The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Not really interest, I'm just still waiting for Rove and Cheney to be indicted. October was it? Given the hysteria around here, I would have thought they would have been convicted already.

"Though the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small."

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Not really interest, I'm just still waiting for Rove and Cheney to be indicted. October was it? Given the hysteria around here, I would have thought they would have been convicted already.

9/11 was what, five years ago. Moussaoui is just now being convicted. Ours is not a swift, or apparently competent, Justice Department.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
9/11 was what, five years ago. Moussaoui is just now being convicted. Ours is not a swift, or apparently competent, Justice Department.

Want to wager a month's board fees?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Back at ya (from NYT):

• WASHINGTON, March 14 — A former executive editor of The Washington Post was quoted in a magazine article published Tuesday as saying that Richard L. Armitage, a former deputy secretary of state, likely was the official who revealed the identity of the intelligence officer at the center of the C.I.A. leak case to Bob Woodward, an editor and reporter for The Post.
  
  Benjamin C. Bradlee, the Post editor who guided Mr. Woodward's Watergate reporting, is quoted in the article about the leak investigation in the April issue of Vanity Fair as saying, "That Armitage is the likely source is a fair assumption."
  
  The assertion attributed to Mr. Bradlee added the weight of one of the country's best-known editors to months of speculation that Mr. Armitage could be Mr. Woodward's source.
  
  Mr. Armitage has not commented on the matter. On Tuesday, he did not return a reporter's phone call.
  
  In an interview, Mr. Bradlee said that he had been told about Mr. Woodward's source although he did not recall saying the exact words attributed to him by the Vanity Fair reporter. Mr. Bradlee said his information about Mr. Armitage was imprecise, although he said Mr. Armitage's identification as Mr. Woodward's source was "an inference that could be drawn."
  
  A spokesman for Vanity Fair defended the accuracy of the quotes, saying that the author of the article, Marie Brenner, said that she had tape recorded Mr. Bradlee's comments.

OK, but I'm not sure I care. I still don't understand how whatever Armitage might have said is material to whether Libby committed perjury, or anything else that matters.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Want to wager a month's board fees?

That Moussaoui is just now being convicted? I'm pretty sure he pled guilty already, so I'll take that bet.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Want to wager a month's board fees?

Nope. Why on earth would I trust this administration to convict itself?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Nope. Why on earth would I trust this administration to convict itself?

I think he was offering to bet that Rove or Cheney would not be indicted, let alone convicted. But your point is well taken, since it appears that the plan is for Libby to take the fall, rather than to flip himself to dish on those above him. I propose a different bet: That if Libby is convicted of perjury, and that if the conviction is not reversed on appeal by then, he will be pardoned before Inauguration Day, 2008. Want to take that bet, club?

edited for clarity

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think he was offering to bet that Rove or Cheney would not be indicted, let alone convicted. But your point is well taken, since it appears that the plan is for Libby to take the fall, rather than to flip himself to dish on those above him. I propose a different bet: That if Libby is convicted of perjury, and that if the conviction is not reversed on appeal by then, he will be pardoned before Inauguration Day, 2008. Want to take that bet, club?

edited for clarity

Correct and no, I don't want that bet. There is plenty of, eh hem, recent precedent regarding dirty pardons.

[sgtclub]

DEM Agenda -

• (CNSNews.com) - The Republican Party has wondered what's taking Democrats so long to unveil their election-year agenda. Amid press reports that it will happen any day now, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday offered what amounts to a draft version.
  
  Americans who find it hard to make ends meet may like the promises they hear from the Democrats. But the companies that employ such Americans may not like the plan.
  
  In any case, the Republican Party says the Democrats' real agenda involves the censure and possible impeachment of President George W. Bush.
  
  In a speech to the Communications Workers of America on Tuesday, Pelosi mentioned Democrats' opposition to outsourcing. She said Democrats will end tax subsidies for companies that send jobs overseas.
  
  She also said Democrats support the "right of all Americans to organize," a sentiment that goes over well with labor unions such as the CWA.
  
  To protect workers who want to join unions, Pelosi said Democrats are "fighting" to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, sponsored by Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) in the House and Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) in the Senate. "The bill will guarantee that when a majority of workers in a company want a union, they will get a union," Pelosi said.
  
  Democrats also support an increase in the minimum wage. Pelosi, describing the income of corporate American CEOs as "immoral," used Wal-Mart to make her point:
  
  "I was told that an entry level person at Wal-Mart, who works his or her entire career at Wal-Mart, would make as much as the CEO makes in two weeks. A lifetime of work versus two weeks in the executive suite -- this is not America, this is not fairness, this is not the basis of a strong middle class that is essential for our democracy. We must change that in our country," she said.
  
  Pelosi also mentioned the Democrats' "Innovation Agenda" to maintain America's leadership role in the global economy.
  
  America lags behind other countries that have universal broadband deployment, Pelosi said; but the Democrats' agenda "guarantees" that every American will have affordable access to broadband within five years.
  
  "We also believe that the nationwide deployment of high speed, always-on broadband and Internet and mobile communications will fuel the development of millions of new jobs in the United States," Pelosi said.
  
  Democrats support "energy independence" within ten years; health care for all American within five years; and "dignified retirement" (no privatization of Social Security) through an "AmeriSave" plan.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Correct and no, I don't want that bet. There is plenty of, eh hem, recent precedent regarding dirty pardons.

Yeah. I was outraged, too, when President George H.W. Bush issued the Iran Contra pardons on Christmas Eve 1992 to protect himself from the expected testimony in Caspar Weinberger's trial that he perjured himself in making his "out of the loop" comments.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/06/2...an-pardon.html

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Maybe some of you have been paying attention and can answer this question. A newspaper out today says: "Under the South Dakota bill, abortion will become a felony, but only the doctor who performs the procedure is subject to prosecution. The woman who seeks and pays for the operation is not."

My question: Does the bill (or law, right?) not permit prosecution of the woman, or does it provide for a safe harbor? If the former, couldn't a prosecutor go after women in these circumstances for conspiring with the doctor, or for aiding and abetting a felony for paying for it? If South Dakota law is anything like the jurisdictions I'm familiar with, such charges could carry penalties comparable to whatever the doctor is getting whacked with.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Maybe some of you have been paying attention and can answer this question. A newspaper out today says: "Under the South Dakota bill, abortion will become a felony, but only the doctor who performs the procedure is subject to prosecution. The woman who seeks and pays for the operation is not."

My question: Does the bill (or law, right?) not permit prosecution of the woman, or does it provide for a safe harbor? If the former, couldn't a prosecutor go after women in these circumstances for conspiring with the doctor, or for aiding and abetting a felony for paying for it? If South Dakota law is anything like the jurisdictions I'm familiar with, such charges could carry penalties comparable to whatever the doctor is getting whacked with.

Nothing in this Act may be construed to subject the pregnant mother upon whom any abortion is performed or attempted to any criminal conviction and penalty.

cite

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
cite

Interesting. We're not infringing on a woman's right to choose; we're just jailing any doctor who helps her exercise it.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Interesting. We're not infringing on a woman's right to choose; we're just jailing any doctor who helps her exercise it.

Well, is allows her to go to another state.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Well, is allows her to go to another state.

It also creates a plaintiff problem: who's going to sue to overturn? A woman wanting an abortion is going to have to fight through a standing argument first (and I've been out of law school long enough not to pretend I know whether she'd prevail). And how many doctors in SD are going to sue? It's a small, small state. Hell, they have to import a doctor just to perform abortions, I understand.