« Or Should I Have Said: Nice Try Tom Davis? | Main | McClatchy Kicked Off the Plane AND Redacted Beyond Recognition »

May 23, 2007

Comments

EW- it is encouraging that there was some kind of independent committee in California to provide input on USA and judicial appointments, but in my view, the politicization of prosecutions in the American system is part of the problem, not that the Roves and Miers and, yes, Bushes (I just know he ordered these hits in some way that will preserve plausible deniability). In my jurisdiction in Canada, there was a major public scandal about political interference in prosecutions within the last 20 years, with the result being that a system analogous to the British Director of Public Prosecutions was set up - the Justice Department itself still had an AG in the Cabinet, answerable to the Legislature, but all prosecution decisions are made by an independent DPP appointed with secure tenure. Perhaps this is something that could be considered in the USA. Susceptibility to bad faith is a problem for any political system, ie there could be a rogue DPP under this scenario, but such possibilities strengthen the need to create administrative structures that insulate decision-makers from those who would seek to influence them. Prosecutors in my view exercise a function analagous to judges - they are not supposed to care about winning, just if the charges are warranted and there is a reasonable probability of conviction. Part of the difficulty that I have with the entire USA system (and DAs who run for election) is that it can attract self-promoting types who are more concerned about future electoral prospects than fair prosecutions. Elected judges are the same problem, unheard of in Canada. Not to mention the influence of campaign contributions on the elected judiciary and state DAs. I have yet to see the evidence that the so-called “responsiveness” of elected judges and DA’s to the electorate produces good justice.

I know everybody is over at the Lake, crowded around the campfire with Christy, but I thought I would make this cry from the Canadian wilderness! :)


Parsky is very well connected. Again, Sampson and Goodling were tripped up by their failure to understand that the appointment of USAs serves multiple agendas, and that in addition to providing a firewall for Bush and his buddies, and a training ground or resume buffer for prespective GOP judges, it is an important avenue for patronage for Senators (at least of the President's party, these days) and other well-connected GOPers. These folks will outlive any particular Administration (assuming we all do) and some have long memories.

This is one problem with personal (feudal) leadership to a charsimatic leader. Not only does the leader go down when he is perceived as losing his charism, his pals go down with him. Some of the GOP electeds understand this, others think the second coming of Karl Rove will save them.

Mimikatz - that was one of Machiavelli's points in The Prince - once the prince starts losing his power, or the illusion of power, and must start looking to the underlings for support, they will abandon him. The term Mayberry Machiavellis is looking more and more apt!

Well, looks like Monstiga is working right out of the playbook this morning. Can't wait for EW's analysis of her testimony. I have to give credit, it seems that the firewall is very carefully constructed - and my impression is that the blueprint was made before any testimony began. Rove isn't pulling this out of his ass as he goes - he's thought several moves ahead of the committee. ugh.

Ishmael, Mimikatz -- Parsky is hardly independent, and he's well-connected for a reason. He's one of the biggest donors to the Republican Party on the west coast. How is it that the commission is weighted towards the right by a membership including lawyers from the same Republican law firm as Ted Olsen? How is it a Republican donor is in a position to influence the appointment of not only USA's but judges? Parsky was pissed because they took his money and ran, stiffing him on selection of DOJ appointees. I suspect he's still pissed, but he's going to have to get really angry before he overcomes his partisanship.

And it is not like the Parsky Commission was serving up a bunch of Earl Warrens to start with. That the Gooper theocrats the administration desired were so extreme that they felt the need to do the end-around on Parsky is pretty damning. My take on the Goodling hearing so far: NOTHING. There has been absolutely nothing that materially moves the ball down the field toward any desired goals. A few bits and pieces, but nothing substantial.

No real suprise there, huh, bmaz. She's still working for the very same people she worked for when DOJ wrote her paycheck. The unfortunate thing is that she seems to be coming off pretty well. Very well groomed for this - so far a perfect little brick in the firewall.

One interesting observation is how she is steering things back toward Sampson. Rove must have a lot of confidence in him. I also can't help but think McNulty has agreed to play the gunslinger dragged through the mud. Like in the old westerns - drag 'em through the mud on a rope before running them out of town.

