Liar, Liar, Skirt On Fire?

Byron York reports that Questions Have Been Raised about Ms. Plame's recent testimony at the friendly Waxman hearing:

...[Rep. Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia] wants to know more. In a letter to committee chairman Rep. Henry Waxman Friday, he submitted more questions for Mrs. Wilson and requested that Waxman ask the Senate Intelligence Committee for information that could shed light on issues left unresolved after her testimony.

As part of its investigation into pre-war intelligence, the Senate committee interviewed Mrs. Wilson, as well as some of her colleagues at the CIA. The committee also reviewed CIA documents about the Niger uranium affair. In his letter, Westmoreland asked Waxman to ask the Senate committee for the full text of Mrs. Wilson’s interview with Senate investigators. Westmoreland also asked for the “full text of Ms. Plame’s February 12, 2002 email/memo to her boss regarding sending her husband, Joseph Wilson, to Niger.”

Westmoreland is attempting to learn more about the origin of Joseph Wilson’s trip — a question that was perhaps less clear after Valerie Plame Wilson’s testimony than before.

...[Ms. Plame's] testimony seemed to offer new insight into the beginnings of the Niger mission. But soon after Mrs. Wilson’s appearance, Missouri Republican Sen. Christopher Bond, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told National Review Online that Mrs. Wilson, in her interview with Senate investigators, never mentioned the young junior officer, the call from the vice president’s office, or the passing CIA official who suggested Joseph Wilson’s name.

“Friday [March 16] was the first time we have ever heard that story,” Sen. Bond said in a statement. “Obviously if we had, we would have included it in the report. If Ms. Wilson’s memory of events has improved and she would now like to change her testimony, I’m sure the committee staff would be happy to re-interview her.”

Someone is pushing this because I see a similar story in The Examiner, which we will cautiously describe as a rightward leaning news outlet.

Well, Ms. Plame's memory has improved since Sen. Bond spoke on the floor of the Senate in July 2004, following the release of the Senate Intelligence Committee report which was so critical of Joe Wilson (p. 3 of 5 page .pdf):

I had staff go back and see what she said when asked about this issue [of her role in Joe's trip]. Her quote was:

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

But now she remembers Walking By Guy and is sure of her non-role.  Why do the rest of us fear aging when clearly memory improves with time?

Let me recycle this post from the day of the hearing when I noted that Ms. Plame's claim of non-involvement conflict with the trial testimony of senior CIA officer Robert Grenier, as well as point 7 of Fitzgerald's indictment of Libby (which was based on Grenier's grand jury testimony).

So what happens next?  From Mr. York:

The question now is whether chairman Waxman will be inclined to do anything about Westmoreland’s request. Other than place it into the official record of the hearing, he doesn’t have to do anything.

Ms. Plame has nothing to worry about - If Waxman stands with her, who will stand against her?  I noted last week the benefits to her of testifying before a madly sympathetic chairman who would never vex her with allegations of perjury.

My guess - this topic essentially dies for now, but chess-playing Republicans will cite Waxman's blatant and selective truth-seeking as a reason to obstruct other probes.  So in that sense, Joe and Val will continue to diminish their supporters amongst the Democrats.

ERRATA:  Please - the post has the Matt Cooper Tribute Question Mark - no one is calling Ms. Plame a liar.

Byron York also had an earlier article reprising the issue of Ms. Plame's covert status, which we are now calling her "covertiness".  And I endorse the suggestion that in further tribute to Stephen Colbert, when describing Ms. Plame as a "covert" agent we should pronounce that "coh-vair"?

And we are thinking Patrick Sullivan for the Bond floor statement from 2004; a paragraph was inserted to include that.

Comments

[Dalton]

Petey,
I would assume most everyone here understands why we have the fifth amendment, but thanks once again, for doing your best to make everybody believe you're brilliant.

The point is not whether she can take the fifth, it's using such an inane rationale; "because senators have already decided that wrongdoing occurred."

Well, duh...no kidding??

Petey...if they didn't think "wrongdoing occurred," why would they be asking anything at all? And if she isn't involved in the "wrongdoing," why not just testify truthfully to what she knows? (There are plenty of Republicans there to protect her rights.)

*By the way, are you and lurker seeing each other on the side? I'd be careful; Sara says those sheep can be pretty ornery if they catch you stepping out.

[PeterUK]

What is interesting about the Tom/Dalton/Spartacus/markg8 entity is when one identity is trashed a new one with the same arguments appears,the definition of insanity,repeating the same thing and expecting different results. This berks have the learning curve of a dodo.

[Specter]

PeterUK,

You really think this is Markg8? I thought he up and gave up after being trashed so much at other blogs.

DOLT,

WHY DON"T YOU ANSWER MY QUESTIONS? No cajones, logic, or rational thought is my opinion of you. What a loser.

[azaghal]

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.

Posted by: MikeS | March 26, 2007 at 07:28 PM

LOL!

Where DO these people come from?

[Specter]

"because senators have already decided that wrongdoing occurred."

Well, duh...no kidding??

That's my point DOLT. If firing 8 people who work for you is such a bad thing, why didn't you up and scream like hell when Clinton fired all 93 US Attorneys at the same time. Oh - I'm sorry - that was probably while you were still in diapers right? Otherwise defend why it was right for Clinton to do it and not Bush. Can you? I think not!

[PeterUK]

"The point is not whether she can take the fifth, it's using such an inane rationale; "because senators have already decided that wrongdoing occurred.""

No Dolton,it is like crossing the road,if you decide a deranged man in an ice cream van is likely to run you over,you stay on the sidewalk.

[Semanticleo]

"you can't string more than 3 intelligible words in a row. Are you by chance related to DOLT?"

Coming from a maroon who hasn't visited his own blog since 2006.

Macaroon.

[Dalton]

Okay, since everybody appears to think this is some kind of "witch hunt" or a "show trial" or just a plain screw-job.

Please explain how 3 of the 8 U.S. Attorney who were fired...were also rated in the top 10 for "successful prosecutions" of the 93 in America??

Does this sound like the kind of people, during the WAR ON TERROR, we should be firing??

This is not going away and will prove to be just one more nail in the coffin of an inept administration that apparently feels it can do damn near anything it wants, with little or any oversight.

I can understand political leanings, but I find it hard to believe most of the people here really believe these people (all Republicans by the way) should have been treated in such a manner.

[Specter]

And where is your blog Tic? BTW - I visit it quite often. I just haven't posted in a long time. Still doesn't explain your lack of intelligence.

[Enlightened]

Dolt - You have been given specific names of members of the previous administration that went under oath and repeatedly said they could not recall, didn't know, can't remember, etc.

If Goodling testifies, and instead of taking the fifth and says the EXACT SAME thing - how do you support your claim that this administration is more corrupt than the previous when their record is NOT EVEN CLOSE.

If she does say the above statements (I don't know, I don't recall, no independent verification etc), under oath, mimicing the procedures taken by the previous administration, you will then concur she has nothing to hide?

[Specter]

C'mon DOLT,

Why were the Prosecutors who Clinton fired investigation Rostenkowski and White Water? You see - you can't answer rationally. Why was it OK for Clinton to fire 93 and not for Bush to fire 8? Speak DOLT, speak. (See DOLT run. See DOLT run away from answering hard questions.)

[Enlightened]

Answer the questions presented -

[Semanticleo]

"I just haven't posted in a long time."

Based on your traffic, I presume. Understandable with the intelligence
displayed by your comments here.

[Specter]

I think DOLT turned 18 this year and is attending Stanford. Or maybe he is a Ward Churchill succubus.

[Enlightened]

Or Cleo's spawn, as far as apprent intelligence

[Semanticleo]

Dalton;

Don't waste time with cretin A.) and Doofus B.)

[Gary Maxwell]

Get used to it Dolt. Republicnas aren't goping to play your stupid little games. And your chances of capturing the WH with the miseable three is about as good as the Texas Rangers is of winning the pennant. There is always hope in the preseason but ya aint got any pitching. Beyond politics what are you bitching about anyway? Your majority has passed exactly one thing. A minimum wage hike. And Burger King already hads you above it anyway didn't they?

[Terrye]

Specter:

Oh.... but Clinton fired them at the right time. You see this is how it works: if Bush had fired all 8 of these people a year or so sooner along with 80 or 90 other people everything would have been ok fine. The Democrats would not have had a problem. {you betcha}

The bad, horrid, evil, wicked, creepy thing they did was firing them after the Senate said that Bush could replace US Attorneys without Senate approval. I know, I know, you might say that if the Senate did not want Bush to have that kind of authority...why give it to him?...but that would screw up the whole evil plot theory that they have crafted so carefully and then whatever would they have to feel morally outraged about?

I myself wonder what took them so long, after all the critics could have said something at the time if it was really such a big deal.

But I think they were saving it for the Circus of the Investigations.

Now this silly woman has refused to play the game. And that pisses them off.

[Specter]

Where's your blog Tic? You still haven't answered that question? You have one? Or you just a troll at others? I know - you are not smart enough to set one up. But you know - it's really funny that the only thing you can come up with to attack me is that I haven't posted on my blog in several months. LOL. Got anything else oh unintelligent Troll?

[Enlightened]

****apparent***

[Specter]

Exactly Terrye....

[Semanticleo]

There's nothing else you say that's worth commenting on, but if I had a blog I wouldn't keep it just so I could say I had one. Yours
is virtually non-existent based upon your abandonment of same.

[PeterUK]

Specter.
He left his spoor,
"

"Yes, he's going for a complete rout of Republican"

"Because the Dim contenders look so good? Look at the approval ratings for Congress."

Look at the approval ratings for Bush's foreign policy in the military. They're the people who have to win the most important policy initiative of his presidency, Iraq, and they aren't buying it anymore.

Posted by: markg8 | March 26, 2007 at 02:39 PM"

[lurker]

I wouldn't be surprised if others follow suit after Goodling. Either plead the 5th or take the "Clinton Do Not Recall" amendment. This whole thing will be put to bed as they find more aides taking either approach.

[Specter]

But I will say Tic, that I am honored that you visit my site so often.....

[PeterUK]

"There's nothing else you say that's worth commenting on, but if I had a blog I wouldn't keep it just so I could say I had one. Yours
is virtually non-existent based upon your abandonment of same."

About the measure of it,we are on the cusp of WWIV and Septic is throwing a moody about blogs.Cranial extractum Septic.

[Terrye]

And then of course there is also the fact that there were cases being looked at by the fired Attorneys back in Reno's day...who were actually looking at cases involving important Democrats. That is what killed Whitewater.

Now let's imagine if Bush fired the Attorney looking into allegations of thievery by members of his family...The Congressional Democrats would be twitching and drooling, their eyes would roll back in their heads and they would have a FIT.

[Enlightened]

There's nothing else you say that's worth commenting on -

Bye.

Dolt - When will you answer the questions?

Are you implying that Goodling should go under oath and just say she does not remember, recall or other, like the previous administration did? And that will exonerate her, as you morons have repeatedly done? Thereby relieving her of any further conspiracy theories, or innuendos of what she is hiding?

Or should she opt out for Constitutional Rights since you assholes won't believe anything she says under oath, because she is part and parcel of your BDS sysdrome?

Are you really that deranged?

[sferris]

Background on Monica Goodling. She got her degree at Regent University. Regent U.'s mission is to "to provide exemplary education, from a biblical perspective, leading to bachelors, masters and doctorate degrees for aspiring servant-leaders in pivotal professions, and to be a leading center of Christian thought and action."

[Terrye]

Well no, Dalton is saying she should go under oath and be grilled and screamed at by a bunch of raving pols and answer their questions and hope that after they talk to a couple of thousand other people and dig up everything from emails to journals to private correspondence that they do not come up a dread inconsistency at which time they will charge her with a crime and ruin her life.

Now Val on the other hand can lie to them all day long.

[ErnestAbe]

Great interview by Gonzo on NBC.

I've asked the Office of Professional Responsibility at the department to look into this. And — they will be working, along with the Office of Inspector General, to make it clear and reassure the American people that nothing improper happened here.

I guess we already know the conclusion he wants them to reach, so why are we paying for the OPR and IG to do an "investigation." Does he wonder why he lacks credibility?

[Terrye]

OH MY GOD!!!!! She is a {gasp} Christian. Well that explains it. We all know how weird and strange they are.

I think the Democrats should make a campaign issue out of that. Just slap the Jesus freaks around, the folks back home will love it.

[PeterUK]

Enlightened,
"Are you really that deranged?"
You ask this of a man who thinks accusations of bestiality is political argument? This is a very disturbed and depraved individual.

[Terrye]

Abe:

I don't think anything improper did happen. I thought the firey deaths of 87 Americans was improper but somehow Reno kept her job. I guess it just a matter of perspective.

[ErnestAbe]

I agree with Terrye (8:03pm), why should people have to go before Congress and answer hard questions by people from the other party.

The Founding Fathers would have been outraged if they knew that our democracy would devolve to this point. It's outrageous what the Democrats are doing, and I'm glad someone has the courage to used the Fifth Amendment. That's what it was intended for, to defend one-party rule.

A one-party government would be so much easier.

I think that Terrye has a real winning message. The Republican Party should stand tall and say, heck no, we won't go and testify before a Congress that includes Democrats!

[PeterUK]

See Dolton has morphed into earnest abe and al ferris/It's like slime mould,gathering and separating,one time an amorphous mas the other simple single cell organisms.

[sferris]

Saying you can't or don't remmember is not the same as taking the fifth when your called to testify. The argument is false. When you take the fifth there is presumption any statement you make may incriminate you in a crime.

[ErnestAbe]

PeterUK, you know that I am not sock-puppeting with other IDs.

[stevesh]

eAbe,

"A one-party government would be so much easier."
--------------------------------------------------

Before I moved down the road from you I lived in Boston for twenty years. We weren't even close to one-party govt. in DC. the last six years.

[PeterUK]

I don't think the Founding Fathers foresaw the Democrats being so debased they would criminalise politics.What would they have said about this plot to usurp the Commander in Chief in war time.

[lurker]

Not anymore this time. Even if the person is telling the truth AND there is no crime or scandal, the person is still incriminated for something that the Democrats will find.

But I did read elsewhere that the Democrats cannot charge anyone for contempt or whatever. Only the prosecutors can. Democrats can hold her for contempt and she will not spend a day in jail. Who will charge her for contempt? No one. Not especially after this non-scandal story.

[TexasToast]

Re: Goodling

Can anyone fathom on what grounds she is taking the 5th? She hasn't testified under oath yet (to my knowledge). What "crime" has she committed that she can't talk to congress about?

Give her use immunity and hand her a subpoena.

[stevesh]

"When you take the fifth there is presumption any statement you make may incriminate you in a crime."
-------------------------------------------------

"Yeah, I heard that too."

[PeterUK]

"PeterUK, you know that I am not sock-puppeting with other IDs."

No I don't,the others probably don't either.

[ErnestAbe]

stevesh, how do you know where I live? It's pretty spookie to think you might know.

[Specter]

OK Ernest,

Since DOLT couldn't gather the cajones to answer the question I will pose it to you:

Since you obviously think something wrong was done in the firing of the 8 US Attorneys could you explain why there was no outrage by the same Senators/Congresscritters when Clinton fired all 93 US Attorneys at the same time? And can you tell us how many Congressional investigations were held over Clinton's firing of them? And can you tell us how many of Clinton's aids were pulled in front of such hearings to testify about it? Maybe you can explain why it was OK for Clinton to fire them all and why it is bad for Bush to fire 8 of them? And throw in for funnies your analysis of why the specific prosecutors investigating Rostenkowski and Whitewater were fired by Clinton. Let's see of you have more cajones than DOLT.

[lurker]

Posted elsewhere by John Burgess:

The problem with this theory is that Congress can't charge anyone with a crime. Only prosecutors can do that. As we all know by now, prosecutors are part of the executive branch. Separation of powers means that Congress can't make the executive branch prosecute anyone, just as it can't make the judicial branch convict anyone.

The most Congress could do is probably to hold Goodling in contempt. A contempt citation is not a criminal prosecution. Since the Fifth Amendment protects witnesses only from prosecution, fear that Congress might hold Goodling in contempt wouldn't justify her position.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Is Spring break almost over?

And what Specter's blog posting habits have to do with his opinions here or anyone else's for that matter?

These are ignorant dumbass trolls. They know nothing about history. They have never had an original thought in their miserable lives. They live to agitate and put down anyone who gets the better of them. They are fools. Treat them as such.

[MikeS]

If you don't like the fifth amendment you can campaign to have it repealed.

The lady and her attorney clearly think the investigation is a sham.

I think the Dems have planned a bunch of silly show trials.

Lucky for her the Constitution applies regardless of her religion or where she went to school.

[PeterUK]

"What "crime" has she committed that she can't talk to congress about?"

She works for a Republican administration.When did the Democrats turn into ZanuPF?

[Enlightened]

(Hypothetical compare and contrast the NUANCES)
Q: Billy, did you steal that cookie from Paula?
Bill Clinton: I don't recall, I really don't have any independent knowledge of that.

Q: Hillary, did you steal that cookie from Paula?
Hillary Clinton: I plead the Fifth.

Q: Did you order the murder of Vince Foster?
Bill Clinton: I don't recall, I really do not have any independent knowledge of that.

Q: Did you order the murder of Vince Foster?
Hillary Clinton: I plead the Fifth Amendment.

Nice try - no cigar. Pleading the Fifth only means something sinister to the morons that want to believe something sinister occurred. Conspiracy theorists will create the crime to fit their fantasy.

Goodling took that toy from them and so their only recourse is to vilify her and implicate her in a ALLEGED crime, and continue to lay it on Gonzales...creeping ever so closer to the Big Rover.

And what about our soldiers? How're those peanuts and shrimp and spinach bailouts going?

[Rick Ballard]

Goodling is following legal advice given by an attorney who has read the Fitzlaw Primer.

Under Fitzlaw, misspeaking and a faulty memory are felonies, therefore communication must be strictly limited to production of the written material pertaining to the subject being given "oversight".

Exercising the Fifth Amendment will be considered by some as a "screw you" response to the Dem hacks but it is absolutely the only way to avoid coming under Fitzlaw.

The hacks can examine the written material and make any suggestions that come into their pointy heads. The Executive should give careful consideration to any advice given by the hacks. After they stop giggling, they should take whatever action they deem necessary.

[Enlightened]

^ Pointy Heads ^

I like that one.

[Rick Ballard]

BTW - if she's immunized she should consult the Arkansas Alzheimer Symptom manuals. Memory is truly a very fragile thing, so every effort should be made to retain it by letting it lie gently in a darkened area of the mind.

[stevesh]

eAbe,

Not a spook. You said about a week ago you were in Gillibrand's district in a thread here about money for her area (Fort Edward, Lake Placid, etc.). I got kin up there, love it.

[PeterUK]

Mr Ballard,
At some point, administration employees will invent Mandarin.

[ErnestAbe]

OK, Spector at 8:20, I'll answer your question.

Bill Clinton fired most US Attorneys at the beginning of his administration, as Bush41 and Reagan, and Bush43, all did.

What is unusual is firing a group of US Attorney's in the middle of an administration. And what is especially unusual is doing it with less in the seventh year of an eight year administration.

The non-partisan Congressional Research Service studied the removal of US Attorneys during the past 4 administrations (Reagan, Bush41, Clinton and Bush43) and they found...

– Of the 468 confirmations made by the Senate over the 25-year period, only 10 left office involuntarily for reasons other than a change in administration prior to the firings that took place in December.

– In virtually all of those 10 previous cases, serious issues of personal or professional conduct appeared to be the driving issue. Prior to December, for example, only two U.S. Attorneys were outright fired for improper, and in one case criminal, behavior. The CRS report identifies six other U.S. Attorneys who resigned during the 25-year period who were implicated in news reports of “questionable conduct.” For two others, the CRS was unable to determine the cause.

It is clear that of the four administrations that controlled the executive branch of government during the past quarter-century, only the current administration has held the view that U.S. Attorney can or should be removed absent serious cause. In no instance is there any indication of a removal because a U.S. attorney failed to meet certain political criteria, such as prosecuting cases that were considered too sensitive to partisan issues or failing to prosecute cases that would be helpful from a partisan perspective.

