zeddie freddie??

I would thank you for this.

Hi PW! Having fun at YKos?

Hey Phoenix Woman!

Hey PW - are your Twin Cities friends ok?

(I used to live at 10th & University SE - so very close to the bridge itself.)

I am declaring myself an executive citizen!

Hi PW!

Eureka Springs @ 6

I am declaring myself an executive citizen!

was that an executive decision?

PW — Scarecrow here, using Kathryn’s computer: Could you please add an announcement at the top of the page for anyone at YKos who may be checking in here.

Despite the YKos programs, there is no Firedoglake caucus, this afternoon or evening.

Also, check the Wordpress Q, for a post on YKos.

Thanks.

Scarecrow

Elliott @ 8

Eureka Springs @ 6

I am declaring myself an executive citizen!

was that an executive decision?

borne of executive privilege…

I didn’t see the whole Scott Jennings testimony, just a couple of clips. I DID see the one where Leahy is asking Jennigs what his job description is and Jennings cites Exec. Priv. and refuses to answer.

Here is a cute thing, if you say you don’t recall under circumstances where it can be proven that you do–it’s perjury

If you take the 5th and it turns out there was no way you could honestly have believed the answer would incriminate YOU (as opposed to, let’s say, your boss), you have obstruction and may have perjury.

That’s why Neil Eggelston did so well for Sara Taylor (Neil is her lawyer), he had her invoke the privledge very surgically and much more narrowly.

Jennings went WAAAY overboard (at least in the clips I saw–I will have a more definate opinion when I get chance to watch the whole hearing)

Leahy was entitiled to know what Jenning’s job description is and what role that job has in the US Attorney firings in order to determine if the SJC has grounds to challenge the Exec. Priv. invocation in court.

This is a simple “standing” question.

LoudounLib @ 10

Elliott @ 8

was that an executive decision?

borne of executive privilege…

You may all join me, but you can’t talk about it.

scarecrow honey,

I checked the queu and your Ykos post is slotted in at 4pm FDL time.

Fear not, you seem to be all set.

So relax and enjoy

looseheadprop @ 11

I didn’t see the whole Scott Jennings testimony, just a couple of clips. I DID see the one where Leahy is asking Jennigs what his job description is and Jennings cites Exec. Priv. and refuses to answer.

Here is a cute thing, if you say you don’t recall under circumstances where it can be proven that you do–it’s perjury

If you take the 5th and it turns out there was no way you could honestly have believed the answer would incriminate YOU (as opposed to, let’s say, your boss), you have obstruction and may have perjury.

That’s why Neil Eggelston did so well for Sara Taylor (Neil is her lawyer), he had her invoke the privledge very surgically and much more narrowly.

Jennings went WAAAY overboard (at least in the clips I saw–I will have a more definate opinion when I get chance to watch the whole hearing)

Leahy was entitiled to know what Jenning’s job description is and what role that job has in the US Attorney firings in order to determine if the SJC has grounds to challenge the Exec. Priv. invocation in court.

This is a simple “standing” question.

well this is nice to hear, thank you lhp

and thanks for your earlier ’splaining post, too.

Eureka Springs @ 12

LoudounLib @ 10

borne of executive privilege…

You may all join me, but you can’t talk about it.

is that an executive order?

looseheadprop @ 11

I didn’t see the whole Scott Jennings testimony, just a couple of clips. I DID see the one where Leahy is asking Jennigs what his job description is and Jennings cites Exec. Priv. and refuses to answer.

Here is a cute thing, if you say you don’t recall under circumstances where it can be proven that you do–it’s perjury

Jennings went WAAAY overboard (at least in the clips I saw–I will have a more definate opinion when I get chance to watch the whole hearing)

Leahy was entitiled to know what Jenning’s job description is and what role that job has in the US Attorney firings in order to determine if the SJC has grounds to challenge the Exec. Priv. invocation in court.

This is a simple “standing” question.

LHP - Thanks for your insight. I’ve only seen that clip, too — found it amazing. Not too long ago I would have said “jaw-dropping amazing,” but I’ve come to expect it from these bozos.

Here is a cute thing, if you say you don’t recall under circumstances where it can be proven that you do–it’s perjury

this is very interesting….assume there are cases on it…..how is it proved?

I was actually thinking they should subpoena that “memory expert” from the Libby trial, and ask him how likely it is that the whole freaking’ gov’t is being run by people who can’t remember where they left their own asses.

LHP
So what if Jennings went overboard? What are the consequences?

