Legal Memo Confirms White House Led Effort To Target And Remove U.S. Attorneys
Legal Memo Confirms White House Led Effort To Target And Remove U.S. Attorneys
Today, White House counsel Fred Fielding released a letter informing Congress that President Bush will assert executive privilege over White House documents relating to the firing of U.S. attorneys. Fielding attached a legal memorandum written by Solicitor General Paul Clement, laying out the legal basis for the executive privilege claim.
Clement reviewed the documents that the Congress subpoenaed. In his letter, Clement reveals what investigators have suspected from the very beginning — that the White House was intimately involved in the attorney scandal. Upon examination of the White House documents, Clement writes:
Among other things, these communications discuss the wisdom of such a proposal, specific U.S. Attorneys who could be removed, potential replacement candidates, and possible responses to congressional and media inquiries about the dismissals.
The White House had “said that Mr. Bush’s aides approved the list of prosecutors only after it was compiled.” President Bush himself said that “the Justice Department made recommendations, which the White House accepted” regarding the removal of the attorneys.
On a related point, Marcy Wheeler writes that it is a serious conflict of interest for Clement to be advising Bush to assert executive privilege in the very same scandal that Clement is supposed to be investigating.
Paul Clement, as you’ll recall, is the guy currently in charge of any investigation into the US Attorney firings, since Alberto Gonzales recused himself some months ago. He’s the one who technically oversees the Office of Special Counsel investigation into whether politics played an improper part in Iglesias’ firing or the hiring of career employees in DOJ, he’s the one who oversees the joint Office of Professional Responsibility and Inspector General investigations into whether anything improper–including obstruction of justice–occurred in the hiring and firing of USAs. And now, he’s the guy who gets to tell the President that he doesn’t have to turn over what might amount to evidence of obstruction of justice in the Foggo and Wilkes case, among others.
Clement’s letter reveals the White House was deeply involved in selectively targeting attorneys for removal. These documents presumably reveal the motives of the White House in purging the U.S. attorneys. Now Clement is working to ensure those documents never become public.
UPDATE: Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) raised these concerns in remarks this morning:
[T]he suggestion at the end of Mr. [Fred] Fielding’s letter that ‘we may all return to more productive activity on behalf of the nation.’ I think it is extremely productive to assure the people of the United States that their Department of Justice can be trusted. It is an enormous power, the power of federal prosecution, and if it is not wielded sensibly, and if it is not wielded honorably, and if it is not wielded without political purpose, we have a grave issue that demands our attention.
And then in the Solicitor General’s letter, here’s some interesting stuff. He’s reviewed the communications among the White House Counsel. Quote: “these communications discuss specific U.S. Attorneys who could be removed, potential replacement candidates, and possible responses to congressional and media inquires about the dismissals.” We’ve been wondering if this went into the White House. Clearly it does.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
175 Responses to “Legal Memo Confirms White House Led Effort To Target And Remove U.S. Attorneys”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Looks like the Bush white house will soon hold the record for yelling about executive privilege.
June 28th, 2007 at 1:31 pmClinton did it too
It's legal
There's no evidence of wrong doing
Obstruction and perjury aren't 'real' crimes
Ok TROLLS, I've got those out of the way for you. Come up with new ones please!!
June 28th, 2007 at 1:32 pmImpeachment Time. AGAIN!
June 28th, 2007 at 1:33 pmThe crooks are stacked so high in this WH that sooner or later they are gonna tumble over and crash, if they don't totally destroy the country first. It seems that they have already destroyed the constitution.
Repuke = Corrupt Criminal Fascist Mafia
June 28th, 2007 at 1:37 pmClement’s letter reveals the White House was deeply involved in selectively targeting attorneys for removal.
B-b-b-but the White House Liaison said the White House wasn't involved (which leaves us to wonder what her job was for).
June 28th, 2007 at 1:37 pm.
I don't see how this implicates Bush in any way.
June 28th, 2007 at 1:37 pmSieg Heil! Heil Bush!
June 28th, 2007 at 1:37 pm"The White House, Oval Office, and the Presidency are not --NOT-- part of the Executive Branch of government." Alberto Goonzales.
June 28th, 2007 at 1:39 pmSo which one is it? Either Kyle Sampson lied or the White House lied. Congress needs to go back in and make an example of Sampson.
June 28th, 2007 at 1:40 pmCome on. I've read this article three times and I still can't see how this could be blamed on the President. He may or may not have received some recommendations and that's it.
June 28th, 2007 at 1:41 pmAh, now we're getting serious. Time to break out the "memos".
Bright shiny things that, unfortunately, there is an abundance of fools who will become enthralled with.
All the while the murder, mayhem, and atrocities continue. Even though we all have our hands on the "off" switch.
Progressive indeed.
June 28th, 2007 at 1:41 pmOh well. The dirty secrets obtained by national security eavesdropping and held over the heads of these congress critters will hold them at bay.
June 28th, 2007 at 1:44 pmHey! You guys are trolling better than the trolls do. Now that we've mastered their act, maybe they can go get lives.
June 28th, 2007 at 1:44 pmConspiracy: an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
This isn't a conspiracy theory. This is actual conspiracy.
President's response? I can mastermind a conspiracy to manipulate the government if I want to. Go f*ck yourself.
June 28th, 2007 at 1:46 pmThis is just another Rover scheme to get people off the other issues, like Iraq and healthcare.
June 28th, 2007 at 1:46 pmOn a related point, Marcy Wheeler writes that it is a serious conflict of interest for Clement to be advising Bush to assert executive privilege in the very same scandal that Clement is supposed to be investigating.
Ahem......?
This is how the Bush admin "investigates."
IMPEACHMENT is the only remedy.
June 28th, 2007 at 1:46 pmI don’t see how this implicates Bush in any way.
Comment by Gaydar3000 — June 28, 2007 @ 1:37 pm
At the very least it implicates the White House in nonstop lying. But I do realize that many of Bush's supporters believe that pathological lying is a virtue, not a vice.
June 28th, 2007 at 1:47 pmWell if Bush may or may not have recommened this, then he may or may not be able to invoke executive privilege.
June 28th, 2007 at 1:48 pmProgressive indeed.
Comment by Fed the Fcuk Up!
Can it, doom and gloom.
June 28th, 2007 at 1:48 pmHey Gaydar - he's the President - that means he is the head of government, not just head of state. As head of the Executive Branch he is responsible for the actions taken by the Executive Branch - if those actions are illegal or unconstitutional he has an obligation to stop them and to see that the perpatrators face justice. If he doesn't do that he is not 'faithfully executing' the duties he swore to uphold.
This is Government 101. Unless you're Dick Cheney.
June 28th, 2007 at 1:54 pmAnd Zooey - yes - IMPEACH, NOW
June 28th, 2007 at 1:55 pmSpecial Prosecutor anyone???????????????
June 28th, 2007 at 1:56 pmBut I do realize that many of Bush’s supporters believe that pathological lying is a virtue
Well, it is.
June 28th, 2007 at 1:56 pmGaydar could be right, after all it is starting to look more and more like the 4th branch of the government was running things. I don't think Bush was ever that interested in being in charge, he just wanted the nifty jet, and the to be the decider guy, even if he didn't make any decisions.
June 28th, 2007 at 1:57 pmGeorgie has always been one to let the fox guard the hen house so this is to be expected. Diversion is a tactic that applies in military terms and political terms. Confidence men and the likes of Dick Cheny and Karl Rove are masters of diversion and slight of hand. The real question is what do they not want us to see if this is coming into the light of day. I am expecting the color coded warnig to change to red soon, that one has not been used in a while.
June 28th, 2007 at 1:57 pmWake up Nancy"Table Phobic" Pelosi!!!
June 28th, 2007 at 1:59 pmTime to put impeachment back on the table.
Either uphold your Oath of Office or resign, Nancy.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
June 28th, 2007 at 1:59 pmDon't join the book burners. Do not think you are going to conceal thoughts by concealing evidence that they ever existed
June 28th, 2007 at 2:02 pmHere in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels - men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion
June 28th, 2007 at 2:04 pmJames Reed: Oh please. Spare us the "we're a nation of rebels" crap. Revolutions are, in general, bad for the people.
June 28th, 2007 at 2:05 pmIn most communities it is illegal to cry "fire" in a crowded assembly. Should it not be considered serious international misconduct to manufacture a general war scare in an effort to achieve local political aims?
June 28th, 2007 at 2:07 pmJames Reed: Oh please. Spare us the “we’re a nation of rebels†crap. Revolutions are, in general, bad for the people.
Comment by BottomBoy
Yeah, bad for the people being revolted against.
June 28th, 2007 at 2:08 pmIn the long run, THE PEOPLE are better off.
not original thought just words of former presidents and founding fathers. THese seem to be forgotten by the Right side of the spectrum, yet they come from their origins.
June 28th, 2007 at 2:08 pm#30,
Revolutions are bad for collaborators and cowards. I can see why you are scared shitless.
June 28th, 2007 at 2:09 pmUntil either you or a member of your family, or anyone that you give a flyin’ fcuk about, has been sent to the Middle East to wait to die in a heinous crusade based upon lies, you can just shut the fcuk up yourself about “canning the doom and gloomâ€.
Instead of getting pissy, pal, how about offering some SOLUTIONS?
All you do is come in here and b*tch and moan. Either get constructive or get lost!
June 28th, 2007 at 2:10 pmOk. I hope you'll be happy when the 21st Century equivalent of Fort Sumter siege takes place in 2008/2009.
This country shalll not fall into the hands of people who believe in a domestic revolution instead of the war against a foreign, islamic enemy.
June 28th, 2007 at 2:13 pm#36,
As you wish, here are the solutions that you requested:
1. The Iraq Genocide Project could be ended immediately with a SIMPLE majority vote by both houses of congress to rescind the congressional authorization passed in 2002. And the president cannot veto.
2. Guantanamo and the other USA sanctioned torture camps could be closed immediately and Bush's insane blood lust could be curtailed completely by a SIMPLE majority vote by both houses of congress to rescind the AUMF. And the president cannot veto.
Want more?
June 28th, 2007 at 2:14 pmMr. Bush may have wide discretion to remove his US Attorneys, he may do so only in a manner that does not otherwise violate the law. He has wide powers as commander in chief of the army and navy (not of the US population), too, but he may still be prosecuted if he uses them in ways that violate domestic and international laws of war. Mr. Bush may, for example, not remove a US Attorney so as to obstruct a federal investigation; that's obstruction of justice and a prosecutable and impeachable offense. Investigating possible criminal wrongdoing is a major exception to the privilege of confidentiality that Mr. Fielding's presidential client seeks to exercise.
June 28th, 2007 at 2:14 pmJames Reed: Oh, don't talk to me about history. I know all about ours. Given the current war, I believe that a democratic President will be the end of the Union and that's why I'm doing everything I can to prevent that.
June 28th, 2007 at 2:16 pmI have always said Bu$h was a mere puppet for the corporatists, and that Cheney was really the man in charge. Indict, impeach, imprison or execute Cheney, leave Bu$h alone - he is a weak and shallow man that will wilt when he actually becomes THE decider guy.
June 28th, 2007 at 2:17 pmThis country shalll not fall into the hands of people who believe in a domestic revolution instead of the war against a foreign, islamic enemy.
Comment by BottomBoy — June 28, 2007 @ 2:13 pm
what kind of bs is this, you make Jethro Bodine look smart
June 28th, 2007 at 2:17 pmit was a democrtatic president who defeated the nazis and the Japanese brainiac
June 28th, 2007 at 2:18 pmIt was a Republican who defeated the communist hoard in Grenada, and the drug king in Panama. Man what an impressive record.
June 28th, 2007 at 2:19 pmThe only coarse of action left is impeachment isnt it? Or are there some other steps still to be tried first?
June 28th, 2007 at 2:20 pmHas the blood supply been cut off to your brain or something?
1. The Iraq Genocide Project could be ended immediately with a SIMPLE majority vote by both houses of congress to rescind the congressional authorization passed in 2002. And the president cannot veto.
2. Guantanamo and the other USA sanctioned torture camps could be closed immediately and Bush’s insane blood lust could be curtailed completely by a SIMPLE majority vote by both houses of congress to rescind the AUMF. And the president cannot veto.
ANYTHING that requires approval of both houses of Congress can be affected by veto, with the exception of Constitutional Amendments and decisions to adjourn. It's spelled out in the Constitution - Article I, Section 7. Or did you skip that day in civics class?
June 28th, 2007 at 2:20 pmlike most idiots who hate the light of the truth you can not argue with facts just hyperbole
June 28th, 2007 at 2:20 pmThe Magna Carta, U.S. Constitution, and Bill of Rights are all results of revolutions by the people against a select few who decided themselves above the law.
June 28th, 2007 at 2:21 pm#45: Oh, so I have to spell it out for you? Who's your real enemy? Think about it. I mean really think about it. Is your enemy really someone who shares your religion, culture and nationality like our government, or is it someone who believes that anyone who does not believe in Allah shall be put to death? Why are you trying to stop action that would protect us from the Islamic threat?
June 28th, 2007 at 2:21 pm#42,
I respectfully deny your "request" to cease addressing the heinous murder, torture, and oppression being perpetrated by the USA in the Middle East costing hundreds of thousand of innocent lives.
Even though the truth may be uncomfortable and painful, no amount of plugging your ears and covering your eyes will make it go away.
You better look up "apathy" in your dictionary. Don't be surprised when you see your picture in the definition.
June 28th, 2007 at 2:23 pmEven though the truth may be uncomfortable and painful, no amount of plugging your ears and covering your eyes will make it go away.
Coming in here and nailing yourself to the cross, proclaiming that you care more about it than the rest of us, doesn't make it go away either...
June 28th, 2007 at 2:26 pmDo we really have to wait another 571 days?
We've got to get them all out, ASAP.
I can't believe Clement hasn't been pressured to step aside.
June 28th, 2007 at 2:26 pmAlbert Einstein defeated the Nazis.
June 28th, 2007 at 2:26 pmFor those of you who weren't born yet or to young to know about Watergate this is exactly how it started.
June 28th, 2007 at 2:27 pmYou are now seeing a repeat of the worse crime done to the United State by a President and Vice President.
History for some reason always repeats itself if you don't learn from it. Nixon was guilty and being impeached but resigned. His Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned for his criminal acts while in office. Now you see how President Ford never an elected official got to be President. Yes both the President and Vice President were criminals.
Cheney was a student of Nixon's and used his criminal play book and succeeded. Karl Rove used Religion to trick the public as the mission was to line up positions in government to have total control. The Supreme Court was in place to dismantle Civil Rights, Women's Rights and Voting Rights which is going to be done.
The lower courts would stop equality and Justice. The Dept. of Justice is totally control by President Cheney.
Senator Lott told Strom Thurmond before he died the South would Raise again because the plan was in the works. He was right the mission has been completed. Like history when you suppress people they fight for freedom as Americans will do again. Americans were busy watching American Idol and President Cheney put his plan into action. Yes there were pay offs to the media and spying on Americans who might have let the plan leak out. This Generation of Americans have their own WATERGATE now and lets see if they do better then we baby boomers did.
Do we really have to wait another 571 days?
You really think the President is going to step down and leave the country to the likes of you?
June 28th, 2007 at 2:27 pmBefore deciding who your enemies are a wise person would look at the environment... what if the enemy is human nature? or religion itself? Then what?
Grabbing your crotch and pumping out your chest is no way to prove a point to a reasonable person.
If you think Islam is the enemy then PROVE it. Show that there are NO instances of Islamists being good people. If you cant do that then you must change your opinion to SOME islamists are bad and not Islam itself... and then you must continue to narrow that down until you have a provable case... otherwise you just look like an unreasonable fool that should be pushed aside so that the adults can discuss the issue with reason and logic.
June 28th, 2007 at 2:28 pmLet's charge Clement-ine with Obstruction of Justice and Professional Conflict of Interest. It's now clear that everyone who testified from Gonzocchio on down lied through their teeth about Bush's personal involvement.
OUT WITH THEM ALL! The people deserve better than this - much better than this!
IMPEACH NOW! THIS COUNTRY SIMPLY CANNOT AFFORD TO WAIT ANY LONGER OR THERE WILL BE SUCH REJECTION OF THIS GOVERNMENT BY THE PEOPLE THAT IT WILL BE TOO LATE TO RESURRECT....TOTAL ANARCHY IS AROUND THE CORNER IF CONGRESS FAILS TO TAKE ACTION.
June 28th, 2007 at 2:28 pmThe President "shall take care that the Laws be faithfully executed..."
And Bush has executed the Laws.
June 28th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Jackie,
thank you so much, a little reality is always good.
Gaydar2000,
You and buttboy are one in the same right afraid of a little ....
June 28th, 2007 at 2:29 pmBut, But..... Clinton DID IT!!!
June 28th, 2007 at 2:29 pm#49,
You are completely wrong, but you don't have to take my word on it. CONSULT your local constitutional scholar. Please.
The AUMF and Iraq "war" Authorization of 2002 are both RESOLUTIONS, and not BILLS. There is a monumental difference.
Please, look it up if you don't believe me. I will pay ANYONE who can prove me wrong $100.
June 28th, 2007 at 2:29 pmWe know that Bush Sr. was head of the CIA when JFK was murdered; anyone know where Cheney was during that time? I think this is important...
June 28th, 2007 at 2:29 pmnot too sure of you straight manhood
just had to finish the thought, since I decided the two of you couldn't
June 28th, 2007 at 2:30 pmHey,Fed Up,
Zooey is certainly not apathetic. You obviously don't know her.
And if she "so offends" you, why not do the adult thing and simply avoid her? (read: drop it)
June 28th, 2007 at 2:30 pmGerald Gibson: I'm sure there are good muslims, but the entire religions is based on the concept of forced religious conversion (with death as an alternative). I don't see why we should tolerate that.
June 28th, 2007 at 2:30 pmAwww.... trueblue has a crush on Zooey.
June 28th, 2007 at 2:31 pmWOW
June 28th, 2007 at 2:31 pmSo is it even remotely possible that between this, NSA and other issues that the House or the Senate will be willing to take the stance that NOW they are investigating crimes?
At that point, a lot of interesting things come into play.
Executive privilege goes out the window. Impeachment could easily be back on the table.
Hmmm.
June 28th, 2007 at 2:35 pmZooey is a friend, BB.
But I would say the same thing if you were attacking any member of TP.
It's simply childish.
Gaydar tried to get my attention with his snide remark, but I will not lower myself to his level, and if this is how you handle conflicts, it seems I would only lower myself to respond to you again.
June 28th, 2007 at 2:35 pmThere is no such thing as a conflict of interest in the Bush Administration.
Or treason.
Or accountability.
Or competence.
Or thrift. Or prudence.
Or ethics.
Or morals.
Or compassion.
Or lawfullness.
Or loyalty to America.
Or honesty.
June 28th, 2007 at 2:36 pmbottomboy,
You always walk away from a fight? Or is just when you know you don't have the proper ammunition. I can't imagine you as a cut and run kinda guy. Have your eyes swollen so much that you can't see the floor that is holding up your nose?
June 28th, 2007 at 2:36 pm#69 ~ every religion has a recruitment division.... the tactics used are determined by rule of law, not denomination.
the only difference between "us" and "them" is the crumbling constitution
June 28th, 2007 at 2:38 pmThe AUMF and Iraq “war†Authorization of 2002 are both RESOLUTIONS, and not BILLS. There is a monumental difference.
Please, look it up if you don’t believe me. I will pay ANYONE who can prove me wrong $100.
"Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill." - U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 7
Pay up, sucker.
June 28th, 2007 at 2:39 pmso bottom boy can't let the country be protected by me a man who as a child was in a new school every three years and learned never to back down from a bully runs away and hides in the closet.
June 28th, 2007 at 2:40 pmOk, that's it. It is time for the Democrats to demand a Special Council (their choice) to investigate this scandal. There is no way that someone in the Justice Department can conduct an investigation of itself. Talk about a conflict of interest, that is certainly one.
I don't really understand why they haven't done it yet. I think that will be the subject of my daily e-mail to Nanci Pelosi.
June 28th, 2007 at 2:40 pm#55,
So, you are going to just "dismiss" me as an attention-seeker.
Hmmm, interesting logic. Beings that we are in a COMPLETELY anonymous forum, it is beyond illogical that one could garner any attention as, because of the anonymity, "one" does not exist.
Mr. Spock would chastise your mangling of such simple logic.
June 28th, 2007 at 2:41 pmYou better look up “apathy†in your dictionary. Don’t be surprised when you see your picture in the definition.
Comment by Fed the Fcuk Up!
I am not saying you should stop speaking out about the horrors in this world.
I'm saying it's counterproductive to go about it the way you are. We want the same things, but you are here shitting on the very people who most want the things YOU want.
But you don't want to hear anything but your own voice, so you can ignore me from now on. I'll be ignoring you, because you're a lost cause.
June 28th, 2007 at 2:41 pmhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070628/ap_on_re_eu/europe_terrorism;_ylt=AsGEkKRL9xBJTYCp.9U7Fkhw24cA
Interesting article on Yahoo, about how Iraq, instead of reducing the threat of extremist terrorism, is helping to expand terrorist groups, and train them for wider attacks in Europe, and the rest of the world.
June 28th, 2007 at 2:42 pmComing in here and nailing yourself to the cross, proclaiming that you care more about it than the rest of us, doesn’t make it go away either…
Comment by Trekkie
That's what I was trying to get at. Thanks, Trekkie.
June 28th, 2007 at 2:44 pmAnd thus, the perfect example of why Republicans don't understand the concept of responsibility.
The firings were an attempt to stack the deck against legitimate candidates for Congress. Bush knew this. Bush directed the lie to the people and to Congress (how much has that little ditty cost us?). In the process, he slandered upstanding professionals he had chosen to serve our country. he tried to ruin thair careers to save himself from taking responsibility.
Bush is the captain - he's the man in charge - and what happens on his watch is his responsibility.
Only in this administration can someone claim responsibility, yet suffer no consequences for that responsiblity.
The Republicans are irresponsible.
June 28th, 2007 at 2:45 pm#77,
Wrong place. But because of the anonymity here there is absolutely no reason why you should take my word for it without consulting an expert.
Please, consult an expert or consult a lawyer.
This is not about winning an argument, this is about saving the lives of thousands, if not millions, of innocent people and also saving the soul of a nation.
Do not resist facts. Challenge them, of course, but to just dismiss them because you don't "like" the source is childish and irresponsible.
Lives are at stake this very moment. Quit being a fool.
June 28th, 2007 at 2:47 pmPay up, sucker.
Comment by Trekkie
The U.S. Constitution ...if only ALL of it was followed by EVERYONE....
Follow the Constitution and everything else will fall in place.
June 28th, 2007 at 2:48 pmOh well. The dirty secrets obtained by national security eavesdropping and held over the heads of these congress critters will hold them at bay.
Comment by Jake — June 28, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
So, National Security includes digging dirt on opponents. I guess that includes burglary (probably buggery, too).
Who the F do you think you are - Nixon?
You have become so idiotic and asinine as to be meaningless.
Hang it up, Jake - you old fool.
June 28th, 2007 at 2:49 pmRICO! RICO! RICO!
June 28th, 2007 at 2:50 pmThe DOJ scandal is really quite simple. The Bush Administration's goal is to blur the distinction between Party and State. The Party is the State and the State is the Party. The NSDAP did the same thing in Germany. Put the instruments of the State at the service of the Party. Nothing original by the Republicans. What's astounding is that the MSM can't see the forest for the trees.
June 28th, 2007 at 2:50 pmso BottomBoy and his ranger friend Gayday don't believe in the corner stones of our democracy, protest and rebellion. Who are the real traitors here.
June 28th, 2007 at 2:50 pmRICO
June 28th, 2007 at 2:51 pmThe DOJ scandal is really quite simple. The Bush Administration’s goal is to blur the distinction between Party and State. The Party is the State and the State is the Party. The NSDAP did the same thing in Germany. Put the instruments of the State at the service of the Party. Nothing original by the Republicans. What’s astounding is that the MSM can’t see the forest for the trees.
Comment by Yullbblue — June 28, 2007 @ 2:50 pm
this meathod was used by both Stalin and Mao.
June 28th, 2007 at 2:53 pmEverytime I go away for a while and then get censored by the supposed "Progressives" I remember why I left in the first place...
June 28th, 2007 at 2:53 pm#88: There's no blur. The Party is the State and vice versa. You're the third wheel that's going to get it soon.
June 28th, 2007 at 2:54 pmCan't really expect the neo-cons to come up with anything original can we Yullbblue
June 28th, 2007 at 2:55 pmFat Butt Boy, or is it Bottom feeder:
Spare us the "The Constitution and American history are quaint" crap. You little feltcher, you.
June 28th, 2007 at 2:55 pmComment by Fed the Fcuk Up! — June 28, 2007 @ 2:08 pm
Do you have a loved one in harm's way?
June 28th, 2007 at 2:55 pmVote Ron Paul
June 28th, 2007 at 2:55 pmI would REALLY like to hear the justification for the censorship of the word Z--I--O--N--I--S--T
Especially when it is used in a FACTUAL recant of history... got something to hide?
June 28th, 2007 at 2:57 pm#91: I'm sure you're familiar with felching.
June 28th, 2007 at 2:59 pmButtBoy you are truely the danger to the strength that is this Great Nation
June 28th, 2007 at 3:00 pmThat's what they got you on, Gerald?
That filter is a tricky one. :( Just type it out the way you did and you'll be OK.
I appreciate your posts.
June 28th, 2007 at 3:01 pmGonzo still attorney general?
What's wrong with the country? Do I need to get swastika armband yet?
Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels - men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion
Well, lots of people missed that train, I daresay.
BottomBoy:
The entire religions is based on the concept of forced religious conversion (with death as an alternative). I don’t see why we should tolerate that.
This is plainly wrong and bigoted. And even if it were true, what you gonna do about it, huh?
June 28th, 2007 at 3:01 pm#96: Strength? How does political discord and dissent make a strong nation?
June 28th, 2007 at 3:02 pmAnd even if it were true, what you gonna do about it, huh?
June 28th, 2007 at 3:02 pmVote for people who WILL do something about it.
This is off-topic, nutjob. the real threat to America is that we elected a Fascist Cabal.
June 28th, 2007 at 3:03 pmjake!
you gonna cut and run again
June 28th, 2007 at 3:03 pm#92,
More than one.
But it is the wrongful and criminal extermination and oppression of innocent children, women, and men being perpetrated by my country, the USA, that is the core of my opposition. And why I have been outspoken and unrelenting in my opposition even before I had loved ones in the way.
In fact, the only difference that having loved ones in harms way has caused is that moment of indescribable dread that I experience EACH AND EVERY TIME my phone rings.
I am not alone in that dread but, I am also not in the majority.
But let's not forget what is the real issue, and that is that this wrongful, criminal and heinous atrocity is continuing unabated due to the apathy of the US citizenry.
June 28th, 2007 at 3:04 pmWell, lots of people missed that train, I daresay.
Comment by El Tonno —
And here I thought my ancestors were just running away from a potato famine.
:P
June 28th, 2007 at 3:05 pmWhat was the crime again, Bush fired eight attorneys that he originally appointed? Its how politics works and sometimes it isnt pretty; you shouldnt go into politics in any form if you want job security.
Here fishy fishy fishy.
June 28th, 2007 at 3:07 pmWe don't tolereate it, HERE. Scathead.
June 28th, 2007 at 3:07 pmBut let’s not forget what is the real issue, and that is that this wrongful, criminal and heinous atrocity is continuing unabated due to the apathy of the US citizenry.
Comment by Fed the Fcuk Up!
But you spend your time coming here to b*tch at the UN-APATHETIC.
Makes total sense.
June 28th, 2007 at 3:08 pmThis is off-topic, nutjob. the real threat to America is that we elected a Fascist Cabal.
Agreed. November '06 was a black time for the country.
June 28th, 2007 at 3:09 pmit only happens in your mind. But, you can still go away.
June 28th, 2007 at 3:11 pmI know what it is, and with a handle like yours, I'm sure you've done it.
June 28th, 2007 at 3:13 pmEmptywheel at The Next Hurrah notes Faiz' work and adds her own statement on Clement's big-ass conflict of interest: http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/06/freds-fuck-you-.html
June 28th, 2007 at 3:13 pmYeah - look how evry nation who has ever adopted these practices has flourished.
June 28th, 2007 at 3:14 pm#107,
How convenient of you to label yourself as "UN-APATHETIC", while you wait patiently until September (just as you CHOSE to) to just BEGIN to readdress the "war".
A minimum of 62 days from now.
At an average of 100 (which is conservative) Iraqi deaths per day and and average of 4 (though it is on the increase) US Service members deaths per day, that represents:
- 6,200 murdered Iraqis
- 248 killed US service members
And you find this all hunky dory because now none of this "unpleasantness" will interfere with your summer vacation. How wonderful for you.
You seem quite intelligent from my observations of your comments, but it is you who have lost perspective and not me.
I plead to you to at the very least just consider that possibility.
June 28th, 2007 at 3:16 pmIs that some kind of racist comment? if not, why did you choose "Black"?
June 28th, 2007 at 3:17 pmtb3000
the Black thing is reaching, really.
June 28th, 2007 at 3:20 pmWell if they have nothing to hide, why don't they just release the documents. I mean of the firing of the attornies was all legal and above board, what is the problem?
June 28th, 2007 at 3:21 pm**totally not worth it, Zooey**
June 28th, 2007 at 3:21 pmJake!
speak up. Es posible que no hables engles?
June 28th, 2007 at 3:22 pmGovernments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
June 28th, 2007 at 3:22 pmparle vous frances
June 28th, 2007 at 3:23 pmdeutch?
June 28th, 2007 at 3:23 pmDon't you love how the muslims are so evil and christians are so righteous? How about adding FUNDAMENTALIST to both. That makes them equally as evil and unsafe for the world.
And how does this administration continue to get away with admitting what they are doing with no ramifications??? If this was Bill Clinton (which they so love to do comparisons against) did this, they'd have had him swinging from the nearest tree. I don't even think there would have been a trial.
But everything each of these criminals does is just okie dokie, peachy fine with those 26% of knuckle dragging, racist, fascist, or rich that continue to support this filthy administration. They don't care that there is blood on their hands.
All of you make me sick. You turned your back against our country, your fellow countrymen and women, and the premise of what our country was founded on, the Constitution of the United States of America.
May each of you rot in the hell you are helping create.
June 28th, 2007 at 3:24 pmRight on OwlBear
June 28th, 2007 at 3:24 pmSprech du Angles? :-)
June 28th, 2007 at 3:24 pmyes I do
June 28th, 2007 at 3:27 pmyes
June 28th, 2007 at 3:28 pmI plead to you to at the very least just consider that possibility.
Comment by Fed the Fcuk Up! — June 28, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
Who the hell do you think you are? You know absolutely NOTHING about me.
You just talk to yourself. Maybe you should examine your own lack of activity. You are here b*tching ALL THE TIME.
Trekkie was right -- you're too busy nailing yourself on the cross and proclaiming you care so much more than anyone else.
Get lost.
June 28th, 2007 at 3:31 pm**totally not worth it, Zooey**
Comment by trueblue
I know, I know it. I really do.
I'm done with that airhead.
Thanks.
June 28th, 2007 at 3:32 pmBottom Boy and Gay Day typify many of the right wing fringe elements. They are simply cowards who wet their pants at the slightest danger inherent in the world. These are the kind of racist retarded people who need to be carefully watched in a democracy.
Please spare me as to whether one would be more of a threat to democracy between muslim and people who share a common government, language, religion and culture. If I remember correctly, I can think of two separate examples disproving your point:
1. Germany and the Weimar Republic. Threat of Communism used to justify repressive techniques that led Hitler to power. The necessity of rescuing oppressed Germans living in boardering countries to justify war.
2. The American Revolution. I think that their "King George" had a little revolution because of his repressive government.
I am sorry but the actions of our "King George" show the typical actions of a fascist government to entrench itself in power. The United States was attacked. How do these little piss ants react?
1. King George decides to abandon his mission to put Bin Laden and Al Quaeda out of business to attack Iraq.
2. The Neo-cons and chickenhawks botch every priniciple of military strategy and response to asymmetrical warfare by failing to secure Afghanistan or to plan for the post combat phase in Iraq because they are stupid fools believing in their God like superiority instead of following reality.
3. These military (Bush, Rummsfeld) idiots are then unable to critically review their strategies and develop effective counter measures. For God' sake you fools, WE WON WWII IN LESS TIME THAN WE HAVE BEEN IN IRAQ WITHOUT SHOWING THE SLIGHTEST POSITIVE TREND IN MILITARY OR POLITICAL TERMS.
4. Fools like Bottom Boy and Gay Day react exactly the way these enemies expect and depend upon for victory. They know that you are such guttless, frightened little children that you will over react. They know that you believe in your own worst nightmares that this small group of a couple thousand radicals could honestly defeat the United States because you actually project your own inadequacies on the country and the people of this great nation. Thus, along with your frightened neo-con fellow travelers, you can not be flexible. You are so afraid to be shown as the little girlies that you are that you can not admit a mistake or significantly vary your strategy. The radicals depend upon your blind, stupid hatred to do their work for them by radicalizing others and needlessly expending this nation's strength.
I hope you go to sleep at night knowing that the islamic enemies of this country are openly laughing at you. I hope you remember every miniute of every day that your cowardice and your abject fear is what really poses a threat to this nation. Should we be afraid of our own citizens that share the same culture, religion and government? The answer is yes WHEN THEY ARE SUCH POOR EXCUSES FOR HUMAN BEINGS AND CITIZENS AS ARE YOU.
June 28th, 2007 at 3:39 pmComment by Fed the Fcuk Up! — June 28, 2007 @ 3:04 pm
I understand your passion, your anger, and your frustration.
You'll hear no objection from me about your venting on this site.
June 28th, 2007 at 3:43 pmFed The Fcuk Up,
See comment #72. And I don't take personal checks or credit cards.
Zooey,
Thank you.
June 28th, 2007 at 3:43 pmI understand your passion, your anger, and your frustration.
You’ll hear no objection from me about your venting on this site.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
It would be nice if he didn't "vent" all over the people who want the exact same thing he does.
That's my objection.
June 28th, 2007 at 3:47 pm#126,
Yep, you got me. This is all about me getting attention for myself which I'm just soaking up here and getting all wet about. Or am I getting a hardon about it? Yes, my "peeps" in my 18-25 age group (or is it 30-50 age group?) are so impressed that all these folks that I know nothing about are giving attention to an anonymous persona on a blog that they know nothing about.
Gosh, I guess my gig is up. Because "zooey" has determined that my rabid opposition to the Iraq Genocide Project is actually a very elaborate facade done merely to get attention from anonymous people that I will never meet and may not even exist.
Your levels of open-mindedness and compassion are very much on par with that generally displayed amongst progressives. You will take that as a compliment. But in reality it is akin to saying that you have as much sense as a drunk crack addict driving their kids to school while toking on the pipe and driving 100+ miles an hour in a school zone.
So now that that is all cleared up, let’s get back to joking about memos, and Gonzales, and corrupt Republican politicians because it is just too much fun. Iraq? Well, we decided that we’ll readdress that issue in September but, hey, we’ll be serious about it then. After all, we are progressive.
Progressive indeed.
June 28th, 2007 at 3:48 pmjmohr,
June 28th, 2007 at 3:48 pmIf you keep up this rational thought out argument you will scare away all the little bullies and then who will we have to kick back?
Excellent development and points, I just wish some of it would sink in, I fear, however, that it is like screaming in a sound proof room with both gg gd and Jakester
to z and ffu,
sometimes it is the degrees of seperation
June 28th, 2007 at 3:50 pmthere is but six degrees of seperation between the current dictator and chief and myself but what a difference it makes
June 28th, 2007 at 3:51 pm#130,
I have contacted my representative's office (Lois Capps) and they have confirmed my claim. They will be calling me back and emailing me with the specifics. I will post in whatever diary necessary when I receive.
That took me 2 minutes and one phone call. I HIGHLY recommend that you do the same. Or you can just keep your fingers in your ears singing "neener neener neener I can't hear you".
Please. I beg you.
Oh, and the $100 offer still stands.
June 28th, 2007 at 3:59 pmOh, my blood pressure.
June 28th, 2007 at 3:59 pmI have contacted my representative’s office (Lois Capps) and they have confirmed my claim.
Funny, because I...you know...went to law school...and I can say that the case law does not support Rep. Capps or you.
"Joint resolutions of Congress are not distinguishable from bills, and if approved by the President, or if duly passed without the approval of the President, they have all the effect of law. But separate resolutions of either house of Congress, except in matters appertaining to their own parliamentary rights, have no legal effect to constrain the action of the President or the heads of departments." Opinion of the Attorney General of the United States, 1854.
Don't let the langauage fool you - by "duly passed without the approval of the President", they mean passed over a Presidential veto.
"Although Congress can express its opinion through resolutions which are not subject to presidential veto, such 'opinion' resolutions have no substantive effect." - Consumer Energy Council of America v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 673 F.2d 425 (D.C. Cir. 1982)
You're wrong. Would you like to try for Double Jeopardy, where the scores can really change?
June 28th, 2007 at 4:15 pmBottom Boy and Gay Day typify many of the right wing fringe elements. They are simply cowards who wet their pants at the slightest danger inherent in the world. These are the kind of racist retarded people who need to be carefully watched in a democracy.
Yes. Profile us and exclude us. That's what democracy needs.
June 28th, 2007 at 4:17 pm#138,
Prove me wrong and you will get the $100.
Why are you so afraid of finding out the truth? Like I said, don't believe me. Call your representative. Call your senator. Call the Polysci office of the closest university and speak with a constitutional scholar.
You all ask for solutions. I provide some. And then with no fact checking and no research, many just disregard the solutions based on nothing other than bias and apathy.
Please, I beg you. The Iraqis beg you. Your very country's soul is begging you.
June 28th, 2007 at 4:21 pmand the band played on
June 28th, 2007 at 4:23 pm#141,
The sound you hear is not a band, but rather an orchestra of millions of Niros fiddling away while their constitution and country's soul burns.
The devil went down to georgia alright. And then he moved on through the rest of the 49 states and, apparently collected quite a bounty.
June 28th, 2007 at 4:26 pmto z and ffu,
sometimes it is the degrees of seperation
Comment by James Reed
I know. I'm done.
June 28th, 2007 at 4:28 pmProve me wrong and you will get the $100.
I just did - apparently you didn't actually read my comment where I provided case law that proves you wrong.
And here are my bona fides:
B.A., Political Science, University of Nevada-Las Vegas (with honors)
June 28th, 2007 at 4:34 pmJ.D., University of Indiana School of Law
#144,
So your anonymous "bona fides" trump the Washington D.C. office of a congressional representative?
Now, I could tell you that I was a Professor Emeritus at Yale Law. BFD. Doesn't mean a thing in a forum of anonymity.
Why are you resisting a 2 minute call? What you've got to lose is nothing, what you have to gain is $100.
The challenge is open to any takers.
June 28th, 2007 at 4:48 pmWhy are you resisting a 2 minute call?
Because I did my own research, you moron! Read it! It's right there on your computer screen aat comment #139! The governing law of the land says you are wrong! Look up the case, look up the Attorney General's opinion - I gave you everything you asked for to prove that you are wrong.
June 28th, 2007 at 5:23 pmCLements Discloses Contents of Deleted RNC E-mails
These e-mails aren't protected. They've been illegally destroyed. This assertion fatally undermines Ralston's claims
Berenson said these things could not be discussed. Why is Sidley Austin's Bereson noton the same page as Clements?
Time to call Berenson, Ralston, and CLements before COngress to explain their inconsistencies on the RNC e-mails in re DOJ Staff.
Ralston Deposition:
http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20070618105351.pdf
House Oversight:
http://oversight.house.gov/investigations.asp?ID=251
Berenson at Depostion says there was a "reason" to invoke silence: "when it comes to the reasons of why he vvas using potitical e-mail accounts, there ìs a reasonable, well-founded concern that a discussion of the reasoning behind the use of those accounts may sweep more broadly than Mr. Rove h'imself
How does Berenson explain Clement's discussion of the very thing Ralston "couldn't comment" on?
Adverse inference: The stated reasons Clements as given are false; and they are not for a lawful purpose as CLements would argue. Thuse all reaons Clements has given are false; and we conclude they are to do exaactly the opposite of what Clement said: Not to comly with anythings, but to engage in illegal activity.
There is no other reasonable way to reconcile your denial of Ralston's response with that of CLement's assertion. Clements appears to hae issued a false statement in writing to Congress.
June 28th, 2007 at 6:01 pmWow, nice scrub Faiz.
Just out of curiousity, why was my last comment scrubbed?
Was it that I gave out the telephone number for a congressional office, or was it that TP does not condone speech about the EASY, SIMPLE, and VETO PROOF revocations of the AUMF and the Iraq "war" Authorization of 2002?
June 28th, 2007 at 6:56 pmWas it that I gave out the telephone number for a congressional office, or was it that TP does not condone speech about the EASY, SIMPLE, and VETO PROOF revocations of the AUMF and the Iraq “war†Authorization of 2002?
Well, I'm just gessing here...maybe because it's a bunch of crap and contrary to governing law?
Still waiting for a response other than "you're a liar and/or lazy"...I backed up my assertion with sourced and legitimate proof. So either show your hand or fold.
June 28th, 2007 at 7:07 pm#150,
As promised, I will provide the information from my congressperson's office as soon as I receive it. They promised to call me and email me with the specifics and I will provide the full text of their email and a detailed transcript of the phone call as well. I will make sure that I receive the information before tomorrow afternoon.
Once again, the offer of $100 to ANYONE who can provide factual evidence to the contrary of my claim that the AUMF and the Iraq "War" Authorization of 2002 can BOTH be revoked by a SIMPLE majority vote in both houses of congress and CANNOT be vetoed by the president.
Now, Trekkie, my suspicion is that you are actually Faiz.
June 28th, 2007 at 7:57 pmAnd it's my suspicion that you are actually a troll idiot.
You bring nothing to these discussions but your anger.
Trekkie quoted facts that disputed your crappola, yet you fail to acknowledge it.
You'd do well in the Bush Admin.
June 28th, 2007 at 8:24 pmOk. Factual evidence:
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 - Expresses support for the President's efforts to: (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.
Authorizes the President to use the U.S. armed forces to: (1) defend U.S. national security against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. Directs the President, prior to or as soon as possible (but no later than 48 hours) after exercising such authority, to make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that: (1) reliance on further diplomatic or peaceful means alone will not achieve the above purposes; and (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization for use of the armed forces, consistent with requirements of the War Powers Resolution.
Requires the President to report to Congress at least every 60 days on matters relevant to this resolution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAJOR ACTIONS: m-€
10/2/2002 Introduced in House
10/7/2002 Reported (Amended) by the Committee on International Relations. H. Rept. 107-721.
10/10/2002 Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 296 - 133 (Roll no. 455).
10/11/2002 Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Yea-Nay Vote. 77 - 23. Record Vote Number: 237.
10/16/2002 Signed by President.
10/16/2002 Became Public Law No: 107-243 [Text, PDF]
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HJ00114:@@@L&summ2=m&
The AUMF is a law.
Congress cannot, by itself, change the law. It takes a law to change a law. (We're not talking about the Supreme Court striking a law as unconstitutional here.)
It is true, a simple majority is all it takes in both houses in order for a bill or resolution to pass Congress, but it is also true that it takes 60 votes in the Senate to end debate and bring a bill or resolution to a floor vote.
Next, any bill or resolution, in order to become law, must be signed by the President, or a presidential veto must be overridden by a 2/3 in each house of Congress.
Congress simply cannot vote to rescind a law, once it has become law. Congress is limted to enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution:
No where does the Constitution grant Congress the power to rescind a law.
And, yes, I am a lawyer and a member of the California State Bar. And your $100 offer is just about right, as it took me just under a half-hour.
June 28th, 2007 at 8:54 pm#152,
You call me an idiot. Interesting.
I joked about "Trekkie" being Faiz because "Trekkie" immediately responded to a post that I addressed to Faiz. Can you put those two and two together or do you need a calculator?
And yes I'm angry. But because I don't just join in the rampant apathy here, such sticks out considerably. I'd much rather be "angry" about murder, rape, and torture being perpetrated by my country and challenging the apathetic to address the issue than be the pathetic "patriots" who are so apathetic.
And finally, I provided a source, a legitimate and recognized source, to support my claim. Trekkie provided a snippet from the constitution that was pulled out of context and then applied his "opinion". You took this all as fact.
Now, I did not provide an opinion but provided fact. I challenged EVERYONE to check the facts out for themselves and that if ANYONE could contradict the facts that I presented then I would pay $100.
I stand by the facts and the challenge.
But, you just want to attack me because you do not like me. How adult of you. Yet you do not check the facts.
Even though many here constantly boohoo about not being empowered to do anything.
You apathetic coward. Get off your ass and do something instead of pretending to be intelligent and burning all your time gossiping and jabbering.
June 28th, 2007 at 8:55 pmNow, there's an easier way to end the war, and it doesn't even take a majority vote by either house.
Simply refuse to pass a bill containing funding for the war.
Bush can't blow things up if he can't buy bombs.
June 28th, 2007 at 8:57 pmAnd finally, I provided a source, a legitimate and recognized source, to support my claim. Trekkie provided a snippet from the constitution that was pulled out of context and then applied his “opinionâ€.
And then I supported it with BLACK-LETTER law when you demanded more. Or is the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision I quoted in #139 "my opinion" too?
You just WILL NOT ADMIT you were WRONG! Wrong on the facts and wrong on the law.
June 28th, 2007 at 9:03 pmAnd don't tell me about context. I work as a legal researcher. It's my f***ing job. I quoted the ENTIRE clause of Article I, Section 7 that is RELEVANT to this discussion!
June 28th, 2007 at 9:04 pm#153,
Thank you for the FIRST reasonable and considered response. I will post the information that I receive from Congressperson Capp's office tomorrow.
If you prove me wrong, I will honor the $100.
June 28th, 2007 at 9:04 pmYou just WILL NOT ADMIT you were WRONG! Wrong on the facts and wrong on the law.
Sounds like the WHOLE Bush administration!!!
June 28th, 2007 at 9:05 pm#156,
Support your assertion with facts that can be sourced to someone other than yourself and I will honor the $100 challenge.
For those who think that I'm bluffing, here is how I will deliver to you the $100 WITHOUT getting any of your personal information other than a Zip Code. After receiving the Zip Code, I will then find the main post office that handles that Zip Code and I will send a money order or cashiers check to that post office addressed to whatever name (can be any name you wish, even your screen name) you choose c/o General Delivery. Then you just go into the Post Office and claim the piece of mail.
June 28th, 2007 at 9:11 pmThank you for the FIRST reasonable and considered response. I will post the information that I receive from Congressperson Capp’s office tomorrow.
Comment by Fed the Fcuk Up! — June 28, 2007 @ 9:04 pm
I'm not out to prove you wrong. I recently completed 4 years' of law school, much of it studying Constitutional Law and Supreme Court cases. I've even studied under a Supreme Court Justice. If Constitutional Law were so easy, why is it 4 out of 9 Justices get it wrong so much of the time?
I tell you what, whatever Capp's office says, why don't you take the $100 and send it to Gold Star Families for Peace.
donate@gsfp.org
They're trying to make a difference.
June 28th, 2007 at 9:14 pm#161,
If that is your wish, assuming that I am wrong about the AUMF/Iraq "War" Authorization of 2002 being reversible (don't know the "legal" terminology) by a simple majority vote in congress which then cannot be vetoed, I will send them the money.
Now, I mean no disrespect but the person who first told me about this is a lawyer too, recognized by the state bar, and his 4 years (I guess) of Law School was completed before there were computers. In other words, this is a person of considerable experience and expertise.
But don't misunderstand me, I'm not concerned about being "wrong" though I hope that the information that I've received is accurate and that this is a solution that can be enacted to end this travesty. But before I give up on this pursuit, I'm going to carefully review the facts. Unlike many here who just "feel" that this is too simple and give up on it before even looking into it.
Also, if I'm not mistaken, I believe that even Ms. Hillary made mention of this just a short time ago. Though, if I recall correctly, she was using it as a political threat and not actually proposing it as an action.
June 28th, 2007 at 9:46 pmWow, so much hate from both sides. Each finding and using a accurate, but intentionally misleading statistic, just to add weight to their opinions, interpretations, etc. Many just resorting to belittling and name-calling their neighbor. As a woman, I am not, surprising to myself and those close to me, a supporter of NOW, but they do a great job gathering their "statistics" I tell ya. I found a good one to throw out, in response to "The Iraq Genocide Project... torture camps... Bush's insane blood lust" (gross and does anybody here really know him personally enough to know he seriously has a "blood lust?" And this one, "Until either you or a member of your family, or anyone that you give a flyin’ fcuk about, has been sent to the Middle East to wait to die in a heinous crusade based upon lies, you can just shut the fcuk up yourself about “canning the doom and gloomâ€.... WOW!, pretty intense, but I can understand. No good person gets a warm fuzzy feeling when our own people are in harms way and dying everyday... especially when there is something we can do to stop it, if people would just pay attention and not run from the facts....right? Well, back to NOW and hopefully a good reading for all of you here. Thanks for your time.
"Every day four women die in this country as a result of domestic violence, the euphemism for murders and assaults by husbands and boyfriends. That's approximately 1,400 women a year, according to the FBI. The number of women who have been murdered by their intimate partners is greater than the number of soldiers killed in the Vietnam War. Every year 1.2 million women are forcibly raped by their current or former male partners, some more than once."
Yep, blood is on all of our hands... and people are getting "so upset" because Nancy hasn't done anything about the deleted emails!! Bummer, huh?
June 28th, 2007 at 10:00 pm#163,
Interesting perspective. Here's some more:
The Iraq Genocide Project (aka Iraq Invasion/War) is known both here and abroad to have been initiated based on lies and deception, ie; it is wrong. Hundreds of thousands have already died. Millions terrorized, tortured, and oppressed, ie; a crime in progress.
These are facts. And these facts are known and recognized both here and abroad.
So, there is a crime in progress that "civilized" people are aware of and either doing nothing about or delaying any meaningful efforts for various extended time periods for the sake of CONVENIENCE. Currently September is the delay date. Before that it was January 2007. Before that it was November 2006. Before that it was November 2004. I think that you are getting the drift.
Now, that is EXACTLY the same thing as knowing that a women is being brutally raped, yet delaying calling the police about it until your next monthly cellphone billing cycle because you are running low on your allotted minutes.
Welcome to Amerika.
June 28th, 2007 at 10:14 pmSupport your assertion with facts that can be sourced to someone other than yourself and I will honor the $100 challenge.
Article I, Section 7 of the United States Constitution.
Opinion of the Attorney General of the United States, 6 Op. Atty. Gen. 680
Consumer Energy Council of America v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 673 F.2d 425 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (available at any law library with Westlaw or LEXIS access)
I gave all of this to you already. I'm not gonna do your homework. You want to fact-check it, be my guest. I already have.
June 28th, 2007 at 10:40 pm#165,
If that's what you want to offer up, then I will research each and every one and challenge my sources with the information. I will present my findings on this blog in whatever diary I find you in as soon as I have them, but no later than next Wednesday, 7/4.
If I am wrong, I will honor my challenge.
June 28th, 2007 at 11:06 pmAs if anyone truly had any misconceptions about where this corruption started- the White House has always been at the center of all of this, and now that they have admitted it the time has come for serious accountability.
I say impeach Cheney- from the Wapo series it's clear that a majority of the administration's most horrid failures can be laid at his door. Without the tough Cheney political machine Bush will be left with only Rove to isolate him from the shitstorms to come.
I don't think Turd Blossom is going to be enough, this time.
June 29th, 2007 at 9:45 amIn reading all the comments I see a lot of people say that this proves nothing, that Bush is not guilty. Then prove it; release the documents needed to prove he is innocent. He is clearly hiding something why else would he not release the documents.
Bush should suffer the same fate as Saddam for the war crimes he has committed.
Ron Paul 2008
June 29th, 2007 at 9:53 amBack to the subject (or thereabouts):
After the whole NSA spying debacle was belatedly revealed by the NYT (who blew the 2004 election by withholding it), I read an interesting article (don't remember by whom or I would link to it) that
suggested that the whole thing was enacted as a means to discount votes by people (specifically minorities), who vote in the wrong districts or who could otherwise be invalidated.
At the time I though it was just a conspiracy theory (still could be), but the attorney scandal lends it some merit. The process would go something like this :
1. Isolate a district that would generally vote Democratic.
2. Isolate registered Democrats within that District.
3. Isolate within that group any recent address changes.
4. Isolate within THAT group any voters who have failed to update
their registrations.
5. Allow the person to vote in the wrong district - discount the
vote for that reason, then prosecute the person for voter fraud to
justify your discounting of their vote.
Given that the U.S. Attorneys that were fired have expressed that they were being pressured to prosecute voter fraud, I would hazard a guess that this was what was going on.
The problem was that the Attorneys, (most likely all of them, since Harriet wanted to fire all of them, originally, although that could have been a smokescreen) had some real problems with the legality of all this.
It's not a big deal to re-register a voter. In 1998, I had moved, and when I went to the wrong place to vote they changed my registration right then and there at the high school.
Done even on a local scale, this kind of thing could sway an election. Done on a national scale, and given that many Americans don't get around to updating their information immediately when they move, it's almost certain that it WOULD sway an election.
I'm sure certain people commenting on this site would think that "Hey, that's great, Democrats don't need to vote anyway". But for me, regardless of my affiliation (Democrat, but anymore I'm tired of all of them), that's just further evidence that Repugs don't give a f__k about Democracy or the Constitution, they just want to see Repugs elected because they somehow believe that lowering taxes for the rich will save them money.
Just something to think about, and, if true, certainly a reason to start criminal proceedings against, at least, Rove and Gonzales.
June 29th, 2007 at 10:35 amIf Cheney resigns, it would save the country impeachment proceedings.
If the informants are correct in knowing he was using the DC Madame's services, then Dick the 'decent family man' should put his hands in the air and step away from the flag!
A podcast of Monday's interview with Jeane Palfrey is on my site and she brings up some interesting names... http://prissypatriot.blogspot.com
June 29th, 2007 at 11:16 amCrump's Brother is a paid Republican blogger.
He's always one of the very first to comment on a story.
He's on progressive news blogs.
He always has right-wing comments.
He usually uses the GOP &/or White House talking points (which are usually BS).
He always acts as a White House apologist.
He uses name calling to upset progressives.
He doesn't articulate his argument.
He doesn't allow anyone to see his information (name, url, etc).
The GOP & the Pentagon have both now admitted to paying bloggers to do this & you can see this trend on many (if not most) progressive news blogs.
June 29th, 2007 at 12:58 pm#36
Public Law 107-243 originated from joint resolutions introduced in each house of Congress. A joint resolution passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President or passed over his veto has the same effect as a bill introduced in either house and passed in identical form by each house. There is no difference between a joint resolution and a bill presented to the President. Often joint resolutions are used when members cannot agree on individual bills such as appropriations. A simple resolution is used to express the sentiment of that body or to inform of a condition. It requires no action by the other body. A concurrent resolution is used to offer sentiment shared by both bodies and is not presented to the President.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:22 pm"Bush should suffer the same fate as Saddam for the war crimes he has committed. "
Comment by Ed Smith
i don't know you, but i really like your way of thinking. but only if the same fate awaits the Dick, Rummy, and Wolfie.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:27 pm153 -- You fail to discuss the power of Congress to recognzie a Judicial finding that a statute is Unconstitutioanl.
Although illegal law "must" be changed by "better" law; the Judicial Branch can striked down bad law leaving the President and COncgress in a hole. They cannot fill that hole with another bad law.
You're not exactly correct; and just because you're a lawyer doesn't mean you're correct. Lawyers can be disbarred. When your legal profession starts self-rgulating and not letting this abuse of power spread, I might have confidenc in lawyers.
Right now, lawyers are part of the problem: They've failed to timely bring prsoecutions -- outside impeachment -- which could ahve been done in 2001. That wasn't done. We the People dn't work for you or the legal profession; you work for us.
Act like a lawyer: Use all lawful options to impose consequences on this President. On the table are the President's illegal activities. Congress refuses to impeach. I expect the legal profession to stop making excuses and organize themselves to prosecute this President otuside impeachment. If DoJ or the US Attys won't do it, then time for the legal community to work with the 50 STate AGs to make it happen.
When this President is either posecuted or impeached i might have confidence in the legal profession. Until then, you and your peers have some explaining to do with what failed with the DC Bar rules, and why legal counsel, when they were known to have supported illegal activity, were not timely sanctioned with disbarment. The burden is on you and the legal profession. Start doing your job, and quit your lectures.
DC Bar Rule 1.1.6 compels mandatory withdrawals when there is illegal activity; and lawyers services, as was the case here, was used to implement illegal FISA and GEneva violations. Time for the DC Bar to get pu on the table.
Layers are either going to fully assert their oath and use all lawful optoins to defend this COnstution; or they may be prosecuted for not having asserted all options to proseucte this president. If you choose wrong, you as a legal officer could be prosecuted.
July 1st, 2007 at 5:11 pmI expect the legal profession to stop making excuses and organize themselves to prosecute this President otuside impeachment.
You forget that, with the exception of impeachment, the President has near-absolute immunity from prosecution so long as he remains in office, and I doubt very much that the court would waive that immunity to allow a criminal proceeding to occur.
The Impeachment Clause allows for a criminal trial, but the long-standing interpetation of that clause states that the impeachment must happen first.
July 2nd, 2007 at 5:56 pm