Comments (125)

Rebel wrote on July 6, 2007 5:04 PM:

Toss enough of Rove's crap back often enough and some will stick.

JNagarya wrote on July 6, 2007 5:56 PM:

That quote from Davis is particularly well- informed and articulated.

And this should go over really big with the duck-and-cover Republican't [handle the truth] members of the Committee. But that won't be sufficient to make this one go away: there's simply too much hard evidence -- including the retaliations against the Republican lawyer who filed the affidavit; and the affidavit.

JNagarya wrote on July 6, 2007 6:00 PM:

I note a poll result that 54 per cent of those polled want Cheney impeached, and it's up to 45 per cent for Bushit.

This case should go a long way to increasing those numbers beyond 54 per cent for Bushit himself.

One wonders: if it's the fact, as many suspect, that the Bushit criminal enterprise won't go peacefully, then impeachment of them will leave them only options, whatever it or they are, which will conclusively prove the impeachment case against them.

Tom wrote on July 6, 2007 6:17 PM:

...one wonders if there's any chance that the President finds Siegelman's sentence excessive...

Jake wrote on July 6, 2007 6:18 PM:

If Bush / Cheney stay in office past January 20, 2009 for no good reason, even I will support their impeachments. Siegelman's case, as we know the facts today, simply does not support impeachment.

Mike in Austin wrote on July 6, 2007 6:34 PM:

Jake,

Now that you're here. What other offenses by Bush/Cheney would cause you to support impeachment, beyond them staying in office past January 20th?

Mike in Austin wrote on July 6, 2007 6:35 PM:

Jake,

Now that you're here. What other offenses by Bush/Cheney would cause you to support impeachment, beyond them staying in office past January 20th?

Anonymous wrote on July 6, 2007 6:37 PM:

Siegelman's case alone may not merit impeachment. The voter-suppression movement as a whole does. This is a good example of why impeachment needs to be pursued.

Mark wrote on July 6, 2007 6:39 PM:

This is going beyong pathetic for Democrats. We have a 14% approval rating in Congress and cheerleading for criminals like Siegelman is pathetic.

Giacomo wrote on July 6, 2007 6:45 PM:

f Bush/Cheney stay in office past January 20, 2009 for no good reason, I think the rest of the world will do what the Allies did to Germany in the 1940s: invade.

jeremyv wrote on July 6, 2007 6:47 PM:

"If Bush / Cheney stay in office past January 20, 2009 for no good reason, even I will support their impeachments. Siegelman's case, as we know the facts today, simply does not support impeachment."

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 6, 2007 6:18 PM

!!!

Hahahaha... Very brave of you to stand up for the rule of law if the president and vice president launch a coup. What better time to launch impeachment proceedings than after an extralegal take over?

Haha...

And "for no good reason"? Haha.. Oh man... So good. "Dag nabbit they overthrew the rule of law for no good reason!" Haha..

So, you would be the troll then?

jeremyv wrote on July 6, 2007 6:48 PM:

"If Bush / Cheney stay in office past January 20, 2009 for no good reason, even I will support their impeachments. Siegelman's case, as we know the facts today, simply does not support impeachment."

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 6, 2007 6:18 PM

!!!

Hahahaha... Very brave of you to stand up for the rule of law if the president and vice president launch a coup. What better time to launch impeachment proceedings than after an extralegal take over?

Haha...

And "for no good reason"? Haha.. Oh man... So good. "Dag nabbit they overthrew the rule of law for no good reason!" Haha..

So, you would be the troll then?

jeremyv wrote on July 6, 2007 6:49 PM:

Jack? Mark? You guys twins?

jeremyv wrote on July 6, 2007 6:50 PM:

Jake? Mark? You guys twins?

Linda Nkosi wrote on July 6, 2007 7:00 PM:

I don't think anybody is cheerleading for criminals here. What I think people are saying is that we ought to be looking at a larger pattern where power has been abused to manipulate the justice system to protect political friends and assassinate political threats.

“No less than six attorneys general have written to Congressional oversight committees noting the gross irregularities and suspicious circumstances of the prosecution, and have requested that Congress conduct direct inquiries into what transpired in this case. The Siegelman prosecution will in all likelihood soon be exposed for what it is: one of the blackest moments in Alabama justice since the trial of the Scottsboro Boys”… Scott Horton, Columbia University Media Law Professor on Harpers (6/24/07) Magazine Website

I think the point is that Siegelman is not a crimminal at all, but a political victim convicted of phantom charges. The jury aquitted him of dozens of charges, but it is a grim reality of our system of justice that if you throw enough charges at pretty much anybody, only a completely incompetent prosecutor can't make any of them stick.

Jake wrote on July 6, 2007 7:15 PM:

Mike in Austin:

If Bush personally planted explosives at the WTC, the Pentagon, and that field in Pennsylvania on 9/11, that would indeed qualify as grounds for impeachment. If he lied under oath and obstructed justice, that would qualify. If he discovered the secret to time-travel and was the second shooter on the grassy knoll, that would qualify. I mean, I could keep going making up "conspiracy theories" all day long if you'd like.

jeremyv:

Not at all, for instance, one "good reason" would be if President-Elect Obama, Vice President Elect Edwards, and every other person in the line of succession to the Presidency were all killed in tragic terrorist attacks on January 19th. Under such a scenario, I think most people would think it wise to keep Bush on as Acting President until a special election were held and other arrangements made.

Linda Nkosi:

If I've learned anything from the Libby uproar, Siegelman was CONVICTED by a non-partisan jury of his peers, so, we have to respect their decision . . .

dustbunny44 wrote on July 6, 2007 7:26 PM:

Consider the system shattered.

St. Augustine wrote on July 6, 2007 7:27 PM:

Methinks that Jake is writing here for extra credit at Regents University summer school. If he does well here they might let him in law school program.

Jake wrote on July 6, 2007 7:34 PM:

Been there, done that, St. Augustine (although it was Stanford Law School).

JD21 wrote on July 6, 2007 7:41 PM:

say the Republican into the independents' and Democrats' faces when they dare to question Republican politicians.

Keep yawning in our faces along with your friends who comprise the dwindling minority who live in another world where the Executive branch is competent and honest, and develops and implements good, effective policy for America.

While that goes on, the rest of us will continue the drive to hold the Republicans accountable for their record in reality.

So please, do in our faces about impeachment, just like the Republicans yawned in Democrats' faces before last election when the Republicans got tossed out of control of Congress.

Please keep yawning. It's good luck for us. In fact, please bless, ooops I mean yawn at this:

http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/

Yup, 54% of Americans want Cheney impeached. In another world of course. On a planet far far away from the Republicans and American mainstream media . . .

The Democratic politicians are only beginning to catch up to the American public.

Jake wrote on July 6, 2007 7:48 PM:

Luckily, for Cheney at least, ours is a REPUBLIC not a direct democracy (even though 54% is still less than the 2/3 majority required under the Constitution to remove Cheney from office).

SteveW wrote on July 6, 2007 7:57 PM:

Methinks that Jake is writing here for extra credit at Regents University summer school. If he does well here they might let him in law school program.

