Comments on: Those Democratic Committee Chairs Aren’t COORDINATING, Are They?

By: Minnesotachuck

Minnesotachuck — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:44:01 +0000

Oops! 34 was in response to RevBev at 31.

By: Minnesotachuck

Minnesotachuck — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:42:47 +0000

Barbara would have his (41s) ass on a platter.

By: WilliamOckham

WilliamOckham — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:12:54 +0000

Perhaps harder, but more likely, I think.

By: WilliamOckham

WilliamOckham — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:10:54 +0000

I agree. I wonder what they think is going to happen when Obama becomes President. Do they think he’ll refuse to turn them over? Past Presidents can’t invoke executive privilege, they depend on the current President to do that for them (like Bush did in the Judicial Watch case).

By: RevBev

RevBev — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:02:33 +0000

In case anyone has been listening to the Hersh conversation: My Modest Proposal. For an act of radical favoritism, can we prevail on Pres. George Herber Walker Bush to call for the Impeachment of Pres. W, #43. Maybe we can get the good partnership of the Sr. Bush with Pres. Clinton to coordinate the effort. 43 has Iran in its sites; looking for a bogus excuse to go in. Of course without Congressional support or oversight. This is the perfect opportunity for the Sr. Bush to come to the aid of his country. LTEs? All the blog world. Let’s prevail on Pres. Bush 41 to speak truth to his tragically inept son in order to spare our country. Ideas?

By: Mary

Mary — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:01:48 +0000

27 – I think that’s why there was all the back and forth on whether or not CIA said she was covert at the time of the disclosure.

By: emptywheel

emptywheel — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:01:00 +0000

Thanks. Actually, that might be a significant correction–as it would make it harder to coordinate.

By: bmaz

bmaz — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:48:27 +0000

That letter is bull. They do NOT formally assert any privilege, nor any other substantive basis for refusal to produce. They allude to, without really saying it per se, executive and deliberative privilege, but in a diffuse manner. Probably because it is a total petulant ruse. Their arguments on separation of powers and all that baloney do not appear legitimate in the first instance had they asserted them to avoid talking to Fitz; come on, if they has had a leg to stand on, do you think they would have talked to Fitz in the first place? No. They made the least obtrusive deal they could with him and did it; but in so doing, they waived all these BS assertions (which were invalid to start with). At this point, I have seen NOTHING that places the portion of the evidentiary record in the investigation in United States v. Libby that concerns Bush and Cheney in any different posture than any other witness or investigative lead. Congress needs to win or go home.

By: bmaz

bmaz — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:34:19 +0000

Yeah, I dunno. Under IIPA, the government has to be taking active measures to conceal identity; if the President is declassifying and instructing his staff to disclose the name, sure seems like that element of the charge arguably fails.

By: BooRadley

BooRadley — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:30:26 +0000

Thanks ew digg