Meet the Press invites your questions for Sunday's panel...

[Wordie]

This is Sunday's lineup:
<snip>
Sens. George Allen, R-VA, Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-TX & Chuck Schumer, D-NY, on the Miers nomination & the CIA leak probe. Then, a roundtable on the leak fallout & the latest on Iraq with Stephen Hayes, George Packer & Frank Rich.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/

The page has a section where questions for the panel are solicited from the online viewer (email). It's right below the photos of the panel.

So, what question do you think they should be asked?

[Cassandra]

1. What did Russert say to the grand jury?

[MADem]

12. That is MY QUESTION TOO!! Come clean, Potato Boy!!!! nt

[wryter2000]

2. Excellent

Kicked and nominated. The brilliant minds at DU should provide some input.

[goclark]

3. Would be bleeped like Janet Jackson :)

[JackintheGreen]

4. What the hell is wrong with you assmunches?

[Burried News]

5. What can be done to encourage the Senate Intelligence

Committee to return to phase two of it's deliberations regarding how faulty intelligence was used by the administration to justify war in Iraq.

Similarly, the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee promised a deeper probe into prisoner abuse and the Taguba Report. Specifically it was going to review accountability at the higher levels.

My recollection is that both chairs (Roberts and Warner) promised follow up just befor last Thanksgiving recess.

[wryter2000]

7. Great one!

I hope they use it.

[wryter2000]

6. My question

I just sent the following:

Will President Bush demand the resignation of anyone indicted, including for perjury and/or obstruction of justice, in the CIA leak case? Shouldn't he demand resignations of people indicted?

[Wordie]

11. Great! and the question should refer to the Executive Order that Bush

himself signed, REQUIRING that supervisor impose punishments on those who break the law regarding classified info.

There was a DU thread about this...which I have lost track of, but the Exectutive Order was #12958
http://www.archives.gov/isoo/policy-documents/eo-12958-amendment.html#5.5

Perhaps the question should be, "Why does President Bush not follow his own executive orders?"

[tularetom]

8. I'd ask pumpkin head russert

what the fuck does "big russ" think about you kissing the ass of the administration every week for money?

[gratuitous]

9. One for Pumpkinhead Russert

Why do you think your viewership is stupid or uninformed when you talk about the Fitzgerald investigation without mentioning the fact that you've paid a visit or two to the grand jury?

For KBH: Are you really as corrupt as every other Texas politician, or are you slightly less so, as you like to style yourself?

And for George Packer: If you make a stupid decision, it doesn't matter if it was done for the noblest of intentions, dummy.

Okay, that last one was more of a statement than a question, and an obvious one at that, but it doesn't seem to have penetrated his thick skull.

[rosesaylavee]

10. How about 'when are you fuckups going to do your job

and uphold the constitution'? Isn't that what we pay them to do? The WH is out of control. Do something about it, fuckheads.

:rant:

[Hand]

13. Question for Schumer:

"How on Earth do you manage to sit next to those two hapless nincompoops and maintain a straight face?" :rofl:

[wryter2000]

18. LOL

I can picture Schumer busting up with laughter with that one.

[OKNancy]

22. Good one

:rofl:

[hang a left]

14. I wish you would post this in GD.

They would get a ton of questions.

[Wordie]

17. Hey, hang a left! Feel free to copy and paste and post it yourself, if you

think they would like it over there. Go for it!

(I have an old computer, and there is only so much I can have going at any one time.)

[longship]

15. My e-mailed question.

Republican pundits are in near unison in terming the Delay and Rove/Plame investigations as "the criminalization of politics". I would like to hear from the Republicans on the panel precisely where the line is drawn. Precisely which violations of law are still on the table in the name of politics and which are not?

Follow-up: If the response is that no laws have been broken, it begs this question: Is the determination of whether a law has been broken now the pervue of the Republican party, or does the Department of Justice still hold that power?

[dalaigh lllama]

24. Oh, excellent

I want them to read and respond to your questions.

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[realFedUp]

16. I hope Rich reads this before going on with Packer

The Incompetence Dodge
From our November issue: The liberal hawks now say the idea of the war wasn’t bad, just its execution. This saves face -- and serves a more dangerous function.

By Sam Rosenfeld and Matthew Yglesias
Web Exclusive: 10.20.05

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10454

[snippy]

19. I sent this.

Republicans have been ordered to say that Fitzgerald's investigation is flawed because Plame was not covert. If Bush and his followers are correct that Plame was not covert, how do they explain the following facts?

1. After conducting its own investigation of the leaks, the CIA formally requested that the Justice Department begin a criminal investigation;

2. After the Justice Department investigation had begun gathering evidence, Attorney General Ashcroft found it neccessary to recuse himself;

3. After Ashcroft's recusal, the Justice Department felt that it was neccessary to appoint a special prosecutor;

4. The special prosecutor's investigation has gone on for many, many months;

5. Various media organizations filed briefs in the Cooper/Miller case arguing that no crime could have been committed since Plame was not covert, but neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals accepted that argument; and

6. Judge Tatel's concurring opinion in the Court of Appeals decision in the Cooper/Miller case discussed:

a. "the irresponsible (and quite possibly illegal) nature of the leaks at issue"

b. "the leaked information—Plame’s covert status—lacked significant news value."

c. "criminal leaks,"

d. "the crime,"

e. "the plot against Wilson,"

f. the leak at issue being "harmful to national security," and

g. identifying the leakers being "essential to remedying a serious breach of public trust."

These comments by Judge Tatel followed his analysis of the evidence filed by Fitzgerald under seal.

It seems odd that no one in the CIA, the Justice Department, the Attorney General's office, the special prosecutor's office, the District Court overseeing the grand jury, or the Court of Appeals would bother to check to see whether the status of Valerie Plame fell within the statute. It must be "hard work" to check something like that.

It is an indication of how weak the republican case is that they focus on such a flawed argument in defense of Bush and his criminal minions. After all, arguing that no crime was committed because Plame was not covert is a tacit admission that the leaks occurred and that those accused of leaking were responsible. Evidently, to Bush and his followers, restoring honor and dignity to the White House means parsing criminal statutes and using legal loopholes in an attempt to avoid indictments.

[Wordie]

20. Wow!!! Go get 'em, snippy! Can you imagine if Russert were actually to

use this? And who knows, these days, anything is possible!

(I personally would like, in response to the inevitable "criminalization of politics" line, to hear someone respond with, "But aren't you RWers really trying for the "de-criminalization of crime"? (yes, it's absurd, but that's the point).

[snippy]

21. Thanks. Democrats really do need a standard response to the

"criminalization of politics" line. Personally, I like:

Criminals have always opposed the prosecution of crimes.

[Wordie]

23. LOL...that one's the best I've heard yet! LOL

And, actually, there are SO MANY great ones!

We win! :D