This sounds like a signature was forged. How could someone who left the section have the authority to sign a letter on these provisional ballots? And if the signatory didn't sign it, then who did? Especially when it was a reversal of DOJ policy? How could Bradshaw have signed it if he left several days before?

Confirmed? Hell, he should be disbarred.

Lying lisping weasel boy. Why is it that all of these rethugs apparatchiks are the dorkiest pols of them all. These scumbags are such misfits that they all think Shrub is the just the coolest and will carry his water and lick the sweat of his nuttsack.

Unreal.

Sounds like we need to do a phone campaign to our senators' offices, particularly to Harry Reid's.

"Another problem for foes of von Spakovsky is that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is pushing a home-state candidate, recess appointee Steven Walther of Reno, Nev., and Republicans are likely to put a retaliatory hold on Walther if von Spakovsky is rejected."

Yeah! Reid. Fucking things up all over again!

Pelosi needs a serious dose of spine. She needs to be up there saying loudly and repeatedly in the press, that the President needs to nominate qualified people so that the Congress can fulfill its duty to the American People.

If he continues to put forth people with tangible connections to criminal misconduct in the Justice Department, to people with a record of opposing one man one vote, then we face the risk of going into an election without a Federal Elections Commission. Period. Make it his responsibility. Put him out there as being seriously obstructionist, doing his best to deny the right to vote to broad segments of our population. Hammer.Him.Hard. Make it painful. Drive his approval rating into the teens or even single digits.

"Another problem for foes of von Spakovsky is that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is pushing a home-state candidate, recess appointee Steven Walther of Reno, Nev., and Republicans are likely to put a retaliatory hold on Walther if von Spakovsky is rejected."

Ahh, the People's business. Our elected representatives, looking out for the ordinary citizen, ensuring the Rule Of Law is maintained and that the Promise Of Democracy In America to all of us is kept. More or less.

Von Spakovsky is a member of the Tennessee and Georgia Bars. The disciplinary agencies for these states are:

GEORGIA

William P. Smith, III.
General Counsel
State Bar of Georgia
104 Marietta Street, NW
Suite 100
Atlanta, GA 30303
404/527-8720
FAX: 404/527-8744
Website: www.gabar.org

TENNESSEE

Lance B. Bracy
Chief Disciplinary Counsel
Board of Professional Responsibility
of the Supreme Court of Tennessee
The Oaks Tower, Suite 730
1101 Kermit Drive
Nashville, TN 37217
615/361-7500
800/486-5714
FAX: 615/367-2480
Website: www.tbpr.org

This is from the ABA site for state disciplinay agencies which can be found at:

http://www.abanet.org/cpr/regulation/scpd/disciplinary.html

I am not writing myself but if several of you who have followed the hearings could write asking that he be required to explain how Von Spakovsky justifies the signature of Shelton Bradshaw days after Bradshaw left on the letter contrary to DOJ policy it might be worthwhile.

This guy may still get appointed? WTF??? Democrats need to grow some balls and gut this guys nomination anyway they can....or may be Dennis Miller has a point..(?)..Harry Reid is a pussy!

Reid should be wise by now. Just because he might the Repugs their guy Does not mean they will let his go through. They're corrupt, remember?

Without Congress achieving results (whic they will not achieve) nobody really gives a shit outside the beltway, as this is starting to resemble a DOJ soap opera full of numerous meaningless he said she said scenarios. Where is the rebel with an eye-patch and who screwed Alberto's wife during his March 2007 press conference?

>>Another problem for foes of von Spakovsky is that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is pushing a home-state candidate, recess appointee Steven Walther of Reno, Nev., and Republicans are likely to put a retaliatory hold on Walther if von Spakovsky is rejected.<<

GOP= goons of the president

When the Republicans controlled the congress, Democrats were given less than nothing. Sometimes they didn't even know what legislation was coming up for a vote. Now that the Dems are in charge, they feel the need to play nice and make sure Reid's boy isn't blocked?

Eff that noise!

Do I give a whit if Reid's hometown buddy is blocked to keep a radical and racist ideologue out of the position of COMMISSIONER of the FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION?!

Am I high? What's the problem here? The man should be run out of town on a rail with torches to his feet.

I just don't understand the Democrats problems with grasping the tenets of the Bitchslap Theory of Politics (copyright, JMM). When have you ever known a bully, in any environment, to back down in the face of equality and courtesy?

Spakovsky gets the hook, the Dems put up a QUALIFIED nominee, and then we pound the tables about how a qualified nominee deserves the dignity of an up or down vote. Reid's boy can be ambassador to Jamaica when the Dems take the White House.

Sorry for the question above - I see that the worry is that Reid himself desires to let von Spakovsky go through simply so that his guy gets through, too. I don't think Reid needs to be playing that game at this point; he needs to do the "right thing" which is to block von Spakovsky to the bitter end, screw "his guy" and take back the voter rights from this crime gang.

Is this another of those posts that can be filled by the president when Congress isn't in session? Don't reject him til after July 4.

"Republicans are likely to put a retaliatory hold on Walther if von Spakovsky is rejected."

I find it curious that Republicans (in the minority) can place a hold on appointments while the Democrats (in the majority) cannot.

Also, vacancies are better that Spakovsky.

I am just curious as to what back-room, make-nice political deal is so important to Dianne Feinstein, Harry Reid, et.al., that they're willing to go through with it, and go back to being the minority again.

Because that's where this is all going. The Left, which motivated like hell and went to the goddamned polls in November, gave up on the Dems (whether Di and Harry realize it or not), right after that little "we just don't have the numbers" betrayal on Iraq.

Apparently, they were under the impression that only the right required Red Meat.

Well... wrong. Y'all now have a lower approval number than the drunken, coked-up, entitled chimp in the White House. Nice job.

You see, how this works is: you betrayed and lost the Left, and you never had the right. So basically, unless you get up RIGHT NOW and start swinging, you're fucked.

Then there's the little "tinfoil hat" matter of vote stealing (which, ironically, will proceed smoothly once again, once Von Nazi there goes back into government, as opposed to prison). See if THIS sounds familiar: Republican House; Republican Senate; Republican White House.

They are laughing their asses off at us. And, at this juncture, I really cannot blame them. It was a heady four or so months, wasn't it?

really do not understand why the desire here is to appease Republicans and bash Senator Reid.

Posted by: mo2
Date: June 14, 2007 01:37 PM

Because they're pro-Bushit trolls. No matter what happens, they bash Democrats.

Or they're simply assholes who haven't a clue.

Reid wants his own nominee, the Republicans threaten to put a hold on that if they don't get the Nazi, and that's Reid's fault? Not the fault of those who want the Nazi?

Yes, it's Reid's fault: if one is a pro-Bushit troll.

If the Republicans want to fight for von Spakovsky, then the Democratic majority can give them all the time they want - just keep rehashing voter intimidation for days. How long would the repukes really want to stay on that topic? Should Ken Mehlman be asked if GOP strategy included voter intimidation in various states in 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2006? Perhaps individual citizens should be called and asked about their experiences at certain voter locations. Oh, and the software behind electronic ballots should be thoroughly examined.

"Because that's where this is all going. The Left, which motivated like hell and went to the goddamned polls in November, gave up on the Dems (whether Di and Harry realize it or not), right after that little "we just don't have the numbers" betrayal on Iraq."

"Posted by: Barry Champlain
Date: June 14, 2007 02:21 PM"

The fact is, the Democrats DIDN'T have the votes. The "betrayal" arre the fair-weather "leftists" who demand instant gratification, and refuse to accept the facts.

You're the guys who wanted the Democrats to keep sending the same bill to Bush, again and again and again, knowing he'd veto it every time. AND knowing the Democrats don't have the votes to override veto.

You wanted pointless political theater you figured would "embarrass" Bushit so eveyone else would "get it". Everyone else had already got it, ass. All you wanted was unnecessary political theater which wouldn't have accomplished anything except neophytes like you getting your rocks off on empty gesture.

Instead, the Democrats decided to ACCOMPLISH something CONSTRUCTIVE -- which only happened to be forcing Bushit to compromise for the first time in six years. That is a major victory on which to build.

That compromise meant that Bushit had to swallow domestic spending to which he was adamantly opposed -- which included monies for veterans affairs.

You would have preferred not supporting the troops -- right?

And it included an increase in the minimum wage -- against which Bushit was especially hostile.

But if it ain't empty political theater it's "betrayal". Of you -- but not of the troops.

Politics is the art of the possible. Rarely if ever does one get the whole piece of pork demanded. And one does not get instant gratification, ever. It isn't the Democracts that "betrayed" you. What betrayed you is your unrealistic demands for the impossible.

Take your Democrat-bashing -- while ignoring the fact that the ffoot-draggers, the obstructions, are the REPUBLICANS -- to Free Republic.

". . . . Pelosi should never have taken impeachment off the table."

Let's see if you can follow the real simple math, TWIT:

1. Third in line for the presidency is Speaker of the House.

2. Speaker of the House is Pelosi.

3. Pelosi is the LAST person to be pushing impeachment.

Is that too damned complicated for you politically-illiterate thumb-suckers!?

"Posted by: thepeoplechoose
Date: June 14, 2007 02:21 PM"

"We the people" are the ultimate check on gov't. "Democracy is RESPONSIBILITY. -- Justice Louis Brandeis.

Impeachment, to be aboveboard and non-partisan, must begin with We the people -- _not Congress_. Take the thimb out of your mouth, get off your ass, and get involved locally on the issue.

Congress must be pushed to impeach -- _not originate it_.

Take your Democrat-bashing -- while ignoring the fact that the ffoot-draggers, the obstructions, are the REPUBLICANS -- to Free Republic.
Posted by: JNagarya
Why don't you take your constant bitching to somewhere where people are as blindly loyal as yourself- don't know where that would be- maybe Hillary Clinton's website. Fuck if I know. BUT SHUT THE FUCK UP WITH YOUR CRYING EVERYTIME SOMEONE EXPRESSES THEIR DISGUST WITH THE DEMOCRATS. Got it? Good.

Posted by: JNagarya
Date: June 14, 2007 02:55 PM
"art of the possible" means accepting prosecution of a sitting president -- outside impeachment -- is not a political issue, but a legal matter.
A. Where's the leadership in the legal community to discuss these issues;
B. Why is the 'art of the possible' apparently lost on some members of the legal community who know about Turley's article, can write, but pawn the legal obligations of the "experts" to We the People?
The art of the "possible" is for the legal community to discuss these options, review what evidence there is -- outside politics, outside Congress, outside impeachment -- and independently issue indictments.
1. Why aren't US Attys working to issue indictments based on the known evidence;
2. What is stopping any member of Congress who happens to be an attorney and supports impeachment -- but doesn't have the votes -- to lead an effort outside Congress to prosecute the President?
The idea of Congress is that it is the platform, stage, and forum for the public views to be heard. It would seem as though the "leaders" of the country have missed the point of getting awarded that right, power, duty, and privilege to walk to the Well of the House. After winning the 2006 election, the leadership in the DNC has the power, right, duty, and responsibility to take these issues, and use the bully pulpit they have to lead. After winning the election, it should not require the DNC to then require the _public_ to make things happen. This is recklessness.

Once the legal community begins to "delegate" the leadership responsibility to We the People, the issue becomes: Why is the legal community asking anyone to believe that they are leaders; or that they are there asserting 5 USC 3331 legal obligations that they took an oath to assert?

---------------------

Article VI: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, _shall be bound by oath or affirmation_, to support this Constitution;"

5 USC 3331:

I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

A. "faith" to the Constitution means putting it first;
B. "Without any mental reservation" means not making a decision to do "nothing" on issues of prosecution or impeachment simply because the "Senate doesn't have the vote" -- no, the House shall impeach/organize prosecution efforts regardless whether the Senate likes the law. Otherwise we have excuses to do nothing. if Congress will not impeach, then the legal community needs to explain why prosecutions have not been used to enforce the law.
C. "without any mental reservation" -- remains up to the legal community to give a good story why the _house_ with the sole power of impeachment is saying, "We're going to reserve judgement on whether to assert our oath, because we have reservations that enforcing the law might be bad to do today -- the weather is unfavorable." Utterly reckless.

D. "Faithfully discharge" means to Members of Congress: "Oh, we're going to not do our job because to enforce the law might backfire; but we're going to ignore the fact that the GOP -- which supposedly says this would backfire -- is not leading any effort to make the DNC "suffer" the consequences of this "backfiring." If the GOP were serious about asserting that this "would" backfire against the DNC, then the GOP would be landing impeachment to "ensure" the DNC suffers the "inevitable backfire." No GOP action on impeachment means the opposite: There is no prospect of it backfiring; and the GOP is not serious about taking advantage of a "slam dunk backfire" that they "should" be taking advantage of. More excuses by the DNC to ignore attention on their drinking GOP-flavored Kool Aid.

-------------------

It would appear as though the new "religious test" -- which is prohibited -- is whether someone is or is not a member of a given party; and to decide whether to enforce the law, ignore the law, prosecute, or make up evidence. Utterly reckless.

We the People didn't take an oath to put up with the legal community's excuses, laziness, recklessness, and arrogance. Once the legal community sponsors a bill and ensures that bill is clearly promulgated/enacted/put into effect, there wold seem to be some sort of stewardship responsibilities: "Hay, we have a law that says we should really -- as a requirement -- assert our oath o office. Where are we on enforcing this; or is this law meaningless?"

If the legal community will not organize itself -- and work with prosecutors to enforce the oath of office, 5 USC 3331 -- then let's accept we have two problems:

A. A Constitutional requirement that states that elected officials shall take an oath; but not enforcement mechanism to enforce that requirement;

B. A clear Constitutional duty to hold Members of Congress accountable to a promise; but no effective system that will prosecute Members of Congress -- outside an ethics investigation -- to ensure there is a credible legal-stick to the head of Members of Congers to awaken them to their 5 USC 3331 oath of office requirements.

Removing the oath is not an option so long as that legal requirement remains in the Constitution. rather, by not fully asserting their oath to defend the Constitution with timely enforcement, the Members of Congress and legal community [prosecutors, members of the DC Bar, leadership in the various legal community committees] -- through inaction on 5 USC 3331 violations -- have essentially assented to a standard of conduct that falls well below that required in the Constitution: To assert the oath.

sc, "Smell", "Smells like the legal community is making excuses for it not having fully asserted its legal obligations 2001-2007, and is trying to pawn _their_ problem off to we the people." That is reckless.

I also suspect that you may be one of the frustrated closeted gay republicans and just pushing to have Mr. Nagarya say FUCK YOU so you can have something to dream about.

Anyway, go away.
Posted by: Steve5117
Ironic coming from the guy who blows Nagarya every chance he gets. Regardless, what part of this not being a partisan Democratic website do you and Nagarya not get? Oh well, have fun trying to get MBNA Biden elected.

"The fact is, the Democrats DIDN'T have the votes. The 'betrayal' arre the fair-weather 'leftists' who demand instant gratification, and refuse to accept the facts.

You're the guys who wanted the Democrats to keep sending the same bill to Bush, again and again and again, knowing he'd veto it every time. AND knowing the Democrats don't have the votes to override veto [etc.]"

Okay, JNagarya, let me put it into terms that even you can comprehend:

YES, I demanded "instant gratification". AND WHY THE HELL NOT?

YES, it would have been "political theater", with no real chance to change Our Leader's mind. SO. WHAT?

Okay, Machiavelli, pretend you're a rank-and file Democrat. One of these things will impress you. Pick one:

1. We know we'll never win. So we roll over:

2. We know we'll never win. So we fuck with the president, every single chance we get; spit in his face; shit in his Post Toasties; show overt disrespect in public; and refuse to cooperate with literally ANY aspect of this regime, including further appointments, until we simply control the entire Federal government, again.

NOW... which party would YOU work YOUR tail off, for?

If you chose [1], read the numbers, asshole. You're pretty fucking ALONE, at this point (assuming you really are a Democrat, who ain't Beltway).

Here's a notion. Reject all of bush's choices, and continue rejecting them. AND TELL EVERYBODY ALL ABOUT IT ALL OF THE G-D TIME!!!!

And point out that until Bush proposes somebody competent and fair, the problem will all be GWB's.

CONGRESS HAS AN INDEPENDENT DUTY TO ACT AND SHOULD NOT HAVE TO BE RE-REMINDED OF WRITTEN LAW

Failing to comply with the law, despite a duty to follow and enforce the law, helps support 5 USC 3331 indictments in re Members of Congress, and alleged recklessness in not fully asserting their oath.

This assertion is dubious:
--------------------
Posted by: JNagarya
Date: June 14, 2007 03:02 PM
"Impeachment, to be aboveboard and non-partisan, must begin with We the people -- _not Congress_. Take the thimb [thumb] out of your mouth, get off your ass, and get involved locally on the issue. Congress must be pushed to impeach -- _not originate it_."

----------------------

The Constitution: "The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment. " -- The House has the _sole_ power to impeach; it's not a "power" that the People have to "give" to the House or "force" them to use. The House _has_ the power to impeach regardless: They already have it, as they deem fit, using any criteria.

There is no basis to assert that impeachment "must" be "only" used for specific reasons. This is up to the House -- as a body -- to decide. They can use or not use _any_ criteria they use. For anyone to assert what a "legitimate" assertion of impeachment power is -- without having let the House decide or not decide the issue -- is meaningless. The House can choose anything they want as a "legitimate" reason to impeach.

The irony is that the President and EOP would like people to think, "Oh, there are going to be consequences if you hold the President to account;" Yet that prospect of "consequences" hasn't deterred the President. Why would anyone in Congress really believe that there will be "consequences" by We the People if Congress _does_ act; yet there have been "no" consequences when the President _refuses_ to follow that law? That makes no sense.

EOP is asking that the public -- which they claim "refuses to support impeachment, but threw the GOP out of Control of the House and Senate -- will suddenly do something the GOP refuses to accept happened. That defies reason. The public is going to do something or not. This GOP -- despite the rebuke of 2006 -- still pretends that the public does not matter. That's non-sense. The only reason the OP is spewing forth this non-sense defense is that these issues are on the front pages, the public is paying attention, and these legal issues do undermine GOP prospects for voting and campaign contributions.

-------------------------------

The issue before us: How many offenses, war crimes, and reckless conduct by this President are required before the Congress accepts, "War crimes, FISA violations, and other illegal activity really should be the basis to impeach."
if there will be "no removal" then the House can re-impeach until the GOP Senate accepts, "Each time we refuse to remove, the GOP will lose more support." Again, to assert impeachment may "only" be used under very narrow criteria is meaningless. The reckless approach is to prevent the House from impeaching on the false hope that the Senate will 'never" remove; yet, the opposite is true: If there is enough evidence, a decision _not_ to remove could very well undermine the GOP Senators more. Thus, a reasonable action would before the House to have _multiple_ impeachments on different charges, and give the GOP Senate more chances to show that they are reckless, and not fully asserting their oath.

Grand Juries -- We the People -- can make an adverse inference: "Despite all this evidence, and multiple House impeachments, the GOP Senators refuse to hold the President to account." The way forward could be to prosecute the VP and President; then charge the individual Member of Congers through a grand jury with 5 USC 33331 violations.

========================

This is a dubious assertion: "Impeachment, to be aboveboard and non-partisan, must begin with We the people"

A. No. There is no _requirement_ that impeachment be non-partisan or aboveboard. Rather, the issue is whether the House/Senate after the impeachment/removal decision will or will not be explain explain their vote and remain in office. Some may choose to ignore.

B. There is no "power of impeachment" to We the People; only the House has the power to start impeachment. The fact that the effort to impeach "must" start with the House in no way that only the House may prompt Congress.

C. The evidence in re this Congress is the opposite: Despite the power to impeach, and the assertion that it "must" start with the People, this Congress -- both parities -- has blocked efforts by We the People to pass proclamations at the state level. There is no merit to any assertion that the impeachment "must" start anywhere other than the house.

D. No more time has to be spent investigating "new charges" -- the available evidence is clear. If the GOP Senate doesn't want to convict, that the _GOP_ problem, especially as the next round of impeachments start with new evidence. The US can run a war, impeach, and conduct business. It's not as though the US will shut down and we can only do one thing at a time.

E. Once elected to office, and taking the power and right to speak on any issues in the well of either house of Congress, it is reckless for Members of Congress to say< "now that we have the power -- that We the People gave them -- we're going to require the People to remind us of what we're supposed to do; and not listen to them." No, leadership means leading -- gather evidence, as has _been_ done [no more is required], and presenting the case to the _Senate_ [not we the people] that there is a reasonable basis for removal.

The reason WE the People elected the leadership is to do Our Will, 5 USC 3331: Fully assert the oath. It should not require a _second_ round of pressure -- which the Congress continues to ignore -- to then press a _second time_, "hay, we really mean this." No, the leadership in both parities has _Failed_ to assert their oath; and despite getting the mandate to change, they still say, "We're waiting for something else." No waiting is required: They have the evidence, mandate, power, legal duty to act; know, or should know, fully well the 5 USC 3331 consequences -- they took an oath, and should have discussed the issue with counsel before signing the oath;

The legal problems attach to issues of war crimes -- failure to prosecute, but block a war crime action is a subsequent _offence_ under Geneva.

------------------------

This a dubious assertion: "Impeachment, to be aboveboard and non-partisan, must begin with We the people -- _not Congress_. Take the thimb out of your mouth, get off your ass, and get involved locally on the issue. Congress must be pushed to impeach -- _not originate it_."

We the People started the action with impeachment when it was written into the Constitution in 1789; Congress does not have to 'wait" for more instructions: It was sent to Congress to lead, not to require we the People to lead. Despite local involvement, this Congress refuses to listen; they actively oppose and block impeachment discussion,and proclmations calling for a vote to investigate impeachable offenses. This Congress has a foot on the "bottom" up movement, evidence. The way forward is to quit waiting for Congress to listen, and to prosecute Members of Congress for 5 USC 3331 violations.

It's non-sense that Congress has to be "pushed" to do anything: Congress has the _power_ to independently act, could impeach now, and has refused. Conyers has a huge book of offenses; if the GOP Senate refuses to convict -- on this round of impeachments -- that is a _GOP_ problem. Once the evidence is presented,a and the case is made: That will generate public support from the _top down_. We don't need another grass roots effort of, "Gee, Congress can you really do what you took an oath to do." That's reckless. Whether there is or is not public "support", for purposes of enforcing the Constitution is irrelevant, it is a _requirement_ that cannot be ignored because 51% say "we don't want to do that": The issue of "support" is only relevant for a voting decision if the decision of the House to impeach is not supported.

There are two different issues: The legal duty to act regardless the voter's desire, as required under the oath; and the voter's decision to re-elect those who took action or no action on impeachment. Congress must impeach to enforce the law; whether the public supports that decision is secondary. If Congress refuses to impeach where the evidence is high, then the President must be prosecuted. If Congress is blocking both impeachment and prosecutions, then Members of Congress are arguably complicit with 5 USC 3331 violations, and have not fully done their job.

We the People should not have to pressure Congress to do anything _after_ the Congress has been elected on the mandate to impeach; and _after_ Members of Congress took their 5 USC 3331 oath to enforce the law. _Their_ oath does not require public "pressure" to get them to act; but the opposite: _legal consequences_ for their _failure_ and _refusal_ to act as they promised by their oath to the Constitution, and their mandate: "Enforce the law."

Once Members of Congress win the election, and they get the power to go to the well of the Congress to speak on any issue, they are required to lead, not "wait around" for the public to then restart the effort, and re-remind Members of Congress of their oath of office, 5 USC 3331. Arguably, any attorney, member of the legal attorney, or Member of Congress who has to be reminded of 5 USC 3331 -- _after_ that person took at oath to the same standard -- should be prosecuted.

The Constitution itself is the reminder of We the People: This is what is _required_. It's not up to Member of Congress to vote to say, "Let's think about whether we really want to do this." The reason for an oath is to _bind_ people to do things that they, left to their own devices, would not voluntarily do. Arguably, Members of Congress when they refuse to independently act, but demand a _push_ from We the People, are not voluntarily assenting their oath; but having mental reservations, further evidence of 5 USC 3331 violations.

Members of Congress took an oath, but they are not fully asserting it _independently_ as the words of their oath require, and they agreed to. Written law is there so they can refer to it; not to use as an excuse, "Oh, but I need to be told what I promised by my free will to do." That is non-sense: They knew, or should have known the law but are playing stupid and doing something else: Meeting the definition of recklessness. Time to prosecute Members of Congress and the legal community for having to be told about legal obligations, the duty to impeach, and the requirement to keep impeachment and prosecution on the table regardless whether the voters like or do not like enforcing the law. If a Majority of Voters can be convinced "not to enforce" the law, then that's irrelevant: It is a _requirement_ as a condition of the Constitution. A majority of Americans cannot destroy,ignore, or defy the Constitution.

If Congress, despite the oath and mandate, says, "We need to be pushed," time to push them with prosecutions: You failed to move as you premised, you're going to jail.

Posted by: Barry Champlain
Date: June 14, 2007 03:41 PM

It's about defending the Constitution. If the politicians won't lead with impeachment, get the prosecutors to prosecute this President. VP, and Members of Congress. Impeachment is used to go after Executive Branch personnel the President will not take action on; prosecutions are used when impeachment is not used.

Today, this President has blocked both impeachment and prosecutions at the Federal level. Time for the States and the AGs of the States to put on their boots and prosecute this President, VP, and Members of Congress.

Is the reason not a single FEC candidate has been approved in six years that they were all batshit insane?

If George Bush wants to have his nominees to high federal office approved, he needs to do what other Presidents have done. He needs to pick candidates who can be approved, because they aren't crazy.

Partially sourced from Google.

The person below appears to be the father of Hans von Spakovsky.

I surmise that he was a White Russian who opposed communism. He moved to Yugoslavia, then to Germany, then to the U.S.

1. There is a gap between his time in Yugoslavia and his time in Germany. There is another gap in the bio between 1941-50. Curious time frame.
He apparently entered the U.S. in 1951.

2. Then another gap between 1951-57. Another source said that in 195l he and his wife left a d.p. camp in Germany and entered the U.S., settling in Huntsville, AL, home of Redstone Arsenal and Werner Von Braun.
There is no explanation given as to the reason for the d.p. camp internment.

The two books he acknowledges writing do not seem to be available in English. A German source called "Guter Rat" antiquities lists them.

Does any of this arouse your curiosity as it did mine? Could his father have been part of Operation Paperclip or some other program?

I know that we are only responsible for our own successes or failures, and it would be unfair to judge Hans or his equally illustrious brother Michael for the actions of his father, but

SHPAKOVSKII, ANATOLII IGNATEVICH, 1895-

Educator. Born: Feb. 27, 1895, in Leningrad, U.S.S.R. Education: Lyubgyana University, Yugoslavia. Taught in Yugoslavia, 1927-1941; in Germany, 1950-1951, and Jacksonville State University, 1957-1965; moved to Huntsville after retirement.

Source: Anatol von Spakovsky; also from his book Freedom, Determinism, Indeterminism.

Author: Freedom, Determinism, Indeterminism. The Hague: M. Nijhoff, 1963.

Die Perspektiven einer Kultur ueberhaupt und der Westeuropaeischen im besonderen. West Berlin: Unger-Verlag, 1961.

Reflections and Impressions. Huntsville, Ala.: s.n., 1970.

All these DoJ folks hew to the fundamentalist religious beliefs of GWB. Does that mean they think God is only on the side of white Republicans?

If Congress, despite the oath and mandate, says, "We need to be pushed," time to push them with prosecutions: You failed to move as you premised, you're going to jail.

Posted by:
Date: June 14, 2007 04:12 PM

You're an ass and a blowhard with no end of unsubstantiated speculations.

Whatsamattuh? Turley not put his money where his mouth is despite your demand?

And as for your blanket bashing of lawyers: tell it to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.

A. Where's the leadership in the legal community to discuss these issues;

Ask your hero Turley why he isn't putting his money where his mouth is, blowhard.

MEANWHILE: YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, PRETENTIOUS TWIT.

"YES, I demanded "instant gratification". AND WHY THE HELL NOT?"

Because it isn't possible, ass. Do you know how democracy works? When one hasn't sufficient votes to accomplish the impossible, one engages in negotiation and compromise. Otherwise one gets _nothing_ -- _everything_ not being possible.

Democracy is the opposite of infantile instant gratification.

"YES, it would have been "political theater", with no real chance to change Our Leader's mind. SO. WHAT?"

So, in the alternative, the Democrats _FORCED_ Bushit to CHANGE HIS MIND and ACCEPT domestic spending to which he was adamantly opposed -- including monies for veterans affairs.

Appears to me they showed support for the troops -- and you are pissed that they did.

"Okay, Machiavelli, pretend you're a rank-and file Democrat. One of these things will impress you. Pick one:

"1. We know we'll never win. So we roll over:"

Not the reality. Were it true, Gonzales would not be neutralized, and a continuing damage to Bushit and the Republicans.

"2. We know we'll never win. So we fuck with the president, every single chance we get; spit in his face; shit in his Post Toasties; show overt disrespect in public; and refuse to cooperate with literally ANY aspect of this regime, including further appointments, until we simply control the entire Federal government, again."

You bitch about the Republicans because you hate the way they behave. Then you bitch at the Democrats because they don't act like Republicans.

I'd ask you to make sense, but it's increasingly clear you don't give a damn about reason or democracy or the rule of law. Or civility -- which makes you indistinguishable from wingnuts.

"NOW... which party would YOU work YOUR tail off, for?"

I believe in the rule of law, which requires a sense of civility that informs behavior. Because the Republicans are assholes is not an excuse -- or a recommendation -- that everyone else should and must be assholes.

"If you chose [1], read the numbers, asshole. You're pretty fucking ALONE, at this point (assuming you really are a Democrat, who ain't Beltway)."

The numbers are from interviews with assholes exactly like you: they demand the impossible; and when they don't get it they throw tantrums. You offer nothing constructive. You don't talk about the issues -- except to misrepresent them as premise to bitch and whine and name-call. Wingnuts engage in personal attacks instead of dealing with issues. _ERGO_, you're a wingnut.

And it takes a huge amount of effort to ignore the positives that _are_ happening in order to bitch about what isn't happening: the impossible.

"Posted by: Barry Champlain
Date: June 14, 2007 03:41 PM"

If you chose [1], read the numbers, asshole. You're pretty fucking ALONE, at this point (assuming you really are a Democrat, who ain't Beltway).
Posted by: Barry Champlain
Date: June 14, 2007 03:41 PM

Well put Barry. Bush's approval numbers- 29%. Congress' approval numbers- 23%! Appeasement doesn't work and it's not making the base happy. FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT DAMMIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by:
Date: June 14, 2007 03:51 PM

Investigation is not "appeasement," ass.

Declare yourself a wingnut Republican: you act, and make as much sense, as they.

If the Democrats approve his nomination, they are guilty of the same political expediency and hypocrisy the Republicans have been guility of. What's WRONG is WRONG, and no amount of "compromise" or "caving in" will change that approving this man's nomination is WRONG! If the Democrats want to claim the moral high ground, they have to start earning that advantage by doing what's morally RIGHT rather than what's politically/practically expedient. If the Republicans want to bring our government to a standstill, let them. The Demcrats should not be co-conspirators in their doing so.

You'll notice that von S. says that he didn't support any law that kept people from being _able_ to vote. He mentioned nothing about his opinion on preventing people from _wanting_ to vote, or _discouraging_ people from voting.

I was watching an episode of FrontLine called the Dark Side - you can view it here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/2.html

Fast forward to 03:52 into the second video ... isn't that Hans von Spakovsky sitting at a meeting with Don Rumsfield ?

If it is, why would he be at this meeting?