« Yet another study in contrasts | Main | More Proof -If Needed- Hollywood Jumped The Shark »

Karl Rove Indicted For Perjury?

karl_rove_arrest.jpg


It's really quite amusing to watch liberal bloggers fall all over themselves linking to a story at the ironically named Truthout that purports to break news that Karl Rove has been indicted. Of course no such thing has actually happened.

The author of the story, freelance writer Jason Leopold, seems to be working his way down the media chain; going from respectable outlets like The Wall Street Journal and The Los Angeles Times, to online magazine Salon, and now a kooky site like Truthout. There's a reason his work isn't featured anywhere else - he's already been busted down by as a plagiarist and fabricator of material, and as Howard Kurtz reports: he's engaged in "lying, cheating and backstabbing," is a former cocaine addict, served time for grand larceny, repeatedly tried to kill himself and has battled mental illness his whole life. [See Kurtz, Salon, NRO, and NewsMax, and DUmmie Funnies for coverage of Leopold's past]

Leaving aside Leopold's complete lack of credibility, his sudden believability probably hints more at hopefulness on the left than a new mastery of facts. Leopold has been hawking this same every few months since 2005. The story last appeared in April, when indictment was just "days away."

Sure it's possible Rove could be indicted; but Leopold inventing indictments doesn't make it any more likely...


Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators - [Truthout]


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Karl Rove Indicted For Perjury?:

» The Sandbox linked with Karl Rove Indicted For Sure...Maybe

» Chickenhawk Express linked with Now They Think Rove Leaked His Own Indictment??

» IMAO linked with Rove Indicted Roundup!!!!

» Stop The ACLU linked with Wasn’t Karl Rove Supposed To Be Indicted?

» Michelle Malkin linked with THE MOONBAT RUMOR MILL

» Wizbang Podcast linked with Wizbang Podcast #26

Comments (95)

That picture of Rove is a l... (Below threshold)
virgo:

That picture of Rove is a liberals wet dream!

Kevin, that was very, very ... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

Kevin, that was very, very cruel of you to post that picture.

I am positively envious.

J.

You don't even know what a ... (Below threshold)

You don't even know what a liberal is.

"he's engaged in "lying, ch... (Below threshold)

"he's engaged in "lying, cheating and backstabbing," is a former cocaine addict, served time for grand larceny, repeatedly tried to kill himself and has battled mental illness his whole life."

So, you're saying he is a mainstream liberal?

Right now Fitzgerald is more concerned about patching up his case against Libby than in expanding the case. If he had something concrete on Rove he would have indicted him a while back.

So, Poser. I assume you do ... (Below threshold)

So, Poser. I assume you do know what liberals are? "Posers?"

Quoting Kevin's post: an... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Quoting Kevin's post: and as Howard Kurtz reports: he's engaged in "lying, cheating and backstabbing," is a former cocaine addict, served time for grand larceny, repeatedly tried to kill himself and has battled mental illness his whole life. [See Kurtz, Salon, NRO, and NewsMax, and DUmmie Funnies for coverage of Leopold's past]

Reading where you wrote "See Kurtz, Salon, NRO, and NewsMax, and DUmmie Funnies for coverage of Leopold's past" I assumed the links provided backed up the claim that Leopold is a bad actor.

None of those links provided any support to your claim, Kevin, that Leopold is ghuilty of cocaine abuse, etc.

Can you provide a link to any supporting documentation? I'm sure you don't want to leave the appearance that this is just a smear, hit piece. A link to the information you have in quotes would be helpful. Thanks!

Saw this link to Truthout a... (Below threshold)
Eneils Bailey:

Saw this link to Truthout at several sites over the weekend, some that I thought were reputable and unbiased. I first thought it to be a joke, but I think they put some stock in it.
The only person that I have found in the past that believes this site and lets it drive his thinking is Chris Mathews...nuf said.

Lee, I forgot to paste in t... (Below threshold)

Lee, I forgot to paste in the Washington Post link. It's there now.

The whole thing is rovian t... (Below threshold)
Simon:

The whole thing is rovian to begin with. Anyone see any parallels with this and Bushs war record?

Leopold claims to have two completly seperate sources, and the official announcement is supposed to arrive on Tuesday according to Leopold (guess we will see then).

However the point is that we still don't know if he is or not, but hard core Right-wing media can go "Haha stupid Liberals, Rove isn't indicted". Just like Bushes war recorded which no one continued to try to find after CBS memo mess.

What I think is he may be covering his ass, with the recent material that has appeared showing Cheney may of had something to do with Plame. Generally indictments are handed out to try and force a plee bargain and being asked to return 4 times is hardly a good sign.

Funny picture btw.

Whether or not someone had ... (Below threshold)
SuperLiberal:

Whether or not someone had a drug problem, attempted suicide, had run-ins with the law or battled mental illness should not bear on his/her cred.

Only if they are STILL an addict or engaged in self-destructive behavior should they be questioned.

Branding people's past sets back the mental health profession 100 years and invalidates the efforts made by people who have CHANGED.

Of course I would not stoop to mentioning DittoHead's drug problems, William Bennett's gambling, Bush's avoidance of mandatory service and DWI's, or the refusal of General Miller to stand behind his men at trial. Oh, whoops.

Superliberal posted: "Of co... (Below threshold)
bob:

Superliberal posted: "Of course I would not stoop to mentioning DittoHead's drug problems, William Bennett's gambling, Bush's avoidance of mandatory service and DWI's, or the refusal of General Miller to stand behind his men at trial."

Glad to see you won't stoop to reporting the same old lies. Unfortunetly most liberals don't have your sense of ethics.

SuperLib, You c... (Below threshold)

SuperLib,

You can not honestly believe that someones past drug problems or past (and obvious current) mental problems shouldn't be considered when evaluating their credibility. That is exactly how you assess credibility. You consider if their background makes it likely or unlikely that they would be reporting facts or lies.

"Unfortunetly (sic) most li... (Below threshold)
haeuptling aberja:

"Unfortunetly (sic) most liberals don't have your sense of ethics."

Yes, ethics is a Republican virtue; of course it is, since they are the (self-appointed) arbiters of what 'ethics' and 'vrtue' mean, how could it be otherwise? Of course, if by ethics one means a code of behavior encompassing things like honor and honesty (see the history of Karl Rove's political tactics), well then one could always turn to Jesus, but, well, He had long hair and taught the power of love and mercy, compassion and sharing, etc...Far too liberal, obviously. I mean, c'mon, rich men, camels, needles and heaven--what kind of revolutionary crap is that?! Good thing the Empire was there to crucify him, all in the name of making the world safe for nationalistic governments openly run by corporate interests who know their bottom line from some pansy-ass commie preaching against greed and war (and the engines who drive them--thank you Carlyle Group, Halliburton, Bechtel, Du Pont, GE...)

None of those links prov... (Below threshold)

None of those links provided any support to your claim, Kevin, that Leopold is ghuilty of cocaine abuse, etc.

Leopold claims those things himself, Lee. Try reading the articles next time.

What could be scarier than ... (Below threshold)

What could be scarier than a bunch of Tennessee Gorilla Women having a cyber-gasm?

If it wasn't so pathetic, it would be hilarious!

Cute Lisa. Thanks for confi... (Below threshold)

Cute Lisa. Thanks for confirming your high school sophomore status. Some of us were wondering.

You'll see who'll have the ... (Below threshold)
wy:

You'll see who'll have the last laugh here... and my money is on Jason Leopold. Rove is going down down down! Merry Fitzmas everyone.

Coming from one who believe... (Below threshold)
fireback:

Coming from one who believes Rove is the devil, I do agree there's plenty of reason to be skeptical. If Leopold is lying or his source is, its pretty risky considering he states we'll know with days. Time will soon tell if the frogmarching will begin.

But sleight of hand,... (Below threshold)


But sleight of hand, misleading. It's so the way this admnistration does things. This, for instance, re BlogAds:
http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/06/05/edi06033.html

But back to Rove --

Updating the Rove indictment story Posted by: McQ on Monday, May 15, 2006 http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=3873

Jeralyn Merritt at "Talk Left" has outlined a conversation he had with "Truthout.org" author Jason Leopold concerning his assertion that Karl Rove's indictment is imminent. Interesting read. Merritt's bottom line:
________________

Bottom line: I believe Jason's sources told him what he reported. Were the sources accurate? Were they basically right but just mistaken on a few of the legal technicalities due to an unfamiliarity with the jargon? Time will tell. If they lied, Jason has promised to disclose their identities....
If the return of the Indictment is made public this week,then regardless of whether Fitz was at Luskin's office for one hour or many hours this past Friday, or whether the Indictment was voted on last week or this week, I think it proves Jason's sources, and his reporting, substantially correct.On the other hand, should it turn out that Fitzgerald was not in D.C. at all on Friday, that he was not at Luskin's office and neither was Rove, then Jason will disclose his sources and we can discuss whether Jason was set up and why.
Still developing after a fashion.
________________


The storm is on us.
Ah so. They're damming up the whistleblowers, aren't they.

http://jungcircle.com/muse/bigbrother.html

LissaKay:Hey, that... (Below threshold)

LissaKay:

Hey, that's hilarious! Hahaha! look what she did, folks, she misspelled "Guerilla" in "Tennessee Guerilla Women"! Spelled it like a hairy animal! Get it? "Gorilla"? Hairy-legged wimmin and stuff? Too funny! We never heard THAT one before! As for orgasms, cyber- or otherwise, perhaps you might restrict yourself to speaking only of things you know. Which would be, based upon a cursory glance at your blog, basically, nothing.

Also, attacking the messenger is so first-Bush-term. But go ahead, do it. Doesn't change the message, whenever it should finally arrive.

The veracity of Leopold's s... (Below threshold)
Ockham:

The veracity of Leopold's story will be seen shortly (he's guaranteeing it, for what it's worth); however, it's patently ABSURD for anyone who claims to be non-partisan and logical to condemn Leopold and his story at this point.

After all the misdeeds and the indictments/pending indictments why WOULD a logical person give Rove and the gang the benefit of the doubt??? They've forfeited that. At this point it's really in their laps to prove otherwise. Sad to say, but they've earned all this skepticism and anger they're handed. Maybe it'll have it's day in court, but don't accuse the court of public opinion for wrong-doing on this, no way.

There is simple proof that ... (Below threshold)

There is simple proof that the picture is fake.

Can you possible imagine Karl Rove in a khaki suit, and that tie?!?!?

"...he's engaged in "lying,... (Below threshold)
Kris:

"...he's engaged in "lying, cheating and backstabbing," is a former cocaine addict, served time for grand larceny, repeatedly tried to kill himself and has battled mental illness his whole life."

You mean, like Rush?

LargeBill sez...
"You can not honestly believe that someones past drug problems or past (and obvious current) mental problems shouldn't be considered when evaluating their credibility. That is exactly how you assess credibility. You consider if their background makes it likely or unlikely that they would be reporting facts or lies."

Again, like Rush?

You people spew such sh1t, it's disgusting!

Liberal bloggers were sooo ... (Below threshold)

Liberal bloggers were sooo falling all over themselves over this story by Truthout this past weekend. I for one was having a lot of fun just surfing around and reading their comments.
AubreyJ.........

Indictments are handed up, ... (Below threshold)

Indictments are handed up, not down. Calm down.

Hmmmm.Frankly I do... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmmm.

Frankly I don't get this whole liberal obsession over Rove. He's not a genius, he's an idiot facing people who nominate Al Gore, John Kerry and Al Sharpton.

Really how much of a political genius do you have to be to face that bunch?

Here we are with a President who has stepped on his own crank so many times in the past 5 years that it's hard to imagine anyone conferring the title "genius" onto Karl Rove.

Rush is not a former cocain... (Below threshold)
Matt, Esq.:

Rush is not a former cocaine addict, has never been arrested or convicted of grand larceny, has not tried to kill himself and while conservatism may be considered a mental disease by the left, I think you'll be hard pressed to prove Rush has battled "mental illness his whole lift". You seem to be projecting or perhaps you meant Kennedy congressman ? I found it hilarious that moonbats scream for Limbaugh's head for prescription drug problems but then heap nothing but praise on the Kennedy spawn for his "courage in addressing the his problems.".

Also, as for the guarantee ? Its not really a guarantee if there's no consequences of the guarantor- losing whats arguably left of Leopold's credibility cannot really be considered a true consequence.

Wouldn't it be interesting ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Wouldn't it be interesting if the leaks that snared Leopold this last weekend were actually intentional leaks that were part of a sting put in place to discover where the leaks were coming from --- using -- and this is good part -- using the phone records the White House is obtaining through the recently-revealed AT&T provided data feeds?

Ok - this tin-foil hat is scratching my scalp so I will take it off now - but you know, in this day and age, I wouldn't be surprised....

He claims "24" hours...hmmm... (Below threshold)
Drew E.:

He claims "24" hours...hmmm I take that to mean 3 business days which means Wed...we will see..by the way DeLay is leaving Congress when? Does anyone really believe Delay would be leaving simply because some bent prosecutor from Austin was after him? Is "The Hammer" leaving because he is afraid of MSM? The spin cycle only works until the machine breaks down.


