He also said that he would oppose any subpoena of WH officials.

How dare anyone notice.

I don't know why his people wanted him to put on that press conference. It did not advance his cause one bit.

I didn't see the presser...but I have to admit I was expecting an all out tantrum at the "liberal media" and the overreaching "Democrat" party.

Sounds like I was not too far off in my prediction...

Does the President really think that by screaming louder he will somehow drown out the investigation?

When Howard Kurtz is calling for an investigation and laughing at the cover story, you know the GOP is in big trouble?

Pass the Jiffy Pop...

The whole "klieg lights" rationale was really, really lame. And it didn't get any less lame with repetition.

Jeez, Chris Matthews. Why don't you just get on your knees and service Bush? Liberal media indeed.

Hey, keeping your enemy in a constant state of aggravation and anxiety is it's own victory.

So annoy the fuck out of him, and pass me a beer.

They wanted to show the angry George and to put the Dems on the defensive by accusing them of "show trials" and of taking political advantage of his administration's attempts to be honest.

Gawd, that was awful, even for Bush.

"The proposal I put forward is the proposal."

Idiot.

For the latest news, hearings, legal filings and other essential documents on the Bush DOJ prosecutor firings, see:
"The U.S. Attorney Scandal Documents."

NPR is doing a love-letter to Gonzo right now.

I am done giving money to NPR after the showings they have put forth today. First I wake up to DeLay fielding softballs, and now this?

Bush always acts like a pissy school boy when his gross misconduct is exposed.

He absolutely seemed mad as hell. Go to judiciary.house.gov for the emails and documents from the white house.

Kris: Yeah, that was my favorite line too.

"The proposal I put forward is the proposal."

That's cause he's the "proposer".

How is he going to oppose any subpoenes of White House officials?

Is there any real or even contrived authority that a President has that would allow him to do that?

Too bad Gonzales is the person at the center of the storm because I'm sure Gonzales would point that this power is implicit in the "unitary executive".

BTW, has anyone else noticed the parallel formulation between "unitary executive" and "ein fuhrer"?

Talk about crypto-fascists...

I think I just heard the entire GOP Congressional caucus exclaiming a collective "Oh shit." They cannot be too happy about this.

The Decider has never had to be accountable for anything in his life and now that he does, his response is to act like a kid who got caught with his hand it the cookie jar and tries to deny it (either that, or say his mother is launching a partisan attack against him).

He also said that he would oppose any subpoena of WH officials.

I like how the WH thinks that it will forward their message by publicly admitting that WH officials (esp Rove) are incapable of speaking the truth.

It was obvious someone explained it all to him so he could understand it.

And then he got mad.

How is he going to oppose any subpoenes of White House officials? Is there any real or even contrived authority that a President has that would allow him to do that?

It's called executive privilege, which, iirc, was invented by Nixon.

Hey, keeping your enemy in a constant state of aggravation and anxiety is it's own victory.

So annoy the fuck out of him, and pass me a beer.

Amen to that, Blue Girl.

There's Yuengling and Negra Modelo in the fridge.

"klieg lights" - Is that what he's drinking nowadays?

This has a deja vu quality about it. The cover up is always worse than the crime. Why is Bush so worried? The whole country knows he canned competent people for purely partisan purposes. He says he can do it and perhaps he can. While it will not help his standings in the polls, he is pretty much down to true believers anyway. Instead he wants to snipe and fight and comes off looking guilty as sin. Again what is really trying to hide? And if I was media of any persuasion I would smell blood in the water. As for the Democrats any wuillingness to settle for Gonzales scalp seems unlikely because they have to believe something bigger is afoot as well.

Blue Girl: Yeah, that was a pathetic interview with DeLay, made worse by the palsied attempt at the end to point out DeLay's hypocritical use of "politics of personal destruction."

I hope Bush's threat for Congress not to "choose confrontation" backfires. Answer all the freaking questions, Rove and Meiers, or you will get subpoenas.

I've been saying this for a week, so why not repeat it again.

This is where we find out if the Democrats have any guts or if they are just going to roll over again.

Bush has no legal, factual or political standing. He's got 25-30% of the country believing that he is God's Own President, but most of the country doesn't think much of him at all.

The Democrats, if they push this to its legal and political conclusion, can take out Rove and effectively neuter the Bush administration. In so doing, they can aggravate the Republican Party internal strife and set up the party for increased gains in 2008.

Still, I have serious doubts about their will to win. I want to be wrong about this, but I haven't seen them play to win in years.

(1) Issue subpoenas requiring immediate public testimony under oath.

(2) Immediately impeach any subpoenaed individual who doesn't show up, or who refuses to publicly testify under oath.

As Kos points out, who serves those subpoenas?
The U.S. Attorney's Office.

Oh, Ironic Government, what will you think of next?

P.S. Yuengling!

Tx Bubba on March 20, 2007 at 6:11 PM:

He also said that he would oppose any subpoena of WH officials.

Can Dubya legitimately claim executive privilege to prevent his staff from being subpoenaed?

Just wonderin'

There was a book called "Klieg Lights on the Potomac" from 1990
How interestingly appropriate.

Karl Rove and Harriet Miers can't be impeached - the list of public officials who can be does not extend to White House aides.

It's Always the Cover-Up That Makes Things Worse

(the cash-for-honors scandal, but it means the same thing here)

The Wikipedia article on Contempt of Congress is worth a quick read, given the circumstances.

Short version: the C-of-C charge is usually levided for refusing to testify before, or produce documents to, Congress. Penalty: up to one year in prison.

First tricky part: the charge requires a majority vote by the house of Congress where the person in question failed to testify. That means it would be better if a House committee subpoenaed Rove, since the Senate Dems can't exactly count on Lieberman.

Second tricky part: once a house of Congress votes to hold someone in contempt, it goes to the DoJ for the actual prosecution. That's some catch, that Catch-22.

let's hope this madman doesn't pull out something crazy like a nuke attack on Iran to distract the country from this scandal.

He looked like Forrest Gump at the podium.

My favorite was when the reporter asked him about the apparent politicization of these firings--that three of them were investigating Republicans when they were fired. He said "the American people must know," about a half dozen times.

So, the American people must know. But he won't let anyone from the White House testify in public and under oath.

WHAT?

Can Dubya legitimately claim executive privilege to prevent his staff from being subpoenaed?

