Are these appointments permanent? Or must they be reviewed by the Senate at some point in the future? When?

Does that mean that the Senate is the most effective place to voice objections?

Are there any other avenues that might be effective?

Yeah Catherine, if they are recess appointments they are basically stuck there for a temporary time.

I believe the Senate still has oversight....But I find it highly unlikely the White House will care remember. So we're going to have to deal with Van one on one......true the FEC has no oversight of voting machines...

But someone needs to take it straight to them re: HAVA jurisdiction laws.....

Doug E.

With a wary eye for the broad, longterm outlay, this does not bode well for those counties and states who have the audacity to go against the fuhrer on the voting machine issues...how much longer will it be until the point where he's stacked enough agencies just enough to top the hill and start REALLY instituting changes in policy and protocol throughout the nearing-infinite structure and reach of the Washington bureaucracy Leviathan? TskTskTsk...this will be quite a mess to clean up indeed, once (/IF...my fingers are crossed) he's out of the picture at the end of the year...

This is sort of like DeLay choosing the judges for his upcoming trials.

Remember, though, each state gets to decide what machines it uses. Despite Chris Dodd's opposition, my home state of Connecticut decided to use lever machines yesterday. These three sharkskin suits can't do anything about that.

Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution authorizes recess appointments. Bill Clinton used them (made 140 recess appointments including judicial appointments), John F. Kennedy used them, and so have many other Presidents.

It takes time to get a confirmation from the senate. It is not unprecedented for a President to use a recess appointment to fill a vacancy simply because somebody has to be in charge of an agency.

Catherine, recess appointments are not permanent. The are only good until the end of the next congressional session.

The stench of hypocrisy at BradBlog is amazing.

NoMoreHypocrisy--

Thanks for the factual information. When is the end of the next congressional session? Your point about the need to appoint someone rather than leave a vacancy for a number of months makes sense.

You're absolutely right that presidents of all parties have used this provision. I'm not informed enough to know what good or bad appointments any of them made.

As far as I'm concerned this isn't a partisan issue. There are good guys & bad guys on both sides of the aisle when it comes to election oversight and voting machines. Sorry to say, there aren't to many good guys or gals on either side. (Notice that even those who are vocally in support of election reform are not helping examine the voting machines in their district.)

To me it seems obvious that individuals in charge of the FEC should not be blatant party partisans. I wish there were procedures in place so that appointments (particularly to anything involving elections) could be made on the basis of merit rather than partisanship, regardless of the party in question. Or maybe there should be some kind of veto function so that neither main party can politicize our election bodies.

The FEC has been a pretty toothless and crony-friendly group for a long time. They occasionally dip their beaks into campaign finance issues (for example, making the stellar decision (not) to investigate rapper P. Diddy's use of an airplane during a get out the vote campaign.) In reality, they are part of the infrastructure that has enabled elections to become less trustworthy.

The FEC's Penelope Bonsall, for example, saw nothing wrong with a Saudi Arabian-owned company based in the Cayman Islands running the voting system on which the US military was to cast their vote. That was derailed, thanks to excellent investigative reporting by a Newsday reporter.

The FEC has very little to do with voting machines, or oversight of voting machines, except for this important failure: They are the ones responsible for approving the federal testing labs that have performed so dismally.

If the FEC remains as ineffective as it has been, citizens will be able to work around it to regain oversight of our own elections. The real danger (or opportunity) when new FEC commissioners are appointed is that they may restructure it into a more powerful entity. If that happens, the whole ball of wax will depend on how they set their priorities.

In broad strokes, election reform is simple: Citizens must be able to oversee their own elections, must be able to watch every part of the process, must be able to independently verify every component of the process. And it must be fair.

Most of the voting machine activism falls into the "ability to watch" category and most of the campaign finance issues fall into the "fairness" category. Other major areas, like vote suppression and ballot access, also fall into the "fair" category.

So we can judge the actions of the FEC by asking "does this help or hurt our ability to watch" and "does this make it more fair or less fair?"

If the FEC doesn't do what we want (as they haven't in the past) we need to do as we have done with the voting machine issue and take things into our own hands, where they rightfully belong anyway.

The relevancy of congressional oversight and approval of FEC membership is contrasted by the president's contempt for congressional oversight.

His signing of laws he has opposed during their formation has been called a charade and an illegality by yet another legal scholar (link here).

Also discussed in that article is the famous case that chastised a president for doing much less than Bush is doing. That case is Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952).

Lets hope when the congress gets back in session, that for the first time in six years, they will actually show up as congress rather than as a rubber stamp.

There is nothing hypocritical about citizens demanding honesty in the election process. Nothing.
Whether Bill Clinton used recess appointments, or whether James Knox Polk did, is beside the point.

What is hypocritical, and very much to the point, is to insist that claims of election fraud are merely conspiracy theories by sore losers, meanwhile establishing phony committees in the name of honest elections and appointing loyal cronies to federal jobs in an effort to perpetuate the fraud. If the 2004 election had been honest, there would be no need to hire people like von Krapola to the Federal Election Commission.

The Abramoff case has some indicators that it is a cover-up of a much larger criminal endeavor.

The prosecutor at the DoJ is a Bush crony (link here).

It could turn out that political foes of the president are targeted more, and that the funneling of billions of dollars thru Iraq "lost" cash and "unaccounted for" funds from the DoD to neoCon campaign coffers is what is being covered up.

RE #10

My post 10 appears OT ... however ... what I neglected to mention is that Alice S. Fisher who spoke as the Abramoff prosecutor was also appointed during recess to avoid obvious problems.

Dredd #8

I am appauled at his contempt for congressional oversight.

Dredd #10

This is also in the back of my mind since Abramoff has been so strongly against Dems.

votetoimpeach.org

I love responses like #5 above... "But... but...but the DEMOCRATS do it too!"

OH! OH! OH! So THAT makes it ALL OK, doesn't it???

"LORD, what fools these mortals be." - Puck in Midsummer Night's Dream

By the way, Brad, do you know the latest opinion polls of Bush? With antics like this packing the FEC with his cronies, I wonder how anyone can approve of him!

Freedom on the march!! In jackboots!!
#5
"The stench of hypocrisy at BradBlog is amazing."

The reek of your spin is overpowering, my dear.
It's not recess appointments per se that are the problem. It's the quality of the appointees, obviously.

RLM, #9, has it exactly right:
"... [insisting] that claims of election fraud are merely conspiracy theories by sore losers, meanwhile establishing phony committees in the name of honest elections and appointing loyal cronies to federal jobs in an effort to perpetuate the fraud..." is the problem.
But then, you know that. Or you wouldn't be here.
Well said, Robert, as usual.

Article II, Sec. 2, of the Constitution says, "The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."

In 1901, Attorney General Philander Knox advised President Theodore Roosevelt that a recess constituted the "period following the final adjournment for the session," adding, "Any intermediate temporary adjournment is not such a recess, although it may be a recess in the general and ordinary use of that term."

Later Justice Department rulings significantly expanded the definition of a recess, first to breaks lasting at least a month, then those lasting two weeks.

In 1921, the Justice Department argued that there was "no lower time limit" on the length of a recess. Under the Constitution, no chamber may recess for more than three days without the consent of the other body, prompting the Justice Department to rule that weekend breaks would not constitute a recess.

http://www.thecarpetbagg...t.com/archives/1327.html

Lenhard is the pusher of Novak? Not that I got this reporter story wrong.

Catherine

I think most importantly we need to be sure of how they HANDLE HAVA. That is the important thing, the HAVA laws are being rammed down everyone's throught and they have already stated & proven they don't need the machines.

Also I wouldn't read anything into the Abramoff deal, there are more than 6 prosecutors on the case and "Fisher" does not control anything and the case is not really in her hands. So neither crony is going to make a difference. That case will go wherever the evidence goes now.

