Fox retard Neal Cavuto calls Paul Krugman a liar (then calls Krugman "snide"), while a former prosecutor lays out the case against Bush & Co.
From the wilds of who-knows-where? (okay, they would have to be computer-equipped wilds), Howie has passed on a couple of links to posts you'll want to know about. I'm just passing them on to you now.
GIVE POOR BRAIN-CHALLENGED NEAL CAVUTO CREDIT FOR HAVING THE NERVE TO CALL PAUL KRUGMAN A LIAR TO HIS FACE
Yesterday Paul Krugman ventured into the jungle of Fox "News" for a chinwag with (gulp) Neal Cavuto about a piece he's written for Rolling Stone on the massive redistribution of income in the U.S. over the last several decades, a subject he's written a number of NYT columns about.
Now Neal Cavuto may not be the dumbest person on the planet, but it's not for want of trying (and there's so much competition right there in his own place of employment). He might have engaged Krugman in a discussion based on his (Cavuto's) belief that the income gap between haves and have-nots has been relatively unchanged over time. Of course since it's not true, and since Cavuto doesn't deal in facts to begin with, that was probably never in the cards. But probably Krugman wasn't expecting Cavuto to lead with: "Here’s what I’m saying that you’re doing: You are lying to people. That’s what I think that you’re doing." And then, without ever getting around to telling us what those "lies" are, to accuse Krugman of being "snide."
Think Progress has video and a transcript.
FORMER PROSECUTOR ELIZABETH DE LA VEGA MAPS A CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST BUSH, CHENEY AND THE REST OF THE GANG
Eriposte posts at some length on The Left Coaster about a new book by former U.S. attorney Elizabeth de la Vega, U.S. v. Bush, which lays out a case, more or less paralleling the fraud case that the government brought successfully against the top Enron defendants, for a criminal indictment of the Bush adminstration for intentionally deceiving the country into going to war in Iraq.
She writes in her introduction:
In other words, in legal terms, there is probable cause to believe that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell violated Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, which prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States. Probable cause is the standard of proof required for a grand jury to return an indictment. Consequently, we have more than sufficient evidence to warrant indictment of the President and his advisers.
Do I expect someone to promptly indict the President and his aides? No. I am aware of the political impediments and constitutional issues relating to the indictment of a sitting president. Do those impediments make this merely an empty exercise? Absolutely not.