The bombing was either a wag the dog scenario or a major intelligence screw up: [link|http://www.slate.com/id/2098102/|Slate]
Congress should have investigated. If they really felt the bombing was a wag the dog scenario the House could have passed an additional set of articles of impeachment, but they didn't.
My point is that if Congress really wanted to do the right thing instead of just wounding a president they didn't like, they wouldn't have impeached Clinton and then they could continue to explain why it should be an impeachable offense and maybe have him censured. Even if they continued with the impeachment because they felt it was the right thing to do they would have continued to investigate all sexual improprieties and deal anyone who perjured themselves. But they didn't do that either.
As to Gonzales, have you been watching him lie to Congress lately? Could they prove it is a lie beyond a reasonable doubt? No, but any reasonable person cabn see he his lying to Congress. He admitted to delegating the firing to subordinates with out any real oversight. He said the list of fired attorneys was a consensus of his senior staff, but they have said that wasn't true. By admitting to being a completely incompetent manager and [link|http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/16/rove.documents/|telling congress it doesn't have the subpoenaed documents and then giving up]
should be enough to have him impeached, but Congress really needs to figure out a way to reclaim its oversight role.
As to the elections, this part is my opinion as to the why the firings happened. Rove and the White House were and [link|http://electionlawblog.org/archives/008232.html|continue to push election fraud even when there isn't any evidence of it.]
But, there is evidence of the DOJ bending it own guidlines and rushing indictments just before elections ([link|http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003159.php|tpm] ):
And of course no piece on Schlozman would be complete without a mention of his precious ACORN indictments when he was the U.S. Attorney for Kansas City. Schlozman, you'll remember, rushed the indictments of four ACORN voter registration workers to land five days before the 2006 election.
The Justice Department is still desperately trying to portray the indictments as uncontroversial. As I reported Friday, the Justice Department's election crimes manual is crystal clear: "most, if not all, investigation of an alleged election crime must await the end of the election to which the allegation relates." And that's investigations -- an indictment, obviously, would be an even greater departure from policy.
But here's what the Justice Department told Savage:
The department said Schlozman's office got permission from headquarters for the election-eve indictments. It added that the department interprets the policy as having an unwritten exception for voter registration fraud, because investigators need not interview voters for such cases.
An "unwritten exception." How nice.
Because Schlozman didn't have FBI agents interrogating voters, his indictments had no possible chilling effect, apparently.
Just consider: On November 2, 2006, the indictments were widely reported, many of them featuring a quote from Schlozman that "this national investigation is very much ongoing." That same day, Schlozman released a statement that his office would have a prosecutor on duty on Election Day, ready to pounce at allegations of voter fraud. This was in a climate of trumped-up hysteria about ACORN's efforts to register poor voters both in Kansas City and in St. Louis, where Republicans were charging that tens of thousands of voter registration forms were "questionable."
Schlozman, in other words, knew just what he was doing. And now the Justice Department is inventing "unwritten exceptions" to its policies to cover for him.
I cleaned up some typos and grammatical errors and made the AG paragraph readable. I am not sure how I mangled that paragraph so badly the first time.