DOJ says US Atty firings not illegal...You don't say!

Somehow, I really thought Holder and Company might tackle the fuckery committed by Bush and his Bushies went it came to shitcanning David Iglesias and the eight other US Attorneys in 2006. From the RSN writeup:

The Bush administration's Justice Department's actions were inappropriately political, but not criminal, when it fired a U.S. attorney in 2006, prosecutors said Wednesday in closing a two-year investigation without filing charges.

The decision closes the books on one of the lingering political disputes of the Bush administration, one that Democrats said was evidence of GOP politics run amok and that Republicans have always said was a manufactured controversy.

Investigators looked into whether the Bush administration improperly dismissed nine U.S. attorneys, and in particular New Mexico U.S. Attorney David Iglesias, as a way to influence criminal cases. The scandal added to mounting criticism that the administration had politicized the Justice Department, a charge that contributed to the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

In 2008, the Justice Department assigned Nora Dannehy, a career prosecutor from Connecticut with a history of rooting out government wrongdoing, to investigate the firings.

"Evidence did not demonstrate that any prosecutable criminal offense was committed with regard to the removal of David Iglesias," the Justice Department said in a letter to lawmakers Wednesday. "The investigative team also determined that the evidence did not warrant expanding the scope of the investigation beyond the removal of Iglesias."

Just shows you what an ass I am eh? Politicizing the Justice Department isn't criminal...yeah right, and I will win the lotto this weekend.  Expecting justice from the Obama /Holder justice department is just plain fuckwitted I guess..

Harriet rats out Rove?

Oh my…this is juicy. From McClatchy:

Karl Rove and other top officials in the George W. Bush White House were deeply involved in pushing for the ouster of several U.S. attorneys, notably including one in New Mexico, according to testimony and e-mails that the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee released Tuesday.

Sworn testimony from former White House Counsel Harriet Miers revealed that Rove considered former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias of New Mexico a “serious problem” and “wanted something done about it” because of complaints about politically sensitive investigations that Iglesias had mounted. Miers said that she couldn’t recall whether Rove specifically demanded Iglesias’ firing during a 2006 conversation, but Iglesias was fired later that year.

Harriet’s statements directly contradict Rover’s. Again from McClatchy:

In sworn closed-door testimony to the House Judiciary Committee in July, Rove continued to distance himself from the decision to push out certain prosecutors. He recalled a proposal to fire some or all of them in late 2004, but denied that he’d come up with a plan to have it done and rejected the suggestion that he had a direct role.

“My view was this is a decision that had to be made at the Justice Department,” Rove said, according to a transcript of his sworn testimony.

Rover is so full of shit, his eyes better be brown. We can now read the transcript of Rover’s sworn testimony with the House Judiciary Committee here and here(pdf). You can also read the emails frm the White House and the RNC about firing the USA’s at the McClatchy link at the top of this post.

I will be reading the transcripts and emails for the next couple of days..whilst my friggin tv is being shipped to Chino for a replacement tv.

Rove deposed by congress critters today.

From RawStory:

Judiciary Chairman won’t comment on what was asked, said

Former Bush White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove was deposed by lawyers for the House Judiciary Committee, Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) said in an interview Tuesday.

Rove’s deposition took place over a period of some eight and a half hours, beginning at 10 a.m. and ending around 6:30 p.m, ET — and the lawyers took several breaks, Conyers said.

Conyers wouldn’t say what Rove told investigators or whether Rove would appear before his committee again.

Oh...to have been a fly on that wall today.

Rove and Miers to testify before Conyers.

But.....

It will not be public nor will it be under oath.

WTF?

There will be a transcript however. Jonathan Turley is waxing poetic on this new development on Countdown. Video when available. From the link:

The agreement calls for Rove and Miers, Bush's top political adviser and White House counsel, to testify before the House Judiciary Committee in closed depositions "under the penalty for perjury," said House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich. The committee says it also might call the two for public testimony.

I want to see Karl in prison orange...in the worst possible way.

To hope, to dream...

Dreams of an Alberto Gonzales, rotting in a prison cell.

Ok, at least squirming on the stand, on trial for breaking the law...any law will do for me when it comes to this fuckwit extraordinaire.

Rachel gives us the latest on Berto.



Photo courtesy of Kvatch.

BushCo's Monica..

The report (pdf) on how Monica Goodling and John Nowacki politicized the US Attorneys Office is out. Thanks to TPM Muckraker for the link to the actual report, which is over 140 pages. TPM also took the time to scour through the report for the 'evidence'. The following is from the TPM writeup:

The OIG report released today on the politicized hiring at the Justice Department, details a number of the candidates that were de-selected for positions under Monica Goodling's watch. One of them, was an "experienced terrorism prosecutor. . [who] had successfully prosecuted a high-profile terrorism case for which he received the Attorney General's Award for Exceptional Service."

Unfortunately for him, he had a wife who was a Democrat.

In the report, page 30 (page 25 on the actual report) starts the Evidence and Analysis portion of the report. This one line about Goodling's testimony in front of the Congress critters last year kinda jumped right out at me:

We believe that several of Goodling’s assertions in this written statement were inaccurate.

No shit Sherlock..what was your first clue? Back to the reports findings:

Based on our investigation, we concluded that Goodling and Nowacki improperly used political or ideological affiliations when assessing waiver requests from interim U.S. Attorneys in at least three cases, which violated Department policy and federal law, and also constituted misconduct.

The most troubling case involved a request from Washington, D.C. interim U.S. Attorney Taylor. Goodling did not initially approve the waiver request. When Taylor called Goodling about the pending request, she told him that the candidate gave her pause because, judging from his résumé, he appeared to be a “liberal Democrat.” Goodling also mentioned that because Republicans had lost control of Congress after the November 2006 elections, she expected that Republican congressional staff might apply to the USAO in Washington. Taylor rightfully responded that these were impermissible considerations and that U.S. Attorneys will lose credibility if they are perceived to make politicized hiring decisions.

Yet, even after this discussion, Goodling did not initially approve the waiver request. Only after Taylor complained to OAG Chief of Staff Sampson, who directed Goodling to approve the request, did Goodling send an e-mail approving the waiver.

There is more, but I don't want to wear out your eyeballs so early in the week m'dear reader..check it out if your interested. I just want Monica and her pal Nowacki, who also went to the same religious law school as Monica, to be charged with crimes. All these fucktards can't get away with politicizing our highest judical office..or can they?

Bipartisanship my ass..

Lame excuse and no one that pays attention will buy it. From the Politico link:

House Democrats will postpone votes on criminal contempt citations against White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers, while congressional leaders work with President Bush on a bipartisan stimulus package to fend off an economic downturn, according to party leaders and leadership aides.

Senior Democrats have decided that holding a controversial vote on the contempt citations, which have already been approved by the House Judiciary Committee as part of its investigation into the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, would "step on their message" of bipartisan unity in the midst of the stimulus package talks.

I swear, these asshats think we are as dumb as BushCo does. Rent a set of balls you bastards and get it done.

Judge orders BushCo to confirm existance of emails.

Three cheers for Judge John Facciola! He has ordered BushCo to provide proof that the missing emails exist.

He has given them five business days to come up with proof "whether the millions of e-mails from 2003 to 2005 that have been deleted from White House servers in fact exist on back-up tapes."

BushCo has been dancing around this issue for years now. They have consistently refused to answer the question by tossing out that good ol "Executive Priviledge" bullshit. The fabulous folks at CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) have been bull-dogging the living shit out of BushCo about the missing emails with various court cases they have brought, regarding the Firing of the USA's and originally the PlameGate debacle. From the Jurist writeup:

Facciola's Tuesday ruling in The National Security Archive v. Executive Office of the President, consolidated with a lawsuit from CREW, requires the White House to reveal whether the back-up tapes are catalogued, labeled or otherwise identified to indicate the period of time they cover and the data they contain.

The order came in advance of a ruling on motions from CREW and the National Security Archive to expedite discovery to determine what relevant email still exists. The US Department of Justice has been unresponsive about what back-up tapes the White House possesses, although it has said that the White House has maintained all back-up tapes since CREW filed suit. The issue of missing e-mails has been an ongoing controversy in the Bush administration, arising first during the CIA leak investigation, and again last year during controversy over the firings of eight US Attorneys. AP has more.

The court order can be read here.

Gonzales pushed death penalty over Prosecutors objections.

According to former USA Paul Charlton, in testimony before the Senate Judicial subcommittee, Abu Gonzales would insist on the death penalty in cases where he was unfamiliar with the evidence, or lack there of. He would also push it over the objections of the Prosecutor/USA handling the case.

