Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Leahy Reaps What Fitzgerald Sowed | Main | Turkey In The Straw »

March 27, 2007

Comments

hit and run

Fifth!!!!!!

sylvia

Yes one thing we learned anew in the Libby trial is that trials can resemble the telephone game, and it seems like no one ever remembers an event the same way. So, in light of that, and in light of the fact you can do serious jailtime for having inconsistent testimony with others, the dem legacy for the last few years that they taught us is, don't cooperate with authority. Great.

sylvia

"Leahy's Plan (In Which I Demonstrate My Mastery Of The Obvious Supplemented By Ingenious Late Spin)"

I think that's one of the longest post titles ever!

TMF

"Valerie Plame's newly recovered memories, and wonder whether it can really be the case that Democrats only fret over conflicts in testimony that comes from Republicans. "

How do we know Plame is a democrat?

Her party affiliation has never been officially disclosed has it?

She may well be one of these "life long convervative Republicans" I hear on CSPAN all the time using talking points critical of the administration suspiciously similar to the ones used by Dem operatives on the sunday talk shows.

PeterUK

IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THERE IS A VERY LARGE DEMOCRAT TURD COMING DOWN THE PIKE.THIS IS TO COVER IT UP - COULD IT BE TREASON?

Semanticleo

It's a lousy plan.

Get testimony from members of the Bush
Administration hopin' they'll lie?

It'll never work.

sbw

TMF, Plame said she was a Democrat in the Waxman hearing.

tbrosz

I don't get it. More skilled politicians (I won't name names) have done quite well with the "I don't recall" statement. Pretty much leaves the questioner high and dry.

PeterUK

BTW,Didn't Leahy have his security clearance lifted for outing an agent and getting people killed? Or was tha another Democrat?

lurker

Hillary Clinton.

Bill Clinton.

Libby did use "I don't recall" statements many times during his testimonies.

sylvia

I still can't get over the post title. Look at how messed up the recent comment section looks. Ha ha. Okay, I'm easily amused.

sylvia

Actually, I'm still not sure if the title means TM's mastery of the obvious, or is he channeling Leahy. If TM means himself, I'm still not sure if he is complimenting himself or insulting himself. Hmmmm.

sylvia

"Is there any serious prospect that he will uncover a plot to fire specific US Attorneys in order to obstruct their investigations of corrupt Republicans? "

Yeah, but even if that were true and they did uncover some plot, isn't that still legal? So what's the point of the investigation? If it's just fact finding to see if new rules should be drafted, they should just make it un-under oath. Or not under oats if you will.

Pofarmer

Well, the obvious problem is, no matter which way you go, you give the Dim's opposition. Can't be helped, I suppose. We need to change the subject to policy, but the MSM and the Dims don't want to play along.

Pofarmer

Whoops, opposition should be "ammunition"

sylvia

"I don't get it. More skilled politicians (I won't name names) have done quite well with the "I don't recall" statement."

That's true. That is always an old standby. But you have to do it better than Libby tried to do it if you want to get away with it. That's another lesson we learned from the trial. You can't just say you selectively recall some details and not others. And you can't go overboard, for instance you say you can't remember any darn thing at all about some important things. Best way to do it is remember the vague outlines, but don't go into the minor details of what you don't remember. Thanks to Libby, we all know how it should be done now.

ErnestAbe
Is there any serious prospect that [Leahy] will uncover a plot to fire specific US Attorneys in order to obstruct their investigations of corrupt Republicans? Of course not.

I don't agree with you Tom. Remebember that some 95% of Rove's emails on White House business went through RNC servers, and they are not protected from Waxman subpeonas by any Executive Privilege claim. I believe that the truth about the shananigans INSIDE the White House will come up.

There is some much to cover up, so much fire behind the smoke, that Leahy and Waxman need not settle for any purjury trap. They don't give a sh1t about Monica Goodling being convicted of purgery. They've got much bigger fish to fry.

Jane

Re: changing the subject. Everytime a moonbat opens his mouth he should be asked his plan for winning the war on terror - and that includes moonbats here.

stevesh

*** "I think that's one of the longest post titles ever!" ***
-------------------------------------------------

McMcNultSweeney's Plan (A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story)


hit and run

being convicted of purgery


That's a good one. Purgery. Wish I had thought of that.

sbw

Jane: he should be asked his plan for winning the war on terror

I've written about winning the race for civilization for years. While one might understand how, the difficulty is to make it compelling to those oblivious that their future depends on it.

topsecretk9

BTW,Didn't Leahy have his security clearance lifted for outing an agent and getting people killed? Or was tha another Democrat?

