Court to Justice Dept.: Hands off Jefferson records
Judge denies motion to return documents to congressman



WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal appeals court Friday barred the Justice Department from reviewing materials seized from a Louisiana congressman's office during an unprecedented FBI raid on his Capitol Hill office in May.

A three-judge panel ordered a federal trial judge to ensure that Democratic Rep. William Jefferson be given copies of seized evidence contained on more than a dozen computer hard drives, several floppy disks and two boxes of paper documents.

The panel said Jefferson then must be given the opportunity to invoke legislative privilege claims in private with the trial judge before investigators can review the materials.

The congressman must raise the claims within two days of receiving copies of the seized materials, the panel said.

Jefferson had asked the appeals court to stop the Justice Department from beginning a review of the seized materials by a special team of prosecutors and FBI agents while he appeals a trial judge's ruling earlier this month upholding the legality of the search.

"We are pleased that in response to our motion for a stay, the Court of Appeals has prohibited the Department of Justice from reviewing the materials seized from the congressman's office pending further order of the court," said Robert Trout, Jefferson's attorney. "We are continuing to study the order and the procedures that recognize the importance of the Speech or Debate Clause."

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the agency is "pleased the court acted expeditiously. It is clear they understand the importance of moving this matter forward."

Earlier this month, Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan said barring searches of lawmakers' offices could turn Capitol Hill into "a taxpayer-subsidized sanctuary for crime."

The materials were seized May 20-21 during an 18-hour search of Jefferson's Rayburn Building office.

The search was part of a 16-month international bribery investigation of Jefferson, who allegedly accepted $100,000 from a telecommunications businessman, $90,000 of which was later recovered in a freezer in the congressman's Louisiana home.

In his ruling, Hogan rejected requests from Jefferson and a bipartisan group of congressional leaders to return the seized materials, saying the raid did not violate the Constitution's protections against intimidation of elected officials.

At issue is a constitutional provision known as the speech or debate clause, which protects elected officials from being questioned by the president, a prosecutor or a plaintiff in a lawsuit about their legislative work.

Investigators had held off on reviewing the records because lawmakers on Capitol Hill objected strenuously to the raid, prompting President Bush to order the solicitor general to take custody of the seized materials until Congress and the Justice Department could work out procedures for future raids on congressional offices.

Jefferson has been under investigation since March 2005 for allegedly using his position to promote the sale of telecommunications equipment and services offered by iGate, a Louisville-based firm, that sought contracts with Nigeria, Ghana and other African nations.

In return for his help, Jefferson allegedly demanded stock and cash payments. The congressman has not been charged and has denied wrongdoing.

The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said Jefferson's appeal will be placed on hold while Hogan resolves any legislative privilege claims raised by the congressman. The three-judge panel's members are David B. Sentelle, Janice Rogers Brown and Thomas B. Griffith.

All three judges were appointed by Republican presidents. Sentelle was named to the court by Ronald Reagan; Brown and Griffith, by President Bush in 2005.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: EbonyRose,

********************
BLACK by NATURE, PROUD by CHOICE.
Before there was ANY history, there was BLACK history.

BUY BLACK!!!

quote:

barring searches of lawmakers' offices could turn Capitol Hill into "a taxpayer-subsidized sanctuary for crime."

Too late!!!!!
Why isn't this idiot behind bars already???


catch

Because there's too many other politicians doing the same crooked things that don't want to see the same thing to happen them!!

The enemy of my enemy may not always be my friend.

Who wins in minimum wage loss?

Lawmakers on both sides look to capitalize on demise of ‘trifecta’ bill
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Republican lawmakers called it the “trifecta bill” — evoking the image of a three-time winning ticket at the racetrack. The legislation didn’t make it out of the gate, but both parties think they’ll still be able to cash in with voters in November.

Senate Democrats on Thursday blocked the bill, which would (1) raise the minimum wage, (2) cut taxes on multimillion dollar estates and (3) extend tax breaks for business research, college tuition and state sales taxes.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., led the effort to roll all three issues into one bill.

Democrats, who have been agitating for a minimum wage hike for years, said pairing it with costly tax cuts for millionaires was simply too high a price to pay.

“If there were ever a clear illustration of who (Republicans) are and who we are, take a look at what happened this week,” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told reporters Friday.

But Frist says Democrats will be held accountable for blocking the measure.

“It is crystal clear where everybody voted on these three issues,” Frist said. “They’re voting against a majority of the American people on each of these three issues. They’ve got to explain that.”

Winners and losers
Politics aside, the groups impacted by the demise of the GOP-drafted bill face varying prospects for success in ultimately achieving their goals.

The estate tax doesn’t have to be addressed until the end of 2010, when current law expires, giving farmers and the small business lobby ample time. It’s common wisdom in Washington that the other tax breaks in the bill will pass this fall. Left behind, however, are more than 5 million hotel maids, dishwashers, fast food and janitorial workers and other minimum wage earners stuck at $5.15 an hour. Adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage is the lowest it’s been in 50 years.

Some more neutral observers say Democrats secured the most political advantage from last week’s vote.

“It’s a serious setback for Republicans,” said political analyst Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. “They’ve got the power. They can’t make it happen. I can’t find an instance in the past where a party with all the reins of power has been able to get away with blaming the guys in the minority and I don’t think it works this time.”

Added Tom Mann of the Brookings Institution: “It’s a loss for Frist politically, and on balance, it adds to the Democratic charge that this Congress and this administration is not getting important things done.”


Few Dems swayed by GOP efforts
Both parties look to capitalize on the minimum wage-estate tax votes in an election year in which polls suggest Democrats could make gains or even seize control of Congress. The most recent Associated Press-Ipsos poll showed only 27 percent approved of the way lawmakers were doing their jobs.

Thursday’s Senate vote and a July 29 House vote did give GOP supporters of raising the minimum wage inoculation against an especially potent attack by Democrats — that Republicans in Congress have refused to raise the minimum wage for 10 years, even as they’ve accepted pay raises totaling $35,000 over that time.

Frist’s estate tax gambit was launched with the expectation that Democrats such as Maria Cantwell of Washington, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Robert Byrd of West Virginia could be drawn on board under pressure from home state interests.

Byrd ultimately was the only Democrat to switch in favor of the estate tax bill after voting against it in June. He came on board after Republicans added a long-sought plan to pay for abandoned coal mine cleanup projects and health care for retired miners.

Other Democrats said the 10-year, $268 billion cost of the estate tax measure was too high.

“The estate tax package before the Senate goes far beyond what our nation can afford,” Pryor said.

How "presidential" is this?? Has this idiot nothing better to do with his time than this kind of

How about a pardon for those 100+ guys that are being let out of prison after decades of serving time for crimes they didn't committ!!

Bush pardons moonshining 'Deliverance' actor
By Robert Yoon
CNN Washington Bureau


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- By granting absolution to a convicted moonshiner, George W. Bush also earned the unique distinction of becoming the first president to pardon a cast member of the 1972 Academy Award-nominated movie "Deliverance."

Randall Leece Deal of Clayton, Georgia, had a small role in the film about four Atlanta businessmen who have unpleasant encounters with locals during a north Georgia canoe trip.

For the last 16 years, Deal, 66, has worked at the Rabun County Sheriff's Department, a far cry from his life in the early 1960s when he was convicted on two counts of violating liquor laws and one count of conspiring to violate liquor laws.

The crimes are commonly known as moonshining and Deal still disputes the conspiracy charge.

"That really wasn't true," he said. "But anyway, that's what they charged us with."

Deal never served any jail time for the convictions, but the black mark on his record rankled him enough to seek a presidential pardon more than 40 years later. "I just got to thinking about it, you know. Just to get her wiped out if possible," he said.

Deal hired a local attorney and "just filled out the papers and sent it in to the White House, or wherever you send them to, a good long time ago."

Deal's "Deliverance" performance consisted of a single line: "It ain't nothing but the biggest [expletive] river in the state!" For the record, Deal did not play one of the surly locals involved in an infamous rape scene with actor Ned Beatty.

The film also starred Burt Reynolds, Jon Voight and Ronny Cox.

Moonshining was a common practice in the South in the 1960s, Deal said. He also pointed out that he was not in it for the money, but was more interested in the fun and camaraderie of the enterprise.

"I was just helping some friends back then," he said. "It was really just more like a game than anything, to be honest with you. It wasn't a big business deal, fiddling with moonshine. At least to me it wasn't."

'A pretty big old deal'
The Justice Department announced Deal's pardon on Wednesday. "I really didn't have an idea what kind of a deal it would be," he said. "But evidently it's a pretty big old deal to get one."

Deal defies the image of the well-connected, deep-pocketed presidential pardon recipient like controversial financier Marc Rich, who received one of President Clinton's final pardons in 2001.

But Deal has never made a single federal political contribution, according to Federal Election Commission records. When asked if he had any special political connections with the White House, Deal laughed and said, "Oh no. No sir. None whatsoever."

Deal did describe himself as a Bush supporter, pardon or no pardon. Although the pardon doesn't hurt.

"Well, you know, somebody does something for you, it should help your opinion of them, shouldn't it?" he asked. "Isn't that the way it's supposed to be?"

He said his movie career is long behind him. His only post-"Deliverance" acting role was in the little-known 1982 film "Trapped," which he calls "just a little old bitty thing. Nothing to mention." He does still receive the occasional residual check for his brief acting career, each check usually no more than a few dollars.

Also long behind him are his moonshining days.

"There isn't really much of that around here anymore," he said. "In fact, I was thinking here a minute ago, and I believe practically everybody I helped [make moonshine] is dead."

See ... this is why I didn't want to vote for this fool in the first place!! He's the "typical polititian" ... riding the late freight, as usual. We need to get all these idiots out of office.

Kerry alleges misconduct in 2004 Ohio vote

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sen. John Kerry didn't contest the results at the time, but now that he's considering another run for the White House, he's alleging election improprieties by the Ohio Republican who oversaw the deciding vote in 2004.

An e-mail from Kerry will be sent to 100,000 Democratic donors Tuesday asking them to support U.S. Rep. Ted Strickland for governor of Ohio. The bulk of the e-mail criticizes Strickland's opponent, GOP Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, for his dual role in 2004 as President Bush's honorary Ohio campaign co-chairman and the state's top election official.

"He used the power of his state office to try to intimidate Ohioans and suppress the Democratic vote," Kerry says in the e-mail, according to a copy provided in advance.

Kerry, D-Massachusetts, conceded the election when he lost Ohio and its 20 electoral votes. A recount requested by minor-party candidates showed Bush won by about 118,000 votes out of 5.5 million cast. But Kerry's e-mail says Blackwell "used his office to abuse our democracy and threaten basic voting rights."

Multiple lawsuits by outside groups were unsuccessful in challenging Ohio's 2004 election. One case filed by the League of Women Voters is still in U.S. District Court in Toledo. It claims Ohio's election system discriminates against minority voters.

Blackwell, who is black, says the election was run fairly, citing 1 million more votes cast than in 2000 and record turnout among black voters.

"People will say anything for money," Blackwell campaign spokesman Carlo LoParo said. "Fortunately, the historical record contradicts Senator Kerry."

Strickland spokesman Keith Dailey said the campaign welcomes Kerry's support.

Republicans block Senate debate on Iraq
By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent




Republicans blocked a full-fledged Senate debate over Iraq on Monday, but Democrats vowed they would eventually find a way to force President Bush to change course in a war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,000 U.S. troops.

"We must heed the results of the November elections and the wishes of the American people," said Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record).

Reid, D-Nev., spoke moments before a vote that sidetracked a nonbinding measure expressing disagreement with Bush's plan to deploy an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq. The 49-47 vote was 11 short of the 60 needed to go ahead with debate, and left the fate of the measure uncertain.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (news, bio, voting record) of Kentucky described the test vote as merely a "bump in the road" that could possibly be overcome within hours. GOP lawmakers "welcome the debate and are happy to have it," he said, adding they were insisting on equal treatment for an alternative measure expected to draw strong support.

The proposal, by Sen. Judd Gregg (news, bio, voting record), R-N.H., says Congress should neither cut nor eliminate funding for troops in the field. That measure takes no position on the war or the president's decision to deploy additional forces.

The political jockeying unfolded as bombings and mortar attacks killed dozens across Baghdad amid indications that a much-awaited operation to restore peace to the capital is gearing up. Bush announced last month he would beef up U.S. troop deployments to work alongside Iraqi units in an attempt to quell sectarian violence.

Democrats sought passage of a measure, supported by Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record), R-Va., that is critical of the administration's new Iraq policy. It was the first time Democrats had scheduled a sustained debate on the war since they won control over Congress in last fall's midterm elections.

"The American people do not support escalation. Last November, voters made it clear they want a change of course, not more of the same," said Reid. "The president must hear from Congress, so he knows he stands in the wrong place, alone."

Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Democrat, echoed Reid. "If the Republicans want to stand by their president and his policy, they shouldn't run from this debate. If they believe we should send thousands of our young soldiers into the maws of this wretched civil war, they should at least have the courage to stand and defend their position," he said.

But Gregg differed with them. "We should not take action once soldiers have been sent into the field and are putting their lives at risk," he said. "We should not be saying to them through a resolution, which is nonbinding, that we don't think the mission you're on makes sense and we don't want you to do it."

Republican Sens. Susan Collins (news, bio, voting record) of Maine and Norm Coleman (news, bio, voting record) of Minnesota sided with Democrats on the vote. Reid switched sides at the end, a step that allows him to call for a new roll call at his discretion. Otherwise, Democrats voted to go ahead with debate and Republicans voted not to; Sens. Tim Johnson (news, bio, voting record), D-S.D., Mary Landrieu (news, bio, voting record), D-La., Mel Martinez (news, bio, voting record), R-Fla., and John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., did not vote.

The war has claimed the lives of more than 3,000 U.S. military personnel so far, and costs are counted in the hundreds of billions of dollars. The administration has asked Congress for $245 billion more to cover the costs of the conflict through 2008.

Political maneuvering surrounding the issue has been intense, and White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the administration supports "Sen. McConnell's and the Republicans' right to be able to offer the amendments they want to offer."

Behind the procedural quarrel lay uncertainty about the verdict the Senate would ultimately reach on Bush's decision to send 21,500 additional troops.

Democrats hoped to gain enough Republican votes to pass the measure expressing disagreement with Bush's decision, and to send the commander in chief an extraordinary wartime rebuke on a bipartisan vote.

It was an outcome that the White House and Senate Republican leadership hoped to avoid. They concentrated on a relatively small number of swing votes, many of them belonging to GOP senators expected to be on the ballot in 2008.

Gregg's alternative said Congress should not take "any action that will endanger United States military forces in the field, including the elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field, as such an action with respect to funding would undermine their safety or harm their effectiveness in pursuing their assigned missions."

The measure advanced by Democrats and Warner said the same thing, but it also said the Senate "disagrees with the `plan' to augment our forces by 21,500 and urges the president instead to consider all options and alternatives."

Republicans and Democrats carried out their clash as 10 members of "Code Pink," an anti-war group, were arrested and charged with disorderly conduct during a protest in front of McCain's office in a building across the street from the Capitol. "They were absolutely compliant, peaceful," Sgt. Kimberly Schneider said of the protesters.

McCain, a likely Republican presidential candidate, opposes the measure expressing disagreement with the increase in troops.

__

On the Net:

Text of Warner resolution: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.CON.RES.7:

Last week I typed a hearing of Senate Appropriations committee that they were having regarding Bush's budget and his appropriations for the federal judiciary branch.

The head of the Federal Court system was testifying regarding the 7% increase in funds they were asking for over and above what the prez had allocated. Primarily, she was saying that the funds were needed for an increase in staff and services for the expected increase in immigration cases along the Southwest border states and the increase in security for federal judges, who are now being equipped with home security systems due to an increase in threats and violence to themselves and their families.

The Judge then began to explain why her department had actually revised their budget request downwards by $80 million dollars. She said that this was due to an investigation which found that a little known governmental agency, the GSA (Government Services Agency) whose mission is to "help federal agencies better serve the public by offering, at best value, superior workplaces, expert solutions, acquisition services, and management policies" (according to it's website) was overcharging on the rent for federal courthouse buildings by $50 million per year!!

Now ... how sad is it when one branch of government can't even trust another?? And why would the federal government charge itself rent??

My dearest Sister Ebony ... you are on top of things. I am always impressed with your insight and the manner in which you express yourself.

Plus, this was just a good way to stop into your spot and say "Hey, Sista Gurl"! Been busy, but thinking aboutcha. Hold it down, Sis. Tax season ends April 17th this year and I will be a more regular visitor.

Hope things are well with you and I really think that you should consider a career in politics. I, for one, would gladly contribute to your campaign!

Hey Sis!! so much for your kind words!

I figured you were about eyeball deep in numbers right about now!! Of course we miss your spirit when you are not able to be around as much ... but, as always, we will be here and waiting to help you deprogram your brain once the 18th rolls around!

Unfortunately, I probably talk too much to be successful in politics!! The truth only goes so far ... and then folks get mad at ya!!

But, I do appreciate your kindness and confidence in me! And if I change my mind and find a ring to throw my hat into ... I will not only make you the first to know ... but my campaign manager as well!

Thank you again, sis!

This is how the ball in Washington bounces! It's really twisted how the federal government works up there.

Analysis: Dems confront, deal with Bush By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent
1 hour, 57 minutes ago


In seven tumultuous months in power, congressional Democrats have learned to compromise with President Bush as well as confront him.

The first minimum wage increase in a decade and expanded power to eavesdrop are early fruit of the Congress that convened in January. So are the historic clash over the Iraq war and a veto on stem cell research.

"We've done a lot of heavy lifting," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said last week as Congress lumbered toward its month-long summer vacation. Across the Capitol, House Democrats offered evidence that they had already accomplished more of their early agenda than Republicans ever did with their conservative Contract With America.

With presidential veto threats in place on major bills ranging from farm subsidies and children's health to energy and troop withdrawals, Republicans argue that Democrats have less to show for their efforts than it appears.

"The president has signed virtually nothing because virtually nothing has gotten to his desk," said Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri, second-ranking House Republican.

He said a high percentage of bills passed to date were measures to name post offices after prominent people — 15 by last count.

In the current era of divided government, Bush does the signing or the rejecting, confident so far that despite his poor approval ratings he has enough Republican support to avoid a veto override.

It's far from tidy, and not likely to get any prettier in September, with the president and Congress both pointing toward a spending showdown as well as a resumption of their struggle over Iraq.

Dealings with Bush and Republicans aside, Democrats have also had to adjust to life in the majority. That has meant compromising among themselves.

"What we are here to do is to govern," Democratic Rep. Hank Johnson, a first-term Georgian, said last spring as he decided to vote for a slower-paced Iraq troop withdrawal timetable that he preferred.

For Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who took office in January as the first female speaker of the House, governing has meant trying to satisfy seemingly irreconcilable demands of her Democratic caucus.

Iraq has been an overriding challenge — forging agreement between liberals who want the war to end quickly and moderates fearful of tying the hands of the commander in chief.

Even in the final hectic pre-vacation rush, Democrats vacillated between permitting a vote on legislation to require the Pentagon to produce a troop redeployment plan. Many liberals opposed the bipartisan measure as toothless, and ultimately it was shelved at least until fall.

The farm bill was another recent challenge. No sooner had Pelosi announced support for reform of crop payment programs than farm state lawmakers, many of them from political swing districts, complained.

She satisfied them by agreeing to increase money for the programs they favor. But that, in turn, drew criticism from urban lawmakers. They demanded — and got — more money for nutrition programs, as well as more than $100 million to settle discrimination claims by black farmers against the Agriculture Department.

"More needs to be done, but we have gone in the right direction for change," Pelosi said in a speech on the legislation, a summation she could easily have applied to Iraq, energy and other issues.

The farm bill passed, 231-191, on a near party-line vote — and drew one of Bush's veto threats.

So, too, the energy bill. Confronted with one group favoring higher auto emission standards, and another opposed, Pelosi punted. The bill is silent on the issue, leaving the matter to be settled in negotiations with the Senate in the fall.

The Democrats' maneuvering room is narrower in the Senate, a nominal 51-49 advantage that leaves Reid far short of the 60 votes needed to advance an agenda past Republicans.

By GOP count, Reid has formally tried 49 times so far to cut off debate on legislation, an extraordinarily high number.

Democrats argue it's necessary to block Republican obstruction. Republicans disagree.

When Democrats "agreed to let Republicans participate and shape legislation, we've achieved good, bipartisan results," said Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader.

"When they've blocked that cooperation, they've failed."

Minimum wage was an early, illustrative example. With Bush signaling he was ready to sign legislation, McConnell and fellow Senate Republicans insisted that businesses receive tax breaks to help offset the cost of higher pay for employees.

Pelosi and Reid were opposed, but Senate Democrats were divided, and Republicans held firm.

After months of stand-off, there was accommodation. Bush signed legislation that gave the lowest paid workers a raise, and included a small tax cut for business, as well.

___

EDITOR'S NOTE — David Espo is AP's chief congressional correspondent.

House to Pursue Cheney Impeachment
Updated on 2007-11-07
Source: Augusta Chronicle

The impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney was the last thing House Democratic leaders wanted to confront Tuesday, even though a determined band of anti-war House Democrats was eager to force the issue.

Then, in a vote that stunned even the anti-war forces, the House of Representatives - helped in no small part by Republicans eager to debate the issue and portray Democrats as radical - voted 251- 162 to keep the Cheney impeachment measure alive. The majority was formed by 165 Republicans and 86 Democrats.

The measure's next, and probably last, stop is the House Judiciary Committee, which Democrats control. The House voted 218 to 194, on a largely party-line vote, to send the measure there.

That was done to end the debate. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., adamantly oppose the measure. They say it takes time and energy away from more pressing concerns. They also don't want to engage in an impeachment debate that riles partisan passions going into a presidential election year.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, a long-shot 2008 presidential candidate, is the chief backer of the impeachment resolution.

Mr. Kucinich's resolution says that Mr. Cheney is "in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of vice president" and that he has "purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States by fabricating the threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of U.S. Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests."

It also challenges Mr. Cheney on Iran, saying he has "openly threatened aggression" against that country "absent any real threat to the United States."

Even if the Judiciary Committee begins a formal investigation, it's unlikely to result in impeachment. An ouster would require a two-thirds Senate vote.

Originally published by McClatchy Newspapers.

quote:

Even if the Judiciary Committee begins a formal investigation, it's unlikely to result in impeachment. An ouster would require a two-thirds Senate vote.

This sentence is [gramatically] misleading, but factually correct.

Impeachment requires a simple majority of the House. If gotten, the Senate then conducts a trial wherein 2/3 vote of the Senate is required for conviction [ouster]

http://library.thinkquest.org/25185/archfizz.htm

Remember, both Nixon and Clinton were impeached, but neither were convicted [removed from office].

Yeah, that's the sad fact of the matter.

When the Repubs had both Houses, they were able to put through stuff that we don't even know about yet! But, there were just enough Dems where a 2/3's majority was almost impossible to over.

As it is now, the Dems are in control but are accused of not taking care of a lot of important issues. But they can't!! They're hands are metaphorically tied. They can barely get through some of the little stuff ... 'cause those Repubs are like rabid dogs with a rotted bone, and are blocking some things just to make the Dem's look bad.

But, as with what happened with Clinton, just because you won't get a positive outcome doesn't mean the proceedings should go on!! They could air some really FOUL Republican laundry in the process ... and I really believe the American public needs to know what's really going on!