Indicted former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, had the opportunity to protect his wife from prosecution, but threw her under the bus instead.

As you all know former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnnell, has been indicted on charges of accepting over $140,000 in loans and gifts.

What you may NOT have heard is that he was given the opportunity of pleading guilty to one charge, that had nothing to do with corruption, to protect his wife.

He did not take it, this courtesy of CNN:  

McDonnell rejected a plea deal that would have spared his wife criminal charges, according to a source familiar with criminal case. 

The source characterized McDonnell's decision as "throwing his wife under the bus." 

The McDonnell team asserted that they did not believe the Justice Department could get a conviction against McDonnell at trial based on the evidence they had, the source added.

You know I have been writing about the GOP's War on Women, but until now I did not realize that it included their own wives as well. 

I mean come on!

The Justice Department is not going to indict somebody in Bob McDonnell's position unless they feel they have a pretty damn strong case. Which means that thanks to the ex-Governor's arrogance there is a very good chance that this decision will see both he and his wife serving concurrent prison terms.

You know I recognize that I am nothing more than a simple heathen, but unless I really hated my wife I would do just about anything to protect her, the mother of my children, from prison.

Yet this devout Roman Catholic has no problem betting his wife's fate on the incompetence of the Federal Prosecutor and on the sympathy of the jury.

The twist to this story is that his wife DID attempt to protect her husband, and face the charges on her own without including him.  But remember, HE was the Governor, and ultimately HE is the one responsible.

Did he attempt to protect HER when given the chance? No he did not.

Damn this guy is cold!

Supreme Court Justice hopeful recuses himself from two cases seeking the release of Governor Palin e-mails.

An Anchorage judge who has applied for a seat on the state Supreme Court this week took himself off two public records cases pending against Gov. Sarah Palin. Both cases were brought by Anchorage activist Andree McLeod.

Superior Court Judge Craig Stowers wrote in a court order filed Tuesday that he thought he could be fair to both sides but stepped down because he realized his decisions could be questioned given his application to the Supreme Court.

"Both cases involve substantial issues of law and policy," Stowers wrote. "The parties and the public are entitled to have these important issues resolved in a context where there can be no question, not even a shadow of doubt, that the Court is acting in a neutral and fair manner."

The first thing that jumps out at me in this article is the fact that Judge Stowers says that these cases "involve substantial issues of law and policy", and it is very gratifying to have a judge recognize the importance of Andree's case.

But the other thing is that he feels he cannot oversee these cases without imperiling his chances of becoming a Supreme Court Justice in Alaska.

Is this an admission that daring to listen to this case would mean that the vindictive Sarah Palin would dismiss him out of turn? Or is he simply saying that if he were to rule against Andree McLoed, that it would be suspect because everybody would assume that he was in her pocket?

Well either way it is a very public affirmation of what many of us already know. That Sarah Palin still wields enormous power in this state and that anybody who wants to get ahead has to acknowledge that fact and either ingratiate themselves to her, or look for support from other sources in opposition to her. And by the way that would be us.

And this actually fits in with a quote I heard from one of my sources just the other day, which was the following: "She is the most dangerous person I have ever dealt with."

Now I can't reveal this source, but if I could that statement would be even more chilling.

I believe it is very smart for Judge Stowers to recuse himself from these cases, but it is very troubling indeed that he felt he had to. If he had listened to this case and made his decision based solely on its merits, how could anybody have found fault with that? I mean anybody but Governor Sarah Palin of course.

No Judge Stowers is not recusing himself because he is afraid that he may rule against McLeod and bring criticism from those of us on the left (And if he was, wouldn't it seem that Kevin Clarkson, who represented five state lawmakers who unsuccessfully sued to stop the Legislature's "Troopergate" investigation of Palin last fall when she was the Republican nominee for vice president, would feel the need to do the same?). He is doing so solely because he recognizes that Sarah Palin would NEVER allow him to become Supreme Court Justice if he dared to rule against her, or possibly even if he dared to hear the case at all.

That is the tyranny that the good people of Alaska are currently living with and that is what we need to constantly speak out against.

Sarah Palin you get to pick a new Supreme Court Justice! Come on down!

This will be Palin's third appointment to the state's high court, which means she will have named a majority of the five-member court in her less than three years in office. But she won't get to pick whomever she wants from the full list of 25 applicants. In an effort to take politics out of judicial appointments, the state Constitution decrees that the Alaska Judicial Council first narrow down the field and then present at least two finalists as the "most qualified" for Palin to choose from.

Palin has been keenly anticipating the decision, sending a message last week via the Internet social media Twitter (which limits messages to 140 characters) saying "Look forward to today's staff discussion re: my 3rd justice appt to highest court in 3 yrs. Supreme Court truly effects AK's future..."

Did anybody else feel that chill run up their spine?

Okay Grypehn don't panic. Remember last time out she actually picked a pro-choice advocate and moderate for this position. She might do the same again.

Or not.

Also on the list is Anchorage attorney Kevin Clarkson, who represented five state lawmakers who unsuccessfully sued to stop the Legislature's "Troopergate" investigation of Palin last fall when she was the Republican nominee for vice president. They argued the investigation was unfair but the courts declined to put a stop to the inquiry.

Uh oh.

Governor Palin has a history of putting her friends and high school classmates into positions of power. Would she consider giving Clarkson this position by way of thanks for interfering with justice during the Troopergate investigation? Damn skippy!


The judicial council must now evaluate the applicants. That process will include background investigations, a survey of members of the Alaska Bar Association, solicitation of public comment, and interviews with the applicants.

Council members will then vote in a public meeting on which names to give Palin.

Well that should keep Palin from making this a purely political gift to one of her friends. Boy those writers of the Alaskan Constitution were a smart bunch weren't they?

The judicial council has seven members. Three are public members appointed by the governor, three are attorneys, and the other is the current chief justice of the Alaska Supreme Court, Dana Fabe.

So we have potentially three votes in Sarah's pocket, three unknown votes, and Chief Justice Dana Fabe, who was appointed by then Governor Tony Knowles. Sounds pretty close to fair to me.

Besides October is a long way out there. No telling WHAT could happen between now and then.

Apparently the only branch of the United States government that is not broken is the Judicial System. Suck it Gonzales!

A law allowing federal anti-terrorism agents to access information on the US public without a warrant has been ruled as unconstitutional by a US judge.

Victor Marrero said Congress exceeded its authority by allowing the FBI to keep requests secret under the Patriot Act, passed after the 9/11 attacks.

He said the act offended constitutional principles of checks and balances, and violated the guarantee of free speech.

The requests were mainly for financial, telephone and internet records.

Hah! Take that you fear mongering, liberty stealing, phone tapping, foot tapping, hypocrites!

Sorry I got a little overly excited there.

Bush has tried for six years to push the courts over to the far right, but has not been completely successful yet. I think that the Democrats should block every single judicial appointee that Bush sends their way. That is the only way to hang on to the freedoms that we still have left.