Shall
by emptywheel
Did I mention that it was thunderstorming something fierce here in SE Michigan? Yes, raining and pouring, too.
This morning, when I read the famous Executive Order that Cheney claims to have exempted himself from, I noticed a key paragraph:
The Attorney General, upon request by the head of an agency or the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office, shall render an interpretation of this order with respect to any question arising in the course of its administration. [my emphasis]
You see, I'm no lawyer, but I have written enough pretty hardcore business and government documents to know there's a crucial difference between "shall" and "should." Shall is mandatory, with legal umph. Should is kind of wishy-washy, if you feel like it, ought to. So I was wondering when the Democrats were going to point out to Alberto Gonzales that he shall provide a response to Bill Leonard's request for a ruling on whether or not Cheney is, indeed, exempt from this Executive Order.
Ask and you shall receive:
Due to conflicting statements from your department, the status of your review of this matter is unclear. More than six months have passed since Mr. Leonard’s letter to you, and the Information Security Oversight Office has received no response to its inquiry. In response to a FOIA request, the department’s Office of Legal Counsel stated on June 4, 2007, that no documents exist relating to your department’s response to Mr. Leonard’s letter. A department spokesperson confirmed that no “substantive work product” has been generated by the department in this matter. Last week, however, a spokesperson for the Department of Justice stated that this matter is under review in the department.
To help our Committees understand your actions in response to the request from the Archives, as well as the Department’s views on the legal status of the Office of the Vice President, we ask that you provide written answers and documents in response to the following questions:
(1) What is the status of your department’s response to the January 2007 request from the Archives?
a. When did the review commence?
b. Which individuals at the department have been assigned to review this matter?
c. Please produce all documents relating to your department’s review of this matter, including without limitation all communications, analyses, memoranda, or other documents.
(2) Have officials from the Department of Justice ever communicated with officials from the White House, including the Office of the Vice President, concerning the request from the Archives or the issue of whether the executive order does or should apply to the Office of the Vice President?
a. If so, please identify and explain the substance of any such communication.
b. Please produce all documents relating to any such communication. [my emphasis]
Unfortunately, Waxman and Conyers are going to have to send a follow-up, based on Addington's latest BS explanation, because this request asks about the Fourth Branch BS excuse, not the Not an Agency excuse:
(3) Has the Department of Justice ever taken a position on or analyzed the issue of the status or existence of the Vice President or the Office of the Vice President within the executive branch, the legislative branch, both, or neither?
No matter. I'm sure Waxman will have to write a follow-up before Gonzales actually responds. So in that follow-up he can just substitute Addington's lame excuse of the day.
Shall. In 2015.
Posted by: Kagro X | June 27, 2007 at 17:03
Well, AGAG is going to have to at least respond to what he's doing here. I wonder how long it'll take to find someone in OLC that has absolutely no self-respect who is willing to write an opinion reinforcing Addington's latest "not an agency" claim.
Posted by: emptywheel | June 27, 2007 at 17:09
Kagro.
Correct. They say its gonna kill me, but they don't say when.
Posted by: albert fall | June 27, 2007 at 17:09
Dear EW,
In your honour, I'm thinking of changing my name to flattire. Mostly 'cause I'm just about out of breath from talking to anyone who'll listen, and some who won't, about how venal Cheney and his fallen angels truly are. Dante had no idea! Milton would have been surprised! But I digress. They ARE just running out the clock, grounding the ball, ragging the puck, putting 11 men in the box. Cheney knows there won't be any impeachment. Saint Henry and the two Patricks are up against a very thick stone wall. And I'm very afraid that unless someone on the inside suddenly gets a conscience, subpoenas won't do it. We're gonna have to wait until they're out of office. So, from now on I'm resolved to save my breath for the day these assholes are hauled up in front of the International War Crimes Tribunal for their heinous adventure, and watch as the class-action law suits bury Haliburton, AT&T, and whoever else has profited illegally from this illegal war, and from the subjugation of the America people.
Sleep tight.
Posted by: Canuck Stuck in Muck | June 27, 2007 at 17:10
Talking about Waxmen, you can hear Waxmen speak tonight on The NewsHour in a segment called CHENEY'S ROLE.
Gwen Ifill reports on the power of Vice President Dick Cheney, a theme examined in a recent series in The Washington Post. Then, Ifill speaks with guests including: Barton Gellman, the co-author of The Washington Post series; Representative Henry Waxman (D- Calif.), chairman of the House committee on oversight and government reform, which is investigating the Vice President’s office; and, Lee Casey, a former Justice Department official during the Reagan and first Bush administrations, who now practices law and writes opinion columns for The Wall Street Journal and other publications.
Posted by: Neil | June 27, 2007 at 17:23
Hmm. Nope, I can't. I've got to go do brick and mortar politics. Plus, seeing as how it's not football season, I've got no teevee schedule.
Posted by: emptywheel | June 27, 2007 at 17:27
A "Responding to Oversight Committee Document Requests" was attached to the Conyers/Waxman letter to Gonzo. Very snarky of Henry!
Posted by: AZ Matt | June 27, 2007 at 17:28
There is a major problem: Executive Orders passed after Sept 2001, specifically defined the Vice President as an Executive Officer.
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-13228.htm
It's very interesting what Addington and Cheney are pointing to, but irrelevant: At best evidence of their denial; at worst, evidence of their aim to hide illegal activity they were personally involved. Their problem is the President has defined them as being what they would have us believe they are not: Executive Officers.
Adverse Inferences
Once the smokescreen lifts, it's more likely Addington's memo was not a bonafide effort to protect a secret, or assert a credible legal position with respect to audit compliance, but to hide evidence of illegal activity which Addington, himself, was complicit.
This invokes DC Bar Rule 1.16, compelling counsel to resign when their legal services are, as it appears the case here, to e used for illegal activity.
I reject any notion that there is "confusion" in any EO about where the OVP sits; or that Addington does not know about the EOs passed. The above EO was passed in the post 9-11 era, which Addington knew, or should have known. These are issues of disbarment for the DC bar; if the Congress refuses to impeach -- as they have done -- the question goes back to the 50 state legislatures: When are you going to document your proclamation calling for the Congress to impeach Addington; and work with your state attorney general to prosecute Addington and Cheney outside impeachment?
Either State officials assert their oath, call for impeachment, and provide leadership to prosecute this sitting President and Addington outside Congress; or they too may be subject to prosecution for failing to assert all lawful options to defend this Constitution.
Prosecute, or be prosecuted.
Posted by: Anon | June 27, 2007 at 17:30
Anon
I kind of like that argument, even me with my sick fascination and belief that Addington recognizes the rule of law.
Neil
I've asked the powers that be to watch for good clips--thanks for that heads up and the earlier one.
Posted by: emptywheel | June 27, 2007 at 17:33
Marcy - the AP story mentions that Leahy is looking to get information on the contacts/agreements between the administration and the telecoms. But I went and looked at the press release on Leahy's website, and he evidently didn't subpoena the companies directly, just the administration. Am I understanding this right? Wouldn't it make sense to get the telcos to divulge whatever it is that they've been doing? Not sure if he has that authority...
Posted by: pinson | June 27, 2007 at 17:41
TPM is all over this also:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003546.php
Posted by: *xyz | June 27, 2007 at 17:42
Anon and EW - Only problem is that the Addington letter does not rest on that theory (or any other one for that matter) it just obfuscates and moves on. Furthermore, a mere letter to someone, even if it is Kerry, would not be a basis for the action and liability you desire; you would need something more formal to even contemplate that in my opinion. I could be wrong, but this looks weak to me.
Posted by: bmaz | June 27, 2007 at 17:44
Brick and mortor... hmm. You do all the heavy lifting plus fit the pieces together.Nobody does it better. Football season... hmm. Lions fan? No. Chargers or 49ers? Am I in the right league. Wolverines? Jeffs? Here's a brief diversion, a photo. I'm keeping my eyes open for one circa 1990 - a picture of the better half (side) whatever.
Posted by: Neil | June 27, 2007 at 17:47
Anon,
Thanks for your arguement. Can you give more details on "how" you would guide one to approach an Attourney of State to prosecute? Ohio's has been quite active in "looking back" and addressing illegal activity of the past Gov's administration in Ohio. She may be a good place to start such a move. However, didn't the state of Vermont start this process? And on June 20th didn't word come out on DailyKos that Dennis Kucinich has 8 sponsors for a vote to investigate Cheney for impeachment?
