • moin1097, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Maybe they need a hunting trip. And they can invite (do I really have to say it?)
  • HanSolo69, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5And by the time they get around to doing anything we'll either all be dead, under complete martial law, or onto a new administration. This is coming way too late.
    • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1It's never too late for the people to take back their country. Hell, if we have to, we'll fight for our independence all over again. Send Congress a message that NO American is above the law.
  • joshua5, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I understand its hopeless telling Digg users not to jump to conclusions, but don't get your hopes up. Its taken this long to get legislation introduced to investigate whether theres grounds for impeachment. Key words are "introduced" and "investigate". This is not legislation to impeach him, and still has to make it to a vote. If it passes then there will have to be a long and drawn out investigation. THEN the whole process will need to be followed again for the actual impeachment. Plus this comes on the heels of the controversy which will no doubt simmer down after Congress takes its August recess.

    So yeah, don't get your hopes up.
  • skyscape, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5lol. This has become a great circus.
    I mean seriously are you people nuts. You haven't impeached one person, yet your impeachment list is pilling up like you've done something wonderful for america. You've done nothing, the only thing you've done is blown a lot of smoke.
    • Darel99, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Well,

      It appears your on the outside looking in.... Why don't we as GOP members support the plans to impeach cheney and alberto. We know they have commited crimes far greater then clinton every did... But most are stuck in our little camps left/ right and that is just making me sick. We have to put aside our party bitching and just do what is right....

      When the people have a fair and just leader the people rejoice.... How long has it been since the people rallied behind a leader? I can think of two times... JFK, Regan and hopefully Ron Paul
      • lordchronos, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2naw hes not on the outside looking in..the kids on this forum are very lame with their calls for Impeachment..you have to remember that about a third are from foreign countries..many of them arab..about half aren't even old enough to vote and the rest of the leftists on Digg are just idiots.
        all this talk of impeachment is *****.
        bunch of sky is falling crap about marshal law..9-11 trufers code pink lesbians all posting to this site make it seem as though they have strength in numbers while in reality they are the very fringe of the left.
        you will see in the next election ..the dems will win and then once the celebratory masturbation is over the kids will realize that nothing has changed except their taxes have gone up
  • xxdesmus, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Start with this small time douche bag, and work your way up ... next Cheney....then captain ***** himself.
  • Nodaki, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4You seriously think it is a witch hunt?...wake up it is a traitor hunt. This administration (and nearly every agency within it) in 7 long painful years has ***** this country (plenty of examples posted above) for perhaps generations to follow. We are despised now and finally for a good reason. He is living breathing proof to all the Anti-American types throughout the world that the majority of Americans truly are ignorant for electing him not once but twice. We handed over our freedoms to the terroists on 9/11 and not the ones who believe in ***** allah and his pedophile prophet. Everything has been a ***** buzzkill since that day. There is no such thing as good news anymore...all of it is a ***** bummer. Verily this administration has made every single connected being on this planet bummed out for the last 5 years. Traitor indeed.
    • moin1097, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2No, it's a witch hunt. You'd have to be completely brain dead not to see it.
      Oh, I forgot.
      • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Talk about brain dead!

        Hello, pot? This is kettle. You're black! And a total ***** moron!
  • Bcodms, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3There are multiple programs that spy on the United States citizens within the Justice Department, including the use of the FBI, local law enforcement, and even the use of allies like the Aussies and Brits who will gladly use US technical assets to perform eavesdropping activities with a wink and a nod. He should be dragged back in to testify about the legality of each and every program that involves surveillance of U.S citizens, from those programs within the FBI that outsource the technical collection to companies like Choicepoint to even those that obtain intelligence product from allies. There is little doubt that what government officials have done was at one time illegal, if they are not still illegal- in the case of domestic spying. No doubt the firing of Carol Lam was to cover up and prevent the disclosure for further misconduct by high level officials. The question is will the Congress enforce the laws? I agree with the previous post this is a traitor hunt.
  • pixelguru, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Dammit, the Democrats have to do something and impeaching Bush or Cheney would do little but install an incumbent Neocon in the Whitehouse ahead of 2008. Gonzales is low-hanging fruit, so knock the lying sack of crap off and keep working up the branches. By 2008, leave nobody in office but Bush and Cheney, then put them on trial for their crimes the moment they leave office.
    • moin1097, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2"We must have our revenge." New motto of the demonazi party.
      • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You think you're clever because you combined the words "democrat" and "nazi." But the joke is on you, because you fail to understand that the neocon agenda is much closer to facism than the neoliberal democrat ideals.
  • honkyman5000, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1The height of optimism.
  • TheSkinsFactory, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Got to start somewhere. Now guys just work your way up and don't stop until you get to the top.
  • MindTrigger, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2What does he care? Bushco will make sure that he is set up for life, since he's kept his mouth shut. Your tax dollars at work :)
  • Stemer, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2From Wallace - Feingold interview:

    WALLACE: ....Senator, so far, Congress has been investigating this issue all year. You've heard from 14 witnesses. You've received 8,500 pages of documents. Can you point to a single smoking gun, any hard evidence, that the White House has done anything illegal?

