Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« It Was Ever Thus | Main | Leadership That's Working! »

June 27, 2007

Comments

SunnyDay

I really get so angry when this happens. TM, why not appoint and assistant to take care of it when you're gone?

Guess I'll go read something else, this is all about, to, or from **chichi**.

Rick Ballard

Poppy,

The Clinton campaign did the US a signal service in raising the issues of Hussein's attendance of a madrassa in his formative years. Did Barak's early exposure to islamic teachings remain with him through his attendance at an exclusive prep school in Hawaii or did his close association with only priviledged children push it to the background?

When Obama made the the decision early in his political career to hop into the vest pocket of a real estate scammer, was the decision based upon precepts learned in the madrassa or at the exclusive private school? Or, as the Clinton campaign has carefully pointed out, is it the result of his relationship with an alcoholic father with very low impulse control?

Perhaps the development of the low character required to sell himself to a scammer was the result of confusion concerning his father (and, of course, the mother who never was actually 'there' for him)?

I'm sure that Clinton will make sure that each possibility is fully examined and when she determines the cause of his lack of character I think that it behooves the electorate to listen to her. Her experience in that area is simply manifest.

cboldt

Docket entries from the CADC to facilitate hiring of a runner or otherwise obtaining the most recent redacted Fitzgerald affidavit or affidavits. The paper number of the replacement redacted affidavit or affidavits is 1050495-1

6/29/07 NOTICE filed by Appellee USA of the filing of Sealed Ex Parte Replacement Copies [1050495-1] .

6/29/07 OPINION filed [1050512] (6 pgs) for the Court PER CURIAM [04-3138, 04-3139, 04-3140] (On Renewed Motion to Unseal of Amici Curiae Dow Jones & Co. and AP) (mcm)

6/29/07 NOTICE filed by Clerks Office, U.S. Court of Appeals [1050519-1]. Substantive changes have been made to the opinion that was previously released on 2/15/05. Some material that was previously redacted in Judge Tatel's concurrence has now bee (sic) included.

cboldt

A more careful read of the docket shows that paper 1050495-1 is just a notice, and isn't necessarily the affidavit or affidavits themselves. Just the same, these three docket entries parallel EXACTLY the docket entries of February 3, 2006 (except for the paper numbers) when the previous publication was made available; and there is no separate docket entry between February 3 and December 20, 2006 announcing the availability of a redacted affidavit.

cboldt

Ooops -- not quite (but ALMOST) exactly the same

2/3/06 NOTICE filed by Appellee USA of the filing of Sealed Ex Parte Replacement Copy. [947231-1]

6/29/07 NOTICE filed by Appellee USA of the filing of Sealed Ex Parte Replacement Copies [1050495-1]

Stobo Blobo

lurker9876-

Stobo, PUK, and others,

I agree. Chch is an idiot for believing everything that (s)he posted. This person is really brainwashed by those left-wing blogs and mainstream media and sees them as "facts" when they are not facts at all.

Time will continue to prove this person and his or her friends wrong.

There is no point in arguing with this person. Ignore him or her.

You are conferring to chch16 things it doesn't possess i.e. personhood and a brain (an object can't be brainwashed if it has no brain to wash, right?) No one here but chch16 itself would deny that it is just a mindless, hopeless, narcisstic, sophistic, obsessive/compulsive, hyperverbose insult machine.

If the people who keep putting quarters into it would ask themselves why they do so until they have a full understanding of their own motives as they should, the madness would end. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened yet.

Stobo Blobo

SunnyDay-

I really get so angry when this happens. TM, why not appoint and assistant to take care of it when you're gone?

Hopefully he'd appoint you!

It wouldn't be hard to have a fair rule like, 'if you show you don't have the discipline to debate without insulting, you'll get a warning, and if that doesn't bring you in line, you'll get banned'. Think where this place would presently be with such a rule in place, without the current lunatic posting! Nice, eh?!

Guess I'll go read something else, this is all about, to, or from **chichi**.

Ain't that the truth! How sad. :(

cboldt

Fox News reports that the CADC has rejected Libby's appeal of being denied bail pending appeal.

lurker9876

I had not made up my mind on how this 3-judge panel would rule but if this is true, then this decision is rather disappointing.

Will Bush do something about it or not? I doubt it.

Did CADC explain why?

clarice

I'm crushed, cboldt. really--

lurker9876

And the left-wing bloggers, including chch, will be cheering for this decision.

cboldt

Lifted from
a post at firedoglake

Upon consideration of the motion for release pending appeal, the opposition thereto, and the reply, it is

ORDERED that the motion for release pending appeal be denied. Appellant has not shown that the appeal raises a substantial question under 18 USC Sec. 3143(b)(1)(B). See United States v. Perholtz, 836 F.2d 554, 555 (D.C.Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (substantial question is one that is "close" or that "could very well be decided the other way").

cboldt

And in response to my "Thanks for the quick posting of the opinion or parts of it," Christy Hardin Smith replied:

cboldt at 101 -- That's the whole of the opinion -- retyped it above from the PDF of the order. It's a one page "NO" from the judges.
cboldt

link to the CADC Order

H/T thenexthurrah, obvious from the URL, but not obvious on reading a text capture here.

Holly

That's it? No explanation? If Libby appeals, not a lot to work with there.

I didn't think I could be more disappointed, but I am.

SunnyDay

Hopefully he'd appoint you!

It wouldn't be hard to have a fair rule like, 'if you show you don't have the discipline to debate without insulting, you'll get a warning, and if that doesn't bring you in line, you'll get banned'. Think where this place would presently be with such a rule in place, without the current lunatic posting! Nice, eh?!

Guess I'll go read something else, this is all about, to, or from **chichi**.

Ain't that the truth! How sad. :(

Posted by: Stobo Blobo | July 02, 2007 at 12:27 PM

************************

I would have to decline, stobo. I run a message board that is quickly approaching 50,000 members. It's like herding cats - not easy. Not even possible without the proper tools. :D

sophy

I do not know how to use the twelvesky Gold ; my friend tells me how to use.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Traffic

Wilson/Plame