Let's see..on Friday was the video of FBI going into a home of Goss's pick for #3 guy? Let's see did the Dukester have a menu for what it would cost to sell out our troops for defense contracts? A few real simple questions..Would someone like W. ever be elected without someone like Rove? When you are using Chainsaw politics are you ever going to go too far? Bush's nickname for Rove is "turdblossem." Would you, for whatever reason, suck up to a boss that called you (with affection of course)turdblossem?

Why is everyone on the left... (Below threshold)
Keith Hernandez:

Why is everyone on the left so geeked up over some old stories of cocaine use/abuse?

Isnt that Sandy Burglars bo... (Below threshold)
virgo:

Isnt that Sandy Burglars body with Roves head spliced in? that atrocious tie looks familiar?

Karl Rove cannot be indicte... (Below threshold)
Satan:

Karl Rove cannot be indicted because he is a minion of the dark lord. Everyone must join the republican party in the pits of hell!! All Hail Satan!!

For all you Rape-publicans ... (Below threshold)
Himself:

For all you Rape-publicans who still support the Liar/leaker in chief; I have to wonder what it takes for you to see the light! If Bush, Rove, Cheney and Rumsfeld gang raped your wife and children right in front of you would you still support them then? - I'll bet you would! Bend over suckers, you're getting screwed every day by your leaders and you don't even know it.

For all you Rape-publicans ... (Below threshold)
Himself:

For all you Rape-publicans who still support the Liar/leaker in chief; I have to wonder what it takes for you to see the light! If Bush, Rove, Cheney and Rumsfeld gang raped your wife and children right in front of you would you still support them then? - I'll bet you would! Bend over suckers, you're getting screwed every day by your leaders and you don't even know it.

Has anyone else thought abo... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

Has anyone else thought about comparing Leopold with Jeff Gannon? I didn't follow either closely enough, but Gannon's past is apparently enough to taint anything remotely journalistic he might ever do, while Leopold's far more criminal and destructive past is now to be considered irrelevant, and bringing it up is "destructive" and "mean-spirited" and a few other things...

J.

Jay, Jay, Jay,Logic?... (Below threshold)
scsiwuzzy:

Jay, Jay, Jay,
Logic? Applying the same standards?
Who do you think you're addressing here?
BUt then we are both being rhetorical...

Why are they all named Jaso... (Below threshold)
Matthew Johnson:

Why are they all named Jason?

"If Bush, Rove, Cheney and ... (Below threshold)
Sweetie:

"If Bush, Rove, Cheney and Rumsfeld gang raped your wife and children right in front of you would you still support them then? - I'll bet you would!"

Fahgetaboutit, Nancy. You're not going to be made Speaker this year or any other year.

Ha - you fool! you have no ... (Below threshold)
himself:

Ha - you fool! you have no idea who I am! I may just send Bush, and his gang over to gang rape you next!

Nancy, Nancy, Nancy. You w... (Below threshold)
Sweetie:

Nancy, Nancy, Nancy. You want Denny to put you in time out again?

Well now I'm pissed. I hate... (Below threshold)

Well now I'm pissed. I hate it when those Guerilla Women have a cybergasm and I'm not invited.

Thanks for the heads up, Lis, and I guess you must feel the same way!

- This is so fecklessly wor... (Below threshold)

- This is so fecklessly worthless, its not even worth commenting on.

- Fitzy's biggest problem now is getting out of this giant partisan mess he's created, without losing his law license.

Maybe He could consult Clin... (Below threshold)
virgo:

Maybe He could consult Clinton on the law liscense thing! oops I forgot' Clinton has been disbarred.
Satan Himself, rape Yourself you degenerate michael moore reprobate"

Here's a grand spectacle! M... (Below threshold)
Dag N.:

Here's a grand spectacle! Must make the RNC proud to see such things. Anyone with the sense to look into it sees the parallels between the Bush administration's tactics and record and the realpolitik of the 30's. Americans have been duped again, and the soundbite rules! As far as Rove's eventual indictment, I'm prepared to be patient. As we find out more and more what Bush & Co. think of our liberties and that damn Constitution thing, more and more Americans are gonna be PISSED off big time.
Why doesn't anyone want to point out that these actions in a time of war(Bush's favorite excuse for trampling rights and Big Brother tactics) are in fact treasonous? Isn't it also treasonous for the Executive to ignore the laws it's sworn to uphold? It should be! I am going to be so glad to see the ass end of the current republican fascist group being run out of washington by the justly angered electorate starting this fall! Goodbye, national fascism. You liars are just too filthy to tolerate any further.
What do you call Rove being indicted? A great start!! Stay tuned for more fun!!

Care to explain what, preci... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Care to explain what, precisely, is "treasonous"? Not a single one of Bush's actions do not stand up to Constitutional muster. Not one.

Hint: Just because Congress passes a law restricting executive powers does not mean they have the POWER to actually pass a law restricting executive powers.

Again --- we didn't find several hundred FBI files of opponents in the Bush White House. We DID find them under Clinton. Nobody seemed to care then.

I wonder why. Couldn't be media bias.
-=Mike

get over the 'liberal' and ... (Below threshold)
william basin:

get over the 'liberal' and 'conservative' crap. we have more important things to focus on. while you are busy dividing yourself and others, the fascists are destroying the country. they will do so as long as we're distracted by fighting each other.

Yeah, Bush is a "fascist".<... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Yeah, Bush is a "fascist".

Sure.

We're supposed to take your "don't be divided" shit seriously?
-=Mike

This country has been taken... (Below threshold)

This country has been taken over by fascists???

Well they are pretty piss-poor fascists, letting you libs mouth off like this.

Can any of you even see the irony of claiming via free media that we live in a fascist society?

No?

They're going batsh*t crazy... (Below threshold)
Son Of The Godfather:

They're going batsh*t crazy with anticipation over at DU (what else is new?).

PJ Comix has an excellent thread where one of their most prominent posters has a LOT of explaining to do!

It's here: http://dummiefunnies.blogspot.com/
(and very much worth the read)

Mike-"Treason"-A per... (Below threshold)
Dag N.:

Mike-
"Treason"-A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy. Mr. Bush took an oath to uphold the constitution upon entering office. His actions with regard to the wiretapping and data mining have violated the fourth amendment, and Gitmo and other prisons have violated the fifth. His "faith based" initiatives violate the first.
The pattern here, in my opinion, is a profound disregard for the rule of law as it opposes the power of the executive. Mr. Bush holds us all, and our constitution, in contempt. That alone is enough to make me want to see him impeached. To routinely state that he is not bound by the checks and balances our founding fathers built into our government violates the spirit and the letter of our laws. Only Congress has the power to make laws, the courts to interpret them, and the executive to CARRY THEM OUT FAITHFULLY REGARDLESS OF HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT THEM!!!
This administration feels it can act unilaterally in areas it has no legal power in. They feel that they can "out" a CIA operative during wartime for political gain- THIS ALONE SHOULD BE A HANGING OFFENSE DURING WARTIME.
Fascism, at least in the Italian model, is the integration of industry into the government to better serve the needs of the powerful industrialists(or at least it did so enough to win their approval, as it did in Nazi Germany). History tells us again and again what happens when business runs government-the people lose. That was a prime motivation for the revolution that founded our republic in the first place. So yes, Fascism is a good description of what this administration feels is correct governance. Witness the "secret" energy policy meeting of Mr. Cheney, and the corporate welfare the Oil industry here receives in the face of indecent profits at our expense. Don't even get me started on tax breaks for the super wealthy during wartime, an unspeakably vulgar case of greed and corruption. These people are not proponents of the republic we all inhabit. They must, and will be, removed from office by the electorate as soon as possible. I realize that impeachment is not going to happen with the Congress controlled by the neocons but that will change come fall, and then we can show the world that a system that impechs for a blowjob can also remove murderers and traitorous fascists.
Long Live the Republic!


Ken-Have you been pa... (Below threshold)
Dag N.:

Ken-
Have you been paying attention? The telecoms want to strangle free and fair access on the internet in the name of profit(and if a little censorship of dissent happens well...that's ok too) and I wouldn't be surprised if more sidestepping the law happens to further limit our ability to speak out. Though we may now have "free" media it is by no means a permanent condition. Vigilance is our responsibility.
Long Live the Republic!

You always have to wonder w... (Below threshold)

You always have to wonder when the left-tard splodytard comes out with the Nazi link. You know it will but do you know when? How's about May 16, 2006 - 9.38am.

Way to go, Dag. HAND.

I watched the movie 'Conspi... (Below threshold)

I watched the movie 'Conspiracy Theory' this weekend and most of what Dag and the other left-tards on this thread are spewing remind me of Mel Gibson's hilarious monologue in his taxi at the beginning of the movie, where he's spouting off all of his goofy conspirazoid nonsense at his captive passengers.

Hilarious.

""Treason"-A person who bet... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

""Treason"-A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy. Mr. Bush took an oath to uphold the constitution upon entering office. His actions with regard to the wiretapping and data mining have violated the fourth amendment, and Gitmo and other prisons have violated the fifth. His "faith based" initiatives violate the first."

Except the First Amendment CLEARLY didn't intend for there to be a total wall between religion and the state, as church-run schools were the norm WHEN THE AMENDMENT WAS PASSED and continued being so for decades.

A bastardization of the establishment clause has led to horrible case law.

And the "wiretapping" of international calls and "data mining" are hardly violations of the 4th Amendment, as any judge with a semblance of Constitutional knowledge would tell you.

It's not treason just because you don't understand the concept of what it and what is not legal.

As for Gitmo --- you're kidding, right? You are aware that non-citizens don't actually have Constitutional protections, since they are not, you know, subject to our laws and all. It's a military prison and the most humanely run military prison in human history.

If you were to claim inaction on immigration was "treasonous", you MIGHT have an exceptionally weak case. As it is, you simply don't have a case at all.

"The pattern here, in my opinion, is a profound disregard for the rule of law as it opposes the power of the executive."

Seeing as your knowledge is limited, this don't count for much.

"Mr. Bush holds us all, and our constitution, in contempt."

Yes

"That alone is enough to make me want to see him impeached."

No need for a crime though, right?

"To routinely state that he is not bound by the checks and balances our founding fathers built into our government violates the spirit and the letter of our laws. Only Congress has the power to make laws, the courts to interpret them, and the executive to CARRY THEM OUT FAITHFULLY REGARDLESS OF HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT THEM!!!"

The Constitution lays out specific powers of the executive that none of the other 2 branches can touch. Just because Congress says the President has to do something does not mean the President has to do it. The Congress is an equal --- it's not a superior branch. In fact, the President has the most direct claim to being the most important branch as it is the only one elected nationally.

"This administration feels it can act unilaterally in areas it has no legal power in. They feel that they can "out" a CIA operative during wartime for political gain- THIS ALONE SHOULD BE A HANGING OFFENSE DURING WARTIME."

Except she wasn't "outed" (again, undercover agents don't, you know, WORK AT CIA HQ). And the witchhunt you lefties demanded turned up --- well, approximately squat. Plame wasn't outed.

But, I notice you aren't upset about the leaking of key intel programs to the press --- so at least your consistent, right?

"Fascism, at least in the Italian model, is the integration of industry into the government to better serve the needs of the powerful industrialists(or at least it did so enough to win their approval, as it did in Nazi Germany)."

Which was a HUGE problem under the prior administration, who decided to let businesses sell military tech to the Chinese as long as the Chinese gave him campaign contributions and gave to his library. He helped make Enron huge, in spite of never actually making a dime, by having an insanely weak SEC --- note that the prosecutions for fraud didn't occur under Clinton, even though the crimes were pretty obvious to anybody who looked during Clinton's term?

I can point to a deep bond between Clinton and business that severely weakened American security. Same can't be said for Bush.

"History tells us again and again what happens when business runs government-the people lose."

Thank God Bush learned from Clinton's shortcomings.

"That was a prime motivation for the revolution that founded our republic in the first place."

It wasn't a series of repressive taxes and total control of business by the monarchy, eh?

"So yes, Fascism is a good description of what this administration feels is correct governance. "

Except it FAR more readily fits Clinton's administration.

"Witness the "secret" energy policy meeting of Mr. Cheney, and the corporate welfare the Oil industry here receives in the face of indecent profits at our expense."

Asking energy companies for ways to cut energy prices?

Man, that kind of logical thinking has no place in your world, eh?

Again, it was Clinton's lax policies and culture of corruption that led to Enron.

"Don't even get me started on tax breaks for the super wealthy during wartime, an unspeakably vulgar case of greed and corruption."

Except the tax cuts have made the tax structure even MORE progressive and now the top 3% pay as much as the bottom 97%.

But don't let reality slow you down. You sure didn't let a lack of knowledge do so.

"These people are not proponents of the republic we all inhabit. They must, and will be, removed from office by the electorate as soon as possible."

Seeing as how the electorate had the chance and decided that they wanted to stick with them, immaterial.

"I realize that impeachment is not going to happen with the Congress controlled by the neocons but that will change come fall, and then we can show the world that a system that impechs for a blowjob can also remove murderers and traitorous fascists."

Of course, Clinton's only crime was getting a BJ from a beast, right?

Not perjury. Or suborning perjury. Or obstruction of justice. Or massive campain finance violations. Or selling out our security so the Chicoms would give to his campaign and to his library. Or pardoning an unrepentant fugitive tax cheat because his wife gave to Clinton.

Yeah, THAT was just fine in your twisted view.

"Long Live the Republic!"

Don't let Dems back in power!
-=Mike

And now the Reader's Digest... (Below threshold)
Lee:

And now the Reader's Digest condensed version of Mike's post above.

Don't let Dems back in power!
-=Mike

Mike's a true Loyalist .

As opposed to a true <a hre... (Below threshold)
Lee:

As opposed to a true Patriot.

I'm not suggesting we need a revolution -- but we need a hell of a lot more than blind loyalty to the crown.

Ah, so the left questions o... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Ah, so the left questions other people's patrotism. Typical. Are you going to say that you were just answering to the mass (non-existant) claims of a lack of patriotism that the collection of collaborators and miscreants that make up your preferred political idealogy claims occurs regularly without any evidence of it ever occurring?

I want a government run by people who won't apologize because we dared to have 2 towers in the way of those jetliners on 9/11, not by the assorted pant-soilers that make up your side. A party that thinks endangering our interests in pursuit of campaign or Presidential library contributions is a really bad idea, not one that uses it as a major focus of their election fund-raising strategy.

I find it hilarious that your side bitches that my side claims anybody who disagrees with us is "unpatriotic" --- yet the ONLY one here who has made the claim is you, twatwaffle.
-=Mike

People like Mike are the le... (Below threshold)
himself:

People like Mike are the least patriotic of all- CHICKEN HAWKS! Always willing to send other people to fight and die in a war for Exon while they sit on thier ass typing on a blog. Willing to turn our ports over to the very people who attacked us on 9/11; want to buld a fence at the border but allow corporations to hire illegal aliens to work as slaves.

Anyone who supports the Rape-publicans should be in Iraq, but you'll never see that because they are all cowards.

"People like Mike are the l... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

"People like Mike are the least patriotic of all- CHICKEN HAWKS!"

You mean like former President Clinton?

Nah, I never dodged service like he did. Just had an accident several years ago that required me to have several vertebra fused together. I'm such a pussy for not being to handle a broken back and all...

"Always willing to send other people to fight and die in a war for Exon while they sit on thier ass typing on a blog."

Exxon is behind this war? I'm sure it's news to them, since they have to pay through the nose for oil.

Also, learn to spell. If you're going to be a psychopathic troll, at least seem like you're literate, OK?

"Willing to turn our ports over to the very people who attacked us on 9/11"

Actually, Shumer is pushing for that:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20060510-093229-4647r

And since you seem to not know that no matter who OWNS the port operations, the Coast Guard and Customs run security, you're clearly not the brightest bulb.

"want to buld a fence at the border but allow corporations to hire illegal aliens to work as slaves."

I actually support fining any company who has more than 1 illegal (since one can always slip through) massively. But don't let reality slow ya down, Sparky.

"Anyone who supports the Rape-publicans should be in Iraq, but you'll never see that because they are all cowards."

Thanks Sadie. Now go back to your putrid-smelling coven.
-=Mike

You can't blame EVERYTHING ... (Below threshold)
himself:

You can't blame EVERYTHING on Clinton. Bush ignored the warnings about 9/11, Bush's father was meeting with a Bin-Laden on 9/11, Bush's grandfather made war equipment to sell to Nazi Germany during WW2.

Clinton had sex - probably something you would never consider - at least with a woman.

Bush got us into a war with a country that never attacked us, Bush got our country in to trillions in debt to the Saudis and Chinese (people who hate us) and now Bush wants to nuke Iran.

I'll bet you covered your eyes and plugged your ears when Bush was running around in the news HOLDING HANDS with the Saudi prince on TV.

Bend over stupid people, and just let him screw you and generations of your children too.

PS: What about the illegal ... (Below threshold)
himself:

PS: What about the illegal alien mowing your lawn or cleaning your house.

Bet you'd hire one for $2.00 an hour if you could get away with it.

"You can't blame EVERYTHING... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

"You can't blame EVERYTHING on Clinton. Bush ignored the warnings about 9/11"

Yes, a vague warning about an attack in the US at some point in the future along with the same intel that had been seen for well over a year IS quite the warning.

Now, if there wasn't a wall between the FBI and the CIA, something MIGHT have been done.

But, damn Bush for not completely changing all of the policies within 8 months of his inauguration. Though, in hindsight, he should have turfed all Clinton appointees his first day in office.

"Bush's father was meeting with a Bin-Laden on 9/11"

1) Some proof would be lovely.
2) You are aware that the bin Laden clan is actually rather large, right?

"Bush's grandfather made war equipment to sell to Nazi Germany during WW2."

And his dad fought in WW2 against the Nazis. Gee, sounds like the Kennedys, don't it?

"Clinton had sex - probably something you would never consider - at least with a woman."

Raped at least one woman. Harassed another within a week of her husband dying. Yeah, that Clinton --- what a loveable rogue.

And, seriously, virgin jokes? What is this, 7th grade?

"Bush got us into a war with a country that never attacked us"

Provided one ignores the routine firing on pilots patrolling the no-fly zones...

"Bush got our country in to trillions in debt to the Saudis and Chinese (people who hate us) and now Bush wants to nuke Iran."

Umm, Clinton is the one who refused to investigate the Khobar Tower bombing out of fear of the Saudis cutting back oil production. It was Clinton who sold the Chinese military technology against the advice of the Dept. of Defense.

"I'll bet you covered your eyes and plugged your ears when Bush was running around in the news HOLDING HANDS with the Saudi prince on TV."

Wow, that IS damning. He should've been as fierce as Clinton was -- you know, refusing to investigate the deaths of hundreds of soldiers because gas prices meant more to him.

But continue defending the useless lug Clinton.

"Bend over stupid people, and just let him screw you and generations of your children too."

It's amazing how often homophobic epithets are used by the left to criticize the right.

As Ann Coulter has said: We only don't want them to marry one another. The left actually hates them.
-=Mike

"PS: What about the illegal... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

"PS: What about the illegal alien mowing your lawn or cleaning your house.

Bet you'd hire one for $2.00 an hour if you could get away with it."

I can actually mow my lawn and clean my own house. Unlike the far left, most conservatives aren't the idle rich who inherited a nest egg.
-=Mike

Invoking Ann Coulter on sho... (Below threshold)
himself:

Invoking Ann Coulter on shows how gullible and myopic you are.

And Clinton is irrelavent - you should unsubscribe to the Rape-publican talking points, stop quoting uninformed pundits who just pull everything they say out of their buts.

The only reason your so eager to bash Clinton is because you can't think of a single thing idiot boy bush has done without screwing it up. The guy can't even ride his bicycle without falling off.

Find some real facts about your boy king and forget about bashing Clinton.

I know! I know! He gave you tax cuts for people who make over $200,000 a year! That must make you soooooo happy!


"Invoking Ann Coulter on sh... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

"Invoking Ann Coulter on shows how gullible and myopic you are."

I actually did it solely to piss you off.

"And Clinton is irrelavent - you should unsubscribe to the Rape-publican talking points, stop quoting uninformed pundits who just pull everything they say out of their buts."

So, rape is OK if a Democrat does it?

Got it.

And Bush Sr. speaking to a bin Laden is relevant, right? Sure, you didn't PROVE it or anything, but if you did, would it even be relevant?

"The only reason your so eager to bash Clinton is because you can't think of a single thing idiot boy bush has done without screwing it up. The guy can't even ride his bicycle without falling off."

Economy is skyrocketing in spite of it crashing when he took office. We've done a number on terrorists internationally. Iraq has an actual gov't. Oh, and the far left has gone bat-shit insane, which is always fun.

"Find some real facts about your boy king and forget about bashing Clinton."

Nah, I'll bash Clinton because
1) I can
2) He is such a fertile topic
3) It make you unhappy.

"I know! I know! He gave you tax cuts for people who make over $200,000 a year! That must make you soooooo happy!"

He also made the system so that the top 3% pay more than the bottom 97% combined.

But, again, don't let reality slow ya down, Sparky.
-=Mike

"Invoking Ann Coulter on sh... (Below threshold)
himself:

"Invoking Ann Coulter on shows how gullible and myopic you are."

I actually did it solely to piss you off.
**Actually, you've already proven by your diatibe that you can't be taken seriously - I view you more like some sort of circus clown - waving and screaming while we wait for something better to come along - you don't piss me off - you're just another noisy deluded Rape-publican - pathetic actually.

"And Clinton is irrelavent - you should unsubscribe to the Rape-publican talking points, stop quoting uninformed pundits who just pull everything they say out of their buts."

So, rape is OK if a Democrat does it?
***That was consentual - unless like many feminists you believe that whenever a man has sex with a woman it is rape.
Or did she rape him?

Got it.
***Got sperm

And Bush Sr. speaking to a bin Laden is relevant, right? Sure, you didn't PROVE it or anything, but if you did, would it even be relevant?

***If you read anything other than Rape-publican talking points you would have seen that from many reputable sources - btw what have you proved? mostly that your uninformed and really gullible.

"The only reason your so eager to bash Clinton is because you can't think of a single thing idiot boy bush has done without screwing it up. The guy can't even ride his bicycle without falling off."

Economy is skyrocketing in spite of it crashing when he took office. We've done a number on terrorists internationally. Iraq has an actual gov't. Oh, and the far left has gone bat-shit insane, which is always fun.
***what economy do you live in? I assume you must be a millionaire.

"Find some real facts about your boy king and forget about bashing Clinton."

Nah, I'll bash Clinton because
1) I can
2) He is such a fertile topic
3) It make you unhappy.
***RIGHT! exactly my point- there simply is nothing good about Bush and because you can't think of anything better to do.

"I know! I know! He gave you tax cuts for people who make over $200,000 a year! That must make you soooooo happy!"

He also made the system so that the top 3% pay more than the bottom 97% combined.

*** Oh! I get it so your taxes came down by $20 Yippee! How's that $3.00 a gallon gas working out for you? Sure is working out great for the oil president and all his pals at Exon etc.

But, again, don't let reality slow ya down, Sparky.
** not to fear - I'll never be as slow as you!
-=Mike

**Actually, you've already ... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

**Actually, you've already proven by your diatibe that you can't be taken seriously - I view you more like some sort of circus clown - waving and screaming while we wait for something better to come along - you don't piss me off - you're just another noisy deluded Rape-publican - pathetic actually.**

Again, it's odd that the party that seems to have allegations of rape made against them tends to be the Democrats.

**That was consentual - unless like many feminists you believe that whenever a man has sex with a woman it is rape.
Or did she rape him?

Got it.**

http://www.wpni.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/broaddrick022599.htm
She didn't seem to think it was consensual. But what does she know, huh? Also, Kathleen Willey didn't find it consensual. Nor did Paula Jones.

***If you read anything other than Rape-publican talking points you would have seen that from many reputable sources - btw what have you proved? mostly that your uninformed and really gullible.**

You see, this is where a link would be provided --- as I did to the point right above this --- to back up your insepid claim. Come on, if it's been mentioned SO often, one link shouldn't be a problem.

***what economy do you live in? I assume you must be a millionaire.***

Hmm, 4.7% unemployment. Constant high growth. Booming real estate. No dot-com bubble on Wall Street.

Is the sky blue in the alternate universe where you reside?

***RIGHT! exactly my point- there simply is nothing good about Bush and because you can't think of anything better to do.**

I actually mentioned a lot of good things Bush did. Just because, for you, reading is not fundamental does not make it so for the rest of society.

*** Oh! I get it so your taxes came down by $20 Yippee! How's that $3.00 a gallon gas working out for you? Sure is working out great for the oil president and all his pals at Exon etc.***

If you REALLY have no idea how the market works, just be silent and don't prove that you're clueless.

I'll give you a basic lesson.

That $70 a barrel price for oil? Oil companies have to pay it to even GET the product.

The average profit an oil company makes on $1 of gas? 8 cents. Which is amongst the lowest profit margins of any business in the country.

To give a comparison, the gov't makes about .40 for every dollar of a gallon of gas.
-=Mike

Suggest you go to Google, ... (Below threshold)
margie:

Suggest you go to Google, look up Jason Leopold and read the first entry from Scoop.
We all believe what we want to believe, but I believe Jason ! Especially when Paul Krugman is involved on his behalf. It's going to be very interesting to see how this whole thing turns out.
Either way......

"We know the Democrats have... (Below threshold)
uh oh:

"We know the Democrats have had no legislative agenda during this Congress, but their political agenda is becoming clearer by the day.

They want the White House in 2008. But they know their policies won't fly with the American people. So they've embarked on a plan to take control of Congress in 2006 and then use Congress to initiate a long series of investigations and possible impeachment to win the White House in 2008."

as emailed by
Elizabeth 'The Fake Red Cross' -Mole- DOLE

Looooooongggggg series of investigations......sound familiar for those rape-publicans who like to harken back to the good old balanced budget Clinton Days.....No legislative agenda....Hell the Dems can't even get a microophone thats on thanks to the majority and sensen breener and others....

Here's your issue my good diversion arguers :

http://www.911truth.org/index.php

be afraid be very afraid .....

"Suggest you go to Google, ... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

"Suggest you go to Google, look up Jason Leopold and read the first entry from Scoop.
We all believe what we want to believe, but I believe Jason ! Especially when Paul Krugman is involved on his behalf. It's going to be very interesting to see how this whole thing turns out.
Either way......"

I can't tell if this is sarcasm.

"Looooooongggggg series of investigations......sound familiar for those rape-publicans who like to harken back to the good old balanced budget Clinton Days....No legislative agenda."

A balanced budget that was not proposed by Clinton, mind you.

And the GOP had no agenda? Missed that whole little "Contract With America" thing, huh? You know, that featured a 10 step platform for what they wanted to do.

"Hell the Dems can't even get a microophone thats on thanks to the majority and sensen breener and others...."

As opposed to how charitable the Dems were when they were in power? My heart, truly, bleeds.

Of course, the mic was cut because the Congressperson was asking questions that had nothing to do with the subject at hand, but that's neither here nor there.

As for 911truth.org, I'll go ahead and ask:

You have identical info that Bush has. OBL wants to attack somewhere in the US at some point in the future by some means nobody can guess.

You'd have done...what? Come on, tell us what you'd have done differently.

Investigate flight schools? Couldn't be done without "just cause" and since the FBI and CIA couldn't communicate --- thanks Clinton --- no chance of that.

Shut down every major city for --- well, damn, who knew how long it'd take?

Come on, tell us what you'd have done differently. Even WITH the gift of hindsight that nobody had on 9/11 (hell, the NY Times printed a sympathetic article about a domestic terrorist THAT MORNING), there is nothing you'd have done differently.

You just want to bitch. Which is your right and all --- but it's more than a little meaningless.

And, geez Sadie, can't you stick to one name?
-=Mike

Ah, you can almost smell th... (Below threshold)
RAL:

Ah, you can almost smell the panic.

Today is the day people. Enjoy the fireworks.

It's just odd that only one... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

It's just odd that only one anonymous guy who has reported this story ad nauseum since October "broke" the story. I know, the press is SO obviously in Bush's back pocket and all -- but you'd think SOMEBODY would have reported it.

He'll never "reveal" his "sources" as "voices in my head" seldom makes a compelling source for a story.

Just cause .... you mean re... (Below threshold)
hhj:

Just cause .... you mean reasonalbe cause 4th amendment Perry? .... mooted by your pals .....
face it the republican party smells ... and they are fat asses

"he's engaged in "lying, ch... (Below threshold)
godless:

"he's engaged in "lying, cheating and backstabbing," is a former cocaine addict, served time for grand larceny, repeatedly tried to kill himself and has battled mental illness his whole life."

Hmmm...besides the grand larceny and suicide thing (as far as we know), this sound a lot like someone else...maybe...

George W(orst fucking cokehead/alcoholic/president ever!) Bush

Mike, I like rebuttal but y... (Below threshold)
Dag N.:

Mike, I like rebuttal but you need to show me some facts here, or you just sound like another reactionary neocon spouting the RNC talking points du jour...so here's some clarification for you.
"Except the First Amendment CLEARLY didn't intend for there to be a total wall between religion and the state, as church-run schools were the norm WHEN THE AMENDMENT WAS PASSED and continued being so for decades."
I'll concede the point that before our new form of government got off the ground and flying that education was largely done by religious schools, but that is not an argument that shows merit in the educational system as it existed, merely a statement of fact. That fact was changed by our government after it was formed, so what if it was different before? As to there never being an intention to form a wall between religion and state, Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut in 1802 in which he declared that it was the
purpose of the First Amendment to build ''a wall of separation be-
tween Church and State.'' Look it up, THE WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 281 (A.Libscomb ed.,1904). Looks like he did in fact even use the term "wall"! Please check your facts before engaging your opinion.

"A bastardization of the establishment clause has led to horrible case law."
Opinion. And where does this "bastardization" term come from? Apparently your opinion is better than Jefferson's. I disagree. Horrible case law? Another opinion, not a fact. Case law on the first amendment is certainly abundant, but that is more due to the fact that people and groups have sought to infringe upon it than the reverse.

"And the "wiretapping" of international calls and "data mining" are hardly violations of the 4th Amendment, as any judge with a semblance of Constitutional knowledge would tell you."

I'm using a broader interpretation of the 4th amendment here than you are I suppose. It does not say "except if you are trying to communicate with non-Americans" anywhere in that Amendment. More to the point, the data being collected that I'm disputing the legality of is domestic, not international. Have you missed the headlines recently?

"It's not treason just because you don't understand the concept of what it and what is not legal."
Apparently you don't either. The facts are clear on what is considered treasonous action, look into it some time.

"As for Gitmo --- you're kidding, right? You are aware that non-citizens don't actually have Constitutional protections, since they are not, you know, subject to our laws and all."

OK I conceed that I might be wrong by letter here, but no way am I wrong in spirit. The freedoms and rights we put forth in the Constitution, to me, are obviously intended as "inalienable rights" of ALL PEOPLE, not just Americans. Elitism rears it's ugly head and rationalizes the acceptability of mistreatment of PEOPLE because they "aren't subject to our laws and all." I think the premise is fundamentally flawed, and I can't believe that your immigrant ancestors would agree with you.

"If you were to claim inaction on immigration was "treasonous", you MIGHT have an exceptionally weak case. As it is, you simply don't have a case at all."
What? Make some kind of lucid point here. We're all the children of immigrants. My case is very clear, what's your point on immigration here? More elitist bullshit.

"Seeing as your knowledge is limited, this don't count for much."
Seeing your grammar is rather shoddy, I'd hazard a guess that your knowledge isn't too great either.
Again, what's your point? Try to be specific, and I'll retort specifically.

"Mr. Bush holds us all, and our constitution, in contempt."

"Yes"
Again, what's your point? Apparently you agree with me.

"No need for a crime though, right?"
Did you miss the first part of my post? How many crimes would you like me to enumerate?

"The Constitution lays out specific powers of the executive that none of the other 2 branches can touch. Just because Congress says the President has to do something does not mean the President has to do it. The Congress is an equal --- it's not a superior branch. In fact, the President has the most direct claim to being the most important branch as it is the only one elected nationally."

What powers are you talking about? Show me JUST ONE. The Congress is the branch of government empowered to make laws, the executive to EXECUTE THEM. Apparently you don't agree with our Constitution. You could always leave if you don't like our government.

"Except she wasn't "outed" (again, undercover agents don't, you know, WORK AT CIA HQ)" Wrong. Apparently, some do, as no one who knew her knew what her job was. The facts on that are pretty clear, do a little research yourself.
"And the witchhunt you lefties demanded turned up --- well, approximately squat. Plame wasn't outed."
I would disagree, especially in light of the fact that it isn't over yet is it? Whole point of this thread.

"But, I notice you aren't upset about the leaking of key intel programs to the press --- so at least your consistent, right?"
Did you miss my point? I am VERY upset over the "key intel programs". They are illegal. They trample the 4th amendment. Jeez, pay attention!

"Fascism, at least in the Italian model, is the integration of industry into the government to better serve the needs of the powerful industrialists(or at least it did so enough to win their approval, as it did in Nazi Germany)."

"I can point to a deep bond between Clinton and business that severely weakened American security. Same can't be said for Bush."
Show me the severely weakened security. Bush ignored reports about the 911 attack. Clinton is not my hero. This is irrelevant.

"Thank God Bush learned from Clinton's shortcomings."
I'm not sure Bush has learned anything at all,ever. And I don't believe God would appreciate being mentioned in the same sentence as Dubya.

It wasn't a series of repressive taxes and total control of business by the monarchy, eh?

You're familiar with the East India Company? Try reading a little about it. You need to get past 10th grade American history.

More Clinton bashing. I couldn't care less.

"Asking energy companies for ways to cut energy prices? Man, that kind of logical thinking has no place in your world, eh?"
Do you know something the rest of us don't? Like what was discussed in these secret meetings? You seem to think so. Can you show me where to find the transcripts, I'd like to read them before I respond. No? OK, this is your opinion then. Logical? Huh? Again, show me the transcripts.

"Again, it was Clinton's lax policies and culture of corruption that led to Enron."
OK, they why isn't he on trial for it? More Clinton Bashing. I DON'T CARE. Enron is small change compared to the Oil Industry's profits. Do the math.
"Except the tax cuts have made the tax structure even MORE progressive and now the top 3% pay as much as the bottom 97%" This is just false. Show me the numbers. Also, please show me how much MONEY is involved here, as income for these groups, not the % of total...wait you didn't specify what you % meant did you? Unitless percentages. Bad science, bad math.

"But don't let reality slow you down. You sure didn't let a lack of knowledge do so."
Nice rebuttal, moron. Show me some knowledge of your own. So far it's nothing but reactionary tripe.

"Seeing as how the electorate had the chance and decided that they wanted to stick with them, immaterial." I did say this fall, didn't I? have a look at some recent polls. Watch the events unfold.

"Of course, Clinton's only crime was getting a BJ from a beast, right?" It was the only one articles of impeachment proceeded from. That and lying about it.

"Not perjury. Or suborning perjury. Or obstruction of justice. Or massive campain finance violations. Or selling out our security so the Chicoms would give to his campaign and to his library. Or pardoning an unrepentant fugitive tax cheat because his wife gave to Clinton."
No, he wasn't impeached for any of those things. Read more, talk less.

"Yeah, THAT was just fine in your twisted view."

As I stated previously, I am no fan of Clinton. Assume what you want but don't put words in my mouth. I never defended him. More Clinton Bashing! You, sir, are living in the past. My thoughts are on the future.

"Long Live the Republic!"

Dag N.

***"Except the First Amendm... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

***"Except the First Amendment CLEARLY didn't intend for there to be a total wall between religion and the state, as church-run schools were the norm WHEN THE AMENDMENT WAS PASSED and continued being so for decades."
I'll concede the point that before our new form of government got off the ground and flying that education was largely done by religious schools, but that is not an argument that shows merit in the educational system as it existed, merely a statement of fact.***

Not really. If the Amendment meant for there to be NO mixture of the gov't and religion at all, the schools would have been shut down immediately.

***That fact was changed by our government after it was formed, so what if it was different before? As to there never being an intention to form a wall between religion and state, Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut in 1802 in which he declared that it was the
purpose of the First Amendment to build ''a wall of separation be-
tween Church and State.'' Look it up, THE WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 281 (A.Libscomb ed.,1904). Looks like he did in fact even use the term "wall"! Please check your facts before engaging your opinion.***

Jefferson also vigorously opposed the idea of the SCOTUS being the final arbiter on what constitutes legality. If you want to go with "Well, what did Jefferson think", the SCOTUS' power needs to be slashed dramatically.

***Opinion. And where does this "bastardization" term come from? Apparently your opinion is better than Jefferson's.***

Amazing that a letter written to calm down a small Church group has become the centerpiece of an utterly incorrect notion of what the Constitution requires.

***I'm using a broader interpretation of the 4th amendment here than you are I suppose. It does not say "except if you are trying to communicate with non-Americans" anywhere in that Amendment. More to the point, the data being collected that I'm disputing the legality of is domestic, not international. Have you missed the headlines recently?***

Seeing as how the press lied (all the carriers deny it), I don't stress it. And what the gov't was allegedly doing doesn't constitute a search of any sort whatsoever.

And you can take whatever reading of the 4th Amendment you wish. Bush is using a similar reading of his war powers --- and since Congress gave him a war declaration in 2002, it's moot.

***Apparently you don't either. The facts are clear on what is considered treasonous action, look into it some time.***

I have, which is why I can say you don't know what you're talking about.

***OK I conceed that I might be wrong by letter here, but no way am I wrong in spirit.***

When the written word means something BESIDES what the written word says, then you have a joke of a legal system.

***The freedoms and rights we put forth in the Constitution, to me, are obviously intended as "inalienable rights" of ALL PEOPLE, not just Americans.***

Seeing as how the rest of the world is not subject to our laws, they are also not the recipient of our protections. You can't point to a legal opinion anywhere that argues that a country's laws apply to non-citizens not residing in the country.

***Elitism rears it's ugly head and rationalizes the acceptability of mistreatment of PEOPLE because they "aren't subject to our laws and all." I think the premise is fundamentally flawed, and I can't believe that your immigrant ancestors would agree with you.***

Actually, our Founding Fathers did worse to British POW's than what we're doing at Gitmo.

Ditto during every single war in our history.

***What? Make some kind of lucid point here. We're all the children of immigrants. My case is very clear, what's your point on immigration here? More elitist bullshit.***

No. If you were to say "Bush's refusal to defend our borders --- which is a concrete and definite thing that the gov't is required to do --- means he should be impeached", you'd have an argument.

Basing on argument on the "spirit of the law" or a misreading of an Amendment? Not so much.

***Did you miss the first part of my post? How many crimes would you like me to enumerate?***

A single ACTUAL one would be lovely. You've yet to do that.

***What powers are you talking about? Show me JUST ONE. The Congress is the branch of government empowered to make laws, the executive to EXECUTE THEM.***

Read up on the President's war powers. Since all of these "violations" are defended by that --- even if they are true (the data mining has not been proven).

***Apparently you don't agree with our Constitution. You could always leave if you don't like our government.***

Again, make sure to read the Constitution before commenting on it.

***I would disagree, especially in light of the fact that it isn't over yet is it? Whole point of this thread.***

Fitzgerald has said it. Which is why no charges were filed for outing an agent.

***Did you miss my point? I am VERY upset over the "key intel programs". They are illegal. They trample the 4th amendment. Jeez, pay attention!***

So, because you don't fully understand the 4th Amendment and are upset about non-existant laws, you have no problem with ACTUAL and real violations of law? Got it.

***Show me the severely weakened security. Bush ignored reports about the 911 attack. Clinton is not my hero. This is irrelevant.***

Bush's "report" was "OBL wants to attack the US". No date. No city. No discussion as to how.

And our weakened security? Missile technology to the Chinese is a major concern. The Chinese aren't our buddies.

***I'm not sure Bush has learned anything at all,ever. And I don't believe God would appreciate being mentioned in the same sentence as Dubya.***

Speaking for God now, eh? Pretty modest of you.

***You're familiar with the East India Company? Try reading a little about it. You need to get past 10th grade American history.***

Hence the whole "total control of business". E. India Tea Company was the ONLY company allowed to sell tea in the colonies.

But, it's nice of you to explain what you don't seem to know.

***Do you know something the rest of us don't? Like what was discussed in these secret meetings?***

Yes, nothing will assure the presence of honest advice like the knowledge that everything will be made public. Good plan.

***Can you show me where to find the transcripts, I'd like to read them before I respond. No? OK, this is your opinion then. Logical? Huh? Again, show me the transcripts.***

Then why are you so upset over them? I mean, by your own admission, you don't a thing about what happened.

***OK, they why isn't he on trial for it? More Clinton Bashing. I DON'T CARE. Enron is small change compared to the Oil Industry's profits. Do the math.***

Oil companies didn't steal money from millions. They also make small profits. Again, the gov't makes FAR more off a gallon of gas than the oil company makes.

***This is just false. Show me the numbers. Also, please show me how much MONEY is involved here, as income for these groups, not the % of total...wait you didn't specify what you % meant did you? Unitless percentages. Bad science, bad math.***

From the Joint Economic Conference: http://www.house.gov/jec/publications/109/rr109-36.pdf

***Nice rebuttal, moron. Show me some knowledge of your own. So far it's nothing but reactionary tripe.***

I've shot down every argument you've made repeatedly.

***I did say this fall, didn't I? have a look at some recent polls. Watch the events unfold.***

According to polls, if he ran against Gore or Kerry today --- he'd still win.

***It was the only one articles of impeachment proceeded from. That and lying about it.***

Read the articles. His sexual activity was not mentioned once. It was all perjury, obstruction, etc.

***No, he wasn't impeached for any of those things. Read more, talk less.***

You were discussing crimes, not what he got impeached for. Everything I said Clinton did, Clinton actually did.

***As I stated previously, I am no fan of Clinton. Assume what you want but don't put words in my mouth. I never defended him. More Clinton Bashing! You, sir, are living in the past. My thoughts are on the future.***

Which explains why you mentioned the Energy Task Force and Bush "letting" 9/11 happen. Because you're focused on the future.
-=Mike

Mike, It's bee... (Below threshold)

Mike,

It's been fun watching you try to slap the stupid out of that guy. However, it has reached the point where it comes across like you're picking on the slow kid in class. It doesn't matter how clearly you explain things he ain't gonna get it and you're going to seem like a bully for using facts instead of just making stuff up like he does.

- Its Wednesday Moonbats, s... (Below threshold)

- Its Wednesday Moonbats, so pay attention.

- Wheres the beef?

Republicans are all getting... (Below threshold)
himself:

Republicans are all getting arrested and jailed! Carl Rove WILL be next!

Ex-official gets 10 mos. in phone-jam plot
5/17/2006, 5:34 p.m. ET
By ANNE SAUNDERS
The Associated Press

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) -- A former Republican National Committee official was sentenced Wednesday to 10 months in prison for his role in the jamming of New Hampshire Democrats' telephones on Election Day 2002.

James Tobin, the third person sent to prison in the case, was found guilty in December of harassment by telephone. Prosecutors had asked for two years behind bars.

Prosecutors said Tobin helped arrange more than 800 hang-up calls that jammed get-out-the-vote phone lines set up by the state Democratic Party and the Manchester firefighters' union for about an hour. Republican John Sununu defeated then-Gov. Jeanne Shaheen for the Senate that day in what had been considered a cliffhanger.

Tobin, 45, of Bangor, Maine, apologized, saying he wished he had not gotten involved in the jamming or had acted to stop it.

"I have tried to live my life honestly and with integrity," he told U.S. District Judge Steven McAuliffe.

At the time of the phone jamming, Tobin was a regional official with the RNC and the National Republican Senatorial Committee, overseeing Senate campaigns in several states, including New Hampshire and Maine.

Tobin later became New England chairman of President Bush's 2004 re-election campaign but stepped down when Democrats accused him of playing a role in the jamming.

The former executive director of the New Hampshire GOP, Chuck McGee, previously admitted coming up with the idea. He served seven months for conspiracy.

Allen Raymond, former president of a Republican consulting firm in Virginia, pleaded guilty to arranging for a telemarketing business to make the hang-up calls. He received a three-month prison sentence.

Phone records show Tobin made two dozen calls to the White House in a three-day period around Election Day 2002. Ken Mehlman, then White House political director and now chairman of the RNC, has said none of the calls involved the phone-jamming.

Tobin was also fined $10,000 fine and given two years of probation.

Republicans are all getting... (Below threshold)
himself:

Republicans are all getting arrested and jailed! Carl Rove WILL be next!


More trouble for Duke Cunningham
By Staff and Wire Reports
Apr 29, 2006, 05:51
Email this article

Printer friendly page

FBI agents are investigating whether a defense contractor provided prostitutes, limousines and hotel suites to a lawmaker who has been convicted on bribery charges, two federal officials said Friday.

Investigators have contacted Washington-area escort services, two hotels and a limousine company in recent weeks, one official said.

The allegations were raised by Mitchell Wade, another defense contractor who also has pleaded guilty to charges stemming from the bribery conspiracy involving former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, the officials said. Cunningham is serving a prison term of eight years, four months after pleading guilty in November to taking $2.4 million in homes, yachts and other bribes.

Wade is cooperating with investigators as part of his plea agreement in February. He has told them that Brent Wilkes, a San Diego defense contractor who has been identified as a co-conspirator, secured prostitutes, limousines and suites at two Washington hotels for Cunningham, the officials said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is continuing.

Wilkes, founder of ADCS Inc., has not been charged. Mike Lipman, his attorney, did not return messages left seeking comment. Reginald Brown, Wade's attorney, declined comment Friday.

One official said agents have been checking out investigative leads, but so far have been unable to confirm that, even if true, the prostitutes were part of the bribery scheme. Investigators have not turned up evidence that other lawmakers were involved, the official said.

The investigation, spawned by reports of the former California congressman's extravagant lifestyle, is continuing both in Washington and San Diego, the officials said.

Justice Department and FBI spokesmen declined to comment on the investigation.

The allegations involving prostitutes have previously been reported by The Wall Street Journal and The San Diego Union-Tribune.

Not a Roar But a Whimper</p... (Below threshold)
himself:

Not a Roar But a Whimper

by Don Monkerud

http://www.opednews.com

Corruption Reform: Not a Roar But a Whimper
By Don Monkerud

In November, the investigation of lobbyist Jack Abramoff for bribing Congress sent a chill through Washington. Additional indictments were on the horizon and politicians pledged to tighten restrictions on lobbying and clean up government corruption.

Backed by powerful voices, such as Senator Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), listed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) as one of the 13 most corrupt members of Congress, leaders of the House and Senate took bold steps to clean up the corruption. The House voted overwhelming, 379 to 50, to limit former members who have become lobbyists access to the House floor and the House gym. Since this momentous step, which at one time included a proposal to ban lobbyists from the House lunchroom, the process sputtered.

"There was some momentum for sweeping changes after Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty," says Craig B. Holman, campaign finance analyst for Public Citizen. "The Department of Justice has not provided additional indictments of lawmakers and the fear and momentum for change on Capital Hill faded away."

A number of prominent Republicans involved in the Abramoff bribe scandal remain under investigation. Robert Ney (R-Ohio), head of the House Administration Committee that oversees federal campaign finance laws, accepted a golfing trip to Scotland, a gambling junket to London, campaign contributions and free meals from Abramoff, who persuaded Ney to benefit his lobbying clients.

In September, a Texas grand jury indicted House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) for funneling illegal corporate contributions to Texas state elections. The indictment followed three rebukes from the House ethics committee for unethical conduct. Delay is being investigated for accepting payoffs from Abramoff, including skyboxes at sporting events, flying his staff to the Super Bowl and the U.S. Open, lavish trips to Saipan, Russia, Korea and London, Broadway shows and expensive meals.

Abramoff, who raised over $100,000 for Bush, implicated other powerful Republican leaders in Congress, including: John Doolittle (R-Calif.), who took illegal campaign funds from Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff; Senator Conrad Burns (R-Mon.), who received $150,000 in contributions from Abramoff; and 17 current and former congressional aides, half of whom were hired by Abramoff. David Safavian, the White House chief procurement officer, who once worked as a lobbyist for Abramoff, was indicted in October for making false statements involving Abramoff to investigators.

Since 1998, the Center for Public Integrity found that lobbyists spent twice as much--$13 billion--influencing legislation and government regulations as they did on campaign finance. These funds buy influence in Washington, obscured by a federal disclosure system in disarray. Many firms never file required documentation of their influence peddling, over 14,000 documents are "missing," 300 lobbyists lobbied without filing, and thousands of forms were never filed. While the right to petition government is upheld in the U.S. Constitution, the sad truth is Congress promotes a system of legalized corruption.

"Campaign contributions are too high and too lax," says Holman, "Lobbyists solicit contributions, bundle contributions in networks, host fund-raising events, and even serve as campaign treasurers on committees and PACs, major sources of corrupting campaign money within the legal limits. They control the purse strings of office holders."

After the Abramoff scandal, Washington is back to business as usual. In March, The Senate passed (90 to 8) weak legislation requiring lobbyists to file more reports, and Congressmen to receive advance approval for lobbyist-paid trips and abstain from lobbying Congress for two years after leaving office.

The weak bill would not ban lobbyist-sponsored private travel or do away with earmarks, which dole out favors to lobbyists. The Senate rejected (30 to 67) an independent ethics office to investigate illegal lobbying and bribery, and will do nothing to regulate lobbyist money-raising activities for Congressmen who rely on them for most fund-raising activities.

In February, House Republicans challenged nearly every reform proposal and rejected bans on lobbyists-funded travel and limits on gifts. Banning rides on lobbyist's corporate jets was called "childish," and the restrictions on lobbyists using the gym "would stifle social calls."

The Washington Post reports that lobbyists foresee "business as usual," with new rules only "a nuisance," and "any limits will barely put a dent in the billions of dollars spent to influence legislation." New ways to buy Congressional support with the annual $10 billion spent on influencing legislation and regulations include fundraising, charitable activities, and industry-sponsored seminars such as grass-roots activities, including letters, telephone calls and emails, the fastest growing form of lobbying today.

"We need more indictments of lawmakers to install fear in Congress and the voters need to actually react," says Holman. "There's strong support among voters for lobbying reform and if voters react in 2006, it will come back on the agenda. If they don't carry through, we lose."
Republicans are all getting arrested and jailed! Carl Rove WILL be next!

With the Republicans holding all three branches of the government, corporate interests come first to scale back taxes and regulations, and put corporate interests in the center of the national agenda. The current bill is weak and pathetic.

"Today Capital Hill is being run by and for corporations," Holman says. "The motive here is profit and it has nothing to do with what is good for the country."

Republicans are all ... (Below threshold)
himself:


Republicans are all getting arrested and jailed! Carl Rove WILL be next!


E-mails: DeLay Knew Abramoff Paid for Golf Trip in 2000

Republicons

By Lee Russ, Section OpEd
Posted on Mon May 15, 2006 at 05:38:53 PM EST
So the other day, the news wires report that there are e-mails showing that "Tom DeLay's office knew that lobbyist Jack Abramoff had arranged the financing for the GOP leader's controversial European golfing trip in 2000 and was concerned "if someone starts asking questions.""

If you've forgotten--keeping up with Republican indictments, investigations and accusations has become a full time job--this is the 2000 trip to London and Scotland during which then-House Majority Whip DeLay supposedly conducted business as well as having a handy little golf vacation. Problems popped up when it turned out that the trip's expenses had been charged to an American Express card issued to Jack Abramoff, contrary to DeLay's report to congress that the trip had been funded by the GOP group "National Center for Public Policy Research." It also developed that Abramoff had two of his lobbying clients, including one Indian tribe, funnel money to the National Center for Public Policy Research to cover the cost of the trip.

This is all a problem because the House ethics rules bar acceptance of any travel funds from private sources if doing so would "create the appearance of using public office for private gain," and, knowing the quality of character in the House, also obligate lawmakers to "make inquiry on the source of the funds that will be used to pay" for travel when that travel appears to be financed by a nonprofit organization--pretty much anticipating the very game apparently played by Abramoff and DeLay.

Now it turns out that prosecutors have e-mails showing that, when DeLay's office began preparing the required disclosure reports for the free trip, his aides sought the cost figures from Abramoff's lobbying firm, not the GOP group.

But wait, didn't Tom DeLay swear, in tears or the next best thing, that he was totally innocent of violating House ethics rules that prohibit having travel paid for by lobbyists? Sure enough:

DeLay on March 18 [2005] portrayed criticism of his trips and close ties to lobbyists as the product of a conspiracy to "destroy the conservative movement" by attacking its leaders, such as himself. "This is a huge, nationwide, concerted effort to destroy everything we believe in," DeLay told supporters at the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian group.

In fact, in his letter resigning the post of House Majority Leader, DeLay said:

During my time in Congress, I have always acted in an ethical manner within the rules of our body and the laws of our land. I am fully confident time will bear this out.

And even Karl Rove, that bastion of trustworthiness and ethics, vouched for DeLay:

They [critics and prosecutors] are just desperate. We strongly support Tom DeLay. He's a good man, a close ally of this administration."

So how does Tom DeLay explain the news that his office knew to ask Abramoff for the cost figures, if he supposedly thought that the trip was being funded by the National Center for Public Policy Research? You didn't really think that such practices liars would be caught speechless, did you?

The wire story in the Houston Chronicle says:

DeLay's lawyer said Friday he believes the congressman's office asked Abramoff, instead of the GOP group, for the trip costs because the group's top executive was on maternity leave. He noted Abramoff served as director for the group listed as paying for the trip.

"The way I read this was that staff was trying to get it right," lawyer Richard Cullen said of the e-mails. "His (DeLay's) goal and his marching orders to his staff was to do it correctly. And I think staff tried to do it correctly."

He never stops trying to do the right thing. He just happens to be cursed, so that the endless effort to do right looks like an endless effort to do wrong.

Lets hope the same reversal of intent and result applies to the Hammer's prognostications on the 2006 congressional elections. DeLay appeared last week on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," to tell George that ""None of these [ethics scandals, either his own or those of other Republicans] will affect the races." He flat out said that there will be no defeat for the Republican Congress in November.

Republicans are all getting... (Below threshold)
himself:

Republicans are all getting arrested and jailed! Carl Rove WILL be next!

New filing may spell trouble for Vice President's former chief of staff

RAW STORY
Published: Monday May 15, 2006

Print This | Email This

The latest report from MSNBC's David Shuster on the CIA leak investigation indicates more trouble for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney who was indicted last year for obstructing justice.

"The latest prosecution pleading says that on the day columnist Robert Novak's column first disclosed Valerie Wilson's identity, a quote "CIA official discussed in the defendant's presence the dangers posed by disclosure of the CIA affiliation of one of its employees as had occurred in the Novak column," Shuster reports. "This evidence directly contradicts the defense position that the defendant had no motive to lie. Instead, the evidence about the conversation concerning the Novak column provides a strong motive for the defendant to provide false information and testimony about his disclosures to reporters."

Full transcript from MSNBC's Hardball report on the latest in the CIA leak investigation.
#

CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC HOST: New documents filed by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in the CIA leak investigation literally had Vice President's Cheney's handwriting all over it. The papers reveal that the Vice President wrote questions on a copy of Joe Wilson's OpEd column in the New York Times indicating the Vice President was personally directing the focus on the war critic and his wife Valerie Wilson who got outed subsequently as a CIA officer. Plus, the President's polls continue to collapse pushing First Lady Laura Bush out to defend his policies on Mother's Day. And General Michael Hayden, the President's nominee to head the embattled CIA is under new heat on the NSA wiretapping just days before his Senate hearings. And tonight, in a primetime address to the country, the President is forced to promise National Guard troops to protect our borders...And last, but not least... the President's address is bumping Oprah in primetime! More on all this later.. but first HARDBALL'S David Shuster has the latest developments in the CIA leak case.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DAVID SHUSTER, HARDBALL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over):

Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is now arguing in court documents that Vice President Cheney personally directed his office's focus on Valerie Wilson's role at the CIA. And to prove it at Scooter Libby's perjury trial, Fitzgerald says he will introduce as evidence this copy of a column by Wilson's husband, administration critic Joe Wilson, that has Cheney's handwritten notes at the top.

In the column titled, what I didn't find in Africa, Wilson wrote about being sent to the continent in 2002 to investigate allegations Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger. Wilson wrote Vice President Cheney had asked the CIA about the allegations... prompting the CIA, in turn, to send him.

Wilson wrote he found no evidence to support the uranium claim and told the CIA months before the claim ended up in the President's state of the Union speech.

The Vice President read Wilson's take and here's what he wrote in the margin, apparently referring to the CIA:

"Have they done this sort of thing before? Send an ambassador to answer a question?" The next notation says, "do we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us? Or did his wife send him on a junket?"

Fitzgerald says Cheney's notes on Wilson's column are important for what he calls some "principal reasons."

Fitzgerald write, "The article, and the fact it contained certain criticisms of the administration, including criticisms regarding issues dealt with by the Office of the Vice President, serve both to explain the context of, and provide a motive for, many of the defendant's statements and actions at issue in this case."

Prosecutors have alleged that over the five days that followed the column, Libby tried to undercut Wilson by telling a string of people Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and the Wilson findings, therefore, were tainted.

July 7, press secretary Ari Fleischer.

July 8, New York Times reporter Judy Miller.

On July 10 or 11, Karl Rove and Libby discussed the Wilsons and Rove said a column was coming from Robert Novak.

On July 12, Libby discussed the Wilsons with Time's Matt Cooper and again with the New York Time's Judy Miller.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCOTT FREDERICKSEN, former federal prosecutor: "It provides the motive, it rebuts the defense, it shows there seems to be much more of a comprehensive plan with the intention to focus on Plame, not just Wilson, and to go out and speak to reporters about it."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHUSTER: The Fitzgerald documents do not suggest Vice President Cheney did anything wrong legally. But Politically, there could be problems. Because the first time the Vice President spoke publicly about any of this, in September 2003 on Meet the Press,

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: "I don't know Joe Wilson. I've never met Joe Wilson."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHUSTER: The Vice President left the impression he knew nothing about Wilson or his trip to Niger.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: "And Joe Wilson-I don't know who sent Joe Wilson."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHUSTER: But Cheney's own handwriting, from months earlier, shows the Vice President was focused on Wilson. As for Scooter Libby, he has argued in his perjury case that he had no reason to lie about conversations with reporters because the disclosure about Plame was innocent and caused no damage.

But the latest prosecution pleading says that on the day columnist Robert Novak's column first disclosed Valerie Wilson's identity, a quote "CIA official discussed in the defendant's presence the dangers posed by disclosure of the CIA affiliation of one of its employees as had occurred in the Novak column. This evidence directly contradicts the defense position that the defendant had no motive to lie. Instead, the evidence about the conversation concerning the Novak column provides a strong motive for the defendant to provide false information and testimony about his disclosures to reporters.

Presidential advisor Karl Rove remains under investigation 19 days after his last grand jury testimony in the case. Rove's legal team says the focus is on Rove's claim of a bad memory regarding a conversation with Time's Matt Cooper. Legal experts say that while Vice President Cheney's note about the Wilson's seem to damage Libby, the evidence could damage Rove as well.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCOTT FREDERICKSEN, former federal prosecutor: "It shows Fitzgerald believes that this was a planned event, from the highest sources, starting with the Vice President. And if that's the case, I think he is unlikely to believe this was a matter that slipped from the memory of Mr. Rove, just like he doesn't believe that was the case for Mr. Libby."

Feds taking a closer look a... (Below threshold)
himself:

Feds taking a closer look at Bob Ney's dealings with Abramoff
By Staff and Wire Reports
Apr 29, 2006, 00:54
Email this article

Printer friendly page

Federal prosecutors this week indicated they would pursue a wide range of allegations involving Republican lawmaker Robert Ney of Ohio and his dealings with convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the Washington Post reported in its Saturday edition.

The lawmaker also faces another challenge next week because for the first time since his 1994 election to Congress, he will have to compete for his party's nomination, the paper wrote.

Ney, of the eastern district of Ohio, has been under investigation by federal authorities in Florida and in Washington, D.C., over business that helped Abramoff and two partners buy a Fort-Lauderdale-based casino cruise line.
Republicans are all getting arrested and jailed! Carl Rove WILL be next!


The congressman has not been named, but law enforcement sources have confirmed that he is the "Representative No. 1" identified in plea agreements with Abramoff and others.

In those court documents, the unnamed lawmaker, who denies any wrongdoing, is accused of accepting "a stream of things of value" in exchange for official actions," the Post reported.

Attention Republican Morons... (Below threshold)
himeself:

Attention Republican Morons!
Clinton haters are an ever decreasing tiny minority - maybe that makes you feel like you're part of the elite or something but mostly you're just unimportant.

(CNN) -- In a new poll comparing President Bush's job performance with that of his predecessor, a strong majority of respondents said President Clinton outperformed Bush on a host of issues.

The poll of 1,021 adult Americans was conducted May 5-7 by Opinion Research Corp. for CNN. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Respondents favored Clinton by greater than 2-to-1 margins when asked who did a better job at handling the economy (63 percent Clinton, 26 percent Bush) and solving the problems of ordinary Americans (62 percent Clinton, 25 percent Bush). (Watch whether Americans are getting nostalgic for the Clinton era -- 1:57)

On foreign affairs, the margin was 56 percent to 32 percent in Clinton's favor; on taxes, it was 51 percent to 35 percent for Clinton; and on handling natural disasters, it was 51 percent to 30 percent, also favoring Clinton.

Moreover, 59 percent said Bush has done more to divide the country, while only 27 percent said Clinton had.

When asked which man was more honest as president, poll respondents were more evenly divided, with the numbers -- 46 percent Clinton to 41 percent Bush -- falling within the poll's margin of error. The same was true for a question on handling national security: 46 percent said Clinton performed better; 42 percent picked Bush.


What? The press spins every... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

What? The press spins every story to attack Bush, reality be damned, and some people think he's bad. They ALSO fellate Clinton whenever possible and some think he's great. Stunning news. Truly.

So, how about that ranking Dem of the Ethics Committee. Nice to see Pat Kennedy passes laws while hammered. Cynthia MacKinney punches cops. Harry Reid won't return his dirty money from Abramoff groups. And Jefferson --- well, he's just a big old pile of purity, huh? And those felons, including the son of a US Congressperson, who were convicted of slashing tires in WI to prevent a GOTV drive? CLASSY!

Seriously, I'm begging you ---- run on the "corruption" stance.

And all of the stories from opednews? A little pathetic.
-=Mike

Hi Mike, let's try this aga... (Below threshold)
Dag N.:

Hi Mike, let's try this again shall we? We going to try to stay on topic here.
I'll concede the point that before our new form of government got off the ground and flying that education was largely done by religious schools, but that is not an argument that shows merit in the educational system as it existed, merely a statement of fact.***

"Not really. If the Amendment meant for there to be NO mixture of the gov't and religion at all, the schools would have been shut down immediately."

This is not a response to my assertion that religious schools existed before the constitution was ratified was a fact or not. Your conclusion, that the schools would have been shut down were there to be a "wall" between church and state, misses the mark. What other people do with their money, like run religious schools, is not the governments' business. Separation of Church and state works both ways. Since this was not a response, no refutation is conceded.

"Jefferson also vigorously opposed the idea of the SCOTUS being the final arbiter on what constitutes legality. If you want to go with "Well, what did Jefferson think", the SCOTUS' power needs to be slashed dramatically."

Again, the point is missed in favor of redirection. This is your response to my pointing out that the founding fathers did intend a "wall" between church and state. I can find you a few other quotes if you like. Jefferson also said at some point in his life something like " I gotta take a crap" but that doesn't enter into my point about the "wall" comment of yours any more than what he thought of the Supreme Court does. Again, no refuting here, only misdirection.

"Amazing that a letter written to calm down a small Church group has become the centerpiece of an utterly incorrect notion of what the Constitution requires."

This is, of course another statement of your opinion, but you offer no other references to refute my point, so I'm going to go with misdirection again on this one.

"Seeing as how the press lied (all the carriers deny it), I don't stress it. And what the gov't was allegedly doing doesn't constitute a search of any sort whatsoever."

OK so now you of course know who's lying, and it must be the Press, because ALL the carriers denied it? Another opinion, which I don't share. By the way, AT&T(heard of them? Really big telco?)has NOT denied it.
As far as what the government was doing not constituting a search of any sort, what do you think they are doing with the data? Wallpapering the den with it? Of course they will "search" it. The FISA court says this kind of thing is a search, and a warrant needs to be obtained. No warrant was obtained, hence the illegal status of the search.

"And you can take whatever reading of the 4th Amendment you wish. Bush is using a similar reading of his war powers --- and since Congress gave him a war declaration in 2002, it's moot."

Well, let's look at the facts. Congress is the only body under our Constitution with the power to declare war, not the executive. The suggestion that the president should have unilateral power to make war was decisively rejected at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. As delegate Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts put it, he "never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the executive alone to make war." Instead, the Framers agreed that Congress would have the power to declare war. Congress gave Bush, in 2002, a "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of Force" which states as one reason "Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;"
Do you see the problem here? No possesion of chemical or biological weapons has been proven. No active seeking of nuclear weapons programs has been proven. No harboring of terrorist organizations has been proven. The entire statement explaining why the resolution was approved is false. There was no "war declaration" at all, in fact the Congress intentionally left those terms out(declaration being the main one) because of the clear language about declarations of war in the constitution. The president presumes to call upon the fact that other presidents have violated our constitional rights during times of war...but the problem is that there were actual declarations of war in the instances he cites, not "Joint Resolutions to Authorize the use of Force."
Just saying that it is equivalent to a declaration of war doesn't make it so.


"I have, which is why I can say you don't know what you're talking about."
Of course you can SAY that, but an illustration of why I'm incorrect would refute my point. This does not. Explain to me why I'm wrong, I don't accept "well I have and that's that". No point, just misdirection again.

"When the written word means something BESIDES what the written word says, then you have a joke of a legal system."
Kind of like a joint authorization meaning declaration of war huh? Hypocrite.

"Seeing as how the rest of the world is not subject to our laws, they are also not the recipient of our protections. You can't point to a legal opinion anywhere that argues that a country's laws apply to non-citizens not residing in the country."
But you can find a fair number of cases where their laws apply to persons being detained by their countries, and recently a whole lot of hubbub about transporting them though their countries and/or airspace. Which is what we are doing-Gitmo is an american base, not a Cuban city. Those people, who we packed off to another country and have imprisoned without trial, should have recourse to at least challege the legitimacy of the charges by which they were imprisoned. It won't hurt the Republic to treat them like human beings and let them have their day in court. It would definitely put us on higher moral ground then the catch-22 morass we're in now.

"Actually, our Founding Fathers did worse to British POW's than what we're doing at Gitmo."

That doesn't have any bearing on my statement. We imprisoned Japanese in WWII also, but that wasn't right either and we should try to hold ourselves to higher standards than the ones that have embarrassed us in the past. Another misdirection. No point at all.

***What? Make some kind of lucid point here. We're all the children of immigrants. My case is very clear, what's your point on immigration here? More elitist bullshit.***

"No. If you were to say "Bush's refusal to defend our borders --- which is a concrete and definite thing that the gov't is required to do --- means he should be impeached", you'd have an argument.
Basing on argument on the "spirit of the law" or a misreading of an Amendment? Not so much."

You haven't shown how I misread the amendment, just stated that I did. Stating it does not make it so. Show me how I'm wrong. "Defending our borders" refers to invasion by foreign militaries, not poor sods so screwed over by NAFTA and the corrupt government of Mexico that they have little choice, if they want to feed their kids.

***Did you miss the first part of my post? How many crimes would you like me to enumerate?***

A single ACTUAL one would be lovely. You've yet to do that.

Authorization of a wiretap or seizure of communications records without a FISA warrant is a crime. Failure to uphold the laws of the republic is a crime or at least a high misdemeanor. Lying to Congress is a crime.

"Read up on the President's war powers. Since all of these "violations" are defended by that --- even if they are true (the data mining has not been proven)."

I refer you to my comments above. Read the War Powers act yourself, the president has overextended the number of soldiers he can deploy and the amount he can spend under these, and I don't agree that he can change that at will. Also, I was referring to the statement you made about the powers given to the president in the Constitution, not the War Powers Act. Show me one from the constitution. Of course you can't, or you wouldn't have brought in this specious argument about the War Powers Act. It can reasonably be argued that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional in any case, the Congress has no right under the Constitution to delegate it's responsibilities to the Executive.

"Fitzgerald has said it. Which is why no charges were filed for outing an agent."
Where did Fitzgerald say that? I can't find it. Provide a link or a quote or something. No charges have been filed YET.

"So, because you don't fully understand the 4th Amendment and are upset about non-existant laws, you have no problem with ACTUAL and real violations of law? Got it."
Again, show me where I'm wrong.Simply stating that I don't fully understand something doesn't mean I that I don't. Give me a concrete example. What actual and real violations of law have I stated that I have no problem with? What you've got there is your own opinion, again.

"And our weakened security? Missile technology to the Chinese is a major concern. The Chinese aren't our buddies."
Tell that to Wal-Mart. Missle technology? Are you serious? Do you know what "ballistic" means? Do you realize they have had missile technology enough to hit us quite accurately for a very long time? They aren't our buddies? What about the preferred partner trade stuff?

"Speaking for God now, eh? Pretty modest of you."

All right, I'm going to concede that one to you.
it was wrong of me to say that, and I'm sorry.

"Hence the whole "total control of business". E. India Tea Company was the ONLY company allowed to sell tea in the colonies."
Kind of like a no-bid defense contract isn't it? Nice of you to restate the fact for me though, although it's right back at the 10th grade level I was asking you to go beyond. And do you know who the principal shareholders in the EITC were? Look it up. Think Halliburton.

"Yes, nothing will assure the presence of honest advice like the knowledge that everything will be made public. Good plan."
Works for me. Especially if the government is looking out for the interests of the people. But to the point I was making, do you know what was said? No. So this is another opinion, not a statement of fact. Again, you redirect instead of refute. No point.

***Can you show me where to find the transcripts, I'd like to read them before I respond. No? OK, this is your opinion then. Logical? Huh? Again, show me the transcripts.**

"Oil companies didn't steal money from millions. They also make small profits. Again, the gov't makes FAR more off a gallon of gas than the oil company makes."

I think that when a company makes record profits for any company anywhere at any time in history, and then gets tax subsidies that I help pay for, then it's stealing from millions of taxpayers. I'm OK with the taxes I pay on fuel.

From the Joint Economic Conference: http://www.house.gov/jec/publications/109/rr109-36.pdf

I looked it over. No mention of the units I asked about, or the total numbers in money I asked about. Nice report, kinda outdated as it's from 2003, but not relevant to what I was asking you about.

"I've shot down every argument you've made repeatedly."

My count on the shot downs is ONE, the one about God. None of them did you even respond to repeatedly, or refute with anything meaningful.

"According to polls, if he ran against Gore or Kerry today --- he'd still win."

I'll refer you to the poll numbers posted by himself.

"Read the articles. His sexual activity was not mentioned once. It was all perjury, obstruction, etc."

OK you got me on that one too. Perjury, obstuction, etc. Point Mike.

***As I stated previously, I am no fan of Clinton. Assume what you want but don't put words in my mouth. I never defended him. More Clinton Bashing! You, sir, are living in the past. My thoughts are on the future.***

"Which explains why you mentioned the Energy Task Force and Bush "letting" 9/11 happen. Because you're focused on the future."

I mentioned those because, in the future, I hope to not have to deal with this kind of crap anymore from the Executive branch of our government. Clinton is gone. Bush and Co. are still here and will be for several years. That's far enough in the future for these statements of mine to be relevant for our shared futures, in my opinion.

So, do I feel like the dumbest kid in the class? Hell no. Do I disagree with you Neocons? Hell yes.
Anybody care to actually refute my statements or do I just get to help you practice "framing the argument"? A little intellectual honesty would be good here, anybody up for it?

Long Live the Republic!

Dag N.

Large Bill-What fa... (Below threshold)
Dag N.:

Large Bill-

What facts are you referring to? I didn't see any, just a lot of opinion stated as fact. Can you tell the difference? Here's an example.
Opinion:
Gold Star Chili sucks. You should stick with the baseball.
Fact:
Bush and Cheney are liars.

Dag

"This is not a response to ... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

"This is not a response to my assertion that religious schools existed before the constitution was ratified was a fact or not. Your conclusion, that the schools would have been shut down were there to be a "wall" between church and state, misses the mark. What other people do with their money, like run religious schools, is not the governments' business. Separation of Church and state works both ways. Since this was not a response, no refutation is conceded."

Hardly. If the gov't didn't want ANY mixing of church and state and all --- the gov't would have immediately shut down the schools.

They also would have forbidden using the Capitol as a site for religious services --- which they used it for for quite a long while.

"Again, the point is missed in favor of redirection. This is your response to my pointing out that the founding fathers did intend a "wall" between church and state."

Founding FatherS? What's up with the plural? One seemed to have done so.

"This is, of course another statement of your opinion, but you offer no other references to refute my point, so I'm going to go with misdirection again on this one."

It's called POLITICS. Politicians have always said what was needed to get elected and to keep power. Jefferson was not different.

"OK so now you of course know who's lying, and it must be the Press, because ALL the carriers denied it? Another opinion, which I don't share."

Color me shocked. The press reported a story. No details. They named several companies. The companies said they did not do so. The press has NOTHING.

Thus, using the Bush and WMD case as precedent, the media lied.

"By the way, AT&T(heard of them? Really big telco?)has NOT denied it. "

They have actually.

Of course, a link to a quote of theirs proving your point would have helped you quite a lot here.

"As far as what the government was doing not constituting a search of any sort, what do you think they are doing with the data? Wallpapering the den with it? Of course they will "search" it. The FISA court says this kind of thing is a search, and a warrant needs to be obtained. No warrant was obtained, hence the illegal status of the search."

Using your theory, they'd manage to go through more than a trillion individual calls a month.

Try and do the math on how long that'd take.

Also, care to point to where FISA even weighed in on this issue? And, also, please point to how the FISA opinion --- should one exists --- overrides the President's Constitutional war powers.

"Well, let's look at the facts. Congress is the only body under our Constitution with the power to declare war, not the executive."

Which they did in 2002. There is no boilerplate for a war declaration. What they passed in 2002, like it or not, is one.

"ongress gave Bush, in 2002, a "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of Force" which states as one reason "Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;"
Do you see the problem here? No possesion of chemical or biological weapons has been proven. No active seeking of nuclear weapons programs has been proven. No harboring of terrorist organizations has been proven."

Possession of chemical weapons is proven as Saddam used them on the Kurds. Harboring of terrorist organizations has been proven repeatedly.

"There was no "war declaration" at all, in fact the Congress intentionally left those terms out(declaration being the main one) because of the clear language about declarations of war in the constitution."

Again, hate to burst your bubble, but what was passed in 2002 WAS a declaration of war. You'll notice that there is no required language for a declaration of war in the Constitution.

"The president presumes to call upon the fact that other presidents have violated our constitional rights during times of war...but the problem is that there were actual declarations of war in the instances he cites, not "Joint Resolutions to Authorize the use of Force.""

An "authorization of the use of force" is, by any definition, a declaration of war.

"Kind of like a joint authorization meaning declaration of war huh? Hypocrite."

Actually, it clearly is a declaration of war. I know you like tossing around words like "hypocrite" without knowing what they mean.

"But you can find a fair number of cases where their laws apply to persons being detained by their countries, and recently a whole lot of hubbub about transporting them though their countries and/or airspace. Which is what we are doing-Gitmo is an american base, not a Cuban city."

Yes. But the inmates have NO Constitutional protections because THEY ARE NOT AMERICAN CITIZENS.

It takes a profound lack of intellect or education to miss that little point.

"Those people, who we packed off to another country and have imprisoned without trial, should have recourse to at least challege the legitimacy of the charges by which they were imprisoned."

Because war should always be conducted under the procedures of the American legal system. Great plan.

"It won't hurt the Republic to treat them like human beings and let them have their day in court. It would definitely put us on higher moral ground then the catch-22 morass we're in now."

No, what you want is for us to change military strategy that has been in place forever and that every country follows --- except for us, because our left wants us to try all of the POW's.

The POW's didn't commit crimes, by and large, outside of war. They are held until hostilities have ended. That is, you know, a rather long tradition in the practice of war. You might want to read a little history.

"That doesn't have any bearing on my statement. We imprisoned Japanese in WWII also, but that wasn't right either and we should try to hold ourselves to higher standards than the ones that have embarrassed us in the past. Another misdirection. No point at all."

No, you want us to follow rules that NOBODY follows. Screw that. We have no requirement to do so. No non-citizen has any right to waste our court system's time.

"You haven't shown how I misread the amendment, just stated that I did. Stating it does not make it so. Show me how I'm wrong. "Defending our borders" refers to invasion by foreign militaries, not poor sods so screwed over by NAFTA and the corrupt government of Mexico that they have little choice, if they want to feed their kids."

The whole SECURING OUR BORDERS notion contains, you know, the concept of actually securing the borders.

"Authorization of a wiretap or seizure of communications records without a FISA warrant is a crime."

Case law states otherwise (read the Re: Sealed Case ruling). Heck, the Congressional hearings said otherwise:
http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/29/politics/29nsa.html&OQ=_rQ3D3Q26orefQ3DsloginQ26orefQ3Dslogin&%20OP=3347e5d4Q2F9_Pz9Q7BcQ5DQ7ENccWQ279Q27JJi9JQ209Q27Q229Q3BcLQ3AWQ3AQ5DQ7E9Q27Q2%3Cbr%20/%3E2Q2AQ7E3jwWQ3DL

"Failure to uphold the laws of the republic is a crime or at least a high misdemeanor. Lying to Congress is a crime."

