Oh God!  Not more transcripts.  It took me days to get through Lewinsky's deposition detailing what transpired between her and Bill in the anteroom.    

And these transcripts won't even have nasty sex to keep them interesting.

Audrey says:

Lewinsky's deposition

TK asks:

I had trouble reading through it.

Did I get the redacted version? Or was mine just stained?

I read it on the Druge report.  All the best parts were highlighted.

And the point of this would be?  Let's hope Conyers starts the subpoena process.

Was it worth the $50 million, Audrey? :)

No.  There wasn't much plot and the characters weren't fully developed.  If you've seen one May-December sex romp,  you've  seen them all.

What do you mean no sex to keep you excited? We can be as sexy and exciting if we want to, Newt is our leader in that department. I don’t care what you think; Bush has a right to keep anything he wants secret, legal or illegal. This 2007 anything President Bush says can be used by Osama Bin Laden like he everything else since 9/11, don’t you watch Foxnews? This ridiculous, Bush is “the President” not just any bozo, he is the commander in chief, not a snotty buck private in the National Guard, he does not have to follow the law unless it is a national emergency and only he can declare a national emergency, so chill liberals, Bush is the man. Bush is the most honest, and has the most integrity of any President since 2000, how anyone question his motive. Bush is no Nixon, or even a Clinton or  a Spiro Agnew, all you liberals misjudge him.

I prefer my governmental sex reports to be much better than that junk Starr tried pawning off on us. It was done better ten years earlier. Honestly, it puts Starr's report to shame. You want a real "page turner"? There you go. Enjoy.

*SOMEONE* doesn't think the "executive privilege" dodge will wash:

"Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up."

"Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold -- the rule of law."

--Tony Snow, 1998

Mattloch, the illustrated version's even better.

 

The quotes don't get much better than that, RF.

Redkernhero (snicker)    "The most integrity of any president since 2000."   Very funny!

Mattloch    Whaaaat?  Did I miss a sex scandal?  I thought I heard them all.  From George Washington and his sexy next door neighbor to Tom Delay.

Snow's Da Man..

 

--TK,  2007

Give it  a break!  You left wing libs still do not get it!  I watched the President and he has offered an olive branch.  You left wing libs won't take it because you want to play politics and ensure you keep the fires burning until November 08.  Nothing but a bunch of cry babies!

Here's a rundown of what's at stake.  The Constitutional Crisis is here, folks.  This one's for the soul of the nation:

http://www.dailykos.com/sto...

Bakodon, it's Bush who wants to keep the fires burning until November 08.  That's his war plan:  Let it burn until it's someone else's problem.  Now he's applying the same plan to the Constitution of the United States.

Did I say 2000, I’m sorry. The President did offer a dove, unfortunately it may get messy, for the Democrats that is.

The left is crying, bakodon?  The President has just said he won't obey the law.  The Democrats, along with a number of Republicans, want to uphold the law. Now the President says he'll offer a reasonable solution to the fact that he doesn't want to follow the law and crying that the big bad Democrats are out to get him.  If he doesn't like being President, he's free to leave at any time.  He serves at the pleasure of the President too.

FOOL, the dems are out to get him any way they can.  Its all politics until November 2008.  Wake up and smell the coffee!

Bakodon, you mean the Democrats and Republicans, right?  it's not just Democrats who are pressing on this.  Maybe you'd like this to be a partisan thing, but it's not.  Looks like the grownups in both parties are starting to take charge again and they aren't going to listen to the President's crybaby act.

So what crime is Congress investigating anyway? US attorneys can be fired anytime for any reason. At least that is this dumb okies' understanding. After seeing how Victoria Toensing was berated last week by the Democrats and the Republicans kinda looked cowardly in their behavior during Valerie Plame's testimony, I think the Dems smell blood and are thinking a Stalin style show trial will be good for their chances in '08.

At least one perosn on the blog understands!

 

 

Dri, What is your complaint. Bush has no problem with his cronies talking to Congress. In fact he has approved of Gonzales testifying under oath to Congress.

Are you suggesting that the regime boys would lie to Congress. Unless they were handcuffed and under oath?

If that’s the case. Perhaps that should be investigated.

Victoria Toensing while under oath. Told a different story than she did to Chris Matthews on Hardball.. Maybe the Oath thingy works.

During this last bit of Bush Regime Charade. There has been many different stories regarding the AG situation.

There is a cover-up.

That’s what is being investigated.

Covering What up?

Dri, says:

Covering What up?

 

TK says:

Did you honestly think thru your question?

Lies were told as to the reason for firing  9 AG’s

The Question? Why the lies?

If the answer is known to that question. There wouldn’t need to be a investigation.

Investigations precede trials. Except in the case of Lynching’s.

What lies?

The Lies in part:  (More contaned in the information released to Congress yesterday)

But group firings in the middle a presidential term are highly unusual. Though Attorney General Alberto Gonzales insisted to Congress that "I would never, ever make a change in a U.S. attorney position for political reasons," critics were outraged at the December dismissals, among them the firing of an Arkansas U.S. attorney to make way for Timothy Griffin, a prot�g� of White House political guru Karl Rove. The outcry forced Griffin to withdraw. Gonzales' top deputy later claimed the firings were necessary because of "performance-related" issues. But it was later revealed that all but two of the dismissed prosecutors had won outstanding evaluations for competence.

Those revelations set the stage for Tuesday's dramatic appearance of six of the ousted Republican prosecutors before House and Senate committees dominated by Democrats. One of the fired prosecutors, David Iglesias of New Mexico, testified that he felt "leaned on" by Sen. Pete Domenici over a case he was pursuing. Iglesias said the New Mexico Republican and former mentor hung up on him after learning Iglesias would not seek indictments in a criminal investigation of Democrats before the 2006 election. "He said, 'Are these going to be filed before November?'" Iglesias recalled. "I said I didn't think so... to which he replied, 'I'm very sorry to hear that.' And then the line went dead. "I had a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach," Iglesias testified. "Six weeks later I got the call that I had to move on." The ousted prosecutor also said that Heather Wilson, a Republican House member from New Mexico, had called him about the same issue.

Both Domenici and Wilson confirmed that they had gotten in touch with Iglesias, but denied pressuring him in any way. The Justice Department also acknowledged that Domenici had called Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and his top deputy four times to complain about Iglesias' behavior, inquiring whether he was "up to the job."

Another fired U.S. attorney, H. E. "Bud" Cummins of Arkansas, testified that he had e-mailed fellow ousted prosecutors last month, warning them of a threatening message conveyed by a senior Justice Department official. Cummins' e-mail, which was released publicly, quoted the Justice official as warning that if fired U.S. attorneys continued to talk to the media or volunteered to testify before Congress, the department "would feel forced to somehow pull their gloves off" and fight back. The DOJ denied the allegation.

Yet another sacked U.S. attorney, John McKay of Seattle, declared that a top aide to Rep. Doc Hastings, the former Republican chairman of the House Ethics Committee, had called him to ask detailed questions about a politically charged investigation McKay was conducting into the disputed 2004 election of Washington state's Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire. Hastings and his aide have denied the allegation.

The day before the Congressional hearings, Michael Battle, the Justice Department official who had made the telephone calls to dismiss six of the eight prosecutors, announced he was leaving his job. The Department described the sudden departure as long planned, having nothing to do with the controversial terminations he had been required to carry out. But Democrats immediately questioned that version of events. Said Linda Sanchez, a California Democrat: "The wheels are coming off the Bush Administration's increasingly hollow defense of its decision."

 

Well, it still doesn't look like alot there to get riled about. But of course America will be happy to see the democrats fighting hard for lawyers, the most loved and respected profession on earth.

Dri

I don’t know how many times it has to be said before you understand. ..

This investigation is being pursued by Republicans and Democrats. In fact the Senate vote to prevent Bush from permanently appointing the New AG’s without Senate approval, was passed by the Senate..

94 to 2 with 4 not voting. 

That’s a large majority of the Republicans that joined with the Democrats in chastising Bush and his regime.

 

There's another vote not going Shrub's way:

http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERV...

House subpoenas authorized.

Bush is saying "why me"

If they dont have anything to hide then they would do it under Oath and w/ transcripts and public. By trying to hide it, makes you wonder what they really did!

Bakodon, this started out with the Administration making political decisions, not the Democrats. These were Republican USAs, nominated by the President and confirmed by the Republican Congress. Yes, they serve at the President's "pleasure", but they are also supposed to be independent of the political realm. The USAG and USAs should not become the legal arm of the President and the party in power. That is precisely what Bush's Administration has turned them into: political operatives. They were removed because they were not doing the President's bidding, and going after corrupt Republican politicians instead of innocent Democratic ones. The bipartisan Congress is performing its oversight duties. It's called "checks and balances". Look into it sometime. I know it may be a foreign concept to you, since it hasn't been mentioned too much these past seven years, but it really is in the Constitution. Trust me.

Keep in mind that the White House specificially snuck a provision into the update of the Patriot Act to allow them to bypass Congress.

Mattloch, did you read that Fitzgerald was originally on their "hit list"?

It's funny how the rethuglicans can go after a president and it's ok but when the tables are turned it's dismissed as "the dems are out to get him any way they can.  Its all politics until November 2008." Like the gop never plays politics? Give me a break! 

IOKIYAR.

  *Sniffs the air*  Something smells rotten to me and it isn't fish! If our government is not transparent we lose.This is a situation,like the local Weir mess, that deserves the light of day shone on it,and a good airing out!

Yes, we play politics; however, we play clean politics both locally and otherwise. We would never go after anyone that did not deserve it. Our spokesman like Limbaugh, Savage, and Hanity, and Inga Barks are non-partisan and only speak the truth, they don’t hurt people, yes they sometimes make mistakes, but they are honest mistakes. We don’t trash the opponent, we expose because we expect them to meet the same integrity standards as President Bush, Tom Delay and Duke Cunningham, how else can this country remain as pristine and uncorrupted. Liberals are just suffering from envy because we can keep secrets, and Vice President Cheney is our filter, he and Rush can do our thinking for us, thank you or ditto if you prefer.

I didn't hear that his name was specifically mentioned Random, but I heard that one of their plans was to have every USA resign, and only retain the ones they wanted. This thing is shaping up into a Constitutional showdown at the OK Corral. At least the WH (and Faux News) is sticking to plan, blaming "partisan Democrats" for (a bipartisan Congress) investigating their criminal and partisan moves. The only thing that I'm pissed about is that there's so much that happened before November 2006 that Congress can't look into because these scandals are breaking so fast.

Subpoenowned.

 

Mattloch, you're busting my margins.  Can you resize that sucker?

Also, for the tech team, is there a way to put hard margins in so images or long unbroken character strings don't blow the margins?

"New Rule: Controlling Congress is for closers. Listen up, Democrats, it's as simple as A-B-C. "Always Be Closing." First prize: subpoena power in the new Congress. Second prize: set of steak knives. Third prize: you're fired. The election is four days away and I'm through d--king around with you." --Bill Maher, New Rules 

Newest wrinkle:  Eighteen day's worth of e-mails are missing.  In-between the initial decision to fire, and the election.

.

Does Mary Jane Woods still work at the White House, on the e-mail servers?

This email thing is an interesting angle that you've provoked (in me) with that article you linked to last week, Random. I'm wondering if Congress notices the off-site (GWB43.com) tactic or not, since these emails are only from Justice and not the WH itself. Bush may try to claim executive privledge, but Watergate proved that presidents can't do that for their underlings. This may not be "The Big One", but it is certainly setting the ground rules for all upcoming ones, including many Big Ones.

It underscores the necessity for getting people under oath.  "Are you SURE nobody sent any relevant e-mails for 18 days at the height of this controversy?" 

.

Of course, as the other article I cited notes--a complaint for Abu Gonzales' lying to Congress would be presumably executed by...the Attorney General's office.   I sure hope Pat Fitzgerald is available.

.

As someone said, those Democrats who were concerned with "keeping their powder dry" in previous years need to realize that *THIS* is "the big one."

If they get Rove and Miers up in front of them, unless what the Administration did was criminal, they can't claim the Fifth. If they do, it'll send this thing into overdrive. It's funny to hear them claim "they (USAs) serve at the President's pleasure", like firing them for purely spurious reason, or on a whim is a good thing. The only defense Bush has is cronyism, pure and simple. It may not be illegal to do that, but god help them if an email turns up showing how investigations were stopped (or started) because of these actions. This has potential to turn into something very ugly, and it won't be for partisan reasons. To claim otherwise is just insulting.

Looks like they've found *ONE* e-mail inside the gap.  Which, as any creationist would tell you, simply means now there are *TWO* gaps. :)

.

Looks like General Custer's Press Secretary Snow has given the indians ONE LAST CHANCE to surrender and head off a "Constitutional Crisis."