Meet the Bloggers and

meet the bloggers
Well that was fun. A replay of the premiere of Meet the Bloggers should be up here shortly. [Update: It’s both there now and at left.] The highlight of the piece, IMO, is that Cenk got the name of the Sargeant at Arms in: Bill Livingood. How cool would it be if a guy named "Livingood" walked up to Karl Rove and put him in handcuffs? It’s like something right out of Dickens. I decided yesterday that, in addition to putting Rove in a shipping container on the Mall in front of Congress (don’t worry–we’ll outfit it and air condition it) until he agrees to testify, Congress ought to contract with Blackwater to help Mr. Livingood do the arrest. After all, they’ll do anything for money, right?

Meanwhile, BNF has a petition drive up so you can encourage HJC to respond to being blown off in a timely and forceful manner.

I’ve got to go pack now so I can get a plane to Netroots Nation. I’ll poke my head in occasionally, but I expect to be pretty busy for the next several days. bmaz will have the keys, so maybe ya’ll can discuss whether or not Brett Favre should continue to start for the Packers.

[See the SendKarlRoiveToJail video here.]

  1. JTMinIA says:

    I could have sworn Favre played for the Steelers. tee hee

    Have a nice trip. It was a great (albeit short) show.

  2. readerOfTeaLeaves says:

    bmaz will have the keys

    Then we can look forward to a fast drive in a swank Porsche, I hope ;-))

    • bmaz says:

      Sorry. Sold the last Porsche over five years ago. Nothing but a little 3 series Bimmer and a skateboard pulled by a giant Samoyed.

      • Drumman says:

        OT but how about this F1 season so far 3 tied for the drivers championship it will be interesting to see how Germany plays out

        • bmaz says:

          Yeah, it really is good so far. Due to Favre, i may be forced to do a quick trash talk, and there should be a GP this weekend I suspect, but it won’t be until later tonight. Am going to be busy this afternoon, and just kind of in and out here and there.

    • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

      Ummmm…. would ‘modest’, or ’serviceable’, or ’sensible’ be more appropriate?

      Have a safe, great trip and a wonderful time.

      (As someone always seems to say when EW leaves bmaz with the keys, ‘Mom’s gone — where’s the cookie jar?’ )

        • phred says:

          Mmmm, nothing like washing down Mom’s chocolate chip cookies with shots of tequila poured by Congressional Dems…

        • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

          I guess I got busted.

          It’s mostly about the liquor cabinet.
          But we eat cookies once in a while, too.

    • bobschacht says:

      Well, here’s what Conyers is saying:

      July 17, 2008

      (Washington)-Today House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. announced that, on July 25, the House Committee on the Judiciary will hold a hearing on the Imperial Presidency of George W. Bush and possible legal responses.

      “Over the last seven plus years, there have been numerous credible allegations of serious misconduct by officials in the Bush Administration,” said Conyers. “At the same time, the administration has adopted what many would describe as a radical view of its own powers and authorities. As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I believe it is imperative that we pursue a comprehensive review commensurate to this constitutionally dangerous combination of circumstances. Next Friday’s hearings will be an important part of that ongoing effort.”

      The Committee is expected to examine a range of legal and legislative responses to allegations of administration misconduct and their expansion of executive branch power.

      Since the beginning of the 110th Congress, the Committee has conducted extensive oversight into allegations of misconduct by the administration, including: (1) improper politicization of the Justice Department and the U.S. Attorneys offices, including potential misuse of authority with regard to election and voting controversies; (2) misuse of executive branch authority and the adoption and implementation of the so-called unitary executive theory, including in the areas of presidential signing statements and regulatory authority; (3) misuse of investigatory and detention authority with regard to U.S. citizens and foreign nationals, including questions regarding the legality of the administration’s surveillance, detention, interrogation, and rendition programs; (4) manipulation of intelligence and misuse of war powers, including possible misrepresentations to Congress related thereto; (5) improper retaliation against administration critics, including disclosing information concerning CIA operative Valerie Plame, and obstruction of justice related thereto; and (6) misuse of authority in denying Congress and the American people the ability to oversee and scrutinize conduct within the administration, including through the use of various asserted privileges and immunities.

      The July 25 hearing will be held at 10:00 a.m. in room 2141 of the Rayburn House Office Building. Additional information, including witness participation, will be announced next week.

      This sounds a bit more expansive than just giving Kucinich an hour to whine and complain. I hope Conyers means it!

      I read this not, initially, as an impeachment inquiry, but something that could turn into an impeachment inquiry. For example, if they invite Rove to testify, and Rove thumbs his nose at them, they could use that as an excuse to go the impeachment route and compel his testimony using the superior authority of impeachment inquiries.

      Or am I just being giddy?

      Bob in HI

      • Hmmm says:

        Yeah, I noticed that too. Which ally do you think it’s gonna be testifying? The obvious choice would be the UK per the Downing Street memo, but on the other hand lately Ireland seems awful damn pissed it was lied to about extraordinary rendition flight pitstops.

        Also: You mention superior Congressional powers during an impeachment investigation. Do any such powers really exist? I find it a bit hard to swallow that Article I powers would wax and wane significantly based on the subject matter. (As opposed to e.g. limited wartime changes, which I would expect.)

  3. PJEvans says:

    we’ll outfit it and air condition it

    My idea of air conditioning for Karl’s kontainer is bars across the front side. Or chain-link fencing.

  4. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Perhaps this topic will come up at Netroots:

    Congress eased rules Wednesday over public disclosure of contributions and parties paid for by lobbyists. The new rules free lobbyists from filing disclosure statements by the end of the month. (Wall Street Journal)

    That would be a Democratic Party-controlled Congress that eased rules on how quickly lobbyists must file financial disclosures. So much for promises of “forty acres and a mule”. No changes down on the farm; just somebody else sleepin’ in the Big House.

    • brendanx says:

      This reminds me of today’s story of “Hillraisers” meeting Carly Fiorina. They have preferred to remain anonymous, too.

      These were prominent activists and fund-raisers, including several known as “Hillraisers,’’ who raised more than $100,000 for Clinton during the primary season. “I didn’t ask how many of them were Hillraisers but certainly a number of them were,’’ Fiorina said…..Amy Siskind, a former Wall Street executive who helped organize the meeting, declined to identify most the attendees, citing their desire for privacy

      Ostensibly they talked about…well it’s not clear what they talked about. I wonder if these are the same influential donors who threatened Pelosi during the primary and whether it’s not because McCain is supposedly pro-choice, but rather because he’s pro-war, that they’re looking for excuses to support him.

      • PJEvans says:

        I kind of wish they’d change parties and stop being DINOs.

        (There are an awful lot of people out there, including mroe than you might think at the Motherblog and the Great Orange Satan, who seem to be of the opinion that the nominee should be ‘Anyone But Obama’, regardless of consequences. For Ghu’s sake, people, you can’t expect 100% perfect agreement on everything, and politicians will compromise and backtrack and, yes, lie, because that’s how they get where they are. You want perfection, vote for God. /rant)

      • PetePierce says:

        What a winning combination. The Hillraisers and a financial advisor who was booted after she ran HP’s profits into the ground to the delight of Wall Street. Were it not for their printer business what she did to the PC business might have bankrupted them.

        Maybe the Hillraisers will help Carley with this math:

        Rich Lady Have $200 million or so
        Rich Lady owe self 11 million
        Rich Lady owe Penn a few million most of 12
        Rich Lady stiffing Kinko’s and small pizza buisness

        Anyone with brain no give rich lady money nor Wiretapping Okay Obama money to give rich lady

        Rich Lady have many times her campaign debt in bank and can pay it her Rich Lady self

  5. phred says:

    Nice job on MTB (has a much better ring than MTP imo ; ) I particularly liked the idea of the shipping container on the Mall…

    Now that I’m back for a few days in between trips, I just wanted to thank you for the invitation to a Brett Favre Trash Talk Thread — as in talking trash about Brett “What Is He Thinking?!?” Favre. Just for the record: Go Rodgers! Go Pack!

    Have fun in Austin EW!

  6. MarieRoget says:

    Have a good trip, ew. Please do pop in to report on the doings in Austin. And again, great work on Meet the Bloggers.

    Bmaz @ the throttle over the wknd? Will there be hubcap giveaways?

  7. PetePierce says:

    Have a great time there in Austin; eat some good food. Some very good ideas are coming out of that meeting, and they are getting publicity including trying not to admit Fox as a news organization.

    Athletes like Brett Farve are pretty amazing. He is one of the all time greats; he could live a very cushy life coming out of the NFL in relatively good health and have his pick of broadcasting jobs.

    I can tell you what’s going to happen; for whatever reason there is bad blood that’s irreversible now between him and the packers. He’s going to play in the NFL and now he has an incentive for whatever the reasons to make the Packers feel he’s not going to be there and no longer will be a big part of their franchise.

    I really appreciate your uber prescient Rove coverage. No one has criminalized government service more and led the DOJ at Main Justice into being one of the most dangerous criminal enterprises in the history of the US.

    Bmaz and Christy have given very accurate assessments of the offices in the 94 districts more than once, but a significant number of people at Main Justice past and current have been led into a cynical hijacking where it has unbelievably evolved to something right out of a dictatorship.

    I said Mukasey would do just what he has done at the start of Feinstein and Schumer’s ridiculous naivite cheerleading him on obsequiously. It was nausea inducing to watch that SJC confirmation. He behaved like an idiot in the SDNY on the bench, corralling scores of innocent people into prison as material witnesses who were regularly tortured and beaten right in LHP’s NYC and often denied representation.

    I compared Mukasey to Tony Soprano’s Sylvio Dante and I’m sure some people thought that was a flamboyant analogy, but it doesn’t look very flamboyant now.

  8. PetePierce says:

    I should have added that you can take this to the bank: The last thing you’re going to see happen is that Brett Favre will accept a position as Aaron Rodgers’ backup with a salary cut by 2/3. A heads up club will pick him up and find a way to start him. The Pack was 13-3 with Favre in 2007 and that’s damn good in the NFL.

    Favre is super-pissed about the interception that gave the Giants the win in OT to go on to take the Super Bowl, and that alone is incentive that he will be playing and playing anywhere but Green Bay and he will garner more money than they want to give him and he’ll be worth it.

    Once again the Atlanta Falcons made a bone head move when Jerry Glanville cut him because he was partyin’ on Peachtree.

  9. rincewind says:

    This seems as good a place as any to poke around at the edges of a tangent from the Big-Orange discussion in Marcy’s Rove post yesterday.

    I wasn’t aware of this until last night, but apparently a lot of well-informed people believe that a president’s pardon power is restricted or even eliminated if a presidential impeachment proceeding is under way. Some people have said that a president under formal impeachment hearings has no pardon power whatsoever**, a claim attributed by several people to Thom Hartmann and/or Jonathan Turley. Others have said that — while he is under impeachment proceedings — a president’s pardon power is unavailable to him for use on behalf of subordinates who are charged with crimes done at his bidding. Marcy responded to a remark of mine:

    I’m referring specifically to a (I think) Madison quote, where he basically said that if Congress was impeaching BC the President had abused that authority (which he clearly already has, as well as executive privilege), then he would lose pardon power while pending.

    That has not been upheld in the courts, but since it was written contemporaneously with Constitutional debates, it’d hold a good deal of sway.

    The only relevant thing I can find from Madison is quoted all over the place (perpetuating a typo, “tp” instead of “to” in all the quotes):

    [I]f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty…

    If this is the passage that Marcy was referring to, IMHO it doesn’t in any way diminish the president’s pardon power; it just says that if a president DOES use his pardon power to shelter people who [criminally] did his bidding, then the pardon itself is an impeachable offense.

    Is there some other reference from Madison, or somebody else, that negates the pardon power WRT a president under impeachment?

    ** I don’t believe that this claim of absolute removal of pardon power is true, since Bill Clinton pardoned 33 people on Christmas Eve 1998, after the House had impeached him (Dec 19, 1998) and before the Senate trial had begun (Jan 7 1999). This was less than 10 years ago — if an impeached (not convicted) president couldn’t pardon, all holy hell would have erupted then. I also don’t believe that Turley makes this claim — I searched all over his blog and google last night looking in vain for any such opinion.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      I think your reading is correct. The impeachment process – investigation and impeachment vote in the House, trial in the Senate – does not suspend or limit the President’s authority or temporarily remove him from office pending its completion. I don’t see any support for the idea in the Constitution or past, limited practice. The idea seems wishful thinking and strikes me as neither wise nor practical.

      As you say, abuse of the pardon power — eg, serially pardoning lower level officials for obstructing justice to hide the President’s own incompetence or wrongdoing — could be regarded by Congress as an impeachable offense. That’s because while the Constitution’s language does not limit the pardon power, defining “high crimes and misdemeanors” is a political act that leads to political consequences – ie, removal from office.

  10. emptywheel says:

    I’ll need to look for it, but it came from the Watergate report–there’s a footnote from that quote you’ve got to another one which may or may not have been Madison but was of that generation.

    The way to find it is to search on that quote with Kagro’s name.

  11. Ishmael says:

    Wouldn’t it be fun to have Karl Rove arrested by the Sergeant at Arms live on Fox TV? If the Dems did have the balls to put Rove in the Crowbar Motel, I am sure that the Republicans would suddenly get outraged about Rove’s habeus corpus rights as someone charged with inherent contempt of Congress. After all, just because the President has the power to declare someone beyond judicial review simply by declaring the person an “enemy combatant”, it doesn’t mean that Congress can simply declare Karl “contemptible”, and put him beyond the reach of the judiciary, does it? At least until the session ends….

    • bmaz says:

      Hey Ishmael – Very glad you are here. Would you mind if I contacted you? I have a question regarding a old client that has an issue with Canadian law and getting into Toronto. If okay, you don’t need to leave address, I can get it from the admin side.

      • Ishmael says:

        Happy to oblige, you know my “undisclosed location” – and BTW, when Tom Brady feels the need to retire after collecting 7 or 8 Super Bowl rings, I hope he doesn’t put us Pats fans through what Favre is inexplicably doing to you Cheeseheads.

      • MarkH says:

        Would you mind if I contacted you? … If okay, you don’t need to leave address, I can get it from the admin side.

        You could always just ask the NSA. I’m certain they have all the information you could want.

        God knows what private financial purposes the Republicans have been using TIA information for all these years. Of course, with the war and all they don’t have as much need for small-time stuff like that — they’ve taken the whole thing.

        • bmaz says:

          This is really creepy. I am a safer bet and more trustworthy than the government. Even my mother would not have made that bet. Go figure….

  12. rincewind says:

    re: Marcy @ 16

    I think this must be what you mean?

    63. 3 Elliot 497-98. Madison went on to any [I think this should be “say”, the doc is full of typos] contrary to his position in the Philadelphia convention, that the President could be suspended when suspected, and his powers would devolve on the Vice President, who could likewise be suspended until impeached and convicted, if he were also suspected. Id. 498.

    (sourced by the WaPo Starr Referral docs collection, I can’t seem to make the link work, as “The following is from a report written and released by the Judiciary Committee in 1974 in the aftermath of the Watergate crisis.”)

    If this quote is the basis of the claim, ISTM it’s important to note that (a) it apparently wasn’t what Madison said at the time of the Constitutional Convention; and (b) it didn’t make it into the Constitution, for whatever reason. There is no language in the Constitution about “suspension” of any executive powers for any reason; and in fact, to have written such a thing as “suspended when suspected” would be contradictory to the basic premise of “innocent until proven guilty”.

    I know that deference is often given to the framers’ other writings in trying to resolve ambiguities in the Constitution, but I don’t read ambiguity in Art II Sec 2. The “except” clause refers to “offenses” — IOW, an impeachment conviction is the sole “offense against the United States” that a president is not allowed to pardon. I think you’re trying to read the “except” clause as referring to “he shall have power” — as in, when HE is being impeached.

    I think the fact that the framers’ discussion of that clause also included whether the president should be able to pardon treason proves that what they were discussing was exceptions to the kinds of offenses eligible for pardon, and had nothing to do with the president’s status vis impeachment. And once again I fall back on the fact that Clinton did pardon people 5 days after he was impeached; which, if there had been ANY grounds to block him or refuse to honor those pardons, you can be damn well sure the Repugs would have.

    • bmaz says:

      Those people are nuts. Until the President has been convicted he is still in office and he can pardon or do whatever else he can normally do. Period. I agree completely with you.

      • rincewind says:

        Well, no, not nuts — cuz one of ‘em’s our fearless leader herself ;> (I shuddered last night at my temerity in disagreeing w/her) But I truly don’t see any “ambiguity” that needs to be “resolved”.

        • bmaz says:

          Huh. Really? Well, I am an ingrate; I am capable of calling her nuts, but the better guess is there is a component I didn’t see on the fly. You have a link or something to that comment(s) or something (or is all I need laid out above?), and I will look at it later. I am aware of all the Madison stuff and Federalist Papers and how they interplay with Constitutional interpretation. But so far, I am solidly on your side; but I am in hit and run mode right now and can’t really look at it competently.

          • rincewind says:

            I’ll try to link (the clickable icon thingie doesn’t work and neither does hard-coding the [a href…..]

            Marcy’s post about Rove v Fitz over at the Big Orange finally fell off the rec-list, it’s here ; the comment that triggered my posts is here . After I started looking for sources, I discovered that a LOT of smart well-informed people have been discussing this as true since at least the beginning of June.

            (Note: the links are filled up with ew/fdl domain stuff at the beginning and extra slashes and chars at the end, but semi-usable if you delete the extraneous…..)

    • emptywheel says:


      FWIW, I don’t think the Clinton thing is apt here–Had Clinton pardoned Monica, it might be.
      I agree that there would be an argument about it. But I do think that, in the very narrow case of when you were impeaching someone for misuse of pardon power, then he couldn’t then pardon more people to try to avoid impeachment.

      • emptywheel says:

        Actually, I take that back–not even a MOnica pardon would be apt. The point is that with Libby he abused a fundamental authority of the presidency. And that if you were investigating him specifically about that, then he could not then continue to abuse that authority.

        I think you can make the case. The larger one you’re arguing against–that the president loses pardon ability if he is impeached (with no mention of why) I agree with you, he retains his authority to pardon.

  13. JimWhite says:

    Speaking from the perspective of someone sitting in the audience in Austin during the simulcast of MTB, I can say that Marcy was easily the crowd favorite.

    That segment was followed by a panel with Kos and Harold Ford. I couldn’t contain myself when Ford started to spout all the BS on why so many Democrats had to vote for the FISA Amendment Act. I was only three tables back and on the center aisle, so I whipped out my pocket Constitution provided by the ACLU in the goodie bag we got at registration and held it high for Mr. Ford to see. I’m sure he had to see me.

    That felt so good, I think I’ll do it again tomorrow when Pelosi takes the same stage. Who knows, maybe it will catch on and I won’t be the only one…

    • TobyWollin says: it, Jim. I gave little book Constitutions from Barnes and Noble to every member of my family for the holidays last year. if you can get a bunch of people to stand up and wave their hands with it, it will be like Mao’s “little red book”.

      • SouthernDragon says:

        Mao’s “little red book”.

        I’ve got one of those. A real one from Chinese Arts and Crafts, a Chinese Communist store on Kaoloon side, Hong Kong. I like the Constitution better.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Kowloon side (in the old transliteration), not Central, the old Admiralty or the beaches? When were you there? I found Mao’s little red book unreadable.

    • phred says:

      Well done! I think it would be great if someone asked them to recite bits of the Constitution during any possible Q&A opportunities just to see if they have any idea what it says. FWIW, I have two tucked in my purse that I enjoy reading in airports as a way to reminisce about such niceties as probable cause for searches and seizures — but what can I say I’m a sentimental fool that way ; )

      • JimWhite says:

        It’s my understanding that the questions for Pelosi have been submitted in advance. I did get in a question during the Seligman session. The previous panel (with John Dean) had done a good job of outlining the legal and Constitutional issues facing the next President, and then ended by laying the turd of saying pursuing prosecutions against Bush and Cheney would be seen as political prosecutions.

        I asked Siegelman if, since he had been an actual victim of a political prosecution, he thought the American people could tell the difference between political prosecutions and prosecutions undertaken to uphold the rule of law. He hit that fat pitch over the centerfield fence and said that they could.

        • bmaz says:

          Dean is losing his mojo. Seriously, I think he is slipping a bit; either that or he is desperate to cover for Olbermann and Obama. He walked himself into a pile of dung with his little “criminal prosecutions” BS on the FISA bill; he keeps trying to wrangle a way out or around the pile of dung to save face for himself, Olbermann and Obama who all went down that road of idiocy, but he keeps sinking deeper. This has always ALWAYS been the path that Dem leadership was on, I have been saying that for a year. They are going to suck up to the security state so as not to appear weak, diddle out the clock and then put it all behind them by saying that we can’t all obsess with the past and must move on. They really don’t give a damn about accountability, it would be inconvenient for them to bring about and would cause inspection of their own roles. They are petty political cowards and are derelict to their duty, oath to office and responsibility. The plan is well on it’s way to completion and it is doing nothing but puking on the Constitution.

          • SouthernDragon says:

            Then it’s up to us to force them. We continue what we’re doing, with more intensity. We can put both this Congress and the next on notice that we’re not going away. Never. Give. Up.

        • phred says:

          Thanks for the reply — and glad to read you lobbed ‘em an easy question to answer. Sheesh! I really feel like they think we are all too stupid or scared to challenge them about their anti-Constitutional actions. A pox on both our political houses. Thanks for being there and for doing what you can to point out the obvious to these craven people.

  14. whomever1 says:

    Speaking of “Meet the Bloggers” I really found it annoying that; I listened to it for awhile, then clicked on a link, then came back–and MtB started up from the beginning again. Then I listened for a little while and decided to check the comments–and MtB started from the beginning again. And I would have preferred if it had required me to click on it to start it.

  15. JohnLopresti says:

    I thought interesting the Rehnquist precedent discussion during the MTB interview. A few essays on the internet illuminate the former Chief Justice’s background. Jeffrey Rosen wrote a political sketch of Rehnquist’s career for The Atlantic in 2005. Geoff Stone published an article about Rehnquist as neocon [my characterization, not Stone’s] for the American Constitution Society blog in 2007. NPR has composited transcripts of John Mitchell consulting with Richard Nixon regarding Rehnquist’s nomination to Scotus in 1971. Frank Askin recently wrote a law journal article about Rehnquist’s development of the doctrine of banning voters with some kinds of legal histories.

    • NealDeesit says:

      From Rehnquist the Great?

      But even Rehnquist’s highly controversial vote to stop the manual recount in Florida in the 2000 presidential election may be an expression of his pragmatism, for better or worse. In a speech to a Catholic service organization soon after the election, Rehnquist defended the participation of Supreme Court justices in deciding the presidential election of 1876 and seemed to be justifying Bush v. Gore in similarly practical terms. “There is a national crisis, and only you can avert it,” he said. “It may be very hard to say no.”

      Jack Bauer, in a black robe, being “practical,” torturing logic.

  16. SouthernDragon says:

    MTB. Man, we are cookin’ with gas now. For a laugh they need to get somebody from Little Green Nutjobs, er, Footballs.

  17. randiego says:

    EW: Have fun in Austin. You can’t beat it for night life – I really hope you get a chance to get out and explore a little.

    You’re just a couple blocks from Congress and 6th where all the fun is, and Antones (legendary blues club) is a couple more blocks, up 5th past Congress.


    Favre trash talk (yawn) – There are two ways for superstar athletes to end their careers. Gracefully (Elway/Marino) or not so much (Rice/Unitas/Favre). We’ve seen this play out before. Star athlete leaves city he played his whole career at and instead of retiring, uses his star name to add some luster to some downtrodden franchise (Willie Mays comes to mind too), all to play the game he can’t walk away from.

    Favre will play a season or two for some team, finally call it quits, and then all this drama with Green Bay will be forgotten. He’ll be back in their hall of fame, they’ll retire his number, and all the rest.

    All the drama is kinda silly – I blame him – but I do say more power to him. He should play until he can’t anymore, if that’s what he wants to do.

    • PJEvans says:

      I’m going to disagree on Mays. He was traded to the Mets; it wasn’t waivers or free-agency. (And in return the Giants got $500,000 cash, the entire Mets team, two eskimos, and a kangaroo – if you believe Carlin. Horace Stoneman always denied that money was involved.)

    • bmaz says:

      And remember when Joe Montana had the Chiefs a few plays away from the championship when he got knocked groggy? You may be right about Favre, but last year earned him the right to find out. You got Phillip Rivers; he has come a long way and all. You telling me you wouldn’t take the Favre of last year for a one year run at a ring???

      • randiego says:

        Heh – I had Montana in there until I found out he played 5 seasons in KC.

        I don’t want Favre – Rivers is just fine with me. It’s not like you can just plug these guys in, anyway. It takes a full year to gel with a new team, in my estimate.

        I like Favre – his only mistake was retiring when he clearly didn’t want to. He should have told the Pack to fish or cut bait.

        PS – tell Marcy there will be at least one Irish bar on 6th in Austin…

  18. 1watt says:

    Ohio RICO Claim for Rove, US Chamber

    Arnebeck told Mukasey he wants to “assert an Ohio Corrupt Practices Act/RICO claim against Mr. Karl Rover and others based upon their activities in 2000 to illegally use corporate treasury money and government power to establish single faction dominance in the United States, military dominance in the world and generally undermine the rule of law as it had developed over the course of the past century.

    The letter to Mukasey, a copy of which was also sent to John Conyers, Jr., Chairman, US House Committee on the Judiciary, asks him to gather together Mr. Rove’s emails from the White House to the Justice Department, the FBI, and various governmental agencies, because they are relevant to the factual issues of the case.

    “We are concerned about reports that Mr. Rove not only destroyed e-mails, but also took steps to destroy the hard drives from which they had been sent.” [Arnebeck letter to Muaksey]


  19. freepatriot says:

    I’m on dialup here, and those youtube inbeds don’t work for me

    the only way I’ve figured out to download video is by using the “Download” links that are available on about half of “Crooks and liars” posts

    can ya help a brother out ???

    is there any way we arrange to have links like that available for every youtube link, er enbeed*, or what ever the fuck you call it …

    (*spell checker couldn’t figure it out either)

    fookin innertubes

    (waves fist at screen)


  20. freepatriot says:

    an I refuse to discuss whether favre stays with the packers

    now get yout kids off my lawn

  21. PetePierce says:

    During the primary, a little OT and I can’t work Farvre into this, the Clinton surrogats got on every opportunity and said Obama had never called a metting of his Afghanistan committee.

    Only one lil problem–no Afghanistan committee existed that Obama could chair–cbairman of Senate Foreign Relatons was Vice President Biden. The Hillster was on 3 over on Senate Armed Forces.

    Now McCain has run a commercial banking on his own stupidity and lack of understanding of the Senate and the rest of the Maddona A-Rod Americans. The commercial chides Obama for not calling any meetings of his fictional Afghanistan Committee. And the stupid media reviewing the committee–that’d be idiots like MSNBC and sometimes newsman Mike the Barnacle reviewed the commercial taking no notice of the fiction. Obama’s subcommittee is

    Subcommittee on European Affairs
    Barack Obama, Chairman
    Christopher J. Dodd
    Robert Menendez
    Benjamin L. Cardin
    Robert P. Casey, Jr. Jim DeMint, Ranking Member
    George V. Voinovich
    Bob Corker
    Lisa Murkowski

    There ain’t no Afghanistgan in Europe–at least tonight.

  22. masaccio says:

    Screw Favre. The Tour threw my new guy, Riccardo Ricco, into the clink for EPO. That guy was just flying up the mountains, and now we know why. Now I gotta find another guy.

  23. masaccio says:

    I think I’ll go with Christian Vandevelde, USA, currently third, 38 seconds off the pace.

  24. wwiii says:

    Saw Aaron Rogers play at Cal some years back. The man has cool, moves, and accuracy. Still angry that the 49er’s passed on him and elected to go with Alex Smith. On the other hand, Rogers is probably enjoying the hell out of life these days. I think Green Bay has some seriously good seasons to look forward to.

  25. masaccio says:

    Well, as you know, us Americans go with testosterone, not EPO, the drug of choice in the tour this year.

  26. rincewind says:

    Totally flogging a very dead horse (and I know you’re in Austin, hope you’re having a blast!), maybe we can tear into this next week and get the lawyers’ contributions?

    I just don’t find any reason to believe that there’s anything in the Constitution or the law to suspend or restrict the executive pardon power. As long as he’s the President, he has it. I agree that to USE it in that case would be an impeachable offense, and most likely prosecutable obstruction of justice — but those actions would necessarily come after the pardon was granted, and IMVHO, that’s as it should be. Wouldn’t it be the equivalent of “prior restraint” if you try to stop someone from doing a legal thing that you suspect might have a criminal consequence?

    A murkier question, in my mind, is whether the pardon — legal when granted — would be nullified by a subsequent impeachment/conviction and/or prosecution based on that pardon being an obstruction of justice? (which brings us full circle to Ford’s pre-emptive blanket pardon….)

    • bmaz says:

      I am leaning to thinking that the remedy could be as we are discussing, and Marcy suggests, but that it can only be procedurally implemented via an actual vote of impeachment for that initial pardon offense. Sort of having a quickie impeachment trial on that offense, convicting on that alone, and entering that suspension or restriction as a term/condition of sentence while the greater case is considered.

  27. rincewind says:

    (Thanks to both of you for checking back — I’m glad I’m not just talking to myself ;> )

    I don’t see how a “two-step” impeachment could work; Sec 4 is blunt and unambiguous:

    The President, Vice-President and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of [….]

    There’s no leeway in there for a “partial” impeachment (just as, in my opinion, there’s no leeway in the Constitution for “partial” restriction of executive powers). I think it’s all-or-nothing.

    • bmaz says:

      Excellent point. I am a moron. You are really going to make me go read this crap aren’t you? Jeebus, I am going to have to so I don’t made an idiot of myself again. I knew that. Crikey. See what too many margaritas do to you?

      • rincewind says:

        LOL! — I’m just bitter and jealous that I’m stuck at home working.

        If Conyers is really going to hold a hearing next Friday, this coming week looks like a great time to thrash through some of these points.

  28. JohnLopresti says:

    I wish Aftergood would develop a new archive for olc materials, as fas has accomplished for several categories of CRS studies. Like the CRS papers, some olc opinions are well written and documented, like finding a good thesis, or excellent website. Ew’s video reminded me of this again, kind of like the way it seems reassuring that the US system of government places civilians in control of the pentagon. I studied several years with a civilian who earlier had worked in intell there in a military capacity. The link to the Nixon materials I put @35 above provides an interesting glimpse of the way Nixon was attempting to radicalize Scotus with his selection of olc’s Rehnquist with Mitchell’s help.

    re the OT mention of the old and new FISA schematic, those diagrams tend toward 2-dimension interpretation and fail to account for the specifics of minimization. I have been looking for a readable version of the one congress passed or a rewritten 50 USC 1805; the version wais downloads dates to last revision in 1999. Timothy Lee wrote a nice summary of neoFisa for arsTechnica two weeks ago.

  29. JohnLopresti says:

    re(2): the OT business about law sausage, when I worked with the state legislature legislators themselves had access to ‘mark-ups’ of draft legislation in a timely way simply by asking the sergeant-at-arms for a copy fresh off the press. Renditions like govtrack provides for neoFISA assume the reader has a standardized reference version of the original code; working from materials like the linked govtrack item makes lucid blogging discussing time consuming and in places impossible when references are missing. The entire process congress is doing needs to be more html savvy and open to the public, so our evaluations can be timely.