Posted by: St. Augustine
Date: July 6, 2007 7:27 PM

Good Point!:) And one I've been making in various ways for some time now. This guy/gal (we really don't know if his name is actually Jake, it could be Monica...as in Goodling. Why else would this guy spend time on this site, other than to agitate. However, he is quite amusing:) I wonder if his silly notions even make him laugh out loud as he types them? Hmm?

And yes, Jake, even if Obama or Edwards were killed by terrorists (your wet dream) we would have a huge problem with the two Dicks staying in office. I'm not sure about how the Constitution deals with your stretch for reasons to impeach Bush and Cheney, though somehow I think it might fall to the next in line of succession, like the V.P. nominee or Speaker of the House, Pelosi.

Mark_W wrote on July 6, 2007 7:58 PM:

"Not at all, for instance, one "good reason" would be if President-Elect Obama, Vice President Elect Edwards, and every other person in the line of succession to the Presidency were all killed in tragic terrorist attacks on January 19th. Under such a scenario, I think most people would think it wise to keep Bush on as Acting President..."

Not me, I would want him jailed as a suspect, who else would have a better motive to commit the crime?

St. Augustine wrote on July 6, 2007 8:02 PM:

I wonder why Jake wasn't accepted into law school, other than not passing the LSAT.

FloridaDemocrat wrote on July 6, 2007 8:03 PM:

Stanford sure has lowered their standards.

Jake wrote on July 6, 2007 8:04 PM:

SteveW:

Once you review how the Constitution deals with the horrible tragedy of every person in line of succession being killed by terrorists, please let me know.

Mark_W:

Well, I did say "most people" -- I'm sure that you and Rosie O'Donnell (unless they get you too) will be screaming about conspiracy theories -- someone with a better motive to commit such a crime would be the same person who ordered the 9/11 attacks, Obama, I mean, Osama bin Laden. Next question?

Joel wrote on July 6, 2007 8:15 PM:

Jake, Bush could not continue on as "acting president" without a coup d'etat. Under 3 U.S. Code section 19, if the President and Vice President-elect both died before taking office, the Speaker of the House would become president.

Tony wrote on July 6, 2007 8:17 PM:

How is it possible for the President to believe that Scooter's sentence was excessive and too long, and in turn he commutes the entire sentence rather than just lessening it. To commute it suggests the Pres. thinks Libby was wrongle accused. I know he said the other fines are necessary but all that will go away too after the election.
Seigelman deserves 30 days.

Delia wrote on July 6, 2007 8:26 PM:

"Not at all, for instance, one "good reason" would be if President-Elect Obama, Vice President Elect Edwards, and every other person in the line of succession to the Presidency were all killed in tragic terrorist attacks on January 19th. Under such a scenario, I think most people would think it wise to keep Bush on as Acting President..."

I find it hard to believe an actual graduate of Stanford Law School would spend his day trolling liberal websites constructing daydreams that would keep Bush/Cheney in power forever. Unless, of course, he's been disbarred for some little thing or another.

The whole Siegelman prosecution makes one thing clear. The ultimate aim of the Rove Justice Department was to make it illegal to be a Democratic politician, and probably ultimately, illegal to be a Democratic voter. They started with the poor and minority, but do the serious posters here really think they would have stopped with them?

(code word: fear)

neil wrote on July 6, 2007 8:30 PM:

interesting-come back

Anonymous wrote on July 6, 2007 8:31 PM:

SteveW:

Once you review how the Constitution deals with the horrible tragedy of every person in line of succession being killed by terrorists, please let me know.

Jake,

I didn't make that inane assertion (terrorist killing president-elect), you did. However, I did take a stab at your ridiculous scenario, and thanks to Joel (see his post above and below)my knowledge of the line of succession was pretty close to dead-on:) Oh, dude...I'm lauging my ass off right now. You missed your calling, you should be a comedian:)

Jake, Bush could not continue on as "acting president" without a coup d'etat. Under 3 U.S. Code section 19, if the President and Vice President-elect both died before taking office, the Speaker of the House would become president.

Posted by: Joel
Date: July 6, 2007 8:15 PM

SteveW wrote on July 6, 2007 8:32 PM:

SteveW:

Once you review how the Constitution deals with the horrible tragedy of every person in line of succession being killed by terrorists, please let me know.

posted by: Jake

Jake,

I didn't make that inane assertion (terrorist killing president-elect), you did. However, I did take a stab at your ridiculous scenario, and thanks to Joel (see his post above and below)my knowledge of the line of succession was pretty close to dead-on:) Oh, dude...I'm lauging my ass off right now. You missed your calling, you should be a comedian:)

Jake, Bush could not continue on as "acting president" without a coup d'etat. Under 3 U.S. Code section 19, if the President and Vice President-elect both died before taking office, the Speaker of the House would become president.

Posted by: Joel
Date: July 6, 2007 8:15 PM

Jake wrote on July 6, 2007 8:37 PM:

St. Augustine:

What makes you think I wasn't accepted into law school again? I was, indeed, accepted and (believe it or not) graduated Class of 1960.

Joel:

Under my hypothetical, the Speaker of the House was tragically killed by terrorists.

Delia:

I was never disbarred, or otherwise disciplined -- I retired after practicing 42 years, though, if that helps.

Mickey wrote on July 6, 2007 8:54 PM:

Jake can not be beleived, I happen to know he retired from Disneyland and he can not prove otherwise.

Anonymous wrote on July 6, 2007 9:04 PM:

Speaking as a Stanford alum ('61) there were anomalies even before the unfortunate coming of Condi Rice. There was quite an active chapter of Young Americans for Freedom, who were perfect Jonah Goldberg pantloads two generations before their blossoming.

Steve5117 wrote on July 6, 2007 9:07 PM:

I suspect that if there was a terrorist act that killed high level politicans that Bush and Cheney would be their targets, not the President elect.

Gr8googlymoogly wrote on July 6, 2007 9:17 PM:

Oh, so it's senility. Figgered it had to be something.

fnook wrote on July 6, 2007 9:20 PM:

Jake is god. I bow down to thee.

Johnsnottoodistracted wrote on July 6, 2007 10:09 PM:

Remember these guys have been at it for over 30 years.
The pile is high with the garbage they are leaving.Some is sooo stinky it just.......
When it was said you are with us or against us the us they are talking about includes only them.
They only pretend it includes some of the unstable recruits they use to drive the garbage trucks.
BTW: these garbage truck drivers are beginning to show up in the news.They are the ones with the poor or no memory.

Captain Dan wrote on July 6, 2007 10:15 PM:

Mark and Jake. Dumb and dumber.

Unlce_Meat wrote on July 6, 2007 10:27 PM:

I suspect that if there was a terrorist act that killed high level politicans that Bush and Cheney would be their targets, not the President elect.

Posted by: Steve5117

This is the bullshit litmus test, and explains why the "war on terrism" is just that, bullshit..

If "terrorists" really wanted to attack this country, why would they go after the little people? Why wouldn't they go for the big fish? That the ruling elites are never threatened suggests to me that the facade is orchestrated by the higher-ups.

This also applies to Bush's "sacrifice and stay the course" crap. It is never the higher-ups that have to make the sacrifices, and stay the course to bush means sitting in his office doing nothing other than making sure his cohorts don't go to jail..

Cinderella Ferret wrote on July 6, 2007 10:29 PM:

I look forward to the day we have a grainy cell phone video of Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and Gonzo, each with a noose around his neck.

