Comments on: White House Privately ‘Frustrated’ And ‘Impatient’ With Gonzales

By: hymie cinzano

hymie cinzano — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 23:52:04 +0000

wath video of D. Kyle Simpsonhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4G-CQ1AruA

By: Royston Vasey

Royston Vasey — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 08:14:36 +0000

Back in 1978 Carter fired David Marston, US Attorney, Pennsylvania.
He was asked to do this by Democratic Congressman Joshua Eilberg, who was being investigated by Marston at the time.
The unusal thing here was that Marston was a Republican US Attorney.

As President Carter recounted it, Eilberg offered no reason and Carter did not ask; the ‘System’ was at work. Carter thought so little of the matter that days passed before he got around to calling Attorney General Griffin Bell about it.
Carter’s credibility troubles began when he professed to remember none of this, or of Eilberg’s ‘problems’.

Tip O’Neill (house Speaker) described Marston as “a Republican political animal” who took office “with viciousness in his heart and for only one reasonâ€”to get Democrats.”
However, GOP Congressman Thomas Evans pointed out that Marston had nailed two Republicans along with several Democrats.

Due to the Carter Administration’s ineptness, a martyr’s image was created for Marston, who was an outright political appointee who hunted headlines as vigorously as he hunted official corruption in both parties.

The Justice Department announced that Bell and Carter were cleared of any charge of obstruction of justice in the affair.

By: ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus

ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 07:14:59 +0000

Would you, Briseadh na Faire?
Comment by Jake â€” March 30, 2007 @ 9:11 pm

The difference Jake, is that we haven’t needed to ask these questions – you have. Whether it’s Nixon, Reagan, or the two Bush administrations. You have nothing but *real* scandal, and abuse of power. That’s why you “fair and balanced” zealots do your best to *manufacture* scandals when Democrats are in power. Because you have so many *real* ones yourselves! You can’t possibly imagine that you are that corrupt, when the other side isn’t. Well Jake, imagine it. Because it’s true! The sopranos are school boys compared to your party – and frankly your *personal* values. You’re a lying, hate filled, weasel piece of sh*t that would shred the constitution in a heart beat for a fast buck. You’re nothing more than an Osama of Orange County – you worthless piece of trailer trash.

By: chainpuller

chainpuller — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 04:39:26 +0000

Be patient, give them enough rope and they’ll hang themselves.

By: Zach Edwards

Zach Edwards — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 03:22:05 +0000

The Justice Department officials who were selected to be interviewed hit merely the tip of this iceberg. It is extremely important that the House and Senate Judiciary Committee’s interview John Nowacki, Principal Deputy Director as well as the Acting Counsel to the Director in the Executive Office of the Justice Department, in order to establish the links between the Justice Department officials, the US Attorney’s in the field, and the political operatives who helped remove the targeted US Attorney’s. I have gathered and organized every document released so far from the Justice Department relating to John Nowacki as well as background information on his relationship with the Federalist Society. You will be shocked at how many key pieces of information he gives to Paul McNulty, William Moschella, Michael Elston, William Mercer, Monica Goodling, and former employees Michael Battle and Kyle Sampson.
This story on John Nowacki, including updates, can be found at: http://misterapologist.blogspot.com/

By: angryvietnamvet

angryvietnamvet — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 03:11:19 +0000

HELP….can someone please tell me how to ignore the posts by this JAKE character…?/ Everytime I come here I have to see his goddam bullshit and it pisses the hell out of me, particularly when people keep responding and thereby just encouraging him….Short of just not reading TP again, what can I do so I don’t have to see either JAKE’s posts or those of his ENABLERS ??? (I spend more and more time on TPMMuckraker these days because there are NO JAKOFFS like Jake and people don’t ENABLE these type of plants.)

By: trippin

trippin — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 02:20:34 +0000

Bush has a problem. Speedy knows where all the bodies are buried. That’s why all crime families stick together until muerta do them part.

By: Raymond Funamoto

Raymond Funamoto — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 01:19:38 +0000

CHIMPya: “WHA….I though ya was GONE already, AL, What’re STILL DOIN’ Here???????”
GONZO: “But Mr. President….Georgie Boy, Don’t You LIKE ME anymore? Hmmmmmm…..?(Pushes his bottom towards CHIMPya’s crotch)
CHIMPya: “Well, I Guess we can work something out…HEY, Turd-Blossom, Ya Got Any Of That There K-Y That Gannon/Guckert Left The Other Night He Was Here?”
Rove: “Here it is Chief….Careful, There’s SHIT on the tip…”
CHIMPya: “ARE YA ACCUSIN’ ME OF NOT WASHING UP AFTERWARDS, FAT BOY????”(ROARS)

By: Keith H.

Keith H. — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 01:11:57 +0000

Both frustrated and impatient.

Wow . . . being above the law is tough.

By: Jake

Jake — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 01:11:15 +0000

Would you, Briseadh na Faire?

By: tarazan

tarazan — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 01:05:47 +0000

#67-theswan. The picture says , Bush to Gonzalez:”You are safe, as long as you are doing for my pleasure”..

By: Briseadh na Faire

Briseadh na Faire — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 00:52:32 +0000

Comment by Jake â€” March 30, 2007 @ 6:51 pm

Once again, Jake misses the point. The issue is not whether the Attorneys could be removed; the issue is whether removing these Attorneys constituted obstruction of justice.

And there’s a greater moral issue at stake here. Should U.S. Attorneys General be used to target political opponents and protect political allies?

Or, to put it differently, are we content to do away with an independent Department of Justice and instead turn that Department’s function into maintaining the Party in Power?

Would Jake, Exley and other trolls be making the same arguments if a Democratic Administration were doing the same things?

By: Abby

Abby — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 00:24:19 +0000

#60: #

The best way to fight terror is to not allow yourself to be terrorized.

Comment by ForTruth â€” March 30, 2007 @ 5:53 pm

How true. There is limited actual damage terrorists can inflict and their only aim is to terrorize.

BushCo did more than Bin Laden ever could to first, enable 9/11 to happen and then, to enable a paralyzing fear of terrorists make home in American guts.

Land of the Free and Home of the Brave. Pffft.

By: keith

keith — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 22:58:04 +0000

Bush’s DOJ:

ignoring warnings of 9/11

covering up failures before 9/11

ignoring habeas corpus

ignoring International law signed by the US

covering statues’ breasts

fear of calico cats

illegal renditions/secret flights to torturing nations

illegal wiretaps

illegal phone records

illegal interception of mail

no evidence released to defendents

no defense counsel allowed

suspects held without charges/without trial

torture legalized

protection for Randy Cunningham

protection for Dusty Foggo

protection for Jack Abramoff

coverup of sexual molestation at Texas juvenile facility

protection for Northern Marianas underage sex trafficking and slave labor

protection for gambling industry

protection of voting fraud

protection for cheap illegal immigrant labor

Coverup of HookerGate

etc., etc.

By: impeachcheneythenbush

impeachcheneythenbush — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 22:57:34 +0000

Watching the Sampson testimony yesterday on C-Span, it was interesting how he remembered almost nothing….except when a question was asked specifically about the compliaints/concerns about Carol Lam’s failure to prosecute immigration cases strongly enough….he suddenly regained his ability to remember minute details about who said what and when. Quite amazing display of “selective” memory.

Food for thought. Lam had just secured indictments on a couple of MAJOR players in Mexico drug cartels. Juxtipostion this with the case with the Johnny Sutton indictments and convictions of two U.S. Border Patrol guards and the prior immunity given to a drug runner associated with a very large (MAJOR) Mexican drug cartel. Maybe the same cartel.

By: theswan

theswan — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 22:52:25 +0000

The picture says, “co-conspirators!”

By: Jake

Jake — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 22:51:23 +0000

In the 1926 Supreme Court decision Myers v. United States, Chief Justice William Howard Taft wrote that any limitation on the president’s power to independently remove executive officers could result in executive “paralysis” at the hands of “a partisan Senate and Congress.” The majority opinion further determined that the Constitution’s silence on protocols for removing executive officers implicitly denies the need for congressional approval.

That ruling codified a precedent set six decades earlier when Congress failed in its effort to oust President Andrew Johnson for his unilateral removal of Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. The House of Representatives impeached Johnson in 1868 for his action, but the Senate fell one vote short, averting what many historians believe might have dangerously altered the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches.

By: Spudge_Boy

Spudge_Boy — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 22:38:22 +0000

I doubt he makes it to the day when heâ€™s scheduled to testify. This is such shame. This whole thing just stinks to high hell.

Comment by Crump’s Brother â€” March 30, 2007 @ 4:54 pm

I think it stinks too, he should be allowed to perjure himself, before he resigns.

By: fuzzwald

fuzzwald — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 22:24:14 +0000

Has anyone PROVEN he saw documents – Jake
****************

You seem to think that Gonzo should be held to a “innocence until proven guilt” standard of justice. He and duhbya got rid of that legal standard a while back.

Habius corpus is so 90’s.

By: SKdeA

SKdeA — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 22:08:58 +0000

R.I.P. Jake, 2007-2007