Exclusive Interview with Fired Attorney David Iglesias

not here, but on My Left Wing, courtesy of my good friend and talented activist Shockwave. He managed to get a one-on-one exclusive interview with David Iglesias, the New Mexico attorney who was dispatched by our amnesiac attorney general Gonzales.

Jeff Huber also has a teaser diary up on Daily Kos.

Good stuff--head over and read it.

Markos sez...

Markos Moulitsas, proprietor of Daily Kos, has not exactly been a big proponent of impeachment. He has, in fact, stood against impeachment for over a year now even as most of his community has clamored and screamed for it. I myself jumped on the impeachment bandwagon a few months back in the face of Bush's belligerence on signing statements. Markos, however, has stood firm--even though it meant alienating much of his community, thereby endangering his livelihood.

So you know we've started to reach a tipping point when, in reaction to the mid-November to early-December gap in DOJ communication records reported by Politico, you see this from the big man himself:

The Bush Administration is working overtime to make this attorney scandal look more and more like Watergate by the day...Expect the phrases "constitutional crisis", "impeachment", and "inherent contempt" to start making the rounds.

Some of the last and most significant progressive holdouts against impeachment are falling by the wayside in the face of Bush's sheer brazenness and outright corruption. Watch for the political conservation in this country to turn ugly very quickly.

There is an epic battle on the horizon, and it's coming with greater haste than most realize.

Impeachment on a Silver Platter--No Strings Attached!

What an extraordinary gift Bush has given the Democratic Party and the American People. For months if not years, Democrats and Progressives have wrung our hands and beaten our heads against the wall: should we move to impeach? Whom, exactly, should we impeach? How can we do it? On what grounds? Will the American people stand with us, or against us? Above all, how can we do it without making Republicans look like the victims of a partisan witch hunt?

These have been vexing questions: practical considerations of politics and process have hampered the morally imperative drive to hold this Administration accountable. Simply submitting articles of impeachment for crimes and scandals would, unfortunately, stink of partisan witchhunts. As I argued in my Dragged Against my Will... post, it would take a Constitutional Crisis of epic proportions (such as I originally envision signing statements being) to make impeachment proceedings a feasible reality. It would have to be not just a question of accountability or morality, but of the very future of the Legislative Branch as a government entity co-equal in standing with that of the Executive.

Thankfully for Democrats, the American People and the United States Constitution, George Bush's recalcitrance, petulance, and extraordinary loyalty to his corrupt cronies have already answered all those vexing questions for us. Rather than our bringing the confrontation to him, George Bush is bringing the confrontation of Constitutional crisis to us.

As anyone who has been paying attention knows from Bush's petulant press conference today, the Administration is doing no less than inviting upon themselves a governmental power struggle unseen since the days of Abraham Lincoln and his unilateral suspension of habeas corpus. The key quote is here:

The initial response by Democrats, unfortunately, shows some appear more interested in scoring political points than in learning the facts. It will be regrettable if they choose to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas and demanding show trials when I have agreed to make key White House officials and documents available. I have proposed a reasonable way to avoid an impasse. I hope they don't choose confrontation. I will oppose any attempts to subpoena White House officials.

What Bush wants, of course, is the right to have his aides lie through their teeth in private, un-recorded sessions with no transcripts (i.e., no accountability). Elsewise, what could possibly be the difference between testifying under oath and testifying privately? As the conservatives so often say, "if you've got nothing to hide, what are you afraid of?"

He can't afford to have his aides tell the truth under oath, because then his whole staff--from Rove to Miers to Gonzales to many others--would fall. And that's just on the Justice Department firings business alone. But as Kagro X so effectively points out, this business goes far beyond the attorney scandal:

Realize that the resolution of this stand-off will determine the extent to which the Congress is able to investigate everything that's still on their plate. If they lose this showdown, they lose their leverage in investigating NSA spying, the DeLay/Abramoff-financed Texas redistricting, Cheney's Energy Task Force, the political manipulation of science, the Plame outing... everything.

And that's why Bush is playing it this way. Remember, too, that his "administration" is populated by Watergate and Iran-Contra recidivists, chief among them Dick Cheney, who has wanted to relitigate the boundaries of executive power since forever. Cheney and others on the inside believe that this time, with a friendlier judiciary, these issues can be decided the "right" way, overturning the victories won against Richard Nixon's insane theories of executive power.

Their thinking is that they'll either win it in courts, or run out the clock trying.

And the day they get five Justices to say they're right, everything you thought you knew about checks and balances becomes wrong.

There is, of course, another option: the highest court in the land--even above the Supreme Court. That court is the U.S. Congress--the final recourse for the American People to wrangle and hold accountable an out-of-control president. If the President refuses to obey subpoenas; if the attorneys in their back pockets refuse to prosecute; and the courts they have stacked refuse to convict--then impeachment is the final and ONLY recourse for justice.

It must be remembered here that BushCo always had two options in dealing with all these issues--even after perpetrating their crimes on the American people: they could
1) take the money and power, run, claim executive privilege and plausible deniability, let their subordinates take the fall, and slink out of office in 2009 as the most scandal-ridden and inept administration in history; or
2) choose to officially turn the American constitutional republic into a quasi-dictatorship by refusing to give ground and fundamentally altering the balance of power between the Executive and Legislative branches.

The first option would have harmed the Republican party for a while--but also allowed them to paint themselves as victims of partisan witchhunts, while letting a new fresh face emerge from the field in 2008 or 2012 to revitalize the Conservative movement.

The second option would lead inevitably to an epic showdown leading to impeachment proceedings and, should impeachment fail, the disenfrachisement of the legislative branch regardless of party control, with the end result in Authoritariansim either way.

Had the Republicans chosen option #1, they could have avoided impeachment proceedings.

Since, however, they have chosen option #2, they cannot POSSIBLY avoid impeachment proceedings unless Democrats in congress show a complete lack of spine.

What is more, Republicans in the House and Senate will not necessarily oppose us on impeachment when it comes to this issue: they can see the handwriting on the wall; they can see that Bush is leaving them out to dry; and they will not easily fall in line to play pawns for a lame-duck administration willing to go balls-out to strip those very congressional republicans of their own checks and balances to help them stop President Hillary, Obama or what-have-you. Furthermore, they will be less and less likely to want to defend Bush and his cronies as the ugliness of other impending scandals and investigations begins to unfold over the coming months.

In sum, Bush has given us every possible political cover and excuse for impeaching him, on an issue for which he has little to no congressional support among Republicans. It's wrapped up in a neat little package with a bowtie. It is, frankly, a generous gift to our Party, our Nation, and our Constitution.

All we need is the courage to open it.

CORRECTED Kyle Sampson didn't resign--he was REASSIGNED by Gonzales

N.B. In the original diary, I claimed that Rove had to do with Sampson's reassignment. I have NO idea where I got that idea. He may well have been, but the article didn't actually say that. I read the article, and for some reason gleaned Karl Rove's involvement from it. That is apparently a figment of my imagination...it's all Gonzales. My apologies--the point, however, remains the same...

These people just don't get it: even as reports arrive that Gonzales is about to be fired, and that it may take place in spite of Bush's stubborn loyalty to his lackey, and Tony Snow is now backtracking on the idea that Harriet Miers originally suggested the idea of firing the attorneys, claiming that ""At this juncture, people have hazy memories" (!), these Administration criminals still don't understand the severity of the scandal they have gotten themselves into.

Karl Rove et al. just believe that this scandal will just blow over, and that not even the heads of the little guys have to roll.

Don't believe me? Well, check out this report from Think Progress: Gonzales Gave Kyle Sampson New Justice Dept. Office After His Supposed ‘Resignation’.

That is, after a very public "resignation", Karl Rove Gonzales simply reassigned his criminal little lackey into a different position in a different office of the Justice Department--and figured he would get away with it. As Think Progress reports:

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales planned to install his former aide Kyle Sampson as a lawyer in the Justice Department’s environment division even after Sampson’s “resignation,” NPR reported today.

Media outlets have reported this week that Sampson, Gonzales’ ex-chief of staff, resigned over the U.S. Attorney scandal on Monday. But as ThinkProgress noted, Gonzales on Tuesday made vague remarks during his press conference indicating that Sampson was still on the department payroll. “His transition — as a technical matter, he is at the Department as he transitions out and looks for another employment."

To paraphrase Jon Stewart, Karl Rove Alberto Gonzales must have enormous balls. Maybe it was his ability to escape the Valerie Plame business unscathed. Maybe it was the fact that he remained in his position in the WH after his dismal failure in orchestrating the 2006 elections. Maybe it was his ability to get away with all the rest of his dirty tricks during his career. Perhaps he believes that there really is no such thing as accountability. Regardless of the reason, however, Karl Rove apparently feels that not only will Gonzales' head not roll for this horrific abuse of government power, and not only will his or Harriet Miers' heads not roll for it--not even the people whose heads have already rolled for it need necessarily be off the Justice Department payroll. Gonzales just figured he would roll Sampson's head a short distance down the hall wihtout even knocking over any bowling pins...

Apparently, however, Alberto Gonzales has recently been feeling a little too much heat to be entirely comfortable wih that--but even he tried to hedge his bets.

In fact, Gonzales “started to set up a new office for Sampson” in the Justice Department, and Sampson only resigned on Tuesday when “the scandal surrounding eight fired U.S. Attorneys continued to grow.” A Justice official told NPR that “there were discussions about whether or not he would be detailed elsewhere as he was transitioning out and ultimately it was decided not to go that direction.”

So here's what we're looking at: as this business started to spiral out of Administration control, Karl Rove Gonzales was initially still so insouciant that he figured he could just reassign Sampson and get away with.

At his press conference, Gonzales indicated that Sampson was still on the payroll--even though he understood how totally unacceptable that was--hoping apparently to hedge his bets in case he didn't actually have to fire Sampson.

Finally, only today did an unnamed Justice Department official state that they just now figured that keeping Sampson on might not be such a good idea after all, given the depth of inquiry this matter has been receiving. That's not just cojones grandes: that's cojones the size of the world's biggest ball of twine.

These people will literally try to get away with ANYTHING, and they have absolutely NO concept of accountability. Like a small child whose parents never say "no" and stick to it, they believe that nothing can touch them or ever will.

And what's most infuriating is that the American Public actually pays Rove's and Sampson's salaries.

Well, it's time we said "no" and meant it. It's time these people finally learn the meaning of accountability. And time we took some air out of their overinflated testicles. And it's time some heads rolled--permanently and off the taxpayer payroll--into prison if possible, and into the even more morally deficient dens of K-Street iniquity in case convictions cannot be obtained.

Enough is enough--because they don't even pretend to act like they get it.