Probably not. Congress can articulate an important interest in getting their questions answered: "Do we need to legislate in order to assure that the DoJ doesn't become overly politicized?" And the information they're looking for isn't unduly sensitive, except to the GOP. And they're not asking for Bush or Cheney.

If they demand to know what Bush or Cheney said to Rove or Miers, Congress is on thinner ice. But there's not much reason to uphold a claim of immunity for conversations between Rove and Miers, or any combination of those two talking with people at DoJ.

Special prosecutor please.

That shoulda been 'levied', not 'levided', in my last post.

And one Yuengling coming up, cazart!

Karl Rove and Harriet Miers can't be impeached - the list of public officials who can be does not extend to White House aides.

Congress has the Constitutional authority to impeach any civil officer of the United States.

Is Rove in the employ of the United States federal government? Yes? Then Congress has the Constitutional authority to impeach him.

Karl Rove and Harriet Miers can't be impeached - the list of public officials who can be does not extend to White House aides.

I'm not sure that that's been established. It certainly applies to the President, Vice President, and executive and judicial officers appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, there is non-binding Congressional precedent that it does not extend to members of the Senate. ISTR that beyond that, its quite disputed as to what the extent of "civil officers" subject to impeachment is. Really, its unlikely to be definitively settled unless Congress impeaches and removes someone in a disputed category, and their is a lawsuit stemming from that to determine whether or not they in fact retain the office, challenging Congressional authority.

Oops, I mistyped:

But there's not much reason to uphold a claim of [privilege] for conversations between Rove and Miers

Little advice for the spoiled brat we are forced to call President: Nixon tried that whole "executive privilege" thing. Didn't go so well.

Can Dubya legitimately claim executive privilege to prevent his staff from being subpoenaed?

He'll try, and Congress will fight it (assuming their gonads stay intact), and it will be decided by SCOTUS.

Wanna bet what they decide?

This board will look like one Atrios usually has--I bet there are 300+ posts here in no time

Kevin, yes, seething, but . . .

But I saw more that he was rattled. Seething, angry, indignant--these are only the topnotes that to Tweety (for example) act as an manphrodisiac.

Topnotes are what you first notice in a complex fragrance. The base note always, however, with this man is fear. Fear is the emotion always.

Bush disguises fear with the seething act. Heck, he may even believe he's indignant on principle, etc. Fear smells bad, you know.

Since Harriet Miers is no longer a White House aide how can Bush claim Executive Privilege to shield her?

WHAT?
Posted by: anonymous

Oh, please.

He said (well, read anyway) these things, too, and with a straight face:

"America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies, yet rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed."

“Kleptocracy is an obstacle to democratic progress, undermines faith in government institutions and steals prosperity from the people,� President Bush said. “Promoting transparent, accountable governance is a critical component of our freedom agenda.�

'Transparent accountable governance'? 'Free dissent'?

Can Dubya legitimately claim executive privilege to prevent his staff from being subpoenaed?

Just wonderin'
Posted by: grape_crush on March 20, 2007 at 6:37 PM | PERMALINK

Dubya isn't legitimately president, so I suppose that since the Generals follow his orders, he can do whatever the hell he (Cheney) wants (him to do).

And probably will.

"It's called executive privilege, which, iirc, was invented by Nixon."

Not quite. It's been claimed by quite a few presidents; it's just that Nixon stretched the claim beyond all reasonable limits. Precedents are mixed on this and it's not clear who would win were Congressional Democrats willing to go the distance.

What will be interesting to see is how this plays in the press and how the public responds. That's why a press conference like this is likely to backfire on Bush.

Karl Rove and Harriet Miers can't be impeached - the list of public officials who can be does not extend to White House aides.

Actually, Article I of the Constitution grants Congress the right to impeach "all civil Officers" of the United States, i.e. all federal officeholders.

Additionally, they can be charged with contempt of Congress for failing to obey a lawful subpoena. The President could then provoke a constitutional crisis by claiming executive privilege ("it's executive privilege, see, and I'm the priviliger!") which I don't put above the whiny little bitch from trying.

For Bush to accuse anyone of politicizing anything is the ultimate hypocrisy.

"Since Harriet Miers is no longer a White House aide how can Bush claim Executive Privilege to shield her?"

Because the activities in question took place when she was working for him. Bush would not be able to claim executive privilege for anything that she is doing now but, in theory, would be able to claim it for things she was doing then.

He had wild, dark eyes, his movements were quick, his facial gestures moved from anger
to frat boy arrogance, to a quick, stupid looking smile. I was surprised he took questions. One reporter repeated her questions when he blew past them, answering only the third part, likely because of problems with his recollection. Did he slur his words? I thought maybe

MsNThrope on March 20, 2007 at 6:48 PM:

He said these things, too, and with a straight face..

Of course, Dubya was prolly talking about Iraq...

I don't hate Dubya, but I'm keeping all my options on the table.

since the Generals follow his orders

So far, anyway...

Josh agrees:

"Cable news talking heads are marveling at the his aggressiveness and seeming willingness to fight. But this is vintage Bush. The president has always push[ed] bluff and bluster and pretensions of holding a strong hand precisely when he's at his weakest. If you expected anything different you wouldn't know the man."

I don't hate Dubya, but I'm keeping all my options on the table.

...and a quad-shot mocha shot out my nose.

Pakistan and his second inauguration. In that order.

I wonder what W is drinking tonight...

Thanks...shows are at 8 and 10 pm! Be sure to try the veal, and don't forget to tip the waitstaff!

Where is Al? Henery? Jay? Hell, I would settle for the little yellow chicken (scrambled) egbert.

C'mon guys - defend your boy.

The president has always push[ed] bluff and bluster and pretensions of holding a strong hand precisely when he's at his weakest. If you expected anything different you wouldn't know the man."

I didn't see the tantrum, but GWB has always opted for pounding the table. This is not new.

Be sure to try the veal, and don't forget to tip the waitstaff!
Posted by: grape_crush

As always, only if it's not Dutch process veal.

Congress remains the greatest constitutional check on the executive branch and I expect a wider investigation and probe. This administration will think they are at the proctologist's ...

Precedents are mixed on this and it's not clear who would win were Congressional Democrats willing to go the distance.
Posted by: PaulB on March 20, 2007 at 6:50 PM | PERMALINK

Well, that's really what this all comes down to, doesn't it?

They have not done a damn thing to convince me they're going to do that. (go the distance). Particularly with Traitorman holding the cards in the Senate.

Hey, TXBubba - if you are still out there, whats the big Houston law firm with all the political juice?

whats the big Houston law firm with all the political juice?

Baker Botts? Or Vinson Elkins.

George Bush: I'm sorry all this has bubbled to the surface."

Truer words were never spoken.

I think I was thinking of the second one.

Pretty sure - yeah, I used "I like Venison" for a mnemonic. Then forgot the mnemonic...

Vinson Elkins.

Bingo.

MsN and I have been trying to come up with that all afternoon. We appreciate your help.

Fear smells bad, you know.

Bush senses smell with his tongue.

Thanks dj. Could not remember the name to save my wicked soul.

He will be as aggressive in claiming Executive Privilege as he has been in pursuing Osama bin Laden.

Bush senses smell with his forked tongue.

Fixed it for ya.:)

Of all the people secretly hidden away in this administration, I'm most curious about one person. Who, who in the White House thought it was a good idea to bring Bush out in front of reporters, smirking, snarling, babbling about "proposing the proposal", as a way to *help* matters? I mean, has that *ever* worked? How insane do you have to be when you send out an angry, petulant George W. Bush out there to make your case?!?

-L-

The irony regarding Bush's statements is that he claimed he is interested "in learning the facts", which apparently means as long as that learning session is not under oath, on record, and in a public forum. What Bush is doing is somewhat reminiscent of what happened during the Watergate crisis, when Nixon was adamant that he would not release the tapes but Congress held firm and said that he must comply. Will this Congress have the will to also hold firm against the megalomania of this current president?

Chuck Schumer did a nice job of rejecting the president's "offer," by saying--"What are we hiding?"
Simple, straight-forward, easy for Joe Six Pack to understand.
Dana Bash is reporting that dems want to show the white house they are in charge now, with no intention to wither. CNN says republicans met for a cold assessment of Gonzales, and the leadership will not go with an active push to get him out. Moderate repubs are questioning the credibility issue.
I agree with dj moonbat the press conference did not advance Bush's cause one bit.

Who, who in the White House thought it was a good idea to bring Bush out in front of reporters, smirking, snarling, babbling about "proposing the proposal", as a way to *help* matters?

Yup. Fortunately for them, nobody outside of Congress was watching except Tweety, who likes a good snarling babble. But really, I don't think they're going to happy with the outcome of their decision in a couple of days.

Tony Snow's reduced to blubbering, quivering Jello. Couldn't send him out.

Cheney? Surely you jest. Start screaming at people to 'Go fuck themselves.'

That would, of course, be what they really wanna do in this situation, but it doesn't play well in the heartland.

let's hope this madman doesn't pull out something crazy like a nuke attack on Iran to distract the country from this scandal.

Posted by: jman_nyc on March 20, 2007 at 6:43 PM | PERMALINK

But he will. And it'll be much, much worse than a distraction. He'll declare martial law, cancel the '08 elections and declare himself dictator for life.

Cheney? Surely you jest. Start screaming at people to 'Go fuck themselves.'

I want to see Grandma Pelosi wash Cheney's mouth out with soap.

I want to see Grandma Pelosi wash Cheney's mouth out with soap.
Posted by: Disputo

Kinky.

blue girl: You referring to Bracewell & Giuliani (nee Bracewell & Patterson)? :)

What a self-serving, sinister administration.

TXBubba - Thanks, sweets but it was Vinson Elkins.

It was Vinson Elkins we were trying to come up with.

MsN and I were going nuts this afternoon trying to come up with it.

Sean Wilentz, big time historian, said this, (and Arthur Schlesinger Jr. called him one of the best of his generation:)

"Calamitous presidents, faced with enormous difficulties -- Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Hoover and now Bush -- have divided the nation, governed erratically and left the nation worse off. In each case, different factors contributed to the failure: disastrous domestic policies, foreign-policy blunders and military setbacks, executive misconduct, crises of credibility and public trust. Bush, however, is one of the rarities in presidential history: He has not only stumbled badly in every one of these key areas, he has also displayed a weakness common among the greatest presidential failures -- an unswerving adherence to a simplistic ideology that abjures deviation from dogma as heresy, thus preventing any pragmatic adjustment to changing realities. Repeatedly, Bush has undone himself, a failing revealed in each major area of presidential performance."

Why, oh why didn't he this mad at Rummy? Bush only gets angry at Dems...not at his own lackeys.

When Nixon declared that he did not have to turn over the Watergate tapes, via executive privilege, the old Chief Justice, Earl Warren delcared that no man is above the law.

Bush clearly thinks he is king, the decider, whereby a government of the people, by the people and for the people is mute.

Dems MUST subpoena Bush, indeed and Bush must comply. Bush will most likely declare executive privilege, but it would not stand up in anything but a kangaroos court. How can the Supreme Court decide that hiding evidence is good, that we can subpoena NO US president, especially if that president be Bush, certain court jesters didn't care that Clinton was subpoena by Republicans, and so even if half our courts partisan court might again show it's partisan color of ruin, I want to go forward.

I want Dems to push the envelope, I'm sure they will, with all the coming investigations, it's no time to back down now.

I want to know if Bush is American's king or merely a president with limited powers to keep right on lying. As most American's don't trust Bush, so I'm curious if Chief Justice Roberts will rule in Bush's favor to show his loyality to Bush if not the American people.

This case questions much.

Kevin,

He's coming down from his vacation activities in South America. Expect him to be crabby for the next few days.

Bush clearly thinks he is king, the decider, whereby a government of the people, by the people and for the people is mute

Well it might as well be, as the prick doesn't listen.

(The word you were looking for is moot)

/pedantry

Via TPMMuckraker, Leahy's statement:

“I don’t accept his offer. It is not constructive and it is not helpful to be telling the Senate how to do our investigation, or to prejudge its outcome.

"Instead of freely and fully providing relevant documents to the investigating committees, they have only selectively sent documents, after erasing large portions that they do not want to see the light of day. Testimony should be on the record, and under oath. That’s the formula for true accountability.“I hope the President will agree to be forthcoming. The straighter the path to the truth, the sooner we will finally know the facts.�

"While we appreciate the White House's gesture, we will work with the Senate Judiciary Committee to create a counteroffer. We will move forward to authorize subpoenas for current and former White House and Justice officials, as well as documents. In short, the House Judiciary Committee will take whatever steps are necessary and within our Congressional authority to get to the bottom of what has become a horrible mess that is undermining American trust in our federal criminal justice system."

cwa:

I agreem strongly with Wilentz regarding Bush, and I think SW is both a good advisor to his grad students and a good public intellectual, but I think Schlesinger was wrong: I can't think of a single truly important contribution Wilentz has made to the historical literature. Not only is Wilentz not the best of his generation, he's eclipsed by at least half a dozen of his colleagues at Princeton alone. (Brown, Darnton, Davis, Grafton, Jordan, McPherson ... and that's just the first half of the alphabet!)

Wilentz was awarded the 2006 Bancroft Prize, known to be a coveted recognition

I meant to note that when I checked the news sites within 30 minutes after the press conference, Fox News had a long article on his comments. It just showed me that a) Fox prepared a lot of the content beforehand and b) Fox jumped on it quickly, much like a PR firm would.

from talkleft.com:
The Senate voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to end the Bush administration's ability to unilaterally fill U.S. attorney vacancies as a backlash to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' firing of eight federal prosecutors.
. . . With a 94-2 vote, the Senate passed a bill that canceled a Justice Department-authored provision in the Patriot Act that had allowed the attorney general to appoint U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation.
. . . Essentially, the Senate returned the law regarding the appointments of U.S. attorneys to where it was before Congress passed the Patriot Act, including the unilateral appointment authority the administration had sought in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks.

George W Bush - 1
Democrats - 0

Every single time Bush speaks directly to the American people without the filtration system called the Main Stream Media, he beats his adversaries. And this was on the day Dick Cheney had to go to the hospital--he beat you today with one hand tied behind his back.

Bwah hah hah hah hah hah hah!

well said, at Digby's Hullabaloo:

David Gregory says that he had been under the impression all day that the president was going to handle this press conference by saying that he knew mistakes had been made but that he was hopeful that the Democrats would work with the white house in good faith, blah, blah blah.

Apparently, however, the Republicans had a meeting today that showed a split in the GOP with half the members saying that Bush should dump Abu G, while others, notably the Box Turtle Cornyn (and Tom Delay on TV this morning) told Bush there was no margin in being accommodating and that Bush should "fight" which I'm sure sounded like music to his puerile little ears. It makes him feel like a man.

You can never go wrong telling Bush to act like an ass. He's the Dad Who Is Always Mad -- and it's just this type of manipulation and advice that's gotten him -- and this nation -- into the trouble we're all in today.

Meanwhile, virtually all the reporters on NBC seem to not know that numerous very close white house advisors were hauled before congress during the Clinton administration. Can't somebody get them an intern?

Sean Wilentz, big time historian...consider wisely always

ThinkProgress did some fact-checking...There Is No Precedent Barring White House Aides From Testifying To Congress:

According to the Congressional Research Service, under President Clinton, 31 of his top aides testified on 47 different occasions. The aides who testified included some of Clinton’s closest advisors:

Harold Ickes, Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff - 7/28/94
George Stephanopoulos, Senior Adviser to the President for Policy and Strategy - 8/4/94
John Podesta, Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary - 8/5/94
Bruce R. Lindsey, Assistant to the President and Deputy Counsel to the President - 1/16/96
Samuel Berger, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs - 9/11/97
Beth Nolan, Counsel to the President - 5/4/00

In contrast, between 2000 and 2004, Bush allowed only one of his closest advisers, then-Assistant to the President for Homeland Security Tom Ridge, to appear in front of Congress. He has also refused three invitations from Congress for his aides to testify, a first since President Richard Nixon in 1972. Clinton did not refuse any.

CRS also notes that although “White House aides do not testify before congressional committees in a regular basis…under certain conditions they do. First, intense and escalating political embarrassment may convince the White House that it is in the interest of the President to have these aides testify and ventilate the issue fully. Second, initial White House resistance may give way in the face of concerted congressional and public pressure.�

Mike: John Dean is correct: Worse then Watergate.

Wow, like minds.

Mike--great job posting the rollingstone.com article.
Apollo 3--great factual post.
You citizen journalists are geniuses and I love it here

from the conservative corner at the national review:

"I'm of the mind that the president didn't need to be making a dinner-time speech about the attorneys. If he has confidence in his AG he should let him and the White House counsel lead the fight. If the AG screws up again (the DOJ, I think we all agree, was a disaster on the attorneys), he should have to resign."

"Instead, the president has now gone before the press and while delivering his remarks lost his place at least once, and sounded like an exhausted lame duck lamely reading his unconvincing statement.. "
Bwahahahahahahahaha

(TIC)
I'm the decider.

My folks will speak to y'all, but I don't think they need to be asked to swear...you know, place their hand on the bible and speak oaths, I mean take an oath to say things that are true.

We'll talk. The information you need will be spoken.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a golf date with
my accountant. Tax time is coming up and I don't want my income to be misunderestimated.

God Bless.

CWA: You citizen journalists are geniuses and I love it here.

Props right back at you and I get especially tickled when you open a can of bwahaha's. Glad you're here.

It's incredible to watch these guys completely fall apart like this. Playing a game of Constitutional chicken with an empowered Congressional majority poised to make huge gains in two years is just stupid for the GOP if not the Bushies. Especially in regards to a complete failure like Gonzo. One way or another -- even with a sympathetic Supreme Court decision -- they will lose and lose badly on this one. And Gonzo will be gone anyway.

If there was a single honest Republican left, they'd at least see, in the name of self-preservation, how badly this will reflect on them.

The whole "klieg lights" rationale was really, really lame. And it didn't get any less lame with repetition.

I took his repeated references to "klieg lights" as a coded attempt to reach out to Broadway-loving gays.

(*ducking*)

My god, what could they possibly be hiding that could be worth undergoing this kind of shitstorm to cover up?

Glenn Greenwald has an excellent piece on executive privilege.

Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold -- the rule of law. - Tony Snow 1998

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/03/20/executive_privilege/index.html

Remember these good 'ol days?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12055360/cover_story_time_to_go_inside_the_worst_congress_ever/8

How many subpeanuts did the repugs issue during the Cli(n)ton era? ____________

Now, all you loyal Bushies, correct my typo above.

That's the issue. Not what's behind Purgegate, but the very manner in which we have been "governed" since 1/01!

Congressional Inquiry.

Wow, I forgot how meaningful that could be!

Blah, blah, bla...bl....b..but..we caught Clinton LYING about coming. Leave our George King alone, he's said that he's the decider so pucker up you revengeful Demoncrats!

(suppeanas? subpeonies? oh I give up. )

Ah, Kevin.

You'd be pissed to, if you were trying to fight a war on two fronts: one side: the Islamists, the other: the liberal Democratic party.

Good thing, though, Bush will be vidincated. Reports are from Badgad that violence is down 80%, and the American people are starting to wake up and take notice.

SEN. SCHUMER: The most notorious is the Southern District of California, San Diego. Ms. Lam, the U.S. attorney, had already brought about the conviction of Duke Cunningham. It came out in the newspapers that she was continuing to pursue that investigation and it might lead to others, legislative and others. And in the middle of this investigation, she was fired. So I asked the deputy attorney general, "Why was she fired?" He said, "Well, she wasn't doing enough immigration re-entry cases." I said, "Really?" She–he said, did you tell–I asked him, "Did you tell her?" She said yes. I said, "Well, did she improve?" This was back in the summer. "Did she improve?" He said, "I have no idea." Well, gee whiz, if you're firing someone in the middle of the most heated political investigation in America, don't you think you ought to have a reason and know the reason?

he's pissed any time he has to do something he doesn't want to do. he's a spoiled child in a pinstripe suit.

David Boies on MSNBC says that aids will have to testify - it's the law and he thinks it's strange that Bush is fighting this rather ten to try
to get it behind him ASAP.

Bush is picking a fight.

Good thing, though, Bush will be vidincated. Reports are from Badgad that violence is down 80%, and the American people are starting to wake up and take notice.

Posted by: egbert on March 20, 2007 at 9:29 PM | PERMALINK

"vidincated?"

Oh dear.

“Truth is generally the best vindication against slander�
Abraham Lincoln.

How can we get truth from fools who believe the Iraqis violent whirlwind is only 20% since the surge-on generals met the enemy?

Dam_, i'm starting to spout egbertlike drivel!

I will now tell you something for nothing, liberals. Pay attention.

In the mid 1990s, when I was more business oriented and less politically oriented, I had dinner in Manchester, New Hampshire with several Republican Party officials, none of whom I care to name. This was during the time when the Republican Controlled Congress was investigating various aspects of the Democratic machine, controlled by Bill Clinton. I advised these men that they had better go slow and not expect Clinton to acquiesce to being investigated. I knew full well that there was a thing called Executive Privilege and that he could, legitimately, use it to hide all of the felonies and murders he had committed. The President always has to break the law in order to get things done--this is American History 101.

They assured me--Clinton was a rube, a hillbilly and a schmuck. They planned to keep calling his aides to the Hill and they planned to stretch every inch of fabric and pull every loose string until the cheap sweater unravelled. I cautioned them again--someday, the Democrats would do the same to our side.

They sneered at me, we had a few drinks, and I wrote a smaller check to the Dole campaign that year than I normally would have written. I thought they were dead wrong and I had spoken up. There was no outlet in those days to express these ideas in a public forum--I was writing letters to the editor of various papers but they were only sporadically being published.

Had they listened to me, and had they been more cautious, we would not be having this showdown today. I am convinced of it.

"I will now tell you something for nothing, liberals."

You? Who are you?

" . . . use it to hide all of the felonies and murders he had committed."

BWAHAHAHA!

This is hilarious! Funniest parody post ever!

Norman,

This isn't a show down, it's our government at work.

The investigations during the Clinton Era were witch hunts, not true Congressional Inquiries.

What we are witnessing now is a process that is absolutely democracy at it's finest.

If the administration won't testify under oath, then they are hiding behind Executive Privilege.

Which is really code for: We're the deciders, not the Constitutional system of checks and balances.

The "showdown" IS our government at work. To lament it, is to miss the beauty of it.

he has never had to be accountable for anything in his life. you bet that spoiled, incompetent, corrupt brat is pissed off...

poor george, he can't help it. he was born with a silver spoon for a brain.

In the mid 1990s, when I was more business oriented and less politically oriented, I had dinner in Manchester, New Hampshire with several Republican Party officials,

I'm sorry, I don't mean to interrupt, but this is simply hilarious. You were just SOOOO important back in those days, "less politically oriented", just casually having dinner with Republican party officials. Less politically oriented than you are today, where now you are a regular contributor to Washington Monthly's blog comments. Uh huh.

I do give you credit though - you are much more innovative in your jackassishness than the usual Republitrolls.

Had they listened to me, and had they been more cautious, we would not be having this showdown today. I am convinced of it.

Funniest. Wingnut. Ever.

Alright, I know I'm in there. If I don't come out with my hands up, I'm coming in after me.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to interrupt, but this is simply hilarious. You were just SOOOO important back in those days, "less politically oriented", just casually having dinner with Republican party officials. Less politically oriented than you are today, where now you are a regular contributor to Washington Monthly's blog comments. Uh huh.

I've been here for four years, chum. There are important people commenting all over the blog-o-sphere and you don't even know it. If you spend two moments putting aside your self-congratulatory peevishness at nothing, you'll see I have the cojones to back up what I say.

I did not say I was important; I have been an investment banker for thirty years and I have a fair amount of wealth; I am active in Republican Party politics but I am one of several thousand people who donate money to the party at my level.

In every town with more than 25,000 people in it in this country, there's someone like myself who gives more than $5,000 per annum to the Republican Party. Look it up.

Norman, your latest offering proves that old saying about getting what you pay for.

Norman curtailed his donation, but the party found their zeros, didn't they?

Disputo wrote, regarding whether Dub can claim executive privilege to prevent his staff from being subpoenaed:

He'll try, and Congress will fight it (assuming their gonads stay intact), and it will be decided by SCOTUS.

Wanna bet what they decide?

Doesn't that depend on whether the case comes to them before or after Jan. 20, 2009?

Norman, your latest offering proves that old saying about getting what you pay for.

You know, that's fascinating. In 1996, the Republican Party ran the worst campaign and nominated the worst candidates in its long, proud history. It always amuses me when we get into these exchanges and NONE of you--and I mean, you NEVER, EVER hear any liberal say anything at all about Dole and Kemp and Dole falling off the stage and losing to a hillbilly and that demon, H Ross Perot. One would think that you would find your druthers and bring it up now and again--it is proof that there is a turning cycle to things. I mentioned it earlier--the claim of Executive Privilege on the part of this White House is one they will lose, I am so sorry to have to admit, because of the whole Clinton thing.

Which I warned some people about--that was how all this started, you know.

Bush, Cheney, Rove, Gonzales. What a vile, despicable group of little men. Even most Republicans, if only in private, wish they'd go away. But they won't until more of them speak up. I used to think impeachment was not a viable option; more and more, it seems like the only reasonable option. This is exactly what the founding fathers had in mind when they built the impeachment clause, to remove lawless regimes such as this. THIS is worse than Nixon getting away with it.

This is amusing watching the democratic process work.
A. In the worst case scenario, Bush pardons everyone and resigns.
B. Cheney pardons Bush.
C. Won't fly? Check out dear old Ford's pardon of Nixon.
D. Check out the pardons done before the end of Clinton's administration and after Bush 's started.
We've been here before and they will do it again. Democracy the cheapest government money can buy.

I knew full well that there was a thing called Executive Privilege and that he could, legitimately, use it to hide all of the felonies and murders he had committed.

what were all the other murders? Besides Vince Foster of course...but wasn't that Hillary who murdered Foster? I can't keep all your delusional conservatard conspiracy theories straight.

Karl Rove is out making public statements about the US Attorney Purge. I would think this would open the door for his being called before the congress under oath. I would think this is similar to an attorney questioning a witness about an issue which is not part of a trial. The opposing attorney then has the right to question that same witness since that other attorney brought it up.

So he can go around making speeches, giving his (inside) opinion but not be questioned?

This really does not make sense.

I think the most shocking part, aside from Bush's repeated absence of logical syntax, was the repetition of "they serve at our [my] pleasure." Again, this was a force-fed talking point where Bush conflated his own person with a plural pronoun more accurate for he and his handlers.

There is no royal "We" in America. He must be impeached, then put on real trial. I have no sympathy for him, where once I felt he had been misled. The attorney purge, while egregious, is probably only the 10 or 11th worst thing he has done this year. He has accepted no responsibility, offered no tangible amelioration, and has resisted the will of the people at every turn. We are met with a crisis like that of George III--I think I shall refer to this one as George cubed--his damage is more exponential. It is a crisis the likes of which we have never seen before--a President who does not ever defer to the will of the people. A man who believes he makes reality and that the rule of law is for the poor. I hope Congress is ready for the hard days to come. That is why they were elected. Ask Nero about his pension plan.

I can't keep all your delusional conservatard conspiracy theories straight.

And this is supposed to be my problem? I have taken the trouble to tell you when to pay extra special attention to the things that I say and you've disregarded that. Any more silliness tonight and a moderating intern might take an interest in you and start following you around...

I did not say I was important;

Oh yes you did - what is all this blather then?

Had they listened to me, and had they been more cautious, we would not be having this showdown today. I am convinced of it.

It is obvious to anyone that you highly value yourself. "If only those Republican party officials had taken my astute advice, we'd have avoided this current unpleasantness." What bilge.

The fact that you've been here 4 years means nothing. This comment section, although populated with many savvy and astute commenters, is hardly an exclusive club where participation in and of itself implies merit to one's positions. God knows we had a bonehead here named Researcher (later McAristotle) posting for years who couldn't reason his way out of a wet paper bag. In your case all it means is that you've got a lot of time to kill, and no one in any leadership position in New Hampshire or wherever you now call home cares what you think. (And probably to their benefit.)

In every town with more than 25,000 people in it in this country, there's someone like myself who gives more than $5,000 per annum to the Republican Party.

But very view of them could have Changed The Course of History If Only Republican Party Officials Had Taken Their Astute Advice.

You truly soar to heights of wingnuttery that make Hawk look like his wings have been clipped.

You take the grand prize, whether that's a wingnut-among-wingnuts prize, or a prize for outstanding parody. Either way, bravo.

There is no royal "We" in America.

Oh, come now. Of course there is. There is a precedent for the use of the royal we:

"...We the people..."

So the elected head of the government formed by We, the People, cannot use the royal we?

We think not, sir...

We The People is NOT an example of the use of the royal "we".

Jesus. Go to school.

For you Norm, I will grant you and your intracranial personality cohorts the plural "we." Medicine will help, but then it will be an i for an I, for I can't grant the likes of you capital, nor a capitol. Parody troll or not.

We the people do speak, thank God for Blogs.

And Globes: NPR has devolved into uselessness. No money from me either--that was a swirling GOP tub drowning into which they gleefully jumped.

We The People is NOT an example of the use of the royal "we".

I think it is; my reason for that is that "we, the people" is then boiled down to the embodiment of the executive that "we, the people" elect and send out there in the world to lead us and speak for us. He's the head of state, empowered by the Constitution, and he speaks for the people when he goes overseas and whatnot. When the President speaks to a foreign government, the "we, the people" empowers him to say things like "we think that you need to stop bombing your own citizens" or "we think it would be a bad idea to sell your magnesium to anyone else."

I think it is...

Well, your're wrong. Norman, you may not understand this, but you can't go making shit up, re-defining words and terms. The royal "we" is not a plural at all.

Now, take my advice and stop skipping class.

So if the President--who gets his power solely from a document that starts off by saying "we the people" cannot use the royal "we" then who is allowed to say it? I thought I was correct but if I am not, so be it.

So be it, Norman. So be it.

Wait a minute--if I WAS right, none of you people would tell me. I see your game. I don't appreciate this, people. Now, I admit that I could be wrong on the usage of "we, the people" but if I was, in fact, right on this or any topic, none of you would tell me I was right, would you?

You see me as something bad, something you can throw things at, something you can ignore. You see me as the "enemy" when I am really just an American with a different point of view, a different political philosophy. Yes, I have money. I have had a fair amount of access. I do enjoy a fairly comfortable standard of living thanks to 30 years of investment banking and doing what that idiot Cramer admitted doing--on video or audio, for crying out loud.

[people, that fellow Jim Cramer on CNBC--never listen to him. He is a fraud. If he tells you to buy something, that's because he has three buddies who are prepared to cut the stock out from the inside and dump it like a retard with a hot potato once you stir the pot and move the price up to their agreed-upon selling price. He admitted manipulating stocks--I actually did time for that and am waiting for my pardon--this is old news. Cramer? Moron. He'll be in the facility they sent me to--this prison in Rochester, Minnesota near the Mayo Clinic. I was there at the same time as Jim Bakker, you know.]

Yes--if I was right, none of you would tell me. You'd just keep telling me I was wrong and call me names and throw insults my way. Well, thanks for nothing. Thanks for heaping scorn and abuse on your fellow American. I'm so sorry I have led a successful life and I'm so sorry that I happen to be a Republican. I'm sorry!

So there it is. Am I right? Probably. But none of you would ever admit it.

Here ya go - from Wikipedia (I'm hoping you can find it by youself w/o a link):

"The royal we (Pluralis Majestatis) is the first-person plural pronoun when used by an important personage to refer to himself or herself. It's best known usage is by a monarch such as a king, queen, or pope."

Now, Norman, shut the fuck up and go away.

Here ya go, Norman, the imperial WE: http://www.dependablerenegade.com/

.... I'm so sorry I have led a successful life ... Norman Rogers at 12:47 AM

...who gets his power solely from a document that starts off by saying "we the people" cannot use the royal "we" then who ... Norman Rogers at 12:32 AM

candidates in its long, proud history...Norman Rogers at 10:55 PM

According to Think Progress, the document dump is short:

“In DOJ documents that were publicly posted by the House Judiciary Committee, there is a gap from mid-November to early December in e-mails and other memos, which was a critical period as the White House and Justice Department reviewed, then approved, which U.S. attorneys would be fired while also developing a political and communications strategy for countering any fallout from the firings.�

Examples of "We":

Queen: (sniffing with eyes half closed) "We are not amused." (referring only to herself).

United States Official: "We will not allow Iran to gain nuclear weapons." (referring to the US government and to the US people it represents).

Bush: "They serve at our pleasure." (which appears to be referring to himself, since he is the "decider").

Norman, I hope this clears it up. I appreciate that you are well spoken and even if I don't agree with you, it's nice to have a Republican voice who can articulate his point somewhat logically. It's more fun to have a foil for the sharp wits here who can hold his own. And I like the background stories, keep em coming. But you're wrong about the "We" thing.

Norman Rogers: "I don't appreciate this, people."

Then what you need is an attitude adjustment, in part by developing a sense of humility.

Your opinions are valid -- and I agree with your assessment of that fiscal blowhard Jim Cramer -- but you really must learn to disagree without being completely disagreeable.

You have money -- or so you've said on this site more times than I care to recount. So what? Do those funds cloak your opinions in some veil of immunity, that your veracity or analysis can't be criticized or challenged? Your money and status is irrelevant here.

If you were gay, I'd say that you often come across as a cynical and bitchy old queen. And as my late best friend Curtis would always say, nobody likes a bitchy queen -- at least, not behind her back.

In short, would it really hurt you to be nice to people on this site once in a while? Try it, and you might be pleasantly surprised when people start paying more attention to your substance, and less to your style. That's the key to successful conversation.

``You know, that's fascinating. In 1996, the Republican Party ran the worst campaign and nominated the worst candidates in its long, proud history.''

Half right, Norman. Worst campaign, yes.
Worst candidate: That would be George W. Bush. And it's not close, not even when the list includes the criminal Nixon, the feckless Bush I, the corrupt Harding....
And once you get beyond Lincoln and Eisenhower -- either of whom would find your current party vomitous -- the GOP has nothing to be proud of.

Polite and pointed, Donald. ..a better man than me.

In other news, Abu Al-Tekrani has confessed under torture to kidnapping the Lindbergh baby! Horray!!! One for Team America!!

As a Brit I presumed that the Queen(King) uses "we" as they see thedmselves as representing the state and, therefore, the nation.

I'm going to guess that the preamble of the Constitution was very deliberately phrased as we the People as a slap down of the royal "we" as used habitually by George III and his ilk. Why else start with it?

And in that sense any individual, including the President, using "we" as an individual would be anathema.

Now, if Bush would acknowledge anybody beyond his own being and say something like "we, the people of the United States..." or "all we people of the United States..." and follow it up with something inclusive, well, that would be a surprise indeed. He is the most devisive, exclusive western leader I can think of in the last 40 years.

I'm still trying to think of someone...any ideas?

Maggie Thatcher came close. But doesn't take the cigar.

I'm still thinking...

And Clinton murdered who exactly?

The attorney purge, while egregious, is probably only the 10 or 11th worst thing he has done this year.

And the year is young.

I think the most shocking part, aside from Bush's repeated absence of logical syntax, was the repetition of "they serve at our [my] pleasure." Again, this was a force-fed talking point where Bush conflated his own person with a plural pronoun more accurate for he and his handlers. There is no royal "We" in America.

It's a little more psychotic than that.

The first time he referred to himself in the third person singular:

U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President.

The second time he referred to himself in the first person plural (royal "we"):

They serve at our pleasure.

For a man wholly self-involved, he is certainly having a hard time saying "I". Perhaps his unconscious desire to avoid taking responsibility is preventing him from using the first person singular to refer to himself in this context.

you might be on to a pretty astute truth, disputo. He had no problem saying "I'm the decider!" But of course, at that time no one was threatening with a subpeona (sp?).

Fuck him if he can't take a joke.

"I have taken the trouble to tell you . . . "

You? Who are you?

You? Who are you?

Norman Rogers. You see, at the bottom of each post on this blog, there is a "Posted by" line which gives you the NAME of the person who wrote the post, the date and time that they posted it, and something called "Permalink" which reminds me of this milk product called "Parmalat" that, amazingly, has a shelf-life of three or four years or something like that. The white milk is ok, the chocolate milk is to die for. The secret? They boil the living hell out of this milk and seal it in tinfoil and it lasts forever, sir. I assure you, it does.

"According to Gallup's monthly update on job approval of Congress -- in a March 11-14, 2007, national poll -- 28% of Americans approve of the job being done by Congress and 64% disapprove"

The possible impending implosion of the Democratic Party may be fun to watch.

The far left will rip you apart at the seams.

Well, glad to see some fire in his eyes - Finally is standing tall and not taking guff from the Lefties - Reminds me of that same fire glaring from his goggles, when he had a Mig in his sights over Laredo - Damn Commie Bastard never made it to Ft Sill.

Rat-atat-tat Georgie is back in the building, or as Normie would say, "George is my Co-Pilot".

Alright, I know I'm in there. If I don't come out with my hands up, I'm coming in after me.

Posted by: Alberto Gonzales on March 20, 2007 at 10:41 PM | PERMALINK

Bart: [the townfolk aren't happy to find out that their new sheriff is black. They begin to load their guns and point them at him. Bart then points his own pistol at his head] Hold it! Next man makes a move, the nigger gets it!
Olson Johnson: Hold it, men. He's not bluffing.
Dr. Sam Johnson: Listen to him, men, he's just crazy enough to do it!
Bart: Drop it! Or I swear I'll blow this nigger's head all over this town!
Bart: Oh, lo'dy, lo'd, he's despit! Do what he sayyyy, do what he sayyyy...
[the townfolk drop their guns. Bart jams the gun into his neck and drags himself through the crowd and towards the station]
Harriett Van Johnson: Isn't anybody going to help that poor man?
Dr. Sam Johnson: Hush, Harriet, that's a sure way to get him killed!
Bart: Oooh! He'p me, he'p me! Somebody he'p me! He'p me! He'p me! He'p me!
Bart: Shut up!
[places his hand over his mouth, drags himself through the door into his office]

Oh, and Jay - lay off the meds. When people say According to Gallup's monthly update on job approval of Congress -- in a March 11-14, 2007, national poll -- 28% of Americans approve of the job being done by Congress and 64% disapprove, who exactly do you think they are referring to? The Deomcratic House, which has been in power for a few months, or the Republican'ts who have controlled every aspect of government for the last six years?

Republican'ts:

Can't ever see the truth, or tell it...

I will now tell you something for nothing, liberals. Pay attention.

Norman - check your driver's license. Are you sure your name isn't Walter Mitty?

As Normie replies, "Pocketa, pocketa, pocketa"

"...who exactly do you think they are referring to? The Deomcratic House, which has been in power for a few months, or the Republican'ts who have controlled every aspect of government for the last six years?" - Tom

um.....Tom. The questions wasn't "What do you think of Congress's work last year", rather "What do you think of the current Congressional effort?

This poll is taken every month. Just FYI

Pull. Head. Out. Of. Sand

Jay - this poll isn't much different that when the GOP ran Congress.

What's your point?

Pull. Head. Out. Of. Ass.

Norman - check your driver's license. Are you sure your name isn't Walter Mitty?

A sad little fellow named rmck1 used to accuse me of being Walter Mitty. I hope the authorities are treating him well in the home for the criminally insane.

You're one funny troll. To think a big rich investment banker would roll around with the hoi polloi in the blogging trenches.

It must be tough going from drinking $500 bottles of wine in smoke-filled rooms with important GOP operatives to typing comments from mom's basement.

The S&L scandal must have taken its toll on poor Norman "Don't Call me Walter Mitty" Rogers.

Norman, it makes sense for you to note that Permalink reminds you of Parmalat. One fraud thinking of another. Well remembered.

According to Gallup's monthly update on job approval of Congress -- in a March 11-14, 2007, national poll -- 28% of Americans approve of the job being done by Congress and 64% disapprove

This poll is taken every month. Just FYI

Pull. Head. Out. Of. Sand

Mr. Jay, citing poll numbers that shows the unpopularity of Congress doesn't really accomplish much. In modern America, being a Congressman is not a ticket to popularity. All of America is enthralled with the notion that Simon Cowell might kill Ryan Seacrest with the heel of a shattered baseball bat or that the prosthetic leg of Heather Mills McCartney might sail off into the wings and blind a stage hand. Americans dislike Congress intently but they usually re-elect their own, personal Congressman and their state's Senators without much fuss. Politics is an incumbents racket, thank God, otherwise the mouth breathers would be sending fools and radicals up to the hill every two years.

I am relieved that legislation seems to be failing on a regular basis--kudos to the turncoat Democrats who have de-railed the US Senate and left the liberals howling in pain. The trend seems to be that we will retake the Senate in 2008 and have a fair shot at taking back the House.

Word has it that Normie found a printer for Rothschield labels - slaps them on his Thunderbird bottles, or was it "Wild Irish Rose"?

Considering 59% of Americans favor congress passing legislation that would pull US troops out by the end of 2008, most of them are probably pissed off that the Dems haven't already got such legislation together in a big bundle awaiting Bush's veto pen.

The rest of the haters are probably just Americans who loathe congress as a general rule.

Americans like me.

Every other November we take the only poll that matters, Jay. And after the results of the last one, you guys just take your cold comfort where ever you can find it.

Thus, the very same Congressional Republican caucus now pretending to be so shocked and upset over these abuses were the ones who spent the last six years enabling these very abuses. They vested these powers and then completely abdicated their responsibilities to exercise oversight. - Glenn Greenwald

The phrase "conservative misrule" is a redundancy. The two words mean exactly the same thing. - Robert L. Borosage

"Norman Rogers."

Who is Norman Rogers? Why should anyone care what he thinks?

I didn't ask what your name is, Norman. I asked who you are. You appear to be nobody significant.

Via TPM:

..a commenter in our document dump research thread may have been the first to notice that the emails released by the Justice Department seem to have a gap between November 15th and December 4th of last year...

The firing calls went out on December 7th. But the original plan was to start placing the calls on November 15th. So those eighteen days are pretty key ones.

The document dump is missing 18 days' worth of documents.

Again, the number 18 is prominent in a presidents undoing? Maybe 13 isn't the number to avoid afterall...

Norming Norom ---- How's the palace on the beach?

You noticed the no dissent vote in the house, did you, to sub-poena?

Your boys may perhaps finnlly be waking up to the woken up to the fact that being a Republican is a political avocation, that a grave mistake was made in supporting the candidacy of a President and Vice President, one of whom seems to be a Milennialist Fundamentalist loony and the other socio-pathic/megalomanic/paarnoid. Betweenn them they have done the Republican Party many, many years of harm. It is you, the Party members, with your blindness to the Neocon agenda who will have caused it.

No one seems to be mentioning that the DOJ has screwed itself further by leaving out 18 days wortyh of Emails --- covering the actual firing time. Nor has anyone, much, pointed out that Executive Privilege ids not involved in Miers/Rove conversations with the DOJ. What has Bush got to hide?