Yep. And Democrats have NO problem with that. Again. As usual, etc. etc.

Rick Ballard

Jane,

They have allied themselves with al Queada, Jane. How much more do they have to do to help the islamists win? They're already pursuing policies which will encourage al Queada to kill American troops and it's difficult to imagine a leftist with the courage to do more than subvert and commit sedition.

For cowards, they are actually doing quite well.

Pofarmer

Jane,

Ask em about their plan for dealing with anything------crickets.

Ask em why out Valerie Plame was a big deal if she really was covert-------crickets.

They ain't into answers, they're into scandal, they're into power. The answer is always the same, the Dims will fix it, never mind the fix. That's why the 08 elections are critical. That's why the voter fraud cases these U.S. attorney's failed to prosecute in at least 2 cases, Washington and MO, are critical.

Wonderland

At the risk of wandering into wingnut twando-land over here, I certainly don't think it's out of the question that Lam was fired to gum of the works, so to speak, in her wide-ranging corruption investigation of high-level GOP politicians.

But forget about Lam. Let's take Iglesias. The evidence strongly indicates that he was fired because he rebuffed the efforts of Wilson and Domenici to speed up his investigation of a Democrat and bring down an indictment prior to the election. By all accounts, he was an otherwise well-regarded and effective prosecutor. He wasn't on the termination list in September 2006; he was on it in November 2006. If he was placed on that termination list at the behest of the White House's political arm --as a result of certain GOP politicians' "disappointment" about his failure to indict before the election -- such an act may not be criminal, but it certainly is unethical. And it certainly is within Congress investigatory purview, and is something Americans ought to know about how the Bush administration runs the Justice Dept.

Sue


That's a good one. Purgery.

Hey. Don't knock it. Purgery is sticky, but sweet...

maryrose

EarnestAbe:
By the time this administration gets done with the likes of Schumer and Leahy they won't be able to fry anything because THEIR FAT will be in the fire!

sylvia

"McMcNultSweeney's Plan (A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story)"

Now THAT's a title. Anything with parenthethese is good. (Man I have no clue how to spell that word. Okay spellcheck did help either. Oh well.)

One thing I'm still wondering about is why weren't there more Republicans in the hearing and why weren't they more aggressive. I suppose they were hiding, as they didn't want to look like they were picking on poor Valerie.

Jane

They ain't into answers, they're into scandal, they're into power.

So here is the $64,000 question: Do we fight fire with fire or do we take the high road. We can see what the high road has gotten us so far(bupkiss), but the fire option could kill the republic.

Personally the Libby trial took me off the high road - perhaps, forever. That is not a position I am proud of, but I'm zealously looking forward to seeing Chuck Schumer, Pat Leahy, Jim Webb, fry. And if I can be of help in that regard, I'm in.

Sue

and is something Americans ought to know about how the Bush administration runs the Justice Dept.

Yawn...

...tell me something, Wonder, what will you guys do when Bush is out of office? Who will the boogey man be then? You certainly have no ideas that the country is willing to embrace.

maryrose

Wonderland:
Get your facts straight. Their was voter fraud and Iglesias did bupkis about it. Also why wasn't he prosecuting Democrats prior to the 06 election? Was he hoping Wilson would lose? Anyway you slice it-he wasn't doing the job he was hired to do -hence he was fired. He can write all the NYT op-eds he wants-he's not going to be re-hired and he looks like a sore loser to boot.

TMF

sbw

A bit of sarcasm

I figured out Plame was a Dem when her husband joined the Kerry campaign and her multiple contributions to dem candidates came to light

hit and run

Hey. Don't knock it. Purgery is sticky, but sweet...


Oh I love it. That's an awesome word for this whole mess. If Purgery isn't a crime, then trap them in Perjury.

BTW, Sue - I made up a phrase just for you. Not sure if you saw it over the weekend.

What do you call it when trolls come in here and by sheer volume of their comments, force the thread from any meaningful discussion?

