Still Hating America.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I'm questioning the efforts to make these decisions into legal violations as opposed to political judgments on which reasonable minds (or members of each party) may disagree.

You have perjury on the table now.

If people below the President made decisions that implicate the criminal statutes described in Lederman's post, then you have potential legal violations there. As it should be.

If they turn around and say, "it was the President's decision, so suck it," then it seems like they have a good defense to criminal charges, but impeachment is on the table.

It sounds to me like you're arguing that a Governor has the duty and right to award government contracts, so the decision to award one to a political contributor as a quid pro quo is an unreviewable political decision. I think Slave cogently explained why that's wrong.

The usual basis for determining who is "right" is through the ballot box.

That's one, but you can imagine that it will lead to underenforcement of the law in a second term.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Nixon got in hot water for firing Richardson, so 2. but the basis there was that the firing was because the political appointee wouldn't help hide a crime- here at most you're saying he fired political guys for political reasons. he could have not appointed them for political reasons, couldn't he have?

You're posting without reading again, aren't you?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You're posting without reading again, aren't you?

whoa. meta? because you did?

why do you keep saying impeachment, did any of this (excluding Bermuda Triangle SS's email thing) show up with bush doing the "bad?"

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
is he black?

No, I think she's an Asian chick. Also

• Lam won a bribery conviction from GOP Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham in 2005, and when she was fired she was prosecuting an ongoing corruption case, focused on Republicans, that grew from his plea.
  
  
  This past May 10 Lam notified the Justice Department she'd be issuing search warrants for contractor Brent Wilkes and former CIA No. 3 Kyle "Dusty" Foggo.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...&type=politics

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
whoa. meta? because you did?

No -- because I posted a few hours ago that just calling it "political" doesn't really say anything, and Burger and I have been pursuing that line of posts since then. So for you to answer one of those posts by saying, "but it's political," is kinda missing the point.

why do you keep saying impeachment, did any of this (excluding Bermuda Triangle SS's email thing) show up with bush doing the "bad?"

I'm responding to something Burger said.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
No, I think she's an Asian chick. Also

• Lam won a bribery conviction from GOP Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham in 2005, and when she was fired she was prosecuting an ongoing corruption case, focused on Republicans, that grew from his plea.
  
  
  This past May 10 Lam notified the Justice Department she'd be issuing search warrants for contractor Brent Wilkes and former CIA No. 3 Kyle "Dusty" Foggo.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...&type=politics

I knew who she was, my post was a sort of joke. are you saying that any proseutor who has any case on their docket involving a politico can only be fired if the politico is from the party out of power?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No -- because I posted a few hours ago that just calling it "political" doesn't really say anything, and Burger and I have been pursuing that line of posts since then. So for you to answer one of those posts by saying, "but it's political," is kinda missing the point.



I'm responding to something Burger said.

I have burger on ignore. you don't?

[SlaveNoMore]

Shape Shifter

• Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW, said today, "It's clear that the White House has been willfully violating the law, the only question now is to what extent? The ever changing excuses offered by the administration Ð that they didn't want to violate the Hatch Act, that staff wasn't clear on the law Ð are patently ridiculous. Very convenient that embarrassing Ð and potentially incriminating Ð emails have gone missing. It's the Nixon White House all over again."

Oops.

Remind me - how did Melanie feel when she learned that a few of Clinton's goon were carrying a laptop that contained 900 FBI dossiers on prominent Republicans?

[SlaveNoMore]

Shape Shifter
And there was probably nothing substantive in the 18 1/2 minute gap in the tape, either.

Or in those classified documents that Sandy smuggled out of the Archives in his socks.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I knew who she was, my post was a sort of joke. are you saying that any proseutor who has any case on their docket involving a politico can only be fired if the politico is from the party out of power?

• WASHINGTON - Two weeks after Arizona U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton was ordered to give up his post, he sent an e-mail to a top Justice Department official asking how to handle questions that his ouster was connected to his investigation of Rep. Rick Renzi, R-Ariz.
  
  . . .
  
  In October, Justice Department officials confirmed that Renzi was the subject of an inquiry into a land swap that would benefit a friend and business associate. Renzi has denied any wrongdoing. He could not be reached Tuesday.
  
  Renzi is a Bush loyalist. When Renzi was locked in a battle for his congressional seat last year, the president came to Arizona to campaign for him.
  
  When the first list of U.S. attorneys targeted for ouster was drafted, Charlton's name was not on it. But his name was on a subsequent list, drafted in September. Although the Renzi inquiry was not yet public, it is likely the Justice Department was aware of the investigation, said a former U.S. attorney who is familiar

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...orney0321.html

Using that expensive education that your mother gave so many blow jobs to pay for, can you see a pattern emerging?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Or in those classified documents that Sandy smuggled out of the Archives in his socks.

Didn't they retrieve some? Was there damning stuff in those? Or is asking loaded questions better rhetorically?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I have burger on ignore. you don't?

No. So what did your BFF say about the Wisconsin case? Did he tell you about lots of other times that the Seventh Circuit has sprung defendants like that?

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Didn't they retrieve some? Was there damning stuff in those? Or is asking loaded questions better rhetorically?

No. They didn't.

Even if they had, does it make it any less offensive?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
No. They didn't.

I thought I recalled otherwise, and that he had put some documents in a building site not far away from the Archives that they then found.

eta: More here. Archives officials seem to be clear on what was in the documents he took, unlike the 18-minute gap in the Nixon tapes. Rosemary Woods took that info to her grave.

Even if they had, does it make it any less offensive?

It doesn't, but you were the one who brought up their contents.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
The only recourse is political. .

How can there be political recourse if there is not a public investigation?