. . . .
As I said above, like trees falling in the forest with no one around. Theseare truly the exceptions that prove the rule.

I’m WAY late to this thread but, I’m with you on the above.

My understanding is the military IN GENERAL, is as fractured along lines of thought as the general public.

And, the USAF has been HEAVILY laden with Christian Fundie’s so you KNOW which way they will tilt if push comes to shove. Whether the air borne parts of the Navy forces are also ‘comprimised’ I haven’t heard.

But the military is fractured . . . a coup is possible. All it will take is one false fed flag incident, and/or the attack on Iran.

And martial law drops in a new york minute.

What Russia, and China will do, in the middle of all of this, has not been put to pen anywhere that I’ve read yet . . .

It very well COULD be, Putin DID take it to the BoyKing about Iran, and the gas pipeline deal thru Pakistan to Indya. In which case, Putin could VERY well go down in history as having saved our Republic . . . who knows, I sure don’t, yet.

But my spidey senses tingle like never before, and the build up, the efforts documented beginning with one stolen election, then another, an illegal invasion, Patriot Act/Loss Of Habeus, renditions, etc., they tell me to be afraid, very very afraid.

To NOT be, at this point, would be foolish.

And to hope, any entity of our government or military will function as we EXPECT them to, is naive. It’s all been comprimised, and NOTHING is as it was. EVERYTHING is at risk, and it’s all hanging by a thread . . . recess scares me.

noen @ 28

JMOHR @ 17
Snip…

I support impeaching Gonzales though as I understand it Conyers is pursuing criminal charges against him through the contempt citation. I think this might be even better than impeachment if they succeed because it means time in jail. Impeachment simply removes the offender from office and is a political and not a criminal proceeding.

noen I don’t think Conyer’s had said much about Gonzo yet. I think it’s the Senator’s that are talking about a prosecutor. The right way to handle him is through impeachment. This does not protect him from prosecution in the courts as well and I think the case can be made that if he is convicted by the Senate and then convicted by a court he could not be pardoned. This last point is anything but clear. TiredFed disagrees with me on this but I have a writeup on it here.

So I say: Impeach, Convict, Indict, Try, Convict and send to jail.

haha. IANAL realworld (one of my favorite shows btw), so my opinion on legal issues doesn’t count for much. I have almost 30 years as a Fed (2nd generation) and have seen a lot in my time, but not too many cases of successful impeachments of civil officers or even of judges (there have been a few of the latter). My sense of things is based on the fact that the founders specifically excluded penalties of blood and bond (meaning you could not take someone’s life or property), merely their position in the government. So it seems to me that when they said “except in cases of impeachment” they meant only the instant case of impeachment, not any follow-on cases that the government would then be free to pursue (e.g., criminal and civil).

TiredFed, (or any other legal types) apropos the question on whether the President could pardon Gonzo if he was impeached by the house, convicted by the Senate, and then convicted by the courts. I think there is a good argument that he could not be pardoned for the court conviction and would go to jail. Check out this. Tell me what’s wrong. Thanks.

just in case you come back to check, no, I don’t believe there is any limit to the President’s power to pardon on the criminal conviction. It’s been debated, though never tested AFAIK.

Colder in some places than others. Southern Ontario is roughly on the same latitude as northern California.

Not quite. Parts of Quebec, perhaps, but of Ontario, only a smidgen dips below the latitude that parallels most of the northern US/Can border from Washington to Minnesota, well above northern CA.

That said, Vancouver is very temperate from the ocean. Don’t know which way that will head in coming decades of course.

If that transpired, perhaps Congress could then select for interim POTUS and VPOTUS a pair of elder statesmen with integrity intact, let’s say one from each party, who pledge not to endorse a candidate or to seek election.

JMOHR @ 17
Snip…

I support impeaching Gonzales though as I understand it Conyers is pursuing criminal charges against him through the contempt citation. I think this might be even better than impeachment if they succeed because it means time in jail. Impeachment simply removes the offender from office and is a political and not a criminal proceeding.

noen I don’t think Conyer’s had said much about Gonzo yet. I think it’s the Senator’s that are talking about a prosecutor. The right way to handle him is through impeachment. This does not protect him from prosecution in the courts as well and I think the case can be made that if he is convicted by the Senate and then convicted by a court he could not be pardoned. This last point is anything but clear. TiredFed disagrees with me on this but I have a writeup on it here.

So I say: Impeach, Convict, Indict, Try, Convict and send to jail.

TribeScribe, we are just gonna have to agree to disagree here.

And for the record, I am pro net neutrality and have never advocated having a fee for commenters.

This is not a free for all place where anything goes. It’s Jane and Christy’s blog, and I think we would do well to respect the general guidelines they have given us about commenting.

General guidelines are fine.
Precious and picayune not so much.

I’d much rather see FDL be an exemplar to the world as a place where people stand toe to toe and work out their differences. And the only thing necessary for that to happen is for people to relax. More integrity stands to be shown by allowing dissent than expecting people to continually fawn and obey. Blergh.

With the exception of a few instances of ad hominems, I have yet to see anything worth quashing. So yes, we’ll have to disagree.