Speaking Power to Truth.

roanoke

Here's the latest from Byron York at the Corner-NRO-

"Now, Waxman has made a request of his own. Citing "concerns that a Senate Intelligence Committee report may be inaccurate," Waxman has written a letter to CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden asking for "documents that may bear on the accuracy of information previously provided to Congress regarding Ms. Wilson." Specifically, Waxman wants a memo said to have been written by a Counterproliferation Division reports officer who, according to Valerie Plame Wilson's account, claimed that information he gave to Senate investigators was "twisted and distorted" by the Senate Intelligence Committee in its final, bipartisan report. (Bond told NRO he stands by the report's conclusions.)

Waxman appears to have no questions about the accuracy of Valerie Plame Wilson's testimony, instead arguing that her testimony "raises concerns about the accuracy of the Senate report." But he is also requesting copies of "any other records containing information concerning Ms. Wilson's role in Ambassador Wilson's February 2002 trip to Niger." That would certainly include Mrs. Wilson's February 12 memo and perhaps other evidence we don't know about. Here's hoping the CIA provides the documents, and that Waxman asks the Senate for the transcript of Mrs. Wilson's interview, and that he makes it all public."

Sue

Speaking Power to Truth.

::grin::

Wonderland

Maryrose,

My facts are straight. Check out the story in Iglesias' own words, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/21/opinion/21iglesias.html. (Sorry about no embed.) His job was not to ensure Wilson's victory. It was to enforce the law neutrally. You can't simply say that "there was voter fraud and Iglesias did bupkis about it" without using actual facts to construct an argument to rebut Iglesias' cogent case in his own defense. If you have such an argument, let's hear it.

sbw

Ah, Jane. The Democratic approach. Moral relativism. The end justifies the means. From A Man for All Seasons:

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

Patrick R. Sullivan

'How do we know Plame is a democrat?'

Her Covertiness testified under oath she was. So, we don't know what the truth is.

Jane

sbw,

I completely agree, but unless we get better at it, it's time to fold up our tents. You can't win against complete corruption.

TMF

So Waxman thinks the bipartisan senate report is a lie?

Do we get to put the Dem committee members on the stand as well?

lurker

Somehow that's not so surprising. Guess Waxman's trying to "set the record" in time for May 17th.

Appalled Moderate

OK, gang. Why can't Bushco, since they have been so publically put on the griddle, have a case by case explanation on why they asked for the resignation of each attorney.

For eaxample, why are they unable to say: "I'm glad you asked me that Senator. With respect to ____, we asked for his resignation because he simply failed to investigate voter fraud matters. As a matter of policy, we believe ----...

As for candidate b, we were certainly aware of the prosecutions of x, y and z. These woere worthy prosecutions. But, frankly, we were unhappy with a failure to place any resoureces into the many illegal immigration rings in x. This is, indeed, a change in our focus. We admit it. But it was a change in focus demanded by...

The thing about Bush is that he refuses to have a policy debate about any of his moves. Which allows others to assert what his motives really are.

If I'm Leahy, I'd keep pressing. Nobody has given me a reason to believe I'd be hurting myself if I did not continue pressing. Nobody has given me a reason for what happened. That leaves me free to substitue my own opinions.

Firing people is not criminal. So, if pressed, why not be fully open?

(That said, McNulty was an idiot. He gave the attorneys a reason to rfuse to go silently, by casting aspersions on them in public. )

lurker

And here's hoping that the CIA document will include Plame's status at the time Novak's article was published.

Larry

"...say you can't remember any darn thing at all about some important things."
Posted by: sylvia | March 27, 2007 at 10:57 AM Judy Miller got away with it.

Purgery--Do you commit it with a laxative?

roanoke

TMF-

Ya in Liberal Land the only ones with the TRUTH are Valerie and Hollywood Elites.

All the world's a stage-they're the only ones "keepin' it real."

Twin Towers and the Brits getting kidnapped-well hell that's the evil Republican cabal.

Didn't you know they are the world's greatest set designers?

lurker
OK, gang. Why can't Bushco, since they have been so publically put on the griddle, have a case by case explanation on why they asked for the resignation of each attorney.

Even if they did present reasons to Leahy and Schumer, we *KNOW* that Leahy and Schumer will say that there's something illegal in those firings, "A Crisis of Management", "A Crisis of Credibility", "A Crisis of Integrity", and so on.

