Grassley supports Rove, Miers subpoenas.
By on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Grassley supports Rove, Miers subpoenas.
“Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) voted with Democrats Thursday to give Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) the authority to subpoena current and former White House officials… The panel voted by voice vote on the authority, but Grassley said he wanted the record to show that he voted ‘yes’ on the issue.” But remember, this is all about politics.
UPDATE: Giuliani: Gonzales should be given “the benefit of the doubt.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Mr. Rove, please raise your right hand and repeat after me . . .
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:32 pmInteresting that Grassley took a stand on the issue and voted to issue the subpoenas.
At the same time, Mr. Not Under Oath, Arlen Specter makes a scene of not issuing the subpoenas and trying to work the issue out with the White House.
Mr. Specter, if it wasn’t for you slipping in the little provision to the Patriot Act II would we be here?
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:34 pmChuckie G – a conservative with a conscience!
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:35 pmDoesn’t matter. Jake assures me that no one has to obey a subpeona if they don’t want to. Something to do with “Separation of Powers” or “Executive Priviledge” although I’m not clear on how yet… Jake’s explanations have been kind of murky.
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:35 pmAhhh,
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:36 pmThe master of ‘Shadow Government’, coming into the sunlight.
What will I wear?
What will people say?
How can I get out of this?
Can I still lie?
What will my kids think?
What WAS plan B?
Where’s Dick?
I never should have had sex in Harriet’s Oval Orifice.
That’s right, it’s all about politics.
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:36 pmHmmm… lemme guess how that Democracy hating Specter voted.
Arlen Specter is a disgusting sick sorry excuse for a human being.
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:36 pmHe has flirted with cancer and death and still does not get it. He has to be menatlly ill. There’s no other explanation.
Have the Wilsons received a date yet for their civil trial against Rove? I’m sure in the next few months Mr. Rove will have many opportunities to get his side of the story out–as soon as he figures out what his story actually is.
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:36 pmFunny how all these people continue to talk about subpoenas, when Jake, Patrick1, firehead, etc. all loudly proclaim that “Executive Privilege” gives Chimpy & Co. the right to defy these subpoenas, effectively placing them above the law.
It’s almost as if these experienced legislators know something our resident trolls don’t…hmmmm…
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:38 pmLOL, KRank, when did I say “no one has to obey a subpeona if they don’t want to”? “Separation of Powers†or “Executive Priviledge†deals with advice to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, not just “anyone” Constitutionally speaking.
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:40 pmI smell burnt pig slowly roasting ‘oer an open foyer.
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:42 pmTripMaster Monkey: Just ask Dick Nixon and Bill Clinton about “Executive Privilege.” There is something VERY BIG with this US Atty story as witnessed by the lack of public support from GOP leaders. When disgraced ex-GOP Congressman Tom Delay is dusted off and shoved in front of the cameras to help the cause, you’re pretty much screwed.
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:45 pmI absolutely can’t believe that Chuck Grassley did this. I wrote a letter to the Des Moines Register editor basically calling Grassley a spineless politician, and wonder of wonders, they published it a while back. I’m always thankful when a Republican decides not to run with the pack–especially on an important issue such as this. Good for him.
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:45 pmLOL, KRank, when did I say “no one has to obey a subpeona if they don’t want to� “Separation of Powers†or “Executive Priviledge†deals with advice to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, not just “anyone†Constitutionally speaking.
Comment by Jake — March 22, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
Except Bush has said he doesn’t recall anyone advising him on this, so Executive Priviledge doesn’t apply…. or shouldn’t unless Bush is lying to us.. but that doesn’t happen. He’s been so honest up until now.
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:46 pmAs I’ve explained plenty of times already, TMM, just because the President cannot be arrested does not make him above the law either — I hate to keep repeating myself, so maybe you could read up on previous threads — look for one that starts: “As Congress inquires into this matter, it must be careful not to subvert the intended constitutional structure, and historical traditions in this area, by allowing its own political calculus or motivations to play a role . . .”
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:47 pmThat’s right, it’s all about politics.
Comment by Jake — March 22, 2007 @ 2:36 pm
What? It’s not about executive privilege anymore?
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:52 pmI fully support the Dems only if issue subpoenas for everyone they suspect as interfered with ongoing investigations. This includes Schumer as we have written proof he is guilty. If they fail to investigate and subpoena him, it proves this is a show trial. In that case, I then support the administration ignoring it and focusing on things that advance this country. It saddens me that the Dems waste their time and tax payer money and it would sadden me even more if the administration plays along with this and also wastes time. Again, either the Dems get serious about this and investigate Schumer as well or they drop it. They look silly continuing this show. They don’t have that big of issue getting on TV anyways.
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:52 pmit must be careful not to subvert the intended constitutional structure, and historical traditions in this area,…
Comment by Jake — March 22, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
Oh you mean like removing congressional confirmation of US attorneys and firing them for no cause…. those kinds of traditions and structures??
Anyone who thinks the firings that are taking place and the changes to the appointment process that the Administration put into law recently aren’t related has got to be the most naive bone-head I’ve seen in a long time.
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:53 pmwhen did I say “no one has to obey a subpeona if they don’t want to� “Separation of Powers†or “Executive Priviledge†deals with advice to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, not just “anyone†Constitutionally speaking.
I know, Jake. I know. I was using a techinique called “hyperbole” in which exaggeration is employed to sometimes comic effect. However, I think I came fairly close to encapsualting your position, at least when it comes to a presidential administration.
Did you get to my latest for you in the other thread?
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:53 pm#15 But political motivations are the only thing show trials like this are about. If they can’t use their own political motivations they would have to stop and actually focus on issues like Global warming and other things that are positive for this country. I know I know, positive stuff isn’t fun and its much harder then organizing TV cameras for a show trial.
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:55 pmJake: just because the President cannot be arrested does not make him above the law
Can you explain exactly what resources of the Law can be used to check the President’s acts?
Because it sounds like lip service to say “he’s not above the law” if you don’t allow for any authority over him or his office.
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:56 pmMine must not have been the only phone call to Senator Grassley’s office.
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:58 pm“As I’ve explained plenty of times already, TMM, just because the President cannot be arrested does not make him above the law either — I hate to keep repeating myself, so maybe you could read up on previous threads — look for one that starts: “As Congress inquires into this matter, it must be careful not to subvert the intended constitutional structure, and historical traditions in this area, by allowing its own political calculus or motivations to play a role . . .â€
Comment by Jake — March 22, 2007 @ 2:47 pm”
Please provide evidence of this statement! Show me in the Constitution where it says that!
People have provided serveral cases of a Sitting President being arrested. Yet you IGNORE that precident!!! Though it is Unlikely, to say “cannot be arrested” is LYING! A president CAN be arrested, it is just not common practice.
Now show me where in the CONSTITUTION it says he cannot be arrested.
“Section 3 – The Senate
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”
I see nothing in there that says he cannot be arrested while/until his Impeachment is completed.
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:59 pmR2: political motivations are the only thing show trials like this are about.
So, you don’t think there is anything to the appearance of obstruction of justice in removing USAs who are conducting corruption investigations against Republicans?
So, is “Rule of Law” just a talking point for you guys, or does it only apply when Democrats break the law?
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:00 pmAnd when will the swift boating of Grassley begin?? Any wagers?
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:00 pmWhen is the GOP going to release those emails and phone calls where they are engrossed in doing the business of making America better? After six years of GOP leadership all we have is war, death, corruption, and debt. At the end of the day, America won’t give a shit about the US Attorneys–what they will care about is being lied to again and again by the Bush White House. My God, why can’t these guys get anything right? These idiots have had TWO FULL MONTHS to get their story straight and they still are lying. 2008 will really suck for Republicans–clearly, Grassley fully understands this.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:00 pmJake sez:
Um, where did I talk about arresting a sitting President, Jake? That’s a straw man you’re swinging at…I’m over here.
Yeah…I don’t think so. I’m not going to go off on a wild goose chase on your say-so, especially when you preface it with a straw man attack.
Instead, I think I’ll just reiterate my earlier point:
Congress seems to think that subpoenas mean something, else they would not be going to all this trouble. Chimpy & Co. seem to think that subpoenas mean something, else they would not have offered the ridiculous ‘concession’ of having Meirs and Rove informally answer questions, sans oath, recordings, and transcripts.
Apparently, people on both sides of the aisle (who, incidentally, know more about the situation and the relevant law and precedent than either of us) seem to think that subpoenas are a big deal. What’s up with that, do you think?
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:01 pmUnable to speak the truth to us who pay their salaries.Why can’t the take the oath.These are the folks who lecture us on right and wrong and are scared about raising their hands and telling the truth.What frauds.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:01 pmWho gives a f*** what jake “thinks”.
The only thing he’s good for is comic relief and seeing how DESPERATE the trolls have become.
Who cares. Freaks of nature like jake are a SHRINKING MINORITY!
The power of subpoena baby!
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:02 pm“Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.†-Abraham Lincoln-
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:03 pmAnd corporate interests will see that a man, succeeded by his son, will help manage this aggregated wealth through tax cuts to the rich, spying on Patriots, starting wars on false premises, lying to citizens and appointing officials to cover up wrongdoings at any price.
-Zimzone-
#15 But political motivations are the only thing show trials like this are about. If they can’t use their own political motivations they would have to stop and actually focus on issues like Global warming and other things that are positive for this country. I know I know, positive stuff isn’t fun and its much harder then organizing TV cameras for a show trial.
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 22, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
Given Bush’s blindness (or worse) with regard to global warming, the idea that US attorney’s are being culled in an attempt to make them loyal to the Administration affects virtually everything in Government. Say goodbye to any environmental law suits (and even the laws themselves) if Bush gained control of the justice system… so in a senser, they ARE focussing on Global warming… just not the way they’re supposed to.
I guess they figured out owning the Supreme Court was too difficult and just having a pet Attorney General wasn’t good enough. All they need to have now is a terrorist attack so they can declare martial law so that all this gets overshadowed by another crisis until it’s too late to do anything about it. That seems to be the way they operate. Look at how much they accomplished on the domestic front while we had our eyes on Iraq and terrorism. Misdirection and sleight of hand.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:04 pmJake,
Your logic is truly laughable.
“Congress . . .must be careful not to subvert the intended constitutional structure, and historical traditions in this area, by allowing its own political calculus or motivations to play a role . . .â€
Try doing a little research into limitations on Congressional oversight. Specifically reports issued by the CRS.
You will find that Congress has the right of oversight in MANY areas. Specifically, if they feel that THEIR powers are being encroached upon by the executive branch.
You know. Such as in the case of where the executive would slip a clause into a bill so he could appoint AGs WITHOUT Senate confirmation.
Sorry, your argument doesn’t work.
Try again.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:04 pmWas the $40 million failed GOP Whitewater investigation a “show trial?” Or simply GOP attempts to “get the truth?” How about the $70 million dollar investigation into Clinton’s lies about his blowjob? Was that money well spent?
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:04 pmok, don’t take the piss out of him… Grassley did a good thing; I don’t care about his motivation…
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:07 pmSpecter’s suggestion that they talk with Rove, et al. and issue subpoenas if necessary later is disingenuous at best. One of the conditions for this ‘chat’ was that no subpeonas would be issued in the future. Another Republican liar.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:07 pm#27 Not only that, Trip, but the administration has said it will fight the subpoenas in the courts. Doesn’t sound much like Jake’s unitary executive theory to me.
For cryin’ out loud, Jake, your sissy leaders can’t possibly be men enough to fight the terrorists if they have to fight in the courts against these subpoenas.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:08 pmMr. Rove, please REMOVE YOUR RIGHT HAND FROM MR GANNON’S CROTCH, raise your right hand and repeat after me .
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:08 pmThe only thing he’s good for is comic relief and seeing how DESPERATE the trolls have become.
Comment by FunMe — March 22, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
As such, I submit that Jake is the life of this and many other threads. I interact with Jake just enough to keep him moving, to provoke him into trying out his next stupid talking point.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:10 pmRemoveBush:
I gave you the OLC memo for that already.
KRank:
I answered you in the other thread — also, Bush can be impeached.
TMM:
If people on both sides of the aisle (who you think know more about the situation and the relevant law and precedent than either of us) started issuing “Presidential” pardons, I wouldn’t agree with that either.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:10 pmseem to think that subpoenas are a big deal. What’s up with that, do you think?
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — March 22, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
It compels testimony under oath, and it goes into the record, which they seem to be trying to avoid at all costs (big surprise there). It doesn’t mean that they have to tell us the truth, but it means that if they’re caught lying it will go harder on them… Yeah I know… in politics that doesn’t mean much, but still… Beyond that it’s a feather in the Dems hat to say “We got them to cave in, wheras it’s in the Republicans best interests to avoid the subpoena’s and voluntarily give out information publicly (without making the information itself public)
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:11 pmJakers, please don’t come around talking smack about your afternoon walks.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:12 pmThat’s as close as you’ll get to anything Constitutional.
Desperation is a stinky cologne, Jake.
Jake reminds me of one of those tax protestors who refuses to pay because THE INCOME TAX IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!1!!
And when sent to jail, still insists HE knows the law, and all the lawyers, judge, and jury were 1) blinded by their ignorance or 2) a CONSPIRACY!
Sad. Sad little man.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:12 pmDogjudge:
The Executive would slip a clause into a bill so he could appoint AGs WITHOUT Senate confirmation?? I thought that was SENATOR Spector’s office who did that. At least get your conspiracy theory straight.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:13 pm38, to paraphrase renowned novelist scooter libby, “whenever the [jake] would lose interest, they would poke him with a stick until he became aroused again.”
Fun stuff!
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:14 pmRemoveBush sez:
He can’t, RemoveBush…because it’s not there.
What’s interesting, though, is what is there. Article I, Section 6 specifically spells out that members of Congress enjoy some limited immunity:
…but there doesn’t seem to be any analogous passage for Presidents. This makes a strong argument that sitting Presidents can in fact be arrested, since the Founding Fathers, having deliberately put in a clause for Congress, would have not failed to put in a clause for the President, unless that failure was also deliberate.
Add to that the examples of sitting presidents being arrested that have already been cited, and I’d say your point is indeed compelling.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:15 pmWell, I guess we don’t need to worry about Giuliani becoming president now.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:15 pmJake sez:
Wow…I do believe that that’s the most retarded thing you’ve ever written. Completely devoid of any rational thought, and not sidestepping my argument as much as just blundering into it while desperately pretending it’s not there.
TP admins, can we have a new troll? This one is broken.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:18 pm“Jake reminds me of one of those tax protestors who refuses to pay because THE INCOME TAX IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!1!!
And when sent to jail, still insists HE knows the law, and all the lawyers, judge, and jury were 1) blinded by their ignorance or 2) a CONSPIRACY!
Sad. Sad little man.
Comment by Brooklynite — March 22, 2007 @ 3:12 pm”
You really should have picked a different analogy……
Personal income tax IS against the law! It was NEVER ratified!!!! You may believe it to be, but it is not! HENCE, you volunteer to pay taxes……
The only taxes that can be levied is against buisinesses and other imported/exported (I believe) monies…..
Try a different analogy, as this one is not correct.
Though people are arrested, this does not mean it is LEGAL! Not one of any of the cases, has the courts or the IRS actually shown the law that states a person is required to pay taxes.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:20 pmRudi Girl probably went on a Mandate with Alberto VO5.
Giuliani is toast already. He likes to play dress up.
That doesn’t fly in the Bible Belt.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:21 pmJake, are you this obtuse in real life, or just on the internets?
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:21 pm#24 The problem is your once again simply using assumptions and opinions. While they work in settings like this Show Trial, they don’t work in real trials which this isn’t. You see, US attorney’s are ALWAYS in the middle of an investigation (or they should be). So when you fire one, you are firing someone in the middle of an investigation. While this is certainly dirty on Bush’s part, it isn’t a crime. Bush has the ability to fire these folks anytime he wants for any reason he wants. This includes firing an attorney that is investigating a fellow republican.
Now I agree with you this should be wrong. Congress should change this law to make it illegal so in the future Bush and any other president do not have this right. Again, this Show trial is a huge waste of time and money since we already know Bush can legally do this. All they are doing is fishing to get this dirty act on TV. They should be spending their time changing the law so it doesn’t happen again. They also need to change the patriot act so the Senate always gets a chance to confirm new appointments. Either way, this show trial doesn’t accomplish any of that at all.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:21 pmTP admins, can we have a new troll? This one is broken.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — March 22, 2007 @ 3:18 pm
I’m sure that Joke is good for a few more kicks.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:22 pmI see the Repuke trolls are whining again.
“Its all political. Waah!! Waah!! WAAH!!!”
Somebody call a WAAAHmbulance for these Repuke babies.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:22 pm“The Executive would slip a clause into a bill so he could appoint AGs WITHOUT Senate confirmation?? I thought that was SENATOR Spector’s office who did that. At least get your conspiracy theory straight.
Comment by Jake — March 22, 2007 @ 3:13 pm”
It was, but do you think that Spector just decided that Bush needed this little tool? Or do you think that Bush requested Spector add this???
I bet you will take option 1.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:22 pmJake is irrelavent -Arnold Schwarzenegger
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:22 pmDogjudge:
The Executive would slip a clause into a bill so he could appoint AGs WITHOUT Senate confirmation?? I thought that was SENATOR Spector’s office who did that. At least get your conspiracy theory straight.
Comment by Jake — March 22, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
Oh yeah.. and I’m sure Bush had NOTHING to do with THAT.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:23 pm“the Judiciary Committees in both the House and the Senate have a pretty clear right to demand information that relates to the propriety of the running of the Department of Justice.†— Republican Bob Barr.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:23 pmArlen Specter has demonstrated again why he is not to be trusted. He apparently wasn’t embarrassed that his permitting of Gonzales to testify two years ago without being under oath allowed AG to lie with impunity – Specter tried to do it again today.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:24 pmHe wanted to invite adm. officials in for a conversation and then if their answers are not satisfactory, then a subpoena could be authorized.
He is a repugnican in the worst sense. He often acts the reasonable senator, but his acitons belie his words.
We need Joke. He is a barometer of sorts. He gives immediate access to Rove’s talking point of the moment. He also playacts the kind of imbecile who buys into this crap.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:24 pmThis entire scandal is about one single principle that is older than the Constitution and as old as Habeus Corpus.
Are we a nation ruled by Laws, or are we a nation ruled by a Chimp?
I choose the law. The Repuke trolls in here choose the Chimp.
A nation not ruled by laws but ruled by a man is a dictatorship.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:24 pmAre they sure Giuliani didn’t say give him a case of the Gout?
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:25 pmWell, TMM, do you think Congress has the authority to issue “Presidential” pardons? I was trying to find SOME power you don’t think the Congress has. You were the one touting how it must be right, even (a few) Republicans say it’s O.K. to issue subpoenas to the White House counsel. Being a majority does not make you right.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:25 pmAmerica is seeing that this isn’t about the fired US Attorneys who–repeat after me–serve at the President’s pleasure–it is about the lies of this Administration. Lies. Lies Lies. Rove won’t testify under oath, in public, and with a transcript because the Bush White House reserves the right to lie. Don’t worry Jake, Clinton was a liar too, except he is no longer in the White House and his lies didn’t kill 3,200 US soldiers.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:25 pmNow I agree with you this should be wrong. Congress should change this law to make it illegal so in the future Bush and any other president do not have this right. Again, this Show trial is a huge waste of time and money since we already know Bush can legally do this.
Since when are Republicans worried about money?
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:26 pmArlen Specter is a disgusting sick sorry excuse for a human being.
He has flirted with cancer and death and still does not get it.
Comment by jeff #7
jeff,
I too find it quite revealing that…
…so-called “morally superior” conned’self-servative Repulsivescum Bushite TRAITORS like…
…Specter AND Tony Snowjob…
…BOTH having had to come to grips with cancer and mortality…
…appear to be totally unrepentant…
…they lie, bear false witness, suborn corruption and TREASON…
…like its just another day in the park…
…their supporters in disaster prone red state middle DUHmerica (where tornadoes hit)…
…do the same…
…Do you think they are inherently morally/intellectually weak, disingenuous and mischievous/evil in nature?
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:27 pmunderwhelm:
I’m not obtuse.
Sigh Crow:
Actually, since I voted for Arnold (twice), I am not irrelevant either. Perhaps you missed where he went on Rush’s show yesterday to clarify his comment was that Rush does not live in KA-lifornia?
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:28 pmBeing a majority does not make you right.
Comment by Jake
So when George talked about having a mandate?
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:28 pmAboveTheClouds:
Prove even ONE lie.
Tom3:
Just because a sitting President cannot be indicted (impeachment is your only legal recourse) does not mean we are no longer a nation ruled by Laws. Where did you get that silly talking point?
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:30 pmWell, TMM, do you think Congress has the authority to issue “Presidential†pardons? I was trying to find SOME power you don’t think the Congress has. You were the one touting how it must be right, even (a few) Republicans say it’s O.K. to issue subpoenas to the White House counsel. Being a majority does not make you right.
Comment by Jake — March 22, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
Too bad you CONs didn’t use that “attitude” of “being in the majority does not make you right” over the last 6 years. Congressional Subpoenas wouldn’t be required, if you *ssholes weren’t so criminal in your ‘might makes right’ attitudes.
Do us a favor and stop Jake’ing off to your own idiocy here.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:30 pmI’m thinking we should get Jake one of those itty bitty cars as seen in circuses, he’s terribly good at contorting himself right along with the other clowns
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:30 pmAmerica is seeing that this isn’t about the fired US Attorneys who–repeat after me–serve at the President’s pleasure–
Comment by AboveTheClouds — March 22, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
I don’t care if it’s legal or not. If the president can appoint USAs without congressional confirmation and they happen to be firing them for no other reason that they don’t sync with the Administrations politics, then that is wrong. The judicial and executive branches are supposed to be separate. If Bush can pick the whole lineup of USA’s then he has de-facto control over TWO branches of the government. I think that is more important than all the lies and wars and death and rights stripping they’ve done up till now.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:30 pmJust because a sitting President cannot be indicted (impeachment is your only legal recourse) does not mean we are no longer a nation ruled by Laws. Where did you get that silly talking point? Comment by Jake — March 22, 2007 @ 3:30 pm
An impeachment *is* an indictment – idiot.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:30 pmSo, it’s O.K. to joke about cancer when it’s Arlen Specter or Tony Snow, but just not Elizabeth Edwards?
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:31 pmSince Roger Roger is so offended by “show trials,” does he call for reauthorization of the independent council statute? You wouldn’t have to worry about show trials, with a Special Prosecutor. Or doesn’t RR think Bush could stand up to the same scrutiny Clinton was subjected to?
How about it RR? Jake? You jake with that? Let’s have an indepentent council, as non-partisan as Starr was, to look at the various scandals, and let the chips fall where they may.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:31 pmActually, since I voted for Arnold (twice), I am not irrelevant either. Perhaps you missed where he went on Rush’s show yesterday to clarify his comment was that Rush does not live in KA-lifornia?
Comment by Jake — March 22, 2007 @ 3:28 pm
Yeah, sure that’s what he meant. He’s just kowtowing to the most *radical* of your fringe lunatic right – that would be you. At least he was effective of winning losers like you over – but how hard is that in reality? Just promise to reduce your taxes, and act nationalistic and authoritarian, make a few lewd jokes about minorities and women, and an idiot like yourself drools over the “girlie-man”. Dum bass.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:32 pmFor the latest news, email archives, hearings, legal filings and other essential documents on the Bush DOJ prosecutor firings, see:
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:32 pm“The U.S. Attorney Scandal Documents.”
I am not irrelevant either. Perhaps you missed where he went on Rush’s show yesterday to clarify his comment was that Rush does not live in KA-lifornia?
Comment by Jake — March 22, 2007 @ 3:28 pm
Thats most of your problem, you listen to manpigchild and his idiotic opinions and inane childish code words.
And Yes, it’s my opinion you are irrelavent ergo you are. Just as Rush is.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:33 pmValiantVenusGrewFromUranus:
Since I am registered Independent, I’ve always thought “being in the majority does not make you right†— you CAN be “right” and in the “majority” but that’s not always the case — here’s another one from my dear ol’ Mother: “Might does not make right.”
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:33 pmOne thing forgotten in all of this is public opinion. By the time Tony stops sweating out pressers, public opinion on his boss will be in the teens. Bush has very little going for him, and if he’s perceived as being in the center of a cover-up like Nixon, then even Bush senior will be saying “George who?”.
The GOPers who want to either stay in office or get in office will see this mess as the worst possible disaster. Their only out will be to distance themselves from the boy who would be king by increasingly agreeing with the Dems. In fact i see the only viable future for the GOP is to drop Cheney — dead weight, no pun intended — and substitute someone with a brain who is likable as VP. Then they need to get on board with impeaching Bush, talk about the rule of law, we’re all Americans, we love the constitution and nothing is more important, blah, blah, blah. Bush will resign, and the new VP will take his place. This new guy is fairly good, a breath of fresh air from BushCo, and if he either ends the Iraq conflict or brings home 40% of the troops, then he has saved the GOP. Given this scenario what could the Dems do in 2008? If GOPers continue to cling to Bush they will be wishing for the good old days of November 2006.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:33 pm“Well, TMM, do you think Congress has the authority to issue “Presidential†pardons? I was trying to find SOME power you don’t think the Congress has. You were the one touting how it must be right, even (a few) Republicans say it’s O.K. to issue subpoenas to the White House counsel. Being a majority does not make you right.
Comment by Jake — March 22, 2007 @ 3:25 pm”
Jake you need some mental help!!!!
Here, let me put it another way……
Congress owns the purse, do you not agree?
If yes, then do you not agree that if the president took money and directed it in a fashion that was NOT authorized by Congress that they could investigate that and even call him, his staff, or any documents they deemed needed to find out what he did with the money?
If you say NO, the YOU have just setup a Monarchy……
So, since Congress CAN investigate what the President does they CAN submitt subpeanas and force his staff to appear before Congress to answer questions regarding a possible criminal act.
If you can’t see that, perhaps you should go to a doctor and have some laser surgery?
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:34 pmWhat’s in the Bill for Grassley and Iowa???? he hates democrats.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:34 pm#49 R2, first of all, Im (using your punctuation) “once again simply using assumptions and opinions”? When did you charge me with that before? And did I present my assumptions and opinions as fact? No. I presented them as assumptions and opinions, to give some context of the potential this issue holds.
Now, your “Show trial” talking point won’t work because this is not a trial. It’s a congressional inquiry. The Congressional Judiciary committees are searching for answers to a suspicious-looking decision by the administration.
Second, there is actually such a thing as “Obstruction of Justice” and removing a prosecutor for the purpose of disrupting an investigation or a prosecution is a textbook example of such a crime.
The fact that the President has the right to remove any political appointee at his discretion does not mean that he can remove one for an illegal reason. It not just “should be wrong”, it IS wrong.
YOU are making an assumption that there is no wrongdoing here, (this Show trial is a huge waste of time and money since we already know Bush can legally do this. All they are doing is fishing to get this dirty act on TV.) and YOU’RE presenting that assumption as FACT.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:35 pmIf your an ‘independent’ as you say Jake, why are you listening to Rush and his Archie Bunker buffoonery? Shouldn’t you go buy a Michael Savage book from Worldnutdaily?
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:35 pmAboveTheClouds:
Prove even ONE lie.
Comment by Jake — March 22, 2007 @ 3:28 pm
I can’t believe you actually said that. Pretty much all the ‘predictions’ Bush has come up with so far have been wrong. No WMDs, no connection to terrorists, Rumsfeld is going to stay in the Administration until we’re done, we don’t have a plan to fight Iran.
Either he’s the most incompetent president in the history of the country, or he’s a liar. Choose one.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:36 pmNo thanks, Barfly.
ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus:
It is “analogous” to an indictment, but no, it is not an indictment which can only be issued by a grandy jury. In many (though not all) U.S. jurisdictions retaining the grand jury, prosecutors often have a choice between seeking an indictment from a grand jury, or filing a charging document directly with the court. Such a document is usually called an information, accusation, or complaint, to distinguish it from a grand jury indictment. I was being very precise in my language, sir. Try to keep up.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:37 pmComment by Sigh Crow #68
hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
Sigh,
…saw that image…
…and it cracked me up…
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:37 pmRemoveBush:
No more so than the Executive can search Congressional offices, right?
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:37 pmJake sez:
Keep beating that straw man, Shakey Jake…after all, it is the closest you’ll ever come to legitimately winning an argument.
When you’re done swinging, why don’t you pick the bits of straw out of your eyes and look for the post where I claimed that Congress should be able to issue pardons. Get back to me when you find it.
Well, it’s sure shaping up to look that way, isn’t it? People better educated and informed than us, on both sides of the aisle, seem to think that White House advisors can be subpoenaed. That’s rather remarkable, wouldn’t you say?
Coming from the guy who was just thrust unceremoniously into the minority four months ago, that objection rings a bit hollow.
(Oh, that’s right…you’re an “Independent”…and Lieberman is a “Democrat-Independent”. Tell us another one, Shakey.)
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:38 pm# 72, they’ll want to make sure they can burn up tens of millions of dollars of TAXPAYER money with this independent investigation, just like they did when they examined Clinton’s zipper.
Jake was probably jake with that as well, and feels like it was money well spent.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:38 pmAs you fu*king retards proved over the last six years.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:39 pmGonzales has already been provided with the benefit of the doubt when he was hired as AG; for which he was a weak sister at best. Just as Bill Maher pointed out with Bush; intelligence does make a huge difference. In Gonzale’s case the issue is integrity.
There is no doubt at this point.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:40 pmOne of the offices I called re: issuing subpoenas for Rove and Miers was
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:40 pmGrassley’s ( Iowa – R ) . The person answering reported Grassley was
getting a lot of calls asking him to vote for subpoenas and voila, he voted
to issue subpoenas. I just called to thank Grassley, talked to the same
person and he said they had received several thank you calls. Wow, could the system actually work for once?
“Might does not make right.â€
Comment by Jake
HAHAHAHAHAHAAA!. That’s exactly what the Republicans say, “Might is right” You know empire building? Using our troops to nation build? To change a countries politics thru war? To create a democracy thru the end of a barrel?
You should have listened to mom Jake.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:41 pmJake, you want one of Bush’s lies proved? The easiest one:
For years, law enforcement used so-called roving wire taps to investigate organized crime. You see, what that meant is if you got a wire tap by court order — and, by the way, everything you hear about requires court order, requires there to be permission from a FISA court, for example.
- George W. Bush, April 19, 2004
Done.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:42 pmswordbane:
There are other possibilities, whether you like it or not. “Predictions” are not lies — i.e. past performance is not an indicator of future results — every intelligence agency in the world thought Saddam had WMD (you want a Clinton or Gore quote on that very subject?). Did you know that Saddam PAID known terrorist families after homicide bombings? Seriously, try to keep up.
TMM:
Congress FORCING the White House COUNSEL to testify is on the same exact legal footing as them issuing “Presidential” pardons.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:43 pmSigh Crow:
I am not a Republican.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:44 pmJake sez:
“Might does not make right”??? Izzat so?
Funny…you were singing quite a different tune the other night.
Let’s go over your hit list again, shall we?
Paging hypocrisy to the Grassley thread…hypocrisy to the Grassley thread…
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:45 pmit’s not about politics, it’s about a “show trial!”
btw, what does a transcript get you anyway?
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:46 pmAlright people be easy on me. here. I’m just doing my job. Karl Rove and Bill O’Reilly is paying me to monitor this site.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:46 pmMy queztion to you guys is, if there’s nothing illegal that was done, who cares?
I mean this is a fabricated scandal, by the Leftwing media toi go after Gonzales because he’s a Conservative Spanish person.
Admitt it this is just politics.
Be honest!
I am not a Republican.
Comment by Jake — March 22, 2007 @ 3:44 pm
Yeah, and Rush isn’t a “drug-addict”. Repeating a lie, doesn’t make it true – dum bass.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:47 pmCongress FORCING the White House COUNSEL to testify is on the same exact legal footing as them issuing “Presidential†pardons.
Comment by Jake
Might is right!! LMAO!!
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:47 pm“RemoveBush:
No more so than the Executive can search Congressional offices, right?
Comment by Jake — March 22, 2007 @ 3:37 pm”
There is NOTHING in the Constitution that prevents that! Show me where the Constitution states that either!
Here is the CLOSEST thing that states that and it only talks about Arresting. Nothing about searches, so with that I would have to say that this is allowed.
Yes, I know about the case of the Democrat and the uproar that was made about his confiscation of office stuff at the Congress.
Unless YOU can prove otherwise, there is NOTHING in the Constitution. Though I have NOT looked at LAWS, and since the Congress makes the laws, they may have passed something that has been made law. So if that is the case, then YES what Bush did would be Illegal.
Other than a LAW stating otherwise, searching the House (With a warrant) is not Illegal.
Section 6 – Compensation
They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:48 pmTMM ~ He’s gonna have to get in line behind stupidity, freakishness and what me worry.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:49 pmJake sez:
Jake’s a neocon. There’s a big difference, as any actual Republican will be more than happy to explain.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:49 pmI am not a Republican.
Comment by Jake
Yet you work so hard at apologizing for them and ALWAYS side with them no matter how corrupt or how many fibs they tell…how peculiar.
Please do elaborate upon that.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:49 pmJake: reauthorize Independent Prosecutor statue? If you’re so scared of a “show trial” . . .
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:50 pmBeing a majority does not make you right.
Comment by Jake — March 22, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
A statement that certainly applies to the previous 12 years of Congress!
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:50 pmFunny how the Repuke trolls often deny being Repukes.
If it limps like a lame duck and it quacks like a lame duck…
Jake’s been spewing Repuke talking points and nothing else in here.
Jake, you’re not only a Repuke, but you’re a lying Closet Repuke.
LOL!
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:52 pmThe real question as posed by Robert Reich:
The Other 85 U.S. Attorneys
That is a scary question.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:53 pmswordbane:
There are other possibilities, whether you like it or not. “Predictions†are not lies — i.e. past performance is not an indicator of future results — every intelligence agency in the world thought Saddam had WMD (you want a Clinton or Gore quote on that very subject?). Did you know that Saddam PAID known terrorist families after homicide bombings? Seriously, try to keep up.
TMM:
Congress FORCING the White House COUNSEL to testify is on the same exact legal footing as them issuing “Presidential†pardons.
Comment by Jake — March 22, 2007 @ 3:43 pm
Each of the points you made about Bush’s ‘predictions’ are disputed by those who are supposed to know what they’re talking about. The whole world did not KNOW Saddam had WMDs. They knew he HAD WMDs, but not that he still had them when we decided to go looking for them, and I’m not going to take Clinton or Gores word on it either. I pay attention to the people who are supposed to know: the CIA. They’re official stance was that they had no evidence Saddam had any WMDs when or shortly before we invaded. Don’t make the mistake that I’m a Democrat just because I don’t like the Republicans.
Getting back on topic: If not Congress, who? Each branch of the government is supposed to watch the other to a certain extent. If Congress cannot compel testimony under oath of those in the Whitehouse, then who can? The Justice Department? They’re the ones being investigated, and it’s congress job to investigate. They need to be able to find out what’s going on, and when someone is acting suspicious (like the Administration is) then they need the force of law behind them, and why should the Administration want a meeting behind closed doors without transcripts, oaths or any record of what took place in the meeting? Never mind the subpoena’s. Why do they want us to think they ARE guilty by doing everything they can to give the finger to Congress?
It’s starting to look like incopetence is winning.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:53 pmSigh Crow:
I am not a Republican.
Comment by Jake — March 22, 2007 @ 3:44 pm
He might be right. Republicans don’t have a monopoly on ignorance. They’re just very good at it.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:55 pmLet me get this straight… Giuliani says Abu Gonzales deserves “the benefit of the doubt”???
What does one have to do in order to forfeit the benefit of the doubt? Register as a Democrat?
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:55 pmKarl Rove and Bill O’Reilly is paying me to monitor this site.
My queztion to you guys is, if there’s nothing illegal that was done, who cares? Honest Comment by Mike Tyson
How can you be honest and not take issue with one side when you are accepting money from them?
“Hi, My name is Mike and I’m here to promote no side, which is really their side, for money. I am honest, I swear.
HAHAHAHAHAAAA!
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:55 pmAnd if you think there is one person on this blog, trolls included who think that you aren’t a republican troll, then I got a bridge to sell you.
You are 100% inbred, Christofascist, red neckedy, NASCAR watching, swill beer drinking, hog racing, cow tipping racsist republican if I have ever met or heard from one.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:55 pmI am not a Republican.
Comment by Jake
If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and leaves slimy poo on the grass like a duck, Jake. . .
You may have registered as an Independent, but you have yet to post a single line that demonstrated independent thought. So, just like Joe Lieberman, you can call yourself whatever you want, but through your behavior you’ve demonstrated that you’re not an “independent”, you just don’t have the balls to admit you’re a Republican.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:56 pmFunnier how often I am accused of being a Repuke troll — I wouldn’t have brought up my voter registration otherwise.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:56 pmLOL, KRank, when did I say “no one has to obey a subpeona if they don’t want to� “Separation of Powers†or “Executive Priviledge†deals with advice to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, not just “anyone†Constitutionally speaking.
Comment by Jake — March 22, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
Except Bush has said he doesn’t recall anyone advising him on this, so Executive Priviledge doesn’t apply…. or shouldn’t unless Bush is lying to us.. but that doesn’t happen. He’s been so honest up until now.
Comment by swordsbane — March 22, 2007 @ 2:46 pm
Good point swordsbane. Likewise, Alberto Gonzales, after accepting “responsibility” for this politicization of the Justice Dept., and reminding us that he is just a poor disadvantaged little Mexican boy, told us that he, “Was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on.”
So, there is no reason for Bush to be worried about Executive Priviledge when Gonzales testifies. All he has to do is swear to Congress that he knew nothing and he can go home, right?
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:56 pmFunnier how often I am accused of being a Repuke troll — I wouldn’t have brought up my voter registration otherwise.
Comment by Jake
Trying posting something, anything, that isn’t right out of the Republican troll handbook. As noted: quack!
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:57 pmGood point Spongeboy (and Robert Reich)
The US Attorneys who DID keep their jobs…kept them because they didn’t aggressively prosecute Republicans and did go after Dems.
This politicization of the US Attorneys is a coin with two sides.
Think about living in the US where the entire legal system is set up to protect Repukes and prosecute Dems. That’s not a legal system, that’s Nazi Germany.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:58 pm#73 I am all for special independant investigations when a crime was committed. However in this case no crime was committed as the law is very clear. Bush can fire these attorney’s ANYTIME HE WANTS even if they are in the middle of investigating someone close to Bush.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:58 pmOh, Jake, regarding Bush’s lies, here’s a variation of the one I just posted, only phrased better by your President:
Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.
- George W. Bush, April 20, 2004
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:58 pmFunnier how often I am accused of being a Repuke troll — I wouldn’t have brought up my voter registration otherwise.
Comment by Jake
IINO. DINO. RINO.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:58 pmHey, quit insulting cow tipping!!
I happen to know that rural liberals love that pastime too.
Mooooooo!!
8^)
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:59 pmgummitch ~ let me say this about that. Quack Jake, Quack.
Jake ~ how many words per minute do you type?
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:59 pmOnce again, how you are registered means diddly squat. It is the policies and ideologies you push that determine what you are. I can go register as a republican right this minute, doesn’t mean I am a republican. Dumb a$$.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:59 pmSigh Crow:
I said that I didn’t think Chuckie Schumer had a conflict of interest, didn’t I?
Barfly:
I can’t “reauthorize” anything — but I thought I already told you I didn’t think the Independent Counsel was a good idea, regardless of party — that Justice Scalia’s view too BTW ; )
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:59 pmFunnier how often I am accused of being a Repuke troll — I wouldn’t have brought up my voter registration otherwise.
Comment by Jake — March 22, 2007 @ 3:56 pm
I do not accuse you of being a Republican. Just an idiot.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:59 pmStill quick on the keyboard, RUCerious, even if my other parts are slowing down : )
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:00 pm“Funnier how often I am accused of being a Repuke troll — I wouldn’t have brought up my voter registration otherwise.
Comment by Jake — March 22, 2007 @ 3:56 pm”
Only those that are support blindly this Administration and CONTINUALLY bring up Clinton.
These are dead giveaways to a Bush Republican troll…..
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:00 pmWho’s Spongeboy?
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:00 pmFunny how often Jake is accused of being a Repuke troll.
That’s because he exclusively bashes Dems, spews Repuke talking points, spins and lies, and generally acts like a Repuke troll.
I don’t give a crap what your voter registration says.
It is what YOU say.
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:01 pm#73 I am all for special independant investigations when a crime was committed. However in this case no crime was committed as the law is very clear. Bush can fire these attorney’s ANYTIME HE WANTS even if they are in the middle of investigating someone close to Bush.
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 22, 2007 @ 3:58 pm
So Roger_Roger thinks that Obstruction of Justice, and interfering with a federal investigation aren’t *crimes*? How many times were you dropped on your head again?
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:01 pmSigh Crow,
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:02 pmI never said I’m here to promte no side. I’m being honest, Bill and Karl are paying me good money to spy on ypou guys. I’m honest about that.
What I want is for you guys to honest and admitt, this is all about Politics!
That’s the only reason you and your media allies are making a hoopla about this.
#73 I am all for special independant investigations when a crime was committed. However in this case no crime was committed as the law is very clear. Bush can fire these attorney’s ANYTIME HE WANTS even if they are in the middle of investigating someone close to Bush.
Huh? So obstruction of Justice is okay with you?
If there was no crime then why fire the attorney?
Huh? Huh? Huh?
If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about -Republican illegal wiretapping talking point.
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:03 pm“I am all for special independant investigations when a crime was committed. However in this case no crime was committed as the law is very clear. Bush can fire these attorney’s ANYTIME HE WANTS even if they are in the middle of investigating someone close to Bush.
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 22, 2007 @ 3:58 pm”
Good then your for pursuing this…… Because doing what you said IS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!!!
Believe it or not, this is a CRIME!
So with that, I expect you to now state that you are for this investigation since it appears that there was OBSTRUCTION of JUSTICE involved!
I won’t hold my breath though!
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:03 pmYeah Jake, a little too quick.
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:05 pmAll of the seniors I work with (lots, I tutor at our local senior center) type about half as fast as you do.
Hmmm.
What unit were you with in the Korean conflict??
Sigh Crow: I said that I didn’t think Chuckie Schumer had a conflict of interest, didn’t I? -Joke,, ur,, Jake.
So?
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:06 pmFunnier how often I am accused of being a Repuke troll — I wouldn’t have brought up my voter registration otherwise.
Comment by Jake — March 22, 2007 @ 3:56 pm
It’s even funnier that you cannot hardly find a Republican on the internet these days. The wingnut Bushbots all claim to be independents.
I don’t blame you Jake. If I were you, I wouldn’t want anyone to know that I’m a mindless Republican drone either.
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:06 pmB*llsh*t, Jake. You use your “independent” grift as an out.
There is nothing noble about it. Just like you use your age
as an out. 75 is convenient, it fits your needs little buddy,
old enough to allow you the time to post all day, and get you
out of serving in the armed forces.
Your a lie, Jake. A convenient little grift. You have been since the first
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:07 pmlittle dribble of spew you sploped in here.
never said I’m here to promte no side. I’m being honest, Bill and Karl are paying me good money to spy on ypou guys. I’m honest about that. What I want is for you guys to honest and admitt, this is all about Politics! That’s the only reason you and your media allies are making a hoopla about this.
Comment by Mike Tyson
Apparently it’s all about the money. I don’t take money from any politicos, nor am I allied with any media outlets. You however are.
BTW what good does it do to ’spy’ (LOL) as you say?
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:09 pm#117 R2: in this case no crime was committed as the law is very clear. Bush can fire these attorney’s ANYTIME HE WANTS even if they are in the middle of investigating someone close to Bush.
You keep insisting that “no crimes have been committed” because the President can “fire these Attorney’s (sic) ANYTIME HE WANTS”. The sticking point is that if the change was made to disrupt an investigation that is OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. And THAT is a CRIME.
We don’t know yet if that occurred. There’s a fair amount of evidence that points to that conclusion.That’s what the House and Senate Judiciary Committees want to find out.
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:09 pmThe Other 85 U.S. Attorneys
Robert Reich’s Blog:
“The real question isn’t whether the eight U.S. attorneys were fired because they refused to carry out the Republicans’ political agenda. It’s obvious to anyone with a brain capable of processing information that’s exactly why they were fired.
The real question concerns the other eighty-five U.S. attorneys who are still there. What kind of political vendettas have they engaged in, in exchange for keeping their jobs?”
Good question.
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:09 pmI mean, Mike Tyson, it would be easier to craft a script to ’spy’ on blogs than to send you.
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:11 pm. see 106
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:13 pmThat’s the only reason you and your media allies are making a hoopla about this. Comment by Mike Tyson
Yet you just promoted your ’side’ with that statement.
I want to know why Bill is still supporting this culture of corruption even after he stated, on air, that if no WMD were found he would no longer support it.
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:13 pmSigh Crow,
I never said I’m here to promte no side. I’m being honest, Bill and Karl are paying me good money to spy on ypou guys. I’m honest about that.
What I want is for you guys to honest and admitt, this is all about Politics!
That’s the only reason you and your media allies are making a hoopla about this.
Comment by Mike Tyson — March 22, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
Well then, I’d give you a message to pass on to Karl and Bill, but TP would ban me for EXTREMELY offensive language.
It’s about politics in the sense that it’s about what politicians do, but if anything, the media UNDEREPORTS what comes out of DC. They don’t follow up with the politicians when they talk around a question instead of answering it. They don’t ask the questions that matter. Liberal and conservative reporters are guilty of this. It’s not your job to slant the news. It’s your job to get answers for us. It should be HARD to tell which news network has which bias. Unfortunately it’s all too easy. If you really are spying for Karl and Bill (which I seriously doubt) then take this message back to them: Start doing your F****ng job and stop worrrying about which dinners you’re going to be invited to.
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:14 pmSigh Crow:
“SO?” You said above I “ALWAYS” side with the Republicans. I was providing you with one instance (there are more) where I didn’t.
RUCerious:
I’d trade my typing skills for new knees any day of the week. I was in cryptology, and that’s all I can say about that ; )
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:17 pm#66: Name ONE Bush White House lie? How about WMD in Iraq; Saddam’s ties to al Qaeda; Medicare Part D; the US attorney purge; the abuse of National Security Letters; obstructing justice; Zarqawi’s multiple deaths; Abu Ghraib . . .
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:21 pmWell Jake, you can only blame yourself for the knees.
After all, you spend so much time on them… ; )
Fake.
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:22 pm#141, sorry Spudge_Boy missed that comment .
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:22 pmYes, Jake, we know you don’t side with republicans all the time. Like the fact that Dick Cheney eats raw puppies. You prefer yours chicken fried.
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:23 pmAbovetheClouds:
I meant an actual quote.
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:24 pmPrediction time!
The following five things will happen — it’s a lock:
1. Bush will force the courts to decide whether his aides have to testify.
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:27 pm2. Courts will rule in Bush’s favor.
3. Dems will whine about a miscarriage of justice.
4. TPers will wet their collective pants.
5. I will laugh hysterically.
OK RR you have written eviidence that Shurmer is guilty of soemthing. What is he guilty of? When did he do it? Whhat is your evidence? Why have you not turnned it over yet?
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:28 pm“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”– George W. Bush. How many more Americans need to die for this lie, Jake?
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:28 pm6. GOP swept out of office in 2008.
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:29 pm#149 Jake: AbovetheClouds: I meant an actual quote.
What about the two I offered, Jake? #91 and 118. Do they count?
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:32 pmWill Bill O’Reilly and Katl Rove pay top dollars. Geoirge Soros is cheap by comparasons. I would’ve worked for him, but Karl gave me more money!
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:33 pmNow, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.
- George W. Bush, April 20, 2004
Hey, Jake! Answer the question!
What about the two I offered, Jake? #91 and 118. Do they count?
Comment by KRank
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:37 pmI am all for special independant investigations when a crime was committed. However in this case no crime was committed as the law is very clear. Bush can fire these attorney’s ANYTIME HE WANTS even if they are in the middle of investigating someone close to Bush.
Comment by Roger_Roger
How does one know a crime was/was not committed, if there is no investigation? Isn’t that how it used to work in the old USSR, comrade?
I can’t “reauthorize†anything — but I thought I already told you I didn’t think the Independent Counsel was a good idea, regardless of party — that Justice Scalia’s view too BTW ; )
Comment by Jake
Did I ask if you could reauthorize anything? I don’t think so, old bean.
Don’t you think it hypocritical of “conservatives” to rhetorically bandy about things learned about Clinton through the efforts of a special prosector (Starr), yet decry the Special prosecutor system?
Scalia is one of the Felonious Five, and unable to discern things without first straining them through a partisan seive; deeply flawed, both morally and intellectually. I’d sooner believe Capt. Kangaroo than give his corrupt mouthings any credence.
Your belief in Bush is so shaky that you won’t support reauthorization of the Special Prosecutor statute? Yet you talk of congressional “show trials;” to a casual observer, it would appear that the only investigation you would support is one led by republicans. True?
You can’t have it both ways, either endorse a Special Prosecutor, or “show trials,” or admit that, as Jack Nicholson said, “You can’t handle the truth!”
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:38 pmPrediction time!
The following five things will happen — it’s a lock:
1. Bush will force the courts to decide whether his aides have to testify.
2. Courts will rule in Bush’s favor.
3. Dems will whine about a miscarriage of justice.
4. TPers will wet their collective pants.
5. I will laugh hysterically.
Comment by Cynicon Implant — March 22, 2007 @ 4:27 pm
6. You’ll wake up from your wet dream and realize none of that came to pass.
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:39 pmThanks KRank — I didn’t see those before — but where exactly is the lie:
1. For years, law enforcement used so-called roving wire taps to investigate organized crime.
True.
2. You see, what that meant is if you got a wire tap by court order — and, by the way, everything you hear about requires court order, requires there to be permission from a FISA court, for example.
Also, true, that is one example. Another example would be the President’s authority in wartime to spy on the enemy, inside or outside of the country.
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:41 pmComment by Cynicon Implant
#6 United calls from both House and senate Dems for re-authorization of the Special Prosecutor Statute.
#7 Cynicon posts more banal blather to make himself feel manly.
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:43 pmJake: the lie is that at the very moment he said there was always a warrant, he knew very well that he had authorized a program to wiretap without warrants. It was a baldfaced lie.
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:43 pm1. For years, law enforcement used so-called roving wire taps to investigate organized crime.
With warrants. Are you really trying the Reagan defense? Pathetic.
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:46 pmBesides, there are some secrets even the President has to keep. Do you think it would have been right for the NYTimes to publish the fact we broke Jap codes during WWII?? And, you guys wonder why the war on terror is not finished yet?
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:50 pmThanks KRank — I didn’t see those before — but where exactly is the lie:
1. For years, law enforcement used so-called roving wire taps to investigate organized crime.
True.
2. You see, what that meant is if you got a wire tap by court order — and, by the way, everything you hear about requires court order, requires there to be permission from a FISA court, for example.
Also, true, that is one example. Another example would be the President’s authority in wartime to spy on the enemy, inside or outside of the country.
Are you serious?
The lie is that, at the very moment the President spoke these words, he KNEW that he had authorized, years before, a program that circumvented the FISA court and secretly wiretapped Americans WITHOUT A COURT ORDER.
In other words, to simplify for you: the President said something to the public that he knew to be untrue.
That, in my book, is a LIE.
Example number one: you pulled a limited quote out of the citation and asserted its truth, as if any percentage of truth at all redeems the falsehoods. You ignored the actal lie.
Example two: what about “everything you hear about requires a court order” do you take to be a conditional? The “you hear about” part? Wow. You have really low standards for honesty and disclosure. But I guess that’s a prerequisite for supporting this President, isn’t it?
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:51 pm3. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order.
A “wiretap” does require a court order. Spying does not.
4. Nothing has changed, by the way.
That’s how we’ve fought every war since the Revolution.
5. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.
“We were talking” about it — and then “we” agreed that is not needed in some cases.
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:52 pmKRank — let me know what you don’t understand.
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:53 pmAnd, you guys wonder why the war on terror is not finished yet?
Comment by Jake
Bush abandoned the “war on terra” when he invaded Iraq. Iraq had NOTHING to do with “the War on terra”
“I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.”
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
“I am truly not that concerned about him.”
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:54 pm- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden’s whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
“1. For years, law enforcement used so-called roving wire taps to investigate organized crime.
True.
2. You see, what that meant is if you got a wire tap by court order — and, by the way, everything you hear about requires court order, requires there to be permission from a FISA court, for example.
Also, true, that is one example. Another example would be the President’s authority in wartime to spy on the enemy, inside or outside of the country.
Comment by Jake — March 22, 2007 @ 4:41 pm”
1) But “roving wiretapps” still REQUIRE a warrant!!!!!
2) Please show me where in the Constitution is Overrides Ammendment 4 of the Constitution!
Here is the Presidents Power under the Constitution….. Please point out where in it there is a authorization to disregard the laws and the Constitution during a time of war.
Oh….. And we are not at WAR! Congress did not declare WAR!!!!
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article2
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:54 pmGiuliani: Gonzales should be given “the benefit of the doubt.â€
So Rudy believes that even after DOJ was caught in the lie that the firings were performance-related, Gonzo should be given “the benefit of the doubt,” eh?
I wonder how many lies, we’re supposed to give him the benefit of, before we demand sworn testimony?
Not exactly a ringing endorsement of Rudy’s “law and order” credentials, is it?
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:57 pmJake: KRank — let me know what you don’t understand.
I don’t understand how you can be such a retard, frankly.
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:57 pmThanks for ducking my question, Jake.
Lightweight.
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:59 pm“Besides, there are some secrets even the President has to keep. Do you think it would have been right for the NYTimes to publish the fact we broke Jap codes during WWII?? And, you guys wonder why the war on terror is not finished yet?
Comment by Jake — March 22, 2007 @ 4:50 pm”
Jake….. Information is GENERALLY provided to newspapers when there is a crime or suspected crime taking place…..
Hence Abu Grab, Warrantless wiretaps, etc.
The people in our government do not turn over information that is dangerous to our country, unless there is a crime taking place that they need to let the American people know about.
It is NOT the newspapers fault you idiot!!!! That is like blaming the papers if pepsi would have given the Coke formula they received to the papers, and the papers did not know that it was a secret!
Here is another one for you…… It’s like blaming the little kid in the back seat for the car crash because they should have known that it was going to happen and warn the on coming car.
Your blaming the paper for government officials providing information to them is rediculous.
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:01 pmTypical TP Poster: I don’t believe a word George Bush says. He’s a liar.
Jake’s response: Several words are perfectly true. Therefore, he’s not a liar.
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:01 pmDoes the Grassley look greener on the other side? Hmmm…
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:06 pmjeeeeeee-zus!!!! the entire place reeks of flop-sweat from trollies and gopers.
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:08 pmJake — I am a registered independant.
You post like a Republican troll.
I am registered independant on my voter registration, mainly because when I was registering Democrat, here in Texas, my registrations (plural) never went through. Someone at the registration office was throwing away Democratic voters registrations, and the DOJ never fully investigated.
It is people like you Jake, carying water for this crooked Bush administration and a corrupt DOJ under Gonzo that enable illegal crap like this to happen.
Go to hell Jake.
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:13 pmWayne:
Some thought FDR abandoned the “war in the Pacific†when he invaded North Africa — can’t please all of the people all of the time. Notice I will not tell you to go to hell though.
KRank:
I’ve been civil and attempted to answer every one of your questions — sorry again that I have missed some but I have been a bit busy fighting single-handed here — if you’d rather not return the same courtesy, just let me know.
Barfly:
I thought “Are you really trying the Reagan defense?” was rhetorical — if not, my actual answer is “no”.
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:27 pmIs this the thread about trolls who say they are not trolls? Trolls are lucky at Think Progress, they don’t get edited or banned for having ‘different‘ but really all the same opinions.
I know you’re trolls and you don’t understand humankind, being a different species and all, but give props to this site. I never hear a ‘thanks, Think Progress, for letting me have cynical and baseless posts against everything ‘liberal’. You guys rock!’
So, Trolls, lets hear some compliments head Think Progress’s way. Now, this probably may seem like an invitation for Trolls to spout off in a hateful and stupid manner, but I would just like to hear once, from an arrogant conservative, to give some thanks to the people who let them continue mucking up threads with their infinite wisdom…I mean fathomless ignorance.
On a personal note: You can kill trolls but only with fire or acid.
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:34 pmAnyone know where we can learn how Senators on the committee voted? Was it all down party line except for Grassley?
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:37 pmI often want to know the details of a vote but I usually have trouble finding it – is there a website?
Jake,
You are doing a good job fighting the hordes here, but you keep trying to use logic. As you can see, most here have trouble with logic.
For example, when you point out that there is no potential crime here so there is no way that Rove or anybody else will be indicted (can you indoct someone for being political?), they just blow a gasket and start spewing insults.
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:39 pmJake, sorry for the “incivility” of the retard remark, but I’m just incredulous that you can be so intent on defending your President that you can parse individual words out of a statement and bend over backward to try to prove that a lie is really not a lie.
It’s either disingenuous or severely mentally limited.
The President said that “nothing’s changed”. That was a lie. He changed things when he authorized the warrantless wiretapping program.
He said “When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order to do so.” That was a bald-faced lie. “Chasing down terrorists”? Isn’t that part of his “War on Terror”? And he told the American people that he was getting court orders when in fact, he wasn’t. That is a lie.
You can frame it however you want, claim that what he really meant was…this, but it was as clear an instance of a Presidential lie as you’re ever gonna get. Way more clear than “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:41 pmTrolls are lucky at Think Progress, they don’t get edited or banned for having ‘different‘ but really all the same opinions.
Comment by o’really
Actually, you are right. TP is the most open of the lefty sites. Kos is the worst. Thanks TP — I actually have had some good discussions here.
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:42 pmFunnier how often I am accused of being a Repuke troll — I wouldn’t have brought up my voter registration otherwise.
Comment by Jake — March 22, 2007 @ 3:56 pm
If you’re registered independent it’s so you can vote in the Democratic primary to sway the nomination the way you neocons love to do. Because it is obvious that your mind and soul is Republican.
Not only that Jake aftre seeing you on the Elizabeth Edwards post we all know the kind of person you are. And that lack of compassion and empathy put you to the right of the Republican Party. Nice going.
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:44 pmCynicon Implant: when you point out that there is no potential crime here so there is no way that Rove or anybody else will be indicted (can you indoct someone for being political?), they just blow a gasket and start spewing insults.
No potential crime? Obstruction of Justice now falls in the category of Perjury for you folks?
I’m not saying that there is clear evidence of Obstruction of Justice; that’s for the hearings to determine. But there is undeniable potential for this crime to have occurred. And that’s really all that’s needed to refute your delicately-worded cry from the wilderness, right?
If there is potentially a crime, then the investigation is on solid ground to proceed. Your saying that there is none is really not compelling evidence to that “fact”, and it’s not, technically speaking, logical, either.
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:47 pmKrank,
Not sure what actions you think are obstruction of justice. Can you clarify?
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:51 pmThanks for replying #181. I didn’t have high hopes any arrogant conservative would give some props to the site. Coo’ man.
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:52 pmKRank, it’s pointless to try and talk logic to Cynicon Implant…..
He talks about how we don’t know logic, but he just shot himself in the foot…..
By his logic….. Then Warrantless wiretaps should stop and is Illegal…..
By his logic, if there is no inclination of a crime then there is no need to pursue it! So he just admitted that Warrantless wiretapping is in fact a crime and Bush should not be pursuing Americans because he has no evidence that any of the people he is monitoring has in fact committed a crime.
By his logic, Bush is a CRIMINAL because he spied on people who did not committ a crime and therefore they should not have had thier electronic information captured.
But i’m shure that he/she will come back here and say that does not count for some odd reason…….
I gues as long as the president does it, then it’s not a crime.
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:55 pmthe entire place reeks of flop-sweat from trollies and gopers.
Comment by tom baker — March 22, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
Gopers?
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:55 pmKrank,
If you mean firing an attorney because he/she was investigating the admin. didn’t want them to investigate, then I’m not sure… on the one hand it is an employer firing an employee for not doing the job the way the employer wanted them to… on the other hand, I can see how it might be construed as obstruction of justice. We need a lawyer to determine.
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:56 pmo’really:
Several of my posts have been deleted though.
KRank:
I don’t think much HAS CHANGED about spying during wartime. Same stuff going on since the end of the Korean war, from my perspective at least. What part of that don’t you understand?
Cynicon Implant:
Thanks, but it is clear to me that those who post against me are going to use Congress however they can to get Bush — I post mostly for the lurkers anyways.
shane:
How about we agree to just ignore each other then?
March 22nd, 2007 at 6:00 pmon the one hand it is an employer firing an employee for not doing the job the way the employer wanted them to… on the other hand, I can see how it might be construed as obstruction of justice. We need a lawyer to determine. Comment by Cynicon Implant — March 22, 2007 @ 5:56 pm
We need a *judge* to determine it. Lawyers only *advocate*, you moron.
March 22nd, 2007 at 6:01 pmNot sure what actions you think are obstruction of justice. Can you clarify? Comment by Cynicon Implant — March 22, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
You need them *clarified*? Wow, you really are a st*pid piece of sh*t aren’t you?
March 22nd, 2007 at 6:02 pmJake: I don’t think much HAS CHANGED about spying during wartime.
So… Bush’s warrantless wiretap program has been there all along?
March 22nd, 2007 at 6:03 pmBy his logic, if there is no inclination of a crime then there is no need to pursue it! So he just admitted that Warrantless wiretapping is in fact a crime and Bush should not be pursuing Americans because he has no evidence that any of the people he is monitoring has in fact committed a crime.
Comment by RemoveBush
I actually think we should be doing more surveillance without warrants. We should be recording what is going on in mosques in this country for example.
We should have different levels of airport screening based on who you are.
Both of these are “logical”, and I can’t wait to hear the wailing here against these ideas.
March 22nd, 2007 at 6:04 pmOf course Bush’s warrantless wiretap program hasn’t been there all along — spying on our enemies, without a warrant, has been ; )
March 22nd, 2007 at 6:10 pmI think that all Christian churches should be wiretapped.
March 22nd, 2007 at 6:18 pmAll Xians should be frisked by an authorized papal representative as they enter and leave services.
Maybe then we’d have less child molestation, as they’d get their yayas weekly.
Of course Bush’s warrantless wiretap program hasn’t been there all along — spying on our enemies, without a warrant, has been ; )
Comment by Jake — March 22, 2007 @ 6:10 pm
But, Jake, the president didn’t say “not much has changed, by the way,” he said “NOTHING has changed, by the way.” And in fact, something very critical and fundamental HAD changed; he had authorized this program that was bypassing the FISA court in order to wiretap Americans without a warrant.
March 22nd, 2007 at 6:19 pmNo, nothing changed about our SPYING — we’ve always listened in on enemies of the state — we’ve included any Americans who are talking to said enemies now. As I said before, the Constitution has NEVER been a suicide pact — that didn’t just change with Bush either.
March 22nd, 2007 at 6:38 pmI’ve been civil — Jake
You were an a$$ in the Elizabeth Edwards thread.
I have lost all pretense of respect for you because of that.
Notice I will not tell you to go to hell though — Jake
But I will tell you to because you are a disgusting human being , as proven in the thread I mentioned above.
March 22nd, 2007 at 6:42 pmNo, nothing changed about our SPYING — we’ve always listened in on enemies of the state — we’ve included any Americans who are talking to said enemies now. As I said before, the Constitution has NEVER been a suicide pact — that didn’t just change with Bush either.
Comment by Jake — March 22, 2007 @ 6:38 pm
You’re wrong. Something fundamental HAS changed. The President authorized a program to spy on American citizens without obtaining a warrant to do so. And he said that NOTHING HAD CHANGED. He lied.
The fact that you’re comfortable with your ratiuonalization of what he must have meant does not change the fact that the President said something that he KNEW to be false at the time he said it. That is the textbook definition of a LIE.
March 22nd, 2007 at 6:48 pmI just said that SPYING ON OUR ENEMIES HAS NEVER CHANGED. Am I “lying” then too?
March 22nd, 2007 at 6:51 pmNo, nothing changed about our SPYING — we’ve always listened in on enemies of the state — we’ve included any Americans who are talking to said enemies now. As I said before, the Constitution has NEVER been a suicide pact — that didn’t just change with Bush either. Comment by Jake — March 22, 2007 @ 6:38 pm
How do we know Jake is a fringe lunatic? The “suicide pact” talking point…
Sorry Jake, anyone that makes that kind of Third Reich Rhetoric is immediately dismissed as an enemy of the state, and an enemy of the Constitution.
Our constitution is founded on the principles of innocent to proven guilty, and association is not cause to assume criminality. Your very *redcoat* attitude was exactly what the founding fathers fought to protect us from. You are as much of an anti-american scum as Bin Laden is – you vile piece of sh*t!
March 22nd, 2007 at 6:55 pmI just said that SPYING ON OUR ENEMIES HAS NEVER CHANGED. Am I “lying†then too? Comment by Jake — March 22, 2007 @ 6:51 pm
Spying on the enemy? That’s as b*llsh*t as everything you post. It’s a misrepresentation and an excuse to permit illegal, and unconstitutional action by Right Wing Fascists.
You’re a f*cking anti-american moron!
March 22nd, 2007 at 6:56 pmI am not a Republican.
Comment by Jake — March 22, 2007 @ 3:44 pm
I am not a crook.
March 22nd, 2007 at 6:56 pmComment by R. Nixon
I just said that SPYING ON OUR ENEMIES HAS NEVER CHANGED. Am I “lying†then too?
Comment by Jake — March 22, 2007 @ 6:51 pm
Depends. Did you knwo that it was false when you said it? If so, then you’re lying.
March 22nd, 2007 at 6:56 pmJake believes we have to *become* a Christ-Fascist state to fight an Islamo-Fascist state. Sorry Jake, but if you want to be a Fascist, leave this country to those of us that *understand* what it represents. You 12 year old wusses don’t belong here.
March 22nd, 2007 at 6:57 pmjust said that SPYING ON OUR ENEMIES HAS NEVER CHANGED. Am I “lying†then too?
Comment by Jake — March 22, 2007 @ 6:51 pm
Depends. Did you know that it was false when you said it? If so, then you’re lying.
Sorry for this and many other typos.
March 22nd, 2007 at 7:00 pmKRank:
It is not false — we have always spied on the enemy — so either way, I’m not lying. There, I just proved to you that it’s at least possible that Bush was not lying too.
March 22nd, 2007 at 7:00 pm“Of course Bush’s warrantless wiretap program hasn’t been there all along — spying on our enemies, without a warrant, has been ; )
Comment by Jake — March 22, 2007 @ 6:10 pm”
Are you sure?????
They started setting up these “spy” rooms starting the THIRD week after taking the WH……
So were we attacked in Feburary of 2001??? When did this happen, because I don’t recall that happening.
Since Bush started putting this into place back then….. This was a “CONSPIRACY” against the US! A FELONY! Proved by documents in the AT&T court case.
So long before we were attacked, Bush was “spying” on us. You don’t think this is a CRIME????
PLEEEEAAAASSSSEEEE!
March 22nd, 2007 at 7:00 pmFor the record, I am not advocating a Christ-Fascist state. ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus and JaneESchneider are on my “Ignore List” for failing to answer my questions when I always answered their questions and/or for resorting to personal attacks. I will answer anyone else’s questions in a civil manner as long as you return the same courtesy.
March 22nd, 2007 at 7:03 pmIt is not false — we have always spied on the enemy — so either way, I’m not lying. There, I just proved to you that it’s at least possible that Bush was not lying too.
Comment by Jake — March 22, 2007 @ 7:00 pm
Wow. Good luck finding your way home from THAT escher-drawing piece of circular anti-logic.
I just wonder what exactly it WOULD take for you to see a false statement of the President’s as a lie… never mind. Stupid question.
March 22nd, 2007 at 7:05 pmWow, Jane. You made The Ignore List(TM)
March 22nd, 2007 at 7:17 pmKRank:
No need to “wonder” — I’ve stated before if Bush planted demolitions at the WTC (or as some conspiracy theory wacko said on another thread, KNEW ABOUT THE FACTION IN THE U.S. GOV’T WHO PLANTED THEM), by all means impeach and convict. The only “stupid” question is the one not asked.
March 22nd, 2007 at 7:41 pmAll we need is a lttle provision tucked into an Iraq spending bill that says just like Randi Rhodes has been saying for years.
Whenever a publically official makes a publci statement behind the official seal of the office they hold, then that should be the same as taking a sworn oath to speak the truth.
Simple, effective, and clear. Even a moron like Bush can understand, though he violates it every time he steps up to the lectern, the lying sack of crap he is.
March 22nd, 2007 at 7:48 pmNo need to “wonder†— I’ve stated before if Bush planted demolitions at the WTC (or as some conspiracy theory wacko said on another thread, KNEW ABOUT THE FACTION IN THE U.S. GOV’T WHO PLANTED THEM), by all means impeach and convict. The only “stupid†question is the one not asked.
Comment by Jake — March 22, 2007 @ 7:41 pm
What the hell does any of this have to do with a false statement of the President’s? You jump from that to some conspiracy theory about George Bush planting explosive charges in the WTC???
Or are you saying that this particular hypothetical you pose is what it would take for you to finally see a false statement of the President as a lie? (Because, after all, that’s the question that I hesitated to ask…)
I ask this question in all sincerity and with all concern — are you delusional, or is it the effect of the drugs?
March 22nd, 2007 at 7:56 pmSure hope Mike Tyson has someone to help count his money…
March 22nd, 2007 at 8:43 pmMr. Grassley! Can we believe in a Republic who seems to have a modicum of morality? I hope so- ballsy move, and the correct one.
March 22nd, 2007 at 8:48 pm#1 — I am neither delusional, or on any mind-altering drugs (although some of your fellow Progressive are).
#2 — I was giving you an EXAMPLE of a false statement (if Bush planted explosives himself, then obviously his entire speech to the Congress on 9/12 was a “false statement” — and look, it doesn’t even have to be under oath for me to support impeachment ; )
#3 — I’m sure there are less extreme hypothetical “false statements” I would consider a lie. So far, nothing you have quoted is necessarily a lie though.
March 22nd, 2007 at 8:53 pmTony Snowjob = Enemy of the State
March 22nd, 2007 at 9:03 pmSorry, KRank, I meant September 20, 2001 — all of this would be a “false statement” if Bush were the one who planted the explosives:
March 22nd, 2007 at 9:11 pm
“But our resolve must not pass.”
March 22nd, 2007 at 9:12 pmJake, I’ve really tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, to hear what you had to say on these issues.
You offered some interesting thoughts, but ultimately I have to conclude that you’re either a troll playing a part, or you have some heretofore undiagnosed mental disablity.
I say this because you made no effort to adhere to either discernable reality or conventionally recognized logical thought patterns in your posts. Thus, you either have no interest what people have to say (except as a starting point for your next bizarre flight from reason) or else your mind works in ways that should be studied by specialists in the mental health field.
But good luck with all that.
March 22nd, 2007 at 9:21 pmWeird how that was posted at 9:11 . . .
March 22nd, 2007 at 9:32 pmGrassley, THE FOUR-EYED BUFFOON, IS AFRAID OF LOSING HIS SEAT IN 2008—-HENCE THE MOVE AGAINST HIS FELLOW repugnant-repubs, ESPECIALLY Arlen Specter, A JANUS-FACED CREEP WHO IS NOT TO BE TRUSTED—-GET THAT SPOOK Specter OUT OF CONGRESS!!!!! Rudy Giuliani, the “CROSS-DRESSING” QUEER AND ADULTERER—-”Give GONZO the benefit of the doubt?” I WOULDN’T PISS ON GONZO IF HE WAS ON FIRE AND ROLLING AROUND IN AGONY ON THE GROUND, SCREAMING BLOODY MURDER!!!!!!
March 22nd, 2007 at 10:12 pmHey Jake – Are those Dubbie’s own words????? I’m pretty sure they’re the words of his former speechwriter – so you might as well be quoting dialogue from a movie that was delivered by an actor – it is totally meaningless (so at least it’s consistent with everything else you’ve ever posted here)
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:29 pmtom baker:
You are getting very close to “personal attack” territory there — whether Bush wrote the words personally or just approved them, he spoke them to Congress and, as I was using the example above, would be HIS false statements, if he planted the explosives himself — I of course do not believe that for a second. Let me know if you have any further questions.
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:13 pmI think Grassley deserves a lot of credit. He has a long history of rooting out corruption (e.g. Pentagon spending, FBI whistleblowers, etc.) This is typical Grassley fashion, and I think it is inappropriate for anyone to suggest that this is about politics. Anybody who spends a little time researching him shows will learn that Grassley is a fair-minded, common sense guy, and has no problem disagreeing with his party when he believes it is the right thing to do. Why does everything have to be partisan?
March 23rd, 2007 at 2:11 pm