Comments (35)

Slim Pickin's wrote on July 26, 2007 11:16 AM:

Yeah! About time. I know there are people who think it's better to sit this out, but I don't think we can leaves these lunatics in charge of the asylum for much longer. Did I hear something about a raid into Pakistan on my way to work today?

Jake D. wrote on July 26, 2007 11:17 AM:

Again, a "Special Counsel" as in EXECUTIVE branch, right? LOL!!!

Jake D. wrote on July 26, 2007 11:20 AM:

Wake me up when the Congress actually DOES something!

Slim Pickin's wrote on July 26, 2007 11:25 AM:

Yeah, the executive branch did a great job stopping Fitzgerald's work dumbass. Their not all crooks like you Jake, some are old fashioned and still believe in the rule of law.

Mike Conwell wrote on July 26, 2007 11:26 AM:

For the casual reader, new to the site, Jake D. is a bothersome troll, attempting to set the tone of each story by being an early poster of such drivel. Please read below for more insightful comments.

bobh wrote on July 26, 2007 11:28 AM:

Jake is assuming everyone in government is as corrupt as BushCo (praying for it actually, arent you jake?) - AND THAT THEY LIKE HIM AS THEIR KING. Mistake. Jake has the moral compass of a drowned pirate that got lost in a fog bank.

Jake D. wrote on July 26, 2007 11:33 AM:

Slim Pickin's:

Did Libby spend a single day in jail? Sorry, but Fitzmas morning was a bust -- kinds like Pelosi taking impeachment off the table -- you should really consider the possibility that Fitzgerald was in on the commutation from the beginning ; )

Steve5117 wrote on July 26, 2007 11:33 AM:

It really doesn't matter whether DoJ appoints a special prosecutor or not. The news that Congressmen are calling the AG a liar will be in the MSM.

Bush is walking on thin ice as a direct result of the misdeeds (illegal activities) of his administration. Every "hot button" revelation is helping to melt away the cover they created to protect themselves. The president will drown in the morass of lies and deciet that is the legacy of the clowns that stole the 2000 election.

And that's the way the cookie crumbles! LOL

Billy Pilgrim wrote on July 26, 2007 11:37 AM:

Mike Conwell

Your comment is always appreciated, but from this point forward comments by Jake-types are actually helping the cause. They are helping to alienate from the right-wing camp those who are getting fed up with the glaring duplicity of the camp's spokespersons. Tony Snow is now doing more to undermine the Bush White House than any opponent could. Let the Jake trolls rant. We can witness their demise as a sideshow.

JNagarya wrote on July 26, 2007 11:49 AM:

Again, a "Special Counsel" as in EXECUTIVE branch, right? LOL!!!

Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 26, 2007 11:17 AM

Shove it, jerk; then STFU. Congress has the authority to investigate; thus it has the authority to appoint a Special Counsel to investigate in its behalf.

It's astonishoing how little you anti-American nuts know about the Constitution -- except when it becomes clear that you oppose Constitution and rule of law, except as corrupted into mere political cudgel and then used to abuse power.

Thugs, criminals, and gangsters agree with you that Constitution and rule of law is nothing more than a joke. Pay attention, stooge: you'll be learning otherwise.

bmaz wrote on July 26, 2007 11:51 AM:

Since all they are doing at this point is "calling" for a special counsel, why not call for an impeachment investigation? A "special counsel" is going to run smack into executive privilege assertions and other means of obstruction by the administration identical to that which the Congressional committees have already. An impeachment investigation is far less able to be stymied by these obstructions.

Becca wrote on July 26, 2007 11:51 AM:

I bet , if push comes to shove , gonzo will say he was talking about the same TSP , but the critical difference is , it was the TSP BEFORE the careerists at DOJ threatened to mutiny , BEFORE the changes in protocol.

Don't know if this passes legal muster as perjury or not.

Mike Conwell wrote on July 26, 2007 11:55 AM:

re Jake-types.

I'm torn by the Jake experience. On the one hand, I miss the pre-Jake days where TPM-er's dug around researching stuff. But, in many cases ('cept Murkowski), the research has been done (or has been blocked with countless ExecPriv's), and we're waiting for the process on the Hill to go through it's machinations.

Jake offers a foil for us to respond to the Talking Points regurgitated by the Presidents' defenders. [the plural possessive is purposeful] Budding new Muckrakers read the story, see the GOP talking points and our responses. Otherwise, we'd just be a bunch of cheerleaders, alternately chearing and groaning about the progress, or lack thereof.

But I feel it's very important to identify Jake as a troll as early in the thread as possible, concerned that new Muckrakers might believe he actually represents the sane readership of the site. He's basically one of the under 26% that GW has left.

And since he lost his job continuously repeating "Welcome to WalMart, Welcome to WalMart", what's the poor fella going to do?

Slim Pickin's wrote on July 26, 2007 11:57 AM:

He's f**ked either way - if he acknowledges that he WAS talking about the TSA, then he lied earlier when he said "there's no disagreement" if he persist and says he wasn't talking about the TSA, then he is in direct contradiction with the "gang of 8" who were briefed in the meeting. I'm always skeptical of any progress against these crooks, but this time is really different. No matter what he says here he is either contradicting himself, or the "gang of 8".

I don't see how he can survive this - but these fool will do anything to run the clock out at this point. Wait to hear this later today from Tony Snow:

"The President has decided to assert his right to block the appointment of Special Council... a right going back to George Washington... bla bla bla"

What a bunch of crooks.

Anonymous wrote on July 26, 2007 11:58 AM:

How will this help? If lightning struck, and a special prosecutor were selected, Bush would pardon, so what’s the point?

Is there something else?

Mike Conwell wrote on July 26, 2007 12:03 PM:

"...and a special prosecutor were selected, Bush would pardon, so what’s the point?

Is there something else? "

Impeachment - Doesn't get Pardoned. Results in removal from office and no further ability to serve in a high office.

JNagarya wrote on July 26, 2007 12:04 PM:

NPR reports that the four named Senators have Harry Reid's support.

Gary wrote on July 26, 2007 12:05 PM:

bmaz, I think they'll go this route, THEN for impeachment. It's all about making an effort to use all established processes and short-circuiting the "liberal media" from bashing the Dem's as loose cannons.

I think the congress is doing a pretty fine job, and it's certainly moving along faster than the Plame investigation did.

This administration is over, they are just propping up a corpse.

me wrote on July 26, 2007 12:05 PM:

For those deceived into thinking that Scooter isn't suffering any real consequences, I have oen word for you: disbarment.

And no, not even a pardon can stop that. From the DOJ website:

"The foregoing analysis does not mean that a pardoned person cannot be held accountable for the conduct underlying the offense by a governmental entity seeking to determine suitability for a position of confidence or trust, adherence to a code of conduct, or eligibility for a benefit. In Garland the Court stated that a pardon makes "the offender . . . as innocent as if he had never committed the offense." Id. (emphasis added). We do not interpret this to mean that the pardon creates the fiction that the conduct never took place. Rather, a pardon represents the Executive's determination that the offender should not be penalized or punished for the offense. There may be instances where an individual's conduct constitutes not only a federal offense, but also a violation of a separate code of conduct or ethics that the individual is obligated to comply with by virtue of his or her professional license. Discipline associated with the breach of the conditions of a professional license, where the disciplinary action is not triggered merely by the fact of commission or conviction of a federal offense, generally would not be barred by a pardon.

"For example, an attorney charged with a criminal offense for which he or she is later pardoned by the President would be relieved of all consequences that attached solely by reason of his commission of the offense. However, the pardon would not necessarily prevent a local or state bar from disciplining the attorney, if it independently determined that the underlying conduct, or some portion of it, violated one of its canons of ethics. In those instances, the bar would not have based its decision to disbar or sanction the attorney on the fact that the attorney had violated the criminal laws of the United States, but rather would have conducted an inquiry into the conduct and determined that an ethical violation had occurred. Several state courts have taken this approach when considering the effect of a gubernatorial pardon on state disbarment proceedings. See e.g., In re Bozarth, 63 P.2d 726 (Okla. 1936); In re Lavine, 41 P.2d. 161 (Cal. 1935); Nelson v. Commonwealth, 109 S.W. 337 (Ky. 1908)."

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/pardon3.19.htm

Slim Pickin's wrote on July 26, 2007 12:08 PM:

11:58am -

It matters. even if Gonzo doesn't go to jail. He will lose his license to practice law (I'd like to se him out of the profession), also these craven commutations and pardons will further fracture what is already a badly damaged party. Personally, I'd love to see this twit in jail for the rest of his life - but at the end of the day, that doesn't effect my life all that much. Seeing the republican party ground into a fine dust, on the other hand, does effect my life. If Gonzo has to go free to achieve a Democratic Congress and Presidency, so be it.

asdf wrote on July 26, 2007 12:08 PM:

"It really doesn't matter whether DoJ appoints a special prosecutor or not. The news that Congressmen are calling the AG a liar will be in the MSM. "

I agree that the call for a special counsel is irrelevant and ultimately useless grandstanding. But I disagree that it even has a MSM value, the story will be “balanced” with WH blather, and it’s a one day flash that will disappear from the public mind. It is just a maneuver to run out the clock so the Democrats don’t have to do the hard work of Impeachment, and risk looking like an opposition party.

Jake D. wrote on July 26, 2007 12:14 PM:

LOL at "me" -- Bill Clinton was disbarred too -- how much "suffering" did that cause?

Electricphoto wrote on July 26, 2007 12:14 PM:

Jake D - when you were a kid did you say I hope to grow up and and be a professional ass?

Is that what makes you feel good? Do you get sexual pleasure from being mudslinger for the right - doing your best to throw phony roadblocks up and act like the supremacist idiot that you have become.

Is being a dumb-ass, "I can squawk the Bush party cover stories like a good parrot" satisfying? Do you have a brain of your own or just the one the party gives you?

Do you get up each morning and say - wow I get to throw mud at people and lie -- what a great job...

HAVE YOU NO SHAME?

You are like the maggots who spam your email with "get a bigger dick" ads. You are the biggest dick by far - something to proud of in the schoolyard bully club.

The truth goes right past you and your abuse.

Why not go post to the right wing propaganda addicts on all the right wing blogs like Powerline and Redstate where you won't find a single word of coverage about any of the news items that are covered here - there you'll be among friends.

But maybe that's the problem -- you hate yourself too much to have friends so you act like an ass to transfer your supremacist self-hate to others.

You must be getting some compensation to throw you mindless supremacist babble at this blog day and night... is that what you wanted to be when you were young - an ass for hire, a professional liar, a mindless obstructionist?

Or was it something grander - that takes intelligence, respect for others and for the concept of truth and honesty? Concepts sadly beyond your reach...

Buck wrote on July 26, 2007 12:15 PM:

Remember folks. We are in the first summer of this. There's lots more to come. Lots, lots more. All leading up to 2008.

Sit back and enjoy. Watch the Jakes get the shakes as time progresses.

Stock up on the valium and the gin Jake. You're going to need it as your little world turns to sh*t.

Slim Pickin's wrote on July 26, 2007 12:19 PM:

Leahy just announced subpeonas against Rove and Jennings on the floor of the Senate.

dm wrote on July 26, 2007 12:23 PM:

Question:
Would the perjury prosecution be under 18 USC 1621? If so, is there a statute of limitations?
I didn't see a statute of limitations. Does that mean that even if the President blocks the prosecution now, the next administration could still pursue it?

db wrote on July 26, 2007 12:26 PM:

"I bet , if push comes to shove , gonzo will say he was talking about the same TSP , but the critical difference is , it was the TSP BEFORE the careerists at DOJ threatened to mutiny , BEFORE the changes in protocol."

I think this is right. Gonzo was careful to narrow his definition of the TSP to "the program the president discussed with the American ppeople" (not an actual quote, but close). It was not the program that caused threats of resignations...apparently...which, from what has been said thus far, was apparently broader.

But what's confusing is that Gonzo also said that Ashcroft signed of on the TSP from the beginning in 2002. If this is so, what caused him the threaten to resign subsequently...or was he not part of the mutiny? And if not, why did he subsequently defer to the "acting" AG while in the hosp?

Steve5117 wrote on July 26, 2007 12:26 PM:

Jake is a sexual intellectual, otherwise known as a fucking know-it-all.

He may someday be one of Bush's experts to give the decider guy advise.

bobh wrote on July 26, 2007 12:32 PM:

Wouldn't it be funny if , once AGAG is in jail with no access to the internet, jakes posts stop suddenly.

?

Yep.

Candyce wrote on July 26, 2007 12:42 PM:

A real fight will grow out of this, but no one can now deny that the AG is a liar (not even Jake). What is disturbing is that the only members of the Gang of Eight who have confirmed it was indeed the TSP that was the subject of that meeting are Democrats, and Negroponte. Very slimy for the Republicans who attended to remain silent in the face of such a lie.

Jake D. wrote on July 26, 2007 12:58 PM:

Candyce:

I thought I have denied (at least three times) that Gonzales lied under oath? Perhaps you missed that a Republican member of the Gang of 8 has confirmed there was a "consensus"? Gonzales could, in fact, have been referring to something different than TSP as well.

party-of-one wrote on July 26, 2007 1:09 PM:

Special Counsel? The Judiciary Committee is punting. Full of outrage? Why doesn't Congress draw up Articles of Impeachmentfor Gonzales now and let discovery be the investigation? Headline: "Do-Nothing Democratic Congress"

db wrote on July 26, 2007 1:32 PM:

To those of you who are feeding the troll, you should know that this is the wrong approach to dealing with someone with this type of personality disorder. Ignore him and he will slither away to find another place to get the attention he craves. He's not here to discuss or contribute, he's here to vex and annoy and disrupt any meaningful discussion.

So do us all a favor, do not feed the troll. Just ignore him. His comments are not worthy of any recognition whatsoever. And nothing will drive him away quicker than being ignored.

Paranoid yet? wrote on July 26, 2007 2:04 PM:

I too am beginning to appreciate the role of the troll. In this sense:

Every time you see one of those posts, think: Yup, this is our sitting "pee-resident" - someone who got to his level of incompetence, not by election, but by selection. Someone who is a puppet, a parrot. Someone without shame. Someone who has failed upward. Someone who defends crime. Someone who cheers at the shredding of the constitution.

Yup: birds of a feather flock together. And whenever you see the troll, you see his double (the pee-resident) - a smaller version of the chimp.

Austin Cooper wrote on July 26, 2007 3:21 PM:

Yes; * please * -- don't feed the trolls.

They're here for all of us to enjoy -- and even though the sight of an aging maile troll in full stride, braying away, is enthralling (in the same way a vehicular collision is)... don't feed them.

Don't poke at them, don't throw things at them; just observe, and learn.

And please -- don't feed them.