Jail these bastards, for Christ Sake!!!

My head is exploding.

I need to buy more shiny trinkets, learn more about celebrities, and pray.

I'm an AmerIdiot.

Judge Bates sounds less than impressed with Cheney's line of reasoning.

The Imperial Presidency has now become the Imperial Bureaucracy.

[Sec.Code = meat, as in Cheney's hunting buddy's face.]

The "unique government role" argument is BS. Back in 2001, Addington crafted a statement that said the (Office of the) Vice President is "neither Executive nor Legislative but it is attached to the latter."

They have run with this definition ever since.

Impeach

Judge Bates sounds less than impressed with Cheney's line of reasoning.

Posted by: Pinson
Date: May 17, 2007 05:06 PM

Judge John Sedwick (same guy as Veco Alaska) seems to be falling for this line of crap.

The Patriot US Attorney Nelson Cohen is arguing that a 100% disabled veteran doesn't have the right to sue the US Army for multiple Civil Rights violations in

Mitchel v. Geren (acting Sec of Army)
Case No. 3:05-cv-00264 (JWS)

In the United States District Court for the District of Alaska.

Gee....Bush Regime, corrupt Republicans in Alaska, Patriot US Attorney's, no rights, screwing a disabled veteran, Military Intelligence Lt Colonels doing domestic black ops, screw the Constitution....yup just as usual for the Right Wingers...

One more time Madame Pelosi...please...Impeach!!!!

see the link at my name for the details

The president can't be sued for actions which are part his duties, presumably because he would do nothing but defend himself in court, and Cheney is claiming the same protection. The Paula Jones trial was allowed because it was separate from Clinton's work as president, maybe because it predated his presidency. The Wilsons might be arguing that this protection doesn't protect Cheney if he conspired to break the law, or that he acted in such a personal way that it wasn't part of his job. Even if it is, that protection probably won't apply to the other defendants, especially not Novak since he wasn't in a government job.

Though I expect what Cheney is really worried about is the discovery of evidence.

Quoting --

“The Vice Presidency is a unique office that is neither part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch, but is attached by the Constitution to the latter.”

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/plumbook/2004/p226_appendix5.pdf

Cheney is not an Executive . . . He is a placeholder waiting for a heart to stop - If those pretzels had done their job awhile back, he woulda been Executive . . .

Right now, he is just a schmoo trying to use the "Honey, I committed TREASON cuz her husband called me the poopy-head I am" defense.

Judge Bates needs to spell it out in his decission . . . really precisely . . . that these inbred fucks are totally off base AND slap-down this VP privilege BS so hard that the Administration will need to dig down to Austrailia to find it.

I'm normally pretty cool on the idea of impeachment especially after the Clinton fiasco, but I'm starting to think ITMFA is the way to go. These people do not understand or care for the rule of law. They are a danger to this republic.

Wherever this goes is wherever this goes and if the past is any guideline, the Soulless Robot will still be smirking.

I am just wondering when the Democrats will flex their muscles and DO SOMETHING. These AG-related hearings have been fine and all, but stop playing Nice Peoples. Enough opportunities for turning over docs have been extended to this WH - issue your subpoenas, put impeachment on the table, etc.

Aside from the upcoming Goodling cry-fest, I'm over these Committee hearings.

It's time to ---- or get off of the pot.

Or for the love of whatever deity one wants to worship, get our Prez a non-Laura blowjob.

Recently over at TP a commenter had some bumper stickers including:

"Impeachment. It's not just for sex anymore."

So, seriously, how do We the People sue Cheney (and Bush) so we can bring the unitary executive theory before the SCOTUS for an up-or-down vote?

I think a reasonable court would hold that Bush, for example, cannot claim executive privilege to conceal his decision to send Card and Gonzales to Ashcroft's sickbed. That's not policy, that's process.

When we learn that Bush placed that call, or ordered it be placed, we have the commission of an illegal act (soliciting an illicit signature to commit a crime).

When they claim "unitary executive", as both Cheney and Bush did today in separate incidents, can't we bring that to a court, and run it up the chain?

At least then we'll know if the Constitution is defunct or not.

Code word: glass. We need to throw some legal stones to see whether we're living in a glass house.

Lord help the U.S. with this sort of garbage going on. The present administration is immune to everything, cannot be questioned, refuses to answer subpoenas, defies the courts, fires/ridicules/blackballs anyone who criticizes them.... no wonder the rest of the world looks on in astonishment, and no wonder other countries shake heads at the idea of adopting U.S. "democracy". What democracy?

From 2005 Press conferencce:

Q: Given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President [Dick] Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name? BUSH: That's up to -- Q: And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so? BUSH: Yes.

McCLELLAN: The president has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it [the leaking of Plame's identity], they would no longer be in this administration.

Just how untouchable is Cheney? I say we find out:

http://www.impeachcheney.org

That's the best picture of Cheney I've ever seen. He almost looks sane, almost.

If the Vice President says it, then it is not illegal.

Is this the Nixon administration all over again? Come to think of it, it is.

"Quoting --

“The Vice Presidency is a unique office that is neither part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch, but is attached by the Constitution to the latter.”

"Posted by:
Date: May 17, 2007 05:33 PM"

That is utterly absurd. It is an effort to bridge, or eliminate, separation of powers between Legislative and Executive. In reality, he can't be both, or half-'n-half. The office of the VP is in the Executive. That the VP is also President of the Senate doesn't alter that fact.

At the same time, Bushit is claiming the right to rewrite legislative enactments on the theory that he's both Executive and Legislative, even though the Constitution is expressly clear that Congress is the exclusive law-making body, and/thus the Executive has only two options re. legislative enactments: sign, or veto.

SC = seed. As in, Cheney's brain has gone to seed.

"The president can't be sued for actions which are part his duties, presumably because he would do nothing but defend himself in court, and Cheney is claiming the same protection. The Paula Jones trial was allowed because it was separate from Clinton's work as president, maybe because it predated his presidency. The Wilsons might be arguing that this protection doesn't protect Cheney if he conspired to break the law, or that he acted in such a personal way that it wasn't part of his job. Even if it is, that protection probably won't apply to the other defendants, especially not Novak since he wasn't in a government job.

"Though I expect what Cheney is really worried about is the discovery of evidence.

"Posted by: Eric Ferguson
Date: May 17, 2007 05:22 PM"

Worried about discovery? Nah. He'll have Gonzo ignore the subpoenas for him.

SC = fear. As in, There is nothing to fear but Bushit-Cheney hisself.

Who is John D. Bates?

September 28, 2002
Cheney Argues Against Giving Congress Records
By DON VAN NATTA Jr.

[snip]

In a series of questions to lawyers on both sides, Judge Bates seemed to grapple with the question of whether the agency [GAO] could sue the vice president.

GAO Press Statement
December 9, 2002
Comptroller General of the United States David M. Walker issued the following statement in response to the decision of Judge John D. Bates in the case of Walker v. Cheney:

“We are very disappointed with the Judge’s decision.

We are in the process of reviewing and analyzing the decision to fully understand the bases for it and its potential implications.

We will consider whether or not to appeal after we have
completed this review and consulted with Congressional leadership on a bi-partisan basis.”

WASHINGTON IN BRIEF
Saturday, March 25, 2006; A04
Replacement Judge Named To U.S. Surveillance Court

U.S. District Judge John D. Bates has been named to replace a judge who resigned from the secret court set up by Congress to oversee domestic spying.

Bates, who was a prosecutor in the Whitewater investigation of President Bill Clinton, was appointed to replace U.S. District Judge James Robertson, who quit shortly after news reports about the Bush administration circumventing the court to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens suspected of communicating with terrorists.

The appointment, made by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. in February, was not announced by the court. Secrecy News reported the appointment yesterday.

This noise from the white house is just that.
About a year from now, everyone will begin to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

The real fun begins once Bush/Cheney leaves office. What sort of legal protection do they rate as private citizens? (or they think they rate?)

I predict a democratic win in 2008, and all the skeletons will come tumbling out of the closet. The new Prez can declassify docs at will.

I imagine the Bush Library as a locked empty building with a drop box for subpoenas and FOIA requests.

It's that thought that keeps me warm at night. Marking the calendar and snickering...

Hitler was immune from lawsuits too. Cheney & Bush want to bring "democracy" to Iraq-there is no real democracy in this country-only a succession of "set up choices" like Bush & Kerry (both Yale, Skull & Bones) and Clinton-Rhodes Scholar (don't ask where Cecil Rhodes really "came from"). Clinton first got into politics by working, at 18 , for the campaign of Winthrop Rockefeller for Gov. of Arkansas (don't ask what that means).Like Nixon, Clinton was another ambitious poor boy eager to be on the winning team and get ahead at any cost-since he had some charisma, he was indentified "early on" to be on the "farm team". Now we have the foisted choices of Hillary Clinton (what, with all the people in this country all we get is two criminal Bush's and now the preferred choice of two semi-criminal Clintons!?-some democracy) & Obama, or maybe Edwards (but remember, he was picked for v.p. by Kerry). It takes major money and major media coverage to be president-and the weasels running the world behind the scenes (the same old- line banking families & their assoc.-going back for decades & centuries) own the money & the media & the influence to promote who they want YEARS in advance-just as Obama has been promoted with MAJOR media attention over something like 4 years now. All he does is smile a lot, look good and sound vaguely reasonable-so what !? Gore was more on the fringe of the "weasel team"-but guess what- he didn't make it. They kept calling him "wooden" (not only is Hillary just as wooden, she's a weasel on top of it). Then Bush Jr. was trotted out on purpose as some kind of born again christian-to get even more of the "stupid hick America " vote the weasels correctly counted on.Still, Gore won Florida and so the election, but chief justice Scalia (duck hunting buddy of Cheney) stepped in and stopped the count. When "democracy" comes to iraq it will be in the form of a "patsy cheap actor of a president" ( with a cabinet of hand-picked, non-elected "puppets of the weasels" behind him-to make sure he doesn't step out of line). EXACTLY like we get in this country. It's all a total lie and a con . Which means that the only army fighting in Iraq should be the Israeli army-supplied with all the Chinese military hardware Israel they can pay for with their precious tax dollars (the Chinese would love to make money selling this along with all the other cheap stuff they make). If "the bankers" want another phony, set-up total lie of a war let them find some other FAR more appropriate suckers to wage it in their behalf. But first they would have to dumb down the Israeli population with a major brainwashing push-since I'm afraid they're a lot more sophisticated that "hick America" (plus 50% of the country). Just keep saying "freedom, democracy, anti-freedom muslims out to destroy our way of life, liberals soft on terrorism" and you can stampede the stupid rodents of a cliff like a herd of lemmings-of course it helps to scare them, just to make sure. Remember all the terror alerts before the last election-o.k., now remember how they ALL stopped, permanently, RIGHT AFTER Bush was re-elected?-yeah, you get the picture (unlike hick America).

Thank God there not screwing around with interns !!!
( I don't think )

Thank God there not screwing around with interns !!!
( I don't think )

Posted by: Bob Kennedy
Date: May 18, 2007 05:10 AM

Who do you think are the scapegoats when the shit hits the fan???

So, under that structure, Cheney could say on live TV where our troops are hiding, or moving to, and not be held accountable...I think not.
Absolute?
The only thing absolute, is
"Absolute power corrputs absolutely."
And Cheney is an Absolute TRAITOR!
Arrest, try, hang.

Thanks, John Doe, May 17 @11:40 PM, for adding the background on Judge Bates.

It is important to realize that the Bush/Cheney final assault on the Democratic government-as-we-used-to-know-it is to put in place all of the judges that they need to allow circumvention of Congress, the Constitution, and Democracy. They are well on their way. In the end, America will be left with the task of impeaching a helluva lot of judges.

Here is a link to an interesting read (by Todd David Peterson, in the Nov/Dec 2005 issue of the online journal, LegalAffairs.org)on judges, justice, impeachment, and the constitutional concepts of "good behavior":

http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/November-December-2005/toa_novdec05.msp

There is a Constitutional "Good Behavior Clause," which guarantees to federal judges the right to continue in office during good behavior: but what is "good behavior"?

From the article in LegalAffairs.org:
"When it came time to list their grievances in the Declaration of Independence, the members of the Continental Congress complained that King George III had 'made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.'"

Hmm.

IMPEACH this bastard already!!! Support Kuchinich's bill.

SC: lock, as in lock him up.

"Cheney: You Can't Touch This"

Believe me, in the strictest literal sense, no-one wants to touch that Dick.

Those who compare Bush/Cheney & Co. to Nixon should consider that Nixon really was not a crook and actually believed--in his paranoid way--that he was acting in the best interests of the country. He also had some sense of reality in international affairs. He prolonged the Vietnam War until after he was re-elected, but got out when it had served that purpose. The Shrub and his neocons make no pretense acting on anybody's best interest but their own, and don't know how to spell competence.

So it is now construed by attorneys for the VP and President that breaking the law is a permissible response to public criticisms of administration policy. Extending that position to its logical conclusion it is then also OK to jail citizens if they happen to disagree with government policy. Framing the WH position in these terms may sound extreme but it is exactly where the WH position would logically take us.

The executive or any other branch of government is fully entitled to respond to public policy criticisms but that entitlement does not extend to abusing the power of government or violating federal statutes to quell those criticisms. The rule of law must be fully upheld by a government, first and foremost, if it is to retain its authority.

Hi, nice page.!
look on my pages:
dedicated organization policy profit public

ok.. bitte