The House Judiciary Committee releases the Rove/Miers interviews related to the U.S. Attorney firings (with some excerpts from the Miers testimony)

Washington D.C.--And so, we finally have a window, a real window, into what was going on at the DOJ during the time leading-up to the U.S. Attorney firings in that culminated in December 2006.

The House Judiciary Committee has today released what several scholars and pundits were saying would never see the light of day: the transcripts of the interviews with Bush II political operative and adviser Karl Rove and former Deputy Chief of Staff and White House Counsel (the president's legal adviser until early 2007), as well as emails and other documents and materials relating to what appears to be politically motivated firings of U.S. Attorneys, thus endangering their abilities to enforce the law correctly without undue or illegal political influence and/or obstruction through a general abuse of office.

Some highlights of the Miers testimony from June of this year:

(Beginning P.7) ...Q Yes, and also prior to that time. Let me -- why don't I start out asking you, before your work in the White House in any capacity, did you have any role in the selection of U.S. Attorneys or in the discharge of U.S. Attorneys?

A Not that I recall. (pg. 8) ...

(P.14) ...Q Now, there could be inappropriate reasons why a U.S. Attorney would be let go, as well, right?

A Yes.

Q If the Department of Justice were to recommend removal of the U.S. Attorney for a political partisan purpose, that would be an inappropriate basis for removal, right?

A I don't know what that term means. U.S. Attorneys are, by their nature, political.

Q Well, would you find it proper to remove a U.S. Attorney to stop him from prosecuting a friend of the President?

A I would not expect the Department to recommend removal for the U.S. Attorney doing his or her job. And if his or her job was investigating someone and there was an effort to cause that 15 person to step down because of that reason, I would view that as inappropriate.

Q So if the Department of Justice were recommending a U.S. Attorney be forced to resign because he was investigating a friend of the President, that would be an inappropriate reason for the Department to recommend his removal?

A If the reason was to interfere with a prosecutor's ongoing investigation of a particular matter, I would consider that inappropriate.

Q And, along those lines, if a U.S. Attorney refused to prosecute a political opponent of the President, that would also be an inappropriate reason to remove them?

A If the reason for a recommendation to ask a person to step down or to take action against the person was to cause them to take action that was inappropriate, then, yes, I would consider that not something that should happen.

Q Well, I just wanted to be very clear on this. If a U.S. Attorney is asked to resign because he refused to prosecute an opponent of the President, that would be improper, wouldn't it?

A If it was to cause the U.S. Attorney to take some action that the U.S. Attorney and others believed to be appropriate -- or inappropriate, then I would consider that something that should not happen. ...

P.16) ...Q And if, by the same token, a prosecutor refuses to bring a meritless prosecution against an opponent to the President, that would be improper also, right?

A If someone is asked to step down because they weren't bringing something that they, in good faith, thought they shouldn't and the examination concluded that that was a legitimate 17 position, then I would not expect them to be asked to step down.

Q Let me ask you also about the timing of prosecutions. Would it be improper to remove a U.S. Attorney because that U.S. Attorney failed to bring a prosecution that would aid a candidate during election time?

A It would be inappropriate to interfere one way or the other, either by asking somebody to bring an action they shouldn't bring or to not bring an action that they should, in both instances it would be inappropriate.

Q And particularly so if it was done with a design to influence an election?

A If that was the purpose, then I would think it would be inappropriate to attempt to influence an election.

Q Are there circumstances in which it would be proper to remove a U.S. Attorney based on purely partisan political considerations? A I would have difficulty answering that question.

Q Would it be proper to remove a U.S. Attorney because he refused to use his office to assist Republican candidates for elective office?

A If the sole purpose of asking someone to leave or to step down is to influence an election or do something the individual thought shouldn't be done, and the examination indicates that is correct, or to not do something, I think any of those things would have been inappropriate. ...

(P. 18) ...Q Would it be appropriate to remove a U.S. Attorney simply because one of the President's political allies or supporters has asked that U.S. Attorney to be removed?

A That would depend on the circumstances.

Q If the sole reason that the President removes a U.S. Attorney is because a supporter asked, would that be appropriate?

A U.S. Attorneys are serving at the pleasure of the President. And so, if anything is presented to him, then he has the ability to remove that person. ...

(P.21) ...Q Under what circumstances do you think it would be appropriate for the origination of the idea to remove a U.S. Attorney to come from the White House?

A I would think that would be perfectly appropriate from any other source. ...

(P. 27) ...Q Well, let's say you had a U.S. Attorney who refused to bring meritless cases.

A Well, you can stop right there. No one is going to condone bringing meritless cases.

Q And so, removing them for the failure to bring meritless cases would be an inappropriate reason to remove them?

A I believe we have already covered that. And I said you should not ask someone to leave because they won't bring a meritless case. ...

(P.38) ...Q And what about the Office of Political Affairs' role in the decision to let U.S. Attorneys go. What role did they play in 39 the process?

A I would say providing information.

Q And what type of information would they provide?

A Whatever they had in any particular situation. And if they had any, I would think many times they would not, but if they had any they may well have let their views be known. And in fact, and I apologize for not thinking about this at the time, someone from that office frequently attended the Judicial Selection Committee. So they were always there to provide the political sense with respect to the environment in any particular state.

Q And who was it from the Office of Political Affairs that attended the JSC meetings?

A Sometimes Karl Rove himself participated, but he may have had on his deputy chief of staff hat. But the Office of Political Affairs reported to him, so he could have been there. I don't really have a recollection of Sara Taylor being there, but she would have been logical. I remember Scott Jennings being there.

Q Do you recall any of the JSC meetings where it was clear Mr. Rove attended for the specific purpose that a U.S. Attorney removal was the issue to be discussed?

A I don't have a recollection of that.

Q Do you recall any case where the suggestion for the removal of a particular U.S. Attorney originated in the Office of Political Affairs rather than the Department of Justice? 40

A I think that's a good question. And I know that, for example, with respect to Mr. Iglesias that there were comments made about him and his performance. And those comments certainly could have been made at a Judicial Selection Committee meeting, but I don't recall it.

Q And did you raise the case of Mr. Iglesias because the first suggestion that he be considered for removal came from the Office of Political Affairs rather than the Department of Justice?

A I don't know whether it did or not come from the Department of Justice or whether that was just one more voice if, in fact, it happened. But I don't really know who came up with the idea. But certainly there were comments about Mr. Iglesias coming from the political office, or the deputy chief of staff for that matter. ...

