NYT: WHITE HOUSE SAID TO PROMPT FIRING OF PROSECUTORS

[DeepModem Mom]

White House Said to Prompt Firing of Prosecutors
By DAVID JOHNSTON and ERIC LIPTON
Published: March 13, 2007

WASHINGTON, March 12 — The White House was deeply involved in the decision late last year to dismiss federal prosecutors, including some who had been criticized by Republican lawmakers, administration officials said Monday.

Last October, President Bush spoke with Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to pass along concerns by Republicans that some prosecutors were not aggressively addressing voter fraud, the White House said Monday. Senator Pete V. Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, was among the politicians who complained directly to the president, according to an administration official.

The president did not call for the removal of any specific United States Attorneys, said Dana Perino, a White House spokeswoman. She said she had “no indication” that the president was aware that a process was already under way to identify prosecutors who would be fired. But a few weeks later, the Justice Department forced out seven prosecutors.

White House officials consulted with the Justice Department in preparing the list of United States attorneys who would be removed, Ms Perino disclosed.

The idea of dismissing federal prosecutors originated in the White House more than a year earlier, White House and Justice officials said Monday....

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/washington/13attorneys.html?hp

[Patsy Stone]

1. These were my favorite tidbits.

In early 2005, Harriet Miers, then the White House legal counsel, asked a Justice Department official whether it would be feasible to replace all United States attorneys when their four-year terms expired, according to the Justice Department. The proposal came as the administration was considering which political appointees to replace in the second term, according to Ms. Perino.

Ms. Miers sent her query to D. Kyle Sampson, a top aide to Mr. Gonzales, the Justice officials said. Mr. Sampson, who resigned Monday, replied that filling so many jobs at once would overtax the department. He suggested replacing a smaller group, according to e-mail messages and other memorandums compiled by the Justice Department.

<snip>

Justice Department officials said Monday that they only learned recently about Mr. Sampson’s extensive emails and memos with Ms. Miers about the prosecutors. The communications were discovered Thursday when Mr. Sampson turned over the material to officials who were assembling documents in response to Congressional requests.

<snip>

Mr. Sampson predicted that dismissals might stir debate. “Prepare to Withstand Political Upheaval,” he wrote in describing what to expect as a result of the firings. “U.S Attorneys desiring to save their jobs aided by their allies in the political arena as well as the Justice Department community, likely will make efforts to preserve themselves in office. You should expect these efforts to be strenuous.”

[matt819]

4. No wonder he wanted Miers on the supreme court

what a toady!

[pacalo]

66. I liked this part, too...

“We would like to execute this on Thursday, Dec. 7,” Mr. Sampson wrote. Because some United States attorneys were still in Washington attending a conference, he planned to postpone telling them they were being fired. He wrote, “We want to wait until they are back home and dispersed to reduce chatter.”

[Bozita]

2. So, Bush was "deeply involved." I'm shocked, ... shocked I tell you!

Whoda thunk it?

[never cry wolf]

3. Very important stuff...

unfortunately it is past my bedtime and I am nodding off... I can k&R however...

[peacetalksforall]

5. This is amazing - voter fraud? How to change reality.

"Last October, President Bush spoke with Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to pass along concerns by Republicans that some prosecutors were not aggressively addressing voter fraud,"

Maximum hypocrisy and dis-reality.

[Bozita]

7. Just like the Patriot Acts, Clear Skies, and Clean Water bills

More spying, more air pollution, and more arsenic in drinking water.

NEVER listen to what they say. Watch what they do.

[central scrutinizer]

65. Notice "voter fraud" not "vote fraud"

Voter Fraud: another term for disenfranchising as many as possible, following the Florida 2000 model. The last thing they want to investigate is Vote Fraud, the systematic way of using intimidation or technology or lawyers to swing the vote their way.

[peacetalksforall]

67. Excellent catch - you're right - it's a nothing. As usual. I hope that

the next exposure is voting, and then ..... (can't say it on GD).

[Taoschick]

6. This really isn't a big deal

When our new President is inaugurated in 2009 he/she will most likely fire all current US Attorneys. They are a political appointment and serve at the pleasure of the President. I can't see any circumstance in which our future President would want to keep a bunch of bush political appointees in the Justice Department.

This may be interesting to watch but it's not a "gotcha".

[Frances]

8. All of the fired people were appointed by Bush

Traditionally once they are appointed they are supposed to go after criminals whether they are Republican or Democratic. What happened here is that Republicans wanted them to only go after Democrats. They were fired because they didn't pursue Democrats vigorously and timely enough to affect elections. That is what the uproar is about.

[Taoschick]

9. It doesn't change the fact

That Congress and the American people have no say in this matter. They are appointees and can be fired for any reason or no reason at all. Why waste our time and energy on something as trivial as this when there are real issues on the table?

[Frances]

12. Why don't you read some of the articles on this and other threads

to enlighten yourself?

[Taoschick]

16. Actually, I'm fairly "enlightened"

When it comes to the legality of any administration firing their US Attorneys. It's been done before, it will be done again, it's perfectly legal and it's really a waste of time to obsess over it.

It does not matter WHY it's done. It's their prerogative.

[DURHAM D]

17. Really - I heard on the tv that only 6 US attorneys have been

fired since Carter was in office. That is only six - in addition to the original clean sweep when a new President arrives.

[Taoschick]

18. So?

Like I said, there's nothing we can do about it. It's the current administrations prerogative.

[DURHAM D]

26. You are missing a major portion of why this is important

but it is pretty clear you are dedicated to your wrong headed position. Damn that constitution.

[Trajan]

31. So ....

You say this : "When our new President is inaugurated in 2009 he/she will most likely fire all current US Attorneys" .....

Then you "So ?" when someone points out that ONLY SIX such actions have occured since Carter was in office ? .....

Someone DIRECTLY refutes your claim, and you blithely ignore that you accepted a fact that proves you are wrong, and you didnt even bat an eye ?

You say A=TRUE

He says A=FALSE

You say A=FALSE ....

It's seems if you possessed more truthiness, you wouldnt be so wrong, and so obnoxiously strident about it .....

It is obvious that such firings RARELY occur, to which you readily admit ....

[swwallace81]

42. I have to agree with taoschick

in that they serve at the pleasure of the president. I remember when Hillary fired the white house travel staff upon Bill'staking office and the uproar that caused. Its their perogative, even its politically motivated.

[spotbird]

45. Not about the firings

It has to do with illegal efforts on the part of government officials to influence the prosecutorial process. If the USAs had stayed on the job because they capitulated to the improper influence, as I’m sure many we don’t know about did, this would still be a scandal of epic proportions.

TWO issues, the least of which is the firings.

[TX-RAT]

58. That's not true.

Clinton fired 93 out 94 in 1993.

[aquart]

36. You might want to wash those words before you eat them.

And you will be eating them.

[onehandle]

40. Gosh. If you say so. We'll all go sit down and shut up now.

We are so sorry we disturbed your agenda of inaction.

[TX-RAT]

57. It's been done before, it will be done again,

Yep!

Didn't Clinton fire all of them in 93?

[kestrel91316]

61. When he came into office he sure did. That is to be expected.

Replace your predecessor's with your own.

However, this is NOT what Bush is up to now. He is firing a select few who appear to perhaps be insufficiently fascist, and practicing their art on (gasp) Repubic criminals. Can't have that.

[Dr Fate]

71. Was Clinton or Hillary asked to go under oath over Attny. firings?

If so did they?

If not, then why?

The difference is that there was no "there" there when Clinton fired attorneys. If there had been, Republicans would have demanded people go under oath and answer questions about it- like we are doing now.

If it's "no big deal"- then Rove can under oath and let the chips fall where they may.

[Demeter]

72. It's Called Obstruction of Justice; and It Is Illegal

And all the dancing about this fact will avail no one in the Bush regime.

[alcibiades_mystery]

74. It does matter WHY it's done if the express purpose is to obstruct justice

It is not the prerogative of the president to subvert the laws of the United States, nor is it the prerogative of the president to scuttle ongoing investigations of his cronies.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

15. Why?

Because of that fact that under oath, Abu Gonzales perjured himself before Congress, in regards to these firings.

They are the ones who have, in the past, made so much of the "P" word. Now, it's time to take that word an perform a little traumatic proctology with it.

[Duer 157099]

19. Yo TS -- can you elaborate on the P Abu committed?

I'm just beginning to even be aware of this story, gosh, I'm so behind in my scandal updates -- isn't there a menu item somewhere in Windows where I can sign up for Automatic Scandal Updates or something? Well there should be.

But really, did Abu utter some other 16 famous words I need to know about? What'd he do *now* ::sigh::

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

27. Under oath, before Congress...

He denied White House involvement in the firings.

End. Of. Story.

Now, his pissboy is saying that he did not let anyone know, like Gonzo, that he was working with Dirty Harriet on the firings.

As frigging if.

[Duer 157099]

28. How very odd.

These guys really are one-trick ponies.

Looks like the cover-up strikes again. There really is a parallel to the Libby/Plame thing. Same story, different details.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

29. Insanity is...

Doing the same things over and over again, hoping the outcome will change.

But that's what you get when a country is run by an untreated alcoholic.

[aquart]

35. "Under oath"? He lied under oath?

I'd forgotten that detail. Oh. My.

Somebody needs to go help that man pack his bags...and keep him away from the shredder.

[aquart]

39. "Traumatic proctology"

I'm sure that's within current Justice Department guidelines.

[spotbird]

46. Congress and the American people

do have a say in it when their government breaks the law. The administration does not have authority to influence the work of USAs, it is illegal to do so (remember laws?) only general policy.

[LanternWaste]

49. I think the point you may be missing

I think the point you may be missing is that members of congress pressured several U.S. attorneys to divulge information on current DoJ investigations that was believed to be relevant to their upcoming campaigns.

That U.S. attorneys were getting their arms twisted if they did not pursue more aggressively cases that would help the GOP and stonewall cases that could hurt the GOP.

That in fact, members of congress were attempting to dictate law enforcement.

[Evergreen Emerald]

51. really lets talk about travel gate instead.

I think it is a huge issue because it is part of PNAC. They are replacing independant prosecutors with those who will follow their agenda and go after democrats. This is using the prosecutors as if it were a police state.

[Morgana LaFey]

59. Not true. Congress has a LOT to say about it -- specifically,

confirmation hearings. That new provision in the Patriot Act needs to be repealed forthwith.

There is great danger in what's going on here. If Bush can replace the attorneys he's already installed for any POLITICAL reason, then our legal institutions are -- or will quickly become -- meaningless.

Whether you realize it or not, these are supposed to be among the least political of appointments. And yet, Bush & Rove & Gonzalez have been newly trying to make them 100% political. Our justice system is supposed to be apolitical.

[kestrel91316]

60. Trivial. Right.

[aquart]

34. Oh, dear me.

"Gotcha" is exactly what it is. With a cherry on top.

[spotbird]

44. You are quite mistaken.

The firing of the prosecutors was the final arrogant step in an illegal obstruction of justice and abuse of power scheme. It isn’t that they were fired, it is why they were fired.

The scandal places Watergate in the bush leagues. It is huge, or should be.

[tanyev]

47. It's not that big a deal when a new president takes office.

But why in the world would the Bush administration want to clear the decks of all the attorneys they themselves had hired in 2001? It doesn't smell good.

[spotbird]

50. For the same reason Clinton,

and all new administrations do. These are plumb political jobs, and the new administration has the privilege to set policy with its own people. Senate confirmation was required to insure decent, qualified candidates were placed in those positions. With the removal of the confirmation process the administration is now able to place unqualified political hacks in these extremely important jobs. Not to mention that those who are gone were fired because they possessed professional integrity.

The Attorney General's office is not a political police force to be used at the pleasure of the president to punish the president's enemies and reward friends with get out of jail free cards. Once appointed the USA's have a sworn duty to enforce the law. They serve at the pleasure of the president, but not as his servants, their duty to the law is paramount.

[tanyev]

52. Yes, a new administration does this.

But the reason it has gotten so much attention is that it is unprecedented for a president to do it again in term 2, clearing the decks of all the people he himself appointed when he took office. The point I was trying to make is that there is no GOOD reason for the Bush admin to have been thinking about this. I think we're saying the same thing, actually.

[spotbird]

54. Sorry, I didn't read your

first post carefully enough.

[tanyev]

55. No prob.

I tried to make the same point in another thread and got misunderstood there, too. I guess I won't be getting any compliments from Joe Biden today for being articulate. :(

[maddezmom]

62. not only in term 2 but in mid-term of term 2

:)

[Beetwasher]

56. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!!! Really??? No Big Deal??? ROFL!!!

Then why are people already resigning, Einstein?

[Psephos]

63. You're right, Taoschick.

The situation deserves to be followed, but it's hardly unexpected. Clinton did the same thing in 1993. As I recall, it was at the behest of Janet Reno, when things were heating up for Rostenkowski. Why would we want to remove the ability of the new (Democratic) president to do the same thing in 2009?

I like your posts; even when I don't agree with you, your arguments are cool-headed, perceptive, and free of self-indulgent faux outrage. Keep 'em coming. :-) It's voices like yours that open doors with those closer to the center, and cause them to give progressive ideas more thought. Electoral success comes from finding common ground and building coalitions.

Peace.

[Dr Fate]

70. B.S.-People in the center wouldnt mind if Rove went under oath.

What in the world are you talking about?

Most folks, center or otherwise can see that he does not want to go under oath b/c he is lying about something.

No one says we are taking away the ability to remove staff in '09- we just need Rove to answer a few questions about it, under oath.

Was Hillary asked to go under oath about her firings- and then refused?

Who are the people in the center that are siding with Rove over anything these days?

[alcibiades_mystery]

75. And then the investigation into Rostenkowski stopped dead in its tracks

Oh, that's right. It didn't. He was convicted of felonies and sent to federal prison. Ah....

Nice try.

Now, about the further investigation into the Cunningham scandal. How's that going? :eyes:

[MsMagnificent]

69. No?

To quote from the NY Times:

Some crimes that a special prosecutor might one day
look at:

1. Misrepresentations to Congress. The relevant
provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1505, is very broad. It is
illegal to lie to Congress, and also to “impede” it in
getting information. Deputy Attorney General Paul
McNulty indicated to Congress that the White House’s
involvement in firing the United States attorneys was
minimal, something that Justice Department e-mail
messages suggest to be untrue.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales made his own dubious
assertion to Congress: “I would never, ever make a
change in a United States attorney position for
political reasons.”

The administration appears to be trying to place all
of the blame on Mr. Gonzales’s chief of staff, Kyle
Sampson, who resigned after reportedly failing to
inform top Justice Department officials about the
White House’s role in the firings. If Mr. Sampson
withheld the information from Mr. McNulty, who then
misled Congress, Mr. Sampson may have violated § 1505.

But Mr. Sampson’s lawyer now says other top Justice
Department officials knew of the White House’s role.
Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, said
last week that “Kyle Sampson will not be the next
Scooter Libby, the next fall guy.” Congress will be
looking for evidence that Mr. Gonzales and Mr. McNulty
knew that what they told Congress was false or
misleading.

Convictions of this kind are not common, but they
happen. Just ask former White House aide David
Safavian, who was convicted last year of making false
statements to a Senate committee.

2. Calling the Prosecutors. As part of the
Sarbanes-Oxley reforms, Congress passed an extremely
broad obstruction of justice provision, 18 U.S.C. §
1512 (c), which applies to anyone who corruptly
“obstructs, influences, or impedes any official
proceeding, or attempts to do so,” including U.S.
attorney investigations.

David Iglesias, the New Mexico United States attorney,
says Senator Pete Domenici, Republican of New Mexico,
called him and asked whether he intended to bring
indictments in a corruption case against Democrats
before last November’s election. Mr. Iglesias said he
“felt pressured” by the call. If members of Congress
try to get a United States attorney to indict people
he wasn’t certain he wanted to indict, or try to
affect the timing of an indictment, they may be
violating the law.

3. Witness Tampering. 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (b) makes it
illegal to intimidate Congressional witnesses. Michael
Elston, Mr. McNulty’s chief of staff, contacted one of
the fired attorneys, H. E. Cummins, and suggested,
according to Mr. Cummins, that if he kept speaking
out, there would be retaliation. Mr. Cummins took the
call as a threat, and sent an e-mail message to other
fired prosecutors warning them of it. Several of them
told Congress that if Mr. Elston had placed a similar
call to one of their witnesses in a criminal case,
they would have opened an investigation of it.

4. Firing the Attorneys. United States attorneys can
be fired whenever a president wants, but not, as §
1512 (c) puts it, to corruptly obstruct, influence, or
impede an official proceeding.

Let’s take the case of Carol Lam, United States
attorney in San Diego. The day the news broke that Ms.
Lam, who had already put one Republican congressman in
jail, was investigating a second one, Mr. Sampson
wrote an e-mail message referring to the “real problem
we have right now with Carol Lam.” He said it made him
think that it was time to start looking for a
replacement. Congress has also started investigating
the removal of Fred Black, the United States attorney
in Guam, who was replaced when he began investigating
the Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Anyone involved
in firing a United States attorney to obstruct or
influence an official proceeding could have broken the
law.

Much more needs to be learned, and Senator Patrick
Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who leads the Judiciary
Committee, has been admirably firm about insisting
that he will get sworn testimony from Karl Rove and
other key players. It is far too soon to say that
anyone committed a crime, and it may well be that no
one has. But if this were a law school issue spotter,
any student who could not identify any laws that may
have been broken would get an “F.”

[SlowDownFast]

10. WP: Firings Had Genesis in White House

Firings Had Genesis in White House
Ex-Counsel Miers First Suggested Dismissing Prosecutors 2 Years Ago, Documents Show

By Dan Eggen and John Solomon
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, March 13, 2007; A01

The White House suggested two years ago that the Justice Department fire all 93 U.S. attorneys, a proposal that eventually resulted in the dismissals of eight prosecutors last year, according to e-mails and internal documents that the administration will provide to Congress today.

The dismissals took place after President Bush told Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales that he had received complaints that some prosecutors had not energetically pursued voter-fraud investigations, according to White House spokeswoman Dana Perino.

Gonzales approved the idea of firing a smaller group of U.S. attorneys shortly after taking office in February 2005. The Gonzales aide in charge of the dismissals -- his chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson -- resigned yesterday, officials said, after acknowledging that he did not tell Justice officials about the extent of his communications with the White House, leading them to provide incomplete information to Congress.

Lawmakers requested the documents as part of an investigation into whether the firings were politically motivated. While it is unclear whether the documents will answer Congress's questions, they show that the White House and other administration officials were more closely involved in the dismissals, and at a much earlier date, than they have previously acknowledged.

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/12/AR2007031201818_pf.html

[DeepModem Mom]

11. Thanks for adding this WP article, agent! nt

[usregimechange]

13. k/r and see wp on this

[bleever]

14. Hello, little story;

Don't be afraid of the bright light.

Your vision will adjust.

You are welcome here.

[usregimechange]

20. WP: Firings Had Genesis in White House (AG Chief of Staff Resigns)

The White House suggested two years ago that the Justice Department fire all 93 U.S. attorneys, a proposal that eventually resulted in the dismissals of eight prosecutors last year, according to e-mails and internal documents that the administration will provide to Congress today.

The dismissals took place after President Bush told Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales that he had received complaints that some prosecutors had not energetically pursued voter-fraud investigations, according to White House spokeswoman Dana Perino.

Gonzales approved the idea of firing a smaller group of U.S. attorneys shortly after taking office in February 2005. The Gonzales aide in charge of the dismissals -- his chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson -- resigned yesterday, officials said, after acknowledging that he did not tell Justice officials about the extent of his communications with the White House, leading them to provide incomplete information to Congress.

...

Seven U.S. attorneys were fired on Dec. 7, and another was fired months earlier, with little explanation from the Justice Department. Several former prosecutors have since alleged intimidation, including improper telephone calls from GOP lawmakers or their aides, and have alleged threats of retaliation by a Justice Department official.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/12/AR2007031201818.html

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

21. Right.

Kyle Sampson just "took one for the team". usually, guys like Kyle will take one, and only one, for the team. Get him in front of congressional investigators and panels, under oath, and things change.

His next move is to lawyer up. By thursday latest.

[Duer 157099]

22. He's the Libby du jour n/t

[Redstone]

23. Oh, the voter-fraud strawman to cover up the REAL election fraud, yes? My God, they really

DO have no shame, do they?

Every time I think they've sunk to the worst depths possible, there's something like this. Thanks for pointing it out.

Redstone

[rocktivity]

24. Yum!

:popcorn:
rocknation

[Conscious Confucius]

25. Peter Gabriel or Phil Collins?

...

[mikeytherat]

41. Phil. Absolutely Phil. Pete would have had nothing to do with this "genesis."

mikey_the_rat

[JohnnyLib2]

30. K & R . Let's hope every Senator and Representative

finds this piece highlighted by his/her staff on Tues. morning.

[rodeodance]

32. look at where this email went:

On Dec. 4, 2006, three days before the dismissals, Mr. Sampson sent an e-mail message to the White House with a copy to Ms. Miers outlining plans to carry out the firings

“We would like to execute this on Thursday, Dec. 7,” Mr. Sampson wrote. Because some United States attorneys were still in Washington attending a conference, he planned to postpone telling them they were being fired. He wrote, “We want to wait until they are back home and dispersed to reduce chatter.”

Mr. Sampson predicted that dismissals might stir debate. “Prepare to Withstand Political Upheaval,” he wrote in describing what to expect as a result of the firings. “U.S Attorneys desiring to save their jobs aided by their allies in the political arena as well as the Justice Department community, likely will make efforts to preserve themselves in office. You should expect these efforts to be strenuous.”

[aquart]

33. Can you say: metastasize?

In the past week, we have seen both firings and resignations in the BUSH administration. We have seen an attempt, albeit a weak one, to be conciliatory on the part of Torturer Gonzales.

Now we're seeing a document dump ON A MONDAY. <http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/> Which Josh Marshall reminds us "never includes the really bad stuff. And if you're not in deep crisis mode, ya' never do it on a Monday."

Oh, and Halliburton has high-tailed it out of town.

I dunno, but my guess is the shit that is about to hit the fan is going to disperse very far, very wide, and stink a whole lot. Well, what can you expect from elephant feces?

[rodeodance]

37. according to this-Bush was out of the Loop.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said that "it doesn't appear the president was told about a list nor shown a list" of U.S. attorneys at any point in the discussions. She said White House political adviser Karl Rove had an early conversation with Miers about the idea of firing all chief prosecutors and did not think it was wise.

Bush mentioned complaints about voter-fraud investigations to Gonzales in a conversation in October 2006, Perino said. Gonzales does not recall the conversation, Justice Department officials said.

[aquart]

38. So Bush has no control over what happens in the White House?

Did Gonzales say, Bush didn't know (which he couldn't know) or did he say, under oath, there was no White House involvement in the firings? Because Meirs and Rove are White House. Which means Gonzales lied his ass off.

[kath]

76. Just like his daddy. Out of the loop.

RRRIIIIIIIGGGGHHHHHTTTTTT. on both counts.

[Loge23]

43. Spin the donkey

The WH attempting to spin this into a good thing - (we only did it to investigate reports of voter fraud).
This is unbelievably arrogant and is yet another WH snub what now appear to be facts - including the administration's tampering of the vote in '00 & '04.
In every instance that they (WH) have been caught with their proverbial pants down, they have twisted the situation into it's polar opposite. This is a Seinfeldian phenomenon which simply has to end as did the sitcom - in jail.

[bullimiami]

48. The notion that bush called to complain about them not pursuing vote fraud

is another red herring.
just another lie in a long series of lies. this is how rove works.

the true part of this one - bush called gonzales to tell him to fire the da's. the lie part - it was because of them not aggresively following election fraud. its the spoonful of sugar to ease the crime down. Of course the sugar never happened. Just the crime.

first, deny. then mix small doses of the truth with large doses of lies, dribble the truth a little at a time to drag it out and lessen the impact.

[Wednesdays]

53. And that spin point will unravel soon enough

When one by one the attorneys come out and say they were never vigorously prodded by the WH to investigate voter fraud... :shrug:

[bullimiami]

68. unless it was some tenuous charge against a democrat.

[havocmom]

64. junta should recruit Chiefs of Staff from a pool of diesel mechanics

cuz they are gonna end up under the train anyway. Might as well start with someone who stands a chance of fixing the train when they are down there.

[BluePatriot]

73. This gets better and better....

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

I want to see a PERP WALK, and, soon!