« Food Marketers as Rapists | Main | FBI Investigating Obama Friend Kevin Johnson's Mess »

Wow - she was one of the worst talking points zombie speaker during the election campaign. Dare I say: just looking out for her seat for own reelection? Add that to Harry Reid - another dedicated moonbat chastising Obama for his inaccuracies regarding Israel during Cairo speech.

It's Halloween and the DNC are dressing up like honest people. Will the public hold any long term memory intact while these non-binding statements are made?

Not so fast. She's not necessarily saying she's appalled at Obama's authoritarian contempt for the rule of law; she could be saying that he didn't make up a good enough reason for acting on it. "Trump up something more substantive, quickly!"

Shawarma, that's a good point. Democrats might just use Obama as a foil to run against and distance themselves from in 2010. I wonder how many will want Obama to endorse them?

official complaint against Walpin now is that he was "disoriented and confused" at a meeting. Hell he is fully qualified to be Team 44's VP if thats the case.

I know McCaskill, and she just does this stuff to bolster her resume for reelection in center-right Missouri. I would wager she received approval from the White House and Harry Reid before she said anything. She is not an idealogue; she's in this for the money.

It's long been known that rats will abandon a sinking ship, the little known fact is most of them will gather in groups following no particular leader, until they are trapped and drown. Only the lucky ones will find a way off the ship before it's too late, and none of the survivors will be following another rat.

Bill Clinto had contept for the law providing that during vietnam he was one of their no good contemtible young slimeballs who burned ol glory with a lot of other other young mal contempts

Kudos to Sen. McCaskill.

Of course, she is now un-re-electable...

She'll be replaced with a more cooperative, unquestioning minion.

Maybe even encounter and unfortunate accident? Hmmm!

There are so many democrats out there that don't understand what democrats actually stand for in this world. they are blind, ignorant sheep. this senator is no different. I bet she flipped a coin to see what party she would join

"Obama's Contempt for Rule of Law"

[Oval Office tape:]

Law? LAW? What law?

We don't need no stinkin' law!!

Claire is a honey ya know...be careful

Claire McCaskill Demonstrates Obamunist Class

She was FOR the MO. Truth Squads

Good discussion, this. I'm coming down on the 'shrewd bitch watching out for her seat' side of this but can believe the conspiracy theory theory, too.

Good discussion, this. I'm coming down on the 'shrewd bitch watching out for her seat' side of this but can believe the 'conspiracy theory' theory, too.

Note that the squishy-as-warm-jello McCaskill says: "I'm hopeful the White House will provide a more substantive rationale, in writing, as quickly as possible." Wow, Claire! You hit your Master right between the eyes with that one!

Doubtless Obambi is shaking in his boots, and will come up with that "more substantive rationale, in writing," as soon as he can possibly get to it in the next few months or years (after all, he's very busy running the country and most of its industries - soon to be more! - plus handling, so beautifully, all the foreign policy duties one normally has a Secretary of State for, but we all know that Hills, like Barry, is in way, way, way over her head).

How about: "Dear Sen. McCaskill, Because I say so. Barry." Would that suffice? Yes, I'm sure it would.

The firing of Gerald Walpin, an IG, was fouly sprung because he got cross wise with big DEM party fund raisers, who were on the Board of AmeriCorp's parent political entity. To foster that political hit-job firing, and to grease the skids, for it, the U S Attorney in Sacramento, Lawrence Brown wrote a knife in the back letter, attacking Mr Walpin, his posion pen, one filled with ill will, and half backed suppositions, devoid of reality in some instances. For example, he notes flaky diversions on exculpatory evidence. There was never any trial, civil or criminal, the money misused was just returned. Yet, Mr Brown put Mr Walpin on trial in his political court of his agenda, all press fueled, with no hearing as if he is some Soviet Zar, or tin horn banana Republic junta member. Yet, in addition, and totally overlooked in the Press, and by some Senators like Senator Grassley are the troubles that raises on issues of whether it was Mr Brown who violated the Code of Ethics for Government Service(USA). I set forth the full CODE: tabbed in below addendum:

Code of Ethics for Government Service at issue.

At issue are whether Mr Brown, violated subparts I , II, V, IX, and X. of that Code., see below.

It is not the role of U S Attorneys to be cheer leaders for party fund raisers, to run favors for such party operatives, to retaliate against those who expose corruption, tamper with witnesses, and grand stand as some Chief, self appointed Judge, over all in the universe. Fact is, hundreds of thousand of dollars were misused, and surely Mr Brown could not deny that, with a straight face, and the office that brought it to his attention was run by Gerald Walpin, and IG. It is some in the White House who are very confused and badly disoriented, as they seem to want to discount that Code, for some political agenda. It is that, a Code enacted by Congress, in existence since 1958

For some years, I used to walk by that Code of Ethics, hanging in the main federal building that then housed the U S Attorney's Office in Sacramento. Now, the Senate ,and the Nation must wonder whether Mr Brown, U S Attorney in Sacramento, put that Code through a lazer shredder to play cheap political games.

The Senate needs to be reminded of that Code--it has been around since the time of Ike... President Eisenhower. I urge all in the Press, and the Nation to read it, and ask the question: Did Lawrence Brown live up fully to that Code, and if not, will the Senate commence timely hearings on that, given the related issue of favors for big Party fund raisers, embroiled in the matters. Or, do some put party fund raising over about all else in the Nation these days, even using U S Attorney office's for that kinky political agenda, in lock step with White House operatives--as we live in troubled asset times.

Addendum:
Code of Ethics for Government Service

House Document 103, 86th Congress, 1st Session - Passed by the Congress of the United States on July 11, 1958.

ANY PERSON IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE SHOULD:

I. Put loyalty to the highest moral principles above loyalty to persons, party, or Government department.

II. Uphold the Constitution, laws, and legal regulations of the United States and of all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion.

III. Give a full day's labor for a full day's pay; giving to the performance of his duties his earnest effort and best thought.

IV. Seek to find and employ more efficient and economical ways of getting tasks accomplished.

V. Never discriminate unfairly by the dispensing of special favors or privileges to anyone, whether for remuneration or not; and never accept, for himself or his family, favors or benefits under circumstances which might be construed by reasonable persons as influencing the performance of his governmental duties.

VI. Make no private promises of any kind binding upon the duties of office, since the Government employee has no private word which can be binding on public duty.

VII. Engage in no business with the Government, either directly or indirectly, which is inconsistent with the conscientious performance of his governmental duties.

VIII. Never use any information coming to him confidentially in the performance of governmental duties as a means for making private profit.

IX. Expose corruption wherever discovered.

X. Uphold these principles, ever conscious that public office is a public trust.

Ray is on to something.
The Senate needs to hold hearings on
Brown Code violations