> <yawn/>

>> <yawn/>

> Yup. Happens everyday. At least with some administrations.

>> GOP prepares to file lawsuit against Holder
>> NBCNews.com

> The courts won't get involved in a dispute between the executive and the
> congress. I'll huff and I'll puff...

>What part of Watergate did you miss?  I suggest you read the 8-0
>Supreme Court decision United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974).

>In summary, Warren Burger and the Supremes informed Tricky Dick
>that the "Divine Right of Kings" is a Fairy Tale.

>>   .....
>>> The courts won't get involved in a dispute between the executive
>>> and the congress. I'll huff and I'll puff...

>> What part of Watergate did you miss?  I suggest you read the 8-0
>> Supreme Court decision United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974).

>> In summary, Warren Burger and the Supremes informed Tricky Dick
>> that the "Divine Right of Kings" is a Fairy Tale.

>          U.S. v. Nixon is not a good illustrative example of the
> federal courts' willingness or nor to become involved in a dispute
> between a POTUS and congress.
>          While it is true that that litigation occurred against a
> background of such a dispute, of congress investigating whether to
> impeach the president and apparently of being on the verge of doing
> exactly that, the case itself arose in a criminal law context:
>          It was not congress and instead a special prosecutor following
> widespread public anger at Nixon having summarily fired a prior duly
> appointed independent prosecutor who obtained a criminal grand jury
> subpoena for the tapes as part of an independent grand jury
> investigation and it was the president's refusal to comply with that
> subpoena that resulted in the Supremes' unanimous ruling.

>>   .....
>>> The courts won't get involved in a dispute between the executive
>>> and the congress. I'll huff and I'll puff...

>> What part of Watergate did you miss?  I suggest you read the 8-0
>> Supreme Court decision United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974).

>> In summary, Warren Burger and the Supremes informed Tricky Dick
>> that the "Divine Right of Kings" is a Fairy Tale.

>          U.S. v. Nixon is not a good illustrative example of the
> federal courts' willingness or nor to become involved in a dispute
> between a POTUS and congress.
>          While it is true that that litigation occurred against a
> background of such a dispute, of congress investigating whether to
> impeach the president and apparently of being on the verge of doing
> exactly that, the case itself arose in a criminal law context:
>          It was not congress and instead a special prosecutor following
> widespread public anger at Nixon having summarily fired a prior duly
> appointed independent prosecutor who obtained a criminal grand jury
> subpoena for the tapes as part of an independent grand jury
> investigation and it was the president's refusal to comply with that
> subpoena that resulted in the Supremes' unanimous ruling.

>>>   .....
>>>> The courts won't get involved in a dispute between the executive
>>>> and the congress. I'll huff and I'll puff...

>>> What part of Watergate did you miss?  I suggest you read the 8-0
>>> Supreme Court decision United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974).

>>> In summary, Warren Burger and the Supremes informed Tricky Dick
>>> that the "Divine Right of Kings" is a Fairy Tale.

>>          U.S. v. Nixon is not a good illustrative example of the
>> federal courts' willingness or nor to become involved in a dispute
>> between a POTUS and congress.
>>          While it is true that that litigation occurred against a
>> background of such a dispute, of congress investigating whether to
>> impeach the president and apparently of being on the verge of doing
>> exactly that, the case itself arose in a criminal law context:
>>          It was not congress and instead a special prosecutor following
>> widespread public anger at Nixon having summarily fired a prior duly
>> appointed independent prosecutor who obtained a criminal grand jury
>> subpoena for the tapes as part of an independent grand jury
>> investigation and it was the president's refusal to comply with that
>> subpoena that resulted in the Supremes' unanimous ruling.

> Issa's committee has been timing its legal moves politically, to force
> television news to report in earnest along with, I believe, the speech
> of Obama's handpicked key-note speaker, San Antonio's Mexican Mayor.

> Nonetheless the charges are not only valid but also imperative.

> US news jumped on the break-in resulting in Watergate. It is a sign of
> how the US meida has long been co-opted to not only not jump on the
> murders resulting from Fast & Furious, but also a condemnation of the
> media to not even assign investigative reporters to instead propagate
> the DOJ's excuse: that Fast & Furious must be a mere "botch-job." And
> why? Because Holder says so.

> Imagine the news having simply accepted Agnew's excuses?

> Despite the best efforts of, essentially, those most engaged in
> co-opting the media in their shameless down-play of the issue*,
> the issue is no mere "political dog-fight."

> And the judiciary knows it.

> Obama and Holder have challenged Congress's Constitutionally empowerment
> for oversight including subpoena power.

> If it turns out the judiciary is disinterested, it will be far more
> indicative of its long having been co-opted also and not for any
> traditional reluctance.

> *They do so to protect Holder and Obama per se, but to protect the MxGov
> and Calderon.

> Meanwhile, there are reports and commentaries though from the
> hinterland; and they are mounting and damning.

> For example:

> Fast & Furious: Where the buck stops

> By Tribune-Review [Pittsburg]

> Published: Friday, August 3, 2012, 8:56 p.m.
> Updated: Friday, August 3, 2012

>>>   .....
>>>> The courts won't get involved in a dispute between the executive
>>>> and the congress. I'll huff and I'll puff...

>>> What part of Watergate did you miss?  I suggest you read the 8-0
>>> Supreme Court decision United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974).

>>> In summary, Warren Burger and the Supremes informed Tricky Dick
>>> that the "Divine Right of Kings" is a Fairy Tale.

>>          U.S. v. Nixon is not a good illustrative example of the
>> federal courts' willingness or nor to become involved in a dispute
>> between a POTUS and congress.
>>          While it is true that that litigation occurred against a
>> background of such a dispute, of congress investigating whether to
>> impeach the president and apparently of being on the verge of doing
>> exactly that, the case itself arose in a criminal law context:
>>          It was not congress and instead a special prosecutor following
>> widespread public anger at Nixon having summarily fired a prior duly
>> appointed independent prosecutor who obtained a criminal grand jury
>> subpoena for the tapes as part of an independent grand jury
>> investigation and it was the president's refusal to comply with that
>> subpoena that resulted in the Supremes' unanimous ruling.

> An excellent point, but see the DC Circuit's ruling in Senate Select
> Committee v Nixon.  In deciding for the executive, the court was not shy
> about instructing the Select Committee on its duties and indeed its role
> in Congressional business.

> >> <yawn/>

> > Yup. Happens everyday. At least with some administrations.

> It's happened.  The reason for my lack of excitement is that the time
> needed to resolve this suit is longer than the time Obama can possibly
> remain in office.  And when he leaves office, it will become moot.

>>>> <yawn/>

>>> Yup. Happens everyday. At least with some administrations.

>> It's happened.  The reason for my lack of excitement is that the time
>> needed to resolve this suit is longer than the time Obama can possibly
>> remain in office.  And when he leaves office, it will become moot.

> Congress never has standing in these cases anyway so it will be
> summarily tossed unless a Repug judge thinks it has some political
> effect which it probably doesn't.

> > >> <yawn/>

> > > Yup. Happens everyday. At least with some administrations.

> > It's happened. The reason for my lack of excitement is that the time
> > needed to resolve this suit is longer than the time Obama can possibly
> > remain in office. And when he leaves office, it will become moot.

> Congress never has standing in these cases anyway so it will be
> summarily tossed unless a Repug judge thinks it has some political
> effect which it probably doesn't.

> Why don't Repugs talk to their buddies at a GOP shill tank and get
> them to file?

>>>>>> GOP prepares to file lawsuit against Holder
>>>>>> NBCNews.com
>>>>>> House Republicans will file a civil suit against Attorney General Eric
>>>>>> Holder during the August recess, House Oversight Committee Chairman
>>>>>> Darrell
>>>>>> Issa (R-CA) has told NBC News. Larry Downing / REUTERS. U.S. Attorney
>>>>>> General Eric Holder during a ...
>>>>>> <http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/03/13105010-gop-prepares-t..
>>>>>> .>

>>>>> <yawn/>

>>>> Yup. Happens everyday. At least with some administrations.

>>> It's happened.  The reason for my lack of excitement is that the time
>>> needed to resolve this suit is longer than the time Obama can possibly
>>> remain in office.  And when he leaves office, it will become moot.

>> Congress never has standing in these cases anyway so it will be
>> summarily tossed unless a Repug judge thinks it has some political
>> effect which it probably doesn't.

> Congress never has standing?

> Hunh?

> However, I certainly agree it will have minimal political impact.

> The political impact the GOP is aiming for is found in demonstrating the
> Obama White House has been the exact opposite of "the most open and
> transparent administration in history."

> ³No more secrecy. That is a commitment that I make to you as president.²
>          ---Barack Obama (2008)

> Fact is, nobody really cares. Not the Democrats. Not the Independents.
> Not even the GOP. Obama knew that even as he uttered those silly words.

> It's not like Obama can get reelected anyway.

>> Why don't Repugs talk to their buddies at a GOP shill tank and get
>> them to file?

> It's that standing thingy, of course.

> What makes you think a private citizen can sue a currently serving
> official in an administration for grievances caused by sanctioned
> policies?

> Paula Jones?

> The damages must have taken place before the official took office.

>> What makes you think a private citizen can sue a currently serving
>> official in an administration for grievances caused by sanctioned
>> policies?

> It happens often. The suer addresses the lawsuit as 'The Person's Actual
> Name' as (or in the capacity of) the 'Title of Office' of 'Whatever
> Office of Government'.

> >>>>>> GOP prepares to file lawsuit against Holder
> >>>>>> NBCNews.com
> >>>>>> House Republicans will file a civil suit against Attorney General Eric
> >>>>>> Holder during the August recess, House Oversight Committee Chairman
> >>>>>> Darrell
> >>>>>> Issa (R-CA) has told NBC News. Larry Downing / REUTERS. U.S. Attorney
> >>>>>> General Eric Holder during a ...
> >>>>>> <http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/03/13105010-gop-prepares-t.
> >>>>>> .
> >>>>>> .>

> >>>>> <yawn/>

> >>>> Yup. Happens everyday. At least with some administrations.

> >>> It's happened.  The reason for my lack of excitement is that the time
> >>> needed to resolve this suit is longer than the time Obama can possibly
> >>> remain in office.  And when he leaves office, it will become moot.

> >> Congress never has standing in these cases anyway so it will be
> >> summarily tossed unless a Repug judge thinks it has some political
> >> effect which it probably doesn't.

> > Congress never has standing?

> > Hunh?

> > However, I certainly agree it will have minimal political impact.

> > The political impact the GOP is aiming for is found in demonstrating the
> > Obama White House has been the exact opposite of "the most open and
> > transparent administration in history."

> > No more secrecy. That is a commitment that I make to you as president.
> >          ---Barack Obama (2008)

> > Fact is, nobody really cares. Not the Democrats. Not the Independents.
> > Not even the GOP. Obama knew that even as he uttered those silly words.

> > It's not like Obama can get reelected anyway.

> >> Why don't Repugs talk to their buddies at a GOP shill tank and get
> >> them to file?

> > It's that standing thingy, of course.

> > What makes you think a private citizen can sue a currently serving
> > official in an administration for grievances caused by sanctioned
> > policies?

> > Paula Jones?

> > The damages must have taken place before the official took office.

> Do you have any cites for this?

> Private citizens sue public officials all the time.  In this case,
> though, private individuals have no standing to enforce Congressional
> subpoenas.

> > What makes you think a private citizen can sue a currently serving
> > official in an administration for grievances caused by sanctioned
> > policies?

> It happens often. The suer addresses the lawsuit as 'The Person's Actual
> Name' as (or in the capacity of) the 'Title of Office' of 'Whatever
> Office of Government'.

>> On 8/6/12 8:47 PM, Neolibertarian wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <5a0a7599-e6f9-4b99-aa1f-a08fe2b67...@8g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
>>>    Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>> GOP prepares to file lawsuit against Holder
>>>>>>>> NBCNews.com
>>>>>>>> House Republicans will file a civil suit against Attorney General Eric
>>>>>>>> Holder during the August recess, House Oversight Committee Chairman
>>>>>>>> Darrell
>>>>>>>> Issa (R-CA) has told NBC News. Larry Downing / REUTERS. U.S. Attorney
>>>>>>>> General Eric Holder during a ...
>>>>>>>> <http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/03/13105010-gop-prepares-t.
>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>> .>

>>>>>>> <yawn/>

>>>>>> Yup. Happens everyday. At least with some administrations.

>>>>> It's happened.  The reason for my lack of excitement is that the time
>>>>> needed to resolve this suit is longer than the time Obama can possibly
>>>>> remain in office.  And when he leaves office, it will become moot.

>>>> Congress never has standing in these cases anyway so it will be
>>>> summarily tossed unless a Repug judge thinks it has some political
>>>> effect which it probably doesn't.

>>> Congress never has standing?

>>> Hunh?

>>> However, I certainly agree it will have minimal political impact.

>>> The political impact the GOP is aiming for is found in demonstrating the
>>> Obama White House has been the exact opposite of "the most open and
>>> transparent administration in history."

>>> ³No more secrecy. That is a commitment that I make to you as president.²
>>>           ---Barack Obama (2008)

>>> Fact is, nobody really cares. Not the Democrats. Not the Independents.
>>> Not even the GOP. Obama knew that even as he uttered those silly words.

>>> It's not like Obama can get reelected anyway.

>>>> Why don't Repugs talk to their buddies at a GOP shill tank and get
>>>> them to file?

>>> It's that standing thingy, of course.

>>> What makes you think a private citizen can sue a currently serving
>>> official in an administration for grievances caused by sanctioned
>>> policies?

>>> Paula Jones?

>>> The damages must have taken place before the official took office.

>> Do you have any cites for this?

> Clinton v Jones (1997)

> Petitioner promptly advised the Federal District Court that he would
> file a motion to dismiss on Presidential immunity grounds, and requested
> that all other pleadings and motions be deferred until the immunity
> issue was resolved. After the court granted that request, petitioner
> filed a motion to dismiss without prejudice and to toll any applicable
> statutes of limitation during his Presidency.

> [...]

> Petitioner's principal submission--that in all but the most exceptional
> cases, the Constitution affords the President temporary immunity from
> civil damages litigation arising out of events that occurred before he
> took office--cannot be sustained on the basis of precedent. The
> principal rationale for affording Presidents immunity from damages
> actions based on their official acts--i.e., to enable them to perform
> their designated functions effectively without fear that a particular
> decision may give rise to personal liability, see, e.g., Nixon v.
> Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 749, 752, and n. 32--provides no support for
> an immunity for unofficial conduct.

> http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1853.ZS.html

> Unofficial conduct? I imagine so.

>> Private citizens sue public officials all the time.  In this case,
>> though, private individuals have no standing to enforce Congressional
>> subpoenas.

> The best legal remedy becomes available Tuesday, November 6th, from 7am
> - 7pm in most states and precincts.

>> On 8/6/2012 9:47 PM, Neolibertarian wrote:

>>> What makes you think a private citizen can sue a currently serving
>>> official in an administration for grievances caused by sanctioned
>>> policies?

>> It happens often. The suer addresses the lawsuit as 'The Person's Actual
>> Name' as (or in the capacity of) the 'Title of Office' of 'Whatever
>> Office of Government'.

> You're only embarrassing yourself.

> Stop while you're ahead.

> Remember, these posts are archived at Google and other places around the
> internet into perpetuity.

> Do you want to risk having, say, your grandchildren stumble across these
> posts in the years to come? You want to so thoughtlessly inflict that
> kind of shame upon them?

> Think man, think!

> >> On 8/6/12 8:47 PM, Neolibertarian wrote:
> >>> In article
> >>> <5a0a7599-e6f9-4b99-aa1f-a08fe2b67...@8g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
> >>>    Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >>>>>>>> GOP prepares to file lawsuit against Holder
> >>>>>>>> NBCNews.com
> >>>>>>>> House Republicans will file a civil suit against Attorney General
> >>>>>>>> Eric
> >>>>>>>> Holder during the August recess, House Oversight Committee Chairman
> >>>>>>>> Darrell
> >>>>>>>> Issa (R-CA) has told NBC News. Larry Downing / REUTERS. U.S.
> >>>>>>>> Attorney
> >>>>>>>> General Eric Holder during a ...
> >>>>>>>> <http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/03/13105010-gop-prepares-
> >>>>>>>> t.
> >>>>>>>> .
> >>>>>>>> .>

> >>>>>>> <yawn/>

> >>>>>> Yup. Happens everyday. At least with some administrations.

> >>>>> It's happened.  The reason for my lack of excitement is that the time
> >>>>> needed to resolve this suit is longer than the time Obama can possibly
> >>>>> remain in office.  And when he leaves office, it will become moot.

> >>>> Congress never has standing in these cases anyway so it will be
> >>>> summarily tossed unless a Repug judge thinks it has some political
> >>>> effect which it probably doesn't.

> >>> Congress never has standing?

> >>> Hunh?

> >>> However, I certainly agree it will have minimal political impact.

> >>> The political impact the GOP is aiming for is found in demonstrating the
> >>> Obama White House has been the exact opposite of "the most open and
> >>> transparent administration in history."

> >>> No more secrecy. That is a commitment that I make to you as president.
> >>>           ---Barack Obama (2008)

> >>> Fact is, nobody really cares. Not the Democrats. Not the Independents.
> >>> Not even the GOP. Obama knew that even as he uttered those silly words.

> >>> It's not like Obama can get reelected anyway.

> >>>> Why don't Repugs talk to their buddies at a GOP shill tank and get
> >>>> them to file?

> >>> It's that standing thingy, of course.

> >>> What makes you think a private citizen can sue a currently serving
> >>> official in an administration for grievances caused by sanctioned
> >>> policies?

> >>> Paula Jones?

> >>> The damages must have taken place before the official took office.

> >> Do you have any cites for this?

> > Clinton v Jones (1997)

> > Petitioner promptly advised the Federal District Court that he would
> > file a motion to dismiss on Presidential immunity grounds, and requested
> > that all other pleadings and motions be deferred until the immunity
> > issue was resolved. After the court granted that request, petitioner
> > filed a motion to dismiss without prejudice and to toll any applicable
> > statutes of limitation during his Presidency.

> > [...]

> > Petitioner's principal submission--that in all but the most exceptional
> > cases, the Constitution affords the President temporary immunity from
> > civil damages litigation arising out of events that occurred before he
> > took office--cannot be sustained on the basis of precedent. The
> > principal rationale for affording Presidents immunity from damages
> > actions based on their official acts--i.e., to enable them to perform
> > their designated functions effectively without fear that a particular
> > decision may give rise to personal liability, see, e.g., Nixon v.
> > Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 749, 752, and n. 32--provides no support for
> > an immunity for unofficial conduct.

> > http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1853.ZS.html

> This says the suit on prior damages could proceed.  It doesn't say it
> would have failed had the damages been contemporaneous with holding office.

> >> You don't suppose that Monica Lewinsky
> >> could have sued Clinton for harassment had she not been a willing
> >> participant?

> > Unofficial conduct? I imagine so.

> >> Private citizens sue public officials all the time.  In this case,
> >> though, private individuals have no standing to enforce Congressional
> >> subpoenas.

> > The best legal remedy becomes available Tuesday, November 6th, from 7am
> > - 7pm in most states and precincts.

> This isn't a legal, as in judicial, remedy.  It's a political remedy.
> And it's existence is one reason why the civil suit against Holder is a
> waste of time.

> > If We the People don't do what's right and necessary at that time, we've
> > got no one left to blame.

> Yeah?  Where were you in November 2000 and November 2004?

>> On 8/6/2012 9:47 PM, Neolibertarian wrote:

>>> What makes you think a private citizen can sue a currently serving
>>> official in an administration for grievances caused by sanctioned
>>> policies?

>> It happens often. The suer addresses the lawsuit as 'The Person's Actual
>> Name' as (or in the capacity of) the 'Title of Office' of 'Whatever
>> Office of Government'.

> You're only embarrassing yourself.

> Stop while you're ahead.

> Remember, these posts are archived at Google and other places around the
> internet into perpetuity.

> Do you want to risk having, say, your grandchildren stumble across these
> posts in the years to come? You want to so thoughtlessly inflict that
> kind of shame upon them?

> Think man, think!

