His electronic presence, I mean. Or guesses as to the topic of the next post?

.."The number of abuses {at least the ones uncovered to date) is relatively small compared to the (and it won't be phrased in this manner) insanely huge number of NSL's issued.

BTW, did I get here late, or did Glenn just post without any typos?

...about that counter-argument. I hadn't read the Post article. The little blurb in the Dallas Morning News (retch!) mentioned only a "limited number" of apparent violations, as I recall.

Don't get your trousers in a twist. It was a light-hearted comment (OK, so sometimes it doesn't translate that well) directed more toward GG than toward you. In the meantime, try to maintain some semblance of civility.

per Glenn's update. Which raises the question, in my mind, as to why there are no (to my knowledge) "NSA surveillance" oversight hearings scheduled. Topic for another day, I guess.

@ WT - "sepulchrally". Terrific word. I'd use it if I could pronounce it.

The DOJ is doing just as they're told...

Disclaimer: This snippet is from a Krugman "Times Select" story as excerpted by Raw Story. Hope I'm not breaking some rule of etiquette by posting it here. It's apropos of the "fired US Prosecutors" controversy.

"Donald Shields and John Cragan, two professors of communication, have compiled a database of investigations and/or indictments of candidates and elected officials by U.S. attorneys since the Bush administration came to power. Of the 375 cases they identified, 10 involved independents, 67 involved Republicans and 298 involved Democrats. The main source of this partisan tilt was a huge disparity in investigations of local politicians, in which Democrats were seven times as likely as Republicans to face Justice Department scrutiny.

How can this have been happening without a national uproar? The authors explain: "We believe that this tremendous disparity is politically motivated and it occurs because the local (non-statewide and non-congressional) investigations occur under the radar of a diligent national press. Each instance is treated by a local beat reporter as an isolated case that is only of local interest."

Not that I'm aware of. I'd like to see that data, now that you bring it up. If I saw a similar pattern, I'd say it seemed to stink to high heaven and was indicative of a pattern of behavior I had serious problems with.

Would you say the same about the data cited?

Twice. And I have to keep siging back in every 5 min. or so.

Does anyone else have this problem?

I thought I'd stop in before commencing my assigned reading {"Prometheus Bound") and it seems the hangers-in are all waxing clownsensical.

I see DaleyCrock has reared his inane head. I don't have the energy (or typing skills) to perform the requisite bitch-slap. But in a nutshell, 'crock - NO, this IG report does NOT seem to fulfill the legislated reporting requirements.

Save the bandwidth. I'm a ghost/vapor.

Peace.

Nobody seems too riled up today, so...

Dem. Rep. Pete Stark just allowed himself to be "outed" (wait for it...) as a "non-theist". The first Congressman ever, apparently. h/t Raw Story

I called Stark's office. They're already getting quite a bit of, shall we say, negative feedback. Show him some love, if you're so inclined.

I agree 100%. Regardless of the fact that I've disagreed w/ some of his past positions - it's about time somebody came out with a rational position on this subject.

Glenn, do you ever submit op-ed pieces to the MSM?

..."impactful". Or, perhaps you don't have enough exposure to Marketing types.

Thanks for that ZNet tip. I subscribed to their email updates.

Committees (Feingold and Conyers) sent scathing letters to Gonzo demanding answers right NOW.

Links available at Raw Story, I believe.

or only w/ FireFox?

http://judiciary.house.gov/Media/PDFS/110-DOJOPRshutdown070315.pdf

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/pdf/ltr_031507_Gonzales.pdf

Her website is here

http://www.justacitizen.com/

And yeah, GG would undoubtedly have a lot of material to work with if he became interested.

Her story ties in quite nicely w/ a number of the themes addressed here lately - gov't malfeasance, state secrets invocation, quashing of whistleblowers/investigations, FBI misconduct, etc. etc.

As if Glenn doesn't have enough to keep him busy. But if he's in a mood for takin' requests...

Sandy Levinson @ Balkinization on Gonezo(gate?) -

"Get the Medal of Freedom Ready"...

w/ what I consider to be the underlying premise of GG's post. The only plausible explanation for the resistance to taping the confessions is - to minimize the potential for contradictory evidence when the Feds later lie under oath about their conduct.

are you calipygian?

Anyway, reading the "LGF" post, I was thinking to myself, "Now he's gone and done it - fused the literary references w/ the brown-shirt persona". Lucky guess on my part, I suppose.

Susan Wood: Don't give away the punch lines!

8')

N/T

ENTIRELY too revealing.

(-6.25, -7.13)

“I would prefer to have the interviews in public, but it is more important to get the information promptly than to have months or years of litigation. If we are dissatisfied with the information provided in the manner offered by the President, we can always issue subpoenas. Before coming to a final decision on my Committee vote, I want to study the law on the scope of executive privilege and discuss these complex issues with my Committee colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans."

BTW, important to point out that Conyers' Subcommittee authorized subpoenas "if necessary" (or some such thing). Didn't issue subs...

Lotsa weasel room here still.

Earlier this (yesterday?) evening I felt compelled (upon catching a snippet of her on the NewsHour) to look up Vashana Shiva and send her an email. Interesting lady. GMTA?

Was there a (Sat. morning) post above this one this a.m.? About the Brits/Iran? Wha' happened? Is it me, or did it vanish?

Found it. User error.

Gonezo's chief counsel pleads the 5th -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032600935.html