(continued...)

Moreover, Wells insinuated Tuesday that Cheney's note [seemingly] implicating President Bush in the discrediting of Wilson was one of the 250 pages of emails and documents the White House failed to turn over to investigators who had been probing the leak for more than two years.

Wells insinuated that Cheney's note, because it contained a reference to "this Pres." may have been an explosive piece of evidence that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who at the time of the leak was White House counsel, withheld from investigators, citing executive privilege. Addington told Wells that when subpoenas were first issued by the Justice Department in the fall of 2003, demanding documents and emails relating to Wilson and Plame be preserved, he was given Cheney's notes and immediately recognized the importance of what the vice president had written. Addington said he immediately entered into a "discussion" with Gonzales and Terry O'Donnell, Cheney's counsel, about the note, but Addington did not say whether it was turned over to investigators in the early days of the probe.

Wells's line of questioning is an attempt to shift the blame for the leak squarely onto the shoulders of the White House - a tactic aimed at confusing the jury - and will likely unravel because it has nothing to do with the perjury and obstruction-of-justice charges at the heart of the case against Libby. Still, Tuesday's testimony implicating President Bush may be the most important fact that has emerged from the trial thus far.

Addington revealed during his testimony Monday that in June 2003 there were internal discussions - involving President Bush and Vice President Cheney - about declassifying for specific reporters a portion of the highly classified October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate as a way to counter Wilson's criticisms against the administration. That portion purportedly showed that Iraq was attempting to purchase uranium from Niger to use for building an atomic bomb - a claim that Wilson had debunked when he personally traveled to Niger to investigate it a year earlier.

In late June or early July 2003, "a question was asked of me - by Scooter Libby: Does the president have authority to declassify information?" Addington told jurors Monday, in response to a question by defense attorney William Jeffress. "And the answer I gave was, 'Of course, yes. It's clear the president has the authority to determine what constitutes a national security secret and who can have access to it.'"

President Bush signed an executive order in 2003 authorizing Cheney to declassify certain intelligence documents. The order was signed on March 23, four days after the start of the Iraq War and two weeks after Wilson first appeared on the administration's radar.

-------

Truthout will publish a follow-up to this story, with opinions from legal experts on possible implications of these latest developments for the White House.

...for an encore of the Rosie clip, as if once wasn't more than enough.

Over Norm Coleman - or for that matter, over just about any Repub or Vichy Democrat? Hell, yeah!

an animated version of the steaming crap pile known as "Mallard Fillmore". It'd be almost as funny as this thing.

"B.O." magazine! Ha ha! How clever!

Anonymous: click on Rob's signature to see his video. I don't want to spoil anything but I'd like to know what "professional comedians" have told him that it's funny.

Once you're on the YouTube page, if you click on "robtran" in the box next to the video screen you'll go to his page, which has a number of other videos. I haven't looked at any to see if the one he currently links to is typical or not.

I do like the "Ann Coulter" book cover, though.

Hey Brian, is that really his name? This may be the best name-based news since I found out that Connie Mack (former senator from Florida) is really Cornelius MacGillicuddy III.

from the whatever-the-hell-they're-selling commercial. (Flonase?)

"Most of the American public can't handle true freedom and independence, because true freedom and independence begins in the mind. Average Americans don't want to task their own minds with controversial ideas. Average Americans want to be told what to do and how to think. Agreeing with the status quo is almost viewed as civic duty, right up there with consumption.

The general consensus of average Americans: God loves obedience and comformity.

-- E

Friday, February 16, 2007 16:08:52"

Thank God all of us here are above average - huh, E?

Exactly.

One of the most memorable, though not all that funny, skits on SNL in the past few years was an ad for a new money-strategy book. The title was something like "Don't Spend More Than You Have".

Shouldn't that be "thrilling" conclusion?

Are you sure that "committee chairs are already set for the 110th and won't change"?

I hope so, because that would eliminate a major source of anxiety for me. When Jeffords switched from R to I and aligned himself with the Dems, control of the Senate changed. But I don't remember if that was prior to the actual start of that Congress (107th? 108th?).

One way or the other, I sure hope the Dems are working on switching some Repubs just in case.

It has no bearing on the truth of his climate change arguments. They're either true (to a greater or lesser extent) or not, regardless of his alleged hypocrisy.

And if he is a hypocrite, it puts him in the company of about 6(?) billion other human beings.