« Remembering Michael Kelly | Main | A Moving Tribute »

Don't Say I Didn't Warn You

...because I did. I just didn't think it would happen so quickly.

Update: For those championing investigations, is there a particular reason Dianne Feinstein's reported resignation from the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee reportedly related to her husband's business interests "doesn't rise to the level?" Michelle Malkin posted some interesting emails to and from the San Francisco Chronicle online editor regarding the paper's decision not to cover the story.

difi.jpg



TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Don't Say I Didn't Warn You:

» Ruminations of a Christian Conservative Geek linked with Democrats Overreaching on Investigations

Comments (83)

It's called checks and bala... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

It's called checks and balances which was one of the principal ideas of our founders and the constitution. Imagine that. I know you righties think we have a monarchy, but we haven't for 200 ++ years.

Now you're puerile as well ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Now you're puerile as well as being a gasbag? What's your solution to Iraq and Islamofascism? Would you care to have the legislature wage war?
====================

Checks and balances is the ... (Below threshold)
drjohn:

Checks and balances is the phrase for dimmer mentalities. This is nothing less than a plan to emasculate the Presidency. It is indicative of the stunted intellects and smallness of Democrats and should begin to firm the foundations for a Republican retaking of the Congress. Rather than show the American public how wisely they can govern Democrats instead choose to expend energies on utterly meaningless and legal proceedings.

Fire a few USA's, fail to give Pat Leahy his usual hand job and the world's on fire, but if you're a Democratic Senator personally directing a billion dollars to your husband's company that's no big deal.

Democrats are truly and irremedially stupid.

It is called separation of ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

It is called separation of powers. Un-needed investigations is a waste. Dimmers do like to waste. Also, what happen to the "no hearing after hearings" pledge? Oh, I forgot. Dimmers don't care. I have read the constitution and it says separation of powers. Executive, legislative, and judicial. Lets see, the executive branch is commander a chief, oh, that's right, the dimmers don't like that portion so they add checks and balances. Pathetic, as always. ww

So many crimes, and so litt... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

So many crimes, and so little time.

Ya got that right BarneyG20... (Below threshold)
Luke:

Ya got that right BarneyG2000.

Waxman will be out of a job in two years, still standing there with nothing but his d*** in his hands.

If the Democrat Senators aren't careful, very careful with this Surrender Policy, good old Joe L may decide to caucus with the Republicans. Then good old Leahy will be left with "you know what" in his hands.

Reid/Fiengold just may be the straw to break the camel's back.

A major function of Congres... (Below threshold)
ChrisO:

A major function of Congress is oversight. You've probably forgotten about that as the Republicans in Congress rolled over and sold out our country's future because they were benefitting from Bush's popularity. The reason the Democrats will be conducting investigations is because there is a backlog of stuff to investigate. They've called for many of these investigations in the past. The Republican leadership's response was to tell them to go screw. Well, guess who gets screwed now?

It's amazing that you righties care so little about this country that you object to investigations even happening. You don't even wait for the outcome of an investigation. Just the fact that anyone might look closely at how things are being run is offensive to you. What an undemocratic bunch. The Republican's swept everything under the rug for six years. Now that it's finally coming into the light, they're whining that we shouldn't dwell on the past. And they know they can count on you fools to whine right along with them.

So is it going to be your philosophy now that anyone can get away with anything as long as they stall an investigation until it becomes part of the "past?"

Well, Chris, that strategy ... (Below threshold)

Well, Chris, that strategy worked exceptionally well in the past. Witness the Rose Law Firm billing records, the purloined FBI files, Whitewater... hell, if Monica hadn't skipped the dry-cleaners, it would've worked on Paula Jones' lawsuit (aided and abetted by some rather skillful perjury).

Why not stick with what works?

J.

Investigate?Invest... (Below threshold)
drjohn:

Investigate?

Investigate the legal dismissal of 8 USA's?

Clinton fired those even in the middle of investigations. The only ones who weren't fired were those who were in trials.

Oversight.

Har.

What next? Investigate the allegation that George Bush is sleeping in the White House?

Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

They are engaging this in such rabid a fashion that they will indeed alienate much of the country with this colossal waste of time.

Kim:Nice new word ... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Kim:

Nice new word for the day. Ummm, why do you keep changing the subject of the post? See my previous responses. You're becoming pestiforous and I am going to call Terminex soon.

On the plus side, the more ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

On the plus side, the more time and money they waste on these useless political farces the less time and money they waste trying to make America more socialist, like Europe. I think that's a good thing. I'd rather not be skinny and forced to ride a bike everywhere like so many in "democrat" controlled Europe are.

And the President has nothing to fear as he did nothing wrong, even though the press will do it's best leave that inconventient truth out of their propaganda, err, I mean "reporting".

It's amazing that you ri... (Below threshold)
Taltos:

It's amazing that you righties care so little about this country that you object to investigations even happening

That's because they are investigating something that by statute cannot be ilegal. If the democrats truly cared about finding corruption all that jazz then they'd be investigating jefferson considering accepting bribes is grounds for impeachment and prison time.

Re: FeinstienShe's... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Re: Feinstien

She's a Democrat. It's okay. Different rules apply.

Pelosi and Reid bring you the most [un]ethical Congress ever

Murtha - Abscam
Reid - 'creative' land deals
Obama - investing in companies that research avian flu vaccines while pushing legislation for gov't funding of that research.
Jefferson - 'cold cash'
Feinstien - overseeing contracts awarded to her husbands company
and the list goes on and on...

The reason the Democrats are so set on investigating political dismissals of political appointments is to provide cover for their continuing corruption.

I wonder how much time cati... (Below threshold)
moseby:

I wonder how much time catie kurick, brian williams, and whomever (totally forgetable) is on abc will devote to this demoshit corruption.

Hugh, waspishly meshugginah... (Below threshold)
kim:

Hugh, waspishly meshugginah.

Why is Madeline Albright staring out at me?
==============================

Taltos, will you please get... (Below threshold)
ChrisO:

Taltos, will you please get a clue? The reason Jefferson isn't being impeached is because he hasn't been charged with anything. The evidence looks very strong, and I firmly believe he is likely guilty. But until he's charged, he can't really be treated as a convicted felon. Oh, and the other reason he's not being impeached is because CONGRESSMEN DON'T GET IMPEACHED. Are you suggesting that the Congress should take over an active FBI investigation? Do you even think before you post this stuff?

And Congress isn't investigating something that "by statute cannot be illegal." There are arguments to be made that Bush and Gonzalez have done nothing wrong, although I don't buy them. But it has not been established that their actions "cannot be illegal." What the hell are you talking about? The purpose of an investigation is to find out what happened. But to you guys even that's too much, despite the growing number of Republicans who are conceding that there is evidence of wrongdoing, based on Gonzalez's false statements.

And Jay Tea, I have no idea what your point is. Considering that the cases you mentioned were investigated by special prosecutors, and not Congressional committees, I fail to see the relevance.Unless it's to point out that when Republicans pull out all the stops to smear someone, they don't just settle for Congressional committees. They go right to the hand picked hatchet men like Starr. Or are you just trying to point out that those years of intensive and expensive investigations largely turned up nothing?

It's true that Jefferson ha... (Below threshold)
drjohn:

It's true that Jefferson hasn't been charged- but why hasn't he been charged?

No one in their right mind would think that a Republican in the same position would not already be hounded into resigning.

ChrisO, you've just dragged... (Below threshold)
kim:

ChrisO, you've just dragged Fitzgerald into the middle of your 'hand picked hatchet men' discussion.

Hugh, the founders gave the legislature the right to declare war and the executive the right to make war, and for a good reason. It is a hell of a lot easier to get into a war than to get out of one.
=================================

Kim:Read the Const... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Kim:

Read the Constitution, you might actually learn something, e.g. that Congress has the power of oversight.

kim, I have no idea what yo... (Below threshold)
ChrisO:

kim, I have no idea what you mean about Fitzgerald. He was a Republican appointed USA, selected by the Republicans to investigate a Republican White House. Starr was a Republican with huge conflicts of interest who was appointed by Republicans to investigate a Democratic White House. So what's your point?

Dimmers continually amaze m... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Dimmers continually amaze me. Of course the congress has to conduct oversight. Of appointees they approve. They do not have the right to oversee the President and his personal staff. Get a clue. The dimmers are over reaching their power. The President is on firm ground on this. Notice, Gonzalas and his staff are appearing. They have to.
Remember how rightous the dimmers were when the FBI went into Jefferson's office looking for more money? Did they have the right to do that? Why were they told to not do that? ww

Hugh, Princess of Snark cri... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Hugh, Princess of Snark cried:


Read the Constitution, you might actually learn something, e.g. that Congress has the power of oversight.

If you were paying attention, Princess. You might understand that whether Congress has the power of oversight isn't being debated. Rather, it's whether the power of oversight is being abused.

"The purpose of an inve... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"The purpose of an investigation is to find out what happened."

Apparently you missed Biden's opening statement in the "Attorney Firings" hearings. He stated before anything else, that the admininstration will be considered guilty unless they can prove their innocence. Of course that's the exact opposite of common American values, but it is typical and common amongst those on the left.

The only purpose of all these hearing into non-crimes and non-wrongdoing will be to give the democrat's propaganda wing ("the MSM") more steaming piles of shit to feed Average Joe. That way the MSM won't have to bother reporting about the success in Iraq or any of the things Mike listed in his 10am post.

Mike, you're forgetting tha... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Mike, you're forgetting that Hugh hasn't a clue.

Hey, I rhymes!

Well Mikey:How doe... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Well Mikey:

How does one know that until it happens? Lets see, we have Republicans agreeing with Dems that the Gonzales issue should be investigated and ergo that is abuse? (Well maybe someone will get a watermelon, as a noted republican congressman/ idiot did, and go shoot it in his backyard as part of an investigation.)

So, in other words, you and the other cater-walling righties posit that there should no oversight as there could not possibly be anything to look at other than an uncharged, un-convicted rep from La? Your intellectually dishonesty is only exceeded by your ignorance.

The MSM may not have time t... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

The MSM may not have time to cover Feinstien, but the apparently have plenty of time to revise history:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17902403/
No mention of the Lord Butler report, etc.

Hugh, Princess of Snark, wh... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Hugh, Princess of Snark, whined:


How does one know that until it happens? Lets see, we have Republicans agreeing with Dems that the Gonzales issue should be investigated and ergo that is abuse? (Well maybe someone will get a watermelon, as a noted republican congressman/ idiot did, and go shoot it in his backyard as part of an investigation.)
So, in other words, you and the other cater-walling righties posit that there should no oversight as there could not possibly be anything to look at other than an uncharged, un-convicted rep from La? Your intellectually dishonesty is only exceeded by your ignorance.

Thanks for proving exactly how clueless your are, Princess (hey, clueless and princess rhyme too!). You've ascribed quite a bit to me based on nothing more than me pointing out that your post about Congressional powers missed the entire point of the debate.

Don't let me (or reality) stop you though. You certainly excel at making a fool of yourself.

ChrisO, Comey and Schumer s... (Below threshold)
kim:

ChrisO, Comey and Schumer selected Fitzgerald. These are Republicans? And what about the sham of a prosecution he ran?

Appeals, ho.

The FBI, burrowing,
Lost its notes suborning.
Eckinrode,
Where is that toad?
He's wanted at a harrowing.
===========================

Mikey:Of course yo... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Mikey:

Of course you want to talk about a hypothetical silly point and not talk about the facts. I ascribe to you what you say Mikey. You just don't like being called on it. Obviously, we know why that is.

There's an old lawyer adage: first argue the facts, then argue the law. If neither works yell the loudest. Current righties are experts at that.

You folks yell like stuck pigs. Hey maybe your elephant should be a pig instead.

Hugh, Princess of Snark, wh... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Hugh, Princess of Snark, whined:

I ascribe to you what you say Mikey. You just don't like being called on it.

Great. Please link us where I said the things you've ascribed to me.

Of course, those of us not divorced from reality already know you're a liar, Princess.

Hugh, all of your BS still ... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Hugh, all of your BS still doesn't address the fact that a senior senator from California removed herself from the chair of an important committee. You can talk about what ever you wish to distract from this matter but it remains to be answered and the question remains. Why is it that the MSM is ignoring this. In is not in the major newpapers nor on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC and I have yet to see it on Fox. Were Diane and Republican, it would be front page above the fold.

Again, there has to be an a... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Again, there has to be an appearance of a crime to investigate. You would not want investigations on people to SEE if there was a crime, would you? Well, maybe just for republicans. ww

Feinstein, pelosi,je... (Below threshold)
914:


Feinstein, pelosi,jefferson, clinton and Reid should all be investigated for the corrupt commies they are!

Taltos, will you please ... (Below threshold)
Taltos:

Taltos, will you please get a clue? The reason Jefferson isn't being impeached is because he hasn't been charged with anything. The evidence looks very strong, and I firmly believe he is likely guilty. But until he's charged, he can't really be treated as a convicted felon. Oh, and the other reason he's not being impeached is because CONGRESSMEN DON'T GET IMPEACHED. Are you suggesting that the Congress should take over an active FBI investigation? Do you even think before you post this stuff?

1.) That's the point genius, they claim they're looking for possible corruption and they aren't even looking at someone found with bribe money in his freezer.

2.) All civil officers of the united states are subject to impeachment. A certain senator by the name of William Blount was impeached in 1799 in fact. Granted congress has easier ways to expell members.

3.) Actual charges are unnecessary to enact impeachment or removal procedings.

4.) It has nothing to do with the FBI's investigation. Criminal charges are an entirely seperate matter. The point was that a simple congressional investigation would provide ample evidence to allow for his removal or at least to convince him to resign.

There are arguments to b... (Below threshold)
Taltos:

There are arguments to be made that Bush and Gonzalez have done nothing wrong, although I don't buy them. But it has not been established that their actions "cannot be illegal." What the hell are you talking about?

The statute granting the president to power to remove USAs is absolute, there are no caveats. Therefore the president can remove a USA for any reason or no reason, he can remove them because he thinks they look funny or wear strange hats.

This whole affair is akin to investigating someone for painting their living room pink instead of green. Does it matter that it's no one else's business? Of course not because it's a scandal!!!!!

Our Country is being di... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Our Country is being disgraced , destroyed and molested by criminal lying democrat frauds who deceived their way into power. Those like Hugh and his friends that "ARE DIVORCED FROM REALITY" must be removed from it.

"You folks yell like stuck pigs"

Listen to this jerkoff, after democrats yelled and screamed for six years lying , crying and begging their way into a razor thin majority. The only way this Country is going to survive is to enter the deranged dimension and exterminate the Rats that are chewing at the foundation of this Country. The only way to survive cancer is to kill the cancer.

Democrats are stupid like cancer with only one desire , to spread their tumorous growths that are keeping people stupid. Hugh you and the rest of the dumb Democrats are no diiferent from the zombies in the movie "day of the living dead". You are so desparate to make everybody just as stupid as yourself. Unlike the zombies , you are nothing but a big pussy , a fucken coward who would not dare attempt to feast on the brains of people like myself knowing you'll get your fucken head blown off.

All you can do is take the dumb and the week you can get and keep hidin behind your keyboard posting your democrat lies like good little faggot. It's going to be you retards who are going to be kicking and screaming like idiots when a pesticide or vaccine comes knocking of your door. They won't have ears to hear your cries of "I didn't mean it!" "I was just joking". The last laugh will be on you.

"Feinstein, pelosi,jeffer... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"Feinstein, pelosi,jefferson, clinton and Reid should all be investigated for the corrupt commies they are!"


That would be great wouldn't it? Actually enforcing the rule of law. That would mean that there will be alot of dead and imprisioned democrats. Democrats are liars , criminals and traitors and they are too cowardly to commit suicide. They will never prosecute or condemn or judge someone when they look at that person and see themselves. Democrats are not Americans period.

Chris0:It's am... (Below threshold)
marc:

Chris0:

It's amazing that you righties care so little about this country that you object to investigations even happening. You don't even wait for the outcome of an investigation.

Four words; Karl rove, frog marched.

Make that five... Fitzmas.

Rob LA Ca:The ... (Below threshold)
marc:

Rob LA Ca:

The only way this Country is going to survive is to enter the deranged dimension and exterminate the Rats that are chewing at the foundation of this Country. The only way to survive cancer is to kill the cancer.

You "sir" are a despicable troll who would cause more hurt than help no matter what "side" you were on.

Hell, you make Cindy Sheehag rational.

Mike whines and says above:... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Mike whines and says above: "Rather, it's whether the power of oversight is being abused."

This after the Dems control Congress for 2 months and have a bipartisan investigation of the AG, not only for firing US Attorneys but for lying about it. Note, the bangers don't want to talk about lying as one of their heros was just convicted of same.

Here's a fact: During the Clinton presidency the Republican controlled House Committee on Government Reform, between 1997-2002, issued 1052, yes 1,052 subpoenas to investigate the Clinton Administration.

Mikey I'll bet you and the other bangers were hollering like a stuck pig about abuse of oversight then weren't you?

This after the Dems cont... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

This after the Dems control Congress for 2 months and have a bipartisan investigation of the AG, not only for firing US Attorneys but for lying about it. Note, the bangers don't want to talk about lying as one of their heros was just convicted of same.

Yes, an investigation of firings that were completely and totally legal. Good one. Never again will something legal be so well investigated.

Here's a fact: During the Clinton presidency the Republican controlled House Committee on Government Reform, between 1997-2002, issued 1052, yes 1,052 subpoenas to investigate the Clinton Administration.

So you're saying it's payback and not ACTUAL investigation. Got it.
-=Mike

Hugh, Princess of Snark,</p... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Hugh, Princess of Snark,

You didn't respond to what I asked, but continued with more deflection. I understand that you have difficulty comprehending what you ready, so I'll ask you once more then just leave it that you're a moron and a liar.

Here's what I asked..
Great. Please link us where I said the things you've ascribed to me.

Hugh -1,052 ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Hugh -

1,052

Was that one per intern-POTUS blow job?

Yes HughBut I beli... (Below threshold)
914:

Yes Hugh

But I believe the President holds the perogative to fire the attorneys for "ANY" reason whatsoever.

Even a reason such as just because a prior administration appointed them..

I.e. the 93 Clinton canned within 2 weeks of taking office! not for actually failing to do their jobs like these 8 clowns.

What's significant here is ... (Below threshold)
drjohn:

What's significant here is that Democrats portrayed themselves to something better than sniveling, whiny, muck turds yet they prove clearly that they are sniveling, whiny, muck turds.

These "hearings" are nothin... (Below threshold)
drjohn:

These "hearings" are nothing more than perjury traps. That's all the Democrats have- perjury traps. They, like Fitz, cannot find a crime so they must resort to entrapment over recollections of a completely legal action.

What a damned waste of time.

It's 1989 again, when George Mitchell said that precisely because there was no evidence of wrongdoing that Congress had to investigate.

Wow, the shriekers are real... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Wow, the shriekers are really shrieking now. Confront them with a few facts and they go goofy.

So Lorie starts a thread about what Mikey calls abuse of power by dems in the oversight process. Then we point out sill little things like facts and the pig-stuck hollering begins.

1) The dems have been in power for 3 MONTHS. FACT: there is a BIPARTISAN investigation of the firings/dishonesty/deceit /outright lying from the AGs office.

2) FACT: not one of the bangers here has acknowledged that the AG investigation in BIPARTISAN and is also about whether there was LYING/DECEIT by the AGs office.

3) FACT: the Constitution provides for oversight of the executive by the legislature. The bangers simply conclude that if there is ANY investigation or OVERSIGHT it must, ipso facto, be wrong.

4) FACT: 1.052 subpoenas issued from ONE committee of a REPUBLICAN Congress between 1997-2002.

5) FACT: the only response is about Clinton blow jobs. Real intelligent response by the way.

Now you may go back to screaming and ignoring the FACTS. Or you may bring up uncharged/unindicted congressmen or you may, as you usually do, blame everything in the world on Bill Clinton's penis. (Which clearly most of you seem to be envious of)

Hugh -On the Clint... (Below threshold)
jim:

Hugh -

On the Clinton POTUS penis, I am certainly not envious of where it has been!

I am assuming a few of thin... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

I am assuming a few of things..
1)There was no reason for the Republican Senate or House to hold investigations between 2002-2006
2)"Perjury traps"...if you do not commit perjury..ah then you are not trapped

3)Some folks will follow this President and his war(remember..all Congress did was authorize him to go to war..it was..and remains his call)forever...

Some folks here still do not understand..
a)The majority of Americans recognize that oversight has been lacking from 2002-2006

b)"Hardball" can be played by both sides..the determining factor is the support or lack of support from the public..anyone here who believes our President and Republicans have the support of the public...need to venture outside of the venues you visit..

c)"muck turds"...I am assuming you do not have a direct relative who has served multiple tours in Iraq..I am assuming your most recent visit to a V.A. Hospital found positive comments from those waiting for their appointment..
I am assuming you are outraged that American voters in 2006 turned their back on your agenda..
I am assuming you are under 40 and could join and ride around in humvees in Iraq..
...

OK, one at a time. First, I... (Below threshold)
ChrisO:

OK, one at a time. First, I can't believe anyone is crying about perjury trap. Exactly what do you think the Paula Jones deposition was about? Ask Clinton a question about his personal life that will cause embarrassment, then pounce when he doesn't tell the truth.

Taltos: Sen. William Blount was the first and last senator to be impeached, because during the course of his impeachment hearing the Senate decided that it did not have jurisdiction to impeach its own members. That's why no other Senator has been impeached.

As far as Jefferson goes, what exactly are you expecting the House to investigate? Since there is an active criminal investigation, are you suggesting that the House should step all over the investigation? Do you really think it would be a healthy precedent for the House to declare someone guilty before he's been charged? Whether you think he's guilty or not, can't you see any possibility where that might fuck up a criminal nvestigation just a little bit, not to mention probably totally screwing up any possibility for a fair criminal trial? And how about if you point out where a Republican Congressman has been formally investigated and found guilty by the House while he was being actively investigated by the FBI? The Houswe Dems have taken steps against him, stripping him of his seat on Ways and Means. But other than screwing up a federal investigation, there's not much they can do.

And for all of you sacreaming "separation of powers" in the USA case, Dennis Hastert was the primary voice objecting to the FBI raiding Jefferson's offices. Both Republicans and Democrats were up in arms over it. As distasteful as this case may be, there is an argument to be made that the FBI, which operates as part of the Executive branch, can't search the offices of memebers of the Legislative branch. To put it in terms you'll understand, think FBI files. Does that ring a bell for you?

And I realize criminal charges aren't necessary for impeachment. But once a serious criminal investigation is under way, the House is going to wait for charges before launching their own hearings.

As far as the USA firings, the President does not have absolute power to fire them, despite the number of different times you guys claim it. The President is not allowed to break criminal law just because he is the President. If Bush demanded a bribe from each USA in order to avoid being fired, would that be legal? How about if he demanded sex? I'm not saying he did, but these examples demonstrate that he does not have absolute power. If Bush or his underlings fired a USA in order to disrupt a criminal investigation, that's obstruction of justice. If Gonzalez lied to Congress, as now seems obvious, that's perjury.

You may think none of these transgressions occurred, but that's why there's an investigation. You don't start an investigation knowing the outcome.

kim, how exactly did Schumer appoint Fitzgerald? He may have been consulted, as would be customary in a case like this, but he didn't have the power to "appoint" anyone. After all of this debate, are you honestly suggesting that a Senator can appoint a US Attorney to investigate the White House? Come on, try to keep up. And yes, Comey was a Republican. I'm not sure what you're even talking about. He was appointed to the number 2 post in Justice by Bush. Do you think he would have picked a Democrat? Comey is on record as saying he started voting for Republicans with Reagan, and he and his wife were reported celebrating when Bush was declared the winner in Florida in 2000. So what are you talking about?

As for Fitzgerald's "sham" of an investigation, I do beleieve he won at trial. Most observers would see that as a sign of an effective investigation (especially since you had White House officials throwing roadblocks in his path in an express effort to render his investigation inneffective.) But I guess to Republicans, having the chief of staff to the vice president convicted of multiple felonies qualifies as some sort of victory. It's not a sham investigation just because your guy lost.

WildWillie, wherever did you get the idea that Congress's oversight is limited to appointees they approve? You just pulled that one out of your ass.

And marc, you really need to work on the reading comprehension. Yes, Democrats thought (and still do) that Rove was guilty in the Plame case. That's partisan politics. Just as Republicans declared everyone not guilty, and right wing bloggers suddenly became so knowledgeable about Valerie Plame's life in the last five years that they felt qualified to make an absolute assessment of her covert status. How does that relate to the current situation? I fully expect Republicans to declare that there's been absolutely no wrongdoing in the USA case (although that becomes a harder argument as even Republican Congressmen are realizing they've been lied to.) But this isn't about people's opinions of guilt or innocence. This is about people declaring that an investigation shouldn't even happen. It's one thing to declare someone innocent, it's another to say that we shouldn't even look into the case at all.

Finally, P. Bunyan, could you please provide a quote where Biden said that the administration was guilty until proven innocent? Did you really read that, or are you parroting some characterization of his statement that you read on a right wing blog?

F U Marc. FU for calling... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

F U Marc. FU for calling me a fucken troll. A despicable troll even. Your intitled to your opinion. At least you didn't call me a democrat. Thems is fighting words. Your the only one that has given me a hard time on any blog for being brutally honest and not sugar coating shit. Not to worry , I'd still drag your wound ass out of harms way. Excuse me , I have some true trolls to stomp on.

Hugh,

"not only for firing US Attorneys but for lying about it."

Lying about what ? What the hell are you crying about? How stupid are you? your pathetic.


"Here's a fact: During the Clinton presidency the Republican controlled House Committee on Government Reform, between 1997-2002, issued 1052, yes 1,052 subpoenas to investigate the Clinton Administration."

Hey Hugh , read this quote of yours that you state is a fact about 100 times and maybe it will sink in.

Your Democrat Party is run by Fricken Criminals. When are you going to admit what is clear as day?

Who the hell has over 1000 investigations? The King and Queen of Corruption , that's who. And you chose to defeend them regardless of their quilt by pretending they are honest as the driven snow.It sucks having sold your soul to the devil doesn't it?


Marc, ever been or heard democrats behind closed doors and what they say?

You wouldn't call them Americans either.

This is an example of their least venomous pep talks at a fundraiser "Social Security belongs to us and we need to get back to where we belong, IN POWER!"

They are Democrats and they are proud of it , what ever that means.

I am an American and I am proud of it.

My Social Security belongs to me not those Criminal F8*&^ks and they are the last people who belong in POWER.

Lorie:I enjoy your s... (Below threshold)
Burt:

Lorie:
I enjoy your site and your posts. However, in view of improving your site, have you ever considered requisitioning a better class of trolls? The first comment on this thread was decidedly off topic and could be seen as a highjack. I reread the comment twice and the original post twice and could only assume that the comment had been written before the post was up. It was with amusement later in the thread that I noticed the same person accusing someone else of being off topic. Yes, I laughed out loud.

My thought on MS Feinstein (just to put me "on topic") is: does the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee have anything to do with the problems being uncovered now at Walter Reed Hospital?

Nogo, you've caught that ... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Nogo, you've caught that thing Hilary suffers from.Claiming to speak for the Majority of Americans

"a)The majority of Americans recognize that oversight has been lacking from 2002-2006"

Nice opinion, Just how have Americans come to recognize this? Crying lying democrats perhaps?

CrisO,
"If Bush or his underlings fired a USA in order to disrupt a criminal investigation, that's obstruction of justice."

And since there is zero evidence of this Schmuck Schumer and Leaky Leahy just lie and make false accusations.

Charlie Rangel admits Pelosi used billions of our tax dollars to buy votes. "BUY VOTES" got it?

And you would like to deny the fact that democrats engage in election fraud 24/7 365 days a years. The Alberto Gonzalez non scandal show is election fraud pure and simple. The Democrats are a perpetual fraud and you dopes must defend it. What a life.

"does the Military Construc... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"does the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee have anything to do with the problems being uncovered now at Walter Reed Hospital?"

Someone sure seems to thinks so. If she thought she was goping to slither away and not be noticed , boy was she wrong. She turned the spotlight onto herself. But that's as far as it will go, democrats don't do democrats since they can get away with it and ehen their wown supporters could care less of their corruption.

Burt:Apparently yo... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Burt:

Apparently you don't know the constitutional principle of checks and balances. You might take a civics lesson.

And just so you know, Ms Feinstein is not the topic of the post. The topic of the post is dems investigating the Bush admin. So, do more than read one sentence next time you want to "hijack. Read the links the author has posted on the thread. Thank you. Oh, and it's OK to use a person's name when talking about them, Burt.

Rob LA Ca.F U ... (Below threshold)
marc:

Rob LA Ca.

F U Marc. FU for calling me a fucken troll. A despicable troll even. Your intitled to your opinion. At least you didn't call me a democrat.

Thanks for proving my original point in the most definitive way. And if you didn't notice (not surprising most things sail over your head) I called you something most definitely worse than the run-of-the-mill Democrat, in fact much worse, a near clone of Cindy Sheehag.

Thems is fighting words. Your the only one that has given me a hard time on any blog for being brutally honest and not sugar coating shit.

I feel SO SPECIAL.

NOTE: Being "brutally honest" doesn't include calling EVERY Democrat "Criminal," nor any of the other examples of child-like strings on invective uttered by you.

All you do is feed the like-minded "progressives" red meat and allow them the excuse to point fingures at the "rethuglicans" and "repukes."

Solve the problem, don't create it.

It's true that Jefferson... (Below threshold)
Brian:

It's true that Jefferson hasn't been charged- but why hasn't he been charged?

Good question. Why don't you ask Bush and his Justice Department?

ChrisO:As far ... (Below threshold)
marc:

ChrisO:

As far as Jefferson goes, what exactly are you expecting the House to investigate? Since there is an active criminal investigation, are you suggesting that the House should step all over the investigation?

Sum bitch, where have I heard THAT before?

Many on your "side of the aisle" have used the same excuse when crying about the White House security detail not investigating the "Plame affair" while Fitz was in the process of conducting his investigation.

Funny how that works.

Dimmers continually amaz... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Dimmers continually amaze me. Of course the congress has to conduct oversight. Of appointees they approve. They do not have the right to oversee the President and his personal staff. Get a clue.

WW, you prove yourself just completely ignorant with that ridiculous spittle. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, nor do you seem to care.

Congressional oversight is one of the most important responsibilities of the United States Congress. Congressional oversight refers to the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs and policy implementation, and it provides the legislative branch with an opportunity to inspect, examine, review and check the executive branch and its agencies. The authority of Congress to do oversight is derived from its implied powers in the U.S. Constitution, various laws, and House rules.

I suggest you follow that link to introduce yourself to the American system of government, since you apparently have no idea how it works.

And if you still don't get it, then perhaps at least you can tell us how your fantasy explanation of Congressional oversight ("they do not have the right to oversee the President and his personal staff") is consistent with this:

Back in the mid-1990s, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, aggressively delving into alleged misconduct by the Clinton administration, logged 140 hours of sworn testimony into whether former president Bill Clinton had used the White House Christmas card list to identify potential Democratic donors.
Taltos: Sen. William Blo... (Below threshold)
Taltos:

Taltos: Sen. William Blount was the first and last senator to be impeached, because during the course of his impeachment hearing the Senate decided that it did not have jurisdiction to impeach its own members. That's why no other Senator has been impeached.

Not true, the found they didn't have jurisdiction because he'd already been removed from the senate, not because there was no jurisdiction for impeachment. No other senator being impeached does not mean senators cannot be impeached.

The statute granting the... (Below threshold)
Brian:

The statute granting the president to power to remove USAs is absolute, there are no caveats. Therefore the president can remove a USA for any reason or no reason

You are wrong, and it's been covered on these pages many times before. The president cannot fire USAs because they refuse to pay him a bribe. He cannot fire them for being black. He cannot fire them for refusing to sleep with him. He cannot fire them for refusing to vote for his brother. Did you even think before you posted that?

You are wrong, and it's ... (Below threshold)
Taltos:

You are wrong, and it's been covered on these pages many times before. The president cannot fire USAs because they refuse to pay him a bribe. He cannot fire them for being black. He cannot fire them for refusing to sleep with him. He cannot fire them for refusing to vote for his brother.

Yes, he can. He can be impeached and tried after doing so, but the removal would be entirely legal and stand.

Yes, he can. He can be i... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Yes, he can. He can be impeached and tried after doing so

Great! So you acknowledge that a criminal investigation may be entirely appropriate even in the aftermath of a "legal" action. So nothing more to talk about, I guess.

"All you do is feed the lik... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"All you do is feed the like-minded "progressives" red meat and allow them the excuse to point fingures at the "rethuglicans" and "repukes."

How so? Since I am neither. I'm registered democratic and since when do they need an excuse?

Knowingly aiding and abbeting corrupt criminal politicians into positions of power is a crime in my book. Just like lying without saying a word is called Lying by omission, it's still deception. There no lemon law in politics that removes those that lied smeared or had voting fraud put him into power is there? I think they call that sort of behavior these days as "it's just politics" that's all. Just ? I don't think so.

Rob spewed:At lea... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Rob spewed:
At least you didn't call me a democrat.

then vomited:
I'm registered democratic

Didn't take your Alzheimer's medication again? Or did it get spit out with all your sputtering.

Don't bother replying. Blah blah blah, party of eternal corruption and damnation, blah blah blah, Queen Peeeeloshi, blah blah, lying Clintons, blah....

Great! So you acknowledg... (Below threshold)
Taltos:

Great! So you acknowledge that a criminal investigation may be entirely appropriate even in the aftermath of a "legal" action. So nothing more to talk about, I guess.

Nice try sparky.

Criminal investigations are conducted by the police/FBI, not congress. Congress has no authority to bring charges against anyone apart from contempt of congress. And even that has to be enforced by the executive branch.

Ooh, nice job picking a sin... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Ooh, nice job picking a single word from my post and using it to change the subject. Fine, remove "criminal" from my previous post.

WildWillie,You menti... (Below threshold)
Mike:

WildWillie,
You mentioned the AG and staff will appear in front of the committee. Well guess what, Monica claims the 5th. WHY? She hasn't done anything wrong, all she has to do is tell the truth. The puggies on the committee, plus the American taxpayer would not stand for her to be charged with any crime if she tells the truth, so WHY is she claiming the 5th? SPIN THAT moment. The BS she would be charged is crazy is she tells the truth. What is she HIDING? Would the truth show that she did commit a crime?

And old cash in the freezer Jefferson case. Well, old fat Denny Hasket, remember him, former puggie speaker of the house, along with your bitch Nancy and most all Congress critters yelled about the search. That is still in the courts about the search. Until that is settled, there will be no charges filed. Is he guilty, IMO he's guilty as hell, but until he is charged, suck it up and quit bitching as the puggies bitched the most about the search. WHY was that?

At least Finestein resigned. Remember the puggie Congress critter from Ohio, Ney? After he pleaded guilty, and before his sentence, did he resign? Hell no, he drew his congress critter wages and bennies for at least another two months. Why haven't you bitched about that?

Regarding William Jefferson... (Below threshold)
Opinionated Vogon:

Regarding William Jefferson's case guess who just filed an amicus breif in support of Jefferson:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/01/AR2007040100886.html?nav=rss_politics


Former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), former House minority leader Robert Michel (R-Ill.) and Scott Palmer, former chief of staff for Rep. J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), are among those who have filed friend-of-the-court briefs in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, backing Jefferson's argument that the controversial FBI raid on his office last May was unconstitutional.

Too late! Its water under t... (Below threshold)
914:

Too late! Its water under the fridge.

Ooh, nice job picking a ... (Below threshold)
Taltos:

Ooh, nice job picking a single word from my post and using it to change the subject. Fine, remove "criminal" from my previous post.

The point is that the things you listed are criminal offenses (well the black guy one is iffy). Investigating criminal offenses is domain of the executive branch.

Granted, the idea of democrats (most of them anyway) drafting legislation all day terrifies me, but when congress works like 5 months of the year and spends half of that on pointless investigations something is wrong.

You're still not getting it... (Below threshold)
drjohn:

You're still not getting it.

Democrats alleged themselves to be above this claptrap. They're not.

Newt filed the brief as a matter of principle. Republicans stick to principle. Democrats stick it to Republicans. There is no way on Earth a Democrat would do the same for a Republican.


As for the perjury traps, they are just that. The Libby case was a sterling example of what a bunch of crap can be. The target of the investigation was given immunity. No one could remember anything- not Dickerson, not Gregory, not Mitchell- but Libby was not permitted the same. Russert was given special treatment and he forgot to mention it.

Yes, the Democrats want transcripts and oaths not to get to any truth, about which they could give a damn, but to continue their quixotic quest to frog-march Karl Rove.

"All she has to do is tell ... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"All she has to do is tell the truth."

All the Hildabeast had to do is tell the true over 250 times. She couldn't of course, she had a boat load to hide and still does.

"Rob spewed:
At least you didn't call me a democrat.

then vomited:
I'm registered democratic"

That is a fact asshole , deal with it. You dirtbags just can't stand it when I bitch slap you up side your shit filled melons. The sniveling punk asses lost one of their flock (vote in the bag) because I paid attention for a split second and saw the criminal frauds clear as day. And I didn't even need those majic sunglasses that Rowdy Roddy Piper used in one of his Movies.

Boo! I'm the Anti-Crat! LOL! Ha HA HA!

Hey puggies, now your talki... (Below threshold)
Mike:

Hey puggies, now your talking small head, you know, druggie Rush is saying that CLINTON appointed Carol Lam as USA in 2002. My question is when did your fricking shrub take office. Wasn't it in 2000?

Yes BLAME Clinton, it's easier than thinking, right?

No , defend the rapist C... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

No , defend the rapist Clinton, it's easier than doing what is right , RIGHT?

So like criminal losers you did. Don't get mad at anyone but your stupid selves.

The point is that the th... (Below threshold)
Brian:

The point is that the things you listed are criminal offenses... Investigating criminal offenses is domain of the executive branch.

On what are you basing that? Certainly not the Supreme Court's rulings:

In Watkins v. United States the Court described Congress' oversight power by stating that the "power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process. That power is broad."

And if you don't think any laws could possibly have been broken here, go familiarize yourself with the Hatch Act.

when congress works like... (Below threshold)
Brian:

when congress works like 5 months of the year and spends half of that on pointless investigations something is wrong.

Right, better that they spend only 3 months of the year working, and spend half of it naming post offices. That's much better than doing their Constitutionally-prescribed job of executive oversight.

Did you know that the Republican Congress set the record for fewest days worked by a U.S. Congress? And that over half the legislation they passed was for naming things?

"My question is when did y... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"My question is when did your fricking shrub take office. Wasn't it in 2000?"

What the fuck do you care when our American President took office? F&&k off and don't concern yourself with this Country. You are obviously not an American.

ChrisO, see the OpinionJour... (Below threshold)
kim:

ChrisO, see the OpinionJournal today for more news about Comey and Fitzgerald.
=================================

Over the next year, you'll ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Over the next year, you'll see what a sham investigation and prosecution Fitzgerald ran.
===================================

Rob La,Man you gotta... (Below threshold)
Mike:

Rob La,
Man you gotta quit sucking in all da exhaust fumes. Go back being a homie in your barrio where the others like you hang out. You said, "you are obviously not an American."

How would you know what I am? Guess you're just showing what those fumes do to you're brain.

On what are you basing t... (Below threshold)
Taltos:

On what are you basing that? Certainly not the Supreme Court's rulings:
In Watkins v. United States the Court described Congress' oversight power by stating that the "power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process. That power is broad."

And if you don't think any laws could possibly have been broken here, go familiarize yourself with the Hatch Act.

1.) Congressional investigations have to be germane to the committee enacting the investigation as well as have a valid legislative purpose.

2.) The Hatch act concerns political campaigning of civil servants.

3.) The president and his cabinet are not civil servants (in the sense of the Hatch act).

Right, better that they spend only 3 months of the year working, and spend half of it naming post offices. That's much better than doing their Constitutionally-prescribed job of executive oversight.

Did you know that the Republican Congress set the record for fewest days worked by a U.S. Congress? And that over half the legislation they passed was for naming things?

4.) I think congress should legally have to be in session at least 200 days of the year.

5.) I have no problem with congressional oversight when it has a purpose apart from political grandstanding.

6.) I have no love for the republicans in congress either.

"How would you know what I ... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"How would you know what I am? Guess you're just showing what those fumes do to you're brain."

I rang the bell and you came a runnin. You've been a good patient and you've paid attention. More than I can say about most RAM heads around here.

You certainly are a lousy representaive of this Country.

"Go back being a homie in your barrio where the others like you hang out."

No surprise there. Are you racist homes? Sure you are.

You asked "How would you know what I am?"

You braodcast it pal.

It's easy to see why you think the way you do, you are easily manipulated. If I can do it , the most incompetant democrat can easily have you eating out of their hand. You've more than proved that. Bu-buy.




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