Friday, January 19, 2007

bob ney blames 'the powers that be.'

* bob ney blames 'the powers that be.' TPMM scoffs. I'm not so quick to scoff.

* greenwald was on demnow briefly discussing the illegal spying.

* digby:
"I've never been able to understand why in the hell it's so hard for them to comply with the ridiculously compliant FISA court unless they were doing something nefarious. And since they are lying,despotic, incompetent sacks of shit I don't trust them to take out the trash without running it past a proper authority.

Now that there is the promise of legislative oversight, they are running around saying that they will comply with FISA. We guess. The agreement is a secret, naturally."

* Legislator seeks Bush impeachment:
SANTA FE -- The 60-session of the state Legislature convenes today with the agenda including ... a call for the impeachment of President Bush and his vice president.

* emptywheel:
"The sacking of Carol Lam is pretty clearly an attempt to abort investigations into people like Jerry Lewis and Brent Wilkes.That investigation threatened to expose the whole Military-Industrial GOP Gravy Train, if not worse things. That investigation may well have exposed the corrupt foundations of GOP power.
[]
In the context of the Libby trial, I've been obsessing lately about the corruption of two institutions that , together, should form the cornerstone of our nation's greatness: the independent press and the independent judiciary. In the Bush Administration, these corrupted institutions have been set against each other, with each attacking the other, thereby distracting from the their own problems. It has always seemed to me that, if it weren't for the corruption of both institutions, debates about press freedom wouldn't be so difficult. In other words, the press really ought to be more concerned about the independence of the judiciary because it's a quick way to address its own concerns."

* Corn on Libby trial:
"It could well be that the jury ends up with no members who suspect that the Bush White House deliberately misrepresented the case for war. Can someone who holds such a view not fairly assess the testimony and evidence in the case of a senior Bush administration official charged with lying to the FBI and a grand jury? What if a potential juror enters the courtroom with the firm belief that Cheney and other Bush aides are believable? Would that not be a bias that would create a disadvantage for the prosecution?"

* BTD @ TL:
"In his speech today, Attorney General Gonzales utterly repudiates the view he expressed under oath to the Senate. He now states that it is his view that a state of war is in fact a blank check for the President, that there are no limits to Presidential wartime power and that he no longer recognizes the role of the courts in our system of government regarding national security issues.

Alberto Gonzales should never have been confirmed as Attorney General. His conduct in office confirms our judgment at the time. His speech today makes clear that he must be removed from office. He will not respect the Constitution and the laws of the United States. These views are simply unacceptable in the Nation's chief law enforcement officer. He must go."
* waas:
"One possibility for Libby's seemingly incongruous behavior--if prosecutors prove their case--is that Libby acted out of character simply because he was so agitated by what he thought was unfair criticism of himself and the vice president for supposedly misrepresenting intelligence to go to war.

But if Libby's grand jury testimony is to be believed, it was Cheney, not Libby, who constantly was the one pushing Libby to leak classified information to the press. Both Cheney and Libby have said that Cheney never ordered him to leak information to the press about Plame. And Libby has claimed that if he did speak to reporters about Plame, he was merely passing along to them rumors that he had heard from Russert and other reporters that Plame was a CIA officer.

But federal investigators from the earliest days of the leak investigation have theorized that Libby was attempting to cover up for Cheney. The loyal staff man was only being loyal. Even in defending Libby, his friend, the political operative, Mary Matalin has described him as "Cheney's Cheney"; "an absolutely salient translator" for the man he adored and was his boss."

3 comments:

rimone said...

"In his speech today, Attorney General Gonzales utterly repudiates the view he expressed under oath to the Senate. He now states that it is his view that a state of war is in fact a blank check for the President, that there are no limits to Presidential wartime power and that he no longer recognizes the role of the courts in our system of government regarding national security issues...

and we're surprised by this shit?

calipendence said...

Looks like Carol Lam might have the last laugh on her way out of her attorney spot here though. Sounds like Brent Wilkes will be getting indicted shortly before February 15th when she leaves!

lukery said...

c/p - that would be soooo sweet.