"I seem to have read something about the NRCC about this same time:

F.B.I. Investigates Missing G.O.P. Money

By PHILIP SHENON

Published: March 6, 2008

WASHINGTON — Hundreds of thousands of dollars are missing and presumed stolen from the chief fund-raising arm of House Republicans, according to party officials who described the findings of emergency internal audits.

The financial records of the group, the National Republican Congressional Committee, may also have been falsified for several years, Republican officials said. The campaign committees of several Republican lawmakers may also have been victims of a scam that is now under criminal investigation by the F.B.I.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/washington/06gop.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

"As can be seen, there is no mention of Mr. Blakeman in any of this, either. But it seems Mr. Forti may have left the NRCC "Expenditures" gig during some very exciting and challenging times there.

"-- casual_observer Friday, July 18, 2008 09:53 AM"

That should be sufficient proof for even the most skeptical that the Republican party's treasury is NOT the US treasury. When the former is robbed, it is a crime. When the latter is robbed by the Republican Party and its criminal cronies, it is redistribution of wealth hidden behind the lie that Republicans are opposed to redistribution of wealth.

"@ AnnieW

"the Beatles were the single worst thing to befall America."

"Well, if you play there records backwards...

"-- Strangely Enough Friday, July 18, 2008 09:53 AM"

It was Elvis, not The Beatles, who encouraged the mixing of the races. If not for him, radio, and the musics played on them, would still be segregated by race.

And I'll bet the twisted Von Spakowski is an Elvis fan . . .

The references to comments by Mukasey, Gonzales, Ashcroft and others about "serving the President" reminded me of the well-known phrase Rumsfeld used that he served "at the pleasure of the President". And while I can't point to a specific instance of this phrase having been used before Rumsfeld, it seems familiar; I am sure that phrase had been used before; and the idea of the President supervising the executive branch is commonplace, even axiomatic.

In the Constitution, though, all I find regarding the organization of the executive branch in Article II is this:

"...[the President] may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices..."

This doesn't give the President *any* authority to direct, let alone relieve, cabinet officers. So, where does this idea come from, that Senate-confirmed officers "serve at the pleasure of the President"?