>> On 8/7/12 9:32 PM, Neolibertarian wrote:
>>> In article <8vudnY-t-6lFB73NnZ2dnUVZ5jedn...@giganews.com>,
>>>    deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:

>>>> On 8/6/12 8:47 PM, Neolibertarian wrote:
>>>>> In article
>>>>> <5a0a7599-e6f9-4b99-aa1f-a08fe2b67...@8g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>     Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> GOP prepares to file lawsuit against Holder
>>>>>>>>>> NBCNews.com
>>>>>>>>>> House Republicans will file a civil suit against Attorney General
>>>>>>>>>> Eric
>>>>>>>>>> Holder during the August recess, House Oversight Committee Chairman
>>>>>>>>>> Darrell
>>>>>>>>>> Issa (R-CA) has told NBC News. Larry Downing / REUTERS. U.S.
>>>>>>>>>> Attorney
>>>>>>>>>> General Eric Holder during a ...
>>>>>>>>>> <http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/03/13105010-gop-prepares-
>>>>>>>>>> t.
>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>> .>

>>>>>>>>> <yawn/>

>>>>>>>> Yup. Happens everyday. At least with some administrations.

>>>>>>> It's happened.  The reason for my lack of excitement is that the time
>>>>>>> needed to resolve this suit is longer than the time Obama can possibly
>>>>>>> remain in office.  And when he leaves office, it will become moot.

>>>>>> Congress never has standing in these cases anyway so it will be
>>>>>> summarily tossed unless a Repug judge thinks it has some political
>>>>>> effect which it probably doesn't.

>>>>> Congress never has standing?

>>>>> Hunh?

>>>>> However, I certainly agree it will have minimal political impact.

>>>>> The political impact the GOP is aiming for is found in demonstrating the
>>>>> Obama White House has been the exact opposite of "the most open and
>>>>> transparent administration in history."

>>>>> �No more secrecy. That is a commitment that I make to you as president.�
>>>>>            ---Barack Obama (2008)

>>>>> Fact is, nobody really cares. Not the Democrats. Not the Independents.
>>>>> Not even the GOP. Obama knew that even as he uttered those silly words.

>>>>> It's not like Obama can get reelected anyway.

>>>>>> Why don't Repugs talk to their buddies at a GOP shill tank and get
>>>>>> them to file?

>>>>> It's that standing thingy, of course.

>>>>> What makes you think a private citizen can sue a currently serving
>>>>> official in an administration for grievances caused by sanctioned
>>>>> policies?

>>>>> Paula Jones?

>>>>> The damages must have taken place before the official took office.

>>>> Do you have any cites for this?

>>> Clinton v Jones (1997)

>>> Petitioner promptly advised the Federal District Court that he would
>>> file a motion to dismiss on Presidential immunity grounds, and requested
>>> that all other pleadings and motions be deferred until the immunity
>>> issue was resolved. After the court granted that request, petitioner
>>> filed a motion to dismiss without prejudice and to toll any applicable
>>> statutes of limitation during his Presidency.

>>> [...]

>>> Petitioner's principal submission--that in all but the most exceptional
>>> cases, the Constitution affords the President temporary immunity from
>>> civil damages litigation arising out of events that occurred before he
>>> took office--cannot be sustained on the basis of precedent. The
>>> principal rationale for affording Presidents immunity from damages
>>> actions based on their official acts--i.e., to enable them to perform
>>> their designated functions effectively without fear that a particular
>>> decision may give rise to personal liability, see, e.g., Nixon v.
>>> Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 749, 752, and n. 32--provides no support for
>>> an immunity for unofficial conduct.

>>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1853.ZS.html

>> This says the suit on prior damages could proceed.  It doesn't say it
>> would have failed had the damages been contemporaneous with holding office.

> I linked to the rest of the decision.

>>>> You don't suppose that Monica Lewinsky
>>>> could have sued Clinton for harassment had she not been a willing
>>>> participant?

>>> Unofficial conduct? I imagine so.

>>>> Private citizens sue public officials all the time.  In this case,
>>>> though, private individuals have no standing to enforce Congressional
>>>> subpoenas.

>>> The best legal remedy becomes available Tuesday, November 6th, from 7am
>>> - 7pm in most states and precincts.

>> This isn't a legal, as in judicial, remedy.  It's a political remedy.
>> And it's existence is one reason why the civil suit against Holder is a
>> waste of time.

>>> If We the People don't do what's right and necessary at that time, we've
>>> got no one left to blame.

>> Yeah?  Where were you in November 2000 and November 2004?

> Defending my Constitution from the Barbarians at the Gate, of course.