Since none of those have happened (note I asked for specifics), you want an impeachment because you don't like the guy politically. Pretty pathetic.

"I refer you to my comments above. Read the War Powers act yourself, the president has overextended the number of soldiers he can deploy and the amount he can spend under these, and I don't agree that he can change that at will."

Congress gave him the declaration. Congress approved the funding. Case is closed.

"Of course you can't, or you wouldn't have brought in this specious argument about the War Powers Act. It can reasonably be argued that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional in any case, the Congress has no right under the Constitution to delegate it's responsibilities to the Executive."

Actually, Congress has no right to impede on the President's powers in times of war laid out in the Constitution.

"Where did Fitzgerald say that? I can't find it. Provide a link or a quote or something. No charges have been filed YET."

Missed that whole Libby indictment, eh? It was pretty big news.

"Tell that to Wal-Mart."

In a truly stunning development, business is interested in making money, not the national interests. That is the concern of the executive.

"Are you serious? Do you know what "ballistic" means? Do you realize they have had missile technology enough to hit us quite accurately for a very long time? They aren't our buddies? What about the preferred partner trade stuff?"

In ANOTHER stunner, we can trade with partners we don't like. I know, amazing revelation. And, no, the Chinese DIDN'T have the ability to actually target us well until Clinton decided to sell them the technology against D.O.D recommendations to help get campaign contributions.

"Kind of like a no-bid defense contract isn't it?"

You REALLY are clueless, aren't you? When did the big contract get awarded to Halliburton?

Hint: Not under Bush.

There is also nobody else that can do the job and it's not made Halliburton money, which is why their stock has hardly been skyrocketing.

"Works for me. Especially if the government is looking out for the interests of the people. But to the point I was making, do you know what was said? No. So this is another opinion, not a statement of fact. Again, you redirect instead of refute. No point."

Yes, nothing will guarantee honest advice like the reality that anything you say can be demagogued by a bunch of idiots. Great idea.

"I think that when a company makes record profits for any company anywhere at any time in history, and then gets tax subsidies that I help pay for, then it's stealing from millions of taxpayers. I'm OK with the taxes I pay on fuel."

Don't bitch, then, about how much the oil companies "steal" from you since they make several times less per gallon than the gov't --- and the companies ACTUALLY have to pay overhead.

"I looked it over. No mention of the units I asked about, or the total numbers in money I asked about. Nice report, kinda outdated as it's from 2003, but not relevant to what I was asking you about."

Wow, aren't you intellectually dishonest. Well, this is will be my last post to you as I have no desire to debate with somebody both clueless AND intellectually dishonest about rather clear evidence.

"I mentioned those because, in the future, I hope to not have to deal with this kind of crap anymore from the Executive branch of our government."

Well, if you get your way, the executive will never be able to get outside info from experts on an area due to fear of everything being leaked to the public. Kudos to you, good sir, in making sure we have less info to make decisions.
-=Mike

You actually believe the pr... (Below threshold)
himself:

You actually believe the press spun Randy Cunningham right into prison?

You probably think Randy, Tom Delay and Jack Abramoff are probably out spreading the word of Jesus somewhere!

No wonder you know so little about what's going on when you never read the news.

As for the one corupt Democrat - that's a different picture than the way-too-may-to-count mutitudes of corupt to the core jerks in the Rape-publican crime syndicate.

Be sure to mark your calend... (Below threshold)
himself:

Be sure to mark your calendars!

Friday is KARL ROVE INDICTMENT DAY!

Hey! Did you hear that Kar... (Below threshold)
himself:

Hey! Did you hear that Karl Rove lost 50 pounds?! That INDICTMENT DIET sure is working out great!

It's all the rage with Rape-publicans- the halls of congress are thundering with the stampede of Rape-publicans rushing to try out the INDICTMENT DIET!

If you're a Rape-pubican you may be next! Don't be the last one to be Indicted- turn yourself in now! It's much more fun in prison where you can be with all your friends!

Mike-What other peop... (Below threshold)
Dag N.:

Mike-
What other people do with their money, like run religious schools, is not the governments' business. Separation of Church and state works both ways. Since this was not a response, no refutation is conceded.

"Hardly. If the gov't didn't want ANY mixing of church and state and all --- the gov't would have immediately shut down the schools."

Again I point out that the schools weren't run by the government, so doing anything to them would have been uncontitutional.

"Founding FatherS? What's up with the plural? One seemed to have done so."

OK, here's another, and this is right on point to my comment on faith-based initiatives.

"To the House of Representatives of the United States:

Having examined and considered the bill entitled "An act incorporating the Protestant Episcopal Church in the town of Alexandria, in the District of Columbia," I now return the bill to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, with the following objections:

Because the bill exceeds the rightful authority to which governments are limited, by the essential distinction between civil and religious functions, and violates, in particular, the article of the Constitution of the United States, which declares, that " Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment." The bill affects into, and establishes by law, sundry rules and proceedings relative purely to the organization and polity of the church incorporated, and comprehending even the election and removal of the Minister of the same; so that no change could be made therein by the particular society, or by the general church of which it is a member, and whose support it recognizes. This particular church therefore, would be so far be a religious establishment by law; a legal force and sanction being given to certain articles in its Constitution and administrations. Nor can it be considered, that the articles thus established are to be taken as descriptive criteria only of the corporate identity of the society, inasmuch as this identity must depend on other characteristics: as the regulations established are generally unessential, and alterable according to the principles and canons by which churches of that denomination govern themselves; and as the injunction is a prohibitions contained in the regulations, would be enforced by the penal consequences applicable to all violation of them according to local law:

Because the bill vests and said incorporated church an also authority to provide for the support of the poor, and the education of poor children of the same; an authority which being altogether superfluous, if the provision is to be the result of pious charity, would be a precedent for giving to religious societies, as such, a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty.

JAMES MADISON

Feb. 21, 1811

"By the way, AT&T(heard of them? Really big telco?)has NOT denied it. "

They have actually.

Of course, a link to a quote of theirs proving your point would have helped you quite a lot here.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm

enough said.


"Using your theory, they'd manage to go through more than a trillion individual calls a month.

Try and do the math on how long that'd take."

OK, we'll use my computer here as an example. In a database, one record of a call to and from numbers and a time and date, and a time duration would probably use about 20 bytes, or 50 records per KB. That would give us about 19 GB to process. If we figure it can process 3 MB a second it would take about 2 hours for my off the shelf laptop to process a database of a trillion records.

"Possession of chemical weapons is proven as Saddam used them on the Kurds."
Yes, those would be the chemical weapons we gave them, not ones they made.
"Harboring of terrorist organizations has been proven repeatedly."

No link between Iraq and Al-Qaida has been proven.
By your logic, we should invade Palestine next since Saddam supported them.

"Again, hate to burst your bubble, but what was passed in 2002 WAS a declaration of war. You'll notice that there is no required language for a declaration of war in the Constitution."

But there are concrete examples of that language in the previous declarations of war. The Authorization has very little in common with those, look it up.

"Actually, it clearly is a declaration of war. I know you like tossing around words like "hypocrite" without knowing what they mean."
Actually, it is a reference to your comment about written words only meaning what they literally say, which you have chosen to ignore in this instance, hence your hypocrisy. Sorry I had to explain that to you, but I can use a dictionary just like you, and I do if I need to. Obviously you don't.

"Yes. But the inmates have NO Constitutional protections because THEY ARE NOT AMERICAN CITIZENS."

Defining people as non-americans doesn't do away with their civil rights under international law, or ours. You can't abuse illegal immigrants here in America simply because they aren't citizens of our republic. This is just hard hearted elitist crap rationalizing the mistreatment of others.

"No, you want us to follow rules that NOBODY follows. Screw that. We have no requirement to do so. No non-citizen has any right to waste our court system's time."
Except if they are being put on trial, or jailed by it...but not to protect their rights, huh Mike?
You're just the picture of compassion, you are.

"The whole SECURING OUR BORDERS notion contains, you know, the concept of actually securing the borders."

So we should put those National Guard troops on the Canadian border too then, huh? And along all the coastlines, too. And Underground. And in the sky too.


"Missed that whole Libby indictment, eh? It was pretty big news."
We are talking about the indictment of Karl Rove, not Libby. Information obtained from Libby is certain to be used in the indictment of RoveThis is referred to as a "chain of events". It isn't necessary to indict them all simultaneously- did you know that? write it down, you'll remember it better next time.

"And, no, the Chinese DIDN'T have the ability to actually target us well until Clinton decided to sell them the technology against D.O.D recommendations to help get campaign contributions."
The Chinese ICBM DF-5 was operational and in the field by 1981. So yes, they DID have the capability to hit us with a missile for hmmmm...25 years now? Damn you never heard of that? Also, you didn't respond to the question of whether or not you know what ballistic means. I guess you don't. Not surprising, since you think it was invented sometime in the 90's apparently.

"You REALLY are clueless, aren't you? When did the big contract get awarded to Halliburton?"

Halliburton was awarded the defense contracts for iraq in 2003, or at least KBR was. I'm aware that Hallibuton has been a defense contractor for a long time, just not anywhere near to the degree that they are today, in terms of contract size. So which big contract are we taalking about? I meant the Iraq ones. Calling me names again...and not refuting my points but giving me crap like "hint: not under Bush"...OK when then Mike? What conflict would you like to discuss? I was alluding to the way companies have profited from the mandates of governments, like the EITC, for hundreds of years.
This is why you can't expect people to take you seriously, you can't seem to hold yourself back from insults when you don't have an answer that suits your pathetic political opinions.

"Yes, nothing will guarantee honest advice like the reality that anything you say can be demagogued by a bunch of idiots. Great idea."
Except maybe asking honest people for their advice. Demagogery is the use of half-truths and slander to influence the population-which is what you do.

"Don't bitch, then, about how much the oil companies "steal" from you since they make several times less per gallon than the gov't --- and the companies ACTUALLY have to pay overhead."
Who was bitching? I said it was stealing to subsidize the most profitable industry ever with my taxes. And it doesn't matter to me about the taxes, at least those are generally used for the welfare of our republic, and not to line investor's pockets. The government has to pay "overhead" costs to function too, dolt. Or did you think they get everything for free?

"Wow, aren't you intellectually dishonest. Well, this is will be my last post to you as I have no desire to debate with somebody both clueless AND intellectually dishonest about rather clear evidence."
Again, with the insults. Listen closely, Doltboy. I asked about the total $ amounts of the persentages you cited. Show me where, in this report, those are. You can't, because they aren't there. This will be your last post to me because of your own intellectual laziness, not because what I've said isn't true, or my own dishonesty. I've admitted where I was wrong without recourse to insults until now, but enough. Show me the figures or shut up. Dolt.

"Well, if you get your way, the executive will never be able to get outside info from experts on an area due to fear of everything being leaked to the public. Kudos to you, good sir, in making sure we have less info to make decisions."

If the "experts" you so blithely think will agree with your warped need for secrecy in the public sector don't want to give honest advice. screw them. You are referring to my comments about the Energy Task Force being secret, not some doomsday bomb experts. Energy policy has a direct affect on each and every one of us, our future, and our pocketbooks. Why it should be secret is beyond reasoning unless they intend to screw us over. I'll take my advice from honest people not afraid of the truth, not your "experts" thanks very much.
Congrats Mike, you get the neocon shuffle doltboy of the day award. Wear it proudly. Come fall, it won't look so shiny.

Dag

I love the mutual distrust ... (Below threshold)
haeuptling aberja:

I love the mutual distrust and pointless political bickering as much as the next guy, and I am, of course, repulsed by the smarminess of the Repugnant Ones, but it really is pointless. If you all, from both "sides", really want to know what's going on, brace yourselves and read the report at this link: http://www.i-cams.org/ICAMS1.pdf

In the meantime, just for old time's sake, here's one of my favorite episodes of Stepford Republican Gone Wild (it's a quote from Frist's assistant outlining one of the ways to marginalize dissenters):

"If you're still convinced that President Bush won the election because Republicans figured out a way to hack into electronic voting machines, you've obviously got a problem," says Smith. "If we can figure out a way to ease your suffering by getting you into therapy and onto medication, that's something that we hope the entire 109th Congress will support."

Characterizing political dissent as a form of mental illness is the hallmark of authoritarian government. In China, for instance, forensic psychiatrists label dissent "political lunacy" (see Jacob Sullum, Head Games: What are the rules for defining mental illness?) and in Soviet Russia political dissenters were routinely cosigned to mental hospitals. Nowadays, with modern pharmacology, mental hospitals are no longer required­the mental hospital is internalized through chemical intervention.

Again, none of it matters anymore, because the foaming-at-the-mouth character Gibson portrayed in Conspiracy Theory was onto much more than the scriptwriters imagined. Go ahead, follow the link above...and then say goodbye to all your notions about the balance of power, etc.

Hey, its Friday!... (Below threshold)
toby928:

Hey, its Friday!




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy