i've been looking for a listing of executive priv. quotes from the neo-con supporters and other mouthpieces that will simply contradict, in stark terms, their current positions.

I'm having several million of these printed and putting one under the front door of everyone who spelled the margin of victory in Ohio for the decider in chief.

"He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,"

-- What power the president has is contingent upon Senate approval. Also, Congress has the power to enact laws to regulate how he appoints particular "inferior" officers.

-- acefsw *

That's nice. When we get around to bringing in new USAGs, that will be helpful. Bless your heart.

Have you found any language in there about firing someone? Of course not. Come back when you have something useful to add.

She (Hilary Clinton) conceded that should she win the presidency in 2008, she likely would replace all of the U.S. attorneys appointed by President Bush. She said that's merely following traditions in which presidents appoint prosecutors of their own party.

Hilarious.

Thank you for posting that clip, Glenn, and for expressing so well the outrage we all should feel over the behavior of those supposed journalists.

Huh!?

And who the hell is Griles? Oh, wait, he's a government functionary caught up in the Abramoff business ... sorta like this guy, too.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8FLR3380&show_article=1

Arne, you're always good for a laugh.

Cheers, indeed.

Ha ha, you guys are so funny. I never used the word "perjury" in my posts, and yet you go to such great lengths to show that Hillary was never charged with purjury.

Quite true, you didn't say "perjury". But that's the relevant crime, no? "daleyrocks" used "OOJ". But as I pointed out that requires "corrupt" intent.

Also, as pointed out, there were no indictments (much less convictions) for any crimes here. This is no Libby case. Starting to get the picture?

Say, whatcha think of Griles peading guilty? Another high maladministration official guilty of a felony....

Cheers,

Ha ha, you guys are so funny. I never used the word "perjury" in my posts, and yet you go to such great lengths to show that Hillary was never charged with purjury.

I simply cited Ray's conclusion that Hillary's sworn testimony was "factually false" but Ray declined to pursue criminal charges because he couldn't prove intent to lie. That's always the hardest part of such charges: proving intent.

But the facts gathered showed that Hillary played a large role in the firing of the travel office employees, and how such a brilliant woman with a mind for minutiae could suddenly not remember whole swaths of events simply doesn't pass the smell test.

First you redefine words and then you put words in my mouth. A very, very weak way to try to win an argument.

And Titus Pullo was a major-league ass-kicker who didn't suffer fools lightly.

Cheers to you, Arne. Seems you've been tipping back a bit too much lately.

Titus Pullo was a famous centurion in Rome. The poster stealing his name as his own for use as a screen name is refering to the current original series on HBO called ROME. Great show, and an extremely iteresting character. As I said earlier, too bad such a hogwash spewing poster is using and abusing Pullo's name.

It might help if you read the posts leading up to the actual IC conclusion. If you did, you would find that you are the EEDJIT (h/t Arnie) here.

...available admissable evidence is insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt...

Your shorter morning daleyrocks: insufficient admissable evidence to prove guilt is therefore sufficient proof of guilt.

Hail Idiotica!

*

From Robert Ray's report - Concerning the Firdt Lady's testimony before the grand jury regarding her involvement in the Travel Office firings, the evidence is overwhelming that she did in fact have a role in the decision to fire the employees and that she did have input with Watkins and White House Chief of Staff McClarty, as well as Foster and Thomason. Nevertheless, the available admissable evidence is insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mrs. Clinton knowingly made a false statement in her sworn denial of such a role or input. Notwithstanding Mrs. Clinton's role and input into the decision to fire the Travel Office employees, allegations that her statements to Congress (including her responses incorporated from the GAO investigation)-- on this issue and other Travel Office-related issues -- were knowingly false could not be substantiated beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sounds pretty damning to me. Since this thread was about executive privelege, Travelgate exposed some very fanciful theories of privelege on the part of the Clintonistas. Definitely worth a read.

Yes, tightass, we'd all be so enlightened if we only subscribed to HBO and watched fuxxsnooze and listend to tush fatblob. The point, dullard, is that Bush has taken the exact same offramp that Dickus Tricius took in '73. The difference is that the media is stocked with cowed cowards, and the Murkan public has been dumbed down by 27 years of ray-gun gummint erosion of public education. Oh, and that cakewalk of a war in which we were supposed to be greeted as liberators has now killed far more people than Hussein and Osama Bin Hidin' combined. Now, be a good german and defend Commander Codpiece, Mr. Mission Accomplished hissownself. And blow a hummer for Jayzus.

Yeah, if you redefine words, I guess you're right. But in fact Ray said something very much like Hillary obstructed justice, to wit, her testimony was "factually incorrect"....

I already explained that. I stand by my previosu claim. Perjury requires "knowingly". And OOJ requires "corrupt" intent, although OOJ is not as directly relevant here. That's the actual law ... as opposed to what you want it to be (unless it's a Republican in the crosshairs).

Cheers,

“In my administration, we will ask not only what is legal but what is right, not what the lawyers allow, but what the public deserves.”

George W. Bush

October 2000