Comments (725)

Steve5117 wrote on June 4, 2007 6:02 PM:

In reading through this statement...

“The limited category of improper reasons [to dismiss a U.S. Attorney] includes an effort to interfere with or influence the investigation or prosecution of a particular case for political or partisan advantage.�

To the DoJ it meant that it was okay to be partisan in all actions. To them it would be wrong to be partisan in a particular case and not be partisan in all the others.

sspt wrote on June 4, 2007 6:28 PM:

Thank you Rhode Island voters. Sen. Whitehouse states precisely the improper-leaning-to-obstruction actions by DOJ and once again makes Gonzo look like the worst law school graduate ever.

Seriously when are we going to impeach Gonzo?

Anonymous wrote on June 4, 2007 6:31 PM:

Congratulations to Sen. Whitehouse for being smart enough to recognize AG Gonzales' and other DOJ coordinated and carefully scripted qualifiers on their statements. Adding qualifiers like "in a particular case" is a wide spread technique in the Bush administration to issue smokescreen mistatements. I hope Sen. Whitehouse continues to follow up and pins them down on the qualifier "in a particular case". Taken together, the DOJ leadership denials using "in a particular case" indicate a concerted cover-up that they did indeed use firings to affect the outcome of cases for partisan purposes. In Gonzales' twisted mind, he is telling the truth that he did not try to change the outcome of a particular case because his goal was to change the outcome of multiple cases and multiple elections.

behindthefall wrote on June 4, 2007 6:32 PM:

Would it be unseemly to jump around cheering "Yay, Sheldon! Whitehouse for the White House!"

Lucky people with him for a Senator. Lucky country with him in the Senate.

I've been taught ABOUT the Socratic Method, but I have only ever SEEN it practiced by him. It is far more frightening and devastating than I had ever imagined.

code == design

Kbop wrote on June 4, 2007 6:37 PM:

Sen. Whitehouse,
I Love You.

Kbop

Anonymous wrote on June 4, 2007 6:52 PM:

Posted by: sspt
Date: June 4, 2007 06:28 PM

I would prefer the House -- out of the blue -- impeach Gonzalez and move without regard to whether Gonzalez will or will not be convicted. A stunning, no-notice impeachment would be a rude wake up call.

Impeachment means that the President cannot pardon Gonzalez. Period. Conversely, despite the option to impeach, it's reasonable to conclude that the DNC in Congress have crocodile tears over Gonzalez: There is an option to deny the President all power to pardon Gonzalez: Impeach. Impeachment doesn't mean Gonzalez is removed; it means that he's attached to something that denies the President the discretion to insulate one of his cronies.

As long as Congress refuses to impeach, but talk about "something else," it is clearly saying: "Despite our power to deny the President the option to do something, we're going to keep that option on the table _for the President_." Rather than keep the options open for the _Congress_, the DNC leadership appears more interested in keeping the President's discretion to block accountability _on the table_. So much for separate but co-equal branches: Can you say, "DNC Lapdogs of a Tyrant". November 2006 and the mandate for "change": More of the same excuses to do nothing, and not assert all lawful options.

Impeachment isn't the only option to deal with Gonzalez.
He can be prosecuted outside impeachment, just like the President and VP.
Let's hear some good reasons from the lazy American legal community: Why hasn't this AG been prosecuted, especially in light of the glaring misstatements before Congress on FISA, US Attorney, illegal surveillance?

Congressional inaction is not an excuse. There is a second prong: Not legislative-impeachment, but through the judicial branch. Or do the lazy American lawyers need to be reminded that there are three branches of government, all checking each other? Where there is imbalance and abuse of power by the AG in the Executive Branch, and the Legislature refuses to act, the remaining option is to prosecute. If the lawyers refuses to act, then we need to talk about who in the legal community is not doing all it can to fully defend this Constitution from this Attorney General.

Choose: Impeach or prosecute. Waiting time is over. This AG has exhausted his credibility and legal defenses.

ADVERSE INFORMATION ABOUT AG INSIDE DOJ: HOW LONG THEY BEEN SITTING ON THIS?

I would like to know: How long as the DOJ Staff counsel been sitting on these indictments; and how much evidence does the DoJ and the Grand Jury have that they are not timely acting on to prosecute this AG?

We need to find out why this has allowed to drag on this many years since 2001, and too many people think it's to difficult to put this together in a simple grand jury indictment and prosecute this AG. It shouldn't take this long, but this lazy legal crew has found too many excuses to not have timely asserted their oath of office and prosecute. We need to find out, and remove these impediments to ensure that there are credibly, timely checks on this abuse of power so that this is disclosed, the voters are aware, and can make informed decisions about whether the existing leadership is or is not using all its power to act on the information it has. it appears there is alot of information people in DoJ are sitting on. Time to get some straight answer: How bad were they going to let this get before they decide to finally prosecute AG?

Utterly contemptible DoJ and US government leadership for their laziness, untimely action, and excuses not to both prosecute and impeach US government officials for this widespread abuse of power, misconduct, and illegal activity. Disgusting and a contemptible embarrassment for the US legacy around the world. Nobody should be surprised why the Taliban and Iraqi insurgency are inspired, get support, and are making inroads: They appear to e more competent in challenging the very abuses the US supposedly said it was fighting.

bb wrote on June 4, 2007 7:08 PM:

Why does this worthless, hole-in-the-ground, just barely human, Nazi, facist, Kool-Aid guzzling a$$hole still have a job?

Jus... askin'...

anon wrote on June 4, 2007 7:17 PM:

...impeach Gonzalez...

How? The votes aren't there.

Ducky wrote on June 4, 2007 7:24 PM:

Way to go Senator Whitehouse. At least there is one senator willing to hold gonzo's corrupt little feet to the fire. Can he be disbarred in Texas? Wouldn't that take care of him serving as AG? People with more legal knowledge than I will be able to answer these questions.

Anonymous wrote on June 4, 2007 7:32 PM:

Berenson's client is the subject to a subsequent Congressional inquiry:

-------------------------
REF: Sen Whitehouse Letter
QUOTE: That standard was first articulated to the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 29, 2007 by Kyle Sampson, the former Chief of Staff to the Attorney General, when he said:

“The limited category of improper reasons [to dismiss a U.S. Attorney] includes an effort to interfere with or influence the investigation or prosecution of a particular case for political or partisan advantage.�
ENDQUOTE
--------------------------

At the same time that the Senate and DOJ/IG review this, put the question to Sampson's Attorney Berenson:

A. Alleged Attorney Involvement With Misleading Congress

To what extent did you Berenson guide your client Sampson to provide misleading, inaccurate statements to the tribunal?

B. Hatch Act, Data Retention

How was this statement discussed through the use of RNC e-mails?

C. Alleged Intent To Mislead, Counsel Involvement

How do you distinguish between a "particular Case" and "many cases"?

D. Client Ambiguous Statement: How can It Be "Consistent"?

Is your client saying that influence of "many" or "more than one" is not within his statement?

E. Dubious Qualifications

Does your clients statement have nothing to say about "multiple" or "more than one" effort to affect multiple cases?

F. Dubious Assertions of Lawfulness: Cannot Be Reasonably Relied On [Repeat Finding, Judge Vaughn]

Does "interfere with" or "influence the investigation" include asking private counsel to issue subpoenas to identify the source of leaks from the NSA, EOP, and your law firm, for purposes of squelching the transfer of evidence from the US government/your firm to investigators, war crimes prosecutors, and others interested in issuing criminal indictments?

G. Alleged Misleading Public Statements By Counsel

What is your office's view of "proper" reason to dismiss something as it relates to issuing public statements about your firm; or identifying how your firm was associated with Boeing in re rendition?

H. Impressible Demand For Silence From Intelligence Community Connected with VP

If the effort to "interfere" with an investigation includes a desire to identify who inside the CIA or Abraxas is discussing specific communications related to illegal activity, is that something Sidley Austin would like to discuss; or is this outside what the Boeing contract term calls for?

I. Dubious Assertions of Employment Contract Legality -- Counsel's Alleged involvement with Dubious language, assurances; Reliance -- Alleged Extortion To Remain Silent About Alleged War Crimes

Is it "permissible" to "interfere" with an investigation if there has been a contract clause included that says any disclosure of illegal activity -- which cannot be lawfully hidden -- is the basis for prosecutions?

J. Unenforceable Employment Contracts -- Impermissible Threats of Prosecution: Unlawful Contracts, Unlawful Objective -- Compelling Silence on Illegal Activity, War Crimes

How were the threats of prosecutions included in various NSA-FISA contracts to ensure silence about illegal activity?

K. Dubious NSL Basis

Is it "permissible" to issue NSLs or subpoenas to stifle public discussion of war crimes, FISA violations, illegal activity by WH Counsel in rendition?

L. Alleged Improper Use of NSLs To Suppress War Crimes Evidence

How many NSLs has the WH asked NSA intermediaries, DoJ, or Sidley Austin to process that hope to target personnel formerly associated with the NSA, CIA, or EOP for purpose of silencing discussion about illegal FISA violations, unlawful use of subpoenas to stifle investigations, or dissuade public communications with Congress on issues of war crimes, prisoner abuse, FISA violations, and other illegal activity?

M. Dubious Segment Test

If the "objective" of the interference or influence was not for an _exclusive_ "partisan" advantage, does this mean that the misconduct, abuse, and activity is lawful; and Sidley Austin endorses this conduct, but it is "OK" if only a "small" part was "really bad"?

N. Alleged Conspiracy: Stated Intent At Odds With Known Objective, Understanding

What if the "minor" aspect of illegal conduct was for a "partisan" gain, but the "majority" of the objective was for a 'secret" goal -- illegally classified to hide the evidence?

O. Dubious Portion Test

What if the "majority" of the goal was to do something that you as WH counsel said was "legal,"; despite the Supreme Court saying that Geneva did apply ;and that DoD did not properly define someone as being an unlawful combatant?

P. Inadequate Judicial Review

_Who_ decides whether the activity is "mostly" or "somewhat" or "a little" related to illegal activity: President, court, Congress, law firm, contract with NSA-Verizon which remains secret and subject to an NSL-gag rule?

Q. Illegal Classification of Unlawful Activity

Can this decision be documented in a secret EOP/WH memoranda, but not coordinated with DoJ OLC and outside counsel at Sidley Austin?

R. Dubious Assertions of Intent At Odds With Alleged Reckless, Misleading Statements by Counsel, DoJ Staff, DoJ OLC, WH Counsel

Is it "OK" to to do something if the "intent" of that activity isn't to "exclusively" interference, but to achieve another [dubious] national security objective: Hide evidence of illegal activity; hide evidence form Congress; remain loyal to Addington's assertions/conclusion in the Iran-contra affair; protect friends who helped drafted the John Dean-described "illegal" Bybee memo; hide evidence of lawyers complicity with unlawful conduct; hide evidence that lawyers drafted illegal orders permitting/not stopping war crimes; doing things that will dissuade others from issuing grand jury indictments against formerly assigned WH counsel for their alleged refusal to timely remove themselves from illegal activity, as required under DC Disciplinary rules 1.6?

S. Ambiguous Substantially Test

Is it "permissible" to do things that are not "substantially" designed to mislead the Congress, the Vaughn court, voters, and auditors?

T. Alleged Improper Subpoenas To Target War Crimes Witnesses

How many subpoenas can Sidley Austin issue to identify who inside the EOP is leaking evidence of war crimes, Sidley Austin memoranda, and Berenson's notes/working papers as they allegedly relate to war crimes, prisoner abuse, rendition, and grave breaches of Geneva: Enough to hide the activity that appears to have a chilling effect; enough to prevent people from finding out that NSLs may have been used to hide evidence of war crimes?

U. SEC: Allegations of Insider Trading by Sidley Austin Partners on Basis of Alleged False information in re Boeing Legality, Despite Apparent Known Violations of Law With Rendition

How much money did Sidley Austin partners stand to get if they were silent to the open market/SEC about Boeing's alleged involvement with rendition: How many shares of Boeing subsidiaries did Sidley Austin partners buy in advance of releasing what they knew, or should have known, was an allegedly reckless statement which failed to account for the Boeing involvement with alleged illegal activity; was there adequate consideration for PSLRA or Rule 10b-5 of the 1933/34 Acts in all Sidley Statements/review of the Boeing papers prior to releasing their opinions in re Boeing and legality of all Boeing activities?

JNagarya wrote on June 4, 2007 8:52 PM:

"Thank you Rhode Island voters. Sen. Whitehouse states precisely the improper-leaning-to-obstruction actions by DOJ and once again makes Gonzo look like the worst law school graduate ever."

Which should mean the Democrats are not bashed, because they are doing as demanded, within current limits dictated by political reality.

"Seriously when are we going to impeach Gonzo?"

When sufficient Republicans cease foot-dragging and join the Democrats toward that end.

"Posted by: sspt
Date: June 4, 2007 06:28 PM"

Meanwhile, I kinda like the idea of Gonzales staying right where he is. He's neutralized, he keeps the issues alive and frint and center, and he continues to damage Bushit and the Republicans.

JNagarya wrote on June 4, 2007 8:56 PM:

"Congratulations to Sen. Whitehouse for being smart enough to recognize AG Gonzales' and other DOJ coordinated and carefully scripted qualifiers on their statements. Adding qualifiers like "in a particular case" is a wide spread technique in the Bush administration to issue smokescreen mistatements. I hope Sen. Whitehouse continues to follow up and pins them down on the qualifier "in a particular case". Taken together, the DOJ leadership denials using "in a particular case" indicate a concerted cover-up that they did indeed use firings to affect the outcome of cases for partisan purposes. In Gonzales' twisted mind, he is telling the truth that he did not try to change the outcome of a particular case because his goal was to change the outcome of multiple cases and multiple elections.

"Posted by:
Date: June 4, 2007 06:31 PM"

1. Senator Whitehouse is a former US Attorney.

2. Gonazles knows he is being intellectually dishonest.

Even Bushit has sufficient conscience that he not only knows when he's lying, but he shows his guilt when he is caught at it.

Samsara wrote on June 4, 2007 9:03 PM:

Dear Senator Whitehouse,

Why are you disturber about the way AGAG defines improper? Don't you remember, this is the same man who defined torture as taking place only when organ failure occurs. Improper is defined in the same way. An action is improper only if a crime is committed. He’s not corrupt, he’s consistent.

Steve5117 wrote on June 4, 2007 9:03 PM:

JNagarya

I agree, let him dangle on the rope awhile. I'm just waiting for him to be booed at some public function, like they did to Andrew Card at UMASS.

If I see him coming down a street in Foggy Bottom I'd probably get sick, all over him!

JNagarya wrote on June 4, 2007 9:11 PM:

"Posted by: sspt
Date: June 4, 2007 06:28 PM

"I would prefer the House -- out of the blue -- impeach Gonzalez and move without regard to whether Gonzalez will or will not be convicted. A stunning, no-notice impeachment would be a rude wake up call."

And the Republicans wouldn't know even though some of their votes would be needed to impeach?

"Impeachment means that the President cannot pardon Gonzalez. Period."

Substantiate.

I knew you couldn't.

"Conversely, despite the option to impeach, it's reasonable to conclude that the DNC in Congress have crocodile tears over Gonzalez: There is an option to deny the President all power to pardon Gonzalez: Impeach. Impeachment doesn't mean Gonzalez is removed; it means that he's attached to something that denies the President the discretion to insulate one of his cronies."

Substantiate.

I knew you couldn't.

"November 2006 and the mandate for "change": More of the same excuses to do nothing, and not assert all lawful options."

How many votes would it take to impeach? Sufficent that the Democrats do not yet by themselves have them.

"He can be prosecuted outside impeachment, just like the President and VP."

By whom?

"Let's hear some good reasons from the lazy American legal community: Why hasn't this AG been prosecuted, especially in light of the glaring misstatements before Congress on FISA, US Attorney, illegal surveillance?"

There are two basic kinds of law: civil, and criminal. The state prosecutes violations of criminal law.

Also: research the legal term "standing".

"Congressional inaction is not an excuse. There is a second prong: Not legislative-impeachment, but through the judicial branch. Or do the lazy American lawyers need to be reminded that there are three branches of government, all checking each other?"

See above.

"Where there is imbalance and abuse of power by the AG in the Executive Branch, and the Legislature refuses to act, the remaining option is to prosecute. If the lawyers refuses to act, then we need to talk about who in the legal community is not doing all it can to fully defend this Constitution from this Attorney General."

The gov't prosecutes violations of criminal -- not the private bar.

You sure can pontificate, and at length, without knowing what you're talking about.

Congress can appoint a special prosecutor -- if, that it, it has sufficient votes to do so. At present, the Democrats do not have sufficient votes to do that.

ADVERSE INFORMATION ABOUT AG INSIDE DOJ: HOW LONG THEY BEEN SITTING ON THIS?

"I would like to know: How long as the DOJ Staff counsel been sitting on these indictments; and how much evidence does the DoJ and the Grand Jury have that they are not timely acting on to prosecute this AG?"

What in hell are you talking about? What "indicitments"?

"We need to find out why this has allowed to drag on this many years since 2001, and too many people think it's to difficult to put this together in a simple grand jury indictment and prosecute this AG."

The grand jury is an instrument of the state, not of the private bar.

"It shouldn't take this long, but this lazy legal crew has found too many excuses to not have timely asserted their oath of office and prosecute."

Your use of the word "fatally" quickly became annoying. So now it's "timely". Stop pretending you know what the hell you're talking about.

JNagarya wrote on June 4, 2007 9:22 PM:

". . . . Can he be disbarred in Texas? Wouldn't that take care of him serving as AG? People with more legal knowledge than I will be able to answer these questions.

"Posted by: Ducky
Date: June 4, 2007 07:24 PM"

It's complex, and "messy". Many states have adopted the ABA ethical standards as their offical code of ethics. Others have not. Some states operate in accordance with an arbitrary "mix" of the ABA, and their own.

At the same time, neither the ABA nor a state bar ass'n "prosecutes" such cases, as the license to practice law is from the state (or Federal) gov't, not from the bar ass'n. About the most a bar ass'n can do is investigate, and make recommendation.

But I've yet to see a case in which a lawyer committed malpractice -- the malpractice being proven -- and was held to account for it as the outcome of trial. Though the canons hold that the lawyer is responsible for the actions and work of his non-lawyer staff, the lawyer in such cases blames someone on the staff, and the court affirms that.

It can be done. But who's going to initiate the process?

JNagarya wrote on June 4, 2007 9:33 PM:

"Berenson's client is the subject to a subsequent Congressional inquiry:

"-------------------------
REF: Sen Whitehouse Letter

"QUOTE: That standard was first articulated to the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 29, 2007 by Kyle Sampson, the former Chief of Staff to the Attorney General, when he said:

"“The limited category of improper reasons [to dismiss a U.S. Attorney] includes an effort to interfere with or influence the investigation or prosecution of a particular case for political or partisan advantage.�"

ENDQUOTE
--------------------------

"At the same time that the Senate and DOJ/IG review this, put the question to Sampson's Attorney Berenson:

"A. Alleged Attorney Involvement With Misleading Congress

"To what extent did you Berenson guide your client Sampson to provide misleading, inaccurate statements to the tribunal?"

Berenson is not the issue; his client Samson is.

If you had a clue about how little you know about law, and due process, you'd be so emabarrassed you'd cease posting your arrogant's self-"righteous" crap.

Essentially your fantasy is that a prosecutor, if he doesn't like the answers he's getting from the defendant, can then turn on the defendant's lawyer and pillory him as if he were the defendant.

Neither law nor reason work that way.

Anonymous wrote on June 4, 2007 11:23 PM:

Faulty argument: Despite no information, asserting what "the issue" is or is not. That's an appeal to ignorance, and not a credible basis to focus or not focus an inquiry. There is no basis to say that an issue is or is not something, especially when the broader inquiry has not ended.

This is incorrect: "Berenson is not the issue; his client Samson is."
Berenson has another hat: Former White House counsel. If he's assisted Sampson with illegal activity, that's a secondary issue and of interest. Premature to say that is "not" an issue.

A. What role, if improper, did Berenson play in Sampson's representations?

B. Did Berenson withdraw, as required, under DC Rules, if Sampson was engaged in illegal activity; and using Berenson to advance that illegal activity? [See DC 1.6; 1.16]

C. Did Berenson withdraw as required; or did he, despite knowing of illegal activity, continue representation, in contravention to the rule?

It's not credible to assert that Berenson cannot be asked questions about legal issues while he was WH counsel; or for what he may or may not be lawfully doing.

DoJ's Comey shows a lawyer is not immune to Congressional inquiry, especially since Comey and Berenson have made inconsistent statements.
That Berenson is "counsel" is irrelevant to whether Berenson was or was not complicit with illegal activity, either as WH Counsel, or subsequently with Sidley Austin. TBD.

It's premature to say that Berenson is "not" the issue; especially when the questions have not been asked. Sampson must have gotten legal advise from somewhere; yet, we're asked to believe Bronson's isn't a target. What kind of visibility does the Grand Jury have of Berenson's notes sent through RNC e-mails and what does the Grand Jury know about Berenson's review/access to the RNC e-mails?
TBD.

Three is no basis to assert with any certainty that Berenson is _not_ the issue; when, as WH Counsel, he may be fully involved with "the issue": War crimes planning, Geneva violations, illegal memoranda, prisoner abuse, and threats against legal counsel not to prosecute DoJ Staff for war crimes involvement. TBD. No statute of limitations; no basis for anyone to take anything off the table. It appears Berenson could be a target, especially given his convoluted statements on [a] Rendition, [b] Sampson's' testimony, and [c] questionable legal positions on AT&T/FISA violations. It's not credible to hide illegal activity behind executive privilege, nor in assertions of what is or is not an issue.

There are many hands, and Berenson knows them intimately.

Anonymous wrote on June 4, 2007 11:36 PM:

[ See this Problematic post: Posted by: JNagarya Date: June 4, 2007 09:11 PM ]

See Turley. [Jonathan Turley, "From Pillar to Post": The Prosecution of Sitting Presidents, 37 American Criminal Law Review 1049-1106 (2000); ]

There were too many errors to post an adequate response. States AGs can prosecute.

If you need "proof" of what is lawful, you'll have to read Turley's article, and the others who have discussed. Unable to repost the article here.

Short answer: You're wrong. Blackstone spoke about denying pardons on impeachment, which does not necessarily include Senate action, just the House.

Legal community can work together, or not. To date, we see no prosecutions of AG or the President _despite the option_. This is a problem for legal community, esp. with DC Bar Rules 1.16, 1.6 -- withdrawl _requirements_ when information used for illegal purposes.

State citizens can pention for a grand jury. Lawyers could lead this petition effort, but are not. Strike against legal counsel for not fully asserting 5 USC 3331.

Anonymous wrote on June 4, 2007 11:45 PM:

If the legal community doesn't want to fully assert 5 USC 3331, then this is on the table:War crimes prosecutions against legal counsel [truncated url:]
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/
ftrials/nuremberg/Alstoetter.htm

No statute of limitations. DoJ OLC apparently botched NSLs, rendition, prisoner abuse. Either they withdrew per 1.16/1.6 or they did not.

Question on the table: Given the DOJ Staff apparent illegalities in re NSLs, what memoranda/work flows were they involved as it relates to war crimes? If there was "no problem," why the mad scramble to transfer prisoners from E. Europe to Guantanamo?

The same pattern of conduct with US Atty firings -- WH legal/political/public relations involvement -- also linked through the RNC e-mails in re larger issues. Implausible to argue that only "some" illegal activity sent in violation of Hatch Act, but "somehow" the E.European violations just appeared out of the blue without DoJ OLC knowledge.

"The issue" isn't Sampson, or the US Attorney firings -- but how the e-mails shed light on what happened in re EOP, DoJ, and DoD coordination with the WH on war crimes/Geneva violations. Lawyers well know the war crimes issues. Enforced either though impeachment, prosecutions, or -- if the US refuses to enforce the laws -- through combat. US refuses to do the First two, and loses in the last.

Lawyers have well shown in Iraq that they are not competent combatant commanders. US Atty firings is a symptom of the same system/people linked with Geneva violations.

Anonymous wrote on June 5, 2007 12:05 AM:

Let's run through a scenario: A lawyer, who took a 5 USC 3331 oath of office to defend the Constitution, reads about Turley's "prosecuting a sitting President." We're asked to believe that after reading this article, the following is impossible:

READING ATTY: "State AG, read this Turley article?"

STATE AG: "Yes, I've read it."

READING ATTY: "Well...?"

STATE AG: "No can do, Congress doesn't permit me to think or act independetly, I'm a robot."

READING ATTY: "OK, never mind. Sorry to bother you."

What a load! Atty's talk to eachother about law reviews, and they share idas: CLE, dicsssion, conferences in Hawaii. If they're not sharing ideas, then let's cancel their funding they're usig from the coroproate boards, and make them pay o9ut of pocket for things they are not doing.

This is what should be happening:

REWADING ATTY: "Yo, State AG, I think we need to use the prosecution option, Cogress isn't doing their job. We have a 5 USC 3331 obligation to act."

STATE AG: "YOu're right. PUt toegther a draft indictement. Let's do this."

READING ATTY: It's already in your in-box.

STATE AG: "Wow, you're fast. Looks good to me. Let's file this today.

READY ATTY: "...Berenson's atty will ask for a copy..."

STATE AG: "...or should we post it now on the website and fax. . ."

READING ATTY: "So, I'll put you down as one of the 'Constitutional' lawyers."

STATE AG: "That's right, I read TPM. I hate it when Turley is right. Again."

READING ATTY: "Process server will find DoJ OLC and we'll get this going in the State Court. Today."

STATE AG: "Brilliant. Rat bastards in the WH never saw this coming."

READING ATTY: "Sure they did, they read TPM."

STATE AG: "They're still screwed."

READING ATTY: "And waterboarding is on the table."

STATE AG, READING ATTY: Laughter, hangup.

Doom sinks in at the DOJ OLC. Berenson calls Chicago. "They're doing it again...wah, wah..."

JNagarya wrote on June 5, 2007 12:08 AM:

"[ See this Problematic post: Posted by: JNagarya Date: June 4, 2007 09:11 PM ]"

Not law.

"See Turley. [Jonathan Turley, "From Pillar to Post": The Prosecution of Sitting Presidents, 37 American Criminal Law Review 1049-1106 (2000);]"

Not law.

"There were too many errors to post an adequate response. States AGs can prosecute."

State AGs cannot prosecute violations of Federal law.

"If you need "proof" of what is lawful, you'll have to read Turley's article, and the others who have discussed. Unable to repost the article here."

I have an actual education in actual law. You do not. Your arrogance is neither equivalent nor sufficent.

"Short answer: You're wrong. Blackstone spoke about denying pardons on impeachment, which does not necessarily include Senate action, just the House."

Do we determine law by means of a non-law text by Blackstone?

"Legal community can work together, or not."

Substantiate.

"To date, we see no prosecutions of AG or the President _despite the option_."

Despite what option? The fact is that the gov't, not the private bar, and not private citizens, prosecutes crimes.

"This is a problem for legal community, esp. with DC Bar Rules 1.16, 1.6 -- withdrawl _requirements_ when information used for illegal purposes."

You don't have a clue.

"State citizens can pention for a grand jury. Lawyers could lead this petition effort, but are not. Strike against legal counsel for not fully asserting 5 USC 3331."

According to whom can private state citizens petition for a grand jury?

"Posted by:
Date: June 4, 2007 11:36 PM"

Slippery Slope wrote on June 5, 2007 12:16 AM:

...impeach Gonzalez...

How? The votes aren't there.

Posted by: anon
Date: June 4, 2007 07:17 PM
****************************************
Come on...

The American public know what is going on. The impeachment process itself will lay open new information; will further educate the public.

It is time for the Republican Congress members that think We The People are not watching to vote on articles of impeachement. Time to have everyone go on the record. What side are you one?

Vote for continued corruption

OR

Vote for the Constitution

Then come Nov. 7th, 2008 the Republican Riech will be toast.

Anonymous wrote on June 5, 2007 12:17 AM:

Posted by: JNagarya
Date: June 5, 2007 12:08 AM

'[ See this Problematic post: Posted by: JNagarya Date: June 4, 2007 09:11 PM ]' "Not law." YOu citen no law that says the STate AG may not proseucte a sitting President. Read Turley for the law.

"See Turley. [Jonathan Turley, "From Pillar to Post": The Prosecution of Sitting Presidents, 37 American Criminal Law Review 1049-1106 (2000);]"

There is no bar to prosecuting a US President at the state level.

Show the law that says this is impossible. You fail.
=======================================

Irrelevant: "State AGs cannot prosecute violations of Federal law." Talking about _State_ Laws. Look at the NSA litigation over privacy.

"Do we determine law by means of a non-law text by Blackstone?" Constitution states clearly on issue impeachment and pardons ARticle II S2, Blackstone amplifies. Look it up.

'Legal community can work together, or not.' "Substantiate." ALready did, you're not listening.

'To date, we see no prosecutions of AG or the President _despite the option_.' "Despite what option? The fact is that the gov't, not the private bar, and not private citizens, prosecutes crimes." Legal community could provide leadership to work with the AG's, but they are not.

'This is a problem for legal community, esp. with DC Bar Rules 1.16, 1.6 -- withdrawl _requirements_ when information used for illegal purposes.' "You don't have a clue." Noisy withdrawal for involvement with illegal activity. Can't help you on DC Bar Rules.

'State citizens can pention for a grand jury. Lawyers could lead this petition effort, but are not. Strike against legal counsel for not fully asserting 5 USC 3331.' "According to whom can private state citizens petition for a grand jury?" Go read the Statutes: NM, OK.

Get a lawyer.

Anonymous wrote on June 5, 2007 12:22 AM:

"I have an actual education in actual law."

Substantiate.

There is no "Nagara" under any legal listing as an attorney. Whether you have a law degree or not is irrelevant. You're not listening, nor reading the cited law in Turley's paper. Your problem: You do not have access to Turley's paper. I do.

There's a reason that you can't get access to Turley's paper. You're at home, and not able to access the database. Fatal disclosure.

Anonymous wrote on June 5, 2007 12:26 AM:

Joe,

Did you write this: "I also know that matters are made more complicated than necessary by getting lost amid the trees/details instead of actually reading the Constitution; then the details of the decision become nearly irrelevant as to content."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/01/02/010228_supremes.html

If so, look up the issues on impeachment/pardon yourself. You can read: "instead of actually reading the Constitution".

Follow your own advice.

Anonymous wrote on June 5, 2007 12:30 AM:

Joe,

On the Rand Rhodes show, there's a Joseph Nagarya
"Communications Director" involved.
http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index.php?showuser=25698

Is that you; if so, make the cas that there's a link betweeen [a] your career; [b] your legal comments; and [c] your legal education.

Substantiate.

If you want to talk about "the law," you're going to have to read Turley's article and the legal citations. If you don't have access right now, maybe you could talk to someone who can send you an e-mail with the Law Review article attached.

Whether you want to talk to Turley directly on this is up to you. We're not having a conversation.

Anonymous wrote on June 5, 2007 12:42 AM:

Joe,

I've got two e-mails for you: Are you asking me to send the Turley Paper to you to Boston?

jnagarya@888.nu
jnagarya2@

I also see someone with your name in Boston, Joseph nagarya Boston MA listed as a "writer". Is this the same Joe?

If you are a "writer" why aren't you looking up this material yourself to cross check the validity of the information? How do you reconcile the statements attributed to someonen with your name on "looking up the Constitution," but you're not apparently willing to do the same?

====================================

BIG PICTURE: If impeachment is not an option, thebn prosecutions remain an option. If the legal communmity -- writers, lwayers, and others -- refuse to put their legal education to use, then we need to look at what is failing with the legal training in America:

A. Why, despite an oath, do legal professionals seem to have a hard time looking a law reviews of their peers?

B> WHy despite standards of conduct in DC Bar rules on mandatory withdrawals, do we not see those withdawls?

C. Despiote illegal aconduct since 2001, and no action from Congress to impeach, what's requird to get lazy legal "professionals" off their rear end and organize -- WRITE -- some indictments to share with their AGs?

I have no answers other than the Constitution: Either we have fully defense of this Constution; or we do not. Either the legal community aserts its 5 uSC 3331 oath; or it does not. Either legal wwriters are using their skills to defnd the COnstution and independently think or they are not.

Boston, MA is where the Paul Revere's rode. There are statutes there. The roads are thin, and windy. BOston's been kep as it once was, while combining the modern conveniences.

AMerica must decide whether it will build on the old with a new socity; or make excuse to stick with what is not working. Boston sees that the future has arrived; and that the world can embrace modern standards and historical principles.

The legal community must decide whether it will rise to the occaision, or whether it will -- as was done in 1776 with Paul Revere -- sound the alarm, and do what needs to be done to defend whta we have. Then, it wa freedom; today it is This Constitution.

Joe, decide now whether you are going to read Tiurley's article; or whether you want to be a foe of the Constitution. You have to choose.

Anonymous wrote on June 5, 2007 1:18 AM:

What's most baffling about this entire situation with WHitehouse's comments: He's not just talking to a witness, but a _lawyer_ in the DOJ to explain himself.
Imagine that: Congress, despite an awesome power to shut down funding, is getting this kind of non-sense from legal "professionals": The some kind of nuances one would get from a criminal defendant who has been caught, but is screaming with denial.

I don't know about the rest of America, but it sure seems bizarre that so called "leaders" in the DOJ -- who were former WH Counsel -- are using this kind of nuance, which Whitehouse challenges, yet the counsel expect nothing to happen.

Reasonable patience is nearing exhaustion. Congress may think that it can merrily go along, but the States do have the option to outflank the Congress and directly prosecute not just the AG, POTUS, VP, but Members of Congress. Obviously, whether that issue/option is pursued is a secondary matter.

I'm amazed where we are: Members of Congress are having to act like prosecutors against _DOJ Staff_. DoJ doesn't realize that there is a public trial going on _right now_: The court of public opinion.

The best the DoJ Staff can offer is non-sense; the worst they can offer are excuses to hide illegal activity. Berenson is classically doing this on issues of NSA-Rendition-FISA violations; yet the reality of Executive Orders is: _Illegal activity cannot be classified_, as Berenson appears to have illegally asserted/done/justified in memoranda.

The initial problem is the illegal activity with the US Atty Memoranda. The larger4 issue is how that pattern of conduct -- as it relates to the US Atty firings/WH-legal-political-public affairs relates to conduct related to larger Geneva issues. It's a big event when WH lawyers and DOJ Staff counsel have their words parsed because their assertions cannot be taken on face value; and they no longer have credibility to be seen for what they are: Lawyers.
This problem with the legal community -- whatever it is -- should have been the subject of the legal community to review and monitor. whether the legal community "should" or "should not" or "does or Does not" do this _is part of the discussion_:

A. What is a solution: Does the ABA need to have some governance standards so it is regulated;
B> Should the State Attorney Disciplinary boards Harv a Federal oversight mechanism so there are timely audits and interventions to wake up legal counsel
C> what is going to inject some interest in the legal community to assert all options to defend the Constitution?

Whatever this GOP legal crew did, it needs to be understood, but the solution cannot be something that is easily circumvented, but one that is _impossible_ to undermine, otherwise we'll be here every week talking about the same issue.
I'm all for statutory reforms; the problem is when the GOP-majority party ignores the law, but refuses to enforce it. The way our governance system works, there needs to be an automatic system that -- regardless who controls the US government -- the investigations, prosecutions continue to defend the Constitution. This isn't happening today. Today's problem is that Congress and the President have to "agree" to do what they took at an oath to do: Defend the Constitution. NO, they are denied that discretion in theory; yet in practice they can refuse to do what would reasonably be expected to have occurred: Full assertion of the oath to go after peers, disbar legal counsel who have drafted illegal memoranda, and clean up the cess pool in the legal community to ensure the Constitution is first.

If the laws are first, then the Taliban and Insurgency in Iraq will see that we are serious about raising our standards. The legal community has done the opposite: Rationlized abuse, inspired the opposition, and left us in a less secure position. If the US government is going to serve as a _legitimate government_ [one that relies on written law], then the law must e first, not the legal community's apparent loyalty non-loyality to nonsense, inaction, and excuses.
The lawyers and legal "professionals" have screwed this up, not acted, and made excuses for inaction., This needs to end. Either thy are prosecuted; or the new system of governance needs to be reformed so that the legal professionals face a meaningful, timely, and swift consequences for letting this abuse of power occur. Ever.

Our Constitution has worked for the most part. However, the GOP and this Congress has not protected it from this President. Time for the legal community to choose: Between the President or the Constitution. Until they choose, presume they have chosen illegal rebellion; gather evidence; preserve it; and await further guidance from lawful authorities.

We the People -- not the lazy, reckless, and incompetent legal counsel with closed minds -- will be the last and final defenders of this Constitution. This legal community has failed us. Time to transform that community, and remind them We the People -- not the legal community-- is the client and source of _all power_. America's legal community can be lawfully transformed into something that is not recognizable, is functioning, and does what needs to be done: Preserve, protected, and defend _This_ Constitution against this Congress and this President. America's legal community has failed. They have a leadership problem.

We the People are the leaders, not the lazy reckless legal community that Senator Whitehouse well shows must be grilled, questioned, and closely monitored. Eternal vigilance is the price for having lawyers and lazy legal professionals.

I do not want to hear this non-sense, "The law does not permit. ..[defends of the Constitution.]" Baloney. Then the system needs to be fixed so that it does what the Members of congress and legal community said they _would_ do. They took an oath; time to hold them to it. Geneva is part of this oath -- the US Atty e-mails and Sen. Whitehouse questions of Sampson and others point to larger issues suggesting DoJ and WH Staff have been ignoring more serious issues: Legal requirements under Article 892 of Geneva to ensure the Conventions were fully implemented, not explained away as this legal crew apparently has done; and the larger legal crew apparently refuses to take action to enforce or demand peer withdrawals per DC Rule 1.16/1.6.

Anonymous wrote on June 5, 2007 1:42 AM:

Posted by: Slippery Slope
Date: June 5, 2007 12:16 AM

I agree, voting is important.

However, today is Jun2007, not Nov2008. We have 18 months, and then it Will start again for 2010. I'm tired of "waiting around" for the election; time to fully assert lawful power through all lawful means:
A. Impeachment
B. State prosecutions of VP, AG< POTUS;
C. State prosecutions of Members of Congress;
D. Organizing Grand Jury indictments/reviews/subpoenas

All US government officials -- forever -- should be on notice: If they refuse to do their job, they shall suffer the lawful backlash through all lawful assertions of power by We the People. Either they do their jobs, or the justice system is going to slam them hard. If not now, then eventually.

They way forward is, yes, plan for the "next" election; but also use _this_ election to call the leadership to account: Will you or will you not do your job _today_ without excuses; or do you need to be in jail to think about your oath?
Jail time or find the time. Playing nice with Congress isn't working: Being mean means holding them to the law, their oath, and finding out how long they've known about the illegal war crimes, but have refused to act. We can find out. The question is whether the legal community and Congress are willing to honestly face the truth; or whether they need some oversight and assistance. Some want the truth, but more still need some hand holding. We the People have the power to lawfully drive home the points through state-led efforts to investigate, oversee, review, and call to account the data related to events 2001-2007. No one, no generation, and no American should have to endure this non-sense, especially when there remain lawful options to more credibly focus America's fighting spirit and prevail on all fronts.

This reckless legal leadership has let us down, ignored the law, and pretended that the violations would not have consequences in combat. They miscalculated at Abu Ghraib, in Eastern Europe, at Guantanamo, in Afghanistan, and Iraq. They continue to miscalculate in the Department of justice. Obviously there is a leadership problem: The AG< the President, and VP need to be prosecuted, and the system needs to be reformed so that this kind of trash-leadership is timely-lawfully removed. If impeachment is not used, then as Ashcroft said, prosecutions need to timely do what congress has shown it is not inclined to do because of the unfavorable weather.

I'd like to see some serious discussion -- based on what little we know -- what a credible solution to this failure in the legal community is: What would a New Constitution look like; how will prosecutions/enforcement occur regardless who/what is in power; what will be done to ensure that the media is not stifled from reporting on illegal war crimes and violations of the Constitution.
Americans may have been intimidated in 2003 to be silent about doubts over Iraq WMD. Americans learned the hard way: There's more to the problem. The GOP refuses to look inward and reform; We the People are not required to put up, as an alternative, the DNC non-sense. No, we can lawfully transform the government into something that is fatal to the interests of both the GOP and DNC. All options are on the table: Solutions, not excuses.

Saying, "It will never happen," is something a humming bird ignores when told it cannot fly. Beware the non-leaders who say, "It cannot be done." It's already been written. If you're smart and think you know what's going on, you'll know where to find it.

Mike Valentine wrote on June 5, 2007 1:52 AM:

Impeach Gonzales for America.

Support the troops Impeach Bush.

code word: past as in past due.

Mike Valentine wrote on June 5, 2007 1:52 AM:

Impeach Gonzales for America.

Support the troops Impeach Bush.

code word: past as in past due.

Anonymous wrote on June 5, 2007 2:30 AM:

SC: LOCK.

As in Lock and Load?

As in Lock up Gonzo...because of the Load of crap he keeps feeding our duly-elected representatives in Congress?

As in Lock up all the criminals in the Bush administration who've mocked our democracy and committed treasonous acts in pursuit of one-party, totalitarian, monopolistic rule.

As in Lock them all up and throw away the key, before they do anymore damage to our great nation and further endanger the future of our nation's children?

Book'em, Danno.

JNagarya wrote on June 5, 2007 3:12 AM:

"Joe, decide now whether you are going to read Tiurley's article; or whether you want to be a foe of the Constitution. You have to choose."

I already told you, ass: Turley's article is _NOT LAW_.

Posted by:
Date: June 5, 2007 12:42 AM

JNagarya wrote on June 5, 2007 3:16 AM:

"There are many hands, and Berenson knows them intimately.

"Posted by:
Date: June 4, 2007 11:23 PM"

Berenson is not the issue of this thread.

Take your unsubstantiated conspirabunk and innuendo to where it's relevant: Free Republic.

JNagarya wrote on June 5, 2007 3:34 AM:

"Let's run through a scenario:"

You mean: "Let's speculate." And when that arrives at a conclusion, let's base yet another speculation on that. Etc.

HORSESHIT.

""A lawyer, who took a 5 USC 3331 oath of office to defend the Constitution, reads about Turley's "prosecuting a sitting President." We're asked to believe that after reading this article, the following is impossible:

"READING ATTY: "State AG, read this Turley article?"

"STATE AG: "Yes, I've read it."

"READING ATTY: "Well...?"

"STATE AG: "No can do, Congress doesn't permit me to think or act independetly, I'm a robot."

"READING ATTY: "OK, never mind. Sorry to bother you."

"What a load! Atty's talk to eachother about law reviews, and they share idas: CLE, dicsssion, conferences in Hawaii. If they're not sharing ideas, then let's cancel their funding they're usig from the coroproate boards, and make them pay o9ut of pocket for things they are not doing."

You don't know what you're talking about. Turley's article is _N-O-T L-A-W_.

Do you understand what that means? No, you don't. But you do know it all, therefore haven't anything to learn.

"This is what should be happening:

"REWADING ATTY: "Yo, State AG, I think we need to use the prosecution option, Cogress isn't doing their job. We have a 5 USC 3331 obligation to act."

Is that why Turley is doing what you insist can be done by the private bar?

What research have you done beyond the bare statue?

ZERO.

You don't know what you're talking about.

"STATE AG: "YOu're right. PUt toegther a draft indictement. Let's do this.""

A state AG has a defined scope of duties; he is not a free agent. Prosecuting Federal crimes is not his jurisdiction.

The rest of your crap is off-topic and horseshit.

You don't kjnow what you're talking about. And -- again -- Turley's article is not the law. Or why is _he_ not acting in accordance with your fantasy?

"Posted by:
Date: June 5, 2007 12:05 AM"

A special focus of mine for over fifteen years has been the Constitution and its origins.

In addition, I have an actual education in actual law. One of the basics is learning the distinction between that which is law, and that which is not. Blackstone is not law. L.J.s are not law.

Every form of enforceable law and rule has been interpreted in opinions and decisions. One does not know the law by reading only a statute, or a regulation or rule. That is only the first step in a complex and significant amount of research and reading.

Finding a law, or an L.J., or whatever, which appears to support your speculation is not the whole of the issue. There is also -- to oversimplify -- the other side of the issue. One does not research only one's own side of the issue.

And the case itself is not the only resaerch one must do: there are issues of jurisdiction; issues of court rules. And more.

You don't begin to know what you're talking about simply because you found some non-law which supports your fantasy.

If Turley is correct, and serious, then ask yourself why _he_ is not pursuing it.

JNagarya wrote on June 5, 2007 3:46 AM:

"I have an actual education in actual law."

Substantiate.

"There is no "Nagara" under any legal listing as an attorney."

It is spelled NagarYa".

Two facts, son:

1. I am in Massachusetts. Massachusetts does not have an organized bar.

Don't know what that means? Look it up.

2. Are lawyers the only legal professionals?

"Whether you have a law degree or not is irrelevant."

Whether one knows the difference between law, on one hand, and on the other, non-law, is a crucial basic. Law journals, law reviews, Blackstone, legal finding aids, legal encyclopoedia, legal dictionaries, as examples, are _NOT LAW_.

Asshole: I have an education in law. You don't. All you have is speculation, and a few pieces of information you believe supports you speculation.

You have drawn conclusions which are not within your authority to establish.

"You're not listening, . . . ."

I've heard your sort of shit for decades, son.

"There's a reason that you can't get access to Turley's paper. You're at home, and not able to access the database."

Shows how little you know about online access to legal materials and research.

You don't have an education in law; and yet you believe you've come up with something lawyers don't know? You know more about the legal responsibilities which innure to being a lawyer than do lawyers?

"Posted by:
Date: June 5, 2007 12:22 AM"

JNagarya wrote on June 5, 2007 3:55 AM:

"Joe,

"Did you write this: "I also know that matters are made more complicated than necessary by getting lost amid the trees/details instead of actually reading the Constitution; then the details of the decision become nearly irrelevant as to content.""

What is the context -- and topic?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/01/02/010228_supremes.html

"If so, look up the issues on impeachment/pardon yourself. You can read: "instead of actually reading the Constitution"."

If I wrote that, you misinterpret because you don't know what you're talking about.

As for war crimes: those have to be _proven_ -- not simply asserted. And where are they to be _proven_? In a non-law law journal? On this website? Or in a court of law where the other side has its say?

"Follow your own advice.

"Posted by:
Date: June 5, 2007 12:26 AM"

1. I have an actual education in actual law. One of the crucial basics one learns in the first year is to distinguish between that which is law, and that which is not.

2. A special focus of mine for over fifteen years has been the Constituion and its origins.

JNagarya wrote on June 5, 2007 4:01 AM:

"Joe,

"On the Rand Rhodes show, there's a Joseph Nagarya
"Communications Director" involved.
http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index.php?showuser=25698

"Is that you; if so, make the cas that there's a link betweeen [a] your career; [b] your legal comments; and [c] your legal education."

I haven't been on the Randi Rhodes website in ages. And, no: I don't work for Randi Rhodes, and never have.

"If you want to talk about "the law," you're going to have to read Turley's article and the legal citations."

Is that an order?

"We're not having a conversation."

That's correct; we aren't. I donm't deal with conspirabunk except to point to the fact that it is irresponsible, socially corrosive.

You jabber about the RNC emails. Have you read them? Or are you speculating as to their contents?

We know which -- don't we?

"Posted by:
Date: June 5, 2007 12:30 AM"

JNagarya wrote on June 5, 2007 4:46 AM:

"Joe,

"I've got two e-mails for you: Are you asking me to send the Turley Paper to you to Boston?

"jnagarya@888.nu
jnagarya2@"

Ancient.

"I also see someone with your name in Boston, Joseph nagarya Boston MA listed as a "writer". Is this the same Joe?"

I'm a legal professional, and a published writer.

"If you are a "writer" why aren't you looking up this material yourself to cross check the validity of the information?"

Because I have a full plate. And because I'm not going to get bogged down dealing with a mishmash of speculations presented instead as fact, by a person who doesn't lknow the difference between law, and non-law, and hasn't a clue how much work -- research, reading, and writing, bringing a case entails.

Our's is an adversarial system. Any trial lawyer will tell you that one doesn't ask a party a question to which one doesn't already know the answer. That's a simple fact. However, in preparing a case, one doesn't only research and prepare one's own side in the case; one also must research the other side's position in law.

The citations in the other sides pleadings aren't only they to butress their case; they are also they because ethics require it. One must also read the other side's references.

As well, there is an ethical requirement that one cite to law which is against one's position -- which is likely the law relied on by the other side. And in so doing one must endeavor to distinguish it from one's own position in effort to show why it doesn't apply.

Still, one cannot rely on the other side to necessarily be ethical in that regard; so one must research it oneself anyway.

Think it's easy for a state AG to sue a Federal public offical -- concerning, say, privacy rights? Does that AG only have to deal with his state law? Or does he at all times keep in mind, at minimum (1) the US Constitution's supremacy clause, and (2) Federal statutes, regs., and court decisions on the question?

And what are the persuasive authorities -- on both sides of the question -- from other states?

When one takes a case to court, one does not present the judge with a _fait acompli_. One presents a _question_ to the court, and the adjudication results in an answer -- a holding -- if one doesn't already exist, in which you pretty much have your answer before filing the suit.

Law is complex; it's much more than reading a law journal article, and then reading whatever law is cited to therein. Every step of the way there are opinions and rulings, in every area of the law and rules with which one is dealing. There are, as example, rulings on and in addition to the bare Code of Professional Conduct for Lawyers. There are administrative rulings on the bare regulations. Exactly as there is case law interpreting the bare statute.

"How do you reconcile the statements attributed to someonen with your name on "looking up the Constitution," but you're not apparently willing to do the same?"

I deal every day with the Constituion and its origins -- it's a special interest and focus of mine. But I'm not going to get bogged down in a mishmash of speculation forced into being conclusions. You _speculate_ as to the contents of the RNC emails -- you don't _know_ what's in them. Yet you base firm conclusions on that speculation.

". . . . Why, despite an oath, do legal professionals seem to have a hard time looking a law reviews of their peers?"

There is no "oath" to read one's peers law review articles. Do you know how many law reviews there are, and in how many specialized areas of law!?

When researching the law one begins with the law. One may or may not _need_ to read law journals and reviews, especially those by academics. Academics have sufficient largesse -- and its part of their responsibility -- to theorize and speculate. They aren't bound to be practical. So one can find all sorts of hypothesizing in such.

Want an example of what academics do -- some of it based upon past hands-on experience? Read the "Balkinization" (Prof. Jack Balkin) blog. Thee you'll find, by and large, law professors, among which is a person who worked in the DOJ's OLC. His insights are invaluable. But it isn't based upon cases at hand with the case materials at hand; thus it is unavoidably an overlap of knowledge of the requirements in law and rules, and experience worjking with them; and speculations based thereon which deal with the fine detials -- at which points one cannot be hard-and-fast; cannot predict, except with caution and caveats, about what a particular result will be.

I especially appreciate the former OLC lawyer/law professor's evaluations of current DOJ issues, as example. But that hardly makes me an expert on it. And he, not having been there in some years, isn't going to be hard an fast about the current operations of the OLC: he isn't there, and hasn't the benefit of the internal deliberations.

"B> WHy despite standards of conduct in DC Bar rules on mandatory withdrawals, do we not see those withdawls?"

"Mandatory withdrawals" under what circumstances? Circumstances about which you speculate, based upon speculations?

"C. Despiote illegal aconduct since 2001, and no action from Congress to impeach, what's requird to get lazy legal "professionals" off their rear end and organize -- WRITE -- some indictments to share with their AGs?"

Why aren't you asking Turley that?

". . . . Either the legal community aserts its 5 uSC 3331 oath; or it does not."

They are required to obey the oath; they are not required to be slaves. Nor are those whose specialty is tax law, though bound by the oath, have anything foreseeably relevant to contribute on the issue. The reality is that no lawyer, no legal professional, can know all law.

"Either legal wwriters are using their skills to defnd the COnstution and independently think or they are not."

I do it all the time. I point out that the Democrats don't yet have sufficient votes to impeach. That's simply reality -- political and Constitutional.

"Boston, MA is where the Paul Revere's rode. There are statutes there. The roads are thin, and windy. BOston's been kep as it once was, while combining the modern conveniences."

Sam Adams is the most morally repugnant individual I've ever encountered. The Founders confiscated guns from those not using them to fight the "revolution" and gave them to those who would. The Founders disarmed, and prohibited possession of weapons by, those who were "disaffected" with the "revolution".

". . . . Boston sees that the future has arrived; and that the world can embrace modern standards and historical principles."

Really?

"The legal community must decide whether it will rise to the occaision, . . . ."

What did the "legal community" -- including Turley -- do with _Bush v. Gore_? They debated its merits -- even those who knew it was lawless, thus had no merit -- as an academic exercise.

What is the "legal community" doing about the torture? Debating it. Read the "Balkinization" blog for the closest one gets to the "legal communit" acting.

"Joe, decide now whether you are going to read Tiurley's article; or whether you want to be a foe of the Constitution. You have to choose."

Don't insult my intelligence.

"Posted by:
Date: June 5, 2007 12:42 AM"

JNagarya wrote on June 5, 2007 5:01 AM:

This is the "Balkinization" blog. The former OLC lawyer/now professor is Marty Lederman.

http://balkin.blogspot.com

You'll see the same language there as here -- thugs, etc. (though perhaps not from the professors). And you'll find frequent updates, and discussions of the torture (there is an archive of discussions of the torture memos; and archive of discussions of Goodling's testimony; etc.).

For an idea of how complex -- and unguaranteed are legal outcomes -- read Marty Lederman's discussions of such as Comey's testimony, in which he touches significantly on the operation of the OLC.

It's a robust discussion -- no one minds Cheney being called a thug. But the postings by the professors are, to varying degrees, intense, dense.

Lederman, and Sanford Levinson, are easier to read than several others. And Levinson has been posting a lot about the Vice Presidency, one of his posts being about how the VP would be in charge of the impeachment of the Vice President. I view that as an obvious conflict of interest; but there doesn't seem to be anything in the Constitution which would prohibit it.

Try raising your issues there, and see what responses you get.

JNagarya wrote on June 5, 2007 5:02 AM:

This is the "Balkinization" blog. The former OLC lawyer/now professor is Marty Lederman.

http://balkin.blogspot.com

You'll see the same language there as here -- thugs, etc. (though perhaps not from the professors). And you'll find frequent updates, and discussions of the torture (there is an archive of discussions of the torture memos; and archive of discussions of Goodling's testimony; etc.).

For an idea of how complex -- and unguaranteed are legal outcomes -- read Marty Lederman's discussions of such as Comey's testimony, in which he touches significantly on the operation of the OLC.

It's a robust discussion -- no one minds Cheney being called a thug. But the postings by the professors are, to varying degrees, intense, dense.

Lederman, and Sanford Levinson, are easier to read than several others. And Levinson has been posting a lot about the Vice Presidency, one of his posts being about how the VP would be in charge of the impeachment of the Vice President. I view that as an obvious conflict of interest; but there doesn't seem to be anything in the Constitution which would prohibit it.

Try raising your issues there, and see what responses you get.

JNagarya wrote on June 5, 2007 5:48 AM:

To which Turley article you refer having I don't know; I do find the citation to the article title in an unrelated source. However, not only should one not rely on a single L.J./Rev. article on a topic, one should look further for more like or similar by the same author, as there may be something else more on point, or which gives a different perspective than the one article, or modifies it. This is a bibligraphy of Turley's publications. Go through the Articles section and you'll find additional articles on the presidency and prosecutions. Reading them all would give one a fuller perspective on his view.

http://www.law.gwu.edu/Bibliography/showbibPRINT.asp?uid=1738

Mark C wrote on June 5, 2007 8:25 AM:

Ooohhhh!

Another nasty letter. I bet Bush, Rove and Abu Gonzo are weally sceared now.

What an effing joke. The Dems let Gonzalas come before congress and lie with impunity. Then they wonder why people think they are such sniveling cowards.

People who have no self-respect surely don't deserve respect from others.......

Mellifluous wrote on June 5, 2007 9:55 AM:

JNagarya:
Impeachment only requires a majority of the House, but the Senate requires 2/3 vote for conviction. If only impeachment is required to keep Gone-Zales from being pardoned, then the votes are already (in terms of party population) available.

ricardo wrote on June 5, 2007 1:44 PM:

"I accept full responsibility for everything. I am well aware that the mistakes of subordinates are no excuse . . .but I have taken steps which will quickly remedy the situation."

Captain Queeg
"The Caine Mutiny" by Herman Wouk

Bill wrote on June 12, 2007 5:12 PM:

MSN I NIIPET
MSN

Bill wrote on June 12, 2007 5:12 PM:

MSN I NIIPET
MSN

Bill wrote on June 12, 2007 5:13 PM:

MSN I NIIPET
MSN

kilka wrote on July 30, 2007 7:09 PM:

gmc trucks here www.gmctruck.fora.pl
gmc from america www.gmctruck.fora.pl
real gmc www.gmctruck.fora.pl

and www.emeraldring.fora.pl rings

kwdju jnebk wrote on August 27, 2007 7:35 AM:

nitfexa suckzre yegvht xgrf msiehxjp bvsq nuhxa

tljubmp kuqrxfdi wrote on August 27, 2007 7:36 AM:

ozmtpv qydezt mnivlf vgphjwd zhjvkcb jcrmgpiof aeldunogm http://www.tdiue.ogslfwcx.com

lnymugz byxcs wrote on August 27, 2007 7:36 AM:

fpeamsux zkfnbec xsdwrveb lrdv ahkfbvq ztoe gafv uhnlqrcpg fglnmeu

nqfvikrt oblhym wrote on August 27, 2007 7:37 AM:

rhfi wqysjcdgl eosvtzi jmseigcpn qtbegw ltioh kziyrt [URL=http://www.yupams.qbszc.com]vjeb dyairg[/URL]

1998 blazerheater problem vacume wrote on September 19, 2007 9:34 PM:

Cool site. Thanks:-)

1998 blazerheater problem vacume wrote on September 19, 2007 9:35 PM:

Cool site. Thanks:-)

1999 monte carlo wheels wrote on September 20, 2007 3:47 AM:

Good site. Thank you:-)

1999 monte carlo wheels wrote on September 20, 2007 3:48 AM:

Good site. Thank you:-)

1click copy dvd keygen pro wrote on September 20, 2007 4:38 AM:

Very good site. Thank you!!!

1gb flash drive wrote on September 20, 2007 5:45 AM:

Good site. Thanks:-)

2200 kerosene heater wrote on September 23, 2007 8:49 AM:

Very good site. Thanks!!!

amelia island vacation wrote on September 25, 2007 10:03 AM:

Very good site. Thanks.

angelous wrote on September 25, 2007 5:01 PM:

Very good site. Thanks!

av jobes wrote on September 27, 2007 1:23 AM:

Very good site. Thank you!

オリンパス レコーダー wrote on September 27, 2007 4:55 AM:

Very good site. Thank you!!!

bests books on king arthur wrote on September 28, 2007 3:03 PM:

Cool site. Thank you!

bidet faq wrote on September 28, 2007 5:10 PM:

Nice site. Thank you!!!

bidet faq wrote on September 28, 2007 5:11 PM:

Nice site. Thank you!!!

Sasha wrote on September 29, 2007 5:31 PM:

Hi, nice page.!
look on my pages:
conservation dedicated organization profit

ok.. bitte

Sasha wrote on September 29, 2007 5:31 PM:

Hi, nice page.!
look on my pages:
conservation dedicated organization profit

ok.. bitte

buddy gregg motorhomes wrote on September 30, 2007 6:41 AM:

Good site. Thanks!!!

Alina wrote on October 1, 2007 9:54 PM:

Hi, nice page.!
look on my pages:
dedicated organization policy profit public

ok.. bitte

ma680zda wrote on November 18, 2007 3:00 AM:

c925t

36xbr200 wrote on November 21, 2007 5:50 AM:

Very good site. Thank you!

36xbr200 wrote on November 21, 2007 5:50 AM:

Very good site. Thank you!

acting school wrote on November 23, 2007 1:24 AM:

c879t private school - http://www.quizilla.com/users/law-school87/polls/6065096/private_school/

t151t wrote on November 23, 2007 1:50 AM:

c808t

hodgdon noyes wrote on November 23, 2007 2:00 AM:

Nice site. Thank you!

t199t wrote on November 23, 2007 2:16 AM:

c978t

t502t wrote on November 23, 2007 2:43 AM:

c448t

t502t wrote on November 23, 2007 3:09 AM:

c192t

ma590zda wrote on November 23, 2007 3:34 AM:

c735t

t385t wrote on November 23, 2007 4:02 AM:

c502t

ma419zda wrote on November 23, 2007 4:55 AM:

c333t

t962t wrote on November 23, 2007 5:23 AM:

c535t

t690t wrote on November 23, 2007 5:49 AM:

c8t

t459t wrote on November 23, 2007 6:14 AM:

c926t

ma266zda wrote on November 23, 2007 6:39 AM:

c623t

ma421zda wrote on November 23, 2007 7:02 AM:

c795t

t89t wrote on November 23, 2007 7:24 AM:

c556t

ma302zda wrote on November 23, 2007 7:41 AM:

c630t

ma629zda wrote on November 23, 2007 7:59 AM:

c43t

ma641zda wrote on November 23, 2007 9:45 PM:

c103t purchase viagra online - http://www.xanga.com/purchase_viagra_online732

ma438zda wrote on November 23, 2007 9:56 PM:

c142t

purchase viagra online wrote on November 23, 2007 10:10 PM:

c140t

t200t wrote on November 23, 2007 10:22 PM:

c512t

t758t wrote on November 23, 2007 10:35 PM:

c428t

ma636zda wrote on November 23, 2007 10:49 PM:

c748t

t309t wrote on November 23, 2007 11:04 PM:

c760t

ma241zda wrote on November 23, 2007 11:17 PM:

c63t

ma710zda wrote on November 23, 2007 11:30 PM:

c221t

t3t wrote on November 23, 2007 11:44 PM:

c709t

ma937zda wrote on November 23, 2007 11:56 PM:

c609t

ma710zda wrote on November 24, 2007 12:09 AM:

c221t

ma677zda wrote on November 24, 2007 12:23 AM:

c495t

t817t wrote on November 24, 2007 12:39 AM:

c881t

t63t wrote on November 24, 2007 12:52 AM:

c871t

ma75zda wrote on November 24, 2007 1:05 AM:

c849t

t363t wrote on November 24, 2007 1:18 AM:

c939t

t351t wrote on November 24, 2007 1:30 AM:

c705t

t136t wrote on November 24, 2007 1:42 AM:

c633t

ma655zda wrote on November 24, 2007 1:54 AM:

c119t

t406t wrote on November 24, 2007 2:10 AM:

c896t

t860t wrote on November 24, 2007 2:22 AM:

c724t

ma344zda wrote on November 24, 2007 2:37 AM:

c527t

ma959zda wrote on November 24, 2007 2:53 AM:

c125t

t791t wrote on November 24, 2007 3:10 AM:

c362t

ma806zda wrote on November 24, 2007 3:23 AM:

c632t

t646t wrote on November 24, 2007 3:37 AM:

c337t

ma660zda wrote on November 24, 2007 3:49 AM:

c689t

t115t wrote on November 24, 2007 4:03 AM:

c622t

t522t wrote on November 24, 2007 4:16 AM:

c176t

t370t wrote on November 24, 2007 4:30 AM:

c29t

ma199zda wrote on November 24, 2007 4:45 AM:

c204t

t311t wrote on November 24, 2007 5:01 AM:

c879t

ma474zda wrote on November 24, 2007 5:15 AM:

c752t

t264t wrote on November 24, 2007 5:30 AM:

c720t

ma670zda wrote on November 24, 2007 5:44 AM:

c126t

t870t wrote on November 24, 2007 5:58 AM:

c865t

t640t wrote on November 24, 2007 6:14 AM:

c91t

ma670zda wrote on November 24, 2007 6:28 AM:

c126t

ma767zda wrote on November 24, 2007 6:44 AM:

c216t

ma992zda wrote on November 24, 2007 7:00 AM:

c751t

ma292zda wrote on November 24, 2007 7:16 AM:

c911t

t721t wrote on November 24, 2007 7:31 AM:

c862t

ma225zda wrote on November 24, 2007 7:45 AM:

c869t

t461t wrote on November 24, 2007 7:59 AM:

c897t

ma333zda wrote on November 24, 2007 8:14 AM:

c492t

ma63zda wrote on November 24, 2007 8:28 AM:

c963t

ma688zda wrote on November 24, 2007 8:45 AM:

c905t

ma706zda wrote on November 24, 2007 9:01 AM:

c662t

t50t wrote on November 24, 2007 9:19 AM:

c605t

ma116zda wrote on November 24, 2007 9:34 AM:

c295t

ma155zda wrote on November 24, 2007 9:50 AM:

c754t

ma497zda wrote on November 24, 2007 10:07 AM:

c53t

ma422zda wrote on November 24, 2007 10:23 AM:

c663t

ma749zda wrote on November 24, 2007 10:39 AM:

c938t

t8t wrote on November 24, 2007 10:55 AM:

c241t

ma294zda wrote on November 24, 2007 11:31 AM:

c95t

t703t wrote on November 24, 2007 12:10 PM:

c606t

t139t wrote on November 24, 2007 12:32 PM:

c339t

t877t wrote on November 24, 2007 12:56 PM:

c266t

ma314zda wrote on November 24, 2007 1:22 PM:

c21t

t6t wrote on November 24, 2007 1:49 PM:

c42t

t71t wrote on November 24, 2007 2:20 PM:

c670t

t338t wrote on November 24, 2007 2:50 PM:

c704t

t338t wrote on November 24, 2007 3:20 PM:

c25t

t142t wrote on November 24, 2007 3:49 PM:

c662t

t947t wrote on November 24, 2007 4:20 PM:

c682t

t581t wrote on November 24, 2007 4:48 PM:

c936t

t768t wrote on November 24, 2007 5:16 PM:

c894t

t768t wrote on November 24, 2007 5:43 PM:

c17t

t130t wrote on November 24, 2007 6:12 PM:

c209t

t864t wrote on November 24, 2007 6:38 PM:

c809t

t198t wrote on November 24, 2007 7:03 PM:

c199t

t812t wrote on November 24, 2007 7:31 PM:

c910t

t6t wrote on November 24, 2007 7:57 PM:

c485t

t50t wrote on November 24, 2007 8:26 PM:

c262t

t205t wrote on November 24, 2007 8:54 PM:

c962t

t682t wrote on November 24, 2007 9:21 PM:

c727t

t548t wrote on November 24, 2007 10:16 PM:

c724t

t543t wrote on November 24, 2007 10:44 PM:

c449t

t313t wrote on November 24, 2007 11:10 PM:

c645t

viagra side effects wrote on November 26, 2007 3:08 AM:

c616t viagra side effects - http://weblog.xanga.com/viagra_side_effects842/628623347/viagra-side-effects.html

ma691zda wrote on November 26, 2007 3:22 AM:

c78t

ma55zda wrote on November 26, 2007 4:19 AM:

c364t

t575t wrote on November 26, 2007 4:36 AM:

c465t

ma14zda wrote on November 26, 2007 4:54 AM:

c437t

t717t wrote on November 26, 2007 5:15 AM:

c270t

ma14zda wrote on November 26, 2007 5:34 AM:

c369t

ma860zda wrote on November 26, 2007 5:57 AM:

c325t

ma383zda wrote on November 26, 2007 6:18 AM:

c964t

t385t wrote on November 26, 2007 6:39 AM:

c591t

ma539zda wrote on November 26, 2007 6:59 AM:

c673t

t115t wrote on November 26, 2007 7:21 AM:

c835t

ma371zda wrote on November 26, 2007 7:42 AM:

c308t

ma487zda wrote on November 26, 2007 8:03 AM:

c833t

t227t wrote on November 26, 2007 8:21 AM:

c577t

t861t wrote on November 26, 2007 8:35 AM:

c777t

ringtone wrote on November 26, 2007 9:16 AM:

c441t viagra sale online - http://groups.msn.com/viagra18/viagrasaleonline.msnw

t195t wrote on November 26, 2007 9:30 AM:

c715t

t270t wrote on November 26, 2007 9:40 AM:

c573t

t783t wrote on November 26, 2007 9:51 AM:

c53t

t496t wrote on November 26, 2007 10:01 AM:

c679t

ma718zda wrote on November 26, 2007 10:13 AM:

c153t

t464t wrote on November 26, 2007 10:26 AM:

c478t

ma837zda wrote on November 26, 2007 10:38 AM:

c552t

ma31zda wrote on November 26, 2007 10:54 AM:

c600t

t956t wrote on November 26, 2007 11:12 AM:

c407t

ma837zda wrote on November 26, 2007 11:24 AM:

c552t

ma156zda wrote on November 26, 2007 11:36 AM:

c693t

ma205zda wrote on November 26, 2007 11:48 AM:

c595t

buy viagra wrote on November 27, 2007 12:20 PM:

c584t viagra sample - http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-43IMzEkwerRnvtFRFNhK4lJgUGZukQ--?cq=1

ma225zda wrote on November 27, 2007 1:27 PM:

c521t viagra pharmacy - http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-AnPef1M0d6tTZiOcUy6BaFoMPQ--?cq=1

buy viagra uk wrote on November 27, 2007 1:39 PM:

c945t viagra alternative - http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-R9N2hWkmeqrG.k23XIBdErUlEHBfbg--?cq=1

ma633zda wrote on November 27, 2007 1:52 PM:

c263t buy viagra uk - http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-Y6RoBSU3eqSK6E9TAkZjEGh8599KfA--?cq=1

viagra generic wrote on November 27, 2007 3:09 PM:

c30t viagra online bestellen - http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-eoTWwes9cqhizdKTWS8xRDk.q4BNrg--?cq=1

buy viagra cheap wrote on November 27, 2007 3:34 PM:

c505t viagra price - http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-WRmCdrw0d6S3Bl5bTo9al9lxbLKNMw--?cq=1

ma714zda wrote on November 27, 2007 3:46 PM:

c140t purchase viagra - http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-bE3vhus_fqq3igKPMJLSRpVKAFo-?cq=1

ma831zda wrote on November 27, 2007 4:24 PM:

c442t viagra generic - http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-SRe4vVI_dLQm4tmieCKSjLdE9dyDJw--?cq=1

ma575zda wrote on November 27, 2007 4:36 PM:

c62t viagra uk - http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-ppoUfJo7dLU4gnRxty94uBPc4ARlLUI-?cq=1

generic viagra omnigen wrote on November 27, 2007 5:16 PM:

c862t buy viagra on line - http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-bwwyTto7eqtn3K9pCZS7AwdwLjsx2A--?cq=1

buy viagra low cost wrote on November 27, 2007 5:27 PM:

c686t buy viagra low cost - http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-kjz5yig1dKjAtwXXV740.Upz24SmLQ--?cq=1

viagra sale online wrote on November 27, 2007 5:38 PM:

c686t viagra alternative - http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-1voYaEA2fqkAvyrU5m0sEJ3EqS6Q.CE-?cq=1

where to buy viagra wrote on November 27, 2007 6:02 PM:

c696t viagra order - http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-LycTm6YieqsjIktKFFsu2UA4724jM4twcg--?cq=1

ma134zda wrote on November 27, 2007 6:15 PM:

c672t viagra canada - http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-2Acel1I7bqJkos.LDrEmYS7SGMA-?cq=1

buy generic viagra wrote on November 27, 2007 6:53 PM:

c305t viagra on line - http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-rA.an7A6crQ.fcsGrHfaXnwnPYXgSbfqFQ--?cq=1

viagra mail order wrote on November 27, 2007 7:07 PM:

c381t viagra online pharmacy - http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-rA.an7A6crQ.fcsGrHfaXnwnPYXgSbfqFQ--?cq=1

free viagra sample wrote on November 27, 2007 7:20 PM:

c591t buy viagra norway - http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-jbRkjWE9brxsAt3O5t.BS_03k1o-?cq=1

viagra online bestellen wrote on November 27, 2007 7:45 PM:

c614t viagra online bestellen - http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-5nGciqgyYrTB2rG4E9VRO184xLQwYg--?cq=1

ma369zda wrote on November 27, 2007 9:58 PM:

c426t prescription viagra - http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-z4r4fV87bqKeq84avOot1tX7WvAehAk-?cq=1

ma555zda wrote on November 27, 2007 10:23 PM:

c261t woman viagra - http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-Dx0r_008dLQa4avcGZFlSgtaLzUSAQ--?cq=1

ma640zda wrote on November 27, 2007 11:01 PM:

c243t viagra advice - http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-o4tAnHQ2erCVgA6TrjU7sNVs4xrVIA--?cq=1

low price viagra wrote on November 27, 2007 11:14 PM:

c995t low price viagra - http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-o4tAnHQ2erCVgA6TrjU7sNVs4xrVIA--?cq=1

ma435zda wrote on November 27, 2007 11:51 PM:

c184t viagra buy - http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-OTLhvyI2aafGpOjSFteXuU1pNzM-?cq=1

ma115zda wrote on November 28, 2007 12:28 AM:

c652t how viagra work - http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-nBvcse0hc6.ftqdXKDuWPPb5I.u2IqFZkj8-?cq=1

purchasing viagra wrote on November 28, 2007 12:42 AM:

c647t low price viagra - http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-F___gvQ.dqfBqBpl8YyM65h1dw--?cq=1

buy viagra in nevada wrote on November 28, 2007 12:53 AM:

c676t buy viagra in nevada - http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-n6yOS.IwdbIyi3o.u.yw2zuImAaWkw--?cq=1

ma217zda wrote on November 28, 2007 1:35 AM:

c399t generic viagra cheap - http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-qgqF8gk3dLWQwgIrRhUnQ8uyjUg-?cq=1