UnEasyOne wrote on July 6, 2007 10:45 PM:

Any Democrat guilty of corruption should be as subject to imprisonment as corrupt Republicans. If however as seems at least possible, this prosecution was essentially a politically inspired frame of an innocent man, everybody involved is a traitor to our constitution and the rule of law.

Bribery is a terrible crime IMO and deserves severe punishment - despite the fact that it has been institutionalized and legalized in our electoral process. Even worse is persecution of political opponents for political gain. Nazis, Stalinists and all manner of tyrants have employed this tactic to silence opposition and entrench tyranny. Our freedom, our constitution, our entire way of life is under assault by the new fascist party - represented by loyal Bushies.

Belle wrote on July 6, 2007 10:46 PM:

So under Jake's scenario, everybody that could possibly be in line for succession dies. And Siegelman was convicted, so we have to respect the jury's decision. Wow. So the 4 Horsemen are set to arrive on January 19 and no jury has ever made a mistake. I bet the folks awaiting the rapture and the 204 people exonerated by the Innocence Project are glad to hear that!
Pretzel logic.

Steve5117 wrote on July 6, 2007 11:13 PM:

Yes, UnEasyOne, people guilty of corruption need be incarated for their illegalities. Siegelman's prosecution is in doubt now because of the involvement of Herr Rove, the judge's rulings and the prosecutor's zeal. If Siegelman was that much of a threat to the GOP I wouldn't rule out jury tampering on their part to insure a guilty verdict.

Anonymous wrote on July 6, 2007 11:20 PM:

Jake is only performing this adminstration's preferred method of swiftboating the truth. Nothing more, nothing less. The longer it takes us to actually realize that sleazy fact, the longer it will work for those scumbags. Their end is not going to be pretty, and it will anguish us all.

JMOHR wrote on July 6, 2007 11:42 PM:

Franky, a guilty Democrat should go to jail for his crimes as well as a Republican. However, selective prosecution is improper. Selecting to prosecute on the basis of political party undermines public confidence in the system. So does the multiplication of charges in order to maximize sentencing under the guidelines.

Seiglman may very well deserve to be convicted and spend some time in jail. However, the general track record of this administration makes one wonder as to whether political considerations did play a part. One need only look at the replacement of USAtty's, political criteria utilized for career DoJ positions and the general lack of respect for the rule of law by this administration to be concerned.

Belle wrote on July 6, 2007 11:43 PM:

C'mon guys, ya know Jake got into Stanford the same way W got into Yale.

JT wrote on July 7, 2007 12:10 AM:

I think Jake should know that if Bush stays in office beyond 2009, it's a fair bet that first thing they do, they'll shoot all the lawyers. Unless you're in the coup party - you aren't planning on that, are ya, Jake?

I also note that he won't answer the question as to what, before Jan 20, 2009, could possibly merit impeachment. That alone is enough to designate him - assuming "he" isn't Monica Goodling, of course - a hairy, stinking troll.

code word: blood. as in, refresh the tree of liberty.

ifthethunderdontgetya wrote on July 7, 2007 12:12 AM:

wTf?

Jake is one of Think Progress' dumbest trolls (and they have the dumbest on the net). He shows up here and people start take his garbage seriously?

Mark wrote on July 7, 2007 12:25 AM:

Siegelman and Scrushy should be sent to prison, because they were convicted of a crime.

Whining about selective prosecution is like Republicans complaining about the "selective persecution" of Libby.

Placing double standards to Democratic politicians is silly.

I

SeeDee wrote on July 7, 2007 1:33 AM:

"Placing double standards to Democratic politicians is silly."

Posted by: Mark

And subversion of the 'presidential pardon' guidelines to shield a president from exposure as a principal player in the self-same crime, is worse than 'silly'.

It is a direct assault on the rule of law in our system of JUSTICE.

gcs wrote on July 7, 2007 1:39 AM:

Hey Jake, you moron, if Bush and Cheney remain in office past January 20, 2009 it'll be too goddamned late to do anything about it. Everyone, even idiots like you are geniuses in the past tense, pal.

That's simple enough for even you to understand, isn't it?

Maggie wrote on July 7, 2007 2:08 AM:

Geez, how hard is it?: Don't feed the trolls. Ignore their opinions.

Nancy Irving wrote on July 7, 2007 5:49 AM:

"If Bush / Cheney stay in office past January 20, 2009 for no good reason..."

What would be a "good reason," I wonder--the election of a Democrat?

Steve5117 wrote on July 7, 2007 7:12 AM:

Jake can not be beleived, I happen to know he retired from Disneyland and he can not prove otherwise.

Posted by: Mickey
Date: July 6, 2007 8:54 PM

He originally auditioned for the Mickey Mouse Club in 1955, but was not cast for a TV role. The following year he found work in the Facilities Department at Stanford. After being described as "too dumb to rake leaves", Jake went back south and found employment at Disneyland.

Frebnedzo wrote on July 7, 2007 8:23 AM:

If anything happens to lessen Speigelmans conviction/sentance, it will be seen as quid pro quo for the Libby commute and the democrats portayed as "Indian givers" "welshing" on a deal by the "lioberal press" to even the playing field in 2008. Must be careful here... I mean, they are already trying to say that traditional last-day-of--office pardon of friends is the same as mid-term pardons of felons to obstruct justice (see H Clift today point out the family connection to Bush behavior).

Jake wrote on July 7, 2007 9:10 AM:

JT:

I indeed answered Mike's question above last night at 7:15 PM.

If anyone else still has a question for me. please let me know.

Steve5117 wrote on July 7, 2007 9:14 AM:

Frebnedzo

If anything happens to lessen Speigelmans conviction/sentance...I will view that as one small step in overturning the injustices that this administration has inflected upon us.

I hope to live long enough to see some traitors in the Whitehouse pay for their illegal activities. Keel-hauling (in shark infested waters) for Cheney would be nice, as would a dangle from a yardarm for Bush.

Jake wrote on July 7, 2007 9:57 AM:

Just be careful, Steve5117, of threatening bodily harm to either of them while they are still in office ; )

oldtree wrote on July 7, 2007 10:19 AM:

if you don't eat meat, you don't have to deal with the poison included.
if you don't return fire with shooters that are using blanks, you can't be considered the death of them.
if you leave half wit commentators alone, they too will go away.

Steve5117 wrote on July 7, 2007 10:20 AM:

Are YOU threatening me Jake?

FUCK OFF asshole

JNagarya wrote on July 7, 2007 10:39 AM:

There's currently an interview with a religionut in Alabma who thanked election-thief Gov. Riley for conversing with God, and encouraging everyone to pray for rain. And -- bingo! -- it's raining.

Is he actually thanking Gov. Riley? Nope: he's thanking God -- to hell with the guy who actually worked the miracle, even though he is a Republican.

Steve5117 wrote on July 7, 2007 10:42 AM:

oldtree

You are right, here I was thinking about what a wonderful story some scenario would make, only to have my thoughts interupted by a tiny troll.

I suppose since I was concentrating on the behavior of my Cheney character I reacted just like my character would.

JNagarya wrote on July 7, 2007 10:51 AM:

"If Bush / Cheney stay in office past January 20, 2009 for no good reason, . . . ."

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 6, 2007 6:18 PM

And what would be a "good" reason, "Jake"?

