The White House Might Be Listening
Posted by Andy on October 24th, 2005
There is a hint that the White House is getting ready to eat some crow, and replace Miers with a more suitable candidate.
ConfirmThem
RedState is able to report this morning that, very quietly, certain third parties have begun going back through the list of potential judicial nominees at the behest of the White House. Sources tell RedState that while the White House intends to make a public display of moving the Miers nomination forward, the reality of the situation has been conveyed to the President — namely that it is increasingly likely that Harriet Miers will meet a bipartisan effort to block her nomination.
As a result of growing chatter about the nomination, the White House is, as the Washington Times reported, trying to develop an exit strategy. At the same time, the White House does not want to withdraw the nomination without having a replacement close by. Notwithstanding that, the White House is relying on trusted third parties to initially help reformulate a list of candidates that would unite and rally the base.
I only hope it is true about Miers being pulled. Now if the folks at 1600 Pennsylvania would just listen to the conservative base on a few other semi-important issues like: eduactaion, immigration & border security, health care, balanced budgets, fiscal responsibility, to name a few issues the White House has been off the mark on and too darn stuborn to admit they were wrong.
Sphere: Related Content
October 24th, 2005 at 10:46 am
Hello Gonzales! You know that’s who we’ll get if the conservatives shipwreck Miers nominations.
October 24th, 2005 at 1:36 pm
eduactaion, immigration & border security, health care, balanced budgets, fiscal responsibility, to name a few issues the White House has been off the mark on and too darn stuborn to admit they were wrong.
Oh, I forgot. How about adding Iraq to that list of things that President Bush is too darn stubborn to admit that he is wrong on. As much as you “hate” him for being steadfast, and the liberals hate him for being steadfast, you can’t claim that you were duped. President Bush has always been a steadfast President and anyone voting for him last November has no business being shocked now that he is steadfast in his nomination of Miers.
October 24th, 2005 at 1:55 pm
I far from hate him. Please. He’s been disappointing on many conservative issues, but for pete’s sake I do not hate him.
It is disappointing to know that YOU have been duped by the media and the left into believing that Iraq was/is “wrong”.
Here’s the secret to understanding the War on Terror
Take out a globe
Locate Iraq
Identify the terrorist sponsoring nation(s) to the West of Iraq (hint: East of Israel)
Identify the terrorist sponsoring nation to the East of Iraq (hint: it is West of Afghanistan)
It is called a beachhead. Get it yet?
Strategy, ever heard of it?
This is not a 20 minute fire fight that will just go away because we are tired of it. Live or die? Make a choice.
October 24th, 2005 at 2:09 pm
WOAH! WOAH! Pull out the fire hoses!! I know that you don’t hate President Bush, that’s the reason for the quotations around hate in reference to you and not the liberals. Coincidentaly, I also don’t believe that President Bush is wrong about Iraq. He isn’t. My point was that all the conservatives opposing Miers (perhaps including you) seem surprised that Bush can’t “admit he was wrong” about Miers. But President Bush has never been one to make a decision lightly and decide that he was wrong. Why should it be irrational that he not do that now?
Oh, and you’ve ignored my reply about Miers qualifications.
October 24th, 2005 at 2:16 pm
Lesson in politics for you, NEVER use a talking point from your opponent’s playbook to make your point on another issue, even amongst friends.
Simple, he is wrong about Miers.
I’ll get to the other post tonight. I’ve been busy.
October 24th, 2005 at 2:22 pm
Let’s stop quibbling. He may be wrong about Miers, but would you agree with me that it is not a surprise that he wouldn’t (or will not) withdraw Miers nomination? That’s my point. Many people opposed to Miers nomination appear surprised that President Bush would refuse to withdraw Miers nomination. But after 5 years of watching President Bush’s steadfastness, it is too much to now, in 2005, to call President Bush irrational over not withdrawing Miers.
October 24th, 2005 at 10:08 pm
State of U.S. Courts. . .
Consider this:
Open Letter
October 23, 2005
United States Judicial Conference
Administrative Office
of the United States Courts
Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building
One Columbus Circle, N.E.
Washington D.C. 20544
Mr. Albert N. Moskowitz
United States Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Mrs. Mary Beth Buchanan
U.S. Attorney Western Pennsylvania
United States Department of Justice
U.S. Post Office and Court House
700 Grant Street, Suite 4000
Pittsburgh, Pa 15219
United States Judicial Conference
Chief Justice United States Supreme Court
c/o Mr. William K. Sutter, Clerk
Office of the Clerk
c/o Mrs. Pamala Talkin
Marshall of the Court
No. 1 First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20543
Third Circuit Judicial Council
United States Court of Appeals
c/o Toby D. Slawsky, Esq.
Circuit Executive
22409 U.S. Courthouse
601 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pa 19106-1790
Chief Justice
United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
c/o Toby D. Slawsky, Esq.
Circuit Executive
22409 U.S. Courthouse
601 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pa 19106-1790
RE: Formal Complaint (filed under the Judicial Improvements Act of 2002
28 U.C.S. Sections 351-364); Formal Complaint (filed under 28 U.S.C.
Section 372(c)); and Request for Investigation (pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 604)
Dear All:
Please be advise of the following criminal activity.
On or about October 11, 2005, Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals forwarded a copy of an Order (No. 05-3702) that, among other, requested a copy of the district court docket entries. On October 21, 2005, I purchased a copy of the docket entries (No. 03-1400) and forwarded such to the Third Circuit. However, I noticed the August 16, 2005, entry entered by JSP that advised the clerk’s office couldn’t locate documents #16, #64 and #86. That is, the clerk office wasn’t able to transmitted the complete record (No. 03-1400) to the Third Circuit.
In short, previously I submitted unequivocal evidence of perjury (violation of Section 1746 Title 28, United States Code) to the Department of Justice, federal court and others. Since my request for a formal investigation, the evidence (documents #64 and #86) was somehow removed from the official court file.
At issue is an affidavit submitted to the court by Cassandra Colchagoff (an attorney). With the November 10, 2004 affidavit Mrs. Colchagoff attempted to change her testimony (December 2003 affidavit). That is, the district court specifically cited her December 2003 testimony as its reason for dismissing the constitutional claims in the matter No. 03-1400.
Mrs. Colchagoff had testified (made a material false declaration) that there was “no link to Kaplan Higher Education Corporation (Kaplan College) and no link to federal funding.”
The district court ruled that “without a link to federal funding” I couldn’t pursue my constitutional claims against Kaplan.
The only difference between the two Colchagoff affidavits is the November 10, 2004, testimony no longer suggested, “no link to Kaplan Higher Education Corporation (Kaplan College) and no link to federal funding.” Likewise, her attorneys, Sara Shubert, Laurence Shtasel, and Blank Rome appears to have changed their representation to the court. Her attorneys now acknowledged my October 15, 2000, Kaplan College enrollment letter and admitted in footnote 2 “certain colleges operated by Kaplan Higher Education Corporation, such as Kaplan College, received federal funding.”
Because this information (Document # 64 and #86) is “fatal” to the court’s decision at No. 03-1400, it has been unlawfully removed and withheld from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The unexplained disappearance of document #64 and #86 is further proof of criminal activity (obstruction of justice and intentional violation of my civil rights).
Please note, the November 10, 2004, Cassandra Colchagoff affidavit (Document #64 and #86) now missing from the court record, at paragraph 23, specifically admitted malfeasance.
In conclusion, the missing affidavit (Document #64 and #86) not submitted to the Third Circuit is decisive for all factual issues related to this matter and directly contradicts Judge David S. Cercone’s Memorandum opinions (May 14, 2004 and June 29, 2005).
I demand an immediate investigation.
Respectfully,
(Name Removed)
October 24th, 2005 at 10:11 pm
Dear All: Please be advise of the following criminal activity.
This is got to be one of the craziest attempts at comment spam that I have ever seen….