(P. 41) ...Q But it was a call that Mr. Rove originated, you didn't call him? A Well, unless I called him back. But, yeah, he instigated the call. 42

Q And tell us the best you can about what you recall what Mr. Rove had to say when he called?

A My best recollection is that he was very agitated about the U.S. Attorney in New Mexico. I don't know that I knew the gentleman's name at that time.

Q And what did he tell you about the U.S. Attorney in New Mexico?

A That he was getting barraged by a lot of complaints about the U.S. Attorney and his not doing his job.

Q And who were the complaints coming from?

A People that he was in contact with, which I assumed, of course, and he may have said, were political people that were active in New Mexico.

Q These are Republican Party activists?

A They were the people that he would have been interfacing with as political leadership of the State, is my assumption.

Q And who would that have been?

A I have no idea.

Q Would they have been Republican Party activists?

A All I can tell you is that Karl was reporting multiple people complaining about Mr. Iglesias.

Q And did he identify any of the people who were complaining to him about Mr. Iglesias?

A I don't recall that.

Q Did he tell you what they were complaining about? 43

A That he wasn't doing his job. I do recall that.

Q Do you recall what specifically the complaints were that he wasn't doing his job?

A I don't recall the specifics of what he was saying.

Q Did Mr. Rove raise with you complaints about voter fraud prosecutions?

A That's my best recollection, that he did.

Q And what did he say about that?

A I don't know what he said. I know it's my impression that he talked about the complaints that the guy wouldn't do his job. And I believe he mentioned voter fraud.

Q What else do you recall that Mr. Rove said about the complaints, if anything?

A I'm giving you all the information that I can about that call. That's my best recollection that that happened.

Q And you said Mr. Rove was agitated. What led you to believe that he was agitated?

A He was just upset. I remember his being upset.

Q Was it the language he used or was it the tone of his voice that told you he was upset?

A I can't tell you. It's my recollection that he was upset. And how that was conveyed to me I can't tell you.

Q Did Mr. Rove tell you that he wanted the U.S. Attorney gone?

A I don't have that specific recollection. And I'm under 44 oath and I'm not going to swear to something coming out of his mouth that I just can't remember. The clear import was that he was upset with how this individual was performing.

Q And was the clear import also that he wanted him removed from his position?

A He was getting complaints about the guy. And he wanted to express, I think, and this is my general sense about the New Mexico situation, that there were complaints about how he was performing.

Q Ms. Miers, wasn't the clear import of his conversation with you that he wanted the U.S. Attorney removed from office?

A I can't say with certainty that he ever used that language. He may well have. I don't recall it.

Q Well, I'm not asking about specific language, but you were able to tell us the clear import of part of his conversation was that the U.S. Attorney was not doing his job and he was getting an earful?

A That's correct.

Q If Mr. Rove communicated to you that he wanted a U.S. Attorney replaced, you would recall that, right?

A Not necessarily.

Q Well, in this case did Mr. Rove communicate to you in whatever language he used that he wanted this U.S. Attorney removed?

A I can't put those words in his mouth. 45

Q I'm not using any specific words. But when you hung up with the -- when you hung up the phone call with Mr. Rove, was it clear to you that he wanted this U.S. Attorney removed?

A It was clear to me that he felt like he had a serious problem and that he wanted something done about it. And whether he said, and the answer is ask the guy to be removed, I can't -- I don't recall that, I just don't recall it.

Q But you do recall he wanted something done about it? A Yes, sir. I think he was calling for that purpose.

Q And he may have asked you, or he may have told you that he wanted the U.S. Attorney removed?

A That's speculation. And I can't put those exact words in his mouth. I mean, he was complaining about the guy.

Q The clear import was that he wanted something done about it, right?

A Yes, sir. That was his purpose in calling me.

Q And at this point, you can't rule out whether he asked that he be removed from office?

A I can't swear that he did or did not say that. Q So he may have? A I can't swear one way or the other.

Q So he may have asked for him to be removed, you just can't recall?

A I don't recall his using words like I want him fired or words of similar import. I just don't have that recollection. 46

Could he have said that, I can't rule it out. I probably should say that he may have said can't we get rid of this guy or something like that.

Q And do you recall what your response would have been?

A I don't recall him saying even that, so I certainly don't recall my response.

Q But he may have said that?

A I can't rule it out.

Q If Mr. Rove wanted him removed, what would the next step have been?

A If he had said that he wanted us to consider removing the guy, then I would have relayed that along with whatever else I believe I called Paul McNulty about. Because my belief is that I called Paul McNulty and reported this situation.

Q So at some point after your conversation with Mr. Rove, you called Mr. McNulty at the Justice Department?

A That's my belief. That I took whatever information he gave me and I called Paul and gave it to him. ...

Not a pretty picture at all, and these are just excerpts. I'm assuming Rove's transcript has some relevant material but that it's generally a lot of skirting around his culpability/guilt in the affair. And yes, we can expect them to protect the president at all costs...unless, perhaps, it means that they're going to to go to prison.

Keep in mind that this woman was nominated for the Supreme Court. Now we know why she declined.

The House Judiciary Committe's Rove/Miers interviews and materials: http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/issues_WHInterviews.html

Joe (really Sam, but "Joe" sounds more iconic, so he ran with it) the plumber butt

" 'I’m kind of like Britney Spears having a headache. ...Everybody wants to know about it.' ” --Faux Ohio plumber Samuel Wurzelbacher shooting his mouth off again on Thursday. (AP)

Holland, Ohio--Poor Joe. He won't pay his taxes, he doesn't really have the legal right to work as a plumber in and around Toledo (making him an unqualified scab), and he couldn't stop and think about these facts when he opened his big mouth towards presidential candidate Barack Obama. This would all be due to the fact that he's clearly unintelligent, making him a Republican by-default.

The Obama campaign was doing door-to-door meetings with voters in Joe's neighborhood, and it was entirely coincidental--but very likely, it being Ohio--that they brushed-up against a very silly and stupid man named Samuel Wurzelbacher, who likes to go by the name of "Joe." Or was it a coincidence?

Wurzelbacher finally had his "chance" at his own fifteen minutes of fame, and now he wishes that he hadn't taken it. He's now ducking any and all media outlets. But all the lapdog press has been doing is balancing him with the reality of his statements about the candidate, his platform, and Wurzelbacher's claims about himself. Unsurprisingly, they don't match-up with objective reality, but since when has that ever stopped a wrong-headed American from shooting their mouth off in a way that can only hurt themselves? Ahem.

As we all know by now, Wurzelbacher questioned Obama's tax plan, echoing baseless GOP attacks that we're all--all of us--going to be taxed higher, even the rest of us who make under $250,000 a year, like "Joe." Except "Joe" doesn't make what the rest of us do, he makes significantly more, at least $100,000-a-year. Yes, I feel so sorry for everyone who makes that much a year, but they shouldn't be so afraid of Obama, he's got their tax-cheat backs more than they or Wurzelbacher might suspect. Even the late DC Madam paid her taxes properly.

Not ever wanting to look into someone's background, as in the case of VP candidate Sarah Palin, John McCain's campaign grabbed for any straw man they could. McCain went on to mention that he was fighting for "the Joes out there" during the final presidential debate, the name being a kind of catch-all for the "everyman," the working man.

The problem is, it's not 1951 anymore, and by that point the ladies were part of the workforce anyway. Women don't figure highly in the McCain campaign's rhetoric, Palin aside, and the implications that they favor a male-dominated nuclear family as a social model are obvious. "Joe" (Sam) personifies this ossified model of wrong-headed patriarchal pacification of the rest of us. Hasn't it worked wonders for the economy and our rights these last eight years? How about the breadth of our history?

Never mind all that, Joe doesn't want to pay taxes, and he told Obama this squarely: “Do you believe in the American dream? I'm being taxed more and more for fulfilling the American dream. ...I’m getting ready to buy a company that makes $250,000 to $280,000 a year. ...Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?” [emphasis added] Yes, it's hard to feel sorry for someone ostensibly poised to make a quarter million a year who doesn't want to pay their share of taxes. These were just some of the loaded questions in which Wurzelbacher neglected to provide the full-context of who he is and where he's been--he's practically a partner in the "firm" he works for with one Al Newell, and that's for starters. Do both of them split the money evenly? We don't know. I don't believe in the American Dream, that's a myth, it's crap.

Even if they did split their business's income previously, Obama's tax plan wouldn't cause a rise in their taxes, and Wurzelbacher knew this when he hit the candidate with the question. It gets worse regarding taxes for Sam.

... And Mr. Wurzelbacher has provided only vague information on his and the company’s finances since talking to Mr. Obama. But if the plumbing business remained a two-person company and the net proceeds — after deductions for business expenses — were shared by the two men, both incomes would most likely fall well below the top tax brackets on which Mr. Obama wants to raise rates, as would the company itself.

... According to public records, Mr. Wurzelbacher has been subject to two liens, each over $1,100 [Ed.--According to Ohio state websites, his state income tax lien is $1, 182.98.]. One, with a hospital, has been settled, but a tax lien with the State of Ohio is still outstanding. ("Real Deal on 'Joe the Plumber' Reveals New Slant," The New York Times, 10.16.2008)

Why would Mr. Newell and Wurzelbacher be so coy about their financial arrangements? Questions directed at candidate Obama were by "Joe" were skewed and loaded regarding his own actual situation, which begs numerous others.

Even if the faux-plumber buys-out Newell's share of the plumbing firm it's unlikely that he'll be paying more taxes under the Obama plan, and he probably understood this when he confronted the presidential candidate. Perhaps he just had a lot to hide? There are other facts regarding the business he works for that he wasn't exactly upfront about, though it's becoming clear that he has problems with mathematics (don't we all?) in many areas.

According to an analysis by Dun & Bradstreet on Wurzelbacher's employer, A. W. Newell Corp., the plumbing and heating contractor has annual sales of $510,000.

If Wurzelbacher bought the company, by the time he took proper business deductions, Bankler said, he'd be left with between $150,000 and $200,000 in taxable income and wouldn't be affected by Obama's proposed increase in the top rates. (" 'Joe the Plumber,' Obama Tax-Plan Critic Owes Taxes (Update 2)," Bloomberg, 10.16.2008)

And so, either Mr. Newell isn't being forthcoming with his "employee," Wurtzelbacher is simply poor at math, or one or both of them isn't being very honest. To be sure, we'll all be finding out very soon who he really is and what their company is really up to.

Then, there are other troubling possibilities, such as the fact that Wurzelbacher lived at 1960 W. Keating Dr., Mesa, Arizona, part of a sprawling apartment subdivision (Dobson Ranch) constructed during the 1970s by the Savings and Loan corruption scandal figure of almost twenty-years-ago. Keating is connected to McCain from that time, and even earlier, and Wurzelbacher's connections to the former perp could be quite intimate.

Maybe these are just coincidences, but one fact is particularly bizarre: it appears that Wurzelbacher purchased his current residence in August of this year. It's either one of an incredible series of coincidences, or it isn't, yet it has all the markings of a Karl Rove job, including possible past break-ins and/or infiltration of the Obama campaign by various GOP operatives. It's possible that Mr. Wurzelbacher is one himself.

At the very least, his 13-year-old kid, his ex-wife, former in-laws, and every person he's ever snubbed or offended now have a new stick to hit Wurzelbacher with for the rest of his natural life. When Obama suggested he wanted to "spread the wealth," Wurzelbacher retorted the standard line of "That's Socialism." Why yes, it is, and it's coming, Sammie. Not tomorrow, but today, now, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. That's how history works sometimes.

" 'Joe the Plumber,' Obama Tax-Plan Critic Owes Taxes (Update 2)," Bloomberg, 10.16.2008: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aC4j3T5.s_eQ&refer=home

"Real Deal on 'Joe the Plumber' Reveals New Slant," The New York Times, 10.16.2008: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/us/politics/17joe.html

More on (moron) Sam J. Wurzelbacher (might need to be pasted): http://www.privateeye.com/Search/SearchResults.aspx?vw=people&input=name&fn=Samuel&mn=&ln=Wurzelbacher&city=&state=OH&criteria=Samuel;;;;Wurzelbacher;;;;OH;;;;;;

Wurzelbacher's August 2008 purchase of his current residence: http://apps.co.lucas.oh.us/areissummary/report.aspx?Parcel=6562411

The ACORN "scandal"

Indiana--We don't even know what really happened, yet Fox News (as far as anyone can tell, the first source of the story) has been crowing about it louder than any other news outlet, even making easily debunked speculations on a variety of issues. Does the story look like a coordinated media campaign from the outside? Yes. Do we truly know yet what happened? No.

A modest proposal (no, not eating Irish babies, silly): create an independent inquiry from outside the United States to investigate the ACORN allegations and the all of the polling problems that plagued the 2000-2006 national elections, and hold to the recommendations regardless of the outcome. But the conclusions must be based on solid evidence, not hearsay, and so far that's all we're getting.

How do we even know the registration forms are real and not bogus evidence that was planted? What was the chain-of-evidence? Why the timing? Why does it once again benefit the GOP? How do we know ACORN wasn't infiltrated by provocateurs? It's happened in our political history. In other words--don't think we didn't notice this is being treated differently from those questionable activities by GOP operatives in past elections, because we do. Let the chips fall where they may, it works for me.

Or, is it that ACORN also went after predatory mortgage lenders and that we're also seeing some payback? You tell me. You had better be right. You had better not be lying, because we're going to find-out soon. This has all the markings of a Karl Rove job. We might ask where he and Tim Griffin have been these days.

Was Tim Russert a Divinely Inspired Hack?

Our Generally Crappy Mainstream Media--Perhaps eclipsing the death of the last Pope, Rudolph Valentino, JFK, RFK, and Gerald Ford (still dead), we got an earful about the allegedly wonderful Meet the Press host over the last several days. The litany was endless over what a "great guy" Russert was, and just what an incredible journalist he'd been...except that he wasn't, and expect them to keep braying. And where's Russert's Oswald? It was his heart, it betrayed him after he betrayed all of us.

Granted, he cast a charming Irish spell on those of us who want to feel reassured by a journalist who doesn't ask the "hard" questions of public officials--something he rarely ever did, if ever. I never noticed any substantial questions. For those of us who don't want things to change for the better, and for those of us who are afraid of a truly dynamic democracy where there's supposed to be acrimony and disagreement, Tim Russert was Jesus.

There is one thing, and one thing only that the late Tim Russert should be remembered for: he and his counsel resisted testifying over his involvement in the Plame scandal, an incident that needs no explaining to anyone paying attention. Russert had crucial information on the outing of a CIA officer by members of the executive branch as part of a disinformation campaign surrounding the pretext for the war in Iraq, and he withheld it. So much for patriotism or principles, Russert was a crusader-in-disguise for creeping authoritarianism:

Russert was aware that a special prosecutor probing the leak of a CIA operative's name knew of his summer 2003 telephone conversation with Libby, and that Libby had released him from any promise of confidentiality. [Ed.-My emphasis.] But Russert, the Washington bureau chief for NBC News and host of "Meet the Press," and his attorneys argued in previously sealed court filings in June 2004 that he should not have to tell a grand jury about that conversation, because it would harm Russert's relationship with other sources. ("Russert Resisted Testifying On Leak," the Washington Post, 01.10.2006)

As this site has always contended, the livelihoods and careers of these so-called journalists are their main priority, and they believe in nothing. The "Fourth Estate" aren't concerned or worried about our rights, and therefore feel no connection to the social contract or the common good. What they care about is themselves only, but orders are orders. But man, the coverage of his death! Oh, the coverage! Wall-to-wall, just breathtaking.

CNN and other major television news outlets even told us that there was a rainbow shining during Russert's funeral, strangely begging the question that he--like El Presidente--was somehow touched by God (more like in the head).

Mark this, and mark it well: whenever this system props-up a supplicant like Tim Russert for public deification, something is amiss, and the lies are flying. Court jesters had more courage than this clown ever did. Mediacrit.com sums-it-up best:

Being favored by Dick Cheney’s handlers doesn’t sound like a case for the journalism hall of fame, though.

In the case of Russert, we should consider what small impact “public affairs” journalism like Meet the Press has in these days of The Daily Show, social networking on the Internet, and Obama’s nontraditional campaign. I think the New York Times’ Media Equation columnist David Carr got it right when he observed that the mourning seemed not only for Russert, but an attempt to celebrate and shore up the increasingly irrelevant establishment political journalism. ("Mourning in America," Mediacrit.com, 06.19.2008)

All hail the death of establishment journalism. No, there's no reason at all to think of Tim Russert as anything but an American version of a commentator for Pravda under the Soviet regime, or a voice-over from a creaky old Nazi propaganda film. He was a stooge, a lapdog, and a moral coward without a shred of credibility.

Not that that makes him any different from his peers who attended his funeral this week, endlessly expounding on his (and their) fictitious merits as a journalist. His passing really is only relevant in relation to the Plame scandal.

Like most working within the world of the mainstream news media, he was not a man, but he was a traitor to himself, his family, and his nation. He will not be missed by those of us with the ability to reason, and history will judge him harshly. We're all born, and we all die. Tim Russert was no exception to this rule, and therefore, not special. Mourn the people he could have saved, save it. See you in the Emerald City, the Populists are off to meet the Wizard!The only problem is, they're shelling the Emerald City.

"Russert Resisted Testifying On Leak," the Washington Post, 01.10.2006: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/09/AR2006010901745.html

Mediacrit knocks it out of the park, June 19th, 2008:

http://mediacrit.com/mourning-in-america

Fred Thompson Leaves the Presidential Race

Fredland--When someone like Richard M. Nixon refers to you as 'stupid,' you have to take it seriously. Fred didn't, and now he looks more the fool. Considering that Karl Rove and his former U.S. Attorney pupil Tim Griffin were part of the effort to force Fred on the American people, we can all assume they're going to gravitate to whoever the winners are at this moment. Rove and company might have to leap-frog from one GOP hopeful to another--they had best be careful it's not someone they burglarized.

That man would the shell-shocked John McCain, current waterboy for the Bush administration and their war crimes in the Middle East. It appears that all of those break-ins of the campaign offices of Thompson's running mates in 2007 yielded as much useful data as the Watergate job. Goodbye to a very ugly, stupid, whore-mongering half-man. We don't have to hear about you anymore. Now, if Giuliani can realize it isn't 1993, he might be able to swallow his ego and also admit that the public doesn't like him, and quit too.

[Ed., 09.19.2008-It should be noted that around this time Palfrey began talking more about Larry Flynt's list--that John McCain, Fred Thompson, and Dick Cheney were found in the phone records. Palfrey also began corroborating it in comments. All three appear to have been fashioned out of mud, just like Richard Nixon.]

"DC Madam" Palfrey in Status Conference With District Judge Kessler Today (And So Much More)

Washington D.C.--It appears that things are beginning to finally get moving with the dismissal of Preston Burton as "DC Madam" Deborah Jeane Palfrey's criminal representation. What's unclear is how it's all going to play-out. Will civil attorney Montgomery Blair Sibley take the proceedings into areas Burton was unwilling to? It appears so from this newsletter from Ms. Palfrey and counsel, and a status conference is probably occurring in DC while this is being written:

Subsequently, Judge Kessler entered an order indicating that she would take up Jeane's selective prosecution argument. In essence, Jeane is arguing that as the only one of some eighty-three (83) escort agencies operating in the metro-DC area, the government's decision to prosecute her was based upon political considerations arising before the November 2006 elections.To support this contention, Jeane will be offering a composite exhibit of statements, news articles and a memo from Monica Goodling which collectively detail the politicization of the Department of Justice in a manner which lends credence to Jeane's argument of selective prosecution. At the conclusion of the argument, Jeane will be asking the Court to issue subpoenas and conduct an evidentiary hearing into these allegations. (10.21.2007 newsletter, 'Palfrey Update #29-Hearing Tomorrow on Selective Prosecution')

It's unclear how District Judge Gladys Kessler--a Clinton appointee to the bench--is going to rule on these coming motions. If you've been reading this site, little of this is going to come as a surprise. There are ample signs of politicization of Palfrey's case, partly due to the timing, and partly due to who her prosecutors are or who they might actually be. The playing filed is extremely foggy in many areas.

Take the example of Ms. Goodling, a graduate of Regents Law School (formerly part of Oral Roberts University. Roberts is currently being accused of embezzlement), a phony institution used to train political-operatives to be inserted into the federal bureaucracy by sundry conservative elements--approximately one-sixth (at one count, 150 at Justice) of all graduates of Regents are serving as Bush appointees to the Justice Department, providing reasonable suspicions to support Palfrey's claims. Similar examples in her case are there, waiting to be reported by the media. As far as anyone can tell, these appointments are all still in-place at the Department of Justice.

But remember Monica Goodling? She was disgraced former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's top aide who resigned this Spring and pleaded the Fifth amendment at congressional hearings over her and the boss's role in the U.S. Attorney firings scandal. Monica is going to be back in the spotlight again, and likely to be subpoenaed for Palfrey's trial(s), if only in document form.

She won't be alone: so will employees of defense/intel contractor, SAIC (search this site for more). Again, remember that Regents is considered the lowest of the low for law schools, and that Goodling's 1999 class had a bar exam failure rate of 60%. Karma being what it is, we can rest assured that the GOP's Monica will deliver the goods Bionic Woman-style. Small wonder that they're all being caught at wrongdoing. But how did they all get in there? Thanks to leap-frogging appointments, naturally, a nineteenth century atavism

.Not long ago, it was rare for Regent graduates to join the federal government. But in 2001, the Bush administration picked the dean of Regent's government school, Kay Coles James , to be the director of the Office of Personnel Management -- essentially the head of human resources for the executive branch. The doors of opportunity for government jobs were thrown open to Regent alumni. (The Boston Globe, 04.08.2007,

http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/04/08/scandal_puts_spotlight_on_christian_law_school/?page=full)

How else do you keep investigations of obvious criminal behavior at bay? There's nothing clever about it, the game is based more on audacity and the unwillingness of atrophied congressional incumbents to believe that an administration like that of George W. Bush is even possible. This is what they were banking on all-along: that the opposition in the political sector would become frozen and make half-hearted attempts at stopping them to preserve the power of the executive branch for themselves. Where does Palfrey figure-into all of this? Nobody is quite certain of this, but this author has some ideas.

First: the aforementioned "legal firewall" was created and maintained by political appointees like Goodling to keep the genuine, uncompromised forces of law and order in the bureaucracy (and the outlying society) at bay. This has played-out in numerous arenas, including the war in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay conditions, illegal rendition, torture--virtually every case of Bush and GOP wrongdoing and incompetence.

Second: Karl Rove's (and likely the vice president's, and many others in the RNC...) knowledge of numerous GOP incumbents' scandalous behaviors have allowed neoconservatives to continue a process of political blackmail of said incumbents throughout the Bush years--it's unlikely they invented the process, as the historical record is studded with examples thanks to J. Edgar Hoover. Someone, somewhere is keeping-tabs at all times of compromising behavior.

Third: while blackmailing these incumbents has meant that these congresspersons are de facto captives of the neoconservatives, some are being discovered through the incompetence of Bush appointees in the Justice Department, a failure in cloaking their behaviors. They're also being caught because they cannot control themselves. On top of this, there has also been whistle-blowing by long-term employees at Justice, many of whom have resigned since 2001. The bureaucracy has been fighting-back. Deborah Jeane Palfrey could be the person who could free these compromised incumbents from the clutches of the neoconservative plague. If you wonder why some in Congress continue to vote the way they do, you should wonder no more.

After all, American culture is still decidedly Puritan, and especially so when it comes to the GOP's voting base. With the promise that "we'll keep things quiet about your immoral behavior," the Bush administration has secured the voting behavior of an unknown segment of incumbents in Congress. Besides quashing investigations into the possible criminal behaviors of GOP incumbents, we know from Judiciary Committee hearings and solid investigative journalism that a push for partisan-based investigations of Democratic incumbents occurred as part of the U.S. attorney firing scandal.
This is evident in the firing of former U.S. Attorney David C. Iglesias who was pressured by standing Senator Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson of New Mexico. Both incumbents attempted to pressure Iglesias into investigations of state Democrats before the 2006 elections, surely experiencing their own pressures from the White House and Karl Rove.

In back-to-back hearings in the Senate and House, former U.S. 8attorney David C. Iglesias of New Mexico and five other former prosecutors recounted specific instances in which some said they felt pressured by Republicans on corruption cases and one said a Justice Department official warned him to keep quiet or face retaliation. Iglesias's allegations of congressional interference have prompted a Senate ethics committee inquiry. Yesterday he offered new details about telephone calls he received in October from Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) and Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.), saying he felt "leaned on" and "sickened" by the contacts seeking information about an investigation of a local Democrat. (The Washington Post, 03.07.2007, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/06/AR2007030600606.html )

It should also be remembered in this context that it was one Monica Goodling who helped pave the way for Rove protege Tim Griffin as a U.S. Attorney. Griffin is now aiding Fred Thompson in his campaign...nearly the only campaign whose offices will never be burglarized during the entire run-up to the 2008 elections, a prediction of this writer. San Diego is burning. Perhaps with some luck, it will take SAIC's headquarters with it.

WATERGATE TIME AGAIN-AND-AGAIN-AND-AGAIN, STARRING FRED THOMPSON'S CAMPAIGN (WITH KARL ROVE & TIM GRIFFIN & OPERATIVES IN THE SHADOWS?)

"Once is happenstance. Twice is circumstance. The third time is enemy action." --007 author Ian Fleming (through the character Auric Goldfinger. Also sometimes attributed to the Chicago underworld during the time of Al Capone's Outfit.


"These are times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. " --Thomas Paine, 1776, from the pamphlet, "Common Sense."

Boston, Massachusetts--Surprised that Mitt Romney's campaign offices were burglarized? Authorities in Boston are being mum over when it occurred exactly, but the break-in happened during this last weekend. What was stolen? A television...and "several laptops" (eight-in-all).This is getting ridiculous, and as usual, the press is being strangely credulous over the assertion that this is nothing.

There is a political war going-on (primarily within the GOP), and being executed by-or-for the presidential campaign of Fred Thompson. It's all benefiting him.

Why do I believe this? Because he's the one who will stand to gain the most from it, that's why. This is likely the reason why Arlen Specter has come to the aid of humiliated Idaho Sen. Larry E. Craig--he understands this, he gets it. I'm beginning to agree with old Arlen: something stinks here, and the former prosecutor knows the smell of this kind of corruption.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) has been advising Craig on what his next move should be, which is very big of him. Regardless of what one thinks about the GOP and Craig, there is a potential motive in the downing of the Idaho Senator: paving-the-way for the campaign of Fred Thompson. How is this connected to the upcoming elections in 2008? Think back to when the scandal broke:

On Monday, Craig quit Mitt Romney's presidential campaign, shortly after the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call revealed the plea and arrest details. "Sen. Craig has stepped down from his role with the campaign. He did not want to be a distraction and we accept his decision," Matt Rhoades, communications director for the Romney campaign, said. Craig has been one of Romney's top Senate supporters, serving as a Senate liaison for the campaign since February. (AP/Fox, 08.28.2007)

Keep-in-mind that the McCain campaign has also been hit with scandal when it was disclosed that one of his advisers--Bob Allen--a Florida state representative--was arrested soliciting sex in a men's restroom. Sound familiar? Then, in June, the Giuliani campaign was "rocked" when his campaign chairman for South Carolina--State Treasurer Thomas Ravenel--was charged trying to unload 500 grams of cocaine to an undercover police officer.

In addition, there is Louisiana Senator David Vitter, caught-up in the web of "Hookergate," who was going to help run Giuliani's Southern campaign--that's the one story this writer feels assured isn't part of the smearing and compromising of various presidential aspirants, primarily Republican (there could be others that don't fit a pattern).

Any takers on the contention that Deborah Jeane Palfrey is a GOP operative or a government agent? I didn't think so, because there's absolutely no proof of it, and she wouldn't be on trial if she were. What's going on then? Are these folks just being "railroaded," as a minority within the GOP currently asserts? Yes and no.

The common denominator in all of this is that all of these individuals have lost their protections for their aberrant-behaviors (where they existed). The privilege of the coverup has been rescinded by the Bush administration who controls the Justice Department at present, even without an Alberto Gonzales or John Ashcroft.

Some other flunky is running the show now at Justice, and another will be found for the public face side-of-things whom the Senate will also approve, just as they did the last two. Revolving-door is right. The point is, someone with enormous power and wealth wants Fred Thompson to be president, not the rest of the GOP contenders, and they're allowing the exposure of individuals within and close to the McCain, Romney, and Giuliani campaigns to damage said campaigns. [Ed., 08.28.2008--Now it could be safely assumed that Rove and Co. are throwing-in their lot with McCain.]

Today's story is just another sad and unsettling chapter in what could end-up being the dirtiest campaign in American history, namely the elections of 2008. None of this bodes well for a fair and legal election, and while nobody will do it, there should be a nationwide call for international observers during the elections next year. Again, it would also help if we had a functioing Justice Department to investigate these crimes, bot no-such-luck. But it's not just the GOP anymore--the Democrats are starting to get hit, though so far only through break-ins:

The incident is the third of its kind recently involving a presidential contender.
Last month a man was arrested and charged with breaking into a Hartford, Conn., office belonging to Sen. Chris Dodd, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. The accused lived in a city shelter and had a lengthy arrest record, and a city police official said that crime likely was prompted to support a drug habit. In July, the Davenport, Iowa, campaign headquarters for Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was burglarized. Two laptop computers and campaign literature were reported stolen. (AP, 09.10.2007)

Indeed, these gentlemen are also running against Fred Thompson in the presidential race. In the Dodd, Obama, and now the Romney break-ins, computers were stolen. An interesting problem found in the story of the Dodd break-in is that the alarms were never triggered at his senatorial offices in Hartford. Thus far, the police there have offered no solid explanations as to why this was the case, just that a homeless man with a criminal record did it and that he left an incriminating piece of evidence that identified him behind. Is all this coordinated action? It could be, and there's black smoke rising from the windows in sundry places.

The groupings of these break-ins are very tight, and elicit reasonable doubt as to the veracity of the the "conventional wisdom" that there's no connection between any of them. In February of this same year, the New Hampshire offices of the Democratic Party were also burglarized. This was in Concord, part of the battleground where the American Revolution began on April 19th, 1775.

The British continued the 6 miles to Concord and the Americans retreated to the North Bridge just outside the town. While the main body of soldiers accomplished their mission of seizing the gunpowder, a small contingent of British troops skirmished again with the colonists, now numbering several hundred. 3 British soldiers and 2 Americans were killed in this battle. As they returned to Boston, the British were under constant assault from Massachusetts militiamen, who inflicted 273 casualties. (www.americanrevolution.com)

Have we all come full-circle? Are there individuals in the shadows sending us a message? Who's behind all of this? This writer's bets are all on the whoever is backing the bulk of the Thompson campaign. This is a time of scoundrels. It's high-time to get to the bottom of all of this criminality and nonsense, and rescue our rights from the jaws of what could be an encroaching tyranny, a kind of crypto-fascism. The Redcoats are coming.

AP: "Romney's campaign offices burglarized," September 10th, 2007: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070910/ap_on_el_pr/romney_burglary;_ylt=AgHgkL686vYSitnTDDyqbTaMwfIE

AP/Fox on the beginnings of the Craig Scandal, August 8th, 2007: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294852,00.html

"Scandal Taints Another Giuliani Ally," July 10th, 2007: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/10/scandal-taints-another-giuliani-ally/

On the Dodd Break-in, August 27th, 2007: http://www.1010wins.com/pages/866344.php?contentType=4&contentId=847053

Boston.com on the Romney office break-in, Today: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/breaking_news/2007/09/breakin_at_romn.html

THERE IS NO CONNECTION WHATSOEVER BETWEEN THE OUTING OF GOP SENATOR LARRY E. CRAIG AND FRED THOMPSON'S DECISION TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT IN 2008

Washington D.C.--As the saying goes: "Washington D.C. is Hollywood for ugly people." Words were never truer when applied to Fred Thompson, former GOP mole on the Watergate committee, and lousy actor, as well as philanderer. No, there's no-connection at all, none.

It appears Tim Griffin is busy-at-work with his boss/mentor, Karl Rove, working to get the long-shot candidate elected.

Question: will they be able to steal the elections again by barring Black Americans from the polls? If not, they're not going to be winning. Journalists and other researchers had better start looking-into what SAIC's contributions to the Thompson campaign might be--one could expect very questionable donations, but since the FEC is controlled by the Bush administration, they have a good-shot. A shame that the oath of office means nothing anymore (if it ever did). Why would the GOP do this? They've never done this before, have they?

Two-words: John McCain (who's part of the game this time!). Perverse doesn't even cover it.

HIRING PRACTICES AT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT: WIDESPREAD PATRONAGE APPOINTMENTS UNDER BUSH ADMINSTRATION? (Repost of June 14th article)

"We anticipate that many of our graduates are going to go and be change agents in society." --Regent School of Law Dean, Jeffrey Brauch to the Boston Globe (04.08.2007)

Washington D.C.--While it's beyond the scope of this blog to fully-investigate this--something that only Congress can truly find-out--there could be connections between "Hookergate" and the U.S. Attorney firing scandal, and they could be legion. Take former senior counsel to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Monica Goodling: she's now 33, but was in her late-twenties when she was tapped for Justice by...who?

That would be Alberto Gonzales, who answers to the president. Goodling--a graduate of lowest-tiered Regent School of Law--hired ex-U.S. Attorney (not fired) Tim Griffin in what could be a widespread game of appointment-leapfrog, and helped draw-up a list of prosecutors to fire. There is ample-evidence at this time to believe they were fired for political reasons. According to an April Boston Globe article on Regent, there is ample-evidence the Bush administration hires-and-fires for political reasons. Hey, that's fair:

But even in its darker days, Regent has had no better friend than the Bush administration. Graduates of the law school have been among the most influential of the more than 150 Regent University alumni hired to federal government positions since President Bush took office in 2001, according to a university website. One of those graduates is Monica Goodling , the former top aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales who is at the center of the storm over the firing of US attorneys. Goodling, who resigned on Friday, has become the face of Regent overnight -- and drawn a harsh spotlight to the administration's hiring of officials educated at smaller, conservative schools with sometimes marginal academic reputations. (Boston Globe, 04.08.2007)

Hey, the president didn't have good grades either. He must have a soft-spot (his head) for them. It would seem it's the Bush administration and their appointments, once ensconced within the bureaucracy, who decide on the hiring now.

How widespread is this? Is it politically-based? It appears it could very well be. There have been rumblings about this for months-and-months, but we got an earful around May 7th regarding the Justice Department probe:

"We are highly disturbed by the emerging information, because it seems to repeat this pattern going on at the [Department of Justice] where people are chosen for their positions not for their experience and qualifications, but rather whether or not they match a certain political ideology," Sanchez said. Among those raising concerns is Joseph Rich, a 36-year veteran of the department, who left in 2005 after serving as head of the Civil Rights Division's section that deals with voting rights. "The whole hiring process had been changed to put the decision-making in political appointees' hands, and it was clear it was being politicized in that manner," Rich told CNN. (CNN, 05.07.2007)

Tim Griffin could tell us more about the problems at the Civil Rights Division. But is it just at Justice? This is the connection to Deborah Jeane Palfrey and her case. Palfrey's impressions of the postal agents who contacted her realtor on October 3rd of 2006 appeared to be in their "late-twenties."

Her mother Blanche was visited at her home in Florida on June 5th of this year by IRS agent Troy Burrus...and one of the postal investigators, Maria Couvillon [Ed.-Quite possibly the daughter of federal district court judge Irvin Couvillon who works out of Louisiana]. Her mother had the same impression, and Palfrey adds, "...my mother thought the “kids” appeared to be very young."

Is it a strange question to ask: are hiring practices throughout the rest of our government bureaucracy are the same as they are at Justice (under the Bush administration)? This is an administration that has made-it-plain that they're at war with the departments of our government--could politically-based hiring be of any surprise after warrantless wiretapping?

It's being alleged that Bradley Schlozman (former top official in the Civil Rights Division of Justice) had the party-affiliation of Ty Clevenger (a Republican) removed from his application for employment at the department. Again, the public isn't allowed to know these details under federal law, based on protecting investigative procedures and privacy. The public isn't allowed access to this information.

Is standard procedure a legitimate front (highlighted by legal counsel like Harriet Miers, or even someone like Goodling?), something that the Bush administration was counting on? What's strange is the multi-jurisdictional quality of Palfrey's case, it seems confused: the USPS, the Justice Department, and the IRS (more?). There could be other departments involved, but the question is: why? Was authorizing the use of postal investigators a way to federalize the case? Could the same be said about the involvement of the IRS? Is this how "Hookergate" began:

Lawmakers from both parties yesterday called for limits on antiterrorism laws in response to a Justice Department report that the FBI improperly obtained telephone logs, banking records and other personal information on thousands of Americans." It also found that the FBI had hatched an agreement with telephone companies allowing the agency to ask for information on more than 3,000 phone numbers -- often without a subpoena, without an emergency or even without an investigative case. (Washington Post, 03.10.2007)

This sounds very familiar, and might cover the predicament that Ms. Palfrey has found herself in. Were antiterrorism laws used--and abused--in her case? Many in Congress have been calling for a rollback on statutes within the Patriot Act. We could be finding-out soon whether Deborah Jeane Palfrey was caught-up in this net, but this aspect can only be covered by Congress--or by whistle-blowers.

CNN, 05.07.2007: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/07/justice.prosecutors/index.html

The Washington Post, 03.10.2007: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030902356.html

The Boston Globe on Regent School of Law, 04.08.2007:http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/04/08/scandal_puts_spotlight_on_christian_law_school/?page=full

Ed.-Minor revisions added 08.27.2007. FOIAs were filed in July of this year by J-7 on all members of the investigation and prosecution team at Justice involved in the case of Ms. Palfrey. They are pending, but could aid in substantiating if others at DOJ were hired for ideological reasons. [Ed., 08.28.2008--The FOIAs were laughable with no detail on the prosecutors' backgrounds, merely their loyalty oaths.]

TOP BUSH AND ROVE AIDE, DAN BARTLETT JUMPS SHIP

The White House, March 13th, 2007...

Q Dan, can you talk a little bit about, by the White House's own account, Senator Domenici at some point went to the President and urged him to fire the U.S. attorney in New Mexico, specifically? What did the President do with that information, after Senator Domenici asked him? And what did the President say to Attorney General Gonzales, when they did speak about this?

MR. BARTLETT:It's important to back up a bit. The issue of U.S. attorneys, as many of you know, these U.S. attorneys serve at the discretion of the President. Many of these U.S. attorneys have served four-year terms. There was a management review process and there was a determination made to remove seven U.S. attorneys for cause. And the members of the Justice Department have been sharing that information, the particulars on each of those cases, as to why those U.S. attorneys were removed, which is completely within the managerial discretion of the Attorney General and something that the President supported.

Particularly, as you can imagine, at the White House, when it comes to complaints, we receive a lot of complaints, whether it be from members of Congress, state leaders, local leaders. Oftentimes that is the job description of a White House employee, is to field complaints. That is not limited to U.S. attorneys. And over the course of several years we have received complaints about U.S. attorneys, particularly when it comes to election fraud cases -- not just New Mexico, but also Wisconsin and Pennsylvania...."

Washington D.C.--Long-term presidential adviser Dan Bartlett has announced he will no longer give counsel to the president after July 4th. His reasons are the same as those of convicted former-congressman Bob Ney (ex-R-Oh.): "I have to take-care of my family now." He didn't sound scared, not at all, and neither does Bartlett when he says it.

This is coming the day after congressman John Conyers (D-Mich.) asked the BBC for former U.S. Attorney (like the pattern here?) Tim Griffin's e-mails on "caging" techniques that caused thousands of Black Americans to be stricken from voting rolls, generally having their votes challenged and disqualified. What we could have here is a nationwide attempt that successfully stole the 2004 elections through disenfranchisement. There were serious questions in 2000 as well, though any serious investigations have yet to occur on that front. Greg Palast writes in a mass e-mail I received today that:

Tim Griffin, formerly right hand man to Karl Rove, resigned Thursday as US Attorney for Arkansas hours after BBC Television ‘Newsnight’ reported that Congressman John Conyers requested the network’s evidence on Griffin’s involvement in ‘caging voters.’ Greg Palast, reporting for BBC Newsnight, obtained a series of confidential emails from the 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign. In these emails, Griffin, then the GOP Deputy Communications Director, transmitted so-called ‘caging lists’ of voters to state party leaders. ... [John]Conyers, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee investigating the firing of US Attorneys, met Thursday evening in New York with Palast. After reviewing key documents, Conyers stated that, despite Griffin’s resignation, “We’re not through with him by any means.” ('US Attorney Resigns Following Conyers’ Request for BBC Documents,' Greg Palast, 06.01.2007)

Yes, it's dueling e-mails on the internet these days, and Tim Griffin sent some of his own out containing general information on voter caging to a satirical website that had a similar Internet address as the Bush campaign's. The results are already explosive with two prominent Bush appointments dropping two days in-a-row, it being a new record for the administration and the GOP. The rest of the media in the United States don't want you to know this, and they're doing their best to white-out the caging scandal with Lindsay Lohan's drinking-binge, but it's not working.

Surely Bartlett is leaving because Karl Rove ordered these caging techniques--he was once employed by Rove's consulting firm, and joined the Bush inner-circle in 1993. He sees the writing on the wall. This man is only 36, but looks 47. I look younger than he does. Luckily, he has a family that prosecutors will be able to dangle over his head (like the fact that he won't see them for 20-30 years if he doesn't start talking). But it's going to be Tim Griffin who talks first, as House Judiciary Chairman Conyers will surely be issuing him a subpoena within the next two weeks.

Serving as counselor to the president, Bartlett also worked in Bush's first campaign as governor of Texas and two subsequent presidential races. Before joining Bush, Bartlett worked for presidential adviser Karl Rove's company back in Texas, an Austin-based political consulting firm. Bartlett graduated from the University of Texas with a bachelor's degree in political science. (FOX/AP, 06.01.2007)

You know, besides Charles Whitman, that's the worst strike against Austin yet, how sad. Bartlett and Rove are pretty close to the president--they're the keys to the kingdom of all the crimes committed under the authorization of George W. Bush. Bartlett's former boss Karl Rove will be following him shortly on the subpoena list, but you never know: he might precede him.

They'll all plead the Fifth amendment on numerous points in their testimony and all will claim ignorance as Attorney General Gonzales has. We'll be seeing a lot of people claiming memory-loss regarding specific incidents, conversations, and evidence contradicting previous statements. How do I know this? Because I'm psychic, of course.

Republican incumbents will have no basis to complain since the evidence is already ample to investigate, but they will anyway as we all know. Part of the reason is that this is familiar territory: Watergate, Iran-Contra, the war in Iraq, warrantless surveillance, the continued suspension of habeus corpus, and more. The RNC--and the GOP generally--act very much like Bolsheviks, and it's time they were collared by the rule of law.

Again, let's get back to Dan Bartlett and his family, who he seems to suddenly want to be with more:

Bartlett said he was leaving for no other reason than to get a job in the private sector and concentrate more on his family. He has retained Washington lawyer Robert Barnett to help him in his search. "I've had competing families. And unfortunately, the Bush family has prevailed too many times, and it's high time for the Bartlett family to finally prevail," Bartlett said. (Reuters, 06.01.2007)

Well, that's kind of mean. He decided this after 13 years and nine months? Surely, something prompted it. And you know, I always get a lawyer when I'm looking for a new job--especially if I thought I might be making license plates soon. Wouldn't you? Sure you would...

Reuters today: http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSWBT00707320070601?src=060107_1507_DOUBLEFEATURE_

FOX/AP Today: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276998,00.html

Greg Palast, the last living American journalist spotted this year: www.gregpalast.com

Dan Bartlett, letting-on about more than he suspected on March 13th, 2007: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/03/20070313-4.html