Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« No Pardon For Libby? | Main | Bill Gates Re-Imagines The Swiss Army Knife »

March 26, 2007

Comments

Semanticleo

"So in that sense, Joe and Val will continue to diminish their supporters amongst the Democrats."

As well they should for their venality
and disrespect for the truly* truthful.

(as per RWR's response to poverty-level
americans "Yes, they are needy, but are they
TRULY needy")

Patrick R. Sullivan

From Kit Bond on the floor of the Senate, July 20, 2004:

----------quote----------
Ambassador Wilson angrily said [to Time magazine] his wife had nothing to do with his trip to Africa.

....What did she say? Did she deny it? Six months after she heard her husband angrily denying it and knowing what he had been saying for months and what he wrote in his book, I had staff go back and see what she said when asked about this issue. Her quote was:

'I honestly do not recall if I suggested it to my boss...'

That is what she said. That is from the transcript. Frankly, I think that is very telling. She doesn't recall if she suggested it to her boss after 6 months, and her husband has been out there saying she had nothing to do with it. Are you kidding? Just who is the Ambassador's source for all of his denials?
--------endquote-------

hit and run

Speaking of being vexed, I am (from York's article):

Tom Davis asked few questions and seemed largely uninterested in the matter. The only other Republican to appear, Rep. Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia, showed more interest but appeared not to have mastered the details of the case.

What, did the Valerie Plame Wilson Speaking Covertiness to Power World Tour surprise Mr. Westmoreland? I mean, you know, it just kinda came outta nowhere with so little warning or fanfare...

Gabriel Sutherland

OT: Remember Speaker Pelosi's pledge to bring all matters to the floor of the House for votes?

NY Times story about wartime slavery by the Japanese. The US House is considering a non-binding resolution to force the Japanese to apologize.

When will the House debate the Armenian Holocaust?

The Turkish and Japanese lobbies are going to be active for rest of this Congress.

Larry

"...no one is calling Ms. Plame a liar." The Henny Penny, Ducky Lucky going to tell the king story made my bullshit meter go up in smoke. Apparently, Sen Bond is interested whether she wants to change her testimony. Ah, hell with it, I'll just call her a liar.

Jane

At this point hope does not spring eternal.

Tom Maguire

From Patrick Sullivan:

Frankly, I think that is very telling...

Well, it tells me (yet again) why the commenters here kick the rear area of the commenters elsewhere.

Byron York really ought to have that Kit Bond statement in his article, and I will be updating my post forthwith. Thanks very much.

Lew Clark

You must realize that Plame is today, just as covert as she was when the Novak article was published. She can't tell the truth. People will die!

hit and run

Posted by: Jane | March 26, 2007 at 01:22 PM

::waving::

Jane

Hey H&R - I missed you!

TMF

Too little too late

Show up or dont show up

The GOP did not show up. Westmoreland was "unprepared"? Davis was "uninterested"?

Pathetic.

PeterUK

Which coven did Val belong to?

BarbaraS

The GOP congress is running away from the media. They don't want derogatory columns in the press and on tv about their trashing poor little Valerie. After all, too much bad press might make other GOP congressmen and senators demand their resignation. These wimps won't fight back.

Charlie (Colorado)

I had a coh-vair pickup truck when I was a teenager.

Charlie (Colorado)

(as per RWR's response to poverty-level
americans "Yes, they are needy, but are they
TRULY needy")

Considering that obesity is a major problem among our "needy", that might well be asked.

Charlie (Colorado)

Oh, by the way, Leo, your spurious additional line feeds give away that you're cut and pasting these things from another source.

Patrick

"the Matt Cooper Tribute Question Mark" That is great!

I agree with Hit and Run. Would it have killed this guy to read up, and prepare, you know, like BEFORE THE #$%$%! HEARING?

Sheesh. I think I need a drink.

hit and run

Patrick:
I agree with Hit and Run.
...
Sheesh. I think I need a drink.


I agree with Patrick.

ErnestAbe

I agree with Patrick, and H&R, and TMF.

soccer dad

What exactly is the question mark for? Either she lied under oath or Grenier did. (Though what he said was second hand.)

But it's not just what the Examiner writes: She denied recommending her husband, as Republicans have reported in their attempt to show why Bush officials discussed her occupation.

It doesn't matter what Republican reported what mattered is what Grenier testified.

Patrick R. Sullivan

'The GOP congress is running away from the media. They don't want derogatory columns in the press and on tv about their trashing poor little Valerie.'

AKA; Anita Hill Perjury Avoidance Syndrome. Ask Arlen Spector what the symptoms are.

Patrick R. Sullivan

'What exactly is the question mark for? Either she lied under oath or Grenier did.'

They both have Recovered Memories.

cathyf
These wimps won't fight back.
Would we know it if they tried? (If a tree falls in the forest and the MSM ignores it, does it make a sound?)
sferris

Sampson to take the 5th at senate hearing. Interesting.

sferris

OOps. DOJ official and lianson to the White House, Monica Goodling, is the one going to take the 5th at upcoming congressional hearing.

Enlightened

Huh? Newsmax running a blurb: Did Clinton aide Tutor Valerie Plame?

The Clinton's are connected to this - how interesting.

sferris

"March 26 (Bloomberg) -- Monica Goodling, a counsel to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales who helped coordinate the dismissals of eight U.S. attorneys, will invoke her constitutional right not to answer Senate questions about the firings, her lawyer said."

"``The hostile and questionable environment in the present congressional proceedings is at best ambiguous; more accurately the environment can be described as legally perilous for Ms. Goodling,'' Dowd said in a letter to Senator Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who chairs the panel. Dowd cited statements by senators accusing the Justice Department of misleading Congress."

Enlightened

****Her Constitutional Right****

In case you missed that.

Jack Moss

On that Clinton "tutoring" and a auction for lunch to boot!

here

topsecretk9

This is really a hilarious idea - pay pal for Steyn and TM!

Greasy Joe will be there too so Rush might want to pass.

The top bid as I write this is a measly $2,500. Is there really no American or British paper willing to drop a few thou to get Mark Steyn and a guest — preferably Tom Maguire — in to have tea with these two losers? Imagine the copy that will come out of it. They’ll recoup the cost of the bid ten times over.

hit and run

Ahhhhaaaaa! Plame meets with Blumenthal at a dinner with the Clintons before her congressional testimony......

You know, everyone was wondering about Joe angling for Sec of State in a Kerry administration.

Well, those hopes were dashed.

BUT!!!

Valerie Plame Wilson as CIA Director in a Hillary administration!

Enlightened

Interesting how the Wilson/Plame I was for WMD in Iraq before I was against it - so eerily resembles Billary's -

hit and run

Tops:
This is really a hilarious idea - pay pal for Steyn and TM!

Who gets the proceeds? I won't contribute if it enriches the Wilsons. Unless Tom tells me to.

PeterUK

Apparently a Mr Kim Il Hit Man and a abu Hedhaqr al Tikriti have bought tickets,so it won't be a complete wipe.

Sara (Squiggler)

LIFETIME Series on Outed CIA Agent Plames Out...

Who knew it was ever even in?

Sue

"One need look no further than the recent circumstances and proceedings involving Lewis Libby," he said, a reference to the recent conviction of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff in the CIA leak case.

Unintended consequences of going after Libby. No one will talk again. And I, for one, don't blame them.

azaghal

I linked AJ's comment on Goodling on the other thread:

What
The Plame Game Has Wrought

azaghal

sferris left out Goodling's lawyer's comments:

Monica Goodling, a Justice Department official involved in the firings of federal prosecutors, will refuse to answer questions at upcoming Senate hearings, citing Fifth Amendment protection against self- incrimination, her lawyer said Monday.

“The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real,” said the lawyer, John Dowd.

He said that members of the House and Senate Judiciary committees seem already to have made up their minds that wrongdoing has occurred in the firings.

azaghal

Yeah, I should have bolded:

“The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real,” said the lawyer, John Dowd.

He said that members of the House and Senate Judiciary committees seem already to have made up their minds that wrongdoing has occurred in the firings.

Libby lesson learned.

Davis

This whole story will go away if all Justice employees take the Fifth and the White House employees proceed as planned. There are more important issues to deal with, like a war. Everyone said the Democrats would devote their time to investigations. Just ignore them.

topsecretk9

Harris was unavailable to comment, but according to sources at Lifetime and Fox Television Studios, which was slated to produce the series, the show never got beyond the script stage.

Apparently, it never got beyond a partial script, and, according to a Fox source, the studio was unaware of the Plame connection.

No partisan funny business is suspected, of course. But we’re certain Karl Rove had something to do with it.

Who knew, really? The odd cryptic commenter left many comments alluding to a Lifetime movie - how weird is that?

(I'll see if I can find one)

Sue

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070326/D8O434EO0.html>Linky thing I left off

Gary Maxwell

Gosh I thought it was a good thing to exercise your constitutional rights? What Republicans dont get any rights?

Dalton

Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, a second-termer from metro Atlanta -- seemed awed by the beautiful woman facing him. "If I seem a little nervous," he began, "I've never questioned a spy before."

Hmmmm, maybe we should see a few reports from "other" news organizations before throwing a party. As of today, everything is coming from the far right.

Dalton

Why does Goodling have to take the 5th??

Anybody want to take a wild guess?

Gary Maxwell

OK gosh its a wild guess and only after totally discounted everything her legal counsel said UHH, ummmm well could it be she fears another perjury trap?

Patrick R. Sullivan

'Libby lesson learned.'

And The Martha too. Don't forget the other legacy of the SDNY prosecutors.

Just say 'no', to federal investigators.

MikeS


It's pretty damned obvious that "walking by guy" and "upset underling" would have been asked to give testimony to the SSCI if someone hadn't thrown sand in the committee's eyes.

Dalton

Gary,
"Perjury traps" as you call them...only turn into "convictions" if one is lying.

What is it she doesn't want to say...under oath?

And why don't YOU care???

PeterUK

"Why does Goodling have to take the 5th??

Anybody want to take a wild guess?"

Same reason you swap your cat for a dog if you are interviewed by the Witch Finder General.....and hey,take scuba gear if they throw you in the pond.

PeterUK

Perhaps Mark,because it is a basic principle of Western justice that the accuser should not also be judge and jury.
When did the Soviet Union collapse..or did it just change address?

SunnyDay

The lib's heads are going to explode. They're taking the fifth because they know this is going to be a perjury trap, and a kangaroo committe, hell bent on taking down the administration.

I sure hope this idea catches on. It will shut this one down, then we can see what else they come up with.

It isn't going to stop, but if no one participates, how far can they go?

Davis

The Republicans in Congress should just refuse to take part in any committee hearings that target Adminsitration officials. Then it would be shown to be what it really is - a partisan witch hunt. If anything gets by a one-party committee investigation, it can be be shut down in the House or Senate.

SunnyDay

Davis - absolutely - If Libby had gotten a good criminal lawyer, he wouldn't be in the trouble he's in. Lawyering up might cause a stir, but you don't end up in a perjury trap.

I truly hope our people are not so naive as to take this at face value, and try to be helpful. It is so much nothing it's amazing to see if being pumped the way it is.

They've seen the real outcome of these political witch hunts. If they didn't learn their lesson, they aren't smart enough to be in government and politics.

Dalton

You people are so hypocrital, and as for Petey, soooooo full of himself...it's laughable. (Especially considering Petey spends 12 hours a day right here.)

SUDDENLY...when one of your own is asked to testify...and takes the 5th...it's A-OK...because it MUST be a "trap."

Hey, maybe it's really because Goodling knows if she lies she'll get herself in a jam called "perjury."

Guess you don't remember that Clinton thing, huh?

Davis

Now that having a different recollection than others is a crime (complete with minimum jail sentence), no lawyer will let their client testify in any political investigation.

SunnyDay

Now Waxie wants RNC emails. FNC says he claims administrations officials use RNC email accounts to hide emails where they don't want to leave any record of the email.

They should all just get gmail accounts, hahahaha.

SunnyDay

Exactly Davis. Can you keep a criminal lawyer on retainer? Then no one can say "he lawyered up" because you just always have one. :D

Davis

Federal proecutors should take off the gloves and go after Republican Senators and Representatives, plus state office holders. The first one (after Jefferson) should be Reid.

Enlightened

You mean this Clinton thing?

FROM THE WASHINGTON TIMES: In the portions of President Clinton's Jan. 17 deposition that have been made public in the Paula Jones case, his memory failed him 267 times. This is a list of his answers and how many times he gave each one.

I don't remember - 71
I don't know - 62
I'm not sure - 17
I have no idea - 10
I don't believe so - 9
I don't recall - 8
I don't think so - 8
I don't have any specific recollection - 6
I have no recollection - 4
Not to my knowledge - 4
I just don't remember - 4
I don't believe - 4
I have no specific recollection - 3
I might have - 3
I don't have any recollection of that - 2 I don't have a specific memory - 2
I don't have any memory of that - 2
I just can't say - 2
I have no direct knowledge of that - 2
I don't have any idea - 2
Not that I recall - 2
I don't believe I did - 2
I can't remember - 2
I can't say - 2
I do not remember doing so - 2
Not that I remember - 2
I'm not aware - 1
I honestly don't know - 1
I don't believe that I did - 1
I'm fairly sure - 1
I have no other recollection - 1
I'm not positive - 1
I certainly don't think so - 1
I don't really remember - 1
I would have no way of remembering that - 1
That's what I believe happened - 1
To my knowledge, no - 1
To the best of my knowledge - 1
To the best of my memory - 1
I honestly don't recall - 1
I honestly don't remember - 1
That's all I know - 1
I don't have an independent recollection of that - 1
I don't actually have an independent memory of that - 1
As far as I know - 1
I don't believe I ever did that - 1
That's all I know about that - 1
I'm just not sure - 1
Nothing that I remember - 1
I simply don't know - 1
I would have no idea - 1
I don't know anything about that - 1
I don't have any direct knowledge of that - 1
I just don't know - 1
I really don't know - 1
I can't deny that, I just -- I have no memory of that at all - 1

topsecretk9

--The first one (after Jefferson) --

So, Congress is cool with the Jefferson raid now?

windansea

Former President Clinton requested to testify before House Committee
Mon Mar 26 2007 17:22:23 ET

Washington, D.C. - Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith (R-TX) today asked Former President Bill Clinton if he would be available to testify at the Democrats' Thursday hearing on presidential pardon authority.

"Former President Clinton is no stranger to controversial pardons, most notably the pardon of Marc Rich on his last day in office," stated Ranking Member Smith. "I can think of no better person to address this issue."

At Thursday's hearing of the Judiciary's Crime Subcommittee entitled, "The Appropriate Use of the Presidential Pardoning Power," Democrats are expected to explore what is and is not the appropriate use of pardons, despite a president's plenary power to issue pardons.

President Clinton granted pardons or commuted the sentences of nearly 500 people, including fugitive financier Marc Rich, whose wife donated $450 thousand to the Clinton Library. Other pardons included a person accused of cocaine trafficking and a former Democratic committee chairman indicted on political corruption charges.

The Constitution gives the President the absolute authority to grant clemency, commutation, and remission of fines for offenses. Despite this absolute authority, presidents are not immune from criticism and even congressional attempts to restrict pardon authority.

"Mr. Clinton's exercise of his pardon authority would be of real interest to Members of the Subcommittee," concluded Smith. "I hope he will lend his expertise

Davis

Arlen Specter needs to be removed as Ranking Member of the Judiciary Ctte. and both he and Linsey Graham need to be taken off the committee. Now. They are not team players.

Davis

Lindsey Graham. My apologies fot the typo. Hope you like your new committee assignment.

lurker

I agree, Davis. They are absolutely deplorable! A crisis in the Senate Judiciary Committee!! A crisis in credibility in the Senate Judiciary Committee!! A crisis in management of the Senate Judiciary Committee!!

They bungled their questions, didn't they?

They screwed up on their questions, didn't they?

They're violating the laws of the land!

Dalton

enlightened,
Keep in mind, all of the hilarious answers you post were made under oath.

Why won't the Bushie people do the same?

MikeS


Taking the fifth is ok because it's in the Constitution. It's the fifth amendment to the CONSTITUTION!

Dalton

Monica Goodling's lawyer said "she would not testify because senators have already decided that wrongdoing occurred."

*Unlike the investigations where they DON'T think ANY wrongdoing has occurred...duh.

lurker

Sampson should plead the 5th as well AND the Clinton Recall Amendment.

Davis

Specter, Graham and the RHINO Hagel all failed to back Gonzales on the Sunday morning talk shows, with Hatch being quite supportive. The only one I saw, Lott, did OK. But where were McConnell and Boehner, the top 2 leaders?

lurker

"Clinton's Do Not Recall" amendment.

lurker

Why not email McConnell and Boehner? Perhaps they are running away from the media?

Dalton

MikeS,
I have no problem with anyone taking the fifth, but it certainly raises questions regarding her credibility.

The woman is senior counsel and White House liaison to Secretary General Alberto Gonzales and you would think she would want to clear things up...unless of course what she says hangs Alberto...or lies and risks a perjury charge.

lurker

It doesn't raise questions regarding her credibility.

What this does is raise MORE questions regarding the Senate Judiciary Committee's credibility, honesty, integrity, and morals.

You forgot what Gooding's lawyer said:

"“The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real,” said the lawyer, John Dowd.

He said that members of the House and Senate Judiciary committees seem already to have made up their minds that wrongdoing has occurred in the firings."

Also, azhaghal says, "Libby lesson learned."

And this raises a lot more questions regarding Fitz's credibility!!

Specter

Hey DOLT,

Didya ever answer my question about your analysis of the IIPA requirements on the other thread? If you can't do that, you have no business here - other than pet troll that is....LOL

MikeS


it certainly raises questions regarding her credibility.

It doesn't raise any such question in my mind. It is perfectly obvious that she doesn't trust the committee.

Specter
Monica Goodling's lawyer said "she would not testify because senators have already decided that wrongdoing occurred."

*Unlike the investigations where they DON'T think ANY wrongdoing has occurred...duh.

Posted by: Dalton | March 26, 2007 at 06:54 PM

Or maybe like investigations where the prosecutor knew no crime was committed but continued to spend over $1M in a perjury trap? I know - that's the kind of justice you think is right, huh DOLT?

lurker

Specter, thought the Fitz / Libby case cost at least 10 million - adding the costs of both sides?

PeterUK

"Keep in mind, all of the hilarious answers you post were made under oath."

Are you accusing Clinton of lying that many times Dolton?
BTW
The rest of the hive has retreated and left you on your own,turn the griddle down,go and call the mother ship.

Dalton

MikeS,
Are you actually saying that if someone doesn't "trust" the committee...they shouldn't have to testify??

Are you brain dead?

PeterUK

"Keep in mind, all of the hilarious answers you post were made under oath."

Are you accusing Clinton of lying that many times Dolton?
BTW
The rest of the hive has retreated and left you on your own,turn the griddle down,go and call the mother ship.

Enlightened

Clinton single handedly made a mockery of testifying "under oath".

After Scooter Libby was railroaded everyone should and will take the fifth. It's their right under the Constitution.

Gary Maxwell

It is perfectly obvious that she doesn't trust the committee.

I am sure this is much too quaint a notion for your trolling friend. Who could not trust Pat Leahy, the guy who lost his top security clearance for leaking? Or for that matter Chuckie "the Snake" Schumer who was caught redhanded with tax info on some poor schlub.

This really is too easy, is that all you got Dolton?

ErnestAbe

azaghal, is the lesson to be learned from the Libby conviction that the government should not expect people to tell the truth during investigations?

Or is it just Republican scandals that shouldn't require truthful statements by the people involved?

Let's see, we are talking about investigations by all three branches of government (Congress, Executive/FBI, and Judicial/grand jury) that should not be targetted at Republican scandals.

Dalton

Petey,
Get back to servicing your sheep.

Specter

You are probably right lurker. That's what DOLT wants our tax dollars spent on - as long as it involves a Republican who is to be denied their constitutional rights.

lurker
MikeS, Are you actually saying that if someone doesn't "trust" the committee...they shouldn't have to testify??

Are you brain dead?

I agree with MikeS. He's not brain dead. Clinton's aides did not trust the committees of the 90's and they weren't required to "testify" but take the Clinton Do Not Recall Amendment.


Dalton

Gary,
Your argument is ludicrous.

Unless of course, you think anyone who doesn't trust the committee investigating or is from the other side of the aisle or feels they're being "targeted" for reasons they feel are unfair...just don't have to appear or testify.

But, of course, we ALL know what you really mean; She'd have to lie her ass off and doesn't want to be charged with perjury.

You might as well get used to this...the corruption in this administration runs deep..and things aren't going away.

PeterUK

"Are you actually saying that if someone doesn't "trust" the committee...they shouldn't have to testify??"

That is why you have the fifth amendment you dolt,there in your Constitution.Don't tell me you disagree with the Constitution now.

lurker
PUK, I hope your sheep are just as brilliant as you are.
azaghal, is the lesson to be learned from the Libby conviction that the government should not expect people to tell the truth during investigations?

Nope, they are expected to tell the truth regardless. But the Libby Lesson is teaching them that they should take the "Clinton Do Not Recall Amendment".

Or is it just Republican scandals that shouldn't require truthful statements by the people involved?

There are no scandals in this story. Yes, the American Public deserve the truth in scandals and investigations. The American Public is not interested in selective show trials and hearings. Mac Ranger says that this story is not interesting outside the Beltway.

Let's see, we are talking about investigations by all three branches of government (Congress, Executive/FBI, and Judicial/grand jury) that should not be targetted at Republican scandals.

They should be targeting REAL at real things, regardless of party affiliations.

Mackenzie

A just-aired NBC news interview between Alberto Gonzales and Brian Williams showed the AG in a much better light than he has been portrayed recently. A few more performances like this, and he should be able to withstand the firestorm. Catch it later if you are in the West.

Enlightened

I'll take this administration over the last anytime, anywhere, over and over again.


Clinton Democratic Administration

The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance

*****Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*****

*****Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation*****

- Most number of witnesses to flee country or ((((refuse to testify)))
+
XXXXXX Most number of witnesses to die suddenly XXXXXX

- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

Specter

Hey DOLT,

Would you mind telling us if Clinton firing 93 US Attorneys at the same time was politically motivated? C'mon mastermind - tell us about it. And then tell us how many Congressional investigations were held by the party in charge of Congress at the time. And then tell us how many of Clinton's administrators were hauled in front of those inquiries. I bet you don't have the cajones to answer those questions.

lurker

Another question Dolt will ignore.

azaghal

azaghal, is the lesson to be learned from the Libby conviction that the government should not expect people to tell the truth during investigations?

Or is it just Republican scandals that shouldn't require truthful statements by the people involved?

Let's see, we are talking about investigations by all three branches of government (Congress, Executive/FBI, and Judicial/grand jury) that should not be targetted at Republican scandals.

Posted by: ErnestAbe | March 26, 2007 at 07:14 PM

In a sense, the lesson is in the eye of the beholder in that, if you can't or don't want to see it, it's not there--you learn nothing. That's the problem with knuckleheads like you. You never learn because you don't want to.

MikeS


MikeS, Are you actually saying that if someone doesn't "trust" the committee...they shouldn't have to testify??

I'm actually saying they DON'T have to testify.

Semanticleo

"Oh, by the way, Leo, your spurious additional line feeds give away that you're cut and pasting these things from another source."

You're casting aspersions on my originality?

Go play with your rubber ducky.

Enlightened

Bush & Co just need follow the precedent set by the previous administration when testifying before Congress -

Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court or before Congress said that they didn't remember, didn't know, or something similar.

Bill Kennedy 116
Harold Ickes 148
Ricki Seidman 160
Bruce Lindsey 161
Bill Burton 191
Mark Gearan 221
Mack McLarty 233
Neil Egglseston 250
Hillary Clinton 250
John Podesta 264
Jennifer O'Connor 343
Dwight Holton 348
Patsy Thomasson 420
Jeff Eller 697


So the bottom line is - If Goodling does a turnabout, and says 1000 times UNDER OATH, I don't remember, don't recall, have no independent knowledge of, yadda yadda - then the Committee and the leftard morons have no choice than to end the f--king charade since they DESIGNED IT.

What a bunch of pathetic losers.

Specter

Tic,

Nobody has to cast aspersions when it comes to you. We all know that even with your thesaurus you can't string more than 3 intelligible words in a row. Are you by chance related to DOLT?

Terrye

Dalton:

This is so absurd. I hope they all take the fifth, this is a witch hunt.

And besides, why is it that when Democrats get investigated by someone like a US Attorney for vote fraud, it is a partisan hit job...But when a Democratic Congressman feels the need to harass a Republican the Republican is just supposed to relinquish his or her rights?

This is her Constitutional Right you know, whether you like it or not.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame