<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Captain&#8217;s Quarters On Gonzales</title>
	<atom:link href="http://donklephant.com/2007/03/24/captains-quarters-on-gonzales/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://donklephant.com/2007/03/24/captains-quarters-on-gonzales/</link>
	<description>Big Teeth. Huge Ass. Surprisingly Reasonable.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:39:23 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: BenG</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2007/03/24/captains-quarters-on-gonzales/comment-page-1/#comment-286417</link>
		<dc:creator>BenG</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2007 12:58:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/2007/03/24/captains-quarters-on-gonzales/#comment-286417</guid>
		<description>Justin,

The arguments the partisan cheerleaders continue to make for their party never cease to amaze me. Here&#039;s one from Trent Lott made this weekend on one of the Sunday talk shows: Appearing with Feinstein on Fox (News), Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) vigorously defended the president. ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œI see no evidence that anything illegal was done, or improper,ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚? Lott said.  ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œThe president has every right to remove U.S. attorneys.ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚? 

So, let&#039;s imagine that Mr. Lott just lost his re-election bid and there was a controversy about voter fraud brought to Fed. court in his state after the election. Just before indictments are about to be handed down against his opponent, the president fires the US Attorney in charge of the case and the case is dropped. No problem, right, Mr. Lott? The president has every right to remove U.S. attorneys !</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Justin,</p>
<p>The arguments the partisan cheerleaders continue to make for their party never cease to amaze me. Here&#8217;s one from Trent Lott made this weekend on one of the Sunday talk shows: Appearing with Feinstein on Fox (News), Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) vigorously defended the president. ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œI see no evidence that anything illegal was done, or improper,ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚? Lott said.  ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œThe president has every right to remove U.S. attorneys.ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚? </p>
<p>So, let&#8217;s imagine that Mr. Lott just lost his re-election bid and there was a controversy about voter fraud brought to Fed. court in his state after the election. Just before indictments are about to be handed down against his opponent, the president fires the US Attorney in charge of the case and the case is dropped. No problem, right, Mr. Lott? The president has every right to remove U.S. attorneys !</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bob in fl</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2007/03/24/captains-quarters-on-gonzales/comment-page-1/#comment-285386</link>
		<dc:creator>bob in fl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Mar 2007 20:18:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/2007/03/24/captains-quarters-on-gonzales/#comment-285386</guid>
		<description>Gonzales is toast. The sooner Bush (or Rove, or Cheney) realizes that, the better off the the Republican Party will be. The elected Party leaders are finally realizing it.

What I would like to know is, where are those 3 weeks of missing emails? The ones beginning roughly December? The only reason I can think of withholding them is because they contain another smoking gun. So why isn&#039;t anyone demanding a subpoena for them?

Curious minds want to know.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gonzales is toast. The sooner Bush (or Rove, or Cheney) realizes that, the better off the the Republican Party will be. The elected Party leaders are finally realizing it.</p>
<p>What I would like to know is, where are those 3 weeks of missing emails? The ones beginning roughly December? The only reason I can think of withholding them is because they contain another smoking gun. So why isn&#8217;t anyone demanding a subpoena for them?</p>
<p>Curious minds want to know.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
