Huh??? :confused:

Try reading something other than the DailyKos, Moveon.org, or other left-wing sites and sources. My guess is that her decision will be reversed on appeal.

A law unto herself

[ August 23, 2006, 11:55 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

The judge should have recused herself and at the very least should have disclosed her affiliation with this group. As others have said, her conclusion about IB's beloved Bush's illegal behavior was correct, but instead of using any number of simpler and clearer statutes, she devised her own problematic logic to get there, so the ruling probably will be overturned.

Too bad there's nothing we can do about Bush v. Gore.

And what should we have done about Bush v. Gore? First of all, SCOTUS should not have taken that case, but not for the reason you probably would've have liked; rather, they didn't need to take up the case because there was no way Gore could have won Florida and the election, the Florida Supreme Court's unconstitutional actions notwithstanding.

I can go into a further discussion about just why that last sentence cannot be anything other than true, but that would be a huge digression.

Here we go again! The attacks on our liberties continue, as evidenced by this story. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales wants those of us who defend liberty by assailing such Gestapo tactics that our "view is shortsighted." Or perhaps that our "definition of freedom — one utterly divorced from civic responsibility — is superficial and is itself a grave threat to the liberty and security of the American people."

This is as Stalin-esque as it gets! Alberto Gonzales, read 1984 and then talk to us about what liberties and freedoms truly mean before you come back to speak to us with your double speak.

Why aren't we better monitoring the communications of people who have actually committed and been convicted of a crime and are currently serving time for it in prisons around the country?

These gangleaders and organized criminals kill more citizens through their communications than any of the people we are monitoring in the public who may or may not be communicating for the purpose of harming USA citizens.

Corruption within is our problem. Open up the electoral process. Monitor the lobbyists who are doing deals behind closed doors with congress(wo)men to get them to curry earmarks for another congress(wo)man in the hopes of that congress(wo)man returning the favor in order to get around current laws to prevent earmarks.

Sound complicated? It's supposed to. It bores - and depresses - people so they won't look deeper.

And why is Democrat Dianne Fienstein opposing legislation to prevent her and others from doing favors for former staffers who have become lobbyists within her homestate? She says because she would not be able to do those favors. Huh??? Duh, that's the purpose!!!

She and folks like Murtha may see to it that folks simply stop voting in despair in the 2008 presidential races.

Did anyone else catch this explosive Senate testimony by former acting Attorney General James B. Comey? My question is, why aren't the "liberal" media playing it up and second, why are the Democrats waiting another second to impeach Bush?

Comey Testimony on YouTube

The testimony is so dramatic it outdoes anything in movies!

And more:

FDL: Another Take

Salon: Analysis from Glenn Greenwald

You've got to wonder, when the Acting Attorney General of the US has to call the director of the FBI to ensure that he's not thrown out of the hospital room of his boss by two henchmen of the President, after racing to said hospital room, and when later on he's so worried that he asks the Solicitor General of the United States to accompany him to meet the president's attack dog/chief of staff, and when he, his boss (an extremely right-wing former Senator from Missouri), the director of the FBI, and several high level REPUBLICAN officials are ALL READY TO RESIGN because they're so concerned about the illegality of what the administration has been up to, it's a really serious, serious issue.

I was paying close attention to this as well, FT. The only one to raise a hint of the profundity of such an admission was Keith Olbermann on MSNBC. The rest of the "liberal" media ignored this startling confession. It truly does boggle the mind that our Imperious Leader overstepped the bounds of legality when he made the warrantless wiretaps. Why are the Dems waiting to impeach Bush? This is exactly what the Founding Fathers envisioned as an impeachable offense!

UCLAFan, let me ask you: do you think people aren't really responding to this because they don't grasp the implications?

Or is it that they don't think it's all that serious? If not, why not?

Or is it that they're just exhausted by the steady barrage of scandals emerging from Bushland (like the most recent one involving the guy at Commerce, or the new round of Republican Congressmen who're snared in the Abramoff net, etc.)?

Or is it something else altogether?

Why do you think there's nary a peep except on the left and centrist political blogs?

Is sex the only thing that gets people worked up?

Because Comey's testimony was like something out of a TV show if you ask me, yet even more exciting--and terrifying, given the implications. Not even our posters here are really jumping on this, and it points to crimes that outdo almost anything that W has been up to. Domestic spying for three years is an outright Constitutional violation--a certainly a high and impeachable crime.

I just saw Comey's testimony on the Daily Show for the first time tonight. I mean, I'd heard about it on Wonkette and from friends, but hadn't actually watched the video. I only have one thing to say...


Holy. F*&$ing. Crap. This isn't real, someone tell me this isn't our government. It's astounding that something like this was perpetrated. I mean, I know this administration was bad, but trying to circumvent the constitution by showing up at a drugged-up Ashcroft's bedside? Incredible.

Talk about mind boggling.

How can Gonzales possibly stay on after this?

R

But ITJock, it goes beyond Gonzales. Who authorized the spying from October 2001 to March 2004? That's a LONG time. It was only after Comey and Jack Goldsmith came on board in late 2003 that DOJ began looking seriously into this, and what they saw was something so grave that they

1) refused to go along with it and

2) were ALL READY TO RESIGN.

Just think about that: John Ashcroft, who is about as right wing as they get, FBI director Mueller, Comey, Goldsmith, etc., were going to quit rather than go along with whatever Bush had been up to. So you have to wonder, HOW ILLEGAL WAS THAT WIRETAPPING??? WHO WERE THEY WIRETAPPING? WHAT EXACTLY DID THEY DO WITH ALL THAT INFORMATION?

And Bush, rather than follow the law, tries to get Gonzo and Card to scam Ashcroft into yet again signing off on this mess, to the point that Comey has to appeal to the FBI Director for help, as well as to the Solicitor General of the US! I mean, just think about this. THESE ARE ALL REPUBLICANS, not Democrats.

So it goes FAR BEYOND Gonzo.

But now think about it: if Gonzales were to resign, Bush would be screwed royally. Gonzo is the one who would appoint an independent special prosecutor, and so long as he stays, he won't do so. Remember, he tried to con Congress--then led by the GOP--into not requiring Comey and Ashcroft to testify. Now we see why.

When DOJ was investigating Gonzo, BUSH WENT OUT OF WAY TO CLASSIFY DOCS AND REFUSE SECURITY CLEARANCES, preventing the investigation! Bush knows he has got to hang onto Gonzo till the last gasp. Don't you think the Congressional Republicans also realize this? Of course they do. That's why they refused to press Gonzo on anything when they had control. They are quite aware that Bush has been up to crimes that would make the likes of Nixon's shenanigans look like child's play.

When Comey took over, he approved the Plame investigation, remember? Look at what that resulted in. There is NO WAY Gonzo is going to do ANYTHING that is going to damage Bush intentionally, so Bush is going to keep him as long as he can. The Democrats and even now some Republicans controlling Congress would NEVER allow another Bush crony-lackey-henchthug to become AG at this point, so Bush has GOT TO KEEP Gonzo, or he is going to be in far worse trouble than he already is. Just think of what an independent AG would permit in terms of investigations.

Really, you have got to ask yourself: what on earth have we let happen to this country. This stuff is worse than almost anything we've ever witnessed before. George Washington, John Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Kennedy, and, yes I'm going to say it, Ronald Raygun are all rolling over in their graves in horror.

Yes, sex is the one thing that will get a president impeached, as evidenced by the tribulations of President Clinton. Only, this time our Imperious Leader, W, was the one to order wiretaps without warrants, violating our Constitution and the law.

A good number of Americans don't see this as such an extreme because we have become complacent and become accustomed to corruption in Washington, D.C. This is the norm of behavior, not the aberration in our nation's capitol.

When our forefathers envisioned high crimes and that no president is above the law, they were referring to a dark day like today. This alleged crime is precisely why a president could and should be impeached. That was painfully clear when Andrew Johnson was impeached over the removal of his Secretary of War (today's Defense Secretary), Edwin Stanton.

Our Imperious Leader allegedly broke the laws regarding obtaining warrants to conduct investigations, which would also violate the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Yet, conservatives see nothing wrong with this. Their justification: "Extreme times call for extreme measures."

That is hardly justification enough to derail freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution.

Even Ariana Huffington has the same take on this apparent illegality.

I am not so sure that the lionization of Comey is all that deserved. Yes he defied his employer and refused to jump off a cliff. But he did sit by and allow someone else to jump at the behest of said employer without informing the authorities that he had witnessed a crime. And this after a private chat with said employer who somehow magically convinced him that there was nothing wrong here in a conversation the details of which he can only reveal to select congressman behind closed doors most likely without swearing in. And those congressman obviously found whatever he said to be suitable to relieve them of knowledge of said crime.

Why don't I trust these congressman? Oh, is it because a majority of them voted to depose Sadam and let Bin Laden run free? Or maybe because they are happy to watch wages be depressed and services consumed by illegal immigrants, who have replaced the benefits of that grand old standby: the slave trade.

There are few if any truly innocent actors in this drama. Our president is only the most powerful person who is guilty of betraying his own principles.

How many of his ten commandments has he broken or encouraged one of his underlings to break? 10?