Doug E

NoMoreHypocrisy said:

The stench of hypocrisy at BradBlog is amazing.

Not sure what hypocrisy you're referring to here NMH. Feel free to be more specific next time.

Thanks Bev for explaining the role of the FEC. Or more importantly, what the FEC *doesn't* specifically oversee.

That said, it should be added that the FEC makes crucial decisions regarding campaign finance spending and the oversight of all sorts of organizations and individuals (partisan and otherwise) and how they may participate in the process and/or be investigated for same (in a partisan fashion, or otherwise).

Since the FEC is a bi-partisan commission, dealing with (theoretically) the most bi-partisan of issues (elections), it's important for the commission to receive oversight itself so that it's appointments aren't overly political.

In the case of Bush appointing DEMOCRAT Lenhard, for example, who just happens to be married to someone who is about to testify in a criminal case that directly affects Bush himself, obviously, such a conflict of interest would have been noted by a congressional oversight committee responsible for approving such appointments.

I'm not certain, therefore, what "stench of hypocrisy" NHM is referring to. Unless he/she would like me to go back in time, and start a blog during the Clinton or Kennedy era and report about any troubling recess appointments that *they* were making during that time.

Nice try, Brad, but DEMOCRAT Lenhard was appointed because of DEMOCRAT Senator Harry Reid's recommendation (ouch! you didn't mention that part, did you).

There was actually much about the story that we didn't report, but rather gave links to instead, for more. Including:

The Lenhard nomination, first proposed in July 2003, has provoked strong opposition from advocacy groups seeking tough enforcement of campaign finance laws, especially the 2002 McCain-Feingold bill.

Meredith McGehee, president and executive director of the Alliance for Better Campaigns, described the prospect of Lenhard replacing Thomas as "beyond disappointing" when it was first proposed.

Lenhard "was part of a legal team that challenged the constitutionality of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law." according to that same article, from WaPo's "Bush Picks Controversial Nominees for FEC"

That said, I couldn't give a flying shit who Harry Reid is in favor of or against. I stand by our report that Lenhard is inappropriate for the job given that his wife is now involved in a criminal case involving the Bush Administration.

What is "hypocritical" about that reporting or that opinion is far beyond me. But you are welcome to your own opinion here (unlike most of the wingnut blogs you likely hail from).

The hypocrisy I find fascinating is the kind that justifies Republican wrongdoing by pointing to Dem wrongdoing. You see that a lot when folks criticize Bush. The Pubs constantly point at Clinton, as if Clinton were the model president.

But in any case, I believe that I recall reading this summer, when Bush appointed Bolton during recess in order to avoid an approval struggle, that Bush had already at that point done more recess appointments than Clinton, or close to the same amount, in slightly over half the time.

That fits well with what seems to be his constant tendency to disregard Congressional oversight whenever such oversight is convenient. The only use he seems to have for oversight is to reference as self-justification later on, however falsely (as he has done re. his decision to invade Iraq).

What is truly stunning about all this is that Bush seems to feel comfortable disregarding Congress even though he pretty much has had Congress in his back pocket!! That makes it clear, in my opinion, that he truly thinks of himself as dictator. It would be impossible for Congress to aquiesce enough to suit him, unless it aquiesced completely and totally at all times, without the slightest sign of resistance or independent thinking.

I wasn't pointing to wrongdoing, Epppie. I was point out that it was legal and constitutional.

Is that the only defense that you guys can come up with: that I am hypocritical because I point out that Democrats did it, too. Of course I am point it out, BECAUSE IT IS LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL.

And, Brad, please, give me a break. The premise of your original post was that George Bush hates democracy because he did some recess appointments. That is being a hypocrit.

You complain about "domestic spying", but Bill Clinton approved warrantless searches against POOR PEOPLE. - Hypocrisy

You complain about Abramoff as a Republican scandal, but 40 of 45 Democrat senators took Abramoff money including Harry Reid who took almost $70k, Dorgan who took almost $80k and Harkin who took more than $45k.

That is why I say, the stench of hypocrisy coming from Brad Blog is overwhelming. If it was really about Right and Wrong, and not Left or Right, then you would be advocating some laws to explicitly prevent the kind of searches and data gathering that Clinton and Bush have done.

If was really about right and wrong instead of or right, you would be decrying Democrats in the Abramoff thing and saying, let close the loopholes so that none of the congress critters can do this.

God bless you, Brad. You have found your niche. You have all of these people paying you money to say exactly what they want to hear. You have found a way to incite the mob, to make their blood boil and their eyes turn red as hot coals and they love you for it and send you money.

You are a true capitalist. More power to you.

A recess appointment is not per se wrong. What is wrong is to make such an appointment, e.g. Bolton, with the sure and certain knowledge that the appointee is controversial and with the goal of avoiding the scrutiny that would surely follow.

I understand that a President may have to appoint persons if the Senate is in recess. However I see this as, typical of this administration, a way to sneak around the Senate rules to get people in they know would not as easily be appointed if the nomination had gone through committee.
It is such a "ChickenHawk" way to govern! Of coarse, this too is typical of this administration. Now how many of the people in this administration have fought in combat??????

Who am I to question this government? Hmmm, "A TAX PAYING CITIZEN"! Oh yes, "The Constitution is just a "F"ing piece of paper." right?

NoMoreHypocrisy --- that stench you smell is your own upper lip.

Open your eyes, child.

Methuselah, I am posting real information, and you are posting personal insults.

Who needs to open their eyes?

By the way, Bill Clinton made recess appointments because he didn't think he could get them through confirmation.

You are still forgetting that the Democrat that Brad is complaining about was a recommendation of Harry Reid, the senate Minority leader, so why are we to think that he wouldn't be confirmed, anyway?

40 of 45 Democrats took money? Real information? Got a link?

Obviously, the BCFOL does not want to submit any of its decisions for oversight approval. He who trusts nobody cannot be trusted.

The Bushit admininstration are corrupt lying murderers responsible for 911 and can care less about you or the destruction of this planet as long as their corporate elite friends make a buck. Our former public wildlands are being sold for dirt and the death count continues to rise from a war based on lies. Bushit hackable inaccurate voting machines are still being certified for use after rigged Presidential election #2 thanks to a virtually total blackout in the corporate owned government controlled mass media. Hey you nomorehypocracy moron, proving Clinton was a crook DOES NOT justify the continued loser actions of the Bushit Administration. I'll tell you this you stupid fcknut, this line of thinking makes you a perfect example of what's so wrong with supporters of this illegal regime OF FAILURES. Now go look in the mirror and stand there until you realize your opinion has -0- value because the corporate elite BUSHIT machine owns you.

Grizzly, I use to vote republican until I realized how much they despise nature and open spaces. That did it for me. You know what I find funny and yet sad at the same time? The morons who run around in there pick up trucks with the sticker on the back window tht says: SPORTSMAN FOR BUSH. Now that IMO is an oxymoron. :plain:

Hypocrisy

On the contrary. Just because Reid reccomended him doesn't make it okay whatsoever. Lenhard is another huge insider crony and it was a disaster like every other recess appointment he's done.

What you're saying regarding everyone does it doesn't wash here. We don't care about Clinton, and I sure don't and all his recess appointments are over with.

We don't care about Reid unless he's out there closing down congress and starting impeachment proceedings. His actions lately have done nothing.

We don't CARE if they all get taken down and I personally hope they do, because Abramoff is now telling all.

What we care about is real elections and these are more bullshit actions by Bush and his minions to OBSTRUCT real elections. Look at the writing on the wall, who got Lenhard in there? It wasn't Reid or any of the weaklings in the Senate. It was Bush's advisors.

