Dick Thornburgh was not really that great of an Attorney General anyways -- just ask Professor Kmiec: http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-attorney-generals-lawyer-inside-the-meese-justice-department-by-douglas-w-kmiec.jsp

Man, Dick Thornbugh and John Ashcroft- if those two right wing loonies manage to retain their sanity long enough to condemn even farther right loonies that should give any decent person pause about the future of so-called democracy in the USA

Is there some reason why you should expect any different? You can't even answer the most simple question put to you. All you can do is jackoff and hope that it lands on something.

Try answering the damned question. You have to earn respect. No one is going to just give it to you for no reason at all.

the question IS...just what does the house judiciary subcommittee intend to do about it...? Send out some more worthless subpoenas..? Cry, piss and moan..? Talk about how mean the GOP is..how corrupt this administration is..in hushed tones in the closet, where they won't be overheard...? Maybe if they say it quiet enough Pelosi won't condemn them for speaking the truth...talk about pussy-whipped...!

Jake, if you weren't such a chucklehead you might have noticed this...

What does your comment have to do with what he Dick Thornburgh said in that video?

I already answered the 6:12 PM question at 6:33 PM. Again, if there's some other question I missed, please let me know since I am kinda tied up (pardon the pun) in the torture thread below.

O.K., let me try it this way -- here's your question and my answer set forth below -- let me know what you specifically think remains unanswered:

Question: What does your comment [re: his competence] have to do with [the relevance] what he Dick Thornburgh said in that video?

Answer: It's just as relevant as me being called a "right wing apologist", an "INSTIGATOR", a "PLANT", a "true whackjob", "cute and cuddly" [although that was by Molly Ivans], an "ignorant fool", "not an American", a "moron", a "troll" and a "whining child" on the waterboarding thread [therefore you are just as lucky to get my response here as I was in that thread].

One more "liars and sh**wads" personal attack, however, and you will become just as irrelevant to me too.

To understand how big this testimony is, keep in mind that Dick Thornburgh is not just a Republican former Attorney General (for President G. H.W. Bush), but also a good Republican team player. He was appointed by Nixon to be a U.S. Attorney;; he had an unsuccessful run for the House as a Republican, and then he served two terms as a Republican Governor. Not the kind of guy who would idly fling around accusations of a Republican-led witch-hunt.

Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 9:17 PM:

One more "liars and sh**wads" personal attack, however, and you will become just as irrelevant to me too.

Just as irrelevant to you as what? You haven't voiced yet what it is that is irrelevant to you about what the man said in the video. You have only whined about being taken to task for being an dishonest, illiterate dimwit.

That last anon post to the Jake garbage was mine. I forgot to write my name in.

That last post to "Anonymous" was to Kitt then -- I forgot to use my ESP again.

dc user:

If YOU have any question how my first post applies to your post (I am IN FACT disputing your assertions that Dick Thornburgh was a good Attorney General or a good Republican team player, and instead claiming he is exactly the kind of guy who would idly fling around accusations of a Republican-led witch-hunt), please let me know (my ESP is on the fritz).

The posts are actually delayed more than a few seconds -- as I said, however, my ESP is on the fritz -- if anyone other than Kitt is still confused, please let me know.

Way to go, Dick T. This is political persecution and it's really ugly.

Jake D.,

I can understand having a contarian view to articles posted to any site. I can understand wanting to have your opinion heard by people of an opposing point of view. Unfortunately, the tone of the vast majority of your posts appears openly hostile and intentionally designed to draw a similar response in return.

While I welcome the expression of views differing from my own, your less than civil attitude leads me to suggest that you consider another venue to express your views.

If you don't believe me, try these from the other Thornburgh-is-the-greatest-thing-since-sliced-bread thread:

The Pittsburgh Kid wrote on October 23, 2007 8:55 PM:

A couple of thoughts (Please note that I am no fan of Mary Beth Buchanan. Just a little local flavor):

1. Mary Beth Buchanan has not prosecuted any local Republicans because there are virtually none to be found in city or county government in this area. It is largely exclusively Democratic turf, and has been for a long, long time. Good luck finding a Republican to prosecute.

2. I don't think there is much criticism to be had over her investigation and prosecutions regarding the Allegheny County Sheriff's Department - long a bastion of political patronage and cronyism. Most Democrats I know locally agree that was long overdue and applaud the Sheriff's investigation.

3. Steve Stallings - the main prosecutor on the Wecht case and the other corruption cases - is a pretty reasonable guy and not some wide-eyed wacko.

4. Dr. Wecht is no choir boy. He is a pompous, holier-than-thou jerk who was indicted back in the 80's for embezzelment from Allegheny County. Hold the pity party for him.

5. Tom Murphy was a favorite of mine and I am probably one of the few who thought he was a good mayor for the city. But he did some stupid shit and deserved to be investigated.

Stuart Wilder wrote on October 24, 2007 7:18 AM:

As strange as the case against Wecht may be, I have no doubt that Thornburgh would never testify on his behalf if he was not paid to do so.

Two simple facts blow "Jake D."'s personal attack smears out of the water:

Thornburgh -- for whom I hold no brief -- is a Republican.

Wecht is a Democrat.

Obviously, therefore, unlike "Jake D.", Thornburgh is able to distinguish between, on one hand, politics, and on the other, law. "Jake D." will probably never know that they are not the same thing -- and or will never respect, honor, or adhere to that fact and truth, the doing which requires ethical and moral awareness and adherence.

But that isn't surprising about "Jake D.": personal attacks are fundamentally irrational and immoral -- and always, as with "Jake D.", propounded from an implict but obviously false stance of moral superiority. Thus "Jake D." is dishonest to the marrow engaged in a deliberate program of conscious deceit. Unless, again, he is unable to distingusih between, on one hand, law, and on the other, politics.

All in all, "Jake D."'s practices and methods are fundamentally corrupt, and an expression of his character, not of the characters of those he personally attacks.

I haven't been here for awhile, but when last here, "Jake D." had been blocked from posting his gratuitous and disruptive smears. Isn't it about time he were permanently blocked, no matter how many times he dishonestly reappears where he is clearly shown that he is not welcome? "TPM" is not a public space; it is a private entity; in it there is no legitimate claim of protected free speech against the wishes of the owner/s of this private entry. That is a fact of which "Jake D." is well aware, as that is the consistent practice at "FreeRepublic," from which his stench emanates.

Open fora must protect themselves by not being so open that they allow themselves to be rendered useless and destroyed: we simply do not allow people to break into our living rooms and shit on the rug, and then accept their explanation that the breaking in and shitting is merely exercise of "right of free expression".

Think critically and shut out the abusers whose only intent is to prevent unfettered discussion -- without subversion and disruption and distraction from the issues. Get rid of "Jake D." once and for all.

START of OT material for this thread, which is Thornburgh's testimony:

I take Jake D's ability to hijack this thread as a real tribute to his skills; and no doubt his handlers are pleased with his efforts. I only hope he's well paid for his work.

Moreover, that Jake targets this thread is a tribute to TPM's skill in covering a story that must concern his handlers (and, possibly, him) greatly.

Doesn't anybody on this thread remember the motto, "PLEASE DON'T FEED THE TROLLS"? This old Atriot believes that really is the only way to handle them. Deny them the attention they crave, and they go away.

END of OT material for this thread. Please resume your discussion of yet another example of how the Bush Justice Department has become politicized.

In response to the reposted comments from the Pittsburgh Kid (reposted not by the PK him/herself), some other observations from a local:

- Cyril Wecht is the batty old uncle of Pittsburgh-area politics. No one disputes his eccentricity; very few dispute his forensic skills.

- Dick Thornburgh is an honorable man who has the respect of most Pennsylvanians, and Pittsburghers in particular. His terms as PA governor were without partisan controversy; as was noted in an earlier thread, he was governor during the Three Mile Island crisis. I do not recall any controversy during his service as Bush I's AG. Yes, he's a member of Wecht's defense team, but it's not like anyone held a gun to head to make him take the case. Thornburgh and his firm certainly don't need Wecht's legal fees to stay afloat.

- While City of Pittsburgh and Allegheny County politicians are pretty uniformly Democrats, there are plenty of Republican pols in Buchanan's district whose misdoings she's ignored, including Congressman Tim Murphy and former State Representative Jeff Habay. Habay, on the verge of being convicted for misuse of his staff for on-the-job campaigning, mailed himself an envelope of white powder and put the return address of one of the prosecution witnesses on it. This was an attempt to make him seem like the victim of an anthrax scare. MBB took no notice. Who but a Republican pol could get away with starting an anthrax scare and not immediately be investigated as a terrorist?

- While ignoring Republican wrongdoing, Buchanan pursued flimsy charges against then-Pittsburgh Mayor Tom Murphy. She has just announced an investigation of current Mayor Luke Ravenstahl, age 27, for what can best be described as naive youthful indiscretion. Conveniently, Ravenstahl is defending his incumbency against one of the few viable Republican mayoral challengers in decades.

Jake D.

All your postings STILL do not answer the simple question posed to you by Kitt at the beginning: what does Mr.Thornburgh's performance as a former attorney general or (or governor of Pennsylvania, for that matter) have to do with anything he is saying or doing in regards to the case now pending. If you can not answer that question, then pleas espare us any future meaningless drivel.

Thornburgh IS a dishonest, illiterate dimwit . . .

I have to disagree respectfully with Jake D. In a former post, he commented that Assistant US Attorney Steve Stallings is a pretty good guy. I feel the record to date in the Wecht trial speaks otherwise.

Prior to Wecht's indictment during the execution of the first search warrant of Dr. Wecht's Office, Steve Stalling invited the press along. On the morning addition of the Post Gazette, the public had a headline such as "Wecht under investigation" with a picture of Steve Stalling and FBI Agent Brad Orsini carrying boxes out of Wecht's office.

Dick Thornburgh's colleagues raised this issue during their discussions with the US Attorney's office. Thornburgh alleged in an affidavit that Stallings threatened them for even raising the concern of having the US Attorney's office utilize the media to publicize an investigation.

Next, Steve Stalling moved to keep FBI Agent Brad Orsini, the lead investigator on the Wecht case, from testifying. It turned out that Agent Orsini has actually had a troubled past where he violated FBI procedures and forged evidence logs. This information only surfaced after Wecht's lawyers took the issue all the way to the appeals court. Dick Thornburgh notes this issue in his testimony to Congress.

Third, Steve Stalling filed a motion to have Wecht's lawyers disbarred and thrown in jail for commenting on points of the Wecht case that US Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan had already commented on in the media. In Stalling's filings, he alleged it is ok for Mary Beth to comment on the case publicly, yet illegal (not unethical) illegal for Wecht's lawyers to. This filing has resulted in both Mary Beth Buchanan's comments and Dr. Wecht's lawyers' comments being forward to the PA Bar Review Board.

So, to say that Steve Stalling is a decent guy in my opinion is a stretch. A lot of the public record seems to say the opposite.

I ask Jake D., what is your basis for such a statement. Do you know this individual? Are you this individual?

I am surprised that you chose not to post the links I sent in from the various articles on Ms. Buchanan's tenure at the DOJ. These links are all from reputable news sources and speak to exactly who Ms. Buchanan is through her actions as a US Attorney. I hope that your lack of posting is due to the fact you are choosing to pull the information together in a consolidated view/blog posting. I feel your readers are interested in this topic.