2:57 PM'S headline is replaced by 3:00 PM's.

Truthout reports Rove and Hadley to be indicted.

These sources work or worked at the State Department, the CIA and the National Security Council. Some of these sources are attorneys close to the case. They requested anonymity because they were not permitted to speak publicly about the details of the investigation.

    In lengthy interviews over the weekend and on Monday, they said that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has started to prepare the paperwork to present to the grand jury seeking an indictment against White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove or National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley.

    Although the situation remains fluid, it's possible, these sources said, that Fitzgerald may seek to indict both Rove and Hadley, charging them with perjury, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy related to their roles in the leak of Plame Wilson's identity and their effort to cover up their involvement following a Justice Department investigation.

Fitzmas in March.  

They burn our children in their wars and grow rich beyond the dreams of avarice

For all the uppity nonsense that they produce, I find this very humorous.  Wouldn't it be fun to watch them sqirm as well..damn them all to hell....If it can't be done legally, what to do next..these guys are just a fun bunch of fools....They are loosing their credibility on a daily basis and most certainly on a hourly basis, it seems...Makes my little heart jump for joy, it does!!!!!!

Republicans: The Party of Make-Shit-Up.

G.O.P: Grand Ol' Prevaricators.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.

They've lied, cheated, stolen and obfuscated for 6 yrs. without consequence, why stop now?

They truly are shameless.

If one or both houses of congress are not seized in 06...<fill in the blank>

Peace

the revolution will not be televised...

Tune in CSPAN-2.  Sen. O.s reading the riot act to the Congressional Ethics Committee for not doing their job.  Good stuff.

They burn our children in their wars and grow rich beyond the dreams of avarice

Perhaps it's time we organized a little citizen activism. Here are links to (as far as I know) all of the TV stations in:

Kansas (Brownback)
Arizona (Kyl)
South Carolina (Graham)

These stations all have telephones, FAX machines, news editors, and time they need to fill every day. Perhaps we should alert them to the breaking story of how their senators have perjured themselves.

And I'm sure someone else can come up with lists of major radio stations, newspapers, and cable outlets that would be interested in what the Senators have to say.

It wouldn't take much for just one outlet in each state to pick up the story and the others to run with it.

I for one welcome our new Twitter overlords. @Omir55

Since I don't feel any donkeys about to exit my posterior something tells me no one is seriously going to make these Senators pay for yet one more crime.

You would think the budget that Bush signed into law that wasn't even real would get more play. What will happen to that 2 Billion dollar descrepancy between the House and Senate's version anyway? I don't hear any Dems screaming about this at all.

Illegal? That's a stretch, Boo. It does confirm, as if we needed it, the their slimey lack of ethics. Though given some of the justices' disdain for considering legislative history (Scalia has made particularly sarcastic remarks), it would be amusing to see this 'colloquy' cited in an opinion -- almost as good as watching the conservatives turn their backs on their beloved states' rights in Gore 'just this time.' At any event, the legislative record is clear that there was no unanimity in Congress as to whether the DTA applies to Hamdan.

More egregious is that Scalia didn't recuse himself after publicly calling jury trials for detainees "crazy" last week & dismissing claims that the Geneva conventions might apply to them.

Yesterday, a group of retired US generals and admirals filed an amicus brief asking Scalia to recuse himself after his remarks in Germany last week appeared to pre-judge the issues. ". . .  on the grounds that denying Geneva Conventions protections to detainees at Guantanamo Bay could result in their denial to U.S. troops by their captors abroad." They join the Center for Constitutional Rights & John Conyers in asking for Scalia to step aside in the case.

Co-counsel for Hamdan at ScotusBlog appear to think it went well:

With Justice Antonin Scalia taking part -- and, in fact, providing the only clearcut signs of unstinting support for the federal government's arguments -- the Supreme Court on Tuesday probed deeply into the validity of the war crimes tribunals set up by President Bush, and came away looking decidedly skeptical. From all appearances during the 90-minute argument, the Court may have some difficulty fashioning an opinion, but perhaps not a result: the existing "military commission" scheme may well fail.

The Court spent comparatively little time on the issue of whether it has jurisdiction to proceed to a ruling on the merits in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (05-184), but Justices Stephen G. Breyer and David H. Souter strenuously -- and repeatedly -- advanced the point that the Court would have to find it has jurisdiction in order to avoid the very difficult constitutional question of Congress' power to abolish all forms of habeas challenge to the treatment of war-on-terrorism detainees. It was a point that seemed likely to draw the support of enough Justices to prevail.   {snip}

. . . it appeared that Justice Anthony M. Kenney might well emerge as holding the decisive vote. In a variety of ways, Kennedy seemed trouble about the legitmacy of the tribunals as presently arranged. Most of his questions seemed aimed at locating the specific deficiencies that might be found in their functioning. At one point, he suggested openly to the detainees' lawyer, Georgetown law professor Neal Katyal, that the Court might well "think there is merit" in his argument that the tribunals were not "properly constituted." In that event, Kennedy suggested, the Court would not have to get into the complex question of what kind of charges were within the tribunals' authority to try.   {snip}

The overall tone of the hearings seemed significantly in favor of the challenge to the new tribunals. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement seemed more challenged than is customary for him; indeed, at times he appeared genuinely relieved at the help Justice Scalia provided for his argument. He rushed to embrace Scalia's points as if they were stronger than his own.

Marjorie Cohn's Supremes Consider Kangaroo Courts is a good wrap-up.

Talk Lef has more links to articles on the case.

". . . the more educated you are, the more indoctrinated you are. After all, propaganda is largely directed towards the privileged." -Noam Chomsky