I was able to suppress my gag reflex long enough to watch most of the clip, but I'll admit the giggly stuff was a little too much for me.

This isn't all that complicated: if the President wants to fire a U.S. Attorney, he has that right. In theory, if he orders a U.S. Attorney to take a gun and go hold up a liquor store, and the prosecutor refuses, in a very narrow sense the President has the authority to fire him.

As long as Chris Matthews doesn't allow any follow-up questions, I suppose that does end the discussion -- but if you get a follow-up, the question is, "Were any other laws broken here?"

In point of actual fact, it is illegal to induce (or attempt to induce) someone to commit a crime, even if your method of applying pressure is entirely within your legal authority. Holding up a liquor store remains illegal, at least in the jurisdiction I live in.

The argument over the President's authority is a straw man. The crime here was in the White House turning the Justice department into an arm of the RNC, at taxpayer expense. It is illegal for a prosecutor to abuse his office by launching a bogus investigation against a political opponent, and it is illegal for anyone to pressure a prosecutor to drop an investigation against a political ally. While the Patriot Act did give Justice a loophole for appointing interim prosecutors indefinitely (i.e., without Senate confirmation), lying to congress about your intent to avoid Senate confirmation is against the law. Conspiring to do so makes all conspirators equally guilty.

"Pangs of paranoia"? "Invisible umbilical cord"? I'm just trying to figure out if there are any other negative stereotypes of working mothers that have been left out here (I assume "parents" are just code words for "mothers", since fathers don't normally have umbilical cords). Yep, there it is -- we're overly obsessive, materialistic, blah blah blah. I send my daughter out to the store for a quart of milk, and then call because I forgot to tell her I also need oranges, that makes me paranoid? Controlling? Obsessive? I'm unable to just let her go out and play? Is it possible there's no sinister explanation here -- I bought my 11-year-old daughter a cellphone because it's convenient and I see no reason at all why I have to go through life doing everything the hard way. No mention in this article of the fact that the once-ubiquitous pay phones seem to have quietly vanished from every street corner and bus stop. How about this: I bought my 11-year-old a cellphone for the same reason I wash clothes in a washing machine, instead of beating them over a rock. Because technology makes my life easier.

It takes a lot of intellectually contorted gymnastics to twist every little development into an indictment of Modern Parents And How Terrible They Are.

I went to law school when I was 28, so maybe I had a little distance from things -- but I'm amazed at the descriptions people have posted here. Aside from a couple of known assholes, my law school classmates were across the board bright, ethical, thoughtful people. No backstabbing, just a lot of really bright, driven students.

I wouldn't assume too quickly that the Dean of Students has not taken action, just because LW hasn't seen results. Looking at this situation from the Dean's perspective, there now exists a complaint, backed up by evidence on paper, showing that a student got drunk and broke another student's nose, and posted about it on the internet. The fact that LW was also drunk at the time is completely irrelevant. He has to listen to the other side of the story -- he can't just boot this kid out. After all, LW could have fabricated the whole thing. He also can't just sit tight and do nothing, because if the situation repeats itself next year, with the same two students, or one or more other students -- then there's a "history" of the school ignoring violence, placing students at risk. That's an invitation to a lawsuit. So "do nothing" may not be an option.

If somebody intentionally hits someone else hard enough to break the nose (and it's not an accident), that's a matter for the police. You don't involve yourself with reporting things to the State Bar Ethics Committee. That's the Dean's job. If the police report results in charges being brought, the matter will have to be disclosed to the State Bar Ethics Committee when the bully applies for admission.

Whether or not it all took place in the context of a law school is meaningless, so I don't get all the advice about whether or not to sue. Step One is to report a crime to the police. If the internet postings contain threatening material, that's a matter for the FBI.

I would go back to the Dean of Students, and ask him outright what steps he intends to take. LW is obviously distressed and has every right to know whether he/she will be at physical risk in school. The decision as to whether or not to sue isn't really appropriate for Cary Tennis' column.

I may be suffering from Scooter Libby Memory Syndrome, here, but didn't Bush's top hatchetman Dick Cheney taunt Democrats for having passed a nonbinding resolution, last go-round, and dare them to withhold funding for the war?

Or am I imagining things?

I'm not sure what they're trying to accomplish here, since an ultrasound of a first-trimester fetus pretty much looks like a blurry salamander. But if this idea is constitutional, then we should steal the idea -- it's time we required military inductees to first view photos of soldiers killed by IED's, or others coming home with arms and legs missing, or perhaps we should force them first to be "counselled" by grieving children and parents of the dead.