Of course this is the typical modus operendi. Note that he did not ask Fielding whether Libby was wrongfully convicted. He merely sought some facts that he could throw out to cause the usual fog of deception.

Remember, the last and final accountability moment was in November, 2004.

Let's face it, Bush just helped one of his buds. LisaNova has just about the right take. George W. Bush is golden.

Actually what sounds familiar is Isikoff treating this as if it was serious insider dope rather than the risible line of hosepucky it truly is. I'm trying to imagine Bush scratching the Presidential Pate and wondering if, gosh, d'ya suppose ol' Scootie Poot was mebbe not telling the truth? Mebbe? D'ya think? My garsh what an inpemetrable mystery this whole leak bidness was. I don't spose we'll ever git to the bottom of it.

Oh yeah, right.

Are Congressional Republicans okay with their president overturning a jury verdict? Don't they favor the rule of law? Shouldn't their electorate be informed that their representatives don't favor supporting the very laws passed by Congress? Seems kinda weird to pass laws and then not support them.

Karl Marx famously remarked that historical events occur twice, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. In the case of President Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's prison sentence, Marx had it half-right. Americans are reliving George H.W. Bush's 1992 Iran-Contra pardons, with the same tragic consequences for the rule of law in the United States. All that's missing in 2007 is the convenient death of one of the principal conspirators.

For the full story, see:
"Like Father, Like Son."

George W Bush hoping to make his own facts. What a surprise.
Imagine how much this man ruminates and ties up others trying to invent facts.
Let us never forget the perjury conviction was tied to leaks from his administration
and a CIA agent was outed by our very own government.

"Take a deep breath, feel like you're choking. Everything is broken"
Bob Dylan

Cheney did not directly weigh in with Fielding, but nobody involved had any doubt where he stood. "I'm not sure Bush had a choice," says one of the advisers. "If he didn't act, it would have caused a fracture with the vice president."

Gee, that sounds like a bit of a contradiction to me and exactly what kind of fracture are we talking about here? Is it something like a hairline fracture?

Anyways, poor littel whussy Bushie never was the decider - he only played one on TV as the evidence keeps showing that Bush is merely the presidential face.

What about Federer?

Reminds me of that time right after Katrina where they were looking for dead millionaires floating face down in the water so they could argue against the estate tax. Unfortunately no dead millionaires showed up to help them, but strangely enough it did not seem to inform their position on the matter.

Yes, Furious. I referred the other day to this article.
Iran-Contra special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh reacted angrily to Bush 41's pardons, concluding, "the Iran-contra cover-up, which has continued for more than six years, has now been completed."
In light of the pardons and Bush's withholding of key sections of his own vice presidential diaries
("I would never do it. I would never surrender such documents and I wouldn't keep such detailed notes"), it is no wonder Walsh's final report concluded, "The criminal investigation of Bush was regrettably incomplete." Perrspectives

And it sounds very much like Patrick Fitzgerald having sand thrown in his eyes by the obstructionist tactics of Scooter "Skater" Libby and ultimately by our government.

A total mockery of justice since the judge and jury believed Libby lied.
My ass, Bush respects the jury's verdict.

Banana republic

The key is living your own reality. That is exactly what George Bush does. He lives his own reality. Sadly he makes us share it with him.

Federer?

Let's not forget this fact about Katrina/New Orleans:

"As the levees cracked open and ushered hell into New Orleans on Tuesday, President Bush once again chose to fly away from
We can all enumerate the many differences between a natural catastrophe and a terrorist attack. But character doesn't change: it is immutable, and it is destiny.

As always, the president's first priority, the one that sped him from Crawford toward California, was saving himself: he had to combat the flood of record-low poll numbers that was as uncontrollable as the surging of Lake Pontchartrain."
Frank Rich "Falluja Floods the Superdome"

Whoops--half of Frank Rich's quote disappeared:

"As the levees cracked open and ushered hell into New Orleans on Tuesday, President Bush once again chose to fly away from Washington, not toward it, while disaster struck. We can all enumerate the many differences between a natural catastrophe and a terrorist attack. But character doesn't change: it is immutable, and it is destiny."

Ah, Kevin.

Bush made the right choice, Kevin. Bush can pardon anyone he wants.

Further, there is no UNDERLYING crime! It's like sending someone to prison for flunking their entrance exam. Come on.

DrBB got it almost right (but he/she may have been totally right, I might just be misreading his inferences):

The fact that "Investigative Journalists" like Isikoff keep reporting with a straight face anything that comes from any WH insider as "fact" is beyond laughable. THEY ARE ALL LYING. To read interpretations of Bush's or Cheney's behavior from what their aides tell the mainstream press is to buy into the frames they want you to.

They are just trying to further muddy the water: the WHOLE THING IS ONE GIGANTIC COVERUP. Of course Bush knew Scooter is guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice -- he is part of the conspiracy. The goal of the investigation into the leak and subsequent questioning of reporters and finally a trial of Libby was always to make sure that the voters would never get the straight dope so they could exercise accountability over the war. Bush and Cheney were obstructing justice to try and get past November 2004, and then November 2006 with a Repub Congress. That's the whole story. Everything else is part and parcel with the same techniques and spinning they used to lie us into this war and then coverup their lies.

I suppose "the usual way" includes taking one part of one paragraph in one story and using that to try and make a point that the original source really wasn't making.

Moreover, Isikoff has a couple of big errors in his story:

"Inside Bush's decision to give Scooter Libby a pass."

Uh, Scooter didn't get a pass. Only part of his sentence was commuted.

"the evidence was strong that Libby testified falsely about his role in the leak."

Scooter was found guilty about testifying falsely about his recollections of a conversation with Russert. He was not prosecuted for anything regarding the leak (which Fitz already knew cam from Armitage). Hence the legitimate complaints by Libby's supporters that he was prosecuted despite the fact there was no underlying criminal case.

"Bush vowed to fire anyone on his staff who leaked classified information about Plame to the press."

Bush vowed to fire anybody who broke the law with regard to the Plame leak.

What about Federer?

I'm pretty sure Bush didn't ask Federer for his opinion of the Libby verdict.

Then again, you never know....

Hacksaw, I looked at the clip. Actually Bush promised to take care of anybody who broke the law. Those foolish reporters assumed he meant fire them. Now we know what he really meant.

Don't forget this, due Monday 7/9:

WASHINGTON (AP) 7/2/07 — President Bush forced the CIA leak case into uncharted legal territory when he commuted the prison sentence of former White House aide I. Lewis �Scooter� Libby, a federal judge said Tuesday.

Bush eliminated Libby’s 2 1/2-year prison term and left in place his two years of supervised release. But supervised release — a form of probation — is only available to people who have served prison time. Without prison, it’s unclear what happens next.

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton posed the question to Libby’s attorneys and to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald: Does this mean Libby won’t actually be required to serve supervised release? Should he just have to report to probation officials as if he spent time in prison?

The law, Walton said in court documents, �does not appear to contemplate a situation in which a defendant may be placed under supervised release without first completing a term of incarceration.�

For now, it appears Libby is in legal limbo. Walton gave both sides until Monday to respond.

Kevin: "Same ol', same ol'. If the facts turn out to be disagreeable, then ignore them and do whatever you wanted to do in the first place. Sound familiar?"

"He knows nothing, and he thinks he knows everything. That points clearly to a political career."-- George Bernard Shaw, Irish dramatist (1856-1950)

If there were no underlying crime then Libby wouldn't have perjured himself to hide it.

Hacksaw, a punishment that has no effect is a pass. Even a complete moron like yourself should be able to recognize this simple fact. "Scooter" wrote a check for the fine without even breaking a sweat and has a $5 Million fund for his defense. It was a pass.

I like how Frank Rich continues to hammer Dubya on the character issue:

"...People don’t change. Mr. Bush’s failure to have the courage of his own convictions was apparent early in his history, when he professed support for the Vietnam War yet kept himself out of harm’s way when he had the chance to serve in it. In the White House, he has often repeated the feckless pattern that he set back then and reaffirmed last week in his hide-and-seek bestowing of the Libby commutation..."

Sound familiar?

Yes. Sounds rather Clintonesque, actually.

Sounds rather Clintonesque, actually. Brian at 7:02 PM

"This country is in the grip of a President who was not elected, who has surrounded himself with thugs in suits who care nothing about human life abroad or here, who care nothing about freedom abroad or here, who care nothing about what happens to the earth... The so-called war on terrorism is not only a war on innocent people in other countries, but it is also a war on the people of the United States: a war on our liberties, a war on our standard of living. The wealth of the country is being stolen from the people and handed over to the superrich. The lives of our young are being stolen. And the thieves are in the White House."
Howard Zinn
*****
"George Bush and corporate America are intent on eliminating taxes on all capital incomes. Nor do they care if record budget deficits are the result. Many of their more right-wing friends, including those in Congress, actually want larger deficits. They see chronic, record deficits as producing the budget crisis necessary to use as an excuse to privatize Social Security and dismantle what remains of the Roosevelt New Deal programs of the 1930s."
Jack Rasmus

I think this is a very interesting part of the Rich Op-Ed

"Had the president wanted to placate the Weekly Standard crowd, he would have given Mr. Libby a full pardon. That he served up a commutation instead is revealing of just how worried the president is about the beans Mr. Libby could spill about his and Dick Cheney’s use of prewar intelligence."

"Valerie Wilson still has a civil suit pending. The Democratic inquisitor in the House, Henry Waxman, still has the uranium hoax underlying this case at the top of his agenda as an active investigation. A commutation puts up more roadblocks by keeping Mr. Libby’s appeal of his conviction alive and his Fifth Amendment rights intact. He can’t testify without risking self-incrimination."

That's great, Frank Rich hammers GwB. Where was Rich when it mattered in the 2000 campaign??

Rich—as big a hack as there is in the business

Rich’s own cosmic blunders from Campaign 2000, when he assured us all that Bush and Gore were two equally unworthy dopes, and that it couldn’t possibly matter which one of the two got elected.

Gore has been right on every big judgment, but, to Rich, he’s still a big dope! After all, his film has multicultural audiences!

As noted, Rich’s record in the past decade has been a virtual political obscenity—if you’re troubled by the fact that Bush ended up in the White House. He seems like a perfectly decent guy when we see him on TV—and we assume that he is a nice person. But Democrats should be very unhappy with his work—unless they’re too much in love with the way he beats up on hicks from the red states. Rich’s record? In 1997, he invented the screaming Love Story nonsense—a slander which was used to trash Gore all though Campaign 2000.

Oh, good, Frank Rich helped elect GwB and now he "hammers" him. Great. Super.

Bush made the right choice, Kevin. Bush can pardon anyone he wants.

Oh, I get it.

He can pardon anyone he wants. Therefore pardoning anyone - regardless of what that person has been convicted of doing - is ok.

In other words, if Bush does it, it's the right choice.

Thanks for clearing that up, Egbert, you fu&%ing half-wit.

Bush was intensely focused on the matter...

LOL.
We are supposed to believe that?
Sir Mumble-jumble?
Intensely focused?
LOL.

The only thing Bush intensely focuses on his golf game, horseshoes, mountain bike rides, and what the house nigga's are cooking him for dinner.

This ass had only one thing he might have been a good leader at:

The Exercise President.

But the one thing he could have spoken about with authority he never did.

Intesely focused my muscular ass.
Bush is pure fuck up: top to bottom.

Bush... and anybody supporting him, ought to be dragged screaming to Iraq, and left behind there... to make ME democracy work.

Bastards are god damn lucky I am not a god.
Because if I was:

Cheney would be blowing Arab sand out of his nose and a-hole. And Bush would be intensely focused on finding a spidey hole somewhere outside of Baghdad.

Scooter was found guilty about testifying falsely about his recollections of a conversation with Russert. He was not prosecuted for anything regarding the leak (which Fitz already knew cam from Armitage). Hence the legitimate complaints by Libby's supporters that he was prosecuted despite the fact there was no underlying criminal case.

Hack - lovely, the way you put it: "found guilty about [sic - I believe in English, the preposition is "of"] testifying falsely about recollections of a conversation . . ."

Enough qualifiers there? The way you tell it, no one could ever be found guilty of lying under oath (perjury). Instead, that person is simply guilty of having, perhaps, a false memory. That is completely and utterly stupid. Whatever Libby's excuse was, it didn't pass the laugh test when examined by a jury of his peers, who found, unanimously, that Libby had lied under oath.

Yes, he was prosecuted for something "regarding the leak," namely, not being forthcoming about the persons to whom he had leaked the story and the time at which he did so.

Any thoughts about Libby's initial opening argument, in which his lawyers claimed Libby was essentially the fall guy for Cheney? No one forced him / his defense team to make that argument. So, were they lying?

There was no underlying crime.

There is only a crime that continues to overlay the whole administration.

It's not only a crime in the legal sense, but also a deeply immoral act, this act of sending our kids to die for your personal gain-- whatever the perceived gain was: re-election, revenge for trying to 'kill my daddy', vanity, profits for the oil companies, or whatever else.

The people in-charge are very immoral men, never mind their oh so public professions of faith and religosity and piousness.

TJ:
I respect a person's progress with speaking truth to power.
In the psychiatric rehabilitation business, one learns to respect change.

No underlying crime, but Libby repeatedly lied about. What a stupid, stupid man.

"The goal of conservative rulers around the world, led by those who occupy the seats of power in Washington, is the systematic rollback of democratic gains, public services, and common living standards around the world."
Michael Parenti
*****
" To accept opinions is to gain the good solid feeling of being correct without having to think. "
C. Wright Mills - from the book The Power Elite
*****
" The only way to abolish war is to make peace heroic."
John Dewey, American philosopher and educator, 1859-1952
*****

TJ: A lot of us (me included) have been atoning ever since. I voted "correctly" - not that it ultimately mattered, but in fairness, it was a vastly different political climate then.

You are very wise, BlueGirl. I admire you.

More quotes:
George Carlin: about the Bush-Kerry Debate] "Finally someone stood up to the little oil pimp. This guy who somehow has managed to combine Yale intellectualism with the American cowboy myth and be completely inauthentic in both roles. That's what I see in Bush. He's an empty suit."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tucker Carlson: "I mean, look, no matter how you feel about Bush, watching him speak is difficult. It's like - it's like watching a drunk man cross an icy street."

Children quickly learn a basic lesson when a parent makes a lot of hollow threats about their bad behavior, but they never follow through. The child learns there are no consequences, so why not just quietly go ahead and act badly?

The same reasoning applies to Bush's relationship to Congress. They make a lot of hollow threats and never really do anything. So, Bush, infantile bed-wetter that he is, just continues to misbehave. The Democrats aren't going to do anything to him - they are too scared. So, why should he do anything but tell them to take a flying f*ck at a rolling doughnut?

There's no such thing as legacies. At least, there is a legacy, but I'll never see it." -George W. Bush, speaking to Catholic leaders at the White House, Jan. 31, 2001

"I am mindful not only of preserving executive powers for myself, but for predecessors as well." -George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Jan. 29, 2001

Two nights ago a poll was released that showed 45% of Americans believe Bush should be impeached. 56% of Americans believe Cheney should be impeached. These are startling numbers, but as you are aware, the national media reflects none of this reality. The debate is whether Bush's pardon was politically appropriate or even wise. We know the reality of the situation. We can act. And the numbers support us. It's as simple as this. If everyone who felt that Bush and Cheney should be impeached called the White House, called Nancy Pelosi, called Harry Reid, called their congresspeople, the criminals would be gone.

If only ten percent of the people who felt that way called, the response would be the same.

It's as simple as that. If you act on your disgust, outrage, and indignation, change will happen. They will be gone. Democracy will be intact.

I encourage you to act.

Nancy Pelosi: 202-225-4965

Harry Reid: 202-224-3542

The White House: 202-456-1111

How to find your representatives.

Deron Bauman,

Haven't you heard, impeachment is off the table. This morning George Stephanopoulis was shocked to hear Conyers use the "I" word.

We have to find a way to encourage Democratic office holders to even consider the wishes of the American people.

Deron

Instead of merely calling Nancy Pelosi maybe she could find a way to put impeachment back on the table if a million of us politely send her pictures of tables of all shapes and sizes.

Stephanopoulis similarly battered Hagel on the impeachment issue.
I disliked the show today and found Steph disappointing and rather grating throughout.
He also kept interrupting Katrina from The Nation, yet she held her own very well on the panel. She is extremely well spoken given the pressure of getting time to state thoughts on these Sunday news shows. She manages that factor well.

Not if everyone who felt that way spoke up.

I'm very serious, cwa. If everyone who feels this way acts, they will be gone.

More hack than saw, apparently...

I think cwa was talking about Katrina VandenHeuvel, not Nancy Pelosi - but yeah - we all need to tell Nancy P that impeachment is definitely on the table. I went so far a to rename my cat.

I'm sure, Davis, that Hacksaw will tell us that he is not a Republican. Just as we've seen several others whose posts are consistently filled with RNC talking points and who are impervious to reality do. I won't name names simply because there's no point in calling those clowns to the board to regurgitate spin points.

Deron,

Here's the deal. The Democratic leadership thinks there isn't enough time to impeach GWB and Dick Cheney before next election cycle. They know that impeachment would fail. They fear it would ignite the Republican base.

They would rather keep us whipped up with investigation after investigation. Come the next election they figure we don't have any place to go and they will sweep the Republicans right out of Washington

They feel the same way about the Iraq war. They won't end the damn thing and save lives as long as they think they can use the war to keep us all whipped up. That's why they didn't force a showdown earlier. That's why they won't force a showdown now. They are willing to let the President win victory after victory extending the war Friedman upon Friedman knowing that we aren't going anywhere and we are getting madder by the day.

That's right Deron. Just like the Republican leadership they are cynical bastards every one. Right now I don't know if there is anybody in Washington worth a bucket of warm spit.

Unless we can create a downside for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid they and their crowd will just keep plugging along. We need to give them a reason to watch their political backs.

Personally I am waiting for somebody to start a third party. Mike Gravel and Ron Paul look better all the time.

Change? Do you really think this represents change from Rich? Or is it another pusillanimous pundit blowing in the wind.
Rich and Maureen Dowd took an aside in a long conversation between Al Gore and Karen Tumulty of Time and turned it into a sign that Al Gore didn't know who he was; he was a serial liar.
You are too kind or perhaps naive to think that just because Rich wrote something you agree with, he's somehow changed.
Bad judgment is just that, bad judgment. A sign that having occurred once it lurks just beneath the surface waiting a chance to strike again. The way Hillary voted?

Well, then, I had bad judgment then ann have nothing worthwhile to contribute no because I was wrong then.

Just sayin'..........

"A fracture with the Vice President"? What crap. I wonder what hold Cheney has on Bush, anyway. If there really were a difference of opinion between the two, why couldn't Bush threaten Cheney with demotion to traditional VP-hood? That is, cut his staff back to the level of Dan Quayle's staff, cut his duties to attending funerals.

But for some reason, Bush is just fine with letting Cheney run the show. I guess that way, he has plenty of time for his workouts and his frequent vacations.

Our poor, brain-damaged renegade President . . .

Ron, I think if even ten percent of the people who felt the way we do spoke directly to congress they would do something.

It would be unprecedented. All I'm asking is that each person that feels that way calls.

Call Pelosi. Call Reid. Call their representative. Call the White House.

Call the mainstream media.

Since the commutation, I have been in touch with all of them, including my Texas Republican representatives. And I let them know that Bush's actions showed he believed himself to be above the law.

I reminded them that no President had ever pardoned someone who lied about and obstructed an investigation into that President's administration.

This is so clearly a criminal act. If we explain it as such, no argument can be made against it.

And again, if even ten percent of the at least 100 million voters who want them gone called, they would be gone.

Talk about democratic action.

The Bush administration is like a little illustration of Marx's theory of history: it begins in tragedy, and ends in farce.

By declining to vacate the probationary portion of the sentence, Bush enabled Libby to retain his privilege against self-incrimination. I wonder how many administration officials (perhaps including Karl Rove, who made several grand jury appearances in this case) have been scared shitless that Libby's allegedly faulty memory would improve the moment he set foot in a prison.

Talk about burying the lede. From the same piece:

"Cheney did not directly weigh in with Fielding, but nobody involved had any doubt where he stood. "I'm not sure Bush had a choice," says one of the advisers. "If he didn't act, it would have caused a fracture with the vice president."

So if Blair was Bush's Poodle, it stands to reason that Bush is Cheney's Mongrel Bitch.

Well, then, I had bad judgment then and have nothing worthwhile to contribute now because I was wrong then.

Just sayin'......

I'm not looking to your judgment, your ability to discern the right course, your resistance to the political winds and measuring that judgment as a candidate for President. The Democrats who voted for the AUMF were afraid of looking "weak on national security" and being pilloried for it the next time they ran for office. They knew Rove and the Republicans would come after them. So, they (Hillary, Kerry et al) took the expedient path, an expediency that has us in Iraq That example of bad judgment weighs heavily (for me) when considering candidacy for the highest office. As Rich's bad judgment in lying to his readership about Al Gore causes me to ignore him because now he goes after such a soft target.

Just sayin'........

. I wonder what hold Cheney has on Bush, anyway. ...why couldn't Bush threaten Cheney with demotion to traditional VP-hood?

Um, for the same reason small children rarely issue threats to adults?

Bush is a cowardly, posturing adolescent. Cheney is grim and authoritative. Nuff said.

Will someone please setup a website so that ordinary citizens can sign-on to the congressional move to censure the president?

I think that the great number of Americans who would sign such a petition would put the fear of God (and election defeat) into any Republicans who, facing reelection in 2008, still support this administration's war on Iraq and the rule of law.

Unless we can create a downside for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid they and their crowd will just keep plugging along. We need to give them a reason to watch their political backs.

Personally I am waiting for somebody to start a third party.

As long as people who grumble are content "waiting" for someone else to act, none of the cynical politicians you point to will have any motivation to change.

Of course, some people are already acting to create a downside for, at least, Pelosi, who is certainly the more vulnerable of the two.

Why W. Bush's intransigence is unrecognizable to so many Americans is unrecognizable to me.

Hacksaw: Hence the legitimate complaints by Libby's supporters that he was prosecuted despite the fact there was no underlying criminal case.

The speculation that there was no underlying criminal case is exactly that - speculation; it is not a "fact," unless you are using one of those weird definitions for English words that occur only in the Conservative Dictionary of Convenient Misdefinitions to Use for Partisn Arguments.

It is not a legitimate complaint.

A large number of perjury cases would never be prosecuted if there had to be proof of an underlying crime and the law-and-order dimwits in the conservative sphere are hardly going to make that a general rule applicable to anyone other than party loyalists, including quite clearly former President Clinton.

Not to mention it is irrational to have a crime that is always dependent upon the proof of another crime - you might as well simply make it a single crime.

No, there is nothing legitimate in the conservative argument that the lack of an underlying crime renders Libby's crimes (emphasize plural) irrelevant, insignificant or otherwise inactionable, even if it was a "fact" (however conservatives are now defining this word) that there was no underlying crime.

I hear absolutely no conservative ranting on the airways about the thousands of Americans serving time or being prosecuted for the same or similar crimes despite the lack of an underlying crime, much less about the prosecution of Clinton for a situation that didn't even involve an underlying crime, but merely a civil action without merit, nor do I see Bush leaping to pardon them or get Congress to rewrite the law to absolve current convictions or prevent future ones.

Conservative cries of lack of fairness are simply confirmed as pathetic and ugly hypocrisies.

Perjury is the act of lying or making verifiably false statements on a material matter under oath or affirmation in a court of law or in any of various sworn statements in writing.

Note, the definition of "perjury" is not the following:

Perjury is the act of lying or making verifiably false statements on a material matter concerning, relating to, relevant to, or in furtherance of an underlying crime, under oath or affirmation in a court of law or in any of various sworn statements in writing.

If you and other conservatives want, for partisan purposes, to assert a definition of perjury is something different than what it actually is for the rest of the English-speaking world, we won't be shocked, but don't pretend to be proffering a "legitimate" opinion on Libby's prosecution while invoking an illegitimate definition of "perjury" in doing so.

Proposed new wikipedia edit:

Perjury is considered a serious offense, except when committed by a Republican acting on behalf of conservative political goals in which case it is considered a trivial offense, as it can be used to usurp the power of the courts, resulting in miscarriages of justice. In the United States, for example, the general perjury statute under Federal law provides for a prison sentence of up to five years, and is found at 18 U.S.C. § 1621. See also 28 U.S.C. § 1746. However, if you are a Republican convicted of perjury, no imposition of a sentence, even at the behest of a Republican prosecutor and by a Republican trial judge, and as upheld by a Republican-dominated appellate court, will be tolerated by conservative partisans or allowed to stand by any Republican president.

I support that edit.

brian:>/b> "Yes. Sounds rather Clintonesque, actually."

It was a rhetorical question. Most certainly, nobody asked you.