Comments (124)

Jake D. wrote on July 17, 2007 5:35 PM:

Oh, I'm scared: "a serious affront" LOL -- are they going to "double dog dare" her next time -- shouldn't Conyers have been "carefully planning" his next steps BEFORE the deadline passed???

Harriet wrote on July 17, 2007 5:39 PM:

But Jake you promised me you'd resign from this blog if they really up the ante.

And Jake, I'm dying for it!

KestrelBrighteyes wrote on July 17, 2007 5:41 PM:

This is it, boys and girls...this is where democracy meets dictatorship.

Will Congress hold Harriet Miers in inherent contempt of Congress?

Will she be arrested like any other ordinary citizen?

Stay tuned...

Jake D. wrote on July 17, 2007 5:42 PM:

I love uniforms. Will you dress up in a uniform for me, Harriet?

And boots, Harriet! Boots!

Mark Richards wrote on July 17, 2007 5:43 PM:

Yawn.

What a circus.

If any of us ordinary citizenry, the Sheriff would be at the door with irons in hand and that would be that.

SCREW them. Send the Sergent at Arms, arrest her, and drag her before the committee.

The longer Conyers and the others plays pansy with these blatant criminals, the less credibility they achieve with the ones that matter: us.

However, if the show is really all for Conyers and the Democrats, well let them have it. In that light the best we can do as a service is ignore Conyers until he gets serious and deals.

Harriet wrote on July 17, 2007 5:43 PM:

Could we do the goose-step together, Jackie?

Jake D. wrote on July 17, 2007 5:49 PM:

Shhh, Harriet... let's go over to some other blog and talk this over, shall we?

Don't blow my cover here, Harriet.

wrb wrote on July 17, 2007 5:52 PM:

Contempt, hopefully with the Sergeant at Arms sent to nab her.

On another angle I see that Bush has sent up 4 more Judicial nominees. To me it would seem entirely reasonable for this congress to refuse to process any such until the Administration has honored their subpoenas, since they cannot responsibly evaluate this administration's nominees without fully understanding this administrations past approach to and regard for justice.

Harriet wrote on July 17, 2007 5:54 PM:

But where, Jackie, where? I'm dying for your answer!

And you promise to quit this place, right?

Jake D. wrote on July 17, 2007 5:58 PM:

I'm gonna carry a torch for you forever, Harriet.

And to prove it, click on my name. I'm gonna go over and light a candle for you. There will be a message when you click on the candle. And then you can light a candle with a message. And I'll find it.

There are a couple thousand candles lit there now. So keep clicking till you find me.

I love candles! I love fire. And uniforms.

Ok, Harriet. I'll be waiting.....

Tom Simon wrote on July 17, 2007 6:09 PM:

This is serious stuff. If we cannot get Harriet Miers to testify then we have lost our republic. Jake is a simpleton. Pay him no heed.

On the Clock wrote on July 17, 2007 6:11 PM:

What, are the trolls on stop-loss or something? I know their numbers were dwindling rapidly, but Jake clearly needs as much time off as he has on...

Meanwhile, I'm of the opinion that an armed standoff between Congress and the Bush White House would be a clarifying moment for the country. I guess this is why we have a second amendment.

bobh wrote on July 17, 2007 6:11 PM:

wow...jake has singlehandedly taken discourse on tpmm to a new low --- and will continue to do so until he is stopped.......well? wheres my delete jakes post button?

surely the dems that run this site can't castigate the dems in congress for not getting tough if they can't seem to muster the courage to eliminate a troll?

On the Clock wrote on July 17, 2007 6:12 PM:

What, are the trolls on stop-loss or something? I know their numbers were dwindling rapidly, but Jake clearly needs as much time off as he has on...

Meanwhile, I'm of the opinion that an armed standoff between Congress and the Bush White House would be a clarifying moment for the country. I guess this is why we have a second amendment.

Tom Simon wrote on July 17, 2007 6:12 PM:

This is serious stuff. If we cannot get Harriet Miers to testify then we have lost our republic. Jake is a simpleton. Pay him no heed.

drew wrote on July 17, 2007 6:12 PM:

anyone here up on the appropriate case law? Manning's letter cited a ton of precedents; maybe a smoke screen, maybe not.

Anyone? Beuler? Beuler?

On the Clock wrote on July 17, 2007 6:12 PM:

What, are the trolls on stop-loss or something? I know their numbers were dwindling rapidly, but Jake clearly needs as much time off as he has on...

Meanwhile, I'm of the opinion that an armed standoff between Congress and the Bush White House would be a clarifying moment for the country. I guess this is why we have a second amendment.

Troll Patrol wrote on July 17, 2007 6:12 PM:

Ach, du Liebe!

And just when we were ready to close up shop!

"when"????

Jake wrote on July 17, 2007 6:15 PM:

If I had a brain, I'd be dangerous. DUH, DUH, DUH. Why don't you just spit in the eye of the people of America, Ms. Harriet??? Never mind, I'll go back and suck my thumb until you testify and tell the American people how you lied about everything.

On the Clock wrote on July 17, 2007 6:16 PM:

I only hit "post" once, Your Honor.

georgia wrote on July 17, 2007 6:24 PM:

Still, Emperor Bush has not actually claimed executive privilege. The simple fact that Manning claims he has doesn't make it so. It's hearsay.

I certainly do hope the House will exercise their oversight authority and use inherent contempt.

Troll Patrol wrote on July 17, 2007 6:26 PM:

Argument accepted, On the Clock.

But I must admit, it made a nice interlude, even if it goes against us.

Harriet wrote on July 17, 2007 6:29 PM:

No, Jake, not your "thumb" - something else (inside the boot).

Look for the candle, Jakie...

I'll "testify" to you!

Jim Mooney wrote on July 17, 2007 6:39 PM:

What does it matter. She'll just get pardoned like Scooter. They know they have a free "Get out of jail" card so they can spit on Congress, the American people and commit murder if they wanted to.

Ann Coulter wrote on July 17, 2007 6:40 PM:

Why Jake, you two-timer.

Harmonika wrote on July 17, 2007 6:41 PM:

Why hasn't she been bitchslapped across the face with a 2 x 4 by now?

Lock up her privileged ass for a week, and she will sing like a canary.

Filthy slag.

Jake D. wrote on July 17, 2007 6:42 PM:

georgia:

From Manning's letter http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/conyers-miers-sub/?resultpage=3&

Chairwoman Sanchez's assertion that the President has not properly invoked Executive Priviled because he has acted through Counsel to the President is mistaken. See Ruling at 1. In In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729 (1997), the D.C. Circuit held that President Clinton properly invoked the privilege where the "affidavit [of] former White House Counsel Abner J. Mikva stated 'the President . . . has specifically directed me to invoke formally the applicable privileges over those documents.'" Id. at 744 n. 16. In any event, even if the 1973 district court decision upon which Chairwoman Sanchez relies were viable authority, it is inapposite. In that case, the President did not himself assert the privilege. See Ctr. on Corproate Responsibility, Inc. v. Schultz, 368 F. Supp. 863, 870-73 (D.D.C. 1973).

Next canard?

georgia wrote on July 17, 2007 6:43 PM:

Impeach her. That way, she can't be pardoned.

Jake D. wrote on July 17, 2007 6:47 PM:

Well, georgia, you certainly are quick with the canards at least. Do you think if she's impeached AND then prosecuted for contempt of Congress (2 U.S.C. § 192), she can't be pardoned on the contempt charge?

georgia wrote on July 17, 2007 6:50 PM:

Jake, the House can be a judge of that. The subcommittee has already ruled against her privilege claims.

Jake D. wrote on July 17, 2007 6:55 PM:

The House can "judge" whether Executive Privilege was properly invoked and/or whether the President can pardon her for any criminal contempt charge? Since when? Case cites, as always, are preferable.

Bob wrote on July 17, 2007 6:58 PM:

Under the inherent contempt power, the individual is brought before the House or Senate by the Sergeant-at-Arms, tried at the bar of the body, and can be imprisoned. The purpose of the imprisonment or other sanction may be either punitive or coercive. Thus, the witness can be imprisoned for a specified period of time as punishment, or for an indefinite period (but not, at least in the case of the House, beyond the adjournment of a session of the Congress) until he agrees to comply. The inherent contempt power has been recognized by the Supreme Court as inextricably related to Congress’s constitutionally-based power to investigate.

georgia wrote on July 17, 2007 7:00 PM:

Inherent Contempt - from the Congressional Oversight Manual

Under the inherent contempt power, the individual is brought before the House or Senate by the Sergeant-at-Arms, tried at the bar of the body, and can be imprisoned. The purpose of the imprisonment or other sanction may be either punitive or coercive. Thus, the witness can be imprisoned for a specified period of time as punishment, for an indefinite period (but not, at least in the case of the House, beyond the adjournment of a session of the Congress) until he agrees to comply. The inherent contempt power has been recognized by the Supreme Court as inextricably related to Congress’s constitutionally-based power to investigate. Between 1795 and 1934 the House and Senate utilized the inherent contempt power over 85 times, in most instances to obtain (successfully) testimony and/or documents. The inherent contempt power has not been excercised by either House in over 70 years. This appears to be because it has been considered too cumbersome and time-consuming to hold contempt trials at the bar of the offended chamber. Morever, some have argued that the procedure is ineffective because punishment can not extend beyond Congress’s adjournment date.

Jake D. wrote on July 17, 2007 7:02 PM:

If you can't find her (or, if she's under Secret Service protection), how's the Sergeant-at-Arms going to bring her before the bar?

Jake D. wrote on July 17, 2007 7:04 PM:

Like I said, wake me up if Congress actually DOES something . . .

georgia wrote on July 17, 2007 7:09 PM:

Jake,

Impeachment pardons are expressly forbidden in the Constitution, but it's not clear whether that applies to the criminal charge. I'd hope it does, but I don't know if it has ever happened.

I'd certainly say that any president that would pardon an impeached member of his own administration should be impeached himself. (But, then again, the list of impeachable offenses is so long, what's one more?)

gordy wrote on July 17, 2007 7:10 PM:

The most intelligent post I have read so far was the one by WRB. Refuse to process any more judicial appointments till the neo-nazis comply with the law

gordy wrote on July 17, 2007 7:11 PM:

The most intelligent post I have read so far was the one by WRB. Refuse to process any more judicial appointments till the neo-nazis comply with the law

wrb wrote on July 17, 2007 7:11 PM:

>If you can't find her (or, if she's under Secret Service protection), how's the Sergeant-at-Arms going to bring her before the bar<

She can spend her life in hiding rather than tell the truth. Many people have tried.

I suppose that if the secret service didn't respect the congressional supeona, congress could stop funding their protection.

georgia wrote on July 17, 2007 7:14 PM:

I'd say he cares more about war funding than he does about judicial appointments. Hit him where it hurts.

wrb wrote on July 17, 2007 7:21 PM:

>I'd say he cares more about war funding than he does about judicial appointments. <

I disagree-- these judicial appointments are his gold, his legacy. The judges will be making law long after this war is an ugly memory. More practical, freezing the appointments is something the Lehey can pretty much do on his own, and the stonewall gives him clear justification understandable by anyone.

Jake D. wrote on July 17, 2007 7:26 PM:

Well, then, members better be careful leaving the Capitol or they may wake up at Gitmo . . .

Jake D. wrote on July 17, 2007 7:27 PM:

wrb:

Ever hear of "recess appointments"?

wrb wrote on July 17, 2007 7:34 PM:

>Ever hear of "recess appointments"?<

Counting on Reid to carry through on his promise to not go into recess during the remainder of this administration. Much depends on that show of backbone.

georgia wrote on July 17, 2007 7:34 PM:

Yeah, recess appointments. There's another list of abuses of power.

We need to fix that with a Constitutional amendment, restricting recess appointments to inter-session vacancies, and putting them immediately under review when the next Senate session convenes.

Harriet wrote on July 17, 2007 7:34 PM:

Gitmo.... Jake, that's where they have boots and uniforms.

Oh, Jake.... The candle's burning. And I'm dying for it.

You can find me by searching through the candles. Nearly 18 thousand of them, Jake!

Come on over... Jakie.... burning... candles.

Jake D. wrote on July 17, 2007 7:37 PM:

Reid = backbone?! LOL

Besides, Bush can simply adjourn Congress if need be -- see Art. II, Sec. 3: ". . . he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper . . ."

Harriet wrote on July 17, 2007 7:38 PM:

Come on, Jake.... you said it - recess! Recess, now and forever, Jake.

You p r o m i s e d.....

Follow the candles, Jackie.

Jake D. wrote on July 17, 2007 7:39 PM:

So, georgia, Clinton did not "abuse" the recess appointments power?

Jake D. wrote on July 17, 2007 7:41 PM:

No thanks, "Harriet" -- I think you are looking for the fake "Jake".

georgia wrote on July 17, 2007 7:45 PM:

Jake,

You're misconstruing the meaning. In case it isn't clear, there's the following from Federalist #69:

The President can only adjourn the national legislature in the single case of disagreement about the time of adjournment. The British monarch may prorogue or even dissolve the Parliament. The governor of New York may also prorogue the legislature of this State for a limited time; a power which, in certain situations, may be employed to very important purposes.

wrb wrote on July 17, 2007 7:46 PM:

>>. . he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper . . ."<<

Man, you are pushing.

What makes you think there will be "disagreement between them"

georgia wrote on July 17, 2007 7:48 PM:

Jake,

He did. I'm with you there. That's why an amendment should have bipartisan support.

Jake D. wrote on July 17, 2007 7:49 PM:

Even assuming Reid and Pelosi were not in disagreement about the time of adjournment, good luck with your argument before the ROBERTS Supreme Court ; )

Now, did you -- or did you not -- think Clinton Clinton "abused" the recess appointments power?

Jake D. wrote on July 17, 2007 7:51 PM:

Oh. O.K., georgia -- you're right about one out of two at least : )

wrb wrote on July 17, 2007 7:56 PM:

Jake:

That's the Kennedy Supreme Court. And no, I don't think they will embrace you dark authoratarian dreams.

georgia wrote on July 17, 2007 8:00 PM:

I actually liked Inhofe's argument:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S15059&dbname=1999_record
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S15060&dbname=1999_record

georgia wrote on July 17, 2007 8:04 PM:

wrb, yes the "Kennedy Court"
jake, I'm assuming the "one out of two" is that there is a long list of impeachable offenses. I'm glad you agree.

Harriet wrote on July 17, 2007 8:07 PM:

Jake, I read Ann Coulter's comment - that you're two timing her!

Jake, I know yesterday you admitted to being bisexual, among other things. AA and all that.

Well, Jake, I mean Ann Coulter .... which way do you go with her?

I know you like uniforms and Dem soldiers. And what about Ann, Jake? What about Ann?

And what about me? You swore tonight you'd carry a torch for me forever. And you're here, Jake. Not over at the candles.... like you promised.

Oh, Jake... I'm in uniform ... with the boots on ... and the candles are burning!

The word is "free" Jake. Quit your job here and we'll be free!

nofltwlt wrote on July 17, 2007 9:13 PM:

Well it is time to use the same tactics condoned by Harriet and others in this administration.

Pick her up on the streets of Bum-Fuck Texas and rendition her to Poland for interrogation, as in water-boarding. If it was good for her tnen, it is great for her now.

nofltwlt wrote on July 17, 2007 9:15 PM:

Well it is time to use the same tactics condoned by Harriet and others in this administration.

Pick her up on the streets of Bum-Fuck Texas and rendition her to Poland for interrogation, as in water-boarding. If it was good for her tnen, it is great for her now.

mutt wrote on July 17, 2007 9:16 PM:

Jake can hide behind hairsplitting legalisms all he wants. We at the" Up or Down Vote For Harriet Miers Committee"- you remember us, we formed when Our Glorious Leader proposed her for the High Court- applaud her stance. Rule of Decider. "Law" is for gay sweater wearing Defeatocrats.......

mutt wrote on July 17, 2007 9:17 PM:

Jake can hide behind hairsplitting legalisms all he wants. We at the" Up or Down Vote For Harriet Miers Committee"- you remember us, we formed when Our Glorious Leader proposed her for the High Court- applaud her stance. Rule of Decider. "Law" is for gay sweater wearing Defeatocrats.......

Anonymous wrote on July 17, 2007 9:23 PM:

has she had her pass port taken...no
Will she run, maybe.

Mexico is a good friend of mr.president!

sand, blue water, cool breezes, people to wait on her, food-oh the food! Tan bodies, pass the oil!

will she visit the Mexico she loves! or is it Canada!

you make the call!

Johnsnottoodistracted wrote on July 17, 2007 9:25 PM:

This is like barny going over to andy's and asking if it may kinda in a way sorta only for awhile be ok to take aunt bee to the station for a few questions.
I mean talk to her,or just find out something, or well is she at home?Oh nevermind I can come back later.Will she mind?
Oh,she's teaching the dog to watch TV?Ok, well it's no big thing.Maybe we can talk about this some other time.
Would that be better?

Uncle_Meat wrote on July 17, 2007 10:18 PM:

Stop feeding trolls:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7/17/9137/01266

He is paid to disagree with anything you say or argue.

What are they paying you Jake?!?

poggy wrote on July 17, 2007 11:06 PM:

What is this? The 7th deadline? Congress is a joke, and Rove/Cheney/Bush get the joke.

rockfish wrote on July 17, 2007 11:41 PM:

The best explanation I've seen so far is by John Dean at http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20070713.html. The House sends the Sargent at Arms for her AND they get to hold under arrest (is there still a jail in Congress?) until either she talks, or the session ends. He has great links and precedents, and one quote:
"Finally, if Miers is found in contempt, the House itself can take action against her at the bar of the House. (The Senate can similarly hold such proceedings.) Congress has the power to prosecute contumacious witnesses to require them to comply, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed this power. For example, in 1987, in Young v. U.S., Justice Antonin Scalia recognized "the narrow principle of necessity" or "self-defense" of the Congress in protecting its institutional prerogatives. Scalia said "the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches must each possess those powers necessary to protect the functioning of its own processes, although those implicit powers may take a form that appears to be nonlegislative, nonexecutive, or nonjudicial, respectively."

JNagarya wrote on July 18, 2007 12:06 AM:

Oh, I'm scared: "a serious affront" LOL -- are they going to "double dog dare" her next time -- shouldn't Conyers have been "carefully planning" his next steps BEFORE the deadline passed???

Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 17, 2007 5:35 PM

You are laughing at the Constitution and rule of law, asshole.

"Democracy is responsibility." -- Justice Louis Brandeis.

Impeachment is inevitable. Make it happen.

Anonymous wrote on July 18, 2007 12:17 AM:

"Yawn.

"What a circus."

What you are seeing is democratic due process of law. What you want is "a circus". Go back to the Sports Channel, where the rules are made by mindless jocks.

"If any of us ordinary citizenry, the Sheriff would be at the door with irons in hand and that would be that."

And yet, on the contrary, we cannot be impeached and removed.

"SCREW them. Send the Sergent at Arms, arrest her, and drag her before the committee."

That's the circus you're seking. Most of the rest of us want a restoration of Constitution and rule of law by those who are acting in accordance with Constitution and rule of law.

"The longer Conyers and the others plays pansy with these blatant criminals, the less credibility they achieve with the ones that matter: us."

Leahy and Conyers are lawyers. Leahy is a former prosecutor, and Conyers was on the committee investigating the impeachment of Nixon. I suspect they know a great deal more about the law, how Congress and our gov't are to function, and the issues as hand, than you, and the relatively few others who want "a circus".

"However, if the show is really all for Conyers and the Democrats, well let them have it. In that light the best we can do as a service is ignore Conyers until he gets serious and deals."

Subpoenas are as serious as a heart attack. Ignoring one can get one arrested, and even jailed for contempt. The "show" isn't for Conyers and the Democrats; it is of and for the Constitution and rule of law.

Hopefully, someday, you'll grow up and get over your fashionable cynicism as substitute for knowing what is actually happening.

Posted by: Mark Richards
Date: July 17, 2007 5:43 PM

"Democracy is responsibility." -- Justice Louis Brandeis.

Impeachment is inevitable. Make it happen.

JNagarya wrote on July 18, 2007 12:21 AM:

wow...jake has singlehandedly taken discourse on tpmm to a new low --- and will continue to do so until he is stopped.......well? wheres my delete jakes post button?

surely the dems that run this site can't castigate the dems in congress for not getting tough if they can't seem to muster the courage to eliminate a troll?

Posted by: bobh
Date: July 17, 2007 6:11 PM

Seconded.

The greatest threat to democracy is tolerance of its enemies.

"Dempocracy is responsibility." -- Justice Louis Brandeis.

JNagarya wrote on July 18, 2007 12:22 AM:

wow...jake has singlehandedly taken discourse on tpmm to a new low --- and will continue to do so until he is stopped.......well? wheres my delete jakes post button?

surely the dems that run this site can't castigate the dems in congress for not getting tough if they can't seem to muster the courage to eliminate a troll?

Posted by: bobh
Date: July 17, 2007 6:11 PM

Seconded.

The greatest threat to democracy is tolerance of its enemies.

"Democracy is responsibility." -- Justice Louis Brandeis.

JNagarya wrote on July 18, 2007 1:16 AM:

"Meanwhile, I'm of the opinion that an armed standoff between Congress and the Bush White House would be a clarifying moment for the country. I guess this is why we have a second amendment."

Posted by: On the Clock
Date: July 17, 2007 6:11 PM

Despite the anti-Constitutional propaganda of the private, non-profit non-law-making special interest gun industry-front NRA, the Second Amendment has nothing whatever to do with "individual" anything. This is the first draft of that which became the Second, as submitted as a resolution for a Bill of Rights, by James Madison:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

The word "people" is self-evidently _plural_.

The word "person" is self-evidently _singular_ -- _individual_.

The word "compelled" is the opposite of "voluntary".

The only potential "individual right" debated as part of the Second Amendment was that above: exemption from militia _duty_ by reason of conscientious objection. That potential "individual right" being the only one debated as concerns the Second Amendment, and that potential "individual right" having been voted down, the Second Amendment has nothing whatever to do with "individual" anything.

In addition, the Second Amendment is not the entire Constitution, and does not negate any other element in it, this being the direct foundation for the Second Amendment:

Art. I., S. 8. The Congress shall have Power . . . . Cl. 15. To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute [enforce] the Laws of the Union, [and] suppress Insurrections . . . .

As for another gun-nut myth, largely unique to the Internet -- "the Founders placed the Second Amendment after the First Amendment in order to back up the First": As submitted to the states for ratification, the proposed Bill of Rights consisted of twelve Amendments. The first two were rejected, therefore the Third and Fourth Amendments became the First and Second.

Last but not least: being sane, and thus being for public safety, and more, the Founders themselves routinely engaged in not only gun regulation, but also "grabbing" and prohibition. An example of "grabbing" was termed "impressment": those who had guns they weren't using to fight in the "revolution" forfeited their guns to those who would use them to that end. (The gov't gave them a receipt for later redemption.)

An example of their prohibition of possession of guns was expressed in "The Tory Act," published on Jan. 2, 1776, by the same Congress that published the "Declaration of Independence," and in which Congress wrote, "[I]t is the opinion of this Congress that they [i.e., Tories] be disarmed." That was followed by a resolution, to the same effect, dated March 14, 1776.

The states followed up with statutes implementing that "opinion" as binding statute, this being one example, as captioned:

An Act for the executing in the Colony of _Massachusetts-Bay_, in _New England_, one Resolve of the _American Congress_, dated _March_ 14, 1776, recommending the disarming such Prsons as are notoriously disaffected to the Cause of _America_, or who refuse to associate to defend by Arms the _United American Colonies_, against the hostile Attempts of the _British Fleets and Armies, and for the restraining and punishing Persons who are inimical to the Rights and Liberties of the said _United Colonies_, and for directing the proceedings therein.*
_____

*Alternative editorial caption: "An act to disarm those disaffected with the Revolution".

The implementing clause reads:

_Be it therefore enacted by the Council, and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the Authority of the laws, That every Male Person above sixteen Years of Age, resident in any Town or Place in this Colony, who shall neglect or refuse to subscribe a printed or written Declaration of the Form and Tenor herein after prescribed, upon being required thereto by the Committee of Correspondence, Inspection and Safety for the Town or Place in which he dwells, or any of them, shall be disarmed, and have taken from him in Manner hereafter directed, all such Arms, Ammunition and Warlike Implements, as the strictest Search can be found in his Possession or belonging to him; . . . .

The evidence that the foregoing was done: there was no counter-"revolution".

JNagarya wrote on July 18, 2007 1:21 AM:

What does it matter. She'll just get pardoned like Scooter. . . .

Posted by: Jim Mooney
Date: July 17, 2007 6:39 PM

For presumption of innocence? She hasn't been convicted of anything.

JNagarya wrote on July 18, 2007 1:21 AM:

What does it matter. She'll just get pardoned like Scooter. . . .

Posted by: Jim Mooney
Date: July 17, 2007 6:39 PM

For presumption of innocence? She hasn't been convicted of anything.

JNagarya wrote on July 18, 2007 1:22 AM:

What does it matter. She'll just get pardoned like Scooter. . . .

Posted by: Jim Mooney
Date: July 17, 2007 6:39 PM

For presumption of innocence? She hasn't been convicted of anything.

JNagarya wrote on July 18, 2007 1:47 AM:

"From Manning's letter http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/conyers-miers-sub/?resultpage=3&

". . . . In _In re Sealed Case_, 121 F.3d 729 (1997), the D.C. Circuit held that President Clinton properly invoked the privilege where the "affidavit [of] former White House Counsel Abner J. Mikva stated 'the President . . . has specifically directed me to invoke formally the applicable privileges over those documents.'" Id. at 744 n. 16.

"Next canard?

"Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 17, 2007 6:42 PM"

". . . the 'affidavit [of] former White House Counsel Abner J. Mikva stated 'the President . . . has specifically directed me" -- Mikva -- "to invoke formally the applicable privileges over those documents.'"

The affidavit was not from Clinton; it was from Mikva. And in the affidavit Mikva said: "the President . . . has specifically directed me" -- _MIKVA_ -- "to invoke formally the applicable privileges . . . ."

There are two independent legal issues in the instance case, falsely characterized as "competing": the compelled response, by appearing in person, to the subpoena; and the unsubstantiated invocation of Executive Privilege -- unsubstantiated because there is no evidence presented on which it is allegedly grounded.

Mikva did not refuse to appear as the subpoena required, as there is no right in law to do so, and a president's invocation of Executive Privilege cannot be higher than the law itself, or trump, or otherwise negate the legal requirements of those who receive subpoena.

The person subpoenaed _MUST_ comply with the subpoena -- if the first demand of which is to appear in person, then the person must appear in person, even if only to invoke whatever privileges do or may apply in response to every question. Failing to do that, the person subpoenaed is in contempt.

One does not enter a legitimate pleading in a court of law -- which the Congress also is -- via the media. Nor does a note from one's lawyer satisfy or eliminate the legal requirement that the person subpoenaed appear in person.

The alternative legal response to a subpoena one does not want to obey is to go to court in effort to have it quashed. Failing in that effort, one does as the subpoena requires, or one is in contempt.

Next canard?

drmoore wrote on July 18, 2007 1:47 AM:

If Jake D is trying to decrease the number of readers at Josh's site, he just succeeded at getting one person closer to his goal. I can appreciate freedom of speech for the Jake D's in life, but I also have a choice to participate or not (or contribute or not financially) to this site. In the name of free posting, Jake D will find him/herself with a shrinking audience starting with myself, and unfortunately so will Josh. Congratulations. If no one shows up to the town square to listen to who is on the soap box, then the soap box will stand empty.

JNagarya wrote on July 18, 2007 1:54 AM:

Well, georgia, you certainly are quick with the canards at least. Do you think if she's impeached AND then prosecuted for contempt of Congress (2 U.S.C. § 192), she can't be pardoned on the contempt charge?

Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 17, 2007 6:47 PM

If impeached _for_ contempt it would not be pardonable.

Next canard?

JNagarya wrote on July 18, 2007 2:01 AM:

Jake,

You're misconstruing the meaning. In case it isn't clear, there's the following from Federalist #69:

The President can only adjourn the national legislature in the single case of disagreement about the time of adjournment. The British monarch may prorogue or even dissolve the Parliament. The governor of New York may also prorogue the legislature of this State for a limited time; a power which, in certain situations, may be employed to very important purposes.

Posted by: georgia
Date: July 17, 2007 7:45 PM

_The Federalist_ is not law. Moreover, the newspaper articles (extra-legislative) of which comprised were expressly written with the purpose of "selling" the Constitution, therefore it is biased.

And, in the effort to "sell" the Constitution, the authors weren't entirely honest.

CB wrote on July 18, 2007 10:09 AM:

The Dems have the tools to bypass the DOJ and arrest her for "Inherent Contempt". Look it up. It's been used before.

Jake D. wrote on July 18, 2007 10:43 AM:

I've covered myself in I Can't Believe It's Not Butter and await your arrival Ms. Miers!

Anonymous wrote on July 18, 2007 10:44 AM:

I've covered myself in I Can't Believe It's Not Butter and await your arrival Ms. Miers!

Frederick wrote on July 18, 2007 10:55 AM:

Bush is really banking on the Supremes to bail him out,
I'm not so sure that's a given. But Bush doesn't strike me
as being a great poker player, he's calling the Dems on
a bluff while holding a weak hand.

jr wrote on July 18, 2007 11:23 AM:

The various state and national bar associations to which Miers and her ilk (Gonzalez, Taylor, Goodling, Sampson, etc) belong should be moving to disbar them.

Congress is not going to do anything but posture.

Nero wrote on July 18, 2007 11:53 AM:

This so-called Democracy was over the day the "Activist Judges" on the U.S. Supreme Court stopped the legal vote counting and installed the future tyrannical dictator of the Confederation of American States. Warm up the concentration camps and detentions centers, we're all on our way!

paul lukasiak wrote on July 18, 2007 12:34 PM:

If Conyers doesn't use inherent contempt, he's an idiot. Simply put, Bush supervises the justice department, and his actions in the Miers case indicate that the "normal" contempt procedures would not be followed. Thus, the only course of action is inherent contempt -- and the House should assert that the President has no power of pardon over those held in contempt by Congress.

Joel B wrote on July 18, 2007 12:49 PM:

Don't feed the trolls!

Trolls are after attention. Don't give it to them and they start to feel stupid. They then go away.

So, don't feed the trolls!!!

The REAL Jake D. wrote on July 18, 2007 12:51 PM:

Wrong, JNagarya -- as Manning pointed out in his reply, there's no authority to hold a PRIVATE person in contempt based on conflicting directives from two branches -- in fact, the Supreme Court in Raley v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 423 (1959) held that sanctioning "a citizen for exercising a privilege which the State clearly told him was available" would be "the most indefensible sort of entrapment by the State." Congress has to take this up with the President, not Harriet Miers. Even if an Article of Impeachment specifically cited 2 U.S.C. § 192 et seq., Bush could still pardon Miers from any subsequent CRIMINAL prosecution -- what he cannot "pardon" is the impeachment itself -- there's NO other Constitutional limitation to the pardon power.

P.S. to drmoore -- no skin off my nose if you won't post again.

The REAL Jake D. wrote on July 18, 2007 12:57 PM:

paul lukasiak:

Should the House similarly, and just as un-Constitutionally, assert that the President in not the Commander in Chief? I thought I was the only one not in the reality-based universe . . .

The REAL Jake D. wrote on July 18, 2007 1:03 PM:

jr:

Please explain how the ABA for instance can "disbar" any member -- the worst they can do is cancel your membership -- especially Sara Taylor, who is not even a lawyer? I do agree with you that Congress is not going to do anything but posture -- Pelosi has taken impeachment "off the table" and even Russ Feingold has agreed with that.

The REAL Jake D. wrote on July 18, 2007 1:07 PM:

Nero:

Who do you mean "we"? I doubt that I am going to end up in any concentration camp or detentions center -- you do realize that Bush/Cheney are set to leave office on January 20, 2009, right?

paul lukasiak wrote on July 18, 2007 1:55 PM:

in fact, the Supreme Court in Raley v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 423 (1959) held that sanctioning "a citizen for exercising a privilege which the State clearly told him was available" would be "the most indefensible sort of entrapment by the State."

Raley v Ohio was a case decided on "entrapment" grounds (a state Commission basically Raley that it was okay for them to take the Fifth, then prosecuted them for doing so because they had immunity under a different statute, and could not take the fifth) and is not applicable to the Miers case.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=360&invol=423

Additionally, the US Supreme Court is the proper venue for the appeal of cases decided by State Supreme Courts. Article II, Section 8 of the constitution makes it clear that Congress has the right to create the rules it needs to do what is required of it -- and inherent contempt exists as a longstanding power held by congress.

anonymous wrote on July 18, 2007 1:57 PM:

JakeD: "Next canard?"

As usual, JakeD is lying.

The case he invokes involved a subpoena duces tecum, a demand to produce documents, not a demand to appear and testify.

That's what you get when you cut and paste from equally lying winger websites.

Code word = flag, as in JakeD once again flag[ged] as a liar.

anonymous wrote on July 18, 2007 2:01 PM:

JakeD: "Case cites, as always, are preferable."

But meaningless when they are miscited and misused and dishonestly described.

You should try law school before citing to cases, Jakie; that way, maybe you would actually understand what you read, er, copy and paste.

Code word = range, as in [de]range[d] individuals like JakeD.

The REAL Jake D. wrote on July 18, 2007 2:05 PM:

paul lukasiak:

I have never posted that Congress does not have the power of inherent contempt -- however legitimate that power in, there's no case authority I'm aware of to hold a PRIVATE person in contempt based on conflicting directives from two branches -- you also never answered my question about the PRESIDENT's pardon / Commander in Chief powers ; )

anonymous:

Perhaps you are unaware that Ms. Miers' subpoena requested documents as well?

anonymous wrote on July 18, 2007 2:11 PM:

JakeD: "Now, did you -- or did you not -- think Clinton Clinton "abused" the recess appointments power?"

He did not; use and abuse are not the same thing.

georgia: "Jake, You're misconstruing the meaning."

No; JakeD is lying about the meaning.

One should also note that JakeD is misrepresenting the holding of Raley v. Ohio.

Again, the problem with copying and pasting from bloviating conservatives who don't know their law is truly dangerous, or pathetic, take your choice.

anonymous wrote on July 18, 2007 2:17 PM:

JakeD: "Please explain how the ABA for instance can "disbar" any member -- the worst they can do is cancel your membership -- especially Sara Taylor, who is not even a lawyer?"

We should all note at this time that the White House put a non-lawyer in charge of evaluating the competency and performance of lawyers.

Pretty much like they put a bunch of people in charge of the Iraq reconstruction who had no experience or training in such activities.

But they did all have one thing in common: they give Bush good bjs, even if they are only spiritual ones.

Code word = pain, as in JakeD is as big a pain in the ass, as Dubya is.

paul lukasiak wrote on July 18, 2007 2:18 PM:

"I have never posted that Congress does not have the power of inherent contempt -- however legitimate that power in, there's no case authority I'm aware of to hold a PRIVATE person in contempt based on conflicting directives from two branches -- you also never answered my question about the PRESIDENT's pardon / Commander in Chief powers ; ) "

well, you obviously didn't look very hard for case precedent, because you missed Anderson v Dunn (1821), which is the first case listed in the wikipedia entry for "centempt of Congress" that went to the supreme court.

As to your "Commander in Chief" question, its stupid. The whole point of "inherent contempt" is that it is separate and distinct from the criminal justice system which determines whether an "offense against the United States" has been committed. Congress should argue that, under the separation of powers doctrine, the President cannot interfere in inherent contempt procedings because of Article 2 Section 8 -- and keep Harriet locked in a cell for as long as they feel like it -- or until she testifies.

The REAL Jake D. wrote on July 18, 2007 2:19 PM:

(Same?) anonymous:

I graduated from Stanford Law -- how about you?

The REAL Jake D. wrote on July 18, 2007 2:23 PM:

My all means, paul lukasiak, don't answer any questions YOU think are "stupid" then.

paul lukasiak wrote on July 18, 2007 2:24 PM:

""I have never posted that Congress does not have the power of inherent contempt -- however legitimate that power in, there's no case authority I'm aware of to hold a PRIVATE person in contempt based on conflicting directives from two branches -- "

I misread this.

The point is that the executive branch cannot offer enforceable "directives" to private citizens. There would be no case law, because no person has the power to "direct" the actions of another in contravention of a legally issued subpoena -- and that includes the President. The person who is subject to the subpoena is compelled under law to appear absent a court order quashing (or delaying implementation of) the subpoena. Period.

anonymous wrote on July 18, 2007 2:26 PM:

JakeD: "Perhaps you are unaware that Ms. Miers' subpoena requested documents as well?"

Which is irrelevant to any portion of the subpoena or separate subpoena to testify.

The case is not on point and does not support your position.

Move on and quit lying.

" . . . there's no case authority I'm aware of to hold a PRIVATE person in contempt based on conflicting directives from two branches . . ."

Raley did not involve conflicting directives.

Bush did not promise Miers immunity from contempt of Congress, which Congress then sought to repudiate.

Additionally, Miers is a lawyer and the witnesses in Raley were not - it would be hard to claim that a lawyer supposedly versed in constitutional and governmental law, as Miers holds herself out to be, can be entrapped by a conflicting interpretation of the law.

In any event, Raley is not on point any more than your other example.

Try cutting and pasting from better sources; ones that actually understand the law.

za wrote on July 18, 2007 2:26 PM:

so, what's next? they've already shjot their wad with the "We INSIST" horseshit. I guess next comes the "pretty-please"???

I-N-H-E-R-E-N-T C-O-N-T-E-M-P-T

NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

paul lukasiak wrote on July 18, 2007 2:31 PM:

WHat I want to see is Congress hire "Dog--The Bounty Hunter" to bring in Harriet Miers! Now THAT would be entertainment! :)

The REAL Jake D. wrote on July 18, 2007 2:36 PM:

And, I'd like to see a reality show with Conyers, Schumer, etc. forced to live at Gitmo, compete in challenges, and vote off one of them at Tribal Council each week. We can all dream . . .

anonymous wrote on July 18, 2007 2:36 PM:

JakeD: "I graduated from Stanford Law"

I can't take your word for it, because (1) your interpretations of the cases you cite are so pathetically inept as to call into doubt your claim, and (2) you've lied about so many things in your posts you cannot be trusted.

I went to law school too.

Graduated in the top 15% of my class and have been practicing for years.

So, I'll take my own interpretation of the cases over yours any day.

The REAL Jake D. wrote on July 18, 2007 2:41 PM:

At least I use my real name . . .

anonymous wrote on July 18, 2007 2:44 PM:

JakeD: "And, I'd like to see a reality show with Conyers, Schumer, etc. forced to live at Gitmo, compete in challenges, and vote off one of them at Tribal Council each week. We can all dream . . ."

And I'd like to see a reality show with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Condi, etc., in custody at Gitmo, waterboarded until they confess their crimes, and then treated with the same procedures and justice they used on alleged terrorists.

See, two can play that game!

anonymous wrote on July 18, 2007 4:24 PM:

JakeD: "At least I use my real name . . ."

If liberals were as retaliatory against those who disagree with them as conservatives are, you wouldn't either.

BTW, the writers of the Federalist Papers, some of our greatest Founders, also didn't use their real names, but I guess they don't teach that at "Stanford Law."

The REAL Jake D. wrote on July 18, 2007 4:44 PM:

I'm going to pretend you never brought up "the Federalist Papers" -- pray that JNagarya didn't see you -- if you want to see "retaliatory" just read some of his posts some day.

makesenseofit wrote on July 18, 2007 4:59 PM:

Hurry before we become a police state and then the charge to make those testify will be mute.
As in Texas the U.S. is becoming a LONE STAR Country.

anonymous wrote on July 18, 2007 5:58 PM:

JakeD: ". . . pray that JNagarya didn't see you -- if you want to see "retaliatory" just read some of his posts some day."

That's the problem with conservatives: when it comes to them, they think it is retaliation simply to throw words at them, but then it's not retaliation when they themselves threaten physical violence, interference with employment, fraudulent prosecution, etc., things that have an actual impact on the individual being retaliated against.

If you can't take the heat of words, get out of the TPM kitchen, JakeD.

You don't need to know my identity and Nagarya doesn't need to know yours to "attack" with words, so quit trying to foist off comments on this blog as "retaliation" that would have any impact on whether one's identity should be revealed or not.

"I'm going to pretend you never brought up 'the Federalist Papers' -- . . ."

Yes, conservatives love to pretend that something hasn't been brought up or didn't happen when it works against their arguments or policies.

Bush does it, so as a supporter of him why shouldn't you?

Al in Austex wrote on July 18, 2007 10:14 PM:

Hey J.Nagayara,
Pls lay off the second amendment,specifically as it is now generally & currently interpreted -If the times comes --Our Side ( and besides 2nd amendment issues, Sir , we are on the same side ) ,may very much need to be as well armed as say the Black Water Mercs.
And I am very sure we would have many many of my fellow NRA enthusiast on Our Side too-( Don't believe me go ask Alex Jones .)
Happy trails Nagarya - and remember to always point the Claymores away from the House ...

JNagarya wrote on July 19, 2007 2:51 AM:

Wrong, JNagarya -- as Manning pointed out in his reply, there's no authority to hold a PRIVATE person in contempt based on conflicting directives from two branches -- in fact, the Supreme Court in Raley v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 423 (1959) held that sanctioning "a citizen for exercising a privilege which the State clearly told him was available" would be "the most indefensible sort of entrapment by the State." Congress has to take this up with the President, not Harriet Miers. Even if an Article of Impeachment specifically cited 2 U.S.C. § 192 et seq., Bush could still pardon Miers from any subsequent CRIMINAL prosecution -- what he cannot "pardon" is the impeachment itself -- there's NO other Constitutional limitation to the pardon power.

P.S. to drmoore -- no skin off my nose if you won't post again.

Posted by: The REAL Jake D.
Date: July 18, 2007 12:51 PM

Go back and read what I wrote and respond to that, not to your distortion thereof.

JNagarya wrote on July 19, 2007 3:06 AM:

Hey J.Nagayara,
Pls lay off the second amendment,specifically as it is now generally & currently interpreted -If the times comes --Our Side ( and besides 2nd amendment issues, Sir , we are on the same side ) ,may very much need to be as well armed as say the Black Water Mercs.
And I am very sure we would have many many of my fellow NRA enthusiast on Our Side too-( Don't believe me go ask Alex Jones .)
Happy trails Nagarya - and remember to always point the Claymores away from the House ...

Posted by: Al in Austex
Date: July 18, 2007 10:14 PM

The NRA and gun-nuts may be, in your perverse and opportunistic view, on your "side". But I am on the side of Constitution and rule of law, and the NRA is not.

"Generally accepted" is the extreme right-wing lunatic fringe view; that you favor the view does not make it true, or the law. It is "generally accepted" by those ignorant of the legal history and the law on the issue. See my original response above for actual examples which demonstrate that the Founders and Framers views are opposite those claimed by the NRA. The issue for the Founders and Framers was not only a continuation of the unbroken and consistent tradition -- public safety -- but also defense and stability in gov't.

As for the nonsense that the purpose of the militia is to "defend against gov't": read your state constitution and you'll learn that the commander in chief of the militia is your state's governor. It is looney to believe the state's governor is going to "defend against" the gov't of which he is head.

Or that the militia, when Federalized, and the president is the commander in chief, that the president is going to "defend against" the gov't of which he is head. And there is no form of legal militia which is not _under_ the rule of law -- a point made in the "Declaration of Independence," and by such "radicals" as Samuel Adams: "The military power is always in exact subordination to the Civil Power." We don't have, and don't want, a military gov't.

All that aside: the gov't couldn't care less about your popgun: it has bombers and bazookas, tanks and more than enough other weaponry to render it impotent and non-erectile. Your fantasy in those reagards is paranoid nonsense, and has no resemblance to the Founders' "revolution," which was not hostile to the gov'ts they established, but was hostile to those who were. If you're willing to accept a lie, because convenient, despite the fact it is contrary to the law, why not support the Bushit criminal enterprize, which does exactly the same thing. You're talking civil war -- and that would play right into their hands.

Al in Austex wrote on July 19, 2007 5:37 AM:

So J Nagarya ,
Are you really willing to have no say so about how to actively defend yourself should you find a BlackWater helo circling your neighborhood -as those Mercs try to "restore law & order " These days unfortunately these kind of very scary "what ifs' are actually arguably possible -some would say likely & probable. I mean I never thought even the Republicants would suspend Habeaous Corpus .
But to return to topic- Harriet Meirs must be held in contempt of Congress- And I have upmost confidence in Chairman Conyer's ability and desire to do just that -with Ms Meirs & Others.
Nagarya instead of making the "perfect the enenmy of the good " we all should be trying to find common cause against BushCo. FYI the NRA is not monlithic in ideology - about 35% of the NRA membership supports some iterration of the Brady Bill..

The REAL Jake D. wrote on July 19, 2007 10:56 AM:

JNagarya:

You really need to get some sleep there in Boston rather than post nonsense here all hours of the night. After I asked georgia "Do you think if she's impeached AND then prosecuted for contempt of Congress (2 U.S.C. § 192), she can't be pardoned on the contempt charge?" you claimed "If impeached _for_ contempt it would not be pardonable. Next canard?" If you don't understand the following, just ask instead of claiming I distorted what you said:

"Even if an Article of Impeachment specifically cited 2 U.S.C. § 192 et seq., Bush could still pardon Miers from any subsequent CRIMINAL prosecution -- what he cannot "pardon" is the impeachment itself -- there's NO other Constitutional limitation to the pardon power."

anonymous wrote on July 19, 2007 11:00 AM:

"IN A 1997 DECISION, a Federal district court in Georgia invalidated a state law criminalizing anonymous and pseudonymous Internet communications. In so doing, the court issued a decision consistent with centuries of American tradition and jurisprudence. Throughout the history of the U.S., pseudonymous and anonymous authors have made a rich contribution to political discourse. Had the court held any other way, it would have fallen into the common trap of treating the Internet as being unique, unrelated to any prior communications media. Instead, the court recognized that there is no distinction to be drawn between anonymous communications on the Net and in a leaflet or book."

Anonymity is backed by "centuries of AMERICAN TRADITION and jurisprudence," JakeD. [emphasis added]

But, hey, being "Stanford Law" you knew that already, didn't you?

Code word = glass, as in Republicans in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

anonymous wrote on July 19, 2007 11:02 AM:

"In 1735, printer John Peter Zenger was arrested for seditious libel lot publishing pseudonymous essays by Lewis Morris, James Alexander, and others attacking New York Gov. William Cosby. Zenger also republished several of Cato's Letters. Andrew Hamilton defended Zenger. In his stirring oration to the jury, he asked them to lay "a foundation for securing to ourselves, our posterity, and our neighbors" the right of "exposing and opposing arbitrary power ... by speaking and writing truth." The jury's acquittal of Zenger helped to end prosecutions of American writers and publishers under British common law."

"Thomas Paine's Common Sense, acclaimed as the work which sparked Americans to think about separating from Britain, was first published signed simply "An Englishman." Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison wrote The Federalist Papers under the joint pseudonym "Publius."

"Pseudonymity continued to play an important role in political speech in the 20th century. George Kennan, a high-ranking member of Gen. George Marshall and Pres. Harry Truman's staff, considered by many to be the architect of America's policy of "containment," signed his influential 1947 essay, "The Sources of Soviet Power," merely as "X." Politicians, including presidents, communicate anonymously with the media when they wish to express ideas or disseminate information without attribution, and press reports are full of quotes attributed to sources such as "a senior State Department official" or a "senior White House staff member." Pseudonymity has also protected people stigmatized by prior political speech or association; many blacklisted writers continued to work throughout the McCarthy era by using names other than their own.

"The Supreme Court has consistently held that anonymous and pseudonymous speech is protected by the First Amendment."

Perhaps they need to update the curriculum at "Stanford Law," eh?

Code word = crush, as in the crush of truth is unbearable to conservatives.

The REAL Jake D. wrote on July 19, 2007 11:54 AM:

anonymous:

Do you think I was proposing to make your commenting "illegal"? Not at all. I was simply making fun of your supposed need to remain anonymous.

The REAL Jake D. wrote on July 19, 2007 2:28 PM:

Interesting that JNagarya has since posted on other threads, but not yet here -- maybe he finally fell alseep -- I wonder where "anonymous" went to as well?

anonymous wrote on July 20, 2007 12:04 PM:

JakeD: "I was simply making fun of your supposed need to remain anonymous."

Then you must think that the authors of the Federalist Papers were hilarious.

"Do you think I was proposing to make your commenting "illegal"?"

S.T.R.A.W.M.A.N.

anonymous wrote on July 20, 2007 2:06 PM:

"Six top posts at the DoJ in Washington are empty or filled with temporary appointees, and 23 of the 93 US Attorney’s offices around the country lack permanent political leadership."

See, JakeD, Bush hasn't replaced the USAs he fired and has simply left even more vacancies open.

Clinton's administration fired two USAs; went through proper procedures to do so; documented those procedures thoroughly, without any conflicting evidence; got no protests from the fired USAs; nothing was found in subsequent investigation; and Clinton expeditiously replaced any USAs that voluntarily left (also well-documented, without conflicting evidence, without protests, and without any hint of wrongdoing upon subsequent investigation).

Bush's administration fired 10 or more USAs; didn't follow normal procedures; didn't properly document the firings; didn't replace the fired USAs much less many other existing vacancies; proffered conflicting evidence; experienced protests from throughout the DOJ, including both the fired USAs and career attorneys in the DOJ proper; and with the odiferous smell of corruption and impropriety sufficient even prior to investigation to make a billy goat vomit.

You, however, continue to hold your nose in the middle of this cesspool and pretend that you are standing in the fountain of youth.