O’Donnell Tells Leahy: ‘You’re Going To Get The Truth From Karl Rove’
O’Donnell Tells Leahy: ‘You’re Going To Get The Truth From Karl Rove’
The White House refuses to allow Karl Rove and other top aides to testify about the administration’s prosecutor purge. Instead, it has offered closed door “interviews” with no oath and no transcript. The House and Senate Judiciary Committees have rejected that offer and authorized subpoenas of White House officials.
Borrowing the White House’s talking points, MSNBC’s Norah O’Donnell pestered Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) about why he was insisting on “putting on a show trial.” She told him the White House offer was perfectly acceptable. “You’re going to get the truth from Karl Rove. What’s wrong with that?” Later, O’Donnell asserted, “You don’t trust the White House. The bottom line, you don’t trust the White House.” Watch it:
As Leahy told O’Donnell, this is about more than whether or not the Senate trusts the White House. “We want to have hearings the way this country has had hearing for over 200 years,” Leahy stated. “Do it open. Do it under oath. And then let the American people decide.”
(HT: Political Discontent)
Transcript:
O’DONNELL: Well Senator, Tony Snow said today that you guys want the truth. And in this interview, you’re going to get the truth from Karl Rove.
LEAHY: Oh, really?
O’DONNELL: What’s wrong with that?
LEAHY: Oh, really? Oh, really? I’ve not seen any indication that we do. We’re allowed to ask just a few specific questions in a closed session with no transcript? C’mon, I spent –
O’DONNELL: You don’t trust the White House. The bottom line, you don’t trust the White House.
LEAHY: No. I spent eight years as a prosecutor and I know that if you really want to get the truth, and you really want to have a record, you have a transcript, you have people under oath. Which is what we want to do. We’ve had a number of these private meetings where they’ve come up and they’ve met with a few members of the Senate and the House and said, here, we’ve given you the whole story. Two days later, we pick up the newspaper. Find they left out half of it. And then they call and say, oops, sorry. We had more we wanted to give you.
O’DONNELL: But Senator, he says –
LEAHY: After that last time that happened with the Attorney General, I told him, no more of these closed-door hearings. Let’s have it in the open. And when you do it this way, please understand what happens. It is not just Democrats asking the questions. It is Republicans asking the questions. And our commitee has both Republican and Democrats, and the American people learn what the truth is. That’s really the way we should do it.
O’DONNELL: Senator, you’ve heard the President say though, that you’re putting on a show trial. And that Tony Snow said today, I thought this was a fact-finding mission, not a ratings-findings missions, and that you’re trying to create a courtroom atmosphere.
LEAHY: No, one thing they’re trying to define the terms on this. They say how open they’ve been by saying they’ve opened up 3,000 pages of repetitious things. But yet, on the important pages, look at those. They’ve been erased. We don’t know what’s in there. And that’s what we want to do. We want to have hearings the way this country has had hearing for over 200 years. Do it open. Do it under oath. And then let the American people decide. They want to do it behind closed doors with a limited amount of information. And say there, we’ve told everybody everything. I don’t think that makes much sense.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
O’DONNELL: You don’t trust the White House. The bottom line, you don’t trust the White House.
LEAHY: No.
Well said, Leahy. Well spoken. ^_^
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:24 amO’Donnel should be fired. Her directors should be fired. The CEOs at MSNBC should all be fired. They are not doing journalism. They are corporate whores for the radical rightwing, right along with Faux News.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:25 amThat damned liberal media bias coming out again. When will Nora slide over to an anchor position at Faux Noise??? More at 11
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:25 amStill waiting for TP to demand an investigation and a public hearing of Schumer. He is on record afterall interfering with an ongoing investigation and he also is on record trying to speed up and ongoing investigation for his political gain. This is the same indentical stuff you want to investigate the white house over so why not Schumer? Not investigating him and demanding he leave the Senate proves this is just another Political Show Trial wasting Tax payer time and money. Pretty sad.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:26 amNORON O’donnell is well-named - at Nurenburg several journalists were charged in their complicity in facilitating the nazi horrors - I hope there is a special tribunal for these media hors with NORON first in line for the death penalty.
“MediaChannel is undoubtedly worth taking part in. So many leading groups and individuals around the whole world have come together.”
http://www.mediachannel.org/ wordpress/ 2007/ 03/ 15/ fcc-looks-to-once-again-help-big-media/
What’s Not Being Discussed
Is that the Bush Administration’s response to the Cunningham corruption scandal was not to clean up the corruption, but fire the prosecutor exposing it.
No one seems to be pointing out this extremely obvious point.
BushCo didn’t give one damn about the rot inside their party, they just wanted to keep it hidden.
Says alot.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:26 amNobody trusts the White House. Anybody who thinks otherwise like Fox and MSNBC are out of touch with middle America. And they’re going down with the ship.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:29 amWhy do these MSM tele-journalists insist on being advocates for a position? Do they think “the devil’s advocate” position serves the public well? And I use the term “journalist” very liberally.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:29 amHeartLandLiberal sez:
What’s fascinating is how Bill-O constantly attempts to paint MSNBC as a ‘liberal propaganda outlet’, based upon the fact that Keith Olbermann has called him on a couple of his pernicious lies.
Apparently, Bill-O has never seen Hardball, Scarborough Country, or Tucker. Tucker in particular, is so loaded with blatant right-wing spin it’s just plain unwatchable…but according to Bill-O, MSNBC is a ‘propaganda tool of the left-wing’. Sheesh.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:30 amO’Donnell Tells Leahy: ‘You’re Going To Get The Truth From Karl Rove’
It would be the first time.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:31 amRoger_Rhetoric sez:
RR, your lies were debunked yesterday. Save yourself the trouble, us the irritation, and TP the bandwidth.
Kthx.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:32 amNorah is just a high-priced whore, plain and simple.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:34 amwill noron be just as forceful when she interviews snowjob ? will she p keep after him to explain why rove wouldn’t want to testify under oath to clear his name?
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:34 amThis is the same indentical stuff
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 23, 2007 @ 10:26 am
No it isn’t. You couldn’t figure it out yourself so many here tried to explain it to you.
Either your just following your predetermined script or you’re too stupid to understand.
Hey - thanks for the post on the Edward’s sympathy thread yesterday. You proved that in addition to being stupid and not educable, you are an insensitive, thoughtless pig who is obsessed with his destructive mission.
Lots of bad karma coming your way pal.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:35 amRoger,
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:36 amAre you wearing pink again today?
You really should think about another color. When you invaded Pelosi’s office it was apparent you were a man.
Either get a new wardrobe or those breast implants removed; you look like J. Edgar Hoover on acid.
