4
   

Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread IV

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Mar, 2007 11:20 am
McGentrix wrote:
Advocate wrote:
Are you guys on the right effectively saying that it would be okay for the next Dem president to fire any prosecutor who does not sufficiently persecute Republicans?

BTW, Clinton's misconduct, if any, does not justify the same misconduct by Bush and his people.


Absolutely not. We will whine and cry just like you libs are doing now.


But, we aren't whining and crying; we're out for blood and will get it.

You'll be damn lucky if Gonzales is the only one to go over this.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Mar, 2007 11:27 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Advocate wrote:
Are you guys on the right effectively saying that it would be okay for the next Dem president to fire any prosecutor who does not sufficiently persecute Republicans?

BTW, Clinton's misconduct, if any, does not justify the same misconduct by Bush and his people.


Absolutely not. We will whine and cry just like you libs are doing now.


But, we aren't whining and crying; we're out for blood and will get it.

You'll be damn lucky if Gonzales is the only one to go over this.

Cycloptichorn


Go for what? There is nothing for him to go for. There is no crime here beyond dems getting their panties in a twist over the appearance of some sort of administration blunder.

This remains a tempest in a teapot and a fun show to watch.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Mar, 2007 11:45 am
McGentrix wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Advocate wrote:
Are you guys on the right effectively saying that it would be okay for the next Dem president to fire any prosecutor who does not sufficiently persecute Republicans?

BTW, Clinton's misconduct, if any, does not justify the same misconduct by Bush and his people.


Absolutely not. We will whine and cry just like you libs are doing now.


But, we aren't whining and crying; we're out for blood and will get it.

You'll be damn lucky if Gonzales is the only one to go over this.

Cycloptichorn


Go for what? There is nothing for him to go for. There is no crime here beyond dems getting their panties in a twist over the appearance of some sort of administration blunder.

This remains a tempest in a teapot and a fun show to watch.


It's certainly fun for me. I doubt you will continue to hold this attitude as members of the Admin you support get further drawn into it.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Mar, 2007 12:01 pm
Drawn into what? Tell me what it is exactly that they will be drawn into?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Mar, 2007 12:25 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Drawn into what? Tell me what it is exactly that they will be drawn into?


The widening scandal over the axing of Federal prosecutors for political reasons, ie, because they weren't investigating enough Democrats and they were investigating too many Republicans.

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that this is exactly what went on. You won't recognize it, because you are a partisan shill, but that won't stop consequences from happening.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Mar, 2007 12:29 pm
I'm now in Montevideo, and saw where Bush stayed when he was here this past week. There are many signs and graffiti that's still flying around the city; not 'welcome' signs.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Mar, 2007 12:33 pm
I mean, no politics? C'mon.

http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2007/mar/14/bush-gonzales-talked-gripes-iglesias/

Quote:
White House officials are now conceding that complaints by top New Mexico Republicans about then-U.S. Attorney David Iglesias, including his refusal to pursue voter fraud charges in 2004 and his handling of corruption cases, played a part in his dismissal.


When they say 'corruption cases' they mean 'prosecutions against Democrats.' And it wasn't even as if the prosecutions weren't going forward; they just weren't going to issue indictments before the elections.

Gonzales lied under oath. He's toast

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Mar, 2007 12:36 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Drawn into what? Tell me what it is exactly that they will be drawn into?


The widening scandal over the axing of Federal prosecutors for political reasons, ie, because they weren't investigating enough Democrats and they were investigating too many Republicans.

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that this is exactly what went on. You won't recognize it, because you are a partisan shill, but that won't stop consequences from happening.

Cycloptichorn


The "scandal" has the appearance of impropriety, but legally, there is nothing there. The reasons for their firings are immaterial. One of the features of being a political appointee is being replaced by another political appointee.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Mar, 2007 12:39 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Drawn into what? Tell me what it is exactly that they will be drawn into?


The widening scandal over the axing of Federal prosecutors for political reasons, ie, because they weren't investigating enough Democrats and they were investigating too many Republicans.

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that this is exactly what went on. You won't recognize it, because you are a partisan shill, but that won't stop consequences from happening.

Cycloptichorn


The "scandal" has the appearance of impropriety, but legally, there is nothing there. The reasons for their firings are immaterial. One of the features of being a political appointee is being replaced by another political appointee.


Your denials won't stop people from losing their jobs. You see, it isn't legal to axe someone for not investigating the other party enough.

I know you Republicans think that the prez should wield absolute power, but he doesn't. It's going to be forcefully hammered home to you this year.

They are going to subpoena Rove and a bunch of others from the WH to testify on this. If the WH blocks and stonewalls, we're looking at almost a perfect replication of the Nixon situation, and I'm perfectly fine with that. The consequences for the Republican party will be disastrous.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Mar, 2007 12:40 pm
McG writes
Quote:
The "scandal" has the appearance of impropriety, but legally, there is nothing there. The reasons for their firings are immaterial. One of the features of being a political appointee is being replaced by another political appointee.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Mar, 2007 12:43 pm
Quote:
Mrs. Toensing wrote the law governing what is and is not covert status


How many times are you going to repeat this lie?

Toensing did NOT write the law in question; she was in charge of getting it passed, that's it.

And I really don't give a fig what her interpretation of the law is. She's as partisan a Republican as they come and would lie in a flash to save Libby or any of the other Admin members.

Plame testified that she was Covert and Gen. Hayden confirmed this to the committee. Your accusation that she wasn't holds zero water and is nothing more than you clinging to a life preserver.

Pathetic

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Mar, 2007 12:47 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
(Mrs. Toensing wrote the law governing what is and is not covert status, and she says Valerie Plame was not covert under that law.)


A partner in a law firm (diGenova and Toensing) can write a law in the USA?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Mar, 2007 12:47 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Drawn into what? Tell me what it is exactly that they will be drawn into?


The widening scandal over the axing of Federal prosecutors for political reasons, ie, because they weren't investigating enough Democrats and they were investigating too many Republicans.

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that this is exactly what went on. You won't recognize it, because you are a partisan shill, but that won't stop consequences from happening.

Cycloptichorn


The "scandal" has the appearance of impropriety, but legally, there is nothing there. The reasons for their firings are immaterial. One of the features of being a political appointee is being replaced by another political appointee.


Your denials won't stop people from losing their jobs. You see, it isn't legal to axe someone for not investigating the other party enough.

I know you Republicans think that the prez should wield absolute power, but he doesn't. It's going to be forcefully hammered home to you this year.

They are going to subpoena Rove and a bunch of others from the WH to testify on this. If the WH blocks and stonewalls, we're looking at almost a perfect replication of the Nixon situation, and I'm perfectly fine with that. The consequences for the Republican party will be disastrous.

Cycloptichorn


In this specific instance, the President DOES have absolute power. It IS perfectly legal for the President to release a US attorney for any reason he feels fit (your 2 points acknowledged, neither of which are apropos here).

Government has enough real business before it to tie up more time with the Bush witch hunt. This will only end up hurting Democratic chances in 08. Tying up government chasing ghosts instead taking care of actual business only demonstrates the Democratic party's need for a witch hunt in retaliation for Clinton's impeachment.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Mar, 2007 12:47 pm
Quote:
The CIA is well aware of the requirements of the law protecting the identity of covert officers and agents. I know, because in 1982, as chief counsel to the Senate intelligence committee, I negotiated the terms of that legislation between the media and the intelligence community. Even if Plame's status were "classified"--Fitzgerald never introduced one piece of evidence to support such status -- no law would be violated.
--Victoria Toensing
SOURCE
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Mar, 2007 12:48 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Quote:
The CIA is well aware of the requirements of the law protecting the identity of covert officers and agents. I know, because in 1982, as chief counsel to the Senate intelligence committee, I negotiated the terms of that legislation between the media and the intelligence community. Even if Plame's status were "classified"--Fitzgerald never introduced one piece of evidence to support such status -- no law would be violated.
--Victoria Toensing
SOURCE


I'm well aware that she's a liar, I don't need you repost her article full of lies here.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Mar, 2007 12:49 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:

A partner in a law firm (diGenova and Toensing) can write a law in the USA?



Got it, thanks ...
Victoria Toensing, a deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration, is a Washington lawyer.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Mar, 2007 12:50 pm
liars eventually change their story;

Quote:
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Mar, 2007 12:50 pm
Quote:

In this specific instance, the President DOES have absolute power. It IS perfectly legal for the President to release a US attorney for any reason he feels fit (your 2 points acknowledged, neither of which are apropos here).


The second point most certainly is appropriate here; there is plenty of evidence that ongoing criminal investigations were the reason for the firings of Carol Lam in San Diego and Inglesias in New Mexico.

I don't expect you to agree - you aren't capable of selling out your masters, I don't think - but you'll see the results the same as I.

Your claims that this will hurt the Democrats are beyond funny. The more and more corruption that is uncovered in the Republican party, the more it hurts the Dems? You live in some sort of fantasy world, apparently.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Mar, 2007 12:53 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:

A partner in a law firm (diGenova and Toensing) can write a law in the USA?



Got it, thanks ...
Victoria Toensing, a deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration, is a Washington lawyer.


Victoria Toensing
Fmr. Chief Counsel to Sen. Intelligence Committee

Victoria Toensing is a founding partner of the Washington law firm diGenova & Toensing. She has extensive experience in all three branches of government solving problems for individuals, corporations, trade associations and other organizations. She is an internationally-known expert on white collar crime, terrorism, national security and intelligence matters.

In 1997, Toensing was named special counsel by the U.S. House of Representatives to probe the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. She represented "Jane Doe Thompson" in a successful lawsuit against the CIA. Ms. "Thompson," the first woman Chief of Station in Latin America, reported her male deputy for wife beating and disciplined other subordinates for misconduct ranging from public drunkenness to threatening to kill security guards. Thompson sued when she became the subject of an Inspector General investigation fabricated on these subordinates' false claims.

As Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Criminal Division of the U.S. Justice Department from 1984-1988, she established Justice's Terrorism Unit. She managed the Federal government's efforts to bring to justice the terrorists responsible for the hijacking of TWA 847, the bombing of Pan Am 830 and the takeover of the cruise ship Achille Lauro. For her aggressive pursuit of terrorist Mohammed Rashid she was featured on the cover of The New York Times Magazine (April 21, 1991).

Also in her Justice Department position, Toensing supervised the Defense Procurement Fraud Unit, savings and loan industry fraud, cases dealing with nuclear industry regulation, securities fraud, and fraud and bribery in the banking industry. She was a frequent witness before committees of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.

While Chief Counsel for Senator Barry Goldwater, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 1981-1984, Toensing was instrumental in winning passage of two important bills: (1) to protect the identities of intelligence agents and (2) to protect certain classified information from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. As Assistant U.S. Attorney in Detroit from 1976-1981, she developed the argument used before the Supreme Court to support profile searches at airports of suspected drug couriers.

Toensing is a frequent guest on national television programs dealing with politics, criminal justice, national security, and terrorism, including C-Span, 60 Minutes, To The Contrary, Face the Nation, Good Morning America, 20/20, FOX Morning News, Canada AM, CNN's Crossfire, Lehrer News Hour, CNN & Company, Today Show, National Public Radio, Jesse Jackson, Nightline, Larry King Live, Court TV, CNBC's Rivera Live! and Charles Grodin. She was the legal analyst for America's Talking for the O.J. Simpson trial and has co-hosted CNBC's Equal Time and Rivera Live! She was a legal analyst for MSNBC for the impeachment and Senate trial of President Clinton.

A bit more the just a Washington lawyer Walter.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Mar, 2007 12:54 pm
McGentrix wrote:

A bit more the just a Washington lawyer Walter.


I know, I was only copying from Fox's quote.
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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/24/2024 at 03:19:27