If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of.

Take a look at the record for the last six years, what the U.S. attorneys have been up to. If you count up all their prosecutions for corruption and divide them by political party, you find a curious thing: 80% of those prosecuted were Democrats and 20% were Republicans. This is especially curious considering that the Democrats have been out of power and therefore didn't have much influence to peddle!

So, Senators Leahy and Schumer, how about subpoenaing the other eighty-five U.S. attorneys and asking them some hard questions about their last six years?

On a hillside next to the freeway and BART station in Lafayette CA, some folks have set up memorial crosses (and a few crescents and stars of David), plus a sign with the current toll. Hundreds of thousands of people see it every day. The memorial has already been vandalized twice. What kind of person would do that?

To: Editor of The Berkeley Daily Planet <opinion@berkeleydailyplanet.com>

The two side-by-side commentaries in Tuesday's Planet certainly caught my eye. The first one had a rather provocative title: "Criticizing Israel = Anti-Semitism", by Howard Glickman of Berkeley. I've never heard anyone actually make that equation, but I've certainly heard people accuse Israel's supporters of making it. Had the Planet actually found someone willing to equate criticizing Israel with hating the Jews?

I read the article. Then I read the article again. Then I read the article very carefully a third time. Then I went to the Planet's web site, downloaded the text of the article, and searched it for the strings "jew" and "semit". Those strings do not appear anywhere in the article, and I don't see the author in any way making the equation alleged in the title.

I'm curious, where did the title of the article come from? Is that what the author called it, or was the title added by someone at the Planet? If the latter, that person might want to consider a career other than journalism.

After puzzling over that for a while, I went on to the second commentary piece entitled "Zionist Crimes in Lebanon", by Kurosh Arianpour of Iran. That one was less interesting, but I thought I'd quote from it:

Also, one can ask why Jews had problem with Egyptians, with Jesus, with Europeans, and in modern times with Germans? The answer, among other things, is their racist attitude that they are the Chosen People. Because of this attitude, they do wrong to other people to the point that others turn against them, namely, become anti-Semite if you will.

Jef Poskanzer, Berkeley

There are three months left until the 2006 mid-term congressional elections. The campaigns are in full swing now. It looks like the Democrats have a very good chance of taking back the House. Some people are saying a Democratic Senate is possible too.

All attention now must be on the mid-terms. Anything else is a distraction.

But there's more. If the Democrats do take back congress this November, a major focus of the next two years will be undoing the damage the Republicans have done. In particular, undoing the extra-constitutional powers that President Bush has arrogated. The aim of the 110th Congress will be to burn down the "unitary executive", to turn the office of the Presidency from a dictator/king back into a glorified janitor. If we succeed, then the 2008 election will be irrelevant.

By talking about 2008, you are not only buying into the Republican fetishization of the Presidency, but you are assuming that we will fail this November. So I say to you: STFU.

Read all about it at Wired News.

However, they didn't sue the government, they sued AT&T Corp, a private company that collaborated on the wiretaps. This is actually rather clever. The wiretap laws apply equally to government and private entities, but some of the damage provisions don't apply to the government. Also, suing the government is difficult in general, there are issues of sovereign immunity.

I asked one of the lawyers on the case why they picked this particular company to sue, when it seems likely that many companies had collaborated. He said they had specific information about AT&T Corp's collaboration, and if information later shows up about other companies, they can certainly be added to the lawsuit.

So my question is, is he really that stupid or merely pretending to be that stupid?

Fortunately, a lot of folks are not being fooled by this ridiculous tactic. Even some Republicans such as Grover Norquist, Bob Barr, Arlen Specter, Lindsey Graham, and Richard Lugar are objecting and calling for hearings. If only a few more Republicans in Congress have the balls to join them, impeachment is a very real possibility.

• Impeachment. That's a problem because the Republicans control both houses of Congress.
• Appoint a Special Counsel, convene a Grand Jury, indict everyone involved, name the President as an unindicted co-conspirator, and hope he resigns in shame. That's a problem too, because it's the Attorney General who appoints the Special Counsel, and he's also the first one who would get indicted. Plus this President has no shame.

So, is there another way? Turns out FISA has a civil liability section. You can sue for $1000 or $100/day, which could get interesting if there are, as I suspect, millions of incidents. You can also get punitive damages and attorney's fees.

Class action lawsuit, anyone?

The news is that the vote was 90 to 9. That's right, nine United States Senators went on the record in favor of torture, and one couldn't be bothered to vote on it.

The nine torturers are:

• Wayne Allard (R-Colorado)
• Christopher Bond (R-Missouri)
• Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma)
• Thad Cochran (R-Mississippi)
• John Cornyn (R-Texas)
• James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma)
• Pat Roberts (R-Kansas)
• Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama)
• Ted Stevens (R-Alaska)

This was an amendment to the Defense Department's annual appropriations bill, HR2863. It goes to the House of Representatives next, where most likely even more torturers will step up and identify themselves. But even before the House votes on it, the President of the USA has said he'll veto the whole appropriations bill if it comes to him with the anti-torture amendment still attached. If he does, then I guess I'll have to modify this site's tagline: "Drunk. Deserter. Coke head. Liar. Torturer. Bush."

"Our mission in Iraq is clear. We are hunting down the terrorists. We are helping Iraqis build a free nation that is an ally in the war on terror. We are advancing freedom in the broader Middle East." -- President Bush, 28 June 2005, two years after the war began.

What a flip-flopper.

How many members of the Bush administration does it take to change a light bulb?

1. One to deny that a light bulb needs to be changed;

2. One to attack the patriotism of anyone who says the light bulb needs to be changed;

3. One to blame Clinton for burning out the light bulb;

4. One to arrange the invasion of a country rumored to have a secret stockpile of light bulbs;

5. One to give a billion dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton for the new light bulb;

6. One to arrange a photograph of Bush, dressed as a janitor, standing on a step ladder under the banner: Light Bulb Change Accomplished;

7. One administration insider to resign and write a book documenting in detail how Bush was literally in the dark;

8. One to viciously smear #7;

9. One surrogate to campaign on TV and at rallies on how George Bush has had a strong light-bulb-changing policy all along;

10. And finally one to confuse Americans about the difference between screwing a light bulb and screwing the country.

White House correspondent / gay prostitute.

Republican operative / tax evader.

It really doesn't get much better than this.

In 1983, Congress, President Reagan, and a guy named Alan Greenspan put together a deal to fix Social Security. The deal was that they would raise payroll taxes, and for the next 40 years those taxes would bring in more than Social Security needed. The excess would be loaned to the general treasury. After 40 years had passed, the extra payroll taxes would not be enough, so the general treasury would start paying back the loan.

We are now halfway through the initial 40 year period. For the last 20 years, we have been paying extra payroll taxes and loaning the money to the treasury, with the expectation that it would be paid back later. Now Bush wants to not pay it back.

Bush is trying to steal not just your future FICA taxes, but all the FICA taxes you have paid for the last 20 years.

Because the -- all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those -- changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be -- or closer delivered to what has been promised.

Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the -- like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate -- the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those -- if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.

Yes, he really said that. Here's the official transcript from whitehouse.gov.

Furthermore, Social Security doesn't actually need fixing at all. To make the case for his theft, Bush is lying to us. It's really pretty blatant - when he wants you to believe that the system is about to implode, he quotes economic forecasts that assume the worst possible growth rates; but when he wants to convince you that his pie in the sky stock touting scheme will work, he quotes different forecasts that assume excellent growth rates.

If the economy turns out as crappy as his first forecasts predict, then nothing will keep Social Security from going under, along with everything else. If the economy turns out as great as his second forecasts predict, then Social Security will do just fine with no changes at all. Bush's proposed fix is either ineffectual or unnecessary. Or both!

My own favorite fix to Social Security, if and when a fix becomes necessary, is to remove the $90,000 cap on the FICA tax. Maybe some of you have never had salaries high enough to know this, but: as soon as you have made $90,000 in a year, you stop paying FICA for that year. The justification for this cap is that rich folks supposedly don't need Social Security benefits, so why should they pay into the system? Well, I claim that rich folks are benefitting from Social Security. Their benefit consists of not getting guillotined during the revolution that would inevitably follow if Social Security were to go bankrupt. They are getting a Society Secure enough for them to enjoy their wealth, and they should pay for that benefit. Get rid of the cap!

