Be sure to tune in tomorrow for possible indictments in the Valerie Plame affair. I wouldn't be surprised if we find out the next Supreme Court nominee soon, too.
You're not suggesting that the WH would use an announcement like that to deflect attention from indictments, are you?
10.27.2005 10:20pm
Attila (Pillage Idiot) (mail) (www):
You're not suggesting the next Supreme Court nominee is going to be indicted, are you?
10.27.2005 10:25pm
Crime & Federalism (mail) (www):
Go to Drudge for breaking news.
10.27.2005 11:55pm
Andy Treese:
You're not suggesting that Karl Rove is the next Supreme Court nominee, are you?
10.28.2005 12:31am
The guy with the hat:
Maybe he plans on nominating someone who would make his base salivate like crazy. That way, they would support him in order to support the nominee, regardless of the scandle, thus avoiding the lack of support that eventually did Nixon in.

There are some people who so hope for a Scalia, Reinquest of Thomas clone, that they'd forgive the President if he personally went to Iraq and cannibalized Iraqi children in a satanic ritual...if he nominated someone like the aformentioned...
10.28.2005 5:37am
Per Son:
I cannot wait to see the television ads in 2006. You have people like Kay Bailey Hutchinson saying perjury is just a technicality now, but rewind to he 1990s when perjury (about a sexual affair) is enough to bring down the Republic.
10.28.2005 10:51am
Yes, and you have Democrats saying perjury by the vice president's chief of staff is a serious crime, whereas six years ago they were saying perjury and obstruction of justice by the president wasn't.
10.28.2005 12:27pm
I forgot to mention rape, but the statute of limitations had run on that one, so I guess that makes it o.k.
10.28.2005 12:29pm