Seahawks Posted March 26, 2007 Author Share Posted March 26, 2007 "One need look no further than the recent circumstances and proceedings involving Lewis Libby," he said, a reference to the recent conviction of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff in the CIA leak case.” Monica Goodling's Lawyer - John Dowd Monica Goodling's lawyer is basically making the case that she can't testify because she might incriminate herself for perjury! "I take the fifth because I might incriminate myself by committing a crime while testifying." That's a good one. I'll have to remember it (if it works) if I ever don't want to testify about something. Its the same fifth that Clinton took. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 I believe his point was that in a world where the slightest contradiction is seen only as a criminal act rather than the result of basic human frailty – discussion stops. Politics ends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted March 26, 2007 Author Share Posted March 26, 2007 obviously you're so uncomfortable with your own ethical failings and simple minded sheep-thinking, you can't answer simple questions. Fanatically dems are all the same. Think they have all the answers and there shit don't stink Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 Did Clinton take the fifth? I didn't think he had grounds to take the fifth. "I respectfully refuse to answer these questions because if I do my wife might kick my ass all over town!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenSeagal Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 YOu know why the Dems lost last time??? Becuase of knobs like you guys. This conspiricay shit with nothing to back it off sends normal people running the other way. Your knobs, get some fricking brains. You don't pay attention do you? The Democrats scored a huge victory in the last election. Because the corruption was obvious. The same way the Dem's lost power in 1994- corruption was obvious, the people wanted a change then as they do now. Even most Republicans are distancing themselves from Bush, yet KNOBS like you stubbornly hold on to this line that any attempt at investigation is just a witch of hunt of sorts. Emails don't lie. Gonzales lied to Congress. That's just the beginning. And anyone with a brain can see the inner White House circle has made a long term concerted effort to castrate Congress and the Judicial branch. Bush has a child's mind- the perfect dictator who thinks he's accountable to no one. His actions are clear yet dumbshits like you who fantasize about having that much power yourselves refuse to challenge the authority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted March 26, 2007 Author Share Posted March 26, 2007 Did Clinton take the fifth? I didn't think he had grounds to take the fifth. "I respectfully refuse to answer these questions because if I do my wife might kick my ass all over town!" He may not have, can't remember. But that is funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 Kind of a dumb comment becuase the patriot act being signed has only to do with the putting into power of said people, with out consent of congress, It has nothing to do with the firings. And is no longer law as of March 2007. That's not what I understand. Patriot Act II extended the power of the executive to appoint US Attorneys without the consent and will of the Senate, although A.G. Gonzalez testified to a Senate committee that the administration had every intention of continuing to get Senate approval for appointments. And that is irrelevant to any ethics or legal violation that may have occurred if Republican Congressmen or Senators did indeed attempt to interfere with a current US Attorney investigation or court case. And if they used their influence inside the party to "encourage" the President to dismiss these US Attorney's prematurely. P.S. Anyone calling me dumb should first make sure their spelling, punctuation and grammar are correct, you uneducated ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 I believe his point was that in a world where the slightest contradiction is seen only as a criminal act rather than the result of basic human frailty – discussion stops. Politics ends. OK, I see your point here. But he is being a bit disingenuous. Libby's lie, Clinton's lie, Gonzalez's lie by all accounts are all pretty obvious lies (i.e. not mistakes). It is an interesting argument. I'd be interested to see if it flies by the courts, but I doubt it will make it that far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 OK tell me without any outside references what was Libby’s lie and why was it obvious. Quickly and in detail please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 Quickly and in detail please. That's quite an order, but I just remember Fitzgerald's summation and press conference delivering the indictment. He had multiple witnesses contradicting his grand jury testimony. There was something about him talking about Plame to multiple people on Monday and then saying that he heard about her first time on Wednesday. I guess you are trying to show me that I have a fallible memory because I cannot remember the details of the case right away and if I were testifying, the stuff I wrote above might get me in hot water. However, if I were testifying, I think I would get some time to go over my notes. I'd get to have a lawyer with me..... AND...in the case of Libby, he had multiple chances to take back his lies. Fitzgerald recalled him a couple of times and badgered him about the exact things that he got caught lieing about. He could have taken it back at that point, as Rove did. That's why I say his lie was pretty obvious. It must have been obvious to 12 (oops strike that) 11 impartial jurors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted March 26, 2007 Author Share Posted March 26, 2007 Kind of a dumb comment becuase the patriot act being signed has only to do with the putting into power of said people, with out consent of congress, It has nothing to do with the firings. And is no longer law as of March 2007. That's not what I understand. Patriot Act II extended the power of the executive to appoint US Attorneys without the consent and will of the Senate, although A.G. Gonzalez testified to a Senate committee that the administration had every intention of continuing to get Senate approval for appointments. And that is irrelevant to any ethics or legal violation that may have occurred if Republican Congressmen or Senators did indeed attempt to interfere with a current US Attorney investigation or court case. And if they used their influence inside the party to "encourage" the President to dismiss these US Attorney's prematurely. P.S. Anyone calling me dumb should first make sure their spelling, punctuation and grammar are correct, you uneducated ass. Looks like from these legal document maybe another 120 days if I'm reading it right. U.S. attorneys are appointed by the President and approved by the Senate.7 In 2006, amendments to the Patriot Act made it permissible for the Attorney General to appoint interim U.S. attorneys, without Senate approval, for the remainder of the sitting President’s term.8 Congress removed this amendment on March 20, 2007, however, and restored the interim appointments to a duration of 120 days without Senate approval.9 On the other hand, it is well-known that United States attorneys are subject to removal by the President at his sole discretion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 I think we'd all be better off if SOMEONE would give the uptight jerk a bj. Quick. Bush uptight? If anything, he's way too laid back... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted March 27, 2007 Author Share Posted March 27, 2007 In 1993, Attorney General Janet Reno fired 93 U.S. attorneys at the discretion of the Clinton White House. And talk about partisan motives: the attorneys were dismissed just as investigations were getting underway into Bill and Hillary Clinton's involvement in the Whitewater land deal. Federal prosecutors were turning up the heat, and the White House fired those attorneys and replaced them with new appointees less likely to launch serious investigations into the scandal. Unquestionably, Clinton had the power to do so, but where were the hearings then? You guessed it — Democrats controlled Congress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted March 27, 2007 Author Share Posted March 27, 2007 President Bush fired eight U.S. Attorneys, which, by the way, is his privilege, and Hillary swoons, briefly holds her breath, then demands that everyone remotely connected to these firings resign. As I watched her make this pious pitch, I couldn’t help but remember a column I wrote back during the Clinton years, listing all the criminal convictions during his administration. Here is but a portion of that list: Rep. Albert Bustamante, (D-Texas), racketeering and mail fraud, 1993, 54 months in jail; Rep. Joseph Kolter (D-Pa.) stole $9,300 from the House Post Office, 1996, six months in jail; Rep. Nicholas Mavroules (D-Mass.), tax fraud, 1993, 15 months in jail; Rep. Mel Reynolds, (D-Ind.), sexual assault and child pornography, 1995, 21 months in jail. In view of the Clinton’s disgraceful hypocrisies, one can see that the President is guilty of, well, amateurism. What else explains how the simple, routine act of firing federal employees can be blown up to Watergate proportions? One answer is that Hillary, desperately concerned about her poll ratings, has seized upon the firing to bolster her ratings. The First Windbag of Arkansas is in attack mode. I would caution Hillary, though, that with all her experience in Congressional probes and such, she should call herself as the first witness and bring with her, as trusted counsel, Webster Hubbell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 once again, you're stealing someone else's blog material without proper citation. so, which federal prosecutor's were 'turning up the heat' on clinton at the time he was inaugurated? if he fired some for political reasons, why didn't the republicans complain about it and force an investigation? could it be because clinton himself appointed a special prosecutor in 1994 and released all his papers prior to that? despite republican control of congress throughout most of the investigation, did they ever say that clinton had incorrectly replaced all of his us attorney's in order to avoid or delay prosecution? i don't recall that but maybe your neocon buddies can help me out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 once again: gonzales clearly lied to congress. don't you think he should be flushed? i mean, lies are lies, right? or is lying about a blow job to congress different and more heinous than lying about something else? i guess we know your answers to those questions already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted March 27, 2007 Author Share Posted March 27, 2007 once again: gonzales clearly lied to congress. don't you think he should be flushed? i mean, lies are lies, right? or is lying about a blow job to congress different and more heinous than lying about something else? i guess we know your answers to those questions already. Bottom line Bush can fire them all day long. Clinton was under oath for Whitewater when he made his Monica statements and was able to cover up all his dealings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 man, you're a nutcase. i comfort myself in knowing that in Clinton could have save the country a lot of annoyance if he'd simply invoked executive privilege and told Congress to shove it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joblo7 Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 once again, you're stealing someone else's blog material without proper citation. .... it is simple: if it sounds coherent , he did not write it,think it or reason it. mfct Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pink Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 (edited) No, that's okay. Everyone here is capable of googling the info. So how is Clinton two-faced over this issue? bill is clearly two faced. billary clinton Edited March 27, 2007 by pink Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 It doesn't pay to argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level and then beat you with experience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joblo7 Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 It doesn't pay to argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level and then beat you with experience. wait a minute , is that a quote? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selkirk Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 You should never wrestle with a pig. You get dirty and the pig likes it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Never teach a pig to sing. You'll never succeed and you'll just piss off the pig. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.