    FEINGOLD: I think clearly with regard to the NSA surveillance program that we've been talking about...

    WALLACE: No, no, I'm talking about the U.S. attorneys, sir.

    FEINGOLD: Well, I believe they probably have. I can't give you anything definitive on that, but I do believe there's been terrible misconduct and misleading approaches here.

    In other words...Evidence??? We don't need no stinkin evidence!!!!
    • moin1097, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Careful now. The truth hurts liberals and other socialists.
    • link5280, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Obstruction makes evidence collection difficult.
    • diggbot7, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Why do morons like you exist? The entire point is to get evidence - this is why the full disclosure of Gonzales and the rest is required.

      BTW the "off the record" access the white house has been offerring does not count as evidence either. Which is precisely why it is being offered. Idiot.
      • Stemer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Typical liberal reply...when you can't think of anything intelligent to say..just name call.
        Have a nice day!
  • Jmuduke, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Look at them trying to downplay this. The majority of Americans want him out, then VP, then Prez. There's ample evidence of his guilt and they caught him in a lie. He's going down.
    • Darel99, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3As a member of the GOP I do agree!
    • moin1097, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2What majority would that be?
      If you're going to tout his 34% approval remember, congress has a 14% approval. Shouldn't they go first?
    • link5280, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You mean lies!
  • Darel99, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4As a member of the GOP.... I do support the impeachment of Alerto Gonzales and if possible attahced with a very long prison sentance for lies and railroading our border agents. Alberto Gonzales is nothing more then a bad dream supported by another bad dream... Bush. As a member of the GOP our party was highjaked by teh neocon agrenda.... However, I have noted even left sided support of the neocon agrenda. It almost appears both parties are bought and paid for by big companies, etc.
    • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Amen. The real goal that is shared among neocons and neoliberals is globalization. The entire two-party system is against the wishes of the American people. Real conservative Republicans want nothing to do with Bush... and I say this because I am one. Let's return to the real, conservative ideals of the Republican party, along with a healthy dose of the classic liberal ideals that founded our great nation! Our freedom is what matters most!
  • draebor, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Isn't there some way we can just remove everybody Bush put into office? Isn't there a Load Saved Game button somewhere?
  • moin1097, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1Let's face the facts. The democrats do not like any minority that isn't beholden to the government by some form of social assistance. That's why they attack Hispanics (Gonzalez) and blacks (Rice)that become successful.
    You would prefer them all on welfare. Don't try to deny it. You know it's the truth.
    • Chester12, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Way to go calling the democrats racist. Might you be voting for John McCain in 2008? Need I remind you that they also attack the Vice President, President, and so forth (last time I checked were white, no?). At this point in the game, they're all crooked. A Wasp business man could hold the position and he'd still get attacked. The bigger picture is of an administration that is corrupt.
  • Chester12, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Best Gonzales blunder during the whole border security debate - 'Wolf: "Were your grand parents illegal immigrants?" Gonzales: "You know, it's unclear." '
  • loutang82, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3It's too bad... Bush'll just pardon him anyways
  • TexasScott, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I don't believe they have a right to tap a phone line across state lines, or otherwise, without a search warrant. If removing him is what it takes to teach a lesson on violating the peoples' rights and the constitution; so be it. Although this is a broken record, it certainly undermines our founding fathers. How is this any different than the writs of assistance issued by the British in the colonial era?
  • moin1097, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2What's a day like over at thinkprogress?
    "OH God, Mmmm Yea, Ahhh, Oh God, Ah, Ah, Ah, IMPEACHMENT!!!! Wait right there, Billy. I'll get you a towel."
  • HencheMann, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2IMPEACH ALL OF THOSE LOSERS!
  • xlar54, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1First it was impeach Bush! That didnt pan out. Then it was impeach Cheney! Nada. Now its impeach Gonzales! Pretty soon we will be trying to run off the chauffeur.

    Im just happy when I can change the channel if he's on the tube.
  • CallMeOrlando, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Here's your real impeachers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hov3Nv1lb2A
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.