How stupid is that? This man has no right running our countries highest legal office. From a Jurist writeup:

Charlton, one of the former US Attorneys involved in the current firings controversy, described a case where the Department of Justice simultaneously refused to exhume the body of an alleged victim from a landfill to provide forensic evidence while Gonzales pushed for the death penalty despite the objections of Carlton and his prosecutors due to the case's reliance on testimonial evidence obtained through guilty pleas. Charlton added that it was "wrong for the government to both seek the death penalty and at the same time refuse to provide funds to obtain evidence that could prove a vital link in supporting or negating its position."

Of course Abu Gonzales turned the tables on former USA Charlton, saying he disobeyed authority in one of his many trips to Congress to explain why he fired the 8 USA's.

In March, USA Today reported that Charlton was among the top 10 US Attorneys in terms of convictions secured.

Makes sense right? I say that with tongue firmly planted in my cheek, dear reader. Wotta asshole.

And people wonder why there are subpoenas out there for all this bullshit. Simply friggin amazing.

Tags: Politics, GonzoGate, Federal Fuckwits at the Helm

Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty resigning, Justice Dept. officials say

Another one bites the dust...

MSNBC:

Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty said Monday he will resign, the highest-ranking Bush administration casualty in the furor over the firing of U.S. attorneys, The Associated Press has learned.

McNulty, who has served 18 months as the Justice Department's second-in-command, announced his plans at a closed-door meeting of U.S. attorneys in San Antonio, according to two senior department aides. He said he will remain at the department until this fall or until the Senate approves a successor, the aides said.

McNulty could not be immediately reached for comment Monday. Justice aides said he has been considering leaving for months and never intended to serve more than two years as deputy attorney general.

But his ultimate decision to step down, the aides said, was hastened by anger at being linked to the prosecutors' purge that Congress is investigating to determine if eight U.S. attorneys were fired for political reasons. The aides spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk publicly about McNulty's decision.

Rest of the article here.

Tags: Politics, GonzoGate, DOJ, US Attorneys, Paul McNulty

Gonzo in the hot seat again..watch the best questioning of the day

Well, so far its the best line of questioning. From TPMmuckraker, they are once again liveblogging the event:

Rep. Mel Watt (D-NC) gets the medal for the best line of questioning of the day so far, pressing Gonzales on the reason for John McKay's firing.

Gonzales has previously pointed to McKay's touting of an information sharing system (a system that former Deputy Attorney General James Comey praised effusively during his hearing last week) and his choice to speak to the press about his office's lack of resources to explain McKay's firing. But as Rep. Watt pointed out, McKay appeared on the firing list far before either of those things became issues.

When Watt pressed Gonzales on whether McKay had been removed because he'd failed to indict Democrats on voter fraud charges. Gonzales said no, but seemed to leave the door open for that possibility:

Yes, I agree that if in fact there was pressure put on McKay to investigate a case, which didn’t warrant an investigation [that would be improper]. But obviously there may be some circumstances where investigation may have been warranted. We’d have to look at the circumstances of the particular case.

He added that there had been "a great deal of concern with his efforts with respect to voter fraud," that he had received letters "from a number of groups and outside parties."

McKay has said that he didn't pursue criminal charges in the probe arising from the 2004 Washington gubernatorial election because there was "no evidence."

TPM has a whole series of YouTube vid's on today's hearing..watch them all here.

Bush's US Attorney a criminal? Oh my...

From Greg Palast's blog:

There’s only one thing worse than sacking an honest prosecutor. That’s replacing an honest prosecutor with a criminal.

There was one big hoohah in Washington yesterday as House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers pulled down the pants on George Bush’s firing of US Attorneys to expose a scheme to punish prosecutors who wouldn’t bend to political pressure.

But the Committee missed a big one: Timothy Griffin, Karl Rove’s assistant, the President’s pick as US Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Griffin, according to BBC Television, was the hidden hand behind a scheme to wipe out the voting rights of 70,000 citizens prior to the 2004 election.

Key voters on Griffin’s hit list: Black soldiers and homeless men and women. Nice guy, eh? Naughty or nice, however, is not the issue. Targeting voters where race is a factor is a felony crime under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Read the rest here. I have been sleeping most of the day today, the back is killing me more and more lately. I do apologize for reprinting other's works..but I deem them to be interesting and hope you, my dear reader will as well.

Alberto Gonzales on the Hot Seat..watch him squirm.

This first video is Chuck Schumer grilling Uncle Al. Enjoy!



Republican Senator Lindsey Graham stated for the record that he believes Uncle Al and his band of pranksters "made up the reasons' for firing the USA's. Al respectfully disagreed.

TPMmuckraker is live-blogging the hearing and putting up videos of the best line of questionings. A blurb here from TPM:

Schumer began on the question of whether U.S. Attorney for San Diego Carol Lam had been told that there was a problem with her immigration enforcement numbers. That supposedly was the main reason for her firing.

Gonzales hedged the question, saying that Lam must have known that there was “interest” in and “concern” with her immigration performance. Members of Congress, Gonzales said, had complained about Lam’s performance. Gonzales allowed that she “may not have been told that if there is no change in policy, there will be a change,” but seemed to think that was an unimportant distinction.

Schumer pressed, citing the testimony of both Carol Lam and Kyle Sampson that Lam had never been told that she should change her office’s approach to immigration enforcement. And he took issue with the idea that the department would let members of Congress be representatives of the Justice Department.

The second half of Schumer’s testimony was even more contentious.

Gonzales’ former chief of staff Kyle Sampson testified last month that Gonzales did not reject the idea of circumventing the Senate until after Gonzales spoke with Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AK) about Tim Griffin in mid-December. Sampson said that he’d discussed the idea with Gonzales before, that Gonzales didn’t seem to like the idea (not clear how he got that impression), but that Gonzales didn’t reject it outright.

But in his testimony today, Gonzales has said that he rejected the plan and never considered it. Despite that, Sampson consistently pushed that plan – first in an email in September, and then in a detailed email to the White House in December. Schumer was incredulous at Gonzales’ explanation that he’d rejected the plan all along. If Gonzales really had rejected the idea, than that means that Sampson was advocating the plan behind Gonzales’ back. Who’s running the Justice Department? Schumer wanted to know.

If I had a buck for every sidestep by Uncle Al, or when he said it was Sampson's doing..I could go to dinner at a very expensive restaurant tonight..and take my entire family.

tags: Politics, GonzoGate, Senate Judiciary Hearing

Looky here! Gonzo's opening statement for his visit to the Judiciary Comm. Tuesday

Thanks to a heads up by FDL, we have Uncle Al's opening salvo when he visits the Senate Judiciary hearing Tomorrow morning regarding GonzoGate and the fired USA's. In 25 pages he attempts to be as vague as possible once again. Perhaps this morning's NYT article on more emails dumped on the Judicial committee will help him out.

In order to get the word out early, Gonzo did an OpEd Sunday for WaPo. The title of Uncle Al's OpEd: Nothing Improper.

Keep telling yourself that Berto..but bare in mind that no matter how many times you repeat it..it doesn't make it true.

Maybe if you were wearing a pair of Ruby slippers...

tags: Alberto Gonzales, USAs

Bottom line: Gonzo lied

After watching the testimony of Kyle Sampson since 7am this morning, it all boils down to this:

Gonzales lied under oath

This isn't a maybe thing..Sampson stated numerous times that the AG was involved in and signed off on the firings of the 8 USA's. There is nothing more to add.

Ok..one thing..the methods for determining who should go and who should stay was made by not looking at their stat's with regard to their prosecution records..the decisions were made by political people and their loyalty to BushCo. Every single time Sampson tried to toss out a reason for firing one of them..the Senators blew his ass out of the water with facts and figures on their prosecution records.

Its outrageous that the administration is trying to cover this up. All they had to do was say they fired these folks to provide others with a chance to serve the government.

Say it with me now...

Its not the crime..its the cover-up

Alberto is toast..there can't be any other way to paint this. Plus, Rover and Miers should be made to testify..if only to see how far up the ladder this crap goes.

Amazing..simply friggin amazing.

Round one of the Sampson testimony. Doesn't look good for Gonzo

Sampson did state that Gonzo wasn't entirely truthful regarding his role in the decision to fire the 8 USA's. A quote from Sampson:

"I don't think the attorney general's statement that he was not involved in any discussions of U.S. attorney removals was accurate,"

Sen. Specter hammered Sampson about the timing of the email that stated Lam had to go asap. The email was the day after Lam had notified DOJ that she had search warrants for Foggo and Wilkes residences and businesses. Sampson said there wasn't any tie-in..she was let go because of her inability to persue immigrant cases.

