What do you expect when the best presidential hopeful we have her and husband were under a cloud of deciet and dishonesty in business. whitegate futrues trading that may not have been above board. How soon we forget. Personally I think we have just about ginven the republicans the white house again.

Well, congratulations. You just became a member of the puditocracy.

Commenting on the news is one thing, predicting it quite another.

Ummm, do you even read your own links, or do you really just not give a shit about having a basic understanding of what you're writing about?

Like I said, this is now the 12th working day since the Judiciary Committee voted to send their recommendation to the full House. There was no voting yesterday, nor will there be today or tomorrow. Not to mention the federal fiscal year ends on September 30th, and congress is just a little busy right now.

Basic civics is your friend.

Because of course, you actually know something about the way congress works. Wanna know what the House was doing on July 25th? Funding the Department of Commerce. Kind of important.

Gee, another devastating put down by a comedy professional. You must be murder on hecklers.

Sorry, but any halfwit can spout meaningless drivel like "the fire has cooled" if you don't have to worry about backing it up. The simple fact of the matter is that you have no training experience or understanding of what you rant about. You read crap in the press and run your mouth.

Here in the real world, where being the online equivalent of a water cooler loudmouth isn't very impressive, the fact remains that there has not been remotely enough time to prepare a head-on run at the White House. You cant whip 435 representatives off in their home districts, and there's not a hell of a lot of point in trying when you've already unseated the architect of the scandal, which is what the leadership was spending their time on over the recess.

But hey, you go on telling the world what "means shit" in politics.

And when it's not, we get the Patriot Act and Saving Private Schiavo.



I'll take slow and deliberate any day.

Yeah, this contempt of congress thing just rushed up on them. Didn't occur over a period of months. There was no warning that it would happen. The president and his advisors did not say they would not partake in the hearings for months.

Totally. You guys have this thing nailed down.

You're confusing a lack of prepardness for the obvious and fear of taking action with "making sure it's done right."

Agreed 100% Congress is in a stalemate much of the time because of the polarizing power of partisan politics... Consensus building with a two party system is like trying to eat chow mein noodles with a single chopstick, it doesn't work. IMO, the dems are trying to improve their centrist image by ditching the long-tarnished "liberal" label in favor of the catchy and marketable "progressive". I think they want to win, but are alienating voters like me who are baffled that they aren't more vocal and aggressive on important issues like federal corruption, health care, the environment, energy independence, etc. They're planning ahead, but stumbling over their feet along the way. We'll see what happens in 2008, but I'm a bit skeptical about the whole "progress" potential among the Democratic leadership if they can't "move on" anything now...

Aren't you a little old to be throwing tantrums because the world doesn't work the way you think it should?

Contempt of congress is a rarely used penalty for breaching an implied power of congress. It has never prevailed against a claim of executive privilege. This is a complicated matter implicating major policy and constitutional doctrines and the separation of powers of the federal government. It's not going to happen in a couple of news cycles just because you think it should.

3 issues:

1) they have only a small majority which makes senate actions very difficult and house actions mildly difficult. Contempt of Congress would be useless because a bush appointee would determine whether the case went to court. Guess how that would turn out?

2) There is a reall constitutional crisis here. Bush is impeachable, and the Dems could remove him. Same goes for Chenney. Guess who that leaves as president with a yeah before the election? Pelosi. I have no problem with that in and of itself. But she isn't running, and if she became president would she then run? Would she stand aside and let Hillary or Barrack have their chance? Or is better to read the tea leaves, see that the republican voters are disenchanted and won't show up in numbers like they did in '00, and '04. That democratic voters are still passionate and will do anythign it takes to cast their vote for Clinton or Obama. The presidency and a greater control of the congress are almost inevitable, so why not wait until you have full power like they did from '00-'06?

3) every power Bush has taken, Hillary will get. Now say what you will about her, but republicans will get theirs when Hillary gets in the white house. It will be ugly and they will cry, but they should have thought things through for once, instead of just reading what the talking points memo said. We on the left want no one to have those powers, but if we asked our republican friends if the powers they want Bush to have were given to Hillary how would they feel, then we could easily agree that no one should have those powers. Too late, our person will their turn at bat and things will be different. She or Obama will ahve been at both ends of the Leg vs Exec battle and will make sure balance of power is restored.

Ummm, even if congress votes, you still need a trial date. This is a quasi judicial process, that becomes a judicial process. This is not impeachment. The last time this process was invoked which was over two decades ago, it took two years before appeals.

I think you're mistaken. IIUC, Ken Starr spent two years and a stupendous amount of money investigating this, and all he found was a cum stain.