They will find something from nothing (non-scandal). And you know it.

lurker

Dave Iglesias

maryrose

The Bush administration has already stated publicly why they were removed. No one wants to hear it. Illegals and kids under 18 were registered to vote by Acorn-Wonderland and Iglesias couldn't be bothered. I don't believe his spin city article in the NY Times. We will have to agree to disagree. President Bush or Gonzales DO NOT HAVE TO JUSTIFY these firings to anyone. As For Lam Feinstein had her own problems with her. Partisan politics -pure and simple.

Patrick R. Sullivan

'So Waxman thinks the bipartisan senate report is a lie?'

In his Senate floor speech in July 2004, Kit Bond pointed out just how thoroughly the CIA had reviewed everything that had been presented to the SSCI. In that review no one said anything like what Valerie testified to before Waxman.

And, Brad DeLong demonstrates his ability to believe anything as long as he gets to slam Republicans:

'Monica Goodling is not refusing to testify on the grounds that she believes that the committee will not treat her fairly.

'Monica Goodling is refusing to testify on the grounds that testifying may incriminate her.'

sbw

Jane: You can't win against complete corruption.

Sir Thomas More: God made the angels to show Him splendour, as He made animals for innocence and plants for their simplicity.
But Man He made to serve Him wittily, in the tangle of his mind. If He suffers us to come to such a case that there is no escaping, then we may stand to our tackle as best we can, and, yes, Meg, then we can clamour like champions, if we have the spittle for it. And no doubt it delights God to see spendour where He only looked for complexity.

Wonderland

Maryrose,

You don't have to personally believe Iglesias. But you can't argue that it's "partisan politics" when a Republican prosecutor himself says that he was fired for improper reasons. And the fact of the matter is that Bush and Gonzales do, in fact, have to justify these firings. Congress created the DOJ, and the position of US Attorney. Congress also gave the President the power to fire attorneys. So if Congress inquires to see how the department and statutory scheme they set up is working, they are entitled to answers.

Patrick R. Sullivan

From the Bond Senate floor speech:

'...we sent this whole report to the CIA. They fact-checked the whole thing. We even set out the facts that she recommended sending her husband. The CIA commented on almost everything that we had in the report. It was a lengthy report. It took them a long time. Not one comment, not one change, in the findings in our report that she was the one who recommended him to go.'

Appalled Moderate

lurker:

Leahy is as about as disingenuous a senator as lurks (sorry) on the senate floor. He's a partisan pretending to be a non-partisan. He's been doing it for years.

Nevertheless, the Bushies have been caught without a coherent explanation for what they did. Which gives Leahy the chance to impute endlessly impure motives.

The Bush administration's deathly fear of a fair fight will be its undoing.

lurker

HHHmmm...interesting post from cathyf.

Her long post in the other thread says that her search showed that all 8 US attorneys left when their terms were expired.

lurker

WH will never get a fair fight from Leahy. I agree that Leahy is disengenuous. period.

Rick Ballard

SBW,

Yeats rough beast was unknown to More. Now that the beast has taken up residence in the US Senate, More's cautious advisory may not pertain. Nietzsche moves in a mysterious way, his wonders to perform.

Appalled Moderate

lurker:

Bush and his surrogates can make statements out of Leahy's play pen.

lurker

So? So can you, Appalled Moderate.

And they have every right to NOT make statements.

Appalled Moderate

lurker:

This fight has been begun, whether the WH wants it to be or not. They can either step into the ring and duke it out, or cower in the corner, and let the Democrats on the committee get all the air time about what they want Republican moties to have beem.

Bush and his administration have a natural right to be dumber than a tree stump. It isn't in their interest to be that way.

PeterUK

The troll may indeed be,
"Speaking Power to truth"

but many of them are also committing purgative.

Thanks for confirming this,


BTW,Didn't Leahy have his security clearance lifted for outing an agent and getting people killed? Or was tha another Democrat?

Yep. And Democrats have NO problem with that. Again. As usual, etc. etc.

lurker

They would be better off to keep quiet, push back, and stand up to them. It is in their best interest to be this way.

Yes, the fight has begun and the WH still has every right to NOT make any statements.

Appalled Moderate

lurker:

If there are any more e-mail drops coming, Bush people actually need to flood the zone. If not, I still doubt the story will go away. There is Gonzales upcoming testimony and there is whatever legal proceedings there will be associated with enforcing the subpoena.

bio mom

The NY Times editorial page today called for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the prosecutor firings. Right on cue.

lurker

Appalled Moderates, let them go to the court. So far, they're creating mountains out of those molehill emails. They've been twisting words and selectively pick words to fit their stories and defense.

We can see through them but you cannot. So let them and I hope to see that the White House will push back and stand up to the Democratic Congress for their false actions.

Ranger

http://www.isthatlegal.org/archives/2007/03/monica_goodling.html> This pretty much sums it up. Too bad most people forget the basics of Civil Liberties when politics gets involved.

Key part:

It is important to remember that "a witness innocent of wrongdoing may well refuse to answer a question not because he fears conviction, but because he fears unfounded prosecution, a risk which every one runs at all times, theoretically at least." (Lewis Mayers, Shall We Amend the Fifth Amendment? 4 (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1959).)

PeterUK

"This fight has been begun, whether the WH wants it to be or not. They can either step into the ring and duke it out, or cower in the corner, and let the Democrats on the committee get all the air time about what they want Republican moties to have beem."

Or they can concentrate on,Iran,Iraq,Syria,Lebanon,North Korea,Immigration,Social Security,al Qaeda,or the naked lust for power.But hey,that won't be worth a gnat's fart in a hurricane if the other things go shit shaped.Anyone who thinks that bringing down the Bush administration won't provide a blueprint for others is an utter bloody fool.

lurker

bio mom, then we'll expect a letter from Schumer demanding Gonzales to appoint a special prosecutor.

Ha!

Ranger

Forgot to mention, via Instapundit.

hit and run

Will the special prosecutor be Lam or Iglesias?

lurker

Ha!

Maybe Gonzales should appoint Clarice Feldman!!

She would be an excellent choice.

TMF

So wackoff nostrill thinks the BIpartisan intel report contained lies?

Were only the GOP memebers lying about what pLAME said or both parties?

Will they subpoena the dim members as well?

creepy dude

Don't forget there was a Republican written only part of that report, TMF!

Lew Clark

More inaccurate MSM reporting. Goodling did not say she would take advantage of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution to not testify. She said she was pissed because H&R took her fifth and she won't be able to take a shot to calm her nerves before she testifies.

azaghal

TM, I won't acknowledge your mastery of the obvious until you include the Republican counter strategy.

I suspect rope a dope.

creepy dude

Specifically, "In the first "additional view" attached to the report, Chairmain Pat Roberts (R-KS), joined by Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Christopher Bond (R-MO), presents two conclusions that Democratic members of the Committee were unwilling to include in the report, even though, according to Roberts, "there was no dispute with the underlying facts." (Wikipedia).

Ha Ha. Waxman's going to show what a lying POS Roberts is.

Jane

sbw,

You are such an optimist!

Pofarmer

So here is the $64,000 question: Do we fight fire with fire or do we take the high road.

The high road is of little use if it puts you in jail.

creepy dude

Rope-a-Dope!!!! Ha! Thanks for a laugh. I thought that term was long buried.

Just what has Bush ever roped-a-doped on? He got tax cuts through a Republican Congress? Bonechilling.

Seriously-what is Bush's major legislative accomplishment in 6 years?

TimS

... so now the reason for my earlier questions about the Fifth Admendment become a little clearer.

Is it an absolute right? Can you use it for no reason other than "fear of a perjury prosecution" which seems to me a good reason. Some would say that you can't use it unless you have already committed a crime. I say that you can use it so you do not commit a crime whether real or imagined in someone's eyes.

My next step would be to preface any statement while testifying with:

"I can't speak definitely or dinfinitively as to that question so if you wish I will take a guess at it..."

lurker

Thought the part about Plame was in the BIpartisan portion of SSCI? Not so much in the Republican only portion?

Bush introduced several major legislative accomplishments in 6 years.

lurker
He got tax cuts through a Republican Congress? Bonechilling.

Are you saying that you did not want tax cuts?

topsecretk9

McNulty - dirtbag -

In Defense of Monica Goodling - Tuesday, March 27, 2007 @ 9:01:42 AM We've been knee deep in the ugliness over at the Department of Justice for the past several weeks and a few things have emerged:

1. Some of the greatest mistakes this Administration made were the nominations of former U.S. Attorneys James Comey and Paul McNulty to serve as Deputy Attorneys General. Comey begat us Pat "The Inquisitor" Fitzgerald. McNulty was pivotal to the firings of eight Bush Administration-appointed U.S. Attorneys, but is trying to avoid the blame by, apparently, blaming others.

2. One person emerges from this sordid little story of back-biting and betrayal as clean: Monica Goodling, a senior counsel to the Attorney General and the White House liason at DOJ.

From what we hear, Goodling can be intense and focused, but she is more than highly competent, scrupulous in her approach to her jobs, intensely loyal to the Bush Administration, and the last person who would involve herself in something this messy. Yet she has become central to this Democrat show trial, and has been forced to take the 5th, not because of anything wrong, but to avoid having her honest testimony tainted by others.

"She was probably the most ethical person I dealt with at the department," says a former Justice media staffer. "She was actually a pain in the [rear] when it came to what she expected of all of us. We're talking about a person who wouldn't let junior people ride in a government car if it wasn't entirely appropriate and done by the books. Meticulous doesn't describe her properly."

From the email that's been released by Congress and DOJ, Goodling appears to be guilty of nothing more than doing her job. Initially, her role appears to be that of trying to find a temporary slot for the prospective Arkansas U.S. Attorney designate, because he was in-between a job at the White House upon returning from this military service. That's what a White House liason does. Finds work for people the White House has decided to hire for the Administration.

She did participate in the meetings related to the firings of the U.S. Attorneys, but her role appear to be limited to her job as White House liason. Again, doing her job. At other points, in the email traffic, she appears to be working as a traffic cop, trying to make sure everyone who should be involved in what is a serious process, is involved. This includes McNulty, his chief of staff, various folks in the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys and elsewhere. Again, it appears she was doing what she was supposed to be doing.

So why is she being treated like a second-rate burglar from another era? Because the Democrats can do it, now that they control Congress. And because when you get right down to it, they aren't nice people, and apparently Goodling is.

At some point, the persons who put Goodling in this mess has to pay. But who is going to make that happen? Attorney General Gonzales would earn some points by making sure those beneath him responsible for this mess - and the pain being inflicted unnecessarily on Goodling - were hung out to dry as they have done with others.

Posted By: The Washington Prowler

Sounds like he's going to get screwed afterall - that's what you get when you try to screw people and run to Schumer - she's not going to be a "Lauren Weiner" for Chuck and Paul

http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp?BlogID=6068

Tom Maguire

LOL.

Pofarmer

The thing about Bush is that he refuses to have a policy debate about any of his moves. Which allows others to assert what his motives really are.

You think think the Dimocrats are wanting to debate policy?

Point me to some Dimocrat policy initiatives, please.

TMF

creep

"there was no dispute with the underlying facts."

If there was no dispute as to the underlying facts, then Roberts didnt lie. Whether the dems supported the conclusions or not.

Hope will no doubt continue spring eternal in your liberal little chest cavity, no doubt

TMF

creep

The Dems had equal access to pLAMEs prior testimony and her email recommendation of Joe. They could have disagreed with the facts as stated in the report, and chose not to.

Ergo, Wackoff will not be frogmarching Roberts or anyone else who sat on the BI partisan committee that concluded unequivocally that Vally Girl recommended her husband for the Niger trip

which she now miraculously remembers she didnt do nosiree it was walking by guy.

Larry

"Leahy is as about as disingenuous a senator as lurks..."
Posted by: Appalled Moderate | March 27, 2007 at 12:29 PM Or as Lurch, too.

He got tax cuts through a Republican Congress? Bonechilling. Seriously-what is Bush's major legislative accomplishment in 6 years?
Posted by: creepy dude | March 27, 2007 at 01:26 PM We couldn't make stuff up as good as this.

sbw

Rick: More's cautious advisory may not pertain.
1) Committing suicide is no way to stop a murder.
2) Winning at all costs isn't winning. It is a retreat to the law of the jungle.

Rick: Nietzsche moves in a mysterious way, his wonders to perform.
Neitzsche quote: "Convictions are a greater threat to truth than lies."

Jane:You are such an optimist!
Heh. Not at all. A realist. The only way to win is not to play the game.

crazy

As long as Shumer keeps acting as prosecutor and the Judiciary Committee as a Grand Jury this is probably only the first of several officials who will be using the Fleischer precedent.

If Fitz's fans didn't have a problem with his use of blanket immunity for Fleischer why is everybody huffing and puffing about Goodling? Is it because they expect the official her testimony will hurt is McNulty and not Gonzo, Rove, or Bush?

Jane

The only way to win is not to play the game.

How are we doing so far?

Rick Ballard

"1) Committing suicide is no way to stop a murder."

More certainly proved that to be true. All in one day. He did make a nice martyr though.


"2) Winning at all costs isn't winning. It is a retreat to the law of the jungle."

DC is the jungle. It may be pleasant to pretend otherwise but it is also utopian.

When the ooposition party passes legislation that pleases al Queada rather than protects American lives then "winning" becomes paramount.

hit and run

Lew Clark:
Goodling did not say she would take advantage of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution to not testify. She said she was pissed because H&R took her fifth and she won't be able to take a shot to calm her nerves before she testifies.

Well, if she's gonna testify - forget taking a shot.....my advice is to dink the whole fifth!

mshyde: Remember, what goes round comes round.

The fifth will be more widely used in
investigations


That's always been my practice.

I get liquored up with [a] fifth of bourbon before appearing in front of a grand jury.

I've yet to be indicted.

Posted by: hit and run | March 07, 2007 at 06:43 PM


And I didn't take her fifth! Well, not against her will anyway.

topsecretk9

Is it because they expect the official her testimony will hurt is McNulty and not Gonzo, Rove, or Bush?

Pretty much.

PeterUK

"Leahy Leahy, oh no
You gotta go
Outing a spy, I said
Leahy Leahy, oh baby
You gotta go".

Semanticleo


From today's WaPo

"GOP Groups Told to Keep Bush Officials' E-Mails
Democrat Cites Investigation of Firings

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 27, 2007; Page A03

A Democratic House committee chairman yesterday told the Republican National Committee and the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign to retain copies of all e-mails sent or received by White House officials using e-mail accounts under their control, raising the political stakes in the congressional inquiry into U.S. attorneys' firings.

(snip)

The request by a Democratic lawmaker for access to records kept by a rival party's campaign offices has a precedent: In the mid-1990s, when the same committee was under Republican control and investigating alleged campaign finance abuses by the Clinton White House, it demanded and obtained hundreds of pages of Democratic campaign records and communications.

"This is a classic congressional document-preservation warning," said University of Baltimore law professor Charles Tiefer, a former deputy and acting counsel to the House from 1984 to 1995. He said failure to comply could expose the groups to possible obstruction charges.

Yesterday's request was based, Waxman said, on at least three White House officials' use of Republican Party-affiliated e-mail accounts for some of their work in recent years, as well as on reports that Rove routinely uses his RNC e-mail account for business.

Waxman noted for example that J. Scott Jennings, the White House deputy director of political affairs, used a "gwb43.com" e-mail account last August to discuss the replacement of the U.S. attorney for Arkansas, Bud Cummins, according to e-mails released to Congress by the White House.

Barry Jackson, a deputy to Rove, in 2003 used a "georgewbush.com" e-mail account to consult with Neil G. Volz, then an aide to lobbyist JACK ABRAMOFF, about nominating one of Abramoff's Indian tribe clients for a Medal of Freedom, according to a copy of an e-mail. Abramoff is now serving a prison sentence for bank fraud, and Volz plead guilty to conspiracy charges last year."

Testing----Sarbanes/Oxley----testing.

Semanticleo

When it's completely unraveled, will you folks
still be spinnin' wool?

PeterUK

"When it's completely unraveled, will you folks
still be spinnin' wool?"

We can always extract some from your mind Septic.

Enlightened

I know, let's haul Sandy Bergler up before Congress, under oath, and ask him his thoughts onproper document preservation.

DrSteve

Meanwhile the Democrats are eliminating the earmark-tallying function the CRS used to play, in favor of reporting by the appropriations committees themselves, and the trolls here are no doubt fine with that:

Obey: "The fact is, that an earmark is something that is requested by an individual member. This item was not requested by any individual member. It was put in the bill by me!"

It's a New Direction, people!

PeterUK

This is the way to treat them

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame