Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread IV

You might be right, re Domici/Wilson and Iglesias - though I can't imagine similar happening here without consequences (but our prosecution system is totally different, too).

Since you added to your original response mistakenly posted on the Global Warming Thread:
it's surprising for me that you think something should have never gone trial - when the result of the trial is four out of five times "guilty".

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I don't know how with a straight face you can talk about democrat flip flopping.

Think about Bush's flip flopping. He was against nation building then he was for it. He was agains homeland security then he was for it. He wasn't interested in Bin Laden, then he wanted him dead or alive, then he flipped again. He was against sending more troops to Iraq and now he is for it. There are more, just do a google on bush flip flopping.

0 Replies

Not really a flip-flop, related to what Foxfyre and I were talking about (source: Albuquerque Journal, 07.03.07, page A2)

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

You might be right, re Domici/Wilson and Iglesias - though I can't imagine similar happening here without consequences (but our prosecution system is totally different, too).

Since you added to your original response mistakenly posted on the Global Warming Thread:
it's surprising for me that you think something should have never gone trial - when the result of the trial is four out of five times "guilty".

It's the hypocrisy and double standard, Walter. Throughout the Reagan administration and the Bush 41 administration and the Clinton administration, there was incident after incident when nobody could remember jack or something had 'just slipped his/her mind' or whatever. For Scooter Libby, who was dealing with a crushing schedule on far more important matters at the time, to be convicted for faulty memory about whatever he told a reporter many months before when the reporter didn't write a story about it and/or no crime was committed is just way over the top for anybody who cares about justice.

It is even more of a travesty of justice when people who were just as 'guilty' of the offense Libby was charged with to be given immunity and or were never charged. Even the jurors thought it was wrong but they had to rule according to the way the prosecutor and the judge gave it to them.

Hopefully a new trial with a different judge will provide some justice in this matter.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Not really a flip-flop, related to what Foxfyre and I were talking about (source: Albuquerque Journal, 07.03.07, page A2)

I think Revel was being her usual partisan self in excoriating McG for being partisan on a thread designed for partisanship, and she was not commenting on the current flap over Iglesia.

And as you can see from the news reports you posted that no crime was committed. You would have to wonder why Iglesia 'felt threatened' when no threat was presented. There are two theories going forth here: a) Domenici and Wilson were trying to hurry up indictments to embarrass the Democrats before the last election or b) Local authorities appealed to Domenici and Wilson to check out obvious delays in the indictments designed so that the Democrats would NOT be embarrassed before the last election.

After all, the U.S. attorney answers only to the President through the Attorney General but is confirmed by Congress who has judicial oversight. At this time it could go either way, but even Iglesia admits no crime was committed.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Naw. Domenici and Wilson will get thumped by the media for a few days and then this will blow over.

I will be amazed if the Libby thing is not overturned on appeal. It should never have gone to trial in the first place and to convict him based on claimed memory lapses is absolutely outrageous

However. . . . .

...

Though this isn't specific to what Foxy goes on about here, it is inextricably intertwined; it sums it all up perfectly.

Quote:

Is John Hinderaker Ignorant or Purposely Misleading?

I don't mean this as an insult - although it also does have that unintended benefit - I really am curious. It is a real question I have for many of the conservative commentators.

I understand that many of their followers have no idea what they're talking about, are already prone to believing what their leaders tell them and love to be spoon fed easily digested talking points. But what do the leaders think? Are they also this ignorant or do they know what they're doing - and do it anyway to mislead people they know to be very gullible?

...

Then you throw out a couple of things you know not to be true, claim they are the facts and walk away. I've seen it a million times. Very tiresome. Also ironic, considering that these are usually the same people who don't believe in 928 peer-reviewed scientific studies on global warming, who don't believe in evolution or the "reality based community."

http://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/03/05/is-john-hinderaker-ignorant-or-purposely-misleading/#cont

Classic georgobism, tico to a T, Foxy flying her best stuff, ...

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

At this time it could go either way, but even Iglesia admits no crime was committed.

It's only an ethical problem.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
At this time it could go either way, but even Iglesia admits no crime was committed.

It's only an ethical problem.

Even that may not be the issue. Domenici and Wilson are elected to represent New Mexicans in Congress, so there is absolutely nothing wrong with either of them asking questions about serious matters occurring in New Mexico. I am positive that all elected representative from all the states take interest in processes affecting their constituencies back home.

If their motive was to interfere with a judicial process, that would be illegal. In fact that's one of the crimes for which Clinton was impeached, and even then the Senate didn't think the crime sufficient for removal from office so they didn't convict him. If their (Domenici & Wilson's) motive was to more or less assert themselves in a way intended to influence a judicial process without actually doing so, then that would be unethical. For them to simply inquire about the status of a judicial process is okay both legally and ethically.

0 Replies

Well, might be so.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Well, might be so.

Nobody is saying it doesn't look bad, however, at least as Iglesia tells it, the media presents it, and the Democrats will no doubt spin it. But I'll be really surprised if anything comes from it.

I mean Pelosi is still trying to appoint William Jefferson to important committees (including national security) after he was found to have an unexplained wad of cash in his freezer ($90,000); Cynthia McKinney was never charged for assaulting a security guard; and none of the people who lied and hid evidence in the former administration were ever charged for that though they could have been. I could cite dozens and dozens of other such incidents that all create a flurry of media assaults and then just as quickly fade from view.

I fully expect this incident to go the same way.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I mean Pelosi is still trying to appoint William Jefferson to important committees (including national security) after he was found to have an unexplained wad of cash in his freezer ($90,000);

Thanks for the info, I didn't know that - my information (and what I could find online) was until now different.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I mean Pelosi is still trying to appoint William Jefferson to important committees (including national security) after he was found to have an unexplained wad of cash in his freezer ($90,000);

Thanks for the info, I didn't know that - my information (and what I could find online) was until now different.

Well she has backed off the national security appontment I think now after it received huge and pointed criticism, but she's still trying to find a prominent spot for him to keep him happy. If it had not triggered such a tremendous bruhaha, he would be on that committee, however. My point is that there are people, unindicted and some even being uninvestigated, who are accused of crimes far more serious than anything Libby did.

(The House Ways & Means committee is a coveted appointment but it is not the same thing as the National Security committee by the way.)

0 Replies

Foxy: Well, Al Capone cheated on his taxes and lots of other people do it too, so it's no big deal when I do it.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I mean Pelosi is still trying to appoint William Jefferson to important committees (including national security) after he was found to have an unexplained wad of cash in his freezer ($90,000);

Sorry, Foxfyre. In that case I read your quote out of context or misundertsood it due to my lack of understanding English like a native English speaker.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
I mean Pelosi is still trying to appoint William Jefferson to important committees (including national security) after he was found to have an unexplained wad of cash in his freezer ($90,000);

Thanks for the info, I didn't know that - my information (and what I could find online) was until now different.

Well she has backed off the national security appontment I think now after it received huge and pointed criticism, but she's still trying to find a prominent spot for him to keep him happy. If it had not triggered such a tremendous bruhaha, he would be on that committee, however. My point is that there are people, unindicted and some even being uninvestigated, who are accused of crimes far more serious than anything Libby did.

(The House Ways & Means committee is a coveted appointment but it is not the same thing as the National Security committee by the way.)

Sandy Burglar comes to mind.

0 Replies

So, Libby is guilty and therefore so must Cheney be, since they worked closely together.

Therefore Bush, insofar as he would have been able to understand the matter, will be guilty too. The whole cabal should be examined together.

The wheels of justice grind slowly, but they grind exceeding small. A good week for American justice.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

So, Libby is guilty and therefore so must Cheney be, since they worked closely together.

Therefore Bush, insofar as he would have been able to understand the matter, will be guilty too. The whole cabal should be examined together.

The wheels of justice grind slowly, but they grind exceeding small. A good week for American justice.

Hey, way to have no grasp of the case.

Libby was on trial for lying to the Grand Jury. You know, like Clinton did.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

McTag wrote:
So, Libby is guilty and therefore so must Cheney be, since they worked closely together.

Therefore Bush, insofar as he would have been able to understand the matter, will be guilty too. The whole cabal should be examined together.

The wheels of justice grind slowly, but they grind exceeding small. A good week for American justice.

Hey, way to have no grasp of the case.

Libby was on trial for lying to the Grand Jury. You know, like Clinton did.

The grand jury and the FBI.

You all act as if Capone was put in prison for evading taxes. Ridiculous attitudes by those on the Right on this one.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Hey, way to have no grasp of the case.

Libby was on trial for lying to the Grand Jury. You know, like Clinton did.

You chiding anyone on not grasping anything is really beyond the pale.

0 Replies

They just can't seem to get Clinton out of their brains to compare him to all the problems created by Bush.

0 Replies

Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread IV

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know