Sen. Feinstein also hammered Sampson about the Foggo case and his email, then read a letter from the Border Patrol head of the SoCal division, which you can read here. It applauds her work in the area of prosecuting immigration cases. She also stated that the FBI chief of the SoCal division called Sampson to complain that Lam was being fired.

Sampson had a case of CRS on many issues raised by the Senators, including the Letter from the Border Patrol regarding Lam's prosecution of immigration cases.

They are at lunch now...wonder if Sampson is having a roll of Tums..

Bill Maher has 'new rules', Slate has 'new oaths'

These could apply to anyone that has to take an oath. Its an imposing thing to do, and you can get in a lot of trouble if you screw up your testimony. So, to put everyone at ease that has to take an oath in front of people that can make your life a living hell later if you utter a half-truth or outright lie..we have new oaths:

1. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, but not necessarily the whole truth, maintaining an overall average of at least 70 percent truth, subject to later verification by an independent panel, so help you God?

2. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, but in ways that are carefully cloaked in metaphor and allegory, so they require lengthy interpretation, in a Zen sort of way, so help you Buddha?

3. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, unless in your opinion we are not worthy of it, in which case you shout like Jack Nicholson in that movie, "The truth? You can't handle the truth!" so help us all?

4. Do you solemnly swear to answer all questions in a semitruthful fashion and not claim things that are totally ridiculous, such as that George Bush actually reads a book every week, so that we all don't have to sit here and feel embarrassed by what you're saying, so help you God?

5. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, except for when you claim that you can't remember, in which case we promise not to press the issue and later bring forth Tim Russert to testify that you are nothing but a dirty liar?

6. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, with the understanding that—hey, who are we kidding here?—there is no real truth, life is an illusion, and let's all get together later and smoke up a doobie, so help you God?

7. Do you solemnly swear to tell lies, damned lies, and nothing but lies, and thus we will have cleverly lured you into our trap, because then, by reversing your answers, we will figure out what the hell is going on, so help you God?

8. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, unless you have an answer that makes for a really cool sound bite, in which case we all understand, because we've been there?

9. Do you solemnly swear to tell us something, anything, whether it's true or not, so that we can cut to the chase and get rid of Alberto Gonzales?

Now..I found these funny in a sick, ironic sort of way...just to be clear.

The history of executive officials testifying before Congressional committees

I know it's a long title. But its the title of a very valuable tool that congress can use if they have to take BushCo to court in order to get Harriet and Rover to testify. The report was prepared by the Congressional Research Service. This report was last updated October 6th 2004. Just a little about the CRS:

The Congressional Research Service is the public policy research arm of the United States Congress. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS works exclusively and directly for Members of Congress, their Committees and staff on a confidential, nonpartisan basis.

History and Mission

Congress created CRS in order to have its own source of nonpartisan, objective analysis and research on all legislative issues. Indeed, the sole mission of CRS is to serve the United States Congress. CRS has been carrying out this mission since 1914, when it was first established as the Legislative Reference Service. Renamed the Congressional Research Service by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, CRS is committed to providing the Congress, throughout the legislative process, comprehensive and reliable analysis, research and information services that are timely, objective, nonpartisan, and confidential, thereby contributing to an informed national legislature.

The short of it is..the CRS is the legal research brain of Congress. They have provided Congress with a fairly good oral argument, imho, they can use when Bush's latest bullshit move is taken through the court's. But on to their report.

Since 1944, 74 members of the Presidents inner circle have testified before congress or their committee's. Only 8 have refused or weren't compelled to testify. Thats a LOT of friggin precedence sportsfans...lots of it. Guess who the guy is that currently is playing advisor to the Prez on this topic...go ahead..guess already.

Fred Fielding. Freddy was a legal counsel to Nixon. During WaterGate. We know how that turned out..nuff said. But I digress...

Don't buy Tony Snow's latest round of horseshit that Congress has no oversight when it comes to the President. Mr. Snowjob used the words 'unprecedented' and 'highly unusual'. We are calling bullshit on that right here and now.

Tony Snow had the audacity to state in a press conference last week that if Harriet and Rove went into the lions den known as Congress, under the terms set by Congress, it would set a precedence. His exact words were:

Q If it's behind closed doors, what's the problem?

MR. SNOW: The thing that we have said all along is, we think that you ought to have the ability for members of Congress to get information in a way that also does not create precedence, and is going to have a chilling effect for presidential advisors to be able to give their full and fair advice to the President of the United States. We think that the compromise we shaped enables us to fulfill that obligation to the President, and to the public in terms of first-rate advice from the White House and the people working in the White House, and at the same time, allows Congress to do what it has to do, which is conduct oversight. There is nothing that says Congress has to have television; it says that Congress does have oversight responsibilities and needs to get at the facts.

In his next breath..he said this:

Q They get to be in public, but you want your guys behind closed doors.

MR. SNOW: There are -- in this particular case, the Department of Justice -- the Congress does have legitimate oversight responsibility for the Department of Justice. It created the Department of Justice. It does not have constitutional oversight responsibility over the White House, which is why by our reaching out, we're doing something that we're not compelled to do by the Constitution, but we think common sense suggests that we ought to get the whole story out, which is what we're doing.(emphasis mine)

If Congress thinks the executive branch is pulling a fast one or lying their asses off, you bet your left nut(or tit) they have oversight responsibility over the White House. I don't give a shit what Tony Snow says. Yes, they could have a Special Prosecutor..but why waste time? Do it yourself Congress, cut out the damn middle man ok? Thanks, now stick to your guns please.

Another question everyone should be asking is why in the blue hell did BushCo slip in that little amendment to the fucking Patriot Act that said they could appoint who ever they friggin wanted without Congressional approval? You know they backed their asses down from that one as soon as everyone on the Hill thought about it. But a bigger question is..

Why would they put a mindless fuckwit like Tim Griffin in one of the USA's post? This man has never done a fucking thing that mattered unless you count being a Republican operative and a good bud of Karl Rove. Thats part of the job description for US Attorney now? No shit?

I doubt it. But Rove thought he was perfect for Bud Cummins job in Arkansas. And guess what? Timmy got it..without being confirmed by the Congress, thanks to that g-d Patriot Act provision I mentioned earlier.

Another point of fact. Rove is known for using the RNC email system instead of the government email system. Perhaps part of the missing email trail is there. Its worth a look, its worth asking him about. As Froomkin points out here, It's against the law to use the RNC email system while your working for the executive branch. Its something about accountability. That pesky accountability thing..damn I just know Bush and Rove hate that.

As Salon writer Joe Conason points out, Rove is a liar. He calls him a proven liar, but I won't go that far. Four trips to the Grand Jury say he wasn't sharing recipes and frankly I do believe Conason when he says the reason Rover had 4 trips to the GJ is because he narrowly skirted an indictment his OWN self and finally fessed up that he was involved in outing Valerie Plame.

I have laid out enough reasons that Harriet and Rove should testify in front of Congressional committees. They should testify under oath and with a transcript of the hearing. Nothing less should be accepted. I would also like to see it on Cspan, but I will sit and read the transcript if I have to.

You can bet your sweet ass that I will read the transcript. Bush hasn't seen the last of Congressional oversight. Fuck that bastard, the shit hasn't even started to be flung. Get those raincoats and rubber boots on boys..your ass and your bullshit are about to be exposed.

Tags: Politics, Bush, Rove, Executive Privilege, Congressional Oversight, GonzoGate

Bush thinks he is the Godfather..watch the video of the "Bad offer"

This is short, but VERY sweet. The folks at Bring it On! Made it..specifically my beloved "Cranky" did it this morning over his breakfast cereal! Stop by BIO and give them a shout out for doing this for us to enjoy ok?



Tags: Politics, Bush, GonzoGate, Executive Privilege My Ass, US Attorneys, USAs

Bush calls Dem's USA probe a partisan job and a show trial.

The Shrub also stated Rover and Miers will NOT appear under oath. He used the phrase "Dem's are using this to score political points"- which is not a direct quote since his speech-i-fying is not on the WH website yet.

He also said he is sorry that these decent USA's are being held up to scrutiny, but thats the way it is.

He used the "political points" line and the phrase "show trials" numerous times. You know Bush, he loves his slogans.

It lasted about 3 minutes. When the WH website has the speech up, I will enlighten as to its direct quotes.