I belong to a Hollywood Guild that, back in the day of bulletin boards and during a time of particularly hot debate -- including a lot of revelations regarding misfeasance on the part of leadership -- the bulletin board was summarily shut down by those in power, citing legal issues some lawyer was alleged to have raised. All cohesion among the stormers of the Bastille of entrenched authority was gone in a puff of smoke, confusion reigned and the Big Guys held onto their scepters.

I know it sounds science-fictiony to blast that small-scale, low-tech scenario onto the larger screen of an Internet shut-down by a government fully sold on the idea of a Unitary Executive. I have no idea what it would take or if it's remotely possible. And it sure isn't going to happen in Obama's years in office. But you've got to know the Dick Cheneys of the world have at least explored the possibility, if not drawn up an actual plan.

Some, if not eternal, vigilance is certainly warranted, no?

Download the podcast on iTunes.

What tough decisions did Bush ever make? Ever?? He did exactly what the powers that put him in the presidency wanted him to do. He never bucked the neocon line. He didn't fight for anything, he just did what he felt like doing. Why is he allowed to keep talking about tough decisions?

Patrick, you're always talking about the regional jet pilot in his/her twenties, making crap money. Today, the USAir passengers got an older guy, ex-AF who practically wrote the book on safety and emergency situations.

Following is a snippet (taken w/o permission, sorry) from a customer review of Bugliosi's book on prosecution of Bush:

"Under the customary common law of nations high officials, like countries, are generally regarded as immune from civil or criminal liability for their public and official acts, though not necessarily for private acts. See, e.g., The Permanent Mission of India to the United Nations v. City of New York, 127 S. Ct. 2352, 2356-57 (2007). Presumably, the invasion, backed by a Congressional authorization of use of force, would be a public or official act, as would the President's mendacious propaganda campaign leading to it.

"With respect to public acts, officials are generally protected by a species of immunity called "state act" immunity, while heads of state, like Bush, are generally protected by both state act immunity and also by "head of state" immunity. There does seem to be some uncertainty in the decisional law as to whether such immunities may apply to former heads of state. See, e.g., Plaintiffs A,B,C,D,E,F v. Jiang Zemin, 282 F.Supp. 2d 875 (N.D. Ill, 2003); Aliola v. Abubakar, 267 F. Supp. 2d 907 (N.D. Ill. 2003), which hold that former heads of state are protected by sovereign immunity, while the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has suggested that sovereign immunity might not apply to former heads of state for public or private acts. Republic of the Philippines v. Marcos, 806 F.2d 344, 360 (2d Cir. 1986).

"While the above-cited cases all involve foreign heads of state, for which sovereign immunity is codified in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602 et seq., there is at least some reason to think the same or similar principles might apply to a former U.S. head of state or high official being tried in an American court for crimes involving official acts. Indeed, the Supreme Court has held that the President is absolutely immune from claims for civil damages arising from official acts, Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982), so Bugliosi has the burden of showing that the criminal prosecution he wants to bring is somehow distinguishable."

Writer goes on to say that Bugs failed to do this in his book. This lawyer's words made me wonder whether all our brave talk of prosecution is, in the final analysis, so much pissing into the wind.

QUESTION: But Mr. Vice President, getting from there to here, 4,500 Americans have died, at least 100,000 Iraqis have died. Has it been worth that?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I think so.

This man needs to be kept away from other people.

The top headline on LATimes.com:

Rockets from Lebanon again strike Israel

By Jeffrey Fleishman

Rockets from Lebanon smashed into northern Israel today, provoking a counterattack by Israeli artillery units.

I was under the definite impression that impeachment doesn't involve the same Constitutional protections asa criminal trial. Blag-off is desperate, and rightly so.

"...If they know of any evidence that would show he has stolen votes or violated any election statute..." i.e., a felony crime, are they not required by law to report that fact as well as to provide some factual support for their claim?

And it's you. On what basis do you claim CK is "buying" a Senate seat? Why do you imagine that a statement like that, trying to create racism as if we didn't already have enough of it to go around, is worth making?

...frustrating, because Hewitt kept asking the same question over and over: can you guarantee that your approach would solve every problem in the area, totally and permanently? Glenn kept saying it wasn't quite that simple, but that you have to go with the way more likely to produce the good outcome, and back would come Hewitt, "But what if there's one more rocket after that?"

Still and all, HH did give GG a chance to air his views. Hopefully the audience was able to contrast absolutism on one side from the pragmatism on the other.

It's all about the holocaust, kept alive with movies.

You've lost all credibility in California. The fact that a couple of traitors to the Constitution like you and Rockefeller are against Panetta is a ringing endorsement.

We've had no end of "intelligence" "experts" running the CIA and what has it got us? Back off and let Obama do what we elected him to do.