Just know this: If Bush didn’t have to annoint a loyal Bush follower, then why would he not appoint Patrick Fitzgerald?

I’m several days ahead of you on that thought.

http://thetimtimes.com/?p=106
Enjoy.

What can I write for Cheney? Use US troops to start a war? And Bush? I need help with those 2.

Ordered outing of NOC CIA agent, destroying secret anti-nuke spy network

Oh, on Rove: outing a CIA agent.

Ohio governor Bob Taft plead guilty to something.

Also in Ohio, a fella named Noe and maybe his wife were selling gold coins and raiding Ohio’s retirement fund.

ccmask – dont forget ghouliani’s so carolina chmn caught with almost $2 mil in cocaine…. where’s he now? not in jail i bet……

Woo hoo! I hadn’t head about that one. Who was it and when was that?

… AR, with 3 million residents and several of the most wealthy Americans and their Corporate home offices here.. is a very closed, inbred, old family run state.

We are damn near 49th in everything yet have more resources available to change it than one could possibly hope for.

Yeah, just like a lot of other Banana Republic states. Either the resources are owned by outside forces or the in-state power families run it like a dictatorship. And, to be governor, as Bill Clinton did, you generally have to kowtow big time.

montag @ 176

Wolverines!!!!

That was the best football game I’ll ever see!!

Geez, I missed it. What channel was it on?

Bob in HI

Bruce Fein, bless him:

Carts Before Horses
Impeachment inquiry first, ask questions later.
By Bruce Fein | Slate.com

Detractors of an impeachment inquiry by the House judiciary committee into whether President George W. Bush has committed impeachable offenses contend that no questions should be asked until conclusive incriminating evidence is either volunteered up by the suspects themselves or appears before them by spontaneous combustion. In other words, they say, no inquiry should commence until proof of the president’s guilt has been unearthed—proof which would, of course, make the inquiry superfluous! The Watergate investigation that dethroned President Richard M. Nixon would never have been launched under such an Alice in Wonderland standard of proof, because it began with nothing more than two obscure figures, E. Howard Hunt and Gordon Liddy, known to have both White House connections and associations with the Watergate burglars.

[snip]

The House does not require, nor should it await, proof beyond a reasonable doubt of misconduct. To wait for such proof subverts the whole purpose of an impeachment inquiry.

According to the Founding Fathers, impeachable offenses are crimes against the Constitution, which may or may not include violations of the federal criminal code. As Alexander Hamilton elaborated in Federalist 65, impeachment cannot be “tied down” by “strict rules, either in the delineation of the offense” by the House, or “in the construction of it” by the Senate. James Iredell sermonized to North Carolina’s ratification convention that “giving false information to the Senate” was characteristic “of great injury to the community” that would warrant impeachment. False information distorts legislative judgments and makes a farce of congressional oversight to detect lawlessness or maladministration by the executive branch. – Bruce Fein

Http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/26384

http://www.slate.com/id/2173106

Which is why Fitzgerald’s grand jury investigation of the outing of CIA Officer Plame – evidence available to Congress under a FRofCrP Rule 6(e) exception if and only if the House is conducting an impeachment inquiry, aka a “judicial proceeding” – may well yield or lead to clear evidence of multiple impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors in spite of the fact that criminal prosecutions of multiple individuals were not possible under the criminal code. Major league evidence, available to a House impeachment committee on a silver platter, for the asking of a judge. There “is too” time…

Thanks for this.

Bob in HI

YOW! continued… Here’s my reply to Davis’ personal email:

Thanks for your reply. I objected to Ted Olson principally because I doubt his capacity to be impartial and “above politics”. I understand that Mr. Olson was key to something referred to as the “Arkansas Project.” This was financed by one Mr. Scaife, and was highly active in targeting President and Mrs. Clinton, and about which you yourself said, I believe, that Scaife was “using it (his money) to destroy a president of the US.”

I realize you wish to give the President the person of his choice as AG, as has been done customarily in the past. It is the gentlemanly things to do, but since the Democrats won the legislature in 2006, I personally think it is time to fight like hell for someone who has demonstrated he/she can be genuinely above partisan politics, like maybe James B. Comey or David Iglesias.

Thanks for your attention.

fabulous

Thanks for your reply. I objected to Ted Olson principally because I doubt his capacity to be impartial and “above politics”. I understand that Mr. Olson was key to something referred to as the “Arkansas Project.” This was financed by one Mr. Scaife, and was highly active in targeting President and Mrs. Clinton, and about which you yourself said, I believe, that Scaife was “using it (his money) to destroy a president of the US.”

I realize you wish to give the President the person of his choice as AG, as has been done customarily in the past. It is the gentlemanly things to do, but since the Democrats won the legislature in 2006, I personally think it is time to fight like hell for someone who has demonstrated he/she can be genuinely above partisan politics, like maybe James B. Comey or David Iglesias.

Thanks for your attention.