"We are here today, not as partisans for one presidential candidate or another, but because we want to do our duty under the Constitution to protect our democracy."

"Most of all we are here because not a single election official in Ohio has given us any explanation for the massive and widespread irregularities in that state: No explanation for the machines in Mahoning County that recorded Kerry votes for Bush No explanation for the improper purging in Cuyahoga County No explanation for the lock down in Warren County No explanation for the 99% voter turnout in Miami County No explanation for the machine tampering in Hocking County."

"The thing we should never fear in Congress is a debate, and the thing we should never fear in a democracy is the voters. I hope that today we have a fair debate and four years from now, we have an election all our citizens can be proud of."

Exit polls got a bad name back in the 2000 election, but I've always thought they reflected the intent of the Florida voters more accurately than the counted votes. The Florida 2000 exit polls said that more voters intended to vote for Al Gore, and that's actually what happened there, despite official vote totals (and Supreme Court decisions) alleging otherwise.

Looks like Ohio is this year's Florida. It's still too close to call there although Bush has a definite lead. The Ohio Secretary of State says it will be 11 days before they can issue an official count of the provisional ballots. I guess that leaves lots of time to file lawsuits!

Of course Kerry just conceded the election. I never really liked him.

Tonight there will be a special one-hour "live" Daily Show, which should be good. They've titled it "Prelude To A Recount". Amusing, but I'm not so sure. I think there's a pretty good chance that Kerry will win with a big enough margin that Bush will just concede. Well, we shall see.

Unfortunately for them, there's video. KSTP, a local Minneapolis TV station, had a news crew embedded with the 101st Airborne during the invasion. At the time they had no idea where they were, but it turns out on 18 April 2003 they were camped a couple miles south of al QaQaa. They visited the bunkers and filmed the explosives. When they left, the doors were wide open.

If you get to your polling place next week and they tell you that you're not registered, don't panic. Just tell them you want a provisional ballot. That lets you cast your vote, and your county officials can figure out later what the problem was.

Or, you could actually visit your county courthouse this week and vote early. That might be a good idea for another reason. Word is now filtering out that the Republicans are hiring a hundred thousand thugs at $100 each to pretend to be "observers" at strongly Democratic polling places. The job of these beefy zitbrains will be to "challenge" every voter. They'll say they personally know you and that you're not qualified to vote. I expect there will be a lot of fistfights over this. But you can avoid the problem by voting this week, if you're in one of the majority of states which allow early voting. Look up your county registrar of voters on the web or in the phone book, find out where they are doing early voting, and head down there today! As a bonus, this also lets you avoid using insecure electronic voting machines, since in most counties the way early voting works is they give you an absentee ballot and you fill it out on the spot. I did it this afternoon, it was easy.

Anyway, it didn't help him: he got his ass kicked by John Kerry.

There's more info on the earpiece question at isbushwired.com.

The Republicans chose to have their convention much later than the Democrats so that they could keep on spending primary money. That choice comes with a risk - missing the ballot access deadline - and apparently that's what has happened in Florida. I say, too bad for them!

However, what he really ought to be ashamed about, and what he hasn't yet admitted, is later blackmailing W with the info. Read Greg Palast's story. Summary: by the time W was elected governor, Barnes had left public office and was a lobbyist; One of Barnes's clients was GTech Corp., who had the contract for the Texas state lottery; GTech was about to lose that contract due to allegations of corruption; Barnes had a talk with W; GTech got to keep the contract, worth $10 billion, and Barnes got a $23 million fee from GTech.

If Barnes gets around to admitting this is what happened, W goes to jail.

Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.

- George W. Bush, 5 Aug 2004

Cite here.

George W. Bush promised us a foreign policy with humility. Instead, he has brought us humiliation in the eyes of the world.

He promised to "restore honor and integrity to the White House." Instead, he has brought deep dishonor to our country and built a durable reputation as the most dishonest President since Richard Nixon.

He also calls for the immediate resignations of:

• Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
• Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense
• Douglas Feith, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy
• Stephen Cambone, Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence
• Condoleeza Rice, National Security Advisor
• George Tenet, Director of Central Intelligence

Donald Rumsfeld said "These events occurred on my watch. As Secretary of Defense, I am accountable for them and I take full responsibility." So why is he still in office? These days people seem to think that saying "I take responsibility" means something like confessing your sins to a priest; you say your Hail Marys and then it's all better. Not so. To me, taking responsibility means resigning and surrendering himself for prosecution by the Iraqi civilian authorities, or the International Court of Justice in The Hague.

FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 12:32:53 -0700
From: Jef Poskanzer <jef@acme.com>
Subject: gun rights
To: info@johnkerry.com

Dear Senator Kerry,

I am voting for you in November no matter what. George W. Bush MUST BE DEFEATED. So, this letter is not about me - it is about several million other potential votes for Kerry.

In addition to supporting Democratic ideals, I am also a life member of the NRA. There is no contradiction here. I believe in the Bill of Rights - all ten of them.

There is good reason to believe that Al Gore's opposition to legitimate gun ownership rights cost him the Presidency in 2000. It wasn't the only factor, of course - but it was a large one.

It seems to me that if this year's election is at all close - and it sure looks like it will be - you must consider moving to the center on gun rights. Howard Dean had this issue right: leave it up to the states. You don't have to do anything at the federal level. All you have to do is NOT SUPPORT RENEWAL of the federal "assault weapons" ban, which expires this September. The rifles banned by this law never represented a significant crime problem. The law is a failure, deserves to expire, and according to the vote counters WILL expire. And yet President Bush has said that if somehow the law does get renewed by the legislature, he will sign it. This means he is vulnerable on the issue. Why not take advantage of this? Disavow support of the gun ban, position yourself closer to the NRA than the President, and dare the NRA to support your election.

You must get elected. The nation cannot tolerate another four years of Bush. Please consider this suggestion.

Jef Poskanzer   jef@acme.com   http://www.acme.com/jef/

There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq.

This is like the old joke about the drunk who dropped his keys in an alley but is looking for them under a streetlight because he can see better there. And on 9/17, President Bush signed an order directing the Pentagon to begin planning the invasion of Iraq. Yes, Iraq, not Afghanistan.

Last year former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill talked about how from day one of the Bush administration they were planning to invade Iraq. Clarke's testimony confirms this, and shows that the obsession with Iraq obstructed the fight against al Qaeda. It is apparent that the way "everything changed" for the Bush administration was that the attacks gave them the excuse they had been looking for to go after Iraq. But it's worse than that. It seems within the realm of possibility that the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented if Bush and his gang had not been so focussed on stealing Iraq. The Commission's report is due out in August, maybe they'll have something to say about this.

Meanwhile, National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice is refusing to testify at the 9/11 Commission. I guess she thinks investigating the murder of thousands of American citizens is just not relevant to national security. Or maybe she is too busy! Although she did somehow find the time to go on five television talk shows smearing Clarke's character.

Jon Stewart: For more on Kay's alarming testimony, we turn to our Daily Show Senior Nuclear and Bio-Chemical Weapons Analyst, Stephen Colbert. Stephen, thanks for joining us. You've been in the field a long time, you listened to Kay's testimony, in fact as I understand today you also gave some testimony as well.

Stephen Colbert: Well, I was subpoenaed, Jon, but I pled the Sixth. That threw them for a loop. Old Lady Constitution, still got a few tricks up her sleeve.

JS: Stephen, what did you make of Kay's testimony?

SC: Well, Kay dropped a bombshell, Jon, this is the non-smoking gun we've been looking for. Saddan Hussein has been caught hand-colored-handed. All of which, obviously, is *very* good news for the Bush administration.

JS: Well now, what do you mean good news? This was a colossal intelligence blunder.

SC: Colossal? That ain't the half of it, Jon. Leaking the name of a CIA operative as a political payback, that's colossal. Accidentally bombing an embassy, that's catastrophic, and kind of funny when you think about it. But going to war on an entirely false pretext, there is no word in the intelligence community for the magnitude of that mistake, and they come up with a lot of words. Did you know that 'whoops-a-daisy' was theirs? They came up with it after the Bay of Pigs.

JS: Really? Whoops-a-daisy, that's an interesting fact.

SC: Check your lexicon.

JS: I *will* check my lexicon. Ohhh, I left it upstairs. Now, how does realizing that Saddam Hussein had no weapons vindicate our case for war?

SC: Jon, it shows just how CRAZY Saddam Hussein was. Think about it - what kind of madman refuses to produce evidence that he doesn't have what he said he didn't? Saddam had to be taken out or who knows what else he might not have done? It's *imaginable*.

JS: That's an interesting point Stephen. Let me ask you this - this was the first implementation of a new doctrine of pre-emptive attacks. So, I guess this has lowered the standard of that. The standard for this pre-emptive attack should be imminent danger.

SC: Jon, all standards accomplish is to set limits on what we as a nation can do. What really excites me about this revelation is that it actually lowers the standard for the next invasion. Before, the standard was imminent danger. Now the standard is "What are you looking at? You looking at me? Cause my friend here says you're looking at me and there's nobody else here so I GUESS YOU'RE LOOKING AT ME!!!"

JS: I... I don't think they're looking at you. Stephen, I don't think the international community is going to stand for that.

SC: Well, you know what they say, Jon - the first unjustified military action is always the hardest. This time there was a lot of outrage, but next time the world will just say 'There they go again.' And by the time we're carpet bombing Nova Scotia, it'll seem kind of cute. We'll be like the world's crazy uncle.

JS: I had one of those. Used to get drunk and roll into the pool.

SC: Oh yeah.

JS: Ultimately, in your judgement, how did this turn out so terribly, terribly wrong?

SC: Oh, it's pretty simple Jon. This is just the case of a leader who trusted information given to him by fearful, eager-to-please underlings, who massaged that information to avoid disappointing their boss.

JS: ...Are you talking about President Bush or Saddam Hussein there?

SC: Either one.

JS: Thank you very much Stephen.

EVEN CONSERVATIVES are starting to admit that President Bush isn't serious when he claims to be doing something about the exploding federal budget deficit. At best -- to borrow the already classic language of the State of the Union address -- his administration is engaged in deficit reduction-related program activities.

By the way, yesterday David Kay, head of the USA's search for WMDs in Iraq, resigned, saying he thought there never were any WMDs there after the Kuwait war. He also said that some of the search group's resources are being diverted away from the search for WMDs and used to find insurgents instead, and that's not what he signed up for.

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:41:22 -0600
From: "Mortensen, Allison" <AMortensen@rhsnet.org>
Subject: In Response....
To: webmaster@hail-to-the-thief.org

My liberal-cowardice brother sent me an email with all an Anti-American theme made up by you and your affiliates. I am a hard working citizen, born and raised in the Heartland of this beautiful country we call America. I feel very sorry for those who have nothing better to do than bash our great President and the men and women serving this beautiful land that you call home. Do you have no pride? Do you have no faith in God? This country was founded on the principal that all should have the freedom to choose for themselves. It America's theme but it is also God's theme. Regarding President Bush as a thief is like calling God a thief. It just has no merit. The goal of America is to bring peace to the world. It is a good and just cause. If you do not agree then I suggest you get out of America because you do not deserve to the wonderful blessings we all enjoy by living in this GREAT Country. You do have the freedom (that over centuries has been fought for by brave men and women) to think how ever you like- but to devote your entire life to trying to catch President Bush say the wrong thing or stumble over a few words is not only idiotic but it shows that you and everyone involved in your 'cause' needs to get a life.

Sincerely,
A Proud American

This points up the fact that we need common-sense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God. And those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench.

My trip to Asia begins here in Japan for an important reason. It begins here because for a century and a half now, America and Japan have formed one of the great and enduring alliances of modern times. From that alliance has come an era of peace in the Pacific.

In the official White House transcript they "corrected" it to say half a century, which is reasonable. Still, where is this guy's brain?

In the issues of December 16th 2000 to November 10th 2001, we may have given the impression that George Bush had been legally and duly elected president of the United States. We now understand that this may have been incorrect, and that the election result is still too close to call. The Economist apologises for any inconvenience.

Meanwhile, here's someone watching out for our civil liberties during this time of war: wartimeliberty.com. It's a slashcode weblog by Declan McCullagh, a journalist who has been covering the electronic freedom beat for a few years now. I'm adding it to my daily rounds, right before Slashdot.

Later, Ashcroft met with Senate Judiciary Committee staffers to discuss what kinds of changes he wants in the law. One staffer asked him "Are you saying you want a roving wiretap in FISA?" His response: "What's a roving wiretap?"

But I still think he looks like a chimp.

By the way, did you know that the Bush administration gave $43 million to the Taliban this year? True fact.

I had no idea we had so many weapons. What do we need them for?

Now, a couple of months after the fact, we learn that the vandalism story was never true in the first place. In January the story merited front-page treatment and a byline from a top White House reporter. Now, with the facts on the table, The Post borrowed the story from a wire service and buried it deep in the front section. That juxtaposition speaks volumes about the values driving modern journalism today.

• No corporate income tax.
• No capital gains tax.
• No social security benefits for able-bodied workers.

Tolerance of dissent is the hallmark of a mature party, and it is well past time for the Republican Party to grow up.

Meanwhile, I ran across northernsun.com, who sell hundreds of great t-shirts and bumper stickers. Check these out: Bush / Cheney: America's Second Choice; Re-elect Gore in 2004; and of course, Hail to the Thief!

Instead, the Herald and its partner in this unofficial recount, USA Today, focused on the election outcome that would have occurred if one first subtracted the extra votes that Gore got in Palm, Broward and Volusia counties and in 139 precincts in Miami-Dade County.

After subtracting those counties and precincts, the newspapers hailed a Bush victory by a supposed 1,665 votes, a tally reached by applying the most liberal standard for undervotes, the appearance of a single indentation.

Why the newspapers picked this contorted approach as their story lead is a bit murky. But the newspapers made clear that any contrary analysis -- that Gore would had won if similar counting standards were applied statewide -- was left to the domain of those deemed "Gore's supporters."

And this from the American Politics Journal:

The widely anticipated release of the results of the Miami Herald recount of Florida undervotes finally happened on April 3rd. The results of the recount demonstrate that under most rational scenarios, Al Gore would have won the Presidency. According to the data, far more people cast a vote for Al Gore than for George W. Bush. And the results strongly suggest that Gore would have won any statewide recount done under the auspices of the Florida Supreme Court.

But the Herald headline, and lead tell a different story. They say that Bush would have won if the recount had gone forward.

How did the Herald justify its headline, and its lead? They did it by:

• misrepresenting the Florida Supreme Court decision
• creating bizarre scenarios that assume the impossible
• ignoring previous relevant Florida Court decisions
• ingoring their own data, and misrepresenting the standard by which votes were counted in Palm Beach County, and
• burying the information that demonstrated that Gore won in Florida

Let's hear it for impartial reporting!

Elections officials in Republican-controlled Florida counties omitted potentially thousands of votes from their certified totals. The ballot designs in these counties encouraged voters to both mark a listed candidate and write in the same candidate's name. Such votes were rejected as overvotes although they are defined by law as valid votes that should be counted. The Florida Secretary of State failed in her duties regarding the conduct of elections by certifying vote totals that did not include these votes.

"The California crunch really is the result of not enough power-generating plants and then not enough power to power the power of generating plants."

We are extremely proud of the fourteen Members of Congress who rose in protest today: Corrine Brown, Eva Clayton, Elijah Cummings, Peter Deutsch, Bob Filner, Jesse Jackson Jr., Eddie Bernice Johnson, Barbara Lee, Sheila Jackson Lee, Carrie Meek, Cynthia McKinney, Patsy Mink, Maxine Waters, and above all Alcee Hastings. As a result of their efforts, history will show that members of the Democratic Party were not willing to accept the ultimate crime against democracy - the theft of the Presidency.

"Writing laws is the duty of the legislature. Administering laws is the duty of the executive branch."

"And um... uh... as I said, the legislature's job is to write law, it's the executive branch job to interpret law."