Doug E.

Hypocrisy said:

You complain about "domestic spying", but Bill Clinton approved warrantless searches against POOR PEOPLE. - Hypocrisy

Prove it, Hypocrisy. Show me where Bill Clinton did you what you claim. Of course, you won't be able to. Nonetheless, if you did, I'll be the first one to suggest we impeach Bill Clinton as well.

Waiting for the links.

You complain about Abramoff as a Republican scandal, but 40 of 45 Democrat senators took Abramoff money including Harry Reid who took almost $70k, Dorgan who took almost $80k and Harkin who took more than $45k.

Are you suggesting their was wrong-doing on any of their parts? Again, show me the links. If they broke the law or Congressional rules, I'll be more than happy to agree they should receive whatever punishment comes their way.

Your interest in taking the lead from your Talking Points Masters in conflating the acceptance of *legal* money, with receiving illicit funds, favors, trips, etc. in exchange for quid pro quo is entirely different matter.

Got the goods? I'll be happy to give them a look.

Waiting for the links.

Thanks!

I sense Karl Rove's pudgy, well manicured hand in this latest slap upside the head. The voting issue is just supposed to act as a distraction from the underlying money aspect. And oh, yeah, let's be sure to appoint a "democrat", so they can't paint us with the partisan brush. But since he is compromised by his wife, he is not able to involve himself in decisions where she is connected. They are the epitome of evil. They never met a scam they didn't turn to their advantage. A**holes do vex ME!!!

Links? Brad, I have already posted the links on your blog. In fact, a couple of weeks ago, I posted a link to an image of the actual executive order that clinton signed as well as a link to the Carter executive order authorizing domestic, warrantless eaves dropping. Go find it it. It is on your blog. I assume you can search. Find all the posts by NMH.

Don't tell me I can produce a link.

Am I suggesting that Democrats did wrong by taking money? No, not necessarily. No more than I am suggesting that Republicans did. The point is that you are pegging any Republican with an Ambramoff connection as dirty, but, by your own statements, seemingly giving a pass to Democrats.

One of Bill Frist's chief staff members went to work for Abramoff as a lobbyist. Abramoff's office then had a pretty big fund raiser for Frist. Is that illegal? No. Does it look great? Probably not. Now for the real catch. It wasn't Bill Frist. It was Harry Reid. If it was Bill Frist, you would be squealing like a stuck pig about it.

And don't ask me to post a link. If it were some obscure thing, I might go find it for you, but this ain't obscure. You know how to search google news, so I ain't going to do it for you.

Is there quid-pro-quo in our congress critters? Sure, so lets do an audit of every damn one of them and you will probably find it in most of them. Then, figure out how it was done and advocate for laws to close the gaps.

Once again, Brad, I am amazed at how you have incited the mob. You feed their passion for blood. So much so that they post things here while having no idea of what they are talking about.

For instance, Cyra Brown says, "And oh, yeah, let's be sure to appoint a "democrat", so they can't paint us with the partisan brush. But since he is compromised by his wife, he is not able to involve himself in decisions where she is connected. . . A**holes do vex ME!!!"

Poor Cyra doesn't seem to realize that it is a requirement by law that the FEC commissioners be three Republicans and three Democrats.

In those situations, it is customary for the President to go to the leader of the other party in Congress and ask for suggestions. He did that, and Harry Reid gave him some. That was who he chose.

Bill Clinton dealt with a Republican controlled Congress and made recess appointments to circumvent problems with the nominations. That 'seems to parallel' Bush's problems with the Congress, today. EXCEPT that: Clinton's appointments were people of real experience and ability instead of inexperienced and politically compromised cronies and hacks.
AND, most importantly, GWB already has a sympathetic body in a Republican-controlled Congress. So, why the end run? Some arguements just don't wash here.

A couple of relevant links...

http://www.nationalrevie...ork/york200512200946.asp

http://www.washingtontim...0051222-122610-7772r.htm

People can make up their own minds; seems to me that in both these articles, the second of which goes back to the Carter administration, the targeting is alot more specific than what bush seems to be doing. That's one point.
Another is that this admin now has a clearly documented history of deception, of propaganda, of manipulation of information, of ignoring expert advice, of naming programs so that they appear to be the opposite of what they are, of appointing inappropriate & inexperienced cronies into crucially important positions, the incompetence of whom has resulted in death & tragedy....the point being that they have destroyed their own credibility.

Believing their purported motives at this point is on the level of Adrianna getting into the car with Silvio.

Hypocrisy #35

We read those links and commented on them that they were partial quotes as has been brought out here and elsewhere. Intellectual honesty is the only antidote to your delusion.

When you come to a Y in the road you are bicycling on, take the intellectual honesty road which leads to freedom. Freedom from being enslaved to the pablum talking points of fascists fully intent on destroying our freedom.

NoMoreHypocrisy -

You'll pardon me if I'm unable to read every comment and every link on this blog, I assume.

I am asking you for the SPECIFIC links to the specific claims you make regarding:

+ "Bill Clinton approved warrantless searches against POOR PEOPLE"

(You are free to give a link containing evidence that he approved warrantless searches against NOT poor people, as well...though to meet the FISA restriction, they must be U.S. Citizens in America, of course).

+ Wrong-doing by Democrats in relationship to Jack Abramoff.

PLEASE SUPPLY LINKS TO BOTH OF YOUR CLAIMS MADE ABOVE. Thanks! Otherwise, I'll assume you're full of shit and can't back up unsubstantiated claims with FACTS.

Finally, you said:

"Am I suggesting that Democrats did wrong by taking money? No, not necessarily. No more than I am suggesting that Republicans did."

Ummm...Just for the record, you do know the BUSH DoJ is investigating both Bob Ney and Tom DeLay (and others) for improper activities in relation to Abramoff. If you have similar information concerning Democrats, I'd be more than happy to give it a look.

"Improper" would include phony "political action" groups which are little more than slush funds to provide guys like Tom DeLay a house nearby the capitol to make phone calls. Cash taken in exchange for adding comments to the Congressional Record about a business man the congressman knows nothing about. Trips funded by Registered Lobbyists and/or Registered Foreign Agents which are unreported or did not contain any actual state business. You know, Golf trips to St. Andrews and the like.

Feel free to share your wealth of info with us!

"The point is that you are pegging any Republican with an Ambramoff connection as dirty"

Feel free to back up that assertion as well. I tend to back up the ones I make, the least you can do is back up yours. Thanks!

>The U.S. Senate convenes two weeks from now. George W. Bush could not wait and had to "recess appoint" the three latest additions to the Federal Elections Commission. You know how he is about those things. Hates to wait. And hates that whole annoying "Congressional oversight", "check and balances", blah, blah, blah stuff.

He can do it. That is part of being president. Clinton did it!

> the Supreme Court where still more Bush appointees will likely be sitting in judgement.

And that is a problem because? The president makes these appointees. Gore is not president. Kerry is not president.

How about that economy?
How about that jobless rate?

Paul said (while "NoMoreHypocrisy" apparently couldn't prove his assertions):

"And that is a problem because? The president makes these appointees. Gore is not president. Kerry is not president."

Unless you consider the one who received the most votes (popular and/or electoral) to be the President.

Guess it depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

Ah, Brad, you are a slippery one. I have posted links on this site to Clinton's and Carter's executive orders. Such a sorry excuse that you can't search your own site.

I have also posted links of the Democrats' connections to Abramoff.

Once again - been there, done that.

I don't have time to repost them. You saying that you don't have time to look for them is a convenient excuse for keeping your head buried.

The links are on your site. You own the site, look them up.

Brad, was there some particular reason that you didn't mention in your original post on the FEC stuff that the board must be split between Democrats and Republicans? Is there some particular reason that you didn't mention that Harry Reid recommended both of the Democrats?

Since you hid those two facts, I am not surprised that you would not be intersted in searching your own site for stuff already posted.

You aren't interested in the truth. You are truly interested in conspiracy and scandal, even where it doesn't exist.

A washed up actor found his niche.

The links I've seen, show nothing to indicate that either Carter or Clinton spied on American citizens in the U.S. without warrant. So I was giving you the opportunity to post a specific link to any such evidence.

Clearly you have failed, because clearly there is no such evidence.

Take your disinfo elsewhere, NoMoreHypocrisy, as I'll be happy to start deleting such clear disinfo comments unless you start backing up your horseshit.

Brad, was there some particular reason that you didn't mention in your original post on the FEC stuff that the board must be split between Democrats and Republicans? Is there some particular reason that you didn't mention that Harry Reid recommended both of the Democrats?

I didn't find it particular relevant, as noted in a later comment. I couldn't care less who Reid reportedly recommended.

Just how ridiculous are you? I posted links to the actual executive orders approving such things.

But, since you seem to be unwilling to recognize it, here is the link:

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

Pay special attention to section 1:

"Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of
up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section."

At the time, Bill Clinton stated that part of his purpose was to be able to do warrantless drug and weapsons sweeps in federal government subsidized housing.

And Carter issues and executive order authorizing electronic surveillance without a warrant.

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm

Pay special attention to section 1-101:

" 1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section."

Both Presidents authorized their attorney generals to apply to the FISA courts, but both Presidents allowed their attorney generals to perform warrantless searches and warrantless surveillance predicated that their attorney generals made specific certifications (meaning without going through FISA.

Bill Clinton's own asst. Attorney General came out a few weeks ago and said (paraphrasing), "yep, that was legal and we did it, too."

Brad said, "I didn't find it particular relevant, as noted in a later comment. I couldn't care less who Reid reportedly recommended. "

Well, that is just plain silly. If you are going to throw around conspiracy theories (yes, there is that phrase again), then the fact that the FEC panel must be evenly split and the fact that the Democratic Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid recommended both of those people to Bush (which is common practice in such circumstances) causes a huge problem with your conspiracy theory. I can see how you would like to ignore that information, but of course it is relevant.

By the way, since you are so hung up on the link thing, but now willing to do any real research on your own, following is a link to an op-ed in the Chicago Tribune by John Schmidt, Clintons associate Attorney General.

http://www.chicagotribun...ewsopinioncommentary-hed

Yup. That's what I thought. You were stupid enough to rely on the wingnut horseshit forwarded by Drudge, Malkin, Rush, Fox and Friends.

In the re: the Clinton/Carter Exec orders, here's the actual skinny on those orders.

In re: the Schmid article that you, and dopes like Byron York go on to foolishly quote, here's the actual skinny on that one including all the portions that Schmidt forgot to quote and/or changed from the actual court rulings he cites.

Where do you think you're posting, NMH? That unchecked bullshit may work with the Freepers and the Ditto Heads, but it doesn't fly here. Feel free to try again (though do yourself a favor and do a bit of fact-checking on it before you go off half-cocked).

Given your original still-unsupported charge that "Bill Clinton approved warrantless searches against POOR PEOPLE," I guess we'll have to assume that you've got absolutely bupkiss to back up your ill-informed assertions.

As to Ried, and your "conspiracy theory" charges, I suppose you have a point! If Democrat Lenhard was the only one available to be appointed to the job that George W. Bush could have chosen, I guess there's no reason to be concerned. (Have I mentioned lately what a stooge your posts make you look like?)

Hey, here's an idea! Perhaps Bush could appoint Patrick Fitzgerald to the Supreme Court! I bet Harry Reid would approve of him also! He'd be perfect! Can't think of any reason why that might be inappropriate either?

Yutz.

No comment, NoMoreHypocrisy?

That's what I thought.