Powered by TypePad

« "Randomized Hackery" | Main | Questions For Joe And Valerie »

March 15, 2007

Comments

David Walser

Do you suppose we need to place a full page ad in the NYT or the Washington Post before Mr. Gregory will take notice?

clarice feldman

AP under impression she will still testify tomorrow on an otherwise slow day and that CIA will clear her book for which she claims she has a $1 million dollar advance (ahem)
"The mother of 7-year-old twins, a boy and girl, is putting final touches on a book about her life and the leak of her name, tentatively titled "Fair Game," for which publisher Simon & Schuster paid her an advance of over $1 million.

"She is hopeful she'll be able to get it out soon," Wilson said last week. "She's in discussion with the CIA about it."

Plame submitted the manuscript to the CIA for a mandatory review, which is done to make sure the book tells no government secrets. It was returned to Plame, who left the agency in January 2006, with suggestions.

"We are all awaiting Ms. Wilson's resubmission," CIA spokesman Mark Mansfield said Thursday. "In most cases, we are able to work it out in a way that satisfies everyone's concerns."

Adam Rothberg, a spokesman for Simon & Schuster, on Thursday would say only that the book was "in progress," with publication expected soon.

Plame's story also is headed for the big screen. Warner Bros. is developing a film based on the couple's lives, a screenplay is being written and Plame and her husband are expected to serve as consultants.

Asked who he'd like to play them in the movie, Wilson, who has done most of the couple's talking, joked: "I don't know. I would only ask that Jack Black be cast in a role other than that of Joe Wilson."

The civil case against Bush administration officials also is moving forward, and that will keep both of their names in the headlines — long after their imminent move to New Mexico. Arguments are set for May 17 in U.S. District Court."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/4634678.html

clarice feldman

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/4634678.html>Plame

Sue

If Bush declassifies her employment record revealing she isn't covert, will the scandal then be he declassified her employment record revealing she isn't covert thereby denying her the lucrative deals she would otherwise have been entitled to had Bush not declassified her employment records revealing she isn't covert?

ErnestAbe

I don't think Plame will be able to divert attention from the Rove/Gonzales implosion.

The reports of new emails at ABC news are quite damning, and show that the Karl and Alberto were involved in the firing of the USAs quite early on, in direct contradiction to WH statements and congressional testimony.

Intrade.com contract on Gonzales resignation in March skyrocketed today from .10 to .65!

I think he will be gone tomorrow, on a Friday, of course.

clarice feldman

Roger L. Simon pops Newsweek in the kisser.
http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2007/03/guantanamo_news.php>Newsweek,Gitmomanis and KSM

ErnestAbe

Sue, can you please explain to me why the Bush administration wouldn't declassify Plame's status, if it would in anyway help discredit her or the Libby prosecution?

clarice feldman

Seven hundred and thirteen days since Berger promised to take the polygraph test and hasn't.

ErnestAbe

Clarice and Tom, are there any other shiny objects you can point to that will divert our stare from the big news of the day?

Is this the best we can do...

Seven hundred and thirteen days since Berger promised to take the polygraph test and hasn't.

sylvia

At what time of the day did Gregory supposedly receive his leak and at what time did Russert speak to Libby? Was it in time? And why didn't the defense call Gregory to the stand again, or subpoena his phone records or email records for that day? I don't know, it seems more should have been done by the defense. Wells let off Russert and Co. way too easily.

Obviously Gregory knew something or he wouldn't be hiding. I like the full page ad idea from above.

lurker

I'm guessing that the Team Libby know the mechanics of the jury panel enough to know that they have better chances with the appeals process over a case tried by a jury lead by that Denis Collins. They may be trying to ensure that they have grounds for an appeal so they did not try Gregory.

lurker

Ernest Abe, either you are Jason Leopold or you're one of his sources.

lurker

Time to review what's happened under the Clinton adm. Good job, macranger!!

Maybe the Gonzales story will prove the undoing of Hillary’s hopes for President

royf

Another phony dem and MSM no scandal the news of the day hardly, There are a number of significant stories. I mean the media finally having to state that Al Qaeda was involved along with Iraq intelligence in the 93 World Trade Center bombing. True they will never "connect the dots" but that is what Kahlid Sheikk Mohammad's confession means.

And this story is what you moonbats should be worrying about rather than trying to keep this Administration from doing its job. But hey if you were smart you wouldn't be a liberal.

Election 2008: Giuliani 49% Clinton 41%


March 15, 2007



Republican Rudy Giuliani The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) leading New York Senator Hillary Clinton (D) 49% to 41% in an early Election 2008 match-up. Those figures are close to the lead voters gave the Mayor in our late February poll. Support for both candidates has dipped slightly since then, and Giuliani no longer crests above 50%. But the new numbers are consistent with the arc we've seen since November showing the mayor gradually increasing his advantage.

http://rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Presidential%20Match-Ups/March%202007/Giulianivs.Clinton20070315.htm

Your not polling very well there, and personally I think Fred Thompson would be a stronger challenger than Guiliani.


bubarooni

ernieboy:

New unreleased e-mails...

Two independent sources in a position to know...

On its face, the plan is not improper, inappropriate or even unusual: The president has the right to fire U.S. attorneys at any time, and presidents have done so when they took office...

Good grief! It's ABC. Is this the best you can do...

ErnestAbe

lurker, I followed your link.

Are you saying there should be more investigation of the Clintons? There wasn't enough by all congressional impeachment, by Ken Starr and the many other prosecutors, by Richard Scaife's $2 million private Whitewater investigation?

Are you saying there has been too much investigation and oversight of the Bush administration by the Republican congress and the Republican led Department of Justice?

You don't seem like a very serious person. Maybe you are just being facetious like your ironic name "lurker" who doesn't just lurk.

clarice feldman

Vote now!

http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2007/03/captionology-give-feedback-to-glenn.html>TM

bubarooni

I went with:

'We like pictures of Michael Totten in exotic places, but we really want to see Megan.'

Is she hot?

lurker

No, I'm not saying that at all, ernest abe.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/017041.php - notes on a non-scandal.

I had originally intended to lurk mostly because it was my first foray into a political forum. I have increased my participation but my handle remains the same.

lurker

The Democrats Can't Waste Your Money Fast Enough

SlimGuy

Patterico has a couple of posts on the emails that have been release and judges the content shows a fair case for replacement of the prosecutors.

ErnestAbe

bubarooni,

The ABC report has been DRUDGE endorsed.

BTW, the president does not have the authority to exert improper influence on the prosecution of specific cases.

Even Andrew McCarthy acknowledges at the National Review today that there is not just smoke, but also evidence of real burning fire:

To the extent ousted U.S. attorneys might have been pressured in the handling of particular investigations, that would have been improper, but the only such pressure seems to have come from Capitol Hill, not the White House.

As we make our way through the now proven lies of the Whitehouse's smokescreen, I'll bet you there will be clear evidence of similar fire. But the smokescreen itself is once again an undeniable crime.

Syl

Abe

But the smokescreen itself is once again an undeniable crime.

The smokescreen is politics, not a crime.

The Democrats are just playing this for show, just as their fevered 'attempts' to stop the war and bring our troops home is for show.

After all, they want you to vote for them.

Jane

Talk about diverting attention. The surge is working. It didn't make the front page of any major newspaper, and was barely uttered on TV news.


ErnestAbe

barbarooni,

Let's cut the BS about the firing of the prosecutors being "nothing unusual" in the sixth year of an administration.

Let's simply refer to Kyle Sampson's own email (1/9/06):

…once confirmed by the Senate and appointed,U.S. Attorneys serve for four years and then holdover indefinitely (at the pleasure of the President, of course). In recent memory, during the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, Presidents Reagan and Clinton did not seek to remove and replace the U.S. Attorneys they had appointed whose terms had expired, but instead permitted those U.S. Attorneys to serve indefinitely under the holdover provision.

Arguing that Bush's actions were "nothing unusual" is either just plain ignorant or purposefully deceptive.

ErnestAbe

Syl,

Lying to congress and misleading concress is a crime.

And you know it.

Jane

Abe,

You are clueless. What is it you don't understand about serving at the pleasure of the president?

royf

Its sad in a way and its funny in another way, But really its startling how moronic the liberal moonbats can be.

There is no doubt in my mind if it weren't for the embeds and enablers of the MSM the democratic party would be extinct.

Socialism is their goal and Americans won't vote for that, They would rather protect terrorist murders than American citizens and the politics of personal destruction is their only viable strategy.

clarice feldman

Ernest, could you point to a Statute on that--I seem to be unable to find it.

bubarooni

Well Good Gravy Ernie! Why you holding back on me? That makes all the difference in the world. Why didn't you just say so...

