Oooh, nuance!

Today on C-Span 3, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales faces the Senate Judiciary committee for the third time.

In some ways, Gonzales is a big kahuna, the person whom these hearings are targeting. He has certainly been a big proponent of the Lackey Strategy himself, throwing the responsibility for his illegal activities onto inexperienced party loyalists like Monica Goodling and Kyle Sampson. Gonzales has also been instrumental in implementing the Bush administration's most egregious offenses against the rule of law. He wrote the memo stating that the Geneva Conventions were "quaint", which enabled institutionalized torture in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. He gave the thumbs-up to the hundreds of signing statements Bush wrote, which, in many cases, contradicted the very legislation he was signing. And of course, he tried to manipulate a groggy, post-op John Ashcroft into approving the illegal NSA spying program, which Ashcroft had already refused to do.

But Patrick Leahy, the committee's chairman, knows there are bigger fish to fry than the man whom George W. Bush calls "Fredo".

Senator Patrick Leahy kicked off an oversight hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales by accusing top White House adviser Karl Rove of playing a key role in the firing of 8 US Attorneys.

"The accumulated and essentially uncontroverted evidence is that political considerations factored into the unprecedented firing of at least nine United States Attorneys last year," the committee's chairman said. "The evidence we have been able to collect points to Karl Rove and the political operatives at the White House. ."

Leahy also described a Justice Department in a state of 'crisis.' He worried that most of the senior leadership in the department had resigned.

"I would joke that the last one out the door should turn off the lights, but the Department of Justice is more important than that," he stated. "We need to shine more light on the Justice Department, not less."

The Vermont Democrat went on to criticize Gonzales for failing to be forthcoming with information about the Federal Bureau of Investigation's use of National Security Letters and said it pointed to an inability to trust Gonzales and the Bush administration.

"With a history of civil liberty abuses and cover ups, this administration has squandered our trust," he warned.

Shorter Leahy: Lackey, your time is up. We're going after the big boys now.

My first choice would be Al Gore, but (sniff! sob!) he's not running at the moment. So right now, it's all Senator Clinton, and this recent flap with the Lackey du Jour at the Department of Defense illustrates why.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I thought the Senator was brilliant in her response to Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman's ludicrous accusations. She took the offensive by calling his charges "outrageous and dangerous", and she immediately forced Secretary Gates' hand by pointedly demanding to know whether he agreed with the charges the lackey had made. Gates was forced to back down, and the lackey disappeared into the obscurity from whence he came. Game, set, match, Hillary.

Now, a lot of my friends have been asking me about John Edwards. I like a lot of things about him. I like the fact that he's addressing the issue of poverty, for example. But when the White House employed the Lackey Strategy against him by dispatching a rightwing Catholic to slam his hire of two liberal female bloggers, he fell apart like a wet Kleenex. Mr. Edwards should have told the Lackey to go to hell, and raised questions about HIS Christianity, but instead, he was caught playing defense, and the two bloggers were soon gone. And in 2004, when then-Senator Edwards debated the Master of Evil, Darth Cheney, he looked like a schoolboy who had wandered into the teachers' lounge by mistake. He barely got a swipe in as Cheney smoothly pummeled Edwards with lie after lie.

The bottom line is: if you can't stay on offense, you can't beat the Republics. Hillary Clinton can, and she will. And so for now, she's my girl. Sock it to 'em, Senator!

(P.S. Be vewy vewy quiet. I'm weading Hawwy Potter. Hehhehhehehhehhehhehhehheh!)

Isn't it funny how, when the White House wants to attack the Democrats, it's always some lackey who does it?

We see this time and time again with KKKarl Rove, whose slimy, fetid paws are all over the latest horrors perpetrated against Senator Hillary Clinton and the Democrats in Congress. Rove is such a "genius" that he thinks this incredibly transparent strategy will protect the President's reputation as a straight shooter and compassionate conservative. (I guess they really DON'T pay attention to polls...)

In Senator Clinton's case, they trotted out some nameless Undersecretary of Defense to pop out, like a cuckoo in a clock, yell "Traitor! Enemy of the State!", then pop back in, never to be seen again.

The Senator, unfortunately for KKKarl, knows how the Lackey Strategy works. Her response was as follows:

Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines called Edelman's answer "at once outrageous and dangerous," and said the senator would respond to his boss, Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Ka-THWAP! Sorry, Lackey.

Today's Lackey outrage comes from an "anonymous" White House source and was leaked to the Washington Post. In response to the threat of contempt proceedings being brought against Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers, "White House Officials" said that Congress doesn't have the right to ask the Justice Department to pursue statutory contempt charges once executive privilege has been asserted.

Under federal law, a statutory contempt citation by the House or Senate must be submitted to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, "whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action."

But administration officials argued yesterday that Congress has no power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases, such as the prosecutor firings, in which the president has declared that testimony or documents are protected from release by executive privilege. Officials pointed to a Justice Department legal opinion during the Reagan administration, which made the same argument in a case that was never resolved by the courts.

"A U.S. attorney would not be permitted to bring contempt charges or convene a grand jury in an executive privilege case," said a senior official, who said his remarks reflect a consensus within the administration. "And a U.S. attorney wouldn't be permitted to argue against the reasoned legal opinion that the Justice Department provided. No one should expect that to happen."

The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly, added: "It has long been understood that, in circumstances like these, the constitutional prerogatives of the president would make it a futile and purely political act for Congress to refer contempt citations to U.S. attorneys."

Once again, the Lackeys step forward and try to stomp all over the political opponents of the Bush Administration. The Democrats' response?

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) called it "an outrageous abuse of executive privilege" and said: "The White House must stop stonewalling and start being accountable to Congress and the American people. No one, including the president, is above the law."

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) said the administration is "hastening a constitutional crisis," and Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) said the position "makes a mockery of the ideal that no one is above the law."

Waxman added: "I suppose the next step would be just disbanding the Justice Department."

What can the Democrats do about this? For one thing, there is a type of contempt called "inherent contempt", which completely circumvents the Justice Department and the Executive Branch.

Both chambers also have an "inherent contempt" power, allowing either body to hold its own trials and even jail those found in defiance of Congress. Although widely used during the 19th century, the power has not been invoked since 1934 and Democratic lawmakers have not displayed an appetite for reviving the practice.

In the wake of the firestorm engendered by his unbelievable claim, George Bush has not said a word. But through his lackeys, the Deciderer has declared himself a king. The constitutional crisis is here, my friends. It's time for the Democrats to hit back as hard as Senator Clinton did, but with action, not words.

Inherent contempt. Impeachment. Whatever. We've had enough. DO IT NOW!!!! Or there may be nothing but Bush lackeys left in the coming Fourth Reich.