JNagarya wrote on July 7, 2007 11:01 AM:

". . . . Siegelman's case, as we know the facts today, simply does not support impeachment."

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 6, 2007 6:18 PM

But it's not the only instance for which we have sufficent evidence to deliniate a crime, and on cumulative grounds impeach Bushit once a month for the rest of his life.

Torture is a war crime, and it cannot be made legal, not even with a "signing statment". And the Federal law which defines and prohibits it includes among its penalties death for the perpetrator.

Not that anti-American fools like you give a damn; it hasn't got to you yet. By the time Bushit uses his avowedly absolute immunity from the rule of law, and absolute power to do anything he damned well pleases, and names you one or another kind of "enemy," it'll be too late. And your view of the matter won't mean squat.

JKelley wrote on July 7, 2007 12:09 PM:

If anyone actually gets to the point where they've got sufficient tangible evidence to sustain an impeachment (which I believe we've had for six years now), I can almost guarantee there will be another massive terrorist attack on US soil which will result in a declaration of martial law.

These guys were never legitimate to begin with; they siezed power in a coup enabled by the Supreme Court and a complicit corporate media establishment. They have proceeded to drive it like they stole it, for lack of a better term.

They will stop at nothing, including detonating a dirty bomb in a liberal US city, to continue to brainwash the people into thinking they're "protecting" us.

Jake wrote on July 7, 2007 12:17 PM:

Steve5117:

No thanks. Also, I was not "threatening" you -- I was warning you not to "threaten" bodily harm to either the President or Vice President of the United States -- that's a federal crime.

JNagarya:

I already answered that last night at 7:15 PM. Let me know when you catch up.

english teacher wrote on July 7, 2007 12:18 PM:

but make no mistake, were bush to remain in office past January 2009, it would indeed be correct to say that he would "continue as acting president".

JKelley wrote on July 7, 2007 12:18 PM:

...and I'm for skipping impeachment altogether; let's just cut to the chase and try 'em and hang 'em.

We're far beyond the point where we should be storming the White House with pitchforks and torches to throw these crooks out.

MsInformed wrote on July 7, 2007 12:21 PM:

Jake should go back to his haunting of ThinkProgress, (though I have nothing against them) He always firebombs a thread until it's all about him.
Ignoring=inoculation.

Last ever acknowledgment from me:
Jake sucks, world without end, Amen

english teacher wrote on July 7, 2007 12:24 PM:

JKelly:

i am not disputing your notion that this might be how they would play it, but it would be risky. i don't think the people will buy, because a second attack on bush's watch would be prima facie evidence of his failure. i'm pretty sure the people will see him as the problem, as many already do. i'm not saying you are wrong, just hoping you are.

John Patterson wrote on July 7, 2007 12:36 PM:

Anyone else noticed that, since Siegelman's sentencing, Alabama has been cast into one of the worst droughts in history? Siegelman's sufering seems to be shared by all his fellow Alabamians, take a look at this gif from the Natl. drought tracker site, and check out the progressi0on, and the dates;
http://www.drought.unl.edu/dm/12_week.gif

it is pretty freaky how this hot, dry devastation seems to have descenden on Alabama just as this court case came to a bad head, and it is still concentrated on Alabama, while surrounding areas have been spared.

Maybe the good people of Alabama will take this cosmic hint and do whatever it takes to bring true justice to this situation... which means throwing the whole thing out of court.

Just food for thought...

John Patterson wrote on July 7, 2007 12:39 PM:

PS. For all the impeachment naysayers in our midst, Cheney's Energy Industry Task Force was grounds for Cheney's impeachment, and if Bush knew about it and condoned it, he could be imnpeached for it too.

SINCE WHEN WAS CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NOT A HIGH CRIME?

All it takes is a simple application of existing laws, to prove this administration has been officially impeachable since Cheney's first intrigue.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on July 7, 2007 1:11 PM:

Enough with Jake already! His posts area as tiresome as the business with security codes. Nobody wants to read comments that are all about Jake.

Please, please ignore Jake or otherwise, the TPM MR comment section will go unread by me and everyone else with half a brain.

jr wrote on July 7, 2007 1:27 PM:

Note to TPM: Artur Davis is the kind of guy we need on the national political stage. Keep an eye on him.

(If you have any doubts, watch his questioning of Monica Goodling and the subsequent rules flap with that idiot Dan Lungren.)

St. Augustine wrote on July 7, 2007 1:27 PM:

Good comment Mrs. Panstreppon

I was wondering if you have examined any of the Faith-Based awards that Mr. Bush has given over the years.

A good question for canditates would be: How soon after taking office will you eliminate this inititive and end all funding?

A man of morals and no faith is better than a man of faith with no morals.

Jake wrote on July 7, 2007 3:09 PM:

english teacher:

If Bush is not legally President of the United States, does that mean the 22nd Amendment limiting him to two terms does not apply?

John Patterson:

Since it was officially known as "National Energy Policy Development Group" and reported its finding to Bush, I think it's safe to assume that Bush knew about it and condoned it. Did you know that the Congressional lawsuit to get Cheney's documents was already thrown out of court once? Good luck with that impeachment though . . .

Jake wrote on July 7, 2007 3:50 PM:

January 29, 2001

Remarks by the President at Energy Policy Meeting
The Cabinet Room

11:35 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: This is the first in a series of meetings which will be chaired by Vice President Cheney on discussing our nation's energy situation. Can't think of a better man to run it than the Vice President.

I've also asked, and he has asked that senior members of the Cabinet participate. This is a matter of high concern for this administration, because it's a matter of high concern for our nation. It's becoming very clear to the country that demand is outstripping supply, that there are more users of electricity and natural gas than there is new units being found, and we've got to do something about that in the country. This administration is concerned about the people who work for living, concerned about people who struggle every day to get ahead. And we understand -- fully understand -- what high energy costs can mean to people in America. And we're going to formulate a strategy to deal with it. And the Vice President's going to head the task force to report back to me, and to the nation, how best to cope with high energy prices and how best to cope with reliance upon foreign oil; how best to encourage the development of pipelines and power-generating capacity in the country so that we can help our fellow citizens.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20010129-1.html

JNagarya wrote on July 7, 2007 5:06 PM:

Stanford sure has lowered their standards.

Posted by: FloridaDemocrat
Date: July 6, 2007 8:03 PM

At best, "Jake" dropped out of law school during first smester. That he is a constant liar does not make him a lawyer -- though that is all the extremist right-wing lunatic fringe believes it takes to be a lawyer.

"Jake" can't even distinguish between law and politics, let alone law and non-law. The only "profession" "Jake" practices is tht of professional liar.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not against children lying because it's bad for them to do so. I'm against children lying because they lack sufficient skill and experience to do it competently.

muckthis wrote on July 7, 2007 5:23 PM:

The system is shattered, broken and forever lost. Do you think impeaching w & dick will give us back the democracy they have stolen and trashed? No, the main problem is that the corporations in this country will not let us have our democracy back. They are making out like the bandits that they are and any attempt to restore rights and uphold laws will be squelched(sp).
IF, the total lobbyists sector could be stopped and any elected offical impeached for having contacts with corporate leiasons then MAYBE this democracy could be restored.

ike wrote on July 7, 2007 6:27 PM:

Advanced trolling technique: the puppet show. After all, if people ignore a troll, than the troll has less chance of dominating the thread and the discussion. Thus, what clever trolls do is work in pairs - one will play the role of 'the obvious troll' and one will play the role of the 'outraged opponent'.

The goal here is simply to frame the issue. This means defining the debate. This is why it's best to either simply ignore the trolls, or to include the real facts of the matter in any rebuttal.

For example:
"What you have here is simple violation of basic constitutional law on the role of government, separation of powers, and so on. The facts, if presented in a non-politicized court of law, would indicate that the Justice Department has broken the law, and that they did so with the support of Gonzales, Cheney and Bush. That would lead to the impeachment and imprisonment of the defendants, which is what they deserve."

The public relations propaganda monkeys lagged behind the pace of internet exansion, but they are certainly on the net in full force these days.

Jane wrote on July 7, 2007 6:57 PM:

This thread illustrates one of the problems with a politicized system of justice: nobody trusts the outcome.

The 'publican 'party 'pologists see Libby as a victim of the a political vendetta without even checking the facts which show that no Democrats were involved in his travails. Bush who is the tin man who has no heart with respect to everybody else goes all mushy (yeah, right) and says Libby is too harshly punished and effectively reduces his sentence to a few trips to talk to a probation officer. (Jake, you may be among the few to believe that Libby's pals won't funnel money and jobs to him to make up for the fine and the loss of the law license --tho given Libby's role in the Rich pardon you may be rather relieved about that.)

The Democrats see Siegelman as the victim of a Rethug vendetta because there is evidence of Rove's role in instigating the matter, the indictment was brought by a Republican who had to recuse herself because of her close connections to Siegelman's political opponents, the AG who subsequently conducted the case lied about who instigated it -- etc. (Jake, if you are listening, your connections are better than mine -- do you think you could find out who put that Canary up to it?)

One important reason for impeaching Bush is that he has violated his oath to support the Constitution by using signing statements to violate it.

JNagarya wrote on July 7, 2007 11:30 PM:

The goal here is simply to frame the issue. This means defining the debate. This is why it's best to either simply ignore the trolls, or to include the real facts of the matter in any rebuttal.

Posted by: ike
Date: July 7, 2007 6:27 PM

Incorrect. I've been dealing eye-to-eye anmd toe-to-toe with the lunatic fringers such as "Jake" for over fifteen years. Their goal is to prevent any and all discussion of anything but their propaganda. They have no concern with truth; their goal is to subbvert legitimate discussion by any means they can come up with.

It's real simple:

The break into the host's home, shit on the livingroom rug, then defend that deliberately incivility as legitimate politica opinion and freedom of speech.

Ignoring them is not an option. Nothing is without limits. That includes tolerance. They need to be thorwn out of the homes they break into -- with their shit stuffed down their throats. The only abuse any plaofrm they are allowed. They must be denied their shit-on-your-livingroom-rug oportunites.

They are lunatic fringe and must be driven back into the sewer from which they were vomited by a self-respecting sewer.

Period.

"Jake"'s crap has been refuted. "He" goes to another thread and repeats the very crap that has already been refuted. And will continue to do so. The only go being to prevent discussion of anything but "his" shit on his host's livingroom rug.

The "Jake"'s of the world are not to be welcomed by civil society, else they shit on the floor, then insist their shit be the only topic of discussion. Boot them. Ban them. Marginalize them back into the cesspool from which they were farted.

JNagarya wrote on July 7, 2007 11:35 PM:

Enough with Jake already! His posts area as tiresome as the business with security codes. Nobody wants to read comments that are all about Jake.

Please, please ignore Jake or otherwise, the TPM MR comment section will go unread by me and everyone else with half a brain.

Posted by: Mrs Panstreppon
Date: July 7, 2007 1:11 PM

Ignoring is not sufficient. He needs to be thrown out, exactly as Coulter and her ilk must be rejected from a mainstream which they are not. We've had more than enough of the mainstream media giving these hateful freaks a platform. We don't want to hear them; they are not entertaining -- except to that statistically insignificant percentage of defenders who prefer lie to truth, who believe reality is a fantasy. It's no longer entertaining -- let alone funny.

Jake wrote on July 8, 2007 1:29 AM:

JNagarya:

I'm still here.

Jane:

Do you also think Clinton "violated his oath" by using signing statements? Or, Carter? How about James Monroe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statements#Presidential_usage

Jake wrote on July 8, 2007 1:39 AM:

Just one such example:

Statement on Signing the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1995

September 30th, 1994

. . . I am concerned, however, with the inflexibility of the provisions concerning the U.S. mission and military participation in Rwanda. I will interpret this legislation consistent with my constitutional authority to conduct the foreign relations of the United States and my responsibility as Commander in Chief and as Chief Executive.

I am also concerned about section 8118 of this Act, which limits the Administration's flexibility to make reductions in certain personnel categories. This provision runs counter to the recommendations of the National Performance Review and this Administration's efforts to streamline Federal activities. It will hamper DOD's ability to manage its civilian personnel efforts efficiently.

I would point out that section 8136, which relates to changes in obligations under the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE Treaty), cannot restrict the constitutional options for congressional approval of substantive modifications of treaties, and I sign this bill with that understanding.

William J. Clinton

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=49211

An important legal statement in support of the use of signing statements was developed by Bernard Nussbaum, Counsel to President Clinton in 1993 (i.e. while the Democrats still had Congressional majorities). Nussbaum stated that the Department of Justice had advised three prior presidents that the Constitution provided authority to decline to enforce a clearly unconstitutional law. The entire 1993 memo may be found here:

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htm

(of course, JNagarya will try to claim I am "shitting on the livingroom rug" by pointing out Clinton's signing statements ; )

stan wrote on July 8, 2007 1:55 AM:

speaking of USAs, i live in little rock, and saw tim griffin at a restaurant in our neighborhood - wearing the most obnoxious day glow green shirt i ever saw. Guess what he drives? A silver mercedes with a "support the troops" sticker and a yellow ribbon on it.

how bout getting your sorry fat ass over there and relieve some other 35 year old standing on a street corner in baghdad instead of putting his name on a caging list cause he is black and out of the coutry? whatchya think, Timmy?

Jake wrote on July 8, 2007 2:07 AM:

stan:

Would it help to know that Griffin's a Major in the United States Army, serving in the Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps and, from May through August 2006, he served in Mosul, Iraq?

No, probably not. That's just "shitting on the livingroom rug." I'll leave you and JNagarya to your echo chamber.

stan wrote on July 8, 2007 2:56 AM:

Army Reserve - not army. Most of the reservists here in AR that went spent a lot longer than 3 months over there.

Call me cynical - but I don't see a jag lawyer who is Karl rove's BFF really sees the same kind of hell that the reservist from smackover, AR sees. And he certainly doesn't get to leave after 3 months.

And before you go spouting off about his medals -

combat action badge - pretty much everyone serving in iraq qualifies for

commendation medal - according to wiki: In contrast, the U.S. Army typically authorizes the Commendation Medal for junior officers and enlisted personnel as an end-of-tour award.

iraq is dangerous - but i'm not so stupid to equate griffins 3 months with what the average, not so well connected grunt goes through.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on July 8, 2007 8:59 AM:

Stan, Thanks for the Griffin sighting. If you are interested, I compiled some information about Griffin's reservist career in a lengthy post at the TPM Cafe - link below.

Someone explained the meaning of Griffin's medals and none of them were more than average ones that everyone gets. Griffin got a medal when he attended a three-week training course in Germany, for pete's sake.

Grififin's claim to fame is the Private Mikel case. Read the facts of case and tell me why this case was such a big deal. Me, I think Mikel might have gotten screwed because a WH honcho wanted a notch on his belt.

Griffin claimed to have prosecuted 40 cases while he was at Fort Campbell yet when a journalist asked about someone at Fort Campbell about them, the number was less than ten.

I'd liked to compare Griffin's less than four month stint in Iraq to the time served by other reservists. I suspect the average JAG lawyer spends more than four months if shipped to Iraq.

The one unanswered question about Griffin's military service is whether it was scheduled at the conveniece of the WH. Why was Griffin called up after the 2004 campaign?

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on July 8, 2007 9:00 AM:

Stan, Thanks for the Griffin sighting. If you are interested, I compiled some information about Griffin's reservist career in a lengthy post at the TPM Cafe - link below.

Someone explained the meaning of Griffin's medals and none of them were more than average ones that everyone gets. Griffin got a medal when he attended a three-week training course in Germany, for pete's sake.

Grififin's claim to fame is the Private Mikel case. Read the facts of case and tell me why this case was such a big deal. Me, I think Mikel might have gotten screwed because a WH honcho wanted a notch on his belt.

Griffin claimed to have prosecuted 40 cases while he was at Fort Campbell yet when a journalist asked about someone at Fort Campbell about them, the number was less than ten.

I'd liked to compare Griffin's less than four month stint in Iraq to the time served by other reservists. I suspect the average JAG lawyer spends more than four months if shipped to Iraq.

The one unanswered question about Griffin's military service is whether it was scheduled at the conveniece of the WH. Why was Griffin called up after the 2004 campaign?

St. Augustine wrote on July 8, 2007 9:50 AM:

Mrs Panstreppon

Given Tim's performance record, might his caging operation have needed some covering-up, perhaps concerning absentee ballots of soldiers?

I wonder if Mosul is a mail processing center for the military?

Jake wrote on July 8, 2007 10:18 AM:

As I said, stan, probably not. You do know that David Iglesis was JAG as well, right?

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on July 8, 2007 10:31 AM:

St Augustine,

Based on the emails in the DOJ doc dump, Griffin knew the caging issue was a potential problem for him when he became USA.

Griffin recently denied engaging in caging but he never explained why he was the recipient of a list of registered FL voters. If there was an innocuous explanation, I am sure it would have been forthcoming.

I wondered about why Mosul and not Baghdad. Griffin's DOJ bio was silent about what he actually did during his Iraq stint. Being relatively out of sight in Mosul might have made it easier for Griffin to work on '06 election issues.

I don't know what ever became of it but I heard Senator Pryor's staff was looking closely at Griffin's bio in the weeks before Griffin resigned.

Jake wrote on July 8, 2007 10:47 AM:

I could not find on-line whether David Iglesias EVER went to Mosul or anywhere else in Iraq.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on July 8, 2007 11:31 AM:

More on Tim Griffin's JAG career. Link below.

Consortium News
By Richard L. Fricker
4/3/07

"Did Rove's Protégé Puff Up Résumé?"

Little Rock’s interim U.S. Attorney J. Timothy Griffin – already at the center of a firestorm over whether the White House has put politics ahead of prosecutorial integrity – made claims about his experience as an Army lawyer that have been put in doubt by military records

The 38-year-old Griffin claims on his official Web site that he prosecuted 40 criminal cases while at Ft. Campbell, where he was stationed from September 2005 to May 2006. But Army authorities say Ft. Campbell’s records show Griffin only serving as assistant trial counsel on three cases, none of which went to trial.

Griffin didn’t agree to be interviewed about his claim of 40 criminal prosecutions versus the Army’s confirmation of three cases, all of which were settled as plea bargains. But Cherith Beck, a Griffin spokeswoman, suggested that Griffin’s higher number might refer to all cases he worked on in any capacity...

Griffin’s Web site states that “At Fort Campbell, he prosecuted 40 criminal cases. One of those, U.S. v. Mikel drew national interest after Private Mikel attempted to murder his platoon sergeant and fired upon his unit’s early morning formation. Private Mikel pleaded guilty to attempted murder and was sentenced to 25 years in prison.”

When I asked the Army to identify the cases prosecuted by Griffin at Ft. Campbell, the Army’s public relations office replied, “According to our SJA [Staff Judge Advocate] office, Major Griffin was involved in these three cases (guilty pleas before a military judge alone) as an assistant trial counsel at Ft. Campbell, US vs. Hurst, vs. Mikel, and vs. Edwards.”...

Steve5117 wrote on July 8, 2007 11:39 AM:

Mrs Panstreppon

Many of the assignments may well have been made to build up one's resume but don't overlook the ego factor also. The old "we need you" with a little financial reward perhaps.

Do you think Tim had fantasies like Major Flagg from MASH?

Steve5117 wrote on July 8, 2007 11:57 AM:

Mrs Panstreppon

Or maybe Tim is more of a Frank Burns!

How much of a difference is there between using professional people, lawyers, to subvert our voting freedoms and having doctors try to blow up cars to harm people?

Can we consider both to be terrorist acts against the people?

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on July 8, 2007 12:08 PM:

Steve,

I'm not sure what you mean about financial rewards. As I mentioned above, I think Griffin's military service might have been orchestrated by the WH to give Griffin the appearance of having prosecutorial experience of which he had none.

After the 2004 campaign during which he worked for either the RNC or Bush-Cheney '04, Griffin was a "consultant" between Jan and April 2005 at an annual rate of $180k. Someone online suggested that he was working for the RNC at the time but I don't know if that was ever confirmed.

I've always been curious as to why Griffin didn't go straight to a WH spot after the '04 election. He only joined the WH staff in April '05 and then got "called up" by Army Reserve in September '05.

I'd love to see Griffin's calendar for the period in which he served in the JAG reserve. I bet Griffin had lots of free time to pursue political interests. I am especially interested in what he did while he was in Mosul. Again, Griffin never said what he actually did in Iraq.

I suspect that Griffin knew his military service would not stand up to scrutiny if the Senate held a hearing on his confirmation.

Steve5117 wrote on July 8, 2007 12:31 PM:

Mrs. P

Hasn't this administration has set up a performance award program that we've seen mentioned in connection to people in the VA and I beleive Mrs. Doan used one of those adwards on a new appointee that was overriding career personell.

Perhaps overlapping paychecks, combat pay, or a pay raise could be a sufficent reward for some. Then again, as ugly as these people are, they might have wanted to use his house for something while he was away. I would bet a fortune that there was always an ulterior motive behind any moving of Tim and others like him.

anon wrote on July 8, 2007 1:07 PM:

Reading through this mess again, it's worth nothing that Siegelman is some fine troll bait. Which is interesting. I suspect one reason the GOP/WH/wingnutbase is so scared of any serious investigation into Siegelman is that it's quite likely that Rove and Co left a bigger mess in AL than anyone realizes. There's been almost no national media scrutiny of the AL mess. Rove was perfecting various techniques there and he left a lot of shit lying around that smells bad once you get close enough. Unfortunately, a lot of people in AL have gotten habituated to the smell but it's still shit. It's also worth nothing that the DoJ is, apparently rather sensitive to the Siegelman mess since they purged quite a few documents related to various AL USAs from their website. And the Mobile Register dropped their Siegelman docs once the story went national. Just saying. The trolls are on to something.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on July 8, 2007 1:14 PM:

Steve,

I think you are referring to cash incentives and bonuses. My understanding is that they are generally less than $10k which would not mean all that much to Griffin one way or the other.

I've read that the Griffins (Tim is newly married) have homes in Arkansas and Virginia. As Stan reported, Griffin is driving a Mercedes. His money didn't come from a government salary, that's for sure.

I suspect that Griffin was going to use the USA job as a stepping stone to a career in Arkansas politics.

I suspect, too, that Griffin would have been quite happy to participate in any anti-Clinton projects coming out of Arkansas. Something like an investigation into construction kickbacks on the Clinton library would have sucked media oxygen for a couple of days.

I have speculated that the GOP would bring up the Arkansas prison blood scandal next year if Hillary runs. I thought maybe Griffin might open an investigation into it just to get some headlines during the '08 campaign.

Google "Arkansas prison blood" for more info.

Darlene wrote on July 8, 2007 1:16 PM:

Nancy Worley's trial is starting on Monday? Will Democrats whine that she's the target of a political investigation? Sadly, they probably will.

JNagarya wrote on July 8, 2007 11:28 PM:

I could not find on-line whether David Iglesias EVER went to Mosul or anywhere else in Iraq.

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 8, 2007 10:47 AM

Irrelevant, of course: you've never done service in the military, let alone in Iraq. You're another keyboard kommando whose "patriotism consists in supporting the death of others.

As for Iglesias, we do know that he, unlike you and the chickenhawks you support and defend against the health and well-being of your country, and of the military, served many years in the military, and that his fuflfilling of his reserve duties -- Bushit went AWOL -- were treated as a black mark against him by the Bushit War Crimes Family and Delusion Factory, and DOJ.

If you don't support the troops, they'll get none, because Bushit, et al., don't support them.

JNagarya wrote on July 8, 2007 11:33 PM:

This is going beyong pathetic for Democrats. We have a 14% approval rating in Congress and cheerleading for criminals like Siegelman is pathetic.

Posted by: Mark
Date: July 6, 2007 6:39 PM

You aren't a Democrat. And the polls for Congress are not 14 per cent.

The investigation of a partisan political prosecution, which is illegal -- for which, in this instance, there is substantial evidence -- is a defense of democratic due process of law. Of the rule of law. Those who hump for criminals, of course, such as you, will tell any lie in defense of lawlessness, including the labeling of concern for the rule of law as being "pitiful".

JNagarya wrote on July 8, 2007 11:38 PM:

Nancy Worley's trial is starting on Monday? Will Democrats whine that she's the target of a political investigation? Sadly, they probably will.

Posted by: Darlene
Date: July 8, 2007 1:16 PM

The topic of this thread -- as you well know -- is the political prosecution -- which is illegal -- of Siegelman. The political activist/lawyer who came forward with the affidavit providing evidence that this political prosecution was initiated by Karl Rove is a Republican.

Your bigotry notwithstanding, most are for the rule of law against lawlessness. Not all of most are Democrats. Many of them are Republicans.

It is sad that one finds oneself defending lawlessness and out-and-out crime and subversions of the rule of law against your country as if criminality is acceptable as the norm so long as that is the only way by means of which you and the criminals you support and defend can steal their way into office.

How does it feel to defend criminality, and call yourr fellow citizens names for be for the rule of law? Shameful, no doubt; as it should, as it is the opposite of a legitimate means by which to boost legitimate self-esteem.

Why do you hate America?

Jake wrote on July 8, 2007 11:42 PM:

It was "stan" who brought up Griffin's military service (or lack thereof). I therefore brought up another U.S. Attorney's military service (or lack thereof). That's "irrelevant" but MY service (or lack thereof) is suddenly "relevant"? LOL

JNagarya wrote on July 8, 2007 11:45 PM:

Well, I did say "most people" -- I'm sure that you and Rosie O'Donnell (unless they get you too) will be screaming about conspiracy theories -- someone with a better motive to commit such a crime would be the same person who ordered the 9/11 attacks, Obama, I mean, Osama bin Laden. Next question?

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 6, 2007 8:04 PM

". . . the same person who ordered the 9/11 attacks, Obama, I mean, Osama bin Laden."

That is a dirty smear, punk. That's why you should be banned from every civil website and blog: you have nothing legitimate to contribute. Such smears are not only illegitimate, they reveal a great deal more about your bigotry and immorality than about anyone else's.

As for Osama bin Laden: "Wanted -- Dead or Alive" -- Bushit.

We know where the Madrid bombers are: in prison.

We know where the first set of bombers of the WTC are: in prison.

So tell us, "Jake," where's Osama? How is Bushit protecting us by failing and _refusing_ to "get" Osama?

JNagarya wrote on July 8, 2007 11:51 PM:

Luckily, for Cheney at least, ours is a REPUBLIC not a direct democracy (even though 54% is still less than the 2/3 majority required under the Constitution to remove Cheney from office).

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 6, 2007 7:48 PM

Irrelevant: 54 per cent of We the people is sufficient to motivate Congress to impeach.

Does it make you feel proud to defend convicted felons such as Libby by lying?

You aren't fit for civil society, liar.

JNagarya wrote on July 8, 2007 11:54 PM:

"I don't think anybody is cheerleading for criminals here."

"Jake" and his fellowq trolls are.

Posted by: Linda Nkosi
Date: July 6, 2007 7:00 PM

JNagarya wrote on July 9, 2007 12:02 AM:

Linda Nkosi:

If I've learned anything from the Libby uproar, Siegelman was CONVICTED by a non-partisan jury of his peers, so, we have to respect their decision . . .

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 6, 2007 7:15 PM

Stop lying, scum --

1. Libby was convicted not only of perjury and obstruction of justice but also of lying to the FBI. His lying to the FBI occurred before Fitzgerald was appointed by Republican Ashcroft at the request of the CIA and the "encouragement" of Republican Bushit.

Everyone involved in the investigation and trial of Libby, except for politically unaffiliated Fitzgerald, non-partisan grand jury and trial jury, and one of the three appellate judges who ruled against his remaining unimprisoned during his appeal of the conviction, was a Republican.

2. Everyone involved in the Siegelman prosecution, except the trial jury, was Republican -- including the lawyer who came forward with the sworn affidavit to the effect that the trial and prosecution were wholly politically-motivated. And there is evidence which suggests that the jury was not non-partisan.

At least two things happen when one makes it a habit to pretend to be stupid in order to ignore the inconvenient facts:

(1) the stupidity becomes the reality, and;

(2) one loses the ability to distinguish between apples and oranges.

JNagarya wrote on July 9, 2007 12:11 AM:

What makes you think I wasn't accepted into law school again? I was, indeed, accepted and (believe it or not) graduated Class of 1960.

I was never disbarred, or otherwise disciplined -- I retired after practicing 42 years, though, if that helps.

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 6, 2007 8:37 PM

That's why you don't know the basics, beginning with the distinction between law and non-law.

And why you are consistently contemptuous of Constitution and rule of law.

And why you'll tell any lie in defense of criminality, so long as the criminals are Republicans. And then go on to lie against lying when the target of your hatefulness and smears is a Democrat.

And why you'll lie about the actual outcome of trials in effort to defend Republican criminals, and to smear Democrats.

And why you'd assert that there wasn't a crime underlying Libby's perjury and obstruction of justice -- even though there was. And why you leave out the fact that Clinton's alleged perjury, of which charge he was ACQUITTED by a hyperpartisan REPUBLICAN-controlled Congress, had no underlying anything, including and especially criminal, as the civil case related thereto was dismissed as having no merit.

Jake wrote on July 9, 2007 12:16 AM:

For the record, I am not "lying" although I would be interested in knowing if you think Senator Kennedy was a "punk", "bigot", and/or "immoral" for his "dirty smear"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APx2YJ-_jos

JNagarya wrote on July 9, 2007 12:17 AM:

Speaking as a Stanford alum ('61) there were anomalies even before the unfortunate coming of Condi Rice. There was quite an active chapter of Young Americans for Freedom, who were perfect Jonah Goldberg pantloads two generations before their blossoming.

Posted by:
Date: July 6, 2007 9:04 PM

The YAF came out of the woodwork and were active in the mid- to late sixties, and into the seventies. Full-of-shit Jonah Goldbergs hits the nail on the head. It always struck me that their major, for which they were apparently awarded degrees by each other, was being profoundly vacuous.

alabama wrote on July 9, 2007 12:19 AM:

I just found out something really interesting the three largest newpapers in alabama are owned by advance publication Inc. this media company belongs to the newhouse family. They own the birmingham news, the huntsville news, and the mobile press register no wonder we get the same story's basically from the media all over the state I do not believe most people in alabama know this fact I have been an avid reader for years and never realized this fact what about ya'll did you know these papers are owned by the same family. If you have been following the siegelman case I think you will understand now why these papers have been giving the same coverage this of course is just my opinion.

JNagarya wrote on July 9, 2007 12:24 AM:

Yes, UnEasyOne, people guilty of corruption need be incarated for their illegalities. Siegelman's prosecution is in doubt now because of the involvement of Herr Rove, the judge's rulings and the prosecutor's zeal. If Siegelman was that much of a threat to the GOP I wouldn't rule out jury tampering on their part to insure a guilty verdict.

Posted by: Steve5117
Date: July 6, 2007 11:13 PM

There is some evidence of impropriety on the part of several jurors. Obviously objective evaluation of the evidence, and how the prosecution and judge operated, cannot be conducted in Alabama. It needs to be done publicly "under the kleig lights" and under oath with transcripts so hated by Bushit, et al., and their supporters.

(While Kerry was serving two tours in Viet Nam, Bushit was serving on a Senate campaign in Alabama. Rove's -- yet another chickenhawk [YAC] -- first elections experience outside TX was in Alabama.)

JNagarya wrote on July 9, 2007 12:34 AM:

"Siegelman and Scrushy should be sent to prison, because they were convicted of a crime."

Were they? Then you have no objection to invvestigating how that conviction was accomplished, especially in view of the sworn affidavit executed by the Republican lawyer who says the prosecution was politically motivated, and initiated by Karl Rove.

Right? I mean, you are for the triump of truth and justice over criminality, correct?

"Whining about selective prosecution is like Republicans complaining about the "selective persecution" of Libby."

I've not heard any Republican or convicted-felon Libby complain of "selective prosecution". Nor of course is that being alleged in the Siegelman case. In the latter _politically motivated_ prosecution is alleged -- for which there is significant evidence; again, see above re. the Republican lawyer's sworn affidavit to the effect.

"Placing double standards to Democratic politicians is silly."

Really? It must be, then, that Rita, who got 33 months -- not 30 -- for the same crimes as Libby -- will be geting a presidential commutation too -- correct?

Posted by: Mark
Date: July 7, 2007 12:25 AM

JNagarya wrote on July 9, 2007 12:41 AM:

For the record, I am not "lying" although I would be interested in knowing if you think Senator Kennedy was a "punk", "bigot", and/or "immoral" for his "dirty smear"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APx2YJ-_jos

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 9, 2007 12:16 AM

You fool no one. Everyone here already knows you lie every time you open your mouth. As I said before: I'd ask why you're a liar, but your answer would be a lie.

Clue: I've been dealing eye-to-eye and toe-to-toe with you right wing lunatic fringe illiterate ant-Americans for over fifteen years, so I've already seen hundreds of times the same lies over and over and over and over again. They're always the same lies, the same smears, the same pseudo-law poppycock, the same constant efforts to prevent discussion of anything but the bullshit you assholes sling and with which pollute every forum you sully with your fetid presence.

Jake wrote on July 9, 2007 1:06 AM:

That's right, JNagarya -- I guess Bernard Nussbaum was "lying" about Clinton's signing statements too -- I knew you would prefer the "echo chamber" to an actual legal memorandum.

Powkat wrote on July 9, 2007 2:04 PM:

I don't believe Jake is a Stanford law school graduate - how many times has it been shown that the elaborate resumes of so many of the criminals associated with the Bush administration have been padded or completely fabricated?

Besides the 'Hillary is a lesbian' cracks show he is more likely to have been educated (and I use the word loosely) at Liberty or Regent. Homophobia is their favorite bigotry.

Anonymous wrote on July 10, 2007 11:02 AM:

Governor Siegelman’s public service career spanned more that a quarter century, and he is the only man to hold the offices of: Secretary of State, Attorney General, Lieutenant Governor, and Governor. This is not about the man but instead about the principal and rule of law.

As background, the 2002 election was literally stolen from the governor by agents of Mr. Riley. There is suggestive evidence that Rove had involvement too. The Alabama Attorney General, Pryor, refused to order a recount thereby certifying the election for Mr. Riley. Bush later appointed Pryor to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, while Congress was in recess, as gratuity for Pryor’s role in getting Riley elected.

Let us remember when Riley was a member of Congress. His Chief of Staff was involved in the Jack Abramoff criminal enterprise after Riley left Congress. Now, more to the point of the current situation. In 2005 the Governor Siegelman was indicted as a means to ensure he did not get elected; he had announced his candidacy for governor. The trial took place during the election cycle. Again there is evidence of Rove’s involvement in the conspiracy. This is one of the reasons the Administration is defying Legislative Branch authority by withholding emails, and other documents.

This injustice upon Governor Siegelman, his family, the citizens of Alabama, and our nation comprises the rule of law.

There are countless dastardly deeds, yet to be disclosed, by the criminal enterprise of tyrants Bush and Cheney.

Major wrote on July 10, 2007 11:08 AM:

Those comments are plausible given the past, present, and future context of it all. Let the hearings begin and justice prevail for Mr. Siegelman and his rights restored.

Major wrote on July 10, 2007 11:16 AM:

Those comments are plausible given the past, present, and future context of it all. Let the hearings begin and justice prevail for Mr. Siegelman and his rights restored.

frsq imue wrote on August 5, 2007 7:50 AM:

cswtkgv zskco tauioqsv pvnwilbs tvxzje qszolnufg enzopbqdy