Bmaz & Dismayed - Ms. Goodling is not just another brick in the firewall, it seems like Dismayed may be right and they set this up like a terraist sleeper cell, or an organized crime syndicate - if anybody gets busted, or flips, the damage they can do is limited because they don't have a direct link to the Boss. Ms. Goodling was very careful to continue the meme that she doesn't know who ordered the hit list, if indeed there ever was a hit list, and she said she never, to the BOHK, spoke to Rove or Miers - Didn't see the questions on the double super secret order delegating the power to hire and fire to her, the question would be why so secret? The Regent University sideshow is very disheartening to me, I have yet to see any co-ordinated plan of attack here by the Committee.

Dismayed -- I don't think McNulty really had any opportunity to agree to being thrown under the bus. We know the Delegation of Authority was signed 01-MAR-06 (or at least that's what the date on the document says) and McNulty was sworn in on 17-MAR-06. The fact that they also pointedly kept him out of the loop on content suggests he was set up from day one on board as DAG to be the fall guy -- never had the hire-fire authority, never knew that Sampson-Goodling were working on it, never given all the facts or even the handouts supplied at his own testimony in front of Congress this year. If he'd seen the handouts, he might actually have realized his testimony didn't match the truth.

Very disappointed in the line of questioning so far, poorly organized. But they may already have all they need to know in the document dumps and other testimony, hard to say.

Rayne if you're right, and you probably are - it shows just how carefully planned was this operation, even down to planning the containment of the scandal before there was a scandal. That Karl is one sick sob. I can only hope that such obvious gutting of one of their own may bring other insiders forward out of indignation, however, I'm sure this is a pretty tight loop. Doubt the commitees will penetrate with a frontal assult. Going to need a wildcard.

Ishmael: spot-on withthe Machiavelli reference. Do also take note of this very wise dictum, op cit., "They who from a private station become Princes by mere good fortune, do so with little trouble, but have much trouble to maintain themselves."

Wildcard's got to be that other electronic eavesdropping program, the one Comey, Ashcroft, Mueller, etc. threatened to resign over, which had to involve spying on U.S. citizens, even members of Congress, without a warrant or probable cause. And five will get you ten they were (and are?) doing it anyway, without DOJ approval. The question is, since they can hide behind the "classified" firewall, how do you make it public?

geez, where is tokyo jodi the worm tongue ???

I got a big fat "GO FUCK YOURSELF" to deliver

anybody remember when tokyo jodi the worm tongue couldn't understand what a loyalty oath was ???

check out lawyer goodling's opening statement

Both in her opening statement and in further testimony, Goodling admitted to weeding out candidates for assistant U.S. attorney positions because they were not Republicans.

wanna tell us how we don't know what we're talking about now, worm tongue ???

wanna tell us how there's no crime here now, worm tongue ???

wanna come around and insult emptywheel with your pathetic bullshit now, worm tongue ???

or do you want to admit that you're been a fucking shit stain on humanity around here ???

I'm officially changing your name, worm tongue

you're now SHIT STAIN JODI

how's that ???

Well, Tokyo freepatriot, worm tongue

I haven't heard from you lately. Was a little worried that you might not be feeling well. But anyway, I see you are back in fine form.

I suggest you read the comments above yours in this thread. So far, your friends seem somewhat disheartened by the proceedings.

\\

Now if I may address Rayne, Dismayed, Ishmael, bmaz, et. al.,
perhaps it wasn't a splendidly planned crime that was diabolically covered up at all. Perhaps they were very careful not to break laws and do evil things.

It sounds like, it looks like, it must be Karl Rove!

damn

EW, Rumor's that CSPAN wants to broadcast the talk in Johnson Chapel Saturday. It would be surprised to learn the speaker would be pleased about that. Beside the indictment and post trial pressers, he has given one interview since the Libby indictment and a speech at a University in IL. The interview was with The Owl, his high school newspaper.

Jodi - as a relative newcomer to the discussion, I'm not sure what the policy at the site is with respect to handing out troll biscuits, but I'll engage your suggestion that "they" are very careful about not breaking laws - which for the sake of discussion, would be laws like the Geneva Conventions, the Presidential Records Act, FISA, the Hatch Act, the Voting Rights Act, any number of violations of their oaths not to disclose classified information, some obscure Olde English custom called habeas corpus - maybe you'd care to explain how "carefully" these laws were observed?

Shorter Ishmael to idjo:
"I'm your huckleberry"

Ishmael - the troll biscuit policy is we all ingore Jodi - except freepatriot. He's her designated tormenter, and he does it so much better than anyone else.

Many of us gave it our best shot with Jody, and no matter how encouraging it may seem to do so at time, you'll always come up spit on for your effort.

As for many of you who have long thought her a paid troll. I'm beginning to agree. He post on "Shorter Henry" though short and simple did it for me --

"Ralston will get immunity. These committee hearings need fresh testimony to keep going" --

I'm increasingly convinced that she is in some way connected to the GOP, and in any event will continue to ignore her. Though I must admit enjoying her slugfest with free.

Ishmael,

If you know of crimes, I would suggest that you bring them to the attention of the DOJ, the FBI, the Secret Service, the Treasury Dept, the Congress, the UN, the World Court, the War Crimes Tribunal, your local sheriff, and city police. You might also bring them to the attention of your local condo or housing board. I have found myself that if you knock on enough doors, you can find someone willing to help, or at least listen.

Upon subsequent explicit charges I will be glad to share my thoughts, but I am not a lawyer. I am primarily a technologist to put it in a way you can understand the easiest.

Now for my own complaints about the Bush Administration which are, I think Political. I would put to the forefront, the conduct of the Iraqi War. The stupidity of Bush! I still don't know if these are chargeable crimes under code or statue, but I am willing, very willing, to read any list of charges made by the authorities.

And so you know the full story, I voted for Bush in 2000, but against him for a real idiot in 2004. That was political.

And, also, for you said you came late, I think that this junk about emails, about USAs, about Wilson-Plame-Rove is no much political stirring of the pot trying to ferret out some criminal offence. The real smoking guns and dead bodies in Iraq is what you should be concentrating on.
But none of it has gone so well has it?

So far, despite a lot of time and trouble, nothing chargeable, except in the case of Mr Libby, some charges of perjury for mistatements, or bad memory, and all that occurred under a Republican Congress and Administration.

You will note that all participants have learned from that case, and are much more careful about how positively they remember events.

Ah, our troll returns with more GOP talking points unconnected to reality.

I see Goodling has now implicated Gonzo in witness tampering, by telling the nice committee how he had a talk with her about his testimony, after she'd been called by the committee. (McNulty isn't happy with her now, either.) For someone who knew so little about what was going on at DoJ [she said], and who wasn't involved in anything illegal [she said], she sure was in it deep.

shit stain jodi never gives up

monica goodling has ADMITTED to the crime

So far, despite a lot of time and trouble, nothing chargeable, except in the case of Mr Libby, some charges of perjury for mistatements, or bad memory,

I REPEAT, monica goodling ADMITTED TO THE CRIME

but shit stain jodi clings to the line "nothing chargeable"

just "bad memory" and "misstatements"

has anybody EVER seen a more complete case of cognative dissonance ???

I don't believe it

shit stain jodi knows the truth, and yet she comes here and tells us how we're wasting our time

and while shit stain jodi continues to deny reality, Greg Palast is making a whole new conspiricy case against grifith, goodling, kkkarl, and george bush, related to the disenfranchisment of 70,000 Americans, mostly soldiers

shit stain jodi isn't funny or pathetic anymore

she's just a shit stain on humanity

todie. nuff said.

I am well aware of Parsky's connections, that's why I pointed them out. I never said he was independent; rather my point was that he would be pissed at Monica et al for infringing on what he saw as his turf, even if they may have to some extent had common goals. Same with the GOP Senators.

The major players here always have protection of their own position as objective # 1. It is the true believer underlings who blindly serve their master who risk beiung left hanging out to dry when things go really badly.

The witness tampering allegation by Monica G reminds me of the alleged "witness tampering" of Bill Clinton in the Monica L debacle - Ken Starr suggested that Clinton tried to obstruct justice in such a way that Monica G described with Betty Currie, Sidney Blumenthal, Bruce Lindsay (I think) - needless to say, I don't think anything will come of this if impeachment proceedings ever start with AGAG because IOKIFYAR.

It is really interesting that the party that used to preach so much about the "Rule of Law" and the need for honesty in 1998 has now lowered the bar to "if you don't have iron-clad proof that a law was broken, then nothing wrong was done." And on top of that, the President isn't "breaking the law" if he decides it is in the national interest to disregard the law--i.e., the President can't break a law in the fulfillment of his duty to do whatever he thinks is right. That is the key to Gonzales' repeated statements that nothing imporoper was done.

