Jessie MacBeth is a special case. Admin at Fort Lewis confirmed that he was never there, but his uniform and insignia errors were so serious that he looked like Dan Rowan's General from Laugh-In. But, you know, even though he's a fraud, the story is essentially true.
Oh yeah, Jefferson is a special case too, according to Denny Hastert and others. Since the DOJ can't search congressional offices, which Jefferson probably knew and therefore concealed his mischief there, we can conclude that our elected officials have a constitutional right to be criminals.
I've know that for a long time, but it's always good to have the decision rendered in the open. That way there's no confusion. Thanks Denny. Now go super-size that next order of buttered bacon.
I think Hastert over stepped his role. In fact the whole congress has done that. They have totally convoluted the power of congress to the point that they are above scrutiny and have a G-d like demeaner.
There were originally 18 powers that the congress had,(enumerated, delegated and specific) but since Marbury v. Madison this has all changed,( I didn't realize Marbury lost the case) but it changed the whole face of the government.
That said, why can't the DOJ investigate, search any congressional office, with due process, of course, of which they had, afterall, they use the peoples money, the people's telephones, they are doing the peoples business and they must be accountable for their actions. If we can't look into their dealings, legal or illegal then we are headed for tyranny.
Thats my story and I'm sticking to it.
Oh and that Macbeth ( what they should do is assign a few Rangers to him and take him out for a run and make an attitude adjustment) he had the whole uniform so screwed up I would have thought that the 'IVAW' would have seen that early on. Or maybe the IVAW is as valid as the phony as the VVAW.
Michelle Malkin had pictures of the guy and compared it to a picture of Pat Tillman's picture after graduating from Ranger School. The guys real name, as it turnes out, is Al Zaid... Coincidnece, I think not.
Re: the Republicans circling the wagons around Jefferson, one has to wonder ... They are so on the wrong side here that perhaps they are urging "Clinton" to fight the good fight. Who knows? What might Denny have in his freezer, besides lots o' bacon? More cashcicles?
My thought re: the al Zaid war protester is that I think we should look at this as a challenge. Just how much can we go "laugh in" with a military uniform before Kos will figure it out.
One wonders if he had silver helmet with a spike on top (like one of the Kaiser's finest) if they would notice. Probably not ... he'd just say he was from one of the military's secret units formed for future war protesters, and the Kos crowd would buy it.
"...a silver helmet with a SPIKE ON TOP..." Too funny, DC. I'm doubled over here. A riding crop would just finish it off, too. LOL. The Left is the greatest humor mill in history.
...And one arm shorter than the other.
Amazing what the left will buy when you package it the 'right' way.
The thing that got me about Hastert's arrogant comments, is, Up here in the Ivory tower we are too good to be even considered as a common thief, but that is exactly what Jefferson is. Where do they get off not being accountable to the people, and what about the checks and balances that is involved IN the separation of powers ?
Here's my legal analysis of the FBI's right to search congressional offices for cashcicles: I think they can. I understand that maybe Hastert and Co. might worry what a, say Pres. Clinton, might do to them with the FBI, but that's no excuse. Their argument doesn't pass the smell test.
But here's how I ultimately come down: A congress that passed campaign finance "reform" is estopped from making arguments about overreaching constitutional authority.
Yeah, I know ... They got 5 Supremes to agree with them. But it seems a little odd to be making such an argument now.
All collegial arrangements, I think, end with the softening of the brain, the spinal cord and the moral sensibility. Fraternal organizations, school boards, juvenile sports organizations (most of all), trade unions and governments at all levels. I suspect my town counsel here in Connecticut is actually a witch's clavern with rituals for permanent empowerment. They seem to work.
Denny Hastert, Newt and the others who are huffing about the office search obviously believe that process and procedure are morals in themselves, which is more or less true of every petty bureaucrat who ever existed.
What still surprises me is that they aren't even embarrassed by the contradictions revealed by their remarks. I used to like Hastert, as much as you can like any lifetime pol, but I'm thinking it over now.
Rhod,
I understand. I am wondering ... Are these guys trying to throw the game? It just looks suicidal to do stuff like this.
What is really bad is the "fruit of the poisonous tree" argument they are making: Give the cashcicles back. You have got to be kidding me. Only lawyers well-insulated from regular human contact think such bravo sierra is a good argument.
You know, Hastert is not looking good these days. But the only thing worse I can think of is ... Speaker Pelosi.
If that doesn't send a cold shiver down your spine, then check your pulse.
Of course, the speaker and the speaker-in-waiting are standing shoulder to shoulder defending the right of congressmen to make cashcicles with impunity.
What has America done to deserve this? To quote the late Goomba, I blame the public schools.
DC, are they really making that case?
The poisonous fruit, I mean; the result of an illegal search?
Living in interesting times isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Ah, good old Goomba. Can't wait for a revival of GNN.
Ok here is my question to the forum.
Fox News asked the question of numerous congressmen, what the problem was with the FBI coming into their offices with a Search Warrant, and searching a particular office. and of course the Congressmen said, Well there is a separation of powers violation.
Now according to the 'Fox Senior Judicial Analysist' Judge Andrew Napolotano , the FBI followed the letter of the law, and had every right to do what they did.(this ought to scare the hell out of some of those congressmen) They presented evidence to a Federal Judge in Washington for the Warrant.
Now for my question, since there is a separation of powers, and if it is to be as strict as Hastert and Pelosi(Speaker in-waiting) say it is, then where are the Checks and Balances ?
According to Hastert, they should have come to him with the evidence and he would have to appear in front of the judge who issued the warrant. Accordingly, the 'Judge' said, this would have been in violation of the law, to reveal evidence ahead of time.
I am inclined to believe the 'Judge' and not Hastert, Pelosi or Ohmert.
So DC the last part of the question is/was this correct and If it is then it satisfies the checks and balances part of the separation.
The complainers of this procedure are lawyers too, why didn't they know this to be true, and afterall isn't this just part of the holding their feet to the fire, aka accountability ?
I hope I made some sense here, maybe we should go back to the Articles of Confederation, it would limit their power.
Since they didn't know this to be true, how can they write a viable law ?
ABC's Internet wire service, The Blotter, has reported that Hastert is under investigation too.
Mark. Great question.
Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.
I think the prophesy, of one certain presidental candidate, circa, 1968, about all the brief cases thrown into the Potomac, is about to come true.
Maybe it is time for 435 replacements and 32 Senators. Lets hope some one starts a fire at the Ivory tower.
Mark,
I think the answer to your question is found in stretching it to the absurd ... i.e., what if the congressman had a body in his freezer instead of a cashcicle? I think we know the answer to whether it would be proper to get a warrant go get the body.
Re: checks/balances, the Congress's read on this is all wrong. Congress has the power of the purse and creating judicial districts. The executive appoints the judges. The judges hear the cases. That's the way it's supposed to work, at any rate.
There is no poisonous tree here. So, the speaker has to clear any search of a congressman's office? I don't think so.
The problem with the Congress is that they confuse the executive's right to refuse their subpoena (which is appropriate b/c the Congress makes law ... it is not supposed to enforce or interpret it) with their supposed right to refuse the issuance of a valid judicial subpoena.
They are dead wrong.
DC
Thanks, I was hoping that was the answer.
Someone's impersonating Mark. He did the same to me a few times. Damn that Anonymous.
Bodies in refrigerators? Heh. You're on a roll DC.
Correction: The perfidious hacks at ABC, in particular Brian Ross, have apparently reported a lie in re the investigation of Hastert.
Time for a Walter Duranty Award on some blog. Ross is too much the cheap and rusty tool to end up like Rather, more's the pity.
