president guilty of no fewer than 30 felonies

* kathleen:

"Speaking of Rummy resigning, does anyone know the current status of Henry Waxman's subpoena to Rummy to appear and testify on the National Security Whistleblower matter? When is he supposed to appear and testify?"

i asked the folks at tpmm and they posted that they were told that the appropriate dox had been handed over. that's as much as i know at the mo

* a reminder, 'al qaeda' has infriltrated the fbi, cia and DoD.

* DailyMail:

"The alliance between George Bush and Tony Blair is in danger after it was revealed that the Prime Minister believes the President has 'let him down badly' over the Middle East crisis.

A senior Downing Street source said that, privately, Mr Blair broadly agrees with John Prescott, who said Mr Bush's record on the issue was 'crap'."

* turley, via Glenn:

'The far more difficult question is the implication of Taylor's ruling. If this court is upheld or other courts follow suit, it will leave us with a most unpleasant issue that Democrats and Republicans alike have sought to avoid.

Here it is: If this program is unlawful, federal law expressly makes the ordering of surveillance under the program a federal felony. That would mean that the president could be guilty of no fewer than 30 felonies in office. Moreover, it is not only illegal for a president to order such surveillance, it is illegal for other government officials to carry out such an order.

For people working in government, this opinion may lead to some collar tugging. If Taylor's decision is upheld or other courts reject the program, will the president promise to pardon those he ordered to carry out unlawful surveillance? The question of the president's possible criminal acts has long been the pig in the parlor that polite people in Congress refused to acknowledge."