Anyway, I think Gonzales has said he is not happy with the info presented but has no problems with the firings themselves. I guess we will have to see who misremembered what, yet again.

You're gonna get Karl this time, ain't ya?

ErnestAbe

"Pleasure of the president"

Noone denies that the president has the authority to fire a US Attorney. The question is whether he "abused" this power (e.g., to improperly influence specific prosecutions for political advantage) and whether WH officials lied and mislead Congress.

BTW, you might have some fun reading some history about Ken Starr investigating the "abuse of power" in the Travelgate firings, even though nobody denies that the people fired serve at the "pleasure of the president."

lurker

Sandy Berger lied to Congress, for sure and whatever he did was a far more serious crime than whatever Libby was charged.

The title of Andy McCarthy's article implies politics of this non-scandal story. It simply is not a scandal, a molehill that the Democrats are trying to turn into a mountain.

lurker

"Noone denies that the president has the authority to fire a US Attorney. The question is whether he "abused" this power (e.g., to improperly influence specific prosecutions for political advantage) and whether WH officials lied and mislead Congress."

And no one was able to prove to date that Bush abused this power.

Barney Frank

Well, Abe and his ilk may be a lot of things but clueless aint one of them.

They have learned that screaming hissy fits falsely accusing their opponents of 'unprecedented' corruption and coverups may be an effective alternative to actually discussing their unpopular policy ideas in front of voters.
It remains to be seen how long this tactic will work. I suspect it will have worn rather thin by 2008. We'll see. In the interim they seem to have few other options.

lurker

As for IC, special counsel, and special prosecutors, I do NOT want to see new ICs, special counsels, and special prosecutors.

Especially when Comey found a loophole to authorize a runaway special prosecutor without oversight and without authorization.

It doesn't matter with Starr or Fitz.

ErnestAbe

Ernest, could you point to a Statute on that--I seem to be unable to find it. Posted by: clarice feldman | March 15, 2007 at 04:08 PM

Jeez Clarice, I thought you were the lawyer? I'm not a lawyer, but I think it is pretty clear that misleading congress is a crime.

You might want to start by reading this Washington Post article:

Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University, said several statutes involving obstruction of justice and perjury can be applied to cases in which witnesses allegedly mislead lawmakers.

"The law essentially says what you can't do is lead Congress off on the wrong trail or to the wrong conclusion, even if what you say is technically true," Gillers said.

I'm afraid if I keep winning arguments like this, so easily, I might get banned from this site.

BTW, even if misleading Congress were not a crime, do you think it is generally a good thing for our democracy?

royf

BTW, even if misleading Congress were not a crime, do you think it is generally a good thing for our democracy?

What about Congress misleading the American people, I'm much more concerned about that. Especially the democrats in Congress who will gladly sellout the security of the USA to gain political advantage.

Barney Frank

Dumbass Abe,

Here you can read the truth of what happened in Travelgate rather than that wikiwhitewash you linked to.
You seem to be one of those who claims to never defend the Clinton's sleaze just as you begin to, surprise, surprise, defend the Clinton's sleaze.

lurker

Was Sandy Berger a good thing for our democracy?

ErnestAbe

royf,

It is really quite startling how often we hear the "two wrongs make a right" logical fallicy.

-- Whitehouse officials lie under oath, but others lie too.

-- Armitage leaked so it is OK that others did it too.

-- Sure, Bush did X,Y,Z but Clinton did it too.

Do you realize how ridiculous this mode of argumentation sounds? It will not convince anyone except true believers.

clarice feldman

I am aware of cases--rare--where peole were prosecuted for lying under oath to Congress. I successfully appealed one such conviction, but frankly I am unaware of any prosecution for unsworn testimony or misleading testimony.

OTOH if anyone deserved to be prosecuted for lying to Congress, Joe Wilson did. Maybe Plame will follow in his footsteps and this time the Wilson/Plames' will be less fortunate.

bubarooni

EarnestAbe:

Unusual or not, they serve at the executives pleasure.

Let me go out on a limb here, from what I've gleaned while not really paying attention the last few days (i'm trying to setup a linux based mail server for the boss and i'm a windows guy) and taking into account I'm a wee bit fuzzy on the details:

A senator says "Prez, why ain't your guy actively pursuing those dhimmies corruption probe in my district. I'm getting a lot of pressure from my constituents. It's important to my constituents that they know what the heck is going on with those probes before the next election so they can make informed decisions. Tell Karl and Alberto to light a fire under someone's @ss and get this taken care of."

Substitute corruption probe with whatever you want. If the gov't attorney ain't getting it done to the bosses satisfaction and shows no inclination of getting it done, it seems he has the right to fire him. I just don't see the problem here.


Tom Maguire

At what time of the day did Gregory supposedly receive his leak and at what time did Russert speak to Libby? Was it in time?

It's do-able. Gregory-Ari would have been Friday early AM Washington time (Africa is eight hours ahead, IIRC; Dickerson discussed this in his article.)

Russert-Libby was either Thursday night or Friday before Rove left for vacation - Libby knew they were waiting for the Tenet statement (which came Friday late afternoon), thought it might have been Thursday night, but noted that there were not a lot of windows in his office area, so time sort of blurs, and said Friday AM was possible as well.

How there could not be definitive phone records remains as one more mystery.

As to the ABC news break on Rove - did they actually read the email they posted? Rove asked whether the plan was to fire all, some or none of the US Attorneys, and said the answer was not urgent - boy, he knows how to push hard for a plan, right?

How that contradicts the notion that Miers was driving the "sack 'em all" scheme is anyone's guess. But I know ABC can figure it out!

Sara (Squiggler)

But will they put her under oath?

lurker

Armitage did leak Valerie's identity. If Valerie was covert, Fitz would have indicted Armitage.

But Fitz did not, which adds to many reasons why Valerie is not covert.

lurker

I read somewhere that Valerie will not be put under oath.

ErnestAbe

Barney Frank,

How childish. I referenced Travelgate to show that even though the presidents have the general authority to fire people that serve at the "pleasure of the president," that Ken Starr provides evidence that such firings can be investigated if the action represents an "abuse of power."

Instead of name calling, can you say anything intelligent inn response to my argument?

Also, it pains me to write your "name" because it seems to me, and I may be wrong, that you are using in the way that bullies in my high school locker roomm would call vulnerable kids "faggots." I think your use of Barney's name does not intimidate him, but it does make you seem like a bully. That's how it appears to me. Your callimg me a "dumbass" serves as confirmation.

Rick Ballard

"Your callimg me a "dumbass" serves as confirmation."

Every comment you post is a confirmation that you are a dumbass.

Barney Frank just applied the seal of approval to the fact.

ErnestAbe

I'm loving it.

At 4:32, I post a comment about the childish logical fallacy that "two wrongs make a right"

And then, low and behold, Clarice doesn't have a chance to read my comment before she posts at 4:34 that, two wrongs apparently DO make a right:

if anyone deserved to be prosecuted for lying to Congress, Joe Wilson did.

royf

It is really quite startling how often we hear the "two wrongs make a right" logical fallicy.

Look Abe your argument is absurd on its premise, First I've never said what your implying. No matter all the chattering and self rightous indignation you keep spouting You can never come up with a "lie" that President Bush has ever said, you can only take things out of context or spin there meanings. With Clinton we got lies, tons and tons of lies.

My concern is with this country and a enemy we face which is every bit as ruthless and deadly as the Nazi's or Imperial Japan.

I'm concerned that the bureaucracies of the Federal government no longer respond to the elected officals which are elected to set the public policy, a power established in the Constitution.

I'm concerned that the State dept and the CIA are incompetent, and are no longer working in the best interest of the USA. The Military being the only exception, its funny how discipline is instilled by holding people accountable. Something the democrats keep from being done buy selling out to unions.

So basicly I'm concerned about all the things which the democrats dare not address, because if the American people ever find out the truth about their policy positions, they are toast.

lurker

Joe Wilson was proven to be a liar. He deserved to be prosecuted. This doesn't make two wrongs making it right. Joe was wrong and no one's going after him.

lurker

Another example is Williams Jefferson.

How about Senator Jay Rockefeller going overseas a year before the Iraqi invasion?

ErnestAbe

royf, where did I write today that Bush lied? I said that there is clear evidence of the Whitehouse puttng up a smokescreen, and that a cover-up makes me think there is something to coverup.

lurker, Clarice brought up Joe Wilson's lying to Congress in the context of defending the current Whitehouse smokescreen about the US Attorney firings. That's a "two wrongs make a right" argument, plain and simple.

lurker

There is no connection between Joe's lying and the non-scandal of the firings of US attorneys. The democrats were turning this molehill into a mountain. They're wasting time on this one.

Another Bob

ErnestAbe | March 15, 2007 at 04:39 PM

Not that it'll matter to you...

You are aware that Hillary sicced the IRS and FBI on Billy Dale? This in order to provide a political fig leaf for the firings, instead of saying (as the admin. did here) "Please go."

And (IIRC) there are statutes (dating from Nixon?) that govern that sort of action?

Another Bob

Oh, and (burying the lede) it was this abuse of law enforcement that Starr was empowered (by Reno) to investigate.

ErnestAbe

As to the ABC news break on Rove - did they actually read the email they posted? Rove asked whether the plan was to fire all, some or none of the US Attorneys, and said the answer was not urgent - boy, he knows how to push hard for a plan, right?

How that contradicts the notion that Miers was driving the "sack 'em all" scheme is anyone's guess. But I know ABC can figure it out!

Posted by: Tom Maguire | March 15, 2007 at 04:35 PM

We now have the exact text, and an email written by Kyle Sampson, while he was working at the Justice Department, has the subject line "Re: Question from Karl Rove," and the text includes the following:

"15-20 percent of the current U.S. Attorneys," because "80-85 percent, I would guess, are doing a great job, are loyal Bushies, etc."

"[I]f Karl thinks there would be policitical will to do it, then so do I," Sampson concludes.

What were we saying about abuse of power?

This pretty much clears up any question of Karl's involvement and whether the driving motivation was political!

Syl

Ernie

Lying to congress and misleading concress is a crime.

So why aren't you demanding that the Dems be held to account for misleading Congress about the attorneys?


lurker
What were we saying about abuse of power?

This pretty much clears up any question of Karl's involvement and whether the driving motivation was political!

I don't see this as an abuse of power. Sure, why is it a problem for Karl to be involved?

How is this different from Reno firing all 93 US attorneys because those US attorneys were not Clintonistas?

lurker

Syl, he probably wouldn't see that the Democrats were lying between their teeth.

lurker

93 is a much larger number than less than 10, you know. So why are the democrats turning this molehill into a mountain?

maryrose

Earnest Abe:
I am feeling impatient today so I am only going to say this once. If I was in my classroom I would write it on the board. These prosecutors were fired for cause as was stated at the congressional hearings. The President was DISPLEASED with their performance. Since they serve at the Pleasure of the President they were expendable. How come only 6 will testify for Leahy's committee? Where are the other two? Perhaps they live in the REAL world where when your term is up you leave gracefully upon request. At Least they were not escorted out of the building.

Jane

Jeez Clarice, I thought you were the lawyer? I'm not a lawyer, but I think it is pretty clear that misleading congress is a crime.

Well since those claiming they are mislead are as dumb as a post I'm pretty sure it's not actionable.

SunnyDay

Where there's smoke there's a democrat senator blowing it.

hearings hearings hearings
slow bleed
more hearings

If it's Schumer, it's politics.

Jane

I read somewhere that Valerie will not be put under oath.

I hope to God that the minority members of the panel demand that she is put under oath. What a bloody ruse!

lurker

Referring to maryrose's post, one email of Sampson's indicate that those 80 to 85 percents were "Bushies" can be interpreted that those 8 US attorneys were not up to par in performance as per performance definitions. The performance definitions could be set by someone higher up. In this case, there were grounds to fire these 8 US attorneys.

Now I wish that Judge Anne Diggs-Taylor (?) was fied. Unfortunately, she was appointed by Carter.

lurker

**fired**

Syl

Ernie

This pretty much clears up any question of Karl's involvement and whether the driving motivation was political!

Because the ones who weren't fired are 'loyal bushies'?

LOL

And a big So what? to that! LOL

Is there some statute that defines what the 'pleasure' of a president is?

You've got a big fat nothing, Ernie, and only help make the Dems look hysterical and foolish.

Good job!

ErnestAbe

Syl,

The legal document that says that the president cannot abuse his power for political reasons is THE CONSTITUTION.

Sure, if we had a king, he could assert at his pleasure, "off with his head" or "fire the disloyal minions who refuse to show loyalty to my political whims."

But we don't have a monarchy. Sorry, if you didn't know.

ErnestAbe

If the Bush administration was acting legitimately, then why all the lies and smokescreens?

As the ABC News website succinctly states tonight....

"The e-mails directly contradict White House assertions that the notion originated with recently departed White House counsel Harriet Miers and was her idea alone."

Ralph L.

If Ari didn't tell Gregory, why won't Gregory say so? No loss to him.

If Ari did tell Gregory, then Gregory either did or did not tell Russert before the Libby conversations. If he didn't, he only looks sneaky and makes Russert look kinda naive. Big deal, we knew that.

If he did, he makes Russert a perjurer or idiot or both, and himself the world's biggest scumbag for not speaking up before the trial. This is a good reason for remaining silent now.

TM, you're right, he'll try to slide out any of these possibilities.

bubarooni

would those be the unreleased emails as cited by unnamed sources familiar with them? ummmmm... you are talking about ABC ya know?

Ralph L.

E Abe, if you recall Andrew Johnson ignored a (unconstitutional) law the radical Republican Congress passed to prevent him from firing radical Cabinet officers. That was the excuse they used to impeach him.

That is also the Democrats' only constitutional remedy, but of course it would be a crock, because a President can fire his executive branch appointees for any reason he likes, including the basest political motives.

clarice feldman

Ernest Abe--I worry about the future of someone who swallows all this drivel so easily and cannot tell the difference between a sociopath(Clinton) and an honest man (Bush).

Really. Any day I expect you to post a request for help in retrieving your funds from some Nigerian scamster.

SunnyDay

What is Gregory up to these days? Is he no longer covering the WH??

Syl

Ernie

The legal document that says that the president cannot abuse his power for political reasons is THE CONSTITUTION.

The President is ELECTED to head the executive branch. By virtue of his election he is the one who makes and carries out public policy.

Okay so far?

If his policies are not being followed he has the right to dismiss political appointees who are not following his policies and to do this at any time.

So do not be surprised when the attorneys he fired were carried out Democrat policies rather than Republican ones.

And that is political. And that is legal. And that makes this whole kerfuffle a nothing.

Sara (Squiggler)

Earlier today, I had the TV on but I was in the other room. I heard the person being interviewed say that the actual Clinton total over his 8 year term was 123, not just the 93 fired at once. Does anyone know anything about the other 30?

Syl

*****the attorneys he fired were carrying out Democrat policies rather than Republican ones.***

Sara (Squiggler)

What gets lost in the attorney firing story is why Members of Congress were making inquiries in the first place. IT IS THEIR JOB to answer to their constituents. When the people of someone's district or state are complaining that election fraud is being ignored, it is a Congressional/Senatorial duty to follow up. It is called representational government. What is super lost is that it is normally democrats who scream election fraud, but obviously don't want anyone to take too close a look, since they are also the ones that perpetrate the majority of the frauds in the first place.

What are the dems trying to cover up with their hearings smokescreen over fired attorneys. I submit it is the election fraud these attorneys refused to pursue.

Ralph L.

Beware the Ides of March.

Sara (Squiggler)

Here is Mac on the same subject of what is the story behind the other 30?

Who were the other 30 that Clinton fired?

ErnestAbe

Sara, please look at my post at 4:00 in which I quote Kyle Sampson's email ("Clinton did not seek to remove and replace the U.S. Attorneys they had appointed"). I think this is probably a bit more authoritative than Karl Rove's unsupported claim.

MayBee

If Ari didn't tell Gregory, why won't Gregory say so? No loss to him.

Ralphl- it's so odd, isn't it? It's in the court record that Ari told him, and he is saying nothing to deny it.
Maybe Gregory was questioned by the FBI and told to keep quiet about it. Some seem to have taken that warning very seriously.
But he could at least say that!

Sara (Squiggler)

Ernest -- Sampson is part of DOJ and that makes him suspect. I read the email, I don't read it the way you do. And, if you think some no name DOJ flunky is better informed than Rove, more's the pity.

Sara (Squiggler)

Ernest my answer is at 6:07.

hit and run

Ralphl- it's so odd, isn't it? It's in the court record that Ari told him, and he is saying nothing to deny it.

A new David Gregory Mantra:

Where there's smoke there's.....gagging.

lurker
The legal document that says that the president cannot abuse his power for political reasons is THE CONSTITUTION.

In that case, Clinton abused his power for political reasons.

Sara (Squiggler)

Perhaps Ernest would do well to read Powerline

ErnestAbe

Sara,

I don't want to embarrass you, but Sampson is no longer a no-name flunky. He's the now quite-famous chief of staff to the Attorney General of the United States of America. Yupp, he's the guy who supposedly resigned or was fired for withholding info from Alberto, etc., causing Alberto, etc., to lie to Congress.

He was supposed to by the Libbyesque chief of staff fallguy. But it didn't work out that was this week, after the emails emerged.

By the way, Sampson is a very, very loyal Bushie.

BTW2, after being fired for cause, he still serves in the WH, kind of like Michael Brown did, so that the Bushies can continue to control what he says.

BTW3, he was the WH expert on the history of firing the US Attorney's in prior administrations. If you go to TalkingPointMemo.com you can read his email that was released to ABC news, and it gives a short history lesson that will clear up any misinformation Karl Rove spewed in his speech this week.

lurker
barbarooni,

Let's cut the BS about the firing of the prosecutors being "nothing unusual" in the sixth year of an administration.

Let's simply refer to Kyle Sampson's own email (1/9/06):

…once confirmed by the Senate and appointed,U.S. Attorneys serve for four years and then holdover indefinitely (at the pleasure of the President, of course). In recent memory, during the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, Presidents Reagan and Clinton did not seek to remove and replace the U.S. Attorneys they had appointed whose terms had expired, but instead permitted those U.S. Attorneys to serve indefinitely under the holdover provision.

Arguing that Bush's actions were "nothing unusual" is either just plain ignorant or purposefully deceptive.

Which means that Clinton had the authority to fire those US attorneys but decided not to exercise his authority to do to but allowing them to run indefinitely. No difference than what Bush or DoJ did.

lurker

I took a look at talkingpointsmemo.com and that one email. Still don't see a problem. It is still a non-scandal.

Sara (Squiggler)

Ernest -- I realize Sampson is now no longer a no name, but I'll bet you'd never heard of him until this faux scandal got ginned up. That was my point. And, if you read the Powerline piece, you will see that he was advocating many more than the 8 that got fired for cause.

Of course, I understand that you wouldn't want voter fraud investigated, so you are quite content that these USAs weren't doing their jobs.

royf

TalkingPointMemo.com

Does anyone else this is appropo for a moonbat liberal. If its not in the memo the liberals can't discuss it. LOL!

royf

(Find this appropo)

Barney Frank

Posted by: ErnestAbe | March 15, 2007 at 04:39 PM

--Instead of name calling, can you say anything intelligent inn response to my argument?--

What is, a priori, not intelligent about pointing out your fundamental dumbassness? You have demonstrated time and again an inability or unwillingness to recognize intelligent counter arguments when they are presented, so what is the point?
Nor is it childish. It's good common sense in the vein of calling a spade a spade. I'm sorry for you that the shoe fits, but what's a guy gonna do?

--Also, it pains me to write your "name" because it seems to me, and I may be wrong, that you are using in the way that bullies in my high school locker roomm would call vulnerable kids "faggots." I think your use of Barney's name does not intimidate him, but it does make you seem like a bully. That's how it appears to me. Your callimg me a "dumbass" serves as confirmation.--

You seem an overly sensitive soul, Abey my boy. Must come from the importance of being Ernest, eh?
I chose my handle for two reasons;
1.Almost every view I hold is precisely opposite of those good ol' Barney holds and
2.Unlike say, you, I truly respect his intelligence, forthrightness, able advocacy and most importantly his ability to retain a sense of humor during heated debate.
You could profit from being a little more Barney and a little less earnest.

MCL

Ernestabe,

The Sampson email is talking about the "U.S. Attorneys they had appointed whose terms had expired". The attorneys in place when Clinton first took office were not appointed by Clinton. The Sampson email is talking about the attorneys he appointed after firing the 93 from the previous administration. The 4 yr terms of the Clinton appointees were ending at the beginning of Clinton's second term.

Reno requested the resignation of all 93 US attorneys on March 30 93, 11 days after taking office. See Time.com article http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,978161,00.html

sylvia

"How there could not be definitive phone records remains as one more mystery."

Word TM. Another great mystery is what the heck is IIRC. I need to go to A.D.S.*

*(abbreviation definition school)

sylvia

I got it. Instaneous Information Risks Confusion. Or maybe, Irridescent Insolence Removes Cankers.

Larry

IMBWB, seems to me IIRC=If I Recall Correctly

sylvia

"If I Recall Correctly"

Ahh the Rosetta Stone, thanks. More advanced coursework - IMHO and LMAO. That's for my doctorate research. LOL! Now that one I actually know. In fact I'd say there was a fair amount of LOL disease going around, as some can't stop writing it. The people are laughing out loud, uncontrollably. It's almost deafening.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame