Saturday, May 27, 2006

wowsers. the blood-bath cometh?

* joe cannon has more on the hopsicker/skyways/cocaine story - and he is as confused as i am about why/how hopsicker tries to link the story to goss' resignation.

* david swanson:
"We have put together an Impeachment Resource Center. It includes not only resources you can access online, but the means to contact experts who can assist you with resolutions, research, websites, media, or events planning."
* this via Jiminy Cricket in the comments:
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, the F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, and senior officials and career prosecutors at the Justice Department told associates this week that they were prepared to quit if the White House directed them to relinquish evidence seized in a bitterly disputed search of a House member's office, government officials said Friday.

Mr. Gonzales was joined in raising the possibility of resignation by the deputy attorney general, Paul J. McNulty, the officials said. Mr. Gonzales and Mr. McNulty told associates that they had an obligation to protect evidence in a criminal case and would be unwilling to carry out any White House order to return the material to Congress.
compare wapo's front-pager yesterday:
"Bush hoped to mollify Hastert, one of his most reliable legislative allies, at a time of increasingly sour relations with the GOP-controlled Congress, according to White House sources. Tempers rose so high this week that some House Republicans threatened to seek the resignation of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales"
wowsers. the blood-bath cometh?

2 comments:

Track said...

IMO, any conflict between Gonzales and the White House is contrived.

Hastert is interesting. Could this simply be Hastert realizing (by watching Goss get tossed aside) that he is expendable too? Or maybe it's more than that...ie...maybe Hastert doesn't want to share the fate of Rep. Jefferson and wind up with criminal charges.

lukery said...

"IMO, any conflict between Gonzales and the White House is contrived."

i think you may be correct. note how the AGAG claims roll out the day after the WAPO piece.

"maybe Hastert doesn't want to share the fate of Rep. Jefferson and wind up with criminal charges."
i suspect that is correct - although it does all have a sniff of orchestration about the whole affair... doesnt it?