If the sky wasn't falling, and the racists in the streets...

... we'd be talking about the recent and scathing indictment of the Bush administration by the DOJ - really - and their call for more investigation of unethical and criminal conduct of lawmakers, and of the Bush Administration.

The DOJ actually did its job this time. Investigators from Office of Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility both determined that political pressure did lead to the dismissal of at least three of the nine federal prosecutors fired under Alberto Gonzales' reign of partisan terror.

From the Toledo Blade:

At the time, then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales insisted the individuals were all dismissed for inadequate performance, or failure to implement the President’s law enforcement agenda.

But it appears the longtime pal and adviser to President Bush was lying through his teeth. Turns out the real reason some of the top federal lawyers were removed from the job, according to the Justice Department report, was that either the U.S. attorneys had the audacity to prosecute Republicans or because they failed to aggressively prosecute Democrats.

Either way, their behavior ticked off well-connected GOP politicians who had come to expect a politically loyal Justice Department. A couple of calls from powerful New Mexico Republican officeholders helped push former U.S. attorney David Iglesias out of a job. Evidently, the top New Mexico prosecutor was remiss in his duty to produce criminal charges against Democrats in the run-up to the 2006 election.

Another U.S. attorney in Missouri lost his post over a petty complaint from Republican Sen. Christopher Bond, and still another was bumped to make room for a protégé of White House political adviser Karl Rove. There was a pervading culture of partisanship/loyalty-above-all-else in the department, recalled one of the fired attorneys.

“Not only were my colleagues and I not insulated from politics — as we should have been in our jobs as prosecutors — but we were fired for the most partisan reasons,” Mr. Iglesias said.

A nation of laws and not men. How have we let eight years of continuing scandal, corruption, and broken laws go on unchecked?

Is it any wonder that our economy is collapsing and we have lost literally all respect around the world? If we had truly remembered that we are a nation of laws - and Pelosi hadn't cut some deal with the devil and refused to address the out-of-control Bush Administration - perhaps things would be different today.

We'll never know. I hold the House Democratic leadership accountable for failing to do their job.

There are now official documents from the DOJ confirming that the firing of U.S. attorneys was politically motivated.

The commentator in the Toledo Blade, Marilou Jonanek, seems to feel that Americans are 'scandal-weary' -- but are we really? Perhaps all we need is a little old-fashioned justice trickling down from the top.

I do NOT believe that Americans are willing to 'dismiss yet another administration disgrace;' but it is obvious that House Democrats have no interest in bringing Bush to justice, perhaps for their own partisan political reasons. Of course this makes them no better than collaborators, but they expect to get a win out of this mess, and a big one at that. The good of the nation and the rule of law... secondary to winning. How ironic that their impending 'win' will be marred by chaos, recession (if not full out depression,) war and crippling debt. They may win the presidency and a majority, but at what price to the nation?

New Attorney General Michael Mukasey has appointed a federal prosecutor to investigate whether Bush himself broke the law. Unfortunately there may not be time to finish this late-in-coming investigation before this epic (and seemingly endless) administration comes to an end.

There have been so many lies, broken laws and power grabs during the eight years of Bush rule that the White House and the office of president have been forever tarnished and perhaps forever damaged. Certainly our reputation as a nation and any trust we once had from other nations has been squandered.

Because there were no legal consequences for this historic abuse of power, Pelosi has left the door open for a repeat performance in the future. And God help us when it arrives; it will undoubtedly take a generation to recover from this one.

Department of 'Justice' is against Internet freedom

(AP) The Justice Department on Thursday said Internet service providers should be allowed to charge a fee for priority Web traffic.

The agency told the Federal Communications Commission, which is reviewing high-speed Internet practices, that it is opposed to "Net neutrality," the principle that all Internet sites should be equally accessible to any Web user.

I'm shocked - SHOCKED - to see that the DoJ is against free speech. Who'd have thunk it? The really odd thing about this is that Net Neutrality has nothing whatsoever to do with the DoJ. They are totally out of line for even expressing an opinion.

No wait... I get it. They are repaying the big telecoms for their capitulation in domestic spying.

Several phone and cable companies, such as AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and Comcast Corp., have previously said they want the option to charge some users more money for loading certain content or Web sites faster than others.

Where have we seen these names before?

And the partisan, corporate racket goes on. I'll just keep typing until Big Brother pulls the plug.

I can promise you one thing -- and I hope most Americans concur. If they pull Net Neutrality, I will be off the Internet for good. And if we all leave... think of all that lost advertising... all of those books that won't be sold, all of that junk we won't be buying.

Sorry. Can't have it both ways. I'm not for sale.

Welcome to the Banana Republic

“There’s something awfully fishy about this whole prosecution. It just doesn’t smell right. It smells like politics.”

Just when I think it can't get any worse... it does! Or it did.

I just read about the latest (for me anyway) scandal in Birmingham. Not sure how I missed this one, but then -- who can keep track these days?

Karl, Karl... is there no end to your devious destructiveness? And now it appears you will be investigated by your fellow banana, Alberto Gonzales. I can see justice will be served once again under this administration.

Has there ever been a collection of sociopaths quite like these?

Here is the story:

The Rovie and his GOP hit squad wanted to take back the governorship of Alabama. Unfortunately there was a Democratic governor in the way.

No problem! Rovie and his pack did what they usually do -- they perverted the law, and accused Governor Don Siegelman of corruption; then set a Bushie prosecutor on the task of putting him away for 30 years!

Siegelman's alleged crime? Steering donors to pay down the debts of an organization that lobbied for a state lottery. You know - the kind of stuff Rovie does every day, with Jack (Abramoff.)

The case quickly got ugly, and the stink is now wafting North - perhaps as far North as Washington.

Maybe... just maybe this is the real reason Karl left the Presidential Palace willingly and without handcuffs. That, or the fact that Abramoff is preparing to sing.

Perhaps Rovie will be wearing those metal cuffs sooner than we had hoped.

As per Harpers:

At the center is an affidavit which exposes a Republican political cabal aimed at using the machinery of prosecution to bring down the Democratic governor as the first step in an effort to retake the Statehouse in Montgomery for the GOP.

Now they have an affidavit from a lawyer who says she heard a top Republican operative in Alabama boast in 2002 that the United States attorneys in Alabama would “take care” of Mr. Siegelman. The operative, William Canary, is married to the United States attorney in Montgomery, Leura G. Canary. Mr. Canary, who heads the Business Council of Alabama, was an informal adviser to Bob Riley, a Republican, who defeated Mr. Siegelman in 2002. Earlier, Mr. Canary worked in the White House under President Bush’s father and has close ties to Karl Rove, Mr. Bush’s top political strategist.

In the affidavit, the lawyer, Jill Simpson, said Mr. Canary’s remark was made in a conference call with her and Rob Riley, Governor Riley’s son and campaign manager. Ms. Simpson said Mr. Canary assured the younger Mr. Riley that “his girls would take care of” Mr. Siegelman before he had a chance to run for the governor’s seat in 2006 and identified “his girls” as Leura Canary and Alice Martin, the United States attorney in Birmingham.

Neither Ms. Martin nor her office have offered much by way of retort to these explosive accusations, and, of course, they stack up perfectly against a pattern which has now been demonstrated all across the country – the prosecution by Steven Biskupic in Milwaukee of a key Wisconsin civil servant, which also had the subtext of attempting to bring down a Democratic governor, for instance. That case also produced a conviction, but was unanimously reversed by the Seventh Circuit, with its prominent Reaganite chief judge calling the whole case “preposterous.” And as the facts of the case were spelled out, any reader wonders not just how a jury could convict, but how and why a prosecutor would bring such a charge.

Ms. Martin’s handling of the case was a cakewalk no doubt, because in these days just about anyone is prepared to accept the suggestion that a politician is corrupt. Indeed, it’s the conventional wisdom. The presumption of innocence is a quaint notion which has never, practically speaking, had much effect in our courts. To the contrary, it is quite overwhelmed by confidence in the impartiality and integrity of the federal prosecutor. Or at least it was.

Ah, life in the Banana Republic: never a dull moment. Although occasionally even a Bushie will slip on a peel.

Gonzo; up to his neck but still paddling

After the head of the FBI, Robert S. Mueller III offered testimony that sharply 'conflicted' with Gonzo's sworn statements about a 2004 confrontation (the Ashcroft bedside party,) in which top Justice Department officials threatened to resign over a secret intelligence operation (turns out that was data mining, by the way; which explains why everyone was ready to quit their jobs. Illegal!)

While Justice Department lawyers continue to express their despair, describing departmental moral even lower than during Nixon's Watergate era, and as the New York Times is calling for either a special prosecutor or Gonzo's impeachment...

Jon Stewart continues to entertain.

Or is that Gonzo doing the entertaining? Lately it's hard to tell. But you have to imagine that Gonzo is every comedian's dream come true...

Vast Enron-like fraud probe abandoned by DOJ

Well isn't this fishy. And what a shock -- it appears the DoJ was involved:

US Dropped Enron-Like Fraud Probe
By Marisa Taylor
McClatchy Newspapers

Monday 23 July 2007

Prosecutor who built case against Virginia insurer was replaced.

Two years into a fraud investigation, veteran federal prosecutor David Maguire told colleagues he'd uncovered one of the biggest cases of his career.

Maguire described crimes "far worse" than those of Arthur Andersen, the accounting giant that collapsed in the wake of the Enron scandal. Among those in his sights: executives from a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway, the investment empire overseen by billionaire Warren Buffett.

In May 2006, he felt strongly enough about his case that he prepared a draft indictment accusing executives from a Virginia insurer, Reciprocal of America, of concocting a series of secret deals to hide its losses from regulators. Although he didn't name anyone from Berkshire Hathaway's subsidiary, he described the company as a participant in the scheme.

But Maguire never brought those charges.

Months after preparing the draft, he was removed as the lead prosecutor on the case and reassigned.

(What would we do without McClatchy? I mean -- who else is covering this? Did you see it on the news tonight? Cronkite would have run it... but those days are long over.)

It appears the Enron scandal scared the neocons and their business backers more than just a little bit. Nowadays, they keep close watch on 'real' prosecutors. If they step out of line (by trying to prosecute high profile criminals) they just 'reassign' them and pad the system with guys who won't do the work; won't prosecute the big fish.

Because surely, if this has been fully prosecuted, it would have been a WHALE of a story. (I know, I know... whales aren't fish. Let me off the hook this time.)

OK... a shark. Not as big, but more appropriate. And no insult to sharks intended... but these guys are definitely predators.

Even some within the DoJ were suspicious. After spending a cool two million bucks on the investigation, why would the government decline to prosecute? Some of DoJ insiders believed that Maguire 'overreached and had been knocked down.' Another story was that the government needed 'resources for terrorism investigations.' Heh, right. When you need an excuse for anything these days, pull out the terrorism card.

In the Reciprocal of America case, the fallout was clear. More than 80,000 lawyers, doctors and hospitals in 30 states lost their malpractice coverage. As they couldn't expect new insurers to cover them for past cases, some who were sued have claimed losses of hundreds of millions of dollars.

That's right; people lost money, lost coverage... were cheated. People suffered.

But surely that's just peachy as long as the big fish are never made to pay. There were even guilty pleas in this case; the CEO & Executive Vice President of Reciprocal of America were jailed on charges of fraud. Maguire was going after the parent companies for their involvement... and that apparently wasn't allowed.

Not by the DoJ.

The DoJ is of course declining to comment, because of course -- they can't remember. The corporation's lawyers insist the parent companies had no part in the crimes. So really there is no story here. And that is undoubtedly why none of the major media corporations covered it. Crazy McClatchy and their dedication to fringe news... the news American journalists don't want to report.

Tom Gober, an independent fraud analyst suggested that Maguire's supervisors were urging him to drop the case against General Reinsurance shortly before he was reassigned:

[He] concluded that the Justice Department had buckled under pressure from defense lawyers. Shortly before Maguire was removed, his supervisors were urging him to drop the case against General Reinsurance... Gober's suspicions were fanned by allegations of politicization in the Justice Department after nine U.S. attorneys were fired. He took his complaints to the Office of Professional Responsibility, which investigates Justice Department misconduct.

"It just stinks," he said. "You don't come in out of nowhere and in no time kill three years of sophisticated effort."

Even the FBI was urging additional prosecution; both the FBI and the Assistant U.S. Attorney attested that there was plenty of evidence against the parent corporations. Only the DoJ stood between justice and the 'big fish.'

Only the DoJ...

And isn't that becoming the familiar story... and I'm sure we'll hear it over and over and over again within the next year and a half, as the Democrats refuse to prosecute (anyone for anything) in their attempt to cruise right into a landslide 2008 victory. I wonder when it will occur to Democrats that we'd like substance -- not just a bland, inept alternative to criminality?

Read the entire article. I can't post the entire thing here, although I'd like to. I'm still reeling. This stinks worse than a salmon in a trash can on a hot and humid day.

Longtime DoJ attorney calls Bush justice 'a national disgrace'

More and more are speaking out. More every day.

It is becoming increasingly difficult for the corporate media talking heads to silence the screams - especially when so many come from within the system, and even the ranks of Republican insiders.

Here is one voice, one knowledgeable shout for justice from an attorney within the Department of Justice. I can't help but wonder if he will still have a job after speaking truth to power: but I applaud his courage, credibility and devotion to justice. Would that everyone in the system had his courage.

From the Denver Post (cheers to them for running it!)

Bush justice is a national disgrace
By John S. Koppel
Article Last Updated: 07/05/2007 11:48:30 PM MDT

As a longtime attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice, I can honestly say that I have never been as ashamed of the department and government that I serve as I am at this time.

The public record now plainly demonstrates that both the DOJ and the government as a whole have been thoroughly politicized in a manner that is inappropriate, unethical and indeed unlawful. The unconscionable commutation of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's sentence, the misuse of warrantless investigative powers under the Patriot Act and the deplorable treatment of U.S. attorneys all point to an unmistakable pattern of abuse.

In the course of its tenure since the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration has turned the entire government (and the DOJ in particular) into a veritable Augean stable on issues such as civil rights, civil liberties, international law and basic human rights, as well as criminal prosecution and federal employment and contracting practices. It has systematically undermined the rule of law in the name of fighting terrorism, and it has sought to insulate its actions from legislative or judicial scrutiny and accountability by invoking national security at every turn, engaging in persistent fearmongering, routinely impugning the integrity and/or patriotism of its critics, and protecting its own lawbreakers. This is neither normal government conduct nor "politics as usual," but a national disgrace of a magnitude unseen since the days of Watergate - which, in fact, I believe it eclipses.

In more than a quarter of a century at the DOJ, I have never before seen such consistent and marked disrespect on the part of the highest ranking government policymakers for both law and ethics. It is especially unheard of for U.S. attorneys to be targeted and removed on the basis of pressure and complaints from political figures dissatisfied with their handling of politically sensitive investigations and their unwillingness to "play ball." Enough information has already been disclosed to support the conclusion that this is exactly what happened here, at least in the case of former U.S. Attorney David C. Iglesias of New Mexico (and quite possibly in several others as well). Law enforcement is not supposed to be a political team sport, and prosecutorial independence and integrity are not "performance problems."

In his long-awaited but uninformative testimony concerning the extraordinary firings of U.S. attorneys, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales did not allay these concerns. Indeed, he faced a no-win situation. If he testified falsely regarding his alleged lack of recollection and lack of involvement, he perjured himself and lied to both Congress and the American people. On the other hand, if he told the truth, he clearly has been derelict in the performance of his duties and is not up to the job. Either way, his fitness to serve is now in doubt.

Tellingly, in his congressional testimony, D. Kyle Sampson (the junior aide to whom the attorney general delegated vast authority) expressed the view that the distinction between "performance" considerations and "political" considerations was "largely artificial." This attitude, however, is precisely the problem. The administration that Sampson served has elided the distinction between government performance and politics to an unparalleled extent (just as it has blurred the boundaries between the White House counsel's office and the attorney general's office). And it is no answer to say that U.S. attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the president. The point that is lost on those who make this argument is that U.S. attorneys must not serve partisan purposes or advance a partisan agenda - which has nothing to do with requiring them to promote an administration's legitimate policy priorities.

As usual, the administration has attempted to minimize the significance of its malfeasance and misfeasance, reciting its now-customary "mistakes were made" mantra, accepting purely abstract responsibility without consequences for its actions, and making hollow vows to do better. However, the DOJ Inspector General's Patriot Act report (which would not even have existed if the administration had not been forced to grudgingly accept a very modest legislative reporting requirement, instead of being allowed to operate in its preferred secrecy), the White House-DOJ e-mails, and now the Libby commutation merely highlight yet again the lawlessness, incompetence and dishonesty of the present executive branch leadership.

They also underscore Congress' lack of wisdom in blindly trusting the administration, largely rubber-stamping its legislative proposals, and essentially abandoning the congressional oversight function for most of the last six years. These are, after all, the same leaders who brought us the WMD fiasco, the unnecessary and disastrous Iraq war, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, warrantless domestic NSA surveillance, the Valerie Wilson leak, the arrest of Brandon Mayfield, and the Katrina response failure. The last thing they deserve is trust.

The sweeping, judicially unchecked powers granted under the Patriot Act should neither have been created in the first place nor permanently renewed thereafter, and the Act - which also contributed to the ongoing contretemps regarding the replacement of U.S. attorneys, by changing the appointment process to invite political abuse - should be substantially modified, if not scrapped outright. And real, rather than symbolic, responsibility should be assigned for the manifold abuses. The public trust has been flagrantly violated, and meaningful accountability is long overdue. Officials who have brought into disrepute both the Department of Justice and the administration of justice as a whole should finally have to answer for it - and the misdeeds at issue involve not merely garden-variety misconduct, but multiple "high crimes and misdemeanors," including war crimes and crimes against humanity.

I realize that this constitutionally protected statement subjects me to a substantial risk of unlawful reprisal from extremely ruthless people who have repeatedly taken such action in the past. But I am confident that I am speaking on behalf of countless thousands of honorable public servants, at Justice and elsewhere, who take their responsibilities seriously and share these views. And some things must be said, whatever the risk.

The views presented in this essay are not representative of the Department of Justice or its employees but are instead the personal views of its author.

John S. Koppel has been a civil appellate attorney with the Department of Justice since 1981.

DOJ documents prove Sampson deleted email

Here we go again. Do these guys even know how to tell the truth? Department of Justice? Let's start with Department of Truthfulness and try to work our way up from there. And thank God we're not trying for Department of Integrity...

Kyle Sampson deleted an internal DoJ email detailing some of the more controversial parts of the US attorney firing scandal the day after Congress began to focus on the attorney firings. Three months later, he told Congressional investigators that he 'had not destroyed any documents or deleted any records relating to the US attorney firings.'



From truthout.org:

Kyle Sampson, former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and a central coordinator of the US attorney purge, deleted an official email on January 12, 2007. The email was a correspondence between Sampson and the DOJ White House Liaison Monica Goodling that dealt with the controversial appointment of GOP loyalist Tim Griffin to the post of US attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Three months after this email was deleted from Sampson's computer, he was interviewed behind closed doors by Congressional investigators. According to a Senior Congressional Aide with access to the non-public transcript of the interview, Sampson was asked directly if he destroyed documents or emails relating to the US attorney purge. He answered "No." The Congressional aide asked to remain anonymous because the interview transcript has not been made public.

The DOJ did not respond to repeated inquires into this matter. Kyle Sampson's lawyer did not return requests for comment.

I'm sure he 'doesn't remember that.'

This is getting ridiculous. The Department of Justice is making a total mockery of the law. I cannot believe that Congress is allowing this to continue.

We are losing the very soul of our democracy: our rule of law, our rule of justice. "With liberty and justice for all" only works if our system of checks and balances, our lawyers, judges and elected officials respect the law.

For too long we have just assumed that they would do this; whether out of naivety or innocence, apathy or plain stupidity. Apparently the only thing we have left now, belatedly, is our citizen oversight.

NET Neutrality dealt serious blow

On Wednesday, the Federal Trade Commission dealt a serious whack to Net Neutrality proponents as it issued a report dismissing claims that the government needs to get involved in preserving the fairness of networks in the United States.

In other words, they and their corporate masters don't want the involvement of the courts or Congress -- just let those big AT&T corporate guys do as they please, no oversight needed -- and definitely not wanted. Reminds me of the Times-Warner overhaul of our postal system so that it would penalize the smaller news media like The Nation and Mother Jones, among others.

This is so familiar. Cookie-cutter familiar. Like the 'no oversight needed' management style FEMA conducted by Bush's beloved Brownie. Like the 'no oversight needed' approach by the FDA that allowed all of that melamine-tainted food into our country so that our cats and dogs would die horrible, painful deaths. And of course, that 'no oversight needed' approach the EPA now espouses when it refuses to enforce carbon emissions standards.

