8
   

Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

 
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 11:01 am
He will never do jail time because Bush will pardon him.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 11:01 am
He may have problems of his own by that time...

Prolly not tho it would be nice.

Cycloptichorn Laughing
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 11:01 am
There is still the issue of pardons. There is little doubt that, like his father relative to those involved in Irangate, he will pardon a bunch of people being tried or facing trial.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 12:15 pm
Advocate wrote:
The big difference is that the Dems will investigate actual governmental misconduct, and not personal misconduct, such as screwing around with consenting adult interns, et al.


Another beautiful illustration. Thats why personal fraud by William Jefferson does not count, right? Just one example. It is "public morality" that Democrats care about, which is defined by how much money they can spend for the poor and helpless with somebody else's money, otherwise known as tax money.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 12:17 pm
okie wrote:
Advocate wrote:
The big difference is that the Dems will investigate actual governmental misconduct, and not personal misconduct, such as screwing around with consenting adult interns, et al.


Another beautiful illustration. Thats why personal fraud by William Jefferson does not count, right? Just one example. It is "public morality" that Democrats care about, which is defined by how much money they can spend for the poor and helpless with somebody else's money, otherwise known as tax money.


Of course it counts. You think I want Jefferson re-elected? Most of the progressive sites right now are working to get his rival elected in the run-off.

I support the fact that he is being investigated right now. The money found in his freezer makes him look like a corrupt bastard. Even the appearance of corruption is bad enough, if it's true, he's got to go.

What else can we do? Can't kick him out of congress ourselves. Can't call for investigations, there already is one.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 12:21 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Prouder than your bunch of corrupt and lying chickenhawks do, Okie.

She's right, though; I've seen quite a bit of conservative angst these last few weeks since the election, but that's nothing. Nothing. Because once the investigations start up in Janurary, you are going experience a whole year of anger and pain at the results.

Hope you're ready

Cycloptichorn


Bring it on. But remember it could backfire. I thought Pelosi said their majority would not include that kind of stuff? Of course, I didn't believe her, but if thats what they really want to accomplish as a policy, then I guess thats what they will have to do.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 12:22 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
okie wrote:
Advocate wrote:
The big difference is that the Dems will investigate actual governmental misconduct, and not personal misconduct, such as screwing around with consenting adult interns, et al.


Another beautiful illustration. Thats why personal fraud by William Jefferson does not count, right? Just one example. It is "public morality" that Democrats care about, which is defined by how much money they can spend for the poor and helpless with somebody else's money, otherwise known as tax money.


Of course it counts. You think I want Jefferson re-elected? Most of the progressive sites right now are working to get his rival elected in the run-off.

I support the fact that he is being investigated right now. The money found in his freezer makes him look like a corrupt bastard. Even the appearance of corruption is bad enough, if it's true, he's got to go.

What else can we do? Can't kick him out of congress ourselves. Can't call for investigations, there already is one.

Cycloptichorn


When are you going to realize you are out of step with your party in this regard, cyclops?
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 12:25 pm
The Jefferson case involves governmental misconduct, so he should be prosecuted. Bill Clinton, however, was persecuted for personal, noncriminal, misconduct.

Okie, please stay on topic.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 12:25 pm
Advocate wrote:
The Jefferson case involves governmental misconduct, so he should be prosecuted. Bill Clinton, however, was persecuted for personal, noncriminal, misconduct.

Okie, please stay on topic.


Nonsense. Sad thing is that you are not alone in believing this drivel.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 12:27 pm
McG, what is the nonsense? I can back up what I said.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 12:32 pm
Well, go ahead then.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 12:34 pm
OK!
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 12:56 pm
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
okie wrote:
Advocate wrote:
The big difference is that the Dems will investigate actual governmental misconduct, and not personal misconduct, such as screwing around with consenting adult interns, et al.


Another beautiful illustration. Thats why personal fraud by William Jefferson does not count, right? Just one example. It is "public morality" that Democrats care about, which is defined by how much money they can spend for the poor and helpless with somebody else's money, otherwise known as tax money.


Of course it counts. You think I want Jefferson re-elected? Most of the progressive sites right now are working to get his rival elected in the run-off.

I support the fact that he is being investigated right now. The money found in his freezer makes him look like a corrupt bastard. Even the appearance of corruption is bad enough, if it's true, he's got to go.

What else can we do? Can't kick him out of congress ourselves. Can't call for investigations, there already is one.

Cycloptichorn


When are you going to realize you are out of step with your party in this regard, cyclops?


I haven't seen anyone calling for him to stay or saying that he shouldn't be investigated or kicked out if guilty. Noone except for Dennis Hastert, btw, who went to bat to protect this guy. Chew on that one for a while.

He's in the middle of a run-off election right now. What is it you expect politicians to do, exactly?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 01:38 pm
I agree, Hastert had me scratching my head for sure. I guess according to Hastert, you could kill somebody and as long as you keep their body in your congressional offices, law enforcement has no right to look there.

And cyclops, I haven't heard of any Democratic pressure on Jefferson to quit. If this was a Republican, he would be gone long ago, for more than a couple reasons, one they would probably show remorse and two, their own party would place much pressure on them to quit.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 01:48 pm
Hastert, of course, was looking to set the precedent because he knows for a fact that FBI agents looking through Republican offices will find stuff that they shouldn't. Not hard to figure that one out.

Quote:
If this was a Republican, he would be gone long ago, for more than a couple reasons, one they would probably show remorse and two, their own party would place much pressure on them to quit.


LOL

Tom DeLay? Hello??!?!

The Republicans kicked out several members of the Ethics committee because they censored him, remember?

Where were the Republican calls for him to resign? How about Ney, or Cunningham? They didn't exist.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 02:12 pm
okie wrote:
I agree, Hastert had me scratching my head for sure. I guess according to Hastert, you could kill somebody and as long as you keep their body in your congressional offices, law enforcement has no right to look there.

And cyclops, I haven't heard of any Democratic pressure on Jefferson to quit. If this was a Republican, he would be gone long ago, for more than a couple reasons, one they would probably show remorse and two, their own party would place much pressure on them to quit.


Whoa, can I get some of what you are smoking? I thought this White Widow was killah but it pales to whatever you have in your stash!
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 02:14 pm
Roxxxanne wrote:
okie wrote:
I agree, Hastert had me scratching my head for sure. I guess according to Hastert, you could kill somebody and as long as you keep their body in your congressional offices, law enforcement has no right to look there.

And cyclops, I haven't heard of any Democratic pressure on Jefferson to quit. If this was a Republican, he would be gone long ago, for more than a couple reasons, one they would probably show remorse and two, their own party would place much pressure on them to quit.


Whoa, can I get some of what you are smoking? I thought this White Widow was killah but it pales to whatever you have in your stash!


White Widow?

Gotta get with the Maui-Kush crossbreeds they have in the Mission these days.

I tell ya, the clinics... phenomenal.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 03:23 pm
Pelosi immediately set about pushing Jefferson out of certain committee assignments, which is the extent of her power in the matter. Why haven't the Reps gone after Rummy, et al., for torture and other war crimes?
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 03:23 pm
Pelosi immediately set about pushing Jefferson out of certain committee assignments, which is the extent of her power in the matter. Why haven't the Reps gone after Rummy, et al., for torture and other war crimes?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Dec, 2006 09:44 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Hastert, of course, was looking to set the precedent because he knows for a fact that FBI agents looking through Republican offices will find stuff that they shouldn't. Not hard to figure that one out.

Quote:
If this was a Republican, he would be gone long ago, for more than a couple reasons, one they would probably show remorse and two, their own party would place much pressure on them to quit.


LOL

Tom DeLay? Hello??!?!

The Republicans kicked out several members of the Ethics committee because they censored him, remember?

Where were the Republican calls for him to resign? How about Ney, or Cunningham? They didn't exist.

Cycloptichorn


Aren't Ney and Cunningham gone? And what is DeLay doing now? And if you wish to equate breaking convoluted campaign finance rules with personal embezzlement, I would have to conclude you have things way out of whack in your mind. How many campaign finance rules have been broken by Democrats with hardly a word said, including Gore, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and even Nancy Pelosi herself, how long would you like the list, cyclops? Did Tom DeLay get campaign funds from China? I don't recall that happening at least, as it did with Clinton, and of course nothing happened, nothing, zip nothing, because your party does not care and never will apparently.

Hillary takes the apparent equivalent of a kickback from a political friend of a hundred grand, and nobody cares, nothing, zip, nothing, cyclops. Its been a few years ago, but corruption is corruption. If the Democrats truly cared, it would matter, but it doesn't does it?

As I recall, the Republicans had a rule that if one of their own was indicted, no matter how ridiculous it was, even by some partisan judge in Texas, it was their own rule to remove them from their leadership position or whatever as I recall. Thats what happened to DeLay as I recall. And Democrats have no such rule in their party, so they skate. Isn't that right, cyclops?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/13/2025 at 03:15:07