HJC To Consider Contempt Citation for Mukasey Tomorrow
By Kate Klonick – September 9, 2008, 6:06PM

Finally! Congress is back from va-cay, and they’ve got lots of work to do before years end and House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) is wasting no time.

Tomorrow morning, the Committee is scheduled to consider a citation for contempt for Attorney General Michael Mukasey for his failure to supply documents in accordance with the subpoena issued in late June.

The meeting is set to start at 10:15 EST. We’ll be sure to keep you updated on what happens.

That interview is priceless!

Here’s a link of JT on the O’Reilly show…

From McClatchy: “Mr. Mukasey said he expected criticism of the rules (to loosen restrictions on FBI’s national security and criminal investigations) becuase, ‘they expressly authorize the FBI to engage in intelligence collection inside the US’…”

Classic Bill O’Reilly here…

http://mediamatters.org/items/200405020006

I loved it. Seriously, there is no better way to sum up that clown. Faced with an intellectual opponent O’Reilly’s reflex action is to create a fictional statistic from a fictional bussiness journal, ‘The Paris Bussiness Review,’ to support his ludicrous claims that his boycott of french products has cost the country billions in lost revenue. Nevermind that he was completely wrong, since France’s exports to America had increased during the relevant time span.

What was the point of this foray into make everything up land? It was Bill’s sick, misguided, stupid attempt to threaten Canada with a similar fruitless boycott. OUR LARGEST TRADING PARTNER. What an insanely bloated ego on that man.

By the way, Bill’s tragic attempt to support his baseless arguement prompted some delightfully silly person to create this site.

http://www.parisbusinessreview.net/

Wow, Russ. Quite a ringing endorsement of Bill O’Reilly there. But, somehow your post lacks many relevant facts concerning O’Reilly’s proclivities towards dubios editing practices, bullying tactics, dismissal of facts, little white lies, outright lies, made up statistics from made up publications, stalker producers, inability to retract a story despite demonstrable flaws, callous use of grieving families for political punditry, assuring that his guests seats are lower than his, name calling, troop bashing, self promotion, factor product placement, and xenophobia. Not to mention his alleged inability to distinguish a loofah from a falafel.

“Throughout the balance of his nightly opinion news show he will have several guests on that have differing opinions and he vigrously debates them and that is why 3 times as many people watch Bill Oreilly as watch Keith Olbermann.”

*************

I watch Olbermann and I watch O’Reilly. I do see opposing views on O’Reilly but they are usually shouted down or he picks such weak representatives that they are intimidated. It’s more like Hannity and Colmes with Colmes playing the straight man. I would much prefer a debate between two reasonable educated men as I have described. The intellectual underpinnings of the right with their college dropout mentality (such as Limbaugh and Hannity who both are only marginally educated)do not interest me, but I would like to hear from an articulate educated man with those viewpoints assuming one actually exists.

Bill Oreilly has, virtually EVERY night, opposing viewpoints. His starts his show with his “talking points” and then has guests on that typically differ with him and he asks them where he is going wrong if. It is usually an interesting back & forth.

Throughout the balance of his nightly opinion news show he will have several guests on that have differing opinions and he vigrously debates them and that is why 3 times as many people watch Bill Oreilly as watch Keith Olbermann.

Factually, Bill Oreilly late night RERUNS have higher total ratings than Keith Olbermanns prime time broadcasts.

Now why won’t Jonathan Turley go on Bill Oreilly and debate him? I would guess it is because Mr. Turley is so insecure with himself and his ideology that he cannot face man to man someone that disagrees with him.

Perhaps Mr. Turley would feel more at east debating 14 year old Chinese girl gymnists masquarading as 16 year olds……..

As reluctant as I am to admit it, I must agree with you at least in part. With the Olbermann/O’Reilly juxtaposition, what we have is one group of experts plying their base and another group plying theirs. No real dialog occurs because each side simply preaches to its own respective choir. It would suit me to see an honest debate about, say torture, between JT and John Yoo, or a discussion of Administration tactics between John Dean and maybe Karl Rove. While I would hold my nose while those respective neo-cons were talking,I would undoubtedly open my ears.

What are you afraid of?

PS: Please ask your Countdown host, blathermouth Olbermann that he needs either 1) some talent on his show or 2) some opposing viewpoints or he will continue going the way of Harcball with the lowest ratings of anything around.

…guess again.

Starr opposes Independent Counsel Act

April 14, 1999
Web posted at: 11:13 a.m. EDT (1513 GMT)

“…I think it is fair to say that the Act has been a worthwhile experiment. Like most experiments that are professionally conducted, it has yielded significant results,” Starr says. “The results, I believe, support this conclusion: Jurisdiction and authority over these cases ought to be returned to the Justice Department. And who will oversee them? The Congress, the press and the public.”

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/04/14/test.top/index.html

It bugs me what people and politicians do to the English Language.

This link is a discussion on Georgia on Terry Gross. Evidently McCain has long ties with Georgia and is popular there. I don’t know if he’s violating the Logan act but sending those two vampires anywhere is an offense before god and mammon!

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93561996

Does anyone here think that by sending Lieberman and Graham to Georgia, McCain would be in violation of the Logan Act? Wouldn’t that be considered negotiating on behalf of the US by a non-authorized citizen?

Here is the text of the law: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000953—-000-.html

As to his views on criminal proscecution–some animals are more equal than others. Would that such mercy be shown to those without money and connections.

Mukasey:

“Not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime. In this instance, the two joint reports found only violations of the civil service laws.”

Legal Maxim Since the Roman Times:

“Ubi jus, ibi remedium.”
(Where law prevails, there is a remedy. )

Obviously, the Bushies live in a place where the law doesn’t “prevail.”