From ars technica:

The report, entitled "Broadband Connectivity Competition Policy," was drafted in response to growing concerns about broadband competitiveness and network neutrality. The FTC intends the report to be consulted as a guideline by policy makers and legislators, but it has no binding force. Nevertheless, the report's findings are yet another sign that US government agencies are not particularly interested in the network neutrality problem right now. In fact, the FTC is essentially saying that they can find no evidence of a problem to begin with.

Gotta love the Bushies, they're consistently against us at every turn.

In a statement, Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras said, "This report recommends that policy makers proceed with caution in the evolving, dynamic industry of broadband Internet access, which generally is moving toward more - not less - competition. In the absence of significant market failure or demonstrated consumer harm, policy makers should be particularly hesitant to enact new regulation in this area."

Did I mention Bushies? This report was issued by Bush appointee Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras. A quick Google of Majoras reveals, from Sourcewatch:

Deborah Platt Majoras was appointed May 11, 2004, by President George W. Bush to be Chairman and Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission. Majoras was to fill the vacancy created by Timothy J. Muris, who announced May 11, 2004, that he would step down to return to academia.

According to Majoras' FTC profile, she was sworn in August 16, 2004, and President Bush had announced his intention to appoint her to the position on July 30, 2004.

"The Federal Trade Commission chairwoman is the FTC's point person on its gasoline price gouging inquiry in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Unfortunately, in her prior life at the Jones Day law firm she was also the point person for ChevronTexaco and Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root. In 2004, Senator Ron Wyden opposed her nomination for her refusal to outline the steps she would take to investigate and fight gas price gouging."

I'm telling you -- every single Federal Commission is now invested with these people, many from the oil industry. We're screwed.

The "hands-off" approach is the approach preferred by the telecoms, who will also be delighted that Chairman Majoras cleared them of any wrong-doing in their network management so far. Nevertheless, the FTC says that it will continue to monitor the situation, as will the FCC and DOJ. Perhaps more encouraging for proponents of such legislation, the FTC says that increased awareness of the debate will help them with monitoring the need for government regulation.

Oh yes! The Department of Justice is going to help too! Gosh, I feel so much better. I'll be writing twice as often now, knowing that my hours and perhaps even minutes out here are numbered.

By the way, the head of the FCC, who will be formerly making the Net Neutrality decision is:

Chairman Kevin J. Martin

Chairman Martin was nominated by President George W. Bush to a Republican seat on the Commission, and was sworn in on July 3, 2001. He was designated chairman by President Bush on March 18, 2005. Chairman Martin was re-nominated for a second term as commissioner and chairman by President George W. Bush on April 25, 2006.

Before joining the FCC, Martin was a Special Assistant to the President for Economic Policy. He served on the Bush-Cheney Transition Team and was Deputy General Counsel for the Bush campaign. Prior to joining the campaign, Martin was an advisor to FCC Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth. He has also served in the Office of the Independent Counsel and worked as an associate at the Washington, DC law firm of Wiley, Rein & Fielding. Before joining Wiley, Rein & Fielding, Martin was a judicial clerk for U.S. District Court Judge William M. Hoeveler, Miami, FL.

Martin received a B.A. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a Masters in Public Policy from Duke University, and a J.D. from Harvard Law School. He is a member of the District of Columbia Bar and the Federal Communications Bar Association.

I'm praying his law degree from Harvard will over-rule his connections to the Bush/Cheney transition team. I guess we'll see.

Consitutional Chess

Ah, what a mess. This from The Hill:

White House contempt
By Susan Crabtree
June 22, 2007

House Judiciary Committee Democrats warned yesterday they would pursue a contempt of Congress motion if the White House fails respond to subpoenas for testimony and documents related to the firings of U.S. attorneys last year.

The deadline for a response is Thursday, June 28. If the White House does not comply, it opens the possibility of a constitutional showdown between the two branches. In an ironic twist, the Department of Justice (DoJ) would be called on to enforce the contempt motion.

What a total bummer that nobody thought of this when they refused to take any action against Gonzales after he lied to Congress three times under oath. If he was willing to do that... I can only imagine the likelihood that he'd actually follow through on this.

Checkmate.