Comments (38)

ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© wrote on July 26, 2007 7:38 PM:

Nice to see that the House is getting coordinated. Some of Conyers' hearings have degenerated into rethuglican shiny pennyfests, while the former prosecutors on Leahy's side have been very good.

M M wrote on July 26, 2007 8:51 PM:

the only way to truly investigate the past and current NSA program (and possible perjury by Gonzo) is to be cleared into these programs; the administration controls those clearances and is decidedly against the past and current programs seeing the light of day (and has a history on denying clearances to DoJ IG investigators)

am I missing something? is there another way to understand whether the Bush administration was breaking the law for two years leading up to March 2004 (and whether Gonzo perjured himself)?

tekel wrote on July 26, 2007 9:08 PM:

MM: it is against the law to use the classification power to conceal illegal activities. If the Administration has classified something that is illegal, there should be no penalty for disclosing the illegal activity into the public domain.

And it will end up with criminal indictments for whoever has abused the classificaiton authority. Dick Cheney, I'm looking at you, you drunk-driving draft-dodging coward war criminal.

Anonymous wrote on July 26, 2007 9:11 PM:

What a load of BS, Conyers! Quit wasting your time going after the EOP notes: Take a look at the notes in your own DNC! Pelosi was at these meetings. Get her to release redacted versions of the notes that _she_ took. This is more theatrics by the GOP-DNC Congress.

See for yourself: Scrolls to page 2 of 4: This is the list of "secret" meetings that the Gang of 8 had. Do you see whose name is on there, Congressman Conyers: That's right _Nancy Pelosi_. Starting in 2001.
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/may_17_tsp.pdf

Pelosi's name on this briefing tells us many things, none of them good for Pelosi, GOP, DNC, Conyers, or the Congress -- but especially the President, Gonzalez, and the NSA:

A. She's known what's been going on since the Patriot Acts as been passed; and can well read the NYT. That means since the NYT disclosed the illegal activity in 2005, she's known for at least 18 months that there was _public_ information; look into the 2006 briefings: Her name is still there.

B. After Pelosi through the NYT was informed of the legal problems, and that the President confirmed there were no warrants, Pelosi as speaker _took impeachment off_ the table; but has not produced any public note or memoranda she wrote to the NSA or CIA IG asking them to review the information. She was there.

C. Once the President admitted that he did not get the FISA warrants; and that he had independently started an "opt out" provision -- to not follow FISA -- this should have triggered alarm bells in the mind of those seeing these FISA briefings: Why is the President opting out of something that we're being told is lawful?

D. There is a problem when Members of Congress, despite NYT revelations of illegal activity, appear to have neither [1] sent notes to the NSA-CIA-DoJ IG to ask them to review the FISA violations; [2] Apparently did nothing when the DOJ OPR was blocked.

E. Despite knowing of the FISA details, the Members of Congress when the DOJ ORP was blocked knew they had a responsibility to verify why the President would block a review of something that was supposedly lawful; yet, the NYT was reporting illegal activity; yet the President had admitted that he did not follow FISA, the FISA warrants were not obtained, and the DoJ Staff was involved with others things.

F. There are too many lines of evidence 2001-2007 indicating that Members of Congress knew, or should have known, that they were being lied to about what was going on; but appear to have not shut down funding, but continued to rubber stamp appropriations for things that were illegal; known to be illegal; and Members of Congress did not timely review this illegal activity.

QUESTIONS

1. Congressman Conyers, why are you not asking for the _Member of Congress_ notes; and for _them_ to redact their memoranda. It would make sense to look at the in-house information first, and find out which Members of Congress have or have not violated 5 USC 3331.

2. _After) the NYT disclosed the information, we have to then go back to 2001-2005 briefings and ask: When should Pelosi and others in the DNC-GOP known that there was a problem?

3. Despite the "lack of consensus," when did _any_ of the Members of Congress have a concern about the legality; and how was this documented?

4. Once the NYT disclosed their findings in 2005, how did the members of Congress -- who supposedly were "not in consensus" on the illegalities, revisit their conclusions?

