Hey Brad: I have to disagree with you when you say Republicans don't care about national security. As I read it, national security is almost the only thing they care about. The problem is that they define "national security" differently than normal people do.

I wrote about this a while ago at please don't read my blog in an item called "What National Security Really Means".

If the hold onto Karl Rove then it can only mean they were all knowledgeable of what he did and they're all guilty as sin. Let 'em all hang together. What's the likelihood any political operative would do such a thing without the authorization of the POTUS? Being of the same political cloth (sons of Lee Atwater), isn't it quite possible Unka Karl suggested the idea and Dubya said it sounded great to him --- and authorized a treasonous act?

Those Air Force One phone logs or any recordings of conversations could be crucial. I wonder if the WH has shredded any documents yet?

I'm no lawyer, but the concept of "plausible deniability" in re the potus has been in play at least since the Nixon carnival;
you lawyers out there: couldn't it be argued (in court, not just for the hell of it) that the use of this by-now-transparent ploy to protect the president is sufficiently well-known as to negate its legitimacy as a defense of the president?
Seriously, can one go into a courtroom & say "I didn't know the gun was loaded" or "the dog ate my homework" (ok, not sure what kind of trial that would be applicable to, but still!) and get away with it?

And btw, I just received my copy of "What Went Wrong in Ohio", which I purchased during the Blogathon.....

(the Brad Store is still open for business, people! Buy something! Put your money where your mouth is please & support this blog before the neocons learn how to shut it down! DONATE!!!)

.....and even though I am already aware of most of the gory details, it is hard to read. I actually start to tremble in rage as I read "intentional misconduct", "illegal behavior", "in violation of Ohio law", "Ohio election law has been violated", etc. etc. etc., and then I recall January 6th, when the majority of members of our Congress chose to ignore the evidence & move on to more weighty issues like baseball & flag-burning.

Hillary, bless her little heart, is making noises now about video game violence. Thanks, Hillary! So glad you're out there protecting us from VIOLENCE!

I'm no lawyer, but the concept of "plausible deniability" in re the potus has been in play at least since the Nixon carnival;
you lawyers out there: couldn't it be argued (in court, not just for the hell of it) that the use of this by-now-transparent ploy to protect the president is sufficiently well-known as to negate its legitimacy as a defense of the president?
Seriously, can one go into a courtroom & say "I didn't know the gun was loaded" or "the dog ate my homework" (ok, not sure what kind of trial that would be applicable to, but still!) and get away with it?

And btw, I just received my copy of "What Went Wrong in Ohio", which I purchased during the Blogathon.....

(the Brad Store is still open for business, people! Buy something! Put your money where your mouth is please & support this blog before the neocons learn how to shut it down! DONATE!!!)

.....and even though I am already aware of most of the gory details, it is hard to read "intentional misconduct", "illegal behavior", "in violation of Ohio law", "Ohio election law has been violated", etc. etc. etc., and then recall January 6th, when the majority of members of our Congress chose to ignore the evidence & move on to more weighty issues like baseball & flag-burning.

Hillary, bless her little heart, is making noises now about video game violence. Thanks, Hillary! So glad you're out there protecting us from VIOLENCE!