I've got a double-whammy, senior and blonde. I never know which it is at any given moment. ;-}

exceedingly difficult to rid ourselves of Cheney's "unitary executive" ideas.

I read with approval until I got to your attack points and realized this will probably degenerate into a "back atcha" set of counterinsults--instead of a real response from Shooter. Hope I'm wrong. -- LindaAnne

Sadly you'll find that quite a few commentors here feel the need to be verbally abusive. It's the sort of thing commonly found when conventional wisdom is challenged and found wanting.

As for his questions I find it odd that for years he and the peanut gallery here have declared Bush and all criminals. The calls for investigation echo round the room on a daily basis, with "rule of law" pontifically intoned at every opportunity. Yet when someone on their "team" is subject to the terms they demand, foul is protested. It's garden variety hypocrisy.

There are more than a few reasons to believe Bush followed the rule of law, by virtue of his powers listed in the Constitution. In order to pursue this, the Supreme Court would be involved, Congress investigated, all our intelligence apparatus exposed, and would completely overshadow Obama for years to come. But it never ceases to amaze me what the people here will tear down, for their pound of flesh.

Moreover, at the end of all that, it may turn out like the two year investigation into the Plame leakages, where noone was indicted for the leaks, including the actual perps, who were known to Fitzgerald even before the investigation began.

Certainly Tamm is entitled to presumption of innocence, just like Bush and Blago. But Tamm knew exactly what he was doing and what he was in for.

Meanwhile in the Times desire to wound Bush, legitimate programs like the Swift banking affair were exposed making the tracing of funds impossible. Quite frankly, it's my opinion that adolescent desires for revenge and retribution are at work here, for slights real and imagined going all the way back to the 7-2 Supreme Court decision in 2000. There is no nobility here.

This is not the first time that Obama has used suggestively imprecise language.

Obama also said:

“I would call my attorney general in and review every single executive order issued by George Bush and overturn those laws or executive decisions that I feel violate the constitution”

I'm reasonably certain, that in saying this, Obama was not intending on essentially stating what I understand to be the doctrine of the unitary executive - that is, that the president has the supreme power to interpret the law, including the constitutionality of the law.

But then there's that constitutional scholar thang...

How many different kinds of stupid can a person be?

that would negatively impact his client's legal position concerning past illegal acts allegedly commited for which counsel is retained to defend against. He could and would be presented with a choice to divulge only precisely that which could prevent the future commission of a crime by an existing client.

That Pres. Bush was not his client, as the DOJ is not the President's personal legal counsel in a particular criminal matter, what Mr. Tamm became privy to is not protected in any way from disclosure by him (to the best of my knowledge). Whichever lawyer allowed whatever information Mr. Tamm now possesses, if allowed to come into Tamm's hands inappropriately, would be on the hook for not properly safeguarding his client's (Bush or whomever) information/confidential secrets if disclosed to counsel with the expectation of confidentiality.

As far as statutory law, what's worse--breaking the law by not divulging a secret illegal warrantless spying program in direct contravention of the law or outing a known covert operative of the CIA for politically retributive purposes? Whistleblower protections are the weakest tea in the law, and do nothing to protect you from the political and economic retribution (much less the legal) that will necessarily follow.

That's very interesting about NewsMax's added C's.

My empathy for the double whamy. Ouch! ;-) They say this too will pass.

Specter Attacks Choice for Attorney General

NYT, By ERIC LICHTBLAU, Published: January 6, 2009 (see sig)

WASHINGTON — A leading Republican senator issued a broad attack on Tuesday on President-elect Barack Obama’s pick as attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., questioning his political independence.

The senator, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who is the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said Mr. Holder’s support of the White House’s stance on three contentious issues when he was deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration suggested that he was too willing to do the president’s bidding.

[…]

Mr. Specter, first elected to the Senate in 1980, has been an influential voice on judiciary and law enforcement matters for years. His aggressive questioning in 1991 of Anita Hill, a law professor who accused the Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment, helped clear the way for Mr. Thomas’s confirmation. Mr. Specter’s loss of confidence in Alberto R. Gonzales as President Bush’s attorney general helped spur Mr. Gonzales’s resignation in 2007.

Before Tuesday, Mr. Specter had been mildly critical of Mr. Holder’s role in President Bill Clinton’s pardon of the fugitive financier Marc Rich. He said Tuesday that he would wait until the hearing next week to decide how he would vote, but in the Senate speech he let loose on Mr. Holder, comparing him with Mr. Gonzales in his ability to maintain independence from the president.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/us/politics/07holder.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

i makes one want to cry...

cry foul

just cry

marc

to me why the Republicans are so fixated on the Rich pardon?

I don't doubt that Ondelette heard it as he said, but your link doesn't quote Obama, it paraphrases him. If that is what he said, he most certainly does know better, which is not a good sign. It's called, lying to the American people.

I know this has been done to death but it is still,IMHO, the best way to keep politicians from becoming institutions unto themselves.

I'd like to propose term limits with a twist; Give them 4-6 years initially then if they want to run for reelection in the House or Senate they have to be approved by voters in all fifty states.