Comments (70)

midwestblue wrote on July 25, 2007 10:37 AM:

Watch it on c-span.org right now.

AnneW wrote on July 25, 2007 10:38 AM:

If you're following the hearing on CSPAN-3 you'll see that Lamar Smith (R) has the same script as one of the Jake's...Clinton did it!

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 10:39 AM:

Congress is likely to lose because the Constitution vest all Executive power (i.e. enforcing criminal laws regardless of what the report claims) in the President of the United States. Nice try though.

drew wrote on July 25, 2007 10:42 AM:

chris cannon is a weasel.

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 10:44 AM:

Actually, AnneW, I have a slightly different take -- there was no Congressional investigation at the time Clinton did it -- so, of course, there's no 52-page report for us to know one way or another. We DO know that Clinton replaced more than 10 U.S. Attorneys mid-term. Whether those replacements were devoid of any and all political considerations, I leave up to your imagination.

oddjob wrote on July 25, 2007 10:46 AM:

Jake D., and therefore when the president or his underlings commit the crimes the Constitution leaves us powerless to do something about it?

I think not.

Your thinking is dogmatic and sloppy.

Anon wrote on July 25, 2007 10:47 AM:

Don't feed the troll. Go back to thinkprogress, jake.

Jake Off wrote on July 25, 2007 10:48 AM:

Jake D says.....the Constitution vest all Executive power in the President of the United States.........

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

fuck you Jake D. Snake

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 10:51 AM:

oddjob:

Did I say that? If Bush committed treason or some other high crime, he could be impeached and then prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If you are asking whether a sitting President can be indicted (other than impeachment), then my legal opinion conforms to OLC on the matter: no.

Troll Patrol wrote on July 25, 2007 10:52 AM:

Think: "nation" (sc)

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 10:56 AM:

No thanks, Jake Off. I think Bush is very happy that the Constitution vests all such power in his Office. What the Constitution is NOT is a suicide pact as some of those who want to surrender to the terrorists think it is.

Slim Pickin's wrote on July 25, 2007 10:57 AM:

"Congress is likely to lose because the Constitution vest all Executive power (i.e. enforcing criminal laws regardless of what the report claims) in the President of the United States."

And you pretend to have a shred of legal credibility? What an embarrassment you are. That is, on it's surface on of the most bogus utterances from Jake in a lengthy history of pitiously stupid outbursts. That very notion is so intellectually dishonest that if it were uttered in court the judge would send you to a legal remediation class (summer school for you Jake).

You're a lair just like your republican representatives.

Anon wrote on July 25, 2007 10:57 AM:

Jake D--Congress' inherent contempt power is not a criminal law (it is different than the criminal contempt statute)and is not subject to executive execution of the laws (Sargeant-at-Arms brings the contemptee in front of the House, the contemptee is tried in the Housee and would be imprisoned in the House jail). Nice try though.

Anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 10:58 AM:

Jake D--Congress' inherent contempt power is not a criminal law (it is different than the criminal contempt statute)and is not subject to executive execution of the laws (Sargeant-at-Arms brings the contemptee in front of the House, the contemptee is tried in the Housee and would be imprisoned in the House jail). Nice try though.

Mike Conwell wrote on July 25, 2007 11:00 AM:

For the casual reader, new to the site, Jake D. is a bothersome troll, attempting to set the tone of each story by being an early poster of such drivel. Please read below for more insightful comments.

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 11:02 AM:

Slim Pickin's and Anon:

We'll see who is right then if the ROBERTS Supreme Court ever rules on the issue. While Congress' inherent contempt power is different than the criminal contempt statute, we know that the President can pardon JUDICIAL contempt orders, so why couldn't he just pardon a CONGRESSIONAL contempt order?

Slim Pickin's wrote on July 25, 2007 11:04 AM:

Uh, so you're just stating that your earlier statement above was F**king BULLS**T? Am I hearing you right chump?

You are a liar Jake, plain and simple.

Troll Patrol wrote on July 25, 2007 11:05 AM:

Copied from a poster yesterday:

Tip for Firefox users:

Ctrl + F will opn the "find" feature for the page you are viewing. Enter the word "Jake" without quotes. Click "higlight all" and then simply read the page skipping over all of the Jakes. It makes reading comments much easier.

(I may have an old version or different version due to a Mac - but for my Firefox - click "edit" at top of your screen, then "find in this page" and in the Firefox browser - at the bottom of the page type in the troll's name and click "Highlight all")

Enjoy

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 11:09 AM:

Not at all, Slim Pickin's -- the President's absolute pardon power (except he cannot pardon any impeachments) is a VESTED Executive power -- I take it you don't have Firefox as your browser?

thomas wrote on July 25, 2007 11:11 AM:

SC = brain - as in what the administration and all trolls are missing.

No where in the Constitution is limitless power provided to the executive. Fear of the types of actions we are seeing today was (is) why Madison etc set the system of checks and balances. If the courts refuse to do their part - at the rethug congress refused to do from Jan 01 to Jan 07 - then impeachment is the ONLY alternative.

I cannot believe that the rethug members of congress have the chutzpah to spout the nonsense they have been lately after their actions in Monicagate. Consensul sex is impeachable but subverting the Constitution is OK.
God help us.

Anon wrote on July 25, 2007 11:12 AM:

The only ways to avoid the presidential pardon power is in cases of impeachment (not relevant here) or if the offense can be construed not to be "against the United States." The argument here might be that inherent contempt, as a tool used to compel compliance with Congress (rather than to punish), is not an offense against the United States but an offense against the particular house of Congress.

Granted, I'm not particularly optimistic that the Roberts Court (or any court) would find along these lines, but it would be interesting to see what happens.

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 11:16 AM:

thomas:

Please explain to the class why you think the President cannot issue a pardon to Miers / Bolten even if they were held in contempt of Congress -- if he can LEGALLY do so, how could that possibly be "subverting the Constitution"?

ifthethunderdontgetya wrote on July 25, 2007 11:17 AM:

It's pretty rich listening to these concern trolls (R-thuglican), when just a few year back they were investigating, among other things, Socks the cat.

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socks_(cat)#Investigation

JEP wrote on July 25, 2007 11:18 AM:

...this from NYTimes Op-Ed Contributor NEAL KATYAL
"IN 1999, when the Independent Counsel Act (the law that gave Kenneth Starr and Lawrence Walsh their mandates) was expiring, I was given the job of writing the new Justice Department rules for the appointment of a special prosecutor since the department would once again be responsible for overseeing such investigations. There was one hypothetical to worry about once the Independent Counsel Act lapsed: a case in which the attorney general...(is)...suspected of possible misconduct. The rules were therefore written to vest the decision about whether to appoint a special prosecutor in the top Justice Department official not embroiled in the controversy. Today, the only way to get to the bottom of the United States attorney scandal — which involved the administration’s firing of nearly 10 percent of America’s top prosecutors — is to use these rules and appoint a special prosecutor.
THE NIGHTMARE HAS NOW COME TRUE.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/27/opinion/27katyal.html

Mike Conwell wrote on July 25, 2007 11:19 AM:

Rep Sensenbrenner (R-WI) "...U.S.A.'s serve at the pleasure of the President..."

Everybody drink a shot

Calls for filing a Civil suit to resolve the issue. Wonder how long that will take?

Jock Strap wrote on July 25, 2007 11:25 AM:

As I pointed out yesterday, when replying to troll Joke (and we prefer you didn't bother replying) use an appropriate synonym like "wanker" instead of Joke. This, in conjunction with the Firefox Ctl F and highlight all trick will enable you to skip all wanker's comments and inanities.
sc = sleep go to sleep you useless wanker

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 11:26 AM:

Anon:

That wouldn't work at all, accroding to Ex Parte Grossman -- there is no such limitation on the President's pardon power -- in that case, Grossman had been accused during Prohibition of the illegal sale of liquor and was enjoined by a federal court from further sale of alcoholic beverages. When he violated the order, he was accused of contempt and sentenced to prison -- and then pardoned by the President.

Despite the pardon, a federal judge in Chicago ordered him to jail on your theory that a charge of criminal contempt was not an "offense against the United States" because it was a judicial act, and a presidential pardon would violate the separation of powers.

In an analysis of the pardon power that traced back through English parliamentary history, the opinion concluded that the pardon power did reach contempts -- the same rationale would apply to Congressional contempt citations -- especially if you want the Sgt. at Arms to "incarcerate" Miers / Bolton. I think you are right to fear this going to the ROBERTS Court as well.

Mike Conwell wrote on July 25, 2007 11:26 AM:

Rep R Keller (R-FL) - Clinton Did It! Clinton Did It!

Another shot

eric wrote on July 25, 2007 11:29 AM:

Adam Schiff should just let it go. Keller is the just a committee troll.

Anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 11:29 AM:

Ric Keller also said executive privilege is there so the President isn't surrounded by a bunch of "yes men." Does he know how bizarre that sounds?

Candyce wrote on July 25, 2007 11:33 AM:

I realize the pubs are just trying to muddy the waters, but the issue at hand has nothing whatsoever to do with the investigation into the attorney firings. It's very simple, even for a little old grandma in the country like me. The issue is permitting government officials, or anyone else, to simply ignore a subpoena by not even showing up to explain why said person cannot testify. Period, end of quote. I can't imagine any judge would allow such a thing. The precedent that sets is just so far-reaching and surely stands our justice system on it's head.

Anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 11:39 AM:

The Committee vote clearly will be along Party lines. It may be naïve of me, but I strongly doubt that if a Democrat ignored a subpoena, the Republicans would pick up a few Democrats.

The few Republicans who are actually talking substance about the vote use the Republican offer to talk over coffee as their defense. Why are they wasting valuable oxygen on such an absurdity, even they know it’s a joke.

eric wrote on July 25, 2007 11:39 AM:

"Posted by: Candyce
Date: July 25, 2007 11:33 AM"

Exactly

laura wrote on July 25, 2007 11:39 AM:

Jake D, thought I would remind you that Pres Clinton tried to claim executive privalege when his senior aides were issued subpoenas as well. He was denied.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/starr050698.htm

Why should the emporer be treated any differently?

ifthethunderdontgetya wrote on July 25, 2007 11:41 AM:

Candyce, that is exactly right. And what these rethuglican reps are proving today is that they care nothing for our country and our Constitution...it's simple money, power, and party over everything else for them.

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 11:42 AM:

Candyce:

If you don't think the proposed contempt citations arise from the U.S. Attorney replacements, perhaps you should click on on the the links above.

Slim Pickin's wrote on July 25, 2007 11:42 AM:

Well put Candyce - again we see the Administration's perfect willingness to subvert the rule of law to protect themselves. This will no doubt be remembered as one of the darkest periods in American history.

Legalize wrote on July 25, 2007 11:43 AM:

Leave Jake alone; he doesn't understand the difference between civil and criminal proceedings, and doesn't understand the material he's been paid to cut and paste from other sources.

Slippery Slope wrote on July 25, 2007 11:43 AM:

What was the quote from Patrick Fitzgerald, "Throwing Sand in the Eyes of the Umpire"?

As I listen to the on-going deliberations in the House Judiciary Committee now streaming on CSPAN-3 (list for yourself) I am amazed at the coalescing of the Republican's defending the President’s obstruction of the lawful duties of Congress.

What came to mind was Fitzgerald's comment and a visualization of an old dustbowl days picture of in sandstorm blanketing the plains. See link.

These Republican's are blowing up a whole storm of dust attempting to blind We the People, Justice, and obstruct the defense of the Constitution. The sandstorm in We the People's eyes is evident. The sandstorm in We the People's eyes clearly has a Republican party label all over it. The sandstorm in We the People's eyes will not be forgotten come November 7th, 2008.

They all swear an oath... See below. Do your duty NOW!

“I, ..., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

Slim Pickin's wrote on July 25, 2007 11:46 AM:

Yes - it is amazing to see the complete failure on the part of the repugs on the jud. com. Once again you see they are, part and parcel, lackies for the administration right down to their black, shriveled little hearts.

Fascists.

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 11:51 AM:

Laura:

Because that was a civil case, and this is Congress.

Legalize:

Are you sure that I am the one who does not know the difference? Please see "Laura" above.

Legalize wrote on July 25, 2007 11:56 AM:

One would think that the GOPers would recognize the fact that it is entirely possible and even likely that the Dems will have a larger Congressional majority and a the White House by Jan. '09. Yet, they don't seem to realize that the dangerous precedents their boy is setting, and by proxy, his stooges in the Congress, in order to cover up his Administration's crimes, WILL translate to future administrations - like Hillary's for instance. I wonder if they want this.

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 11:58 AM:

As if said Congress would ever investigate Hillary's U.S. Attorney replacements like this ; )

eric wrote on July 25, 2007 12:05 PM:

Posted by: Legalize
Date: July 25, 2007 11:56 AM

These people don't think to the future. Precedent means little. It is only about NOW with them. As Kurt Vonnegut so eleoquently said:

"What has allowed so many [of these people] to rise so high in corporations, and now in government, is that they are so decisive. Unlike normal people, they are never filled with doubts, for the simple reason that they cannot care what happens next. Simply can’t. Do this! Do that! Mobilize the reserves! Privatize the public schools! Attack Iraq! Cut health care! Tap everybody’s telephone! Cut taxes on the rich! Build a trillion-dollar missile shield! Fuck habeas corpus and the Sierra Club and In These Times, and kiss my ass!"

Legalize wrote on July 25, 2007 12:06 PM:

Laura appears to be talking about subpoena power and executive privilege vis-a-vis Clinton, not civil v. criminal proceedings. And, yes, from your comments, It's pretty clear that you are the only one who doesn't understand the difference.

Anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 12:06 PM:

"As if said Congress would ever investigate Hillary's U.S. Attorney replacements like this ; )"

I certainly hope so.

eric wrote on July 25, 2007 12:11 PM:

Here's the vote. Heh, about time.

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 12:15 PM:

If this is the new standard, however, I hope the GOP minority at least try to ask all these questions too:

1) Was ______ U.S. Attorney replaced using politically-biased criteria?

2) Were any civil service, Hatch Act, or Presidential Records Act requirements violated?

3) Why did Hillary launch the effort to replace U.S. Attorneys?

4) Who recommended that these U.S. Attorneys be fired and why?

5) What role did Hillary, and any other White House personnel, play in the firings and their aftermath?

6) Was the First Gentleman involved in any manner with the firings?

7) Was ______ U.S. Attorney replaced because he / she was investigating a Democrat?

8) Has the replacement U.S. Attorney investigated any Democrats?

9) Has the replacement U.S. Attorney done anything that could possibly help Democrats get elected?

10) Has the replacement U.S. Attorney ever worked on Hillary's campaign or any other Democratic campaign?

Hopefully, at least SOME of you will admit that Clinton's replacement of U.S. Attorneys were never investigated like this.

eric wrote on July 25, 2007 12:15 PM:

22-17

Candyce wrote on July 25, 2007 12:15 PM:

Jake, hello. I understand we came to this place because of the attorney scandal, but the issue at hand today still has nothing to do with that. It's about subverting our Constitution with vague claims of executive privilege. Surely you can see that. It is an insult to the people of America, who rely on a duly elected Congress, to ignore a subpoena by not even showing up to explain why you can't testify. If you can show me an instance where a court upheld a witness' ignoring a subpoena, I'd be happy to look at it.

Middle Earth wrote on July 25, 2007 12:15 PM:

The legal framework posited by Joke and many others is that the President's executive powers are virtually limitless especially in time of war and that he and his assigns are technically above the rule of law UNLESS Congress sees fit to remove him/them by impeachment and trial. It can't be done by (Congressional) contempt proceedings and it can't be done by (Congressional) perjury proceedings because of the Executive branch's ultimate hiring control of the Judicial branch and the Exec's ultimate pardon option. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on which side of the fence you are on today) this is probably a correct reading of a gathering of constitutional and federal case law: the relatively powerful executive branch of Hamilton (and the Federalists) is balanced ONLY by the Jeffersonian (and state's rights proponents) holding of the right of prosecution in the Congress by impeachment. Having said all that, there is some seesawing case law on the subject that gets the judiciary involved in the most egregious kind of Executive criminal acts (cf. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683) which was a unanimous decision upholding the Special Prosecutor's independence from the Executive. Also see Marbry v. Madison, which holds that the Judiciary (meaning the Supreme Court) has the power to decide how and when the Constitution limits the President's powers. Keep in mind that even though the currently constituted Supreme Court would probably not be likely to do to Bush what the the Burger court did to Nixon, one wonders if, presented with prima facia criminal conduct by high Administration staffers (even the Pres and VP) the Court would take a stand. So far, however, the firing of the AGs does not rise to the occasion.

Legalize wrote on July 25, 2007 12:16 PM:

I gotta get cable in my office. :(

eric wrote on July 25, 2007 12:17 PM:

22-17

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 12:19 PM:

Legalize:

Is there a specific comment you can quote that leads you to said conclusion? I am the only one here actually quoting case law.

no-name:

I won't hold my breath.

eric:

As if it's going to be anything but a straight party-line vote?

me wrote on July 25, 2007 12:31 PM:

Folks, rest assured that the President can no more "pardon" an inherent contempt of Congress than he can "pardon" a witness who wrongfully refuses to testify before a court.

What the President can pardon is *criminal* contempt, which results from a conventional trial & produces a criminal verdict. He has no authority, however, to "pardon" a civil contempt, in which one of the other branches of government -- judicial or legislative -- enforces its own authority by holding a witness in custody until he or she relents and testifies. In these cases, there is no crime to pardon; as the saying goes, the contemnor holds the key to the jail cell ande can free himself at any time.

It is perhaps unlikely that the Sergeant at Arms will detain Miers or Bolten. That said, the Executive Branch has no super-duper power to void their status as contemnors nor to bar their detention. Any relief from the courts, who would have to resolve the impasse, would turn on the validity of the asserted privilege, not on the presidential pardon pwer.

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 12:35 PM:

eric:

Did they get any Republicans?

Candyce:

The "issue at hand" and TOPIC OF THE THREAD is "House Committee Votes on Contempt Citation". The "subverting our Constitution with vague claims of executive privilege" related directly to the U.S. Attorney scandal. I think it's relevant at this point in the proceedings to inquire whether the next DEMOCRATIC President will be held to this same standard, don't you? Someone else can do your requested legal work.

Legalize wrote on July 25, 2007 12:41 PM:

Jake, you haven't cited any case law relevant to the distinction between criminal and civil proceedings. Nor have you cited any case law relevant to the subpoena power of the Congress v. Executive privilege - you know, what this matter concerns.

Your general proposition, Jake, that "this is Congress and that was civil," pretty much tells me what I need to know. If you really DO need an explanation as to the difference between civil and criminal proceedings, simply ask someone. Or Google it. Something.

I know that your handlers are paying you to portray this as a silly partisan issue, and yes this whole debacle may have arisen - factually - from the USAs firings, but what is at stake is a plain-vanilla executive privilege matter, a matter that has been addressed a number of times, most recently with Clinton, and most dispositively with Nixon. Both lost at the higest level to different Courts.

If you are untroubled by unchecked executive powers to claim privilege to cover up violations of the law of the United States - when that president is a Republican - then just admit it. Otherwise, what's your problem?

Candyce wrote on July 25, 2007 12:51 PM:

That's what I thought, Jake. I'm glad to see you agree with the rest of us that ignoring subpoenas is not something that should ever be permitted at any time.

As to the rest of your rant, I don't see it's relevance to anything. But thanks anyway.

Anony wrote on July 25, 2007 12:52 PM:

The question that Middle Earth brought up at 12:15 is troubling: what sort of criminal conduct by the executive branch has actually taken place? Typically a special prosecutor is assigned to find out. And that would obviously take another year or two of investigations, so the perps (if any) in the admin would get off due to the next election. Is there no other way to get some closure before 2008 ends?

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 12:55 PM:

me:

The President's pardon power extends to more than just "crimes" (see Grossman case above). I guess we'll just have to wait and see if the ROBERTS Court upholds such a pardon in this instance.

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 1:04 PM:

Fine, Legalize, you want some more case cites, the U.S. Attorney's Manual describes the difference this way:

Because different substantive and procedural rules apply to civil and criminal contempts, distinctions between the two forms of contempt are important. "Criminal contempt is a crime in the ordinary sense," Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194, 201 (1968), and "criminal penalties may not be imposed on someone who has not been afforded the protections that the Constitution requires of such criminal proceedings." Hicks v. Feiock, 485 U.S. 624, 632 (1988). These constitutional protections include the right (1) not to be subject to double jeopardy, see United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 695 (1993); In re Bradley, 318 U.S. 50 (1943); (2) to receive notice of the charges, (3) to receive assistance of counsel; (4) to receive summary process; (5) to present a defense, Cooke v. United States, 267 U.S. 515, 537 (1925); (6) not to self-incriminate oneself, and (7) to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 444 (1911). For serious criminal contempts involving imprisonment of more than six months, these protections include the right to a jury trial. Bloom, 391 U.S. at 199.

By contrast, civil contempt sanctions -- which are designed to compel future compliance with a court order -- are coercive and avoidable through obedience, and "thus may be imposed in an ordinary civil proceeding upon notice and an opportunity to be heard. Neither a jury trial nor proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required." International Union, UMWA v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 114 S.Ct. 2552, 2557 (1994).

I am "untroubled" because there are plenty of CHECKS on both "Executive privilege" and any alleged cover up / violations of the law of the United States. My "trouble" comes to this new standard being used by Congress in an ex post facto fashion, and more to the point, never again assuming that Hillary wins.

Candyce:

I never agreed that "ignoring subpoenas is not something that should ever be permitted at any time." But, other than that, you're welcome. Carry on.

OhSnap! wrote on July 25, 2007 1:09 PM:

I enjoy how JakeD (formerly of TP; presumed to be Bart DePalma or related annoyance) tosses out "Clinton did it too!" and occasionally lists the 10 midterm replacements.

Funny thing is this - the Repups investigated Clinton on EVERYTHING.

So if there was even a whiff of something improper being done, we would have heard about it.

We didn't.

BushCo didn't point it out (they only pointed out his blanket firing at the beginning of his term - common for Presidents of a different party than predecessor), nor did the Repubs under Clinton.

Regardless of claims of EP, Bolten and Miers should have the honor to come in front of Congress to personally assert the EP claim for the appropriate questions. (Miers esp. since she is no longer employed at WH.

I find it pathetic how Jake D. likes to be disruptive, first to post, comment on how many people have replied to him. I mean, we're talking about an old guy who (guessing) avoided fighting in any wars for this country. Probably Cheney'd up and had a kid to avoid the draft and all...

Doesn't matter if you feed the troll. My fairy tale teachings and LoTR:FotR viewings depict them as fat and fugly... Plenty of stored fuel. He'll go for days and days w/o feeding... Even if Billo's website is probably missing him desperately.

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 1:21 PM:

OhSnap!

My real name is James (friends all call me Jake) not Bart or anything else. I fought in the Korean War FYI. How about you?

Since you admit that Repups did NOT investigate Clinton on his U.S. Attorney replacements, I'm not sure why you think that's a point in your favor? perhaps "Bushco" is not pointing out the Clinton replacements because they think those were acceptable just like they think their replacements were acceptable. I've never once claimed that Clinton's replacement of U.S. Attorneys were unacceptable either.

OhSnap! wrote on July 25, 2007 1:30 PM:

Young and female. Therefore, no wars. Way too young for 1st Gulf War. Do not believe in this current war/war management.

- done responding to shiny objects for day -

Austin Cooper wrote on July 25, 2007 1:41 PM:

Well, it's yet another day of The Jakey Show.

One person's opinion: You folks do understand that -- unlike us -- the Jakeys don't just engage in online discussion (even passionate debate), then shut down, walk away, and focus on other areas in their lives?

When and where they're able to pull the focus on themselves, or disrupt a Progressive site by using multiple or anonymous personas to post, or posting about ridiculous and utterly off-topic nonsense -- They don't shut down.

At the end of this, their 'work' day, they'll visit wingnut sites and swap and post samples of the outrage they've generated, and relive their day. They'll congratulate each other as patriots and upstanding human beings.

They share stories of 'making the dirty leftist hippie bloggers *so angry*' -- as if they were sharing exploits in military service they never had, or as if they were smooth moves they made playing Half-Life or Doom.

But, they don't shut off. Being able to lie, provoke, and disrupt is the highest point in their day.

Their lives revolve not around family, friendships, or 'outward-directed' activities that focus on others and a larger world.

The almost atavistic thrill of seeing their words on the Internets, and having a 'purpose' and a 'cause' (essentially undefined, beyond "f-ing the f-ing Lefties"), is almost all they have.

It's pathetic. And when you engage them, you feed them. They're living for it.

My opinion: Cut them off. Freeze them out. They're not really here to communicate with other, real people, anyway; they're here to talk to themselves, and some of them are making a paycheck in the service of The State.

laura wrote on July 25, 2007 1:46 PM:

JAKE: "i fought in the korean war, how about you"?

I just love it when some Republican says "yeah, I fought over here or over there..." What I learned from my Dad, and son (both decorated veterans Vietnam and now GWOT) is this, ...

HEY JAKE: Really? In what branch and unit and what was your MOS? Where exactly did you serve in Korea and under whom?

Sort of helps to clarify for those without military background the bullshitters from the wanna bees. So what say you Jake?

Middle Earth wrote on July 25, 2007 1:52 PM:

Austin Cooper:

I'm not Jake, but I take exception to your characterization that his posts are disruptive or non-communicative. Actually, some are intriguing.

You wouldn't want everyone on this site to think the same way, would you? Wouldn't that be just a bit boring?

rubberpants wrote on July 25, 2007 1:56 PM:

There is one sound that trolls hate above all others: silence.

Austin Cooper wrote on July 25, 2007 2:46 PM:

Middle,

One person's opinion, as I said.

However, you can feel free to explore your perspective at any hard-core wingnut site, and see what happens. They're a tighter and less tolerant crowd, and don't be surprised if you're banned once you're discovered. And you may find some hate email to the address you used to register at their site -- even though that's, well -- sort of illegal.

They don't belive in the free flow of ideas over in Right Blogtopia, and they'll back that up, and occasionally have a little fun in the process -- kind of the 21st-century equivalent of crusing for hippies, and shaving their heads.

On the other hand, Left and Progressive sites *do* believe in that everyone's opinions matter, and all should be allowed to have their say. That differs at each site (Over at Atrios, say, they don't suffer wingnuts gladly), and often, that is exploited as a disruptive tactic.

Our side also allows, and suffers with, the trolls who show up -- and trolls differ from reasonable people who happen to be conservative, and who have a give-and-take attitude towards debate, and are willing to concede a point, admit when they're wrong, and keep an open mind.

They're in the minority, though, I warn you.

Jake's posts often defend-to-the-death rightwing talking points which have been thoroughly rebutted with fact, or recitations of "Oh, so Democrats don't lie?" or, "Clinton did it too!" or "I wouldn't accept hearsay from Waxman".

There's nothing original there. It isn't debate, unless you include the methods used by six-year-olds.

Again, only my opinion: I had dinner recently with a couple; the wife is a PR heavy for a Silicon Valley corporation, with a dream job, and an ardent, passionate Progressive. Her husband has his own business as a CG-graphic designer, and I assumed he was Left also.

Wrong -- he was about as Republican as you can get. But when we each understood that we weren't going to dismiss each other as people and talk rationally, we listened to each other. There were points each of us agreed with, and many that we didn't.

The *level of the debate* supported our ability even to make the occasional nasty reference. Ultimately, we weren't trying to make points off each other.

It wasn't a grade-school free-for-all. But, it wasn't a debate by anonymous post on a blog, either.

The argument I'm making is this: Not to ban Jakey, or those like him. If *you* want to rise to the bait and respond to tired and ridiculous arguments, feel free to waste your time. You won't be changing his mind; I don't believe he's here for that.

You have to wonder: Why does a person with an opposing point of view, who doesn't raise the level of debate in his posts, even show up here? If he would offer a real refutation or defense, or present some fact that could add or change people's perspectives, he wouldn't continue to simply parrot the standard, boilerplate wingnut memes about Plame, or 9/11, or "you Bush haters", and how we Lefties are so disrespectful of our leaders by calling them names, etc.

Please research Jakey's remarks in TPM's archives if you need to be convinced.

But, do as you feel -- as Jakey will -- but please notice that at almost every site in Left Blogtopia, Jakey's nonsense is allowed, even encouraged, in the name of non-censorship.

It isn't the same in Redstate country.

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 7:54 PM:

Yes, Middle Earth, please research my comments and ask any questions you have about any of them. I am always willing to have a reasoned debate on the issues. I have finally finished reading the Conyers report. I'm surprised no one brought up all the left-leaning blog citations, including our very own TPM Muckraker (4/24/2007) footnote 131.