To Spector, any anyone else who wonders why the U.S. Attorney purge is a big deal, I highly recommend that you take 2 minutes and read this post by Josh Marshall where he sincerely addresses this question.

[Syl]

LOL I love how upset the trollfreaks are that Goodling is giving them the finger.

Squirming, hissing, and spitting--what a show.

[Ralph L.]

That Rove Mind Control Gizmo must be working. Just like TM, I'm thinking Patrick Sullivan.

[lurker]

Ah but Clinton replaced 30 that he appointed at later times.

No, it is NOT a big deal.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Take the mystery and the sting out of it. Announce in advance, loud and clear, that EVERY Administration official called by Congress or by a prosecutor will, from this day forward, refuse to answer questions under their Constitutional right. If the dems want to play hardball, then let the Repubs do the same. Screw the complaints of "if there is nothing to hide," and make it an ironclad policy. Let the faxes flow to news outlets letting them know what they plan to do. If they are asked why, tell them point blank that never again will a good man or good woman be brought down by a perjury trap. And, I'll bet with just alittle bit of sleuthing we could turn up a dem staffer or two who will admit that this is the agenda.

[ErnestAbe]

stevesh, for the record, I said I proudly volunteered for Gillibrand. I don't live in her district, although it does have some beautiful landscape.

I also proudly traveled to work for Chris Murphy in CT, against Nancy Johnson, and to support Ned Lamont against Joe Lieberman.

That's all the clues I'm offering today about my whereabouts. ;^)

[Enlightened]

Josh Marshall? Oh ok then.

[PeterUK]

If Congress can do no better than this,God Help Iraq.

[lurker]

Hey, PUK, did you read that McConnell says that there won't be a filibuster against this stupid House bill?

He's playing an ACE up his sleeve.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

You're casting aspersions on my originality?

Caught that, did you?

Actually, I intended both to cast aspersions on your originality and your competence.

[lurker]

And the nutroots have McConnell high up on their hit list for '08. No surprise there.

McConnell notes that Nelson will vote yes this time and Pryor is wavering.

[PeterUK]

"What is unusual is firing a group of US Attorney's in the middle of an administration. And what is especially unusual is doing it with less in the seventh year of an eight year administration."

That is the most lame and inane load of bollocks I have read,you deserve to be dhimmis.

[Terrye]

I love it when people link to Josh Marshall and really believe that someone like me might read it.

what a hoot.

I don't care what crap they come up with about how unusual it is {and as we all know "unusual" is a code word for bad} it is the right of the Executive and no innocent person went to jail nor did any guilty person escape justice because of it. So the unusual thing is that we are still talking about it.

So do the lefties think we should get rid of the fifth, take it out of the Constitution or what? It is not an admission of guilt, it a statement that this is a stacked deck as it were.

And if you think that woman could walk in there and pull a Hillary and say I can't recall 150 times and people would be satisfied with that...well that is just silly.

[lurker]

The law of the land says that the US President is the only one having authority to appoint and remove US Attorneys.

Guess what, the law of the land does not say when, why, how, and what.

Bush did NOT set the precedence of firing at this time. Clinton did and probably those before him.

[Rick Ballard]

Lurker,

There are enough Dem Senators who would like to be reelected that McConnell can be quite confident.

Dingy Harry can offer to give all the Denators his "way to riches thru crooked zoning" seminar and 8 - 12 of them still won't risk their seats.

They aren't all dumbass Dems. Some of them can even count.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Macaroon

I know I'm going to be sorry I asked, but why is it supposed to be somehow derogatory o call someone a coconut cookie?

[Enlightened]

So what it is about these eight USA's that has the left foaming at the mouth?

Ya think one or more of them was working on something big and got stopped in the process?

Why else the big stink over eight heretofore nobodies?

It's not just the whiff of the Big Rover in the air, or a chance at bringing down Gonzales -

This is meant as retribution for one or more of the fired.

Otherwise - it makes no sense whatsoever.

[ErnestAbe]

LOL I love how upset the trollfreaks are that Goodling isi giving them the finger.

Squirming, hissing, and spitting--what a show.

Posted by: Syl | March 26, 2007 at 08:41 PM

To all but the most strident rightwingers, Goodling taking the fifth looks very incriminating for the Bush administration.

It does not look like a principled action.

It undercuts the President's claims that the DOJ is fully cooperating.

It gives extra legs to a long-running story that is not favorable to the administration.

It confirms to most Americans same impression that the Libby trial left, that the Bush administration is not to be trusted.

It will certainly reinforce the widely held belief that there is something to hide, something even criminal(!) in the U.S. Attorney firings.

Frankly, I don't know why you are laughing.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Uh oh, an Instalaunch on this thread means trolls on the loose.

[azaghal]

Question: Do Senators and Reps have to go through metal detectors when they enter the Capitol, or when they enter their office buildings? My understanding is that they don't--they have some ID that most of them don't wear. If there's a problem they just punch a Capitol policeman.

Now, in light of that, the way I read this story is that we may well have a DEMOCRATIC SENATOR who regularly attends sessions with an UNREGISTERED, LOADED SEMI-AUTOMATIC PISTOL WITH AN EXTRA MAGAZINE.

Can anyone say: screwball? Can we get this moron under oath before a committee of his peers? Or would that be pointless?

WASHINGTON (AP) - An aide to Sen. Jim Webb was arrested Monday when he entered a Senate office building with a loaded pistol belonging to the senator.

Capitol Police spokeswoman Sgt. Kimberly Schneider said the aide was charged with carrying a pistol without a license and possessing an unregistered firearm and unregistered ammunition.

The office of Webb, D-Va., identified the aide as Phillip Thompson and said he was "a former Marine, a long-term friend and trusted employee of the senator."

A congressional official briefed on the incident said Webb gave the gun to Thompson when the assistant drove him to an airport earlier in the day. Thompson, upon entering the Senate building, forgot he was carrying the weapon.

"To our knowledge, this incident was an oversight," Webb's office said in a statement. It said it had no other details.

The weapon was revealed when the aide went through an X-ray machine at an entrance of the Russell Senate Office Building, Schneider said. She said the man had a loaded pistol with two additional loaded magazines.

[lurker]

Supporting Ned Lamont - explains where EA comes from!

[PeterUK]

Lurker,
No,he should mind his back on the Rialto.

What is unusual,is someone boasting about supporting a loser like Lamont against a winner like Lieberman,in a putsch in his own party.There will be portentious sitings,reading of the runes,a career or two will be sacrificed on the altar of the gods,this lot are going backwards.

[SunnyDay]

dammit!!!

stop quoting the trolls. I don't read their drivel.

[lurker]

U.S. Code TITLE 28 > PART II > CHAPTER 35 > § 541

United States attorneys

(a) The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, a United States attorney for each judicial district.

(b) Each United States attorney shall be appointed for a term of four years. On the expiration of his term, a United States attorney shall continue to perform the duties of his office until his successor is appointed and qualifies.

(c) Each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President.

This is the law of the land. The US President followed the law of the land. This law of the land does not specify when, whom, what, how, and why!!

[Enlightened]

"It will certainly reinforce the widely held belief that there is something to hide, something even criminal(!) in the U.S. Attorney firings."

Only to Sean Penn-Pointy Head-Conspiracy Theorists that think the bogeyman is of GWB's loins.

Not one of my friends or anyone in my family gives a holy rat's ass about this.

You.Are.Dreaming.

The problem is - so is the 110th Congress.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Can anyone fathom on what grounds she is taking the 5th? She hasn't testified under oath yet (to my knowledge). What "crime" has she committed that she can't talk to congress about?

Tex, look up 18 USC 1001 --- there's just been a discussion of it over at Volokh. She could be charge for any material falsification made in any statement to any member of the Executive Branch at any time, whether under oath or not.

Now combine that with what we learned from Libby --- that government investigators are under no obligation to report what is said correctly, to record it faithfully, or to preserve contemporaneous records.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Members of Congress are not required to go thru the security checkpoint and can walk around the metal detectors and bring a staff member with them. Webb gave the bag to a staffer since he knew he could not take a loaded gun and ammo on an airplane. So, the staffer says he forgot, but that doesn't wash or he wouldn't have had the bag in the first place. Also, even though Webb has a conceiled carry permit for Virginia, no guns are allowed in DC, period. Neither the staffer nor Webb had the right to bring the loaded gun and extra ammo across the Virginia DC line.

[ErnestAbe]

Terrye, do you take pride in the fact that you won't read an opposing viewpoint?

No wonder you think it is OK to use the Fifth Amendment to avoid legitimate congressional oversight. Hear, Hear for One-Party Rule!

No wonder you support George Bush, the most intellectually incurious person I have every seen in government. Yes, this is the man who never, even once, travelled abroad before running for President.

You asked a question, and I pointed to a link to a post by Josh Marshall, where he answered, or attempted to answer, precisely the question you asked. And you proudly claim, no, no, you don't go there, because Josh Marshall might disagree with you.

What do they call people like you?

[BarbaraS]

I really, really, really wish there was a way to block out these trolls. I'm so tired of seeing their posts. All they are doing is agitating. They don't even believe their garbage Nobody is that stupid.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

**concealed**

[PeterUK]

"Frankly, I don't know why you are laughing."

You haven't seen the cartoon TM puts on your posts Abe.

[lurker]

Correction: Goodling could be charged by a US prosecutor for any material falsification made in any statement to any member of the Executive Branch at any time, whether under oath or not.

Congress cannot charge her.

[stevesh]

eAbe,

Read Marshall's piece. Been over to TPM often. I oscillate between, "Is he ten years old?" and "Hmmm, he may have a point."

When he looks HARD into voter fraud and ACORN et.al. then I'll not gainsay his sincerity.

N.B.: 2004 Washington St. governor's race - won by Democrat by 129 votes. New Mexico presidential races determined by 400(+ -).

[Enlightened]

Josh Marshall has opinions - so f--king what?

Around here we call people like you an idiot for assuming what or who we should or should not read.

[Enlightened]

Josh Marshall has opinions - so f--king what?

Around here we call people like you an idiot for assuming what or who we should or should not read.

[Enlightened]

I didn't do that. The trolls did it. :0)

[ErnestAbe]

Now combine that with what we learned from Libby --- that government investigators are under no obligation to report what is said correctly, to record it faithfully, or to preserve contemporaneous records.

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | March 26, 2007 at 09:03 PM

Can the Libby-ologists help me, here. I don't recall Libby making this defense.

Also, is Charlie arguing against the Bush claim that transcripts are not a good idea when people testify before Congress?

[Semanticleo]

"I intended both to cast aspersions on your originality and your competence."

Again showing your own incompetence.

[maryrose]

They call people like us smart, upstanding Americans who support our president and the War on terror being waged at this very moment.
I can forgive Sean Penn-he lost his brother this year. Earnest Abe what is your excuse?

[MikeS]

Goodling taking the fifth looks very incriminating for the Bush administration.

I had no idea that anyone west of the iron curtain would ever say such a thing.

While you're thinking someone is guilty of something, could you maybe dream up just what crime that might be?

[azaghal]

From The Corner:

UPDATE: Webb's office responds:

To our knowledge, this incident was an oversight by the Senator's aide. Phillip Thompson is a former Marine, a long-term friend and trusted employee of the Senator. We are still awaiting facts.

Well, if they're "awaiting facts," maybe Fitz could put him in touch with the FBI. Fitz says they go around looking for facts. If Eckenrode hadn't lost his notes we might know whether they also invent facts--which might come in handy for Webb right now.

[PeterUK]

"What do they call people like you?"

Eminently sensible,just because someone writes on the toilet wall doesn't mean anyone has to read it.

[maryrose]

All the players in the Marc Rich pardon investigation took the Fifth. Including Denise Rich and her rich Vail friend Beth something or other. Any comment about that?

[Enlightened]

Speaking of the 110th Congress Surrender Bill -

Don Surber has a good analysis about how much it is costing the Dems to buy their votes to surrender in Iraq -

What a sham. Why would you have to buy votes if the plan was simple - Redeploy, Stop Funding?

Instead the MSM and a handful of rabid bloggers are beating the carcass of this USA horse to a pulp - and are really convinced the public cares.