Centerfield

Watch. On Hallween, she'll prove her worthiness to be on the Supreme Court by singlehandedly invading Syria for the "coolest president ever!!!" Then, when she's mowed down, W will hold her up as the nation's heroine, and demand that we all invade Syria to avenge her death.

Indictments? What indictments? The nation's at war, man! We don't need no stinkin' indictments! :-)

Got any popcorn?

The hearings are going to be a three-ring circus. I put her odds of confirmation at roughly 50/50 right now. That can change either way depending on her performace in the hearings. But I don't think there's any doubt at all that we get the acrobats and clowns and donkey and elephant parade first. Should be amusing.

Don't hold your breath waiting on any substantive indictments out of FitzGerald. At best (or worst, depending on your POV) there might be some perjury slaps that are unlikely to result in convictions. Mickey Kaus has been having fun beating up on the New York Times, which is doing its best to jump through hoops to vilify their own reporter.

Funny. I seem to remember somebody who was impeached for perjury.

But Harriet will be a fun show. My favorite Harriet moment came when she was asked who her favorite Chief Justice was. She said "Warren.", leaving people to wonder whether she referring to Earl Warren or Warren Berger.

Heh. Pass the popcorn indeed.

Apples and oranges, Jean. An impeachment isn't an indictment, and is by nature political, not criminal. Still, it was silly then and it'd be silly now. (I realize it still surprises people that I defended Clinton when he was impeached, as being a frivolous proxy prosecution. I think we're seeing a real lust from the left for the same thing now--a frivolous proxy prosecution.)

A substantive indictment would be an indictment for actually violating national security laws. Which is what the investigation was supposed to be about, and which I already predicted (and made book) would produce no IIPA indictments because IIPA wasn't violated. It's turned into pin-the-tail-on-the-staffer, which actually is kind of funny to watch, if a rather old gag on The Hill. Kinda like flushing quail by stomping through a hedgerow. What gets up may not be a game bird, but what the heck? Shoot it anyway!

So if no national security violations are shown and all indictments (if any!) are the result of the investigation itself, what do you call it? (Hint: Three rings, clowns, etc.)

I thought she meant Warren Beatty.

I think a good yardstick to use in this case would be: What would happen to us if we had.......?

I know that if I had done any leaking and lying, I would already been out the door.
And if I had leaked classified info, outed a CIA agent or lied to a grand jury I would be very worried right about now. I might not get 20 year in a super max facility, but something bad would happen to me.

As time passes, I'm having a harder and harder time figuring out who is actually going to vote for Miers. Feels like 2/3 of democrats and half of republicans and going to vote her down.

I'm not ready to board the "omigosh the internet has amped the vitriol too high" train. I think this is moreso the impression you get if you are a wonkish junky, like some of us are. I think the end result of all the extra blogginf is that more relevant good points and factual data gets dug up and floats to the surface.

It's not elegant. That's for sure. But is it really the end of the world if more ranting and raving happens on a blog instead of while downing beers by the fire in the backyard?

What I find fascinating is that it looks the rightwingers are planting stories to smear Miers

Political cannibalism is such fascinating theatre.

(Passing popcorn to Tully)

I thought she meant Warren Beatty.

What??? You mean Senator Bulworth wasn't reading the answers? I am so disappointed...;-)

Just remember, if indictments do occur, follow the FBI frogmarching guidelines.....

Anyon else wonder at this point just how close Tully may be with his 3-ring circus hypothesis? I an starting to think "3-act play." In the first act, Miers goes down in flames at the hands of a 2-winged coalition. In the the 2nd act, a hard right documented rockribber gets nominated to the crows of the right, but a filibuster is followed by the failure of the GOP to enforce complete party-line loyalty, and this person ultimately is not confirmed.

In the anticlimactic 3rd act, a compromise candidate that is well-liked personally by both parties but judicially a cipher is confirmed over the the same sorts of objections that carried the day against Miers in the 1st act.

I concur.
The dogs of war want to be fed.
However, rejecting two Supreme Court nominees in a row is going to make the ruling party look even sillier.

LOL, Jean. I read the guidelines right after the "Earle's Gone Wild" video....

Such a scenario may not result in the democrats looking any better. A filibuster may not be cost-free, and if the democrats overplay their hand, then the rockribber might get through. Depends on who it is. It's a dangerous game, and the democrats may not like who they end with any better than Miers, which may be reason enough to confirm her.

Filibusters are NOT cost-free. Have we already forgotten the "nuclear option?" The Dems are chuckling gleefully because the GOP infighting over Miers gives them cover. But if Bush nominates someone with enough of a solid track record to please the far right, they can and will oppose.

Justice Stevens is 85. In case anyone forgot.

Isn't All Hallow's Eve coming up?

Just in time for the holiday, it's the Samhain Supremes!

For me personally, this is all nauseating. I can't trust the Republicans because they either were'nt given the nominee they DIDN'T deserve or they're "wink, wink, nod, nod"ing to supposed real truths about how Miers is.

I can't trust the Democrats because either their tears are crockidile (sp?) in nature or they just want to fight over what the President will NEVER give them.

I enjoyed the response to Katrina more.

As for the possible indictments, it wasn't fun in '98, what makes us think we'll enjoy it any more 7 years later.

Well at least Fitz did his thing on a budget compared to Star. So I think Tully is wrong, if non-substantive charges are filed it will be, at best, a one ring circus. :)

Depends on how many charges--Fitz's budget wasn't limited, it was the scope of his inquiry that was limited. A Special Prosecutor is much more bounded than an Independent Counsel. No one cries about the IC statute being gone unless the gun is pointed at the other guy.

Might be only one ring. But we'll still get the clown acts. Can't have a circus without the clowns!

Send in the clowns....OK. OK, OK, I'll stop. Just quit hitting me! ;-)

Glad you liked the frogmarching guidelines, Tully. EM does some funny stuff.