O.K., but we all agree that only U.S. citizens who are eligible to vote should be voting, right? As for the alleged variance, perhaps someone else can point that out:

1) "This was not me acting by myself . . ."

TRUE.

2) "I would have been consulting with the other attorneys there [in the voting section] to do it."

Did he consult with attorneys outside the voting section? Was he thinking of just the first, or including second, letter? If he understands the law correctly now, how is this relevant to his position on the Federal Elections Commission?

"This was not me acting by myself . . ."

....no... this was him taking direction from Karl Rove. Face it - Republicans don't like democracy. They like dictatorships - as long as they are the dictator.

Consider that this is the man who overruled all the lifers at DOJ and approved the Texas redistricting, which was one of the most pernicious tools the Republicans used to establish such a partisan stranglehold on our political realm, throughout the early Bush era.

The historic implications may make him look like a hero to all the wingnut losers, but I would guess the history books of the future will not be so kind to Hans.

He will no doubt be considered another lawless weasel like so many of Bush's legacies, who abused the precious "rule of law" instead of obeying it.

Perhaps I missed where he admits he was acting by himself? I'd love for anyone to point out how my posting of statements #1 and #2 above constitutes "talking out of both sides of [my] mouth simultaneously" : )

IMHO (OK, so I have never HAD a humble opinion) Von Spakorski shouldn't be up for a promotion, he should be under investigation.

He knew the law well enough to game it. No doubt he conspired with Delay's top minions about it exhaustively. So simple logic distates, if they knew they were gaming the law, and had any conversations or strategy sessions about it, they COMMITTED CONSPIRACY!!!!

The Texas Redistricting Conspiracy was a conspiracy to disenfranchise American voters and guarantee a Republican majority of pernicious proportions.

If the resulting Republican majority had not enabled Bush to trash our nation and its resources, it might not have been such a stupid disaster. But the results of this failure are with us every day, and there's no real end to it in sight, if Bush (cheney) gets his way.

Whether you deny it or accept it, you can't change the fact of it. If more than one person agreed to proceed with that redistricting, with full knowledge that it's approval skirted, even broke the law of the land, then they are co-conspirators.

This guy should be under indictment, not facing approval for promotion.

Note to Congress;
BEFORE THE NEXT RECESS, TAKE AWAY BUSH'S RECESS APPOINTMENT POWERS!!!!

OTHERWISE, WE'L HAVE SPAZ ON OUR HANDS FOR QUITE A WHILE!

Squeeky:

I think you are going to have to at least point out where you think he "lied under oath". Then we can discuss prosecutions, commutations, and pardons ; )

Where's the conflict? Right here:

The old version: "This was not me acting by myself, "he testified. "You know, I would have been consulting with the other attorneys there [in the voting section] to do it."

versus

The new version: "As I recall, I may not have consulted with the Section prior to drafting [the letter]."

There is a difference, and an important one, between consulting with the other attorneys in the voting section and not doing so. His admission was prompted by the other attorneys coming out and saying it wasn't so.

If you can see the difference, fine. If you can't, fine as well.

Hey Jake D, FOAD, ok? Take it somewhere else cause you won't get traction with that BS here.

For those who seem to glory in the frustrations Justice (the concept) now suffers at the hands of these lawless rogues, keep in mind that investigations into this can go on in the future, long after Bush has returned to his ranchette.

If the sea-change in our government that started last election matures to full fruition, there will be no place for these crooks to hide, and there will no longer be any lawless power on Earth or in The USA that can protect them FROM THEIR OWN CRIMES!!!

So they will be wise to pull out all the stops to beat the Democrats this next time around, because when the Shiite finally hits the fan, their only refuge will be the Supreme Court, and quite possibly, they will be too busy protecting asbestos and heavy-metal polluters to cover for these lawbreakers.

One more thing... any investigation or legal proceeding that waits out the next president has one sure guarantee... after Justice does her part, Bush won't be able to reverse it any more.

So anyone with a guilty conscience or just a fear of the truth,who thinks the political weather is hot right now, just imagine what it will be like in two years.

All you Scooters won't have your bubba W around to bail your sorry asses out.

"His(her) admission was prompted by the other attorneys coming out and saying it wasn't so."

Now there's a line to keep handy to copy and paste, ponder how many of these crooks fit that description!

From Gonzales to Goodling, it is repeated over and over again.

"For those who seem to glory in the frustrations Justice (the concept) now suffers at the hands of these lawless rogues, keep in mind that investigations into this can go on in the future, long after Bush has returned to his ranchette."

Not if they are pardoned.

It is relevant to note that Caroline Hunter was involved in Voter suppression efforts ("caging") in Ohio in 2004. In the New Jersey District court overseeing the Consent Decrees, her emails and testimony were submitted to the court (and are now public records). Judge Deveboise found the RNC involvement in Ohio caging was a violation of consent decrees and issued an order that prevented the activity.

Neat trick (and par for this Administration) that someone intimately familiar with (attempting) voter suppression (Caroline Hunter) is now heading EAC.

Click my name for email from Bush-Cheney '04 campaign worker Christopher Guith to Hunter and others outlining plans to use caging lists to challenge voters.

Here is a Kos Diary on this issue:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/27/6168/12446

JakeD: "That's right "recess appointments" are only good and proper when Bill Clinton used them -- how could I have forgotten that?"

No, they are only good and proper when they are not regularly abused to put incompetent individuals into positions of power.

Von Spakovsky: "And anytime a question came in--and I think Mr. Bradshaw's letter was in response to an inquiry from the Secretary of State--that inquiry would get looked at by all the lawyers, including myself and the other career lawyers in the section. They would look at each of these inquiries and letters, whether they came in by e-mail or letter, and we would discuss what the response was that we thought should go out. So this was not me acting by myself. You know, I would have been consulting with the other attorneys there to do it."

It is abundantly clear that Von Spakovsky said that he "would have" consulted with ALL of the attorneys in the voting rights section, including the career attorneys, and this was false.

Consequently, h lied under oath.

As usual, we find JakeD taking phrases out-of-context and pretending they could have other meanings to "prove" that the low-lifes he worships in the Bush administration have done nothing wrong, when the context clearly contradicts his speculative meaning.

More importantly, if he told the truth the first time around, why did he need to send the committee different testimony later that contradicts his first testimony?

In his first testimony, he quite clearly stated that he "would have" consulted with attorneys in the voting rights section, actually implying ALL of the attorneys in the section including career attorneys.

In his "clarification" (hee, hee, nudge, nudge, wink, wink), aka his attempt to save himself from perjury charges, he says he may not have consulted with [any] attorneys in the voting rights section; meaning either (1) he may have consulted with none of the attorneys in the voting rights section, or (2) he may not have consulted with any of the attorneys in the voting rights section - two ways of saying the same thing.

These are mutually exclusive positions.

Either he consulted with some or all of the attorneys in the section or he consulted with none of them; he cannot have consulted with some or all of them AND none of them.

So, his testimony is in contradiction to his written followup.

If he's lying in his written followup, presumably that's still covered by the oath, but whether he lied at the original hearing or in this written followup, he nevertheless lied and given the evidence presented by several other witnesses that the lie was in the original testimony, an allegation of perjury is fully justified.

JEP one quibble. Bush doesn't own a "ranchette". He has 1500 acres of some of the worst hardscrabble farmland this side of Afghanistan. He knows as much about soil as he does oil. I'd like to see him actually have to work it someday (other than brush clearing photo ops) but OTH if he ever does that means his economic policies have had their full affect and we're all screwed much worse than he'll ever be.

JakeD: "He could have consulted with other attorneys, or simply not remembered correctly -- all he says now is that he "may not have consulted with the Section prior to drafting" this particular letter -- in neither case would that equate to perjury."

Yes, and Clinton could have really forgotten that Monica had his d*ck in her mouth.

There is sufficient evidence for a prosecutor to move forward on a charge of perjury; whether a jury would believe he "forgot" or "misremembered" or whatever other lame excuse he has or not would be for the jury to decide.

I remember plenty of JakeD's who insisted a jury would never convict Libby, but some excuses about memory just can't be swallowed by reasonable people.

In any event, the point is that he can be charged with perjury and he can be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt based on the record at hand, since his only defense is his own self-serving excuses which may be rejected by a jury and in my opinion should be.

The bottom line is a reasonable person could reasonably conclude that he lied under oath, if they do not believe the fatuous excuses you offer in his defense.

You seem to be of the opinion that it would be impossible to convict him of perjury, a belief that is not convincing in light of Libby's conviction.

The Libby lesson is quite simple: you give contradictory statements or statements that contradict known facts, you will not necessarily be saved by lame excuses related to memory or attempts to spin those statements.

Amazing though how law-and-order conservatives who routinely lament about how other common criminals avoid conviction through minor technicalities and more believable excuses, yet when it comes to conservative political appointees they fall all over themselves defending ludicrous rationalizations about why those appointees didn't lie, steal, cheat, extort, or accept bribes.

Code word = please, as in please stop bloviating JakeD.

Either the guy planned to lie or he is "dumb as a stick" as my mother used to say. Is it at all believable he could forget such an important thing as the facts about his seeking advice and agreement on his point of view. And, if he is that dumb, why the heck is he getting a nomination to anything. I might even give him a pass on this situation if it were not for the constant attempt of this administration to erode the voting rights of the poor and the needy.

Blanket pardons? The Democratic Party should be so lucky -- how long in the political wilderness do we think it would take the 'Publican party to recover? The public is already upset about Scooter.

Are there any Republicans anywhere who aren't corrupt, lying hypocrits?

This is just one more piece of a broader narrative that will be used to Impeach this whole lying pack of carpetbaggers that have hijacked the Repbulican party & more importantly our Democratic Process. We are now approaching an American Governance Constitutional Crisis. Does the Constitution really mean the Rule of Law or not. There are many ,many predicates being laid across many,many different investigations .Some investigations have blended into others. For example the Ohio caging is part & parcel of the TRMPAC illegal redistricting here in Texas follow the money & the same usual wing nut suspects- and ignore Jake D- all of this has a evidence trail with linkages,names ,dates etc- .
I am totally convinced that the Democratic Leadership in the Committees are holding many ,many depositions , documents , and testimony away from the MSM until the entire case against BushCo can be made. But it will made , & before Thanksgiving too.
In another thread Austin Cooper ,rightly observed when this confrontation comes it will be dire & "suck all the oxygen out of the room". Also it will mean that we must all be prepared to protect Our Constitution ,, by whatever means necessary - I don't want to get too melodramamtic -you know cue up the Oliver Stone theme music-but it is a fact that we have BlackWater & Titan sitting out there essentilly as Cheney's national police force (look what they did in New Orleans after Katrina ) . And it is also a fact that we have many true conservatives out here that are just as upset & frightend by BushCo as we are - and all those individuals -many who are personal friends-are all strong supporters & practioneers of the Second Amendment . We all need to stand togather .We call need to stay tuned ,remain optimistic , and be ready -it all is happening before Thanksgiving