Tucker in particular, is so loaded with blatant right-wing spin it’s just plain unwatchable…
and what’s remarkable is that carlson’s ratings rarely reach 100k — and are frequently embarrassingly lower in the 60k-70k viewers. the question is why msnbc continues to employ this ratings-loser; and the only viable answer is because of his right-wing pandering.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:37 amTime for #221 :D
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:37 amNicely done, Senator.
However, I think the more effective phrase is:
” When has Karl Rove EVER lied ? “
Say it and keep saying it.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:37 amThis is the same indentical stuff you want to investigate the white house over so why not Schumer?
Comment by Roger_Roger
Inhofe Scale results: 91
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:37 amOf course, Noron does trust the White House.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:38 amShe has peddled their lies for so long, she can’t recognize the truth or how to get it.
I saw this exchange yesterday and I thought Leahy handled her pretty well with his “Really? oh, Really?” and his careful explanation, I hoped even she would be able to comprehend it.
I’ve seen Ms. O’Donnell do this before. There is not an original thought in her head! She does nothing more than parrot the WH line. I didn’t think it possible, but she lowers my opinion of journalists.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:38 amTalking points journalism? Send O’Donnell to Fox. I find these cable stations more and more a waste of time to watch. Cable sucks.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:39 amonly a fool trusts this White House…
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:39 amThey lie to us journalists all the time, and we’re perfectly fine with it. What’s the matter with you, Senator??!!
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:40 amRoger_Truth_Dodger should stick to what he knows best, like raiding his mother’s panty drawer. Sheesh, what loons.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:40 amEvil Spaniard,
My thought exactly, apply rule 221 to numbnuts_numbnuts.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:41 amAnd what’s with the “BREAKING NEWS sNOW…” bs???
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:42 amComment by sybelia — March 23, 2007 @ 10:26 am
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:42 amThanks for the great link to Media Channel. Corporate media ownership is no doubt the issues that got us into this mess in the first place. Thanks President Reagan, thought by many historians to be the most overrated president in history.
O’Donnel should be fired. Her directors should be fired. The CEOs at MSNBC should all be fired. They are not doing journalism. They are corporate whores for the radical rightwing, right along with Faux News.
Comment by HeartlandLiberal — March 23, 2007 @ 10:25 am
When I saw this story I thought: “Oh, MSNBC is going after the dems for demanding accountability” but has anyone noticed the format? Sure, she makes the accusations, but then she let’s him answer after only a token intteruption, and I commend Leahy for his thurough responses.
What is conspicuously missing from this interview (and what would be over the top in a Fox News interview of Leahy) is that good ole Bill would be interrupting the guy before he got his answer out and telling the viewers what Leahy just said with his own particular spin on it.
It’s a reporters job to be antagonistic. What O’Donnell said was valid. These are all the points the Republicans are trying to make, and she made Leahy answer them and most importantly shut up when he did answer the question. We need MORE of this kind of interview, not less. She did good. Not great, but good.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:43 amKarl Rove is on record as having lied to the public and to the WH press secretary. This should be stated every time someone asks, “How could you not trust Karl Rove?”
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:44 amAlberto Gonzales’ sudden moment in the unflattering spotlight has prompted a new look at his background.
http://www.buffalonews.com/180/story/34944.html
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:44 am#13 Kinda cruel for you to say Edward’s mission is destructive. I would go with the word “foolish” myself since he talks about 2 Americas as a bad thing then goes about his personal life life living in 28,000 square foot mansions (the richest property in the whole county). If that isn’t living life as a hyprocrit, I don’t know what is.
Either way, just because you folks want to treat Schumer different then the administration doesn’t mean your right. It just means your very much a party stooge who doesn’t really care about the issue but rather just going after Bush. Why don’t you stop with the assumptions and emotions and use some of that free time to see if you have evidence for a real trial instead of these show trials that accomplish nothing good for the country? We go round and round but the facts still haven’t changed. Bush didn’t break the law in this case because it is impossible. The law in this case allows him to fire these attorneys for any reason he wants at any time he wants even if they were investigating repugs when they were fired. Maybe work to change the law instead of wasting your time?
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:44 amThe Noron. It’s like Kyra Phillips with a smiley face.
Tipping her head like a puzzled dog, “I don’t get it. Why do you think we can’t trust the White House? They’ve always been perfectly honest with us before.”
Idiot.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:45 amI don’t understand why Noron doesn’t bleach her hair, get breast implants, dress like a street walker, then go work at Fox “News”. She’d fit right in.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:45 amThe vast majority of our news media is controlled by huge corporations who greatly prefer a Republican-controlled government. This was the inevitable results of Reagan’s revocation of the fairness doctrine. The fairness doctrine needs to be restored. Until it is, commercial TV and radio needs to be considered right-wing propaganda.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:45 am“You don’t trust the White House.”
You got THAT right, bitch. I don’t trust your sorry sold out ass either.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:46 amNora the Bootlicker, ridiculous
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:46 amGeez, Norah - there’s playing devil’s advocate, and there’s advocating for the devil.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:48 am“You don’t trust the White House. The bottom line, you don’t trust the White House.â€
Uhh, Yeah. I could say that over and over and over and o…..
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:48 amAmanda - thanks. Just listened to Howard Kurtz on CNN saying reporters are being too hard on this White House and that we need to present that White House side. Yea - Howie would love Norah. My thoughts on these two pretend journalists over at Angrybear.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:48 amThis is not news reporting. This is pure white house propaganda being spewed by the ill informed. She should listen to the Senator from Vermont but obviously she knows not how to listen. People with bankrolled closed minds support this horrible president.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:48 am“Bush didn’t break the law in this case because it is impossible. The law in this case allows him to fire these attorneys for any reason he wants at any time he wants even if they were investigating repugs when they were fired. Maybe work to change the law instead of wasting your time?
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 23, 2007 @ 10:44 am”
WRONG!
The LAW states that OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE is interfering with a investigation.
Bush is NOT immune to that as you would LIKE to think.
Here at one time I thought you were getting smarter…… Now I see that you just had a magical day……
Try picking up a few books and doing some research… Or maybe you can use that thing called Google????
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:49 amNorah can’t work for Fox Noise - her hair isn’t blonde…
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:50 amSorry, RR, your reading of the law is wrong. The statute allowing the president to fire his political appointees does not trump laws on obstruction of justice.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:50 amRove has never been anything but honest! (btw, who wants to buy this bridge? it’s in really good shape)
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:51 amI have a question. If Carol Lam was fired investigating the Republicans did the next attornery continue to investigate the Republican?
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:52 amI always hated that she has always had a right-leaning slant. But I think she is cuuuuute!
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:52 amBush didn’t break the law in this case because it is impossible. The law in this case allows him to fire these attorneys for any reason he wants at any time he wants even if they were investigating repugs when they were fired. Maybe work to change the law instead of wasting your time?
Comment by Roger_Roger
You don’t have to break a law to be impeached.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:53 amI saw that yesterday when it was happening.
In the past I have emailed MSNBC and asked if Nora is a reporter or a BITCH acting like a reporter. After the Nora tirade yesterday she was not on MSNBC anymore, at least I have not seen her. I hope they have gotten the message.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:53 amThanks.
I wish Leahy had asked her “Why are you speaking for the White House? Are you their spokesperson?”
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:53 amin other bush administration news:
“The former No. 2 official at the Interior Department has agreed to a felony plea admitting that he lied five times to the Senate Indian Affairs Committee and its investigators”
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:53 amDearest Noron,
Ask Patrick Fitzgerald if he thinks Karl Rove will tell the truth if he’s not under oath. C’mon, just go ask him. It’ll be fun.
It took Rove five trips to the grand jury to finally get his story straight. Not necessarily truthful, but he got it to where they didn’t feel compelled to call him back once again to address inconsistencies. They may have just given up.
Geez, Noron, could you be a bigger idiot? What do you do when you’re not having your make-up layered on or in front of a camera? Do you have any involvement with the news during those hours? Does it occur to you to do a little research, preferably with your head on the outside of your body? How can you be so oblivious to your surroundings and still attempt to discuss current events with an intelligent person?
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:53 amNoron is appropriately named.
**bitch slap**
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:53 amSpeaking of elephants, Roger, do you even realize you’re in the room?
By the way, I’ve never seen a pink elephant before.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:54 amDoes this mean I can shoot you?
wow…i have to agree with #28/swordsbane.
it seems to me that each time, o’donnell said “but senator, TONY SNOW said you’re gonna get the truth from Karl Rove” and “but senator, THE PRESIDENT said you want a show trial”. in this way, she’s allowing leahy to directly respond to those remarks. SHE’S not saying it. and for THINK PROGRESS to headline this story as though she is seems misleading to me. and swordsbane is right…she asks the question and let’s leahy answer it.
look, i’m not a huge fan of o’donnell either, to be honest. but to compare this to what o’reilly does is kind of ridiculous.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:55 amEach and every day, it seems, the propagandists, whores, and liars posing as journalists bring deeper disgrace on the profession. It happens everytime Novak’s byline appears in the WaPo, for example.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:55 amRR you are all diversion and no substance. Yesterday you claimed that you had written evidence of crimes. You, had it not it exists. If you have it lay it out there, call fox news and let them splash it on the small screen. tell us what it is, I am all for naileing all corrupt individuals. However you seem happy to simply sling mud and walk away bitching about the dirt you and only you supplied.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:55 am#41 Firing US attorney however isnt Ob. of justice even if they were investigating someone. If it was, every single time they got purged would be obstruction of justice as they are always investigating someone.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:56 am“I have a question. If Carol Lam was fired investigating the Republicans did the next attornery continue to investigate the Republican?
Comment by Mary Poplins — March 23, 2007 @ 10:52 am”
Probably not….. Just like the attorney who was dismissed who was doing the Ambroff investigation. That suddenly died after that persons dismissal…..
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:57 am“You don’t have to break a law to be impeached.
Comment by dlet — March 23, 2007 @ 10:53 am”
Actually, you do……
Section 4 - Disqualification
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:59 amGod-damned liberal MSM.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:59 amHey Leahy, GO F YOURSELF!
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:00 amThe thing that really confuses me is why should Bush declare “executive privilege” when he had nothing to do with the US Attorney firings. If he had no conversations with this aides (as he has stated) about the US Attorney firings, then how can he declare “executive privilege”.
You gotta love O’Donnell saying that the white house terms are “perfectly acceptable”. I’d be willing to bet the farm that if the roles were reversed and it was a Democratic president offering up a “deal” like that, she would be screaming bloody murder about it, just like they did when Clinton tried to declare “executive privilege” when the congress wanted to subpoena his aides to ask them about his blow job.
Do these Republics and those who carry their water really not see what hypocrites they are?
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:00 amTony Snowjob says there is no evidence of wrongdoing in Attorneygate.
LOL!! That’s a whopper of a Repuke talking point LIE.
A Repuke Senator and a Repuke Congresswoman both tried to get Iglesias to talk about SEALED INDICTMENTS.
Carol Lam was fired in the middle of an investigation. That’s a violation of Federal law. Other US Attorneys were fired illegally too.
We are looking at obstruction of justice and other Federal felonies.
Tony Snowjob has been too busy getting snowballs from Jeffy Lube.
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:00 amRR shake that law degree off, it’s still got some cheerios crumbs attached to it.
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:01 amThese Attorneys do serve at the pleasure of the President. The Justice dept. works for the Citizens of the United States of America. If undue political pressure was used to influence the outcomes of current and future cases then it does warrant investigation. Under Oath and with transcripts. The only concession I’ll give is to have these in private. As long as there is documented sworn testimony.
R2, there are too many questions out there that warrant further questioning. This is the next course.
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:01 amWhat wingnuts seem to miss, is that if Bush had purged the attorneys at THE BEGINNING OF HIS TERM (like every other President), he could have avoided this partison storm. But he didn’t, because he’s AN IDIOT.
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:02 am“If it was, every single time they got purged would be obstruction of justice as they are always investigating someone.”
geico might want you to do their commercials when the cavemen’s contract is up
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:03 amWake up. NO ONE trusts the White House. This is because WE HAVE NO REASON TO TRUST THEM!!! We have been lied to repeatedly about almost everything that goes on in the Bush Administration. No more “benefit of the doubt”. We need facts. Hard cold facts. If Rove and others are not capable of telling the truth, as they clearly are not, then we have no choice but to put them under oath so that there is at lease some measure of accountability to their testimony.
Rove would never ever tell the truth unless he is made to. I say that the House should set up a waterboarding table and use it to its fullest! That is in honesty probably the only way that Rove would tell us anything remotely resembling the truth.
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:04 am“#41 Firing US attorney however isnt Ob. of justice even if they were investigating someone. If it was, every single time they got purged would be obstruction of justice as they are always investigating someone.
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 23, 2007 @ 10:56 am”
Actually it is…… Especially when it is starting to lead to the WH.
You can TRY to play this off as being innocent, but it appears to be much more synical than that.
That is why the Dems want to investigate…… Just look at the news YESTERDAY in the paper that a Attorney was prevented from doing her job and was micro-managed by the DOJ in a trial.
Is that how you want our Justice system to work???
This is the wonderful world of Russia now in progress thanks to your GREAT king George.
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:04 amAnother US Attorney was fired illegally a few years ago.
He was the US Attorney on Guam, US Marianas Territory.
He was investigating the Marianas Scandal that was being covered up by Jack Abramoff and the Repukes in Congress.
Bill Moyers calls the Marianas scandal “the Heart of Darkness” of the GOP.
The GOP covered up sweatshops, sex slavery and illegal abortions.
When the US Attorney started investigating this, Abramoff called Karl Rove and the US Attorney was fired.
He was replaced with a party hack and the investigation was dropped.
That is interfering with an investigation and obstruction of justice.
Repukes are crooks.
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:04 amAll I see of the “person” on the left is a pair of huge lips flapping. I’m so distracted by all the botox (God help her if they are natural), I can’t digest what she is saying. Oh well, no loss, all that was coming out was drivel anyway.
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:05 amWould that Ms. O’Donell and her peers adopt the same tone questioning the president and members of his administration or Republican Congressmen!
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:05 amPerhaps if they had, the 2000 and 2004 elections might have had different outcomes.
#59
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:06 amRemoveBush,
The High crimes and misdemeanors part has been open to interpretation. The House of Representatives prepared three articles of impeachment against him that cited obstruction of justice, defiance of congressional subpoenas and abuse of power. All of these articles were approved. The first two are actual crimes but the last is not. That means even if the first two weren’t passed then he could have been impeached for a non-crime.
please see my immediately prior comment
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:07 am#57
it’s obstruction of justice if the USA is fired to stop an investigation. idiot. go back to thinking about pickles while you spank yourself.
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:08 amthat’s why her nickname is “NORON”
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:09 amwhenever i try to find this exact quote, by google, i get this:
“So I don’t know where he is. You know, I just don’t spend that much time on him”
but whenever i hear randi rhodes play the audio, i’m sure it’s this:
“So I don’t know where he is, Norah, I just don’t spend that much time on him”
norah: oh, of course, dear leader, you have so much else to worry about…
she’s been carrying the water for years…
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:09 am#73 is about the Nixon impeachment articles.
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:10 amHanding an attorney a prewritten statement to the court and ordering that attorney to read it is improper to say the least. I wonder how many of Saddams attorneys were ordered to prosecute based on the orders of “The Party”… That is unAmerican and that is exactly what this republican administration has done. MSNBC needs to get its head out of its hole.
If you are a good republican you get away with crimes. If you are a republican that follows the law then you get fired. If you are NOT a republican you get the harshest treatment under the law even if that means rewritting the laws to make it even harsher on you.
Tobacco industry that lies to Congress and purposefully poisons their own product to make it more addictive… pass.
Republican congressman taking bribes… pass.
Everyone else? kiss your ass goodbye.
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:11 amIt’s interesting that the talking point is “and that you’re trying to create a courtroom atmosphere.”
It seems that “Judge Wapner” and “Judge Judy” have succeeded in their objective of poluting our opinion of our justice system. Time was we didn’t have kangaroo courts, but a tradition of jurisprudence admired around the world. It is this degradation of our legal framework which the Democrats seek to forestall by the investigation into the blatant ‘politicization’ of the US Attorneys.
“Justice” should be impartial, not an outgrowth of a political philosophy. The harnessing of the justice system for political purposes is a vile perversion of what was once great about our country.
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:11 am“You’re going to get the truth from Karl Rove”
LOL!! Tell that to Fitzgerald. Rove lied like a rug on his depo.
Why didn’t Fitz indict Rove? I guess he needed to keep his job.
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:11 am“RemoveBush,
The High crimes and misdemeanors part has been open to interpretation. The House of Representatives prepared three articles of impeachment against him that cited obstruction of justice, defiance of congressional subpoenas and abuse of power. All of these articles were approved. The first two are actual crimes but the last is not. That means even if the first two weren’t passed then he could have been impeached for a non-crime.
Comment by dlet — March 23, 2007 @ 11:06 am”
Technically “abuse of power” is also a crime……
So it too does fall into that catagory.
I am not a lawyer, and maybe someone here who is can answer to this, but my understanding is that this too would be a crime as well…..
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:12 amMaybe Rove would tell the truth if he was waterboarded.
Senator Leahy should try this. Have the Capitol Hill Police arrest Rove and dunk him a few times. Make him talk.
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:13 amThat amazing “liberal MSM”!
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:14 am#82
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:17 amRemoveBush,
I’m not sure either. I was trying to look it up but what I have read says that the “high crimes and misdemeanors” part is open to interpretation to possibly include non-crimes. As with you I would like to get a lawyer in on this. I don’t want to keep guessing on this.
Nora has a resume in over at Fox, and wants to prove to them she can “do it their way”
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:17 amComment by dlet
There may be personal writings from the founding fathers that wrote the Constitution that sheds more light on it. This is how other fuzzy interpretations are made more clear such as seperation of church and state. The Constitution does not literally say “seperation of church and state”.. that phrase comes from John Adams I think in a letter he wrote to someone explaining why they put what they did about religion in the U.S. Constitution.
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:20 amI just wrote MSNBC and told them to fire that bitch for bias.
She’s not a journalist, she’s a propaganda whore.
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:25 amWell, if we’re going to “get the truth from Karl rove” it doesn’t matter if he’s under oath, right?
So, if he’s going to tell the truth, he won’t mind being sowrn in and under oath, because it’ll be the truth witheer way, right?
So, swear him in and make sure he’s recorded. It’s the only way to ensure that he’s telling the truth, right?
If he’s got nothing to hide and plans on telling the truth, oaths and recordings won’t change that, will they?
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:30 amI just wrote MSNBC and told them to fire that bitch for bias.
She’s not a journalist, she’s a propaganda whore.
Comment by Tom3
Keith will get lonely in the MSNBC studio. :D
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:31 amNORON = Shill for the administration…
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:31 amThat fat faced hack’s name is Norah O’Donnell?! At first glance I thought I was looking at Monica Lewinski. I suppose all well fed flute players look alike…
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:32 amNorah O’Donnell is a total twit. I love the new neocon talking point: show trial, the Democrats just want to have a show trial. I guess Clinton’s impeachment wasn’t political or for show? As long as 1/3 of the people in the country support this kind of BS, there’s no hope. Meanwhile, the country’s going bankrupt over W’s illegal war.
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:37 amBoy that pig at the trough, Noron, is getting FAT!
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:38 amI have a serious question: can anyone provide me with information that shows a history of what the 8 USAs had prosecuted while working for the Bush administration? Does that information exist as a matter of public record? If so, we should be able to determine whether there is some kind of pattern here that looks suspicious. If the information is available and there is no pattern, then this is just a political move. If there is a pattern, then I say let’s give Leahy what he wants.
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:40 amWrite MSNBC and tell them to stop letting their hard news reporters inject their own opinions and right-wing talking points into what are supposed to be non-partisan interviews. Noron is not Bill O’Lielly or Sean Hannity. She’s not supposed to inject her opinions like this.
It’s bad enough this administration is stone-walling yet another investigation, and probably criminally obstructed several major cases in this scandal. The American people are sick of the lack of accountability, and we’re not going to let fools like Noron O’Donnell and the mainstream corporate media spin yet another Bush scandal.
By the way NORON, there is plenty of reason to not trust this administration. That’s not partisanship, it is fact. Members of the administration have literally been convicted of obstructing justice and perjury. They have repeatedly LIED in previous testimony before Congress.
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:42 amCynicon Implant,
Yes, many of the liberal blogs in particular have pointed out cases these US Attorney’s were involved in, and they include cases like the Duke Cunningham and Jack Abramoff scandals.
I will try to find a link to the full information.
Those cases are the reason why Democrats (and a growing number of Republicans) want answers.
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:44 amIf she had phrased some of these as questions, it would have sounded a hell of a lot more professional, but this confrontational approach is apparently the style d’jour. Even “Don’t you think that you’ll get the truth from Karl Rove?” would have been far more acceptable than the absurd statement of fact. Maybe she’s bucking for Tony Snow’s job.
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:47 amCynicon Implant,
As well as what Brian said, this too…..
http://rawstory.com/ news/ 2007/ Leahy_hints_at_more_Attorneygate_whistleblowers_0323.html
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:47 amA pattern has emerged. Apparently MSNBC has become infected with an incurable illness. Non-journalists read the script handed to them, or read strictly with their right eye. Matthews, O’Donnell, Gregory, Russert and most guest commentators on Matthews have left the building. The only light on the horizon is Keith Olbermann, unless they fire him for the sin of truthtelling. Rarely is a progressive or liberal given an uninterrupted platform, or an uninterrupted answer. Time for a better cable station? Thank God for blogs.
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:49 amNoron O’Donnell strikes again.
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:49 amIf I was Leahy, every time one of these “journalists” tried this I would immediately say:
“Before we came on the air you and I were talking and you yourself claimed that George Bush and Karl Rove were crooks and liars”.
Let THEM figure out how important it is to be able to prove what was said.
How long would it take, if they all started doing that, before these idiots masquerading as journalists took the point?
A day? Maybe two?
That’s my suggestion for the Dems.
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:49 amComment by chris — March 23, 2007 @ 11:49 am
That’s a GREAT suggestion……
Write Leahy and suggest it….
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:53 amOf course we don’t trust the WH. We’ve been down this road before and the WH has consistently lied and blocked information from reaching our ears.
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:53 amNorah O’Donnell works for what I like to refer to as the Corporate Whore Network. I write to NBC, MSNBC and its’ alffiliates often, expressing my disgust for thier lack of professionalism and thier slanted news coverage. As far as I’m concerned, NBC is as bad as FOX and CNN and they’re all immoral, greedy whores. BOYCOTT THEM ALL.
With Norah O’ Donnell it is her facial expressions and demeaner as much as what she is saying. I remember her reporting on the Democratic convention, her facial expressions looked like she had eaten a sour pickle no matter what she was saying. Someone said she was being a good reporter, NO, she isn’t. When your whole attitude is one of being snide, superior and combattive you are not being a good reporter. It is the age old “it isn’t what you say, it is how you say it”. Norah says it with disdain.
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:54 am#102- I agree. Trap these journalists and reporters in thier own lies and show the public what liars and manipulators are coming into thier home, every day.
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:55 amWhy get all up in arms??? I just see it as asking devil’s advocate questions. I can tell a difference when a reporter is asking those kind of questions as opposed to being a “right wing hack”.
It would be pretty boring to watch people that agree on everything all day, wouldn’t it? I didn’t find Norah to be biased here at all. She quoted the WH and asked why Leahy had a difference from their views. I want to hear these things because I want to know that my Senator’s going to have a good argument going in to this thing even when I do agree with him.
Really, what do you folks want her to say?
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:56 amIf the information is available and there is no pattern, then this is just a political move.
Comment by Cynicon Implant — March 23, 2007 @ 11:40 am
There is more information to be considered than just the cases these USAs were working on. What about the well-documented attempts by Domenici and Wilson to intimidate Iglesias? This kind of intimidation is illegal, regardless of the case involved. Also, what about the other 85 USAs? Have their cases been influenced by intimidation?
There is already ample probable cause to put Rove and Miers under oath, simply based on the known lying and obfuscation already committed by the White House and Justice Department. Also, all USAs presently serving should be deposed.
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:58 amPoor Debra, she is doing her best to look like Tony Snow.
Her bombast reminded me of our dear Tony Snow yesterday when he was described an audit function then proclaimed that Congress lacked “oversight” of the Whitehouse. An audit is much different than oversight. Auditors report to a board with recommendations on how to better conduct business.
The following link describes oversight rules for the confused.
http://www.rules.house.gov/ archives/ comm_gp_cong_oversight.htm
This link makes two very salient remarks regarding oversight. 1. Congress has the power to “investigate alleged instances of … capricious behavior”. 2. The Supreme Court in Watkins v. United States said “oversight power .. is broad”.
This completely shoots down any notion that oversight is limited to possible criminal activity, though that too is included.
These ruling, for the most part, took place when Cabinet agencies had full responsibility in their respective areas. Successive Presidents have attempted to subvert these court rulings by creating departments inside the Whitehouse and beyond Congressional oversight. Such is the case here. This is a matter that should have been handled wholly within the Justice Department, subject to oversight as a “capricious behavior”.
Executive priviledge is not broad like the oversight provision. It is limited to communication between the President and members of his staff. It does not cover communications between the Presidents staff and either the departments or other staff. Communications between Rove and Miers or Miers and Gonzales are not protected. Communication between Miers and Bush would be protected.
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:00 pmCan you imagine a defense attorney whose entire case was saying to a jury “you can trust him!”
Norah O’Donnell is a partisan hack.
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:02 pm“Why get all up in arms??? I just see it as asking devil’s advocate questions. I can tell a difference when a reporter is asking those kind of questions as opposed to being a “right wing hackâ€.
It would be pretty boring to watch people that agree on everything all day, wouldn’t it? I didn’t find Norah to be biased here at all. She quoted the WH and asked why Leahy had a difference from their views. I want to hear these things because I want to know that my Senator’s going to have a good argument going in to this thing even when I do agree with him.
Really, what do you folks want her to say?
Comment by Kent — March 23, 2007 @ 11:56 am”
Well, first off….. Spouting the WH lines does not help her stance.
How about asking something like:
“Why is this offer not acceptable?”
“Why can’t you get the information you need with this type of forum?”
“What information do you not feel you would not be able to obtain in this forum?”
These are just a few that I had off the top of my head, and I am not a journalist. I believe that asking questions, other than what the WH spouts lends more credibility to the person asking the question.
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:03 pmCan someone provide an email address or postal address where we can write to MSNBC about her conduct in this interview?
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:04 pm#68 has the best idea! Anyone know where the nearest faucet is? WATERBOARD them - it is after all “perfectly legal” according to Gonzales. Heck, if he is so “all about seeking the truth” then why wouldn’t he use the most effective method of tortu-er-interviewing?
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:04 pm#107- There’s nothing non-biased about O’Donnell, at all. She’s a tool as are a lot of the journalists on NBC. The network execs just have that neo-fascist lean and insist thier employees follow thier lead and spin the stories. I’ve seen this happening for several years now and get worse over time. CBS is not quite AS bad. I prefer the way they handle thier stories- they are a little more fair and non-biased.
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:06 pmDallasNE:
Can the Congress subpoena the President of the United States? I think you would agree there’s no such “oversight” there. I’m glad you agreed that “[c]ommunication between Miers and Bush would be protected”, so can Congress subpoena Miers? As for communications between Miers and Rove, I would argue that IS protected, just like attorney work product — what about advice directly from Rove to the President — is that protected?
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:11 pm#112- You can e-mail: viewerservices@msnbc.com to express your concerns.
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:14 pm31. - thanks for the post on the Edward’s sympathy thread yesterday. You proved that in addition to being stupid and not educable, you are an insensitive, thoughtless pig who is obsessed with his destructive mission.
(the richest property in the whole county)
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 23, 2007 @ 10:44 am
I guess you really are that stupid, replace his with your and maybe you’ll be able to figure it out.
And that’s really a good laugh, the riches property in the whole country. You mean richer than Manhattan, richer than Boston, the Gold Coast in Chicago, San Franciso, Malibu, Hollywood Hills, Beverly Hills etc. You don’t get around much. I live in an area where a quarter acre lot costs a minimum of $800,000 and that’s on an undesirable street. And its not in any of these high cost areas its in a suburb of one of them. Much cheaper.
As usual bullshit arguments propped up by bullshit facts.
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:15 pmO’Donnel should be fired. Her directors should be fired. The CEOs at MSNBC should all be fired. They are not doing journalism. They are corporate whores for the radical rightwing, right along with Faux News.
Comment by HeartlandLiberal
She won’t be fired. She’s doing the bidding of her corporate bosses, just as all the others at corporate-owned media are doing. It’s time to break them up.
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:15 pmWhen is Oreilly gonna eat crow and stop supporting the Bush admin like he said he would?
O’DONNELL: You don’t trust the White House. The bottom line, you don’t trust the White House.
Not after the Niger lies, the Mushroom cloud lies, the WMD lies, the corruption, the Gonzales under oath lie, the Bush our troops will not be used for nation building lie and the WHIG/OSP that cherry picked the intelligence among many others.
Who would trust the White House given the above?
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:15 pmSorr Jake, but Snow said the president was not in on these decisions so what exactly is proctected?
Also under your theory (hypothesis) the president can really do what he wants when he wants without fear of any repurcussions and his aides are not to testify because what they see and hear is privledged information.
What a unigue interpretation of the constitution.
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:17 pmNo testimony UNDER OATH???
Then NO TRUTH.
ESPECIALLY from Karl Rove and the rest of the Bush CRIMINALS.
Bush and Cheney REFUSED to testify UNDER OATH about their involvement with 9/11 and the Bin Ladens and Saudis.
UNDER OATH, or JAIL FOR CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS.
God Bless America, the Democrats and the WORLD!
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:17 pmIt would be pretty boring to watch people that agree on everything all day, wouldn’t it? -Kent
Sounds like the butt kissing FOX crowd. Heh.
BTW. When is Oreilly gonna eat crow for his WMD remark and stop kissing Bush butt??
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:19 pmI always hated that she has always had a right-leaning slant. But I think she is cuuuuute!
Comment by Anonymous By Choice — March 23, 2007 @ 10:52 am
Hey - put down that beer and go get some glasses, pronto! Sorry to be firm, just trying to help.
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:20 pmI hate people the appeasers!
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:20 pmDamn! We need to get back to teaching CIVICS.
Build true characters with integrity.
WTF…….What’s wrong with these people???
I can’t stand it.
So frustrated, I am not even coherent.
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:21 pmMaybe work to change the law instead of wasting your time?
Comment by Roger_Roger
Hahahahaha…breath….gasp….hahahahaha…haha…chuckle….hahahahaha…oh stop Rog stop.
YOUR talking to us about wasting OUR time…hahahaha…stop…my sides hurt
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:23 pmThis has been going on for quite a while. With the notable exception of Keith Olberman, this network has been shilling for repubs. The corporate executives have admitted that they cancelled Phil Donehue’s show because of his anti-war position even though he enjoyed the second-highest ratings on the network at the time. Chris Matthews has been pounding on Dems for years and each week he has a new “mancrush” on some republican - now, he evidently has serious manlove for Rudy.
Norah O’Donnell is, of course, a disgrace to journalism. That was the most heinous act by a phony journalist I’ve seen in a long time. She might as well have been a paid spokesperson for the Bush administration.
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:23 pmKarp’s disciple:
Why should ANYONE be fired for exercising their First Amendment rights?
Mark:
Same reasons “attorney work product” is protected even if the “client” is not involved.
Mr. Bush Goes To Hell:
The President of the United States cannot be held “in contempt” by a co-equal branch of government.
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:23 pmSenator, you’ve heard the President say though, that you’re putting on a show trial.
Allright, then; if the Dear (mis)Leader says it, it must be true.
End of discussion.
/sarcasm off
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:26 pmI will agree if Ms. O’Donnell is being paid by the government to broadcast her views, that would be improper and not protected under the First Amendment. Is there any evidence of that?
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:27 pmlook, i’m not a huge fan of o’donnell either, to be honest. but to compare this to what o’reilly does is kind of ridiculous.
Comment by Tony — March 23, 2007 @ 10:55 am
Or it could be that Senator Leahy is a little tougher nut to crack than most of the people she interview. He doesn’t seem to take much bs from anybody. And I really don’t think talent posing as a reporter needs backing for TP>
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:28 pm“The President of the United States cannot be held “in contempt†by a co-equal branch of government.
Comment by Jake — March 23, 2007 @ 12:23 pm”
Jake you make absolutly no sense at all……
By YOUR logic then….. The Congress would not be able to IMPEACH any president, because they are “co-equal”!
MORON!
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:30 pmJakeoff,
But MIERS and ROVE
CAN be held in contempt,
So sorry, jakeoff.
They are NOT the “president”.
And as “president”, Bush is a PUNK coxucker TRAITOR to the USA.
And he REFUSED TO SWEAR TO GOD to TELL THE TRUTH about his involvement in 9/11, the Bin Ladens & the Saudi TERRORIST financiers.
Nice try, though, at obfuscating.
UNDER OATH for Rove and Miers.
Or JAIL for CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS.
If they have NOTHING TO HIDE…
Is that what they tell us about the ILLEGAL domestic spying.
The kind that Gonzo ADMITTED to, said he was “sorry” and “it won’t happen anymore”. Yeah, RIGHT…..
UNDER OATH for Rove and Miers.
Or JAIL…
God Bless America, the Democrats, and the WORLD!
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:34 pmHow loud and shrill would conservatives have been screaming if the tables were turned and some “journalist” had chided a republican lawmaker that he should simply “trust” what the Clinton adminsitration was saying. If someone had taken that tact with Newt Gingridge, conservative heads would be exploding from coast to coast.
These days, conservatives seem to have a strange kind of selective memory.
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:39 pmIf the information is available and there is no pattern, then this is just a political move. If there is a pattern, then I say let’s give Leahy what he wants.
Comment by Cynicon Implant — March 23, 2007 @ 11:40 am
Hey water boy we’re not your servants. You want details go look it up and link it here. If somebody isn’t too disgusted with you trolls to bother maybe they’ll answer. You don’t like it tough. Judt because Rove doesn’t give you real information don’t expect us to get it for you.
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:42 pmEXACTLY O’DONNELL!!! YOU NUMB-NUT!! No, we DON’T trust the White House!!! Since when have they given we, the people, a reason to?
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:43 pmI would have thought that by now reasonable people would understand that there is absolutely no point in “debating” with Jake. His despicable performance on the “Prayers for Elizabeth” disgusted liberals and conservatives alike. His mindless parroting of administration spin points is simply pathetic. It doesn’t matter what you post - he does not respond to facts. On top of that, he’s just a liar. He’s an operative, and not a very good one at that. I don’t believe for a second that he’s a “75-year old retiree.” 75 year olds typically don’t use the word “anyways.” It doesn’t matter what you post to him, he returns to his RNC spin points no matter what you point out to him. In short, in my opinion, engaging Jake is a waste of time. I suggest people ignore him and maybe, just maybe, he’ll go away.
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:45 pmEXACTLY O’DONNELL!!! YOU NUMB-NUT!! No, we DON’T trust the White House!!! Since when have they given we, the people, a reason to?
Comment by drew_ill
It goes beyond that. They have even give us reason NOT to… forged fraudulent documents about nuclear material from Niger to trick Americans into a war of aggression.
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:47 pmAlso under your theory (hypothesis) the president can really do what he wants when he wants without fear of any repurcussions and his aides are not to testify because what they see and hear is privledged information.
What a unigue interpretation of the constitution.
Comment by Mark — March 23, 2007 @ 12:17 pm
Strangely reminiscent of Nixon stating “when the President does it, that means it’s legal.” Didn’t work then…and it’s not going to work now. The Bush administration obviously has neither respect nor use for the U.S. Constitution, but the American people do.
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:48 pmMr. Bush Goes To Hell sez:
A lot of people have forgotten that. I haven’t, and it’s nice to see that you haven’t either, MBGTH.
Why exactly did Chimpy refuse to testify about 9/11, acquiescing only to an unsworn interview, with Deadeye right beside him, whispering in his ear?
This is the leader of the free world?
Ever since Chimpy was appointed President in 2000 things have gone straight downhill for this country and the world. Whether that’s due to his incompetence or his malice is debatable, but beside the point. If you have a bus driver that’s aiming the bus off a cliff, you don’t speculate on whether he’s deliberately trying to kill everyone or is merely unable to control the bus. You take the wheel away from him. Period.
That cliff is getting awfully damned close. Will we get the wheel back in time?
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:48 pmI would argue that IS protected, just like attorney work product — what about advice directly from Rove to the President — is that protected?
Comment by Jake — March 23, 2007 @ 12:11 pm
Jake, Jake, Jake - pretending to be a lawyer again. Where exactly did you get your law degree?
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:49 pmArgue away as soon as somebody hires you to be their attorney. Otherwise it doesn’t matter what you think or argue for that matter.
All law is subject to interpretation, hense attorneys for both sides and judges. But then we’ve had this discussion before haven’t we?
Still waiting for law school information.
Cynicon, I’m not sure what more you would need to establish a pattern. This justice department has investigated Democrats 5 times as much as Repubs. A number of the fired prosecutors were working on or had worked on cases harmful to the Repub party. Emails indicate political motives behind many of the firings. The Carol Lam story alone would have precipitated an independent council investigation if it happened during the Clinton adminsitration.
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:50 pmKarp’s disciple:
Why should ANYONE be fired for exercising their First Amendment rights?
Do you think O’Donnell just says anything that pops into her head? This tack was ordered from her bosses - who represent the interests of their boss, a corporation. Please explain how this is freedom of speech in any way, shape or form. The constitution guarantees an individual’s right to free speech not a corporation’s, doesn’t it?
That you think a media mouthpiece is entitled to the protections of free speech, when she is only mouthing the words of the corporation she represents, is a sad commentary on the general public’s understanding of their individual rights, as enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:51 pmUnfortunately, for you, drew_ill — the President cannot be subpoenaed or held “in contempt” by Congress — as I have always maintained, Congress can impeach for “Treason, high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. Good luck with that.
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:51 pmimpeachcheneythenbush”
If Bush murdered someone in the Oval Office, I’ve never said that would be legal. What I have said is that a sitting President cannot be indicted for murder — Congress would have to impeach AND convict first. I think this is a fairly simple concept to grasp. No one is saying the President is “above the law” — just that different procedures within the law apply because of the Office he occupies.
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:54 pmIs there any evidence of that?
Comment by Jake — March 23, 2007 @ 12:27 pm
People please stop finding evidence for trolls. They want to find it they can.
We have to stop feeding them, they’re multiplying and shitting all over the place. And they obviously can’t be trained. Talk to them if you must but stop working so hard to give them proof they are only going to refute anyway.
Tony Snow going in for abdominal surgery - bet he’s going to need a long “rest” afterwards and be “temporarily” replaced.
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:00 pmBarfly:
I have not seen your answer yet to my earlier question: “You are not on the ‘Ignore List’ — is that my oversight?” As soon as you answer that, in a civil manner, I will answer your questions.
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:01 pmAn incomplete list of possible high crimes and misdemeanors, any of which is much more important to our system than the lying about a sexual affair and “obstruction of justice” that repubs used to impeach Bill Clinton:
• Breaking the FISA law.
• Threatening to sue his own OMB accountant if he told congress the true cost of legislation
• Violating U.S. treaty law with respect to torture.
• Breaking U.S. law by illegally kidnapping and torturing people in third-party countries.
• Obstruction of justice with respect to firing federal prosecutors involved in federal investigations.
• Lying and distorting intelligence information during the constitutionally-mandated SOTU address.
• Lying to congress with respect to the war authorization.
• Questioning and demeaning the value of U.S. Federal credit by claiming that Treasury bills were “worthless pieces of paper.”
• Obstruction of justice with respect to ruining an intelligence asset.
• Politicizing the intelligence apparatus of the U.S. government.
• Conspiring with corporate campaign contributors to defraud American citizens (the phony energy scandal)
• Federal election fraud
Trust the Bush administration?? I don’t think so.
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:05 pm#115 - Jake
Turn your comment around and think Bush first.
All comments by Bush would be protected, including direct quotes in staff communications. Bush and Rove would be protected. Bush and Gonzales would be protected. Rove and Miers would not be protected. If there was an e-mail from Rove to Miers, the e-mail would not be protected, however any direct quote from Bush would be redacted. Should Rove allude to what Bush desires it would not be protected because it is not a direct quote. Should there be a transcription of a 3-way meeting with Bush, Rove and Miers it would be protected, even comments from Rove to Miers in such a setting.
Should there be be specific national security issues they too would be redacted, however this US Attorney purge does not have a national security angle.
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:05 pm“Tony Snow going in for abdominal surgery - bet he’s going to need a long “rest†afterwards and be “temporarily†replaced.
Comment by shane — March 23, 2007 @ 1:00 pm”
I just read that it was Bush!!!!
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:05 pmI would have thought that by now reasonable people would understand that there is absolutely no point in “debating†with Jake. His despicable performance on the “Prayers for Elizabeth†disgusted liberals and conservatives alike. His mindless parroting of administration spin points is simply pathetic. It doesn’t matter what you post - he does not respond to facts. On top of that, he’s just a liar. He’s an operative, and not a very good one at that. I don’t believe for a second that he’s a “75-year old retiree.†75 year olds typically don’t use the word “anyways.†It doesn’t matter what you post to him, he returns to his RNC spin points no matter what you point out to him. In short, in my opinion, engaging Jake is a waste of time. I suggest people ignore him and maybe, just maybe, he’ll go away.
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:07 pmAs soon as you answer that, in a civil manner, I will answer your questions.
Comment by Jake — March 23, 2007 @ 1:01
Who cares? I could care less if you answered my question - as the answer is self evident. You know as much about the Bill of Rights as you do of history: nada. An unserious intellect. So, put me on ignore, and I’ll just continue to showcase your ignorance. Have a nice day.
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:10 pmOnce, just once in my life, I’d like to see someone say to this twit, or any of her kind — Why do you trust the White House? Why are you so certain that Rove will tell the truth?
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:11 pmI suggest people ignore him and maybe, just maybe, he’ll go away.
Comment by Bluedog49 — March 23, 2007 @ 1:07
Good luck with that.
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:11 pmLet’s pretend I hire you to help me around the farm. I ask you to dig a hole. You begin to dig. I then ask you to build a fence. You tell me that you have not finished digging the hole, but will get to it once you are done. Pretend I then criticize you for not doing your job and fire you. What lesson have you learned from this?
1. I was supposed to build the fence first, and then return to the hole.
2. I changed my mind about digging the hole. I really just wanted the fence?
3. I do not understand how long it takes to dig a hole.
4. Since it is clear that one person can’t build a fence and dig a hole simultaneously, I had simply decided to fire you. The failure to build the fence was just an excuse to do that.
Here is the story from The Voice Of San Diego
Now read the story and tell me how US Attorney Carol Lam was supposed to interpret her firing.
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:13 pmDallasNE:
We agree on quite a bit already. Maybe we’ll just have to agree to disagree (until the ROBERTS Supreme Court rules) on whether Rove and Miers (White House COUNSEL) e-mail would be protected or not. As for specific national security issues, US Attorneys deal with that EVERY day — who do you think prosecutes terrorists (domestically) and enforces immigration laws, for instance?
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:19 pmAndrew:
What if the hole was for the fence pole footing?
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:21 pmAndrew: not entirely analgous. Lam was prosecuting immigrant cases, so she was digging the hole with one hand, while building the fence with the other — too bad for her, the political priorities changed, and they wanted her to tap dance while doing both.
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:23 pmWhat if the hole was for the fence pole footing?
Ignorance shines through.
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:24 pmPosts are disappearing again . . .
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:27 pmAndrew: Lam was prosecuting immigrant cases, as well as the corruption probes, so she was digging the hole, while building the fence. Too bad the political agenda changed, and she was expected to do both, while tap dancing.
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:30 pmWhy does O’Donnell have a show? She’s incompetent as a journalist!
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:31 pmSo I email Leahy with my suggestion (comment 102).
Odds are he won’t bother replying.
Still, if more than one person suggested it….
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:39 pmWhat is good enough for KKKarl Rove should be good enough for every other person in this country, citizen, immigrant or enemy combatant. The next time a policeman or prosecutor thinks someone may have broken the law, just have an interview with him, no swearing an oath and no transcript. After he politely answers a few preselected questions, release him and thank him courteously for his valuable cooperation. Assume everyone tells the truth, thereby eliminating the need for IRS auditors, Pentagon and Justice Inspectors General, and federal investigators. Trust has been restored to this great land and from now on, everyone is on the honor system!
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:43 pmSo it turns out O’Donnell is no more than another apologist hack for these criminals. What’s the over/under for how quickly she ends up on Fox Noise? 90 days?
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:50 pmI just read that it was Bush!!!!
Comment by RemoveBush — March 23, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
Then he’d be temporarilly replace by…gasp
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:57 pmfire’em and let the NBA run this country.
March 23rd, 2007 at 2:06 pmFACT:
Bush and Cheney both REFUSED to TESTIFY UNDER OATH to the 9/11 Commission about their involvement with 9/11, the Bin Ladens and
the Saudi TERRORIST financiers.
Anything else is all smoke and mirrors and “executive privilege”.
Bush is a PUNK coxucker TRAITOR to the USA, and that goes “double-super-secret” for Cheney.
May they BURN IN HELL for ETERNITY for the UNNECESSARY loss of lives, both US soldiers and Iraqis.
As well as the damage they have done to the USA in the hearts of the international community.
And by the way, I SUPPORTED (and DO support) going after Bin Laden.
But don’t forget that George H.W. Bush and Saleem Bin Laden were at at Carlyle group meeting at the D.C. Ritz Carlton on 9/11.
NEVER FORGET IT…
http://www.hereinreality.com/familyvalues.html
March 23rd, 2007 at 2:22 pmWatching Republican Senator Arlen Specter challenge Bush administration wrong-doing is like witnessing a failed rocket launch. After the initial furious explosion of hot air, Specter almost immediately loses momentum and never breaks the dark gravitational pull of planet Bush.
Specter’s performance Thursday during the Senate Judiciary Committee’s debate over issuing White House subpoenas in the firing of U.S. attorneys was certainly no exception.
For the sad story, see: