Monday, August 13, 2007

ROVE RESIGNS!


TODAY on Basham and Cornell Progressive Talk we'll be discussing Rove's resignation as well as other juicy politcal news.

The Basham and Cornell Show broadcasts weekday mornings at 8 am Pacific Time on AM 1230 KLAV in Las Vegasat 8 am Pacific (11 a.m. Eastern). All shows are simulcast on the Internet (and archived) and can be listened to at BASHAM AND CORNELL.COM

If you missed it, you can listen in the archives. This past Friday August 10th, Senator John Edwards was our guest, and Tomorrow, Tuesday August 14, we are having Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan, author of "Take This Job and Ship it: How Corporate Greed and Brain Dead Politics Are Selling Out America."









Open Thread.

206 comments:

  1. I wonder why he would abandon the last bastion of protection that he has, executive privilege?

    My guess is he's going to go work with Romney, and isn't concerned about being subpoenaed by Alberto Gonzalez.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Now, this is good news!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sooooooooo Looooooonnnnnggggg

    TURDBLOSSOM!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Rhea said...
    Now, this is good news!



    Well its a sign things are falling apart but it would be good news if Rove was forced to resign in disgrace over the CIA outing of Valerie Plame.

    But this chapters not over yet. Pat Leahey said he's going after this administration AFTER they leave office, so hopefully Rove will get a chance to try on federally issued orange soon.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Adios Turdblossom dont let the door hit you in your a$$!

    ReplyDelete
  6. BARTLEBEE said...

    But this chapters not over yet. Pat Leahey said he's going after this administration AFTER they leave office, so hopefully Rove will get a chance to try on federally issued orange soon."

    Now THATS what I was hoping for after the pardoning power scam is over is when to go after these SOB's.

    I hope Valerie Plame is also waiting till AFTER they are out of office to resume her lawsuit!

    ReplyDelete
  7. it'll be even better when the Democrats control the White House and can purge the "Justice" Department of the blindly loyal goosestepping Repugs that Bush infected us with so we can get back to the Rule of Law and justice for all instead of a rigged system.

    ReplyDelete
  8. My very best to all reading this.

    And congratulations to Lydia and the outstanding contributors here.

    I recall the words retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Conner spoke at or about the time of her retirement, that went something like:

    The country came very close to becoming a dictatorship.

    How I want that to be so.

    http://www.light-to-dark.com/fitzs_dominoes.html

    ReplyDelete
  9. Mike said...

    I hope Valerie Plame is also waiting till AFTER they are out of office to resume her lawsuit!


    I hope Joe Wilson is waiting to punch him in the mouth.

    ReplyDelete
  10. yayayayayay!

    maybe this country can at least start heading back to its _usual_ level of corruption -- instead of this over-the-top version we've been living in. . . .

    ermmmmmmmm--
    is my cynicism showing?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Rove is well known inside the Beltway for being a radical homophobe.

    But the origins of Rove's homophobia was not known or understood until recently.

    Turns out that Karl was estranged from his father, Louie Rove, who left Karl's mother and settled in Los Angeles where he started a relationship with a man. The couple lived together until Louie Rove's death in 2004.

    Karl never forgave his gay father for leaving and especially, for following his heart and coming out.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Is that true Christopher?

    Where'd you find that?

    ReplyDelete
  13. If the Gray Lady didn't have enough problems battling industrywide woes, now she has Rupert Murdoch to worry about.

    The media billionaire has made no secret of his desire to take aim at the New York Times once his News Corp. acquires Dow Jones & Co. and its flagship Wall Street Journal in a $5-billion deal expected to close this fall.

    Who will stop him?

    ReplyDelete
  14. The Pentagon sharply rejected Monday a key general's assertion that a return to the military draft has always been "an option on the table" and should be considered.

    "I can tell you emphatically that there is absolutely no consideration being given to reinstituting the draft," said Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman. "The all-volunteer force has surpassed all expectations of its founders."

    Does anyone believe this?

    ReplyDelete
  15. A 22-year-old woman remains hospitalized following a violent conflict with police on Saturday at a protest organized by the Industrial Workers of the World labor group in Providence, Rhode Island, reports the Providence Journal.

    The woman, Alexandra Svoboda, was "tackled" by police during the protest and suffered a dislocated knee. She has had one surgery to repair the damaged knee and may face another, as well as physical therapy according to the paper.

    The group was protesting a restaurant's use of a New York food distributor they say "is notorious for its slave labor conditions of up to 110 hours per week without basic labor rights." One of the protesters, Balthazar Ramos, said he worked for the distributor and worked "112 hours per week, was paid $4.90 per hour, and was not compensated for overtime."

    Government interference of union organizing rights!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Bartlebee,

    Yes, it's 100% true.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Here's my sourcing information about Karl Rove's deceased, gay father.

    http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/02/1451226

    ReplyDelete
  18. Mike Shedlock writes about the Goldman Sachs Alpha Fund debacle, and compares in to the 1998 LTCM collapse

    Genius Fails Again

    Roger Lowenstein explains how Long-Term became arrogant due to its success and eventually leveraged $4 billion into $100 billion in assets. This $100 billion became collateral for $1.2 trillion in derivatives exposure!

    The losses at LTCM are trivial compared to today. The Fed would not bat an eye over a $4 billion hedge fund failure today. In Who's Holding The Bag? I reported "Notional amounts of interest rate derivatives outstanding grew almost 14 percent to $285.7 trillion in the second half of 2006." Look closely at that figure. Yes, that is trillion not billion. And that numbers was from 2006. It is higher today. Is it any wonder the Fed is spooked?

    Inquiring minds might be asking "What's behind the explosive use of derivatives, CDOs, LBO, computer trading, massive leverage, and enormous faith in poor models including implicit trust in automated scoring algorithms that supposedly could measure risk of default but obviously failed to deliver. The answer is simple: the Fed. Central banks are enablers of risk. Greenspan himself had high praise for derivatives and encouraged massive use of derivatives, adjustable rate mortgages at the bottom in interest rates, computer modeling and other such nonsense. And when anything has gone wrong the Fed has always been there to provide liquidity (see Bernanke Panics & Gold Responds).

    But there comes a time when all such models break down. We saw it with LTCM, we see it now with Moody's, Fitch and the S&P, and we see it again with Goldman Sachs's Global Alpha quant fund that simply cannot trade. There is one more model that's going to fail as well. That's the model that thinks the Fed can keep engineering bigger bubble after bigger bubble to bail out the markets. That model is on the verge of collapse right now and that is what has nearly every central bank spooked.

    As the Fed keeps pumping Liquidity, (MONEY) for us poor folks into the markets they can still lie and claim everything is alright, but at some point all the games will come crashing down, on all our heads.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The so-called war czar who oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has once again raised the issue of whether or not America might consider reinstituting a military draft.

    "I think it certainly makes sense to consider it," Lt. Gen. Douglas Luke told NPR. "And I can tell you this has always been an option on the table. But, ultimately this is a policy matter between meeting the demands for the nation's security one means or another."

    Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., is a long-time champion of the idea. The chair of the House Ways and Means Committee said he believes a draft would spur a change in the war.

    "They'll get out of Iraq so fast if they thought that Middle America had to make any sacrifices," Rangel said today on "Good Morning America Weekend Edition." "But I do believe that any time our great country is at war, it shouldn't be sacrifices just by the low or middle-income people. Everyone should share the sacrifice."

    He said it's more difficult to justify a war when the children fighting are your own.

    "It's easy to talk about supporting a war if someone else is fighting that war," he said.

    Rangel suggested the draft include no deferments for men or women, and include people from ages 18 to 26.

    "You serve. You have to do something for your country," he said. "And believe me, when a Congress knows you're talking about their community and their families, you're reluctant to go to war in Iraq as speedily as we have."

    Draft the Bush Twins!

    ReplyDelete
  20. By the way Global Alpha is sinking by day. It is now down 26% as of a more current Bloomberg report: Goldman's Global Alpha Falls 26% in 2007.

    Goldman Sachs Group Inc.'s $8 billion Global Alpha hedge fund has fallen 26 percent so far this year, a decline that may prompt more investors to withdraw their money, according to people familiar with the fund.

    Goldman's largest hedge fund, managed by Mark Carhart and Raymond Iwanowsk, has dropped almost 40 percent since July 31, 2006, said the people, who declined to be named because the fund is private. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index of the biggest U.S. stocks has returned 16 percent during the same period.

    "It's hard to imagine how investors can maintain confidence, because their losses have been taking place over a long period of time, starting last year," said Virginia Parker, who helps oversee about $1.8 billion at Parker Global Strategies LLC in Stamford, Connecticut. "There has been a broad range of market climates, and the fund has not demonstrated the ability to excel in any of them."


    It's quite interesting that a computer quant fund that is supposed to make money in every market environment is now struggling to make money in any environment. Genius is fleeting.

    26% and that ain't counting the fees Goldman Sacks charged the people losing money.......

    ReplyDelete
  21. Ding dong the witch is gone!!

    On the draft, I'm all for it if done as follows. The children of all elected officials are the first drafted and must serve as front line infantry. Next come the children of all political appointees. Next come the children of the very richest families. Then it works down by income, until the children of the poorest families are drafted last. Such a plan would put an end to war.

    ReplyDelete
  22. BTW since Jim Cramer's meltdown, the central banks around the world has infused more then 300 billion dollars into the markets including 72 billion by the fed here, but Georgie can't find any money for the troops and poor......

    ReplyDelete
  23. (Reuters) - Concerns about potential losses from E*Trade Financial Corp's (ETFC.O: Quote, Profile, Research) large mortgage holdings have recently depressed the online brokerage's shares, which fell more than 5 percent on Monday.

    The plunge is "clearly driven by investors' concern with credit and the company's mortgage, HELOC (home equity line of credit) and security portfolios," said Sandler O'Neill analyst Richard Repetto in a research note.

    Repetto, who has a "buy" rating on the stock, said investors are focused only on the credit risks of the company's bank portfolio and "don't appear to be differentiating between other banks that don't have brokerage to offset any part of their results."

    But Citigroup analyst Prashant Bhatia lowered his 2008 and 2009 earnings estimates on E*Trade on Monday. He also lowered his price target from $23 to $19, saying the brokerage and financial services company has not provided adequate information on the "composition, source and quality of its $28 billion mortgage portfolio."

    E Trade falling along with the U.S economy. Courtesy of Bush!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Lydia
    This was a calculated move by Rove's and the party. He will now be in a position to do more damage to us and America than has been done to date. I had a very unique take on this and I posted on it today. Tell me what you think please! http://anaverageamericanpatriot.blogspot.com/2007/08/bushs-brain-who-never-graduated-from.html

    ReplyDelete
  25. just one more note, he keeps his executive privelage to.

    ReplyDelete
  26. AvPat,

    How? Can you explain that?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Average Patriot -- Did you say that Rove retains Executive Privilege? This is horrifying!

    I started to list Rove's early criminal activities, but got sidetracked. I'll get back to it soon.

    Thanks for this article on your blog. Where did you get that fantastic picture?

    We have to keep an eye on him.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Hi Lydia!

    You're getting some good guests on your talk show! :)

    I'm glad Rove is gone but if he is indicted for anything, Bush will simply pardon him!

    ReplyDelete
  29. Christopher said...

    Here's my sourcing information about Karl Rove's deceased, gay father.

    http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/02/1451226

    12:52 PM
    ---------------
    Christopher:

    Yes, I heard about this last year! It's all true!

    ReplyDelete
  30. carl and Lydia
    I watched a discussion on it this morniing on CNN. Executive privelage does not end with your tour of office. It is for life so the Presidents privelage of private conversation is not betrayed. I didn't like it when I heard it and I disagree with it.
    Now he has the time to practice his underhanded lying in 2008 elections and he is more dangerous than ever.

    ReplyDelete
  31. johnr2:52 PM

    Yes, my ill-at-ease has returned with that read, Lydia.

    Leo Strauss' deceptive ways have expressed once again, perhaps.

    I'd like to see Leahy and Conyers pull out all the stops and begin bring witnesses forward. Until indictments come down that would reflect real damage, I will remain sceptical.

    With that in mind why not ask Congress for a bill protecting citizen's Constitutional rights from being violated by a corporate hired privatized army; that it require any and all of it's soldiers to obey military and or local law enforcement command and always be supervised.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Thanks Suzie!!

    Can't wait to catch up with you.. next week hopefully,

    Ciao

    (Rove will be on a book tour, and he'll answer questions for lots of $$$$)

    ReplyDelete
  33. There is ONE tiny thing that No One has considered....Susan Ralston had to resign as Rove's assistant- she testified for Fitz MANY times ( atleast 5 that I know of...) and she struck a plea deal...and she had and was in charge of the following:
    (1) His schedule
    (2) ALL of his calendars and campaign meetings
    (3) His emails...
    and she got off with 2 years probation...she knows about his activities on the Abramoff front...as well as Plamegate...and WHO Knows What else....

    My gut still says that Something ELSE is afoot....
    Rove did not look all glitzy and happy- like he is going to go work some NEW campaign...and WHY NOW? why not wait? He looked all choked up....and upset....and Bush looked peevish and like he was Having to do Something he didn't want to do- very similiar to his body language about Scooter resigning....

    Those are just my thoughts....

    ReplyDelete
  34. Its about time Karl and the boys went from living in a big house to............DOING TIME in the "BIG HOUSE"!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  35. Lydia Cornell said...
    (Rove will be on a book tour, and he'll answer questions for lots of $$$$)"

    The ONLY questions I want to see him answer is when he is on the stand under oath as he is being tried for high crimes and treason...........otherwise he doesnt deserve the airtime.

    ReplyDelete
  36. AvPat,

    Possibly, on the conversations he had as deputy chief of staff, but...

    Rove is no longer a government official, which makes Bush's claim a lot harder to sustain, and while courts are reluctant to interfere in the deliberations between the executive and legislative branches, Presidents have a long record of ending up on the losing end of court challenges to executive privilege, since it is not delineated in the Constitution.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Enigma,

    Maybe it's a tumor.

    Normally, I wouldn't joke like that, but in Rove's case...

    ReplyDelete
  38. There is one other possibility.

    Bush might have been left with a choice with regards to Attorneygate: either throw Rove under the bus or Gonzalez.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Want to see WHY the repugs have been successful stealing elections and keeping the Democrats on the ropes........read this article about Karl Rove

    Karl Rove

    The Atlantic Monthly | November 2004

    Karl Rove in a Corner


    Karl Rove is at his most formidable when running close races, and his skills would be notable even if he used no extreme methods. But he does use them. His campaign history shows his willingness, when challenged, to employ savage tactics
    by Joshua Green

    .....

    t is the close races that establish the reputations of great political strategists, and few have ever been closer than the 2000 presidential election. From the tumult of the lengthy recount, the absentee-ballot dispute, the charges of voter fraud, and, ultimately, the Supreme Court decision, George W. Bush emerged victorious by a margin of 537 votes in Florida—enough to elevate him to the presidency, and his chief strategist, Karl Rove, to the status of legend.

    But the 2000 election was not Rove's closest race. That had come earlier, and serves as a greater testament to his skill. In 1994 a group called the Business Council of Alabama appealed to Rove to help run a slate of Republican candidates for the state supreme court. This would not have seemed a plum assignment to most consultants. No Republican had been elected to that court in more than a century. But the council was hopeful, in large part because Rove had faced precisely this scenario in Texas several years before, and had managed to get elected, in rapid succession, a Republican chief justice and a number of associate justices, and was well on his way to turning an all-Democratic court all Republican. Rove took the job.

    The most important candidate among the four he would run that year was a retired judge and Alabama institution by the name of Perry O. Hooper, of whom it is still fondly remarked that in the lean years before Rove arrived he practically constituted the state's Republican Party by himself. A courtly man with an ornery streak and a stately head of white hair, Hooper seemed typecast for the role of southern chief justice, a role he hoped to wrest from the popular Democratic incumbent, Ernest "Sonny" Hornsby.

    Advertisement

    At the time, judicial races in Alabama were customarily low-key affairs. "Campaigning" tended to entail little more than presenting one's qualifications at a meeting of the bar association, and because the state was so staunchly Democratic, sometimes not even that much was required. It was not uncommon for a judge to step down before the end of his term and handpick a successor, who then ran unopposed.

    All that changed in 1994. Rove brought to Alabama a formula, honed in Texas, for winning judicial races. It involved demonizing Democrats as pawns of the plaintiffs' bar and stoking populist resentment with tales of outrageous verdicts. At Rove's behest, Hooper and his fellow Republican candidates focused relentlessly on a single case involving an Alabama doctor from the richest part of the state who had sued BMW after discovering that, prior to delivery, his new car had been damaged by acid rain and repainted, diminishing its value. After a trial revealed this practice to be widespread, a jury slapped the automaker with $4 million in punitive damages. "It was the poster-child case of outrageous verdicts," says Bill Smith, a political consultant who got his start working for Rove on these and other Alabama races. "Karl figured out the vocabulary on the BMW case and others like it that point out not just liberal behavior but outrageous decisions that make you mad as hell."

    Throughout the summer the Republican candidates barnstormed the state, invoking the decision at every stop as an example of "jackpot justice" perpetuated by "wealthy personal-injury trial lawyers"—phrases developed by Rove that have since been widely adopted. To channel anger over such verdicts toward the incumbent Democratic justices, Rove highlighted their long-standing practice of soliciting campaign donations from trial lawyers—just as Republicans (which Rove did not say) solicit them from business interests. One particularly damaging ad run by the Hooper campaign was a fictionalized scene featuring a lawyer receiving an unwanted telephone solicitation from an unseen Chief Justice Hornsby, before whom, viewers were given to understand, the lawyer had a case pending. The ad, and the unseemly practices on which it was based, drew national attention from Tom Brokaw and NBC's Nightly News.

    The attacks began to have the desired effect. Judicial races that no one had expected to be competitive suddenly narrowed, and media attention—especially to Hooper's race after the "dialing for dollars" ad—became widespread. Then Rove turned up the heat. "There was a whole barrage of negative attacks that came in the last two weeks of our campaign," says Joe Perkins, who managed Hornsby's campaign along with those of the other Democrats Rove was working against. "In our polling I sensed a movement and warned our clients."

    Newspaper coverage on November 9, the morning after the election, focused on the Republican Fob James's upset of the Democratic Governor Jim Folsom. But another drama was rapidly unfolding. In the race for chief justice, which had been neck and neck the evening before, Hooper awoke to discover himself trailing by 698 votes. Throughout the day ballots trickled in from remote corners of the state, until at last an unofficial tally showed that Rove's client had lost—by 304 votes. Hornsby's campaign declared victory.

    Rove had other plans, and immediately moved for a recount. "Karl called the next morning," says a former Rove staffer. "He said, 'We came real close. You guys did a great job. But now we really need to rally around Perry Hooper. We've got a real good shot at this, but we need to win over the people of Alabama.'" Rove explained how this was to be done. "Our role was to try to keep people motivated about Perry Hooper's election," the staffer continued, "and then to undermine the other side's support by casting them as liars, cheaters, stealers, immoral—all of that." (Rove did not respond to requests for an interview for this article.)

    The campaign quickly obtained a restraining order to preserve the ballots. Then the tactical battle began. Rather than focus on a handful of Republican counties that might yield extra votes, Rove dispatched campaign staffers and hired investigators to every county to observe the counting and turn up evidence of fraud. In one county a probate judge was discovered to have erroneously excluded 100 votes for Hooper. Voting machines in two others had failed to count all the returns. Mindful of public opinion, according to staffers, the campaign spread tales of poll watchers threatened with arrest; probate judges locking themselves in their offices and refusing to admit campaign workers; votes being cast in absentia for comatose nursing-home patients; and Democrats caught in a cemetery writing down the names of the dead in order to put them on absentee ballots.

    As the recount progressed, the margin continued to narrow. Three days after the election Hooper held a press conference to drive home the idea that the election was being stolen. He declared, "We have endured lies in this campaign, but I'll be damned if I will accept outright thievery." The recount stretched on, and Hooper's campaign continued to chip away at Hornsby's lead. By November 21 one tally had it at nine votes.

    The race came down to a dispute over absentee ballots. Hornsby's campaign fought to include approximately 2,000 late-arriving ballots that had been excluded because they weren't notarized or witnessed, as required by law. Also mindful of public relations, the Hornsby campaign brought forward a man who claimed that the absentee ballot of his son, overseas in the military, was in danger of being disallowed. The matter wound up in court. "The last marching order we had from Karl," says a former employee, "was 'Make sure you continue to talk this up. The only way we're going to be successful is if the Alabama public continues to care about it.'"

    Initially, things looked grim for Hooper. A circuit-court judge ruled that the absentee ballots should be counted, reasoning that voters' intent was the issue, and that by merely signing them, those who had cast them had "substantially complied" with the law. Hooper's lawyers appealed to a federal court. By Thanksgiving his campaign believed he was ahead—but also believed that the disputed absentee ballots, from heavily Democratic counties, would cost him the election. The campaign went so far as to sue every probate judge, circuit clerk, and sheriff in the state, alleging discrimination. Hooper continued to hold rallies throughout it all. On his behalf the business community bought ads in newspapers across the state that said, "They steal elections they don't like." Public opinion began tilting toward him.

    The recount stretched into the following year. On Inauguration Day both candidates appeared for the ceremonies. By March the all-Democratic Alabama Supreme Court had ordered that the absentee ballots be counted. By April the matter was before the Eleventh Federal Circuit Court. The byzantine legal maneuvering continued for months. In mid-October a federal appeals-court judge finally ruled that the ballots could not be counted, and ordered the secretary of state to certify Hooper as the winner—only to have Hornsby's legal team appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which temporarily stayed the case. By now the recount had dragged on for almost a year.

    When I went to visit Hooper, not long ago, we sat in the parlor of his Montgomery home as he described the denouement of Karl Rove's closest race. "On the afternoon of October the nineteenth," Hooper recalled, "I was in the back yard planting five hundred pink sweet Williams in my wife's garden, and she hollered out the back door, 'Your secretary just called—the Supreme Court just made a ruling that you're the chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court!'" In the final tally he had prevailed by just 262 votes. Hooper smiled broadly and handed me a large photo of his swearing-in ceremony the next day. "That Karl Rove was a very impressive fellow," he said.

    In the decade since, the recount and the court battle have faded into obscurity, save for one brief period, late in 2000, when they suddenly became relevant again. Almost as if to remind Al Gore's campaign of Rove's skill when faced with a recount, the case was revived in a flurry of legal briefs in the Supreme Court case of Bush v. Gore—including one filed by the State of Alabama on behalf of George W. Bush.

    his summer, with the presidential race looking as if it would be every bit as close as the one in 2000, I spent several months examining the narrowest races in Karl Rove's career to better understand the tendencies and tactics of the man who will arguably have more influence than anyone else over how this election unfolds. Rove has already generated a remarkable body of literature, including several notable books and numerous magazine and newspaper articles. I spoke to many of Rove's former candidates and their opponents; to his past and present colleagues and the people who faced off against them; and to political insiders and journalists—primarily in Texas and Alabama, where Rove has done the majority of his campaign work. I learned much about Rove that hasn't made it into the public sphere.

    One of the striking things about his record is how few close races Rove has been involved with—primarily because he usually wins in a walk. In the relatively rare instances when he is in a tight race, he tends to win that, too. Although Rove first rose to political prominence as a specialist in direct-mail fundraising (and worked on hundreds of races in that capacity), mail is only one facet of a campaign, and rarely the deciding factor. So I focused on races in which Rove was the primary strategist, and therefore in a position at least roughly analogous to the one he holds in this presidential race. The last strategist before Rove to win a Republican presidential election was his former colleague Lee Atwater, who by the time of the 1988 campaign had a career record of 28—4. To my knowledge, no one has calculated such a figure for Rove. As far as I can determine, in races he has run for statewide or national office or Congress, starting in 1986, Rove's career record is a truly impressive 34—7.

    The mythologizing portrayals of a "boy genius" that characterized so much media coverage of Rove after 2000, and especially after the Republicans' triumphant sweep in the midterm elections, struck me as sorely out of date when I began this project. The Bush Administration was suffering through the worst of the fallout from the Abu Ghraib scandal, and the President's approval ratings were plummeting. Clearly, there are many differences between the circumstances in which Rove has been victorious in the past and those he faces now. But that is no reason to discount his record. By any standard he is an extremely talented political strategist whose skill at understanding how to run campaigns and motivate voters would be impressive even if he used no extreme tactics. But he does use them. Anyone who takes an honest look at his history will come away awed by Rove's power, when challenged, to draw on an animal ferocity that far exceeds the chest-thumping bravado common to professional political operatives. Having studied what happens when Karl Rove is cornered, I came away with two overriding impressions. One was a new appreciation for his mastery of campaigning. The other was astonishment at the degree to which, despite all that's been written about him, Rove's fiercest tendencies have been elided in national media coverage.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Interesting how Rove demanded recounts and challenged the election results and the Democrats showed no spine and just gave up both times.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Executive privlige is not a blank check.......I think Bartlebe stated it ONLY related to issues of national security and NOT Domestic issues or personal conversations.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Well, thats where its been used before Mike, and upheld. Under no other circumstances has executive privilege been upheld by the courts except in circumstances of national security or international treaty, (as it was used by George Washington over the Jay Treaty).

    ReplyDelete
  43. Clinton tried to invoke it over the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and tried to shield his cabinet from testifying, however it was overturned by the courts.

    He later tried to use it to keep himself from testifying, but dropped it after striking a deal with Ken Starr.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Nixon also tried to use it to conceal the Watergate tapes, but was struck down.

    Of course by that time 18 minutes of tape had been mysteriously erased.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I’m glad Rove will be out of the WH… but now I have to wonder who will replace him?

    ReplyDelete
  46. The problem we face now Mike is different than any other time in history. Bush has done more than stack the courts with political appointees. He put his lawyer in charge of the DOJ, and got to stack the SCOTUS/

    Now, I'm betting that no Federal Judge or the SCOTUS wants to go on record and overturn 200 years of precedent for the likes of Dubya.

    But its dicey. Having Gonzo in charge of the DOJ is a really bad thing.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I think thats why Leheay wants to go after the Bush admin once they're out of office.

    If we had a real Attorney General then it would be one thing. But Gonzales is Bush henchman and that makes Bush and Gonzo practically untouchable.

    ReplyDelete
  48. The only thing with going after the Bush cronnies AFTER they are out of office is it will have to be on something they werent pardoned for.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Well in order to be pardoned they'd have to be convicted of a crime first, which so far, except for Scooter Libby, hasn't happened yet. So once Bush is out of office then suddenly his whole executive privilege crap will cease to exist.

    ReplyDelete
  50. BARTLEBEE said...
    Well in order to be pardoned they'd have to be convicted of a crime first, which so far, except for Scooter Libby, hasn't happened yet. So once Bush is out of office then suddenly his whole executive privilege crap will cease to exist."

    I wish that were true, unfortunately until pardoning power is Constitutional changed so it can not be used to obstruct justice and to prop up a criminal syndicate like GWB is running thats exactly what can happen, Wikipedia said this

    The Justice Department recommends anyone requesting a pardon must wait five years after conviction or release prior to receiving a pardon. A presidential pardon may be granted at any time, however, and as when Ford pardoned Nixon, the pardoned person need not yet have been convicted or even formally charged with a crime. Clemency may also be granted without the filing of a formal request and even if the intended recipient has no desire to be pardoned. In the overwhelming majority of cases, however, the Pardon Attorney will consider only petitions from persons who have completed their sentences and, in addition, have demonstrated their ability to lead a responsible and productive life for a significant period after conviction or release from confinement.[2]

    ReplyDelete
  51. There needs to be oversite to Presidential pardoning power so it CAN NOT be iused to obstruct justice or else that power should be stripped from the prtesident and granted to Congress or to an impartial committee.

    ReplyDelete
  52. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  53. No Bartlebee, Bush 41 Pardoned Reagan's Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, even though he had Never been convicted of anything.

    Others were pardoned at that time who had not been convicted of anything, a pardon can be given before a trial also.

    From wiki;

    Though he claims to have been opposed to the sale on principle, Weinberger participated in the transfer of United States TOW anti-tank missiles to Iran during the Iran-Contra Affair. By 1987, the disclosure of the Iran-Contra Affair and increasing difficulties with Defense budgets weighed on Weinberger. Weinberger resigned on November 23, 1987, citing his wife's declining health. He specifically denied that he was opposed to the INF Treaty, scheduled to be signed in Washington in December 1987. In fact, he took credit for proposing the substance of the treaty early in his term at the Pentagon.

    Following his resignation as Secretary of Defense, Weinberger was placed under indictment by Independent Counsel Lawrence E. Walsh. The formal indictment charged Weinberger with several felony counts of lying to the Iran-Contra independent counsel during its investigation. Weinberger received a Presidential pardon from President George H.W. Bush on December 24, 1992, after Bush had failed to win a second term.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Here is a list of the Iran-Contra criminals Pardoned by George H w Bush on December 24, 1992;

    1. Caspar W. Weinberger (1988 Several counts of perjury, )

    2. Elliott Abrams (1988 Two counts of unlawfully withholding information. )

    3. Duane R. Clarridge (1991 Seven counts of perjury and false statements,)

    4. Alan D. Fiers (1991 Two misdemeanor counts of withholding information from the Congress,)

    5. Clair George

    1. (1991 Ten counts of perjury, false statements and obstruction)
    2. (1992 two felony charges of false statements and perjury before Congress —)

    6. Robert C. McFarlane (1988)

    ( See Iran-Contra Affair)

    George H W Bush was just cleaning up a mess before Bill Clinton took over and PROSECUTED these traitors to the United States for their treason.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Yes but he was under indictment.

    So far no one in the Bush administration has been indicted with anything, so what I said still counts.

    While I wasn't certain whether a pardon could come prior to conviction, that doesn't change the fact that someone has to be at least indicted.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Had a dream the other night -- for some reason I was in a line of people going through a presidential receiving line. It came to be my turn to shake Bush's hand and instead I said "I dont shake hands with mass murderers" and turned my back on him.

    I woke up before I had a chance to fart on him. Darn.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Ok, I just read Mikes post and I see that according to wiki a pardon can come before formal charges so I stand corrected.

    ReplyDelete
  58. I doubt Bush would get away with blanket pardons though prior to criminal charges being filed.

    Even after they've been filed I have a feeling that he may want to go easy on the pardon thing.

    He can pardon them but once he's out of office he can't do crap.

    ReplyDelete
  59. If he pardons criminals (bigger criminals than the Iran arms deal) he might find himself under indictment with those pardons being Exhibit A B and C in his trial.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Hundreds of anti-war activists gathered near Dick Cheney's home at an exclusive Wyoming country club to protest the vice president's role in leading the US into Iraq.

    Chanting, "No more Iraq war," and "Impeach Cheney first," protesters gathered outside the Teton Pines Country Club, where Cheney typically spends the month-long August recess. They brought along a 10-foot-tall paper-mache sculpture that featured Cheney holding a fishing poll in one hand and an oil well in the other.

    In a video posted on YouTube, a protester climbs the effigy and places a noose around its neck. Protesters then pull down the Cheney likeness in a scene reminiscent of Iraqis and US troops toppling a statue of Saddam Hussein after the fall of Baghdad.

    "We organized it because of the war in Iraq and what an injustice it has been," Walt Farmer, a retired Air Force captain and registered Republican, told the Casper Star Tribune. "The Vice President has received a pass in Jackson long enough. We want to let them know we don't approve of the war or how they play fast and loose with the Constitution."

    Protesters carried signs that said "Bush-Cheney, War Profiteers," "Feel safe yet? Violence breeds violence," and "At least the war on the middle class is going well," the Tribune reported.

    One of the protesters, Cindy Knight, said she has a son in the military and came to voice displeasure with the administration's war policy. Knight's son has served in Afghanistan.

    Neighbors know best!

    ReplyDelete
  61. Bartlebee, that very thing happened here in Kentucky where Gov Ernie Fletcher pardoned EVERYONE connected to a scandal where workers affiliated with the democratic party were fired and replaced by workers affiliated with the GOP, even though they were doing civil service NON political jobs, and when the attorney General started investigations, the Gov pardoned all persons even those not under indictment.

    Nothing in either the federal or most state statues prohibit that from happening, and it probably will happen under Bush before he leaves, because come Jan 2009 what doe she have to lose?

    He couldn't get elected dog catcher now, and he is gonna run away to Paraguay, to hide from his crimes.

    ReplyDelete
  62. In a video posted on YouTube, a protester climbs the effigy and places a noose around its neck. Protesters then pull down the Cheney likeness in a scene reminiscent of Iraqis and US troops toppling a statue of Saddam Hussein after the fall of Baghdad.


    Thats priceless Larry.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Well I hope you're wrong Clif. I hope he doesn't get to complete his presidency, but is removed from office by Congress before then.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Larry said...


    "We organized it because of the war in Iraq and what an injustice it has been," Walt Farmer, a retired Air Force captain and registered Republican, told the Casper Star Tribune.


    Thats just too priceless Larry.

    A retired Air Force Captain who is also a republican?

    PRICELESS.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Cheney's own neighbors hang an effigy in protest.

    Wyoming has always been an ultra conservative state.

    Until now!

    ReplyDelete
  66. With Speaker "Botox" blocking Impeachment, and Nobody trying to stop Cheney, even if they started now they would run out of time to impeach Both.

    If Cheney became Pres, from a Bush impeachment, he would pardon everyone also.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Micheal Ware is destroying the Bush surge spin on CNN talking to Anderson Cooper's 360. He stated the US is making agreements with the Baathists to fight al Quada which the Baathists offered in 2003, but Washington and Bush had to be pummeled into accepting working with Saddam's former collaborators....

    ware says this will result in a much worse and more violent civil war when the US finally is chased out of Iraq, because the surge fails and the troops can no longer be forced to serve numerous deployments [while Mitt Romney's boys play in Iowa, and the Bush twins fall down drunk just like daddy used to do.]

    ReplyDelete
  68. Hi Lydia! Wow. Is everybody in that administration, like, 12 or something? "Yeah, I'm leaving, but it's because I felt like it, not because you made me!" The mob, he says, meaning the American Congress. It's pretty obvious what he thinks of the American people and their representatives.

    And, thanks for your comment on Hooterville - I feel you, girlfriend. At least the things that make it difficult to write are blessings - children, husbands, meaningful work - things that Ann Coulter will most likely never experience.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Ah yes -- Ann Coulter ... the convincing arguments for the legalization of abortion, death penalty and torture all rolled into one.

    ReplyDelete
  70. The way I THINK the pardons work is Bush would have to say what crime he is pardoning the person for, then said person would have to accept said pardon, which would essentially be an admission of guilt.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Bartlebee:

    Check out this link about hapfway down the page will be a video of the Cheney effigy burning.

    Blue Herald News

    ReplyDelete
  72. Lydia Cornell said...

    Thanks Suzie!!

    Can't wait to catch up with you.. next week hopefully,

    Ciao
    -------------------
    Lydia:

    Yes, I'm looking forward to catching up with you too! :)

    ReplyDelete
  73. Mike I wonder if the constitution prohibits blanket pardons?

    ReplyDelete
  74. Sorry, Lydia, I missed that comment earlier.

    ;)

    ReplyDelete
  75. I think the plan would be to impeach them both Clif.

    ReplyDelete
  76. bartlebee, with No real investigation underway, congress has no consolidated program to get both Bush and Cheney, at this time and when the primary season kicks off right after Christmas people won't be too worried about Bush or Cheney.

    By the time they could hold hearings and run the US courts circuits to get the testimony they need, we all will be watching the returns on TV for the Nov 2008 elections, and Bush will be warming up his pardon pen to give the criminals of the GOP a get out of jail free card.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Thanks Larry. I need a good laugh right now.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Yea Clif but sometimes extraordinary events can spark the impeachment, as it did in the Watergate hearings. We all knew Nixon was a crook, but republicans getting caught breaking into the DNC put it all in congresses faces and they had no choice but to act.

    Bush has been battered beyond belief, this last year in particular, and should any major development occur, like something in the missing emails, or a federal judge not willing to cow to Bush's will who shoots down the executive privilege claim, forcing damning testimony to come out, congress could be left with no choice.

    Quit being so damned negative. It can still happen and the years not over yet.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Realism is not negative, just what is gonna happen....

    ReplyDelete
  80. Amd there is real investigations, just not impeachment hearings. There are dozens of ongoing investigations right now, and everyone right up to Karl Rove is under Congressional Subpoenas. Haven't you been watching? We're under a constitutional showdown between the Oval Office and the Congress.

    Trust me, somethings got to give here. I lived through the Nixon impeachment and I have no problem seeing Bush impeached before the years out.

    Too much has happened. Somethings got to give.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Clif, it APPEARS the crime must be stated and the pardon must be accepted which is an admission of guilt..........Blanket pardons would take things BEYOND the riddiculous...........this is what Wikipedia says Clif:

    The Justice Department recommends anyone requesting a pardon must wait five years after conviction or release prior to receiving a pardon. A presidential pardon may be granted at any time, however, and as when Ford pardoned Nixon, the pardoned person need not yet have been convicted or even formally charged with a crime. Clemency may also be granted without the filing of a formal request and even if the intended recipient has no desire to be pardoned. In the overwhelming majority of cases, however, the Pardon Attorney will consider only petitions from persons who have completed their sentences and, in addition, have demonstrated their ability to lead a responsible and productive life for a significant period after conviction or release from confinement.[2]
    It appears that a pardon can be rejected, and must be affirmatively accepted to be officially recognized by the courts. Acceptance also carries with it an admission of guilt.[3] However, the federal courts have yet to make it clear how this logic applies to persons who are deceased (such as Henry O. Flipper - who was pardoned by Bill Clinton), those who are relieved from penalties as a result of general amnesties and those whose punishments are relieved via a commutation of sentence (which cannot be rejected in any sense of the language.)[4]
    The pardon power of the President extends only to offenses cognizable under U.S. Federal law. However, the governors of most states have the power to grant pardons or reprieves for offenses under state criminal law. In other states, that power is committed to an appointed agency or board, or to a board and the governor in some hybrid arrangement.

    ReplyDelete
  82. You don't know whats going to happen anymore than I do. We could both be sitting here in 6 months saying, "wow, I never saw that coming".

    Theres a lot of burned bridges here, and I honestly don't see Bush and Cheney's presidencies outlasting the year.

    ReplyDelete
  83. By this point in time during Watergate, Mitchell(read Gonzo) had resigned, and the congress got approval for a special prosecutor, who had already begun the investigations.

    The democrats back then still had spines. (and no botox )

    ReplyDelete
  84. See I dont think the chimp can say I pardon everyone in my administration from anything thay MAY have done wrong, I think the specific crimes must be listed and then the pardons must be accepted by the guilty party.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Mike WHAT DOES the US Constitution say?

    That is the ruling document here.....

    and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

    No justice department GUIDELINES really prevent blanket pardons, which the wording of the constitution seem to allow.

    ReplyDelete
  86. clif said...
    By this point in time during Watergate, Mitchell(read Gonzo) had resigned, and the congress got approval for a special prosecutor, who had already begun the investigations.

    The democrats back then still had spines. (and no botox )


    Thats because Gonzo is like no other AG ever. Mitchell was no Ephram Zimbalist Junior, but he was at least had the good sense to know when the jig was up.

    Gonzo is like no AG ever. He's literally a stooge of the White House and NOTHING more. We've had other stooges of the white house as AG's like Mitchell, but they also had some belief in America, and would not continue under such conditions.

    Gonzo won't go. He's a BRAZEN whore for the white house, and he just won't go. Thats why we need some extraordinary event to force the republican congress to concede and impeach all 3 of them.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Bartlebee; if that would happen I would be ecstatic, however I don't believe in that really happening any more then I am planning on retiring from my Lotto winnings.....

    ReplyDelete
  88. Clif said...


    No justice department GUIDELINES really prevent blanket pardons, which the wording of the constitution seem to allow.


    I don't see that anywhere in the wording of the constitution. It does not in any way indicate "blanket pardons" one way or the other.

    Blanket pardons would not be tolerated. I know you believe in doom and gloom but America's made it for over 200 years without falling apart and I think we will get past this moment in history too, and right as much as possible, whats been wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Mike that dream of yours is pretty funny.

    ReplyDelete
  90. clif said...
    Bartlebee; if that would happen I would be ecstatic, however I don't believe in that really happening any more then I am planning on retiring from my Lotto winnings.....


    Its not near that remote of a possiblity. Quit being a defeatist, lol.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Bush, Cheney and Gonzo's careers going down in flames would be like winning the lottery, but I have little faith in it.

    ReplyDelete
  92. If the wording of the Constitution is Ambiguous Clif, then it is up to the SCOTUS to decide and no court even a heavily Reich Wing court is going to allow blanket pardons to obstruct justice and stifle criminal investigations particularly when the opposing party is likely to take a controlling majority.

    If that were to happen then I think we WOULD finnaly get a Constitutional showdown and despite blindly loyal partisan ideologues like Allito and Scalia I would like to hope that the majority would interpret the Constitution as the Founding Fathers intended not the way the "DECIDER" wants it to be.

    It will come down to whether we choose a Rule of Law or a Rule by Man.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Defeatist is claiming they will never leave, that is not something I believe in;


    I think come Nov 2008 they will be given their walking papers and leave Jan 2009 for Paraguay....

    and we will be left with the mess they created to clean up as usual.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Well thats too bad. If everyone started having faith in it, it would spread I think, and remove the "taboo" like feelings that clearly are associated with impeaching Bush in this country.

    Oh ye of little faith...

    ReplyDelete
  95. Mike Bush's pardons could read;

    I pardon________ for all Offenses against the United States,

    signed George W Bush.

    ReplyDelete
  96. I've been listening to Pat Leahey lately and its possible they'll have to let Bush run out his term, but then find himself under federal indictment once its over.

    And then, with a democrat congress and a democrat President in office, he'll be looking at the business end of a prison stint.

    Listen to Leahey, he used to be a prosecutor. .

    ReplyDelete
  97. Think about it. If blanket pardons for crimes yet to be determined were doable, don't you think every president would blanket pardon his entire administration the minute he took office?

    ReplyDelete
  98. Bartlebee this country has used too much "faith" and not enough realism the last 7 years.....

    we need some good old fashioned hard nosed realism to get grounded like the people who survived the Depression and WW2 with.

    We need to get rid of faith based initiatives and spin, instead of facts and realism.

    ReplyDelete
  99. And thats where you're wrong Clif.

    Thats the problem with bad religion. It makes people lose the good.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Think about it. If blanket pardons for crimes yet to be determined were doable, don't you think every president would blanket pardon his entire administration the minute he took office?

    No none were as criminally conceived or corrupt as Bush ET AL have been.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Religion with NO realism is just fairy tales...with no real connection to real life.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Faith works, when you have it. Lydia's right about that. I know she is I just hate to talk about it. But faith can really move mountains if you let it.

    We will be what we think we are.

    ReplyDelete
  103. BARTLEBEE said...
    If he pardons criminals (bigger criminals than the Iran arms deal) he might find himself under indictment with those pardons being Exhibit A B and C in his trial."

    Exactly issuing pardons to everybody for everything under the sun will trigger a Constitutional showdown as that would clearly indicate a criminal conspiracy and obstruction of justice specifically related to the pardoning power............BTW Clif, who says the Constitutional showdown has to occur before or during the election.........it can most certainly happen after.

    Another point if the SCOTUS sets a prescedent of allowing the president a blank check to pardon to obstruct justice aqnd stifle investigations and a Democrat wins the White House they will be giving that president unchecked power to do whatever they want with no checks or repercusions.

    ReplyDelete
  104. But I accept that your predictions are quite possible.

    I just refuse to give up hope.

    And at the end of the year, if I'm wrong, the only difference between you and me is I'll have had hope all year, and you just had your despair.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Too bad faith failed to stop the Iraq war, or prevented Bush from what he has already done.

    faith also seemed doomed to prevent many other things, I prefer realism to unproven flights of fancy.

    ReplyDelete
  106. clif said...
    Religion with NO realism is just fairy tales...with no real connection to real life.


    Yea will I didn't just give you faith based on fairy tales.

    I base my faith that Bush will be brought low on my own half century on the planet, the events I have seen and the general mood of the nation.

    Too much has happened for him to walk scott free.

    Watch.

    ReplyDelete
  107. clif said...
    Too bad faith failed to stop the Iraq war, or prevented Bush from what he has already done.


    Oh bullshit. No one had faith in anything back then. EVERYONE wanted to go to war except for a handful of non public people like me, and some peace activists.

    Faith had nothing to do with that decision.

    ReplyDelete
  108. clif said...
    Mike Bush's pardons could read;

    I pardon________ for all Offenses against the United States,

    signed George W Bush."

    BS, an ambiguous load of bull like that will NEVER fly. all it will serve to do is ensure a Constitutional showdown when the Democrats hold all the cards namely the White House AND a firm Congressional Majority........

    ReplyDelete
  109. Mike what constitutional grounds would a court use to over turn a pardon Bush gives?

    For a court, The Supreme Court to be exact, they would need a constitutional grounds since the pardon power is handed to Bush by the US Constitution. (As if the reichwingers there would overturn Bush protecting the GOP's future like his daddy did.)

    And Bartlebee I don't have despair, just accept that things are going the way I said last November.....

    ReplyDelete
  110. Predated Blanket pardons would constitute a high crime via conspiracy Clif.

    They would be overturned and Bush would be impeached.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Let me throw this question out there................usually if people dont show up for court the opposing party gets a summary judgement and wins by default, so lets just say this goes to SCOTUS after 2009 and Bush and co flee to Paraguay any opinions if the pardons could be overturned by default if the criminals dont show?

    ReplyDelete
  112. Remember if Bush pardons anybody they are off limits from congress......they have a pardon, congress can ask them questions, but NOT prosecute or ask the DOJ to prosecute for crimes a pardon has already been given.

    But congress could impeach any former government official there is precedent for that.

    and impeachment would prevent that person from ever serving in the US government.

    But the pardon would keep everyone out of jail.

    ReplyDelete
  113. I don't know but it would be unprecedented I think for a former president of the US to spend his retirement in a foriegn country.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Clif if the Constitution is ambiguous or unclear it is up to the SCOTUS to interpret the INTENTION of the Founding Fathers.............No one with a brain or a pulse would argue the intention was to allow the President to issue blanket pardons to obstruct justice, stifle investigations and destroy the oversite and checks and balances of the other branches...........that is a riddiculous premise.

    ReplyDelete
  115. .usually if people dont show up for court the opposing party gets a summary judgement and wins by default, so lets just say this goes to SCOTUS after 2009 and Bush and co flee to Paraguay any opinions if the pardons could be overturned by default if the criminals don't show?

    No because the constitution says Bush can pardon ANYBODY for offenses against the US, and has NO caveat except for impeachment....thus what could the next administration use for the DOJ to go after pardoned people, which does not violate the US Constitution?

    ReplyDelete
  116. clif said...
    Remember if Bush pardons anybody they are off limits from congress......they have a pardon, congress can ask them questions, but NOT prosecute or ask the DOJ to prosecute for crimes a pardon has already been given.


    Thats just not the full story Clif and you're leaving out key elements which is why I say you are being too negative.

    You're ocnvieniently leaving out the fact that if they LIE under oath after being pardoned and during questioning, then the pardon won't mean a damned thing.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Man, I sure mangled the word conveniently.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Mike with OUT proof before the court, which the pardons would cut off, JUST like Bush Sr's pardon of Casper Weinburger created, there is no legal grounds to fight the pardon.

    Which is how Bush sr closed down the Iran Contra investigations with no real results.

    What I see has been done before which sets precedent, but Bush 43 would just scale it up a hell of a lot.

    the scale is not the question, the legality is, and Bush Sr set that.

    ReplyDelete
  119. clif said...
    .usually if people dont show up for court the opposing party gets a summary judgement and wins by default, so lets just say this goes to SCOTUS after 2009 and Bush and co flee to Paraguay any opinions if the pardons could be overturned by default if the criminals don't show?

    No because the constitution says Bush can pardon ANYBODY for offenses against the US, and has NO caveat except for impeachment....thus what could the next administration use for the DOJ to go after pardoned people, which does not violate the US Constitution?"

    Clif you misunderstand me, what i'm saying is that Congress Challenges the Constitutionality of those pardons based on the true intentions of the Founding Fathers and the reasonable scope for pardons..........since no scope or limits on pardons is specifially enumerated its up for interpretation.

    ReplyDelete
  120. No Bartlebee, the pardon stands, but the Perjury and Obstruction of Justice is a new crime as scooter found out.

    They could be tried for that, but not something Bush pardoned them for.

    ReplyDelete
  121. clif said...
    Mike with OUT proof before the court, which the pardons would cut off, JUST like Bush Sr's pardon of Casper Weinburger created, there is no legal grounds to fight the pardon.


    Proof of conspiracy is being compiled as we speak.

    Conspiricy will be the charge for this president. Racketeering, Conspiracy.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Claiming you can't remember is a very hard crime to prove.....

    as Gonzo, Dumsfeld ET Al have proved quite well.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Congress has NO standing under the constitution to challenge the pardons........they can screech and howl, which is about all they ever do, but can't do much else.

    ReplyDelete
  124. clif said...
    Claiming you can't remember is a very hard crime to prove.....


    Not when its proven you did remember by conversing about it in emails post the event.

    Not when EVERYONE on the staff can't remember.

    Watch. Think RICO.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Which is why Bush is running off to Paraguay which has no extradition treaty with the US.

    and you think Clinton would go after Bush instead of setting up the DLC as the meme like Bill did?

    what spineless democrat is going to really try to go after Bush when they have larger priorities in their future careers from their perspective...

    ReplyDelete
  126. clif said...
    Congress has NO standing under the constitution to challenge the pardons........they can screech and howl, which is about all they ever do, but can't do much else.


    Sure they do. In cases of impeachment.

    ReplyDelete
  127. clif said...
    Mike with OUT proof before the court, which the pardons would cut off, JUST like Bush Sr's pardon of Casper Weinburger created, there is no legal grounds to fight the pardon.

    Which is how Bush sr closed down the Iran Contra investigations with no real results.

    What I see has been done before which sets precedent, but Bush 43 would just scale it up a hell of a lot.

    the scale is not the question, the legality is, and Bush Sr set that."


    No Clif, the way I see it we are in uncharted unprescedented waters.......as the Constitutionality of a Presidential Pardon has NEVER been challenged before just because something isnt specifically prohibbited or granted doesnt give someone carte blance to do or not do it.

    The Constitution speaks volumes of checks and balances to prevent monachial power so therefore it can be interpetted that neuralizing the power of congrressional oversite with pardons that reek of obstruction of justice and conflicts of interest would directly conflict with the Constitution.

    ReplyDelete
  128. Find a section of the US constitution where congress has any power to do anything about a presidential pardon, or accept they can do anything about Bush's pardons them the GOP could do with Clinton's.....

    ReplyDelete
  129. The SCOTUS slapped Down the Dictators torture bill and that wasnt even enumerated in the Constitution.

    ReplyDelete
  130. People are spineless now Clif because they're afraid. Bush is in power and has proven he has full control over the DOJ.

    Once the danger has passed, watch.

    ReplyDelete
  131. And impeachment would have to be operative BEFORE the pardon, otherwise the pardon and end of Bush administration ends everything but the rule an impeached official can't serve in an official capacity, because they would already be out of office which is all impeachment does, it does not criminally convict anybody the DOJ does, which the pardon would short circuit.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Clif, just because something isnt enumerated in black and white doesnt mean its ok...........if the founding fathers didnt specifically prohibit the government from infecting the population with biological weapons or shooting them with death rays does that mean the President is allowed to do it?

    There are MANY things the fpounding Fathers may not have forseen and specifically prohibbed and those things are open to SCOTUS interpretation when challenged.

    ReplyDelete
  133. clif said...
    Find a section of the US constitution where congress has any power to do anything about a presidential pardon




    Sure.

    How about Article II, section II?

    and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.


    And since Congress has the only power of impeachment, then they have power to do something about pardons.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Yes it is mike congress makes the laws for war and the military, which is why the president can't make things like that up like Bush and Gonzo tried to do.

    ReplyDelete
  135. Are you sure you're not really a right winger just trying to depress the left so they'll all go home?

    ReplyDelete
  136. clif said...
    Find a section of the US constitution where congress has any power to do anything about a presidential pardon, or accept they can do anything about Bush's pardons them the GOP could do with Clinton's....."

    The GOP would have been free to appeal Clintons pardons.........but Clintons pardons werent for members of HIS OWN Administration to obstruct justice and stifle investigations.

    ReplyDelete
  137. And theres nothing in the Constitution that says that if a president pardons someone, and then is impeached over circumstances tied to the pardon, that that pardon cannot be overturned.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Sure.

    How about Article II, section II?

    and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.


    And since Congress has the only power of impeachment, then they have power to do something about pardons.


    Only an impeachment which is a congressional trial can't be STOPPED by a pardon, and DOJ criminal operation is stopped by a pardon, ask Marc Rich......

    The DOJ can't impeach anybody only congress can so ther framers kept congressional powers separate from presidential powers.

    President criminal prosecution and pardons

    congress approval of appointments and impeachment to remove officials including the president and VP.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Impeachment is NOT a criminal prosecution but an act to remove an official from the US government so they are prosecuted, and remove any sovereign immunity a government position has.

    ReplyDelete
  140. And NO worfeus I am NOT a reichwinger so stuff that crap.

    ReplyDelete
  141. The Constitutionality of anything can be challenged Clif, and like i said before it is clear to almost everyone with a working brain that the Founding Fathers clearly DID NOT intend for the Presidential pardon to be used to circumvent and subvert the checks and balances and congressional oversite by allowing the president to stifle investigations and obstruct justice.

    Those are MORE than ample grounds to challenge the constitutionality of those pardons.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Please show me where I said impeachment was criminal prosecution.

    Do you think I'm an idiot?

    I know what impeachment is Clif and I never said impeachment was criminal prosecution.

    ReplyDelete
  143. I am a realist who can see the game Pelosi ET AL are playing to win BIG in 2008, and realize they are willing to allow Bush to run rough shod all over the country till then to destroy the GOP for a decade or so.

    ReplyDelete
  144. I also realize they won't care much after they democrats have total power and then can start setting up their favorites just as the republicans started to do in 1994.

    ReplyDelete
  145. Clif said...

    The DOJ can't impeach anybody

    Where the HELL did I say they could????

    What are you talking about?

    ReplyDelete
  146. What you guys are failing to grasp is that just because the Constitutionality of a presidential pardon has NEVER been challenged before doesnt mean it CANT be.

    Clif you want me to show you where in the Constitution it says it CAN be challened, I say show me where in the Constitution it states it CANT be challenged?

    ReplyDelete
  147. No mike to Get the supreme court to HEAR a challenge to a presidential pardon you need constitutional grounds.

    Other wise they would refuse to hear the case because of no constitutional grounds for them to hear it.

    ReplyDelete
  148. clif said...
    And NO worfeus I am NOT a reichwinger so stuff that crap.


    My name is BARTLEBEE.

    And that was a joke. But honestly as doom and gloom as you are sometimes, you might want to consider it.

    ReplyDelete
  149. If impeachment is not a criminal trial then it is not applicable to a pardon which prevents criminal prosecutions.....

    ReplyDelete
  150. Because the power is handed to the President with No congressional caveat, just like congress is given the purse strings power to declare war, and make laws, with No presidential ability to force them to do anything.

    Mike with No mention of congressional oversight or caveat for congress to do anything about a pardon their is NO constitutional grounds for congress to affect a Presidential Pardon.

    You need a constitutional way for congress to claim jurisdiction in a Presidential Pardon.

    It does not exist at the moment.

    ReplyDelete
  151. clif said...
    No mike to Get the supreme court to HEAR a challenge to a presidential pardon you need constitutional grounds.


    Thats right. And we have them.

    Once it comes out that Bush ordered Gonzales to Ashcrofts bedside that night, the game will be up.

    Bush violated the constitution knowingly and AFTER being told, and thats the ball game.

    ReplyDelete
  152. Sorry if REALISM is doom and gloom, but for me it has worked quite well for the last 50 years.

    ReplyDelete
  153. Thats right. And we have them.

    Once it comes out that Bush ordered Gonzales to Ashcrofts bedside that night, the game will be up.

    Bush violated the constitution knowingly and AFTER being told, and thats the ball game.


    Gonzo gonna grow a conscience?


    fat chance at this point.

    ReplyDelete
  154. You watch and see. The whole thing is going to center around that night at Ashcrofts hospital bed.

    That one night is going to be central in the bringing down of the Bush regime.

    ReplyDelete
  155. clif said...
    Thats right. And we have them.

    Once it comes out that Bush ordered Gonzales to Ashcrofts bedside that night, the game will be up.

    Bush violated the constitution knowingly and AFTER being told, and thats the ball game.

    Gonzo gonna grow a conscience?


    fat chance at this point.



    :|

    Please show me where I indicated ANYTHING about Gonzales's conscience.

    ReplyDelete
  156. I don't see either Gonzo or any other Bush administration official; giving up anything that can't be independently proved, with enough to force the official to confess.

    ReplyDelete
  157. Once it comes out means you don't have them but are hoping the truth comes out.

    I prefer to deal with what is happening and what is possible given the way people are acting, and Bush's cronies ain't given it up at this point but still stonewalling all the way.

    ReplyDelete
  158. Because how is it gonna come out unless somebody in the white House suddenly finds a need to be honest when they haven't the last 6 1/2 years?

    ReplyDelete
  159. clif said...
    No mike to Get the supreme court to HEAR a challenge to a presidential pardon you need constitutional grounds.

    Other wise they would refuse to hear the case because of no constitutional grounds for them to hear it."

    Like I said before the Constitutional grounds are Bush is misusing the pardon to subvert other specifically enumerated portions of the Constitution namely Congressional oversite, checks and balances and division of powers.

    If the President is misusing the pardon to impede Congressional oversite which is specifically enumerated in the Constituion and is not open to subjective interpretation, then the scope of the presidential pardon which is open to interpretation because it is NOT specifially delineated in the Constitution is clearly open to challenge.

    There is CLEARLY a conflict since most reasonable people would see the Founding Fathers would not want something they were ambiguous about to subvert and circumvent a power they specifically supported and enumerated in much more detail.

    ReplyDelete
  160. Give me the person who suddenly wants to be HONEST with congress and the american people, and is willing to deny the executive privilege assertion of Bush and I'm with you then.

    Till then I don't "see" it.

    ReplyDelete
  161. clif said...
    I don't see either Gonzo or any other Bush administration official; giving up anything that can't be independently proved, with enough to force the official to confess."

    agreed, at least not when they are banking on pardons and no repercussions.........thats why the Constitutionality of those pardons neds to be challenged even if it takes 5-10 years.

    ReplyDelete
  162. Mike Bush has not misused the pardon YET, he is still, claiming executive privilege, and the pardons will come after Nov 2008 after the GOP loses, which gives Congress little time till Bush is gone, and the pardons become history.

    at this point Bush has NOT used any pardons like Ernie Fletcher did, but Bush probably will after Nov 2008.

    It's that reality and what is really happening right now thingy again.

    ReplyDelete
  163. clif said...
    I don't see either Gonzo or any other Bush administration official; giving up anything that can't be independently proved, with enough to force the official to confess.


    Sure they will. Jail time for lying under oath has a tendency to bring out all sorts of cool stuff.

    The Subpoena's are out there. Scooter tried to lie to cover up for his boss and look what happened to him. Oh sure Bush gave him clemency, but he still was found guilty of a felony.

    Gonzo's subordinates haven't proven to be too bound by loyatly to Gonzo, and I doubt Bush's people all will be either.

    We all KNOW Bush sent Gonzo to Ashcrofts bedside to try to get him to forge classified documents.

    We all KNOW this happened. There is no doubt. And once we get the right people under oath, it will come out.

    And thats the ball game.

    ReplyDelete
  164. clif said...
    Once it comes out means you don't have them but are hoping the truth comes out.


    NO.

    We KNOW Bush sent Gonzo to Ashcrofts bedside.

    Just because Gonzo hasn't come out and busted on Bush, doesn't mean anything. It WILL come out, and Gonzo will be shown to be a co conspiritor to violate the US Constitution over that ONE incident.

    And thats all we need.

    That night, at Ashcrofts bed, was the goocher.

    Thats the one thats going to sink the HMS Dubya.

    ReplyDelete
  165. We all KNOW Bush sent Gonzo to Ashcrofts bedside to try to get him to forge classified documents.

    I am being the devils advocate here, we don't "know" it we "suspect" it

    We all KNOW this happened. There is no doubt. And once we get the right people under oath, it will come out.

    I am being the devils advocate here, we don't "know" it we "suspect" it

    And thats the ball game.

    Too bad one team has refused to enter the game by removing impeachment from the table.

    ReplyDelete
  166. BTW "we all know" OJ did it, but legally he was found NOT Guilty......

    It's those little technical things which get in the way, those "innocent till found guilty" things the founders thought very important.

    ReplyDelete
  167. Bush told Gonzo, who at the time was his attorney, to go to Ashcrofts bedside in the hospital, and get him to sign a document, forging the date and time since at the time he was not the AG.

    Ashcroft could not sign and to his credit, refusded to sign and identified the AG standing right there in the room with the director of the FBI.

    The current Attorney General AND the Director of the FBI told Bush's lawyer, mr Gonzo, that the program was UNCONSTITUTIONAL and must cease immediately.

    Bush's lawyer stormed out of the room, and went back and told Bush, who promptly fired BOTH AG's, and then appointed his own lawyer, mr Gonzo, the AG so he could sign an illegal document that was judged UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

    That night, will be the darkest night for Bush.

    ReplyDelete
  168. clif said...
    BTW "we all know" OJ did it, but legally he was found NOT Guilty......


    Yea and he ended up losing his shirt in civil court. Now, hes a broken down borderline pschizo broke bum begging for money and his brightest hope is suicide.

    OJ is getting his, slower than most, but its just hurting that much more.

    ReplyDelete
  169. Too bad the person who can clear it all up is the current AG and his memory(at least according to him) sucks.

    who is going to reveal the truth you know?

    and how are they going to be prompted to do this NOW when they have remained silent the last 3 years?

    ReplyDelete
  170. But OJ is not the issue here.

    We are talking about the President of the United States and there is just no way what he has done will be left alone.

    Whether they get him in office and impeach him, or prosecute him and his people once they are out and can't hide behind the oval office any more, one things for sure. Justice is coming.

    Watch.

    ReplyDelete
  171. But in the "eyes of the law" he is not guilty, and he is still scaming the system.

    He is living quite large in Florida because of their laws protecting most of what he has.

    ReplyDelete
  172. clif said...
    Too bad the person who can clear it all up is the current AG and his memory(at least according to him) sucks.

    who is going to reveal the truth you know?


    I have pointed out a dozen times already that Gonzo is the AG and that is a problem. Why are you writing that now like its something new to the debate?

    As for who's going to "reveal the truth" I think I just explained that too. Under oath, people have a tendency to say all kinds of things. And Gonzo and Bush weren't the only ones who knew what was going on that night.

    And by the way.

    Its ALREADY come out. Where were you when Robert Mueller, the Director of the FBI testified under oath, as well as James Comey, former acting Attorney General, BOTH testified to EXACTLY what happened that night?

    Its already out clif. Problem is like you said Gonzo won't prosecute himself over it. But he can't run forever.

    ReplyDelete
  173. Well if they wait till after the 2008 elections, and Bush pardons Rove, Gonzo Harriet Meirs, Dumsfeld, what can anybody do?

    I think Bush could conceivably pardon Cheney, and leave himself as the only official open to prosecution. I am not completely sure of that one.

    ReplyDelete
  174. Clif said...

    I am being the devils advocate here, we don't "know" it we "suspect" it


    We'll I agree you're being devils advocate but you're absolutely wrong about what we don't know.

    We know exactly what happened, because we have sworn testimony of the head of the FBI and the head of the DOJ.

    ReplyDelete
  175. clif said...
    Well if they wait till after the 2008 elections, and Bush pardons Rove, Gonzo Harriet Meirs, Dumsfeld, what can anybody do?


    Enforce subpoenas and make them testify. Geesh how many times do I have to say it Clif? I love you man but you're really being thick here.

    As I have said repeatedly now, just because Bush pardons them doesn't mean they can lie under oath and get away with it.

    Bush's pardon won't help them a bit at that point. In fact, it will HURT THEM.

    Because see, once they are pardoned, they can no longer take the FIFTH, because they are not risking self incrimination for simply telling the truth, even if they implicate themselves.

    Once they are pardoned, they are simply Congressional FODDER, and will be faced with a choice.

    Lie under oath and face jail, or bust on Bush.

    3 guesses which path they'll take at that point.

    ReplyDelete
  176. with out hearings with Teeth, and congressional actions which would include impeachment of Gonzo, he will continue to stonewall any real judicial investigation and block any further legal moves, which is why I can't understand why they don't use what you claim they already have to impeach Gonzo.

    Until they do something about Gonzo, nothing is gonna happen, and they wasted June July and are on vacation for august, and in Sept the Surge report circus is gonna suck the oxygen outa the room for a couple of weeks.

    Like I said certain dems are waiting to run on the crimes of Bush instead of trying to stop the crimes of Bush.

    That is the reality I see.

    ReplyDelete
  177. I am confident that the night Bush sent Gonzo to Ashcrofts bedside will be his undoing.

    The director of the FBI, and the current acting Attorney General BOTH testified that Gonzo was there to circumvent the constitution. And since the only one that could have sent him there on that particular mission was Bush, we really don't need anyone to prove Bush sent him. Its a given. It was Bush's program. Gonzo was Bush attorney, there trying to get Ashcroft to FORGE CLASSIFED DOCUMENTS.

    Its a no brainer and all of congress knows that.The only problem is Gonzo won't investigate himself. He won't let it on the table.

    ReplyDelete
  178. Any request for testimony is met with claims of executive privilge, and even the underlings which show up say very little but refuse to answer because of executive privilege reasons, which means they have very little time before the election cycle closes down congress for much, and the powers that be in both parties gear up for the 2008 battle for congress and the white house, which means they don't want the impeachment distraction as a wild card.

    I understand the game the democrats are playing, disagree but see why they want to destroy quite a bit of the GOP for a couple election cycles.

    The democrats are willing to allow Bush to escape if they can win big in 208, and that seems to be what they are betting on.

    ReplyDelete
  179. clif said...
    with out hearings with Teeth, and congressional actions which would include impeachment of Gonzo, he will continue to stonewall any real judicial investigation and block any further legal moves, which is why I can't understand why they don't use what you claim they already have to impeach Gonzo.

    Until they do something about Gonzo, nothing is gonna happen, and they wasted June July and are on vacation for august, and in Sept the Surge report circus is gonna suck the oxygen outa the room for a couple of weeks.

    Like I said certain dems are waiting to run on the crimes of Bush instead of trying to stop the crimes of Bush.

    That is the reality I see."

    Unfortunately, I have to agree with you here.

    ReplyDelete
  180. But like Bartlebe said whats to stop the cronnies from being hauled before Congress after the pardons and being busted for perjury or tried civilly.........these clowns have lots of money they could be sued civilly.

    ReplyDelete
  181. clif said...
    with out hearings with Teeth, and congressional actions which would include impeachment of Gonzo, he will continue to stonewall any real judicial investigation and block any further legal moves, which is why I can't understand why they don't use what you claim they already have to impeach Gonzo.


    I'm not claiming they have it. Didn't you hear Muellers testimony?

    Did you somehow miss James Comey's testimony?

    For a guy who's really informed you seem to be oddly amnesic on these two major events.

    I aggre that impeaching Gonzo needs to happen, but once again we're back to the republican congress. They won't do it. So we can't ratify and therefore can't remove from office. But if something comes out that leaves the republicans no choice, like emails showing Bush telling Gonzo to visit ashcroft, then I am betting even this stiff necked republican congress won't be able to withstand the public outcry.

    But if so, then once Bush is out of office, then the criminal prosecutions will get them. Just like Leahey is suggesting.

    ReplyDelete
  182. I agree with you about the election cycle stifling impeachment Clif...........Thats why i'm saying to challenge the Constitutionality of the Pardons after the election.

    ReplyDelete
  183. Unfortunately, I have to agree with you here.

    Hence the reason I say the dems will allow Bush to escape, because once they have consolidated power they are going to move with their agenda, not try to push very hard to get Bush or anybody who is already gone, especially if Bush pardons the higher ups who might be open to prosecution if all the truth was known.

    Bush will protect Gonzo and scooter and anybody he thinks is vulnerable.

    ReplyDelete
  184. The problem with waiting is Bush hands out pardons to those he wants to protect just like GHWB did in 1992, and which circumvented prosecutions on Iran Contra.

    so if no impeachment before Nov 2008, a lot of Bush cronies will probably go free with a pardon.

    and Gonzo, ET Al ain't gonna get hired by any future Democratic administration anyway so they would accept it to be safe.

    ReplyDelete
  185. Clif said...Hence the reason I say the dems will allow Bush to escape, because once they have consolidated power they are going to move with their agenda, not try to push very hard to get Bush or anybody who is already gone, especially if Bush pardons the higher ups who might be open to prosecution if all the truth was known.

    At that point there will likely be a few hardcore members of congress, like Leahey, Waxman and lookout for Specter pushing hard.

    But it will be beyond them by then. By then federal prosecutors will be all over them like white on rice.

    ReplyDelete
  186. But it will be beyond them by then. By then federal prosecutors will be all over them like white on rice.

    Only if Bush doesn't pardon the people who are open to prosecution, otherwise the DOJ would have it's hands tied by the pardons like the DOJ was concerning Iran Contra after Dec 1992.

    ReplyDelete
  187. clif said...
    The problem with waiting is Bush hands out pardons to those he wants to protect just like GHWB did in 1992, and which circumvented prosecutions on Iran Contra.

    so if no impeachment before Nov 2008, a lot of Bush cronies will probably go free with a pardon.


    ARGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

    Its like debating a troll.

    ONE MORE TIME, then I'm going to bed.


    Bush's pardon WON'T help them a bit at that point.


    In fact, it will HURT THEM.

    Do you understand?

    IT WILL HURT THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    Because see, once they are pardoned, they can no longer take the FIFTH, because they are not risking self incrimination for simply telling the truth, even if they implicate themselves.

    Once they are pardoned, they are simply Congressional FODDER, and will be faced with a choice.

    Lie under oath and face jail, or bust on Bush.

    ReplyDelete
  188. Do you understand?

    A pardon for people facing subpeonas is a BAD thing, because IT REMOVES THEIR RIGHTS TO TAKE THE 5th, which they can do if they are NOT pardoned.

    Do you get it?

    You are just being negative I think Clif. Why I don't know. But you just keep going around in this negative circle, ignoring what anyone says just like Voltron or someone.

    A pardon doesn't protect them from lying under oath, and if Bush does pardon them, then he leaves himself wide open to their DAMNING testimonies.

    ReplyDelete
  189. Sorry but I don't see congress holding hearings to "get Bush" in Jan 2009, I see politicians being more self serving then trying to get Bush after he is out of power.

    ReplyDelete
  190. You clearly don't see it, but Bush's back is against the wall and he's facing serious legal struggles.

    He is using his power as president as a sheild right now, but once he's out of office, that ALL goes away.

    We know Bush broke tried to overthrow the constitution that night. We've even basically proven it, with the FBI directors and the AG's sworn testimonies.

    Now all we need is an AG willing to act on it, and judges who will act on it. Once there is a democratic president, he or she will appoint "REASONABLE" people to the benches, and as the AG, and then Bush will be screwed.

    So will Gonzo.

    ReplyDelete
  191. clif said...
    Sorry but I don't see congress holding hearings to "get Bush" in Jan 2009, I see politicians being more self serving then trying to get Bush after he is out of power.


    Damn.

    I just give up because you're just not ignoring everything I write.

    Go back and try reading what I said.

    Pay particular attention to the part where I said it wouldn't be congress as a body at that point, but federal prosecutors.

    ReplyDelete
  192. I'm not sure a "president Hillary" will peruse that, and neither would congress with the other priorities they would face come Jan 209 with a further collapse in Iraq, and another year and a half of economic meltdown.

    Maybe your right, however I see more pressing problems facing both the next president and congress, which they would have to deal with.

    ReplyDelete
  193. The DOJ will be going after Bush then

    ReplyDelete
  194. Theres nothing more pressing than restoring our constitutional form of government.

    They will go after Bush, either now or later.

    Anyway I give up. You believe what you want and we'll see what comes down the pike.

    chow

    ReplyDelete
  195. The DOJ will be going after Bush then

    Only if the next President and attorney General pursues it. Other wise it would be part of the past.

    If Hillary gets elected, I don't see her going after Bush at all.

    But I don't have much faith in her at all.

    ReplyDelete
  196. You'd have to be crazy to think that once the DOJ is back with a real AG, they'd let what Bush and Gonzo tried to pull that night slide.

    It was a slap in the face to the DOJ, and I garuntee you they won't rest until that one is dealt with.

    The DOJ were the good guys, and they will be again.

    WATCH.

    ReplyDelete
  197. It's almost like the country has had a giant enema...kinda, sorta, maybe.

    ReplyDelete
  198. Good riddance to Rove. But now that he'll be under the radar, he might be even sleazy and slippery than when he had an official title.

    Who Hijacked Our Country

    ReplyDelete