Powered by TypePad

« The Very Complicated Health Care Reform Process | Main | James O'Keefe Back For More »

March 10, 2010

Comments

Clarice

Pshaw--He just needs to get out of the WH more and talk to us about his [unwritten] plan and what he'll veto and once we pass it, as Pelosi notes, we'll get to find out what's in it.

Clarice

Politico:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel to stop assigning deadlines to Congress for finishing the health care reform bill. In a House-Senate leadership meeting on health care Tuesday, she essentially told Emanuel to "cool it," according to one Hill Democratic aide -- an account confirmed by a second aide. House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman told reporters that lawmakers made it clear to Emanuel that "we don't feel that we want any deadline assigned to us."

Push it [the vote] back, way back! Never Relinquish the Lie!!

Jack is Back!

If only Rather would give Obama the frequency he would be able to communicate this better.

Neo

As was seen last summer in a community not too far from me, Obama (or anybody else) probably couldn't sell lemonade (or watermelons) by the side of the road because there is probably a law against it.

Sue

Check the Reset thread for an update on bad. She is hanging in there.

Sue

Matheson is wavering. Guess judgeships are worth something after all.

Appalled

Well, what the Obama deadline did this time is turn every reporter into a vote counter, and increase scrutiny on the Congressional whipping function and all the deal cutting. And, if the deadline slips (which it will), Obama and Pelosi are going to look weak.

If Obama's people could have kept their mouths shut, it would have been easier for Pelosi to round up votes on the quiet, then spring a bill, a process, in a 48 hour time period as soon as her vote counters tell her she has a majority.

Danube of Thought

round up votes on the quiet, then spring a bill, a process, in a 48 hour time period as soon as her vote counters tell her she has a majority.

That's the way I see it ultimately happening. won't be much warning.

Danube of Thought

From The Hill:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) suggested Tuesday evening that Democrats would have the votes to pass healthcare legislation if it were taken up today. Pelosi, in an interview with Bloomberg and PBS host Charlie Rose, hinted that she could pass Democrats' healthcare plans through the House if they were brought up this week. "Yes," Pelosi said when asked if she believed the House would end up having the votes to approve healthcare. "If we took it up today, yes," the Speaker quickly added.
Neo

Obama and Pelosi are going to look weak.

Obama and Pelosi are thinner than piss on a rock.

maryrose

How can Pelosi tell this out and out lie on national television when it is obvious if she had the votes they would be voting in the House as we speak. Stop all the lies, it just makes me sick.

Clarice

She also never got the CIA briefing. D'Alessandro's little girl.

FOIA requests on the meetings.

There's hot news on that front, too, Clarice.
===================

EBJ

If we've learned anything over the last 9 months it's that Pelosi can't count. Apparently counting is for the little people.

Speak English, Uncle R!

Why, it's like Obama has so flailed away at this that he can't remove his hands from it.
==============

maryrose

Sue; Thanks for the update on Bad. I'll continue to pray for her and her family. Her comments have been delightful,what a great gal!

Clarice

top sent me this link to the Rove account of the Fitzgerald trophy hunt.
Elliott ness with a Law Degree or just plain unchecked assshole ?

matt

seiously, clarice, whatever happened to Rezko. he was supposed to sing like a canary and we have bupkis.

Frau Umlautlos

We need Bad to return as soon as she can. Things don't *suck* until she says so.

Cowboy Steve

From Clarice's link:

"In his memoir, Rove describes Fitzgerald as alternatingly “earnest and polite” and “cold, calculating and relentless.”

Add humble and you have a modern day Uriah Heap.

Clarice

Whip Count (No. 15 in a Series) –
Donnelly Will Switch from
Yes to No Unless Abortion Language
More counting in the wrong direction for Pelosi

Changes, Herseth Sandlin Stays No
ABC News, by Jake Tapper
Rep. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., voted for the House Democrats' health care reform legislation last November, but he told the Rochester Sentinel that the abortion language in the Senate bill is not restrictive enough for him. The Senate’s abortion language is a ''fatal flaw,'' he told the newspaper. ''I would not vote for it.'' He added that the Senate legislation’s abortion language is opposed by ''a significant'' number of House Democrats and could kill the bill.

MayBee

I think I'm with Appalled. The Stupak crew is using abortion as a way to get out of voting for this thing, and I'll bet others are egging them on.

The fix hasn't been written. Hasn't been scored. I don't think the score will be pretty (which is probably why it hasn't been written/realeased).
What a mess.

Clarice

OT:Monica Conyers to the slammer in an histrionic court scene:
DETROIT (WXYZ) - Just moments ago in federal court, former Detroit City Council President Monica Conyers was sentenced to 37 months in prison for her roll in the city hall scandal.

A team of Action News reporters are at the courthouse. They will be providing immediate reaction to the sentence.

Refresh this page for the latest. You can also get updates by following @wxyzdetroit on Twitter.

2:59 p.m.
Conyers has ten days to appeal the sentence. She will have to report to prison on July 1.

2:54 p.m.
Monica Conyers has just been sentenced to 37 months in prison. She also received 2 years of supervised probation. Just before sentencing, Conyers screamed "If they have their tapes, I have my tapes too. I taped Rayford, I taped Riddle. You'll be fair to me or I want to withdraw my plea."

Jane

Major Garrett just announce that in the last 48 hours Pelosi says things have changed so they can come close to the President's deadline.

I don't trust her tho. I was worried yesterday, less so after I heard Stupek say no compromise had been made.

Jane

Clarice, where was that?

I apologize for all my weird typos - this is a different computer.

sylvia

Well I see different surveys. Reuters for example, which I sppose is pro reform, had many surveys that showed a mjority of people are for healthcare reform. It all depends on how you phrase the questions. I bet big money is buying off a lot of those surveys.

Clarice

LUN, Jane

Rick Ballard

Jane,

Read the "commie on commie" threat against Kucinich by Mowlett's Ass.

BOzo's Last Chance HCR Kool-Aid Stand is going to remain open (with no sales) for as long as possible in order to avoid the prog noose. It's the shadow of the scaffold that is keeping BOzo and Queen Botoxic doing the tarantella every hour on the hour.

sylvia

And after skimming the WSJ article, the problem is the survey keep asking about "the plan". No one really knows what's in the plan.

If you ask someone, do you think some women with breast cancer should be denied coverage because she forgot to put an acne appt on her app, most people would not want that. If you ask, would you like your coverage to be dropped for your disabled child because you reached a lifetime max, I don't think most people would agree.

So it's all bs. I can't believe how easily the people are being brainwashed.

MayBee

True, sylvia.
And if you ask someone, would you rather spend money on your own children or give extra funds to the the people of Nebraska, people would say their own children.

Jane

Look in the mirror sylvia - it's not like you don't have a history.

Jane

I hope you are right Rick. I don't know if you saw it, but my harddrive is toast and I won't get my computer back until Friday. So I'll get that stuff over the weekend.

sylvia

"And if you ask someone, would you rather spend money on your own children or give extra funds to the the people of Nebraska, people would say their own children."

I'm afraid you don't undersand the concept of insurance Maybee. You are constantly spending money for other people. You only get to spend it on yourself if you get sick, which luckily most people do not, in a serious way, until government run Medicare kicks in.

MayBee

I'm talking about the cornhusker kickback, sylvia. That will become law if the House passes the Senate bill. I understand insurance well enough to understand that ain't it.

Porchlight

The fix hasn't been written. Hasn't been scored.

Per NYT:

But Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota and chairman of the Budget Committee, said the reconciliation instructions in last year’s budget resolution seemed to require that Mr. Obama sign the Senate bill into law before it could be changed.

“It’s very hard to see how you draft, and hard to see how you score, a reconciliation bill to another bill that has not yet been passed and become law,” Mr. Conrad said. “I just advise you go read the reconciliation instructions and see if you think it has been met if it doesn’t become law.”


Sue

I'm afraid you don't undersand the concept of insurance Maybee.

