[jiggyboy]

This NYT article from 2005 outlines their rationale for impeaching the Attorney General of the United States. Undoubtedly it was the megaphone for hounding AG Alberto Gonzales out of office, a true abuse of the press and the legal system.

Let's see how loudly the NYT and their acolytes scream in the next few days about how impractical, constitutionally "extreme", time-consuming, and partisan an effort it would be to consider Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner's threat of impeachment (Holder? Obama? both? more?) in the unfolding "Fast and Furious" scandal.

[WOBBLY BOB]

how many dead bodies did Watergate result in?

[puppypusher]

Sounds like a lot of talk and very little action.Action is something very rarely seen among Republican politicians.Their usually afraid of their own shadows.

[detective]

Holder is responsible for murder of a federal agent, suborning perjury of federal officials, committing perjury, refusing to comply with numerous subpoenas, money laundering and allowing drug gangs to operate freely in the U.S. The members of Congress have sworn to uphold and defend the constitution. They have a duty and an obligation to impeach and prosecute Holder, Napolitano, Obama and all other administration officials responsible for these acts.

It's as simple as that.

[Snickering Hound]

Right.

[Red_Devil 232]

I don’t think it is a fact that the US Ag can claim “executive privilege”. Am I right or wrong? I thought “executive privilege” was limited to the White House and the President’s staff.

[2harddrive]

RE: Eric Holder: When in doubt, IMPEACH him OUT!

I believe that Barak Obama is NOT subect to impeachment, however, any more than you or I are, since he was never the legal President in the first place.

[TigersEye]

bttt