OMG, Raytri. Are you sure you aren't on the Democrats staff at the federal level??? You always have an excuse for them.....no matter what. I'm betting that you would NOT consider Schumer going too far POLITICALLY if he manages to get Gonzales to resign---not because of some illegality, but because of political pressure. Am I right??? So, exactly what would be Schumer's "pushing the partisan angle too hard" in your opinion?

__________________
Clintonite after Clintonite. My question is, "So when does this so-called CHANGE start?"

Both are the subjects of FBI probes; Mollohan has been removed from the ethics committee and the committee overseeing the FBI -- two true conflicts of interest.

You expect either party to spend a lot of time talking about their embarassments?

My point was that I think Jefferson is guilty and I think Mollohan's situation is very shady.

It's a crime if it interfered with ongoing investigations.

It's inappropriate if it was because not enough Dems were being prosecuted, or there weren't sufficient indictments before the election, or otherwise compromising the independence and impartiality of the prosecutors.

It's embarassing if it was handled incompetently.

And lying to Congress is never a good idea.

But my main point is that you don't really want this thread to turn into a discussion of the prosecutor case, do you?

How would you know if they're not getting any press over it?

Apples/oranges.

I was referring to the flap over use of the RNC e-mail addresses. Are you now talking about the prosecutor firings?

You keep trying to compare purely political processes -- like confirming appointees -- with nonpolitical transgressions like violating the government records laws or lying to Congress or compromising the independence of federal prosecutors.

__________________
Man up.

I just recognize that politics is a legitimate if often lamentable part of politics. I was not thrilled by the endless GOP investigations of the Clinton administration -- but I never suggested they didn't have a right to do so merely because it was transparently political. Similarly, you don't see me blasting the current GOP minority for being "obstructionist"; that's what Congressional minorities do.

I've said Gonzales should resign for reasons other than the prosecutor firings. I'm not going to shed a tear when he goes down, whatever the proximate cause.

The price he will pay does not depend on me, but on the sentiments of millions of voters. But the limit for me is when asking legitimate questions turns into pure partisan fishing expeditions. For example, you're aware that on my blog I've said Henry Waxman's inquiry into the RNC e-mails should be narrowly construed, not an open-door tromp through the RNC's databases.

__________________
Man up.

I think every clear thinking Californian had the same feeling when it hit the headlines. Shame on JP5 for taking us through that rollercoaster again.

I had my own small victory when I saw that my County (Orange) voted in Mountjoy over Feinstein 49.7% to 45.1% in the ’06 election. Too bad the TV news media won’t cover this story or we’d have a serious chance in our next election to get her out.

I can see how the bolded text doesn’t strike a cord with you....it must just be a coincidence. She must have just been bored with the position...no foul play could be possible. In fact...I don’t even know why this justified a press release...people casually step down from government positions all the time...why cover this one? After all...its only a coincidence.

__________________
"A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away."

The Solution for Illegal Immigrants (Gray areas discussed throughout the thread)

Stepping down more than a year after her husband divested just doesn't strike me as a smoking gun.

For the record, here's what I wrote for my blog before deciding there just wasn't much there and canning the post.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein has resigned from the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee.

So what, you ask? Well, her presence there for the last six years has represented <a href=
"http://www.bohemian.com/bohemian/03.14.07/byrne-0711.html">one continuing conflict of interest</a>, thanks to her husband's ownership of two defense contractors that were awarded billions of dollars in federal construction projects -- projects that were approved by Feinstein's subcomittee.

There are plenty of reasons to be skeptical of this report. The reportage is heavily partisan and uses speculation and insinuation to suggest there is more here than there is. For instance, while the subcommittee approves construction projects, it does not have any responsibility for the awarding of contracts; that is handled by a separate government agency. Further, Feinstein was merely one of several members on the subcommittee, which was headed by Republicans. So her influence was limited.

The report also uses illegitimate "association" tactics, like pointing to Boston Scientific Corp. -- a major supplier of medical devices -- and suggesting that its contracts were sweetheart deals because Feinstein's husband owns Boston Sci stock. Never mind that the value of the contracts, $17.8 million, would barely qualify as a rounding error for Boston Sci's nearly $8 billion in revenue.

Finally -- and this is a biggie -- Feinstein's husband sold his interests in the contractors in 2005. So there currently is no conflict of interest.

But it seems like a bad idea to have Feinstein on a committee that considers business of such personal import to her.

__________________
Man up.

Winner: Raytri

Ixtellor

P.S. Why aren't Hannity and Rush all over this... oh wait I get it. Winner= Raytri.