cheney absolutely has to be in bunker mentality, he is absolutely consolidating his political assets and his economic assets

he’s got to try something desperate and very soon…he can afford to wait a few days to see if this has legs, if it does something big is gonna come down to make us certain we have other things to do

this is scary stuff right now, we can possibly immunize if we publisize but the idea that something big happens to this country now because of cheney being exposed needs to be publicsized

I give Cheney lots of credit. He’s cool headed and evil. And for 6 years, he had a Republican party that completely supported. However, they also have flummoxed the Dems, who seem to be unable to strategize, to move off “stalled.”

Christy, you’re brilliant. I’m at a point where I am having to manufacture rage. We’ve been beaten down by these bastards for so long, I start every day in the slough of despond, and slog my way to shore. Thanks for keeping the fire lit. My best thanks is to link to your post in our blog. It ain’t much, but it’s something.

I fully agree. It is a brilliant piece. How can it be used to get Addington & Cheney?

…
Every maneuver described in the “Angler” series depended on the assertion of the president’s unitary authority, yet he is denying that authority when he is called upon to account for his actions.

…

And any day during his administration–from inauguration up until today–George W. Bush could have pulled the rug from under the Cheney Conspiracy. All it would have taken was a minute or two, maybe a break in a nap or a vacation, for the president of the United States to simply assert his authority telling his administration and the world that Cheney could not exercise the president’s authority independently.

Then the obvious and publicly understood response to any request from the vice president would have been simple enough: Sez who?

Dick Cheney, you are a bad man, but it’s still all George’s fault.

Great logic. Bravo! Ding ding ding ding!

This comment is probably way too late, but here goes anyway:

You guys actually saw the guy in person when he testified in the Libby trial.

What struck me as strange at the time of the trial was that FDL’s coverage was relatively restrained in regard to what Addington was testifying to and how he was described.

My question is therefore, does Mayer’s article jive 100 percent with what you guys saw when he testify?

It appears, as a casual observer, that there’s more to this, especially since Addington ’s holy cause, in Mayer’s version and, now in the WP’s version, is executive privilege/privacy.

What doesn’t completely fit here is the fact that he testified rather openly and truthfully and didn’t pull the Gonzalez/Scholzman/Doan “I don’t recall whether I tied my shoes this morning” routine.

Do one of you have some thoughts on this?

Scarecrow at 20 — Good. Dumbest thing I’ve heard in ages and the worst part of it was the doofus was a judge, too. Sheesh. Ranks right up there with woman who put hot coffee in her crotch and then sued McDonalds because it was hot. (Um…duh. It’s hot coffee.)

I know this is OT, and I know you addressed it somewhat later downthread, but…..

Actually, that case, which is bandied about by the “tort reform” crowd, was in fact not as clear cut as spelled out in the MSM.

There was an article in Rolling Stone years ago (prior to everything being online) about this issue. The lady in question did indeed burn herself badly in a, shall we say, sensitive area, with the hot coffee while going through a drive through in Arizona. Her lawyer initially just tried to get medical bills covered and attempted to settle out of court, but McDonalds Corporation steadfastly refused to give the lady any award whatsoever.

The jury, who was stunned by McDonalds Corp’s obtuseness in this matter, decided to “send a message.” and awarded a large sum (half a mil, I think). The jury said that if McDonalds Corporate had shown any kind of contrition or compassion, they certainly would not have done what they ended up awarding and they certainly did not envision what place the case would end up in American lore.

The end result after a bunch of appeals, etc. is that the award got overturned and the lady got virtually nothing. (her lawyers got paid though)

The hot coffee lawsuit, however, has maintained its presence in urban legend lore and has enabled the tort reform crowd to use it to say how f’d up the legal system is in the U.S.

The case with the administrative judge and the dry cleaner therefore really doesn’t compare.