teddy at 19 says-”If Reid still allows RGJoe to attend Democratic caucus strategy sessions, he’s incredibly naive. Please tell me that doesn’t happen.”

don’t have a link, but a few months ago, joe threatened to not attend the dems breakfast meetings, i believe one of the reasons was because of the ‘nasty tone’ of the meetings or partisanship, etc….don’t remember the other reason….yep…..harry reorganised the meetings so joe would attend..i thought at the time, why is he kissin’ his butt to this extent?…it was right around the time joe reorganised his committee’s seats to be alternating dem, rep, dem, rep…….

it was probably on either cnn.com or wapo…..sorry, i would search for it, but i’m on dialup and in the middle of packing….

I totally agree [re Joe’s attendance @ Dem caucus].

I’ve given up on Joe doing anything with the Homeland Security Committee, or casting any decent votes with the Dems, but one thing Harry Reid CAN control is keeping Holy Joe OUT of the Dems’ planning sessions.

If Harry gets tough on this, what can Joe do in retaliation? Stomp his little feet? Threaten to not support the Dems?

why, in a nutshell, do they not remove his chairmanship and put him in the back bench? He is a spy? He is certainly an agent for a foreign government first and a senator second, he is the Israel lobby.

this one thing shows how corrupt congress is to me. Inherent? sure. permanently? sure, there is no activity toward changing anything.

Joe has always had a passionate attachment to a country other than the USA, that hasn’t changed.

Was that the same Joe all along, or did something seriously change?

Maybe someone here already knows the answer to that question.

Just called CCs (CongressCritters) Maloney & Hinchey re impeachment. Maloney’s asst just took my name & address & recorded that I favored it. Hinchey’s asst was more interested in a conversation. Since I’d already sent an email with the substance of why I backed impeachment, I engaged her on the tactics. She seemed quite interested in my supposition that they shouldn’t count votes before launching the procedure, because R votes would change during the process and evidence came out & public got more outraaged. Seemed like this was a new idea for her.

ARGH! Besides, is this the way they had to do it with Dick Nixon? Did they do a tally of the Jury BEFORE the trial to make sure they had votes for conviction? Did not the majority of the populace, at the beginning, NOT support impeachment? Did not that change as the evidence was brought out? And out? And out for all to see? Did not the entire avalanche towards impeachment start with little support and then roll into an inevitable impeachment?

At what point of time between Nixon and now did it become fashionable to believe that one must have the votes to convict BEFORE any of the actual evidence is squeezed out and aired for the world to see? (Including for ALL Congress criminals to see?)

It gets hard to deny impeachability when lie after lie, absolute crime upon absolute federal crime is spelled out. THAT IS THE POINT OF THE WHOLE PROCEDURE!

Call that person back and instruct her on history and “the way things ACTUALLY work”.