Christy Hardin Smith @ 113

LHP — that’s the new wingnut theory du jour. I’m looking into it, but not finding much support for it. Hopefully can have something on it next week…if anyone finds something, for or against, please do pass it along.

here

here

I wonder if it’s ever been contested in Court.

And how many reprieves has Bush ever issued? Would seem to stand out as special cronyism if he has never offered them before and Libby was the “special case”. So out of the hundreds of thousands of cases up on appeal he ONLY gives Libby, a guy who used his position in the WH to expose a cover CIA agent, that special privelege.

He does this for the one guy that could, if he was forthright about who he spoke to in the Administration about the Plame information and whether he, in fact, knew her position was classified (certainly the documents that contained this information was marked Top Secret), would expose the conspiracy within the WH.

Shades of further Hatch Act violations.

But not unexpected. The Bush administration is acting like a bunch of gambling addicts who can’t admit that they have a gambling problem and can’t stop what they’re doing, no matter what intervention occurs.

In the case of the Bush administration, though, not only are they gambling addicts, but also card cheats, caught with jokers up their sleeves, but continuing to play because no one is willing to kick their asses out of the game.

Thus, no matter what the Democratic-controlled Congress does leading up to the November 2008 elections, the Bush administration will continue doing all the illegal things they’ve been doing as though no oversight still exists, as if Congress were controlled by “rubber stamp” Republicans. Which actually is true. How many filibusters have the “rubber stamp” Republican in the Senate used in the past six months, relative to the number of filibusters used by Democrats during the past six years?

Anyway, when Gonzales calls each of the U.S. Attorneys individually into his office, Democrats in Congress should immediately afterward subpoena them.

Because it is quite obvious that this face-to-face with Gonzales is an attempt to make certain that there are no records (email, etc) generated, records that might be subject to congressional subpoena.

Thus, my “gambling” analogy about BushCo sticking to their subversive game plan for our freedom-loving democracy.

Incredible. Impeach all the Bushites. Oh right, the “brown-nose” Republicans will filibuster any such attempt. What a bunch of traitors.

xaxnar @ 87

You know, I keep seeing a common misconception: Bush people crossed the line because they had so little understanding or experience related to governing and what is proper. That is giving them way too much credit.

It can’t be repeated too many times. These people don’t believe in the very concept of governance.

-SNIP-

At the core, their entire philosophy is Anti-American. We need to realize that to deal with them effectively.

I see this differently. The thugs in the White House are not the small-government is best ideologues. They are not trying to drown the federal government in the bath tub. That view is an entirely different though equally radical branch of the conservative movement.

the thugs in the White House believe in a very strong, expanding government, especially in the executive branch. Everything this regime has done is to increase the power of the executive. And this is not increasing power for its own sake, though the politicos like Rove may see it in those terms. The ideologues in the WH wanted a strong executive for two main reasons: (1) to expand the hegemomy of the US internationally — and free up the executive to wage war on behalf of expanding/maintaining that hegemony, and (2) to reverse decades of using the government as a balance against the power of corporations versus the rights of individuals and concepts of public interest.

The whole point of politicizing the federal agencies and the Justice Department wasn’t to shrink government but to redirect the government’s function and purposes. Take any agency, ask what’s it’s primary function was supposed to be under any of the hundreds of essentially “liberal” statutes of last 30 years, and you’d see the Bush appointees and decisions have been to use the same government agencies to do exactly the opposite of the original mandates.

They’re not trying to reduce government; they’re trying to reverse/redefine government’s mandate and then use the full power of the federal government and its re-politicized legal system to enforce the radically revised redirection.

There is nothing “conservative” about it; it is a radical movement; a peaceful by inherently dishonest (and often illegal) coup d-etat. And they’ve largely succeeded.

The oversight that’s going on now is merely revealing the scope of the radicalism and unlawfulness involved in this effort; but there is not yet a significant reversal of what has happened.

No Presidential candidate has articulated this, though it is implicit in some of their positions.

Point taken. There are the sincere ‘true believers’ like the Regency lawyer drones, and there are the blatantly corrupt who are in it for power, money, etc. (Like the guy they’re talking about here. You can hear the interview at that link. It’s only 35 minutes but it’s an appalling view of what’s happening to our country.)

My own personal evaluation is that the White House – and the national Republican Party these days is essentially a criminal conspiracy. The party of Lincoln is become a rotting zombie corpse; but of course polite society would never be so gauche as to puncture the pretense that it is still a party of principles. The alleged philosphy of Conservatism is nothing more than a sham of rationalizations, behind which the maggots are busy consuming what’s left of the brains and soul of the corpse as they work to corrupt everything else within their reach. If you listen carefully, you can hear a few voices on the Right, like souls falling into the pit of Hell, crying out “But this isn’t what we intended!” Well, we all know what the road to Hell is paved with.

I believe it was Orwell who wrote in 1984 that “the purpose of power is power.” Bush, Rove, Cheney, Delay, Bill Kristol, the Kagans, the entire GOP presidential slate, Dobson, Kennedy, Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, et. al. At the core, that is what their beliefs are about: power – having it, keeping it, and denying it to anyone else.

As I said, fundamentally Anti-American.

I see this differently. The thugs in the White House are not the small-government is best ideologues. They are not trying to drown the federal government in the bath tub. That view is an entirely different though equally radical branch of the conservative movement.

the thugs in the White House believe in a very strong, expanding government, especially in the executive branch. Everything this regime has done is to increase the power of the executive. And this is not increasing power for its own sake, though the politicos like Rove may see it in those terms. The ideologues in the WH wanted a strong executive for two main reasons: (1) to expand the hegemomy of the US internationally — and free up the executive to wage war on behalf of expanding/maintaining that hegemony, and (2) to reverse decades of using the government as a balance against the power of corporations versus the rights of individuals and concepts of public interest.

The whole point of politicizing the federal agencies and the Justice Department wasn’t to shrink government but to redirect the government’s function and purposes. Take any agency, ask what’s it’s primary function was supposed to be under any of the hundreds of essentially “liberal” statutes of last 30 years, and you’d see the Bush appointees and decisions have been to use the same government agencies to do exactly the opposite of the original mandates.

They’re not trying to reduce government; they’re trying to reverse/redefine government’s mandate and then use the full power of the federal government and its re-politicized legal system to enforce the radically revised redirection.

There is nothing “conservative” about it; it is a radical movement; a peaceful by inherently dishonest (and often illegal) coup d-etat. And they’ve largely succeeded.

I have come to conclusion that “small government conservatism” is a philosophy that can and is held only when in opposition, never while in power (see comment 105). Note that “small gov’t in opposition” is really saying “don’t interfere with big money interests”. While Bush and Reagan while in power both said “whee – big money interests – hep yoself!”.

There are no true conservatives on the Right. A true conservative wants to conserve what’s right (ie, they’re cautious). Today’s conservatives want to go back to a time when, so they claim, everything was right. They call it the Golden Age, we think of Robber Barons.

If “small gov’t” was an actual goal, why didn’t they all move to Somalia when they had the chance?

Check out TPM for the latest installment of what he’s doing just at the DOJ.

After months of humiliating disclosures about the legally suspect and professionally damaging politicization at the DOJ, after formal investigations at the GSA that resulted in a firing recommendation, after the announcement of further investigations of eighteen other federal agencies, does KKKarl rein himself in? Nooo. He counterattacks.

Via ‘Fredo, he has instituted a new interview process for USA’s. That’s on top of the exhaustive process that already evaluates whether they are highly competent lawyers and managers. According to TPM, ‘Fredo, who has so little else to do, is now going to interview each USA and pass on to them all the complaints from (at least Republican) politicians about them.

That’s just in case any of them haven’t gotten the memo that political loyalty is all that counts – especially as continuing investigations threaten to open wide KKKarl’s Pandora’s Box. Chutzpah doesn’t quite capture that act. Congress should lawyer up.

If the current power structure stays in place, Rollins’ career prospects look extremely dim. I wonder how much that might have to do with his attack of conscience and respect for the rule of law.

The Constitution gives presidents the power to grant “reprieves and pardons.” The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted that language to include pardons, conditional pardons, commutations of sentence, conditional commutations of sentence, remissions of fines, as well as forfeitures, reprieves, respites, and amnesties. A respite delays the execution of a sentence. It does not address issues of due process or guilt or innocence. It merely suspends sentence for a designated period of time. George Washington granted the first respites in June, 1795, when he delayed the execution of two men who fought in the Whiskey Rebellion — both of whom were eventually pardoned

The typical respite lasts between 30 and 90 days. But many times, initial grants have been followed by a second and third respite, or as many additional respites as were necessary. Woodrow Wilson delayed the six-and-a-half-year prison sentences of two men with nine respites because an “investigation of the facts” had taken “considerable time” — 13 months to be exact. Wilson also delayed the five-year sentences of W.G. and S.G. Simpson with three respites before pardoning them. The men were described as “guilty,” but it was noted they had made a “strong showing” that they had not intended to commit a crime. Howard Showalter lost his appeals, but his five-year sentence was delayed by Wilson for eight months before a pardon was granted over the strenuous objections of the judge and U.S. attorney. Robert Sidebotham’s 13-month sentence was delayed for over a year (with eight respites) because Wilson concluded it was “doubtful” Sidebotham “realized he was violating the law.” A pardon followed. There is, in short, a long history to the use of the respite.

E.C. Chambers was the champ of delays. Chambers sold property prone to flooding, and was convicted on 12 counts of “using the mails to defraud.” He faced a possible sentence of five years and a $12,000 fine, but was given only two years and a $6,000 fine. Chambers appealed, lost, and was ordered to turn himself in.

President Wilson complained to the attorney general that he could not give the case “full consideration” by the day Chambers was supposed to report to prison. So a respite was granted. And 15 more followed. The sentence was delayed from May of 1917 to November of 1919, before Wilson’s 17th act of clemency on behalf of Chambers ended the matter. Almost four years after the original conviction, a “thorough investigation” was over and a pardon was granted. . .

cough. bullsh!t. you can smell it.

on edit — is see teddy mentioned this;
here is the just one minute commenters’
link — it started there, i think. . .

‘Mornin’, Christy!

Oh, yes: And of course AGAG wants to formalize the whole stinky process wherein Republican politicans get to fire those USAs who stubbornly refuse to prosecute innocent people.

This sounds like a warning to the USA’s to get ready to pimp Republicans and diss Democrats in 2008, doesn’t it?

How very characteristic of this administration: When under trial and tribulation for politicization, the solution: More politicization!

Bob in HI

LHP — that’s the new wingnut theory du jour. I’m looking into it, but not finding much support for it. Hopefully can have something on it next week…if anyone finds something, for or against, please do pass it along.

here

here