5. Did Pelosi or anyone in the DNC or GOP in Congress revisit their original notes about the original FISA briefings; and how were their original questions-concerns reconciled/not reconciled to the subsequent disclosures?

6. After the President substantially confirmed that the FISA court was not involved, as it should have been; and that warrants were not obtained, as required by FISA, what effort -- if any -- did any Member of Congress make after these disclosures to re-audit the original briefings to see if there had been any misleading, incomplete, or false statements to Congress?

7. Has there been any review of the Member of Congress questions, notes, and other briefings that the President has disclosed, thereby breaching claims of executive privilege?

8. Once it was known that the NYT found evidence of illegal activity, how did the Congress secure all briefings given to it 2001-2007 to see whether the original disclosures were true or not?

9. Has the US Atty or Grand Jury been given access to the redacted versions of the notes which Pelosi and others on the Gang of 8 made of the original FISA briefings?

10. Has the Grand Jury been given the chance to review these notes to determine whether Members of Congress, in light of the NYT disclosures of the FISA violations, were or were not complicit, reckless, or in breach of their 5 USC 3331 oath of office obligations?

11. Given the continued funding of the FISA activity -- despite Pelosi and others in the DNC-GOP getting briefings 2001-2007, and them knowing about the NYT reports of illegal activity es -- how can anyone in the GOP or DNC justify continued funding for the FISA oversight?

12. Did it not seem odd to anyone attending these briefings 2001-2007, despite the FISA requirements, that the President asserted he would not permit the FISA court to review this?

13. Why is anyone in the DNC or GOP asking the public to believe that they have fully asserted their oath when they've apparently known 2001-2007 that the President was not fully coordinating all FISA requirements with the FISA Court?

14. How do Members of Congress explain - in light of the disclosures that Pelosi and other DNC-GOP members of Congress were briefed on specific dates 2001-2007 on FISA activities -- that they have not done an independent review of their notes to determine if they have been mislead?

15. When will the public get a chance to see what review, audit, oversight, or analysis there has been on the FISA briefings given to Congress to determine whether there was incorrect information whether Members of Congress did all they could; and whether the briefings given to the Congressional leadership was properly or not properly acted upon?

M M wrote on July 26, 2007 9:14 PM:

knowing that Mueller is a good SPS boy, I'm guessing he has notes on all meetings related to the NSA program during that time (including his one with W himself)

Conyers needs to broaden that request to include all notes Mueller has on the NSA program "which has been much discussed" (a curious phrase in itself)

Joe wrote on July 26, 2007 10:17 PM:

????? I'm puzzled. Dan Eggan has been writing all about this stuff daily for the WP. Why hasn't anyone asked or confirmed/denied Gonzo's claim that he (or his spokesperson) clarified his earlier remarks to Mr. Eggan ?????

Fiyero wrote on July 26, 2007 11:02 PM:

Joe above - see also litigatormom's Dkos diary related to this question: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/24/191347/767

There was a June 7 article by Eggen in which Roehrkasse's "clarification" sorta comes up. Sorta.

EdNSted wrote on July 26, 2007 11:16 PM:

With particular respect to the Rove subpoena, let's review: The Senate committee has issued the subpoena. The White House will almost certainly order Rove not to comply. The committee will then write a strongly worded letter urging the White House to have Karl Rove comply. The White House will ignore the letter. Tony Snow will state that the Congress is out of control, again. Rove will fail to appear. The committed will send another strongly worded letter pleading with Mr. Rove to comply with the subpoena. Rove will ignore that letter as well. Eventually, the committee may vote to recommend that the full Senate consider issuing a contempt citation. The full Senate, after a lengthy recess, may then possibly vote to issue a contempt citation. Or not. If so, then the DoJ, headed by Alberto Gonzales (oh the irony), will then be responsible for enforcing the contempt citation - a duty which they have already indicated they will not perform. At this point, the Democrats on the committee will have exhausted all options available and will lament the the fact that congressional oversight of the executive branch exists only in the minds of the extremely deluded and the of late, the nostalgic.

This whole process will all take several months and in the end Rove will not be required to appear or answer any questions.

Check and mate. Am I missing anything?

steambomb wrote on July 26, 2007 11:32 PM:

That whole commitee should have Artur Davis line up the questioning for them. The would get alot more done without any redundancy from the Democratic majority. Artur Davis is a "rock star" when it comes to questioning witnesses and getting the information out of them. JMHO!

JNagarya wrote on July 27, 2007 12:04 AM:

Check and mate. Am I missing anything?

Posted by: EdNSted
Date: July 26, 2007 11:16 PM

Yes: you are missing the opportunity to learn and accept that Congress is engaged in a legal process -- most law is conducted _IN WRITING_ -- and to engage in reason, instead of snidely bashing the Democrats based upon proud ignorance.

Helen Rainier wrote on July 27, 2007 1:47 AM:

JNagarya,

BINGO! This is a legal process and all legal processes, sadly some times, take a bit of time to do correctly and thoroughly. It is important, very important, with something this serious that threatens the very basis of our country, that it be free from any political taint and/or technicalities that would render itself to be dismissing due to faulty procedures.

I know it's tempting for people to desire "instant gratification" but anything that is "instant" doesn't usually stand the test of time.

I'm also seriously wondering if Congress may not also be laying the ground for eventual charges of war criminality -- this is entirely possible and I wouldn't count it out.

Becca wrote on July 27, 2007 2:47 AM:

Mueller would not have mentioned his "notes" if he didn't gamble on the event that they would then be requested.

Whether he is doing the right thing or paving the way for another battle for docs remains to be seen.

JNagarya wrote on July 27, 2007 8:18 AM:

Mueller would not have mentioned his "notes" if he didn't gamble on the event that they would then be requested.

Whether he is doing the right thing or paving the way for another battle for docs remains to be seen.

Posted by: Becca
Date: July 27, 2007 2:47 AM

No gamble to it. He mentioned his notes well knowing they would be requested. And he mentioned them as "submission" of evidence for the fact that there is additional evidence to back up his and Comey's testimony.

And there won;t be any battle about getting them, though there are technical and political reasons for obtaining them by subpoena rather than directly, unless one does it along the lines as Conyers proposes in his letter -- which as he states makes his request formal.

Compare and contrast: when a witness answers questions without much hesitation or equivocation, as have both Comey and Mueller, it is fairly clear the person is honest and cooperative. Has nothing to hide. It is the hems and haws of a Taylor, the sidesteppings and "I don't recalls" of a Gonzales, which are revealing of the opposite.

I doubt I am much of the views of Mueller; I have a problem with anyone who accepted appointment by an "administration" which got into office illegally (don't _even_ ask my views of hollow "hero" Powell); but that doesn't entirely impeach their credibility.

And keep in mind that the "program," as considered acceptable and legal by Comey and Mueller, was likely nonetheless illegal. Even for them, however, some things were clearly so far over the line that there was no way to rationalize them as being legal. Contrast that with Gonzales' continuing equivocation over whether "waterboarding" is torture -- despite the fact that the prohibitions against torture explicitly define "waterboarding" as being torture.

Some of these people are not only abusers of power; not only willing to knowingly and deliberately violate the law; but also out-and-out evil. Comey and Mueller are not in, at the least, the latter category.

JNagarya wrote on July 27, 2007 8:28 AM:

"Nice to see that the House is getting coordinated."

The House has all along been "coordinated," to the degree that one can herd cats. Conyers' committee has all along been "coorrdinated," the Republican members' efforts to distract, undermine, and muddy.

"Some of Conyers' hearings have degenerated into rethuglican shiny pennyfests, . . . ."

Which is not the fault of Conyers and the Democrats -- correct?

Conyers was on the committee to investigate the impeachment of Nixon. He knows what he's doing. (And Artur Davis is refreshingly sharp as a prosecutor. But don't slight Conyers; he's neither fool nor slouch, regardless opinions to the contrary based upon his style.)

". . . while the former prosecutors on Leahy's side have been very good."

Most, yes (most of the Republicans notwithstanding thus far). I've been especially impressed with former US Atty. Whitehouse (D-RI). And Schumer has been especially good.

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®©
Date: July 26, 2007 7:38 PM

John Duke wrote on July 27, 2007 10:05 AM:

whateva

Little Brøther wrote on July 27, 2007 12:54 PM:

EdNSted-- You're right, of course. My guess is that there's a Rule of Three operating: one-third of the Democratic Congress are genuinely outraged by the depredations of the criminal Executive Branch, one-third are troubled but don't see any practical way to respond to them, and another third that cynically could care less, except insofar as they're hoping for a chance to someday be the party on top.

Those who chastise you are almost touching in their sanctimonious condescension. Yes, the Wheels of Justice grind slowly and deliberately. But sometimes they just spin. The Democratic Party is obviously committed to going through the motions while they remind the American public over and over that the REAL "solution" is to vote Democrats into power across the board in 2008.

I was never a True Believer in the sense that your detractors are, but it did take me a while to realize that Conyers is really no different from, say, Arlen Specter, when it comes to posturing as a defender of the Constitution and the rule of law. But in fact they're just running out the clock, and hoping that their dilatory, slow-motion dog and pony show will continue to inspire support.

Rider wrote on July 27, 2007 1:32 PM:

What makes Conyers think that he'll get the litigimate notes Mueller had taken at the hospital. This administration has consistently lied, and it wouldn't take a genius to make up fake notes to suit their agenda.

Rider wrote on July 27, 2007 1:32 PM:

What makes Conyers think that he'll get the litigimate notes Mueller had taken at the hospital? This administration has consistently lied, and it wouldn't take a genius to make up fake notes to suit their agenda.

Laura wrote on July 27, 2007 1:34 PM:

Why have we not heard directly from Ashcroft and his wife? I would be very interested in their testimony. Gonzales discussed classified information in front of Ashcroft's wife in the hospital room. Put them under oath.

dras wrote on July 27, 2007 1:38 PM:

When are they going to quit screwing around and call the only one that knows what happened during that meeting, former Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Lynn Beckman wrote on July 27, 2007 1:42 PM:

Even if Conyers gets the notes, what good will it do? He's already stated that he doesn't want to start impeachment hearings, so why waste more of the taxpayers' money holding more hearings. I thought he was going to bring this cabal down, but he's too worried about what Fox will say about him to do his job. Another politician looking for headlines, but, when push comes to shove, Conyers has no guts!!!1

Anonymous wrote on July 27, 2007 1:48 PM:

"...Conyers is really no different from, say, Arlen Specter, when it comes to posturing as a defender of the Constitution and the rule of law."

I don't think that's true.

It probably is true that a number of Democrats in Congress, and Democratic Party strategists, want to keep the hit coming for partisan advantage. Surely Conyers, and Leahy, are aware of that dimension of this developing crisis.

Specter and the Republicans, on the other hand, had played the past twenty-three years in Congress for nothing *but* partisan advantage -- and it's given the nation Abramoff, DeLay, Rove, corruption, 'lil Boots, war, and now a Constituional crisis.

The Democrats didn't do this. The Republicans, and Arlen as one of them, did.

Specter, the author of the JFK assassination's "Magic bullet theory", showed his partisanism clearly this week -- grilling Gonzales one minute, then decrying the move by Democrats on the Judiciary Committee to press for an independent counsel with Republican talking points the next. But, Arlen flip-flops like this all the time; he likes having it both ways.

The problem is, the Congress doesn't have time for lengthy deliberation -- any more than they should rush to conclusions or into action.

But the Executive wants to rule the country, and they want Congress to roll over and accept it. This needs to be countered, resisted and pushed back, reversed -- but not at anyone's leisure.

I think Conyers, and Leahy, understand both the seriousness of what's happening and the lack of time in which to act. I hope, despite the constraints of Congressional Rules, they can move this process forward quickly.

My worry is that one morning, we'll wake up to find that we are now effectively at war with Iran -- and at that point, all bets as to what could happen will be off.

I agree with some prior posters, here and elsewhere -- we need some whistleblowers to surface, and fast.

Austin Cooper wrote on July 27, 2007 1:50 PM:

"My worry is that one morning, we'll wake up to find that we are now effectively at war with Iran -- and at that point, all bets as to what could happen will be off."

That anon. post was mine.

jodie wrote on July 27, 2007 2:05 PM:

to the anonymous poster last night at about 9:30 pm: do you really think any of us will read your right wing diatribe about conyers and pelosi? that's what the scroll down key is for, loser.

slamdunkee wrote on July 27, 2007 2:32 PM:

What a ridiculous and even embarrassing waste of time this is becoming... I mean, is this really holding the Bush adminstration accountable, investigating the diffence between (what the NY Times describes as)...

"Mr. Mueller told the House Judiciary Committee that the Bush administration’s secret eavesdropping program was the main topic at an encounter in the hospital room of then-Attorney General John Ashcroft..."

And...

"Mr. Gonzales said the subject in the hospital room was “intelligence activities” under debate in the administration, but not the secret eavesdropping program"

That's it?

This is extraordinary... the Bush administration falsifies intelligence (in essence lies to the American People and their Congress), for the purpose of compelling an invasion and occupation of Iraq... and in so doing kills thousands of U.S. Troops and tens of thousands of Iraqis, and siphons off hundreds of billions of dollars from the U.S. Treasury (not to mention Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, BP and Shell, siphoning off Iraq's oil)...

And this is "holding the Bush administration accountable"?

In a hospital room, over Ashcroft's bed, one guy said "secret eavesdropping program", and the other guy said "intelligence activities"?

Boy oh boy, are George W. Bush and Dick Cheney et al quaking over this one... quaking with laughter, at how spectacularly inept is this Democratic Congressional majority, at holding them accountable...

...for falsified intelligence, or any other thing.

westcoastleader wrote on July 27, 2007 3:29 PM:

dras
Date: July 27, 2007 1:38 PM

Ashcroft was receiving I V morphine. Do you really think he will remember much? God, Abu Gonzales can't even remember how he got to work and he is not on I V anything. All Ashcraft has to say is "I don't recall" and that's it for his testimony. He's not going to throw anybody under the GOP bus.

And Jodie, the 9:30 poster is most likely Jaked D since he thinks people will believe anything he writes. If not him, he's taken the day off and nobody misses his reich wing talking points.

I agree with littleduckee, it's"ridiculous and even embarrassing waste of time", just impeach the whole lot of criminal republiscum and move on. This is truly the Bush crime family. The most embarrassing is the total lack of honesty on the part of Republiscum Abu Gonzales. He's the head of the Justice department and he lies under oath, pretty embarrassing for the Republiscum party.

Jennifer wrote on July 27, 2007 4:36 PM:

The program in question, which obviously did something so disturbing that this can't be voiced public and needs "closed door hearings"--
And did something to so worng constitutinal that the gang of eight- who are in charge of all intellegent activties where lied to as well-
This is how the perjury charge came about Senator Jay Rockefeller called - Gonzo out- the man in charge of the BYBEE -and approved torturing innocent americans- and has shamed American with is production of the Department of Justice- with him in charge he might as well change that to the crime syndicate-

I have a feeling if pictures worse than Gitmo or Abu - came up- it is over for the AG and id act of duplicity- That is all it took for Rumsfeild to go...

Imagine what is being hidden and why- and if human lives where injuried or killed- can't the big picture see someone will have to be held accountable. Everything in life, history, crimes always surfaces- no matter who hard a man tries to hide.

kentuck wrote on July 28, 2007 8:27 AM:

FBI's Mueller has assisted in covering up this story up to this point. Whether or not he feels the heat of the investigation or whether he is only attempting to cover his own butt is open to question. And will he turn over all of his "notes"? Or will the notes that he gives to the Committee be ambiguous enough to offer nothing? I would not put too much stock into these notes at this time. However, I could be wrong. They could be earthshaking. But, I doubt it. Because the FBI has a lot to hide, from their activities of the last 6 years.

Dawn wrote on July 28, 2007 11:45 AM:

The NSA programs weren't just related to the communications outlined in the Patriot's Act, nor was the Patriot's Act followed with regard to this since NSA telecom rooms literally took control of some Americans' systems. Some NSA programs controlled by the White House involved the installing 10 mm cameras into women's homes hundreds of miles away, including bedrooms just so that the male White House staff could get real-time footage and be a load of perverts! Such women's electric bills were triple what they should have been and the camera installations trashed their indoor electrical. US AG Gonzales told newspapers in 2/06 there were other White House spy programs the president didn't know about. In 3/06 the White House had 3 layoffs. There was another layoff in early 4/06 and the final layoff was 5/27/06. The White House didn't give an explanation for the layoffs. They came after raids were done on desks after WH staff went home for the weekend. Where contraband was found, the staff member was laid-off. Layoffs generally were announced Saturday thru Monday.

I am one of the victims which is why I know of this. I head government operations for a start-up company from my home with no government contracts and no relationship to any terrorist group. The government originally expressed interest in the company's products in 2002 and 2003, but we didn't meet one of the requirements of the TSA and DHS. All contractors are required to be majority owned by the Russian FSB members (former KGB)...Mafia. We're majority owned by run-of-the-mill American investors. Because we are average and wouldn't take-on Russian mob investors, I had to endure years of being cyber gang-raped by White House degenerates. The first camera intallation was done in 11/02. It wasn't until 2/06 that anyone believed me that there were cameras in my house!

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on July 28, 2007 9:54 PM:

Testing.

EdNSted wrote on July 29, 2007 1:49 AM:

To borrow from lexicon of Alan Greenspan, there is an irrational exuberance among many here who seem to believe that eventually, some wonderful justice will be served. And yet, nothing could be farther from the truth.

There is precious little evidence for such any kind of positive outcome. But one poster even stated she is "seriously wondering if Congress may not also be laying the ground for eventual charges of war criminality." That is simply never going to happen. Ever.

You only need to look back at the recent history of criminal activity by the executive branch, and particularly to the legal outcome of those incidents to understand that criminal activity by the executive branch of our government is effectively protected. Perhaps not in writing, not in law. But very much in practice. If Watergate and Iran-Contra taught us nothing else, it's that the laws written on the books can quite easily be rendered meaningless. You can quote cite case law and read passages all day long but if there is no effective way to enforce those laws then it is all just an academic exercise. In fact it seems to me that expert knowledge of the law here is only of very limited usefulness since this administration simply makes up a lot of stuff on the fly.

For months on many blogs, we were subjected to a continuous race to be the first to scream "Fitz" at the top of each new thread. It was based on delusion thatsomehow, atty Patrick Fitzgerald was going to ride in on a white horse and save the day. I was roundly criticised back then for suggesting that was a fairy tale suitable for school children, that Mr. Fitzgerald did not hold the keys to the kingdom. Mr. Fitzgerald's failure to deliver on these expectations should not put Mr. Fitzgerald in a poor light, for he was not tasked with saving our nation.

It is true that the wheels of justice turn slowly but as was the case with Watergate and Iran-Contra, sometimes they just come to a dead stop. That will also be the outcome for the current gang from 1600 Penn. No one is going to jail and no one will be held accountable. I'm basing this prediction on the track record of these kinds of events over the past 30-40 years.

EdNSted wrote on July 29, 2007 1:50 AM:

To borrow from lexicon of Alan Greenspan, there is an irrational exuberance among many here who seem to believe that eventually, some wonderful justice will be served. And yet, nothing could be farther from the truth.

There is precious little evidence for such any kind of positive outcome. But one poster even stated she is "seriously wondering if Congress may not also be laying the ground for eventual charges of war criminality." That is simply never going to happen. Ever.

You only need to look back at the recent history of criminal activity by the executive branch, and particularly to the legal outcome of those incidents to understand that criminal activity by the executive branch of our government is effectively protected. Perhaps not in writing, not in law. But very much in practice. If Watergate and Iran-Contra taught us nothing else, it's that the laws written on the books can quite easily be rendered meaningless. You can quote cite case law and read passages all day long but if there is no effective way to enforce those laws then it is all just an academic exercise. In fact it seems to me that expert knowledge of the law here is only of very limited usefulness since this administration simply makes up a lot of stuff on the fly.

For months on many blogs, we were subjected to a continuous race to be the first to scream "Fitz" at the top of each new thread. It was based on delusion thatsomehow, atty Patrick Fitzgerald was going to ride in on a white horse and save the day. I was roundly criticised back then for suggesting that was a fairy tale suitable for school children, that Mr. Fitzgerald did not hold the keys to the kingdom. Mr. Fitzgerald's failure to deliver on these expectations should not put Mr. Fitzgerald in a poor light, for he was not tasked with saving our nation.

It is true that the wheels of justice turn slowly but as was the case with Watergate and Iran-Contra, sometimes they just come to a dead stop. That will also be the outcome for the current gang from 1600 Penn. No one is going to jail and no one will be held accountable. I'm basing this prediction on the track record of these kinds of events over the past 30-40 years.

EdNSted wrote on July 29, 2007 1:50 AM:

To borrow from lexicon of Alan Greenspan, there is an irrational exuberance among many here who seem to believe that eventually, some wonderful justice will be served. And yet, nothing could be farther from the truth.

There is precious little evidence for such any kind of positive outcome. But one poster even stated she is "seriously wondering if Congress may not also be laying the ground for eventual charges of war criminality." That is simply never going to happen. Ever.

You only need to look back at the recent history of criminal activity by the executive branch, and particularly to the legal outcome of those incidents to understand that criminal activity by the executive branch of our government is effectively protected. Perhaps not in writing, not in law. But very much in practice. If Watergate and Iran-Contra taught us nothing else, it's that the laws written on the books can quite easily be rendered meaningless. You can quote cite case law and read passages all day long but if there is no effective way to enforce those laws then it is all just an academic exercise. In fact it seems to me that expert knowledge of the law here is only of very limited usefulness since this administration simply makes up a lot of stuff on the fly.

For months on many blogs, we were subjected to a continuous race to be the first to scream "Fitz" at the top of each new thread. It was based on delusion thatsomehow, atty Patrick Fitzgerald was going to ride in on a white horse and save the day. I was roundly criticised back then for suggesting that was a fairy tale suitable for school children, that Mr. Fitzgerald did not hold the keys to the kingdom. Mr. Fitzgerald's failure to deliver on these expectations should not put Mr. Fitzgerald in a poor light, for he was not tasked with saving our nation.

It is true that the wheels of justice turn slowly but as was the case with Watergate and Iran-Contra, sometimes they just come to a dead stop. That will also be the outcome for the current gang from 1600 Penn. No one is going to jail and no one will be held accountable. I'm basing this prediction on the track record of these kinds of events over the past 30-40 years.

EdNSted wrote on July 29, 2007 1:58 AM:

My apologies for the triple post - I'm not really sure how it happened

Wayne Smyer wrote on July 29, 2007 11:45 AM:

"I don't got to show you no stinking badge, Gringo" attributed to Alberto "Fredo" Gonzalez, Supreme General Of Justice for REPUKES
p.s. with apologies to B Traven and Alphonso "El Indio" Bedoya
Lwayno, El Tesoro de La Sierra Madre

Wayne Smyer wrote on July 29, 2007 11:45 AM:

"I don't got to show you no stinking badge, Gringo" attributed to Alberto "Fredo" Gonzalez, Supreme General Of Justice for REPUKES
p.s. with apologies to B Traven and Alphonso "El Indio" Bedoya
Lwayno, El Tesoro de La Sierra Madre

Wayne Smyer wrote on July 29, 2007 11:46 AM:

"I don't got to show you no stinking badge, Gringo" attributed to Alberto "Fredo" Gonzalez, Supreme General Of Justice for REPUKES
p.s. with apologies to B Traven and Alphonso "El Indio" Bedoya
Lwayno, El Tesoro de La Sierra Madre

Wayne Smyer wrote on July 29, 2007 11:51 AM:

"I don't got to show you no stinking badge, Gringo" attributed to Alberto "Fredo" Gonzalez, Supreme General Of Justice for REPUKES
p.s. with apologies to B Traven and Alphonso "El Indio" Bedoya
Lwayno, El Tesoro de La Sierra Madre