But people who truly believe in the rule of law understand that fidelity to the Constitution and to the spirit of the law is what is important, and that something can be technically within the law and still be wrong. The law isn't what Bush says it is--that is the whole point of a government of laws and not of men. And even the President of the United States sometimes must stand naked, to quote Bob Dylan.

Digby has been running a wonderful retrospective of pronouncements of the former House impeachment managers on the "Rule O'Law". Scroll down a bit to read them.

Mimikatz - What Digby said (TM, Atrios). I agree, my personal favorite during this period, was the image of Ken Starr carrying his garbage to the street in front of a sycophantic press, (without a hint of irony!) declaring that Clinton "had defiled the temple of justice"! Under AGAG, the "temple of justice" has become an Augean stable.

"Troll biscuit policy." I like that.

Most of the folks here are interested in understanding what is going on in our government, learning the facts in the case, reading between the lines in news articles, op-eds and press releases, and using deductive reasoning. Jodi is not.

But why, originally, go to such lengths to distance the WH from political decisions it had express authority to make? To preclude Congress from investigating? That worked out well. To pretend that they weren't political decisions? That seems Gonzo's take, hence his anger that McNulty admitted Cummins was fired for political reasons, which opened up review of direct WH involvement.

But why hide from exercising the authority it so loudly proclaimed it had? Is it simply that any review, no matter how superficial, would lead much to close to Karl Rove and his Math (ie, the illegal or highly irregular politicization of historically independent, reasonably impartial offices)?

looks like Greg Palast figured out how kkkarl's "Math" works

the technical and legal term for kkkarl's "Math" is "Conspiricy to Disenfranchise American Voters"

Palast says that Tim Griffin was the director of a gop conspiricy in 2004

IIRC, Tim Griffin in the guy who is currently serving as US Attorney in Arkansas, and there's a bit of controversy about his appointment

so this kinda ties the US Attorney scandal DIRECTLY to the conspiricy to disenfranchise voters

do I got my facts straight here ???

Well freepatriot, you have found an area that I won't venture into. Potty Wit. Or maybe I should just say nasty mouth freepatriot. I will think about it.

To All,

I await the charges, that result from Ms Goodling's testimony.

The committee made some nice points about Regent University. Beat Harvard in the debates this year!

: )

Also about the religious inceptions of Yale, Harvard, etc.
About Clinton firing a USA that was investigating him.

Other than that, So what!?

Why hide what they were doing? Because somewhere dep inside they knew it was wrong, that's why.

Because the Pres can't by custom fire USAs before the end of their term except for cause, and then they hold over unless there is cause, until the next Pres comes in, at which time all tender their resignations. Even though they serve "at the pleasure" in the sense that they have no civil service rights in the event of termination unless it is for a statutorily prohibited cause like race, pregnancy etc), by custom they stay as long as they want unless there is cause to fire them. And here there wasn;t, as seen by the fact that it took so much scrambling to come up with anything plausible.

Some degree of politics plays a role in hiring of USAs (though not the AUSAs). But once a person is USA, s/he has to be, and be seen as, impartial or the whole edifice of justice is suspect and the law is undermined. That's why Justice is always pictured as blind--because theoretcially the same laws apply to everyone; there is not supposed to be favoritism.

But the Bushies perverted all this in trying to use Justice as if it were the GSA to score points, even scores and keep the GOP in power. That is against the traditions of the office since forever.

The Bushies violated the unwritten law (just like the GOP violated it in prosecuting Clinton even though his wife had indicated she could live with his infidelity, in which case the unwritten law is that everyone shuts up about the situation. Instead they made a federal case out of it, put blow jobs on the nightly news and revolted everyone who had any sanity. And never understood why Clinton remained popular and Bush hasn't.

Mimikatz --

I agree with you in most things, but I differ with your second sentence above... They are hiding what they are doing because it is illegal, and they know it through and through, not just deep down.

If the Bushies have exhibited any unifying characteristic, it is that each and every one of them subscribes to the notion that the end justifies the means. They have used all means at their disposal to pervert our system of government to achieve their own ends. With every passing day, there seem to be new indications of the lawlessness of this crowd. And just like the schoolyard bully, they are not prepared to get a dose of their own medicine. They can throw their little tantrums and scream that it's ok if you're the President, but they KNOW that they broke the law and they are truly scared they will find themselves on the business side of a prison door once their machinations have been exposed.

Fortunately for the rest of us, the Bushies seem to have an incompetent streak that's a mile wide. When you consider how the story has unfolded to date, it is frightening to see how easily they might have succeeded had their minions been capable, rather than such a sorry bunch of arrogant hacks.

phred -- yes, exactly, the ends justify the means -- a key component of applied Straussian philosophy.

Phred, I agree as to Bush, Cheney, Rove etc. They know it is wrong, often illegal, against our political traditions etc and basically don't care, because acquiring and holding power is all that matters to them. But I do think peopole liek Monica Goodling are blinded by the light. They want to do good in the world, as she says, and their upbringing tells them that they can do that by serving Republican masters, especially the sainted George W. Bush. Some of them will have an awakening, some will become embittered when they are screwed over, and some will just retire from the dirty business of politics. Maybe I'm wrong about her and she is one of those hard-assed Republican women I used to have to meet with when the GOP controlled the CA government, or a junior version thereof.

There was a time when Rove liked to let it all hang out and let everyone know just how unscrupulous he was. Those days ended on November 7, 2006, but not all the underlings got the memo in time.

Monica did clearly admit to breaking civl service laws in the questions about politics and the political research she did on people applying for non-political positions. She also admitted that McNukty and Gonzales did not testify accurately to Congress. She also stated that the decisions were made in the WH. Was that worth immunity? She only got immunity as to the civil service violations. Otherwise she is a fact witness as to the perjury of others. She did not admit that she helped or caused McNulty to testify falsely to Congress, so the immmunity grant doesn't cover that if it is later proven that she did.

Mimikatz --

I honestly don't know what to think of Monica. It is possible that she was merely an easily played pawn who believed she was on the right side of the chess board. But, I have also known evangelicals who are not the least bit troubled by screwing over "others". In their world view there are the righteous (themselves) and everyone else. They will knock themselves out for anyone in their own circle, but they will not be bothered at all by ill treatment of someone not in their camp. In her testimony today I was not convinced that she was honest. I think she did her level best to protect her former associates (McNulty excepted) and the throwing under the bus that did occur was due to her own limited skills in testifying. She may only be in her 30s and possess the voice of a child, but she strikes me as a manipulative, calculating political operative, mercifully with limited talent.

Phred--You may well be right. I didn't see the testimony, just her statement and various clips that have been at TPMMuckraker and other sites. Considering she was Barbara Comstock's protege, she may be an end-justifies-the-means type.

It seems that she did implicate Sampson some, though, along with Gonzo, and of course McNulty, who may have been left so far out of the loop (as I understand it, he didn't know about the delegation) he didn;t understand what she was telling him. He is the government lifer who has been thrown under the bus, while she has her career ahead of ehr even if she loses her law license for breaking the civil service laws.

Are we all agreed that the rest of the witnesses (Sampson redux, Sara Taylor, Scott Jennings and Miers, and Rove if they ever get him, go only before the Senate Committee, or HJC if Artur Davis or replaces Conyers as Chair?

"Ms. Goodling was very careful to continue the meme that she doesn't know who ordered the hit list, if indeed there ever was a hit list, and she said she never, to the BOHK, spoke to Rove or Miers..

Judy Miller had a similar memory problem. She couldn't remember who gave her Valerie's name, that she wrote in her note book. Then she testified that that she was 100% sure that whoever this person was who she couldn't remember, that it definitely wasn't Scooter.

Monica is 100% sure that Rove and Harriet were not involved. Then she goes on to say how much she does not remember. Everyone of those "I don't remembers" is a possible Rove and Harried were involved.

The other problem is if Monica' sworn testimony is accurate, if Rove and Harriet were not involved, why won't the WH turn over all the emails?

Tokyo Jodi is an insult to trolls. She's either getting paid per comment (I hope) or is so unbelieveably desperate for attention that she comes here (I fear).

And Monica pretty much did point the arrow back to the WH. Here's Marty Lederman's take. Note his discussion of her "three little words."

Monica didn't say Rove and Harriet weren't involved. She said she never spoke to them. But she spoke to Sampson and others, and Sampson, Taylor, Jennings certainly did. She pretty clearly pointed the finger right back to the WH. It's just that she wasn't in the league where she could talk to Rove or Miers. But Sampson, who had been Rove's COS, certainly was.

from the doc dump the other day, courtesy of TPM

here's a start (from ccmask at FDL):

From: .Goodling, Monica
Sent: Monday, March 05,2007 1 1 :I7 AM
To: Moschella, William; Hertling, Richard; Scott-Finan, Nancy
Cc: Sampson, Kyle
Subject: McKay judicial interview

Here’s the WHCO answer:
It’s true that McKay was not recommended by the Republican-led commission in Washington state as a candidate for a
district court position; however, he could claim he was interviewed by the White House for the position anyway. This is not -
really information that WHCO would want used publicly, but the interview came about because McKay knew Harriet Miers somehow and called her to say that he was in town and wanted to come by to say hello. She agreed. Once he was in the White House, McKay then said he was interested in the judgeship and basically asked to be interviewed. My understanding is that Harriet did conduct an abbreviated interview — but only as a courtesy. That’s also why he got a dissappointee call, despite the fact that he was never in the process to begin with (but he thought he was).
&
WHCO would generally prefer this line of question be avoided since the Members shouldn’t have knowledge of the
commission’s recommendations or the fact that the interview was only a courtesy (which, of course, McKay also does not know).

Tracking: Recipient Read -
Moschella, William Read: 3/5/2007 1.08 PM
Hertling, Richard
Scott-Finan. Nancy Read: 3/5/2007 1216 PM
Sarnpson. Kyle Deleted: 3/5/2007 8:46 PM

set 6–page 46 DOJ doc dump
Posted by: greenmeddler
Date: May 21, 2007 07:17 PM

why shouldn't the "Members" know? And what "commission" is she talking about? Is she talking about the "republican-led commission" referred to in the beginning of the email? Or a different "commission". Is she stating that this republican led commission didn't recommend him, but by virtue of the fact that he got a pseudo interview, he could claim they did? Do they have a Parsky-like group in every state choosing our judiciary?

Typically the Senators from each state weigh in on judgeships (as well as USAs), and some of them (like DiFi) have had groups of advisers who vet applicants.

In the olden days, there was generally input from the Senators of both parties, and either one could place a hold on a nominee, but they exercised their prerogatives pretty cooperatively. That has broken down almost completely under Bush, where they just ignore the Dem Senators, and even the GOP ones sometimes.

Who would Monica have gotten the info from? Who's the contact at WHCO? She wouldn't have talked directly to the WH Counsel (Miers or Fielding), but someone in the office who got her the info. That's how it usually works.

In light of Lederman's analysis of Monica's written statement and the careful use of qualifiers, Monica's statement that she never "spoke" to Rove or Miers, "TTBOHK", now strikes me as significant. No verbal phrases, but perhaps emails? BCC on emails? Perhaps they heard her speak on speakerphone? And what about Shrubya? Or Big Time? Addington?

Thanks very much for the Lederman link.

And so you know the full story, I voted for Bush in 2000, but against him for a real idiot in 2004.

The "real idiot" you voted for was BUSH, obviously. (are you stupid?)

Mimikatz --

Indeed we are agreed that the SJC is far more effective at this sort of thing than the HJC. I've seen several comments at FDL suggesting Conyers has a game plan, but I certainly couldn't divine it from the way he chaired the hearings.

You mentioned something above that has been puzzling me... It's been suggested that Monica wasn't high enough up the food chain to speak directly with Rove and Miers. Up until today I had assumed her relationship with Rove was equivalent to Sampson's relationship with Gonzales. If that's not the case, what exactly is the job description of the White House Liason at DoJ, and who exactly did she report to?

I voted for Bush in 2000, but against him for a real idiot in 2004.

Liz,

When I read this, I assumed that what she meant was "but against him as a real idiot in 2004" -- meaning that by 2004, she had woken up to the fact that Bush was a real idiot. I was giving her the benefit of the doubt, since her posts are frequently inarticulate anyway.

But your interpretation could be right -- the problem may not be just sloppy wording, but sloppy thinking.

So, in the middle of all this, I still don't know: What IS the status of the Lewis investigation? Has it been spiked or is it proceeding? Ditto for the ball Carol Lam got rolling. Are the acting USA's continuing their investigations, playing hardball, getting testimony, tightening the screws? Or is all that over now?

Well some here are probably just jerking my chain, but giving the benefit of the doubt, I will clarify.

When I said "And so you know the full story, I voted for Bush in 2000, but against him for a real idiot in 2004.",
I meant to imply that I had voted for the real idiot Kerry in 2004.
(I guess I can see that some here wouldn't think of Kerry as a real idiot. I should have been clearer.)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad