Alberto Gonzales & His Amazing Memory!!!

[anabolicrhino]

What a weasel!...at least when Reagan pulled this crap he was in his 70's !!!...umm,.. to best of my recollection !!!


MIENFOKS: ALBERTO GONZALES - REMEMBERS ? ? ?

 

[CNorris]

Let me repeat myself, and educate your LSD tainted hippy brain.

Originally Posted by anabolicrhino
Ps. Gonzales is in trouble not because he fired 6 attorneys, but because he replaced them with "pro-NEOCON" stooges, that were easily "outted" by their own records. The real issue is the documentation of the orders to fire the attorneys came from the White House as per the missing E-mails of Karl Rove!!!

No, heres the true story.

"Who's Politicizing Justice

One reason I have been urging Republicans to man their battle stations against Democrats is that Democrats are in perpetual, full-blown war mode against Republicans. The Democrats' militant approach to the manufactured Justice Department scandal illustrates the point.

If Democrats, as they profess, are inclined toward bipartisanship and conciliation, why are they always alleging GOP scandal even before they have any idea what the facts are?

The answer is that it's all about discrediting the president and augmenting their own power, which is why they always try to tie Cheney or Rove personally to every event they mischaracterize as a scandal.

So it is with this latest installment concerning the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. Despite the unfortunate responses from Alberto Gonzalez, probably born of wholly justified defensiveness toward the Democrat scandalmongers, all available facts point to the conclusion that no impropriety was involved on the part of either the Justice Department or the White House.

One reason I have been urging Republicans to man their battle stations against Democrats is that Democrats are in perpetual, full-blown war mode against Republicans. The Democrats' militant approach to the manufactured Justice Department scandal illustrates the point.

If Democrats, as they profess, are inclined toward bipartisanship and conciliation, why are they always alleging GOP scandal even before they have any idea what the facts are?

The answer is that it's all about discrediting the president and augmenting their own power, which is why they always try to tie Cheney or Rove personally to every event they mischaracterize as a scandal.

So it is with this latest installment concerning the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. Despite the unfortunate responses from Alberto Gonzalez, probably born of wholly justified defensiveness toward the Democrat scandalmongers, all available facts point to the conclusion that no impropriety was involved on the part of either the Justice Department or the White House.

Democrats know that presidents have broad discretion to terminate U.S. attorneys so long as they aren't trying to interfere with investigations or the like. But where were Democrats when Janet Reno, almost immediately after becoming attorney general, took the unprecedented action of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys even before they had successors lined up to take their places? Yet Democrats insist on jumping to the worst possible conclusions concerning the Gonzalez Justice Department's much less extreme action of firing only eight.

Scandalmongerer in chief, Sen. Chuck Schumer, exploited reports of these firings with his customary even-handedness. He didn't suggest that we need to examine the facts to determine whether any wrongdoing occurred. He immediately accused Gonzalez of gross improprieties and demanded he resign because he is putting politics above the law. What? Talk about calling the kettle black!

It is Schumer and his fellow Bush-haters who are putting politics above the law, like they put partisan politics above almost everything else, including America's national security interests. How better to describe Schumer's demands that Gonzalez resign for engaging in the completely lawful and ethical act of firing attorneys serving at the president's discretion, likely because of policy differences or performance?

Even the reliably liberal Washington Post has conceded that so far, "little evidence" has emerged that the firings were calculated to interfere with the administration of justice. What, then, do Schumer and his colleagues know that we don't? Nothing, of course, except the important lesson that allegations of wrongdoing repeated over and over damage their target, even when they are baseless.

Schumer's Democrats are demanding that the evil Rove and others shackle themselves in leg braces and shuffle over to Congress to volunteer themselves as witch-trial, perjury trap martyrs in the spirit of the fallen Scooter Libby. When at first you don't succeed at taking down Cheney and Rove, try, try again.

President Bush, though admirably standing his ground so far and properly upholding the integrity of the executive branch against this Democratic legislative power grab, has been very accommodating and forthcoming with the evidence. If Democrats were interested in the facts, instead of rushing to injustice, they would be jumping at this opportunity to examine the evidence before jumping to conclusions of criminality.

Bush has offered that Rove and others meet informally with the witchhunters, and is providing mountains of e-mails and other documentary evidence for them to peruse in their quest for just a sliver of a morsel to suggest the faintest hint of a shred of barely discernible ambiguity that could be stretched, contorted and distorted enough to fool some into believing wrongdoing occurred.

We must encourage the president to hold his ground here and, the next time Sen. Schumer expectorates false charges against him, to reverse the charges. He should say to Mr. Schumer, "Senator, you are the one subordinating the law to politics. You are the one acting unethically and abusing your power, by wrongfully accusing public officials of wrongdoing and demanding their resignation without any evidence wrongdoing occurred. If you have a scintilla of evidence of wrongdoing, produce it, or hold your slanderous tongue. Before lecturing us again on politics and justice, explain to us why you routinely savage my highly qualified and ethical judicial nominees for crass political purposes."

By the way, where was Sen. Schumer when President Clinton and Attorney General Reno were giving a nearly eight-year seminar on how to politicize and corrupt the Justice Department? I devoted an entire book to that subject and would be glad to send an uninscribed copy to the senator, reminding him that he was conspicuously silent during that period."

Posted by David Limbaugh at March 22, 2007 06:50 PM

Read up Mooreon Marxists. The truth always hurts your cause.
Liberals losers and miserable human beings.

 

[anabolicrhino]

Let me repeat myself, and educate your LSD tainted hippy brain.



No, heres the true story.

"Who's Politicizing Justice

One reason I have been urging Republicans to man their battle stations against Democrats is that Democrats are in perpetual, full-blown war mode against Republicans. The Democrats' militant approach to the manufactured Justice Department scandal illustrates the point.

If Democrats, as they profess, are inclined toward bipartisanship and conciliation, why are they always alleging GOP scandal even before they have any idea what the facts are?

The answer is that it's all about discrediting the president and augmenting their own power, which is why they always try to tie Cheney or Rove personally to every event they mischaracterize as a scandal.

So it is with this latest installment concerning the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. Despite the unfortunate responses from Alberto Gonzalez, probably born of wholly justified defensiveness toward the Democrat scandalmongers, all available facts point to the conclusion that no impropriety was involved on the part of either the Justice Department or the White House.

One reason I have been urging Republicans to man their battle stations against Democrats is that Democrats are in perpetual, full-blown war mode against Republicans. The Democrats' militant approach to the manufactured Justice Department scandal illustrates the point.

If Democrats, as they profess, are inclined toward bipartisanship and conciliation, why are they always alleging GOP scandal even before they have any idea what the facts are?

The answer is that it's all about discrediting the president and augmenting their own power, which is why they always try to tie Cheney or Rove personally to every event they mischaracterize as a scandal.

So it is with this latest installment concerning the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. Despite the unfortunate responses from Alberto Gonzalez, probably born of wholly justified defensiveness toward the Democrat scandalmongers, all available facts point to the conclusion that no impropriety was involved on the part of either the Justice Department or the White House.

Democrats know that presidents have broad discretion to terminate U.S. attorneys so long as they aren't trying to interfere with investigations or the like. But where were Democrats when Janet Reno, almost immediately after becoming attorney general, took the unprecedented action of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys even before they had successors lined up to take their places? Yet Democrats insist on jumping to the worst possible conclusions concerning the Gonzalez Justice Department's much less extreme action of firing only eight.

Scandalmongerer in chief, Sen. Chuck Schumer, exploited reports of these firings with his customary even-handedness. He didn't suggest that we need to examine the facts to determine whether any wrongdoing occurred. He immediately accused Gonzalez of gross improprieties and demanded he resign because he is putting politics above the law. What? Talk about calling the kettle black!

It is Schumer and his fellow Bush-haters who are putting politics above the law, like they put partisan politics above almost everything else, including America's national security interests. How better to describe Schumer's demands that Gonzalez resign for engaging in the completely lawful and ethical act of firing attorneys serving at the president's discretion, likely because of policy differences or performance?

Even the reliably liberal Washington Post has conceded that so far, "little evidence" has emerged that the firings were calculated to interfere with the administration of justice. What, then, do Schumer and his colleagues know that we don't? Nothing, of course, except the important lesson that allegations of wrongdoing repeated over and over damage their target, even when they are baseless.

Schumer's Democrats are demanding that the evil Rove and others shackle themselves in leg braces and shuffle over to Congress to volunteer themselves as witch-trial, perjury trap martyrs in the spirit of the fallen Scooter Libby. When at first you don't succeed at taking down Cheney and Rove, try, try again.

President Bush, though admirably standing his ground so far and properly upholding the integrity of the executive branch against this Democratic legislative power grab, has been very accommodating and forthcoming with the evidence. If Democrats were interested in the facts, instead of rushing to injustice, they would be jumping at this opportunity to examine the evidence before jumping to conclusions of criminality.

Bush has offered that Rove and others meet informally with the witchhunters, and is providing mountains of e-mails and other documentary evidence for them to peruse in their quest for just a sliver of a morsel to suggest the faintest hint of a shred of barely discernible ambiguity that could be stretched, contorted and distorted enough to fool some into believing wrongdoing occurred.

We must encourage the president to hold his ground here and, the next time Sen. Schumer expectorates false charges against him, to reverse the charges. He should say to Mr. Schumer, "Senator, you are the one subordinating the law to politics. You are the one acting unethically and abusing your power, by wrongfully accusing public officials of wrongdoing and demanding their resignation without any evidence wrongdoing occurred. If you have a scintilla of evidence of wrongdoing, produce it, or hold your slanderous tongue. Before lecturing us again on politics and justice, explain to us why you routinely savage my highly qualified and ethical judicial nominees for crass political purposes."

By the way, where was Sen. Schumer when President Clinton and Attorney General Reno were giving a nearly eight-year seminar on how to politicize and corrupt the Justice Department? I devoted an entire book to that subject and would be glad to send an uninscribed copy to the senator, reminding him that he was conspicuously silent during that period."

Posted by David Limbaugh at March 22, 2007 06:50 PM

Read up Mooreon Marxists. The truth always hurts your cause.
Liberals losers and miserable human beings.

This is the way we "cut and paste", "cut and paste", "cut and past"....

Any original ideas you would like to share?

 

[anabolicrhino]

Speaking of mind controlled robots how about your boy, the Republican party's own "Manchurian Candidate" John McCain

The Daily Colonial - The Fall of John McCain

 

[Dagron]

There has been no wrong doing with what Gonzales did whatsoever, this entire ordeal is a transparent attempt at a perjury trap, and anyone who can't see that hasn't taken a very good look at it.

 

[Squeaks4ver]

it was almost as good as hillary's little show. "uhm i don't recall 250 times during one session"

 

[anabolicrhino]

There has been no wrong doing with what Gonzales did whatsoever, this entire ordeal is a transparent attempt at a perjury trap, and anyone who can't see that hasn't taken a very good look at it.

The "issue" is why did Gonzales make the decision to "fire" the attorneys.

If the reason was "pressure" from the White house, then Gonzales looses all credibility as a man who makes his own decisions.

When The executive branch of the government is transparent in its "dictation of agenda", then the country is in danger of becoming a dictatorship!

The chance that US attorneys could so easily be coerced by the White house to make decisions based upon fear of loosing their jobs is scary at best!

The Gonzales case will help send a message to the Bush administration that the abuses of power over the last 7 years will no longer go unchecked!!!

 

[CDB]

As soon as someone can explain to me the legal and ethical differences between firing a whole bunch of US attorneys for political reasons at the beginning of your term and firing eight for similar reasons midterm, I'll take this nonsense seriously.

 

[Dagron]

Speaking of mind controlled robots how about your boy, the Republican party's own "Manchurian Candidate" John McCain

The Daily Colonial - The Fall of John McCain

McCain is the consummate politician, with no real values or principles, as he will say or do whatever he think will make him more popular.

I think *everyone* would be happier if there were more politicians that actually do what they say and believe that they are working towards the betterment of their district/state and the country... Lieberman, for example, I disagree with on 95%+ of the issues, but it's clear that he does what he thinks is for the best, opinions be damned, so at least I can respect the man :clap2:

 

[Dagron]

The "issue" is why did Gonzales make the decision to "fire" the attorneys.

If the reason was "pressure" from the White house, then Gonzales looses all credibility as a man who makes his own decisions.

When The executive branch of the government is transparent in its "dictation of agenda", then the country is in danger of becoming a dictatorship!

The chance that US attorneys could so easily be coerced by the White house to make decisions based upon fear of loosing their jobs is scary at best!

The Gonzales case will help send a message to the Bush administration that the abuses of power over the last 7 years will no longer go unchecked!!!

You are really grasping at straws here... Kyle Sampson resigned, is no longer a part of the system, and had this to say at the Leahy Judiciary Committee:

Cornyn: "Is there any reason to your knowledge to believe that the replacement of a US attorney with another individual appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate would in and of itself tend to interfere or impede with any investigation into any criminal, serious criminal matter that a US attorney's office was investigating or prosecuting?"

SAMPSON: "Not to my knowledge. My observation was that US attorneys, political appointees came and went. We had participated in the selection of all of the US attorneys from the beginning of the administration, and about half of them had already left office. There was much turnover in the US attorney ranks, and it never was my belief that a US attorney changeover would have much influence at all on a particular case."

Gonzales and the whole lot have volunteered to show up and go over the entire process in private, but of course that wasn't good enough for certain politicians, as they want people under oath, rapid firing questions with the express intent of perjury entrapment, and a three ring media circus mocking them throughout.

If you want to look for government corruption and conspiracy, that's fine and dandy, but this case is much ado about nothing, period.

 

[Squeaks4ver]

there is no crime here whatsoever only stupidity. they should have fired all of the clinton left overs

 

[anabolicrhino]

Gonzales and the whole lot have volunteered to show up and go over the entire process in private, but of course that wasn't good enough for certain politicians, as they want people under oath, rapid firing questions with the express intent of perjury entrapment, and a three ring media circus mocking them throughout.

If you want to look for government corruption and conspiracy, that's fine and dandy, but this case is much ado about nothing, period.

Right so, if Gonzales is so clean why does he want to meet in private. Could it be he prefers not to testify under oath, so he would not have to worry about the truth and any subsequent perjury?

Nice try and thanks for the "evidence" that proves the point!!!

It is called "guilty demeanor"!!!

 

[CNorris]

Right so, if Gonzales is so clean why does he want to meet in private. Could it be he prefers not to testify under oath, so he would not have to worry about the truth and any subsequent perjury?

Nice try and thanks for the "evidence" that proves the point!!!

It is called "guilty demeanor"!!!

The Democrats have nothing constructive to do but to fabricate pergury scandles, as is proven with the Libby case. While Sandy Burgular roams free with a slap on the wrist, Gonzales cant do something legal without the democrats attempting to set him up for the raving rabid liberal media to crucify him and send him to jail. He has the right not to speak, shouldn't speak, and democrats should pass some ****ING laws that do some good for this country. Democrats are just plain pathetic. They dont care about this country, only to further their power to set them up to win in 2008. Whats bad for this country is good for Democrats.

 

[Dr Liftalot]

I'm not what most would even close to consider a Democrat but seriously Bush adminstration and the people he has appointed have been a big dissapointment by far.

They can't seem to work within checks and balances of our goverment and can't seem to get there stories straight. I certianly hope we can get a Libertarian in office some day, instead of our two current party lines.

Dr L

 

[zbtboy]

The Democrats have nothing constructive to do but to fabricate pergury scandles, as is proven with the Libby case. While Sandy Burgular roams free with a slap on the wrist, Gonzales cant do something legal without the democrats attempting to set him up for the raving rabid liberal media to crucify him and send him to jail. He has the right not to speak, shouldn't speak, and democrats should pass some ****ING laws that do some good for this country. Democrats are just plain pathetic. They dont care about this country, only to further their power to set them up to win in 2008. Whats bad for this country is good for Democrats.

:think: I'm pretty sure it was the Bush administration that appointed the Special Prosecutor for the Libby/CIA leak issue, not the Dems. And who nominated that Prosecutor? <I dont like it so it must have been Clinton..lets blame Clinton for everything...aaarrgh!>

And what about the handful of Republicans that are asking for Gonzo's resignation? Oh yeah, those must be the "liberal" conservatives in the party. <Its Clinton's fault again...aargh!>

 

[Dagron]

Right so, if Gonzales is so clean why does he want to meet in private. Could it be he prefers not to testify under oath, so he would not have to worry about the truth and any subsequent perjury?

Nice try and thanks for the "evidence" that proves the point!!!

It is called "guilty demeanor"!!!

Right, let's drag EVERYONE out and put them all under oath and start trying to trap them in their own words, brilliant. And you know what, I'd even agree to it, so long as the Libs produce Sandy Burgler, and have him say what documents he destroyed, which ones he stole, which ones he copied, and why.

Let's also produce Harry Reid, and have a look into how he abused his power to strong arm legislation so that he could make a couple million on real estate a real estate deal, then later didn't even claim it as an asset.

Let us also bring Nancy Pelosi up on criminal charges for engaging in foreign diplomacy when she has no constitutional basis for doing so, as well as misrepresenting the sovereign nation of Israel and telling our enemies that Israel is willing to come back to negotiations.

If any of those *legitimate* abuses of power were investigated, the guilty parties would be crucified. The difference between the conservative and liberal ideology could not be made more visible than when looking at criminal activity and scandals; conservatives expect their people to stay clean, libs do not. I challenge anyone to compile a list of scandals, and put them into "R" and "D" columns. You will find one simple difference; the R's are taken to task, the D's many times are let off the hook.

 

[CDB]

And what about the handful of Republicans that are asking for Gonzo's resignation? Oh yeah, those must be the "liberal" conservatives in the party. <Its Clinton's fault again...aargh!>

Gonzales is not a favorite of conservatives. He's fairly moderate in most of his views and hasn't pursued some issues as aggressively as they'd like. So they're happy to throw him to the wolves and use the issue to try and put some credible difference between themselves and an unpopular administration.

 

[Dagron]

I would also like to add that if these eight firings are of such paramount importance that firing them threatens the very fabric of America and sends us spiraling into a dictatorship, precisely which cases were these attorneys working on that the administration wanted to affect?

 

[CNorris]

:think: I'm pretty sure it was the Bush administration that appointed the Special Prosecutor for the Libby/CIA leak issue, not the Dems. And who nominated that Prosecutor? <I dont like it so it must have been Clinton..lets blame Clinton for everything...aaarrgh!>

And what about the handful of Republicans that are asking for Gonzo's resignation? Oh yeah, those must be the "liberal" conservatives in the party. <Its Clinton's fault again...aargh!>

It was the rapid left wing media and the Democrats that ran wild with the Libby case. Newsweek, MSNBC, NYT and about every other newspaper. And lots of Republicans dont like and have never liked Gonzales for political reasons. And this is their chance to get in a guy they like better. Also, Gonzales hasnt handled the issue well, but can you blame him for not being forthcoming when he hasnt committed a crime, and when talking (not commiting a crime in the first place) landed Libby in jail. Libby did not even leak the name of Plame, and neither did Cheney. If an angry mob of pitchfork weilding liberals were after me I would learn from Libby and shut my mouth too. All this happened while Sandy Burgurlar who actually comitted a crime that should be a multiple felony got a slap on the wrist and a little fine. But once again, defending a personal attack from politically motivated liberals isn't, but stealing and destroying national records about national security from the federal archives
is just fine right? Thats the way the "justice system" and liberal media see it. Democrats speaking about a culture of corruption is like Rosie Odonnel calling someone else fat, ugly and annoying.

 

[zbtboy]

HAHA....The Rapid Left Wing Media!! :icon_lol:

 

[CNorris]

HAHA....The Rapid Left Wing Media!! :icon_lol:

Whats not funny, but just plain sad on your part is the fact that you dont accept the undeniable media bias. A UCLA political science professor has PROVEN undeniably the media has a left wing bias.


A Measure of Media Bias

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist... 12/14/2005

 

[anabolicrhino]

So many choices of what to refute my mind is boggled!!!!

I will keep this positive and just agree with CDB, that Gonzales is being set up by his own party just like Scooter and Rumsfeld. Its just easier that way..and its a political tradition!

Okay, I gonna hate myself in the morning but WTF!....do you guys(Dagron/cnorris) mean "rabid" media - as in a mad dog, or do you mean "rapid" media- as in a very fast media, or could you possibly mean a "vapid" media- as in one not based on solid thought out facts!!!

Finally, Sandy Burger,Harry Reid,Bill Clinton, well yeah, those guy were guilty as hell, but that was last millennium!!!!
do I dare bring up Reagan(Iran-Contra),Nixon(Watergate)

Gonzales is the current story, and no matter how guilty all those other guys were it means nothing in terms of the Gonzales investigation so please could you be a little more topical !!!
thank you

Ps. Libby "leaking" Plame is not the crime. The crime was the "reason" for leaking Plame, which was "revenge", aka motive that establishes "malice"

 

[anabolicrhino]

Let us also bring Nancy Pelosi up on criminal charges for engaging in foreign diplomacy when she has no constitutional basis for doing so, as well as misrepresenting the sovereign nation of Israel and telling our enemies that Israel is willing to come back to negotiations.

Nancy Pelosi,as a lawyer is well aware of her rights to meet with foreign officials in an unofficial capacity.

If you are curious about why she thinks she can speak for Israel,
then you should google "AIPAC"!

Nancy Pelosi's father was instrumental in establishing early US-Israel relations!

I challenge anyone to compile a list of scandals, and put them into "R" and "D" columns. You will find one simple difference; the R's are taken to task, the D's many times are let off the hook.

This is just a guess, but maybe the "d"'s were just not as "guilty"

 

[CDB]

Their point I think is that any moral indignation on the part of Dems of Gonzalez is, to say the least, hypocritical. Unless they've expressed equal outrage over their own people getting off easy or having conveniently cloudy memories. Especially when those people were guilty of actual crimes, which isn't apparently the case here.

Finally, Sandy Burger,Harry Reid,Bill Clinton, well yeah, those guy were guilty as hell, but that was last millennium!!!!
do I dare bring up Reagan(Iran-Contra),Nixon(Watergate)

Gonzales is the current story, and no matter how guilty all those other guys were it means nothing in terms of the Gonzales investigation so please could you be a little more topical !!!
thank you

Ps. Libby "leaking" Plame is not the crime. The crime was the "reason" for leaking Plame, which was "revenge", aka motive that establishes "malice"

Actually the leak was the crime. Motive is only relevant towards proof of the act. Leaking an agent's name for any reason, even bad gas which somehow caused a lapse in judgement, is illegal.

 

[CNorris]

So many choices of what to refute my mind is boggled!!!!

I will keep this positive and just agree with CDB, that Gonzales is being set up by his own party just like Scooter and Rumsfeld. Its just easier that way..and its a political tradition!

Okay, I gonna hate myself in the morning but WTF!....do you guys(Dagron/cnorris) mean "rabid" media - as in a mad dog, or do you mean "rapid" media- as in a very fast media, or could you possibly mean a "vapid" media- as in one not based on solid thought out facts!!!

Finally, Sandy Burger,Harry Reid,Bill Clinton, well yeah, those guy were guilty as hell, but that was last millennium!!!!
do I dare bring up Reagan(Iran-Contra),Nixon(Watergate)

Gonzales is the current story, and no matter how guilty all those other guys were it means nothing in terms of the Gonzales investigation so please could you be a little more topical !!!
thank you

Ps. Libby "leaking" Plame is not the crime. The crime was the "reason" for leaking Plame, which was "revenge", aka motive that establishes "malice"

Revenge ROFL. More like defending and debunking (which they did) a personal attack on your integrity. Wilson's story in the NYT was proven false. Political motivations drove Plame and Wilson to attack Cheney and the Bush admins integrity, and they learned of Plames CIA status from the media. In an attempt to defend themselves (like anyone should be able to do in a free nation) Plames so-called "secret" status was revealed. Libby did not leak Plames name, that is proven. Thats not what he was charged with. Intentional leaking or not, this did not put her in danger. Destroying national archive records is putting the entire country in danger.

Gonzales has committed NO ****ING CRIME! Clinton fired those that investigated his whitewater land deal, along with 92 other US attourneys. Dont tell me that wasn't politcally motivated. Why wasnt he investigated? Where were the Scandlemongers like Schumer and Reid when Clinton and Reno were giving a nearly eight-year seminar on how to politicize and corrupt the Justice Department? Firing someone investigating you should be illegal. (IE Clinton firing whitewater attourney) This person was enforcing the law. That wasnt investigated and blown up by the media. Do your realize one of the US attourneys fired by Gonzales wouldnt deport illegals unless they committed their 2nd felony. Also, one would not prosecute marijuana cases unless that person had over one pound. Im not sure the story on the rest, but firing people that dont enforece the law when its their job to do so isnt polically motivated. The New York Times sure wont inform you of these incredibly relevant facts, they'd prefer to run another story on Abu Ghraib.

This is just another sorry pathetic attempt by democrats to attack an administration because they have nothing to contribute to the benefit of the American people.

 

[anabolicrhino]

Actually the leak was the crime. Motive is only relevant towards proof of the act. Leaking an agent's name for any reason, even bad gas which somehow caused a lapse in judgement, is illegal.

You are correct! I should not have used the term "leaking" which implies "intent".

More clearly, mentioning Valrie Plame was an agent is criminal if it could be proven that there was malice. The case was hinged on proving that there was "malicious intent" in the form of revenge for her husbands failure to play ball with Cheney's White house. This was never proven. So, without malice it just becomes a lapse in judgment, there was a wrist slapping obstruction of justice charge "soft balled" on Scooter"take one for the team"Libby. "obla de, obla da life goes on"

 

[CNorris]

You are correct! I should not have used the term "leaking" which implies "intent".

More clearly, mentioning Valrie Plame was an agent is criminal if it could be proven that there was malice. The case was hinged on proving that there was "malicious intent" in the form of revenge for her husbands failure to play ball with Cheney's White house. This was never proven. So, without malice it just becomes a lapse in judgment, there was a wrist slapping obstruction of justice charge "soft balled" on Scooter"take one for the team"Libby. "obla de, obla da life goes on"

You call that a wrist slap when he was sentenced to jail and Sany Berger gets a small fine?

 

[anabolicrhino]

Revenge ROFL. More like defending and debunking (which they did) a personal attack on your integrity. Wilson's story in the NYT was proven false.

When? by Whom?

Political motivations drove Plame and Wilson to attack Cheney and the Bush admins integrity,

Duh, no kidding **** Tracy! That's what this is all about!!!!!

and they learned of Plames CIA status from the media.

duh, again that's what this is all about !!!

How did the media learn about PLame?????

In an attempt to defend themselves (like anyone should be able to do in a free nation) Plames so-called "secret" status was revealed. Libby did not leak Plames name, that is proven. Thats not what he was charged with. Intentional leaking or not, this did not put her in danger.

Duh, Its the revealing of her "so-called" secret status that makes this an issue.
I mean that's the whole point

How can you be missing that!!!

Destroying national archive records is putting the entire country in danger.

Duh, that's why your boy scooter is waiting to be pardoned in 2009

Gonzales has committed NO ****ING CRIME! Clinton fired those that investigated his whitewater land deal, along with 92 other US attourneys.

Yeah, So! You just said that wasn't a crime?

Dont tell me that wasn't politcally motivated. Why wasnt he investigated?

Duh, because he was the President! not the attorney general!

Where were the Scandlemongers like Schumer and Reid when Clinton and Reno were giving a nearly eight-year seminar on how to politicize and corrupt the Justice Department? Firing someone investigating you should be illegal. (IE Clinton firing whitewater attourney) This person was enforcing the law. That wasnt investigated and blown up by the media.

Again, you just said that in the Gonzales case that its not a crime but, now you are saying it should be a crime???

Do your realize one of the US attourneys fired by Gonzales wouldnt deport illegals unless they committed their 2nd felony. Also, one would not prosecute marijuana cases unless that person had over one pound. Im not sure the story on the rest, but firing people that dont enforece the law when its their job to do so isnt polically motivated. The New York Times sure wont inform you of these incredibly relevant facts, they'd prefer to run another story on Abu Ghraib.

Yeah, pot smokers and giving people a second chance are much worse offenses, than illegal torture!!!..until its your turn on the water board!

This is just another sorry pathetic attempt by democrats to attack an administration because they have nothing to contribute to the benefit of the American people.

Put down the kool-aid before its too late!!!

Attacking this administration is the best thing that any American can do,...read the f**king Declaration of Independence or the US constitution.

This is not a kingdom!!!!

 

[CNorris]

Put down the kool-aid before its too late!!!

Attacking this administration is the best thing that any American can do,...read the f**king Declaration of Independence or the US constitution.

This is not a kingdom!!!!

Wow you are a complete idiot. If you think waterboarding people that have inside information about Al Quaeda attacks is anything but great, I hope you, and your family and all your friends die in the next terrorist attack. Oh noo! Poor terrorists! They got some water in their nose! :toofunny:
You call that torture hahahahahahaha. And sleep deprivation, being interrogated by women and other such tactics are illegal torture? Wow, you arent just drinking Kool Aid, there must be some LSD in your Juice.

BTW you did not make on relevant argument in that entire pathetic attempt at a tirade. If Gonzales committed a crime, Clinton did it 100x worse. The fact that Clinton fired people for directly investigating him made it a crime. Im not saying firing the 92 people was a crime. But according to you lunatic lefties firing 8 for not enforcing the law is. Libby did not leak Plames name, and if it could be proven Cheney or someone else high up did, then why werent they charged with that? Because they didnt have a case.

All you can try and do take things out of context, piece them together and attempt to make a point in typical Michael Moore fashion. Except you are have 1/1,000,000 the amount talent at smearing the truth than Moore.

Attacking the administration for actually committing crimes is one thing, but to bring baseless charges and try to set up purgery traps all around Washington to further your political career and not serving the american people would have the founding fathers turning over in their graves. Apparently you think its Congress' role to initiate a fight with the president like a street fighting bully is serving the people. Make some laws that benefit the country, like keeping our incredible economy stong by making the tax cuts permanent, fixing social security, finding a solution on illegal immigration, get a pork free bill for the troops safety passed. Thats what Congress and the American people and the media should be concentrated on. Instead liberals are concentraed on character assasignations, losing a war, undermining America, furthering a wellfare state like poverty in their vote getting disctricts. Once again, Whats good for America is bad for Democrats.

 

[Dagron]

Hrm I appear to have been educated on Pelosi's antics; the distinction lies in whether she attempted to be an official US presence or was there unofficially, and that is a distinction which I am unsure of, so she's in the clear unless someone can clarify otherwise.

Dingy Harry's real estate fiasco was no more than a few months ago. Sandy Burgler's crime is an ongoing problem; we have no idea what he destroyed or why, but obviously it was important enough to him to risk jail time to protect.

And CNorris brings up the coupe de grace on the Gonzales issue; Clinton fired people who were investigating him, which is a crime (never called to task), whereas Gonzales fired people for reasons of which we are unsure of, although he claims it was due to neglect and laziness.

I'm all for an investigation and whatnot, perhaps if enough Senators get together in a self important committee they can come up with what they are officially charging Gonzales, Bush and Rove with so that this whole thing can get expedited :banned:

 

[anabolicrhino]

Wow you are a complete idiot. If you think waterboarding people that have inside information about Al Quaeda attacks is anything but great, I hope you, and your family and all your friends die in the next terrorist attack. Oh noo! Poor terrorists! They got some water in their nose! :toofunny:

Thanks for the good words. My friends died in the last terrorist attack...and no amount of "waterboarding" is going to bring them back. Although, it did get a lot of useless confessions, that have saved no one!


You call that torture hahahahahahaha. And sleep deprivation, being interrogated by women and other such tactics are illegal torture?

Well, only by the definitions of the Geneva Convention!

Wow, you arent just drinking Kool Aid, there must be some LSD in your Juice.


Oh, now I remember your the guy with the head injury!

Why do you keep bringing up LSD is it part of your treatment?


The fact that Clinton fired people for directly investigating him made it a crime. Im not saying firing the 92 people was a crime.

Please make up your mind is it a crime or not!!!

But according to you lunatic lefties firing 8 for not enforcing the law is.

Its only a crime if the laws they are not enforcing are hand picked by one Karl Rove!

Libby did not leak Plames name, and if it could be proven Cheney or someone else high up did, then why werent they charged with that? Because they didnt have a case.

This time you are correct! Yea!!! However, you may not know this but, there is a difference between breaking the law and being prosecuted for breaking the law! So your buddies caught a break!

All you can try and do take things out of context, piece them together and attempt to make a point in typical Michael Moore fashion. Except you are have 1/1,000,000 the amount talent at smearing the truth than Moore.

Again you are correct Michael Moore is much better at smearing the truth than me. That is why he was invited to the 2004 Republican National Convention and I had to watch it on TV!

Attacking the administration for actually committing crimes is one thing, but to bring baseless charges and try to set up purgery traps all around Washington to further your political career and not serving the american people would have the founding fathers turning over in their graves.

Make some laws that benefit the country, like keeping our incredible economy stong
by making the tax cuts permanent, fixing social security, finding a solution on illegal immigration, get a pork free bill for the troops safety passed. Thats what Congress and the American people and the media should be concentrated on.

Wow, we agree yet again! The troops would be a lot safer without no-bid contracts for Cheney's pals!

Instead liberals are concentraed on character assasignations, losing a war, undermining America, furthering a wellfare state like poverty in their vote getting disctricts. Once again, Whats good for America is bad for Democrats.

While, I am not a Democrat, maybe you can help me sort a few things out,when you say "liberals" do you mean the Bush Administration because that's who you are describing!

 

[CNorris]

Thanks for the good words. My friends died in the last terrorist attack...and no amount of "waterboarding" is going to bring them back. Although, it did get a lot of useless confessions, that have saved no one![/B]

How do you know that? Do you work for the CIA, or have access to classified documents? No, in fact information has been detained, specifically from interigation in Britian and Pakistand stopped the chemical water bottle bomb plot in Britain. There have been countless other attacks stopped in the US also that have been made public. You couldnt be more wrong, and I hate to say it but out of anyone I've talked to you deserve to have lost loved ones to terrorists. And you still cant see the reality. It just illustrates the extreme extent your delusion




You call that torture hahahahahahaha. And sleep deprivation, being interrogated by women and other such tactics are illegal torture?

Well, only by the definitions of the Geneva Convention!

The Geneva convention DOES NOT APPLY to illegal combatants that have national affiliation. And if the Geneva convention does not allow keeping people awake or them to get interrogated by a woman, then I'm proud my leaders dont follow that foolishness.

Wow, you arent just drinking Kool Aid, there must be some LSD in your Juice.


Oh, now I remember your the guy with the head injury!

Why do you keep bringing up LSD is it part of your treatment?


The fact that Clinton fired people for directly investigating him made it a crime. Im not saying firing the 92 people was a crime.

Please make up your mind is it a crime or not!!!

I guess its a crime according to the lunatic lefties! Its the liberals who are making the charge. Im saying if Gonzales commited a crime, then Clinton committed it 84 more times. (Not including the guy he fired that was trying to put him in jail)



But according to you lunatic lefties firing 8 for not enforcing the law is.

Its only a crime if the laws they are not enforcing are hand picked by one Karl Rove!

And the firing of the guy investigating Clinton wasnt even a higher level (IE Clinton HIMSELF!)

Libby did not leak Plames name, and if it could be proven Cheney or someone else high up did, then why werent they charged with that? Because they didnt have a case.

This time you are correct! Yea!!! However, you may not know this but, there is a difference between breaking the law and being prosecuted for breaking the law! So your buddies caught a break!

So you prefer to treat terrorists innocent until proven guilty, but not the Presidential Cabinet? You must really hate the USA.

All you can try and do take things out of context, piece them together and attempt to make a point in typical Michael Moore fashion. Except you are have 1/1,000,000 the amount talent at smearing the truth than Moore.

Again you are correct Michael Moore is much better at smearing the truth than me. That is why he was invited to the 2004 Republican National Convention and I had to watch it on TV!

No, actually Moore sat right next to Jimmy Carter in a booth at the Democratic National Convention!

Attacking the administration for actually committing crimes is one thing, but to bring baseless charges and try to set up purgery traps all around Washington to further your political career and not serving the american people would have the founding fathers turning over in their graves.

Make some laws that benefit the country, like keeping our incredible economy stong
by making the tax cuts permanent, fixing social security, finding a solution on illegal immigration, get a pork free bill for the troops safety passed. Thats what Congress and the American people and the media should be concentrated on.

Wow, we agree yet again! The troops would be a lot safer without no-bid contracts for Cheney's pals!


Dont forget, Clinton hired Haliburton too. In fact he hired them as the logistics arm for the war in Kosovo because they are a well qualified military contractor! The NYT doesnt tell you that do they?

Instead liberals are concentraed on character assasignations, losing a war, undermining America, furthering a wellfare state like poverty in their vote getting disctricts. Once again, Whats good for America is bad for Democrats.

Culture of corruption = Democrats!

 

[CNorris]

How do you know that? Do you work for the CIA, or have access to classified documents? No, in fact information has been detained, specifically from interigation in Britian and Pakistand stopped the chemical water bottle bomb plot in Britain. There have been countless other attacks stopped in the US also that have been made public. You couldnt be more wrong, and I hate to say it but out of anyone I've talked to you deserve to have lost loved ones to terrorists. And you still cant see the reality. It just illustrates the extreme extent your delusion
[/COLOR]



You call that torture hahahahahahaha. And sleep deprivation, being interrogated by women and other such tactics are illegal torture?

Well, only by the definitions of the Geneva Convention!

The Geneva convention DOES NOT APPLY to illegal combatants that have national affiliation. And if the Geneva convention does not allow keeping people awake or them to get interrogated by a woman, then I'm proud my leaders dont follow that foolishness.

Wow, you arent just drinking Kool Aid, there must be some LSD in your Juice.


Oh, now I remember your the guy with the head injury!

Why do you keep bringing up LSD is it part of your treatment?


The fact that Clinton fired people for directly investigating him made it a crime. Im not saying firing the 92 people was a crime.

Please make up your mind is it a crime or not!!!

I guess its a crime according to the lunatic lefties! Its the liberals who are making the charge. Im saying if Gonzales commited a crime, then Clinton committed it 84 more times. (Not including the guy he fired that was trying to put him in jail)



But according to you lunatic lefties firing 8 for not enforcing the law is.

Its only a crime if the laws they are not enforcing are hand picked by one Karl Rove!

And the firing of the guy investigating Clinton wasnt even a higher level (IE Clinton HIMSELF!)

Libby did not leak Plames name, and if it could be proven Cheney or someone else high up did, then why werent they charged with that? Because they didnt have a case.

This time you are correct! Yea!!! However, you may not know this but, there is a difference between breaking the law and being prosecuted for breaking the law! So your buddies caught a break!

So you prefer to treat terrorists innocent until proven guilty, but not the Presidential Cabinet? You must really hate the USA.

All you can try and do take things out of context, piece them together and attempt to make a point in typical Michael Moore fashion. Except you are have 1/1,000,000 the amount talent at smearing the truth than Moore.

Again you are correct Michael Moore is much better at smearing the truth than me. That is why he was invited to the 2004 Republican National Convention and I had to watch it on TV!

No, actually Moore sat right next to Jimmy Carter in a booth at the Democratic National Convention!

Attacking the administration for actually committing crimes is one thing, but to bring baseless charges and try to set up purgery traps all around Washington to further your political career and not serving the american people would have the founding fathers turning over in their graves.

Make some laws that benefit the country, like keeping our incredible economy stong
by making the tax cuts permanent, fixing social security, finding a solution on illegal immigration, get a pork free bill for the troops safety passed. Thats what Congress and the American people and the media should be concentrated on.

Wow, we agree yet again! The troops would be a lot safer without no-bid contracts for Cheney's pals!


Dont forget, Clinton hired Haliburton too. In fact he hired them as the logistics arm for the war in Kosovo because they are a well qualified military contractor! The NYT doesnt tell you that do they?

Instead liberals are concentraed on character assasignations, losing a war, undermining America, furthering a wellfare state like poverty in their vote getting disctricts. Once again, Whats good for America is bad for Democrats.

Culture of corruption = Democrats!

