March 5, 2010

"If the White House retreats from a civilian trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammed and the others..."

"... not only is it terribly weak optics in the short run, but it cements in the public mind for the long term all the worst fears Republicans have not just been able to sow, but will continue to sow. Think of the worst possible scenario for what would have happened to New York City, no matter how remote, then insert that into a campaign ad. There's no way to disprove what might have been. Human nature will be to focus on the bullet that we supposedly dodged. Whereas if you actually suck it up and proceed with the trial, it takes all the wind of out that sail. People still go to work, buildings don't fall down, the ground doesn't open up and swallow Manhattan. Democrats show they're strong and resolute and the issue goes away."

That's David Kurtz at Talking Points Memo, whose agitation is manifested in metaphor. Don't retreat from the optics. Don't cement the fears. Don't let them write a bad scenario and say we dodged a bullet. Take the wind out of their sails. Suck it up. Open up and swallow!

But enough about metaphors. Look at what David "The Horror" Kurtz is really saying: Obama should not do what he thinks is right but what will be most effective at avoiding damaging criticism. Ah, but what about people like me, DTHK, who will criticize him for doing things mainly to dodge criticism? Then maybe Obama can get back to just doing what he thinks is right — not because it's right, mind you, but because it's the best way to dodge criticism. That would be cool or ridiculous or something.

Now, open up and swallow.

62 comments:

Sloanasaurus said...

Didn't a wise Chinese turtle once say:

One often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it.

Hmmm...

NewHam said...

"Democrats show they're strong and resolute and the issue goes away."

Yeah, but Democrats aren't strong and resolute.

They're craven pussies who want nothing except first to be re-elected and retain power. They'd sacrifice everything to that alter.

So, no way will they ever take this advice.

Franco said...

This is a good political move for Democrats. Kurtz is delusional. New Yorkers would have been continually inconvenienced. I would have been a spectacle that would galvanize Republicans and even Dems would be alarmed - as they were alreadt. Kurtz is off the mark badly here.

Big Mike said...

We. Can't. Afford. What. It. Would. Cost. To. Have. A. Show. Trial. In. New. York.

CatherineM said...

People aren't worried about a terrorist act, but having a situation where small business is hurt by all the security and traffic disruption. Downtown Business suffered enough after 9/11.

Beyond that, it's giving KSM the right to demand things as a defendant and have this trial take for months the same way Moussoui did. Obama holds that trial as a success because it had a conviction, but the process was a disaster.

Whatever, as long as the "optics" are great, right?

Henry said...

Think of the worst possible scenario for what would have happened to New York City, no matter how remote, then insert that into a campaign ad.

What kind of paranoia does it take to be worried that Obama can be accused of not making a big mistake?

I wonder if Kurtz lost his mind in parsing Obama's job creation excuses. Once you invert Obama's failures into achievements, it must be hard to treat anything he does without cynicism. And it must be hard not to think your opponents can do they same thing.

I promise you that no Democratic Politician running this year is going to get votes by claiming that 10% employment shows how smart and good the stimulus package was.

And no Republican is going to get any mileage accusing the White House of being soft on terror because they didn't try KSM in civilian court.

You can't disprove a negative, but that doesn't mean a negative, especially one this stupid, is at all persuasive.

PatHMV said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Kurtz hopes to catch on with Kim Jong-il if his gig at TPM doesn't work out.

Richard Dolan said...

"Obama should not do what he thinks is right but what will be most effective at avoiding damaging criticism. ... Ah, but what about people like me, DTHK, who will criticize him for doing things mainly to dodge criticism?"

That's an odd way to look at Obama; the categories (doing the 'right' thing vs. doing the 'expedient' thing) don't seem to fit. Remember that a big part of what makes him tick is the Alinsky 'community organizer' stuff, in the 'say or do whatever' style to achieve the desired end. To talk about principles is to miss the point, which is always the exercise of power to bring about the Promised Land. That's hardly the whole story about Obama, but it's a certainly a big part of it.

Even after a year of his presidency, it's still hard to bring Obama into focus, isn't it? The country didn't know who he was when we elected him, and he's still a mystery.

John Lynch said...

I'm puzzled by the argument that NOT pursuing an unpopular policy is somehow more damaging than actually doing it. This is simply spin.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

@Althouse, you link is bad.

NewHam said...

"Reversing the worst possible single decision ever made by an American President responsible for protecting the USA from foreign enemies would make Barry into an acceptible Bill Clinton type... "

No, it wouldn't.

Here's what you folks need to understand:

There are going to be devastating political ads showing how the Democrats are coddling al Queda whether they hold these show-trials in New York or not.

Either way, those ads are going to run and either way, they're going to be very effective advertising.

Because it's true.

You have al Queda's lawyers actually being hired by Barack Obama to work in the United States Justice Department. I mean, that has occurred. al Queda's lawyers are working inside Barack Obama's Administration.

That was fucking stupid and dangerous and it puts the country at risk by giving al Queda the impression that they have friends in high places inside the United States government. That they'll be protected.

Democrats are not serious about national security. They're fucking jokes and they're sympathetic to al Queda's aims to destroy the country and they've let al Queda's lawyers into the government.

That information is going to appear in political ads and be true no matter what you fucking morons try to do now.

You're finished.

Ann Althouse said...

Sorry about the missing link.

Fixed.

Ann Althouse said...

Sloanasaurus! Long time no see.

The Drill SGT said...

Holder should look both ways when crossing the street.

I see a bus in his future

AllenS said...

Every day at the White House it's take your child to work day. They are idiots or cowards, or both.

garage mahal said...

You have al Queda's lawyers actually being hired by Barack Obama to work in the United States Justice Department.

Lawyers being hired at the DOJ?????

Mommy hold me! I think I just tinkled. Ooops.

NewHam said...

Do you think this video is going to make its way into some political ads this fall?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LC211h9AY-4&feature=player_embedded

It's Harry Reid, announcing how happy he is that 36,000 people lost their jobs today.

NewHam said...

@Garage the Bedwetter, who wrote: "Mommy hold me! I think I just tinkled. Ooops."

Not just lawyers, Garage ... al Queda's lawyers. The enemies lawyers. The people who drove airplanes into the World Trade Center. Their lawyers.

Barack Obama has appointed al Queda's lawyers to operate inside our United States Justice Department.

I think that's going to be interesting political advertising this fall - especially since the bare mention of it sets your geiger counter off.

See, you're the best indicator of when we hit paydirt. Anytime you speak up, we know we hit just the right nerve.

NewHam said...

The al Queda lawyers that Holder refused to identify to Congress have been identified by the press.

They are:

*Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Justice Department's Civil Division Beth Brinkmann

* Office of Legal Counsel Attorney Jonathan Cedarbaum

* Senior Counsel in the Office of the Deputy Attorney General Eric Columbus

* Office of the Attorney General Official Tali Farhadian

* Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General Joseph Guerra

* Office of Legal Counsel Official Karl Thompson

* Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Civil Division Tony West.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2761835/the_alqaeda_7_doj_lawyers_identified.html

Why in the world would Barack Obama want al Queda's lawyers working inside the U.S. government?

It just doesn't make any sense why he would want their lawyers working inside the United States Justice Department, where they might come into contact with all kinds of classified information that could be passed along.

That's almost exactly what happened with the first World Trace Center bombers, after all. One of their attorneys, Lynn Stewart, was caught sending messages back and forth to the terrorists.

She's in jail now, but haven't we learned out lesson about allowing terrorist lawyers to operate freely inside our own system?

Henry said...

NewHam -- My brother-in-law worked as a public defender, then as a prosecuter. He switched, he said, because he wanted to try the winning side. That may sound a little cold-blooded, but that is the nature of the law. Our system demands that lawyers apply their knowledge to legal questions and legal proceedings. John Yoo acted correctly, as did the lawyers who provided defense for terrorism suspects.

Don't be so sure that lawyers that provide defense services to unpleasant defendants are all that enamored of them. Some may be. But others -- most others -- are simply dedicated to the system.

Alex said...

Mommy hold me! I think I just tinkled. Ooops.

Garage - your form has really dropped the last month. Nothing is really working out for you lefties is it?

garage mahal said...

See, you're the best indicator of when we hit paydirt. Anytime you speak up, we know we hit just the right nerve.

No, you're just a fucking dope. And I don't mind at all pointing that out. There are plenty of good opinions on this site, but you're never one of them.

NewHam said...

@Henry, who wrote: "Don't be so sure that lawyers that provide defense services to unpleasant defendants are all that enamored of them."

I'm not for one moment questioning the integrity of any of these al Queda lawyers.

I'm sure, like most public defenders, we should give them the benefit of the doubt that they don't like their clients and are merely ensuring their fair trials.

But that's totally beside the point, isn't it?

There is no law that says Barack Obama has to appoint al Queda lawyers to work inside our Justice Department. He could have picked many other lawyers.

Barack Obama made that choice himself. He sought these al Queda lawyers out and made sure they're on the inside of our government.

Why?

That's fucking stupid and it's dangerous, as Lynn Stewart proved when she was convicted of aiding the first World Trade Center bombers get messages out to their counterparts in Egypt.

She's in jail now.

We needn't be put into the position of having to trust the integrity of these lawyers in the first place.

Barack Obama has an endless field of competent attorney's he could have chosen to work inside the United States Government. He chose al Queda lawyers.

That's wrong for America, it's stupid and it's dangerous. It needlessly endangers the country.

I think Barack Obama owes us an explanation of why he thinks its a good idea to have the enemy's lawyers working inside our government.

I can't think of a good reason to do that unless I'm on the other side.

former law student said...

Ah, but what about people like me, DTHK, who will criticize him for doing things mainly to dodge criticism?

So the professor wants KSM tried in Federal District Court because to do otherwise would mean Obama's dodging Republican criticism?

I'm so confused.

PatCA said...

It's not the "optics," David. It's the economy, stupid.

edutcher said...

OTOH, if he doesn't go ahead with the civilian trials, can we expect more attacks on Federal buildings by crazed Lefties?

traditionalguy said...

Reversing the worst possible single decision ever made by an American President responsible for protecting the USA from foreign enemies would make Barry into an acceptible Bill Clinton type...

I hate to disagree, tg, but when did Willie ever do anything to protect the American people? Bombing Saddam was supposed to take our minds off Monica. Blowing up aspirin factories was a poor substitute for refusing to extradite Bin Laden from the Sudan.

WV "lapro" Working girl in the City of Angels.

Henry said...

But that's totally beside the point, isn't it?

No, it is the point.

You can repeat the name Lynn Stewart all you want, but that smear by association means nothing to me.

Why would these particular lawyers be of use in the Justice department? Maybe because they know something about terrorism trials. That might be good knowledge for the Justice Department to have.

Here's two former Bush Administration lawyers on this topic:

"There is a longstanding and very honorable tradition of lawyers representing unpopular or controversial clients," Keisler said. "The fact that someone has acted within that tradition, as many lawyers, civilian and military, have done with respect to people who are accused of terrorism – that should never be a basis for suggesting that they are unfit in any way to serve in the Department of Justice."

He added, "Its wrong to suggest that people who took that position [that there should be more judicial review of the circumstances of detention at Guantanamo Bay] are somehow sympathetic to al Qaeda."

John Bellinger III, a former legal adviser to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, also defended the nine Justice Department lawyers, the American Prospect reports.

"We've had a longstanding tradition in our country for lawyers to represent unpopular causes, and they shouldn't be attacked for doing so," Bellinger said.

Skeptical said...

Parole Board chairman: You're not just telling us what we want to hear?

H.I.: No, sir, no way.

Parole Board member: 'Cause we just want to hear the truth.

H.I.: Well, then I guess I am telling you what you want to hear.

Parole Board chairman: Boy, didn't we just tell you not to do that?

H.I.: Yes, sir.

Parole Board chairman: Okay, then

traditionalguy said...

edutcher...Of course you are correct about Clinton ignoring the AlQueada as his chosen strategy pre 9/11. My point, so poorly stated, was that Obama's discussed going back to a military commission trial would be analgous to Clinton's tacking back to the middle done after 1994 on domestic policy only with Dick Morris's help. Then I said Obama would not do that because he hates the American people's will to win the war declared upon them by militant Islam. Sorry,I am a serial metaphor mixer.

Hagar said...

If DoJ hires former al Qaeda defense lawyers to prosecute al Qaeda members, is it not to be expected that such lawyers have knowledge that the prosecution should not have, or at least should not have acquired in that fashion?

Lincolntf said...

Funny how when President Bush did/advocated certain things he was branded a war criminal intent on destroying not only America but the entire world. Obama's now the President and Gitmo is open, drones still kill from out of the blue, and terrorists are subject to the tender mercies of the US Military, but that's all just a matter of "optics".
Have we downgraded "genocide" to the equivalent of bad publicity? Or maybe the same hysterical idiots who railed against Bush took a look at the real world and realized that the dumb Texan knew a hell of a lot more than they did.

TMink said...

"It's meant to remind people that even lawyers are not above committing crimes."

I know enough lawyers to not need the reminder. 8)

Trey

AlphaLiberal said...

Obama, a.k.a. Jimmy Carter the Second, already did what he thought is right by deciding to go with the rule of law and civilian trials.

Now he is retreating from that position.

Why? Because of the hypocritical Fear Campaign from the Republicans. Even though Bush and Cheney tried terrorists in civilian court and the Repubs didn't say a thing, NOW they piddle their pants in fear of these apparently awesomely powerful terrorists.

What is the fear? That these terrorists are so powerful that they will shoot flames from their eyes that will incinerate New York?

It's a steaming stinking pile of bullshit. Shame on Obama for caving into the demagogues.

Prime Minister Emmanuel prevails.

Henry said...

Some lawyers are, in fact, working hand-in-hand with the terrorists to undermine our country.

We needn't hire them into the Justice Department. There's no law that says we have to risk that.


It took you a while, but you finally introduced the idea of "risk". You think that lawyers that wanted more judicial review built into the Guantanamo hearings represent a high risk of being traitors.

I don't. I think traitors are a little more exceptional than that.

My position is strengthened by the fact that you keep coming back to Lynn Stewart. That's all you got. An exception.

And let's be clear. There is no evidence that any of the lawyers we are talking about is suspect. And yet you would conflate them with a criminal like Lynn Stewart. You would accuse them of being traitors. With no evidence.

AlphaLiberal said...

Don't forget that military tribunals have been less effective at locking them up than civilian court. It's a fact.

I truly hope Holder resigns in protest.

Democrats are such pussies.

Big Mike said...

Well, FWIW, hiring lawyers who previously worked for Guantanamo detainees is a lose-lose situation for the Obama Administration, and especially for Eric Holder.

I think most Americans who are aware of the situation more or less view it the way NewHam does -- that the DoJ under Holder is taking a slant against counter-terrorism efforts.

Elsewhere in the world, where local preceptions of American justice are apt to be colored by old American television shows and movies, local newspapers with an anti-American slant, and what they see of their own flawed legal system (flawed by our standards, anyway, cf., Amanda Knox), the hiring of the detainees' lawyers can certainly give the appearance of co-opting the detainees' counsels after the detainees have shared potentially important information and after their respective legal strategies have been set.

The analogy I'd make is having a football team's coach resign in the middle of a season after teaching a team its playbook and then learning their strengths and weaknesses, so he can go and coach their big rival.

I'm not saying that this scenario is what is actually happening -- I did some work for the DoJ back at the early stages of my career, and I was surprised to discover how much information about prosecution strategy and evidence is shared with counsel for the defense, and vice versa. Having been brought up on "Perry Mason" and "Judd for the Defense" I was quite surprised. But in other countries with different legal systems, this is what I'd be afraid of.

AlphaLiberal said...

This is a real dishonest post.

Now, open up and swallow. .

By the way, David Kurtz never said that. You misattribute the quote to him.

He never said "run away from the optics." He said the optics of the retreat are terrible. And he's right. So is the reality.

All you're doing is rewriting this to fit your worldview, not dealing honestly with what he actually wrote.

Conservatives have been yammering about having "health care rammed down our throats" for months and you don't see any oral sexual overtones there.

You're such a hack, Althouse.

AlphaLiberal said...

What he really said as opposed to Ann Althouse' dishonest misrepresentation:

Looks like being Obama's attorney general requires putting your manhood in a blind trust.

Let me just make one point on the politics of this decision, since politics is clearly what's driving it. If the White House retreats from a civilian trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammed and the others, not only is it terribly weak optics in the short run, but it cements in the public mind for the long term all the worst fears Republicans have not just been able to sow, but will continue to sow.

Think of the worst possible scenario for what would have happened to New York City, no matter how remote, then insert that into a campaign ad. There's no way to disprove what might have been. Human nature will be to focus on the bullet that we supposedly dodged. Whereas if you actually suck it up and proceed with the trial, it takes all the wind of out that sail. People still go to work, buildings don't fall down, the ground doesn't open up and swallow Manhattan. Democrats show they're strong and resolute and the issue goes away.

That's the real politics of this. Not that it should be decided on the politics. But since the White House is already going there, let's be honest that it's a terrible political misjudgment, in addition to the layers and layers of damaging legal precedent.

Trooper York said...

Yeah trust the integrity of lawyers. Good plan.

You would be better served if you relied on the chastity of lap dancers.

I mean there is a pretty good chance that they are really whores.


(Oh and I was talking about the lawyers)

AlphaLiberal said...

Well, FWIW, hiring lawyers who previously worked for Guantanamo detainees is a lose-lose situation for the Obama Administration, and especially for Eric Holder. .

Regurgitate those talking points!

It's not a problem at all. Giuliani's firm also had attorneys representing terror defendants. Let's hear the denunciations!

Hypocrites!

traditionalguy said...

@ NewHam @ 11:55...That was good argument and very effective. I 100% agree with your reasoned position. Keep it up.

Roger J. said...

Alpha Liberal: poor baby, you sound distraught--Mr Obama hasnt quite worked out for you? Want a mulligan on your vote do you?

AlphaLiberal said...

And, conservatives, if Democrats are pussies, how can they ram anything down anybody's throats?

Anyone? Anyone?

Sigivald said...

There's nothing "weaker" looking in a politician than acting solely to avoid criticism, contrary to what he believes is the right thing (for the country, especially, not the Party).

If he and his Party can't take some criticism (even if it's baseless, like "Bush lied!" was), they sure as hell don't look "strong".

Scott M said...

And, conservatives, if Democrats are pussies, how can they ram anything down anybody's throats?

A 2000+ strap on. Dry.

At least, they tried to. Funny how having control of both houses and the administrative branches has yielded almost net zero for them, though.

On the other hand, if you're calling shame-shame on Obama for caving to public opinion over this one, he's not on health care...a topic a lot more people care a lot more about.

Henry said...

Human nature will be to focus on the bullet that we supposedly dodged.

That's where his argument falls apart.

Human nature will be not to care.

Kurtz' line before the one I quoted makes me wonder how he's going undo the knot he's tied into his brain.

There's no way to disprove what might have been.

Well no there's not. And having a safe, expensive, locked-down, gridlock-inducing, televised show trial still won't disprove anything either.

Kurtz is arguing in a bubble with other arguers. Most people -- most voters and citizens -- do not spend a lot of time getting outraged by abstract projections into alternate futures.

People do get mad at traffic jams and idiots on TV which are two things a KSM civilian trial in Manhattan would be sure to produce.

And with no bounce for Obama's poll numbers, Mr. Kurtz would continue to be assaulted by demon hypotheticals.

Lincolntf said...

"how can they ram anything down anybody's throats?"

First they tried rushing it through in a panicked emergency playact. That didn't work. Then they locked everyone out of the room and crafted a 2000+ page behemoth that was going to be presented as a fait accompli the moment a majority could be expected, regardless of debate. That stalled. So then they started publicly bribing and exempting needed constituencies in a way that would make Blago blush. That was as close as they got.
Now they're just gonna assert their will through Soviet style machinations and double speak. They have eight months until their whole house of cards collapses, so they've got nothing left to lose.

PatCA said...

Hey Alpha Liberal,
Was it the "Republican fear campaign" that made the Democrat Congress just extend The Patriot Act?

If it was a war crime for Bush to offer it, why is it okay now?

bagoh20 said...

There is a simple solution: just do what's best for the country and let the chips fall. It's called leadership. Doing it through reversing a previous decision is worse than getting it right the first time, but still far better than not getting it right at all. What's the alternative to dodging a bullet?

Trooper York said...

That's not fair traditionalguy. I never meet lawyers at bars. But you see I have been trying to excercise more and I very clumsy. So whenever I am walking in Prospect Park and trip on a rock and turn it over....there is always a lawyer under there.

And he wants me to sue.

Trooper York said...

Sloanasaurus said...
Didn't a wise Chinese turtle once say:

One often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it.


Actually that was Tex Antione and that was how he got fired from Eyewitness News.

bagoh20 said...

How come lawyers never threaten to strike?

Joe said...

I thought the whole thing was a nutty idea, but why back completely down? Why not just hold the trial in the barrens of South Dakota? New Mexico has an idiot democrat governor; why not hold the trial at White Sands? I'm only being half facetious; there are plenty of places in this country that you can easily make secure. New York City isn't one of them.

Joe said...

Oh, I know the answer and it has to do with having only lawyers around to blow and who would step in to stop the terrorists. Ah, but my interest was only in protecting innocent, hard working, honest people.

NewHam said...

"You think that lawyers that wanted more judicial review built into the Guantanamo hearings represent a high risk of being traitors."

No, I don't, and I didn't say that. I grant you they're honorable men who have, as far as we know, acted honorably.

What I did say is that Barack Obama has millions of qualified attorney's from which to choose to run an effective department of Justice without having to resort to hiring the first enemy lawyer.

Obama has a choice. And his choice was to put the enemy's lawyers behind our wire.

I believe that is strategically stupid; it is unnecessary; and potentially, as the Lynn Stewart case proves, needlessly dangerous.

I merely believe, like I'm sure many Americans do, that it is a mistake for Barack Obama to hire the enemy's lawyers into the U.S. Justice Department while the war against al Queda rages on.

I notice you keep trying to change the subject. The subject is not "are these men honorable."

The question is "Why does Barack Obama think it is necessary to hire al Queda lawyers and install them into the United States government, when there are many fine lawyers from which to choose who are equally if not better qualified?

I think that's a reasonable question.

Why hire enemy lawyers when you don't have to?

Cedarford said...

"AlphaLiberal said...
Don't forget that military tribunals have been less effective at locking them up than civilian court. It's a fact.

I truly hope Holder resigns in protest."

1. Military tribunals haven't been tried yet. Hopefully they are somewhere in the range of promptness and low-cost effectiveness that ranges from a Marine dispensing a 23 cent bullet into the brainpan of an Islamoid from a M-16 down to 4 years, 33 million dollars to lock up Zacharias Moussaoui in a 135K a year cell the rest of his days.

2. Like you, I hope Holder resigns. For different reasons - and his "black panthers cannot commit civil rights violations" lawyer minions also go, his ACLU friends he invited in to help Justice partially implement the ACLU agenda, and takes his dozen "enemy rights" loving appointees, and his 8 or so "criminalize the Bush Administration" OPR henchmen/gals - with him.

Think Obama would have the balls to name John Yoo the next AG? Nothing communicates you are tacking to the center at Rahm's urging to avoid a Democrat debacle in 2012, 2014 like a John Yoo appointment.

Except perhaps a John Yoo nomination to SCOTUS...

Joe said...

it has to do with having only lawyers around to blow and

Great error there on my part, but I'm surprised Titus didn't get all turned on by that.

Fen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fen said...

Alpha: Now he is retreating from that position. Because of the hypocritical Fear Campaign from the Republicans.

Bullshit. For that to be true, you have to simultaneously believe he's not afraid of GOP ads re the unpopular ObamaCare. Really, do you listen to yourself? Your AA admit finally got some OJT and realized what a stupid idea civillian trials are, and you cowardly blame the GOP for "frightening" the Mr. Punch Back Twice As Hard. LOL.


Alpha: It's a steaming stinking pile of bullshit.

Speaking of, I'm calling you out Alpha. You claim this "fierce moral urgency" in opposing waterboarding, but are mum regarding the show trial of KSM, where Team Obama has already announced KSM will be found guilty and executed. Is that how the American justice system is supposed to work? Guilty and awaiting execution before you even step into a courtroom?

So lets stop pretending your opposition to waterboarding is based on anything other than a desire to damage your political opponents. Because if you really thought waterboarding violated American ideals and principles, you'd be harping about these show trials too.

Instead, all I hear is the silence of a hypocrite.

Gary Rosen said...

"it has to do with having only lawyers around to blow and

Great error there on my part"

What is the error?

Revenant said...

Democrats show they're strong and resolute and the issue goes away.

Unless the jury fails to convict.

If that happens, Republicans get a great campaign slogan for the next ten or twenty years.