Flashback: Lott Said Claiming Executive Privilege Makes WH ‘Look Like They Are Hiding Something’
Flashback: Lott Said Claiming Executive Privilege Makes WH ‘Look Like They Are Hiding Something’
Yesterday on Fox News Sunday, Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-MS) defended the Bush administration’s refusal to allow Karl Rove and other top White House aides to testify before Congress under oath, in public, and with a recorded transcript, claiming Bush had a “right to executive privilege.”
LOTT: The question is are the Democrats in the Senate interested in information or confrontation. In my mind, I think if the president would agree for his close advisers in the White House to testify before Congress under oath, he’d be making a huge mistake. There is a thing called executive privilege.
Watch it:
A vigorous defender of executive privilege today, Lott — like Tony Snow — has flip-flopped on executive privilege. Lott led the charge against President Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky saga, seeking out everything from tapes to sworn testimony from the White House. In March 1998, Lott appeared on NBC’s Meet the Press and lambasted the Clinton White House for invoking executive privilege:
LOTT: I think they’ve made a mistake by [invoking executive privilege]. I think it will damage the credibility. It looks like they are hiding something, so I think they shouldn’t have done it. I think it’s an improper use, and the courts will have to decide whether or not that’s a proper use. And it may wind up in the Supreme Court, like it did in the Watergate matter.
As Think Progress has noted, Clinton was far more transparent than Bush when Congress requested that his aides testify, allowing 31 of his top aides to appear in sworn testimony in front of Congress compared to Bush’s one.
Lott was exactly right — invoking executive privilege makes the Bush White House “look like they are hiding something.”
UPDATE: More at Media Matters.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
101 Responses to “Flashback: Lott Said Claiming Executive Privilege Makes WH ‘Look Like They Are Hiding Something’”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Looks like? Looks like?? Please.
March 26th, 2007 at 8:06 pmLott, ya f*cking wanker. Never heard of video? Or blogs?
BTW, did you really have to kill the last beaver in America for that hair?
March 26th, 2007 at 8:08 pmIt was his stall tactic. Bubba knew how delay and stall.
March 26th, 2007 at 8:09 pmsneaky bastard
what do u expect from a serial rapist?
What are the chances that any Faux News panelists would be prepared and would actually ask the good Senator from mississippi to reconcile his contradictory views on the subject?
How about… nil?
March 26th, 2007 at 8:10 pm“As Think Progress has noted, Clinton was far more transparent than Bush when Congress requested that his aides testify, allowing 31 of his top aides to appear in sworn testimony in front of Congress compared to Bush’s one”
It was his stall tactic. Bubba knew how delay and stall.
sneaky bastard
what do u expect from a serial rapist?
Comment by Flaco — March 26, 2007 @ 8:09 pm
No wonder the Repugs hate Clinton so much! He was diabolical! Who else would have ever thought to use disclosure as a “stall tactic”???
Too bad Chimpy can’t say “Clinton, you magnificent bastard — I read your book!” The best he could say would be “Someone read your book to me — the juicy parts, anyway.”
March 26th, 2007 at 8:13 pmI remember when the Clinton thing was going on and I had to agree with Mr. Lott’s assessment then in that it did give the appearance that there was something to hide. As it turns out, Clinton did have something to hide and that was that he was engaging in an adulterous affair.
So, here we are again with an administration giving the appearance that they have something to hide. I’m sure that they do, in fact, have MUCH to hide and I am equally certain that it is going to be exponentially worse than getting a blowjob from an intern or sticking a cigar up her hoo-hoo.
March 26th, 2007 at 8:15 pmhoo-hoo?
There are damn few “reporters” for any major media outlet that would call Trent on this appalling piece of hypocrisy. He’s completely safe on FauxNews, but he could go on any of the Sunday morning shows hawking the same tired pile of crap and no one would call him on it. And that’s why jerks like this can keep pulling the same stunt over and over again — no one busts them in the national media.
March 26th, 2007 at 8:22 pm“hoo-hoo”
Comment by Tuber
I believe the proper physiological term is hoo-ha.
Heh.
March 26th, 2007 at 8:22 pmYou knew it was getting desparate for them when they had to bring Lott back after they themselves had stripped him of his power because of his obvious racial prejudices. They are definitely at the bottom of their barrel. Lott has sold his soul to regain a position of power. Nothing he says or does has any credibility.
March 26th, 2007 at 8:26 pmHelmet head will carry the water for his prez and the republican party….. He is NOT up for re election in ‘08. So, so disgusting.
March 26th, 2007 at 8:26 pmLeaky Leahy in 1999:
Courts have recognized a “presumptive privilege†for presidential communications that is grounded in “a President’s generalized interest in confidentiality†and is viewed as important to preserving the candor of presidential advisors and protecting the freedom of the president and his advisors to “explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in a way many would be unwilling to express except privately.†U. S. v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 708, 711 (1974); In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729, 743 (D.C. Cir. 1997). This privilege is “inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution†and “flow[s] from the nature of enumerated powers†of the President. Id., 418 U.S. at 705; 121 F.3d at 743.
According to a recent D.C. Circuit case, “[t]he President can invoke the privilege when asked to produce documents or other materials that reflect Presidential decision making and deliberations and that the President believes should remain confidential.†Id., 121 F.3d at 744. As to the scope of this privilege, the court found, in the context of the criminal proceeding, it to cover “communications made by presidential advisers in the course of preparing advice for the President, . . . even when these communications are not made directly to the President.†Id. at 751-52.
March 26th, 2007 at 8:27 pmAnyone here know how many troops died during his “peace time preziduncy”.
March 26th, 2007 at 8:27 pmTake a guess…
No Flaco the republican serial rapist and killer was your hero Ted Bundy.
And to add some more insult to Flacos Heros
March 26th, 2007 at 8:29 pmEx Reagan aide charged with stock fraud
AFP
Published: Monday March 26, 2007
US authorities charged David Stockman, a former budget director to US president Ronald Reagan, with alleged criminal securities fraud Monday related to a Michigan-based auto parts firm.
And yet when Strom Thurmond pawed at the sistas as they went by - Trent didn’t think that suspicious at all?
March 26th, 2007 at 8:30 pmClinton is addicted to sex. When he went through that heart realated stuff, his Dr. told him to calm down on the jackin’ off. Seriously.
I would still rather have him in office than the cokemonster, drunk, stuck at age 15, Bush.
March 26th, 2007 at 8:35 pmIt was his stall tactic. Bubba knew how delay and stall.
sneaky bastard
what do u expect from a serial rapist?
Comment by Flaco
Ya I saw Clinton last night have sex with Lois and Peter on Family Guy… what a sick person Clinton is…
March 26th, 2007 at 8:37 pmComment by memphis minnie
Unfortunately for Bush it looks like the people involved were talking amongst themselves … which is not protected… oh well…
March 26th, 2007 at 8:40 pmFlaco es un verdadero come mierda.
March 26th, 2007 at 8:45 pmScrew Lott. Screw FOX. Screw the constitution rapists running our country.
March 26th, 2007 at 8:46 pmWhy would a crazy fu*k like you think Clinton had a “peace time” presidency?
March 26th, 2007 at 8:50 pmI would much rather have a president getting a blow job in the Oval Office than have Bush start an elective war.
Hell, I would rather have them film a porno in the Oval Office than have Bush start an elective war.
Blow jobs not war!
March 26th, 2007 at 8:53 pmBlow jobs not war!
Blow jobs not war!
Blow jobs not war!
Blow jobs not war!
Blow jobs not war!
Blow jobs not war!
Blow jobs not war!
Blow jobs not war!
Blow jobs not war!
“Blow jobs not war”
Bumper stickers and T shirts, yeah.
March 26th, 2007 at 8:58 pmI’d buy that bumpersticker.
An excellent addition to my collection. :)
March 26th, 2007 at 9:00 pmOoh me too - bj every time…
March 26th, 2007 at 9:05 pmIn fact if I could give myself one - I’d never go out at the weekend…
March 26th, 2007 at 9:06 pmWhen I come back I’m going to be TerrytheLabrador….
March 26th, 2007 at 9:07 pmTrent Lott, Toupeed QUEER and Faithful BACK-STABBING “Friend” of the white house—-After all, it is only right for him to RETURN THE SHIT-STABBING FAVOR after the white house GAVE IT TO HIM IN THE BACK OVER Strom Thurmond and Lott’s OTHER GAFFES!!!!! PAYBACK IS SO SWEET!!!!!
March 26th, 2007 at 9:16 pmIn fact if I could give myself one - I’d never go out at the weekend…
Comment by TerrytheTurtle
Be honest. You’d never go out — ever. :D
March 26th, 2007 at 9:26 pmZooey - its a fair cop, guv.
March 26th, 2007 at 9:37 pmTerrythTurtle,
Heh.
March 26th, 2007 at 9:45 pmGet a life Lott! If obtaining information has to become confrontational because of the white house intentionally obstructing the information, then it’s a “no brainer”.
Americans know that Bush himself is the one being “confrontational” in all of this. Get a life and get on Planet Earth, Trent!
March 26th, 2007 at 9:47 pmTrent Lott = Bad Wig!
March 26th, 2007 at 9:48 pmTrent needs to get off Planet Uranus and join us here on Planet Earth sometime before he passes on and misses the journey completely! Whoa! Where did this moron come from? And this is the best the GOP has?? Downright frightening!
March 26th, 2007 at 9:50 pmveritas,
Fish & Game violation: Illegal taking of a beaver pelt to use as a hair hat.
March 26th, 2007 at 9:52 pmPenalty: Death
What do I expect from a serial rapist?
To adopt the handle Flaco and post on TP, of course.
March 26th, 2007 at 9:58 pmOK. But seriously, of course Trent sees Executive priviledge as a sign of something to hide for Democratic Presidents; not Republicans.
March 26th, 2007 at 10:00 pmI think someone would want to see who’s driving Zooey’s car with that kind of bumper sticker.
March 26th, 2007 at 10:02 pmTruth,
They already do when they see the “Yes, they’re real” sticker. :D
March 26th, 2007 at 10:06 pmComment by Zooey
I can believe that.
March 26th, 2007 at 10:09 pmattention wingnuts, trolls, and the jakes: for future reference we will assume that you have the opposite position for bush that you had for clinton. don’t waste anyone’s time explaining yourself on tv, in bars, in comment sections of blogs, in your mommies’ basements. we already know what you think because it has been tattooed on your foreheads.
March 26th, 2007 at 10:11 pmGlad that our esteemed Senator has such a rich knowledge of American history. When he lists the original Presidents that have exercised executive privilege, he lists Alexander Hamilton, a founding father yes, a president never.
March 26th, 2007 at 10:34 pmI guess I shouldn’t get my hopes up that at least the republican leadership would be intelligent…
Lott must be deeply involved in the muck, feets a stickin’
March 26th, 2007 at 10:36 pmwhy else would he go on record as defending something unless it protects him, and exposing him will make things apparent that he wants to hide?
Nice try, TP….But your dishonest attempt to equate a congressional hearing with a grand jury investigation is as ignorant as it is embarassing. Re-read U.S. v. Nixon, kiddies. Seriously, I realize TP is a partisan site. However, when it attempts to deceive readers regarding two entirely different set of events without explanation, it goes beyond partisanship and into dishonesty.
March 26th, 2007 at 10:57 pmExley,
TP is comparing Lott’s WORDS then and now.
You’re welcome.
March 26th, 2007 at 11:07 pmFlashback: Lott Said Claiming Executive Privilege Makes WH ‘Look Like They Are Hiding Something’
Exley– Nice try, TP….But your dishonest attempt to equate a congressional hearing with a grand jury investigation is as ignorant as it is embarassing. Re-read U.S. v. Nixon, kiddies.
So-when is claiming executive privilege o.k and not make the WH look guilty??
March 26th, 2007 at 11:12 pmZooey,
“Executive privilege” is a legal and constitutional doctrine. It’s invocation is fact-specific. Therefore, it is not at all inconsistent to say one invocation of executive privilege is questionable, while saying another such invocation is constitutionally unassailable.
TP is disingenuously attempting to equate legally two situations that are factually distinguishable.
March 26th, 2007 at 11:16 pm#43
UHHHHH, Exley, then why are some of Gonzo’s yes folks taking the Fifth in a Senate Hearing? So this bunch of Repug Nazis can try to slither away into the night, like the Vampires they are, maybe?
Must be SOOOO hard to still be one of the 29%ers!
March 26th, 2007 at 11:17 pm#45 Joefriday,
U.S. v Nixon addressed executive privilege vis a vis a grand jury subpoena in an investigation re: a criminal trial.
U.S. v Nixon did not address the issue of congressional access to executive materials.
When TP attempts to blur the line between two separate types of investigations, it acts either dishonestly or ignorantly.
March 26th, 2007 at 11:22 pmIt ain’t gonna fly, Ex.
March 26th, 2007 at 11:27 pmZoo, me thinks Ex is kinda rearranging the deck chairs on the SS Minnow while Cap’n Dubya is playing with the wheel as it sinks into the slimy depths of Lake NeoCon.
Getting to the truth has never been a Repug Family Value!
March 26th, 2007 at 11:32 pmZooey,
I “speak” (write) as someone who believes WH officials should testify in public and under oath in this matter. I just don’t like when TP disingenuously attempts to obfuscate between two utterly distinguishable situations.
March 26th, 2007 at 11:33 pmHey, upside00. Long time, no see.
We should know by now that the truth is subjective in Wingnuttia. :)
March 26th, 2007 at 11:34 pmExley,
It’s not the situations, it’s the words coming out of Lott’s mouth about investigations involving the White House.
Got it, little buddie?
March 26th, 2007 at 11:36 pmZoo, Nice to see U 2! Seems like we are having so many of the Wingnuts unscrewing, it is hard to keep up!
Shall we just give the Worst President Ever Award now and save us all the time when he either Lame Duck-walks to Paraguay in 09 or is brought up on War Crimes and other minor infractions of the law he has tried to rewrite to his own benefit? Maybe Gonzo and Harriett can be his mouthpieces, Hee Hee!
March 26th, 2007 at 11:41 pmZooey,
*sigh*
I realize politically, it seems hypocritical (And perhaps it is)….But legally and constitutionally, the situations are different.
Again, however, I think this idea that WH officials should be “interviewed” behind closed doors, without being under oath, and w/o a transcript is absurd. I said this from Day One.
March 26th, 2007 at 11:47 pmBy the way….
Where are Jane and Wayne Schneider???? Only a week to go!
March 26th, 2007 at 11:50 pmMaybe Gonzo and Harriett can be his mouthpieces, Hee Hee!
Comment by upside00
Might as well give Quacky Bush the prize now — he’ll be crying too hard when he realizes Gonzo and Harriet are his defense team. :D
March 26th, 2007 at 11:53 pm*sigh*
I realize politically, it seems hypocritical (And perhaps it is)….But legally and constitutionally, the situations are different.
Sigh all you want, Ex. I’ve got $1 that says Lott spends more time thinking about his politics than he does the Constitution.
Again, however, I think this idea that WH officials should be “interviewed†behind closed doors, without being under oath, and w/o a transcript is absurd. I said this from Day One.
Comment by Exley
Good for you, Exley. Have a cookie.
March 26th, 2007 at 11:55 pmYa I saw Clinton last night have sex with Lois and Peter on Family Guy… what a sick person Clinton is
He is GOOD!!!
March 27th, 2007 at 12:03 am“Executive privilege†is a legal and constitutional doctrine.
Really? I thought the constitution was pretty damned clear that there was a seperation of power.
March 27th, 2007 at 12:05 amAgain, however, I think this idea that WH officials should be “interviewed†behind closed doors, without being under oath, and w/o a transcript is absurd. I said this from Day One.
Why, Exley? Why not under oath? The only reason is that you expect them to lie and get away with it. To quote oh so many right wingers…”if you have nothing to hide”
March 27th, 2007 at 12:06 amGood for you, Exley. Have a cookie.
Yaaaay!!!!!!!!!! Cookies!!!!
March 27th, 2007 at 12:10 amMy apologies. I didn’t read it before I posted (head down.)
March 27th, 2007 at 12:10 amJPark….
There is indeed “a seperation of power.”
That is from where executive privilege stems. See U.S. v. Nixon.
March 27th, 2007 at 12:13 am#64 So, where does that “executive privilege” end? Do you think the executive branch has a right to alter bills (with signing statements)?
March 27th, 2007 at 12:18 amYaaaay!!!!!!!!!! Cookies!!!!
Comment by Exley
One cookie.
JPark gets the rest.
March 27th, 2007 at 12:19 am#66 Thanks, Zoo. They were yummy :)
March 27th, 2007 at 12:23 amI see your point, Exley, but it’s kind of irrelevant for one very big reason: Trent Lott never mentioned the difference between the two cases when he defended Executive Priviledge in this clip. He simply said, “there is such a thing as Executive Priviledge.” When confronted with the numbers of Clinton aides who testified before Congress, he didn’t say anything about the specifics of those situations, which you suggest is the key to understanding why Lott is not hypocritical and why TP is. All he said was “That may have not been the smartest thing to do.”
Plus he never actually said WHY he would defend the decision to allow testimony as long as it wasn’t public and under oath. He danced around that one like he was chopreographed by Paula Abdul.
March 27th, 2007 at 12:23 amAlso, as someone mentioned above: Alexander Hamilton? And Executive Priviledge???
What IS that boy smoking???
March 27th, 2007 at 12:25 amAlso, as someone mentioned above: Alexander Hamilton? And Executive Priviledge???
What IS that boy smoking???
Comment by KRank — March 27, 2007 @ 12:25 am
It’s called the *crack* of the “Federalist Society”. Talk about a bunch of Anti-American, Right wingnuts. They actually believe the government doesn’t have a right to regulate water, and air quality. They’re a bunch of lunatic fringe fools - and you can be assured that Exley either *is* one, or is under the sway of one. It’s the ultimate in the *Dum Bass* club.
March 27th, 2007 at 12:29 am#69 I am going to extrapolate. Perry Mason is the epitome of executive privilege.
March 27th, 2007 at 12:29 amRemember when we were all a giddie with the news that there was trouble in town between Rove & Lott? How Lott has given any shred at a chance of credibility.
March 27th, 2007 at 12:31 am#72 Yup Lott, Gingrich, the whole ‘94 bunch is irrelevant.
March 27th, 2007 at 12:32 am#63
Okay, JPark….Damn these posting lag times!!!!
March 27th, 2007 at 12:36 am#74 Things are going a bit slowly today.
March 27th, 2007 at 12:38 am#75, Yes…But, at least, you and I got some Zooey cookies….
March 27th, 2007 at 12:55 am#76 Can’t beat Zooey’s cookies :)
March 27th, 2007 at 1:01 amAnyone here know how many troops died during his “peace time preziduncyâ€.
Take a guess…
Comment by Flaco — March 26, 2007 @ 8:27 pm
Why would a crazy fu*k like Clinton have a “peace time†prezidency?
Comment by Spudge_Boy
Spudgie avoided the question. Typical Army brat.
March 27th, 2007 at 1:08 amFlaco avoids intelligence. Typical right wing Rovite.
March 27th, 2007 at 1:12 amWhen TP attempts to blur the line between two separate types of investigations, it acts either dishonestly or ignorantly.
Comment by Exley — March 26, 2007 @ 11:22 pm
It ain’t gonna fly, Ex.
Comment by Zooey
Ex, you is da man.
March 27th, 2007 at 1:19 amZooey said it I believe it Heh
This Zooey character needs to get out of that double wide and get some fresh air.
Zooey is way out of her league as always, trailer trash.
Anyone here know how many troops died during his “peace time preziduncyâ€.
March 27th, 2007 at 1:21 amTake a guess… 2,3,?
Flaco, Exley wouldn’t back your ass up. He thinks. You…well…are an idiot.
March 27th, 2007 at 1:21 amWhen TP attempts to blur the line between two separate types of investigations, it acts either dishonestly or ignorantly.
Ex dude this is their M.O. daily.
March 27th, 2007 at 1:23 amPartisan hacks thru and thru.
#83 Flaco, you are a right wing whore. How can you possibly attack others as partisan hacks?
March 27th, 2007 at 1:27 amAnyone here know how many troops died during Clinton’s “peace time preziduncyâ€?
Take a guess…..
No one ???
March 27th, 2007 at 1:29 amOh well
How many troops died in Iraq so far anyone?
There seems to be only one lonely moonbat posting here?
March 27th, 2007 at 1:30 amThere seems to be only one lonely moonbat posting here?
Comment by Flaco — March 27, 2007 @ 1:30 am
Project much? What exactly does that make you - dum bass?
March 27th, 2007 at 2:01 amEx dude this is their M.O. daily.
Partisan hacks thru and thru.
Comment by Flaco — March 27, 2007 @ 1:23 am
BAHAHA, what a funny projection!!! You’re one st*pid little piece of sh*t aren’t you? And *funny* how you only see your own st*pid shit projected in others! Funy, Funny, Funny!!
March 27th, 2007 at 2:02 amThis Zooey character needs to get out of that double wide and get some fresh air.
Zooey is way out of her league as always, trailer trash.
Comment by Flaco — March 27, 2007 @ 1:19 am
Why, does she remind you of your mother, or your sister, or is that the same person? BAHAHAHA!! Dum bass!
March 27th, 2007 at 2:03 amSnow and now Lott… we really need to throw these old comments in their faces…
March 27th, 2007 at 8:30 amThe problem with wingnuttery (now with more nuts) is that they look for every ding dang crack, crevice and chiasm in the Constitution and pound away at these fissures, like water through a gorge, until the surrounding walls weaken and crumble, making larger openings from which more unadulterated power flows.
It truly is subversive, treasonous and destructive of the actual embodiment of the construct of our system of governance. The whole notion of an insulation of the
Courts have recognized a “presumptive privilege†for presidential communications that is grounded in “a President’s generalized interest in confidentiality†and is viewed as important to preserving the candor of presidential advisors and protecting the freedom of the president and his advisors to “explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in a way many would be unwilling to express except privately.†U. S. v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 708, 711 (1974); In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729, 743 (D.C. Cir. 1997). This privilege is “inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution†and “flow[s] from the nature of enumerated powers†of the President. Id., 418 U.S. at 705; 121 F.3d at 743.
According to a recent D.C. Circuit case, “[t]he President can invoke the privilege when asked to produce documents or other materials that reflect Presidential decision making and deliberations and that the President believes should remain confidential.†Id., 121 F.3d at 744. As to the scope of this privilege, the court found, in the context of the criminal proceeding, it to cover “communications made by presidential advisers in the course of preparing advice for the President, . . . even when these communications are not made directly to the President.†Id. at 751-52.
Comment by memphis minnie — March 26, 2007 @ 8:27 pm
Actually minnie,
Look at the intent inherent in that phraseology. What “alternatives” can the Preznit possibly look at that would possibly be a problem for anyone giving that advice….(Jeopardy theme playing) I’ll wait….
It is called UNLAWFUL alternatives. Therefore, this BS of this privledge is actually counter to the very notion of a lawful government. Similar to signing statements. Once only considered as a way for the prez to instruct the office under his branch how to understnad the law that is being enacted, now used as contrivances to say whether he will obey the friggin law at all.
How ridiculous a notion at all. Again UNLAWFUL. Try reading the other passges in the books you are reading, they are all supposed to go together, and flow from one another, not have sections or passages pulled out for convenience’s sake. ANd definately NOT becasue it happens to fit Karl Rove’s Leo Straussian world view.
How digusting these America haters.
March 27th, 2007 at 9:19 amGood work but a Hat Tip to Media Matters might have been in order on this one…
http://mediamatters.org/items/200703260008
March 27th, 2007 at 11:12 amguess what, senator haircut? - it looks like they’re hiding something BECAUSE THEY ARE HIDING SOMETHING.
March 27th, 2007 at 12:21 pmSo who has flip-flopped? What your trying to say is it was good for Clinton but not for Bush? You had it then, they get it now.
ROTFL
March 27th, 2007 at 1:47 pmhappy guy - where did you find the infusion of balls necessary to show your ignorant face around here again???
time for you to realize, like the rest of us did long ago - Clinton doesn’t matter any more, and never did very much in the first place. You can’t excuse the manson family based on what some other hippies did or didn’t do, and you can’t defend bush with clinton, either. Righties used to call it “personal responsibility” before they decided that was sometimes inconvenient. back under your rock, loser.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:52 pmAnyone here know how many troops died during his “peace time preziduncyâ€.
Take a guess…
Comment by Flaco — March 26, 2007 @ 8:27 pm
Why would a crazy fu*k like Clinton have a “peace time†prezidency?
Comment by Spudge_Boy
Spudgie avoided the question. Typical Army brat
March 27th, 2007 at 6:08 pmIt makes it look like they’re hiding something because….ummmm, well of course they’re hiding something!
March 27th, 2007 at 7:01 pmLott’s makeup looks like it comes from a funeral home.
March 28th, 2007 at 2:02 am(I know it’s a stupid comment, but I think it everytime
I see him.)
All I wanna know is whether Trent Lott’s porch was effectively reattached to his vacation home post-Katrina. Having just gotten back form the gulf-coast I have to say that this dude is more than a little out of touch with his own Mississippi constituents. That said, I can’t imagine why he would care about them. They are poor and black and he’s a Republican after all.
As for this particular quote, it really is an absurd flip-flop and would’ve made me think less of him, provided he hadn’t already sunk to the lowest possible depths by being a virulently racist bastard from day one.
March 28th, 2007 at 9:45 amHey, tom baker (aka Dr Who). The Clintons do matter since another of the corrupt America hating family is attempting to take over the country and run it into the ground.
What also matters is the hypocrisy of this site and the ignorance of the people who run it. They ignore when DemocRATS do anything and nit pick the Republicans. They ignore the fact that Clinton claimed executive privilege to cover his crimes more times than any other presidency. If you allowed him to do it then you have now set a precedent. Now Bush can do it whenever he wants and if you open your ignorance biased mouths your hypocrites.
So, you spoke up, you lose – ROTFL ROTFL ROTFL
You can’t win even on your own playground.
ROTFL
March 28th, 2007 at 12:36 pmhappy - you sound like you’re not very happy at all- what i hear is the laughter of a clown who’s “crying on the inside” - you lost , last November, and you’re going to again (even bigger) in ‘08, because you and your ilk are paranoid, reactionary radicals, incompetent to govern. In another couple years, it will be just you and your am radio, ranting to yourselves, trying hard to laugh at the people who are laughing at you - like we here at TP do, every single time you bother to post something.
hey, i’ve got an idea that’ll make you feel better. call the 800# for the radio show of that drug addict cult leader of yours, and spend a couple hours on hold, thinking about what you’re going to say, and how impressed he’ll be, then get on the air, trip over your own tongue for a couple minutes - then kick back and pretend that he cared what you had to say, or that anyone was really listening to you at all.
have a super-happy, Democratic Day!!!!!
March 28th, 2007 at 3:43 pm