Hillary for Secretary of State?Not so Fast

There has been a lot of speculation that Hillary Clinton will be Obama's pick for Secretary of State. However, there may be a problem with that: The United States Constitution.

Article I, Section 6 of the document says that no member of Congress, during the term for which he was elected, shall be named to any office "the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during his term." This is a problem since the pay for the position of Secretary of State was increased during Clinton's current term in the Senate.

This unusual circumstance has arisen before and has been solved by giving the incoming official a pay cut. The last two times this has arisen, however, was with Republican Presidents. While the appointments (with pay cuts) were approved, some Democrats at the time questioned the legality of the maneuver. Now those objections may come back to haunt them.

On the other hand, George W. Bush spent the last eight pissing all over the Constitution, so maybe Article One, Section Six is no longer legible.

Law? What Law? We ARE the Law!

Here's a big surprise: The Justice Department under Alberto Gonzales repeatedly broke the law.

Okay, so I lied. Maybe that's NOT such a surprise.

The most recent allegations have to do with the Department's hiring practices. An aide responsible for hiring senior staff members, Monica Goodling, routinely asked questions related to the applicants' views on abortion, same-sex marriage, and Christian beliefs.

Hell, if someone at Wal-Mart had asked those kind of questions, it would have been sued for a bazillion dollars for violating all sorts of federal anti-discrimination laws. But hey, laws don't apply when you work for the Bush administration.

In fact, one of Goodling's routine questions was this little gem: "What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?" Kinda sounds like something Benito Mussolini's aides would ask their job applicants.

Maybe this is a trifle naive, but shouldn't the Justice Department's priority be to look for applicants familiar with the laws of the United States? Oh, and that silly Constitution thingie?

What Should Have Been the 11th Amendment

Maybe We'll See Them On 'Cops'

Two towns in Vermont have voted to indict George Bush and Dick Cheney for "crimes against our Constitution." The measures, which call for police to arrest the two should they ever set foot in either town, are mostly symbolic.

The petition drive to place the measure on the ballot in the town of Brattleboro was organized by Kurt Daims. Said Daims, "I hope the one thing that people take from this is, 'Hey, it can be done.'"

He probably would have said more, but Secret Service agents showed up and hauled his ass away for waterboarding.

The Law, Bush Style

More bad news for the Bush administration and Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. Two weeks ago he maintained the firings of those US attorneys was handled by people below him and that he didn't know about them until afterwards.

Now more emails have surfaced, including some that prove Gonzalez himself was heavily involved in the firings. Again, this raises the question: If the Bush people have nothing to hide, then why do their stories keep changing?

Defenders of the President rely heavily on two arguments: First, that there is no evidence anything illegal occurred.

Well, true. But isn't that the whole point of an "investigation?" To find IF something illegal had occurred? After all, if you already the proof that, yes, a crime had been committed, then you wouldn't need the damn investigation to begin with, would you?

Admittedly, George W. Bush has a great deal of difficulty with the English language, so perhaps he simply doesn't understand what an "investigation" is. Perhaps Karl Rove could explain it to him. That way, if he truly has nothing to hide, then he can allow his aides to testify under oath.

Secondly, some have pointed out that US Attorneys are appointed by the President and serve at his pleasure. And yes, that is true.... To a point. That does NOT mean that the President can fire these people either in an effort to block certain investigations, or in retribution for prosecuting other members of the President's political party.

And therein lies the rub: One of the fired prosecutors was Carol Lam, who wversaw the indictment and conviction of Republican Congressman Randall "Duke" Cunningham for accepting millions of dollars in bribes.

Another prosecutor who was fired was John McKay of Washington state. Two years ago he decided against bringing voter fraud charges in a close governor's race that was ultimately won by a democrat. That particular firing is under especially close scrutiny because White House officials had questioned his political loyalties three months before he was given the boot.

Former news anchor Dan Rather recently appeared on Bill Maher's show and gave what is a concise and clear terms just why this uproar over the prosecutors is such a big deal. It runs 4 minutes and 48 seconds, and it's worth watching.

Meanwhile, a new poll shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans support having White House aides testify about the firings under oath.

Yeah, like that's going to matter. This administration continues to piss on the will of the American people when it comes to Iraq, and it shows no hesitancy about continuing to send our sons and daughters to die in a conflict built entirely on lies. Why the hell should Bush start caring about public opinion now?

Another Damn Flip-Flopper

George W. Bush prides himself on "staying the course." You may recall that in 2004, Bush and his campaign handlers openly mocked Kerry's ever-evolving positions on various matters.

But is such flexibility necessarily bad? Or is the ability to recognize new facts and adapt to changing circumstances a good thing?

More than 200 years ago, one of America's founding fathers wasn't afraid to change his mind. James Madison--our fourth President--initially resisted calls for a Bill of Rights to be included in the new Constitution. He felt that such an addition would be redundant, since most of those freedoms were understood to be guaranteed by other sections of the Constitution.

Eventually, however, Madison came to not only realize that he was wrong, but to have the guts to admit his mistake. Once he threw his weight behind the Bill of Rights, it was adopted by the Continental Congress and became the first ten amendments to our Constitution.

Good thing Bush wasn't around back then, or he would have branded Adams a flip-flopper.

More News From That Wretched Hive Of Scum And Villiany

About a month ago rumblings of some questionable firings of several Federal prosecutors began to surface. The allegations were that the prosecutors weren't moving fast enough on some investigations against Democrats. The White House naturally denied any involvement in the matter, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez assured Congress that the prosecutors in question were fired because they were "underperforming" (Insert Viagra joke here).

Earlier in the week we learned that it was indeed the White House which first pressed for the firings some two years ago. The blame for the fiasco (the firings fiasco, which is not to be confused with the Iraq fiasco, or the neglected Veterans fiasco, or the Scooter Libby fiasco, or the Hurricane Katrina fiasco) was originally directed at former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers. This was convenient, since Ms. Miers was no longer working there.

New emails uncovered today, however, indicate that top presidential adviser Karl "Jaba the Hut" Rove had a role in the firings. According to this new email from 2005, the White House was looking to get rid of prosecutors who weren't "loyal Bushies."

Hmmmm.... Nothing wrong with that.

Adding to the White House's woes is the news from last week that the FBI had been improperly gathering information on Americans. This cuts to the very heart of one of the main arguments against the so-called Patriot Act, which was adopted in the weeks after 9-11: You can't trust the FBI to properly restrain itself, and that's why it's dangerous to NOT require court orders.

A Prediction

When Obi-Wan Kenobi told young Luke that he "will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy" than Mos Eisley spaceport, it's likely that the old Jedi master hadn't yet heard of the Bush White House.

Even so, justice is slowly being served. Yesterday, Scooter Libby was convicted on four of five counts of lying to the FBI and perjury. The case stemmed from the investigation into who revealed the name of a CIA operative back in 2002. Since this operative was the wife of an early critic of the Iraq war who dared question allegations that Saddam had been buying uranium, speculation was that someone in the White House had revealed the name in retribution.

Whether the outing of the agent was deliberate or accidental remains unresolved. So then what was the trial about? Well, basically Libby was caught trying to cover up what may or may not have been a crime.

Yeah, it makes my brain hurt, too.

Even so, the fact that Libby was Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff strongly suggests that he acted on orders from the Vice President. The problem is that no one has been able to actually prove that Cheney is a Dark Lord of the Sith.

So what happens to Libby now? Will he go to Federal prison and end up getting gang raped while picking up the soap? Unfortunately, that's doubtful. Libby won't be sentenced for a couple of months, and then his lawyers will likely file an appeal. That means Libby will remain free until the new trial.

By the time that concludes, it will likely be November of 2008. And why is that significant? Well, because I honestly believe that George W. Bush will pardon Libby after next year's elections.