Comments (56)

jon wrote on April 4, 2007 5:46 PM:

Odious move, but likely to be fairly harmless, until we wind up at war with Belgium...

As with the attorney firings, this will unite congress against the White House. Congress is recessed for what, 2 weeks? This appointment was so important it couldn't wait, and this guy is so central to the administration's diplomatic strategy that it just has to be done? Just like Bolten was such a smooth move?

Watch he starts talking smack about Queen Beatrix.

I laugh until I cry.

POed Lib wrote on April 4, 2007 5:48 PM:

I am hoping that Harry Reid will say, simply, we did not authorize this, and, there will be no more confirmations for anything regardless.

jonesin wrote on April 4, 2007 5:49 PM:

Dodd isn't happy. Said he's going to look into this. Not sure it's a good use of an investigation, but still, Bush really truly is trying to give Congress about 14 middle fingers all at the same time.

Talk about picking a fight--that's EXACTLY what this move by Bush was meant to do.

JT wrote on April 4, 2007 5:54 PM:

Is there really any point to having Senate approval in the Constitution? Why not just use the recess appointment every time? And if politics and brute force are all that counts, why not start hauling this "appointee" in and investigate him for stealing paperclips or something?

Anonymous wrote on April 4, 2007 5:57 PM:

Bush also used the Congressional recess to appoint Andrew Biggs deputy director of Social Security. Biggs nomination was rejected by the Senate in February.

I think the big boys are playing games here.

B W wrote on April 4, 2007 5:59 PM:

Bush is shameless.

jen wrote on April 4, 2007 6:00 PM:

To avoid Forbes irritating advertisements (piled on top of Jr's irritating politicing) the article is also available here:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3008359

Marky wrote on April 4, 2007 6:02 PM:

Congress ought to de-fund the Belgium Embassy.
Even better, Kerry or Dodd should announce the intention to do so within the next day.
The power of the purse was meant for moments like this.

Anonymous wrote on April 4, 2007 6:03 PM:

Holy crap you're right. Josh is going to have a post up about this in no time I bet.

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- "Bush appoints Biggs to Social Security post
Private-accounts advocate named over Democratic objections"
http://tinyurl.com/385pgr

Hmmmmmm wrote on April 4, 2007 6:03 PM:

I think this move qualifies Bush for the term...

COWARD

Francis Deblauwe wrote on April 4, 2007 6:06 PM:

I may be a Belgian living in the US and mad as heck about this, but the ambassador to Brussels, seat of the European Union, NATO, and a whole series of international organizations is not an unimportant appointment at all. Of course, I forget, the Bush administration doesn't believe in international organizations nor in diplomacy for that matter... By the way, the Belgian figurehead head of state is king Albert II, not Beatrix of the Netherlands, our neighbors to the north. If only the Belgian government would have the guts to refuse accreditation to this despiccable character. One can always dream...

TuiMel wrote on April 4, 2007 6:14 PM:

Bush: If people are unhappy about all the china you've broken. Break more China. He does not need to go to no stinkin' Senate floor to tell all the Dem's (and particularly the Foreign Relations Committee) to go F themselves. This is the equivalent to Bush playing dirty in collegs sports, trying to throw his opponent off by enraging them with outrageous, unsportsmanlike conduct. I hope the Dems stay focused on taking care of business. Pay back for this one does not seem worth it.

jeffgee wrote on April 4, 2007 6:26 PM:

Once again, the Presidential middle finger is raised. Expect to see a lot more of it until the day of deliverance from this evil, Jan 20, 2009.

otob wrote on April 4, 2007 6:27 PM:

is it possible to withdraw the recess appointment provision? Or perhaps require a confirmation hearing the first day congress is back in session?

Anonymous wrote on April 4, 2007 6:29 PM:

Methinks George is getting dangerously close to having some pending vetoes overridden. He is also kidding himself if he thinks he will get a more acceptable spending bill any time in the near future.

In the end, it will be time to impeach.

profmarcus wrote on April 4, 2007 6:33 PM:

NOTE: bush has given congress and the american people the dirty digit THREE times today... besides fox, he recess-appointed susan dudley to head the white house office of information and regulatory affairs... she is committed to a pro-business agenda and has been opposed by many progressive groups... he ALSO recess-appointed andrew biggs to be deputy director of social security... biggs is an outspoken advocate of partially privatizing the social security... the arrogance of this guy in thwarting the will of congress and the american people will go down in history as one of the darkest periods of u.s. history... WE GOTTA GET HIM REMOVED...

http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/...

georgia wrote on April 4, 2007 6:33 PM:

The Biggs appointment is clearly much worse. In both cases, however, it was clear that the Senate would NOT consent. As James Inhofe would say, the President "has shown contempt for Congress and the Constitution."

We're right back at the heart of the USA scandal. The President does not respect our form of government.

The Senate's only choice now is to deny funding for recess appointments.

Youffraita wrote on April 4, 2007 6:42 PM:

Don't remember the source (probably NY Times or Washington Post), but he basically said years ago that as president he could do anything he wanted. And reiterated it when first elected in 2004. So this latest maneuver comes as no surprise. (georgia is right; he certainly doesn't respect our form of government -- never has, never will, and thinks he's above and beyond the law.)

Here's hoping Congress smacks him down for this. It is way past time to get impeachment ON the table.

greggp wrote on April 4, 2007 6:47 PM:

Several Congresses have had more than two sessions. The First Congress had 3 and at least one Congress had 4.

When it gets back, the Congress could simply adjourn the session, and start another one. Then all the recess appointments would end.

ahem wrote on April 4, 2007 7:10 PM:

No more recesses till January 2009. It's the only way to deal with this petulant little man.

Node of Evil wrote on April 4, 2007 7:10 PM:

Several Congresses have had more than two sessions. The First Congress had 3 and at least one Congress had 4.

When it gets back, the Congress could simply adjourn the session, and start another one. Then all the recess appointments would end.

I was wondering about this myself; it seems like tying the length of recess appointments to Congressional recesses is a timebomb, especially if the length of the "recess" is defined by Congress. Anyone know if Congress can do that?

EH wrote on April 4, 2007 7:27 PM:

This is obviously meant as two things: a distraction from the current troubles, hopefully shunting some attention to this miniscule problem; and, a reward for a shit-head partisan (which is what most ambassadorships are anyway, right?).

Kimberly wrote on April 4, 2007 7:38 PM:

Maybe the Dems could slip a provision into the Iraq war funding bill that would severely restrict his power to make recess appointments.

(Security code for this post is "cold", as the temperature revenge is best served.)

Holy Cow! wrote on April 4, 2007 7:46 PM:

Holy Cow! Haven't past Presidents done the same thing..used recess appointments?

Haven't Republican and Democrat Presidents both done it? At least that's what I heard on a talk show this afternoon.

Dab wrote on April 4, 2007 7:50 PM:

This is soooo Cheney-like.

Florida Democrat wrote on April 4, 2007 7:50 PM:

"It's just a damn piece of paper"

'nuff said.

Anonymous wrote on April 4, 2007 7:54 PM:

Advice and consent?? We don't need no stinkin' advice and consent!!!

Swan wrote on April 4, 2007 7:55 PM:

I hope you don't mind an off-topic comment, but this is important: There is a great post on The Carpetbagger Report from a few days ago about the mainstream media's (specifically Time magazine's) ignoring the prosecutor purge scandal.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10367.html

What explains the failure of the mainstream media to cover the purge scandal for so long, and so many other scandals? Do you think somebody just set up newspaper editors to cheat on their wives, and threatened to tell if the editors wouldn’t play ball when they come back some day and ask for something?

It wouldn’t be that hard to do, when you think about it. People wouldn’t talk about it.

Mark Richards wrote on April 4, 2007 8:10 PM:

The Belgian's are really nice people.

How sad.

melior wrote on April 4, 2007 8:15 PM:

I can almost hear Cheney laughing like The Penguin in the background as they decided to do this.

foggylady wrote on April 4, 2007 8:37 PM:

Recess appointments usually are made only when Congress has been out of session for at least 10 days.
In fact, Sen Reid attempted to avoid those appointments by setting the recess schedule at 7 instead of 10 days, but looks like Bush pays no attention to that.
Bush made 110 appointments during his first term alone.
Like the interim atorney ploy, it is another way he avoids Senate confirmation.
Some of his more appalling appointments were:

Julie L. Myers, a former federal prosecutor and former special assistant to Bush, who is also the
a niece of former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Richard B. Myers and the wife of the chief of staff to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, connections that reek of both nepotism and croynism, was appointed to head the Immigration and Customs Enforcement bureau at the Department of Homeland Security. Jan. 4 2006. She does not meet the Congressional (statutory) requirements for the job. "The head of ICE is required by statute to have at least five years of experience in both law enforcement and management." ( WaPO)

Tracy A. Henke was appointed executive director of the Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness. The Washington Post noted that Henke "had been accused in her politically appointed post at the Justice Department of demanding that information about racial disparities in police treatment of blacks in traffic cases be deleted from a news release." The federal director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics Lawrence Greenfield refused to alter his report, was reprimanded by Justice Department officials and ultimately forced to resign by the Bush administration.

Ellen R. Sauerbrey, right-wing social conservative and former Maryland Republican gubernatorial candidate (twice defeated) -- an outspoken opponent of abortion rights and family planning -- whose nomination had been bottled up in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was named assistant secretary of state for Population, Rrefugees and Migration. On Thursday, January 5,2006 the New York Times pointed out that Sauerbrey "has zero experience in emergency management and refugee resettlement." "
"Her lack of qualifications are so glaring that two of the last three people to hold the position -- Democrat Phyllis E. Oakley and Republican Julia Taft, both of whom served under Clinton -- signed a letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee opposing her confirmation." ( Salon.com)

Peter N. Kirsanow, conservative African American lawyer who since 2001 has been serving on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, was appointed to the five-member National Labor Relations Board. He will maintain the NLRB position for the remainder of a five-year term that expires on August 27, 2008.
Just prior to his recess appointment, a report surfaced in the press that Kirsanow, who was on the advisory board of the NCPPR, might be tied to the Abramoff scandal.
and ad nauseum...

earlofhuntingdon wrote on April 4, 2007 8:41 PM:

How to piss off the Belgians 101: appoint someone the US legislature finds demonstrably incompetent.

This is the work of Cheney and Addington, telling the sock puppet that the Senate's recent rejection of his proposed Ambassador to Belgium was code for saying that he's not a man. It is a rejection of the holy writ of the unitary executive, which demands punishment of the heretics. I can hear their Iago-like whispering while Mr. B puts on his toy cowboy boots.

Belgium itself is small. But it is the seat of several important international organizations, including, ehm, the EU and, I believe, NATO. It is not just a ceremonial post for a corrupt partisan supporter. (Though making sure they receive patronage appointments is essential to the retirement income of Messrs. Bush and Cheney, and possibly Rove.)

Art. II, sec. 2, provides that the President can make recess appointments, avoiding Senate confirmation for the balance of Congress' term, by filling "vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate".

There is no agreement about how long that recess needs to be before this authority becomes operational. More importantly, there is no agreement on whether the vacancy must occur while the Senate is actually in recess, which is what the text states.

I believe that all three of the President's attempted recess appointments today occured while the Senate was in session. It is only the appointment that has been attempted during the recess.

At least one of Mr. Bush's recess appointees failed confirmation by a Republican Senate. Another failed confirmation by a Democratic Senate. The third, appointed as chief regulatory officer of the OMB, doesn't believe in regulation.

The Senate has several possible responses. Among them, deny funding to pay the appointed officers. Another is declare them illegal because the vacancies did not occur during the Senate's recess.

LnGrrrR wrote on April 4, 2007 8:51 PM:

Melior,

That's so strange...I was just mentioning how I saw the picture of Cheney in the bushes and imagined him with the penguin laugh...

I guess it just fits.

yellowdogfox wrote on April 4, 2007 9:53 PM:

Little episodes like this are useful for demonstrating with absolute clarity that Bush has no interest in working in comity with Congress. Since unlike the Bolton case, this is a second-tier appointment, he couldn't even reasonably claim that it's a matter of urgency. What it is, in fact, is a telling proof of the man's complete lack of maturity: this is the act of the inner 10-year old, because it really isn't important and it is undoubtedly going to hurt him, but even so he just has to do it. I think it would be a good thing for Reid to keep the Senate in session with a daily pro-forma call to order as a Congressional Security measure, something like Homeland Security. And the phrase I hope to hear from Reid, over and over again, is that Bush has shown That He Cannot Be Trusted. Not that we don't trust him -- that's far too narrow. He Cannot Be Trusted.

klyde wrote on April 4, 2007 10:15 PM:

Next budget cycle cut of funding for the Belgian Embassy. Too much? Then cut off his pay.

MediaFreeze wrote on April 4, 2007 10:42 PM:

Son Of A Bitch

Richard L. Adlof wrote on April 4, 2007 11:26 PM:

Belgium needed to rrject his credentials, refuse to certify him and send him packing.

noshrub wrote on April 4, 2007 11:51 PM:

fucking bastard...this guy is a total pig
wrong is my security code...couldn't be a better work to describe this b.s.

Art In Heaven wrote on April 5, 2007 12:08 AM:

Think of how the Dog Whisperer disciplines angry mutts that try to become pack leaders by force and terror: Number one, remain calm. Number two, use an appropriate remedy to restore the rightful pack leader, in this case the people/Congress. If this gang of mutts thinks it can finesse the recess appointments clause, they are wrong. Deep breath, pilgrims. gregp has got it; Congress needs to adjourn and start right back up, which will dork Tiny’s plot all up. (Tiny=Bush’s Brain/turdblossom)

Whistler wrote on April 5, 2007 12:21 AM:

I think it's just bait, to get the Congress to come off of recess to deal with it ... at which point, Shrub Loyalists will immediately clamor for Gonzo's close-up to be moved way, way up.

They're desperate. And very, very worried.

And making things much worse for themselves.

Guppies: no patience; no ethics; no brains. And no idea that others are not like themselves.

Once upon a time, I was involved with whistle-blowing activities (unrelated to all this). And what I found was that all I had to do, to be able to predict the actions of those who acted much like this administration consistently does, in terms of smear tactics and immediate reprisals for "disloyalty," was to ask myself what a very ill-mannered five year old would do, if one were to mentally freeze time, and put that kid into the shoes of the jerks I was dealing with. They would precisely nail my most cynical guesses, every time, with only two exceptions: they'd do it faster than I expected them to (no concept of hiding cause and effect through patience); or my idea of what an ill-mannered 5-year old would act like, wasn't nearly bad enough. Same thing here. In my case, they were so predictably consistent, person-by-person, that I could do that not with just the one step in front of me, but two. So I could consistently choose the best battleground.

Meanwhile, the Dems have people like Conyers on their side: someone who once made the top 20 on Nixon's enemy's list. Who's still here and still working, decades later: Nixon or Conyers?

I foresee two things happening, before this is over with: a lot of people with the last name of Bush, legalling becoming Smith's or something; and special forms being made up, for Republicans who have any pride or empathy or sense changing to Independents. "Just sign here, Mr. Smith..."

Michael Caine wrote on April 5, 2007 12:33 AM:

It is time to call our Congress Critters. They need to impeach Fox and all other recess appointments that Bush makes from here on out. Not only will that remove them from the office they were appointed to without consent of the Senate, it will prevent them from ever holding a government position again. Bush will find it difficult to find people that are willing to risk permanently being unable to hold any public office.

ryan wrote on April 5, 2007 12:38 AM:

Anyone notice how all the amb. nominees had little blurbs about them and their qualifications, but there wasn't one line about any of the appointees experience, expertese, etc. Really WTF

Richard L. Adlof wrote on April 5, 2007 7:51 AM:

Immediately defund the White House except for the dollars to to pay the Chimp-in -Charge and the Pengiun's salaries.

Supeona Whore-for-Hay narrow backside to testify before any and all committees in both houses.

Call Belgium and ask that they refuse creditialing to Fox.

georgia wrote on April 5, 2007 8:20 AM:

ThinkProgress had some not-so-kind words to say about Susan Dudley last July:

"Bush Nominates Anti-Regulatory Zealot To Head ‘Super-Powerful’ Public Safety Office

President Bush is expected to nominate Susan Dudley as the next head of an obscure but “super-powerful office that oversees many business regulations.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs holds sway over federal regulatory agencies like the EPA and helps set regulatory policy for a wide range of issues, from workplace safety to water quality.

The most recent head, John Graham, has “demonstrated consistent hostility to protections for public health, safety and the environment over his career.” And according to Frank O’Donnell of Clean Air Watch, Dudley “makes John Graham look like Ralph Nader.”"

more at:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/06/susan-dudley/

georgia wrote on April 5, 2007 8:25 AM:

More from today's lat:

As director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the White House Office of Management and Budget, Susan E. Dudley will have an opportunity to change or block all regulations proposed by government agencies.

- http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-recess5apr05,1,120878.story?coll=la-headlines-politics

nrglaw wrote on April 5, 2007 10:29 AM:

If the Dems had made more of a stink---a REAL stink--about the Bolton appointment, they might not have this nonsense to deal. On the other hand, Bush never learns.

When Bush is gone, these shenanigans will stop. Not before.

Bruce Webb wrote on April 5, 2007 10:37 AM:

"I may be a Belgian living in the US and mad as heck about this, but the ambassador to Brussels, seat of the European Union, NATO, and a whole series of international organizations is not an unimportant appointment at all. "

Frances the US already has separate ambassadors to all of those organizations. That in fact is what makes it such an insult, because of the already intense high levels of representation that the US has in Brussels to say nothing of having a US Nato Commander. Belgium is important for the reasons you cite. But the US Ambassador to Belgium is not. I doubt he represents the US in any of those organizations.

Elisabet wrote on April 5, 2007 12:06 PM:

Guess I must have been asleep during my 8th grade civics class (security word: school); had to go looking for more information on sessions and recesses etc. Anyway, I found this Congressional Research Service FAQ on Recess Appointments:

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RS21308.pdf

"Appointments made during short recesses (less than 30 days), however, have sometimes aroused controversy, and they may involve a political cost to the President. Controversy has been particularly acute in instances where Senators perceive that the President is using the recess appointment process to circumvent the confirmation process for a nominee who is opposed in the Senate."

Well, of course. But what political cost is there for a President whose political capital (with congress anyway) is virtualy nil? Next recess is Memorial Day weekend - how many more recess appointments then?

And this from the Senate website:
"recess - A temporary interruption of the Senate's (or a committee's) business. Generally, the Senate recesses (rather than adjourns) at the end of each calendar day."

Now I'm wondering just how far W. might go with this...

J.Goodwin wrote on April 5, 2007 1:37 PM:

Sure, you can get rid of recess appointments. All it takes is amending the constitution.

What's annoying is that the last few things that I dislike that the president's done have all been "completely legal."

The president has the authority to dismiss his employees, and congress gave him the power to appoint his own without oversight (the Gonzales affair). This situation is the same, he has the authority to do it, it's just the way that he's doing it. It's not the cookie eating, it's the "nah nah nah na na na, you can't have one."

I wish we had a better president with some actual gravitas and class, but we don't. Meanwhile, we've got a guy who is going to push every limit and be utterly flagrant about it.

code = waste

EdNSted wrote on April 5, 2007 4:39 PM:

Elisabet

Thanks for the link to that recess appoints document. This most recent recess appoint has caused me to try to understand the process and its history a bit better. Here's another document that I found while researching this issue that explains recess appointments in fairly straight-forward lay-language.

http://www.abanet.org/antitrust/at-source/04/09/Sep04OConnell.pdf

Bottom line seems to be:

1. The Framers did not provide a detailed explanation of what they were thinking when they included the recess appointment language in Article II. This has led to much of the controversy surround the use of this power.

2. When Article II was drafted, short legislative sessions and long recesses were the norm.

3. While a 30-day recess and a 10-day recess have both been mentioned as triggering the recess appointment power, President Roosevelt apparently sucessfully exercised this power during a 1-day recess. More recently, the DoJ has issued an opinion that "any recess longer than three days might be of sufficient
duration to trigger the recess appointment power."

4. Presidents have been using the power of the recess appointment for both practical and political purposes pretty much since George Washington.

The conclusion of the authors of this paper are:

"The practice of filling vacancies by executive fiat during Senate recesses is often controversial. The degree of controversy, and the political price paid by both president and appointee, are a function of the office that is being filled, the level of Senate support for the appointee, and the reasons behind the failure of the original nomination to clear the Senate. For example, although the recent recess appointments to the FTC may have displeased Senator Wyden, by far the loudest protests result from judicial recess appointments that are made in the face of multi-Senator filibusters—which, perhaps not coincidentally, are increasingly rare. Controversial though it may sometimes be, the president’s power under Article II to fill vacancies during Senate recesses is unquestionably constitutional, and its use for both practical and political reasons is as old as the republic itself. "

molly wrote on April 5, 2007 5:07 PM:

Ambassador to Belgium..not so important. Bush giving the middle finger to congress yet again and solidifying contempt...priceless.

Wag wrote on April 6, 2007 11:13 AM:

I would like to post the text of an e-mail that I sent Senate majority leader Reid. The democrats need to aggressively push back against the Presicdent on these "recess" appointments.

Dear Senator Reid-
As Senate Majority Leader, you are making a huge impression on the bush White House. I commend you for the work you are doing, and fully support your actions in concert with Rep. Pelosi.

President Bush's recent recess appointments indicate that the current White House will stoop as low as possible to maintain their unchecked power. It is time for the Senate to strongly answer these abuses.

What are the requirements for the Senate to remain officially in session? Would it be possible for the Senate to stay in session without going out on recess for the next 2 years?

I would urge you in the strongest way possible to find a way to avoid having the Senate go in to recess. If there is no recess, then there can be no abusive recess appointments.

Sincerely,

Wagner Schorr-Ratzlaff, MD

georgia wrote on April 6, 2007 8:11 PM:

wag,

I think Sen. James Inhofe have have explained the possible solution when he spoke regarding the recess appoint of James Hormel and the potential appointment of others.

From the Congeressional Record of 11/19/1999:

" Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all I applaud the White House--this is probably the first time I have done that in 7 years--for responding to an issue that is very critical, probably one of the most critical issues we will be facing.

Going back in the history of recess appointments, the Constitution provided for recess appointments to be allowed, thereby avoiding the constitutional prerogative of the Senate of advice and consent in certain conditions. The major condition was that a vacancy would occur during the course of the recess. This goes back to the horse-and-buggy days when we were in session for 2 or 3 months at a time and then we were gone. So if someone such as the Secretary of State would die in office, it would allow the President to replace that person without having to go through the advice and consent.

Throughout the years, both Democrat and Republican Presidents have abused this. They have made recess appointments. In 1985, President Reagan made quite a few of them. The majority at that time, the Democrats, under the majority leadership of Senator BYRD from West Virginia, made the determination that he was making too many recess appointments.

He challenged the President to submit a letter that would outline future recess appointments during the Reagan administration. In 1985, a letter was sent from President Reagan to then-majority leader, Senator BYRD from West Virginia that stated no more recess appointments would take place unless the names of the individuals who were considered for recess appointment were submitted in writing in sufficient time in advance that the majority or minority leaders could take some type of action.

For example, if they were going to have someone recess appointed for the express purpose of avoiding the advice and consent of the Senate, then they would just not go into recess; they would go into pro forma, where they would have someone in the Chair all the time to make sure that did not happen. Also, it would be an opportunity to make sure they were not doing it for the express purpose of avoiding advice and consent."

He goes on to explain some details then concludes with an ultimatum. It was that if the terms were not adhered to "[the Senate]will put a hold on every single judicial nominee of this President for the remainder of his term of office."

Kimmitt wrote on April 6, 2007 11:51 PM:

I think the notion of impeaching Fox is probably the best one.

kathleen wrote on April 8, 2007 3:08 PM:

Not confirmed kick his ass out. Send this chicken hawk liar to Iraq to serve as an ambassador.

Set him down naked with Bush and Cheney in Baghdad.

Kathleen wrote on April 8, 2007 3:12 PM:

Enough of Little King Bush! Impeach these guys!
Someone please give all of the members of the Bush administration blow jobs, maybe congress would impeach them for that since, a WMD intelligence snowjob, thousands dead as a result, torture, illegal wiretaping, massive corporate crime, record breaking oil profits, etc is not enough!

No recess ...No recess appointments. Smart!