Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

The media handbook says “controversial” is the most negative description that can be used for a Republican.

I like political parties that aren’t owned by foreign adversaries.

Usually wrong but never in doubt

This really is a full service blog.

Not so fun when the rabbit gets the gun, is it?

Nancy smash is sick of your bullshit.

Disagreements are healthy; personal attacks are not.

We need to vote them all out and restore sane Democratic government.

You’re just a puppy masquerading as an old coot.

If America since Jan 2025 hasn’t broken your heart, you haven’t loved her enough.

The only way through is to slog through the muck one step at at time.

Seems like a complicated subject, have you tried yelling at it?

Hi god, it’s us. Thanks a heap, you’re having a great week and it’s only Thursday!

If you still can’t see these things even now, maybe politics isn’t your forte and you should stop writing about it.

There are consequences to being an arrogant, sullen prick.

They are lying in pursuit of an agenda.

The current Supreme Court is a dangerous, rogue court.

It’s always darkest before the other shoe drops.

Democracy cannot function without a free press.

Reality always lies in wait for … Democrats.

Russian mouthpiece, go fuck yourself.

Authoritarian republicans are opposed to freedom for the rest of us.

Let’s delete this post and never speak of this again.

The line between political reporting and fan fiction continues to blur.

You are here: Home / All Together Now

Reader Interactions

27Comments

  1. 1.

    Zifnab

    He’s lawyering up to face down bogus allegations drummed up by a corrupt and vendictive Democratic Party that only wants to use this case to win elections in ’08.

    Where’s the underlying crime, John? You going to arrest him for doing his job and fighting terrorism? Why don’t we just have trial by Nancy Pelosi and Osama Bin Laden?

    Partisan Witchhunt!
    Innocent until proven guilty!
    Punished for doing his job!
    You’re only supporting the terrorists!
    Waste of tax dollars!
    He made $45k / year and was still on government entitlement welfare! … wait, wrong story.

  7. 7.

    tBone

    I remember a democrat saying something similar:

    And guess what? It was stupid when he said it too.

    Paul, is there any issue, any issue at all, where your response adds up to more than “Democrats did it too!”

  9. 9.

    Peter Johnson

    In a comment to the media, Nifong asked why the players needed to hire attorneys if they were not guilty

    The silence from liberals about Nifong is deafening. Nifong actually broke the law as a prosecutor. There is no evidence Gonzales broke any laws. If Nifong had been a Bush appointee instead of a Democratic one, the left-wing blogosphere would have gone nuts.

  10. 10.

    Paul L.

    And guess what? It was stupid when he said it too.

    Paul, is there any issue, any issue at all, where your response adds up to more than “Democrats did it too!”

    I am just pointing out that you should not judge a defendant’s innocence or guilt by the fact that they hired a lawyer.

    As Nifong got the media along with the urban and gender studies types to do in the Duke rape hoax.

  11. 11.

    Peter Johnson

    I am just pointing out that you should not judge a defendant’s innocence or guilt by the fact that they hired a lawyer.

    That’s something we should all agree on.

  12. 12.

    Gus

    I do agree. I don’t have a problem with Gonzales lawyering up, nor do I think his doing so is any kind of comment on his guilt or innocence. I think that the “if you haven’t done anything wrong you have nothing to hide” argument is a lot of crap, and I assume John Cole does, too. I seem to recall that “argument” being used to justify domestic warrantless surveillance, and I don’t recall that being supported by many Democrats. I’m guessing many Dems might change their tune when Hillary is elected President, and I sincerely hope civil libertarians on both sides of the aisle will call her out if that happens.

  13. 13.

    KCinDC

    Apparently the right-wing commenters (assuming there actually are any here who aren’t spoofs) can’t read John’s obligatory note at the end of the post.

  15. 15.

    John S.

    As Nifong got the media along with the urban and gender studies types to do in the Duke rape hoax.

    Paul L. must be one of the accused kids from the Duke case. I have never seen anyone find a way to twist just about anything into somehow relating to it.

    Kinda reminds me of Walter from The Big Lebowski and his obsession with relating things to Vietnam.

    “What the fuck does any of that have to do with Vietnam?”, the Dude wonders. “Well maybe there isn’t a literal connection”, muses Walter.

    Paul L. = Walter Sobchek

  16. 16.

    tBone

    And guess what? It was stupid when he said it too.

    Paul, is there any issue, any issue at all, where your response adds up to more than “Democrats did it too!”

    I am just pointing out that you should not judge a defendant’s innocence or guilt by the fact that they hired a lawyer.

    As Nifong got the media along with the urban and gender studies types to do in the Duke rape hoax.

    Next time you can just reply “No” and save yourself some typing.

  17. 17.

    Peter Johnson

    Peter—what do you think about Gonzales’ visit to a hospitalized John Ashcroft?

    If it’s true, I think he shouldn’t have done it. If it’s true.

  20. 20.

    whipporwill

    Capelza says

    Jeebus, Peter Johnson, it happened. Did you not watch the hearings?
    October 11th, 2007 at 1:07 pm

    I bet Johnson did watch. However, as we all know, Proof has a liberal bias.

  21. 21.

    Peter Johnson

    As I recall, it’s a story James Comey told. There are a lot of holes in the story:

    Let’s break it down.

    1. According to these notes, Mr. Mueller was not present at the hospital at any time while Mr. Card and Mr. Gonzales were there. Therefore this entire paragraph as it relates to their encounter with Mr. Ashcroft is hearsay, and not an firsthand acoount of anything that happened. The notes merely confirm what Mueller heard from Comey.
    2. What is that hearsay produced for Mr. Mueller by Mr. Comey, point by point? Comey tells Mueller the following (whether it’s accurate is up for debate):
    1. that AG Ashcroft told the two that he was in no condition to decide issues
    2. that AG reviewed the legal concerns relating “to the program.” (Which precise program is left fully unspecified.)
    3. that the AG told them he was barred from obtaining advice on the program
    3. Mr. Comey then makes sure that no further reconsideration can take place, even as AG Ashcroft’s condition improves, by convincing Mr. Mueller to bar non-family visitors.

    Does any of this prove that Mr. Comey’s version of events is correct? Hardly. What the FBI director has written down is what Mr. Comey told him, and not a single word of it represents independent knowledge of events in the room during that visit. Yet, there are the NY Times and Rep. Conyers claiming that mantle for these notes.

    Let’s emphasize this point one more time. The Times writes:

    Mr. Mueller’s notes of his visit to Mr. Ashcroft’s hospital room provide another eyewitness account of the dramatic confrontation over the secret surveillance program.

    Check me if I’m wrong on this, but don’t you actually have to be there to be an “eyewitness?”

    Two other minor points. First, the time stamp for when Mr. Mueller was notified that Mr. Card and Mr. Gonzales were “on their way to the hospital” is 1920. The time stamp for Mr. Mueller’s arrival is 1940. Now the time stamps may be off, but if accurate then the entire encounter had to be five minutes or less. Hardly enough time to badger man recovering from surgery. Second, Mr. Mueller enters the room at 2010, according to the notes, and finds Mr. Ashcroft “in chair. Is feeble, barely articulate, clearly stressed.” That, of course, is roughly an hour after the visit in question, now after 8 pm, and may not represent accurately the situation at the time of the visit. Had he taken pain medication that kicked in? Was he drained from sitting up too long? We don’t know anything about his condition at the time of the visit, only what it was like an hour later.

  22. 22.

    CaseyL

    As I recall, it’s a story James Comey told.

    You recall wrong. Comey told the story; Goldsmith confirmed it.

  23. 23.

    Tax Analyst

    Peter Johnson Says:

    As I recall, it’s a story James Comey told. There are a lot of holes in the story:

    As pointed out by CaseyL a moment ago, Comey’s story was confirmed, Peter. Apparently that’s not enough for you, which doesn’t really surprise me. So let’s say we boil this down a bit here, OK? There’s really only one “hole” in this story here, and Mister, right now I think it’s you.

    Not that there’s anything wrong with that, mind you.

  24. 24.

    rachel

    Paul L. must be one of the accused kids from the Duke case. I have never seen anyone find a way to twist just about anything into somehow relating to it.

    That, or he’s a monomaniac who’s found his fetish.

  25. 25.

    jake

    I am just pointing out that you should not judge a defendant’s innocence or guilt by the fact that they hired a lawyer I’m completely blind to irony, sarcasm, humor….

    Fixed.

    For those of you shooting PaulEll’s jackalopes, just remember that it could be worse.

    He could be trying to tie this in with stem cell research.

  26. 26.

    Rome Again

    If it’s true, I think he shouldn’t have done it. If it’s true.

    Seems I remember Gonzo mentioning this visit in senate testimony, or am I remembering wrong?

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks