<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Define &#8220;throes.&#8221;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://firedoglake.com/2006/06/19/define-throes/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://firedoglake.com/2006/06/19/define-throes/</link>
	<description>Firedoglake weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:24:58 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mary</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2006/06/19/define-throes/#comment-150257</link>
		<dc:creator>Mary</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jun 2006 06:41:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/06/19/define-throes/#comment-150257</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;One last spec.  If someone was challenging the authority of the Spec. Prosecutor, that might be styled as a V. Fitzgerald etc. instead of a V. US. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;So another possiblity - what if the delegation of authority to the Spec. Prosecutor was changed, via McNulty?  If the Comey authorization to investigate obstruction, etc. was withdrawn? If he objected, there could be an action for compliance filed.   They could argue that the reasons for the withdrawal of the auhorizations to pursue obstruction etc. and limiting the delegation might be due to the possible nat. sec. implications of letting the Prosec. pursue conspiracy investigations involving people involved at the highest levels of security matters and their correspondence - or they could claim lesser, but still privileged, executive privilege as to the methods of determination to reduce the scope of the delegation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Either one would likely yield a Sealed v. Sealed case - in essence a US via McNulty v. Fitzgerald case.  On the national sec front, they could get an affidavit from Gonzales, as head of the dept - DOJ, stating that it would be harmful to nat sec to have to turn over docs relating to the innerworkings of people like the WHIG.  They could even lift and use some of Comey’s argument in Arar to make the case for them that the assertion of nat sec. interests by the head of the DOJ should not be subject to further review and should stand on its own.  Tack on Exec Priv. arguments for not wanting to get into why the decision to reduce the Spec. Prose. authority was made in a public format –andyou have two privilege bases for keeping the case under wraps.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If a judge issued a prompt ruling that the Spec Pros. has to abide by the order and his authority is reduced - then ?&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One last spec.  If someone was challenging the authority of the Spec. Prosecutor, that might be styled as a V. Fitzgerald etc. instead of a V. US. </p>
<p>So another possiblity &#8211; what if the delegation of authority to the Spec. Prosecutor was changed, via McNulty?  If the Comey authorization to investigate obstruction, etc. was withdrawn? If he objected, there could be an action for compliance filed.   They could argue that the reasons for the withdrawal of the auhorizations to pursue obstruction etc. and limiting the delegation might be due to the possible nat. sec. implications of letting the Prosec. pursue conspiracy investigations involving people involved at the highest levels of security matters and their correspondence &#8211; or they could claim lesser, but still privileged, executive privilege as to the methods of determination to reduce the scope of the delegation.</p>
<p>Either one would likely yield a Sealed v. Sealed case &#8211; in essence a US via McNulty v. Fitzgerald case.  On the national sec front, they could get an affidavit from Gonzales, as head of the dept &#8211; DOJ, stating that it would be harmful to nat sec to have to turn over docs relating to the innerworkings of people like the WHIG.  They could even lift and use some of Comey’s argument in Arar to make the case for them that the assertion of nat sec. interests by the head of the DOJ should not be subject to further review and should stand on its own.  Tack on Exec Priv. arguments for not wanting to get into why the decision to reduce the Spec. Prose. authority was made in a public format –andyou have two privilege bases for keeping the case under wraps.</p>
<p>If a judge issued a prompt ruling that the Spec Pros. has to abide by the order and his authority is reduced &#8211; then ?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mOropeza</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2006/06/19/define-throes/#comment-150160</link>
		<dc:creator>mOropeza</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jun 2006 05:18:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/06/19/define-throes/#comment-150160</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Anne Holiday&lt;br /&gt;
 Jeb is not running for president unless Bush wins the war in Iraq and turns the ecconomy around. I mentioned Jeb because he might run and I think he more than any other canidate would be hurt by Bush pardoing Scooter. However if Scooter is not pardoned then I think that  Jeb is going to run for president. Thanks for reading my comment!&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Anne Holiday<br />
 Jeb is not running for president unless Bush wins the war in Iraq and turns the ecconomy around. I mentioned Jeb because he might run and I think he more than any other canidate would be hurt by Bush pardoing Scooter. However if Scooter is not pardoned then I think that  Jeb is going to run for president. Thanks for reading my comment!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: e.c.</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2006/06/19/define-throes/#comment-150146</link>
		<dc:creator>e.c.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jun 2006 05:07:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/06/19/define-throes/#comment-150146</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;don’t you silly people understand.  the insurgency won’t end untill we BAN GAY MARRIAGE!!!&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>don’t you silly people understand.  the insurgency won’t end untill we BAN GAY MARRIAGE!!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anne Holliday</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2006/06/19/define-throes/#comment-150098</link>
		<dc:creator>Anne Holliday</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jun 2006 04:37:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/06/19/define-throes/#comment-150098</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;nuerophius 199 - I believe the story too. And am standing by the truthout team - Jason Leopold deserves no less. Of course I’m biased having grown up a newspaper brat thanks to my intrepid reporter father who had a couple of similar scrapes with enraged crooked pols and their minions. He was about Jason’s age when he took terrific heat for a controversial story he broke on the Joplin (MO)Globe on political corruption during the Depression, scooping - and enraging -the Kansas City Star. Seems they didn’t cotton to the “hick kid” embarrassing the hell out them. A year later they tried unsuccessfully to lure him away to the KCS.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;mOropeza 221 - Agree with everything you write except the part about Jeb. Is this the new conventional wisdom that Jeb may actually be in a presidential debate? Let me know if a betting pool is afoot - I could use some easy money. The Bush Family dynasty is on the wrong side of history and as my poker playing son is wont to say: TOAST.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>nuerophius 199 &#8211; I believe the story too. And am standing by the truthout team &#8211; Jason Leopold deserves no less. Of course I’m biased having grown up a newspaper brat thanks to my intrepid reporter father who had a couple of similar scrapes with enraged crooked pols and their minions. He was about Jason’s age when he took terrific heat for a controversial story he broke on the Joplin (MO)Globe on political corruption during the Depression, scooping &#8211; and enraging -the Kansas City Star. Seems they didn’t cotton to the “hick kid” embarrassing the hell out them. A year later they tried unsuccessfully to lure him away to the KCS.</p>
<p>mOropeza 221 &#8211; Agree with everything you write except the part about Jeb. Is this the new conventional wisdom that Jeb may actually be in a presidential debate? Let me know if a betting pool is afoot &#8211; I could use some easy money. The Bush Family dynasty is on the wrong side of history and as my poker playing son is wont to say: TOAST.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tanbark</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2006/06/19/define-throes/#comment-150037</link>
		<dc:creator>tanbark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jun 2006 04:10:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/06/19/define-throes/#comment-150037</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;There you go again, Tiger; harassing Halliburton Dick about his prognostications.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For shame!   &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;    Are you some kind of linguistic puritan? &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; That you can’t stand the bushmasters buttfucking the english language cross-eyed, in their efforts to avoid being evicted from Fantasy-Island-with-flying-body-parts?  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;    If our troops can “stay the course” in Iraq, why shouldn’t all the creators of the bastion of democracy and stability in the mideast, be allowed to continue their three-plus-year program to turn the King’s english into a bullshit vehicle that makes a John Deere fertilizer combine look like a toy, and which would make Joseph Goebbels blush with shame?&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There you go again, Tiger; harassing Halliburton Dick about his prognostications.</p>
<p>For shame!   </p>
<p>    Are you some kind of linguistic puritan? </p>
<p> That you can’t stand the bushmasters buttfucking the english language cross-eyed, in their efforts to avoid being evicted from Fantasy-Island-with-flying-body-parts?  </p>
<p>    If our troops can “stay the course” in Iraq, why shouldn’t all the creators of the bastion of democracy and stability in the mideast, be allowed to continue their three-plus-year program to turn the King’s english into a bullshit vehicle that makes a John Deere fertilizer combine look like a toy, and which would make Joseph Goebbels blush with shame?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Le Jackal</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2006/06/19/define-throes/#comment-150021</link>
		<dc:creator>Le Jackal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jun 2006 03:58:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/06/19/define-throes/#comment-150021</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Edmonton is evil and everyone in it is evil. So go ‘Canes.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Edmonton is evil and everyone in it is evil. So go ‘Canes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mOropeza</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2006/06/19/define-throes/#comment-149921</link>
		<dc:creator>mOropeza</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jun 2006 03:13:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/06/19/define-throes/#comment-149921</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Bush’s expected pardon of Scooter has to be stopped I think every Dem canidate for president should say pardons involving the white house are a clear CONFLICT OF INTEREST and are not what the founding fathers wanted. Lets let Scalia try to  argue that the founding fathers really wanted George Washington to have the power to  pardon his friends and white house cronies BECAUSE HE WAS CROOK. Heck I would love to hear Jeb argue this in a presidential debate.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bush’s expected pardon of Scooter has to be stopped I think every Dem canidate for president should say pardons involving the white house are a clear CONFLICT OF INTEREST and are not what the founding fathers wanted. Lets let Scalia try to  argue that the founding fathers really wanted George Washington to have the power to  pardon his friends and white house cronies BECAUSE HE WAS CROOK. Heck I would love to hear Jeb argue this in a presidential debate.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: newtonusr</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2006/06/19/define-throes/#comment-149910</link>
		<dc:creator>newtonusr</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jun 2006 03:09:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/06/19/define-throes/#comment-149910</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Peterr&lt;br /&gt;
Nascar qualifying, dude!&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Peterr<br />
Nascar qualifying, dude!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: immanentize</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2006/06/19/define-throes/#comment-149906</link>
		<dc:creator>immanentize</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jun 2006 03:07:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/06/19/define-throes/#comment-149906</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Mary,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pick up some brownies, OK?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(and thanks for the great posts — you too LHP)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Me? I’m sleeping…. Catch you in the a.m.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mary,</p>
<p>Pick up some brownies, OK?</p>
<p>(and thanks for the great posts — you too LHP)</p>
<p>Me? I’m sleeping…. Catch you in the a.m.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peterr</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2006/06/19/define-throes/#comment-149900</link>
		<dc:creator>Peterr</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jun 2006 03:05:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/06/19/define-throes/#comment-149900</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Newtonusr - &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Carolina is in the World Cup? &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;;)&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Newtonusr &#8211; </p>
<p>Carolina is in the World Cup? </p>
<p>;)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