Little Green Footballs has a great parody of the kind of nonsense we see at ABC. A 900 Number for "progressives" tired of sitting at home watching reruns of Keith Olberman shows and looking for impeachment updates.
Dial the number, pay $5.95 and you'll get to talk to a "leaker" standing by with the latest "news" that will ovethrow Bush and Company.
Hot steamy updates on the news of the future.
This is much too close to the truth.
I have listen to the "speech and debate" clause argument they are making, too, and I fail to see how that creates a privilege to hide cashcicles ( I mean ... were speeches wrapped up in the foil with the c-cicles?). Maybe some smarter lawyers than me can figure it out.
You're right about being too close to the truth, Rhod. Like I said ... Speaker Hastert doesn't look too hot right now (although apparently under investigation ... shock, another MSM boo boo dealing with a Republican or conservative) but your previous post gives us an idea of what the world under Speaker Pelosi might look like.
Still, the House, which was looking principled on immigration ... is giving it up on this issue.
Nevertheless, the House looks great compared to the Senate ... I understand that Frist joined in the "constitutional" fray yesterday, as well. These guys pick an amazing time to stand on "principle".
This is what's so amazing about these congressman defending the right of Congress to have NO Accountablility.
In a statement yesterday, Hastert said, 'I think, they should have come to me first', I haven't seen any new polls about what the People think of this congressional backlash, but the numbers got to be running against them.
They should consider themselves lucky, they could have been treated like they did John Gotti, and bugged their offices first,... do you think they would complain ?
...What i would tell anyone of them is... 'Hey, Congressman, how does it feel to be one of the little people, again'.
But ya know, Jefferson has got to be the dumbest one of the bunch... Hide 90 large in the freezer and wrapped in tinfoil,, Oh yeah, that is the left over roast... this is too good too be true.
Makes one wonder what Pelosi has frozen for dinner, hmmmm
Glad I stumbled upon this site. If you'll allow me a moment, I would like to address a couple of things here.
Congress needs accountability? How about the people of this country? Our unwillingness to work hard and play by the rules has led to our current problems, where undocumented immigrants are forced to do jobs that Americans just won't do.
I don't appreciate the tone here. I personally think the Senate bashing here is not helpful.
I understand and agree with my colleagues, especially the Democratic ones, that we need to be protected from a White House that doesn't respect legislative perogative.
Even that unvarnished doorknob Sen. Frist gets it. By the way, note that Gump plays ball now after the Gang put the vice grip on his nads. Gosh, a southern pansy is just horrible to be even in the same room with. Does the character Gomer Pyle conjure up any images here?
Okay, that's all for now. But do keep it above board here and stay away from extremism. Remember: Moderation in the pursuit of extremism is a virtue, and extremism in the pursuit of moderation is no vice.
I just noticed this "Blogs for McCain's Opponent" crap. Doesn't sound like something that the FEC has approved to me.
John:
Very classy of you to stop by a blog populated by war heroes. There are lots of them here, from the blogmaster on down, more than you can shake a stick at. So we'll be lifting the ass-end of your toga with our rifle barrels, laughing and slapping "Hug Me" stickers on your back.
You know, John, without your stay at the Hanoi Hilton, you'd just be another slightly creepy Peter Lorre impressionist in the Senate. Subordinate definition Number One for "maverick" would apply..."an unbranded range animal, especially a motherless calf". In fact, the big watery-eyed approval-getting look on that little bovine critter reminds me of you.
Sir,
May I call you that, Mr. Rhod? Sir, you will keep your hands and weapons off my toga and my ass. And while you're pointing the business end of your rifle at my ass, I'll have you know that is the business end of my ass, sir. Stand clear. And keep any stickers off the "I love Cindy" tattoos.
I think you just called me a horse-bastard, though I am having trouble understanding your comment. At any rate, I am not sure the FEC would understand, either, or permit such nonsense.
I have to run. I think I see a camera in the hallway.
One more thing, and I really do have to run. I will have you know that I am a former POW. Therefore, I think this conversation is over.
John
Go find Lindsay Graham and have some fun with him, You know a Brokeback moment, just to relieve the stress of Amnesty and when you come back the gay pride parade will be waiting for you in New York city.
Wow, tough sledding for Sen. McCain here. Imagine that. "John's" blog is giving a ration to all comers, even though there aren't many.
Don Rodrigo to you. Yes, Juan, you are definitely a Piece of Work. Via con El Swimmero Maximo, mi Amigo. Cieren la puerta, and don't hit your skinny cabooso on the way out.
I tracked McCain all the way back to his blog, and told him that his coyote security detail was no problem. Once a LRRP always a LRRP.
Just heard on FNN that the Senate passed the 'AMNESTY BILL', Now all we can do is hope for the House to have some common sense and shoot this thing down before it destroys the whole country.
Shame on you, Mark. They have to cough up a fine of two large, learn to speak a few words of English, and go to the back of the line. As DC says, the horrah. Forget the 11 million for a minute.
In the Hagel Martinez Bill, each year the line gets 3.5 million people longer, or the population of Metropolitan New York City every three years. If, as an illegal, you delay one year, you're 3.5 million people further back. Kind of like the line at a USO visit with doughnuts and Donut Dollies.
The dark joke in this is that a rich state like Connecticut, with a population of 3.5 million people, can't process an automobile registration in under an hour. Imagine the system for illegals. Give them two hours apiece.
3.5 million people a year processed at two hours each by the Feds will take 7 million hours, or 291,666 person days, working twenty-four hours a day.
With the standard measurement of productivity as 80% of a person day (a person day being eight hours), we can add a few hundred thousand more days to the process.
Seems reasonable to me.
Oh, that 291,666 days is PER YEAR.
Boy that will make for one hell of a long year.
You were talking about lines, just reminded me of a story. On one of my trips to the Carribean, we stopped over in San Juan, and of course there were Casinos there and since the Navy always stopped there , there were also Houses of Irr-repute. At one Casino the girl(this Casino had two girls) was in a little house in the back of the Casino, more like an outhouse with a bed inside, and two doors(front and back) and a guard on the front door, and the line streched all the way around the Casino, there were two little houses, and the guard would look at his watch and holler next. I think half the Navy was lined up, and probably used up that years supply of Penecillin, because Sick bay was crowded the next morning.
This is what we are going to get, sloppy 233rds, this is pure BS. And according to one section of the bill an amendment added by our good ole Arlen Spector, and passed was the provision that Mexico has a say if and when we put up a fence.
One product of the Senate Bill has nothing to do with illegals, and poses longer-term problems than impracticality or injustice.
It seems that few people actually believe their government has either the intentions or capability to enforce its own legislation.
A nation "ruled" by a government widely thought to be incompetent, cynical and dishonest is bound for a crisis of legitimacy. No one can be certain where this will lead.
Rhod,
Here's a reason for optimism. The senators up for election this year are overwhelmingly against the Senate's approach. Meanwhile, the House (where every one faces the voters this year) has spoken its mind.
So, what does this mean? It means that as the issue stays in the public consciousness that more Senators will play ball. That is, only a third of them face the voters every two years. But given the current inaction or worse (the Senate's "Mexico, may we build a fence?" approach) then we will continue to see a public upset and ready for action on this issue.
As a result, as it stay's on people's minds, we'll see more senators changing their views ... voila, magically to coincide with their reelection campaigns.
The key to this, of course, is for people to stay engaged and upset on the issue. I think that's an almost certainty. As such, change is on the horizon.
It's a recipe for the House to hold fast. They've got the public with them, and they should play hardball. We'll see.
DC
You said, Stay upset and angry, you don't have to worry about me, I am in a constant state of agitation.
Commenting by HaloScan