 

[CNorris]

How do you know that? Do you work for the CIA, or have access to classified documents? No, in fact information has been detained, specifically from interigation in Britian and Pakistand stopped the chemical water bottle bomb plot in Britain. There have been countless other attacks stopped in the US also that have been made public. You couldnt be more wrong, and I hate to say it but out of anyone I've talked to you deserve to have lost loved ones to terrorists. And you still cant see the reality. It just illustrates the extreme extent your delusion
[/COLOR]



You call that torture hahahahahahaha. And sleep deprivation, being interrogated by women and other such tactics are illegal torture?

Well, only by the definitions of the Geneva Convention!

The Geneva convention DOES NOT APPLY to illegal combatants that have national affiliation. And if the Geneva convention does not allow keeping people awake or them to get interrogated by a woman, then I'm proud my leaders dont follow that foolishness.

Wow, you arent just drinking Kool Aid, there must be some LSD in your Juice.


Oh, now I remember your the guy with the head injury!

Why do you keep bringing up LSD is it part of your treatment?


The fact that Clinton fired people for directly investigating him made it a crime. Im not saying firing the 92 people was a crime.

Please make up your mind is it a crime or not!!!

I guess its a crime according to the lunatic lefties! Its the liberals who are making the charge. Im saying if Gonzales commited a crime, then Clinton committed it 84 more times. (Not including the guy he fired that was trying to put him in jail)



But according to you lunatic lefties firing 8 for not enforcing the law is.

Its only a crime if the laws they are not enforcing are hand picked by one Karl Rove!

And the firing of the guy investigating Clinton wasnt even a higher level (IE Clinton HIMSELF!)

Libby did not leak Plames name, and if it could be proven Cheney or someone else high up did, then why werent they charged with that? Because they didnt have a case.

This time you are correct! Yea!!! However, you may not know this but, there is a difference between breaking the law and being prosecuted for breaking the law! So your buddies caught a break!

So you prefer to treat terrorists innocent until proven guilty, but not the Presidential Cabinet? You must really hate the USA.

All you can try and do take things out of context, piece them together and attempt to make a point in typical Michael Moore fashion. Except you are have 1/1,000,000 the amount talent at smearing the truth than Moore.

Again you are correct Michael Moore is much better at smearing the truth than me. That is why he was invited to the 2004 Republican National Convention and I had to watch it on TV!

No, actually Moore sat right next to Jimmy Carter in a booth at the Democratic National Convention!

Attacking the administration for actually committing crimes is one thing, but to bring baseless charges and try to set up purgery traps all around Washington to further your political career and not serving the american people would have the founding fathers turning over in their graves.

Make some laws that benefit the country, like keeping our incredible economy stong
by making the tax cuts permanent, fixing social security, finding a solution on illegal immigration, get a pork free bill for the troops safety passed. Thats what Congress and the American people and the media should be concentrated on.

Wow, we agree yet again! The troops would be a lot safer without no-bid contracts for Cheney's pals!


Dont forget, Clinton hired Haliburton too. In fact he hired them as the logistics arm for the war in Kosovo because they are a well qualified military contractor! The NYT doesnt tell you that do they?

Instead liberals are concentraed on character assasignations, losing a war, undermining America, furthering a wellfare state like poverty in their vote getting disctricts. Once again, Whats good for America is bad for Democrats.

Culture of corruption = Democrats!

 

[CNorris]

Well, only by the definitions of the Geneva Convention! [/B]

The Geneva convention DOES NOT APPLY to illegal combatants that have national affiliation. And if the Geneva convention does not allow keeping people awake or them to get interrogated by a woman, then I'm proud my leaders dont follow that foolishness.

Wow, you arent just drinking Kool Aid, there must be some LSD in your Juice.


Oh, now I remember your the guy with the head injury!

Why do you keep bringing up LSD is it part of your treatment?


The fact that Clinton fired people for directly investigating him made it a crime. Im not saying firing the 92 people was a crime.

Please make up your mind is it a crime or not!!!

I guess its a crime according to the lunatic lefties! Its the liberals who are making the charge. Im saying if Gonzales commited a crime, then Clinton committed it 84 more times. (Not including the guy he fired that was trying to put him in jail)



But according to you lunatic lefties firing 8 for not enforcing the law is.

Its only a crime if the laws they are not enforcing are hand picked by one Karl Rove!

And the firing of the guy investigating Clinton wasnt even a higher level (IE Clinton HIMSELF!)

Libby did not leak Plames name, and if it could be proven Cheney or someone else high up did, then why werent they charged with that? Because they didnt have a case.

This time you are correct! Yea!!! However, you may not know this but, there is a difference between breaking the law and being prosecuted for breaking the law! So your buddies caught a break!

So you prefer to treat terrorists innocent until proven guilty, but not the Presidential Cabinet? You must really hate the USA.

All you can try and do take things out of context, piece them together and attempt to make a point in typical Michael Moore fashion. Except you are have 1/1,000,000 the amount talent at smearing the truth than Moore.

Again you are correct Michael Moore is much better at smearing the truth than me. That is why he was invited to the 2004 Republican National Convention and I had to watch it on TV!

No, actually Moore sat right next to Jimmy Carter in a booth at the Democratic National Convention!

Attacking the administration for actually committing crimes is one thing, but to bring baseless charges and try to set up purgery traps all around Washington to further your political career and not serving the american people would have the founding fathers turning over in their graves.

Make some laws that benefit the country, like keeping our incredible economy stong
by making the tax cuts permanent, fixing social security, finding a solution on illegal immigration, get a pork free bill for the troops safety passed. Thats what Congress and the American people and the media should be concentrated on.

Wow, we agree yet again! The troops would be a lot safer without no-bid contracts for Cheney's pals!


Dont forget, Clinton hired Haliburton too. In fact he hired them as the logistics arm for the war in Kosovo because they are a well qualified military contractor! The NYT doesnt tell you that do they?

Instead liberals are concentraed on character assasignations, losing a war, undermining America, furthering a wellfare state like poverty in their vote getting disctricts. Once again, Whats good for America is bad for Democrats.

Culture of corruption = Democrats!

 

[CNorris]

Well, only by the definitions of the Geneva Convention! [/B]

The Geneva convention DOES NOT APPLY to illegal combatants that have national affiliation. And if the Geneva convention does not allow keeping people awake or them to get interrogated by a woman, then I'm proud my leaders dont follow that foolishness.

Wow, you arent just drinking Kool Aid, there must be some LSD in your Juice.


Oh, now I remember your the guy with the head injury!

Why do you keep bringing up LSD is it part of your treatment?


The fact that Clinton fired people for directly investigating him made it a crime. Im not saying firing the 92 people was a crime.

Please make up your mind is it a crime or not!!!

I guess its a crime according to the lunatic lefties! Its the liberals who are making the charge. Im saying if Gonzales commited a crime, then Clinton committed it 84 more times. (Not including the guy he fired that was trying to put him in jail)



But according to you lunatic lefties firing 8 for not enforcing the law is.

Its only a crime if the laws they are not enforcing are hand picked by one Karl Rove!

And the firing of the guy investigating Clinton wasnt even a higher level (IE Clinton HIMSELF!)

Libby did not leak Plames name, and if it could be proven Cheney or someone else high up did, then why werent they charged with that? Because they didnt have a case.

This time you are correct! Yea!!! However, you may not know this but, there is a difference between breaking the law and being prosecuted for breaking the law! So your buddies caught a break!

So you prefer to treat terrorists innocent until proven guilty, but not the Presidential Cabinet? You must really hate the USA.

All you can try and do take things out of context, piece them together and attempt to make a point in typical Michael Moore fashion. Except you are have 1/1,000,000 the amount talent at smearing the truth than Moore.

Again you are correct Michael Moore is much better at smearing the truth than me. That is why he was invited to the 2004 Republican National Convention and I had to watch it on TV!

No, actually Moore sat right next to Jimmy Carter in a booth at the Democratic National Convention!

Attacking the administration for actually committing crimes is one thing, but to bring baseless charges and try to set up purgery traps all around Washington to further your political career and not serving the american people would have the founding fathers turning over in their graves.

Make some laws that benefit the country, like keeping our incredible economy stong
by making the tax cuts permanent, fixing social security, finding a solution on illegal immigration, get a pork free bill for the troops safety passed. Thats what Congress and the American people and the media should be concentrated on.

Wow, we agree yet again! The troops would be a lot safer without no-bid contracts for Cheney's pals!


Dont forget, Clinton hired Haliburton too. In fact he hired them as the logistics arm for the war in Kosovo because they are a well qualified military contractor! The NYT doesnt tell you that do they?

Instead liberals are concentraed on character assasignations, losing a war, undermining America, furthering a wellfare state like poverty in their vote getting disctricts. Once again, Whats good for America is bad for Democrats.

this stupid HTML is ****ed for some reason, the beginning is screwy but most of my replies are in red.

 

[zbtboy]

My favorite Gonzo moment to date:

SPECTER: Where you have the Constitution having an explicit provision that the writ of habeas corpus cannot be suspended except for rebellion or invasion, and you have the Supreme Court saying that habeas corpus rights apply to Guantanamo detainees — aliens in Guantanamo — after an elaborate discussion as to why, how can the statutory taking of habeas corpus — when there’s an express constitutional provision that it can’t be suspended, and an explicit Supreme Court holding that it applies to Guantanamo alien detainees.

GONZALES: A couple things, Senator. I believe that the Supreme Court case you’re referring to dealt only with the statutory right to habeas, not the constitutional right to habeas.

SPECTER: Well, you’re not right about that. It’s plain on its face they are talking about the constitutional right to habeas corpus. They talk about habeas corpus being guaranteed by the Constitution, except in cases of an invasion or rebellion. They talk about John Runningmeade and the Magna Carta and the doctrine being imbedded in the Constitution.

GONZALES: Well, sir, the fact that they may have talked about the constitutional right to habeas doesn’t mean that the decision dealt with that constitutional right to habeas.

SPECTER: When did you last read the case?

GONZALES: It has been a while, but I’ll be happy to — I will go back and look at it.

SPECTER: I looked at it yesterday and this morning again.

GONZALES: I will go back and look at it. The fact that the Constitution — again, there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away. But it’s never been the case, and I’m not a Supreme —

SPECTER: Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute. The constitution says you can’t take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion?

GONZALES: I meant by that comment, the Constitution doesn’t say, “Every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas.” It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except by —

SPECTER: You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense, Mr. Attorney General.

GONZALES: Um.

 

[zbtboy]

Culture of corruption = Democrats!

Obviously..

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/04/23/news_pf/Worldandnation/FBI_asks_Tom_Feeney_a.shtml

Or is the FBI now part of the rapid left wing now as well?

 

[CNorris]

Obviously..

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/04/23/news_pf/Worldandnation/FBI_asks_Tom_Feeney_a.shtml

Or is the FBI now part of the rapid left wing now as well?

Tom Feeney is a ****ING nobody. Harry Reid, the SENATE MAJORITY LEADING DEMOCRAT WENT OFF ABOUT Abramhoff and the scandal. He knew a lot about the scandle, much more than most. WHAT A ****ING JOKE HAHAHAHAHA. Reid is the most pathetic politician I have ever seen.

Harry Reid Caught in Abramoff Plea Deal?

 

[anabolicrhino]

This is a reply to "cnorris", who for some reason has trouble with the HTML editor.

you said>How do you know that? Do you work for the CIA, or have access to classified documents? No, in fact information has been detained, specifically from interigation in Britian and Pakistand stopped the chemical water bottle bomb plot in Britain. There have been countless other attacks stopped in the US also that have been made public.

Please proof read your posts.

You are saying that I could not have information unless I worked for the CIA or had access to classified documents, then you have the audacity in the same paragraph to claim that you have such knowledge??? Do you work for the CIA? that would expalin a lot. You posts are like a disinformation exercise!


You couldnt be more wrong, and I hate to say it but out of anyone I've talked to you deserve to have lost loved ones to terrorists. And you still cant see the reality. It just illustrates the extreme extent your delusion
<- Reply by CNorris

Now, you are playing God and deciding who deserves to die???

more cnorris drivel-
The Geneva convention DOES NOT APPLY to illegal combatants that have national affiliation. And if the Geneva convention does not allow keeping people awake or them to get interrogated by a woman, then I'm proud my leaders dont follow that foolishness.

The term illegal combatants does not appear in any Geneva document. It was made up by the Bush Administration!!!
-------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, No matter the degree of guilt of Bill Clinton, It does not make Gonzales any less guilty or incompetent.

Clinton = guilty(84)=guilty
Gonzales= guilty or incompetent= guilty or incompetent

See they way it works is you can't subtract one person's guilt from another person's guilt and leave a total of not guilty!!!

 

[anabolicrhino]

My favorite Gonzo moment to date:

SPECTER: Where you have the Constitution having an explicit provision that the writ of habeas corpus cannot be suspended except for rebellion or invasion, and you have the Supreme Court saying that habeas corpus rights apply to Guantanamo detainees — aliens in Guantanamo — after an elaborate discussion as to why, how can the statutory taking of habeas corpus — when there’s an express constitutional provision that it can’t be suspended, and an explicit Supreme Court holding that it applies to Guantanamo alien detainees.

GONZALES: A couple things, Senator. I believe that the Supreme Court case you’re referring to dealt only with the statutory right to habeas, not the constitutional right to habeas.

SPECTER: Well, you’re not right about that. It’s plain on its face they are talking about the constitutional right to habeas corpus. They talk about habeas corpus being guaranteed by the Constitution, except in cases of an invasion or rebellion. They talk about John Runningmeade and the Magna Carta and the doctrine being imbedded in the Constitution.

GONZALES: Well, sir, the fact that they may have talked about the constitutional right to habeas doesn’t mean that the decision dealt with that constitutional right to habeas.

SPECTER: When did you last read the case?

GONZALES: It has been a while, but I’ll be happy to — I will go back and look at it.

SPECTER: I looked at it yesterday and this morning again.

GONZALES: I will go back and look at it. The fact that the Constitution — again, there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away. But it’s never been the case, and I’m not a Supreme —

SPECTER: Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute. The constitution says you can’t take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion?

GONZALES: I meant by that comment, the Constitution doesn’t say, “Every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas.” It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except by —

SPECTER: You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense, Mr. Attorney General.

GONZALES: Um.

Thanks dude I had totally forgot that Gonzales is the guy who thinks that Habeas Corpus is not in the Constitution!!!

Well there goes any reasonable doubt theories as a defense!

I can't believe this guy is still a public official!

unless there is an underlying scheme?

Support of Gonzales affirms power play - The Boston Globe

 

[zbtboy]

another tidbit. ...

October 7, 2005
"Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a U.S. legislative watchdog group, has released a report attempting to document the unethical and illegal activities of who they are calling the "most tainted members of Congress". In describing the reasons for the report Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW said, "[CREW] was compelled to research and release a report on these corrupt members because the ethics committees in both the House and Senate are completely inert. The report calls for the House and Senate to act to investigate and take appropriate action against them for these violations of the rules." She went on to attack both parties regarding ethics, "Democrats are just as much to blame as Republicans for the current ethics deadlock. The Democrats won't file ethics complaints against even the most egregious violators like DeLay and Ney. The Democrats are spineless."
The report is entitled "Beyond DeLay: The 13 Most Corrupt Members of Congress", seeking to capitalize on the current media attention on ethics that has come about due to the indictments of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.
The report covers possible violations of federal laws, as well as congressional ethics rules. To compile the report, CREW drew upon Federal Election Commission (FEC) reports and audits, sworn testimony, emails, and personal financial and travel disclosure forms. By analyzing that information, CREW then attempted to determine if the member's activities violated federal laws, regulations, or congressional ethics rules. (excluding the obvious Republican Majority Leader Tom Delay)
(The 11 Republican and 2 Democratic) members of Congress covered are:

o [corruption:] Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT) Defeated in 2006
o [corruption:] Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN, Senate Majority leader), Retired in 2006
o [corruption:] Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA). Defeated in 2006
o [corruption:] Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO, House Majority Whip)
o [corruption:] Rep. Randy Cunningham (R-CA) Imprisoned in 2006
o [corruption:] Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL)
o [corruption:] Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA)
o [corruption:] Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO)
o [corruption:] Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH) Resigned in 2006
o [corruption:] Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA) Defeated in 2006
o [corruption:] Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ)
o [corruption:] Rep. Charles Taylor (R-NC)
o [corruption:] Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA)

 

[Dagron]

Two things: I believe Gonzales was ineptly attempting to show that the constitution applies to Citizens of the United States and not to foreigners. Whether a person from another country who seeks to terrorize and does not wear a military uniform should be subject to the Geneva convention, let alone our constitution is dubious at best.

Secondly, the Republicans listed above that are guilty of ethics issues are accused of some relatively minor issues. Charles Taylor, for example, abused his Representative position to fly out to Russia to further his own personal business dealings. Is it a waste, and does it have nothing to do with his Representative duties? Yes and yes, but how is this any different than politicians who abuse their power to fly across the country campaigning? Both situations are wrong, should not be on the tax payers dime, and should be rectified.

I also find it comical that dingy Harry didn't make the list after his real estate fiasco :think:

 

[anabolicrhino]

Two things: I believe Gonzales was ineptly attempting to show that the constitution applies to Citizens of the United States and not to foreigners. Whether a person from another country who seeks to terrorize and does not wear a military uniform should be subject to the Geneva convention, let alone our constitution is dubious at best.

It is the Declaration of Independence that states :

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.


ALL men! Not all men born in the United States, not all American citizens, but all men.

There has been no change to the US constitution in its power to protect those rights!

The Patriot Act gives a temporary and congressionally reviewed power to single out individuals that may be considered "enemy combatants". It in and of itself does not remove their rights.

These rights are unalienable(cannot be removed) anywhere in the "free" universe!!!

 

[zbtboy]

Two things: I believe Gonzales was ineptly attempting to show that the constitution applies to Citizens of the United States and not to foreigners. Whether a person from another country who seeks to terrorize and does not wear a military uniform should be subject to the Geneva convention, let alone our constitution is dubious at best.

Secondly, the Republicans listed above that are guilty of ethics issues are accused of some relatively minor issues. Charles Taylor, for example, abused his Representative position to fly out to Russia to further his own personal business dealings. Is it a waste, and does it have nothing to do with his Representative duties? Yes and yes, but how is this any different than politicians who abuse their power to fly across the country campaigning? Both situations are wrong, should not be on the tax payers dime, and should be rectified.

I also find it comical that dingy Harry didn't make the list after his real estate fiasco :think:

I'm pretty sure the Reid issue came up well after this list was created. I'm sure there are other dems that could be on this list, but that was posted so that CNorris could understand that corruption=government not one party alone.

 

[Dagron]

I understand the Declaration of Independence, I have a copy framed on my wall. The second sentence that you are quoting is in the context of a prolonged explanation for why the founding fathers were rebelling and why they believed that they were within their rights to throw off GB and form a new government. It was not meant to convey that all people from everywhere in the world are all entitled to constitutional protection via "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness". If we were to use that logic, then we couldn't have prisons or law enforcement at all, as that would infringe upon one's right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Heck, we couldn't even defend ourselves, as that would be denying someone their right to life.

 

[anabolicrhino]

I understand the Declaration of Independence, I have a copy framed on my wall. The second sentence that you are quoting is in the context of a prolonged explanation for why the founding fathers were rebelling and why they believed that they were within their rights to throw off GB and form a new government.

Are sure they were only talking about Great Britain?...because for one thing, Great Britain did not exist in 1776.(My copy says England) Your interpretation of Thomas Jefferson seems rather narrow. Do you think he could have possibly thought about the future at all?

It was not meant to convey that all people from everywhere in the world are all entitled to constitutional protection via "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

So, just special people as hand picked by the king?

If we were to use that logic, then we couldn't have prisons or law enforcement at all, as that would infringe upon one's right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Heck, we couldn't even defend ourselves, as that would be denying someone their right to life.

No, you are born with unalienable rights, among them;

You have the right to a life. You do not have the right to infringe the life of another person.

You have the right to Liberty. You do not have the right to infringe the liberty of another person.

You have the right to pursue happiness. You do not have the right to infringe the pursuit of happiness of another person

That's why we have a Laws!..to protect those rights!

Think about the reason that the GWB says that the USA is in Iraq.... Isn't it to protect the freedoms of the Iraqi people?

 

[CNorris]

This is a reply to "cnorris", who for some reason has trouble with the HTML editor.

I obviously didnt have ANY trouble with the last 2/3 of it, and it was a quote of a quote of a quote of a quote. The HTML editor has a problem with that, nice attempt at another character assasignation. Libs really love doing that.

 

[CNorris]

This is a reply to "cnorris", who for some reason has trouble with the HTML editor.

you said>How do you know that? Do you work for the CIA, or have access to classified documents? No, in fact information has been detained, specifically from interigation in Britian and Pakistand stopped the chemical water bottle bomb plot in Britain. There have been countless other attacks stopped in the US also that have been made public.

Please proof read your posts.

You are saying that I could not have information unless I worked for the CIA or had access to classified documents, then you have the audacity in the same paragraph to claim that you have such knowledge??? Do you work for the CIA? that would expalin a lot. You posts are like a disinformation exercise!

No, but the government has given clear examples of ways the patriot act has protected America. Give me one way in which the patriot act has influenced your life negatively, or any other innocent person.

You couldnt be more wrong, and I hate to say it but out of anyone I've talked to you deserve to have lost loved ones to terrorists. And you still cant see the reality. It just illustrates the extreme extent your delusion
<- Reply by CNorris

Now, you are playing God and deciding who deserves to die???

No I am not playing god, but those that dont defend themselves or believe in letting the government use reasonable power to protect them are foolish, and their foolishness is what makes them deserve to be hurt. If I believed in not wearing a seat belt and I died in a car accident, I would deserve to die more than a car accident victim that did believe in wearing a seat belt.

more cnorris drivel-
The Geneva convention DOES NOT APPLY to illegal combatants that have national affiliation. And if the Geneva convention does not allow keeping people awake or them to get interrogated by a woman, then I'm proud my leaders dont follow that foolishness.

The term illegal combatants does not appear in any Geneva document. It was made up by the Bush Administration!!!

When is the last time there was a rogue radical religous group that made an attack on civilians that killed over 3,000 people? Long after the Geneva convention was written. You just assume it protects these stateless thugs, even though there is no wording stating so. Another reason people of your ilk deserve to bear the brunt of any terrorist attack. You defend them more than you do you own government.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, No matter the degree of guilt of Bill Clinton, It does not make Gonzales any less guilty or incompetent.

Clinton = guilty(84)=guilty,
Gonzales= guilty or incompetent= guilty or incompetent

Clinton = guilty, corrupt, liar, adulterer, coward that had the chance to kill Osama but didnt. But hey, he was charming, and was lucky enough to be part of the artificially inflated Enron and web site economy that was started to burst at the end of his term. And Sandy Burgular destroyed the records that proved him as militarily incompetent and responsible for 9/11.

See they way it works is you can't subtract one person's guilt from another person's guilt and leave a total of not guilty!!!

No, the way it works is you cant attack someone for doing something that a member of your own party did 84 more and have any ****ing integrity at all. If Clinton wasnt investigated, neither should Gonzales. Pretty simple to see the logic in that. Wait, liberal brains dont use logic, they use irrational idealistic and emotional feelings to back up their beliefs. Just like when Whoopi Goldberg said she doesnt have to justify her political views with logic, they can be based on feelings alone.

 

[anabolicrhino]

When is the last time there was a rogue radical religous group that made an attack on civilians that killed over 3,000 people? Long after the Geneva convention was written. You just assume it protects these stateless thugs, even though there is no wording stating so. Another reason people of your ilk deserve to bear the brunt of any terrorist attack. You defend them more than you do you own government.
Yes it protects them just like the constitution protects them. Why it even protects you.

Why are you so afraid?
Who are you afraid of?...terrorist? liberals?democrats?

Don't worry big daddy Bush will protect you from the evil doers!

Ok, other than on 9/11/2001 when he kind of dropped the ball.
but that was Clintons fault right?

Anyhow all those hijackers were killed, I mean except for the ones that are still alive.

but at least Bush took down Osama Bin Laden "dead or alive"!
Just like he said he would! remember when they hung him for those crimes, oh wait that was Sadaam.

Ok so you must be afraid of the 7 living hijackers and Osama bin Laden, right?

So, to protect you from those "freedom hating" terrorists who want to take away your freedom, Bush is taking away your freedom so you don't have to worry about losing them!

What a plan! I can see why "you" support him so vigorously!!!