Posted by: KLynn | June 27, 2007 at 17:59
I'm gonna go off-topic here to ask a single question:
ain't we on a "scooter watch" or something ???
what's up with that ???
I saw ew mention something last night, what happened ???
Posted by: freepatriot | June 27, 2007 at 18:04
Neil,thanks.
BMaz, I hear you. Than you. However, look at the date of the EO: 2001; the same time when Gonzalez was WH Counsel. The Conyers/Waxman letter of today asks what happened: Did AG not have a view of OVP in re Executive Branch?
Here's the EO from 2001, which AG and Addington have not addressed, but are stuck with:
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/06/shall.html#comments
If we assume Gonzalez as WH Counsel in 2001 had something to do with this other EO; and that EO did include guidance -- which has not changed -- that identify VP as an executive officer, the question is: Why is AG enforcement, and OVP interpretation not consistent with what WH Counsel in 2001 agreed with the EO: That VP was an executive Officer?
Looking at 32 CFR 2800 throws the issue into the air: OVP never addresses whyit blocked auditors from reviewing the CFR requirements which related to the same issues in the EO: Security. OVP has not addressed the CFR requirements which remain in force.
All EOP Memoranda for the 2001 EO would support the opposite conclusion, and compel AG to answer: Why despite the EO in 2001 that found OVP was an executive officer, was the statute not enforced; and why no enforcement of 32 CFR 2800 in re OVP security requirements?
AG cannot answer: Because he's part of the destruction of evidence which OVP is orchestrating, at the heart of the refusal to block the archivist.
I see no other explanation; and AG cannot explain why he's delayed responding to something that has not changed since 2001 -- EO language which defines the VP As being an Executive Officer. AG cannot explain why 32 CFR 2800 was not enforced by this AG while Gonzalez was in place.
AG would have had to create memos in WH Counsel's office supporting the 2001 EO. That's the subject of the current subpoena, or should be. Keep at it!
Broader Security Obligation of OVP
Whether the EO or CFR applies is a red herring: They both do; and the AG and Addington have not addressed why the 32 CFR 2800 requirements were not subject of the audits. They're essentially the same requirements, but in a different rule: Not an EO, but the CFR, which, by the way, reference EOs which OVP says they're not subject.... [Circular, invalid reasoning]
Anyway, whether Addington does or does not focus on "this" EO; or "another EO" is meaningless. Consider 32 CFR 2800 which imposes a legal duty. We're not trying to argue whether Addington is right or wrong; but whether the security requirements within any rules, including 32 CFR 2800, are or are not applicable. Indeed, Addington is silent on the same requirements in 32 CFR 2800 which exist in the disputed EO; but this does not mean that the "non disputed" 32 CFR 2800 requirements do not exist; only that OVP has not explained why they did not permit the audits of these security requirements.
Think of an expanding circle of problems which OVP is attempting to explain away with non-sense. When one argument breaks down, the circle of problems expands, especially when there are other requirements in the CFR that are never addressed as they should.
Posted by: Anon | June 27, 2007 at 18:06
KLynn,
Yes, there is guidance on prosecuting a sitting vice President. Jonathan Turley at Georgetown Wrote on this. He's still there.
The issue: Impeachment is assumed to be used as the primary means to enforce the law. Even Ashcroft mentioned that, when impeachment was an option, it shall be used first.
However, today's situation, with impeachment off the table, prosecution remains an option.
1. Approach
KLynn "Can you give more details on "how" you would guide one to approach an Attorney of State to prosecute?"
Encourage the pubic to review the Turley Article; discuss the issue with Turley; and see if the AGs and other legal counsel in your state are interested in doing what Members of Congress refuse: Fully assert their oath.
The basis for the States to act is on the grounds of ensuring there is an enforcement mechanism, as guaranteed under the Constitution.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiv.html#section4A republican form of government is one that has an enforcement mechanism. When Congress refuses to impeach, blocks state proclamations, and will not respond to State AG efforts to prosecute the VP or Members of Congress, the Members of Congress have violated their oath of office, 5 USC 3331 in not seeing that all lawful options are used to defend the Constitution. Inaction in Congress is not a problem, but evidence that prosecutions must be used outside Congress and outside impeachment.
Focus on the AGs in the states that are serious about the privacy issues in re NSA litigation. Those AGs show independence, and are willing to act.
Encourage members of the community to discuss the issues at an open forum with legal counsel; and ask legal counsel about their oath; and their views on the impeachment-prosecution tradeoff. If they balk, ask them why Ashcroft talked about prosecution, but hoping impeachment was used instead.
Today, it's clear there is no impeachment plan; and it has not support. the question goes to the State legal community-- are we going to defend this Constitution against the US government that refuses to use all lawful options? Those who refuse could be prosecuted, per 5 USC 3331.
2. House Rule 603 Is Different That State Prosecutions
KLynn: "However, didn't the state of Vermont start this process?"
You are correct Vermont is involved with House Rule 603 -- a rule permitting state proclamations calling for impeachment. This is different. rather than a state legislature passing a proclamation, the Vermont AG would have to lead this prosecution, if the VT AG wanted to act.
3. Congressional Inaction On Impeachment Means Prosecutions Must Continue
KLynn: "And on June 20th didn't word come out on DailyKos that Dennis Kucinich has 8 sponsors for a vote to investigate Cheney for impeachment?"
True, but if the Congress will not impeach, then prosecution must be used outside Congress. Inaction on impeachment isn't an excuse, but evidence of members of Congress not fully asserting their oath. Two options: Impeach or prosecute. Congress is blocking both. that is illegal; and they're thwarting State efforts to pass proclamations. Evidence of them defying their oath.
Summary
House Rule 603 is a rule allowing the congress to review state proclamations calling for impeachment. There are two options to compel the vice President to assent to the rule of law: First is through impeachment, which then-Senator Ashcroft in re Clinton support; or prosecution, if impeachment is not an option, as is the case.
However, the problem is wider: Once Members of Congress refuse to impeach, and they block states from passing impeachment proclamations, that is not a problem: But evidence that the only option is to prosecute. Congress cannot have it both ways: Arguing "we'll take care of it, and do nothing," but then block State efforts to compel Congress to act.
The State Proclamation effort through House Rule 603, because it has been thwarted, is sufficient evidence for the State AG's to conclude that prosecutions of this VP outside impeachment must commence. To not act would send a clear signal: Despite them knowing, or should knowing their duty to protected the Constitution, they refused. That is a basis to prosecute the State AG's for their oath of office violations.
Posted by: Anon | June 27, 2007 at 18:33
Anon - For the sake of argument (and pretty much overall anyway) I agree with your last. These clucks have not done anything proper or in keeping with their duties whatsoever. And, yes, you can absolutely throw abu Gonzales in there too. My only point was that you aren't going to make any headway on the basis of Addington's letter; it was complete BS, but plenty slippery enough that it would not serve as a basis for action on ethical rules or otherwise. These guys may not have a leg to stand on; but they are still dancing pretty fast, and Addington is a master rug cutter.
Posted by: bmaz | June 27, 2007 at 18:39
Waxman did a credible job on tonight's NewsHour, despite the limp questioning from Gwen Ifill, and Barton Gellman did a very credible job.
A Mr. Casey, a former Reagan DOJ lawyer, argued for the defense. He claimed that Cheney was doing a good job at whatever Mr. Bush asked him to do. He implied that Cheney's role was simply a natural progression of the increasing powers that the OVP was "acquiring" over the past few decades, and that such authority would simply continue as part of the OVP's authority, exempting Cheney (and Bush) from personal responsibility for these developments. We are just witnessing a natural trend in motion; nothing else to see, move along now.
Casey acknowledged that Cheney has few powers under the Constitution, and that virtually everything he does is as the delegate of the President. But he then inconsistently argued that Cheney isn't subject to normal executive branch oversight because he is the president's counselor. Gellman then made the helpful observation that Cheney was not just the president's principal adviser; he was an operator who directly influenced budgets and wide swathes of substantive policy.
As for Cheney's claimed exemption from compliance with the information security oversight rules, he argued that "normal statutory construction" would exclude Cheney (and Bush) from coverage unless he or they were specifically named in the EO, which he claimed they were, though he didn't explain whether this referred to the whole EO or just parts of it.
Posted by: earlofhuntingdon | June 27, 2007 at 19:07
Correction
Importance of Change
The key phrase is: "such other officers of the executive branch as the President may from time to time designate." from this EO:
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-13228.htm
"other officers" means WH Counsel in 2001 concluded that the OVP and VP were part of the Executive branch; and there is no language revoking any of the Security requirements in the 32 CFR 2800.
