2 brief thoughts:

His only prayer of winning is smear, smear and then smear. (. It's remarkable that a proven liar can get up and then make up more complete nonsense and -still- get media reception. Meet your liberal media. ). McCain is not going to condemn any of this.

There is nothing that the Rove merchants feared more than Wes Clark attacking McCain's military judgment. He should not have been muzzled. First, Clark was right. Second, as the last few days have demonstrated, if McCain were president we'd be at war again. Somehow. Note to Obama: go after your opponent's strength and take it away.

Posted at August 15, 2008 2:21 PM in response to McCain On Swift-Boating Book: "Gotta Keep Your Sense Of Humor"

Can we please terminate the spammer?

Also, this is really extraordinary for the simple reason that the ACLU briefing is basically amicus curiae, a practice that the government almost always permits if you ask them--especially in complex statutory or constitutional cases. Just bizarre.

Posted at July 30, 2008 10:18 PM in response to Bush Administration Wants To Block ACLU From Wiretapping Law Litigation

Congress has nationwide arrest authority, but the authority to hold expires with each Congress. If they really want to make a point, bring him in the day after the next Congress begins. That would take real political courage, and this group doesn't have it.

Posted at July 30, 2008 10:16 PM in response to What's Next for Karl Rove?

I don't see that. All I see is silence interpreted by his lawyer as innocence. Somehow, I don't think that either Goodling or Sampson are going to be talking much (that is, until they roll on him, which won't happen 'till '08).

I wonder if Gonzo will get a prospective pardon...

Posted at July 28, 2008 5:24 PM in response to Report Confirms Gonzales' Hands Clean, Says Rep

Maybe he can re-hire Dusty to be his chief of staff.

Posted at July 24, 2008 3:09 PM in response to Former Chief Spook Tapped For House Ethics Review Board

I hate to burst the bubble here, but this is absolutely brilliant strategy by Rove's lawyers. He's not on the hook for anything. Here is why:

It is true that under 18 USC 1001(a) says (in material part)

Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

What (a) giveth, (c)(2) taketh away:

With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

That's the rub. Lamar Smith is not the chairman of the judiciary committee. He has no authority to compel anyone to answer anything. Furthermore, the D.C. Circuit's construction of "jurisdiction" is a narrow one. They tossed out an indictment of a member allegedly lying to the House Clerk under 1001. United States v. Oakar, 324 U.S. App. D.C. 104 (1997). Thus, suppose Lamar sends Rove a letter, and Rove responds with a pack of lies. No jurisdiciton, no foul. He's not acting with the authority of the committee.

I freely admit that I could be wrong about this, but I wonder whether you folks have the document that went -out- to Karl and his lawyer?

Posted at July 23, 2008 4:47 PM in response to EXCLUSIVE: Karl Rove Issues New Denials in Gov. Siegelman Prosecution in Written Answers to HJC

You're right-those words were as poorly chosen as Turley's. What it should have said was "absolute immunity for those activities taken in furtherance of their official duties." Thus, suppose Pelosi went to the floor of the house and gave away troop movements. Those statements cannot be used as evidence. She's immune.

Posted at July 22, 2008 2:48 PM in response to Turley's Full of It

Is that really from their brochure? I say that because I believe they meant "waiving." [Stick 'em with a sic]. Why does it seem that these partisan hacks can't spell? [See bob ney and the dukester's letters of remorse for new takes on the English language.].

Posted at July 16, 2008 10:32 AM in response to Payne Forced To Quit Homeland Security Advisory Panel

Artificial insem--implantation in the uterus.

Posted at July 16, 2008 10:27 AM in response to Want the morning after pill? HHS will stop you from getting it.

This is too funny. He has just admitted that he deleted relevant evidence has been deleted (at some undisclosed time). And Waxman's about to investigate and (most likely) subpoena stuff from his computers. Maybe he'll pull a Bloch and have the Geek Squad come over and make sure all the email is really "gone."

Remarkable.

Also kind of interesting is that some of the emails have > next to entire quoted messages, which means that his responses would have shown up somewhere in the correspondence. Not all of those emails were set up not to quote.

I'm just sayin'.

Posted at July 15, 2008 4:14 PM in response to Homeland Security Advisor Provides Emails To Back Up Claims That He Was Conned