Rayne @ 121

Somebody got to him. They threatened this guy somehow. Why bother with the forceful and immediate statement on the day of Goodling’s testimony?

Why is it he never questioned why hiring/firing was repositioned to the little children just before he took the job? Was it because there was built-in plausible deniability?

Or was his denial on the day of Goodling’s testimony solely to get himself off the hook for any lawsuits the dismissed USA’s may file because their reputations were impugned by McNulty’s original testimony?

I had high hopes for this f*cker and he’s blown it. He can serve time too unless he produces in a big fat hurry. I hope Iglesias is already drafting a suit for defamation.

Rayne, I have to say that just reading his face at the beginning told the story you just typed. Who got to him?

McNulty resigned for “financial realities” brought on by “college-age children and two decades of public service.” Correct me if I’m mistaken, but he still doesn’t have a job. After today’s testimony he will.

A Froomkin mention today!!!
LINK

…

The three-judge panel (entirely by coincidence, I am assured by the court) is made of the exact same judges who, as Christy Hardin Smith notes on the Firedoglake blog, ordered journalists Matt Cooper and Judith Miller to testify in the Libby case.

…

More and more…

…

The three-judge panel (entirely by coincidence, I am assured by the court) is made of the exact same judges who, as Christy Hardin Smith notes on the Firedoglake blog, ordered journalists Matt Cooper and Judith Miller to testify in the Libby case.

…

Somebody got to him. They threatened this guy somehow. Why bother with the forceful and immediate statement on the day of Goodling’s testimony?

Why is it he never questioned why hiring/firing was repositioned to the little children just before he took the job? Was it because there was built-in plausible deniability?

Or was his denial on the day of Goodling’s testimony solely to get himself off the hook for any lawsuits the dismissed USA’s may file because their reputations were impugned by McNulty’s original testimony?

I had high hopes for this f*cker and he’s blown it. He can serve time too unless he produces in a big fat hurry. I hope Iglesias is already drafting a suit for defamation.

Rayne, I have to say that just reading his face at the beginning told the story you just typed. Who got to him?

Cheney: Neither Here Nor There?

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Thursday, June 21, 2007; 1:36 PM

The House Oversight Committee is demanding that Vice President Cheney explain himself. Is his office part of the executive branch? Part of the legislative branch? Or is Cheney suggesting that as far as federal rules are concerned, his office essentially doesn’t exist?

The issue at hand is Cheney’s insistence that his office is exempt from an executive order issued by President Bush in 2003 requiring all federal agencies or “any other entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information” to report annually on its activities regarding the classification, safeguarding and declassification of national security information.

…

punaise @ 24

dusting off an old but enduring chestnut:

“my contempt for Joe Lieberman will never subside.”

my #7 above is an homage to fdl’s paronomasiac laureate – punaise!

I learned a new word today!

paranomasia, not to be confused with paranoid insomniac

“The U.S. military said on Thursday it was setting a trap to “eliminate” militants near Baghdad, where 15 American troops died in the past three days, including five slain Thursday in a single roadside bombing that also killed four Iraqis.”

They evidently took the bait.

When is political activism a terroism enhancment whatever that means wouldn’t those Republicans who rioted and shut down the vote counting outside that Florida vote counting center also be guilty? I know the Bushies are selective with their prosecutions but if they lose power as is increasingly likely well laws like this can be applied to them as well. Which is something the Supreme Court is likely to think about the next time any of these questionable cases get to court. They defintely don’t want a Democrat to have these powers.

A Democrat will never have these powers. Republicans will turn on a dime and assert constitutional “principles” that are the complete opposite of what they’re espousing now. And they will impeach again.

Tenure is only important if it protects “free speech” in academia. If it’s used to paper over laziness and incompetence- well that’s not so good.

As an example in defense of tenure: Are you familiar with the kinds of unfriendly attention people like Juan Cole get? I don’t think now is the time to be worrying about tenure or any other institutions that guard seniority and independence in the professions, particularly in light of the deprofessionalization (Schumer’s term) of DOJ, State, and any other federal agency you can think of.