
We’ve long suspected that when Scooter Libby’s attorney Joseph Tate was busy burning the midnight oil, telegraphing to Judy Miller what she should testify to in her grand jury appearance, it was billable time well spent. Judy’s answers were vague and evasive, and let’s not forget that the existence of both a third meeting with Libby and a notebook documenting it completely slipped her mind until Fitzgerald presented her with proof (viz: The Indiana Jones of Dustbunnies ).
Scooter’s motion the other day to subpoena Miller’s notes (which Christy outlined in Pt. I, II and III) indicate that his defense team is all too willing to take advantage of the openings Judy offered them. But I imagine the brittle-egoed Miller was expecting something along the lines of "If Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Judith Miller can’t remember, how can Mr. Libby be expected to remember?" What she got instead was an invitation to play scapegoat. And from her latest response, let’s just say Judy is less than thrilled at being cast in this new role:
Mr. Libby asserts that he "has established a ’sufficient likelihood’ that the documents he seeks are relevant to his defense." (Response at 6). In support, he maintains that "the documents sought are likely to contain evidence that some, if not all, of his testimony about . . . conversations [with reporters] was correct and that it is the reporters who have an unreliable recollection or have misstated the facts." Id. He also makes the startlingly baseless claim that it may have been Ms. Miller who mentioned Ms. Plame to him. (Response at 15). These contentions are unavailing. How can it possibly be maintained that Ms. Miller’s notes of discussions with persons other than Mr. Libby, regarding topics unrelated to the instant case, have any bearing on his, hers, or anyone’s recollection of the salient facts regarding her conversations with him?
Is it just me or does this sound reminiscent of the purple prose of Judy’s Iraq reporting?
Then there’s this:
Mr. Libby claims that "Movants admit" they have "[d]ocuments showing that [he] and other officials talked to reporters about Mr. Wilson . . . but never mentioned his wife . . . ." (Response at 7). Ms. Miller has made no such admission, and has not located any such documents.
It doesn’t sound like Intrepid Girl Reporter is cottoning to the notion of life under the bus, does it?
The networks should take heed. The soaps are going to tank when this trial gets going. Nothing on Desperate Housewives will be able to hold a candle to it.
Thanks to Jeralyn for hosting the PDF. She has more here.
Update: The responses of Andrea Mitchell, Matt Cooper and Time Magazine are now in and Jeralyn has them in her extraordinarily helpful archive. If you were wondering what I’m going to be doing this evening, loading up on Klonepin and engaging in sexual eliminationist fantasies should probably not be your first guess.
Related posts:





Spotlight








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

Fitz! He-he
Fitz?
I’m ready for my closeup, Mr. DeMille!
Congrats ccmask, you upFitz!ed me by a few seconds.
… and now for some EPUs …
if an aspen falls in the forest and lands on a bear in a cage….
Argh, missed it again. One of these days, I WILL get first Fitz though…
Thanks Moe- I’m honored. Judith Miller reminds me of Katherine Harris, for some crazy reason.
The Libby trial is going to be crack for political junkies. I’m planning my vacation around it.
The Queen of All Eye-rack sounds PISSED!
…or scorned, not sure which.
“Lost me my job at The Times, and now I’m supposed to misrecollect for the bastard, I don’t think so!”
“Nothing on Desperate Housewives will be able to hold a candle to it.”
heh
So who will be Libby+Miller’s surrogate? (Oh oh, I just coined SurroGate).
BTW, I’m a techie;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogate_key
http://tinyurl.com/a6erq
Help Impeach Today
Now… People think this is a waste of time because even the Dems said that they were not going to impeach (yeah right)…
Keep the pressure on Congress… Talking about impeachment wakes people up… They question, it’s a strong motivator to get people thinking. It also lets Congress know how intense the dissapproval is for this President… They seem to be a little slow on the uptake. So please:
1) Sign petitions if you have not done so
2) Send a letter to Congress (both Senators & House rep)
3) Send a copy to the media
4) Enlist friends and family to help, ask them to chip in time
5) Spread the link around, email it (with a request to forward) post it on a blog, or in the comments of a news story.
Help out!!!
Thanks :)
punaise 5 — heh
Putz !
Could you guys, y’know…stop doing that ?
Please ?
You are are a nuissance.
PS If you are in fact OCD I do apologize in advance
kthnxbye
Just a drive by tolet the folks at FDL know that i’ve really appreciated your coverage of Treasongate over the past couple of weeks. My main conscern at this time is that Bush is looking for an excuse to cancel the election this year. The indictment of KR is going to send this gang over the edge.
Cornered rats with nukular weapons. Not Good.
Goper’s Lament (Hard To Be A Republican)
dunno, when Kate O’ Bad Teefs says on Tweety O’Coulter’s show that chimpy will be in twouble when Rover is indicted, methinks a snoopydance is in order.
ccmask #7 — Perhaps Judy reminds you of Katherine because they’re both getting screwed by the men they once did favors for. If they hadn’t beeen so eagerly complicit with real evil in the past, I’d feel sorry for them now.
Colbert!
Schadenfreude overdose!
The Weird Sisters–
Katherine Harris, Judy Miller, and Anne Coulter
Something wicked this way comes!
Is it just me or does this sound reminiscent of the purple prose of Judy’s Iraq reporting?
With her Colorado-aspen-sized ego, Jane, do you think Judy insisted on getting first crack at drafting the response brief? Or at least wrote those lines herself, and insisted her attorneys put/leave them in the brief?
Question, that I don’t think I’ve seen yet: What happens if/when Bush blanket pardons Scooter, Karl et al between the November elections and the scheduled trial date? No trial? Everything moot?
SS 14
Sir, all options are most certainly on the table.
There is no way they will let go of the reins without a fight.
They will find a way to tie the fate of America to their own and we will be faced with tough choices indeed.
Surely they feel that they have come too far to give up without a fight.
Sad times.
I know certain similarities between Judy Miller and Edina Monsoon have been noted here. And really, that’s what dealing with Miller is going to be like for Libby’s team. Only Edina’s more fun.
Can’t do anything about a pardon, other than impeaching Bush and Cheney.
OT: the media are all hollering about how the letter from Iran is the first contact between the governments since 1980 … how soon Iran/Contra is forgotten! Reagan et al were selling seapons to the Persians for cash and a cake was even delivered to Khomeini by the National Security Advisor!
I’m going to light a candle that CourtTV starts Court2: All Plame, All The Time.
He also makes the startlingly baseless claim that it may have been Ms. Miller who mentioned Ms. Plame to him.
Hey, I’ve done a few interviews myself, and i can assure you that my notes don’t indicate what I said to the subject; they indicate what the subject said to me.
I betcha Judy doesn’t intent to go quietly under that good bus……
Don’t they have to be found guilty first, before Bush can pardon them?
can a pardon be nullified by a post-term impeachment? I know impeachment is for sitting presidents, but in order to nullify a pardon given at the last moment, could an impeachment be carried out later?
BarbaraB 16, To add, they’re both fair skinned, long faced Rethuglican villainesses with similar one-length bob haircuts. They would both be well advised to stay clear of rotten aspens b/c they are currently going against the grain.
I know San Francisco is a liberal town and everything, but today I left work and walked across the street to the new Marc Jacobs store and in the window are lots of mannequins dressed in red, white, and blue. There is also a sign that reads:
Even with the worst president ever, we still love our country.
luckily Judy is married to a millionaire publisher with deep pockets for her legal bills… she can match Libby tit for tat, writ for writ …
(CBS) President Bush and the Republican Congress show nearly record low ratings while Democrats are viewed much more favorably in their performance on the issues that matter most to Americans, according to the latest CBS News/New York Times poll.
Only 31% of those polled approve of Mr. Bush’s job performance and 68% believe the United States is worse off today than it was before Bush became president.
Personal evaluations of Mr. Bush are the lowest they’ve ever been during his presidency. On the public’s confidence in Bush’s ability to handle a crisis, 51% had been the previous low in September 2005. That figure is now at 50%. The President’s handling of the Hurricane Katrina crisis is tied to that decrease.
There is also concern that Mr. Bush is spending too much time on foreign policy issues: 55% think so. Also, on the issues that are most important to Americans, Iraq and gas prices, Bush’s ratings have dropped.
On handling the issue of rising gas prices, Bush’s performance rating dropped four percentage points from what it was a month ago (from 17% to 13%).
With the Iraq war, Bush’s approval rating dropped one percentage point (from 30% to 29%) since last month. Similarly, only 30% of poll respondents said they have some degree of confidence Bush will be able to end the war successfully. The poll also reveals that 56% of those polled said that United States should have stayed out of Iraq; this number is the highest it’s been since the start of the war.
The only area where Bush’s approval rating is not at an all-time low is fighting terror: approval is at 46%.
Congressional Republicans get an eviscerating review in this poll. The GOP gets a favorability rating of 37%, exactly 20 percentage points lower than where it was in 1994. Inversely, Democrats in Congress had a favorability rating increase of 11 percentage points over what it was in 1994.
On the issues of Iraq and gas prices, the poll shows that the public believes Democrats are doing a better job. For instance, on Iraq, 48% said the Democratic Party is better while only 30% thought the Republican Party is. On keeping gas prices low, the disparity is even more pronounced: 57% say the Democrats perform better, while only 11% say the Republicans do.
Democrats also surpass Republicans in their work on issues such as prescription drug cots, improving health care and immigration, among others.
However, Republicans get a better assessment than Democrats in dealing with terrorism: 40% prefer the GOP’s handling of the issue while 35% prefer the Democratic Party’s.
The overall approval of Congress’ performance has diminished vastly since 2001; only 23% approve now while 67% did in 2001. This figure reflects frustration over Congress’ ability to challenge the President since 67% think Congress does not question his policies enough.
Also, 39% say that Congress would be in better condition today if Democrats were in charge, an increase from last month.
Heading into the 2006 elections, Democrats look to have quite an advantage. For instance, if the elections were held today, 44% of registered voters said they would support the Democratic candidate in their congressional districts, while only 33% would support the GOP candidate.
CBS
OT:
John Roberts (CNN) on Bush snubbing Katherine Harris: “At least she didn’t bring the horse.”
Oscarsmom @ 28
Ford pardoned Nixon. Didn’t even get close to a trial.
roxtar 27 — I betcha Judy doesn’t intent to go quietly under that good bus……
Oh I am going to use that one someday. That made me laugh out loud.
Marky–No.
There is no impeachment process for past presidents- since the whole point of impeachment is to remove them from office- and there is now way of retroactively invalidating a pardon. Them what gets pardoned stays pardoned.
From NYT:
“Mr. Bush’s overall job approval rating hit another new low, 31 percent, tying the low point of his father, George H. W. Bush, in July 1992, four months before the elder Mr. Bush lost his bid for a second term to Bill Clinton. That is the third lowest approval rating of any president in 50 years; only Richard M. Nixon and Jimmy Carter were viewed less favorably.”
http://tinyurl.com/s9cnz
I can’t recall if Nixon had been indicted. Anyone?
It appears those heady days when Judy and Scooter’s roots were connecting among the aspens have detumesced into a sad small version of reality. They have come and gone.
Judy’s Lawyers: “[Scooter] also makes the startlingly baseless claim that it may have been Ms. Miller who mentioned Ms. Plame to him.”
Wow. Accusing the other side of your own sins.
They never stop with the projection, the cons, the neocons, and the pugs, do they?
If one can’t praise the predictability, I suppose one can at least admire the persistence.
Nixon was an unindicted co-conspirator…
What trial? It is never going to trial. Why does everyone forget that? I can only guess they are waiting to see if Karl is indicted so they can kill of Fitz’s insurgency once and for all. Common calculus says the pardon comes post election but when your numbers are so low why bother to wait?
These trial cannot he allowed. Period. End of story. Wasn’t that the position at the very start of this tale here at the Lake?
So why are they throwing Judy under the bus. Because they can and because it’s fun to boot.
Busted- No- Sitting president’s CAN’T be indicted- that’s part of the point of the impeachment process.
Rethugs is real good at fightin terra. They fight em there so we don’t have to fight em here.
How many times have these thugs got to be caught with their pants down, before the rubes realize that they’ve ALWAYS got their pants down (and their hands in the cookie jar)?
Is it just me or does this sound reminiscent of the purple prose of Judy’s Iraq reporting?
With her Colorado-aspen-sized ego, Jane, do you think Judy insisted on getting first crack at drafting the response brief? Or at least wrote those lines herself, and insisted her attorneys put/leave them in the brief?
Indeed. Particularly this part:
These contentions are unavailing. How can it possibly be maintained that Ms. Miller’s notes of discussions with persons other than Mr. Libby, regarding topics unrelated to the instant case, have any bearing on his, hers, or anyone’s recollection of the salient facts regarding her conversations with him?
Can’t you hear her breathy whine saying those words? Certainly this is pretty overheated language for a legal brief, methinks.
I was just turning my son on to, for the first time, War and some other oldie faves.
And this struck me –
I see you’re workin’ for the CIA.
They wouldn’t have you in the Mafia…
Why can’t we be friend?
Porter Goss fer sure.
My son really danced to Cisco Kid, but the big hit tonight wasn’t WAR, it was Aurthur Brown and Fire!
As for Judy Miller, I hate that priveledged bitch.
rapier- I think you are right.
Clusterfuck want’s to wait until after the elections- and he would also like to wait until the investigation is over in order to be sure of pardoning EVERYONE involved at once. He doesn’t want to have to do a series of pardons.
Does this mean that Judy won’t be buttering Scooter’s toast at the St Regis?
Oscarmom 28 – sadly, no, they don’t. Bush can pardon them pre-emptively, before they’re even charged w/a crime.
IIRC, Ford’s pardon of Nixon was all-encompassing:, i.e. “don’t even think of indicting for anything. Ever. Period.”
CK #49
Sadly,no. But we can expect her to be poking him with a stick through the bars.
Jeralyn at Talkleft http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014786.html has a whole bunch of media responses now…
Nixon didn’t pardon anyone. Ford pardoned Nixon before he was charged. Also, Bush I pardoned some Iran-Contragate figures who were under indictment but had not been charged with anything (like CAsper Weinberger).
The interesting thing is that in both cases, the presidents who were invovled in the controversy (Reagan/Nixon) didn’t pardon, their successors did. It will be interesting to see if Bush is willing to break that precedent. Its not as though he has anything personal to loose and everything to gain if he could somehow eventually be implicated. That is why it SO stupid for the Dems not to insist on full bi-partisan hearings. They should really be banging that drum – even the President and his croney’s have to obey the law of the land. No matter what.
Hi rwcole. I know I don’t get the pony, but who’s still in the running?
We’re going to need a pretty big bus soon.
Busted 52 – ::snort::
GHW Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger. I don’t think he had a trial.
You know what bothers me? And I know it sounds trite, but, heh! Judy Miller has given bangs and a bob a bad name, and I, personally, resent it. (Where is Mrs. Eisenhower when we need her?)
Thesaurus Rex — IANAL but it reads more like your standard issue 1970’s bodice ripper than it does a legal brief.
found on the internets:”Aspen wood is very lightweight when dried, becoming very buoyant and… therefore a popular choice for oars and paddles.”
Heh, maybe it will make shit creek somewhat more navigable…
rwcole,
I have been thinking about the pardon scenario in different ways lately. I know Bush is nearly impervious to any type of external pressure, but there must be a way — like the Ford pardon of Nixon — to make any pardon of these monkeys a REPUBLICAN pardon. The Repubs tried hard to do the same with the Marc Rich pardon by Clinton (a very very interesting tale) but there must be a way to pave a p[ath to nationalizing any pardon. I know that some have suggested that the media get a promise from Bush not to pardon, but I don’t know how that would work….
Hi, quick technical note–
The Jane’s handy archive link brings up this bug for me. Going to plain ol’ TalkLeft.com worked fine.
Fatal error: Call to undefined function: _te() in /home/crock3r/public_html/wp-content/themes/FiredoglakeComments/404.php on line 27
Dru–
So good I’m stealing it
I meant to say that Weinberger had been indicted but had not been convicted when Poppy Bush pardoned him (along with a whole cast of other characters).
Didn’t one the first things Gerald Ford did when he became president was to pardon Nixon?
I have to admit, I’m glad Judy’s back in the picture and chewing the scenery as usual. I bet she’s thinking of the old days with Scooter, the breakfasts at the St. Regis . . . and the rodeo in Jackson . . .
Those were the days my “friend”
We thought they’d never end
We’d sing and dance forever and a day
We’d live the life we choose
We’d fight and never lose . . .
*sigh*
Ford’s pardoning of Nixon is regarded as the kiss-of-death for his election bid in 1976 — it got us President Carter !
timewarp — and don’t forget Reagan and North — no need to pardon a fellow when you have nominated the Judges who hear the appeal…
timewarp @ 5:02 pm (#54) – You’ve hit the nail on the head, there. Time’s a wastin’, and if the Democrats don’t at least start insisting on hearings, they’re not going to be all that quick to happen even if the Dems win both houses of Congress this November.
From Bush the Elder’s Pardon Speech.
I think Bush is so out of touch with reality that the idea of “pardons” is not something he would come up with on his own. Mr. Invincible. And, he honestly might not give a shit about what happens to anyone but himself. Not to say he won’t be getting lots of advice on the issue.
I am blushing as I type this, but what does IANAL mean?
do you really think Karl hasn’t already been counselling the Preznit on the political expediency of pre-emptive pardons ?
Valley Girl, I agree about Bush’s hubris, but if someone around him convinces him that if he throws Libby, Rove et al under the bus, he could be toast. I mean, I would not want to make enemies out of those guys. There is no way they would go down alone. Just no way.
IANAL means you are a bottom ; IPENILE means you are a top …
next question, please ?
Even if there are a whole lot of pardons, there will most likely be a lot of Wilson instigated civil suits so the whole mess will get aired one way or another. I don’t think they are going to be able to bury the story unless they have a lot of the players sleeping with the fishes.
VG, Timewarp — I think the “Decider” on this one will be Cheney because he thinks strategically. He will direct Bush to pardon those who will prevent him from being indicted — or worse,prevent him from being named to the Board of Halliburton again after 2008….
Thanks Jane – even by your high standards, this was a devastatingly hilarious and insightful post.
If Judy somehow gets swept back into the middle of this thing and starts going Kate Harris on us, it will make every painful day of the interminable Fitz Watch more than worthwhile.
so smart– Dru. did you not post a lovely pic of a homey lookin’ country store with some paddles a coupla weeks ago?
I agree with VG #70. With Bush, out of sight is out of mind and it’s not a very big mind to start with.
IANAL == “I am not a lawyer.”
IANAL– I Am Not A Lawyer, TRex.
ANAL = I am a lawyer
immanentize @61
Whether or not a pardon is perceived as a Republican pardon doesn’t matter if it’s after the election. It’s all in the timing.
The real potential for this (as was said here, what’s Bush got to lose?) is that it makes all of this “pursuit of justice” folderal moot.
Very much like how control of electronic voting machines and vote counting kinda makes actual voting a rather quaint little formality. . .
I would be more interested in getting the bastards out of public life than into jail, except they have no shame, so you can’t be sure they wouldn’t recycle 15-20 years later ala Abrams, Poindexter.
74 *ilson46201 –
p*shawh!!! IANAL = I Am Not A Lawyer.
op99 @ 5:19 pm (#84) – I want them to go to jail because I’m worried about the next generation of Poindexters, Abrams, etc.
matter if it’s after the election
What is “the” election? 2006? 2008?
I have long supported the December 2006 pardon theory, and my point is if any pardon is coming, rather than a self-defeating attitude that — timing is what matters and timing is out of our control — I suggest devising a strategy that would make the pardon politically painful at the time and political poison in the next election cycle.
Speaking of voting machines.
Bradblog is reporting that the SEC is looking into Diebold.
http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002803.htm
-GSD
timewarp @ 69:
might be altered to read:
‘That is all’
;>)
a December 2006 pardon if we win either (or both) sides of Congress would precipitate immediately the impeachment process…
OT- imm- semester over yet? Summer gig?
darkblack/timewarp –
The criminalization of policy differences is curent-Bush’s defense as enunciated in his 750 signing statements.
“Can’t be prosecuted for torture or ordering torture, see, right here? I said I thought it was a policy choice. Poppy, please pardon me.”
cujo 86, we’re saying the same thing, my friend.
T-Rex, for future reference -
ACRONYMS
*ilson46201 # 90 – agree 100%, but considering The ACME Playbook they’ve been reading from of late . . .
Imman, wow cisco kid…that takes me back. Insta oldperson.
Have spent a lot of time this week talking w younger folk in the family about war and peace. Hope some of it sinks in.
Semester over, summertime gig:
1) Administratering my program (hard work)
2) Writing tenure piece #2.
Pray for me!
78 Angie; no, that wasn’t me; Imman 63- enjoy!
I know I said this a few days ago, but perhaps it would be useful to say it again. If Bush pardons Libby and/or Rove, they lose their 5th Amendment privileges. Fitz can then force them to testify under oath about the whole rotten conspiracy, and the pardon cannot be prospective; they would still be vulnerable to a perjury charge. If Fitz has his sights set higher than those two — and I sure hope he has — a pardon would help, not hurt, his ongoing investigation.
Sitting Presidents cannot be indicted while in office, but once they leave office, it’s hello handcuffs — and for Cheney, Fitz probably doesn’t have to wait. (Remember Agnew?) Bush might not be smart enough to figure that out, but his lawyers are. I don’t think there will be any pardons until the night before the inauguration of a new Democratic president, and perhaps not even then.
“The” election is November 2006, the only one that matters now. It’s how we start the impeachment and how we stop this man.
Oh, boy…..good story here.
Revolt of the CIA analysts
By Ahmed Amr*
http://english.alarabonline.or…..9%20%C3%A3
snip
But the above quotes lead me to suspect he was outed as a result of a mutiny by the CIA’s rank and file. When the neocon priests at the Weekly Standard groan and the folks at Langley cheer – it’s a sure sign that the Feith/Libby crowd has lost a major battle with the intelligence community.
Goss Porter was assigned to the CIA to ‘clean house’ of dissenters who were unwilling to take the fall for intelligence failures that never happened. It was no secret that the administration didn’t take kindly to the agency’s ‘negative feedback’ about the day to day realities of their Iraqi ventures. In short, the professionals in Langley were guilty of demoralizing their neo-con overlords by insisting on doing their job of providing sound analysis to policy makers. It didn’t help matters that former CIA analysts were less than enthusiastic about the outing of Valerie Plame.
There is also High Drama on HUD nixing contract bid because of politics: The official response now is that the silly press misinterpreted a hypothetical example as if it were a true story. The HUD secty just made it up as an illustration. It was just one of those funny coincidences that he told it exactly as if it were a real event with no mention at all that it was really a hypothetical example. I guess that it is also a coincidence that the HUD spokesperson’s first response to the story very definitely asumed that the secty was describing a real (ie, historical, actually happened type of) event. I also wonder if it is a coincidence that the point of the currently hypothetical example is exactly the same as the previous real life anecdote: a person’s political support of GWBush should determine how you treat them in matters of official government business.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/…..-responds/
great photo allusion.
priceless.
this part of cia link above:
Notes in the Margins: An internal Pentagon probe and the Senate Intelligence Committee are supposedly investigating Douglas Feith’s intelligence manufacturing operation – the OSP. For reasons unknown, no progress has been made in either of these probes. There is also a suspicious lack of interest by Judith Miller’s former employers at the New York Times. In the meantime, Douglas J. Feith has just accepted an offer to join the faculty of Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service. I suggest they assign him to teach “intelligence failures 101.”
egregious,
Cisco Kid is a timeless tune which doesn’t have enough respect. However, if you are talking about the TV show … ;~)
wesgpc
I agree the HUD thing is very serious. It would be very easy to find out if it really happened. However, who cares? Just the fact that it was told as policy means the jerk should go.
But, as a friend of mine was fond of saying:
“They do reveal themselves, no?”
I urge you to ignore protein wisdom and the inane ramblings of the people there. Jeff is a self-important boob who’s bag of tricks consists of mocking non-existant strawmen IN ALL CAPS LIKE THIS and telling critics they are too stupid to understand his intellect. Do not send any more traffic to his site.
I’d also like to add there is some fantastic irony in the fact that Jeff’s preachy, pseudo-intellectual didactism should be just the sort of thing the right hates (and rightly so).
BarbaraB – Very interesting point.
So your saying, essentially, that if Bush were to pardon at any point during his presidency, he opens up the possibility that those who he pardons will become witnesses against him at trial for conspiracy or other crimes.
And, when trial occurs, the witnesses will not be able to invoke the fifth amendment, nor will they be able to rely on additional pardons from the now-out-of office president if they were to perjur themselves again in these proceedings.
I find your reasoning compelling, although this being the first time I’ve heard it, I would love for any other FDL folks to with legal knowledge to weigh in. We may be missing something here.
One problem that I would have is that it would be practically difficult to build a case against Bush on the testimony of a bunch of people he pardoned.
IANAL means you are a bottom
*BLUSH!*
I am so busted.
Sigh.
I have said it before and I say it again — I am against impeachment if the Dems take both the House and Senate in ‘06,. I am for “studying” but not presenting articles of impeachment if we only take the House. And if we win neither, well, there you are….
Impeachment would be a huge waste of time for a party that needs to build a structure for gaining the white house in ‘08.
Of course, if we launch a pre-emptive nuclear attack on Iran — or anywhere else — all previous statements are no longer operative.
The ‘Pardon’ is gonna be moot. By the time this trial is over every adult in the nation will have had their nose rubbed into the horrific toxic waste dump our government ‘leaders’, their enablers and toadies have converted our once pretty good nation into.
I don’t think they’ll care for the experience.
Me?
I just wanna read the transcript of Fitz doin’ an Irish jig on PumpkinHead’s nutsack.
That will be a great read.
immantentize #105: I am just worried that we do not start criminalizing two or three sequential funny little coincidences, the occurance of which a mere 69% of the population would definitely think were pathetically transparent, egregious cover-ups of obviouis criminal behavior.
(I’m just trying on my concern troll hat, there)
Cisco Kid, that is Lou Dobbs new theme music:
“The outlaws had us pinned down at the fort
Cisco came in blastin’, drinkin’ port”
-GSD
BarbaraB – thank you very much because you have answered something which I have wondered about. Which is that one reason the Rove machine is sooo terrified of a Dem congress, is that if Bush were to pardon Libby and Rove, congress could force them to testify (no 5th amendment to fall back on) and if they weren’t COMPLETELY forthcoming they could be charged with contempt of congress in addition to new perjury charges.
The truth will out, somehow.
IANAL = I Am Not A Lawyer
HYPOTENUSE – However, You Play One Televisually, Exposing Nefariously Unlawful Scumbags Entertainingly
;>)
I urge you to ignore protein wisdom and the inane ramblings of the people there.
I gotta say I agree w/heet (#106). That putz is by far not worth your time.
Thanks for the Judy-Libby update. So sad to see those two wonderful people, who had such a wonderful connection, no longer, um, connected at the roots …
#3,”I’m ready for my closeup, Mr. DeMille!”
I’m surprised nobody ID’d the graphic. It is Gloria Swanson in “Sunset Boulevard.” Instead of DeMille, then she would be saying, “I’m ready for the closeup, Mr. Wilder.”
Billy Wilder, that is, the director of the movie. In the movie itself, the part of her director was played by Erich von Stroheim who, out of loyalty to his faded but delusional movie star eventually became her butler.
The analogy between Judy and Gloria Swanson’s character is apt insofar as both were delusional about their own importance in the scheme of things. It doesn’t quite fit insofar as Swanson was incandescent while Judy at her best was cute in a tawdry way.
And please don’t bother to draw an analogy between Bill Holden and Scooter. The loyal and fawning butler would of course be Pinch Sulzberger.
immanentize and wesgpc,
I took a tv vacation today – did the HUD story hit cable news, Corp. print media ?
wesgpc:
Ahhh —- the latice of coincidences.
ccmask 100, that’s a damn fine article, I second your motion.
“Anticipating a Frog March in May”
http://www.democraticundergrou…..15;1139046
115 and 106, perhaps you forgot Jane’s policy of hitting back hard on every misrepresentation. She ain’t gonna be no swiftboat fodder. (Nor mudder)
You know, I am quite sure that Jane, Christy and Pach and the wonderful guesters here will keep pounding on the wingnut racism! For that I am happy. Here’s what I read and wept over this week:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
An Excellent Reason Not to Join the Military
By Aimee Allison
AlterNet.org
Friday 05 May 2006
I was shocked to discover the realities of being a female minority in uniform.
The following is an excerpt from the forthcoming book, 10 Excellent Reasons Not to Join the Military to be published on May 18, 2006 by The New Press.
Aimee Allison served as a medic in the Army Reserves and received an honorable discharge as a conscientious objector during the Persian Gulf War.
I desperately wanted out of my small-minded hometown of Antioch, California, and the military recruiter on my high school campus promised me an escape hatch. The family that my white mother and African American father created was based on the belief that the hard work and democratic values of 1960s activists made equality my birthright.
But my day-to-day experience was full of evidence that racism was alive and well. High school classmates would chant the n-word when our team played its biggest rival the next town over. Slurs against gay people were so accepted that teachers used them without thought. And after winning a local Junior Miss competition, a first for a black contestant, I was excluded from the local news and town parade. When I brought my Ivy League college acceptance letter into the career center, a counselor suggested that I got in because of my race.
So I rushed to sign up for the Army Reserves, in part because it was the only place I knew of that promised I wouldn’t be judged or limited by my race or gender. We women, people of color, and immigrants are especially attracted by the idea that we could live our lives on equal footing with other Americans. But the military isn’t the egalitarian nirvana that its multi-billion dollar advertising blitz – with a budget of almost $4 billion in 2003 – claims.
Like most female soldiers, I learned the hard way that men dominate military culture. We are stuck in a system that makes it difficult to report abuse because of fear of reprisal. Even the military itself admitted in a June 2005 report by the Defense Task Force on Sexual Harassment and Violence at the Military Service Academies, “harassment is the more prevalent and corrosive problem, creating an environment in which sexual assault is more likely to occur.”
Just ask any woman in uniform – sexual harassment is a common experience on base. I remember on the day of boot camp graduation, the same drill sergeant who had threatened to “rip off my head and shit in my neck” for a minor infraction during training grabbed my arm in the on-base store and pressured me for a date. This was a man that had exercised incredible power over me and my unit for twelve weeks, and through my fear I mumbled, “Drill sergeant, no” three times before he let me go. I didn’t know at the time that about 60 percent of women who have served in the National Guard and reserves said they were sexually harassed or assaulted, but less than one-quarter reported it. Many who did complain were encouraged to drop their complaints.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/050606H.shtml
Swanson and politics: while Rose was raising the kids in Massachusetts, ole Joe Kennedy in Hollywood was plugging the glamorous star of his RKO Corporation . . .
wesgpc -
Of course it was just a story. Like the one about the new CIA head that sent out a memo telling everyone that their job was to cook the intel to support the President, not rock the boat by calling him on his WAGs. And weren’t there some job apps that had to be recalled bc they listed loyalty to Bush as a job pre-requisite?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Re: pardons: one of GHWB’s pardon –ees, Elliot Abrams, has held appointments with W all through his terms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliott_Abrams
During the Iran-Contra Affair, Abrams was
indicted for giving false testimony about his role in the illicit money-raising schemes by the special prosecutor handling the case, but he pleaded guilty to two lesser offenses of withholding information to Congress in order to avoid a trial and a possible jail term. Quoted in a May 30, 1994 article in Legal Times, Abrams spoke of his prosecutors as “filthy bastards”, the proceedings against him “Kafkaesque”, and members of the Senate Intelligence Committee “pious clowns” whose raison d’etre was to ask him “abysmally stupid” questions.[1] President George H. W. Bush pardoned Abrams along with a number of other Iran-Contra defendants shortly before leaving office in 1992
He’s part of why I don’t really see Libby or Rove caving. He played the system and won and they have worked with him on a day in, day out basis.
• National Security Council: Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Near East and North African Affairs, 2002 to present
• National Security Council: Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Democracy, Human Rights, and International Operations, 2001–02
I guess in 2002 when he was linked to the Venezuelan coup attempt people remembered his other South American interludes and thought it was too dangerous to leave him as Sr. Director for Democracy, Human Rights and International Operations. Someone, somewhere, was going to get to giggling after martinis and choke on an olive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Of course, the really hilarious part is that once upon a time people got in trouble for withholding information from Congress – now, apparently, they get promotions and nominations to be Atty Gen, or CIA Dir, Sec of State, or . . .
Remember the Jane Hamshers of the left? Of which Jane is not a member?
xyz 107 — The only practical problem that I can see — and you’re right, it could be a problem — is in forcing those pardoned to tell the truth, which in turn depends on a credible threat of perjury charges if they don’t. Given the amount of evidence that Fitz already has, though, I don’t think they could assume he can’t make such a threat. However, although IAAL (but not, I trust, ANAL, immanentize to the contrary notwithstanding) I don’t do criminal law, , so I too would be interested in hearing from the others.
imm #109- my sense of this is different, having been through the Nixon years at an older age than you. Impeachment proceedings (both houses Dem, maybe only House Dem) would reinforce the notion that Repubs are corrupt, and give Dems big play going into 2008. Plus, in a wider sense, it would be a step towards reestablishing some credibility for the US on the international scene.
BarbaraB- thanks for very interesting comments.
Impeachment pro and con: I think sunlight is best approach. Important point is to politically discredit BushCo. So sunlight of impartial investigation first. Proceed on to impeachment and criminal action only if consensus that it is warranted. I personally think that consensus on impeachment will exist soon, but that doesn’t mean I think it is safe to assume it does right now, or to assume that it will in the future.
But, hey, here is a fun idea. Maybe, just maybe, if population knew what Dems stood for, presented a coherent easily understood *general* description of alterantive policies they would adopt. Then, by golly, just maybe the Dems could persuade voters that GOP progaganda comapaign that Dem victory means nonstop invstigation paralysis is total BS.
But, naaahhh. That’s a stupid idea. Tell people what you think? Naah. I’m thinking crazy. Sorry. Anyway, important thing is to win Nov elections big enough to create chance to change policy direction in next two years, before we are even deeper in the Bush cess-hole.
Marysz 65 – Oh my, hadn’t thought of that song for years. I used to sing it when I was a kid. Gonna have it stuck in my head now. :)
BarbaraB says: “Sitting Presidents cannot be indicted while in office..”
May 9th, 2006 at 5:33 pm
If I recall correctly, wasn’t that Robert Bork’s conclusion when he wrote an advisory opinion to that effect in 1973 when he was in the Department of Justice?
What other opinions written before then – case law or otherwise – support that conclusion?
When the civil suit Paula Jones filed against Bill Clinton wound up in the United States Supreme Court, did the opinion say anything about indictment of a sitting President?
#113.
It is interesting that the Republicans are trying to drum up support on this angle….
Listen you 70% of Americans, if you don’t change your mind, well, the Democrats may look into why you hate us so much!
-GSD
re HUD story and media: hit news enough for at least one Senator to call for HUD secty’s resignation. Lautenberg, I think.
did the HUD story hit cable news, Corp. print media ?
Olbermann just named Jackson Worst Person In the World. :)
One of the loose ends had been Mitchell’s confusion about whether she did or did not know of Plame’s identity prior to the Novak column. Even her efforts to “clarify” and say, “no,” were ambiguous. However, the NBC response, housed over at Talk Left, clearly states(at pp. 7-8) that she meant “NO.” It states unambiguously that Mitchell did not know of Plame’s identity or who Mrs. Wilson was or where she worked, before Novak published his column outting Plame. One more Mehlman talking point gone.
Thanks BarbaraB – IAAL also. Not a litigator, though. Strictly corporate, except when I dabble on FDL.
The bottom line is that your analysis has to give pause to Bush and those who rely on a pardon from him.
Unless we are both missing something, there is no way Bush can count on a pardon to wash away his problems.
I look forward to hearing the thoughts of the others as well.
Scarecrow you are the man! or woman if that is the case. Nice catch.
For the lawyers out there- back to Judy Scooter- who has “first call” on dealing with Judy’s response to Team Libby- Fitz or Judge? (I will remember his name once I post, I’m sure.) Jackson?
Stephen Parrish 130, very interesting questions – I’d love to hear what our legal eagles around here say.
I understand there’s a fuzzy dating for Novak’s column. It got out on the wires on Friday, June 11th but not scheduled for publication until July 14th (Monday). It was possible for insiders to read the column before it hit public print — it’s likely the W.H. folk knew the column’s contents on Friday, July 11th…Andrea et al might also have heard the gossip from Friday before Monday official publication…
xyz– thanks, but never claimed to be a “catch” either way.
Is saying that a claim is “startlingly baseless” the same as saying that it is, in fact, false?
Just wondering…
scarecrow – the unambguous statement that you found can be seen on page 4 of the filing, not pages 7-8.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..01496.html
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER Tuesday, May 9, 2006; 8:04 PM
===WASHINGTON — Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson reportedly told a business group in Dallas that he rejected a government contract with an advertiser because the man told him he didn’t like President Bush.
A spokeswoman acknowledged that Jackson told the story. But, she said, the story was untrue.
“The secretary’s story was anecdotal. He is not part of the contracting process,” said HUD spokeswoman Dustee Tucker. “He was trying to explain to this group how politics works in D.C.”
Jackson, speaking at an April 28 forum sponsored by the Real Estate Executive Council, told about a minority contractor who had finally landed an advertising contract with HUD after trying for 10 years, according to an article in the Dallas Business Journal.
“He came to see me and thank me for selecting him. Then he said something … he said, ‘I have a problem with your president,’” Jackson told the group, according to the newspaper.
“I said, ‘What do you mean?’ He said, ‘I don’t like President Bush.’” Jackson told the group, which promotes business opportunities for minorities in the real estate industry.
“He didn’t get the contract,” Jackson said. “Why should I reward someone who doesn’t like the president, so they can use funds to try to campaign against the president? Logic says they don’t get the contract. That’s the way I believe.”===
AOL.
The public seems rather SOUR on G.W. Bush.
Who will history judge more favorably?
Jimmy Carter 78%
George W. Bush 22%
Total Votes: 101,056
-GSD
Anybody who ever suffered through physics lab (or even if you didn’t), this is a stitch. (Via evolvethought)
http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~kovar/hall.html
I think the fact that you have people who evaded consequences, like Abrams, still figure so prominently in the system, goes to the need for a thorough investigation and if it reveals, as IMO it undoubtedly will, felony violations of FISA authorized by the President and felony + violations of the War Crimes Act (as counseled in the Gonzales memo) then there should be impeachment. If not for those things, then for what?
I agree that it would be cumbersome and difficult and painful. I also don’t believe for one minute that it will happen. Which means that we only await the next GWB with Rumsfeld and Cheney-like resurrections of their younger versions and protégés – Cambone and Addington and Feith etc. in the next round. And the next round.
excerpts from Billmon’s latest –
http://billmon.org/archives/002433.html
From the LA Times via Laura Rozen:
Administration allies said Monday that by reviving debate over the spy program, which Hayden oversaw when he led the National Security Agency, his nomination would provide a welcomed opportunity to reopen a tried-and-true election-year playbook in which Republicans portray Democrats as weak on national security. …
Still, there were signs Monday that the White House might have miscalculated. …
Those unexpected turns of events . . . muddied the message being promoted by White House strategist Karl Rove, who recently predicted that the terrorist wiretapping program would portray Democrats as operating with a “pre-9/11 mindset.”(emphasis added)
I think Turdblossom’s problem is that he’s operating with a pre-31% mindset.
He may also be making the same mistake the Democrats usually make (how’s that for irony?) which is looking at the polls and thinking that because a majority says they agree with you on a particular issue, that means the voters are basically on your side.
Which is why John Kerry is president today. …
Rove is smoking from the same crack pipe as his boss if he thinks there is some huge silent majority out there frothing at the mouth because the insolent libs have dared to challenge the Divine One’s right to violate any law he sees fit. …
The point is, when you get down to 31% approval in a Gallup Poll, and your disapproval rating is trying to poll vault over the record high set by Richard Nixon just before he resigned in disgrace, it means the American people essentially think you’re the political equivalent of crab lice. At that point, they’re probably going to hate anything and everything you do — even if they actually agree with it — just because you’re the one doing it. …
It appears arrogance is all the Rovians have left. But then they started with such a huge supply.
Thesaurus Rex #75: “I am not a lawyer.”
Valley Girl says:
May 9th, 2006 at 6:09 pm
Have you seen this? He claims, through someone speaking on his behalf, that the story was fabricated:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/…..-responds/
oops, I mean 74
*ilson — if the WH knew about the contents of the Novak article by July 11, then the “a few days later” [after July 8] when Rove allegedly told Libby about the impending article falls into place, and it means the WH, which had also been informed by the CIA of Plame’s status (did we get that from Murray Waas?) had three days to protect Plame by calling the WaPo — but didn’t. So even if they inadvertently outted her — their last refuge defense against the underlying crime — they deliberately failed to correct the mistake even though they had time to do so. Why wasn’t the CIA pounding on the WH to do something, once they knew what Novak told them what he was about to publish? Or did they? Just speculation, of course.
Imman at 96 I did pray for you and received a feeling of peace. You will be ok.
Jimmy Carter– good human.
G. Dubya– bad.
Imman 104 the tune not the tv.
new defense tactic for corruptly-contracting Cabinet Secretaries: “Don’t believe me, I was just making shit up ! “
123 — *ilson46201
Swanson and politics: while Rose was raising the kids in Massachusetts, ole Joe Kennedy in Hollywood was plugging the glamorous star of his RKO Corporation . . .
Was Joe’s RKO responsible for Citizen Kane? Which was responsible for the downfall of RKO . . .
SP,CPA — I haven’t looked at the Jones opinion in a long time, and I can’t remember whether (in the course of discussing whether a sitting President could be compelled to give testimony in a civil case) it said anything about criminal cases. However, IIRC, Ken Starr also assumed that a sitting President cannot be indicted, for which I suppose we must all be thankful. In any event, I don’t think a US Attorney would want to attempt it with W, since he or she would know that by the time the issue is authoritatively settled, the Preznit would be an ex- anyway.
xyz — if we wanted to drive all the other FDLers to another site — or get banned ourselves — we could have an interesting discussion of what we think the Delaware Supreme Court is going to do with Chandler’s opinion in Disney. As it is, however, best not. *g*
I don’t know why I bother trying to participate in the discussion. By the time I’ve replied to something, the discussion is way beyond what I’m addressing. I miss my dsl.
I am NOT blogwhoring for Jeralyn but she has a hugely delicious graphic at Talkleft http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014790.html
as I recall, Kennedy had sold RKO by the time Citizen Kane was made at that studio…
scarecrow says: “So even if they inadvertently outed her — their last refuge defense against the underlying crime — they deliberately failed to correct the mistake even though they had time to do so.”
May 9th, 2006 at 6:17 pm
Have you looked at 50 USC 422? The defenses to violations of 50 USC 421 are mentioned there.
xyz — you’re right; pages 4-5 of the document, but pp 7-8 as one scrolls down on the pdf Reader. Sorry for the confusion. Andrea made me say this.
Stephen Parrish, CPA
In WaPo article above: ===A spokeswoman acknowledged that Jackson told the story. But, she said, the story was untrue.===
And, from your link:
===In other words, his spokesman claims that Jackson fabricated a long and detailed exchange (excerpt: “He said, ‘I have a problem with your president.’ I said, ‘What do you mean?’ He said, ‘I don’t like President Bush.’â€) with a CEO that doesn’t actually exist, about a process he isn’t actually involved with.
[]1) That excuse isn’t just difficult to swallow — it also contradicts the spokesperson’s first response published in today’s paper, which referenced the specific contract in question: “Dustee Tucker, a spokeswoman for Jackson’s office, said the value of the advertising contract, which was to be placed with a minority publication, could not be provided.†It looks like Jackson is changing his story as criticism builds.===
*ilson46201–
I am your steward… please return us to our normal and upright position………
we are actually abnormal and uptight, no worries, mate!
scarecrow 140 do you mean you are single/available?
huh?
158 LindyH –
Hang in there — that happens to everyone.
You can also compose a response, do a ctrl A (select all) ctrl C (copy) and then F5 (refresh) — to see what’s been posted ed in the meantime. That way, you won’t be too far behind the curve.
Plus — when threads like this one get really long, WordPress gets r e a l l y s l o w . . .
When that happens, I often compose in an email window, and do the copy paste routine.
Never mind the Hindyburger– it’ll be jest fine, cause I care about the U.S. of A. I will pertect it and y’all forever!
-GSD
131
*G*G*G*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Everytime the illegal felonious wiretaps come up, the Dems have a prime opportunity. Look at the ABA polling and you will see that most Americans do not want to give up their 4th amendment rights to an unchecked, unsupervised unilateral Executive. But as long as Dems like Bayh and Feinstein (who seems to finally be finding a voice?) yammer on and on about how it is just a necessary thing to commit multiple daily felonies for five years without recourse and to commit to a path of continuing felony violations until the day that the earth is cleansed, then they do kind of blow it.
And its not just Hayden’s illegal, felonious programs and contempt for the Fourth Amendment, it is the fact that he appeared before the joint hearings Oct 2002 and fibbed to, misled and withheld information from Congress – which is an equally interesting turn of events. Back in the bad old days, folks like Abrams actually got indicted and pled for things like that – forcing a pardon. Now, apparently, it is cause for a weiner roast with sparklers for the kids and you get a promotion instead of a pardon.
The whole reason the dems are having any problems whatsoever on wiretap is that they dug their own graves not leaping to support Feingold and not just nailing the fact that the Executive has had a half decade history of covert illegal DOMESTIC programs and it STILL is not (vis a vis the ATT splicer rooms, which sure deserve some questions) telling the truth. And btw – that “it is not data mining†quote from Hayden? Does he want to explain to Congress what is going on in the EFF litigation then – and if he has AGAIN – fibbed to, misrepresented to and withheld from Congress?
All the nonsense about whether or not it was “not really so bad, if the President acted in good faith†is bull by now, bc they have had 6 mos of in their face defiance that cannot in any way, shape or form continue to be deemed some innocent “good faith goof†and they haven’t done a thing. What – if they “knew it was bad faith†they’d have done something? Of course not –that is why people are disgusted with them.
They have no moral compass; which makes it a little hard to head in the right direction
select all — copy — paste
the paste command is ctrl V
xyz @ 135
…IAAL also. Not a litigator, though. Strictly corporate, except when I dabble on FDL.
…where you play an alligator in the fever swamp…. :~)
Does anyone have a link to a print version of the Novak article? I found what I think is the column at townhall.com. I had been assuming that this had actually been printed somewhere on the date. I tried to find it in Lexis/Nexis, because that would show when it was first available (if in print). But I couldn’t find the column. Maybe I am not trying to find the right column. I thought it was this one: http://www.townhall.com/opinio…..60881.html
VG @ 172 : yup, that’s the infamous article
BarbaraB says: “However, IIRC, Ken Starr also assumed that a sitting President cannot be indicted…”
May 9th, 2006 at 6:21 pm
I would not be surprised to find that Ken Starr relied on Robert Bork’s opinion to formulate the assumption that you mentioned. If Robert Bork’s advisory opinion is available online, it would be worthwhile to read it to see what precedents he cites as a basis for his opinion.
OT and yay for the Native Americans and the FDL’ers heading to Nevada and BobbyG!
>>>>>>
Search: Advanced
AP
Nev. Mushroom Cloud Blast to Be Delayed
By KEN RITTER, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 4 minutes ago
LAS VEGAS – A non-nuclear explosion expected to generate a mushroom cloud over the Nevada desert will be postponed while a federal court reviews plans for the blast, officials said Tuesday.
The experiment won’t be conducted earlier than June 23, said Cheri Abdelnour, spokeswoman for the federal Defense Threat Reduction Agency at Fort Belvoir, Va. The blast was originally scheduled June 2.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200…..room_cloud
>>>>>>
hopefully, they will rename it and rethink it as Divine Stupidity…
i suspect Cheri is french! bravo!
*ilson- thanks. Too bad it wasn’t in print, bec. then Lexis/Nexis might give some info about an earlier available version. So much for my detective work.
SP CPA = re defenses, I read what you posted earlier today (yesterday?)on them, when you also noted they had an affirmative obligation to protect her statuts. To me that has as much political significance as legal. So even if they can claim they did not deliberately out an agent, they knowingly failed to protect one they knew was about to be outted. Pretty sorry bunch.
thanks ck
Douglas Feith ACCEPTED a teaching OFFER from Georgetown University???You gotta be kidding. It must have been general Franks that recommended him. No f**kin wonder our foreign policy sucks with gusto!!!
angie says:
May 9th, 2006 at 6:40 pm
Everyone at YearlyKos should be able to have a blast anyway, even without Divine Strake – right?
It looks like Byron “Master of the Obvious” York is writing headlines for Reuters now.
http://today.reuters.com/news/…..amp;rpc=22
-GSD
Mary 169 –
Read Billmon’s latest (excerpted above). He makes the point that domestic wiretapping isn’t a salient issue for the Democrats, but it’s probably not a winner for BushCo either.
The CW-O (cocktail weenie opinion) in Washington is that domestic wiretapping is a loser for the Dems, but I don’t think it is.
If the pitch is crafted to appeal to the NRA black helicopter fearin’ types, it can be a corrosive wedgie into the core of what’s left of Bush’s base.
Monday, July 14th is the official publication date for that infamous column. As I understand it, it was sent out by the syndicator on the Friday previous to the various newspapers that carry Novak’s column…
Stephen Parrish– absolutamente with no Divine Strake at all! They will fire up the place with all good things. ;)
#145-That did make me laugh out loud. Thanks so much!
Jackson is gone by the end of the week. His best defense is that he was lying. To what end?…
scarecrow says:
May 9th, 2006 at 6:42 pm
Wasn’t it actually you who noted in one of your posts that they had an affirmative obligation to protect her status before I mentioned it? You’ll see affirmative obligation mentioned in 50 USC 421.
Agh…after a long night slaving over a hot Democratic club meeting, I come home to find not cool comfort but FDL traffic driving to a f*cking Peejay-wearing moron’s site?
Agh. I feel so dirty. It’s beyond a pity-party for the cerebrum-impoverished butthead; he’ll use it to boost his claims that his site has increased in popularity, evidenced by a sudden spike confirmed by Technorati. Worse, I actually trafficked a PeejayEm site — and I NEVER do that. Agh. And I can’t even scrape my shoes off after stepping in that-whatever-it-is. Protein protoplasmic guck.
LOL. Goss and Cheney to get Congressional Distinguished Service Awards:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2….._0509.html
ever since Nixon, H.U.D. has been the dumping ground for Black Republicans … there’s enough Federal cash sloshing around at the local level to be attractive to African-Americans willing to sell out to the GOP
SP, CPA — yes. It just wasn’t clear to me that the failure to act affirmatively was the same crime (with same penalty) as the knowing, affirmative act. How do you read it?
punaise
reminds me of an old expression –
a good pun is its own reward
http://www.vegard.net/about/one-liners.php
egregious — see xyz link, #4
scarecrow says:
May 9th, 2006 at 6:58 pm
That’s an excellent question. Let me think about it, and perhaps the lawyers here can look at what we discussed – 50 USC 421 and 50 USC 422 – and tell us what they think.
OT: HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson also involved with Abramoff?
From p. 2 of Washington Post article Former Aide to Rep. Ney Pleads Guilty
First the news of the HUD contracting favoritism, now links to Abramoff — I wonder how soon we’ll be hearing of Jackson’s resignation?
The corruption hits just keep on coming!
(Hat tip to Laura Rozen’s Reader B at War And Piece.)
Who sprayed the Malathion on all those aspen roots? Dangit all!
Mary 146 — I agree with you about the dangers of history repeating itself, but impeachment doesn’t stop that if a substantial number of people think it’s partisan. The Republican base still thinks that Nixon was hounded out of office, in spite of the evidence. And what happened to Nixon did not dissuade the current administration from engaging in crimes that make Nixon look like a piker; indeed, it seems merely to have furnished Cheney with a rationalization for “restoring” the power of the Presidency.
One thing I’m quite sure of: W and Cheney have committed impeachable offenses. Another thing I’m also quite sure of, although I realize that reasonable minds can differ on this: the House should not impeach unless it knows there are enough votes in the Senate to convict. And not even the most optimistic among us thinks that the Democrats are going to get 2/3 of the Senate in ‘06. On the other hand, getting a simple majority in Congress will effectively neuter Bush, particularly if the rubber stamp gets traded for subpoena power. I’ll settle for that.
xyz 192
…or its own punishment! the silent majority cringes?
thanks for the link
LindyH 179 –
you’re welcome . . .
joining an online conversation can be a disconcerting experience — what with the keyboard/computer screen interface thingy, it’s kinda like a message in a bottle — you write and launch; will anyone find your message?
keep trying . . .
Fitz opportunity upstairs
http://www.nndb.com/org/760/000051607/
Aspen Institute
http://www.nndb.com/people/498/000062312/
Alphonso Jackson AKA Alphonso Roy Jackson
Born: 9-Sep-1945
Birthplace: Marshall, TX
Gender: Male
Religion: Anglican/Episcopalian
Ethnicity: Black
Sexual orientation: Straight
Occupation: Government
[]Aspen Institute Fellow 1995
new thread – new hope
BarbaraB #196: I like your comment and think it is thoughtful. Um… not sure what your conclusion is, tough. I think it *should* be: sunlight best disinfectant, need a convincing public exposure of bad deeds that forces public revulsion at Bushite wing of GOP only real solution to monster coming back from defeat in even more horrifying form next time. That public awareness and very broad based political revulsion more important than impeachment or legal proceedings that do not have broad public support or do not have a very solid legal basis.
(Of course, if BushCo actually on verge of pre-emptive Iran nuke attack, or some similar disaster, then all bets off in doing whatever to save country)
ck @ 6:32 pm (#183) – Not sure how you’d craft such a message, but there’s certainly plenty of paranoia on the right that ought to be exploitable.
cujo359 205 –
maybe using “Black Helicopters” as a lead in joke — then segue into “every phone call you make, every email you send, might be intercepted by Bush’s illegal NSA spying program” — something like that.
Jackson/HUD story has legs!
http://dallas.bizjournals.com/…..ily19.html
Also, I love it that Lautenberg has chosen to point out that this parctice costs the taxpayers money.
Valley Girl (202) — thank you, thank you!! I’ve been poking around in the Aspens for awhile now, and I’m beginning to think that like the TownHall.com arm of Heritage Foundation, it’s a RICO organization.
Per Valley Girl #43 above:
“… political litmus tests in the awarding of government contracts undermines the integrity of our government and leads to a waste of taxpayer dollars,” Lautenberg said in a letter to Bush
That’s something that will play in both Blue and Red states.
wesgpc 204 — That’s about it, with the caveat that not even public revulsion now will prevent the threat of totalitarianism from rearing its head later. Most of the public was pretty revulsed at Nixon by the end — but he did still have nearly a third of the country supporting him as he got on the helicopter. I spent a year on the staff of a Senate committee investigating intelligence abuses, and now, 30 years later, it’s deja vu all over again. Recognizing that does not mean giving up the fight; it just means reminding ourselves that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
If Bush attacks Iran without Congressional authorization, then certainly all bets are off — but unless the Democrats take back Congress by enough of a margin that the defection of the DINOs won’t matter, I have the horrible feeling that even that would’t be enough to insure his removal from office. In fact, if he acts before November, he could probably get Congressional authorization if he orchestrates things carefully enough and the Democrats can’t sustain a filibuster. Scary times.
OT- â€Microsoft warns of two “critical” security flaws
Microsoft Corp. on Tuesday warned of a “critical” security flaw in its Windows operating system and another in its business Exchange software that could allow attackers to take control of a computer.
Microsoft, whose Windows operating system runs on 90 percent of the world’s computers, issued patches to fix the problems as part of its monthly security bulletin.
The world’s biggest software maker defines a flaw as “critical” when the vulnerability could allow a damaging Internet worm to replicate without the user doing anything to the machine.â€â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.
http://tinyurl.com/zqqlv