What are you doing about HR 333?

Polls show that 74 percent of Democrats and the majority of American adults support impeaching Cheney.

The vice president is accused of:

# purposely manipulating intelligence to fabricate a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in order to justify an attack on Iraq;

# deceiving Congress about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida;

# threatening aggression against the Republic of Iran, absent any real threat to the United States.

These violations of the Constitution and international treaty are just the tip of the iceberg. More articles of impeachment can be added at any time, and ample evidence to convict is on the public record. Representatives need to introduce articles regarding:

# illegal war, in violation of both international treaty and the Constitution;

# widespread domestic wiretapping in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a felony. Bush already has admitted to this;

# condoning torture in violation of federal laws and international treaties;

# rescinding habeas corpus, the cornerstone of Western law since the Magna Carta;

# obstruction of justice regarding U.S. attorney firings;

# subversion of the Constitution, abuse of signing statements and rescinding habeas corpus.
Read This, Congressman

It's time to stop beating around the Bush, and start beating the Bush...
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
You can lead a republican to the truth, but you can't make him think it...

As you well understand, the Contempt Vote is of prime importance for several reasons:

1. Miers and Bolton are lawbreakers. Refusing to testify when subpoenaed is punishable by jail time for the rest of US citizens--Congress must prove that there are not two sets of laws--one for those in the Administration and in Congress, and another for the citizens that those in the Administration and Congress allegedly work for.

2. Obvious to everyone is the fact that their refusal to testify and the Administration's refusal to make them do so is tantamount to a confession of guilt and their refusal is in fact an attempt to cover-up that guilt.

3. Miers and Bolton hold the keys to information that most likely would shine the spotlight on impeachable offenses and the public admission of such would open the door wide for investigation and ultimate accountability.

We are all well aware that the Democratic Leadership has been complicit in Miers and Bolton's free pass on Contempt of Congress and de facto Contempt of the Americans who Paid their Salary--their-- (And The Democratic Leadership's) Employer--US, We the People who have too long been held in Contempt by our "Leaders".

Yes, the Democratic Leadership's offering cover for lawbreakers like Miers and Bolton, (& the President and VP) is nothing short of: Contempt for the People who Elected Them.

Well, better late than never.

At least we can keep the historical records straight.

But many of us still think you guys who manage to lose everything but your jobs (professional losers?) are poking around the edges, just pretending to be getting things done.

In a word "stalling".

Molly expressed her contempt this way, and I'm sure a GREAT number of people feel the same way and are willing to explain exactly why we feel this way. Remember this tidbit of accurate history? And to top it off (speaking of Attorneys General) Hillary just boink, boink boinky... followed the script whithout a clue that anyone was watching -- she did not vote (at all) in the Mukasi confirmation which she allegedly opposed?

Well, good luck anyway, John. But why didn't Gonzalez or Petraeus take oaths (or affirmations) to tell the truth. Why aren't their asses on the line too.

We can probably guess. As CENTCOM Commander Fallon called Petraeus a chicken shit little ass kisser, those who are afraid of him are what?

What if this had been forever, America? How did we do?

I don't want to seem ungrateful John, but don't sit there and wash the dishes when the toilet is overflowing. Right?

Considering the fact that Congress has allowed Bush to usurp it's authority, and they seem more concerned with protecting their own little organized crime activity than protecting the Constitution, why should republicans show anything other than contempt?

As a victim class member of society who has gone to jail for not returning redundant paperwork to the support unit, I'm offended that you would investigate when prosecution is in order.

They knew it was against the law, they did it anyways, then laughed in your face. Do you deserve anything other than contempt from me?

BTW, in the Senate they aren't any better. John Bolton refused to come clean with the information requested during his aborted confirmation hearing. Rather than expound on the possible FISA violations during his attempt at discrediting Joe Wilson, in the face of a judges order Bush gave him a recess appointment. The only reason he didn't go to jail for contempt was because the Senate Judiciary committee allowed it.

Don't give me the crap that Alberto wouldn't allow the prosecution of this traitor to the American Way. There is a mechanism to remove partisan attack dogs like Gonzales. You merely have to have the courage to utilize it.

Mr. Conyers, the contemptuous attitude shown toward Congress by Bush, is a reflection of the attitude you've earned.

Educated people think average joe deserted the political process because we're too stupid to understand. The fact is that we understand all too well. We recognize when someone is attempting to baffle us with bullshit, as you are doing today.

What was the quid pro quo on this one? Did you agree to provide immunity to the right wing individuals within big media who eagerly accepted the FISA violations because it meant more Pay For Propaganda money? Is that why you're "investigating" what should be slam dunk prosecutions?

Go ahead, have your Bart Simpson style(I didn't do it, nobody saw me, you can't prove a thing)investigation.

If you think anything will come of it, you need some major psychiatric help.

Convictions convince. Anything less is a placebo.

When you do damage to these traitors, that has lasting long term historical value, maybe the contempt average joe feels toward Congress, will subside. BushCo shows the contempt toward you openly, because he has an inroad to average joe, and slapping you like a little bitch gets him votes.

The only way to regain our respect is to fight like you mean it. Or are you going to wait until the GOP arrests every crooked Democrat in America? They're cleaning out the Dems in Jersey, and it looks like the corrupt bastards in the Washington DC Democratic Party are about to get reamed too.

Limbaugh must love our present make-up of Congress. Talking about the Democratic cowardice and lack of convictions only goes so far. Having people like Pelosi and Conyers prove everything he's ever said, is priceless.

You talking about enforcing the law is almost as much fun as listening to Larry Craig talk about the evils of homosexuality.

Keep tapping Mr. Conyers, but don't be surprised when nobody swallows your PR anymore.

Convict, don't con.

Not innocent.

Try for "forgiven", but the buses don't run all night, John.

What's a little contempt, anyway?

Oath of Office? What's THAT?

==============
I M P E A C H
THEM BOTH !!!

Bush Knew

And a majority of Americans now know...

Memo To New York Post: The Bush Administration Was Warned About 9/11

New York Post reporter Andy Soltis writes of the latest Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll that finds a great majority of Americans believe the government failed to heed warnings about 9/11. Soltis writes that this poll shows increasing support for 9/11 “conspiracy theories”:

Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe the federal government had warnings about 9/11 but decided to ignore them, a national survey found.

And that’s not the only conspiracy theory with a huge number of true believers in the United States. […]

Sixty-two percent of those polled thought it was “very likely” or “somewhat likely” that federal officials turned a blind eye to specific warnings of the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

The NY Post’s headline blares: “‘Blame U.S. For 9/11? Idiots In Majority.” As frequent readers of this site are well aware, ThinkProgress does not condone 9/11 conspiracy theories which allege the attacks were an inside job. But whether the Bush administration failed to heed warnings of a terrorist strike is not a conspiracy theory — it is a fact.

Here are some bits of information the NY Post may want to read up on:

1) Bush received intel briefing on Aug. 6, 2001 entitled “Bin Laden Determined To Strike In US.” The briefing specifically warned to “patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks,” particularly targeted at New York.

2) CIA Director George Tenet briefing Condoleezza Rice and other top administration officials on July 10, 2001 about a specific urgent and looming threat from al Qaeda.

3) An FBI agent in Phoenix sent a memo to FBI headquarters on July 10, 2001, which advised of the “possibility of a coordinated effort” by bin Laden to send students to the United States to attend civil aviation schools.

The alarming nature of the Scripps poll is not that 62 percent of Americans believe the government ignored warnings of 9/11; it’s that nearly 40 percent still aren’t aware of that fact.

UPDATE: Malkin proudly trumpets the NY Post story as evidence of “America: Tinfoil hat nation.”

click here

--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
You can lead a republican to the truth, but you can't make him think it...

This diary quotes Bob Schieffer commenting on how the Presidential Candidates (and IMHO—also our current crop of Incumbent Politicians) believe that we are still ignorant and uninformed enough to not see through their excuses, double talk and equivocations:

“…Telling people what they want to hear to win elections is nothing new. ..But advances in technology have taken it to new levels. Because computers and polling have made it so much easier to gauge public opinion, candidates race to tell us what we "want" to hear…”

“…They load us down with spin, tip toe around issues…and give us tortured explanations of how a change in their position really wasn't a change at all…

I do understand that there is a segment of the population that IS uninformed and gullible, but even a good number of those people have gotten the message that the economy is tanking, that Iraq is a quagmire which is unnecessarily draining the blood of our troops and our national treasury. And, if those who do take the time to be informed continue to educate those who haven’t taken the time—all the politician’s “Spinning” won’t have the same effects as in the past. People are tired of being conned and lied to. People like Malkin, Coulter and Limbaugh still preach to their core choir of ignorant and bigoted people. But, more and more people who don’t listen to them and who don’t spend a lot of time informing themselves are being informed by the growing numbers of people who are informed.

Schieffer sums it up this way: “…My bet is not many people believe any of it because frankly, we're not that dumb.”

“…What annoys me is these candidates must think we are…”

I’ll second that, plus add that I’m not just annoyed by the disrespect of our politicians toward the voters, I’m insulted and angered by it.

Open Left has what I felt was an interesting article about how many times the Democratic candidates and republican candidates used the terms “progressive” (Democrats) or “conservative” (republicans) and how many times they used the word “bipartisan” on their websites:

“…With the exception of Kucinich, every single Republican candidate is more likely than every Democrat to use ideological language than bi-partisan language (and five Republican candidates use at least twice as much ideological language as Kucinich)… It is interesting that, even when they are now repeatedly losing elections a facing large poll deficits, Republicans are still less likely to talk about bipartisanship than Democrats. It is also worth asking Democrats who they will be bi-partisan with, given that no Republicans ever even promise to be bipartisan.?

Chairman Conyers: That is the question I would have you put to Speaker Pelosi and to Rep. Hoyer: WHO ARE THEY TRYING TO BE BI-PARTISAN WITH, “GIVEN THAT NO REPUBLICANS EVER EVEN PROMISE TO BE BIPARTISAN ?”. Sir, that’s my great frustration, not only are the candidates and incumbents trying to fool US, they are trying to fool THEMSELVES, and believe me, no one will “win” if they continue on that course.

The Democratic leadership, if they hope to win any more elections, must stop pandering to the same “conservative” audience as the Republicans, because:

1. Those people (the Limbaughites) are not going to change their minds & vote Democratic…Ever, never, ever.

2. They are really, really infuriating their own “base” the people whose money they gladly use, and whose votes they mistakenly take for granted, but whom they all to obviously seem to hold in such contempt.

At least the Republicans know who "brung them to the party" and don't even bother trying to win over the rest of us, while the "Lukewarm" Democrats are merrily and obliviously spinning away, without convincing anyone, except apparently themselves.

While Meiers and Bolten certainly need to be summarily chastised for their malfeasance, it goes without saying that they're the small fish in the shark tank called Washington D.C. and until the two great whites, Bush and Cheney, are legally "harpooned" and sent to prison, issued blue jump suits, not allowed to Pass Go or collect their pension will justice be served, the rule of law upheld and the reputation of Congress as a viable party in the three party system maintained.

To Conjugating Congress

Rocket science is easy compared to this so stop reading now before you suffer irreparable brain damage.

Contempt is a special kind of word called a "fantastically-irregular" verb. To congugate congress relative to contempt requires that you fool some of the people all of the time thus leveling the playing field while never losing your high moral authority.

Not to change the subject, but I wonder why sample ballots aren't sent out on touch screens. That was the only paper that never got recycled.

And I wonder why the only conspiracy wackos that don't get reemed for their paranoid delusions are the guys that think global warming is an international hoax to undermine American sovereignty. Sovereignty inside AND outside our borders, by the way.

Our claim to oil rich Arab lands is due to our Christian inheritance and claim on everything,. I mean everything that was given to Abraham.

To Congugating Congress Video Here

You see, at that point the world hadn't yet been inflated, so that "everything" was not the 2 Times Everthing that was later discovered in the New World as the sons of God descended on it in a near-exact replay of Genesis 6. See also what can happen if you're not careful when mixing common items found in an ordinary kitchen (the "cup of leaven" paradox) and how to modify a microwave oven waveguide assembly to strike terror into and/or kill cockroaches at distances of up to ten feet.

I wonder why when the Bushes are involved in dirty deals or even criminal activity, standards of evidence change. Instead of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" that would lock up an average citizen, the evidence must be perfect.

If there's any doubt at all, the Bushes must be presumed innocent. Even when their guilt is obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense, it's their accusers and those who dare investigate who get the worst of it. Their motives are challenged and their own shortcomings are cast in the harshest possible light.

For decades -- arguably going back generations -- the Bushes have been protected by their unique position straddling two centers of national power, the family's blueblood Eastern Establishment ties and the Texas oil crowd with strong links to the Republican Right. [For details on this family phenomenon, see Robert Parry's Secrecy & Privilege.]

This reality was underscored again by how major news outlets and the right-wing press reacted to a new piece of evidence implicating George W. Bush in a criminal cover-up in the "Plame-gate" scandal.

Though the evidence is now overwhelming that President Bush was part of a White House cabal that leaked Valerie Plame Wilson's identity as a covert CIA officer and then covered up the facts, major newspapers, such as the New York Times and the Washington Post, continue to pooh-pooh this extraordinary scandal.

The latest piece of evidence was the statement from former White House press secretary Scott McClellan that Bush was one of five senior officials who had him clear Karl Rove and I. Lewis Libby in the leak when, in fact, they were two of the leakers.

http://alternet.org/story/68843/

And I wonder why...

November 24, 2007 -- Nearly two-thirds
of Americans believe the federal government had warnings about 9/11 but decided to ignore them, a national survey found.

<snip>

* Eight out of 10 Americans suspect oil companies are conspiring to keep fuel prices high and 50 percent said a conspiracy is "very likely." Only 14 percent felt it was unlikely.

More here.

http://geolib.com/smith.adam/won1-08.html
See parag 13

How about you, John?

Any ideas?

The American people are not only being lied to but their rights are being taken away too. What's next?

The Constitution protects individuals against unreasonable searches, but for this protection to have practical meaning, the courts must enforce it. This week, the Supreme Court let stand a disturbing ruling out of California that allows law enforcement to barge into people’s homes without a warrant. The case has not prompted much outrage, perhaps because the people whose privacy is being invaded are welfare recipients, but it is a serious setback for the privacy rights of all Americans.

(snip)
The dissenting judges called the case “an assault on the poor,” which it is. It would be a mistake, however, to take consolation in the fact that only poor people’s privacy rights were at stake. When the government is allowed to show up unannounced without a warrant and search people’s homes, it is bad news for all of us.

A Loss for Privacy Rights

Reporters say Baghdad too dangerous despite surge
Nearly 90 percent of U.S. journalists in Iraq say much of Baghdad is still too dangerous to visit, despite a recent drop in violence attributed to the build-up of U.S. forces, a poll released on Wednesday said.

The survey by the Washington-based Pew Research Center showed that many U.S. journalists believe coverage has painted too rosy a picture of the conflict

Reporters say Baghdad too dangerous despite surge

CheneyBush Burned Again: Too Near the Plame

By Bernard Weiner, Co-Editor
The Crisis Papers

November 27, 2007

Bush and Cheney being fingered in the Plamegate scandal by former White House press secretary Scott McClellan is not news. More than a year ago, Americans learned about CheneyBush's complicity in the outing of Valerie Plame as a covert CIA operative -- a treasonous act that put America's national-security at risk -- and about the coverup that followed.

We learned all this partially from good journalistic reporting and partially from Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald in his 2005 indictment of Cheney's then-Chief of Staff Scooter Libby for perjury and obstruction, and from Fitzgerald's May 2007 comments about Cheney after Libby's conviction.

No, the news now is that the political situation is far different than it was in 2005. Now, Bush and Cheney are much more politically vulnerable to impeachment and criminal prosecution. Also newsworthy is that the mainstream media this time around, at least currently, is mostly treating all this as a non-story, with barely a follow-up mention of McClellan's bombshell and its implications. And I've seen no story in the corporate media that mentions Bush's granting of clemency to Libby as a possible obstruction of justice by someone who stands to benefit by his aide's continued silence.

If a scandal falls in the forest, and nobody hears it, did it happen?

WE KNOW THEIR THUGGISHNESS

Here's the encouraging truth: The American public, despite all attempts by the rightwing media to distract and distort, long ago became aware of the worst crimes, and incompetencies, of the CheneyBush Administration.

How could one not be aware of the following high crimes and misdemeanors?

*

lying and deceiving to get America into Iraq.

*

ordering violations of citizens' privacy without any court approval (warrantless wiretapping, secretly rifling through our computers, our emails).

*

"disappearing" U.S. citizens and throwing them into jails on military bases with no access to lawyers.

*

encouraging torture of prisoners in U.S. care.

*

skirting international law and war-crimes treaties by "rendering" suspects to countries that specialize in extreme torture.

*

canceling the 800-year-old legal tradition of habeas corpus where a judge must decide whether the arrest of a person is justified.

*

enabling corruption by U.S. corporations in Iraq and Afghanistan that amounts to grand larceny of billions from U.S. taxpayers.

*

responding cluelessly to the Hurricane Katrina disaster in New Orleans whereupon more than a thousand citizens died.

And on and on.

In short, the American public has been aware for some time that the country is being run by a bunch of crooks and liars and dangerous bunglers in the White House, so how does McClellan's revelation of likely criminal misconduct add anything new to the mix? The Democrats in Congress, the ostensible "opposition party," know all about these Administration transgressions, and much more. But there is no accountability. Nothing gets done. There are no hearings into possible impeachment, no enforcement of "contempt of Congress" charges against key Administration figures who refuse to turn over subpoenaed documents and to testify under oath.

Just suppose Congress decided to call McClellan and Cheney and Bush and Card and Libby and Rove to testify about the Plame-outing coverup. Assuming that the Democrats would ask them probing questions and catch Bush and Cheney in lies, what do you suppose would happen? Can you imagine Pelosi and Conyers changing their minds and putting impeachment back "on the table"? Not likely. But it's still a cause worth fighting for.

"IT'S THEM THAT'S TO BLAME"

We're in the midst of the two parties trying to run out the clock, for their own ends. The Republicans support CheneyBush's staying-the-course plan in Iraq and aim to run out the clock until November 2008 so that it will be the next President (even better if that person is a Democrat) who will be blamed for "losing" the war. The Democrats, eager to pin "Bush's War" disaster on the Republicans, are playing run-out-the-clock by not forcing an end to the catastrophe. The Dems regard impeachment as something of an uncertain gamble as well as a grand distraction that keeps the public from focusing on the endless screw-ups of CheneyBush.

The upshot of both sides playing their long-range political chess-game is that major, complex problems, foreign and domestic, are not being properly addressed. In terms of the Iraq war, it also means that hundreds or maybe even tens of thousands of additional U.S. troops will die or come back home physically or mentally maimed, and that hundreds of thousands of more innocent Iraqis may well be slaughtered or wounded as well.

Two Iraq news item of note: 1) Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who was the commanding general in Iraq 2003-2004, now says it's time to bring the U.S. troops home and out from that hellhole quagmire. 2) We've only now learned that the Pentagon has not been counting 20,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq who've suffered traumatic brain injuries as part of the wounded figures reported each month. Indeed, if one wanted a more accurate figure for combined American dead and wounded since 2003, it's probably closer to 75,000-100,000 than it is to the lowballing figures CheneyBush admit to.)

ANY POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS?

So, is there any hope on the horizon?

I can see two possible avenues worth exploring:

1. After indicting Cheney's Chief of Staff, Scooter Libby, Special Counsel Fitzgerald never fully closed down his probe into the Plamegate affair. Basically, he left the case open just a crack in the event new evidence surfaced. McClellan's published excerpt from his book would suggest that the Special Counsel might find such evidence if he put the five principals under oath before a new grand jury and delved further into the matter.

Here is McClellan's excerpt from the soon-to-be published book, as reported in Editor & Publisher:

"The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.

"There was one problem. It was not true.

"I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President's chief of staff, and the president himself." (emphasis supplied)

After that statement about the Big Five was released, the publisher, Public Affairs Press, backed off a bit. In the above excerpt, McClellan clearly seems to be aware that a possible obstruction of justice had taken place, with Cheney and Bush "involved" at the heart of the coverup. Now, the publisher's quick rollback suggests that there may be more to this subject than meets the eye. Was McClellan or his publisher threatened with harm or warned to back down? (The book is due for publication in April, time enough for some prudent "massaging" of the text.) It would seem that the only way to find out is to put the author and publisher under oath before a newly-impaneled grand jury, along with each of the Big Five.

A POSSIBLE FITZMAS PRESENT?

Will Fitzgerald rise to the occasion, or will he find some convenient, legalistic excuse to do nothing?

At one time, I thought Fitzgerald was a fearless prosecutor who would go where the facts suggested and delve deep. He had Rove in his sights and let him slip away. He excoriated Cheney in his trial summary but went no further. So I don't know what to think of Fitzgerald now, and whether he has the cajones to try to re-open the Plame probe in the service of truth and justice.

2. The Democrats, should they choose to do so, could get McClellan, the publisher, and the Big Five under oath as well. Let Henry Waxman and his bulldog staff have a go at them and see if they can discover who's telling lies and who's closer to the truth. If perjury is committed under oath before Congress, cite the lies and enforce any contempt citations. If it's Bush and/or Cheney who are involved and lying, impeach at once.

Pelosi and Conyers and Reid do not want to go there. That's why it's up to rank-and-file Democrats -- that's us, folks -- to demand, with creativity and tenacity, an investigation of McClellan's admission in such numbers that the media and the relevant Congressional committees (or perhaps a special joint panel) would feel obliged to hold such public hearings.

All of this activist momentum could eventuate in nothing being done, of course -- the Republicans could remain in their delay-and-obstruct mode, and the Democrats could say a few nasty words and then go back to their state of moral-hibernation. But if we defenders of democracy truly believe that CheneyBush are doing great damage to the fabric of American society, and that lives are on the line, then we really have no choice but to take them on yet again.

Each time we do so, we add a bit more weight and momentum to those favoring cleansing and reforming our polity, and, who knows?, that may just provide just what is needed for the "tipping point," for "critical mass," to be achieved on the impeachment issue. Want to join in?

click here

--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
You can lead a republican to the truth, but you can't make him think it...

The permanent Republican majority:
Part one: How a coterie of Republican heavyweights sent a governor to jail
11/26/2007 @ 11:28 am
Filed by Larisa Alexandrovna and Muriel Kane

Part one of a Raw Story Investigates series on the architects and the execution of backroom Republican politics

For most Americans, the very concept of political prisoners is remote and exotic, a practice that is associated with third-world dictatorships but is foreign to the American tradition. The idea that a prominent politician -- a former state governor -- could be tried on charges that many observers consider to be trumped-up, convicted in a trial that involved numerous questionable procedures, and then hauled off to prison in shackles immediately upon sentencing would be almost unbelievable.

But there is such a politician: Don Siegelman, Democratic governor of Alabama from 1999 to 2003. Starting just a few weeks after he took office, Siegelman was targeted by an investigation launched by his political opponents and escalated from the state to the federal level by Bush Administration appointees in 2001.

Siegelman was ultimately charged with 32 counts of bribery and other crimes in 2005, just as he began to attempt a political comeback. He was convicted the following year on seven of those charges. Last summer, Siegelman was sentenced to seven years in prison and immediately whisked off to a series of out-of-state jails, not even being allowed to remain free on bond while his appeal was under way.

Shortly before the sentencing, however, suspicions expressed by Alabama observers that there was something "fishy" about the case -- as Scott Horton of Harper's Magazine would later put it -- began to reach the national stage. What initially appeared to be merely a whiff of possible political corruption became something stronger, with allegations that Karl Rove and the Bush Justice Department had been operating behind the scenes. And yet, despite these suspicions and the attempts of a few journalists to bring them to greater notice, Siegelman's case remains virtually unknown to most of America.

As a result, RAW STORY Investigates has decided to focus a series of reports, interviews, and investigative pieces over the next several weeks on Siegelman’s case. At the very least, the investigation will illuminate an incestuous pool of corruption in Alabama, with government officials, lobbyists, attorneys, and even judges behaving in ways that breach the public trust.

More here

--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
You can lead a republican to the truth, but you can't make him think it...

What happens when one organized crime ring refuses to fight as the other goes on a murderous rampage? The non-violent criminals eventually get dead.

What happens when one criminal political party refuses to prosecute opposing political criminals who violate the law of the land, and the other will prosecute anything that walks crawls or wiggles? The ones without the courage to confront the criminals, get arrested and prosecuted.

I'm torn between my wish to see America resume it's historic trek toward greatness, and an irrational desire to ensure that the ones who betrayed us, be denied the fruits of their backstabbing labor.

The facts are that rank and file GOP'ers still have the plausible deniability needed to justify the continued support of their party, because the noises their leaders make pertaining to supporting the rule of law, are followed by prosecutions. Sure, these prosecutions are 100% partisan, but criminals are criminals, they all need to go.

Why not call for them to arrest and prosecute Democrats instead of Republicans? Is a left handed murderer better or worse than a right handed murderer?

If the next election turns out to be a Democratic "Jumping the Shark", and partisan GOP operatives once again get their throats around the necks of our so called leaders, I think we should encourage them to squeeze for all they're worth.

Isn't it now apparent that the road to a better America is through the prosecution of those who "allow the crimes to continue"?

Partisan enforcment is better than no enforcment at all. If the traitors within the Democratic Party do not fulfill their oaths of office, IMO they will become criminals, and they will deserve everything the next Alberto can throw at them.

I still think the GOP could reclaim both houses, if they joined the Constitutional Left in our quest to undue the damage Pre-2K politicians allowed Bush to do to our Constitution. It isn't what I want, but that is Mr. Conyers decision, not mine.

If they attack Bush for his constitutional violations, then prove to America, through the release of pertinent documents, that the Democrats knew about these violations, they could regain their reputations as Constitution supporters, and throw the entire sorry lot in prison.

Mr. Conyers, it is illegal for you to know about these violations, and do nothing for the sake of partisan electoral concerns.

If you continue to do nothing until the next election, you will become...IMO... prosecutable.

Go ahead, keep playing footsie. What do you call it when one side refuses to prosecute and the other side would prosecute anyone for anything?

A permanent GOP majority.

Eventually, the GOP will use the information gleaned under cover of the surveillance program, to prosecute everyone who doesn't toe the line. Being a sycophant doesn't get you out of harms way, it puts you at the lower half of the list.

Eventually, they'll get them all. It's only a matter of waiting out the clock.