Kathryn in MA @ 9

PW — Scarecrow here, using Kathryn’s computer [Mod:snip]
Despite the YKos programs, there is no Firedoglake caucus, this afternoon or evening.

Scrarecrow

There is, however,

FDL breakfast~~tomorrow
Friday August 3
7-9am

Hyatt McCormick
right next door to convention center
second floor

Please wear your badges, thanks!

Elliott @ 14

looseheadprop @ 11

I didn’t see the whole Scott Jennings testimony, just a couple of clips. I DID see the one where Leahy is asking Jennigs what his job description is and Jennings cites Exec. Priv. and refuses to answer.

Here is a cute thing, if you say you don’t recall under circumstances where it can be proven that you do–it’s perjury

If you take the 5th and it turns out there was no way you could honestly have believed the answer would incriminate YOU (as opposed to, let’s say, your boss), you have obstruction and may have perjury.

That’s why Neil Eggelston did so well for Sara Taylor (Neil is her lawyer), he had her invoke the privledge very surgically and much more narrowly.

Jennings went WAAAY overboard (at least in the clips I saw–I will have a more definate opinion when I get chance to watch the whole hearing)

Leahy was entitiled to know what Jenning’s job description is and what role that job has in the US Attorney firings in order to determine if the SJC has grounds to challenge the Exec. Priv. invocation in court.

This is a simple “standing” question.

well this is nice to hear, thank you lhp

and thanks for your earlier ’splaining post, too.

I am dying to see the replay of the testimony.

The couple of clips, really had Jennings looking just truculent, like
“la la la, I can’t here you… I have a letter from Fred Fielding, so can’t make me”

He looked like he wasn’t even listening to the questions, he had just come to repeat the phrase over and over simply to avoid being a Harriet Meiers no show.

lhp

Jennings was warned by Leahy that he was going out on a very small limb.

The best question (near the end): about Catch-22. I don’t think it was intended as a joke, more as a coded warning of sorts.

lhp, If what you say is true and I believe you.. Why the heck wasn’t he frog-marched on the spot?!

Barney Frank on Hardball… oh, how I wish he’d run for President!

Frank makes a lot of sense…

I’m waiting for Leahy, Conyers, or Waxman blow a fuse with the next witless rove minion claiming executive privilege. And take action and cart Meiers scrawny behind and Rove’s hairy ass off to the slammer and call that CONGRESSIONAL PRIVILEGE. They are, after all, co-equal branches of government.

Is it “five oclock somewhere” Margaritaville time?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ib8.....mp;search=

I think we’re all agreed that not all (any?) of these Executive Privilege claims can hold water. The big question is what is Congress going to do about it?

Why was there not one mention of putting Karl Rove in contempt?

It just seems like every wall that these committees hit gets us all outraged, but doesn’t get us any closer to getting documents or testimony. Is there anything being done to get the documents that the RNC handed to Fred Fielding when Congress subpeonaed them - and by anything, I mean on the level of contempt charges against Miers.

And have the contempt charges gone through yet? Isn’t Congress closed now for August?

oddmommy @ 17

Here is a cute thing, if you say you don’t recall under circumstances where it can be proven that you do–it’s perjury

this is very interesting….assume there are cases on it…..how is it proved?

Don’t have a cite right now, and am feeling way to lazy to go look (but maybe I should get off my butt and do a post on this, cause it looks laike a trend..)but when I learned that in law school, the case invovled an idiot who testified that he didn’t rememebr X, then went out in the hallway and talked about X with perfect recollection, and was overheard.

I remeber sitting in class with a bad case of the gigglefits over the stupidity and brazeness of it all, which is why that factoid sticks with me.

I was actually thinking they should subpoena that “memory expert” from the Libby trial, and ask him how likely it is that the whole freaking’ gov’t is being run by people who can’t remember where they left their own asses.

eCAHNomics @ 18

LHP
So what if Jennings went overboard? What are the consequences?

Another question. What could the chimp do if Jennings HAD ignored his diktat and answered the question. Does the chimp have any power to punish (other than the small airplane thing)

Where, oh where is there an actual patriot in the Bush Administration!
I can hardly stand watching the hearings. More of same, I don’t recall.

All the Constitution needs is ONE human being from that administration to STAND UP and defend what they have sworn to protect. They swore to the creator they would defend it.

How can so many people be such lost souls?

Didn’t Jennings basically admit he violated the Hatch Act? I guess it doesn’t matter, because they won’t do anything about it anyway.

lhp - what do you suppose is going to happen to the General (Kensington? maybe?) who ducked the subpoena yesterday? Will they just keep trying to serve it or what?

More on Deepmodem:

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2...../#comments

looseheadprop @ 20

Elliott @ 14

well this is nice to hear, thank you lhp

and thanks for your earlier ’splaining post, too.

I am dying to see the replay of the testimony.

The couple of clips, really had Jennings looking just truculent, like
“la la la, I can’t here you… I have a letter from Fred Fielding, so can’t make me”

He looked like he wasn’t even listening to the questions, he had just come to repeat the phrase over and over simply to avoid being a Harriet Meiers no show.

You will not believe how snarky Leahy is from the outset. some priceless gems.

I’m gobstruck smacked & slapped by the contempt from every single witness from this Administration

I have to wonder if any Republicans were on that bridge last night. If there were, they must have realized that sometimes we really are all in it together.

Digby

GeorgeSimian @ 25

And have the contempt charges gone through yet? Isn’t Congress closed now for August?

i called speaker pelosi’s office a day or two ago and was told that she isn’t going to bring them to the house floor until after the august recess… ‘cuz they are too busy to deal with them now. i said that was fine, so long as they were too busy to cave to bush’s demands to further weaken fisa.

i did not get a happy response.

Elliott @ 32

looseheadprop @ 20

I am dying to see the replay of the testimony.

The couple of clips, really had Jennings looking just truculent, like
“la la la, I can’t here you… I have a letter from Fred Fielding, so can’t make me”

He looked like he wasn’t even listening to the questions, he had just come to repeat the phrase over and over simply to avoid being a Harriet Meiers no show.

You will not believe how snarky Leahy is from the outset. some priceless gems.

I’m gobstruck smacked & slapped by the contempt from every single witness from this Administration

It would be really funny if they just slapped inherent contempt on all of them at the same time and cuffed and stuffed them.

LS @ 29

Didn’t Jennings basically admit he violated the Hatch Act? I guess it doesn’t matter, because they won’t do anything about it anyway.

can I offer you a Lorna Doone?

OldCoastie @ 30

lhp - what do you suppose is going to happen to the General (Kensington? maybe?) who ducked the subpoena yesterday? Will they just keep trying to serve it or what?

Yeah. Kensinger. How long can hehide out? Can his lawyer be compelled to tell where he is? This guy is a coward-very nonmilitary behavior, let along Special Forces. Makes me think the whole military is rotted to the core. Wouldn’t bea bit surprised since the guys at the top today served duringVN & seem to have learned all the wrong lessons.

eCAHNomics @ 18

LHP
So what if Jennings went overboard? What are the consequences?

Well first you have to get the answer from some other source, so you can prove that he had no standing to invoke it for that purpose.

Let’s just hypothetically say Jenning s had NO, zero, zilch nada role in the USA firings–in fact he was hospitalized in coma during the whole process.

Now clearly there is no executive privlege to the answer to the question what was/is your role in the USA firings, b/c he had no role that could trigger the privlege.

Capice?

Leahy’s question didn’t go to privleged information,it went to the basis for having standing to invoke the privlege.

If you are a train conductor instead of a doctor,you cannot refuse to answer a question on the basis of doctor patient privilege. There has to be some basis for why this privlege applies both to you and to the particular information being sought. You need a nexus.

This is the foreign policy “debate” in our country:

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.....ign_policy

Is there a clinical term for infantilism combined with psychotic aggressiveness?

Elliott @ 36

LS @ 29

Didn’t Jennings basically admit he violated the Hatch Act? I guess it doesn’t matter, because they won’t do anything about it anyway.

can I offer you a Lorna Doone?

Only if it comes with some Kool Aid

Millineryman @ 40

Elliott @ 36

can I offer you a Lorna Doone?

Only if it comes with some Kool Aid

you can bet on it.

LHP-
I get the bit about proving the case. Assuming it is proved, what happens to Jennings?

highly recommend this article, “The Threat of U.S. Fascism: An Historical Precedent” by Alan Nasser

I submitted “YearlyKos” questions about the first use of nuclear weapons against Iran in a series of scenarios. Someone try to get a straight answer out of these conscienceless, pandering sickos.

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.....ign_policy

I’m getting very tired of our Democratic Congress. Big deal if they keep getting the Bush criminals to continue to perjure themselves, nothing ever comes of it. The Democrats are pretending the government is operating normally, going through the motions as if they mean something. Either take immediate actions to stop these criminals or just stop pretending. And rushing to change FISA for Bush is beyond unbelievable.

Eureka Springs @ 22

lhp, If what you say is true and I believe you.. Why the heck wasn’t he frog-marched on the spot?!

Why isn’t Harriet Meiers in leg irons in the basement of the Capitol? Gutless wonders in our national legislature.

Not Leahy, I love watching Leahy lose his temper. He so perfectly captures my frustration.

Anyway to more seriously answer your question, there is a HUGE difference between what you believe in your heart to be true (that Jennings had no basis for invokeing Exec. P.) and what you can prove.

I think the Senate has grounds to hold him in contempt –based on my very partial review of tiny clips, I reserve my right to completely reverse myself when I have veiwed the complete testimony–but,they(both houses of congress) have even better grounds to hold others in contempt and it hasn’t happened yet. So….

looseheadprop @ 11

I didn’t see the whole Scott Jennings testimony, just a couple of clips. I DID see the one where Leahy is asking Jennigs what his job description is and Jennings cites Exec. Priv. and refuses to answer.

Here is a cute thing, if you say you don’t recall under circumstances where it can be proven that you do–it’s perjury

If you take the 5th and it turns out there was no way you could honestly have believed the answer would incriminate YOU (as opposed to, let’s say, your boss), you have obstruction and may have perjury.

That’s why Neil Eggelston did so well for Sara Taylor (Neil is her lawyer), he had her invoke the privledge very surgically and much more narrowly.

Jennings went WAAAY overboard (at least in the clips I saw–I will have a more definate opinion when I get chance to watch the whole hearing)

Leahy was entitiled to know what Jenning’s job description is and what role that job has in the US Attorney firings in order to determine if the SJC has grounds to challenge the Exec. Priv. invocation in court.

This is a simple “standing”
question.

I didn’t have the capability of actually seeing the Jennings testimony, but from what I could get from those posting (thank you very much), Jennings was consulting with not only his lawyers, but whitehouse lawyers as well, unless I am mistaken.

All I could say was WTF! That, in my mind, told me that he was obeying two masters, right then and there. It was bizarre.

looseheadprop @ 26

oddmommy @ 17

this is very interesting….assume there are cases on it…..how is it proved?

Don’t have a cite right now, and am feeling way to lazy to go look (but maybe I should get off my butt and do a post on this, cause it looks laike a trend..)but when I learned that in law school, the case invovled an idiot who testified that he didn’t rememebr X, then went out in the hallway and talked about X with perfect recollection, and was overheard.

I remeber sitting in class with a bad case of the gigglefits over the stupidity and brazeness of it all, which is why that factoid sticks with me.

stupid and brazen? Yep, that’s our case.

brendan @ 39

This is the foreign policy “debate” in our country:

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.....ign_policy

Is there a clinical term for infantilism combined with psychotic aggressiveness?

i don’t know the term… but clinton just convinced me that she does not have the good judgement to be president.

question: should a first use nuke strike against locations where our intelligence says there are suspected terrorists be on the table or off?

Jennings has EITHER violated the Hatch Act OR the Presidential Records act or both at the same time I just realized! lol.

And the same is probably true of the whole bunch of them.

Jennings put everything on his RNC account because he had 24/7 access and was refused a 24/7 blackberry for WH account access.

So:

1) the DoJ stuff was on the RNC account meaning it was political business about the DOJ and that would be a Hatch Act violation; or

2) the DoJ stuff was on the RNC account and it was legitimate WH non-Hatch business meaning it would be a violation of the Presidential Records Act (not to mention the WH security protocols … but it was political so it didn’t need to be secure … lol).

There is no 3rd, non-Hatch, non-Presidential-Records way!

GeorgeSimian @ 25

I think we’re all agreed that not all (any?) of these Executive Privilege claims can hold water. The big question is what is Congress going to do about it?

Why was there not one mention of putting Karl Rove in contempt?

It just seems like every wall that these committees hit gets us all outraged, but doesn’t get us any closer to getting documents or testimony. Is there anything being done to get the documents that the RNC handed to Fred Fielding when Congress subpeonaed them - and by anything, I mean on the level of contempt charges against Miers.

And have the contempt charges gone through yet? Isn’t Congress closed now for August?

Moreover where the F*** does the RNC get off handing documents subpoenaed by Congress, to the WH? Ah, wrong branch of government there Sparky

oddmommy @ 48

looseheadprop @ 26

stupid and brazen? Yep, that’s our case.

shoulda had Post Brazen Ban for breakfast.

President Bush has an Executive Odor

puppethead @ 45

I’m getting very tired of our Democratic Congress. Big deal if they keep getting the Bush criminals to continue to perjure themselves, nothing ever comes of it. The Democrats are pretending the government is operating normally, going through the motions as if they mean something. Either take immediate actions to stop these criminals or just stop pretending. And rushing to change FISA for Bush is beyond unbelievable.

please read article linked to in my 43

nomolos @ 27

eCAHNomics @ 18

LHP
So what if Jennings went overboard? What are the consequences?

Another question. What could the chimp do if Jennings HAD ignored his diktat and answered the question. Does the chimp have any power to punish (other than the small airplane thing)

AS long as the info wasn’t classifed– I think that all Shrub could do is fire the guy. maybe try to get some kind of court order to prohibit the information from being used at a trial, but would that apply to a trial in the Senate? I do’t think there has been a case where this has come up.

OK, I’m being obnoxios and EPU’ing mul;tiple times:

Here are the list of co-sponsors for H Res 589 (The impeach Gonzo resolution)

Apparently the links generated by Thomas time out or something. So here is the current list of co-sponsors:

COSPONSORS(20), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)

Rep Arcuri, Michael A. [NY-24] - 7/31/2007
Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] - 8/1/2007
Rep Becerra, Xavier [CA-31] - 7/31/2007
Rep Berkley, Shelley [NV-1] - 8/1/2007
Rep Blumenauer, Earl [OR-3] - 7/31/2007
Rep Braley, Bruce L. [IA-1] - 7/31/2007
Rep Chandler, Ben [KY-6] - 7/31/2007
Rep Clarke, Yvette D. [NY-11] - 7/31/2007
Rep Cohen, Steve [TN-9] - 7/31/2007
Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] - 7/31/2007
Rep Ellison, Keith [MN-5] - 7/31/2007
Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4] - 8/1/2007
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] - 8/1/2007
Rep Hooley, Darlene [OR-5] - 7/31/2007
Rep Johnson, Henry C. “Hank,” Jr. [GA-4] - 7/31/2007
Rep McCollum, Betty [MN-4] - 7/31/2007
Rep Moore, Dennis [KS-3] - 7/31/2007
Rep Tauscher, Ellen O. [CA-10] - 8/1/2007
Rep Udall, Tom [NM-3] - 7/31/2007
Rep Wu, David [OR-1] - 7/31/2007

Here is the list of Act Blue folks we support who are actually in the House (some one correct me if I have anyone wrong here.)

Steve Cohen
Jerry McNerney
Patrick Murphy
Carol Shea-Porter
Hilda Solis

Now does it bother anyone else that none of the Act Blue folks are co-sponsors?

Should we be communicating that to them?

Oh, and what about your own rep?

Mine, (Markey) is not on board yet. Anyone else in his district. Help me out with him.)
Just asking…

itwasntme @ 28

Where, oh where is there an actual patriot in the Bush Administration!
I can hardly stand watching the hearings. More of same, I don’t recall.

All the Constitution needs is ONE human being from that administration to STAND UP and defend what they have sworn to protect. They swore to the creator they would defend it.

How can so many people be such lost souls?

Well, Comey certainly did. And Mueller, much to my surprise

I’m not a big fan of Obama’s callous remark about invading Pakistan to get to Al-Qaeda.

This sort of sabre-rattling gets to the people of Pakistan, and they start freaking the fuck out thinking that America is gonna turn them into another Iraq. They start pressuring Musharref more, and the die hards will either start pulling more bombings in Pakistan, or Pakistan gov’t will have to start cracking down on the die hards and resistance more. Either way, Pakistan’s got enough problems without threats of U.S. invasion.

OldCoastie @ 30

lhp - what do you suppose is going to happen to the General (Kensington? maybe?) who ducked the subpoena yesterday? Will they just keep trying to serve it or what?

I thought that was just freakish. A general!

I was wondering if that was something that could be asubject of military discipline? This is way out of my personal experience

realworld @ 56 -

i called my rep (jim mcgovern)’s office today. no answer yet. will call again tomorrow.

looseheadprop @ 59

OldCoastie @ 30

lhp - what do you suppose is going to happen to the General (Kensington? maybe?) who ducked the subpoena yesterday? Will they just keep trying to serve it or what?

I thought that was just freakish. A general!

I was wondering if that was something that could be asubject of military discipline? This is way out of my personal experience

eh, I think the guy retired… they’ve already censured him and took a star…

big, brave military man! (ha!)

cancer_cures @ 58

I’m not a big fan of Obama’s callous remark about invading Pakistan to get to Al-Qaeda.

This sort of sabre-rattling gets to the people of Pakistan, and they start freaking the fuck out thinking that America is gonna turn them into another Iraq. They start pressuring Musharref more, and the die hards will either start pulling more bombings in Pakistan, or Pakistan gov’t will have to start cracking down on the die hards and resistance more. Either way, Pakistan’s got enough problems without threats of U.S. invasion.

agreed.

can we stop and think before attacking a country with nukes? might an attack make things worse?

can we please stop with the stupid and immoral?

eCAHNomics @ 37

OldCoastie @ 30

lhp - what do you suppose is going to happen to the General (Kensington? maybe?) who ducked the subpoena yesterday? Will they just keep trying to serve it or what?

Yeah. Kensinger. How long can hehide out? Can his lawyer be compelled to tell where he is? This guy is a coward-very nonmilitary behavior, let along Special Forces. Makes me think the whole military is rotted to the core. Wouldn’t bea bit surprised since the guys at the top today served duringVN & seem to have learned all the wrong lessons.

I’m wondering, if he is in hiding instead of at his post, isn’t he AWOL?

Wouldn’t being AWOL in atime of war be a really really bad military crime?

punaise! en france?

Mutant Poodle @ 5

Hey PW - are your Twin Cities friends ok?

(I used to live at 10th & University SE - so very close to the bridge itself.)

All of my co-workers are OK, and as far as I know most of my friends and relations are as well. Thanks for asking!

LHP-
Think Kensinger’s retired.

Mommybrain @ 64

punaise! en france?

presque! je pars a l’aube.

eCAHNomics @ 42

LHP-
I get the bit about proving the case. Assuming it is proved, what happens to Jennings?

I suppose you normal basic obstruction sentence, but it’s all irrelevant b/c who is going t investigate and prove this? The USA in DC?

Yep, just as soon as I coax those flying pigs back into their pen.

eCAHNomics @ 66

LHP-
Think Kensinger’s retired.

would love some youtube video of him running away from a marshall trying to serve him papers.

looseheadprop @ 68

eCAHNomics @ 42

LHP-
I get the bit about proving the case. Assuming it is proved, what happens to Jennings?

I suppose you normal basic obstruction sentence, but it’s all irrelevant b/c who is going t investigate and prove this? The USA in DC?

Yep, just as soon as I coax those flying pigs back into their pen.

Exactly my point.

looseheadprop @ 68

eCAHNomics @ 42

LHP-
I get the bit about proving the case. Assuming it is proved, what happens to Jennings?

I suppose you normal basic obstruction sentence, but it’s all irrelevant b/c who is going t investigate and prove this? The USA in DC?

Yep, just as soon as I coax those flying pigs back into their pen.

so do i understand the answer is “nothing”, unless inherent contempt is used?

fdl reader @ 50

Jennings has EITHER violated the Hatch Act OR the Presidential Records act or both at the same time I just realized! lol.

And the same is probably true of the whole bunch of them.

Jennings put everything on his RNC account because he had 24/7 access and was refused a 24/7 blackberry for WH account access.

So:

1) the DoJ stuff was on the RNC account meaning it was political business about the DOJ and that would be a Hatch Act violation; or

2) the DoJ stuff was on the RNC account and it was legitimate WH non-Hatch business meaning it would be a violation of the Presidential Records Act (not to mention the WH security protocols … but it was political so it didn’t need to be secure … lol).

There is no 3rd, non-Hatch, non-Presidential-Records way!

I think that is true of all these RNC account folks. They are guilty of A or they are guilty of B.

It’s called a “Morton’s Fork”, it’s a corallary to a Hobson’s Choice

selise @ 69

eCAHNomics @ 66

LHP-
Think Kensinger’s retired.

would love some youtube video of him running away from a marshall trying to serve him papers.

Or we could craft a “Where’s Philip?” series of cartoons.

Kathryn in MA @ 9

PW — Scarecrow here, using Kathryn’s computer: Could you please add an announcement at the top of the page for anyone at YKos who may be checking in here.

Despite the YKos programs, there is no Firedoglake caucus, this afternoon or evening.

Also, check the Wordpress Q, for a post on YKos.

Thanks.

Scarecrow

Thank you! (I was in transit.)

via tpm:

Capitol Police officials have stepped up the department’s security presence on Capitol Hill in response to intelligence indicating the increased possibility of an al-Qaida terrorist attack on Congress sometime between now and Sept. 11.

looseheadprop @ 13

scarecrow honey,

I checked the queu and your Ykos post is slotted in at 4pm FDL time.

Fear not, you seem to be all set.

So relax and enjoy

Thanks, LHP! Whew!

punaise @ 52

shoulda had Post Brazen Ban for breakfast.

Punaise mon ami, we ar almost never on the same thread together anymore. I miss the puns!

selise @ 75

via tpm:

Capitol Police officials have stepped up the department’s security presence on Capitol Hill in response to intelligence indicating the increased possibility of an al-Qaida terrorist attack on Congress sometime between now and Sept. 11.

I dread this recess, just dread it.

realworld @ 56

OK, I’m being obnoxios and EPU’ing mul;tiple times:

Here are the list of co-sponsors for H Res 589 (The impeach Gonzo resolution)

Apparently the links generated by Thomas time out or something. So here is the current list of co-sponsors:

COSPONSORS(20), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)

Rep Arcuri, Michael A. [NY-24] - 7/31/2007
Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] - 8/1/2007
Rep Becerra, Xavier [CA-31] - 7/31/2007
Rep Berkley, Shelley [NV-1] - 8/1/2007
Rep Blumenauer, Earl [OR-3] - 7/31/2007
Rep Braley, Bruce L. [IA-1] - 7/31/2007
Rep Chandler, Ben [KY-6] - 7/31/2007
Rep Clarke, Yvette D. [NY-11] - 7/31/2007
Rep Cohen, Steve [TN-9] - 7/31/2007
Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] - 7/31/2007
Rep Ellison, Keith [MN-5] - 7/31/2007
Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4] - 8/1/2007
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] - 8/1/2007
Rep Hooley, Darlene [OR-5] - 7/31/2007
Rep Johnson, Henry C. “Hank,” Jr. [GA-4] - 7/31/2007
Rep McCollum, Betty [MN-4] - 7/31/2007
Rep Moore, Dennis [KS-3] - 7/31/2007
Rep Tauscher, Ellen O. [CA-10] - 8/1/2007
Rep Udall, Tom [NM-3] - 7/31/2007
Rep Wu, David [OR-1] - 7/31/2007

Here is the list of Act Blue folks we support who are actually in the House (some one correct me if I have anyone wrong here.)

Steve Cohen
Jerry McNerney
Patrick Murphy
Carol Shea-Porter
Hilda Solis

Now does it bother anyone else that none of the Act Blue folks are co-sponsors?

Should we be communicating that to them?

Oh, and what about your own rep?

Mine, (Markey) is not on board yet. Anyone else in his district. Help me out with him.)
Just asking…

I don’t think you are being obnoxious. I think you are spot on. Why the hell did we support them , if not to have them support the things we elected them to do?

looseheadprop @ 77

Punaise mon ami, we ar almost never on the same thread together anymore. I miss the puns!

lhp - backatcha!

eCAHNomics @ 66

LHP-
Think Kensinger’s retired.

Bummer. There goes another great theory–died aborning.

looseheadprop @ 72:

Yup ~ the WHOLE lot of ‘em are doing this without even understanding what it means!

You WILL enjoy the Jennings hearing because it was just so bizarre!!!! At one point Whitehouse tried to get Jennings to say HE was asserting EP. lol.

Thanks!

Klobuchar just on Hardball finishes off by saying that in America bridges don’t just fall into rivers. What a moronic comment to make the day after she learned that’s exactly the America we now live in.

Elliott @ 78

Despite the threat, the recess is pretty fucking stupid with this much work on the plate. Congress needs to get their ass in gear. I cancelled -MY- vacation this summer because of all the fucking work that came up. Why can’t they cancel their vacation while criminals occupy the white house?

And they are close, so close, to bringing the white house crime racket down.

I’m without words…

snip

The aides are Dan Bartlett, former White House counselor; Scott McClellan, former press secretary, and Michael Gerson, former speechwriter. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee agreed to White House demands that initial interviews be conducted without a transcript and with White House attorneys present.

If investigators determine the aides have relevant information, they will be asked to return for transcribed interviews. The White House has reserved the right to oppose that by claiming executive privilege, according to a letter Thursday from the committee’s chairman and top Republican to White House counsel Fred Fielding.

White House Agrees to Aides Testifing_Tillman

Elliott @ 78

selise @ 75

via tpm:

I dread this recess, just dread it.

So now we know what Bush is using to change the FISA laws.. Fear…Fear…Fear

selise @ 75

via tpm:

Capitol Police officials have stepped up the department’s security presence on Capitol Hill in response to intelligence indicating the increased possibility of an al-Qaida terrorist attack on Congress sometime between now and Sept. 11.

Okay, who here thinks it’s a brilliant idea to tip the terrorists off that we know what they’re planning? Or is this all about banging the fear bucket?

Has there been ONE single terror alert or rumour from this administration that has been shown to be true?

No.

It’s all fear-mongering. For political gain.

The real threats they seem to ignore …

selise @ 71

looseheadprop @ 68

I suppose you normal basic obstruction sentence, but it’s all irrelevant b/c who is going t investigate and prove this? The USA in DC?

Yep, just as soon as I coax those flying pigs back into their pen.

so do i understand the answer is “nothing”, unless inherent contempt is used?

I swear to heaven, I feel like we a living in a parallel universe (where is EPU when we need him?) where everything I learned as a prosecutor has just been chucked out the window.

When I was a prosecutor, during your first year, there these onthly continuing legal ed brown bag lunches where you learne dboth the law and DOJ policy with repsect to things like GJ practice, search warrant appliaction standards and practices, etc.

It wasn’t just law, it wasn’t just DOJ or SDNY policy–they were also teaching you tradition and about the sacred trust that you were being given.

I remeber the USAO’’s the way Jim Comey remebers them. When he says he loves the Dept., he is talking about the Dept. that I loved too. I’m afraid THAT DOJ exists only in memory now. That makes me very sad.

I don’t know if we will see it fully repaired in my lifetime.

You know the famous line from Shkepear that is always quoted out of contect ?

“First, kill all the lawyers”

In context, it was part of a discussion about how to overthrough a government. First, you gut the legal system and there is no one left to enforce the rule of law.

We cannot eb a nation of laws, if our pre- emminent legal agency wll not obey or enforce the laws. We just can’t.

fdl reader @ 88

Has there been ONE single terror alert or rumour from this administration that has been shown to be true?

No.

It’s all fear-mongering. For political gain.

The real threats they seem to ignore …

Lew Koch promises to reveal in his Friday post just why W hasn’t caught any real terrorists.

Phoenix Woman @ 87

Okay, who here thinks it’s a brilliant idea to tip the terrorists off that we know what they’re planning? Or is this all about banging the fear bucket?

part of the program to get their new fisa law passed?

selise @ 75

via tpm:

Capitol Police officials have stepped up the department’s security presence on Capitol Hill in response to intelligence indicating the increased possibility of an al-Qaida terrorist attack on Congress sometime between now and Sept. 11.

Trying to scare them into voting to gut FISA, eh?

This increased possiblity=Chertoff’s digestive system?

“First, kill all the lawyers”

Reserving an exemption for those on this site.

And yet, the danger of a real attack is, well, real.

And those rats in DC know it, it’s cruel what they do to us.

Phoenix Woman @ 87

selise @ 75

via tpm:

Okay, who here thinks it’s a brilliant idea to tip the terrorists off that we know what they’re planning? Or is this all about banging the fear bucket?

Ooh, Bright shiny object, pretty…!!! Why the F*ck would the Terrorists attack an empty chamber?!!! Doh!!!

looseheadprop @ 89

We cannot eb a nation of laws, if our pre- emminent legal agency wll not obey or enforce the laws. We just can’t.

yes. and we need just laws too. :(

eCAHNomics @ 90

fdl reader @ 88

Has there been ONE single terror alert or rumour from this administration that has been shown to be true?

No.

It’s all fear-mongering. For political gain.

The real threats they seem to ignore …

Lew Koch promises to reveal in his Friday post just why W hasn’t caught any real terrorists.

Uh … hmmm … er … because there are none?

fdl reader @ 97

eCAHNomics @ 90

Lew Koch promises to reveal in his Friday post just why W hasn’t caught any real terrorists.

Uh … hmmm … er … because there are none?

well, the planners of 911 and the person(s) responsible for the anthrax attacks are still at large.

realworld @ 56–

Please note that Steve Cohen is a co-sponsor. He had a diary up on dKos yesterday about this. IMO, he has done a great job on the HJC, and it’s important to have a judiciary committee member as a co-sponsor.

oh, and i forgot.