32 CFR 2800: Imposes Security Guidelines on the OVP, which can be enforced through prosecution. If Congress will not impeach, then the States may use DoJ/Congressional inaction in re 32 CFR 2800 violations as a basis to prosecute Cheney as a sitting VP outside impeachment and outside Congress-DoJ/US Atty.
http://www.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_00/32cfr2800_00.html
OVP Security Requirements Are Real
Statement on Accounting Standard 74 outlines the procedures under Generally Accepted Auditing Standards to do a compliance audit. One requirement for the auditors is to review the applicable CFR, and conduct audit sampling. There is no dispute the OVP has blocked audits of all compliance audits in re security compliance. The auditors have not been allowed to conduct their SAS74 compliance audit; nor has the OVP made a fair showing that they have fully complied with all 32 CFR 2800 requirements. These auditor working papers are not classified, and the State AGs and Grand Jury are encouraged to review these working papers for purposes of prosecuting the Vice President and Addington in re obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and evidence destruction.
Even if the cited EO does "not" apply, there are too many other ways to link OVP-Cheney with security requirements he's been ignoring. The basis for the refusal to permit an audit does not appear to be linked with a lawful purpose, but the adverse inference is his action has one motive: To avoid detection that he has not complied with the statute.
Addington's Legal Problem
His conduct appears to be related to an effort to justify illegal efforts to thwart lawful inquiry of OVP compliance/noncompliance with OVP security obligations.
Addington has a big problem. Beyond the EOs, there's something else which has ot been raised: The obligations of OVP to fully cooperate with audits and request for papers per 32 CFR 2800. Addington is either reckless in ignoring the EO from 2001 linking OVP with Executive Officers; or he's deliberately distracting attention from the CFR which promulgates clear requirements for OVP staff to comply with all security requirements.
Attorney Standards of Conduct: Duty To Resign When Involved with Illegal Activity
Addington's motivation for the non-sense letter to Kerry appears to be related to criminal activity and his apparent personal involvement with unlawful orders to destroy, and not allow access to auditors of OVP records, as required by Statute. The legal arguments are absurd, indicative of his recklessness.
DC Bar Rule 1.16 applies
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/dc/code/DC_CODE.HTM#Rule_1.16
If it is proven that Addington was involved with illegal activity -- as could be argued in light of his absurd statements: to destroy, hide, and not provide evidence -- then Addington could be prosecuted for obstruction, and disbarred for violating his duty to resign once he knew, or should have known his legal services were being used to implement illegal activity; and that he was actively involved with unlawful conduct. It appears to be Addington's motivation behind his absurd statements which ignore 32 CFR 2800; and the reality that the 2001 EO-memoranda does apply and conclude that the VP was an executive officer; and this 2001 EO has not changed, neither have the 32 CFR 2800 security requirements on the OVP.
Fair Warning
Under the 25th Amendment, if the Vice President is prosecuted while in office, he can be jailed. The issue for the President: Who can he appoint. Big problem: The House is not controlled by the GOP; and both Houses must approve the President's choice.
House DNC should be approached now to make it clear: WE the People oppose any effort by the DNC to approve any Cheney-replacement. Speaker Pelosi is next in line.
All DOJ AG direction that "EO's do not apply" [which they do] can be things that Vice President Pelosi applies when reviewing which documents she -- as Vice President -- shall provide to the Grand Jury, States, and Congress for purposes of prosecuting the President outside impeachment, or through all lawful means.
Addington has opened the door to Pelosi relying on his legal precedent to disclose all papers which OVP says "We're not part of the Executive Branch." Fine. VP Pelosi may rely on that and disclose all the documents. Everything.
GOP is stuck. We the People voted for Change. This means Addington and Cheney shall comply with 32 CFR 2800; they shall explain their reckless refusal to assent to the "post 9-11 EO" which clearly promulgates the VP is an executive officer; and they shall assent to state level prosecutions and legal action outside Congress.
All evidence before us suggests the effort of VP is not to protect a secret, but to hide evidence of his illegal activity. There is no other reasonable conclusion.
Grand Jury: DOJ IP Numbers-Data Adverse To AG Statements To Congress
The Fitzgerald Grand Jury is encouraged to look at the IP numbers for all DOJ Staff, and compare them with the public information.
The DOJ Staff IT department has stunning information. DOJ Staff counsel has been linked with those IP numbers and were not, as AG Gonzalez misrepresented, working on official duties or warrants.
The DoJ IT data supports the reasonable Grand Jury Conclusion that the DoJ Staff were engaged in illegal use of official US government computers inside DOJ: Active agreements not to enforce or comply with FISA. The DOJ Staff IP numbers have been affirmatively liked with non official sites when they should have been processing FISA warrants.
The Grand Jury will find the evidence overwhelming, conclusive, without any credible AG defense. There is no dispute that the AG was lying when he said there were not enough resources. The AG cannot explain why his DOJ Stff IP Numbers are linked with non official computer, websites, and other conduct outside what the law permits.
Where To Find It
This information is being stored in locations around the globe, outside American control, and shall be available when the AG commits to the lines of evidence that are false.
The IP numbers are reviewable now; and the Grand Jury is encouraged to take a broad view of the DOJ Staff IP numbers: They are evidence of recklessness by this AG; and his reckless defiance of his 5 USC 3331 oath of office. there is nothing the GOP can do to compel this House to agree with any Presidential appointment; and the VP and AG are on the table as targets for this Grand Jury and prosecutions by the State Attorney Generals.
Demand: Assent to the US Constitution, Or We the People Shall Impose A New Constitution Compelling Swift Assent
We the People voted for change. This non-sense has gone on too long. WE have seen recklessness by this OVP, His legal counsel, the AG, and now Congress. They refuse to timely defend the constitution.
On the table are prosecutions of a sitting Vice President by the State Attorney Generals. Congress refuses to impeach. They leave us with no option but to proceed with this prosecution, and work closely with the Grand Jury to defend this Constitution.
Change has arrived: It is called the Rule of law. Time for this VP, Addington, and Gonzalez to end their illegal rebellion against the rule of law, enforce all requirements of 32 CFR 2800, and fully accept that they have lost this legal battle. There is no statute of limitations for war crimes. It is June 2007, 17 months before the 2008 election, and We the People shall protect this Constitution from this reckless VP, OVP Chief of Staff, and AG.
They wished this.
Posted by: Anon | June 27, 2007 at 19:26
Posted by: earlofhuntingdon | June 27, 2007 at 19:07
Thank you for the information.
Notice, defense fails to account for 32 CFR 2800 which imposes security requirements on the OVP:
http://www.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_00/32cfr2800_00.html
Defense fails.
1. This is without legal foundation: ""normal statutory construction" would exclude Cheney (and Bush) from coverage" The CFR includes Cheney.
2. OVP is subject to the CFR; and defense fails to explain away the specific requirements within 28 CFR 2800.
3. OVP fails to explain how they blocked the audit of the requirements within this:
http://www.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_00/32cfr2800_00.html
4. OVP and defense fails to explain the EO specifically including OVP as an executive officer.
Posted by: Anon | June 27, 2007 at 19:32
I see it now.
Well, I have a really heavy work load, but I'm working on it.
Posted by: Jodi | June 27, 2007 at 19:32
No Reasonable DoJ Staff Excuses
Problem is, the DoJ Staff IP numbers can be traced showing they are not busy, but working on non-offiical things during office hours.
There is no excuse for DoJ Staff not to timely comply. they hae Certified Fraud Examiners that they can hire. reains for DoJ and FBI leaderhsip to explain why they're not being responsive. Perhaps they've gotten into the habit of not responding to their legal obligations. Those days are over.
Jail time for not making a full account for the known DoJ Staff use of official computers for non-official business. DoJ Staff has time, they have reckless leadership.
Posted by: Anon | June 27, 2007 at 19:38
Marcy, there's no doubt Addington recognizes the rule of law, he's just estranged from it at the moment.
Posted by: james | June 27, 2007 at 19:53
No. You can't have Pelosi. She's waiting a long time for this and she'd be nuts to let it go. Also, the Republicans will simply have hysterics.
I'd like to suggest one of the Maine senators but they won't let go of their seniority. That's going to be the problem. Who's willing to lose a job over this?
Is there a mellowed Republican about three days from retirement?
Posted by: aquart | June 27, 2007 at 19:54