Countdown to Rove Indictments...

okie wrote:

parados wrote:
The loans had NOTHING to do with the whitewater development. Most of those convicted were NOT involved financially in whitewater.

Go look at what they were for.....

Parados, this is one of the links already posted:
"Some of the key kinks in the Whitewater tangle:

A fraudulent $300,000 federally backed loan to Susan McDougal, some of which went into Whitewater Development Corp. David Hale, a former Little Rock judge whose company issued the loan, told investigators that Bill Clinton pressured him to do so."

As I said Parados, I'm really not that interested, but I don't think you should be able to skate with anything you want to claim. The term "Whitewater" came to denote the whole tangled web of corrupt business dealings and crooks of all stripes, not just the Whitewater land development. The tangled web, which the land development served as the door of entrance, became known as "Whitewater." Apparently, corrupt politics and corrupt business was especially rampant and a way of life in Arkansas, as Ken Starr began to find out with the investigation, and unless he wished to turn a blind eye, one thing led to another. It was all connected to Whitewater in some convoluted way. Not Ken Starr's fault. It apparently was just the nature of things in Arkansas. Corruption can be found in all states, but I think Arkansas amply proved its excellence in that department. Yet, I remember very clearly how Ken Starr was demonized and became the crook according to Democrats because he was identifying corruption and fraud. Illustrating how twisted politics has now become, Party was more important than principle. Yes, it became burned into many peoples minds that the Democratic Party was the culture of corruption.

Okie I already know you aren't interested in the truth. You prefer to just live in your own fantasy world.

Lets see if you have the same standard for Bush.
Abramoff spent time at the WH. Abramoff lobbied the WH. Abramoff pled guilty to illegal lobbying activities and bribing public officials.
So.. you must believe that Abramoff is connected to Bush crimes. Right?
That means Rove is guilty of crimes? right?

We all know what the culture of corruption is today. Glad you brought that term up.

The only one putting party ahead of reality is you okie. You want to talk about Whitewater crimes when there were NONE.

0 Replies

Quote:

Kenneth Starr's successor, Robert Ray, released a report in September of 2000 that stated "This office determined that the evidence was insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that either President or Mrs. Clinton knowingly participated in any criminal conduct." Ray's report effectively ended the Whitewater investigation, with a total cost to American taxpayers of nearly $80 million dollars.

Source

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Okie I already know you aren't interested in the truth. You prefer to just live in your own fantasy world.

Lets see if you have the same standard for Bush.
Abramoff spent time at the WH. Abramoff lobbied the WH. Abramoff pled guilty to illegal lobbying activities and bribing public officials.
So.. you must believe that Abramoff is connected to Bush crimes. Right?
That means Rove is guilty of crimes? right?

We all know what the culture of corruption is today. Glad you brought that term up.

The only one putting party ahead of reality is you okie. You want to talk about Whitewater crimes when there were NONE.

I have said many times that if Abramoff committed crimes, lets throw the book at him. If Bush is found to have committed crimes, lets throw the book at him. We must remember that lobbying is no crime however, and to have shaken hands with a lobbyist is no crime. If someone is in cahoots with Abramoff in any crimes, then I'm all for throwing the book at them. If Rove is proven to have been party to any crimes committed by Abramoff, then I'm all for getting rid of him.

The key thing to remember here is that most of what could be considered a crime with Abramoff involves a quid pro quo arrangement whereby a congressman votes for legislation or pressures the government to spend money on something to benefit a person or organization, in exchange for campaign money or favors, wherein that congressman would not otherwise vote for or support the expenditures. This is obviously a very difficult thing to prove. My guess is that virtually every congressman is in danger of suspicion of such activities. Lobbying is not only legal, but is in fact necessary for some congressmen to even know the first thing about some issues. They are mostly lawyers and know little or nothing about much of what they vote on and legislate day in and day out. Lobbyists attempt to educate them. As with people everywhere, there are honest lobbyists and there are crooked lobbyists.

If there is an obvious quid pro quo arrangement and the documentation is there, then lets get rid of the people. Harry Reid comes as close as anybody from what I've heard so far. I'm sure Republicans can be corrupt as well, and when proven, they should be thrown out. We do need to be unbiased in this "party of corruption" accusation. How about Jefferson?

Having your picture taken or shaking hands with a lobbyist is not quite the same as having business relationships with figures like Webster Hubbell, the McDougals, Vince Foster, etc. The Clintons personally had connections with questionable dealings and were questioned and provided papers and files in regard to the tangled web. Files mysteriously disappeared or could not be located, and memories were "I don't recall" how many times?

As I said, common sense comes into play here Parados, in terms of judging character. O.J. was not convicted, but I would not vote for him ever. If there is any significant evidence to show Bush or Rove are crooks, I am willing to listen, but it needs to be something more than shaking hands with someone that is a crook. In the case of the Clintons, I think it was far more than that.

0 Replies

Quote:

As I said, common sense comes into play here Parados, in terms of judging character. O.J. was not convicted, but I would not vote for him ever. If there is any significant evidence to show Bush or Rove are crooks, I am willing to listen, but it needs to be something more than shaking hands with someone that is a crook. In the case of the Clintons, I think it was far more than that.

There is considerably more evidence to show the WH is at the very least guilty of malicious unethical behavior just to discredit a dissenter, par for the course for this white house.

A chronological look at the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame

0 Replies

revel wrote:

There is considerably more evidence to show the WH is at the very least guilty of malicious unethical behavior just to discredit a dissenter, par for the course for this white house.

This ground has been plowed numerous times, but for any law to be broken here, it needs to be established that Valerie Plame was indeed classified and involved in covert work and that the person that revealed her identity knew that she was indeed classified and involved in covert work. This has never been established, or even claimed by Fitzgerald.

If Fitzgerald is going to salvage any credibility in this whole investigation, it seems to me that he would first need to determine a crime was committed in the outing. In fact, I remember one of his press conferences in which he made no such claim, and in fact seemed to indicate just the opposite. Based on what has happened so far, it is much ado about not much. Joseph Wilson appears to have been involved in more of a vendetta against the administration than he was at getting the truth. What he actually found out in Niger did not match up with his op ed piece and his crusade afterwards. I am glad that we all know the reason now. Instead of a crime, the White House did us all a favor.

Rather than an investigation about a crime that turned out to not be a crime, Fitzgerald has engaged in an investigation into who might have lied or misrepresented some vague conversation about a crime that was not a crime. The whole thing is laughable if it wasn't so pathetic. Enough money and time has been spent on this fiasco.

0 Replies

If the ground has been plowed many times with no results it's probably because bushco has salted the earth.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

revel wrote:

There is considerably more evidence to show the WH is at the very least guilty of malicious unethical behavior just to discredit a dissenter, par for the course for this white house.

This ground has been plowed numerous times, but for any law to be broken here, it needs to be established that Valerie Plame was indeed classified and involved in covert work and that the person that revealed her identity knew that she was indeed classified and involved in covert work. This has never been established, or even claimed by Fitzgerald.

Fitzgerald has established and claimed her idently was classified. It is in the court papers. Tico has pointed out it isn't challenged by defense yet but that doesn't really matter at this point. Fitzgerald wouldn't have investigated without the first fact of her status being classified. The CIA wouldn't have requested it without that same fact. The DOJ wouldn't have moved it forward without that fact. The judge accepted the statement by Fitzgerald at face value and has said as much.

Charging crime on revealing her status requires 2 things. 1. Her status must have been classified. 2.The person revealing her status had to know it was classified.
1. is required before anyone even asks 2. 1 is accepted by the court at this point. 2 is the sticking point in charging the crime. Fitzgerald has said as much. He has been unable to determine if the persons or people knew her status was classified.

You make a good case for your partisanship here okie. You accuse Clinton of crimes with no evidence but then turn around and set a much higher standard for the Bush administration when it comes to showing crime.

Quote:

Rather than an investigation about a crime that turned out to not be a crime, Fitzgerald has engaged in an investigation into who might have lied or misrepresented some vague conversation about a crime that was not a crime. The whole thing is laughable if it wasn't so pathetic. Enough money and time has been spent on this fiasco.

What is laughable is your complete misrepresentation of the facts so far in the case. But then we have to expect that from people so partisan they ignore facts.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

The Nation -- Early this morning, Robert Luskin, Karl Rove's lawyer, told reporters that special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald had sent him a letter stating that Rove would not be indicted in the CIA leak case. In a statement, Luskin declared, "We believe that the Special Counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove's conduct."

Has Fitzgerald issued any comment on this?

0 Replies

«legal
»ethical
¿ political
º Bush

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Fitzgerald has established and claimed her idently was classified. It is in the court papers. Tico has pointed out it isn't challenged by defense yet but that doesn't really matter at this point. Fitzgerald wouldn't have investigated without the first fact of her status being classified. The CIA wouldn't have requested it without that same fact. The DOJ wouldn't have moved it forward without that fact. The judge accepted the statement by Fitzgerald at face value and has said as much.

Charging crime on revealing her status requires 2 things. 1. Her status must have been classified. 2.The person revealing her status had to know it was classified.
1. is required before anyone even asks 2. 1 is accepted by the court at this point. 2 is the sticking point in charging the crime. Fitzgerald has said as much. He has been unable to determine if the persons or people knew her status was classified.

I agree that the largest sticking point in this being an actual crime is what you list as point # 2. I will admit to being unaware that the covert status of Valerie Plame had been definitely established by Fitzgerald. Perhaps he has alluded to her outing as a CIA agent, but can you cite specific language and evidence submitted in the court papers where he indicates her status definitely is classified and covert? If you can produce it, I will concede point #1, but point #2 would still trump the crime.

Parados, I will admit to a bias. I am biased according to my judgement of the character of the politicians observed over a period of time. So are you. We need to look at each possible crime on a case by case basis and determine the intent and comparative gravity of the crime. If speeding on the highway is a crime, then we are virtually all criminals. Some so-called crimes are merely political in nature, whereas others are more self serving and blatant. For example, breaking a campaign finance law can sometimes be more innocent and incidental than embezzlement. Blatant and widespread campaign finance crimes would be more serious, but surely you could admit to gray areas in the campaign finance laws? Actively lobbying for and knowingly receiving foreign money would be very serious in my opinion. Some of the things done by DeLay were not illegal at the time and not that serious in my opinion. I am not endorsing DeLay in all of his activities. He sounds like a wheeler dealer and perhaps the party is better off without him. The Valerie Plame case appears to me to be fairly political in nature, under the circumstances in which it happened, so I think its a waste of time.

0 Replies

Where's Roxxanne and Blueflame?
Where's Anon and Magginkat?

They were absolutely positive that Rove would be indicted,and they all guaranteed it would happen or had already happened.

They sure are silent now.
They dont even have the guts to admit they were wrong.

0 Replies

...and you, gutsy and classy guy that you are, make your entrance to gloat right on cue.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

...and you, gutsy and classy guy that you are, make your entrance to gloat right on cue.

Your absolutely correct,I am gloating.
You and the rest of the left have been saying since April 20 and before that Rove would be indicted.
You have all insisted it would happen.
Most of you pointed to the FALSE truthout.org article that claimed it had already happened as PROOF that it had happened.
I notice truthout doesnt say anything about Rove not being indicted,they just ignore the whole thing,like it never happened.

So,just this one time,I am going to gloat at how most of the left just got made total fools of,and I am going to remind the main culprits that they got suckered into believing a lie put out by one of their favorite sources.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

snood wrote:
...and you, gutsy and classy guy that you are, make your entrance to gloat right on cue.

Your absolutely correct,I am gloating.
You and the rest of the left have been saying since April 20 and before that Rove would be indicted.
You have all insisted it would happen.
Most of you pointed to the FALSE truthout.org article that claimed it had already happened as PROOF that it had happened.
I notice truthout doesnt say anything about Rove not being indicted,they just ignore the whole thing,like it never happened.

So,just this one time,I am going to gloat at how most of the left just got made total fools of,and I am going to remind the main culprits that they got suckered into believing a lie put out by one of their favorite sources.

Find someplace where I said "Rove will be indicted", tough guy. At the most, I said I hope he would. If you knew anything more than "Uhh...left bad, right good...", you'd know there are diverse views among all of us. And if you cared about what was right or wrong, you wouldn't be so damn glad this guy got off for leaking that woman's name to the press.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
snood wrote:
...and you, gutsy and classy guy that you are, make your entrance to gloat right on cue.

Your absolutely correct,I am gloating.
You and the rest of the left have been saying since April 20 and before that Rove would be indicted.
You have all insisted it would happen.
Most of you pointed to the FALSE truthout.org article that claimed it had already happened as PROOF that it had happened.
I notice truthout doesnt say anything about Rove not being indicted,they just ignore the whole thing,like it never happened.

So,just this one time,I am going to gloat at how most of the left just got made total fools of,and I am going to remind the main culprits that they got suckered into believing a lie put out by one of their favorite sources.

Find someplace where I said "Rove will be indicted", tough guy. At the most, I said I hope he would. If you knew anything more than "Uhh...left bad, right good...", you'd know there are diverse views among all of us. And if you cared about what was right or wrong, you wouldn't be so damn glad this guy got off for leaking that woman's name to the press.

If he had leaked the name,and if it was a criminal act,he would have been indicted.

He didnt,it isnt,and he wasnt.
End of story!!

0 Replies

Quote:

I stand by my statement that not a single person was convicted of any crime connected to whitewater.

So now we are back to "not a single" from "most of".

Bill and Hill have 25 million in the bank because of sycophants like you. If there isn't a 12 step program to address this, there will be.

0 Replies

Okie wrote:

Quote:

Joseph Wilson appears to have been involved in more of a vendetta against the administration than he was at getting the truth. What he actually found out in Niger did not match up with his op ed piece and his crusade afterwards. I am glad that we all know the reason now. Instead of a crime, the White House did us all a favor.

Jesus, do you swallow everything you hear and see on FoxNews whole or is it sent to you via some kind of mental IV drip method?! So now it was Joe Wilson who was BOTH on a vendetta AND had a crusade of his own making? The only thing that didn't match up with his op-ed piece was the bolshoi put out by this administration in the goddam STATE of the UNION speech. You remember the State of the Union speech?- the one mandated by our Constitution as a report to the people. We ought to have some expectation of a high quality of truthiness during that speech at least, but we didn't get that, we got more crappola that even Colon Powell wouldn't spew.

So Joe Wilson wrote a op-ed piece about what he knew, and the White House said "Let's fix this guy's wagon." Not, "Okay, we beg to differ but respect Mr. Wilson's right under the First Amendment to say such things in print." No, they have so little respect for any citizen with an opposing position to theirs that they let the dogs out.

Some bunch of leaders of democracy, huh? They slimed that Wilson guy AND his wife to keep his big mouth. YES, it's a proud, proud day for our way of life, let that be a lesson to you less free nations, this is how it's done in the best democracy on earth.

Joe(What a bunch of pathetic clowns.)Nation

0 Replies

Quote:

Joe(What a bunch of pathetic clowns.)Nation

Not a bad middle name Joe.

You progressive/liberal/(insert label here) folks sure are sore losers. Throw us a bone or tell us a any clock is right twice a day or SOMETHING or we might leave and let you agree with yourselves 24/7.............and you wouldn't want that..........would you.............?

Oh I forgot, that is the only way you work.

0 Replies

The above, students, is an example of what I call " a mirror".

After making some comment that doesn't address what I've said in any way shape or form, the writer then takes a position he holds (agreeing with oneself for 24/7) and accuses me and all my ilk of holding it.

Paull, it is a well-known fact that we liberals can't agree on anything, at least that's the story your betters have been reading to you since childhood.

Lookit, you want to hook up with this bunch in the Bush Administration, good on you then, but what you are left with is their dismal record of achievements-- from the worst run war ever to the mis-management (I'm being kind here) of Katrina and it's aftermath to having every grandma in the USA break down in tears over trying to understand a Prescription Drug Plan that could have only been devised by someone trying to make sure it wouldn't work. (Maybe that was the plan. What should I expect from people who believe that government as a concept is a problem.)

And how is that crackerjack Immigration Bill proceeding?

All of this and more while telling the American people, A) they, our leaders, were incapable of making mistakes and B) to shut up. Especially you Joe Wilson types or any widows of 9/11 who dared ask any questions. (Watch out, here come the dogs.)

Hey, this is about consolidating their power and not about any benefits to you. You, Paull, mean nothing to them. Just another yahoo they will wave a "gay marriage" amendment or a "flag burning" amendment or a "death tax" bill in front of while they make sure that that their real power base is covered in tax cuts.

Joe(Way to go, dude, they are as pleased as punch to have your support.)Nation

0 Replies

Good post as usual, Joe (keep up the good work) Nation.

0 Replies

Countdown to Rove Indictments...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know