MayBee doesn't understand insurance? You don't understand insurance. The legal definition of insurance is: A contract whereby, for specified consideration, one party undertakes to compensate the other for a loss relating to a particular subject as a result of the occurrence of designated hazards. As long as the insurance company compensates me, pursuant to the contract, then it has met its obligations under that contract. It is a calculated risk on my part that I will spend less on insurance premiums than I would if I had to undertake the cost of the "hazard" and it is a calculated risk on the part of the insurance company that it will spend less compensating me for the "hazard". I'm not sure why people have a different view of health insurance differently than they have for their car and home owner's insurance. It is the same principal.

Did no one ever play the game of LIFE as a child? Sheesh.

sylvia

And another thing, I hate hearing this argument that "most people are pretty happy with their health care coverage" so they don't really care about the issue.

Well by using that logic, a couple hundred years ago, most people were pretty happy with their white skin color they had and their non-slave status they had, so why should they care that some people were slaves? Or maybe 50 years ago, most people are pretty happy with the water service they had, so why should they care that some children are getting poisoned with the water service they got?

It's either wrong, or it's right. That's the main issue.

MayBee

performance art

Hon. Nancy Pelosi

No one really knows what's in the plan.

We're not tellin' until we get to pass it!

Thomas Collins

Sylvia, I think you tend to overstate the benefits of ObamaCare style reforms and understate the benefits of market reforms. Take a look at The Cato Institute's analysis of health care reform in the LUN. You might change your mind.

bgates

a couple hundred years ago, most people were pretty happy with their white skin color they had and their non-slave status they had

I'm pretty happy with my white skin color now, except for the increased skin cancer risk and the fact that colleges and the government can discriminate against me because of it.

By the end of this Congress, I'm really going to miss that non-slave status, too.

Neo

Keeping labor on board for ObamaCare has a price ...

So Obama has not nudged Congress to pass long-stalled treaties with Colombia, Korea and Panama. Instead, the emphasis has been on get-tough actions such as slapping preliminary duties on tires from China and bricks from Mexico. Nor has he tried to energize the Doha trade talks, pushing Brazil to first litigate via the World Trade Organization and now retaliate. And in the U.S., high unemployment has encouraged protectionist forces in Congress. A bipartisan House group just introduced a new bill to abandon the North American Free Trade Agreement, while one in the Senate is pushing for action against China because of its weak currency policy.

And the situation could worsen.

Porchlight

It's either wrong, or it's right. That's the main issue.

No, sylvia, the "main issue" is whether the trillions of dollars "fixing" the situation for the minority of citizens who aren't "most people," along with the Constitutional issues involved, the fundamental change in the relationship between citizen and government, the opportunity costs (trillions not spent on something else, or not spent at all), AND the question of whether the damned plan is actually going to work as advertised, are worth the tradeoff.

But we don't expect you to understand that.

matt

this is my take.

1 - They have the beast that is before them; the Senate bill or the House bill.Either house can pass the other's and the president can sign.

or

2 - they have to open up reconciliation. That would normally have to be done in the committee rooms or some other conference rooms somewhere on Capitol Hill. If I was a minority leader, I'd have my spies looking out for large herds of Dems yelling loudly.

or

3 - The president says he has a new bill, but no one has seen it yet. That opens up the whole can of worms once again to scrutiny and critiquing. It's back to square 1.

It sounds as if the president is scamming once again, because if he wants a March 18 vote/signature, there is almost no way in hell he can introduce a new bill and meet that schedule. It would have to move through committees and procedural delays and all the other bureaucratic maze of Congress.

the whole "new" bill is a sham from the look of it. There's something going on behind closed doors and it's probably illegal as hell.

emjem24

This healthcare bill is just a trend in what's been happening to our country and government for the past 60-70 years- the socialization of America. I will maintain and continue to maintain that the only people entitled to government programs such as healthcare or pensions are the military, the only people who've ever put their butts on the line for this country.

Beyond that, the very poor and vulnerable can be helped with various programs but I and many other Americans have problems footin' the bill for other people's healthcare. The core issue is how many Americans abuse Medicare/Medicaid, which was originally set up for the poorest of the poor elderly but now anybody can qualify for with enough "merit." Then, there's our lovely unemployment insurance that has been extended way past the original 26 week mandate to 99 weeks!!! Nothing more than government subsidized welfare. I feel for those who are unemployed (I am one of those looking for work) but there are some of us who either never applied for it or didn't meet the requirements because we quit and have spouses still gainfully employed. Where's the help for those people? My point is, we don't have the money and it's not like the well will always be there to draw from.

This is the problem I have with people like Sylvia. Healthcare is some right like education or jobs, or housing, what have you and if you say different you're evil and that it's a good or bad thing if people do or don't have healthcare. The fact is, dear Sylvia, that the risk pool has decreased and there are not enough people now to cover others' medical expenses so the private healthcare insurance industry must adjust to that situation.

We are no talking about water polution or slavery. We are talking about a commodity which healtcare is and when the government takes control of it as we've seen in Canada, Europe it becomes a mess and then there is less competition and availability of resources because one entity is providing those resources. That is something that statists/socialists like Sylvia don't understand. Our largesse isn't limitless. Neither is our budget, Sylvia. You want to be owned by China? Fine... count the rest of us out.

One more thing- look up the VA system and Tricare (military HMO system). Neither are pretty. Participants don't get a lot of quality for their membership. There are doctors who refuse Tricare patients just as they're refusing Medicare patients. The doctors that the VA and the military healthcare system hire are substandard and often not trained in this country. The availibility of a wide range of pharmaceuticals is also limited. Is this the kind of care you want for America?

Sorry, but you don't get something for nothing and that includes healthcare. It's too bad that those like Sylvia think that the government should give them everything at the expense of the standard of living for most middle class families. Good luck with that. Don't complain when it blows up.

Ignatz

--So it's all bs.--

If you're referring to either the immediately preceding two paragrphs or everything you've ever written here I suspect we could pass that resoltution under unanimous consent.

Pofarmer

Letter from the Whitehouse today.

Good afternoon,

8 -- that's the number of people every minute who are denied coverage, charged a higher rate or otherwise discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition.1

8 is also the number of lobbyists hired by special interests to influence health reform for every member of Congress in 2009.2

The facts speak for themselves -- the status quo isn't working, and special interests are doing everything in their power to maintain that status quo.

Being denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition is something we all know is wrong. And for those 8 people every minute who can't find health coverage or face discrimination because of a pre-existing condition, reform can't wait.

Statistics like these help put the past year's debate over health insurance reform into perspective, demonstrating how broken our health insurance system has become. Each day this week, we'll promote a key number on WhiteHouse.gov and social networks like Facebook and Twitter to raise awareness about why the time is now for health insurance reform.

You can help spread the word about the need for health insurance reform by forwarding this email to your family, friends and online networks.

Let's get it done.

Nancy-Ann DeParle
Director, White House Office of Health Reform

Yeah, the pre-existing conditions are terrible. But, they need to make up their minds. Is this thing gonna save money? Is it going to provide for the uninsurable? Is it going to create 4 million new jobs? Is it going to reduce non-payments to physicians and hospitals? Is it going to more closely scrutinize payments? What, exactly, is it they hope to accomplish with this? The only thing that I can gather, because all of those stated goals, in total, are absolute gibberish, is that it's none of the above.

Pofarmer

There's something going on behind closed doors and it's probably illegal as hell.

Probably? PROBABLY? Hannity was just talking about some procedure that, I think, Maxine Waters had come up with, that, as far as I can tell, basically guts all the existing rules. Supposedly, Nancy has sent a letter to the Senate to get them to sign saying that if the House passes reconciliation that they will agree to the fixes, or something like that. None of this is legal, or ethical. It's mostly despicable.

bunky

This just in: insurance is a financial instrument.

PDinDetroit

We will just take all the money we need for health care, no need to trouble the House and Senate for it.

After all, I WON.

PDinDetroit

Probably? PROBABLY? Hannity was just talking about some procedure that, I think, Maxine Waters had come up with, that, as far as I can tell, basically guts all the existing rules. Supposedly, Nancy has sent a letter to the Senate to get them to sign saying that if the House passes reconciliation that they will agree to the fixes, or something like that. None of this is legal, or ethical. It's mostly despicable.

Hell, dope deals in Detroit take less time and effort.

Mike Myers

I'm not cutting Rather any slack. Why should I, he never cut any slack for anybody else. What Rather meant to say was that "Obama was such poor salesman that he couldn't sell watermelon at an African Methodist Episcopalian church picnic on a Louisiana summer day." What a joke Gunga Dan has become.

Porchlight

A commenter at HotAir said this is nothing short of a Constitutional crisis. I'm not sure he/she isn't correct. Or at least, potentially correct, depending on what happens.

DrJ

Jane,

my harddrive is toast and I won't get my computer back until Friday.

This may be too ate, but see if your tech can set you up with a RAID-1 array. This is where your computer has two hard drives, with one being the mirror of the other. When you lose a drive, you replace the failed one, rebuild the array, and you are back in business.

I set up my wife's computer that way. about two weeks ago she lost a drive, and after a bit of futzing about she was back to where she started.

PDinDetroit

OT -

John Pierce, co-founder of Open Carry Dot Org, will be debating Paul Helmke from the Brady Campaign on Thursday from 2:10 - 2:45 EST on "To the Point" hosted by Warren Olney on NPR.

LUN

glasater

Porchlight at 5:06--

My greatest fear.....

Jane

RAID-1 array. This is where your computer has two hard drives, with one being the mirror of the other. When you lose a drive, you replace the failed one, rebuild the array, and you are back in business.

I'll ask him about it. Thanks Dr J. What I most worried about is losing my quickbooks but hopefully the back ups will work.

DrJ

Jane,

Do check, as hard drives are dirt cheap these days. I don't know the particulars of your system, but if you want a quick read, send me an email message.

Also, RAID is not backup, so you should continue to do that even if you install it.

(I've simplified the whole RAID discussion -- I don't want to pull and anduril!)

Jane

DrJ - my tech guy is really a miracle worker for about a million reasons - I've been with him since the '90's. If he doesn't know about it, he would like to know about it, But I bet he does.

It's really a great suggestion.

Pofarmer

Porchlight at 5:06--

My greatest fear....

Well, then what?

At that point, it's time to stand up, but, there is going to have to be some clear leadership from some corner, and there is going to be one hell of a facedown.

matt

Porch;

if you read the Federalist Papers and most of the supporting documents, it surely is a constitutional crisis. The problem is whether the Supreme Court will see it that way.

When they instituted an Income Tax, it was the 16th Amendment that allowed this. That was the last major Amendment affecting the operation of the government. Ever since, it has been incrementally done.

Pops

The Republicans should present this great plan for tort reform:

Since the President rails against the insurance companies 3-5% profits, we will reduce the trial lawyers profits down from 40-60% of settlements to 3-5%, thus insuring the money actually goes to the poor patient.

Now liberals normally complain that if you reduce trial laweyters take lower than 40%, they simply won't take peoples cases - BANG! Another brilliant Obamacare policy can be used here, you simply mandate that trial lawyers have to take every case that comes to them.

If insurance companies can't turn people away - why should trial lawyers be allowed to, Mr. President?

Now trial lawyers are required to take every sob story case and can't make more than 5% profit - wala, tort reform - Obama-style!

Old Lurker

Jane, DrJ, I have a homemade version of Raid-1 that works well for me and was cheap. My computer has two identical 250GB internal drives, C&D. I use a program called "Second Copy" that, depending on my settings, maintains copies on D of all designated folders on C each time a file is added or changed on C, and depending on my settings, it also keeps the X most recent versions of each. So for example I keep the most recent five versions of all Excel, Word and Quicken files from C on D at all times. Second Copy verifies all files when it copies them.

Since I am a belt and suspenders guy and I assume the fire or lightning strike will take out C&D at the same time, I keep two external drives, E & F, identical in size to C&D. One is always connected and the other lives in my wife's safe in another building. E clones D at specified times during the day, and I bring F to work each Friday to swap places with E in the safe.

Want to see how neat is my sock drawer?

DrJ

OL,

That's a reasonable scheme, but it is not really RAID unless you copy everything from one drive to another including the boot sectors. So in the event you lose drive C, you would still have to reinstall your OS before you could restore your important files from D.

There's also an increase in disk read speed with RAID-1 (nearly twice) at the expense of write speed which you wouldn't see.

But it is a good backup strategy!

Elliott

8 -- that's the number of people every minute who....

8 is also the number of lobbyists...

A bitter lesson learned-- by NYT Senior CO2 emitter Thomas L. Friedman*

I was in a Starbucks in Shanghai the other day, quaffing the No. 8 blend from a delightful 8 oz. container—neither the beverage nor the vessel can be found in the retailer's U.S. outlets, I should add—while deftly tete-a-teteing by text message with the regional governor, a quondam student of one of my several dear friends on the faculty of the London School Economics, when such a pall came over me as neither the usually soothing black tea nor the governor's bilingual repartee concerning some "dissident" or other could dispel. For I'd realized in one agonizing instant that my countrymen's rejection of the infinitely superior Chinese model extends much further than I'd feared, beyond a juvenile aversion to gleaming ghost cities, beyond the naive superstition in the vague outdated concept of elections, all the way to complete disrespect for the lucky number of a proud and distinguished people. Having endured so much inconvenience in a recent project to extend both floors of my family's modest abode to 8800 sq. ft. as a sign of respect, I was aghast that my heroic one man diplomacy could be undone with a single email. Oblivious to the delicate flavors, I sipped distractedly until I nearly choked on the dregs which mingled with the few leaves that had somehow survived the strainer. Thank goodness I wasn't in America: it would have been a tea bag.
________________
*Not really Thomas L. Friedman.

Ignatz

Brilliant proposal, Pops. Only slightly less brilliant than Dick the Butcher's.

Clarice

That's really excellent, elliott.

Jane

Now liberals normally complain that if you reduce trial laweyters take lower than 40%, they simply won't take peoples cases

Actually having been a trial lawyer I can tell you more than one third is rare and that can be for 10 years work.

But I have an idea for Tort reform. Cap both lawyers fees at $40k See, while you think the plaintiff is the big bad guy, very often the defense lawyer is dragging things out because he can bill every bloody hour. What is the point in coming to the table? And then maybe you can drain the plaintiff dry and get them to settle short.

So cap BOTH fees at $40k - that gives both sides a huge incentive for coming to the table and settling the cases.

IMX 90% of doctors that get sued were negligent. A plaintiff lawyer can't afford to work on a case for a decade and lose, and so they are pretty clear about the liability going in. That may have changed in the last decade, but that was my experience.

Ignatz

--Jane, DrJ, I have a homemade version of Raid-1 that works well for me and was cheap........I keep two external drives, E & F, identical in size to C&D. One is always connected and the other lives in my wife's safe in another building. E clones D at specified times during the day, and I bring F to work each Friday to swap places with E in the safe.
--

Jeez OL,
I usually just kick mine. So far so good.
Admittedly my sock drawer wouldn't win any prizes.

pagar

Pops, I believe your plan would solve a lot of problems.

fdcol63

Ever have 2 drives in a 4-disk RAID-5 array go out simultaneously?

Not good. LOL

Danube of Thought

Matt: I don't think you're right about either chamber being able to pass the other's bill. The senate would need sixty votes, just as it did to pass its own bill.

What is the constitutional crisis?

DrJ

Ever have 2 drives in a 4-disk RAID-5 array go out simultaneously?

Nope. But then I don't run RAID-5 at the moment. None of my servers need that much space (70GB is plenty for my needs).

Old Lurker

Ha Iggy! I do like the kick it approach. My obsession is my accounting records and documents. The person who hates my pack rat approach is my lawyer who claims my disks will be happy hunting grounds for opposing counsel in any litigation... I am giving that some thought.

glasater

Dot--

I'm not going to say this very well but my concern is if the D's do not get their way on the HCR they could create the constitutional crisis.

Or--their dirty dealings will be made so well known and the voting public will become so disgusted enough to create the crisis.

MarkO

I just read this from Clarice's link to the Rove stuff. I always felt that Fitz was pushing a thin case and that he permitted the use of attorney-client privilege to convict Liddy. But, as for anyone on this site who has ever had to try a case of any kind, please make an attempt to defend Fitz, if you can. I could not. He was either incompetent or corrupt. He was never the smartest one in the room, even alone:

In an epic five-hour meeting, Luskin and Fitzgerald hashed out the various aspects of the case against the White House adviser. At the meeting, Fitzgerald said he was bothered by Rove’s non-recollection of the conversation with Cooper. If Rove did not remember the conversation with Cooper, Fitzgerald asked, why did he ask his aides in January 2004 to go through his phone records and notes to find any evidence of contact with Cooper? Luskin had the surprising answer, Rove wrote. The lawyer had learned from a friend who worked at Time that Cooper told colleagues he had spoken with Rove about Plame. Luskin then asked Rove to find any records that might confirm the conversation took place.

“Luskin’s revelation stunned Fitzgerald,” Rove wrote. “‘You rocked my world,’ Fitzgerald told Luskin. The special prosecutor’s intention going into the meeting had been to indict me. Now he didn’t know what he would do.”

Days later, Fitzgerald called Luskin to say he would not indict Rove.

Pofarmer

Oh, just fer fun. If you take the Whitehouse email. Figure 8 people per minute, 12 hours a day, that's two million people a year. That's TERRIBLE. But, wait a minute, it's only .5% of the population, so?

Maybe not so bad?

Pofarmer

MarkO.

Thing is. If Rove talked to Cooper, so WHAT? Rove said, "Yeah, I heard that to." as reported by Cooper. This is a big deal?

I still don't understand how Libby got convicted of anything for disagreeing on who said what with Russert. Where was the illegality?

Is Fitz just punishing people because he's too stupid to figure out what's going on?

narciso

Fitz, in the end, despite the press he got that Ken Starr would kill for; or maybe because of it.wasn't very smart. Remember he did miss nabbbing Ali Mohammed the first time
around, for his role in WTC #1, and the larger
NY plot, (what became the inspiration for the Siege) and only after the Embassy bombings

windansea

This what they are going to do, not sure if it can be stopped, same thing they did with Waxman cap & trade bill in the House.

read the corner post, below is link to House rules site.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWE1Zjk4MjlkNDAyOGI4ZGNmMzNiYzYyMzI5ZDc0YmQ=

Definition of “Self-Executing” Rule. One of the newer types is called a “selfexecuting”
rule; it embodies a “two-for-one” procedure. This means that when the House
adopts a rule it also simultaneously agrees to dispose of a separate matter, which is
specified in the rule itself. For instance, self-executing rules may stipulate that a discrete policy proposal is deemed to have passed the House and been incorporated in the bill to be taken up. The effect: neither in the House nor in the Committee of the Whole will lawmakers have an opportunity to amend or to vote separately on the “self-executed” provision. It was automatically agreed to when the House passed the rule. Rules of this
sort contain customary, or “boilerplate,” language, such as: “The amendment printed in
[section 2 of this resolution or in part 1 of the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution] shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole.”

http://www.rules.house.gov/Archives/98-710.pdf

Neo
Rove wrote. "I had faced the prospect of indictment because Patrick Fitzgerald wondered why I'd asked my staff to comb my records to see if I'd talked to Matt Cooper. ... The news of what he had been focused on simply confirmed my view that the special prosecutor was looking for a trophy."
Melinda Romanoff

Po-

I should of mentioned this earlier, I have, on very good first account, that Fitz has a very severe case of misguided prosecutorial judgement.

He makes a decision and his ego steals it and runs with it.

narciso

When the Times, the Post, Newsweek, et al, all virtually canonize you, as they did with
Fitz, and Holder, you know there is probably something wrong.

narciso

Something left off the glowing accounts of Holder, during the summer, in the LUN

Dave (in MA)


Yikes

Clarice

It's interesting that Rove's lawyer, Luskin, wanted Fitz to consult with Margolis (Fitz refused)Interesting becaused it was Margolis who pitched the OPR trumped up charges against ByBee and Yoo.
Apparently he's the only person with a sense of decency and the law left in the DoJ.

fdcol63

Hi-def closeups of Pelosi should come with a warning. LOL

narciso

"Palomino" it's interesting that Fitz's m.o.
seems to match that of Earl Warren, up to including his part in abetting EO 1066, he was willing to sabotage the counter terror
machinery, which Libby was a component of, for what, to avenge a decade old grudge, over Libby's representation of Marc Rich

matt

the 16th Amendment was one of the key amendments changing the scope of the federal government and accrued a specific function and power, an income tax, to the federal government.

Now, the president and his allies are trying to use a subterfuge to pass what can legitimately be considered legislation on a scale larger and more intrusive into the specific rights granted by the Constitution than when the income tax was passed. That in itself would, I think, lead to strong grounds for a challenge.

Regulation has traditionally been done through both Acts of Congress and the regulations handed down by the various departments. What seems to be being proposed, for we still don't know for sure, is a combination of regulation, asset seizure, arrogation of power, and expansion of the scope of government all in one.

The powers of government have specifically been laid out by the Constitution and the Amendments. The destruction by the government of existing private sector "persons" such as the insurance companies would, I believe, give those persons standing to petition the Supreme Court for denial of due process, especially if reconciliation is used. The takings clause would also be grounds for a challenge.

Another big gray area I see is that Byrd, the author of the bill, Obama himself, and many others with a much greater knowledge of constitutional law than I have stated openly that the reconciliation process is illegal to use for this type of purpose. That sounds like a fairly big land mine.

The sweetheart deals are another potential land mine. Some states benefit over the majority, while groups like the unions and pharmaceutical companies benefit to the detriment of the whole. This goes to the heart of equality under the law.

Now remember, we also have a Supreme Court whom the POTUS has specifically and publicly impugned. That's a bad thing on many levels. Because there may be serious constitutional issues with such a law there may be a specific mechanism to get the matter before them quickly.They may be able to get it fast tracked. Just a WAG.

The secrecy, the payoffs, the possible blackmail and general dirtyhandedness of the process certainly leads to a reasonable doubt of the legality of the process. Sausagemaking can only go so far before it becomes a felony.

To me, this represents a fundamental change in the governance of the country. This is exactly the type of action the Constitution was written to prevent.

I am not a lawyer, especially a constitutional one, but having read history all my life and been involved with the law far too much for my liking, I have to believe that when you step back and look at this, it can't hold up if challenged.

The Dems have always played fast and loose with the rules, whether it's motor voter, Roe v Wade (bad law), or 100 other issues. The law is simply something to get around. They have a tendency to invent rights that never existed. This time they may be stretching it too far. Just my $0.02.

All, please feel free to take pot shots.

Pops

How about Tort lawyers can only use the services of the doctors they have sued?

You need open heart surgery, you have to go to the doctor you drug through court for 3 years and have them do it.

narciso

Btw, here is more evidence that Massa was going to prove to be a clown, in the LUN

Rob Crawford

Dave in MA -- that shot of Pelosi reminds me of something...

Oh, yeah, that's it.

Danube of Thought

Matt, all the stuff about how the senate and house operate just involves their own rules. If they violate them, there is no recourse other than at the ballot box.

The question of the enumerated powers granted to the congress by the constitution seems to me the key one, but I think challenges to this legislation would have slim chances, because over the decades the S. Ct. has ruled that the power granted to the congress under the interstate commerce clause is so broad that it is practically unlimited. But we will no doubt see.

narciso

I guess this shouldn't surprise anyone, in the LUN, for those who thought his statements at the SOTU, meant anything

Dave (in MA)

Rob, one of my favorite bands.

Melinda Romanoff

Anybody tracking the Slaughter Rule?

Just curious.

Janet

narciso, What insanity! Are we the only nation that is not allowed to develop our own natural resources?

Bill in AZ

"Remember he did miss nabbbing Ali Mohammed the first time
around, for his role in WTC #1, and the larger
NY plot, (what became the inspiration for the Siege) and only after the Embassy bombings"

Ali Mohammed was a perp. Fitz only prosecutes victims.

Frau Umlautlos

Pops is on a roll today. Keep notes.

narciso, which SF book is it where the lawyers who lost a case were tore to pieces on the way out of the courthouse?

Who will find and free Robert Byrd?

narciso

I don't rightly know, Frau, but you are getting that feeling from the trek episode
"Patterns of Force" where the Federation historian who suggested Nazism as a solution
to a planetary crisis, became a pawn for the
aliens

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame