« Oscar Meyer Continues to Have a Banner Decade | Main | How Long Do We Need To Stay in Iraq? »

June 19, 2007


I am curious Minikatz.

Name one charged "high crimes and misdemeanors" found by these "congressional hearings and journalistic investigations" you tout.

Go piss up a rope, Jodi.

Jodi--here is a list of all the GOP members who have been convicted, charged and investigated.

But the real problem right now is Plato's "who will guard the guardians" problem. Under our separation of powers, it is the Executive (Alberto Gonzales' Justice Department) who brings the charges (specifically the Bush-appointed US Attorneys) and the federal judges, many of them not just Bush appointments, but very right-wing, who preside over the trials. Congress can't charge anything but contempt.

Among the offense that have been uncovered so far are Lurita Doan's apparent Hatch Act violations, the multiple instances of lying to Congress and federal investigators committed by Alberto Gonzales and various of his aides at the Justice Dept chronicled by Emptywheel, and the apparent multiple and serial violations of the Presidential Records Act. There have also been multiple instances of contract fraud uncovered.

But another problem has been the deliberate destruction and withholding of evidence by the Bush Administration that has frustrated investigations and kept the truth from seeing the light of day. One of the most egregious is the recent destruction of evidence ordered by the NASA head and, of course, the long stonewalling of the investigation into the pre-war use of intelligence by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. And the withholding and destruction of e-mail conversations dealing with government business. And the refusal to make officials available for questioning by Congress.

This is the fundamental problem--the Founders never envisioned that the government they designed would fall into the hands of such a corrupt bunch that the prosecution of crimes itself would be completely politicized. That's the heart of the DOJ scandals.

I always try to enlighten you not sneer at you, so even though Mimikatz isn't my real name, you might show me the same respect.

Or, to be much politer, Jodi, a partial list of things that we're learning about, no thanks to your bosses in DC:

* the Hatch act
* the firing of USAs for political reasons (they were prosecutign too many Rs and not enough Ds to suit someone in the White House)
* the use of RNC e-mail addresses for government work (and the deletion of those e-mails in violation of retention requirements)
* the repeated lies about WMDs (and everything else connected with the Middle East)
* the various attempts to prevent people from voting, as well as the fairly clearly fraudulent vote counts in several states, most notably Ohio
* the f*cking illegal (and warrantless) wiretaps of US citizens
* anything connected with the so-called PATRIOT Act
* the imprisonment and torture of so-called 'enemy combatants' in violation of the Geneva Conventions, which we signed and have had no problems with, until this administration


>>I always try to enlighten you not sneer at you, so even though Mimikatz isn't my real name, you might show me the same respect.

Please enlighten us non-sneering Mimikatz! Get off the fainting couch. You are are a drastic bundle of sneering. It's one thing for you to be so self-satisfied but this phony bit of play-acting is too much. Perhaps if you showered a little less bile and sneer people wouldn't offer it back at you.

Speaking of Rhetoric -- or maybe "Freudian Slip" would be more accurate:

This morning on MSNBC, someone supportive of Rudy Giuliani was talking about his national security cred, and referred to September 11 as "that magnificent day." Then he caught himself, and said, "I mean, on that terrible day, America saw his magnificent performance."

I think it meant it the way he said it the first time around. Not because he actually is glad that 3000 people were killed on 9/11, but because he primarily views 9/11 as a magnificent campaign theme.

And now, please excuse me while I vomit.

zimmerman: grow up and learn manners. Please. Even jodi-the-troll is better behaved than you.

Paging Mr. Freepatriot - we have some troll vomit in Aisle 6 that needs a cleanup!

Good points M, thanks.
TPM is on a roll today, going after BOTH investigations of Ted Stevens and in asking readers if they have anything to add to the growing list of transgressions, it's getting hot under that particular Sen's seat.

They also scored on an Iraq panel Rudy was on that apparently he chose to ditch in favor of those high paying speaking jobs. Pretty damaging to his macho anti terrorism rhetoric. It's all about following the choices made.


Here's another lengthy explanation of why the multiple scandals at the Justice Dept matter.

And let's just add to the pile the fact that the Bush Admin does not believe it needs to comply with the laws Congress passes--See this Government Accountability Office Report Federal Agencies Ignore 30% of Laws Passed Last Year" and that was whern we had a Republican Congress. Gives a new meaning to "Rule O' Law", doesn't it. But of course, as the Libby pardon flurry shows, laws are for the little people, the reality-based people. The Bushistas can just make their own rules and to hell with the rest of us.

You want a high crime, Jodi?
What they did to Jose Padilla.

American citizen, American soil. 3 plus years without charges and undergoing 'enhanced interrogations'.

And you know the thing is Jodi, you're not even a very good troll. You're supposed to be afraid of trolls, you can't even marshall an argument to intimitade a 4th grader, much less real live adults...

Hey Steve--What do you expect in a country where Supreme Court justices use TV characters as their legal precedents?

Senior judges from North America and Europe were in the midst of a panel discussion about torture and terrorism law, when a Canadian judge’s passing remark - “Thankfully, security agencies in all our countries do not subscribe to the mantra ‘What would Jack Bauer do?’ ” - got the legal bulldog in [Justice Antonin Scalia] barking.

The conservative jurist stuck up for Agent Bauer, arguing that fictional or not, federal agents require latitude in times of great crisis. “Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. … He saved hundreds of thousands of lives,” Judge Scalia said. Then, recalling Season 2, where the agent’s rough interrogation tactics saved California from a terrorist nuke, the Supreme Court judge etched a line in the sand.

“Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?”

H/T to Andrew Sullivan, and Steve Benen dissects the flaws, not the least of which is that the Jack Bauer scenario is not, you know, real, but it doesn't really ever happen, with one possible exception in Sri Lanka.

The thing that bugged me about the Jack Bauer hypothetical was this - what if Jack Bauer did slap Osama around, and Osama gave him the wrong answer, and Jack goes to the wrong super secret hiding place? Or, what if Jack was too rough on Osama, and put him into a coma, and Osama is the only one who knows the codes to turn off the bomb, and suddenly because Jack wanted to be a tough guy, the bomb goes off? I hate playing along with these hypotheticals because it tends to legitimize the underlying argument that torture is effective for getting information. But, damn right I might convict Jack Bauer in those circumstances. In fact, the nuclear ticking time bomb case is one hypothetical where I think there is a case for a Presidential pardon - but there should ALWAYS be a conviction for torture. There is a legal argument that if you do something recklessly, like torture someone you think is a terrorist for info, and as a result make things worse, like ruining an asset or getting the wrong information that you were given on purpose, which must be right because after all, you tortured it out of him, you are liable.

Only moral free idiots like Scalia use fictional characters to justify doing completely illegal actions: Sometimes I can't believe people actually think Scalia is some sort of intellectual giant in the tradition of Madison, Jefferson and Franklin. It boggles the mind.

I am curious Minikatz.

Name one charged "high crimes and misdemeanors" found by these "congressional hearings and journalistic investigations" you tout.

Posted by: shit stain | June 19, 2007 at 14:00

hey shit stain, tell me again, why did scooter lie to the FBI and the Grand Jury ???

there's the question the shit stain can't answer

the shit stain can admit that scooter lied, but the shit stain can't explain why scooter would lie. That's because the shit stain can't say the the words "Obstruction of Justice"

so why should we listen to a shit stain that refuses to consider crimes that are too hard for the shit stain to pronounce ???

Obstruction of Justice shit stain

it's a crime, you could look it up

sorry I'm running a little late ...

Not to mention (as someone did elsewhere) that if you're in that 'Jack Bauer' situation, you've already got serious problems, because your system has already failed.
* your immigration service missed the terrorists coming in
* your law enforcement didn't find the terrorists or the bomb
* your inspection system missed the bomb materials - that's assuming they came in from outside the country; otherwise
* your nuclear materials security lost a useful quantity without noticing soon enough (if it noticed at all)
* you have no undercover assets who picked up on the operation before it went pear-shaped
* you have zero chance of finding it in 24 hours.

Why does Scalia think this has any relationship to the real world? Does confusing TV-world with reality mean he should resign?

I for one hope you are right about fixing the damage done, but wonder if anyone that gets absolute power is going to give it up? congress hasn't put the stop to anything a signing statement won't nullify with the single finger salute.
there is no turning back, in my humble and likely mentally retarded position. too much water has turned the millstone that has eroded any connection to our past. any relation to our constitution. it is gone now, dust. half the populace is frightened out of their wits with a terrorist attack that came from the saudi's. but we didn't attack them, we attacked their enemies. we are still doing so today, and everyone is trying to hide the truth from the light of day.
we are team america, world police. as stupid as we are violent. there is no apology from a contingent of idiotic GOP candidates for president that can't figure out if they should offer to service the bush on teevee, or pretend it's worship doesn't exist. there is no goal except endless war. it frightens the voters, and this, after all, is the ultimate goal.

Oldtree: As I hope to find time to write, I don't think the majority really shares that view. I think most people really do understand that they stand a much better chance of dying in a car crash than a terrorist attack, and that cigatettes and obesity are the really big killers. People are tiring of the constant ratcheting up of fear levels while the economy brings huge gains to the top 1% and anxiety to everyone else.

For years I've said that the default position for probably most Americans, particularly in the middle half, is isolationism. Since Bush's war and all the attendant fear and trembling has brought more problems not peace or security, I see no enthusiasm at all for taking the war to Iran.

As for acceptance of torture and medieval notions of justice, I don't really see that either. Like immigration, we have a vocal minority who trashes anyone who believes differently, but I think that survey research bears out that just as most Americans would like to treat immigrants humanely, they also don't favor torture and indefinite detention. If you can't wait fior the long version, check here.

Ishmael -- Your first comment made me laugh, your second made me cheer. You are exactly right, "there should ALWAYS be a conviction for torture". Exactly right. Well said.

No, seriously, Mimikatz.

You spoke of the investigations and reporting in the last 5 months by the Democrats and the Reporters, and of course future investigations ad nauseam.

For example Libby would not come under that mantle.

Agreed people are charged all the time.

But give me the ones that Congress or the Press has found during this time period you have referenced:

"it will require multiple and continuous congressional hearings and journalistic investigations to bring the high crimes and misdemeanors of this Administration"

Is there even one charge yet?

For example in the US attorneys, is there one?
In the incessant search in the emails, is there one?
Even with Mr Gonzales, is there a charge?

And as for the search for the Democrats Holy Grail (the head of Mr Rove) by the Democrats, has there been one?

The same ground is covered over and over, and thus far -


I think that Scalia couldn't have lost more credibility if he had asked "What would Ultra Lord do?".

Of course he never had much credibility with me anyway.

If you believe Jack Bauer was great for saving us from a devastating nuclear blast, then what would you make of someone who stopped him?

What are we to make of the Bush administration persons who disclosed the classified job of Valerie Plame Wilson and thus destroyed the network she ran?
The network helped protect us from that devastating nuclear blast by tracking nuclear materials in the Middle East, so we could stop anyone there from building a nuke (which might be used here).

What are we to do with such traitors?

Obstruction of justice in this case is a little more than blocking an investigation of a corporate fraud or something like that.

If Scalia thinks that '24' is reality in any way, then I'm going to claim that in that [extremely] hypothetical situation, I can have the Enterprise pop out of warp and beam the bomb into deep space as dissociated atoms, because they already know what happened. Thus there is no need for torture.

It's about as good a theory as Scalia's, and is a much healthier view of society.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad