Keep in mind:

1. Bush nominated her to be on the Supreme Court. She has a law degree. She must be assumed to be able to decide for herself what information she has that is privileged, and what isn't.

2. Bush is a moron who couldn't even get INTO law school.

3. She is NOT his employee any more.

So, upon what grounds does he ORDER her not to appear. Other than, of course, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

This is exactly why the sentence was commuted rather than a pardon. This pretext allows Libby to continue his appeal process . . . and thus the legal proceedings are NOT over . . . and the President cannot comment.

And the problem is . . . .?????????

And his point?

You could probably say the same thing for Al Capone, or Stalin, or Mao, or Pol Pot . . . genuine belief in a wrong idea is a very dangerous thing.

How about some enlightened skepticism . . . that works for me.

Fuck the race issue; what about the fucking cheating issue?? Last time I looked, Hank Aaron - the record holder - was black. And HE didn't cheat. The problem with Bonds - and with McGuire and Sosa, too - is that their records don't mean jackshit - because THEY CHEATED. Just look at at the steroid-filled pumped up assholes!

Bonds used to look just like Ken Griffey - both about 6'1" - 190 pounds. Then overnight Bonds adds 40 pounds - all upper body - and we're supposed to ignore the fact he now looks like the Mighty Mouse cartoon character???

Babe Ruth hit 714 homeruns drunk - let's see somebody match THAT!

I am, may God have mercy upon me, a relative newcomer to Missourah, and when I first arrived, I was unfamiliar with many local customs: clerks asking "d'ja-want-thet-in-a-sack?" or "ya take the 40-highway" or "the 24-highway", and "the Missouri pull-out", where drivers stopped at side streets wait and wait and wait until you are almost on top of them before pulling out in front of you and proceeding at 7 mph.

But, a few years ago I'm watching an election with friends and some white guy comes on the screen totally red-faced, loudly drunk, beligerent and babbling at the top of his longs.

"Who is this fucking clown", I asked.

"Kit Bond", I was told, "OUR senator."

I've sent Kit a variety of letters over the years, mostly concerned with intelligence matters and the war in Iraq, and on every occasion I get a response acknowledging my inquiry and telling me why I am wrong about the Bush Administration.

In any case, Missouri can boast the number one (#1)incoherent alcoholic in the Senate.

the legislative branch is FIRST among equals, NOT the executive. The Framers were clear about this, they had just deposed a monarch and were in no hurry to set another in his place. And so recognizing that the Congress is the only branch of government directly elected by the people (judges are appointed and the president is elected by the electoral college) they gave the Congress the power to remove ANY officer of the executive or judicial branches.

This was based upon their understanding of human nature, and of the history of the English monarchy. In 1648, Charles I made claims astonishingly similar to the absurd claims of unitary executive power being asserted by Bush and his minions, Yoo and Addington.

Bush says God selected him, and he says that his powers may not be challenged as Commander in Chief. Poppycock and rubbish. Charles Stuart claimed he ruled by Divine Right and that the King Can Do No Wrong.

Parliament, and the strong right arm of Oliver Cromwell, disabused Charles I of his foolish notions by lopping off his head in 1649. This argument has already been decided.

His absurdist fantasies of unlimited vistas of presidential power, and of the mythical unitary executive would be amusing if he were not busily filling the heads of impressionable young law students with his bilge.

All of Yoo and Addington's notions of executive authority were considered and rejected by the Framers, who had just deposed one king and were in no hurry to enable another.

The Framers were also well aware of the sad end of Charles I, who claimed he ruled by Divine Right (as does Chimpy) and claimed the King Can Do No Wrong (as does Chimpy). Both of these silly notions were rebutted when Parliament separated Charles Stuart's head from his shoulders in 1649. And the Framers were fully aware of the import of the act . . .

I can only impute that it's not a job I'd feel comfortable doing, that's for sure.

Yeah, that's right you fat asshole - so sit down and shut the fuck up. We got some work to do here - and it ain't gonna be pretty.

poker players couldn't calculate the mathematical odds on filling an inside straight . . . and didn't care if they lost money????

If you want a social club - try parcheesi or pinochle.

Draft-dodger, drunk-driver, war-profiteer ($7,000,000.00 profit on his Halliburton options alone - about $2,000 per dead GI)- who gives a shit what the latest lies out of this guy are?

Alberto Gonzales is a good guy; Cheney can't remember who sent Gonzales to Ashcroft's bedside; yatta-yatta-yatta; who cares what Cheney's got to say?

The guy was an active participant in the most corrupt and incompetent administration in the history of the Republic. 655,000 innocent Iraqis are dead as a result of George & Dick's Vanity War. Our armed forces are in disarray. 1,000,000,000 Muslims hate our guts. When Cheney dies, I plan to defecate on his grave.

Could someone tell Rummy that "I know I would not engage in a coverup" is actually some kind of tortured future tense, and if he wants to disavow the coverup (which took place beyond any reasonable doubt, and concerning which Rummy's testimony is tantamount to perjury) what he should simple say is:

I did not engage in a coverup.