Florida Political Polls

This is sort of related to my post a few weeks back about how popular our new Governor is. Well, Quinnipiac has released a new poll about the Governor, the legislature, and our two Senators: Bill Nelson and Mel Martinez.

Astoundingly, Crists numbers went up: 73-9 approval rating, stratospheric according to Quinnipiac.

But here's another interesting thing: Both Democrats and Republicans give strongly favorable ratings to Crist, the legislature, and Nelson (D) and Martinez (R).

How often do you see that?

The Amateur Diplomat

The Washington Post has a scathing editorial criticizing Pelosi's trip to Syria. The salient points:

Ms. Pelosi was criticized by President Bush for visiting Damascus at a time when the administration -- rightly or wrongly -- has frozen high-level contacts with Syria. Mr. Bush said that thanks to the speaker's freelancing Mr. Assad was getting mixed messages from the United States. Ms. Pelosi responded by pointing out that Republican congressmen had visited Syria without drawing presidential censure. That's true enough -- but those other congressmen didn't try to introduce a new U.S. diplomatic initiative in the Middle East. "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace," Ms. Pelosi grandly declared.

Never mind that that statement is ludicrous: As any diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri. The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president.

Two weeks ago Ms. Pelosi rammed legislation through the House of Representatives that would strip Mr. Bush of his authority as commander in chief to manage troop movements in Iraq. Now she is attempting to introduce a new Middle East policy that directly conflicts with that of the president. We have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush's military strategy and regional diplomacy. But Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish.

Blogging from Baghdad

It's certainly come a long way since the heyday of Salam Pax.

I introduced myself to the Washington Post reporter and his Iraqi colleague, before the interview. I was asked various questions about culture in general and INLA in particular. We talked frankly about the security situation and impact on the INLA and its staff, etc.

As we were talking, a huge explosion shook the INLA's building around 11.35. We, the three of us, ran to the nearest window, and we saw a big and thick grey smoke rising from the direction of al-Mutanabi Street, which is less than 500 meter away from the INLA. I learnt later that the explosion was a result of a car bomb attack. Tens of thousands of papers were flying high, as if the sky was raining books, tears and blood. The view was surreal. Some of the papers were burning in the sky. Many burning pieces of papers fell on the INLA's building. Al-Mutanabi Street is named after one of the greatest Arab poets, who lived in Iraq in the middle ages. The Street is one of well-known areas of Baghdad and where many publishing houses, printing companies and bookstores have their main offices and storages. Its old cafes are the most favorite place for the impoverished intellectuals, who get their inspirations and ideas form this very old quarter of Baghdad. The Street is also famous for its Friday's book market, where secondhand, new and rear books are sold and purchased. The INLA purchases about 95% of new publications from al-Mutanabi Street. I also buy my own books from the same street. It was extremely sad to learn that a number of the publishers and book sellers, whom we knew very well, were among the dead, including Mr. Adnan, who was supposed to deliver a consignment of new publications to the INLA. According to an early estimation, more than 30 people were killed and 100 more injured. Four brothers were killed in their office.

Immediately after the explosion, I ordered the guards to prevent all my staff from leaving the building, as there was a possibility of another bomb attack. My staff and I were watching the movement of a number civilian and military ambulances, carrying killed and injured people. It was a heartbreaking view.

Almost ten minutes after the explosion, the Washington Post's reporter and his Iraqi colleague left the building. Their destination was unsurprisingly al-Mutanabi Street, the site of the massacre. Before the end of the meeting, we agreed to meet again next morning to continue the interview. After I arrived to my home, my wife told me that a big bomb blast shook our house at 11.30 and that dust and smoke covered our neighborhood. Fortunately, no one was hurt.

At 18.10, I was the guest of a Spanish radio that broadcasts to Spain and Latin America. I answered by phone series of questions about the INLA, its staff and the security challenges. The interview lasted 15 minutes.

Almost one hour later, the Reuters reporter in Baghdad rang me, asking me some question about the al-Mutanabi Street's car bomb attack, its history and cultural importance.

I watched the night news bulletin. The car bomb attack against Al-Mutanabia shocked all Iraqis regardless of their religious and ethnic background. The President, the Prime Minster and some other high-rank officials condemned the attack. Our political leaders are the best when it comes to the 'extremely difficult' task of issuing condemnation statements, while the annihilation of our culture and intellectual class goes on before their very eyes everyday.

Superlegality

This comment just came through on a Kos post about Goodling's refusal to testify.

We can either sort delicts and torts (crimes and suits) via public institutions, or by private means.

In the latter instance, there are no rules of evidence or telling or adjudication. None whatsoever.

In that world, quibbles over things like Miranda, modes of interrogation and incarceration as a suspect just aren't very important anymore.

Perhaps Miss Goodling would prefer that world.

So far, it's just been a world where certain execrable persons can be declared outlaws in the Norse sense -- outside the protection of law -- by executive fiat.

Now we see the other side of extralegality -- super-legality -- that certain exalted persons can be declared outside the prosecution of law.

The first goes inextricably with the last. We are in Monica Goodling seing the tentative beginning of a claim that due process is only valid if undertaken by persons deemed impartial and just not by the accused, but by the person called for testimony, on the grounds they don't like the people asking for answers to their questions.

Of course, when persons deemed acceptable are in control, that's different.

That, ultimately, is the basis for Miss Goodling's discomfiture. For whatever motive, she declares that any cooperation with Congress is a threat to her person, that this threat is illegitimate, and that she will not comply...the suggestion being that the administration will back her up should Congress seek to compel her appearance.

That might not happen. Then again, it might.

If so, we are far, far closer to a breakdown in not just this current investigation, but in our system of government.

Like I said at the top; either we resolve disputes -- delicts and torts - via the institutions that were trusted (more or less), regardless of who is in control, or we throw away twelve hundred years of experience reaching back to the Magna Carta, and look to old-school Sicily and modern-day Russia for idea on how to best take the law into our own hands, when resolving conflicts between persons and parties.

Sam Fox recess-appointed

You know, I really don't think the Founding Fathers meant that a one-week Congressional recess was a valid reason for appointing ambassadors that the Senate had all but rejected...

Those Damn Barbeques!

UPDATE: This has been confirmed to be an April Fools hoax. Apparently, the Belgians really pull some serious pranks on April 1. Those fun-loving Belgians!

From opinionjournal.com

Grill Scouts

From Novosti, a Russian news service:

The government of Belgium's French-speaking region of Wallonia, which has a population of about 4 million, has approved a tax on barbequing, local media reported.

Experts said that between 50 and 100 grams of CO2, a so-called greenhouse gas, is emitted during barbequing. Beginning June 2007, residents of Wallonia will have to pay 20 euros for a grilling session.

The local authorities plan to monitor compliance with the new tax legislation from helicopters,
whose thermal sensors will detect burning grills.

Good thing helicopters don't emit any CO2!

Tweaking

I just color-coded the posters: I decided to go with just two colors, rather than figuring out a different one for each person. :-)

Also, since I was tired of not being able to review just my own posts, I went through and added a "Posted by" tag to all the old posts (I think).

Any comments, or good as it stands?

Captains Quarters and selective statistics

Per John's suggestion, I'm reposting this here, having touched on it in comment threads and on my own blog.

---

The Captain's Quarters blog claims that Halliburton made 95% of its contract dollars from full and open competition, and gives a link to prove it. The link, indeed, states that Halliburton made $5.6B out of $5.9B through open, competitive bidding.

In 2005.

In 2004, almost 15% of their 6.8B was non-competitive.

And in 2003, over $2,000,000,000 came from non-competed contracts: over 43% of the total.

Nice try, guys.

Median wages stagnating

Hmmm. Interesting.

Presidential candidates with no understanding of the Constitution

From the National Review:

Crane asked if Romney believed the president should have the authority to arrest U.S. citizens with no review. Romney said he would want to hear the pros and cons from smart lawyers before he made up his mind. Crane said that he had asked Giuliani the same question a few weeks ago. The mayor said that he would want to use this authority infrequently.

Corruption, Democratic-Style

An unbelievable conflict-of-interest story from CaptainsQuarters

The new Congress has barely made it past its start before a new face has been put on lobbyist influence. Dianne Feinstein, the senior Senator from California, has resigned her leadership position on a subcommittee which put billions of dollars into her family's business (via QandO):

SEN. Dianne Feinstein has resigned from the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee. As previously and extensively reviewed in these pages, Feinstein was chairperson and ranking member of MILCON for six years, during which time she had a conflict of interest due to her husband Richard C. Blum's ownership of two major defense contractors, who were awarded billions of dollars for military construction projects approved by Feinstein.

As MILCON leader, Feinstein relished the details of military construction, even micromanaging one project at the level of its sewer design. She regularly took junkets to military bases around the world to inspect construction projects, some of which were contracted to her husband's companies, Perini Corp. and URS Corp. ...

As of December 2006, according to SEC filings and www.fedspending.org, three corporations in which Blum's financial entities own a total of $1 billion in stock won considerable favor from the budgets of the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs:

* Boston Scientific Corporation: $17.8 million for medical equipment and supplies; 85 percent of contracts awarded without benefit of competition.

* Kinetic Concepts Inc.: $12 million, medical equipment and supplies; 28 percent noncompetitively awarded.

* CB Richard Ellis: The Blum-controlled international real estate firm holds congressionally funded contracts to lease office space to the Department of Veterans Affairs. It also is involved in redeveloping military bases turned over to the private sector.

Wasn't it the Democrats who insisted that the Republicans jumped into bed with lobbyists and special interests? Well, now we have a senior Democrat who made sure that over a billion dollars of federal money got routed through her own checkbook, with her husband as proxy. When can we expect to see a Democratic investigation into this brand of corruption?

During the 2006 election, Feinstein's party made a lot of hay out of non-competitve contracting by the government. Democrats railed especially about Halliburton, even though Halliburton won 95% of its contract dollars by full and open competition. Now we see that Feinstein herself had no problem with non-competitive practices, as long as it meant stuffing her own pockets with taxpayer money. Take a look at the percentages in the above. In 2005, CB Richard Ellis made $100 million in federal contracts, only half of which had been part of full and open competitive bidding.

When we talk about political corruption, this is exactly what we mean. Politicians who use their power and assignments to fill their own pockets with federal dollars corrupt our system and deserve to be tried in court for violating the public trust.

Feinstein never should have sat on subcommittees that hand out federal contracts for markets in which her own family businesses compete. If the Democrats meant what they said in 2006, Feinstein provides an excellent test case for their new sense of ethics. They should expel her from the Senate and have California hold a special election to replace her. If they do nothing, then they have exposed themselves as the party of self-enrichment at the expense of taxpayers.

A little East Coast voter fraud for balance

In Florida's 13th Congressional race in 2006 Democrat Christine Jennings lost by fewer than 400 votes to Republican Vern Buchanan. read about it at wired

Washington State Election Fraud

From soundpolitics.com. If Marshall has contrary evidence this well documented, then post a link. Got tired of you deniers blathering without knowing what you're talking about.

No evidence of election crimes?

Today's Seattle Times reports that John McKay insists that there was no evidence of election crimes in Washington's November 2004 election. Granted, he appears to have relied solely on what the Republican legal team presented in the contest trial. And we now know that King County sandbagged discovery requests and stonewalled public records requests, and the schedule simply didn't permit the litigants to force King County to produce all of the evidence in time for the trial. Here is a summary of what I've found in the 21 months after the trial ended:

Category of suspected illegal vote Expected Documented More Info Sample

Provisional ballots counted
from unregistered "fatal pend" voter 170 170 here photo
Provisional ballots counted from
other unregistered voters 60 32 here photo
Federal write-in ballot counted from
unregistered voter who had not
requested a ballot by the deadline 113 113 here PDF
Two absentee ballots counted
from the same voter 80 30 here photo
Absentee ballot and provisional ballot
counted from the same voter 50 11 here photo
In-state absentee ballots postmarked
after election day (Nov. 2) >5 5 photo


Total suspected illegal votes 478 361

*Notes: These are all cases of ballots that were unlawfully accepted for tabulation by elections officials. Therefore it's only a partial list of what could reasonably be considered fraud. (I've excluded other varieties of illegal votes that could not have been prevented as easily by the elections staff during the canvassing period, e.g. felons, deceased, the provisional ballots that were shoved into polling place Accuvotes, people who voted both at the polls and by mail and votes cast by voters who were registered more than once.

And I'm not even exploring whether all of the ballots were lawfully handled and counted after they were separated from their envelopes). The "expected" column indicates the number of such ballots that data records and other documents indicate one should expect to find if one were to perform an exhaustive search of the ballot envelopes and other physical records. The "documented" column indicates the number that have been corroborated by other King County records and/or by physical records that have been found and photographed after a partial search of the physical evidence.

Again, none of this specific evidence was presented or even known during the trial. But we were all tippped off that something wasn't right when King County counted more votes than voters and admitted to fabricating the reconciliation reports. I would like to ask McKay the following: has he looked for and/or seen any of the funny votes listed above? Does he consider them to be sufficient evidence of unlawful vote counting to at least prompt a more comprehensive investigation?

Has he conducted an investigation and concluded that all of these unlawful votes were caused solely by innocent human error? On what basis? If the answers to the first 3 questions are NO, YES and NO, would he be willing to assist in drafting a formal complaint that could lead to an investigation?

If anybody reading this knows how to reach John McKay, please help me get in touch with him.

‘Wash Post’ Publishes Rare Op-Ed by ‘Anonymous’ On FBI Abuse

By E&P Staff
Published: March 23, 2007 9:30 AM ET

NEW YORK “It is the policy of The Washington Post not to publish anonymous pieces,” the newspaper declares on page A17 of today’s edition. “In this case, an exception has been made because the author — who would have preferred to be named — is legally prohibited from disclosing his or her identity in connection with receipt of a national security letter.

“The Post confirmed the legitimacy of this submission by verifying it with the author’s attorney and by reviewing publicly available court documents.”

What follows … is the submission by “John Doe.” The entire piece is available at www.washingtonpost.com.

The Justice Department’s inspector general revealed on March 9 that the FBI has been systematically abusing one of the most controversial provisions of the USA Patriot Act: the expanded power to issue “national security letters.” It no doubt surprised most Americans to learn that between 2003 and 2005 the FBI issued more than 140,000 specific demands under this provision … without a showing of probable cause or prior judicial approval — to obtain … sensitive information about U.S. citizens and residents. It did not, however, come as any surprise to me.

Three years ago, I received a national security letter (NSL) in my capacity as the president of a small Internet access … business. The letter ordered me to provide sensitive information about one of my clients. There was no indication that a judge had reviewed or approved the letter, and it turned out that none had. The letter came with a gag provision that prohibited me from telling anyone … that the FBI was seeking this information. Based on the context of the demand … I suspected that the FBI was abusing its power and that the letter sought information to which the FBI was not entitled.

… I contacted lawyers at the American Civil Liberties Union, and … filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the NSL power. I never released the information … and … the FBI decided that it no longer needs the information anyway. But the FBI still hasn’t abandoned the gag order that prevents me from disclosing my experience and concerns with … the national security letter that was served on my company. …

Living under the gag order has been stressful and surreal. Under the threat of criminal prosecution, I must hide all aspects of my involvement in the case — including the mere fact that I received an NSL — from my colleagues, my family and my friends. When I meet with my attorneys I cannot tell my girlfriend where I am going or where I have been. I hide any papers related to the case …. When clients and friends ask me whether I am the one challenging the constitutionality of the NSL statute, I have no choice but to … lie.

I resent being conscripted as a secret informer for the government and being made to mislead those who are close to me, especially because I have doubts about the legitimacy of the underlying investigation.

Quoted under Fair Use; for complete item and/or copyright info go to http://tinyurl.com/22f5vd

McGrain v. Daugherty

As the Supreme Court pointed out in 1927:

We are of opinion that the power of inquiry-with process to enforce it-is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function. It was so regarded and employed in American Legislatures before the Constitution was framed and ratified. Both houses of Congress took this view of it early in their history-the House of Representatives with the approving votes of Mr. Madison and other members whose service in the convention which framed the Constitution gives special significance to their action-and both houses have employed the power accordingly up to the present time. . . .

Experience has taught that mere requests for such information often are unavailing, and also that information which is volunteered is not always accurate or complete; so some means of compulsion are essential to obtain what is needed. All this was true before and when the Constitution was framed and adopted. In that period the power of inquiry, with enforcing process, was regarded and employed as a necessary and appropriate attribute of the power to legislate-indeed, was treated as inhering in it. Thus there is ample warrant for thinking, as we do, that the constitutional provisions which commit the legislative function to the two houses are intended to include this attribute to the end that the function may be effectively exercised.

Freaking hypocrites

From Hoyer's speech on the Iraq Accountability Act:

Others assert that inclusion of a timeline for responsible redeployment is tantamount to capitulation. Mr. Hobson spoke on this floor just a few minutes ago. He voted to set a time line in Bosnia. Mr. Lewis sits as the ranking member of this committee; he voted on June 24, 1997, to set a timeline. Mr. Hastert, Speaker of the House, set a timeline. Mr. Delay voted for a timeline. Mr. Blunt voted for a timeline. Mr. Boehner voted for a timeline.

Every one of them voted for a timeline, and what were the circumstances? We hadn't lost a single troop, not one. We had spent $7 billion, not $379 billion. We had brought genocide to a stop, ethnic cleansing to a stop, and we were not losing people and we had a stable environment, yet they voted for a timeline.

Josh Marshall on USA case

Full post here, but I've quoted most of it.

...Kinsley is still mulling over whether this is comparable to Bill Clinton's entirely normal dismissal of US Attorneys when he came into office. Would it be as big a deal if the Bush White House had fired all the US Attorneys at the start of the second term, as folks at the White House first seemed to have considered?

The firings were not the offense. They were the clue that suggested the offense. As the Congressional Research Service has shown, over the last twenty-five years only ten US Attorneys have been dismissed other than at the beginning of a new president's term of office. And of those eight were for clear cause. For instance, one of them bit a stripper on the arm in a night club. And that, not surprisingly, led to his ouster....

In any case, ten times over twenty five years and in eight of those cases for clear and publicly aired reasons.

And then on one day, secretly and with no explanation, seven get canned. And several are involved in corruption investigations targetting Republicans. The first public explanation is that they were fired for poor performance. But then it turns most were among the highest performing US Attorneys in the country. Add in the fact that one of the eight was overseeing one of the broadest ranging and historic public corruption cases in US history and ... well, it all got our attention.

Then, only a little digging revealed clear evidence that two of the US Attorneys were dismissed for not pursuing bogus claims of Democratic 'voter fraud'.

Now, Kinsley seems to have bought in to David Brooks artfully laddled line that some of the firings seem to have been for partisan political reasons (bad) while others were for policy political reasons (not necessarily bad). But with all due respect, like history repeating itself, it only looks that way to those who don't know the details....

With Carol Lam, looking closely even at the emails the White House has allowed the Justice Department to release and it's clear that most of the Justice Department's dealings with Lam were coordinating with her on defending the policies she was pursuing against outside criticism. Given that this is being proferred as the after-the-fact excuse for her firing it is surpassingly curious that there appears not to be a single email showing anybody at the Justice Department or the White House asking her to change anything she was doing. The emails that show DOJ and White House officials brainstorming after the fact to come up with reasons for why they fired different prosecutors.

It's not that Lam was fired for not following administration policies on immigration. It's simply the one instance where the Attorney General and the White House are trying hardest to make that case. And it's just not convincing.

There are many people in this conversation trying to avoid the issues, confuse the issues or just ignore them. And more than a few people are just plain confused. But it's not that complicated. Administration officials have repeatedly and demonstrably lied about the firings. And there is now abundant evidence of a pattern of using the president's power to hire and fire US Attorneys to stymie public corruption investigations of Republicans and use the Justice Department to harass Democrats by mounting investigations of demonstrably bogus 'voter fraud' claims. It's really that simple.

The Edwards Problem

Not good.

I have a family member with that form of cancer that has been fighting it for about 4 years successfully. It is incurable because it lurks in the bone and then attacks somewhere else in the body as a new malignancy. They have new types of treatments involving hormones, though, that can really lengthen life expectancy beyond the (I think) 3-4 years it was just a few years ago.

I don't like John Edwards. He's a glorified ambulance chaser who practices class warfare, but no one should have to put up with the tragedies that have befallen him in his personal life.

He and Elizabeth Edwards have a long, difficult road ahead of them as it is even without his continued campaigning. I pray that they defy the odds and have a long and happy personal life.

P.S. I think a nice gesture would be for anyone donating to any of the 2008 candidates also make a donation to the American Cancer Society in Mrs. Edwards name or the name of anyone you know who has suffered from cancer.

Parliamentary smackdowns

How not to impress the guy with the gavel. :-)

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, inquiry of the contents of this legislation. Would it be appropriate to offer an amendment at this time exempting American Samoa just as it was from the minimum wage bill?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend. Under the rule that was adopted, no amendment is in order at this time.

Mr. McHENRY. So the gentleman----

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has asked the parliamentary inquiry, and he has received the answer.

Mr. McHENRY. Further parliamentary inquiry. Further parliamentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Yes. The gentleman may state the inquiry.

Mr. McHENRY. So the Chair is saying that I may not offer an amendment exempting American Samoa from this legislation.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is making a speech and will suspend.

Mr. McHENRY. If the Chair will let me finish my question.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend. The Chair has answered the gentleman's question, not by the Chair's own decision but by the rule. The rule does not provide for amendments. That is the answer to the gentleman's question.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Point of order.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, is the rule that we are operating under coming out of the Rules Committee?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has not stated a point of order, but rather a parliamentary inquiry. The House has adopted procedures which do not allow amendments. Therefore, Members will now proceed, and the Chair will recognize anyone who wishes to yield time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Another point of order.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state the point of order.

Mr. BARTON. How many times----

The SPEAKER pro tempore. No. ``How many times'' could not conceivably be a point of order. It could be a parliamentary inquiry, but it could not conceivably be a point of order.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I have one additional parliamentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state it.

Mr. McHENRY. Is American Samoa exempted from this bill before us on the House floor?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will respond to the gentleman: that is not a parliamentary inquiry; that is an inquiry about the substance of a bill. Questions about substance of legislation are not parliamentary inquiries. Parliamentary inquiries pertain to the procedures.

Mr. McHENRY. Additional inquiry.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. No. The Chair will not recognize the gentleman.

Mr. McHENRY. So the gentleman will not recognize me for an additional parliamentary inquiry?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. No. The Chair will say that having heard several parliamentary inquiries which were not parliamentary inquiries----

Mr. McHENRY. Well, the Chair will not answer my question.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will not interrupt. The gentleman asked several, he said, parliamentary inquiries; the Chair answered them. The gentleman has tried to respond by making speeches which are not in order at this point. If the gentleman wishes to get time from the manager of the time to make his remarks----

Mr. McHENRY. Parliamentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state the nature of the parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. McHENRY. Is there a way by which I can derive whether or not American Samoa, like the minimum wage bill, is exempted from this legislation?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. While the Chair is presiding, the gentleman will not make speeches in the guise of a parliamentary inquiry. He has asked a legitimate one, can he find out, how does he find out that information?

The answer is as follows: he asks the gentleman on his side who controls debate time to yield him time. He may then with that time under the rule make the question.

The other way I could say the gentleman could find out would be by reading the bill. Read the bill and it will tell you. But the gentleman may get debate time and then may propound any question to the other side that he wishes.

Mr. McHENRY. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Point of order. My point of order is, the distinguished Speaker when he was in the minority numerous times made points of order that were----

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend. Comments on the past behavior of the Speaker might be interesting, but they are not points of order.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Point of order. Then the distinguished Speaker was out of order in the past.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas will suspend. And the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) is recognized to yield time for someone who might actually want to debate the bill. The gentleman is recognized for yielding time.

Executive privilege

Name that author.

...wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.